April 30, 2017 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
01:17:23
3669 True News: Week In Review - April 30th, 2017
0:00 – Earth Day/Climate March/Old Doomsday Predictions 24:00 - Man ‘Sentenced to Death for Atheism’ in Saudi Arabia34:46 - Describing Breastfeeding as ‘Natural’ Is Unethical40:04 - Avoiding Eye Contact Is Racist44:51 - Female Genital Mutilation54:00 - Barack Obama’s $400,000 Speech Deal58:30 - Mrs. Bernie Sanders Investigated by DOJ and FBI1:03:15 - Pope Francis Warns Against LibertarianismSources: http://www.fdrurl.com/true-news-april-30th-2017Your support is essential to Freedomain Radio, which is 100% funded by viewers like you. Please support the show by making a one time donation or signing up for a monthly recurring donation at: http://www.freedomainradio.com/donate
We're back, ladies and gentlemen, Stefan and Mike, to talk from Free Domain Radio about all the news that you need to digest.
You can unplug from anything else and just listen to our calming and dulcet tones as we massage all of the important stuff in the world going on through your neofrontal cortex.
We have some great, great topics tonight.
Thanks a lot for taking the time, Tyke.
Let's start off with the People Climate March.
That's actually happening right now as we're recording this in Washington, D.C. and elsewhere.
And if you look on Twitter, boy, for people that are concerned about the climate, pollution, and all that type of stuff, they sure did leave a whole lot of mess around, stuff strewn about the streets.
It's interesting how that ends up working out.
Right after the March for Science and the Women's March, a lot of marching going on.
It would seem to me that's not particularly interfering with their employment.
That's the first thing that I'm sort of noticing that, you know, you have a lot of time if you don't have a job to be upset about things.
Hey, there's something else in common with all these marches.
They like marching straight up to me and straight up to you and straight up to the average citizen, reaching into their back pocket, pulling out their wallet, reaching into someone's handbag, pulling out their wallet, and removing a greenback or two, removing some funds, and then taking those funds and filtering them towards their own pep project.
Is it climate science?
Hey!
Is it some type of social justice-y science project?
Maybe.
Is it abortion funding?
Could be.
Is it women's health services?
Because women can't afford to pay for their own health services because we have to treat women like children.
You know, because feminism.
Yeah, so the common thread here is we're going to take your money.
You have no choice in that we're going to get the state to do it and then we're going to filter it to our own pet projects because screw you.
That's why.
And there's an old saying in investing that there's a bear market and a bull market.
Bull market is when things are doing well.
Bear market is when it collapses.
And the people who make money off the bear market are the people who last got hit by the bear market.
Like they've learned how to navigate those peaks and troughs.
And the people who are scared of environmental catastrophe, doom scenarios at the moment are basically those who weren't around for the last set.
So the 47th anniversary of Earth Day, which I think for certain fundamentalist sects is probably actually accurate.
It's 47 years old, and the sun is 3,000 miles away.
But last week, it was the 47th anniversary of Earth Day.
So first Earth Day was in 1970.
Now, 1970, I was four years old, going into five.
And even then, I remember these disasters floating around.
And, you know, along with the Cold War that we talked about with Bill Whittle a while back, it really has an effect.
Yeah, we're going to read from a list that was put together by Mark J. Perry over at the American Enterprise Institute of Climate Predictions that were made in and around 1970.
First one, Harvard biologist George Wald.
Harvard, no less, estimated that, quote, civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.
So again, you've got your nuclear winter, you've got your global freezing, you've got your nuclear war, you've got coal, running out of coal, running out of fuel.
Civilization itself will end within 15 or 30 years, and they wonder why people became a little bit R-selected.
Mike, why don't you take the second one?
Oh, these are horrible.
But Steph, he's from Harvard, so naturally everything that comes out of his mouth has to be accurate.
Sorry, I actually forgot to pronounce that correctly.
We've got to do it with the right accent.
No, no, no.
Arsehole!
Okay, sorry, go on.
Washington University biologist Barry Commoner said, quote, We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation and of this world as a suitable place for human habitation.
I think we're okay.
Well, no, there is actually one exception for that, which was that I think starting about 1970, very, very quickly, arts campuses became an unsuitable place for human habitation.
So I think that environmentalist intellectual environmental crisis where leftism has become an environmental toxin.
So not all the world, but certainly those places in the world where you get indoctrinated into leftist Marxist ideology, definitely not suitable.
But yeah, outside of those areas, he was completely wrong.
Maybe the Dakota Access Pipeline protest cam switch.
Currently, the tally for cleaning those up is at $1.1 million because of all the debris the leftists left behind.
Maybe those are uninhabitable by human populations.
I'm not so sure.
So detritus can leave debris.
Okay, I just wanted to check that.
Number three, Steph.
Hit me with it.
The day after the first Earth Day, the New York Times editorial page warned, man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence, but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.
I guess you could use the word race back in 1970, as long as there was only one.
Again, New York Times editorial page.
Fresh, you know, pretty much off getting Pulitzes for defending the crimes against humanity from one Joseph Stalin, I guess they decided to take a dip into environmentalism.
And this, you know, frightened people.
It frightened for two reasons.
Number one...
Either it's true, in which case we're doomed, or number two, it's false, but we're being programmed into socialism by the New York Times, which is also pretty terrifying.
All right, we got Paul Ehrlich, who was the author of the controversial 1968 book, The Population Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, which asserted that the world's human population would soon increase to a point where mass starvation ensued.
I like that.
It would increase.
That's good.
Mass starvation.
Ooh, that's bad.
Well, this guy is currently the Bing Professor of Population Studies of the Department of Biology of Stanford University.
That's a whole lot of of's.
And he's also the president of Stanford Center for Conservation Biology.
So I'm assuming that all of his predictions were spot on since he still holds these very prestigious professional positions.
He said, quote, Oh, quick question.
Quick question, Mike.
Yep.
Since 1970, have Americans gotten thinner or fatter?
Most Americans are large enough that you can show a drive-in movie on their big giant fat asses, so not thinner.
Not thinner.
The only place in the world it seems that people are getting thinner are North Korea and Venezuela.
And other places, of course, where there's massive socialism.
But yeah, 100 million to 200 million people starving to death.
I wonder if his concerns about overpopulation extended to him opposing foreign aid, foreign food aid and so on.
Not because he wants people to starve in Africa, but because, of course, in Africa it seems to be the more food you get, the more people you get.
I'm going to guess no, but I could be wrong about that.
The latest figures from the CDC show that 78.6 million, or one-third, 34.9% to be exact, of U.S. adults are obese, and 17% of children or adolescents aged 2 to 19 years are also obese.
Obese.
The organization estimates that three-fourths of the American population will likely be overweight or obese by 2020, so this man could not have possibly gotten the prediction more wrong.
It actually takes talent and skill to be that wrong, so congratulations.
Well, not only are people, particularly in America, not starving to death, they've become pretty much a bottomless food source for the incoming cannibalistic space aliens.
So that's important to remember.
Is that a prediction that you're putting out a little bit of a few years ago?
I thought I BCC'd you on that, but no.
Did you not get that email?
No?
Cannibalistic space aliens.
Yeah.
Wait, we're burying the lead.
We'll do that one a little bit later.
He also wrote in a 1969 essay titled Eco-catastrophe!
Which I can't help but see and think of Jeb Bush every single time I see an exclamation point these days.
He said, most of the people who are going to die in the great cataclysm of the history of man have already been born.
By 1975, some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions.
Other experts, more optimistic...
Think the ultimate food population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.
Some experts feel.
Because nothing spells science like feelings.
Or optimism.
And that is just not, you know, how about a little proof, some facts, some data?
I had a dream, and bad things happened.
Therefore, let's plan public policy around it.
So he sketched out an alarmist scenario for the 1970 Earth Day issue of The Progressive.
The Progressive Environmentalism.
Now, assuring readers that between 1980 and 1989, some four billion people, including 65 million Americans, would perish in the great die off.
Yeah.
Yeah, I think I'm trying to think what he was off by.
I think he was off by minus 2 billion people.
But, you know, what's 6 billion people, give or take?
You know, among friends.
Dennis Hayes, the chief organizer for Earth Day, in the spring 1970 issue of The Living Wilderness, declared, it's already too late to avoid mass starvation.
So, alarmism without any chance of possibly changing anything.
That's always helpful.
Well, this is what they always say, you know?
Disaster is coming!
Disaster is coming!
Give us power!
It's already too late, but we'll still take that power.
You know, like, what do they say about the climate change?
The tipping point is gone.
We can't do anything to stop it.
It's like, okay, well, then let's shut it all down.
Shut down all these controls.
Get rid of the carbon credits.
Forget it.
I mean, we can't do anything.
Forget it.
Let's enjoy the ride on the way down, but we're already screwed based on past destinations, so...
But no, no, they never want to give up the power.
In 1970, Peter Gunter, a North Texas State University professor, wrote, Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable.
By 1975, widespread famines will begin in India.
These will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China, and near East Africa.
By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions.
By the year 2000, 30 years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia will be in famine.
Again, incorrect.
Well, you know, and it's great to see that these demographers are all over something which is actually very predictable, which is the number of third-worlders in Europe and their birth rates eclipsing the native population.
It's great to know that they're...
Oh, no, they barely talk about that at all, because that is actually a predictable challenge for Europe.
And so they want to imagine starvation, not deal with actual mathematics that will show up in a decade or two.
In January of 1970, LIFE reported...
Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support the following predictions.
In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution.
By 1985, air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching the Earth by one half.
Well, again, sorry to – I mean, this sounds like a bad prediction.
It did take a little bit longer, but if we take that sentence and just tweak it a little bit, we can rescue this prediction from the magazine.
In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive leftist agitation at free speech rallies.
Then that does become true, although it's not really so much air pollution as it is the aforementioned environmental toxin called radical Marxism on U.S. campuses.
So gas marks are still needed, but only either if you're A, in Beijing, or B, in proximity to leftist political agitators.
Wow, this guy was a regular Nostradamus.
Amazing.
Ecologist Kenneth Watt told Time that, quote, at the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it's only a matter of time.
End quote.
Is the land currently usable, Steph?
Have you checked lately?
It does seem to be usable.
I'm not sure what nitrogen buildup was.
I thought CO2 was the great...
You know, plant food apparently is the great Satan now.
I guess nitrogen was at some point.
And what does it mean to say light will be filtered out of the atmosphere?
Does that mean that...
Oh, I guess it would mean that there would be no sunlight reaching.
We'd live in a state of perpetual darkness.
You know, like we're in a leftist soulless cavity or something.
I don't know.
It's weird stuff.
Want to hit the next one?
Yeah, Barry Commoner predicted that decaying organic pollutants would use up all of the oxygen in America's rivers, causing freshwater fish to suffocate.
Paul Ehrlich chimed in, predicting in 1970 that air pollution is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.
Ehrlich sketched a scenario in which 200,000 Americans would die in 1973 during smog disasters in New York and Los Angeles.
Now, this just strikes me like if you run a pretty cheesy movie studio, you get a lot of people pitching, you know, Sharknado 7 and stuff like that, which, you know, is relatively benign.
Sharks in the sky, relatively benign relative to this.
At least you can survive yourself with a chainsaw.
But this must be like just having a nervous sort of series of people just come in with their disaster scenario stuff, you know, like killer bees and stuff like that.
I mean, just be so gross.
And it's only because of the state and its addiction to controlling people through environmental terrorists.
It's only because of the state that this stuff matters at all.
Otherwise, people would be discredited by just being so badly wrong.
Paul Ehrlich chimed in again in May 1970 saying, Saying that DDT and other chlorinated hydrocarbons, quote, may have substantially reduced the life expectancy of people born since 1945, end quote.
The banning of DDT is actually, well, we have a whole presentation on DDT. He warned that Americans born since 1946 now had a life expectancy of only 49 years.
And he predicted that of current patterns of this expectancy would reach 42 years!
By 1980, when it might level out.
Oh, good.
He put in some wiggle room there.
It might level out.
Good.
Currently, according to the aforementioned CDC, life expectancy in the United States is 78.8 years.
So, I guess the patterns didn't continue.
That's higher.
His statistical predictions and models didn't accurately predict and forecast future life expectancy.
Well, and of course, I just wanted to point out, too, that these environmentalists are constantly concerned About the fact that people in the first world use up such a huge amount of natural resources, but not one of them to my knowledge.
I don't know about these guys, but there's been no major environmentalist that I know of that has talked about bringing people from the third world into the first world where they use up 10 to 20 times the amount of resources.
Nobody's ever said that's a bad thing, which just tells you how much they actually care about the environment.
But if you bring in people to a first world country from a third world country, They're going to vote for the left, so that means they're going to vote for more climate-oriented policies and politicians that are concerned about the climate.
So that's going to have a positive effect, won't it?
Well, you know, when you're right, you're right.
QED and bingo, bango, bongo.
Touche.
Corrected.
I am.
All right.
So ecologist Kenneth Watt declared, quote, by the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate that there won't be any more crude oil.
You'll drive up to the pump and say, fill her up, buddy.
And he'll say, I'm very sorry.
There isn't any.
So he's a bit of a playwright, too, with these imaginary fiction-based conversations.
And there is massive amounts of oil.
They've actually discovered a lot of natural resources in space recently.
And, yeah, so it's as far as this sort of natural resources goes.
So there's a kind of a famous thing.
So a business professor, Julian L. Simon, and this Paul Ehrlich.
Like, This was a 1980 wager that they made.
And this was actually right there in public.
And Ehrlich said, if I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.
I know.
Sinks into the sea.
You know, 2050, maybe.
But anyway, so he said, the business professor said, well, that's just too silly a prediction to bother with.
So what he did was he said, I'm going to give you a public offer to stake $10,000 on my belief that the cost of non-government-controlled raw materials, including grain and oil, will not rise in the long run.
So Simon challenged Ehrlich to choose any raw material he wanted at a date more than a year away, and he would wager on the inflation-adjusted prices decreasing as opposed to increasing.
So Ehrlich took him up on this, chose copper, chromium, nickel, tin, and tungsten.
The bet was formalized September 29, 1980, and 10 years later there was supposed to be a payoff period.
A quick question.
Who do you think won, the business professor or the environmental fear merchant?
Man, bear, pig.
Wait, no, no, sorry.
Business professor.
Right, the business professor won.
The price of three of the five metals went down in nominal terms, and all five of the metals fell in prices in inflation-adjusted terms.
Tin and tungsten fell by more than half.
So, that's, you know, when you've got money on the table, I guess he even still wouldn't have gotten it right.
But, yeah, just something I remember regarding this, Port Ehrlich and the business professor.
It's like going to a Doomsday Scenario racetrack.
Melting Icecap takes the lead, followed by Sad Polar Bear.
Sad Polar Bear to the front!
Virtue Signaling Award Show passes Leonardo DiCaprio's private jet!
I really wish some of these people would put their money where their mouth is when it comes to their crazy, fanatical, doomsday opinions.
Put 10k in escrow, then we'll talk.
But here's the challenge, Mike, is that over 10 years of fear-mongering and massive amounts of grants coming in from the government and so on, do you think they make more than 10,000?
It's fine, right?
I mean, if it costs them 10,000, but they get to be alarmists, then most of these guys would end up making a lot more than they would spend on the 10k just by getting all these government grants.
So Harrison Brown, a scientist at the National Academy of Sciences, published a chart in Scientific America that looked at medical reserves and estimated that humanity would totally run out of copper shortly after the year 2000.
Lead, zinc, tin, gold, and silver would also be gone before 1990.
Gone.
And, spoiler, I'm able to buy an American Gold Eagle currently if I want.
I believe Peter Schiff is selling some.
Well, that is true, but you do need to open up a time portal for one day before 1990.
Other than that, yeah, totally fine.
Y2K is going to wipe out all the gold, silver, tin, zinc, and lead.
Oh my goodness.
Senator Gaylord Nelson wrote in Look!
That, quote, Dr.
S. Dylan Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct, end quote.
In 1975, he was still at it.
Paul Ehrlich predicted that, quote, since more than nine-tenths of the original tropical rainforest will be removed in most areas within the next 30 years or so, it is expected that half of the organisms in those areas will vanish with it, end quote.
And Kenneth Watt, and this is famous, right?
Kenneth Watt warned about a pending ice age in a speech.
See?
It's going to be too cold.
Then it was going to be too warm.
Then it was just going to change.
So he said, the world has been chilling sharply for about 20 years.
If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder than For the global mean temperature in 1990, but 11 degrees colder in the year 2000.
This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age, age, age, age.
Now, there was an ice age, but it just was a pretty mediocre movie.
It wasn't actually a global catastrophe of weather.
Sometimes these days you think Disney movies are a national catastrophe, but that's a whole other story.
So yeah, so this is the kind of fear-mongering that was going on in 1970 and throughout the early 70s as well.
And a whole lot of doomsday predictions.
Many of them didn't come true.
And that has not ceased.
In the 90s, 2000s, we had to watch Al Gore's movie.
Many of those predictions didn't come true.
And they keep kicking the can down the road.
Eventually it'll be true stuff.
Eventually.
You know, and you know that people aren't in the free market or aren't in the market because they continue to have successes even though they're completely wrong about stuff.
So, this is just one way you know.
I mean, making these kinds of wild predictions, I mean, imagine if you were making predictions for financial investment using all of your own money on this.
Well, you'd be broke, right?
The price would go down and you'd be wiped out.
So, they're not dealing with their own money and they're not in a free market environment and they're actually getting paid for all of this money.
It's just one of the ways in which a lot of statism involvement in science produces these terror scenarios that really mess people's heads up.
I mean, I remember reading this stuff when I was a kid, the late great planet Earth and so on.
I mean, it's like, it was really, really scary to think that I was, you know, going to be starving to death when I hit puberty or, you know, shortly thereafter.
And it's horrible just how much fear gets pumped into the atmosphere of society because people aren't market-facing.
It's interesting when you look at these predictions and you still have people like Bill Nye that are open to the idea of prosecuting people for being skeptical of current climate predictions, given the track record, which has been less than stellar.
What do you think they have on that guy, Mike?
I mean, seriously, it's got to be something.
I mean, and it's got to be something pretty damn big.
You know, somebody, he's got this whole gender is a continuum kind of thing, right?
Now, subjective gender experiences or preferences, sure, but gender itself, no, no, no.
It's an X or a Y chromosome, right?
And he's got, someone dug up his show from the 90s where they talk about, you know, you're on this side of the coin or you're on this side of the coin.
It's one or Or the other.
Gender is not a continuum.
You have subjective experiences, you know, that are girlish men and boyish women and so on and boyish girls and so on.
I understand that.
But gender itself?
No, no, no.
Not a continuum.
So how he's changed just over the past, you know, 15, 20 years, man, they gotta...
I just gotta think they gotta have something on the guy that's making him go this warped.
But yeah, this, you know, when he starts talking about prosecuting people for scientific skepticism, he's no longer a science.
Bill Nye's credibility.
It exists on a spectrum.
From little to none.
I don't know if you've seen this meme.
It's pretty funny.
So back in the day, there was this literally looked like a human cyborg with this sort of helicopter Tom Skerritt landing pad hairdo.
He was in one of the Rocky movies.
Dolph Lundgren.
Do you remember this guy?
Yes, I've sat through an Expendables movie or two myself.
A friend of mine, his better name would be Dolph Lugnut.
That should be his name, which I think is kind of true.
Do you know, Dolph Lundgren is far more competent in science than Bill Nye.
Like, Bill Nye's got some engineering degree, just an undergraduate degree, he's not a scientist.
But, you know, Dolph Nugnett has, like, crazy numbers of degrees in chemistry and all this kind of stuff.
So the guy in the Rocky movie, far more competent as a scientist than Bill Nye the science guy.
It's just kind of funny.
Bill Nye isn't a scientist, but he plays one on TV. All right.
Saudi Arabia?
Sends the man to death for atheism.
That's a little concerning.
So in Saudi Arabia, Ahmad al-Shamri was arrested in 2014 on charges of atheism and blasphemy and held in prison before being convicted by a local court and sentenced to death in February 2015.
And the only defense they could come up with was an insanity plea.
And his defense said, well, he was under the influence of drugs and alcohol.
I don't know if that's a great defense in a Muslim country.
But anyway, at the time of making the videos and he lost an appeals court case, a Supreme Court ruled against him earlier this week and, yeah, sentenced to...
So a 2014 string of royal decrees under the late King Abdullah redefined atheists as terrorists, according to a report by Human Rights Watch.
Last year, a citizen was sentenced to 10 years in prison and 2,000 lashes for expressing atheistic sentiment in hundreds of social media posts.
International rights groups have been highly critical of Saudi Arabia's human rights record, particularly with regard to the death penalty.
Saudi Arabia has a strict Islamic legal code under which murder, drug trafficking, armed robbery, rape, and apostasy are all punishable by death.
2015, the country executed 153 people, most of them for drug trafficking or murder.
And they hanged at least 154 prisoners in 2016.
That's according to a report by Amnesty International.
Now that's tragic and horrifying.
And I wanted to mention too, given what we know about personality traits and genetics, which is that they're quite strongly related.
The personality traits are strongly genetic.
I wonder how much killing free thinkers has changed what goes on genetically in certain countries.
I mean, what is it like to have had, I don't know, hundreds and hundreds of years of killing people who are skeptical, rational, curious, and so on?
I wonder...
What it's done to IQ? I wonder what it's done to just the personality traits called curiosity and skepticism and open-mindedness and all of that.
I don't know.
Can you weed it out of the gene pool with repeated attacks?
I don't know.
I mean, we may never know, but it's just something that sort of runs through my brain from time to time.
But the horrifying thing about this, and Mike, you could take this part.
So this is Saudi Arabia, right?
Cut off your hand.
And these are like beheading people and stuff.
Like it's really, really medieval.
Yeah.
So, in one of these nails in the coffins, in any kind of believability regarding the United Nations, where do they sit now, Mike?
Well, they are on the United Nations Human Rights Council, currently.
And diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks, who has 100% accuracy when it comes to the reporting of their information, by the way, everyone, purported to show that the United Kingdom initiated secret negotiations by asking Saudi Arabia for its support ahead of a ballot.
According to WikiLeaks, Saudi Arabia secretly paid the United Kingdom £100,000 and a vote swap for its vote to place the country on the UN Human Rights Council.
Scratch my back, I'll scratch yours, and we'll get you on the Human Rights Council, despite the fact that there's some significant, incredible objections to putting Saudi Arabia anywhere near anything that has to do with human rights.
Wait a second.
I think we're going to have to go back and revise something, Mike.
What's that?
Well, do you remember that guy who said that England would not exist?
Just remember there was that bet the guy made that England, and the guy thought, oh, that's just, that's too crazy.
If I were a gambler, this is Ehrlich, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.
Well, I think we're going to have to back and revise that.
I'm going to revise my opinion on that.
Ehrlich, totally right.
Totally correct.
Because let me tell you something.
If you, as a civilization, as a post-Renaissance, post-Enlightenment culture, are willing to take 100,000 pounds from Saudi Arabia and some sort of vote swap in order to elevate Saudi Arabia to a Human Rights Council, yeah, you've pretty much ceased to exist.
Oh, but it gets better, Steph.
It gets better, and this is recent.
Saudi Arabia is I think that's great.
No, listen, I am very much of the camp now.
I don't know if we've discussed this much.
I'm very much of the camp now.
Like, let's just make it worse.
Like, this is like, who can possibly defend the UN now?
Like, you read this kind of stuff, and you're like, oh, you've got to be kidding me now.
Oh, come on!
Come on!
Human Rights Council, status of women?
Isn't this the country which had a council on women which had no women on it?
So, to me, it's like, whatever can delegitimize this globalist crap, I'm 100% behind.
You know, let's just get Saudi Arabia...
Absolutely!
Let's just get every crazy dictatorship on human rights councils and so on, because how on earth...
Else are we supposed to delegitimize this nonsense.
Well, U.N. watch director Hiller?
He said, quote, electing Saudi Arabia to protect women's rights is like making an arsonist into the town fire chief.
It's absurd, end quote.
He also called the election absurd and noted that all women in Saudi Arabia, quote, must have a male guardian who makes all critical decisions on her behalf, controlling a woman's life from her birth until death.
Saudi Arabia also bans women from driving cars, end quote.
Those seem a little disproportionate.
Controls women's life from birth until death.
They also can't drive.
So yeah, Saudi Arabia on any type of human rights or women's rights board or initiative or anything is...
Well, no, I mean, but if you think of human rights like pollution, there's something people can meme if they want.
If you think of human rights as pollution, like if there was a UN Pollution Council, nobody would join it thinking that they wanted to expand pollution.
They would think they wanted to contract pollution to make it smaller, to make it less.
Maybe I just misunderstood.
Yeah, the Human Rights Council is how can we possibly reduce human rights the most, particularly property rights, if I understand the globalist socialist agenda of the UN correctly.
So maybe Saudi Arabia was like, yeah, we'll join a Pollution Council because we're against pollution.
We want to control and reduce it.
So we'll join a Human Rights Council because we're against human rights and women's status of women.
Sure, let's reduce it even further.
I mean, you know, they can they can still breathe without permission.
So maybe we can find a way to fix that.
Well, there's some other interesting news involving Saudi Arabia.
President Donald Trump complained this Thursday that U.S. ally, Saudi Arabia, was not treating the United States fairly and that Washington was losing, quote, a tremendous amount of money, end quote, defending the kingdom.
So the United States is currently the main supplier for most Saudi military needs.
That's F-15 fighters to control and command systems worth tens of billions of dollars.
And American contractors have major energy deals with Saudi Arabia as well.
It's not just Trump that's sending stuff to Saudi Arabia or talking about Saudi Arabia.
As an ally, U.S. President Barack Obama's administration offered Saudi Arabia more than, brace yourselves, $115 billion worth of weapons and other military equipment and training.
The most of any U.S. administration in the 71-year U.S.-Saudi alliance.
So, yay, yay.
Let's just arm everybody.
And if you want to...
Look into some stuff, folks.
You can go to Google or your favorite search engine and type Saudi Arabia and Yemen, and you can get some pictures that will horrify you and leave you unable to sleep if you have a conscience.
This, yeah, this whole Middle Eastern stuff, I mean, the West basically developed the internal combustion engine.
Oh, yeah, I'm going there.
We're going back, baby.
Okay, first up, the dinosaurs and the dinosaurs.
So the West developed an internal combustion engine which needed gasoline, which comes from oil.
And then developed these massive oil companies in the Middle East.
And then after the Second World War, when the Western powers were militarily weak and broken and fractured and destroyed in some ways, the Middle Eastern countries stole all of these countries.
And since then, massive amounts of resources have flowed from the West into the Middle East, where the average IQ is in the mid-80s on a good day.
And so massive amounts of resources have been flowing from the West and other developed places into the Middle East, into Saudi Arabia, which they did not earn and did not build, but it's where they get a vast amount of their money.
And Saudi Arabia has, well, been fairly well implicated in exporting large amounts of terrorism and radical jihadism and so on.
And so it is one of these horrifying things, because we were going from the environmentalists to Saudi Arabia.
These things are not unrelated.
Saudi Arabia also funds some environmental groups.
Because if the West can be convinced to not drill for oil in its own regions or domains, then it's going to be dependent on more Middle Eastern oil.
So if you want to save the world, I hate to quote the lady, but drill baby drill.
Locally, locally, locally.
Because that's the only way to affect any kind of positive reform or change in places like Saudi Arabia.
Because if they're getting all their money from basically having stolen Western technology and companies...
Then they don't have to answer to their people.
They can bribe their people with foreign money control.
That's one of the reasons it can be a dictatorship.
So it's a whole complicated mess.
But the idea, I mean, Barack Obama, you know, what was it, 15 of the 19 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia?
Sure!
Here's $115 billion in weapons.
That sounds about right.
Let's also make it impossible to bring civil suits against the country for any suspected involvement.
That was changed recently.
Yeah, I'm looking forward to discovery in those cases.
By the way, I also just wanted to mention that I'd like to urge President Trump to release the thousands of documents that have been sealed about the JFK assassination.
I just am curious, as I think, of course, a lot of people are, what might be revealed in that.
As a total non sequitur, I just wanted to point that out.
That decision is coming up pretty quickly, and I hope he releases as much as humanly possible.
And if he doesn't, maybe they showed him another angle that...
It's privately held by the government.
We'll see.
We'll see.
All right, let's move on.
Well, there was a study that came out very recently that talked about the unintended consequences of invoking the term natural in regards to breastfeeding.
I don't know that there's many things more natural than breastfeeding, but nonetheless, they're very, very concerned about it.
Wait, wait.
Is it because some women have silicone in their boobs and therefore it's unnatural breastfeeding?
That wasn't included, but that would have been on par with some of the nonsense that they brought up.
So let's quote the study.
Quote, Building on this critical work,
we are concerned about breastfeeding promotion that praises breastfeeding as the natural way to feed infants.
This messaging plays into a powerful perspective that natural approaches to health are better, a view examined in a recent report by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics.
Promoting breastfeeding as natural may be ethically problematic, and even more troublingly, It may bolster this belief that natural approaches are presumptively healthier, end quote.
So this is...
They're concerned trolls.
It's a tree bark, it cures something.
Yes, yes.
Oh, I'm troubled.
It's problematic.
It's disconcerting.
It's like, oh, shut up.
Don't tie and tell me that sticking a milk-filled boob in a baby's mouth is somehow not natural or not good.
Sorry, science, my friends.
Science.
Well, this also implies that people are absolutely mentally incapable of discerning propaganda regarding the term natural versus, you know, typical mainstream scientific and medical cures to various ailments.
In order for their concern trolling to stick, you have to assume everyone's an idiot.
And they're talking about women, so what does it mean?
So it's going to stick.
That's what you're telling me.
Okay, I understand.
I understand.
Quote, Referencing the natural in breastfeeding promotion, then, may inadvertently endorse a controversial set of values about family life and gender roles, which would be ethically inappropriate, end quote.
A controversial set of values about family life.
Yeah, no like men breastfeeding babies.
They get floss, and it's all taps and no plumbing.
So, I mean, this is mad.
Ethically inappropriate.
Oh, this inappropriate word.
Oh, I've had a rant about that or two before.
It's just like, inappropriate to what compared to what?
Sorry, nature is sexist.
Nature gives women the feed bags on the boobs, and men not so much.
Also, women are kind of disabled after childbirth for a while, men not so much.
So, I don't know.
Sorry.
Sorry it's good for the baby.
Sorry it's really good for the baby's immune system.
It's really good for their development.
It's really good for their IQ development.
It's a couple of points extra of IQ to be breastfed.
Sorry about that, but it turns out that breastfeeding is sexist.
I mean, good lord.
I love it.
This is where we are.
I love it.
Again, please, everyone, I'm just in the worst is better situation now.
This is my mood.
Maybe it'll change tomorrow, but this is my mood right now.
Worst is better.
Absolutely.
You know what?
I want them to promote robots feeding babies.
I want them to promote getting giant cannons full of skimmed milk powder and firing it directly up the nose of baby.
Just come up with whatever crazy stuff you want so that nothing ever is sexist.
I want there to be 350 genders on Wednesday.
That's what I want.
Just go further.
Stop pulling back.
Stop going half and half.
Just go completely insane.
I want giant...
Boob milk-filled zeppelins hovering over towns with big tentacles of tubeness coming down to feed babies that sneak in through the windows at night.
I just want things to get completely insane.
Because we're going there anyway.
Why hit the brakes?
Because the sooner this thing crashes, the sooner we can pick ourselves up from this madness and start thinking sensibly again.
Let me just point out that they tried to get this gender role stuff in under the guise of we're concerned about using natural because people may use natural cures and that type of stuff, which may not be the best thing medically.
And then in the back door...
This could inadvertently support biologically deterministic arguments about the roles of men and women in the family.
Yes, we know why you did this study.
We know the real reason, because we read it to the end.
Get women back into the workforce, make sure that the children are handed over to the government, and that way we get to rule you forever.
Yeah, okay.
And I'm sure your tax dollars went into funding this study and many other studies like it, so you can rejoice on that fact if you're not already thrilled.
Remember boobs?
Only for recreation.
Only for recreation.
Nothing productive about him.
Well, this week Oxford University came out and said that not making eye contact means that you're racist.
Yep.
Students who avoid making eye contact with their peers could be guilty of racism, according to Oxford University's latent guidance.
The university's Equality and Diversity Unit, I just laugh at the name of these departments and groups and all that, the Equality and Diversity Unit, has advised students that Not speaking directly to people could be deemed a racial microaggression, which can lead to mental ill health.
So not talking to people is a racial microaggression.
So you have to talk to everybody.
What is it?
Every minority that you see?
What if you're a minority?
Then do you have to talk to other minorities or do you have to talk to white people?
I hope it was elaborated on because currently I'm confused who I have to talk to and who I don't have to.
What if you have a sore throat?
What if you don't speak their language?
So they're talking about racial microaggressions.
Now this is in England, but I wonder if this sort of racial microaggressions I wonder if they've...
You know, like, that could be considered not exactly a microaggression, a little bit more of a macroaggression.
But, Steph, does the black person speak to the white person?
Or make eye contact?
I guess he would with the fist.
Like, the fist would make, like, eye contact with the fist.
But this nonsense where, I mean, oh, look, they're picking on white people's racial guilt.
Ooh, what a brave moral hero you are.
Boy, no one's ever tried that before.
You're really treading on thin ice.
You're really edgy.
Ooh, ooh, moral courage to the max.
That's like Joe Biden this week who gave a very brave, very brave and courageous speech denouncing rape.
He came out against rape stuff.
I was, tears in my eyes.
As Joe Biden came out against rape, the moral hero that he is.
Other examples of, quote, everyday racism, end quote, include asking someone where they are originally from, students were told.
Oxford University's Equality and Diversity Unit explains in its Trinity Term newsletter, I need to sign up for that, that, quote, some people who do these things may be entirely well-meaning and would be mortified to realize that they had caused offense.
Quote, but this is of little consequence if a possible effect of their words or actions is to suggest to people that they may fulfill a negative stereotype or do not belong, end quote.
Well, yeah, because of course for a lot of the minority and female students, where are you originally from?
Affirmative action.
And then they don't, that answer is very challenging for a lot of people and may make them feel like they don't belong, which as, you know, the recent conversation that Charles Murray had with Sam Harris, which people should go and listen to, But he was pointing out at MIT that I think the number of blacks who dropped out of the sort of advanced STEM program was 24, 26% or something like that.
Yeah, I mean, this is a challenge.
The university was criticized for being insensitive for making these comments at all.
No, they were criticized for being insensitive to autistic people who can struggle making eye contact.
The university said that it made a mistake and had not taken disabilities into account.
But if you're blind, you can't make eye contact, and if you're mute, you can't talk to people, so...
That's the only problem here, is they need an account for blind and mute people.
So they put out an apology, which they actually tweeted at you as well, Steph.
Everyone that talked about this story on Twitter got the apology tweeted at them, so whoever's running their Twitter account was busy.
They said...
We made a mistake.
Our newsletter was too brief to deal adequately and sensibly with the issue.
I don't think the brevity was the problem, Oxford.
We are sorry that we took no account of other reasons for a difference in eye contact and social interaction, including disability.
Oxford deeply values and works hard to support students and staff with disabilities, including those with autism or social anxiety disorder." Again, that's not the problem.
Problem.
But, you know, they apologize for offending people with social anxiety disorders.
And so if you are not from England and you want to go, like, if you're not from the UK or the European Union and you want to pay up to $30,000 a year, you too can become paranoid about how and where you look and how and where you speak.
And that's what they call these days an education.
Well, moving to Detroit...
Ah!
We're going to hunt dogs!
All property's cheap, at least.
There is that.
Well, three arrests were made in Detroit, where two physicians and one physician's wife were charged with mutilating the genitals of minor girls.
Two victims were from Minnesota and were delivered to the doctor by their immigrant Somali mothers.
So you're traveling to find these specific doctors.
That's a little concerning in and of itself.
I'm curious if it'll ever come out how many of these mutilations were performed.
The three suspects represent the first prosecution in the United States for the practice, which is very common in Muslim countries, particularly in Africa.
Now, this story in and of itself is terrible.
The response to the story is interesting.
So on April 13th, the New York Times posted a 637-word article on page A14. So not front page.
Just a good old Michigan doctor.
And they didn't mention Islam and didn't mention Muslim at all.
Just a Michigan doctor.
The Washington Post ran a 760 word online article on April 13th as well about a Detroit emergency room doctor.
Right.
Nothing else there.
AP ran a four-paragraph report in the newsletter about a Detroit area doctor.
Again, these didn't mention Islam or anything else.
No, no.
I think the problem is it's still way too specific.
No, it's way too specific.
I want to just see potential carbon-based life forms interact.
That's all.
And potential.
Let's not, because it's insensitive to inanimate objects to differentiate so clearly between the living and the inanimate.
So, yeah, carbon-based bipeds, potential bipeds, because it could be one-legged.
Things happened, maybe.
That's all I want from the news.
I don't want anything more specific than that, because someone's going to be upset, or something, inanimate object, is going to feel more inanimate.
Media Research Council President Brent Bozell and Bridget Gabriel, founder of ACT for America, they released a joint statement and said, quote, The media's moral compass is hopelessly broken.
We have the first case of the brutal practice of FGM in the United States, and the networks are AWOL. See what they did there?
They're kind of like that.
You would think an extremely brutal practice of violence against women would make TV headlines here at home, but you would be wrong.
Where's the outrage?
The hypocrisy is staggering.
The networks which have for years championed the causes of left-wing feminists and women's rights are conspicuously silent on this case and their silence is deafening.
The real exploitation of young girls and the usual suspects who ought to care have little to say about this form of torture making its way to America.
This practice is illegal and immoral.
The networks have an ethical responsibility to report that it's happening here at home.
If they don't, they are guilty of aiding and abetting violence against women So, New York Times health and science editor, Sila Duggar,
she decided that the paper shouldn't use the term female genital mutilation because the phrase is to, quote, It's just a right.
You know, it's just a right.
It's just a little ritual.
You know, like crossing yourself or not walking under a ladder.
It's just a ride.
It widens the divide between people that would be opposed to female genital mutilation and those who practice female genital mutilation, as if the divide could get any wider.
No, listen, listen, Mike, Mike, come on.
Making...
Bank robbery illegal is bad enough.
However, if you actually talk about bank robbers, you're widening the divide between those who put money into the bank peacefully and those who take it out violently.
And we want to bring everyone together.
I go to a bank, triggered.
She came to this conclusion to refer to the act of removing the female genitalia of young girls as, quote, genital cutting, end quote, during a trip to Africa in the 1990s.
Here's a quote from her.
I never minced words in describing exactly what form of cutting was involved, and there are many gradations of severity and the terrible damage it did, and stayed away from euphemistic circumcision, but chose to use the less culturally loaded term genital cutting.
There's a gulf between the Western and some African advocates who campaign against the practice And the people who follow the right.
And I felt the language used widened that chasm.
Yeah, we don't want that chasm to be widened.
And it's really, really important to cover up for people who are mutilating children.
That is very, very important.
Because, you know, when you look at potential widening of chasm-ness versus hacking at the genitals of little girls, it's really, really important to be sensitive to some chasm thing in your head.
That's really, really important.
And this is one of those moments where you can look at people and anyone that calls themselves a feminist or talk about women's rights or anything that's not actively speaking out against this and very upset, you don't have to take them seriously ever, ever, ever again.
Covering up the mutilation of children's genitals.
I mean, what do they think these girls are, boys?
We'll get to that in a little bit.
Well, estimates show that some 200 million women worldwide have been subjected to female genital mutilation.
And although the procedure is typically practiced in African or Middle Eastern countries, it's spreading westward.
Nearly 6,000 reported cases occurred in Britain from April 2015 to March 2016.
So in a year, 6,000 cases.
Those are reported cases.
You can imagine how many are actually happening under the table.
Again, maybe Britain did cease to exist and Ehrlich was right.
According to UNICEF, the prevalence of female genital mutilation in the following countries...
is...
Let's run through some countries and the prevalence.
Somalia!
It's the champion!
98% of females are generally mutilated in Somalia.
But I'm sure because the government collapsed, it'll become a libertarian paradise tomorrow.
Guinea, 97%.
Steph, have you ever seen the name of this country before?
Djibouti.
93%!
Sierra Leone!
90%!
Mali!
89%!
Egypt!
87%!
Sudan!
87%!
Burkina Faso!
76%!
Gambia!
75%!
Ethiopia!
74%!
Mauritania?
69%?
Liberia, 50%.
Guinea-Bissau, 45%.
Chad, 44%.
Ivory Coast, basically 38%.
Yeah, as it goes down from there, Nigeria, 25%.
Down to Yemen, 19%.
The overall male circumcision rate in the States, the US, is between 76% and 92%.
Most Western European countries, by contrast, have rates less than 20%.
And whew!
It's rough.
I mean, it's rough.
I mean, the male circumcision is brutal enough, like a third of your penis skin is removed and so on.
Oftentimes without anesthetic.
Without anesthetic.
But at least it happens when you're a baby, and now your body six months later still has higher levels of cortisol, and it definitely is a salt in your most sensitive area.
But for these girls, it happens when they're older.
And it can actually destroy your capacity to experience any sexual pleasure.
It's not the case with circumcision, unless it goes horribly wrong.
But, you know, arguably worse in some circumstances.
But, yeah, the people who aren't complaining about this, sorry, you don't care about the girls, you don't care about the women, and that is wretched.
Well, when I was looking up the current male rate of circumcision in the United States, I came across a Washington Post article that had a I had a quote that I just have to include in this.
They said, quote, I just liked it.
Only 10%.
Of circumcised men's wish they hadn't been circumcised.
It's only 10%.
The hell with them.
My question is, have they been exposed to the facts?
And people can check out the circumcision videos we have on this channel and interviews we have.
It depends whether you have the facts or not.
If you're told, well, it's had no effect, but it's kept you safe from UTIs and other problems, then, you know, it's okay.
Penile cancer.
Oh my goodness.
The risk of penile cancer if you...
Aren't circumcised.
It's massive.
No, not really.
I had a friend who, up here in Canada, needed to see a male specialist for a health issue and was given a waiting period of 10 months.
10 months before he could see a male specialist.
See, men only pay a significant majority of the taxes, so why on earth would there be enough male specialists to deal with male health issues?
Terrible.
Yeah, he cashed in and signed a $400,000 speech deal.
So Obama will be paid $400,000 to speak at the financial services firm Cantor Fitzgerald, their healthcare conference, this September.
So that pretty much sends the benchmark for how much an hour of the former president's time will cost going forward.
And I think since then he's already signed up for another $400,000 speech.
So, you know, public servant.
Not enriching himself in any way, shape, or form.
Look, I mean, if you're in the financial services sector, particularly post 2007, 2008 crash, you haven't been prosecuted, you know, for some, what to me at least looked like pretty obvious frauds and misrepresentations.
Now, you may have been sort of gone after maybe your organization, not you personally, your organization had to pay a fine, which was something you could pass along to your customers and so on.
But not being prosecuted might make you somewhat grateful to Obama, in which case maybe you want to say, here, thanks, man, here's $400,000 to talk about stuff you're not particularly an expert in.
I mean, it's been eight years being president, not becoming an expert on finances.
Boy, just look at the deficit.
How much can I tell you he's not an expert on finances?
It's pretty much infinite.
Yeah, it's not so much a speaking fee as it is a thank you.
Now, two months ago, Penguin Random House won an auction to publish the first book by the Obamas, Since leaving office.
How much do you think it was, Steph?
If you had to guess.
You've heard these massive book deals.
Yeah, I thought it would be in the- 10 million for Megyn Kelly and that kind of thing.
I thought it would be in the tens of millions.
I thought maybe 30 or 40, but it's- 60 million.
60.
60 million dollars.
And I love what they're doing there.
I guarantee you, in my personal opinion, maybe I'm going all Paul Ehrlich on everyone.
They're going to lose money.
I think people don't understand just how out of sight, out of mind some of these guys can be.
I mean, obviously there's all of this hypocrisy, right?
People like when Mitt Romney said back in the day, oh, I don't get paid that much for speeches.
And it was like, maybe in a couple of speeches he made $360,000.
People are like, oh, that's a huge amount of money.
That's so wrong.
That's so unjust.
And now people are like, well, you got to calm down.
It's only $400,000 for a speech.
Right?
The out of sight, out of mind stuff, I think it's pretty important.
He's not...
I think coming back, obviously, into public life, certainly in any degree of power that he had before, they're going to pay him $60 million for his memoirs.
I think they're going to lose a lot on that, in my opinion.
That's a lot of books to sell, just to break even.
That's a whole lot of books to sell.
Now, Obama does have a track record of selling books, which is better than many of the people that get these massive book deals, which oftentimes seem like bribes from the parent companies of the book publishers.
Just throw that out there.
Yeah, at least he has a track record.
We'll see if that holds over and he's able to make up $60 million worth of an advance.
So that sum is more than four times greater than the $15 million Bill Clinton received.
$15 million!
That's like chump change.
And you've got to, just so people remember, sorry to interrupt, but just so people remember, it's not like you have to sell $60 million worth of books to break even.
You have to make $60 million worth of profit to break even.
That's a different matter entirely.
George W. Bush made an estimated $10 million.
From his book after he left office.
Now, Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren was asked, what do you think about President Obama accepting $400,000 from Wall Street?
Now, of course, Warren has railed against Wall Street and big banks and all that stuff nonstop.
How did she respond?
I feel like scalping him.
No, wait.
No, no.
Okay, sorry.
I'm going on the war.
No, no.
Well, I was troubled by that.
That's what she said.
Yeah.
You don't say!
After the way Elizabeth Warren cozied up to Hillary Clinton after denouncing her for, again, ties to big banks, she'll say what she needs to say in the moment to move forward politically.
There's not much in the way of principles behind Pocahontas.
Bernie Sanders was also asked, and he said, I think at a time when people are so frustrated with the power of Wall Street and the big money interests, I think it is unfortunate that President Obama is doing this.
It's unfortunate.
And Elizabeth Warren is troubled.
Just bad luck.
Just, it's terrible bad luck.
You know, he just woke up, crimed his way out of the back of the window of his van, and ended up in a pile of money talking to a bunch of financial people.
Bad luck, man.
Bad luck.
We move on to Mrs.
Bernie Sanders.
So the Justice Department and the FBI, Federal Bureau of Investigations, has investigated the wife of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, and in fact may still be investigating her.
Why?
Well, it's over her role in what may be called a fraudulent acquisition of close to seven million bucks worth of tax exempt bonds that she used to finance an expansion when she was president of Burlington College.
Now, Burlington College is no more.
It done collapsed under the weight of Jane Sanders mismanagement.
I think that's fairly safe to say.
So, this ambitious expansion was spearheaded by Mrs.
Bernie Sanders, and, well, they needed to get a whole lot of money to buy some land, and then construction, and everything that would go along with expanding their enrollment ability from about 200 full-time students to 400.
So, they needed to take on $10 million in debt to finance this whole expansion and new campus.
Now, they shopped around and they found the People's Bank, which agreed to purchase bonds, but they were contingent upon a minimum commitment of $2.27 million worth of grants and donations prior to closing.
So, they say, alright, we're going to give you the bonds that you need to do this expansion.
But we're going to use $2.27 million worth of upcoming grants and donations that you are guaranteed to receive as collateral for this debt.
So Jane Sanders at the time suggested that the school had lined up several donors ready to fork over $2.6 million.
So hey, $2.6 million, that's more than $2.27 million.
So People's Bank said, thumbs up.
And of course, as well, that was just the tip of the iceberg it was promised.
Lots of donations coming in.
More donations than you know what to do with.
So at this point, People's Bank said, all right, we're going to give you $6.7 million worth of tax-exempt bonds to finance this expansion.
And, well, Burlington College, unfortunately, did not receive anything close to the promised $2.6 million worth of donations that this entire loan and bond purchase was contingent upon.
From 2010 to 2014, the school only received $676,000 worth of donations.
It's also reported, and take this with a grain of salt, I've seen it floating around and seen it reported, but I haven't myself verified these people's financial statements.
It's being reported that two people whose pledges were listed as confirmed in the loan agreement.
They're absolutely going to give us mass amounts of money that we can use to hold as collateral for these bonds.
Well...
Their personal financial records show that their pledges were overstated, and neither of them were aware that their pledges were used to secure this loan.
Jane Sanders, she ended up leaving the college on September 26, 2011, less than a year after setting up this whole property purchase, and with two years remaining on her contract.
She resigned as president, and the lawyers got together and all those people, and they said, Here's a $200,000 severance package.
Here you go.
Here's your golden parachute.
You appear to have bollocked up this entire operation, but here's $200,000 to go away.
Well, and the other thing that's a challenge here is arguably it's a little bit too late for her to offer big speaking fees to people in the government in return for them perhaps overlooking all of this stuff.
I'm kidding.
I'm kidding, folks.
Totally and completely.
But yeah, it's gross stuff.
But even, you know, should this get somewhere and did she do something wrong?
Well, she didn't, well, she wasn't involved in a financial crash that wiped out 40% of the wealth in America.
You know, this is a couple of million bucks.
And so even if they go after it, even if they get her, you know, still a lot of people, quite a lot more powerful who are responsible for the destruction of a lot more wealth.
So again, it's the old argument that the law, the law is kind of a funny net.
It catches the little fish and lets the big fish go.
Even if you look at this and say there's nothing fraudulent about this, no charges should be filed, it does show that she was complete and totally incompetent in her job of actually running the college as president.
Promising that there'll be a lot of money to pay for stuff, that money doesn't seem to show up.
Huh.
First time ever in socialism.
Who could have guessed?
There's no way that this pattern could have been recognized before.
Goodness.
Well, let's move on to the Pope, who just spoke out, of all things— Wait, wait, wait, wait, let me guess.
Wait, let me guess.
Okay, is it massive overspending by governments?
Is it hyper-regulation?
Is it environmental problems?
Is it mass migration from the Third World into Europe?
Is it the declining number of Christians?
Is it Christian persecution in the Third World?
What, Mike, what did he choose from any of the myriad challenges and disasters that face Catholicism?
Libertarians.
I was not going to guess that at all.
At all.
Well, he has talked about the migrant crisis, just not in the way that you would envision, and we'll get to that as well.
But he said, quote, I cannot fail to speak of the grave risks associated with the invasion of the positions of libertarian individualism at high strata of culture and in school and university education.
You know, you know, PF, you really can fail to speak of it.
You can.
It's absolutely possible.
Because you wouldn't want to be revealed as somebody who was using an ancient and often noble religion in order to further globalism and socialism.
So you could fail and you might actually – like you could fail to speak of this and then you might actually be considered to have succeeded in other things somewhat more important.
Like, you know, having a sense of perspective or priorities.
Libertarian individualism in school and university education – That's a big problem.
Did he say this at Berkeley?
I mean, I'm aware of some libertarian academics.
I'm aware that they do exist, but let's just say they're in a bit of short supply.
And they're trying to work from home as much as possible now.
He continued and said, It minimizes the common good that is the idea of living well or the good life in the communitarian framework." He continued and said that libertarianism, quote, which is so fashionable today, quote.
It's really not.
You know, and a guy who basically dresses himself like a giant interstellar tea cozy, I don't know if I want to hear about fashions, I mean, but it's not fashionable today.
Libertarianism?
Oh, man.
Talk about a straw man.
Anyway, sorry, go on.
It's a more radical form of individualism that asserts that, quote, only the individual gives value to things and to interpersonal relations, and therefore only the individual decides what is good and what is evil, end quote.
No, no, libertarianism is founded on property rights and the non-aggression principle, which is not a subjective preference but must be enforced universally.
So, again, straw man, nonsense, what can I say?
I mean, this man is a complete socialist ubercuck, in my humble opinion.
that determines the value in the free market.
It's not just the individual.
It's the, never mind.
Ah, he continued, said libertarianism preaches the idea that, quote, self-causation, end quote, is necessary to ground freedom and individual responsibility.
What?
Quote, thus the libertarian individual denies the value of the common good because on the one hand, he supposes that the very idea of common means the constriction of at least some individuals.
And on the other hand, that the notion of good deprives freedom End quote.
Not an argument.
Not an argument.
I don't even know what this means.
The constriction of at least some individuals.
Hey, hey, Popey, you know what constricts some individuals?
Thou shalt not kill.
Mass murderers?
Totally constrict.
Thou shalt not steal.
Oh wait, no.
See, that would be fiat currency and all that.
So, but yeah.
Thou shalt not kill.
Totally constrict some individuals.
Are you saying that you don't want some individuals constricted if they wish to do evil?
And the other, the notion of good deprives freedom of its essence.
Yeah.
Freedom.
The essence.
We don't want to deprive freedom of its essence because that's incomprehensible.
common good.
Steph, would you like to talk about the common good?
Well, sure.
I mean, the common good in a libertarian sense is just the free market, you know, what people want in involuntary transactions and negotiations and where they want to apply their resources voluntarily.
The idea of a common good that is defined by the state is the idea that we're all going to go this way.
If you don't want to come along, you get to go to jail or be fined.
And if you don't pay the fine, go to jail.
So, no, there's no such thing as a common good.
That's a lie that is invented in order to strip people of their rights.
Once it gets defined, it's a real challenge.
Because if you're going to define the common good as antithetical to individual human liberties, then you have a challenge.
And I kind of get where he's coming from from that standpoint.
Sure.
If I'm going to say, well, the common good is giving this group a huge amount of money.
That's important for the common good.
It's like, okay, well, then I get to take everyone who's not part of that group to take their money and give it to that group.
So I'm taking away the property rights of some people because of this idea of the common good.
But nobody can define it in any sense.
It's just this giant smokescreen for some significantly criminal acts, in my opinion.
Well, he also thinks that libertarium is...
Quote, an antisocial radicalization of individualism, which leads to the conclusion that everyone has the right to extend himself as far as his abilities allow him even at the cost of the exclusion and marginalization of the more vulnerable majority.
End quote.
Wait, wait, wait.
So give more money to the poor.
Hang on, hang on.
He's really concerned about ideals that radicalize individuals.
Wow.
I thank you so much for focusing on libertarianism because that's the great danger that people are facing around the world is radical exploding libertarianism.
People may wear bow ties.
Hold me.
Now, according to this mentality, all relationships that create ties must be eliminated, the Pope suggested, quote, since they would limit freedom, end quote.
What?
Oh, so in a libertarian free market environment, you can't sign a contract?
Is that his argument?
That somehow the free market means that you can't ever sign a contract?
Ah, it's madness.
In this way, only by living independently of others of the common good and even God himself can a person be free.
Yeah, I gotta tell you, I miss Catholicism when it aimed at a high IQ population.
No, I miss Catholicism when it was more European.
Now that it's become, you know, like South America and other places, I mean, they just, they have a different mindset, let's say, that they need to appeal to and this kind of stuff, this kind of fluff.
I mean, you can't imagine people like Thomas Aquinas speaking like this.
Well, this isn't the first time that the Pope has recently gone off half-cocked, or half-cocked, if you want to use it.
All-cocked.
There's no half about it.
He's all in, baby.
In March, Pope Francis told the leaders of the European Union that the populist movements that are sweeping many parts of Europe and other areas are fueled by, quote, egotism, end quote.
Populism, he said, is, quote, the fruit of an egotism that hems people in and prevents them from overcoming and looking beyond their own narrow vision, end quote.
Not an argument!
So, egotism.
Egotism, I guess, is the feeling that you're right about things, and maybe it's having a high view of yourself.
Just the general perception, not the objectivist perception of egotism.
So, a man who believes that God speaks only to him and that he's infallible is complaining about potential vanity on the part of other people?
I think you might want to look for egotism a little bit closer to home than you think.
Hope projection, baby.
Pope Francis previously estimated that about 2% of the Catholic Church are pedophiles.
Now, Pope Francis also recently cut penalties for two pedophile priests and the overruled advice given to him By the Vatican congregation on the doctrine of the faith, allowing these two pedophile priests to be punished by...
Any guesses, Steph?
Castration?
Nope.
European law?
Nope.
Being sent to Saudi Arabia?
Nope.
Being sent to Detroit?
Nope.
Venezuela?
Nope.
Punished by a lifetime of prayer.
Ah, right.
The Pope is said to be applying his version of a merciful church.
To sex offenders by reducing punishments to weaker sentences, such as the aforementioned lifetime of prayer and penance.
Yay, Pope Francis, moral hero right there.
Now, Pope Francis on refugees!
You wanted him to talk about refugees and the migrant crisis?
Well, he did, and this is what he said.
Quote, With your help, the Church will be able to respond more fully to the human tragedy of refugees through acts of mercy that promote their integration into the European context and beyond.
I encourage you to welcome refugees into your homes and communities so that their first experience of Europe is not the traumatic experience of sleeping cold on the streets but one of warm human welcome.
Remember that authentic hospitality is a profound gospel value that nurtures love and is our greatest security against hateful acts of terrorism.
Now, the Pope also cited the words of Jesus, who at the last judgment will praise and bless those who practice hospitality.
He said, for I was, quote, a stranger and you welcomed me, end quote.
So therefore, you must bring all kinds of refugees into your countries, pay them massive amounts of welfare benefits to outbreed you and attack the native population, displace your culture.
Yeah, because the Pope said so when Jesus said, a stranger and you welcomed me.
You know, I don't like to explain Jesus to the Pope.
I don't.
I mean, as far as egotism and vanity goes, that may be considered a bit of an overreach.
So, with all due humility, I just wanted to put forward my perspective on what Pepe Frank has said about this situation.
So...
Jesus did honor and respect hospitality.
You know, hospitality is actually a voluntary choice.
You know, if you want to invite someone into your home and give them dinner and give them a place to sleep and so on, you're spending your own money out of your own choice, and therefore there can be virtue in it.
This is not what happens with the migrant crisis.
The migrants come into the country and they use the power of the state, or the power of the state is used, to transfer money by force from...
The native population to the migrants.
So it is no longer a matter of generosity.
It's no longer a matter of virtue because it's compelled.
It's forced.
It's enforced.
And so it doesn't do any good to ascribe, or it certainly doesn't make any sense, to ascribe positive moral natures to compelled actions.
If you compel someone, there's no morality in it anymore.
If I force someone, if I chain them to, if I drag them in a windowless van in my house and chain them to the dining room chairs and then break bread with them, they're not there by choice.
They're not my friend.
It's compelled.
And this is really, really important to understand.
And how much is being misunderstood?
A country is not a person.
A country is not a person.
The government is not the people.
You could say, well, France has opened its doors to refugees.
No.
No, it hasn't.
France has failed to enforce the law.
Because refugees have to, by law, stay in the first country they get to and not go welfare shopping throughout Europe.
So France has failed to enforce the law in many times and in many ways.
And it is forcing its population to pay for these migrants.
And it's doing so, let's be honest, to appease the existing population from those regions of the world so that they'll gain votes from that population.
So, it's not like France is some person.
This is collectivism, right?
It's the mistaking of the individual and society, which is bad enough, but mistaking the individual for the state that rules and punishes him and entraps him.
Well, that is absolutely wrong.
Absolutely wrong.
To say that someone has done something virtuous when they've in fact been forced to support those who would do them harm is mistaking charity for coercion.
And that's such a fundamental misapprehension of anything that Jesus said.
Jesus never said.
You must institute governments that force you to fund those who often hate your way of life.
No.
No, no, no.
That's not what happened.
Jesus, when people were praying upon the kindness or praying upon the worshipful, he took a whip to the moneylenders and to the moneychangers.
He took a whip to them.
And that is something, again, with all due humility, I would submit on this issue.
Well, it's best to go out with a bang and I don't think we're going to be able to top that rant.
So, thank you everyone for listening.
Greatly appreciate it.
Would also appreciate it if you could go to freedomainradio.com slash donate.
Support the show by signing up for a reoccurring donation or making a one-time donation.
We do need your support and we cannot do this show without it.
It's a massive amount of work beyond which I could even describe to you.
So I'd appreciate that very, very much.
If you want to get your hands on some dank memes, you can go to twitter.com slash Stephan Molyneux.
Follow stuff there.
And if you'd like to help us out, you can also go to fdrurl.com.
That's fdrurl.com slash iTunes.
And you can leave us an iTunes review.
Say, five stars, thumbs up, the show's awesome!
We'd appreciate that as well.
It would be helpful.
So thank you for listening.
Look forward to your feedback, your comments, your questions.
