All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 10, 2018 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
48:05
4164 The Banned New Zealand Speech They Didn't Want You To Hear!
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
So recently, Lauren Southern and I went on a speaking tour of Australia and New Zealand.
We gave five extraordinarily successful standing ovation up half the night speeches in five venues in Australia.
But then when we came to New Zealand, we were deplatformed for a variety of reasons.
I'll go into perhaps another time.
But this is the speech that I wanted to give.
I love this speech.
I think you're going to love it too.
I'm sorry I didn't get to give it live, but hopefully you will enjoy it as much as I do.
So let me give you an example to illustrate a most essential point about civilization.
Let's say you've got a best friend.
His name is Bob. And Bob got married to this woman you think might just might be a gold digger.
You don't have any proof. You warn him about it.
Doesn't have a lot of skills.
She seems to spend a lot of time working out and she wears a lot of white and does a lot of lunches.
You're a little concerned. Now, Bob listens to your advice and says, okay, look, I'm gonna have a prenup with my fiance.
And the prenup says, if there's an affair, the divorce occurs and you get nothing, no money whatsoever.
So they get married. And by hook or by crook, you end up with irrefutable evidence that Bob's wife is having an affair.
You are in possession of a smoking grenade that gets Bob out of the marriage without having to pay one dime in alimony.
So, let's say that Bob's wife knows, suddenly finds out that you have in your possession proof that she's having an affair.
And she knows that you're on your way to tell Bob and to show Bob and to get him to protect his millions of dollars.
Let's say he's very rich. She finds out that you're on your way to see your best friend Bob, to reveal that she's having an affair, have her kicked out of the marriage with no money.
What's her incentive? What's she going to do?
But she's going to go insane, right?
And she is going to try and triangulate and stop you.
By almost any means necessary to stop you from going to Bob and revealing her affair.
Why? She wants to interfere with your free speech to talk with Bob.
Why? Because of the money.
Because of the money. Because right now, in the marriage, she has access to Bob's millions.
She doesn't have to work.
She can sign checks on his account.
He gives her a gold visa.
She can have lunch, wear white, do whatever, go to the gym.
She has a nice, easy life living off Bob's money.
But, you see, if it turns out she's having an affair and Bob sees that, he divorces her ass and she gets nothing.
And it also means, because of the publicity around this, That she'll have a hell of a time trying to get another sugar daddy to pay her bills after she cheated on the last one and got kicked out of the house with nothing.
So she is going to try and screech banshee style.
She's going to use any...
She may even try to seduce you.
She's going to do just about anything she can to make sure that you don't get through to Bob and reveal the truth about her behavior because of the money.
See, you have the right to speak with Bob, but she doesn't want you to speak with Bob because of the money.
Your free speech rights will be highly interfered with.
Not because she disagrees with what you're saying.
Not because she thinks there's something immoral in what you're saying.
Now, she'll say, well, the sanctity of the marriage or I'm pregnant and this will destroy everything and it was one mistake and it was an accident and the evidence is faked and ha!
Right? She'll say anything to get you to tell the truth to your friend and save his life by ending his marriage.
There's an important lesson in this story.
So free speech is under attack right now, everywhere.
Why do people want to control speech so much?
Why does it matter what people say on the internet?
Why does it matter what people say in magazines and in books?
Why do people care so much to control what everyone else is saying?
Why? Well, for the same reason that Bob's wife doesn't want you telling the truth to him about her affair.
Because of the money. Because of profit.
Look, there are busybodies and there are censors.
Now, the busybodies, those are people who just want to insert and involve themselves in other people's lives and affairs and tell you what to do and nag and complain and bitch and moan.
But they're not the main problem because they're kind of like vampires.
You know, like vampires, you have to invite them into your house.
And I guess unlike vampires, the busybodies are relatively easy to get rid of.
You know, just block and detach and disassociate and ostracize and so on.
And you're free.
But the censors are different because the censors impose themselves in your life without your consent, right?
They're not people you have to invite in.
They're people who just come charging in.
So recently I did a speech in Australia which partly involved some facts about aborigine culture.
People got really, really mad. Really, really mad about it.
Why? Is it because everyone cares about the Aborigines so much?
Well, yeah, sure, some of them do.
I do, you do, for sure.
But of course, if you care about the Aborigines, you'd want some change in their current condition, which is incredibly destructive to their life, future well-being, and so on.
But I think people protest too much about criticisms of the Aborigine culture.
Sure, people would. If I did the same speech here in New Zealand about the Maori culture, people would get mad about that too.
And the question is, why?
Well, you know, Bob's wife who is, oh, I'm pregnant.
Oh, I love Bob. Oh, I made one mistake.
Oh, I was raped.
Whatever, right? I mean, whatever she would say, it would come out of a place of, you know, pseudo-concern and caring and so on.
And I generally find that people who claim to care so much about other groups and so on, Often, and actually quite generally, are pickpockets.
And that's an important thing to recognize.
Once you recognize this, all this human behavior begins to kind of make sense, right?
And there's all of these claims to care about other people and care about the children and so on.
I had a difficult childhood.
Nobody cared at the time.
Very few people, actually nobody in the media has expressed any sympathy for my abused childhood because I'm not profitable.
It's not profitable to pretend to care for me.
Like one kid washes up on a Turkish beach because his selfish father went on an overloaded boat so he could get to Canada for free dental work.
And Europe has to drown under an endless wave of migrants.
I mean, if you put your kid on an overloaded boat because you wanted free dental care and your kid drowned, you'd probably get prosecuted.
But no. It's a fundamental question.
It's a fundamental question.
Do people care that much to the point where they get outraged and upset and offended?
Do they care that much?
Well, I generally find no.
No, not so much. Which begs the question then, why are people so upset with Lauren and me?
Well, I'm going to submit, put towards you that the problem with free speech at the moment is government power, specifically the government power to provide benefits to its friends and to punish its enemies, to transfer Millions and millions, hundreds of millions, and in some cases billions of dollars from one group to another.
That means that there are very few people who have a clear conscience and no conflict of interest when it comes to free speech.
Why were people so upset about my speech?
Why were the Aborigines so angry in Australia that they showed up at our hotel and attacked our security guards?
Because I criticize some aspects of their culture with data?
Well, no. No, no.
See, people say, well, they got mad at you because you criticized them, but there's no causality about that whatsoever.
None! None!
How do I know that in particular?
I've been attacked in the most brutal manners in public, in media, mainstream media, and so on.
I'm not showing up and assaulting people.
White Western European culture has been attacked as evil and genocidal and colonialist and exploitive for like, what, half a century or so?
You know, I'm attacked as racist and privileged and oppressive and sexist and all of that.
I'm not showing up at any of the homes of the leftist speakers and attacking them or their security guards if they have any when they go to speak.
My culture has been attacked.
I've been attacked for half a century.
Am I leading hundreds of feral friends to attack leftist venues and attendees?
Of course not! There's no connection between being criticized and attacking people.
I don't even pen lengthy essays deriding my enemies as Nazis.
So what's the difference?
What's the difference? Why does criticism so often result in hysterical verbal abuse, physical attack, deplatforming, and so on?
Why do they do what they do?
There are elements and questions, of course, of things like maturity and wisdom and self-control and virtue and a respect for the principle of free speech, but the fundamental difference, I think, is money.
Money, the transfer of money, the coercive government transfer of the money, infects, undermines, cripples, and destroys our capacity for free speech.
Because it's one thing to support free speech.
When a mere principle is at stake, it's quite another thing to support free speech when free speech is threatening the transfer of billions of dollars.
Billions of dollars a year.
We're talking welfare payments, transfer payments, benefits, tax exemptions, flow from majority population white countries to indigenous peoples.
Billions of dollars flow from whites to indigenous peoples.
Is this a repayment?
No. It's not a repayment.
New Zealand, for example, is not currently rich because it stole trillions of dollars from the indigenous population.
Neither is Canada, America, Australia, or you name it, countries rich because they stole...
Trillions of dollars from the native population.
Why? Because there was no money to steal.
It wasn't like there was this wonderful Sydney Opera House, which was built by the indigenous population and stolen by the current generation of evil whites.
They say, ah, was the land stolen?
No. It was bought.
There were treaties.
And according to international law at the time, a small group of nomads could not make use of Of millions of acres of land for their own purposes.
And we understand that as well.
I mean, I or you or anyone can't go to some remote area, wander around and say, I now own 10,000 acres.
It's not how it works. So it was bought, it was cultivated, it was enclosed, it was put to good use, particularly for agriculture.
But let's say, let's say that the narrative It is true, that it was conquered territory that the evil whites came.
It just conquered and destroyed the land.
Well, conquered the land and destroyed the...
drove off the occupants, right?
So, it was conquered, let's say.
Yeah. Like every other single scrap of land in human history.
Come on, everyone. You know how this goes.
The amoral past, the rule of the fist, the Hobbesian nature reddened tooth and claw reality of how countries were created.
Just look at the globe. Take it for a spin.
Look at the human farm delineations, the multicolor puzzle of a brutal history.
The globe, it's all conquered land.
All of it is conquered land throughout most of human history.
In South Africa, the Zulus, for one example of many, fully recognized the right of conquest.
The Bantus destroyed the Khoisan.
They were the original inhabitants of South Africa.
The Bantus came down and destroyed and virtually eradicated them.
Do you see any Khoisan represented in the South African government at the moment?
Go to some Bantus.
Ask them what they think of the Khoisan.
They barely even think that they're human.
Conquer territory. The Aborigines fought and killed each other over resources or over imagined slights or over the fantasy that supernatural voodoo curses killed people and therefore you had to retaliate with spears and clubs.
The Aborigines fought, killed each other over resources.
The Maori did too. Blacks in Africa caught and bought and owned and sold other blacks into slavery with each other.
This is happening now in Libya.
Whites bought a very few of them.
More European whites were enslaved in North Africa by blacks than blacks were enslaved in America by whites.
The slave trade could not have occurred without blacks capturing slaves and sullying them to Europeans.
Europeans had an average survival rate in Africa of 11 months.
Because the same virgin soil epidemic that often destroyed lots of indigenous people, not through anyone's fault, but just, you know, mother nature is a bit of a witch when it comes to bacteria and viruses.
Whites couldn't survive in Africa because of tsetse flies and malaria and sleeping sickness and a wide variety of other godforsaken ailments that strike down whites worse than sunburn in the dark continent.
So whites couldn't go in and capture slaves.
They had to be captured and sold by blacks.
The Maori of New Zealand is actually interesting because they're called the indigenous peoples, but according to significant archaeological research, the Maori arrived in New Zealand, well, just a few centuries before the Europeans.
But you see, they are indigenous.
Not their... A lot longer than the whites have been in South Africa.
But, you see, the whites are not considered indigenous, but the Maori are.
Why? Because of the money!
Because of the money. The Maori of New Zealand practiced cannibalism.
They They practiced cannibalism in particular.
Not for food, right, generally, but the Aborigines did occasionally as well.
There are reports in Australia of the Aborigines having feasts, wearing kidney fat.
The kidney fat of a human being was shared around.
And sometimes if a baby died or was killed, to 50% of Aborigine children were murdered in the Australian Aborigine culture, and sometimes they would feed The baby that they had murdered to another baby for strength.
There's a warrior culture tradition in New Zealand and in the Aborigine cultures, to a smaller degree, I think, which is when you kill your enemy, you eat some part of him to gain his strength, right?
Warrior cultures in general commit infanticide.
The Bayaris were no exception.
Females, female babies were much more likely to be killed.
Why? Because the tribes needed males, lots of males, because Males were warriors, and there was a lot of warfare and a need to protect the security of the tribe.
Of course, males also more likely to be killed in battle.
Remember, one little scratch, one infection, you name it, right?
So if you didn't have a lot of extra men as babies, you'd have a weird sex ratio later on in life.
I mean, don't get me wrong. It's nothing like the sex ratio that are in the supposed...
Young, military-aged men, migrants pouring into Europe, where it seems to be like 90 to 1, 80 to 1, 9 to 1, 8 to 1, males to females.
But also, if there was anything wrong with the baby, infanticide was very common, but yeah, killing more little girls than even the Chinese.
Five ways. Five ways that infants were killed in the Maori culture.
Skulls could be crushed, of course.
They would put the babies in a stone basin and drown them.
They would strangle, of course, the babies.
They would suffocate the babies.
And also, the mothers would press against the soft spot on the baby's skull and kill the baby instantly.
So... Infanticide.
Cannibalism. Of course, when they won against another tribe, they would often kill some of the men.
They would take the most attractive women and sex slaves and so on.
So yeah, you've got rape as a weapon of war.
You have, of course, murder, mass murder, endless warfare.
You've got cannibalism. You've got...
Infanticide and so on.
And the Maori took slaves.
So... That's slavery.
And from what I hear, slavery is bad, I believe.
So this is what you need to understand.
This is sort of the point of what I'm trying to say.
If whites came to the Maori population and took them as outright slaves and murdered many, many, many of their babies, in particular their children, if If the Europeans came to New Zealand and murdered and ate the Maori, people would be going completely mental, and rightly so.
And the wonderful thing about philosophy, which is to say the terrifying thing about philosophy for a lot of people, is that I don't care the color of your skin.
It doesn't matter from a philosophical standpoint.
It doesn't matter if you're non-white and you kill and eat You're imaginary enemies.
And you strangle and suffocate and press on the soft part of your baby's skull to kill it instantly and drown it in a stone basin.
It doesn't matter to me.
It doesn't matter to philosophy.
It doesn't matter to reality.
It doesn't matter to ethics.
It doesn't matter to morality. It doesn't matter to sanity.
Who is killing and raping and eating the population?
If it's Europeans, that's stone evil.
Guess what? If it's the Maori...
It's stone evil. Doesn't matter.
I'm not racist. So I don't care who does it.
It's wrong! And it diminished.
When the Europeans came.
Island-wide crimes.
Moral crimes.
Against women.
Against children.
Against the innocent. Moral crimes.
Island-wide, and in Australia's case, continent-wide, diminished.
when the Europeans came.
So, compare this to someone like Angus Cairn.
Thank you.
Genghis Khan may have killed as many as 40 million people in a population slightly less large than the world is today.
40 million people.
Do people nag the Mongolians now for reparations?
Hell no. They're still building statues to Genghis Khan in Mongolia.
A continent-wide genocidal maniac who spilled his seed in so many women that significant portions of the current population in the region can trace their descendancy right back to his giant dangerous balls.
Genghis Khan is mad.
The nation's main airport...
Genghis Khan has his name on the nation's main airport.
Genghis Khan's portrait appears on Mongolian currency.
You understand, right?
If the true genocidal murdering imperialist's picture appears on the currency, you can't guilt the people into giving you any of it.
Because they're not guilty.
They think he's great.
Where's everyone's outrage?
We see, but there's no money in it.
Knacking the Mongolians, attacking them and criticizing and raging against them.
No Benjamins, no profit, no money in it.
So nobody cares.
Nobody cares.
White guilt is an invitation to abuse.
It is paying people to abuse you.
So the right of conquest recognized all over the world.
It's why there are countries. Oh, except in white culture.
Big giant exception.
Everyone gets away with the right of conquest, with the rule of conquest, except for whites, except for Europeans.
Why? Why don't the blacks around the world go to the Muslims in the Middle East and demand reparations for the hundred million black slaves killed over century after century of the Muslim slave trade?
And see, that would castrate the men.
Castration. Medieval castration.
Sawing off the genitals.
No anesthetic. No antibacterial soap.
No medicines. You can't get much more brutal than that.
Muslims conquered untold amounts of blacks.
Also, I believe about a million Europeans.
Taken as slaves by the Muslims.
Muslim raiding ships were so common around Europe.
It's one of the reasons why Europeans retreated from the sea and gave up fish.
Why aren't blacks railing against the Muslims for a hundred million murders?
There's no money in it. There's no money in it.
Whites, Christian whites in particular, morally sensitive.
They did not enforce the right of conquest.
They didn't say, we have guns, you have spears, we're going to hound you into the sea, wipe you out completely.
No. What happened?
Whites did not enforce the right of conquest in general.
Whites made treaties.
Bought medicine, they bought sanitation, sewage treatment, farming.
All those tasty little morsels we call civilization.
The African Bantus destroyed the local population and now, to some degree, rule various areas virtually unopposed.
The whites in South Africa, fed and clothed, gave modern medicine to the blacks in South Africa, to the point where the black population under apartheid rose 800%.
And now, after all of this, the white farmers, at least in South Africa, are in the early stages of genocide.
Look, these are not the facts of history that I like.
I don't like mortality either.
That doesn't get to mean I live forever.
We have to deal with the facts and reality of the world that is.
Not the world that we want.
So this begs another question.
It's a very, very important question.
Why is the indigenous culture so praised?
The Aborigines, the Maori, and others.
Why is it so praised?
If whites had done 1% of what the indigenous population did to each other and themselves, I could understand some of that.
Why is it praised as noble, savage, and wonderful, and so on?
Well, let me give you a very incomplete but very useful analogy.
This is not a direct comparison.
This is just a way of understanding it.
Let's say You're over at your girlfriend's family's house.
You're on your way to the washroom, and you bump a pillar, and on the pillar there is a vase.
And the vase tips, falls, and smashes on the floor.
Maybe it's your first time meeting them.
You feel bad! Terrible!
Now, let's say that your girlfriend's mom comes up and says to you, You look really stricken.
I get it. But listen, don't.
That vase, oh man, it's been sitting in this house for years.
My mother-in-law gave it to us, and she has the worst taste known to mankind.
It was some weird, ugly, distorted, feral-toothed zebra vase.
I hated it, but we had to put it out, otherwise she's going to be offended.
I used to take it down and bring it up.
I just gave up. Every time I pass by it, it's driving me nuts.
It's the ugliest thing I've ever seen.
I can't say thank you for breaking it because...
But we're okay.
We're fine with it.
We're fine with it.
Well, is that going to make you feel better?
Are you going to feel the absolute total need to pay reparations for the vase that was broken?
If it really wasn't beautiful or wanted or good to begin with, no.
You may feel like, oh, I can't believe I accidentally did someone a favor.
I felt terrible about it, right?
Now, on the other hand, take the same scenario.
You're walking down the hallway. You bump the pillar, the vase, falls and breaks.
And it was treasured.
It was... Maybe it contained a grandmother's ashes.
Maybe... It was a hand-me-down from centuries past.
Maybe it was a priceless Ming vase or something like...
Then you feel much worse because you broke something enormously beautiful.
So if you destroy or break or harm something beautiful, you feel guilt and then you really, really want to pay reparations.
So in order for you to get maximum guilt, what you harmed must have been maximum beauty.
And this is why.
This is why the native noble savage myth exists.
So that whites feel guilty about what they broke and therefore will pay endless amounts of reparations.
Now, just because something is destroyed doesn't mean that people...
Inevitably owe reparations, right?
You understand? Again, not a direct analogy, just to illustrate the principle.
No one says that British citizens now eternally owe reparations to the Germans because they bombed and invaded Nazi Germany.
No. What was displaced, what was put aside, you were told, was noble and beautiful and in harmony with nature.
And it was because it was so beautiful, because you broke a Ming vase, that is why you owe reparations.
Not because you came and diminished the prevalence of rape and murder and cannibalism and infanticide and torture and brutality and child abuse.
No! It was beautiful!
It was wonderful!
It was noble! See, when I take a universal moral yardstick and I talk about some of the evils of the aborigine culture, I threaten to crack the narrative that drives the guilt that moves billions of dollars around the world.
You understand? If what was broken was not beautiful, there's less emotional drive for reparations.
When I talk about some of the evils of indigenous culture, I threaten the guilt that moves billions of dollars around every year Now, what do people do for billions of dollars?
Do they lie?
Do they manipulate?
Do they slander?
Do they attack? Do they de-platform?
Of course! Of course!
Of course! Often, in fact, that's the least of what they do.
Now, the real exploitation is going on right now.
See, taxes are being forcibly extracted from people who committed no crime and handed over to people who had nothing stolen from them.
It's all in the past.
You understand? Millions and millions and billions of dollars are being forcibly extracted from people who committed no crime and handed over to people who had nothing stolen from them.
That's wrong. That is wrong.
That is exploitation. That is predation.
That is theft. And all of this noble savage, white guilt, reparations, colonialism, it's all based on sentimentality, lies, propaganda, and greed.
And greed. The mainstream narrative is not even close to true.
It's an exploitive lie. But let's say that hundreds of years ago, whites were greedy and took what did not belong to them.
Okay, so you see, taking what doesn't belong to you is wrong.
So is it right now for the indigenous populations to take what does not belong to them, the hard-earned money of New Zealand taxpayers?
I mean, just in the 2018 budget, it was $56 million.
That was just the tip of the iceberg, I'm sure.
You've taken what does not belong to you.
It's wrong. Then we can condemn, even if we accept the mainstream narrative, we can condemn what long-dead Europeans did hundreds of years ago, but then we must surely be more concerned with crimes in the present rather than crimes in the past.
We can do something about theft in the present.
We can't do anything about theft in the past.
And this is part of the whole sickening hypocrisy of all of this.
See, it's wrong in South Africa, right?
The narrative is it's wrong that the whites stole the land.
Of course, the whites bought the land.
The whites homesteaded largely empty land.
See, what you have to understand about South Africa, which I'm sure you do, it's kind of dry.
Kind of dry. So, I think it's about two-thirds of South Africa you really can't farm without very complex irrigation systems.
No, not immigration.
Irrigation systems. And so the land couldn't be farmed until the whites came along and built and maintained these complex irrigation systems.
They bought, they homesteaded, they brought interproductively land which could not produce anything in the past.
But even if we say the whites stole the land, if it's wrong to have happened 400 years ago, is it not also wrong?
For whites to have their land stolen now in South Africa is just being constantly threatened by the government.
See, this is the narrative.
It's wrong when whites do it.
But you see, it's just karma and payback and reparations when non-whites do exactly the same thing in the present rather than in the past.
This is horrendous stuff.
It's wrong to steal what does not belong to you, but it's blowback or karma when it happens the other way.
See, foggy, possible crimes in morally challenging circumstances, centuries in the past, these crimes, foggy, they're morally vivid, and somehow they actually justify theft and murder in the here and now.
This is moral madness.
Well, there's no morality to it at all!
Nothing! To me, It's kind of like a matter of pride.
I mean, I don't know, maybe you feel this way too.
If someone came to me, or you, let's say, and said, hey, he has stolen money for nothing forever.
Yeah, maybe a tiny bit would be tempting.
Oh, I'll use it for good.
But we know. We know that if we and our descendants got stolen money, Forever, for nothing, it would be cultural suicide.
Why? This brings into question the purpose of culture.
I argue if we got free money for nothing forever, we would lose our purpose, we would lose our conscience, our very reason for being.
Because it is said that whites destroy the indigenous cultures.
How? See, being conquered does not destroy your culture.
Being conquered does not destroy your culture.
There are countless cultures that have been conquered, sometimes for centuries, that have emerged intact.
Greeks were ruled by the Turks for 400 years.
The Russians by the Communists for 70 years, killing 70 million people, I believe.
Various European countries were occupied by the Romans, by the Normans for centuries.
Of course, Eastern Europe was occupied by Russia for the post-war period until the fall of the war.
See, you could really go through history and find countless examples of countries and cultures that were occupied for centuries and survived.
See, but they were occupied, but they were not paid eternally for nothing.
They were not given resources eternally for doing nothing.
Now that, tragically, that's how you really destroy a person or a people or a culture.
We can see it with the dependent classes in the US. We see it with the frustration and rage of the migrants in Europe.
We see it among single mothers throughout the West.
You get resources for doing nothing and your life collapses.
The thirst for the unearned is the root of almost all evils.
Why has CNN attacked Infowars?
This is the anachronistic part of the speech because this hadn't happened, but CNN is attacking Infowars and trying to drive them and successfully driving them off a variety of social media platforms because they can't compete.
The decadence of the unearned is how you really destroy people.
See, culture, what is culture?
It's a fascinating question. Culture is how you emotionally transfer the necessities of life, you see.
If you have no necessities of life, you have no reason for culture and you fall into nihilism.
Two stories I really remember from being a kid.
One was The Emperor's New Clothes.
I remember being six years old on a plane back when you could, on a plane from London, England to Johannesburg, South Africa.
I had headphones on and they had a little audio player, no videos back then, a little audio player.
And I remember the children's story, The Emperor's New Clothes was playing over and I listened to it over and over again.
Goosebumps! It's gonna be my future!
And The other is the grasshopper and the ant.
I'm a father, and I read this to my daughter a number of times when she was younger, right?
The story of the grasshopper and the ant, very, very briefly, the ant, like, it's a long summer, and the ant spends the summer gathering resources, storing up stuff for the winter.
And the grasshopper sits around and plays guitar and sings and dances and also just keeps insulting the ant, like, hey, man, why so uptight?
Just have fun, man.
You just work too much.
You're... You're too tense, man.
You should relax and enjoy life, man.
Grasshopper and the ant. Now, of course, what happens is winter comes, the snow comes, the grasshopper has no food, and the ant will survive.
Now, what's interesting, in the original story, the grasshopper dies.
In the modern, new socialist story, the ant says, come on in, you can share my food all winter.
Which is going to cause them both to starve, you understand, right?
Because the ant has got enough food for himself for the winter.
If he brings the grasshopper in, they both starve.
One can survive, but not both.
So what does this story, which you tell the kids, what does it communicate?
Preparation for winter! Of course, it's a uniquely cold climate story.
It does not arise in the tropics.
You have to communicate to the kids that the deferral of gratification, the obsessive calculation of remaining resources is essential to your survival.
And just sitting around and hanging out and having fun and not doing any work will get you killed, as it did repeatedly throughout winters.
I mean, harsh enough in Europe, talk about Siberia where the East Asian race developed even worse.
These are all stories of the ICE people, Northern Europe, Siberia, and so on, where the whites and the East Asians come from.
Now, if you take away necessity, culture disintegrates.
There's a quote by Walter E. Williams, a great economist.
He says, the welfare state has done what slavery could not do, what Jim Crow could not do, what segregation could not do.
Which is to destroy the black family.
And it's true. Black family in the 1930s was stronger than the white family.
There are stories of noble black slaves escaping and crossing state lines under incredible peril just to rejoin their families.
Now, 75% of black kids are born out of wedlock.
More than 50% of black babies are killed in the womb.
See, hardship doesn't destroy your culture.
Culture requires hardship.
You have to have important lessons to communicate in order to have powerful stories and the motivation to communicate them to your children.
I mean, Western culture is dying because we have magic printed money, we have endless debt, we have Lost any sense of resource constraints or restraints or anything like that.
It's almost like we can't get our culture back unless we caught bottomless hardship and maybe that's what the migrants and so on.
Fiat currency and debt have disintegrated the inevitable winter within our minds.
These have all destroyed Western culture, which is why it's so open to abuse and self-abuse.
Now, I watched a little bit of Game of Thrones.
Sorry, this is... It's a wrenching segue, but not really, if you know anything about it.
This is not any kind of spoilers.
But in Game of Thrones, the summer lasts for years and years and years, and then winter comes for years and years and years.
And one of the concerns is everyone's forgotten how bad winter is because the summer has lasted so long.
Now, you understand... That fiat currency, national debts, unfunded liabilities, pushing the debts down the road, kicking the can down the road, has given us this sense of endless summer.
The endless summer that has lasted for half a century.
We don't have to make compromises.
We can do whatever we want.
The fact that in Sweden it takes 14 taxpayers to pay for each migrant doesn't really matter.
Because the taxes aren't going up.
Whenever the government spends more money, they just borrow it.
So we get the sense of infinite resources.
Because debt is the delusion by which the government pretends that it adds value to society.
It's like pretending that you're adding value to your family by buying things on your Visa card.
Frivolous things. So we have this endless half-century summer because of money printing, the breaking of the relationship between gold and currency.
We've had this half-century summer, but the winter will come.
The winter will come.
And that's why I talk so much about setting people free.
Free. You must be free.
Freedom means consequences, and consequences means culture, means values, means virtues, means self-restraint, means the value of morality.
See, when our consequences are destroyed, Through debt, through everybody uber-funding our worst decisions.
When we lose our consequences, when we lose our consequences for sexual licentiousness, for gluttony, for virtue signaling, for pathological altruism, when we lose all of our consequences, we lose our very reason for being, we lose our culture, and we lose ourselves.
See, of course we all want to avoid consequences.
It's natural. It's natural and it's disastrous.
It's natural and it's disastrous.
When we lose our consequences, we lose our humanity.
We have to restore freedom.
We have to restore freedom to everyone.
White, Black, East Asian, Indigenous, doesn't matter.
Everything, everyone. The solution to all of this is freedom.
And people make this mistake and they say, well, if we don't have a welfare state, it's really cruel, it's really mean.
No. No, no, no, no, no.
That's wrong. Freedom does not mean callousness or indifference to the plight and suffering of others.
You know what real callousness is, my friends?
Real callousness is developing a permanent underclass of state-bred dependents in a temporarily generous environment.
Callousness is getting people addicted to a deadly substance that is rapidly running out, in this case, debt and magic monopoly money.
Every human being in the world is sustained by an average of $30,000 in debt.
In a free society, sure, if you make mistakes, you're going to be forgiven.
You're going to get charity.
As long as you don't continue to compound those mistakes.
Helping people is really hard.
It needs to be private because government can't even do easy things like balance a budget.
It can't do hard things like help the poor.
Because if you help the poor, you want to help them get a leg up, not two feet up, right?
You want to help them back into the workforce.
You want to help them back into a productive life of some kind.
But if you give too much money to the poor, then being poor becomes something you pay and therefore people respond to incentives and it's really, really challenging.
Some people are poor through no fault of their own.
Other people are poor because they've made bad decisions.
If you don't differentiate between the two, you end up subsidizing bad decisions And not giving the necessary resources to those who benefit, right?
Sometimes if you give people money, it makes them better.
Sometimes if you give people money, it makes them worse.
It's complicated, as we all know, because every one of us has tried to help someone in their own personal life.
It's difficult. It's complicated.
Charity is like dentistry.
It's best left to privately motivated experts.
You give to a charity, you want them to actually help people.
You want to show that they're actually helping people.
You're forced to give to government for the welfare state.
They don't want the poor to go away.
That's the whole reason they have a job.
See, in a free society, you have a need for culture because you live in actual reality, not an artificial debt bubble of unsustainable reality.
In a free society, you have the funds to be generous because you're not being eternally drained for eternal imaginary historical crimes.
Freedom restores pride and purpose and diminishes the rewards for manipulation and guilt and propaganda.
Freedom does not pay for cultural verbal abuse spanning decades.
Freedom. Economic freedom.
True freedom. Freedom restores free speech.
Ah, you see the circle here?
I've been talking about it the whole time.
Freedom restores free speech because lying, you see, is no longer subsidized by endless billions of dollars of imaginary mad money.
If you stop paying people for lies, they will no longer oppose the truth.
At least not us.
Viciously and vociferously.
We can only listen to arguments objectively.
When billions and billions of dollars are not attached to the outcome of those arguments.
We can only listen to each other when we are no longer bribing and bullying and manipulating each other.
We can only really listen to the truth when we stop bribing liars.
You see, freedom And truth are really two sides of the same coin.
And we're rapidly running out of both.
▲
Export Selection