June 15, 2018 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
34:39
4119 DEATH BY WELFARE
When you have something valuable enough, people will do almost anything to acquire it. Stefan Molyneux talks about the true genesis of the welfare state, the trade made between women and men and the important gender battle that will shape the future of western civilization. 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
Cultural continuity is broken, birth rates are down for native populations, families are fragmenting, education is becoming increasingly frivolous, debt is exploding, unfunded liabilities are through the stratosphere, and borders are permeable, and everyone is coming to pillage The resources built up by successive generations of hard-working and tough-dying, largely men.
And it's all been paid for through inflation, through debt, through unfunded promises to everyone and their dog.
Now, the solution to all of this is not obvious, but it's very, very simple.
And the solution is this.
We have to let go of the welfare state.
If you have a great enough treasure it is almost impossible to keep it safe.
If you have diamonds strewn across your lawn well how high does your fence have to be to keep them safe?
Well the answer is very high because when there's such great treasure people will do almost anything to get at that treasure And that leads you to the problem that we're facing now in the West, which is because of refugee programs, because of open borders, because of sentimentality, because of hope, because of fears of being called racist, the borders are essentially open.
There are 300,000 people pouring into Canada every single year.
Over 10 years, that's about a 10% displacement of the population.
That is astonishing, astounding.
A kind of demographic transfer that's almost never seen outside of wartime.
And, of course, some people are coming to the West for freedom, but a lot of them are coming for free stuff.
Now, the reason I'm bringing all this up, and I've talked about the dangers of the welfare state, well, for long before I ever had a public presence as an intellectual, is because it's going to be hard to To talk about this and to bring it about in a political sense.
So the danger is the welfare state and the great trade that was offered to the West really starting in the 1930s, peaking in the 1960s with Lyndon Johnson's Great Society and other welfare programs throughout the West.
The great offer that was made to the West was you can give up integrity and For the sake of security.
You can give up property rights for the sake of freedom from anxiety.
And this was a truly devil's bargain.
Don't worry. If things go wrong, there'll be a big giant safety net.
There'll be free health care. There'll be old age pensions.
You will be taken care of.
And the devil, in a sense, does offer this kind of bargain.
He offers you security.
In return for giving up principles.
Thou shalt not suffer replaces thou shalt not steal.
And the avoidance of legitimate suffering not only is the foundation, I think, of most mental health problems, but the avoidance of necessary and legitimate suffering is what unravel civilizations as a whole.
We crawl our way, we bite our way, we chew our way out of a primitive life.
We surround ourselves with security and protections and temperature controls and comfortable cars and security and comfort become Our drug.
And we then lose the ability to suffer for the sake of principles.
A life that is over-comfortable is a life where principles seem like vague, masochistic, weird rules that only crazy people would follow.
And the hedonistic pursuit of security and safety and comfort in the moment Erodes and eventually ends up destroying the objective moral principles that built the civilization in the first place.
How many men, and it was largely men, suffered to bring about property rights in the West.
And then, I think not coincidentally soon after women got the vote, security became more important than property.
And so people who had made bad decisions in their life desperately wanted other people's property to stuff into the holes and cracks and broken foundations of their own ruined lives.
And like drowning men grabbing at anything that floats, they grabbed at whatever property they could through...
The coercive agency of the state, so that they did not have to face the consequences of their own bad decisions.
So, a woman who married to the wrong man, the man turned out to be unstable, a philandra, a drunk, a drug addict, he beat her, whatever, was not economically productive, ran off with the maid.
Well, she has kids, so she has a big problem on her hand.
She then has to go and find another man to take care of her.
She has to enter into some sort of collective arrangement with her neighbors so that they all watch each other's kids while they're off at work.
It becomes a difficult and challenging life.
And women don't want that, right?
Women don't want that. What happened in the West right after women got the vote?
Well, you got massive alimony, and you got prohibition, at least in America.
Take away your money, and take away your drink.
And the prohibition at least didn't last that long, but the alimony has only continued and swollen.
And there's alimony from the men that you marry, And then there's alimony from the men you don't even marry in the form of welfare payments and old age pensions and free health care and all the stuff that generally appeals more to women than to men.
See, for men, risk is a good thing.
We love risk.
We embrace risk. We need risk.
Which is one of the reasons why we tend to embrace the free market.
Because in the free market, we can match our wits, our intelligence, our creativity, our work ethic against other men for the prize of...
Gaining the most resources, which gets us the most attractive woman.
And by I don't just mean physically attractive, I mean just generally good all around.
So men, we like the free market, but women find it challenging.
First of all, if they want to have children, they're not often in the free market in the same kind of way that men are.
But also, the freedoms that come with the free market, free market is founded on property rights, of course, and the freedoms that come with the free market Well, they end up, because they're based on property rights, interfering with the forced redistribution of wealth that is characteristic of the welfare state.
And so this is a huge problem in the West.
And if you look at the problem of low birth rates and mass migration, mass immigration, and so on, The natural instinct is to close borders, build walls, and so on.
That may, and I think, is a valuable approach.
But the problem is, of course, it's sort of like banning drugs, like banning immigration is kind of like banning drugs in a way, because all it does is make them more valuable to get a hold of.
And if you still have the welfare state, if you try to build walls, Then what happens is the welfare state that's on the other side of those walls becomes even more attractive to people.
And it's not directly analogous, but it's not totally dissimilar.
So building a wall is a useful thing and a helpful thing, but the problem is still the welfare state, the great price you get for being able to get into a country.
The welfare state is the treasure that is being offered generally by leftist politicians to people who come into the country and who generally vote for leftist politicians, of course, right?
It's funny because the leftist politicians and the media as a whole, just about everyone, will scream at you that you're racist if you say, well, this particular group of people generally votes differently than I do in ways in which I don't like.
But of course, that's exactly what The leftist politicians are relying on which is to bring in people who will vote for them in order to buttress and maintain their political power.
As a country gets wealthier, People become more interested in property rights than free stuff.
Why? Because they're generally doing quite well.
The incomes are rising.
And so they really want to have governments that maintain their property rights rather than violate them continually.
And so as society gets richer, people want more property rights.
They want more stability. They want smaller government.
They need the government less because if you can save for your own retirement, as you can in a free market system where you've got incomes growing sort of 5%, 7%, 8% or more, A year, if you can save for your own retirement, why do you need governments to give you money for your retirement?
If you can save for your own dips and troughs in your work history, then why do you need governments to provide to you unemployment insurance?
If you can pay for your own health care, you understand.
And also, if you have a community, if you have a church group, if you have a charitable group, if you have extended family, people who care about you, Well, then you don't need a welfare state.
Your welfare state is the give and take, the sloughing back and forth of resources that occurs when good and bad fortunes strike as they do randomly within your own particular group.
So, as a country becomes richer, then people need the welfare state less.
They need redistribution of income less.
And because they have more property now, they care more about the protection of that property.
And so, as a country becomes wealthier, Politicians have less to offer the population.
That is a big, big problem because politicians gain power by offering stuff to people.
And what people want is for politicians, laissez-nous faire, right?
To get out of the way, to leave me, my first sentence when I was a kid, leave me with what I'm doing.
So people don't want politicians to redistribute their income as they get wealthier.
It's like, we can take care of ourselves, I just want you to protect my property, but then politicians don't have stuff to hand out.
So what do they do? Well, they import people who replace those moving into the middle class, right?
So as you become wealthier in the middle class and so on, you don't want the government around as much redistributing your income to other people.
And so the poor, the needy, the dependent, the desperate, the insecure, the Hungry for other people's resources groups.
Well, if they're not growing natively, so to speak, then you import them from other countries, and now you have an entirely new group of people who are desperate for politicians to give them stuff, and they don't have the same culture as the people that they're displacing, and so locust-like they land and swarm, in general, on the incomes of the more affluent middle-class people who are native to the country, and then what happens is The middle class begins to shrink, right?
I mean, if you leave your seeds out when there's a flock of birds going by, guess what?
Your pile of seeds just begin to diminish, right?
So the welfare state is the big challenge.
The welfare state does not provide security.
The welfare state subsidizes and enables bad decisions.
And whatever you subsidize, you get more of.
If you subsidize bad decisions, guess what?
You get more of Bad decisions.
And that's kind of inevitable.
Can't fight it. Charity is different because charity is measured not by allegiance to the charity giver as allegiance to the politician is measured in a redistribution of society.
Charity is measured by the effectiveness of solving the problem of poverty.
And charity does this by We're distinguishing the poor into two groups in general.
There's the deserving poor, people, bad luck, bad fortune, couldn't have guessed it, and, you know, whatever, right?
Well, you give those people money, they get back up on their feet, and they do better.
And then there's the undeserving poor, which doesn't mean the poor who don't deserve any sympathy, but the poor, the people who are men are, say, are poor because they drink, they go and gamble on the ponies, they, you know, stuff fives.
Into stripper panties and so on.
And if you give them more money, well, they'll just keep making bad decisions.
And to be able to differentiate those two is very, very important.
Charities can do it. Governments not only can't do it functionally, but have no interest in doing it.
Because they need the poor.
So the government needs people who remain dependent upon the state.
Big government people, leftist people, and all that.
So the welfare state is a huge problem.
We view the welfare state as necessary, as progressive, obviously, and as something without which we simply cannot function.
But it is fairly well documented that when people are taxed less, they tend to be more generous with their money.
And the deserving poor are fine with that because they, you know, get money from charity, get back on my feet.
But the undeserving poor, they don't want that because they wish to have their bad habits continue to be subsidized and enabled and all that kind of stuff.
So the welfare state is a huge problem.
Now, historically, men had more say in politics than women.
Now, universal male suffrage was only achieved shortly before universal female suffrage.
But the basic question was, why do men have more say in the political life of the nation?
Well, the answer to that is, Is the draft, right?
Because men could be called up against their will, shot or jailed if they resisted.
They could be called up to go and fight in a war.
And, I mean, the wars have been, as you know, in the 20th century, in Europe in particular, absolutely horrendous.
But even before that, you know, one little cut, one little infection.
I mean, you're dead. Age before antibiotics, medicine, up until the 19th century, Going to a doctor actually did you more harm than good.
Because the doctor would have germs from other people, the environment would be bad, and he'd drain your blood to balance your humors and crazy crap like that.
So it really wasn't until the 19th century that going to a doctor did you any good at all, did you more harm than good.
And so the death toll was absolutely horrendous in the past, in the wars.
And so men...
Had more say in politics because men were subject to the draft.
That was the deal.
That's why men got the vote.
That's why property owners got the vote and so on.
A little bit before, universally, a little bit before women.
Now, when a country was being threatened with invasion, Then the men would be called up to fight.
Now, it wasn't always invasion.
Sometimes it was wars of expansion.
Sometimes it was wars of liberating similar ethnic groups.
A bunch of different things. But in general, that was the price of political participation, was the draft.
Now, when women got the vote, women, of course, weren't subject to the draft.
And women will never be subject to the draft.
Of course they won't, right? They will...
I mean, should such a thing ever be passed?
And Phyllis, the late Phyllis Schlafly, spent about 10 years crisscrossing America, trying to make sure that the Equal Rights Amendment did not make it through to the Constitution, because she said, well, it's going to pave the way to the draft.
If you can't treat women differently under the law, then women will be subject to the draft, and then women will be like, whoa, didn't know that.
No thanks. And so, should it ever be, women outlive and outvote men in general, And should it ever come to pass that women would even remotely be subject to the draft, they would simply vote in politicians who would never let that happen.
Or that would create so many exemptions that it would be basically useless to try and draft them.
Exemptions for pregnant women, for women of young children, for nursing women, and of course then women would just go around getting pregnant.
And at the same time you're trying to fight a war, you have a massive expansion in social spending on the welfare state, healthcare spending for children and pregnant moms and so on.
It would just be, it's never going to happen.
Or they would say, okay, well, here are the strength requirements that you need to get into the army, and they would no longer want those exemptions, and so they just would gain weight or not exercise.
You understand. Or they'd do badly on their intelligence tests or whatever.
I mean, they just won't.
It won't ever happen. So this is the thesis that I want to put forward.
I'm not saying it's likely, but I'm saying it's kind of necessary.
And if it's not achieved, well, at least I will have put the argument out there for people to process and understand.
In the past, when a country's way of life was foundationally threatened, men would be called up to draft.
And they would be ripped out of their farms and their factories and their homes.
And it didn't matter if you had three children under the age of four at home.
It didn't matter if your wife was ill.
It didn't matter. You just We're yanked up by the giant skyhook of the draft.
You were trained, you were thrown into combat, and a lot of times you just didn't come back.
Sometimes your body wasn't even found.
Or if you came back, you might be shattered in mind, body, spirit, and so on.
And there was not a lot of complaining throughout history for men to take this kind of sacrifice in order to save their countries.
See where I'm going? Yeah, you understand.
Now, women have had the vote, and women have set up a system in general, where there's this great sentimentality, these massive refugee programs, these massive resettlements, and so on.
And it is threatening, I think, in Europe in particular, it is threatening the continuation of the way of life of the nation.
Now, In the past, if there was something which destabilized the nation and threatened its continued existence, it would be men who would be drafted to fight this battle.
Now women have had the vote in many places for close to a hundred years.
And you can see, I mean the charts are pretty clear, that when women got the vote, government spending, government expansion just went through the roof.
And now that women are the majority of university students, now there's talk of free tuition and forgiveness of student loan debt.
I mean, it's the usual, the usual.
Can't say no to the women in the West, which is one of the great challenges of the West.
Well, you can say no individually, but you can't say no collectively because the government will take your money to give to women as a whole anyway.
So... This is what is needed.
This is what is necessary.
In order to save the continuity of the culture, in order to save the continuity of the civilization that has lasted for thousands of years in Europe, women can't draft them, really, and it wouldn't do much good if you did.
But the sacrifice that is necessary to save Europe, in particular, is that women have to give up the welfare state.
And in general it is women, particularly single mothers, who consume the resources.
The welfare state is basically the single mother state.
It is the coercive redistribution of income to fill the hole in the family portrait where the principal protector and provider of the husband, the father, the man should be, from the state to the woman.
And women have to give up.
The welfare state, because if you give up the welfare state, then the people who want to come into your country are automatically filtered to those who want freedom and opportunity and respect property rights, respect separation of church and state, respect freedom of the press, freedom of speech, all these kinds of good things, because they're not coming into your country to get free stuff, they're getting in your country to experience freedom.
By definition, if the woman comes on a date with you without you paying her $500, you can cross prostitute off the list, right?
And so if you're paying for women to go on dates with you all the time, you don't know which woman is there for you and which woman is there for your money, but you can kind of assume that they're mostly there for the money.
So are people coming to the West for freedoms or for free stuff?
There's no way to tell. Unless and until you stop giving out the free stuff.
You understand? Now, in the past, men had to be drafted and men faced significant death, destruction, mind, body and spirit.
But all women have to do is Give up the stuff forcibly transferred to them by the state from others.
Nobody's saying they have to go into the trenches.
Nobody is saying they have to face tanks or mustard gas or barbed wire or bombs or rockets or shells or you name it.
Women just have to give up quote free end quote stuff.
That is the giant sacrifice.
Now that is the price of course of participation In political life.
If the vote comes with only privileges and no responsibilities, then it effectively turns adults into children.
If all you have are freedoms and you have no responsibilities, well, that is even a spoiled child.
It's a badly behaved child.
The only time where you have resources without consequences is infancy, right?
I mean, by the time even you're a toddler, you should have some responsibilities in the household.
So it turns people into infants to give them A voice without consequences to give them access to political power without any downside, any risk, any negativity, without any requirement for sacrifice.
See, men got access to political power in return for giving up the right to avoid the draft.
Women aren't going to be drafted, but where women can be drafted, so to speak, is...
In the letting go of the welfare state.
I mean, the welfare state is wrong, it's immoral, it's unjust, it disintegrates families, it destroys culture, and the great accumulated wisdom of 60 generations or so vanished with the onset of the welfare state.
I myself, a child of, I guess a little bit pre-boomers, but for most of the people that I knew growing up who were children of boomers, they were untutored, uneducated, Turned loose on every hedonistic pleasure known to man.
People, the boomers in general, just shrugged and refused to pass along the wisdom that they themselves had inherited from their parents who went through the Great Depression and the war and so on.
And the slow treacle down the stairs flow of wisdom intergenerationally kind of stopped with the boomers because it's like, why bother teaching your kids how to have a safe, secure and happy life if the government catches you every time you fall and sets you up on a dusty throne of other people's money?
So this, to me, is the price of the vote.
So if men support someone who turns out to be a warmonger, then the men face the draft, right?
And so you get consequences for bad voting, bad politics, bad decisions.
If you support somebody who turns out to want to invade every country known to man, well, that person, that leader that you voted for...
It's going to grab you or your sons or your aunts, sorry, your uncles or your cousins or whatever.
And so you pay the consequences for bad political decisions.
And those consequences are, in general, very much risking your life.
And certainly eliminating continuity with your family, continuity in your career, right?
I mean, you ripped off, sent to war for a couple of years.
You don't really see your kids.
Maybe you get a couple of leaves. Your career, obviously, is destroyed and so on.
And so that's what men faced when men made bad decisions.
Now, women have made, again, this is all collected, tons of exceptions and so on, but it's a big enough trend that it's worth talking about.
But women have made bad decisions.
They have voted for things that they did not earn.
They have voted for free stuff that they have not paid for in taxes, and they have indebted the next generation times infinity because, in a sense, like a plague of locusts, they landed on the body politic and have stripped it bare to its bones and now sucked its marrow and now They voted a bill for more seedlings, which will be Well, which would theoretically the bill would land on the next generation that women refuse to give birth to, right?
So it's a big problem.
Now, when you make bad voting decisions as a man, let's say you vote in some big spending guy, right, when just men had the vote, you vote in some big spending guy, well, he raises taxes on you, and you've got to give up a bunch of your property, and it accrues to you.
You vote in a warmonger, you get drafted, and you go get your leg blown off, and you've got to come hobbling back, right?
So women have made some bad decisions collectively, as a whole, in voting.
Lots of free stuff, taking away other people's property.
It's immoral. It's immoral.
Destruction is the price of sin.
And violating property rights is a sin.
It's wrong. It's immoral.
And the wages of sin is death.
So you have to stop sinning before you die.
That's sort of the whole point, right?
Because if you die while you're still sinning, well, you're damned forever.
So... Women...
Have to give up the welfare state.
Men, I believe, are more than willing to give up the welfare state, but women have to give up the welfare state.
Now, if you give up the welfare state, then you don't have to control and secure your borders to nearly the same extent.
And it's a problem that kind of fixes itself.
It's the first domino that fixes the rest.
Of the dominoes. And if you give up the welfare state, there's more than enough tax money for your husbands to provide for you.
If you give up the welfare state, there's more than enough resources for charities to help you out.
If you give up the welfare state, there is more than enough resources to dig out the debt that has accumulated over the past 50 to 70 years.
Now, of course, the natural cry of women, and it's a funny thing as a whole, what is said.
So what is said in general? If you say, ah, we've got to give up the welfare state.
What is said in general is, but I have three children by three different men, none of whom are around, what am I supposed to do, right?
And then men are like, uh, uh, I don't know, I guess you could still have, like, what am I supposed to do?
This is a funny, funny question.
When you think about it, because if men make bad voting decisions, vote in a warmonger, get drafted and get thrown into some useless foreign battlefield, the men, when they're drafted, don't sit there and say, well, I have a career.
I am providing for my family.
I just have three children under the ages of four.
What am I supposed to do?
Well, the answer is you just go sacrifice yourself because you're a man, right?
You're disposable, right? So you just go sacrifice yourself to save the country.
So the idea that men can sort of run around bleating, well, what am I supposed to do?
It's never really been...
A successful or effective strategy for men in the past, right?
So I just find that a very interesting question.
I mean, it signifies a kind of rubber bones, going limp, save me kind of stuff.
It's the invitation for the white knight to come in and save.
I mean, women are perfectly competent to figure this kind of stuff out.
Women have dealt with shortages of resources, shortages of men, shortages of marriage partners, all throughout history.
Women are perfectly fine, perfectly confident, perfectly...
Able to deal with this.
It's just kind of a strategy. What am I supposed to do?
I need this for my children.
It's like, well, then you'll sort it out, right?
I mean, you'll figure it out.
You'll find a man to marry you.
You'll be a great companion.
You will get together, as I mentioned before, with a bunch of other women, and you'll watch each other's kids while you go to work, and even you'll...
You'll find a way, right?
I mean, human beings have survived bubonic plagues, black deaths, wars, pestilence, famines, you name it, right?
I mean, not getting massive amounts of free stuff.
This is really... I mean, go to any man.
Throughout history, who's just being drafted into a war and say, well, you can do this, or, you know, we can transport you to sometime in the future, and you'll just have to give up some free stuff taken unjustly at the point of a gun from other people, usually the unborn.
And the man will in general say, wait, I can just go forward into the future to a very wealthy country with all these resources, and I just have to give up free stuff?
I'm not going to get drafted right now?
Yeah, just ask the man and the woman to switch places throughout history and see who jumps at whose opportunity.
I think we know that the man would trade places with the woman in a New York minute, and the woman would not trade places with the man.
So, given that men have not complained overly much about the draft throughout history, this idea of like, well, what am I supposed to do?
If you go rubber bones, well, if you're helpless to solve problems in your personal life, how can you be competent to vote for solutions in a political sphere?
Well, of course you can't be, right?
So I am not going to have the soft sexism of low expectations with regards to women.
Women will figure it out. Now, the likelihood, of course, of this argument going viral, well, it increases if you share it, right?
But the likelihood of this coming to pass, it's not impossible.
I mean, Bill Clinton, back in the day, this is in the 90s, said we're going to end welfare as we know it.
And look, I understand, welfare is going to end anyway.
I mean, this is not...
You don't get to live forever if you don't die tomorrow, right?
So, I mean, welfare is going to end.
The welfare state is absolutely, completely and totally going to end.
Can't possibly be sustained at all.
I mean, not even close, right? Right.
So it's not a question of, do you want the welfare state forever or do you want to give up free stuff for no reason?
Of course, the only chance to sustain the civilization that protects the rights of women is to give up the welfare state.
It's the only chance to have the freedoms that women currently enjoy, which I mean, I have a daughter.
I want those freedoms to continue.
But the only way that those freedoms are going to continue is if women give up the welfare state.
So this, and it's kind of like an intelligence test, I suppose, or an integrity test, or a basic understanding of mathematics test, which is that if we don't get rid of the welfare state, and state spending continues to escalate, and populations continue to get displaced, and Europe as a whole becomes a no-go zone, bye-bye female freedoms, right?
I mean, this is not even debatable, and then bye-bye the welfare state.
I mean, you understand, this is not If you keep going this way, it's like quit or die.
Quit the welfare state or die as a civilization.
There's no third option called let's just continue the way things have been going.
It's not going to happen. Not going to happen.
You need to get that out of your mind as a very dangerous fantasy, a blindfold stroll off a foggy cliff.
There's just no way it's going to continue.
It's not going to happen. And it's probably not even that long.
Now, if you give up the welfare state now...
Then you have a chance to save your civilization and the freedoms which women deserve.
Equality under the law and all of this kind of stuff.
Fantastic. Let's keep that going.
But if you continue to grab free stuff, take the satanic bargain of trading your freedoms for security.
As the old saying goes, those who trade their liberties for security end up with neither liberty nor security.
And that's exactly the way...
That it's going to go, and then civilization is going to look back and say, okay, well, I mean, look at Sweden, right?
It lasted for, what, 800 years?
And then women got into power, and, well, then it didn't.
And it's going to be remembered as a very tricky thing.
So you're not just ruining things for women in the present, you're ruining things for women in the future, this greed.
And men have had to stand up and be noble and take bullets and take sacrifices and suck down mustard gas and die like dogs in trenches and muddy pools and fall into the embrace of the men they just bayoneted through the belly and so on.
Like men have had to suffer horrors and predations and destructions and just every ghastly thing in their own universe since society was first founded.
And compare all of those sacrifices which built a civilization that protects women at the moment with this sacrifice called not so much with all the free stuff.
I mean, it's not just the welfare state, you understand.
I mean, the welfare state is all the coercive transfers of resources from productive people to unproductive people.
I mean, you understand, it's just, it's throwing gold down a well.
You can't retrieve it and it just makes everything worse in the long run.
So the sacrifices that are required from women in return for participation in politics is very minor.
Very minor, relative to the sacrifices that were demanded of men throughout history for men's participation in politics.
And the question of whether women are capable of this kind of sacrifice, of whether women are capable of understanding all of this kind of stuff, or men too, for that matter, remains to be seen.
And I know it's an argument that may ruffle just a few feathers, but my own conscience really Demanded that I make it.
So please like and subscribe and share what it is that I'm doing.
Everybody knows deep down that I'm right about this, but I really look forward to your comments below.
