March 7, 2018 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
01:04:33
4021 Why People Hate Donald Trump
▶️ Donate Now: http://www.freedomainradio.com/donate▶️ Sign Up For Our Newsletter: http://www.fdrurl.com/newsletterRecently Actor James Woods took to Twitter to ask why people hate Donald trump so viscerally: "I have a liberal friend, a very intelligent man, who hates Donald Trump. He hates him with the kind of insane fervor only a jilted lover could express. I’m genuinely interested in why people who hate him, hate him so fervently. Any thoughts? Spare me the 'orange man' nonsense..."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▶️ 1. Donate: http://www.freedomainradio.com/donate▶️ 2. Newsletter Sign-Up: http://www.fdrurl.com/newsletter▶️ 3. On YouTube: Subscribe, Click Notification Bell▶️ 4. Subscribe to the Freedomain Podcast: http://www.fdrpodcasts.com▶️ 5. Follow Freedomain on Alternative Platforms🔴 Bitchute: http://bitchute.com/stefanmolyneux🔴 Minds: http://minds.com/stefanmolyneux🔴 Steemit: http://steemit.com/@stefan.molyneux🔴 Gab: http://gab.ai/stefanmolyneux🔴 Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/stefanmolyneux🔴 Facebook: http://facebook.com/stefan.molyneux🔴 Instagram: http://instagram.com/stefanmolyneux
I have the answer to the question that James Woods put out on Twitter.
James Woods, of course, is a brilliant actor and brilliant man.
And by the way, if somebody doesn't remake King Lear with James Woods in the lead, Western civilization has been largely in vain.
James put out this question.
He said, I will tell you, and it will all make sense, but I'm not going to tell you in a very hurried manner.
So, this is a case that needs to be laid very carefully and patiently.
So, I hope that you will indulge me as we go on a tour through evolution.
So, I want you to think of a village in the Middle Ages, after the Quattrocent, or maybe 14, 1500.
This village, 100, maybe 150 people, and there is, as there always is in every human community, a bell curve of intelligence.
There are a few very smart people, a few very dumb people, a lot of people in the middle.
But the spread in income in the village, the spread in wealth, is not very great.
There's virtually no free market in the Middle Ages, which means that there's this compression of earning potential.
The Pareto Principle has not been allowed to flourish as it does in a state of freedom.
The Pareto Principle, of course, is repeated throughout nature and it basically states that the square root of workers produces half the value.
And it shows up over and over again in movies, in business as a whole, in sales, that the square root of the workers produces half of the value.
And that means that out of a company with 10,000 people, 100 people will produce half the value in a relatively free market.
The more free the market, the more concentrated this productivity tends to be.
And you know this, right?
I mean, how many of you go to see a movie because of the key grip?
Well, I guess if you're the key grip's mom, probably, but everyone else, You go to see it for the stars or for the story or whatever it is.
So it's either, you know, Stan Lee's brain of near infinite fertility or it's the actor you really like or something like that.
Maybe it's the writer rarely, but usually that's the story and the lead actor that's going to get you to go.
So this Pareto Principle operates in the free market, but it does not really operate that much in communism.
In communism in general, or a sort of very mixed economy, or socialized economy, or a fascistic economy, what happens is, because the real power to be gained is political rather than economic, the Pareto Principle ends up operating in the realm of politics, where The square root of the population or the square root of people who are ambitious in politics produce half the tyranny, half the control.
And so it takes people from the free market and puts them into the blood market of political power.
So if we think about this medieval village, there's not much of a spread There's a little bit of a spread of power, you know, there's a mayor and so on, and there may be a doctor.
But in general, there are a lot of mating opportunities as a whole.
Everybody gets a bride, right?
This is one of the big step forwards of Christianity, which was to outlaw polygamy, therefore ensuring to a large degree that Just about everybody gets somebody that they can settle down and marry and raise kids with because when a man gets married, his testosterone level drops.
When he has kids, especially if he spends a lot of time around those kids, his testosterone level drops again.
Not that testosterone is bad, but it means that he has an investment in his society and he has an investment in the continuity of his customs, in the continuity of his customs.
And that's very, very important.
If he likes his society, then he wants his society to remain relatively stable so that his children can grow up in the kind of society that he grew up in.
The more stable the society is, and I don't mean in terms of economic progress, I mean just in terms of basic values, the more stable The man's society is, or the woman's society, the more value they have as parents, because they have the wisdom that is accrued in a value-stable society which they can then pass along to their children.
When society is going through a very radical shift in values, Then the older people appear to be, you know, squares, they're fuddy-duddies, they don't get it, the times they are a-changing, as Zimmerman warbled incessantly in the 60s, and therefore the wisdom of the elders is considered to be mere prejudice.
And so, if you have this medieval village, which is relatively stable, then you have the opportunity for just about everyone to get married, and the competition For men and for women, it's relatively limited.
Relatively limited. You have maybe a class system, as there was strongly in England and other places, certainly in India.
We'll stay in the West for the moment.
So you have this class system, which means that you kind of have to choose from your own class.
You can battle your way up, and you can certainly fall down to some degree, but you choose within your own class.
And you have to make your choice relatively quickly.
And the reason you have to make your choice relatively quickly is it's sort of like going to a garage sale with a bunch of antiques experts ahead of you in line.
You've really got to push your way forward because otherwise all the good stuff is gone by the time you get to the table and all you have left is a 50 cent John Anderson cassette.
So I actually bought one of those.
What? Animation's a pretty good album.
So you kind of have to choose quickly because the good men are snapped up, and so you put yourself on full display as a woman, or you go and ask women out as a man, and you will generally find a way to settle down and to have your children.
The competition is limited.
The wealth disparity is not that great.
The Pareto principle has been squished down, which means that the less competent, less able, less smart genes, they have a way to reproduce.
Now, enter the free market.
Well, things change an enormous amount.
First of all, of course, the free market requires, before the rise of industrialization, it requires an agricultural revolution.
And everyone forgets about the agricultural revolution.
I think the only thing is the Dickensian Industrial Revolution, for better or for worse, depending on your ideology, for better if your ideology is based on facts at all.
But there were no poets and scribes and novelists of the agricultural revolution.
I've actually written a whole novel about the agricultural revolution because I'm just that kind of geek, but it's called Just Poor.
It's a very good book. So you have this agricultural revolution which means that crops, crop harvesting, crop planting, the winter crops like turnips and so on are used, you get a better harness so that it's not choking your horse continually as the early medieval harnesses used to do.
You get a shoulder harness. So you can produce a lot more food and this means that you don't need as many people farming.
Virtually everybody was involved in farming throughout most of European history.
I mean even at the turn of the last century The 1900s in America, like 90% of people were involved in farming.
Now it's down to like 2 or 3%.
And so you get this agricultural productivity which allows for cities to grow.
Because if you don't have excess food, you can't have a city because the city doesn't produce its own food usually.
So people start swarming into the city.
And you have a large proletariat, as it would be called on the left, a proletariat population.
Now, you get a free market.
The free market first starts in land, and only then does it end up in urban property.
It has to start in land, because the way that you get land to be productive is you allow the Pareto principle to operate in the realm of land, which means that, again, out of 10,000 farmers, 100 of them in a free market will be producing half the food.
And they were called kulaks in Russia, and they were called gentlemen farmers, Sometimes in England and basically just very very successful farmers.
So in the country when the free market is allowed to operate, things really begin to change.
The wealth disparity begins to skyrocket apart because if you can produce five times the crops, if you're an industrious and smart and a farmer who's willing to take risks,
if you can produce Say, let's just say twice, if you can produce double the crops than a lazy farmer or a farmer who's not that smart or a farmer who doesn't want to take risks or a farmer who's inattentive, if you can produce twice the crops, then you can bid a lot more for the land.
I mean, that's basic economics, right?
If you can produce much more out of the same resource, then you can afford to pay more for that resource because you will be gaining a lot more value out of it, right?
So if you can produce twice the crops, you have an incentive to offer one and a half times the price that the farmer who's not competent can.
So this is what happens. People start producing crops and it's a big disparity.
Pareto principle, remember. So you've got Bob, the farmer, who's a brilliant farmer, And he ends up producing two, three, four, five times.
In the agricultural revolution, it got to 10 to 15 times more crops.
Some of this had to do with the fact that there was this consolidation of land.
Land used to be sliced and diced like a jigsaw puzzle from hell.
In the past, and it became so ridiculously inefficient, you could plow for 10 feet and then you had to go to the right 15 feet and the fences were just snaking all over the place like a bunch of Samuel L. Jackson snakes from a plane dropped frozen from a plane.
I guess that analogy works to some degree.
So, they ended up consolidating the crops and this did end up with a lot of people being kicked off their land, but it made agriculture much more effective.
So, let's say you got Bob the Brilliant Farmer, he can produce Two or three or four or five times more crops from the same land, using the same number of workers, but just planting more intelligently and making sure he doesn't exhaust the crop and using winter crops and better use of animal labor and so on.
So he can begin to buy more and more land.
So he can go to his neighbor and he can say, I will give you two or three times what you think your land is worth if you sell to me.
Okay, so a lot of times that guy will sell because he's looking at producing one-fifth the crops, which means he can't really compete.
He's looking at taking a whole bunch of money.
He then takes that money, goes to the city and invests or buys or builds.
And that's how the capital accumulates for the industrialization of the, well, particularly of the 19th century.
So you get Bob, the genius farmer, buying up more and more and more land.
And what this is doing is it's converting land from low productivity to high productivity.
I know. I know we have a ways to go to get to Trump, but it'll make sense, I promise you.
So this is a massive explosion in food productivity, which has, you know, we can see this is all over the world, right?
All over the world, a human population has been skyrocketing, which is a blessing and a curse in many ways.
So now what happens is, for the people who aren't particularly competent in the county or the village or whatever, wealth disparity has really, really widened.
So Bob, maybe he used to have twice the wealth of the average person.
Now he has 10 times the wealth of the average person.
Now that skews The levels of attractiveness and that is a huge problem because the genes that are not so competent, the genes that are not so smart, the genes even that are not so industrious or conscientious.
There's a big five personality traits and even levels of risk-taking have been Measured at significantly genetic.
Levels of conscientiousness, attention to detail, follow through, work ethic to some degree, significantly genetic.
Our personalities are, to some degree, our environment.
No question. There's never zero percent with environment, even in something like height.
Because if you don't get enough food, you don't get to your proper height.
And so the personality traits that are genetically influenced, and when I say genetic again, I'm not talking about 100% genetic, but some of them go as high as 80%, 80% genetics.
So what happens is the genes for intelligence, the genes for conscientiousness, for hard work, for all of that kind of good stuff, For agreeableness, because agreeableness is kind of one of these Aristotelian mean things, like you don't want to be completely disagreeable, because then nobody wants to work with you, nobody wants to trade with you, you're just considered a complete jerk.
But if you're too agreeable, then you can't negotiate very hard, you can't manage people, you can't give orders, which may be necessary to improve your productivity and so on.
The accumulation of wealth in the hands of the competent is the accumulation of wealth in a particular set of genes.
And again, it's not just genes, but they're very important and they need to be talked about.
Because we have these radical, I guess, environmentalists, you could say, the people who say that it's nurture, not nature, that determines human capacity.
That it's all just about socialization and so on.
And it's not. I mean, it's just a fact.
It's just the fact that there are twin studies, there are genetic studies that go all over the place.
Steven Hsu recently, who's been on this show, gave a talk where he said, you know, give me a tiny sample of DNA, even from a crime scene or whatever, and I'll be able to tell you that person's height within three centimeters.
And that's pretty close.
They may be able to get close to within half a centimeter or even smaller, assuming that people get enough to eat when they grow up.
So here's the problem. When you start to get a free market, wealth starts to be generated and accumulates among the smartest people, the most industrious people.
And that's, to some degree, genetic.
And what that means is that the people who are at the bottom of the rung, who used to be close to the middle, who used to be close to the middle, the middle is raising, the upper end is going through the roof.
And what that means is the people at the bottom look a lot worse by comparison.
If the most, like if the richest man in the village has twice the wealth of average, well, okay, he's a plus, but you know, he's not like a staggering plus.
But if the richest person in the village or the neighborhood has 10 or 20 or 50 times the wealth of the average, then women are going to flock towards him, right?
Hypergamy. Women want to marry up.
Women, I mean, this is great. This is why we have a civilization.
Women want to marry up, and the man with the most resources is the man who's going to have a significant degree of attraction for women because throughout history, of course, Women were disabled by pregnancy and childbirth pretty much from the teens onward until menopause, if they made it.
And so women needed just massive conveyor belt of resources coming in.
And so the man who becomes hugely wealthy under the free market It's become, has become ridiculously attractive relative to the men who are not doing very well, right?
Relative to the lower IQ, lower ambition, lower conscientiousness.
And again, some of it genetic, some of it is choice-based.
The drunkards, you know, and even alcoholism has some genetic components.
So it's sort of like, you know, the big fish in the little pond idea, which is very important, that I mean, I remember this.
A friend of mine in high school was really good at math and science and top of the class and so on.
It was not a small high school. And then he went to university and he wanted to take a math and physics double major.
That's a big deal, man. That's some seriously hard brain sweat.
It's going to be running out of your nose like blood.
And he was very vain about his intellectual capacities and that Vanity had been stoked by being a big fish in a little pond, but once he got to The university was very ambitiously, too ambitiously, he just flamed out. He got sick, he got stressed, he couldn't sleep, and he ended up bombing out.
We all face this.
We go up and up and up, and a few people make it to the very top, but most people bump up against some limitation in their particular field.
When they go from being a big fish in a little pond to a big pond in competition with the sharks.
So, when people become wealthier through the Pareto Principle, through the free market, the lower end of the sexual market value pool can't compete.
They cannot compete.
We like to think, oh, smarter is better and prettier is better, and none of that is true, fundamentally.
They may be more attractive, but the genes for ugliness, the genes for lower intelligence, the genes for short, the genes for bald, they wish to reproduce as much as all of the genes do for attractiveness.
So the genes for high intelligence and high industriousness are in competition with the genes for low intelligence and low industriousness.
Now, it's not just the genes, again, the choices and so on.
I'll quit repeating that.
I'm sure you understand by now.
So when there is a free market, The less competent genes look a lot worse than the more competent genes.
You see how this works? They can't compete.
They could compete when there was a strong cap on the amount of resources that could be accumulated.
Now, you will say, of course, well, there is the aristocracy, they had a lot of wealth, they had a lot of political power and so on.
Yes. Yes, they did, but you couldn't You could maybe marry your way in, which was extraordinarily rare, and people didn't leave their villages, they didn't travel, they certainly didn't meet princes, kings and queens, and so on.
Not a lot of Meghan Markle's in the Middle Ages.
And so you did have a sort of elite, and there was an elite, of course, in terms of the church.
But up until Martin Luther came along, the clergy didn't breed, the monks didn't breed, so that was not a competition for genetics.
And, of course, it became a significant negative to be a priest during the time of the Black Death, the plague, the bubonic plague that raced through Europe many times in a rough sequence, and in some places killed a quarter or a third of the entire population, because the priest would go from deathbed to deathbed to deathbed to pembina slas rites to gain confessions, which meant that the priest would die like flies.
And, of course, when we're talking about the rise of the agricultural revolution, we are, in general, in Europe, talking about the end of often a couple of hundred years of religious warfare, where the most religious were killed off.
There's a reason why the West became less fanatical, less fundamentalist, and more secular in the 18th, 19th centuries, and it had a lot to do with the fact that religious warfare had killed off the gene set of the most religiously fervent.
They had Well, I think we all understand that.
Unfortunately, I mean, when I was younger, I thought, oh, it's just intellectual change.
It's just ideas that come forward.
And there certainly is truth in that.
Fanatical genes fight each other to extinction and then you get a more rational society emerging from the bodies of the most fundamentalist and then they're fine with the separation of church and state.
The more fundamentalists weren't, which is what they were fighting over, was control of the state to have a monoreligion imposed by the power of political might.
So, free market comes.
First, In land and then in urban property and in particular in corporations and so on.
Corporations remember not a product of the free market but a product of state power.
So what happens is the less able gene sets feel like they're falling into irrelevancy.
And what happens is the smarter people are gaining the most resources and therefore having the most children.
Whereas the less smart, the less competent, the less able, the less conscientious, the lazier perhaps.
They're getting fewer and fewer resources and they're facing gene death.
Remember our genetics view Resource loss as a form of predation.
It's very, very important.
If you're in the woods and you're being chased by a bunch of wolves, you're facing gene extinction, right?
You get killed and so on.
And if your kids are young, then they may face gene extinction as well as you're no longer a provider for them.
So the fight or flight, the panic, the hostility, the hatred, the fear, all of this starts pumping through our veins when we get chased by wolves or a bear in the woods.
But if there is a situation, and this is more particular to people who evolved in a colder climate, we have to rationally calculate, I'm talking about the Chinese, the Japanese, the Europeans and so on, East Asians and the whites in general, not including the Eskimos or the Inuit because they didn't farm, there was not enough of a growing season.
You have to really worry about running out of resources over the winter, right?
Game of Thrones, right?
Winter is coming and you have to plan for it.
So, in a sense, resource loss, loss of resources to survive, It evokes the same fight-or-flight mechanism in people as being chased by some relatively slow wolves when you're in a wheelchair in the forest.
So that's really, really important.
So in a free market, resources...
Accumulate or are created in the upper group.
I can't really say the upper class because, again, there's a lot of cycling and so on, and there are environmental effects upon genetics.
It's called epigenetics. The genes can get turned on and turned off, like testosterone.
Production of testosterone is something that is significantly, if not almost entirely, dependent upon environmental cues.
If you look at the R versus K selection stuff that I've talked about in my presentation, Gene Wars, you should check that out.
That's also epigenetic.
If the girl grows up without a father, she starts menstruating a lot earlier because father absence is associated with chaos and bloodshed and war and so on, and therefore she's going to want to pump out as many kids.
You get a vastly increased sex drive and a lack of fear of consequences of sexual activity.
You become rabid rather than wolf, so to speak.
So, as the resources begin to accumulate in the upper classes, then they can have, in the competent classes, then they can begin to have a lot more children.
The trickle-down effect, so to speak, I mean, if you're a farmer and you start growing five times the food, well, you can't eat five times the food, so you end up selling it.
It drives down the price of food, and it is in the long run very beneficial to the less intelligent, right?
There is this, you know, rising tide lifts all boats and the trickle-down theory and so on.
That all makes perfect sense.
If you look at the rising wages, Of urban workers in the 19th century, it went up enormously.
So, caloric intake, meat intake, it all went up enormously.
So, what happens is the less competent classes look at the more competent classes and it looks like they're taken off to go to heaven while they're slowly sinking down into hell.
They don't have the resources, they may lose their job on the farm and then they have to go and wander into the city and they don't like it, it's a lot of change.
And they look at the smart people having a lot of kids and they look at themselves and wonder if they can afford to have kids and that triggers in them fear and rage.
Because if resources are not available, we freak out.
We freak out, particularly, again, the Chinese, Japanese, Europeans, and so on.
Less so in places like Africa or the Caribbean and so on, because food is pretty much available year-round, right?
You got your fruit, There's a little bit of game to hunt, there's fish in the sea, and you can do pretty well year-round.
You don't have to worry and defer gratification and think about long-term resource loss and so on.
It's just a different environment, which has significant effects, evolutionarily speaking.
So the less competent classes begin to freak out.
As they see, the competent classes begin to have a lot of kids, have a lot of security, have a lot of...
And this happened even in the Black Death.
In the Black Death, the urban people died the most.
Now, back in the day, in the Black Death, the urban people were not doing particularly well.
The wealthy who had big estates in the country and so on, they did relatively well because they weren't infected nearly as much.
But, you know, the squalid urban poor and so on did very, very poorly.
Now, here's where we look at the mid to late 19th century, and we can understand what happens and why, and why it was so terrible for the 20th century.
Ah, horrifying, horrifying stuff.
Now, picture this.
You formerly had a pretty good seat at the table when it came to sexual market value in the medieval village or county or farm or whatever, and somebody was going to choose you.
You were going to choose someone, and there wasn't a huge disparity.
Free market, Pareto principle, competence, intelligence, bell curve, resources start flowing upwards like a volcano to the competent classes and the incompetent classes or the less competent classes freak out, and they panic.
Now, they can't compete to get those resources.
I mean, imagine if you're a hunter-gatherer And some super species of human being comes into your neighborhood, your region, and they start stripping bare all the resources that you need to live on.
They take the game, they take the nuts, they take the berries, they take everything.
Just strip everything bare.
They take everything, the fruit, all gone.
You're going to freak out and you're going to view that super species, that super human, as a predator and you're going to plot their demise.
Right? Now, There were, of course, laws against murder, and you couldn't just go around killing the upper classes.
Although, of course, when the resentment of the less competent classes bubbled over, you did get things, of course, like the French Revolution, like the Russian Revolution, and so on.
But there is this gap that is growing between competence and incompetence.
And what can the less competent people do?
Well, what they can do, of course, is they can say, well, these guys are rich, but man, they are producing a heck of a lot.
I'm kind of getting richer as it stands.
I'm just going to be patient and I'm going to let them do their thing and, you know, rising tide lifts all boats.
But that's not what happens.
It's not what happens because in general, they're less intelligent, far less intelligent.
And so they don't have the capacity to pursue what Bastiat called the seen versus the unseen.
They see these people getting rich, they feel relatively poorer, it feels unfair, it feels unjust, and their entire nervous system is panicking because the predation of a widening gap in sexual market value is threatening gene death for them in their minds, hearts, and bone marrow, right? So what do they do?
Well, they can't just go kill the rich and take their stuff.
In most countries, some countries they do.
So what do they do? Well, you get the rise of radical egalitarian ideologies, right?
Which aim to redistribute the resources from the competent classes to the less competent classes.
This is socialism, Fabianism, communism, you name it.
This is how they're attempting to close the gap of widening sexual market value.
See how this works? It's an amazing thing.
It explains why it was really in the 19th century, mid to late in particular, and in the early 20th century under the Fabians in England and America, that you get this massive thirst and demand for radical redistribution, coercive redistribution of resources.
Now, it wasn't because the poor didn't have enough to live on, it's because that the poor We're being chosen less and less because there were more and more wealthy people to choose.
Now, normally what would happen is the wealthy people would end up with multiple wives, but Christianity, of course, forbidding polygamy, you get this huge pressure, which is, how are my genes going to flourish when I can't compete in the free market?
Now, again, patience and all that, they would have done fine, but patience is not necessarily associated with people of lower ability, lower intelligence.
I mean, that's one of the definitions of intelligence is the ability to defer gratification.
So here's what happens.
The growth of radical redistributionist economic ideologies, we'll just call it communism, although there's lots of different flavors of it.
Arise out of a frustration that people cannot compete.
They cannot compete.
They might work harder, but they can't become smarter.
IQ is relatively fixed throughout life, and in later life it's 80% genetic.
You can't compete. It's like trying to will yourself to grow taller.
You can't. So they turn to the state and they say, well, They're getting richer.
We feel poorer. We're less attractive.
We're now the sort of squalid, unwashed masses.
We can't reproduce that well.
We can't gain resources.
We are falling behind.
We're falling away. We're falling into gene death territory.
The predators are taking all the resources.
It's what they feel, right? And then, of course, there are people who want to play into that belief, that feeling.
And they start saying, they start arousing the resentment and the frustration and the anger and the rage of the less competent classes.
And they say, well, we're all the same, you see.
The only reason that that guy who has the factory is wealthy is because he's stealing from you.
So, people are in the fight or flight mechanism.
And they can't fly, they can't flee because that's where the jobs are, right?
Around the factory and the capitalist environment is where the jobs are.
They can't flee, go live in the country and do very badly.
So when you get your fight or flight activated because your sexual market value is falling through the toilet and you're panicking about gene death unconsciously, somebody comes along, you can't run, you can't flee, you're kind of trapped there, then somebody comes along and says, no, no, no, no flight, fight!
Fight! That's what you need to do.
You need to fight because these people are rich because they've taken from you and if we use the power of the state to take resources from the more competent and give to you, not because you're incompetent, because everyone's equal, they just stole from you, the guy is rich because he has the factory.
And he stole the factory by underpaying his workers and it's unfair and it's unjust and they stoke these fires of resentment like Iago on a toppling ship.
And for those who are facing the existential panic of gene death, that is the answer.
That is the answer.
All ideologies, ethnicities, religions, beliefs, they're all in competition.
All in competition. When one emerges, As victorious.
When you have, I mean, look at England.
I mean, in the 19th century, ruling a third of the entire planet.
It's the old saying said, the sun never sets on the British Empire.
It's pretty tough for the other ideologies, right?
Because when someone starts to do really well, the other ideologies want to pull them down because they can't compete genetically.
They can't compete in terms of attractiveness, right?
And the guy under the Raj, the Indian guy under the Raj, they're all ruled by the British, and the British seem like gods bestride the world like a colossus.
Well, he says, okay, well, I guess I can go out and get a bride, but my bride wishes that I was someone else.
My bride wishes that she could marry a British guy, or whoever it is, could be anyone who's in charge.
And that stokes a lot of resentment, if you can't compete.
So, this growing fight-or-flight panic of the less competent gene sets, who are facing gene death in their mind, creates a hunger and a thirst and a rage Against the more successful gene sets, against those who the Pareto Principle of the free market allowed to include accrue massive and incomprehensible, formerly incomprehensible amount.
I mean, understand that in the Industrial Revolution in the 19th century, the level of wealth accumulation and wealth disparity had never before been seen in human history.
Never before been seen in human history.
Where there were wealth disparities in the past, there may have been anger, but there wasn't quite that level of resentment because it was all based on class or race or political power.
You couldn't just go and join it.
But when you see people from poor villages, I mean, in the 19th century, there was an engineer in Scotland who was blind, came from a poor family and was blind and was still an amazing engineer.
So when you see all of that, There's no excuse in a sense.
There's no barriers between you and success.
So you realize the limitations of what you are and your genes want to reproduce just like everyone else's.
So you run to the state and you say to the state, take that stuff from these people and give it to me because otherwise I'm facing gene death.
They're going to have way more kids.
I'm going to have way fewer kids and my genes are going to die out.
Their genes are going to flourish. They are predators.
When someone comes along and whispers into your ear that those competent people, those rich people, they're thieves.
It rings true. Because in a sense, they are the superhumans who are taking all of your resources, taking your sexual market value, making you look worse by comparison.
Like the tallest guy in the pygmy village doesn't seem so tall at a basketball game.
Everyone says, wow, you're the tallest guy around.
You go to a basketball game, it's like, wow, you're really short.
So here's what happens. The less competent classes, groups, run to the state and demand resources.
And the way they do that is they pretend that everyone's the same and that the people who have stuff are predatory, are evil, are thieves, exploiters.
Now, For a variety of reasons, some having to do with empathy.
Empathy and IQ are somewhat related.
Empathy and business success.
I know, I know, all this stuff, all businesses, sociopaths, but I'm talking about a free market, not this fascistic crap that we've got, this crapitalism that we have now.
The smartest people have certain levels of empathy, and of course, they have a lot of discipline, and they, of course, are Christians.
And what that means is great sympathy for the poor, and, you know, whoever would follow me, sell all of your belongings, as Jesus says, and give them to the poor.
And the meek shall inherit the earth, and he who is first shall then be last.
Wait, no, I think I'm back to Bob Dylan now.
But anyway, it was this perspective that fuels the desire for redistributionist policies through the state.
That's one side of things.
That's the empathy side. The fear side is the peasants are revolting.
The competent classes have risen so high in sexual market value and in the aggregation and accumulation and production of resources That we now appear as predators to the less competent, the less able, and there are a lot of them, and they're really getting stoked up in anger,
because finding poison words to drip into people's ears who are already freaking out about gene death is a lot easier than explaining to them the long-term benefits of the Pareto Principle and the free market, accumulating and generating resources within society.
It's a tough call.
It's a tough call.
And those kinds of sacrifices and restraints of temper are not common among the less competent groups.
There is this feeling of, okay, well, we are lucky, say the competent classes, and to some degree, they're right.
To some degree, they're right.
They just happen to be born smarter.
They just happen to be born with greater conscientiousness.
Again, to a large degree, there are some choices involved, but...
Not every tall person who plays basketball, but just about everyone who plays basketball.
You get the idea.
So there is a certain amount of there, but for the grace of God go I, and that's valid and understandable.
Now, it should be solved by charity.
It should be solved by voluntary situations and so on, but it wasn't.
So what happened was people began their redistributionist policies, and the redistributionist policies started to some degree with allowing the government to take over education.
Because there was this perspective, or perception, of course, that smart people could send their kids to good schools, and it was the good schools that made people smart, so if we make schools roughly equal for everyone, then that levels the playing field and so on.
As it turns out, funny story, it's totally false.
It's totally false. Studies have been done over and over again that the quality of education provided to a child has almost nothing to do with the eventual success of the child.
The strongest predicator is IQ, the marshmallow test I've talked about before.
You can look it up if you want.
But education, the quality of your education, you might feel good as a parent, and it may give your child a better experience, but it doesn't matter in terms of how your child ends up.
It's intelligence.
It began with the redistribution, forced redistribution of resources when it came to government schools, and we can sort of fast forward through a whole bunch of stuff, but the redistribution of resources from the more competent to the less competent causes, I mean, this is what's so frustrating, of course, right?
This is what is so frustrating.
I mean, in South Africa, the population of blacks from 1950 to the 80s and so on, it went up like 800%.
It's like, so they have more resources, but they convert those resources into having children rather than into saving, to accumulating, to all of this sort of stuff, right?
So it's frustrating.
If you give a lot of money to smart people, they will often have fewer kids.
And if you give a lot of money to less smart people, they will often have more kids.
And it is just one of these horrible situations.
Again, it's the R versus K stuff that I've talked about before.
And so when the less competent, the poor, say, give us resources and then we'll be like you, it doesn't generally happen.
What happens is you get more kids coming out of poor people.
They take the excess resources and convert them into children.
Why? Well, because deep down they're worried about gene death, so they want to convert resources into children so that they can counter the effects of gene extinction or gene diminishment, let's just say.
And so, a redistributionist state becomes popular, and it starts, of course, with charity, and then it usually ends up institutionized as some form of welfare state.
Now, people think the welfare state started in the 60s in the West, in America in particular.
Sure, there was Lyndon Johnson's Great Society and so on, and that did a lot of – but there was a lot going on beforehand, a lot going on.
Beforehand, I mean, just look at Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the Great Deal and a chicken in every pot.
Massive redistributionist policies going on there.
You get old age pensions coming in.
I mean, just massive amounts of redistributionist stuff that is going on.
And again, part of that is sympathy, part of that is fear.
The rest of masses are, you know, they still are very strong and they can get a hold of equalizing weapons.
Certainly in the US, they always had them.
So, So here's the problem, and here's where we start to enter into the realm of Trump.
Why do people hate him so much?
Well, the world population is enormous.
It is absolutely enormous.
Billions and billions and billions, to quote Carl Sagan.
It's astonishingly high, relative to human history.
Hunter-gatherers are very, very few Human beings can be supported in the hunter-gathering realm, more so in agriculture, but even the world population is skyrocketing.
Now, why has it gone up so much?
Well, it's gone up to some degree because of the extension of the free market, in particular in China and India.
50,000 people a month getting out of poverty.
It's the largest reduction of human poverty in the history of the universe, but you don't want to hear about it from the left, right?
Because it's come about as a result of the free market, not as a result of redistribution as policies.
So, You have a massive world population that has been created by debt to a large degree.
I mean, debt around the world is US $30,000 per man, woman and child in the world.
That is an astonishing and horrifying phenomenon.
And That has come about largely as redistributionist policies have come into play.
One of the horrifying ironies, paradoxes, tragedies of human history is if you look at what happened through colonialism where the survival rates and the populations of the populations who were colonized generally went up enormously,
like many, many, many times. And then when decolonization occurred after the end of the Second World War, those populations began to falter and to fall.
And then the West spent untold trillions in foreign aid to prop up these populations for genuine feelings of sympathy and horror at what was happening as socialism and Marxism and so on took over continents.
Socialism, of course, in India and Marxism, a lot of times in Africa, the populations were horrifying.
I mean, I remember growing up with these nightmarish images on television of the little black kids with the bloated bellies and the flies on their eyes, and it just breaks your heart.
Horrifying stuff. And so huge amounts of money and food and resources were taken from the richer countries and given to the poorer countries.
And the poorer countries in general did not convert those into savings and investment and entrepreneurship and so on for a variety of reasons I've talked about before.
They just had more. More and more and more babies.
And that meant that there was massive quote overpopulation relative to the resources that could be created locally, right?
It was all Like cocaine coming in for happiness.
It was just money flowing in from...
And then what happens is this massive overpopulation ends up spilling over these countries and heading, of course, towards Europe.
You send foreign aid and you send food and in return you get a population crossing over the smoking corpse made by Hillary and Obama of Libya and Syria and other countries and crossing the Mediterranean and coming into Europe.
So, The great tragedy of the 20th century has been the conversion.
Well, it's not a tragedy yet, but it sure as hell will be soon.
It's the conversion of debt into unsustainable human life.
That you type whatever you want into your own bank account if you have a central bank, which allows you to create money out of thin air to counterfeit.
And then what happens is that money is then used to buy real resources and spread them around the world, provoking massive population growth, which is unsustainable because the money was not real.
And therefore, in the long run, the population as it stands is unsustainable.
I mean, please understand this is very foundational to what's going to happen over the next little while in human history.
You got $30,000 worth of debt per human being in the world.
That is Horrifying.
When that debt comes due, when the money system can't sustain that level of counterfeiting, so to speak, what is going to happen?
Well, resources are going to run out, and human beings are going to seriously, seriously panic.
So, what's happened over the past 50 to 60 years?
I'm really talking about the welfare state onwards.
What has happened is really quite simple.
The thirst for radical egalitarian redistributionist schemes is driven by the panic for gene death that occurs among the less competent groups in society who would do well if the free market were allowed to operate but don't really get that or have been told the opposite by a bunch of horrifying sophists.
And so we have transferred resources from the more competent to the less competent.
And the only way we've been able to do that is through debt.
Because debt dulls the edge of husbandry, I think as Polonius said in Hamlet.
Debt makes us lazy. It makes things foggy.
It makes things unreal, so to speak.
So we can afford these massive redistribution schemes because they're run by debt.
Why can America have an empire and a welfare state and a military-industrial complex?
Because of debt. Because of debt.
Why can Japan offer these endless retirement benefits to a population that seems to be only extinguishable by a vampire staked through the heart?
Even the Japanese politicians are incredibly frustrated.
Like, these old people just keep living because of debt.
Because of debt. Debt makes everything surreal, makes everything unreal, and it makes anyone who claims the need to marshal and limit resource expenditure look just mean.
Just mean. If there's free money, if Money is just coming up like a geyser.
I mean, if it's all free money and we don't have to earn it and we can just print it, then anybody who says we should limit resources, we should limit expenditure, it looks just mean because it can all be sustained through debt.
Now, what's happened is Trump wishes to restore market forces.
I mean, I don't know how far he goes.
I mean, Ayn Rand is a favorite of his and she's very much into free market as far as it can go.
I'm even further, but...
So Trump wishes to restore, cut regulations, open up the free market and allow for job creation and so on.
Now, what's happened though is we have less competent groups in society that are sustained by government redistribution.
Now, this is not just the poor, although there's a lot of the poor, and when it comes to voting, it's the important block.
You've got the single moms, you've got the welfare dependents, you've got the disabled or those who claim to be disabled, you have a wide range of the old.
All people require and rely upon debt-driven resource transfers from, well, from the future through debt and from more competent people and their children as collateral for that debt.
So what happens? As the free market grows, these people realize deep down that the Pareto Principle is going to allow for increased wealth disparity, which makes them look worse and makes other people look better.
As job opportunities open up, they have fewer excuses to say, well, I can't work because the system doesn't work, there are no jobs and so on.
And so while now they look hard done by because there's no labor, when labor begins to open up and jobs begin to open up, And people want to hire them, then they start to be revealed as not just hard done by by the system, but as complicit in the continuation of their own poverty.
That is not a good look.
And that may threaten the flow of resources.
Because think of excuses as a lake, and think of the free market as the sun, and it never rains, right?
It's California. So you don't see what's at the bottom of the lake, right?
Because there are all these excuses. You can't differentiate, right?
But when the lake begins to dry and the water level goes down, more and more begins to emerge.
So as the free market begins to operate, if Donald Trump gets his way and the voters get their way, as the free market begins to operate, what happens is, Excuses begin to diminish, and people then get resentful at people who have just made really bad decisions, really bad choices. And again, remember, because we don't have the sympathy of understanding the genetic basis for the bell curve, for intelligence, for ambition, for conscientiousness, for agreeableness, for neuroticism, and so on, it's very much higher among women.
We end up ascribing bad outcomes in life.
Well, of course, the leftists go too far in terms of saying, well, it's all circumstance, environment, and the person has no choice, and then really hating the genetic argument, which kind of explains that, because they prefer the economic exploitation argument, because it gives, you can't hate genetics, but you can hate the capitalist, right?
And other people say, well, the poor are, you know, it's the result of their own laziness, the bad choices, bad decisions, and so on, and It's an Aristotelian mean.
The truth, as is so often the case, lies somewhere in between.
So, the reason why Donald Trump is hated is that people are concerned that the resource flow is going to diminish.
That the resource flow from the government Which initially they thought and felt was necessary for their survival.
Now there's arguments that for a lot of them it may more or less practically be necessary for their survival.
In the same way that the consumption of any drug, any hyper stimulating substance initially breeds a positive result and then eventually all you're doing is staving off a negative.
You know, you take a bunch of drugs and initially you're really happy and then eventually you end up hunting for food and resources and knocking over convenience stores because you just wish to avoid the agony of withdrawal.
It's no longer the pursuit of a positive but the avoidance of a negative.
It's the same thing with government redistribution of resources.
And now what's happened is there have been two to three, maybe even more, but let's just say three generations, where particular gene sets have been paid to reproduce, and that means that you have lower conscientiousness, you have lower industriousness, you have a lower work ethic, you have much greater disagreeableness.
And it's what has been called, if you look at the book The Welfare Trait, the employment-resistant personality.
Aggressive and unable to defer gratification and low conscientiousness.
It's an employment-resistant personality.
Adam Perkins is the writer. He's been on this show.
And a lot of this is genetic.
And this is the kind of corner that society paints itself in when it violates basic moral principles.
The welfare state violates and violated, as does foreign aid.
Violates the fundamental moral principle, thou shalt not steal.
Now, when the welfare state was put into place, I don't believe it was put into place for good reasons.
It was done to buy votes and so on.
And also because the left wanted to bring in a whole bunch of immigrants from the third world, and they did through the 1965 immigration bill.
And they couldn't sustain that without the welfare state, right?
The welfare state is what politicians use to bribe immigrants now.
They can't bribe the domestic population because the wealth has risen to the point where just about anybody can make it to the lower middle class, at least if they want.
So politicians always need to have, I mean, they have to have gifts so that somebody will kiss their ring.
So they created the welfare state to buy votes from the less competent members of the local population, but also to serve as a bribe and a way of pretending that immigration from the third world works because you give a bunch of welfare to people from the third world and it works.
If they come over and there's no welfare, then it doesn't generally work because it's a big difference and I've been all over all that before.
So why is Donald Trump hated so much?
He's hated to some degree because he's feared, and he's feared because the free market evokes in people the very, very deep fears and anxieties regarding resources.
If, let's say, as people fear, like Donald Trump hasn't really talked about getting rid of any entitlement programs and so on, but we're just talking about the fear that things go in that direction.
The fear is that the flow of resources from the state to the dependent classes, and this is not just the poor, again, military-industrial complex, and lots of corporations rely on state protection, state monopolies, and tariffs, and taxes, and regulations that they can afford to fudge their way through because they have entire floors of accountants and lawyers, whereas smaller businesses can't, and so it keeps that competition at bay.
There's a whole variety of things that come to bear on that stuff.
But he's hated and feared because there is this terror that the free market is going to widen sexual market value and that the free market is going to progressively raise resentment among those who remain dependent upon the state when job opportunities abound.
And then that's going to make people say, look, this is destroying people.
This has robbed them of their ambition.
This has made them resentful, petty, lazy, aggressive, non-compliant with basic social norms and so on.
And if a drug addict is surrounded by people who think his drug is cool, right?
I mean, look at Courtney Love. Courtney Love talking about how When she was a musician starting out, everybody had to do heroin.
It was cool, man. You had to do it.
I mean, it's just if you didn't, you were ridiculous and so on, right?
So if you're in that kind of environment, then your drug use is facilitated.
But if you get around sane people who recognize how destructive your drug addiction is, well, they're going to have an intervention.
They're going to really force you to come up against your addiction, and you don't want that.
Of course, that's part of the addiction is to want to continue it.
So they're worried and they're afraid that society is going to look and say, this has been terrible for people.
And it has. I mean, the welfare state has just been terrible for people.
It has destroyed families.
It has destroyed communities.
It has allowed for this massive experiment of multiculturalism to wend its slowly destructive and glass-breaking way through society.
And people are nervous.
Because, whether rightly or wrongly, I don't know, but I guarantee you that there's millions and millions of people, tens of millions of people, maybe more, around the West, who do not know what their life could possibly look like in the absence of government money.
They don't know. They have no comprehension.
They have no exposure to the market.
They have no experience with employment.
They have no skill set for dealing with this.
And again, talking about the rich as well, who have been ensconced within the electric fences of state power for their profits for a long time.
Among the rich, one of the great fears is that the government is going to stop forcing people to invest in the stock market through saying, well, you invest in the stock market or I'm taking your money in taxes.
Imagine what will happen to share prices if people are no longer herded at gunpoint, or their money is herded at gunpoint into the stock market.
It would have been horrifying.
Redistribution of value.
So, that is the existential fear that is occurring.
That is the existential fear that is occurring.
That people no longer know or no longer believe that they can function in a free market.
It becomes so dependent, multi-generationally dependent, On state power.
And anyone who comes along and talks about diminishing state power and expanding free market opportunities is going to reveal that dependence, is going to reveal that addiction.
And the society is going to stage an intervention.
And people don't even know what that looks like in their lives.
And they will do almost anything to keep that from manifesting.
So I hope that this helps you understand one of the reasons why I really wanted to point out why radical redistributionist ideas came around just at the time when sexual market value and wealth was widening.
And it is an attempt to close that gap and to maintain the sexual market value of the less competent classes.
I mean, look at single moms, right?
This is some fairly significant arguments that peg single mom IQ in the 90s, low 90s too.
Okay. If you are a woman who has less intelligence than the average, at least for Caucasians, and you have a child or two without the fathers around, your sexual market value is negative almost to the extreme.
Now, You can overcome that if you want.
You can be such a wonderful girlfriend and wife and just friend that you can overcome that, but that takes a significant effort of will and humility and a service of your partner that, we'll talk about feminism another time, but Look at that situation.
Now, the reason why single moms flourish is because they're paid to flourish, and they're paid to not have a father in the picture.
And because we have turned, through the welfare state, children from liabilities into assets, because you get paid for the more children that you have.
And when we take something that is a liability and turn it into an asset, well, we saw what happened with the housing.
Crisis, right? Houses are liabilities and kind of necessary.
They don't make money, but they provide shelter and they consume resources.
We've turned them from liabilities into assets through mass immigration, which drives out the price of real estate through money printing and all of that.
And so if you look at these kinds of situations, I mean, look at professors in universities, look at the massive expansion of administrators.
Like I was just talking to a guy from New York University.
They have 50,000 students and 10,000 administrators.
I mean, it's insane. All of that is driven by massive propaganda about go to college.
All of that is driven because employers are not allowed to run IQ tests on potential employees, which will tell you a lot more, a lot more about how successful employees are going to be, much more so than some stinky old degree from a Marxist paper mill.
So you have this massive subsidy.
You have governments guaranteeing loans, making student loans, massive subsidies to the intellectual classes.
It's just astonishing.
Even things like the FCC providing licenses to media stations provides a massive monopoly, which is being broken slowly by the internet and quality programs like this.
So I think that is what is going on with people's hatred of Donald Trump.
Now, of course, he is a white male, and people have been taught for the last 50 years to have this relentless, bottomless, vicious, sexist, and racist hatred towards white males, and he is definitely in that ilk.
But look at the competence of people dependent on state protection, state money, state monopolies, both rich, middle class, and poor.
Mostly the rich and the poor and middle class don't generally pay in their tax livestock.
and look at what the left is saying about Donald Trump and the fears that people have is a fear of the loss of resources which is always deep down in our genetics something we are very concerned about and what their lives will look like in the absence of the drug a fiat currency and what happens when the government runs out of money now Donald Trump,
of course, the goal, I believe, is to stimulate the free market and then slowly transition people to working rather than be dependent on the state, and maybe there's a way to have a soft landing to this, but that may require a lot more competence in the general population than it currently possesses, having been so propagandized by soft, gooey leftism in the schools and then Marxism in the universities.
I hope that helps. James, let me know if this answers any questions should you get through to the end of this.
But seriously, man, King Lear, think about it.
Stefan Molyneux, Freedomain, thank you so much.
Please help out the show if you find these analyses helpful and useful.
