June 13, 2018 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
50:01
4117 Why The Left Hates Science
After decades of criticizing the Republican Christian base about their "denial of science" and refusal to follow reason and evidence - the modern left's hypocrisy has been exposed via their outright hostility to proven scientific facts. Stefan Molyneux explains why the left must remain hostile to genetic differences which explain unequal outcomes in order to sell their false story of exploitation. 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
What is not allowed can be as instructive in the world as what is allowed.
And the one thing that the largely secular, supposedly scientific left gets enraged and crazy about is genetics.
That is the one aspect of the world that you simply step on a landmine if you approach that topic when you have a leftist around.
And the big question is, why?
Why are biological differences between men and women such anathema to the left?
Why is it differences in race and IQ such anathema?
To the left.
It's a fascinating question.
I've been giving it some thought.
I'm going to share my thoughts with you and I look forward to seeing your comments below, as always.
So, understanding physical limitations is very, very important when it comes to having a successful life.
If you're not really a very good singer, then you probably shouldn't be a singer.
If you are not very tall, maybe basketball isn't the place for you.
If you're not very handsome, maybe being a model isn't the place for you.
And if you don't have much affinity to mathematics, then being a mathematician, you understand, right?
Now, the question is, when people get really angry if a particular topic is brought up, The question why usually has to do with money and power.
And if a certain fact or a certain series of facts is put forward that threatens somebody's money or power, threatens their income or threatens their power over people, well, they tend to get very angry.
Now, they will, of course, cloak this anger in feigned moral outrage and charges of racism and sexism and so on.
But it comes down to the Benjamins, and it comes down to control over other people.
There is a famous line from an old movie called Risky Business, Tom Cruise's launch, I believe, wherein Tom Cruise interferes with a pimp's use of his prostitutes, and the pimp says, in a recession, never F with another man's income, or never F with another man's business.
It's a line that kind of stuck with me.
And the question is, if this is a reasonable approach, and I think by the end of this you'll understand that it's more than reasonable, it's actually very accurate.
The question is, if it's about money and power, what do genetics do to the left's money and power?
What does the study of genetics or the description and promulgation of genetics and their reality in the world, what does that do to the left's money and power?
Well, quite a lot, as it turns out.
So people can offer you goods and services, or they can offer you delusions.
And so you can, say, be a modeling agency that goes and finds the most physically attractive people, gets them contracts, and you get paid through your agent's fee for providing attractive people to people who want to show off their goods and services.
Or what you can do is you can be a modeling agency that accepts money from people who aren't top tier in terms of attractiveness, but you'll take their money and pretend to train them on how to be a model and then refer them, and your goal is not to make money from people modeling, but to make money from people who want to model, who want to be models, rather than who actually can achieve.
being models and these two one is relatively honest the other is relatively not one of these you are in the goal of providing goods and services to customers the customers in this case being the people who will pay for the models in the other one you're in the goods you're in the business of delivering Delusions to people who want something which they're not able to achieve.
You can see this with acting schools.
You can see this with just a wide variety of Industries that seem to make most of their money catering to people's delusions, cuddling them along, pretending they can do something which they probably can't do, but being well paid in the process.
So that's very important.
I've spent some time in the arts world.
These people are kind of everywhere and they'll dangle, oh you can be this, you can be that, but you got to give me this money and then you got to take this training course and you understand how this all works.
So Selling people hope in the absence of ability is a very big rich and lucrative business.
Now, when you're a parent, When your kids are young, you want to be very encouraging towards them, because everybody is discovering what their talents are when they're young, and the family is keeping a close and beady eagle eye on the development of the kids to say, well, you expose them to a whole bunch of things.
Yeah, you want to try some dance, you want to try some soccer, you want to join them athletes, here's a chess club, you cast the net fairly wide to see what Where the combination of desire and ability create the sweet spot wherein your child can focus their energies to be successful in life in the long run.
So it's natural. To be very encouraging when your child is young is very good.
And given that throughout most of our evolutionary history, it was women who parented the very young children.
For women to be like, yay, good job, and be enthusiastic, and you can do everything, and be empowered, these are all wonderful messages to give.
To children, until the cold beady glacier eye of the father makes sure that the enthusiasms that are kind of instilled in the children by the mother, those enthusiasms get whittled down to something much more reasonable, much more rational. You know, it's the Simon, what's his name, Simon, on America's American Idol, where people come in for auditions and he's like, you're terrible.
You're terrible. I'm helping you.
This is not your thing.
This is not what you should be spending your energies on.
I remember seeing one of those shows where there was this mom who brought her son in.
Her son was a terrible dancer in his mid-twenties or something.
And the judges were saying to the mom, like, you're not doing him any favors by pretending that he's good at this.
You are... Helping him or encouraging him to waste his time, his energy and resources, and you're putting him in situations where he's going to be humiliated, where he's going to do a bad job, where he's going to be laughed at.
It's cruel to encourage people far beyond their abilities.
And when you're encouraging people to go in the wrong direction with regards to their abilities, what you're doing is you're preventing them from continuing to expose themselves to new things, to find something that they love and are good at that people are willing to pay for.
So, blanket enthusiasm, exposure to a wide variety of things when kids are young, fantastic.
I think that's good, and that's healthy, and that's right.
But continuing that phase of blanket encouragement and exposure far beyond its rational limits is bad, right?
You don't want to be way critical of toddlers.
Oh, that painting of a person just looks like a lollipop.
That's terrible. Here's a picture of uncle.
You can't do that, so you understand, right?
So you don't want to be blanket critical of kids when they're younger, but at the same time, you don't want to be blanket enthusiastic as they get older, because like all of us, your kids, and you and me, we're going to be really, really good at some things, we hope, but we're going to be really, really bad at other things.
We're going to be mediocre, and so you've got to really focus your energies, your talents, your intelligence, your ambitions and so on to stuff that's going to really pay off the most.
Now, As the role of women in raising children has gone from co-parenting to virtually omniscient and all-powerful, then this encouragement of everyone has become almost pathological.
Like, everyone gets a prize, everyone gets a ribbon, everyone gets a little cup, and participation trophies, everyone, right?
Because it is humiliating To belittle a child who's just starting out.
And you don't want that.
It's wrong. It's unfair.
It stifles the child's enthusiasm and so on.
And so avoiding the humiliation of unjust criticism, very good.
However, when your children aren't very good at something, encouraging them to keep going against all evidence and reason...
Also ends up with them being humiliated.
They're going to be humiliated by you if you chew down and, you know, beaver base of the tree every single thing that they try.
They're going to be humiliated. At the same time, if you encourage them to do everything, they're going to get out into the cold, hard, responsive, customer-driven world of volunteerism, and they're going to be humiliated because they're going to go out and audition, or they're going to go out and try and be a model, or they're going to go out and whatever, right? Take their painting to an art gallery.
And they're going to be humiliated.
And so it's a tough balance.
Enthusiasm, yes. Uncritical enthusiasm into the teenage years, definitely no.
Very, very bad.
So here's the question.
Why does the left, why do the collectivists as a whole, why are they so focused, genuinely and absolutely completely and totally obsessed With radical environmental explanations for where human beings end up in the world.
In other words, women end up in this particular field in general, right?
So women generally gravitate towards people-centric fields rather than thing or principle-centric fields.
Why do women end up wanting to work more with people?
And why do men in general end up wanting to work more with things and ideas?
Well, of course nothing is 100% genetic and nothing is 100% environmental.
It's a balance. There are some things which seem to be significantly more Genetic than environmental, for instance, height.
I mean, assuming that you get enough food.
Intelligence by your late teens is about 80% genetic, so your eye color is 100% genetic and so on, right?
So there definitely are aspects, but there's almost no aspect of your personality that has no basis in your genetics.
So then the question is, why would the left want to throw out All of the science, which, you know, scientific materialism, scientific socialism, scientific communism, claim to be big fans of science.
The question is, why would they throw out all of the genetics that are the basis of a lot of what we can do and a lot of who we are?
And say, everything's 100% environmental.
Because if everything's 100% environmental, they have...
Something to offer the world which is equality of outcome.
See where I'm going with this?
They have a good to sell, not a good in terms of goods and services and a good in terms of a moral good.
They have something to sell and that something to sell is called egalitarianism of outcome.
Now, if everything is environmental and If your IQ is environmental, if your predilections, your talents, your preferences, if they're all environmental, then you can keep tweaking the environment until egalitarianism of outcome is achieved.
So that's what they're selling.
And I'm talking about selling like they're really selling.
Because you know how the left in general works, is they find some disparity between groups.
And then they claim that all disparities between groups...
are the result of racism, sexism, bigotry of various kinds and then they say if you give us power we can close this clear evidence of sexism, racism and so on and so give us the power and we will use the might of the state and the authority that is given to us to close this gap which is clear indication of racism and sexism and so on.
That's how they work.
Now In order for this sales pitch to work, everything has to be environmental.
You understand? Everything has to be environmental.
Because the environment can be changed.
The genes, certainly in the political sense, in the immediate sense, in the legislative sense, the genes can't be changed.
Can't change it.
There's no, can't pass any law to make women the same height as men on average.
You can't. You can't pass any law that makes Danish people not the tallest people on average in the world.
You can't pass any law that has me regrow hair or people's eye color change or anything like that.
You can't pass a law for any of that sort of stuff.
Government policies do have an effect on genetics over time and the welfare state has really shifted the genetic path of the countries that have I was going to say embraced it, but it's not really an embraced situation because it's a coercive redistribution of resources.
But the genetic in the moment is way beyond the reach of the political.
Legislatures can't meet, action task committees can't get together, Ivanka Trump can't run conferences to change genetics.
And so if we accept The role, the significant role, and sometimes the overwhelming role that genetics play in who we are and our capacities, our opportunities, our predilections, our preferences, and so on.
If we accept that role, Then we begin to explore disparities in group outcomes, not simply as manifestations of bigoted injustice, but also as manifestations of, well, a little thing I like to call genetic diversity, which is that there is great diversity between the races, there is great diversity between the genders, there is great diversity in sexual orientations and so on.
All fascinating, all interesting, all wonderful in its own way, and all entirely predicted by Evolution, right?
I mean, if you separate races by 50,000 years, 100,000 years, whatever it is, and you subject them to wildly different environments, in other words, if you've got some of the races up in Siberia and the other ones in sub-Saharan Africa, well, you do that for tens of thousands of years or more, you're going to get some changes.
Of course you are. I mean, no question about that.
There are Groups on islands who dive to get their food from the bottom of the oceans, relatively close to the surface, I mean, certainly compared to the Mariana Trench, and they have developed better ways to oxygenate their blood and hold their breath relatively quickly.
People up in the mountains in Tibet have got better ways to process oxygen.
I mean, evolution is very rapid, very rapid, if it's allowed to operate freely.
In other words, if you live in a relatively free society.
And so there's going to be this diversity.
There is. The idea that men would be out hunting and gathering and fighting and defending and so on, whereas women would generally be home with the children, that that would produce no changes.
Obviously, we were aware that it produces rather delightful changes in the body.
The idea that it would produce no changes in the brain would be so anti-scientific it would be insane.
I mean, literally, it's mental.
You know, there's...
The most fundamentalist religious person would not deny that there's a possibility to breed for effect.
You know, like the cats that domesticated wild cats, the dogs that domesticated wolves, you know, that kind of stuff, right?
We all understand that. And so our brain, which is by far our most expensive organ, I mean, we pour huge amounts of energy into the brain.
The brain is like 3% of our mass, but can consume up to a third of our energy.
So the idea that the human brain It's somehow magically excluded, it's wrapped in this force field that is magically excluded from evolution when it is in fact our most expensive organ and therefore would probably be the most subjected to evolutionary forces.
The idea that the brain is not subject to evolutionary forces between the races, between the genders, is horrifyingly anti-scientific.
And like places this sort of radical environmental explanation for all group differences in humanity, it places it into the realm Even beyond superstition, even beyond the rankist mysticism, even beyond things like astrology and telekinesis and so on,
it is a rank religion based almost solely on anti-empiricism, anti-rationality, anti-science, which is kind of funny because people on the left kind of rail against religion for rejecting certain aspects of evolution, but it is the left that fundamentally rejects Evolution, completely, because evolution is going to produce differences.
Of course it is. And just by the by, for those who say that men have exploited women throughout history, well, who do you think is going to end up with more strength?
Somebody who mows a big field with a hand push mower, no electricity, no gasoline, a hand push mower, or a Somebody who hires somebody else to drive around some big mower.
Of course the guy pushing regularly and mowing and so on is going to end up with more strength.
The idea that men have exploited women throughout human history is belied by the simple evolutionary fact that men have ended up with 40% more upper body strength than women.
So if men were just exploiting women, Why on earth would men develop greater strength?
No, it's because men had a requirement to expend greater strength and resources than women, and that's just one of the by-the-bys.
It doesn't take a lot to push back against this kind of nonsense.
So, if you're not particularly good at something that you want to be good at, Well, your mother will initially encourage you, and it's right that she should.
And then, in general, your father will say, no, that's not very good.
This is not working out.
I don't think this is for you. Because he wants to protect you from humiliation.
He also wants you to succeed.
And that old...
Kind of half joke, you know, my mom loves my paintings.
It's like, well, of course she does.
She's your mom. And as fathers have become more and more absent from society, these delusions of egalitarianism of outcome have vastly increased because mothers cultivate potential in children, whereas fathers trim and prune a lack of ability to focus the child on what the child is going to end up being best at.
So if we accept that genetics are significant and sometimes overwhelmingly causal and responsible for group differences in outcomes for humanity, then we can explore that.
And it's the old thing that you do, right?
Which is, do you normalize by a variety of factors, right?
So, I mean, the wage gap is a perfect example of this, right?
The wage gap wherein women are portrayed as earning...
70 cents on the dollar to men only earning 70% or 68%, or it depends on how you measure it, 72%.
Between two-thirds and three-quarters of what men earn, right?
Okay, so what you do is you take all men who are working, you take all women who are working, and then you figure out salaries, and the woman is less, right?
Okay. It's deceptive.
I mean, it's deceptive and it's horrible because it sets men against women and it's just terrible for reproduction.
It's marital stability. It grows resentment, right?
So the resentment is the big crop that the left tends to grow.
By saying that all disparities in outcome are the result of bigotry, sexism, racism, and so on, it sows resentment.
And it's worse than unnecessary.
It's counterproductive to the extreme.
Because what you want to do, if you want to figure out if men and women are paid differently, is you want to say, what if you're normalized by?
You want to ask yourself, okay, well, I've got a big difference.
What am I going to normalize by?
So, for instance, if you have fewer Chinese people in the NBA... Well, you could say, well, that's just racism, or you could normalize by height.
Just one of many, or muscle mass, or whatever it is, right?
Or, who knows, exposure culturally to the game, or whatever.
And you might find out that normalize by height, and muscle mass, and exposure to the game, there's actually just the right amount of Chinese people in the NBA. It could be any number of things along these lines.
For women, you would say, okay, well, let's normalize by education.
Because women are often drawn towards Less highly compensated fields because they're working with people rather than things you know if you want to make money you become a petroleum engineer but not many women want to become petroleum engineers and so they opt for the arts or generic nicey stuff and so on which is all great and need to be done in society but it's just not going to make you as much money so you normalize by education you would also normalize by number of years in the workforce you would normalize by do you have children did you stay home with children and so on right Because one of the great paid occupations for women is staying home with children.
I'm a stay-at-home dad.
It's a pretty sweet gig.
You get to spend time with your kids.
You get to have a lot of fun.
You get to watch lives grow.
You get to have influence over the next generation.
It's a beautiful thing. So the traditional setup, of course, is that the woman stays home with the child or children, and the man goes out of work and pays the bills.
The woman is not working outside the home.
She's not generating income.
She's just generating the next generation, which is even more important than income in many ways.
But the woman is getting paid, right?
So if the man makes $100,000 a year, Then he ends up paying the woman the majority of that income.
Why is it not half?
Because he has a wife and children.
He needs a much bigger home.
He needs a second car and so on.
So the fact that he has a wife and children, like a bachelor can live on 10 to 20% what a married man with children needs to earn because the bachelor can live much smaller, much more simply and so on.
You got your food.
You got your property taxes, increased housing, increased transportation costs and clothing and health care.
You name it, right? So, I mean, I'm just blanketing out the numbers here.
You can throw in taxes and all that.
But if a man makes $100,000 a year, the women and children get $80,000 of that.
Now, is that counted in closing the wage gap?
Well, of course it is. Of course it should be, if you normalize by that.
You would also want to normalize by IQ, because at the highest levels of human intelligence, women tend to drop off the cliff in terms of representation, right?
So there are It's like 10 to 1, 12 to 1 are the very highest levels.
And then at the very highest levels, there are virtually no women at all.
So you'd normalize by that.
So you understand how all of this works.
If you normalize by things, then you will find out that women are not underpaid relative to To men.
Of course, if you include things like alimony and child support and so on, you might actually find that women kind of overpaid relative to men.
But again, the purpose is to sow resentment and therefore people will give up their rights and freedoms in order to close this imaginary gap that represents nothing but bigotry, sexism, racism, and so on.
But yeah, you have something to sell to people, right?
If the world is much more fair than you think it is, then you don't have fairness to sell, right?
This is an important thing.
If the world is a lot more fair than it's portrayed, then the fairness hawkers don't have much to sell.
And if they don't have much to sell, well, they get kind of mad because they want to be able to sell stuff and they like having power.
And the way that they get power is to invent imaginary racism and bigotry, sexism and so on, and then say, well, give up your freedoms, give up your property rights, give up your Freedom of association, and we will close this terrible injustice, right? But the injustice has to be there for them to be able to sell the solution to this injustice, right?
I mean, if a man lives to 100, we say, yeah, good long life, right?
If a man lives to 20, we say, not a good long life, right?
So, if the average human lifespan was like a full-on Methuselah Old Testament thousand or two thousand, we'd say a man who died at a hundred, if he could have lived to a thousand, died young.
Right? So, the very definition of health has to do with the upper limit, right?
And the very definition of justice has to do with the upper limit as well.
So, you have to push back against and attack Genetics.
Because genetics, you see, is a competitive explanation for disparities in the world.
But it's an explanation that no one can profit from politically because it can't be changed by legislation.
You understand? It's a competition.
It's worse than Coke and Pepsi because Coke and Pepsi can both coexist.
But the genetics tends to displace The perfect egalitarianism of outcome that is dangled like a divine carrot in front of the chomping masses of the people in the West in particular who are all hungry for fairness and niceness and equality and so on, right?
So equality of opportunity, equality of opportunity, equality under the law, is going to produce disparate outcomes.
It's going to produce disparate outcomes.
But then you say, well, all of these, because of genetics, right?
So then you say, well, all these disparate outcomes are unfair, but if you give me political power and money, I will solve this injustice.
Because everything's environmental.
If fewer women want to become petroleum engineers, it's because they're not raised playing with oil derricks as children.
So I'm going to fix that, I'm going to make it right, and so on.
And don't get me wrong, again, I'm not saying there's no environmental factors.
Of course there are environmental factors at work.
But, but, the degree to which we recognize genetics is the degree to which we strip away the power of people to offer us perfectly egalitarian outcomes based upon radical, a radical focus on, well, an anti-scientific focus on environmental factors alone.
So, genetics undercut the market for egalitarianism.
It's the same thing with the communists, right?
The communists say You, the workers, are really producing what the factory is selling.
It's you who's making it.
And it's the boss who just sits there counting the money and groping your wives and, you know, all sorts of unsavory things that are talked about even directly in the Communist Manifesto.
It's you, the workers, who are making stuff.
The boss is just exploiting you.
Now, bosses tend to have higher IQs than workers.
The bosses have created the factory, the bosses have invested, the bosses are renting you the machines to double or triple your productivity in return for some portion of your wages, right?
So if making a bunch of nails by hand, you can make like 10 an hour, well, you can sell 10 nails an hour, which ain't going to make you much, right?
But if you have a nail-making machine that the capitalist can give you, and it gives you 100 nails an hour that you can produce, Then you're up 90 nails.
Now, you're not just going to get that for free.
The capitalist is going to take his proportion of the nails, maybe 20 nails or 10 nails or whatever it is.
But you're both very rough. He gets more nails.
You get more nails. Everything's good.
Now, as the worker, though, you don't have to take the risk of investing in the nail-producing machine and paying the taxes and the heating costs and renting and blah, blah, blah, right?
So, it's not the worst deal in the world.
And... The idea that the bosses want to keep you down is just false.
It could only be fantasized by somebody who'd never been a boss, right?
Who'd never actually worked in a capitalist industry like Karl Marx, of course, never did.
He couldn't even get a job as a railway clerk because his handwriting was so atrocious.
But your boss desperately wants to pay you more.
Desperately wants to pay you more.
Because if your boss can pay you more, it's because you're producing more.
So, if you're a salesman and you double your sales, your boss is thrilled to pay you more because it means he's making more money from increased sales.
It's just your boss can't pay you more if you're not producing more, for reasons that are, I think, far too obvious to state here.
Now, again, Dr.
Jordan Peterson has talked about this, I've mentioned it on my show as well, this Pareto Principle, which is that the square root, like in a relatively free meritocracy, the square root of the workers produces half the value, right?
So if you've got 10,000 employees or workers in a company, 100 of them are producing half the value, right?
And of that, 100, 10 are producing.
A quarter of the value of the entire company.
So 10 workers out of 10,000 are producing a quarter of the value of the entire company.
Well, of course they're going to get paid more.
Of course, because if they're not going to get paid more, you just don't get that productivity.
So what you can do if you look at this and you can say, okay, well, look, these people are super smart.
They maybe have higher testosterone levels.
They're willing to work nights and weekends.
They're willing to travel. They're willing to have no work-life balance.
They're willing to ignore their kids' upbringing and all of that kind of stuff.
And they're just super talented.
So then there's nothing really to resent.
You might want all the money, but so what, right?
I mean... Anyone who's ever been to karaoke night knows that even among amateur singers there's a wide disparity among skills and the really really great singers who are also great songwriters and great performers and so on well they make a lot of money 95% of the money in most industries that are very creative goes to like 5% of the people because they've got the right look the right sound the right right they just and they're willing to work and they've been doing it since they were five years old and they're willing to sacrifice everything else and they whatever right you understand And so once we recognize the role of genetics,
particularly with regards to intelligence, it's a lot harder to be resentful because what you can be, what you can be is grateful.
Oh, that's a shocking thing to the left, that you can go to a worker and you can say, you should be very grateful that this guy worked his ass off and took risks and saved money.
and invested and created and has marketed and has built things up and has developed relationships with customers and so on you should be really really grateful that he and other entrepreneurs have created all these businesses because every entrepreneur who creates a business drives up demand for labor which increases your wages so you should be very grateful that instead of being able to make 10 nails an hour You can make and sell 60 or 70 nails an hour because this guy.
So you can look and say, well, he's taken 20 or 30 nails from your productivity and that's exploitation and blah, blah, blah, right?
But this fantasy that somehow the factories and the machines spring out of nowhere.
And somehow the worker could magically have 100 nails without a capitalist, without an entrepreneur.
Well, he can't. Well, he can't.
I mean, unless he becomes the entrepreneur, in which case he's going to then rent out the machines to other people in return for wage labor and everyone ends up richer and so on.
So you could say, be grateful.
So the singer who's not particularly successful, maybe they've got potential, but not particularly successful, that singer...
What you can do, if that singer looks at rich and famous and successful singers, the Beyonce's and the Justin Bieber's and the whoever, right?
Katy Perry's and so on.
Now, you could go to that singer and you can say...
You know, it's just their connections.
I mean, they don't really have any talent.
They just look and, you know, they're exploiting you or whatever nonsense you could make up about all of that.
And you could create resentment.
And that resentment will prevent him from succeeding in that field because who wants to work with a resentful person, right?
Leftism... It doesn't just describe a lack of success.
It doesn't just predict a lack of success.
It creates a lack of success.
Because if you view a boss as a bad, negative, inhuman exploiter, then going to get a job, you're just going to sit there and it's going to communicate itself in some way and you're probably not going to get the job.
And then you're going to say, aha, I knew the capitalist system didn't work.
It's like, no, your hatred of the capitalist system doesn't work, certainly in a voluntary environment.
But what you could do to the aspiring musician is you say you should be so grateful for these megastars because they've created an entire industry.
Because of them there's radio.
Because of them there are agents.
Because of them there are concert venues.
Because of them there are CD productions.
Because of them, there's iTunes and there's Spotify and you can get paid and you can make money.
So they have blazed the trail, created an entire industry that you can hook into and make a fortune.
You should kiss the hem of their garment and be grateful for what it is that they've done.
It's a perfectly rational perspective.
It's a perfectly rational perspective.
Because this is the funny thing.
Because the leftists, on the one hand, they say, all these capitalists, they just want to exploit you.
They just want to get as much money as humanly possible out of you and go and laugh and giggle and stare at their gold bathtubs through their monopoly monocles and so on, right?
But at the same time, they say...
They pay women less than men for the same work.
It's like, wait a minute.
If women are paid 70 cents on the dollar but produce just as much as men, then whoever bids them up to 71 cents is going to make a fortune.
Whoever bids them up to 72 cents is going to make a fortune.
And that's how these things would be closed, if they could be closed.
If women were as productive as men over the course of their careers, With the educational choices that they make and with the children that they have, if they were as productive as men, then their wages would be bid up by the greed of the capitalist.
They say, well, the greed of the capitalist makes them underbid, underpay women.
Of course, everyone's underpaid.
Everyone's underpaid. Underpaid is kind of a weird thing, too.
Like, there's some magic amount of money you should get, and you're just less than that, and that's unfair.
It's like... Why is there some magic amount of money that you mysteriously or magically should get?
Makes no sense. You get what you negotiate for.
You get what you ask for.
You get what you give.
In terms of economics, right?
If you're producing a lot for a company, then you can go in and ask for more and they'll pay you because it's worth paying you more.
Or maybe they'll say to you, sit down with you and say, you're doing really well, here's a bonus and blah, blah, blah, right?
But it's underpaid.
I don't know. I mean, I guess some people wander around saying, I'm underdated.
You know, like there's some magical level of dates that you should be having, and some evil gynocracy is keeping you from having those.
I mean, that's just crazy incel nonsense.
I mean, you have... There's no such thing as...
I am underdated. I mean, make yourself as attractive as possible and ask people out.
You'll figure out what happens and you'll figure out where you sit on the attractiveness hierarchy.
But I don't know, just this idea that you're underpaid or underdated or, I don't know.
An underachiever, I mean, well, I guess you could be an underachiever because you could always aim higher and do more, but just this idea that there's some platonic standard that is falling short.
Women are underpaid?
Well, no. If women are producing, they'll get what they ask for because it's profitable, right?
So, on the one hand, they say the profit drives down women's wages relative to men's.
On the other hand, they say that capitalists are so greedy that they'll use every advantage to get ahead and Paying women slightly more than what they're being paid right now would make a capitalist a fortune, right?
I mean, it doesn't make any sense. But it's not designed to make sense.
It's designed to sow resentment.
Because if you can say to under...
I was about to say underachievers, which I've been somewhat ambivalent about.
If you can say to people who are paid less than men on average...
That that's unfair, that's unjust, you're being exploited, there's a patriarchy, and we'll go get that money for you.
The Equal Pay Act went in in the 1960s, I think it's early 60s, like 1962 or something in the States.
Equal pay for work of equal value, whatever that means.
It's called the free market, people, if you remember.
Very few of us do these days.
But if you can convince women that they're underpaid relative to men, that mean men are just not giving them the money that they deserve, Then what you can do is you can have women say, hey, I'm going to surrender the rights of property for society as a whole, and I'm going to surrender the rights of negotiation, I'm going to surrender the rights of freedom of association, I'm going to surrender the rights of people to negotiate for whatever they see fit, because it's unfair.
You see how you bypass genetics, you bypass innate capacities and abilities, you bypass the bell curve, and what you do then Is people will surrender moral principles like property rights.
And instead of saying, well, women, you want to be empowered, okay, you've got to go negotiate for what you want.
And, oh, by the way, if you decide to have children, somebody's paying for those.
I mean, if a woman has children and is on welfare, why is that not considered, quote, pay?
Well, it's not technically pay.
Well, it's a transfer of resources, involuntary transfer.
Of resources. It's the wallet rape of the males in general.
Why is that? Well, certainly if a man is paying her bills because she's staying home with their children, she's being paid.
Of course she's being paid. Of course.
But you wouldn't count this as income because it would close that gap and may even increase it, right?
Women are responsible for, I think it's north of 80% of household purchases.
I mean, just go to any mall. There's like one Radio Shack.
Or I guess it's, what is it now?
Uh, Oh, something else.
It used to be Radio Shack, and I don't know what it is now, but it's something else.
And maybe there's a Best Buy somewhere in a distant parking lot with a few lonely men wandering around while the women descend like locusts upon the rest of the mall, which is all for women all the time.
I mean, but, you know, it's a patriarchy.
It's a patriarchy, don't worry about it.
So, the genetics, you know, whether it's race, whether it's gender, whatever it is, genetics pushes back against...
The supposed evil bigotry and nastiness that is represented by a free society.
And it appeals to the resentful, and it appeals to people who aren't succeeding.
And it says, well, it's not your fault that you're not succeeding because there's institutional this, there's systemic violence, there is patriarchy, there is massive amounts of white supremacy and racism, and therefore you can't succeed.
But don't worry, surrender rights, surrender principles, surrender freedoms to us, and we'll go get What is yours?
We'll go get what is yours.
Now, if somebody, let's say you're a kid, and somebody says, I'm going to go steal a bike for you.
Most of us, I hope, would have some significant reservations about that.
Like, wait, you're going to go steal a bike from me?
Well, that's wrong.
And I certainly don't want a neighborhood where bikes can just be stolen and handed around.
Like you're trading Halloween candy or something, right?
So if somebody, some kids comes up to you and says, hey man, you want a nice bike?
I can go steal a bike for you.
20 bucks, 50 bucks, whatever, right?
But, so you would probably wanna say no to that.
And I think a lot of kids would, most kids would.
But imagine the kid comes and says, hey man, when you were little, you had a really great bike.
Your parents bought it for when you got older.
It was a bigger bike than you could handle.
And I know a kid who stole that bike for 10 bucks.
I'll go steal that bike back for you.
It's your bike. Well, that's a lot more tempting, isn't it?
Because he's not stealing the bike that was never yours.
The bike is yours.
Somebody else took it. He's just going to go and get it back.
Of course, that's what the police would do.
You call up the police.
You say, the kid across the street, he stole my bike.
And he's riding around in it.
Then the police will drive over and they will ascertain whose bike it actually was.
And then all they'll do is they'll go and get the bike by force, if necessary, from the child across the street and bring the bike back to you.
Right? And people, that's right and that's fair and that's just and that's good, right?
So that's the thing, right?
You have to say you were stolen from and then you'll give up, so to speak.
Well, see, if you weren't stolen from, And someone just goes and steals a bike for you, then that's a violation of property.
If you were stolen from and somebody gets that bike back for you, that's an affirmation of property.
And so this is how this pretend justice, right?
Social justice. Always remember, justice means equality of opportunity.
Social justice means equality of outcome.
And so, in a weird way, they appeal to your sense of morality in order to destroy actual morality.
You understand, right? Because if you lie...
To some kid, right?
And we've all had this happen or seen it happen or heard of it happening where some bratty younger brother goes and starts pushing kids around because he's got some big hulking scary older brother, right?
And then what happens is I don't know, somebody pushes him or maybe somebody hits him or something like that because he's being really bratty and annoying and difficult.
And then what happens is the little kid runs home to this older brother and says, that guy hit me for no reason, right?
And then the big brother goes, right?
Way back in the day, I was playing a game called Defender, which is basically a video game that's somewhat akin to having a bag of bees placed over your head while you run through a honey field.
But, yeah, there was a guy, I was doing really well, and he wanted to play, so he just unplugged the machine.
And I called him a jerk or something like that, and then he pushed me, and I was like, I'm not a big one for fighting that stuff, so off I went.
But then, I guess he ran home to his brother, who was bigger, and said...
I guess Steph pushed me or called me a jerk for no reason.
Nobody was ringing to me. And then the big brother was like, gonna get me in school.
And I'm like, you're dead, man.
And anyway, just...
Brave Sir Robin avoided him and everything worked out.
I actually met him years later.
Anyway, but...
So that's unjust, right?
So if the little bratty kid goes home and tells the older brother, somebody pushed me or attacked me for no reason or yelled at me or called me a horrible name, then the big brother goes to correct this injustice, but the big brother is doing wrong because it was the little kid who initiated the action that resulted in the negative behavior on the part of other people, right? So the big brother thinks he's correcting a wrong, but he's creating a wrong.
And so if they can say to you, you should have what these rich people have, or you should have what the middle class have, or it's taken away from you, it's ripped, you're exploited, and so on.
If they can get you to believe that, then you run to the government and say, get back to me the bike that was stolen from me.
Get back to me the money that was stolen from me.
Get back to me what was stolen from me.
And you think you're kind of affirming property rights.
But you're not. Because it wasn't stolen from you.
Wasn't stolen from you. You're getting the government to go steal somebody's bike and bring it to you.
All under the guise of fairness and rightness in property.
No, no, no, it's terrible.
So this is why when you start talking about, and this goes back to Charles Murray and the bell curve from 92, 93, something like that, where he said, okay, if you look at the incomes across America, So, you know, the Japanese, the Chinese, very high, Jews even higher, and then whites are in the middle, and then Hispanics, and then blacks at the bottom.
If you normalize by IQ, these differences all vanish.
Well, that's a pretty powerful explanation, right?
And the left went nuts and attacked him and called him all sorts of horrible things and ended up drinking half of his storage of wine, if I remember rightly, in the basement.
It was a rough thing to go through.
Particularly because back in the day, if you were attacked unjustly, the mainstream media, which is generally leftist, held all the cards and you had very little capacity to rebut or respond, whereas now with the internet you can rebut, you can respond, and all these kinds of good things can happen.
But back in the day... You know, poor Dr.
Murray. I mean, this was a terrible thing that happened to him.
And you can say, well, you know, there's a sensitive to the feelings of Hispanics or blacks or whatever and so on.
But if you were sensitive to the feelings of, say, blacks, well, you would limit immigration because immigration, particularly from low-skilled countries, is driving down the wages of the most economically vulnerable in society, which are blacks.
You would get rid of the welfare state, which has trapped blacks in a perpetual cycle of underclass and poverty and has destroyed the black family.
I think it was Walter Williams, a famous saying.
He said that the welfare state has done what slavery couldn't do, what segregation couldn't do, what Jim Crow couldn't do.
The welfare state has destroyed the black family.
So you would be against the welfare state.
You'd be against low-skilled immigration and so on.
But the left, there's nothing to do with any of that.
And you can say, well, it's just inconsistent.
It's hypocritical and so on.
But that doesn't really answer anything.
The question is, well, what is the left really about?
Well, the left is about selling you a product Called injustice.
Disparate outcomes are the result of injustice, are the result of bad people doing wrong things, of bigotry, sexism, racism, you name it.
That's the left's pitch.
That's what they have to sell you.
And they say to you, give up your principles, give up your property, give up your freedoms, give up freedom of association, and we will restore to you that which was stolen from you.
Now, genetics, though, That's a different matter.
Because genetics is a pushback on all disparities of outcome are the result of injustice.
And whatever whittles down that sense of injustice whittles down the market that the left can sell into.
So it's about money and it's about power.
And this is why they claim to be scientific.
But they claim to be scientific so they can get religion out of the way.
Because religion...
It has a strong focus, particularly Christianity, on individual choices, on individual conscience, and recognizes that people have different abilities.
So they're pro-science insofar as they can use pro-scientism to get rid of Christianity in particular, but then when genetics comes up, they become hysterically anti-science to the point where they will actually physically attack people who bring up competing theories to the market they want to sell into.
And I hope that this helps you understand just why.
They're so hysterical about all of this.
It's not because they care about these particular groups.
All groups in society are served by a rigorous devotion to reason and evidence.
All groups in society are served by a rigorous devotion to reason and evidence.
The superstition of radical environmental triggered egalitarianism is an extraordinarily dangerous superstition and drives so many dysfunctional and destructive policies in the West at the moment.
That, challenging though it can be, that the reality of group differences in genetics, the reality that genetics explains an extraordinary amount of inequalities within society, which then turn out to not be inequalities but rather representations of human biodiversity,