July 24, 2016 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
02:37:20
3359 Voting For Hillary Clinton - Call In Show - July 20th, 2016
Question 1: [2:30] - “I've been taking politics and philosophy courses at my university for two years now in the hopes of becoming a university professor myself. When I talk about issues like taxation, multiculturalism, or feminism my professors, student teachers, and fellow classmates scoff at my opinion or take things way too personally.”“There are many people who dislike me on campus because they think I'm a Conservative. I don't mind the hate but I often times fear that my grades will be deducted solely because the person grading my paper ideologically disagrees with the position I'm taking. How do I deal with the irrationality on my university campus? And should I re-consider wanting to become a professor given the climate at universities?” Question 2: [22:31] - “Leadership, Black Lives Matter and many other groups are telling us, as white people, that we need to listen to their concerns and issues about police, racism and the relentless prejudice they are facing. But I am beginning to wonder if white people are reticent to respond and understand because they are/have been/have seen victims of black on white violent crime and are quite honestly scared. Do you think that fear might be a driving factor in how we perceive the issue?”Question 3: [1:05:02] – “We all understand the loathsome nature involved in the illegal behavior exhibited by Hillary Clinton throughout her tenure as Secretary of State and New York Senator. In short, Hillary Clinton has a lot to answer for. Nevertheless, when faced with the choice between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, I believe Hillary Clinton is the best choice for two main reasons:”“1. Firstly, Hillary Clinton is one the most educated and experienced candidates to ever run for president. She understands how the world works, what the interests of the international community are, and how to effectively communicate with the global elite. Compared to Donald Trump, who has literally no experience holding public office, is completely unclear as to what he is advocating, is devoid of consistency, and is covered with his own scandals that put his business career into question.”“2. Secondly, I can expect Hillary Clinton to maintain the status quo and follow in the footsteps of Obama. In other words, I trust Hillary to be just as crooked as Obama, which is a pill I am willing to swallow because I have at least a vague sense of what she plans to do, given that she has worked with Obama for years. I trust Obama, just as I do Clinton to nominate Supreme Court Justices who will be predictable and within the bounds of reason. Trump has not demonstrated a forthwith agenda and has not earned my assurance that he will magically become a rational person and a competent leader of the free world.”“Do you believe that these reasons justify a vote for Hillary Clinton?”Question 4: [1:52:48] – “I identify with your most recent podcast I listened to involving video games being the black market of male success. In fact, my girlfriend has recently complained that I play them too much. Is there perhaps an underlying reason why I choose to do so?”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
Thank you so much for taking the time to listen to this show.
And please, please help us continue to do the great work that we're doing in the world at freedomainradio.com slash donate.
That's freedomainradio.com slash donate.
Now, the first caller is in the world of academia.
He's a student, and he's facing a lot of pushback for being a not-traditional lefty student, and he wants to get into academics with the goal of getting into politics.
And, well, I had quite a few things to say about that, which I think you'll really enjoy.
The second caller was a woman who said, well, you know, there's a lot of black crime in the United States, and maybe that's conditioning people's discussion of race, because they've been maybe the victim of a black crime and so on, and what impact is that having on the discussion of race, and what can we do about it?
Which was a very rich and deep and meaningful conversation, which I think will be very illuminating for you.
The third caller wanted to make a case for voting for one Hillary Rodham Clinton.
And he said he's not a huge fan, but he views her as better than Trump.
And we went through some aspects of her resume.
And I tried to understand the case that he was making.
He made a very spirited case for Hillary Clinton's experience and expertise and so on.
And...
I guess my wind blew a little bit in the other direction, and you can see how that shook out during the call.
And the fourth caller, sorry, frantic and unabashed geek out regarding video games.
I have a long history with video games and Dungeons& Dragons, and we talked about all that kind of good stuff.
And he was very struck by my conversation or my statement recently that video games are kind of like the black market of male success.
It's where men can go.
To feel successful without...
Feeling that they're going to get attacked for it.
It's a bit of a place or a way to hide out from the world that is increasingly hostile to a lot of men.
We had a good conversation about the things that are great about video games and the things that can be a challenge about video games.
You know, the time quicksand and so on.
So it's a really, really enjoyable show.
Please, again, help us out, freedomainradio.com slash donate.
You can follow me on Twitter at Stefan Molyneux.
You can use our affiliate link, fdrurl.com slash Amazon.
But most importantly, just keep listening.
Alright, well up first today we have Jay.
Jay wrote in and said, I've been taking politics and philosophy courses at my university for two years now in the hopes of becoming a university professor myself.
When I talk about issues like taxation, multiculturalism, or feminism, my professors, student teachers, and fellow classmates scoff, in my opinion, or take things way too personally.
There are many people who dislike me on campus because they think I'm a conservative.
I don't mind the hate, but I oftentimes fear that my grades will be deducted solely because the person grading my paper ideologically disagrees with the position that I'm taking.
How do I deal with irrationality on my university campus?
And should I reconsider wanting to become a professor, given the climate, at universities?
That's from Jay.
Well, hi Jay.
How are you doing tonight?
I'm doing all right.
I guess we're not doing a lot of physics here, right?
What kind of stuff are you taking?
Mostly political theory, a few economics courses, and then on the philosophy side, I just take whatever.
I mean, I don't really take women's studies or feminism, but besides that, I take things like metaphysics and epistemology, stuff like that.
And what would you ideally like to teach, should you become a professor?
Political science.
Definitely.
Okay, and what makes being a professor appealing to you?
What makes being a professor appealing to me?
Well, I actually wanted to go into politics ever since I was a little kid, and the thought of going there through an interesting path made me kind of...
I actually wanted to go into university, get a PhD in political science, become a professor, and then By that, have a platform to go into politics.
But I mean, there's other reasons why I want to be a professor.
You get tenure, you get a pretty good salary, and you also get to talk about things that you love and get to research and study the topics that you actually appreciate.
And although I do love academics, I do love education, the university climate right now is sort of pushing me away from wanting to become a professor.
I mean, I would love to teach the kind of courses I That would result from my own research.
And I would love to be a political science professor and be able to convince people that there's more to the world than what they see.
If that makes any sense.
If that makes any sense.
If you're studying economics and you like this show, is it fair to say that you have some positive view of the free market?
I do have positive views of the free market.
Excellent.
So, Jay, why do you want to avoid the free market as much as possible in your future professional career?
Which is a reasonable question.
Yeah, I suppose it's a reasonable question.
I love Chinatown.
Want to move to Chinatown?
No.
I want to move in the opposite direction of Chinatown.
Right now, I am doing something called AvTech, which is you work in the technology industries.
That's another thing I'm good at.
I'm good at technical equipment and working with technology, and I make a lot of money on that.
But it's just not something I'm very interested in.
I'm much more interested in politics.
Just the thought of becoming a professor as well as establishing that and then going into politics was very appealing to me.
And this was like an on and off thing when I was in...
Okay, okay.
If you don't want to answer my question, like, I can see that you're interested in politics, because if you don't want to answer my question, just tell me you're not going to answer my question, but don't drag me by the foot around the garden path, right?
So if you like the free market, why would you be interested in a career that is the opposite of the free market, right?
Because you would have a government protected union, you would have tenure, which means you can't be fired.
That's not part of the free market.
You would have a very high salary because of the monopoly.
You would be granting state monopoly on tenure and salary to other people who would be approaching you for your capacity to open the gateway and the portal to the riches of academia rather than necessarily because they really enjoyed your teaching and so on.
So if you like the free market, why would you want to become a professor?
I guess social status.
You get a lot of...
And you also get to, you know, it's just very appealing.
Okay, so social status, you know what that means?
Yeah, it sort of makes me hypocrisy to think about it.
I know what it means.
Well, yeah.
Social status, the translation for social status is insecurity.
Yeah.
Right?
Yeah.
Insecurity.
The reason you want social status is you don't feel that your personality, your presentation, your arguments, your reasoning, your evidence will be enough to convince people, so you hope to bludgeon them with selected letters of the alphabet, right?
Yeah.
Well, I have a PhD, therefore I must be correct, you might say, right?
I mean, one of the things that, I mean, you could become a philosophy professor, but then also you could have a YouTube channel and talk about philosophy, and then you could reach a wider audience and you could change people's ideas that way.
Without all that baggage as well.
So why would you want to be the professor?
You're going to spend, what, five, six, seven years getting your PhD.
And so then you've, of course, got to go and find some tenure-track position, which can take a couple of years.
Then you've got to get on the tenure-track, and then you've got to get approved, and so on.
So, you know, it's going to take until your mid-30s, whatever.
Why not just go out and start doing philosophy rather than jumping through hoops invented by governments to restrict creativity?
Yeah.
Yeah, I suppose the honest answer is I don't really know.
It just seems appealing.
And that's kind of shallow, but...
That's not actually the honest answer.
You know.
You know.
You know why you want to be a professor.
Okay.
Because...
Because you want to have unearned authority.
Oh, okay.
You want to have authority that's provided to you by a piece of paper, by a particular political process, by a union.
You want to have authority over your students because you're their professor.
You can assign them grades.
You can pass or fail them.
You can recommend them to be teacher's assistants or to a PhD program.
You can write letters of recommendation.
You can withhold letters of recommendation.
You feel that you're going to have weight And gravitas on authority and power because you have the capacity to make their futures or to break their futures.
And we all know what happens to people who have power.
What happens to people who get power?
Yeah.
And that's definitely, certainly not a conscious choice.
I never would sit back and say, I want power.
I want to dictate and have authority over people's lives and stuff like that.
Sorry to interrupt.
You've listened to this show a bunch, right?
Yeah.
Now, when people disagree with me, you understand I have no power over them.
I can't make them.
I can't break them.
I can't provide them benefits.
I can't withhold benefits from them.
I can't get them fired.
I don't know, maybe I could, but I have no power over them, and they have no power over me.
You can disagree with me.
You can call me whatever name you want.
You can hang up.
So, it's fine, right?
And whenever we are in a position where we have power over someone, the degree of honesty in that relationship tends to diminish considerably.
And I guess, my question is, why would you want to get involved in a situation where the transfer of wisdom would be predicated on you having power over Over someone.
Rather than winning and wooing them over by the force of your arguments and presentation and reason and evidence and charisma and so on.
It was a recurring thought throughout my first and second year and I was just thinking maybe I could use that as a platform to become a politician.
I certainly never went that in depth.
I never thought that I should have authority over people and stuff like that.
But I mean that could obviously be something like that.
You want to become a politician but you don't want to have power over people?
Ultimately, all government is a form of coercion, right?
But that's certainly not why I want to become a politician.
It's not that I just want to have power over people.
I mean, people who want to become police officers, for example, they'll have power over people, but they might not be going into work just because they want to have power over people.
You know, I actually...
I actually consider becoming a lawyer and I actually consider going into environmental law or I actually consider going into property law or intellectual rights.
And that's not necessarily because I want power over people.
That's just because, you know, the sort of abstract thought of changing the world and helping people is lingering up there in my head.
Right.
And, of course, there are politicians who could go into politics with the goal of reducing The power that the state has over people, they tend to be pretty rare, and so on.
But everything that you're talking about, and listen, I completely understand this, Jay, and I might be completely wrong, but the one thing I'm pointing out here, I'd like to point out, is that everything that you talk about in terms of helping the world has to do with other people giving you permission and authority and credentials to help the world.
Yeah.
And that's...
Why do you need that?
Yeah, you could change the world doing other paths.
You don't need to.
I mean, I recently joined the Conservative Party in Canada, and I was like, well, how else am I supposed to get into politics when I don't agree with the Conservatives on, you know, some key issues?
And, you know, I could just become an independent, and I could just work my way through there.
That's just sort of a small example.
But, I mean, It goes to your point where you don't have to have the certificate, you don't have to have that sort of body of power in order to make a difference in the world.
I get that point you're making.
If you wanted to be a writer, then my suggestion would be to read great books and to write every day for hours.
That's how you would be a writer.
Now, if you said, well, to be a writer, I need to go and get a PhD in creative writing and then teach creative writing for five years or ten years, and then I could be a writer, I'd say, well, no.
Lots of people who were great writers did none of those things.
Shakespeare did go to government schools, but only for 12 weeks a year.
And so if you want to be a great writer, then I would just say, go write.
Go read and go write.
Yeah.
If you want to present great ideas to help the world, every energy, every calorie that you expend in the pursuit of credentials and papier-mâché authority handed to you by the printed diplomas of other people is...
Time that you're not spending developing your presentation style, learning how to think on your feet, actually debating with people, coming up with original ideas, reading great books, everything that you do that is in the pursuit of gaining an externally stamped on your forehead authority, first of all, that's only going to impress people who are already subjugated and intimidated by credentials.
And I don't know that those people are the people who are the movers and shakers in the world.
And number two, The opportunity costs are significant because you're not pursuing how to be a better communicator or thought agent or agent of change because you're pursuing, you're jumping over hoops rather than gearing up for the lengthy race on your own.
Does that make any sense?
Yeah, it makes a lot of sense, actually.
Now, as far as wanting to be a conservative who's teaching political science, If you want to do that, then my suggestion would be to find a youthful, conservative Canadian professor.
Call him up and ask for an hour of his time by Skype or by phone or, you know, in person is even better.
And sit down and say, okay, how did you do it?
What's the climate now?
What would you recommend?
What approach should I take?
Because it is relentlessly lefty in Canada, as you know, right?
I mean, they...
CBC just put out something talking about how great it was that Milo was banned from Twitter.
They're just so relentlessly lefty.
Not all over the place in Canada.
There's a solid Alberta-based and manufacturing-based common sense that is what propelled some of Stephen Harper's policies and so on.
Even on the left, the Liberals cut a lot of government in the 90s because they were paying over 30 cents on the dollar just in interest on the national debt.
But we're kind of out of that swing now, and it's gone, you know, full lefty.
And to the point where Gian Gomeschi has simply vanished from the public discourse because he failed to deliver on the narrative, which is the cardinal sin in the world these days.
And so find somebody who has achieved what it is that you want to achieve and ask them how they did it and ask them if it's worth it.
Because here's the thing that you need to remember, Jay.
Let's say that you achieve everything you want.
You get your master's, you get your PhD, you get a tenure-track position, you get tenure, and so on, right?
Well, this will be in about, I don't know, 10 or 15 or 20 years.
Now, maybe the swing will have come back, but let's say it hasn't.
I think it will have, but let's say it hasn't.
You're going to be attempting to teach people coming out of 12 years of heavy socialist indoctrination in government schools.
You will not be teaching people like you.
You'll be teaching socialists and relativists and multiculturalists and you will be teaching, Lord knows, every anti or hostile to conservative position mindsets in the known universe.
And so that's going to be very tough for you because it's not the fault of the kids that they've been so programmed by the leftist indoctrination in government schools.
It's not their fault.
And they're going to come wandering into your field and all of the media and all of the books and all of the other teachers and everything that's going on, they're all going to be telling them one thing and you're going to be telling them quite the opposite.
And they're going to avoid you.
They're going to report you.
They're going to attack you.
They're going to troll you.
Like Alan Dershowitz, the American lawyer, doesn't even want to teach courses on rape law anymore because he's been accused of harassment, as far as I understand it, by talking about rape laws.
It's triggering people.
I mean, the Dangerous Faggot Tour, Milo Yiannopoulos' tour.
I mean, people are jumping up, grabbing mics, yelling, blowing air horns, shaking their arm-fatted cameras in godforsaken gift-based slow-motion nightmare wake-up screaming from hell visuals.
And so even if you get everything that you want in terms of getting into the position that you want, which I would posit is somewhat unlikely, who's going to want to take your courses?
Word's going to get around quick.
You're going to get reviews under your name.
You're going to have websites that have been written about you.
You understand?
Yeah.
They are going to...
The students who have all of the idiotic certainty and self-righteousness of youth...
Are going to be 100% certain that you are an evil, racist, sexist, nationalist shitlord.
And 150% certain that they're 150% right and you are 150% wrong and there will be no debate and there will be no comparison.
They'll be screaming at you.
You understand?
You're not going to be teaching people like you.
You're going to be teaching people like your classmates, but more so in the future.
But I guess the question is then, how do you change university and the educational system without actually taking part in it?
You know what I'm saying?
I mean, I could avoid it all I want to.
You don't have to.
Math will take care of colleges.
Don't worry about that.
Because when governments run out of money, then...
Governments will stop providing massive subsidies to colleges.
Governments will stop providing massive subsidies to student loans.
And then what will happen is colleges will actually have to make a business case for going to college.
Right now, the business case for going to college is, well, jobs kind of suck and a lot of people are going to college and it sure looks fun.
So I'm going to college.
And I don't really have to do a cost-benefit of it because young people don't really understand opportunity costs because they feel like they're going to live forever.
It's okay.
I still do.
But anyway, that's the way it works.
So governments are going to run out of money.
In America, I don't know what is in Canada.
In America, the student loan bubble is over a trillion dollars.
It's much smaller in Canada because the universities are much more subsidized.
But at some point, colleges, the government's going to run out of money and colleges are going to run out of students.
And when that happens, colleges are going to have to make a business case for getting students.
And indoctrinating people on leftist crap, anti-thinking, emotional reactiveness, and hysterical hug-room-seeking, Scott Missile self-destructing the brain behavior, well, that's just not really going to cut it.
Not a lot of people are going to pay for that kind of stuff.
In fact, we were just talking to Charles C. Johnson, who, as a trader, and he's publicly talked about this, In between being assaulted by Michelle Fields' boyfriend in a truly German chocolate cake multi-level layer of n-dimensional, three-dimensional, 15,000-dimensional irony chess was assaulted by Michelle Fields' boyfriend.
So anyway, let's just go look it up.
But he makes his trading decisions based on, hey, somebody got appointed as CEO of a company and that person is a social justice warrior, so I'm now going to short their stock because it's about to go into the tank.
So once colleges have to provide an ROI, return on investment case to potential students, well, they're going to change everything, right?
Right now, they can do whatever they want because they're protected from the market by trillions of dollars of government subsidies, government loans, and the subsidies that go into the student loans for their students.
So they don't have to be market-driven.
Now, when you're not market-driven, you can indulge in ideology.
Right?
And when you are market-driven, this is the difference between think tanks and people who either sell stuff or rely on direct donations, right?
People who are subsidized by money they don't have to extract from the marketplace can indulge in all the ideology they want.
Ideology is that which is not based in reason and evidence, otherwise it would be called philosophy or common sense or truth.
And so don't worry about changing the culture, I mean, of...
Of universities by getting in there and working.
You can't work against fundamental economic incentives.
Like you can't say, wow, communism is really inefficient, but by God, I am going to go and join this Soviet-era tire factory and I'm going to make it really efficient.
You can't.
Because the incentives are set up the opposite way.
And human beings respond to incentives, as you know from your econ classes.
So how do I go in a communist tire factory and make it really efficient?
You can't.
But don't worry.
Communism will be taken care of by time and mathematics.
And it will collapse on its own accord.
And then you want to have enough credibility in that world.
You want to have enough credibility in that world to make sure that To make sure that people will listen to you after the wrenching social change so you can point them in the right direction.
If you're in colleges, first of all, if you're in a college when the college begins to fall apart and run out of money, well, unless you've actually got tenure, if you're on your way, you're going to be the first to go.
And even if you hang on like grim death when the college collapses under its own fiscally unsustainable weight, How much credibility are you going to have when talking about the free market to people when you chose to hide out and hide away and get away from the free market, right?
Like I can talk about the free market with base of the spine electrical certainty and credibility because that's where I am.
I am out there in the free market trying to provide value, relying on voluntary interactions that people buy my books to a small degree.
And by the way, that's not donating for the show.
That's just buying a book.
And they donate to the show at freedomainradio.com slash donate.
So that's my job.
And, you know, we can see it now.
We've got enough listeners that in real time, if I do some killer cast, boom, we're going to get some donations.
And if people are less inspired by what I'm going to get, this real-time needle, right?
If I'm less inspiring, then...
People are not going to donate as much and so that's the challenge.
So I can talk about the free market and because I'm relying on voluntary donations, my infrastructure can't collapse unless everything goes down which I don't think is about to happen.
So if you really do want to change the world, you need to think really long term in terms of building up credibility and do you want to go into an environment that's going to be automatically hostile to you to teach people who are going to be automatically hostile to you and an institution which cannot conceivably continue at its current rate because mathematically you need to think really long term in terms of building up
And if you want to convince people about the values and virtues of voluntarism, why would you want to put yourself in a status environment that hates you with students who hate you that can't possibly last and will strip you of all credibility when the time comes to act as a shining beacon point in the way to a freer future?
Are you saying that I should just avoid it completely until this thing sort of implodes?
Well I'm not going to tell you what I said because I said what I said.
So I'm not going to say, here's my speech, and I'm also going to interpret it for you down to the last conceivable detail.
I can see why academics might be important to you.
But no, I've said my piece, and you can interpret it from there.
And you can listen to it again.
All right.
All right?
Thanks.
All right.
Well, thanks, Jay.
I appreciate the call, and do let us know how it goes and what you decide.
I'm almost curious what happens afterwards.
I'm going to move on to the next caller, but thanks a lot for calling.
Have a nice day.
Bye.
You too.
Alright, well up next is Michelle.
Michelle wrote in and said, Leadership, Black Lives Matter, and many other groups are telling us, as white people, then we need to listen to their concerns and issues about police, racism, and the relentless prejudice they are facing.
What the hell is that noise?
Sorry to interrupt you, Mike.
Is that any better?
Yeah, now you're good.
Let me just, I'll start again.
Thanks.
Alright, well up next, Michelle...
Sorry. Sorry.
All right.
Michelle wrote in and said, leadership, Black Lives Matter, and many other groups are telling us as white people that we need to listen to their concerns and issues about police, racism, and the relentless prejudice that they are facing.
But I'm beginning to wonder if white people are reluctant to respond and understand because they are slash have been slash have seen victims of black and white crime and are quite honestly simply scared.
Do you think that fear might be a driving factor in how we perceive the issue?
That's from Michelle.
Well, hi Michelle.
How are you doing tonight?
I'm good.
How about yourself?
Well, thanks.
What was it, do you think, that gave you this approach to the question, which is a very interesting one?
Actually, over the last few weeks, obviously, watching what's happening in the States with, you know, cops and Black Lives Matter and so on, you see so many statistics that seem to pop up, and we talk a lot about the statistics of black-on-black crime and even white-on-white crime or, you know, You know, obviously things like that.
But the statistic that really kind of popped out to me more than any other was actually the statistic of black on white crime and the disparity between that and white on black crime.
And so I started really kind of looking into it and I started looking at, you know, reading a couple of books by Colin Flaherty and looking at Heather McDonald's work, which I listened to you interview her just the other day.
It was amazing.
And I started to wonder if maybe If maybe actually there is a fear because of actual victimization in white America in particular.
Right.
You kind of just restated the question.
I'm just sort of wondering if there was anything, any personal experience or anyone that you know who maybe was the victim of violence from blacks?
I can't.
I wouldn't.
I can't.
No, not personally, and I think actually that probably comes down to the fact that, I mean, I'm not American.
I don't live in the States.
I live in a, you know, whitey-white country.
So, yeah, I mean, certainly there are other people, and I've had friends of other races and so on, but there's certainly not the kind of...
The culture here tends to be more homogenous, so...
Right, right, right.
So, is it fair to say...
And I'm not trying to trap you or trick you.
I'm really just trying to understand it.
Is it fair to say, Michelle, that you get the majority of your views of what's important to black people from the media?
Either that or through conversations mostly like online.
So yes, I would say so, yes.
I mean, and this is not, again, it's not a getcha.
I mean, you're not talking to a lot of blacks about what's important to them.
You're sort of getting the media sort of report on what's important to blacks, right?
Sure, yes.
Yeah, I would say that's fair.
Now, that's important because the media is not reporting the way things are in the black community.
And you know this from, if you know Heather MacDonald, who, again, we just had on, and she's a great...
A researcher and a great fellow, I might say.
And in her book, The War on Cops, she goes into great detail about the number of blacks who are very pro-police and desperate for more policing in the neighborhood and hungry for more law enforcement and are very big fans of stop and frisk and don't like it when the sort of teenage drug dealers, drug users are fornicating she goes into great detail about the number of blacks who are very pro-police and desperate for more policing in the neighborhood and hungry for more She mentions a woman who's in a wheelchair because her foot was removed because she had cancer.
This old woman is terrified to go down and even pick up her mail and is desperate for the police to be there.
And of course, the reason why the police are in the black neighborhoods is because generally black people have called and said, I need the police here because something terrible is happening.
Thank you.
Right.
And you can check out Jesse Lee Peterson too.
We had a conversation with him.
He's a preacher, happens to be black, but he's got some great perspectives on this as well.
We did an interview which we'll put out later.
And...
Because it's really important not to look at something like Black Lives Matter and say, well, this must be the perspective of the black community.
Yeah, no, I mean, I certainly do understand that.
And I fully realize that the majority, I believe, of the African-American population in the United States is not anti-cop.
And they're not, you know, in any way, shape or form criminals or anything like that.
I certainly understand that.
Well, no, sorry, they're pro-cop.
They want more policing.
Like, you know how a lot of the black activists and white activists in racial areas as well?
Only there were more Asians, but they're invisible.
They talk about how Bill Clinton's escalation of the war on drugs and so on when crack was invading the inner cities, how racist this was.
But it was the black community itself that was agitating, bringing up and desperate for increased police presence, increased sentencing with regards to crack cocaine because crack cocaine in the inner cities...
Prior to Clinton's reforms, it was literally disassembling the entire community.
It was pulling it apart.
It was tearing it apart.
It was like this biochemical neutron bomb that just went off and irradiated and eradicated vast sections of these societies or turned them into, like, living hell on Earth.
And so, this idea, like, of course, you know, criminals, big shock, they tend to be anti-cop, right?
Which, as I talked about, this is not to say that all people concerned with this are criminals, but it's a strong constituency.
And...
But a lot of the blacks are very, very keen, especially the blacks who, you know, say are alive because of more proactive policing, right?
So as Rudy Giuliani put in this broken windows policing, right, where you try and clean up the small stuff like the public urination, the graffiti and that kind of stuff in order to avoid the big stuff, where the stop and frisk strongly discourages people.
The youth from carrying guns, which means that there's fewer spur-of-the-moment reactive kind of impulsive shootings and so on.
I mean, there's hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of people who are blacks, maybe too.
I know that, blacks for sure.
That they're alive because of proactive policing that was put in, starting with Rudy Giuliani and fanning out to other cities.
And countless blacks are alive who wouldn't otherwise have been alive.
The...
The neighborhoods have become more livable.
People can leave their houses, which reduces obesity.
Kids can play outside.
And so, this...
Don't confuse Black Lives Matter with the black community, and I'm sorry to repeat that, but it's similar to how people sort of look at feminists and say, somehow this represents...
Women.
And if you're critical of feminism, you're anti-woman.
And this is if you're critical of Black Lives Matter, somehow you're anti-black.
And that is both sexist and racist to have either of those perspectives.
And of course, Michelle, I understand you're not having those perspectives.
I'm just trying to get this out of the way so we can move on.
Because, you know, I mean, in England, only 7% of Britons consider themselves feminists.
7%.
So if you're criticizing something that only 7% of women...
Believe in, how can this be anti-female?
Sure.
How can this be anti-female?
82% of Americans don't consider themselves feminists.
68% of Canadian women don't call themselves feminists.
That's two-thirds.
If so, if you're criticizing Black Lives Matter, you're not criticizing blacks.
If you're criticizing feminism, you're not criticizing women as a whole, because it's held by, and I don't know, there have been some polls, but I wouldn't Even hazard a guess as to how trustworthy we are of the amount of support in black communities for Black Lives Matter.
But I don't think that it's enormously high.
In fact, if I were to put a guess that there's a great deal of fear in the black community regarding the potential success of Black Lives Matter, the Ferguson effect, the paralyzing of the police force, because they'd be scared that the criminals, as has been the case, would use it to expand their reach, aggression, and violence and the great 50% reduction.
The inviolate crime that is the great American miracle over the past couple of decades might be reversed, as it is already starting to be reversed.
So I just wanted to, sorry for that lengthy bit, and this is more for everyone else, but just sort of to touch on what you're saying.
So BLM, as you say, and many other groups are telling us as white people, we need to listen to their concerns and issues about police racism and the relentless prejudice they're facing.
Well, first of all, you know, this is just off the top of my head.
I'm not speaking for anyone other than myself.
But I guess my first sort of thought is that, I mean, white people as a whole have spent the last half century listening, and I think fairly sincerely listening, if not very sincerely, listening to the complaints of black groups, of black groups that are talking about these kinds of issues.
And a lot of their concerns have been addressed and implemented, right?
I think, you know, I think we don't...
No one really wants to be in a relationship where, you know, there's that old joke about men and women, you know, that when the woman says, we need to talk, what she means is, I need to talk and you need to listen.
Right, exactly, yes.
You don't want to be in that kind of one-way relationship where you're doing all the listening and the other person is doing all the complaining.
Do...
Non-black groups have things that are of concern regarding the black society?
Yes!
Why yes?
I think statistically and legitimately.
I don't want to say whites because, you know, it's not just a bichromatic rainbow in terms of ethnic complexity in the U.S. But, yeah, the non-black groups have issues around welfare consumption, very high levels of welfare consumption in the black society.
They have concerns about single motherhood in the black community.
Up around three quarters of children are born single mothers.
They have concerns about crazy, crazy high levels of criminality.
They have concerns about this mono voting for the Democrats, which is, I think, kind of frustrating to a lot of people who want to not view blacks collectively.
You know, it's...
It's one of the great challenges of looking at races and ethnicities.
You say, ah, well, you can't judge any individual by the characteristics of the group.
That is exactly true.
That is exactly, exactly true.
You cannot judge any individual by the characteristics of the group.
You can judge the group by characteristics as a whole that are statistically distinct or different from other groups.
You can say, well, you know, a lot of Swedish people are taller than a lot of Chinese people.
And that is...
No, you can't say any individual Swede is taller than...
Of course, right, we understand that.
But we're talking about averages and so on.
And so it's hard to say, and I think logically impossible to say...
That we cannot make any collective judgments about groups that act differently.
The whole point of collective judgment is recognizing where groups act differently or have different characteristics.
Can we say men are taller than women?
Yes, we can!
Right?
I mean, we can't say an individual and so on.
And so I think one of the great challenges of racism or collectivism or any kind of group judgment I don't see, and I'm perfectly willing to be corrected on this, but I can't logically see how it is possible to be called racist for accurately identifying empirical differences between ethnicities.
Racist is when you say all People of a particular group have some negative characteristic, and you judge individuals based on that.
And that, of course, is a fallacy and is wrong and is immoral in its extremes as well.
But if a group, whatever that group is, if that group acts differently as a whole from other groups, identifying that difference in behavior or that difference in characteristic or properties cannot be racist.
It cannot be.
I mean, and like if you have a herd animal, and then you have like a pack animal, like dogs, and you have a solo animals like cats, saying dogs are pack animals and cats are solo, this is not pro or anti or positive or negative.
It is simply an identification of reality.
And so I think that there are issues within the black community that non-blacks, and to be fair, some blacks don't, As well, and a lot of blacks have issues with.
You know, the illegitimacy, the thug culture, the glorification of crime, you know, all of this stuff.
And the high expressions or manifestations of criminal behavior.
Yes, high levels of aggression.
Child abuse and its extent within the black community is a pretty terrible and terrifying thing.
So, I think that it is kind of a one-way street, or it's just kind of felt that way for a while, and I think that when people are always saying, well, you need to listen to my concerns, you know, at some point, it might be fair, or it might be reasonable to say, okay, well, you know, half a century, we've been trying to listen to and address your concerns, now it's our turn.
Yeah, yeah, and I certainly, that's kind of the feeling that I've kind of gotten in, you know, looking at leadership and everything like that over the course of the last few weeks, and You know, wouldn't trust Hillary Clinton, you know, for anything.
But, you know, when she comes out and speaks about this, you're thinking, you know, there are people out there who are buying this.
There are people out there who really are listening to this and they're thinking, yeah, well, you know, what is it that you want me to do?
You know, when she talks about, um, I can't remember the exact quote in her speech, um, But it was something along the lines of, you know, white people need to start recognizing, you know, their privilege and so on and so forth.
And it just kind of feels a little bit like what you're trying to say is that our existence is somehow wrong.
Like, I'm not entirely sure what is expected of me or us as a people group either.
Like, I feel a little bit like, it feels incredibly frustrating, really, because I don't know what it is that we're being asked to do.
It doesn't sound like there's any solutions on the table other than to, you know, prostrate ourselves and...
Oh, no, no.
It's nothing that abstract.
It's just give money.
Right.
Just hand over money and power.
Right.
I mean, it's kind of like a shakedown, right?
We're going to call you racist until and unless you hand over money and power.
Oh, and if you don't, or if you try to cut it back, we're going to try as hard as possible...
Say, certain individuals of every race to try and incite riots.
Yeah.
And this has been the case certainly since the 60s and intermittently flaring up since then.
I mean, good Lord, the Rodney King acquittal riots in Los Angeles and other places.
I mean, it's staggering.
Yes.
The amount of damage and destruction and murder and injury and death and buildings torched.
I mean, it was...
Madness.
Social breakdown of the first order.
That's what a lot of politicians...
I mean, we see smaller events in Ferguson and so on, but that's what people are really concerned about.
And that backdrop of threat, which is, again, a small minority within the black community and other groups.
It's not every black, but it's a small minority.
But man, can they ever do some damage.
And that backdrop of urban riots and this crazy stuff, crazy stuff, which can destroy a city culturally, it can destroy a city from a business standpoint, it can destroy a city from a tax base standpoint.
You know, once there's been a riot, America's a pretty big country.
People can go elsewhere.
Why would you want to set up in the epicenter of a riot?
Because you know, sure as sunrise, sooner or later, something's going to happen.
And the media is going to fan the flames and something crazy is going to happen.
Why would you live there?
It didn't take a lot of rioting for Detroit to turn into the mess that it is now.
It didn't take a lot of rioting for Los Angeles to turn into the mess that it is now.
And that backdrop is, I think...
Always, always present.
Because how do you deal with a riot?
Well, I'm no expert, but the experts I've heard say, well, you deal with a riot through martial law.
And how many politicians want that on their resume or splashed across headlines across the world?
It is cheaper and easier to submit, to pay...
Particularly, I mean, how do they pay off various agitating groups?
Well, they sell bonds that are due in 25 or 35 or I think one, I think it was in Canada, 70-year bond.
I mean, yeah, take the money from the unborn two generations down and buy peace in the here and now.
It's hard to avoid that if that's on the table.
Yeah.
I guess it's just kind of a...
Seems to be really kind of an awakening amongst a lot of people right now about the similarity between these grievance groups.
It's like they're all using the same playbook.
And I don't think I ever saw that before.
And I suddenly kind of looked at it and I thought, well, they're all saying the exact same thing.
They're just plugging in a different group of people.
Which...
I don't know.
Maybe I had never thought about it before.
It's projection, right?
As Vox Dei says, social justice warriors always project.
It's all this projection, right?
So the people who focus on wealth transfers from white males, then what are they manifesting?
They're manifesting sexism because they're focusing on males.
They're manifesting racism because they're focusing on whites.
And they're manifesting theft of property because they're focusing on using the government to take money generally from white males and give to other groups.
And what is it they say they hate?
Well, they say they hate taking money without restitution, right?
Slavery.
And they say they hate sexism, and they say they hate racism.
Why?
Because that's what they're doing, fundamentally, and they, of course, would not be close to having the amount of honesty it would take to talk about that.
You know, I mean, literally feminists will talk about the evils.
They will say that white males are misogynistic, without understanding that that is a racist and misandric hatred of men.
It is a...
That they are manifesting in that statement exactly what they're accusing others of doing.
And they seem to be completely oblivious to it.
But that obliviousness gives it its peculiar attachment energy to infect and infest the minds of others.
And in society in general, we've come to the place, the free market rewards integrity and courage and virtue and reasonableness and so on.
But in this situation, the best people in society, the best groups in society are the ones who get attacked the most.
And the worst groups in society are the ones who get the most passes.
And multiculturalism, diversity, whatever, I don't know if it can work, but I'll tell you how it can't work, Michelle.
It can't possibly work if different rules are applied to different groups.
If there's equality under the law, let's see how it all shakes out.
If there's inequality under the law...
Then we have a problem.
Because who wants a group in society that seems to be immune from legal consequences for what it is that they do?
Right.
And that is going to create some fear, and then the fear at some point transmogrifies into hostility, as you know.
Right.
I suppose I see that I think I'm very clear on kind of the feminist thing because it's been something that I've kind of known all my life.
I've never been a feminist.
I've always been very much against feminism.
I just would always shake my head and just kind of think, you know, I'm friends with girls and girls suck a lot of the time.
Like, I know what they do.
I know what they talk about.
I understand this.
And certainly the unfairness that you're talking about with the rule of law I don't think is any more clear than in family law courts.
Which is, it's appalling and it's shocking.
It's so distressing, particularly for children.
That's what really bothers me the most about it.
Go on.
So, yeah, I mean, I certainly...
I think maybe...
I don't know where we fix these things.
I'm not sure.
I understand that it is shakedown.
But it's the same thing as the last caller.
You can't fix it.
I can't fix it.
But math will fix it.
Right.
Politicians will always try and buy five minutes more peace at the expense of the unborn.
And from a purely practical standpoint, who can blame them?
And even if you blame them, it's not going to change, right?
And so, and again...
This is not, you know, I'll put some exceptions in there for Trump, who's not a professional politician and so on, and I think seems to have some genuine backbone with regards to these issues.
But most politicians are born appeasers.
And most societies attempt to survive through appeasement.
But of course, as you know, all that appeasement does is fund bullying and feed bullying.
It's like paying off somebody who blackmails you.
Hey, look at that.
I got another black envelope in the mail.
But politicians will try to appease and try to appease, and they will do everything they can to appease until they run out of money.
And when they run out of money, somebody will come along who's going to tell the truth.
When you run out of appeasement, somebody comes along who's going to tell the truth.
Maybe this is where America is.
I don't know.
But, you know, when you've given away the Rhineland and the Sudetenland and Austria and the western half of Czechoslovakia, at some point, like to the Nazis, at some point, you run out of appeasement.
And then society promotes the lions, the wolves, right?
The K-selected people who then fight off the threat.
And then everybody goes back to infinite resources, our selected happy orgy fests of instant gratification, and the cycle begins again, as long as we have a state, that is.
So, I mean, no, you can't...
Who are you going to...
I'm going to convince the politicians to not take money from 70 years in the future to buy not rioting in the here and now.
I mean, there's no politician, very few politicians who are ever going to make that statement.
There are a few, and again, Rudy Giuliani really...
Was the savior to...
I mean, to Rudy Giuliani, he makes this case, and I think it's a reasonable case.
He is the mayor to whom black lives mattered.
People who were appeasing the radical black groups and in their hatred of the police, do black lives matter to them?
Well, no.
I would say not.
In fact, quite the opposite.
Appeasement matters.
But the Republican revolution in crime and punishment that occurred...
Starting in New York and spreading out, well, that actually made the lives of minorities and other people living in the inner cities much, much better.
I mean, there was a 60, 70, 80% reduction in certain areas of certain kinds of violent crime.
That transforms the neighborhood.
Now, there's still the welfare state, and blah, blah, blah, right?
But as far as quality of life goes in the immediate moment, well, that's great.
And then what happens is, As violence diminishes, as criminality diminishes, the remaining criminals have a greater incentive to push back at the police because there's more room for them to grow.
And that's sort of where the pendulum is right now.
And I think we'll see where it goes in November.
I mean, something that is truly mind-blowing is that Mike Brown's mom is speaking at the Democratic National Convention.
I can't tell you just how appalling and shocking That is.
And I, you know, I try not to be easily shocked, but it's truly astounding.
And of course, I watched Megyn Kelly tangle with the Black Lives Matter guy recently, and, you know, he genuinely believed that Mike Brown was shot execution-style and in the bag with hands up, don't shoot, begging for his life.
The facts don't matter.
The facts don't matter.
And there's a bunch of other moms of...
Recent victim shootings of blacks by cops and it's truly astounding that they're speaking there and that they obviously will be welcomed and cheered and so on.
It is a nation divided itself to this degree.
I don't know how I can stand.
When I saw that lineup, when they released the information on who was going to be speaking at the DNC and the, quote, mothers of the movement, and I saw the names of the mothers that were going to be speaking there, it suddenly occurred to me that,
do you think that there are groups of people who are going to look at this, who are currently on the Democrat side, who have We'll just plain get disgusted with this.
I think there will be.
Because there are Democrats who really believe this narrative, right?
That the Republicans are the racists and the Democrats really care about the blacks.
So there are going to be some people who really, really believe this.
And I think at some point they're going to figure this out.
And it comes back to this.
Booker T, who I first was introduced to the name by the band Booker T and the MGs and the incredibly hypnotic song, The Green Onions, but Republican Booker T Washington, this is what he wrote many years ago.
He said, They have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs, partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays.
Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances because they do not want to lose their jobs.
And the more things change, the more they stay the same.
Yeah.
I suppose it's just kind of...
Like, I'm almost wondering if the divide also comes down to having an expectation that a large people group want the same things as you.
And maybe there's a misunderstanding there, too.
I mean, it's certainly a misunderstanding that, you know, we in the West have put upon other countries in the world, particularly recently in the Middle East, to assume that these are large people groups That want the kind of liberty and freedom that we have in the West.
When it appears that they don't.
Well, they do and they don't.
They want the fruits of those freedoms, but they don't want the mindset that produces those freedoms.
Right.
They want the wealth that's generated by the free market, but they don't want the voluntarism that the free market relies upon.
Sure.
And I think this is to some degree misinforms people about the migrant crisis.
And they think, well, gosh, you know, if I was trapped in one of these Middle Eastern countries...
Under this, these terribly restrictive laws and totalitarian regimes, boy, if I made it to the West, I'd be kissing the ground, I'd be so grateful, I'd be so happy, I'd want to contribute, I'd be like, oh, finally, you know, I'm free!
And they project, and they think, okay, well, if I was living out, right?
This is how I'd be if I got free.
But it's not how it works.
Or, I think white people also, and maybe Asians too, but white people look at the black community and say, wow, a lot of them seem to be really angry with cops, so the cops must be treating them badly.
Right.
Without understanding that the combination of genes plus culture plus environment and abuse and bad parenting and a whole bunch of things coming together have produced a lot of criminals.
And having, you know, like both the Reverend Jesse Peterson, who we had on recently, and Jared Taylor, were pointing out that if there were only white people in New York, 98% of the shootings would vanish overnight.
And so, since most white people don't live in a criminal culture, or with significant elements of a criminal culture, they say, well, boy, if we really hated the police, it would be because the police were just treating us unjustly.
They don't understand or can't really get into the mindset of a group who have a significant number of criminals in their midst.
They can't quite understand that part of the anti-cap hostility Comes from having a lot of criminals in the environment.
And also, of course, because black communities are doing pretty badly, and one of the general explanations for that is sort of white racism and so on.
It is a sort of failure of empathy.
And I just, like I talked, I think it was last year I did a podcast on how fiction teaches you empathy, and the studies actually have just come out about that, which is sort of important, and it was nice to be Right again, but I do wonder the degree to which movies and television and video games, having displaced the consumption of fiction, have lowered our capacity for empathy.
Because empathy, which is not the same as sympathy, empathy is simply understanding how someone else thinks and feels.
It doesn't mean that you necessarily agree with that.
But I think the diminishment of empathy has created a pretty blind society And when you don't have empathy, the way that you pretend that you understand people is through projection.
If you lack empathy, which is the recognition of difference in other, then you have to assume that people are just like you, otherwise you have no basis whatsoever to make that decision.
And thinking that the entire world is like the West, you know, everyone's just like Westerners, they just mysteriously have these repressive systems, is a civilization, potentially civilization undermining, if not destroying, Failure to understand the world.
And of course, all who fail to understand the world, one way or another, will get eliminated in the long run.
If I think I could drink seawater and eat coconut trees, well, if I fundamentally misunderstand the world, I'm not long for it.
Does that help?
Is there anything else you wanted to mention?
I think that's probably good.
It's such a difficult conversation to have, I think.
And it's such a...
It feels like a challenge to us.
And again, I mean, I'm still kind of trying to kind of get my head around the...
If there is responsibility on me or on the people group that I come from, I'm trying to figure out how we would even go about doing anything about that.
Well, it's the usual, and I'm sorry to keep repeating myself, but it's sort of the usual thing, which is you need to put out the facts, not because the facts will solve the problem, because as we know about from the death of reason presentation, facts don't matter to the vast majority of people.
You put out the information and That we've talked about in this show.
When you put out the information, not because you're expecting it to change everyone's minds, but because when the crisis of the government running out of money hits, people will remember that you predicted it and had some good solutions.
And, you know, like Red in the Angry Birds movie, people will say, well, you tried to talk about it with us.
We wouldn't listen.
Now we're ready to listen.
Not because we've suddenly got a newfound respect for reason and evidence.
We're just out of the free money that bought...
Our reality and replaced it with fantasy.
So you just keep putting out the facts and wait for the government to run out of money.
And then we can start having sensible discussions.
But of course, there's a huge incentive for people to lie to various groups in society and withhold information from various groups within society to get votes, to get money from the government, to get money from activist groups and so on.
I can't stop that money flowing and I can't make human beings no longer respond to incentives.
But at least we can all be ready, having repeated the facts laboriously and sometimes wearily, having repeated the facts when the government runs out of money.
Then at least people, enough people may look to us for solutions that we can get something going then.
So I hope that helps.
Thanks so much for the call.
Thank you.
I really appreciate it.
You know, it's a tough, I guess that some people find it tough.
Maybe I've just become kind of immune to it.
But...
For me it does come from a genuine place of love.
It does come from a genuine place of wanting truth and reason and freedom to bring out the best in every community.
I'm sure you feel the same way.
We would all love for every community to be doing better.
But pretending that things aren't the way they are is not how to help them.
And that to me is a kind of like withholding information from certain groups.
That's bigotry.
That's the kind of racism or sexism.
You know, women can handle the truth and groups can handle the truth.
And we need to be honest about what's going on because the moment we start to withhold things, we are putting ourselves in a superior position and others in an inferior position, you know?
If my daughter wants to watch The Walking Dead, not that she does, but if she did, I'd have to say no because I still remember when I was a kid at my first sleepover, somebody put on a...
Dracula movie that was god-awful and terrifying.
I still remember that little black and white TV vividly to this day because Six was just a little too young to watch vampires get stabbed in the chest with giant and spitting out blood and anyway.
And so I will withhold horror movies from my daughter because she is in an inferior position of judgment relative to me.
And every time that we say, oh, we cannot put the facts out to this group, Well, okay, that's fine, but you're putting them in an inferior position and just admit that you're bigoted towards that group and, you know, then I'm still going to try and get the truth out.
But, you know, as you know from, you know, women and blacks and Hispanics and other people who've called into the show, I think people are very relieved when we can have an honest conversation back and forth about this stuff rather than just screaming and resource grabbing and virtue signaling and all that.
So I'm glad you called in.
Thanks so much for the call and I'm going to move on to the next.
Thank you.
Alright, well up next is Matt.
And Matt, I think for this one it'd be better if you read your question.
Do you have it in front of you?
Hi, can you hear me?
Yeah, loud and clear.
Yes.
Yeah, I'm sorry.
It's really long, but if you want I can kind of shorten it if you'd like.
No, no.
Do the whole thing.
Just do the whole thing.
Do it.
We all understand the loathsome nature involved in the illegal behavior exhibited by Hillary Clinton throughout her tenure as Secretary of State and New York Senator.
In short, Hillary Clinton has a lot to answer for.
Nevertheless, when faced with the choice between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, I believe Hillary Clinton is the best choice for two main reasons.
Firstly, Hillary Clinton is the most educated and most experienced out of the candidates that are running for president in an effectively binary choice.
She understands how the world works, what the interests of the international community are, and how to effectively communicate with the global elite.
Compared to Donald Trump, who has literally no experience holding public office, is completely unclear as to what he's advocating.
He is devoid of consistency.
He is covered with his own scandals that put his own business career into question.
And the second reason is, I can expect Hillary Clinton to maintain the status quo and follow in the footsteps of Obama.
In other words, I trust Hillary Clinton to be just as crooked as Obama.
Which is a pill that I'm willing to swallow because I have at least a vague sense of what she plans to do, given that she has worked with Obama for years.
I trust Obama just as I do Clinton to nominate Supreme Court justices who will be predictable and within the bounds of reason.
I'm sure we can argue what that means, but Trump has not demonstrated a forthwith agenda and has not earned my assurance that he will magically become a rational person and a competent leader of the free world.
And so my question is, do you believe that these reasons justify a vote for Hillary Clinton?
Well, thanks, Matt.
I appreciate you calling in.
I find this a fascinating topic, so thank you for being here tonight.
How are you doing?
I'm kind of nervous, but I've never talked in any YouTube hangout or anything, but yeah, whatever.
Okay, so let's go through, as we all want to do, let's go through these one by one, all right?
Yeah.
All right.
So we're going to Trump, yeah.
We'll just start with Hillary.
So Hillary...
It's one of the most educated and experienced candidates to ever run for president.
That's your argument, right?
I wouldn't say out of every candidate ever, but I would say her, Gary Johnson, I guess if we're going to include him, but I don't think he really matters, and Donald Trump.
Out of the three, she's the most educated.
Okay.
Okay.
So, the more educated candidate is automatically better?
It's a factor to consider when making an important choice.
Well, it's a pretty important factor, right?
Oh yeah, definitely.
Especially when selecting the president.
Probably the most important world leader, one could argue.
Right.
And do you feel, or do you have the case, that this education Has given her good effects on the world stage, right?
Well, I mean...
Sorry, the reason I'm asking for that is that education matters for the first couple of years that you're out of school, right?
Yeah.
And after that, you are...
Judged on your accomplishments, not on your education.
So education matters if you're hiring someone for their first job, right?
Yeah.
But if you're going with experience, then education matters less.
The more experience the person has, the less their education matters.
The less experience they have, the more their education matters.
It's like a seesaw, right?
Yeah.
Okay.
So if, you know, she's...
What, in her late 60s, I think, so I don't know how old she is, but her education is a long time ago, right?
Yeah.
So that doesn't particularly matter, because we have enough of her resume to be able to judge her on her accomplishments, and then it doesn't matter what her education was, right?
Yeah.
Okay, we'll go with what you said, yeah.
No, I don't want this, right?
You can't just go with what I said.
Either it's a valid argument or it's not.
My use of the word education, I was referring, yes, to her college education, but I was also using it in a broader sense of education having to do with her experience as an employee of the government.
But, yeah, I see what you mean.
I agree with you, yeah.
We should make a distinction between her resume and her college education.
Okay.
So, if we're going to focus on her experience, which I think at the age of 68, I don't care what 45 years ago she studied in school, right?
Agreed.
Okay.
And...
So at the age of 68, and given that she's been in and around politics for many, many decades, I think we can try and judge her based upon her achievements in politics rather than her education, right?
Whoa.
Are you still there?
Yeah.
Okay, sorry, I just got a...
Is that a yes?
Yeah, I agreed.
Okay.
So, with regards to her achievements in the realm of government, which are the achievements that you find particularly compelling with regards to her giving her a good resume?
Yeah.
I'm sorry?
Yeah, I agree.
No, no.
Which, I'm asking you, Which of the achievements, which achievements has she had that make her a compelling candidate for you?
Because if we're going to judge her not based on her education, but on her experience, her achievements, then which are the ones that you find to be so overwhelmingly positive that you would consider them a real plus for her to get the job of presidential, of president?
Well, first I want to...
I'm going to answer the question, but I want to make a caveat to what I was going to say.
I am not a fan of Hillary Clinton in the sense that I disagree with her on a lot of positions.
I'm not with her 100%.
But I'm looking at this election within the context of I have effectively a binary choice.
Look, I'm sorry to interrupt you, but Welcome to my show!
So you don't need to interrupt the show to say, I'm not with her 100%.
People say that all the time, but it's such a useless thing to say because it's automatically assumed by anybody with half a brain to be true already.
So let's go on with what you like about what she's achieved in the political realm that you consider a big plus to her resume.
Okay, here's one.
She was one of the key members.
She was key in constructing and gathering together the civilized nations, many civilized nations, and putting together sanctions on Iran.
And then because of those sanctions, the Iranian government was brought to the table, and then we could make progress in creating an Iran nuclear deal.
So you think the sanctions were a good idea?
Given what the alternatives were, I think it was, yeah, it was a good idea.
Okay, so you think the sanctions were a good idea because it brought Iran to the table so that Iran ended up being part of this deal to prevent them from becoming a nuclear power?
Correct.
And you think that the deal was a...
A very good deal.
Well, I mean, very good.
I mean, I would say it would be better than going to war.
It would be better...
It seems like progress, if that makes any sense.
It doesn't.
I don't know what that means.
But can you tell me more details about what you liked about the Iran deal?
Again, I'm not coming from a position of like, I wish it had been fed to Jabba the Hutt's ass in a shredder or something.
I'm just curious what you think of, since you brought it up, what you liked about it.
Well, so here's a country, Iran, where it's a very dangerous nation in the sense that it has...
It has the potential to be influenced by very radical ideas in the sense that if a country like this were to obtain a very dangerous weapon, it would be beneficial for the rest of the world if that nation were not able to obtain a nuclear weapon.
So by making this deal and at least creating a moral standard that we can We can hold them accountable for.
At least in that sense we're making progress in that we are achieving the goal of trying to make sure that this country does not get weapons, you know, WMDs or anything.
Things that would harm the rest of the civilized world.
Or just the, you know, the rest of the world.
I'm sure Israel would be a target.
Iraq would be a target if there was something like that.
A threat that came into fruition.
Okay, so you feel that this, or your argument is that this deal is going to prevent Iran from getting hold of nuclear weapons?
Basically, yeah.
And how is it enforced?
Well, it can be enforced in the sense that the UN could I mean, I understand, like, yeah, the Iranians, they have to check themselves, but I'm not really...
See, it's like I'm looking at it in the sense of I'm looking at all these choices, and so one of the choices is we can get this Iran deal, and it's got all this, you know, baggage on it.
People don't like it because it's difficult to hold them accountable for making sure that they don't get a weapon.
But then on the other hand, you know, what else can we do?
We can keep the sanctions on.
I don't know what that would accomplish by just, you know, who knows.
And then I guess there's another option, which is going to war with them, which I don't think anyone...
That's not a very popular position, even by many conservatives.
But I think it can be enforced...
We can threaten to put the sanctions back on.
Go on.
And the Iranian government, they don't want sanctions.
They want the deal because I'm sure, oh, we can take advantage of this deal.
There's all these loopholes.
We can check ourselves.
We don't need the UN. We don't need NATO. We don't need foreigners checking our nuclear supplies and arms, but as long as there's some kind of leeway in the sense that we're making progress towards the objective of trying to make sure that they don't get a hold of dangerous weapons.
Okay, so it's your understanding that the deal prevents them from getting dangerous weapons?
Yeah, basically, yeah.
Okay, I'm going to read to you from the New York Post, and we'll put a link to this in the show, because I think you may be misinformed.
It says, this is when was this printed?
July 18th, two days ago, July 18th, 2016.
He said, more bad news about the Iran nuclear deal landed Monday, a dangerous secret that President Obama has been keeping from the American people.
The Associated Press reports that the unpublished side deal is even more disastrous than the rest of the accord.
It relaxes key restrictions on Iran's nuclear program in just over a decade rather than the 15 years Team Obama has been touting.
As of January 2027, Iran can start replacing its mainstay centrifuges with thousands of advanced machines up to five times as efficient as what it now has.
Bottom line, the time Iran needs to produce a nuclear bomb would be cut in half or worse.
If Obama's correct that the current rules leave Tehran a year from sprinting to the bomb, it'll become at most six months.
And because the secret deal doesn't spell out what happens after year 13, it could mean an end to all restrictions on centrifuges.
The head of the Institute for Science and International Security, a go-to agency on Iran's nuclear program, says the side deal, quote, will create a great deal of instability and possibly even lead to war.
Yet just last week, the president boasted that his deal, which provides the mullahs with tens of billions in sanctions relief for use on terrorism, is, quote, avoiding further conflict and making us safer.
Really.
All this proves that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, whom Obama openly marked as a scaremonger for warning that Iran's breakout time was six months or less, was anything but.
Since agreeing to the deal, Iran has kept on testing ballistic missiles that can deliver nuclear warheads.
It has also been caught in clandestine efforts to illicitly acquire high-level nuclear technology and equipment.
It is becoming alarmingly clear that Team Obama played the American people and the congressional Democrats who supported the deal For fools.
So it does not prevent Iran from working with nuclear technology.
It delays it for a little bit and gives them billions of dollars in relief from sanctions.
And I believe also tens of billions of dollars if Iranian money was unfrozen in the US. And so that's sort of one aspect of it that I don't think it does what you think it does.
And I don't know if you know this quote from Hillary Clinton.
Hillary Clinton said, if I'm president, we will attack Iran.
We would be able to totally obliterate them.
If I'm president, we will attack Iran.
We will be able to totally obliterate them.
So if Iran not getting nuclear technology is of interest to you, then the Iran deal doesn't achieve that.
And if not going to war...
With Iran is of interest to you.
Hillary Clinton's commitment to attack Iran, if she's given the presidency and totally obliterate them, I think would also not be particularly positive.
Would that be a fair thing to say?
Yes.
All right.
Do you think that as a whole, of course, Hillary Clinton In 2008, sorry, just to give an additional context for that, we'll put the sources below.
In 2008, quote, I want the Iranians to know that if I'm president, we will attack Iran in the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them.
So that's important as far as state of mind goes.
Now, of course, she was America's chief diplomat, right?
Secretary of State from January 21st, 2009 to February 1st, 2013.
How would you rate her achievements in terms of peace and stability, particularly in the Middle East, during the time of her tenure?
Not good.
In what way?
Always.
Maybe more than one.
Well, I mean, yeah, she has a...
Like I said, I said that, you know, she's not...
She's not perfect in the sense that...
I don't want that to be like a cop-out, but I have my disagreements with her.
I think that her interventions and her support for Libyan intervention and her support for arming rebels in many areas of the Middle East, in Syria and things like that.
I'm, you know, I'm, you know, like I said, I don't want to have to repeat myself, but yeah, I really, I don't like her in the sense that, you know, I mean, I'm not trying to say she's, you know, she's this amazing person and look at her amazing record.
I'm just saying it's like, look at her and then compare that to Trump, which is so...
Okay, but we'll get to Trump.
You know, we want to judge people.
You know, compare me to somebody in a coma and I'm pretty articulate, but that doesn't tell you much about me, right?
So, Libya.
Libya is pretty important, right?
Yeah.
So Hillary Clinton, this is from globalresearch.ca.
Clinton represented the public face of the CIA, Pentagon, NATO campaign of destabilization, bombing, and seizure of Libya.
After the Libyan government under the late Colonel Muammar Gaddafi began a military response to the obvious imperialist-backed war of regime change, the Clinton State Department engineered the passage of two United Nations Security Council resolutions which provided a rationale for the imposition of an arms embargo and so-called no-fly zone over Libyan territory and waterways.
These resolutions opened up a pseudo-legal justification for the massive bombing of the country during March 19 to October 31, 2011.
Reports suggest that anywhere from 50,000 to 100,000 people were killed in the aerial bombardment, leaving the infrastructure of the state destroyed, displacing 2 million people and prompting the precipitous rise in instability throughout the regions of North and West Africa, extending through the Middle East and Southern Europe.
Libya, under Gaddafi, was designated as the most prosperous state on the continent, which owed no money to the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, utilizing its 2 million barrels of oil production per day to fund monumental projects, which built schools, hospitals, power systems, homes, and the maintenance of free education and healthcare.
Today...
Libya has been reduced to one of the major sources of human trafficking and terrorism, serving as a conduit for hundreds of thousands seeking to flee to Europe amid the ongoing imperialist war policy and worsening world crisis.
They call it a capitalist crisis.
So...
That's not great.
To...
To advocate for the murder of a foreign leader is not diplomacy.
And to initiate bombing campaigns that kill 50 to 100,000 people, destabilize the entire country.
And it's, you know, Gaddafi said, he said, if you destroy me, I'm what stands between economic migrants and Europe.
And they did.
He was dragged out and he was sodomized with a bayonet and killed brutally.
And if we look at that approach and we can say that this was not particularly great, right?
WikiLeaks released a trove of emails belonging to Hillary Clinton, right?
And it does seem to indicate to some degree that there were plans to destabilize the Middle East for a variety of reasons.
is And that destabilization seems to have occurred.
And Hillary Clinton did vote for the military intervention in Iraq, which was one of the things that began this whole grim, god-awful process.
She was partly responsible for the selling of arms into Syria.
Into Libya, the arming of the rebels that then, of course, turned into Al-Qaeda, turned into ISIS, turned into all of this stuff as a whole.
So, I can't think of...
You know, if maybe if her policies had caused the Earth to break orbit and head towards the chilly regions of Jupiter, things could be worse.
But I do find it hard to imagine...
How she could have made things worse, right?
The destabilization of the Middle East has threatened European civilization by causing a massive fractious breakdown of borders, right?
And it's not that she's solely responsible, lots of other people as well, including George W. Bush.
But It is pretty disastrous.
She is supposed to have made America and America's allies in Europe safer through her tenure as Secretary of State.
And I think it's fairly safe to say that the West is in more danger now than before she started and There are considerable problems, a lot of which can be traced back to her decisions into the state stabilization of the Middle East, which was, of course, her job.
And, you know, I mean, the lies and obfuscations, you mentioned, of course, the email stuff, which we've talked about a lot in our show.
But the fact that Hillary Clinton knew that the attack in Benghazi On the anniversary of 9-11.
The attack on Benghazi was a pre-planned Al-Qaeda attack.
And she publicly stated, including to the parents of the people murdered in the Benghazi embassy, she publicly stated it had something to do with an internet video and they even threw the maker of that video in jail for a year.
And that is, that may have stolen the election.
I mean, she has a responsibility to tell the truth.
And if she had told the truth that under Obama and her, America, American soil, so to speak, as far as embassies go, had been attacked on the anniversary of 9-11, American ambassador murdered, Marines murdered.
If she had told the truth, it may have cost the election for the Democrats.
So she lied for the maintenance of Political power.
Yeah.
That is astonishing.
And of course the fact that she put all of this, America's entire security apparatus at risk to the point where, and we've talked about this with security experts and so on, it's just, it's a mess.
It's a mess.
Yeah.
Libyans once enjoyed a higher standard of living than two-thirds of the people on the planet.
Libya is a fertile ground for jihadists.
It's dissolved into fundamentalist warlords vying for power.
She turned a stable, relatively developed nation into an ISIS save haven.
How many bodies does it take for you to question her judgment?
Ah, well, Donald Trump doesn't have as much experience doing this kind of stuff.
Good.
This goes back, and it's much more grim with Clinton, but this goes back to something that...
Oh, third-party presidential candidate was talking about.
And he said, this is back, I think, in the 80s or 90s, he's saying, I don't have a lot of experience.
It's true, I don't have a lot of experience running up a giant national debt.
Yeah.
He doesn't have experience destroying countries and threatening Western civilization.
I've got to tell you, that's not the kind of experience I think people should be looking for.
Are you going to read something else?
No, no, go ahead.
Sorry.
Yeah, I mean, I share a lot of your opinions on this issue.
I... Like I said, I'm not at all a fan of Hillary Clinton.
I know really the purpose of me coming on was to defend her candidacy, her legitimacy.
No, no, come on.
You can't just keep saying the same stuff over and over again, right?
You view her as better than Donald Trump if you have to choose, right?
So yes, saying you don't agree with everything, you're just kind of repeating the same stuff, right?
Yeah.
So she's done, she's made some unbelievably disastrous decisions.
In fact, if I were to say, of all the secretaries of state throughout all of U.S. history, not one of them has threatened European civilization through the dislodging of literally millions upon millions upon millions of economic migrants.
In my view, by far the worst and most dangerous secretary of state, if not politician, is In the history of the planet.
Now you say, well, Donald Trump doesn't have that kind of experience.
But let me ask you this.
Wouldn't you like it if that kind of experience didn't matter in America?
In other words, wouldn't you like it if in America You didn't have to make good or bad decisions with regards to overthrowing leaders of other countries.
I'd probably like that.
Good, okay.
So you'd like somebody who's not out there nation-building and pursuing what is referred to as the false song of globalism.
You'd like somebody who was more concerned with what is good for America and how to spend money or allow Americans to keep their own money rather than being out there being the world's policemen, which is a job that you can never win at and can never do a good job at.
It's impossible.
You can't.
Empires can't win.
They can't win.
Empires corrupt and destroy.
Whatever remaining liberties have managed to survive to empire are quickly eroded by the natural and inevitable process of empire and nation building and all intervention and all.
Now, I don't know if Trump would be considered an isolationist, which is just a pejorative term, used by people who want to use or have the capacity to use American military power overseas, which gives them a lot of power with regards to other countries, But he ain't going to be overthrowing foreign leaders, as far as I understand it.
And that seems not that bad an approach.
Well, do you want to move on to the next reason?
Sure.
Do you want me to read it again?
Yeah, go ahead.
Okay.
I can expect Hillary Clinton to maintain the status quo and follow in the footsteps of Obama.
In other words, I trust Hillary to be just as crooked as Obama, which is a pill I am willing to swallow because I have at least a vague sense of what she plans to do.
Given that she has worked with Obama for years.
I trust Obama just as I do Clinton to nominate Supreme Court justices who will be predictable and within the bounds of reason.
Trump has not demonstrated a forthwith agenda and has not earned my assurance that he will magically become a rational person and a competent leader.
Yeah, I'm not sure exactly what any of that means.
So, do you feel that Trump has not put forward positions that you understand, or just hasn't put forward positions at all?
I'd say he hasn't put forward positions, and he changes his mind on a lot of stuff.
He doesn't seem to...
It seems kind of hard to pin down what his actual ideology is, you know?
Okay, so in what area do you feel that Donald Trump has not put forward a position?
Has not put forward a position on an issue or has not been consistent?
An area, some area you say, but he hasn't put forward positions or whatever.
So in what area do you feel that Trump has not put forward a position?
Well, here's one.
When he was talking about putting a temporary ban on Muslim immigration, his usual stump speech would go along the lines of, let's put this ban in place until we can figure out, quote, what the hell is going on.
And he doesn't really finish that next part of the sentence, which, you know, it seems to be a red flag for me.
So you don't know why Donald Trump might want to put a pause on Muslim immigration?
Well, no, it's just, I understand why he wants to do that, but he's not offering, you know, what is step two, is what I'm trying to say.
But how would he know what step two is until he gets more information?
See, he's outside the presidency at the moment, which means he doesn't have security clearance, right?
So, what he's saying, and again, this is just my understanding of his position, which is not everything that I think, I'm just, you know, trying to understand his position.
His position is, look, the director of the FBI has told me that we cannot vet immigrants.
Because, you know, if they show up without paperwork...
Then they can't be vetted by definition, right?
And, you know, if you look at, you know, the San Bernardino shooters, well, they were vetted or whatever, right?
And nobody seemed to know what the hell was going on.
So he's been told by the director of the FBI, and this is not just him personally, but the director of the FBI has said, we can't possibly vet immigrants from the Middle East.
Can't possibly vet them.
Now, ISIS has been saying that they wish to smuggle people from the Middle East into Western countries.
So on the one hand, you've got ISIS saying we really, really want to get radical jihadists into the West, and you have the director of the FBI saying there is no way to vet these people, right?
Yeah.
So, putting a pause until some vetting process could possibly be figured out.
And who knows what that vetting process is going to be, right?
Who knows?
I don't know.
I don't think Donald Trump...
I don't think anyone knows.
But yeah...
So, if you and I are hiking in the woods, right?
To give you an analogy.
If you and I are hiking in the woods, and we suddenly realize we're lost, what should we do?
Um...
Try and not get lost again?
I don't know.
Okay, I guess you've not spent a lot of time in the woods.
So you should stop walking.
Right?
Because if you're lost, it means you don't know if you're walking in the right direction or the wrong direction, right?
Yeah.
Okay.
So if you and I walk in the woods and we get lost, we should stop walking, right?
Right?
And try and figure out where we are, what's going on, maybe climb up a tree, look for landmarks, whatever it's going to be, right?
This is sort of pre-GPS or whatever it is, right?
Now, if you say to me, Steph, we're lost, and I say, well, we can't stop walking until we know exactly which way we're supposed to go, would that make any sense?
It would be a valid criticism.
No, it wouldn't.
It wouldn't be valid to say, although we both know that we're lost, we have to keep walking until we figure out exactly where we're supposed to go.
We would stop walking and then try and figure out where it is we're supposed to go, right?
Yeah, I was actually agreeing with you.
Okay, sorry, I wasn't sure about that.
So, in the same way, if ISIS says they want to ship radical jihadists, terrorists, into the West, and In America, the FBI director says we can't possibly vet these people, then that's basically saying we're lost.
And Donald Trump's argument is saying, look, we cannot keep pulling people in, countries that have significant radical jihadist populations, we can't keep having them come to America until we can figure out some vetting process that makes sense.
Now, what is that vetting process and how does it make sense?
Who knows?
He's not president.
He doesn't have the security clearance.
He can't figure all that stuff out.
But, you know, when you're looking for a needle in the haystack, as the saying goes, the first thing you want to do is stop adding more hay to the stack, right?
Right.
So saying, well, he needs to know exactly how the vetting process is going to be fixed is not a valid criticism.
If that makes sense.
I understand where you're coming from, and for the most part, I agree.
It's just that it's kind of hard to articulate.
It's just something like this hasn't really been done before in recent decades.
Something like what?
Where we would ban...
No, it has been done this year.
President Barack Obama has banned every single immigrant from Venezuela.
Just this year.
I didn't know that.
No, I understand because the media, blah, blah, blah, right?
The president has the right to suspend immigration for whatever reason.
And it's happened before.
There have been a small amount of deportations in the 50s under Eisenhower.
In the not very sensitively named Operation Wetback, some people, some Hispanics were deported and the rest self-deported.
So this all happened before.
Yeah, I was saying, I said recent decades, but I didn't know about Venezuela.
But yeah, I know there's Operation Wetback.
I know that the Chinese were banned.
I know that I think Mexicans were temporarily banned.
But yeah, I'm aware of immigration policies like that.
Well, and of course, when America's at war, not a lot of German immigrants coming into America in the Second World War.
Or Japanese immigrants, or I'm sure Italian immigrants, or whatever, right?
So that's not too shocking to put it mildly, right?
Okay, but yeah, so tell me what you think about this.
Yeah.
So let's say that the ban is in place, but I think it's important to make a distinction between banning Muslims and banning, say for example, Germans, let's say.
Well, because Germany is a country.
Germany is a country and Islam is not a country.
Yeah, exactly.
That was my point.
It's that right now I think that the world is in a very sensitive position and that the media is so polluted with this concept that religion has nothing to do with terrorism.
And an alarming amount of people believe that narrative.
And mostly it's Muslims who also accept that narrative as well.
And so I feel like that when a system like this is put into place, With a group of people that are historically dangerous to the well-being of civilization, have a proven track record of causing a lot of problems and not responding to policies that other people would have responded differently to.
It's important to take into consideration that these people would react in a very violent reactionary way and I think that there are a lot of problems with that plan that are unforeseeable and dangerous.
Okay, so you're saying that it's dangerous to enact policies that might restrict the number of terrorists coming into America?
Yeah, I think there are a lot of unforeseeable problems with that and I think Okay, so hang on, hang on.
Unforeseeable problems is just – that's a nonsense phrase because you can say that about anything, right?
But so would you have – let's just say in the Second World War, would you have objected to a ban on immigrants from Germany?
Yeah.
You would have objected to that.
Oh, no.
Actually, it – I guess, I mean, okay, I agree with you.
Come on, this is just a yes-no thing.
Let's not drag this out.
Would you have objected to a ban on German immigrants during the Second World War into America?
Yes.
Well, no, I would not.
I would not.
You would not have.
What about Japanese immigrants, young military-aged Japanese immigrants into America during the Second World War?
Would you also have objected to that?
No.
Okay.
The reason being that, of course, there could have been a lot of people who wanted to flee Germany, who had no support for Nazism, who found Nazism to be horrifying.
There could have been a lot of Japanese people who had no love for the emperor and no joy at the war in the Pacific and so on.
But you wouldn't have been able to tell who might be coming over to cause damage to America and who might have been a legitimate refugee from a regime they disagreed with, right?
Right.
The people from Germany had no passports and no identification papers, and the people from Japan had no passports and no identification papers.
Would that not make it a stronger case that immigration from these countries during a time of war might be problematic?
Yeah, it would.
Okay.
So, for instance, I don't know if you knew about this recently.
In Germany, a young man attacked a bunch of passengers on a train with an axe.
Now, according to the Daily Mail, ISIS, this is the title, we'll put the link in, ISIS train axe attacker is a, quote, Pakistani who lied about being Afghan to get higher immigration status in Germany.
So, that's important.
He was thought to have entered Germany as an Afghan refugee, but police found he had a Pakistani document when searching his room, and he was registered in Germany as Riaz Khan Khan.
Ahmadzi, not Mohammed Rayad.
He found out recently a friend of his had been killed in airstrikes.
And so he took an axe to a bunch of passengers on a German train.
So, you're bombing countries and you're allowing undocumented young men of military age to come into your country unvetted.
Now, if you wouldn't have done that during the Second World War, I'm curious as to how the reasoning would be different in the present circumstances.
And again, this is without my particular opinions being front and center.
I'm just trying to examine your thoughts.
Well, I think it's more dangerous because I don't think that...
Because now there's a war between Western civilization and, let's say, radical Islamic civilization, whatever that means, in the sense that if a policy like this were to be put in place,
Japanese people and German people during the World Wars probably would not have reacted in the same way I'm sorry, I'm not following what you're saying.
I don't think that the groups of people would respond in the same way.
Are you saying that the Muslims would respond in a more aggressive way?
So, if your perception is that the Muslims are more aggressive, but your answer is to let more Muslims from radical countries or countries in with high populations of radical Muslims, I'm not sure I quite follow the logic.
Well, you have to balance...
They're really dangerous, so we should not block them from coming into the country.
You understand this makes no sense, right?
Well, I mean, you have to balance between saying...
You have to predict what the reaction is going to be.
And right now, a lot of terrorist groups, they're saying, yes, we want war with America, we want war with Europe, we want war with Western civilization.
And so, adding this on to the list, a ban on Muslim immigration, though I do agree with the sentiment, I think that having that in place would just invigorate their propaganda.
Right.
So in the same way that if Germany is currently at war with America, banning German immigration would just make the Germans upset, and therefore that shouldn't happen.
Yeah.
Okay.
I think I'm going to close off this conversation, but I really do appreciate the call.
Thank you so much.
It was very, very interesting and, I dare say, quite instructive.
And we're going to move on to the next caller.
Thanks.
All right, Steph, did you want to add something before we get to Ian's call?
Well, I just sort of wanted, since I was basically being a neutral, trying to understand the other person's perspective, I think that there are countless Muslims in the West who do not want jihadists coming into the West.
I mean, they chose to live in the West because they appreciate Western values, they like perhaps the separation of church and state, and they wish to live a more peaceful life than back where they came from.
And so I don't think this idea that You know, we have to let in, America has to let in potential jihadists because it's going to upset the Muslim population domestically.
I don't consider a very strong argument at all because I think that there are significant proportions of the Muslim population in the West that don't want jihadists coming into the country because they're already in the West.
So I just really wanted to make that point clear from my perspective and now I can move on to the next caller.
Alright, well up next is Ian.
He wrote in and said, I really enjoyed the show explaining the metaphor of Plato's cave, but I'm curious, how do you go about influencing change in the way other people see the world?
I also greatly identified with your most recent podcast involving video games being the black market of malachievement.
In fact, my girlfriend has also recently complained that I play video games too much.
Is there perhaps an underlying reason why I choose to do so?
That's from Ian.
Hello, Ian.
How are you doing tonight?
I'm great.
How are you doing, Stefan?
I am good.
Please be a great caller.
I'm ready.
I'm ready!
No pressure.
No pressure.
All right.
All right.
Influencing change in the way other people see the world.
Well, just engagingly present reason and evidence as enjoyably as possible.
And, you know, I don't know.
There's no magic to it.
Just try and be as engaging as possible, as open as possible, as passionate as possible, and have a happy life yourself.
You know, nobody buys the diet book from the fat guy, and nobody's going to take a lot of philosophical advice from somebody who's dour and miserable for the most part.
Love what you do.
Love the world.
Love the people in it.
Love truth.
Love wisdom.
And just spend your life trying to create sparks by attaching all of those things together in new and exciting ways.
So that's as far as that goes.
There's no magic.
It's just a grind.
It's a grind in terms of your effect, but it's fun in terms of the process.
Video games.
Now for those, I tell you, the black market of male success.
So in general, society has become...
In some ways and in some areas fairly strongly anti-male.
You know, males are inconvenient and smelly and noisy and fighty and rough and all that kind of stuff.
You know, snails and puppy dog tails and all that kind of stuff.
And so, given that there's a lot of hostility towards men in certain areas of society, men have sort of turned to video games for Success and validity and achievements and so on.
And what do you play these days?
I don't know if you play Xbox or anything like that, but I've been playing this game called The Division lately.
I've actually cut back a great deal from the amount that I usually play.
Is that a first-person shooter or is it strategy or what is that?
It's a third-person shooter.
Hang on, hang on.
How do you do that with a controller?
What do you mean?
Well, you know, I mean, maybe I'm just...
I've always been a mouse and keyboard guy.
Originally, way back in the day, it was just keyboard.
It was just keyboard.
But for me, I've always been a mouse and keyboard kind of guy.
And I like first-person shooters because they are kind of digital zen.
I'm not thinking about anything other than what's going on in the moment.
Exactly.
But I've always been a mouse and keyboard kind of guy, and my understanding is that mouse and keyboard beats controllers every single time they're put together because you can whip around much more quickly and all that kind of stuff.
So how do you do a shooter?
Well, it's still more accurate.
It's still more accurate.
Yeah.
I don't get how you can do it on a keyboard.
Now, don't get me wrong.
Flight simulators, space simulators, everything that's joystick-based, absolutely, you know, hook me up to a controller and I'm a happy guy.
The idea of playing Wing Commander with a mouse was like never particularly enjoyable to me.
Now, I will say also there's a fun game on Android that I played.
I play occasionally when I'm On the bike machine, because working out is super dull.
And so I'll occasionally play a game.
Actually, more than occasionally, I'll sometimes play a game or watch something, at least while I'm on the bike machine, because that's my sort of exercise regime of choice, bike machine and weights.
But there was one called Galaxy on Fire, which sort of introduced me to tilt controls for flying spaceships on tablets.
Galaxy on Fire 2, in particular, is very good.
And so that I thought was kind of cool.
That was kind of cool, like tilty stuff for flying stuff.
But keyboard and mouse for first-person shooters, that is my drug of choice.
Have you tried much stuff on the PC with keyboard and mouse?
I have, but on my laptop, I mainly just play strategy games.
I don't know if you've heard of Rome Total War.
You had me at laptop, you know, unless it's some juice-sucking alienware beast from hell.
You just know that as soon as someone says laptop, it's like, okay, Flash games and strategy games from 2008.
Hey, come on.
I'm planning on building my own rig eventually.
A laptop rig?
No, no, a tower.
Oh, okay.
A tower.
Sure.
Okay, now you're to a tower of power.
But, you know, they actually have these laptops now.
It's not just the Surface book where you can get the GPU put into the keyboard.
But they have these laptops now.
I was watching a review the other day because...
But I was watching this review.
They have laptops with an external...
Video card that you plug into a Type-C port or whatever it is, right?
And it's like, okay, so what's...
I had to buy a pretty meaty card for my video production, and basically we had to hammer it in through the case, and when you turn it on, the streetlight's dim.
So, okay, strategy games, you know, not that big a deal, but what was the last first-person shooter you played on a desktop?
Counter Strike Global Offensive.
That's first person?
Is it third person or first person?
Yeah.
No, it's first person.
All right, all right.
It's like one of the most popular.
Sorry, go ahead.
I'm a big fan of Doom 2016.
I did a review of it.
And I played it on a PC. Great, great stuff.
Because, you know, I have way too many neurons aligned for that particular stuff.
But then I tried it.
I tried it on a PS4 with a controller.
And I felt drunk.
Like, can't aim!
Getting dizzy!
Turning around too slowly!
I am in slow motion!
I have slow motion sickness!
Demons have already eviscerated me, and I'm still trying to find the button that changeth my weapon!
What's so different about it?
But you can play Oblivion with a controller.
I didn't find that too bad, although aiming with a bow was...
But it's just...
And I just, as far as I understand it too, like I haven't seen this validated, but when they put like controller fighters or players up against mouse and keyboard players, the controller players lose like every time.
But that's sort of what I understand.
I just, you know, maybe it's just a habit thing.
I just, I can whip that, you know, I can whip that mouse and be like 180 in a tenth of a second.
And even if I turn up the sensitivity.
And that's the problem.
If you turn up the sensitivity on the controller, you can turn around quickly, But aiming is like waiting for a pendulum to sort of stop its back and forth, right?
So that's the problem.
Whereas you can turn up the sensitivity and still just do tiny little movements on the mouse and get your aim in correctly.
Although I always end up, when it gets too bad, just hitting the BFG and pretending I'm a decent player.
But anyway.
So I just wanted to ask you about that.
So you played Division.
What else?
Are you still playing the Rome Total War stuff?
Yeah, I have been playing it a little bit.
It's actually like a franchise, so I've been playing Napoleon, Total War.
I don't know, I just, I really like strategy games because, I don't know, it just keeps me thinking, keeps me on my toes, and I think it really, it actually is, it helps with decision making in real life, I feel like.
Have you played any strategy games?
Yes.
Yes, I have.
In fact...
All right.
This is going back.
You're a young guy, right?
Yeah.
Young guy.
All right.
So, for Atari, 8-bit computers.
Wow.
1981, or for you, approximately the time that the Roman Empire fell.
So, this was...
Pretty, an amazing game that I played.
And it was called Eastern Front 1941, and it was a strategy game.
And the longer you played, the smarter the enemy, like the longer it took for you to enter Your move, the smarter, like every cycle, the smarter the enemy would get.
And it was very cool.
I also played something called Mule, M-U-L-E, which was a sort of build and harvest strategy kind of game.
But I was a big Ultima guy back in the day.
Ultima was a sort of...
What's that?
Oh, no.
And so Ultima was a Dungeons& Dragons style medieval game.
It was sort of a top-down, you know how everyone looks like they're lying on their side.
And you're looking down, you know, from the top.
And boy, was it ever innovative.
So you get into a dungeon battle and a motorcycle maze and way out, way back for the Ataris.
Anyway, but...
So you would get into a battle and it would just be a big blank.
But at one point, I think it was Ultima 3, you'd get into a battle and it would actually have the dungeon layout around you that was sort of correct and all that.
And it was just like a fighting and magic using kind of game with you'd be on the outside going through the woods and all that.
And then you would end up in dungeons and do all that kind of stuff.
And it was kind of fun.
Dungeon Master was for the Atari ST. It was one that I quite enjoyed as well.
But, you know, I was much more into the Dungeons& Dragons, like the sort of sit-around-the-tabletop kind of stuff, because that, to me, was much more imaginative.
Is that still around?
What?
Sorry, I said, is that still around?
Yes, it is.
Thank you very much.
Sorry, didn't mean to info.
Yeah, I haven't, no, it's fine.
I haven't played in, I don't know, let's see, I'm 49 now.
I probably last played when I was 15 or so.
Girls!
I wasn't implying that you still play it or anything.
Well, we'll get into that another time.
But anyway, so...
But yeah, I liked the D&D stuff just because it was more conversational, it was more social, and it was funnier.
Dungeons& Dragons games, this is what people don't understand.
It's basically LARPing at a comedy club with swords because it is a hilarious, hilarious game.
And people don't really kind of understand that.
Plus, you know, if you grow up poor, you spend 20 or 30 bucks on some dice and a couple of books, which you can even get secondhand, and you have hundreds or even thousands of hours of entertainment pretty much for free.
And of course, because it's conversational rather than within a computer, you can do anything that you can possibly think of.
Whereas, you know, with the computer, you're kind of limited to what the developers have anticipated and so on.
You can't do like really crazy stuff.
So, anyway, that's just my little quake out around the opening of this.
So the question is, I guess, you think you play them too much because of this black market male success theory that we were talking about recently?
Yeah, I don't know.
It kind of just made me feel kind of shitty.
Just because, like, I don't know.
It kind of just made me look at myself like, oh, shit, well...
Where else do I get my success from?
I mean, I work full-time.
I have a job.
But, I mean, I kind of did have a point when we sat down and had a conversation about it.
Yeah, I don't know.
Well, listen.
I occasionally think of all the things I could have done if I had never played video games.
And it's quite a lot.
It's quite a lot.
But here's the problem.
Video games are really, really fun.
Really, really enjoyable.
And very satisfying.
I don't know why it is we are wired to think porn is sex and video games are achievement.
We have this capacity to live in this abstract universe that has very little connection to the real world but feels very real.
And so video games are an enormous Amount of fun.
And they are very satisfying.
And of course, they're wired to give you the drip-drip of, you know, rat pellet rewards.
Just as Dungeons& Dragons is too, right?
Dungeons& Dragons, you level up, you get more power, you get more spells, and you fight against smarter enemies and all that, right?
So there is this kind of constant step up, which is, you know, why nobody plays the first level of Pac-Man for 20 years.
So, they are really, really enjoyable.
They're designed to be that way.
As you know, they're huge, huge, bigger than movies in terms of their revenues.
Oh, yeah.
Billions on billions.
Yeah, for a lot of people, they're very social, right?
I mean, especially these days, right?
Back in the day, I guess I played Dungeons and Dragons.
Sorry, let me re- I played Ultimate 3 with a friend of mine.
He'd come over and we'd sort of play together.
And if on my deathbed, I'm going to put this out there just so there's a mystery that could be- So on my deathbed, if I say pop the disc, this is what I'm talking about.
So this is back, we had a five and a quarter inch floppy that would go into the floppy disk, which would then go into my Atari 800.
This is one disk.
This was a huge step up.
Originally, it was just a tape deck, and you'd have to advance to a particular spot on the tape deck, and then it would load 1k a minute.
Can you imagine loading 1k a minute?
That's like the early days of HTML. Yeah, 1k a minute.
That's right.
And now the Doom download was like 43 gigs or something like that, which is like 12 lifetimes on the tape deck.
Yeah, right.
So what would happen is...
Sorry.
Let me finish the story about Pop the Disc.
So my friend and I, this is what would happen is when we were about to die, it would try and access the disc to write that our party, our characters, were going to die.
And so what would happen is if we were down to like no hit points and we got a bad hit, we would pop the disc.
In other words, we would push, we would crank the lever and pull out the disc.
So that the computer could not write onto the disk that we had died.
I cheated death!
So if I'm dying and I beg the doctor to pop the disk, pop the disk, now everybody will know what's going on.
However, let me tell you the great tragedy.
We had done every part of the game.
We could not finish the game.
The reason being that when you would sail around in the ocean, there'd be a little whirlpool.
And every time the whirlpool would hit your ship, we would pop the disk, pop the disk.
As it turns out, this is the irony of cheating, as it turns out, the whirlpool sucked your ship down to the final level of the game.
So popping the disc forced us to be absolutely unable to finish the game.
And I only found this out because this is back before the internet.
There was no internet back then.
So I just was begging people to have anyone, anyone you know who's finished this game, call me!
And all that.
So...
That is my Pop the Disc story.
If that happens, it will not be...
I'm not giving you anything cryptic.
I'm just remembering in my delirium of death, Ultima 3, when I was...
God, let me find out.
I think...
Let me look up when Ultima 3 came out.
Oh, the internet.
Shall I procure you an abacus, Steph, to assist with this?
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry, Mike.
Was that you or Satan?
Okay.
Let me find out.
1983!
You know what's sad?
Wow.
This is what's sad.
Ten years before I was born.
Shut up.
I'm just kidding.
I am not hugely nostalgic, but I will say every six months to a year, I will occasionally go onto YouTube and I will look up some ancient game that has popped into my mind for some bizarre reason.
And it was really, really, it is just really cool.
And I will say this, that many years ago, I actually found an emulator for the Atari 800 or 400 games.
That happened.
That you could actually get all the stuff to run on your computer.
I actually...
I actually heard about that.
Yeah, and I still have some old discs of a novel that I wrote on the Atari 800.
I think it...
Sorry, no, the Atari ST. So if you have one, please send it in so that I can see if that still works.
1980...
1983.
Wow, that is...
That is quite something.
So, yeah, I was not too old at that point when that happened.
Let me just see here.
Hey, I mean, someday I'm going to be your age.
Yeah, yeah.
So, anyway.
Do you think we could go back to my first...
The first thing I said...
No?
This is much more interesting.
No, I'm kidding.
I'm kidding.
No, I'm just...
Because it really pertains to my girlfriend in particular.
Yes.
Basically, whenever I try to talk to her about things that are going on in the world and...
Stuff like that.
She kind of just gets really put off by it and then just doesn't want to talk to me for a little bit.
So that's kind of why I asked the question because I want to figure out how to get around that in order to bring her more into my interest because I really enjoy following...
Sorry, what kind of stuff?
I'm sorry, what kind of stuff is going on in the world?
Sorry, geopolitics.
Just in general.
I follow geopolitics very closely.
Is it fair to say that you're not dating Ann Coulter?
No, I'm not.
You're not dating Ann Coulter.
I'm not really sure who Ann Coulter is, to be honest.
Well, that's a shame.
Look her up.
Anyway, so how long have you been going out with this fine young lady?
A little over three years now.
Right.
Were you happy with her when you first were dating her?
Of course, yeah.
Was she interested in geopolitics when you were first dating her?
No.
Not at all.
Right.
So you want her to be someone different than who you chose?
Well, okay.
When you put it like that, it sounds kind of stupid.
No, no, no.
It's not stupid.
It's not stupid.
You're trying to get what everybody wants, men and women, which is very, very hard to find.
So you want a man you can have sex with.
No.
Yes, you do.
I'm not sure he wants a man.
No, no, he does.
You want, no, listen, you want male brain, female vagina.
No.
And listen, women want the same thing.
Women want the same thing.
They want penis plus come shoe shopping with me and hear my gossip.
You know, this is all cliched.
You know, it's really funny because she tries to do that.
Of course she does.
Of course she does.
You want a man you can have sex with.
In other words, you want the general interest that a man would have, but with lipstick and blowjobs, right?
Yeah, I guess.
Okay.
Do you find it easier in general to talk about geopolitics with men or from women?
Definitely men, I would say.
Right.
Do you find it easy to have vaginal sex with men?
No.
It's not possible.
How many times have you tried?
This is nothing to do.
I'm just curious.
Just kidding.
Just kidding.
Okay.
So here's the thing.
Here's the thing.
Men and women are different.
And there's, again, tons of exceptions, but in general, men and women are different.
And we should remember that.
Women, as a whole, generally not interested in geopolitics.
Right.
Generally.
Right?
Generally.
So just stay away from it.
Well, if you want a woman who's interested in geopolitics, Then you should choose a woman who's interested in geopolitics, right?
But you should not choose a woman who's not interested in geopolitics and then make it as a condition of you being happy in the relationship to some degree that she's interested in geopolitics.
That's what your male friends are for.
Right.
It makes sense when you put it that way.
And this is not a criticism of your girlfriend.
It's not a criticism of you.
Men and women in general are different.
And again, I hate to have to keep just saying this.
Lots of women are interested in geopolitics and some men like to go shoe shopping.
But in general, in general, there's a cliche that was around when I was a kid and it's been around for many, many years, which is after dinner, the men go into the living room or the smoking room used to be to talk about politics.
And the women go somewhere else to do other stuff that I never could quite figure out because I always wanted to go with where the men were and talk about big things in the world.
Cool.
How many...
Let's take a sort of extreme example.
So how many hot sorority girls do you think get together on a Saturday night to play Dungeons& Dragons?
Probably zero percent.
Right.
In fact, I think it would be—however that would be negative, that would be a negative percentage of some kind, right?
No, and this is—when you sort of—when we figure this stuff out, it's not that hard to understand these kinds of motivations, right?
Yeah, right.
How many boys, when they have sleepovers, do each other's hair?
None.
Well, some maybe, but— It's not the most common.
How many straight boys, when they get together, do each other's hair?
None.
Right.
No, what they do, at least when I was a kid, is they stay up late watching kung fu movies, and then whoever falls asleep first has wicked tricks played upon them.
It's very close to what I experience.
Oh, yeah.
Men are brutal with each other, and they don't mean it, whereas women are kind to each other and generally don't mean it.
But anyway.
So, again, nothing negative.
It's just the way that the genders have generally developed.
And there's nothing wrong with it.
How many times did you, as a young man, get together with your friends and discuss your various body images?
Never.
Did you feel like this is one of the greatest memes in the history of the internet?
Is the He-Man Barbie comparison?
Have you ever heard this one?
No, I have not.
Okay.
Let me just get this up because I don't want to paraphrase something you cannot improve upon this kind of perfection.
Okay.
Did you ever have a He-Man?
I did not.
I had G.I. Joe's.
G.I. Joe.
Okay.
Now, G.I. Joe is fairly muscular, right?
Right.
Right.
So, there's a picture of Barbie on the left.
And it says underneath, and she's in this, you know, pink dress, and you've got the big bouffant toddlers in tiaras.
kind of hairdo and all that, right?
And it says, underneath it says, this is Barbie.
Throughout the years, she has been the center of much controversy because feminists claim she represents an unrealistic, unhealthy, and unfair standard of beauty, leading to a crisis for young girls and their self-esteem.
And to the right, it has He-Man, who is this giant, implausibly muscled barbarian with 0% body fat, with shoulders approximately 19 times wider than his waist, and with a Freddie Mercury-style bulge in the front,
wearing what could charitably describe as giant watch bands as, quote, armor, and with a sword longer than three-quarters of his body, held comfortably in one hand and a battle axe strung behind him, Chiseled Arnold Schwarzenegger style, perfect jawline, and the kind of hair that makes Jewish people nervous.
And so, this is Barbie.
On the left, this is Barbie.
On the right, it says, this is He-Man.
Now, when you played with G.I. Joe, did you feel that this somehow made you insecure about your own body image?
No, not really.
When you say not really, did you mean only some what?
I guess you could say that I kind of tried to model myself off of that in a way.
But I think any guy, any boy, like...
Like you wanted to be tough, but did it mean that you wanted to do endless sit-ups and bench presses and all that to look like him?
Yeah, I guess a little bit.
It probably had a little bit of influence, probably mostly subconsciously.
And did you actually do that stuff?
Well, yeah, I played sports all my life.
No, no, but did you, like, say, I gotta go and do workouts to look like G.I. Joe or He-Man or whatever?
I mean, I didn't, like, ever consciously think that.
Right.
Right.
Now, and I'm not saying that's a bad thing.
I'm not saying that's a bad thing at all.
You know, I mean, whatever encourages people to be healthier, to be fitter, to not be fat, I consider to be a fine thing.
I was a very active kid.
For a while, I think from about the ages of maybe 11 to 13, for a variety of reasons I won't get into here, I became unfit.
I became unfit.
And it was not good.
I remember being, we used to do these jogging or running tours around, you know, 16 blocks around the school or whatever.
And I remember just like walk, run, walk, run.
I couldn't write.
And partly as a result of the film Rocky, where, you know, Sylvester Stallone is very buff, and I think there was this old show, I don't think it's still running in Canada, called Participation.
And partly as a result, I started actually just running around the little apartment.
I could actually run around the living room, and there was sort of this corridor where the, like a little tube where the kitchen was like a tiny little bowling alley, and I'd sort of run around.
And I started to run, and then I joined the swim team, and then I joined the water polo team, and then I joined the cross-country running team, and then I started getting into tennis, and all these kinds of things.
And skiing in the winter and all that.
And I got really fit.
And I could then just like run and I'd be in the top three of the people running around the school.
And I'd do fairly well in cross-country races and all of that.
And ever since then, with a few exceptions for when I've got an injury, I have maintained the workout routine.
Obviously not quite as much as when I was on all these different teams.
But I have still managed to, in general, work out.
You know, sort of three to five hours a week, which is, you know, outside of just sort of walking.
And I stand for doing this show, and I try to sort of stay healthy.
And, you know, there's that general process which you're young enough to not have to worry about, but there's this general process which you have to just eliminate things as you get older, right?
I mean, I barely eat chocolate.
I try to cut back on sugar.
Just because your body slows down as you age, so you have to cut back on stuff.
Plus, you know, you worry about your teeth and all that kind of crap.
So, you know, but I'm just sort of pointing out that women...
Look at Barbie and they see that this is who they should try to become because that is considered to be the standard of beauty.
Now for beauty, for women, beauty is currency.
Because the more attractive a woman is, the richer a man she can attract, right?
That's the basic currency, right?
As I mentioned before on the show, I was in some makeup store in a mall once and over the makeup it had tools of the trade, was the big The title, Tools of the Trade.
And women all know this, which is that the slimmer you are, the more attractive you are, the more wealthy a man you can get, right?
I mean, nobody thought that George Clooney was going to end up with Melissa McCarthy, right?
He's got this Moroccan giraffe or whatever she is, right?
So that's the basic reality.
So for women...
You know, they say, well, why are American women getting so fat?
It's because the government has become their provider.
And so they don't need to stay thin in order to keep the man's sexual attention, right?
So this is the way that it works, right?
American women getting fat because they don't need to stay thin to keep the man.
So they can go become fat and they still get their government check.
Whereas if they, you know, pull the pin on the fat grenade after they get married to a man, he might go have an affair on their ass and just leave and, you know, without the family court system as it is currently constituted, the woman would have been in big trouble.
So, you know, if you ever want to keep your wife thin, just make a lot of money.
And that's one way to do it.
Duly noted.
Duly noted.
Yeah, so that's the basic reality of it.
And here's the thing, though, that when you get involved with a woman, it's going to limit you to some degree because...
How attractive would you say your girlfriend is, sort of 1 to 10 kind of thing?
I'd say she's an 8.5.
And you?
Uh...
I don't know.
Maybe like seven, seven and a half, eight, around there.
All right.
So I can tell you one of the reasons why your girlfriend is saying that you're playing too much on video games.
Do you know why she's saying that?
Maybe I'm getting fat?
No.
Well, are you getting fat?
No.
Okay.
So why the hell would you bring that up if it's not even the case?
It's not because you're getting fat.
Why is she interested in you playing less on video games?
I don't know.
Because she wants you to make more money.
I don't know.
Right?
Yeah, that makes sense.
So your career is not going in the trajectory that keeps her fundamental egg interest in you.
Because if you've been together for a while and you're in your early to mid-twenties, she, biologically, I'm not saying that this is her plan, but biologically, she wants to nest.
And now to nest, she needs you to be making some serious coin because if she's going to stay home, have kids, breastfeed, and commit to that kind of taking care of your kids, again, whether this is happening in your plans doesn't matter.
It's happening in her eggs either way.
So she wants you to go out and make some serious cheddar, right?
Yeah, I guess it seems so.
Right, and that's perfectly valid.
Now, her knowing how to talk geopolitics isn't going to make her any better of a mother or any more fertile of an egg development, right?
No, probably not.
Right.
Whereas for you, talking geopolitics is a good mental exercise in negotiation and analysis and argumentation and all that kind of stuff.
So, you know, it's good for you to be able to sharpen your resource-gathering claws on fairly innocuous interactions like geopolitics and stuff like that.
It's good practice.
It's like shadowboxing before you get into the ring.
So if you wish to keep the attention of your woman, you have to...
Again, lots of exceptions, but in general, if you want to keep the sexual attention of your woman, then you have to keep progressing in your career.
Now, if you're stalled in your career, whatever that may be, then at some point she's going to say, okay, how about getting that ball rolling again because you don't have enough resources for me to raise our kids.
Right.
No, that totally makes sense.
I feel like...
On average, though, for people my age, I'm doing pretty decent, I'd say.
But is the progress going on?
Yeah, there's definitely progress going on.
All right.
And are you going to be making enough money now or soon to have your girlfriend stay home with a couple of your kids?
No.
Okay, well that's probably why she's saying, if I can dislodge the video games, then I can open up the money fountain, right?
Right.
Between me and the gold, there stands the Xbox.
It makes sense when you put it that way, honestly.
And this is not manipulative on her part, right?
I mean, it's just, it's the way things go, right?
Right.
Yeah, no, that definitely makes sense.
I don't know.
And this has a lot to do, sorry, we're attracted to willpower, I think.
I mean, fundamentally, I think, I mean, there's certain markers of fertility.
That we're attracted to.
We know this, right?
There's the hip to waist ratio, the even features.
I've gone into all this stuff before.
So we're attracted to certain markers of fertility.
But what we want is discipline and willpower.
The reason we want discipline and willpower is because for a woman, having discipline and willpower means that she's going to resist the urge to have you raise some other guy's kid.
She's not going to go off and have some affair.
She's going to take her Vows very seriously.
She's going to have integrity.
She's going to be with you in sickness and in health, for better or for worse, until death do you part, because she's got willpower and discipline.
And that's what we look for.
So willpower and discipline...
Okay, good.
She's got a bunch of willpower and discipline.
Fantastic.
So that's a great catch.
So we need that willpower and discipline because, you know, everybody gets tempted, everybody has opportunities, and you want to grit your teeth to whatever degree it is, and you say, ah, this is the person that I'm with.
Not me, because, you know, I don't go out much, but a lot of people do.
So you want willpower and discipline from her, and one of the ways in which people signal willpower and discipline is not being fat.
Because to not be fat is not that hard.
Just don't stuff your face, right?
I mean, it's not that complicated to not be.
A few people have, I don't know, thyroid problems.
That's very rare.
But it's pretty easy to not be fat.
Just If I want to learn Japanese, I have to do a whole bunch of stuff.
If I want to not be fat, I have to not do a whole bunch of stuff.
It's like one of the few things where it's just like, just don't go to the fridge.
Do not put your face in a bag of ruffles like a horse in a feed bag.
Just don't do it.
Whatever you're doing, don't do it.
We look for willpower on the part of women, and one of the ways in which willpower manifests itself is not Being overweight.
Also, we look for intelligence in potential parents to our, like mothers and fathers to our children.
And one of the ways in which we measure intelligence is through not being fat, because it's fairly well associated.
It's not a perfect ratio, but it's fairly well associated that the less intelligent you are, the more likely you are to be fat.
And people say, well, it's associated with poverty and so on, which is, you know, eating healthily is cheaper than eating badly in general, right?
So it's not to do with poverty.
It's just that poverty and obesity tend to be associated with low intelligence.
And so we look for slender women because it shows willpower, it shows intelligence, and it shows an appreciation and self-respect for one's own physicality.
And also, overweight women are less fertile.
Their periods are irregular.
And overweight women produce less healthy babies in general.
And overweight women Can't be as good moms because they can't be racing around through the playgrounds and the play centers and all that kind of stuff that, I mean, I twist myself into 16 different kinds of pretzels in some McDonald's gym.
Plus, I then go down this electrical tube of death and these literally, like, examine your bone marrow shafts of lightning bolts arise from the static electricity and light up my entire frame to the point where I can check out whether I've got any fractures from my entire history.
Anyway, so you've got to be fit and healthy to raise kids because otherwise you just Right.
some friends into existence.
Anyway, so that's what we look for.
And women for men, they look for ambition, and they look for success, and they look for, you know, what is it Michelle Obama said about Barack Obama?
You know, he's Asler, he's writing his books, he's doing his this and that and the other, right?
I guess he's having other people write his books, as it seems to be the case with at least his first one.
But, you know, they're looking for that kind of ambition, that kind of get up and go, and women view all male activities that are for the pleasure of the male, but not for the resources of the family as their mortal enemies.
And it's not like they don't Like, I don't play much in terms of video games.
Like, I would say, maybe, maybe an hour or two a week, if I can.
And for many years, when my daughter was younger, I didn't really play at all because I was just too busy.
So maybe an hour or two a week.
So my wife's fine with that.
But if video game consumption, or TV consumption, or whatever it is, is getting in the way, Right.
Right.
Unless that's your job, like fatality or whatever, unless that's your job, then the more women are going to look at that as you are stealing from the family by having selfish fun for yourself that does not gather any resources for our offspring.
Right, right.
That totally makes sense.
And you know what's funny?
Her initial reaction to your videos where she was totally appalled, but if she could hear you right now, she'd be cheering you on.
Play it.
Play it for her.
Play it for her.
Listen, we are biological creatures and we're subject to the same biological imperatives as everything and everything else that's alive.
So, no, I think that I'm serving her interests as much as your future offspring.
You want to remain attractive to your partner.
And for men and women, there are some similarities, right?
We don't want to become fat.
We want to stay relatively muscly or at least toned or whatever it is, right?
And, you know, I like it.
I like it when my wife says that I haven't really changed at all in like 14 years we've known each other.
And I still actually up until recently, I'll tell you something, I kept a pair of pants around that I wore when I was 19.
They're just hanging on by a thread because they're really old.
Every couple of years, I'll put them on.
Make sure I'm still the same size because you can't tell through weight, right?
Because if I'm working out more, then I'm going to gain more muscle mass, which makes me way heavier on the scale, but doesn't have anything to do with fat accumulation.
And, you know, it's nice occasionally when people look at my old videos and say, wow, you've lost some weight since then.
It's like, well, yes, I have.
It's still nice to have a jawline on pushing 50.
You know, that's not always the most common thing in the world.
But of course, I keep telling people this was a cancer scar.
It was actually just liposuction.
Just kidding.
So it is important to stay attractive.
And the more you're playing video games, the less she's going to stay as attractive to you.
And that's really what you want.
It sounds like you really like the young lady.
And so work to stay attractive to her.
And that doesn't mean working 24-7.
Right.
Because, you know, they don't want you to work yourself into an early grave and not be around to help them raise the kids, right?
So it's fine to relax after you've worked.
Does that make any sense?
Yeah, healthy balance.
Yeah, it makes a lot of sense.
I'm really glad I decided to call into the show.
You have a lot of really awesome insight.
Not just what you said tonight, but also...
In previous videos, I've been incessantly watching your videos, like, this past year, and I just gotta say, like, you have a lot of valuable insight.
Well, thanks.
Thanks.
You know, I sort of feel I sort of feel this is stuff that should be passed down from man to man kind of thing.
And I'm at that age now where it can be helpful from that standpoint.
And this is stuff that used to be known and has sort of been obscured for a variety of reasons.
So I'm glad that it was helpful and I'm really glad that you called in.
Please feel free to call back any time and do drop us a note if your gal pal listens to this.
First of all, explain to her and you what the word gal pal means.
But if your girlfriend listens to this, just let us know what you think.
So I'm always kind of curious.
definitely.
I definitely will.
All right.
Thanks, man, for your call.
I really appreciate it.
And thanks, everyone, so much for calling in tonight.
Just...
An honor, a deep and abiding pleasure to have these kinds of conversations with you.
Thank you.
Thank you so much for your support at freedomainradio.com slash donate.
For your interest, for your passion, for your sharing, you can follow me on Twitter at Stefan Molyneux and FDRURL.com slash Amazon to use our affiliate link.
Just make it sure as part of one of your tabs of homepages.
