3278 TERMINAL CUCKISHNESS - Call In Show - April 29th, 2016
Question 1: [1:04] - “How far or low can Sweden go in accepting Muslim immigrants? I understand to a degree why the government can`t get enough of them - millions of people, highly dependent on the government welfare can probably keep the ruling left in power. But what is wrong with the Swedes? Why are they putting up with all that? The negative consequences are pretty obvious to see even without having to use any statistics. Crime, rape, no-go zones, things that few decades ago nobody would believe are going on in Sweden. And yet the Swedes keep waving these "welcome refugees" shopping bags and keep paying the ridiculously high income tax, so that Mohamed can be the most popular name in the country. Seemingly the vast majority of Swedes are fine with that. Why? Is it some sort of historical guilt for not taking part in the World Wars? Is it that the Swedes are afraid of conflict and would rather accept the situation than try to do something to change it, or at least voice concerns?”Question 2: [1:33:00] - “Do the people in North America or your worldwide listeners trust in what Angela Merkel and her supporters say about the European Migrant Crisis - or do you have the impression that most German’s think different - and they do!”Freedomain 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 this is seriously one of the most important conversations we had on the European civilization crisis and the crisis of Western civilization with a fine couple from Sweden.
It was a very important conversation.
I hope that you'll listen to it all the way through.
Chatted with a lady from Germany who had some similar questions and similar issues, but from, obviously, a Germanic perspective.
And the information is quite shocking, but the elucidation very important to process.
freedomainradio.com slash donate.
Please, please, please help us out.
Help us do the work that is necessary in the world to bring the best information to the most people possible.
freedomainradio.com slash donate.
As well as FDRURL.com slash Amazon.
If you want to use our affiliate links, it costs you nothing and helps us out a little bit.
FDRpodcast.com.
Please like, subscribe, and share as much as humanly possible.
And please remember, support the show, support the conversation, support philosophy in any way that you can.
All right.
Well, up first today, we have Peter and Anita.
They wrote in and said, And
yet the Swedes keep waving these welcome refugees shopping bags and keep paying ridiculously high income tax so that Mohammed can be the most popular name in the country.
Seemingly, the vast majority of Swedes are fine with that.
Why?
Is it some sort of historical guilt for not taking part in the world's wars?
Is it that Swedes are afraid of conflict who would rather accept the situation than try and do something to change it or at least voice their concerns?
That's from Peter and Anita.
Hi, guys.
How you doing?
Hey Stefan, nice to chat with you.
Yeah, thanks.
Nice to chat with you.
I wish the subject matter were happier, but this is important stuff to talk about, so I appreciate you guys calling in.
Yeah, thanks for having us.
Alright, so what's the view on the ground these days?
We get conflicting reports from outside of Sweden, because there does seem to be some pushback finally, finally beginning to occur, but what are you guys experiencing there?
You know, what we hear on, you know, news and TV and mainstream media is, as you know, pretty much a very kind of censored version of what is really going on.
And, you know, my kind of question is, you know, because as I said in the question, to a certain degree, I kind of understand why, you know, the government would be alright having all these people in.
It's just that the Swedes seem to be fine with it.
And I'm not sure if they're just kind of pretending or maybe they're afraid Probably they're afraid that they'll be called racist and xenophobes and stuff.
But it's obvious that their country is changing rapidly.
And they all seem fine with it.
It's like, oh, it's a good thing even.
So the good thing aspect, and just for those, we just did an interview with a Swedish figure today, which we'll release probably next week.
But as she pointed out, in a country with less than 10 million people, there are now 1 million Muslims.
Right.
And that would be like over 30 million Muslims in America.
Right.
And that is a truly staggering number.
And I was reading, I don't know if it was in Sweden or not, I was reading the other day that a Muslim family with nine kids was having trouble conceiving the 10th child...
And they demanded that the government pay for in vitro fertilization.
Astounding.
Astounding.
So, do you have, I mean, you're there, I certainly have my thoughts, but you guys are the ones actually there.
So what do you think is driving this belief system seems so utterly at odds with historical and fundamental reality?
Well, I guess the people in power, like the people who are taking decisions, are thinking maybe of...
They're basing that kind of policy on the idea that bringing in more people would eventually be a net positive for the country.
And they're probably looking at the States in the beginning of the 19th century and making the conclusion that You know, all these people went to the States and look at what happened there.
I mean, everything turned so well.
Yes, but they were almost all British and certainly European and certainly white.
Yeah, and you actually made that point before in your show that it's one thing to have, you know, Germans and Nordic people coming in and in like half a generation, you don't even can distinguish them from the, you know, the Americans, their natives.
But yeah, it's a very different thing when you bring in people that, you know, basically have not, you know, low IQ. They don't They're not able to do many things and they rely on the government for everything.
Yeah, no welfare state in the 19th century.
Of course, and maybe that's why things actually turned out so well for the US. But that's the thing that you're very much aware of what's going on in academia these days.
It's like you run some research until You get, you know, massage the data the way you want until you get the results you want.
So, you know, Muslims or Nordic people or Germans, it doesn't matter.
You know, cultures are the same.
You know, the result is always positive for the economy because we are bringing all these new people and they work and they produce things and stuff.
So, to a certain degree...
Well, they certainly do produce things.
Yeah.
Things that often go boom!
But they certainly do produce things.
Yeah, they produce flesh.
I'm thinking that probably a big part of that idea to bring more people in is that kind of research.
I'm coming from a The economic history department.
Starting there, I just saw the way the research is done.
They run these regressions and they massage the data.
They don't take into account the real world, but just the numbers.
We bring in one million, so that would yield the following results.
So I guess maybe people in academia have contributed a lot to that madness in a way by kind of giving excuse, or how to say it, by giving sort of scientific evidence,
which is not really scientific, So their argument is that it's going to be fantastic for the economy and it's going to make up for the lower birth rate of the Swedes to have IQ 75 Muslims come into the country by the hundreds of thousands.
It's basically exactly the same as if you had a whole bunch of Swedish children that grew up speaking Swedish in the culture with the history.
Well, yeah.
I mean, the problem is that when you look Into the numbers.
I mean, these are just numbers.
But behind those numbers, there are actual people.
So if you don't take into account that these numbers are actually people and people are different and things like that, I mean, you're not obviously coming up to the right conclusion.
I mean, I think everyone understands that if the population were 90% Muslim, it would be a Muslim country, right?
Right.
I mean, they wouldn't be sitting there saying, well, you know, There are still 10% native Swedes here, so we're going to not put in an Islamic country.
We're not going to impose Sharia law out of respect for the 10% minority Swedes.
I mean, that has never happened before in the history, to my knowledge, of Islamic conquest.
So I think everybody understands that 90% is an Islamic country.
I mean, and so 80% is an Islamic country.
70%?
Islamic country, 60%, 50 plus one, 50% plus one, you know, on your way to an Islamic country.
So 10%, okay, but it's not hard to run the numbers and say, okay, given the Swedish birth rate and given the Islamic birth rate, how long until the Muslims are a majority?
And it's not long, right?
Well, but, you know, if you do that kind of research, you know, you would be a racist and your research would not see the world.
Oh, it would.
It just wouldn't see it in academics and the mainstream media.
But it certainly would see the world because there's the internet, right?
Well, sure.
But maybe it wouldn't be considered...
Serious enough to turn into policy or, you know...
But this is just numbers.
I mean, numbers can't be racist, right?
No, of course not, but it's...
And the fact that Islamic people want an Islamic country, that's not racist.
I mean, they've done it to more than 50 countries already.
Oh, tell me about it.
I'm a Bulgarian.
So, I mean, it's not racist to say that Islamics prefer, or Muslims in general, prefer Sharia law to Western legal traditions.
No, but I personally think that one of the main issues is that Swedes and maybe some Swedish politicians naively think that these huge waves of immigrants are going to assimilate.
They always, even politicians, are always bringing up the mass immigration to happen in Sweden in the 90s coming from the Balkans and Yugoslavia because of the civil war.
And in that huge group there was a A rather large group of Muslims there as well, although they were Europeans, but they were Bosniaks.
And they're often saying that, well, look how this group assimilated.
And most Bosniaks in Sweden today, they're working.
Their kids are speaking Swedish.
A lot of them are even married to Swedes.
And I think they're using that as a...
They're trying to extrapolate and say, well, that will happen probably again.
And what was the, I don't know much about that, of course, if anything, but what was the number of people who came in from Eastern Europe, in your opinion?
I think that during 93, 92-93, when the largest group came, it was around 80,000.
Because I think last year they said in Sweden that 2015 saw the highest peak in immigrants since 92.
So 92 saw around 80-90,000 people coming in.
So, well, last year's immigration wave in Sweden already beat that.
But...
Well, I don't know if anybody knows, but I would imagine that the birth rate is a little bit lower from Bosnia, from Bosnian people than it would be from African or North African people.
Oh, yeah.
And I personally, you know, although I'm Croatian, I come from what is currently Bosnia.
And my parents and I, we both have a lot of Bosniak friends.
And well, although there are Muslims, they're very secular Muslims.
And they're extremely well, you know, integrated and simulated in Sweden.
And actually, a lot of Bosniaks that we know, they're taking A lot of distance and they're almost just as worried as we are about this mass immigration wave that's coming.
Because even they think that a lot of these that are coming to Sweden now are too radical.
And that's coming from Muslims that already live in Sweden.
And that says a lot.
Right.
I mean, certainly the Bosnians.
Are they white?
Well, yeah.
I mean, I think ethnically they're Slavs.
So they're Europeans.
It's just that they converted to Islam a couple of centuries ago.
I'm sure entirely voluntarily.
Yes, of course.
You know, because it's so appealing.
Who wouldn't want to?
You know, hey, so this is a club I join.
Great.
If I try to leave, you'll track me down and kill me.
I'm in!
I mean, who can resist an offer, literally, that you can't refuse?
So, let's see.
We got some numbers here.
December 31st, 2009.
51,000 people born in Bosnia and Herzegovina living in Sweden.
And, yeah, they came to Sweden during the Bosnian War in the 1990s.
So 56,000 versus close to a million.
And that's a, you know, well, a 5%, a tad more of a manageable number, right?
Plus, as you say, I mean, race is the one topic that is very tough to talk about with regards to immigration, right?
Races don't tend to mix very well, historically.
And it is true that if you get people with different belief systems but the same race, it will tend to blend over time, assuming that IQs are similar.
And I think similar IQs will blend more than just about anything else.
But if races assimilated, or if really different cultures assimilated, there'd be no such thing as Ashkenazi Jews.
5,000 years, the Jews, without a homeland, wandering the world.
And they did not assimilate.
They did not integrate.
This is what's so funny about Jews pushing multiculturalism, saying, don't worry, they'll assimilate.
Not that it's only the Jews, but, you know, a lot of Jews are pushing it.
And they say, oh, everyone's going to assimilate.
It's like, did you?
And the answer is, you did not.
You maintained your own cultural, tribal, historical identity, even without a country, even with being kicked out of dozens of countries, even with persecution, even with, even with, even with...
So Ashkenazi Jews of all people should know that integration, well, it ain't a walk in the park for a lot of cultures and groups.
And the stronger the in-group identification, the more difficult it is to integrate.
The welfare state, of course, creates a moat of economic non-participation in that you can survive without participating in the economy of a country.
That reduces the need to integrate.
And language barriers, of course, significantly reduce the need to integrate.
And if your kids look different, fundamentally, it's just tougher to integrate with tribal species.
And race differences are not insignificant, not just culturally, but in terms of biology.
That's true.
And I think that, as I said before, Swedes are a bit naively thinking that past successes in immigration is going to, you know, it's just history is going to repeat itself.
And Sweden has a really successful history of immigration, everything from, you know, pure labor immigrants through the 50s, 60s and 70s, and then the immigrants during the 90s.
And It's just a very, very sensitive topic in Sweden to talk about race.
So no one really talks about these immigrants as...
Compared to where, where it's a no-problem topic?
No, but they just don't like when you refer to this as a different racial group.
You just refer to them as...
You just compare them to others who have successfully assimilated in Sweden, but media never would mention the fact that this is a person of a different ethnicity, of a different race.
You just don't talk about things like that.
Sure.
And look, I understand that.
I mean, if you take the premise that race is merely a social construct, if you take the premise that there are no fundamental differences between the races, Then it would be irrelevant to talk about race.
Like, again, if you accept the premise, then it follows that, right?
I mean, if you'd say, well, we'd love to have some immigrants, we just don't want short people.
That would be a little bit confusing, unless your country is basketball vilia or something like that, right?
Because Haidt has no particular...
Reference point as far as intelligence goes or anything or, you know, integration thing goes.
So given that we understand that height is, oh, you know, bald versus astute or whatever it is, big boobs versus medium boobs versus small boobs.
I'm just talking about men here because, you know, I'm getting older.
I got to worry about these things.
But if you were to look at inconsequential characteristics and say, well, we don't want short people in here.
We don't want bald guys in here.
And we don't want...
You know, women with big boobs or whatever, right?
So then what would happen is people would say, well, that's kind of an irrational prejudice because those things have fundamentally nothing to do with your capacity, whether you're going to succeed or fail in Sweden, right?
So if you accept the premise, which has been pounded into everyone for decades, well, basically since the communists came up with a strategy called let's cry racism all the time in the 1920s, Then if you believe that race is a social construct,
that the brain size differences between the races, that the amount of white matter in the brains of different races being different levels, if you believe that the IQ test that discriminates between the races or differentiates between the races, if you believe that has no effect, or all of this is just arbitrary, all of this is just made up, Then, of course it makes no sense to say, well, I have a problem with this particular, or I think there's going to be a problem with this particular race.
That's like saying, I just have a problem with short people.
That's obviously pretty irrational.
Bigotry, unless you're a woman who likes to wear heels and wants to keep looking up a guy's nose all night.
So, if you accept the premise that race is just a social construct, then all concerns about different races...
Are racism.
And that's the beauty of that.
If you embed that in people's thinking, then anybody who's got concerns about the races...
Well, they have to be racist.
And the question is, can anyone chip away at that basic argument?
Bill Nye just recently posted about this.
A race is just a social construct.
It's like, I don't know if he knows that the races have different numbers of vertebrae.
They have different bone density.
They have different amount of twinning.
They have different gestational periods.
The babies and children of different races develop at different rates.
Like...
And it's just become a kind of, I don't even want to call it a religion, because that's an insult to religion.
It's just become, I guess what the French would call an idée fixe, just something that people adhere to, not because they believe it, not because it's been proven.
But because they're called good if they adhere to it, and they're called evil if they don't adhere to it.
So it's because we have this totalitarianism of pseudoscience called radical racial egalitarianism, we have this totalitarianism where people's lives can be destroyed if they do so much as even question.
The perfect egalitarianism of the races in important cognitive matters.
So we already have a kind of totalitarianism in place, and that's why it's impossible to fight a totalitarian ideology like Islam, because we already have a totalitarian ideology called political correctness.
Yeah, you're entirely right.
When you say, though...
You know, when we talk about religion, I'm thinking maybe, you know, modern day Swedes are kind of very far from religion.
And you talk about that atheism on your show a lot.
And I think that also has something to do with the way they're, you know, accepting all that is going on.
Sorry to interrupt.
And I know I just gave a long speech, but I'm sorry because this is such an important thing, at least for me, and hopefully it'll make sense to you.
I'll keep it brief.
Atheists, look, it's fine that they gave up religion.
Or it's fine that we gave up religion, so I'm an atheist, right?
It's fine to give up religion, but then you better bloody well embrace science.
Right?
Because if you're going to give up religion as that which confirms or affirms what you know to be true, if you're going to give up religion Then you better damn well get your way to science and stay there.
But my problem is that the atheists have given up religion but they have embraced the leftist doctrine which is completely anti-scientific of radical racial egalitarianism.
Right.
It's another type of religion.
It is.
It is.
So religion gave you something to defend, right?
This is our faith, our history.
Odin is my lord and master, you know, as I sort of repeat every morning.
So it's fine.
This is why Christianity survived against Islam for so long, right?
Because you've got something to defend.
Now, if you are going to give up on religion, fine.
Then go to science, for God's sakes.
And science very clearly says that the races are not equal, and it doesn't mean that one race is superior to the other.
It just means that they've adapted to different environments, different circumstances.
And atheists, the fact that they've given up religion, which was the defense against Islam in the past, and have not embraced religion The clear science of racial inequalities means that they're in a no-man's land.
They're in a null zone.
They have nothing to defend.
They can't found their concerns about racial integration on science, and they don't have a faith to defend.
So what they've done is torn down the wall between the West and Islam, and they're not building a new wall called science.
So the atheists are significantly responsible for the undoing of Europe as it stands.
Because they have exchanged the religion of Christ for the religion of political correctness.
And they've got the same rewards and punishments.
It's the same priesthood.
It's the same bullshit.
Except it's a bullshit that no one cares to defend Europe with.
And that's the big danger.
Yeah, it sounds about right.
I mean, the problem is not that they really gave up on Christianity, but that they embraced something else that is causing the problem, which is the belief that there's always going to be a government to take care of you.
And regardless of what's going on, these people know what they're doing and they have our best interests in mind.
I mean, if the races are so much the same and race is just a social construct, people should really tell everyone's kidneys that.
Because you try taking a kidney from a white person and putting it in a black person.
20% of blacks are so genetically incompatible with whites, they reject all organs from all white donors.
Their bodies will reject it.
Try being a doctor and pretending all the races are the same, you'll get sued for malpractice.
Blacks have susceptibility to high blood pressure, other stress-related ailments, heart disease, and so on.
Jews, Tay-Sachs disease and other particular issues.
White people have, I don't know, terminal cuckishness and some pathological altruism-itis or something like that.
So, I don't know.
So, from the atheist standpoint, they...
Have basically gone more anti-science than Christians.
I mean, the Pope even accepts evolution.
And so, the atheists claim that Oh, you know, those Christians are so anti-science.
It's like, okay, which is more important?
Whether God or the Big Bang or some giant cosmic fart created the universe 14 billion years ago, or whether there are differences between races currently crashing in amongst each other?
Which is more important in the world right now?
The science that the Christians deny is completely inconsequential to current world problems.
The science that the atheists deny is Well, atheists are like Jehovah's Witness parents who aren't letting their terminally ill child or their child ill with a terminal illness not get any treatment.
And even that only kills one helpless child, let alone civilization as a whole.
So atheists are radical, radical anti-science zealots and fundamentalists.
And that is one of the foundational issues that is facing Western civilization is the degree to which atheists have betrayed science, undone religion, and opened up the West to this mess.
Yeah, right.
Well, I think in Sweden, what we have been talking about is, it's very easy to say, welcome all refugees, and we should be politically correct about every single thing that's happening when it's happening somewhere else, because then you don't see the actual consequences of what's happening.
But in Sweden, so much has changed recently.
I mean, I grew up in the 90s, and although I know the 90s were probably very different everywhere, but it's been a radical change in Sweden, and also in Swedes, I would say.
From, yeah, just in 15 years.
And the strange thing is that non-ethnical Swedes are seeing these changes and they're seeing these Like, unswedish things happening and they're not reacting.
And we were thinking, is it maybe because they're scared of reacting or they're scared of speaking out?
There seems to be some kind of, not just political or media censorship, but there's a censorship even in, you know, amongst friends, amongst family members even.
Like, no one talks about things that are important.
And if you touch upon a sensitive topic, people immediately say, oh, I'm sure it will get better.
There's nothing we can do about it.
And then they change the topic.
So it's like people are scared even to discuss some things, which just makes no sense.
Well, it's magical thinking, right?
You know, I have a lump, but if I don't go to the doctor, I'll be fine.
Lump keeps getting bigger.
If I don't go to the doctor, it's just magical thinking.
And unfortunately, nature is not kind to fantasy.
Now, I can tell you most likely why the politicians are doing it.
You know, as far as the Swedes go, we'll come back to that.
But as far as the politicians go, I don't know, hopefully you guys haven't, but have you ever known an addict?
Well, of course.
You're gonna have to face it, you're addicted to love.
Peter, what's your addict story?
Well, I've had friends that like drugs and stuff and had problems with it.
But are you going to say that it's the power and they're addicted to power and they would do anything, even probably ruin themselves in order to get more power?
You mean the politicians?
Yeah, the politicians.
Yeah, yeah.
And this is something that's really important for people to understand.
The political power is an addiction.
It is an addiction.
It's like an addiction.
It is an addiction.
As you rise up in the hierarchy, you get additional dopamine hits and you become addicted to it.
It's like cocaine.
And we all know that there are addicts who will sell their own mothers into slavery in order to get their next hit.
And the people who are currently in power Want to stay in power.
Do they care about 10 years from now?
20 years from now?
No.
Any more than any addict cares about 5 or 10 years from now.
They're just looking to keep the high of political power going for themselves for the next 5 minutes.
And confronting the challenges that face Europe right now is very likely going to deprive them of their hit, of their drug of choice, political power.
Or it has that risk.
And so they're addicts, and they don't care about the long-term effect, because addiction is basically screwing up your life for the sake of immediate pleasure, and that's what politics has devolved into.
Sorry, Petey, you were going to say?
Yeah, yeah.
Are you sure about that, that they will end up ruining themselves in a way?
Because if they manage to stay in power because of the immigrants or whatever, You know, they would still be living in their fancy Stockholm neighborhoods where you cannot even see anyone that is not blonde.
So...
Oh, well, yes, but that's not going to last forever.
But they'll just escape.
I mean, they'll just go somewhere else.
I mean, they're rich, they're powerful, they have political contacts, they'll just go emigrate somewhere.
They'll just leave behind a smoking Sharia crater of former civilization and they'll just jet off to someplace new.
Right.
And, you know, that's exactly what I don't understand because, you know, I can see why the politicians would be, you know, doing it.
But Swedes, you know, it's such a proud nation.
It's a nation with such history and so much...
They've done so much inventions and, you know, during the Industrial Revolution and, you know, today we're even using things that wouldn't have not been possible.
Maybe Skype, yeah.
So, yeah, we wouldn't be talking if it was for the Swedes.
And, you know, these people...
You know, they're not like dumb people.
I mean, they should be seeing these things.
And I just, you know, my mind, you know, cannot kind of bear it.
Why would they put up with all that in such a manner?
And, you know, you ask them, you know, or journalists will ask them something about it.
And they would just say, everything's fine.
Everything's perfect.
You know, see that, you know, says here refugees welcome.
You know, I just don't get it.
I'm going to read you just a sentence from a study.
It says, protecting the welfare state the generations of Swedes have built does not seem to be a priority for the Swedish social democrats.
Some have long claimed that the social democratic affinity for immigration has to do with the party's desire to fill the country with election cattle.
And fuel has now been added to that fire.
Muslims often seem to vote for the left, studies show.
For example, 93% of French Muslims voted for socialist president François Hollande, and almost 90% of American Muslims voted for President Obama.
So why is President Obama allowing or encouraging or facilitating or funding the import of a quarter million Muslims into America every year because he wants the voting base?
And leftists are running out of good arguments, so now they just need to put their fingers on the scale to stay in power.
You know, if Muslims are the drug dealers of your political crack, well, you'll just bring them in to stay in power.
Right, but...
So they just want the...
The governments are all left in Europe.
They're all radically left of center.
And the Muslims will vote for them, which tells you a little bit about something about the compatibility of leftism, which is a totalitarian ideology, and Islam.
And so they are importing these people to stay in power.
And why do they need to import them now?
Because the lie of the welfare state is reaching its end point.
The lie of the welfare state...
Now, the question is, why?
Why is this ideology of radical racial egalitarianism so common among the left?
Well, for a variety of reasons, but not least of which is the basic fact that if...
Let's say North African Muslims are not compatible with Swedish culture.
And let's say that they said, okay, we're going to put a hole on this, we're going to put whatever they would do, right?
Well, then what?
How on earth is the replacement rate in Europe of 1.3, 1.5, 1.6 children per couple, counting the immigrants?
Let's just talk about the whites, which is far lower.
How are all of these pensions and unfunded liabilities going to be paid for?
By a generation who demanded every benefit from the state but did not breed the taxpayers necessary to pay for those benefits.
So the people in power, if they can't pretend that they're moving in people just like Swedes, who are going to pay lots of taxes and fill up the coffers of the welfare state and the pension state and the free healthcare state, if they can't pretend that they're importing people Just like Swedes, well, they'll have to admit that they can't pay their bills.
They have to admit, sorry, can't pay you a pension.
Can't do it.
So what do drug dealers do when they run out of their drug?
Well, they mix in other stuff to pretend they have more.
You see?
Put the baby powder, put the talc in the cocaine.
And that's, I think, fundamentally what's going on.
They can't admit to their population that it's been a big giant Ponzi scheme that's sucking the lifeblood out of the younger generation.
So they have to pretend, oh no, don't worry, we've got this magic fix.
We're not running out of cocaine, we've got baby powder.
We're not running out of people, we'll just bring in North Africans.
They're exactly the same, so we can keep this whole thing going.
Well, I guess you have a point here because, you know, Swedes generally believe in the welfare system.
I mean, I don't, and I think it always 100% ends up badly.
But Swedes have that, you know, the memories of the 50s.
Sorry to interrupt.
You don't know your own history, and I hate to be annoying and put it that way.
How old is Sweden as a country?
Well, quite old, I guess.
800 years or so?
Yeah, something like that.
Well, it's not thousands.
All right.
It's 800, between 800 and 900 years, right?
It's a really, really old country, right?
Of course, yeah.
Okay.
How, for what proportion of Swedish history was there a welfare state?
Very tiny.
It's like after the Second World War, I guess, but...
Actually, think a little bit before if you count other aspects of it.
Okay.
So, for the vast majority, for like over 90% of Swedish history, 95% of Swedish history, no welfare state.
Then you got a welfare state.
Why?
You're right about that.
I'm not questioning it.
I'm just saying...
No, no, but why did you get a welfare state?
Because if you don't know that, you won't know how to oppose it.
Well, you got a welfare state after the Second World War, because, you know...
Not when.
Why?
And it's the same answer across the entire world.
For more power, I guess.
No.
Politicians always wanted more power.
Sort of to create dependency in the population so that you kind of keep them with...
Yes, but that's the mechanics.
But why then, right?
Why just then?
Why not...
Like if it was just 60, 70 years ago, why not 600 or 700 years ago?
Why not 100 years ago?
Why just then?
And this was true throughout Europe.
Why just then?
Throughout Europe, throughout North America, in England, in South Africa...
All around 1930 to 1940.
And it goes back to 1936 in Sweden.
Right?
80 years out of an 800 or 900 year history.
Why did it happen all in the 1930s and 1940s throughout the entire Western world?
Does it have something to do with maybe the rise of The left, like the communists and...
You know, totalitarian ideologies have been around forever, and the left has always tried to get its power, but why in such a giant wave?
I think it's great that you don't know this.
I mean, I'm not trying to be annoying, but I think it's great that you don't know this, and we actually have a presentation partly to do with this.
And I don't mind if I can just give you the answer if you want to keep guessing.
Please, go ahead.
All right.
Well, the reason...
That the Western world has a welfare state is because women got the vote.
All right, so it's like emotions and stuff and not that much science and logic.
Well, I mean, it's not just that.
I mean, there's logic to what women did.
It's not irrational, right?
Women, in general, will always trade freedom for security.
Because they have children and they can't afford Freedom.
They need to feed their children.
And so women always have this challenge, you know, back when European women had children, but women always have this challenge, which is they marry some guy and now they're dependent on that guy.
Because before birth control and all that, which is when the welfare state stuff started to come in, they'd have Three, four, five, six or more kids, which meant that they really can't work for most of the middle part of their life.
And it wasn't like life expectancy was huge back then.
So for the majority of their adult life, they're disabled, right?
They're pregnant, they're breastfeeding, they have small children around, and they weren't this huge amount of labor-saving devices.
I tried to explain to my daughter the other day, hey, this is called washing a dish.
When I grew up, we'd spent half my damn childhood with my hands in the suds, right?
So women were pretty much disabled economically throughout almost all of human evolution, and certainly in the West up until the mid-20th century.
And so what happens if a woman chooses the wrong guy?
She chooses a guy who turns out to be a drunk, who turns out to sleep around, who turns out to not really make much money, to have a bad temper.
Even if he doesn't hit her, maybe he just gets fired a lot.
But she's got children.
What's she gonna do if she can vote?
Vote for someone who will support her instead of her husband.
Right!
Because having a husband is risky.
Having a welfare state is not.
No, in the long run, in the long term, it's quite risky.
And this happened within 10 to 20 years of women getting the vote.
Every single Western country that I've looked at had a welfare state.
It makes perfect sense.
It started with retirement benefits.
Well, women live longer than men, which means that women are left if their husband hasn't saved or they haven't been wise with their money or they just don't have money or whatever.
Women want retirement benefits because they live longer than men.
And then it was healthcare.
Why?
Because women consume more healthcare resources than men.
Because they live longer, because they have kids, because there's weird echoey plumbing that makes tinny sounds when you listen to it up close with a stethoscope.
I don't know, I'm just making stuff up.
But women want, and then earlier than that, of course, women wanted free schooling for their kids because that gives women stable jobs.
Government will take over and they can't get fired.
And of course, if you've got a bunch of kids, schooling can be not cheap.
So if you look at sort of the development of the welfare state, how was it that Europe was able to last for thousands and thousands of years without a welfare state and then boom!
10 to 20 years after women get the vote, oh look!
Welfare state, right?
Women get the vote in Sweden in 1921.
By 1936 you have a welfare state.
15 years.
And that's about average for every single country that I've studied.
Women get the vote and they want, they still want to marry the guy, but they want the state as their hot Latino lover with an infinite bankroll that they can run to should something untoward happen with the dude, right?
Right, well, okay, I'll ask you something on Danita's behalf.
So should we forbid them to vote?
How long have you listened to this show?
No, I'm kidding.
Well, maybe...
No, of course.
Nobody should have the vote.
The problem wasn't that women got the vote.
The problem was that men had the vote.
Nobody should have the vote.
We should not have a government.
But that's not about to happen, right?
Yeah, it's not about to happen.
But it's, yeah, I know what you mean.
It's, you know, people taking decisions on behalf of other people.
I mean, that's the problem.
It's not about women doing it or something.
Well, no, it is about women.
It is about women because this is a particular...
We have to diagnose the problem in order to understand what's happening.
And this is why women who are married vote for smaller government.
And women who are single vote for bigger government.
Why is that?
Yeah, right.
Makes sense.
But why?
Well, you know, they want security, as you said.
I mean, they vote for security and they want to make sure that there will be someone to take care of, you know, their bad decisions, maybe, and deal with the...
Okay, that's for the single women.
They want the big government to take care of them.
But why do married women vote for smaller government?
Well, they already have the security from their husband, in that case.
Well, it's not just that.
that, why wouldn't they want additional security?
Never thought of it like that.
Yeah, me too.
I never really thought of it like that.
Well, if a woman is married, she's probably at some point either has kids or is thinking of having kids.
And if she votes for bigger government, what happens to her husband's paycheck?
Yeah, you're right.
more taxes goes lower.
More taxes.
So single women, they want lots of taxes because women pay taxes at far lower rates than men.
Like in England, women pay one third the amount of taxes that men do, right?
So if a woman is married, and she's happily married in particular, okay, she's already got a stable husband who she's going to love and who's going to take care of her.
And so if they're a bunch of predatory, vampiric single moms and women's floating around, the single mom's going to all vote for bigger government.
That's going to come out of the paycheck of the man she's relying on.
Yeah, well, and in Sweden, especially, there's a lot of single moms or divorced moms.
And I think most of the friends I grew up with had one mom and a dad and then a second dad and then a third dad.
And like, I don't know if I have one friend who had married parents.
They were all raised by single parents or divorcees or mothers dating other men.
And it was actually very rare to meet someone who had married parents.
Right, right.
Because the state will walk in and provide.
And this is another reason why there's feminism, right?
Because if the state is going to provide for you, you don't have to be that nice.
You don't buy a hooker flowers.
And you don't have to be nice to men if you can force men to provide for you through the power of the state.
You don't have to be nice to them.
You can speak shit about them all you want.
You can call them assholes, chauvinist pigs, misogynist, racist, patriotic.
You can spit on them all you want.
Because normally if you spit on someone who would voluntarily give you your money, they won't give you the money.
So that's going to limit the amount of nastiness you can generate because you've got to survive.
But if the government is going to force men to give you money, that's like the government forcing women to give men sex.
What's going to happen to the flower business?
Well, it's going to take a little bit of a dive.
Well, and I think in Sweden especially, maybe because we have such a strong feminist movement here, although I do not agree that what we have here is a feminist movement, men are viewed as very disposable here.
And they are.
They are.
They totally are disposable because they're cattle and they can just be forced to do whatever the women want because women outvote men.
Sorry, go ahead.
No, no, no.
Just like another case from my past is that we had a neighbor who was, he was Greek, but he had been living in Sweden for, you know, most of his life.
And he was married to a Swedish woman who had a child from an earlier marriage.
She got a child with him.
And when that child was like three years old and they seemed to have a perfectly happy marriage.
And then suddenly one day he said she just wanted a divorce because she wanted to live her life again.
And she just left him with, you know, She would sometimes come and visit the kids.
And it just seems like she just dropped him and just moved on to the next guy.
Yeah, because Western feminism and the state has turned marriage into a Soviet factory.
You know, nobody cared to work that much in a Soviet factory because you get paid either way.
And so in a marriage, the woman's going to get paid either way.
She gets paid if she's there.
She gets paid if she's not.
She's going to get the money either way.
So unless you totally love your job, you're just not going to show up.
I mean, ask most people what happens when they win the lottery.
They win the lottery, they say, take this job and shove it.
Right?
Because they don't want to go in and drive around the forklift truck or milk the Cambodian sex cow or whatever it is, right?
You guys know.
Anyway.
So if women don't have to show up to the job called wife, they get paid either way.
Well...
Unless they totally, totally, totally love their husbands, which they can't do if they've always got one foot out of the door because the government's shaking its purse over on the street corner saying, come here, big boy.
I don't know.
I just mixed up my genders, but you know what I'm saying.
So women don't have to show up to marriage to get paid.
And so it's just like a Soviet factory.
You know, they...
They pretend to pay us and we pretend to work, except with the state, they really do.
So now we have this radical matriarchal society because women outvote men and women are the primary school teachers.
I assume that's as common in Sweden as everywhere else, like 96% of the primary school teachers are women.
So you have a radical matriarchy in the West, a radical, coercive, fascist-style matriarchy where the government Pillages and destroys men for the sake of providing security to women.
And what's happened is, in the Arab world, not particularly matriarchal, I guess we could say, the patriarchal Arab world has looked at Europe and said, ah, a matriarchy.
Easy pickings, boys.
Easy pickings.
You know, that's the somewhat upsetting thing here in Sweden, is that I think 99% of all the women you could ask on the street, are you a feminist?
They would say, yes, I'm a feminist.
Of course, I'm a feminist.
But they concern themselves with what they think are feminist issues, but they do not want to look into what they should be looking into.
The other week, it was not even Swedish media, it was international media, because they would not about something like that in Swedish media, but that on a refugee center somewhere in Sweden, they had allowed a 14-year-old child to be married to a 20-something-year-old man.
And this did not happen in secret, like the Swedish Taxation Service was there and registered them as a husband and wife looking for permanent asylum in Sweden.
And I'm just thinking like, okay, you have all these proclaimed feminists in Sweden who are, you know, claiming their independence and were so strong women, but they do not look at what they, you know, they don't care about these issues that should also, you know, be included in the feminist issues.
Yeah, I mean, they're not feminists.
There are no feminists in the West as far as I would understand the term.
Feminism is not geographical.
Feminism is that which is supposed to promote the welfare of women.
Now, women in the West are the most privileged women who have ever existed in the history of the universe.
Ever, anywhere, anytime, anyplace, I don't care.
Women in the West are the most privileged And almost pampered women who have existed anywhere in the universe.
So feminism has clearly done its job.
And in fact, you could argue it's done its job too well when we've got schools that are heavily gynocentric that are drugging boys for misbehavior, which means they're, boys are just broken girls, let's drug them until they have tits.
I mean, it's just crazy, right?
When you've got a 60-40 ratio, Of women to men in higher education and feminists aren't saying, whoa, a little too far, let's back that up a little.
No, if feminists really cared about women, they would be focusing all their attention on Africa and the Middle East.
Because they would care about women.
And so when you have in South Africa a third of men admitting to having raped a woman, And when we have no idea what the rape rates are in Saudi Arabia or other Middle Eastern countries, because under certain versions of Sharia law, it takes four male, what, relatives to confirm a rape?
I mean, it's insane, right?
So if feminists really cared about the safety and security of women around the world, then they would be focusing on where women are genuinely hard done by, which is to paint with a very broad brush, With the exclusion of Israel, Africa, and the Middle East.
That's what they would be focusing on, right?
So why don't they?
Why?
Because they don't care about it, I mean.
Well, no, that's tautology.
Why don't you do something?
Why did you do that?
She said, because I wanted to.
I know.
But why did you do it?
Why don't they care?
Because they say they care about women's issues and women's rights and so on.
Why are they focusing on nagging men about spreading their legs a little bit?
In the subway, manspreading, mansplaining, sometimes men over-explain.
Why aren't they focusing on the real rape culture that's occurring in South Africa, or why aren't they dealing with issues that are going on for women in Islamic countries?
Because it doesn't benefit them.
That's close to a tautology, but in what way does it not benefit them?
You know, these feminist issues like mansplaining and stuff, women in a way are, you know, kind of fighting for, you know, maybe having quotas in, you know, CEO positions and things like that.
So maybe they're thinking that by being feminist and, you know, going after these issues would sort of result in some, you know, getting something, you know, again, getting something out of the government.
Like we'll have certain quotas for, you know, women bosses, so you get it.
And, you know, maybe they see a path to getting some sort of reward by being feminist in a way.
Right, so it's a shakedown.
The reason that they don't complain to black men in South Africa or Muslim men in the Middle East is they can't bully those people.
And also those people won't give them any money or opportunities, right?
They just won't give them resources.
Right.
So, of course, right?
I mean, it's got nothing to do with the equality of women.
Because then they'd go and deal with those.
It's all to do with, who can I nag?
Who's got money?
Who will give it to me?
That's all.
It's just a shakedown.
It's a mafia move.
It's got nothing to do with any ideology or anything like that, because if they were really concerned about a rape culture, they'd be concerned about Muslim immigration.
But they're not.
That's the strange thing.
It's not strange.
The Muslims won't, like, I'd love some feminist to go nag, you know, go into some, go into Molenbeek.
You know, go into the Muslim ghetto.
With a translator if you have to, and start nagging those Muslim men about how they treat women.
What's going to happen?
Some gender major studies, some women's studies major goes in there.
Triggly puff or whatever.
I mean, she goes in and starts lecturing these Arabic men.
Well, if she makes it out, I don't think...
You know, either she won't get anything out of it or, you know, the academic world is going to say, well, that's a singular...
It's an outlier.
It's an outlier in the research.
No, no, she's going to say...
No, the academic world will say, what did you do to provoke them?
Yeah.
Of course.
Did you want it to be rape?
It's just ridiculous.
So, yeah, I mean, the feminism, it's...
It's like what some of the Black Lives Matter stuff can devolve into.
It's just a shakedown, you know?
Hey, do you feel like being called a racist on national television?
It's just a shakedown.
I mean, who can we nag who's going to give us money to make us go away for five minutes?
But then maybe you could answer this, or you have maybe some better thoughts on this, but if these so self-proclaimed feminists are caring so much about the shakedown and what they can benefit from the government, how come it's not obvious to them that this mass wave of immigrants that Very unlikely are going to start working, if they start working within the next decade or two or three decades, that they will, these so-called feminists, will suffer economically themselves.
I mean, just a few weeks ago, it was the taxation declaration in Sweden, and all the Swedes got back how much tax they would get returned.
And I think the average, compared to last year, was 30 to 40 percent less.
And I think that's just a nicer way of increasing the tax because the government needs money but without actually increasing the tax because they need money for someone who's now in Sweden.
And it's just so strange for me how they're not reacting to these things because these things are affecting them directly.
So the question is why would the feminists not oppose the immigration of a pretty brutal patriarchal culture?
Or why would they not oppose it out of a purely economical reason?
I'm sorry, do you mean because they won't get plum academic positions in a Sharia law dominated country, there won't be a lot of women's studies?
Women's stoning has now replaced women's studies, right?
Is that what you mean?
Oh, I wouldn't want to go that far.
I try to not be that cynical here.
We have to live here.
But it's just that you can see economical consequences in Sweden of what is going on.
And it's astounding how no one is reacting to it.
International media are writing more about it than Swedish media are writing about it.
So it's like everyone is just putting on blindfolds for what's going on in the economy in Sweden.
But look, look, a lot of radical feminists really hate men.
Really hate men, right?
I mean, that's, if you don't know that, you're just not a guy.
But they should love money more, right?
No, no, no.
Hate.
Look, I mean, hatred is not economical, fundamentally, right?
I mean, to take an even more extreme example...
Hitler hated the Jews to the point where it helped him lose the war.
I mean, these irrational hatreds.
The communists hated the middle class kulaks so much that they murdered them by the millions and then provoked mass starvation in their own country.
Hatred is not something that is balanced by economic considerations, right?
So what you mean is that they hate men so much that they would even consider turning a blind eye to what's going on.
No, it's worse than that.
You're such a nice young lady.
Beautiful.
For now.
Right?
But no, I mean, no, it's worse than that because anybody with half the brain of a goose can see where, if unchecked, where this is probably going to end up going, which is some sort of civil war, right?
Now, are the feminists going to be strapping up and marching down Main Street?
No.
No.
It is fundamental, and I've talked about this in the Gene Wars presentation, but it's fundamental to our selected species that they enjoy creating conditions which destroy K-selected men.
Feminism is pure our selection, which is why it's so hostile to men, and in particular to fathers.
And to K-selected men, right?
To Western white men usually.
Because if you can destroy K-selected men, you create the environments which cause our selected gene set to flourish, right?
So, if the feminists really hate men, not all, but the feminists that do hate men, well, this is going to probably get a lot of men destroyed, right?
Well, I always said personally that I think Swedish men are really, really nice.
And I always got much better along with them than Swedish women.
But maybe that's just me.
Well, I'm not talking about Swedish women as a whole.
Like, I'm talking about the more radical feminists.
But there is an age-old...
And, you know, you can see this all over the animal kingdom.
There's an age-old reproductive strategy that females of a species...
Pursue, which is to provoke a fight against, is to provoke a fight between men and sleep at the winter.
And I'll tell you this, do you want to hear something even darker?
Go on.
Oh yes, we've not hit the bottom yet.
Going down, Mr.
Tyler.
But yeah, there's one level.
I put this forward as a very, very tentative thesis.
And I'm, you know, perfectly happy to be shouted down with cries of perhaps legitimate outrage.
So, but I'll put it out there.
Are you ready?
Yes.
For a Western man, would you rather live as a patriarch in a Muslim country or under a gynocentric radical feminist state-driven matriarchy?
Is that really a question?
First one, of course.
Okay, good.
I'm glad you took that one up.
Peter, please, would you like to expand upon this so I don't have to?
Well, you know, I'm kind of living in Sweden and I see the men here.
I mean, the men, in a way, are...
Often more feminine than women.
They're broken, right?
They're really broken.
I can share some experiences.
Before I met Anita, before we started dating, I was interested in other girls as well.
I had some very weird experiences when trying to hit on a girl.
I'm going to go there With, you know, all my brilliance.
And I would just say something that would be a compliment that, you know, you're sexy or something like that.
I mean, I wouldn't say it in a rude way or anything.
And the answer would be something like, oh my God, I know that I am.
Who are you to tell me that?
Which is just like, all right, okay.
I'm the gender that you're sexy for?
I mean, it's like you put a beautiful picture up and you say to the guy who says nice picture, who are you to tell me that?
Yeah, exactly.
Well, why did you?
Anyway.
Okay.
Anything else?
No, but that's what I mean.
The rules are kind of turning here.
The men are the complete opposite then.
Unfortunately, Swedish men, which can be really nice, they rarely dare to approach you when you're outside, whether it's a bar or a cafe, unless they've had something to drink.
I mean, of course, this is a very crude generalization, but my experience is that Swedish men are very hesitant, and maybe it's because they have bad experiences of, you know, women around them being told that you shouldn't do this, you should let the women speak, you should let the women walk before you, etc., etc.
But they just seem so careful and afraid that they're going to offend someone by saying something.
No, no, no.
It's not afraid of offending.
I mean, and sorry, I hate to interrupt you, but it's not that they're just afraid of offending.
No, they're afraid of rejection.
No, they're not afraid of rejection.
Men have been dealing with offending people and being rejected for hundreds of thousands of years.
No, and again, I'm no expert on the laws in Sweden, but just from what I've seen, In other Western countries and some of the stuff that I've studied, you know, to do with the John Gomeshi trial and the mattress girl and Lena Dunham and this one that went on with UVA, University of Virginia, where there was this claim of serial brutal rape with broken glass.
It all turns out to be mostly nonsense, apparently.
If you look at this as a whole, a woman can wake up one morning and decide to destroy you.
And she has a damn good chance of doing so.
Right?
She can just go to the police.
She could go to the campus.
She can go and complain.
She could just wake up one morning and decide to destroy you.
And if it's more than one woman and they're colluding, they can do that.
And even if you somehow survive the onslaught, your life is destroyed.
No, that's happening.
I know.
It is happening.
That's happening all the time.
In middle school, there were two girls who were having an argument.
A male teacher went in between and I just think he just like gently pushed them aside.
I actually saw there was no inappropriate touching or anything going on.
And the next day, I think he was suspended because they had reported him to the police for sexual assault.
Right.
And now his life for the next five or ten years is a complete nightmare.
And even if he's eventually vindicated, his life is destroyed.
It seems like it's become almost possible to use that as a threat if you don't do whatever.
Almost possible.
No, it is.
It is definitely, definitely possible.
But, you know, the ending of our question in the beginning of the show was more, you know, Wait, sorry.
I just...
If you don't mind me mentioning.
Yes.
And this is something that women are generally not...
It's not visible to a lot of women, but men know this stuff, right?
So this is a young boy in high school.
His name is Tyler Cost, K-O-S-T. He's been in the Pindle County Jail for over 550 days on what looks more and more like an anti-male hate crime.
So a group of high school girls all accused him of being a serial rapist.
And so he was arrested and he was not allowed out, of course.
And What happens?
What has happened?
Well, apparently they watched some movie where girls conspired to destroy the life of a guy, and this guy was kind of a player, and he's a good-looking kid, and a lot of these girls were saying, oh, I really wish you were my boyfriend, and so on.
And recently...
The attorneys who were trying to defend him, they filed for a motion to try and get access to the female's Facebook messages and other teens and so on.
According to court documents, the attorneys believe the messages show a plot to get revenge on this guy for being a player and claim the victims hung out with him in order to carry out the plan.
The defense's motion to compel evidence one victim sends a message.
In the defense motion, one victim sends a message to the others.
The coast needs to be, quote, taught a lesson.
Another victim posted, let's fuck with his mind and his car.
The same victim also posted that he had never touched her, even though she later accused him of whatever, right?
And it is a...
Now, I don't know, obviously, what the answer is going to be to this.
Maybe he was this, maybe not.
But I do know this, that the women can virtually certainly do this and get away with it if it turns out that they lied.
I mean, we just have to look at what happened to the accusers of John Gomeshi to see that.
And this is the incredibly dangerous fire that women and feminists as a whole are playing with.
That when a generation of men grow up and see their fathers destroyed in the divorce process, Destroyed, taken apart, bankrupted, living in their car, refused access to their children.
People are always talking about deadbeat dads.
A lot of those dads are deadbeat because they're not allowed to see their kids by the women and by the courts.
When they read about Paul McCartney's ex-wife getting God knows how many tens of millions of pounds of his fortune.
When they read about the comedian and...
Great, funny actor Dave Foley being torn apart in the court system.
When men see all of this, when they see men being taken down like ducks in a shoot, bang, bang, bang, bang, when they've lived it, when they've grown up, With a man-sized hole where their father's heart should be.
When they read about male suicides, which are very high, particularly as a result of divorce.
When they see a system where men are broken up and sold for parts to feed women's vanity and greed.
Hell, just walk through a mall.
It's all for women.
And of course governments have a huge incentive to try and get as much money into the hands of women as possible because they'll spend it.
It's good for the economy.
It creates jobs.
None of that pesky spending which creates capital improvements for the next generation.
No, no.
Get it into the hands of women.
They'll spend it like drunken sailors.
So when men see all of this in the West and they see a system where they are the hunted It is open season on men in the West.
Get married, significant chance the woman will just divorce you.
You know, among upper-class women, 80 to 85% of the divorces are initiated by the women.
No-fault divorce!
Where the woman...
Has the environment where she can falsely accuse you of something and face virtually no negative consequences?
I think in England recently it took the third false rape charge for a woman to finally get some sanctions from the court system.
When the woman can lie to you and say the child is yours when it's not and you're still forced to pay child support.
Where the woman can divorce you for no reason.
And you then have to pay her alimony for the rest.
Of her life in some places.
After 10 years, I think, in California, it's the rest of your life.
Even if you were a perfect husband, even if you never cheated, even if you gave her foot rubs every night, she can just wake up and say, no, it's done.
Now pay up.
And if you don't pay up, if you lose your job, you can't declare bankruptcy and your income doesn't matter.
If you lose your job, you still have to pay.
And if you can't pay...
And they'll drag your ass off to jail.
There's no debtor's prison anywhere in the civilized West except for alimony and child support.
You don't pay that, your ass is in jail.
And good luck trying to make money to pay your child support if you're in jail.
And good luck trying to get a job after you've been in jail.
And God knows what has happened to you and you're traumatized.
So men see all of that, this giant grinding gears of brutal spiky vaginas chewing up men, spitting them out for the shallow savage satisfaction of truly insane women and an insane system.
And men are really bad at having in-group preferences because we're designed to fight each other to get the girl.
Men are designed to backstrap, betray, out-compete, out-earn, out-buy, out-flash, out-gimmick, out-muscle, out-ab, all the other guys.
We compete for women.
So men suck at having in-group preferences.
But we better damn well learn.
And I'm telling you, I am so close.
I'm trying to resist this.
I am so close to just disbelieving accusations against men the moment I hear them.
I'm trying.
By God, I'm trying because I'm...
Working hard to stay objective but I tell you after false allegation after false allegation after a woman destroying a marriage for no reason after a woman keeping A husband away from her children.
A husband away from her children.
Why?
Because she gets more child support that way.
When I see women saying, oh, I'm in the army.
I want to be in the army because I'm a tough Xena warrior, Lara Croft-style shooting soldier gal.
Oh, wait, am I going to get deployed?
Oh, look, I just got pregnant.
Oh, well, I guess I can't get deployed now.
When I see women, as I talked about in the show recently...
Openly discussing with each other.
I overheard this conversation.
Openly discussing with each other exactly what timing they need to do to have their children make sure that their government payments go up in the right way.
And I'm like, you unbelievable hags.
That's my money you're talking about.
That is my money you are taking and a future generation who's grown up without a father because working is tricky.
Working is a challenge.
And you don't want to find a good guy because then that means you'll have to be a good woman.
And virtue is even tougher than working.
And so with all of this, a giant egg rolling down a ramp with fire and spikes and Vesuvius eruptions, a giant estrogen egg bomb rolling down...
Men tied to the train tracks.
They can't even run away like Indiana Jones.
Big, giant, boulder, a vengeful Valkyrie state-wedded, cold-hearted femininity coming to crush men on the tracks.
And you know what the Muslims are saying?
Oh, we got it, bro.
We can save you from that.
And then the women turn to the men and say, well, you gotta fight the Muslims to save us.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I can certainly see the case where it's like, no, no, no, no.
In fact, I may even switch sides.
Well, if I may say, Stefan, I don't think at least women in Sweden are asking the Swedish men to fight for them, to fight for them against the Muslims.
they it's especially the women in Sweden who are holding up huge signs of welcoming collecting money and you know being you know even accepting uh let's say underage minors who are coming who are all 15 to 17 according to them accepting them into their private homes to take care of them having a very motherly affectionate relationship with them uh so they actually seem to be very accepting of these young muslim men and it's mostly muslim men
and you know it's it's strange then that they seem to have this they enjoy living in a matriarchal society but then on the other hand they seem to be so positive to men coming from a very patriarchal society Thank you.
Well, yeah, but the fighting hasn't started yet, right?
I hope it never will.
I hope it never will either, but, you know, without significant moral intervention and significantly volatile conversations, it's a virtual certainty.
Unless Europe just folds.
If it just folds, then there won't be any fighting.
There has been an increase in, let's say, dissatisfaction among Swedes, but it's not open.
You can see in the latest polls and whenever there's an anonymous voting, the right-wing parties and the ones who are a bit opposing to immigration and opposing to These mass exceptions, they're having a real boom in supporters.
I think in the latest pool, the Swedish Democrat Party was the third largest party in Sweden.
Sometimes it's even the second largest party, depending on when you measure.
So it seems that a lot of Swedes are coming around, but they're not voicing it openly.
Okay, so let's say that Sweden is somehow able to stop immigration tomorrow.
Does that solve the problem?
It would solve the problem if they successfully succeeded in integrating all those who have come so far.
Okay, well, yes.
A magic wand can solve any problem, but we don't have one.
Yeah, well, you know, since this immigration wave started, there has not even been that much success in integrating those who have arrived so far.
They don't want to integrate.
They don't want to integrate.
Why would they?
Statistically and demographically, they're going to win.
Why would they want to integrate when they can take over?
Yeah, that's true.
They don't want to and they don't integrate.
And it's not hard to figure out for people as a whole.
I mean, just imagine, guys, imagine if you, you two, right?
If Peter and Anita go to Saudi Arabia.
How long would it take for you to fully integrate into Saudi Arabian life and be at one with the natives and absorb and embody all of the Saudi Arabian values and speak Arabic perfectly and feel perfectly comfortable among everyone in Saudi Arabia who'd been there for thousands of years?
How long would that take?
Forever.
What about your kids?
How long would it take for them?
Well, if we raised them, I guess, forever.
Especially if you didn't want to integrate.
If you viewed it as a bad thing to integrate.
Let's say you have two daughters in Saudi Arabia.
Are you going to teach them that women should be subservient to men?
That women shouldn't have political or driving rights?
Are you going to tell them that the penalty for adultery should be stoning?
Are you going to tell them that unbelievers should be stoned to death?
Are you going to say that public beheadings are perfectly sensible penal policies?
No.
No, you would find it reprehensible to teach your children those things.
Well, that's a lot of the immigrants.
They consider it reprehensible to teach their children Swedish values.
There is a difference, though, I think.
I think if we would end up in Saudi Arabia, there is actually laws that would at least force us to, say, at least superficially integrate.
I would probably have to start dressing very differently.
But there are no laws in Sweden at all that even forces the mildest of integration.
I mean, even when I was going to school, the people who were Muslims got separate food.
In the schools.
They didn't have to eat with us.
They, you know, even now they're opening actually prayer rooms in most of the schools that when there's Ramadan, all the Muslims have days off, but no one else has days off.
So it's more like laws of being made to accommodate for them and not as much as encourage them to integrate.
Not at all.
Well, Europe is paying them to not integrate.
That's the welfare state.
That's the benefits that they get for being migrants and refugees and asylum seekers and so on.
If they fully integrate, they lose a lot of welfare benefits and have to work like everyone else.
Why would they want that?
Well, Stefan, that leads me to ask you something.
Something else.
Because you probably agree that the welfare state ends.
I mean, as some smart people said before, you eventually run out of other people's money.
So I'm thinking, when these people don't get what they're used to get, what happens?
You mean the immigrants?
Yeah.
Well, they'll riot, of course.
They'll riot.
They'll attack.
They'll try to create as much noise and discomfort and violence and aggression as possible until they get their way.
They'll have a very kerosene-soaked tantrum.
I mean, this is not hard to figure out.
It's happened before, 10 years ago in France.
It happens regularly in American cities when certain minorities don't get what they want.
They'll just riot.
And then your crack and all-powerful Swedish military will ride in with his peashooter on his bicycle and try to restore order.
Extremely powerful.
They'll drop...
You know what?
They'll just send in feminist cluster nag bombs.
Hey!
We're done!
No, they'll riot, of course, right?
And...
Then they will escalate until they get what they want, until there's an armed confrontation.
But how would they get what they want?
I mean...
Well, what do they want?
They don't want welfare.
They want to use welfare to destroy the Western governments.
This is not my imagination.
This is economic warfare.
They go into the Western government And they drain it of resources until it destabilizes, and then they do their thing.
Yes, but afterwards they cannot get any more what they want.
You know, speaking of, you know, a scenario...
I'm sorry, you didn't hear what I said.
Sorry to interrupt.
They don't want welfare.
They're using welfare to destabilize Western governments.
So what happens when the western governments can't pay their bills and can't maintain order and have no military and the police are overwhelmed well you'd be surprised how quickly things can change just ask the Romanovs right well but you know it looks like that may might be just around the corner i mean it's not like The, you know, financial system is booming and everything is alright.
I mean, these things are, you know, even for...
The regular Joe kind of sees it and feels it.
Well, and this is, you know, hopefully the lessons will be learned.
Which is, there's a basic fact going on in the world.
And the lessons for me are the same as they were when I first started doing shows, which is to have a stateless society.
But the basic reality...
Is that the cultures and societies which are treating their women the best are dying off.
And the cultures and societies which treat their women the worst are flourishing and aggressively expanding.
And until people can wrap their heads around that enigma, this process will continue.
Do you think that's possible in any foreseeable future?
Well, if I didn't, I'd be playing hopscotch right now.
No, listen, you guys are, I mean, Anita, how are you doing?
I mean, this is a conversation that's hard for some women to hear, and it's certainly hard for, you know, I can already hear the thundering of the white knights riding up on their Xbox steeds, you know, oh, are you saying that women ought to be enslaved while I throw my lance and myself in front of your spear-like horrible words that are wounding the tender hearts of the ladies?
And it's like, no, of course women shouldn't be enslaved.
Nobody should be enslaved.
This is, power corrupts everyone.
Power corrupts everyone.
Women have the most power these days, so they're the most corrupt.
Nothing wrong with women.
It's power.
It's power.
Power corrupts.
So, the fact that you're able to have this kind of conversation with me, and I'm not saying this is all proven.
These are all just thoughts for which there is some evidence, but it's not ABC proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.
But what's it like for you when I start talking about this stuff?
Well, I agree with most of those things.
And I mean, I've, well, to be actually honest, I started listening to your show not too long ago.
And, you know, now looking back on what I learned in primary school and high school here and what I've learned in the last few years, I think I've been very blind to so many things.
No, blinded, not blind.
Okay, blinded.
So maybe that scenario where you say all the radical feminists are going to storm up against this podcast because we said something negative against females, maybe I would have been like that a few years ago because that was the kind of circles I was hanging out with.
Though I would say that...
Since I had a very good upbringing and I have close relationships with both my mother and father, I never could get into this hate men, let's say, thinking that many of my friends did, who, you know, thought that men were the worst possible things and, you know, you cannot trust them for anything.
But, you know, I have different experiences, personal experiences from that.
So, yeah.
Right.
I mean, there's a very matriarchal society.
In Canada and in America, which is the native Indians.
Women run the households almost exclusively in the native American households.
And this is what one fellow wrote to me who is a native.
He said, it's why the reservation is a shithole populated with suicidal, drunken, drug-addled, ambitionless men.
Because women run these households.
With an iron fist, you'd drink all the hairspray in the house, too.
Here's another matriarchal society.
The American blacks.
73% of the kids born to out-of-bedlock homes.
You know, you always hear these kids, right?
Raised by the grandmother.
The kids who are involved in crime or shot and resisting arrest or something.
Raised by the grandma.
No dad around.
Stepdad, number four.
It says, whatever, right?
He was a good boy.
He did nothing.
And so we just have to look at the matriarchal societies.
And matriarchal societies, the West is now a matriarchal society and has been since the post-war period when a lot of the caves were wiped out.
And matriarchal societies are not good at guarding themselves.
Of course not, right?
Women aren't...
They didn't evolve to roam around the perimeter to protect the robots.
They're nurturers.
And of course, because a lot of women don't have children in Europe, they view the migrants like children.
They're sentimental.
And of course, because they don't have their own children, they don't have that much to protect.
It's like, can we just buy you some cats?
Would that be okay?
That is the sad true reality.
In Sweden.
I mean, how many of you guys' friends have kids?
My Swedish friends?
None.
Zero?
Zero.
And actually, all of them have dogs.
Okay.
First of all, the alt-right is coming over with turkey bastries.
But anyway, yeah, that's tragic.
So, you know, why fight?
It's going to be relatively comfortable for their lifespan compared to, right, fighting.
You've got to have something to defend.
What do they have to defend?
Athletism.
Well, mysticism.
No, they just care about themselves.
They don't even have really strong family values so that they would say, okay, I don't have a child, but I'll fight for my parents or I'll fight for my siblings.
It's a very individualistic and to some aspect, maybe even selfish society in that, you know, the moment someone turns 16 or 18, they move away from home and they see their family on maybe Christmas and that's it.
And why do you think the young people don't want to spend time with their families?
I don't think most of them have very good, very present parents.
I mean, there was a recent study, I don't know how scientific it was, saying that Swedish children are amongst the happiest in the world because their parents are so independent and because their parents offer them independence so early on.
Which I think is just the opposite.
I don't think a child who's six years old should be giving You know, ten dollars a week and say this is for your spending and nothing more.
Right.
Well, you know, something is definitely rotten in the state of Denmark and Sweden and Germany and all these kinds of things.
I really appreciate you guys having this conversation.
I mean, it is massively helpful.
This is gonna go out to maybe a million or more people.
And if you can speak people's secret thoughts, it gives their secrecy great power.
And with great power, it can become revealed to others.
If we think we're alone in our darkest thoughts, We experience shame when we recognize that we are not alone in our darkest thoughts.
We gain solidarity, a tribe of facts, of reason, of evidence.
We are not alone.
You are not alone.
You guys are not alone.
I'm not alone in these concerns.
And there is a part of me, of course, that listens to myself and says, you crazy hyperbolic nutbag, it's going to be fine.
I understand that.
And boy, it'd be great if I could believe it in any, but I have to keep going back to the reason and the evidence and the facts.
And it has been left so long, right?
Sweden decided in 1975, with no public consultation, to become a multicultural nation.
In the same way that America decided, the Democrats in 1965, with no public consultation and with specific lies told to the public about the effects of these policies, changed the Immigration Act to cut off immigration from Europe and open it up to the Third World, decided to become a multicultural nation.
Multiculturalism is fine as long as everyone in the multicultural society values multiculturalism.
But if they don't, multiculturalism We'll lose.
And I just did a podcast today.
I won't do it justice here, but the difference between shame cultures and guilt cultures.
Sweden is a guilt culture.
In other words, the values are internalized and you feel bad if you don't, but doesn't need any external enforcement.
Don't have to have guys going around with sticks to hit you if you do something wrong.
It's an internalized guilt based culture.
Other cultures are shame-based cultures where they use verbal attacks, in particular humiliation and verbal abuse, to enforce social rules.
Shame-based cultures can never co-exist for long with guilt-based cultures.
Because when a guilt-based culture allows a shame-based culture to come into it, the shame-based culture pours their verbal abuse on the guilt-based culture And the guilt-based culture can't fight back because the guilt-based culture can't make the shame-based culture feel guilt.
But the shame-based culture can make the guilt-based culture feel a lot more guilt.
And so they'll pay and appease because it's sort of like being in a boxing match.
And one of you is just fighting regular, but the other one has a secret hidden switch in the boxing glove where if they push it, it sends 400 volts directly to the testicles of your opponent.
You can't win.
It's not a fair fight.
And right now, guilt-based cultures kind of metastasized with feminism and gynocentric welfare-based statism.
And man, guilt-based cultures cannot stand in the face of the endless verbal abuse poured upon them by shame-based cultures.
And I think that's another thing that's happening in Europe right now.
Listen, the guy's got to move on to the next call.
Thank you so much.
Will you keep us posted on how you are and what you're doing?
Yes.
Thanks.
Is it a useful call for you guys?
Yes.
Very.
Good.
Thank you so much.
And I look forward to the comments.
Take care, guys.
Take care, Steph.
All right.
From Sweden, now we go to Germany with Catherine.
She wrote in and said, When I grew up, we were taught to avoid the uncertainties that go with men of a completely different nation slash culture.
I think most German women think the same.
I cannot speak for uneducated and maybe desperate women who might not think a lot about it.
I only know that educated and well-off women would avoid any closer personal contact with Arabian or African refugees due to the uncertainties.
And it has nothing to do with skin color.
It is because the culture and what politicians mean with multi-culture.
I don't think what comes in is not culture in the way the Western or developed nations mean with culture.
I would say that culture means traditions.
I did not take a survey, but everyone is aware of the spirit of the society where one grew up, and I can't see refugees attracting German women.
A German woman who would liaise with one would not ever more be accepted by her family or friends.
If these refugees were so fantastic, companies would make advertisements with them, but they don't since they are not quote-unquote sexy.
Do the people in your country or your listeners from all over the world trust in what Merkel and her supporters say?
Or if everyone I mentioned believes more, That the most Germans think differently, which I believe they do.
That's from Catherine.
Hello.
Hello, Catherine.
How are you doing today?
Yeah, I'm doing tonight.
Good.
Very well.
Thank you.
It's the middle of the night in Germany now.
Well, we'll try not to keep you up too late, or if we do, I'll try to remain interesting so that you don't nod off.
Is there more that you wanted to add to what you sent in?
Yeah, I'm surprised that I have written this.
I forgot all this already.
So, yeah, something...
No, I don't know.
This is just a statement.
This is just what I wanted to let you know or to give to your knowledge, to your listeners.
And, yeah, the most questions what I have is to the world...
To Canada or to everyone who listens to that show, is if the people really believe what they certainly hear in the news, that all the Germans welcome refugees, which is not.
Because they all say, I have a lot of friends in the UK, and I ask them all the time, If they believe that, and they say, yeah, what should we believe?
We hear that in the news all the time.
Germany says, oh, hello, yeah, you're very welcome.
Refugees are very welcome.
Or do you have also critical thoughts, critical statements in your newspapers?
I don't know.
So I want to send out the message that it's not.
Can you hear me?
Yes, I can.
Do you think there's a generational thing?
Do you think that the very youngest set of women are more propagandized into opening hearts and minds and wallets for this situation?
Are there any areas or groups within society that you think are more susceptible to this impulse?
I don't know if I got you correct, you asked me something like that the younger generation is more open to that refugees?
Yes.
I think it's half-half.
There's a big amount of younger people who think very critical, they think really independent, but there are Also, a lot of young people who are influenceable.
I think these are mostly students, and they think maybe if they behave very committed, that's good for their career or something.
Right, right.
I was struck, so you said it's because of the culture and what the politicians mean with multi-culture.
You said, I don't think what comes in is not culture in the way Western or developed nations or people mean with culture.
So tell me what you mean by that.
Yeah.
What comes in, they talk about culture, but in actual fact, it's other traditional rules what they bring, and they live other traditions than we.
And this is not...
It's not always a culture.
Normally we use the Western countries, use the word culture for something, what is developed, what is useful for everyone, maybe in art or any innovations from the production innovations or whatever.
Society innovations or whatever.
We are talking about that when we speak about culture.
But if I go to another country and just have their traditions how to eat or something, this is a tradition.
Like the Muslims, for instance, how they marry or something.
This is not For me, it's not a culture, this is a tradition.
Yeah, culture does have kind of an innocuous, you know, it's music and dance and food and, you know, all of the entertaining exotic aspects of other belief systems is portrayed as culture.
And it has struck me as well that the people on the left and the feminists, they tend to be very pro-multiculturalism.
Oh, different cultures are great.
Unless that culture happens to be masculinity.
Ooh.
Suddenly, that culture is really bad.
Really bad.
Masculinity is a kind of culture, a kind of tradition, a kind of belief system.
And feminists who claim that they love lots of different cultural mixes, well, they don't seem to like the culture called masculinity, the tradition called masculinity.
They tend to be pretty totalitarian in their attack of and rejection of The culture called masculinity.
So I have a little trouble believing them when they say they're into flourishing complementary cultures.
Because, you know, the culture of masculinity and femininity have evolved to be complementary for hundreds of thousands of years.
So the fact that feminists say they're all into multiculturalism is like, how about masculinity?
No!
Rape culture, bad!
Yeah.
Yeah.
If they would...
If they would want to reach good things for women, just mentioning it, they would stop this Muslim immigration.
But they don't.
I think that's like a religion, feminism.
They use also the structures of the society to establish their religion, and they defend their religion.
Well, it's an attack ideology.
You know, feminism is in general and on the left.
It's an exquisitely tuned attack philosophy of verbal abuse.
And one of the reasons that they enjoy the Muslims coming in is because they then get to provoke what they call a racist reaction among whites.
And then they can attack Whites with the label of racism if they have any trouble.
So it's whatever situation.
It's the same thing with this in America.
There's these bathrooms, this bathroom issue now, where men and women are just allowed to basically use whichever bathroom they happen to feel like using or gender identify with at the time.
Or, you know, maybe it's been a long term thing.
Now, is that a very big issue in the world these days?
You know, I would say the fact that some Muslims are throwing homosexual men off treetops, I think that would be kind of important.
The fact that a bunch of people in some Middle Eastern country now were just executed for being gay, I think that's a little bit more important.
But the reason that the left is bringing all this stuff up is not because they care about gays, because if they cared about gays, they'd be marching in Islamabad.
But The reason they bring it up is that they then get to make Christians or conservatives or people who don't think it's a great idea to have men and women use whatever bathroom they prefer, they get to make those people look bad by calling them homophobes and racists and sexists.
It's got nothing to do with actual care for the issues.
It's just a way of trolling.
It's a way of bringing up issues that are going to cause the other group to get uncomfortable, and then you get to verbally abuse them for being conservative reactionaries.
Absolutely.
I didn't study enough this feminism, but it drives me crazy what you said.
That is absolutely correct.
And if you were in Germany, you would get crazy also because your language, English language, you don't have things.
If you say you don't have many things, the female and the male, A way to say it.
If you speak about a friend, you don't know if it's a female friend or it's a male friend.
And so in Germany we have that.
And they changed the language now.
So because from the history, if you say student, it is the male form.
They print new brochures and everything.
They change everything.
It is an example for students.
They don't say students because this is the male form.
The female form is studentin.
They have an ending.
It's another ending.
They don't accept this.
They renamed everything now.
And they say these are studying persons, which is absolutely wrong from the grammar that hurts.
A studying person, it is a person who's right now studying.
But a student is not only studying, he sleeps sometimes, he eats sometimes, he goes shopping sometimes, whatever.
He's not always studying 24 hours, but they name it like this now.
The studying persons.
I would translate it now for you, but someone who is studying, who's doing this in that form.
And they rename everything now.
You get crazy.
There's really a raping of the language, what they do now here in Germany.
It drives you crazy.
Yeah, and it's magical thinking that if you change the language, you change the minds.
And it's just a power grab.
It's like when I was younger, I studied history, and there were people who wanted to say, no, you can't say history, because that's male, his.
You have to say her story, or their story, or her story, or the story, or whatever they were coming up with, right?
And it's like, okay, well, maybe it's different in the future, but frankly, if you're only going to study women in history, it's going to take you about nine minutes.
Maybe it'd be different in the future, but if you look at the major innovations, the major philosophical breakthroughs, the good and bad in history, sorry, it's a sausage fest.
History is just one big sausage chain going back to the beginning of time.
Now, maybe that'll be different in the future, although the fact that women enjoy having children, and I love the fact that women enjoy having children, because it's nice to have other people on the planet who don't go about on all fours, but...
The women are going to be limited by a number of factors in terms of reaching the highest levels of achievement.
And that's one of the consequences.
Another one of the consequences is that women also tend not to end up homeless and dying in industrial accidents.
That's like 95% men or something like that.
Or if you look at the deaths in the war in Iraq.
You know, it's, what, a couple of thousand men and like a hundred odd women.
Or if you go back even further to Vietnam, the number of women who died in Vietnam were six.
And, you know, one of them of natural causes, one of them had a stroke, and, I don't know, a couple fell in helicopter accidents, you know, compared to, I don't know, what, 70,000 men and like six women.
So the fact that women...
For various biological reasons, I would argue basically that women's brains are less dense and women generally have slightly lower IQs than men and tend to cluster more around the middle of the scale.
Women's IQ is shaped like a penis on the bell curve and men's is shaped like a breast.
It's just kind of funny but that's the way it is.
My IQ is 128.
Fantastic!
And that's fantastic.
I think I'm average, at least average men.
Well, no, no, no.
Male average and female average both hover around 100.
There's some arguments that men is a little bit higher.
But at the very highest levels of intellect, you know, 150, 160, 180, and so on, it's almost all men.
But at the very lowest levels as well, like when you start cooking below 70, it's almost all men too.
And that's because nature wants men to randomly experiment for improvements, whereas women, because their primary job throughout evolution was raising of children, which is not a hugely high IQ task, at least when all you're doing is reproducing prior history.
So yeah, it's a man's world.
You know, James Brown was a wife-beater, but he was right in singing that.
It's a man's world, and that's what we're going to study.
And no amount of...
But there was this woman who did something cool.
Yeah, absolutely.
And listen, I'm a guy who's been influenced more by female thinkers than by male thinkers.
So I'm just stating the facts.
But you stop bringing any of this stuff up.
And, you know, we have this weird situation now which comes out of women, which is that somehow being offended means that the other person is wrong.
And there's such a thing as hate speech.
And hate speech is simply speech which makes other people uncomfortable.
And there's no way...
That any self-respecting man would put feelings over facts to the point where they'd want to shut people up for making him feel uncomfortable.
That would be such a confession of cuckery that a man would just have to turn in his nutsack and go home.
But women, of course, can get very upset by speech and, you know, not you and certainly not the last female caller and I would imagine not many callers or many listeners to this show of the fairer sex.
But there's this new thing going on in the West.
Is it politically correct?
And like, I'm upset, therefore you should shut up.
And it's like, what?
It makes no sense that other people are upset, therefore you should shut up.
I mean, how on earth would women have ever achieved legal or political equality, which came against the great traditions of Western society in many ways?
How on earth would women have achieved that if the suffragettes who upset a lot of men Had to shut up because men were upset.
It's so weird.
Yeah.
I don't know what the word weird means.
I forgot it.
Strange odds.
It doesn't make much sense.
Sorry.
Yeah, that is all those things.
As I said, I didn't study that enough to be an expert for this or have a...
A deeper opinion, but I can only see that they bring a lot of trouble into this society.
It's like a religion, as you said already.
They bring men and women against each other, but that makes no sense.
That's not very consequent.
That's not a real structure.
It is also, if they would fight for women rights, what they say, then they also would not go shopping and buy the latest fashion all the time because they are produced in China on the back of poor women.
Yeah, just to say.
Well, I mean, I don't know that those poor women would find other jobs that would be way better if people weren't buying the clothes.
It is only to say that This is not very consistent, what they say, the feminism.
Well, I'll certainly agree with you on that.
And here's the good thing.
Here's the good news.
And I'll move on to the next caller.
And I really appreciate this perspective.
It's refreshing and I'm sure going to be very helpful to others, Catherine.
So thank you so much for calling in.
But here's the thing.
Men and women.
Are perfect for each other in general.
I mean, evolution has taken care of that.
Men and women both contribute different things.
Among human beings, men and women are sexually dimorphic, which means that they have different characteristics biologically than different sex organs, right?
Orangutans, they're pretty much the boys and girls look the same except for sex organs.
But men and women are different.
Men have much...
Greater upper body strength in particular.
Even in the army, only 4% of women can reach the bare minimum standards for an infantryman.
Because they're small and weak relative to men.
Men are taller, deeper voices, hairier, chest, stronger muscles, and so on.
And men's brains are slightly larger and denser than women's brains.
And men have slightly higher IQs and scale fatter at the edges of the IQ curve.
And so...
What men have had to do throughout history is work their balls to the bone.
To build civilization.
Now, I'm not saying that having kids is easy, but it's also not that hard, right?
As you can probably, there's like tons of examples of women who got pregnant, were in an accident, and are in a coma, and can still give birth.
You know, there's no man who can build civilization while in a coma, or build a dam, but women can actually give birth in comas.
And it's an essential part of having a planet filled with bipeds, but It is different.
And men and women have evolved to be complementary.
And that's gone haywire.
Gender relations has been a government program since at least the early 1960s.
And of course it came up with the pill and the welfare state and women voting and all that.
But gender relations have been a government program since Because they've not been allowed to fall to the free market of voluntary interactions.
But gender relations have been a government program since the early 1960s.
And we all know how well government programs work out.
Now, the good news is that during times of conflict and necessity and extremity, men and women cleave together.
Women can no longer pretend that they don't need men.
And so that is going to change.
I wish it didn't have to change this way, but I think that's what it's going to take.
When there is a common enemy, people tend to unite.
They tend to come together.
And when there is, if things do escalate in Europe, then European men and women will cast aside their differences and come together and recognize and realize their value again.
To each other.
In a complementary way.
And if men and women learn the correct language and learn the correct lessons, language of respect and the lessons of history, which is that political power corrupts everyone, particularly when you don't have as much on the line.
As I talked about before, women got the vote without having to pay the same amount of taxes as men and without being subject to the draft.
Right?
The vote was what you got as a man because you were subject to the draft.
Right?
And the vote was what you got as a man because you paid a lot of taxes.
Now, when women got the vote, they weren't subject to the same tax levels, and they weren't subject to the draft.
Now, during the Equal Rights Amendment phase, which was combated heroically by Phyllis Schlafly, for better off or worse, There was an attempt to strip all gender discrimination out of law, which would have meant, as Phyllis Schlafly pointed out, all the women were for it in general, but Phyllis Schlafly said, well, you know, that means you'll be eligible for the draft, right?
And people were like, ooh, okay, well, then let's not do that anymore, right?
And it fails.
So, if there is to be a common enemy within the West, which is unique in this, all times in history, people have had to try and invade the West.
They haven't been able to Rise up from within.
So this is a unique situation.
And of course, if there is to be some Middle Eastern push for control of Europe, which certain segments of the Middle Eastern population really want, then the reason they're doing it this way is because they know they cannot fight against the conventional weapons of the West.
So if they infiltrate the West and then arise from within, there's no aircraft carrier that's going to help you in that kind of combat.
There's nothing that is going to help you that is sort of traditional big money, big spending.
There's not a lot of nuclear submarines going to help you in that situation.
That's why they're doing it, because they know they can't fight a conventional war against the West, in my opinion.
And so, if there is a common enemy that arises within Europe, then European men and women will, in general, cast aside their differences and work together again.
And if the right lessons are learned, it will be a brutal and painful situation.
Example of what happens when people don't listen to reason and evidence, and hopefully that will help people listen the next time better to reason and evidence.
At some point, Europe's going to have its never-again moment, and I hope that it can be done through words and language rather than, oh, the alternative.
So thank you very much, Catherine.
A really enjoyable chat.
I hope we can talk again.
All right, then.
Bye.
I guess we're closing down the show.
Thank you, everyone, so much for your calls.
Donate.
Freedomainradio.com slash donate.
Freedomainradio.com slash donate.
Repeat after me.
Slash donate.
To help us out with the show.
Hugely appreciated.
Massively needed.
We can grow.
We can expand.
We can reach even more people.
We need your help to do that.
So freedomainradio.com slash donate.
FDRURL.com slash Amazon.
Help us out with an affiliate link.
FDRpodcast.com.
YouTube.com slash freedomainradio if you're not already here.
