Nov. 29, 2018 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
01:30:15
4256 An Introduction to Female Evil (Part 3)
The latest on an ongoing series exploring women's capacity for evil from Stefan Molyneux, Host of Freedomain Radio.▶️ 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
If you would be so very kind as to help out the show, it would be enormously, gratefully, knee-bendingly, wonderfully appreciated.
That's FreeDomainRadio.com forward slash donate.
So, because I'm fairly terrible at marketing, well, not super great at marketing, I'm going to bury a history of the genealogy of morals in an introduction to female evil, part three.
Part the third.
And it's funny because I saw some of the comments on YouTube who were saying, oh yeah, where's your introduction to male evil?
And it's like immediately, immediately.
Now, of course, I've talked about evil in the past.
I've got a whole... I think it's a six-part series on the fascists that surround you and focusing largely on men.
I've got Truth About series focusing on the immorality of male figures, mostly male figures in history.
But the moment you touch female evil, the whataboutism, Stuka dive-bomber attacks with the whiny nose propellers start descending.
And... It's funny, you know, I mean, this idea that I have a problem with women, it's so funny.
It's so funny. Yeah, I had a bad mom.
I had a really bad mom.
And you know why I don't have a problem with women, even though I had a really bad mom, is I've gone through therapy, I've gone through the self-knowledge, I've dealt with my anger towards her.
And now I have a wonderful wife.
I have a lovely daughter. I work with women all the time.
A woman was the editor and proofreader for my books.
It's wonderful, wonderful working relationships with women.
And I think partly why that is...
Is that I treat women with respect, right?
Which means don't coddle them.
It means don't treat them as infants.
Don't treat them as children. Don't treat them as fragile snowflakes who are unable to take a hint of criticism without descending into fainting fits or quasi-homicidal rages.
So, yeah, just treat women as equals.
Women... have different evolutionary pressures than men.
This is really all I'm talking about, which is why we're going to talk about the genealogy of morals.
Now, this was a topic that I touched on many years ago, but I'm not quite at the point where I'm shocking back old podcast to life in this high-voltage resurrectionist scenario, but I am at the point where there are a lot of new listeners and there are people that I really want to Get up to speed on some of the ideas I was discussing quite some time ago.
So, this is what I want to get across.
First and foremost, the question is, where did morals come from?
Now, the traditional answer, of course, is that morals were granted to tribes by their gods, and the morals promoted tribal in-group preference at the expense of universality.
So, you know, the Jewish God gave the Jews the chosen people status and so on.
And various prophets and gods throughout various tribes provided morality to their tribal members.
And, you know, one of the big transitions from Judaism to Christianity Is that originally, thou shalt not kill referred to only other Jews.
So if you're a Jew, thou shalt not kill other Jews.
And you can see the same thing in Islam where you have moral obligations to fellow Muslims that you do not have necessarily.
To non-Muslims, there's no strong emphasis on universality in other religions.
In Christianity, there is.
It's, thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, and it is not an in-group preference, which gives Christian-derived cultures their, I mean, particularly when influenced to some degree by sort of Greco-Roman traditions, in particular Greco traditions, It gives Christian societies the concept of universal human rights,
but it also means that by surrendering in-group preference to biped group preference, so to speak, to human group preference, to the inclusiveness of everyone in the moral scenario, in the moral absolutes, by surrendering in-group preference...
Christian-based societies, in the West at least, have vaulted forward in terms of human rights, but it has lent Christian societies to be uniquely susceptible to strong in-group preference cultures and tribes moving in and leveraging Their in-group preference against any in-group preference on the part of Christians and therefore overwhelming the society with concentrated political and social and cultural and economic privilege,
in particular. Political, of course.
So, and you can see this, like this rage against any possibility of in-group preference among whites is rage dead, right?
But the well-documented in-group preferences among other ethnicities and races is, well, I guess that's called diversity now.
It ain't diversity when whites do it.
So, So where did all these ethics come from?
They were granted by the gods.
Now, lots of different ethical theories were floating around in the genealogy of morals.
There distinctly were ethical theories, I'm sure, that have not survived the test of time, which forewent in-group preference and went for universal preferences.
You know, love your enemy is a uniquely Christian phenomenon.
I mean, sorry, I'm not an expert on all world religions.
There are like 10,000 gods that people worship, so...
I hope that you'll forgive me if I say, in broad sweeping generalizations, love your enemy is uniquely Christian.
There may be other religions, smaller religions and sects, or particular reformations of existing religions that have the same message, but as far as spreading to billions of people around the world, the love your enemy is certainly concentrated in Christian influence.
So I just really, I mean, I don't want to say absolutes, like no other religion has that.
I'm sure that there are. But it has been most effectively proselytized by Christianity.
And so in the genealogy of religions, and I want you to think of religions of ethics, let's say, who are generally received and promulgated and transmitted intergenerationally through religious edicts, but I want you to think of ethics as an organism.
And there are struggles to survive, ethics struggle to survive among other organisms.
And because of that, we have to look at the various evolutionary pressures on various ethical theories to figure out what's going on in the world, not just throughout history, but of course in the present.
Now, where universality is currently in great tension and combat with in-group preference.
And the universality ethics are collapsing in the face of relentless in-group preference.
And an analogy I've used before is if you think of a soccer game or football in England.
Think of a soccer game. If you consistently pass to the enemy's players, the other team's players, but the other team's players only pass to themselves, you're going to lose the match.
In other words, if universality is faced with in-group preference, universality will lose against in-group preference, in general.
Unless universality forgoes that universality, develops an in-group preference and uses...
Like, if you pass to the other team, But they only pass to themselves.
Then the coach has to call a huddle and say, okay, well, they're not passing to us, so we have to stop the whole passing to the other team thing, and now we have to only pass among themselves, and that's the only way we have a chance in this game, you know, the game called Civilization.
Asterisk, do you get to keep it?
Question mark. So, if we look at the history of ethics, and we will divide this between men and women to some degree, but I just want to talk about tribalism as a whole and combat as a whole, which is a specifically male endeavor throughout history, goofy, skinny girl tomb raider franchise is notwithstanding, but she's only tough because she uses guns invented by men to equalize, right?
God created men and women, but Smith and Wesson made them equal.
So what was going on as ethics were developed?
Why were ethics developed?
Now, ethics weren't developed out of an abstract sense of moral duty in general.
There were pressures on the acquisition of resources.
Remember, throughout most of human history, predation was the model of economic gain.
Now, that predation could be informal insofar as you'd have a raiding party that would go and steal horses or women or crops or whatever, food.
Or it would be more formal insofar as you would have the massive swaths of human livestock who were owned as slaves or as serfs by the ruling classes and so on.
So predation was the traditional model of resource acquisition throughout human history.
That's just a basic fact.
And that's why human history was so grim, was so disastrous, was so poverty-stricken and disease-ridden and infant mortality struck and all that kind of stuff.
It wasn't until an ethic of universal property rights began to arise in the, say, 18th century, 19th century, with some...
Like, once Bacon had proved the value of science in the 16th century...
Once Francis Bacon had proved the value of science, then universality began to gain new respect, and universality then eventually began to spread to trade and property and so on, equality before the law, all that kind of stuff.
And so in history, for the most part, It was human predation.
Humans preyed on other humans and owned other humans and used them as a form of livestock for their resources.
And that was how wealth was not really generated.
I mean, a small amount of wealth was generated, but the more wealth is coercively transferred, the less wealth is generated.
That's just a basic sort of fact, right?
Why would you bother?
Like, let's say that there are raiding parties constantly rolling back and forth through your Geographical area, like your forest or something like that.
And whatever you get draws the raiders as a magnet to come and steal from you, right?
So if you gather together 10 cows and keep them healthy, then the raiders are going to come to your house, or to your farm, I suppose, and they're going to take your cows, right?
And they might rape your wife, they might kill you, they might butcher your children.
So basically, resource acquisition...
Draws violence to you like a magnet.
Draws iron filings under a piece of paper, as I remember from grade 9 science.
So the acquisition of resources is dangerous.
And of course, the effort that you expend, like just think of calories in, calories out, right?
So assuming that you're willing to be violent, which of course, large numbers of Men in terms of war and women in terms of raising children are certainly willing to do throughout human history.
Assuming that you're willing to be violent, how many calories does it cost you to ride out to someone's farm and take their cows and have a big feast and all that?
It doesn't take you many calories at all, right?
Or to walk out if you don't have a horse.
And, you know, as long as you've got a...
A sword or a dagger or, you know, maybe even just a big club and you're willing to use it, it doesn't really take a lot of calories.
1,000 calories, 2,000 calories, whatever it is.
Go and get the equivalent of, I don't know, what is an alligator?
20,000 calories? I think I remember that from the island.
But to go and get tens of thousands of calories from a couple cows, I guess that would be hundreds of thousands of calories probably, it only takes 1,000 or 2,000 calories of going out and threatening and bringing the cows back.
And you can even force the guy to come back, right?
Whereas if you think about the amount of calories that it takes to go into a forest area, to clear the forest, to fence in a particular area, to buy cows, to breed cows, to keep the calves alive, to feed them, to make sure that they don't get preyed upon by coyotes or wolves or whatever, right?
Hyenas, if we're going to start skipping continents around like a flat rock on Lake Ontario.
But that's like hundreds of thousands of calories To get yourself a couple cows.
Hundreds of thousands, like clearing.
I mean, if you've ever had to do it, it's a literally god-awful job.
It is a cursed job.
There's a reason why when Adam was kicked out of the Garden of Eden, he was cursed with work.
And work, I mean, I've spent my time doing physical labor in my life, and it is hard.
It is hard on the body. It is hard on the mind because it's kind of boring.
And, I mean, just think of How much work it is to remove tree roots from an area, right?
Like you've got an acre.
How long is it going to take for you not just to cut down the trees?
That's relatively easy if you've got the right equipment.
A herring, I believe it is. But how long is it going to take for you to get the roots out?
My God. It is truly horrendous.
Horrendous labor. As I said before, I was digging a well.
I was sort of, hey, I'm happy someone invited me to a cottage, so I'll dig a well with a friend, and it took like hours.
I mean, it was exhausting, and it hurt your hands, and your back hurts.
I was like 16.
It wasn't like I was like 40.
I mean, I was in my prime, almost.
And... So just to get a couple cows to gather together the steady supply of milk and, I guess, eventually meat, it's kind of a match, right?
Hundreds of thousands of calories you have to expend in order to gain control over a couple hundred thousand calories in the form of cows and repetitive calories in the form of milk.
So why would you invest a couple hundred thousand calories if a raiding party is just going to come along?
And take your stuff. Take your cows and so on, right?
It's the same thing with kids, right?
I mean, if there's a raiding party, and a lot of times in more primitive societies, you kill the men, you kill the children, and you rape the women, right?
This is how genes spread in a combat-based society.
So, well, and you'd say, well, why then would you expend hundreds of thousands of calories in having children?
It's like, well, because there was no birth control.
Right? So your lusts drove you to have children and very often those children would die or be destroyed and whatever, right?
So the expenditure of calories in order to gain the resources of others is way disproportionate.
It takes very few calories to go and, you know, let's say somebody has stored up a whole bunch of grain for the winter.
Well, that takes a massive amount of calories.
You've got to clear the land, you've got to Guard the land from birds.
You've got to plow and plant and monitor.
A friend of mine who ran a farm was like, he'd take the wheat and it would be a couple days before harvesting the wheat and getting it off the land.
And it's like, oh, please don't rain.
Please don't rain. You know, it's nerve-wracking.
And so, let's say you stored up a bunch of grain for the winter.
You know, barley or hops or whatever, right?
And then someone just comes along and takes it.
Well, you've expended hundreds of thousands of calories so that you get your hundreds of thousands of calories for the winter, for your family or whatever, or 100,000 calories, whatever you need.
Well, someone just comes along and takes it.
And we're going to assume, and I think it's fairly safe to assume.
I mean, you understand this is not deductive.
This is inductive, speculative reasoning, right?
It's... And it's in the realm of valid, I think, because there's a lot of...
There's certainly some truth in the numbers, for sure, and in the motivation.
But I think it's fair to say that the people who are good at farming tend to be not the same as the people who are good at murdering.
The people who are good at farming are generally not the same as the people who are good at murdering, threatening someone.
We know that the sweet spot for criminality I guess this really should be called the bitter spot.
But the sweet spot for criminality is something around IQ 85, mid-80s.
Whereas, and we can see this from the farms in South Africa, that when a lower IQ population takes over the resources of a higher IQ population, those resources generally fall into disrepair and eventually collapse.
In general, there are of course some exceptions, but in general, it's a fairly safe bet if you're going to Make a bet.
And so, it takes more intelligence to farm than it does to kill.
I mean, lions kill, right?
They don't farm. Although, I guess, porpoises or dolphins do herd a little bit, but only when they find the resource, the fish, already.
So, this is the problem that you get higher IQ people who gather resources and then you get lower IQ people who threaten them with violence or directly enact violence in order to take those resources and then not only is the acquisition of resources Not profitable in terms of calories expended versus calories retained.
I mean, if you've just spent a quarter of a million calories getting a whole bunch of food together as a family or as a small community, and then people just expend 10,000 or 20,000 taking them from you, then, I mean, that's terrible, right?
So, why would people want to...
This is why subsistence farming generally was the pattern throughout history.
Now, how do you deal with subsistence farming, right?
So if you look at the evolution of society from sort of random warring tribes in the sort of sub-Saharan African model to duchies or counties or eventually, of course, city-states and nation-states, What you see is an attempt to solve the problem of starvation that follows predation.
It's the Venezuela model. Socialism is predation which leads to starvation because there's a big problem.
You need an excess of productivity in order to support a predatory class of warlords.
If everybody's just subsistence farming, then the warlords don't have anything to steal.
So the more the warlords steal, the less the warlords have to steal.
So what do the warlords do?
Well, what the warlords do is they offer protection from other warlords in return for taxation.
And this is, to be fair, somewhat more productive Than the prior situation of random warring gangs.
So you have a farm.
Now, if there's some warlord who is quite successful, in other words, willing to slaughter or drive off other competing warlords, and he comes to you and he says, listen, you give me 10% of your crops or 20% of your crops, and I will make sure that you keep the remaining 80%.
I mean, in Rome, the average citizen had to work for two days a year to pay his taxes.
It's pretty wild. Well, they also paid in inflation, and open border policies, and the welfare state, and easy divorce, and oh, just seems also familiar.
Togas plus tablets, that's the modern world.
So the warlord comes and says, okay, I'm going to keep you safe from other warlords, and you now have a predictable, let's just say 20%, it could be any number, I say 20%.
You now have a predictable outlay of 20%, which is better than maybe you'll be okay at 100%, or maybe you'll have zero, right?
It's something that my first professional job was as a COBOL 74 coder at a stock trading organization.
Running on a Tandem system.
Boy, that's going back in the day.
A Tandem? The only thing I knew about Tandem before, probably not a related company, but they made the TRS-80, the Trash-80 as it was called.
Inline text editing, no cursors.
That's what I call early computing.
One of the managers said, it wasn't even to me, but one of the managers was talking about, he said, someone just said, oh, I just did something that saved the company X amount of dollars.
And he said, well, that's good.
You know, I think that's, I appreciate that.
That's fine. But I would much rather you find a way to save me $100 a month than $500 now.
And I thought about that for quite some time.
And yeah, I can sort of go $500 seems more, but if it's a one-time saving as opposed to saving $100 a month, that's a whole different situation, right?
So that's quite important.
So from that standpoint, when the warlord comes and says, You pay me 20% and I'll keep you safe from other warlords.
You buy my protection.
And then you have a predictable resource requirement every year, which is you've got to pay me 20%.
Now, if you don't pay me, I'm going to come take your stuff, right?
I repossess your land for want of tax payment or whatever, right?
Now, if nobody pays me, then A, I will probably become a warlord who will come and take all your stuff.
So rather than just taking 20% of your stuff, you know, maybe I'll miss you.
Maybe I won't find you. But I probably will because you've got to trade and I'll just torture people until they tell me where you are.
But I will come and maybe I'll take.
Maybe I won't find you. You keep 100% of your stuff.
But, you know, it's kind of stressful. And maybe I'll come and just take 100% of your stuff.
And I think most of us would rather have, well, we know that, 20% predictability of resource consumption rather than maybe 0%, maybe 100%.
Because you can generally survive 20%, but you can't really survive 100%, right?
I mean, before the days of freezers, refrigeration, and so on.
If somebody came and stole your food in, let's say, November, and you've got like four or five months before you can get any new food, you're dead.
And you're dead in the worst possible way, right?
It's starvation and watching your kids die in the snow while they're hunting around for any remaining winter berries or whatever it is.
It's a wretched, wretched way to die.
So the warlords said, okay, well, we'll just keep you safe from other warlords.
And then, of course, what would happen is the warlords would get greedy, the taxes would go up, and then people wouldn't have enough to eat, and there might be a revolution, or some other warlord might come along, or they might support some other warlord.
You understand how this works, right?
These things are never static, right?
They're never static. I mean, this is why...
You have caravans of people approaching the US border say, well, it's just a couple people, let them in.
It's like, well, it's not static, right?
The moment you let them in, literally millions more will come.
And none of these things are static.
Oh, you see, there's only a few percentage of points of people who are in dire poverty, so let's just take a little bit of money from the rich and give it to the people in dire poverty.
It's like, well, now you've just subsidized dire poverty, and that number is going to shoot up as more people say.
Well, if I'm poor, I get free stuff.
So... Everything's dynamic.
That's not a public choice theory. So, the origin of the nation-state was an attempt to make predictable the predations that human beings were facing from each other, right?
So, if I got a predictable predation, 20% is better than a random fluctuation, right?
Okay. Got it.
Sorry, I'm really working on my repetition.
It helps me, and I know that repetition is sort of important to get new ideas across, but I am working on trying to make things more concise.
So, thank you for your patience as I continue to work through this process.
So, that's sort of the origin of the nation state.
Now, religion and language was a kind of tariff on competing states.
And what I mean by that is, let's say that you live in Wales, which is just west of England.
It's like the part of the pregnant belly of the UK. Is it now the hollow belly?
Yeah, the hollow belly. Anyway, geography, not my strong mind.
But let's say you live in Wales, and you're taxed at 25%, but over in England, you're taxed at 15%.
Well, it's hard to move to England if you don't speak the language, right?
It's hard to move to Wales if you want to try and speak this Tourette polysyllabic language.
If there's a different religion and there's a different language, it's kind of like a tax or a tariff, because otherwise what happens is If there's two kingdoms next to each other and one has lower taxes, then people will generally drift towards the kingdom with lower taxes and then that provokes a war, right? Because it's sort of like the perception of the ruler is like if you have a farm and some other farmer is stealing your livestock, well, you know, that's bad, right?
I mean, you're mad about that and upset and you want to stop it and he's wrong and you're willing to use force to go and get your livestock back because he's stealing from you and And this is the general perception when a country becomes more free.
The general perception of course is That's the brain drain that occurs.
And, you know, many of the seeds of the destruction of Europe were sown from the 17th, 18th century on as a lot of the freedom lovers moved to the United States.
And then, of course, the Napoleonic Wars killed off a generation or two.
And then you had the First World War.
Well, the Franco-Prussian War, the First World War, you had the Second World War.
I mean, it's just been a horrible shaving down of...
European masculinity to the point where you do have this kind of effect and of course the lower testosterone that often results from being raised by a single mother is I mean it's just it's brutal absolutely brutal so you can't even if you want your citizens to become more free It's tough,
because if you want to lower taxes, then people will start coming in from other kingdoms, and then the rulers of those other kingdoms will often band together to attack you because you're, quote, stealing their tax livestock, right?
And so it is a very uneasy and unstable situation.
And that has a lot to do with the evolution of certain kinds of ethics.
Now, this, of course, all requires strong in-group preference in order to manage all of this and all of that.
Now, so here's the question.
If you look at something like property rights, why did property rights develop even as a concept?
Well, they certainly didn't develop as a concept based upon universality because property rights These are very much a bifurcated system, really a schizophrenic system, a self-contradictory system.
It's founded on the warlord protection system.
The warlord protection system says, give me your property so that I can protect your property.
In other words, I'm going to violate your property rights in order to protect your property.
You can look at this as predation, pure and simple.
And there's certainly a way to look at it that makes sense that way, but there's another way to look at it as well, which is this.
If you hire a security guard to guard your factory at night, you are giving up property in order to protect property, right?
So you're giving up your money to pay the security guard so that he can protect your property.
Now, that's a voluntary situation.
Now, it arises because there will be people who will deface or steal things from your factory or just break its windows for fun or graffiti or whatever, right?
You want to protect all that.
Or like you buy an alarm system for your house or whatever it is, right?
So you have a system or a situation where you are expending property to protect property.
And given the reality of and the profitability of low IQ violent warlord raids in all of human history, you can look at taxation as the hiring of a centralized security force with the goal of protecting your property from the predations of others.
Now that social contract, and I know I've argued strongly against the social contract, I'm not talking about the abstract ethics of the situation.
I'm talking about the sort of on-the-ground practical empiricism.
Because if you have two geographical areas, one of which is subject to Two random predations, and the other one is defended by a centralized army that is funded through taxation.
And coercive taxation, don't get me wrong.
But the coercion of taxation is stable and relatively predictable, whereas the coercion of random warring tribal gangs is unpredictable.
This is the Hobbesian argument, right?
That in a state of nature, life is nasty, brutish, violent, and short.
And nature, red in tooth and claw, right?
And therefore, people give up some of their, quote, freedoms in return for security.
And I fully understand that.
This is... An amoral analysis of evolutionary pressures.
This is not an abstract argument for universal ethics, right?
We're looking at how ethics came about even as a concept.
So looking at something like property rights, the state says that property is a right and you must pay me your property in order to defend that right.
Now that's kind of a self-contradictory system.
Let's say that you had a factory either in the middle of nowhere or well protected by technology or whatever, and you did not worry about it being stolen from, and some guy came along and said, I'm going to force you to pay me to be your security guard.
And if you don't pay me to be your security guard, Then I'm going to kill you or steal stuff anyway, right?
Like, that's a different situation, right?
And so the state takes your property With no guarantees that it will protect the remaining property.
In fact, these days, and really throughout most of the history of the state and its relationship to its citizens, the state takes your money.
Now, originally it was like, oh, I'm so sick and tired of these warlords coming through and taking everything, so fine, I'll pay this warlord to protect me.
And the warlord spends a little bit of time protecting, and then what does the warlord do?
Well, he gets bored of just protecting, he wants to expand, he wants to go kill more people, and everything just becomes destabilized, and it never stays the same.
It's like, oh, 20% from now to the end of time to protect my property, that's a great deal, right?
It never lasts, right?
Because it's the state, and violence corrupts, and so on.
The general relationship is the government says, okay, you need a security guard, so you pay me a certain amount of money and I will supply you a security guard, right?
But then, of course, once the money is guaranteed and the government can take it, there's no market pressure, there's no competitive pressures to cause the state to continue to offer efficient services.
So at the very beginning, let's say there's three warlords offering their services.
Well, they have to do something to win your service.
I know that's kind of theoretical, but there is some level of competition before the state is established.
Once the state is established, then it's going to continue to take 20%, whether or not it protects you.
Whether or not it protects you, it's going to take 20%.
Now, the state does have some interest in protecting you, because if it doesn't protect you, let's say that someone comes along and steals your stuff, then there's nothing left.
For you to pay the 20% to the state.
So it has some incentive to protect you.
But if it can just come and get your stuff anyway, or if it's driven by ideology, as was the case with the Holodomor or the Holocaust and so on, or the Armenian Genocide, if it's driven by ideology, that's sort of a different matter.
We'll talk about that another time.
But in terms of practicality, The state will want to protect you in the same way that the farmer wants to protect his livestock, because the livestock's providing him milk every morning, so he wants to protect it, not because he cares about the rights and properties and abstract moral ideals of his livestock.
Like a slave owner wants to protect his slaves from injury, not because he values them as moral, sovereign, equal human beings, but because if they're injured, they can't work for him, right?
So he's not going to...
But once the government is fairly certain of getting resources, then it no longer has a strong incentive to protect you.
Now, here's another problem too, which is debt.
So once the warlord or the local king can use your future tax receipts, like your future tax payments, as collateral to borrow money, Then he is disconnected from protecting you.
And in fact, he's violating your future property rights by entering into a debt in your name.
This is the huge issue that happens when governments gain control of currency and can print money at will or produce highly diluted coinage as they did in the late Roman Empire and highly diluted bills as they did in the terrible French hyperinflation that I did a podcast series on some years ago.
Once the government can use your future tax receipts as collateral, then it is actively working against the future protection of your property rights because it's going to borrow and it's going to need your future tax payments to pay the minimum of What the ruler has borrowed,
and so it's absolutely catastrophic, but it's a kind of soft catastrophe in that it takes a long time to materialize, and by the time it materializes, it's too late to fix.
For most people, right?
I mean, that's what the Internet is kind of struggling to remind people of at the moment.
So, all of this Leads us to the genesis of property rights is I will violate your property to protect your property.
I will steal from you to protect you from thieves.
So what this means is you need a bifurcated or oppositional schizophrenic theory of property rights, which is that you own your property and theft is bad, but taxation is not theft.
That you own your property Because you have created it.
But you owe significant portions of your property to the ruler who did not create it.
So look at it this way.
If there are no thieves, then being a thief is highly profitable.
Because nobody has any real protection.
Like, let's say nobody steals from anyone, right?
Like the, what's that old film, The Invention of Lying or something like that?
It's a Ricky Gervais film. It's not particularly good, despite having the glorious but dysfunctional Jennifer Garner in it.
But, like, nobody lies, then one guy says, hey, what if I lie?
Like, he's got this real advantage, right?
It's a pretty cool idea.
It was not very well executed, but it's a pretty good idea.
Now... If no one steals, then everybody leaves their stuff out, and you can just grab something and move on, and people are like, oh, I guess I must have lost it, or the wind blew it away, or an animal took it, or I would never think a human being stole it.
So if you are...
A thief, and you're the only thief, it's crazy profitable, and that's a huge incentive for other people to become thieves.
Now, if there are too many thieves, as we go back with the warlord example, then there's nothing to steal.
So, there is a kind of sweet spot or equilibrium in the number of thieves in society.
Now, the best thief is the one who convinces others that it's not theft, that they owe him resources.
And this is the root of why the phrase taxation is theft is so powerful.
Because if you can get people to deliver you their stuff, and if you can get people to believe that they owe you what they're delivering, then you will not face any of the physical risks of going door to door to try and steal people's stuff, right?
To try and take people's stuff.
And so this is why propaganda around property rights, the divine rights of kings, and the social contract, and all of this, this is why all of this is so powerful and so hotly pursued among mostly lapdogs of the state pseudo-philosophers that have been the vast majority of people, Alexander Spooner and others accepted throughout human history.
I mean, the state controlled who got to be a philosopher and who got to be printed and who got to be read and who got to be instructed in largely government-run universities and schools and so on.
So, if you can convince people That taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society.
That there's a social contract.
That the alternative to taxation is the traditionally defined anarchy and chaos and violence and no stability and no roads, right?
Then people will voluntarily deliver unto you their resources.
And that's very effective.
You don't have to go door to door.
You don't have to face somebody with a shotgun.
You don't have to get attacked by dogs.
You don't have to sprain your legs getting in and out of tight bathroom windows.
You don't have to do any of that stuff.
You can just set up a system wherein the ruler Is owed your money.
That the fulfillment of property rights is to send your money under threat of coercion to the ruler.
That's very powerful.
Now, given how powerful the ethic is of bifurcated property rights, that Every human being has the right to property, but some human beings have the right to take other people's property at force, and that's not a violation of property rights.
This bifurcation of property rights is so incredibly powerful that it's irresistible.
And in the evolution of thievery, like I wrote this on Twitter and Facebook the other day, That bad criminals break laws, but good criminals make laws.
Because that is legal.
Legal to tax people.
It's illegal to go into their house and take stuff, but it's legal to tax people, and it's illegal to defy that taxation.
And so it's so profitable to convince people of this bifurcated view of property rights that any society that didn't manage this transition just didn't last particularly long.
And you can see this in Islam as well, that the non-Muslims pay the jizya, pay a particular tax to the Muslims or the Muslim community or government or whatever, right?
And it's just so ridiculously profitable to put forward this theory of property rights and it reduces the caloric expenditure required to gain resources, right?
I mean, a dollar has a calorie value because you can use a dollar to buy a certain number of calories, usually not very good calories these days, in a food court or a convenience store or whatever it is, right?
And so if people will do the paperwork themselves and people will voluntarily send in their money and so on, then you are expending almost no calories.
See, spreading propaganda consumes far fewer calories than going door to door to get resources by force.
So if you can convince people that they owe you resources, then your calorie expenditure Per calorie of resource acquired is vastly lower.
And the calories that you expend tend to be, you know, safe and pleasant because it's teachers in classrooms and professors in universities and all that who are spreading all of these contradictory ideas.
It's a lot more pleasant than going out with a sword where people might be able to fight back and so on.
So as far as the evolution of Ethics goes.
This is where they come from.
This is where they come from.
The concept of citizen. Because livestock is too obvious.
So the concept of citizen has to be viewed in this way.
That once you convince someone that they're a citizen and that it's a good thing that...
That they pay their taxes and so on.
It's a virtuous thing and those who don't are not fulfilling the social contract and are not paying their fair share and then you get slave on slave islands, right?
You get taxpayers getting mad at other taxpayers for not paying enough of taxes and so on and you get to set people against each other rather than figuring out who the real predators are in society.
So, It's a very profitable, very positive, and relatively pleasant system for acquiring resources, to use propaganda, to set up this bifurcated view of property rights and so on, as opposed to charging someone with a horse and hoping that they don't have the resources to fight back.
That's, you know, that's not a lot of fun.
At least, I mean, it's fun for sociopaths, but it's not a lot of fun in terms of...
It's not very efficient in terms of calories expended versus calories received.
So, it may seem like a tangent.
I promise you it's not. It's the foundation, you know, like you want to build a house up, you got to dig down first and build a foundation.
So, now there's another idea I want to get across to you before we start doing the fork of the road of male and female responses to societal and evolutionary pressures.
Now, the first thing I want you to understand...
And this is a matter of knowledge of others, knowledge of history, knowledge of society, and in particular, knowledge of self.
What I really want you to understand is that some emotions that you have are certainly individual to you.
If you happen to love Puccini's operas, that may be personal to you.
Other people are going to prefer Lagrange by ZZ Top, right?
Some like me might like both.
Pretentious, moi! So...
Some emotions you have are particular to yourself.
Now, other emotions that you have, though, are generic to humanity as a whole.
So think of this with regards to lions and zebras, right?
So some lions might prefer the hind leg of the zebra, some lions might prefer the intestines of the zebra, but all the lions like to eat zebras.
You know, some zebras may be frightened of thunder.
Some may be frightened of lightning, but they're all frightened of lions, right?
So there's some individual emotions, and then there are some general emotions that evolution has given us in order to help us survive.
So, for instance, men are more willing to fight in a war than women are, and not just because of privilege and female privilege and all of that, but because women, young women in particular, are the prizes of warfare, and therefore their genes have more of a chance of surviving If they sleep with whoever wins the war.
And again, I'm not talking ethics here.
We're just talking base survival, right?
And we see this in the animal kingdom all the time.
I mean, you look at the way that deers clash, male deers clash with their antlers and the woman.
The female deer sleeps with or has sex with whoever wins.
You can see this with rams.
You can see this with frogs that physically attack each other in order to gain access to females.
So, generally in a conflict, the man, if he loses a battle, he either dies because he's killed in the battle, or he gets a cut which leads to an infection which kills him, or he's taken as a slave and therefore is not likely to be able to reproduce, or he's killed afterwards as part of the general massacre of men that occurs often at the end of battles.
So the moment that a man is faced with a battle, his chances of reproductive success collapse if he loses.
So he might as well fight.
I mentioned this before, but it bears repeating.
Why did some men have duels?
Well, there was honor at stake and so on, but why did women not have duels and men had duels?
Well, I talked about this in terms of male violence, physical violence, and female verbal violence or verbal aggression, let's say.
But partly it's because of this, because if it became known that a man was challenged to a duel and didn't show up, then He might not be dateable, like women might not marry him.
He would be viewed as a dishonorable man, and therefore a woman would not marry him or have his children, which back in the days, among the aristocracy in particular, that was how things worked.
So, just to take some silly odds, it never was 50-50, but just for the sake of illustration.
If you challenge Bob to a duel, And let's say that Bob's sexual market value collapses by 95% if he doesn't show up to the jewel, which means he only has a 5% chance of getting married to somebody, a woman in his own class and his own level of wealth and entertainment and so on.
Let's say that his sexual market value collapses by 95%, which means that if he refuses the jewel, only He only has a 5% chance of passing along his genetics, right?
Now let's say that in the duel, he's pretty handy with a pistol or a sword or whatever.
So let's say that in the duel, he has a 50% chance of surviving.
So you understand what this means, right?
It means that his odds of reproducing genetically are 10 times higher if he participates in the duel than if he Avoids the jewel, if he rejects the jewel, right?
He's got a 10 times higher chance of reproducing if he does the jewel.
Now, if you get that, and I'm sorry, I mean, I know you guys are like the smartest audience on the planet, but this is so important to understand.
It explains the whole white...
Like, how do you kill a man with a white feather?
Well, you don't tickle him to death. But what you do...
If you're a young, fertile woman, you create a campaign.
If you're a young, fertile woman, you create a campaign in which you hand white feathers to young men, and you shame them, and you identify them, so that young men...
Sorry, let me just backtrack for a second.
I didn't explain that very well. Again, for the new listeners, so...
In World War I, there was this campaign that a young man, not in uniform, would be handed a white feather by women, and this was a symbol of his cowardice, so this actually convinced a lot of men to go sign up for a usually disastrous battle in the World War I, and the endless sort of back-and-forth trench warfare.
You know, it's pretty easy to take someone else's trench.
It's just easy for them to take it back, and that's why.
It wasn't totally static in the First World War, but it was static in terms of like a little wiggle back and forth.
So why did a man choose to go to battle rather than be branded as a coward?
Because there's a calculation on the part of the young man's mind, and he says, okay, well, if I go to battle and I come back, then I'm a hero, I've got medals, and, you know, this is how the song goes.
I don't think it was contemporaneous to World War I, but I think World War II, the song was I Love a Man in Uniform.
Oh, you thought I was going to sing, didn't you?
No, I've got a little bit of a cold, so...
No singing for this deathbot.
I'm not like Paul Young who can rip off a Joni Mitchell's duet when he's got a flu.
The man says, okay, well, if I go to war, I come back, I got medals, maybe I have a pension, I have resources, I have the respect of my community, I can get married, I can have kids.
If I don't go to war, I'm branded as a coward, and no woman will date me.
And so he has a higher chance of reproductive survival by going to war than by staying home.
And this is how women are involved in the cycle of aggression, right?
So, men are willing to go to war because women won't sleep with them if they don't protect their women.
Now, this is going to be different across cultures, and there's lots of nuance, so obviously this is, no pun intended, very broad strokes.
But please bear with me, because what can happen is you can get so overloaded with details that you end up missing the big picture completely, which is pretty tragic.
So, for women, the calculation is different, right?
Now, a woman would, in general, prefer that her local tribe's men win, rather than the foreign tribe, right?
So, let's say there's the Hatfields and the McCoys, right, to take an old feuding southern family group.
So, the McCoys are invading the Hatfields.
Now, what do the women do? Well, the women would rather the Hatfields win.
And so, they will encourage the men to fight against the McCoys.
They will encourage their local tribal Hatfield men to fight against the McCoys.
And the way they do that is they say, basically, I won't sleep with any man who doesn't fight.
So they are using the hyper-aggression of genetic death to compel men to fight.
Now, you can say, okay, well, they're not compelling, they're just withholding sex.
And that's perfectly valid.
It is not, obviously, a violation of the non-aggression principle to withhold sex.
But again, we're not talking about ethics.
We're talking about evolution. So think of dueling.
And imagine it goes on for like a thousand years, right?
Or 10,000 years or whatever, right?
Imagine dueling. Now, imagine that there are some men who are emotionally predisposed to not want to duel, to not care that much about honor, right?
Well, what happens to those genetics?
Some men, you know, zero Fs are given.
They shrug. They don't care. It's like, yeah, yeah.
It's like that old joke, yeah, yeah, I'll fight you at five o'clock.
If I'm not there, just start without me.
Or this is what George Bernard Shaw was writing about.
The Chocolate Cream Soldier, if I remember it rightly.
It's a very influential play.
I should read it again and do an analysis of it because Shaw was a fascinating playwright.
But If the man doesn't care about dueling and he doesn't show up to duels, then women won't sleep with him.
Which means that the genetics of I don't care about duels vanish from society very quickly.
So you've got two brothers.
One has the genetics called I don't care about duels.
The other has the genetics of I will fight a duel to reclaim my honor.
And as we talked about before, the first brother, Is ten times less likely to reproduce than the brother who cares about jewels, who will fight to defend his honor.
I am a man who will fight for your honor.
Ah, Brian Adams.
Craggy-faced, raspy-voiced, and a bit of a brain virus, I'm afraid.
But... The genes to...
Not care about women's exhortations die out.
And the genes that, like the white knight genes, the genes that will say, well, gosh, you know, I really have to care what the women think.
It really matters whether a woman will sleep with me.
The deference to female sexual preference genes, well, they...
They do pretty well compared to the genes that don't care.
Now, you could say, ah, well, you know, but it's just rape culture, right?
So the men will just rape the women and so on.
Well, the problem with that, I mean, other than the obvious moral problem, again, we're just talking about the evolution of the problem with the argument of, well, it doesn't matter.
Female preferences don't matter because rape and so on.
Well, here's the thing.
It matters... In a high IQ society, it doesn't matter so much in a low IQ society.
The reason being, in a high IQ society, maternal investment is essential for your children's success.
In a high IQ society, maternal investment in terms of wanting to breastfeed and wanting to get the child educated and wanting to encourage the child and wanting to stimulate the child, the bonding attachment and love of a mother in a high IQ society is pretty crucial.
Which is why high IQ societies tend to ban rape pretty early because in terms of gathering resources a high IQ society is more likely to have more of a free market and so on and so a child who is raised well with maternal investment is going to do a lot better and therefore have a lot more children in a free market again outside the welfare state and all of that.
And so just saying, well, rape solves the problem of female preference.
Yeah, well, okay. In some societies it does, but not in high IQ societies as a whole.
Certainly in Western European societies.
I mean, rape has been banned for thousands of years in Western civilizations.
The need for the woman to invest in the children is essential, which means that if you violate the woman's will with regards to having children, If you rape her, then she will be far less likely to invest, almost axiomatically, she's going to invest fewer resources in the child than if she loved her husband and loved the child and was happy and so on.
Also, the stress hormones and so on have been associated with A variety of negative outcomes for the child and so on.
So, in general, you just can't sort of say, well, rape will override female preferences and therefore this stuff doesn't matter.
It does matter, but again, not equally in all societies.
So, the men who refuse to fight...
Virtually destroy their chances of reproducing.
The men who do fight have some chances of reproducing.
Now, what are the choices for the women?
So, the women would prefer that their own men win, but failing that, they would prefer to mate with the victors rather than die themselves.
Again, we're just talking genetics here.
Genetics don't care about ethics, right?
I mean, of course, right? They just care about photocopying, right?
I mean, they just care about replication.
So, let's say that the woman First of all, if the woman goes to fight alongside the men, she's very likely to get killed because she's not strong and so on, right?
And she's also likely to interfere with the men's cohesion as a fighting unit in the past.
I mean, I think that's true now, but let's just talk about it in the past.
Because the men will spend resources attempting to protect the woman on the battlefield rather than fight themselves, right?
And so it doesn't really work very well from that standpoint at all.
So the woman's not going to fight.
The woman is going to encourage the men to fight, but if the local men lose, right?
If the Hatfields lose and the McCoys win, what do her genetics want her to do?
What is the most genetically successful strategy?
Well, it is to mate with the victors.
Now, she might hate it.
She might genuinely love her husband, who these people have killed.
But again, we're just talking the brute force mechanics of evolution.
Because if she fights to the death, then her genetics don't replicate, right?
She's done. Genetic death has occurred or has been achieved.
If she fights or doesn't even fight, sorry, if she fights and wins, very unlikely, but certainly could happen, then she's gambled and won.
If she fights and dies, if she fights or she's wounded or whatever, or if she fights and she's disfigured, then the conquerors might not want to have sex with her.
Now, if she loses, or sorry, if her local tribe, so if the Hatfields, her local tribe, if they lose, The fight.
Then she has some interesting choices.
If she refuses to mate with the conquerors, then they will most likely kill her.
Or if she attacks or bites or fights or whatever, then they will most likely kill her.
So if she fights at the death because her beloved husband was killed by these monsters and so on, genetically, she's done.
Genetic death, right? Emotionally, it's horrible, I assume, right?
Although the emotions may change over time.
Now, if she cares too little for her own children, Then she won't invest in the resources necessary for them to survive.
So there's got to be all this oxytocin bonding and all that that happens with the mom.
However, if she cares so much for her children that if they're killed by invaders, she won't sleep with the invaders, then, again, she's just consigned to genetic death.
And that level of revulsion against the invaders to the point where you would rather die than submit to rape, well...
These emotions would not last very long, genetically speaking.
It would be like if a lion was born with the desire to eat grass rather than meat.
Well, then the lion would not last very long because it can't digest that, right?
These hungers, these desires and so on.
And these, it's all very complex because it all changes relative to social environment, right?
If you are in a situation of food plenty, if you're in a situation of food plenty, then the risks of predation go down.
So if there's tons of food around, then preying on other people, which is still more Calorie efficient than getting food yourself, right?
I mean, the guy who climbs a tree in Africa to get honey from the bees, well, you just wait at the bottom of the tree and take the honey from him, right?
You've just saved yourself a whole bunch of bee stings and calories and risk and falling and all that, right?
So if food is plentiful, then predation increases.
If food is scarce, predation will increase and then collapse.
It increases because it's still easier to steal than to make, but then everybody starves, and so it goes down, right?
I mean, predation increased in Venezuela.
Taxes went up to some degree.
Certainly, government spending went up to a large degree, and government preying upon the economy, nationalization of industries, and it all went up.
So, predation increased, and then it collapsed, right?
Because Now there's not really much money or opportunity or resources left in Venezuela.
In a place where there's relative political stability and the protection of property rights, then the woman gains the most by marrying The most intelligent and stable and mature man, because he's going to be the one who can best make use of resources and accumulate wealth for the children and so on.
However, in a time of chaos or I mean, European emotional genetics are colliding with, like that's case selection, which I've talked about in gene wars.
You should really understand that, but please check it out.
Don't stop now and check it out, but check it out soon.
Please. But European genetics have evolved in a situation of scarcity, That is remediated by the intelligent management of resources, right?
So scarcity because of winter, but if you manage things intelligently, then you can survive and flourish.
Whereas fiat currency and the endless printing of money and government borrowing and debt and so on has imposed, in a sense, an R-selected or rabbit-selected environment upon the genetics of wolves.
This is just terrible.
This is why Europeans or whites are kind of on their hind feet all the time because their genetics no longer match their environment.
Because in a situation of scarcity where intelligent management can help you survive, your compassion must be blunted by limits to your resources.
So the only reason why...
Say white Europeans developed the way that they did was because they did not extend compassion and resources infinitely to fools because there was not an infinity of resources.
And so sometimes you had to turn away people at your door because you only had enough for your own family for the winter.
But now that there's this perception of infinite resources, then anyone who claims that there's not enough money for something is considered to be vaguely mean.
Like they're taking away sunshine and air, which are an infinite supply.
Obviously, air everywhere, but sunshine in warmer climates.
Don't steal my sunshine.
I knew that song stuck in my head for a reason.
Ah, things I discover many years after the fact.
So... If you look at, as I've talked about before, the development of Jewish intelligence, about a third of an IQ point per generation over 700 years, gets you to the numbers that seem to be reflected in modern tests.
I know there's some questions.
I'm just going with what almost all psychologists have told me, but I certainly will look into it more when I get some time.
But the smartest men had the most children, right?
The rabbis. The smartest men had the most children.
And... So in a situation of political stability where there's some aspects of the free market at play, the woman does not benefit from having children with the violin guy or the guy who has very short time preferences or the guy who's impulsive or anything like this.
It's no good, right? It's no good.
She wants the Marcus Welby, right?
Well, there's a throwback.
She wants, like, the stable, decent, good, my three sons provider, right?
She wants Ward Cleaver, not Eddie Haskell.
You guys don't have any clue what I'm talking about.
I guess some of you do. But in a situation of political chaos, then she wishes to reproduce or her genetics wish her to reproduce with the most violent man or a man who's violent to the point where he'll kill enemies but not violent to the point where he'll kill her children.
So this difference is important.
I'm not saying that, again, this is when I say female nature, female nature.
No, it's adaptable. It has to be.
It has to be adaptable.
I mean, this is one of my earliest theories going back.
I remember thinking, okay, well, why would, let's say, someone's a victim of child abuse, why would they produce particularly common characteristics?
High sex drive, impulsivity, low respect for social rules, and so on.
Because child abuse signals that you're in a situation of scarcity and aggression, and therefore you epigenetically adapt on the fly to align your emotional apparatus with Short time preference.
High aggressibility.
High hypersexuality.
Because that's our selected or rabbit selected reproductive strategy.
Have as many kids as possible. Hope for the best.
Whereas if you are raised in a peaceful, nurturing, warm environment, then you become what's called case-elected, which means that you invest a good deal into your children and you have manageable sexual impulses and longer time preferences and so on.
We adapt on the fly.
And this is what you would expect, again, from evolution.
You don't know, your genetics don't know what kind of environment you're going to be born into.
Peaceful, warlike, stable, unstable, excess of food, deficiency of food, and so on, right?
So women want their local tribe to win, but genetically do better if they're at least willing to be taken as concubines or wives by the victorious tribe if their tribe loses, right?
So if the McCoys win and the Hatfields lose, she'll mourn, the Hatfields, but genetically she's better off if she sleeps with the McCoys.
So women... Are great at goading men into violence and then sleeping with the victors if their men lose.
Goading men. And I don't mean violence.
Maybe it's self-defense. I don't know, right?
I don't know. Right?
That old song, you had plenty money in 1922.
You let other women make a fool of you.
Why don't you do right like some other men do?
Get out of here and get me some money too.
If you had prepared 20 years ago, you wouldn't be wandering now from door to door.
He's just whining and nagging.
Peel me a grape. Different song.
Anna Kroll's version of that is great.
But this is the sort of stark choices that female genetics take.
Now, let's look at source of income.
That's another big dividing line.
Source of income. Now, it's been a long...
I didn't watch much of The Sopranos, but I watched maybe a season or two.
I found it a little too, you know, ugly and unpleasant after a while.
Although there was some great, great shows in it.
But Tony Soprano was troubled by his aggression.
But his wife was not.
And she had to kind of be goaded into it.
Into feeling bad at all.
By her priest. So, a man has to be troubled by the source of his resources, or he has to have concern over the source of his resources.
Because if the source of his resources is predation upon another man, then he has the possibility of being outnumbered and blowback and cousins and brothers and so on, right?
Of... Of being aggressed back against if he takes resources from other men.
Which is why there tends to be a little bit more honor in business dealings and resource acquisition among some men in some cultures.
And so for men, if you prey upon another man, you are setting up a situation of immediate or eventual blowback.
So the source of your income matters to you.
And if you can find a way, again, in a more peaceful and secure and stable society, if you can find a way for your resources to accumulate to you in a manner that is not causing blowback, That's good.
That's good, because it means you're not sowing the seeds of revenge against you and your family or whatever, right?
So, it matters.
It's not definitive, but it matters.
Now, if a man cannot provide resources...
For his family. And I'm talking evolution not necessarily so much with religious enforced pair bonding for life.
But if a man cannot provide resources for his family, then the woman can get resources from another man.
Obviously a lower status man as a whole, right?
But she can get resources from another man.
Because she can just basically, you know, the...
I won't give you the colloquial because it's a little coarse.
But the alphas have sex and the betas pay the bills.
So the traditional...
It's not really traditional anymore.
The modern tradition is that the woman has sex with hyper-masculine alpha men when she's at the height of her attractiveness and fertility, and when she hits the wall in her early 30s, then she settles down with some beta provider, and so on, right? Who then she can take to divorce court if she wants.
If she's... I'm unhappy is the incoming Stuka dive bomber of...
Incipient disembowelment from family courts.
So, the woman has alternatives to gain resources, which is she can just get another man, and he will then provide resources to her children.
Or, She can play the pity card and throw herself on the almost bottomless mercy of her local charitable.
Community could be her tribe, could be her church, could be any particular group.
And, you know, she's sad women, right?
Men have to take big giant drills and derricks to get down to gain gold and diamonds and resources.
From the Earth's core.
Well, from below the Earth's surface.
Whereas women, the way that they drill down to get resources is their tears fall on the ground.
And it drills down and men reach up with their penis-fingered hands to give her resources in the hopes of getting a leg up.
So, it matters to a man where his resources come from.
And if a man can't provide For his children, then his sexual market value collapses.
But if a woman can't provide for her children or a woman's man can't provide for them, she can always go to another man at some point.
Like usually. Not always, but usually can go to another man.
Or to charity or whatever, right?
And so that's different.
So if you think about the Sopranos, Tony Soprano was bothered by the source of his income.
His wife was not, particularly.
And Tony Soprano's Unease.
I know this is not an argument. It's just an illustration, right?
So Tony Soprano's unease about the source of his income occurred for him involuntarily.
He didn't want it.
Nobody prompted him. It took him a lot of therapy to figure out what was going on, but it was Uncomfortable for him against his will, whereas his wife had to be talked into it.
Because I didn't watch much further.
I'm sorry. I don't know how that played out or whatever.
Maybe she left him. I don't know. But there is a kind of coldness that occurs with women with regards to resource acquisition.
And some people say, oh, this means that women don't love men.
And it's like, but you should be getting your love from your mom and your dad.
The idea that you get unconditional love from adults is a terrible trap and incredibly destructive because it leads to so much unhappiness, so much misery.
Nobody, as an adult, owes you unconditional love any more than they owe you infinite money.
I mean, to ask for unconditional love is to be asked to be paid no matter whether you do a good or bad job.
It's infantile. And I mean that precisely.
It comes from an infant's perspective or perception.
Nobody should say no to an infant, but you really need to say no to adults, otherwise they go really crazy.
But this idea that, oh, women don't love men, they only love the resources men can provide, is like, well, duh, of course that's the case.
Of course that's the case. And it doesn't mean that women don't love men at all.
I mean, an honorable woman will love an honorable man for his honor and vice versa and so on.
But fundamentally, evolution has programmed women to love resources more than non-resources.
Why? Because without resources, her children can't survive.
And it's genetic death. So it may be like, hey, you know, you're a great guy.
You're a fun guy. But you lack ambition, right?
So, again, to sort of go back to my antediluvian pop culture references, there's a Friends episode where Rachel, I think, is turning 30 and she's dating this man-boy.
Who skateboards around the apartment and is kind of goofy and has no particular plans or future.
And she's like, I've got to break up with you.
You're a fun guy. You're a nice guy.
You're a good-looking guy. We've had a great...
Because I've got to get serious, right?
And get serious means this kid, I don't know, he works at a Starbucks or something.
I can't remember. But he's got no resources, no particular future.
So she's got to stop messing around.
Because now she wants to start having kids.
Like, sorry, fun don't pay the bills.
You know, hella good hair.
Don't pay the bills. Productivity.
Maturity. Hard work.
Well, that pays the bills. Often.
No, it's not a guarantee. Necessary, but not sufficient.
So, of course, women are programmed to need resources.
And to get resources, they love men.
But if the resources aren't there, Then asking for the woman to simply stay madly loyal to the man who's providing no resources at the expense of...
Remember, it's a lot more investment for a woman and a child than a man.
A man can obviously father a child in a couple of minutes, but a woman, it's like an ungodly amount of calories and time and resources and 20 years and breastfeeding and...
Lower sexual market value and all that.
The man can just squirt and sprint, right?
He can do a spray and pray.
And does not really diminish his sexual market value.
He's off, you know, whereas the woman is left with the kid and burden, right?
This massive, massive asymmetry of investment.
I mean, there's really nothing bigger in the animal kingdom as a whole as far as male human versus female human investment in offspring.
So, like, I'm sorry she needs those resources.
And the baby needs those resources.
And women who were unable to get resources from their men did not, or were unable to get resources from their community or their men or themselves, their children would often do very poorly.
I mean, they might not die, but they grow up kind of sickly and then have low sexual market value and rickets and whatever, right?
So all these men, I don't know, it's kind of weird.
I don't want to say whining because that's like not an argument.
It's kind of a negative way to phrase it.
It's kind of ad hominem. Complaining.
These men complaining, oh, women don't love men.
They only love the stuff that men can bring.
And it's like, well, yeah, of course.
We could never have evolved in any other conceivable fashion.
The fact that you have the brain to make these complaints about women loving resources more than men has only occurred because for 150,000 years, women have loved resources more than men.
I don't know. It's just kind of weird.
I mean, I get it. Your mom didn't love you and you want some wife to give you the love that your mom didn't give you, but it's unfair.
It's not going to happen. It's not going to work.
It's going to entrap you both.
It's a surrender to the past at the expense of the future.
It's going to be claustrophobic, and you're going to end up resenting her.
Because you try and get some woman to give you the love your mom didn't give you, you're going to end up controlling her, manipulating her, you're going to end up resenting her because she's not going to make you feel better.
You'll get that initial contact high of romance that lasts for, I don't know, four to six months or whatever, but...
Your problem's still there. You're asking her to replace your mother, which is going to mess up the relationship dynamics.
She's going to be unable to make you feel better, but you're going to think it's her responsibility, and so you're going to resent her.
Oh! Women just use men for their resources.
Well, look, come on. Men use women for sex as well.
I mean, let's be frank.
Not always. Not always.
May not even be the majority of cases, but a lot of times, right?
Men don't like the friend zone because the friend zone doesn't come with the shag zone.
So, I don't know.
I don't know. It's just weird.
People who try to get spouses to replicate what they didn't get as children.
It's bizarre. It's like watching some adult bird try to get another bird to regurgitate chewed up worms into its throat.
I guess at least that would be nutritious, physically.
It's not emotionally nutritious to try and get your wife to be your mom.
And no healthy woman, like you should say, no, no, no, no.
We have to have an adult relationship.
An adult relationship means trade.
Not exploitation. Babies don't exploit parents, but if you try to get someone to be your parent when you're older, you're exploiting them.
Again, maybe outside of therapy or something, I don't know.
I just sort of wanted to mention that because it kind of bothers me.
Of course, I mean, I hate to say grow up because it's also not an argument, kind of an ad hominem, but I'm just telling kids rolling around in my brain.
Like this grow up, of course, women care about your resources more than you just as an individual because you just as an individual ain't going to feed her kids.
Ain't going to provide shelter.
Ain't going to protect her from wolves and people.
Of course she needs you to be productive.
Of course she needs you to be strong.
Doesn't mean love can't be involved.
But it's not the foundational driver of the relationship.
I don't know. This imagined drug of romantic love is invented by bad parents so that their adult children can avoid confronting bad parents on their bad behavior by pretending they can somehow bypass the suffering the bad parents created by getting someone else to mirror in as a parent in a decaying orbit of dismal historical meltdowns in the upper atmosphere.
Alright, maybe a few too many analogies crammed together there, but I think you get the general idea.
So, a man needs to care where the resources come from.
A woman, I don't know.
It's tough to make that case.
It really is tough to make that case.
So, a woman, if she says, I will not take the resources provided by violence.
Well, if she's in a violent environment, it means that she and her children will starve to death.
and therefore genetic death right so this very high standard and it's a high standard and I don't disagree with the standard morally but evolutionarily and practically it was suicide so if you're this very high standard and you say well There's an old saying for women, lips that touch wine will never touch mine, right?
Because alcoholism was catastrophic for a man's ability to provide resources to the woman.
And so, I cannot take a bloody coin.
I will not take resources for my children that has come from any aggression or violence or anything like that.
It's like, well, you can have those standards and you should have those standards In a free society, but in a warlike society, you can't have those standards.
I mean, you can, but you won't last.
And the emotional drivers behind those standards won't last.
It's not going to happen. So, women are more, and I'm bringing morality in here, and I'm just sort of edging it in from the sidelines here, but women generally are more amoral Regarding resources,
because women produced children and sex and ran households and so on, but in general, I mean, there was some hunter-gathering and so on, which was not unimportant, but in general, men produced the protection, the infrastructure, and the majority of the resources to keep the tribe going.
You know, men build the farms, dig the ditches, train for war, protect the women, right?
That's the job, right?
You're just the fighter, worker, productivity ant, right?
I say this without resentment.
All this evolutionary stuff led us to the glories of our mental capacities in the here and now, so I'm not going to diss on any of it.
I mean, again, I know there's this dualism, right?
But morality is a luxury of plenty, evolutionarily speaking, or at least predictability, stability.
But, men do have to care.
Women don't care as much.
Because they're not paying for it.
Right? So, again, this is anecdotal.
I was at a playground with my daughter, and...
I was listening to these two women just discuss all of the government programs they could access and how many kids they could have.
But if it was this, it was too much.
And then they might come back on that.
But you can get access to this if you do that.
And, you know, they were just trading this back and forth.
No possible sense of, well, you know, we really should think of the taxpayers.
You know, we really should think of it's mostly men who are footing the bill for all of this stuff.
We should make sure we're more responsible because, you know, the money is taken from people through taxation by force and given to us.
We didn't really earn it. Not a shred of that.
Not even the tiniest shred of that.
Now, again, that's anecdotal.
That's not all women. I understand that.
And I hate to say it's true because I'm emotional about it, but it struck me very, very deeply as a sort of fundamental truth.
I know that's not an argument.
But if you look at...
Like, there's no single moms against the welfare state association, right?
Of course not, because single moms desperately rely upon the welfare state.
And by that, I mean everything from free health care to welfare to subsidized housing to food stamps to government jobs, right?
I mean, this is another form of welfare, right?
And, you know, there's no...
There's no single moms against national debt.
There's none of that association.
And that's another reason why, when it comes to economics, it tends to be more men than women.
In fact, I believe that it's true.
At least it was true the last time I checked.
I believe that it's true.
That there has not been a world famous female economist.
Because economy is the recognition that resources are finite, and when men produce resources, well, those resources are finite.
When women wish to acquire resources, well, women can have a lot of sex, and therefore they can acquire resources that way.
Women can have children, and thereby, in most decent societies, commandeer the man to pay for that child, and therefore gain resources forever, right?
So, for women to gain resources is very easy.
For men to gain resources is very hard.
And so the fact that resources are limited would be more of a male perspective than a female perspective.
And so none of this is a problem if you have a free society.
If you have a free society, none of this is a problem.
People adapt to a free society and everything goes well.
When you have a state of society, the government starts producing the illusion of infinite wealth.
And therefore, everybody to some degree becomes...
K selected, sorry, R selected, becomes somewhat female.
And, well, you go from the illusion of infinite resources, well, sadly, predictably, and often very quickly, to no resources whatsoever.
So I hope you find this helpful.
I really, really appreciate your attention in these matters.
I find them quite fascinating. I hope you do too.
Please let me know what you think in the comments below the video, or you can, of course, find me.
And if you find these kinds of things helpful and appreciate the time, effort, and energy it goes into formulating all these ideas, I would really, really appreciate your help.
Resources are not infinite at FreeDomainRadio.com forward slash donate.
