3478 Why Feelings May Kill Us All - Call In Show - October 28th, 2016
Question 1: [1:50] - “How would you encourage an individual or even a society to understand their emotional baggage (or their emotional habits)? You have mentioned in a previous episode that Western Culture tends to romanticize the emotional experience rather than subdue it with logic and reason. And I cannot help but agree with you. Yes, emotions are a rather peculiar and beautiful thing, but history tells a very regrettable tale when emotions were allowed to take charge rather than a collection of voices that are unified in balance and understanding. How can we avoid the tragedy of poor emotional habits today?”Question 2: [49:09] - “Is it wise to self-censor your opinions that might be controversial in a politically correct environment or even in your personal relationships in order to preserve your reputation or even your livelihood these days, keeping in mind that it's easier than ever to hurt the feelings of others or incur the wrath of the state “Question 3: [1:05:30] - “I am a woman, an anti-feminist, a bit of traditionalist, and I hate seeing all of this disgusting feminist rhetoric tearing our country apart. One of the major problems is how they scream about everything being "misogyny" and sexist. However, recently I've been noticing an unsettling new movement that concerns me, and that's the MGTOW movement. I understand a lot of the frustration men have with how things are going, but I've been hearing a lot of actual misogyny coming out of this movement. Many of these men hate all women, refusing to believe there is a single good woman out there, and they seem to encourage this hatred from other men. I want the sexes to come together again; we benefit each other, and need each other for a harmonious society. What are your thoughts on this?”Question 4: [1:46:56] – “Why has the anti-war left been absent since 2008? Where is the left that will speak out against Hillary Clinton? Is it possible that these questions may be answered in the philosophical realm? It seems to me that progressive ideology (or regressive) doesn't go through the same intellectual rigors as others, an example being the libertarian non-aggression principle.”Freedomain Radio is 100% funded by viewers like you. Please support the show by signing up for a monthly subscription or making a one time donation at: http://www.freedomainradio.com/donate
The first caller wanted to know the relationship between reason and emotion and we talked about that in context to Hillary Clinton versus Donald Trump and whether we should make giant geopolitical decisions from sad children with regards to illegal immigration, deportation and so on.
It was a great, really, really great conversation and at least explained my approach to sort of reason and emotion as a whole.
The second caller, a young guy, starting out in his career, concerned about his controversial opinions.
Is it wise to self-censor your controversial opinions, especially on Facebook or other places where other people can find them?
He knows people who've lost jobs and had career interruptions, to put it nicely.
Because of these things, what or what should we do?
The third caller was a woman who was concerned about certain aspects of male assertiveness movements, men's rights movements, or what's called men going their own way, or MGTOW, and thought that some of the toxic elements of men's rights movements was overwhelming, the movements as a whole, and wanted to know what she could do.
I think my answer might surprise you.
It certainly surprised me and her as well.
I was quite strong in my response.
So I hope that that is helpful and useful to you.
I think it will be.
And the fourth caller, ex-military guy, wanted to know where is the anti-war left?
They sort of went AWOL, so to speak, in 2008.
What could possibly be behind all of this?
And we had a good conversation about that too.
So thanks everyone so much for listening and for watching.
Don't forget, please, please support the show.
freedomainradio.com slash donate.
Alright, well up for us today we have Shelton.
Shelton wrote in and said, How do you encourage an individual or even a society to understand their emotional baggage or their emotional habits?
You've mentioned in a previous episode that Western culture tends to romanticize the emotional experience rather than subdue it with logic and reason.
I cannot help but agree with you.
Yes, emotions are a rather peculiar and beautiful thing, but history tells a very regrettable tale when emotions were allowed to take charge rather than a collection of voices that are unified in balance and understanding.
How can we avoid the tragedy of poor emotional habits today?
That's from Shelton.
Oh hey Shelton, how are you doing tonight?
I'm doing pretty good Stephen, how are you?
I'm feeling good.
Yeah, it's been quite a day, and it's been quite an exciting day.
And for those of us who are a tiny bit partial to, say, one Donald J. Trump, it's been a fantastic day.
Yeah, I heard your comments earlier today, so I'm sure you've had a fun-filled day in that regard.
It has been most enjoyable, even though there are certain sections of the story I have to Gloss over with my daughter.
So why is daddy happy?
For reasons that you can't possibly know at this age.
Yeah, it's great.
But let's go to emotional self-control and emotions as a whole.
And is there some particular thing or some particular reason why this is important to you at the moment?
Is there something going on in your life?
Is it still more More abstract, Sheldon.
That's a great question.
I start off with the fact that, yeah, for me as an individual, my experience with emotional health has been a rollercoaster ride, to say the least.
But your comments on emotional health have really helped me to see, okay, there definitely needs to be, I want to use the word Scrutiny, in the better sense of the word, because to think of emotions as a guide in life has been pretty much a really, really poor choice on my part.
So currently, really looking at the way that I handle my emotions and then not letting my emotions dictate my actions.
That's been a big Part of my life and it's something that I'm currently going through right now and understanding how I can better understand my emotions rather than letting my emotions dictate actions, as I said.
Is there anything in particular you feel your emotions are leading you astray on?
To be honest with you and I heard you say the other day in an interview with a guy, I cannot remember his name, but you had said that You're rather tired after covering the election, so I don't want to exhaust you anymore.
But to be quite honest with you, this election season has been emotionally exhausting.
It really has been, and it's really trying to understand ourselves.
You know, just the basics, you know, who is the better candidate, but it's just really not that easy.
And that's a problem for both candidates, that they are both responsible for, in my opinion.
So, yeah.
So, especially in regards to the election, it definitely has been.
So, maybe we could start there.
Sure, sure.
What is it about the candidates that you feel they're somewhat equivalent in terms of problems?
To be honest with you, I come from a Christian background.
That's what I identify as a Christian.
You surprisingly have a large number of Christians who listen to your show.
I've actually connected with a lot of them.
In fact, my friend, my closest friend, It was the one that directed me to your show, and he's on staff with a large Christian organization, and he said, you've got to listen to this guy.
So in regards to how I guess the majority or most of my Christian associates would handle this election, it's been extremely conflicting in that there are In my opinion, there are good qualities about both candidates.
And in my honest opinion, I don't think that they are all good, but I don't think that they are all bad.
And I try to be as bipartisan as I possibly can, because I don't think either party is sufficient to lead the country.
Okay, sorry.
You're just saying the same thing again, but longer.
So let's cut to the chase a little here, right?
Because I said, well, what do you find to be...
Problematic between the candidates that's equal and you just went on a sort of tangent so let's try and stay on the straight and narrow as Christians are wont to do and tell me what is it you think with regards to Donald Trump that makes him morally equivalent or politically equivalent to Hillary Clinton?
I would definitely say in the social aspect just in the leaked videos especially in regards to women That, to me, is probably where I have a really hard issue with Donald Trump.
And what are the issues that you have with regards—this is the audio tape, right, from Billy Bush?
From the Access Hollywood van or whatever it was like 11 years ago?
Yes.
And what is it that you have a problem with?
I just don't find that kind of language agreeable.
And just— It just is unsettling.
But at the same time, when I'm talking about my emotional response to that, Donald Trump, at the same time, I feel is a much more sufficient candidate in the economic front to lead the country.
But you brought up the conversations you had with Billy Bush, right?
Yeah.
And you're still a Christian, right?
Yes.
Yes.
So you understand that everyone sins, everyone is tempted to make statements.
Do you feel that when he says he hates what he heard, he hated that he did it, he's incredibly sorry, do you feel that that was genuine or do you feel that that was fake?
Honestly, I don't even give consideration to that.
At the same time, I don't push my No, no, sorry.
You said you don't give consideration to—I'm sorry, I just missed that.
You don't give consideration to what?
To his apology.
And what I mean when I say that is I don't want to get caught up in trying to understand whether it was genuine or not, because to me— But isn't that your job as a Christian?
I mean, he's a Christian.
You're a Christian.
If he did something that's wrong and he sincerely repents for it, Isn't that kind of the deal?
I mean, Christianity isn't make up whatever you want, right?
I mean, if somebody has sinned and they have expressed genuine contrition, isn't forgiveness kind of the deal?
Yeah, absolutely.
So you do kind of have to figure out whether he's genuine or not, right?
Yeah, but that's impossible.
There is no way that I could...
No, no, hang on, hang on.
I'm sorry to be so annoying, Shelton, but if trying to figure out whether an apology or repentance is impossible, then Christianity can't work.
Because in Christianity, everyone sins.
Everyone.
Everyone sins.
And you then must make repentance.
Now, if it's impossible for one Christian to know if another Christian is genuinely sorry and is committing or acting in genuine contrition and repentance, Then forgiveness is impossible, and since forgiveness is a core Christian charity, if forgiveness is impossible, then one of the core Christian values is impossible, and therefore Christianity kind of falls apart.
So I don't think you get to wriggle out of it that way, because I think you do have to try and figure out whether somebody's contrition is genuine.
Yeah, and I would agree, but just going based on biblical text, we do know, in my opinion, that the matters of the heart are It's inconceivably complex, and there is no way that I'm going to spend hours and hours on end trying to figure out whether someone is genuine or not.
Especially if I don't know them.
Because you're asking about emotions, right?
Yeah.
Now, emotions, you can't intellectually figure out whether somebody is genuinely sorry.
And what I mean by that is, you can take any apology and I'm sorry.
Right?
Which doesn't, I hope, sound particularly genuine to you, but it's more mockery and eye-rolling and so on.
And so intellectually the words are the same, but emotionally the experience is very different.
And so it is through one's feelings that one can help figure out the authenticity of someone else.
It's not perfect, but it's better than the intellect.
So it's interesting to me That you said it was an intellectual or trying to figure out whether someone is sorry or not because you can't, right?
Figure it out intellectually.
You can feel it emotionally and I think when we hit a genuine moment from someone else, we do feel it emotionally and that would be a value of the emotional life, right?
Yes.
Yeah, I completely agree.
It's just in the...
Trying to understand Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton, I take what they say with a grain of salt, and this is just my opinion.
This is all non-communication.
You're not in the conversation as yet, Shelton.
I mean, I don't even know what it means to say, well, I take it all with a grain of salt.
What does that mean?
So when Donald Trump says, I'm rich, do you take that with a grain of salt?
When he says, I'm married to Melania, do you take that with a grain of salt?
When he says, I'm 70, do you take that with a grain of salt?
Like, I don't know what any of this means.
And to be, I mean, to be honest, I'm just...
Simply stating that, to me, I don't feel like it's my job to decipher every single thing that either candidate says.
Now, see, here we have.
Now, here we have.
I'm sorry, but I just can't have you communicate with me this way.
Because if you say, it's not my job to decipher every single thing a candidate says, who on earth would bother doing that?
Like, that's not in the realm of reality, and it's not in the realm of what's possible, so it's kind of a straw man, right?
Okay.
Like, as soon as you start saying everything...
With someone?
Well, I take everything they say with a grain of salt.
I don't want to figure out everything that they're saying.
Yeah.
You understand?
I mean, this is like, it's not in the realm of communication.
Because it's all meaningless.
So my question is, what are we really talking about?
I don't know yet.
Okay.
I mean, I guess me trying to put in the clues to...
Trying to put all this back together.
Let me just go back to how I deal with this emotionally.
Because for me...
It seems as if my natural tendency is to try to understand everything.
And you say, okay, that can't be done.
But see, that's where I come from.
Sorry, you said you were trying to understand everything, and then you said you don't want to figure out whether Donald Trump's apology is genuine or not.
So you say, I want to understand everything, but here's something very important that I've brought up, which is a problem I have with a candidate, but I don't want to try and figure out if that's genuine or not.
So which is it?
Do you want to try and understand everything or not?
I guess not.
And I'm not trying to be a dick here.
I probably am, but I'm not trying to be.
I want to make sure I'm understanding what you're saying.
I mean, you made your point clear.
But just to be honest with you, this is just my way of saying that I don't really know how to respond to where we are in this election.
Okay, see, now that's honest.
And also, when you say to be honest, halfway through a conversation, I do question if you've been honest with me already.
That's not always a great phrase to use, just in terms of...
other people's perceptions of what you're saying like if I'm chatting with you for half an hour and then I say well Shelton I'm gonna actually I'm gonna actually be honest here part of you is gonna be like well why didn't you do this half an hour?
What have you been doing for the last half hour?
So you don't know how to respond emotionally to this election now that it's a great statement in my opinion.
That's that is honest, right?
Yes, absolutely.
And that's not hiding behind, you know, well, I don't know whether he's genuine or not, and I wouldn't try and figure it out.
You don't know how to respond emotionally, and that's fantastic.
That's great.
I mean, that's a genuine, honest statement, which we can have a conversation about, and I appreciate that.
Yeah, and that's actually been my...
I've tried to make that point.
Maybe I didn't do that in the best way possible, but that really is where I've been coming from.
You just like to...
You ask some really good questions, so...
All right, so...
Emotionally, the election.
Is there a candidate who more closely embodies the potential for your values to be more manifest in the world?
Right, so for instance, if you want open borders and virtually limitless third world immigration, then Hillary Clinton, at least until today, would have been your gal, right?
If you want sort of lower corporate taxes, if you want maybe some controls, On immigration from the Middle East, if you want to avoid the triple-digit increases in premiums to do with Obamacare and so on, then Trump would be more your guy, right?
Yes.
So my question would be, and these all sound like leading questions, obviously.
Everyone knows where I stand.
But for you, Shelton, is there a candidate, either candidate, just based upon what they say and what their plans are, what their programs are?
That would be closer to your values?
To be honest, it would be Donald Trump.
Okay.
Okay.
Again, please don't use the to be honest phrase, because I'm just going to have to assume you're being honest with me.
Because otherwise, every time you don't say that...
It's just a habit.
It's just a habit.
I apologize.
I know.
I know.
It's alright.
So, Donald Trump.
Okay, so what is Donald Trump proposing that you would have some sympathy for?
It would definitely be in regards to...
And also with the conservative placement of Supreme Court justices in the Supreme Court, because we still haven't gotten to that point, correct?
Okay, so that would definitely be the top two.
Sorry, abortion and Supreme Court nominees, right?
Yes.
Right.
And what about Hillary Clinton?
Do you find appealing?
I'm not saying to the same degree, but what about Hillary Clinton and her proposals or her history do you find appealing?
It would definitely be the issue of amnesty or helping with children who Have undocumented parents who have the potential to be essentially evicted from the United States, and they're left as orphans here in the United States, essentially.
I know people...
I'm sorry, just to...
I'm not sure what that...
So if you have...
This is the anchor baby situation, right?
Yes.
And sorry to interrupt, but I just want to sort of make sure I understand, because you say they would be left as orphans?
Yes.
I mean, before I became a Canadian citizen, I was, of course, a British citizen.
And if I had committed some crime, then I would have been deported back to England, right?
I would have been, yes.
Now, if I had committed a crime and been deported back to England, would I leave my daughter with me, or would I bring my daughter back to England with me?
Would she inevitably be an orphan If I committed a crime and was facing deportation?
To be honest with you, I'm not sure.
Well, put yourself in my boots in these sort of imaginary scenarios.
If you had a daughter and you were facing deportation, would you leave your daughter behind or would you bring your daughter with you?
Let's say she's seven.
I would more than likely bring her with me.
You would, sorry?
I would bring her with me.
Right, okay, so she's not going to be an orphan.
Yes, and I mean, I see your point.
But I've worked with people who – or excuse me, I know people who work with high school students or middle school students in Southern California who – these children don't go to school because they're afraid that their parents aren't going to be home when they come back from school.
So there is this fear when you hear Donald Trump's side of the story of get him out, get him out, the wall, the wall, whatever it is.
There is this fear factor in not knowing whether your parents are going to be home or not.
Sorry to interrupt.
Would you say that this is true of all the children of parents who are committing crimes?
Yes.
So it's not specific to illegal immigrants.
It would be the case for all children whose parents are on the run or who are wanted or are currently committing crimes or something like that, right?
Yes.
I mean, if their parents are drug dealers, then they would face that same fear.
If their parents were murderers, they would face that same fear.
If their parents were thieves or if they were scam artists or running frauds or something like that, then they would face that same fear.
So this is not specific to illegal immigration.
The children of all parents who are committing crimes face the worry that those parents are going to be Arrested for those crimes, right?
Now, what is the solution to that?
Should we not enforce the laws?
In other words, should we say, well, you know, to take an extreme example, if your parent is a murderer, then should we say, well, it will make the child very sad if the parent is arrested and goes to jail for, or is tried and convicted of the murder.
And so should we then say, well, let's give amnesty to all murderers, because the children will be unhappy if their parents go to prison.
Now, please understand, I'm not equating, in terms of severity, illegal immigration with murder.
But what I'm saying is that both are illegal, as it stands.
And the parents are knowingly breaking the law, and the parents are, in general, Taking resources out of a society that they're not really paying into.
And I just did this presentation so we don't have to get into the details, but massive percentages of illegal immigrants are taking more out of the system than they could conceivably pay in.
So I'm trying to sort of understand the moral reasoning.
Because look, you can always look at a sad child and say, this is how we should run society.
You know, a boy washed up on the shores of Mediterranean And therefore, we should let all of the migrants into Europe.
And I guess my concern is, here's where emotionality becomes a problem.
And I think this is the difference between men and women, to a large degree.
And you can hear this through Hillary Clinton.
She says, well, I was talking to this woman who, you know, she's afraid that every time she comes home, her parents will be gone and deported and she's sad.
And it's like, well, Okay, so does that mean we can't have any rules because children will be sad if their parents get caught doing illegal things?
Because that's sentimentality, right?
Yeah, I agree.
And frankly, I haven't invested a lot of thought...
No, no, no.
Don't back out.
Don't back out.
This is not a big investment in abstract understanding of policy.
The parents have come to America by cheating, by lying, by breaking the law.
Because there are legal ways to get into America and they have said, nope, not for me.
I'm not going to pursue those legal ways to get into America.
I'm going to sneak across the border.
I'm going to lie.
I'm going to cheat and I'm going to take.
I mean, tell me if I'm wrong in terms of how that is described.
Oh, I mean, I completely disagree with...
I mean, I would never want that to happen.
That's not my...
Never want what to happen.
I don't want there to be this passive normality of murder and violence and just come in as you please, do whatever you want.
That's just...
I'm not for that.
Okay, so you believe that there should be Yes, absolutely.
Okay, so we are talking about, as currently defined by the law, criminals, right?
Yes.
And these are criminals who don't just prey upon the local population, but prey upon the taxpayers' purse as a whole.
Yes.
If they need healthcare, they go to emergency, and emergency has to provide them healthcare no matter what, and other taxpayers have to pay for it.
Yes, that's essential.
Native households on welfare, 30%.
Mexico and Central America, 73%.
You can get, as an illegal immigrant, you can get welfare, you can get other forms of government aid, you can have your children in school, you can get healthcare.
There are sanctuary cities where you can't be Deported.
And it is negative for the taxpayers, right?
So they're cheating.
They're lying.
They're breaking the law.
In general, they're taking money through the government by force from taxpayers.
And yes, their children will be sad and upset if they are deported.
But is that how we make decisions as a society?
Is we look at sad children and say, well, that rules everything?
Because, you know who else is sad when they get caught?
All other criminals are sad when they get caught.
That is true.
Right?
And so, all criminals are sad, so do we say, well, we don't want to make criminals sad, so let's never catch any criminals.
No.
No, we don't do that.
Right?
And all the children of criminals will be sad.
Do we then say, well, we can't put anyone in jail for anything because their children will be sad?
You understand that.
So you look at one individual and you say, well, this is tugging at the heartstrings and so on, but that's a sentimentality.
And please understand, I'm not arguing that all these laws are perfectly just and fine and so on, but what I'm saying is that they are the laws.
And look, if I have to...
I don't agree with taxation, I pay my taxes.
And these people may not agree, The process that it takes to legally come to the United States.
But I don't feel like I have the right, and I don't have the right, to say, well, I don't agree with taxes, so I'm just not going to pay any taxes.
Because I understand that if I choose not to pay my taxes, my life could get very, very difficult.
I could get arrested.
I could end up in jail.
And then guess what?
My daughter...
He's orphaned, or she's at least fatherless, right?
Now, does everyone look and say, well, Steph, because your daughter will be sad if you go to jail, you don't have to pay your taxes.
Anyone making that case for me?
No.
So why would I make that case for anyone if no one's making the case for me?
If I don't get, and you don't get, Those excuses and those, right?
Is there a sanctuary city that I can go where I don't have to pay my taxes?
And I know for sure I'm never going to get arrested if I do.
Even overseas, if you're an American, they can reach after you with the big giant cryptkeeper claw of the IRS and get that money back, right?
Get that money from you.
So here's an example where emotions, i.e., look, there's a sad child of illegal immigrants.
Well...
If the child has relatives who are legal citizens, and the child wishes to stay with those relatives who are legal citizens, that's one possibility.
Or they can go back with the parents.
But the idea they're just going to get abandoned by the side of the road, I mean, that's not how it's going to work, right?
No.
And, you know, I don't want you to think I was coming to you from a perspective of being illusioned.
I just had the thought of Nietzsche's quote, sometimes people don't want to hear the truth because they don't want their illusions destroyed.
So I don't want to come to you thinking that I'm just illusioned into this utopia-type Hillary Clinton potential election.
I don't want that to be the case at all.
But yeah, even on that front, the immigration policy, I don't know all the details.
I'm sorry to interrupt, but if you want to get mad about the plight of illegal immigrants, Shelton, I'll tell you who to get mad at.
You may agree with me, you may not, but I'll tell you very emphatically who you should get mad at for the problems of illegal immigration.
You should get mad at the Democrats.
Because the Democrats have allowed illegal immigrants to come into the country, to come into America, as a kind of fifth column of Democrat voters in waiting, so that they can offer amnesty As a political prize for voting Democrat.
Right?
The problem is not fundamentally the illegal immigrants.
I mean, if you say, well, go into the country, have an anchor baby, hang tight, and the Democrats will give you citizenship.
I mean, and not just the Democrats.
I mean, Ronald Reagan offered the same damn thing.
So go into the country, Have babies.
Sit tight.
You'll get amnesty because the Democrats want your vote.
And I understand why people do that.
What's particularly cruel is the Hispanics in Mexico have an IQ in the low 90s or high 80s.
And it's kind of cruel to me for highly intelligent Democrats to dangle this carrot in front of them Because that pulls them into the country where they sit there in the shadows waiting for the magic wand of the Democrats to legalize them and give them citizenship.
That is incredibly cruel.
And so when you see, as you will, when Donald Trump gets elected, you will see children, you know, Elias Gonzalez-style, clutching at the imam's dress and howling and tear-stained.
Yes, that's what the Democrats have done.
That's what, by holding out this mirage of citizenship, which...
It certainly wasn't going to be a mirage if the Gang of Eight and the Democrats and Hillary, if they had their way.
It wasn't going to be a mirage.
It was like a real thing.
A real thing.
The greatest treasure in the world for many people is U.S. citizenship and it was going to be handed out for political advantage.
The people in Mexico were drawn into a life of crime by being promised amnesty and citizenship And that is incredibly brutal and incredibly destructive and incredibly wrong.
For high IQ Democrats to use low IQ Hispanics in this manner for political advantage is incredibly cruel and has disrupted the lives of countless people from Mexico and other places.
And it has disrupted Mexico.
It has broken up communities.
It has broken up families because some people are heading to America and some people aren't.
It has created unstable, fearful lives for everyone involved in this situation.
And it has now created the brutal situation where, yes, people are going to be deported.
It's not pretty.
It's not pleasant.
It should never have been allowed to happen in the first place like Anchor Babies is an insane, insane idea.
Is it okay if I... You know what it's like?
Anchor Babies is like this.
You steal...
A million dollars from a bank, and then you invest it and make another million, so now you have two million.
Or maybe you invest it, you make two more million, now you have three million.
And you get caught, and oh, you only have to pay back the first million.
All of the proceeds of that first crime you can keep for yourself.
So the idea that people in a country illegally can have children who are automatically granted full citizenship is a completely insane idea.
And so unutterably destructive.
That it could only have come from a footnote of a decision in a Supreme Court ruling many years ago.
It was never debated.
It was never put before the people.
It was never...
I mean, it was just terrible.
A terrible, terrible decision.
And all of this is going to lead to an enormous amount of suffering.
But to me...
Yeah, you did use the language of an apocalyptic event.
Oh, it's going to be horrible.
Yeah.
It could be 30 or 40 million people illegally in America.
Like 10% of the population or maybe more.
This kind of displacement is going to be horrendous.
It's going to be horrendous and it's sort of like if you have somebody who's been a heroin addict for 15 years and they then want to quit, it's going to be very, very unpleasant.
But you don't blame the doctors who are trying to help that junkie quit.
You blame the 15 years of heroin addiction for why it's so difficult to quit and why it's so unpleasant and why he's throwing up on himself and why he's going all Gary Oldman in a cell on everyone.
It is horrible.
But to blame Donald Trump for what's going to happen with immigration, for blaming ICE, for blaming the Border Patrol, for any of these things, is completely missing the point.
The point is that the Democrats have been trying to stuff The ballot with illegal immigrants and legal immigrants promising them amnesty and all sorts of goodies.
They're just bribing people with something they didn't earn.
Citizenship is not something earned by politicians.
Citizenship only has value despite politicians because citizenship in America only has value because there's still significant portions of a free market available.
And so it's despite the politicians that American citizenship has value.
It's because of the restraint of politicians, you know, from the First and Second Amendments and so on.
It's because of the restraint of politicians that American citizenship has value.
And so politicians to grab it and use it as candy to get free votes for themselves is abominable.
It is a moral crime of the highest order.
And all of the brutality that is going to result from it is entirely the fault of the politicians who fostered the entire environment, not the people who were waiting in trying to solve this mess created by others.
And that actually makes a lot of sense.
In fact, I've had conversations with people over the last two weeks just because it's been really wrecking my brain and trying to understand just really how to interpret just the political stance of both parties.
But if you don't mind me asking just another question, it is a separate question.
It's in regards to the way we respond emotionally on social media.
And in my honest opinion, I think social media has been an absolute detriment to the way that we talk and think about politics, especially just – Stephen Crowder recently posted a video on YouTube saying that social media is just giving you everything that you want to hear rather than giving you what needs to be said in regards to the facts about – And I'm honestly really glad that they
reopened Hillary Clinton's email scandal today.
I don't really know how that's going to work or what that's going to look like, but to me, social media, I don't really get along with social media, at least in that perspective of just how we hear only what we want to hear.
I'm not sure.
So is he saying that people tend to Subscribe to channels that contain information from people they trust and respect, and that's bad?
Essentially, but he also mentioned that...
I'm wondering if he meant that Facebook was kind of catering to them, because it's basing whatever you're seeing based on what you like or dislike, so it's just kind of being categorized to serve you only whatever you like or dislike.
Does that make sense?
Well, sure, but I'm not sure I understand what the problem is with that.
This is standard for businesses, right?
No, I completely agree.
I mean, when I go to Amazon, and hopefully people, if you've got Amazon shopping, fdrurl.com slash Amazon, but when I go to Amazon, it shows me things at the bottom of the screen related to what I've ordered or browsed before.
Is that bad?
Yeah.
Should it be showing me, I don't know, should it be showing me girdles?
Should it be showing me Spanx?
Okay, maybe Spanx.
But, you know, I mean, all businesses do that, right?
I mean, based upon your prior orders or based upon your prior interests, here's stuff that would be useful to you, like Kindle and Kobo do that, right?
I mean, they say, based upon the books that you've bought, here are books we think you'd really like.
No, I completely agree, but I don't agree in saying that we should use a similar tactic in the way that we think about politics, especially on social media, because our politics should not be able to be bought.
I don't like thinking of it as some sort of business tactic.
I don't think that's right at all.
I'm sorry, so if you were running...
If you were running Facebook, or I don't really know much about Facebook, but let's just say Twitter, right?
So if you were running Twitter, you would present to Hillary Clinton supporters pro-Donald Trump and vice versa, pro-Donald Trump information or advertisements rather than vice versa?
I mean, yes, I think I would.
All right.
And how do you think that would go from a business standpoint?
Let's say there are a bunch of different platforms, one of which tailors information based upon your prior preferences, and the other one provides you stuff that it can guarantee you don't like.
It would not go well, and I know that.
Yeah, it would not go well.
And also, when it comes to presenting people with selected and biased information, I think focusing on social media is kind of missing the point, because the big problem with that is government schools.
And what do you mean by that?
Well, government schools present a relentlessly pro-government agenda, a relentlessly pro-leftist agenda, almost exclusively.
And children are forced to be there, and parents are forced to pay.
So if you were forced to pay for Twitter and you were locked in a room seven hours a day watching Twitter's propaganda, I think that you and Crowder would have a damn fine case to make about people being indoctrinated.
Or people being exposed To information that was not helping them grow as individuals intellectually or spiritually or whatever, right?
But focusing on social media is, to me, missing the point.
If you dislike people being exposed to propaganda, well, I mean, government schools is where you'd want to focus your attention because it's coercive, right?
Coercive for the children to be there, coercive for the parents to pay.
No, I can say that, yeah.
And, of course, people like to see information that they approve of or that they feel is going to be important or valuable to them.
Of course!
And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.
I mean, do I wish to see a whole bunch of information from communists?
No.
I mean, my mind is made up.
On that, right?
Do I want to see a whole bunch of come join the Amish stuff?
No, I mean, it's really not, you know, it's not going to happen, right?
It's not going to happen.
Do I want to see a bunch of social justice warrior bullshit clucking up my feed?
No, I don't.
Okay, well, okay, with that in mind...
I've understood this in the same way that you don't want to, you know, do you voluntarily go to, you know, Hail Satan rallies, like going...
Join people in the Church of Satan because you don't want to just be continually exposed to positive messages about Jesus.
No, I mean, you've got your decisions, you've made your decisions, and life is short.
And I can't spend every waking moment examining every other conceivable mindset.
I mean, I've whittled things down.
And, you know, once you get married to your ideology, you know, unless...
There's some big problem, right?
I mean, you should...
Once you get married to reason and evidence, then you don't want to see...
Like, I don't want the telekinesis channel to keep popping up in my feed because I just think it's nonsense, right?
And, you know, lizard people, I'm fairly sure, fairly minimal presence in human society.
So, you know, I know this sort of idea.
But people do this all the time.
And the last thing I'll say is if you're concerned about echo chambers...
Twitter's the last place you really want to care about.
What you want to care about is the mainstream media, which is all stuff to the gills for the most part.
Yeah, I completely agree.
I mean, and that is much more dangerous than someone's tweaked Twitter feed, right?
No, I agree.
So.
All right.
So the last thing I'll sort of mention is the question is, you know, why do we have emotions?
Why do we have emotions?
Well, We have emotions because life is short and we need to make decisions.
And there is something in the body which is kind of cool, which is that if your hand touches something hot, too hot, it will actually jerk away before you even register it as being too hot.
What happens is the nerve impulses travel to your spine and then it says, pull the hand away!
It's burning!
Pull the hand away!
Before it even gets to your brain.
And when it comes to You're walking through the woods and you hear a stick or a twig crack somewhere in the undergrowth, but immediately you're in high alert, right?
And your fight or flight begins to kick in, adrenaline, cortisol pump, your heart starts increasing and so on, right?
And blood streams to your muscles in case they need to do something extreme in the short run.
And that's important.
That's what keeps you alive.
That's helpful.
And so emotions are value judgments Which don't involve the neofrontal cortex.
And we know that because animals which don't really have much capacity for abstract reasoning also experience significant emotions.
Like fear or whatever it is.
Lust.
Frogs.
Fear and lust.
They jump away and they Jump on, right?
And they attack and guard.
And so, emotions are value judgments which don't require the neofrontal cortex.
Now, once you get the neofrontal cortex, once you get the seed of reasoning, things become much more complex because you have complementary but sometimes competing interests, right?
You've still got the lizard brain, and you also have what I call the post-monkey beta expansion pack, slightly buggy 2.1.
I think it's a 2.1 now.
We've had an upgrade through Trump.
But...
So we have emotions and they run in conjunction with and sometimes parallel with and sometimes complementary to and sometimes in opposition to the neofrontal cortex because you can't really teach the lizard brain kind of new tricks in a way, right?
I mean, I don't know.
I guess you can.
Like, you can train dogs not to be afraid of things and so on, but that can be kind of a long process.
Mm-hmm.
For the most part, we have this autonomous emotional system going on, and some of it's in the brain, and some of it's actually, interestingly enough, in the gut.
The gut has a lot of brain characteristics, and this is to say my gut sense, my gut feeling, and so on.
And it works incredibly rapidly, right?
The subconscious has been shown to work, in some cases, 8,000 times faster than the conscious mind.
And so speed is of the essence.
And so if you meet someone, and you get a kind of clammy feeling from that person, like something's not right, something's off, something's weird...
Well, can you reason it out?
I don't know.
But it's very important that you have that instinct.
It doesn't mean you're automatically right, but it's giving you a warning.
Other people you meet, you may trust them more quickly and accept them more quickly and maybe even love them more quickly because you have these instincts.
Life without emotions is barely worth living because happiness is the one great goal.
It's the one thing that we pursue not in order to get something else but for its own sake.
And so happiness and Joy and excitement and enthusiasm, these are all feelings and they make life worthwhile.
We don't want to mechanistically plot through life using only the neo-frontal cortex because it robs life of its joie de vivre, of its energy, of its essence, of its passion.
At the same time, we don't want to just steer by the passions because otherwise we are attempting to guide the future through emotions and emotions are largely predicated on the past.
They're more historical than they are future-based.
The neofrontal cortex looks into the future, the emotions in general react from the past.
And so when you want to found new values, and the relationship is, of course, that if you, I just talked about this with Mike Cernovich, the value of mindset, and what mindset is and why it's important.
You can give yourself new values, which over time will give yourself new emotions.
You know, we've had countless emails from people who are like, well, I liked Hillary Clinton.
I couldn't wait for her to get into office, but after listening and Hearing to you and Mike talk about Trump, we're now going full Trumpasaurus.
And so before, they would have been very unhappy to hear the news today that the FBI was reopening its investigation into Hillary Clinton's empire of lies.
And now they feel happy because their values have changed.
And that is, I think, a very important thing to remember.
Values change based upon what we think.
So we don't just have to say, well, my emotions are over there, they're not going to change, my intellect's over here.
We can, in a sense, and I don't like the word, but it kind of works, we can reprogram our emotions based upon new values that we are acquiring.
So it's a complex relationship.
Emotions are what make life worthwhile, but we cannot guide ourselves by instinct alone because we then generally are in a sort of tightly spiraling circle back into the past.
So I think it's important to value emotions and to have a Relationship with emotions where they inform you and excite you and provide you information, right?
To me, emotions are kind of like spies.
They give you information, but they don't determine how you respond to it.
And viewing them as the providers of information rather than the dictators of your choices or impulses, I think, is the best way to work with them.
Because eventually it has to come down to the neofrontal cortex.
Yeah.
But to be informed and to find value and use in the emotions, I think, is essential.
Because if you repress emotions, they tend to get quite upset and fight back in a variety of ways.
They are almost like living organisms.
Like I talked about this years ago, I call it the MECO system, which is where there's lots of different aspects of identity.
And the important thing is to have everyone at the table, every part of you.
You know, the inner mother, the inner father, the inner teacher, the inner priest, the inner...
You have their voice in your head to one degree or another.
Have everyone sit down at the table and provide their counsel.
Eventually the ego has to decide or the rational aspect has to decide but listen to information from everyone.
Take counsel from every aspect of you and then at some point you have to make a decision and then you You reconvene, so to speak, around the table with all your various alters or parts or alter egos and you get their feedback and you keep everyone at the table.
If everyone's at the table and everyone has a voice, generally there is peace in the soul.
But if one person turns out the light, slams the table and grabs the reins without consultation, usually you face an inner revolt of...
Fairly biblical proportions at times.
So that's my sort of very brief thoughts about the emotions.
But thank you, Sheldon, for a very enjoyable call.
I appreciate you calling in.
And you're going to move on?
Thank you.
Thank you.
Alright, well up next we have Donatas.
Donatas wrote in and said, That's from Donatas.
I'm actually going to pronounce that donate to us at freedomainradio.com.
Don, it's nice to chat with you.
How are you doing tonight?
Hello, Stefan.
I'm doing great.
I'm very excited to talk to you.
Good, good, good.
All right.
Preserve your reputation.
So you feel that your reputation is best served by falsifying your identity, your thoughts, your experience?
Possibly.
I've been thinking of specific examples that happen in my country and I live in Eastern Europe.
And there have been instances where people have lost their jobs because they publicly, either on Facebook or any other social media, said some opinions that people considered offensive.
Anything related to, you know, the Usual controversial topics these days like gender, LGBT people, all of those things.
And they ended up losing their jobs because there was such a big backlash and in some instances the businesses at which they worked simply to preserve their reputation had to lay them off.
Well, it didn't have to but that's the choice they made, right?
Oh, right.
Correct.
And me personally, I would consider very heavily whether I should post some sort of opinion on social media and if it's gonna affect my livelihood.
And it would be lying.
It would be lying, for sure.
But if one of my life purposes is not very directly related to helping solve these political issues or making...
In other words, if I don't make my life purpose related to helping people in this manner or spreading truth and clarity, do I really want to...
Be truthful in those kinds of things when the repercussions these days are possibly enormous.
Right, right.
That's a good question.
So, how free do you want to be?
This is sort of my fundamental question.
And I say this Because that was the question I asked myself low these 10 or 11 years ago when I started this show and, I don't know, the 8 or 9 years ago since I went full-time.
How free do I want to be?
See, you can create a life for yourself which is free or as free as can be possible in the world that is.
And I have That life.
I have designed, created, worked for and achieved that life.
Now, I'm still sadly constrained by gravity and time and bodily frailties, but I am as free as can be achieved, I think, in the world that stands.
I am free to say the things that are important to me.
I'm free to make the arguments that I think are essential.
And I've done that very consciously and very carefully.
I have created a life Where attacking me is very hard.
People say, why don't you take advertising?
Because I don't want a weak spot.
Why don't you go on TV? Why don't you have your own TV show?
Because I don't want a weak spot.
Because weak spots make you self-censor.
You have a weak spot called you want to keep your existing job.
I'm not going to say whether that's a good or bad thing, but let's call it for what it is.
You have a vulnerability Called...
Other people.
I mean, the social justice warriors do their stuff.
They launch their attacks and their boycotts and their whatever's because it works.
Now, if everyone basically said, screw you guys, I'm standing by my employee, so he says stuff I don't agree with, so what?
It's on his time, it's not on...
Right?
I mean, I'm not going to fire some guy for having opinions you disagree with.
Go take a long walk off a short pier, as the saying used to be.
But you're not...
You're afraid that the people who hire you, the people who your boss is, that they won't see it that way and they'll throw you to the wolves.
They'll appease the mob of leftist trolls, right?
And the reality is, if they didn't, everything would be fine.
But they do.
They apologize.
They fire people.
All that kind of stuff, right?
And...
So you have a life wherein you cannot be honest and you cannot be free in what you think and say.
Well, you can be free in what you think.
You can't be free in what you say publicly because you are concerned that people will betray you if other people don't like what you say, right?
Okay, well, that's your life.
And the question is, how free do you want to be, right?
Do you want to have a life where you can say what you think is important without fear of getting fired?
Well, if you want that life, you have to make that life.
You have to design that life.
You have to create that life.
But there is a cost to pay for freedom.
Yeah, of course there's a cost to pay for freedom.
And if you want to have a life that is free, you're going to have to work to create that kind of life.
Now, you can either do that consciously by saying, okay, I do want to be able to say what's important to me.
We're in a battle for civilization.
We're in a battle for the future.
And what I have to contribute to that battle for the future is more important than some medium-rent paycheck that I can get from a bunch of assholes who will betray me to evil people the moment that evil comes knocking at the door with anything more than a feather, right?
So, if you do want to take your stand on the hill, on the mountain, on the On the front lines, then you have to design a life wherein you can do that with security, right?
I mean, sure, there are lots of people who would love for this show to end.
But they can't do it, right?
They can't find my donators, right?
I don't have like four advertisers that people can target.
And so the question is, how free do you want to be?
Now, if you don't want to be that free, and I'm not saying everyone should or shouldn't.
I mean, this is just the basic...
Everyone's got to be free to choose whatever they're comfortable with, whatever they want.
Then accept that you don't want to be that free and adjust your life accordingly.
And say, okay, well, I'm going to choose this paycheck for the foreseeable future.
Maybe I'll revisit this in six months or a year.
But I'm going to take this paycheck.
And taking this paycheck...
I know that I should not talk about A, B, C, or X, Y, and Z in social media and maybe not even in the cafeteria at the company and maybe not even think it in the washroom.
I don't know, right?
And say, okay, well, I want this paycheck and therefore I'm simply not going to talk about these other things in public because that's the consequence.
So you have to accept.
Don't try and live both lives at the same time.
Don't be dependent on people who will betray you at the same time as voicing controversial opinions in public.
Because then what'll happen is you'll end up with a free life that wasn't planned.
And a free life that isn't planned doesn't often end up free for very long, right?
So if you get fired and you don't have any money, you don't have any savings or whatever, and you've got to kind of strangle to get a job, and maybe you've got some web results that make it challenging for people to hire you, some Google searches or whatever, right?
Then you'll end up in a, quote, free, you know, you can say what you want, but, you know, it's not a very comfortable life.
Whereas if you plan and say, okay, I can't leave these topics alone.
They return to me again and again.
I must, I must find a way, design a life where I can express what I think is important in the world without fear that I'm going to be fed to the blue-haired alligators of the social justice warrior death squads, right?
Can I say something from a personal angle?
Related to this, as you said, sort of creating the life in which you could be able to be free.
My personal thing is that I've been changing very much recently, and I won't talk too in depth about that specifically, but just to get to the point.
And I'm still I have a lot to grow and a lot of fix of past mistakes both economically and psychologically and other things and I'm working towards fixing and at this point I'm also not only vulnerable in the point of the business at which I might be working doing whatever for the reasons that I specified before I'm also kind of Having less,
I would have less options, or not less options, but would make it a lot more difficult for me to create that life situation at this point.
So, honestly, I'm not exactly sure what I'm trying to do.
And I don't have any problem with that.
Of course, right?
I'm not saying, you know, go quit, live under a bridge, and speak the truth about it no matter what.
What I'm saying is that accept that that is the reality of where you are.
Right.
Right?
Now, if that is the reality of where you are, Then, you've got to slap your hand away if you want to post stuff on Facebook that's going to get you in trouble.
Here's my example, right?
Let's say that you don't like the warden, or you don't like some prison guard, right?
Well, is it really good to start confronting that prison guard and writing about that prison guard and how mean he is to you and how cruel he is to you while you're still in prison?
Obviously not.
No!
Wait till you're out, maybe to another country, and then start writing about it under a pseudonym, if you feel right.
So you have to wait until the risk goes down.
Because otherwise, you know, the temptation is that, or the probability is that you're doing something self-destructive.
So if you need to, for whatever reason, stay in the job that you have, then...
Keep a diary.
Keep a journal.
Write things down.
Save them.
Don't save them on the cloud.
Save them locally.
Use a pen and paper.
Even better.
Can't be hacked.
And do take it that way.
But don't try and walk the line of both.
I'm sorry?
Right.
Well, another thing to add is that I'm not entirely sure if those fears are, like, objectively true, I guess.
I'm not exactly sure how to say it.
Or are they just something that I'm making up in my mind because these socialist warriors...
No, no, no, no, no, no.
Come on, come on.
No, no, no, no.
Now you're fogging me because you already told me you know of people who got fired for this stuff, right?
Yes.
Okay, so let's not say this is imaginary, right?
If you're walking down the line with four other people and two of them get eaten by lions, don't come to me and say that you've got this irrational fear of lions, right?
You've already seen people get taken down.
We all have.
We all know of people who posted something on the internet that people found offensive and their lives were toast for a while at least as a result.
So let's not go there.
This is not your imagination running, right?
This is a real risk.
This is a real risk.
You can get targeted and people can try and, you know, they do what the left does, is they try to destroy your status and destroy your source of income.
I mean, that's what they do.
That's their methodology of attack.
And you should read, you should read cuckservatives, and you should read, in particular, social justice warriors always lie.
I have social justice warriors in my to-read list, so I'll get to it.
Read that, because he goes very clearly into the methodology of these kind of leftist attacks, and it is a challenge.
And a lot of people, as soon as the giant leftist laser lands on your forehead, a lot of people will be walking out of the door.
Not a lot of people will be walking in to help you out.
It can be a very Good purge of people who you maybe only thought were your friends.
But no, it is a very real thing, and you shouldn't imagine that it's just paranoia.
This is a very real predation that occurs, and it is a hateful and semi-fascistic social ostracism shutdown of free speech.
I mean, the left is not about free speech any more than they're about diversity.
If you really, really want a life where you can be free to speak your mind and to make your case to the world as a whole, you need to plan for that and take the steps necessary to be able to achieve that.
And then you can speak without fear, but with far less fear and with no easy path to silence you.
But until you're in that position, it's usually wise.
Discretion is the better part of valor, is a statement that resounds with me and did for many years.
Or, he who fights and runs away lives to fight another day, which is another thing as well.
Once you've designed a life where you can speak the truth, then speak the truth.
But you might not want to do it if that's going to really get in your way of speaking the truth.
So that's my advice to you.
This did give quite a bit of clarity for me and will give me some extra things to think about.
I'm not sure if it's off topic or not, but your videos, I've watched many of them and they have heavily impacted my beliefs and this whole change of my life thing as well because I used to be extremely liberal and I never had these self-censorship ideas back then and it's sort of unusual to be very liberal in the country where I live, Eastern Europe, or at least throughout my childhood.
And I actually got some ostracism for it.
And I know the sort of mindset that you are in.
I used to watch the Young Turks.
I would religiously watch Jon Stewart.
And I noticed when I watched some of your videos...
Specifically about the police, the truth about videos.
I've noticed how the Young Turks, for example, talked about Ann Coulter.
And I actually, without really knowing much about her, I thought that she was just an evil, vile woman that is horrible and you shouldn't even do anything related to her.
And then after that, I actually read up about her and watched some interviews.
And I just thought to myself, wait a minute.
She's actually a lovely lady and making a lot of sense and I sort of saw the emotional conditioning that they're not being an argument but just going at the person and I know how powerful it can be in making your beliefs if you're in that mindset because I totally believed it with 100% I don't know if this is related to this discussion.
No, listen, I appreciate that.
I love to hear the backstory.
And so I really appreciate what you're saying.
I'm glad that you found...
A value in the work that I do and, you know, the fact that it's helping to change your mind and open your mind to new arguments and new ideas.
Yeah, I mean, I'd heard the same stuff about Ann Coulter just said this, you know, like Thatcher, you know, you listen to Pink Floyd, a fine group of musicians, you listen to Pink Floyd sing about Margaret Thatcher and, man, it's pretty grim.
But, you know, once you actually look into the facts, you can get a different perspective.
So I appreciate you keeping an open mind, and I appreciate your call in.
I'm going to move on to the next caller, but thanks so much, as always, for these great questions and comments.
Alright, up next is Evan.
Evan wrote in and said, I'm a woman, an anti-feminist, a bit of a traditionalist, and I hate seeing all of this disgusting feminist rhetoric tearing our country apart.
One of the major problems is how they scream about everything being misogyny and sexist.
However, recently I've been noticing an unsettling new movement that concerns me, and that's the MGTOW movement, men going their own way.
I understand that a lot of frustration men have with how things are going, but I've been hearing a lot of actual misogyny coming out of this movement.
Many of these men hate all women, refusing to believe there is a single good woman out there, and they seem to encourage this hatred from other men.
I want the sexes to come together again.
We benefit each other and need each other for a harmonious society.
What are your thoughts on this?
That's from Evan.
Well, hello, Evan.
How are you doing?
Hi, Stefan.
I'm really good.
How are you?
I'm very well.
I'm very well.
Thank you.
So, MGTOW. So, for those who don't know, this is sort of men going their own way, and I would not call myself a fantastic expert on it, but my understanding is that they view I don't want to characterize their backstory too much, much, but I would imagine that a lot of them come out of situations where they have seen a man or more than one man taken through the living hell of the family court system and spat out a stinky old piece of orange rind on the far side and just find that particularly horrifying but I would imagine that a lot of them come out of situations where they
piece of orange rind on the far side and just find that particularly horrifying.
Sure.
And find that dangerous, right?
I mean, and so there are different levels of MGTOW, right?
There are guys who don't have anything to do.
There are guys who, you know, will date occasionally.
There are guys who will date more, you know, and that kind of stuff, right?
But their goal is to say, look, I mean, women have, because women vote more and because there's generally a deference in Western culture to the needs and preferences of women, society, politicians, and so on have created a country's or legal system that absurdly favor women at the expense of men.
And a woman can get married to you.
She can wake up one day and Decides she doesn't like you, and just leave and take half your stuff, and then you're obligated to pay her.
Like in California, I think after 10 years of marriage, you have to pay alimony for the rest of your life to the woman, right?
And so they're looking and saying, well, okay, so the benefits are, you know, there, of course, right?
But the dangers are enormous, and...
I don't think they say, you know, women are just bad or anything like that.
I mean, of course there are some, right?
I mean, there are some feminists who say, right, there's the scum, the Society for Cutting Up Men, which is, you know, pretty radical in extreme areas of feminism, and I'm sure that there are similar reflections in the manosphere.
But I think they say, look, women will seek their advantage, just as Everyone does but women have a special kind of advantage because of the white knight again deference shown to women in Western cultures and indeed in all cultures where marriage and childbirth are the voluntary choice of the women then the women will have an enormous amount of power and you combine women's power in the sexual market especially when they're young with the state and its deference towards the preferences and needs of women and you end up with a system where femininity combined with the state
creates a trap which destroys countless men.
And you can watch the movie Divorce Corps or Divorce Corp for more on this.
I have had the filmmaker on twice on this show talking about these kinds of things.
And so it really, I think, is more of a criticism of statism than it is a criticism of femininity as a whole.
And because their argument is that biologically, women view men as resource providers.
That is the way that it works biologically.
And there's nothing wrong with that.
Of course, the reason there are men and women is because we need to reproduce.
And for most of human evolution, women were disabled by being pregnant, by giving birth to children, by breastfeeding, by then being pregnant, giving birth to mothers.
So they needed stable providers.
And so they viewed men largely as a utility for the provision of resources for their babies.
Again, I'm not criticizing.
There's nothing wrong with it.
In the same way that men view women as...
Fertility objects for bringing their own sperm to fruition in the form of a child.
And this is just how evolution works.
And so the funny thing is, of course, men will say, well, so women complain about being objectified for their Well, men have a reason to complain about being objectified for our resource provision.
And whether that resource provision occurs in the realm of a family where a man may be stuck in a job he doesn't like but he's got to provide for his wife and kids and somehow this is patriarchal massive freedom.
Or it may occur in the form of the state where men pay the vast majority of taxes.
Women take an enormous amount more out of the tax system than they pay in.
And so you have the state facilitating the resource transfer, coercive resource transfer in this case.
Right.
Of course.
From men to women.
So I don't know that it's female.
No individual woman has the power of...
To throw a man in jail for failure to pay alimony or child support.
And they say, look, this is the only place where you get thrown in jail.
Debtist prison is gone completely from the West.
Except for men who owe money to women.
In which case, yes, you can get thrown in jail.
And your life can be destroyed, right?
Absolutely.
And I understand all of that.
Let me just finish and then I'll give it to you.
You can get married.
A woman can divorce you.
Maybe you lose your job or somebody outsources you or you get H1B'd.
Visaed and have to train your own placement.
Can't find a new job, well, I guess you can try to get your alimony or child support payments adjusted, but that's expensive, and if you don't have the money to do that, and it doesn't always work because it's a pretty gynocentric court system in the family courts in particular, and then what happens is you can't pay your alimony or child support to the degree that you're supposed to, and next thing you know, Get arrested and thrown in jail.
And then while you're in jail, your animal and child support payments continue to accumulate.
And then you come out and you're supposed to pay these things, but you now have a record because you were in jail.
And so it's even tougher for you to find work and maybe you then go back to jail.
That is a terrifying scenario.
And it's not as rare.
as people think.
And you can look at Dave Foley.
I think he was on Joe Rogan's show talking about this Canadian comedian who's had a pretty terrifying experience.
Alec Baldwin wrote a whole book about his divorce from Kim Basinger.
And he said, basically, it's like, you know, if they tie you by a rope to the back of a pickup truck and drag you along a gravel road, it's It ends when they say it ends.
There's nothing you can do about it.
You've just got to try and survive.
And that's basically what happens in the court system.
So it's a terrifying situation.
And now that we've had one generation of men that this has already happened to, then they're children, much like the children of the Japanese men who worked themselves to death or who worked themselves into ill health.
In Japan, they don't want to get married and have kids.
It's just tilted too far to be pro-female, which means that it's become very dangerous for men to get involved and get married to women.
So that's...
I'm sorry you know this stuff, but I'm not going to assume that the audience...
We've got new audiences all the time.
I don't know if that sort of fits with the way that you would view it, but men say, listen, we're checking out of being resources and utilities for women and for society because society treats us like garbage and...
Throws us in jail and does all of these terrible things.
And we don't want to have anything to do with it.
Why would we?
Right.
Absolutely.
And I think that I kind of perceive that as being more of the MRAs, the men's rights activists, who I'm very supportive of.
Because I think they have so many good points of how, you know, the pendulum has swung the other way so far, as they say.
And I agree with all of that.
And I've watched Divorce Corbin.
It's horrifying and it's disgusting.
And I I can't imagine the fear that men have.
I'm just afraid because I sort of stumbled into a MGTOW video a couple weeks ago, and the discourse was really Sort of, it was this whole tone of this woman, you know, she always wanted kids and her husband wouldn't give her kids.
And, well, I don't know why she didn't sperm jack him.
There must have been a prenup or something.
And I started kind of watching these MGTOW videos and going to the Reddit threads and all of that.
Wait, I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
I lost the thread of that story.
Oh, sure.
So, was this a man talking about a woman?
A woman talking to another one?
I'm sorry.
It was a sort of MGTOW supporter reading an article about a woman who had decided to have an open marriage with her husband because after 18 years he never gave her kids.
And so when he was discussing this, He was just sort of speculating about her and there was no information about anything, but he said, well, you know, I don't know why she didn't just sperm jack him like all women would or all women do.
And so there was just kind of this assumption of, well, if a woman wanted kids, she'd just, you know, screw over her husband and take his sperm and freeze it and inject herself or whatever.
And I just thought it was very strange that he didn't give her any, you know, sort of moral autonomy of Maybe she's just a moral human being who loves and respects her husband but always wanted kids.
And so that just kind of was the catalyst for me to start looking into things.
And on the MGTOW side, I've just...
I've seen so much thing about, you know, women are all cunts and whores and stupid bitches who will cheat on you and all this.
And it's very similar to the rhetoric that I've been hearing from the feminist movement about men.
And I just...
I see it more as...
Two sides of kind of the same coin and it just concerns me for the future of our society because I just think that we need each other so much.
Both men and women need each other so much for a stable and flourishing society.
You know, the nuclear family is the best way to raise kids and the most successful way for us to be able to be a free society.
And I just see all of these movements as kind of tearing us all apart.
Well, okay, I mean, you've said a lot.
Now, obviously, there are people full of incoherent rage at every movement.
Sure.
You know, I'm sure there are asshole Buddhists at the fringe of the Buddhist movements or whatever.
I mean, so you know that you can't take, you know, there's no MGTOW stamp of approval, right?
There's, ah, you're genuine, anyone...
Anyone can say that they're MGTOW. Anyone can put out a MGTOW video.
I mean, I've listened to a bunch of different MGTOW people over the years and I've never heard anything like that.
I've heard, you know, female nature and so on and criticisms of female nature.
Which is fair, right?
I mean, because you understand that they're trying to balance things because we're, you know, girls are sugar and spice and all things nice.
This is how we're raised, that women are perfect and boys are smelly and broken and mean and loud and rough and all that, right?
I mean, they're just dirty.
So we're raised with this halo around femininity and this, you know, curse, this voodoo curse of negativity around boys.
So, you know, they're trying to sort of balance things out and You know, when you want to balance things out that are really tipped over, you've got to walk to the other side, right?
I mean, if you see those guys sailing, right, their ship is half blown over and they're all leaning the other way because they don't want the damn thing to tip over.
Now, that's a pretty extreme thing to do when the boat is flat.
Your head would be underwater, but this way is how they're trying to keep things going is leading the other way.
So that's sort of the first thing that I would say.
I mean, don't judge MGTOW by somebody who's full of hate, who says, I'm MGTOW and women are these terrible, terrible people, right?
That's not – I don't think that's fair.
I mean, that's a confession of that person's instability and hostility than it is a sort of movement that is fairly thoughtful as a whole.
That's the first thing.
Now, the second thing is I don't think that you can reasonably compare MGTOW to feminism.
Okay.
And I'll just give you a couple of reasons why.
First of all, feminism is much older.
I mean, you could say feminism, you know, like 150 years old, right?
And so MGTOW is a couple of years old.
That's sort of number one.
And number two is that MGTOW is not centrally organized, and feminism has been centrally organized throughout much of its history.
There are feminist groups, feminist meetups, feminist leaders, and so on, and it's a very, very loose affiliation of people who have lots of crossovers and so on.
But the most important thing is that MGTOW is scorned and attacked by the media, whereas feminism is praised by the media, even when it clearly doesn't deserve it.
In fact, it deserves criticism, if not downright condemnation.
But the most important thing is that feminism gets billions and billions of dollars of government money throughout the world.
And MGTOW people have webcams and YouTube channels, right?
And this, of course, is exactly their point.
Which is to say, when women want something, society bends over backwards to provide it.
But when men want something, they're attacked as misogynists.
Right.
And I totally agree.
So, feminism is a whole hyper-industrial, quasi-statist structure.
I mean, feminists are all over the place.
Yeah.
In universities.
Everywhere you look, in the arts in particular, there are feminists.
And pretty radical feminists, too.
Now, you try and get one men's group meeting on a university, what happens?
Right.
Yeah, that's not allowed to happen.
It's not allowed.
A couple of years ago, I was invited to give, by Paul Elam, I think it was, I was invited to give a speech at a men's conference in Detroit.
It was a great speech, by the way.
People should go and watch it.
And beforehand, though, I was informed that That I could go and speak.
I was certainly welcome to come, but it would be understood if I didn't come.
Because there had been a series of bomb threats towards the speakers and the speaking engagement.
Now, I don't mind thunderous sounds when I'm giving a speech.
I just don't like it accompanied with shrapnel.
I don't blame you.
Now, this was not reported on at all.
And there were reporters there, openly hostile to the men's rights movement, who were writing to put it down as much as possible.
And if you can imagine, if men's rights groups had phoned in a bomb threat to a feminist conference, I mean, you understand the difference in sort of media reaction.
It would be insane, hysterical.
There'd be houses of parliament would convene to, you know, it'd be like, I mean, it would be investigations, RCMPL, right?
And this is, so it is not, I think...
To equate these two, you know, one giant government subsidized, infests academia, dominates the arts, dominates media, dominates newspapers, magazines, television shows, gets billions of dollars in funding versus, you know, one in 10,000 guys with a webcam.
I don't think you want to put those two things on the same, in the same scale, if that makes sense.
Yeah, I guess it was maybe just kind of seeing some worrying.
I'm worried that they might go more that way, if that makes sense, like kind of become more hateful and things like that, whereas I just, I really feel like there needs to be mending rather than this sort of discourse.
And that certainly includes feminists.
I mean, I really wish that feminism would just disappear altogether and that we wouldn't need to have these movements.
Well, it will.
I mean, it will.
It will, because when the government runs out of money and feminism faces the market test of female happiness, right now, feminism is funded and it makes women unhappy.
Yeah, absolutely.
It makes women so unhappy.
It says, don't worry about getting married, have a career, don't worry about having children.
Oh dear, you missed your fertility window.
I guess it's cats for you.
Yeah.
And don't worry about being overweight.
You're beautiful if you're 300 pounds.
It's like, nope.
Nope.
I'm sorry.
And Milo points this out.
I'm obviously borrowing from the great golden-haired god of the right.
But the reality is not just, oh, men are visual creatures, like it's somehow shallow.
It's like, no.
Being obese is bad for fertility.
It's bad for childbearing.
It's bad for child-raising.
Nobody wants to have kids with a woman who's going to die at 35 because that's quite a liability.
They're usually not done growing, the kids, by that point.
And nobody wants to spend a year trying to get an obese woman pregnant because her hormones are all out of whack because of obesity.
It's not just men like them slender because we're shallow creatures.
It's like, nope.
It's basic biology as to what men find attractive and what they find attractive is significant fertility markers, which is the whole point.
Of why men are attracted to particular body types and youth and clear skin and clear eyes and lustrous hair and a hip to waist ratio that denotes fertility and even features and signs of good genetics and no pockmarked skin and all of this kind of stuff.
It's all just for...
It's the good gene scanning that is, you know, you'll be being objectified.
It's like, well, yeah, but...
You have the eggs.
So that's how it's going to...
Men are objectified too.
I don't think men feel like society is giving them a massive amount of deep respect for their individuation when it drafts them to go and fight in a war.
Would you rather be objectified by a catcall or get a draft card?
Anyway, that's a topic for another time.
And I agree with you.
Healing would be great.
Healing would be great.
But here's the thing I'm concerned about.
And I'm sorry if this sounds harsh.
But you're taking the usual route here, which is to shame men.
Oh, I don't mean to.
Because you found the most extreme manifestations of male anger, and you're bringing that up.
Oh, the men said women are whores and other things and so on, right?
But that's a shaming of male tactic.
In other words, your approaches, and I'm not criticizing, I'm just pointing it out because it's hard to see when you do it yourself.
But your approach is you have found men doing something wrong and you're shaming a movement by finding men who are doing something wrong.
And I'm going to tell you, MGTOWs see that coming a mile away.
Oh, so you found some crazy MGTOW guy who went on some misogynistic rant and now you're saying, well, this is MGTOW and it needs to be fixed and there is this shaming of men that is involved.
And my question is, why are you taking this approach where you feel free to criticize and shame men?
Why not criticize and shame women?
Well, I don't.
I mean, I give feminism so much shit.
I mean, just every day.
I think there are a bunch of miserable, horrible witches that treat men absolutely horribly.
And I've said, and maybe I haven't said it very well here, that I absolutely understand the grievances that men have.
And I'm very, very much in support of the MRA movement.
I mean, I'm not an activist either way, but if I was, it would certainly be for the MRAs rather than feminism.
I guess that I just feel like feminism has a lot of critical eyes on it, and I haven't seen that much criticism of MGTOW, just kind of my personal experience, probably because they're much smaller.
You haven't seen criticism of MGTOW? No, not that much.
At least not as much as anti-feminist kind of stuff, and that's probably just due to what I watch and Oh, well, I mean, anytime the mainstream media writes about men's movements at all...
I don't watch mainstream media.
No, no, but I understand.
But I mean, then don't say, I don't think there's much...
If you've not researched it, then don't say there's not much criticism.
I mean, the idea that men are not criticized in society, but women are more criticized in society...
You understand that for a man, it's really hard to see that.
Sure.
No, absolutely.
I understand that.
And I mean, I would love to make an anti-feminism channel and speak out about it because I'm not afraid of the herd of angry, blue-haired, nose-pierced, demon, 300-pound feminists coming at me.
I mean, they just don't scare me.
I think that they're all...
Well, you just climb a flight of stairs, right?
Yeah, exactly.
I mean, you're okay.
You're above their predictable range of attacks.
Right.
And I guess it was coming more from a place of caring rather than trying to criticize is that I love men.
I adore men.
I think that they're amazing.
And I think that they tend to have a much higher tolerance for really anything than women do.
You know, they take so much shit that women couldn't Begin to take.
And they take it in stride.
They take it very well.
And it's just...
Not anymore.
Yeah, I know.
I know.
Not anymore.
Not anymore.
It's more out of a place of caring that I don't want to see both sides turn into this kind of war.
And I totally understand if it does.
I mean, it makes sense, like you said, that, you know, the other side of the weight, that feminism has...
No, but...
Come on.
This is my...
I appreciate all of this.
But when you understand that the approach you took...
In this conversation, and I'm not offended, right?
I'm not upset.
I'm just pointing it out.
But once you understand that the approach you took was to take the worst possible manifestation of men and say, I'm worried all men are becoming that way, that's a male-shaming tactic.
Oh, no, no.
I'm not saying all men.
I'm saying specifically the MGTOW movement.
I mean, they can't...
Okay, let's just say specifically the MGTOW movement.
So you took the worst possible element of somebody who calls himself a MGTOW and say, I'm afraid that all the MGTOW men are going that way.
I'm afraid that's...
Based on what evidence?
I mean, a lot of things I've gone through Reddit threads, and I've read some respectful things too, for sure.
I've just read a lot of, as much research as I can do.
And I don't think that they should be immune from criticism.
I mean, should they?
No, but you're taking somebody, I mean, I have to keep repeating the same point, right?
Is that the mainstream...
MGTOWs that I've read or heard about are not saying the kind of things that you found, right?
Sure, sure.
Okay.
But the fact that you would take that and extrapolate it to the movement as a whole is a male-shaming tactic.
Well, I mean, maybe I've experienced something different than you then, potentially.
I mean, if that's not the mainstream of what you've seen, but if it's the mainstream of what I've seen, I mean...
My sample size, I'm sure, is not big enough.
But if you're talking about message boards, that's one thing, right?
You would have to, I think, go to the most popular MGTOW channels on YouTube or other places, and you'd have to listen to a whole bunch of shows.
And, you know, if they were regularly referring to women using the most derogatory and horrifying language, and maybe that had been escalating or increasing, then I think you would have the beginnings of a case, right?
If you're just going and finding stuff that's shocking and then saying, well, this is somehow representative of the direction of the movement as a whole, well, I'm just telling you that's not going to work.
If you want to help the movement, then shaming them for saying, well, there's this crazy MGTOW guy who said all these horrible things and I'm concerned that's where the movement is going as a whole and so we need healing.
No.
I mean, that's not how you reach out to people who are...
Used to that tactic.
And I'm not saying you're deploying it as a tactic sort of consciously, but that's not any way to reach out to people whose one of their fundamental complaints is that men are caricatured, their movement is caricatured, and then shaming language is applied.
Right.
Well, no, and I mean, I saw some of this from, you know, MGTOW 101 and Turd Flinging Monkey and Kind of these big guys in the movement on their YouTube channels.
And that's why, I mean, if it had been one or two things, it's, you know, whatever.
But it's sort of one of these things that just I noticed as being a little bit of a norm in the big YouTube channels and on the message boards and kind of anywhere that I could find it.
Right.
And so that's just what made me concerned.
And I'm not trying to say that MGTOW is this big woman-hating movement who, you know, hates all women in general because they don't have a leader.
They don't have a, you know, sort of a core central kind of thing like feminism, which does and which absolutely does hate men and wants to shame men and destroy men.
And I just I guess just out of my own fear, I don't want to see MGTOW go that way because they do have such good points.
You know, they do have such great points with the horrible divorce, you know, the entire divorce court and families and all of these things.
And I agree with them so much on all of that.
Um.
So it was just kind of a concern that I had because I really do want to help and I want to try to make things better in some way.
And I'm not really sure how to do that.
And I know certainly, I mean, priority number one is abolish feminism because it's horrible.
What do you mean by abolish feminism?
Well, the movement as a whole.
I wish that feminism would just go away.
But abolish how?
I don't know.
Okay, that's sort of important, right?
Yeah, I don't know how.
That's the problem.
I wish that women could kind of wake up and see all the wonderful things that men do for them.
Oh, they will.
They will.
I mean, and then, you know, this is where I think that you and I can reach, I think, some significant agreement that women will see all the wonderful things men do for them once the state stops forcing men to do them for them.
Sure.
Absolutely.
Right?
Yeah.
I mean, when the state runs out of money and women can't get what they want by calling people misogynists, right?
Yeah.
Because this is kind of the way it works, right?
Yeah.
It's that women or their representatives, the more extreme, it's not all women of course, but the more extreme representatives of feminism will just scream rape culture, will scream misogyny, will scream woman hater, will whatever it is, right?
And then they get what they want.
Because when there's a huge amount of resources in society and the welfare state and borrowing and the tax revenues and debt and deficits and bonds and all of that creates this illusion of infinite resources.
Now when you have infinite resources...
Think of it like your kids love carrots.
You're sitting on a mountain of carrots and one kid is screaming for carrots.
What do you do?
You give them a carrot.
Yeah.
Right?
Because why not?
Yeah.
It's not bad for them and you have more than enough carrots and you don't like it when they scream at you.
So when there's a situation or a system where the appearance is of infinite resources, then appeasement is the rational course of action.
Right.
Now when...
You're running low on food, and one of your kids complains that he's hungry, and you've got a long way, let's say you're evolving, right?
You've got a long way to go, it's winter, you've got a long way to go till spring, Well, now, just giving the whiniest kid food doesn't make any sense because your resources are limited.
So, as long as there is infinite resources or the appearance thereof, then you'll have all the dis appeasement.
And what it does is it breeds the worst behavior among the worst people, right?
The most tantrums, the most abuse, the most, you know, the old squeaky wheel gets the grease, right?
So, if you create the most trouble for people, because there's infinite resources, they'll just peel off one of these infinite dollar bills and shove them your way to shut you up, right?
Right.
But when resources run out...
Well, then feminism won't have anything to say.
Do you think it'll take until that point?
Because the actual need for men to provide resources to women directly and voluntarily will reassert itself.
So, I mean, don't worry about feminism or banning feminism.
I mean, that's all going to...
That's all going to fall apart.
I mean, that's inevitable.
I mean, this can't possibly be sustained.
So I wouldn't worry about feminism as a whole.
The question is, I guess, I mean, if you want healing, because this is the interesting thing, right?
Like, if you want healing between the genders, I guess my concern, which I sort of feel like I'm circling back to remind you of, if you want healing between the genders, Then saying that men who are very concerned with gender relations are somehow all equivalent to men who call women see you next Tuesday words and whores and things like that, I don't know that that's promoting a huge amount of healing, if that makes any sense.
You know, well, here's some crazy evil misogynist guy, and I'm concerned that all of MGTOW is going that way, but I want healing between the genders.
It's like, well, then why are you picking some crazy evil guy and saying he's representative of a whole movement if you want healing between the genders?
Yeah.
Well, I mean, it wasn't, like I said, it wasn't just one guy, but I definitely see your point in how that's not productive.
So I guess I'm trying to figure out what is productive.
Do you think it will take until the state runs out of money?
Or, I mean, can society not figure out that all of this is negative and discourage it, you know, before the state runs out of money, for example?
I mean, the relationships between the genders or gender relations are at, I think, a historic low for all of Western civilization.
I actually think that relationships were better between the genders during the Salem Witch Trials than they are right now.
I agree.
And the reason is that this is one of the main reasons is that these these endless disproven allegations of rape or sexual misconduct or whatever it is.
Right.
Sexually predatory behavior and so on.
I mean, these allegations, they're coming fast and furious.
And so many of them are being discredited that basically I think a lot of men are saying, well, OK, so the end result of all of this talking about rape culture and patriarchy and male privilege, the result has been to weaponize.
Western women against Western men.
And that is that is terrifying for men.
I mean, a false allegation is life-destroying, can be life-destroying.
Yeah, there's the guy who killed himself over that false accusation at, I can't remember the university, but yeah, I mean, he committed suicide over something that she admitted was false and nothing happened to her.
And that blows my mind too.
Yeah, of course, rationally, if you falsely accuse someone of something, you should get the punishment they would have gotten otherwise.
That would be a rational and just solution.
But of course, that can't happen.
I mean, what happened to the women who withheld significant information from the police in the John Gomeshi trial up here in Canada?
Nothing.
Nothing.
Right.
No perjury, no obstruction of justice, no lying to the cops, nothing.
Yeah.
And every single one of these things that happens.
And we see, of course, what is it now?
Twelve women who says Trump has grabbed them or groped them or whatever.
I don't believe a single one.
The last few weeks before I held my silence for 34 years and then right before the election, I thought it was a fantastic idea to speak out.
And, you know, the porn star who said he grabbed.
I don't believe a single one of them.
I don't even know what to say.
No, I don't give those any credence at all.
I'm a dancer.
He looked at me.
Anyway, so all of this stuff is being very well noted by men.
Yeah.
And what they're noting is that female instability, which is not to say all women are unstable, but those women who are unstable exist as a weapon against a successful man.
Mm-hmm.
So if you're doing something, if you become very prominent, and you're doing something the left doesn't like, then they have the capacity to find women to accuse you of terrible things.
That, at least according to Trump, never ever happened.
And I think there's significant indications that these women, not all these women, are fully on the up and up.
Right.
And so, women now have been weaponized against successful men.
And not even successful men, just any men.
If the powers that be don't like you, Then they can weaponize women against you and maybe you'll clear your name eventually or maybe not or whatever, right?
But, you know, the internet is forever.
And so, I mean, you can get even, you can be accused of sexual misconduct for women like you may never even have met them.
Right, right.
You know, 15 years ago, you have no memory of this person, and she says, you did this.
You know, it might have been you or a camera bag that bumped me in the lower back at a Ray Charles concert so many years ago, right?
But the Ray Charles concert never happened, and so on, right?
So this is a witch hunt.
And the only way I think that this thing can be solved before the state runs out of money Is for women to work to destroy the social status of women who falsely accuse.
Because men are looking at it and saying, okay, well, we can't solve this problem because if we attack these women, we're afraid that all the women will attack us back for being misogynist because we're treating women like equals.
In other words, we're treating them the way we treat men.
Right.
But if women got together and said, okay, sister, you falsely accused a man, that could have been my husband, that could have been my son, that could have been my brother.
Oh, and by the way, if you continue to falsely accuse men, if I or my daughter or my sister or my mother is ever sexually assaulted and we try and tell people, they won't believe us because of what you people are doing.
And so we are now going to work to take you down.
Right, absolutely.
I mean, that's what the left does, right?
And this is what the alt-right is doing now, is they finally understand that there's no point fighting clean with people who are fighting dirty.
Right, exactly.
And I totally agree with that.
So if there's a movement among women to say, no, no, no, no, no.
Sexual assault against women is not to be used as a political tool.
It's not to be used as a tool of social control or political advantage.
It is absolutely heinous to use men's sympathy for women in order to destroy men.
Because men are very attached to Donald Trump, white men in particular, very attached to Donald Trump.
And they see women trying to take him down, weaponized women trying to take him down.
And do they see other women going out there and digging up all the dirt and the facts?
No!
It's other men in general who are doing that.
The feminists aren't sitting there saying, whoa, sister, don't you start swinging around that club of sexual impropriety.
Without facts, without proof, we're going to check you out.
And if we find out that your story doesn't hold together, if we find out that facts aren't the way that you present them, you are in big trouble.
I don't mean that they're going to sue them or anything.
I just mean that, you know, they attack.
You know, the first caller was talking about, well, you know, we're going to contact your employer.
We're going to boycott your company.
If women are going to do that, well, then men might look and say, wow, some women get it.
Some women really understand it.
And some women...
We care enough about men that they're going to work to shield us from unstable, weaponized women aimed at us by the left.
Absolutely.
And I think that's so important.
And I think that women who go against feminism get attacked really hard also.
And I think that's why a lot of women are kind of afraid to do that.
But they need to not be and to speak out against it.
And, you know, I... I wanted to call into you and speak out against feminism and this kind of stuff as well.
And I guess I'm just, yeah, I've been trying to figure out how the best way to go about bringing the sexes together because gender relations are just so bad.
And it is going to take a lot of women coming together against this movement in particular and, you know, feminism.
And I just, it's just kind of so overwhelming.
I just don't know How to fix it.
And it's not, I know it's not all up to me to fix it.
Well, I just gave you a solution.
Right, right, for sure.
You don't have to take it.
But, you know, when I say, if you want to get to town ABC, head north, and then you say, well, I have no idea how to get to town ABC. I'm like, well, I did just say something.
You may not want to do it.
You may have another approach.
But there's one solution, which is to get a whole bunch of women together.
Like, I remember listening to the Honey Badgers once.
Karen Strawn and others whose names escaped me and they were talking about a man whose ex-wife had accused him of rape and it was only fortunately that he ended up with an alibi and then I think she accused him again and she got the date wrong and he was out of town and then she accused him again and basically he could not be alone.
He could go to the bathroom alone if someone's standing outside the door.
He could never be alone because he always needed an alibi.
Yeah, no, I love them.
And I listen to them all the time as well.
I think they're fantastic.
So maybe just pushing that a little further and trying to get as many women as possible to nut up, so to speak, and speak out against all of this.
Yeah, people either stop because things become impossible or if you want to do it more proactively, people stop when there are negative consequences for what they're doing.
Sure.
And the last...
Right now, what are the negative consequences?
Like this mattress girl just got an award.
Still celebrated.
Blows my mind.
Still celebrated.
Astonishing.
Yeah.
No, it boggles me.
And so, you know, they get lots of rewards for it, right?
Now, Donald Trump is going to hide...
Sorry, Donald Trump is talking about suing these women after he becomes president.
Mm-hmm.
Well...
I think that's consequences, right?
Maybe that will make women think twice about next time.
Of course the police should be in pursuit of women who falsely accused a man of rape.
Absolutely.
And they should be charged.
Yeah, maybe he should start carrying a mattress around with him too.
Yeah, maybe.
Maybe.
Maybe it would help, I don't know.
But yeah, so those would be my suggestions.
Okay.
Women, men, in my opinion, I obviously can't speak for all men, but what I'm going to sort of imagine is that men would like to see women organize themselves to bring negative social consequences, you know, all legal, all peaceful and so on, but bring negative social consequences to destructive women.
Okay, absolutely.
And because right now, the people who are investigating these allegations of sexual misconduct from women, they're all men.
And the people who are broadcasting it in general are all men.
And it would be fantastic, I think, for men to see a whole bunch of women get together and say, no, no, no, this has got to stop now because this is discrediting women, this is discrediting genuine allegations of sexual impropriety, and this is alienating men, and men can't fight this battle because if men try and fight this battle, all these people will...
Scream that they're misogynists, which is going to be tougher to pin on women.
Right.
Absolutely.
No, I totally, totally agree with you.
And I'd like to start kind of getting more involved and being more proactive than I have been.
And you can contact, right?
I'm sure Girl Writes What, Karen Strawn or...
Some of the fine women at the Canadian outlets, the Rebel Media, Lauren Southern and others, would be happy to give you tips.
And you can get started.
You can just start the process yourself.
And now is the time.
I'm not just waiting for the state to readjust itself when it runs out of money.
I'm trying to get as soft landing as possible so that people understand what happened and can do something better.
Right.
And I appreciate everything you do and I watch your show all the time and I appreciate you giving me the advice that you did.
And thank you for the call.
I really, really appreciate it.
It was really delightful for me, and I hope that you'll call back in once you discover and can help herself.
Oh, I'd love to.
I'll probably end up staying anonymous and be terrified of being, you know, fired and all of that.
But I will definitely call back in once I've made some progress, and hopefully we can have another conversation and talk about all this.
I'd love that.
Thanks so much for your call.
Great.
Yeah, thanks, Stefan.
All right, take care.
You too.
Alright, up next we have David.
David wrote in and said, Why has the anti-war left been absent since 2008?
Where is the left that will speak out against Hillary Clinton?
Is it possible that these questions may be answered in the philosophical realm?
It seems to me that progressive ideology, or regressive ideology, doesn't go through the same intellectual rigors as others, an example being the libertarian non-aggression principle.
That is from David.
Well, hello David.
How are you doing tonight?
I'm doing quite well.
How are you doing?
I'm well.
Now, is this a serious question?
Why 2008?
That's a pretty specific year there, David, as to when the anti-war left vanished.
I don't know.
What do you think it might have been?
Before we get started, though, I have to let you and Michael know that I'm having a glass of Reggio in celebration of the FBI finding their balls possibly.
And let's hope with this new oversight that they're not going to grant everyone immunity under the sun and destroy all of the evidence.
I don't think they will.
I don't think they will.
I mean, I know, and we can talk about this just very briefly.
I know you've got another question, but I don't think they will.
I think this is serious stuff.
I think that James Comey is not going to do it twice.
Why bother?
What I think is interesting is that they never actually formally closed the Hillary Clinton investigation.
So I think that I think information has I think two things have happened.
One, I think information has come out that is forcing the FBI's hand.
Good.
And number two, I think knowing that information is going to come out means that Donald Trump's going to win.
Now, if that information comes out, which humiliates the FBI and Donald Trump wins, Donald Trump is going to launch an investigation into the investigation and say, what the hell happened?
Because he's going to want to do...
He's a law and order candidate, right?
So he's going to want to do everything he can to restore people's faith in the FBI. And by God, if that means cleaning house, he's going in there with a Herculean fire hose, right?
That's not even a phallic analogy, right?
He's going to go in and clean house.
And so I think that they realized that the information was coming out.
Now, whether it comes out through...
WikiLeaks, whether they found this, I think they took the computer that Uma Abedin and Anthony Weiner were sharing, to which I can only say, ew, dude, I do not want to touch that keyboard.
I'll bring my own Bluetooth.
I'll bring a little ball-peen hammer to tap things into it.
I'm not touching the keyboard.
I don't even want to touch the screen.
In fact, you know what?
Let's just, no, I don't even want to touch any of that computer.
I mean, Anthony Weiner wants to sell you a computer.
Don't.
Don't buy it.
You'll be lucky if it's a virus that Kaspersky can find, because most likely it's going to be something else that's going to make your brain fall out your nose, Nietzsche style.
Right.
Hopefully this computer doesn't get destroyed now, because it's kind of investigated under two different investigations now, so they can't possibly say, well, we destroyed it, and sabotage the Anthony Weiner investigation as well.
And this is the weird thing.
I mean, I've said it's Trump or the dearth of Western civilization, right?
So isn't it strange that Western civilization might actually have been saved by a totally degenerate pervert?
God bless him.
God bless that man's unholy impulses.
I'm absolutely, incredibly, and totally sorry that a 15-year-old was involved, and that's heinous at every conceivable level.
But goddamn, what a twist.
I mean, this is like M. Night Shyamalan when he used to write decent movies.
I mean, the kind of twist, right?
This is like, whoa, dude.
Didn't see that coming at all.
It's unbelievable.
And it's just the climax of everyone in the United States of being, what the fuck?
She didn't get indicted?
And now this?
It's like, I don't know.
Right.
So I don't know.
You know, they've got these emails.
Maybe they prove intent.
Maybe there's just a whole bunch of them.
Maybe there's, I mean, I don't know.
I don't know.
I know of some people who are of the opinion that this is all going to shake out before the election.
I don't think so.
I don't know.
The FBI moves at a glacial pace.
And I don't know that it really matters.
Because at this point, anybody who's like, hey, now she's under investigation again.
Why?
Because her aide's husband was a creepy pervert whose sex did rape fantasies that a 15-year-old girl he knew was underage.
Yeah, let's give these people power to the White House.
That sounds like a really, really great idea.
These women have great taste, by the way.
I don't know.
These women on the left, I don't know.
Maybe there's a reason they kind of adopt this social justice warrior mentality.
They're kind of going for these type of gentlemen.
Well, I mean, it's our selected behavior on every conceivable level.
These people are our selected infestations in the body politic, and it is something that is fairly, I think, understandable from that lens.
But no, I don't think...
I mean, I know some people are like, oh, she's going to get away with it again, and so on.
I don't think so.
I think this is...
This is going to cost her the election.
And if it doesn't cost her the election, then there was no chance anyway.
Like, it was all just a pipe dream.
I mean if American society has I think largely through third world immigration degenerated to the point where people are willing to vote for a woman who's now under a second FBI investigation because her closest aides ex-husband or husband I think they're in the process of getting divorced.
The computer was seized because of a sexting rape fantasies to a – I mean come on.
I mean, if this is who you want in the White House, America was a banana republic a generation ago.
We just didn't notice it until now.
Consideration also is Obama's on his way out.
What is his legacy going to be remembered by?
War with Russia and pardoning Hillary Clinton.
Oh yeah, the only way they can get away from this, the only way they can get away with this is to start a war.
And that, of course, is the big concern at the moment.
I don't think that they'll be able to postpone an election because of this.
But yeah, they will.
The usual with this kind of stuff, it is usually a...
It is usually a starting of the war.
Is if they found irrefutable proof that she'd committed perjury, that she'd lied to investigators, that she'd hidden emails or blocked, obstructed justice or whatever.
But again, as far as I know, again, I'm not a lawyer, but as far as I know, the evidence for that is already pretty clear.
So I don't think they're going to try and get her on that.
It's not the crime, it's the cover-up usually that gets people.
I mean, that's what it was with Nixon and others, but...
And let me just say, if Obama does pardon her, let's say between Election Day and January when Trump takes office, that they do charge her and Obama pardons her, it's not like there's a dearth of crimes that you can accuse the Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, the Clinton Foundation, and the whole mess of them with.
I mean, we just had Charles Ortel on the show going through the murky details of the Clinton Foundation's legality, and there's enough stuff even beyond the email situation to look at the Clintons for.
Precisely.
Sorry.
I think you have to give immunity or you have to give a pardon for something specific, right?
It can't be like everything.
It's Oprah.
Everyone gets a pardon!
We're going to give a preemptive pardon to anything she's possibly done ever.
That would be nice.
Right.
No, I mean, so if she gets charged for one thing and he pardons her, well, okay.
Don't worry.
There'll be another charge along here in about eight minutes.
So that's fine.
That's fine.
No, I think, you know, it could be.
Now, of course, the big challenge, as I mentioned in the video I put out today, and thanks everyone for your kind words about my singing.
I appreciate that.
It's very nice.
But it's going to lead to Obama.
And then what?
And then what?
Is she going off the counter?
I don't know.
I don't know.
Get the passport.
I don't know, but I'm a former military member and I've had a top secret SCI clearance.
The briefings you get and when you're going to the security clearance, it's quite clear.
It's not ambiguous what's going to happen to you if you reveal this type of information.
This is what blows my mind and among others in the military community.
It's not like this is just, well, it was an accident.
You know what's classified.
You know what's not.
It's insane.
Yes, no, and we've heard from other people inside the internet, it's just become a running gag.
Yeah.
Like, people would say, oh, this is, you know, this is super classified information.
Other people are like, yeah, just email it to my Gmail account, you know, I'll keep it there, you know, just making jokes, obviously, because it's just become so ridiculous.
And I think that Comey was facing a near revolt in the FBI. Well, let's hope so.
Yeah, among the agents who...
Who just couldn't believe that she wouldn't get charged.
And of course, there was that weird moment where he says, you know, negligence is no excuse.
And then, you know, he gives the exact definition of negligence, says that's exactly what she did, and said, well, that's the excuse.
And that was just like, weird.
And everybody else may be on the hook to be punished for it.
Right, right.
This has not set any kind of precedent.
Really?
Well, then doesn't that mean that it's not a good ruling?
Anyway.
So, no, it's really, really interesting.
And it's actually, you know, it's enjoyable to watch the mainstream media do all the backflips they can.
Very much so.
So, thank you.
I mean, these people, I mean, you know, talk about backing the wrong horse, you know.
But to tie this back into my question, since I've somewhat derailed us for the last 10 minutes, just to give you a little bit of background on the question, where I'm coming from.
So I've had multiple conversations with liberals.
Presently, I'm going to university at University of Houston.
It's not the most liberal place, but you can find the Social Justice Warriors.
They're running around with green hair.
It's not hard.
So I've had conversations with liberals voting for Clinton.
The best they can give me is Donald is a racist and misogynist.
So, you know, being a veteran, I try and raise the war issue with these people.
We know war destroys human life, that they agree with, and that should be the easiest.
Good.
I'm glad they get that far.
So they've made that step, but that should be the easiest moral case I can make against Clinton, but it doesn't work.
If you can't appeal to someone's humanity, I don't know how the economic arguments of the misallocation of capital in a war economy and engineers learning to build bombs instead of inventing new things is going to work.
Since these type of arguments fall on deaf ears, I'm beginning to suspect that there isn't an anti-war left at all, but maybe that these protests we saw during the Bush years were simply some kind of DNC, Soros, Project Barita-style conspiracy.
Your thoughts are...
No, it's not that.
I mean, maybe they are all those things, of course, right?
But, I mean, you understand that the left doesn't care about anti-war.
They care about anti-Republican, right?
Right.
I mean, the left doesn't care about women.
They care about women who vote for the left.
Because if you're a woman on the right, you can have the most vile abuse hurled at you by just about everyone in sight, and nobody will care.
I mean, look at the...
Names Ann Coulter gets called and Michelle Bachmann and Margaret Thatcher and Sarah Palin.
They don't care about women any more than they...
They don't care about diversity.
They don't care about minorities.
They don't care about blacks.
They don't care about Hispanics.
They just care about power.
And if you're a woman on the right, you threaten that power and you can be subject to any kind of abuse that you want.
If you're a gay on the right, you can be subject to any kind of abuse and that's perfectly fine.
And if you're a black and you're on the right...
Well, they'll make up sexual allegations against you and slander you and all that.
They don't care about blacks.
All they care about is people who vote for them.
And they'll just pander to those people and attack.
And it's got nothing to do with black, white, nothing to do with male, female, nothing to do with minority, majority, nothing to do with any of that stuff.
All they care about is, is this going to get me a vote so that I can satisfy my cocaine-like addiction to bonobo monkey hierarchy power?
That's all it's about.
It's very, very simple.
So yeah, I mean, Soros, I guess, is part of all the funding and all that kind of crap that goes on, but life gets a lot simpler when you stop listening to what people say and just look at what they do.
And the left has no record of being pro-black in any way, shape, or form.
I mean, the media protected Bill Cosby for years, for decades, right?
All of these allegations flowing out about the guy.
They covered them up and protected them until, oh dear, oh dear, Bill, You started talking about blacks and the responsibility that blacks could take in fixing their own communities and so on, right?
Now, one may desire for a slightly more credible source to these reasonable ideas.
However, once he took that route, the media protection lifted, right?
Once he was no longer promoting leftist policies and leftist solutions, well, the media protection lifted and, well, we all know what happened.
After that, and Clarence Thomas and Herman Cain and all that, I mean, these things are constantly trotted out by the left, these sort of attacks and so on.
And so, the important thing is they just care about people who vote for them.
And they don't even care about those people, they just care about the votes.
And whatever they have to say to get the votes, that's fine.
And if you're in part of a sort of, quote, protected group, But you're on the right while you're interfering with them getting those votes, and therefore your ass is crass.
As they would say, I'm sure.
I don't mean to startle you with something close to an expletive.
As a military man, I know your ears are very sensitive.
My virgin ears.
I must lie down for a moment or two.
Man, I'm a college student.
I'm terribly triggered right now.
Right, right.
But hopefully not jiggled.
So, no, the anti-war left, it was simply the anti-Bush left.
That's all, which is why they all evaporated when Obama got into power, because they used war as a way of attacking the Republicans, and then when the attack had achieved what they wanted to achieve, which was the installation of Barack Obama into the seat of power, well then, they didn't care about war anymore, because they never did.
Right.
At the time, I was in the military, so I deployed to Iraq.
Let me give you a little background real quick.
Maybe that would be the most appropriate.
Yeah, please do.
Growing up, I thought I was a liberal for the longest time because I was basically raised by my mother, and my father was kind of absent.
He was a military man, but they'd force young.
Well, one of my earliest voting...
Wait.
Extensive female influence ends up on the left.
I know.
Isn't this bizarre?
Never heard of that before.
Gosh, let me make a note.
No, I'm just kidding.
I mean, we all think we're individuals to some degree until we become individuals.
We're actually just stereotypes.
But anyway, go on.
I think it's called growing up.
I don't know what it is.
Yeah, yeah.
So...
Just to delve into this a little bit more, my earliest voting memory was my grandmother, who's a former Brit coming to America, and my mother taking me voting in the 90s election.
And who were they voting for?
Of course, Bill Clinton.
And me being a small young kid, they asked me, who are you voting for?
You know, just like out of a...
Like, out of economy show.
I'm like, Bill Clinton, because he's cool, you know, just swept into that whole Democrat.
That's what the Democrats are all about, is that whole cool image, you know, no real substance.
So that's one of my earliest memories.
But my father and mother were both military, so they kind of steered me along that path.
So I went in.
So I was basically a Democrat in the military.
Found myself in Iraq in 2008.
And I was actually red-pilled by a fellow veteran in Iraq.
He gave me Ron Paul's book.
So that's how I woke up.
And I've been reading ever since.
Ron Paul has some good books.
He does.
And you grow a conscience in the military and you get out.
And in 2011, in your last year, Hillary Clinton starts bombing Libya.
You know?
It's been a growth story ever since.
But what was interesting when I was in the military is there's a lot of I'm going to call them patriots who completely disagree with the American empire but they're not vocal about it and it blows my mind why they wouldn't either leave or at least speak out because you have all these officers coming out to support Trump but you hear nothing from the enlisted guy you know the poor kid who's a A private in the army that supports Gary Johnson or Donald Trump because he's against the warfare state.
Why do you think that is?
Why would they support Gary Johnson, like the younger enlisted people?
And why aren't they being hurt?
The officers are free to come out and speak for Donald Trump, and you hear no one basically come out and support Hillary Clinton.
Why isn't the military having more of a voice in this election, do you think?
It's pretty powerful for the military to come out and say we're against the warfare state.
Yes.
Yes.
Well, why do you not think that happens?
I mean, I have a couple of thoughts, but you're the guy who's been in this situation.
I think the military came in under the guise that this is something patriotic we're doing.
And we are actually defending the Constitution only to find out later that we're just part of an empire.
And I suspect, and I've had a couple conversations, of course it's anecdotal, but I've had a couple conversations with guys that are still in, and the reason they haven't got out is because simply they have kids and they have credit card debt, so they can't afford a conscience.
Right, right.
Yeah, I mean, there is that aspect as well.
And the military, at least according to some of the military men that I've talked to, and I just had an interview with Eric Prince, the former head of Blackwater, and...
The military has been taken over by a bunch of namby-pamby social justice warrior whiny cry-bullies.
And, I mean, this may not come as a shock to you, but this is what I've heard repeatedly in my conversations with military men and women in the course of this show, that fighting strength has been sacrificed for quotas, and let's make everyone feel good and feel included.
And you have a bunch of incompetent people It's been a pretty good observation.
But anyway, yeah, I got out for quite a number of reasons.
Libya was just pretty much the last straw.
It was so blatant that it was unconstitutional what we were doing.
At the time, I was in a drone program, and we were providing support.
Poor Libya.
How anyone can support that is beyond me.
Hillary Clinton, you know, she denies involvement in Syria, too.
I think you can make a pretty strong case that Hillary Clinton and her little operatives were in Syria at the time in 2011.
What was it during the debate?
I think she said that she had nothing to do with Syria.
She said that she was out.
Yeah.
But she wasn't.
No.
She wasn't.
She said it was regarding the line in the sand.
And she said she was out when it was decided.
No.
She was out when it was tested.
She wasn't out when it was decided.
Right.
And the entire world staggered back in shock that out of Hillary Clinton's mouth a falsehood could arise.
I was blown away myself.
Shocked.
Shocked that lying is occurring.
In this holy tongue mouth.
So, anyway.
Yeah, so the military does have a powerful voice.
I think that voice has largely been silenced.
And I've made this case before.
Social justice warriors don't get into an organization because they want to improve it, but because they want to destroy it.
And that is a challenge.
Now, what do people do?
Well, you know, maybe it won't come to this, but...
If it was going to be a real close election, maybe it is.
I mean, maybe people will just skate over this whole second FBI investigation thing.
I don't think so.
I mean, some people will, of course, right?
But to me, it comes down to one of these you're-now-dead-to-me conversations, right?
Like, if someone is like, yeah, I really want Hillary Clinton because, you know, we just need millions of more Middle Eastern migrants and we need open borders and we need amnesty and we need this and we need that, it's like, you're dead to me.
To me, it would have to be one of those situations, and I would definitely go to the wall as far as that was concerned if I was in America, but we don't exercise the power of social ostracism enough, but we should.
Anyway, sorry, you were going to say?
I was just going to ask you something.
So, I'm in college, so I'm exposed to a couple young ladies around, and there was one I approached a couple days ago, and she said she was voting for...
So, I'd like to...
Just to give you...
I like to find a woman's politics just so I get a feel for her, just to weed her out.
She said she was voting for Clinton.
How do you even respond to that when a young college girl tells you she's voting for Clinton and she doesn't buy the anti-war position?
What do you use against a young person?
She doesn't buy it?
No, she doesn't.
What do you mean?
Is it on eBay?
I hate that phrase, I don't buy it.
Fuck you.
Is it true or not?
Yeah.
I don't buy it.
It's not a marketplace.
Two and two is four.
I don't buy it.
It's just a way of saying, I don't want to believe it and facts won't move me.
It is a marketplace.
Okay, how pretty was she?
She was damn pretty and she was an engineer.
So that's why...
Yeah, she's got as many thirsty men around as you see in comments on a Lauren Southern video, right?
So she doesn't have to have any reality whatsoever because she's got golden eggs.
So, I mean, the idea of bringing reality to women with golden eggs who aren't already committed to reality, right?
Lots of attractive women on the right and attractive women into reason and evidence and gorgeous women into reason and evidence.
But if she's not committed to reason and evidence, and she's gorgeous, and she's in a thirsty sea of hungry penises, then of course, I mean, there's no reality.
I mean, if you don't want to offer her up reality, she'll just go to the next guy who'll lie to her tits while staring at her ass, right?
Right.
Well, it is worth my time simply for the troll, I guess.
So maybe I'll pursue that for the next couple days just to entertain myself.
So, to my original question, It seems that the left is kind of like abandoning the liberal tradition of the West.
I'm talking about starting from Aquinas' just war theory, you know, authority of the sovereign, a just cause, and rightful intention.
Even Christians, the neoconservative Christians, quote, you know, kind of abandoning the sixth commandment, thou shalt not kill.
Any thoughts on that?
Right.
Well...
Morality and addiction are antonyms, right?
Not only do they not go hand in hand, they're opposites.
I mean, have you ever known somebody really addicted to...
It could be to falsehoods, could be to a substance, could be to whatever, right?
Have you ever known a real addict?
Yes.
Right.
Well, I'm sorry about that, because that's not good.
It's not good to know.
And when it comes to knowing an addict...
Did you find that they were, is the addict able to be honest?
Not usually.
It was a, you know, a train of lies after, you know, one card after another.
Yeah, because the addict is only angling to get the addiction satisfied.
Right, the monkey on the back, the splinter in the mind's eye.
All they're doing, everything is just, I mean, when they want their drug, right?
And Everything is focused, and there's no morality possible when somebody is addicted.
Addiction to me is a form of possession.
And I'm not trying to say that the addicts are all evil, and I subscribe to and have had on the show Gabor Mate, whose book, In the Realm of Hungry Ghosts, is really, really worth a read around this.
And addicts are traumatized, and we've got the bombinthebrain.com for more on this to get the facts about it, which I recorded some years ago.
But they can't be moral, because the addiction is overcoming everything.
They're not in a state of free will.
And so when it comes to Politicians, Trump accepted.
He's auditioning for being a politician.
He's not a politician.
He's a candidate, yet not a politician.
But they're all addicted to power.
And this is true on the left and it's true on the right.
And because they're addicted to power, they need to keep shoring up their pitifully crumbling pseudo-personalities with more and more power.
with more and more people who want them to give them a benefit, or they want people to kiss their ring.
They just, you know, when the soul dies, the vacuum it creates is filled up by power lust, particularly power lust in politics.
So when you say, well, you know, these politicians or these people who, you know, they seem to be ignoring the thou shall not kill, well, how many addicts do you know who are able to fulfill thou shall not bear false witness, thou shall not steal?
Very few.
So once you're dealing with an addict, moral standards should never be assumed.
In fact, amorality, pragmatic manipulation should be all that is assumed.
And that's the way, prior to Trump, that I approached politicians as a whole.
And it seemed to be a pretty good and certain way of approaching things that provided a lot of accuracy.
I'm actually really critical of Christians that do not abide by the anti-war tradition.
It seems pretty clear in the Bible.
I'm not a religious person myself, but I enormously respect any Christian who abides by the just war theory, for example.
There's a reason you go to war, self-defense only.
And it seems to me that the church has been co-opted by this neoconservatism, this military worship, and I've been really adamant to speak out against it.
Right.
Well, and at the same time, you know, bringing cultures into Europe, or as far as the Pope goes, bringing cultures into Europe that might create the kind of conflict that you certainly wouldn't want to have the military involved in, but maybe.
So, yeah, it is a huge problem.
Christianity has, in some ways, lost some of its roots.
And it's funny, you know, because the caller earlier was saying, I have a surprising number of Christian followers.
And...
I'm less surprised every day.
I just recorded an interview with Ivan Thranholm, a European journalist who was talking about Christian values, and to me it was hard to disagree with a lot of those things.
I have more in common with moral Christians than leftist atheists or nihilists and all of that, or hedonists, the libertarians and so on.
And so from that standpoint, I can...
I can really see how Christianity has, you know, also been—I mean, it's been beaten up so long by the social justice warriors and the leftists and the communists and the secularists and so on and the atheists that I think it is having trouble finding its feet.
And if Christianity finding its feet is what is necessary to save Western civilization, take me to church!
Right?
I mean, that's, you know, this is a whatever-it-takes situation.
Right.
Another thing I noticed was, in speaking to the Liberals in the military, I work in oil and gas offshore, so a big complaint in the industry is that we don't have enough engineers and we can't find competent people, so we need H-1B visas.
I think this ties in a lot to the military industrial complex where you have these companies north of Brumman and L3 coming in and basically sucking up the best young minds in the industry to build bombs rather than innovative technologies in the economy.
I think it's a huge problem and that's the reason they're bringing in a lot of these high-skilled workers rather than Americans being put to productive use.
Because a lot of the regulations require Americans to be involved in the technologies.
So I think this is something that we really need to address.
Yeah, well, I mean, the opportunity costs of the military-industrial complex are enormous.
Yeah, because you're right.
I mean, everybody who is...
Building stuff to kill people and destroy things is not building stuff to make them happy and more productive.
And it is one of these things that you don't see it until it's not there.
And then you wonder why the economy is doing so well.
So, yeah, they called it the peace dividend in the 90s, which lasted, I think, about eight minutes.
But, yeah, it is one of these really, really...
Wait, we didn't have an era of peace during Bill Clinton, Stephen?
A little bit.
A little bit.
I mean, he only had to bomb a couple of aspirin factories during the Monica Lewinsky hearing.
I was actually massing this out, and Clinton was involved in Serbia, Timor, Afghanistan, Sudan, Iraq, Bosnia, Kuwait, Haiti.
The list goes on and on of Democrat wars.
It's unbelievable how this anti-war left is so hypocritical.
Oh, America has as a whole been at war for all but, what, 12 years of its entire history, in one form or another?
Certainly not one year of my entire life.
Right, right.
Which is pretty sad.
I'm 29.
America's been at war every single year of my entire life.
Let's keep that in perspective.
Right, and I think that outside of the work on ISIS, I think that Trump is going to be a peacetime president.
One thing I do like about Trump is his skepticism of international alliances and how they get you entangled in these conflicts.
That's why I actually yesterday We'll be voting for Trump.
I was a Gary Johnson fan, but I'm in Texas.
I no longer have that luxury because the polls are so close.
So I would be voting for Trump.
Right.
Right.
Well, and you haven't as yet, though, right?
I think you were saying that.
Not yet.
Right.
Right.
Okay.
Okay.
Well, good.
I don't have much more to add.
I appreciate the call.
I appreciate everyone's calls.
As always, it is a great highlight of my week to chat with the Borg brain of Free Domain Radio and those who listen to it.
Appreciate and enjoy reason, evidence, philosophy, truth, virtue, and all the good things that we bring together as a community.
Please help us out.
Help us continue to do the great work that we're doing in this run-up to the most important election I think that's ever going to happen in history, past, present, or future.
Unless, of course, we end up voting for whether to join the Federation.
And you can help us out at freedomandradio.com slash donate.
You can, of course, follow me on Twitter at Stefan Molyneux.
And you can use our affiliate link at fdrurail.com slash amazon.com.
FDR podcast to like and share the shows.
Thanks everyone so much for listening, for watching, for supporting, for donating, for being the generally awesome audience and listeners and friends that you are.
