March 1, 2018 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
51:04
4014 Men and Women Are Different | Janusz Korwin-Mikke and Stefan Molyneux
Janusz Korwin-Mikke's honest commentary and blunt parliamentary speeches have made him a popular figure in internet culture. Janusz Korwin-Mikke joins Stefan Molyneux to discuss the wage gap controversy, the dangers of the European Migrant Crisis and the political challenges of the European Union. Janusz Korwin-Mikke has been a Member of European Parliament representing Poland since 2014.Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/jkmmikkeWebsite: http://korwin-mikke.plPewDiePie on Janusz Korwin-Mikkehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrDD5NTnoU4Janusz Korwin-Mikke vs. Piers Morganhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NEqlfWSOrQYour 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
Hi everybody, Stefan Molyneux from Freedom Aid Radio.
Hope you're doing well. I'm here with Janusz Korwin-Mik.
He is a Polish politician and, I guess until tomorrow, member of the EU Parliament.
And you can find him on twitter.com forward slash jkmmikki, that's j-k-m-m-i-k-k-e.
And the website is korwinmikki.pl, that's k-o-r-w-i-n slash m-i-k-k-e dot p-l.
Thank you so much for taking the time today.
Thank you. It's my pleasure.
Now, there's a kind of funny divide.
I think it's kind of a generational divide.
When I went to college, I had very old school professors and I was never taught to hate my culture.
I was taught to question my culture and that was one of the great values of my culture.
And information was available to me that doesn't seem to be available to the younger generation as well, about culture, about intelligence, about gender, about race, and so on.
And it seems like when you talk about these issues, there's a big divide in, as you point out, when you were taught about intelligence differences between men and women, this was what you were taught when you were growing up.
And now, of course, it has become verboten, I guess, as our German friends would say.
So tell me a little bit about what you think the difference is between the information you got as a child and the information that's coming to the next generation.
Well, I am a European.
And now Europe is being ruled by the man who takes the anti-European values.
In fact, everything which was good in Europe is bad in the European Union and reversed.
Everything is reversed.
And all the values are reversed.
And you know, the values of our civilisation enable us to win over the world.
We conquered all the world, almost all the world.
So it proves it was very good values.
And now they are reversed and now the Europe is being colonized by other nations whose values are perhaps better.
Because if our European values were the best, then the European Union does reverse.
They are the worst, of course.
Right. Now, with regards to, I guess, what we could call the unholy trinity of the differences that you pointed out between men and women, smaller, of course, I mean, this is without question, weaker, yeah, 40% less upper body strength on average.
But where, of course, people get quite incensed is the question of less Intelligent.
Now, I wonder if you could help people break down the data, what the studies from the Netherlands showed, and so on, just because people get mad at you when you hand a note given to you by a scientist.
Well, I've got a penalty of 9,000 euros for saying something, which is banal just in every textbook, every manual of psychology in my time, when I was learning psychology.
I was shocked by that.
But tell me please, why in every pair, almost every pair, the man is stronger, taller and more intelligent than his girl?
Why? Because every woman wants her man to be stronger, taller and more intelligent than she is.
So it proves that women are very wise.
Because it's quite different being wise and being intelligent.
It is something quite different.
How can you tell that women are more wise?
Because women don't follow men because they have beautiful legs.
They want them to be stronger, taller, more intelligent, but they don't look on their legs.
It's quite different with men.
So they are perhaps more wise.
But nobody seems offended when I say, it's also true, that women have better memories than men do.
Why nobody is being offended?
I haven't seen even a single man who felt offended by this, but it's also true.
But of course, it is only about the average.
Such a thing as an average woman doesn't exist, of course.
Why have I used this phrase?
Because the feminists are saying that average woman earns less than the average man.
So they are using this phrase Average woman.
So I had to repeat with the same retort, with the same argument.
But normally it has no sense to speak about averages.
The average doesn't exist.
And I was shocked, because normally the average in the intelligence between men and women are very small.
It is usually two or four points in the scale IQ 100, the average.
And, well, There was a research after my affair with the European Parliament.
There was a test in the Netherlands and it was 8 points.
I was shocked because it was a really great difference.
But it's not the most important thing.
So the Netherlands, they reproduced a gender or a sex difference in IQ study and the difference was, because as you point out, in general it's two to four points, not very important and nothing you would ever judge any individual woman by.
And they got an eight point difference?
That seems quite large. Yes, but it happens perhaps well.
But it is something more important than phenomena, because the men are more off.
I mean that there is more saints and more murderers among men, more geniuses and more idiots among men.
So, yes, the Gauss's curve is more flat.
And that's why among the hundred best chess players, there is sometimes one woman, sometimes one woman, not just one woman, a Chinese chess player, only one.
Even if women were more intelligent than men, Among the 100 best chess players would be four women or five women.
Because, you know, even the women are better cooks, a few better than men, but among the best cooks, they are men.
You know, because it's most dispersed.
Yeah, it's very true, and I just want people to sort of understand this point, it's very important, that among the top levels of intelligence, it's overwhelmingly male.
I mean, just statistically, so at the very highest levels of intelligence, there appear to be functionally few to no women.
At higher levels, but not the very top, it's like 12 to 1 men to women.
Now, IQ, of course, is highly correlated with income and professional success.
And that's before you throw in the assertiveness and emotional control that comes with having more We're good to go.
I've heard my whole life about how superior women are to men in just about everything.
Kinder, nicer, more compassionate, you know, better people overall.
It's called the women are wonderful effect.
But then when you point out something that men are better at, which is the higher reaches of IQ in particular, everybody loses their mind.
We're not allowed to be better at anything, really.
That's it. Not in Poland.
You are not so crazy as you are.
In Poland. So, what has happened to you as the result of what you said in the parliament?
And this, to me, at least silly rejoinder from the woman when you pointed out some scientific facts.
And then the woman said, oh, so you don't think I should be here in the parliament?
Which is not the logical consequence at all.
At all. If you say that Chinese people tend to be shorter than Danish people...
And someone Chinese said, oh, so you're saying I can never be on a basketball team, even though he's six foot five?
You say, well, no, we're talking about averages.
So this emotional response to scientific facts does not do much to break the stereotype.
She does prove that women don't understand anything.
They're too emotional to be a rational decision man.
It is a typical problem with humans.
You know, there's plenty of women who can think logically.
There are plenty of women who have good fantasy, but it's very difficult to find a woman who has both qualities.
And that's why there is no mathematician women.
Almost no. There was a so-called Finisher Olympiad in Polish schools.
And the first woman was in the place 800.
You know, because theoretical physics is very, very abstract science.
The women are very practical.
They are very practical.
When the girls have seen a boy who was pissing in the forest, they said, oh, very practical.
Now, it's a funny thing, too, and I was watching the interviews and reading what you've written, and there is such a hostility towards the free market that comes out of feminists and comes out of the left.
Now, if you want equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity, then I can understand why, as a feminist, you would dislike political and particularly economic freedoms, because when women are free to choose, They tend to choose lower paying occupations.
They tend to choose occupations that put them more in touch with people rather than concepts and things.
And so when women have less freedom, they tend to be more equal with regards to income.
When they get more freedom, they tend to segregate into lower paying occupations.
So I can really understand why they would dislike the free market if it produces wider outcomes between the sexes.
Well, in the free market I was looking for the 100 managers with highest earnings in Europe.
Not even one woman.
Among the politicians, Margaret Thatcher, she's the only exception.
One in 100, two in 100.
As in chess, exactly the same.
So when you make some artificial repairing the quotient of the number of human in life, the result is terrible.
But we have this in communist times in Poland.
When there was an artificial point added for the boys and girls from the working class and peasants.
When exams in the university, they were getting additional points.
And do you believe two weeks ago the Oxford University decided to give to the women 15 minutes plus on the exams?
Yes. Really? Because they are less intelligent, so they must get something to equalize the chances.
I'm sure that the feminists got very upset about that because that was treating women unequally and treating them as children.
And wow, that's wild.
So tell me what happened because, of course, a complaint for hate speech was launched against you.
And tell me what has happened as a result of that.
The result was that I was penalized with 9,000 euros and so revoked to the European Parliament of Justice.
But I don't believe in the results because ideology here is very, very, very strong.
And I was being accused by the President of the Parliament that I'm undermining the fundamental values of the European Union.
Fundamental values, I'm understanding.
And I'll tell you something. There is such a thing like, how is it called?
The Convention of Rights of the European Union.
It was signed by all the states of the European Union.
And, of course, you remember always the animal farm, yeah?
Of course. And in this convention, it has been signed by all the countries, there is a sentence.
Both sexes have the equal rights which doesn't exclude a special rights for one of them.
It's exactly like in Ormond.
Exactly! Wow.
Now, I think what, of course, got you onto Pierre Morgan's show and others, and I don't know if it was the way that it would be phrased in English would probably be like, in a free market, it's likely that women will get paid less on average because of this, that, and the other. Now, the way that you phrased it, of course, was women should get paid less than men.
And now that is something which for a lot of English speakers sounds like...
I guess I should say must.
So must sounds like you want a rule, and of course it's not the case, you want free markets, but it sounds like you want a rule that women must get paid less.
And of course, nothing could be further from the truth, but it sounds like a compulsion rather than a tendency.
The taller basketball players must earn more on the average than the shorter ones.
Of course, it was an understanding.
Yeah, yeah. Now, I think one of the things I find very fascinating about Poland… But we're talking about sports.
I can show you something.
It is Polish basketball players, and football players, soccer players, and volleyball players, and bridge players, and chess players.
I can show you. In all those teams, the coach, the captain, the trainer, they are all men.
Because women, if they want to win, they know that they must be led by the men.
Because the army of lions led by the sheep is weaker than the army of sheep led by a lion.
Women choose always men.
You know? The majority of women prefer men, and I know only one woman who told me that she wants her boss to be a woman.
All women want her boss to be a man.
Right. So how much do you think the influence of collectivism, of communism, of this tyranny of equality of results has characterized a lot of Poland and its response to the migrant crisis and its response to these quota systems?
Does it not seem to remind a lot of Polish people of life under communist dictatorship?
Well, during the communist times, The communist values have been repulsed by society as something strange and absurd.
But now, if it comes to the European Union from the West, from the West world, it is accepted.
So the European Union is much more dangerous than the Soviet Union.
You know, Olaf Palmer is such a socialist of Sweden.
Olaf Palmer or Kennedy or something are much more dangerous than, say, Pol Pot or Mao Zedong.
Because everybody knows that Pol Pot is a murderer, Hitler was a murderer, yes?
But everybody thinks that Olaf Palmer is a very good socialist.
But what was the problem of Mr.
Olaf Palmer? Every year, take 1% of the ownership, and after 100 years, all the ownership will be public.
It's much more dangerous.
Much more dangerous. So, what are the main issues that you have regarding the EU and its relationship to the member countries?
Well, when the Berlin Wall has been destroyed, It is like the Eastern values have flat over the Western Europe.
It is not the other way.
It is the East of Europe that began to influence the West.
It is not Eastern Germany policemen stopped to accept bribes.
It is the Western point that began to accept bribes.
Right.
And so this transfer of socialist thinking from Eastern Europe, which was subjugated, of course, and from Soviet Russia, it's always struck me as strange because I know that a lot of these propaganda programs were put in place in the West by the Soviet Union.
And then the Soviet Union falls.
But these propaganda programs, this collectivism, this political correctness, these identity politics continue, even though the source of them no longer exists from a...
For the communists, it was the working class, which is the oppressed class.
Now, it is women, homosexuals, and so on, as an oppressed class.
It is now Marxism, which is based on the different classes of people.
If the Soviet Union, in Poland, I would say that the average worker is less intelligent than an average engineer, I would be punished.
Exactly. Like here, when I am telling the same about the new aristocracy, it is women.
Right. And of course, the new bourgeoisie to be hated tends to be the white male.
Yes, yes, yes, of course.
Growth, something you said really struck me, Janusz, which was growth in Poland was 1% under communism, was 8% under a more free market environment, and now under the EU is back down to 1%.
Because European Union is socialist, so it fell down.
You could observe it.
Every year, we're accepting more and more and more unionist laws, And the growth was falling down.
Right. And now that kind of growth is, I mean, the difference between 1% and 8%, particularly over, say, a decade, is the difference between wealth and poverty, relatively.
And that kind of growth, when people remember under freedom, when they got 8%, I mean, that's an astonishing amount of wealth accumulation.
And then when the EU comes in and grinds that back down to 1%, do people still remember that?
Are they frustrated by it?
What's the general sentiment in Poland regarding the EU these days?
Of course, 40 years ago, we were 40 years younger.
So we are looking at the sentiment.
Right. Now, let's talk a little bit about your criticism of, you refer to it as social benefits in other places, it's called the welfare state.
So, I assume, of course, under communism, it's funny, because under communism, there's the phrase which says, he who does not toil shall not eat.
And yet, under this supposedly capitalist system, I'm sorry?
It is St. Peter.
Yes, but I think it was adopted by some of the communists as well.
And I can, by the way, across his phrase from the letter to Ephesians, wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord.
Now, as the child submits to Christ, so also wives submit to their husbands in everything.
It's also St.
Peter's. So, in the Christian countries, there is absolutely no hesitation that the coach of the team must be men.
But there is one difference.
We certainly think that women should obey the state government.
But the husband is somebody who the woman chooses herself.
She didn't choose the state.
Well, and of course, the husband is a voluntary relationship, and you can leave it if you don't like it, whereas the state is an involuntary relationship, which you can't really escape.
So, the relationship between immigration and social benefits, I think, because everyone says, well, America was a nation of immigrants, and it's like, yes, but there was no welfare state, so people came to work.
And so, help people understand how immigration has changed now that there are refugee benefits and language programs and welfare states and free iPads and so on.
I have told you, in Europe, in European Union, it's everything...
Opposites than it was in the normal times.
Because if somebody immigrates to Poland, to Europe, and wants to work, he's being sent back.
He's taken the workplace from somebody.
And if he doesn't want to work, oh, he's accepted.
We shall give you some sort of benefits and everything you want.
It's exactly opposite that was in America.
So the effects are, of course, opposite.
Because the men who emigrated in the 18th, 19th century to the United States, they wanted to work.
They don't want any privileges because there are no privileges.
The only solution of the problem with immigrants is to liquidate socialism.
The problem is always socialism.
The founder of our party, Stephen Kiesielski, he said that socialism is a system which is dramatically solving the problems that are unknown to any other system.
And we are solving those problems and solving them and solving them.
Building and rebuilding, rebuilding social systems, and so on.
Yeah, and it would take a sacrifice.
And sort of the one thing I've thought about, I'm curious what you think, one thing I've thought about is that in the past, the sacrifices that were needed to save the West were primarily born by men, at least up until the Second World War, when of course women were bombed as well.
So men had to make sacrifices of life and limb and family to be drafted and go and fight in wars.
Now, women tend to use the welfare state a lot more than men, and if there is a sacrifice that is needed to save the West, and if that sacrifice is the end of the welfare state, then what we're doing is we're saying to women for the first time in Western history, in human history, you must take the sacrifice this time, and I'm pretty sure I know whether they will or won't.
It is quite natural, because we men want risk.
We men are building society, Well, the women want safety.
It is natural. In the prehistoric times, the women should be kept safe and men have to risk taking some spear or something and kill the mammoths and so on.
So it is typical. That's why the socialists want women To have a great role in politics because they know that women will vote for the welfare state.
That explains why they want women to vote.
Of course, it's absurd.
Because there are plenty of women who are good politicians, but women on average, You go to every political meeting, there is 90% of men there.
Women are not interested in politics as such.
So in Poland, we have an obligation to have on the voting list 40% of women, and there is a hunt for women.
We cannot find Women ready to be candidates in the elections.
We are letting our wives, lovers, daughters, wives, everybody to candidate because we cannot find them.
Right. Let's help people understand a key difference that I've seen you debate with people on television and so on.
The difference between freedom from and freedom to.
Two very important syllables that kind of reverse the entire point of political freedom.
Help people understand what you mean by that.
Well, but it is grammatically impossible to say freedom to.
I am free from something.
I am free of something. I cannot be free to something.
It is just an impossible phrase.
It is breaking the semantic rules of the English language in Polish too.
There's no freedom to.
You can say my strength to my possibility to my...
but I cannot say my freedom to.
It's not freedom, of course.
Right, right. Now, you struck me as somebody who is disliked by a lot of the elites, by some of the top people in media.
But very, you have a lot of affection from what we could call the common people.
It sort of reminds me a little bit of Joseph McCarthy, who was hated by a lot of the elites, but was very popular among the common people, also similar to Donald Trump, hated by the elites, but very popular.
with the average person so we of course see you through the filter of the media who dislike freedom through the politicians who dislike freedom but what's your relationship like with the average person in Poland based on what you say?
You can you can go with me especially in these smaller villages and you will see how the people talk to me and they expect me to do something because they don't they don't believe it can be done it is it is very strange things they They are afraid of it, because it is very radical, what you want to say.
To do free market in medicine or in education, they are shocked.
And the argument, which is Thomas Sowell is saying, that it is absurd to believe that we can pay for the hospitals, medicine and the bureaucratic machine, and we cannot sustain only the doctors and hospitals.
So it is crazy, but the people are afraid.
They're afraid and here is the problem.
Here is the problem. People don't think in abstract.
They see the concrete.
They see, for example, the Polish government is paying $200,000 to every family with two children.
But it is concrete. They don't understand.
They must have paid $300,000.
To allow the government to give them 200 and to pay for the officials and clerks to divide this money, of course.
But it's too abstract for them.
The majority of people are stupid.
70% of the people cannot understand the timetable of the buses on the street.
It's too difficult for 70% of the people.
It reminds me of the old joke about the Soviet Union, where they are lining up for five hours to get bread, and one of the women turns to the other woman in the lineup and says, yes, but in the capitalist countries, the government doesn't hand out any bread at all.
You catch three fish, the bureaucrats take all three fish, give you two fish, and then you say, well, without the bureaucrat, I couldn't eat.
I mean, it's a very odd phenomenon that we used to understand very well.
And I guess, I don't know if it's government schooling or just propaganda as a whole, but we've really lost that sense of independence, of self-reliance, of community.
Because when you stand on your own without the support of the state, you must gain...
Support within your community for the natural risks of life.
And we've all staring at the government as our parent, as our lover, as our husband.
And we have forgot how to rely on each other and build a community.
And then we think, well, without the government, we'd have no security.
You'd have more security, far more security without the government.
But the ancient Greeks were saying that democracy is the rule of donkeys led by hyenas.
But the hyenas don't have TV. Now in Poland it is the hyenas who have TV and they rule over the donkeys very easily.
Now when I am attacking, now in Poland we have two fractions of socialists, European socialists and national socialists, national status, and I am against both of them.
The greatest TV stations.
They absolutely don't allow me to be on the screen.
Absolutely. For the last two years, I haven't been even once on the greatest TV stations.
The papers are very difficult to write something.
Now it's a very, very strong fight, but it's a fight against socialists.
Among socialists, I'm sorry.
Among socialists. They are fighting for money, for power, but not the values.
The values are the same. The present party is called rightist because it's Christian, but it's more leftist than the ex-communists.
I prefer ex-communists who became rational, because they were ruling and they know that socialism is unavailable, but they don't know it yet.
So they are trying to build a new, better socialism.
Well, this combat between national socialists and international socialists is exactly what happened in the 1930s in Germany.
And we all know how that turned out.
And I really dislike this political spectrum, Janusz, where they say, on the extreme left, you have international socialism.
On the extreme right, you have national socialism.
It's like, ah, I think I can see what these two things have in common.
How about we have a continuum where you have compulsion and you have freedom?
Because that's a little bit easier to choose.
But you should listen to the old Charles Marx.
Marx has said that the socialism will be built first in the best developed countries of the West.
It was what Charles Marx said.
And it is true, because you must have plenty of money to build the socialism.
It is a luxury.
I think a lot of these equality of outcome luxuries come about because the free market produces so much wealth That we can afford to fritter away our capital in ridiculous social experiments.
Now, when the capital runs out, reality reasserts itself.
But we have this luxury in the West because of the hard-won freedoms our ancestors bought.
We have the luxury to fritter it away in these various social government experiments and number jigging and massive bureaucracies and HR departments and so on.
But when we run out, and I wish we didn't have to do this.
I wish we could just be sensible and rational all the way through.
But these experiments will fail.
We burn through our capital and then we kind of have to start from scratch.
But Charles Marx has said also that it is enough to introduce democracy.
And the majority will beat the socialism.
And it is true. We must destroy democracy.
If you have democracy, you will have socialism.
More and more and more. I was saying 50 years ago that in the United States we are very well off, but in Poland you are very poorly developed.
But we are moving upwards and America is going downwards and we shall one day We shall change the position.
And this is true. It is true.
I was told that 70% of Americans is living on the food stamps.
So it is almost communist.
Almost half the Americans rely either largely or exclusively on the state for their source of income.
I mean, it is. And it's funny because we used to, people say, oh, I'm a skeptical of democracy and suddenly everyone thinks you want to be a totalitarian.
But it is the skepticism of democracy that's designed to stave off Dictatorships and totalitarian.
This used to be from the ancient Greeks through the founding fathers of America.
They founded a republic, not a democracy, because there was this great fear of democracy that fundamentally what happens is the poor outnumber the rich.
And therefore the poor use the state and their vote to take away the property from the rich.
And then everybody ends up poor and you get a collapse.
And this very simple idea was hard won for thousands of years and has been discarded over the course of two or three generations.
Well, I can tell you something.
Why do you want to have democracy?
Just imagine you are on the plane and you want to introduce democracy.
When the majority raises one hand, the plane will turn right, the left hand will turn right.
If you strike the legs, the plane must go down.
Nobody would believe for democracy.
Why? Because the catastrophe will come in 15 minutes And Nicolas Davila, the greatest philosopher of the 20th century, said that people would more frequently strike their fingers with hammers if the pain eventuated after a year.
So the catastrophe of the society will be in 200 years after introducing democracy, and not in 15 minutes.
So people agree for democracy.
It is an absolute system, absolutely an absolute system.
Two morons have more power in democracy than one professor of university.
Well, I don't think about the present...
Not now, but in the past.
I think that Moron is perhaps better, and I tell you more.
It is better, just remember, it is better that Mankey rules the state than the Socialists.
Because Mankey has a choice, he makes a choice in random.
He goes one to left and one to right, and Socialists turn always to the left.
So, monkey is twice better in ruling the country than a socialist.
Well, and there's an interesting argument that comes out of Hoppy, who says that if you have a hereditary monarchy, you will end up with a better management of state finances because the king has to hand the kingdom to his son.
Whereas with democracy, it is very much the public ownership of the wealth of the country, which is, you know, everyone says, oh, we need a government to solve the problem of the commons, right?
right, which is everybody wants to graze their sheep or their cows on the common land.
But the government is the problem of the commons.
And when you get people bungeeing in or rotating through and can pillage the public purse as much as they want, and they then can hand the private profits to their children.
But if you have a monarchy, he doesn't want too much debt, because that's a problem his own son will inherit.
So in a sense, private ownership of the state is even better than democracy, which is an unusual argument, but I could really see the merit of it.
Because the king wants his son, grandson and so on to inherit a rich country.
While the president wants to steal as much money as he can, his son, grandson and so on, enough money.
So it is a different approach.
Now, I'm just curious though, for your intellectual development, Janusz, did you grow up more on the left as so many people do because of, you know, you're a child and propaganda and so on?
Did you have a change of heart or were you always this way in terms of how you think now?
Well, Bismarck has said that if somebody is being young, he's not a socialist, being old, he becomes a great swine.
Well, when I was young, I was a socialist, I believe in socialism, but being nine, I've grown up.
I can tell you how it works.
I have read in the communist paper that Tito, the president of Yugoslavia, has introduced that the dinner was interchanged with the dollar.
And it was told that in this way the capitalist will buy something from Yugoslavia ten times cheaper and Yugoslavia should pay ten times more for everything bought in the West.
So I thought, being naive, it is impossible.
Nobody can do it. I go to my grandmother who was a reactionary.
She explained to me what she thinks about Tito Stalin and all the others.
But I didn't believe them.
But it was a compulsory flat.
You must give the flat to the workers.
And in the villa of my friend of my granny, there were living workers in the attics.
Nobody was talking with them, the communists.
And I tiptoed to the Attics to talk to them.
And what I heard was they were listening to Radio Europe and they were cursing the communists and they were saying, lost all the faith in communists at all.
I'll tell you much more. I then was told that the communism is very strong, progressive and so on.
But I was looking at the skyscrapers.
Where are the skyscrapers? In the United States.
So I knew that the economy of the United States is better.
But tell me now, what is in Europe?
Where are the skyscrapers? In Morocco, the skyscrapers are 400 meters high.
The highest are in Arab countries, Taiwan, China, South Africa, United States, of course, but in Europe?
Europe is not even one, because they're higher than 400 meters.
And there are only nine higher than 300 meters.
And there are five in Moscow, two in Istanbul, one in Frankfurt and one in London.
We are Skansen. Under the occupation of the European Union, Europe is being turned into a council.
And I hate the European Union.
As good Russians hated the Soviet Union, as good Germans hated the Third Reich, I hate the European Union occupying the Europe and destroying the Europe.
I hate this occupation.
Well, I don't know the idea.
Well, the European Union, in some ways, was sold as a reduction of state power, you know, as an opening of the borders and so on, and the idea that this giant superstate, you know, it's so weird.
It's almost like all the bureaucrats who left the Soviet Union, which was a coercive aggregation of subjugated states, then fled to the EU and said, oh, well, we must recreate the Soviet Union in the EU, but this time it's going to work out beautifully.
Yeah. Exactly so, yeah, exactly so.
Crazy, crazy.
Well, go ahead.
The slogan of communists was proletariists of all countries unite.
And slogan of the European Union is bureaucrats of all countries unite.
Do you think, Janusz, that there is a chance for reason and evidence to turn the tide?
Or do you think we're kind of detailing the decline so that people know how better to rebuild?
No, no, no. The systems don't fall out because they are cruel and idiotic.
They fall down because they go bankrupt.
And all the system in the United States and all the European countries, all are bankrupt.
You must just wait until we go back.
We are waiting for the first bank who demands his money back, and then the dominos will go.
So we can't prevent it with words, but hopefully we can rebuild in a better way if we understand what caused the decline.
They have TV, they have money, they have everything.
If they don't have money, they can print money every day.
We cannot do anything. It's tough to compete.
Like you run a convenience store and you have a help wanted sign and somebody should come and work in your convenience store.
But when they walk in with a winning lottery ticket, it's tough to hire them for the job.
And I think with the fiat currency, it's like free money, free lottery money.
And it's really tough to convince people the value of the free market if they think that money can be made up like stories.
The money goes from the wall, of course, you know.
Yeah, that's right. And what are your plans from here?
You were just telling me before we started your resignation from the EU. What prompted that and what are your plans next?
No, I'm planning the local elections in Poland.
I try to be a president of Warsaw.
I don't think I can win, but I was winning playing bridge.
I was winning the Grand Slams on smaller chances, so I try to.
But afterwards, there are more important elections.
The European Parliament, Polish Parliament, and we try to break.
Of course, it is very difficult to have all the TV stations against you.
Well, because they don't provide any context for what you say.
I saw this a number of times when you are offered a chance to speak in various parliaments and so on.
They would say, you have one minute.
One minute! It's like saying to Plato, well, you can write the story of Socrates, but it has to be one page.
And the Bible, you know, you have to fit it on the back of a postcard.
And this shortness benefits the sophists.
It does not benefit people with rational arguments.
Yes, but tomorrow I speak for one minute in the European Parliament.
It will be one but last speech in the Parliament, because after tomorrow I quit.
But I can say in one minute, you can say everything.
You know, Parkinson has said that everyone who was manipulating with the hand Granada, which is unsafe, you know that three seconds is a very great amount of time.
Right. Well, I appreciate you taking the time to explain some of the background behind what you're talking about.
And for people who are upset, this is so strange to me that when you produce scientific evidence for what it is that you have said, that you are fined because you go against European values.
I don't know if that means that European values are anti-science.
Are they anti-math?
Are they anti-empiricism?
Are they anti-reason? Are they anti-logic?
I mean, what? With the growing influence of women, I don't think that's a characterization that Europe really wants to have for anyone with rational eyes to see.
Plenty of women in Poland who just love me.
And I can tell you something.
I can cite a quote to this late Nicholas Davila, who said, I distrust every idea that doesn't seem obsolete and grotesque to my contemporaries.
The modern world seems invisible, like the extinct dinosaurs.
Well, I appreciate that you're bringing these arguments to the attention of people.
It is, to me, anything which bothers the elites has value almost automatically.
And I think people are kind of figuring this out now.
At least a lot of people are.
Because everybody who's approved of by the elites seems to be leading the West off a cliff.
And anybody who stands in the way...
And that's, of course, how I heard about you.
And when anybody is vilified, perhaps even particularly by Piers Morgan, but when anybody is vilified, I'm like, oh, they must be sitting on something very important.
Otherwise, if you were approved of, then you would have nothing of value to add, and mostly you'd be adding a negative.
And I think people are understanding now.
It's sort of like, this is an old analogy, but a long time ago, before cell phones and so on, You would originally print a negative of your picture.
And if you were really skilled, you would be able to see the final picture just by looking at the negative in your mind.
You would put the colors in and change.
And it's sort of like the media has become this negative now in that what the final picture is in terms of truth is the opposite of what the media says.
And I don't think they've quite figured out that they have become an advertisement for truth based on who they attack.
And when you're on the receiving end of the attack, it feels like a negative.
But for a lot of people, It's the sort of smoke that gets kicked up, which is how they find you.
During the communist time, there were men who were thinking, oh, if communists call something wrong, it must be good.
There was five of them.
You know, it is very fair to be courageous enough to be opposite to all this system.
But I can tell you something very, very important.
Because Why the evolution is going this way as it is going now?
And Isaac Asimov, in his best novel, The End of Eternity, had said, any system which allows men to choose their own future will end by choosing safety and mediocrity.
And in such a reality, the stars are out of reach.
And that is the answer to the question, why we don't have signals from other stars?
Because probably society there has found the way to choose our future and they are extinct.
You know, we must live at random.
We cannot live with rationality because rationality kills real life.
We must live with risk, not safety.
I was taught in the communist times That who doesn't risk, doesn't eat.
But now in socialism, you must be safeguarded.
You must be assured. You cannot risk.
If you would like to talk another time, I would like to talk to you about the slavery state, which is now developing on our eyes.
I am reading the book.
I am writing the book about it, and I am looking for the editor.
There is a book of the late Friedrich von Hayek and he set the road to Serfdom and my book is in Serfdom at last or something like that.
Well, there is, of course, as you know, the famous old saying that he who chooses security over liberty ends up with neither security nor liberty.
But the problem is once you have enough wealth, you can get two generations who have their security and then the bill accrues to their children.
And I think that fundamentally it is a lack of love for children that is producing.
We would never want to hand this kind of system to our children.
And we have not roused ourselves enough to fight back out of love for our children.
And of course, a lot of Europeans are not having children.
But we have not roused ourselves enough to say that we must hand to our children at least the freedoms that we ourselves received.
In the same way, we must hand a reasonably clean environment.
We must hand a reasonably clean political system to our children.
and we seem to have completely forgotten that and used our children as collateral.
It's their future taxes that allow us to run up this kind of debt or the assurance of those taxes.
We are actually using them in the worst conceivable manner to exploit them under the guise of compassionate socialism.
We're exploiting them in a way that would never be possible in a free market.
You cannot take loans out In a free market against your children's future productivity, it is only socialism that allows for this kind of intergenerational vampiric predation.
Okay. In the old times, the rich men usually spoil their children by giving them too much.
But there was a very small number of very rich families.
Now, almost everybody is rich.
And almost everybody is spoiling his children, just offering them too much.
So we are degenerating very quickly, degenerating very quickly.
And, well, the Muslim will come in Europe very quickly because average Muslim women have five, six children and the European has one or one and a half on average, maximum.
So we shall have a normal monarchy, I mean Sultanate or Emirate or something like that, because monarchy is a normal state, democracy is not a normal state of matters.
So they will return, attend the monarchy in Europe.
We cannot do it, the Muslim will do it.
Because the national natural system must retire.
Must retire.
Yeah, the superiority, the legal superiority of women, this matriarchy of socialism, is unsustainable demographically.
And one way or another, it's going to come to an end.
We hope it to be more rational, but as we say, we don't know.
Well, I really, I do definitely, let's reschedule a talk about your book.
And I'd also like to talk more about the weird situation where the EU seems to be encouraging Poland to set up concentration camps for migrants.
All of these are very important issues.
I really want to thank you for your time.
And of course, for the blunt truth that you were speaking to power and will put the website and Twitter below.
I certainly wish you the best of luck in your upcoming political Thank you very much.
