Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Feb. 25, 2019 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux

01:34:38

Freedomain: Ask Me Anything! Feb 24 2019 - 5pm EST

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	All right, everybody, I am so sorry for that delay.
	It's all very exciting with the new studio, but that is up and running.
	And just let me know when the audio is coming up and the video is coming up, and I'm sure it will all be too beautiful for words and we can have a nice chat.
	All right, all right.
	Now, yes, I'm sorry.
	I was a couple minutes late.
	Boomer attack.
	Oh, I hate to say it.
	I hate to say it, but it may in fact be the case.
	So let's see if I missed any Super Chats just before we get started.
	And of course, if you want to do a Super Chat, let me know.
	And if not, you can, of course, help out the show at freedomainradio.com forward slash donate or fdrurl.com forward slash
	donate and let's start with the first super chat i hope you're having a wonderful afternoon by the way on this um i guess 10 days past valentine's day february the 24th 2019 so friedrich von ziegler schickeldorf you know it could be a real name could be a real name and He has this question.
	Thanks for your work.
	Question I've been mulling over.
	Is there a way to guarantee safe working conditions slash workplace safety without state intervention?
	Now that is a great question and I will take a swing at it and you can let me know if this answer makes sense to you.
	So there is an optimal amount of safety in the world and I was thinking of this just the other day, so I have been exercising, I wouldn't say super hard, but certainly consistently and regularly since I was, I mean since I was a kid, but I kind of got into working out when I was in sort of my mid-teens, and with a very, very few exceptions here and there, I've kept it up.
	Now, when you exercise, every now and then, you're gonna get injured.
	It's just gonna happen.
	Like, if you run around, you're gonna trip, you're gonna fall.
	Like, I was chasing my daughter down a hallway in St.
	Louis, and I had a pair of squeaky new sneakers on, and I went down on tile, and you know how those sneakers just grip tile like a Kraken death grip?
	Well, I went down and I crunched my knee.
	And I tell you, this was in September, and it's only now really back to normal.
	So now I can say, well, the crunching of my knee was bad.
	But maybe it's worse.
	I just don't exercise then.
	I've hurt myself doing an aerobics class.
	I ended up with a tendon sort of in my armpit getting crystallized and shortening a little bit, and that took quite a while to resolve, and it never went perfectly back to normal, but it's certainly nothing particularly problematic at the moment.
	But in life, if you exercise, you're going to injure yourself.
	And you say, OK, well, I cannot injure myself by not exercising.
	But then the problem is I'm unhealthy because I'm not exercising.
	And so there is no safety.
	There's no perfect security.
	And the chase for perfect security leads to complete paralysis, which is desperately bad for you.
	And so it's sort of like with your heart, right?
	I mean, if you're a guy out there, you know what I'm talking about.
	And maybe it's different for the new generation, but it certainly was the case in my generation that you had to walk up and ask the girls out.
	And what that meant was you stood a significant possibility of being rejected.
	And the more you wanted to ask the girl out, the more you faced being rejected, which is very painful.
	So there's that pain.
	And I know a couple friends I had back in the day who didn't cross that great chasm of asking girls out and tried to avoid being hurt.
	Well, what happened?
	Well, they avoided that pain of rejection, that stress of rejection at the time.
	But what happened was they ended up never going on dates, never asking women out.
	They kind of missed that window and then they became so socially awkward they just avoided it, right?
	And now they're lonely.
	And loneliness is really, really bad for you.
	Loneliness is the equivalent of being significantly overweight.
	Loneliness is the equivalent of smoking 15 cigarettes a day.
	So please don't be lonely.
	Get people you love, get people you care about, and connect.
	Connect with people.
	It will not just improve the quality of life, but it will improve the quantity of your life.
	You get to live longer.
	So that having been said, this idea that we can eliminate workplace accidents, you can't.
	You can only eliminate workplace accidents by eliminating workplaces, which means we don't have resources, we don't have medicines, we don't have plumbing, we don't have Fresh water, we don't have electricity, and we die.
	We die from cold and disease and all that.
	So, the search for perfection is all very well, but to look for heaven is to live here in hell.
	So recognize that you can't make things perfectly safe.
	And it's hard to know what the sweet spot is between safety and productivity.
	Right?
	Between safety and productivity.
	So in a kitchen, I've worked in restaurants for years, and kitchens can be dangerous places, right?
	There's knives, there's open flames, there's buckets of boiling water and so on.
	And you can make a kitchen perfectly safe by serving everything at room temperature.
	But sometimes people want a hot meal and so on.
	So you understand, you can't make things perfectly safe.
	And any government that promises you that is lying to you.
	So the problem at the moment is that nobody knows where that sweet spot is, And it's different not just between industries, it's different between individuals.
	Some people will accept more risk in return for higher pay.
	And if they don't get injured, then they've really made out like bandits because they got higher pay.
	If they do get injured, then they feel really dumb and wish they'd had something safer.
	But we all face those decisions and choices all the time.
	So what is the sweet spot between productivity and safety?
	Nobody knows.
	Nobody knows.
	Now, in a free society, if you provide a dangerous workplace environment and don't tell people about it, then you'll be sued, right?
	If you say, oh, no, we've got safety harnesses, and they've all been tested, and we get them checked out every week and every month, and they're all triple checked and all that, and then the safety harness is old and rotten and broken, it's never been checked, then you're going to get sued.
	And you may, in fact, be liable for criminal negligence, manslaughter, perhaps.
	So there's no way to know what the optimum level of security versus productivity is.
	And so generally society benefits when people aren't injured.
	I mean obviously think of so a friend of mine once wrote a play and it was based on a true family history.
	It's a musical in fact.
	And in it, the father of six children was high up on a mast in a ship about 120 years ago and fell down to his death because no safety harness, no railings around the crow's nest and so on.
	Now maybe he'd been drinking, I don't know.
	But the reality is that think of the amount of time, investment, food, shelter, heating, health care, dental care and so on to be poured into this guy.
	He plummets down a ship's mast and dies.
	Well, that's a huge waste of social resources.
	I mean, tragic that he died and terrible for the family.
	But just economically speaking, the amount of time, effort, and energy that is poured into bringing a human being to life and to maturity and adulthood and educating him on how to read just can be gone in an instant.
	So people want to stay alive.
	Employers don't want to get sued.
	And people want safety, but not to the point where it means they basically can't be productive.
	So if you're a chef and you say, well, I never want to deal with any warm food, well, you're probably going to have a problem working at someplace other than Jesse Smollett's sandwich restaurant, or the one he likes to patronize.
	You know, it's amazing when you think about it.
	That guy fights off two bodybuilders while holding a cell phone in one hand and an uneaten Subway sandwich in the other.
	That is some serious ninja moves.
	But it's OK, you see, now, because he's He's saying that he has a drug problem.
	So, you know, it's fine.
	In a mental illness, it's not ideology.
	But anyway, so people want assurances.
	People want security.
	So the way that it would work is you would have life insurance, right?
	And life insurance, let's just say you insure yourself for like a million bucks or something like that in a free society, a stateless society.
	So you have life insurance.
	So what happens?
	Well, the life insurance company doesn't want to Doesn't want to pay you out, right?
	Doesn't want to pay out, doesn't want you to die in a workplace accident because then they owe you or they owe your family or your heirs a million dollars.
	So the insurance company will be very interested if you say, I'm going to get a job as a lumberjack, right?
	Like I'm going to go and cut down trees in the middle of nowhere.
	So they can be very interested in that.
	So They're going to check out the safety of that place.
	Because if it's not safe, they won't insure you.
	Or your insurance premiums will be crazy high.
	And then you're going to find some sweet spot, right?
	Now, if you say, well, you know, Monty Python style, you have to cut down the largest tree in the forest with a herring.
	Well, you're not going to cut your arm off with a herring, but you're never going to get the tree cut down.
	So there you have too much safety and not enough productivity.
	There is a sweet spot.
	So from that standpoint, It's never just the employer and the employee.
	There is insurance.
	And of course, the employer is going to have lawsuit insurance, right?
	So whoever's hiring you is going to have lawsuit insurance.
	And that lawsuit insurance is like, okay, if you get sued, we'll pay out.
	In which case, not just your life insurance company, but also the company that's insuring the employer's lawsuit insurance is going to want to make sure that There's enough safety there that it's not likely that you're going to get sued, but there is enough productivity there that you can afford the payments for the premiums and so on, right?
	So it sounds complicated, but then all of this technology is complicated, but it doesn't really matter because it just kind of happens invisibly under the hood.
	have a whole bunch of balancing factors.
	People will be trying to figure out the optimum level between security and productivity, and that's how things will work.
	It's a civil matter, maybe a criminal matter if there's real negligence or fraud involved, and there will be lots of people weighing how safe you should be, including yourself, and you'll balance it against various premiums and so on, and you'll get safety and security that way.
	The other thing that's important to notice as well is that if you look back at the history of these kinds of things, you think of the health and safety movement, OSHA, It's called Occupational Safety and Health Association, I think it is.
	So if you look at these kinds of movements in society, what happens is things are really dangerous.
	And why are they dangerous?
	Because there's not enough access resources to provide safety or because people say, well, I'd rather have productivity over safety.
	And then what happens is And society gets wealthier.
	And as society gets wealthier, it can afford to put scrubbers on factory smokestacks.
	It can afford to have greater safety in mining.
	Like I remember, I mean, one of the big problems with mining is, you know, the canary in the coal mine kind of thing.
	The canary was ahead.
	And so as you push the carts down, if there was some noxious gas there, it would kill you.
	It would kill the canary first.
	You'd sort of back off.
	And I remember when my father took me to A giant mine in Africa.
	I remember how extraordinarily windy it was because you've got to keep the air circulating.
	Lack of air circulation was another big problem as well.
	And so when society gets wealthier, it can afford more safety, more pollution controls, and so on.
	And if you look at the history of these kinds of things, these movements are already in place and have momentum by the time the government steps in.
	In other words, the environment was getting a lot cleaner before the EPA was formed under Nixon in the early 1970s.
	And workplace safety was getting vastly better before OSHA put in all of its regulations.
	So the government kind of catches this wave and then claims that it Solved the whole problem and that's kind of natural.
	So sorry for the long answer.
	I hope that helps and I will have a look at Eagle 4.
	Eagle 4.
	Hi Steph.
	I'm one of the mythical 18 to 24 year olds who voted for Brexit.
	That's... What is it?
	The EU is like the Hotel California.
	You can check out anytime you want, but you can never leave.
	I was once told by a colleague that I was stupid and should be replaced by an immigrant because of my vote.
	Tips on how to argue the moral case for Brexit.
	A moral case for Brexit.
	So, a good way to break down moral cases for this kind of stuff is to put it in terms that people viscerally understand and will react to.
	So many years ago, this was when I was in, I think it was my first year at college, at Glendon campus of York University, I wrote something for the college newspaper called Marxism, M-A-R-X-I-S-M.
	C-K-S-I-S-M, like is in your school marks, Marxism.
	I said, you know, if you really believe in Marxism, redistribution, then all college students should take their marks and put them into a big pool and they should all be redistributed evenly.
	Right?
	So that everyone who gets an A puts their mark into a pool, everyone who gets an F or a D puts their mark into a pool, and then what happens is you redistribute the marks, this is Marxism, you redistribute the marks to everyone in the class so that everyone ends up with like a C or a C- or maybe a C+ or whatever, right?
	So that's Marxism.
	Now, the students immediately go like, "Well, I don't want to do that.
	I don't want to do that.
	Well, why don't you want to do that?" Well, I don't want to do that because what's going to happen is people are going to say, "Well, if I'm going to get a C no matter what I do, why would I bother working?" Why would I bother trying to get an A if I don't accrue benefit from the A, but it just gets dissolved into the general blob of handouts?
	So you look at the class where there's personal motive and incentive, and you say, well, we got this cluster of A's, we got some B's, we got a whole bunch of C's, a couple of D's, a couple of F's, and so on.
	And you assume that's going to be the same once you redistribute everything, right?
	But we all know what happens when everyone's going to get a C. People just stop working and you don't have a whole bunch of A's, because A's are hard to do and hard to get and take a lot of studying and work.
	And what's the point of doing that if you're just going to have your marks dissolved into the general goo of C or C-?
	So that's Marxism.
	And people say, well, I don't want my school marks to be like that.
	It's like, OK, well, why would it be any different with your income?
	Why would it be any different with your redistribution of wealth?
	Right?
	So why doesn't communism work?
	For the same reason that Marxism, as in redistributing everyone's marks in university, wouldn't work.
	So if you sort of understand that, then you can say to people about Brexit, which is it's kind of a communism of credit scores and interest rates and so on, right?
	Because one of the reasons Greece got into such trouble is Greece, which has historically been a pretty profligate or high-spending country, got to hook in its credit rating to the Germans who are industrious and, you know, until relatively recently not insane.
	And so why would you bother having a good credit rating if everyone on your street just got to hook into your credit rating, right?
	So why would you bother borrowing and paying back on time if You could just hook into someone else's.
	So that's sort of one example of how things should go.
	Also, you can say, do you think it's better to be ruled by someone you're looking in the face or someone on the other side of the world?
	The more local the government is, the more responsive it tends to be.
	And the EU, of course, is a centralized bureaucracy that is interested only in power.
	But most fundamentally, and this comes down to the basic moral argument for a truly free society, which is you say, well, People are corruptible.
	Corporations are corruptible.
	Corporations are just interested in profit and they're full of terrible people and those terrible people will make terrible decisions for their own advantage and at the expense of everyone else's and so on.
	It's like, right, you've just described human nature, right, which is the desire to seek advantage sometimes at the expense of other people because that's better for your kith and kin and your survival.
	And so if this is human nature, Then why would it be any different with the government than it would be with corporations?
	Because this is a weird dynamic that gets set up where people say, well, these corporations are really dangerous, so we've got to have a government to protect you from the corporations.
	In other words, people you have to voluntarily choose to do business with are so dangerous that you have to have them controlled by people in the government who have total coercive control over you and your income and your freedom.
	If you're worried about human beings in corporations, you should be infinitely more worried about human beings in governments, because corporations can't compel you to buy from them.
	I mean, we boycott everyone all the time, right?
	I mean, right now, unless you're double dipping by cruising on Amazon, Which if you are, by the way, I keep forgetting this, fdrurl.com forward slash Amazon and doesn't cost you anything but gets me a couple of pennies on your purchases.
	But if, you know, when you're listening to this, you're not out at the mall shopping probably, right?
	So, this reality is pretty important.
	That we're constantly ostracizing people all the time.
	Right now, I'm not buying anything.
	I'm not traveling anywhere.
	I'm not ordering a bride from some hovel in Russia.
	I'm not doing anything other than talking to you.
	So we're constantly ostracizing businesses all the time.
	And in order to make a purchase from a business, for the most part, you have to voluntarily choose to engage with that business and make a positive choice and so on.
	But governments can just hike your rates and go into debt and borrow against the future productivity and tax earnings of the work produced by your children and so on.
	And so if you're worried about corporations where you have to take a positive step in order to involve yourself in their business, you should be infinitely more worried about governments, because governments can impose their will upon you with no choice on your part.
	So, for these kinds of issues, I would say that local government is better, smaller government is better, and a government which doesn't dissolve responsibility into the general goo of collectivism is going to be better for everyone in the long run.
	So I hope that helps.
	And let's just make sure I'm getting my super chatty chats here.
	Gregory Carter asks, do you think what is happening in Venezuela is poetic justice to a people who are willing to give up their arms?
	Now asking us to intervene with force.
	You're killing me with this question because I mean I have I really have two sides of me about this whole issue.
	I really have two sides of me about this whole issue, and it's a very, very tough issue for me to wrestle with.
	I am currently in the process of trying to strangle the infinite, sometimes pathological altruism and compassion that I have for the world.
	So when I look at the people in Venezuela, I say, well, you were warned.
	You know, people have been warned about socialism forever.
	But you made a deal with the devil, right?
	So the socialists came into power.
	Chavez and so on.
	They came into power and they started giving you a whole bunch of free stuff and they didn't raise your taxes.
	It's a deal with the devil.
	Where's that money coming from?
	And they say, oh, well, you know, the oil price was high and Venezuela had a lot of money.
	How could they have foreseen that the oil price would go down?
	Well, lots of other countries the oil prices went down.
	They managed to survive and so on.
	No.
	They went on a truly demonic spending orgy and the people lost track of reality completely.
	They were offered that deal by the devil.
	This is what the politicians come in and do, is they will offer you this deal with the devil, and they will say, well, we'll just suspend economic reality, we'll suspend mathematics, we'll suspend cause and effect, and we'll just give you free shit with no taxes and no debt, and just lie.
	And so the devil will tempt you with free stuff, right?
	There's nothing more expensive than free, we already know that.
	And the devil will say, I will give you money and power and fame and glory, and all you have to do is give me a little soul later on down the road.
	Now what happens is, of course, you end up not enjoying all of the fame and power and glory and money and all of that influence.
	And then you miss your soul, but it's too late to go back.
	So when it comes to people in Venezuela, they had the example of Chile, right?
	Chile, the communists were about to take over when the parliament begged for Pinochet to save them from the communists.
	And Pinochet did and ruled, I think, for 17 years and then handed back power to the parliamentary system.
	And Chile survived and they had all of those examples.
	They have the example of Cuba.
	They have a relatively free internet, free, sorry, access to internet and free.
	So they can get all of the information that they need to know what a terrible decision it was to let the socialists bribe them with all this free stuff.
	And they took the deal anyway.
	Now, how do we feel?
	How do we feel about people who make that kind of deal with the devil?
	How do we feel?
	It's tough because, you know, for the people who were like, yay socialism, I'm like, yeah, well, so you haven't had a meal in three days.
	Like, I'm sorry that you made that decision.
	Like, I'm sorry for the people who give up their soul in return for money, fame, power, and glory.
	I'm sorry for the people who were too selfish and greedy to have children who then are lonely for the last three or four decades of their life.
	Like I'm sorry for their kids.
	What gets me is the kids.
	The kids are hungry, and the kids are sick, and the kids are not getting the resources they need.
	They're not getting the education.
	But it's like, you know what?
	I can't do it!
	This is a desperate struggle that I have within myself.
	I cannot do it.
	I cannot care more for people's children than they do themselves.
	I can't do it.
	I can't do it.
	You know, like in Zimbabwe when they chase off all the white farmers and you've got farms in Africa, white farms that feed 3,000 mostly black people for each farm.
	So if they chase off the farmers and then Zimbabwe starts to starve, It's like, oh, but the children weren't responsible for taking off the farm.
	It's like, I get that.
	I get that.
	I really do.
	I really get that.
	And I'm sorry that they don't care about their kids enough to stop believing all this bullshit about how the whites just came in and robbed everyone and enslaved everyone and stole their land.
	Stole their land.
	I get all these comments on my South African videos.
	I guess from the Bantus and others in South Africa.
	It's like, well, the white people stole our land.
	We're just taking it back.
	Karma's a bitch.
	It's all lies.
	The Bantu came swarming down from the north and virtually genocided the Khoi and the San people who were there in South Africa originally.
	The whites have been there longer than the blacks, the Bantus, in South Africa.
	And the population of blacks went up, what, 800% after the Second World War?
	No.
	Whites came and turned the land into something valuable, and then the blacks say that the whites stole their land.
	Come on.
	I mean, like, I'm sorry that they believe in these lies.
	I'm sorry that they're not reading any counter evidence or any counter examples.
	I'm sorry that they're all succumbing to hate and greed and fear.
	And I'm sorry that their children have to suffer.
	But I cannot care for their children more than they do themselves.
	I can't do it.
	I can't do it.
	I'm my own child.
	And it's not like the whole world is sitting there.
	Oh, gosh, I wonder what's best for Steph's kid.
	I wonder what's best for Steph's family.
	No, they're not doing that.
	So, at this point, I'm working very, very hard to kill the disease of infinite compassion in the crib, in myself.
	I mean, it's a shame.
	I think it's sad.
	But I simply cannot care about the world if the world does not care about itself.
	It's a recipe for being exploited.
	It's like if you've got a drug addict or someone in your family or an alcoholic, it's like you can care about them.
	But if you care about them infinitely more than they care about themselves, you're just going to get exploited.
	They're just going to use you to feed their own addiction.
	So with Venezuela, it's very, very sad.
	I wish they had chosen differently.
	I wish they had cared about their children enough to reject the lies.
	of the socialists, of the leftists, but they didn't.
	So, life is a hard teacher.
	Life is a hard teacher.
	And here's the thing, too, we have to think in the long term, because if everybody rushes in to save Venezuela, then the next time the devils offer their free stuff, people will be like, yeah, we can take it, and then other people will just rush in to save us.
	I mean, like, I'm sorry.
	It's just the way that life is, so.
	Yeah.
	I don't know that they willingly gave up their arms, right?
	I mean, it's kind of tough when the government passes a law to just kind of ignore it.
	All right.
	I hope that helps.
	Let me just make sure I grab my... All right.
	I have three rules of virtue.
	I would like your input.
	Am I missing something?
	I tweeted a link to you.
	Not sure of a better way to communicate.
	Thank you for your work.
	This is from Chris Nugent.
	I appreciate that, Chris.
	I don't know what the best way to get that to me is.
	I can't just sort of in the live stream go look up my Twitter.
	So maybe if you can put it into the chat here, I'll check it in a sec.
	Actually, if you're here, just put it in the chat now to make sure that I can see it.
	And I will grab it.
	I'll just have a look here for a second.
	And then, I don't know, should we talk about ISIS brides?
	We'll see.
	No, I don't see anything yet.
	All right.
	Well, I will keep going and I will try to get it.
	If you see that from Chris, if you can just maybe put it in all caps and I appreciate that, that would be great.
	All right.
	Not Heisenbeer says, Can you apply UPB to the common ethical trolley problem?
	Do you switch the train track to save more people killing one?
	Also the variation where you would kill your own child to save more.
	Okay.
	So this is An ethical problem that is thrown at people in order to paralyze their sense of morality.
	This is a sophist trick that doesn't give people any rational moral choices.
	And it goes something like this.
	So there is a trolley, let's say, I don't know, streets of San Francisco style, right?
	There's a trolley coming down the train tracks and there's a fork in the road, oh sorry, a fork in the tracks.
	And the trolley's coming down, and you have a switch.
	You can either have it go to the left, or you can have it go to the right.
	Now, on the left, there's three people tied to the track, and on the right, there's six people tied to the track.
	Which do you switch?
	I mean, it totally is a bullshit question, and it has no relevance to ethics whatsoever.
	Say, oh, well, on one side, there's your child, and on the other side, there's ten other children.
	Which do you, uh, right?
	First of all, it's an artificial situation and second of all, there is no answer.
	There's no answer.
	It's sort of like if you're a doctor and rather than how do you treat regular ailments that show up and maybe how do you prevent people from getting sick or how do you cure them if they are sick, it's like a guy comes in and he's having a heart attack and he's having He's got terrible diabetes complications, and he also has a brain parasite, and he has a tumor, and what do you do?
	It's like, I don't know.
	It doesn't really happen that way in healthcare.
	And nobody is ever going to have that Sophie's Choice decision with the train tracks or the trolley.
	Not going to happen.
	Now, other questions we have, like, is taxation theft?
	Well, that's something that you can talk about.
	Is spanking immoral?
	Is hitting children a violation of the non-aggression principle?
	Is government a violation of the non-aggression principle?
	These are things that you can actually do something about and make decisions about.
	So, this ethics of emergency stuff, is completely ridiculous.
	Like, why are people tied to the train track?
	Why can't they just get off?
	Why are you the only person who can throw the switch?
	Why is the trolley coming careening down in the first place?
	And like, this is such an artificial situation that the implicit message, the implicit message is ethics is impossible choices that will never happen in your life.
	Right?
	You understand?
	The implicit message there is to take ethics out of your daily existence and say it is for hypothetical, impossible to solve situations that will never ever happen to you.
	And because of that, that's why I say it's desperately terrible, degenerate, I'm not saying you, you have this question and so on, but even that this question arises, I mean, if you have a situation in the world where, you know, I can't help but notice these days that the real child abuse doesn't even seem to be spanking anymore.
	The real child abuse appears to be letting your children get obese.
	That is a terrible, terrible situation at the moment, right?
	So it's kind of like you're a child nutritionist and your exam paper is something like There are three children, all tied to a chair.
	And in front of one is someone who's going to feed them too much peanut butter when they have allergies.
	And in another one, there's someone who's going to feed them shellfish when they have allergies.
	And then in another one, it's someone who's just going to pound them around the head with a two-by-four.
	Where do you choose?
	That's never going to come up.
	And meanwhile, we have literally tens of millions of obese children in the world who are setting themselves up for lifetime issues with diabetes, with hypertension, with heart disease, with the joint problems and pains, and self-image issues, and low sexual market value, and problems with fertility, particularly for women, and difficulty cleaning themselves because it's tough to scoop out all of the bacteria from those folds of fat and so on.
	And no!
	It's an impossible situation!
	You're suddenly beamed to another planet and there's something that tastes really good but it's like It's not how the real world operates.
	UPB, universally preferable behavior, is about voluntary crimes.
	It is not about impossible situations.
	What is the right answer to, do you save your own child or five other children?
	And of course, what it does, right?
	So you say, oh, you save your own child, five other children.
	Mass immigration from Africa makes sense, right?
	I mean, I don't even like to put myself in that mental situation because it's never going to happen.
	Whereas we have the selling off of children under the guise of national debt and all this kind of stuff.
	It's all this terrible stuff that's actually going on.
	Indoctrination of children rather than their education.
	Spanking of children.
	Wildly inappropriate sexual content.
	Being taught to children as young as five.
	Just terrible things that are happening in the real world.
	So this trolley stuff It's a way of ensuring that you think of ethics as something that you can never win in and only applies to situations that will never ever happen to you.
	So there is no universally preferable behavior in a state of emergency.
	Who do you eat in a lifeboat?
	We're never going to be in a lifeboat.
	We're never going to be eating people.
	Oh, well, it could happen.
	Compared to the actual moral problems that we could do something about in the world, these kind of back-off jobs of theoretical situations, it's not a moral choice.
	It's no longer a moral choice.
	Choosing between the lesser of two evils in a situation you did not create, it's not a moral choice.
	I would say UPB has nothing to say about that.
	I can tell you I'd save my child.
	Sorry about your child, but I'd save my child.
	But UPB has nothing to say about that, because it's nothing to do with free will.
	It's nothing to do with choice.
	It's nothing to do with ethics at all.
	So I hope that helps or makes sense.
	I really dislike those questions.
	I'm glad that you brought it up, of course, right?
	But I really do dislike these questions, because they're kind of disrespectful to the situation of ethics.
	Andrew Graham says, what are your thoughts on confronting one's parents about circumcision?
	I had a good childhood otherwise, but now I know what a terrible violation this was.
	Thank you for saving my future children from this fate.
	I am very sorry to hear about that.
	You know, there's no question, there's no question that my mother did a lot that was wrong and bad and terrible.
	On the other hand, One of the things that she did do that was not awful and bad and terrible and violent was no circumcision for the Steph-bot.
	And that is something that I have been very thankful for over the years.
	So, you know, that's a tough call.
	So it really depends upon whether your parents made the decision for religious reasons.
	That's one thing if you're Jewish, right?
	Or did they do the research to find out about it?
	Did they just accept what the doctor said?
	Do they do that with other things in their life?
	So if you have parents who like question vaccine use and question 5G and generally are skeptical of authority, but they were just like, yeah, yeah, you can hack off a third of my child's penis skin, Then they have a bit of answering to do as to why they just accepted the doctor's statement or authority.
	And if you're younger, I don't think that it's as automatic a process or as inevitable a process as it used to be in the past.
	So I would definitely sit down and talk with them and I am really, like it's a terrible violation.
	It's a terrible violation of a child's integrity and it is Absolutely horrendous when it comes to medical ethics.
	I mean, first, do no harm, of course, right?
	I mean, you've got healthy skin, the most concentrated nerve endings, significantly important for sexual pleasure, both for the man and the woman, right?
	Because if you have a foreskin, then you're kind of, when you're in a woman's vagina, you're thrusting back and forth, and the foreskin is absorbing a lot of the friction, so the woman gets less of rug burn and so on.
	So it is terrible.
	And this is, you know, my body, my choice, say the women, but moms regularly decide to violate their children's bodily integrity and permanently harm their child by slicing off a third of the skin of the penis.
	And it's terrible.
	I mean, if you're not circumcised and you're wandering around and the head of your penis pops out from your foreskin and it's kind of rubbing or shaving against your underpants, I mean, not pleasant.
	It's not particularly enjoyable at all, right?
	It's a negative experience, and of course that is the situation for circumcised kids as a whole, so I am really sorry that this happened to you, and I've not looked into it, although I know that there are some people who claim some capacity to restore foreskins, and so I am, and I had a call with a fellow, I haven't released it as yet, whose penis was destroyed, really, by a botched
	circumcision uh... was just just terrible so i would definitely sit down with them it is a pretty terrible thing to to inflict upon a child and so i would uh... sit down and talk with them and try and figure out their decision making process because it may have also impacted other decisions that they made for you and if the other kind of people who well the doctor said it was essential that it prevents STDs that it but whatever whatever whatever
	Then I guess some forgiveness may be in order in terms that they weren't being completely careless, that they weren't being indoctrinated, and so on.
	And then maybe some forgiveness would be in order, but I guess that's part of the whole conversation that you'd have to have.
	So I hope that helps.
	And again, my very, very deep sympathies, Andrew, for what happened.
	And it may be, of course, that the best that you can get out of it which it sounds like something that you're doing is to make sure that you do not inflict this upon your children.
	And spread the word as best you can.
	So I hope that I hope that helps.
	All right.
	Hey, Double Dog Bear.
	Yes, I remember you.
	How you doing?
	Thank you very much for coming back.
	Thank you for your super chat.
	If you were suddenly beamed to another planet and something that tasted really good was on a trolley rack, would you make complex design decisions while in a pack?
	I'm just going to leave that one sit because I don't think I could make any comments better than that.
	It's pretty funny.
	All right.
	Matt Waters says, how do you decide whether or not to appear on a person's program?
	Where do you see the benefit of your message outweighed by the potential negative consequences of the medium you're delivering it on?
	Well, that's a good question, and I don't have a great answer for that.
	When Mike was here, we would have discussions.
	Now, I'll do some research on the person.
	I mean, I just got invited to go on a show in England, and I'm just not going to be in England.
	It was the kind of thing that would need to be in-house.
	So I don't mind sitting down with someone who is hostile to me.
	I don't mind that at all.
	I mean, if you look at Dave Rubin's show where I did the one on race and IQ, it's like over 1.1 million people.
	And I'm assuming there's some similar number or some close number.
	I think he's got a podcast as well.
	So was he hostile?
	It was kind of critical or kind of negative or whatever.
	It wasn't sort of very chummy or chatty.
	I don't particularly mind.
	I like to know ahead of time.
	If someone says, you know, man, I'm going to ask you all the tough questions, I'd be like, okay, well, I can decide that ahead of time, whether that's worth it or not for me, or at least I can go in being fully prepared.
	If you think you're going in for a convivial chat and it turns out to be a, you know, here's everything hateful that's ever been said about you, then that's not, I mean, it's something I like to know ahead of time.
	But if they're, you know, if they have a big enough reach and it's someone that I think will be worth talking to, then I think that's fine.
	But I've never found a huge, outside of the first couple of times I was on Joe Rogan's podcast, I rarely go on someone's show and there's some huge bump or some big thing that happens from it.
	Because I'm fairly big now, close to a million subscribers, although I'm getting a lot of complaints from people on YouTube that they're not getting notifications anymore of my new shows.
	So please check that out.
	I'm sorry.
	I wish I could do something about it.
	Just be aware that you may not be getting notifications, so be sure to check in and do stuff.
	If the person has had a history of making bad decisions about what they've been talking about, then I'd probably not appear on their program.
	If they say, you know, I'm going to ask you all the tough questions, I mean, I've done a bunch of those shows already.
	It may be worth it or it may not be worth it, I don't know.
	I was on James Dellingpole's show.
	We just happened to be at the EU together.
	He's a very charming fellow and a very nice fellow, and I really enjoyed that conversation.
	So yeah, I was willing to sit down with him.
	I even did him the great honor of getting up early to do so, which for me is not always the easiest thing in the known universe.
	So if there's a big new audience and if I feel that I'm being dealt with upfront honestly about whether it's going to be a very critical interview, then if I know ahead of time I can go in prepared and so on.
	So hopefully that makes sense.
	But I do have to have some respect for the person as a whole.
	All right.
	Mocking Moniker says, what if everything we see is real and our senses were just telling us the truth for the most part?
	I'm mocking existentialism.
	So, what if everything we see is real in a census, we're just telling us the truth for the most part?
	Hmm.
	Okay.
	Not really sure to make, uh, make, uh, make that, uh, or not.
	Let's have a quick look.
	Uh, yeah.
	Jewish question.
	I can't do that every week.
	Sorry, guys.
	Like I just can't.
	I just can't.
	Stop the hammering.
	Yeah, I mean, I've talked about the Jewish question and all of this kind of stuff over and over again, and I'm just not that interested in it anymore.
	And, you know, here's the thing, like, I mean, it's just a general thing that I want to say to people about, like, if I'm not doing what you want, well, first of all, I don't have to do what you want, and you don't have to do what I want.
	I ask on a regular basis, and now it's in my shows as a whole, I ask on a regular basis for people to donate to the show.
	Freedominradio.com forward slash donate.
	So I ask.
	Now, what percentage of you actually listen to what I ask and return value for value for what I provide and donate to my show?
	Well, very few.
	I mean, it's the usual couple of percentage, right?
	So the vast majority of you guys are kind of free riders, right?
	Like, I'm just being frank with you, because I want to be honest, right?
	I mean, say what the reality is.
	The vast majority of people don't support this show.
	They'll come in and they'll take value from the show and they'll take the unique perspective and use that I can provide and they won't pay anything for it because, I don't know, do they not understand economics?
	Do they not understand the moral issues of being a free rider?
	Do they not know that you're kind of morally obligated to exchange value for value?
	I'm not saying the first time you listen, but if you've listened for a while and you're getting value out of the show and what I provide is unique in the world, So the majority of you don't do what I ask you to, so then the idea that I should just do what you want me to is kind of odd to me, right?
	I mean, kind of strange.
	But here's the thing, like, when I was first thinking of doing this show back in 2005, 2004, 2005, I was not satisfied with how philosophy was being talked about in the world. I was not satisfied with how philosophy was being talked I thought it was underserviced, underserved.
	Now what I could have, I had a choice, right?
	So I could have gone to people who were prominent in the field or people who did philosophy shows or people who wrote philosophy blogs or books or whatever.
	I could have gone to them and I could have just nagged and nagged and nagged them to do what I want.
	That, to me, would have been a pretty sad approach.
	Because it's a helpless feeling, isn't it?
	Like to, oh, Steph, talk about the Jewish question.
	Isn't it a helpless feeling?
	Like you get frustrated and tense and angry and I'm a shill and I'm paid by the Zionists.
	All this nonsense, right?
	So if I'm not doing what you want, and it's something you think is important that needs to be done, Then do it.
	You know, everybody who makes a movie is making something that hasn't been made before.
	And they can either nag other people to do it or they can do it themselves.
	It's a market opportunity if there's an important thing that you want to talk about that you feel I should talk about more or in a different way or in a different manner or in a different context.
	Then it is a great opportunity for you to start a show and do what you want.
	Nagging me does not motivate me to do anything other than tune you out.
	So I've responded to people who've said, Steph, talk about the Jewish question.
	And I've talked about it in a wide variety of ways.
	And I've given my perspective on it in great detail.
	Now, if it's not the perspective you want, or if you think I'm missing something, or I'm lying, or I'm some sort of whatever, right?
	It's a wonderful market opportunity for you to go ahead and create your own show.
	Philosophy wasn't being talked about in the way that I thought it should be talked about.
	So what did I do?
	Did I just nag people?
	No.
	I sat down with a microphone, organized my thoughts, and started talking.
	And that's life.
	There's helplessness in nagging people.
	There's frustration in nagging people.
	There's hopelessness in nagging people.
	And a little bit, a little bit, there's kind of like cowardice in nagging people.
	Oh, Steph, you should talk about this, that, or the other.
	Says the anonymous person.
	Okay, I get it.
	I get it.
	You don't want to take the heat for what it is that you want to talk about.
	You want me to take the heat.
	I don't have any respect for that.
	I'm just being frank with you.
	I don't have any respect for that at all.
	Oh, you should talk to Kevin McDonald.
	Hey man, you start a show and invite them on.
	I fundamentally don't understand why you would just nag people rather than go do something yourself.
	If I'm making some mistake or I'm paid off or I'm some terrible coward about this issue in your view or whatever, I don't think that's the case, but let's say you believe that to be the case, then I'm giving up a very important market opportunity that you can fill.
	It's like if there's a restaurant, It's the only restaurant in town.
	And you believe that there's a huge demand for hamburgers in that restaurant.
	They don't serve hamburgers.
	And you just sit there and you phone the owner every day.
	Man, you gotta get hamburgers.
	You gotta start making hamburgers.
	There's a huge demand for hamburgers.
	Go make hamburgers.
	Where are the hamburgers?
	Just make the hamburgers.
	What are you, a shill for the vegans?
	Or you could just open up your own restaurant and start serving hamburgers if you think there's such a big market demand for it.
	So... Anyway, I just...
	Pointing that out, that anonymous nagging doesn't motivate me.
	It's not going to budge one inch of my buttocks to take a different position or take a different stance.
	I'm never going to positively reward nagging with compliance.
	I'm just not going to do it.
	You know, it's like the JF fans.
	I mean, you can nag me all you want.
	It's not going to work.
	All right, so.
	The Hobbes, 8 Kelvin, says, You've said that this cycle of history will be lost, and the best thing to do is to throw up a flare.
	If this is the case, why do you continue to firefight?
	Now, you've got to listen carefully, because I speak carefully.
	And I know that you can get that impression from what I say, and I understand that.
	But in the video that I talked about recently about this, I said this is how I feel in the moment of making the video and there are times when I feel that.
	There's no hope and that the time for arguments has passed and all we can do is document the decline.
	Dead West walking, that the West died in 1918 and it's just been twitching and fingernail and hair growing ever since.
	The simulacrum of life, not life itself.
	There are times when I feel that and I guarantee there are times when you feel that and there are other times where I feel more positive and more optimistic.
	And Maybe it has something to do with, like when I'm creating beauty, I feel optimistic.
	So when I write essential philosophy or the art of the argument or UPB or everyday anarchy or practical anarchy or how not to achieve freedom or against the gods or my novels.
	Like when I write things and creating things of beauty, then I feel more optimistic.
	When I'm doing a lot of current events and have to kind of plow into the general insanity of the world as it is, I feel less optimistic.
	Which is why I kind of need to season creation with analysis in my world.
	So I have not come to a final conclusion about the hopelessness because I believe that I'm a powerful actor in the world.
	I know I'm a powerful actor in the world and I believe that there's still chances for people to maybe turn things around.
	So I'm still in the fight, but there are certainly times where I feel despair.
	And I wanted to be honest about that, because I think it's something we all share.
	And we are all uncertain about whether or not reason can win the day or not.
	So I just wanted to mention that.
	All right.
	Shygarath, no question, but a super chat.
	Thank you so much enormously for that.
	All right, philosophy of style, sports jacket or blazer?
	I prefer a sports jacket myself, but I'm also not much of a fashion guy as I'm fairly sure you are aware of that.
	All right, let's see here.
	What have we got?
	Would you do a review of the Shawshank Redemption?
	I'd love to see your thoughts.
	All right, I will think about that for sure.
	All right.
	Very interesting.
	Very interesting.
	All right.
	Thank you for this.
	Let me just make sure I get all of these.
	All right.
	Jacob Nabilek says, do you think social programs promoting childbirth in some European countries will be successful?
	Yeah.
	I mean, I've heard people say that once you get to a birth rate of 1.9, it's kind of irreversible.
	There are significant indications that the one-child policy per family that was pursued under communism for many decades is fundamentally irreversible, that you just get this culture of one child and they just don't want bigger families, and this is the way the whole society has adapted itself.
	So there's some people who say that once you fall below the replacement rates, it can't be reversed.
	And there are people who say, certainly once you get around, like some of the European countries are like 1.3, 1.2, I think one's even 1.1 if it's Italy.
	I can't remember, but once you get that low, it's really, really tough.
	Now, was it Hungary?
	You guys can remind me, but it's been a while since I looked at this.
	Hungary has got a policy at the moment where if you have four children you never have to pay income tax again for the rest of your life.
	I don't know how well that's going to do but it does very clearly say or very clearly indicate that taxes are suppressing birth rates and of course I mean this is one of the fundamental issues with immigration from third world countries aside from the cultural issues and so on is that Taxes are taken from high IQ people and given to low IQ people.
	It's just natural in the way that it works.
	And so because of that, you end up diminishing the reproductive rates of high IQ people and artificially enhancing the reproduction rates of low IQ people.
	That just, it coarsens the whole culture.
	Like, I mean, people are, like, looking at Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's statements on this, that, and the other, and they're literally shaking their heads, like, what is going on?
	Where did this woman come from?
	Well, there is a huge market for stupidity these days because there's a huge number of stupid people.
	And that's the welfare state, to a large degree.
	The welfare state is a giant dysgenics program that takes resources from smarter people and gives it to less smart people to breed.
	And people say, well, how would you fix that?
	It's like, there's no fixing it.
	The point is you've got to get rid of the welfare state, which is going to happen sooner or later anyway.
	The welfare state creates a giant excess of less intelligent people on the planet.
	And intelligence, as we know by your late teens, is 80% genetic.
	And you can check out my interview with Dr. Richard Heyer, H-A-I-E-R, who is the editor of the scientific journal Intelligence, for more on this.
	But we've got a giant excess of less intelligent people.
	Now, normally, what society does is it goes to war, and it puts the less intelligent people in the front lines and keeps the smarter people in logistics and operations and code breaking and this, that and the other, right?
	I mean, this is what the IQ test was used for by the US Army and by other armies.
	Which is You make sure that you put the least intelligent people in the most dangerous situations.
	It's a way that society used to have of changing the bell curve in society.
	Because when the bell curve in terms of intelligence starts to tilt too far to the left, your society is in grave danger of collapsing.
	When you sort of think about it, the modern world, right, so this is something I've said on Twitter if you haven't heard it.
	So Charles Murray has done the research in his book Human Achievement.
	And I'm paraphrasing here, but 97% of the world's major scientific advancements from 800 BC to 1950 AD came from Europe and Canada and America.
	So it was almost overwhelmingly white males who created the modern world.
	Now think of the number of really, really famous people, the number of really great scientists or biologists or physicists or Engineers or theoreticians of philosophy and political science and so on.
	I mean the modern world is this giant inverted pyramid that rests on the genius of maybe a thousand people.
	Maybe a thousand people.
	That's important.
	So if you take ten percent, if society, like just imagine you can snap your fingers and ten percent of less intelligent people vanish.
	Society doesn't change that much.
	But if you take ten percent Off the top IQ group, like the very top IQ, like 160, 170, 180 and above, like the true productive geniuses of the world.
	If you suddenly take 10% off those people, you don't have a modern world anymore.
	It really matters.
	Like we are all resting in this inverted pyramid on the genius of maybe a thousand people, could even be small, could be a couple hundred people, depends how you sort of measure it.
	And I'm not talking music and so on, this is wonderful stuff and so on, but I'm talking about the real stuff that makes the modern world work.
	And it's mostly white males as a whole who do all of that.
	And taking that for granted, like progress is just something that happens and it doesn't require a specific meritocracy And access to true geniuses, you know, we are really, really resting on this fraying thread of genius that can go like that and we just fall.
	So, I do think that there will be some success in these programs.
	It's to the benefit of the governments to offer that, although it is a longer term planning, right?
	Because immigration, you get people who can vote for you right away.
	The other thing that happens too, when you have the welfare state, is because you're taking huge amounts of resources from smart people and giving them to dumb people, dumb people have a purchasing power that they otherwise wouldn't have in society.
	I mean, you give a woman, I think a woman in California gets over $4,000, there's $3,500 or $4,000 worth of benefits if she has two kids under the age of five.
	Well, that means that she has a purchasing power that she otherwise wouldn't have.
	And that purchasing power is going to be spent on usually low IQ stuff, right?
	I mean, single moms tend to be lower in IQ.
	So it's just going to be spent on lower IQ stuff, which coarsens the culture, dumbs down the culture, and so on.
	And then there's the huge businesses that then spring up to accommodate all of this.
	And, oh, camera focus is bad.
	I have changed nothing, I tell you.
	Let me just see here.
	Has it gone bad?
	Is it time to refresh?
	Camera focus is bad.
	Is it better?
	Is it better?
	All right.
	Sorry for the podcast people, but yeah, it looks all right to me.
	So here's something else I thought about, which is interesting.
	I didn't know a place to put it.
	So, hey, I'm going to put it here.
	If somebody comes up and says, sorry, mostly, sorry ladies, you have to give up the welfare state because it's going to end anyway and it's drawing in a magnet of lower quality in general immigrants and so on, migrants and so on.
	You've got to give up the welfare state.
	So the single moms will all say, well, how are we supposed to feed our kids?
	How am I supposed to take care of my kids?
	And then people will be like, right?
	Like you've got to give answers to people.
	But nobody asks men that kind of stuff.
	Like, so think of the Second World War or Vietnam or whatever.
	So some of the men who were drafted, they were sole providers for their family.
	They were taking care of elderly relatives.
	They had their own businesses that they had to run and whatever.
	And they didn't sit there and say, well, if I get drafted, who's going to take care of my mom?
	If I get drafted, who's going to provide for my family?
	If I get drafted, who's going to run my business?
	Nobody asks men that.
	Shut up and be drafted, right?
	But it's funny, because when women ask that, everyone's like, oh, I've got to provide an answer, and I've got to solve all these problems for women.
	But men get drafted, which is much worse than the welfare state ending.
	And nobody says to men, well, here's how we're going to solve all the problems that being drafted causes you.
	Nothing like that happens.
	Just kind of wanted to mention that.
	Can you show us how to rebuild a carburetor?
	Told my girl I'd have to forget her.
	Rather get me a new carburetor.
	No, I really can't.
	I'm about as handy as a squid in general.
	All right, Natalie Truman says, Husband confronted my dad about things that happened in my past.
	It got heated and dad hung up.
	I feel guilt.
	Not sure if he's going to talk to me again.
	I'm afraid his health is below average.
	Not sure what to do.
	Please can I have your advice?
	Hmm.
	Hmm.
	Interesting.
	Um... Am I getting... Sorry.
	It's the, uh... The camera looks alright to me.
	Maybe I'm just getting blurry in my old age.
	So... Husband confronted my dad about things that happened in my past.
	Okay, I'm gonna assume that those things were pretty bad.
	Not like, you know, dad was hesitant to let me go to the prom with a biker gang.
	So it got heated and dead, hung up.
	Why do you feel guilt?
	Not sure if he's going to talk to me again.
	So I'm going to assume that what your dad did was pretty bad in the past.
	So why would you feel guilt?
	You're the victim, right?
	You're the victim.
	You've been harmed by your father.
	And if it's like, well, you know, his health is below average, Well, could it be stressful for your father that someone's confronting him about the evils that he did in the past?
	Well, was it stressful for you as a child to experience those evils and be subjected to those evils?
	Well, of course it was, right?
	I mean, I understand, Natalie, it's a lovely aspect of femininity to feel this general glob of guilt and remorse and concern and all of that.
	How about you thank your husband for standing up to your dad if he abused you in the past?
	It got heated?
	So, what you're saying, if I understand this correctly, is that your dad, if he was a bully in the past, doesn't like it when people stand up to him.
	In other words, when people stand up to him, he feels bullied, you see.
	And that's really terrible.
	He's just going to hang up.
	Well, did you get a chance to hang up as a child?
	To disassociate yourself as a child when you were being bullied?
	Or neglected or abused by your father?
	No.
	Not sure if he's going to talk to me again.
	If your father is the kind of person, Natalie, who cuts off contact when someone confronts him, there's no relationship anyway.
	You can't be in relationships with people who will cut you off when you say things or someone says something that they don't like.
	Love is not approving someone who tells you what you want to hear.
	Love is not being tickled in your happy spots like a pair of fingers underneath a cat's chin.
	Love is when you respect someone enough to listen to them when they disagree with you, when they offend you, when they upset you.
	You don't need love while you're having an orgasm.
	You need love When you're having a no-gasm, right?
	Which means that someone's saying no to you about something that you believe in and treasure and think is really important.
	So if your father doesn't like it when your husband is honest with your father and if your father punishes you for honesty on the part of your husband by not talking to you or by withholding from you or by punishing you in some manner Then you should thank heaven or philosophy or your virtue for your husband and to hell with your dad.
	Why would you want someone in your life who punishes you for honesty?
	And also, please understand that if your father is punishing you because you told your husband and your husband confronted your father about abuse you suffered in the past, then your father is trying to drive a wedge between you and your husband.
	He's trying to set you at odds with your husband.
	Don't let that happen.
	Your father, your parents, they're in the past.
	They're deep in the rearview.
	They're gone.
	They're history.
	They're footprints of dinosaurs.
	They're fossils.
	They're in the past.
	They've had their life.
	They've made their choices.
	Your husband is your present.
	Your children are your future.
	This is the way it works.
	Your parents are your past.
	Your spouse is your present.
	And your children are your future.
	Now, why would you want to sacrifice the present for the sake of the past?
	Why would you want to sacrifice the future for the sake of the past?
	Why would you want to sacrifice your relationship you have with your husband or relationship you have with your children for the sake of your parents?
	Makes no sense.
	You chose your husband, you did not choose your father.
	You chose to have children, your children did not choose you.
	So, when it comes to relationships that you've chosen where there's genuine virtue, and freedom in the relationship, those are the ones that you treasure.
	And if your father is bullying you because you talked to your husband and your husband talked to him about things that happened that are important, what are you gonna do?
	To hold on to his, to hold on to contact with him, you have to lie about your experience and your history with him.
	To have any, quote, quote, relationship with him, you have to deny your own history, your own experience, In order to be with him, you have to not exist as an entity with a memory and a connection to time?
	In order to have a relationship, you have to self-erase.
	Come on.
	That's not the way.
	That's not the way.
	Don't cave.
	If your dad decides to cut off contact with you, Because you talk to your husband and your husband talk to him about things that are important and things that hurt you.
	Well, as my aunt used to say, good riddance to bad rubbish.
	All right.
	More questions.
	Ooh, how lovely.
	Mahasattva says, what are your opinions about Freemasonry?
	I am a Freemason from Wisconsin.
	Also, Kanye West follows me on Twitter.
	I am a libertarian oil painter.
	Now, I must tell you, I don't know much about Freemasonry.
	Secret handshakes?
	George Washington?
	Conspiracy theories?
	That's kind of all I know.
	So, Freemasonry.
	So the Shriners and other groups originally came about.
	They were called Friendly Societies and other kinds of societies in other places.
	And basically they were big insurance pools that people got together with in order to reduce the risk of particularly health care costs.
	And you could get other kinds of insurance as well.
	So before the government got involved in Medicare, there used to be the Friendly Societies.
	You'd join them.
	And like up to a third of American workers were in these Friendly Societies.
	And you had these wonderful collective bargaining powers with these Friendly Societies.
	The Elks were originally this way as well.
	And what you could do is you could get an entire year's worth of access to a doctor for one or two days wages.
	It was incredible.
	And the doctors got really mad and then started nagging the government to create licensing and restrictions and so on so that the doctors wouldn't be bid down too much in price and so on.
	Dr. Roderick Long has an article on this which is well worth I think it's something like how the government solved the last healthcare crisis.
	The last healthcare crisis about 100 years ago was that healthcare was too cheap and governments fixed it by creating monopolies and all of that, and it all sort of escalated up from there.
	So as far as voluntary associations go, I think that's perfectly fine.
	I don't know anything about the conspiracy theories.
	I've never looked into it as a whole, so I hope that helps.
	All right.
	Alan Nowhere says, second time I've asked this, is it possible the U.S. government is or was involved in child sex trafficking?
	Hmm. - Very interesting question.
	Yeah, I know the camera lens does reflect glasses.
	Sorry about that.
	I'm trying to figure out what to do about that, but I haven't got any good answers as yet.
	But all right.
	With regards to the child sex trafficking, To me, there's no doubt that some people who are pedophiles take refuge in state power.
	There's no doubt about that.
	And if you look at how British institutions covered up the pedophilia of that British BBC presenter and so on, it was pretty wretched.
	And let me just look up something here.
	Sorry to do this live.
	but this was uh... important so margaret thatcher and and this is sort of true for a lot of the upper echelons of the british political uh... situation so there's something called the westminster pedophile dossier and uh... much though i hate to go to wiki uh... i will just this is the first one that came up and i don't want to just search through all this
	So, a dossier on pedophiles allegedly associated with the British government was assembled by the British Member of Parliament Geoffrey Dickens, who handed it to then Home Secretary Leon Britton in 1984.
	The whereabouts of the dossier is unknown, along with other files on organized child abuse that have been held by the Home Office.
	In 2013, the Home Office stated that all relevant information had been passed to the police and that Dickens' dossier had not been retained.
	It was later disclosed that 114 documents concerning child abuse allegations were missing.
	In July 2014, the Labour Party called for a new inquiry into the way that the allegations had been handled, and the Prime Minister, David Cameron, ordered the Permanent Secretary to the Home Office, Mark Sedwell, to investigate the circumstances of the lost dossier.
	So, I'll sort of not get into all of this, so...
	So this is again from Wiki.
	Between 1981 and 1985, this guy Dickens campaigned against a suspected pedophile ring he claimed to have uncovered that was connected to trading child pornography.
	In 1981, Dickens and the House of Commons accused Sir Peter Heyman, a former senior diplomat, civil servant, and MI6 operative of being a pedophile in the House of Commons, using parliamentary privilege.
	So parliamentary privilege, as far as I understand it, you can't be sued for libel or slander for what you say in the House of Commons.
	Dickens further questioned why Heyman had not been jailed after it was discovered he had left a package containing child pornography on a bus.
	In 1983, Dickens claimed that there was a pedophile network involving, quote, big, big names, people in positions of power, influence, and responsibility, end quote, and threatened to name them in the comments.
	The next year, he campaigned for the banning of the pro-pedophile activism group of which Heyman was a member, the Pedophile Information Exchange.
	On 29th November 1985, Dickens said in a speech to the Commons that pedophiles were, quote, evil and dangerous, end quote, and that child pornography generated, quote, vast sums, end quote.
	He further claimed that, quote, the noose around my neck grew tighter after I named a former high-flying British diplomat, Heyman, on the floor of the House.
	Honorable members will understand that where big money is involved, and as important names came into my possession, so the threats began.
	First, I received threatened telephone calls, followed by two burglaries at my London home.
	Then, more seriously, my name appeared on a multi-killers hit list.
	Dickens gave his 40-page dossier to the Home Secretary in Britain in a 30-minute meeting in 1984.
	A second copy of the dossier was reported to have been given to the Director of Public Prosecutions, Thomas Hetherington.
	Dickens described the dossier as having the potential to, quote, blow the lid off, end quote, the lives of notable child abusers.
	It included details on eight prominent figures and was reported to have contained the name of a former conservative MP who had been found with child pornography videos against whom no arrests or charges were brought.
	Dickens told his son Barry that the dossier was, quote, explosive, end quote.
	Dickens had asked Britain the person, not the country, in 1983 to investigate the Diplomatic and Civil Services and the Royal Court of Buckingham Palace over claims of child sexual abuse.
	Dickens said he was, quote, going to give him, Britain, a glimpse inside my private files where people have written to me with information.
	It was subsequently suggested by Britain in a letter to Dickens that his file would be given to police.
	However, the police later stated they had no record of any investigation into the allegations.
	The Home Office confirmed that no correspondence from Dickens had been retained and that they had found, quote, no record of specific allegations by Mr. Dickens of child sex abuse by prominent public figures.
	Britain has said that the dossier was passed to officials at the Home Office and that he had raised concerns about the allegations with the Director of Public Prosecutions.
	In a detailed statement issued July 2014, Britain said allegations that he, quote, failed to deal adequately with the bundle of papers containing allegations of serious sexual impropriety End quote from Dickens.
	We're, quote, completely without foundation.
	End quote.
	So you can read this.
	You can look this up and get into more details about this.
	And these are allegations.
	And I don't know if much investigation actually occurred.
	And Margaret Thatcher seems to have not acted with particularly wonderful.
	Let me just jump to this.
	Oh, yeah.
	In January 2015, an academic researcher found in the National Archives a reference to a file entitled Allegations Against Former Public Missing Word of Unnatural Sexual Proclivity Security Aspects, 1980, October 27th to 1980.
	To 1981, March 20th, which had gone to the then Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in the early 1980s.
	The file had been classified since it contained information from the security services and law officers.
	The cabinet initially stated that any pertinent files would be made available to the forthcoming independent panel inquiry into child sexual abuse.
	However, on 30th January, the file was made public, revealing that it related to the former British diplomat Sir Peter Heyman.
	On 2nd February 2015, UK newspaper The Guardian reported that Margaret Thatcher had added handwritten annotations to the documents in the file which showed that despite its contents, she had been insistent that the official should not name Heyman.
	The released papers also contained a note titled, quote, line to take, end quote, sent to Thatcher on the day after Jeffrey Dickens had used parliamentary privilege to name Heyman in 1981.
	On it she had written, quote, say authorities have carried out an investigation, nothing to suggest that security prejudiced.
	So it's pretty sickening stuff.
	In a 2013 review on its handling of the dossier, the Home Office discovered that parts of the dossier described as, quote, credible, end quote, and which contained, quote, realistic potential, end quote, for further investigations were passed to prosecutors and the police.
	Other elements of the dossier were not retained or were destroyed.
	So, I don't know.
	I don't know what the answer is to all of this, but there is certainly, and no, this is the UK government, And I know there have been allegations against the former Prime Minister in the UK.
	And he said, well, I couldn't have done it.
	I didn't have a car.
	But there's pictures of him with a car.
	And of course, if you have creepy, horrible, nasty, evil, sexual proclivities like attraction to children in a sexual manner, government and power is kind of the place you want to be, because you can be protected.
	You can be relatively secure.
	And I think that there is that aspect of things.
	And if you look at Isaac Asimov, the famous science fiction writer, his son was, well, you can look it all up.
	Look it all up.
	I'm not going to try and do it off the top of my head because I want to be sensitive to accuracy and I don't want to read a whole bunch of stuff.
	So just look it up and see what happened with regards to Isaac Asimov's son and the prosecutor who was involved, maybe a name that you're somewhat familiar with and so on.
	And if you look at some of the Jeffrey Epstein stuff that went on, and Mike Cernovich has a, I think he's joined with the Miami Herald in a lawsuit regarding this, it's gone on I think for three years now.
	So I do think that they like politicians in power, the powers that be like politicians in power who are compromised, who they have material on and who they can control through threats of blackmail.
	And so I think there is that aspect of things.
	We certainly know that the government covered up horrendous child sexual abuses against mostly white British girls starting from the 1970s and 1980s onwards for fears of being called racist or whatever.
	So it would not surprise me, it would not shock me to see that these things would be related to state power.
	You know, sexuality just drives a lot of things in this world.
	Sexuality drives a lot of things in this world for good and for ill.
	So, all right.
	Sorry that wasn't a great answer, but I hope it gives you some stuff to look into.
	All right.
	Crazy Mook says, any ideas on how to remove the left's death grip on dictating social morality?
	Yeah, you can follow me on Twitter and retweet.
	I'm engaged in a regular battle there to fight back against the evil white narrative.
	The evil white narrative is everywhere on the left.
	horrible, and it's abusive, and basically history has now just turned into an endless torrent of verbal abuse against whites.
	So yeah, some Indian fellow was like, oh, the whites colonized and destroyed India, and so on.
	It's like, yeah, it must have been terrible for the Europeans to bring railways, and the rule of law, and plumbing to India, interrupting the centuries-old traditions of bride-burning, internecine warfare, and voodoo.
	And you just have to keep pushing back against all of this stuff, all of these lies about, oh, the reason why India is poor is because of colonialism and the exploitation and stripping of resources.
	And it's like, no, no.
	The reason that India is poor is there's an average IQ of 82.
	You know, the British ruled Singapore for well over a century.
	I think it was 144 years, give or take, off and on.
	So the British ruled Singapore for well over a century.
	Singapore has one of the highest GDPs per capita.
	What is it?
	55,000 or something like American dollars.
	One of the highest GDPs per capita in the world.
	Why?
	Because Singapore has an average IQ.
	People in Singapore have an average IQ of 108.
	Hugely high.
	Hugely high.
	I mean, what was worse?
	Colonialism that bought the rule of law and ended or tried to end cousin marriage and slavery.
	Or being bombed from end to end with conventional and nuclear weapons like Japan was in the Second World War.
	I'm not talking about the ethics of the war.
	I'm just talking about the physical infrastructure that was destroyed and all of the people who died and the nuclear radiation that lingered on in Hiroshima and Nagasaki and so on.
	And Japan recovered fairly well, fairly quickly.
	Jews went through a Holocaust and, as I've said before, they came to America and within four years had achieved income parity with whites.
	Then, of course, went to exceed it.
	Haiti has very low IQ, still has slavery, has been more or less independent for 400 years, and still is a place where you literally can buy cookies made of dirt to eat.
	So now, free market plus high IQ is what generates wealth.
	Nothing, no other explanation comes close.
	So follow me on Twitter and retweet the stuff that I talk about there.
	That's my particular goal and approach.
	All right, what have we got here?
	Let's do a couple more.
	Tim Peter Silva says, I live in London.
	The rate of change is terrifying.
	Is resistance to this change futile?
	UK genetically has changed forever.
	The scale of it just seems completely overwhelming.
	Yeah, I don't know.
	I know what you're saying.
	I know what you're saying.
	And I mean I wish I could tell you.
	You know, have some babies, speak the truth, and predict what's coming.
	So, just to take an unrelated example from history.
	Churchill was in the wilderness after the massive Gallipoli where he lost his admiralty and ended up back in the trenches in the First World War.
	He was like in the wilderness, he was considered eccentric, crazy, he was nuts, but he predicted the rise of Hitler and the coming of war.
	And, oh great, now I get all the Churchill revisionists swarming this.
	But anyway, yeah, tell me.
	I've got a whole presentation on Churchill.
	I'm not going around to doing this yet.
	But anyway, just taking the standard narrative.
	Just take the standard narrative.
	There's Chamberlain, Chamberlain, Chamberlain, who says, I've got peace in our time.
	Hitler's someone I can negotiate with, someone I can reason with, and so on.
	And Churchill is saying, nope, he's an adventure of the old school type.
	He's going to bring war.
	He's going to bring chaos.
	He's, you know, all this kind of stuff.
	He's not kidding when he talks about the Jews and so on.
	People are like, Yeh Chamberlain, Yeh Chamberlain, Churchill's the worst guy ever, patooey, patooey, patooey.
	And then when people are cornered and desperate and they realize there's no way out, then they'll switch from Chamberlain to Churchill pretty quickly.
	People switched from the Parliament in Chile, as I talked about earlier, they switched from the Parliament in Chile to Augustus Pinochet pretty quickly, when people are desperate.
	They can change their minds pretty quickly, but you have to have been making the presentations.
	You have to be making the presentations to be right about your predictions.
	All right.
	Defensant A McFarlane says, can you see my previous Super Chats?
	Third time.
	How do you feel about the military welfare state, civic nationalism?
	Please find my other Super Chats.
	Now, here's the challenge, my friend.
	I don't think.
	Let me see here.
	The Super Chats time out, and I am sorry about that for sure.
	I am sorry about that.
	I do sort of do my best, but if I have a long and detailed one to get into, they do sort of time out, and I don't know how to get them back.
	If somebody knows if there's some option for doing that, I would appreciate that.
	But let's see here.
	How do you feel about the military welfare state?
	It's terrible.
	How do I feel about civic nationalism?
	Yeah, I mean, it's a challenge.
	You know, one of the most terrifying thoughts in the world is that culture and race are inextricably interlinked, right?
	That is a completely terrifying thought, and I'm still mulling all of that over.
	Because civic nationalism is the idea, well, if everybody who shares our values can come, and immigration doesn't matter as long as you end up sharing the same values, now there are some economic ways that that can be achieved, which is You have no welfare state, and if people awoke on the race and IQ issue, then there's going to be a lot of pre-filtering, so to speak, right?
	It's not really worth coming up from Guatemala if you can't get thousands of dollars worth of free stuff from the welfare state, perhaps free education for your kids, plus, plus, plus, right?
	So, I have to stand by principle, and people, I understand that, and I have these debates with myself as well, oh, well, I give up principle.
	for the sake of this particularly positive outcome.
	Like, well, I say, oh, the government, in order to retain X, Y, or Z demographic within a country, it's like, no, but the government is currently destroying demographics in the West, so, or certainly altering them seemingly inexorably.
	So first of all, this stuff is not forever in the longest historical part, right?
	So, you know, Greece was ruled by the Muslims, by the Turks for 400 years, and then they weren't.
	I'm not saying 400 years is necessarily a good thing, but this stuff doesn't necessarily have to be forever.
	It looks like the theocracy that had its hold in Iran was going to be forever.
	Now there's a lot of pushback, a lot of civil resistance and so on that's occurring, pushing back against the fundamentalists, Muslims in charge of Iran and so on.
	And so, yeah, things can change.
	As far as civic nationalism goes, what I want is a stateless society.
	What I want is a society that fully respects the non-aggression principle and certainly doesn't, it doesn't ensconce violations of the non-aggression principle in political, hierarchical, oligarchical structures, right?
	I'm sorry to be so sort of technical, but a stateless society.
	I believe a stateless society We'll solve the problems of demographics.
	We'll solve the problems against forced association, forced redistribution of wealth.
	All of these are currently destroying the idea that, and this is where governments have ended up.
	This is what the left has done with its control and power over the government.
	And it's been enabled by the right, who is terrified of being called racist and so on.
	So I don't think that the government can solve the problem of demographic replacement because the government is currently causing and enabling and funding demographic replacement.
	So I'm not a big fan of this idea of just purely civic nationalism.
	So I hope that helps.
	Yeah, military welfare state is terrible as well.
	All right.
	Oh, someone else.
	Mahasattva says, free masonry question.
	We do charity and use philosophy to build character.
	Look into it, you might like it.
	However, in order to join, you must believe in a supreme being, however you define that.
	That's interesting because I've really been thinking about a lot my relationship with philosophy and whether or not my relationship with philosophy is fundamentally indistinguishable from a Christian's relationship with God, which I'll talk about another time.
	But it's just something that is very interesting to me.
	All right, let's do one or two more.
	Talk to Lionel, he does these chats twice daily and he has something that saves all of the super chat info for him, maybe an add-on.
	Also note, resistance is futile and cultural.
	Yeah, she's got a new book out, right?
	That's wonderful.
	Wonderful.
	Double Dog Bear says, your first problem is it's not a stylist, it's called a barber.
	That's an old story of mine.
	Okay, more importantly, the bulk of non-leftist masses are too comfortable to notice their slow boil.
	What will it take to pop their apathy?
	And will it be too late when that catalyst occurs?
	Now, what will it take to pop their apathy?
	Well, you know, some people learn through reason and some people learn through bitter experience.
	I'm going to go with reason because the bitter experience stuff is really, really terrible.
	So I'm just going to continue to work on reason and evidence, reason and evidence.
	And let me just see here.
	Somebody had a saying.
	What do I think of David Icke?
	Didn't he just get banned from Australia?
	I don't have much to think about in terms of David Icke.
	I don't think I've ever seen any of his presentations, and I really haven't done much on him, so I really wouldn't be saying anything that would have anything particularly useful about that.
	Somebody said here, the government is not destroying demographics.
	In the West, the free market is.
	Whites are lazy, won't work, and immigrants take their jobs.
	Yeah, that's not true at all.
	There's no free market.
	I mean, just 75% of the immigrants in America end up taking welfare.
	I mean, when... I mean, the border was pretty hard to manage and control 150 years ago, but you didn't have lots of Mexicans pouring in.
	Why?
	Because there was no welfare state.
	So...
	There's that.
	Is censorship always a form of fascism, i.e.
	David Icke?
	Well, I don't know.
	The word censorship has become very complicated and corrupted because people think that it's censorship to hide people's comments if they're making horribly egregious and nasty comments on a YouTube channel or something.
	Oh, that's censorship.
	It's like, nope.
	No, that's not.
	So I do not agree with censorship from the state at all.
	I mean, free speech should be one of the basic absolutes.
	So absolutely essential, right?
	Oh, well, people say terrible stuff.
	It's like, well, yeah.
	And you need to track the terrible stuff that people were saying.
	Otherwise, you can't oppose it or review it or anything like that.
	All right.
	Let's just see here.
	Lionel is a gatekeeper.
	Prime mover?
	Prime mover.
	Let's see here.
	You want me to do the prime mover question?
	Do you want me to do the prime mover?
	So yeah, the idea that everything is cause and effect, and if you go all the way back, there must have been an uncaused cause.
	There must have been something that started everything going, and that's called the first cause, or the prime mover.
	And it's one of the arguments for the existence of God, and I have talked about that before.
	So, let's see here.
	All right, I think we're done.
	I think we're done.
	And I'm sorry if I did not get two people.
	Something came in here.
	Oh, Hammer Untruth, thank you for your super chat.
	I'm Irish.
	How long until no return of all this madness?
	I mean, you've just got to talk.
	You've just got to talk.
	You've just got to talk.
	OK, yeah, some of this stuff I can't read because I don't know whether it's true or not.
	But anyway, listen, I really want to thank you all for dropping by.
	It's really wonderful to have these kind of chats with you.
	And it's a great, great pleasure.
	So please remember to help out the show, to support what it is that I'm doing.
	It's very, very important for me.
	There are expenses that I'm accumulating.
	You know, new studio.
	I'm upgrading the website.
	It's pretty old at this point.
	Working on documentaries and getting All of that stuff together is pretty pricey, so if you could help out, that would be great.
	Please don't forget my book, Essential Philosophy.
	Essentialphilosophy.com.
	Artoftheargument.com.
	You get my book, The Art of the Argument.
	And FDRURL.com forward slash Poland.
	That's FDRURL.com forward slash Poland.
	Please check out my documentary on Poland, which was, I think, really, really good.
	And also, if you haven't watched Hoaxed, H-O-A-X-E-D, Hoaxed, the movie, It's really good.
	I don't just say that because I'm in it.
	I'm not in it that much.
	But it's a really, really great movie.
	And John D. Toit and Scooter Downie and Mike Cernovich and all of the people who are in it did a great job talking about fake news.
	It's powerful.
	It's moving.
	It's funny.
	It's passionate.
	It's an amazing movie.
	And you can check it out at hoaxedmovie.com.
	It's a couple of bucks to rent.
	It certainly helps out the people who spent an enormous amount of money making the movie.
	The production values are incredible.
	And the message is powerful.
	And it's a humble and energetic and funny and revelatory movie.
	And I got a lot out of watching it.
	And I watched it a bunch of times.
	And every time I watch it, I get something new and something more from it.
	So I would say that check out hoaxedmovie.com.
	You know, you can watch it tonight.
	It's only $6.45.
	You could rent it.
	You can watch it.
	And it's going to give you great conversation topics for people as a whole.
	All right.
	One last super chat, and we'll close it off.
	Philo of 1769 says, would you rather be a jack-of-all-trades or a specialist?
	I'm asking this in regards to intellectual pursuits and career options.
	I can't decide between biophysics and philosophy.
	like the jack of all trades thing and this comes to some degree from my history masters where you had to sort of pick a thesis and somebody was like i remember one person in my year was talking about the number of sheep in a particular province in france in the 15th century or something like that and it's like oh my gosh you know like you you know more about less and less until you know everything about nothing and i went for a big general thesis and argument for my graduate degree
	so i'm a big one for get yourself the widest applicable set of intellectual tools and then you can apply it to more specialized stuff if you want it But it's kind of tough to go the other way.
	So I hope that helps.
	Not Heisenberg says, consider thinking more about Trolley.
	Thanks.
	No, I won't.
	I'm not going to trauma something I'm not going to do.
	I really, really find this a problem.
	All right.
	Love you all, says Tippy Bear.
	Love, Stefan.
	And yeah, listen, really, really appreciate that.
	Thank you, everyone, so much for a wonderful afternoon's chat about philosophy.
	Freedomandradio.com forward slash donate to help out the show.
	And I hope you guys have a superb afternoon.
	Always a great pleasure to chat with you.
	Love you guys to death.
	And we'll do this again very, very soon, I am sure.

▲