Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

July 30, 2016 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux

02:18:00

3368 ARE GHOSTS REAL? - Call In Show - July 27th, 2016

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hi everybody, it's Stefan Molyneux from Free Domain Radio.
	Hope you're doing very, very well.
	Please don't forget, as we begin our philosophical journey tonight, to drop by freedomainradio.com slash donate or fdrurl.com slash donate.
	Sign up for a subscription, 5, 10, 20, 50 a month.
	We really could use your help and appreciate your support.
	So tonight we had a fine gentleman who was a delegate at the Republican National Convention at the RNC. And he had a few things to say about his experience and his interactions with the media, which I always find quite fascinating and it was quite a shocking story in many ways.
	I hope you'll enjoy that.
	The second caller wanted to know about MGTOW, men going their own way, which is the phenomenon of men giving up on marrying women.
	Sometimes even of dating women and having children with women, at least non-surrogate ways.
	And what's driving it?
	What is it?
	And where might it be heading?
	So we had a good conversation about that.
	And then third woo-woo time.
	Ghosts.
	Not just an Ibsen play, but also an ectoplasmic epistemological question on the mind of the listener.
	Do I believe in ghosts?
	Do I think that there's any possibility that there's life after death with a good chew and fat about that?
	And then we had a caller who had great objections to some of my statements in my Untruth About Donald Trump presentation, and so he brought his big howitzers and best rhetorical guns to attempt to bring down my giant balloon of Trump truth, and we had a good old battle back and forth, which I really enjoyed, and I appreciated him calling in.
	So please, help out the show, fdrurl.com slash donate.
	You can.
	Of course, use our affiliate link, fdrurl.com slash Amazon.
	Follow me.
	On Twitter, at Stefan Molyneux.
	And please, enjoy the show.
	All right.
	Well, up first tonight, we have Paul.
	And Paul was a delegate at the RNC convention in Cleveland last week.
	And we got Paul on the show so he can give us a bit of an on-the-ground perspective and tell us what it was like to be there live in person in living color.
	Welcome to the show, Paul.
	Thank you.
	So, Paul, were you there for the duration, the whole thing?
	I was.
	Yes, I was.
	Did you get any sleep at all, or was it mostly theoretical?
	In honor of Donald Trump, because he doesn't drink, I didn't really drink after the convention and stuff, so I didn't have to worry about staying up late and doing stuff like that.
	So I got to hear every one of the speeches.
	That's what I was there for.
	So that was what it was all about.
	Well, apparently I was reading that I think Trump and there's a few other people I know of, like Bill Clinton and so on, they share this gene which allows them to survive well on very little sleep.
	And I find that quite impressive.
	So for those who went to the convention and didn't sleep much, well, that's the Trump experience too, I suppose.
	But yeah, good for you for not drinking.
	So what was it like to be there for you?
	Well, the best thing I think that I got out of it as far as, I think this is the future.
	I mean, I'm a total outsider.
	I've never been to a convention before.
	I didn't even know what a delegate was when I signed up to be a delegate, you know?
	And my story is not unique among all the Trump delegates.
	I heard this story a lot the same way.
	So hopefully that will be the future as more outsiders like us will be there and really appreciate the opportunity to be there, unlike the insiders that were there.
	You know, that probably have gone to every convention.
	And I think my best experience was I had a nice big argument with a guy who was on our bus who was saying, this convention stinks.
	I've been to many conventions in the past and they're always giving us all kinds of free stuff and I like free stuff and we're not getting any free stuff.
	I think you want to wait for the DNC one that's next week.
	Well, he said, he goes, well, I go, well, what do you mean?
	And he's like, oh, I'm a lobbyist.
	And I don't have a problem with lobbyists.
	I mean, I donate to Heritage Foundation and the NRA. So I'm like, I don't have a problem with that.
	I go, but I don't like any inside game stuff.
	You know, I want my government to make smart choices, not based on free stuff that The elected officials get during the conventions and stuff.
	And he started to go crazy.
	He was like, that's the problem with you Trump people supporters.
	You think you can change the system, but you can't.
	And so then he was kind of stuck.
	I think that's why he started lashing out because he realized, okay, on one hand, he's arguing that this is it.
	This is changing.
	And then on the other hand, he's arguing, why are you fighting this?
	You can't change it.
	So I think that's what frustrated him.
	Well, I have to tell you, and I'm happy to put this out as a fairly confident prediction to the planet as a whole, he may not be the very last lobbyist, if Trump is elected, to complain about the system changing.
	Good.
	Oh yeah, I'm with you there.
	That's excellent.
	Excellent.
	I said, I go, you know, if we can start getting better deals from our government, because he started to say, I'm a lobbyist, I get all kinds of free stuff from my family and all this stuff and blah, blah, blah.
	And I go, you know, if we get better deals from our government, your taxes can be lower and maybe you can go and buy things for your family instead of having to worry about getting free stuff, you know?
	I guess that's how a lobbyist lives with himself, Paul, is he says, it's free stuff, and I'm entitled to it.
	It's free!
	Who could object to me getting free stuff?
	And it's like, it's not free.
	That's sort of the fundamental approach of, I guess, the right or conservatives or free market people.
	You know, there's no such thing as a free lunch.
	It's not free stuff.
	Exactly.
	I didn't want to go into economics 101 with him, so I just...
	Kind of shut up and let him go off on his thing.
	It can be unwise to prick parasites in their squishy conscience place, especially in a public venue.
	So it's one thing for me, you know, that's my gig.
	But for other people, it's not quite as much fun.
	So how did you go about getting the delegate thing and how did that affect your experience of the conference?
	Well, my story was not unique.
	I saw Trump's speech initially, and then I saw him wearing that funny chalker hat, and I thought, I've got to get one of those.
	So I went to his website, and I clicked on – Getting the hat.
	And then it said, do you want to be a volunteer?
	And I was like, I've knocked on doors and stuff for candidates a little bit in the past.
	I was like, sure.
	And then it said, do you want to be a delegate?
	And I was like, what's a delegate?
	All right, I guess so.
	Sure.
	And then I heard that he had had people fill out paperwork and send it to him and tell them why they're interested in his campaign.
	And for me, I'm affected by H-1B visas.
	I'm a I'm an IT guy, and I had trouble finding a job for a while, and I ended up having to settle for half of my salary from the past.
	And I was like, what's going on?
	Why am I having trouble?
	So I joined Toastmasters, speaking presentation group, thinking, maybe my credentials seem okay.
	Maybe it's my presentation.
	But at the end of the day, as I ended up taking a job and as we started interviewing people, I started to realize what was going on.
	I was like, ah, I see what's going on.
	I didn't know my government was against me.
	And so over the course of the debates then, you find out that...
	How in the world does Trump know what's going on with the H-1B visa, a real estate guy from New York, you know?
	Ted Cruz voted for thousands and thousands of H-1B visas and said, well, I didn't know that they were abusing the system.
	It's like, well, you're a senator.
	Don't you listen to your constituents?
	Didn't they tell you, you know, there's problems with, you know, getting a job in IT? And so...
	It's a little...
	Sorry to interrupt, Paul, but it's a little precious to me when a staunch conservative...
	Seems or pretends to be shocked when he is made aware of government corruption.
	I mean, isn't that one of the whole points of being a conservative is recognizing that power corrupts and that you should assign many more choices to the free market than the halls of power?
	Yep.
	Yep.
	And just for those who want a background on this, there's a very good book by Michelle Malkin.
	M-A-L-K-A-N, and it's got a great title.
	It says, it's called Sold Out, How High-Tech Billionaires and Bipartisan Beltway Crap Weasels Are Screwing America's Best and Brightest Workers.
	And she's a good writer, and she's done a great book on Obama's corruption, corruptibility, and so on.
	And it's worth it just to figure out, you know, there's this whole myth that America's really short of high-tech workers and Therefore, you need these programs to bring in workers to do the jobs.
	Not that Americans won't do, but there aren't enough Americans to do them.
	Now, originally, this whole thing was like, you know, if you want to get some professor emeritus from Cambridge to come over and teach a class for you for a semester, well, then you can get this special, you know, he's very specialized, you can get this very special visa to allow him to work on a temporary basis and so on.
	And, you know, some crazy quantum physicist scientist guy who's the only guy who knows whatever the hell he's doing can come over and do X, Y, and Z. And then, of course, like all things, it just spreads to generally bringing in a bunch of people from India and from other places who drive down the wages.
	And, of course, employers love them because...
	They're not subject to the free market because they generally can't quit their jobs, and so they can't really negotiate for higher wages.
	And the reality is, of course, that these people have been pouring into America and taking jobs.
	And there's a famous example of something like this where the people who work, I think it was IT workers who worked at Disney, were forced to train their own replacements through this whole program.
	And it is truly horrifying and tragic in its outcome.
	And the reality is, of course, that there is tons of STEM graduates, right?
	Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.
	Tons of STEM graduates who can't find work.
	You yourself, Paul, right?
	I mean, you have, I guess, decades of experience in IT, and you get hollowed out of your career.
	You have to go back for half the wages, and you're lucky, I suppose, to feel that you can get that.
	And this all has to do with people pouring into Now, again, people are going to say, well, it's immigration and so on.
	No, it's not.
	It's not immigration.
	It is a very different kind of system that is pretty challenging.
	And, of course, a lot of the people who get the H-1B visas can also bring their families over.
	And that's not great either.
	So it is one of these deals between high-tech companies and the state to sell out the American workers.
	And as far as I understand it, Donald Trump has mentioned a few things with regards to this.
	Yeah, he's the only one who had the Disney guys up on stage with him.
	And I don't blame the companies.
	I mean, if I'm a company, I'll take any advantage.
	You have to to stay competitive.
	So I don't really blame the companies.
	I blame our government because they're the ones setting up these numbers.
	And the funny part is you might argue, well, all I care about is my wages.
	Okay, of course I do.
	But in talking to these guys who are in my office, there was one guy who was from India.
	And we were talking about the primaries and stuff, and so I asked him about elections in India, and he was like, well, India's all screwed up.
	And I was like, well, I mean, according to our Declaration of Independence, if your government is screwed up, it's your duty to fix it.
	And he's like, well, the problem there is that anybody who's got any kind of education immediately leaves the country.
	So if for no other reason, you're hurting other countries by allowing these things to happen.
	In addition, I mean, one third of Mexico or something is in the United States, I heard at one point.
	I mean, that can't be good for Mexico.
	Even people who are on the left who say they care about these people, they're actually destroying those countries and they should think twice.
	And I don't think that point is ever being made.
	Well, of course, if the Mexicans go back to Mexico, they're not available to vote for the Democrats.
	So I think everything else...
	So foreign guest workers, between a third and a half of all new IT hires.
	74% of those with a STEM degree are not employed in STEM occupations.
	Average wages in IT, severely depressed.
	And from 2015 to 2016, computer science wages are expected to decrease by 9%.
	9%!
	And I think it was November 2015, that was the 25th anniversary of the H-1B visa.
	And it is brutal.
	And it's one of these, you know, I've had some...
	I mean, I've had a lot of enormous luck in my life.
	And one of the things I was lucky about was getting out of the IT industry at particularly fortunate points or inflection, strategic inflection points, as Andy Grove would say.
	And you're right.
	I mean, the businesses, if the laws are available, any business which doesn't follow those laws is going to find itself unable to compete with those.
	Like anyone who says, no, we're not going to do H-1B visas, it's going to find itself pretty hard to compete with those who do.
	And, you know, when America is stuffed to the gills with 94 million people out of work, you know, what is the American population like?
	Like 316 million?
	94 million people are out of work and maybe, just maybe, flooding a cheap and indentured population.
	Serfs into the workforce is not going to help lure them back.
	But of course, this is, you know, the donors who donate to political parties get these great programs.
	The political parties get the votes.
	And there's no revolution because there's unemployment insurance to, I guess, dull the pain of exclusion from the workplace.
	And all it does is accelerate whatever massive transition is coming.
	But okay, enough about that.
	So I just wanted to give people a little bit of background on that.
	So did you see Ted Cruz?
	Didn't happen to meet him, did you?
	I did not.
	And actually, I'm kind of into karma a little bit.
	So the delegates, which is what I was, I was exactly on the floor of the convention.
	And then the alternate delegates, they have to sit up kind of in the slanty area going up, so not as good a spot.
	So one of the alternates had said to me, you know, you get to sit on the main floor.
	Is there any way we could switch our credentials and I could sit on the main floor for a little bit?
	And I was like, that's good karma.
	You know, I'll help Trump in that respect.
	So I was like, yeah, let's switch.
	Let's see who's on the speaker list.
	And I saw Ted Cruz's name and I said, I'm not the biggest fan of Ted Cruz.
	You know what?
	How about if I go up and I'll sit up in the alternate section during...
	And so I wasn't really on the main floor at that point.
	And I thought he was just kind of teasing us all.
	I told the guy next to me, I was like, boy, he's really teasing us, teasing us.
	And then, you know, as you saw, of course, no endorsement.
	Wow.
	Yep.
	You know, that's the kind of judgment you don't want very close to the center of the halls of power.
	You know, according to reports, Ted Cruz is like, oh, I'm going to give a speech.
	And earlier on, he'd promised to endorse whoever ended up being the nominee.
	And then, to borrow from Michelle Malkin's title, crap weaseled his way out of that particular finagle.
	And boy, that's, I mean, don't get me wrong.
	is nothing like compared to what happened in the DNC with the Bernie Sanders supporters and the Hillary Clinton nomination.
	But let's just say I found it rather a telling moment.
	Yeah, well, I think actually in the beginning when they first made them take that pledge, I think what they should have done is just said, you agree not to run third party because I think that's really what it was all about.
	They were afraid Trump was gonna run third party and screw up their, you know, Jeb Bush plan to get into office.
	So I think that's what they should have done.
	And then, you know, if you didn't want to support the candidate, that's fine, but at least that's all you would have agreed to.
	I think they kind of made a mistake by saying that you will support.
	I don't know.
	Well, That whole thing about are you going to support and, you know, with the implied or maybe even explicit don't run third party, I don't know.
	I mean, there are certain people whose expertise I would hesitate to go up against.
	In fact, there's quite a lot of people, particularly in fields, not in my own field, but in fields that are outside my own, you know, not going to duke it up with Mike Tyson in his prime like my ears.
	I'm not going to try and get into a singing contest with Freddie Mercury.
	Or a dancing contest with the young and slender Kevin Federline.
	But trying to out-negotiate Donald Trump...
	I mean, come on.
	Come on, people.
	You run a network.
	You're nice-looking people with silvery voices and lots of makeup.
	And the idea that, I'm going to outmaneuver Trump when it comes to negotiating.
	Are you really?
	I'd love to see that.
	And so, yeah, just the idea that they could sort of back him into a corner.
	He did the right thing.
	He said, no, I'm not going to commit to anything.
	Why on earth would I? I mean, that lowers my negotiating ability.
	Why would I even think of doing anything like that?
	I have to tell you that as I wanted to learn more and more about them...
	Picked up his book, Art of the Deal, and I read it, and it was right before we were going to go on a little vacation, and we were going to play Monopoly with my daughter, her boyfriend, and my son.
	And it was right after I read The Art of the Deal.
	And when we played Monopoly, I crushed them, and I think it was due to me having read that book, you know, that just followed his negotiation tactics, and it works.
	Yeah.
	Now, of course, once Trump was the long, long frontrunner, he did eventually sign the deal when it didn't matter.
	But, of course, you don't want to give up leverage before you have to.
	And I don't know.
	I just think it's kind of funny.
	But it was a good test, right?
	I mean, when Megyn Kelly started peppering Donald Trump with all these, you said, mean things about Rosie O'Donnell when you, right?
	It's all that kind of stuff, right?
	And to me, that was a good dry run and that was a good job interview.
	Question.
	You know, if you can't handle Megyn Kelly, I think that Putin might be a bit of a challenge.
	And yeah, I think it was great.
	You know, the fact that they, the media people, I don't know what she was up to, but if they were trying to take him down, all they did was prove that he's great under pressure.
	And I think that got more people.
	And haven't we all?
	Haven't we all just been dying for someone to push back against political correctness?
	Don't we all want to have a full-throated conversation about things without anyone fainting or screaming or launching into hysterical torrents of verbal abuse, but simply being able to have a conversation about facts without abuse?
	So, I don't know.
	Just the attacks reveal...
	A lot of positive qualities to the population as a whole of Donald Trump and that's why he's won so far.
	So what for you were the highlights of the convention?
	Well, like I say, learning about the lobbyists having trouble made me happy.
	Hopefully the insiders there felt like, what am I doing here with these low-life scum outsiders?
	Hopefully that will be a trend and outsiders will be there for the future.
	I mean, I tried not to speak to the press that much, but when I did...
	I found out that they completely misquoted me.
	I think they must have got my name, got part of what I said, and then mixed it up with what somebody else said, which I'm not surprised.
	That just reaffirms what I already knew about the press.
	So can you give me any more details on that?
	So you would talk to people and they just, what, blend it together with something else?
	Yeah, I had said we were at one of our morning meetings.
	We would have these morning meetings around 8.30 breakfast.
	We'd have speakers come in.
	We had Corey Lewandowski came in one time.
	That was really interesting.
	I assume through the window.
	Seems like a pretty dynamic guy.
	He gave a lot of interesting points about his experience on the campaign.
	But so at one point, one of our Illinois people had mentioned Mark Kirk, who's not a very popular senator, and he's a Republican trying to run.
	And so a couple of people groaned.
	And so I have been trying to work on all these people who are groaning, and I just kind of tell them, you know, hey, you might not agree with everything that he's voted for in the past, but give him a break.
	It's an election year.
	Illinois is a pretty blue state.
	Maybe he has to politically choose to go a little squishy.
	And the big thing to consider is, I mean, if you want Trump to win, and let's suppose he wins, and let's suppose the Republicans don't hold the House.
	Well, I think the Senate's involved in these Supreme Court picks.
	So soon, you know, if he doesn't have a majority in the Senate, then he's got to start to negotiate and maybe not get the greatest, the people on his list that everybody thought were great Supreme Court choices.
	So I was just trying to remind people of that, and I mentioned that to One of these press outlets and they somehow threw in oh I wanted the The nominations for the Supreme Court so that they can overthrow Roe vs.
	Wade because I think of abortion as the real Holocaust.
	I never said anything like that.
	I don't even know where they came up with that.
	They just added their own flavor to what you were saying and inserted things that you didn't even mention, right?
	Exactly.
	I'm trying to give them a benefit of the doubt by saying maybe somebody else did it and it was a clerical error and they mixed up two different stories.
	I'm not sure I can applaud your charitable sentiments as far as that goes.
	But of course, that's all out there to portray Trump supporters as anti-abortion because that's a huge issue, of course, on the left, right?
	I mean, the...
	As was pointed out in the 90s, the feminists were willing to forgive Bill Clinton using Monica Lewinsky as his own personal oiled Kleenex because he was going to defend Roe v.
	Wade and allow for abortion to continue its bloody path through American society.
	And so, of course, if they can get Trump supporters, they can just insert something like that, then it freaks out the people who are pro-choice.
	Not, of course, the fetus's choice, but the mother's choice.
	Funded by the taxpayers in general who also don't choose to fund it.
	But anyway, pro-choice they claim to be.
	And it's a dog whistle thing.
	Oh, go be scared.
	He's going to take away your right to kill your unborn child and might interfere with your hedonistic traipse through the penis jungle of the modern young set.
	So that's probably what was going on.
	But it is rather appalling that they just jam stuff in your mouth.
	Did they quote you by name or was it just like a trunk?
	Yeah, they quoted me by name.
	Wow, so they quoted you by name and in public ascribed to you beliefs and arguments that you never expressed to them.
	Correct.
	Wow.
	Record everything!
	You're talking to the media.
	You're right.
	We saw somebody recently who had written a book about their experiences and they said exactly what you just said.
	Only do things live because otherwise, you know, But, I mean, basically this just confirms what is the media is at, what, 6% approval?
	So, you know, this just confirms that.
	And now that you've dropped off that list, it might be down to 5.8.
	I think we're down to counting.
	Soon we'll be down to counting hairs.
	I think right now we're down to counting heads.
	But, well, I mean, a friend of this show, Peter Schiff, had this long interaction with people at The Daily Show.
	Where they asked him about minimum wage and so on.
	And he gave them, I think, a three or four hour interview.
	And then they just trimmed it down and sliced it up to make him look as callous and cold as possible.
	And he said, listen, just give me the source and I'll publish it so that people can get everything in context.
	Of course, they never did.
	And yeah, it's really, really quite shocking.
	Of course, the Daily Show at the time was very much against the minimum wage, even though the guy who marked up Peter Schiff was an intern who was paid out.
	Not a single penny, as far as I recall, the incident.
	So, wow, that is, so did you talk a lot to the media?
	Did other people have similar complaints that you heard of?
	I did not talk to the media much.
	I don't have any respect for a lot of that.
	I mean, it's funny, because I probably, years ago, I might have been more starstruck by, oh, look at this person.
	Now it's like, I don't watch any of that.
	I mean, I listen to you and other forms, and that's where I get my news.
	So I don't believe any of their stuff anyway.
	All I'm hearing, Paul, is that you're starstruck right now.
	No, I'm just kidding.
	Ha ha ha!
	So did anyone else, did you hear any other stories of media perfidy from anyone else at the convention?
	I did not.
	Right.
	And was there any other highlight, and I guess I asked that as a general question, and more specifically, were you in the room for Trump's final acceptance speech?
	I was.
	I had seen Trump before.
	I saw him in Springfield, Illinois.
	I attempted to see him in Chicago, and my sister and I had great seats for him, and then that rally got shut down, as you know.
	Um, so this is my second time I got to see him and I, and I enjoy, I didn't think the speech was long.
	I thought that some people had said, oh, his speech was long, but I, I was like, well, you know, he had to make room for, uh, he had, uh, victims who had been, uh, had, uh, people that were killed by, um, people in the country illegally.
	And, uh, I heard that all the cable shows, as soon as those people got on stage, they cut away to other stuff.
	You know, to their pundits and stuff like that.
	So none of those voices got to be heard.
	So now when Trump got his chance to speak, he had to probably add in, I'm guessing, you know, to his speech that he had to bring that up again because they weren't going to cut him off.
	But otherwise, nobody would know that those people even got to speak at the convention.
	Right, right.
	And what was the mood in the convention during that speech?
	It seemed like people were, I think I've heard approval ratings were high afterwards.
	To me, it was there, all the people who—even people I knew, there were a lot of insiders there who were big on other candidates.
	One guy had said, oh, I was a big— He's got more experience than anybody.
	The only reason he didn't make it through the primary as number one is because he got in a little bit late.
	Nothing to do with what he was proposing wasn't exactly what the American people really wanted.
	It was just that.
	But even those people, they seemed to really be getting what Trump was saying, and they seemed like they were eating it up and supportive of him.
	It seemed to me.
	Were there a lot of people and I know you said this is your first convention, but Paul, were there a lot of people there who were relatively new to political activism?
	Definitely, definitely more probably I would imagine than ever before.
	To me, it seemed like it was all just insiders who they they I don't even know what they're there for because.
	Because half the time, the one lady I asked her, do you want to switch with one of the delegates' alternates if there's somebody that you don't really need to see?
	And she's like, oh no, I'm here celebrity watching.
	It's like, what are you doing here?
	There's people who would die to be in this convention, you know, on this floor.
	And what are you dopes doing?
	You know, you're hobnobbing with each other and all this stuff.
	It's like, sit down and listen to the speakers.
	What are you even doing here, you know?
	But there were a lot of us, I think those were the ones who were all sitting down listening to the speakers.
	Those were all the ones like me who had never been there before and wanted to eat up every minute of it, you know?
	Right, right.
	And...
	Would you go to another one?
	You know, it's a long week.
	I heard they might cut it down to three days.
	It's long.
	But after I got home, I was like, wow, that was great.
	But more so, I would rather have other people have the experience.
	I mean, if I got to go again, that would be great.
	But I would rather spread that around and keep having more people get involved.
	Because I think that's the way it should be.
	It should be people who aren't insiders, you know, Involved.
	That's who we should have in the office, too.
	Right.
	I mean, and I say this just as someone who has...
	I don't know how to put it exactly.
	I was saying this today in an interview, but, you know, I've been pretty skeptical, to put it mildly, of political activism.
	And if I can sort of be drawn into having some interest...
	In the arena of politics, and I'm not even in the country and obviously can't vote for anyone there.
	You know, as I was saying to Bill Mitchell today, and we just did an interview, which was a great deal of fun, and I'd recommend checking that out at YouTube.com slash Free Domain Radio.
	If I can become interested in the political process after my deep and abiding skepticism with regards to the value of the political process, and I'm not even in the country, I gotta think that there are a lot of people in America, many, many more so than myself, who are waking up to an interest in or an involvement in politics that may not have been there before because now there seems to be at least the appearance of some some choice that wasn't around in the past.
	Yeah, I mean, if people believe they can actually make change happen, then they'll be inspired to do it.
	If they think it's just an insider's game, then they're not going to try.
	But, I mean, we've seen instances where outsiders like Dave Bratt...
	Overcoming Eric Cantor.
	Wow, if that can happen, I think that saved the world as far as amnesty.
	That's what stopped the Gang of Eight, was that one act, that one triumph.
	It was an amazing thing in Virginia.
	Well, I guess I'm not going to ask you who you're going to vote for, but I really do appreciate the conversation, and it's good to get that sort of eyes-on-the-ground view from inside the convention.
	And, yeah, I mean, takeaways are multiple, but, yeah, watch yourself with the media.
	They can be a little tricky when it comes to that.
	But thanks for the call, Paul.
	It was really appreciated, and let's move on to the next caller.
	Thank you.
	Alright, up next is Jeremiah.
	He wrote in and said, There's a rapidly growing group of men named Men Going Their Own Way, MGTOW, where monogamy is being heavily discouraged.
	It also seems that a certain amount of people within this group go by the motto of pump and dump and see women not to be trusted.
	My question is this, how will the total abandonment of monogamy have an effect on our society?
	That's from Jeremiah.
	Well, hello Jeremiah, how you doing?
	I'm doing fine, and you?
	I'm well, thanks.
	Are you going your own way?
	Pretty much, I think I'm still being heavily directed by how I was raised, and I'm pretty much raised in a very Christian culture.
	Right, right.
	What are the arguments from the men going their own way, which we will of course refer to by the An unwieldy acronym MGTOW. What are the arguments or perspectives from the MGTOW community that have been most compelling to you, Jeremiah?
	Well, I've discovered them via YouTube because there was like this big or a small YouTube channel that was rapidly growing.
	So it was in my...
	In my feed.
	And, you know, he had valid...
	He was talking about single motherhood and how, you know, women are being sort of cantorous, like, within our society.
	And then he had very, very valid arguments, like...
	Let's see if I can come up with what he said.
	Yeah, that they are, like, very full of themselves and they are dating, like, men that are...
	Also like pumping and dumping them, you know?
	And basically what he says as well is that, you know, women, you can only pump and dump them.
	You shouldn't trust them because they can cheat on you and they have like, you know, lately women have like, they do fake reports on sexual assault and they, in some cases, women have stealing sperm from men and, you know, stealing the houses and children of men when they are getting divorced, etc, etc.
	Yeah, I'm certainly no big expert on MGTOW, but I've listened to some of the arguments.
	I don't think that the pump and dump community is very big within MGTOW, because of course, if there is concerns about false report of sexual assault, then the pump and dump is not a very secure strategy, to put it mildly, because you will be...
	Dealing possibly with less stable elements of the female population who'd be willing to subject themselves to that kind of stuff.
	So, I don't know that that's a big part of MGTOW, but again, I'm no expert.
	Well, for the most part, I get this, like, my impressions through the comment sections.
	Because, you know, you can listen to one YouTuber, but you get a lot more information by scrolling through the comment section.
	And a lot of people were pretty toxic about women itself.
	But there are also people like, I found one video where one woman A French black girl was like exposing how women were treating men and that women had to change and that men were going to third world countries to get women and that women really should change and in the comment section you could see like a big contrast between people like some people immediately said oh she's wife material and I could marry her blah blah blah blah and he had some people that say oh she's
	a chameleon you can't trust her she's probably a feminist that's Faking and never marry and stuff like that.
	Well, of course, look, there's a lot of complicated stuff going on, not just in this community, but in a wide variety of communities which are concerned with male-female relations.
	But of course, I think the reality is that there's a lot of heartbreak and fear out there in the male community.
	And I say that without any Belief or perspective that it should be waved away or it's irrational or it's silly.
	There's a lot of grief and there's a lot of fear.
	And those two in combination can produce anger and withdrawal and resentment.
	So the fear, well we'll get to the fear later, the grief is that of course, as was aptly described in the terrifyingly nihilistic and often accurate movie Fight Club, We are the first generation of men raised by women.
	And the absence of fathers, the absence of paternal influences is devastating to a lot of men.
	And I think we can understand that and sympathize with that.
	But there has been a fairly conscious process of social engineering that has gone on since the founding of the welfare state which has been to separate fathers from their families.
	And part of this, of course, is the welfare state.
	In the welfare state, the woman can receive significant benefits only if there's no man in the house.
	And that's more true in America.
	I haven't studied it elsewhere.
	And this is, of course, one of the great disasters for the black community.
	And when boys grow up without men, and as I've talked about before, it's not just at home.
	It is in school as well, because men have been driven out from early childhood education with Vague and ridiculous accusations of, well, any man who wants to work with kids must be a pedophile.
	You know, just horrendous.
	Yeah, try that with any other race or any other ethnicity or whatever, right?
	And we've got a whole video on this called The Truth About Single Moms, which we can link to below, but you can have a search on the channel at, of course, youtube.com slash freedomainradio.
	But there's a lot of grief.
	There's a lot of grief, and it is really only because of This absence of fatherhood that men are so sad and lost in a lot of ways and fearful.
	And the reason, of course, why this is allowed to continue without sympathy is because it's males.
	So male feelings don't count.
	Male emotional disposability doesn't count.
	The whole point, of course, is to infect women with dependence on the state so that those on the left can reliably mine the single mom farms for reliable votes for the increase of state power and state transfers of wealth.
	So you destroy marriage, you make women dependent on the state, the state can grow, and you also neuter a lot of men.
	Women tend to be a little bit more on the conformist side and men tend to be a little bit more on the rebellious side, which is, you know, perfectly fine.
	It's a yin and a yang and it's a good balance to have in society.
	But it's swung way too much to the conformist side, which has a lot to do with political correctness and an inability to handle differing viewpoints and criticisms and all the stuff that we see flowering in campuses across the West these days.
	So there's a lot of grief.
	There's a lot of grief.
	And there's a lot of fear.
	There's a lot of fear.
	And the fear, of course, is that no man wants to turn into the smoky, emasculated, living in a Lada shadow that his father was.
	I mean, if you have seen your father be ejected from the family, raked over the coals in family court, stripped of resources, relegated to a distant provider, You see his sexual market value be destroyed through the process of divorce.
	And if the divorce is initiated by the woman, if the woman made bad choices, if the woman is not being healthy or helpful in the divorce process, then there's a great separation between the fathers and the sons because the sons are looking to the fathers and saying, what happened?
	Dad, what happened to our family?
	What went so wrong?
	How did things get so bad?
	And the father, for fear, I think, of the family courts, cannot speak the truth.
	Cannot say, your mom did this, your mom dragged me to court, your mom accused me of this, your mom did that.
	Because he's been silenced.
	Out of fear that if his son goes back and says, even in the heat of anger or in the fight with his mom, well, dad says that you did X, Y, or Z in the divorce, that he's going to get dragged back to court, that he's whatever, right?
	And so this separation of intimacy, of the transfer of masculine knowledge from father to son...
	Is catastrophic.
	It has made boys grow up into kind of like drones, kind of like worker bees.
	They don't have much independent spirit and strength of their own.
	They are distant from Their fathers have had to be distant with them and not tell the basic truth about what has gone on.
	There is a terrifying song by Paul Simon, Slip Sliding Away.
	And one of the lines goes, there was a father who had a son.
	He longed to tell him all the reasons for the things he'd done.
	He came a long way just to explain.
	He kissed his boy as he lay sleeping, then turned around and headed home again.
	And this great sealing up of paternal knowledge, of masculine knowledge, through courts, through fear, through distance, through ejection, through helplessness,
	through paralysis, this great sealing up An entombment of masculine knowledge has robbed the West of its safety and of its security, I believe.
	We see things that are going on in Europe.
	We see things that are going on in North America.
	What we see is a fundamental inability to understand danger and protect one's own culture and society.
	I believe this has come because there has been a process of removing, excluding, extracting, avoiding, casting into deep orbit masculine knowledge of the world of danger, of evil, and masculine knowledge of women.
	And not just the negative aspects, lots of positive aspects, lots of negative aspects to women as a whole.
	Women, like all, like post-genders and all the others, fall on a bell curve of good and evil.
	And we wish to provide as many resources to the good women and withdraw as many resources from the evil women because we wish to subsidize that which is good and tax that which is the opposite of good.
	And so there is a great sorrow, a great sadness in having been raised without a father.
	And having to fake respect is very difficult, very difficult for the kids of single moms.
	Because for a kid to be raised in a single mom household, that is not what children want.
	That is not what children would prefer.
	That is very bad for children, as we've talked about on this show many, many times.
	Yeah, it's definitely not something they need.
	No, it's the opposite of what they need.
	They want stability.
	They want to see two functioning adults.
	They want all of the additional resources of money and time and energy and wisdom.
	Yeah, and that's what I think will happen if we will throw monogamy out the windows, that we will have an enormous increase of single motherhoods and just...
	What we see today already happening will significantly increase if we put away monogamy.
	It's what I think will happen.
	Right.
	And then they fear the state and its relationships, its relationship to marriage.
	Marriage has been turned into just another government program, right?
	I mean, the marriage license is the state's which was originally introduced by the Democrats in order to avoid Cross-racial marriages or prevent them.
	And now with the divorce courts and so on, you want to watch the movie Divorce Corps, C-O-R-P. It's on Netflix.
	We've had the director on twice search for this show.
	What's the title?
	It's called Divorce Corp or Divorce Corps, C-O-R-P. Divorce, C-O-R-P. Okay, yeah.
	Right.
	And...
	Boys need men.
	Boys need fathers.
	There's a movie that was made, I don't know, 04 or something like that called Mean Girls.
	And it's a little tragic to watch just because if you've seen pictures of Lindsay Lohan lately, well, this is the before shots.
	And she's a very charming and engaging actress in the movie, very fresh faced.
	And there's a black male teacher who, for various reasons, this is not a spoiler, see, they end up talking to the kids in the class and saying, well, what are your issues?
	What are your problems?
	And one of the teenage girls says something about tampons and the quote is, I can't help it if I have a heavy flow and a wide set vagina.
	And the male teacher just kind of stares at her and says, no, I can't.
	I can't handle that.
	I can't do that, right?
	She needs a woman to talk to about her heavy flow and wide-set vagina, whatever that is.
	I don't know.
	Is that where you put books on a show?
	I have no idea.
	So, boys need men.
	There's another great movie with Steve Martin from many years ago called Parenthood.
	And the hunger of one of the boys for his father is palpable.
	It's like Jupiter's gravity well, the hunger for the father, the hunger for connection with the male.
	That is palpable.
	It's like a force of nature coming across the screen.
	And what happens when we grow up in a world without fathers?
	Well, everyone said, of course, that if women were in charge, there wouldn't be any war.
	The world would be wonderful, everything would be great.
	Because the women are wonderful effect is...
	The women are wonderful effect is another force of nature in society.
	And we see...
	What happens when women are in charge?
	Look at the growth of the national debt from women's suffrage to now.
	Look at the growth in divorce.
	Look at the growth in single motherhood.
	Look at the decay of security.
	Look at the borderless countries that now exist and the results of all of that.
	Look at the sanding away of the edges of free speech because of offense.
	Upset.
	Look at the appallingly catastrophic decline in standards of higher education.
	Look at the wildly unsustainable path that Western civilizations are on.
	Look at the exclusion of men from the lives of children and particularly boys.
	Well, this is what happens when you get a matriarchy.
	And you can't have a matriarchy without the state.
	I mean, the matriarchy is the shadow cast by the state and it can't exist without the state.
	And the state's enforcers are generally men.
	This is how matriarchy is dependent on the involuntary patriarchy.
	Patriarchy to me was very positive and beneficial as long as it was voluntary, but the involuntary quote, patriarchy of the state is that which is so destructive to society as a whole.
	And so Men who are raised by single mothers are rarely told the truth about anything.
	Rarely told the truth about anything.
	Men are not allowed excuses in society as a whole, but women are.
	And it's biological.
	It's because eggs are rare and sperm is common.
	In other species, in bees.
	In bees, it's the women who do all the work.
	The female bees do all the work.
	The male bees just hang around and bang the queen.
	Okay, eventually their penises get torn off.
	But you know, until that happens, it's a pretty good afternoon.
	So in other species, it's different in the human species.
	Women are given excuses because women can refuse...
	Sperm or refuse to raise children.
	And so the white knighting and the excuse generation and the women are wonderful in fact, right?
	I mean, this is female vanity is fed by egg scarcity and little else.
	And so society as a whole doesn't like to hold women accountable because then women might withhold eggs from society as a whole.
	And by that I generally mean men.
	And so if you're raised by a single mom, you're raised by a woman who's made terrible mistakes and won't admit to them.
	What happened?
	No, and everybody is saying that, oh, being a single mother is great.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah, of course they get praised by it.
	That's partly because we like to make up excuses for women, which is the most sexist thing we can do.
	And because the leftists want women dependent on the state for votes, as I said.
	But what are you told that's truthful?
	About your family history?
	When you're raised by a single mom?
	What are you told that's honest?
	What are you told that has accountability?
	Oh, what do you hear?
	You hear, well, you know, your father was great until he wasn't.
	He fooled me.
	He was very charming.
	I thought he'd be a great dad.
	And then after this, after that, he just changed.
	He turned on me.
	There was nothing I could do.
	I had to protect you kids.
	He was great.
	He was wonderful.
	Until he wasn't!
	Then he was just bad.
	And you're not told any truth.
	You're not told any truths about your family history.
	And then maybe you go to your father and you say, Dad, what happened?
	Your father's like, ooh, any lawyers around?
	What's going to happen?
	What happens if I tell the truth?
	Is it worth it?
	I can't.
	It's too risky.
	I can't go back to court.
	I can't go back there.
	And he says, well, what does your mom say?
	Oh, she says you were good until you weren't.
	And the dad probably says, okay, well, let's go with that because maybe I can tell you the truth when you get older, but the truth is radioactive now.
	At the moment you set up children in an environment where The very air they breathe is toxified with falsehoods.
	They become allergic to honesty, to truth, to directness.
	And the avoidance of directness breeds political correctness and things you cannot say, people you cannot confront, lies you cannot challenge.
	And then society cut adrift from the natural empiricism Of males and marriage.
	Societies cut adrift from that natural empiricism and wander us into fantasy lands defined by language and defenses and excuses and avoidance.
	Cut loose, drifting, rudderless, into a storm of its own avoidance.
	And so, when The men going their own way say that women aren't to be trusted.
	My guess may not be, sure it's not true for all of them, but my guess would be that a lot of them were raised by women who did not tell the truth and whose falsehoods were supported by a frightened ex-husband, their father, if he was even in the picture.
	They basically got a bad impression of women, so to say.
	Yeah, and a media that supports the mother no matter what.
	No matter what.
	A whole media environment, the movies and television shows and so on that seems to be allergic to holding women accountable.
	Accountability is respect.
	When you hold someone accountable, it's because you have respect for that person.
	Who do we not hold accountable?
	Pets and children.
	And the weather.
	We probably get more mad at the weather than at women these days.
	Oh, I don't.
	So...
	I don't know if there's a total abandonment of monogamy.
	But...
	Women have enormous power due to the scarcity of their eggs.
	And societies as a whole have tried various strategies to counterbalance the power that women have.
	The power that women have is the power to effect gene death.
	Gene death.
	Yeah.
	If women refuse to mate with you, your genes die off.
	Which is why men who offended or upset women too much, well, those genes did not last into the modern age.
	Probably didn't even last into the ancient age, right?
	No.
	And so, women have this enormous power to say yes or no to sexual advances throughout history.
	And so, women as a whole can affect gene death, and gene death is worse than individual death.
	You know, if you've had eight kids and you die, your genes are still going on.
	Gene death is worse than individual death, at least after you've had children.
	And how do we counterbalance this awesome power that women have To affect gene death?
	Well, there have been a variety of solutions, which I'm, you know, not going to bore everyone with here.
	Everyone can look into the history of gender relations.
	But of course, when you put this power that women have to affect gene death, and you combine it with voting in the state, well, women vote more, they live longer than men.
	And therefore get to vote for longer and vote, as I said, more often.
	Then you combine women's natural reproductive powers with the near-bottomless authoritarianism and power of the modern state.
	You end up with a gynocracy.
	The modern...
	...aristocracy...
	...of crime bullying.
	And you end up...
	Well, no, it's the state.
	It's the state, fundamentally.
	It's the state, fundamentally.
	And...
	...what happens then is...
	...the state has to grow...
	Because the state must then provide what men formerly provided and that can't ever happen.
	You end up with crashing birth rates because men are afraid of getting married and having children.
	And you end up with a wild set of promises made to the elderly who increasingly as you age are composed of women.
	And there aren't enough children to pillage from to feed the insatiable gumless moors of the ancient crones.
	No, there's nobody left to make tax money.
	Well, then what happens is society can't wait for children to be born and grow into taxpayers, so they have to import taxpayers regardless of any considerations.
	As taxes go up, birth rates decline.
	And Men have had to sacrifice their own lives for society since there was such a thing as society.
	Women in general have only been asked to sacrifice the men in their lives.
	The men have had to sacrifice themselves.
	And I don't know.
	I don't know the degree to which women are really great at self-sacrifice as a whole.
	And I don't mean individually.
	I just mean collectively in terms of society as a whole.
	Yeah, sure.
	I mean, there's not a lot of protests, single moms against the national debt.
	I mean, they rely on the national debt.
	They rely on the national debt.
	And women, of course, biologically have evolved that they need resources every day to feed their children.
	They care about their children.
	They want their children to do well, and that's a wonderful thing.
	But men have had to think more long-term because men have to gather resources in order to get a quality wife.
	Men think a little bit more long-term and are more into managing long-term resources, and women...
	Need immediate things.
	And I'm not faulting women for that.
	I mean, it's natural.
	Your kid's got to eat.
	You can't wait for tax cuts to take effect and the economy to revive.
	Your kid's hungry today.
	So, the relations between the genders, and I've said this for years, is a big giant government program.
	And, like all government programs, achieves the opposite of its intended goal, just as all violence does.
	I'm going to stalk this woman until she loves me.
	And until the government runs out of money, there's not much point lecturing anyone.
	Because no one is going to stop while the system continues to have its current incentives.
	Who's going to stop?
	Who's going to change their course?
	You know, the Soviet Union fell.
	Communism fell.
	Because they ran out of their last stinking dusty dirty ruble.
	Same thing with Rome.
	People don't listen to reason.
	People consume resources until those resources are gone and then they freak out and panic and demand answers and solutions.
	Hopefully those of us who are reasonable and predicted all of this stuff We'll be asked for our input when it comes time to fix stuff.
	But I do mourn for the MGTOW movement.
	These are smart men.
	Very smart men from the few that I've listened to.
	And, you know, in that idiocracy thing, these smart men who are able to look deep down through the tunnel of time and see the risks and the dangers of what their immediate choices will or may bring to bear, right?
	When they say, well, half of marriages end in divorce, well, that's questionable and there's things about it.
	But, you know, half of marriages end in divorce and it's not like the remainder are all happy.
	If it ends in divorce, here's what happens to you.
	They're looking deep down the tunnel of time and saying, wow, the future risks are really bad.
	Those are exactly the kind of people we want to be having kids, but they're too smart, at least with the information that they have, to do it.
	They're taking all the smart genes out of the gene pool.
	So, I mourn because these people...
	They're not hedonists, in my experience.
	They want to have children.
	They want to be fathers.
	And some of them, of course, talk about surrogacy and other things that you can do.
	But how much essential life quality is being denied to people?
	Because the system is rigged against smart people having kids.
	What do they say to smart people?
	Ooh, you should really, really go and get educated.
	Go get your masters.
	Go get your PhD.
	Well, a little hard to raise a family on a TA's, quote, salary.
	And, um...
	Go, go, do your career.
	Oh, you're a smart woman.
	Go get educated.
	Go be a lawyer.
	Go do your career.
	Don't breathe.
	Oh, there's time later.
	You can get it done later.
	You can have your kids later.
	Tomorrow never comes.
	Fertility drops off.
	The eggs die.
	The heart breaks.
	Society collapses.
	Because there are genetics in intelligence.
	50 to 80% of IQ is genetic.
	And it tends to become more and more so over time.
	So, smart people don't breed.
	Smart people don't breed.
	Smart people don't breed.
	And this is why we have this decay in public discourse, is why we have this decay in art, why everything to a smart person in art seems predictable and banal.
	Smart people love variety.
	Dull people take comfort in repetition.
	And it is heartbreaking, and I think A lot of the MGTOWs understand this heartbreak.
	And it is really sad what is being lost.
	Four billion years of evolution to produce a mind as smart as somebody who plumbs the decks of male-female plus state relations, who is terrified of future Concerns future worries, future liabilities, future risks, who recognizes the power of the state and the instability of people caught up in bad incentives provided by the state, and all those people are like, nope, not being dead.
	Did you ever see the movie The Matrix?
	No.
	Yeah, I did.
	All right.
	There's a great speech from The Matrix.
	From Agent Smith.
	He says, I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here.
	It came to me when I tried to classify your species and I realized that you're not actually mammals.
	Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment, but you humans do not.
	You move to an area And you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed.
	And the only way you can survive is to spread to another area.
	There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern.
	Do you know what it is?
	A virus.
	Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet.
	You're a plague, and we are the cure.
	Yeah, I remember that.
	Now, it's a powerful speech, but what he's talking about is human beings, plus the state.
	Our selected people, plus the state.
	And, of course, the state breeds our selected people.
	Yes.
	And, of course...
	Every mammal on the planet develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment because they don't have fiat currency.
	They don't have national debts.
	They don't have a state.
	It is not human beings who metastasize.
	It is state power that metastasizes and it feeds the dull and starves the smart.
	People say eugenics is terrible.
	Well, Selective breeding is something we all engage in when we date and have sex and get married and have kids.
	Farmers have been doing it with plants and animals for thousands of years.
	But the state is worse than eugenics because the state is dysgenics.
	The state funds the worst and starves the best, hollows out the foundation, piles rocks on the top, And then act surprised when the whole damn thing comes down.
	Thank you very much for your call.
	I'm sorry that I was so rambly, but I hope that that helps out.
	Yeah, I like to listen a lot.
	I'm an overall pretty quiet guy.
	Well, thank you for your indulgence.
	I hope that was helpful.
	I'll move on to the next caller.
	Alright, well up next is Dick.
	He wrote in, and he has a bunch of questions, but the first one on the list is, You don't believe in God, but you do believe in an afterlife.
	If yes, why?
	What about ghost encounters?
	I personally take any story I hear of ghosts with a grain of salt, but at the same time I can't really discount them at all either.
	What is your opinion?
	That's from Dick.
	Hello, Dick.
	How are you doing tonight?
	I'm doing well.
	Have you ever had a ghost encounter?
	No, no, not me personally.
	All right.
	Well, first of all, I don't want to talk about my opinions because that would be an opinion show rather than a philosophy show.
	But I think there are some decent arguments to put forward.
	Do you know anyone personally who claims to have had a ghost encounter?
	Well, actually, my mom claims to have had several ghost encounters.
	Interesting.
	What's her story?
	So, the last one that I remember is when my grandfather died.
	She said that she woke up and, like, after he died, she woke up and she saw a figure, like, you know, like poking their head out of his room.
	And then, you know, at that point she realized that he had passed.
	And sure enough, like when she went in the room and yeah.
	So she was, your father, her father was dying?
	Yes, yes.
	He was dying of cancer.
	And she woke up and saw his spirit, is that right, over her?
	No, no, no, not over her, like popping out of the door where he was sleeping, the room.
	Oh, he was like walking through, his spirit was walking through the door?
	I believe the door was open.
	Okay, so his spirit was walking through the open door.
	Seems an odd thing to do.
	I mean, why walk when you can fly?
	But anyway, he's walking through the open door, and that was when he died.
	No, no, like, I guess he had...
	Yeah, yeah, that was when he died.
	Right.
	And your father?
	My father's alive.
	Oh, no, no, he hasn't had any ghost encounters that I know of.
	He hasn't talked about any of that.
	Yeah, I mean, personally, I've...
	Oh, no, I shouldn't say that.
	I know one guy when I was younger who said he saw a ghost, that he awoke and saw a Victorian woman floating over his...
	Yeah, the whole thing with ghost encounters is really strange to me.
	Because personally, I don't know what to think of it.
	I've never had a ghost encounter.
	I'm not sure what it all is.
	It could all just be some strange phenomena that we just can't explain yet.
	But I can't really discount all these accounts.
	Of ghost sightings.
	It's just too many people, like too wide a variety of events happening.
	Sorry, you can't discount people who claim that they've seen ghosts?
	Well, I just can't discount all of them.
	Why?
	I can discount some of them, but not all.
	No, but why?
	Like I said, it just seems like there are too many different kinds of people.
	You know, some of these encounters just seem like too consistent.
	You know, I've looked at stories of, you know, like certain hotels or buildings where, you know, people who don't know each other, who've never met, will have the same or similar experiences.
	Well, I mean, without necessarily picking on your mom, Dick, you know that people can be terrible liars, right?
	Oh yeah, no, I know.
	And you can, in certain circles, you can get quite a bit of attention by claiming to be abducted by aliens or to have seen a ghost.
	I mean, there's some people who be like, ooh, wow, you know, you get attention, you get positive reinforcement, if that makes sense.
	Yeah, I know.
	Yeah.
	Now, we also know that sleep and dreaming and waking are very complicated states that sometimes overlap.
	I don't know if you've ever had a lucid dream or a highly vivid dream.
	I had some years back ago, which I've mentioned on this show before, that were more vivid than my waking life.
	And I miss them.
	But that was a brief flurry of mental activity that I was on a business trip once.
	And I think I had two on that business trip.
	It was just astonishing.
	I was deep in the throes of therapy.
	That probably had something to do with it.
	But anyway, so for someone to dream that they're awake and then to transition into being awake without necessarily experiencing that transition doesn't seem to me at all improbable.
	In other words, if your mother were to dream that she saw a ghost walking through a door and then transition into waking, Without necessarily being aware of that transition, I could imagine that's possible.
	And that would, of course, give her a very vivid sense that she had seen something that wasn't there or couldn't be there, right?
	Yeah, that's completely possible.
	And, you know, when it comes to the old Occam's razor thing, what is the simplest explanation?
	Well, certainly when it comes to sleeping, And dreaming and waking, the simplest explanation, since we know that people are hallucinating like crazy every single night, the simplest explanation is to say, well, they're hallucinating and they are unaware of it for whatever mental trick reason, right?
	Like there's an explanation, I mean, I remember hearing about this when I was very young, this explanation for déjà vu, right?
	The sense that everything seems familiar, but But you don't know exactly what's going to happen next, right?
	I mean, if you've seen a movie before, oh, this is familiar, and I know what's going to happen next.
	So everything that arrives to you.
	So the theory was, and I don't know if it's been validated at all, but it was just a conceptual theory, that we have sensation, and then we have storage, and then we have recall in our mind, right?
	We see something, we set it in storage, and we can recall it later.
	Now, what if for some reason you go from sensation to recall and storage at the same time?
	Then you're seeing something, you're storing it, and you're recalling it at the same time, which is going to give you that sense of déjà vu, which explains why everything feels familiar, but you don't know what's going to happen next.
	So again, that's just a possibility.
	I don't know if any studies have been done on that, but I remember someone drawing to me that triangle and it's like, wow, that's pretty cool.
	So...
	The issue would be so many people are dying, like there's like 30 dead people for every live person, so the world would be chock full of ghosts were there to be such a thing as ghosts.
	And for ghosts to impress themselves upon our senses, they must exist somewhere and provide some sort of sense data feedback, right?
	In this case, with your mother, it would be sight.
	Now, with the dead outnumbering the living, And if the dead can impact us in some sense-data way, then they shouldn't be hard to find.
	Like, can you imagine dead people saying, I think I saw a live person.
	Well, there's 1 30th live people than dead people, so we're a lot rarer to dead people than they are to us, and yet we can't find them anywhere, right?
	No scientific reproducible study, no impact of, you know, The specter detector, as they used to call it, I think it's Scooby-Doo or something like that.
	There is or seems to be no way to record the presence of ghosts anywhere through any reproducible science.
	And so given how common they are and given how many people claim to see them, then the science should back them up.
	But science does not back them up.
	Sorry, go ahead.
	Have you ever seen, like, Ghost Hunter shows or anything?
	I will tell you, I have not.
	It's okay.
	Like, I'm not a particular fan of them, but my mom loves them.
	But they actually do bring scientific instruments into, you know, quote, haunted locations.
	No, no, no.
	I'm sorry.
	I'm sorry.
	I can't give you reality shows.
	If you can give me scientific reproducible experiments, okay.
	I can't give you reality shows.
	Sorry, dude.
	You can't hang your hat on that.
	Any scientist who could prove the existence of an afterlife or a spirit that lived in the body would go down in history as the single greatest scientist in history.
	As the single greatest scientific discovery and discoverer in human history.
	Like, bar none.
	Because that, of course, is a question.
	There's an ancient chieftain in the north of England who, when he first met the Christian priests, ancient chieftain, Said, well, for us, it's like we live in a house with two windows, and a bird flies in a window, it flies through the house, and it flies out the other window.
	We've never thought about what's on either side of the window.
	We just look at life like you are born, you come through a window, you die, you go out another window.
	Now you've made us think about the afterlife and so on.
	And the shows...
	Mike, did you want to chime in on this if you've got some...
	Background-y-nology?
	Well, as someone that has some knowledge of reality shows, there's many people that run these types of shows, whether it's Bigfoot or aliens or UFOs, whatever it's going to be, ghosts, that they'll flat-out admit that, yes, this is a show.
	We create funny noises and put people that are going to be prone to being spooked and cramped corners and try and scare the bejesus out of them and get a good...
	Camera shot with night action cameras, and it's a show.
	I'm sure there's those out there that are not making the pretense that it's a show, but there's quite a few that are.
	There is only one reality show, and it's called Free Domain Radio.
	Bring in the real reality for 10 years.
	Well, to argue your...
	You know, you're saying scientific discoveries.
	I don't think it's so much who gets vilified, the people who come up with discoveries, as the people who figure out how to use them.
	I'm sorry, say again?
	I don't think it's so much, you know, the people who get vilified for scientific discoveries.
	I don't think it's so much the people who make them as the people who figure out how to use them.
	Oh no, listen, if you were a scientist who conclusively proved that there was an essence to human life that survived death, I don't care what anyone did with it, you would just be astonishing, right?
	So again, if you've got, you know, it's not hard to find people in the world.
	They're everywhere, sometimes it seems like when I'm driving.
	And so if it's easy to find people, it should be even easier to find ghosts.
	Again, they outnumber us 30 to 1 or more.
	And so, they're not there.
	I mean, imagine what religions would do with that knowledge.
	I mean, it would be astonishing.
	It would be astonishing.
	And so, with regards to ghosts, I think that there are very strong emotional and moral reasons why people like to believe in ghosts.
	And I... Wept during the scene in the car in sixth sense like every other human being with a heart and mind.
	But there are very strong emotional reasons why people would want to believe in ghosts.
	You know, I mean, letting people go or believing they're going to meet again and so on.
	To me, it's a way of avoiding grief.
	To believe that it's just a temporary separation from your loved ones who have died.
	We will all meet again in the great close encounters light of the afterlife.
	So if you can, if somebody you love dies, or even somebody you don't have closure with dies, and trust me, when you get into middle age, it's on your mind from time to time.
	But when somebody that you love dies, or somebody you have a history with dies, and You can believe that you can have conversations with them again in the future.
	You can find out the facts.
	They're still there.
	They're still around.
	You're going to meet again.
	Well, I assume that it makes it easier that they're dead because they're just on vacation and waiting for you on the far shores of Elysium.
	So I think the avoidance of grief, now, I think that has a cost, right?
	There's a theory that says all mental dysfunction results from the avoidance of legitimate suffering.
	And so I do think that there's a drive to avoid grief.
	I also think that the sense of immortality that this represents, because of course if you see a ghost, you'll be a ghost.
	If somebody else died and walks through a doorway, then after you die, you get to walk through a doorway too.
	And I think it avoids...
	The panic of an underutilized life to think it's going to last forever.
	You know, if when we're dead, we're thrown in the ground, worms eat our eyeballs and, you know, we're not suffocating in a closed coffin, we just ain't getting back up again.
	And we have no more life into us then and no more voice and no more future and no more thought in us than a battery powered radio with the battery ripped out.
	We're dead, we're gone, we're done.
	We live on in the good deeds that we've done with others and for others.
	We live on in our children and the effect we've had on them.
	We live on, in this case, in the conversations we've had with people, especially, of course, if through this show and through the internet they're available for everyone else to consume at will until the end of time.
	So we do gain a kind of immortality through the degree to which we interact with the world and the effect we have on others, but If we accept that when we're dead, we're dead, that our consciousness is a seemingly magical effect of the interaction of matter and chemistry and energy and electricity and biological processes within the wetware of our brain and the gut, the second brain down in the solar plexus.
	If we accept that we are products, the consciousness is an effect of the brain, then when the brain activity stops, The consciousness stops.
	That asking consciousness to live on after the energy which produces it is gone is like expecting a light bulb to continue to burn after we smash it with a bat.
	Death smashes our brains with a bat biochemically and the idea that we can live on is to me foolish and because it's foolish it's dangerous.
	And I think it's dangerous for many reasons.
	It allows us to defer things because when you are gripped with the idea of immortality, it messes with your sense of priorities.
	It allows us to avoid things.
	You know, if you recognize that when, if you have issues with someone or you wish to resolve, or if there are things that you wish to say to somebody, and that somebody is still alive or getting old or whatever, If you don't say the things that you want to say to somebody,
	and then they die, is it easier in the moment to imagine you can say those things to that person at some point in the future, or is it easier in the moment to accept and recognize that you will never be able to have that conversation with that person?
	Ever.
	Ever.
	Not any place, not any time, not after you die, not if they come back and whisper in through a Ouija board into your brain.
	You will never ever be able to have those conversations with that person.
	Well, I would argue that if you accept that death is the end, then there's no time to waste.
	Then you pick up the phone right now, you have those conversations before that person has an aneurysm, or a meteor falls on their car, or they get out of their car in Detroit, I don't know, like whatever happens that could happen to them that's bad.
	I think there's a great danger to the sense of immortality, both for one's own choices and commitment to doing good things in the world in the here and now, having a positive effect on the world.
	If the only, like when I'm dead and I'm dead, then the only positive effect that I'm going to leave in the world, or the only effect that I'm going to have in the world, is the degree to which I committed to the good and interacted with others.
	So because when I believe that I'm dead, I'm dead.
	I'm not going to come back Jedi-like and whisper virtue into people's ears.
	Well, it's these shows.
	It's the work that I do in my private life.
	It's the work I do with my friends and family.
	It's the charities that I donate to.
	These are the things that are the positive effects of me having been here.
	And once I accept that when I'm dead, I'm dead, I don't imagine that I'm going to be able to do Obi-Wan Kenobi-style, shimmery, avoiding George Lucas's terrible script writing while Pulling in a huge fortune larger than all the rest of my movies and stage career combined kind of afterlife positive effects.
	Well, then I'm going to have to commit if I want to have an effect on the world and live after I'm dead.
	I'm going to have to commit to doing really great things in the world right now and having conversations with the people I want to have conversations with in the here and now.
	And so I can understand why people are drawn to the idea of an afterlife.
	But I think it is a very dangerous deferral of things that could be done in the here and now.
	And it's a huge gamble.
	You know, either the belief has very little effect on you, in which case, who cares?
	Or it has to have an effect on you, in which case, you really better get it right.
	Because if you get it wrong, I think that you have, not you, but people who get this wrong have really missed out on Really significant choices and options.
	Alright, so just to clarify, you just give no credence to reports of hauntings or anything of that sort?
	No, because that which defies reason in the senses is not necessarily automatically false.
	But It's certainly not in the category of true or valid.
	Okay.
	Well, I mean, you know, that was kind of what I meant by I don't know what to think of it because, you know, when I hear reports or, you know, when people talk about hauntings and everything, like, I'm not quite sure if it's actually, you know, dead people or just some strange phenomena that we just can't explain.
	I'm just not sure.
	Well, people can make up lots of stuff.
	You know, the fact that I wrote fiction, the fact that I do role plays, the fact that I wrote poems and so on, you can make up a lot of great stuff in this world.
	And people can be very convincing in what they say.
	And people sometimes lie consciously and people sometimes lie unconsciously.
	And they can be enormously convincing.
	And this is why, because people are not convincing, then we have to have reason and evidence.
	I mean, if everybody always told the truth, we wouldn't need really much science or much reason or much evidence.
	Right, right.
	So people are very convincing, and philosophy is the defense against the convincing falsehoods that people consciously or unconsciously transmit.
	We need all of this stuff.
	So the fact that people say it, the fact that, you know, doesn't mean much to me at all.
	Now, if people say...
	Like what I would respect is people who say, wow, you know, I have this impression or this thought about ghosts.
	And so what I want to do is I want to, you know, find a way to convince other people that doesn't rely upon my seriousness of demeanor when I describe my story, right?
	If I'm going to make as big and important a decision, As I'm going to believe in an afterlife and ghosts and eternal this, that and the other and people's spirits walking through.
	If I'm going to make a big decision, I better get it right.
	So I'm damn well going to work very hard to make sure that it's proven.
	And if it's not proven, I'm going to accept that it's false.
	But people who just have an experience and then immediately, obviously without knowing necessarily the word, epistemologically transfer it to the category of real, that's irresponsible.
	Because we all have experiences that are very vivid, and we need reason and evidence to separate subjective experience and falsehoods, even passionately believed falsehoods, you know, where the person could pass a lie detector maybe.
	But the capacity for the human mind to fool itself is enormous.
	And we are all tempted by We are all tempted by wish fulfillment.
	We are all tempted by confirmation bias, which is why we need reason and evidence.
	And if people are saying that there's an energy to us that survives our death, then I want to see empirical, reproducible, scientific evidence of that energy.
	Otherwise, what they're saying is, there's an energy that is our essence that cannot be detected in any reliable way.
	Well, anything that can't be detected in any reliable way is a synonym for non-existence.
	And it doesn't matter to me how convincing they are, you know?
	When, you know, I was once roped into, or trapped, I shouldn't say roped into, but I want, you know, like a lot of people, I ended up one time in a Buy a timeshare presentation.
	Don't even ask how.
	And they're very convincing.
	Very, very convincing.
	That it was the greatest thing ever.
	And, you know, you just have to patiently keep saying no until they get angry at you.
	It's just the way it is.
	I wrote this.
	This is not a new thought for me.
	31 years ago.
	Yeah, 31 years ago.
	I was 18.
	I was 18.
	I wrote, Afterlife, the counselor of not now, for this is passing, speaking softly here is silent in hindsight.
	Afterlife, the counselor of not now, for this is passing, speaking softly here is silent in hindsight.
	And that was my perspective then, and nothing that I have seen Since then, nothing I have seen proven since then, has changed that perspective for me.
	All right.
	I'll give you one last one.
	These are all poems that I wrote when I was young, which I quite liked.
	This poem is called, Come on Back!
	Bang!
	Life is a hole shot in water, gone in its passage.
	Its only note, a widening frown, a universal itch of outlaw atoms out on parole.
	The greatest gang can only rob once.
	Always loved that one.
	Like the idea, life is a hole shot in water.
	The bullet goes in and it seals afterwards.
	Gone in its passage.
	A widening frown, a universal itch of outlaw atoms out on parole.
	Our atoms get to live, get to move, get to think.
	They're out on parole from the dead jail cells of nothingness and passivity and reaction and unmovingness that most atoms get.
	Most atoms, all they get to do is react and burn and orbit and...
	Nothing.
	Outlaw atoms out on parole.
	Parole from nothingness.
	We are alive.
	The greatest gang can only rob once.
	The greatest gang is robbing the universe of its inactivity by coming to life.
	The greatest gang, the atoms that make us up.
	It's the greatest gang.
	Can only rob once.
	And then we are back to inanimate matter.
	Anyway, thanks a lot for your call.
	I appreciate it.
	I hope it was helpful.
	And let's move on to the next.
	Actually, that was a pretty good poem.
	Alright, go on.
	Alright, well up next is Derek.
	Derek wrote in and said, The media has obviously denigrated Donald Trump at every turn.
	I think the evidence is plentiful enough to forego explanation.
	However, I have also seen Stefan be unfairly kind to Donald Trump while denigrating those who criticize him.
	The catalyst for my email was the segment Stefan did where he criticized John Oliver's Drumpf segment, which was filled with red herrings, strawmen, and non sequiturs.
	I simply wish to discuss why neither side, even Stefan, can be objective.
	I know that question comes with a presupposed acceptance of Stefan's unfairness, so he will likely object to the very premise, but I feel that can be hashed out during the show.
	That's from Derek.
	Hey Derek, thank you so much for calling in.
	You know, I always appreciate if I've made a mistake being corrected, so thank you very much for calling in.
	Well, I wouldn't go so far as to outright say you've made a mistake.
	I think we'll discuss that as we go.
	A little disclosure.
	Sorry.
	If I have a confirmation bias or if I have a bias towards something, calling it a mistake is probably putting it a little nicely.
	Like if I've engaged in, you know, as you say, non sequiturs and all that kind of stuff, straw man arguments, I should know better.
	And if I don't, then I'm glad to be schooled on knowing better.
	Well, I don't think it was intentional either way.
	But there are a few things that I would just like to kind of hit before we get to the drum segment.
	So is that okay if we kind of discuss some previous statements you've made?
	It's your call, man.
	Whatever you like.
	Okay.
	So let's start with something kind of light.
	You...
	Talked about the claim that, or the accusation, that Trump mocked a disabled reporter.
	And I've seen you kind of discuss this on your show a couple times, and you kind of do jazz hands, or I've seen you do a kind of curling motion or whatnot.
	And I don't think those are really accurate characterizations of what Trump did.
	So I'm curious, did you see the footage in which people are accused of mocking this reporter?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	So, with that in mind, you do not believe it is a founded accusation to say that he was mocking this gentleman?
	It's certainly not a verifiable accusation to say that he was, without a doubt, mocking this reporter.
	Okay.
	I mean, because in order to do that, you know, in order to do that, I mean, a couple of conditions would have to be met.
	He would have to say, and the reporter looks like this, right?
	Then clearly he would be mocking the reporter.
	Well, to be fair, he did say, you got to see this guy right before he did it.
	So kind of gives a connotation that he knows what he's doing.
	Well, that's fuzzy, right?
	That's fuzzy.
	Because, of course, we would also have to know that for sure that Donald Trump was aware in the moment that the reporter had a disability, right?
	And that's what he was mocking.
	Okay.
	You know, I mean, if I said to someone, oh, they just, they get all spazzy, like, you know, and then it turns out that they have epilepsy, and I didn't know that, then clearly I'm not mocking them.
	I'm just making a funny face to indicate my disdain for their approach.
	And I would have to have known that for sure and been conscious of it in the moment.
	When I made that face.
	And, you know, I would like to have the same consideration and standard of proof applied towards me.
	Now, Trump says, you know, Trump said he'd never met the reporter.
	The reporter says they met like a decade ago.
	And of course, you know, what is it?
	Jack Nicholson says, I think it's in the outtakes from The Shining.
	He says, like, the normal person meets a thousand people in his lifetime.
	A famous person meets 10,000 people every year.
	And so there's no...
	I consider it absolutely impossible from a functional standpoint, absolutely impossible for...
	Trump to have remembered this guy from a decade ago enough to reproduce his movements at this point.
	And Trump, of course, has made these kinds of mocking gestures, imitating silly people or whatever in the past.
	And so the idea that he is consciously mocking somebody's disability, it's a long way from a closed case, let's put it that way.
	Okay, well, I don't want to get too bogged down, but I do want to say this at least.
	In the age of the internet, I don't...
	Well, I think it's absurd to assume that Trump remembered this character and, okay, now he's mocking him because of what he remembered a decade ago.
	But we live in the age of the internet where, you know, you can just search somebody's name and find them.
	So I find the idea that Trump just couldn't possibly...
	I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean.
	Do you mean that before he makes fun of anyone, he should try and find out if they have a disability?
	No, no.
	I'm simply saying that it's perfectly possible.
	I mean, you said you find it improbable that he remembered this reporter from a decade ago.
	But I said, yeah, that's probably true.
	He wouldn't remember it from a decade ago, but there are other ways he could have known about this reporter.
	But that's not necessarily the case.
	I get that.
	It just looks oddly suspect.
	No, come on, you can't.
	Look, you can't go right back to your original position if I'm putting a counterargument, right?
	I mean, it looks oddly suspect is not an argument.
	No, no.
	I mean, if Trump says he's never met the guy, and the guy says we met 10 years ago, then the idea that Trump remembers him, remembers that he was disabled, and Trump, who is a very smart guy, thought it would be a wonderful idea to mock his disability.
	Come on.
	I mean, if you were accused of something like that, wouldn't you want to be given the benefit of the doubt?
	Sure, sure.
	And I'm not saying that we shouldn't give Trump the benefit of the doubt.
	I'm just saying, can we at least admit that it does seem a little suspect?
	I mean, I'm not saying he did it.
	I'm not saying I have insight into his knowledge.
	It seems a little suspect is not an argument.
	Okay.
	And you could say that about anything.
	Well, yes.
	I mean, Clinton's emails seem a little suspect and stuff like that.
	But okay.
	Alright, fair enough.
	Wait, hang on.
	Are you comparing this incident to Hillary Clinton's email situation?
	No, I'm just saying there are situations that seem suspect as well.
	I don't want to get bogged down in this one, though.
	No, no, that situation doesn't seem suspect.
	Okay.
	Okay.
	It wasn't like Hillary Clinton met those emails 10 years ago and doesn't remember, right?
	Of course.
	But I'm not trying to compare those situations.
	Anyway.
	Let's move on to another claim.
	Trump said that there were thousands and thousands of people in New Jersey who were celebrating during 9-11.
	Now, can we both agree that is just flatly false?
	Yes.
	As far as thousands go?
	Yes.
	Thousands and thousands.
	To my knowledge, there were not thousands of people shown on TV or whatever it was celebrating 9-11.
	So I'm kind of curious.
	Well, but hang on.
	Because...
	The former New York Police Department Commissioner Bernard Carrick has actually vindicated Trump to some degree, noting that there were many post-9-11 celebrations by New York City area Muslims.
	Thousands?
	I don't know.
	Many?
	Yes.
	Actually, the reporter that you brought up in the first question was due to an article written by that gentleman who said that there were celebrations.
	And since then, if you search for Muslims celebrating on 9-11, you get lots of previous news reports.
	From interviewing Muslims that said they were celebrating on 9-11 in New York, New Jersey, and all that kind of thing.
	Well, nonetheless, that's not the same as proving there were thousands and thousands of them.
	I mean, if I said that there were thousands and thousands of cops that killed unarmed black people every year, that claim is just false.
	There are a few, shouldn't they?
	And the evidence shows that, but the claim that there are thousands and thousands...
	Wait, did he say thousands and thousands, or just thousands?
	Yes.
	No, he said thousands and thousands.
	Okay.
	Now, hang on, but do you know how many we're celebrating?
	No, but there are articles out there that say, modest celebrations, a number of people, etc., etc.
	Things that don't ever give the insight that would...
	Substantiate the claim of thousands and thousands.
	Now, can you, for certain, say that there were not thousands of celebrations?
	Trying to prove a negative?
	Oh, this never happened?
	Well, of course you can't prove that, but nonetheless, the evidence doesn't suppose that.
	If he said billions, that would be false, right?
	Because that would be physically impossible, right?
	Sure.
	If he said one, I think we would say okay.
	So the number is somewhere, and we'll never know what the exact number is.
	Is it conceivable that it's in the thousands?
	It's conceivable.
	It's not beyond the realm of human probability.
	I'm not saying it's inconceivable.
	I'm simply saying it's not substantiated by the evidence.
	That's what I'm saying.
	Right.
	Does that make sense?
	Yes?
	Um, anyway, you... you...
	Sure.
	And, I mean, you don't see thousands and thousands, but you certainly see hundreds over the span of the long video clips celebrating pretty prominently.
	Sure.
	And did Trump get those confused?
	As they're being talked about at the same time in news?
	Maybe.
	Or is it like Donald Trump said in The Art of the Deal, he believes in truthful hyperbole.
	And by talking about thousands and thousands of Muslims celebrating 9-11, he got the media to fact check and say, there weren't thousands that we can see openly celebrating?
	Oh, wait.
	There were some?
	Wait a minute.
	This is a conversation that started.
	So...
	Were there thousands of thousands on video celebrating in New Jersey?
	There's no evidence to support that.
	There may be thousands celebrating in New Jersey in the privacy of their own home.
	That we don't know.
	But there certainly were Muslims celebrating both in New Jersey, in New York City, and elsewhere after 9-11.
	And I chalk that up to the truthful hyperbole category for Trump, bringing attention to the fact.
	And if you want to...
	You know, put a ding in his column for that, saying there's not thousands and thousands.
	I'm not going to argue with you, but it certainly was effective in getting the point across that there was lots of people celebrating after 9-11.
	Well, I mean, it at least seems to be a bit of fear mongering to say, you know, thousands and thousands of people within our folds already are celebrating the deaths of Americans.
	And so to make that claim in an unsubstantiated way seems like the definition of fear-mongering, really.
	So I do take issue with claiming something that's patently unproven.
	All right.
	Anyway.
	Go on.
	So...
	You have a video out called, Donald Trump was right, Mexico is sending ellipsis.
	And a little snippet from your video description says, Donald Trump was right, Mexico is sending people to the United States illegally and providing its citizens with how-to pamphlets to aid them in the task.
	Can you recall this video, sir?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	So, I'm curious.
	I don't really see the connection with how this proves that Mexico is forcing people in the United States, and not just anyone, but specifically...
	Wait, wait, wait.
	Sorry.
	Forcing?
	I don't understand what you mean by forcing.
	Well, that's what Donald Trump is saying, and you said Donald Trump was right, so...
	Wait.
	How did Donald Trump say that Mexico is forcing people?
	It's just a quote that he said.
	Not to my knowledge.
	I think he said Mexico, when Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best, but I don't think he ever said that Mexico is frog-matching people at gunpoint or bayonet over the border.
	Well, I didn't talk about bayonets or anything like that, but he did say they were forcing.
	And I have a quote here from that.
	What can be simpler or more accurately stated, the Mexican government is forcing their most unwanted people in the United States.
	They are, in many cases, criminals, drug dealers, rapists, etc.
	Could you give us a...
	I'm sure you're right.
	I just want to see context and all.
	If you can give us a link to that in Skype, please.
	Let me see.
	I have it on my phone.
	It's from the Business Insider.
	The title of the article is...
	Well, I'll type it to you.
	How about that?
	I'm a little bit...
	A little ignorant of how to use Skype.
	Okay, so I guess it will go to both of you.
	I don't want to risk my computer slowing down and dropping the call.
	So if it's okay, I'll just send you the title.
	Sure.
	Is it Donald Trump just released an epic statement raging against Mexican immigrants and disease?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	And what's forcing?
	Let's see.
	Search for forcing.
	Yeah, just control F force.
	Or F-O-R-C. Let me see.
	Mr.
	Malno, do you need me to send you the title as well?
	No, I'm sure Mike will give me the link.
	Well, they have it in quotes that he said, your quote, what can be simpler or more accurately stated, the Mexican government is forcing the most unwanted people into the United States.
	They are in many cases criminals, drug dealers, rapists, etc.
	Yes.
	Let's see where this is actually from.
	I mean, I suppose they could be lying, but...
	I do like to get the actual source instead of what the media says when it comes to that.
	We just talked about that in the first round.
	Absolutely, I understand.
	It certainly would not surprise me if he said forcing at some point over his interview career on this statement.
	There's a PolitiFact article about it as well.
	Although...
	PolitiFact, as far as credibility, is about as low as you can get.
	Hillary Clinton, truthful!
	Well, they usually do give links, so that's all I'm saying.
	Yeah.
	OK, so do you want to debate the point forcing?
	I mean, is Mexico forcing, and do we have specific evidence that they're forcing?
	I haven't seen specific evidence that Mexico is forcing.
	There's certainly economic incentives at play to drive people from Mexico into the United States.
	Is that forcing?
	Well, unless there's a point of a gun to their back, probably not.
	But, um, the Mexico sending video that we put out had nothing to do about forcing.
	If you provide people with evidence and detailed guides on how to cross the border on rocky terrain and, you know, be careful.
	Drink salted water.
	Um...
	You know, and make it a how-to easy brochure about how to enter the United States illegally.
	Wink, wink, we just care about the health and safety of our citizens.
	It certainly goes in the category of sending.
	Well, I certainly think that Mexico is incentivizing people to come north.
	So I think that's a fair point.
	I completely agree with that.
	But Donald Trump has specifically...
	Inumerated points claiming that Mexico is forcing these people over, they're forcing rapists or forcing drug dealers, etc., etc.
	And if you have a video out that says Donald Trump was right, Mexico is sending, and that That same statement, Mexico is sending, was, excuse me...
	If we release a video saying he's right, saying Mexico is sending, and our video shows that Mexico is sending, I think that's completely in line with the available evidence.
	When we say that Donald Trump is right and quote, then we can only be responsible for the things we're quoting, right?
	Obviously, right?
	To some extent.
	No, no, no, not to some extent.
	Because we can't possibly research everything that Donald Trump has ever said and verify absolutely everything he's ever said, right?
	Well, I don't expect that, but I nonetheless expect you to at least, okay, so what are Donald Trump's statements about Mexico sending people over?
	And you take a look at that and say, okay, Donald Trump was correct about this.
	Well, when he clarifies his statement, it means that Mexico is forcing people.
	And you have a video out there that says he's right.
	Though the video doesn't actually prove he's right, I'm kind of taken aback by that.
	Yeah, I'm sure the video that says Donald Trump was right, that's referring to the specific text that we quoted in the specific video, does not prove that Donald Trump is right about every single thing that has come out of his mouth over the course of the last 43 public years.
	Yes, that's fine.
	I will not dispute that in any way, shape, or form.
	And if you have a problem with that, it's been noted.
	Okay, fair enough.
	So here's what he said.
	This is from Breitbart.
	He says, five different sources say Mexico is sending people to the U.S. Again, we're back to sending.
	So Republican presidential candidate, this is from 15th July 2015, five different sources told him that Mexico's government is sending people to the U.S. I don't want to read the whole thing here, but we can put the link in the notes below.
	He said how he knew the Mexican government is sending people to the US. He said, because I heard from five different sources.
	Now, he was asked what his five sources were.
	He said, I'll reveal my sources when you reveal your sources.
	He said, I have a lot of information on it, and so does everyone else.
	Oh, come on.
	You can't just...
	No, I'm just saying what he said.
	I'm not defending it.
	I was defending him, just telling him what he said.
	And for some reason, he said they don't want to put this information out in Mexico.
	And if you remember many years ago when Fidel Castro opened his prisons and sent the people over, and everyone knew it.
	We never sent them back.
	We took all of these prisoners.
	Mexico, in a far more sophisticated way, is doing something very similar.
	They're sending tremendously.
	You look at the man that killed Kate.
	You look at Jameel Jameel.
	You look at so many thousands of instances where illegals are coming in.
	And it's a crime wave.
	And frankly, Mexico doesn't care from the standpoint that they don't want to house these people for a long time in their prisons.
	They say, let the United States take care of them.
	Let the United States put them in their jails.
	Why should we pay for it?
	And believe me, it's happening, and it's happening big league, and this country doesn't know.
	Now, is there proof in that?
	No, he's simply asserting it.
	I don't know if he's spoken about it elsewhere.
	But if I were to put a guess on it, I would imagine that he would be saying something like this, that the Mexican government may be Saying to prisoners in their jails, you know, we'll release you but only if you go across the border.
	And I don't know.
	Again, I'm just putting that out as possible context.
	Whether it's true or not, time will tell.
	Maybe his sources were revealed elsewhere.
	Maybe he'll put the sources out during the summer or after he's elected.
	Or maybe the sources will never come out and we put it in the unverified pile, to put it mildly.
	But that's sort of where he's coming from.
	And one of the major sources for love this border stuff does seem to be the border control guards that he's dealing with.
	Okay, again, he can claim as many border patrol guards as well as X and Y. I don't like talking about things like that because, I mean, anybody can say anything.
	Sure.
	Okay, so we've clarified that, you know, you don't believe that Trump is forcing people over.
	Okay, that's fair.
	I don't think we ever insinuated Trump was forcing anybody over anywhere, but let's see what you mean.
	Again, I hope you understand why claiming he's right, Mexico ascending, and then, you know, he clarified these statements.
	I hope you understand why I can give the impression at bare minimum that you are saying that he is correct and they're forcing.
	I just wanted to clarify.
	No, I can't accept that.
	No, if we say, here's a statement Donald Trump made, And here's clarification on it.
	And if you bring up another statement that I've never heard of and that we didn't discuss, that has no bearing on our presentation.
	I'm glad that you brought it to light and it's good for the information to be out there, but it has no bearing on our presentation.
	Well, that's what I'm saying.
	I'm saying you're not claiming that.
	So, but I hope you understand why I brought it up is merely what I'm saying.
	Well, you want to bring up something that we didn't deal with that you find problematic and so you did.
	Good.
	All right.
	What's next?
	Okay.
	So, Let's talk about Trump's Muslim ban.
	He's going back and forth.
	He tends to flip-flop a lot, but that's okay.
	You discussed this ban.
	When it came out, the media went on to outrage, oh, he wants to ban every Muslim, including people who are in our armed forces.
	And you dispelled all those ingredients.
	Inconsistencies and all those lies, and I commend you for that.
	But you talked about this with Bill Whittle, who I have a love-hate relationship with personally.
	Oddly enough, I don't criticize people usually for not mentioning something, because I feel like that's just silly.
	You didn't mention it.
	But I find it odd that you never talked about the fact that his Muslim ban wouldn't work.
	Like, you never mentioned the fact—I mean, you brought up the typical points of, you know, Islam is inconsistent with Western philosophy, which I totally agree with, but you never brought up the fact that his plan doesn't make any sense at all.
	I mean, he came out on MSNBC and said, you know, the way it will work is we'll ask them if they're Muslim, and if they say yes, they don't get to come in.
	I mean, you just—giving terrorists the opportunity to lie and come into America is just silly.
	So I just kind of want to discuss that a little bit.
	Does that make sense?
	Well, I mean, not really.
	I mean, if it's something that I haven't talked about and haven't researched and, you know, what the details will be, I don't know.
	My understanding goes a little something like this, which is that the FBI director has said that they can't vet people coming from...
	People without documents, you know, coming from Syria or other places, and they can't vet them.
	They have no documents.
	All the documents can be faked or whatever.
	And so he's saying, as far as I understand it, that until some process of vetting could be figured out, then he is going to cast a wider net on people not allowed into the country.
	Now, how that...
	Works in practice?
	I have no idea.
	Obviously, I don't think it will be just, we'll ask them.
	And I don't know if he's put out any more details about it.
	He's actually clarified that somewhat recently.
	Oh, good.
	Okay, let's hear it.
	And it's specifically now that he will limit immigration from any place with large pockets of Muslim, radical Islam insurgents.
	And someone asked him, you know, well, let's say that's France.
	And he says, okay, they won't limit immigration from France.
	So...
	It's pretty much country-by-country basis, and I think this was actually the 60 Minutes interview he gave with Mike Pence.
	Well, yes, but see, that has nothing to do with whether you're Muslim or not.
	So I don't understand how that's...
	I mean, I don't understand half of Trump's points anyway, but I don't understand how you could say, we're going to ban Muslims.
	No, we're going to ban a nationality, and that includes Christians and Buddhists and Zoroastrians and Jainists and everyone else.
	So how is that a Muslim ban, really?
	It's not.
	Yeah.
	I don't know.
	And I think that's a very good question, and I look forward to more details coming out from the campaign about that.
	Okay.
	That's fair enough, I believe.
	So, I guess now let's hit something about torture real quick.
	I take some issue with some of the things you've said about Trump's statements concerning torture.
	You were confronted with this by another caller in one of your videos, and you came out and said, you know, Trump said that we're not going to force soldiers to commit crimes, which in any other context would probably be acceptable.
	Except for the fact that that's a game of semantics because Trump has come out and said that he wants to change the laws concerning torture.
	Yep.
	So I'm kind of confused.
	I mean, I guess you've never heard of that or you haven't researched that specific aspect.
	But nonetheless, I just kind of want to put that out there for your audience because he is advocating for war crimes.
	And, you know, we've had enough war criminals in the Oval Office.
	Sorry, I don't quite understand.
	So, if the law were to be changed, and trust me, my relationship to torture is not a very positive one, but that's obviously a topic for another time.
	Just dealing with the sort of facts before us, if he were to change the law regarding torture, then it would not be a war crime.
	Based on international law, it would be.
	But if he can change our laws, of course, you know, at least it's some conflicts back and forth.
	Oh, yeah.
	No, listen, I think that torture is...
	Well, not productive is the nicest way I can put it.
	I think it's a desperate endgame measure that, as far as I understand it, has produced virtually nothing of value throughout all of human history.
	But as far as that goes, yeah, international war crimes, I'm not an expert on international law.
	I do know that the Geneva Convention does not apply to combatants who are not in uniform.
	You need to be part of A command structure run by a state and you need to be in uniform for the Geneva Convention to apply.
	That's sort of the extent of my obviously very shallow knowledge of these matters.
	So just a critical thinking question real quick.
	So do you believe, therefore, if someone is not in uniform, that it is now legal to torture them?
	No, again, I don't know all of the details.
	I simply know that people say it's against the Geneva Convention, but the Geneva Convention does not apply to people not in uniform.
	That's just a sort of procedural thing that people need to get straight in their head.
	Okay, so you're not saying that.
	Okay, that's fine.
	Trump supports Tortler, wants to change laws to make torture legal so he can torture.
	Gotcha.
	Pretty much.
	Okay, so let's finally hit the Donald Trump segment, which is my big thing.
	So I just have a question about it.
	John Oliver...
	Oh, this is the John Oliver piece, is that right?
	Yes.
	Yeah, okay.
	Okay, so John Oliver said in the segment in the beginning that Trump is like America's back mole, and you then said he was claiming Donald Trump is cancer.
	Now...
	Even if I were to grant you that a growing back mole is cancerous or in some way necessitates cancer, why is it you think that he is comparing the objects rather than the situations?
	I'm a little confused there.
	Let's see here.
	I've got the presentation before me as we speak.
	All right, let's see here.
	All right.
	Donald Trump is America's back mole.
	This is what John Oliver said.
	It may have seemed harmless a year ago, but now that it's gotten frighteningly bigger, it is no longer wise to ignore it.
	So a back mole that is getting frighteningly bigger is obviously a reference to cancer, right?
	Arguably.
	No, come on.
	I mean, let's be serious.
	He's not, I mean, frighteningly bigger.
	A back mole that grows frighteningly bigger is a reference to skin cancer, right?
	Well, nonetheless, as I said, even if I grant you that, I don't understand how you think he's comparing this object rather than the situation.
	Donald Trump is America's back mole.
	I heard.
	Is.
	So if America's back mole is cancerous, then Donald Trump is America's back mole.
	And if you substitute the word cancer for the phrase America's back mole, he's saying Donald Trump is cancer.
	Boy, that is reading deep into that one.
	I mean, come on.
	Is it really?
	No, not really.
	So if I say that she is a Trojan horse, am I dehumanizing her by saying she's a wooden horse filled with very angry men?
	Yes, sir.
	Well, no, but Trojan horse is an analogy based upon mythology or history.
	This is a specific medical ailment that is not an analogy.
	This is not an analogy.
	So he's not he's not trying to show a comparison between two things.
	Yes, he's showing a comparison between Donald Trump and potential cancer or frighteningly big carcinogenic moles.
	See, a Trojan horse is an analogy for somebody who appears to be friendly, beware Greeks bearing gifts, and it turns out that there's an attack squad inside it, right?
	So that is comparing a person to an analogy.
	This is comparing a person to a specific medical ailment.
	Now, the whole thing is an analogy, but it is not comparing a person to an analogy, but a person to a medical ailment.
	Ah, I see.
	Okay.
	I don't think I'm going to convince you specifically, so I will have to appeal to the audience to determine for themselves.
	Now, for another thing, if you're ready to move on, I don't want to...
	Oh, I am.
	Okay.
	So, at some point, you talk about Trump discussing haters and losers on his Twitter feed.
	And you bring up cry-bullyism, which is a term that I was relatively unfamiliar with, but I since kind of discerned what it meant.
	I'm just curious, why do you think, and if you don't understand this because you haven't seen it in a while, it's fine, but why do you think that John Oliver was committing cry-bullyism in the segment where he talked about Trump's Twitter feed about haters and losers.
	I'm confused.
	I think he was complaining that Donald Trump was referring to people as haters and losers.
	Did you see the segment?
	Yeah, of course I saw the segment.
	I did a whole video on it.
	Well, I don't know if you saw it or if you just kind of got the transcript of it.
	He was saying that it was funny.
	In fact, that entire little segment is about him talking about things he likes about Trump.
	No, I think he was being sarcastic about that, but obviously that's open to interpretation.
	Okay, so that's open to interpretation.
	Alright, so...
	And the reason that I was...
	So he was pointing out that Trump was using the term haters and losers, and maybe he considered that to be a negative thing, and the fact that he referred to Donald Trump in really pretty...
	Pretty horrible ways.
	And the fact that he seemed to analogize him to potential skin cancer, it just seems a little precious to complain about somebody talking about haters and losers when you've just kind of compared them to cancer.
	So that's the only thing that I was sort of pointing out with regards to that.
	As is typical with the left.
	If you punch back, they get very upset, but they commit the exact same behavior that they get upset about nonstop and then are shocked when you point out the contradiction.
	Yes.
	So, yeah, when John Oliver, when John Stewart was on The Daily Show, which I guess is back when he was John Oliver's boss, he said that, he said, by the way, did you know that Donald Trump's birth name is Fuckface Von Clownstick?
	Yes, I recall that.
	Right.
	And there was another one.
	Hang on.
	Something about mummified foreskin said by John Oliver.
	I also caught that.
	Yeah, yeah, that's right.
	John Oliver said Miss USA is owned by Donald Trump, a clown made of mummified foreskin and cotton candy.
	It is a little ironic that the Miss USA beauty pageant is owned by one of the darkest souls on the planet.
	And then he seems to be really shocked and appalled that Donald J. Trump referred tongue-in-cheek to people as haters and losers.
	It just seems a little precious when you've been that verbally harsh with people to be upset when they're kind of making jokes about haters and losers.
	And it's not just the haters and losers thing.
	It's the entire John Oliver presentation versus what Donald Trump has done.
	The left does the exact same stuff, oftentimes much, much worse, and they criticize people on the right and then feign ignorance and are confused when you point out the contradictions.
	Again, I think the...
	I'll appeal to the audience again to take a look at the segment themselves, and they can make their own decisions, I'm sure.
	All right, let's just do one more.
	I think we're kind of running in circles, but let's do one more.
	Okay, so let's talk about his net worth...
	Now, you said that John Oliver was taking Donald Trump out of context, saying that Donald Trump claimed his net worth was at least partially based upon his feelings, his own feelings.
	There was an ellipsis in the comment that Oliver made, and then you kind of filled in that blank and then said he was taking things out of context.
	Well, I actually took the time to look up the full deposition, well, parts of the full deposition, and it seems like he was correct.
	I remember that segment pretty strongly.
	He absolutely did say that, and we quoted that in the presentation.
	Yeah.
	So just to get people up to speed.
	John Oliver says about Trump, he explained that his estimate of his net worth fluctuates based on, and I quote, feelings, even my own feelings, and that can change rapidly from day to day.
	Right?
	Right?
	And so he says, think about that.
	He claimed that his net worth changes depending on his mood, which makes absolutely no sense, partly because he always seems to be in the same mood, specifically smug yet gassy.
	It's still kind of funny.
	So Trump's full deposition quote is this, even my own feelings as to where the world is, where the world is going, and that can change rapidly from day to day.
	I think that changes the context of it.
	It totally changes the context, because if your net worth is based upon whether you're happy or sad, Then that makes no sense.
	I stubbed my toe.
	My net worth has gone down.
	My dog died.
	My net worth has gone down.
	I got good news.
	That wouldn't make any sense at all.
	Well, I'm not arguing it makes sense.
	Let me finish, then you can go.
	See, that's how this works.
	So, as to where the world is going, his net worth is going to change based upon his evaluation of where the world is and where the world is going.
	So, for instance, if he feels that there's going to be a recession, Then obviously the value of his casinos and his hotels and his golf courses and all of that are likely to decline.
	So his net worth, and given that some of it is his brand, the Trump brand, that if people perceive that the goods or services that he's providing to the world are going to be in lower demand because there's a recession, that is going to affect his net worth.
	So where the world is and where the world is going, that's of course, as you know, is the job of a businessman or businesswoman, is to figure out where the market is going and attempt to plan for the long run to save in good times and spend in bad times to maintain equilibrium as much as possible and so on.
	So yeah, his net worth is going to be, his net worth is to some degree predicated on the value that he's providing to the marketplace.
	If the economy changes significantly or the world changes significantly, then there is going to be a change in his net worth because part of it is goodwill or brand recognition and so on.
	And if people don't think his brand is going to be as valuable because there's a recession, then his net worth is going to decline.
	So, for instance, to license the name Trump, you pay Trump a certain amount of money.
	I don't even know if that's exactly how it works, but let's just take this as a potential scenario, right?
	And so if you want to license Trump's name, then let's say to build a luxury hotel.
	If the economy is doing really well, then that name is going to be worth more.
	If the economy is really going into the toilet, then that name is going to be worth less.
	So the money that you would pay to license the Trump name would go down if the world was in a bad economic state as opposed to if it was in a good economic state.
	And so given that some of his net worth is the value of his name, it would make sense to me, at least as an entrepreneur and a businessman, That where the world is and where the world is going economically would affect his net worth.
	Okay.
	Now, yes, where the world is would certainly affect his net worth.
	However, his own feelings concerning where the world is should not.
	Now, here's a full quotation from both Trump and the lawyer that was Question, my net worth fluctuates and goes up and down with the markets and with attitudes and with feelings, even my own feelings, but I try.
	The lawyer said, let me understand that a little.
	You said your net worth goes up and down based upon your own feelings.
	Trump, yes, even my own feelings as to where the world is, where the world's going, and that can change rapidly from day to day.
	Lawyer, when you publicly state a net worth number, what do you base that number on?
	Trump.
	I would say it's my general attitude at the time that the question may be asked.
	And as I say, it varies.
	Now, that seems to clearly indicate that he is or does base his net worth on feelings, or at least somewhat upon his own feelings, rather than a The markets or whatnot, because he specifically mentioned the markets and then mentioned his own feelings in that line of questioning.
	So it seems to me that John Oliver was correct.
	I'm just saying.
	No, because the feelings are not feelings.
	Feelings is a big category.
	Feelings about where the world is and where the world is going is a subcategory, which has a lot to do with economic value.
	So, for instance, if Donald, and I'm just putting myself in somebody else's mind as a thought experiment here, but if Donald Trump feels optimistic about the way the world is going, if all of the indicators are that wealth is accumulating, that people have jobs, that they want to go gamble, they want to travel, they want to play golf in Scotland, then he's going to expand his business.
	He's going to invest in his business, right?
	And that's going to increase his net worth.
	Now, if he feels that the world is going badly, and again, these are feelings not just like, I don't know, bemused resignation, but these are evaluation feelings based upon where the world is, right?
	Which is why he says as to where the world is, where the world is going.
	If he feels pessimistic about the world, then he is not going to expand.
	He's not going to build new stuff, at least until he gets more information.
	And that means that the value of his net worth is going to go down because he's not adding to it.
	Rather, he's consolidating to it.
	And he's going to hold money in reserve rather than invest.
	And obviously he invests because investing makes more money for him than holding his money in a bank or investing.
	Like he goes and builds a hotel because it makes more money for him than the money sitting in the bank or whatever.
	So if he feels negative about where the world is going, then his net worth is going to decline because he is not Going to be creating new businesses which would be of greater value to his net worth than keeping the money in a bank.
	Well, see, it's fine and dandy, but the thing is that when he was asked how did he base this number at any given time, What he does say is based on his attitude at the time in question, not where the markets are, not the possibility of, you know, declining the markets, you know, people aren't going out to gamble as much.
	He doesn't say any of that.
	Yeah, he did.
	He said, even my own feelings as to where the world is, where the world is going.
	Yeah, but his feelings about the world and where it's going make no difference to his...
	You're saying in the future he will not expand as much because of where the world's going.
	Okay, that's fine.
	That has nothing to do with stating a net worth number.
	All right, I'm going to move on to the next caller because I just made a case and you're completely ignoring it.
	But I really do appreciate the call.
	It was fun to hash through this stuff.
	You either have to find a way to rebut what I'm saying or address it in some manner, but pretending I didn't say it is kind of annoying and does make me want to move on to the next caller.
	But I really do appreciate the call.
	Thanks so much for your time.
	Thank you for having me on.
	Do we have another caller?
	Mike, are you muted?
	That looks like our last caller dropped off, so I think we're done for tonight.
	Oh, that's a shame to end that way.
	Hold on, let me try and get it back.
	No, it's fine.
	I'm okay.
	I'm okay to not take this last caller.
	Thanks so much, everyone, for listening and for donating.
	Don't forget at freedomainradio.com slash donate.
	Don't make me feel as to where the world is going that it might be an ad.
	So you can go to freedomainradio.com slash donate to help out the show.
	Thank you, thank you, thank you so much.
	For all of your support, you're sharing your interest, your discussion of these ideas, you're spreading the word of philosophy, which I think is finding its most munificent home in the modern world, at freedomainradio.com.
	Please follow me on Twitter, at Stefan Molyneux.
	You can also, of course, share the shows at FDR Podcasts.
	You can use our Amazon affiliate link at fdurail.com slash Amazon.
	Thank you so much, everyone.

▲