Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Oct. 6, 2016 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux

02:48:22

3440 Voices In My Head - Call In Show - September 30th, 2016

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hello, hello everybody.
	Hope you're doing well.
	Stefan Molyneux from freedomainradio.com slash donate.
	Yeah, see, I slipped that one in.
	Please come and help us out at freedomainradio.com slash donate.
	We need your help and we need your support more than ever before.
	Thank you so much for everything that you can do to help spread this conversation.
	Caller Sue Knight.
	The first was a man who was jealous of his girlfriend, and in particular, of the men she'd slept with before they got together.
	Was it fair?
	Was it just?
	Why did he keep replaying in his mind's eye?
	We went into the details there, and into his own history as well.
	The second caller wanted to know, what does femininity mean today in the 21st century?
	What does masculinity mean?
	And how have these definitions been influenced by movements like feminism?
	And has it been positive or negative?
	We had a great conversation about men and women, masculinity and femininity, and really, really enjoyed that one.
	The third caller wanted to start a business and be a business person, but also be a political activist for reason and freedom.
	Is that possible to combine?
	Can you do that together?
	And we talked about sort of the forks in the road, the decisions you have to make and where priorities might be rationally organized with these kinds of decisions.
	Now the fourth caller...
	I was entirely convinced that I was entirely wrong about the question of God, and he set up to school me in no uncertain terms.
	You will be very surprised at how the conversation went, but it's well, well worth listening to, and I hope that you really enjoy it.
	I know I did.
	This is again, Stefan Molyneux for Freedom Main Radio.
	Thanks so much for listening.
	Thanks so much for supporting.
	Please enjoy the show.
	Alright, up first today we have Peter.
	Peter wrote in and said, Every now and then I catch myself thinking about my girlfriends, according to modern standards, not that extensive sexual past.
	Before me, she had a three and a half year relationship, starting at age 17, and three more casual flings.
	She shows all the characteristics of a genuinely loving, self-conscious female creature...
	Up to what point should I let myself be bothered inside every time I remember and get an image of her having a good time with men that, I would imagine, don't really care about her?
	Do I justify it with the fact that a higher number of partners generally has a negative effect on her?
	Or should I focus more on what she's actually showing me For the last nine months, not let all these images influence me and realize that it's actually me, perhaps, having a problem here.
	I'm really hoping for a response as I don't want unhealthy obsessions to ruin an otherwise healthy and virtuous relationship.
	That's from Peter.
	Hey, Peter.
	Hello.
	Hi.
	I'm not saying you should or shouldn't have, I'm just curious, have you talked to her about this?
	Yeah, we've had one, two conversations about it, I believe.
	Right.
	And how have they gone?
	Not that well.
	Not that well?
	She got mad, sad, well, not an overall positive experience.
	It did not go well?
	It did not go well, no.
	Okay.
	And how many girlfriends have you had?
	I've had, well, let's say she's the third one, but it's the first proper relationship.
	So she's had one proper relationship, and this is, for you, with her, your first proper relationship?
	Correct.
	So she's one ahead of you, right?
	Let's say so, yeah.
	And she's slept with four men, is that right?
	You said one long relationship and then three more casual flings?
	Correct, yeah.
	So how many women have you slept with?
	Eight.
	She's the eighth one.
	So she's done four, you've done eight, right?
	Well, it's five with me.
	Yeah.
	In her case.
	Okay.
	Sorry.
	You're right.
	You're right.
	Five.
	You should count.
	Okay.
	You're right.
	So you've done eight.
	She's done five.
	And is she, would you say that, is she about the same level of physical attractiveness as you or more or less?
	Yeah.
	I'd say we're both about, I don't know, 8.5 or so.
	I can say eight.
	Maybe I could say 9, but it's kind of subjective.
	I would say 8.5.
	Wait, 9 for who?
	For both.
	For both of you.
	Okay.
	And do you have any experience when you were younger, in among family or friends or anything like that, of female infidelity?
	No.
	No, absolutely not.
	Absolutely not.
	You mean, does it have to be within family?
	Does it have to be within the relationship of my parents, for example?
	No.
	That's why I said among friends.
	No.
	I've been cheated on once, but that's it.
	And what was the story with that?
	Nothing.
	A relationship that ended up to be quite superficial in the fifth month or so.
	Yeah, she just wrote a long message on Facebook.
	Like, well, I got to know this cheater on me, like, Nothing special.
	Nothing worth mentioning.
	What specific details do you want?
	No, no.
	Listen, I'm going to go with your call.
	If you say it's nothing worth mentioning, I'm not going to disagree with you.
	It seems to me that it would be, but I'm going to go with what you say.
	I'm sorry?
	I mean, I was young.
	I was a fool.
	I got in love, fell in love, and that's it.
	I got shitted on.
	Well, which is not weird.
	I knew like two months before she slept like with 20 plus men, maybe 30.
	20 or 30?
	Yeah, 25, 30, something like that.
	And how often a day does this, or how often a week or whatever, do these thoughts intrude upon you or bother you?
	Yeah.
	So now less, I'll have to admit.
	I'll have to say.
	In the last two, three weeks less, I just decided sort of not to have an emotional influence on me.
	But let's say, I don't know, once in two days?
	Once in three days?
	In two, in two.
	Once every two days.
	As a more serious case.
	So like I get all mad about it and I don't know.
	Okay, so what do you get mad about?
	What are your thoughts?
	What are the thoughts that lead to you getting angry?
	Because anger usually is a story we tell ourself.
	And that doesn't mean the story is false.
	And it doesn't mean that we never have objective reasons to be angry.
	But usually, anger is a story we tell ourself.
	Like, you know, you've probably heard about these riots that went on in Ferguson and Charlotte and other places.
	And there are stories that crank people up and get them angry about stuff.
	And...
	You know, we have a story in society called, you know, things should be equal between ethnicities, between genders, between rich and...
	And when they're not, we get angry, right?
	So you have a, probably, you have a story that you tell yourself that makes you angry.
	And if you do, not saying you do, but if you do, do you know what that story is?
	What language you use to get angry?
	From my past, or what I say to myself when I... Get the emotion, you mean?
	Yeah.
	Well, I'm not sure whether I can identify as anger.
	It can be maybe a sort of anxiety, just an uneasiness in a way.
	Not a physical one, just, you know, as if...
	Anxiety or insecurity or...
	Right?
	Let's say so.
	Okay, so...
	I think my opinion is just about her for a moment, you know.
	Yeah, so there's something that you say...
	Hang on.
	There's something you probably say to yourself, Peter...
	It may be unconscious, right?
	It may be something deep down in your guts, but there's something that happens that produces that anxiety, right?
	And if you know what that is, then you can evaluate it.
	And if it's valid, then it's something you need to act on.
	And if it's invalid, you can challenge yourself on it, right?
	Yeah.
	Okay, so do you have any idea what you might be saying to yourself that makes you anxious about your girlfriend's history?
	To be honest, not really.
	I don't know how to put it into words.
	Well, okay, so not really means somewhat.
	I don't know how to put it into words means you have an idea, but you don't know how to express it.
	Is that right?
	No, I just know the emotion.
	I don't know how to put it into words.
	Let me see.
	Okay.
	Well, you love this woman, right?
	Yeah.
	So, my guess would be that you feel that you may not positively compare to her past boyfriends, right?
	Maybe you compare negatively.
	Maybe she's thinking of them when she has sex with you.
	Maybe, I'm not trying to make you paranoid, right?
	I'm not trying to Iago you up here.
	I'm just saying that these are possibilities that sort of spring to my mind.
	Or maybe you feel that she could do better than you, or maybe you feel that she has alternatives or options in the future that she might choose that's different from you.
	Maybe you feel like you don't have a way of keeping her, your girlfriend.
	And then what that means, of course, is that the more The more you love her, the more anxious you're going to feel because love is vulnerability, right?
	When you love someone, when you love something, whether it's a person, whether it's an ideal, whether it's freedom, whether it's money, whatever you love makes you vulnerable, which is why love should only be exposed to those we can really trust.
	So it could be that the more positive you have an experience of her, the more happy she makes you.
	Well, then if she leaves you or if she finds a better guy or whatever it is, That's really going to kick you in the nads, right?
	I think, now that you mention these things, I can maybe say what I think of, actually.
	What pops into my mind is I've always had an uneasiness as well with the general condition of this world.
	When you talk about feminism, when you talk about promiscuity, I get involved, I think, emotionally.
	It's something similar to the case, to the video you made, you have this lady, how to stay sane in an insane world.
	Where I get emotionally invested in thoughts.
	So I just maybe try also to kind of say romanticize maybe history or Asian history where there was no this sexual liberty as it is nowadays.
	That sounds very abstract for what seems to me to be romantic or sexual insecurity.
	It sounds very abstract, you know, like past Philosophies of chastity or whatever, it seems pretty abstract.
	Do you want to, Peter, do you want to get married and have children with this woman, perhaps?
	Sure, sure.
	I mean, I wouldn't even enter a relationship if she isn't, hadn't she been a candidate, you know, a good candidate.
	Right.
	And do you know if she has any thoughts that way herself?
	Yeah.
	She does.
	And has she expressed any interest in an abstract sense, I guess it's fairly early on, in getting married to and having children with you?
	Yeah.
	She has?
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	Right.
	So, are you worried about having children in the Europe that is, or the Europe that is to be?
	Yeah.
	Honestly, yeah, I'm kind of worried about the kind of place they would or will grow up in.
	And what are your worries?
	What do you think?
	Changes in culture, immigration, sexual anarchy that we have today.
	All these mainstream influence, social justice warriors, all these Well, what should I call it?
	Everything you talk about, in short.
	Right, right.
	Yeah, I mean, if you have a girl, she's going to be pumped full of vanity and vulnerability.
	And if you have a boy, he's going to be pumped full of, you know, self-hating, boys are bad, we cause wars, we are misogynists, and we have a rape culture, right?
	So, I mean, that's if you get involved in, God help you, government education or whatever, and maybe there are options there where you are.
	But none of these things are fundamentally sexual, right?
	And the issue that you have with your girlfriend and your thoughts about your girlfriend is her past lovers, right?
	Yeah, I just dislike the thought of, well, actually I'm not bothered about her boyfriend at all, about her ex-boyfriend, not at all, because I know it's like she felt loved, she loved, so it's proof that she's ready to commit.
	It's the casual flings that...
	Oh no, no, no, hang on, hang on.
	I don't think that breaking up with someone after three and a half years shows that you're ready to commit.
	Does it?
	Well, no.
	Right, so she was her first guy, right?
	The first man she was in a relationship with in 17, right?
	That's a long time, three and a half years.
	That's like dog years back when you were a teenager.
	So three and a half years, and then it ended.
	Do you know the circumstances under which it ended?
	I believe he was like...
	How to say it?
	Just went cold after a while.
	Or not went cold, but he's kind of childish.
	So we didn't even sort of try.
	He didn't know how to try, how to give his best.
	Yet again, I cannot, you know, confirm that I wasn't present.
	Right.
	So you've only heard about the breakup from her, right?
	Of course.
	And in the breakup, she says that he was immature.
	Is that right?
	Yeah.
	So why was she with an immature guy?
	Not in a bad way.
	No, no.
	If you break up with someone, it's always in a bad way.
	Of course.
	Nobody breaks up because they're happy.
	Nobody breaks up because they're fulfilled.
	Nobody breaks up because they think they can't possibly do anything better.
	Just people don't break up for those reasons, right?
	Yeah.
	If she broke up with him, did you know who broke up with him?
	I think it was mutual.
	Okay.
	Yeah.
	It's almost never mutual, but okay.
	I mean, I'll go with the...
	I mean, of course it goes more to one person.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	I mean, especially after three and a half years, you know, you don't just end up on the same moment on the same day.
	I mean, that's not how things go down.
	But anyway, so...
	Does she think that she did anything wrong in the prior relationship or made any mistakes that she has talked about?
	Not that come to my mind.
	She did say that.
	Okay, so she was with a guy for three and a half years.
	She broke up with him and she doesn't think that she had any faults or problems in the relationship or in the breakup.
	I'm sure she did.
	But I'm not sure whether she told me that even.
	Yeah, don't know.
	I don't have any answer.
	And Peter, how are you doing in this conversation?
	You seem a little...
	Oh, sorry.
	We're friends.
	We're just chatting.
	I have a really bad call.
	So if I go on mute, I'm either blowing my nose or thinking of an answer.
	And how are you doing in the call?
	Do you feel okay?
	Cold hands?
	Sensation, not feeling, but go on.
	A mix of anxiety and excitement.
	Okay, okay.
	And do you feel anxiety in the conversation?
	Do you know why?
	Do you think I might turn on you or I might say something that's going to be harmful to you?
	It's just because it's a strange experience to even be on this side of the call, you know what I mean?
	Right, okay.
	Yeah, that's it.
	I'm not experiencing any...
	Okay.
	Now, the casual flings that your girlfriend had, were they supposed to be longer term, but they just didn't work out that way?
	Were they kind of, well, backpacking through Queensland, Australia or something?
	I mean, why were they short term and not longer term or more invested in?
	Well, that's the part that I don't...
	Believe, not believe, but don't, yeah, I don't believe.
	That, well, of course, we all know that girls, oftentimes, when they travel, they tend to, say, relax.
	Because there is no one to, say, judge them back home.
	So, yeah, it was, I think, a two-month trip.
	And she ended up with just, yeah, three guys.
	Not at the same time, of course, but...
	So, they were specifically designed to be flings.
	And flings, of course, mean sex, right?
	I mean, they were short-term sexual relationships.
	I think that they spent a few days together.
	One case, I think, was a one-night stand.
	The other two were 48 hours plus.
	Yeah, you know, and according to the research, you know, casual flings...
	Where you're sort of having sex with the person for the first time.
	They're pretty bad.
	I'm fully aware of that.
	I'm sorry?
	As I'm saying, I'm fully aware of that.
	That's why I'm having this goal.
	Right.
	And so there's a kind of judgment thing.
	I'll give you some numbers, just for people who don't know.
	Hookup sex is pretty terrible.
	Yeah.
	So after a hookup, 43% of women regret it.
	Be careful, university students.
	And a lot of women wanted a relationship to develop following a hookup.
	Like, 43% of women wanted a relationship to spring out of a hookup.
	In other words, they're trying to catch the man with the old quicksand vagina.
	Whoa!
	Bear trap!
	And...
	12% of women actually, just interestingly enough, say that it's sometimes easier to have sex with a guy they don't know than to make conversation.
	Ooh, a little too much tableting, ladies, growing up.
	I'm sorry about that.
	49% of women and 26% of men feel bad after hookups, feel negative.
	And the sex is terrible.
	Terrible.
	Let me just see if I can find the numbers here.
	It's not good.
	So in hookups, in first-time hookups, 31% of men and 10% of women reached orgasm.
	10%?
	I don't know.
	Maybe that's in the bathroom with the sprayer later.
	I don't know.
	But that's really bad.
	Less than a third of men actually reach orgasm?
	I mean, what do you do?
	Bring a tube of toothpaste and pretend?
	I'm done!
	And you're flossed.
	So, it's bad.
	You know, whereas in long-term relationships, just in the last sexual activity, 85% of men and 68% of women achieved orgasm.
	So, women, you know, seven times better off in terms of sexual satisfaction than in a, just in some casual situation.
	Hookup relationship.
	And believe it or not, in hookup culture, men receive a lot more oral sex than women do.
	Maybe it's because it doesn't come with tumors.
	I don't know.
	Anyway, so it's not a great decision to hook up with someone, to put it mildly.
	I mean, the sex isn't going to be that great.
	Odds are, if you're a woman, you're going to regret it as often as not.
	And, you know, you don't know the person's sexual history, STDs, which you can get even if you have a condom on or whatever.
	So it's usually not a great decision.
	And for women, of course, well, we'll get into this.
	We've got a call later about feminism.
	For women, it's tough as a whole.
	The idea that you can screw a man into liking you, into wanting to commit, I mean, that is...
	That is entirely backwards in terms of, like, sex was the reward for commitment through almost all of human history, at least civilized human history.
	Sex was the reward for commitment.
	The idea that you have sex and then expect or want commitment is, um, well, it's crazy.
	And then it's entirely backwards from our evolutionary biology.
	So I just sort of wanted to get that information out there.
	And you said that you've had sort of the same kind of experiences in casual sex.
	Uh, it, uh, You know, it sucks and not in the way we like as a whole.
	Are you still there?
	Yep.
	Ah, okay, good.
	So, how old are you?
	Are you sort of mid-late 20s?
	21.
	I'm sorry?
	21.
	You're 21, okay.
	Yep.
	So, I mean, you've been with...
	Women, and she could think about that if she wants, and it wouldn't do her much good if she loves you or cares for you.
	She's been with men, and you can focus on that if you want.
	I know it's not entirely a voluntary thing, but this is the culture that we live in.
	You know, everybody's getting sloppy seconds.
	Everyone's getting used up people.
	And I'm not saying that you or your girlfriend are used up completely, but...
	Nobody gets to bang with that ring on the finger new car smell.
	It's almost never how it works these days.
	Was the relationship she had starting at age 17?
	How serious was it?
	Pretty serious.
	I mean, I know they did trips together, like flights.
	Went to different countries, continents, I believe.
	So I guess it was serious.
	And what's her family like?
	Organized.
	Not a broken family, no.
	Hard-working father.
	Mother as well.
	Sister in a long-term relationship.
	Living with her boyfriend.
	Right.
	Well, if you haven't, I mean, Peter, if you have no particular history that might make you wary of female fidelity, I mean, other than the one that you say isn't that important.
	And she herself has not been unfaithful in a relationship that you know of, right?
	I mean, it wasn't like these three hookups.
	She wasn't like playing penis jacks with the ball, right?
	I mean, she wasn't, I mean, it was outside after her relationship ended, right?
	Yeah, yeah.
	It was a post-relationship about three, two, three months after.
	Oh really?
	Two, three months?
	Yeah.
	After three and a half years from 17, it was two or three months she was hooking up with other guys.
	No, I'm saying two months after the breakup, that's when these hookups happen.
	That's exactly what I said.
	A few months after she broke up from the three and a half year relationship she started when she was 17, she's having sex with other guys.
	Yeah.
	I mean, I don't know.
	Does that seem a little fast to you?
	Fast?
	I mean, isn't there supposed to be a mourning period when you've had a breakup?
	I mean, I've heard, I don't know if it's true or not, but I've heard it's like half the length of time of a relationship is what you need to get over it, right?
	If you have a two-year relationship, it takes you a year to get over it, which is why every day you're in a bad relationship.
	It's half a day.
	You shouldn't be in another relationship.
	According to, you know, this is just, I don't know if it's true or not, but it's just a general rule of thumb.
	And...
	To be with a new guy a couple of months after ending a three and a half year relationship that started when you were 17 does seem a little fast to me.
	As far as I know, I thought that's what the modern culture you mentioned is like.
	That people just try to get a partner as soon as possible to get their mind.
	Yes, but Peter, your girlfriend is not supposed to...
	I mean, if she was the generic representative of modern culture, I'd tell you the run.
	I assume that she's different from the generic template of modern culture, the way that culture tells women to operate these days.
	I assume that she's not standard issue tart in the modern sense, right?
	She's got some different characteristics?
	She does, she does.
	Okay, good, good, good.
	Well, you know, I don't have anything particular to add.
	She has a past, you have a past.
	You know, you may be male and territorial, but, you know, if you were that territorial, you would have stuck with the first woman you were with, right?
	No, you're mine!
	Whatever, right?
	So I would say that if it's getting better, like you say, it's diminishing.
	It's not bothering you as much anymore.
	Continue to focus on her virtues.
	And I think that, I find that for me, information cures just about everything.
	You know, information cures.
	It may be worth, you know, if the relationship conversation about you feeling possessive or jealous of her past boyfriends or whatever, you're upset about it.
	If that didn't go well, it's usually not good to revisit it unless you have a lot more self-knowledge.
	But you can sort of say, I'd like to know more about the relationship.
	What happened?
	How did it end?
	And so on.
	And if she doesn't take any ownership for how it ended, like she could say, well, he was immature.
	Then the next obvious question is, well, why were you with a guy who was immature?
	Or another question would be, Didn't your friends or family notice that he was immature?
	And if they did, did they say something?
	And if they said something, why didn't you listen to them?
	And if they didn't notice it, why didn't they notice it?
	And if they didn't say anything, why didn't they say anything, right?
	These sound like confrontational questions, but they're not.
	They're just trying to figure out somebody's history.
	You know, when we're with someone, all they bring with them is a narrative.
	You know, we weren't there.
	There's no video footage.
	There's no little Omni drone floating all around them recording everything that you can review and fast forward and pause on the interesting bits.
	So when people come to us, they come formed by their history to a large degree, but their history remains a story that they tell us, right?
	We cannot see the person themselves.
	We cannot see their environment.
	They haven't had body cams strapped to their hoo-hoo so we can measure ding-dong length from here to eternity.
	By the way, I would be eternity.
	But anyway, so...
	When people come into our lives and we open our hearts to them and we become vulnerable to them and we become dependent upon their good approval and good opinion of us, all we have from them is their story about who they are, their story about how they became who they are.
	You know, we think of history as something that happened.
	And, you know, for our own history, yes, there's a lot that happened.
	Believe it or not, there's a lot that we make up.
	And not consciously, but our own history is docudrama.
	You know, adapted from a true story.
	That's our own personal history.
	It's not security cam footage.
	It's not a documentary.
	Even documentaries are selectively documented.
	Subjected and edited and portrayed and so on.
	But our own history, it's like based on a true story, has elements of a true story.
	A consultant who knows something about the facts worked a little bit on one scene.
	And our own history depends a lot on what we tell ourselves about our history.
	Right?
	If I say to myself, well, I'm never going to win.
	I'm always going to be broken down.
	Other people are always going to win.
	I'm not a winner.
	Well, you know, guess what?
	The history becomes the future.
	The circle is complete and your life is never going to be satisfying other than in a masochistic kind of, I knew I wasn't going to win.
	And most of who we are, I shouldn't say most, a good portion of who we are, Peter, is...
	A dramatic retelling of things we can barely remember.
	Like, I absolutely know this for a fact, that when I think back of my own childhood, there's some things I know happened.
	But there are also some things I can't tell if I was there, or if I heard the story, or if I saw the pictures.
	Hell, I'm pretty sure that at least a couple of memories I have were movies I saw that I identified with so strongly that I hang around in a bathrobe ghosting and having fight club meetings.
	But anyway, so...
	When you're talking to your girlfriend, you need to, and this is a tip for everyone, to get to know someone.
	To get to know someone means knowing the narrative, knowing the story that they tell themselves about what happened.
	What happened has some objective effect on us, and we can't do much about that, but what happened to us, we do have the choice Of how we interpret it.
	The meaning that we invest in the bald facts of our history is the essence of who we are, and more importantly, the essence of who we're going to be in the future.
	So when you're trying to get to know someone, when you're trying to understand someone, when you ask someone about, oh, what was your childhood like?
	Immediately, boom, you are in fiction land.
	Not because they're going to lie to you, but the first thing that they're going to tell you is the essence of What happened in their childhood?
	And that is the meaning, the meaning that they have extracted from their childhood.
	Their meaning about who they are, about the world, about authority, about punishment, about reward, about egalitarianism, about fairness, about money, about shelter, about love.
	I mean, someone comes to me and asks me about my childhood, I could sit there and say, well, I gotta tell ya, day one, suddenly bright, a little blurry, Upside down, somebody hit my ass.
	And then something stuck in my mouth and I got some warm goo that tasted good and I napped for a little bit.
	It's kind of tiring.
	Oh, and somebody seemed to kill a snake that was attacking my belly.
	That's all I know.
	All I know.
	And day two, right?
	I mean, you could sort of do it that way and that would be a sequential kind of explanation.
	But that's not, of course, how people talk.
	Let me finish.
	Not, of course, how people talk about their childhoods, right?
	They say...
	My parents got divorced when I was 12.
	So when you ask someone about her history, which we should do because we need to know the narrative that we have a relationship with.
	We don't have a relationship with a person.
	We have a relationship with a story.
	We have a relationship with a narrative.
	That doesn't mean it's false.
	It doesn't mean it's all fiction.
	It just means that even what we remember about her history is important.
	And the order in which we Organize it.
	What is the most important thing about our history?
	What is the least important thing about our history?
	Well, we never get to the least important because there's an infinity of things.
	Because what happens is there are moments in life, everything comes together, and there's this explosion of meaning.
	There's this eruption of meaning.
	This means something.
	Aha!
	I knew!
	Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
	It's always going to be this way.
	And this could be a positive or a negative thing.
	For a lot of people, of course, it's negative.
	And so learning...
	Someone is like reading a fiction novel.
	There's a lot of truth in fiction, more so than there is in nonfiction a lot of times, because there's emotional truth in fiction.
	But nobody thinks it's absolutely real.
	Nobody thinks it's nonfiction.
	We know that it's fiction.
	That doesn't mean that it's false.
	Right?
	I mean, if somebody writes an autobiographical novel, like a novel based upon their own history, there's going to be a lot of truth in it.
	I mean, if you look at Tennessee Williams' plays, there's a lot of truth in Tennessee Williams' plays, even though they're in the fiction section under plays.
	So when you're talking to someone, Peter...
	You ask them the questions, and what happens is, no matter what they say in response, no matter what they say, they're lifting the lid on the metaphysics of their fiction, on the metaphysics of their narrative.
	There is no objectively most important thing that happened to you as a child.
	What was the most important thing that happened to me as a child?
	I don't know.
	Now, I can say, well, the one key event, the thing that happened to me, the blah, blah, blah, boom, it was this.
	And everything followed from that, and that's the upside-down pyramid of my whole existence.
	None of it is true.
	There's no objectively most important thing that happens to you as a child.
	And so, but people usually feel that there is, you know, when you say, well, how was your childhood?
	The first thing they'll say is obviously the most important thing that they're going to say, and that is the metaphysics of their narrative.
	And this is why I say, you know, and I've said this for years, People will tell you everything you need to know about them in the first 30 seconds or first minute or first five minutes or, you know, depending on your antennae and how sensitive it is.
	It's pretty clear who people are because they open the lid on the metaphysics of their narrative the first time that they tell you about something.
	You know, what was the most important thought?
	Tell me about your childhood.
	Boom!
	Here's the most important thing.
	They're always going to start with that.
	And that's going to be the very core of their narrative about themselves.
	And we have this repetition compulsion, I believe, with narrative.
	Because we don't want to be wrong.
	And the more we've invested in that narrative, the more painful it is to be wrong if the narrative is negative.
	And you can hear this.
	I mean, I'm sounding kind of negative because that's a lot of people's narratives.
	But You hear Donald Trump and he says, I'm a winner.
	I've always been a winner.
	I always will be a winner.
	I mean, that is his narrative.
	Now, of course, he's got abilities and he's got charisma and he's got intelligence.
	He had resources.
	He's got height.
	His narrative, though, that he is a winner is very, very important.
	And that's what people are drawn to.
	Make America great again.
	Not make America equal again.
	Not make America egalitarian again.
	Not make America humble again.
	Not make America the world's policeman again.
	Not make America the globalist stooge again.
	It's make America great again.
	And people react to this make America great again because they have a narrative that they're small, They're victims, that they're helpless, that they never had a chance, that they can't get ahead because there's sexism, there's racism, homophobia, whatever it is, right?
	And so when he sees his narrative of I'm a winner and we should all try to win again, comes crashing into people's narrative of failure and helplessness and victimhood, which is so part and parcel of the identity politics of the left these days that it can barely be extracted from reality.
	It's like gravity.
	And so when you start talking To your girlfriend.
	You really, really need to listen with every cell of your body, every fiber of your being, every ear hair in your cochlea or wherever it is, right?
	You really need to listen.
	What is she saying about her history?
	What is she saying about her past relationships?
	What is she saying about her family?
	What does it mean to her?
	What narrative has she constructed which she calls a personality?
	What story has she created?
	Has she chosen that she calls a character?
	And this is why I talk about self-knowledge and I talk about philosophy.
	We can't change the objective world, but the objective world has very little to do with who we are.
	Certainly as we get older.
	I mean, if you're trapped in a hellish situation as a kid, you can't just will yourself into happiness and peace of mind.
	I get all of that.
	But as we get older, like when we escape the grips of childhood, if we had a bad childhood, when we escape the grips of childhood, Peter, We have a choice of a narrative that formerly was inflicted upon us.
	So listen to what people say.
	And most importantly, listen to what they don't say.
	Why was she with this guy for three and a half years?
	Does she know?
	Does she know why she broke up with him?
	Does she know what happened?
	Does she know what the trends were?
	And like all men, you have an instinctive understanding of hypergamy, which is a woman's desire to trade up or to marry up.
	If she has a habit, like let's say that she thought this guy was going to be some big thing, and he turned out to not be a big thing, and then she's just like, I'm trading up.
	And then she hooked up a little bit for whatever reason, and then, you know, maybe you're the next, but maybe you feel she can step up from you.
	Maybe, right?
	I'm not saying all women are like this, but it's pretty important to female nature to at least understand it.
	If a woman's not like this, it's because she's recognized it and elevated philosophy above biology, right?
	So, I mean, I remember...
	Ah, story, story, stories.
	A friend of a friend told me this story once about...
	He said, you know, when I was courting my wife, she's now my wife.
	He said, when I was courting my wife, I played guitar, I wrote music, I was in this...
	Big engineering profession and I was, you know, I was very cocky.
	I was very, you know, the world was my oyster.
	I was going to be this incredible guy.
	I wrote books, I wrote poems.
	Like, he was just like a renaissance man.
	And a good singer.
	Anyway.
	And then, for reasons that are outside the scope of this particular story, he just never manifested.
	Lots of potential.
	Ooh, could be going places.
	Just never manifested.
	Never wrote really any good songs.
	Never ended up even playing a coffee shop.
	Just would sit there strumming his guitar in his basement or whatever.
	The engineering thing kind of puttered along.
	It was okay, but you know, he just never...
	And he said, you know, my wife was like all over me when I had potential.
	And then I could feel this sort of rising disappointment and distance with how things weren't panning out.
	And I think the sad thing is, my particular opinion, was that in this situation, I think that he wanted to be loved for who he was, not what he did.
	Men as utility providers is wearing a little thin in the modern world, which is where the MGTOW and other Men's rights, men's independence movements come from.
	Men are tired of being resource providers and dying sooner and getting injured more and killing themselves at four times the rate of women and all that.
	And I think that he didn't want to succeed in order to maintain her interest in him because that's too close to reality for a lot of people.
	We all think that love and sexual attraction is some magical, wonderful, great gift that society or life or the universe gives us for our greatness or whatever.
	But none of that is fundamentally true.
	We all know that love and sexual attraction and it's about having kids and having kids means you need a lot of resources.
	So sexuality is about resource transfer and that's just the way it is.
	I mean, that's just a fact that people need to grow the hell up and accept.
	I'm not putting you in this category.
	I'm just saying people need to accept That love, sexual attraction, the flush and high of romance is just about getting people to bond so that resource transfers and the continuation of the species can occur.
	You know, your heart, your balls, your clitoris, they're not serving your happiness.
	They're serving the needs of the next generation.
	And we just need to accept that as men and women as a whole.
	It doesn't mean we can't love.
	It doesn't mean we can't enjoy the experience of love.
	But it's not...
	A drug designed to make us feel good.
	It is a drug designed to make us do particular things that enhance the chance of the next generation surviving or even existing in the first place.
	So I think that he had this illusion that his wife was supposed to love him for who he was, some essence of who he was, and he felt, well, if I'm not providing resources, why would she love me?
	And my perspective was and is, why would love exist if resources didn't need to be provided?
	That's the more important question.
	Why would love exist if resources did not need...
	If women weren't disabled by having babies, if women weren't disabled fundamentally by breastfeeding, by being up all night, if human babies weren't such ridiculously demanding time leeches and brain vampires and, you know, sleep ghouls, why would resources need to be transferred?
	And the fact is that human babies can only survive if resources are transferred from the male to the female, which is the whole point of love.
	And if the man can't provide resources...
	To the woman, then biology is going to demand that she find someone who can.
	And if it's not going to be another man, guess what?
	She's got the vote.
	It's going to be the state.
	Which means other men in general.
	Men pay most taxes.
	So my suggestion is when you feel anxious in a relationship, it's because you lack information, which means that you're not having the important conversations and not truly listening.
	It's not a gotcha game.
	You just need to open your heart, open your mind, open your entire SETI-based listening apparatus, and just absorb the story.
	May I just comment?
	Just let me finish, because her story is going to be her future, and her story about men is most likely going to be your future, too.
	Okay, Peter, that's the end of my speech, so go ahead.
	Yeah, I want to say that we actually do have quite a lot of conversations.
	We talk things a lot, especially since I started listening to you, you know.
	We do talk things a lot.
	I just don't know in this case what exactly I'm supposed to look after.
	Should it be like the negative part from her side on why they broke up?
	Because what I said, immature, I didn't mean immature as an asshole, but...
	Not that way, but they started at 17.
	Of course, at 17 you still develop until mid-20s, and they just didn't develop parallelly, I suppose, which happens to quite a few people.
	I think it's a pretty realistic scenario.
	Yeah, but I don't know what any of that means, and neither do you, so keep asking the questions until...
	Until you get the answers.
	Now, I'm going to move on to the next caller, but I really, really appreciate that call and that question.
	I think it's very, very important, and I hope that people find it helpful.
	Thanks so much for calling.
	All right.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	All right.
	Up next, we have Jacob.
	Jacob wrote in and said, What do you think defines femininity today compared to masculinity, and has it been influenced by movements like feminism in a negative way?
	That's from Jacob.
	Hello, Jacob.
	How are you doing?
	I'm doing just fine, Stefan.
	How are you doing?
	Well, thank you.
	What do you think?
	It's your show.
	I'm just going to...
	Yeah, you know, hey, I'll give you my little bit.
	So I wrote a way longer email to Mike, but this whole question came about, I was talking to my mom, and she had a kid in class, and he has a very poor home life, and he sort of attached himself to her.
	He would stay after class.
	He's not very good at math.
	She teaches math in high school.
	But he'd stay after, and he's trying to study, and she's helping him with work, and he's trying to buckle down and really not be the bad kid that he's got the reputation of being.
	And she thought it was interesting how he, just of his own will, picked her as a surrogate mother, almost.
	Asks her for advice, things of that nature.
	And his girlfriend broke up with him, and he confessed to my mom that...
	He was anxious about the relationship in the first place because his girlfriend was pressuring him in sex.
	My mother asked, is that common?
	What does that mean, pressuring him in sex?
	I don't know what that means.
	The girlfriend wanted to have sex with this guy.
	She was making advances in that direction and he did not feel like doing that.
	He didn't want to.
	How old?
	What age are we talking here?
	I think 16, 17, somewhere around.
	Okay.
	He didn't want to have sex.
	Right, he didn't want to.
	And it struck me that – and she asked me, she said, is that common among my age group?
	She said – and I'm not really sure among my own age group, but I have – I play games – I've met a lot of guys that are four or five years younger than me, and I'm 24, and they've told me similar stories.
	Their first girlfriend, whatever, that she really wanted sex, and they didn't really feel like doing that, and they felt like waiting just a little while longer, that kind of thing.
	Didn't want to risk having a baby, whatever.
	So it struck me that maybe the reason for that attitude shift Because the stereotype is that the guy wants sex, right?
	The high school kid, he wants, I mean, he's the horny, the horndog, yeah?
	Young, dumb, and full of cum.
	Exactly!
	So why would this shift happen?
	And I thought that maybe this happened because the things that define femininity have not only changed, but they've vanished.
	Whereas the things that define masculinity have just morphed.
	They haven't gone away.
	For instance, the phrase in English, to become a man.
	After a guy has sex at 17 years old, he's become a man.
	He's come into manhood.
	Whatever.
	That type of phrase.
	Do you know what I'm saying?
	There are other things that will enact that type of respect amongst your peers.
	I remember when my stepdad, I never really got along with him well, but it didn't matter when he, we were doing yard work when I was, I don't know, 10.
	And instead of me working alongside him, he gave me a task to do by myself and expected me to go get it done.
	I felt manly because of that.
	Right.
	I'm not saying that that's always going to be masculine, but I felt manly because of that.
	I felt more of a man because of that task I was doing.
	So I think the thing...
	I'm sorry, which task was it again?
	You just cut out for a second.
	It was yard work.
	Yard work.
	Okay.
	Yeah, that makes sense.
	But the thing that was manly, it wasn't that it was yard work.
	It was that he gave me a task by myself, which was, hey, you've worked alongside me a couple of times.
	You should know how to do this.
	I expect you to go get it done.
	That was...
	That type of license, that's not given to children, you know what I mean?
	Children are not given license.
	Men, men are given license.
	So I felt manly.
	But my sister, on the other hand, could do the same exact thing, and she did often.
	She helped mow and trim trees and stuff like that.
	But she never thought about, oh wow, I feel like such a woman.
	So what are those things?
	What are the things that make a woman feel like a woman?
	Whereas the things that make a man feel like a man, I think is just fundamentally respect from their peers or respect from men, especially men that are older than them.
	Okay, but the first question we need to ask is not what is a woman, but why is there a woman?
	Why is there a woman and why is there a man?
	For purposes of procreation, the only reason we have jigsaw puzzle squishy naughty bits is because of sexual reproduction.
	So if there's an essence to femininity, then it must have something to do with the needs of motherhood.
	Because the only reason that women exist and men exist...
	It's because of motherhood and fatherhood.
	There's nothing else that makes the genders have anything to do with anything except that.
	So femininity must be fundamentally related to motherhood.
	That's the only reason women exist.
	Dude, can I just ask you for a tiny favor?
	I have to say this every single show.
	Sorry.
	When I'm talking.
	Yeah.
	Wait till I'm done.
	Because if you're talking in my ear, it's really distracting.
	And I'm not sure if you're agreeing or disagreeing.
	I have to stop what I'm saying.
	I promise I will stop.
	I know sometimes I go on a bit.
	I promise I will stop and let you speak.
	I got excited.
	I'm sorry.
	Thank you, man.
	I appreciate that.
	I appreciate the enthusiasm.
	And this isn't going to be a long one.
	Yeah.
	So, the essence of femininity must be motherhood.
	The essence of masculinity must be fatherhood.
	Now, of course, there are women who choose not to have children.
	There are men who choose not to have children.
	It doesn't mean that they're not women and not men.
	It just means they're free riders on the whole point of gender.
	Nothing wrong with it.
	Perfectly fine.
	Have kids, don't have kids.
	But femininity is motherhood.
	Masculinity is fatherhood.
	Do you agree with that?
	Yes.
	That's actually the crux of the question, I suppose.
	Since femininity, what we've established, femininity is tied to motherhood, then that, I think, is the problem.
	That's why these younger men that I've had interactions with are feeling pressure from motherhood.
	They're female companions for sex is because that is the only thing in these young women's eyes that can give them femininity anymore.
	There's nothing that makes them...
	I know.
	I can't go with you there.
	You don't think so?
	Maybe you're right, but I'm sorry to interrupt you, but let me tell you why.
	I don't know if you've seen the Gene Wars presentations that I've done, which is based upon the great work of Anonymous, Conservative, and others, and people should just check out.
	A couple, but it was many months ago.
	Okay.
	Okay.
	This is the R and K stuff, right?
	It's the R and K stuff, right?
	Femininity is very different between R species and K species.
	Now, for those who just want the very, very two-second version of this, K species are predators usually, bigger.
	They have a tough time getting food because they've got to hunt other animals, which is complicated and difficult.
	They need to pair bond.
	They need to invest in their children.
	Their children tend to develop more slowly, end up more intelligent, more sophisticated.
	They tend to be tribal, have a lot of social rules, care for each other and all of that kind of stuff.
	More complex organisms.
	The R-selected species are the ones who have no limit on the amount of food that they can consume.
	So think of like...
	Rabbits in a field.
	The owls gotta hunt the rabbits, and it's really tough, and they win or lose, but the rabbits can just eat and eat and eat, and the only limiting factor on the rabbits is the owls, which they can't do anything about, so they don't bother.
	Now, in our selected species, the females are sexually aggressive.
	In K-selected species, the females are not sexually aggressive.
	The males are sexually assertive.
	In the, like, a female...
	Rabbit who's just given birth to her litter, like 15 minutes later, if a male comes by or someone strokes her, her ass goes in the air, she's ready again.
	So sexual availability, sexual aggression, sexual motivation is very high.
	Our selected people, our selected organisms have very high sexual drives because they're just reproducing.
	Reproduce, reproduce, reproduce, right?
	Whereas the K selected organisms can't reproduce like crazy because if there are too many of them and there's a limited food source, They're done.
	They're toast.
	And so the predictability of the environment versus the unpredictability of the environment.
	If you have a predictable environment that mastery and intelligence can help you succeed in, then you've got to have pair bonding and big investment into kids, restrained sexuality, and a commitment prior to reproduction.
	Commitment prior to reproduction.
	I mean, lion cubs take, I don't even know how long, to actually be old enough, it's years I believe, actually be old enough to go and hunt Prey, right?
	I mean, I don't know how long it's weeks for rabbits, isn't it, where they can start hopping around and eating, right?
	I mean, it's ridiculous how little resource they need.
	Yeah, their gestation period, or not gestation, their, whatever, maturity time.
	Maturation.
	Yeah, thank you.
	Maturation period is pretty short.
	Right.
	Right, so the female rabbit does not need a lifelong commitment from the male to Basically, pump out babies like somebody's firing a submachine gun full of tiny fur.
	Pump out babies like rabbits, maybe?
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	So, I mean, she doesn't need the commitment.
	However, the lioness or the female wolf, I mean, they need the commitment.
	Because they've got to spend a lot of time breastfeeding their...
	They're cubs and training them and, you know, someone's got to keep bringing them all the resources.
	They're tired.
	So anyway, and if humans, it's off the charts.
	But isn't there more of a – I guess that's the biological aspect.
	But what I'm suggesting is that there's the social cred that comes with having sex.
	No, no, no, no.
	We're not done that.
	This won't make sense in a sec.
	We're not done that.
	Oh, okay.
	The biological aspect.
	So, one of the key components or triggers for our selected behavior is father absence.
	Father absence.
	Father absence signals to the developing baby, and I believe, like the fetus, right?
	I believe that the absence of deep voices actually starts to program this.
	I don't know if that's ever going to be proven or not.
	But father absence is a prime trigger for our selected behavior.
	In other words, for women to act like traditional men, to be more sexually aggressive...
	And to have little thought to the negative consequences of sexual activity, right?
	So in the past, you watch Downton Abbey or read Victorian novels or whatever, the fallen woman, right?
	The woman who had sex outside of marriage, the woman who had an affair, the woman who had whatever, right?
	She was unmarriable.
	Like, boom, you are off!
	The dating market.
	You are done.
	You are covered with scandal.
	Maybe you can move to some new town.
	But even then, people will say, well, why did she move to a new town?
	Big red A sewn on her breath.
	Right.
	And this is all considered, in the welfare state, of course, it's all considered to be weird Victorian hysterical prudishness, right?
	Oh, these people were so crazy.
	It must have been so religiously mad.
	No.
	No.
	It's because...
	It's because...
	You need the male commitment in order to spend the 25 years it takes to raise a child to full maturation.
	It literally bred good behavior.
	Yeah.
	It really, really did.
	So if there's father absence, it means either there's a war, in which case the woman can't rely on a man's provision, and her reproductive strategy is rabbit.
	R for rabbit.
	R selected.
	Her reproductive strategy is...
	You know, bang as many guys as humanly possible who have reasonable markers for genetic health.
	The quality of the character doesn't really matter because they're not going to stick around as a war or whatever it is, right?
	So father absence programs a woman's reproductive impulses or system to our selected behavior, which is why if there's no father around, girls hit puberty a year or more earlier.
	Than girls whose fathers are around.
	Like it actually programs the body.
	It changes the hormones.
	It changes the biochemical response.
	It changes sexual excitement levels.
	It changes sexual restraint.
	It actually changes the entire body.
	And hypersexuality on the part of women is very strongly dose-dependent associated with father absence.
	The longer the father has been away, the more hypersexualized the girls are going to become.
	And that's just the way the biology works.
	You know, we're not born fixed, like statues that just get bigger.
	We are born in a state of flux, and our genetics, or in this case, our epigenetics, are constantly scanning the environment.
	What's the best methodology for survival?
	And this is why we got to the top of the food chain, is that a rabbit can't become a wolf.
	And a wolf sure as hell can't eat grass, but human beings can go R or K depending on The environment.
	We've got a video called The Truth About Single Moms.
	All the data, all the sources.
	I think I watched that one.
	That was an interesting one.
	My sister didn't much care for that.
	But my mom, interestingly enough, my mom, as a single mom for at least the first seven years of my life, she agreed with all of it.
	Like, hands down.
	Oh, yeah.
	He's totally right.
	But my sister got all mad.
	I can't believe you're saying these things about mom.
	So listen, man, this is the reality of why the girls want sex and the boys don't.
	It comes down to this.
	In the past, women faced negative consequences for sexual activity.
	Pregnancy, STDs, scandal, unmarryability, you name it, right?
	Especially, you know, no abortions, no birth control, boom, one time, your life is destroyed.
	Right.
	So women face negative consequences...
	For sexual activity outside of marriage, right?
	But now, who faces negative consequences for sexual activity?
	Predominantly the men.
	I mean, if you want to go with, like, child support angle.
	Well, it's child support.
	It's alimony.
	It is, he raped me.
	I'm not happy.
	He assaulted me.
	Well, and then there's the social pressure beyond that, even if she doesn't, like, demand anything.
	And there were a couple of girls that got pregnant in high school that they didn't make demands.
	But the peer group did.
	Like if he – she basically didn't demand child support or anything.
	Hey, the family was going to help raise the child, et cetera, et cetera.
	So it really wasn't like a financial issue.
	You mean the taxpayers were going to help raise the child against their will?
	Either way.
	But they – these kids were 16, 17, right?
	But she didn't make demands of the guy.
	However, the peer group did.
	You got a man up!
	Step up!
	Exactly.
	If he didn't stick around with her, he would have been completely ostracized as a bastard.
	He would have been the most awful person in the school.
	So what's happened is the roles have kind of reversed.
	And now women are the men, and men are the Victorian women.
	Because the risk-reward calculation for a man with regards to sexuality...
	Is not what it used to be.
	Right?
	I mean, it's not what it used to be.
	And of course, sorry, the prevalence of pornography and masturbation acceptance means that a man can, of course, achieve sexual satisfaction, I guess to a limited but safe degree, without getting involved with a woman, right?
	Which is why one of the ways that you control male sexuality and really increase the sexual market value of women is to Make masturbation a sin, a crime.
	Make your hands furry and make you crazy.
	Make you go blind.
	Make you go blind.
	And what was it?
	Kellogg, I think, was one of the guys who was behind it.
	Wasn't Kellogg advertised as the product that would help end masturbation?
	Right.
	And the reason you want to start masturbation is to raise the sexual market value of women and to convince men that if they want to have an orgasm, they have to commit to a woman.
	And so men, of course, the sexual market value of women has gone down because of pornography or just masturbation acceptance.
	But at the same time, the danger of sleeping with a woman has gone up enormously.
	Enormously.
	Because in the past, if a woman slept around, if a woman was a slut, then she was blamed.
	Now, the men were like, yeah, well, men are going to be men, right?
	If the woman is the gatekeeper, it's her job, right?
	Right.
	It sort of became like if I leave my wallet on a park bench for three days, come back, and it's gone, it's like, well, yeah, whoever took it was wrong, but come on.
	But the men, at least in my own age group, were then, and I still think now, were still not thought well of if they slept around with a bunch of women.
	They were not respectable.
	possible.
	Yeah, no, I get it.
	I get it.
	But what happens now is that there still are enough vestiges of what is called slut-shaming or whatever that a woman who is accused of sleeping around, of being loose with her morals of hypersexuality, well, she can just say...
	It wasn't by choice.
	I was too drunk to consent.
	Whatever, right?
	And even if it was her choice, she has her peer group behind her that says, don't you dare slut shame her, and they, you know, girl power, etc., etc., and they back her up.
	They say, what you have done is not immoral.
	What you have done is fine.
	What you have done is okay.
	There's no ostracism.
	There's no...
	Oh, yeah, there are slut walks.
	Right, exactly.
	Right.
	And, you know, Halloween is just, you know, a chance to dress up as a porn fantasy.
	Oh, and by the way, for more about Kellogg, we do have The Truth About Circumcision, just so people can...
	No, sorry, go ahead.
	I said a 24-year-old male.
	I quite like Halloween.
	Halloween at college is pretty okay.
	Yeah, no, Halloween is basically creepy cleavage.
	That's all it is.
	Creepy cleavage.
	But anyway, so the fact that the girls that you're talking about are more sexually aggressive...
	And that the boys are like, eh, I don't know, you know, whatever, right?
	That is, well, it's a reversal, but it's a reversal based on completely clear biological reasons that the genders have reversed.
	That before, the risk was with the girl, and now the risk is with the boy.
	And because there's a lot of father absence, and because welfare has created this Sort of African plenty in a non-African society, right?
	Like in Africa, it's really not that hard to get food, right?
	I mean, you got nuts, you got fruit, there's like, you can always, human beings are incredible at running in heat because we're vertical, we now have our backs to the sun.
	Is that post-scarcity that you're talking about?
	Yeah, yeah.
	So the welfare state has made a post-scarcity society, and when you have a post-scarcity society, which rabbits have with regards to grass and all that, Well, what happens is you end up with the sexual habits of your average tree frog, you know, just bang anything that moves, lay 6,000 eggs and move on.
	And so when you get post-scarcity, you automatically get our selected behavior, which is why the welfare state is so dysgenic.
	I mean, for so many different reasons, but it's so retrogressive.
	It is moving us back to an earlier stage or more primitive stage of psychosocial development and epigenetics.
	And so, yeah, these roles have...
	Have reversed.
	And they will continue to be this way until the government runs out of money.
	And then things will change rather rapidly.
	Right.
	Hopefully in the next couple of months, maybe things will start to turn around.
	Well, I don't know.
	I'm hopeful.
	I'm hopeful.
	It might be.
	It might be that soon.
	I agree with what you're saying, especially with the RNK stuff, but to suggest that it's all entirely biologically driven, that's what I guess I differ with you on.
	Okay, what percentage would you say?
	What percentage would you say?
	I mean, nobody can ever say 100% because that's the term.
	I get that.
	I mean, and that's a straw man because I never said it was all 100%.
	Right, right, right.
	No, but that was the question.
	And as to what percentage, I'm not sure that it matters, but that's what I was asking.
	That's the point of the question is what – Social factors are there for the pursuit of masculinity and the pursuit of femininity, and in that pursuit, how much of it is defined specifically by, I guess, sexuality, but specifically sex.
	I think pregnancy, for instance, will always define femininity, forever.
	That will never not be feminine to be pregnant, right?
	I mean, motherhood will always be feminine.
	But I would...
	No, no, but sorry.
	Sorry to interrupt.
	Go ahead.
	Sorry to interrupt.
	But motherhood for the wolf is very different than motherhood for the rabbit.
	So you can say femininity, human femininity is about motherhood, but motherhood is not the important aspect of femininity.
	resource transfers in a free environment, in a free society, it's the resource transfer that has made the difference between men and women.
	It's not the fact that women get pregnant, that women are smaller.
	Women are smaller because men have to go out and get resources for women.
	So women might as well be smaller because if they're smaller, they use fewer calories, which means the man has to work less hard, which means to feed them, right?
	Which means that they're less exposed to danger and all that kind of stuff.
	So it's the resource transfer, man.
	That's the important thing.
	When you screw up the resource transfer to the welfare state has completely done, not to mention old age pensions and Section 8 housing and food stamps and all the usual crap, right?
	When you screw up the resource transfer, you fundamentally change what it is to be a man and a woman.
	And it's no coincidence that the pill and the welfare state and feminism all happened very close together.
	Because the welfare state fundamentally screwed up the resource transfer algorithms that define masculinity and femininity, which means that you can have bullshit like, you know, some third the third wave feminism has become now, What does it matter?
	I mean, there's no resource transfer that makes any difference whatsoever.
	Why do men have 40% more upper body strength than women on average?
	Well, because men have got to go out and hack their way through and bring down animals and build structures and shelters and barns and crap like that, because, you know, Hillary Servers shouldn't just be out in the field.
	That'd be completely irresponsible.
	So the sexual dimorphism, right, the difference between men and women, Entirely defined by the helplessness of the woman during pregnancy and breastfeeding, the need for the man to go out and get resources.
	That's what defines love.
	That's what defines attraction.
	That's the need for commitment.
	So forget about being pregnant.
	I mean, tons of species get pregnant.
	It's the helplessness of the woman, the dependence of the human child, and the need for massive resource transfers from the male.
	That's what defines masculinity and femininity.
	Sorry, go ahead.
	Oh, I was just saying pregnancy from a social aspect.
	Like when a woman gets pregnant, or sorry, even, sorry, when a girl gets pregnant, she comes into womanhood by virtue of a bodily function, you know?
	And that will always be...
	No, no, that's...
	No, come on.
	You don't think so?
	No, no, no.
	That's...
	Other women do not respect...
	That's puberty.
	That's what I mean.
	Are you saying that a woman who never gets pregnant, a woman who's infertile, can't be a woman?
	I mean, come on.
	No, no, no, no, no, no.
	I'm not saying that's the only thing that defines femininity.
	I'm saying that that is a thing that will always contribute to, like, coming into womanhood.
	Other women will respect women that become pregnant, is what I'm saying.
	What?
	What?
	Other women will respect women who become pregnant?
	Have you not heard anything about the mommy wars and feminism's hostility towards the stay-at-home moms?
	Women that I've been around, they've always been, I don't know, it's almost grandmotherly.
	They always get really excited when somebody's pregnant and there's a baby involved and they just lose their freaking mind.
	No, you've got to look up Italian feminists completely bitching about the government.
	The government's trying to raise the birth rate by reminding women that fertility starts declining for women when they're 25.
	In 30, it accelerates.
	35, you're really rolling the dice, and 40, you're playing the lottery.
	And so the Italian government...
	Dude, what did we say?
	Yeah, yeah, my bad.
	Thank you.
	So the Italian government is trying to get Italian women, or I guess women in Italy, to...
	Have babies.
	And the feminists are going completely nuts.
	Oh, how dare you treat us like we're just some breeding machines?
	Where's their goddamn happiness about all of the women who are going to be big with child and...
	Oh, anyway.
	It's...
	Yeah, so K-women, I think, are pretty excited about women who get pregnant and so on.
	But our selected women, eh, that's just an annoyance and it's in the way and all that kind of stuff.
	I mean, for our selected women, it's a thing that happens all the time, right?
	By virtue of being our selected women, right?
	Yeah, and listen, just so, in the Gene Wars presentation, G-E-N-E, which I really, really recommend people watch, it's a very core part of what we talk about here, people get kind of confused because they say, well, wait a minute, you're saying that our selected creatures have higher sex drives and leftists and communists tend to be our selected, but why do they have so few children?
	Well, that's, of course, because of birth control.
	A higher sex drive is supposed to be for more children.
	Biology and evolution have not quite woken up to the fact that procreation has become...
	Well, procreation, child fertility, right?
	Pregnancy has become optional, so the higher sex drive has nothing to do with the number of kids.
	But sorry, go ahead.
	Oh, I was just thinking about how This has become sort of a chicken and egg discussion.
	I'm asking whether or not the pursuit of femininity or masculinity has been affected by feminism or other such movements or, I mean, you might even go so far to say communism and things of that nature and other social changes.
	Or have these social changes been affected by the fact that people have been shifting more towards R and K from a biological standpoint?
	So those started to create – No, towards R from K.
	Yeah, you're right.
	Towards R from K and have these things created the environment where we have stuff such as feminism, which perpetuates our selection of people.
	Because it suggests that being a slut isn't shameful and it promotes an R mentality.
	Well, and R, you know, for rabbits, being a slut is perfectly sensible.
	Right, right.
	I mean, you know, if your genes are stuffed up the ass of a female rabbit, I love these sentences, but so if your genes are stuffed up the ass of a female rabbit, you want that male penis in the female rabbit vagina as quickly and as often as possible.
	Don't play coy.
	Don't ask for three dinners before you have sex with him.
	Just stick your ass in the air and have him, you know, mount you like a picture on a wall.
	Right.
	That makes perfect sense.
	So in our selected environment, Then slut-shaming is completely inappropriate.
	Being a slut, for want of a better word, being sexually promiscuous, hyper-sexualized in an R-selected environment, that is your optimum reproduction strategy.
	It's not like the wolf reproduction strategy is better than the rabbit.
	Both have evolved for their own particular environments.
	So when you have the welfare state, when you have generally men being pillaged by the state to pay for women who are having lots of babies...
	Then, of course, it doesn't make much sense to slut shame because being a slut, so to speak, being sexually promiscuous is a perfectly valid R-selected strategy.
	You know, oysters have, I don't know, many billions of eggs or whatever.
	I mean, you know, the frog, you know, lays this giant walking carpet of looks like caviar.
	I mean, it's perfectly valid.
	So when you have the welfare state, slut shaming is wrong.
	But if you don't have the welfare state, if you have charity, if you have private voluntary money transfers or resource allocations, then slut-shaming makes total sense.
	That makes total sense, and it would come from the elders, right?
	Because if your daughter gets pregnant and there's no welfare state, you either have to spirit her off, in which case everyone knows what happens and she's fundamentally unmarriable because, you know, wolves don't want no sloppy seconds.
	There's your title, Mike.
	Right.
	All the parents have to pay for the next 20 years.
	So the parents don't worry.
	But if the welfare state is paying for it at all, we're in an R-selected environment.
	So why the hell wouldn't your average female human rabbit raise her ass every time it rains?
	So I guess the logical question after that is, is this a cycle?
	Or when will we shift back to a more case-selected society?
	Or are we forever stuck?
	Dude, come on!
	You've got to be listening better than that.
	Not only is it in the entire framework of what I've said, I actually said it very specifically.
	Oh, then I missed that part.
	My bad.
	Okay, so R selected is when there is an excess of resources, right?
	Post-scarcity, an excess of resources.
	There's the answer.
	We never go back because I don't know how we'll ever get to it.
	No, the welfare state.
	I already said this six million times, right?
	The welfare state.
	When the government forces men to give resources to women, when women marry the state at the expense of men, When the welfare state gives us the post-scarcity environment.
	The post-scarcity environment isn't people have lots of stuff.
	The post-scarcity environment is it doesn't matter what you do, you get shit anyway.
	You get the resources anyway.
	It doesn't matter if there's a man around.
	It doesn't matter if you're likable.
	It doesn't matter if you're 300 pounds.
	It doesn't matter if you're a horrible person.
	It doesn't matter if you beat up your boyfriends.
	It doesn't matter.
	It doesn't matter if you have a job.
	It doesn't matter if you're honest.
	It doesn't matter if you lie.
	It doesn't matter if you cheat.
	It doesn't matter.
	So the welfare state is firing resources at women who have children.
	And by the way, just for those who are curious, I subsume things like alimony and child support under the welfare state.
	The welfare state includes all forced transfers of money.
	That includes alimony, child support, and other things.
	Because those are enforced by the law?
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	So you are in a situation...
	Where you do not need the commitment and love and loyalty and security and provision of a man for your children to survive.
	You don't need it.
	You don't need it.
	I don't need no man!
	Of course you don't.
	I'm a strong, independent woman.
	I'm a strong, independent woman now.
	Where's my check?
	Where's my government cheddar from the menfolk?
	Right?
	I mean, I don't know who that was, man.
	I'm sure I offended everyone.
	It was a caricature of something, I'm sure.
	Yeah, so I only do Valley Girls, that's about it.
	So no, post-scarcity doesn't mean that we're in a capitalist situation, right?
	Post-scarcity simply means that the woman gets the benefits of marriage without actually having to practice the virtue called being married.
	Without having to be a good person, when a good man stay a reasonable weight, you know why women are getting so fat?
	Well, one argument could be because women stay thin because they don't want their men to go get a little something-something on the side.
	So they stay thin and they stay attractive and they stay healthy because they want to be sexually attractive to their husbands.
	Oh, did you marry the state?
	Is the state going to break up with you if you get fat?
	No!
	So you don't need to stay thin because the government's going to give you money either way.
	But if a woman loses her sexual market value, especially if she has a high-status male, boy, he's going to be trading her in now, isn't he?
	So this is another reason why I think women are sort of gaining weight as a whole.
	And men are gaining weight because they're bombing out of the market of reproduction, blah, blah, blah.
	So yeah, it's all about the welfare state.
	And I know this sounds like there's an old Matt Goening cartoon called Life in Hell, which was actually quite influential, especially the one about graduate school.
	But he said, you know, the crazy teachers you have, right?
	Right.
	And one of them is the teacher, like, one theory explains everything.
	It's something like, yeah, the entire world's economy is dependent upon the price of magnesium.
	It all goes back to magnesium.
	Every single lecture, always back to magnesium.
	We could be talking about calculus.
	It's back to magnesium, that guy.
	Right.
	Yeah.
	Right.
	So now I know I talk a lot about the welfare state, but the welfare state, if we're going to talk gender, and given that gender is dependent upon the need for resource transfers, and the welfare state is a completely artificial, coercive, destructive, massive resource transfer, then then if you're going to talk about gender without talking about the welfare state, then it's kind of like trying to talk about the solar system while pretending there's no such thing as the sun.
	Yeah, you can't even isolate any of the social aspect because the welfare state is the society.
	I mean, that's the thing that governs basically the interactions between everybody to some degree or another, ultimately, right?
	Yeah, and if gender is defined by resource transfer, whether it's voluntary or not is kind of the key thing.
	The whole difference between fun and a crime is consent.
	So if you're going to have sex with someone and they consent, if they don't consent, you are in a bad territory.
	So the consent versus non-consent, that's the difference between borrowing and stealing.
	It's a huge moral divide.
	And so the issue is...
	Resource transfer that is voluntary breeds virtue, breeds great things.
	Resource transfers that are coercive and involuntary breed social destruction.
	One enhances masculinity and femininity since it is dependent upon resource transfer.
	The other destroys masculinity and femininity and in conjunction with other things like perhaps a little bit of overcry of negative sexual experiences for women.
	It can reverse the gender roles.
	And this is why you have men who are generally asexual these days, a lot of them, and women who are hypersexual.
	It has reversed, as you would completely expect when you reverse the resource transfers and you make it coercive, you reverse the genders.
	Interesting.
	Well, that makes sense.
	That's pretty much all I got for you, my friend.
	All right.
	Well, lads, remember there's still some porn out there.
	I believe some of it is coming from Venezuela these days, so check it out.
	Thanks so much for your call, man.
	A great pleasure.
	Feel free to call back in any time.
	All right.
	I appreciate it.
	Have a good night.
	Thank you.
	Alright, up next we have Miko.
	Miko wrote in and said, I'm a 23-year-old Canadian male.
	I was liberal by default until about a year ago when I woke up from the Matrix thanks to my dad.
	I'm completing my English degree this winter, I work two jobs, I own a small business, and I'm an independent actor slash filmmaker.
	I want to create an online media platform and contribute to the crucial global conversations, but worry that becoming a public political figure in a region dominated by lefties will jeopardize my business.
	Can I do both?
	Or will I have to sacrifice my business?
	That's from Miko.
	Yeah, Miko, it's no problem.
	I can dip back into the IT business world anytime I want with no negative repercussions.
	Yeah, I'm just kidding.
	Yeah.
	So how are you doing tonight, Miko?
	I'm great.
	How are you doing?
	I'm very well, thank you.
	I'm very well.
	A little tired, but very well.
	So, English degree.
	Step me through that logic there, brother.
	Well, all white males are evil and patriarchy, and yeah, basically that's pretty much it.
	You know, you have to have soft covers because hard covers are phallic and sexist.
	Yes.
	Yes, they offend me.
	They offend me.
	And they have spines and spines are masculine.
	Oh, that's a big, big problem.
	Yeah.
	So, yeah, I survived that basically.
	It was sort of halfway through my degree where I was red-pilled and I'm like, what the?
	I always thought, I always thought this, I was like, I always thought, what the hell is going on?
	But then I finally realized, okay, yeah, what the hell is going on?
	What are they teaching me here?
	Like, this is such a waste.
	How did you get yourself...
	What are you, stupid?
	Like, why the hell would you get red-pilled halfway through an English degree?
	Wait till you're done.
	You know, that's like pulling out a blow-up doll of Margaret Thatcher while in the middle of a threesome with whoever you find attractive.
	It's like, oh dear, I believe we have just killed Liftoff.
	Yeah, I know, right?
	So, it's tough.
	It's tough.
	Well, hey, I said I was an actor, so that kind of helped.
	Right.
	Pretending that it's normal.
	You know, pretending that it's good.
	You know what I'm learning.
	Now, for those, of course, for our American friends, they're going to want to know, how much debt did you end up with with this degree?
	And because it's Canada, it's not so bad, right?
	Well, actually, see, I would not have went to university if my parents didn't pay for it.
	Like, they wanted me to go.
	Like, they said, go to school.
	We'll pay for you.
	Like, please go.
	I was like, okay, okay.
	I'll go.
	Because if I... If I had to pay on my own, I would not have paid because I do not like debt.
	I don't like debt at all.
	So thankfully, I'm privileged that I was able to go, that my parents funded me.
	Well, who knows if that's privilege or not, right?
	I mean, you got a lot of programming and you did forego four years of actually having a real job and getting income and building experience and contacts and, you know, you'll always be four years behind in your career, right?
	Totally agree.
	I totally agree.
	All right.
	And how did you end up getting red-pilled there, my friend?
	Oh, just for those who don't know, that just means that you're, you know, it's the matrix analogy, you're kind of waking up to, in particular, I think it refers to men's rights, and it refers to waking up to female nature and gynocentrism.
	Is that fairly close, or is it something else?
	Yeah, it's...
	Well, I used to be a socialist, right?
	Like, I used to think that government could solve...
	You're Canadian!
	Yeah, I know, right?
	That's crazy.
	But, yeah, no, that's what I said.
	I was a liberal by default.
	That's just the way we are, I don't know, programmed here.
	But eventually...
	And I was a zeitgeister when I first...
	Started waking up.
	Yeah, I thought that was the route.
	We have to go and march and destroy everything and we have to totally, you know, capitalism is the evil when no, it's not capitalism that's the evil.
	What's that?
	It's that Springsteen song?
	I'm waiting tonight for the robot city.
	Exactly.
	So, yeah, so as I started waking up, first, both me and my dad, we were zeitgeisters.
	We were like, oh yeah, it's capitalism that's evil.
	Then we realized, hold on a minute.
	We started watching Alex Jones and he told me, he's like, hey, check this out.
	And I'm like, okay.
	I'm like, oh wait, okay.
	Yeah, okay.
	Not all white people are racists.
	Capitalism didn't destroy countries.
	It's actually the only thing that creates prosperity.
	So yeah, we...
	Together we woke up, anyway, from that socialist sort of mindset.
	Right.
	And then, of course, like your show, which we watch every day.
	How did you first find me?
	Was it through Alex or was it through something else?
	I think I was watching...
	I was either watching Alex or Gavin McInnes or Rebel Media.
	I just saw you on the side.
	It was recommended videos.
	And I watched, I think it...
	Oh, yeah, The Untruth About Donald Trump.
	Yeah.
	Oh, yeah.
	We are huge, huge Trump supporters.
	Big time.
	Right.
	Gavin, you know, apparently, apparently, gel gives you a lot of insights.
	Yeah.
	I wanted to pass that out.
	That is a tight beard.
	Oh, no, he shaved it, I think, recently.
	For an acting role.
	I had to find out why he shaved.
	I was like, why?
	I know.
	To make him look younger.
	And it's for an acting role?
	Yeah.
	He said it was to make him look younger, but he said it didn't really work.
	He said he looked weird.
	Yeah.
	It is a strange thing, and I didn't have as...
	I mean, he's not exactly full-on Karl Marx, but a little further along than Lennon, but...
	All right.
	Yeah.
	All right.
	So you want to do something good for the world, but not get in trouble with the people who profit from its badness.
	Yeah.
	I wanted to rock the boat without anyone knowing it's me rocking it.
	So why don't you just do it anonymously?
	That's...
	You know, I thought about that.
	I think...
	I'm actually an elderly Asian gentleman.
	Okay.
	Not many people know that.
	It's all down with hand puppets and cryogenics and CGI. But anyway.
	Okay.
	Well, the Hillary campaign should enlist you if you have those sort of resources.
	Right.
	My human flesh suit works.
	Yeah, exactly.
	I don't want to be anonymous.
	I think that...
	Oh yes you do.
	Let's be fair.
	If you're worried about negative repercussions, then being anonymous is something you partly want.
	In other words, if you could achieve the same good Through anonymity as you could through putting yourself at risk by being out there in the public sphere and speaking against lefties.
	Although soon I'm going to hope that it's going to be speaking against righties.
	But anyway, just for balance, not because I'm a rightie.
	So let's just be clear about that, that there's a part of you that does want anonymity.
	There's a part of everyone.
	I guarantee you everyone who's got any kind of public life at some point has said, Damn it, I wish I'd done this anonymous.
	Everyone, I guarantee you, has had that thought at one time or another.
	Totally, yeah.
	But the thing is, I think that I can do a lot more good.
	I can have a way bigger effect.
	For example...
	You, or Paul Joseph Watson, or Milo, or anyone, if they were anonymous, you wouldn't get their personality, and you wouldn't get...
	It just wouldn't have the same effect, right?
	There's another great YouTuber, Black Pigeon Speaks, and he's anonymous.
	He does an unreal job.
	But I think, for myself, I would do...
	I could do a lot better using my comedic skills, using my writing, and my acting, and using that to the end that we...
	Yeah, for the conversation, to continue the conversation.
	Well, I mean, just so you know, there's no going back.
	Like, once you put up that first video, you know, that door don't open both ways.
	That you really, really need to be aware of.
	And this is not trying to goose you or anything, but, you know, you get born that way, there's no going back in the womb.
	Yeah, you can't go back, right?
	There's no...
	You don't get the toothpaste back of the tube.
	You can't unring the bell.
	Once you're out there, you're committed.
	And that has its pluses and minuses.
	The good news is you're committed.
	Because you can't go back, you won't be tempted to crawl back into your hole.
	But there are times, of course, where it can be a little exciting.
	But yeah, there's no going back.
	The other thing, too, is that if people really want to find you, is it really going to be that tough?
	I mean, unless you completely disguise your voice, someone's going to listen to you like, hey, I know that guy.
	I had a guy contact me.
	He had a lovely family and was a great haven for me when I was younger after school.
	And he contacted me recently, and I just wanted to say hi to him.
	Thanks very much for the contact.
	And he's like, you know, I'm just browsing around on YouTube and I didn't even see you.
	I just, I heard your voice.
	And within like four seconds, I'm like, that's the guy I hung out with when we were in junior high school.
	And it was, yeah, he was a great friend and a wonderful family who I really appreciated their hospitality.
	Not the Iranian family who was great, the Iranian English family.
	Persian!
	Sorry, Persian.
	Always Persian.
	So he heard me and he's like, that's Steph.
	That's the guy I hung out with for a couple of years when we were in junior high.
	And so, I don't know, to what degree do you have to disguise your voice?
	And then do you use whatever, I don't know, Tor or whatever the hell it is that you can find some way to get your...
	Someone is going to figure out who you are.
	And especially the more effect you have, then the more people are going to want to figure out who you are.
	And then maybe they'll use some less positive methods to try and find out who you are.
	Yeah.
	And so the anonymity thing, I think it only really has value if you're not having much effect.
	But the moment you really start to have an effect, and by have an effect, I mean affect people's relationships.
	The rest of it is all...
	entertaining nonsense but you know if you're having an effect on people's relationships then that has a very big Yeah.
	Sadly, not that many people that I know listen to the show.
	And just kind of people in my city in general.
	I mean, maybe they do, but...
	Kind of a liberal wasteland.
	Even though this is supposed to be the last bastion of conservatism in Canada, it's a liberal wasteland too, so it's kind of sad.
	What is the last bastion of conservatism in Canada?
	Calgary, like Alberta.
	Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah.
	Okay.
	Oh, I didn't know.
	Yeah, because you guys have to deal with reality, not just ideology, right?
	Right.
	A lot of natural resources out there that don't respond to social justice warrior whining.
	I'm going to complain that oil right out of the shale.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, you can't chop a tree with feminism, so...
	Although it could be tempting to think about it.
	It could be.
	But, so yeah, like, also the anonymity for me wouldn't...
	Yeah, it doesn't really appeal to me because I am already, like, a pretty widely known person in my community, at least.
	Like, I have a lot of friends...
	I'm really popular.
	People know me.
	I'm great, okay?
	But, yeah, like...
	I have sort of a large sphere of influence, so I think I could use that in a positive way.
	I just have to be very tactful.
	I'm not going to come up with my first video that's going to be Islam.
	I think I could do it in a more tactful way.
	Wait, Islam, what is that?
	How do you spell it?
	Hang on.
	I'm not sure I know that word.
	I-Z? Anyway, never mind.
	Alright, do you mind if I mention a thing or two more?
	Yes, sir.
	Okay, so now this is going to be a pendulum seesaw kind of thing.
	So now that I've told you the negatives, I'll tell you the negatives that make a positive.
	I think society has gotten to the place, my friend, that what do we have to lose?
	Mm-hmm.
	Like, I could understand in the 1950s.
	You know, in the 1950s, it's like, yeah, you know, maybe I'll take it kind of easy, you know.
	Yeah, okay, maybe the communists are infiltrating the State Department, but I don't want to die at 56 like Joseph McCarthy or whatever.
	Maybe I'll let it slide, you know.
	And it's true, you know, we had decades and decades to go where things were kind of chugging along not too badly and all that, Cold War and all that.
	But now, you know, things are at the point where, what are you saving yourself for?
	Well, I don't want to get in trouble.
	Well, you know what?
	Trouble's coming.
	Trouble is coming.
	There's no running through the tunnel of time to get away from trouble anymore.
	It's that close.
	It's that close.
	You know, it's one thing to say, well, I don't want to poke the bear.
	I don't want to upset the bear.
	I understand that.
	Let your sleeping bear lie, creep on past.
	But when the bear is chasing you through the forest and it's gaining on you, you got to do something.
	You know, like you're past the point of don't poke the bear.
	So...
	Trouble is coming and trouble is close.
	Trouble could damn well be as close as November in the elections of the United States.
	So trouble is coming.
	And this idea, you know, In the past, I've used this thing called the against me argument, which I still consider perfectly valid, where I say to people, go and really get in people's faces in your relationships and tell them how terrible the system is that we have.
	And, you know, some people have done it.
	Some people think I'm a terrible person for making this argument without ever being able to rebut it or whatever.
	But the reality is that...
	Let's just, you know, bounce over to Europe for a second, and I won't do the whole presentation, but...
	Deutsche Bank's in a mess, you know, where their stock is down to like 8% what it was a couple of years ago, and they just got hit with a $14 billion fine from the Department of Justice.
	And Merkel says she's not going to bail them out because you don't bail out German banks, you only bail out all the refugees in the known universe.
	So, not that either is fine, but...
	So, you know, my German listeners, maybe you didn't want to push the issues out.
	With your family.
	Maybe you didn't want to push the issues with your friend.
	And they're a huge bank.
	They are the brain of the octopus that reaches everywhere.
	And their exposure to derivatives is many, many times the size of the entire German economy.
	It's a house of cards if a house of cards were made of lead and fire and landing on your head.
	And so people are, well, you know, I didn't want to push it with my family.
	Okay, well, what if your family can't withdraw their money tomorrow?
	You know, if they don't get a bailout, they're going to get a bail-in.
	And a bail-in is when they just take money from their depositors.
	That could happen.
	It's more than just a little likely.
	And so I got to wonder, you know, if your family wakes up tomorrow and they can't get their money, The ATMs aren't refilled.
	And they go online and they can see or maybe they can't get their pensions or maybe something, something.
	Maybe they're going to turn to you and say, damn it, why didn't you push us harder?
	You knew!
	And you were like dancing around it and not wanting to upset us.
	Well, now we're upset!
	Why didn't you push us?
	You know, like you've got some Christopher Hitchens-style smoker and drinker in the family, right?
	And everyone's like, well, you know, we don't want to upset him by saying he should quit, you know?
	I mean, he gets a little sensitive about it, so we'll just let him, right?
	And then the guy gets some god-awful disease from his bad habits.
	At some point, he's gonna say, why the hell didn't anyone just push hard?
	Because that would have saved my life.
	Why didn't somebody get in my face about the stupid things that I was doing?
	You are not being kind to me by being oversensitive to my feelings and not wanting to upset me because now I'm upset because I'm gonna die.
	Right?
	So I understand if it's a long way off, still not right, but I understand it, but it's close enough now that I think people, like those of us in the know who really get it, if we're not in people's faces, we are not being their friend.
	We are not helping them.
	We're not being loving.
	We're not being caring.
	We're not helping them.
	We're just trying to avoid conflict.
	We're being kind of cowardly.
	So the mess, there's an old Gary Larson cartoon, The Farside, And there's these two cavemen.
	There's this big giant glacier like three inches from their cave.
	One caveman looks at the other and says, say Thag, we'll have ice a little closer today.
	That's where we are.
	Except it's coming faster.
	So I get what you're saying.
	And I would have more wait and see stuff 10, 20 years ago.
	But now those of us who are in the know, like I'm sorry, alcoholics and cigarette addicts, but I'm taking this stuff out of your hand.
	You may hate me now, but you'll love me later.
	Yeah, I totally agree.
	I've been doing a lot of wait and see.
	I've been doing that for like probably...
	I don't know, six, seven months, or maybe a year, however long it's been since I've been in the know.
	I've talked to my close friends, and I've got some of them.
	Some of them are on the Trump train.
	They're just not very interested in what's going on, people in general here.
	I think it might take a crisis or something to wake people up here because it's kind of like La La Land right now.
	We don't see the effects of what's going on in front of our faces.
	It's not affecting us personally yet.
	So a lot of people are totally asleep.
	Yeah, I have to wake them up.
	Yes, and so with that, it sounds like your path may be relatively clear.
	Yeah, I know I have to, totally.
	I feel like right now I'm like pre-election Trump, like, oh, I get along with everybody and everything's fine.
	And then as soon as it's going to be like, boom, okay, game's on.
	People are going to love me and people are going to hate me, so that's fine.
	That's better than being liked by everybody anyway.
	And it's got nothing to do with you anyway?
	No, no, no, no.
	Nothing to do with you?
	No.
	So just speaking of that, a bunch of people in the United States in the government were trying to prevent this handover of this sort of core DNS name function of the internet to prevent the handover from the US protected by the First Amendment to other agencies,
	most likely under the UN. A judge has refused The injunction.
	So the handover of global DNS to foreign entities occurs in just a little over three hours.
	Oh my god.
	That the entire multi-decade experiment of keeping the internet protected by the First Amendment and under the care and control of a relatively non-interventionist, largely non-interventionist US government is done.
	And it is sailing away.
	The bird has been released.
	The power circulates now around the globe to let people get through to websites or not.
	And it's sort of one of these things that if you're a moral relativist, if you're into multiculturalism and there are just different cultures that do things in different ways, then the demands of other people to take over the internet are How can you possibly refuse it?
	You know, everyone is the same, so when other people want to be treated equally, how can you possibly say no?
	All cultures are the same.
	Nobody's better than anyone else.
	There's just different ways of doing things.
	So then why would you not want to hand over control of the internet to a conglomerate, a basket case of true deplorables like, I don't know, North Korea, China, Russia even?
	Why would you not want to hand all this over?
	Because remember, all cultures are the same, so what right would you ever have to say no?
	But if you go around the world, come back to, say, America and its unique protection of free speech in the world, in history, human beings around 150,000 years all over the globe, one country, Has a First Amendment, has a guaranteed protection, constitutional protection of free speech.
	One country in all of human history.
	So unless you're going to stand there and say, I'm sorry, China, as far as free speech goes, you suck!
	Sorry, Saudi Arabia, as far as free speech goes, you suck!
	You're terrible.
	So no, of course we're not going to hand it over.
	And this is the result of, rather than reforming the NSA, so, I don't know, It obeys the law and doesn't spy on everyone, particularly foreign leaders, rather than reform the NSA. But that would be to shrink government power.
	What they want to do is hand over this grand treasure of the internet to all of the foreign regimes and all of the non-Western cultures and all of the non-Greek-influenced Christian cultures.
	Renaissance, Enlightenment, Classical liberal, free market, free speech, John Milton's Areopagitica, read it, it's fantastic, Defense of Free Speech, hundreds of years ago.
	We studied it, yeah.
	Yeah, I mean, this incredible space to speak, unique in human history, is only visible and available to people who have some goddamn values in their head.
	That aren't just some goopy everyone, everything.
	You know, low-quality people can't figure out for the life of them what quality is.
	Multiculturalism, let's think of the Dunning-Kruger effect, which is that idiots can't tell skill, basically.
	People who aren't good at things don't know when people are good at things.
	And that makes sense.
	I don't know a good surgeon from a bad surgeon just by watching them.
	I don't know.
	A really good surgeon really does.
	Because they know what they're talking about.
	Multiculturalism is the ultimate Dunning-Kruger effect.
	It's people who are fundamentally idiots, not being able to differentiate a healthy and vibrant and moral culture from a degenerate totalitarian non-culture.
	Culture is voluntary.
	When it's government, it's propaganda.
	So people in the world who say, well, you know, the cultures are just different ways of doing things.
	Well...
	I guess they're never going to have a controversial thought, are they?
	They're never going to say anything that anyone's going to find upsetting.
	So what the hell do they care about free speech?
	See, free speech is all about people saying stuff that is pretty horrible to a lot of people.
	You know, here's my recipe for cheesecake.
	That does not require free speech.
	You could do that in Soviet Russia.
	You could do that in communist China.
	You could probably even do that in North Korea if they had any ingredients for cheesecake.
	But it's when you say stuff that a lot of people find incredibly horrible.
	One guy finding horrible.
	Two guys, 50 guys, 50,000 guys.
	No.
	When a significant portion of the population finds what you're saying absolutely horrible, offensive, shocking, enraging, that's when you need free speech.
	You don't need a giant crusader shield when people are only throwing nerf balls at you.
	But when there are real arrows coming down, That's when you need the shield.
	And so, very quickly, very quickly, surprisingly fast, we are going to find out just how valued the concept of free speech is in other places in the world.
	And I can tell you this, it is not going to be fun, it is not going to be pretty.
	And we are going to finally understand, and maybe this is what is needed, For us to finally understand the value and the glory and the beauty and the foundation of civilization is free speech.
	Because we all have disagreements.
	We all have to make decisions, sometimes collectively, sometimes individually.
	We all have disagreements, but we all have to make decisions.
	And the only way that we can do this peacefully is through free speech, through reason, through evidence, through a public discourse.
	May the best argument, may the best speaker, may the best evidence win.
	And when that is abandoned...
	When free speech is no longer sacred and at the heart of our civil discourse?
	Well, we still have to make decisions, sometimes collectively.
	So what happens?
	What happens is government coercion, disappearances, lives destroyed.
	What happens is propaganda and threats of violence and the chilling effect that is not felt by the majority of people who have nothing of interest to say to the world.
	You can talk about the weather anywhere.
	You can talk about your cat having worms anywhere.
	But if you want to talk about things that are shocking and essential and moral and upsetting, because we all know that there are bad people in this world, there are bad people in society.
	Hell, there may even be bad people in your street.
	And when you speak virtue, When you speak the power and glory of goodness and consistency and universality and philosophy and morality and the senses and reason and evidence, metaphysics, epistemology, politics, voluntarism,
	all those who use the cover-up of force called the state to prey upon the productive, whose con you expose to Through language.
	Language is like this water vapor in the line of a laser.
	You don't see the laser.
	There it is.
	There is the laser.
	Philosophy is like the water that shows the weapon.
	People don't see it, then they see it.
	Now the whole point of people who want to use that weapon is to keep it invisible to the general population, which means it can't ever be talked about, it can't ever be shown, it can't ever be referenced, even in absence.
	We can't talk even that much about the free market because that by implication talks about the coercion of the state.
	And so when people profit off the hiding of the weaponized philosophy called the state, the weaponized ideology called the state, they do not want free speech.
	When people profit from lies, from propaganda, from indoctrination, From the cover-up of the crime that they wish to commit in the name of society, the common good, whatever.
	Free speech is their enemy because when their supposed benevolence is revealed as tangible malevolence, which can only be done with words, that is when the con breaks.
	And words have been used to expose The coercive nature of elements in society for thousands of years.
	And this battle between words and weapons has been going on for thousands of years.
	And I think we really, really, really just lost big time.
	All right.
	Thank you very much for your call.
	I appreciate it.
	Let's move on to the next caller.
	Thanks, Stefan.
	Thank you.
	Alright, up next we have Gary.
	Gary wrote in and said, You mentioned Jesus as a fairytale character.
	What logic do you use to ignore the insurmountable evidence that supports his life and resurrection?
	Finally, how do you support a worldview that totally negates all your other positions regarding individual rights, non-aggression, and free will, etc., etc.?
	Respectfully and thank you.
	That is from Gary.
	Hello, Gary.
	How are you doing tonight?
	I'm doing quite well, sir.
	How are you?
	Could have been better with better news about the internet, but let's focus on your question for now.
	Okay.
	Like I said, there was a million different directions I could go with.
	You know, nine times out of ten, on the libertarian, limited government view, I agree with you, and that's how I got turned on to your show.
	But I kind of feel like ignoring all the evidence and what we know to be true negates all of your other philosophical positions.
	Obviously you are an atheist, correct?
	Yes.
	Okay, are you a strong atheist?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	Can you know all things?
	Is that a rhetorical device?
	I don't know what that means.
	No, I'm asking you a question.
	Can you know all things?
	Well, no.
	It's an annoying question because you know the answer to that.
	So this is a rhetorical device that has already got me off-putted in the conversation.
	I know the answer to, is there a God too?
	And you know that, but you take the negative on it.
	So I'm asking you, can you know all things?
	I'm not going to answer a silly question.
	Because if you're saying, am I God?
	Of course I'm not God.
	Are you saying, am I omniscient?
	Of course I'm not omniscient.
	Okay, so you can't know all things.
	So that you cannot know if there's a God for certain.
	Because you cannot know all things.
	That's a false dichotomy.
	No, it's not a false dichotomy.
	If you cannot know all things, then you cannot know for certain that there's a God or not.
	Well, I mean, are you going to make a case, or are you just going to repeat stuff?
	I'm curious.
	I'm going to make a case, but you would acknowledge that a person cannot know all things, correct?
	No human being can know all things.
	So you cannot know for certain If there's a God.
	So that would at best make you agnostic, correct?
	Not an atheist.
	No, that's completely incorrect.
	If you say...
	Okay, but look, dude, you can't just say stuff and pretend you've made an argument, right?
	Just repeating things, it doesn't make...
	If we're going to have a conversation, let's have a conversation like philosophers and not like dogmatists, okay?
	Okay, let's have a conversation.
	So, let me ask you this.
	Yep.
	If I don't know all things, is it fair to say I know that two and two...
	Do not make five.
	That's fair, because you can prove two and two make four.
	So that's fair.
	Okay.
	So just because I don't know all things doesn't mean that I can't know anything.
	Correct.
	Okay.
	So if it is possible that the question of the existence of God lies more in the realm of two and two making five, then I absolutely can claim to know that God does not exist without claiming that I know everything about everything anyway.
	Right.
	But obviously all cultures...
	From the beginning of recorded history, all acknowledge God.
	No, no, no.
	Hang on, hang on, hang on.
	Now, you're going off in a different...
	This is not how we have a discussion.
	You're going off in some completely different direction.
	I just made an argument which we need to deal with before we go off into all cultures, blah-de-blah-de-blah, right?
	I made an argument, too, that you cannot know all things, therefore you cannot know for certain that there's a God or not.
	I just rebutted that argument.
	No, you didn't.
	By saying that if God is in the realm of logical impossibility, in other words, two and two making five, or something being a circle and a square at the same time, if God is in the realm of logical impossibility, then I certainly can claim to know that there's no such thing as a God without having to fulfill claims of omniscience.
	Now, we can discuss that further, but I'm not going off into some completely other direction about different cultures.
	Well, that was the direction.
	If you read the question, it was a philosophical argument, correct?
	Now, your philosophy automatically has a hole in it because we all know that there's a God and everyone acknowledges that, right?
	No, no, no.
	That's called begging the question.
	It's not.
	The question we are trying to figure out is, is there a God?
	Correct.
	So you can't say, well, everyone already knows there is a God.
	Okay, so we can go scientifically, we can go morally.
	I'll let you direct the question now because you're not going to answer my question of can you know all things.
	So I'll let you pick the direction that you want to go with it and I'll destroy your argument any way that you want to go.
	Do you want to go scientifically?
	Do you want to go logically?
	Do you want to go morally?
	Which direction?
	Okay, why don't you give me a definition of a deity first and foremost?
	Okay, an all-known being who created the heavens and earth.
	How about that?
	Can we start with that?
	An all-knowing being?
	That created the heavens and earth.
	And is the all-knowing being omniscient as well?
	Yes, yes, yes.
	Okay, so we've got all-knowing and we have omniscient.
	Yes.
	Okay.
	And when you say that this being exists, what do you mean by existence?
	He created the world.
	No, no, no.
	You have to presuppose existence in order for him to have the capacity to create the world.
	So what do you mean?
	If I say an object exists, I mean it's detectable by the senses or something which translates something into the senses, like infrared.
	So I can either perceive it directly or indirectly, or I can perceive its effects, like something like gravity or whatever.
	So there's a definition of existence that I can work with in the physical realm.
	And so I'm just questioning what your definition is of existence.
	What's Something that...
	What's my definition of the word existence?
	Well, you're using it.
	You're saying God exists, right?
	Correct.
	And so I want to know what your definition...
	I've got your definition of God, which I appreciate, but I need to know what your definition of existence is.
	Existing is to be there.
	In one form or another, or all forms, is to be present, is to exist.
	It's kind of a bizarre question.
	You wouldn't answer...
	No, it's not a bizarre question.
	If you're saying that something exists, I need to know what existence means, right?
	So if I say to you dragons exist...
	Hang on, hang on.
	If I say to you dragons exist, and then you say to me, well, where?
	And I say, well, in my nightly dreams...
	Well, then they exist, quote, in my dreams, but they don't exist in the empirical world, right?
	So knowing what existence is is really important, right?
	So people say, well, the government exists, and I say, no, it doesn't, right?
	It's a concept in people's heads and its buildings and so on, but the government itself doesn't exist.
	We agree with, yes.
	That's amazing.
	Okay, so it's not a weird question to ask for a definition of existence when you're trying to say something exists, right?
	Sorry, the government exists on paper only, right?
	Like a corporation exists on paper only.
	It's only worth what we make it worth.
	Okay, fine.
	Okay, so when you're talking about God, you're saying God exists.
	So your definition of existence is that it is detectable in some manner, it is tangible, or we can find some way to determine its existence or non-existence.
	How would we know?
	I'll accept that as a definition, sure.
	Okay.
	So, how do we know?
	Okay.
	Based upon, you said, he has to be there, right?
	So, there's a there, obviously, somewhere in the equation, some sort of tangible way of determining the existence of something.
	So, how do we know that something like God exists?
	Okay, can we start with, you want to go scientifically, or do you want to go morally or ethically?
	How do you want to...
	I'd rather start with scientifically.
	I think that's going to be the most fruitful.
	Let me make a quote here.
	I'm going to read directly from the quote.
	I have it written down.
	Just give me a second.
	Okay.
	Leading NASA scientist, well, former leading NASA scientist, and founder and director of the Godard Institute, Robert Jastrow, an agnostic and non-believer, said, if there is a beginning, there is a crater.
	Jastrow probably, our best astronomer, said, astronomers now find themselves painted They have found themselves painted in a corner because they have proven by their own methods that the world began abruptly in an act of creation to which you can trace the seeds of every star, every planet, every living thing in the cosmos and on the earth.
	And they have found that all this has happened as a product of forces that they cannot hope to discover.
	That they are what I, what is or anyone would call supernatural forces.
	I'll read that again because I stumbled.
	That they are what is or anyone else would call supernatural forces at work.
	I think this is a scientifically proven fact.
	So I guess my question to you is...
	Hang on, hang on.
	Sorry.
	I'm not sure.
	So there are some scientists who believe that because this is the...
	Well, not some scientist.
	The best astronomer we've had probably ever.
	Well, no, but hearsay.
	Look, I mean, lots of scientists have said things that have proven to be incorrect in the past.
	Sorry, sorry, dude, dude, dude, dude.
	Are we both going to talk at the same time?
	Because if so, I'm not going to have the conversation.
	You were in the middle of my question, did you not?
	Well, you said here's the scientific proof.
	So did you have more to say other than the scientific proof you had just read?
	Okay, you want to respond to it, or you want me to ask my question?
	Either way.
	I thought you were giving me a scientific argument, which I was rebutting.
	If you have another question, I'm confused to what we're doing.
	But go ahead, if you have a question, go ahead.
	I read a quote from probably the best astronomer in the history of the world, and then I was going to ask you a follow-up question about that quote.
	And the quote is basically the argument that if the universe exists, something must have created it, and that something that must have created it is God.
	As per the greatest astronomer in the history of the world, yes.
	Well, I could care less what you call him.
	And look, you understand that...
	Sorry, look, first of all, 95% of people in the Royal Scientific Society in England are atheists, right?
	So if you're going to start quoting scientists as some sort of proof...
	Okay, I'm still talking...
	So if you're going to start quoting scientists, then we're going to end up in a war of quotes, and atheist scientists are going to win just based on their prevalence, right?
	So a scientist says is not a proof.
	You understand that scientists in the past thought that the world was flat.
	Scientists in the past...
	Thought that the world was the center of the universe, not just the solar system.
	Scientists in the past believed in something called ether, which doesn't seem to exist, right?
	So the idea that a scientist said something and therefore that is a metaphysical proof of a deity is not an argument.
	Can I stop right there?
	Can I stop you right there and jump in on what you just said about the flat earth and that?
	600 before Christ, the book of Isaiah was written.
	Can we agree on that?
	I don't know, but I'll accept what you say.
	Okay.
	In Isaiah, chapter 40, verse 22, it describes the Earth as spherical and the circuit of the Earth, meaning how the Earth rotates in the solar system.
	600 AD, written in Isaiah.
	Prove that.
	How do you rebut that?
	Well, the proof that the Earth was a sphere was known to the ancient Egyptians.
	I mean, this is not new to the Bible.
	The Earth was flat.
	In 1492, Columbus sailed the ocean, thinking the world was, you know, not being believed, thinking the world was flat.
	So in 600 AD, we were told not only is the world a spherical, it also has a circuit in the solar system.
	Explain that in 600 AD if it wasn't scientifically thought to be garbage.
	Well, no, I mean, there are some scientists, like there are scientists who disagree on the existence of God, and there I'm sure were some scientists Who disagreed on whether the Sun or the Earth was the center of the solar system.
	What I'm saying is that scientists disagree.
	Now, you couldn't quote a scientist who said the Earth is the center of the solar system and think that that's proof any more than you could quote a scientist who said that the Sun is the center of the solar system and considered that proof.
	You have to actually go through the proof rather than pick the expert who agrees with you and think that you've done anything other than an argument from hearsay.
	He doesn't agree with me.
	He's an agnostic.
	So he doesn't agree with me.
	I don't agree with him.
	That's what I'm saying.
	I don't agree with this man.
	He's an agnostic.
	I'm a Christian.
	I don't agree with him.
	I'm simply quoting the best astronomer in the history of our country.
	That's all I was doing.
	I hope that that makes sense, right?
	Wait, so what you're saying is that if the best astronomer in the history of the country had said that there's no such thing as a god, you'd quote him as well and consider him an authority?
	He didn't say that because this is what an intelligent...
	No, but if he did...
	...who looks at the evidence, right?
	If you look at the evidence, he didn't say there was a god.
	He said this was created.
	And from a logical perspective, From a philosophical perspective, if something was created, it must have a creator, no?
	If something is created, it must have a creator.
	There must be a creator.
	Sure.
	Yeah, I mean, this is the watch argument, right?
	This is an old argument, which doesn't mean that it's invalid, but it's an old argument for those who don't know.
	Which is to say, if you find a watch, like a pocket watch or a...
	You find a watch in a jungle.
	You don't think that the jungle just accidentally put it together, right?
	You have something that specifically has been created for a purpose with moving parts and precision and all this kind of stuff.
	You wouldn't look at that and say, well, this must have just come about by coincidence or this must be accidental.
	You would say, well, this watch must have been made by something, right?
	Correct.
	Right.
	How does he know that the universe was created rather than spontaneously came into existence?
	Okay.
	And I'll read it again.
	Astronomers find they have painted themselves into a corner because they have proven by their own methods that the world began abruptly in an act of creation to which you can trace the seeds of every star and every planet, every living thing in the cosmos and on Earth.
	And they have found that all this happened as a product of forces they cannot hope to discover.
	That they are what is or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact.
	Your floor.
	So incomprehension doesn't lead us to God, right?
	I mean, so let's say, I don't...
	I've heard arguments for and against the whole Big Bang thing anyway, but let's just say that the Big Bang is...
	What, 14 billion years ago or 14 point something billion years ago?
	Let's just say that the universe came into existence or the universe was tiny and compressed and then came into existence.
	And I think that the people who are studying this stuff are sort of crawling back through the billionth of a second and trying to figure out what happened.
	But nobody knows if this approach, the Big Bang Theory, is true.
	Nobody knows what happened, where it came from, Or anything like that.
	We understand that, right?
	Nobody has found the fingerprint of a God.
	Nobody's seen the blueprints.
	Nobody's interviewed God and said, what were you up to?
	So we have to accept and understand that this is, whatever happened, is at the moment, and for the foreseeable future, I guess, completely beyond the scope of human knowledge.
	We simply don't know anything about what may have caused this event, right?
	For the sake of this conversation, I will agree with you.
	Okay.
	So then the correct answer is not God.
	The correct answer is, I don't know.
	Where did the universe come from?
	I don't know.
	Scientists are studying it.
	I do know, right?
	But for the sake of this conversation, I will say, sure, I will agree with you so that we can go down this path.
	No, that's the end of the path.
	The end of the path is an admission of ignorance.
	Sorry, still talking.
	The end of the path is the admission that we don't have knowledge.
	We don't have knowledge of where the Big Bang Theory is true, and it remains theoretical, but if the Big Bang Theory is true, we do not have knowledge of where the universe came from, and therefore we should continue to explore.
	I think it's interesting.
	I don't think it's particularly earth-shattering, so to speak.
	I mean, it's not going to change what I have for breakfast tomorrow, but I think it's interesting.
	And we don't know.
	We don't know where the universe came from.
	And science may find a way to figure it out, or maybe there'll be some other theory, or maybe the second law of thermodynamics will give us another answer, but we don't know.
	And a lack of knowledge is not evidence for the existence of God.
	No, I don't think we...
	Can I go?
	Well, I wasn't interrupting you, so let's assume you can when I don't interrupt you.
	Okay, because you've interrupted most of the things I said, just to be fair.
	I don't think you want to start talking about me interrupting you when you listen back to this, but let's not fight about that.
	Go ahead.
	And Steve, Stefan, I'm a fan of your show, so I'm coming off defensive a little bit because of what you said about Jesus being a fairytale character, but I am a fan of your show.
	I want you to know I do respect your intelligence on everything except for this, and I do want you to know that.
	I appreciate that.
	All right, so go ahead.
	Okay, so with the Jastrow comment, right?
	I've quoted a hundred other scientists here.
	I guess you're not really going to be interested in any of that.
	Neither is the quote from 600 AD about the Earth being spherical and its circuit throughout the universe.
	None of that interests you, correct?
	Well, I'm skeptical of knowledge claims where no knowledge exists, and I'm willing to say we don't know where the universe came from, and that state of ignorance is something that I'm going to confess to, obviously, and everyone who's honest is going to confess to it.
	So I'm going to accept that we don't know where the universe came from, as it stands.
	Okay.
	Go back to Jastrow.
	He said that every single thing that we have Well, I know that the world is not composed of seeds.
	I know that the universe is not composed of seeds.
	So he's obviously using...
	Sorry, sorry.
	Was I in the middle?
	But if you're not being accurate, I have to step in.
	I can't let you get away with that.
	That's not really fair.
	Did he not use the word seed?
	Did I mishear?
	Maybe my earphone is not incorrectly.
	Sorry, go ahead.
	I will read it back to you.
	Astronomers now find they have painted themselves into a corner because they have proven by their own methods they can trace the seeds of every star, every plant, every living thing in the cosmos and on the earth.
	So they can trace it back to its beginning origin.
	You're using the word seed.
	So he used the word seed?
	To its beginning, right?
	Because before you have a plant, you have a seed.
	Did he use the word seed?
	Yes, he did.
	Yes, sir.
	Okay, so when I said, when he's using the word seed, he's using it as a sort of poetic analogy.
	He's not saying that the way you get a star or a sun is to plant a candle in some very rich loam And have a cow shit on it until it grows into a giant ball of flaming nuclear reaction, right?
	I mean, so he's using the word seed as an analogy, as, you know, like the source of something, but he's not using it literally.
	Like, it was planted and it grew.
	So it's a metaphorical way of speaking, which I don't mind at all.
	I'd like a good metaphor.
	I think they can be very helpful.
	So if you're saying, is this a scientific statement?
	Well, of course not.
	It's a poetic statement.
	And what he means by that is the elements that, and I've talked about this in the show before, the elements that are in stars and you and me and this camera and this computer, this microphone, my hair, like everything, they all come back to common elements that were forged very early on, I would assume, in the universe and maybe have gone through the centers of stars and all of that.
	So he's talking about the atomic structure of matter Is common throughout the universe, and they can all be traced back to, I guess, in his case, some beginning explosion.
	But none of that has anything to do with the existence of an all-powerful omniscient deity.
	First I was going to prove the Creator, and then I was going to move forward from there.
	As long as we know that the Earth was created and it didn't happen by accident, then we can move forward, right?
	But I can't move forward with you if you're not going to accept that.
	Does that make sense?
	Yes, and I appreciate you saying that.
	And let's say that there was a being who created the universe that even if we accept that, my friend, that does not mean that we have omniscience.
	Correct.
	Like, if I pour a glass of water, all I have to know is how to pour a glass of water.
	It doesn't mean that I'm a physicist.
	It doesn't mean that I know how to play the cello or sing falsetto more beautifully than Freddie Mercury.
	It only says that I know how to pour a glass of water.
	And so if there was a being who created the universe, that would not, in any stretch of the mind, prove that that Entity had omniscience.
	It would prove, I guess, if we could find such an entity, that the entity had enough knowledge to create the universe.
	That does not mean that there's omniscience.
	It just means that there's proof that he had the knowledge to create the universe.
	It doesn't mean that he's all powerful.
	Like, if I have the ability to pour a cup of water, that doesn't mean that I have the ability to lift a Mack truck.
	It just means that I'm strong enough to pour the glass of water.
	It doesn't mean that I can be a central tunnel support in the new Victoria line, as the old Monty Python bit goes.
	And so, even if we did find an entity or a being or a consciousness or something that did create the universe, all we would know for sure is that that being had the knowledge to create the universe and the power to create the universe.
	That does not in any way prove omniscience and omnipotence.
	I agree.
	You are no longer against the idea that the world was created by a supernatural force.
	Oh no, no.
	I don't concede that for a moment, as I've said, which I haven't changed.
	The fact that we don't know the origins of the universe means that we have to say, beyond that is darkness.
	Beyond that question, we can say nothing until we have knowledge.
	Like if I'm standing on one side of the ocean, looking across the ocean, And let's say it's the 13th century or something and I'm in Spain looking across the ocean.
	I can't say what's on the other side of the ocean.
	I can speculate, I can imagine, but I cannot say with certainty because I have no knowledge.
	Now, if I'm on the Santa Maria or the Pinto or whatever and I go across and I get on the...
	When he got confused, he thought he was in India, which is why he called the natives Indians.
	Okay, then I can say that.
	Well, we sailed this far and this is what we saw.
	So when we're looking across...
	To something we don't know, we can make no knowledge claims about any of it.
	What is on the other side of the ocean, looking westward from Spain in the 13th century, what can anyone say for sure?
	Nothing.
	We don't know.
	We can say, well, God's over there.
	Well, no, we can't because we don't know.
	What is over there?
	And substituting imaginary knowledge for true ignorance, I think actually just works to keep us more ignorant.
	But anyway, go ahead.
	Okay, if we can't know what's over there, and I agree with that statement, then we can't know that God's not over there, right?
	So your argument is self-defeating.
	If you're saying we cannot know, which was my original point, which you thought was condescending, which was a legitimate question, was If we cannot know, we cannot know.
	That was your argument.
	So your argument obviously falls flat.
	We call it the Roadrunner moment.
	Remember the old Roadrunner cartoons with the Roadrunner, the coyote would run off the hill and he'd look around and see what's out of ground and he'd fall down?
	I mean, that's your argument.
	Your argument falls flat.
	Okay, but you haven't gotten any further than we were at the beginning, Miko.
	And I've got to tell you, my friend, calling me a cartoon fan Coyote could be considered condescending.
	But anyway, let's move on from that.
	The reality is...
	No, because you're doing this little victory dance like I've just conceded something.
	But the same thing.
	Look, I may not know if I'm standing in Spain looking across the west on the ocean.
	I can say, I don't know what's over there.
	But I know there are no square circles over there.
	I know that two and two don't make five over there.
	So I may not know for sure positively what's there, but there's a near infinity of things I know for sure aren't there.
	I know there are not rocks over there that are immune to the force of gravity.
	I know there's not fire that freezes water over there.
	Right?
	So, I don't know what is over there, but there's a near infinity of things I know are not over there.
	So, if I say, well, I'm looking west from Spain, I don't know what's over there in the ocean, then you say, ah, well, you see, there could be a square circle over there, aha, because you said you don't know what's over there, and I'm like, no, there can't be a square circle over there, because that's impossible.
	We acknowledge that there could be a creator of the Earth, right?
	We know that there could be some supernatural force that created the Earth, okay?
	So, That supernatural creator could be God.
	So if we're acknowledging that there could be a supernatural creator, well, then there could be a God.
	It doesn't necessarily mean there's a God, but it could mean there's a God.
	And since we can't know all things, we can't know for sure that that supernatural creator is not a God.
	Well, now you know what I need to ask you next, right?
	Sure.
	I think I know.
	Why don't you ask me, just to make sure I'm going down the right path here.
	So, Gary, what is your definition of supernatural?
	Okay, that's a little more difficult to put in the words.
	A miracle maker of short, I'll call it a spirit, but it doesn't necessarily need to be a spirit.
	A spirit that is all-knowing, that performs miracles, that cannot be explained by the laws of physics or Biology or anything else.
	So supernatural is outside of reality?
	Outside of the natural.
	Well, outside of sensual, tangible, objective reality, right?
	Not objective reality.
	Outside of natural materialism.
	So you're saying that there's an objective reality outside of materialism.
	Correct.
	And how do we know that?
	Well, we're born with that, right?
	That comes from conscience, that comes from intelligence, that comes from morality, that comes from a number of things.
	That's not an argument, right?
	Yes, it is.
	If you're saying that there's an existence of a realm outside of matter and energy, then you need to establish that, right?
	Because non-existence is that which does not show up as matter or energy, right?
	That's the definition of non-existence, is something which does not show up in the universe as matter or energy.
	And so if you're going to say, well, there's an other realm where non-existence is exactly the same as existence, then you're formulating a contradiction.
	You're saying that non-existence, which is not showing up as matter or energy, non-existence is exactly the same as existence.
	But I've got an alternative realm where that is real.
	But creating an alternative realm where the opposite of something becomes somehow true or the antonym of something becomes a synonym is not an argument.
	You're just creating a realm where whatever you say magically becomes true because it's opposite world.
	No, that's how evolution works.
	Now, let me try this other thing.
	Wait, wait, what?
	No, hang on, what?
	That's how macroevolution works.
	Now let me try this other thing.
	No, no, no, I don't know what that means.
	You can't just drop something like that in and run off to the next topic.
	What does that mean?
	Well, there's no, you know, to believe in macroevolution is to believe that we date the fossil by the rock and the rock by the fossil and have complete circular reasoning in that we have to have 2 plus 2 to get to 5 and anything that shows 2 plus 2 gets to 4 we have to throw out so that 2 plus 2 always equals 5 and that way we can always have a perfect score of 5 because 2 plus 2 equals 5.
	Well, we know 2 plus 2 equals 4.
	But for the sake of macroevolution, we need to disregard that, right?
	So that's what I meant by that.
	Wait, are you saying, sorry, are you saying that biologists who propose particular aspects of evolution have as their foundation a supernatural realm where the opposite of evolution occurs, but they call it evolution anyway?
	We know that, okay, macroevolution, so there's microevolution and macroevolution, right?
	Wait, wait, sorry, are we...
	I mean, I put a counter...
	I feel like I'm grabbing a bar of soap here.
	I'm right with you, too.
	So I made an argument about you can't just say that non-existence equals existence and create an alternative realm, and now we're going into macroevolution.
	But I think you need to kind of address that argument first, because if we start talking about evolution, then we're in some other different topic completely.
	Right, which I did before you cut me off, and I'd love to address that if you'd give me just a moment.
	Right?
	There's microevolution and macroevolution, right?
	There's two different types.
	No, no!
	I'm not talking about evolution with you, Gary.
	I want you to address the argument I made that you can't create an opposite realm where contradictions magically become true and then think that you've done something.
	That's not what I did, though.
	You know what I'm saying?
	You're taking a presupposition that is wrong...
	And then applying it universally.
	That's not what I did.
	So your question is kind of like, when are you going to stop beating your wife?
	You know?
	What?
	No, that's not what I did.
	Okay.
	I asked you to define existence.
	And you said the supernatural exists in the supernatural realm.
	The supernatural realm is another dimension where something can exist without showing up as matter or energy in the sensual realm, like in the realm of materialism, right?
	You said that.
	I have a whole heap of evidence here that I can read off to you one after another.
	That kind of proves my point.
	Okay, well, no, I don't want you to read off evidence.
	Right, of course you don't.
	I wouldn't want that either.
	No, because this is a philosophy show, not a read other people stuff show, right?
	So we should be able to debate these issues from first principles without hearsay of who said what, right?
	So, let's go back to supernatural, right?
	Because you have a being or an entity that exists in a supernatural realm.
	In other words, it exists in a way that cannot be detected in the material realm.
	Is that fair to say?
	Incorrect.
	It can be detected.
	Okay.
	Then, sorry, if I got it wrong, please help me get it right.
	Okay.
	Like I said, through intelligence, through morality, it can all be...
	See, this can only come from one place.
	No matter how many times you screw two monkeys, you're not going to come up with morality.
	You're not going to come up with human ethics or intelligence or concepts.
	That only comes from one place.
	I can rub two pens together forever and have some explosion, and that's not going to create intelligence.
	So that's the supernatural imposing his will on the natural.
	I'm still trying to figure out that, like, I'm sorry, I don't mean to sound flippant, but I've just got to tell you that I wrote a whole book on secular ethics, and I really should just have had a flip page of two monkeys having sex.
	But anyway, that's for version two.
	Okay.
	So, what you're saying is, if I understand this correctly, that we see the effects of the supernatural realm in the existence of morality in the material realm?
	Correct.
	Okay.
	So does morality exist in the material realm?
	Yes.
	Does it exist like a tree exists?
	Does it exist like a tree?
	Can you be a little bit more specific what you mean by that?
	I think I know what you mean by that.
	Well, there are things that exist in the real world that we can touch and, you know, like you walk into a tree, you hurt your nose, right?
	There are things that, like there are four coconuts, right?
	You see the coconuts.
	But the number four is a concept that we have in our head.
	Right.
	Right, so I'm just trying to figure out if morality exists like a coconut or like the number four in our head.
	No, it exists like a coconut or a tree.
	Okay, so it's detectable, morality is detectable.
	Correct.
	In some material method.
	Correct.
	Oh, great.
	If you can prove this to me, I... I will bow at your feet and rewrite everything I've done.
	So how can we detect the existence of morality through the evidence of the senses?
	Like a thing that tangibly exists like a rock or a tree.
	So if you're being raped or a woman is being raped, you don't detect that that's wrong?
	You don't detect that that's a violation of your persons?
	I thought that's what you were getting at.
	Well, the rapist sure as hell doesn't believe that it's wrong because he wants to do it, right?
	It's right for him.
	I'm talking about the one being raped.
	She knows that this is a violation of her.
	So I'm not sure, I'm not exactly sure.
	I think that your answer to that question is both, but I can go either way with this, right?
	If you're getting shot in the head, or a woman is being raped, or you're being...
	Oh, hello?
	Oh, did we lose him?
	Right?
	I'm sorry, I just lost you for a sec, so go ahead if I'm being raped or if someone's being raped.
	If I'm being raped or someone is shooting me in the head or I'm being sodomized unwillingly or whatever, I know that that's wrong.
	I know that that's a violation of me.
	Or am I misinterpreting your question?
	Well, feeling that something is wrong...
	Knowing it's wrong.
	Okay, knowing that something is wrong, I don't think that that makes it exist in reality in the way that a tree does.
	Certainly your subjective experience is that it's wrong, but I don't know that it makes it, that feeling of wrongness, it's something that is occurring within your mind, within your emotions, within your nervous system, but I don't know that it makes it exist in the way that a tree does, right?
	Then why do you have a fight or flight instinct if that's not true?
	Well, if a fight-or-flight instinct is indicative of morality, then we're back to the monkeys, right?
	Monkeys have a fight-or-flight mechanism as well.
	Does that mean that they have morality?
	Well, what I'm saying, okay, do monkeys have a morality?
	I don't think so.
	They may have some morality, but not to the level of human beings.
	You know, you'd have to ask a zoologist.
	I'm not really qualified to answer that question, and I wouldn't...
	Good.
	I'm glad we came up against some boundary of knowledge.
	Now, I mean, the reason why we have a fight-or-flight mechanism, as far as I understand it, is because we need a very quick and compelling emotional biochemical motivator to act in ways that preserve our life, preserve our genes, preserve our capacity to reproduce or to take care of our children or grandchildren or whatever.
	So we have a fight or flight mechanism because having a fight or flight mechanism is very good for the transmission of our genes.
	Or to put it another way, animals with a diminished or non-existent fight or flight mechanism would not have survived to reproduce their genes and therefore the genes that did not contribute to the fight or flight mechanism would have been weeded out of the gene pool fairly quickly.
	I mean, the bunny that goes up to give the fox a hug doesn't have hug fox genes go to the next generation.
	Well, my argument is that morality is an abstraction, universally preferable behavior.
	It doesn't exist in reality.
	It exists as concepts within our mind, which doesn't mean that it's subjective.
	It doesn't mean that it's arbitrary.
	I mean, mathematics doesn't exist in the real world.
	Things do, but numbers don't.
	But that doesn't mean that mathematics is subjective or arbitrary.
	The scientific method doesn't exist in the real world, but that doesn't mean that science is subjective or arbitrary or whatever.
	So, as far as morality goes, That is a capacity for human beings, our amazing ability for our brain to conceptualize, to abstract, to universalize things, which is why, you know, we can send a probe all the way to Jupiter.
	And so I think that morality is a philosophical discipline.
	I don't think it exists in reality, and I don't think that it proves the existence of a deity.
	Okay.
	How about, okay, we'll go with a conscience then.
	We all have a conscience.
	Nope.
	We don't have a conscience.
	No, we don't all have a conscience.
	All human beings have a conscience.
	No.
	Can you give me one in history that didn't have a conscience?
	As far as I understand it, sociopaths and psychopaths and so on do not have a conscience as we would understand it.
	Not from any understanding that I have.
	They just don't respond to it.
	No, no.
	Like a sadist, for instance.
	Sorry to interrupt, but a sadist.
	When, like, you and I, being, like, decent, morally sensitive people, if we see a video of someone being tortured, you know, it's repulsive.
	Like, I don't even watch violence in movies or television.
	I could just either stop the movie or fast-forward, or I can't watch it.
	It's grotesque.
	It's horrible, particularly since I've become a father.
	But you can show some people pictures of literal torture they believe is genuine torture, and the happy part of their brain lights up.
	Like, they love it.
	It makes them happy.
	It's a run through a spring fields of meadows.
	How long do you ever feel the tops of wheat?
	Right?
	They don't have the same emotional reaction.
	There are people that you show horrifying images to.
	They're completely indifferent.
	There's no distress.
	I mean, they've done pretty deep brain scans of people and their responses.
	And there definitely does seem to be some significantly different wiring across the species.
	Now, they're rare, as far as I understand it, but they're definitely there.
	If you could, your producer, Weber, has...
	My email, if you could provide me with, because I'm being honest with you, I've done a little bit of research, quite a bit of research actually.
	I've never seen that.
	I've never seen that someone had no response to anything.
	I have not seen that.
	So, I could be ignorant here, but through all my study, which is not professionally, it's amateur, but I... Well, as is mine, yeah.
	I've never come across that.
	I've never come across a human being whose brain responds to nothing.
	Well, I've done an interview with Robert Hare who talks about this.
	There's a book called The Sociopath Next Door that I think has some of this stuff in it.
	We'll see if we can dig stuff up over the course of the show, but if we can't, we'll definitely send you some sources.
	Yeah, there are people who's...
	If you Google sociopaths no conscience, you get a bunch of stuff.
	Do you want to pick one, Mike, and give us a quick skim?
	Actually, one of the first things you get is Robert Hare's page on the study of sociopaths.
	Yeah.
	This is the guy who's interesting because, if I remember this guy correctly, he's the guy who actually...
	He became a great studier of sociopaths, but he himself tested positive for sociopathy traits, but he had a really loving and kind family, if I remember rightly, and therefore he thinks that saved him from going down the route of a lot of other sociopaths who end up with slightly less socially productive endeavors.
	Alright, so here we go.
	This is from DailyMail.co.uk.
	I'm not going to read the whole thing out, of course, but psychopaths aren't just mentally different.
	Their brains are physically deformed to prevent them feeling fear or guilt.
	Psychopaths such as Hannibal Lecter, Anthony Hopkins' character in the film Silence of the Lambs are callous, antisocial, and sometimes violent.
	They are incapable of feeling empathy or guilt.
	1% of the population at large generally Reckoned to be psychopathic.
	Up to 20% of the prison population is psychopathic.
	One in 25 business leaders may be psychopathic.
	And let's see here.
	New research has uncovered that manipulative callous and sometimes violent behavior could actually be hardwired into psychopaths from birth.
	The disorder is untreatable and this discovery could unlock new ways to understand and perhaps even treat the disorder.
	American researchers took a magnetic resonance imaging scanner to a medium security prison in Wisconsin and scanned the brains of 40 prisoners in doing time for similar offenses, half of whom had been diagnosed with psychopathy.
	Results of the study revealed both structural and functional abnormalities in the brains of psychopaths, with scientists finding there was less communication between two key areas of their brains than the other prisoners.
	The first of these structures, known as the ventromedial prefrontal cortex, is responsible for emotions, including empathy and guilt.
	The second, called the amygdala, which actually features quite prominently in The Bomb and the Brain, which you can find a big mac and opus of mine at thebombandthebrain.com, The second, called the amygdala, controls levels of fear and anxiety.
	It is thought the lack of communication between these two areas makes it difficult for psychopaths to regulate their social and emotional behavior.
	Yeah, a study author said the two structures seem not to be communicating as they should.
	There was evidence not only of physical differences in white matter, but of electrical activity in the areas connecting the two.
	And we'll, of course, put this...
	On the link, and there's lots and lots of stuff to figure out.
	I don't know how they get from this study to it is from birth, right?
	And I've had arguments, a lot of arguments about this.
	So, Gary, from your perspective, one of the things that I would argue, you know, sort of try and get your view of things, you can go to hare.org, H-A-R-E, He's got tons and tons of stuff to read on this further.
	Now, if I understand the Christian perspective, they would say, well, we're all born with a conscience, but if you do enough bad things, You basically kill your capacity for empathy, and you end up as this kind of person, but that's the result of the choices that you've made to do bad things, and you've become irredeemable, but that is not because you were born that way.
	That is because of bad choices or immoral things that you've done that have left you in this kind of state of mind.
	Is that where you might be coming from?
	That's 99% correct, except for the part where you said irredeemable.
	Besides that, everything was correct.
	You're never irredeemable until you're dead.
	But besides that, everything that you said, yes.
	That is generally the position of most evangelical Christians like myself, yes.
	Right.
	Not a Calvinist, right?
	But yes, people like myself.
	Yeah, not a Calvinist, right?
	There's none of this predestination stuff, and only a certain number of people get into heaven and all that, right?
	Right.
	So, and I think you and I, I mean, my default position is that I think that people are born with particular susceptibilities to traumas as a child.
	And that is not even my opinion that we talk about in The Bomb and the Brain, that there are certain children with a particular gene set that I think it's 100% of them who were exposed to significant violence as children end up becoming criminals.
	That doesn't mean everyone.
	I think that there are certain genetic susceptibilities to a life of crime, which is why I talk about peaceful parenting and all the stuff that I'm sure you and I would agree with very, very heartily.
	But I don't, you know, the idea that to me, this is a broken brain.
	And to me, somebody saying, well, this is just the way someone was born.
	It's sort of like saying, I broke my arm.
	Well, my arm is broken.
	You say, well, how did you break your arm?
	It's like, I didn't.
	It's like, well, no, something must have happened, right?
	It didn't break on its own.
	So I think that there certainly are some indicators at the moment that there are people who don't have a functioning conscience as adults.
	I don't know how they've proven, if they even have, that people or kids are born that way.
	And again, even if they're born that way, my question is, did something happen in the womb?
	Was there trauma?
	Was there alcohol?
	Was there drug use?
	Was there cigarette use?
	Was there anything that might have happened in the womb that might have done something to the brain?
	But I don't know that everyone, as an adult, certainly doesn't seem physically the case that everyone has the same level of empathy or conscience across the population.
	Again, that is something that we would agree 100% on.
	I don't know if you want to move on to this other thing.
	I know this call is going on a little bit.
	If you want to move on to the existence of Jesus, or where morality comes from, or how it applies to your limited government, non-aggressive...
	Let's do if we can, because I've had a lot of talking here.
	So let's do if we can, Gary, where morality comes from.
	Because you and I, again, we're talking about differences here.
	You know, if we take the different path to the same place, I still consider us brothers in spirit...
	Because I think that you and I would both agree, you know, murder and rape and assault and theft, that all of these are moral crimes that need to be strenuously resisted and pointed out and highlighted by good people and universalized, and that the state often interferes, or by its definition may always interfere between choice and conscience, that human beings need to have the maximum possible amount of choices in order to achieve virtue.
	Forcing someone to do something, forcing someone to be good strips their action of any morality.
	So the free will, the desire for voluntarism in the world, the desire for peaceful negotiations between differences, you and I, I'm positive, would share these completely.
	And I just, before you get onto where morality gets to, I want to point out, A, really enjoyed the conversation, and B, if we have ended up in the same place through different methodologies, I still consider us friends.
	So if you want to give me the big speech, and I really do want to hear the speech on where morality comes from, I'd be thrilled to hear.
	I think, you know, we've both been around the block a few times.
	I don't think this is the first rodeo of this debate for either of us.
	Am I correct on that?
	I think you may be.
	Okay.
	Like I said, we would both agree on it is wrong to use any force against any other person at any time, right?
	Only in self-defense, but you cannot initiate force.
	The initiation of force, correct.
	I would even go as a father that it's wrong to initiate physical force against my child, but that's a different conversation for another day, and I know most Christians are not going to agree with me on that, but I don't spank my child.
	I don't lock my child in a room because it is wrong to initiate force, and I don't want him to ever think that it's okay to initiate force against peaceful people.
	But, okay.
	Now, volunteerism is always better than force, right?
	Because Jesus gave us a free will, right?
	So it is always better for me to freely help a homeless person Than for the state to stick a gun in my head, take my money, and give it to the homeless person, right?
	If person A is cold and he's walking down the street and he puts a gun to someone's head and takes his coat, that's called theft with a dangerous weapon, correct?
	If the government does it, it's charity?
	It's common good things for the social goodness.
	I don't know what they call it, but they don't call it theft.
	It's what it is.
	So morality does not come from the state, correct?
	Correct.
	Okay.
	In fact, immorality general flows from the state.
	We are connecting 100%.
	So if all cultures can agree that things like rape, murder, theft, Outside of government theft for some reason, if these things are wrong, and all cultures can generally agree on that, how did that come into existence if that wasn't literally hardwired into us from some other form?
	Where did the absolute right and wrong of what rape come from?
	Well, I mean, I've had arguments for various answers to this, but I want you to keep going with your argument, Gary, because I'm just really enjoying the fact that you don't hit your kids.
	So yay!
	Good to you.
	I mean, that makes me kiss the church of you in ways that probably shouldn't be seen in public.
	But why don't you go on with the case for morality, and I'll let you get it across to me and to the audience.
	Okay.
	I'll call it our Creator, or in my case, God, has built that into us, that every person has a conscience of what is right and wrong.
	And if you act out that morality, your life will be far better.
	You will live better than not practicing that morality.
	That's how we know that it's true, right?
	We know that sex should be held within God's domain, which is true.
	Between one married man and one married woman in the bed of holy matrimony.
	If you go outside of that, you get STDs, which can kill you.
	You can get single parents, which I'm sure you've seen the evidence of how damning that is to both boys and girls.
	You get divorce.
	You get, you know, then you have to pay alimony and support, so it's financially bad for you.
	It's bad for you in every single way, right?
	If you step outside of God's domain on something like sex.
	You know, if you step out of God's domain in private property rights, meaning you steal from someone, then no one has any property rights, and then you're going to get murder and chaos and everything else, right?
	So we all know that certain things are wrong.
	And if we push away the things that we know are wrong and accept the things that we know are right, life will be better for everyone.
	If there were no single parents, I know that some people are, you know, some people die young.
	Well, those are widows, right?
	Single moms and widowhood is not the same thing, but go ahead.
	Right.
	But we know if there were no single moms from birth, and I'm not talking about people who get divorced, you know, when their kids are 15, but single moms, you know, from the time their kids are very, very small, we would have a much better society.
	Can you agree with that?
	Yeah, absolutely.
	The sex outside of marriage also gives us the welfare state, which is a disaster, too.
	Which is theft, right?
	If we didn't have, you know, and you're free to practice homosexuality, but if we didn't have that, we'd have a much lower rate of AIDS, correct?
	Yes, certainly AIDS spread significantly faster through the homosexual community and never really seemed to make the leap over, despite what a lot of liberals said, and never seemed to make the leap over to the straight community.
	Here in the U.S., the gay male population is about 2%, and they make about 61% of all new HIV and AIDS cases.
	Again, I think we both agree that you're free to pursue any type of lifestyle that you want, but there are consequences to your actions.
	Obviously, if there was no theft, or no murder, or no adultery, life would be better.
	You would have a more prudent life.
	Life would be better for everyone.
	So by following these simple truths that God has hardwired into all of us, We would all live a more prosperous, more fruitful life.
	To me, it's evident that that morality comes from God because basically everyone has that.
	And I know there are other cultures where men have 12 wives, but those wives still can only have sex with that man, meaning that there would still really be no spread of STDs because he would still have to stick to those 12 wives specifically who, at least in theory, were all virgins when they married him.
	So if we all follow What's biblical, life would be better for everyone.
	So if it's biblical, you tell me where else that would come from.
	And look, I mean, if we look at sort of the overlapping circles of where our ethics would agree, and these are the most important ethics, I believe, the non-initiation of force and the keeping of your contracts, keeping of your word.
	If people just didn't initiate force and kept their word, we would live in a complete paradise.
	I mean, like, the world would be incomprehensibly fantastic and wonderful in ways that we can barely even conceive of at the moment.
	And so I'd sort of like to wind up the conversation, Gary, just...
	On the things that we agree on.
	Because where we are the same on ethics, the metaphysics and epistemology, I don't even want to disturb that in a way.
	Because I think that you and I want to continue to challenge the people who are covering up crimes by pretending that evil is good, by pretending that the initiation of force is somehow moral.
	So I'd sort of rather go arm and arm into the world and say, okay, and I hate to use this phrase, agree to disagree, but in this case, given how passionately we both have the same ethical system, and how passionately we both want to spread that moral system to the world as a whole that so often seems to fall astray from it, I would rather focus on that.
	The differences that we have in metaphysics and epistemology, to me, is not nearly as relevant in a sense that I've made this case before.
	I would rather get the right diagnosis from a doctor looking up the wrong thing than get the wrong diagnosis from a doctor looking up the right thing.
	And so I think that we both have powerful cures for what ails the world.
	And I think that we could find great brotherhood and companionship in bringing those ethics to the world.
	And that's kind of where I'd like to end up in the conversation on.
	And also just to tell you that I really love that kind of workout.
	So I know we were batting back and forth quite a bit.
	But, you know, we play tennis hard and we shake hands.
	Absolutely.
	It was a pleasure.
	I know I got a little passionate sometimes and we talked over each other sometimes.
	And I want to let you know that this was the best conversation I've ever had.
	And I've had this debate with probably 58 these.
	As you know, there are a ton of atheists in the libertarian community.
	I've had this conversation, you know, probably 50 times, and I've definitely enjoyed this one the most, and I'm going to look into that information about the sociopath as well.
	I appreciate it.
	And I mean, for those who want to, I mean, I didn't get to break out the full round of arguments, because it's, you know, it's a conversation, not a monologue.
	But I've got a free book at freedomainradio.com slash free, freedomainradio.com slash free, which is called Against the Gods with a question mark.
	And I go into more detail about these arguments and I look forward to people's feedback.
	And Gary, it was a great pleasure.
	Thank you so much for the conversation.
	Thank you everyone so much for bringing the glory of philosophy to me, to the other listeners, to the world.
	As a whole, we're talking 15 million views and downloads.
	And please look for the shocking admission from Mike coming up in the next day or two.
	It's already out in the podcast feed, but by God, it's going to be on YouTube as well, because he cannot get away with saying these kinds of things on this show without you getting your...
	Two cents in.
	So please go to freedomandradio.com slash donate to help out the show.
	You can follow me on Twitter at Stefan Molyneux.
	Please use the affiliate link.
	Hugely helpful for us.
	Costs you nothing and gives a few pennies our way.
	That's fdrurl.com slash Amazon.
	And of course, fdrpodcast.com to share the show.
	Thanks everyone so much.
	Look forward to your support.
	Thank you for a great month.

▲