Nov. 24, 2018 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
01:44:42
4251 An Introduction to Female Evil (Part 1)
Stefan Molyneux, Host of Freedomain Radio, takes you on a deep journey into the dark heart of female evil - how and why it is generally different from manifestations of male evil...▶️ Donate Now: http://www.freedomainradio.com/donate▶️ Sign Up For Our Newsletter: http://www.fdrurl.com/newsletterYour support is essential to Freedomain Radio, which is 100% funded by viewers like you. Please support the show by making a one time donation or signing up for a monthly recurring donation at: http://www.freedomainradio.com/donate▶️ 1. Donate: http://www.freedomainradio.com/donate▶️ 2. Newsletter Sign-Up: http://www.fdrurl.com/newsletter▶️ 3. On YouTube: Subscribe, Click Notification Bell▶️ 4. Subscribe to the Freedomain Podcast: http://www.fdrpodcasts.com▶️ 5. Follow Freedomain on Alternative Platforms🔴 Bitchute: http://bitchute.com/stefanmolyneux🔴 Minds: http://minds.com/stefanmolyneux🔴 Steemit: http://steemit.com/@stefan.molyneux🔴 Gab: http://gab.ai/stefanmolyneux🔴 Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/stefanmolyneux🔴 Facebook: http://facebook.com/stefan.molyneux🔴 Instagram: http://instagram.com/stefanmolyneux
Hope you're doing well. I wanted to do a little bit of a chat on an introduction to female evil.
And this, you know, I mean, I get the white knighting.
It goes all over the map, and I understand that.
But I just wanted to mention that not all women are evil.
I'm married to a wonderful woman, have a lovely daughter, have female friends.
A lot of women are wonderful.
And some women Or not.
And it's funny.
Because this inability to see female evil is one of the roots of...
one of the main roots of real evil in the world as it stands.
And I really wanted to try and make my thoughts at least clear.
And this is put forward as, of course, conjecture, verging on a hypothesis.
I certainly grew up with female evil and studied it up close, unwillingly for...
Many years. A couple decades, in fact.
But that's a sample size of, well, one mother and some...
I never really had any evil girlfriends or anything, but definitely my mom's friends were, well, not great.
She, at one point, complained that a friend of hers' ex-husband had held them both at gunpoint for some time.
So, it was bad all around.
So, with regards to female evil, we have to talk a little bit about the etymology of ethics to begin with.
Now, revenge is foundational to ethical systems as they develop before they become sort of philosophically inclined.
Like, let me give you a silly example, right?
So, when I was a kid, my brother...
And I was standing by.
I was younger, but, you know, I wish I hadn't done it.
But my brother poured sand into a wasp's nest on the ground near the apartment flat, as we called it, where we lived.
And I think I poured some in, too.
And we ran away because, of course, the wasps were angry, as I can fully understand.
And we ran away. Later that day, I was trying to plant a sunflower seed.
Because, you know, you get these little sunflower seeds in packets to eat sometimes, and I thought, hey, wouldn't it be beautiful to have a sunflower grow in the lawn outside the apartment building where I live?
So I was digging it, and then a wasp stung me on the wrist.
And I think I must have been about eight years old or so.
Certainly old enough to know better, to not harm animals' homes and all that.
But anyway, so the wasp stung me.
Now, I had never been stung by a wasp before.
I don't think I've ever been stung by a wasp since.
I got a chunk of flesh taken out of my leg by horsefly once.
Man, those things. Those things are nasty.
They basically come in with kryptonite and cherry bombs and take off bits of your skin.
But, um... And I remember I was alone, again, solitary in childhood.
I could have been... No, no, I'm eight.
I must have been eight. So I was out of boarding school by then.
Or nine, maybe. No, probably eight.
Sorry, you don't need to know all these details.
But I remember rolling around.
I went into my apartment, and I remember rolling around on the ground, like in real agony.
That's a hell of a sting for a little kid.
And I do remember thinking...
Can't blame you, wasp.
Wasp blowback. Can't blame you.
This could have larger context.
But I do remember thinking, in a sense, fair is fair.
And I do also remember thinking how remarkable it was.
And I, you know, to this day, I have no proof, of course, but I do not believe that it was a coincidence.
In other words, I do not believe that the wasp just came and stung me out of nowhere.
It's not what they do. I mean, I know that wasps, I think they can, what, survive five stings, whereas the bees have their asses ripped off when they sting you, so they really are kamikaze pilots.
But this is an old meme.
Like, bees, you know, they pollinate flowers, they are pretty, they do this, they do that, and a wasps are basically just an asshole.
And I do remember thinking that, in a sense, fair is fair.
And it was, I guess, an introduction to cross-species.
Morality, which is, you destroy my home, and I will sting you with poison.
And I know that wasps, I mean, bees have these bizarre intelligences, like they can make dances to tell everyone where particularly good pollen patches are and stuff.
I mean, really wild, complicated stuff.
So I assume that the bee, either through scent or visual scanning or something like that, I don't know if they were hunting me down or just happened to be around, but just came and stung me the same day that my brother and I had poured sound down a wasp home.
And, you know, fair is fair.
Now, that's interesting because that sense of morality is based upon a fear of consequences, a fear of blowback, and so on.
So, one of the reasons, of course, why men are more honorable with each other Sometimes than women, it's because men have the capacity to inflict physical harm on each other, for the most part, right?
I mean, there are exceptions, of course, but men have the need to treat each other with some reasonable dignity and respect more so because they can inflict physical harm on each other.
So you'll see that men's morality tends to be around violence and property.
Violence and property.
And because of that, you have the non-aggression principle and a respect for property rights.
And the reason, of course, that men focus on violence and property is that men generally only have to fear violence from other men.
Physical, like, in your face, fisticuffs, I don't mean like the sort of surreptitious female poisoning and so on, or being hit on the head with a saucepan when you're asleep.
But even then, you know, you You have much bigger and stronger than women throughout history.
And so, men have to fear violence from other men in general.
And men have to fear theft from other men in general.
Because women only steal your heart.
So, property rights and the non-aggression principle come out of men's capacity to do harm to each other in terms of theft.
And in terms of violence.
So, the question is, of course, why wouldn't women steal more?
Well, if a man steals from another man, well, the man will generally go and take his stuff back and push him over and, you know, maybe clip him one on the face to tell him not to steal from him anymore.
But if a woman steals from another man, assuming that you're in a pair-bonded, matrimonial, monogamous Even if it's not monogamous, but a marriage environment, the woman who steals is actually stealing from another woman.
And that other woman is not likely to come over and start pushing the woman around because physical violence between women is not usually, historically, is not usually the way that disputes were resolved.
I mean, I know that there are these drunken trollop brawlings and so on, and there are girl frights and so on, and there was Virk, but In general, women don't solve their issues by beating each other up.
So for men, protection of property and the non-aggression principle was foundational, and it arose not out of any abstract ideological pursuits, but out of the fact that it was dangerous to start physical fights against another man, and it was dangerous to steal another man's property.
Because stealing another man's property is diminishing his capacity to provide for his family, which is the foundation of his sexual market value prior to the welfare state.
So you really are taking a hammer to his value.
And so it was pretty provocative.
So that's the male approach.
And... The male approach in terms of codifying in a rule of law and with police and courts and evidence and all this kind of stuff is an attempt to reduce the violence of intra-male predation by formalizing the rules and making it a negative consequence to...
You know, because in the past, if you beat some guy up, then his brothers, his cousins, his family members would come gunning for you, right?
That would be a big challenge for society as a whole.
And so, I mean, the Hatfields and the McCoys and these kinds of blowbacks could literally last for generations, hundreds of years sometimes.
And so what happens now is the state has become everyone's big brother, everyone's well-armed cousins, right?
So if you go beat someone up, then the state comes with police and guns and so on and hauls you in and all that.
And so the state has become everyone's, quote, family in terms of retaliation.
And it's funny, this actually, the thought just struck me while I'm talking, that the need for community diminishes with the welfare state, but the need for community also diminishes with police.
I don't want to say the police state, but the police that are run by the state.
Because normally, you would gain protection as a man from being violently preyed upon or Thievingly preyed upon by other men because you would have a community of men that stood together.
Now, when the state becomes your seven brothers and twenty cousins, then you don't need your seven brothers and twenty cousins as much, right?
Because the state is going to be your posse, your boy squad, that is going to protect you from predation.
And I'm not saying that's bad, I'm just saying it does reduce the need for community in the same way that the welfare state reduces the need for marriage and community for women.
So that's how male morality developed.
And for men, insults are better than violence.
Now, I get that, you know, in the past there was really some of this...
I want to say hysterical because I don't really know the history of it, but I just wanted to point out that I am fully aware of the fact that there were a significant number of duels that were fought for honor in the past.
And... In that situation, insults were considered worse than violence because violence was used as a method to solve insults.
Given how slow libel laws are to operate, particularly in America, I'm not saying I approve.
I'm just saying I can understand some of the impulse behind it.
And they were outlawed, I think, mid-19th century for the most part.
And they were fairly rare, and it was mostly an upper-class pursuit.
And it did have something to do with sexual market value as well, in that if a woman wouldn't date you if you'd been slandered and backed down, then, you know, death is preferable to not dating.
Or the possibility of death is certainly preferable to the certainty of not dating for a man, right?
The possibility of death is, let's say 50-50, you're going to win in a duel.
The possibility of death is preferable to not dating because the possibility of death means that if you survive, you have a 50% chance of passing your genes on to the next generation.
But, if no woman will date you, then you have a 0% chance of passing your genes on to the next generation.
Unless you rape or something horrible like that.
And so, from that standpoint, If women wouldn't date a man who'd been insulted but hadn't dueled, that would explain why the duel occurred.
But again, I don't really know the history of it.
I'm really theorizing at this point.
So that's how male morality develops.
It's a desire to minimize violations of personhood and property of violence and theft.
So, how does female enforcement go?
Well, female enforcement generally goes through ostracism.
And, you know, the mean girl spreading rumors, so-and-so was a slut, and I just had a call with a woman who, when she was younger, she was in a majority black school, and someone started to spread the rumor that she just didn't like blacks.
And this, of course, caused years of bullying and problems, and So, women, because they can't physically fight, Ronda Rousey accepted of course, but as a whole women can't physically fight, so how do they enforce their morality?
Well, what they do is they use verbal abuse, they use slander, they spread lies, all this kind of stuff.
That's the way that women enforce their social standing, and men generally will fight.
And this is why for men, I mean, it's very, very different for men than it is for women.
And again, I'm talking in general, historically and so on.
So when I was a kid, I was told, sticks and stones may break your bones, but words will never harm you.
Sticks and stones may break your bones, but words may never harm you.
Words will never harm you. Now, there's some truth in that, of course, but that's a particularly, and you might say almost peculiarly, male perspective, and it is really the foundation of the First Amendment.
The sticks and stones are more the foundation of the Second Amendment, but the fact that free speech doesn't harm you, words do not harm you, if somebody calls you a name, it doesn't physically harm you, that is a male perspective.
Now, from a female perspective, words can be enormously harmful because if you fall out of sorts with the coven, with the sisterhood, if they oppose you, then what they do, of course, they don't physically fight you because that would draw white knights to your defense and would gain you massive amounts of sympathy.
What they do is they simply spread lies and rumors about you.
And then they ostracize you.
And you're not invited here.
And they then start to work the entire social mechanism to exclude you from whatever's going on in the society.
And that is really, really painful.
Men can handle isolation a lot better than women can, in general.
Now, you'll notice, of course, this is a bit of a sidebar, but very relevant to the West as a whole these days, you'll notice that when women gain more and more power politically, then what happens is words become dangerous, because women experience words as dangerous and experience violence as less dangerous, whereas men experience violence as more dangerous and words as less dangerous.
So when men had political ascendancy, when you had a, quote, patriarchy, then what happened was you got free speech.
But as women gain more and more power, then the danger that women experience from words becomes more and more important.
And this is why you need trigger warnings, and this is why you need safe spaces, and this is why you need, or the perception is that you need hate speech laws and so on, right?
Because words wound.
Right? Sticks and stones for men.
Sticks and stones may break your bones, but words will never harm you.
Whereas for women, it's...
Words can destroy you.
You don't really have to worry about sticks and stones.
And the reason you don't have to worry about sticks and stones as a woman in the West is because men don't hit girls, and girls don't hit girls.
Men don't hit boys. Men don't hit women, right?
As a whole. Now, I understand that there are men who beat their wives and so on, but...
In general, like I've never seen and I can't even imagine when I was a kid, maybe it's different now, I can't imagine when I was a kid that there would be a fistfight between a boy and a girl.
Or a girl and a girl.
The girls might scratch a little, but generally it was social undermining and viciousness.
And of course that has... Really exploded when it comes to social media, right?
So social media, I mean, there are times when, of course, you can call some leftist guerrilla-style flash mob to attack your political opponents, but for the most part, social media has enhanced two things to the positive and negative for women.
One is that it has allowed women to gain much more attention than they otherwise would have, and positive attention, right?
So if you're an attractive woman and you post online, then you will gain far more attention positive reaction than you would if you were in some small tribe or town or you know whatever because you know you can post a picture of yourself smiling coquettishly for the camera or whatever it is that you're doing and you can get like 50,000 likes and you can get endless comments from men about oh you're so pretty you know right I mean if you look at the videos I've done with Lauren Southern they're talking about some dude and I'm pretty sure it's not me but and you can see this when I do videos with Pretty women or beautiful women that,
you know, the positive feedback is enormous.
And I think it's actually a little cancerous for the most part because we are designed to take a certain amount of stimuli, and when it comes to attention-seeking, the internet is crack for women.
And, I mean, when you think of Tinder and other apps where, you know, the swipe and the like, and I mean, it's just you can become obsessed about it.
Positive feedback and are you attractive and all of that.
Now the question of how attractive are you is foundational to answer for everyone because you want to reach as high as you possibly can up the ladder of sexual marketplace value.
You don't want to sell yourself short but at the same time if you reach too high or your standards are too high Then you will end up alone.
So you have to find that Aristotelian sweet spot in the middle.
There's an old Seinfeld about a woman who's a doctor and her husband is not a professional, I think it is.
And George Costanza says, oh, so you settled!
Or something like that.
And she gets really neurotic about it and really upset about it because the idea that she did settle it, she sold herself short as far as sexual market value goes.
That's torture for women.
It's hypergamy, right? You want to reach as high as you can, up the sexual value marketplace, but you don't want to reach too high, otherwise you end up...
What happens is, it's the women who want to have sex with the alphas, right?
So, you know, 80% of women want 20% of the guys, something like that.
And so, if you reach too high, you hope to bag an alpha, well, what happens is you end up being used up by alphas, and then any non-alpha with half a brain isn't going to want you because...
You've got that thousand penis stare and you've lost your capacity to bond and you're always going to be restless.
A woman who feels like she's settling is going to be a shrill, simple, faulty kind of harridan, right?
I mean, it's just going to make your life hell.
And she's going to strive for you to do more with your life, you know, go out and make some money, right?
Get out of here and get me some money too.
And it's going to drive you nuts.
It's going to drive her nuts. On the other hand, if she aims too high, then particularly as she ages, she's going to get more neurotic and suspect him of having affairs, and it's torture.
Torture to aim too high, torture to aim too low, and it's exactly what our biology would calibrate us to do.
So a man's sexual marketplace value can be undermined through violence and through theft, and a woman's sexual marketplace value can be undermined through slander, if you call a woman a slut.
Then you're saying that basically she comes from a bad family.
She doesn't have a strong bond with her father, or the father's not around.
She is using sex to gain attention, to gain resources, but without requiring commitment.
And she's using up her capacity to pair bond on a series of squalid, bottom-tier sexual flybys.
And that really destroys some sexual market value.
A woman, also, who has been isolated from the sisterhood, a woman who has been ostracized, it's a challenge for men.
And again, I'm talking more in a free market situation.
It's a challenge for men because there are two warring instincts in a man regarding a woman who's been ostracized.
The first is that she seems lost, sad, alone, and lonely, and therefore he has this white knight protective instinct to take care of her and bring her back to The social fold and whatever it is, right?
He has this big yearning-burning desire to nestle her and protect her and comfort her and all that.
But, at the same time, if she is isolated from the sisterhood, when he marries her, if he marries her, and he has children with her, then she does not gain the support and resources of other women in the community, in the tribe, in the neighborhood, whatever, right?
And so it makes it much more difficult for her to raise his children.
Because the children won't be out playing with other kids.
He'll have less sex, right? Because the kid's going to be home all the time and won't have other friends.
And his children are going to grow up probably ostracized and therefore his children will have no network effects of productive relationships.
So he has both an attraction to and A recoil from a woman who's been ostracized by other women.
He wants to protect her, but at the same time, that ostracism carries enormous costs when it comes to raising children.
I mean... So...
And this is true if she's ostracized from her own parents and so on, which is, you know, why it's nothing you should ever take lightly, as I've said for many years.
Few people listen, but I say it anyway.
You know, just to amuse myself and know that I've said it.
So... For women who can't fight and won't steal, whose reputation historically has been the root of their sexual marketplace value, and I'm thinking about this stuff partly because I'm gritting my teeth.
I mean, Emma Thompson is a wonderful actress, and I saw her actually With Kenneth Branagh in Toronto many years ago, live plays, and she was just great.
She's a great actress. Although I think it's become a little bit clichéd lately with her sort of smiling, world-weary, anti-patriarchal stuff.
But there is an adaptation of Jane Austen's novel, Emma.
That's through audible.com.
You should check it out. Audible's a great site anyway.
I don't get any affiliates, but, you know, it's a great site.
You should check it out. And thinking about reputation and aiming too high, so there's a woman that is the main character Emma tries to talk into and she tries to talk a man into being interested in a woman who's sort of intellectual, his intellectual and social inferior and the woman Passes up a marriage proposal from a good,
solid local guy who's at her level and would work out well in the pursuit of this guy who has never even thought of dating her because she's just vastly different from him in terms of social standing and all that.
So there's an example of a disastrous piece of advice from a friend, right, who says, oh, you should aim higher and this guy is just a farmer and you should aim for royalty or aristocracy or nobility or whatever, and it's never going to happen.
Never going to happen. So, it's very cruel, and I think the story is to some degree about her recognizing her vanity and unwitting cruelty and manipulation and all this kind of stuff.
So, where are we in relation to the topic?
Well, we've got a great foundation for discussing female evil.
Because now, We're able to really understand if we're going to talk about evil, we need to talk about virtue, of course.
Virtue being the opposite of evil.
Good being the opposite of evil. And so for men, evil has two connotations.
One is against my interests as a man.
And the other is a violation of an abstract moral standard.
And these two warring definitions of Virtue are really tearing the West apart at the moment.
I mean, this is really the difference between the left and the right, between collectivism and individualism, between Democrats and Republicans, and NDP and Conservatives, and Labour and Conservatives.
The difference is, what does virtue mean?
Good, relative to an abstract moral standard, which tends to come more out of Christianity, or good as in good for me, helpful to me, positive to me.
The welfare state, of course, was sold as it's going to help the poor.
It's going to bring the poor out of poverty.
We're going to eliminate the poor. Of course, it hasn't happened.
But that's the fundamental distinction of the difference, which is that the Christian would say regarding the proposal of the welfare state, well, it's a violation of thou shalt not steal.
So it's bad.
It doesn't matter what the consequences are.
It's wrong in and of itself. It's a violation of thou shalt not steal and therefore immoral and against God's wishes and will and virtue and all that.
Now, the rich might say, well, it's like from the sort of consequentialist or utilitarian or pragmatic standpoint, the rich might say, well, it's bad for me because my taxes are going to go up.
But then the government says, no, it doesn't really have to happen that way.
We'll just borrow, right? And of course, the young who have to end up paying those bills or deal with the destruction of their economy if those bills can't be paid, well, what happens?
Well, they're not around.
They can't speak to it and All that, right?
And by the time the debts come, even remotely due, the young have grown up and their elderly parents are now dependent upon government health care and government pensions and so on, and so the idea of reducing the size and power of those government programs or their government spending becomes antithetical to that.
So, good in and of itself or good for me?
Good in and of itself versus good for me.
Is it virtuous? Or is it useful?
Now, welfare, of course, is enormously useful to a lot of people in the short run.
In the long run, it's a catastrophic disaster to a civilization, as we've seen from the Bread and Circus' experiments of Rome, as we saw from the experiments of Spenumland.
S-P-E-E-N-H-A-M-L-A-N-D, if I remember rightly.
Spenumland was a welfare system that was introduced many centuries ago in England.
I did a whole segment on it on the Peter Schiff show years ago, and it's worth looking up, because, you know, it's all been done before.
I mean, not to put that Bare Naked Lady song in your head, but it's all been done before.
So, good for me versus good in and of itself.
I'm trying to think of a better way to phrase it.
Virtuous or good for me.
Let's just say virtuous is the abstract moral standard and good for me is the pragmatic benefit, right?
So morality originates out of good for me and ends up as an abstract moral standard, as virtue.
Now women have less flexibility when it comes to Virtue.
Because they have the necessity of having to feed and clothe and get health care and shelter and take care of the kids, right?
A man can live rough and a woman with children can't.
Which is one of the reasons why, other than rampant sexism, that there are more women's shelters and few, if any, men's shelters.
Now, a man who's married, if he loses his job, that's certainly bad, but There will be sympathy for his wife and children and therefore charity will take in a personal free market environment charity will take care of them.
Now and that will be generally the case.
So men can afford to live rough Because either they don't have kids, in which case they can live in and of themselves in an easier manner, or they do have kids, in which case society will want to take care of the kids and his wife and sympathy and white knighting and all that kind of stuff.
So, a man has less to fear from immediate consequences except for, you know, violence and significant theft, right?
And so a man, there's a reason why it was mostly men who developed these kinds of abstract ethics.
And again, I get that there are exceptions, Ayn Rand and so on, but the abstract ethics come out of the masculine mind.
Whereas a woman has to deal far more with consequentialist reality.
And she absolutely has to have food.
And a man can go hungry for a day or two, but the kids can't.
So, it's the difference between, like, if you're on a ship that's sinking or a ship that has sunk and you're just in the water, it's the difference between being able to swim and not being able to swim, right?
If you can swim, you're like, okay, well, this is a very bad situation, but I'll be okay for a little while.
You know, I'm not going to drown right now because I can swim.
Whereas for a woman, with kids in particular, The ship of the family may have gone down if she can't swim because she's got kids.
She's weighed down by kids, you could say, to really mix up the analogy.
And so what does she do?
Well, she just has to grab resources no matter what.
And if she has to grab them from the state, she'll just grab them from the state.
Of course, right? Kids got to eat, right?
And this is why, like, this is a very vivid conversation.
I remember, I talked about it on the show before, but it's been a while, so, hey, we'll count it as new.
You know, like, it's like seven years, you're now a virgin, and after two years, all marital stories are fresh again.
You have to. I'm running out.
But I remember being at a playground with my daughter and listening to two women chat about all the benefits that they could get, all the various government programs they could access, and how they're going to time their next kid to make sure that they're maximized, and when it tailed off, and I could just discuss it in the same way that men would discuss how to hunt.
Or stocks, or job opportunities, or whatever, right?
And there was no sense of ethics whatsoever.
It's like, well, you know, I get this for this program, but then if I do this, I lose that program, so you've got to make sure you do this.
And, like, just no sense of ethics.
No sense of, well, we're forcing people to pay for our bad choices, or anything like that.
Now, again, that's anecdotal, that's not a proof, but women generally vote more left than men, unless they're married.
In which case, if they're married and their husbands are working, then they vote more conservative because they want to protect their resources.
Either way, the women are protecting the resources that come into their family.
If they're single moms, they vote for the welfare state.
If they're married women, they vote for lower taxes so that their husbands have more to spend on the family.
And there's no criticism in any of this.
It's perfectly valid, perfectly fair, perfectly reasonable to behave in this way, evolutionarily speaking.
So, now we can start talking about female evil.
For women, evil tends to be defined as that which is against my immediate interests.
Whereas for men, evil tends to be defined as that which is against abstract moral principles.
For reasons I don't need to repeat, you understand, right?
And so, as women gain political power, that which harms immediate interests is considered to be evil.
And therefore, if you talk about cutting the welfare state, a lot of men would breathe a sigh of relief.
Because men pay for it, in general.
Whereas a lot of women would say, that's immoral, that's evil, that's bad, because women depend upon that program.
Because children need to eat.
Because single moms are heroic souls struggling to raise children after being abandoned wantonly by immoral men.
So it's wrong because it harms the immediate material interests of women.
So having a discussion such as taxation is theft resonates far more with men than it does with women.
Because when you say taxation is theft, you are pointing out to men that taxation violates the two commandments that are the foundation of masculine morality, or I would say morality as a whole, which is non-aggression principle and property rights.
Taxation is theft.
Well, it's not people stealing from you surreptitiously, it's people who take from you at the point of a gun.
The gun, right? So, for men, when they hear taxation is theft, a lot of men, not all, but of course, a lot of men will say, wow, that's quite powerful.
It's quite interesting. I may agree, I may disagree, but I get it.
I get these. Whereas, if you say to a woman, taxation is theft, it doesn't matter.
Like, it fundamentally doesn't resonate.
It doesn't matter.
Because women aren't primed to respond to violations of persons and property.
They're primed To respond to negative judgments, slander, ostracism, and any interruption in the immediate material flow of resources.
You understand, right?
And the reason they respond negatively or have a very difficult time with negative language is that negative language builds the fence of ostracism around them, which hinders their ability to provide for their children, hinders their children's future Capacities to integrate within a tribal system.
You name it, right? Whereas for a man, being called a rebel is not a bad thing.
For a woman, being called a rebel is often a bad thing and will cost her sisterhood resources, which are essential to a large degree, for raising her children.
So for men, evil is against morality.
For women, evil is against immediate material requirements or immediate material needs.
And abstract national debts bother men more than women.
Thank you.
Both because men are probably going to have to pay it all off or fight the civil war if society goes to hell in a handbasket.
Whereas women are like, well, okay, so there are some abstract numbers, but my children need to be fed.
And the idea that I would not be able to feed my children or take them to the doctor as they see it, because of some abstract principle and numbers in a ledger somewhere in the Federal Reserve is incomprehensible.
It's like saying, don't feed your very hungry child because he has an invisible ghost friend who needs the food more.
Like, it just wouldn't make any sense, right?
And that's a reality. Like, understanding that women...
Like, there was an old game show.
I can't remember what it was called. Guess Your Price or something like that.
Old game show in England where a conveyor belt of, you know, crappy, petty material goods went by like an iron and a, I don't know, whatever was going on, a juicer or something like that.
And it would go past people and if they remembered...
What it was. Like, if they remember the items, then they got to keep them.
This was in England when I was growing up.
I just watched it a couple of times.
And it was often women who were playing it, right?
And if the women remembered it, then they got to keep it, right?
Now, I mean, that's voluntary, and that's paid for by advertising, and it's nothing wrong with it.
And again, these aren't judgments in particular.
These are just realities of evolution and how things work in the world.
But... That conveyor belt of goods that women were fascinated by and tried to remember and recall and all that so they could keep them, you understand that women need this conveyor belt.
To me, whether they're actual moms or not doesn't really matter because the biology is primed anyway.
Because women have to make decisions about resources before they get pregnant, which is why the ideal of not getting pregnant until you're in a stable, monogamous marriage was good, was the ideal.
So, women, it doesn't matter whether you have kids or not, you're still crazy focused.
No, I shouldn't say crazy. Rigorously, that's better.
Rigorously focused on, you need this conveyor belt of resources.
Your kids need clothing, they need healthcare, they need shelter, they need food, they need, you name it, right?
And kids need time, which means the mom needs all these resources too.
I remember when my wife was breastfeeding my daughter and I was feeding my wife.
Great circle of life, right?
Because women were disabled for about 20 years of their life.
Or more. Could be a quarter century.
You know, sort of mid-teens to 40 or whatever, right?
So women were disabled raising children.
And listen. Motherhood is hell on women.
Man, oh man. Motherhood is hell on women.
It really is. I mean, being a woman is hell on women.
It's like that old Bette Midler from The Rose, I know what the blues are because I'm a woman.
I mean, I'm telling you, I mean, hormones and periods and pregnancy and episiotomies and just the various plumbing, chronic plumbing disasters, that endometriosis and like, you name it, right? And then You get your menopause, you get your heart flashes, your hormonal imbalances, I mean, hormones, I mean, cranking out new human beings is really tough on women.
I mean, I had this sort of period of, I guess, relative bliss from like 15 to 50.
You know, it's a good three and a half decades, 15 to 50, like nothing really happened.
Late 40s with cancer, but, you know, outside of mid-teens to mid-40s.
You know, like, I'd finished puberty, and I was basically just a golem.
It looked like a statue, like nothing changed.
And now, okay, I'm a little creakier and all that, but, you know, it's all right.
But still, nothing has fundamentally changed.
But for women, oh man, it's a whole different planet when it comes to changes that go on in their lives, in their hormones, in their systems.
I mean, it's a big deal.
And, you know, arthritis, osteoporosis, I mean, these things can happen to men too, of course, but I think they're a little bit more common among women.
And it's hard, man. It's hard.
Pregnancy is hard. You're going to need sleep.
Babies are hard. You're going to need sleep.
Hormones are all over the map. I mean, a robust woman is a treasure of nature.
A robust, good-natured, positive, good-humored woman who can survive these unbelievable tsunami earthquake onslaughts of pregnancy, breastfeeding, child-rearing, sleeplessness, hormone changes, menopause, endometriosis, you name it.
I mean, it's rough, man.
I mean, I remember the old saying when I was a kid, if you want to understand what it's like to give birth, imagine crapping a watermelon.
Yeah. Ouchies.
So, it's hard.
So, women need a huge amount of resources, or children need a huge amount of resources, and therefore women do.
And whether the woman is fertile or not, or whether she's thinking of having kids in the moment or not, it doesn't matter.
The instincts are still the same.
So, understanding the roots of female evil is, first of all, understanding how it's different from male evil.
Male evil is deviation from moral standards.
Female evil is interruption of resource flow.
A woman is as appalled, on average, at the potential end of the welfare state, as a man is appalled by mass murder, mass theft, warfare, whatever, right?
So, understanding that is really, really, really important to ask.
And if you sort of look at the landscape of what's going on, well, words are considered weapons these days.
Why? Because for women, whose primary tool of social control is not violence but ostracism, words are weapons.
And they're brutal. So the idea that words are weapons, which is now filtering into society as a whole, the idea that you need safe spaces and trigger warnings and you should do jazz hands instead of clap and this hypersensitivity, it's not neurotic.
It's just the natural offshoot of a tribal situation and a sex that is controlled by language rather than force.
It's inevitable. There's your diversity, right?
Now, men also, when it comes to morality and immorality, men have a far greater capacity to witness suffering than women do as a whole.
I mean, think of those caravans heading to the United States.
I mean, they're 80% young men, a lot of criminals.
They're firing on Mexican police.
And so the men look at that and say, yeah, that's an invasion.
And if we let this one in, it's going to be nonstop and our society is going to collapse.
And it's going to be like rivers of blood.
Rivers of blood. So we can't.
Like, yeah, I'm sorry that these people have to be turned back and there's going to be some sad-eyed women and children there.
And yeah, it's terrible.
It's terrible. But the alternative is even worse.
And so the hyper-protectionism, like the hole in the wall is women's sentimentality as a whole.
Boy, there's a lot of uses of the word hole there.
But men have the capacity to look sort of cold-eyed and say, none shall pass.
Like, you can't come in. You can't come in.
People say, well, but they're sad.
They're upset. They're angry. They've come a long way.
Brother, can you spare me food and give me a drink of wine?
I've been traveling on this road for such a long, long time.
I have seen the wonders, but most amazing of them all.
I believe I've seen the face of the risen Lord.
It's a great song. Anyway, man, that guy sues for defamation a lot.
So, men can look at that and say, no, you can't come in, and I'm sorry that you're sad, and I'm sorry that you're angry, but no.
You know, men can kick people trying to get on to the raft if the raft is going to sink.
Women, because historically they've not been in that role, women have a very, very tough time doing any of that.
Which is why, you know, men look at a picture of a drowned kid on a Turkish beach and say, what kind of idiot crosses the beach in a storm on an overloaded ship?
That father is terrible.
Whereas the women are all crying and weeping and rending their garments and saying, we have to let them in because children are dying.
And this is not positive towards men, it's not negative towards women, it is just a discussion of the realities.
So... For women, the emotional instincts are so attuned...
To social acceptance, social positivity, and so on, which is why women, of course, tend to score higher on agreeableness and so on, which has its value.
It's good. It's good that there's agreeableness.
I think that's fine. But not to the point where you can't make any tough decisions.
Not to the point where...
See, then it becomes not about being good, but it becomes about avoiding the suffering of watching suffering.
I can't stand to watch suffering.
I can't stand to watch someone suffer.
Well, all moral advancements involve suffering.
End of slavery, emancipation of women, all involve suffering.
And so when you can't stand to see suffering, what happens is you then are manipulated by people who parade their walking wounds in order to control you.
And those who wanted mass migration into Europe knew exactly when they portrayed These children, or this child, or these children.
They knew exactly what it was, because women, all their ovaries were going to twitch, and they can't stand the suffering, and they opened the borders and all that, right?
And also because they don't have to pay for themselves, right?
So... It's the same thing when you see the Syrian, right?
The Syrian kids in the supposed gas attacks and all of that.
I think it'll actually have been disproved, but...
You've got to show those kids too, right?
Because they want a war in Syria. You've got to show these kid on the Turkish beach because you want to open the borders.
And so, for women, evil is that which causes suffering.
For men, evil is that which violates moral principles.
For women, evil is that which causes suffering.
And understanding that difference in definition It's really, really essential to understanding why the world in the West is the way that it is.
And why the cultures that mute or diminish women's voice in politics tend to be growing and spreading.
Because growing and spreading requires that there will be suffering and requires that you have sort of staunch values that, you know, all of these kinds of things, right?
And Property rights are in direct violation with the women's desire for state-provided resources.
Because the state can only provide those resources by stealing from the next generation or stealing from usually the men in the current generation.
So men want property rights, women want resources.
And that collision is really one of the big differences between the sort of left and right paradigm.
Men want property rights so they can provide resources to their women, and women want resources so they can provide property to their children.
Their food shelter.
And this distinction is really, really important.
And it's really hard for people to sort of get this.
Because men don't have the same opportunity.
I mean, you know, we've got to eat and all of that, but this...
This inability to see suffering, this need for this conveyor belt of endless resource provision, is really hard for people to understand.
And because it's so hard for people to understand, we have this complication, we have this confusion, we have this incredible frustration for everyone.
And that is...
I mean, it's a huge problem as it stands.
And, you know, it's not going to get particularly better until we start really understanding how this stuff plays out politically and how it plays out in terms of media and education, art, and you name it, right?
So, I guess this is going to be a two-parter.
Hey, for those of you new...
Let me know what you think of this format.
Less visuals, but somewhat of a common delivery.
But we will talk in the next section about how this plays out politically and what we can do about it.
So, evil.
Let's start with the sort of thin edge of the wedge of how it kind of manifests.
So, evil initially is a desperate desire to avoid the negative consequences of bad decisions.
And in each individual case, one can understand that motivation, that incentive, and even the degree of necessity or the degree of perceived necessity to falsify information in order to gain access to resources.
And as I've said before, there was an old demotivational poster from like 20 years ago.
That I just thought was great.
It was actually my background on my computer for a while.
It was a ship sinking and it said, it could be that the sole purpose of your life is to serve as a warning to others.
And it was a ship, you know, upending and so on, right?
And society runs when people who make bad choices suffer the consequences of those bad choices and society fails When those negative consequences are removed.
I mean, a simple example, right?
So look at something like insurance, right?
So if your house burns down and you don't have house insurance, fire insurance, then guess what?
You are out of luck, right?
Because you didn't buy the insurance.
If you don't have health insurance and you get sick, then you're kind of out of luck.
We all have sympathy for people who didn't buy fire insurance or health insurance and the house burned down and they got sick.
I sympathize, I really do.
And in some situations and circumstances, it may be appropriate to really help those people out.
But if you remove those negative consequences, then you destroy the entire system.
You know, morals are necessary because we have limited resources in this life.
Somewhat. I mean, there's the abstract, you know, ideals and all that.
But if you've ever bought a tablet, right?
You buy a computer tablet and they say, do you want the accidental protection plan, right?
You drop it and you get to replace it and you say no.
The next day you drop it.
Of course you feel terrible. Frustrated, penny wise, pound foolish, blah, blah, blah.
And you desperately want, you wish you could go back in time and change your decision.
But of course, the whole point is we don't know.
Other times you've bought that accident protection plan and didn't drop it once.
So it's a challenge.
It's a real challenge.
Not knowing. Sometimes it's the Ambrose Pierce thing, right?
You buy insurance and You never need it, and the insurance company giggles their way to riches, right?
But if you say, if the insurance company says, oh, you didn't buy insurance from us, so we will just pay for your house anyway, if it burns down, well, then of course, we all know, as sure as night follows day, what's going to happen is people are going to stop buying insurance and so on, right? Like, The pre-existing condition thing, which is kind of a hangover from the post-Second World War period where, actually, the Second World War period where American companies weren't allowed to give their employees raises, so they offered to pay for their health insurance instead.
I mean, they don't pay for your car insurance, right?
And then what happened was your health insurance became tied to your job, which is another thing that employers like, because they could then fire you, and you might lose your health insurance.
They can ask you to work overtime and you're not likely to say no because, right, you understand.
It's like the Marxist gatekeepers to you getting your degree, which means, you know, lie and pretend you like Marxism in order to get your degree.
So, society functions at a collective level very well when people who make bad decisions suffer at an individual level.
Now, I get that that's really, really tough for individuals.
But it's very necessary for society as a whole.
You don't have society without negative consequences, because people stop paying into a system designed to protect them from the effects of negative consequences, everybody starts taking out of that system, and the system collapses.
And this is why charity is less complicated than, was more complicated than dental surgery, because charity has to figure out Who is legitimately in need of charity, who will benefit from the provision of charity, and who's just a scam artist looking to get a free ride or have other people's hard-earned money cover up the effects of their own bad decisions, like you name it, right?
Very, very, very complicated.
Now, women face a different set of bad decisions than men.
And the most important decision that a woman has to make is who to marry.
It's even more important than the man's decision to make about who to marry, which is very important as well, but the woman's decision about who to marry is very, very important.
Because she's going to be dependent upon that man for decades.
I mean, assuming she has children with him and, you know, very few women Just know absolutely that they don't want children to ever change their mind and so on, right?
So even if she doesn't want children at the time, she's marrying into a guy with whom she might have children at some point right in the future.
So, if the woman marries the wrong man, her life becomes a disaster.
Thank you.
A complete, utter, and total...
Les Mis style disaster.
So let's say she marries a guy who turns out to be a drunk.
Well, he can't provide for his family.
He gets fired from his jobs.
His children don't respect him.
He creates a mess.
He creates problems. Maybe he drives drunk.
Maybe he gets into accidents.
Maybe he gets into bar fights.
And he spends all their money.
And she's got kids with him.
Well, that's a complete disaster.
And women, as a whole, have hostages called children that men generally historically did not have.
So that's a disastrous...
Or let's say that he just ends up being kinda lazy.
Doesn't really work very much.
He's gotta be nagged to do anything.
Well, that's pretty rough too.
He's not gonna make a lot of money.
He's not gonna help out around the house.
The children need to be fed. So if a woman chooses the wrong guy to have kids with, to marry and have kids with, her life is a complete disaster.
It's hard to even imagine. It's like how it used to be before the welfare state if the woman got pregnant outside of wedlock.
Well, she'd get pregnant, and what would happen?
Well, she would either be a fallen woman, in other words, she'd have to move in with her parents, and her parents would start the whole process of parenting again, this time with a grandchild, but with virtually no hope of the woman ever landing any kind of halfway decent guy.
because a halfway decent guy does not want to pour his resources into raising another man's bastard, to use the technical term, right?
Or what could happen, of course, is that the mom of the mom-to-be can pass the child off as her own, an oopsie late menopause baby, and raise is that the mom of the mom-to-be can pass the child off as her own, Thank you.
Or, you know, the daughter can go away and give birth, and it goes up for adoption very quietly.
She comes back, and, you know, there's some desperate, semi-plausible explanation as to where she went and why.
And it's a mess.
It's a disaster. All around.
And then the family, in general, has a terrible secret to keep for the rest of everybody's natural-born lives.
Now, with the welfare state, of course, you can just have the baby and go on welfare.
Men are forced to pay for children who aren't theirs.
So, when women make bad decisions, and they have children, and when they make the bad decision of who to marry, it's a complete disaster effort.
And of course, it's a disaster that goes on and on and on and on.
And that's really tough.
Let's say you don't get...
I mean, let's just be, you know, brutal here, right?
So let's say you don't get health insurance.
You get some very expensive to treat illness.
You can't get the money, whatever.
Well, then you die. I mean, if you can find someone to treat you for free, if you can go into debt, if you've got family, you've got friends, you've got to go fund me, whatever, right?
There's six million different ways that you can try and get the money.
But let's say you don't.
Well, then you go into the emergency room and they'll try and do their best for you, but likelihood is that you're going to die.
And that's not hugely expensive for a society.
It doesn't cost the insurance company any money if you die, I guess unless you have life insurance.
And it's done and dusted within, what, 3, 6, 9, 12 months.
Right? It doesn't go on and on and on and on and on.
If you're on a desert island, And you need some medicine to keep you alive.
You crash land a plane or something, you fall out of a plane, and you land near a desert island, go on the desert island.
There's some medicine you need to survive, you don't have that medicine, or you don't have a small supply, what happens?
Well, you die. It doesn't go on and on, right?
But if you've got a two, a four, and a six-year-old, you need close to two decades at least worth of support.
For those kids. Where's that money going to come from?
It really goes on and on and on once you have kids outside of a stable pair bond relationship.
Now, if you're a man and you make a decision to marry the wrong woman, well, you can leave her.
I'm not saying it's right.
I understand. I'm just talking about the sort of brutal Darwinian aspect of it.
You can just bugger off.
Are you scarpered? You can just leave.
And try your luck in the new world, or there was an old thing, the old joke, you know, I joined the Foreign Legion in order to forget.
Forget what? I forget.
You can go ship out, you can join the Navy, you can, right?
I moved my town, I changed my name, whatever.
And so those decisions, I mean assuming you're, you know, a cold-hearted bastard who doesn't mind leaving his wife and kids in the lurch, you can bug her off, right?
And this is why, you know, there's this cliché of the pretty trophy wife and the rich alpha that she is okay with him having affairs.
As long as he provides.
In other words, he's such a good provider that she was willing to share him sexually.
In particular, if he's older now, she demands, of course, she would demand that he not have her children with these mistresses.
And the mistresses are all angling to get, to put the vagina clamp on his wallet as well, right?
Usually. So, for women, it's such a disaster.
If they choose the wrong man.
For men, it's not quite as much of a disaster.
Unless they're in some sort of tribe where you just kind of have to stick it out or stick around or they force you to marry or force you to stay married or whatever.
Now men take other risks.
One of the risks being that infertility is usually more on the woman's side than the man's because male plumbing is less complicated.
And there's a lot more sperm than there are eggs.
So the man might end up getting married to a woman who's infertile.
And that means that he signed up for the end of his gene pool, which is not particularly great.
So then, there were some cases in which you could have a marriage in old if the woman could not get pregnant.
But he's, you know, a lot of times just stuck with that.
And what is it? I think it's like one out of ten married couples have fertility issues.
Like, it's a big deal. There wasn't much treatment in the past.
Other than, I guess, prayer and repetition.
So the man could do that.
The man might marry...
This is the other big risk, right?
The man might marry a chameleon.
So the man might marry a woman Who significantly changes after marriage.
In other words, maybe she's slender.
And then, she's not.
Maybe she's good-natured.
And then, she's not.
There's an old joke about marriage.
Which is a guy getting a blowjob from his bride-to-be.
And he's sitting there thinking, like the night before his wedding or two nights before his wedding or whatever, he's thinking, man, this is going to be great.
This is how it's going to be for the rest of my life.
And she's sitting there head-bobbing going, wow, just one more day of this and I never have to do this again.
Could get the chameleon. I mean, I knew a guy when I was younger.
He married a woman from the States who was buck ten easy.
You know, slender, slender, slender.
Last time I saw them, like ten years ago, she was an easy 350.
Three hefty. And, you know, what does she have?
have.
She had all sorts of back problems and she had all sorts of other problems and health problems and all of that because she was really really really obese.
There's a chameleon for you.
Or, I love that long, luscious, lustrous hair that my fiancé has, right?
And then you get married and she cuts it off because it's too much work.
Again, you know, these aren't deal-breakers, you know, but there is a chameleon aspect that the woman can be putting her best foot forward throughout the dating and engagement process, which, you know, historically was pretty short.
And then would change enormously when she got married.
Now, of course, that's a little bit more common.
It's a lot more common when we are in a complex society wherein you don't know the woman you're marrying.
Like, you don't know her from childhood onwards.
I mean, you grew up in some small town, you kind of know the character, the family history, the personality of everyone, right?
You know their gene pool.
Whereas now, you meet people and there's a whole lot of dating, which is all about physical attractiveness with no sense of genetics or, I mean, outside of the physical evenness of features, no sense of genetics or family history or, you know, the nature of the person.
You don't know because you didn't know the person before, the woman, before you started dating her.
You don't know what she's like when she's not on her best behavior.
This happens a lot with single moms, right?
The single mom stuff is pretty wild because...
That was my beep, not yours.
The single mom thing is pretty wild because...
When a single mom is dating some guy, I mean, everybody is moving heaven and earth to try and make it seem as easy and as good-natured and as non-intrusive as possible.
You know, she's got friends and her mom and so on, maybe even her ex-husband taking the kids and she's got time and she tidies up the place and all this kind of stuff.
And then, if he puts a ring on it, what happens?
Well... Suddenly, the full scope and nature and depth of the tour that he signed up for become pretty clear.
And, uh, ooh, it's nasty.
And he's like, well, what happened to all of the weekends we used to have?
And she's like, oh, they're done now.
Gotcha now. Gotcha.
And, uh, oh, same thing happened with my Baron's marriage.
My mom was... I mean, she has a good, fun streak, as crazy people sometimes do.
And, yeah, good-natured, fun-loving and all that, but, you know, crazy.
Well, there's that, too. And so this, you know, the man could marry a chameleon, the man could marry an infertile woman, the man, like, she's real nice, and then she turns into an egg.
Or, I'm not materialistic, and then she wants a giant house, or whatever.
It could be any number of things. Now, those kinds of disasters you suffer in silence to some degree, and society doesn't pay.
So, if the woman turns out to be infertile, well, in a sense that's a cost saved.
Well, not really in a sense, that is a cost saved, rather than expended, right?
So that if the woman ends up gaining weight, well, I mean, society pays in a free market environment.
Society would pay some small amount more because of additional health care requirements, reducing the supply to other people, but, you know, not directly in that.
And if she turns out to be a nag, well, I guess society might save some money on...
Old age pensions because the guy is going to fret himself or, you know, push himself into an early grave, right?
I want to sit in watching a bit of Fawlty Towers, that O'Reilly, the Irish contractor, who says, uh, oh, Mr.
Fawlty, you're going to worry yourself into an early grave.
Basil Fawlty says "Suits me" But it doesn't cost society as a whole if your wife turns out to be an anchor car to have kids or you know if your wife cuts her hair short when you liked it long well I guess the barbers make a little bit of money But that's about it.
Oh, the barbers, not a barber, sorry, the hairstylists, salonists, the hair wranglers, the protein wranglers.
But it doesn't cost society as a whole.
An unhappy husband does not add much to the financial burdens of society, but an abandoned woman with three kids sure does.
Sure does. So that is a big problem for society, that when marriage goes wrong, it's generally worse for the woman than for the man.
And if it's worse for the woman, and she has kids in particular, then it's worse for society.
So, when women get the vote, there are women...
You know, what's the ideal, right?
Like, how are you taken care of in your old age?
Well, of course, the ideal is that you have three kids or four kids or whatever.
Your kids grow up and they love you and they're close to you and they care about you and they're concerned and all that.
You've saved your money. And your kids love you, so they'll pitch in.
They'll help out. And that's how you get taken care of in your old age.
And it's a lot more personal than some...
Jamaican nanny.
So, if you have I mean, to take the other scenario, a couple other scenarios wherein you're just not going to be taken care of in your old age.
One, of course, is you don't save your money and you don't have any kids.
Right? So you save a lot of money by not having kids.
But you don't save that money, you don't invest that money, you don't do anything, you just blow it, right?
And now if you blow that money, then you have no old age pension, you have no way to pay your increased costs of healthcare and mobility issues and general creaky bones issues when you get older.
So, what do you do?
Well, you kind of up creek, right?
Up craps creek without a path.
Or maybe you have some kids, but your kids really don't like you because you've been a terrible parent.
So then what? Well, if you've saved money, then you can pay for your own retirement costs.
If you haven't saved money and your kids don't like you, I guess you can bully them or play the pity card or whatever, right?
What did I do? I don't remember.
I did the best I could. But if none of that works, well, you're in trouble.
That's another thing, you know, I just want to mention this as a sidebar here.
One thing that I really don't like about the welfare state, this is really personal, is that the welfare state transfers control of wayward family members away from the family.
You know, if I were paying my mom's bills, and I did for quite some time, but if I was paying my mom's bills, I could demand that she get some help.
I could demand that she get some therapy.
I could demand that she... Like, I could demand these things.
But because my mom gets my money without my consent, I have no control over anything that she does.
I've completely lost control.
I have no influence, no power, no authority.
You say, oh, well, that's mean.
What, you'd withhold funds from your mom if she didn't get help?
It's like, yeah. Yes, I would.
Absolutely. And that would be the kindest thing for her.
Now welfare said in some ways, by robbing me of authority as a son has robbed me of a mother.
Just wanted to mention that.
For those who like to dig deep into motivations as well as listen to recent arguments.
So if you haven't prepared for your old age, if you haven't saved your money, if you don't have a pension, if you've alienated your children or if you've never had your children, well, what happens?
You're out of money. And then you gotta work.
Or you gotta beg for charity.
And so on, right? Now, of course, this is difficult and complicated.
Because if you give people a lot of charity, when they don't save for their old age, people will say, oh, forget saving for my old age.
I'll just use charity.
And then the charity collapses.
So, you know, the unfortunate thing is, or whether it's fortunate or unfortunate, sort of immaterial.
It's basic reality.
That if we don't allow people to suffer, we all suffer.
If we don't allow people to suffer, we all suffer.
Now, a woman who marries well, who has kids, who raises her kids well, who helps run her husband's finances, or does the finances herself, or is the major breadwinner for all I care, well, such a woman has no need of the welfare state.
She has the original welfare state called love.
People love me, I love people, and they will take care of things.
So that is the original welfare state.
Community. Church.
Charity. Love. Not necessarily in that order.
So she's doing fine.
She's well. She's good.
Doesn't need a welfare state. In fact, a welfare state is negative to her because it takes from her good decisions and subsidizes people's bad decisions.
And that's not good. So, we have the majority of women who make good decisions about who to marry, and we have a minority of women who make bad decisions about who to marry.
And it's funny too, because I have found in my life, for most people, I think this is true, I mean, it's anecdotal to something good, I think this is true, let me know.
So the people who got the best advice and made the worst decisions Tend to be the worst at dealing with those decisions, right?
Because it's one thing if...
You end up dating the wrong woman, like some crazy Glenn Close stalker psycho, right?
Now, if...
People around you will be like, dude, she's crazy.
No, you can't do it. I know she's pretty, but man, don't do it.
Don't be dick-napped. Don't lose your reasoning.
Like, this is not a good idea.
This is bad. I've heard from three other guys about how terrible she is and all that, right?
So if you get good warnings, but you know the good advice that you just didn't listen to, right?
Well, you're all the more mad at yourself, right?
Like if you're buying your tablet and the guy says, you know, you could buy this accident prevention plan, but it's, you know, we only sell it because it makes us a lot of money.
Just, you know, instead of spending $150 on a replacement plan, just, you know, spend $20 on a case and don't drop it, right?
And then for whatever reason your tablet breaks, you're like, you might be mad at him, but you wouldn't be mad at yourself, really.
But if the guy says, listen, I know you don't want to pay it, I know that you're probably buying, you know, nobody wants to take this new account, it's like kids with sales taxes.
But trust me, you know, I've had so many people come in here really frustrated, really upset, he shows you the numbers, whatever, because they dropped it and didn't buy the protections, dropped it.
So if the guy's really working hard to convince you, offers you a cut-rate deal on The protection plan, and you don't take it, and then you drop it and break it, well, you're not mad at him.
You can't be mad at him, really, right?
You're mad at yourself. And so when you have a majority of sensible people in life or in society, they can give good advice to the minority of fools, of idiots, of people who don't take good advice the way they should, let's say.
So the women who deviate from good practices for finding a good husband, you know, they go for the Marlon Brando wild one.
What are you rebelling against, Johnny?
What do you got? You know, they go for some motorcycled, clad, Dennis Robin, nipple-pierced kind of guy and then are really shocked and surprised that things don't work out.
They don't take good advice.
I know this intuitively because I've had so many people call in over the last 12 years of this show.
Didn't take good advice.
Didn't listen to good advice.
And are now paying the price.
So the people who are the most desperate for a cover-up or for resources to cover up their bad decisions tend to be those who've made bad decisions against good advice.
Once they've made those bad decisions against good advice, let's just take the woman who marries the wrong guy.
He runs off, leaves her, and she's got three kids.
Doesn't send her a dime.
Well, what happens?
A man who makes a mistake on his own can say, I will suffer the consequences of my mistake because I made the mistake.
But the woman who makes a mistake says it is unfair to expect my children to suffer the consequences of my bad decisions.
What a decision. It's unfair.
What about the children, the wee-bearers?
That sounds like barons. I mean, barons is a Scottish one.
So, and she says, it's not fair.
I made a bad decision, but why should my children suffer?
It's a fine question. I mean, I've often thought of my life, if there had been no government schools, no welfare state, no subsidized housing in the way that I got it, no, quote, free healthcare, you know, I mean, I've thought about it.
And the answer to that, of course, Is that if we prevent you and your children from suffering, your children are much more likely to grow up and make the same mistakes.
I know. It sounds cold.
It really does. It really does.
But it's true. Just because it's cold doesn't mean it ain't true.
Just because it's an iceberg doesn't mean it can't sink your ship.
It is true. Listen.
If society cared so much about children, then why did I live in like 20 different places as a kid, get beaten in apartment buildings with thin walls, and no one ever did a damn thing?
The idea that we just care so much about the children, it's like, it's bullshit.
It's absolute bullshit.
And waking up to the coldness, the chilling coldness that society as a whole has towards its offspring, I really think this is more true among whites.
Seems to be the most true among whites, although it may just be my exposure.
But, you know, race aside, the chilling coldness.
You know, like, I went to school hungry, I went to school smelly, I went to school with holes in my pants.
And the teachers were all like, well, if effort matched ability, you'd just be an A-plus now, and why aren't you more motivated?
Nobody ever asked any questions.
Like, why? Why is such an obviously bright kid?
Doing badly on tests, right?
Sometimes. They didn't care.
They didn't care. And I mean, I understand.
I mean, you know, I get it.
I'm not saying I'm not a little resentful from time to time, although that's mostly in the rear view, but I get it.
Because if you start asking questions, hey, Steph, little Steph, why are you not able to study at home?
What's going on in your home life?
What's that? Five seconds, ten seconds?
And with patience and with curiosity, people could have teachers, priests even when I was younger, family members, extended family members, aunts, aunts, aunts, aunts, uncles, father, you name it.
Neighbors, friends, friends, parents.
I'm not putting it on the kids, but any adult could have said, wow, you don't seem to be thriving.
You don't seem to... Your button's missing from your clothing.
Your hair is uncombed. Unkempt.
Your clothes don't fit.
There are holes in them. What's going on?
How can I help? Nobody.
One friend of mine's father, who was a doctor, did tell me to put on some deodorant.
And he was nice about it. And he was, you know, it was a good conversation about it.
You know, your body's changing and all that, right?
So, yeah. What's going on at home?
And I passed by many hundreds of people.
Maybe even close to a thousand.
Across three different continents.
A bunch of different schools.
Boarding school. Public school.
Summer camp. At least a thousand adults probably passed by.
And not one.
Not one asked anything.
Not one. And again, I get it.
This sounds all kinds of bitter, and I understand that it comes across that way, but I also understand.
Because if they say, hey Steph, what's going on at home?
And they start to hear, well, what are they going to do?
Suddenly, it's a lot of work.
And it's a lot of work that comes with some risk, right?
If my mom's crazy and violent, what happens if they get social services involved?
What happens? When social services leave and she finds out that I've told.
What happens if she targets, if she finds out who told social services or who told the police or whatever, and then she targets them?
What happens? It's a risk.
Like, I understand that in the moment it's easier, almost infinitely easier, to just let it go.
You know, he's a quirky kid, right?
Eh, you know, whatever.
I'm sure things are fine.
But that's the choice that at least a thousand people made over the course of my childhood.
All the way from immediate family to camp counselors to teachers to priests.
So then, you know, having lived through that, and I know I'm not alone in that at all.
And I also know what an enormous benefit and boon it would have been for someone to ask.
But I also understand that it is risky.
A teacher calls my mom in, starts asking her about the home life.
What happens? My mom screams.
She goes crazy.
She goes to lawyers. I don't know, right?
Things get complicated.
It's hard. I know this one very well.
It's hard to tell the truth even to adult children of dysfunctional parents.
But you gotta do it anyway.
Come on. So this thing where society is like, oh, we care about the kids.
We love the kids.
Kids are the future. Children are everything.
Yeah, yeah, shut up.
Don't believe me for a moment. It's the ultimate virtue signaling.
It's the ultimate Hallmark card.
Pat yourself on the back for who you'd like to be rather than who you actually are.
which is somebody who'd rather catch up on the latest Netflix rather than actually go out and help some harm children in the world.
So that's my experience.
That's the empirical evidence of society.
And listen, it's not just me.
I have talked to hundreds and hundreds of victims of child abuse on my show over the years as adults.
None of them experience any intervention.
You can say, ah, yes, well, you know, if they had experienced intervention, maybe they wouldn't be calling into your show.
Yeah, I get the statistics.
I understand all of that.
Still pretty freaking common, though.
Still pretty freaking common.
I remember, it's not a great movie, Kindergarten Cop, with Arnold Schwarzenegger.
There's some Dad who's abusive and Schwarzenegger goes and beats him up.
Look, he intervenes.
That's a fantasy. I mean, it's not a great fantasy, am I saying?
That's an old joke just popped into my head.
One kid turns to the other kid sitting on the steps and says, my dad could totally beat up your dad.
and the other kid says really?
how much would that cost me?
so just a little sidebar there I have internalized the grim reality of social statistics.
And people say, oh, we care so much about the kids.
No, you don't. No.
No, you don't. You don't at all.
So... Individuals who make bad decisions, particularly if they've received better advice, really, really, really don't want to suffer the consequences of their actions.
Of course, I understand it. Every thief who gets caught wishes he hadn't stolen something.
I remember when I went through a brief shoplifting phase in my early teens, standing in Eaton's looking at a pair of sunglasses, really, really wanting a pair of sunglasses, knowing I couldn't afford them, and just being too scared to steal them.
And it was a great moment for me, for society, for everything.
It's just like, fear's too much, man.
It's not just fear of being caught at that moment, but fear of where it leads, right?
Pilfering. Just stopped.
I stopped got three jobs never did it again and it's those people who made bad decisions against good advice who now face massive liabilities and And it can be something also, I want to mention this as well, it can be something where, this is the issue I have with being a single mom, right?
If you're a single mom, not a widow, but a single mom, then either you chose a bad man and he left, or you chose a good man and you drove him away.
Because what if the husband is like, you know, We just don't have any sex anymore.
And the woman doesn't start making time to have sex.
And at some point, he has an affair.
Well, deep down, she's like, well, life's a lot more complicated now.
And, you know, because it's a funny thing, you know, with a lot of married couples, It's like, especially for kids, right?
I'm too tired to have sex, right?
But then when you start having sex, it's like, why don't we just do this all the time?
You just have to, for a lot of couples that I've talked to, you're just going to cross that hurdle.
Just limber up. Take the pledge.
So, or let's say that she's nagging him too much, or let's say that she criticizes everything he does, or let's say that she undermines his business career, or let's say that she attacks his friends, or let's say that whatever.
Let's say that he's, he's like, comes home after a 12-hour shift and the place is messy, the kids are screaming, and there's no food on the table.
And he's like, you know, I know it's tough, but I'm working 12 hours, you gotta, you gotta get the situation under control.
Like, I need food when I get home, right?
And maybe she's just a bad wife.
Or maybe she's a bad mom.
Or whatever, right? Who knows, right?
Maybe she's just doing things wrong in the relationship.
She's just... Being petty, she's succumbing to temper, she's, you know, maybe listening to bad advice from her Meryl Streep Kramer vs.
Kramer feminist friends, you know, who knows, you name it, right?
In which case, she drove a good man away.
You know, that's the other chameleon.
Well, I guess I touched on a blowjob story, but the other chameleon is, wow, lots of sex before marriage, and then nothing after.
Or it's rare, right? A lot of, is it 20% of married people are, like, sexist or close to it?
Richard. And for a woman to deny sex to a man after marriage is the equivalent of a man denying money to a woman after motherhood.
Sorry, that's the deal.
So, it's a mess.
Now, that's one of my bookmark phrases.
So, female evil.
Look at that. We have arrived.
An old Victorian word for climax.
I always think about that when I'm at the train station.
Arrivals? Oh, stand back.
It's gonna be sprinkly.
So... Female evil is...
I've made a bad decision against good advice.
And the bad decision is either I married the wrong guy or I drove away the right guy.
And rather than say...
I must own this bad decision...
And I must do whatever it takes to make it right.
And to some degree I understand why.
Because women are tired. Raising kids is tiring.
The women say, I just need resources.
I don't care how I get them.
I just need resources.
I don't care how I get them.
And it becomes like a book that I read when I was inappropriately young.
I think it's called Alive.
About a plane that crashed in the Andes.
Again, I'm really going off memory from when I was maybe eight or nine.
But there was a plane crash and people ended up eating other people.
They had no food. Now, cannibalism, you know, outside of certain indigenous populations, not necessarily the first thing that pops to mind on everyone's idea of a tasty menu, but...
it happens when you're desperate.
Now, it's wrong to eat people unless you're starving to death on top of a snowy mountain, in which case...
I understand. Just want to get back to your family, right?
So in moments of desperation, moral standards become luxuries you simply can't afford.
Nobody wants to steal from the dead.
But on top of their mountain, if somebody's got a sat phone in their suitcase, you're ripping open the suitcase, right?
And you're using their sat phone, you're using their property without their permission, blah, blah, blah.
Nobody would be upset, right?
You understand? Be upset if you didn't.
I mean, it would be weird, right?
Well, I respect the sanctity of somebody's property and their suitcase, and therefore I won't use their satellite phone.
Right, come on. So, in situations of emergencies, you can't afford ethics.
And motherhood without a provider is an emergency wherein you women believe they can't afford ethics.
And no, see, collectively we all benefit when individuals suffer for bad decisions, but the individuals who make those bad decisions would do anything just about rather than suffer the effects of those bad decisions.
The guy who Doesn't buy fire insurance and his house burns down, desperately wants the insurance company to just, you know, hey, just pay for it.
Right. It'd be great if you could.
He'd be hugely relieved if they said, you know what, just for the sake of being nice, we're going to pay for a new house for you, right?
He'd be thrilled. So when you are in the situation of an emergency...
Now, if your house burns down, man, major drag, don't get me wrong, but assuming nobody is hurt, burned, or dies, well, you go stay at a friend's place, you go stay at your parents' place, you rent a motel, and you get a new house.
And probably you'll have to rent for a while, and it may be a pretty crappy house because you don't pay enough for the old one, but you'll survive.
You'll survive. You'll make it.
I lived on 500 bucks a month for a while.
you can make it no kids I understand but now you don't have food Your kids are sick. I mean, you cannot afford property rights.
It's an emergency. And so you take from whoever's offering resources to you.
The root of female evil is desperation.
And it's hard to say no to desperate females.
Desperate females.
We are in the West.
White knight's extraordinary.
Now, in terms of exercising control, a woman tends to be more passive in her exercising of control, a woman tends to be more passive in her exercising of control, or more oblique, I guess you It's influence, not control.
So a woman, we'll take the traditional structure, right?
Man working, woman raising kids.
The woman cannot directly influence how much, at least she cannot directly control, sorry, how much the man makes.
But she can encourage him and give him good advice and teach him how to negotiate and coach him on asking for a raise and be supportive, right?
And so she can't go out and get money from the guy's boss, but she can have a huge influence on how much money he ends up making.
For good or for ill, right?
You can also break him down and keep him tired and up all night fighting and all that, right?
I remember a sales guy had a...
a business. Top flight sales guy.
Problems at home. Heading to divorce.
His productivity plummeted.
Couldn't concentrate. Couldn't...
Couldn't get the work done.
So... The woman can't control...
Now, a woman often can't directly control who asks her out.
Or she can't directly control the dates she goes on.
Because in general, women make themselves as appealing as possible and then get the resting bitch face to drive away the betas in the hope of attracting and keeping the alpha, right?
So she often doesn't go up and ask a man out.
But she will make herself as attractive as possible so that a man will ask her out.
She can't often, or usually, like, what is it, 90% of dates are like men asking women out.
She can't really control who marries her, but she can encourage someone and she can, you know, hope for the ring and all of that.
And so a woman, a woman in general, is more influential than controlling.
And that's because she has fundamental control in many ways over the next generation because who she marries determines the genetics of the next generation and so much of her personality is genetic that it's, well, kind of important that way.
You can't give women Complete control.
I mean, well, you can, I guess, and you just get Sweden, which is to say, Arabia.
So because women have influence over many things but control over very few, and also because a woman's instincts to control the environment of toddlers keeps them alive, women's controlling instincts tend to be centered around their children.
For good or for ill. And again, when children are young, those controlling instincts are very, very important.
When those children get older, those controlling instincts become claustrophobic.
That which keeps toddlers alive, chokes the life, the spiritual and mental life out of teenagers.
Which is why you need the man to come along and help the woman loosen the reins.
That's a big job.
And the snowflake generation, in many ways, not just the daycare stuff which I've talked about before, but snowflake generation is to some degree the kids who just didn't have a father around to loosen the umbilical cord that starts off feeding, middle point protecting, last point, total vagina noose around the kids.
Stay home. Don't get into fights.
Don't make too much noise. Don't get bruises.
Don't go out.
Don't go out. You know, like the labor.
Danger, danger. And women who don't have the protection of a man often end up paranoid because they don't have a cleft in the world that they can rest in, as Blanche DuBois says.
They don't have the security of a good man to keep their environment safe and to have someone who they can feel protected by.
So they get very, very jumpy and they transfer that jumpiness to their kids.
So this is why women tend to be far more controlling regarding children than men.
Not always. Again, lots of exceptions, but in general.
And this is why women, through that controlling of children, are more prone To hitting children.
To yelling at children. To doing anything and everything that they can to control the children.
Because they don't have a lot of control over the environment as a whole.
And so they want to have a lot of control over their children.
And if they don't have children, then that maternal instinct to protect, protect, protect gets extended to whatever images are splashed across the newspaper to manipulate the empty ovaries of motherless women.
So that now it's like, oh, that boy on the beach in Turkey, he's my, you know, you understand, right?
The hole on the borders is over sentimental women as a whole.
So, that's my thoughts about the sort of genesis and nature of female evil.
It comes out of a kind of desperation.
It is solved, as all these things are, by a rigid application of, wait for it, liberty, freedom.
Freedom. Whatever the problem is, whatever the question is, the answer is freedom.
So, I hope that this helps delineate some of my thoughts.
Admittedly, somewhat conjectural, but useful.
I do believe, nonetheless, some of my thoughts around the differences between male and female virtues, about the difference between property rights and non-aggression principle versus verbal abuse, slander and ostracism, and...
We must rely on women to make better decisions regarding who they marry.
But until the welfare state is done, which it will be, it's a soft and hard landing.
The mathematics is very clear.
Until we can get women to start making better decisions about who they marry, things in general, will just continue and continue and continue to get worse.
But they will, sooner or later, in one way or another, without a doubt, get better.
Thank you very much. If you've enjoyed these conversations, please let me know.
You can help out the show at freedomainradio.com forward slash donate.
That's freedomainradio.com forward slash donate.
It hugely helps, and I really, really appreciate your support.
