Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

April 6, 2018 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux

02:28:10

4049 Avoiding Sexual Danger - Call In Show - March 31st, 2018

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hey everybody, Stefan Molyneux.
	Hope you're doing well. Question.
	You want your kid to be responsible romantically and sexually.
	How do you raise a child to make good decisions in the dating arena?
	Great, great question. Second caller.
	Sweden. That's really all that needs to be said.
	It's a great conversation. The third caller.
	It was a woman, she's a widow, and she's having lots of conflicts with her son, who's 14, and wants to know what can be done about it.
	And naturally, of course, we looked at the deep roots, and I think we became less friendly and then more friendly.
	It was quite the roller coaster. I think you'll see why.
	And the fourth caller wanted to talk about the mouse utopia experiments, which are absolutely fascinating in the questions that they raise around human success and what it means to survive.
	Plenty in a human society.
	Great, great set of callers.
	Thank you, of course, everyone so much for your support of the show.
	Freedomainradio.com slash donate.
	Please remember to pick up your copy of The Art of the Argument at theartoftheargument.com.
	You can follow me on Twitter at Stefan Molyneux.
	You can sign up for the newsletter because you never know what's going to happen at freedomainradio.com.
	And you can use our affiliate link if you've got some shopping to do.
	Really appreciate it. FDRURL.com slash Amazon.
	Alright, up first today we have Roberta.
	Roberta wrote in and said, In light of all the stories people share with you about the mess their lives are in because of how they chose their sexual partners, and also all the information you shared in the video, The Truth About Sex, how would you, as a father, approach this subject, encouraging your child to be wise in his or her choices and even possibly waiting for marriage?
	That's from Roberta.
	Hey Roberta, how are you doing tonight?
	Good, how are you Stefan?
	I'm well, thanks. Do you have an immediate crisis, or is this largely theoretical?
	No, no, no immediate crisis.
	My child is still very young.
	Just in general, because I've made my choices based on religious, you know...
	I waited for marriage, but my motive was mainly religious.
	But I am interested in figuring out a way when my child is old enough to give her reasoning and not just a biblical reason for waiting or Even if she decides not to wait, but to make wise choices on that matter.
	Right. Well, I'll tell you my approach to it.
	This may be a few minutes, and then hopefully it will make sense to you from there.
	So my approach goes something like this.
	Education about sexuality and love and commitment and marriage and all of that begins very early on.
	And by that, what I mean is, you first of all, you don't want to give rules, you want to give examples.
	Right. So, for instance, when you're trying to teach a kid grammar, you don't go over all the abstract rules first.
	You just engage with them in a conversational tone.
	They learn English and then they extract the rules in a sense from the language that you are giving them.
	So you give examples and only then later do you give rules and then the rules organize the examples.
	That they have ahead of time.
	So when it comes to, say, sexuality, to love, to commitment and so on, then what you want, of course, to provide your children is an example of a happy, functional, productive, positive marital relationship.
	So your relationship with your husband, your relationship with your wife, you want it to be very nice and positive and helpful and all of that so that they see that.
	And that raises their standards because that is not sadly at the moment the norm these days in life, to put it mildly.
	So you provide them all of that.
	You show them love, consistency, integrity, virtue, courage, all of the positive virtues.
	And then they will be drawn to those people in the same way that if you teach them English and you drop them in Japan and they don't know any Japanese they will naturally gravitate towards people who speak English because they don't speak the other language.
	So you provide to them or for them The example of a healthy functioning relationship, you talk to them about red flags when they get older, because they're going to have red flags with friendships, right?
	They're going to get involved with friendships, then either at the time or maybe after the fact, if things go wrong, you look back and say, okay, well, what were the red flags that we could have noticed ahead of time with this kind of stuff?
	So there's lots of ways in which you can provide them the judgment, the discernment I guess the prejudice, the discriminatory capacity to make sure that they're in productive and healthy relationships.
	Now, as far as the rule goes, that is sort of another question and another issue.
	I have not found it very helpful to provide rules.
	Now that doesn't mean that I don't provide suggestions, guidelines, and consequences.
	But if a child just follows rules, let's say the child says, well, I'm not going to have sex before I get married when the child gets older.
	Well, that's a rule. And there's no particular understanding in any of that.
	There's no understanding of the virtues and values.
	And we can talk with kids about the more people you kiss before you get married, the less likely you are to stay married.
	And all of that data, you can talk about kissing, of course, rather than sex long before you start talking about sexuality with your kids.
	But I have found that if you live the kind of relationship that you want your children to have, I mean, if my daughter ends up with the kind of marriage that my wife and I have, I almost don't care how she gets there.
	And I know that there's certain ways to get there and certain ways not to get there.
	But if you provide the consistent example, if you teach them how to be streetwise in terms of relationships and what red flags to look for, what to avoid, I think that's the very best that you can do.
	And I try not to substitute rules for examples.
	If I want my child to follow a particular pattern of behavior, I model it myself and If need be, I will talk to her about the rules behind it, but that would be my approach.
	What do you think? I agree with you.
	That's the part of the relationship.
	That's how I try to make her see it.
	My husband and I, we have a great relationship.
	We've been married for a little over 10 years now.
	Our child's only five.
	She's very young for that, but it just scares me how the world goes.
	About sexuality nowadays.
	I mean, it was hard for me when I was a teenager.
	That was not a very long time ago.
	I didn't have many role models on that area around me.
	But yeah, that's one thing that I want for her.
	I hope that she can find somebody, that she can have a relationship like I have with my husband.
	Hopefully, she will still have that relationship 15 years from now and she'll still be able to use as a mirror.
	Well, yeah, because this is the big challenge, right?
	As I'm sure you're aware, this is the very, very big challenge.
	You want your children to grow up safe, secure, and happy, but you don't want them to grow up blind to the dangers of the world.
	Yes, definitely not.
	At the same time, you don't want to inflict the dangers of the world on them.
	Mm-hmm. So you want them to, you know, if you grew up with a kid in a city, you don't have to teach them a lot about bears.
	Mm-hmm. But you also don't want to teach them about bears if you feel you have to by dropping them into a bear enclosure at the zoo.
	Mm-hmm. So this is the big challenge.
	You want, you really, really want your children to grow up safe, secure, and happy, but they must know about the dangers in the world.
	Otherwise, they're going to be naive.
	And naive is extraordinarily dangerous.
	Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm.
	And it's extremely hard.
	It's almost a paradox.
	Completely opposite. As a parent, you want to protect and shelter, but you can't.
	Well, no. See, as a mom, you want to protect and shelter, right?
	The job of the dad, in general, the job of the dad is to make sure the child, not that the child is protected when the child is young, but that the child is protected when the child is older.
	Mm-hmm. Right? Because when you are a mom and you have toddlers in the house, you have to be constantly alert.
	That's why women, I think, are a little bit better at multitasking.
	You have to be constantly alert at who's got a fork, who's near the stove.
	You know, you have to constantly be alert and aware of this stuff.
	And it's the job of the moms to keep the kids safe when they're little, and it's the job of the dads to keep the kids safe when they're older.
	And keeping the kids safe when they're older means accepting more risk when they're young.
	Mm-hmm. And that challenge, that balance in society has gone completely haywire since we've had basically a female estrogen-based conveyor belt attempting to deliver children to adulthood in some sort of sane fashion, which has not worked out very well at all.
	So yeah, you do want your kids to be safe.
	And that means that they need to be exposed to some risk and know about some dangers when they're younger so they don't wander into the woods, you know, full of human predators when they get older.
	Mm-hmm. But if you are modeling a great relationship with your husband, I think you'll have the best shot as a whole of having your children grow up to have almost automatically to have the kind of relationship that you treasure with your husband.
	Yeah, I agree.
	Maybe I'm a little bit paranoid, like I said, she's too young, but it's something that I think constantly because, well, I see, I hear all the stories, you know, I watch your shows and some of the crazy situations that those people have put themselves into because of unwise choices that they made.
	And, you know, even contacts with the younger people and the stories they tell me about the choices they are making.
	They're completely unwise and it's hard.
	It's almost like Sometimes I struggle.
	My daughter, she's going to kindergarten still.
	But I wonder if I should just, you know, homeschool her.
	But at the same time, I feel like that's the mama bear.
	Oh, she's not going to public school at all.
	Yeah. But...
	Keep an eye.
	Keep an eye on things.
	Yes. For sure. The other thing too, of course, if you have a daughter...
	Then it's important.
	Like, if you have a lot of money, then you could say to your kids, some people might like you just because your family has money.
	And if you have a daughter in particular, and if your son's good looking as well, I mean, that's important.
	But you got to say to your daughter, hey, there'll be boys who want to kiss you just because you're pretty.
	They don't care about you.
	They care about kissing you.
	And to be aware...
	Particularly with attractive daughters, with pretty daughters, you need to teach them about the power that they have accidentally inherited.
	There's this Incredibles 3 trailer where the dad picks up the kid and the baby has lasers for eyes and just shoots them all over the place and burns down his hair and stuff like that.
	You have a superpower!
	You have powers!
	It's like, yes, that's true.
	And the girls in particular, they grow up with powers.
	They grow up with the power of high sexual market value as the result of youth and attractiveness and all of that.
	And so from early on, teaching girls in particular to be wary of that power, to be aware that the world will try to assign them value for things that they did not earn.
	And there's almost no better way of controlling us than to get us to ego invest in a value we did not earn.
	You know, whether that's nation or race or religion or beauty or you name it, right?
	You didn't earn this.
	The question is...
	If you can assign value to yourself based upon things that you do earn, courage, integrity, truth, honor, and so on, that's great.
	So, reminding girls, in particular, of the fact that they will have value because they're young and pretty, and to not take that as personal virtue or value is very, very important.
	Then they'll be less susceptible to that kind of flattery and manipulation.
	Mm-hmm. And how about boys?
	I mean, in this age where boys can get in trouble, you know, when anything is rape now, you know, I wonder about how to, it's almost, sometimes I just think about, maybe if I ever have a son, I would just say, don't have sex with any girl in college.
	Well, don't go to college unless you absolutely have to, for sure.
	But yeah, listen, hopefully by the time your kids grow up, these problems will all be solved.
	See, sexual licentiousness is like physical gorging on food.
	It's fun, but it doesn't last.
	And cultures throughout history have tried sexual licentiousness.
	Let's just take off all sexual restraint.
	Oh, it's all prudery, it's all Victorian, right?
	They have tried this repeatedly.
	And certainly, I would say within the next 10 to 15 years, maybe 20 on the outside, but probably shorter, sexual morality is coming back.
	And it may be coming back through Sharia, it may be coming back through some sort of horrifying sexually transmitted disease, it may be coming back as a result of the economic collapse of the welfare state, it may be coming back as a wide variety of things, maybe some combination or something else which is unexpected.
	And so, sexual morality is coming back.
	It's, you know, like if you gorge, you know, when Katie Hopkins, the British reporter I just talked to, she did this experiment where she gained like 50 pounds and then just lost it to show that fat people could lose weight if they wanted.
	Her argument was that they didn't want to enough or were lazy or whatever.
	And so she ate like 6,000 calories a day.
	Now you can do that. You can, okay, I'm going to take away all of my food restraint.
	Because in general, we all want to eat more than we want in the moment because we evolved to not know exactly where our next meal was coming from, particularly true in northern climates.
	And so if you gorge, say, I'm not going to have any food restraint anymore.
	I'm just going to eat and eat and eat whatever I want.
	No exercise. Okay, well, you can do that and then you're going to die young.
	Most likely. And sexual licentiousness is kind of the same way.
	A culture can do it, then it just has an early heart attack, or a stroke, or diabetes, or something like that, and you just run out of steam.
	And the sexual licentiousness stuff has been going on now 40-50 years.
	Because it's never lasted this long, because we were never this wealthy before we tried the experiment.
	And so they tried it in ancient Rome, and it destroyed the Apoclesis, and they tried it in the French Revolution, they tried it in a wide variety of places.
	It just destroys everything.
	Sexual licentiousness, it destroys families, it destroys fatherhood in particular, it destroys the economics of the nation, because once you destroy the family, then the single moms roam across hyena style, the financial landscape of the culture, eating anything that moves.
	And so... Hopefully, I mean, not even hopefully, it can't possibly last.
	And by the time your son, if you have a son, by the time he grows up, sexual morality, sexual restraint is...
	And this is already starting to happen.
	Because in college, boys don't want to ask out girls.
	They don't want to buy... I think?
	Before there was the internet, it was bad enough.
	But now that there's the internet, I mean, that stuff just stays.
	It used to be the old saying, today's newspaper is tomorrow's fish wrapper, or today's newspaper is tomorrow's birdcage lining.
	But now today's newspaper is a permanent tattoo on your head.
	And so sexual restraint is coming back.
	The Me Too movement means that men no longer want to be alone with women in professional circumstances.
	They don't want to travel with women. So it's coming back to some degree.
	But... The mad sexual, insatiable sexual lusts of the R-selected human being, yeah, it lays waste to civilization, and then there's a backlash.
	And so I wouldn't worry too much about all of that kind of stuff, because there's enough stories out there now, and enough men are aware of just how dangerous sexual licentiousness is, that it's in the process of resolving itself.
	I sure hope so.
	If... It's just scary to think about.
	A few years back I worked with this girl.
	She was just 19 and she was commenting with me that in her high school she was only one of the few The few girls that she could count in one hand that was not pregnant by graduation.
	Sure. Sure.
	Well, you know, funny enough, you pay women for having babies.
	You get a lot of babies.
	Not that complicated, right?
	So... Yeah, it's a shame.
	I mean, why cross your legs when opening your legs opens up the fire hose of money, so to speak?
	I mean, that just makes sense.
	Particularly if they're not smart women, then they face a life of either subjugation to a guy who's not so smart, because a smart man won't want to marry them, or a life of sort of dull jobs and dumb jobs and so on.
	And so, yeah, open your legs, have a baby, and get paid.
	It's just that I think we see so much...
	Glamourization, if that's the word, in the media with MTV shows like 16 and With Babies, shows like that.
	I think just in general, you see a lot on TV where there are too many young moms or just young kids having sex.
	No, dumb kids having sex.
	Smart women are encouraged not to have sex in the media, right?
	Because for the state, like for the left in particular, they need smart women to work so that smart women will produce tax revenue, which they can then use to take from smart people and give to dumb people to breed, so that dumb people will then end up dependent on the state and vote for more and more and bigger and bigger government.
	So it's just important to be specific about what you're talking about, that It's the dumb people who are encouraged to have kids and the smart women are encouraged to pursue their career because somebody's got to grow the crops if you want to hand them out.
	All right, well, I hope that helps.
	I'm going to move on to the next caller, but yeah, don't worry so much.
	Society has a way of relining itself over the long run.
	It's not always pretty, but if you see it coming, you can avoid the worst of it.
	Yeah, thank you so much, Stefan.
	I appreciate it. You're welcome. Right up next we have Niminja, he wrote in and said, I'm an 18-year-old Serbian male who has been living in Sweden since I was three years old.
	Because I was raised in a Serbian fashion by my parents and not in a Swedish way, there are glaring differences between the basic thinking of my Swedish peers and myself on matters of family life, in-group preference, and nation.
	I'm interested in why these differences exist in the first place, and most importantly, how they have contributed to the demographic and cultural mess in which Sweden is currently in.
	What values, exactly, do you think have led this once glorious and culturally rich nation into such an obviously destructive trajectory without massive outrage from the native population?
	That's from Nimaja, whose name I'm sure I just butchered.
	How we doing on the name there?
	It's close. It's Nemanja.
	Nemanja. Nemanja. Yeah.
	Pretty close for a white guy.
	Yeah. Yeah, it's a mess in Sweden.
	And I'm not going to give a very detailed history because it's a call-in show.
	I may do one, you know, for the research that I did on this show, or for this show.
	I won't give you the big detail, but suffice to say...
	That the intellectual battles not fought by the first generation must be fought physically by the second generation.
	And the intellectual battles going on in Sweden all occurred in the 60s, the 70s, maybe into the early 80s.
	When Marxists, and particularly cultural Marxists, and particularly cultural Marxists of the Frankfurt School...
	It infiltrated Sweden.
	They came in through the media.
	They came in through academia.
	They came in through the entertainment industry.
	In general, wherever there were tax dollars going on, and same thing with the BBC, same thing to a lesser degree with the CBC in Canada, but wherever there are tax dollars, it attracts socialists like crazy, because the government pays the piper, therefore the government, and the state calls the tune as a whole.
	And so in Sweden in the 60s and the 70s and into the early 80s, yeah, you had massive political parties saying that whites are racist and there's no such thing as gender and all cultures are equal and you should have no pride in your history and you should destroy everything in your past and you should be starting from scratch and any form of preference for your own culture,
	your own country, your own people, your own history, Is a form of bigotry and racism and bigotry are the greatest and most horrifying sins known to mankind.
	And it got to the point where Sweden was even destroying its Viking artifacts because it so much wished to erase its history.
	And this is not singular to Sweden as a whole.
	Because when China had its great cultural revolution, they targeted what they called the Four Olds.
	So they wanted to destroy old customs, old culture, old habits, and old ideas.
	Sure, if you want to build a new house, you generally destroy, and there's a house there, you have to destroy not just the house, but its foundations as well.
	And so this idea is that if we get rid of everything old, we start with a blank slate, we can create an entirely new human being, and...
	It's false. Now, at the same time, of course, they talk about multiculturalism, and what that means is that people will hold on to their own cultures while attempting to jostle in a state with the capacity to redistribute trillions of dollars.
	People will jostle around within that state trying to gain control of it, but they're going to stay in their old cultures.
	Because it's not like everyone who comes to Sweden gets exactly the same skin, hair color, some Star Trek-style unitard, and is no longer allowed to have any preference for their own culture, right?
	They come and they build their mosques, And they come and build their mosques, and sometimes they will come and build mosques.
	So, it is something which had a huge amount of intellectual history.
	Sweden did not emerge out of nothing.
	These disasters go back many, many decades.
	And Sweden's, of course, involvement in the destruction of South Africa was not...
	Inconsequential as well and was a terrible and sinful enterprise of which, you know, 70,000 whites have paid for with their lives and now whites live like caged animals in the country and are facing the government approval of the stealing of their historical lands going back Hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of years without any compensation.
	And they'll be herded into these squatter camps where they will either expire explicitly or implicitly through overt or covert mechanisms.
	And so Sweden...
	Allowed for the infiltration of the Marxists.
	Sweden allowed for the infiltration of the cultural Marxists, who basically understood and were focused on destroying all distinguishing characteristics between human beings, ethnicities and genders and so on, and cultures.
	And then, of course, if they wish to tax you to replace you, Then if you object to that, you are a racist and they will destroy your life.
	That's sort of the idea.
	That's the goal. And so because Western intellectuals weren't willing to fight the battle they needed to fight in the 1960s and the 1970s, it seems likely that the next generation will have to fight pitch battles in the streets.
	Because if you can't stop evil with ideas, well, you have to move on to other mechanisms.
	So it was all perfectly predictable.
	And it was all like...
	Watching a boulder slowly roll down a long, giant, slow hill, you can move your car, but if you don't and it hits it, you can't say, well, that boulder came out of nowhere.
	This was coming down the pipe for decade after decade after decade, and the boomers just didn't.
	Lift a finger to stop it.
	In fact, they often got behind and pushed and accelerated it.
	And I don't know, boomers, so manipulative.
	I just wanted to mention something that I thought was interesting.
	I put a video out about old age pensions and so on, and the boomers are all writing in the comments, well, we were forced to pay into social security.
	We were forced to pay into pension plans.
	It wasn't our fault.
	We were forced to We didn't choose it.
	We didn't want it. We were forced to do it.
	So now the money should come back to us.
	That is such a load of crap, I gotta tell you.
	Oh, it's true that they were forced.
	Don't get me wrong. I understand how the state works.
	But here's why it's total crap.
	You see, when I was growing up, and I said to the boomers, taxation is forced, you know what they said?
	Oh, no. It's a social contract, man.
	You participating, man.
	You vote, man.
	You can change things.
	It's up to you. It's not forced.
	Taxation isn't forced.
	You're a participant! And if you don't like it, you can leave!
	And so, when I pointed out that taxation was forced, since I was about 16 and on, I was always told by the boomers, that's absolutely wrong.
	The government is not forced.
	Taxation is not forced. It's a democracy.
	It represents the will of the people.
	You're participating. There's a social contract.
	So it's not forced. But now, you see...
	That I point out that they're responsible for voting in and maintaining the retirement schemes that were never funded.
	Now suddenly, hey man, they're not responsible because the state is forced.
	Oh my gosh.
	Alive people. Oh, it's so predictable.
	Boomers! About as shocking as sunrise.
	Anyway, go on. Yeah.
	Why do you think people went along with...
	With that sort of propaganda, why were the boomers specifically susceptible to the lies perpetrated by Marxists back in the 60s?
	Because I've seen documentaries about the boomer generation in Sweden and in other places as well, and they were really, in quite large numbers, bought into Marxism.
	Why did they all of a sudden accept it, do you think?
	Why did they accept Marxism?
	Well, I don't know that they accepted Marxism, but this is the way...
	Let me rip the lid off.
	This is going to be important for people as a whole, and I really, really appreciate you bringing this point up.
	So here's the way it works.
	Philosophy does not occur at the realm of academia.
	It does not occur at the realm of movies.
	It does not occur in the realm of propaganda or in education or in anything like that.
	Here's where philosophy occurs.
	Philosophy occurs in the realm of conversations you have with your friends and your family and your colleagues and your customers and people you meet on the subway and people you meet on vacation.
	That is where philosophy occurs.
	Philosophy occurs...
	In every single little decision that you make to either tell the truth or to lie, thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor, thy children, thy culture, thy future, thy ancestors.
	And philosophy occurs Every time someone comes up and says, all cultures are equal, do you stand there and say, I don't believe that's true, and here's why?
	Or would you like to make that case?
	Every time somebody says, diversity is a strength, do you say, what's the evidence behind that?
	What proof do you have that that is even remotely true?
	When people come up and they say, there's no difference between the races in terms of IQ, say, ah, Well, how do you contradict nearly a century of data and expertise and so on, right?
	When people come up and say, well, Islam is the religion of peace, you say, ah, okay, well, what do you know about Islam?
	What do you know about its founder?
	What do you know about how it expanded?
	What do you know about its potential body count?
	And it is humiliating people who are mouthing platitudes if they won't change their ways.
	It is pushing back, and that is where philosophy occurs.
	Philosophy occurs in every tiny, powerful, immense, positive conversation that you can have regarding the truth.
	Now, this doesn't mean, I have to say this, of course, you don't...
	Philosophy isn't like Indiana Jones and you're like that bald German guy that he pushes into a propeller blade, right?
	I mean, you don't let philosophy destroy your life.
	You have prudence, right?
	But prudence doesn't mean constant surrender.
	And so the information, for instance, regarding race and IQ was published in the late 1960s by Sir Arthur, sorry, not Sir Arthur, Arthur Jensen.
	I'm thinking of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, I think, because I'm just reading a Sherlock Holmes book on the side.
	But anyway... So, Arthur Jensen, a respected academic, published this information, I think it was 1969, and it was available.
	And lots of people were out there with access to that information in academia, in the media, and so on, because people showed up to protest and so on.
	So, were those little battles fought then that could have saved things?
	If you look back at Enoch Powell's rivers of blood speech that postponed the third world immigration policies by a couple of decades, if you look at someone like Senator Eugene McCarthy, I've got a whole presentation called The Truth About McCarthyism.
	His courage to stand up and speak the truth pushed off the infiltration of communists into America by a generation or so, which is why America is not as far down the road as Europe.
	It comes down to one person Who brings some illumination to a topic, and then you see it's up to each individual person to make that courageous stand.
	You don't have to do it online.
	I understand that.
	You can do that in face-to-face conversations.
	I don't know if anywhere in Europe you can get reported for a hate crime for stating scientific facts in a private conversation.
	I don't know because I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure.
	They say, well, I can't post online.
	Okay, but you can talk. Individually, you can bring these things up and you can keep the conversation open.
	And so, everyone thinks that philosophy is like some big giant dragon.
	No, it may look like a big giant dragon, but it's actually a bunch of tiny little starlings that are all flying around and negotiating and flowing back and forth in front of each other and communicating that way.
	And so when you say, well, the boomers, what made them so particularly susceptible to these issues?
	Well, the boomers had a choice.
	Truth, hedonism.
	Truth, hedonism. Truth, hedonism.
	This is what we always have. Do I wish to speak the truth and be uncomfortable in the moment and save the future?
	Or do I wish to lie, to obfuscate, to lie by omission or by commission, have a more comfortable moment and destroy the future?
	And the boomers were raised with this hypnotic Gratification now.
	Hope I die before I get old.
	Gratification now. And now they had the choice.
	They had the choice.
	They could say, okay, well, so women want to be equal.
	And then the 1960s that went very quickly from the feminism of the 50s to in the 1960s, it went to the government getting involved in negotiating on behalf of women.
	Now, Can you control what the government does?
	Well, no, not directly, but what you can do is always talk about the facts of the matter, the facts of the situation.
	There were studies in the 1960s already that men and women's brains were different.
	There was, of course, the basic reality that women generally, and certainly in the past, have children, breastfeed, are unavailable to work.
	And so every single time that topic comes up, Do you say, here are some facts.
	Why is there a wage gap?
	Someone says, oh, well, there's a wage gap because of sexism.
	You can say, oh, well, what is the proof?
	And they're going to get mad. They're going to call you a sexist.
	Okay. And you can back down if you want, and then you destroy the future and your children may know war.
	Sorry, that's not my fault.
	That's just a fact of history.
	There used to be an old saying, I would like there to be war in my time so that my children might know peace.
	Now we're just talking about a war of social comfort.
	We're talking about a war of words, which is not a war at all.
	And so it's not that the boomers were particularly susceptible to propaganda, because every generation is fairly susceptible to propaganda.
	It's just that they were sold and they bought the lie that you should always seek individual comfort in the moment and avoid discomfort in the moment, which has sold out the future.
	Because all of this stuff, all of this cultural Marxism, the Frankfurt School, the political correctness, the hysteria, the anti-science, anti-reality, anti-fact, anti-objectivity movement...
	Is impossible to stop now, but it certainly would have been possible to stop and relatively easy to stop in the 60s, the 70s, 80s, up until the early to mid-90s.
	Now, by the time the early to mid-90s came along, then you had a whole bunch of hyper-lefty, hyper-social-justice-warriery, hyper-deconstructivist, hyper-postmodern professors in particular who had embedded themselves in the university and who...
	We had tenure and were basically immovable.
	Then what could have happened, of course, is people could have turned towards not going to university.
	People could have said, well, I don't want to go to university because they're teaching me that there's no such thing as truth.
	So why on earth would I pay $200,000 in tuition, books, Room and board and lost wages.
	Why would I want to pay two to three hundred thousand dollars to tell me for someone to teach me that there's no such thing as truth?
	I could learn that right now.
	There's no such thing as truth.
	Hey man, how would you like for just to pay me a quarter million dollars to tell you there's no such thing as a unicorn?
	Does that seem like a good deal to you?
	So these battles could have been fought in the past and I've been thinking about this a lot in terms of multiculturalism like when I was a kid Just as I was leaving England, there were a massive swarm of people coming in from overseas, from India, from Africa and other places.
	And actually, very shortly before I left for Canada for the last time, I was mugged by a group of black youths who were very merry about it and very funny about it and very positive about it, but very firm about it.
	And we went to the police and the police said they'd like to work on it, but they couldn't if we were going to Canada.
	So I was 11 years old.
	I mean, I couldn't really fight anything.
	I couldn't really say, well, this is a bad immigration policy or, you know, I mean, I was 11 or what did I know?
	But there were, of course, people who were older and those people cucked out.
	They decided to say, well, we're going to appease in the moment and not experience any discomfort in the moment.
	And they're probably going to get away with it.
	Because it is their children and their grandchildren who were left with the oncoming horror show.
	Saying the boomers, why were they particularly susceptible?
	Well, they were told lies, they were told falsehoods, they were Given bad information, let's say.
	And there were other people striving to give them good information.
	There were lots of people studying this race and IQ stuff.
	I mean, certainly after the early 90s, when Murray and Herrnstein's The Bell Curve came out, there was no excuse to not know any of this stuff.
	And everyone's just like, I don't want to say it.
	I don't want to talk about it.
	Oh, that's uncomfortable. Oh, that's a problem.
	Oh, that's bad. Okay, well...
	So you guys can avoid and you can bear false witness and everyone else has to pick up the damn pieces afterwards.
	That's my thoughts. Are you still on?
	Alright, I guess we'll have to move on to the next caller.
	I hope that answered your question.
	Okay, up next we have Grace.
	Grace wrote in and said,"...I am a single mom, widowed for more than 10 years, living in Australia with my daughter, 18 years old, and my son, 14 years old.
	I acknowledge struggles as a single mom, but not as bad as now, as my son has started to become so readily irritated." Somehow I feel a sense of helplessness.
	I am deeply torn between being a soft, loving, and caring mom or a hard, disciplinary, and authoritative dad.
	We recently have had a number of rough patches and I lost my temper twice, ending up shouting at him and even swearing at him.
	I felt so guilty and awful and ashamed afterwards.
	Can you give me your personal wisdom and advise me on how to juggle the role of dad and mom?
	That's from Grace. Grace, how are you doing?
	Hi Sven, very well.
	Yourself? Well, what happened to your husband?
	Oh, he passed away with leukemia.
	Oh boy, I'm sorry to hear about that.
	So, I mean, technically you're a widow, not a single mom.
	A single mom, usually there's some ownership that a single mom gets divorced or never marries the husband or whatever.
	So you're a widow, which is very different from being a single mom.
	I just want to make sure we have that.
	Thank you for clarifying it.
	Because each time in your show or others in the media talking about single mom, it seems like a very, I wouldn't use stigmatized or very provocative term now.
	Yeah, well, single moms want to blend into widowhood for obvious reasons because we have a lot of sympathy for widows, not so much for single moms.
	Okay. Thank you for clarifying it.
	Sure, no problem. Now, do you mind if I ask you, Grace, what is a conflict or the conflict that led to that kind of conflict with your son?
	What was the issue? It was like three weeks ago while I messaged, emailed your Freedom Radio show.
	And it felt like a crisis back then.
	And it's just...
	I guess the events were not that major.
	It's just a typical...
	I wanted to...
	I'm juggling with wanting to be more independent while I still want to nurture him as a little boy.
	And he...
	Oh, by the way, he's not aggressive, irritated.
	Irritated, sorry, yeah. He was readily to be irritated.
	He's not an aggressive boy at all.
	He's a very gentle boy.
	And it's just probably he wanted to be more independent while I am not ready.
	I don't know. It's just I wanted him to take on more chores around the house and I want him to thrive more academically.
	And I guess he doesn't like me to nag him to hovering around him.
	Yeah, he said he knows what to do and it's just the balance.
	I was struggling.
	And what do you feel, Grace, when you think about giving him more liberty?
	I feel like a little bit of fear, like what your first column mentioned about the fear of all the influences of the society and a little bit of value mishmash everywhere.
	It's a bit hard to instill my family value, what I value in life, into their generation, into my own son.
	As the society and all the other kind of blurred, anything subjective thing influenced them a lot.
	I'm just not so sure about...
	I don't want to be an authoritarian mum, yet I want him to have liberty, like you mentioned, and freedom to think for himself.
	That's a bit of a long walk around the garden.
	Let me ask you this.
	Other than, of course, the terrible tragedy of your husband dying, for which I have huge sympathy, Grace, is there anything looking back that you would do differently or would have done differently?
	I wouldn't.
	No, I wouldn't do anything different.
	If I could do differently, probably I wouldn't give up my work as full-time work.
	But even that, I wasn't sure because I do want to give them more time instead of pursuing my career.
	But as you mentioned, children growing up, looking up a role model, I'm a little bit even scared in terms of that.
	I give up my career, and there's no full-time work father there to him as a boy to look upon.
	So I'm even scared of that.
	But I wouldn't say I would change.
	I would do differently because I did...
	Spent a lot of time with them and devoted more to them.
	So you did give up your career, is that right?
	I gave up my first career in banking because it involved a lot of traveling and a lot of long hours work.
	And what did you do instead?
	I went back to university, did the psychology and social work.
	And that's what you became?
	Yeah, I'm a qualified social worker.
	And how did you pay for that?
	But I don't want... Oh yeah, because I worked in finance for more than 15 years, and my late husband was in the same industry, so we're financially quite well off, yeah.
	Oh, okay, good, good. Well, that certainly gives you some choices and options.
	Yeah, I guess if he had some insurance too.
	Exactly. Yeah, that kind of gave another challenge about in terms of how do you, because we're a quite affluent family, how do you Make the kids to value the money, not value the money, to have the right concept about money.
	Because I really value thriving and work hard for your dream and stuff like that.
	But it seems a lot of the Western kind of value is as long as the kids are happy.
	They can change and they can choose it.
	I don't agree with that. I mean, as long as the kids are happy.
	That's the hedonism that I was talking about earlier.
	Like, ooh, life's just all about happiness.
	And talk about chasing a ghost off a cliff.
	I mean, you can't chase happiness any more than you can chase health.
	You can do particular actions that are likely to result in health and or some sense of well-being.
	But happiness, I don't know.
	It's like meaning.
	It's one of these ghosts that people chase and never catch.
	So, let me ask you this, and you did fill out your adverse childhood experience score, Grace, and the one that struck me was molestation, sex, or rape.
	Is that when you were little?
	Oh, yeah.
	I was just, yeah, just in proper touch.
	And what happened? I guess mom and dad divorced.
	And, yeah, mom's boyfriend.
	Probably that's why I'm so reluctant to have a man in my life.
	And what happened with your mom's boyfriend?
	Oh, it touched me improperly.
	Did that go on for a while, or was it a one-time thing?
	A couple of times.
	And did you ever tell your mom?
	Later on. Quite late.
	Mum has always been a happy and jolly and romantic person.
	My biological dad is a very stern, military and Marxist man.
	I've never been available to her, so I can't understand.
	She pursued her way of having boyfriends.
	I didn't want to Make her upset?
	You didn't want to upset your mother with the fact that her boyfriend was touching you?
	Yep. And you say that your mother was a happy, jolly, positive person?
	Yeah, yeah, very much so.
	But if somebody is happy and jolly and positive, what's wrong with telling that person?
	That their boyfriend is molesting you.
	Because if your mother has an excess, like you said you're a wealthy family, right?
	So Grace, if you get a $500 car bill for some reason, you can pay it, right?
	Because you have an excess, so to speak, of money relative to your needs, which is why you can take time off and go to school for psychology and social work and so on.
	And so if you have an access, you should be able to handle a bit of a burden, right?
	Like, you wouldn't go to the really rich person and say, oh, you know, your $500 bill for something with your tooth, or you've got to fix your tooth, or something's wrong with your car.
	And they would say, oh my, that's it!
	We're broke! That would be crazy.
	They can say, well, we have a lot of money, so we can handle some of that money going to some unknown thing.
	So if your mother has all this excess happiness in the same way that your family has all this excess money, what would be the problem with making her a little bit less happy in order to protect you because she already has an excess of happiness, which means she's got some to spend?
	Does that make sense? Yeah, of course.
	I like your analogy.
	I read your book, The Art of the Argument.
	I really, really enjoy your analogy.
	I was laughing sometimes.
	This is so hilarious. Especially the capitalism one.
	Yes, this won't be quite so hilarious, so let's not worry about my book, which I appreciate your kind words, but let's go to what was the problem?
	If your mother has an access of happiness, what's wrong with taking it a little bit away in order to protect you?
	Because you didn't know with this boyfriend how far it might go.
	You know now in hindsight, but you didn't know at the time.
	So what was the problem with interfering with your mother's excessive joy so that she could keep you safe?
	She saw... Look, she's also very emotional and quite a vulnerable person.
	Okay, so she's emotional.
	So that means that if she finds out later that you were molested and didn't even tell her, she's going to be crushed.
	So you wouldn't want her to feel bad that way, right?
	So that doesn't explain why you wouldn't tell her.
	Yeah, I choose to tell her because later on, because when I was doing a social worker, I had this supervisor.
	We did a little bit of psychoanalysis about my childhood.
	Then I got courage.
	Why didn't you tell her? How old were you when this happened, Grace?
	Twelve? Thirteen?
	Why didn't you tell her at the time?
	I think I told my grandma, because grandma was always there for me.
	I don't know whether my grandma told my mom or not.
	The point was that you had a molester in the house.
	Was he living with your mom?
	For a while. Okay, so you have a molester in the same house as the child he's molesting.
	The job, the first job, is to protect the child, right?
	And not just to protect you, but to protect all the other children that he's going to molest in the future.
	So, my question is, why didn't you tell your mother?
	And I say, oh, well, maybe my grandmother knew.
	Well, that's my question.
	If your grandmother knew, then she should have told your mom, and the guy should have been kicked out of the house, the police should have been called, your statements should have been taken, and something should have happened to this guy so he's not out there molesting other children for the last 30 years, right?
	Yeah. I understand what we're talking about, but you have to think it's back 30 years ago and it was in China.
	It was different. The police not usually intervene on family issues and stuff.
	It's a totally different law and order system.
	Was it not illegal to molest children in China 30 years ago?
	I guess most of the family would think it's humiliating.
	I wouldn't want to put it in the open, I would say.
	It's not that black and white.
	What's not that black and white? I would rather justice and being resorted back then.
	But no, it's complicated.
	What's complicated? In terms of family and harmony.
	But he wasn't family. No, he wasn't family.
	Although it would have consequence to my mom.
	Sure, but she chose him, you didn't, right?
	No, no.
	I mean, she chose to bring the molester into your environment, right?
	Oh, so she would be humiliated because her judgment would be in question?
	I don't think it's intently.
	It's without intention.
	I'm not sure what you mean.
	She didn't choose.
	She didn't know.
	Are you saying that somebody who's a child molester can present themselves as perfectly normal and there's no way to have any idea whatsoever?
	Those things happened, yeah.
	Even in my practice, yeah.
	Yeah. They're vulnerable women.
	Those are really single moms you talk about.
	What do you mean by vulnerable women?
	I guess they're not really a good judge of characters and they're very easy to be manipulated.
	If they were told, they were loved and they're believing so.
	They make themselves to believe so properly.
	So they have less agency or less responsibility because they're vulnerable?
	Yeah, I would put that away.
	Are you a feminist?
	No, I'm not.
	I'm guessing you're not because you're reducing female agency here, right?
	You mentioned about that, yeah.
	Funny, yeah. You know, most of social workers are, but yeah.
	There was a guy who was just sent down, he was sent to jail for 150 years for preying upon children.
	And he said that single moms, that's why you go to the single moms, because they're vulnerable, so to speak, they're easy to befriend, they're easy to manipulate, and they provide easy access.
	To pray, yeah. To children, which, you know, it has not escaped my attention that if you are a pedophile, you sure as heck would want to create A social environment with more and more single moms.
	This is how evil some of this stuff is.
	Because if you're a pedophile and there are a lot of dads around, well, the dads will probably be on to you.
	You've got no place in the household.
	It's not like there's just some guy the mom meets who's going to sleep over in the house.
	You need the dad to be out of the picture so you can slither in with the single mom and put your evil little squid tentacles on the children.
	So it's just by the by, I just wanted to point out that pedophiles really love the disintegration of the family.
	They really, really love the creation of the single mother welfare state because it opens up the portal for them to get at the children.
	From the hunting ground, yeah.
	And what did your mom say when you told her?
	She apologized and she said, can we move on?
	You turn out to be a great woman.
	And I didn't totally do a bad job.
	Yep. So she apologized and then said, can we move on?
	Yep. That's not really an apology, is it?
	Like, you get to move on when the person who has been wronged says you can move on, right?
	No, I think you move on, but you move on, you choose to move on.
	It's not punish the other person.
	Well, okay, I don't know what punish means in this situation.
	You're telling her that she failed to protect you and brought a pedophile into your house where he touched you inappropriately.
	So she was definitely, that was her doing.
	Now you say, well, she didn't know, she didn't know.
	Well, maybe you can vet more.
	That's all I'm saying. Or maybe you can have the kind of relationship where even if you decide not to go to the authorities, Lord, I don't know what the heck was going on legally in China 30 years ago, but at least you can go to your mom and say, this guy is a molester, get him out of the house.
	Right? So your mom not only brought this guy into the house, but didn't have the kind of relationship where you could tell her, listen, and there's a reason, there's a reason If you can't see the weakness in your mom, you can't see the strength in your son.
	This is all about your son, because this is your question, right?
	Strength, yeah. So if you can't see the weakness in your mom, you can't see the strength in your son.
	Could you elaborate a little more?
	What was your worst case scenario, Grace, if you were to have gone to your mother when you were 12 and said, this guy is molesting me?
	I was afraid I won't have a family.
	Why is that? I was afraid I would be ostracized.
	By your mother? But everybody will...
	Well, I think I was a troublemaker or something like that.
	Wait, this was China, not Saudi Arabia, right?
	Do I have that correct? I mean, Saudi Arabia will blame the victim.
	Oh, you don't know some Chinese family.
	It's like that too.
	But what if you were to just go to your mom and say privately, this guy's molesting me, you got to get him out of the house.
	And she's like, oh, you know, it's been fun, but we're breaking up.
	And even if you don't tell anyone, even if you don't protect the other kids, she can end that relationship without word getting out, right?
	So the problem is with your mom, not with society as a whole, because you could have kept this in the family, so to speak, right?
	Yeah, that's right, yeah.
	So, why not tell your mom?
	It can't be a larger social thing.
	It can't be... What were you afraid of in terms of telling your mom?
	Forget everything else.
	The humiliation.
	That she would humiliate you?
	I might...
	No, I might have...
	I might have give in the...
	Yeah...
	The signal of something, yeah.
	Oh, that you had seduced her boyfriend?
	Yeah, I would have, yeah.
	So she would have blamed you perhaps?
	I don't know.
	No, no, you said that...
	I'm not trying to catch you, but if you say something, I'm going to assume that it's relatively true, right?
	So you were afraid that she might blame you in some manner, right?
	Or hold you accountable in some manner?
	At least partially.
	Yeah, at least partially. So, is it fair to phrase it this way, Grace?
	That you were afraid that your mother would choose the pedophile over her own daughter?
	No, she wouldn't.
	No. A little bit.
	if she's blaming you and excusing him.
	Look, it's just an assumption, isn't it?
	We don't know what she's really thinking.
	What's happening, yeah.
	We have some evidence, though.
	We have evidence from when you told her as an adult.
	Yeah. Right?
	In which she apologized, and then she, in a sense, dictated that...
	You put it behind you, which is putting her need over yours, right?
	That's true. You know, like if my daughter ever came to me and said something bad happened, whatever it was, and I didn't want to tell you at the time, that would be like, okay, well, what went wrong?
	What was going on?
	What was the problem? What was the gap?
	Why couldn't you tell me? Like, there'd be so much to talk about.
	As opposed to, I'm sorry, let's never speak of it again.
	Some family's like that.
	Not everybody's like you.
	So why isn't... And openly talking about issues.
	A lot of families don't.
	So here, the reason I'm saying this, Grace, is that you have an example, a modern example, a recent example, where your mother chose her comfort over your niece.
	Yeah, that's true.
	So when you say that she might have chosen her boyfriend to some degree over you, her comfort, her preference, her pleasure over you, it's mirrored in what happened when you told her about the molestation when you were an adult.
	Mm-hmm. That she did not focus on your needs, she focused on her own preferences, which was to, you know, put it behind you as quickly as possible, right?
	That's true. So that is probably why...
	You didn't tell her.
	For fear that she would put her own preferences above your needs.
	That she has an almost sole focus on her needs and not yours.
	Which is narcissistic.
	Yeah. I think, yeah, that's quite a reasonable way to put it to you.
	She would put preferences to herself.
	She wouldn't.
	So, why bother?
	I will tell you something else.
	The child molester knew that about your mom.
	He would have to know that to take the risk of molesting you, right?
	So, I mean, I've said this before, but it's really, really important for people to understand.
	Maybe not so in China 30 years ago.
	I don't know for sure. But every time a child molester preys upon a child, they don't usually kidnap the child.
	They don't imprison the child. They don't cut out the child's tongue.
	They don't kill the child. The child goes back home.
	Or the child goes to a family dinner.
	Or the child goes to school.
	Or the child goes to church.
	And the child can speak.
	So the question is, how does the child molester know that the child won't tell?
	What the child molester does is he scans the relationships around the child.
	Scan, scan, scan.
	Because it's just sort of a modern child molester in the West.
	If the child molester calculates wrong and molests a child, and the child then goes to the parents, goes to the teacher, goes to the priest, goes to the police and says, this guy molested me, well, that guy's going to be arrested, his life's going to be destroyed, there's going to be a trial, he might go to prison, and in prison he might get killed because prisons are so full of men who were molested or women who were molested...
	They don't like the child molester very much and a lot of bad accidents happen in the shower, right?
	A lot of shivs accidentally go between the ribs.
	So, in many ways, the child molester is facing a potential death sentence every time he decides to molest a child.
	So, he has to be pretty damn sure that the kid is not going to talk.
	And so he knew that your mom, that you weren't going to tell your mom, in other words, he had scanned that relationship between you and your mom, to know that you weren't going to tell your mom, that you had no ally in your mom, Grace, that you had no protector in your mom.
	No, I don't feel protected, yeah.
	So when your mom was going to say something like, maybe you did something to encourage this, or maybe you did something to allow this to happen, you understand that's what's called projection.
	That your mom was the one who allowed, encouraged, permitted, enabled this to happen.
	She brought him in.
	And he scanned the relationship, which is a life or death scan for the pedophile.
	He scanned the relationship and he knew that you weren't going to tell your mom.
	You knew. He knew that your mom wasn't going to listen, wasn't even going to be told.
	He had to know that your mom wasn't going to be listening and wasn't going to be told.
	She had to have displayed that to him in some manner.
	So that he could take the risk that he took.
	Yes. Yes.
	And if you don't see that danger, the world is going to seem dangerous to your son.
	Because it's undifferentiated.
	Like, let me put it to you this way.
	Let's say I'm out in the woods, it's really, really windy, and I get attacked by a bear.
	And I think the problem was that it was windy.
	Not that there was a bear.
	If it hadn't been windy, everything would be fine.
	It was the wind that blew my body odor so that the bear could find me.
	It's not the bear wasn't the danger, the wind was the danger.
	Then am I ever going to feel safe again?
	No, because the wind...
	It's always going to be some kind of wind, right?
	So if I haven't localized, isolated, and delineated the danger...
	Then the danger is diffuse.
	In other words, if you say, well, you know, there are these child molesters out there, there are these dangerous people out there, and they can just get their hooks into someone.
	It can just happen.
	Because you don't know the steps that had to occur before it could happen.
	So you think I'm leaving a fear?
	Well, I think that if bad things happened, and we're just talking about one, there's other things for sure, right?
	But if we think, well, bad things just, you know, you just got molested.
	Because there are these guys floating around, and it happens, and no one's really at fault except for the guy, but, you know, whatever, right?
	But if you understand that If your mother avoided the kind of relationship with you that would have kept you completely safe from pedophiles, then the causality becomes – now, he's responsible, don't get me, he's the pedophile, right?
	He's responsible. He should go to jail, not your mom, I understand.
	I mean, I don't want to make your mom the prima facie cause here, but if you have the kind of – you're worried about your son going out into the world, right?
	I would like to prepare him better.
	But you can't prepare him better.
	You can have the kind of relationship where he can tell you everything.
	And then you say, well, what if he goes out and something bad happens?
	But you see, Grace, if you have the kind of relationship where he can tell you everything, then nothing bad will happen.
	Because the pedophile, I'm just talking about pedophilia in this case, could be anything, right?
	The pedophile is always looking for the kid with the broken relationship, right?
	The kid who won't tell.
	So if your son is the son who will tell, the pedophile will never mess with him.
	So you don't street proof your kids by giving them tricks and tips and whistles and fine, fine, maybe.
	But what you do is you have the kind of relationship where something bad happens to your kid.
	Your kid comes to you and says, this bad thing happened.
	And that will prevent the bad thing from happening because the people who want to harm your kids only pick on the kids who don't tell.
	Yeah. Yeah. Oh, has nobody to tell.
	Yeah. No, kids always have someone to tell.
	See, you're trying to avoid there.
	Kids always have someone to tell.
	They can tell a teacher, they can tell a friend, they can tell a friend's parents, they can tell step-parents, they can tell anyone.
	They can go straight into the police if they want.
	They can dial 911, they can whatever.
	Kids always have someone to tell.
	And that's what I mean when I say, if you don't see the weakness of your mother, you cannot see the strength of your son.
	The strength that your son is going to have is the strength of his relationship with you.
	And if that relationship is weakened, if he's driven away, if he's separate from you, if he's not able to talk to you, he's vulnerable out there in the world.
	Indeed, yeah. Yeah, it sounds simple.
	Yeah, but yeah. And the more you try to control him, the further you're going to drive him away from you and the more risk he's going to be in the world.
	Mm-hmm. Safety, protection is an invitation.
	It is not an armor.
	It is not a control. Security, safety...
	It's an invitation to connect.
	It is an invitation to conversation.
	It is an invitation to openness and honesty.
	That protects your children.
	Not your fear.
	Your fear will not protect your children.
	your intimacy, your connection with your children will protect them.
	Hmm.
	Yeah, indeed.
	I found, but the intimacy and connection with this boy, because my daughter, we can talk, whatever.
	But to this boy, I found it a little bit difficult, because what he interests, I am really lacking, like cars, planes, and...
	Does he have a man around that he can connect with?
	Um... Not really.
	I wouldn't think.
	A deep connection.
	I wouldn't think. Why not?
	We have family friends.
	He can play chess with and stuff like that, but I wouldn't say a deep connection.
	Do you have any extended family around?
	Aunts, uncles, grandparents, anything like that?
	No, no. Not in Sydney.
	Right. I choose not, yeah.
	I enjoy my freedom, yeah.
	Well, he may not be enjoying that freedom so much.
	Because that freedom means that he may be isolated.
	Does he have a male role model?
	Does he have a friend's father that he admires or who he admires or anything?
	That's the thing. No, we haven't talked about that.
	Yeah, but that's very important for a boy, right?
	Yeah. What do you mean that's very important for a boy?
	What do you mean? Having a male role model around is important for a boy?
	What do you mean? Of course it's important for a boy.
	Yeah. What?
	You know, it's funny because for many, just by the by, like from the age of six to eight, I went to a boarding school, if I remember rightly.
	I think I was the youngest kid in the whole boarding school.
	And I disliked that for a long time.
	I was just literally thinking about this yesterday.
	I can't remember where it came up or how it came up, but I was thinking about this yesterday.
	And I was thinking, you know...
	Oh, yeah, I remember why, because we were talking about, with Katie Hopkins was talking, I think, about, oh, no, it was with Dr.
	Warren Farrell talking about that boys, single moms, sons, they don't come across a male role model sometimes until they're hit puberty or later.
	The teachers are all female when they're younger.
	And so I really, really disliked boarding school, but my boarding school was very old school.
	Yeah. And it was mostly men, and it was patriarchal, and it was a man's world, and it was old school values.
	So even though there was caning, and even though it was aggressive, And even though I have a distinct memory of a very lonely Christmas sitting there with one sad-eyed teacher and two other boys, I do actually have some retroactive feelings of value and thank goodness.
	Because otherwise I'd have been home with my mom or with a bunch of other female teachers.
	At least there was a masculine environment for me there, which I think had some value.
	Great. Glad you mentioned that, yeah, because my boy goes to boys' school as well.
	Oh, yeah. And does he have any connection with the teacher or anything like that?
	Yeah, yeah.
	No, when you say connection, I... Because I was invested in a father and son connection.
	No, not in that level.
	It can be a mental thing as well.
	It doesn't have to be close, close, close.
	Like one of my, the fellow I've talked about before, the Persian fellow, a friend of mine's father, it wasn't like he and I had a whole lot of heart-to-heart talks or anything like that, but just having the example of a man around who you admire, who you can look up to, who you can emulate in some internal manner can be very helpful.
	Because here's the thing, Grace.
	Mm-hmm. If you go to a new town, let's say you move to a new city.
	Yep. One of the first things you find is a school, and one of the second things you find is healthcare, right?
	Mm-hmm. So if you have a son and you're a widow or a single mother, first, yes, some form of education.
	Second, yeah, access to healthcare.
	And third, a mentor for your son.
	That's a big job, and that's a very, very important job.
	You cannot be a father any more than I can be a mother.
	You can't do it. Because let's say that you somehow become a father to him, then you've just messed up gender roles in his brain.
	You know what I mean? Yeah, I do.
	I can't. Because then it's going to be like, my mother exhibits very masculine qualities, so to become a man, I must become my mother.
	Not going to work. No.
	You cannot be his father.
	And hopefully that gives you some relief, you know?
	Like, you can't be his dentist either, so you gotta go find a dentist.
	You can't be his father, you gotta go find a father.
	Father figure, a mentor, anything.
	Could be sports, could be chess, could be a teacher, could be somebody that you hire to, you said has got issues with school, so somebody you hire to be a tutor.
	It could be anyone.
	But somebody who your son can admire, it doesn't have to be, you know, face-to-face, eyeball-to-eyeball, heart-to-hearts, five hours a week or anything, but just someone that, and this is going to be something you might have to talk, I assume you would talk about with your son and say, I can't be your dad.
	But I think you need a male role model.
	But you need to choose him.
	Can't be my choice because I'm not a man.
	Only you can choose the man that you wish to emulate.
	I can't. Any more than you would ask him who your daughter should have to emulate.
	I mean, other than you, right? So it is a very important thing to find someone to mentor your son.
	Yeah, it goes to.
	Sorry to interrupt, and I'm sorry to be talking so much, I'll shut up in a sec, but the reason why you've ended up in this situation, in my humble opinion, Grace, is because, and you mentioned this earlier, this is not some big insight of mine, but because you had not figured out what put you in danger when your mother dated, you've simply avoided dating.
	And so because you have avoided dating, your son has not had any kind of father figure in terms of someone who has a romantic interest in you.
	Because your mother brought a child molester into the environment, and so you're nervous about dating because you hadn't figured out what the danger was.
	And the danger was not primarily the pedophile.
	The danger was your lack of connection with your mother, which was your mother's fault.
	Because children yearn.
	They grow towards connection with the mom in particular the way that plants grow towards sunlight.
	Yeah. And so because you didn't know why you had been molested, which was your mother's lack of connection with you as the primary cause, because you didn't know that, you just basically haven't dated, which means your son hasn't had any exposure to a male role model.
	Oh, I dated. No, I'm not.
	But you said you've avoided...
	You've avoided that to some degree, maybe longer term, maybe live-in term, I don't know.
	That's right, yeah, yeah, longer term, yeah.
	Yeah, yeah, that's, yeah, the latter, yeah, yeah.
	Yeah, you go, I get rich, but that's not quite the same as providing a role model to your son.
	Yeah, exactly. And it's tough.
	You know, I've talked about this before.
	Whether you're a widow or a single mother, it's tough because the highest quality men don't want to be raising other men's children.
	Oh, I don't. Probably that's true.
	I don't need them to raise my children either.
	I don't trust them.
	You don't trust the men to raise your children at all?
	No, I think most of them, my dates are quite weak.
	What do you mean? Psychologically, not as brave, as strong, not willing to learn new things.
	I'm just curious what you mean, and I'm not disagreeing with you, I just don't know what the words mean in your context.
	So you say they're not brave, not strong, what do you mean?
	They're not brave and they're not strong.
	They can't take emotions very well, and they shut down.
	Oh, like your mom?
	Oh. But I'm not like her.
	Nothing like her.
	Well, I've been confronting you a little bit and you've been giving me quite a merry dance around, Grace.
	Did I? Oh, you've got to listen back to this.
	I'm like, this is the kind of resistance I haven't seen in quite a long time.
	I'm not even aware.
	I thought I'd be really honest.
	No, no, I get that. But you are aware that your mother shuts down when confronted, right?
	You confronted her about her lack of protection.
	She's like, I'm sorry, let's move on.
	Yeah. Yeah, so your mother shuts down when confronted.
	Do you ever describe her as weak, or is it just the men who get that label?
	So, are you saying I'm like that too?
	No. I'm not aware.
	Let's focus on your mom first, right?
	That's another, boy, I say anything about your mom, you're like, I think you'd drop a boob out of your bra just to distract me from your mom.
	Oops! Did I just drop that?
	Let me just shovel that back in.
	No, let's talk about your mom first and then we'll figure out where you are.
	But your mom did dodge.
	When confronted, right? She was not strong enough to hold your pain, right?
	You came to her with something that was very sad and very upsetting, which you would be angry about to some degree, and she just ran away from your emotions by saying, basically, let's not talk about it, right?
	Exactly. Now, that's weak, right?
	Exactly. Now, vulnerable is the girly word for weak.
	See, weak is something that implies some personal responsibility.
	Vulnerable is... Not their fault.
	And you described your mother in a number of different ways.
	Merry, happy, vulnerable.
	I think you said weak at one point, but it was very quick.
	And we moved on from that very, very rapidly.
	Yeah. So the question is, why are you dating men that you call weak?
	Are there no strong men available?
	Or do you not choose strong men?
	That's a really good question.
	I've been asking myself as well.
	Would you like the answer? Could you be honest with me?
	I think I don't want to touch...
	Could I be honest with you?
	Oh! There goes the other boob.
	Could I be honest with you?
	What do you think? Do you think I've been lying to you for the last 45 minutes?
	Steph, finally it's time for you to be honest with me.
	Some people like you.
	I'll tell you why. See, you want a strong man.
	But your mother wants you to be around weak men.
	So why does your mother want you to be around weak men?
	What do you mean?
	We have never talked about with my mum what kind of men.
	You think that solves the problem?
	That's the even worse part of the problem.
	Okay. So let's say, Grace, let's say you put your boobs back in and you and I are dating.
	It's a nice date, right?
	Now, it's not going to take me long because I'm a curious person and I'm a strong person.
	So it's not going to take me that long to figure out some things about your history, right?
	Now, as a strong man, I'm going to know that if you have unresolved issues with your mom or things that are blind spots with your mom, it's going to keep your heart from being available to me.
	Because you're going to be spending a lot of time defending your mom rather than being emotionally available to me, right?
	So if I'm going to want to keep dating you, then I'm going to want not gr, not a, not k.
	I'm not going to want any particular tiny piece of you.
	I want grace. I want the whole syllable.
	I want the whole grace.
	And so if there's a part of you that's not available to me because...
	You're defending your mom, you're avoiding things with your mom, and so on.
	Then if I want you, what I'm going to say is, you should really go and tidy things up with your mom.
	It sounds like there's some stuff that you need to talk about with your mom.
	And so I would suggest that you go and talk about those things with your mom so that you can come back and I can have all of you.
	Or at least more of you, right?
	Does that make sense? Because when we're avoiding things with our own history, we're avoiding people in the present.
	We're not available to them. I thought I've already dealt with my, like you said, the blind sport and the baggage, because I talked with my supervisor, as I mentioned before.
	Is your supervisor a female?
	I don't have to confront my mother.
	Sorry? Is your supervisor a female?
	Yeah. Yeah. So then what you're going to get is female in-group preference.
	Don't confront your mom because we're all women.
	This is one of the values that men bring to the equation, which is I don't care that she's a mom.
	She's a human being. She's responsible.
	She's an adult. She exposed you to a pedophile and then you couldn't even tell her about it.
	So sorry, mom, you don't get a pass.
	Because you have a kid, you're responsible for protecting that kid.
	And your mom failed in this particular instance.
	She may have been good in other ways, but I'm just, you know, talking about this particular instance.
	She also failed. Why did your parents split up, Chris?
	Do you know? Oh, dad wasn't available at all.
	He was always busy in the military and a very rigid man.
	The Marxist. Yeah.
	Well, we don't really know because it was China 30 years ago.
	That's right, yeah.
	It wasn't like he had a whole lot of choice, right?
	Yeah, Korea-driven.
	But yeah, that's something, a very disciplined man.
	That's a good thing he instilled in me.
	I like how when you say Korea-driven, it also sounds like Korea-driven, which, you know, for a Chinese could also be the case as well if he's a military man.
	I'm Korea-driven. Wait, is that your Korea or the peninsula?
	It's both. Korea.
	I like your pun. Right.
	Yeah, so, yeah.
	Yeah, they separated.
	But were they around at all, or did your father just completely vanish?
	No, no, no. He's around.
	He's around, but not that much.
	So why didn't you tell your father that you had been molested?
	I don't really talk to him that much.
	He's just not available.
	He's not emotionally available?
	Not at all. Now, why do you think it's so easy for you to say, Grace, that your father is not emotionally available, but your mom is merry and happy and positive and peppy and all these kinds of things?
	Because she is.
	She's a very artistic and happy person.
	Is she still as happy a person when she has found out that you were molested by the boyfriend she brought into the house?
	Oh, she cried a lot, but yeah, she recovered.
	And did she ever ask you one more time, or did she ever bring the topic up and ask you how you were doing with it?
	No. Right.
	No. So she had her little emotional vent, and she moved on and didn't really care about how you felt about things and never asked.
	I don't know that that's happy.
	I just think that's fundamentally selfish.
	Interesting. We were taught selfish is not a good virtue.
	We have to be unselfish.
	Yeah, so to be unselfish would mean that she keeps asking you about how you're doing until you feel better.
	Whereas if she's just like, well, I feel sad.
	Oh, I'm going to cry. Oh, I feel better.
	Let's move on. Let's never talk.
	That's just all about her feelings, right?
	Nothing to do with you. Exactly.
	Exactly. She's protecting herself, I assume.
	At your expense. Yep.
	At your expense. So this is why your mother would not want me to date you.
	Because I would say, you've got things to talk about with your mom.
	Yeah, yeah. And if I really, really cared about you, I'd sit down with you and your mom and say, you have to have things to talk about, and we're not leaving this table until stuff gets discussed.
	Now, how would your mom like that?
	No. Come on, how would she like it?
	She wouldn't like it at all, right?
	- No. - And so part of your mom's self-protection is making sure you don't date anyone who's strong.
	That's how she keeps those conversations from happening.
	It means that she has to make sure there's no one in your life, Grace, who cares about you enough to have you deal with this.
	Which is why you have these shallow relationships that come and go with guys who don't matter and who you describe as weak.
	Your mom can't have you have strong people in your life because strong people will try and rescue you from your blind spots so that you can be emotionally available to them, which put you on a collision course with your mom's preferences.
	Probably, yeah.
	Subconsciously, she was doing that.
	Well, there's an easy way to find out if it's subconscious or not, which is just have the conversation, right?
	Which I always suggest people do if you've got unresolved stuff with anything.
	Any people in your life, go have those conversations.
	But we, I mean, again, you're like...
	I just want...
	You have to... Oh, it's unconscious for her, so she's not responsible.
	She didn't mean it. She didn't intend to.
	She didn't like... None of that means anything.
	You don't know. And your father doesn't get that benefit, does he?
	He was just unavailable. He's rigid.
	He's a workaholic. No excuses for dad.
	Endless excuses for mom.
	Trust me, you're not the first and you're not the last.
	Endless excuses for mom.
	You know, I tell you, Grace, I literally cannot fathom what it would be like to sail through life with everyone making up endless excuses for everything I did.
	Because as a male, maybe even particularly as a white male, it's like, you're responsible.
	You're responsible. You're to blame. You're responsible.
	You're responsible. You're to blame.
	It's your fault. It's your fault. It's your fault.
	You know, I'm responsible for colonialism, for God's sakes.
	I'm responsible for slavery.
	I'm responsible for the oppression of women for 2,500 years ago.
	I probably handed a nail to somebody who nailed up Christ.
	I'm responsible for everything.
	It's gone a little too far, I think.
	It's crazy, yeah.
	It's so ridiculous.
	I'm responsible for poverty in sub-Saharan Africa.
	I'm responsible for Libya.
	I'm responsible for Syria.
	I'm responsible for everything.
	Human suffering. And so the idea that I would like to skate through and sail through life...
	With everybody making up excuses and taking away all personal responsibility so that I didn't mean to.
	It wasn't my fault. It was unconscious.
	It wasn't my intent. I can't even imagine.
	Don't get me wrong. I'd rather have the 10 tons of bricks on my back than the helium balloons up my ass.
	But it's a weird thing to even think about how...
	It's quite ridiculous here.
	But look, if you think...
	If you think positively, the huge responsibilities imposed on your white male shoulders might make you a greater person.
	I don't think that's really happening so much in South Africa these days.
	And I don't think that it's really strengthening for white males to be excluded from jobs and occupations and universities and so on.
	Because then you could go and say, well, you know, slavery made people, right?
	So, you know, I think it's just an injustice and where it leads.
	But anyway, let's get like...
	Sorry, go ahead. Since we already mentioned about the race thing, do you mind, no offense, I ask a question in regards of that.
	Because you were called white nationalists in the public, a public figure called you that.
	And if I follow the reasoning, he did give the evidence.
	No, I've never, no.
	So how do you defend?
	No, that's not a perspective that I hold.
	What I have repeatedly talked about is the separation of race and state, that we have race-neutral laws.
	In other words, what I want is equality under the law.
	Now, equality under the law is the very opposite of racism.
	Because if you say, well, we want laws to discriminate against white people and we want laws to discriminate for this group and we want laws to change the numbers of that group, that is racism.
	Because you are now moving the giant levers of state power to give certain races advantages at the expense of other races.
	So you're favoring some races and you're opposing other races.
	You're promoting some races and you're demoting other races.
	That is racism. Exactly.
	And so if I have a separation of race and state, if we have equality under the law, that is the very opposite of racism.
	And those who want to use the power of the state to benefit some races at the expense of other races are saying, I like these races, I prefer these races, these races should win.
	I don't like these races, these races should lose.
	I mean, if you say in a running race, all the races should start at the same place.
	That is not racism.
	If you say, well, I like the black runners, so I'm going to put the way up front, but I don't like the East Asian runners, and then the white runners, I'm going to put them further back, you're already discriminating.
	That's racism. And so equality under the law, not racism.
	Yeah, but they have a kangaroo court in terms of equality under the law.
	We have that in Australia and they give really justified reasons for that.
	The inequality under the law?
	We have kangaroo courts for indigenous people and we also have Well, of course, it is.
	I mean, the example or the excuse given generally is to redress historical injustices.
	Exactly. But of course, what that means is that, first of all, it's not all historical injustices.
	My ancestors were enslaved to the Irish.
	There were hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Irish and other white slaves taken from Europe into other areas.
	Of course, nobody talks about that.
	A lot of blacks owned slaves in America.
	A tiny minority of white people owned slaves in America.
	They're all dead. I come from Ireland, which was enslaved, and I'm supposed to pay for America where, you know, my ancestors were in fact either slaves or were indentured servants or had this other kinds of contracts.
	And so if you're going to say, well, to redress historical injustices, then you have to look at all white people as one big giant blob and all black people as one big giant blob.
	And there's no differentiation and no distinction.
	And so you are now fundamentally judging people not by the complex history of the world, but rather by the color of their skin and putting them all in one big giant blob.
	That's racist. Because you're saying the only factor by which we can judge a particular person is by the color of his skin.
	And the color of the skin in one color means that you are now a bad person and you must have money taken from you or some sort of positive behavior or some sort of positive opportunity taken from you.
	But if you're another person with another color skin, then we treat you completely differently and you now get things, even though your ancestors may have owned slaves and even though the white person's ancestors may have been slaves or the white person's ancestors may have ended up giving up their lives in order to end slavery.
	In the American Civil War or through the British Navy or through...
	So it's just saying, well, there's lots of really complex history.
	You know, some whites died to free the slaves.
	Some blacks owned slaves.
	The native or indigenous population of North America owned slaves and sold slaves and bought slaves.
	The blacks in Africa owned slaves and killed people and sold slaves and so on.
	So instead of all of this complicated history occurring and trying to be understood and all of the nuance and difficulties of it, What you do is you say, well, if you're a white person, you're an evil colonist and a slave owner.
	And therefore, and if you're a black person, but that's not what actually the facts of history were.
	Not at all. And so what you end up having to do, say, well, we're going to redress these historical injustices, is that...
	Every bit. Every bit. Well, you have to simply judge people by the color of their skin and put them into one big giant moral category.
	White good, white bad, black good, right?
	Now, if you're going to assign big, broad moral characteristics based upon the color of your skin, guess what?
	You're a racist.
	Exactly. And there's just no way around that.
	Exactly. How industry is creating, because they got funding anyway.
	That's what my observation as a social worker.
	No, it's just all about the money.
	So, excellent distraction from the core question.
	So, when it comes down to your son.
	Your son.
	So, if you can have a conversation with your mom, and you can have your needs met.
	You want, I'm going to assume, I mean, I've confronted people about things that went wrong in the past.
	You don't want it to be all about your mom, because it kind of was in the past.
	The reason you didn't tell your mom is you didn't want to upset her, and the reason you let her get away with crying, apologizing, and then saying, let's move on, is because you don't want to upset her.
	What that means is that you're afraid that your mom will break her bond with you if you upset her.
	If you have needs, she's going to reject you.
	If you're not just there for her convenience, she's going to reject you, right?
	That's the fear. That's the fear.
	I had that, yeah.
	That's true. I had that.
	Not only did you have that, you have that now.
	Not that much now.
	I'm quite independent woman.
	Not that much now, you say.
	Yet, when you went to go and talk to your mom, you let her get away with making it all about her.
	Right? Look, she plays this victim and we had to look after me and my sister since little.
	So we're already used to that role, playing like the protector for her.
	So it's no sense to talk to her now.
	She's a bit old. She's old.
	But thank you for your recommendation of talking to her.
	Now she's old, so you can't talk to her?
	Yeah, I think, yeah, I don't, yeah.
	I've seen some pretty robust elderly Chinese people, my friend.
	How long ago was it that you talked to her about what happened when you were a child?
	Oh, it was Ravi already eight or ten years ago.
	Yeah, it was back then.
	Yeah, we had a bit of fallout and then, yeah.
	We're rekindled.
	See, by avoiding things with your mom, Grace, you're teaching your son to avoid things with you.
	You cannot escape these lessons that you're teaching your son.
	Whether it's explicit or implicit, whether you're talking about it openly or just modeling the behavior, you cannot escape this.
	If you want your son to talk to you, you have to enact the principle that you discuss difficult things with your parents.
	But if you want your son to talk to you about difficult things, but you don't want to talk to your mom about difficult things, it's not going to work.
	My focus is on you having a better relationship with your son, and that means you have to trust him.
	That means you have to identify what was the cause of the dangers in your past.
	And that means that you have to give him the protection that he knows he can always talk to you.
	But if you avoid talking about difficult things with your mom, you're teaching him you don't talk to your parents about difficult things.
	And that leaves him in danger in the world.
	Because that's what bad people look for.
	He's a kid with a weak or no bond.
	I understand what you're talking about, the ABC lead to D. But you mentioned in ACT, because I read Nathaniel Brandon, he had this therapy.
	You can just imagine you're talking to your mom or the people who hurt you, and that had quite a profound result as well.
	So instead of talking to the real mom, you can talk to her.
	I think that's if they're dead.
	I think if you can just call them.
	I can imagine. We're not going to do this through a Ouija board, I assume, right?
	So I think that's if they're dead.
	Again, I'm no therapist, so you should talk about this with a professional, but I think it's certainly if you have the option to talk about it with her for real, I think that would be a useful thing to do.
	I will mention it, yeah.
	But this goes against a lot of cultural values, right?
	The respect your elders, don't disturb their peace of mind, your elders are correct.
	Exactly. It's very tough in the Chinese culture, same thing in the Japanese culture, or at least similar, which the respect your elder stuff goes very far.
	Quite, yeah. Exactly.
	So that's why sometimes I'm torn between the cultural demands as well.
	Let me tell you how to solve this.
	Let me tell you how to solve this, Grace.
	Yes. To respect your elders, to respect anyone, is to tell them the truth.
	Because when you lie to someone, you're saying that person can't handle the truth.
	That's not being respectful.
	It's not being respectful.
	To respect your elders, to honor your elders, is to tell them the truth.
	To be honest with them.
	We only lie around people we think are weak.
	Or dangerous. And she's not, I assume, going to strangle you or anything.
	No, no, no. But to honor thy mother and thy father, to honor your elders, is to tell them the truth.
	To give them the respect of saying, this is a real thing.
	This is a real fact.
	This is what I think. This is what I feel.
	I'm going to give you the respect of knowing that you can handle it.
	And I'm also going to give you the respect of not imagining that you'd rather that I tiptoe and lie around you for the rest of your life.
	I'm going to give you the respect of knowing that you want the truth, even though it might be difficult.
	You know, I mean, if she's a Chinese mom, I'm going to assume probably more than once, Grace, that she said to you, you have to study, you have to learn this instrument, you have to do this, even though it's difficult, you'll thank me later.
	Yeah, you have to study, you have to write.
	Okay, so that's the model.
	Which is, yeah, I'm going to tell you the truth.
	It may be difficult, it may be unpleasant, but you'll thank me later.
	That's the respect that you give to people is to tell them the truth.
	The truth. Yeah.
	To honor them. If somebody was saying, well, Steph, you know, what's interesting is that I'm older than you, yet you were able to talk to me about the white nationalist thing.
	Where's your respect? No, you respect me enough to say, okay, here's a tough question I heard asked, what's your response to it?
	It's great. Because I know you can take it.
	See? You respect me.
	You're a rational person.
	Right. So you respect me. You should respect your mom.
	You respect me.
	You should respect your mom.
	You honor me with the tough questions.
	You should honor your mom with who you really are and what you really think and feel.
	Otherwise you're saying your mom is weak.
	And also you're saying to your son that weak people should rule.
	The interaction. Weak people should rule the conversation.
	We should always defer to weak people.
	We should always tiptoe around weak people.
	And we should not tell people the truth.
	Don't tell your mother the truth!
	Is your big message to your son.
	By avoiding things with your own mother, Grace, you're saying to your son, don't tell your mother the truth.
	It is really important to make sure your mother always feels good and never goes through anything uncomfortable.
	And then you wonder why you worry about him.
	That's the last thing I would, yeah, yeah, okay, yeah.
	But I thought I've already broken the kind of intergenerational thoughts, some...
	What's the word?
	There's a psychological kind of word.
	Cycle. Yeah, the cycle or the co-dependence.
	I know what I mean.
	I'm quite strong in front of my son.
	So I wouldn't ask them, even my daughter, to look after my emotions as we did.
	We had to look after my mom's emotions and hold her up.
	But that's something I avoid a lot.
	Not doing, repeat the same mistake.
	But you end up yelling at your son because he's not talking to you.
	See, why do we escalate?
	We escalate because there's not a conversation.
	We escalate because we're avoiding.
	I know. Why do people yell at each other?
	Because people aren't listening.
	You know, people are amazed by this.
	And again, I know it's a daughter. People say sons are different and so on, but not that different.
	My daughter has never had a temper tantrum.
	She's never yelled at me.
	She's never thrown anything at me.
	Now, she is a very strong-willed person.
	It's not like she's just some little wallflower.
	She is ferocious in what she wants, and I respect that.
	I respect that, and I'm trying to learn more from that.
	It's a great thing to see.
	But the reason why is that I'm very proactive.
	If she's upset about something, I can tell, and we talk about it sometimes for an hour or two until we figure out what the issue is.
	And then I say, like, I'm committed to giving you the best experience and being responsible and delivering a healthy, functioning adult self to your adult self.
	And so we talk about these kinds of things.
	So she always knows that I'm in her corner, that I have her best interests at heart, and that I'm willing to do whatever it takes and work as hard as I can, as long as I can, to make sure that she gets what she wants that's reasonable.
	And if it's not reasonable, we figure out...
	How to make it more reasonable.
	So she doesn't have to, you know, if you always get good service at a restaurant, you never yell at the waiter.
	Would you allow your daughter in the future to choose what she believes instead of what your belief system is?
	Well, first of all, I try not to just believe.
	Believe is that cheesy phrase that they use in those movies about dragons.
	Just believe. No, I don't want my daughter to believe anything.
	I don't want myself to believe anything.
	I want her to reason and to think for herself.
	Now, she's going to draw different conclusions from her reasoning.
	And then we'll go through the reasoning.
	And if her reasoning is better than mine, then I'll adopt what she says.
	And if my reasoning is better than hers, she'll adopt what I say.
	So I don't want her to believe what I believe.
	I don't want myself to just believe things.
	I want to know that they're true or they're false.
	I want to know what the reasoning and the evidence is behind things.
	So I'm teaching her not the conclusions.
	I'm not teaching her what to think but how to think.
	So she's perfectly free to disagree with me just as everyone else is because I'm not a tyrant.
	I'm a philosopher.
	Mm-hmm. Yeah, there are not so many men like you out there anymore.
	Well, there might be, but mommy doesn't want you banging them.
	Oh god, Jesus.
	Oh my goodness.
	To put it bluntly.
	I was about to say that.
	I know. I'm pushing the Chinese envelope here completely, aren't I? Yeah, I guess not so many people like developing intellectual discussion anymore.
	Anyway, I'm not really into those shallow party anymore.
	Even if I was immortal, I wouldn't have life to spend on trivia.
	Exactly. Small talk equals tiny brain.
	Oh my goodness, yeah.
	But I hope I could be as articulate as you, because you can talk to your daughter, reason or open-minded, develop discussions and stuff.
	Yeah, that's something I need to improve.
	You'll be amazed at what eloquence you can have when you talk about very deep issues.
	A lot of times when people say, well, I'm not as eloquent as you, it's because they're not just talking about things that are really important to them.
	You'd be amazed at how eloquent you can be when you're really speaking passionately about something that's important to you, to someone who means a lot to you.
	You know, like your mom, if you bring this stuff up with her and you really commit to talking to her about it.
	I certainly have some probably innate capacity for eloquence, but...
	If you're talking about really important stuff, then the words will flow in a pretty powerful way.
	I mean, you know what it is?
	If you see people who normally aren't very articulate, and they're giving a speech at a wedding, they can say the most amazing things, the most beautiful things, the most profound things.
	And then they go right back to...
	That time I was so drunk that it's like, oh no.
	Can I get the guy back who was just giving the great toast?
	And touching as well.
	Yeah, indeed. All right.
	Well, I hope that you will, you know, maybe I know you have access to psychological resources because of your profession, but, you know, maybe if there's a guy around somewhere in the wasteland of social work, there may be a guy.
	And if you can get access to any kind of resources, it would be worth doing, I think.
	Because I do want you to open up your channels of communication with your son.
	I'm just not sure how you're going to do that if you're keeping your channels of communication with your mom closed.
	So I hope that you will think about that and please let us know what happens.
	Will do. All right. Thanks for the call.
	I appreciate it. I appreciate your advice and your time.
	All the best. Take care.
	Okay, up next we have Sam.
	Sam wrote in and said, But recently, I've read an experiment called Death Spiral, the Explosive Growth and Demise of a Mouse Population by John Calhoun.
	I believe this experiment can tightly summarize our modern plague.
	My question is, what do you think about this experiment and how can we change our behavior in order to get a better conclusion than the rats?
	That's from Sam. Wait, rats or mice?
	What are we talking here? I think the experiment is mice.
	It's the mouse utopia stuff, right?
	Yes, yes. Okay, so you've read it recently, right?
	I actually have it up right here.
	I've done a presentation on it.
	Okay, don't read it, but if you can just give me the gist, I'll give the audience the gist.
	I've done a show on this a while back ago, but since it's fresher in your mind, you can go for it.
	So basically, John Calhoun, there was worries about overpopulation in the 1960s.
	You know, there wasn't going to be enough food and enough water.
	So he decided... I'm sorry to interrupt you just when you start.
	There was great fears about overpopulation in the 1960s.
	So what they did was they sent approximately a trillion dollars a day to the third world because that's really going to help them solve the overpopulation problem.
	Anyway, go on. Yeah, no.
	You see the exponential growth of population.
	They were afraid they were going to run out of food and water.
	But Calhoun decided to do this experiment where there was unlimited food, unlimited water, and he wanted to see what would happen.
	You know, would there just be like a pile of mice, just a million of them in a sphere that would pile up in the cage?
	So he took away, you know, predators, whether the food and, you know, lack of water and general resources.
	And basically what happened is after there's an initial explosion of population, then slower growing of population, and then the population just sunk off.
	And what is really interesting is what happened when that population sunk off.
	Go on. Oh, well, first off, when the mice gathered up in the cage, basically there was a couple of quadrants, and the cage was four stories high.
	And The report itself is kind of cryptic in that it describes these as apartments, just to kind of draw the analogy.
	And if you look at the distribution on the graph of where the mice create their nests, even with the equal distribution of resources across the entire cage, the mice centralized in certain places.
	They kind of went urban.
	Yes, just by itself.
	You know, even with equal population, you know, there would be less competition in that area for resources.
	The mice still went there.
	And one of the more interesting things that happened in the experiment was that slowly and slowly, the female mice began to become infertile, just naturally.
	There wasn't any disease going around.
	There wasn't any, you know...
	Mauling going around, they just weren't fertile.
	Their literals became less and less, you know, usually mice will have like letters of 17, I'm not sure what the term for baby mouse is, but 17 baby mice.
	And slowly that became, you know, most mothers would only have like one mouse per liter, which you can't really keep up the population doing that.
	Like me, my wife, and Ann Coulter.
	Yep, got it. Yes.
	And then...
	With the male population, what happened was this phenomenon called the beautiful ones.
	And with the beautiful ones, what they would do is...
	Oh man! Every time that Prince song goes into my head.
	Alright, go on. I'll fight it.
	I'll fight it like a brain virus.
	Go on. No, no. Just put it on the podcast.
	Get a copyright strike. Whatever.
	Anyway, but with the beautiful ones.
	And what happened was this population, instead of engaging socially with the rest of the mice, they kept it themselves and they simply just constantly groomed themselves.
	And that's why they were beautiful.
	You know, they're just constantly grooming themselves, and that's how they occupy themselves.
	This group of mice also develops homosexual behaviors, which is kind of like in proportionate numbers.
	It's a form of collective population control, because then you have, of course, the mice having sex without babies coming out.
	Yes. But sorry, go on.
	Yes. So then, eventually, because between the infertile female mice and the homosexual male mice, the population of the cages spiraled out of control.
	Wait, wait, wait. Hang on.
	What do you mean? So the population spiraled out of control sounds like there was a population explosion, but if we have the homosexual mice, the basically relatively infertile female mice, and so on, then you get a population decline, right?
	Yeah, like down, spiraled down.
	Oh, so the population going out of control means that the bottom fell out of it like Western European white style.
	Okay, got it. Yes, and that's why I think this study is so fascinating because it explains exactly, in my mind, what is happening today.
	So basically after, what is it, roughly they estimated after 1200 days every single mouse would be dead.
	Yeah, the initial 12 settlers.
	Okay, well that's a rather startling thing to drop in on people unexpectedly.
	Yeah, I know. Death will go.
	And why he titled it Death Squared is that he noticed there was the initial death of the mice, which was their social activities with each other.
	And this death, this first death of the social norms between the mice, led to the second death of the physical death of the mice.
	And the population. Now, do they have an explanation as to why, when the population began to spiral down, and again, this is all in a situation where they have no predators and more than enough to eat and drink, right?
	Yes, there's no predators, there's unlimited food, unlimited water.
	So no migrants, got it.
	Yeah, no outside population to control and make it look like the population's going up.
	Do they have any explanation as to why, in order to sustain the group, the fertility did not begin to increase when it began to freefall?
	There was some minor experimentation on that, in that one of his colleagues took the beautiful ones, you know, the mouse that had become...
	The metrosexuals.
	Yeah, the metrosexuals.
	And... They took these mice and put them in a separate cage, you know, like those additional settlers, and they never regained back that behavior at all.
	You mean the rutting with lots of kids behavior?
	Yeah. Right. They never regained that, you know, make greater populations behavior.
	They turned it off and they couldn't turn it back on.
	Wait, now is that in a situation where they still have more than enough food and drink and no predators, or did they put them back into a situation of scarcity and predation again?
	They put them back into, you know, a similar, you know, fertile females, you know, the same unfamiliar food and unlimited water.
	Right, right, right. Basically. It wasn't out back into the wild completely.
	Which is an insanely artificial...
	Environment for all living species, right?
	I mean, because normally when you have an explosion of population, they either run out of food or they draw in predators and then they feed the predators who then explode in population.
	So there's that balance that comes out.
	So this idea that you would end up with this population explosion with no counteraction is a pretty wild scenario that evolution would never have happened.
	Figured things out for.
	It's like cocaine. You know, it's like our evolution.
	Like maybe you chew a couple of cocoa leaves.
	Like I'm just reading a biography of Freud at the moment.
	So, you know, it's like, well, you know, the people who chew cocoa leaves, you know, they seem to have a lot of energy and it doesn't seem to have any real ill effects.
	It's like, well, yeah, because it's not powdered and jammed straight up your nasal cavity.
	So it's not quite the same in terms of potency, right?
	So that is a very different kind of situation.
	Okay. Now, Like you said, like, this is a very artificial situation that these mice have been put into.
	Yeah, I mean, except that it's the welfare state, but go on.
	Basically, and that's where I find it myself, is this is basically a giant analogy to our modern climate, you know, like...
	It's not an analogy, it's a modeling.
	Good point, yeah. I think because an analogy would be a sort of metaphorical comparison, but it's a recreation.
	Yes. And...
	What was I about to say?
	You were saying it was a very artificial situation.
	Oh, yeah. And I was pointing out the welfare state thing, but go on.
	You know, I find the parameters for this experiment to be kind of similar to our modern society.
	You know what I mean? Like, you don't have massive fears of Food shortages, at least in the West.
	Nobody starves to death in the West.
	Unless you're really crazy.
	Unless you're really out there mentally.
	It's impossible to starve to death in the West.
	And there's no general predation.
	If you look at European wars, this is the most peaceful time in Europe possible.
	Well, besides the political wars, but...
	As far as physical fighting wars, this is the most peaceful time in the West.
	Oh, yeah. No, I mean, can you imagine?
	I mean, for me at least. It's pretty wild, and I think about this every couple of weeks probably, which is that certainly over the last 100, 120 years, to be born when I was born and to get to the age of 51 having never been drafted is pretty remarkable.
	Absolutely. So, the question is, what do you do In Western society to prevent this first and second death.
	And that gets really tricky.
	Oh yeah, that to me is easy.
	The answer is freedom.
	The answer is freedom. Yeah, the answer is freedom.
	Let me sort of give you an example that's going to get most people's jimmies in a twist.
	So, you know, whenever I do videos where women appear to be doing foolish things, the 4x4 one I put out recently, people are like, repeal the 19th!
	Gotta not let women vote!
	No, that's not the problem.
	The problem is not that women vote.
	The problem is that there's so much to vote on.
	The problem is not that women or men or the poor or smart or dumb people vote.
	The problem is that voting controls trillions and trillions and trillions of dollars.
	That's the problem. Yeah, I think like, you know, voting is an enabler to predate your neighbor.
	Yeah, yeah. So when you can vote to take away other people's property, it kind of doesn't matter whether men or women or whoever vote.
	And, you know, people also say, ah, the problem is we don't have an ethnostate.
	And it's like, hey, you know who had ethnostates?
	Europeans in 1914, right before World War I. Hey, you know who else had ethnostates to a large degree?
	Europeans in 1939, right before World War II. I don't think ethnostates is the magical answer to avoid problems that you're thinking of.
	So, that is just the basic...
	What we need... It's not blacks or whites or ethnostates or nationalism of this.
	What we need is freedom. So if we say, well, women prefer...
	I'm not going to try and argue the truth of all of these statements.
	These are just ideas that are out there, and I'm just going to provide solutions that involve freedom.
	So please don't think that everything I say is stuff I believe.
	I'm not going to fact check you right now.
	No, this is not all stuff I believe.
	These are just arguments out there.
	So people say, well, women prefer...
	Security to freedom, and therefore if women vote, they'll vote in big giant welfare states and then your freedom gets destroyed.
	It's like, okay, there's arguments that say that female suffrage added significant proportions to the growth of the state, but okay, let's just say that that's a true argument to one degree or another.
	What is the solution? Borrow women from voting?
	No. No.
	the solution you see, given that women prefer security to freedom, is to not have the power to redistribute income through the state.
	Because then women who desire security over freedom will find that security by marrying great men who are responsible and good providers.
	Yay!
	Male virtue gets a big thumbs up.
	And a tingly nether bit from the female of the species.
	So there's a freedom.
	People say, oh, well, you know, women aren't that interested in politics, and the average IQ for women is lower, and blah, blah.
	Okay, well, the free market could handle that.
	Because to have resources in the free market is to have some influence on society.
	If you believe that women aren't as competent as men, then the free market will deal with that because women will end up, in aggregate, having fewer resources with which to influence society.
	Again, I'm not saying I believe all this stuff.
	I'm just saying here's how things play out as a whole.
	Now, I think part of the problem with the predation of voting is that most people that vote don't realize it is a predation.
	They don't see increasing taxes as a use of force at all.
	I mean, they're like, oh yeah, it's just taxes, whatever price we pay for society, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
	So I think that's also part of the problem.
	No? No.
	I mean, I don't think so.
	Let me tell you why. So...
	Let's just sort of look at it from an evolutionary standpoint.
	The women who cared about the moral source of the income with which they fed their children, the women who cared about that more, would they do better or worse than the women who didn't care about the source of the income and just use whatever necessary to feed their kids?
	The women who cared more would be more successful.
	No. The women who cared less would be more successful.
	Because the women who cared more would say, well, I don't want that money because it come from potentially illicit sources.
	The women who would just be like the wife in The Sopranos, like the Edie Falco character.
	They'd be just like, I don't care where the money comes from, I'm going to use it to spend on my kids and to get them great toys and great education, and I don't care, right?
	They would just get access to more resources because they wouldn't have this moral barrier as to whether the resources were obtained well or badly, right?
	Right. Does that make sense?
	Yeah, no, I thought you were talking about the quality of the resources, not the...
	No, no, no, the moral source of the resources.
	Yes, all right, I understand now.
	So a woman who doesn't care where her husband's money comes from is going to end up with more resources for her children than the woman who's like, well, I'm not going to choose this guy because he works for the government.
	I'm not going to choose this guy because he works for the military.
	I'm not going to choose this guy because he works for the IRS. Like, they're just going to end up with less choice, right?
	Right. So for women, I think there's a strong evolutionary pressure to not care about the source of the money and to not actually inquire into it that much.
	And for men, on the other hand, there may be more of an issue because if you're a man and you steal from another man, well, he might have a whole bunch of brothers who come and beat you up or kill you or steal back, right?
	So the man has some, it kind of matters to some degree the source of his income, whether it's on the up and up, whether it's reciprocal, whether it's voluntary, whether it's productive or that kind of stuff, right?
	Right. And so for a man, and these are just generalities, I think, but for a man, which is why men, when I say to men, taxation is theft, in general, they may kick and fight and argue and so on, but they kind of get that there's coercion involved.
	They may say it's fine.
	They try to justify the coercion.
	Yeah, social contract, you know, blah, blah, blah, right?
	There is coercion involved, but you kind of signed on implicitly by being in the country and by using services.
	So they say there is coercion, but they justify it.
	But trying to get women to understand That when they apply for another childcare credit that it's the initiation of force is a whole lot harder.
	Absolutely. So I think evolutionary when you're saying, you know, I think some people, I think men in general, have a slightly more morally sensitive evaluation of the source of income as opposed to moms, in particular moms, the women as a whole.
	I don't know. I'm not saying it's a huge amount.
	But, you know, this just, part of this is sort of reasoning it through, and part of it is just a whole bunch of conversations I've had with people over the years, where I've just found that women, like, men have a significant amount of curiosity as to the source of wealth, the source of revenue, the source of money. Whereas I find women to be, in general, quite blandly incurious about this.
	You know, like, I fill out the paperwork, I get a check.
	Good! I have another kid, I fill out more paperwork, I get a bigger check.
	It's odd to me, this kind of disconnect.
	And in general, of course, men pay a lot more taxes than women, and women collect a lot more benefits than men do.
	And I don't think that could really happen if women were really sensitive as to the source and say, well, you know, that's not fair.
	We're receiving a lot more in benefits than we pay in taxes, whereas men are paying a lot more in taxes than they receive in benefits.
	But the women are just like, yeah, that's great.
	Like Ida Mae Fulton, the woman who got the first social security check, she paid like 20 bucks in and got like, I don't know, a quarter million dollars out of it.
	And she's like, great!
	So, I mean, there is, but in a state of freedom, you can't vote away other people's property.
	And so, the fact that women may be somewhat less curious or sensitive about the moral source of the money wouldn't matter.
	There's much less immoral money floating around, if that makes sense.
	Absolutely. So, just to return back to my original, well, part of my original question is, do you think you see in society today that first step, that breakdown of social structure between people?
	Oh, yeah. No, absolutely.
	Absolutely. You know, totalitarianism...
	Totalitarianism is where the giant cannonball of penises lands when they're loosed on the human landscape.
	You get this big giant squishy ball of penises, you wad them all together, you stuff them in a cannon, you fire it, and then it lands in totalitarianism.
	Whenever sexuality is disconnected from consequences, you end up with totalitarianism.
	The road to hell is paved with thirsty vaginas.
	That is just the way life works.
	When you uncork and unleash sexual licentiousness, as I said early on, you end up throwing society into complete chaos.
	It has to be funded.
	It has to be debt-based.
	It has to involve more and more coercive transfers of wealth.
	And society gets more and more ashamed and embarrassed.
	You end up promoting the birth and growth of people who aren't that smart.
	And to have a free society, you need a pretty intelligent population.
	You need at least IQ 95, 100 is better, 105 is even better.
	You just need a pretty smart, and this goes back to the work that Dr.
	Helmuth Nyberg has done, that you can't sustain a free society when IQs start dipping into the low 90s, and certainly below 90, it becomes Functionally, there's no democracy, there's no free society out there with an average population with an IQ of 90 or below her.
	And so the welfare state is, as I said before, fundamental dysgenics.
	You take money from smart people who then have fewer children, and then you give that money to less smart people who then have more children.
	And so the real replacement, like everyone talks about population replacement, the real population replacement occurs before any kind of migrants.
	Before any kind of diversity or multiculturalism initiative.
	The real displacement, the real population replacement is replacing smart people with dumb people, and that's the welfare state.
	And other things as well.
	I mean, it's not just the welfare state.
	And so once that process is in place, what happens is you end up with a smart populations produce a huge amount of resources, which then fuels the rise of less intelligent populations, which always used to be culled through wartime.
	And now I think leftism has become a form of internal civil war stimulant that is a weird kind of way to reduce population.
	I'm not saying it's anyone conscious, but you always see leftism, which results in massive death.
	Always emerge in a situation where there are excessive resources.
	So it's almost like to avoid society dying out, you have this leftist culling that either occurs through revolution or through war.
	Now, my second question to that is, what can the average person do, at least on a personal level and then on a political level, to prevent this first death?
	Wait, what do you mean by the first death?
	Which one is that? The social breakdown between the mice.
	Well, in this case, the humans.
	Well, I think, you know, once the population intelligence has dipped so enormously, once it has dipped so enormously, like Dr.
	Farrell has in his recent book, The Boy Crisis, and I think it's higher because I don't think it's broken down in particular by demographics, but just to take, even if it's half this number, He says that since the 1980s in the UK, there's been a 15-point IQ drop among boys.
	A 15-point IQ drop among boys.
	Well, that's the gap.
	I think a bit bigger now than the gap between white Americans and black Americans.
	I mean, yeah, that's a whole standard deviation.
	The whole standard deviation. Now, I don't know if you've ever tried engaging deferral of gratification, complex, abstract reasoning of the free market and personal responsibility with somebody who's got an IQ of 85.
	Let's just say it's a bit of a battle.
	Oh, I've gone to public school.
	I think I have. Yeah, yeah.
	No, I mean, if you take the general plaintiffs and Judge Judy's courtroom and then try and explain...
	Bastiat's principle of the seen versus the unseen, I think you'll pretty much quickly unsee a whole bunch of people in the audience.
	So, once that situation is going on, then it's...
	I mean, I hate to say impossible, because that sounds like such an absolute, but I will say that historically, it has not been reversible.
	Now, historically we didn't have the internet.
	Historically we didn't have these kinds of conversations that got to millions of people over time.
	So again, it's hard to say.
	I mean, yeah, that's why I wanted to have this conversation with you, because at my school, I ran a philosophy club for some time, inspired by you.
	Thank you. And I presented this, and the club is only like a dozen people, and I go to a school of about 400, but I really hope I'm making that change.
	It's more than 90% of the population.
	It's not the number of people, it's the quality of people that matter, but go on.
	It's the dozen people that think philosophy is important enough, which are probably going to be the more influential people in society, hopefully.
	And the main criticism I got from that presentation is mostly like, well, you know, they're just mice, you know, just whatever.
	But like every other psychology experiment uses mice, I don't see how this doesn't apply here.
	Absolutely. Well, it certainly opens doors to interesting questions.
	You know, you wouldn't want to say, of course, and I'm not trying to suggest you would, but just to be clear, you wouldn't want to say that we're just like mice.
	Of course, right? The question is, the epigenetic changes that occur are absolutely fascinating.
	How our genes change, whether we choose to reproduce.
	So when you get a lot of wealth, it would, like, just evolutionarily speaking, you know, the races separated, what, 40,000 years ago?
	There's some arguments it's a greater or lesser, but let's just say 40,000 years ago.
	And the populations have remained relatively stable.
	Like, at one point, I think about 11,000 years ago, during the Ice Age, human beings were down to, like, 10,000 people.
	I mean, we were right on the edge of, you know, winking out.
	But the populations have remained relatively stable, I mean, there's lots of oscillations and so on, but other than the Neanderthals and maybe a couple of others, who's gone extinct, right?
	And so there must be some regulatory mechanism that has been built into an excess or a deficiency of resources, because we know there was a little ice age in the, what, 15th, 14th centuries in...
	Europe, there were medieval warm periods and so on where, you know, Greenland had crops, you know, half the year and so on.
	So, there have been huge fluctuations in resources and the populations have survived.
	So, what that means to me is there must be some self-correcting mechanism that precedes the mere change of resources.
	So, When you have a lot of resources, you get a big increase in population.
	Now, if all that happened was the population increased and there was no built-in safeguard to reduce the population before the resources ran out, the big danger would be that you've got, let's say you start off with 10,000 people, you end up with 30,000 people because there's been a couple of decades of warmth and then it gets really cold.
	The concern is, biologically speaking, that you would end up with everyone killing everyone else over the scarce resources and there would not be enough to recover the population.
	So, biologically speaking, and this sounds like it's all engineered, but this just, to me, would be part of evolution.
	Biologically speaking, the groups that self-limited their reproduction in a state of excess resources would do the best.
	Because in nature, the resources grow and then they collapse.
	They spread and then they contract.
	They increase and then they decrease, right?
	Winter is always coming at one time or another, at one point or another.
	And so if you had a population that had some way of short-circuiting the population growth during times of excess resources, then there would be less combat, less conflict, less war when the resources contracted.
	So the fact that this happens in mouse populations with infinite resources makes perfect sense to me.
	It's just that, and I don't know if this has been done, probably has, and let me know if it has or if it hasn't, look it up and let's talk about it some more.
	If you take the population that has changed as a result of infinite resources and you put them in a resource-constricted state again, maybe even with some predation, do they kick back into the normal behavior?
	I would guess that they would if it hasn't gone too far, which in nature it almost never would.
	So to me, it makes perfect sense when you look at Population growth that you would want a population that would self-limit itself before the resources ran out to avoid this kind of civil war in the species and so on.
	And the fact that this is borne out by these mouse utopia experiments to me is very interesting.
	It's very interesting.
	So if you look at the European population, just look at the whites as a whole, So, of course, you have massive growth in the European population in the 19th century, and then, of course, population replacement after the First and Second World War.
	You've got the baby booms in particular in the 1950s, when the average was like four to five to six kids per family.
	So then you have a massive population growth.
	Now, then what you'd want, if you were nature designing all of this stuff, is you'd want...
	People to self-limit in terms of having children.
	Because you wouldn't want, oh, our population is low, so let's have six kids.
	And let's have our kids have six kids each.
	You know how that works.
	It's like that chessboard thing where you double the grain and you end up owning more grain than in the world before you get to the end of the chessboard.
	So you'd want there to be some way of reducing that population growth so that when the resources ran dry, you wouldn't all descend into civil war.
	So the fact that when there's a time of excess and peace, that European population growth slows down and in fact begins to decline, well that would be the instinctual preparation For winter is coming.
	And that would be perfect and healthy throughout almost all situations of human history.
	The difference, of course, is that we have capitalism, which means that there would in fact be no winter is coming.
	That's number one. Number two, we of course have intergenerational debt-based horrors in terms of fiat currency, unfunded liabilities, old age pensions, healthcare, all the stuff that's been promised, which means that you can't have a population drop.
	Because the politicians require a youthful population to generate the taxes to pay off the debts and the unfunded liabilities that they've promised all the old people who vote more and live forever and so on, right?
	And so we've got this weird situation where you can't have a population drop.
	drop.
	In a free market, you'd have a population drop, which would be perfectly fine and would actually be good for the environment, sustainable, healthy, and positive.
	But because of the status system we've got and fiat currency and debt, the population decline cannot be allowed to occur.
	So people are stuffing the countries full of migrants and immigrants and so on in order to prop up the system for a little while longer.
	And that is something that has not occurred in human history before.
	Absolutely.
	Absolutely.
	We'll see. Yeah?
	We'll see. The cynical part of me says that when governments can't pay their debts, they go to war.
	You can't have war...
	In Western countries because of nuclear weapons, so you'll just import the civil conflict instead.
	And that's why you won't be able to pay your bills, because you'll just provoke conflicts.
	But I don't know. I don't know.
	I mean, who knows what's going on in the minds of people who are behind all of this.
	I mean, other than, of course, the fact that they've talked about it for about 80 years.
	But anyway, we'll have to see how this plays out.
	What can the average person do?
	Well, you just have to tell people what's going on.
	You have to, I mean, as I said in the very beginning of this call-in show, conversations, philosophy is a conversation that occurs at a micro level.
	People like me, people like Jordan Peterson, people like, we can't leverage anything if people aren't having private conversations.
	It's in the comments you leave on a It's on the tweets that you put out.
	It's on what you post in various forms of social media.
	It's the little conversations you have privately.
	That creates a philosophical conversation.
	And most people can't judge an idea.
	They can only judge the prevalence of an idea.
	And if an idea becomes more prevalent...
	Then you have a much greater chance of getting some sort of reason and evidence across.
	If the idea remains extraordinarily rare, then most people will have a very difficult time taking it at all seriously because it's just too startling and too new.
	So everybody has a role to play in philosophy and that's, I think, what the average person Not only could be doing, but should be doing.
	One example of this is the race and IQ stuff is starting to hit some mainstream acceptance.
	I think it was Andrew Sullivan, if I remember rightly, who wrote recently about race and IQ in a very sensitive and intelligent way.
	And, you know, then it's going to be like, not, what?
	This is terrible! Like, it's like, and I've been trying to do my part of that for many years to just keep putting the ideas out there, knowing that it's going to hit a lot of resistance, knowing it's going to goose people who are emotionally reactive, and who are science deniers, and who don't understand the math, and who think you're judging individuals and think it's racist to talk about facts and so on.
	And it just takes a while.
	It takes a while for people to get...
	It's like putting on new shoes.
	You ever have those new business shoes that feel like Steve Martin's cruel shoes?
	And then after a while, it's like, okay, that's not so bad.
	After a while, they may even become...
	Shoes that you're comfortable with.
	So just keep talking about ideas and keep talking about the immorality of the welfare state, the eugenics of the welfare state, the immorality of state force, the problem of predatory voting and so on.
	You just got to keep talking about it.
	And it's like a sales pitch sometimes.
	I hate to put it that crassly.
	Oh, yeah. But, you know, sometimes it takes 20 exposures to even remember what the heck the ad was about.
	So you just keep netting that stuff, keep softening up people's minds to be receptive to new facts with repetition.
	And then when a particularly great argument comes along or a particularly great piece of evidence comes along, people will be more receptive.
	And as long as we have free speech, we have the right and the obligation to do that.
	Absolutely. All right.
	Well, thanks everyone so much.
	Appreciate the conversation.
	Appreciate the calls. Always a great pleasure.
	Oh, pinch punch first day of the month tomorrow.
	Surprise! So if you can remember, I would really, really appreciate it.
	Freedomainradio.com slash donate.
	Freedomainradio.com slash donate.
	Massively appreciate your support.
	Of course, we can take a credit card.
	We can take a bank card.
	We can take crypto or PayPal.
	Just about anything. Recurring donations are better if you can set up like 10 bucks a month, 20 bucks a month.
	That's great because then we have some sense of what we can spend next month and we are actually spending quite a lot of money at the moment trying to get the new website on the radar and also upgrading some equipment for interviews to make them crisper and better and more professional looking.
	So yeah, we're spending some money and if you could help out that would be Enormously appreciated at freedomainradio.com slash donate.
	Theartoftheargument.com for the book.
	Follow me on Twitter at Stefan Molyneux.
	Sign up for the newsletter at freedomainradio.com.
	And also, if you've got shopping, do fdrurl.com forward slash Amazon.
	Goodbye, my pretties, my lovelies.

▲