All Episodes
Previous Next
May 29, 2017 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
22:31
3698 FAKE NEWS

Do fake news "journalists" even understand how biased, manipulative, propagandistic, dishonest and patronizing they are? Stefan Molyneux discusses a comment by a fake news commentator that further illustrates the failure of the mainstream media. Your support is essential to Freedomain Radio, which is 100% funded by viewers like you. Please support the show by making a one time donation or signing up for a monthly recurring donation at: http://www.freedomainradio.com/donate

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi everybody, it's Stefan Molyneux from Freedom in Radio.
Hope you're doing well.
A rather amazing ambition came out of the media recently, which I want to talk about and give you the tools for an ideology test for rationality that you can use for fun and amusement and intellectual profit in your own life and among those you interact with and debate with about So,
recently CNN was mourning another Democratic loss, right, in a special election for the House of Representatives, that after allegedly body-slamming a Guardian reporter, Greg Gianforte, ended up being elected as a Republican, right?
And Dylan Byers said this.
This was on CNN. He's the senior reporter for media and politics.
So this is not some intern who went off script or bolted from the reservation.
He said, there's this conversation that's happening among people following the news industry, which is how can we bridge the sort of gap between Between all of those conservatives who don't trust the media and get them to start knowing that, you know, we're acting in good faith with good intentions.
And this is why they will continue to lose, by the way.
The Democrats simply refuse to admit that anything needs to change in their own behavior, that they need to reform their biases, that they need more diversity in their intellectual or political opinions.
You know, it's all relentlessly left all the time.
You can't get a foot into any reasonable position in the left-wing mainstream media if you are not on the left, unless you're there as like a token to be shouted down and cut off or whatever.
So it's like, you know, it's like the husband who cheats on you.
And what, of course, continually denies that he cheats on you, even though the evidence is very clear and you've got women phoning you at all hours of the day and night.
Saying he's stepping out with me and so on.
He's like, well, the problem is, you see, you're just not a trusting person.
You don't give trust when trust is legitimately earned.
You're kind of freaked out and paranoid.
The problem is nothing about my behavior, you see, needs to change at all.
It's all on you, honey.
You've got to fix it.
That is gaslighting abuse of the first order.
So, here they say the problem with the conservatives who don't trust the media isn't that we repeatedly lie.
It isn't that we quote things that turn out to be false.
It isn't as recently happened that they said that the First Amendment doesn't cover hate speech.
Of course it does.
It's nothing to do with this relentless left-wing bias.
They just, they can't trust us because clearly they have trust issues.
It's all up there.
Oh man, if you've ever had people like this in your life, you get what I'm talking about, I think, at a very visceral level.
If you haven't, good on you.
Well done.
Well done.
And lucky.
So he goes on, Dylan goes on to say, you know, can we get them to start knowing?
We're acting in faith with good intentions.
He says, maybe you can't because they're not even listening.
They're not even listening.
See?
Again, it's their fault.
You know, we keep lying and misrepresenting things, but for some reason...
And we keep insulting people by calling them racist and sexist and homophobic and blah, blah, blah.
But you know what?
They're just...
They're not even listening to us anymore.
How rude of them.
It's amazing.
I don't even feel like we're the same species sometimes.
I'm just being frank with you.
All right.
He goes on to say, from the second...
It's not as though they're reading the article and considering it or listening to the audio and considering it.
They're just not paying attention to it because they don't trust us.
And this, by the way, look at the tapes of Trump there.
Two things have happened.
One, over the course of several decades, the conservatives have done a masterful job at capitalizing on the waning trust in media and using it to their advantage.
Oh my God.
This is the only sound I could make at this point.
Apparently it's a narwhal in a blender.
But, uh...
See, there's just this...
You know like how sometimes the tide goes out?
And sometimes the tide goes in.
It has nothing to do with you.
You're just standing there and the tide goes out.
So the conservatives have done a masterful job at capitalizing on the waning trust in the media and using it to their advantage.
See, there's just this mysterious waning trust.
And those nasty conservatives, those manipulative conservatives, have seized upon it and are using it to their advantage.
See?
Again, the media, purely innocent.
White as the driven snow.
Lambs in a wood.
They're absolutely complete.
They've done nothing.
Remember the whole Iraq War weapons of mass destruction set in sequence, set in motion, a series of dominoes that look poised to take down European civilization as a whole?
Mwah!
Not a lot of reform, not a lot of jobs lost because they were carrying water for the military industrial complex and pumping up a story that basic reporting would have found several holes in and whipping up the mad frenzy in the rush to war.
Why?
Why?
Why did the media, which is generally left-wing and often anti-war, why were they so whipped up in a war frenzy at that point?
Because conservatives are in the military.
You understand?
It's why they hate the South.
Because Southerners are in the military, and people in the military vote Republican, so if you can march them off to war, well, there are just a few less voters around when they come back.
I'm telling you, that's what I think.
Can't prove it.
Just a conjecture.
But anyway, so he goes on to say, but a second thing has happened too, which is on occasion, More than the media would like to admit, we have not told the story of conservative Americans, disenfranchised Americans, who believe that they are losing their country.
And you know that this is a progressive, right?
You know that this is a lefty because he's talking about, we've not told a story.
Dudes, I don't even know how to, not everything is a narrative.
There's true, there's false, there's objective morality, there's right, there's wrong, there's a non-aggression principle, there's virtue, there's courage, there's integrity.
Not everything is just a narrative and a story, a repulsively subjectivist situation.
We've not told the story of conservative Americans, disenfranchised Americans, who believe that they are losing their country.
Okay.
First of all, this is not just a belief.
It's not just a belief.
Since 1965, The staggering numbers of people who don't vote conservative, right?
Non-whites, third-worlders, and so on, have poured into the country, right?
And this is Teddy Kennedy's 1965 immigration bill, the most consequential piece of legislation ever passed in American history.
It was passed with the specific promise that it would never change the demographics of the country.
And how do you know what the actual plan of the leftists is?
Well, you look at what they promise it's never going to do, and that's what they actually desperately hope it's going to do the most.
Because they failed in the war of ideas.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, and this happened in the 60s ideologically after Khrushchev revealed the crimes of Stalin, and given that the left carried water for Stalin, in fact, one of the New York Times reporters, Durante, had received a Pulitzer Prize for talking about how wonderful totalitarian Stalinist Russia was and how excellently everyone was fed because he was showed a bunch of political prisoners who'd been fed up for three weeks beforehand and just came home and said, communism, that's the ticket, that's the way to go.
So they lost the ideological war in the 60s, and so what they did was they started importing people who would vote for the left, because they're power-hungry, power-mongers, and so on.
And so they started importing people from non-European, right?
I mean, this was the original, so white Europeans made up the vast majority of American immigrants, and assimilation worked fairly well.
But what happened was, of course, after the welfare state, they bring in the welfare state, and these two things have to happen at the same time.
If you're going to bring a bunch of third worlders in, you also have to have a welfare state, otherwise they're going to fail economically and they're going to have to go back.
So they don't just feel like they're losing their country.
They're losing their country.
Trump is like the last desperate backstop measure to stop this process or this progress.
So he goes on to say, the story we have largely been telling is a story that is more or less in step with the arc of history as defined by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
Okay, so they're shills for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, which is what the conservatives have been saying.
And given that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton...
Both wanted policies that further disenfranchise people who want small government, limited government and so on.
Of course, if you're going to support my enemy, you're not going to be my friend, would say the majority of I think people who are conservatives in America.
And so he says, the story we have largely been telling is a story that is more or less in step with the arc of history as defined by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
Right, leftists.
Big government.
And we'll get to where this ends up.
He says, it does not mean we favor them to win.
So this is what happens.
People say the truth.
People with bad intentions, in my opinion, they say the truth.
And then what happens is they have to backtrack because they can't rewind.
They can't pull that yellow discovery.
The music is reversible.
The time is not.
I don't know.
Ask your parents.
But they can't reverse time.
So then they have to say, oh, I said too much.
Let me contradict everything I just said.
So we don't sympathize with any of the conservatives.
We sympathize with Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
We like that arc of political history.
But it doesn't mean we favor them to win.
I mean, come on.
Come on.
He goes on to say, it just means that sort of vision of a progressive future, a global future.
And that is...
That is not one that resonates with so many conservative American voters.
Resonates!
Vision!
Global!
It's all soupy, goopy, fog language.
Now, it's a kind of acidic font that will disassemble your frontal lobes and spin you backwards in time to pre-Neanderthal tribal systems, but...
Resonates.
I can't tell you.
As an objective moralist, as an absolutist philosopher, all of this brain fog is utterly creepy-crawly to me.
I mean, literally, it's like they're loosing a million ice caterpillars to trickle up and down the bone marrow of my spine.
It's just like it's horrifying stuff.
Resonates.
No.
See?
It seems like they want to take your guns.
The guns are the last defense against tyranny.
See what's happening in Europe?
They gave up their guns after the Second World War.
No control.
Nothing.
Nothing to find.
So, they want to take your guns.
They want to take your healthcare.
They lied!
Oh, if you like your plan, you can keep your plan.
If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.
We're going to cut.
Healthcare cost by a third.
Lies, lies, lies.
And it's not just that the politicians lie, and if they're on the left, the media amplifies those lies.
It's that when they turn out to be lies, there's no circling back.
And criticism of the politicians or criticism of the media themselves saying, how did we get it so wrong?
All these people were telling us Obamacare was going to fail.
All these people were saying Obamacare was implemented because it was designed to fail.
It's designed to wreck machinery, the machinery of the free market, right?
The vestigial remnants of the free market that were still propping up the American health care system.
It was designed to go in and wreck the free market incentives.
Therefore, one pair socialized medicine can take over.
There's no circling back.
There's no circling back to figure all of this stuff out.
So he goes on to say, And so there is this chasm.
And no one exploited it as well as Donald Trump did.
And no one made it as violent and aggressive and sinister as Donald Trump did.
And that laid the foundation for the sorts of incidents that happened last night.
You know, when a guy who used to teach ethics, a professor of ethics at Berkeley, is arrested for using biclocks to half-kill a Trump supporter and beat other people up, who was found by Paul.
Paul, who apparently know whether I'm boxer or briefs, even though you can only ever see me nipples up.
This is an amazing thing.
Now, that's a leftist supporter.
The black-clad leftist people who show up And throw rocks at free speech advocates and Trump supporters.
They're on the left.
But somehow, you see, it's the right who's violent and aggressive and sinister.
And this kind of stuff is really just astonishing to anybody with half a brain.
So that kind of admission is important.
And this kind of blindness...
To one's own motives.
And I don't know if it's genuine or not.
Like, I don't know if they genuinely know that this is all nonsense, but they peddle it anyway.
Or whether in the moment they're just seizing out of thin air whatever words they can use to hack their way through the brambles of opposition to the, I don't know, politically and economically suicidal future that these lemmings seem to wish their own unexistence through.
But...
This is the question I think that's really, really important when it comes to figuring out where people stand politically.
And the question is this.
So this progressive future...
This globalist future.
And globalism, it's just communism.
Communism was globalism because it was an international system.
National socialism was nationalistic and cultural-based.
But communism has always been a global takeover system.
So globalism is just because, you know, the word communism still has negative connotations, so, you know...
If you've got a crap sandwich, you have to rebrand it as a non-crap sandwich, and so you've got a global sandwich now.
Tastes the same, pretty much the same ingredients, but new branding.
Now, under new management, called totalitarianism.
Waiting for you.
The question is this.
When is government too big?
This is what you have to ask people.
When is the tax code too complicated?
When are there too many regulations?
When is there too much government control over the economy?
When are tax rates too high?
At what percentage point of the government takeover of the economy is it too much?
When do things need to be pared back?
When have you hit the limit of your ideology?
This is really, really important to understand.
Because for people on the left, for the most part in my experience, they don't even think in those terms.
It's more power, more power, more power, more power.
It's like asking a drug addict, when do you have, when have you had enough heroin in your life?
When have you had enough of this drug in your life?
When are you full?
When are you done?
Or asking an alcoholic, when have you, or a gambler?
When have you gambled enough?
When do you stop?
Well, it's an addiction.
There is no ceiling.
That's the whole point of addiction.
You just more and more and more and more.
When is it enough?
There are probably at least a billion people in the world who would like to move to America or Europe.
How many is too many migrants?
When is it enough?
When does America say we need a pause in immigration because we've got to figure out whether we can assimilate the tens and tens of millions of immigrants who've poured in since 1965 from very different cultures and mindsets and ethnicities?
When do we take a pause?
When do we need to slow down immigration?
When do we need to find out if this is actually going to work, this unprecedented experiment of crossing your fingers and hoping that people aren't tribal?
Yeah, that's worked out so well in history before.
Lebanon.
So, when is it enough?
When is it too much?
Now, I've talked to before, and if you follow this channel or just want to understand the world, please, please check out my presentations on gene wars, G-E-N-E, or gene wars.
It's very, very important.
Two survival strategies in biology, R versus K, and it's a spectrum and it's not absolute, but they're good places to start to understand this stuff.
Our strategy is, you know, like rabbits and Frogs and turtles.
Just have as many kids as possible.
Don't really invest much in them.
Most of them are going to die, but a few will survive to adulthood.
Just spray and pray.
Wait, I'm talking about my Unreal Tournament strategy, but that is one way of trying to survive.
Oysters do it.
Just tons and tons of babies.
Don't really invest much in them.
And you never then self-restrain.
Like, you know, the rabbit never says, well, you know, it's quite a lot of rabbits.
We might run out of grass and stuff to eat, so, you know, maybe we'll back off a little bit here, right?
No, because they never run out of food.
Because so many of them die, and there are so many predators who prey upon them, they're never going to run out of food to just have as many kids as humanly possible, right?
You know, rabbits can crank out babies like a month or two apart.
So that's one strategy.
The other strategy, which is pursued more by larger, smarter, predatory animals like lions and wolves and so on, is to have fewer offspring, but to invest more in them, right?
Teach them how to hunt and play with them and raise them and so on.
And they can run out of food, right?
Rabbits never run out of grass, but foxes and wolves can run out of rabbits.
So rabbits just have as many kids as possible, and foxes and wolves tend to limit.
And when they're under stress, they have even fewer, right?
So there's a balance, it's sort there.
This also shows up in humanity.
There are R-selected people and K-selected people, R-selected cultures, K-selected cultures, R-selected ethnicities, K-selected ethnicities.
And the difference which we all understand is that when very intelligent people get a lot more resources and opportunities, they tend to have fewer children.
Right?
So you'd think, oh, well, you know, if you can make, I don't know, $100,000 a year, you can have way more kids than some poor family that's pulling in 20k a year.
But that's not actually kind of how it works.
What happens is when smart people have more opportunities, you know, education and career opportunities, when smart people have more opportunities, they tend to have fewer kids.
Which is a real shame because we need more smart people and it's largely genetic.
But what happens is, so when smart people get more resources, they have fewer kids.
When less intelligent people get more resources, they tend to have more and more and more kids.
Failure to understand this is one of the reasons why these catastrophes are building in the third world, particularly in Africa, right?
Let's give them huge amounts of food through foreign aid, massive amounts of money, modern technology, healthcare, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
Well, you get a population explosion.
And then you get people spilling out of Africa into other countries, and it's a huge challenge.
And one of the ways that you find out, it's not perfect and it's not absolute, but it's an interesting place to start, is there's no such thing as too much for our selected.
It fundamentally is an addictive personality structure.
And there are genetics involved, as I go through in gene wars.
So you ask people, well, how much is too much?
If they have no idea...
Our selected baby, in my humble opinion.
You go to a rabbit, if a rabbit could talk, and say, well, how many babies is too much?
I don't know.
I get horny and I screw when I make babies.
And if there's more grass, we'll make more babies.
If there's more food, fewer predators, right?
You know, this happened in Australia.
When they culled the coyotes and the dingoes ate my baby, then they...
They reduced the predation on rabbits, and the rabbits just went completely insane.
They just bred and bred and bred and stripped all of the grassland and then just starved to death.
I mean, they have no sense of self-restraint.
No sense of, we better slow down.
And are selected without predation.
The predation is mostly natural, right?
I mean, it's mostly, certainly in human populations, right?
In primitive hunter-gatherer societies, you have infant mortality rate like 50% or so on, right?
So the predation is usually natural.
Predation is not just lions, it's diseases, bugs, it's starvation, and so on.
Although starvation, again, very rare in our selected environments.
So when you ask someone how much is too much, if they don't have an upper limit, if they don't have a sense of restraint, if, in a sense, biologically they're programmed to just more and more and more and more and more and more, more regulations, more taxes, more government, more immigration, more migrants, more, more, more government, more immigration, more migrants, more, more, more, and no sense of an upper limit, nothing, then you're in the presence of, ideologically, a cancer.
What does cancer do?
Well, all our cells multiply, but you want your cells to multiply in a limited manner.
When cells in your body just start to multiply and multiply and multiply with no ceiling, with no limit, with no endpoint, that's called a cancer.
Cancer is the manifestation of our selected mindset or geneset within your own body.
And what does cancer do?
If untreated, if unchecked.
If it doesn't go into spontaneous remission, what does cancer do?
Well, it grows, it grows, it grows.
It spreads, it spreads, it spreads.
With no sense even for its own survival, because it kills the host.
▲
Export Selection