Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

Aug. 26, 2016 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux

02:26:13

3392 HIT THE NAIL ON THE COFFIN - Call In Show - August 24th, 2016

Question 1: [2:37] - “I have been fortunate to find individuals like you who challenge my thoughts. After losing my 16-year-old cousin to gang violence. I found myself thinking deeply how to fix the south side Chicago area, but slowly found the truth of why it is so difficult to do. If the racial climate in America continues where do you see our great country headed?”Question 2: [54:21] - “One of the most difficult moral dilemmas I've been attempting to so solve is the limits of moral integrity. The impetus for this dilemma was spawned by the movie The Dark Knight. In the movie, as the Joker speaks to Batman about the police, he says, ‘See, their morals, their code... it's a bad joke. Dropped at the first sign of trouble. They're only as good as the world allows them to be. I'll show you, when the chips are down, these... these civilized people? They'll eat each other. See, I'm not a monster, I'm just ahead of the curve.’ This is a recurring theme in the movie--the idea that people are corruptible under the right circumstances. Depending on the person, when situations become desperate enough, they will abandon their morals. “Must a person abide by petty morality even when there is much at stake? For example, let's say that a madman is chasing after a man, and the man runs into my house to hide. Meanwhile, the madman comes knocking on my door, describing the man and asking me if I've seen him. Would it be wrong to lie in this circumstance in order to divert the madman and prevent him from killing the fleeing man?”“Additionally, must a person always be moral even when it involves the most frivolous circumstances? For instance, let's say that I need a pencil and I see that my roommate has one laying on his desk. If I took the pencil, then it would be considered stealing, but must I really abide by ethics in this case?”Question 3: [1:27:27] - “How do we fight liberal media? What actions can we take to put them out of power? What is the most effective action we can take? How can we convince people around of the corrupt media?”Question 4: [2:07:28] - “Where do you see the free market heading if Hillary Clinton gets elected into office?”Freedomain Radio is 100% funded by viewers like you. Please support the show by signing up for a monthly subscription or making a one time donation at: http://www.freedomainradio.com/donate

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hey everybody, it's Stefan Mollen from Free Domain Radio.
	I hope you're doing well.
	Just a reminder, before we start this most excellent of shows, to please go by freedomainradio.com slash donate to help us out.
	It's absolutely crucial and imperative and important, especially during these dry summer months of donations.
	Please, please come and help us out at freedomainradio.com slash donate.
	Tonight we really ran the gamut of great conversations.
	The first was a young black man who was calling in from Chicago and his cousin had been gunned down in a gang violence incident that of course was tragic and heartbreaking.
	And we talked a lot about some of the possibilities that were in the black community in the past before the 1960s welfare state descended and seemed to have trapped a lot of The poor, in general, into this terrible underclass.
	And it was a powerful, heartbreaking, intense conversation.
	And I, of course, really appreciate him and his questions and comments.
	The second question, more abstract philosophy, is something that comes up quite a bit, which is the question of morality as an absolute, like you must tell the truth, you must keep your contracts, and if a crazy guy comes and demands to know where your friend is so he can beat him up unjustly, are you required to tell the truth to that crazy person?
	And it's a topic we've touched on before, but we went into great depth into it, and I hope it gives you some clarity.
	Because once we get those basic moral questions in the rear view, we're really liberated to act in a moral way in the world.
	So I hope that really helps.
	The third caller had some concerns about the liberal or democrat or leftist bias in the mainstream media and wanted to know what could be done about it and why it seems to be so prevalent.
	And I enjoy my own rants and I particularly enjoyed this one because I think it really does get...
	To the heart of what is going on in the media and in politics, not just in America, but throughout the Western world as a whole.
	So I hope you'll really pay attention to that one.
	The fourth caller, I guess, tried to pass off one George Lucas as a philosopher by quoting Star Wars at me.
	I had a little bit of a chat with him about that.
	But the question is, what happens to the free market if Hillary gets elected?
	And I had some thoughts about that.
	It was a really great set of conversations.
	I really appreciate everyone who calls in, everyone who gives us the fantastic platform to have these life-changing conversations, freedomainradio.com slash donate.
	Alright, well up first today we have Cameron.
	Cameron wrote in and said, I've been fortunate to find individuals like you who will challenge my thoughts.
	After losing my 16-year-old cousin to gang violence, I find myself thinking deeply how to fix the Southside Chicago area, but slowly found the truth of why it is so difficult to do so.
	If the racial climate in America continues, where do you see our great country headed?
	That's from Cameron.
	Well, hi Cameron.
	How are you doing?
	Nice to meet you, too.
	I'm very, very sorry to hear about what happened with your cousin.
	Do you want to talk about that at all?
	I mean, it sounds like a terrible story.
	Yes, sir.
	That was one of the major focuses that I had wanted to conversate about.
	So what happened was, probably two years ago, he was a 16-year-old child.
	He had got caught up with the wrong gang of guys in the south suburban area of Chicago.
	And, you know, one day he was at the barbershop and I guess the assailant had pulled up on him, the criminal.
	And they had shot him in the back with a shotgun and there goes the life of my little cousin.
	So from that day forward, I've been really thinking.
	You know, what can I do, you know, coming from that area, coming from that neighborhood, you know, growing up with these children that hanged with my little cousin.
	I'm like, what can I possibly do to help these children out and show them that it's a different path?
	Because I myself have a very troubled background.
	But, you know, I had to come up out of that depression and find a different route.
	Of course, you know, it took a lot of family efforts.
	My aunts and uncles to help me.
	My mother herself, she raised me along with my stepfather who died of cancer before I entered high school.
	My mother and my stepfather, they both were drug addicts and also my stepfather was an alcoholic.
	They always told me, you know, never to do the things that I've seen them do.
	And once I seen how they act, you know, under the influence of crack cocaine, Under welfare, you know, which we had, you know, food stamps and Section 8 houses.
	I've seen the way they reacted in their regular life, how it kind of blocked some of the true cost of knowledge for certain things, you know, things that we needed in the house.
	You know, my mother worked a pretty good job and she would make sure food is on the table and everything.
	But I had to go days in fifth grade without my mother being around, not even knowing where my mother was actually at.
	Coming home and not even seeing her for two days because she's out doing some activity that I would rather not see.
	So it was a pretty rough life for me growing up.
	And I kind of felt like I could reach a lot of the younger children on the South Side area.
	Through the experiences that I've had, and I try to let them know that, hey guys, we could find another way to turn this thing around.
	It's not so much a group of people doing something to you.
	Start with yourself.
	Start within yourself.
	Start within your community.
	Look in the mirror.
	Look at the person in the mirror.
	And then let's tackle what issues are setting us back or are setting you back individually that you see.
	That's some of my life in a nutshell.
	I could go on and on, but I'd rather hear your input and insight on some of the things if you could talk about it.
	Yeah, no, I appreciate that.
	It's a terrible story.
	Your cousin, sorry if I missed this, why was he shot?
	Was it an accident mistaken for someone else, or was he just really in deep with a bad crowd?
	Well, okay, so when he was younger, you know, it was a much different life.
	He was always intrigued with me going to college and stuff.
	And I think around that time he entered high school, he was very troubled.
	You know, he didn't have his father in his house.
	So he tried to be around my little brother, which is his first cousin, as much as possible.
	And he got linked up with some gang members.
	I kind of, you know, my sister has a baby daddy, which is what they call him.
	You know, they're not married or anything, but he kind of influenced him because he was there in my father's house at that time, and my little cousin would visit back and forth, and they got hooked up with a gang.
	I believe they were Gangster Disciples, which was out here in Chicago.
	GD, they call it.
	He started rapping about a lot of ruthless stuff, like shooting people and doing things that I would hope he wasn't doing.
	I can't call truth to that.
	They got around to the rival side of whatever.
	I wish I don't even know how these people decide to own certain cities in Illinois.
	I don't know how you could own a specific city in Illinois and think because they're calling you out.
	You have to go and...
	So he got...
	He was calling out some one guy, you know, his friend had died, and he said that his guys had killed him.
	And he was at the barbershop one day, and I guess they just pulled up in the car.
	A female drove, which later I found out is related to my uncle by adoption.
	My grandmother had adopted children.
	I have two younger aunts and I have a younger uncle.
	And I had later found out that was his sister that drove the car.
	Then another odd story, the shooter is the person that shot my little cousin.
	I had found out once my uncle had got out of jail, probably a week later after my little cousin had got shot, I had found out that my uncle knows the shooter's family personally.
	So it just really had me thinking.
	It really had me thinking on another level.
	I'm like, oh my god, wow.
	Are you telling me we're basically almost interconnected and some of this violence could have been stopped.
	So, yeah, I don't know.
	If it doesn't clarify your question, you could ask me another one.
	I'm sorry.
	So I guess the crime was solved, right?
	They knew who did it?
	Yes, the crime was solved who did it.
	The man is now behind bars.
	The crime was solved.
	Right.
	I mean, not that that brings anyone back to life, of course, but...
	Of course.
	Do you have, you know, thinking of your cousin...
	Do you have any thoughts as to why you go to college and he goes deep into the Chicagoland gang culture?
	Do you have any idea where that fork in the road might have happened for you guys?
	I think I do.
	That's the big question.
	You've got to think about that stuff every day, right?
	Exactly.
	That's what I started thinking about.
	And it was kind of ironic.
	I had moved up here to the North Chicago area because my wife and I, we didn't want to stay in the South Chicago area any longer.
	So I'm up here and I stumbled across a guy.
	This is some history.
	I'm going to stumble across a guy named Thomas Sowell.
	And he speaks about a lot of things that happen in the black community.
	His experience growing up in, I want to say he's at Brooklyn.
	And how it was so much different back then and then I would correlate that to what's going on now and I would read a lot of literature.
	I believe at one point I was very heavy on Malcolm X. I thought he was the answer until I started picking up more King's literature and I found out about him and I found out about Booker C. Washington and Frederick Douglass.
	And then I started looking at Thomas Sowell.
	And then along came Milton Friedman.
	And then I come around and stumble upon you, you know, based on YouTube, looking through YouTube.
	And some of this, and also the work environment, a lot of my experience kind of molded me.
	You know, I work in a very, I guess, diverse, I would say, you know, we have people of different backgrounds, different cultures, different ethnicity in our company.
	I work for a pharmaceutical company.
	And Me being 21 coming into that type of environment where it's not so much about...
	I never really thought it was about race or anything, but it's more so about what type of skills do you have?
	What can you do for the company as a whole?
	Me being thrown into that environment and seeing how the world really reacts with people I think it kind of molded me a little bit more.
	Having a father there definitely helped me.
	So I know that's probably a big problem that's in the African-American community that probably needs to be addressed.
	I don't know how I'm going to put fathers in the home.
	Wow.
	It's so much, so much.
	I would say I would say his father not being there definitely would kind of hurt him a lot.
	We would talk about that here and there.
	Of course, I feel some kind of pressure, of course, because I wasn't around.
	I was off in college.
	I did not complete my degree, but I was away from him at that age.
	This is my little cousin.
	Of course, I feel like I hold some of that.
	From here, I'm going down that path.
	I don't know how to put that in terms.
	I kind of I feel like I should have helped a little bit more, basically.
	So, if I could point out one problem, I would probably say maybe the influence of not having a father.
	I know that impacted me a lot when my father died before I entered high school.
	I went down the drain a little bit with my grades and everything.
	He was authoritative.
	Even though my parents did certain things that I didn't like, They always kept me clothed, kept me sheltered, kept food in my mouth, always told me to pursue education.
	Yeah, I don't know.
	I hope I'm not getting off topic.
	I'm sorry.
	No, no, no.
	No, it's fine.
	Listen, what you're providing me, Cameron, is fascinating to me and I think very important.
	Let me ask you something about, and I don't mean sort of necessarily focus too much on your cousin, but You talked earlier about feeling depressed and having to sort of fight your way out of that depression.
	When you think back on your cousin, one of the things I think that drives people or you could say opens the door to people going down a really dangerous path, a sort of criminal path, is a kind of feeling of nihilism, a kind of feeling like I can't make it.
	There's no future.
	The society is stacked against me, you know, like Whitey has it in for me.
	There's institutional racism.
	I'm never going to get ahead.
	The cops all are just itching to shoot me down, and I'm never going to be able to make it.
	I think if people believe that, then isn't it a lot easier...
	To make bad decisions in the long run that are kind of more, quote, fun in the short run.
	Like I sort of think people who have nihilism or people who are infected with this, there's no future, there's nothing I can build towards, there's no value that I can pursue that I have any control over.
	That the success of my life is way outside of my control and I can't achieve stuff.
	They always strike me as people who've been given a diagnosis of like three months to live.
	Like, you got some terrible disease, and again, I'm sorry, with regards to your stepdad, but you got some terrible disease, you got three months to live.
	Now, if I got that diagnosis tomorrow, I would make different decisions about my life than I'm making now.
	Like, I'm turning 50 next month, and I've got big plans, and future things I want to build towards.
	But if I'm like, somebody called me up tomorrow and said, you know, dude...
	You got three months to live, you know, and it was a doctor and I believed it.
	I'd really start making different decisions.
	I mean, why plan for the long one?
	And I think nihilism, like this feeling that there's no future, there's nothing you can achieve, the society hates you or whatever, that I think that shrinks, like it really reduces The timeframe that people make decisions about.
	Like, if somebody said to me, Steph, you got three months to live, I'm not going to go and try to go to college.
	Right, exactly.
	You know what I mean?
	Like, I'm not going to be sitting there, well, you know, I got to save for my retirement and I better put money aside for a rainy day.
	I'd be like, okay, it's, you know, relatively short-term fun stuff for the next three months before the Grim Reaper comes and takes me off the planet.
	Right.
	And I'm just wondering if there was this kind of no future nihilism that maybe got into the bone marrow of your cousin, if that makes any sense.
	I believe so.
	I believe you hit the nail on the coffin.
	That probably was an element.
	See, he was an artist.
	He was a rapper.
	So he used his words.
	He would put those words in his music.
	And I listened to some of his music, you know, as he passed.
	And there is one song, which is kind of ironic that you brought up Nihilism.
	There's one song that sticks out, and it's called Ask God.
	And, yeah, it does seem like it was a timeline on his life.
	Like, he felt like the odds were stacked against him, and it was live fast and die young.
	I, myself, as you spoke when I said I went through depression.
	I went through a similar thing where it was like, what should I do?
	Everything is against me.
	And that mentality, that really hurts.
	That day-to-day, that type of depressive mindset every day, it doesn't feel good.
	That's one of the main reasons why I kind of stopped.
	I started looking towards some other I started looking towards the Reconstruction A for African Americans.
	So I tried to see, you know, because I know Thomas Sowell also talked about it a lot.
	I started going back to that because he had explained that, you know, blacks were becoming literate, blacks were becoming fluent in society.
	So I'm like, what did they do back then that, you know, that was so much better that we're not doing now?
	And I stopped looking at the people that were pointing fingers and I started looking at the people that were actually building human character and building up people.
	To better themselves in their own situation.
	And I felt so much better after I lost that weight or depression.
	And yeah, I believe for my cousin, he definitely had similar thoughts with me, maybe.
	At that time, I just didn't know how to address it.
	I was young myself.
	I was around 20 years old.
	It was alright for me to To even, you know, be around there anymore because I did live with my mother.
	I didn't live with my biological father.
	I knew of him, but I didn't go around him too much.
	And when I did, I only went over there to see my little brothers and sisters.
	And, yeah, it was an environment that I've been around sometimes.
	And it just really saddens me when I go over there and I see these children, you know, rolling dice or smoking illegal drugs.
	And, you know, fighting with each other.
	It's not too long ago, you know, not to put anything else to the head on the plate.
	I really don't want to, but I would like to mention this.
	So a week ago, my little brother had called me, and he was like, they were shooting in front of Dad's house.
	And I'm like, they were shooting in front of Dad's house.
	I'm like, what time was this?
	He said it was like 3 p.m., you know, 3 in the evening.
	And I'm like, alright, is everybody okay?
	He's like, yeah, because the first thing I thought about was my niece, both of my nieces that are there, my little sister, my older brother, my little brother.
	Only the first thing he told me was, you know, I'm glad I'm going to college on Saturday.
	They shot a man during the drive-by shooting.
	They were celebrating my little cousin's second year.
	I guess it was like his anniversary because of his death.
	And a couple guys that we were celebrating out front of my dad's house.
	And then I guess the rival gangs or the people, they did a drive by with a pistol and shot one dude in the head.
	And from what I heard, he had nothing to do with anything that went on between my cousin and them.
	So that was just something else that made me think.
	And I'm like, man, I just really want to talk to Stephen about this stuff.
	I'm like, man, I gotta get these thoughts out.
	I write sometimes as well, but I gotta get these thoughts out and see if I can go to somebody and talk to me about these issues.
	So we can go full tilt politically incorrect here, right?
	Like, we just could be as honest as we can with each other, right?
	Oh, yes, sir.
	Okay.
	So, Cameron...
	How is it that black people, and again, I'm really generalizing here, obviously, right?
	Tons of exceptions.
	But, you know, what I hear a lot from black activists is like, you know, basically we're really scared of white people.
	But I'm going to go out on a limb here and I'm going to guess that a lot of these shooters weren't white.
	Or Asian.
	Exactly.
	Or Hispanic.
	I mean, aren't the bullets flying around coming from black fingers on the trigger?
	Yeah.
	How is it that White people are scary when it's the black bullets flying through the hood, right?
	Yeah.
	And that rhetoric that they spill, you know, it also...
	I had to find a way to channel my thoughts and my temperament as well because sometimes the rhetoric is that they do spill these activists and they're saying things like this and I'm just like, wait...
	I don't know what you guys are really seeing.
	I'm literally looking like I don't know what they're seeing.
	But I'm the same person that moved away from the high crime area so I could have a better life in this area for my family, for my wife.
	So I moved up north to avoid what was going on down south.
	And I'm pretty sure many more would do the same or have been doing the same.
	And I let them know that, hey, We come in contact with each other, I want to say 99.9% of the time in the neighborhoods that are high population for African Americans, which happen to also be some of the neighborhoods that are pretty high in crime, high in homicide.
	And sometimes I just can't get that past them.
	You know, they kind of get the concept of it being a system behind some of this stuff, but they use it in another term where the system has created something, where the system has made Them kill each other.
	And I'm like, eh, I think of the system maybe as government.
	And I do think there are some things that government has done that kind of inhibits that environment.
	But I don't look at it as the system is against you.
	They take it as determined the system is against them.
	And making them do this, and I take it as the system, is not helping them.
	So get off the system and start to take control of your own life.
	And don't so much point your finger at a person of another color because he looks like the person that's in the system.
	And it's kind of odd that, you know, when we talk about Detroit or we talk about New Orleans or we talk about Compton and LA, we talk about stuff like that.
	You know, the thing that just happened in Milwaukee.
	It's like, wait, I'm pretty sure you guys are a majority of the population.
	I'm sure not too many people.
	They talk about people outsourcing resources.
	They take resources from your community.
	If there are no resources in the community, resources come from the individuals in the community.
	Those individuals don't.
	Have the resources.
	I would like to think that's probably education and skills.
	They don't have resources in.
	Your community probably won't have much in it.
	I can't say these talking points.
	The message from probably a week ago when you spoke to the Hispanic guy that works for the tech company, that really resonated with me because I go through a similar problem where my wife is like, Cameron, you turn into a different person when you talk politics.
	I have friends that are I guess, quote-unquote, Afrocentric at work.
	And when I talk to them about these talking points, you know, and they always say, we need action, we need action.
	And I try to bring them back to Martin Luther King, and they don't ever want to talk about Booker T. Washington and Tuskegee University.
	They just go straight to Malcolm X. But they don't analyze the whole story of Malcolm X when he did go over to Mecca and he changed his His thoughts on what was actually going on.
	They just want to say, oh, Malcolm X did action.
	Black Panthers did action.
	And I'm like, that's not the way to do things.
	Well, you know, so in...
	I don't know what the specific facts are in Chicago, but as you know, like 73% of black families are single mom households, right?
	It's almost three quarters of the kids being raised without a dad in the house.
	And that's...
	New!
	Horrifyingly new.
	Okay, let me give you...
	I mean, maybe you know this, but let me give you a little quiz here, right?
	Give me a time and a place in America, less than 100 years ago, where 85% of black households were two-parent households.
	Mom, dad, married, present.
	85% of black households.
	Where and when do you think that was?
	It would have to be somewhere...
	I would say before the 60s.
	You're right about that.
	You're absolutely right about that.
	Yeah, that's good.
	It was 1925 in New York City.
	Wow.
	85% of black households were two-parent households.
	Wow.
	Five and six children under the age of six lived with both parents.
	In 1950, female-headed households were 18% of the black population.
	Now, that's a little higher, but there was that big-ass war that happened in Europe where a lot of people got killed, right?
	Oh, yeah.
	So, 1950, 18%, now 73%.
	One study of 19th century slave families...
	In up to three-fourths of the families, all the children lived with the biological mother and father.
	Slavery could not destroy the black family.
	This is with, of course, as you know, blacks being bought and sold across straight lines and kids being ripped apart and, I mean, three-quarters.
	So, and we'll put the links to this just for those who are just listening, if you want to look this up.
	This is from Walter E. Williams.
	And it's called Blacks Must Confront Reality.
	It's on townhall.com, Blacks Must Confront Reality.
	So under slavery, almost exactly the same proportion of blacks came from an intact family as now, in the 21st century, come from single mom households.
	75% under slavery, intact families.
	73% under the welfare state, smashed up families.
	This is what drives me crazy and drives everyone, I think, crazy who's really looked into this stuff deeply, I dare say.
	Listen, this is not a black problem.
	This is a left problem.
	Because what is the left constantly saying?
	The problem is, you see, we need to give more free stuff to the poor.
	More free stuff to the poor, more subsidies, more generosity, more free housing, more free food, more free education, more free, free, free.
	And what has the effect of that been?
	It hasn't helped.
	It created the tendency.
	You're putting it very nicely, Cameron.
	It hasn't helped.
	In the same way that a guillotine doesn't help a headache.
	Well, I guess it doesn't in a way.
	But I mean, no, it has unraveled the social fabric.
	I mean, it tortures me.
	It literally tortures me.
	And hopefully it tortures you too.
	Or if it doesn't, maybe it will after this little thing.
	But if 85% of black households in the present were two-parent households, where would the black community be?
	And this, again, it's one of these, the legacy of slavery, right?
	People say, well, the destruction of the black family is the legacy of slavery.
	It's like, well, then why was the black family stronger under slavery and for decades afterwards?
	Why did it take several generations to manifest this legacy of slavery?
	Exactly.
	Poverty rate.
	Yeah, so, and this is a couple of years old, two years old, some of this data, right?
	Poverty rate among blacks, 28.1%.
	That's terrible.
	But...
	The poverty rate among intact married black families has been in the single digits for more than 20 years.
	8.4%.
	8.4%.
	That's close to between a quarter and a third of the poverty rate for intact married black families.
	And we know that Not being around dads, especially for boys, but also for promiscuity among girls, among young women.
	Not having the dad around is catastrophic.
	Not always, you know.
	I mean, you had a distant dad and you've come out well and I grew up without a dad and I've come out pretty well.
	But it's bad.
	In general.
	You know, maybe there are people around who don't have our kind of gifts.
	And they need better cues.
	And it is so frustrating to just think that if the welfare state had not come into existence, which, according to LBJ, was a way to buy the black vote, I don't even put it quite that nicely, apparently, for like 200 years.
	And it's the same thing with the government unions, right?
	Unions and job restrictions on being plumbers and electricians and so on were put in Because blacks were underbidding whites.
	And that's...
	You know, the poor always represent a threat to the middle class and the rich.
	Because the middle class and the rich have lots of bills to pay.
	They've got relatively big houses.
	They've probably got at least one or two cars.
	They've got a whole bunch of stuff that they've got to pay.
	So they can't accept less than $20 an hour.
	Otherwise...
	They can't pay the bills, right?
	And when blacks started to become more free, when they started to, as I've talked about in the post-Second World War period, the black poverty rate was cut in half.
	Black families were strong.
	Blacks were getting into the middle class.
	They were getting into the professions.
	And the middle class and above, I guess that's mostly whites.
	There wasn't many Hispanics around at the time, and They didn't like it because the black guy is coming into the plumbing field and he's saying, hell, 10 bucks an hour, that's a raise for me, right?
	Whereas, you know, the people who've got more bills to pay, they can't work for 10 bucks an hour.
	So what do they do?
	Well, we got to have unions and we got to have a closed shop and we got to have licenses.
	And that's how they worked hard.
	And this is one of the shameful aspects of union history which leftists never want to talk about.
	It's the degree to which unions pushed their agenda to exclude.
	And again, I don't think it was racist particularly in that while it's blacks, it is poorer people will out-compete.
	This is the churning cycle of the free market.
	People make...
	They get real hungry.
	And look, I'm aware of this.
	I grew up really poor and I've been working since I was 10 and I've got this...
	Hungry work ethic and all of that.
	So I was willing to work for virtually nothing.
	You know, I did crazy jobs.
	I had a job part-time.
	I went to this woman's house with a cloth that was wet and scraped all of the dog hair off her carpets.
	I was a dishwasher.
	For a while.
	I worked in hardware stores.
	I worked as a waiter.
	I worked...
	Hell, I was so broke one summer, I weeded gardens.
	I took some guy's grandmother out because they were too busy.
	I cleaned cars.
	I mean, you just do whatever you hustle.
	You know what it's like, right?
	And do you think that I was dragging down the wages for the richer kids who were saying, ah, you know...
	Something cool came out on Teledon.
	I don't think I'm gonna go and compete.
	So the blacks, to sort of climb out of the historical chasm of poverty and Jim Crow and Slavery, they're climbing up this hill, and people were like, damn.
	And so the way that I view this stuff, and please understand, Cameron, I'm not a big expert, I'm just telling you the way that I view it, is that it wasn't specifically racism, it's that you had a group of people in America who were willing to work for less.
	And people didn't like that.
	Now there's two ways that you can keep people out of the workforce who are going to underbid you.
	Number one, Create a bunch of artificial barriers like unions and licenses and clothes shops to keep them out of the workforce.
	To keep them out of the competition.
	That's number one.
	But that's a little bit obvious and that could be overturned at any time.
	But you know, the best way to keep poor people from competing with you?
	Give them welfare.
	Oh yeah, baby.
	You give them some welfare.
	And what happens?
	Well, what happens is the women...
	No longer have to choose responsible, decent, stand-up guys who are going to bring home a paycheck and not bang anything that reaches down to adjust her strap sandals.
	You've got to get some nice, stable, honest, decent guys to stay with you.
	Because if your guy leaves you, you bang the wrong guy, you get pregnant with the wrong guy, you're in trouble.
	Significant trouble.
	You might have to give up your kid.
	You might have to live on charity.
	Your sexual market value is going to collapse because you come not with...
	A fresh, unsealed, or sealed vagina ready for first use, you come with something with tread marks and the liability of a kid.
	So, without the welfare state, women grit their teeth, they cross their legs, and they say, okay, that guy's super hot.
	You know, he's got abs I could scrub my socks on, but I gotta grit my teeth and say no, because he's a player.
	He is a womanizer, what used to be called.
	He's not stable, he's not steady.
	So they grit their teeth, they cross their legs, and they go...
	For the Urkel with the accounting degree, right?
	But you get the welfare state, and then sexuality for women comes like pornography for men.
	It's consequence-free.
	And what happens is then the women end up marrying the state.
	They get the money from the government.
	They don't have to choose good guys, which means there's no particular sexual reward for being an honest, stable provider anymore.
	Because you can be just some doofus layabout and women will sleep with you because you're cool or hot or counterculture or alternative or whatever it is, pretty.
	And so then what happens is the men don't value work.
	Men don't value work.
	Men value access to reproduction, to put it as nicely as humanly possible.
	I never got up in the morning and said, yay, I get to clean carpets of cat fur tonight.
	Oh, fantastic.
	What we do is we wake up and we say, well, there's this girl, you see.
	I'd really like to take this girl out on a date, but I got no Benjamins in the watch.
	I got nothing, and I can't take her out for a popsicle and a stroll down the street.
	I mean, I remember once, I won't say the girl's name because she couldn't actually crack her down.
	I met this girl.
	I wanted to take her out on a date.
	And she came from a very rich family.
	It's actually a known family.
	And I asked her out.
	And, you know, I didn't obviously say, but I don't have a lot of money because, you know, can we go out?
	I have a tiny penis.
	Nobody wants to hear that stuff.
	So I say, where do you want to go?
	She's like, oh, I love eating at the CN Tower.
	Oh, no.
	So the CN Tower, for those who don't know, it's like this tallest freestanding structure in the world until I got an erection.
	But anyway.
	And so it's got this rotating restaurant.
	Now, you know, you add rotating to a restaurant, you are not exactly coming down in price.
	So what do I say?
	Do I say, oh, you know, you're very, very pretty and I like you a lot, but I think that's just a little bit above my pay grade.
	No!
	Men should show no limits of any kind at any time.
	And so I'm like, yeah, let's go.
	Friday sound good?
	So Friday we go.
	And I guess she's just used to hanging around with a bunch of rich guys, rich kids.
	So she's like, you know what I love?
	Lobster!
	Hey, you know what I like in return is doing the dishes at this restaurant for the next two years to pay for your lobster.
	And this was a place they didn't even have the price.
	I don't know if they have now.
	Back then, there weren't even prices on the menu.
	It's just dot, dot, dot, then a little infinity symbol and a ball and chain.
	So, of course, what do I say?
	I'll have salad and water because I'm a supermodel and I don't eat.
	And so...
	Anyway, it doesn't matter, but the bill came and I couldn't pay it.
	Didn't have the money.
	Didn't have a visa.
	I'm a teenager.
	But back then, you couldn't get a visa.
	So what do I do?
	I have to go to the washroom.
	All that water I've been drinking seems to be going right through me.
	So I get up and I go and talk to the waiter and I say, listen, almost man to man, can I tell you something?
	I don't have the money to pay.
	I had to leave my wallet.
	I had to wait for my next paycheck.
	I had to go back.
	I had to Give them the extra money to get my wallet back.
	It's okay.
	I didn't have a car.
	So it wasn't like I was driving without my license or anything.
	But that's, you know, and so men gather resources because resources give you access to reproduction.
	And so if the government takes over the role of the man, then the women marry the government and then the guys don't have much incentive to go out and bust their hump and hustle and go and apprentice with some electrician for a couple of years.
	You know, while regularly lighting up their eyeballs and skulls and spines with various electrical charges.
	And so that's how you take out a group that can underbid you.
	And I don't think it's an accident that the welfare state and all these licenses and all these restrictions through unions came at a time when blacks were pouring out into the marketplace competently underbidding what a lot of the White people's, what they were used to.
	I mean, it's sort of, and this is not a perfect analogy, Cameron, but it's sort of like what people complain about in America, you know, all these immigrants pouring in who work for less, except these were actually Americans, and America should have damn well gritted its teeth and said, well, they've earned it.
	You know, they did work for free for quite a bit of time.
	Let's give them some jobs.
	So, I think that interruption If not decapitation of the opportunities of the black community that was so viciously interrupted largely by Democrats was one of the great tragedies in American society and this is what's frustrating because I think it's become in many circumstances and situations of course not all but I think in a lot of black communities the
	idea always seems to be Just give us more, and everything will be fine.
	I'm sorry for that long explication of black experience.
	Makes some sense.
	I'm sorry to have to do this.
	I'm going to have to give a little speech and wrap it up, just because it's really tough to piece together what you're saying.
	I don't know if we've got...
	I assume space aliens are interfering with our conversation, as usual.
	Those tentacled bastards are always getting between us.
	But there's a statistic that, you know, I try not to be too data-driven because it's a philosophy show, not a reading numbers show, but there's something that I think is pretty powerful, and that is this.
	So every year about 7,000 blacks are murdered.
	94% of the time the murderer is another black person.
	7,000 blacks are murdered.
	We're not counting abortion, which is a whole other story.
	But throughout the entire Vietnam War, the number of blacks, American blacks killed in the Vietnam War, 7,243.
	7,243.
	So give or take, and the Vietnam War went on It depends, you know, how you measure it and so on.
	But let's say, I don't know, 64 to 72, 62 to 72, eight years, nine years, whatever, right?
	It means that every year in America, as many blacks are murdered as were killed in the near decade-long Vietnam War.
	All of the wars since 1980 in America have caused the deaths of about 8,200 American blacks.
	If we look at the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and all of the American wars since 1980, you get a number of about 18,500.
	So, roughly, every three and a half years, the number of blacks murdered, mostly by other blacks, is equivalent to To the 20th and 21st century war count every three and a half years.
	Do you know that a young black male in the army in Iraq and Afghanistan had a greater chance of survival than a young black man on the streets of Philadelphia or Chicago or Detroit or Oakland or Newark or other cities?
	It's easier and safer in a war zone than in these cities for young blacks.
	Now, the answer is white racism, more money.
	Well, I think it's safe to say that that thesis has been tried and found wanting.
	And It is a great and desperate tragedy because the success of black America has been a government program low these 50 years.
	I will say this again because people don't understand this.
	The success of black America has been a government program for 50 years at least.
	How's it going?
	Well, here's a hint.
	It's a government program.
	Government programs, like all violent acts in society, produce the opposite of its stated goals.
	The stated goals are used to sell people on the outcome.
	The outcome, in fact, is the opposite.
	Now, that reality is the great tragedy of race relations, right?
	So, Cameron, your original...
	And again, I'm sorry about the cell coverage.
	Your original question included this question.
	If the racial climate in America continues, where do you see our great country headed?
	Well, it's not my country.
	But the reality is that there is going to be a continued animosity, continued frustration on both sides.
	And again, I'm seeing this to some degree through the lens of the media.
	The conversations I have...
	With various ethnicities in this show is what helps me counter that media narrative.
	So I really appreciate you calling in as I appreciate everyone calling in.
	But it's going to head to significant racial conflict.
	And I'm not just talking rock, paper, scissors.
	There is an unbelievable amount of frustration on both sides.
	And...
	Black people are incredibly frustrated, activists in particular, because it's like, what do we have to do to get ahead?
	And people outside the black community are kind of frustrated because it's like, I don't know what else we have to give.
	I don't know what...
	And the problem is the giving.
	The problem is the coercive redistribution of wealth.
	When you break the commandment, thou shalt not steal.
	When you defy the great law of morality...
	With regards to property, thou shalt not steal.
	Thou shalt not bribe for votes.
	Thou shalt not view an entire segment of society as unable to get ahead without the generosity of great whitey.
	Well, when you break the ethics, you break society.
	And so it is my hope that That the recognition of the problem begins to emerge.
	It's not a black problem.
	It's increasingly, it's not just a black problem.
	It is increasingly a white problem.
	And it will be an Asian problem in time as well.
	Because white illegitimacy rates are one generation behind black illegitimacy rates.
	Because all of these violations of central moral commandments, thou shalt not steal, escalate, you know, like that Proverbial snowball rolled down the side of a snowy mountain.
	It builds and it builds and it builds till it can wipe out an entire city.
	And so the great challenge of the middle class and the rich is when groups come along that can undercut them, their first impulse is to run to the state and protect themselves from competition.
	And welfare keeps poor people out of the marketplace.
	Thus, Keeping the wages of the wealthy up and the middle class up.
	Now the government doesn't mind that.
	Because when people pay, people pay more in taxes because it's a graduated income tax, people pay more in taxes the more money they make.
	The government's very happy.
	When one person makes a million dollars rather than a thousand people making a thousand dollars.
	A thousand people making a thousand dollars pay almost no tax.
	The guy making a million dollars pays a lot.
	So the government has a double win.
	It drives wages up, which keeps taxes high.
	Also by creating these terrible neighborhoods, they drive flights of people like yourself and others out, which drives up property values, which increases property taxes.
	So they get to buy a lot of votes by handing out welfare.
	They get to drive up wages.
	They get to drive up real estate.
	Plus, people want to get away from these terrible schools and these terrible neighborhoods.
	So one of the reasons why there was a housing crash was Americans were so desperate to get away from shitty schools that they went out into the suburbs and paid for things they couldn't afford, houses they couldn't afford, just to get the halfway decent schools.
	But the reality is...
	And I'm not talking illegal immigration.
	I'm not talking the giant government program called immigration.
	I'm just talking about in a free market...
	There are going to be poor people, smart people, ambitious people, the hustlers, and they are going to outbid you.
	They are going to underbid you.
	And that sucks.
	But suck it up.
	That's the free market.
	People are going to come along.
	They're going to charge less for what you do.
	I was in the IT world for many years.
	I started off as a programmer.
	I was chief technology officer.
	I was the director of marketing.
	I did a lot of sales and so on.
	And one of the reasons I started exiting the programming world was because it was not hard to figure out that, A, the tools were getting much more powerful to automate.
	I mean, originally, coding for the web was a nightmare.
	And then you got ASP, ASP.NET, and then you got Java, and you got a wide variety.
	Anyway, so it just became faster and easier, and you got TypeAhead.
	You hit a dot.
	You get a drop-down list of all the commands you can use.
	That's pretty helpful.
	Don't have to wait for the compiler to tell you it ain't working.
	So it wasn't hard to figure out this stuff could be outsourced and a lot of it was going to start to be automated.
	And then, you know, now there's drag-and-drop websites and you don't need to know a bit of HTML. So there are going to be people who are going to come along and undercut you.
	And the only way that you can avoid that is to continue to upgrade your skills.
	So Or just be better at what you do.
	Just continue to improve.
	But a lot of people, you know, they get busy with kids.
	They get busy with life.
	And they don't want to keep upgrading their skills.
	And they just don't want to be on this hamster wheel of round and round and round.
	Some poor person comes along because they've let their own skills and relationships and customer satisfaction languish.
	Poor people come along and say, I'll do the job for half the price.
	And either you can say, well, that's a wake-up call.
	I better figure out how to provide double the value or cut my own prices or figure something out.
	No, you run to the government and say, it's dangerous.
	They don't have a license.
	We've got to give them – we need licensing.
	Otherwise, people will be – it's bad.
	Or you want a union.
	And last but not least, welfare will take these people out of the marketplace for generations.
	And everyone says, oh, you know, we want to get people off welfare and into the workforce.
	Well, take out the minimum wage restriction and have lots of people transition off welfare and into the workforce.
	We all know what that's going to do.
	It's going to drive down wages.
	Additional supply.
	Fairly static demand.
	So...
	This is the problem with having the state at the center of economic activity.
	No matter what you think of the state, the separation of state and economics, which is a pretty common idea, or at least it used to be, and something that is as necessary to the continuance of human society as the separation of church and state, separation of state and economics, has to happen so people don't have the temptation of using the power of the state to prop up their own wages and keep out the competition.
	Like all the Poor taxi companies.
	They pay $100,000, $125,000, $150,000 for a taxi license.
	And along comes Uber, which is a reputation management-based system that is ridiculously efficient and cheap.
	Uber is now experimenting with a flat rate.
	It's going to be about the same price or maybe even a little cheaper than the bus, but with fewer diesel fumes and vomit from homeless people.
	So where's it going to go?
	Well, Like everything in the West, it's going to go free or it's going to go bad.
	But I really appreciate your call.
	Thanks so much, Cameron.
	Please feel free to call back in.
	Maybe we can hook you up with a landline next time or something like that, because it would have been great to chat a little bit more.
	But I have to remember the patience of the listeners who find a little bit of the gargle snorkel a little bit tough to follow.
	But thanks so much for the call.
	Going to move on to the next caller and come back anytime you like.
	Thank you, sir.
	Alright, up next is Carrie.
	Carrie wrote in and said, One of the most difficult moral dilemmas I've been attempting to solve is the limits of moral integrity.
	The impetus for this dilemma was spawned by the movie The Dark Knight.
	In the movie, as the Joker speaks to Batman about the police, he says, I'm not even going to try to do the Joker impression.
	But Joker says, See?
	Their morals, their code, it's a bad joke.
	Dropped at the first sign of trouble.
	They're only as good as the world allows them to be.
	I'll show you.
	When the chips are down these...
	These civilized people, they'll eat each other.
	See, I'm not a monster.
	I'm just ahead of the curve.
	This is a reoccurring theme in the movie.
	The idea that people are corruptible under the right circumstances.
	Depending on the person, when situations become desperate enough, they will abandon their morals.
	My question is, must a person abide by petty morality even when there is so much at stake?
	For example, let's say that a madman is chasing after a man and the man runs into my house to hide.
	Meanwhile, the madman comes knocking on my door, describing the man and asking me if I've seen him.
	Would it be wrong to lie in this circumstance in order to divert the madman and prevent him from killing the fleeing man?
	Additionally, must a person always be moral even when it involves the most frivolous circumstances?
	For instance, let's say that I need a pencil and I see my roommate has one laying on his desk.
	If I took the pencil, then would it be considered stealing?
	Must I really abide by ethics in such a case?
	That's from Kerry.
	I have to get a song out of my head.
	Boy, you're gonna carry that weight a long time.
	Because it sounds like you've got a lot of stuff weighing on you with regards to ethics, right?
	Oh, yeah.
	I have a lot of thoughts running around in my head.
	I can help you.
	This is gonna be your ethics enema.
	All right?
	We're gonna just hose out all of that bad stuff.
	All right.
	Because it's a little...
	It's challenging, right?
	I mean, it's like having obsessive kind of thoughts.
	Oh, definitely.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	Do you want me to elaborate on one of my first questions?
	Sure.
	Yeah, so I'm pretty ambivalent on this situation.
	I don't have a specific stance to argue with, but on the one hand, part of me thinks that a person should always abide by morality because it's the consistency which is what gives it its meaning.
	As you've said, You take a moral rule and you apply it universally, like the law of gravity.
	So you can pick up a boulder or you can pick up a pebble, they all abide by the law of gravity.
	And they abide by the law of gravity on Earth and Mars.
	And so I'm trying to...
	I think that morality should take on that same consistency.
	But when we apply morality so consistently, Then there may be situations where we have to choose petty morality over saving a human life.
	So as I showed you, gave you those examples, or let's say there's a bear chasing me and I come up to a fence that says no trespassing.
	Technically, if I hop the fence, I'm an aggressor and I'm violating the non-aggression principle.
	And If we're moral agents who consistently abide by morality, we're gonna end up dead.
	There goes our whole genetic line, everything's gone.
	So I doubt, I don't know about you, I definitely would not be someone who would abide by morality in that instance.
	But another issue with abiding by morality to Well, hang on, sorry.
	Just before, if we can slice this up, I don't like sort of five questions and then five answers.
	Let's do one question, one answer at a time.
	So, let me take a guess, Cary.
	Did you experience any solitude or any particular kind of isolation when you were growing up as a kid?
	Not that I can think of.
	I was, I think I'm not as extroverted.
	I have pure Of when I'm very extroverted, sometimes introverted.
	Sometimes I like to spend a night reading rather than going out.
	Right.
	But with the people around you when you were growing up, did you have moral conversations, moral interactions with them when you were growing up?
	No...
	I've never had really any philosophical or moral debates with my family, with teachers.
	It really was introduced junior year of my high school.
	Okay, all right.
	And so when it comes to ethics, you have the benefit of being able to invent things yourself, right?
	Which is good because of more creativity.
	But you also have the drawback of having to build stuff up from scratch, right?
	Which is...
	Which is complicated and confusing, right?
	Yeah, the books don't provide you with all the answers.
	Well, no.
	If they did, there would be no reason for ethics, right?
	Because you just go look it up, right?
	All right.
	So, I knew that there was a kind of solitude in your history, because the one thing that you're missing, I believe, Carrie, is the understanding that ethics is a relationship.
	Ethics is a relationship because everything you're talking about is in isolation and with a commandment on an individual that is outside of a relationship.
	Well, the whole idea of...
	Hang on, hang on, hang on.
	Let me just finish my thought and then I'll...
	Right?
	So...
	You should always keep your contracts is a fairly decent moral approach, right?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	If it's universal that you should always keep your contracts, how do you deal with someone with whom you have a contract when that person does not keep his end of the contract up?
	Are you still obligated to keep your end of the contract up if the other person doesn't?
	No, it's no fun.
	Right.
	You order something online and they say, we'll send it to you, then you pay.
	We'll send it to you by Friday.
	You'll pay us Monday.
	You don't get it Friday.
	Do you pay Monday?
	Excuse me?
	I'm sorry.
	I didn't catch that.
	Somebody says, I will send you something Friday.
	You'll pay me Monday.
	And you say, sure.
	And then it doesn't arrive Friday and it doesn't arrive Monday.
	Do you still pay Monday?
	No, I don't.
	You don't.
	Because ethics is a standard you apply to ethical people.
	It is not like gravity or physics because ethics or high standards of moral behavior is something that is earned by other people's high standards of moral behavior.
	So, for instance, if you're a young person with no particular credit history and you say, I would like to have a credit card with a $50,000 spending limit, what are they going to say?
	You're not getting a credit card?
	Nope.
	Right?
	Because you don't have a credit history.
	They don't know what you're going to do.
	If, however, you are a multimillionaire who's 60 and you say, I want a $50,000 credit limit and you have a perfect credit score, what are they going to say?
	Here you go.
	Spend away.
	Yeah.
	Here you go, right?
	So there's something called trust, which you have earned.
	So once we understand that ethics is a kind of relationship or it is standards that you have That must be matched by standards that other people have in order to work.
	That ethics is not a solo occupation.
	Ethics is a team sport.
	Ethics is a tennis game.
	Did you ever...
	Did you play...
	I don't know if you ever played any sort of like soccer, football, rugby kind of lacrosse or whatever kind of team sports when you were a kid?
	Yeah, I played team sports.
	Baseball in particular.
	Okay.
	So, Kerry, did you ever have that kid...
	Who just goes for glory every time.
	Every time.
	Yes.
	And you're like, I'm open!
	Pass it to me!
	And they're getting swarmed by like six million refrigerator-sized guys from the other team.
	And you're like, pass it to me!
	I'm open!
	And they're like, no, I got it!
	Right?
	They just won't pass the ball.
	Because they want the glory.
	And...
	Do you feel like passing the ball to that kid when you get it?
	No.
	No.
	You say, well, it's good to pass.
	Yeah, it's good to pass.
	If you're in trouble and the other guy's open, pass the ball because it's the team who gets the point, not you, right?
	But if the other kid doesn't pass the ball, you kind of run out of a desire to pass the ball to him, right?
	Especially because you know he ain't going to pass it back.
	You're going to pass to some other kid who's going to sensibly pass it back, right?
	So that is, you know, should you pass the ball?
	Yeah.
	As long as the other person has the same perspective.
	Does that make sense?
	Yes.
	So how would you go about that example that I provided you with, one in the question about the madman?
	The madman.
	Okay.
	Yes.
	Okay, the madman.
	He's chasing after a man to do that man harm.
	Maybe the voices in his head has told him that that man is, I don't know, some space alien who's going to end the world, right?
	So, the madman is going to initiate the use of force against the man he's chasing.
	Unjustly, right?
	Initiating the use of force, by definition, means unjustly, right?
	So, he's already...
	Not passing the ball, right?
	He's already excluded himself from the necessity or the obligation to be treated with ethical respect, with high ethical standards, right?
	So in other words, you say, well, I owe this man the truth.
	Why?
	Why do you owe him the truth?
	He's already acting in an immoral manner.
	You owe the guy the payment for the goods he ships you online only if you actually receive them.
	You don't owe him the payment if he's not shipped you the goods, right?
	And that's what I mean when I say ethics is a relationship.
	High ethical standards are earned by other people based upon their high ethical standards.
	And this is how you avoid the problem of ethics becoming...
	Contextless commandments.
	Like, they have to be obeyed.
	Like, you just turn into this robot.
	Well, I have to tell the truth.
	Tell the truth.
	No matter what.
	No matter if the other person's lying.
	No matter if they're saying, I want to strangle your wife.
	Where is she?
	No matter what.
	I have to tell the truth.
	Tell the truth.
	That's not philosophy.
	That's computer programming.
	Actually, you could even program the computer to have reciprocal ethics.
	Ethics are earned.
	Ethics are not provided without context no matter what.
	I'm not saying that they're subjective, but this is how we avoid the problem of saying, well, I'm never going to use force.
	That's why it's the non-initiation of force.
	If other people don't initiate force against me, I have no right to initiate force against them because they're already treating me with the ethical respect of not initiating force against me.
	Now, when someone does initiate force against me, I'm allowed self-defense.
	Because they have broken the contract.
	I don't have to pay them for something they never shipped.
	And I don't have to respect their desire to not have violence used against them because they're willing to use it against me.
	So you need the relationship in ethics in order to have the capacity for self-defense.
	Now, a lot of this has kind of fallen away, feminism, because, I don't know, maybe there are groups in society who don't feel particularly comfortable with self-defense and therefore don't feel that it's a very strong thing to deal with.
	But all rational systems of philosophy need to deal with the problem of self-defense.
	And the only way you can deal with the problem of self-defense is to say, don't use force, can't just be some commandment without a context.
	The madman It's going to initiate the use of force.
	He is going to strangle whoever he's chasing him unjustly.
	So you don't owe that person the truth any more than you owe someone payment for something you never received.
	Does that make any sense?
	Yeah.
	So let's get to the next step.
	So I understand that you don't owe...
	The aggressor and immorality.
	But can you nullify morals when it comes to other moral agents?
	So let's say there's an aggressor.
	Let's say there's a serial killer and he's pledged to kill a person every single day unless five million dollars shows up at his doorstep.
	Something like that.
	And there's no way No, no, no.
	Come on, come on.
	You can't set things up in that way.
	If the guy is in society, he's going to kill someone.
	How is it impossible to catch him?
	I mean, make sure that everyone has the right to bear arms, and that will help, right?
	If everyone's armed, or at least has the right to be armed, then the serial killer's going to have just a bit of a tougher time.
	But, you know, saying we can't catch him is setting up a pretty artificial situation, right?
	So then, is it that we will, we should...
	Carry out the non-aggression principle consistently.
	Or is it that we should reasonably carry it out?
	I just told you.
	I don't know about consistency versus reasonably here.
	Yes.
	Okay.
	The non-aggression principle means that you should not initiate the use of force against people.
	If they're initiating the use of force against you, they're not covered by the non-aggression principle.
	In other words, you keep your contracts...
	If other people keep their contracts, but if they don't keep their contracts, you're not obligated to keep yours.
	And if they're using force against you unjustly, you can use force right back.
	And that's perfectly moral because they broke their contract.
	So then this is not placing concepts above individuals.
	This is placing individuals above concepts, correct?
	No idea what that means.
	This is what it is to be consistent in the non-aggression principle.
	Non-initiation of force is a value.
	If people initiate force, they've excluded themselves from a moral contract and they can be acted against with force.
	That's perfectly consistent.
	Okay.
	You've mentioned it in a past video, I think it was the Aristotle video, that one of the questions he posed was, do we place concepts above individuals?
	And that was one of my concerns with carrying out the non-aggression principle like a robot, that you're placing concepts above individuals.
	Do you recall when you said that?
	Yeah, but I don't understand what that would mean with regards to this conversation.
	If you place concepts above individuals, then...
	No, you asked a question, I gave you an answer, and now you're fogging.
	Do you accept the answer that I gave you?
	If there's something wrong with the answer, we should talk about that.
	Okay, then we have an answer.
	So why are we still...
	Two plus two is what?
	Four.
	Well, but Aristotle said you shouldn't place concepts above people, so how does that apply?
	It's like, no, what's two and two?
	It makes four.
	We've got that answer.
	We can move on to the next question, but I don't think that we should get an answer and then start fogging it.
	Like we didn't have an answer or the answer is somehow incomplete or the answer is somehow not Aristotelian enough or something, right?
	You've got this question about the madman.
	We've got an answer.
	Good!
	Let's celebrate.
	Let's break some bubbly.
	Let's have a good time.
	We've got an answer.
	But if you then want to start fogging it, it means that for some reason you don't want an answer.
	Right?
	Because you asked a question, I gave you an answer, you agreed with it, and then you immediately started fogging the answer.
	It means that you don't want The answer.
	I can tell you why, if you like.
	Sure, go ahead.
	But I completely agree with the answer.
	Right, but you didn't say, thank you, Steph, for solving a problem that has tortured me these many years.
	Let's move on to the next one.
	You're like, yes, but Aristotle and Fogg and concepts and people, there was no relief for you in getting the answer, right?
	Okay.
	Alright, let's talk about the pencil.
	Yes.
	You need a pencil, you see your roommate has one lying on his desk.
	Alright, the answer to that, and this is years ago, a guy, I can't remember who it was, was asking this question about a flagpole scenario.
	You're hanging from a flagpole by the side of a building.
	You can kick in a window and climb to safety into somebody's apartment, but isn't that trespassing?
	Shouldn't you fall and create a perfectly consistent moral stain on the sidewalk and die?
	And of course, the answer is no.
	The reason for that is that if you could reasonably expect that the person would approve your use of their property, it's fine to use it.
	Right?
	So, if you go into a store...
	And you steal a diamond ring and then you get caught.
	There's no rational defense that says, I thought they'd be fine with it.
	I look really good with this diamond ring on.
	I don't even know why they have a problem.
	And the reason for that is it's a store.
	There's a price tag on the diamond ring.
	There's no shoplifting signs.
	There's shoplifters will be prosecuted.
	There's security cameras.
	You never asked.
	You've never been in that store before.
	You don't know these people.
	So, of course, there's no defense called, well, I thought they'd be fine with it.
	On the other hand, if...
	You run this store and your son comes in and he says, I'm just about to get married.
	I've lost my ring.
	I need to borrow this ring.
	And you say, okay.
	Or even if you're not there, the son comes in, takes the ring, and then says, my father worked there.
	He'd have no problem with it.
	They call you up and you say, oh, that's fine.
	Then you're not going to get charged with stealing.
	If you have a reasonable belief that the person would not object to your use of property...
	Because whether you give permission to someone before the act or after the act is morally not crucial.
	Not crucial.
	Right?
	So, if you and I are neighbors and I let you borrow my lawnmower at any time and I'm on vacation and let's just say the lawnmower is on my porch and you come over to my porch and you borrow the lawnmower, you have reason to believe that That, even though I didn't give permission beforehand, if the police phoned up this guy on vacation and said, hey, do you know your neighbor's using your lawnmower?
	He'd be like, that's fine.
	He does it all the time.
	It's no problem.
	I use his pogo stick.
	Sometimes we do it at the same time, and it's very exciting.
	So whether you get permission before or after is not crucial.
	Now, obviously, if you get permission before, you're 100% certain.
	If you hope to get permission afterwards, you may only be 99.9% certain.
	So there's a tiny risk, but not really.
	And so the question isn't, are you stealing your roommate's pencil?
	The question is, if you phoned your roommate and said, listen, I know you're having the best sex of your life.
	I hate to interrupt you.
	I just want you to think of Margaret Thatcher in a bikini.
	And can I use your pencil?
	He'd be like, just use the pencil.
	Please don't call me.
	Don't call me again.
	At least not for 30, 40 seconds, right?
	Oh, and 50, because of the Margaret Thatcher thing.
	So, if the guy is going to be fine with you using the pencil, it's fine.
	It's fine.
	Now, I'll give you another example.
	When I was in a play once, and there was a woman who was in the play, and she was diabetic.
	And she kept, it was a chocolate bar, it's been a long time, in the fridge, behind the stage.
	Now, she came out to everyone and she said, I need that chocolate bar for X, Y, and Z. I've got this ailment.
	Don't eat it.
	Well, that clearly is not.
	But you go and eat that chocolate bar and she needs it and she gets sick.
	Well, you're in trouble, right?
	Because she explicitly said, don't do it, right?
	As opposed to, I don't know, my wife buys a box of chocolates and I have, you know...
	Am I stealing from her while she didn't officially give it to me?
	I'm just going to assume she doesn't mind if I go through the layers until I find the one that's just right.
	So, oh, I hate that line.
	Life's like a box of chocolates.
	You never know what you're going to get.
	There are pictures and labels right there.
	Maybe you can't read, but anyway.
	Ah, well.
	Hope is a thing with feathers.
	That's the thing at the beginning of that movie.
	Anyway, so you're not stealing because you have every reason to believe that your roommate isn't going to care about you using a pencil.
	And the example of you're fleeing a bear and there's a trespassing sign, right?
	Now, let me ask you this, Kerry.
	Let's say that you're the owner of the land, right?
	It's your trespassing sign there, right?
	No trespassing, right?
	Yeah.
	Now let's say that I am running away from a bear.
	Would you rather I jump your fence and survive or stop and be chewed alive?
	And go down screaming and with my scalp ripped off and a bear chewing through my ass and stuff, right?
	Would you rather me jump the fence and survive or would you rather that I stand alive In front of the fence and let myself get eaten and slowly killed by some bear.
	Of course I'd let you hop the fence and I'd want you to hop.
	Right.
	So you have every reason to believe that whoever owns that property will give you permission after the fact.
	And in fact would be tortured and upset if you let yourself get eaten alive by a bear.
	Like if I had a condo And some guy was hanging for his life from a flagpole.
	And he didn't kick in my window and climb to safety and fell and died.
	I'd be incredibly upset and angry at that person and really frustrated and sad.
	In fact, I would have begged him to kick in my window.
	Why?
	Because I'm a nice person and only a sociopath would value his condo over a human life, right?
	And so if I had property and some guy was running away, I would want that person to use my property to save his life rather than get eaten by the bear.
	Can you imagine?
	You get the phone call from the cops and it's like, oh, a guy stopped at your sign.
	We found his arm halfway up the tree.
	He's been ripped apart.
	His entrails are scattered all over the place and there's an eyeball sitting on your fence post.
	I'd be like, what an idiot!
	Oh my god, why didn't he come into my property?
	I would much rather have a live person and some footprints than a dead person, an investigation, guilt, shame, horror, anger.
	I mean, what a terrible situation.
	Just use my property to save your life.
	Hey, don't get me wrong.
	If you bust up my window, it's not the end of the world if you want to replace it.
	I'm fine with that.
	But please, God, don't let yourself get eaten by a bear.
	Use my property.
	And so when you're fleeing some bear and there's a no trespassing sign, you have every reason to believe that the person would allow you to use the property if they were there to give permission.
	Right?
	So it's not stealing.
	It's not trespassing because you have permission.
	Okay, that makes sense.
	So it's a reasonable expectation.
	Now, you can, of course, come up with, like, remember, there's gray areas.
	But that doesn't matter at all.
	But that doesn't matter.
	So you could theoretically construct some scenario where maybe it's 50-50.
	Oh, you know, it's, it wasn't, you know, I was being chased by a bee, and I don't like bees, and I decided to smash through someone's stained glass antique window.
	You know what I mean?
	I don't, you can come up with something incredibly rare, incredibly inconsequential.
	And my only response to that would be, okay, well, you're just taking more of a chance.
	And if you have...
	If you're frightened by a bee and you smash someone's $10,000 stained glass window in order to find sanctuary or whatever, well, then you might have to pay for the window.
	You know what I mean?
	But...
	These are not big issues relative to the fact that we have a giant government national debt and near universal war.
	You can always come up with some scenario wherein you'd say, well, which is it?
	It's like, well, I guess that's what civil courts are for.
	These things would have to be worked out.
	But as far as a principle goes, if you get permission after the fact, it's fine.
	That comes from the book Les Miserables.
	I don't know if you've ever read it or seen the exquisite stage musical.
	Just go listen to Colm Wilkinson sing Bring Him Home or...
	I don't know.
	I haven't watched the movie because it's Colm Wilkinson and you don't improve.
	I've seen that play a bunch of times.
	Anyway, at the beginning of the story, Jean Valjean, who is a...
	He's on the run and he...
	Oh, he's been released from prison or something like that.
	Yeah, he's been released from prison and he goes to the house of a priest and the priest puts him up and then he steals, I think, a candlestick, a silver candlestick and runs off into the...
	And then he's caught by the police and the police drag him back to the priest and the police say, he says, you gave this to him.
	And the priest didn't give it to him.
	The priest says, yes, I did give it to him.
	And then he says to Jean Valjean, remember this kindness.
	Remember this kindness.
	And this helps him turn his life around and there's A great story and fantastic singing.
	So, here, the priest gave permission after the fact, and what did the police say?
	They, uh, they exonerated him?
	Well, yeah.
	The priest gave permission after the fact?
	Okay.
	Well, if you're not going to press charges, there's no crime.
	So, that's how to solve that.
	Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.
	Thank you very much for that.
	You're very welcome.
	So I'll just mention that one of the reasons why people like to ask moral questions and not answer moral questions is once you answer moral questions, you then have to start taking moral actions.
	And it's one of the ways in which people like to avoid the answer, because once you have the answer, then you no longer have to worry about whether you've got the right answer, and then you have to start going out and talking to people about ethics in the real world with a great degree of certainty and a great degree of Volatility in your conversations with people.
	So I just wanted to mention that that's generally why people don't particularly like to do that stuff.
	So it's just a possibility to think about, but I really appreciate your question and your thoughts about this.
	And if you don't have any other questions, I will move on to the next caller.
	And I just wanted to mention, because I like to get things out of sequence, People should really check out The Truth About Single Moms.
	It's a show that we've done, relative to the first caller.
	I forgot to mention it earlier, but The Truth About Single Moms.
	It's just one of these things that this show will make a lot more sense if you get that, because otherwise it sounds like confusing stuff.
	And the last thing that I'll mention, it's a book recommendation.
	And it is a very interesting book.
	I read it when I was a little kid.
	There's a scene in my novel, The God of Atheists, where a kid is reading and gets in trouble with the teacher.
	This, believe it or not, is actually the book that I was reading when this all went down in my life.
	And the book is by Eric Kastner.
	That's E-R-I-C-H Kastner K-A-S-T-N-E-R The book is called Emil and the Detectives.
	Now, Emil and the Detectives is a little bit of an older book.
	And I'm just trying to figure out.
	Let me just see here the cover.
	When was it actually first written?
	It's a novel for children.
	It was originally written, I believe, in German.
	And then, of course, naturally translated.
	Oh, yeah.
	It was first written in 1929.
	And I read this as a child for reasons I can't possibly...
	Remember.
	And it's a great book.
	I read it to my daughter some time back.
	And in it, there is one kid who is the son of a judge.
	And the kid asks, they have a big debate about, is it right to steal back something that was stolen from you?
	Is it right to steal back something that was stolen from you?
	And by the way, if anyone out there knows, I know that there have been some video versions of this made.
	If anybody knows where I can get a hold of any, I would really like to see the movie.
	Or movies, I think it's been made a bunch of times.
	But it is a really fun story.
	It's a good story.
	And those kinds of questions about, is it fair to steal back something that was stolen from you?
	I remember first reading about this when I was very young.
	I think I read this when I was eight.
	And I remember thinking about that question quite a bit.
	So let's just say it's been a couple of decades that I've been mulling it over.
	But yeah, thanks very much, Kerry, for your call.
	And let's move on to the next one.
	Thank you very much.
	Alright, up next is Sergey.
	He wrote in and said, How do we fight liberal media?
	What actions can we take to put them out of power?
	What is the most effective action that we can take?
	How can we convince people of the corrupt media?
	That is from Sergey.
	Uh, it's Sergey, but it's close enough.
	Sergey!
	Alright, okay, it sounded a bit white for me, but okay.
	I mean, Mike's pronunciation.
	But then, he just auditioned for the Joker and didn't get the job.
	Um...
	So, Sergei, welcome.
	What are your thoughts about the mainstream media?
	And by that, we're sort of talking cable news, television, mainstream television.
	Yeah, pretty much.
	Newspapers, magazines, that kind of stuff, right?
	Yeah, Facebook is a big part of it, I'd say, too.
	Hmm, all right.
	And I mean, if I can add anything to it, I think it kind of sprung out of just seeing how...
	I mean, to start off, I'm a Trump supporter, but majority of my friends, majority of my Facebook friends or colleagues, they're not...
	And what I see a lot of is when I get in the arguments with them, when I have discussions with them, when I talk about politics and Trump versus Hillary, I see a lot of the answers, a lot of their thought process and opinion comes from What I see in the media sources.
	A lot of them are conservative like me.
	It's surprising to see that they buy into that narrative, if that makes sense.
	I understand if it's a liberal or a democrat running with that anti-Trump rants on and stuff.
	What I don't understand is, you know, why so many conservatives, like people who I used to share the same opinion, don't.
	And part of me, I don't understand.
	I guess originally I was thinking, like, how do I... Convince and explain to you how much of influence you are, how influenced you're being by the things you read, things you see.
	And then I guess start thinking about a more broader question, like, you know, we all know, I mean, not all maybe, but many of us are aware that media is so biased, media is so corrupt.
	But What can be done about it?
	I personally have not heard of any discussion or thoughts on what can actually be done as an individual.
	I get it.
	I get it.
	Sorry.
	We're circling the question here.
	There are a couple of things.
	It's a great question to bring up.
	It is one of the deep and abiding joys of my life watching the slow credibility seppuku of the mainstream media.
	Michael Goodwin wrote something good.
	It wins in the New York Post.
	And the article title is from a couple of days ago, August 21st, 2016.
	5.40am.
	I'm off to milk the cows and write some journalism.
	And he wrote an article entitled, American Journalism is Collapsing Before Our Eyes.
	And it starts like this.
	Donald Trump may or may not fix his campaign and Hillary Clinton may or may not become the first female president.
	But something else is happening before our eyes.
	Sorry, but something else happening before our eyes is almost as important.
	The complete collapse of American journalism as we know it.
	Now that's a strong statement.
	The complete collapse of American journalism as we know it.
	He goes on to say, or to write, The frenzy to bury Trump is not limited to the Clinton campaign and the Obama White House.
	They are working hand in hand with what was considered the cream of the nation's news organizations.
	The shameful display of naked partisanship by the elite media is unlike anything seen in modern America.
	The largest broadcast networks, CBS, NBC and ABC, and major newspapers like the New York Times and Washington Post have jettisoned all pretense of fair play.
	Their fierce determination to keep Trump out of the Oval Office has no precedent.
	Indeed, no foreign enemy, no terror group, no native criminal gang suffers the daily beating that Trump does.
	The mad mullahs of Iran who call America the great Satan and vow to wipe Israel off the map are treated gently by comparison.
	By torching its remaining credibility in the service of Clinton, the mainstream media's reputations will likely never recover.
	Nor will the standards.
	No future producer, editor, reporter, or anchor can be expected to meet a test of fairness when that standard has been trashed in such willful and blatant fashion.
	Liberal bias in journalism is often baked into the cake.
	The traditional ethos of comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable leads to demands that governments solve every problem.
	big government then becomes routine among most journalists, especially young ones.
	Now, there used to be, so younger people tend to lean left, older people tend to lean right, because younger people are on the receiving end of government, milk-tittiness, and the older people are paying, right?
	As Churchill said, if you're not a socialist, when you're young, you have no heart.
	If you're not a conservative, when you're older, you have no brain.
	So it used to be that the younger journalists...
	Would come in all starry-eyed and lefty, but the older journalists would be more on the right and would try and balance things out.
	Now that has, since the generation has gone by, since the leftists took over academia throughout the West, now the editors are leftists and the young people who are writing are leftists and of course a lot of the readers are leftists and so on, right?
	And so, except for the opinion pages, Newspapers in particular, and TV journalism, used to be scrubbed free of reporters' political views.
	You see, if you're providing opinion, you need to kind of say that it's opinion.
	Whereas everything else is, as the saying used to be, here are the facts, you decide.
	Now this writer says those days are gone.
	The Times now is so out of the closet as a Clinton shill...
	That it is giving itself permission to violate any semblance of even-handedness in its news pages as well as its opinion pages.
	And this is do or die for the media.
	Because the question is, and I've been thinking about this for a while, talking about this with friends for a while.
	What, are they crazy?
	I mean, the mainstream media, are they nuts?
	And I kind of get now that they're not crazy and they're not nuts.
	Doesn't mean they're right, but there are particular incentives that are driving them to do what they're doing.
	Why are they going so mental over Trump?
	You know, as I said before, you go to Google News and scroll through, if you've got the Canadian edition, it's like, Trump bad, Trump bad, Trump crazy, Trump bad, Trump racist, Trump xenophobe, Trump crazy, Trump, whatever, right?
	I mean, it's non-stop.
	And it's great.
	It's fucking great.
	Because for a long time, this bias in the media was considered to be a conspiracy theory.
	Ooh, you think there's all this liberal bias in the media.
	I guess you think that lizard men run the planet.
	It's like, it was considered...
	But now, it's like nobody has any doubt.
	Anymore.
	It's completely obvious.
	And there's a lot of things that have come out of this So first of all, everyone understands that mainstream media is the publicity arm of the Democrat Party in the U.S. And, you know, the media in general is the mouthpiece of the lefties in power.
	So good.
	That's been set to rest.
	Because they're now admitting it.
	Well, if I think that Trump is a dangerous demagogue who's going to blow up the planet, it's fine for me to be biased because he's evil.
	I mean, you don't expect history books to be neutral about Hitler, do you?
	So, at least that is no longer a conspiracy theory.
	That's out in the open.
	I mean, it's crazy.
	So, they tried to hide it for, you know, quite a while.
	And now, they don't try to hide it.
	And That's great.
	Fantastic.
	So the question is, well, a couple of confusing questions.
	Number one, how on earth is Obama furious at his daughter for appearing to smoke pot when he basically said he was a pothead for significant portions of his youth?
	Oh, do as I say, not as I did.
	That's natural.
	But anyway, the other question is, why the hell are they doing this?
	Why are they torturing themselves so significantly?
	Well, I don't know if you know this.
	It's pretty nutty.
	But a lot of money from the mainstream media, a lot of their profits come from political advertising, right?
	Billions and billions of dollars just on television ads alone are spent in an election cycle in an attempt to influence the outcome, right?
	Now, how much money has Trump spent on TV ads?
	That's not a rhetorical question.
	I don't know if you know or not.
	Out of his own money?
	Doesn't matter.
	They don't care whose money it is.
	They just want it, right?
	They don't care if it comes from space aliens shitting gold into a dish.
	They just, you know...
	He spent very little money on television ads.
	He spent very little money on television and radio.
	He spent very little money on anything.
	Because Trump has free publicity because he flies on a jet that has...
	Gold seat belt buckles.
	You know, he's Trump.
	He doesn't need to pay for ads because if he phones up someone and says, I want to give you an interview, they'll take the interview and people will watch it.
	So Trump doesn't need to spend money on ads.
	Now, Jeb, exclamation mark, apparently from the family of exclamation marks, I think they're out in the Hampton somewhere, but Jeb spent millions and millions and millions of dollars on ads.
	Tens of millions, I think.
	And so the newspapers and the radio and the television loved Jeb and loved everyone else who was spending lots of money on them and didn't like Trump because Trump was cutting into their profit margin.
	I guarantee you, people have lost their jobs in American media because Trump has not been spending money on ads.
	Right?
	So...
	Partly, it's just bald, naked economic self-interest.
	If Trump's in the race, we are out tens of millions of dollars.
	So there's that aspect, which is important.
	It's the same thing with political consultants.
	Why are political consultants so angry when At Donald Trump, why do they oppose Donald Trump so much?
	Because he doesn't hire them.
	Right?
	And, and, here's the thing, it's not just Trump not hiring these political consultants.
	If Trump doesn't hire these political consultants, and these political, and Trump wins, it's not just this round, it's the future.
	Trump is completely rewriting the economics of politics, and the economics of politics is a trillion dollar business over time.
	Well, maybe not trillion.
	Many, many billions of dollars over time.
	So, that basic reality that political consultants and the people who do all of this data mining and stuff like that, I mean, those people have been selling their wares in politics for a long time.
	And it has been considered absolutely necessary for To pay for their services, right?
	Now Trump cleaned up in the Republican nomination process while spending, if I understand this correctly, and I think this number is correct, precisely zero dollars on all this stuff.
	So again, these guys are out.
	Millions and millions and millions and millions of dollars.
	So of course they're not going to like him.
	Now, the business people Don't like Trump for a couple of reasons.
	Number one, they can't buy him.
	So, you know, I mean, if you donate a lot of money, there just is half the people who saw Hillary Clinton when she was Secretary of State.
	Half of the people that she saw had donated to the Clinton Foundation.
	Hmm.
	I wonder if that's a mysterious coincidence.
	I think the RICO standard is no, it's not.
	So big business likes politicians that they can buy, that they can donate to, that they can support, that they can fundraise for, that they can super pack up the yin-yang.
	They love those guys because they provide them a bunch of benefits and then those people in general in a pay-for-play scheme will provide them benefits, political benefits in return.
	So they don't like him either.
	But it's even more than that.
	And this is just tip of the iceberg of the people who don't like him.
	But Here's the basic reality, Sergey, that I think is going on.
	And once we understand what the stakes are, then I think we'll understand why the reactions tend to be so hysterical.
	So let's say that Donald Trump gets in.
	Let us then further say that Donald Trump is able to Convince, let's say, 11 million illegal immigrants to not continue to enjoy the American experience.
	What does that do to the Democrats?
	It was their vote.
	Yeah, they have lost their most reliable voting base, voting bloc.
	We know that Muslims reliably vote left, and so if Donald Trump does something about Muslim immigration, then the left loses another voting bloc.
	Now, the media has all of its connections and has designed itself entirely and specifically around the possibility of The Democrats getting power in American politics.
	That's their whole thing.
	That's all they're adapted to.
	They are the parasite and the Democrats are the host.
	Maybe it's the other way around.
	It doesn't really matter.
	But the media has for at least two generations grown into the publicity arm of the Democrat Party.
	Now if...
	Donald Trump gets in and undercuts the voting bloc base of the Democrats.
	This is why this election is so crucial.
	Because if Hillary Clinton gets her way, then the Democrats are going to continue to import voters from overseas who then, or legitimize voters who are there illegally in America, or who will then be able to vote more easily.
	And so if Hillary gets her way, the Republican Party is finished.
	Finished!
	I say that without proof, but with great conviction.
	There's lots of evidence for it.
	They go the way of the wigs, and for the same damn reason.
	But anyway, if the Democrats get in in November, the Republican Party is finished.
	I mean, it might still exist as a kind of handmaiden or justification or pretend choice in American politics, but they'll be done.
	As far as listening to what the Republican voting bloc or voting base want.
	So if Hillary gets in, the Republican Party is toast.
	On the other hand, if Donald Trump gets in, I believe, the Democrat Party as it's currently constituted is toast.
	Because they can't survive.
	And look, it's not like all illegal immigrants vote.
	Of course they can't in many ways.
	But the path to citizenship that Hillary Clinton wants, and she wants a massive increase in immigration from third world countries.
	Not because the left values diversity.
	The left doesn't give two rat shits about diversity.
	If the left cared at all about diversity, they'd say, wow, we seem to have a lot of leftists here in academia and the media and Hollywood, so we really need to open it up to Republicans because they are a significant portion of America and we don't have enough Republican representation here at the New York Times or at Harvard or wherever.
	They don't care about diversity.
	If they cared about diversity, they'd enact diversity where they actually had power already, which is in the media and academia.
	And the arts.
	They don't care about diversity at all.
	They care about importing people who are going to vote left.
	Of course.
	Of course.
	Like power.
	So if Donald Trump gets in and there's self-deportation, self-deportation means no path to citizenship.
	Self-deportation means fewer illegal immigrants coming in.
	If any.
	If there's a wall, it blocks off The Democrats from their drug of choice, which is non-Americans who vote left, right?
	And so if Donald Trump gets in, well, first of all, if he does achieve positive things for the black community, which I think there's good reasons to believe he will, then the black community may shift its allegiance from the left to the right.
	If there's no past citizenship, then the Democrats can't drool over the prospect of legitimizing millions and millions of people who are almost exclusively going to vote for Democrats.
	It's like 80-85% I think of Hispanics who are going to vote left.
	So this is not business as usual.
	This election in November is the life or death of one of the two historical parties in America, in my humble opinion.
	Now, not only does Donald Trump's candidacy remove tens of millions of dollars, billions of dollars from the pockets of the mainstream media.
	I mean, he'll run some ads, but he doesn't, again, he's a free market guy, he doesn't need to.
	But, Donald Trump's candidacy threatens the continued existence of the Democrats' As they are currently constituted.
	As a party that doesn't have to make arguments because it's got its thumb on the scale of the voting machines.
	Because it's importing voters that automatically agree with it for a variety of cultural reasons rather than making the case to the American people.
	Which is why the Democrats get so crazy when people start talking about immigration.
	Not because they have some great love for immigration.
	It's just that's...
	How they get their drug of choice, which is power, and the way they get it is by importing people who are going to vote left.
	Started in 1965 and has continued to this day.
	Now, the media understand this.
	The Democrats understand this.
	The Republicans, the Republican mainstream to some degree understand this.
	Donald Trump understands this completely.
	I guarantee you Donald Trump understands this completely.
	These are the stakes.
	This is either America turning into the usual leftist hellhole into Brazil, or it is America not doing that.
	And it is the continuation of one party or the other, but I don't think both.
	I never thought it was...
	Going to be the last straw for either side, to be honest.
	Again, this is my opinion.
	I think there's good reasons for it, but for the media, the media, mainstream media, all their contacts, all their preferences, all their culture, all of their hires, all of their reason for getting out of bed in the morning is to promote the Democrats.
	If Donald Trump, through his policies on immigration, on border security, on jobs, on creating opportunities rather than dependence for certain poor communities, Donald Trump is going to attempt to undo the last 50 years of Democrats importing voters rather than making their case to the American people.
	Importing leftist voters rather than trying to convince the American people that more socialism is the way to go.
	If Donald Trump undoes Obamacare.
	Why is there Obamacare?
	There is Obamacare because illegal immigrants can't afford healthcare.
	Right?
	Healthcare premiums for a family of four cost like 15, 20,000 bucks a year.
	You're making 10 bucks an hour.
	Your grand total sum before taxes and expenses is $20,000 a year.
	See...
	The Democrats want to import these voters, but these voters don't make much money, so the Democrats have to keep firing more and more resources to keep those voters in the country, or those potential voters in the country.
	Because, you see, even if they can't vote, there's still a constituent and a sort of power base in the economic calculations of both left and right.
	So if he undoes Obamacare, Then there's less incentive to stay.
	If he builds a wall, if he does all of the things that he says he wants to do, then the Democrats are crippled.
	Crippled.
	And if the Democrats are crippled, what is the job of the media?
	Well, their whole job is to promote and protect the Democrats.
	If the Democrats are crippled, Nobody's going to care about the Democrats.
	But that's all the media writes about.
	That's all their contacts.
	That's all their culture.
	All their hires.
	Everything they do is about protecting the Democrats.
	Attacking Republicans and protecting Democrats.
	Now, if the Democrats are politically crippled, what is the media going to write about and who's going to care what they say?
	Which means people are going to stop watching and listening and buying.
	Which means that with fewer eyeballs, then the price that the media is able to charge for their ads is going to collapse.
	You know, it was a big shock when radio finally started tracking people properly rather than people trying to remember what they listened to and when or making notes or whatever.
	Because it turned out that the radio audiences were like tiny compared to what they were telling advertisers.
	Which is one of the reasons why radio revenue plummeted, because once they actually could figure out how many people were listening to radio, and it was like a tiny percentage relative to what they said to the advertisers, you know, if the advertisers think they're talking to 100,000 people, they're only talking to 25,000 people, guess what?
	They're only going to pay a quarter of the advertising rates, if that.
	So if the Democrats are crippled, nobody's reading or watching the mainstream media, which means their ad revenue, which is already crippled, Going down, their ad revenue is going to collapse.
	So they're literally fighting for their continued economic survival.
	They're fighting to stay alive, in my opinion.
	So I think it's important to understand what the stakes are.
	If Donald Trump gets in, if he's successful, he's going to do two terms.
	Media is already bleeding money.
	The mainstream media is already bleeding money in many situations and circumstances.
	Could they survive eight years of plummeting ad revenue?
	Of it never coming back?
	Because if Donald Trump is right, limiting immigration, deporting or causing situations of self-deportation among illegal immigrants...
	And reviving the economy.
	If Donald Trump is right in building the wall and all of the policies that he pursues, if this does spark a renaissance in America, if this does get people off welfare, if it does get them working again, if families start to heal, if the economy begins to grow, if tax revenue is simplified, if people have a tax form they can fill out on the back of a postage card, if He's able to bring down corporate tax rates to the level of Germany down from one of the highest in the world that America currently has.
	And if this creates jobs, and if all the things that he says he wants to do and can do, if he does achieve those things, then the Democrats are done.
	They're done.
	You will need a whole new media platform.
	That's why I keep doing what I'm doing, you understand?
	You'll need a whole new media.
	The old paradigm will be gone.
	And you will no more be able to sell ad space on what we now call the mainstream media than you will be able to flog a copy of Pravda after the fall of the Soviet Union.
	So the media is fighting for their lives and for their cause and for their friends' demos and all that.
	But this is a huge, huge, I dare say, shift and change in American media, in American politics, and in the future.
	Not just of America, but of the West as a whole.
	Because if Trump's policies work out, you'll see new Trumps.
	You'll see more Trumps.
	You'll see in other countries.
	So I think it's really, really important to understand that this is why the media is abandoning all of its pretense at objectivity because they're fighting for So do you think if Trump wins,
	do you think media can reverse in the opposite direction or do you think it more likely be replaced with sources like YouTube, like your type of media?
	You know what I mean?
	No, the media will not be able to.
	Go the other way?
	The media will not be able to recover.
	Because there used to be this capacity for the media to ignore history because there was no internet.
	And going back and checking things, you know, like when I was a kid, do you know what you had to do?
	And I did this for various research projects when I was younger.
	Do you know you had to go To the library?
	And pull out what were called microfiche or microfilms?
	Which were like tiny little shrunk down photos of old newspapers and you had to scroll through them.
	There was no search capacity.
	You had to scroll them and you had these two Etch-A-Sketch dials that you used to sort of roll things around in.
	And then of course you had no way to publish it if you weren't already in the media.
	Right?
	So...
	Back in the day, you know, what they used to say was, today's news is tomorrow's fish wrapping.
	And, you know, the eternal memory of the internet has its positives and its minuses.
	But the media, having really made their case and really committed to it, won't be able to undo it.
	You know, the media said, if Brexit passes in the United Kingdom, it's going to be a terrible recession, economic catastrophe.
	What happened?
	Nothing.
	They were all wrong.
	All of this fear-mongering, now there's actual real-time live fact-checking.
	And so they're not going to be able to undo it.
	Because when they start bringing up their next prediction, people are just, what do they do?
	They rolled out these memes.
	They just roll out, oh, here's when you were wrong, and here's when you were wrong, and here's when you were wrong, and here's where you lied before, and here's where you were disproven, and here's where you were fear-mongering, and here's where all of your past predictions failed to pan out.
	Boom!
	There's a war, and people are taking sides, and the internet never forgets.
	That's a reminder.
	This is not an election.
	This is not an election.
	Fundamentally.
	It's a referendum on whether the West survives or not.
	So do you think enough people understand this?
	I mean, if Trump is the only hope, what it seems like right now, to turn this around, I mean, all I can think is about, you know, for as many people to understand this as possible, and I don't think they do.
	No, the mainstream media understands it completely.
	Oh yeah, they do, for sure.
	But the people, my friends, everyone I'm around, they don't understand that.
	They don't understand what's at stake, they don't understand how much they're being narrated to, what difference that Trump can make.
	They're completely oblivious to it, is what it seems like.
	Yeah, and I mean, I don't know.
	You can explain this stuff to them and you can say, well, if the...
	If the media was a company like if a company was facing a competitor that it couldn't control that could threaten all of its revenue would that company speak negatively about that?
	Of course it would.
	And it would try everything it could in its power to create a negative impression of that competitor in order to protect its own market base.
	The lefties fully understand how this works with corporations, except when those corporations are lefty media corporations, in which case, ooh, it's all pure ideology, and profit and loss have no bearing.
	Whatsoever.
	The fact that Carlos Slim bought out huge amounts of New York Times debt and then the New York Times suddenly pivoted to be very pro-Hispanic immigration when Hispanic immigration sends tens of millions or more of dollars back down to Carlos Slim's operations in Mexico.
	Yeah, we all understand that.
	That's not complicated.
	That's not confusing.
	We got it.
	We understand it.
	Makes perfect sense.
	So just tell them, look, the corporations, media is just corporations, and they like to protect their profits.
	And so the fact that Trump isn't spending money, hiring them to put out his ads, well, Trump is a giant money loser for them, and everyone else is a money winner, so of course they're anti-Trump.
	I get it.
	I get it.
	So, they understand how the profit center skews motives in corporations.
	Just remind them that mainstream media, just corporations.
	It's all they are.
	And they follow the money.
	Now, there is an ideological component.
	But for me, the question was, why on earth are they torching all future credibility?
	When Trump has a decent chance of winning, why are they torching all future credibility?
	And I start to think about, okay, well, what plays out if Trump wins?
	He gets two terms.
	Well, we know from the Bushes that you can pass from father to son, the presidency, maybe Donald Trump Jr.
	Or the still rather ridiculous name, Baron Trump.
	I'm going to create my own cartoon character, but instead of Richie Rich, I'm calling him Baron Trump.
	I better put him in his own private school because that's a name that'll get you thumped anywhere else.
	But it could go on.
	It goes on and on.
	I don't think that the mainstream media companies in general are sitting on the kind of cash reserves that can have them last out maybe two terms of Trump.
	Advertising revenue is going elsewhere.
	And that's important to understand.
	I believe that.
	That they're fighting for their survival.
	In the same way that I'm sure Hillary Clinton's going to get prosecuted if Trump gets into power.
	I believe that as an article of near physical faith.
	And so that's pretty high stakes stuff.
	Hope I win!
	Because losing isn't a book deal.
	Well, I guess it might be a book deal of How to live with your cellmate.
	I don't know.
	I mean, I think that it's a ridiculously and intensely and almost entertainingly high stakes game that's going on in American politics at the moment.
	It's now whenever it's do or die.
	And I literally can't picture how it would be possible for the stakes to be higher.
	Which I've never felt before when it comes to politics.
	I absolutely agree.
	I just wish people realized that, I guess.
	That's what keeps me awake at night.
	You don't understand what Trump offers, no matter how much you disagree with him on certain ideas.
	He's attacking the core of the issue, which I feel like most people are oblivious to.
	Everyone goes after symptoms rather than the actual disease.
	I don't know.
	I just can't get that across to people, but I completely agree with the truth.
	Let me just end up the rant with this.
	There's a new Ann Coulter book out called In Trump We Trust, E Pluribus Awesome.
	You just read it.
	Agree with or not everything that she's got to say.
	She's an incredibly entertaining writer and a very fact-driven researcher.
	And she'll make the case very clearly about what the stakes are and what's going on.
	So just buy the book.
	You can get it at audible.com.
	You can pick it up from Amazon.
	It's pretty cheap.
	Just get the book and read it.
	But what can we do?
	Well, stop giving them money.
	That will help.
	Cut your cable.
	Cut whatever you can cut.
	That is going to keep money out of their hands.
	That's important.
	Convince other people to cut their cable.
	You know, it doesn't have to be a big ideological question.
	It'd be like, hey, how often...
	He said, I just cut my cable.
	How often do you watch TV? You know what?
	I haven't really watched TV. I guess I've watched a bit at the Olympics.
	They might say I haven't really watched TV in months.
	Why not just cut it?
	Why are you paying it for?
	What are you paying for?
	Filling up your DVR with stuff you never get around to watching?
	What's the point?
	You find it online most part anyway, legally.
	Exactly.
	And so just spread the word.
	It doesn't have to be, you gotta cut cable because there's shills for the whatever, right?
	I mean, just ask people that sensible question.
	What are you paying for?
	And that will help.
	If you have any desire, capacity, or ability to be a communicator in the public sphere, go do it and do a better job than the media does.
	You know, I mean...
	The guys who were making cars weren't sort of figuring out how do we take down the horse and buggy manufacturers.
	They just built cars and people preferred cars.
	They didn't need to protest and tell people, those horses are smelly and you got to put things over their eyes so that the flies don't lay eggs in their eyeballs and, you know, they fart a lot and that makes Kramer wince.
	I mean, they didn't have to have, they just had to build a better beast.
	They just had to build something better.
	You don't see a lot of ISPs taking out ads about the inefficiency of the post office.
	You just have email, right?
	You just have all that stuff.
	And so if you build something better, you don't need to attack or downgrade or insults or protest.
	I mean, the existing.
	Just build something better.
	And people will come.
	Just look at the numbers on this show.
	Or if you can't build it, at least point people towards this show or other shows that you like, right?
	Absolutely.
	All right.
	Thanks, Sergei.
	A great question, and I hope that that was helpful.
	It was very well clarified.
	Thank you so much, Stefan.
	Hey, it's okay.
	We got your name wrong.
	Fair enough.
	Thanks, man.
	Thanks, man.
	Alright, up next is Hunter with a not entirely unrelated question.
	He says, Where do you see the free market heading if Miss Hillary Clinton gets elected into presidential office?
	That is from Hunter.
	Hello Hunter.
	Yes, how are you today?
	I'm well, how are you?
	I'm doing alright.
	Just a little bit on my mind, you know, concerned with humanity.
	Good!
	Now is the time.
	My whole life has prepared me for the next 80 days.
	Oh my god, no.
	I'm nowhere near prepared.
	Still a third of the time that Hillary's meant since her last press conference, but alright.
	Where do I see the free market going?
	Down the tubes, down the toilet.
	Or in other words...
	You know, it's like that Wile E. Cody, disappear down to a little boof of dust.
	She's no interest in the free market.
	She's not spent any time in the free market.
	She's not run a company.
	She's not built a business.
	She's not hired people that she's paying out of her own profits.
	She doesn't sell goods and services.
	She has no concept of the free market.
	So what interest would she have in expanding it?
	Well, yeah, that's the...
	Sorry, I didn't mean to cut you off there, but that's the fear I have.
	I'm just now making my first dime on the market, you know, just spit my ideas out, and I've always struggled with the work environment.
	I have a borderline personality disorder.
	I have various, you know, mental blocks there, and I'm probably gonna stumble over this conversation sometime in the future and realize, like, holy crap, this happened.
	Wow, whoa, you know?
	I had this conversation and I fear that every day and it prevents me to work in such a work environment.
	Now that I've found a routine that allows me to vent and try to help people and try to put my ideas out there to see if they can form their own opinions on it and where they should go.
	And also have that same space to just be me and be goofy and just be, you know, who I am and be able to capitalize on that as well.
	And since I'm so small and I've seen all these articles that she's completely against free speech, she's already come out and said that she's going to immediately bring the banhammer of God onto Breitbart.
	So what leaves that with me?
	And how can I, you know...
	How can I cope with that?
	How can I move forward from knowing that my future could be gone with a blow of the wind?
	It's really hard to even fathom that my future could be completely annihilated.
	Well, if that's your perspective, then you need to act as strongly as you can to ensure as best you can That that is not your fate.
	Don't make me quote Yoda here for a second.
	Come on.
	Don't make me go all Star Wars nerd.
	One who avoids their fate often meets it.
	George Lucas is not where you want to be going for this stuff.
	Oh, come on.
	Any guy who wrote Jar Jar Binks is probably not someone you want to go to For your philosophical advice.
	You know, he's fine with shiny stuff.
	He's fine with doing flips in a jungle.
	He's fine with creating Ewok marketing bears.
	He's fine in the first three films and then he got really crappy afterwards.
	And he's fine with stealing Einstein's eyeballs to make Yoda look deep.
	But there's a reason why Alec Guinness refused to come back.
	To the Star Wars film saying he simply could not wake up and face speaking that atrociously hackneyed, terrible, cliched, horrible dialogue.
	Any man who would cast Hayden Christensen as something other than a dime store mannequin, which he has the emotional range of, I would not trust with the future of Western civilization.
	You know, he's fine with creating...
	Glowing father absence penis swords and making them go wom, wom, wom.
	But I think that you're going to have a better luck sticking a cherry bomb in a box of fortune cookies and reading the tattered remnants than pulling any valuable philosophy out of Star Wars.
	I see that.
	I see that.
	But that's where you come in.
	And I bet you I've tried to come on your show before and had problems with audio quality and whatnot.
	So this is actually a really good moment.
	And I would also like to ask, where would I start in to try to proactively counteract those possible events?
	Do you know...
	Well, you know, there are...
	There's a saying about...
	Culture at the moment, that it's a war between the article and the comment section, between those who write the articles and those who comment on them.
	I think there's some more truth in that.
	I think I owe Milo Yiannopoulos for that insight.
	But the comment section matter.
	I tell you this, like, I read the article, and I'm interested in the article, and then I go to the comment section.
	And I'm really interested in the comment section.
	Well, what are people saying?
	Yeah, well, what are their ideas on it?
	And that's what I focus mostly on is not what I spit out, but more of what can others take away and how can I get them to retain their weak goldfish minds of this generation to say, hey, wait a second.
	No need to insult goldfish, man.
	No goldfish who's going to threaten to take down Brightport.
	But no, listen, just get, you can start, you know, just get in there and start providing alternate perspectives to the comments section.
	Lefties are out there all the time doing this kind of stuff.
	And you can just go out and start to, you never know who it is you're going to influence.
	You never know who it is you're going to influence.
	You know, I mean, I listened to Harry Brown.
	I think it was even before I got into doing what I do now.
	I listen to Harry Brown, listen to other people.
	I don't know whether Harry Brown would approve of what I'm doing, but he has some causality in the matter, as does, of course, Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff and Nathaniel Brandon and Friedman and Hayek and Murray Rothbard and other people.
	This list is, of course, very long, but, you know, through the combined influences of many people, I've created the biggest philosophy show in the history of the planet.
	The most deep, far-ranging, powerful, life-altering, mind-bending, consciousness-expanding, soul-bearing conversation the world has ever seen.
	So you never know.
	You might write some comment that stimulates someone or wakes them out of their matrix-style torpor who has the resources, the charisma, the cleavage, I don't know what it's going to be, who has the capacity to blow this wide open.
	Listen, at some point, someone Got into Trump's ear about immigration.
	Someone, somewhere, made some comment, some point, some fact, something caught his eye.
	Now, whoever that was, quite interesting.
	You know, we did a lot of work on immigration a year or more even before Trump announced.
	Maybe.
	Maybe.
	But...
	You don't know who you're going to influence.
	You put your facts and your arguments out there as best as you can and see what happens.
	You have the most amazing venue to be able to get your ideas out there.
	Comment sections.
	You can start a blog.
	You can write and submit articles to a wide variety of places where you can get them published.
	You can call into shows like this.
	You can call into Radio, you can do a lot to get arguments out there.
	So, you'll forgive me if I view any particular protestations of what do I do with a certain amount of skepticism.
	You have to really be avoiding what to do if you haven't figured it out by now.
	Good, good point.
	Actually, I come to your channel a lot just for, you know, just a different view in general.
	It's not really...
	You know, one thing in particular, I just see something that you've thrown out there, and I'm able, you put it out broadly enough.
	Hang on, I'm sorry, I know you don't mean to.
	I'm sorry, I'm blowing up your ego.
	I know you don't mean to sort of be negative, but...
	First of all, I don't have different views.
	I have reason and evidence, you know?
	All right, two and two plus four, that's a different view.
	No, it's really not.
	A different view is kaleidoscopic channel.
	It's not a philosophy channel.
	And I try not to just throw things out there.
	I try to gather experts and evidence.
	Again, I know that you've talked about your personality issues.
	I'm just trying to give you that honest feedback.
	That it's not that you're trying to be negative or vaguely insulting, but there's a potential that a more sensitive person than me might be experiencing it that way.
	Oh, I understand.
	But when you see the world around you is going off of emotion, and you're coming back and saying, here are the facts, give me some context, and we'll walk away from it, you know, from whatever we take from it, you know?
	And that in itself is actually starting to flow into my life to not just look at the emotions but to look at the facts and then go beyond it.
	Why are these facts the way they are?
	And what can we learn from it?
	And better ourselves and able to...
	It's not necessarily a philosophy kind of thing.
	It's...
	A different view from what is mainstream, what is typically considered normal, is emotions and feelings that everyone spits around and it kind of gets annoying that people can be so ignorant and just act off of pure emotion.
	No, and I understand that.
	Look, I mean, I think of all the people in the world, I'm...
	One of the people who understands that the most, because my mind is changed by reason and evidence.
	However painful that process is, it's the only one that I can respect in myself or other people.
	My mind is changed by reason and evidence, and my mind has been changed by reason and evidence to accept the fact that most people don't function off reason and evidence.
	You know, we've got a presentation called The Death of Reason, which I strongly urge people who weren't convinced by Scott Adams to have a look.
	The reality is that if I did not accept that people aren't driven by reason and evidence, I could only do that by rejecting reason and evidence, because those are the facts.
	Those are the studies.
	Those are the realities.
	And so, you know, some of my more youthful enthusiasm for reason and evidence has been somewhat tempered by the reality that reason and evidence motivates very few people.
	And I sort of, the more I understand how we evolved as a species and the incentives for biology, it makes more and more sense to me.
	So how do you change people's minds when they're not very prone to thinking or to subjugating?
	Hang on, hang on.
	Or to subjugating.
	Mid-sentence is tricky to interrupt people.
	But how do you change people's minds when they're not particularly prone to thinking or to submitting their vanity to reason and evidence?
	Philosophy is...
	We have extraordinary humility.
	It is to say that I shall conform like salmon in a strong current to the dictates of reason and evidence as best I can and recognizing that I'm going to have confirmation bias and I'm going to have flaws and I'm going to find some things more difficult to accept than others.
	But we relentlessly follow the path of reason and evidence wherever they lead.
	As a great thinker once said, we bring to reason every fact, every argument, Every piece of evidence and submit it to the dictates of rationality.
	It's what you've got to do if you're a thinker.
	If you're not, go join a think tank and get paid for pretending to have facts at your disposal, which please your masters.
	But those of us who actually have a responsibility to the audience and to bringing the truth to the audience and who've staked their entire reputation on intellectual consistency and are paid for by the people we bring the truth to, We have a bit of a different obligation than that which drives politicos and other forms of pseudo-thought.
	So, recognize that storytelling is important, that emotional intensity is important.
	Also recognize that funny people can get away with a lot.
	Being funny is like being super pretty.
	If you're funny, if you can entertain people, they will put up with a lot.
	I mean, look at what George Carlin was able to get across decades ago.
	About religion, about the government, in truly classic and jaw-dropping bits of guerrilla philosophy, because he was funny.
	And being funny is something that is not impossible to work on.
	I don't know if people are naturally funny.
	I don't know that I am.
	I think that if I give myself permission to freeform, I can occasionally come up with some pretty good bits.
	But...
	That's something to work on as well, because the old spoonful of sugar makes the medicine go down is pretty, pretty important.
	And the left understands this considerably, which is why developing talents in order to promote leftist causes is, you know, why anybody who's not on the radical left breaks out in hives if they go to a Barbra Streisand concert, because it is basically a whole bunch of indoctrination with some singing bits in the middle.
	And, you know, Come for the singing.
	Stay for the indoctrination.
	But develop your talents, develop your abilities, develop your capacity to engage people in a way that is entertaining and enjoyable to them.
	And you can get people to swallow some pretty unpalatable truths if...
	You can find a way that it doesn't have to be like jokey or, you know, ba-dum-bum kind of stuff, but find a way to engage people, which means learning eye contact, learning to listen, learning to be physically relaxed, learning to be spontaneous without going off the rails.
	I'll never achieve that.
	But I hear it's a good goal to have.
	So if you can develop the capacity to...
	Communicate with people in a better way.
	I've worked very hard for many years on that.
	This kind of pretty doesn't...
	I don't roll out of bed this pretty.
	I've been working it for quite a while.
	And so just keep working at finding engaging ways.
	To interact with people.
	Now, if you can't find that you can do it or you really hate it or whatever, then fine.
	Then post shows like this.
	Post shows that you respect and enjoy from thinkers that you find powerful and helpful.
	Post those so that people, if you don't want to engage them, they can at least be put in the direction of somebody who's going to engage them.
	And all of that is really important.
	Study the left.
	Look at the left.
	They have been kicking the right's ass.
	For many, many years.
	And they have done that by focusing on being entertaining and engaging and funny and creative and all of this kind of stuff.
	And that is the way to go.
	I mean, if you look at someone like Ann Coulter, a wickedly funny writer, I mean, in my opinion, particularly the way that she punctures hypocrisy.
	It's fantastic.
	And she's got Mark Twain flights of incisive biting comedy that is a real pleasure and not easy to do.
	I can tell you that.
	Writing comedy is, for me, like trying to pull out my teeth through my toenails.
	But it is lots of people who can get that.
	And she's a number one, repeated, like I think 11 times now, number one New York Times bestselling author and a great public speaker and very witty and confrontational author.
	Um, without being deranged.
	And so, um, study her in public life.
	She's been now in public life.
	I think she wrote her first book on Clinton in the 90s.
	So, it's been a while, uh, that she's been in public life.
	And it's always, as she points out, Ann Coulter has finally gone too far.
	Even conservatives are turning her over her latest.
	And it's always the same nonsense.
	And I think they've finally given up on her.
	Um, so, you know, I guess I only have a couple more years to go before that happens.
	But, um, So, yeah, work on being witty, work on being engaging, entertaining, intense, whatever it's going to work for you to get eyeballs.
	And then once you have people's attention, give them as much truth as they can conceivably handle.
	You know, push the engine until it starts spitting cogs up through the hood.
	And if you don't want to do that, at least point people in that right direction.
	But as I said earlier, there's a war on right now.
	And everybody's going to take sides.
	And if you choose not to act, as the old Rush song goes...
	You still have made a choice.
	And everybody needs to be in this fight.
	Everybody's got to pick sides because we really need to know who our friends are when all is said and done.
	Thank you very much, everyone, for listening.
	Have yourselves a wonderful, wonderful week.
	Please.
	Oh, Lord!
	It can be dry as dust in August.
	So please, please drop by.
	FreeDomainRadio.com slash donate or FDRURL.com slash donate if you want to save yourself a few keystrokes, as I did not just now save myself a few syllables.
	But FreeDomainRadio.com slash donate to help us out.
	Please follow me on Twitter at Stefan Molyneux.
	You can use our Amazon affiliate link, FDRURL.com slash Amazon.
	And don't forget the podcast, of course, at FDRPodcasts.com.
	Thanks, everyone, so much.
	For a great show, great conversations.
	Have a great night.

▲