All Episodes
Previous Next
May 14, 2017 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
45:16
3684 How They Sabotaged Western Civilization
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
The society that I want is not something to be dragged forward from the past and photocopied in the future.
I'm not like someone who says, oh, I love this old black and white movie.
Let's colorize it and then release it as a new thing.
I mean, I like as much free market as possible, as many voluntary interactions as possible.
And people will often say, okay, well, the 19th century was this big capitalist paradise, and that's sort of what I'm...
Let's get children and stuff them back up the chimneys.
No, no, that's not what I'm looking for.
I mean, even in America, it only took about 80 years for the government to break the bonds of the Constitution and begin its usual tyrannical march to the current bloated monstrosity that Trump is trying to tame at the moment.
And of course, the founding of America through, you could say, to the Civil War.
Well, there was slavery, and that is not a free market principle at all.
If you have property, you cannot be property, and universal human rights deny it.
So, looking just sort of back 150 years or so, Governments were beginning their slow and steady march to, again, the sort of bloated bureaucratic civilization-destroying monstrosities, currently feeding, like some leech the size of Jupiter, on the diminishing jugular of human freedoms.
And, I mean, in Germany, 150 years ago or so, there was the creation of sort of the first modern bureaucratic welfare state, with unemployment insurance, with old-age pensions, with welfare and so on.
So that was a long time ago, but the most important one, the one that still affects us the most today, was the government takeover of the education system.
The education system in America, when it was privately run, was spectacular.
A 90-95% significant literacy rate, far higher in many places than it is now.
American government's schools are dose-dependent brain destroyers.
American kids...
They score about average relative to international standards before they start going to government schools.
And every time they're in government schools, they just get worse and worse and worse.
Every single year, they get worse.
They are horrendous.
But of course, the point of government schools is not to educate you.
Fundamentally, the point of government schools is twofold.
It is to...
Make sure that those who educate the young are dependent on the state for income and job security and summers off and all the other kind of goodies that they have.
And I remember, it wasn't even that long ago, I was listening to a conversation, a teacher, a government teacher was talking to another woman, both women.
And she was just kind of tossing her hair back and saying, oh, those summers, those long, hot, lazy teacher summers, you know, like every summer I say to myself, this summer I'm going to tackle the basement.
I'm going to...
I'm going to trim my hedges.
And it always ends up the same way.
I go over to my friend's house with a book and I just sit by the pool, sipping Mai Tais and baking in the sun.
Oh, it's glorious.
And then she went on to talk about how she put her kids in summer camp and had a nanny.
Anyway, so to get...
Those who educate the young dependent on the state is essential.
That's for educating the young.
For intimidating everyone else into deferring to state power, you must make sure that the intellectuals are dependent on the state.
And you do that because some of the intellectuals, of course, particularly those language-based, go into, well, the media, reporters, I mean, traditionally.
And that way they're dependent on the state.
They're dependent on state contacts.
They're dependent on state information in order to do their job.
So you try and make as many language-based people dependent on the state as humanly possible.
And those who want to go into the artistic realm, you capture those with government grants for art.
And this way, they're dependent on the state.
The people who are in the hard sciences are a little bit more challenging, but of course simply give people in the hard sciences massive, massive amounts of government grants in order for them to do their job.
You artificially swell the number of scientists working in obscure, dilettante, useless fields of self-referential nonsense.
And you make them dependent on the state.
And that way, you have massive clamorings of people who are your phalanx, your defense.
You're like raised peers against the thundering, approaching horsemen of freedom.
And this way, the most intelligent are weaponized against freedom by being made dependent on the state.
You know, if there's only one drug dealer in town, all the addicts will defend that person to the death because, for them, a loss of their Of course, you can weaponize women very easily against freedom by artificially raising their wages, by having lots of them work for the government, by having lots of them work as teachers, right?
So the fact that governments and the media are very, very keen on driving out men from the orbit of Children, particularly younger children, and substituting women in for men means, of course, that there are more women who are opposed to freedom, to voluntarism, to the free market.
You can't be dependent on the state and praise the free market.
I mean, you can, but you're so easily dismantled and viewed as hypocritical that it's just kind of ridiculous, right?
It's not the same if you pay your taxes.
You have to pay your taxes to go to jail, but you don't have to work for the government.
There's a choice involved there.
And so driving away men from the education of children is really, really important to the government because men bring a different kind of sensibility on average to the raising of children.
And if you get more and more women dependent on the state, then Western men's natural deference towards the preferences of women...
We'll then create a situation where a man fears access to eggs, to reproduction, to dating, to sex, to marriage, to a family, to a future, because women are weaponized against freedom through increasing dependence on the state.
This also happens with some minorities.
This also happens with a wide variety of other groups.
Scientists, the reporters, I mean, just the artists and so on.
And even if you sort of look at Hollywood, well, Hollywood, in order to make movies, has to work with government-protected and sanctioned unions, and therefore has a tough time really, really arguing for the free market and for the evil say of unionization, because that way they might not be able to get their movie made.
It's an unnecessary complication to an already very expensive endeavor called making a movie.
And most foundationally, When the government takes over education, a really, really fascinating thing happens.
And those of us who are interested in promoting, vociferously arguing for the substitution of voluntary for coercive relationships and government education, it's a coercive relationship.
You're forced to pay, your kids are often forced to go, and it's not a voluntary relationship.
So, those of us who want to talk about the free market of ideas, of goods, of services, of human interactions as a whole, we're often confused.
You may have experienced this.
Let me know if you have in the comments below.
But we're often confused by just how deep-seated and irrational and emotional people's resistance to freedom is.
Now, a lot of that has to do with the government schools.
We're not exactly ducks.
You know, like baby ducks will bond with anything that they come across.
A big orange balloon, they'll bond with that and they'll follow that.
But we do tend to imprint on whoever raises us.
And certainly in working families, the government...
It has more influence than parents, and people bond with whoever raises them.
I mean, you put your kids in daycare, they're there for eight hours while you're off working.
It's true that there are 16 hours outside of the eight hours in the day, but the kids are sleeping, hopefully, for 10 or 11 or 12 of those.
You know, plus there's non-interaction-y stuff that you have to do, like taking your kids to go and get groceries while you cook.
They're sort of around, but you're not really interacting with them.
You do your chores, pay your bills, and so on.
And of course you're not instructing them on values and facts and thought patterns and so on for eight hours a day or six hours a day or whatever the government's final actual injection of brain matter is into vulnerable, dependent and coercively confined young minds.
And so for a lot of people there's this unconscious thing that's happened.
This subconscious thing that's happened, which is that the state is the parent.
Now, this sometimes happens in a pretty direct way, right?
Another way to weaponize women against freedom is to misinstruct them on the nature and healthy system called families.
Families need support.
A mother and a father in general, some exceptions.
The majority of families need a mother and a father who are stable, who love each other.
That is by far not only the best but the healthiest environment for children to grow up in.
Children who go through a divorce suffer enormously psychologically.
Children who are raised by single mothers are dozens of times more likely to be sexually abused because, you know, there's this...
General flotilla of low-rent dudes coming in and sleeping on the couch after they've done their pump and dump.
And so it's just a very, very harmful environment.
And of course, you know, when you talk to women about what's healthy, you know, you pick up a woman's magazine, flip through it, and half of it is, you know, these cancer-causing agents are hidden between the fronds of your broccoli stems.
And they're just completely nuts for healthy stuff, which I understand, you know, evolutionarily speaking, it makes perfect sense for women to be concerned about health because women were very often the caregivers and the caretakers of those who got ill.
And so there was that natural predilection or tendency towards a concern with health.
But, of course, if you obscure the fact that, you know, single mothers and divorced families and so on is how destructive it is for children or how destructive government schools are for children, right?
There was a study that came out in the past that said kids with ADHD had smaller brains, turned out to be nonsense.
In fact, children with ADHD have higher IQs than non-ADHD children.
In other words, government schools are so bad that if you have a couple of extra points of IQ, you're so mindlessly bored and frustrated that you run the very real risk of losing significant portions of brain matter by being drugged, basically forcibly drugged, in order to continue there.
Which is what happened in the Soviet Union under communism.
If you didn't like communism, well, you had to have horse tranquilizers stuffed up your nose because clearly you were mentally ill because you didn't love that, which was already perfect.
And so you can easily weaponize women against freedom by making them dependent on the state, by withholding from them the information about how bad single motherhood and the divorce system is now.
Now, I understand men have some causality in all of this, but the reality is, at least in the West, that men ask for sex and women choose yes or no.
And so women are more responsible for sexual relations than men are.
Men are more responsible for other things, military, industrial complex, but women are more responsible in this area.
So it's easy to weaponize women against freedom, make them dependent on the state, make them marry the state.
The state becomes...
The husband.
And that is also something very important.
If you have a single mom and she's dependent on either the vast majority, if not all, or a significant proportion of her income, then the state has become your daddy.
Who's your name?
What's your name?
Who's your daddy?
Is he rich like me?
Well, it's the government.
The government is what keeps the system going.
And so it's kind of hard to argue against The government.
It's kind of hard to argue against income redistribution when at least the perception is that that is what has kept body and soul together.
And so people bond with the state.
The state becomes apparent.
And even, I shouldn't say even more foundationally, along with that, it's hard to put a hierarchy on these things, but along with that comes this other challenge.
And the challenge is that if we say the initiation of force is immoral and coerced relationships are immoral, we understand this, right?
I mean, if I lend you my lawnmower, that's a voluntary relationship.
If you come and steal my lawnmower against my wishes, that's a coerced relationship.
If you have sex with me voluntarily, that's lovemaking.
You understand how all of this goes.
If I get into a boxing ring with you and you hit me and bloody my lip, that's a voluntary relationship if you just walk up to me.
Anyway, so if you put kids into a government-controlled, coercive environment, such as government schools, then what arguments can you as a society make against that?
Coercive relationships.
You've already relied upon a coercive relationship to educate your children.
You've already put your children into a coercive relationship with government schools and government teachers.
Can you then say, well, it's very important.
Well, first of all, you can't really say, it's never important.
You can never use force to get your way.
Never, ever use, never hit things to get what you want.
Never hit people to get what you want.
Don't, right?
Don't push.
Don't use force.
And we can see this.
I mean, the feral left these days is regularly initiating force in order to block or retaliate against speakers coming to their neck of the woods, often their campuses.
Speakers whose opinions they disagree with or who arguments they cannot easily rebut and therefore they use force.
We use force in the education of our children.
How on earth could we be totally shocked when a significant proportion of those children grow up with the idea that using force to achieve your goals is a good thing?
It's kind of how they were educated.
And of course, if they have single moms, the coercive redistribution of force is how they got their resources, how their mom got their resources.
If their mother works for the government, then as a significant proportion of women do, more women work for the government than men, quite a bit more, quite a few more.
Well, how are they going to say coercive redistribution is wrong, using violence is wrong?
The whole foundation of government education is that the end justifies the means.
Right?
So the means are always erased.
Well, it's...
It's just a right to be educated.
It's part of being in a civilized society, and that's how democracy works, is you just force people to educate and all that.
So first of all, the force is always bypassed, and the laudable goals are held up like banners that obscure the actual reality of what's going on.
And then, of course, the false dichotomy is that since the government educates the young, particularly the poor young, only the government can educate them.
And if you don't want the government to educate them, then clearly you want the poor to remain ignorant their whole lives.
Which, when you see the graduation rates of government schools in certain districts in America, less than 50%.
And that's with a lot of social promotion and so on.
The idea that the government is there just to educate the children.
And without the government, there'd be no education.
I mean, it's completely ridiculous.
I mean, it's funny how the West was built generally prior to government schools, particularly North America.
The freedoms were built prior to government schools, but somehow now, government schools are the only way that those freedoms can be maintained and protected.
That's just standard propaganda 101.
So, if you can get kids...
If children can be corralled up and forced into...
These coercive relationships.
And, of course, you know, there's some places you can homeschool and you can use private schools and so on, but you're still forced to pay for government schools either way, and most of the other schools will follow the curricula of the government schools, because you have to fit into university.
So there's this straitjacket of conformity that's wrapped around even those who want to dance free of state restrictions.
So, how on earth as a society can you fundamentally argue against coercive relationships, the virtue of coercive relationships, if you subject your children to 12 years of the coercive relationship known as government schools?
You can't.
This is why, without addressing this issue, it's such a losing battle for people to argue for free markets in the realm of ideas.
To argue for free market in the realm of adult economics.
Because if you don't have a free market in education, or if you don't at least clearly identify the immoralities of coercive government education or coercive education of any kind, then you're fighting a losing battle.
Like, it fundamentally makes no sense.
And this is why once you get the socialization of education, the socialization of childhood, the socialization of society as a whole, well, it's inevitable, right?
This is the snowflake that turns, that starts the avalanche, that wipes out the shining city of freedom.
So...
When you have the end justifying the means, where kids need to be educated, and therefore the only viable way to do it is to force parents to pay, to borrow, to print, to tax, to have all of this coercion herding the minds of children into the sewers of the future.
When you have that, you're basically saying, not only do the ends justify the means, that argument that the ends justify the means...
Is that the means are bad, but the end is good and therefore it's okay.
It works out.
It averages out, right?
So to take a silly example, right?
Like let's say somebody's drowning and they're panicking in the water.
You dive in to save them and they're thrashing and hitting you and so much that you thump them on the head to knock them out and then you take them out of the water and you save their lives, right?
But you had to knock them out to save their lives because they were pumping and kicking and hitting and biting and completely freaking out.
Or, you know, the old cliche from someone's hysterical across the face.
Oh, thanks.
I feel better now.
So if you save a panicking, drowning person by thumping them on the head to knock them out or at least startle them into stopping freaking out, nobody's saying thumping people on the head is good.
It's bad.
It's bad to thump people on the head.
But...
The end justifies the means.
It's good because, right?
Like the old example of somebody hanging from a flagpole outside somebody's window at their apartment building, and they kick the window in, and then they climb into that person because they don't want to fall and leave a morally perfect stain on the sidewalk below.
I didn't initiate violations of property.
So they kick in the window, they climb into someone's apartment and save themselves that way.
Nobody's saying kicking in windows and going into people's place unannounced and uninvited is good, but it's better than, right?
But when you set up this false dichotomy that both the means and the ends are good, right?
The ends of educating the young and the means of governments doing it, which is the only way to make things equal, it's the only way to instill the values required for a civilized society, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
Then both the means and the ends become perfectly justified and moral, and any other alternative becomes immoral.
Oh, you want the poor to remain illiterate and so on, right?
So...
When children grow up out of that system, what happens?
Well, they view any alternative to their perspectives as immoral, right?
So any alternative to government education is huge income disparities.
It's the poor being uneducated idiots being stuffed up chimneys and the rich, you know, giggling into their monocles and so on.
And So when the alternative to coercion is absolutely wrong, then the coercion itself becomes moral.
In sort of self-defense, right?
Self-defense situation.
You know, a dog is lunging at your child.
You kick the dog and make it go back.
To not do that would be wrong.
And so when you have children raised in this kind of environment, Where the end and the means are both perfectly justified.
Then when they grow up and say, well, everyone I disagree with is a Nazi, and punching Nazis is good, well, we can say that's wrong, and we should, of course.
But we do have to ask where it comes from.
And this, I believe, is one of the key areas where it comes from.
The ends justify the means.
And both the ends and the means are good.
A woman married a guy or had sex with a guy or got pregnant by a guy who didn't stick around.
In the past, this would be dealt with by giving the kid up for adoption or having the parents of the girl raise the child or passing it off as a sibling.
There were ways to solve this before, and it was far less prevalent.
Single motherhood was...
In the low to mid-single digits, at least among whites, a couple of generations ago.
So it was extraordinarily rare.
And this is a time when birth control was much harder to, or much reliable birth control was harder to procure and use, or sometimes even impossible.
And prior to the pill, women got married and stayed married, and children were raised in a healthy way.
Anyway.
So, a woman gets pregnant by a man who doesn't stick around, who won't marry her, who's not paying the bills.
This is a huge catastrophe for society, for the child, for everyone.
But if we excuse her of responsibility, you know, she's too dumb to keep her legs crossed, or she's too confused about male nature, or she doesn't know that a condom is necessary.
I mean, I don't know.
I mean...
I guess you can rescue her free will, but only at the expense of any conceivable respect for her entire mental processes, or lack thereof, to put it mildly.
But then, of course, when the government sort of rushes in and says, oh, you're pregnant, you don't have a husband to provide for you, or you have babies, or many babies, many husbands, well, we're going to rush in and we're going to give you all this money.
All this money.
You know, in the States, a woman on welfare with two kids, $65,000 worth of pre-tax income is poured at her every single year, trapping her in poverty.
When we do this, then we say, well, the woman has the baby, and that's just kind of an absolute, which is not.
You can give a kid up for adoption.
And kids who are given up for adoption into two-parent households do just as well as kids born into two-parent households.
It is the two-parent household that matters, because you can have one person stay home, there are more resources, and the kid, of course, sees modeled a healthy adult relationship, which he or she can then emulate when they grow up and so on.
But you say, ah, well, you see, the woman needs resources, which she knows.
She's got a kid with kids.
She needs resources.
So we're going to coercively take money from the more responsible and give it to the less responsible.
And since responsibility is to some degree genetic, we change the entire genetic path of the society for certain subsections, which is another reason why.
People tend to get stuck in poverty to some degree.
It's genetic.
And you can read the book called The Welfare Trait for more on that.
We'll put a link to it below.
And so another thing that happens is...
I don't know if this was your experience in school other than it being ungodly boring.
Alternately boring and terrifying.
I mean, I don't mean to minimize the terrors of combat, but from what I've heard about from soldiers, a lot of whom have called into the show, being in a combat zone, in a combat theater, is ultimately...
Really boring and really terrifying, right?
Mind-numbing boredom and, you know, the old army thing.
Hurry up and wait.
Get here.
It's an emergency.
You get here.
Now we can leave you there for three days.
So it's incredibly boring.
And then short bursts of incredible terror and anxiety in combat.
I had a fast enough wit to not be bullied.
Once or twice, there was a kid who got me in his sights.
I remember...
Playing the game Defender, which was basically, like, you know, the game Defender way back in the day was really hysterical and really hyper.
And it was sort of like if somebody jammed a wasp nest on your head that was about the size of your head.
It would be kind of like that.
But, bag of bees!
I was doing really well, and some kid wanted to play, and he unplugged the machine and plugged it back in, and I called him a jerk, and then he's like, oh, my brother's gonna get you, and his brother was like, My brother's going to kill me and he's 6'10".
And he's sort of like, you're dead, man!
But nothing ever really came of it.
I actually met him years later.
He was an okay guy.
That was the only real time that I was targeted in that way, and it only lasted like a week or two, and then kind of diminished away.
But for the most part, I was actually pretty popular.
Well, in junior high, in high school in particular, but that's a story for another time.
But one thing I did really get from school was a sense of being unwanted.
Unwanted.
Unwanted.
If you've been an entrepreneur, it's a complicated relationship with customers.
It's a complicated relationship with customers.
You need customers in order to generate the income that hopefully produces a profit.
But, you know, some customers can be difficult.
Some customers can be negative.
Some customers can be obstructive.
And...
You have a complicated relationship.
You want to serve them, and you want them to profit from their interactions with you, but it's not exactly an equal relationship because you're kind of dependent on them, particularly in the early stages.
You know, once they're kind of locked in, particularly with support plans, it's different, but it's a complicated relationship, and it should be.
It should be a complicated relationship.
But in schools, I never got the sense of being wanted.
It's a funny feeling.
Again, this may have just been me.
I think it sort of makes sense from a larger standpoint or an institutional standpoint.
But I always got this feeling like that the principals and the teachers for the most part would have been much happier if the students hadn't been kind of around.
If we hadn't been there mucking things up with our smells and our pimples and our grabs and our fights and our lack of respect to those who Found us mysteriously non-respectful in the situation we were forced to be in and our parents were forced to pay for.
But, yeah, it's a funny kind of feeling.
It was basically, you know, it wasn't quite, you know, you don't eat your meat.
How can you have your pudding if you don't eat your meat?
It wasn't quite that bad, although when I was in boarding school when I was younger, I was pretty close to that.
But it was more like this place would be running a whole lot better without you little shits sticking up the place and running around and disagreeing and disobeying and not coming to class on time.
And that sense of kind of impatience and frustration and annoyance with children, it's kind of endemic to government institutions.
The government institutions are not there to serve the children.
It's an old apocryphal statement to one of the heads of the teachers' unions that says, I'll stop worrying about kids' education when kids start paying union dues, right?
The purpose of the education is many-fold.
None of it has to do with educating the children.
None of it has to do with education.
I mean, if you were to be educated, you would learn Socratic reasoning, you would learn critical thinking, you would be taught philosophy, which is enormously beneficial to children in school.
And there would be...
They would actually ask you what you wanted to learn.
There'd be a lot of independent research about the best way for children to learn.
You wouldn't be like the subject of these guinea pig experiments of, let's try new math, let's try Common Core, let's try all of this.
I mean, you're not allowed to experiment on human beings in a medical context, but in the formation of their thoughts and thinking, arguably as important, maybe even more important.
You're totally allowed to experiment on hundreds of millions of children throughout the Western world.
Totally allowed to experiment.
Just, you know, Bill Gates and talking about Common Core.
Well, you know, we'll find out in 10 years or so whether it works or not.
Yeah, yeah.
Try that.
Oh, medically you're also allowed to experiment on kids in that medicines first adopted or adapted for adult, quote, dysfunctions.
You know, the analogy medicine of modern psychiatry.
Psychiatry.
Just dumped on kids.
Let's put the kids on this.
Let's put the kids on that.
No long-term study.
You're allowed to experiment on children, both in terms of the medications that are inflicted upon them, and you're allowed to experiment on them with regards to particular educational theories.
It's absolutely horrifying and brutal.
People...
Whose hearts are three atoms larger than your average Grinch's in the future will look back at our treatment of children and just wonder how on earth we lived with ourselves and why on earth we believed in this giant mythology called massive female compassion.
As more and more women have taken over education, education has just gotten worse.
You didn't need safe spaces before women became the majority in universities.
But good job, ladies, pushing back against that stereotype that you're too emotional to think clearly.
Good job fixing all of that.
I stand corrected.
So, when you have this situation set up where the kids are kind of coerced to be there and so on, of course they're going to be an annoyance.
Because the purpose of the education is to create a class of people, and primarily women, dependent upon the state.
It is to have people bond with the state.
It's to subtly undermine any arguments for freedom by subjecting.
Children to a coercive relationship, which makes arguments for freedom in any adult context vaguely ridiculous and emotionally reactive to everyone in the future.
And it is to provide an excuse to allow for massive increases in taxation and control of the population to the general population.
Well, you don't want kids to remain uneducated, do you?
So hand it over, sucker!
But nobody cares.
Fundamentally about the kids.
I mean, come on.
If society really cared about children, there'd be no such thing as a national debt.
We understand that.
Anyone...
I shouldn't laugh.
I shouldn't laugh.
But it's so ludicrous.
We care about our children so much.
Society is for the kids.
We got lovely little piano music and a mother hugging her newborn, and we care about the kids so much.
Kids, everything's for my kids.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, to hell with that.
That's such a sentimental saccharine sucker punch.
You know, that's like, here, I've given you a Hallmark card.
A puff of narcoleptic dust.
That's the sentimentality that is so often the superstructure of brutality.
The sentimentality for children is the guy who bumps into you so that the other guy can pick your pocket, distracts you from what's actually happening, which is the children held hostage for the sake of government power.
Children are corralled and rounded up, or the money to fund them is corralled and rounded up by force.
They're enclosed by force.
They're controlled by force.
So that evil people can increase their dominion.
It's nothing more complicated or less complicated than that.
So then, of course, this tearful love of children.
If the old cared about the young, they would abolish.
Social Security.
Because Social Security, there's no money.
There's no money in old-age pensions.
It's not like you gave the money to the government and they just kept it for you because the governments are so responsible, but never, ever institute a social program in order just to have an excuse to rob you of taxes in order to buy votes from newcomers.
No, nothing like that, of course.
And...
Old age pensions is simply a massive forced wealth transfer from the poorest generation to come along in recent memory to the richest generation that has ever existed on the planet, which are the boomers.
A third of millennials in America are Living at home, not working, not going to school, just unable to get their lives started because the boomers have so wrecked the economy and dissolved any sense of ethics into just a mad charge for the last spinning gold coin of state power.
That's all we've devolved into, an uncivil war propaganda, which hopefully will remain relatively cool but has the potential to turn hot at just about any particular moment.
And so this idea that the kids are just kind of unwanted, they're kind of in the way, that also what that does is it dissolves the bond between child and caregiver.
It dissolves the bond between child and caregiver.
One of the great gifts I got in my life was the woman who took care of me when I was a baby, was not my mother, had a very powerful bond with me, very strong bond with me.
And I know that.
I mean, I just know that for reasons I found out about.
Later I don't have to get into here.
But it gave me a lot of strength when it came to facing down the angry mob whose lives depend on lies and therefore view truth as a predator.
It has given me a lot of strength in that.
And the people I know who didn't have that kind of bond, and I think this is true throughout Europe and so on, they have a very tough time standing up to the mob.
They have a very tough time standing up for themselves.
They have a very tough time being assertive.
And I can see this, like, whenever I am assertive at this show, people are like, oh, you're a bully!
No, no, I'm just standing up for what I believe in.
Which everyone says you should do, but then when they actually see someone doing it unapologetically, it creates great anxiety.
Because, you know, when you see someone who is healthy, who is in possession of virtues that you wish, you are reminded of how you were robbed.
You are reminded of how you were robbed.
So if you can put children into an environment where they're not wanted, where they are an interference in the otherwise happy and contented lives of their caregivers, Then the children don't have the bond called being loved, being treasured, being worshipped for existing, which doesn't mean, of course, conceding to everything they want.
I love you guys.
I love the world.
That doesn't mean that I'm going to concede to everything the world wants.
You don't love the addict by giving him his drug of choice, right?
So you can break this bond.
And I had Dr.
Faye Snyder on, well, some time ago now, talking about these sorts of issues.
That if you lack this sort of primary bond, it creates a lot of anxiety, a lot of problems down the road, a lot of insecurity.
So that's the other great thing, is that when you set up a system where children are not treasured, where children are just kind of an annoying interference to your road to sipping Mai Tais by your friend's pools in the summer...
Then the children don't experience the security of knowing that they're going to be loved despite being children.
Or they're going to be loved because they're children.
We don't expect children to have the same standards as adults.
Of course not.
They're being educated, right?
I mean, they're being raised.
They're being...
De-carnivorized.
We're born fairly feral, and we need to be lovingly molded into the shape of civilization.
And if you can put children in an environment where the adults, the caregivers, don't We care about them.
And daycare, I've talked about this before, but daycare is a great way to do that.
A great way to achieve a terrible thing, which is to make children feel that they really have to conform in order to gain any kind of security.
And that a lack of conformity is going to breed a sort of existential panic anxiety, a thanatos anxiety, death anxiety, if I don't conform to I'm going to be expelled from the tribe.
I'm going to be abandoned.
I'm going to be left alone.
I'm going to be left in the bush.
I'm going to be tossed onto an iceberg and drift away into nothing.
The only way to counter that anxiety is through attachment, through love.
Dedicated parents are the only way to do that.
I'll include adopting parents there, of course.
It's the only way to do that.
Nobody's going to care for your kid like you care for your kid.
Of course not.
Of course not.
Why should they?
Why would they?
Oh, I guess unless you're Macron and you want to take care of your aging dowager's three children from another man.
Anyway.
So, if you can break this security that children have to disagree with those in authority.
In other words, if authority can punish children merely for disagreeing.
I remember that.
I wore a t-shirt when I was in grade 7 or grade 8.
It said, Disco Sucks.
Sorry, it kind of did.
And yeah, the vice principal got very upset with me and said, you have to turn that shirt inside out.
Do not show that text.
Arguable, to put it mildly, but that's really, really important.
He wasn't really as upset about me not learning how to think, or me being bored, or kids being bullied, but he was really, really upset about that.
You know, that fear, that anxiety.
I mean, I didn't really have it at the time.
But I know a lot of kids who did.
And if it's incomprehensible to you as to how people can just be so pushed around by those in power, it's because they don't have a bond.
They don't have a bond with caregivers when they're young.
It's not the only thing.
It has a lot to do with it.
They bonded with a coercive institution called school.
And therefore, of course, they're going to end up bonding with a coercive institution called the state.
And by bonding, I mean desperate to gain momentary approval through florid conformity.
Like people say, what's all this virtue signaling, virtue signaling?
It's people who need approval in order to feel secure.
It's anxiety management.
If I disagree, if I'm disapproved, that's terrible.
What if you have loving parents?
I mean, I remember when I was younger, I was in...
Let's just say there was a guy...
Who gave a speech.
This was when I was 20 or 21.
It was a guy who gave a speech around a table to a teacher.
And he said he was going to embark on a very risky career.
And he said, you know, my parents, they love me so much.
And they said, listen, go take your risks.
Go explore.
Go be all that you want to be.
You'll always have a home.
You'll always have a place.
We'll always love you.
We will always have a soft place to land.
It was a beautiful thing to hear.
It's a beautiful thing to hear.
And it's pretty rare for a lot of people.
So when you see people out there on social media, you know, all this virtue signaling, all of this kindness is everything, and they're just pumping out all of this socially approved stuff in order to gain the momentary relief from anxiety called I approve of you and to flee or avoid A truly depth-panicking anxiety of being disapproved of.
When you see people turning like feral wolves on a wounded deer, somebody steps out of line, somebody says something they don't like, boom!
They rip them.
Well, these are people raised in a feral environment.
These are people who have had imprinted upon their souls.
That conformity is survival.
And we're not built to disagree.
We're built to reproduce.
And if agreement gains us access to resources and reproduction, then we will agree.
That's what our genes tell us to do.
But all of this virtue signaling, it is, you know, ripping off your shirt and showing the still-bleeding scar wounds of early inattachment, in my opinion.
I'm just some guy on the internet.
These are just my arguments.
These are not syllogistically proven, nor am I bringing massive reams of data.
These are just some of my explorations of these ideas.
And then people wonder why there's this fragmentation in society.
Like this, what they call the echo chambers.
Like people on the right go to right-leaning websites.
People on the left go to left-leaning websites.
And, you know, everybody just goes into their own echo chamber.
It's because we're all desperate to live in a place where we just can't be attacked for deviating.
Right?
This is one of the problems of multiculturalism.
Bring all these other races into society.
Okay, well...
The possibility that that could work is completely destroyed by screaming racism at, I mean, obviously generally particularly white people, particularly white males.
I mean, you can have a multicultural society or you can have a society where people's lives get destroyed over accusations of racism, but you can't have both.
Because at some point people are going to say, you know, I don't like all of these accusations of racism and I don't know how to not have it.
Because people won't stop doing it as long as there are lots of other races around.
And that's not a pretty place to get to.
So just please everyone stop screaming racism at everyone who's not currently got a KKK outfit on.
So...
The adult world is a map of early loss.
It is a map of early treasures stolen and the cover-up.
The cover-up is worse than the crime.
The crime is the theft of childhood.
The crime is the theft of security.
The crime is the theft of education.
The politics is the cover-up.
The hysteria is the cover-up.
The social signaling, the virtue signaling, that's the cover-up.
And that is the cover-up that is always far worse than the crime.
▲
Export Selection