4160 The New Zealand TV Interview They Wouldn’t Show You!
While on the Australian portion of the Stefan Molyneux and Lauren Southern LIVE! tour, Stefan and Lauren sat down with New Zealand's Sunday TVNZ program for an interview. While Sunday TVNZ only published laughingly brief snippets of the long-form discussion - you now have the opportunity to watch the entire interview that they really don't want you to see!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
You guys don't seem to be the biggest fans of mainstream media.
Stefan, why is that?
I think for the mainstream media, the challenge for me is this lack of diversity.
Because I think for the mainstream media that I agree with the left's criticism of the military-industrial complex, but I do think there's a bit of an echo chamber.
I looked up some statistics and reporters in New Zealand are four times more likely to be on the left than the general population.
I think with the media, there's not as much of an enrichment of different perspectives, maybe right-leaning, libertarian, that kind of stuff.
My concern is that with that kind of echo chamber, I think you get less nuanced, less deep, less enriched perspectives.
That, to me, is a problem.
Fewer types of voices.
Yeah, yeah. What do you think the line is between free speech and hate speech?
I don't actually believe in the concept of hate speech.
The problem with this concept is who is deciding what is hate speech?
Throughout history, there have been plenty of different labels for hate speech laws, whether it be blasphemy laws, where people were sent to jail for questioning the Catholic Church, or People were sent to jail and put in house arrest like Galileo for questioning the fact, of course, that the Sun orbited the Earth.
We haven't changed in these kind of dark age concepts of blasphemy laws.
The only thing that has changed are the questions being asked.
So a lot of the things that hate speech is applied to are questions of identity, questions of race, questions of gender, religion.
These are some of the biggest problems we are facing in the modern age.
We need answers to them, and we need free discussion.
And hate speech is just this word, much like blasphemy laws, used to shut down these important conversations.
It exists in law in some countries, though.
Right, much like blasphemy laws existed at certain points.
That doesn't mean it's a good thing.
Well, and historically, all moral progress is viewed as hateful by the existing power structures, right?
So when you wanted equal rights for women, there were a lot of patriarchs who hated that and claimed that it was hateful.
If you wanted to question, as Lauren said, the religious dogma, that was considered hateful.
Those who were abolitionists who said that slavery was immoral, which is a perfectly justified position, were considered to be hateful.
So my concern is that when you say we have the wisdom to know what is good speech and bad speech, there's a kind of vanity to it, because I don't know where the end of human moral progress is.
I think I think anyone or any group or any assembly of lawmakers can say, well, we know for sure what is the right speech and what is the wrong speech.
There's an arrogance to that, but I think the free market of ideas nimbly and ably addresses that.
If you have bad ideas, let's have them out there so that people can criticize them and push back against them, and that's the best way to keep them from going underground, because, you know, you ban speech, it doesn't go away, it just goes underground.
Although, Stephen, the idea behind it, of course, is that it's aimed at protecting Minorities and people who may be targeted.
I'm not sure because to me equality under the law is equality under the law.
I don't think that legal structures, moral frameworks, rational ideals should change whether you're a majority or a minority.
There's equality under the law. We're all a minority at one.
What have you made of the moves and threats by protesters in New Zealand to shut your speaking tour down?
Anyone who wants to shut down free inquiry I don't think they...
They're objectively ignorant of what is going on.
They're objectively ignorant of what is happening.
They aren't coming to participate in the debate at all.
And these are people that are saying they want to decide what the future of New Zealand should be.
They're saying we want this progressive future, but they haven't even considered The other side of the argument, which Stefan and I are bringing.
And not only that, not only are they not considering the other side of the argument, but they don't want anyone else in New Zealand or Australia to consider it either.
They want everyone to be just as in the dark about the criticisms of multiculturalism as they are.
And how can you do something like that?
Pluck out your own eyes and say, I see the path.
Follow me. They have to, at least, to have a legitimate perspective on the future of New Zealand, they have to have considered all different routes to not do that.
I've considered multiculturalism.
I've given it a fair shot to debate it, to critique it, to look into its merits and shortcomings, is to give multiculturalism a fair shot.
I don't shut down those who...
If you think you favor freedom of speech, you must welcome opposing views.
Of course, of course.
I love opposing views.
I love people who disagree with me.
My favorite debates are these amazing debates I have with individuals who vehemently even hate my views.
But if they're willing to discuss, if they're willing to put forward arguments, I am happy to have that.
And I will defend to the death all these protesters' rights to question me.
But as soon as it gets into the realm of they want to shut down my critique of them, That's where I have no respect for that whatsoever.
And I think they've relinquished the legitimacy of their critique because they won't even listen to ours.
But there's something really tragic about it for me as well, which is they care very passionately about moral questions.
Good. You know, we want that in a society.
We want people who care passionately about moral questions.
To me, though, there's something very heartbreaking about the fact that they've gone through a dozen years, I assume, of government education.
They have gone to higher education.
A lot of them have gone to what they call it, uni?
Do they call it uni?
Yeah, university and so on.
When we were in Melbourne, these people were trying to tip over buses with people in them.
They were trying to rip the sidings on buses.
They were throwing things at the bus windows.
Stuff that could really get people hurt.
If you care so much about moral issues, you should train yourself in rhetoric.
You should train yourself in reason and evidence and argumentation so that you can best In a civilized, reasonable manner.
The idea that they care so much and the only way they can express themselves is through violence is to me really tragic and I view them in a sense as victims perhaps of an educational system that hasn't given them the tools that they need to debate properly.
Would you welcome an opposing voice at one of your events then?
I would say that if we set up a formal debate, that would be great.
But people have paid and have sort of got their tickets to see Lauren and I. Now, we do have a very lengthy Q&A period where we take as many tough questions as people want to throw at us.
And I think that's one of we welcome that.
Of course, it's a very central part of what we do.
Lauren, I just want to bring up a couple of quotes from your book.
The first thing, in some cases, there's good reason to be afraid of some people's ideas and their expression of them.
We spoke to a number of people who were afraid of your ideas around Islam, multiculturalism, rape culture, and you are so provocative.
Don't they have good reason to be afraid of you?
Right. Well, they're afraid of ideas.
I'm afraid of ideas that actually lead to and encourage violence.
Encouraging people to kill another human being, to stone someone to death, these kind of vile things that are within certainly some Islamic doctrines and that are the law in some Islamic countries, I think it's fair to be afraid of those ideas.
When we talk about things like Islamophobia, I mean, that word is applied all the time.
People who have lived in Islamic countries, who have actually lived under those laws, a lot of them are Islamophobic, and for good reason, because they are afraid of being in a country where they are so oppressed.
Certainly Christian minorities in these countries, certainly women who can be stoned for the crime of being raped.
I don't think it's a ridiculous thing to say you should be afraid of these ideas.
And as for people being afraid of mine, what they're afraid of is not that I'm advocating the harm of other people.
They're afraid of their We have spoken to some Muslims in New Zealand who are afraid though that the messages that you bring may lead to them facing some kind of abuse,
whether it be physical or online.
That's a genuine concern that people say that they have.
I read some of the critiques of individuals that tried to get Stefan and I banned from New Zealand, and one of the largest critiques from the Islamic community was they don't believe in the idea of free speech, which I think is at total odds with the values of any Western country.
Free speech with no responsibility.
I think it's rights come with responsibilities.
I think free speech is free speech as it is and responsibility or not.
There are lots of people that are Quote, unquote, irresponsible with free speech that say stupid things, but you have the right to say stupid things.
It would be great if everyone was a responsible, kind, wonderful individual, but that's just not the case.
I have plenty of people in the Islamic community who say the most hateful, awful things about me, and I think they should have every right to their free speech.
The problem is that we in the West are very tolerant of other people.
We're very tolerant of these other cultures coming in, but what about the cultures that What about people who don't believe in that free inquiry and free debate?
In New Zealand law, you have free speech, but there are limitations.
Free is the wrong word to describe it, I suppose.
It's freedom of expression, but if it leads to incitement into people, individuals causing harm, then it's wrong.
There's free speech, which I absolutely believe in, and then there's Because you're plotting to actually hurt someone.
You're plotting to perform an act of aggression against someone else.
That's not just words.
To conflate Bringing forward arguments, saying, I have a critique of Islam, I have a critique of multiculturalism, to conspiring to harm another person is a completely ridiculous thing.
It's apples and oranges. And if individuals in the Islamic community feel that I'm plotting to commit a crime against them, they can feel free to report that to the police, but I haven't done so at any point.
What a lot of people tend to be afraid of is the critique of their ideas.
Neither Stefan and I have plotted to harm another person.
Is very concerned about negative effects of free speech, people being harmed by free speech.
There are lots of laws in Islamic countries that they could criticize where bloggers who criticize the religion get a thousand lashes or get thrown in jail for years.
They could really apply their energies to expanding free speech in the Islamic world rather than wondering about or being concerned about free speech in the Western world.
Question for both of you.
Stefan, if you could answer first, please.
Do you ever change your mind about something you believe in?
Oh, continually. It's an embarrassing process, especially as a public intellectual.
I mean, I was raised a Christian.
I've been a socialist. I have been once an objectivist, somebody who followed Ayn Rand's teachings.
Then I became an anarchist.
And so for me, it's a constant evolution.
The application of reason and evidence means that you never stand still.
People have better arguments, new evidence, new data comes along.
And so philosophy is a process much like science.
And a scientist who never changes his mind is not a scientist.
And a philosopher Who doesn't bow to better reason than evidence is not a philosopher.
Wrong. I love to be proven wrong.
It's a painful, like you were saying, it's a very painful process in some cases because you have to admit to everyone, ooh, I got this one wrong.
But when you are proven wrong, that means you have just learned something that is more correct than the beliefs you had before, which means you can apply that to your life and improve your life.
If I... If I wanted to go down one career path and someone made an argument to me saying, you're going to go in debt, this is going to be terrible for your life, and I just stuck to my guns because I didn't want to be proven wrong, I'm not going to go down a very happy life path.
If someone corrects me and gives me the data, then that means I can apply to my own life and apply to the lives of those I love these new things that I've learned.
And that goes for politics, that goes for personal advice, that goes for arts, whatever it may be.
Learning, changing your beliefs, very important aspect.
And if anyone has the exact same beliefs they had when they were a child, I really have concerns for that individual.
Well, yeah, because people sometimes say, well, you know, five years ago you believed this and now you believe that.
It's like, well, yeah, if you go back 50 years ago, I believed in Santa Claus.
So, you know, things do change as you progress.
You arrived in this country and you made a statement, Lauren, with a t-shirt.
I'm proud to be white.
It's okay to be white.
So a lot of the media really freaked out over that shirt.
They said this was a daring t-shirt, a provocative t-shirt.
And that's exactly why I wore it.
I wore it because the statement, it's okay to be white, should not be provocative.
It shouldn't be daring.
But it's become that because we live in a society right now that conflates whiteness with you're a horrible person.
You are an oppressor.
You are privileged.
You are the racist colonialist.
Racist colonialist.
Nobody says white people are horrible people.
Nobody says that? I don't think you've ever been to a Black Lives Matter rally.
I don't think you've ever been in a university classroom if you've never heard white people are terrible.
It's constantly thrown at us every single day.
You can watch MTV videos on it.
You can watch Vice videos about it.
You can watch The Root, which is a very popular magazine, which all of their media is just about how bad white people are.
And this is mainstream.
This isn't censored by YouTube.
YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, they all take down stuff that's from the right wing.
But anything that is anti-white, that is perfectly okay to be blasted out to people in media.
It's created a very anti-white atmosphere.
That's why the statement, it's okay to be white, was considered controversial by the media.
Because it's not okay to be white in Western culture right now where progressivism has taken over.
It's not. You'll be told you're privileged.
You're an oppressor. You know, enjoy your ethnicity.
It wouldn't be controversial, you wouldn't be asking a black person who came off the airplane wearing that shirt.
No, there's no why though, it's because that population has been oppressed, so it's an expression of pride in the face of oppression.
Why does it matter if population is oppressed? We all sit in a context.
We all sit in a context. No, we judge people individually.
You don't judge people collectively and say white people are responsible for this any more than you would judge a black person collectively.
I'm not saying that you judge people collectively, but there's a lot of historical context to white and what it is to be white, what it is to be black, and who's afraid to be black.
Should that change the fact of it being okay to be black?
I don't have a problem with whiteness.
Right, so you agree.
Can you say it for me? It's okay to be white?
Well, I wouldn't consider myself white.
Can you say it's okay to be white?
You wouldn't consider yourself white?
No. What would you consider yourself?
Indigenous Māori. Okay.
But do you agree it's okay to be white?
It's okay to be Indigenous Māori. I have a problem with people being white, with being proud to be white either.
But I think you know why that t-shirt was provocative.
Right, because we've got a culture that is very anti-white.
That's why it's provocative. We've got a culture that means all white people oppressors.
Would you say you're privileged? No more than anyone else that was born in a Western country.
In fact, I would say that the only thing that gives me privilege really over other people through the law would be the fact that I'm female because I'm more likely to be considered for university entry, military entry under affirmative action.
I know that my black friends, for example, they would, if they're half, they will apply as black to go to university because they'll be more likely to get scholarships.
They won't say they're white, that's for sure, because you're not going to get any scholarships.
You're definitely going to have trouble getting into the military, police force, government.
So there's a lot of privilege that comes with being considered a minority class within the West.
Not much with being white.
How would you describe whiteness or white culture?
White culture isn't one collective culture, and this is something that a lot of people get wrong.
They just say, oh, white people have no culture.
No, there are deep-rooted heritage in European I'm Danish, so I look into a lot of my Danish roots and culture.
I have a lot of Croatian friends in Toronto, and I was just participating in the soccer events with the Croatian community there, and they have a beautiful, robust culture.
All the different foods, the songs they sing, it's absolutely beautiful.
And we just look at people and we say, you're white, you don't deserve to have an identity, you don't deserve to express yourself.
There are so many beautiful, robust European cultures that should be deemed just as important to Preserve and respect as any minority culture.
It's not just white. These are European roots, European people that have a beautiful history, that have created many of the world's most amazing pieces of art and philosophy and books and literature.
Being white, not only is there no problem being white, there's some of the most beautiful things the world has ever seen that have been created through European culture.
Philosophically speaking, sorry to just European culture as the culture that maybe a little bit more than other cultures wrestles with the challenge of our emotional and our passionate nature and how to tame that using Socratic reason, using science, using evidence and so on.
There are things that It is science that kind of relieves us of that error.
And certainly for Western culture, there's a statistic that from 800 BC to about 1950, 98% of the progress in sciences came from Europe and Canada and America.
Whether it comes from the ancient Greeks, whether it comes from Christianity, it's a really potent combination where we have been trying to surmount subjective experience and trying to create Some cultures have done that, but it's been a particular kind of focus for the West, which has given us great strength, but also great vulnerability in the world.
The science around the claims that race is linked to IQ is something that you've promoted online.
No, this is not accurate.
It's not something that I have promoted.
This is not my research. I've had a wide We differentiate between the races.
So it's not my perspective or my belief or something that I have promoted.
You know, this is a kind of don't shoot the messenger.
This is very well understood.
But you've provided a platform by talking to those people.
Yes, of course, because I think that facts are important when it comes to talking about things like ethnicity.
And so this is very well understood, very well studied, and it is one of the most certain things in the field of psychology and in the field of neurology and neurobiology.
It is one of the most certain things.
It's tragic to me that this really essential information that helps clarify and inform our discussion about race.
It's not the be-all and end-all and you never judge individuals by aggregate characteristics.
But we need to talk about this because otherwise the only explanation for different outcomes of races is to blame white racism.
And that's racist because there's lots of other explanations that can help more deeply inform our discussion of these issues.
It isn't the case that it is undisputed.
It is disputed that race is inherently connected to IQ. I mean, the person that came up with the IQ testing I've accepted that environmental factors played a huge role in intelligence and IQ. I've never denied environmental factors.
I mean, the latest research that I've had, and I had the editor of the magazine called Intelligence on the show, and he said, at about the age of 18, your IQ is 80, your intelligence is a whole.
There are environmental factors, and I, of course, have promoted this throughout my show.
Peaceful parenting, breastfeeding, you know, don't hit your kids, don't yell at your kids, reason with your children, give them great language skills.
Education can be very important.
Whether or not that's going to fundamentally change your IQ remains a pretty dicey question, but it helps people use, in a sense, what they have to the best effect.
Have you had people on your show to dispute that science?
Absolutely. In fact, one of them is Dr.
James Flynn, I had on for over an hour, and he talks about some of the stuff.
Dr. Eric Turkheimer came in, who talked about the environmental issues.
So yeah, I've tried to have a very robust debate on the show regarding this.
I hope, you know, my hope is that as much of it can be environmental as possible, because otherwise we have much more limited tool set to work with.
But these are questions we need to talk about.
Lauren, where do you stand on that issue?
Well, I think it's rather indisputable, despite current Progressive trends to deny this, that race is biological.
I can tell you right now, I can spit into a DNA capsule and send it off to 23andMe, and they can tell my background, my history, my heritage based on my DNA. So there is an aspect to race where we are different biologically.
I am not an expert on race and IQ, so I haven't delved into that area.
I leave it to the experts to discuss that, but the fact that there is such It's not suppressed, though, because it's on the internet.
It's absolutely suppressed.
If it wasn't an internet, there would be far less discussion of this.
And if you look at the controversy in 1994 that came out with Ernstina Murray's The Bell Curve, I mean, he was viciously attacked.
This information has been repeatedly attacked.
Anybody who talks about this gets the inevitable label of racist.
But maybe that's because the majority of science doesn't support it.
The majority of science doesn't support one.
What you're talking about, that race is connected to IQ? No.
Do you have evidence for that? Yeah, the majority of science does support that.
Well, I'm just suggesting why maybe it's so controversial.
So let's say, I don't believe that what you say is correct.
Certainly, I cast my net pretty wide getting people on, and this is a fairly unanimous agreement.
But let's say that you're absolutely correct that there's this big controversy, then we should have a very robust debate about it, not suppress the information.
We've touched on some of these issues already around multiculturalism.
So I suppose in a nutshell, why have you both come to this part of the world, the other side of the world, and what's the message you both bring?
So, Stephon, do you want to start? Why have I come?
It's a long flight.
No, it is. Actually, surprisingly, it's a very pleasant flight.
Qantas Airlines. Use them.
They're fantastic. I really enjoy it.
So, I do a lot of studio work, and I really enjoy chatting with an audience.
I enjoy the play, the feedback, I enjoy the humor, I enjoy the Q&A period, and I enjoy these kinds of conversations with reporters as well.
It is, for me, sorry, did I just kick your audio there?
So, for me, the essential We have some playful reasoning.
We have some important syllogisms to discuss with people.
There's interesting data to bring forward.
And we should not be afraid of going to places that make us uncomfortable because all progress, all of everything that we deal with in the modern world made somebody really uncomfortable at one time or another.
You sitting there as a woman conducting this interview would have made people uncomfortable 50 years ago, may even make some people uncomfortable right now.
And wonderful.
We should push through that discomfort to give you these kinds of opportunities.
Not you, though.
You're not uncomfortable.
I'm all alone.
I think it's wonderful.
I have no particular preference either way.
I think the questions are great. I'm enjoying the conversation.
So all of our progress makes people uncomfortable and we just want to make sure that we don't miss anything because we're going through this big revolution in our societies.
There's open borders, lots of mass migration, lots of migrants and refugees and so on.
I want to make sure that, you know, I'm a father and my daughter's going to grow up in a world and I want to make sure that we don't miss anything when it comes to looking at these issues as a whole.
Lauren, why are you here?
Well, I get asked this a lot, Lauren.
You're rather nationalistic.
Why are you traveling to these different countries and discussing it?
And I see, right now, the Western world as one front.
We are fighting for one of the greatest civilizations that has ever existed.
One of the greatest civilizations for human rights, for progress, scientific progress, art, literature, education, all of it.
This is literally the greatest civilization to live in.
And we're... We're throwing it all away just for the idea that we need to be tolerant of other cultures that haven't achieved these things.
Not only haven't achieved them, but in some cases want to destroy them.
Cultures that don't believe in diversity, that don't believe in human rights.
And we want so much...
Why do you think that? Why do you think that we're under threat, the waste?
This is the thing, I spend a lot of my career, I may not be a scientist, I may not be a professor, but I spend a lot of time on the ground.
When I was sitting at home and I was reading articles on Breitbart that were telling me that there were tons of immigrants coming to the Calais jungle and they were all refugees from Syria.
And then, oh, not Breitbart, I was reading in left-wing magazines, they were saying they were all refugees from Syria.
And then Breitbart would say these are all young men that are coming from non-refugee countries.
They're fighting age, they're invading.
And I went to the Kali jungle and I found that all the nonsense about these are young women and children and Syrian refugees was completely inaccurate.
Couldn't find a Syrian. I found one in the whole Kali jungle.
So I've been on the ground.
I've seen what has happened to these areas.
I've seen what the suburbs of Paris look like, where the police told me, if you walk in there, we can't help you.
And I can tell you, if this continues, it doesn't matter if it happens in the next 10 years, the next 50 years or the next hundred years.
My children, my grandchildren, are not going to have a future where they have the same privilege we have in the Western world, the same rights we have, the same values we have.
And so many people, they say, oh, we're not a threat because it's not happening right now.
Right now, a lot of the cultures that oppose Western freedoms and values are the minority, so we're okay.
That's just right now.
The ball of Rome didn't happen in a second.
It happened over hundreds of years and hundreds of bad decisions over those years.
Who's saying that immigrants oppose Western culture, though?
You can go and interview them.
You can look at the individuals within the Islamic community in New Zealand who told me, we shouldn't have a right People who have also assimilated to New Zealand culture.
Yes, you're right. We have a problem with progressives that are trying to change the values that made our culture great before.
But the individuals that founded most of the Western world did believe in these values, and they're the only reason that Right now, if you go and you do it, you can look at Pew Research.
You don't have to take my word for it.
That's the thing. You can look at the Pew Research interviews with certainly Islamic immigrants, what their views are on women's rights, what their views are on LGBT rights.
Try doing a pride parade through Molenbeek.
Try doing a pride parade through Lakemba.
It's... Just completely at odds with everything we value here in the Western world.
And New Zealand and Australia are a part of that Western world, and I want to defend that just as much as I want to defend Canada.
But people with different values and beliefs can live and exist side by side.
They don't.
We see people segregating, self-segregating into areas.
We might as well have balkanized states within our country.
I know for a fact that, like, I went to this area called Lakemba today, and it's almost an entirely Islamic area.
We self-segregate into what our values and our laws and religions are, for the most part.
And this is how countries are created.
countries are created by people separating and saying ooh we have a different set of goals and we're going to work together towards those goals and create a border so that other people who have different goals or may want to undermine ours don't come in and we're allowing that to happen in our own countries I mean it's natural for if Somalis come to Auckland for people to live together because they share a language, they miss home That doesn't mean that they want to create a little Somalia and take over Auckland.
Well, that's the thing. They do create their own little communities, and if they become the majority...
But then if you think like that, everyone becomes a threat.
Yeah, there are a lot of threats to our civilization.
And we need to really take that into consideration and take it seriously because Don't take my word for it.
Go to Marxlo yourself in Germany and look at the area there and tell me, are they speaking German there?
Go to Molenbeek yourself where they hid the Belgium bombers because their culture wanted to protect them there because they were from their community.
The problem here is, too, that every people has a right to their sovereignty and to the laws they want and the way that they want to run their country.
But for some reason, every country has a right to that, to protect their identity, except for Western nations.
No one has a problem that Japan really protects its borders and doesn't let mass immigration in and doesn't have this mantra of diversity.
No one has an issue with that. But for some reason, when Canadians, when Swedes want to protect their culture and their identity and their future and their laws, everyone has an issue with that.
Why can't we just give the same respect for the protection of culture to Western nations as we do the rest of the world?
Stefan, you're coming to New Zealand.
What do you know about New Zealand?
Well, it's a wonderful backdrop for Hobbits, as far as I remember from the movies as a whole.
Let's not go down the Lord of the Rings track.
It's a long movie.
The Chrysalids and Lord of the Rings.
Well, it's a beautiful country.
And the people, as far as I've had some callers into my show, I'd run a call-in show every week.
Wonderful people. I mean, so far, the Australians There is a great thirst and a great curiosity for the topics that we're talking about.
You know, we all have our secret and private thoughts, but because a lot of the topics are kind of taboo, people are very relieved to at least have a forum where they can talk about it, agree or disagree, and so on.
So I have done some studying of the history.
I've focused more on Australia because that's a larger part of our tour, but I'm going to be very much up to speed on New Zealand by the time we get out there.
And Lauren, what do you know about New Zealand?
Well, much like Stefan was saying, there's a great thirst for what we're coming to talk about.
We've seen the robust defense of our speech there in New Zealand.
We've seen people raising money to oppose the government who wanted to ban us.
There are thousands and thousands of people in New Zealand who want to have these conversations, and we're not going to deny them that just because there's been a few people who want to protest us, or a few people who I want to scare us off.
We're going to come there and have those exact same conversations that we've been having all over the Western world and really, really use and respect our free speech.
To respect our free speech is to use it to have these important conversations that other people consider to do.
I mean, New Zealanders in general, you know, we have a bicultural basis between Māori and Pākehā or European peoples.
And there's a treaty signed between Māori and the British, which is our country's founding document, and we're becoming increasingly multicultural.
And that sort of diversity and openness is something that New Zealanders are really proud of.
They'd see what we're saying as like an attack.
Well, I wouldn't, you know, neither you or anyone has the right to speak for all New Zealanders, because some of them do want to come and see what it is that we have to say.
And this is the big question, and it is something that we as a We need to talk about, which is that if diversity is a value, what is our relationship to cultures coming in for whom diversity is not a value?
For whom in-group preference is very strong?
For who have ideologies or religious belief systems that are very exclusive to their own group?
If diversity is a value, should we welcome into our countries groups who oppose the very idea of diversity?
Now, some people say...
But you're basing that on the assumption that people coming in don't want to...
integrate and don't want to be part of a diverse country.
Well, if you look at a belief like Islam, do you think that Islam says go and integrate with a Christian country?
I don't think you can taint a whole group of people or group of people with a set of beliefs with one branch.
There are individuals within.
But it's their set of beliefs. Do you think that Islam promotes integration into Christian countries?
I'm not an expert on Islam, but I know Muslim people, and they get along quite happily in New Zealand, as they do here in Australia.
You can have two sets of beliefs in one country, if you respect each other's laws.
There are certain groups of people that Would not have made treaties to protect the Maran culture.
That was a fact. If the Zulu had come and found New Zealand, I think that much like many of the tribes they encountered all over South Africa, they would have been wiped out and there would have been treaties made to protect the culture and heritage and be a bicultural country.
We have to take into consideration that not everyone About that diversity.
Not everyone cares about the preservation of your culture.
And I think that that's an important thing to care about and want to preserve for the sake of your children, for the sake of their future and the future of your nation and the people you care about.
Lauren, let's stay with you. What are your thoughts on feminism?
What are my thoughts on feminism?
I think it has been a complete failure if its goal is for the happiness of women.
You can look at the happiness statistics right now.
Women's is... Instead of protecting femininity, I found it's trying to make women into men.
It's trying to say, you need to be a fulfilled woman.
You need to be a businesswoman.
You need to go into STEM fields.
You need to join the army.
Do all these things that women naturally are not inclined to do.
For the most part, and there are exceptions, I know people are going to try to take that out of context, but for the most part, when women are given the right to choose, It depends on the woman though,
doesn't it? We're biologically made to do.
We're biologically made to have children.
If a man tried to join a child birthing contest, he'd have a pretty bad time, just like if a woman tried to join a strength contest with men, she'd probably have a pretty bad time.
We are biologically different, and feminism doesn't take that And because feminism tries to treat men and women the exact same, you're finding women are comparing themselves to men in all these different categories that men dominate because of their biology and find themselves falling short.
Whereas we shouldn't be comparing ourselves to men.
We should be saying we have different talents.
We have different things that we enjoy and are good at.
And that doesn't make us lesser than men.
That just means we have different roles in life.
And that's completely and totally fine.
And there will be exceptions, of course.
There will be exceptions where some women are completely happy in more masculine roles, but feminism, because it's rejected so much of its biological and psychological differences, it's really failed to make women happy.
We're on our third woman prime minister.
The current one's on maternity leave at the moment.
She had a baby about six weeks ago.
A leader. What do you make of that?
I think that's great.
There are some women that are going to be excellent leaders.
There are some women that are going to be the exception.
And if you find that, if you find a woman who can fill that role, excellent.
But they say one of the common factors between all these women leaders is, in a lot of cases, they act like men.
She will be a less good mother.
Is that so? Absolutely.
I've been a stay-at-home dad for nine years.
She would be very offended by that. No, I'm sorry, but I get it.
I get it. But I have been a stay-at-home dad for nine years.
I know how much parenting takes out of you.
I know how much time you have to spend with your children, and you simply can't do Just because she's not at home doesn't mean she's not a good mum.
I didn't say she wasn't a good mum.
I said she can't be as good a mum.
Obviously, right? What makes a good mother then?
You're there for your children.
Being at home? Yeah, of course.
That's just not the world that we live in, though.
It's not the world you live in, I suppose, ideologically, but that's what the baby needs.
Breastfeeding 18 months. New Zealand is celebrating 125 years of women's suffrage.
First country to give women the vote.
And that type of thing you've just said is going to be very, very touchy for a lot of New Zealanders.
For instance, breastfeeding is recommended for 18 months.
And more breastfeeding leads to higher intelligence, a better parent-child bond, and so on.
You can't breastfeed and be as successful a business person as a man who's not involved in that.
But there are lots of things that...
Contribute to women going back to work.
Career, the desire to not just stay at home, the desire to...
What do you mean, just stay at home? Is that bad?
Is that wrong? Is that negative compared to a career?
For some women, yeah.
Well, then why would you want to have kids?
If you want to work, then work.
And if you want to have kids... Because you can do both.
Because a man can do both, right?
He can go to work and then he can...
Because we're all tax and no plumbing, right?
Because the man isn't breastfeeding.
And there's just not that same bond and unity with the mom.
Listen, please understand, I'm not saying women should all have babies and stay home.
And I'm just saying that it's a simple basic fact.
There are only so many hours in the day.
And if you spend 10 hours a day working, that's 10 hours a day you're not spending with your children.
Your children are where? In a daycare, being cared for by people who are coming and going.
Or being cared for by their father.
That's been my particular situation, and I think that's wonderful too.
But if the man wants to step up, that's great, but you still lose doubt on the breastfeeding.
I want to mention, I really always liked actually Karl Marx's critique of feminists, where he says, I've never understood why they want so badly to be in the workforce.
We're advocating as Marxists for men to be out of the workforce more so you can enjoy these things, like being with your kids, the arts.
And I've never understood why feminists find it such a valuable thing.
Be in the workforce, woman.
Be in the workforce. No, it's a wonderful thing.
It's about having a choice. Yes, it's about having a choice.
It's about having a choice. The problem is an equal opportunity to the jobs and the pay that men have.
A lot of it is not really about having a choice because a lot of women who choose to be stay-at-home mothers get shamed by feminists.
They say, why aren't you in the workforce?
Why aren't you taking these jobs for men?
And if it were about the choice, then we wouldn't see this giant push to have 50-50 representation of women in governments and in classrooms and all this, because we'd be like, well, if women have the choice, then say whoever wants to go there.
No, it's a desperation to say, ooh, look at these minorities we're holding up, these females we're holding up.
We have 50-50.
It's about forcing equality.
To quote us, it's making women miserable because some women, a lot of women, don't want to be politicians.
A lot of women don't want to be in STEM fields.
A lot of women don't want to be doing the jobs men do.
And you also see, I think this is an important point, you'll never see a push for 50-50 equality in plumbing jobs or these kind of lower jobs.
And because they're trying to force it, a lot of women are being led down a path that is making them less happy.
But I return to it again and again.
This is not only on the left.
It's kind of a cultural thing at the moment.
What you do is you look at two groups and you Whether it's income, attainment of top-level business positions or political positions, you look at a group like different races, different ethnicities, males and females, and then you say, anytime there's a gap, we're going to ascribe nefarious motives.
Anytime women don't have as much money as men in particular fields or whatever, it's sexism and bad men.
Or anytime, say, whites make more than blacks, it's white privilege, it's racism.
Is there bigotry in the world?
Is there sexism? Is there racism?
Of course. And it should be fought as the abhorrent collectivism that it is.
But it's not the full story.
It's not the full story. Race and IQ matter.
Gender choices, gender...
As women become more free, they tend to make different choices more than men.
So all I'm saying is it's more rich and it's more nuanced and it's more interesting rather than just saying...
It's like, you know, something bad happened in the village.
Let's find the witch and burn her.
And it's like, we've got this answer.
It's witchery. It's sorcery.
Right? And we just jump to this thing, oh, there's a disparity, it's sexism, it's racism, and it's like, okay, those things exist, but what if it's much more complex than that?
Then we're being kind of unjust to everyone by labeling everyone in a negative term, when there could be many, many more rich and interesting explanations.
I hope that makes some kind of sense, but that's sort of an important thing for me.
So, you both broadcast online through your own platforms and YouTube, it's all readily available.
Do you have, and Stefan let's start with you with this one, do you have someone overseeing you?
Do you have an editor who fact checks what you put out?
Yes. How does that process go?
Well, so I have a producer and there are other people.
We have researchers from time to time.
So people that we rely on and they provide us a sort of source documentation.
And in the videos, I will provide source documentation for the information that I'm putting out.
So yeah, there's a fairly rigorous vetting process.
And there is the YouTube community.
There's the Facebook community.
There's the online community where if I put a foot wrong, occasionally they might let me know just a little bit.
And I've done correction videos where it's like, you know...
Of course, for this turned out to be false.
You know, here's the corrected information and so on.
So, yeah, there definitely is a process.
And, you know, it's kind of tough in the online world to, even if I wanted to, to try and get away with stuff that was falsified and so on.
And so there's, you've noticed this too, a little bit of feedback when you get things right.
Lauren, what about you?
Of course. Yeah.
The one thing, though, I want to make the kind of...
differentiation is in the mainstream media you have like seven, twenty layers of kind of editors and people that make sure what you're saying is perfectly curated to not offend the right people to make sure your backers and everything are perfect.
When I say...
Well I have to abide by often you know national laws or...
Well sure but there's also like twenty layers of bureaucracy just to appease and please and make sure you've got the right messaging and And I'm very happy to not have any of that.
When I do fact checking, when I have people that make sure what I'm doing alright, it is individuals that are friends, experts, people who help do research that aren't telling me What opinion to espouse, but are helping me make sure it's factually accurate.
Last night, I just got off the phone with a professor of history who was helping me with my comments on multiculturalism in Australian history.
And I love to have those robust conversations and make sure that what I am saying is accurate.
Because of course, I mean, I'm not here to lie to people.
I'm not here to sell a false narrative.
And if I am saying something inaccurate, I love to be corrected in my comments section.
But I try to put out the most accurate information I can so that we can make informed decisions about our future.
Subject matter expert interviews is also a great way.
So if subject matter expert interviews, so let's say that there's some particular topic that I find quite interesting, criminology and so on.
So we go and find whoever the best person is in the field in that and we ask them to come on the show and oftentimes they will and I'll read the book and read their papers and so on and give them the questions that, you know, I was interested in the Armenian Genocide, right?
I mean, how long is it going to take for me to become an expert?
Well, infinity, basically.
So, you know, read a couple of books, get the guy who runs the Center for the Armenian Genocide, get him on the show, have him make the case.
And I think that's a very, very important thing to do as well.
So you're both always happy that you're 100% solid on what you're putting out there?
I'm happy that I'm not getting a lot of pimples, but occasionally I do.
So, you know, you do your best and the best you can do.
I guess like all this, if you make a mistake, then you put out the correction and try to make sure you find out what happened and so on.
You aim, you know, the perfect is the enemy of the good.
If you wait for everything to be perfect, you can't ever publish anything.
But you do your best, of course, like all responsible people.
Just heading into the last part of our interview now, which I know that you very recently...
Made a documentary, Farmlands.
Do you both agree that there is what's called a white genocide happening in South Africa?
Well, Lauren addressed that at the end of her movie, so I don't know if you watched it to the end.
Yeah, I can tell most of the journalists that comment on farmlands haven't watched it, because at the end of the documentary I conclude, no, this is not a genocide.
But it's possible that one may be coming.
There are stages. Exactly, there are stages to genocide.
And yeah, it's a very tragic thing that is happening in South Africa.
There are a lot of precursors to what could become a potential genocide, but genocide is obviously a very strong word and to apply it to the situation in South Africa now.
Don't you think it's the wrong word?
I mean, I've been to Rwanda.
I've seen the aftermath of an actual genocide.
Wouldn't you have liked to have stopped it early, though?
Wouldn't you have liked to have stopped it before it becomes a genocide?
That's like saying, well, I've got a tumor this big growing out of my neck.
You wouldn't want it small. I think Genocide Watch's research would disagree.
But yeah, that's the thing.
Everyone is an expert in retrospect.
Everyone can say, oh yes, Rwanda was absolutely a genocide.
Oh yes, all these different things were absolutely genocide.
Looking back, but no one, no one would have called Rwanda a genocide before.
Maybe a few people that were called crazy and silly, much like I am.
But it's always hard to be the first person to point out a problem when everyone else wants to ignore it.
It's always difficult to take that first step, and this was what was very frustrating, is both the left-wing and right-wing media were calling me absolutely insane to say there was a bias against white people in South Africa when I first went to go do the documentary.
And then, when I was in South Africa, a policy was passed by the government to take white land without compensation, and no one in the media could ignore it.
They had to report on it and say, maybe Lauren is onto something here.
And everyone did report on it, but it was qualified with, as long as it didn't impact food security.
Which is a very key qualification to that declaration.
The food security in South Africa has been undermined for decades because there was a whole policy, I'm sure you're aware of it, but just for the listeners, there was a whole policy after the end of apartheid that if there were blacks who felt it then or who had proof Their land had been unjustly expropriated since, I think, 1908 or something.
There was a whole legal process that they could go through, and many of the blacks did.
The vast majority of them decided to take money rather than take the land, and the land has been turned from farmland into basically nothingness.
That process has been extremely slow.
I think the ANC wanted to transfer 30% of the land back to black hands and gnats.
That has not happened.
Part of the reason that hasn't happened is people have taken money rather than title.
Some people have taken money.
The majority of people have taken money rather than title.
Statistically. It's still the vast majority of land and the economy controlled by white businesses.
What is the EFF? Why are we trying to justify at all that they're...
Oh, it may just be okay.
The ANC adds some qualifiers.
No, it's a racist policy to take people's land because of their skin color and skin color alone.
But they're not saying they're going to take white people's land.
Yeah, that's exactly what they said.
White land without compensation.
Land without compensation.
They said white land.
Absolutely. You can watch the video yourself.
They're talking about using government land as well.
That's lying fallow.
And you can look at the black economic empowerment policies that are anti-white that say you can only...
If you're a government-contracted business, you can only have a certain percent of white people that is representative of the population, which is a very small population there, so they're having to fire tons of white people.
That's not really the right way of framing it.
I think it's pro-black, because you have an enormous mass of people who are...
If they brought in a policy in America that said, oh, you can only have...
Black hires that are representative to the population and have to, of course, fire half the NBA. Would you have a problem with that?
Would that be a pro-white policy?
I don't even think you could say pro-white because you'd see that as a negative thing to say.
You have to accept, though, that the vast majority of people in South Africa who are poor, who are involved, and the victims of crime...
White people are a lot of those things.
White people are victims of crime.
Oh, absolutely. Deal with people based on their merit.
I don't care what skin colour you are.
If you are good for the job, hire them.
Certainly in a country like South Africa, where Cape Town is running out of water, where they have serious food security problems, you need the best people at the job.
Who cares if they're white?
The government is not making the best decisions for the people.
If it was about empowering black people, if it was about helping black people, they would want those white engineers in there because they should hire based on meritocracy because those are the people that are going to keep the water flowing.
Those are the people that are going to keep the food.
I mean, those issues, the drought, you know, the ones touched upon by your documentary, Crime, obviously they affect people of all different colours in South Africa.
But by focusing or only talking to white victims of crime, white people suffering in the drought, you make it look like it's only white people who are suffering in South Africa.
I never said that once in my documentary.
I said plenty of times that everyone is a victim here.
And in fact, blacks are probably going to suffer the most when the white farmers are driven out of South Africa.
But you didn't interview anyone in your documentary who was black who was living in a shack?
My documentary was on white farmers in South Africa.
You wouldn't get mad at me if I were doing a documentary on Syrian refugees and I didn't interview anyone that was of European descent.
My documentary was about the struggles of white farmers.
And I did interview A member of the Black First Land First group, and I interviewed a member of the ANC, both of which were Black, and I gave them a chance to give their perspectives.
Do you think the documentary is kind of starting to find a good audience here in Australia and in New Zealand?
Because there are lots of South Africans in Aussie and across the ditch in New Zealand.
Absolutely. In New Zealand and Australia, it's actually been Quite a heart-wrenching experience coming here to meet so many people who have escaped South Africa.
People telling me they've lost family members to the farm attacks.
People telling me they had to flee and leave all their land.
There's in fact a rally happening here in Sydney tomorrow for the white South Africans.
And yeah, it's something...
Journalists can say it's exaggerated.
They can say that I'm just making things up.
But I've met the people on the ground.
I've been there. I've seen...
I've met the people who have lost their family members and their murders were never investigated.
They were thrown away as robberies gone wrong like the police tend to apply it to.
So I've met the people who have suffered this and they know it's real and they'll be out boldly stating that tomorrow here in Sydney where we are right now.
You've gotten a lot of attention while in this part of the world.
What's the one thing that you would want audiences here to remember from your visit?
The West is the greatest civilization that has ever existed and it is worth fighting for.
Even if the conversations that Stefan and I bring to Australia and to New Zealand make you uncomfortable, even if you're scared of being criticized for attending our event or being criticized for bringing up these conversations, of identity, of free speech, of immigration,
multiculturalism. It is going to be so much better for the future of your children and for the future of your country to talk about these important issues now and to make a decision on them now rather than wait for these things to manifest into The things that could happen in the future with religious tensions, ethnic tensions, and multicultural tensions could be absolutely horrific.
Talk about these important things now before you're staring at a pile of bodies.
Stefan, what do you think you want people to remember about your visit?
Truth is a difficult thing to get a hold of.
This is why free speech is so important.
Truth is a very difficult thing to get a hold of.
And sometimes when you feel you've got it, it's like that bar of soap you grab too hard.
You can lose it.
And it's part of the conversation.
What I really want people to remember from this visit, from my perspective, is that philosophy is a process.
That the pursuit of truth is a process.
And it's a process of conversation with reference to evidence, reason, syllogisms, the Socratic method.
These are all the ways in which we get to truth.
Anybody who stands between you with an explicit or an implicit threat of attack, of ostracism, of violence, of brutality, I don't need people who don't like you, that's all natural, that's going to be part of life.
But remember that the truth is the goal, and reason and evidence is the methodology, and I want people not to think what we think, not to think what I think, but to develop a methodology for thinking that moves us forward as a civilization, and really as a species as a whole.
Do you think implicit has been successful?
Wonderful. Measure that, or why would you say that?
The audience reception has been wonderful.
I really appreciate these kinds of conversations.
It has been, we were on Andrew Bolt's show, we've done a wide variety of different conversations and I've done some meet and greets and chat with people in the streets and asking questions of Australians.
It has been a wonderful, wonderful experience.
The warmth and the hospitality has been amazing and the curiosity has been amazing and the hostility has been quite intense, which is an I love it here,
and I think I need to come back absolutely just to be with the people here who love our ideas.
There are so many People here who are just amazing defenders of Western civilization.
I wasn't expecting it.
I was not expecting to come to this place and find so many people who are just defenders of the West.
People wearing Trump hats here.
Absolutely amazing to see.
Even in Melbourne. Even in Melbourne, we had a huge crowd out there.
So I think I'll come back just to see the culture, hang out with the kangaroos and koalas, and also maybe drink some VB, have some Vegemites, and the Kiwis as well.
I've always wanted to go there.
I was devastated when I thought I was going to be banned at first because New Zealand is a place that I've always wanted to visit my entire life and very excited to do so.
