Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

May 6, 2017 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux

03:16:03

3676 The Rise of Generation Z - Call In Show - May 3rd, 2017

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hey everybody, it's Stefan Molyneux from Free Domain Radio.
	Hope you're doing very, very well.
	Please don't forget, please don't forget to go past freedomainradio.com slash donate to help out the show.
	Mostly, mostly, mostly, most appreciate it.
	That's freedomainradio.com slash donate.
	Don't forget to follow me on Twitter at Stefan Molyneux and use our affiliate link at fdrurl.com slash Amazon.
	Well, well, well, what a show we have for you tonight.
	First up, why...
	Do I not believe in miracles?
	No, not the singing group, the actual, extra-dimensional, physics-defying will of deities.
	I had a great conversation about metaphysics and epistemology and some ethics, and I had a pretty powerful speech about my youthful thoughts about the Bible and the devil.
	It was really, really a great conversation.
	I appreciate the caller for bringing up the topic.
	Second caller wanted to know, why is Generation Z, or Z for those on Mars, why are they so right-wing, or at least not lefty-indoctrinated?
	I mean, they sure have been lefty-indoctrinated in the schools, but they've managed to emerge with some independence of thought.
	Why has that gone on?
	Third caller, ex-Antifa, wants to know, why do I think so many of the extreme leftists have the perceptions and perspectives that they have, and what can be done about it?
	And the fourth caller, a young woman from a tragic history who wants to know why she can't find a good man or even decent friends.
	And can she live a fulfilling life without becoming a mother, without having a family?
	It's a great, great question.
	Of course, a lot of people, particularly young people, Are asking that question these days, so I think you'll find the answers, or the conversation at least, extraordinarily helpful.
	So thanks so much for all of your very kind support.
	Onward and upward, here we go.
	Alright, up first today we have John.
	John wrote into the show and said, Aside from metaphysics, what is Stephan's take on the ethical and epistemological attitude we should show towards empirical manifestations of the divine?
	I am referring here to two sets of well-documented miracles, including Padre Pio's healing of Gemma de Giorgi and the Eucharistic miracles.
	What should be the attitude of rational and ethical beings faced with this information?
	That's from John.
	Just a little note to start that you say...
	I have a preference for empiricism.
	You say, based on his requirement for empirical evidence.
	That's not my requirement.
	This is sort of a your philosophy, your truth kind of thing, and it's not your particular fault.
	This is kind of all over the place, but I just wanted to point out it's not my requirement.
	It's not a personal thing.
	It's not a preference like jazz or ice cream.
	It is an objective requirement of philosophical truth that...
	Rational arguments be supported with empirical evidence.
	So I just wanted to sort of point that out at the beginning because that's my particular bugaboo.
	You don't hear it nearly as much as I do, but I hear it all the time.
	Steph, your truth, you have a preference to this.
	It's like, nope.
	If it's a preference, it's not philosophy.
	So I just wanted to mention that.
	Now regarding miracles, I wonder if you could give me the definition that you're working with of what is a miracle.
	Basically something that is outside of the common laws of nature.
	What are the uncommon laws of nature?
	Well, it's not an uncommon law of nature, I would say.
	It's more something that is set apart from the usual workings of the universe.
	So, I'm trying to figure out what you're doing.
	So, you say the usual workings of the universe.
	So, what are the unusual workings of the universe?
	I'm trying to figure out what...
	Are laws being broken?
	Or...
	I'm trying to...
	Yeah, basically.
	Okay, so something that, according to the laws of physics, is impossible.
	Is that correct?
	Yeah.
	Or biology.
	Yes.
	Yeah, fair enough.
	Fair enough.
	Okay.
	And how would you know or what standard would you take as knowing that a miracle was true?
	Because, I mean, clearly people make claims to miracles.
	I think you'd agree with me.
	Tell me if you wouldn't.
	There are times when people make claims that a miracle has occurred and they're either wrong or they've misperceived something or they're lying.
	Is that fair to say?
	Like there are times when it's not true.
	There are.
	And some of the stuff that I read up on, if you can convince people, particularly, let's say, south of the border in America, if you can convince people in third world countries that a miracle has occurred at a particular location, then you get lots of people flocking to that location.
	They leave lots of donations.
	So there is...
	A financial incentive to get people to believe that a miracle has occurred in a certain place.
	So there's that aspect, which doesn't prove that they're all false, but it's just important to remember that there is that.
	Yeah, sure.
	No problem.
	All right.
	And the second aspect is when it comes to cures, then there are physical ailments that have spontaneous remission, right?
	Like sometimes some people have cancer.
	They don't get any treatment.
	The cancer just goes away.
	Like I was reading about one woman who was blind and there was something pressing on her optic nerve and they couldn't remove it or whatever.
	And then she was healed.
	You know, one possibility is whatever was pressing on her optic nerve, like a cyst or something like that, drained spontaneously or was resolved in some manner.
	So there are ailments that spontaneously remit, right?
	And that's pretty tough to claim as a miracle.
	And you've probably heard of the website, God Hates Amputees, which is, to me, something that would be pretty miraculous and definitely go against the known laws of medicine and biology, if not physics.
	It's somebody who loses an arm.
	The arm gets ripped off and chewed up by a shark or something.
	And, you know, there's lots of documentation and so on.
	And then later, they have their arm back.
	You know, that would be pretty – that would be unexplainable by contemporary science.
	Illnesses that have spontaneous remissions or can remit on their own, more easy to understand as far as how it might happen.
	So that's my sort of question is now we know what a miracle is.
	It's something that's impossible.
	The second is how do we know whether people are telling the truth?
	Yeah, that's definitely a question that needs to be addressed with empirical evidence.
	Can I get to the specifics of the cases that I mentioned?
	Well, these are cases that you accept as true, right?
	Well, I could accept.
	I mean, you know, things have occurred.
	There's a description of the facts that has been provided to the general public.
	No, hang on.
	Descriptions are not facts.
	Like you say, description of the facts.
	No, no, no.
	Descriptions are descriptions.
	They're not facts.
	Facts are double-blind experiments, empirically observed, recorded.
	You know, it shows up on video.
	It shows up on a seismograph.
	So a description is not a fact, right?
	A description is a description.
	I just want to say, you say a description of the facts...
	Those two are not the same at all.
	But if you want to communicate a fact, you need to make a description of it.
	No.
	No, you need to provide evidence.
	Providing evidence is not the same as a description.
	You probably know this in law, right?
	Like in any reasonable, decent legal system, hearsay is not admissible, right?
	Like you can question a witness...
	About his direct experience.
	But you cannot question a witness about something that he heard someone else experience or something he heard someone else say.
	Hearsay is not admissible because that is a description.
	But if you're going to ask someone about their own direct experience, that may be one thing.
	But those are not facts.
	A fact is something that is empirically verifiable independent of someone telling you about it.
	Does that make sense?
	It does.
	It does.
	Okay.
	Okay.
	So, if I take an example, if I say in this desert, in the middle of this desert, there's a huge rock, for instance, the Irish rock, somewhere in the desert in Australia, that would be a fact that you can go there to that desert and check whether the rock is there.
	Yeah, you could log into Google Earth, right?
	You could zoom down.
	I mean, it's possible to fake it, but certainly if you're there.
	Then, and you're touching it and licking it and it tastes like rock, then, yeah, that's as real as anything can be.
	Okay, that's what I'm talking about.
	All right.
	So, that kind of, you know, because I see that in miracles there are lots of claims.
	Historically, a few of them are verifiable because whatever the facts were, They cannot, no longer be verified.
	For instance, someone got cured 300 years ago from whatever disease or whatever happened 4,000 years ago.
	You cannot go and check it out.
	Okay, so you consider, you want to bring up two examples that you consider true, that you believe to be true, real miracles, right?
	Well, I certainly have a, then again, I'm using the words for lack of a better understanding of Description that have been given to the public.
	That means that I personally, of course, didn't go and check them out myself.
	But they're verifiable right now.
	And how are they verifiable?
	Well, first you have the case...
	Can I go and talk about the cases themselves?
	First you've got the case of a young girl that actually got...
	She was cured from blindness, I guess, in the 1950s or 60s.
	The case you mentioned about amputees is very interesting because what she has is that she was blind and now she can see, but her eyes have no pupils.
	Her eyes have no pupils?
	Thank you.
	That's correct.
	And how do we know that?
	Is she still alive?
	Yes.
	And how do we know that her eyes have no pupils?
	Well, through medical examinations, repeated, of which we have documents.
	Well, I would want more than documents for something that's physically impossible, right?
	That's interesting.
	What would you want?
	What would I want for something that's...
	So the woman can see without pupils, right?
	That is correct.
	Right.
	Well, I would...
	I mean, if such a claim were made, I would want sort of independent medical examiners in there.
	I would also want people who weren't part of the belief system locally.
	In other words, I would want atheists and skeptics and so on who didn't have an emotional investment in whether these miracles were true according to the local religious contexts.
	I would want videos.
	I would want x-rays.
	I would want cat scans.
	You know, just about everything that you could conceive of.
	And of course, I would really want to make sure that she could in fact see.
	In other words, you know, you'd have a whole series of experiments where you would hold things up and try to...
	She would try and, oh, here's a number, here's another random number, and make sure that she could actually read it.
	I would want all of this video, I would want to see all of that.
	And so these would be the start of this kind of stuff.
	Okay, let's assume that you have it, because the records do exist.
	I mean, the person is alive, she's been under care of physicians for quite a while, and I think that the backstory has been To my understanding, of course, Farrell is scrutiny.
	Well, I haven't been there, I haven't interviewed her, I haven't run the test myself, but, you know, that's the understanding that you get.
	Right, right.
	And this is Padre Pio, right?
	That is correct.
	Right, okay.
	So the founder of Milan's Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, he's a friar physician and psychologist, met Padre Pio once for a few minutes and was unable to examine his stigmata.
	According to this friar, Padre Pio was an ignorant and self-mutilating psychopath who exploited people's credulity.
	This guy speculated that Padre Pio kept his wounds open with carbolic acid.
	As a result, Padre Pio was required to wrap the wounds in cloth.
	For many years, he wore fingerless gloves that concealed his wounds.
	According to believers, the bleeding continued for some 50 years until the wounds closed within hours of his death.
	A pharmacist sold four grams of carbolic acid to Padre Pio in the year 1919.
	The Archbishop of Manfredonia reported this as evidence that Padre Pio could have affected the stigmata with acid.
	This suggestion was examined and dismissed by the Vatican.
	And so this is one example.
	The other one is the woman who is missing the pupils.
	The belief is that she has an iridia characterized by loss of the iris, colored part of the eye, and misshapen pupils.
	You see photos of her and she wears sunglasses since the condition leads to sensitivity to light.
	If she were healed, she wouldn't need sunglasses all the time.
	Also, the Italian government still considers her to be legally blind.
	Okay.
	And how do you explain that you can see?
	I mean, I'm not even actually going into the medical case.
	I think you can have discussions one way or another.
	But I'm more interested about, you know, not the skeptical counter-arguments you can bring up.
	You can arguably say, okay, there are She's cheating or there are other, you know, phenomena there at play, but it's more the ethics of it.
	If you have such a claim, would you not say that it warrants a certain official scrutiny?
	Me?
	Oh, God, no.
	Oh, no, absolutely not.
	I wouldn't bother with that at all.
	I mean, things that are impossible are impossible.
	Why would we raise resources on every crazy person?
	Ah, I believe I am the reincarnation of Napoleon.
	Ooh, let's get a whole bunch of scientists together to figure out if you really are the reincarnation of Napoleon.
	Oh, Lord, I am afflicted by a bald spot, and then it went away.
	Well, why would you?
	I mean, people say crazy stuff all the time.
	All the time.
	People are misled, they're crazy, they're psychotic, they're liars, they're motivated by money.
	I mean, people say crazy stuff all the time.
	Would you go to an asylum and try and verify the claims of everyone in that asylum about what the truth was?
	No, we know that there are crazy people.
	And one of the ways we know they're crazy is they claim that impossible things have come true.
	And that's how we know that they're crazy.
	Substituting the word miracle doesn't make crazy pronouncements of impossible things happening any more true.
	Life is short.
	Social resources are very, very limited.
	So we want to apply our scarce resources as a culture, as a society, hell, as a species, to examining things that are possible and to extending and expanding human knowledge.
	Sending experts in to document the ravings of crazy people I guess if you have a hobby and you have some time on your hands, why not?
	I think there's probably better things to do with your life.
	But why would you want to?
	And let's look at the ethics of it as well.
	So first of all, you know, this woman that you say was cured, she still has very bad eyesight.
	So that's not really much of a cure.
	Either God can cure her, it hasn't, or it's not true at all.
	But what about the ethics of this?
	This is sort of my big question to people who believe in sort of cures and miracles, John.
	It's a very important question.
	Maybe you have a great answer.
	I have not been able to come up with one.
	So let's say that God decides to intervene and And cures this woman's blindness.
	And let's say that it's not limited, and there's not all these sunglasses, and, like, the Italian government doesn't still consider her to be legally blind.
	Let's just say, bing!
	She...
	Is cured.
	Let's say, let's go even more extreme.
	She had to have like, I had this interview recently with a recently deceased guy who was dying and he started off with tumors in his eyeballs.
	And so one of his eyes was physically removed.
	And let's say that both of her eyes were physically removed.
	And they regroup.
	And she can see.
	Okay, let's just say bona fide miracle, let's say it's proven.
	So now we've just established that God will cure illness.
	What, is Ray Charles just a complete asshole?
	Is Stevie Wonder a complete asshole?
	Is Roy Orbison a complete asshole?
	Why aren't they cured?
	Why aren't they cured?
	Given this cure, if God can directly intervene to heal someone like that of blindness, why does he do it so rarely?
	He's not got a prime directive to say, I don't interfere.
	You know, if somebody gets blind, well, you know, it's a test.
	I just want to figure out how they handle blindness, and it's a way of making their soul stronger through the friction of adversity or whatever, right?
	So if he's going to say, no, I don't have a prime directive.
	I'm willing to go in and intervene.
	I'm going to go in there and poke at that optic nerve and bring it back to life.
	Then why does he do it so rarely?
	What about all the good people who die of cancer, die of heart disease, get hit by buses?
	Why does he not spare their lives?
	God gives us, in the Bible, the Judeo-Christian, right?
	God gives us The story of the Good Samaritan, right?
	It's a guy walking along the road and sees a guy who's been beaten up, I think by robbers, he's been beaten up and he's lying in the ditch.
	And this guy goes and helps the guy lying in the ditch because he has the power to do good and this guy is in need and he's hurt through no particular fault of his own, right?
	And that's what God says is good if you have the power to help somebody who's suffering.
	Who's in need.
	Then it is moral to help them.
	But if it's moral to help people in need, surely the less effort you have to invest into helping someone, the less moral it is.
	Right?
	I mean, if you really have to work, if you have to go and risk your life to dive into a stormy sea to rescue a child, I mean, that's a big deal, right?
	We would say that.
	So, if you don't need to invest as much to save someone, It's not really as moral, but it's better than not helping them at all, right?
	Now, God, being all-powerful and all-knowing, doesn't have to invest anything to secure someone's eyesight or to cure someone of cancer or to cure someone of scoliosis or multiple sclerosis or Tay-Sachs disease, whatever, right?
	God can do it with no problem, no effort, and God has told us that That it is moral to help people who are hurt.
	So if you have a doctor who has a medicine, it costs him nothing to produce, and there's someone dying on his lawn and this medicine will cure him, then God would surely say, well, you have to go and help that person.
	So the theological problems of saying, well, it's really, really important and it's a very virtuous thing to help people in need, to cure the sick and to help the beaten and so on, feed the hungry...
	Then, by giving us this commandment, if God is able to cure people but does not cure people, then God is giving us a commandment for morality that he himself is failing to follow, even though it costs him infinitely less effort and energy to help someone than it would someone like you and I. So even if we were to accept all of these miracles,
	it opens up a set of dominoes, theologically and morally, which, to put it as nicely as possible, Don't make God look too good.
	I see your argument on that.
	Which means, I mean, you can work your way around that and say, you know, we're basically in this world to be tested, or...
	Well, then God shouldn't tell you to go help the Good Samaritan.
	Like, the Good Samaritan shouldn't be helping the guy in the ditch, because he's there to be tested, right?
	No.
	In that case, I would say that the test is on the guy who needs to go and help, on the good to marry.
	Good.
	Okay, so the moral test is on the person who has the capacity to help.
	Great.
	So then, the moral test is on God, who has the capacity to help and fails to do so, and God fails that moral test.
	See, if I... I can be an atheist by not believing in miracles.
	If I did believe in miracles, I'd be a Satanist.
	Because I would actually be against the immorality and hypocrisy of a deity who gave human beings moral commandments that the deity with far less effort, infinitely less effort, fails to follow himself.
	That would be an immoral deity, right?
	Hypocrisy in the area of morality is particularly a heinous corruption.
	I'm not really sure I can agree with that because of the difference of position between, let's say, God and man.
	But then you're saying if you have enough power, then morality doesn't apply to you.
	Who are you?
	Who's your God?
	Hillary Clinton?
	I don't understand.
	Well, you know, we can't give God any moral standards because God's all-powerful.
	It's like, well, then you're not worshipping goodness.
	You're just worshipping power.
	You can't say, well, God is so powerful that moral rules don't apply.
	That's a very dangerous idea, because then you have no way of knowing whether or not you're worshipping morality or power.
	But if you say, well, we must worship God, but we have no way of determining whether God is good or bad, because he's so powerful he's not subject to any moral standards, then how on earth do you know that you're worshipping a good deity?
	I have a different take on that, but I'm not sure that we're not getting out of the subject.
	I'm going to give you my take, and it is that goodness or morality is, in the end, defined and subject to the will of God, that If, you know, whatever God wants is by definition good.
	So then you're worshipping power, not any objective standard of morality.
	It's not illegal if the president says so.
	I mean, we don't accept that from...
	Richard Nixon, why would we accept that from a deity?
	How do you know that God is good?
	Well, if you say, well, he's just good by definition and we do whatever he says, that's a Stalin-like cult of personality where you're following power blindly.
	And if that was just your relationship with God, that's one thing, but that relationship with God tends to spill over into people's political beliefs as well, which is rather dangerous, right?
	Yeah, I'd agree with that.
	All right.
	How could I put it?
	So just to answer that question, maybe we can get back to, I mean, because I'm more on the epistemology of it, but my take on it, it's a question I've asked myself, is basically, you get to call the shots.
	And so when you get to call the shots, basically, whatever you say is good is good.
	And you can do whatever you want, because you get to call the shots.
	That's a dictator, right?
	You understand, that's a dictator.
	Entirely, yes.
	Okay, so as long as it's a cosmic dictator who doesn't follow the rules that he enforces upon other people, he'll send you to hell for not helping the guy who's stuck in the ditch, but he doesn't have to help the guy stuck in the ditch, and he's perfect.
	Yes.
	Well, if you want to worship that, that's your prerogative, of course, but philosophically speaking you're not worshipping virtue, you're worshipping power, and power worship, I would argue, is a deal with the devil, not with the divine.
	Just on that question, I disagree.
	No, it's not up to you.
	You can't just disagree.
	This is a philosophy show.
	We're not comparing opinions like, what do you think of my fall outfit?
	You don't get to disagree.
	You have to come up with a counter-argument, or you have to accept the argument, at least conditionally.
	Well, the counter-argument that you get for that is the book of Job, basically.
	And you have this Job.
	He's wealthy.
	He's got a lot of things going on for him.
	And...
	Basically, you've got Satan coming up to God and saying, hey, this guy is actually, you know, he's pretty happy.
	He's very religious.
	He's following your commandments because actually everything is running well for him.
	He has no troubles in life.
	Yeah.
	The devil says that Job only worships you because he's rich and healthy and powerful, right?
	And has a loving wife and a loving family.
	So he's not loving you, God.
	He's just loving all the good things you've given him, right?
	Yeah.
	That is correct.
	Now, you know how insane this story is, right?
	It's truly mental.
	I mean, let me just run through it real briefly, and then we'll talk about it.
	So the devil comes up.
	Job is a rich guy, and got lots of cool stuff, and wife, kids, loves him, healthy, and all that.
	And he praises God every morning, gets down, oh, God, I love you so much.
	And then the devil comes up and says to God, well, yeah, but he only loves you because you're giving him cool stuff.
	He's healthy, and he's got money, and his kids love him, and all that.
	And so God basically says, oh, yeah?
	Okay, fine.
	And then all of Job's I'm going to paraphrase here a little bit, but all of Job's sheep die, and he's poor, he's broke, he's in debt, right?
	And he's like, okay, well, that's tough, but, you know, I still love you, God, I still love you.
	And then Job's wife...
	Thinks he's cheating and then leaves and takes the kids.
	I'm going to stay with my mother.
	And Job's like, wow, that's pretty rough.
	But, you know, God, I still love you.
	I still love you.
	And then God says, and the devil says, well, yeah, he only loves you because he's still got his health.
	And then God's like, oh, yeah, and blows him up with horrible carbuncles and boils and sores and all this kind of stuff.
	And basically, Job's life just keeps getting worse and worse because the moment he's got anything good going on, the devil says to God, well, he's only worshiping you because...
	Of, he's still got this one good thing, and God's like, oh yeah, I blow up that good thing, and he's still right.
	And eventually Job's like, okay, I give up, man.
	I don't know what to do.
	I can't reason with you.
	This is just getting worse and worse and worse, right?
	Yeah, that's the story.
	So, why would God need to test Job?
	God is all-knowing.
	God would know why Job loves him.
	And also, aren't you supposed to love someone to some degree because they're doing good things to you?
	Good things for you?
	You know, like if you've got a wife who, you know, wakes you up with a cup of coffee and a kiss on the forehead and makes you flapjacks, whatever the hell they are.
	I've never had them, but I hear they're probably pretty good.
	And I'm pretty sure, I'm pretty sure you put maple syrup on them.
	And that's, yeah, Bolly rocks with maple syrup on them.
	You know, and then, you know, she chats with you and she's got a great sense of humor and she takes care of the household and raises your kids and is a wonderful mom and a great friend and supports your life and your career.
	And you have a lovely life.
	Well, you love her, right?
	And then if one of her friends comes along and says, oh yeah, well, he already loves you.
	Because you're slender.
	And you're like, fine, I'll get fat.
	Oh, he only loves you because you're nice to him.
	Okay, I'll be nasty to him.
	But he only loves you because you cook him food he likes.
	Okay, fine, I'm going to cook him food he hates.
	He only loves you because you're a good mom to his kids.
	Okay, I'm going to be a terrible mom to his kids.
	Well, at some point, don't you stop loving that person because they're being a horrible human being?
	I mean, isn't that the point?
	You're not supposed to love people who treat you like shit.
	You're really not supposed to love people who kill your livestock, who lie to your wife and drive her away from you, who poison your food and make you sick.
	If you had a friend who did that, that friend would be in jail or underground.
	You wouldn't love someone like that, somebody who abused you, somebody who destroyed your life because, what, some sort of insane love test?
	Some sort of Iago-style Desdemona Othello love test?
	I mean, that's insane!
	If you had a friend...
	Who was good to you and you cared about him because he was good to you and you were good to him.
	If that friend suddenly became a cosmic asshole and destroyed your family and destroyed your health and destroyed your wealth, why would you love that friend?
	He'd become psychotic.
	He would be evil.
	And how are you supposed to love evil?
	Do you understand?
	It's an insane, crazy story.
	If you went to a psychologist with this story, you know, I'm no psychologist, but I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess.
	If you went to a psychologist with this story, if you were Job, if you were Job like a woman in a marriage, and God was your husband...
	He started beating me.
	He's poisoning my food.
	He killed my pets.
	He's driven my family away.
	He's harming my children.
	I mean, you understand what the psychologist would say.
	Would the psychologist say, well, you just need to love him more?
	It's a love test.
	What would the psychologist say if Job were a woman coming to a psychologist for marriage advice?
	Lieber.
	Hell yeah!
	I hope so.
	I bloody well hope so.
	Not only leave him, but leave him like in the middle of the night and go to some place where he can't find you because he's crazy and evil and he's going to kill you.
	Okay.
	So you think that under those premises the morality test really is on God?
	If there's a God.
	Sorry, say again?
	Under these premises, you actually think that the morality test that you're actually suggesting is on God, is not on man.
	Is on God?
	Well, of course it's on God.
	Because God is the one who's making Job ill.
	God is the one who destroys his family.
	God is the one who kills his wealth.
	Job is the one who drives his children away from him and leaves him shaking and half falling apart and sweating in pus and boils and carbuncles in the middle of the desert.
	It's not Job who does that.
	It's God who does that to Job.
	And if God was a person, we'd think of just about the most evil person ever to set foot in Job's life.
	So I'm not sure that you've rescued the problem of God's morality by bringing in the story of Job, to be honest.
	Unless you want to say, well, for a human being, that would be totally evil.
	But for God, it's totally virtuous.
	It's like, okay, well then...
	God is handing out moral rules that God himself does the opposite of.
	That's moral hypocrisy.
	Or you could say, well, God is so incomprehensible that everything he does is virtuous.
	It's like, well, then you've given up on standards of morality, and all you're doing is making some opposite morality synonymous with infinite power.
	That's not moral.
	That's just a worship of power.
	No.
	In this case, I mean, the way the story is constructed is The story assumes that loving God is actually the moral thing to do.
	Whether that's the moral thing to do concretely, given what happens to him, okay, let's just put this aside.
	But let's just say that it's the moral thing to do.
	The interesting part of the story, from my perspective, is that he remains moral to that goal despite everything.
	Absolutely.
	But you understand that you can't start with the argument that loving God is the moral thing to do.
	Because that's what we're trying to establish.
	That's called begging the question.
	Right?
	Because the whole question, certainly if God was a human being and treating someone like that, The quote, love would be a masochistic, self-destructive, probably suicidal pathology.
	To stay in the orbit of somebody who was abusing you that much would be a form of suicidal, literally suicidal masochism, a pathology.
	This would be sick, unhealthy.
	And so you can say, well, we've got another definition of love, which is the exact opposite of the human definition of love.
	We've got a definition of morality, which is the exact opposite of a human definition of morality.
	We have morality, and we have the exact opposite of morality.
	We have love, and we have the exact opposite of love.
	Philosophically, this doesn't work.
	You can't create an entity and say, well, he's doing something that would make you fear and hate a human being, but it should make you love this other entity.
	Because that's demanding that human beings...
	Fear, loathe, and hate the exact same behavior in a human being that they then worship and love in a deity.
	That's causing a massive split in values, right?
	Well, if a human being treats you like that, you must fear, loathe, and hate them.
	And actually, if a human being was treating you like that, you would be, I think, morally justified in killing that person in self-defense.
	If the person was poisoning you and harming you and so on, and the only way you could solve it was you would be justified in killing that person in self-defense if there was no court you could drag him to or something like that.
	And so if you've got a situation wherein killing someone would be perfectly justified, and in fact, if it's the only way you could save yourself, the healthiest thing to do.
	That extremity of bad treatment, then saying, well, no, it's God, so instead of being provoked to such an extremity of self-defense that killing someone is a reasonable outcome or a moral outcome, you must now worship this being because reasons, because X, because, like, that makes no sense.
	Philosophically, I mean, in theology, I mean, it's like, What are the hit points of a Dungeons and Dragons monster?
	Well, there's no objective argument about that.
	You make up whatever you want, right?
	But philosophically, you cannot say, love requires virtue.
	Virtue is treating people well.
	Just take a simple example.
	And therefore, for human beings to love someone, they must be treating you well.
	However, for God, if God chooses to treat you brutally, abusively, to kill you, to kill your family, to torture you, to maim you, your kids get sick or whatever...
	Well, you must love that too.
	Then you're asking human beings to love virtue and the exact opposite of virtue.
	But you're elevating the opposite of virtue to power, to infinite power, and therefore you're saying basically you must love virtue and you must love power.
	And the power that is exercised in the opposite of virtue should only make you love God more philosophically.
	It's utterly false.
	Now, again, theologically, well, you're into a magic land of made-up stories, and so you can make up anything you want, but philosophically, these arguments cannot even remotely stand.
	Okay, so you're saying that the problem of evil, like it's called, actually renders any thought of God's morality actually completely moot?
	Is that your point?
	I don't understand what you mean.
	I'm not sure what moot means.
	I think I've just made a very strong argument.
	I mean, it's funny because I make a strong argument and people say, well, basically, you're saying this.
	It's like, I don't know what that means.
	I just made the argument.
	I mean, rephrasing it in your own way, which I don't even understand.
	I don't know how that's a response to the argument.
	You can say, Steph, you've given me a lot to think about.
	Let me think about it.
	I'll come back to you.
	You can say, Steph, you're wrong and here's why.
	Or you can say, Steph, I accept your argument because I can't find a way against it.
	But rephrasing it in your own way is not an argument, right?
	You understand?
	It's like if you reach into the seawater and there's a squid down there and it squirts ink at you.
	This is kind of what you're doing.
	Let me fog things up by rephrasing things according to my own language.
	That's not a rebuttal.
	That's not an argument.
	I don't know what that is.
	Okay, I'm really trying to take what you said and trying to, you know, summarize it.
	That's all I'm trying to do.
	But that's not the conversation I wanted to have in the beginning, but it doesn't matter.
	Let's get on with it.
	So, you're saying that because God allows evil to happen in the world...
	No, no, no.
	If you bring up the Job story, then God is initiating the use of force, because God is destroying his wealth, destroying his health, destroying his family.
	God is waging an act of war against Job.
	So God is initiating the use of force, and now according to the non-aggression principle, the initiation of the use of force is immoral.
	Therefore, God is immoral.
	This is not that complicated, right?
	I mean, I understand.
	Emotionally, it's difficult because, you know, people are raised with certain beliefs.
	But we have the non-aggression principle.
	And God is clearly not acting in self-defense by making Job sick.
	He's succumbing to the Iago machinations of Satan, which is not a very strong thing to be doing, by the way.
	So, no, it's not that...
	God is letting bad things happen.
	God is making bad things happen in this example.
	Okay.
	Assuming the example holds true, would you say that whatever...
	I mean, it was basically God's pleasure to also, at the beginning of the story, give him all the things that he had, and at the end of the story, giving him back all those things.
	I mean, just if we remain...
	Oh, so if somebody kidnaps your child and you're terrified, and then they return that child, that's fine?
	You're going from the standpoint that the child was actually yours to have from the beginning.
	In the context of the story...
	Wait, what?
	What do you mean?
	Well, I mean, in a certain sense...
	Okay, if you're having trouble with that one, you have a car, you've bought it, it's yours, somebody steals your car, dents the hell out of it, gets it fixed and brings it back to you, does that mean that they didn't do anything wrong?
	Well, they gave you the car in the first place, within the context of the story.
	Okay, let's take it your way then.
	Somebody gives you the car, it's yours...
	And then they take it back, they drive it over your pets, they run it through your garage, and they run down one of your children, and then they bring the car back.
	Did they do anything wrong?
	Look, your car is back.
	Certainly, on a personal level, I wouldn't want to be through that kind of procedure, let's call it that way.
	In that sense, you could argue that, I mean, God gives you, lets bad things happen, basically within the system of the world, and then...
	Well, telling you don't let bad things happen.
	It's immoral to let bad things happen if you have the power to change it, right?
	That's the Good Samaritan.
	God says it's immoral to let bad things happen if you have the power to change it, and God lets bad things happen when it would cost him nothing to change them.
	That's the price you get.
	That is true.
	This is the price of believing in miracles.
	If you don't believe in miracles, at least you can say, well, God has a prime directive that says don't interfere.
	Now, he tells us to interfere, but once you start, this is why this all came up, right?
	Once you start believing in miracles, God has pierced through space-time with his big ghostly finger, and he's changing things.
	And that's one of the main reasons why I resist the very idea of miracles.
	If I were religious, I would resist to the death the very idea of miracles.
	Because it would turn God into a devil.
	Who could change things, but most times doesn't, even though he commands us to help.
	Well, I disagree with you.
	And I'm going back to theology, not to epistemology, right?
	I disagree with you because the real price that you get is actually, you know, when you get out of the matrix.
	you're here basically it's a test and you're going through a lot of shit and uh at the end we evaluate you and we see how well you did basically the test is the test partly one of the tests is the good samaritan test which is do you help people where you have the capacity and power to help Do you help people who are suffering?
	And the answer to that is, yes.
	Passing the moral test means helping people who are suffering.
	Which means that God fails his moral test.
	God fails his own moral test.
	God is doing the opposite of what he commands people to do.
	Now, we all understand that if I was telling people, do X, and I did the opposite of X, I would be considered a hypocrite.
	Now, it doesn't mean that, if I say, you know, go help people, and then I don't help people, it doesn't mean that I'm, my argument is wrong, but it means I'm a moral hypocrite.
	It means I'm not following the standards I've set forth for others, right?
	Yes, but you give a reward in the end.
	And we're basically back to theology.
	Let's discuss it.
	You actually reward them in the end for that.
	It's not gratuitous.
	There's a trade-off happening there.
	And if, for instance, I told you, well, I need this application done.
	You're a programmer.
	I need this application done.
	Do it.
	And you try to do it.
	You go through a hard time.
	It's really difficult.
	The specs are hard.
	You have no clue how to do it.
	But at the end of the day, you bring the application.
	You've written the code.
	It works.
	You get a fantastic bonus and payment.
	I mean, in theology, that's the way it's presented.
	But there's no moral content in anything you say.
	You're talking about a software program.
	An upgrade to Candy Crush isn't the same as good and evil.
	So the question is not, that's not the analogy.
	The analogy is that I am somebody who claims to be a moralist.
	Or let's say Bob.
	Bob claims to be a moralist.
	And Bob says, thou shalt not kill.
	And then Bob turns out to be a mass murderer.
	What would we think of Bob?
	We would give him even more moral responsibility than some Tom, Dick, or Harry because Bob created a moral rule which he considered to be universal for everyone, which is thou shalt not murder.
	And then Bob turns out to be a serial killer.
	He's more responsible because he's the one who originated the moral rule that he's refusing to follow or doing the opposite of following, really, right?
	Okay, then again, on the theology, or at least what passes as Christian theology in the context of the story, you say, okay, well, but there's, you know, at the end of your life, you're going to go to heaven.
	Heaven is actually so great that it makes up for a whole lot.
	It's basically the same thing as having a shitty job, but a fantastic pay.
	So it's fine to command people to do evil as long as you pay them afterwards.
	It's fine to be a moral hypocrite as long as you can bribe people afterwards.
	So it's okay to be a serial killer who tells people not to murder as long as you give people a bunch of money afterwards?
	I don't think that the reward thing is solving the moral problem.
	I think it actually kind of makes it worse because bribery is just another moral crime.
	I don't really get the argument.
	You said it's fine to torture people as long as you give them heaven afterwards.
	If you give them a reward, it's fine to torture them.
	I think that if you are bribing people to make it kind of okay that you tortured them, how about you just don't torture them?
	I mean, if I want to give people a million dollars, I could just give them a million dollars.
	If I just wanted people to come to heaven, I'd go to heaven, come to heaven.
	But the idea that I can torture Job, but then make it okay by giving him heaven afterwards, I don't think that that's really particularly good, right?
	I mean, if a man, let me give you an extreme example, right?
	If a man serially and horribly abuses a child, and then pays for her college, is he okay?
	Is he fine?
	Is it all squared away?
	Well, but the argument is, I'm just quoting the argument, the argument is that there's actually no quantifiable relationship between the good that you get at the end and the evil you go through in life.
	That the good that you're getting in the end is actually so much better and it makes the whole thing worthwhile.
	I mean, that's the basic, I would say, carrot that they're Handing over to you in Christianity.
	Well, this is exactly the argument of people who've tortured others for the cause of religion, and not just religion, but statism as a whole.
	I mean, the communists did a similar thing.
	You'll go to the gulag, but it will help us achieve an egalitarian society.
	And the argument goes something like this.
	You are doing something wrong.
	And it's not going to get you into heaven.
	It's going to, in fact, get you into hell.
	Now, I need to prevent you from doing something wrong, so I need to lock you up.
	I need to torture you.
	I need to get you to confess.
	I need to absolve you of your sins.
	And then if you die, well, you're going straight to heaven.
	In other words, the benefit of heaven justifies the torture of the individual, or the confinement of the individual, or the trial of the individual, or the punishment of the individual.
	And it's all okay, you see, because when that individual dies, he goes to heaven, so it's worth it.
	You know, there are religions around the world not entirely unfamiliar with that argument that violence is justified because the end result is heaven.
	Now, I see your point.
	But, okay, coming back just to that question.
	I'm sorry.
	You are saying that it would be okay to give You know, such a great reward is heaven to anybody, regardless of their virtue.
	The end justifies the means, is what you're saying.
	The end justifies the means.
	It's a standard leftist argument.
	That we can go and set fire to cops if it helps stop fascism.
	We can go punch Richard Spencer because he's a Nazi.
	I mean, the end justifies the means.
	That heaven justifies the torture, that heaven justifies the cruelty, that heaven justifies the hellishness of life.
	That is not the question.
	No, no, no.
	It's different.
	Would you say it's good to reward people for doing nothing or the opposite of good?
	Sorry, say again?
	Well, do you think it's, then again, moral?
	Would it be moral from God's point of view to actually say, well, you know, everybody get in.
	Regardless of your morality or of your choices or of whatever you've done in life, come to heaven.
	It's a free pass and you can be a bad person.
	You can be horrible.
	You can choose vice.
	Regardless of that, you're going to get a free ticket and you're going to not suffer anything.
	Sure, no, I understand that argument, but my question is not God's relationship to man, but God's relationship to morality.
	Well, first of all, there are certain beliefs that believe that if you just apologize for everything at the end, you can do whatever the hell you want and still get into heaven.
	But my question is this, or my observation is this.
	God's relationship to morality is pretty important.
	And I'm going to give you a little speech here.
	Hopefully this will make some sense.
	Now, this has been tough for my religious listeners to hear, and I love you guys, and I want you to call in and let me know where I've gone astray, right?
	These are challenges that I wrestle with.
	I'm not claiming to have all the final answers.
	These are challenges, and I've wrestled with these challenges since I was about five years old, if that's any consolation.
	So I'm just telling you the way that philosophy is leading me.
	But...
	Let me expound.
	Oh dear Lord, let me lecture.
	Let me give a sermon on what I'm scared of.
	And what opportunity I see in all of this.
	Philosophically speaking, God is a moral hypocrite because he does not follow the commandments that he inflicts upon his followers.
	He defines something as moral.
	And does the opposite.
	Thou shalt not kill.
	He drowns the world except for Noah and family.
	Thou shalt not bear false witness.
	And he kills and then says, oh, sorry, I'll never do that again.
	That's not particularly great.
	And the Good Samaritan is thou shalt help others in need if you have the power to do so.
	God could help just about everyone in need and doesn't do so.
	Except a few people if you believe in miracles are part of this conversation.
	Here's a possibility that I have entertained.
	It's a thought experiment.
	This is not philosophy anymore.
	We have gone beyond the borders of reason and evidence into a land of rampant speculation.
	But let me tell you what.
	I am frightened of and has been of many years.
	What if the Bible is a misleading document?
	What if the Bible was written by the devil, who's supposed to have dominion over this world?
	And what if the Bible and the rules therein is written by the devil to get you to worship power rather than virtue?
	Because the devil has power, he does not have virtue.
	He's second only to God, the greatest of the angels.
	What if Lucifer gave these stories, gave these myths, gave these instructions, gave these commandments, and portrayed a god?
	Willing to break all of the commandments he inflicts upon his followers.
	What if the stories given to us were written by the devil to set us astray, to set us on the wrong path, to lead us into temptation, down the slippery slope, Into hell itself by having us worship power rather than goodness.
	Maybe, just maybe, the devil writes religion and God is in philosophy.
	Maybe these stories, these fairy tales, these seductive, power-mongering, hypocritical, brain-twisting, Non-syllogisms are designed to evoke in you a desire for conformity, a desire for subjugation, and a worship of raw, brute dominance and power.
	And maybe what God wants Is to reject the love of power, to reject an acceptance of hypocrisy, to reject following for the sake of following.
	And God wants you to think for yourself.
	Maybe that's how we get into heaven.
	Maybe how we get into heaven is to reject the love of power, to identify and reject moral hypocrisy.
	And maybe how we get into heaven is to think clearly to ourselves.
	If Satan is the god of this world, of course he would portray himself in the Bible as God.
	But it's pretty obvious the god of the Bible, not that great.
	By any contemporaneous standards, any modern standards for sure, but even by his own standards, not that great.
	Maybe that's the devil's obviousness.
	Maybe what was written down is a recipe for hell.
	Maybe who's in charge of religion is the devil, and God speaks to us through philosophy.
	And God says, reject following, reject hypocrisy, reject the love of power, think for yourselves, be morally consistent, universally preferable behavior.
	That is how not only we get to heaven, but how we can create the closest damn thing.
	The closest damn thing to heaven on earth that can be imagined.
	Because if I strip out, and this is, oh God, this is the hardest thing about philosophy, is it says over and over again, forget what you know, forget what you know, forget what you know, blank slate,
	blank slate, blank slate, throw away all of the accumulated Emotional triggers and culturally invested portraits and languages and spiritual infusions that have accumulated over history.
	And it says, scrub it all.
	Scrub it all.
	Wipe everything out.
	And if I look at the stories in the Bible and I look at the stories in philosophy or the arguments in philosophy, if I look at following and the worship of power and an acceptance of moral hypocrisy versus critical thinking, reason, evidence, the compassion that arises from a passion for reason, if I think about all these things and I say, what if...
	What if I didn't know?
	Or what if I didn't believe?
	Or what if I was never told that the Bible was written by God, or inspired by God, or transcribed by those inspired by God?
	What if I knew nothing of this?
	What if I simply came down with no prior history, no prior knowledge of any of this, any of it?
	And what if I simply Attempted to analyze what was being written about and what was being said in the Bible.
	And what if I tried to analyze and understand what was being said in philosophy, rational philosophy, objective empirical philosophy?
	When I looked at the Bible, I would see murder.
	Some good rules, and some good rules.
	But I would see genocide, rape, murder, and such obvious moral hypocrisy that I could not look at the deity of that Bible and say, that is the greatest good.
	That is the greatest goodness that could be conceived of.
	I can't imagine anything better.
	Because if it was a person, I would say, what a horror of a human being.
	So if...
	I also knew that Satan was the god of this world.
	That I would say that the Bible was not an instruction manual for virtue, but a temptation to immorality.
	Not because all of the rules in the Bible are wrong.
	Good Lord, no.
	Thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not bear false wantonness, thou shalt not steal.
	Great stuff.
	But it's the moral hypocrisy of the deity that would lead me to believe that the Bible was the portrayal Of a satanic psychosis.
	And where God was, where the divine was, was in the union of reason and virtue, objectivity, evidence, clarity, critical thinking, definitions, The benevolence and beneficence of philosophy.
	That I would consider to be the road to God.
	The prophet Socrates would speak more to me about virtue and consistency and honor and dignity, integrity, than the God portrayed in the Old Testament.
	Jesus is more complicated.
	Jesus is more complicated.
	But as far as the deity goes, If I didn't know anything, if I had never been told anything, and I was merely given these texts to examine, as if they had come down in a spaceship, as if a spaceship had landed, was empty of anything, and had this book in it with these characters, these rules, these ethics, these stories.
	And if I were to look at these stories, these rules, these arguments, these ideals, And had no prior perception of good or evil, of right or wrong, of deity or human or anything.
	No trinity, no soul, no heaven, no hell.
	And I was simply to analyze and look at the morality and the consistency and the integrity of the characters portrayed or the stories portrayed or the gods discussed in this book.
	I could not in any way, I think, find my way to saying...
	This is a great definition and example of consistent moral virtue.
	Because when I read stories of Job being tortured by God, I could not look and say, well...
	That's really good.
	Let me just finish up, then I'll shut up.
	That's really good.
	I can't sit there and say that's really good.
	When I see a character in the story saying, you must help people if you can, and then consistently sometimes helping people, sometimes not helping people, but consistently breaking his own moral rule to help others when you can, I would view that as an example of moral hypocrisy, which would not be allowed, but In philosophy, we would not say that someone who said, thou shalt not kill, who became a murderer, we would not say that that person would be morally consistent, would be morally good.
	His arguments may have value, but he himself would not be a virtuous person.
	And we may respect his arguments if they were independent of his own actions, if they were argued outside of his own experience, but we would not respect the actions, and we would not respect the integrity.
	And we would not go to that person and say, what would he do?
	What does he want me to do?
	What would he tell me to do?
	We would not subjugate ourselves in that way.
	We would accept the arguments.
	We would absorb the arguments, and we would not say, what would this man do?
	This character do?
	This person do?
	We would say, what is right?
	Not who can I follow, but what can I reason out?
	And that, to me, was the great fear about...
	The Bible.
	And I wrestle with it.
	I still wrestle with it.
	Not because I believe in a God, but because I'm concerned that what's being taught is a love of power.
	And if we have a love of power and a belief that it is moral to subjugate ourself to a power that does not follow its own rules, I'm concerned Even if we're not following the devil, we'll turn the state into the devil.
	Okay, I'll take your point.
	Can I split the question in two different strands?
	I'll give you the final point, but we've got a lot of callers tonight, so I'll give you the final point, and I appreciate you calling in.
	in it's a great conversation but uh i can't keep going without dumping too many callers at the end so um please finish your you can make the final statement i'll move on okay uh on on the questions you're wrestling basically uh are the same question that actually job uh wrestles with and in the whole story and
	And my personal take on that morality is probably the figure of Christ, where you have basically God coming down and saying, okay, I'm not going to explain to you, Job, why you have to go through this torture, because, you know, I have reasons.
	But...
	I'm going to come down and, you know, be tortured as well, you know.
	Right.
	So, the answer there that the Bible offers, I guess, is really the figure of Jesus where there's, in the literal sense, compassion.
	Right, and that's a great point, and that's one of the reasons I said Jesus is more complicated.
	But listen, I'm going to move on for the next caller.
	I appreciate you calling in.
	That was a great conversation, and thanks for your time.
	Thank you.
	Alright, up next is Hans.
	Hans wrote in the show and said, Donald Trump's White House strategist Steve Bannon has cited books such as The Fourth Turning as one of his influences and even mentioned right-wing philosophers like Julius Evola.
	The theories these people preach is that history goes through continuous cycles, from a right-wing populace to a left-wing populace and back again, or from tradition to modernism.
	These theories are supported by the fact that Generation Z is the most conservative generation since World War II compared to millennials and the baby boomers.
	As someone from this generation born in 1999 who holds very right-wing views, together with my peers, what are your thoughts on such a theory and does it hold any credence?
	If so, what are the consequences of that?
	If not, why is it that Generation Z is so right-wing?
	That's from Hans.
	Hi Hans, I would also like to appreciate and thank you for making me feel young that somebody born from 1999 is calling him with such a great question.
	It's really great.
	Good for you.
	Thank you.
	Is there anything you wanted to add to this question?
	No, I just might add that something isn't there, you know, something is happening.
	I mean, compared to older people in the late 20s and mid 30s, People my age, like 15, 14, 16, 19, are very, very right wing.
	We are very politically incorrect.
	And that might just be because you're a teen, so you don't excuse my French give a fuck about political correctness.
	But we are very anti-feminist.
	It's just a very right wing, a very right wing.
	And that's my question.
	So, the skepticism towards political correctness is long overdue.
	And it's funny because we've got someone calling in tonight who refers to me as a conservative or I've been referred to as right-wing or even alt-right.
	And look, to be fair, it's true that I get a lot more people not on the left who I talk to in this show.
	But that's not because I'm right-wing.
	I'm just easily bored.
	And the problem with the left is, it's so boring.
	It's like, don't you know exactly what they're gonna say before they even say it?
	The creative work that is going on, the intellectual energy, the crossing of new boundaries, the fording of streams, the climbing of mountains, the exploring of the wilderness, is not happening on the left, and it hasn't happened on the left for ever.
	Yeah, their memes are shit, basically.
	Their memes are shit!
	Their comedy is shit!
	It's so fucking boring!
	Yeah, I mean, I thought I was the only one.
	I will watch your videos, maybe in class, or maybe watch something from Marienopolis, and then I will listen to others in my class, and they're talking about Marienopolis, and they're talking about all these people.
	We're living in Norway, by the way.
	We're not in the United States.
	We're living in Norway, and we're talking about stuff you're talking about.
	So it's a bit amazing.
	So I'm not alone.
	This is something I'm noticing people in my age, basically.
	And I think also the left, the non-left, has energy and optimism and is willing to Fight entrenched powers.
	The left has become the entrenched power.
	The left has become the man that they claimed to fight.
	Turns out, like, communism with Christianity, they only hated the man because they wanted his place, right?
	Now they've got his place.
	So this is the problem, is that The left bores me.
	And I don't want to get all Milo, being boring is the worst crime ever, darling.
	But it's just that it's so repetitive.
	I know every joke that they're going to make, and I know all the comments that they're going to make, and I know that they're going to talk about racism, and they're going to talk about sexism, and they're going to make fun of Donald Trump.
	Stephen Colbert was saying just recently that Donald Trump's mouth was only good as being a cockholster.
	For Putin's penis or something like that.
	I mean, it's like, not only is that horrible and coarse, like, I find this stuff where people are like, why don't you just stop sucking so-and-so's dick and so on?
	It's like, well, first of all, you're just confessing your own secret fantasies and all that kind of stuff.
	But it's just, it's so boring.
	And it's also, the worst is boring and coarse.
	Boring and coarse, deadly combination.
	But enough about Amy Schumer.
	So, I find this stuff is so boring.
	And, you know, Paul Joseph Watson...
	It has a great saying, and I think the t-shirts are still out there.
	Conservatism is the new counterculture.
	And it's true.
	Yeah, exactly.
	You know, I'm looking at these unmasked Antifa pictures, like on the internet, when they're like taking the police unmasked.
	They're all in like the 30s and late 20s.
	They look really old compared to my generation.
	These are millennials.
	These are not Generation Z where I'm from.
	Quick question, Hans.
	These are old.
	I shouldn't laugh, but I've seen those pictures too.
	Quick question.
	You know that scale of attractiveness that goes from 1 to 10?
	Yeah.
	Do you see any of those guys with anything above a 2?
	I'm not sure they're guys.
	It's really a big question.
	I'm not sure.
	I can't see their gender.
	They're very non-binary, you know?
	I have very low sexual market value, but at least I can run away from people who fight back.
	Yeah, exactly.
	So, yeah, it's boring.
	It's...
	It's like, you know what it's like if you've ever sort of turned on these sitcoms, and I don't have cable and I haven't had cable in forever, but, you know, every now and then when I was young, you'd sort of flip past these shows and there'd be some low-rent comedy.
	And you just, you know the jokes ahead of time.
	You know what's being set up.
	You know, it's like, you know, way back in the day, this is long before you were around, but there was this comedy called Three's Company.
	And my friends used to mock this all the time when we were in our sort of early to mid-teens.
	It's like, oh, look, there's been another misunderstanding.
	You know, it's like it's the same damn show.
	Over and over and over again.
	You know, like Freaks and Geeks later on when it gets really preachy about conservatives and Republicans and Democrats and stuff like that.
	And the humor is so dry, like mocking Christians, and I'm not Christian, I'm 80s, but mocking Christians is so like 90s and 80s when you're like making fun of Jesus, like nobody cares.
	It's not funny.
	And it's not edgy.
	It's Christ.
	It's not revolutionary.
	Yeah, I saw this tweet the other day, I guess it was around Easter, and somebody had posted a picture of Jesus.
	And they had said, you know, oh, Jesus saw his own shadow.
	That means six more weeks of winter, I guess, in some reference to the groundhog that sees its own shadow or something like that.
	And somebody had written, I can't remember who it was.
	And somebody had written, wow, cool comedy, bro.
	Really edgy.
	Why don't you try that with Muhammad?
	And it's true.
	Making fun of Christians is really boring and kind of cowardly.
	Because everyone knows that Christians are just about the nicest people around.
	And yes, I say that including atheists who tend to be kind of lefty.
	So yeah, making fun.
	It's like picking on the nerd, right?
	It doesn't make you look particularly...
	And I'm not saying that Christians are nerds.
	What I mean is in terms of physical courage to be a bully against a 98-pound weakling.
	It does not show you to be particularly courageous.
	Rather, it's the opposite.
	And the non-leftists are willing to take on the edgy topics.
	They're willing to fight back against this stifling conformity, this right-think that's going on everywhere, that's so viciously enforced that it has become the new fascism, whether it's viciously enforced through...
	Ostracism, through attacking your income, through trying to destroy your reputation, or through physically attacking you, because somehow the word Nazi, which is being projected onto others and being enacted by these people, is not boomeranging back swastika-style.
	It's ridiculously ironic.
	Like Nazi, it's not even like an insult.
	Not saying that Nazi is not terrible.
	It's like Hitler jokes.
	You make Hitler jokes.
	Nobody cares.
	You can do a...
	You can go into the classroom, do Sieg Heil, and a black student and a Jewish student will look back.
	It's so in the past.
	There are no Nazis anymore.
	I'm against Nazis and I'm against rape.
	I'm against racism.
	And it's like, oh, good lord.
	It's like saying you're against child rape.
	Of course you're against racism.
	Of course you're against child rape.
	Why do you have to make posters?
	I thank anybody for that.
	It's like so obvious.
	Nobody's...
	And I was just actually just because I have no other place to jam it in.
	Wait, that sounds like a pickup line.
	But I have no other place to jam it in, Hans.
	So I'm sorry, but I'm going to here.
	I was just thinking this morning, because that's what I do when I'm having my coffee.
	I was thinking this morning about how, you know, there's all these people who are like, we should get more refugees.
	We should bring in more refugees, more people from the Middle East, more people from Africa would be great.
	Now, people call this virtue signaling.
	But I don't think it is.
	I think what it is is status signaling.
	Because they're saying, I'm rich enough to not have to live in any neighborhood these migrants will end up in.
	It's a way of advertising How wealthy and exclusive you are by saying, yes, we should have more migrants because, you know, people in Tommy Robinson's neck of the woods, they're not that keen on all these extra migrants because they have to live in those neighborhoods or be driven out of those neighborhoods.
	But of course, the people who are all saying we should get more migrants, they generally live in the whitest, most exclusive and wealthiest neighborhoods.
	It's actually a way of status signaling, not just a virtue signaling.
	But anyway, I just wanted to mention that because I didn't want to lose the thought.
	So I want to get back to the rest of the question now.
	Since this generation I belong to, apparently, according to a lot of sources, is the most right-wing, at least conservative, libertarian generation since pre-World War II, meaning we are really, really right-wing compared to millennials and baby boomers, you know?
	And I was sort of moving this toward philosophy, toward these historical cycles and stuff.
	Similar to that, I want to hear your opinion on Those are theories that the Bannon have read a lot about.
	Well, in general, cycles of history are not part of philosophy.
	Philosophy aims to smooth out the cycles of history with facts.
	So if you can think of a plane that is sort of wildly going left and right, like the wings are going up and down, up and down.
	Because you're overcorrecting, right?
	You're, oh, I'm going too far this way.
	You overcorrect, go too far the other way.
	Philosophy, of course, aims to get you out of the storm and have you fly more stably, right?
	By sort of referencing facts and reason and evidence.
	So philosophy, I don't think, has much to say about these cycles because the whole point is to stop these cycles.
	But I will say this.
	That in the first flush of new optimism, when new ideas come along, everyone thinks they're going to solve all the problems in the world.
	And you can see this in the 60s with the hippies, right?
	And with the lefties and the progressives did it in the 19-0s and 19-teens and so on.
	These new ideas are going to solve the problems in society.
	The welfare state is going to solve the problems of society.
	Feminism is going to solve the problems of society.
	Massive government redistribution of income is going to solve the problems of society.
	Integration between the races is going to solve racial IQ differences and the bell curve problems.
	All is going to get solved.
	If we establish no-fault divorce, we're going to solve the problems in society.
	And there's all this optimism.
	And I don't know if you've ever been in Last Love.
	Love.
	Sorry, you're 19.
	But if you've ever been...
	When you first fall for a woman, it's...
	Mental.
	Like, basically, nature turns you insane so that she can get you to impregnate someone rather than evaluate her character, which is something we fight against here in this show as well.
	We just actually released a show, which I think pretty much has the least liked caller in Free Domain Radio history.
	And for those who are, you know, the judgment may not be hugely objective, but the show is called A Life in Crisis, and you should check it out.
	It's probably something like...
	Well, it's worth checking out on YouTube because I have an animated face.
	Basically, I'm a cartoon character.
	But...
	So in this first flush of excitement, like when you first fall in love with a woman, everything she does is wonderful.
	And then she does the exact same things a year later, and it drives you insane.
	Oh, she's got this very, very high, wonderful, lilting voice.
	She sounds like a nightingale.
	And then, you know, later it's like, you know, she sounds like Madonna on helium.
	It's driving me crazy.
	And she's got this cute little dimple smile.
	It's like she just smiles for no reason.
	It's driving me nuts.
	And so when you get this first flush of new ideology, Everybody imagined that salvation has arrived.
	All the complexities of life have vanished.
	And I mentioned this in a show last year, that there aren't any solutions.
	There's only trade-offs, right?
	And this idea that we can create heaven on earth, that we can have a life without compromise, that we can have a life without trade-offs, that women can have wonderful careers and be wonderful parents, That men can have a wonderful variety of sexual experiences and a stable family.
	You know, like, I mean, we have these, everything's a trade-off.
	And we have this fantasy that some ideology is going to come along and blow away the natural restrictions of mortality and biology and physics.
	And we are just going to take money from rich people, give it to poor people, and there'll be no more poor people.
	Paradise has been achieved.
	I'm just 18, so what do I know?
	But I don't think utopia or paradise can ever be achieved.
	Right.
	I do have some belief in that psycho stuff, that there'll be good times and bad times, good times and bad times.
	And as humans, you just have to do our best to survive and be...
	But you guys are seeing the underside of that, right?
	So there was all of this stuff in the 60s.
	This explosion.
	Like, so, the intellectual artistic roots were sown in the progressive era.
	And then it came to fruition in the academic era, right?
	So I've mentioned before, right?
	So they fought communism.
	Sorry, they fought national socialism with communism.
	And then the communists all swarmed over to the West.
	And then with the GI Bill, they infected a whole bunch of intellectuals and lesser intellectuals, or less than intellectuals, with socialism and communism.
	And then this flowered in the 60s and the welfare state and all that.
	So this is like old stuff by now.
	And this first hysterical flush of, finally, we can solve problems.
	And people who sell you paradise are giving you a one-way ticket to hell.
	They just call it paradise so you don't sniff for the sulfur, right?
	And so I think your generation is looking at all of these promises.
	All these promises.
	Poverty will be eliminated.
	The world will be peaceful.
	Everyone will be secure.
	And what do you see?
	Well, I don't know what it's like in your analytical woods, but, you know, with this sort of no-fault divorce and shit like that?
	You're cynical.
	You're definitely cynical.
	Well, yeah, you look at it and you say, okay, so basically you just took a giant wrecking ball to the foundation of society called the family family.
	And you said that you were going to achieve paradise, so why the fuck am I born $100,000 in debt?
	You said you were going to achieve paradise, so why is there a million dollars of unfunded government liabilities hanging over my head?
	You said you were going to achieve paradise, so why did my education suck?
	And I think the young people look at the under clouds, the belly, the dark underbelly of all of these glowing promises that were made in the 60s, and they see two things.
	Number one, they see that not only were these promises not achieved, but massive disasters were sewn into the social fabric.
	That's the one they see.
	And number two, which is even more chilling, nobody will admit it.
	Yeah, I mean...
	I just want to be you know get a family and you know hope the thing gets better because with the whole migrant crisis and Norway is a very small country I mean it's a big landmass but very small population like five million like less than the city of London you know and we are it's a welfare state so we like If somebody comes in and breaks the welfare states, they break everything, you know?
	We are a white, homogenous, small country with lots of resources.
	And it costs a lot to just get one migrant.
	I mean, just one child migrant costs like 1.5 million kronos, I believe.
	I don't know how that much is in US dollars.
	But it's a lot.
	It's a lot.
	And I don't think the Norwegian state can survive.
	I don't know what it's like, but certainly a lot of European listeners who write into us or who call into us say, well...
	I can't even talk about it with my friends.
	Like, I saw a comment the other day.
	Guy was saying that he had some reservations about some of these sort of migrant policies and so on.
	And his entire choir shunned him.
	Like, won't talk to him.
	He's just sitting in the back, yerbling in his baritone, and nobody will talk to him.
	And I think this bullshit, this huffy-puffy walk-around slamming the cupboards like some psycho girlfriend...
	What's wrong?
	Nothing!
	You know, won't talk about it, won't talk about it.
	And it's like, it's so boring.
	You know, if you've ever been with a dysfunctional person, I dated one or two in my youth.
	You know, what gets...
	Why the relationships end with dysfunctional people is you just get so bored of knowing exactly what's going to happen.
	What's the next thing they're going to say?
	Well, you know it's going to be some stupid defensiveness stuff.
	It's going to be some blame-throwing.
	It's going to be some passive-aggressive shit.
	And it's like, man, I've already seen this movie.
	I know how it ends.
	I don't want to watch it again.
	Yeah, but there are the good news.
	I don't know how old that guy was who said he couldn't talk with his friends.
	But this is something we regularly talk about.
	This is not something we talk in hush towns.
	I mean, we're not even, like, quiet about it.
	We don't Excuse my friendship once again, but we don't give a shit.
	We talked about it freely.
	So I don't know what sort of conditions it is in, but Generation C here in Norway, we don't care.
	We really just don't care.
	We are cynical.
	At least where I am, I can't speak for all of Norway.
	I can't do that.
	But my peers, we are cynical.
	We don't care.
	Right.
	Well, cynical is good and bad, right?
	So cynical about what you've been taught is good.
	Cynical about values as a whole, well, that's nihilism, and that's very bad.
	So, you know, you want to not throw out the baby with the bathwater, as the saying goes.
	So as far as these cycles go, yeah, I think there are these cycles.
	And the goal of philosophy is to smooth them out.
	Because these cycles are like giant wrecking balls that kill millions of people.
	And I'm not kidding about that.
	Like, it kills millions of people.
	I mean, if you look at what's going on in Venezuela, they had this big cycle that went to the left, right?
	They got Hugo Chavez in, and you had people like Noam Chomsky say, oh, how wonderful, we finally have a real socialist in there to help all these peasant communities achieve wealth and prosperity.
	Finally a real socialist.
	Yeah, yeah, so...
	Yeah, I know he's been on the show, but he's not coming back.
	So you have this pendulum swings to the left, right?
	And then what happens is the left pillages from the future, steals from the future, steals from the rich, and has all this money.
	And steals because they nationalized all the oil companies, or a lot of them.
	So they got all this money coming in, and then they give all this money to the poor.
	And what do the poor do?
	Low IQ poor people, what do they do when they get lots of money?
	Have lots of babies.
	Lots of babies.
	And then what happens is, you run out of money.
	And then you're in debt.
	And then the pendulum starts swinging back the other way.
	And then you get people in Venezuela lost 17 pounds over the last year.
	And it's going to get worse.
	Or, you have the situation where, in America, people come across the border, in America illegally, drop a baby, the baby is an anchor baby, parents often can't be deported, or nobody bothers to deport them, they get a bunch of welfare or a bunch of money in America, and they send it back home.
	And what happens?
	Well, the people back home now have a lot of money that they got from welfare or work in America, and because the average IQ in Mexico is in the 80s, they have more babies!
	More money, more babies.
	More money, more babies.
	That's why you can't solve the problem.
	Poverty in the third world!
	Give them money, they have more babies!
	And so then what happens is, more people need to leave Mexico because it's overpopulated.
	So they come to America, they get more money, they send it back to Mexico.
	More babies!
	Then they grow up and they have to go to America because there's too many people in Mexico.
	It doesn't end.
	And this idea that we've got some solution...
	Well, the solution in the long run, peaceful parenting, stateless society, absolutely, but I'm not holding my breath as much as I was a couple of years ago for that.
	But you guys get that there's no solutions that are easy, and everybody who got sold on these easy solutions, welfare state, solve problem of poverty, give money to single moms, and everybody's going to be just fine.
	Well, oh, I know, let's have affirmative action.
	For blacks in America, and let's give them huge amounts of money, and now everything's fine.
	So you guys are on the downswing, and I'm sorry to give all these American examples, I'm sure there's a ton where you are as well, but you guys are on the downswing of that, and you're like, these are all lies.
	And not only are they lies, they're lies that have so shredded the brains of my elders that I can't even point out.
	That the emperor has no clothes.
	They won't even admit how badly they screwed up.
	And that's the problem because with failure comes censorship, right?
	And this is what a lot of Europeans are facing right now.
	This shit didn't work.
	It failed.
	The welfare state has failed.
	Old age pensions have failed.
	National debts have failed.
	Government education has failed.
	Feminism failed.
	Well, and it's actually worse than failure.
	Failure means you just didn't win.
	You know, if you lose a race, it's one thing.
	If you limp across with only one leg, that's quite another, right?
	So it's been a catastrophe, and nobody will admit it.
	And nobody will say, you know what?
	Man, man, did we ever get things wrong.
	I can't even tell you how we got things wrong.
	And then have a productive dialogue with the young.
	Because there's too much greed.
	Now, the boomers...
	Well, they all want their pensions, so they can't admit that the system fucked up and is predatory on the young.
	It makes a vampire baby farm look benevolent.
	So they can't admit that they fucked up, because when you fucked up and you stole from the young, you should stop stealing from the young!
	But they don't want to do that, because they want their money.
	And so they can't even admit that they're wrong.
	What comes out of that is either soft or hard censorship, which makes you even more cynical, is probably fair to say.
	I mean, in Norway we are pretty well off for now.
	We have a lot of money.
	We have been like sparing up with all this oil money.
	But you know, one day the oil is gonna run out.
	What are we gonna do then, you know?
	And with the Mario crisis, and if we keep getting stupid politicians in, I don't know what will happen.
	I just hope people fix it before it goes, you know, too far right, you know?
	As long as the current politicians fuck up, it's going to keep going more right and more right.
	It's going to go as far, it's going to go, historically speaking, Hans, I hate to say this, historically speaking, it's going to go as far right as there was left.
	And it was pretty far left.
	And it is pretty far left.
	It's just one of these physics things almost.
	The higher you bring up the pendulum, the higher it's going to go the other way.
	And this is why you try not to have these extremist ideologies take over in society, because the blowback is horrible.
	Right?
	I mean, if you get communists swarming into Germany in the 1920s and the 1930s, and you have street riots, and police are set fire to...
	No, I'm not talking about France, although I am.
	But when you get...
	Then what do you get?
	You get the Free Corps, you get the brown shirts, you get the Nazis.
	This is why we try not to let things go too extreme in society, because when that pendulum swings back, it takes out millions of lives and goes to another extreme.
	Now, philosophers are in the middle saying, whoa, whoa, whoa, but we don't have enough strength to stop it as yet.
	With the internet, maybe things can be a little bit different, but it's going to swing back hard.
	I mean, that's just the way of things.
	And that's because society let things get to such a leftist extreme that how can it not?
	You know, I just read this study.
	Let me just bring this up here.
	I just read this study today, and maybe you can tell me what you think of it, because it does sort of relate to this particular question.
	So, there's a study that says that half of European youth would support joining a revolution that destroyed the status quo.
	And I assume a lot of them are right-wing.
	I assume a lot of them...
	Well, the status quo is left.
	Status quo is extreme leftists.
	And I assume a lot of them will self-describe as fascists.
	No, not fake fascists, not like when you call somebody a fascist because you don't like them, like the leftists, but like real fascists, real Hitler lovers, you know?
	In Greece, the third biggest party is like an actual fascist party.
	And don't shy away from the fact that similar things that happened in the 30s and 40s might happen again if we don't Get control over this situation, basically.
	If you can't achieve any kind of centrism peacefully, then it's going to get violent.
	You know, this is an old quote that those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable.
	So here's the facts.
	I'll just read a little bit of this.
	Young Europeans are sick of the status quo in Europe and they're ready to take to the streets to bring about change, according to a recent survey.
	About 580,000 respondents in 35 countries were asked the question, would you actively participate in large-scale uprising against the generation in power if it happened in the next days or months?
	More than half of 18 to 34-year-olds said yes.
	Would you join a large-scale uprising against the government?
	Greece, 67%.
	Italy, 65%.
	Spain, 63%.
	France, 61%.
	And blah, blah, blah.
	Down to the Netherlands at 33%.
	Would you join a large-scale uprising against the government?
	Well, sure.
	I can understand this argument.
	I mean, Europe is hanging by a thread.
	There are 6 million blacks on the north shores of Libya, itching for the weather to get better.
	So they can swarm into Europe.
	Six million.
	Could be more.
	Now, the idea is to shunt them off into Turkey, but that's not going to last forever.
	What's the solution after that?
	It gives Turkey a huge amount of leverage when it comes to getting what they want from the European Union.
	But of course, I mean...
	Tell me, Hans, what does your future look like?
	What do you think is going to happen?
	You're going to get a job?
	You're going to get married?
	How do you think your society is going to work for you in the long run?
	Well, I'm not an expert on Norwegian politics, but I can say one thing, and this is true, unemployment has been rising.
	So it might be a bit harder for me to get a job in the future if I take one of these shit degrees like arts or something.
	But I hope there is future for jobs for me.
	But...
	I mean, there's a real chance that people I know will maybe swing very far right.
	Well, and I think people don't understand.
	I'm not advocating anything.
	This is observing.
	And this is just my thoughts, so take them for what they're worth, Hans.
	But I don't think people in charge I don't think they really understand that this is the last chance to do it nicely.
	You know, people are voting.
	They voted for Trump.
	And they just pushed out a budget that is pretty much indistinguishable from what would have happened under Obama.
	They can't control immigration.
	They can't seem to build the wall.
	The budget specifically denies money for a wall but has 18 million dollars to combat misogyny in the Marines and is really really concerned about funding border security in the fucking Middle East.
	You can't build a wall in America.
	Now we just see that the EU is trying to hit the UK with a hundred billion euro penalty For leaving the European Union.
	What are they, some failing cult that's trying to strip the property of anyone trying to scrabble their way out?
	And this is, I think, I really do think that like this next, I mean, the Le Pen thing is coming up on Sunday.
	I think that this is, over the next year or so, this is like the last, I think that for young people, this is like the last chance to do it nicely.
	To change for the young better.
	Nicely.
	Young people want to get their life started.
	They want to get jobs.
	They want to have entrepreneurial activities.
	They probably want to get married.
	They might want to have kids.
	And for so many young people across Europe, that is not an option anymore.
	That is not available.
	And our genes want to reproduce.
	And if our genes get caught blocked by the state, if the state's in the way...
	The genes are like, fuck that.
	No way.
	We didn't crawl four billion years out of primordial ooze to be stopped by a couple of fucking regulations and some Rothschild banker drone.
	This is the last chance to do it nicely, people.
	Because I think if Trump fails, if Brexit fails, if the Rothschild's automatron fails, Wins and then fails to do what the people want.
	Change will come, because that which cannot continue will not continue.
	Change will come, and it is my desperate hope that it can come relatively nicely.
	But it's coming either way.
	I hope it's a soft landing, but the plane is going down.
	Wheels down or wheels up, the plane is going down.
	Does that make sense?
	Yeah, I see.
	It has to happen now nicely through the democratic process.
	Or they're in 20, 30 years.
	No, 20 or 30 years.
	Hell no.
	It won't take that long.
	I was trying to be more reasonable.
	You're probably right.
	No, it won't take that long.
	Listen, if it was that far away, I'd still be talking only peaceful parenting in a stateless society.
	No, it's not that far away.
	It's not that far away.
	Now, I appreciate you calling in and let us know other thoughts that you come up with.
	It's a very, very important conversation to be having.
	And I hope that...
	I am doing the young proud with the work that I'm doing.
	I hope that I'm helping to articulate and bring to the fore concern to the young, and I hope that you will spare me in the coming purge of the old people.
	That's all I hope for!
	You know, I'm trying to stay healthy and exercise so I'm not too well marbled when the future cannibalism comes to fore, but that's my particular hope.
	So, thanks very much for calling me.
	Okay, thank you.
	Thank you.
	See ya.
	Take care.
	Alright, up next we have Anton.
	Anton wrote into the show and said,"...in one of your recent interviews you mentioned that antifas, leftists, political radicals, etc., display a tendency towards all-or-nothing thinking with regards to dialogue, debate, and discussion.
	No matter how much common ground a radical may share with an opponent, any abstract or theoretical disagreement appears as grounds for sharp and sudden intellectual foreclosure." Is evidenced by violent oppositional actions of antiphaz towards their perceived enemies.
	They display this tendency both online, in the media, and on the streets.
	You hinted that these habits might stem from a bias shared among antiphaz.
	Let's call it the, quote, everyone is borderline, like my insecure single mother bias, end quote.
	And that this bias informs how they relate to authority and themselves.
	Can you expand on this idea?
	What are the other factors, in addition to adverse conditions, in childhood development that you may think contribute to the creation of antiphaz?
	That's from Anton.
	How are you doing tonight, brother?
	I'm doing good.
	How are you?
	I'm doing good.
	Doing well and doing good, I hope.
	Have you flirted with the black leggings and rapid flight of these groups?
	Oh, yeah.
	So...
	During my college years, I never went full black block, but I ran in their circles and helped them with fundraisers, and I was actually invited to join their organizing circle due to the shared politics and my understanding of their operations already, based on my work with them in the past.
	Yeah.
	So one, after dealing with them for, I mean, working with them for like maybe a year and a half in a parallel organization that wasn't particularly politically oriented, I kind of got to see how these people were as individuals and also how basically ineffectual they were at even achieving simple goals.
	And I figured that...
	Adding myself to the equation probably wouldn't do any good.
	It just wouldn't be good for me and it wouldn't be good for the world.
	They weren't very impressive.
	In what way?
	Let's say, for example, they have none of their programs for the benefit of the poor.
	They would do charities, let's say.
	They have this thing called Food Not Bombs.
	They weren't very good at distributing food to the poor compared to more conventional organizations.
	And yet the amount of effort they expended to get food to poor people or homeless people, it seemed like wasted effort.
	Their protests, their riots, for any given cause, let's say, for the loosening of immigration restrictions, none of it really seemed to be...
	None of it advanced their express goals any better than the more conventional organizations, and there was no advantage to being as radical as they were.
	They didn't move their cause forward by being as radical as they claimed to be, if that makes any sense.
	Something that Jordan Peterson talked about in his book, Maps of Meaning, was that when he was in leftist circles, he was concerned that they were more motivated by hatred of the rich than love of the poor.
	I would say they have a hatred.
	Jordan Peterson makes it even more specific.
	I'm a big fan.
	I'm glad that you brought him up.
	And as you were talking to the guy earlier, having that Christian debate, I was thinking about Peterson.
	But in any case, they have a hate not just for the rich, because some of them come from wealthy families, and quite many of them.
	That doesn't mean they can't hate the rich, just because they come from wealthy families, right?
	Yeah.
	They hate existence itself.
	They hate the fact that there's any limitation or set of rules or boundaries on anything at all whatsoever.
	They hate the trappings of finite existence.
	Right.
	Right.
	So limitations are perceived as violations to grandiosity or something like that?
	I would say sometimes it's grandiosity and sometimes it's an obsession with how lacking they are.
	For example, you'll see...
	Sometimes it's a joke and sometimes it's serious, but trans-abled people, people who obsess over their handicaps, whether real or perceived, and if perceived, they become real.
	If it's a psychological disorder, for example, they'll become obsessed with their mental illnesses and identify with it as their primary characteristic.
	Is there kind of a perverse pride?
	Like, oh, I'm so bipolar!
	Almost like a perverse pride or a badge of honor with some of this stuff?
	Yes.
	Yes.
	Right.
	It's used in a...
	There's an economy of disadvantage that they used to exchange.
	There's a sort of hierarchy of disadvantage, and the lower you are, the higher you are, in a way.
	Right.
	Right.
	The worse is better.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	So this is just a couple of facts before we start.
	Now, I'm not going to speak about Antifa in particular because that's a very specific group.
	I mean, for me, the sort of extreme leftists or these kinds of mentality is sort of what I'm going to talk about in general.
	But there has been a study done.
	I don't know if you've read about it.
	They did a study of anti-fascist protesters in Europe, all dressed in black and hitting people for free speech.
	I think the fascists might be in the mirror.
	But over 90% of the anti-fascist protesters in Europe are still living in their mom's basement.
	92% of the protesters at these anti-fascist rallies that are believed to have committed violence Still live with their parents.
	84% are male, 72% are ages 18 to 29, 90% are single, and 34% are unemployed.
	Yeah, I've heard that statistic.
	I don't doubt that that statistic is real, and it is rather at least is an accurate portrayal of the situation in Europe.
	However, in America, at least in my experience with Antifa, I have not seen That to be the case.
	And I think it'd be worth figuring out how much of the general population, is the general population more likely to live at home in Europe than the population in America in general?
	I think that would probably, you know, that would be more insightful to do that study in America.
	And knowing whether or not more people live at home with their parents in general in Europe than in the United States would be.
	We'd kind of lend some insight.
	Most Antifas that I know don't live with their parents, but they do live in relative squalor and instability.
	If they live in neither, they're funded by their parents.
	Very few are engaged in productive, conventional work.
	Right, right, right.
	So, as far as where they come from, where this sort of extreme leftist stuff comes from, I'll give you a couple of thoughts, and then you can tell me what you think.
	Protection requires vulnerability, right?
	To feel like you're a knight out there protecting someone, well, the knight doesn't protect the dragon.
	The knight doesn't even really protect the other knight.
	The knight protects the damsel in distress.
	So in this world...
	That leftists come from.
	There are all powerful monsters and there are helpless, shrinking victims.
	And the manufacture of victimhood is the fundamental means of production of violence of the left.
	Now, in society as a whole, there are men and there are women.
	I'm sorry to be so bipolar in my gender, but I'm just going to go with the anti-Bill Nye biological basic reality.
	So...
	In the world, there are men and there are women.
	And women are historically, evolutionarily, biologically, the vulnerable gender.
	Why?
	Because they have to invest a lot more in childbirth and child raising than men do.
	A man can reproduce in 15 minutes a nap and wandering off into the woods.
	But the woman who is impregnated has to...
	Raise her babies and breastfeed her babies and it lowers her sexual market value.
	If a man impregnates a woman, wanders off into the woods, then his sexual market value remains unchanged.
	But her sexual market value prior to the welfare state plummets.
	Women are exquisitely vulnerable to making bad decisions.
	So a woman prior to the rise of birth control, I'm sure evolutionarily speaking, like the left and right paradigm has to go so deep.
	It does go so deep that it has to have biological origins.
	And we've talked about this, I've talked about this in the presentation, which more and more people should bloody well watch, I think, called Gene Wars, G-E-N-E Wars, the R versus K selection stuff.
	But they must feel they're out there protecting a group.
	And the most vulnerable group in society are women.
	And we can see this because when women get pregnant outside of wedlock in the past, it was a huge shaming problem.
	It had to be covered up.
	You know, you've got Kevin Spacey movies where, you know, the guy's raised with his...
	He thinks it's his...
	What, he thinks it's his mother, but it's his sister, or some crazy stuff.
	Like, you have to pretend, you know, that some teenage woman gets pregnant, and they used to have it where sometimes they would pretend that her mother was the one who had the baby, and it was just a late accidental baby kind of thing.
	And this level of shaming led to a...
	This level of potential disaster before the welfare state, if a family, if a woman in a family got pregnant, then the parents had to pay to raise it and nobody would marry her and to move, move towns, change your name, that kind of thing.
	And so women were very vulnerable.
	And now if a woman decided to get married to a man and was married for life, right, until death was part in better and worse in sickness and health, a woman get married to a man and the man turns out to be shiftless, he's a drunk, he's lazy, he's a gambler, he doesn't work and whatever, and she's really hosed, especially because she probably has kids by the time this stuff really hits her impact, right?
	So, you know, you go on your honeymoon and the honeymoon is, it's called a honeymoon because it starts sweet and you end up depressed, which is often what happens after a The letdown of anticipatory sex and then the honeymoon and all that.
	So the honeymoon is make sure that pregnancy occurs.
	And then if the guy does turn out to be shiftless or lazy or bum or abusive or whatever, she's stuck.
	Very vulnerable.
	She can't leave.
	Religious restrictions on divorce.
	I mean, in Canada, until the 1960s, you need an act of parliament to get divorced.
	And so she's very vulnerable to bad decisions, to bad choices.
	And that is something that is really, really important to understand.
	The exquisite vulnerability of women, evolutionarily speaking, is what drives the white knight stuff.
	And the question is, what kind of environment did these extreme leftists grow up in that they believe that the world...
	Is full of towering, terrifying, masculine forces.
	And there are helpless and dependent women who have no agency, no say, and are just victims.
	Where does that come from?
	Well, funny you should ask that, I'll tell you.
	It comes from the single mother's story as to why she is the way she is.
	I say this having been raised by a single mother, having had a lot of friends who were raised by single mothers, and having talked to a lot of single mothers, particularly in my youth.
	Don't really see them as much anymore, but what do single mothers say?
	To get resources, single mothers need to play the victim.
	They have to.
	Because if they say it's completely my fault, I chose the wrong guy, people have a lot less sympathy for them.
	If they can portray themselves as victims, and God, I heard this every single time I talk to single moms.
	It's the same goddamn story, same mythology.
	Well, he was great.
	He was wonderful.
	Everyone thought he was the best thing ever.
	We got married, or, you know, I had a baby with him, and he just changed.
	And I tried my best.
	I tried to make it work out, but he just changed.
	Changed.
	It was a mystery.
	Possession!
	He got hit by lightning, reversed his personality.
	No one could have seen it coming.
	To get resources when you've fucked up, you have to pretend that you're a victim.
	And I don't blame women for this.
	Okay, a little.
	Right?
	I mean, after the guy turns out to be a douchebag or a brutalizer or lazy or, you know, for some women just, you know, doesn't agree with everything you say, right?
	But if you are a single mom, what are you supposed to do?
	You got two kids.
	You got three kids.
	You need resources.
	If the only way to get those resources is to pretend that there's this vast patriarchal giant penis conspiracy to swat down the candlelit flames of female aspirations, fine!
	If that's what you got to do, that's what you got to do.
	You need the resources.
	The kids are hungry.
	Kids got a toothache.
	Kids got to go to the dentist.
	You need resources.
	You need money.
	You need health care.
	You need food.
	You need shelter.
	Whatever it takes.
	You know, the end justifies the means.
	That's a feminine thing.
	Men are principles.
	Women are pragmatism.
	It's not a problem.
	It's a yin and a yang.
	It's perfectly fine.
	That's the reality.
	Men can afford principles.
	Men require principles.
	But mothers require resources.
	And what do they have to do to get them?
	They will get them.
	You've heard these stories of moms.
	Some truck falls on their child, right?
	And they lift the goddamn truck up.
	Some 90-pound woman lifts up a truck to free her children.
	Well, it's the same thing.
	The provider leaves.
	The woman needs resources.
	And she comes at a heavy cost.
	And before all the men were forcibly drafted as white knight foot soldiers in the infinite plains of Pakistan, men would be like, hell no, I'm not raising another man's kids.
	No!
	Thank you, but no.
	My genetics, well, they kind of want to express themselves.
	I don't want to spend my entire goddamn life working to cough up money into another man's chicks.
	No thanks.
	I think I'll pass on that, right?
	So sexual market value collapses.
	For these women, they need the resources, but they can't get a good man because they had a bad man, or they drove a good man away.
	Either way, they're responsible.
	You know, if you're a single mom, you either married a bad man, in which case, you're kind of responsible.
	It's the most important decision you're ever going to make.
	Which tadpoles get your eggs, ladies?
	That's the biggest decision you'll ever make.
	And on it hangs not just your future, but as it turns out, funny story, as it turns out, the entire future of civilization itself rests on who gets past your goalie.
	Which little swimmy puck gets past your goalie?
	Who gets to burrow into the eggs?
	That's all it comes down to.
	Women used to know this.
	So either you chose a bad man, After meeting him, after dating him, after getting engaged to him, after marrying him, after getting pregnant by him, whoops!
	Turns out he was an asshole!
	Well, why can't you see assholes?
	Either you're completely stupid, or you yourself are probably an asshole, which is why you can't see the other assholes.
	Assholes are like vampires to each other.
	Can't see each other.
	Asshole looks in the mirror...
	And just sees the bathroom behind it.
	That's all they see.
	It's like looking for the soul in a Kardashian selfie.
	Echo!
	Echo!
	And so the women either chose a bad man or they chose a good man but drove him away by being horrible people.
	By being horrible wives.
	Sorry.
	I had to leave.
	And that basic reality that women...
	Really gamble.
	Really gamble when it comes to being impregnated.
	If they choose right, well, it's a pretty great life.
	It's a pretty great life.
	I mean, if you choose the right man to impregnate you, he's loyal, stable, intelligent, warm-hearted, caring, a great dad, you've got a great, great life ahead of you.
	Beautiful.
	You get to hang out with kids.
	You get to run a household.
	Mommy, mommy, mommy.
	Gavin McGinnis with Sean Hannity and some woman with excessive cleavage and lots of feminism in that cleavage.
	We're talking about this and he's like, oh, you'd be much happier at home.
	Imagine you come home, mommy, mommy.
	It's a great thing.
	You should watch it.
	And Mike, let's put a link to it below.
	Let's see.
	But if she chooses right...
	She doesn't have to work outside the home.
	She gets a great life with kids.
	She's a matriarch.
	She's respected.
	She gets to be a grandmother.
	It's a pretty great life.
	But for women, it's usually like, you roll six or you roll snake eyes.
	You roll 12 or snake eyes.
	That's about it.
	Not much in the middle of it.
	The women who roll snake eyes, who chose the wrong man or who drove a good man away, they need resources.
	Very exquisitely vulnerable.
	And...
	That vulnerability, I very strongly believe leftists are exposed to way too much of that desperate, toxic vulnerability when they're growing up.
	That this hyper-victimization that is the fundamental societal pickpocket engineered by single moms to get resources, this, I'm a victim, I couldn't have known, I'm helpless...
	Forces beyond my control have maneuvered me against my will into this desperate position.
	I have nothing to do with it.
	I am not the architect of my fate.
	Things just happened.
	Decisions were made.
	Stuff happened.
	And then here I am.
	So when you are raised in this kind of environment...
	I know this one.
	I know this one.
	When you're raised in this kind of environment, this...
	Vicious helplessness.
	And the reason it's vicious is if you question the helplessness.
	Feral cobra strikes to the nads.
	That's it, baby.
	Do not question the helplessness of women or you hate women.
	Oh, right.
	I want to empower women by giving them moral agency.
	Clearly, I must hate them, right?
	But this is the vicious helplessness.
	Because it's a con.
	It's a con to cover up bad mistakes.
	Either a bad choice or bad behavior in driving away a good man.
	And so when you are raised and you are stewed and broiled and baked in this cosmic feminine helplessness and male predation, well, Lord's sakes, he just knocked me up and strolled off and I couldn't do a thing.
	I tried my best.
	I baked him pancakes and everything.
	Off he went.
	I know this.
	This feral helplessness, where you are raised in this quivering, dependent, fearful femininity, and you view the world as vicious predation upon the helpless and broken women in your life.
	Then they're all dressed in black, but the ultimate white knights.
	Because what's happened now is that so many women have made so many bad choices because of the existence of the welfare state.
	They don't have to worry about resources anymore.
	Hell, I can have sex with the bad boy.
	I can indulge in my fetish for straddling beer bellies and tattoos.
	Oh yeah, that's a motorcycle mojo swimming right up in there.
	And the guy doesn't stick around or whatever.
	They can just run to the state.
	But the reason why these guys hate the right wing so much, hate the conservatives so much, is because the moms are now dependent on the state.
	And the conservatives are skeptical about welfare.
	And so, these extreme leftists, these agitators, they're sent by the moms!
	To drive off folingerism.
	To drive off the free market.
	To drive off any diminishment in welfare.
	To drive off tax cuts because tax cuts is feeding the moms.
	It's starving the moms.
	Tax cuts will cut off the supply of government cheese to the moms.
	Why do they hate the right?
	Because the right threatens the dependent moms, the single moms.
	The dysfunctional women, the victims, who are playing their victims.
	Like the camouflage of vipers, like the tiger pretending to be grass as it gets closer.
	They are the shock troops of the single moms.
	Go out there and fuck up anybody who might cut off the flow of steady government money and resources.
	And it's a lot of money, right?
	I talked about this in the video or the podcast called The Welfare Cliff.
	Single mom in America with two kids gets $65,000 worth of benefits.
	Or rather, she'd have to make $65,000 to get the same amount of stuff.
	It's a lot of money.
	It's a lot of money.
	That's more money than 99.999% of human beings have ever had and currently have across the world.
	And so, these men...
	Are the Praetorian Guard surrounding the viper wombs of dependency of the single moms?
	Raised by single moms?
	Or moms at least dominated by men?
	I think this is fairly common.
	Am I in the right bullpark, do you think?
	I think it's fairly common.
	I think what you're describing is, like, this happens a lot in America, probably in Europe, in this century, in the current year, so to speak.
	I think there's a more general phenomenon which could be described as the victim I guess a victim identity as a means of justifying violent seizure of political power or wielding political violence.
	Does that make any – does that – do you think that that – I mean that's where they come from at a sort of – like what you described as where they come from at a psychological level?
	No, no.
	They already have the political violence.
	That's the welfare state.
	They already have the forced redistribution of income.
	They wish to maintain the political violence, maybe extend it to some degree, but they already have.
	The single moms are already in receipt of hundreds of billions of dollars over time.
	The national debt is the single mother debt.
	The goal is to expand.
	Sorry?
	The ultimate goal, I mean, I've talked, the weird thing, the ultimate goal is the complete expansion of this.
	So for them, they still feel as if they have no power.
	They still feel as if they haven't seized any political power by way of violence.
	No, no, no.
	I understand that.
	I understand that.
	But the question is, why now?
	Why against Trump?
	Why so escalated so quickly?
	And that's because they're concerned that there's going to be a change.
	You're right.
	And it's a change, not even just the cutoff of...
	Welfare, which Trump is not talking about, but you know, there is that in the air.
	But it's not just that.
	If there are lots of jobs, if there are lots of jobs, if there are lots of opportunities, if there's lots of availability, then what happens is the men who are formerly unemployed can go and get jobs.
	And then people can say, well, if all these men have jobs, why are there so many single moms?
	So even the possibility of the economy getting better is a threat.
	To this viper nest of single moms who want these resources.
	And so they send their kids out, even just to fuck up the economy, they don't want more jobs to be there.
	Because that highlights this ferocious dependence of the single moms.
	So there's a saying that goes, as above, so below.
	If you understand that, I guess if you get what I'm trying to say, there's a superstructure informs the base, to use Marxist language.
	You get what I'm implying here?
	Like if there's maybe that...
	At the top of the system, let's say at the level of maybe, I guess I'm making a sort of what many right-wingers or conspiracy theorists kind of point to, that phenomenon sounds a lot like how globalists justify increasing regulation on businesses and the expansion,
	I guess the expansion of the welfare state increases on taxes on the wealthy, I guess on the I mean,
	the nationalism question is complicated, but I think it comes down in many ways to The whole idea was that the states in America only ceded a small amount of sovereignty to the federal government.
	You know, maybe some national defense and so on, right?
	And protection against invasion or national defense.
	It turns out it's protection against the invasion of illegal immigrants.
	Not really happening so much.
	But then the idea was that, sure, let the states experiment with various forms of social organization, various forms of taxes and so on, right?
	Because there should be that competition to make sure that governments don't get too big, right?
	Because you can move from state to state very easily, but moving from country to country is very hard.
	And so there was this idea that if the smaller the federal government, the smaller the central bureaucracy, the more local experiments can occur, which is going to minimize the growth and power of the state.
	Like if you are a politician and you want to create some big giant Bureaucracy or program or tax, if you implement it just at the state level, it's limited because people will just flee it, right?
	But if you can implement it at the federal level, people can't get away.
	And this happens...
	Globalism is, I want to reduce the competition between countries.
	Because that way...
	Everyone can be fucked.
	And there's no competition for lower taxes.
	I mean, they got this example.
	Look at what happened in Ireland, right?
	Ireland was like, the Irish tiger, we're going to lower taxes and big economic boom and so on because and then all the other countries are like, well, shit, I don't want to lower taxes because I got a huge dependent population or whatever.
	And so let's create some centralized bureaucracy so that Ireland can't lower its taxes very easily or Ireland can't escape these regulations very easily and so on, right?
	So it's just, I mean, all leftism is designed to destroy competition, which is why leftists never hire conservatives because they don't want to compete with them.
	Which is why leftists go after your ad revenue rather than rebut your arguments, because they don't want to compete.
	It's all about the reduction of competition.
	And globalism reduces competition by equalizing dysfunction, in this case, immigration dysfunction across societies.
	I come from a black family, which I guess would imply that I'm black.
	Well, I don't mean to be all Dawkins on you, but there would be that implication.
	Philosophical leap here.
	And let's say I could have been adopted, but I'm in fact black.
	And I noticed that, well, and it wasn't through much of a, through much of black, you know, American history, at least, that there was a, that, that society was really matriarchal.
	At least I didn't, much, my family isn't matriarchal.
	Like your parents are together, right?
	Actually, it's funny you bring up the single motherhood thing.
	I think I got a bit of a hybrid at the complex.
	That's why when you mentioned the single mother complex thing, it was just like, oh, wow.
	It kind of touched me, but it also kind of slipped off me.
	My mom, she did marry a guy.
	He actually ended up being a really good guy.
	They got a divorce, but he also was there to take care of me.
	If he's a good guy, why did they get a divorce?
	Was she a bad person?
	She definitely was not a great person at the time.
	No, she actually still, even to this day, does not make the best decisions.
	And my dad is definitely not a...
	He's not...
	At least at the time, he definitely wasn't a...
	He wasn't agreeable, to use Jordan Petersonian language.
	He was low in agreeableness.
	But I think he was sufficiently high in conscientiousness, and he earned enough money, and he seemed committed to principles.
	And my mother was caring enough that I never felt neglected, but I don't think that she...
	I think that she had some sort of entitlement complexes that just weren't going to...
	She had some...
	I think she expected to be treated as a princess who did no wrong.
	And my father would not play that game.
	Did he know this about her before he gave her a child?
	I think...
	I think it's, I mean, they were there, they were together for maybe two or three years prior to, so I think it's unlikely that he did not figure this out.
	Maybe, I think he assumed they thought something he could get over.
	He wasn't the one that called for the divorce, but he certainly didn't fight it when she proposed it.
	Because she proposed it as a kind of means of leverage in order to get him to do something, and he called the bluff.
	Yeah.
	Is your mom aware of some of the bad decisions that she's made?
	Does she own her that?
	Yeah.
	I mean, lately, yeah.
	She's now aware.
	Our relationship has gotten much better since she's come to terms with it.
	I see.
	Now, this is the thing, right?
	Because this is the great gift that moms give their children, that parents give their children.
	So it's not just being a single mom, right?
	As I was talking about, I didn't just say single mom.
	It's a single mom who gains resources by portraying herself as helpless.
	That is the problem.
	Because if the single mom says, I really, I messed up.
	You know, the signs were all there.
	You know, the guy was not reliant.
	I'm not talking about your dad, but just single moms as a whole, right?
	You know, he had the signs.
	You know, he was unemployed.
	You know, he was selling drugs.
	He was, you know, like all the signs were there.
	And I went ahead with it anyway.
	My friends told me not to.
	My parents told me not to.
	I went ahead.
	I'm responsible for that.
	If women take ownership, then you don't trigger the white knight response.
	The white knight response comes out in the venomous, helpless posture that women can adopt in order to gain resources.
	Right.
	Right.
	And back to that, when it comes to black society...
	As the welfare state has expanded, as the welfare state provides more and more of the sum total income that the black community in America receives or generates or whatever, I've seen the culture become more and more matrilineal.
	We've created a situation with surplus.
	This is my interpretation.
	I'm not sure if it's true.
	Where there's kind of a surplus men and those men get siphoned off into prison for the most part.
	And that's kind of the safety valve of American society to some degree, I think.
	You're packing a lot in there.
	I'm just trying to make sure I follow the argument, if you could break that out a bit more.
	Okay, so right now, I'm not sure if this is true, but let's say you're a woman in Atlanta.
	And you have a kid.
	And you have a kid by a poor male.
	A male who doesn't have any skills.
	And who was brought up in an educational system that was subpar.
	And there's no jobs.
	And there's not many jobs that that person would work.
	Or he's hard to employ or not interested in working.
	He's not a good provider, let's say.
	For whatever reason.
	For whatever reason.
	Right.
	And you incentivize not having providers in the household by way of setting up the welfare system such that if there's a male in the household, you're eligible for fewer benefits.
	Oh yeah, and I just want people to understand that.
	And it's not just the black community though.
	I think it's hit the black community the hardest.
	The welfare state is set up for those who don't know that if the man is in the house, if you have a boyfriend or husband in the house, if he's living in the house, You don't get much, or you don't get nearly as much.
	And so that is really important that the government is paying men to not be in their children's lives, so to speak.
	Right.
	And in these cultures, and I visit the hood on occasion, so to speak, and there are tendencies in the households that it's rare that you see a patriarchal household.
	Actually, one of the first things that dealing with collegiate feminists that threw me for a loop was the romanticization of a matriarchy that they never ever experienced in their lives, whereas I've seen matriarchy, certainly.
	Right.
	I think you and I both – well, you probably a little less than me, but yeah, we both grew up seeing matriarchy pretty up close and personal, and it's kind of hard to romanticize it after that.
	In the matriarchy, you can't...
	So I found when I was living with my father, I found that my father would reason through his punishment or whatever.
	He'd say, here's why this is happening.
	It's on the basis of principle, whatever.
	Whereas with my mother, it wasn't a matter of a principle per se, except the power principle.
	I'm right, you're wrong, and because I'm the mother, etc., etc.
	And I think that came from a feeling of inferiority as...
	As a single mother.
	I can't psychoanalyze my mom so well, or single mothers in general.
	I've never been in that position, but I get the feeling there's a degree of insecurity about one's ability to actually provide as a single mother.
	And to have the respect.
	Exactly.
	I mean, we see the same thing with female cops, right?
	They can't Intimidate, in a sense, so they end up shooting people more than male cops do, right?
	I mean, so there's this escalation with single moms that I've seen.
	It's not universal, but there's this escalation that happens.
	They don't really know how to handle disobedient males, disobedient sons.
	So they escalate, and that just makes things even worse.
	That's not a universal.
	That's just sort of my experience.
	I don't know if it's a cause with anything you've seen.
	Definitely.
	I'd like to kind of segue back, not to try to hard steer this conversation.
	This is your show.
	But to the race and victimhood thing, when it comes to black people, for example, and sort of try to figure out where things come from and why people do certain things.
	When it comes to, let's say, for Arabs, I think we're, let's say Muslims, the Muslim population in Europe.
	And you bring up IQ oftentimes.
	I think it's probably important to do that because this is a fact.
	I mean, it's a sort of biological fact about people, right?
	I mean, sorry about race.
	IQ is distributed unequally across races, right?
	And genderous.
	Let's just deal with one of those at a time.
	Sure, sure.
	And also religion.
	Religions don't all preach the exact same doctrines.
	Basically, if you take a matrix with three axes, one is race, one is religion, the other is gender.
	If you find out that someone is a Muslim with a low IQ, And he's a male, right?
	You know something.
	And if you gather together, if you're looking at a chart of a whole bunch of terrorist attacks committed by Muslim males with relatively low IQs or something like that, you can discern something about the situation that's worth mentioning.
	When there's a correlation between those factors, it's worth mentioning it along those lines in order to be in line with the truth.
	It's sort of a question of profiling either before or after the fact, right?
	Right.
	And it's important to bring these things up in order to be in line with the truth and be philosophically coherent.
	Right.
	To avoid these things is to commit a sort of a fascia, like a...
	It's to ignore the truth for political convenience.
	Well, and...
	I'm just working on something around this as well, but I'll keep this brief.
	Particularly if you take race and IQ out of the equation, then all that happens is white people get called racist forever.
	Right.
	Because if blacks are underperforming as a whole, obviously not you, but if blacks are underperforming, Right.
	Right.
	You can't escape it.
	You can try and escape it, but then, you know, you end up blaming people for something that probably isn't their fault.
	But anyway, go on.
	And once you throw in belief system, it adds a whole other dimension to it.
	Like if black people are committing crime and they have low IQ and there's a correlation with race and so on and so forth.
	And they have a belief system that says you need to commit crime, maybe given to them by pop culture and rap culture.
	You'd say that's important to note.
	And it's probably not just some crazy racist conspiracy on the part of white people that makes them that way, right?
	Well, or if people are saying to you that the only reason that white people are rich is because they stole from you, or they're stealing from you, or they're prejudiced against you, or they hate you, then of course, you know, there's this Robin Hood feeling of like, well, why the hell should I obey a social contract which was imposed upon me by force and which has impoverished my entire community?
	I'm just going to go and take back what was taken from me.
	I mean, there's the biological stuff, like the race and IQ stuff.
	That to me is, okay, we can't do much about that, but the ideas that come out of people's minds and into people's hearts, that to me is, in many ways, a lot more causal as to how things play out.
	What I find interesting is that there are very few black antifas, despite, I mean, comparatively few.
	Like, I was a black antifa, obviously, but there was something about, I was the only black guy anywhere for miles of this group.
	That doesn't seem very diverse of them, I just wanted to mention that.
	Don't they have any outreach among the brothers?
	Come on.
	Well, the thing is that black people aren't compelled to do this, not because of pure political ignorance.
	I think even communism has had a hard time taking root in black community.
	Religion, right, to some degree.
	Yeah, Christianity.
	Christianity is a pretty solid antidote against communism.
	Right.
	Yeah.
	Though we're still a minority group.
	Yeah, I guess that makes sense.
	But there are quite a few Latino commies and leftists and antifas, at least in my experience.
	But the...
	The Hispanics would, of course, be interested in pushing back against conservatism because conservatism want immigration laws enforced and they want illegal immigrants deported, right?
	So they would have a very specific motivation that blacks in America wouldn't have, right?
	I mean, which is to maintain the sort of illegal fruits of migration.
	Wow.
	Dang, as long as we keep the black nose in the Bible, it'll...
	It'll stay away from the red flags, if you will.
	He'll keep his hand off the red flags.
	Right.
	Right.
	So, I mean, I hope that helps at least a little bit to do with, and this is not to describe anyone in particular.
	These are just potential things that go along.
	But I think that this shock troops of vulnerable femininity, and vulnerable femininity has grown so much.
	So much with the rise of the welfare state that they can just snap their fingers.
	And there will be a lot of, you know, white knighting, estrogen-based white knights to go out there and do the dirty work to keep the goods flowing to the single moms.
	And I think that has a lot to do with it.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	I think that's plausible.
	I think the same thing might...
	I think the claims to victimhood that justify the extraction of wealth and resources is a common and generic behavior among people who claim victim identity.
	And it's a pretty dangerous and...
	Kind of immoral way of going about things.
	Right.
	You know, the way it works in a garden, whatever you water grows.
	And victimhood has been a very profitable racket for the past couple of generations.
	And whatever you water, it grows.
	And, you know, the tears of the children of the future are well-rung by central bankers to shower money on the single moms.
	And...
	It has become quite a lucrative gig, kind of a lucrative con or shakedown, and people have adapted to that and they don't want to unadapt from that.
	You know, the vine does not want the chimney to be pulled down because the vine is hanging onto the chimney.
	It's the only reason it's got that high.
	So unfortunately, it's gone on for so long.
	As you know, it's gone on for so long that trying to change it now is worse.
	Like the longer you're addicted to something, the harder it is to quit.
	You were talking about the woman makes bad decisions in the last cover.
	Oh, you're talking to me.
	You said the woman makes bad decisions and lost a good man and then has to lie about it in order to hide her shame.
	It actually reminded me of the story of Adam and Eve.
	Not to hide or shame to get resources, but go on.
	Presumably to get resources from Adam because he's going to do the work and she has to bear the burden of childbirth.
	But that's actually not a perfect matchup now that I think about it.
	But in any case, she made a bad decision and lost a great man.
	Well, the woman wanted to become God.
	Female vanity caused the man to betray himself, and they then destroyed their civilization at the time.
	Female vanity leads men to betray their own principles and values.
	And that destroys civilization.
	And it's hard not to think of certain female proclivities with regards to immigration these days and all of that.
	So I've been thinking quite a bit about the Garden of Eden lately.
	I actually had a dream about it the other night, which I should probably do a show on at some point.
	But I think there's a reason why it is the beginning of the most powerful book in humanity's history.
	And it is a foundational myth that is very important for us to understand.
	To mull over because I think there is something in Christianity and I think one of the reasons that Christianity is spreading or spread so thoroughly was that Christianity has within it skepticism about the innate virtue of women.
	The moment we forget that women are as corruptible as everyone else, then we begin to fall apart as a civilization.
	The moment that we stop being Aware of the fact that women can do some very, very bad things.
	Men can't do, but we know that, right?
	But once we become, once we forget that women can do some very, very bad things, then all that happens is we white knight female vanity right off a cliff.
	My dude, you're profoundly deep, and I look forward to the day that you convert to Christianity.
	I say this as a joke, I think.
	But I do see this now, I see this about maybe five years from now.
	You know, I see this for a lot of the sort of alt media intellectuals.
	I see this down the road.
	You know, I hear you and I know that there's some thoughts out there.
	It sort of reminds me of an old poem.
	There shall be no end to our journeys.
	And the purpose of our journey shall be to return to the place that we started but know it for the first time.
	So I appreciate your call.
	Thank you so much for calling in.
	You're welcome back anytime.
	Let's do the next caller.
	All right, up next we have Adrian.
	Adrian wrote into the show and said, I'm a 29-year-old woman, single, no kids, and I'm a homeowner.
	I've done 10 years of therapy and have not been successful at attracting mentally healthy friends or men, which has led me to live a relatively isolated life.
	When I listen to your work and the work of other conservative thinkers, I'm afraid that I will be miserable living a life alone.
	I'm also keenly aware of my age in terms of attracting a mate.
	Do you think that women can live a fulfilling life without a family?
	And if so, what advice would you have to create that life?
	That's from Adrienne.
	Well, hey Adrienne, how are you doing tonight?
	Oh, a little nervous, but other than that, okay.
	Excellent.
	Excellent.
	Well, why do you not have mentally healthy friends or a boyfriend, do you think?
	And you can't just say because you listen to this show.
	I mean, it's probably true, but you're still not allowed to say it.
	No, what do you think?
	Well...
	I actually just found your show about two weeks ago, so I've come to be isolated through therapy in other ways.
	But basically, yeah, I realized that, you know, all my family was sort of evil.
	My life required me to, you know, put on a happy face, and all my friends were, yeah, pretty...
	Mentally unwell.
	And then you get this kind of cult of friendship where you all have to agree.
	And it was like, I don't agree.
	Trying to convince you that I'm doing the right thing is really hard.
	And, you know, taking your input of crazy thoughts is detrimental.
	So I kind of just ended a lot of my friendships.
	Sorry to interrupt, Adrian.
	Was that more true with female friends or male friends?
	Or was it about equal?
	Mostly female friends.
	Yeah, the cult of friendship, you have to agree.
	That is something that's interesting, because certainly with male friends, the tussle of debate and argument was part of the friendship.
	And conformity was viewed as claustrophobic, as kind of sinister, and not necessarily malevolent, but very manipulative.
	Like if you agreed with everything that your friend said, they'd be like, don't you have a mind of your own?
	What the hell are you agreeing with me about everything?
	But I think for women, it can be different.
	Yeah.
	One of the things that I've realized is that because of my siblings, I've tended to want to surround myself with inferior people, and then I get sort of a high from being better than them.
	So that was a big chunk of it in terms of, like, you know, I was hanging out with beta males who agreed with me on everything, and then I could kind of, you know, manipulate them.
	Or I was in poetry slam, which is, like, really mentally unwell people, and then I got to be better than them.
	Sorry, I'm laughing, but it's not funny.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	Well, I mean, we all want to feel that we've achieved something, and if we are not fulfilling our potential, then we find people we've achieved more than and consider ourselves promoted, right?
	Yeah.
	I could work out, or I could just hang around fatter people.
	Right.
	Yeah, I realized it's a big problem of people making the argument that Well, I'm better than other people and that makes me good enough.
	I just recently confronted my mom about some history and trying to figure out the sexual abuse entanglement that's going on there.
	My mom was sexually molested by her dad.
	Sorry, I'm jumping right into some really deep stuff, but I've just been thinking about this.
	I had cut my family out completely for about nine months.
	I didn't talk to them at all, and this is not the first time that I've cut them out.
	Was there a specific incident that they did, or was it something you realized in therapy or something else?
	This time was definitely something I realized in therapy, not an event.
	Okay.
	My mom...
	What did your therapist say about that?
	My therapist was, I mean, supportive in that it's...
	It's not healthy for me to be around.
	And part of what I was doing was, like, inner child work of saying, like, if I was my daughter, would I bring her to my parents' house?
	And not.
	Absolutely not.
	So your therapist would be sort of have standards of behavior that aren't simply dependent upon biological proximity, right?
	Yeah, that's right.
	That's right.
	Yeah.
	So my therapist is a male therapist.
	Yeah, but yeah, he wasn't, he didn't want to sort of like tell me, you know, he doesn't want to, like you say, you don't want to give advice, right?
	So he sort of said, I don't want to tell you to cut out your family because that's a big decision.
	But you have to, you know, decide if you want to be around these people.
	Yeah.
	There's ways of reasoning through it that can help with the decision, right?
	And I think this one around, well, if you had a child, would you let your parents babysit unattended?
	And would they be a positive influence?
	There's ways of reasoning through it that can be clarifying.
	And that's not the same as telling someone what to do, but it's giving them tools by which they can think about things more clearly, if that makes sense.
	Yeah, yeah, for sure.
	Right.
	Yeah.
	So, yeah.
	So, basically, I realized that my mom is probably a sociopath.
	Oh, boy.
	I'm sorry about that.
	Yeah, it's pretty rough.
	Just because...
	Well, she always seemed so strong and positive and everyone likes her and all this stuff, right?
	So...
	But then...
	You know, then I realized that all the advice she'd ever given me was pretty much backwards.
	Things like, you know, she would say to me when I was heartbroken, she would say, oh, you shouldn't fall in love with people.
	You should just have as much sex as you can because it's going to be a good experience.
	And then when you're married, you'll have something to work with and As if you can just wake up one day from having no standards at all and suddenly attract a great mate.
	Did we just get emotional or something there?
	Yeah, I'm sorry.
	I'm never sure if people are walking and stub their toe or not, so I just wanted to check on that.
	So what was it that just happened for you emotionally?
	Well, I feel...
	It's really hard to...
	I'm sorry.
	I feel sad.
	That's an emotion.
	It's really hard to listen to some of your conversations with women and realize that I screwed up so much.
	Sorry.
	It's hard to know what to do once you've realized that.
	You know?
	Better to realize it at 29 than 39 though, right?
	Or like your mom may never realize at all, right?
	No, it's crazy.
	So I finally gave her a call.
	No, no, hang on, hang on.
	You lost the emotion right there.
	So I just want to go back for a second.
	I don't want to be predatory on your feelings, but I just wanted to share something that was an interesting flip for me, which was that you were talking about how your mom...
	It said, don't fall in love, have lots of sex, right?
	Yeah.
	And what was interesting to me was, I mean, that's terrible advice.
	You know, go be a whore.
	That's how to be happy, right?
	I mean, it's a terrible piece of advice, to put it mildly.
	I mean, it's very R-selected and all that, right?
	But you went from describing the terrible advice you got from your mother to being very emotional and saying, I screwed up.
	It became a very isolated you alone, you without influence, you without this terrible advice dispensing of a mom.
	Yeah.
	Does that make sense?
	Like when there was pain, it was all you.
	But when you were talking about what may have caused some of that pain, which is bad advice, that was a relationship.
	But then it became very isolated in your mind, I think, when you started talking about the mistakes.
	Yeah.
	So how do I take responsibility for my actions and blame her, I guess?
	What a fantastic question.
	I'm afraid I'm just going to have to tell you to pray to Jesus.
	No, I mean, it's a very, very important question.
	And we can pause on that if you want, or I can sort of bookmark it and we come back later.
	I don't want to lose sort of the feelings that you have.
	No, it's fine.
	I'm sure they'll come back.
	Okay, okay.
	That question is something I've really, really been thinking about, partially because when I sent her some information and I said, I think, you know, your denial is hurting your children.
	And she said, you're just looking for someone to blame.
	And I'm going, well, yeah, I am giving you blame, but I'm...
	I'm asking you to take responsibility, and then I want to take responsibility.
	So anyway, I'd love to hear your thoughts on that.
	Did your mother ever take pride in who you were?
	It's hard to say.
	She would always say, you know, you're gorgeous, you're smart, you can do anything.
	But then she would criticize me...
	So, or, you know, her expectations were so unrealistic about who I actually was that I felt like, I'll give a piece of information that might be useful.
	I have a diagnosis of bipolar 2, which means that I get hypomanic, which is, you know, I'm sure you know what that means, and then quite depressed.
	So I think that I mean, there's obviously a biological component to that, but I think the psychological component is I've got to do really great because my mom tells me I can do anything, but then that's so untrue to who I am that I get quite depressed after those episodes.
	And then the biological component is, of course, the neurotransmitters and everything, but there's a big...
	Yeah.
	Smart and pretty.
	Smart and pretty, and you are, but smart and pretty, those are not earned traits, right?
	Right.
	Did she praise you at any point for things that you had earned, things that you had done, created on your own?
	Yes, and I say that with a caveat because I'm quite good at, like, I would do things that I knew that they would like, and then they would like them.
	Not things that I knew I would like.
	So the things that I liked, they did not like.
	But the things that I did basically for them, they did like.
	So I'm good at sort of pleasing people and reading them in that way.
	Well, you're good at it like a rabbit is good at running.
	It's not because it likes the exercise, it's the survival mechanism, right?
	Yeah, totally, yeah.
	I mean, I would assume that your mother might be considered to have a bit of a temper?
	Yeah.
	If disagreed with?
	Yes, definitely.
	Right.
	Right, so then being conciliatory, being conformist, no matter what the requirements, is a basic survival mechanism, right?
	Yeah.
	So...
	Yeah.
	Did she...
	I hesitate to almost ask, because if she's saying, go sleep around for the sake of happiness, I almost hesitate to ask if she ever praised you for particular virtues that you may have developed or expressed.
	No, no, I mean...
	Sorry, that was, you know...
	Does she like your Klingon?
	Yeah, okay.
	No, the sociopath, like, one time...
	So, they really like to control people, especially, like...
	Someone who brings them praise from other people, which I do because I'm good at pleasing people.
	Oh, wait, wait, wait.
	That's what I was trying to get at.
	Okay.
	So your mother gets praised because of how you interact with other people?
	Yeah.
	So people say to your mother, good parenting, you have a wonderful daughter, blah, blah, blah, right?
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	Well, then she has taken pride in how she has parented, right?
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	Right.
	So now she can be blamed.
	It's literally that simple.
	If you take pride, if she takes pride in your positive attributes, however they're perceived by people, however they're processed, if she glows with pride because she raised you and she is partly responsible for your positive attributes, then she cannot logically jump out the window and When you come and say, well, there was negative things to you.
	That's why I asked if she took pride in who you were.
	Because then she's saying, okay, well, as a mother, I helped create all of these wonderful things.
	That gives me pride.
	Well, with pride comes ownership.
	And ownership is not just for the good stuff.
	Ownership is for everything.
	Or maybe she could try and create this crazy argument, which is, well, I am responsible for every positive attribute that Adrian has.
	However, every negative attribute Adrian has, I had absolutely nothing to do with and fought tooth and nail her whole life.
	Right.
	Which would be irrational, right?
	You take responsibility for the good and the bad, yeah.
	Yeah, if she never took a shred of pride over how you turned out and, you know, anytime anyone praised you and she said, well, I had nothing to do with that, then it's conceivable that she might find a way to logically wriggle out of anything blameworthy.
	But no, if she's taking pride in it, then...
	Right.
	And even the gorgeous and smart thing, I'm sure she's taking a good chunk of pride for that.
	Right.
	Right.
	Like, if I make 10 movies, right, and five of them do really well, can I say I was only responsible for the five movies that did well?
	No.
	You're responsible.
	Well, you could.
	I could, but I would be insane, right?
	I mean, you can't say I'm only responsible for the good stuff.
	Yeah.
	I made 10 movies.
	Five of them did badly.
	You know, I mean, you guess you could be like Hillary Clinton, right?
	You could be like Hillary Clinton and say, I take full responsibility for losing the election because it was Russian WikiLeaks and that goddamn Comey guy.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	Wait, you're not Chelsea, right?
	This is not a cover?
	No.
	Okay, just checking.
	You know, just checking who's listening in.
	Because my mom would be a sociopath.
	That's great.
	So...
	So that's as far as responsibility goes.
	Now, she is responsible.
	She is responsible.
	And in my particular opinion, parents are more responsible for the negatives than the positives.
	Because life grows, life flourishes no matter what.
	And so the good things that are in you, if you had a bad parent, and this is very binary, but we're just, you know, for the shorthand of it.
	If you have a bad parent, Then they're less responsible for your positives than they are for your negatives.
	Right.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	Like Adam Carolla's thing.
	I don't know if you watch him, but he had terrible parents.
	And so he says, you know, he thinks that it's all innate.
	So he thinks that parenting has nothing to do with anything because he turned out great and his parents were terrible.
	Right.
	And he's not entirely wrong.
	He's not entirely wrong.
	And there does seem to be a bell curve.
	Some people are very susceptible to environment.
	Some people are less susceptible to environment.
	But the whole point is that as a parent, you don't know ahead of time.
	You know, like some people can smoke forever and never get sick.
	And other people have like two packs of cigarettes and their heads explode.
	So the whole point is you don't smoke because you don't know ahead of time.
	So, I mean, if you did turn out to have bulletproof aspects to your personality and have flourished as a result, that doesn't forgive your mom for anything, right?
	Right.
	Like if your mom forced you to smoke and it turns out you're immune to lung cancer, that doesn't make forcing you to smoke a good thing to do.
	Yeah, yeah.
	So, as far as ownership goes, your mom is 100% responsible for the things that she did and negative effects that they had upon you.
	And, you know, we do live in a society with a little bit of parent worship, you know, where criticizing parents is considered to be Wrong, somehow, bad, somehow, that kind of stuff, right?
	Whereas, you know, criticizing...
	I don't know.
	As a white male, when people are hypersensitive to criticism, I say, hey, try being a white male.
	See how sensitive the world is about criticizing groups or individuals.
	It doesn't really seem to have...
	I have a trouble when people, you know, say, oh, well, you can't criticize this group and you can't criticize that group.
	It's like, you can't criticize women because then you hate women.
	It's like, wait, so you're saying that...
	Everyone hates white males and me because they criticize white males all the time.
	Oh, no, that's different.
	Oh, yeah, yeah.
	Okay.
	So, yeah, she's responsible for what she did to you.
	And I think society as a whole is responsible for creating this kind of bubble where parents can't be criticized.
	Or you can criticize them, but you still got to see them.
	And, you know, this just, you know, whatever happened.
	Like, parents are an unchosen relationship.
	You choose to get married, you choose that person.
	You don't choose where you're born.
	You don't choose your parents.
	And so if adults have the right to not see each other for reasons of abuse, if you have an abusive boyfriend, you can break up with him.
	If you abuse the husband, you can divorce him, not see him again.
	And that's considered to be a good thing.
	That's empowering, get away from it.
	But with parents, it's like this weird other bubble, where even though you never chose the relationship, obligated, forever, no matter how they treat you, well, voluntarism is the only cure for corruption.
	I refuse to turn my parental relationships into the DMV, the tax code.
	Those I can't choose, right?
	So I'm still trying to figure out when it comes to you, I mean, smart, attractive, obviously intellectually curious, call them, right?
	And...
	Successful at attracting mentally healthy friends.
	Do you not move in the circles where these people are?
	Do you not know how to talk to people who you might consider them to be mentally healthy?
	Or do you talk to people you think are mentally healthy and they turn out to be crazy?
	Or how does it play out in your life?
	Well, I think...
	So one thing is that I... Like you met your wife at volleyball.
	I'm not particularly...
	Talented at sports.
	So, I've gone to, like, creative endeavors.
	So, I did, you know, poetry slam and I did...
	I was heavily involved with improv.
	But I think that...
	Poetry slammers and actors?
	Yes, exactly.
	That's the point.
	Crazy people.
	Totally crazy people.
	You know, I went to theater school, right?
	Yeah, totally crazy people.
	The vanity asylum of Montreal.
	Okay.
	It's true.
	Go on.
	How else do you meet people?
	Totally crazy.
	So I totally realized, okay, this whole artist community is that people who want to be are totally narcissists.
	That doesn't work.
	I hung out with...
	The artist community, otherwise known as the great divide between the successful and the resentful.
	Exactly.
	And then, you know, I was hanging out.
	This is when I was younger.
	I dated several Jewish men.
	And I'm not Jewish.
	Wait, were they willing to get involved into a relationship or a potential marriage with a non-Jewish?
	I mean, you had Schick's Appeal, of course, right?
	But I mean, is it...
	No, you're on the right track in that...
	Again, I'm chasing after people who have no ability to basically commit to me.
	So they were tourists until mom said, okay, enough of that.
	Find yourself a nice Jewish girl.
	That's correct.
	And that happened two times where it was a little bit longer and then one time where it was short.
	Wait, three times?
	Yep.
	Okay, we'll talk about your learning curve in a sec.
	But how long were these relationships, how long did they last?
	A couple of months.
	Like, one of them was, I don't know, six months.
	And then I went back to college and we talked over the...
	Over the year.
	And then when I got back, I sort of said, okay, I'm ready to, you know, convert or die, so to speak.
	No, I'm ready to convert.
	I don't think it involves headless monkey trials, but okay, go on.
	No, I said, like, let's do it.
	Like, I'm ready, you know, I'm ready to convert.
	And he sort of went, yeah, I thought about it and...
	I don't, you know, I think I need to marry a Jewish girl.
	Wait, wait, wait.
	Hang on.
	A Jewish guy going, yeah.
	Oh, I never heard that before.
	All right.
	I'm so sorry to hear that.
	And just wanted to mention, hey, Jewish guys, if you don't want to marry non-Jews, can you do us all a favor?
	Do us a solid, please don't date them.
	Because, you know, it's more challenging for everyone else.
	So, three times.
	Yeah.
	And was that the last dating you did?
	No, I had, I lived with a guy for two years, and it was not bad, but he was definitely, you know, lower socioeconomic status, lower, I basically wanted a guy who would never leave me.
	That was what I felt.
	So, how long could you hold the giant helium balloon of hypergamy down for there, Adrienne?
	Yeah, two years, and then I went, I think I can do better, and And then, this is embarrassing, but I've kind of been having him hang around for several years.
	Oh, no.
	You haven't beta friend-zoned him, right?
	As backup?
	I totally did.
	Oh, man.
	Oh, man.
	Please, please, cut the cord.
	I know.
	This year I did.
	Let his low-rent genes seek their level.
	That's the thing.
	And then the panic sets in because it's like, oh, my backup plan.
	I always had him as a backup plan.
	Now it's gone.
	No, no, no.
	No.
	Panic is good.
	Panic is helpful.
	Do not drug yourself with somebody else parked sperm.
	That is not a reasonable way to plan for your future, I would say.
	Yeah, it's not good.
	And so then I had a big crisis because it was like I was watching – I'm sorry I called you conservative.
	I didn't realize that you were an anarchist.
	I'm a philosopher!
	Okay.
	Everybody wants to put a conclusion label on me so they never have to go through the process.
	Nope, just philosophy.
	There are certain conclusions that I'm on, but, you know, you don't call someone a Darwinian.
	You just call them a biologist, don't you?
	Anyway, go on.
	Yeah, no.
	Sorry to interrupt, but I can totally understand.
	I've been called that and I can understand where people come to that idea from and you're new to the show.
	But anyway, go on.
	I think it's, yeah, it's because you're willing to talk about, you know, market sexual value, sexual market value and all that stuff, which is no one's willing to talk about it except for the conservatives.
	Well, leftists for very obvious reasons.
	Yeah.
	That they're low.
	Yeah.
	So then I started listening to, you know, I was listening to Gavin McInnes and some of these guys and I was like, oh man, I'm really, because now I feel like I've slutted around and I mean, not as much as some people, but to a significant degree.
	I'm no virgin.
	And I'm 29 and not as fit as I could be.
	I mean, not out of shape, but not perfect.
	And so then suddenly I'm like, and I have no friends, so I have no social proof.
	Social proof?
	What do you mean?
	Oh.
	I don't know that phrase.
	Oh, in a dating context, people look for social proof.
	So when you first start dating somebody, you want to see that they have friends, they get along with people.
	I think there were these videos, I heard about them so I can't attest, of guys going up to a woman when they're alone and And she'll reject them immediately, but if they're with their friends and they're, you know, having a good time and then they kind of approach her, she'll see that he's not a psychopath because he has friends around.
	Right, right.
	Yeah, he's not like parked in the back of the alley with a windowless van with other thumping noises coming from inside.
	All right.
	Yeah, so that's a social proof.
	So I don't have any...
	I don't have any close friends.
	I mean, I have friends.
	I get along with everybody, but nobody that I would actually call a friend because I think they're all crazy or just in denial about a lot of things.
	So, yeah, close friends don't exist.
	And no family.
	So, like, you listen to some of these guys, like Roosh V, and he's like, well, if she doesn't have a good relationship with her mother, you know, she's...
	Don't even consider her.
	And you're like, oh, crap.
	Yeah, I don't know much about that guy other than he has pretty much the most impressive beard since Moses.
	But I would say that in the absence of a pursuit of self-knowledge, in the absence of the pursuit of self-knowledge, and you've done more than pursued it with 10 years of therapy and so on, but we can't be judged by the accidents of our histories.
	But we can be judged by how we handle them, how we deal with them, right?
	And so I wouldn't judge you by the family you happen to be born into.
	That's very prejudicial.
	However, I would recognize that if you're born into a difficult family and you pursue self-knowledge, you'll probably end up much wiser than the normies, right?
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	Yeah, the superpowers.
	No, yeah.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	There's no kryptonite on the world left for me.
	Yeah, it's interesting because Because I have the bipolar diagnosis, it's scary because it's easier for people to dismiss me.
	I suddenly lose all credibility because I've sought out, it's like going to get the MRI and now you know what you have.
	Well, I don't know if you've heard my stuff on these diagnoses, but...
	Just have a read through Robert Whitaker's material.
	He's been on this show a couple of times, Mad in America and other things.
	I won't say anything more than that because I'm certainly no doctor, but just have a look at this.
	There may be some reasons to be skeptical about these kinds of labels and so on, so just have a look at that.
	Because, yeah, there obviously is a stigma associated with that for some people, right?
	Yeah, yeah.
	Yeah, so then if I say to my mom, you know, I think the fact that your father sexually molested you has influenced your choices, and she says, you're crazy, he was a great guy.
	I think you're depressed and should call me when you're not feeling so depressed.
	I'm like, wait, no, that's not what's happening here.
	Am I fairly right in guessing that she has not gone through, say, 10 years of therapy?
	Zero, yeah, none at all.
	Yeah.
	And I'm going to assume that her life has all the hallmarks there of denied self-knowledge.
	Yeah, so my parents are polyamorous, and they are together, but I would say that they're sex addicts.
	They're very obsessed with sex.
	So it's hard to convince them that anything besides sex is valuable.
	And it's interesting.
	Sorry, this is an aside, so you can direct me out of it.
	But I've been trying to figure out...
	Like, I've been listening to Jordan Peterson, and he sort of says, wouldn't it be nice to have figured out the dating thing once, and then you can move on with your life and try and figure out what else there is in the universe?
	And...
	So I presented that to my family and they sort of said, oh, well, you can still have great sex when you're 60 and 70.
	You know, Viagra is great.
	And you're like, that's not the point.
	Anyway, but I could rant about that, but I'm trying to figure out the kind of balance because obviously sex isn't bad.
	It's just, like you've said, it's not a toy.
	It's not a toy.
	No, I certainly don't think so.
	And Lack of sexual boundaries after a history of sexual abuse is not, to me, wildly uncorrelated, but that's just an opinion.
	So what do you want out of dating and out of a man, Adrienne?
	Well, I'll give you a little bit of background about...
	You've gotten quite a bit, but...
	Um, so when I finally realized, you know, my mom is a sociopath, pretty much everything I do, I'm doing is a lie, like everything I say to people, because I don't, I don't tell them what I'm really thinking.
	And, um, I have no idea how to meet people in the right circles and all this stuff.
	I suddenly just said, you know what, I need to take some time away from everything.
	I sold my business, I sold my condo, and I moved to a rural area where I'm Basically living like a housewife provided for by myself.
	Wait, so have you sort of semi-retired at the moment?
	For the moment.
	My plan was to give myself two years to figure out how to interact with people effectively and how to live an authentic life.
	But then suddenly, so I got here and actually I'm really enjoying myself.
	Like, I have a little farm, so I'm doing some sustainability stuff and, you know, cooking for myself and getting in shape and studying a lot, like, your stuff.
	But then suddenly I realize, wait, I'm 29 now.
	If I wait two years to figure this stuff out, it's no good.
	And you've done therapy for 10 years, right?
	I mean, at some point you've just got to stop training and go to the Olympics, right?
	Right.
	So that was the reason for the question.
	You've given me the answer as to what you're not doing with regards to men and dating, so I will circle back and ask again, what do you want from a man and from dating?
	I'd really like a partner to share myself with.
	I think I have a lot to offer in terms of thoughtfulness and caringness and skills and all that stuff.
	In terms of children, I couldn't imagine it when I was working in the city.
	Now that I'm not working and I'm in the country, I can imagine it.
	But I would only do it if it was like you're doing, which is I can be there one-on-one with the child.
	I have a supportive partner.
	But I would never, because I feel very sensitive about parenting, I would never take on the responsibility of a child when things were chaotic or when I didn't have a good partner.
	So I'm kind of at the point where if I find a man and...
	And things work out, I would probably have children, but if not, I have to make peace with that, I think.
	Well, I mean, you said you had a business, right?
	So you're driven, you did 10 years of therapy, so you are dedicated, and you have follow-through, right?
	So if you make this your job...
	Get a man.
	You know, it sounds ridiculous.
	You don't just go tackle something.
	But if you make this your job, then you can do it.
	But you just have to make it your job.
	It's the old thing about, like, I'm unemployed and I can't find a job.
	It's like, well, how long do you spend working?
	I don't know, half an hour a day.
	It's like, nope.
	If you are unemployed and you need a job, looking for a job is your job.
	You get up, you have a coffee, you sit down at your computer, you do it, you make your phone calls, that's your job.
	And you break for lunch and you go back to it and you put in your eight hours a day.
	So if you make this...
	I mean, we all want love to be something that happens to us.
	That your eyes meet across a crowded room.
	And of course there's some truth to that.
	You can't get love out of your heart like you get toothpaste out of a tube.
	But...
	You have to work to be ready for it.
	You have to work to be prepared for it.
	You know, it's amazing how much good luck falls upon people who've spent a long time preparing for it, right?
	So I have a question about that because I'm on board with it.
	And I would like to say that although my intentions, I think I had some intentions about finding men who I could show off.
	So I think there was not great intentions there for a long time.
	You live in the country.
	You need a guy who can hoist barbed wire and cut down a tree.
	Yeah, yeah.
	I need a guy who can catch a chicken.
	Well, maybe I should run back to the city and I don't know.
	No, I'm just saying, I understand what you're saying.
	And of course, you come from a family, since they're sex-obsessed, I assume that they're somewhat body-obsessed or physically narcissistic.
	So for you, the looks thing is a very big deal.
	And I always get into this stupid false dichotomy.
	Are you saying looks don't matter?
	Of course looks matter.
	They matter.
	They matter.
	But they're not everything.
	Hey, one day.
	One day, there may be better looking people on YouTube than me.
	I know.
	It's crazy to even think about, but it's possible.
	I'm not the best looking guy on YouTube, so who cares, right?
	I mean, just keep doing what you're doing.
	I'm getting older.
	It's what happens.
	And so, as far as looks go, you know, good looks ain't going to help you when your kid's up third time that night.
	No, I'm totally fine.
	I don't have a huge, I don't know, the sort of therapeutic diagnosis we came up with was that I like to choose men who are unavailable, and then I have to work really hard to get their approval, like with the Jewish.
	Well, because that's your parents, right?
	You had to work hard to get their approval, otherwise you'd be in emotional danger, right?
	Or existential danger, perhaps.
	Yeah.
	But on a practical note, I am in the country, I'm happy to leave, like I would move because just like I know you would for a job, like I would move if I had to find a man, but I have no idea.
	Like I've, you know, I've tried artists, which totally doesn't work.
	And I've tried like tindering and, you know, a little bit of online dating and that didn't work.
	So I don't know, and I don't have, my job is, I'm a massage therapist, so only women, and you don't at all screw around with your clients.
	So I don't know practically how to get to people who aren't crazy.
	No, that's a fair point, that's a fair question.
	Do you, what kind of values are you looking for?
	I mean, if you had to choose between like an atheist or a Christian, Which value would be more important to you?
	And I know that there's a spectrum on both sides and so on, but...
	I would say that being virtuous is more important than having a faith, but to me they're not necessarily separate.
	No, it makes perfect sense to me.
	So you'd rather a good Christian than like a crazy atheist, right?
	Right, but I'd rather an honest atheist than a lying Christian.
	Absolutely.
	Absolutely.
	I'm completely with you there.
	And obviously, I agree with you that as I sort of get older, like before for me, it was all about the methodology of thinking and so on.
	But as I get older and I realize the limitations of people's thinking and the fact that facts don't seem to matter to a lot of people.
	I just listened to the first caller.
	I sort of am recognizing that when it comes to relationships, it is whatever gets you to a good, kind and loving place is good. kind and loving place is good.
	That is not extraordinarily philosophical.
	I completely understand that.
	I heard the clatter of a thousand jaws hitting the floor, but Whatever gets people to a good place of, you know, positivity and love and trustworthiness and honesty and so on, I would rather be with...
	Like, if I had to take just a completely random shot, like if I knew nothing else other than, say, atheist versus Christian, I could really understand the case for a Christian partner as opposed to an atheist partner.
	And that's just because, I mean, I've studied a lot of the data around the atheist community and so on.
	So I'm just saying I can understand...
	Are you telling me to go to church?
	Take me to church.
	Look, I get letters from people who are complete atheists who love going to church.
	Because they're like, you know, we get to sing, we get to talk about ideas.
	They're really, really nice people.
	They have cookies.
	Come to the old, right?
	We have cookies.
	So, you know, it may not be the worst thing because it may be that there's somebody there who's there for the values, not the theology.
	Who's there for the virtue, not the faith.
	In which case, you may have a lot more in common with a man like that than you would...
	With somebody who's really into science like Bill Nye, right?
	I'm just saying it's possible.
	Bill Nye is like the biggest advertisement for Christian men that you could possibly conceive of, I think, like almost literally.
	Look, he's into science.
	I'm running the other way.
	So, because I'd like to have a child that's one or two genders, innie or outie.
	I don't know about this spiral stuff that everyone's talking about these days.
	So, that's a possibility.
	And of course, you're out in the country, right?
	So...
	Lots of churches.
	Lots of churches.
	And why not go and see who might be there, who's like, you know, my wife was not an atheist when I met her.
	And, you know, if I'd have said no, well, it would be an entirely different kind of life and much, much worse.
	Okay, that's an idea for sure.
	I'll have to go.
	I went to one and I... I can never sit through the sermons.
	Especially, I happen to go around Easter, which I think, I don't know why I end up going around Easter every year, and then I immediately run screaming because the whole thing around Easter is, you're going to have a whole new body as soon as you die.
	Brand new body for everybody.
	Come on, you know enough about yourself to know that you go on Easter because you like getting into relationships you can't sustain.
	I'll go on Easter!
	Yeah!
	Okay, good point.
	I won't go on Easter.
	Please.
	So, you know, that's a possibility.
	I mean, if you want a smart guy, maybe there's a mensa club around, you know, which is not to say that's exclusive from the church.
	There is actually an FDR meetup group about an hour and a half away, but I'll trek to it and see.
	Boy, I hear the trepidation in that phrase.
	Yeah.
	No, just because I've shown up, well, I used to live in a really liberal city, and this one happens to be in a liberal city as well, so I don't know, but, you know, you'd go to the conservative group and it would be like five guys sitting around and it would be, yeah, it wasn't a lot of Lonely Sausage Fest.
	Oh, yeah.
	No, I used to go to libertarian meetups when I was younger.
	And well, let's just say it was the beginning of my convoluted and complex relationships with libertarians and libertarianism.
	But so I know the objectivist groups, I remember those too.
	And I think, you know, you really need, well, I don't know, I'm such an individualist, like, that anyone who's in a group, you kind of go, hmm, I don't know, why do you feel the need to confine yourself to a group?
	A lot of, you know, just because someone listens to the same podcast doesn't mean that the values are all...
	The same.
	I mean, especially a podcast that deals with as many different topics as this one does.
	You know, some people are in it for the economics or the politics or the current affairs or the self-knowledge or whatever it is, right?
	So there's a lot of different, you know, as the business plan of the show is this.
	Make friends, break friends.
	Woo the men, drive them off.
	Woo the men, drive them off.
	So...
	One of my thoughts was to do a philosophy show of my own.
	Because I do like talking about this stuff and I do like, I mean, I'm decent at, you know, the computer side of things.
	And I got a lot of time on my hands.
	But I don't know if that realistically is going to go.
	No, listen, I mean, I've said this before.
	If you want to find an extraordinary person, be an extraordinary person.
	Yeah.
	You know, I mean, if I was not married, if I was not happily married when I had started this show, this show would have introduced me to no shortage of eligible women, right?
	So maybe that'll be the way to go.
	I mean, the great thing about it is that I would get to be quite sharp and eloquent and all that, which is nice.
	Yes.
	And so I think if you're interested in that, give it a shot and throw everything you've got into it and be as honest about who you are as, you know, we all try to be as honest as who we are if we're committed to that.
	And you don't know what might come out of that.
	You might meet a guy who really likes what you have to say.
	And so if that's something you're keen on, you know, give it a shot, upload it, and...
	See what kind of feedback you get.
	But I've certainly said to people before, if you want to meet someone who's rare, you have to be as visible as humanly possible, right?
	And especially if it comes to something like your values, if you pour your heart and soul and mind into something like this, then people will very clearly know who you are and what you stand for and what you're all about.
	If and when they contact you or if and when they find something of interest about what you do.
	And so...
	That's certainly not the worst idea as far as being visible to people.
	You know, it's like the flare.
	You know, like if you want to find someone out in the ocean at nighttime, they need to shoot up that flare, right?
	And then the flare will light up where they are and how you can find them.
	So I think being public in that arena can be very helpful.
	And it's pretty proactive.
	It certainly would be part of my strategy about this kind of stuff.
	Yeah, I was hesitant because it's a big leap to go.
	Like, I got in an argument with someone here about race.
	I don't know how I got into it, but a very argumentative person.
	And I sort of started saying, you know, they were saying all about institutional racism and all stuff.
	And I said, well...
	For example, blacks speak more than whites, and it was like this huge eruption of, how could you do that that's so racist?
	And I'm like, it was a study.
	I didn't, anyway, I'm sure you know, but it was sort of like, okay.
	Reality can sometimes be racist.
	Yeah, and if I go public with something like that, then you really get, yeah, you're throwing out a flair to the great people out there, and you're also really making yourself a pariah.
	Well, you may not necessarily want to start with that stuff.
	You might want to start with some more abstract stuff.
	But, you know, you'll be...
	You will be embedded in whatever you do, right?
	If you're authentic and honest about what you're talking about and the topics and the form that the conversation takes, which I'm sure you will be.
	So that's, to me, a fine...
	It would be part of my strategy.
	It wouldn't be the whole thing because there may be quite a lot of sifting, you know, if you've seen any of the Lauren Southern vids, like the number of People who just want to bear her children seems to be quite legion.
	So I don't think that's her dating strategy.
	I don't know what her dating strategy is.
	Don't really care.
	But I would say that if you're If you're looking for someone rare, the more visible you are, the better.
	And so I would make that...
	I mean, it's part of sort of my general strategy of finding people.
	I mean, I certainly do know there's been quite a few people who've met and married and had kids through this show, through Free Domain Radio.
	And, you know, if you could be part of that, I think that would be great too.
	I mean, there's a message board, board.freedomainradio.com, which you could check out.
	And...
	Just, yeah, it's a numbers game.
	You know, you just have to meet a lot of people and you have to be very discriminating.
	And if you meet a lot of people and you're very discriminating, that I think gives you your best chance by far.
	But it has to be your job.
	Like, to me, you say, oh, it'll take a couple of years to...
	No, no, no, you did that.
	Now your job is find a man, get married, and have kids if that's what you want.
	And if you meet the right man for that, that would be my particular focus.
	Because I... I don't know.
	It's hard, you know, once you have...
	I mean, for me, now that I've had a child, now that I am a father, it's...
	It's an incomprehensible life otherwise.
	I mean, it's a weird thing to say, but life literally is incomprehensible without it.
	And I don't regret the time before, but it is an old but true cliche.
	I would not trade it for anything.
	All right.
	Okay, good.
	All right.
	Will you let us know how it goes?
	I will, yeah.
	All right.
	Well, I really, really appreciate your time and I appreciate everyone's time.
	Thanks so much, so much for calling in tonight.
	It's a great conversation series for me and I really, really appreciate that.
	Please don't forget to go to freedomainradio.com slash donate to help out the show.
	Freedomainradio.com slash donate.
	A nice tasty little subscription would be very helpful.
	One-time donation, Bitcoin, PayPal.
	You don't need a PayPal account.
	You just don't need to...
	Set yourself up, just you have a bank card or a Visa or whatever, a MasterCard.
	So freedomainradio.com slash donate.
	Also follow me on Twitter at Stefan Molyneux.
	And don't forget to use our affiliate link at FDRURL.com slash Amazon.
	Thanks, everyone.

▲