All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 16, 2018 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
01:06:57
4227 Elizabeth Warren, Stormy Daniels, Kathy Griffin and Modern Women!
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
So I wanted to talk about Elizabeth Warren, who, I think it was, was it just yesterday?
So the news put out a report that said she was, what is it, 500, I don't know why it's binary, I guess it's because it's pairs, but 1 in 512 native.
Now that wasn't native or indigenous to North America.
That included Hispanic, that included Peruvian, and so on.
My understanding is they couldn't find any native DNA in her, but they could find that based upon migration patterns it could have happened.
That is absolutely terrible.
You know, there's this idea.
I think it's how it works.
It's called stolen valor.
Stolen valor is when you pretend to be military, ex-military, and you haven't been.
And here, this is like stolen suffering, stolen betrayals, and so on.
And I've got the truth about Native Americans as a video.
You can check that out. It's terrible to take people's sympathies for Indigenous Americans and then use it, because now the correction has come out that she's one in 1,024.
One in 1,024.
Not white or...
You know, it's really crazy.
She has, I think it's lower than average percentage of...
Native American. And the Cherokee Nation has come out and has kind of disavowed or kind of pushed back on this kind of stuff.
And it's terrible to see, you know, whoever said, go get this test, and then whoever said, it's a really good idea to release, this test is astounding.
I mean, according to 23andMe, the average black in America is 20% white or 20% Caucasian.
Now, she is 0.1%.
0.1%.
So that is astounding.
I mean, it's what, 200 times?
So, blacks are 200 times more white than Elizabeth Warren is...
Now, that's absolutely wretched.
I mean, Lauren Southern is more attack helicopter than Elizabeth Warren is Native American, which is really quite something.
So, there's a guy named Benny Johnson on Twitter, interesting to follow, and he's got some information about this that I thought was worth repeating.
So he says, every time Elizabeth Warren has lied about her Native American heritage, and it's a thread.
So one, Elizabeth Warren self-identified as a Native American in the Association of American Law Schools directory of law professors in every edition, printed between 1986 and 1995.
Some of this stuff I know, I haven't verified at all, but I think it's interesting.
Two, after becoming a professor at the University of Pennsylvania, Warren demanded the university change her faculty-listed ethnicity from white to Native American.
Three, Warren was identified by Harvard Law as a woman of color.
Harvard promoted Warren's hire as expanding their campus diversity by hiring a woman with minority background onto their faculty.
Warren claimed that her mother and father had to elope due to her mom's obvious Indian heritage and the white bigotry of her father's family.
Here is a photo of Warren's mom, and you can look this up, and I've got to tell you, It's a black and white picture, but...
All right. And then he posted a video of Warren telling this story, and I quote, My mom and dad were very much in love, and they wanted to get married.
My father's parents said, Absolutely not, because she's part Cherokee and Delaware.
After fighting it, they eloped.
So, she should be 50%.
I'm no geneticist, but I believe that she should be 50%.
5. Warren submitted multiple recipes for the Indian cookbook Pow Wow Chow and signed her name, Elizabeth Warren, Cherokee.
And I've had a quick flip through Pow Wow Chow.
It seems like they're a little bit more complicated than what you can achieve with some sticks and fire.
6. Warren used offensive racially charged language, this guy says, to defend her claims of Native American heritage, declaring that her family had high cheekbones like all the Indians do.
and he posted a video of that moment seven Warren has now claimed that she may have one in 1024th Indian DNA this is equally problematic since DNA science proves that the average white American has 0.18% Indian DNA far more than Warren's 0.098 lowest estimate according to study
8. Multiple members of Warren's direct family has disputed her claims of a proud Native American heritage.
They deny the senator's Indian heritage stories fervently.
Nine, Warren's DNA report did not measure actual Native American DNA. The report actually measured Colombian, Mexican, and Peruvian DNA, of which Warren may have a tiny, tiny fraction, possibly, still greater than her conscience, integrity, and honesty, but pretty low.
So this guy, Benny, says, Ten, it is very difficult to argue that Warren did not commit racial fraud.
She used the advantage in the system to advance her career with no evidence to this day that she is actually Native American.
Democrats defending her behavior on this point is dubious at best.
And the Cherokee Nation has responded to this DNA test.
And they have said, Cherokee Nation Secretary of State Chuck Hoskin Jr., let me just get my glasses here, issued the following statement Monday in response to Senator Elizabeth Warren's DNA test claiming native heritage.
And I quote, A DNA test is useless to determine tribal citizenship.
Current DNA tests do not even distinguish whether a person's ancestors were indigenous to North or South America.
Cherokee Nation Secretary of State Chuck Hoskin Jr.
said, I really think he should have a more colorful name, but that could just be me.
And he said, Sovereign tribal nations set their own legal requirements for citizenship, and while DNA tests can be used to determine lineage, such as paternity to an individual, it is not evidence for tribal affiliation.
Using a DNA test to lay claim to any connection to the Cherokee Nation or any tribal nation, even vaguely, is inappropriate and wrong.
It makes a mockery out of DNA tests and its legitimate uses, while also dishonoring legitimate tribal governments and their citizens, whose ancestors are well documented and whose heritage is proven.
Senator Warren is undermining tribal interests with her continued claims of tribal heritage.
So that is, I mean, it's wretched.
It's wretched and it's terrible.
It's gaming the system. And it is a confession of, to me at least, it's a confession of a lack of ability.
Because if you really are good at what you do, then you don't need to claim native heritage in order to Make your career rise and all that kind of stuff.
So it's just terrible.
And there are mainstream media outlets literally out there saying that without a doubt, this has proven Senator Warren's claims of Native American heritage.
And that is just astonishing.
And was there a bet that Trump had to pay a certain amount of money because she ended up proving this?
Well, of course he's not going to pay because it's nonsense.
So, just terrible.
From the Fordham Law Review, they say, Harvard Law School hired its first woman of color, Elizabeth Warren, in 1995.
Why would it make a difference to have women of color as professors and blah blah blah, right?
So, it appears to me that it's a straight-up fraudulent.
It appears to me that it's gaming the system.
It appears to me to be stolen sympathy.
And, I mean, it's just, of course, you know, it's whataboutism, you know, if this had happened on the right, if someone had claimed heritage, which they didn't have, and so on.
I mean, it would be monstrous.
It would be monstrous.
So I wanted to mention that because that's pretty relevant.
And I think that's going to have, you know, these midterms are coming up in America, oh, so a few weeks away.
And the combination of the savagery with which the left went after Judge Kavanaugh has really woken people up to the snake in the garden, to the danger in the midst, to the huge problems that are occurring as a result of of everything that's been going on with the left and their hysteria.
I think that they felt that the demographics were going to be on their side and that they could really reveal their hand, that they no longer had to be nice.
Now that they had power over the American population through control of academia and through control of the media and through control of Hollywood and so on, now that they have power Over Americans, what they believe is that they can kind of let rip with all of the viciousness that is generally embedded in the left.
And they may have played their hand a little bit too soon.
It's when I was talking to some guy in South Africa.
And I was saying, well, maybe there's a way to resolve and so on.
And he said, well, they wouldn't be moving this fast on land expropriation, on land theft, unless they genuinely felt they had it in the bag, unless they felt that they had achieved the power that they felt they needed in order to get these goals across.
And I wonder if the left has shown...
The claws underneath the velvet gloves.
Because the left, you know, when they're in the minority, they're like a lot of pathological groups.
They're all about freedom of speech and diversity and freedom of association and sticking it to the man and the FBI is bad and the...
And then, when they start to gain more and more power, then they're no longer interested, of course, in freedom of speech.
They're no longer particularly interested in freedom of association, and they sure as Sherlock are not interested in diversity, because they want the monomania of infighting that occurs with leftist stuff.
So... I don't know.
Did they show their hand too soon?
Also, of course, when the left evolved in the West, particularly, I mean, it started with the progressivism at the turn of the last century, but really accelerated at the end of the Second World War, when the left went kind of hardcore on this stuff.
They had control of the major institutions of communication.
I mean, there's a reason why Senator Joseph McCarthy is still vilified, not just on the left, but even on the right.
I see constant references to McCarthyism and the false witch hunt and so on, even on the right, which is wrong because there were Hundreds and hundreds, if not more, of outright communists working for Moscow embedded in the U.S. government, particularly in the State Department, who helped hand over China to Chairman Mao, who was portrayed as an agrarian reformer and just a great friend of America and the free market and a real hero.
And he went on to slaughter tens of millions of Chinese.
He went on to slaughter tens of millions of Chinese as a result of machinations within the State Department.
So... They control history and academia and the media.
The mainstream media, the quote, news and Hollywood and TV studios, they control it so much.
I don't think that they still haven't processed how much narrative pushback can occur through the alternative media, through the more honest media, through the unbought media, through the less biased media.
I don't think they've quite processed it.
They're kind of catching up slowly and realizing that they cannot achieve The monopoly over propaganda that they need to achieve the monopoly over the use of force by taking control of the government.
They can't achieve the monopoly of propaganda at the moment.
And it's got to be kind of embittering in a way, you know, when you have done the long...
This is what they wanted in the 1960s.
They called it the long walk through the institutions.
That they were going to just start as junior reporters.
They were going to start as production assistants.
They were going to start as teachers assistants in university.
They were going to start...
Gophers in TV stations and they were just going to slowly, slowly worm their way up into positions of power and authority and control.
And it was a long multi-decade process.
And then, I mean, if it wasn't for alternative media, I mean, I think that they already would be pretty close to taking over.
Certainly Hillary would be in.
And... They've done this slow walk to take control of the institutions, and then the market, the free market, that beautiful, creative, destructive force of the free market, has just done a whoop, whoop, a little sidestep there, a little sidestep that's just gone sideways.
And that's got to be kind of frustrating if you've sacrificed, well, it's not really much of a sacrifice to be in academia.
You get paid $150,000 a year for working at best a dozen hours a week, and you've got four months off in the summer and all these kinds of goodies.
But it's got to be kind of annoying to have gained control over these institutions.
The more star systems you crush on your hands, the more will slip through your fingers!
It's got to be annoying to have gained control of these institutions of propaganda and then just have people say, you suck!
We go into the alternative media.
It's got to be kind of annoying.
It's the kind of annoyance that I can live with, but it is annoying.
Now here's another thing that's kind of funny.
So Kathy Griffin... So, I don't know the details, but I will tell you the rough picture.
Of course, you remember Kathy Griffin held up the simulated severed head of Donald Trump.
And it's just one of the things, so she wasn't dressed, you know, the Handmaiden's Tale thing, got that white bonnet on and got their heads down and so on.
The Handmaiden's Tale, it's a fictional story.
I think it's from a Margaret Atwood novel or something, but it's a completely fictional made-up get-up, and it's considered to be emblematic of highly oppressive white patriarchy, and the Handmaiden's Tale outfit, they could stand there, protest with their heads bowed, and barefoot and pregnant at the kitchen, ground down by the patriarchy because of this fictional outfit.
Control women! That's considered a horrible mock of patriarchy, but...
The hijab, which is not a fictional item of clothing, is just enormously liberating for women.
So I shouldn't laugh, but it's just like, wow!
That is just amazing to me.
See, the fictional outfit's really oppressive.
The actual outfit's totally liberating.
Totally. So...
Kathy Griffin...
Held up this severed head.
And one of the things that happened, according to the reports, is that, you know, Barron Trump, the kid, he came in and saw this, thought his dad had been beheaded, was terrified.
You know, it's just nasty, nasty stuff.
Decapitation is not an argument.
Severed heads are not an argument.
And then, so Kathy Griffin, a quote comedian, I think quote comedian is probably the best way to put it, but...
She then ended up donating $2,500, according to reports, to Stormy Daniels, who was having a defamation suit against Donald Trump.
Because, I don't know, if I accuse you of being bald, does that mean you're really bald if Stormy Daniels accuses you of defamation?
Anyway, so I think it was just yesterday the case was thrown out, and also the judge said that Trump could go after Stormy Daniels for his legal costs, and since Kathy Griffin donated $2,500 to Stormy Daniels' legal costs, it turns out that if Trump does try and recover legal costs from Stormy Daniels, that Kathy Griffin will have been donating money to Donald Trump.
And the circle is complete.
Which is kind of wild.
Kind of wild. And this timeline...
Well, my gosh.
I'm trying, you know, I find the...
So current events are kind of like my junk food.
They are really, really tempting and salacious.
You know, there's the librarian, and then there's the racy woman, and the philosophy is the librarian, you know, solid and knowledgeable and great and look great with the glasses off too.
But there's this siren, this Jessica Rabbit, I ain't bad, I'm just drawn this way, that is the current events.
And so I'm trying to work in the philosophical angles.
But the current events are definitely my crack.
So I was thinking about Therese Tange Dion.
I know, it sounds vaguely Tibetan, but no.
Therese Dion, mother of, very popular singer, Celine Dion.
Anyway. Now, she's known as Mama Dion, and it's a pretty amazing life that this woman had, and I wanted to just touch on it briefly and to remind people that when people like Alex de Tocqueville came to America many,
many years ago, centuries ago, he wrote a book called Democracy in America and wrote another bunch of observations about what was going on, this great grand frontier-based American experiment of liberty and free speech and Gun ownership and all the other things that Europe had for a little while.
And he said that one of the most...
The foundational reason for the success of America was the quality of its women.
The quality of its women was foundational to the success of America.
And if you've known a strong, competent, secure, powerful woman...
It is a godsend to know such a woman.
Literally, it is a godsend to know such a woman.
So Therese Dion, this is back in the day.
So she was born in 1927.
So she's still going long.
She's 91 years old.
And... She was a stage mom who recognized her daughter's talent, very early, Celine Dion, who, you know, you can quibble with her choice of songs, you can quibble with some of the syrupy pop stuff, you can quibble, but she's a fantastic live entertainer.
And she has goosebump pipes when it comes to singing.
I mean, if you listen to Celine Dion, you can listen to her live in Paris, which is the French version.
But if you listen to her, you know, all by myself, and that she does this anymore, she's full-throated, like, goosebumping kind of stuff.
And there's not a huge number of songs of hers that I like.
I'm Alive is a pretty good song.
I think that came out of a movie with a mouse.
But just, she's a great singer.
And she could perhaps drift a little bit more from the beige middle from time to time.
But she is a great singer, a great entertainer.
And it's also interesting to me as well.
And this is kind of goofy. And, you know, just let me know what you think of it.
Celine Dion. Was famous.
She's pretty in an interesting way, I think.
Very charismatic. Naturally slender.
Never diets. And yeah, I think she's attractive.
I sort of go a little bit for the non-standard looks, like the Jessica Biel looks.
I can sort of see some of the non-standard, not perfectly symmetrical.
And I think she's got an interesting face.
So she's an attractive person.
A lot of charisma, a lot of energy, a lot of ambition.
And she's very charismatic on stage and so on.
And she basically could have had any man that she wanted.
And I've seen videos of her where there's a real hunkasaurus with Celine Dion in the video, and yet she went for her manager husband, who was considerably older and, I guess, bald or balding, and she stuck by him when he was sick.
He had cancer. I think he was 14 years in the clear, and then it took him down again.
And I just think that's kind of interesting, that she would go for quality of personality as opposed to her husband not...
Not the most good-looking man in the universe.
I know this is all very shallow to talk about, but I did commit to honesty with you guys.
So just these are the kind of thoughts.
That's kind of cool that she went for a guy of quality.
They had a long and sustained marriage.
They had trouble getting pregnant, as far as I understand it.
But she's cool.
She's cool. A lot of talent there.
And so thinking of her mom is really fascinating.
Because her mom...
Anybody want to guess?
Who doesn't know? You can let me know in the chat.
How many kids do you think Celine Dion's mom had?
Just out of curiosity.
More than me. Let's put it that way.
Does anybody know? Anybody know?
Yeah, well...
Yeah, I am a gossip.
I'm afraid I have my weakness.
All right. So she had 14 children.
She had, Therese Dion, had 14 children.
And she also was her stage mom.
She wrote, as far as I remember, this is going off memory, I watched a documentary some time back ago.
So this woman, Therese, had 14 children.
They didn't have a lot of money.
If you see pictures of their house, it's like, I'm pretty sure that they were hungry from time to time.
She had 14 children.
She wrote Celine Dion's first hit because she recognized her daughter's talent.
She helped stage manage her career.
She launched her own line of food products.
And she became host of a cooking show for TVA. She's also the sponsor of the foundation Mama Dion, an educational foundation which provides school supplies, clothing, and eyewear to underprivileged children.
And 14 children!
Did I mention that? Did I mention 14 children?
Now that is a strong woman!
I mean, she's achieved great professional success.
Her children are doing fairly well, unlike Marlon Brando's children, which is a whole other story.
She had 14 children, food products, host of a cooking show.
She's involved in charity. She got her daughter's career started.
She wrote her daughter's first hit song.
I love this woman.
I think that's just amazing.
And she's old school, so she would have grown up, born in 1927, she would have grown up long before The infiltration of radical feminism and socialism, communism, and of postmodernism and relativism and existentialism and all this kind of...
Like, she would have... What a powerful woman.
Now, I'm sure that she has her issues.
I'm sure that she has her flaws.
I mean, don't we all?
But... That's a powerful woman.
Created a lot of life, created a lot of food, created a lot of talent, created a lot of business opportunities, and was really something.
Now, I think about someone like Therese Dion and compare her to The modern, very fearful, thinking rape culture is everywhere, terrified of the patriarchy, hysterical, upset, screaming at Charlie Kirk for no good reason behind abuse history glasses, as far as I would say.
It's pretty wild.
How far women have fallen is really, really tragic.
How far women have fallen, how strong in many ways they used to be.
This woman, Therese Dion, also went through...
Well, she was, I guess, a teenager in the Second World War.
In Canada, I understand.
Not invaded, not bombed, but she had family relatives who went to the Second World War.
There was a lot of waiting to see if people could survive the war and so on.
And the robustness.
Oh, it's horrible. Sorry, I've got a chair.
I'm just recovering from any injury that I had while chasing my daughter down a hallway.
In St. Louis, but the robustness of Western women used to be a true force of nature and a glory given from God and culture.
The robustness, the power, the strength of Western women used to be a true force of nature and was foundational, was foundational to the success and the power of Western civilization.
I read a book some years ago.
You can find it at freedomainradio.com forward slash free.
It's a free audiobook called The Origins of War in Child Abuse by Lloyd DeMoss.
I hope he's doing well. And in it I talk about, well, I guess Lloyd DeMoss talks about, but I read just how much adult dysfunction comes from child abuse, and I've got a whole series called The Bomb in the Brain.
And yes, this was a spanking history, but there was a robustness and a certainty and a power To the women historically in the West.
And I was just kind of mulling it over, in my own mind, what has changed.
Now, of course, in order to, this is a foundational phrase that I remember from when I was very young.
I can't remember where I read it, but if everybody knows, just let me know.
But the phrase was, in order to save you, a priest has to damn you first.
That is very, very interesting.
In order to save you, a priest has to damn you first.
In other words, in order to provide you relief from sin, the priest has to condemn you existentially to sin in the first place.
And I will get to the Super Chats.
I just wanted to finish this thought.
So, women have always had great power in the world.
Always, in the Western world, I'm going to say.
Women have always had great power in the Western world.
The great power has to do with they control the genetics of the entire society because women, in general, historically, in the West, have chosen the men.
And we know now, I was just chatting about this with a woman the other day.
Who was raised as an existentialist or got into existentialism.
Now in existentialism it says existence precedes essence.
And you can basically choose to be whatever you want.
You can choose to be... You can choose to have any personality structure.
You can choose to be anything that you want.
That there's no...
Like everything is a complete blank slate.
Now, not only is that part of the economic determinism based upon the alliance between existentialists and Marxists.
Because the Marxist says that your personality...
Your worldview, your perspective, everything is shaped by your relationship to the means of production.
If you own the means of production, you're one way.
If you're subject to the vagaries of the capitalists who own the means of production, you're another way.
But they said that you are nothing, you are merely shaped by your economics.
And if you disagree with them, it's because you have false consciousness, right?
Which means, no matter what happens, say the Marxists, I'm right, and if you disagree with me, you're wrong.
And the feminists do the same thing.
So the feminists say to women, you're oppressed by the patriarchy, and if you disagree and say, I don't feel oppressed by the patriarchy at all.
Men buy me things.
We vote more than men.
We live longer than men.
We get better healthcare than men.
We get fewer workplace injuries than men.
We have the vast advantages in the workforce based upon affirmative action laws and equal pay for work of equal value laws, which men don't have access to.
We have far fewer workplace deaths.
We have far fewer workplace injuries.
We live... I mean, how on earth is that oppression?
Then what, of course, the feminists don't engage in a debate in general.
What they do is they say, aha, that's internalized misogyny.
You have internalized the patriarchy and therefore you're oppressing yourself and therefore you can't see your own oppression.
Which is...
Not an argument.
Ladies, it's not an argument.
And so... This idea that you can be whatever you want to be, that you can will yourself into any particular shape, or any particular personality, or any particular perspective, allies itself with the radical environmentalism, and I don't mean sort of nature environmentalism, it just means that the environment shapes your entire personality.
So it allies itself with the Marxist perspective.
But what is...
Fundamentally false about it, is that being as charitable as possible, looking at the existentialists and the Marxists and the postmodernists and the subjectivists and relativists of the 60s, where this stuff generally infected, particularly North America, they're wrong and they just, as charitably as humanly possible, you could say, well, they just lack the data.
They don't have the data.
The data is rock-solid clear these days.
There is no aspect of personality that is not affected by genetics.
There is no aspect of intelligence that is not affected by genetics, and genetics overwhelmingly determines intelligence.
You've got people in their late teens where intelligence is 80% genetic.
So, women had great power because they chose the genetics of the West.
If they chose a guy who was responsible, the responsibility genes flowed through, flowed from the balls, through the penis, to the egg, to the birth canal, to society as a whole.
It's kind of a devious, tadpole-like cycle of life.
But women controlled the genetics of Of society, and to a very significant degree, the genetics of society is the destiny of society.
People waiting for the Industrial Revolution in Africa, well, you might have to wait a while.
So, by controlling genetics, women contributed to the longevity of society in the most fundamental way.
In the most fundamental way.
Particularly if they chose...
In the free market, women will try to choose the most intelligent man, because the most intelligent man, on average, will have the greatest resources to provide to his family.
I guess Therese's husband perhaps accepted.
Although... Catholic, obviously, so that was a different kind of situation.
But... Women will generally choose the most intelligent men, and given that intelligence is overwhelmingly genetic, according to the studies...
She's raised, by her choice of who to have babies with, she fundamentally raises the intelligence level of society as a whole.
Absolutely foundational.
So women choose the genetics of society in the West.
Women, of course, also, when men were out working, and that was, you know, the old thing, men weren't even present.
When their children were born, they'd be out there pacing their, handing out cigars and so on.
So women had a very strong monopoly over early childhood education.
Now they still do, but the women have been infected by the Marxists and therefore the women are now the carriers of Marxism to the next generation or leftism to the next generation.
Collectivism as a whole, anti-rationalism, the fascism of fields is being transmitted through women to the next generation.
So women used to have this incredible power of choosing the genetics.
The power, like one of the things that happened in the 1960s under the Quiet Revolution, which is also known as the displacement of Catholicism with socialism, right?
With leftism came in and drove out Catholicism, and that meant that the birth rate, like literally within a decade, and I've seen some estimates that it's even shorter than that, the birth rate among women in Quebec, Quebec is the very Catholic, very French, of course, province of Canada, the birth rate among Women in Quebec, within the span of a decade, crashed from way high to way low, like 6, 7, 8 to like 1, 2, 3.
Boom. Right down.
And how did they achieve that?
Well... What they do is they...
There's a fundamental number of ways that they achieve it.
But first of all, they say that motherhood is dumb.
Motherhood is retarded. Motherhood is idiotic.
And if you're really smart as a woman, then your status symbol and your ambition, and Lord knows women are not unaffected by status symbols and ambition.
So you say to women, motherhood is retarded.
Motherhood is for dumb women.
Motherhood is like a minimum wage job that just about anybody, even with broken English, can do.
So motherhood is... Not of value in any particular way.
That's one thing you say. And you say that men are the enemy.
And you say that the only way that a woman is fulfilled is through education and work rather than running a home, being a wife, and being a mother, right?
And what that does is it chokes off the next generation.
It chokes off the genetic transmission of many of the values that the culture has evolved to express.
And so the way that you do it is you say, well, women are oppressed, men are terrible, and that stresses women out, because women know that there are good men and bad men, historically, and you can read a whole bunch of 19th century novels, from Pamela to, I can't remember, there was one about a narcissist that I read.
One of the most influential courses I took was a course on 19th century novel reading about, and a lot of it is ferocious challenges for unmarried women to make sure they don't choose the wrong guy.
Because if you choose the wrong guy, you're doomed.
Like, your life is miserable.
So figuring out who's posing as a good guy and who's really a good guy was a foundational kind of echolocation that women had in the past.
And this whole echolocation system for finding good men was smashed up by the Marxists because they said, well, all the men are bad.
All the men are bad.
And this completely messes up a woman's radar for finding good guys.
So, and the thing is, too, it makes her jumpy and nervous, right?
Women are, you know, they score higher in tests on agreeableness and neuroticism.
Women have worry and women have concern.
We all know this, you know, there's that old meme or picture, which is a guy tossing his kid up in the air on the beach, and, you know, like, what the husband sees, the kid's up about two feet, and You know, what's actually happening, the kid's up about five feet.
What the mother sees, the kid's up about 20 feet or something like that.
So women, more cautious because, you know, they generally have to take care of the sick, the ill, the injured and so on.
So they are more cautious, more nervous.
And that's entirely great because toddlers are tiny rotating Dalek death magnets that in the past predators could take down and now one flight of stairs and you name it, right?
So... Women are kind of jumpy and nervous, and it's that jumpiness and nervousness that has them hyperscan in a very cautious manner the character of the man who wants to marry and impregnate them because they're going to be stuck with him forever.
And so if you say, well, all men are bad, that smashes up the radar.
It makes women jumpy, and it makes them nervous because they can't find security.
They can't find protection.
They can't find a competent Male environment of husband and relatives and so on in which they can flourish, within which they can have, as Therese Dion had, 14 children and have a great life and be a television personality and so on and run businesses and do charity and knit entire communities together.
They can't do that because there's no safe and secure place in the world for women because patriarchy is everywhere except, ironically, of course, in Muslim countries and in Muslim communities.
But You tell women that they're jumpy, it's hyper-stimulation for women's anxiety.
And it becomes, at some point, downright paranoid.
And it's supposed to, right?
That's the whole point. It's supposed to go that way.
So women can't feel secure.
And so the strength that women had was when they had a good man, and they had good male relatives, and they were protected, and the man was reliable, and they were loved, and they had children, and they had purpose, and they had their power in the world.
Then they were. Like a pyramid, right?
Strong base. You can go very, very high.
And the higher you want to go, the wider you need the base to be.
Which is why I eat foods that deliberately fatten my buttocks.
Now, what feminism did was they took that pyramid of femininity and they inverted it.
So now there's a giant weight of fear and a tiny or absent level of security.
And what, of course, the feminists say is you can't trust men.
There's a horrible patriarchy But you can trust the government, and you can vote for the government, and you can get your resources from the government.
And that means that women have both materially more resources than they've ever had in history in the West, but at the same time, at the same time they have a great deal of anxiety.
What is it, 25% of women over 40 in America are on antidepressants or some sort of form of SSRIs?
It's like you take the pill to not have kids when you're younger, and then you take the pill to pretend to cure your depression when you get older.
It's just pills all the way, and they're related.
They're related. So, the priest says, I'll save you from original sin, which I'll convince you exists to begin with.
And the feminist says, I'll save you from the patriarchy, which I have to convince you exists to begin with.
I'll save you from the evil man.
It's the same kind of falsehood.
It's the same kind of exploitation. And the carnage this has wreaked among women who are overweight, who are tatted up, who are promiscuous, who are angry, who are fragile, who are hysterical.
Not all, of course, but a lot.
It is a carnage. It is an absolute carnage that has occurred.
And it is absolutely heartbreaking.
It's absolutely heartbreaking.
And it has fundamentally altered the genetic trajectory of the West.
Because, I mean, women's predilection for bad boys...
When society is under threat, women tend to turn towards more aggressive males because they're going to need more aggressive...
And more aggressive offspring to survive a time of war or scarce resources or high competition or whatever it is.
Women's predilection for the bad boys has gone into overdrive.
Women's need to secure resources from honest, dependable men has withered away because they can just grab things from the state.
And it has fundamentally toxicified the relations between the genders and the reset is going to be brutal.
I mean, it's going to have to happen sooner or later.
The reset is going to be brutal.
All right. Thank you for all of that.
Let me just have a look and see what's going on.
I will be very happy to take the questions from Super Chats, if you want to throw in your Super Chats.
I would appreciate that if you would rather, and it can be considered slightly more economically efficient, if you want to go to freedomainradio.com slash donate to help out the show, that is most gratefully appreciated.
I've got a lot of big projects on the go, and none of them are cheap.
So if you want to go and help out at freedomainradio.com slash donate, I would really, really appreciate it.
So let's have a look at our Super Chats.
Edward Arruda says, Big fan, sir.
Just happened to see you live today.
Yeah, you know, I was doing the test and I thought, I've got a lot of stuff to think about.
I've got a lot of stuff going on in my brain.
So, let's do that.
Jeremy Rainman says, I'm an excellent driver.
He says, Liawatha is always spreading bull.
My DNA results prove I am more Jeep Grand Cherokee than Focahontas is a minority.
Remsel Renu says, Name the Jew.
I kind of know what that means, but I've talked about that before.
If you consider the Jews to be a negative force in society, then out-compete them and do better.
That's the way to take it.
I don't, but if you do, then that's what you need to do.
Dragon's Temple says, time for Sean King.
Wonder if he gets the same standard.
And CRN says, not...
Angument. Not angument.
I'm not sure exactly what that means, but not angument is what they say.
And let me just dip over here into what's going on in the chat as a whole.
You fixed the frame rate, yes, I certainly did.
I certainly did.
Alright. Australian.
Dingo ate my baby.
Dingo ate my baby. G'day.
Dingo ate my baby. Now, you know, I'm not that great with an Australian accent.
I can do a couple of the other ones.
But what's really tough is the New Zealand accent.
The true cock accent for the media in New Zealand.
All right, so let's see here.
Oh, come on, Steph, you believe in freedom of speech, but have been deleting so-and-so's comments on your videos.
I don't know. I don't know what you're referring to, but don't do that.
Don't do stupid stuff like that, man.
Come on. I don't even know whether you guys need a rant on this, because it's such an obvious principle.
So let's say I'm having a pool party and you come over and you pee in my pool and I tell you to stop and I have you physically removed if you don't.
And you say, hey man, are you saying that people aren't allowed to pee?
I mean, if people can't pee, man, they're going to die.
The uric acid is going to back up and it's going to fill their brain.
Their eyes are going to turn yellow and their heads are going to explode like a lemonade-filled fire hydrant of hell.
No, I'm not saying you can't pee.
In fact, I think peeing is pretty damn healthy.
You just can't pee in my pool.
It's just so ridiculous.
And it's such a petty, stupid, manipulative way to try and hook into someone's values and control them using their values.
You know, come on. If someone says abusive stuff...
You know, it's funny because, I mean, I don't spend a lot of time on the YouTube comments, but I'll brush by them once in a while.
And it's from way back in the day.
I mean, I joined YouTube in 2006, and I remember.
Somehow I ended up on a channel where a couple was giving relationship life advice.
And the comments were just a sewer storm underneath.
And I just remember always thinking to myself, that's kind of like the storefront, you know?
It's how you judge the listeners to some degree.
It's how you judge the channel.
It's how you judge the... Tidiness of the channel owners.
And so, yes, I don't police very much.
But if I see something that's nasty or objectionable, yeah, I'm going to delete it.
And it is no interference whatsoever with your freedom of speech.
You are free to write whatever you want, wherever you want.
But the channel is kind of homesteaded a little bit by me.
And you can do whatever you want on your own property.
But on my property, please don't take a dump in my driveway.
Are you saying people can't take dumps?
It's going to be bad. Right?
No. It's just...
No.
And don't try and use my virtues or my values to forbid me from deleting offensive or nasty comments.
I mean, that's not fair.
That's not right. That's a terrible, terrible thing to do.
To take someone's virtues and use those virtues in an attempt to control them.
So you're saying, I don't have the right to delete noxious comments on my own channel.
So now I don't have freedom of denial of speech, which is kind of important, right?
I mean, if you went to go and see your favorite singer in concert, let's say you just love the singer and he was doing an acoustic set, so you really got to hear the voice rather than this wall of noise, Phil Spector stuff that goes on in concerts.
And you went to go and see that singer, and some drunken...
Bottom-of-the-rung karaoke merchant went up, elbowed that singer aside and started blaring, I can't feel my face when I'm with you, off-key and off-tune.
Would you be like, hey man, don't deny us freedom of speech.
No, you'd want security to take that person away so you get back to listening to your singer.
So, it's very childish.
It's very stupid. And you should just not say that.
And you should just not do that.
If you feel that there's someone that you like, then help encourage that person to get a platform.
But no. Absolutely not.
Absolutely not. Alright.
Somebody asked, Stefan, do you think the correction will happen in my lifetime?
I'm 29 years old. And if not, then how long before a forced correction happens?
Well, it depends what you mean by correction, Jomar.
So, if by correction, I mean, the Dow just dropped a whole bunch of points, right, just yesterday or the day before.
And there will be a correction, of course, in your lifetime.
And I don't know how long or how hard it's going to be.
I've said this before, but just for those who are new to the equation, one of the reasons that I found positive things to say about 1% Republican candidate Donald J. Trump was because knowing that he's a free market guy to a large degree, I mean to as much I think as can be allowed in the American political system, He reigns in the EPA. He cuts regulations.
There's been a huge explosion of job growth, for instance, black entrepreneurship at its highest level, I think, ever recorded these days.
So what that means is that people have moved from receiving welfare benefits or receiving government benefits into paying taxes, which means they're going to be interested in lower regulations, less reg tape, lower taxes, more economic opportunities, better trade deals, and so on.
So, if it's a hard reset, we lose everything.
I mean, if it's a hard reset, you understand.
If it's a civil war, if it's economic collapse, we lose everything.
And you say, well, things will be better after a while.
It's like, sure, maybe, but it could be a long while.
And so what we want is to try and reduce the size and power and scope of the state to increase people's access and participation in the free market so that they're invested in voting for smaller government and more freedom rather than the other way around.
If they're dependent on the government, they vote for less freedom for others and more government, so the government has more money to give them.
So the more people you can shift from government dependency to some sort of presence in the free market...
Fantastic. Fantastic. You know, and as wages and opportunities go up in the free market, you can also then peel off some government workers who want those opportunities.
And so, that's the way.
Michelle says, are you taking a break from the call-in show?
I am taking a break from the existing format of the call-in show, like the four-hour marathons and so on.
I just... I found that I was not looking forward to them.
And I... Felt that that was somewhat disrespectful to the people who've waited and have important questions.
I still will have listener conversations.
I'm going to do them more ad hoc and ad lib and so on.
But yeah, the existing format, I may return to it at some point, but I... You know, and it's funny because...
I know that the call-in shows are very popular in the podcast downloads.
So for those who see the YouTube thing, you don't see the whole podcast universe that Freedom Aid Radio, I mean, started with and is still the majority of show downloads and views.
And I know, I know how popular the call-in shows are.
They're not that popular on YouTube.
I mean, a couple of exceptions, the Gave My Girlfriend's Family a Cow and the Flat Earth Debate and so on.
But for the most part, the call-in show is not wildly popular on YouTube, but they are enormously popular on the podcast.
And I knew, I absolutely knew, that there's a potential that I'm going to take a hit in popularity, I could take a hit in donations and so on by rejigging or taking a break from the existing format of the call-in show.
But first of all, I want to love the audience, which means that I don't want to feel controlled by the audience.
Like, I want to do what's great for you guys, but not at the expense of my own happiness.
That would not, I think, be...
Actually, I know that that would be the wrong thing to do.
So if the call-in show wasn't making me happy...
And listen, I did... 11 years of the call-in show?
There are thousands and thousands of hours of call-in shows for people who want to enjoy that format.
And I like the format and I really enjoyed it for a long time.
But I thought, well, if I'm doing the call-in show, which I'm not particularly finding enriching at the moment, I don't think I can do quite as good a job if I'm not as enthusiastic.
And also, if I'm doing something that is not making me happy because I feel controlled by the audience, that kind of changes my relationship to you guys, right?
So then I feel less like this is a fun participatory exploration of philosophy and self-knowledge and all the cool stuff that we talk about.
And I'd feel a bit more like it's a...
A hamster wheel that I'm put on because of download numbers from the podcast server, and I don't have much of a choice.
And I know this for sure, and this is a part of a larger relationship thing.
If you do things out of a sense of fear or guilt or obligation, you can gain compliance within yourself.
But what you will generate is resentment to the other person or other group in the relationship.
So I fiercely want to protect my joy in interacting with you guys.
I fiercely want to protect my happiness in doing the show.
The show can be tough. A lot of negative press, a lot of negative feedback sometimes.
And so I really want to continue to love the audience.
I really want to continue to love the relationship that I have with you guys.
It's so important to me.
And if I'm doing something that I'm not really enjoying because I'm fearful of rejection by you guys...
I know that I might be able to do it for six months.
I might be able to do it a year.
I might be able to do it for two years.
But the resentment and the lack of freedom would grow.
And that would show up somewhere, either online or in my personal relationships.
Because, you know, it's like a balloon.
You push in one end. It's got to come out some other way.
And I didn't want to have that risk.
Not just I wanted to protect my own happiness in doing things, but also...
If I ended up doing something I didn't enjoy for the sake of fear or anxiety or a fear of loss of donations or a fear of loss of views or support or success or growth or whatever, if I did that, I would not be living the values that I talk about, which is to be free.
And it is not a moral requirement that I do the existing format of the call-in shows.
It's not like, you know, don't kick a cat or whatever, right?
And so I also wanted to show that you can make decisions that other people might dislike, but better stuff will come out of it.
I'm positive of that. Better stuff will come out of it.
It's just an opportunity to try something new.
But better stuff will come out of it, and not only do I want to live those values, but I also want to model those values, which is to say, okay, so I'm doing something...
Everybody has things in a relationship that they do out of a sense of obligation.
And some of those things are fine.
Like, some of those things are fine.
But too many of those things, and you start to sow resentment.
And resentment is very difficult for a relationship.
So, yeah, I hope I'm not over-explaining things, but I did think about it quite a lot.
And that is kind of where...
Yeah, be true to myself.
Be true to myself. I think that's very, very important.
Why does America give $3 billion a year to Israel?
Why is Israel the fourth largest army in the world?
America and UK and Israel.
Okay. So, because there are, of course, a lot of people who are sympathetic to Israel in America, both Jews and non-Jews.
There are a lot of people in power, a lot of politicians who are very sympathetic to Israel, both Jews and non-Jews.
And if someone offers you $3 billion a year, what are you going to do?
Are you going to say no? I do not think so.
Oh, right. I'm going to read a couple more questions.
You know that all great philosophers had beards, right?
Yeah, but a lot of great philosophers didn't have great wives who liked to kiss them without beards.
So, I'm afraid.
I prefer the beard in many ways, particularly in winter.
I mean, I don't like shaving.
It's a pain in the neck, literally.
And you can get this. I have very sort of delicate skin.
It's like tissue paper down here.
And when I shave, I can end up with a little constellation of blood spots.
It's nasty. All right.
Let me just finish off a couple more questions.
I'll make it a little short one. I wanted to take this one for a test.
I just wanted to have something I could boot up and start.
That would be cool.
Do you believe it is possible to escape the finite universe?
No. And why would you want to?
The finite universe is where all the fun is.
Somebody says, I really enjoy the cuck stories.
Yes. That might make one of us.
So... That is pretty rough.
All right. This is the kind of stuff you'll lose donations for, not call-in shows.
Okay. Some people do like it, and I'm still getting used to the format.
Some people do like it, for sure.
All right. Let me just see if there was anything else that I needed to check out.
Let's see if I didn't miss anything.
Somebody said, please.
Oh, here we go. Here we go.
Okay, sorry, I missed a couple of these.
So let me just get these.
Moon Garden says, I think it is something the West has to experience and go through like communism to realize it does not work.
I wish it wasn't the case. Well, see, this is the thing.
I mean, we hope that people will learn through reason and through evidence.
But if you don't learn through reason and evidence, you have to learn through bitter experience and oftentimes drag other people who had the capacity to learn from reason and evidence along with them.
Mark Moogle says, if you were a furry, what would your fursona be?
Oh, that persona and fur. Okay, so if I were a furry, I gotta say Vorpal Bunny, because I'm a very friendly and nice guy, but sometimes logic can be pretty cutting for people, so.
Dan, thank you for your support.
I appreciate that. Joseph Ferguson says, thank you.
I kind of knew a lot of what you share.
It is good to put it into words and expand upon the ideas.
I like your work. Please keep at it.
It may be the only path of war and death.
I mean, path against war and death.
So, regarding...
Yeah, so the person said, I'm going to delete abusive comments and so on.
Hmm. Well, and so I'm going to delete abusive comments.
And can't YouTube use the same argument?
And I think what he means by that, and it's a very good question.
I appreciate that.
That's from S. Sadvorian.
So there are some differences between comments and...
A YouTube channel. And again, it's a very, very good point, a very, very good question.
So yes, YouTube, if you promote criminal acts, if you break the law on YouTube, yeah, of course YouTube can toast your channel.
And certainly, I mean, if you can imagine what horrible stuff could be posted on someone's YouTube channel and so on, then that would be a problem.
However, the difference is, A YouTube channel is something that, like in my case, I've homesteaded and grown this YouTube channel for 12 years.
12 years.
And so it's like if you have to enclose the land and then you build a house on the land.
And let's say that you're just leasing the land, right?
So you sign a lease and let's say the lease is for, I mean, I want the lease to be for like the next 50 years or, you know, however long I'm going to live, right?
So, you sign up and you read what the agreement is, and then you decide to invest in that particular platform rather than other platforms.
So, you know, I read through the YouTube stuff back in the day and so on, and I'm like, okay, so you sign the lease and you say, okay, I've got this lease for 50 years, so now I'm going to build the house.
Now, can someone who has leased you that land, and you've only built the house because you have Control over the land for the next 50 years.
Can someone, whoever you lease the land from, can they just come and say, well, no, now you're not allowed to paint your wall this color, and you're not allowed to have, you're not allowed to paint your roof, and you're not allowed to have an aerial, and you're not allowed to play your music above a low volume, and like, if they just start to, like, and you say, well, this isn't, if I'd have known all of this stuff, I would have built my house somewhere else, right?
And so if you have a relationship, can they change the rules under you after you have put in your time to build the house on the land that you've leased, on the channel that you've leased?
Can they change the rules? No.
No. That's kind of the way.
Like, I mean, if you sign up for a variable rate mortgage, then, of course, as the mortgage varies and so on.
But if, let's say, you sign up for a fixed rate mortgage for 10 years, like 6% or something like that, they can't just come back to you after two years and say, you should always 12%.
Sorry, man. It's 12. We kind of need the money, right?
Because you have, right? And if you had known ahead of time that the bank was going to come and double your interest in three years rather than renegotiate in 10, then you would have gone with another bank, right?
So that's the whole point of having...
A kind of contract, and that's explicit and implicit contract.
So you don't have to sign a contract when you go into a grocery store saying, I won't shoplift, but you're still not allowed to shoplift.
You don't have to sign a contract when you go into a restaurant saying, I promise to pay for the meal, but you've got to pay for the meal, and so on, right?
So, you've got to think of the YouTube channel as a homesteaded area based upon a reliability of service provision, based upon a contract that you have, both explicit and implicit with the hosting provider.
And they spell out, in general, what is allowed and what is not allowed.
And if they had said, it doesn't matter whether it's YouTube or whatever, but if some company had said, well, you can build your channel here, you can build your website here, but...
We're going to get progressively more lefty and we're going to start policing things that are against the left or against collectivism and so on.
Then I'd have said, well, or anybody would say who's not that way inclined and hopefully people who are that way inclined would say, no, not really.
That doesn't work for me, so I'll find some other place, right?
And in the same way, if there was some right-leaning provider and they said, well, we're going to get progressively less lefty and if you start promoting lefty ideas, we're going to kick you off the platform too, then leftists would say, right?
So there's implicit and explicit contracts.
And the contract that I signed up for, so to speak, is I don't advocate violence.
I don't break the law. I don't, right?
Of course, right? I mean, there's not an argument.
So it's different from a YouTube comment.
A YouTube comment is you coming onto someone else's property, right?
And that's fine.
So for a lot of people, their house extends to the road, right?
Which is why they, in Canada, if you have a Like the sidewalk, you kind of own it, or at least you're responsible for cleaning it, right?
So if there's snow and there's ice, you've got to put down your salt, you've got to shovel it away, which is why those corner lots seem good, but can be quite a bit of work in the winter.
So let's say that you've got a house and someone is...
Setting up, some kid sets up a lemonade stand.
You know, there's your house, there's your front lawn, there's a sidewalk, and then often there's a little strip of grass between your sidewalk and the road, right?
So some kid, for whatever reason, it doesn't matter, they set up a little lemonade stand on the last strip of grass between the sidewalk and the road, right?
So, yeah, technically they're on your property.
I mean, you're probably not going to care, like unless you're some real Boo Radley grouch person.
Grouchy, short suspenders, whittling a stick, spitting out a tooth, and chewing tobacco out of his nose, you're probably not going to be like, hey kids, get off my lawn, right?
It's fine. It's fine.
You know, someone's walking on that, let's say they go off the sidewalk, and they're walking on that strip of grass between your sidewalk and the road.
Do you care? Well, technically they're walking on your property.
Well, you might care if everyone does it, because it's going to bald up your grass, but you probably don't really care that much, right?
But, um... If somebody sets up something nefarious, right?
Like, let's say somebody sets up a little table and they're selling stolen goods, right?
Just take an extreme example.
So some kid's selling lemonade, somebody's walking on your strip of grass, eh, you don't really care that much, right?
And you're probably fine with it.
I mean, you guess you have the right to kick them off, but it doesn't really matter, right?
And if someone comes and starts doing something illegal or starts...
Let's say that they start twerking and you've got kids in the house and you don't want the kids to see all of that, right?
It's not illegal to twerk with your pants on, I assume.
Actually, I know that one very well.
No, let's just say.
Well, then you're going to ask that person to leave.
It's the same thing if you kind of...
Like if you're an insane teenager and you throw an open house party, which I did once or twice in my life and...
Everybody's having fun but me.
But if you are a teenager and you throw an open party, then you probably don't mind if people come if they're just dancing and chatting or whatever and having fun.
But if someone comes and starts spray-painting the walls, well, you know, it's like, hey, man, there's lots of people here at the party.
Like, there's an implied contract, which is, you know, you can come to my party, but don't spray-paint the walls.
So I hope that makes some sense.
I don't know what's happening at Speaker's Corner, sorry.
But thank you for the super chat.
Joseph Ferguson wants the world to know that he is out of sorry.
It's good to know. Ryan Woodard wants to know, your thoughts on universal versus selective suffrage, so voting.
I mean, I'm a voluntarist, right?
I'm an anarcho-capitalist, so I don't want any voting at all because voting is participating to some degree or another in the initiation of the use of force.
I can understand, like, if you're voting to minimize it, I understand those arguments and so on.
And But certainly there's a very strong case to be made, and this was the founding of America.
I don't like the racial element, of course, but the founding of America was you had to be a white male property owner of a certain acreage in order to be able to vote, right?
Because you have to have property in order to protect the right of property.
The poor always outnumber the rich, so the poor vote to take away the property of the rich and everybody ends up broke.
That's just the way things shake out.
So if I had the choice, I would say you have to be I can really see the case to be made that things would turn around much faster and everybody would end up wealthier and more free if you had to show your federal tax return at the voting booth and you had to have at least a plus rather than a minus.
Like, you had to have paid some taxes in order to be able to vote because otherwise you're kind of compromised by a conflict of interest.
Mark Moogle wants to say thank you so much for properly pronouncing my name.
Well, you are very welcome, my friend, and thank you for dropping by this.
All right. I think we're good.
I think we're good. Yes, we are good.
All right. Thanks everyone so much.
I'm very, very glad that this new technology seems to be working.
Just let me know if you could in the chat, did it sort of maintain itself as far as audio and video quality goes?
I am using a dedicated pipe.
I have massive compression on the video and I'm trying to do as much as humanly possible.
Oh yes, source links are not working.
Yes, sorry, we have. So on some of the older videos, we linked to the message board.
The message board is down because of the distributed denial-of-service attacks.
We're looking into it, and I don't have a strong answer for you, but it's definitely on the list of things to look at, and we will keep you posted.
Yes, thank you guys for dropping by.
A real pleasure. Don't forget to help out the show, if you can.
at freedomainradio.com slash donate.
Massively appreciated.
Did I drop any frames?
Dropped zero. Ooh, at 60 frames a second.
That means I can bump up the resolution, because Lord knows you guys need to see freckles and middle-aged wrinkles a huge amount.
So, yeah, thanks everyone so much for dropping by.
I really, really appreciate it.
freedomainradio.com slash donate.
Don't forget to pick up your copy of...
Oh, let me flash it around with this high-res, high-def.
Let's get... The Art of the Argument, which you can get at theartoftheargument.com.
New book, Essential Philosophy, coming out shortly.
And have yourselves a wonderful, wonderful day and a real pleasure to chat with you guys.
▲
Export Selection