April 29, 2018 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
28:42
4072 Joy Ann Reid Exposed | True News
After Joy-Ann Reid’s past anti-gay blog posts reemerged into the public spotlight, the quality of excuses presented was only outmatched by their lack of believably. Stefan Molyneux highlights the important lessons from the Joy Reid situation, the reality of facts not applying to modern political discourse and why the leftists win.Your support is essential to Freedomain Radio, which is 100% funded by viewers like you. Please support the show by making a one time donation or signing up for a monthly recurring donation at: http://www.freedomainradio.com/donate
Not just in our relationship with the media, sanity, reality, truth, honesty, integrity, virtue.
Candor, you name it, but also kind of in Western philosophy.
The rising surf of the fascism of feels has really almost gone past our nose at the moment.
You know the idea that if someone's upset, someone has upset them, and whoever upset them is wrong.
If someone feels bad, someone has made them feel bad, and that person is wrong and bad and sometimes needs to be fined or thrown in jail and so on.
So This fascism of feels has risen to the point where, I mean, it's do or die when it comes to keeping any kind of lifeline to reality.
So I am, of course, talking about Joy Ann Reid.
Now, Joy Ann Reid, before she was famous, used to run a blog.
She authored a blog from the early 2000s to the late 2000s, and then it went defunct.
I think she shut it down. And it became pretty obvious.
Why? Because she said hurtful, ugly, and nasty things about LGBTQ people.
And she implied celebrities were gay.
She implied that Chief Justice's son was gay.
She implied, or she actually openly stated, that the then governor of Florida, now a member of Congress, was gay, and that his wife was just a beard, that he only married for political reasons, and so on.
So when all of this arose, her writings from a decade or more ago...
What did she say?
Well, first she said, I didn't write them.
Okay. There is something that Joanne Reid is aware of, since she tweeted about it, called the Wayback Machine.
Now, the Wayback Machine is a crawler that archives websites in real time.
And if you shut down your website, if you delete it, if you remove it, and so on, it remains on the Wayback Machine archives.
So then, the question is...
If she never wrote them, how did they end up in the Wayback Machine archive?
So there are only two ways to do it.
One would be that a huge and elaborate hack would have had to occur on Joanne Reid's blog back in the early to mid-2000s.
That people would have just had to find a way into her account, would have written posts in her style, in her language, with the same spelling errors, I might add.
And then those posts that were inserted illegitimately into her blog would then have been archived in the Wayback Machine.
Now, she wasn't famous back then, so why on earth would there be this big elaborate plot to get hold of her account information, to log into it, to post blog posts in her style with the same spelling errors, with the same general themes as other things she's tweeted and written about? with the same general themes as other things she's tweeted Well, it would make no sense at all.
Plus, of course, then she would have to have logged into her blog and not noticed at all.
That there were these entries, repeated multiple entries of things that were repellent to her that she hadn't even noticed.
Like she posted one blog post two days after one of the ones she says she never wrote, that she was hacked, right?
So that becomes...
Pretty unbelievable, right?
So then she said, well, you know, the Wayback Machine, maybe the Wayback Machine was hacked.
Okay, well, if the Wayback Machine was hacked, then somebody decided to go and insert archive posts in the Wayback Machine with the right dates, with the right...
And so it wasn't in her original blog, but it was in the Wayback Machine.
And that, you see, was hacked.
Now, the Wayback Machine... Owners and operators said, and they can find no evidence of anything of the kind.
Plus, of course, the Wayback Machine is not the only crawler that archives websites and blog posts and so on, and they've shown up in other places as well.
So, it is just ridiculous.
I mean, it's one of these appeal to...
I don't know what a nice way to put it.
Low information. Voters.
The word hacked just conjures up, I guess, Russians and people who dislike Hillary Clinton and Anthony Weiner, because this is the go-to defense for people who do ridiculous, horrible, nasty stuff, either in person or online, if they've found anything.
If it's anything to do with a computer, it's hacked, right?
You know, why did Hillary Clinton lose the election in 2016?
Because the Russians hacked the election.
The Russians hacked the DNC and handed the information to WikiLeaks, who published the emails, and who was Seth Rich?
Well, hopefully we'll find out one day before he turns entirely to diamonds.
Anthony Weiner, why did he tweet his meat to everybody in the known universe and their dog?
Well, because, you see, he was hacked, as he claimed, until he was told, I think, that an investigation was going to occur, in which case he backed a little bit off that claim.
So, of course, she wrote this stuff.
And what are you going to say?
What are you going to say when there is no sane way that any of this stuff could not have been Yours.
I mean, it's just astounding.
So, what does she say?
What does she say about all of this?
So, she said recently, and I quote, When a friend found the posts in December and sent them to me, I was stunned.
Frankly, I couldn't imagine where they'd come from or whose voice that was.
In the months since, I've spent a lot of time trying to make sense of these posts.
I hired cybersecurity experts to see if somebody had manipulated my words or my former blog, and the reality is they've not been able to prove it.
I genuinely do not believe I wrote those hateful things because they are completely alien to me.
But I can definitely understand, based on things I have tweeted and have written in the past, why some people don't believe me.
I've not been exempt from being dumb or cruel or hurtful to the very people I want to advocate for.
I own that. I get it.
And for that, I am truly, truly sorry.
Wow, what a statement.
What a statement. She says, I genuinely do not believe I wrote those hateful things.
Does that mean she has more than one personality?
Was she in the dark place? Did somebody else hold the spotlight?
Was she possessed? Was she abducted by aliens who forced her to write these things and then wiped her memory men in black style?
Who knows? I genuinely do not believe I wrote those hateful things.
What a defense! What an astounding defense.
Let's take that as a principle.
Let's take that as a principle.
The evidence, of course, is that she wrote all these hateful things.
But if she gets off the hook, and she's going to get off the hook, of course, right?
Of course she is. It's going to be let go of.
And the Republicans won't push the issue because they like to lose graciously rather than win.
And what does this mean?
Now, some people say, oh, well, you know, some of the people on the left are saying, I think Eric Holder was one, saying, well, you know, this was a long time ago.
She's learned, she's grown, she's improved.
Yay, right? Okay, well, some of these things occurred after the infamous Billy Bush tape where Trump talked about grabbing women who let you grab them by the pussy.
He had grown. He apologized for all of that.
Did that matter? No. So you see, if a Democrat does something horrible, the Democrat can apologize, and it's a lesson in how to grow, how to mature, how to be better, how to be bigger.
But if a Republican does something even further back in time, and he wasn't disparaging anyone, just basically saying that there are some women who are gold diggers.
It's funny how the left fully recognizes that there's such a thing as gold diggers because they wanted Kanye West to run for president back in the day, and that was one of his big songs.
So yeah, there are gold diggers, women who will let famous men grab them by the pussy and encourage it because they are fame tarts, let's put it as nicely as possible.
But you see, when Trump says something that everybody knows about anyway, that there are some women who are fame whores, that's a terrible, terrible thing.
And there's no apology that's possible for it and he can never recover from it and he should be forever damned by it.
But when this woman says that she just doesn't believe she wrote these hateful things, well, why doesn't Donald Trump say, I just don't believe I said those things?
Well, it's on tape! Well, I still don't believe.
This is the equivalent on tape, you understand, right?
These archiving machines, the typos, I mean, this is the same.
The lack of motivation for anyone to hack her account back in the day.
This is the same as it being on tape.
Now this is the defense.
Everyone, with any balls...
Or robust ovaries can cleanse.
You can look at the tape of you robbing a store and you can say, I genuinely do not believe that I robbed that store.
And you're off scot-free, you understand.
You're off scot-free because you genuinely do not believe that what happened, that what you did, is what you did.
Genuinely don't believe it and so you're off thought.
What an astounding phenomenon.
Bill Cosby recently found guilty, yet to be sentenced, facing three counts of up to ten years for drugging and being extraordinarily horrifying and sexually improper with women.
See, now it's been almost 50 years since the rumors started and he started doing these horrible things.
Now there's justice!
No, there's not. But Bill Cosby, why doesn't he just say, I genuinely do not believe that I drugged and molested these women?
I mean, this goes back to Clinton.
It depends what the definition of is, is, right?
This sophistry, this verbal tapioca, this dissolving of reality and language for the sake of preserving a red-faced, guilty person from what they damn well know they did.
This is literally like those silly videos on the internet where children have their faces half covered in chocolate.
They have chocolate on their hands and they say, I didn't take any chocolate.
Mama, I genuinely believe I did not eat any chocolate.
Well, what about all of this?
I was hacked, you see.
It was hacked. Cyber...
See, I did hire some cyber criminals to figure out why I was hacked and why people poured chocolate on my face and hands without me knowing it.
But, you know, the cyber security experts are having trouble figuring out how it all happened and they can't find a way to prove it.
I guess they can't.
I guess they can't.
Amazing. I genuinely do not believe that I did what I very, very clearly did.
We don't need a legal system anymore.
We don't need philosophy. We don't need science.
There can be no such thing as fraud.
I genuinely did not believe that I defrauded this company.
Well, we've got a signature. We've got tape.
We've got recording. I genuinely believe I didn't do it.
That's astounding. This is what I mean where subjectivism, relativism, the dissolving of reality in the panic of immediate need.
We've reached peak cultural Marxism.
We've reached peak subjectivism and relativism.
I don't feel that I did what I clearly did.
My feelings are not that I did it.
As Ben says, facts don't care about your feelings.
Well, of course, in this case, they do.
Right? Because this is an astounding moment.
An astounding, astounding moment.
To lie in such a manner and to be supported by so many people.
To be supported by so many people.
That is just astounding.
Because what the media is saying now is they don't care at all about the truth.
They don't care at all about the truth.
They will circle the wagons for their team.
And they will...
Protect somebody on their team when they're clearly in the wrong and they're clearly lying.
They don't care about their team.
They don't care about the truth. And that is amazing because if this had happened to someone else, can you imagine if this had happened to somebody who was a conservative, somebody who was a Republican, if they had dug up these posts?
I mean, you would not hear the end of it.
It would be shot up like flares in a night sky to light up a hellish landscape of immense and endless verbal abuse.
And they would try to destroy this person.
They would try to destroy their career.
They would try to contact all of their advertisers.
And it would probably work.
But you see, when it happens to Joy Ann Reed, it's fine.
And that is both wonderful and terrifying.
The reason it's wonderful is that why not use these weapons if you can, right?
If you can use your leftist privilege, your race privilege, if you can just use this to skate off and get away with things, yeah, sure, well, why not use those things?
To just say, well, I don't have any chocolate.
I mean, I don't have chocolate.
On my hands. I don't have to, but it's right there.
I've got a picture. I'll look you in the mirror.
No, it's not there. It's a wheel away reality.
If it's going to work, why wouldn't you do it?
If sophistry and the dissolution of the connection between language, reality, reason, evidence, motivation, facts, if this can all just be sundered by you stating a lack of belief in that which is patently obvious, why wouldn't you?
Why wouldn't you take that I mean, you'd be crazy not to, right?
And this is where people say, oh, the Russians hacked the election.
Enough truth, right? I mean, the reports are all that it didn't happen, that nothing happened.
It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter.
You need an answer as to why things went wrong, and the answer can never be that you did something wrong, you understand?
Never, ever, ever take ownership.
There's no one in you other than ghosts and defenses and nothingness.
Take no ownership for anything you've done.
Why did Donald Trump win the election?
Because Hillary was a terrible candidate.
Because she was ridiculously careless with state secrets.
Because she insulted half of half of America.
Because she refused to talk to the press.
And because the DNC was revealed to have jigged the election of the nominee away from Bernie Sanders and towards Hillary Clinton.
And many, many other reasons.
Can the Democrats take ownership of that?
No! Because Democrats are leftist and responsibility are like two opposing magnets of intergalactic force.
You just can't get them to connect.
Now, people on the right take too much ownership.
But that's a topic for another time.
But this is the astounding thing.
Postmodernism, you see, is not designed to destroy truth.
Truth is just the innocent bystander.
Postmodernism is designed to destroy the certainty of those who believe in truth.
The postmodernists don't believe in truth.
They're post-truth. They're post-moral.
They are in a Nietzschean universe of the will to power.
Now, the will to power can only achieve its goal of physical, you know, gun-based, brutal tyranny over the population through sophistry to begin with.
If someone comes up to you and says, well, I really want to take away all your rights and shoot you and your family and bury you in a shallow grave, you'd be like, um, no.
Let's not have that happen.
So, the tyrants have to gain their ascendancy through language first.
And the way that they have to operate is they have to arm themselves and disarm you.
So postmodernism is a way of befogging people who have universal standards.
Because universal standards are the only thing that we have to push back against hypocrisy, you see.
The hypocrisy of, well, when I do it, it's just an accident.
It never happened. I don't really believe it happened.
I'm going to apologize anyway. Let's move on.
But when you do it, you're evil incarnate forever and I'm going to destroy your life.
You see? Now, the only thing that allows hypocrisy to operate is the destruction of universal values.
And the destruction of universal values means breaking the relationship between the mind and objective reality.
Objective reality is universal.
It is objective.
It's how we know we're awake and not dreaming.
Unless, I guess, we sleep-type evil things into our blog a decade or so ago, in which case it's just the ghostly fingertips of the unconscious that are making it happen.
I have no memory of it.
I was sleeping. Yeah!
Sleep-typing! Yeah!
That's it! Possession and sleep-typing and aliens.
I'm sure aliens are in there somewhere.
So the goal of postmodernism is the destruction of standards that can detect and expose and push back against hypocrisy.
The goal of postmodernism is power.
The goal of postmodernism is dominance.
And the way that you do that is you destroy objectivity.
Which is why you get this weird contradiction in the postmodernist world.
So in the postmodernist world, women can make babies with trees.
I'm not kidding. You can look at the debate with Thaddeus Russell that I had.
In the postmodernist world, there's no such thing as reality, no such thing as truth, no such thing as anything.
But there are absolute moral standards that you can call in, like an airstrike onto other people.
And they're all thought crimes, you see.
For postmodernists, they wish to be able to destroy their enemies, which they must do through language before they can finally do it, through weaponry.
So they destroy people's reputations with a feral hatred that eventually replaces...
The rule of words with the rule of swords, right?
That one little S that's added to words is what they're aiming for.
And so, what they want to do is have all the power for themselves, And none of the power for you.
And they wish it to be fast, right?
They want kangaroo courts. They want no rule of law.
They want no due process.
Can't confront your witnesses. Let me just look at what happened for quite a long time to men accused of sexual impropriety on American campuses or other campuses as well.
It was a complete witch hunt.
It was a kangaroo court. There was little possibility of any kind of escape from the clutches.
You couldn't go with a lawyer.
You couldn't confront your accuser.
I mean, all of the standards of justice were thrown out the window.
That's what they want. They need to cycle people quickly.
They need to cycle their outrage and their attacks quickly.
Which is why the left is obsessed with coming up with thought crimes.
Thought crimes are very, very important because thought crimes can be used to attack people with no evidence.
Right? So this is why terms like racism and sexism and all of this, this is why they're all created.
So that you can accuse someone of being a racist unless they do what you want.
You can accuse someone of being a sexist unless they do what you want.
Now, do you actually have to prove anything?
No! You can read their minds!
You can read their minds!
You know what is going on deep within their hearts.
It's the dog whistle.
Only the dogs can hear it.
Only I can hear the terrible things that other people are thinking.
And it's a clamor in my very brain.
So I get to viciously attack people for thought crimes.
Because you see, thought crimes don't have to go through due process.
You just call people names. And that's the goal.
The goal is to provide the weaponry of verbal destruction in the hands of the left and destroy the universal standards that would expose it as rank and bilious hypocrisy.
And that is tragic.
And I think that we're understanding this in general now that the left has no honor.
I'd love to invite them into a saner world, but the problem is that when you have a system which redistributes trillions of dollars per country at the point of, again, through taxation, through the government's Fed-licensed monopoly on money creation, through debt, through the selling of treasuries and other debt instruments, the enslavement of the unborn to foreign banksters, when you have that going on in society, you have the initiation of the use of force.
The foundational immorality.
The initiation of the use of force is used to transfer trillions of dollars.
Which means that you have millions and tens of millions, tens of millions, tens of millions of people who survive from violence, who survive from coercion.
How can you expect to have honor from people who are happy to be the willing receivers of bloodstained 30 pieces of silver a day?
When you have people who feed on the blood trough of taxpayer money, how can you expect them to have honor?
Their very lives deny any principle of universality because they need people to produce in order for the government to be able to steal from those people and give to themselves.
And of course, if everybody was on welfare, nobody contributing to the system, the welfare system It's destroyed in a day.
So they need some people to produce so that they can pillage and consume.
And I'm not just talking about the poor.
I'm talking about the bureaucrats.
I'm talking about the politicians.
I'm talking about the media to a large degree.
I'm certainly talking about the military-industrial complex.
It's not just the poor. It's not just people on welfare.
It's all of those with tenure and can't be fired and no standards of excellence and no capacity for customers to choose them versus someone else or nothing at all.
Those who prey upon coercion, those who live on violence, who survive and flourish based upon the government's capacity to redistribute income, of course they can't be objective.
Of course they can't believe in truth, because they require other human beings to do the exact opposite of what they're doing in order for them to survive.
They need other people to produce so that they can consume.
The vampires cannot roundly cry to the sky that none should taste the blood of others.
Well, I guess they could, but it's just a way of deceiving people into offering up their necks or not protecting themselves at all.
So, she's kind of a hero in a way, in that she is, this Joanne Reed, she is such an illumination of where things are in the world.
The media knows she's lying.
And they won't call her out on it.
Because she's on their side.
On their team. And the right won't go after her in the way that the left would if this had happened on the right.
They won't. Because they have this weird belief that honor exists independent of a relationship.
It's like saying love exists independent of a relationship.
I mean, love of a person, right?
A person elicits love, like love is our involuntary response to virtue if we're virtuous.
When we're courageous, then we respond positively to somebody who's courageous.
When we act with integrity, when we tell the truth, we respond positively to people who act with integrity and tell the truth.
We love virtue.
And we love people...
To the degree to which virtue manifests in what they do.
There is no love that exists independent of the actions of yourself and of others.
No person love.
You can love abstracts. You can love ideas.
But in terms of whether you love some person, you love some person because they manifest values that you share that are positive.
Morality is objective.
And I've talked about this in my free book, Universally Preferable Behavior, A Rational Proof of Secular Ethics.
Morality is objective.
But morality is a relationship.
Morality is a relationship.
If I say that I'm 40, I'm lying.
If I say I'm 40 to someone who wants to date me, But it's concerned that I might be older than that, then I'm misleading someone in a very grave manner.
If I'm alone on a desert island and I say that I'm 40, who cares?
Doesn't matter. I have to lie to someone.
Of course, there's lying to yourself and this and that and the other, but we lie to ourselves in general so that we can more easily lie to others.
Morality is a relationship.
If You buy something for $500 online, and they send you an empty box, do you still pay the $500?
No, because they haven't honored their side of the bargain, so why on earth should you honor your side of the bargain?
Morality is not something that we perform to abstract perfect ideals, regardless of the behavior of those around us.
Morality, the highest standards of behavior, we should reserve for those who themselves exhibit the highest standards of behavior.
Do not cast your pearls before swine, people.
Reserve your moral behavior for those who are moral.
Integrity is a relationship, not an absolute.
If it's an absolute, you'll just be exploited forever.
People lie to get into your country under refugee programs.
They're not refugees.
They're fraudsters.
But there is this belief among Republicans, among people on the right, that you act with the highest standards regardless of what the other person is doing.
Thank you.
Thank you.
No. No.
That's suicide. People earn.
Your most moral behavior.
Through their moral behavior.
And you treat people the best you can the first time you meet them.
And after that, you treat them as they treat you.
You treat people the best you can the first time you meet them.
After that, you treat them like they treat you.
Tell people to the truth.
Tell people the truth.
Be honest. Be honorable. First time you meet them.
And if they then lie.
You treat people the best you can.
Best you know how. The first time you meet them after that, you treat them as they treat you.
Having higher standards than low people?
I know what the outcome is.
History is very clear on this.
Morality is very clear on this.
Philosophy is very clear.
You can cling to your principles as the world dissolves into mud and blood around you.
