All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 22, 2018 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
15:28
4202 Brett Kavanaugh Nomination Delayed, Republican Weakness Exposed | True News
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
It is an essential aspect of morality to know when you are or you are not dealing with any remotely honourable opponent.
It is absolutely essential because you see Morality is a relationship.
It is not a fixed absolute like physics.
It's not something that you have to obey.
And to give you a simple example, if you order something from someone online and they do not ship it, are you obligated to pay them?
No. They have not held up their end of the bargain.
Therefore, you should not hold up your end of the bargain because morality is reciprocal.
It is relational. If you're a kid and some other kid steals your bike, then you can go and get that bike back.
You are not obligated to respect their property because their property is not...
Legitimate. Now, when it comes to the left, when it comes to the socialists, the communists, the democrats, and so on, throughout the West, we'll just talk about America in particular here, they are very open and very clear about where their morality lies.
So, for instance, of course, Hillary Clinton did a Thesis on Saul Alinsky and his rules for radicals and Saul Alinsky was basically by any means necessary.
I've got a whole presentation on him you can find on this channel and The goal of gaining power and achieving power has no moral considerations along the way.
Whatever it is that you have to do to gain or keep power, you will do to gain or keep power.
That's very, very clear. And Saul Alinsky himself spoke highly respectfully of Satan himself, which tells you exactly where the ethics are coming from, or rather the lack of ethics are coming from.
So Hillary Clinton... I had great respect for Saul Alinsky, and Barack Obama had respect for Saul Alinsky.
Saul Alinsky had respect for Satan, Lucifer himself, and therefore we have some idea where these ethics are coming from.
They're very open, very honest about things.
They do not claim to have any kind of moral high ground.
They say by any means necessary, and of course these people were Presidents on the Democrat side, presidential nominees had great support, which means that people are openly saying that they worship those who worship power, that they have no desire for objective ethics, they have no desire for virtue, no desire for reciprocity, they will lie, they will cheat, they will steal, they will do whatever.
I mean, they will stuff the ballot with illegal immigrants, as Barack Obama was encouraging, out there encouraging illegal immigrants to vote in the election.
They're very clear. All you have to do is listen to people.
It's not that complicated to be clear and wise in the world.
People will tell you everything you need to know about them in the first few minutes.
And this is all very clear.
They seek resources. They seek power.
They seek dominance. And there is, of course, when you seek power over others, you have to demonize those you are going to rule over.
And that is why there is more demonization from the left to the right than from the right to the left, because the right is has, you know, vestigial honor and decency and Christian morality and so on.
Whereas the left have openly wished to enslave the productive and control them and bully them and steal their resources to redistribute them for, you know, the ancient deal of power.
The ancient deal of power is you use propaganda, lies and brute force to steal people's resources.
Then you redistribute those resources to those who support your bids for power.
It is the old aristocratic bargain.
Like if you were a good warrior and you fought for the king and you murdered his opponents, he would steal land and give it to you and give you rule over the peasantry in a sort of serfdom situation.
So the old deal of power.
The foundational nature of the state is the state produces and provides nothing of particular value.
In fact, it's mostly an impediment to people getting things done in the world.
But the state gets resources unjustly and then redistributes those resources in return for allegiance.
And the allegiance is to the resources.
It's not to the individual and not to the person in power, but That's the way it works.
So if you understand all of that, when you're dealing with the left, when you're dealing with collectivists and socialists and communists and so on, you're not dealing with honorable opponents.
And this is not what I say.
This is what they say. This is who they worship.
This is what they do.
And because they wish to control your resources and they wish to subjugate you, They must demonize you because you can't subjugate someone you have empathy for.
In order to exploit someone, you must first dehumanize them, which is why you get all of this.
Was it Joe Biden saying that the Trump supporters were like the lowest of the low, I think, recently?
And you got the whole famous deplorable statement and so on.
There is a demonization that occurs of the productive classes by the classes that wish to steal their resources, the exploitive classes, who then project all of their desire for exploitation on this imaginary white privilege and capitalist class and you name it, right?
It's pure projection.
So when it comes to Kavanaugh and Ford, his accuser, I do not understand why.
I mean, I fundamentally don't understand what the Republicans are up to.
Like, they keep delaying her testimony, right?
She says, oh, I want to have testimony.
I want to have a voice. I want to have a voice.
Okay, well, here's your voice.
You can come and testify, and you can be cross-examined, and so on.
First of all, she wants Kavanaugh to go first.
In other words, you should defend yourself against allegations that have not been made directly to you as yet.
Which is, I mean, you ever heard of a court case or any kind of proceeding in this manner where the defense goes first?
What are you supposed to defend against?
It makes no sense. It's like saying, here, I want you to catch this ball after I throw it.
Sorry, I want you to catch this ball before I throw it.
That would make no sense whatsoever, right?
So there's a cause and effect. You have to be accused, and then you can respond to those accusations.
That's kind of how it works in the real world, but not in the world that is.
I don't know if it's some displaced sense of medieval chivalric honor that says, well, we have to have this woman come and testify and we have to listen to her and we have to hear both sides of the story.
It's like there is no capacity for objective adjudication in this particular allegation.
There is no capacity for objective adjudication in this particular allegation.
Accusation, you understand. These are events that occurred.
She doesn't know exactly what year it was.
She doesn't know where it was.
She doesn't know exactly the circumstances.
There's no before or after explanation.
The only other witnesses to this alleged event say that it didn't happen.
There's no conceivable way to adjudicate this in any objective manner.
You know the old saying, that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence because it doesn't fundamentally exist.
It is a mere allegation.
And so now the idea that this woman who's a professor of psychology, this Dr.
Ford, that she says she's not going to come and testify because she doesn't like to fly?
Doesn't like to fly?
This is her heroic chance in her own mind, her heroic chance to take down a guy she's accusing of sexual assault from becoming a Supreme Court justice.
And she doesn't like to fly?
What? Are they not giving you the right amount of snacks on the plane?
Is it too much to check your baggage?
Oh, and what baggage it would be.
But this idea that she could do this heroic, Valkyrie-like strike against immorality in her own mind, but the big barrier is she doesn't like to fly.
Come on. She's going to drive.
What is it? She's in Palo Alto, right?
She's going to drive from California.
To testify, but it's going to take some time.
I mean, good Lord.
I have this accusation.
I wish to have my voice heard.
As a woman, I wish to have my voice heard, which, you know, occasionally it seems when a woman says, I wish to have my voice heard.
What it means is I don't actually want anyone to interrupt me when I'm not so much telling the truth.
If you want to have a voice heard, and they said, come testify, you don't have to testify with Kavanaugh in the room.
It can be private, it can be public, whichever way you want, but you will be asked questions, of course.
Now, why on earth, if someone is confident enough of their story that they're going to go public with it, An attempt to absolutely shred and destroy not just a man's highest professional goal, but his entire reputation, to wreck his family, to wreck his entire social standing and so on.
But you refuse to be cross-examined?
You refuse to show up? What are you, Google executives?
Come on. So this idea that, well, you know, we have to hear it out, we have to listen and so on.
All you have to do is just ask yourself, what would the Democrats do in this situation?
Well, we know what they would do with Keith Ellison.
His ex-girlfriends have accused him of abuse.
There is corroborating 911 calls.
There's medical evidence that has been presented and nothing.
They don't budge an inch.
They don't give an inch. Like, understand, this is a street fight.
The Queensbury rules don't apply anymore.
This is a knock-down, drag-out political fight for the heart-minded soul of the tattered freedoms of the republic going forward.
This is not...
A civilized conflict.
This is not a disagreement.
This is not a debate. This is not a difference of opinion.
This is a knock-down, balls to the wall, by any means necessary, political fight.
And so the idea that you would concede an inch to these kinds of accusations is absolutely beyond me.
It is false honor.
It is the surrender of virtue.
To, to my mind, at least a completely immoral group of people.
I mean, you've got this woman, this lawyer for Ford, whose name is Katz.
She's literally a Katz lady.
This lawyer, Katz, she has pictures of her with this like socialist power fist talking about the resistance and anti-Trump and so on.
This is, you understand, this is a kind of It's a slander coup because you are destroying people's reputations in the hopes of thwarting a presidential nomination, which he has the perfect right to do, to the Supreme Court.
This is a form of verbal or slander coup.
And the idea that you would surrender to it on some grounds of, well, we have to hear her out and we have to...
Come on. You know exactly what the Democrats would do if they held this particular power at this particular time.
They would laugh at you. They would mock you, they would make fun of you, and they would proceed full steam ahead.
And the fact that the Republicans are playing this moral high ground, we have to hear her out kind of card, absolutely ridiculous.
I mean, the moment that this woman said she wants the FBI to investigate...
And she had a lawyer, I think, at that point, is when you know it's all just theater and it's all just nonsense because the FBI cannot investigate these things.
The FBI would just refer to the local police who would then say, it was 36 years ago, there's no physical evidence, the witnesses say no, there's nothing to investigate, you should have reported it at the time, move on, right?
So... We all understand just how toxic this is.
And after it worked with Roy Moore, of course I said this at the time and it was very easy to predict it's going to happen again and it's most likely going to keep happening.
The fact that it destroys relations and trust between men and women is something that must be opposed at all costs.
When men and women lose trust in each other, Your civilization dies on the vine.
You understand this? This was one of the points behind radical feminism and so on.
When men and women lose trust and respect for each other, Then they may use each other for sexual needs, but the idea of trusting and settling down and raising families and you grow together like two saplings side by side.
You grow together. I mean, I've been married for 16 years and I'm a father and you grow together with your spouse in a way that requires such fathomless and bottomless levels of trust that those who've not gone through this kind of Relationship.
It's hard to imagine.
I mean, your partner has the power to bring you great joy or great destruction.
And that is the vulnerability.
That is the trust that you need for these kinds of relationships.
And that is the best environment, of course, to raise children in with a stable two-parent household and all that kind of good stuff.
So when you weaponize women against men, which the left has been doing forever, when you weaponize women against men, what happens is the trust that is necessary to maintain the bedrock and foundation of family values and family togetherness and family unity and family stability, you take massive giant wrecking balls to the base foundation of that which sustains your civilization.
Because when the family disintegrates Values and morals and trust and bond and love and commitment and stability all disintegrate with it.
And then you end up with, usually it's of course because it's a gynocentric court system, you end up with women raising children alone, which They're not particularly good at, according to the data and the statistics.
It may be the same for single men, but it's more single fathers, but it's harder to find those statistics.
So when you destroy trust, you don't destroy the sex drive.
You don't destroy the drive for romance and so on.
You just destroy the drive for stability, which means you get children without fathers.
When you get children without fathers, women in general marry the state, which again bonds them and binds them.
To a nefarious power that has to go out and scour and steal resources on their behalf because they don't have a provider and women become anxious, they become more erotic, they become more dependent, and they become more hostile at any expansion of the free market and its principles.
Because when the free market gains, more people become taxpayers rather than the collectors of tax revenue through the power of the state.
When you get more tax payers rather than tax receivers, then people want lower taxes, which threatens the resource supply for single mothers.
And this is another reason why the single mothers vote for the left.
They can't be objective about government spending when you're dependent, as you perceive, on government spending.
You can't possibly evaluate government spending and taxes and welfare spending.
You can't possibly evaluate that objectively.
And so you just gain permanent adherence to state power with no analytical or philosophical discussion that seems possible with those who are on the receiving end of this largesse, of this state-stolen redistributionist property mechanism.
So, for the Republicans, who are generally, of course, on the right and free market and Christian and so on, surrendering to this kind of weaponization is not just about Kavanaugh.
It's not just about the Supreme Court nominee.
It's not just about the president's power.
If you allow women to be weaponized, you will end up with a neutron bomb society.
▲
Export Selection