All Episodes
Previous Next
March 27, 2019 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
49:47
4327 Freedomain: Jussie Smollett Walks - And Ask Me Anything!

Come by to talk to Stefan Molyneux about what is on your mind!Your 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

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
All right, all right.
I hope you're doing well, everybody.
Let's get straight into it.
Jussie Smollett has walked.
He has skated free.
He has boiled up into a massive cloud of pretended innocence and wafted away into the atmosphere of community service, leaving a mere $10,000 in his wake.
So that is not too shocking.
This is, if you follow me on Twitter, at Stefan Molyneux, which you must do, you must Do follow me on Twitter.
February the 20th, that's more than a month ago, I wrote on Twitter this.
When Smollett walks, white privilege dies.
It will be a great day for final freedom from guilt.
I also wrote, of course, that Smollett will walk.
Why?
Because white people don't riot.
That's one of the reasons.
And so yeah, this was not Terribly shocking.
Jussie Smollett is Jewish.
He's gay.
He's black.
And so now we see where the real privilege is in society.
So let's just do a little bit of backstory.
We'll get into what happened and ask some questions.
Oh!
Also rip a little on CNN.
So Smollett, on March 14th, pleaded not guilty to 16 charges of disorderly conduct related to a staged hate crime attack against himself in Streetsville.
Streeterville, sorry.
Streeterville.
And, uh, yeah, it's, uh, it's pretty bad.
It's pretty bad.
Not shocking.
But what happened was, just today, they dropped the charges against this Empire actor, Jussie Smollett, at a surprise court hearing.
So, and this is from the Chicago Times, the judge granted what is called a nolle pros, or null pros, Allowing all charges to be dropped against Smollett at the request of the prosecutor's office.
Oh, we'll get to her in a moment.
According to a tip from the Chicago Police Department, the state's attorney's office believes Smollett has performed community service and does not require an official sentence.
I don't believe any of this community service was detailed, but I think he's just popular in the black community and that'll probably do it.
The actor, this is Jussie Smollett, was indicted March 8th with 16 counts of disorderly conduct for allegedly hiring two men to attack him in a staged hate crime attack near his Streeterville home in January.
For $10,000 posted for Smollett's bail will be turned over to the city of Chicago law department.
Law department, my friends.
Law department is getting the $10,000 so they can help remind everyone how so important it is to not follow the law.
So the hearing, which disposed of the charges and has wiped the slate clean, the hearing lasted less than five minutes.
Judge Stephen G. Watkins sealed the case file.
What does that mean?
That means that those who saw the evidence firsthand won't legally be able to speak out.
So, kind of came as a surprise, out of nowhere, five minutes, boom, it's done.
Of course, Smollett's lawyers were overjoyed, and it's sealed.
The case file is sealed.
Chicago police officials said Superintendent Eddie Johnson was not briefed on the decision to drop charges and learned about it in the middle of a police academy graduation ceremony scheduled at the same time that Fox's office announced it.
Right, so this is Fox.
She is the, let me just, I'm going to make sure I get the actual, I think she's the district attorney who would then decide all of this and yeah.
It's pretty messy, it's pretty nasty, and apparently the Chicago Police Department is enraged.
Think of the incredible amounts of man hours that were thrown into this case.
Chicago has, what, 500 murders a year?
Think of all the resources that were diverted.
Why bother even having a grand jury for prominent Democrats?
I guess it's great that you go through the motions, but it doesn't really...
Oh, it's nuts.
I'll get to that in a sec.
Alright, so let's go on with some of the facts.
A Chicago Police Department source said Johnson, Superintendent, was, quote, furious, end quote, and maintained the evidence against Mollett was, quote, rock solid, end quote.
The decision to drop the charges was not a statement that Smollett did not, as police and prosecutors said when the actor was charged, pay his assailants to fake the attack and then falsely report the incident to police and detectives, said First Assistant State's Attorney Joseph Magatz during an interview with the Chicago Sun-Times on Tuesday.
Asked if the dropped charges meant the actor was, in fact, the victim of a crime, Magatz was emphatic, We stand behind the CPD investigation done in this case.
We stand behind the approval of charges in this case, Magat said.
They did a fantastic job.
The fact there was an alternative disposition in this case is not and should not be viewed as some kind of admission there was something wrong with the case or something wrong with the investigation that the Chicago police did.
Just Amazing.
There was some intervention reportedly from some very high, powerful and connected people.
Just days after Jussie Smollett told Chicago police he had fought off a pair of attackers who targeted him in an apparent hate crime, Cook County State's Attorney Kim Fox, State's Attorney, there she is, tried to persuade Police Superintendent Eddie Johnson to turn the investigation over to, bing bing bing, the FBI.
FBI did such a wonderful job with Hillary, such a wonderful job pursuing and grabbing and some say railroading General Flynn.
So yeah, if you want your investigation turned over to the FBI, I think that tells you everything you need to know about the FBI.
So again, Cook County State's Attorney Kim Foxx, Foxx's call to Johnson, who's the superintendent, came after an influential supporter of the Empire actor reached out to Foxx personally, Tina Tchen, a Chicago attorney and former chief of staff of former First Lady Michelle Obama, according to emails and text messages provided by Foxx to the Chicago Sun-Times in response to a public records request.
Wow.
That is quite something.
So, yep, the one degree of separation between you and Michelle Obama.
Yeah, that's going to sway a few minds, hearts, souls, and balls in the prosecutorial area.
And, you know, you can see these videos of Jussie Smollett dancing with Michelle Obama at various events.
There's lots of pictures of them smiling together, just as there is with Kamala Harris and Jussie Smollett and other people and so on.
He's hanging out with Barack Obama.
Yeah, quite a high-placed fellow.
Last week, the Fraternal Order of Police in Chicago issued a formal complaint to the United States Attorney's Office, claiming that Fox had attempted to interfere in the Smollett investigation with the help of a Smollett relative and former First Lady Michelle Obama's Chief of Staff.
Chicago Police Union wants federal investigation into Kim Foxx's handling of Jussie Smollett, of the Jussie Smollett case.
Now, according to some reports I've read, Smollett's attorney acknowledges that these two Nigerian bodybuilder brothers actually attacked him, but he still says that the charges against Smollett are false.
So, very strange, very strange, surreal in a way.
Kafkaesque, I guess I could say.
So the charges are dropped, his slate is clean, 16... Now, this disorderly conduct, it sounds like, you know, he was urinating on a mailbox or something, but the disorderly conduct is pretty serious.
The guy was facing up to decades in jail, and then not only are the charges dropped, his slate is wiped clean.
So, but if the charges are dropped, What does that mean?
He still has to forfeit his bond.
Why?
Why does he have to forfeit his bond if the charges are dropped?
Why does he have to do or have compensation or recognition for some of these perhaps illusory community services Smollett has done in the past?
None of it makes any sense at all.
Now initially, this woman Kim Fox, right, this is the state's attorney Kim Fox, recused herself from the case.
And then it was her decision Not to prosecute.
So, it's a good thing she recused herself from the case.
Otherwise, she might have had influence on the case.
I don't know, like deciding whether or not to prosecute.
So, it really doesn't make much sense at all.
So, those are the facts as it stands.
And, you know, there'll be a complaint and there'll be an investigation and it'll drag on and eventually something will come out.
But, you know, it'll be so much in the rear view, the media won't cover it.
It's, you know, they're gonna skate on this.
They're gonna get away with this, right?
So, what's going on?
What's going on?
Well, here's where we go into purely theoretical territory.
This is just my thoughts about it.
I don't have any proof, but everyone knows the kind of sequence that was going on in this case, right?
So what happened was Kamala Harris and Cory Booker were trying to get anti-lynching legislation passed.
And they had tried to do this a number of times before, but I think the last formal lynching was in the 1960s in America, so they were having trouble getting all of this stuff through.
And then, wouldn't you know it, gosh, Jussie Smollett, friend of Kamala Harris, ends up being lynched, right, by two guys wearing MAGA hats saying in Chicago at two o'clock in the morning, this is MAGA country, which seems to me quite the opposite of MAGA country, but, uh, And then he says they put a noose around his neck and then they poured something which he feared was bleach on him and so on, right?
So at the same time as Cory Booker and Kamala Harris are trying to get this anti-lynching legislation pushed through, which they failed at many times before, look at that!
There's a high profile lynching that the media is sure to fasten on.
And then the legislation is passed.
I believe it was unanimously.
And so there's no point pursuing this anymore, because in my view, this was simply a way to bypass the process of reviewing a law and just whipping up a whole bunch of hysteria.
Funnily enough, an anti-lynching law, whipping up a whole bunch of anti-white hysteria.
And that was what happened, right?
You get the law passed and there's no point in prosecuting because the whole point of this was to help get the law passed, in my view.
Kim Fox put out a very touching tweet at some point in the past talking about how wonderful Kamala Harris was, how she mentored Kim Fox and all this, so I mean this is all pretty incestuous when it comes to this kind of stuff.
So that's what's going on.
Why could there not be an investigation?
Because an investigation would look into Jesse Smollett and would also look into any connections he would have with anyone else who might have known about this crime.
They would be looking for co-conspirators or people who knew about the crime, anyone who'd communicated with about the crime.
And where would that lead?
Well, it would lead, in my view, straight up the rope to some very high-powered, high-placed Democrats.
And where that would end up?
Well, I mean, it's one of the reasons why they couldn't go after Hillary Clinton.
I mean, they could, obviously, you know, epistemological sense, but they couldn't really go after Hillary Clinton because anybody who knew of her bypassing of security protocols would be implicated and Obama knew, right?
He sent her emails to these non-secure servers and so on, right?
So you just, when you hit a certain ceiling, you just can't, you can't go there if you're a Democrat, right?
This is just not how it's going to work.
So I believe that other people knew What was going on?
I believe that there's a significant possibility that the investigation might have overturned a complete conspiracy at the highest levels of political power among the Democrats.
And, well, you can't be having that, right?
So that's not going to happen, right?
So, you know, the Democrats, they don't indict Democrats.
They look after their own.
And this was a Group of people gathered together for the 16 count indictment for the grand jury and the police who who did I think pretty good research and Investigation into this ready to roll and then boom it bungees in from high power that this ain't gonna happen and the guy walks the guy walks now This cost him.
I mean, I don't know like you just look at the time He paid his lawyers and all that but but he what's his actual cost on the ground that can be verified for Jussie Smollett It's $10,000, which he has to forfeit, which is going to go to some law place, which is, I don't know, it's just pretty funny.
That's the one part of, like, genuinely hilarious irony in the entire system.
Compare this to General Flynn, right?
So General Flynn was approached by some FBI officers.
They said, I don't have your lawyer here.
It's just a routine thing, a couple questions.
And some of the FBI interrogators turned out to be kind of an interrogation.
Some of the FBI interrogators said, I don't think that General Flynn lied to them.
But nonetheless, he gets nailed.
What's General Flynn's bill for fighting this?
Well, it's $5 million.
$5 million General Flynn had to spend On lawyers.
They still got nailed.
Jussie Smollett?
Well, $10,000.
And this is the real privilege.
This is the real privilege that's going on in the world.
And there is an opportunity here for us to actually have, you know, what's always, let's have an honest conversation about race.
There is gay privilege.
There is black privilege.
There is Jewish privilege.
And what there really is not, Is white privilege?
Because what people are doing is they're trying to pivot this, right?
They're trying to say, well, it's because he's rich and he's famous.
And there's a different law for rich and famous people.
Come on!
You don't think Donald Trump is rich and famous?
Donald Trump's fame and wealth outstrips Jussie Smollett's by, I assume, a near infinite degree.
It's not about wealth.
It's not about power.
It's about leftist privilege.
It's about racial privilege.
It's about sexual orientation privilege.
So, people are going to try and pivot and make this some sort of class thing.
It's not.
It's not.
Where's the white privilege that protected General Flynn, or George Papadopoulos, or Paul Manafort, or Donald Trump, or you name it, right?
Where is their white privilege that gives them all these magical shields to skate out of these sorts of things?
Because tens of millions of dollars, two and a half years, lives destroyed, families destroyed, fortunes destroyed, peace of mind destroyed, to pursue imaginary Russia collusion here, Seems pretty clear to me, at least.
Here's some real collusion.
And there's nothing.
There's nothing.
Nothing pursued.
Nothing's going on.
Nothing's happening that makes any kind of sense.
So that is my particular analysis of all of this stuff.
And at some point, we're going to actually have some real conversations about this.
So the other question, I don't know, this just again, just spitballing for me, but I will tell you this, right?
Which is this.
What's the point of the anti-lynching bill when lynching isn't really happening?
And if you look at the data, whites are far, far more likely to be victims of racial hate crimes from blacks than blacks are from whites.
So what's all of this?
Well, the reality is that This ooga booga of endless white racism needs to be held like a sword of Damocles over the black community to distract them from real serious dangerous issues within the black community.
So when I was talking about the Michael Jackson situation from the Leaving Neverland documentary, which I will get to watch.
Thank you for everyone who gave me the tip on how to do that.
But When I was in that presentation, I was talking about how 40%, 50% or 60% of black women report being sexually assaulted, raped, molested, you name it, by black men before they reach the age of 18.
So that's kind of serious.
That's incredibly serious.
And the destructive effects that has on the black community in terms of pair bonding, in terms of emotional maturity, in terms of post-traumatic stress, Disorder is just horrible.
It's horrifying and it's astonishing just how brutal this is.
Three quarters of black babies being born out of wedlock, 50% odd of black fetuses being aborted in the womb.
It's just astounding.
And of course the race and IQ stuff that I've talked about before.
So all of this needs to be eclipsed by building this monument of fantasized endless White bigotry, white racism, institutionalized racism, which always means white males in general.
And so they have to create this massive boogeyman because what does the state sell you?
The state sells you protection.
The state sells you protection.
Now, who's in danger in the black community?
Well, children, fetuses, absolutely.
Black girls in particular are in massive danger of being sexually assaulted, of molested, of being raped, and so on, according to their self-reporting.
That's the real danger in the black community that is occurring right now.
And one day maybe people will talk about it.
And I'm not holding my breath, but it's not going to come.
The government doesn't want to come to you and say that the solution to your social ills are in your own hands.
Right?
Of course.
I mean, that's like the people who sell ADHD meds going to parents and saying, well, The problem you see with your child is that the school, the son in particular, the school has been really geared towards women.
Sorry, girls.
Schools have really been geared towards girls where there's lots of sitting and collaboration and talk about feelings and all that sort of stuff.
Subjectivism and relativism and all that.
And boys want to know facts.
They want to know reason.
They want to know evidence.
They want to be out there doing stuff.
They learn by doing, not by sitting around in a circle holding hands and talking about sexual options and anal sex.
It's just not how things work.
The problem is that the school is really, really bad for children these days.
And also, most likely, the reason your kid can't concentrate is because he has no father.
No father, right?
Because women say, well, you know, a girl can't conceivably think or imagine becoming a scientist unless she has lots of scientists who are women talking to her and reminding her that it's possible.
She needs to have a mentoring.
She needs to be imprinted.
She needs to learn what her capabilities are.
And she can only learn that or those capabilities from women.
But, you know, boys can grow up and be perfectly masculine without any dad around, even though, I mean, sperm counts are down 50% from our grandfathers on average, right?
I think a lot of that has to do with being raised by single mothers.
I think a lot of that has to do with feeling helpless.
Men are very attuned to oncoming disasters, which is why more men than women vote for the right, which is why more men than women are concerned about immigration and want a wall and so on.
Men are very tuned to figure out disasters that are coming, and the worst thing you can do to a man is to tell him a disaster is coming and cripple his ability to do anything about it.
Then just men get depressed, they get suicidal because they're in a state of continually being stimulated by their fight-or-flight mechanism with no capacity to act on it.
So, yeah, it is terrible.
I remember this is when I was doing a research for a novel I wrote called The God of Atheism about these ADHD and so on.
And I remember reading this statistic, but not only does it these medications shrink brain mass as far as I remember, but also Boy's ADHD symptoms vanished when in the presence of their fathers.
Boy's ADHD symptoms vanished when they were with their fathers.
The cure for ADHD appears to be having a father as nature and evolution and I dare say God intended.
So the people who sell the ADHD drugs, they're not going to say, well, you've got to get a male mentor around, we've got to reform the schools, because the schools don't want to hear about it, and the single moms don't want to hear about it, and the dads who may have abandoned their families don't want to hear about it.
So it's like, yeah, just give your pills.
It's brain chemistry, blah, blah, blah, even though there's no test for any of this stuff.
You're short of You're short of magic in your body and we have a pill that restores it.
You need more Wakanda magic.
That's the key, right?
So those people aren't going to sell you the real cure that doesn't involve their products and the government isn't going to sell you the real cure that doesn't involve their products.
So they need to keep you in a continual state of fear and anxiety whether it's over global warming, whether it's over overpopulation, whether it's over Imaginary racism and so on.
It's very common, horribly common.
So that's what it's all about.
Plus, of course, anti-lynching legislation is never going to be used against blacks.
It's only ever going to be used against whites.
So it's just another weapon for all of that.
So I just wanted to point that out.
The last thing I wanted to mention, I'll take a couple of cues.
And let me know what you think of this format.
You know, I was sitting there upstairs, chatting with my family, and it just suddenly struck me like I was tweeting about this Jussie Smollett thing.
And I'm like, you know, why not just jump on a livestream?
Why not?
You know, I mean, it sounds like a kind of dumb thing to suddenly strike me.
But it's, you know, I just, so I like this.
It's a great way for me to get a message across.
And it also allows me to have a podcast, which is useful.
It gets me on the real current event stuff without the couple day lag of a PowerPoint.
And I think I'm pretty good on my feet, on the fly.
So let me know what you think of this.
I enjoy it.
It's easy because this is already published to YouTube.
Although yesterday I had to redo the live stream because the audio was off.
I think because I pushed the bandwidth to 60 frames a second, which apparently for Canadian internet is like trying to shove an elephant through a straw.
So the other thing I wanted to mention Oh boy.
So the media of course is taking a lot of hits over their pushing of this fantastical Russia collusion hysteria for two plus years, right?
So here's something.
CNN worldwide president Jeff Zucker is pushing back against critics accusing the news network of being one of the chief propagators of a debunked Trump-Russia conspiracy theory after special counsel Robert Mueller cleared the president's 2016 campaign of alleged collusion with the Kremlin.
In an interview with the New York Times, Zucker said he was, quote, entirely comfortable, end quote, with CNN's Trump-Russia coverage and suggested it was entirely appropriate to give near around-the-clock coverage due to the story's magnitude.
Quote, we are not investigators, we are journalists, and our role is to report the facts as we know them, which is exactly what we did, the CNN chief wrote in an email.
I kissed the hem of the garment of Jeff Zucker because he is just Creating such a market for intelligent people who actually tell the truth.
I mean, he really couldn't be trying to destroy his own brand.
So when you get something enormously wrong for two and a half years and you threaten anybody's faith, you really destroy any intelligent person's faith in the rule of law and the FBI and the special counsel and all of that.
When you do all of that, I mean, it's amazing, you know, like the other day I put out a video and I got a year wrong.
Just one year wrong and it wasn't a huge issue, didn't really affect, but I'm like, oh man.
And I put a note in the comments and so on, but like it really bothers me.
And that's a little thing that I got wrong and it happens, right?
I think the last time that happened was like a year ago.
So it's pretty good for quality control, but, and it wasn't foundational, but it was like one year off.
Anyway, so that's me like, oh man, I should have got that right.
Should I pull it?
Well, you know, people are already watching it, it's got lots of comments, lots of views, people have shared it, and blah blah blah, right?
So, I just put a note in.
So that's me getting one little year wrong once a year in a presentation.
My gosh.
If your entire news network had gotten something like the Russia-Trump collusion, stealing the 2016 election from zombie devil Hillary, I mean, my gosh.
Really?
No looking in the mirror, no...
What we used to do in business, which was a post-mortem.
We'd call it a post-mortem.
So every time we'd finish a project, we'd sit down for like half a day.
Sometimes we'd go off site.
We would take our employees.
We took them whitewater rafting and stuff like that.
So we'd go have a lot of fun.
And then we'd sit there and say, okay, well, what worked in this project?
What didn't work?
What can we improve?
What can be better?
None of that.
They take massive hammer blows to people's trust in government, rule of law, any of that.
They have wall-to-wall coverage more than insinuating but highly suggesting that Donald Trump stole the election and that he is a treasonous son-of-a-bitch colluding with Russia to destroy America's interests.
I mean, it's astonishing what caused the real collusion is Hillary and Bill, right?
Selling 20% of America's uranium supply to Russia and Bill taking massive speech funds at the same time.
He was paid hundreds of thousands of dollars, what was it, half a million dollars for a 45-minute speech.
Unless the speech is how to be a sexual predator and get away with it, I'm not sure why anyone would turn to Bill Clinton for expertise.
So no looking in the mirror, no, what did we get wrong?
And that means that they didn't get it wrong.
They did exactly what they wanted to do, which was to paralyze the Trump presidency, to scare people off from working with Trump.
And yeah, it's, uh, it's amazing.
And you know, they say, well, we're not investigators.
What does that mean?
Well, first of all, there's an entire section on CNN called CNN Investigates.
I want everyone to look at this video right now.
Open your eyes wide.
Clockwork Orange style.
Prop them up with toothpicks because I'm about to tell you people I'm not bald at all.
Right there on CNN.
CNN investigates.
We're not investigators.
We just repeat what people in power tell us.
I don't know if you've ever watched the movie.
It's a pretty old movie by now.
It's pretty funny.
It's called Galaxy Quest.
Tim Allen is a very, very funny guy.
Very funny guy.
And Sigourney Weaver plays someone in the movie.
It's kind of a, it's like a parody of Star Trek and of the Trekker mindset.
And the computer says something, and then what Sigourney Weaver's character does is repeat it to the rest of the crew.
So the computer says, we are approaching Aldebaran.
And then Sigourney Weaver says, okay, we're approaching Aldebaran.
And this goes on and on until Tim Allen says, like, can you stop that?
That's really annoying.
And she says, I have one job on this entire spaceship and that is to repeat what the computer tells me and that's my job and I'm gonna do it.
She's not adding any value.
She's just repeating what the computer told her.
The government has handed me a press release.
I'm going to read that and pretend that I'm adding value.
That's not news.
That's narration.
Come on.
We are not investigators.
We don't question anything.
We allow the government to stick its hand up our ass and make our mouth move flappy style.
Report the facts as we know them.
You see, there were facts, which was that some people thought there was Russia collusion, and then there were some facts, which is anybody with half a brain knew that it was complete nonsense, designed to cover up the DNC, designed to distract people from the horrors of what was released from Podesta's emails and the FBI's investigation into Hillary.
Everybody knows it's just a... So, there are two sets of facts.
Well, you know, we don't investigate.
We just... We pick the facts we like and we amplify them.
We don't investigate anything.
It's like...
That's incredible.
What a confession, what an admission.
They're not investigators, they're head.
And you know, as the head, CNN worldwide president, Jeff Zucker, you know that that's infiltrating and infecting the entire culture, right?
All the way from the top down.
Hey Jeff, I got a great story.
I'd like to do some investigation, find out if it's actually true or not.
I'd like to talk to people, get a fully rounded picture, do a real investigation.
Jeff's like, no!
What are you, insane?
We are not investigators.
We don't question anything.
We don't try and get a well-rounded picture.
We don't push back against any government propaganda.
We're Pravda Style here to amplify the interests of the deep state, the ruling class.
Investigator?
What are you, insane?
What do you think you are?
Some kind of alternative media figure who actually tries to figure out the facts?
No!
We're propagandists!
We echo, repeat, and amplify the lies told to us by the Democrats.
We are the propaganda arm of the Democrat Party.
We're not investigators.
What are you, insane?
I mean, everybody knows that that's true.
Everybody knows that that's true.
But having it just out and out and up and up a minute, that's... I mean, that's really something.
That's really something.
You know, it's like some woman... Everybody knows she has fake boobs, right?
You know, there's no cleavage.
It looks like she accidentally swallowed and half-coughed up two volleyballs and, you know, her nipples are stretched so tight that it starts to look like Barbra Streisand's forehead.
And she's like, no, they're natural!
And everybody knows!
She's got, like, zipper scars underneath.
She's got, like, variable-sized boobs like Britney Spears.
Everybody knows!
And then finally she says, you know, these aren't my natural boobs.
And everyone's like, well, everybody knows that, but it's kind of cool that you're admitting it up and up.
You know, and of course, in this case, the boobs would be evil destruction of massive social and cultural norms.
And listen, like I know my sort of idea, state and society and all of that, still 100% behind that.
So I sort of hear myself saying, well, people are losing trust in the government.
And I get it.
Like part of me is like, well, good, good.
I've been talking about that for years.
But on the other hand, you know, maybe it's just being a dad and all that, but my daughter has to To live, and as do I, as do you, have to live.
All right.
Thank you, everyone.
Let me know what you think.
I'll take a couple of cues, if you like.
All right, fine.
I will surrender to time.
It's a little squinty here.
Jacob, TB1 says, stay woke, player.
Alex McMeekin says, you should interact with suitable super chats.
In what?
Should I mime with them?
I'm not sure what you mean.
Elijah L. Green says, Hey Stefan, you should try and get Devin Tracy from AIU on for an interview.
Huge fan of both of you.
Yeah.
You know, it's funny because I mean, I'm, I'm strapped for time, man.
I really, really am strapped for time these days.
So if you want to make something happen, my suggestion is just go make it happen.
Like, like just try and set it up and make it happen and all that.
But, uh, I don't know this person that I can recall.
The name is vaguely familiar, but anyway.
All right.
Ann On says, how do I know if my high libido is serving my mother or just natural attraction?
I'm early twenties.
I don't know what that means, but I do believe, like you want to check out my presentation from a while back ago, still as relevant and powerful as ever, maybe more so now, which is Gene Wars, G-E-N-E Wars, about R versus K selection.
If you grow up without a dad, you're going to have a very high sex drive and a very, it's going to be a form of possession, like it's going to feel like You know, just do anything to get laid, get your rocks off, drain the berries, and that is going to be a very dangerous situation.
It's going to interfere with your capacity to pair bond.
It's going to have you desperately go for easy women, which is going to blow up in your face.
So if you do grow up without a father, this is true for men and for women, it does seem to stimulate your sex drive.
And there's reasons for that biologically, because if you grow up without a father, remember, we're not Biologically programmed for the welfare state, any of that, none of that, none of that.
So the only reason that we'd be growing up without a dad is because there's horrible instability, there's wars, there's blood clan, like Hatfield-McCoy conflicts, there's massive amounts of tribal.
So given that the social environment is very unstable when there's no fathers, biologically speaking, as we evolved, Then we interpret, deep down, father absence as you've got to spray and pray.
Like just spread your seed as wide as possible because you just don't know who's going to make it.
There's no stable pair bonding.
There's no stable families.
There's war, predation, disease.
Maybe there's huge amounts of predators floating around that are taking down the men who are responsible for patrolling the borders, as men used to be before the welfare state.
And so you're going to have a very high libido if you grow up without a father, on average.
Maybe there's tons of exceptions, but that's what I've seen.
So just be aware of that and take care.
All right.
PMC.
It sends me that particular amount of money.
Thank you.
That's pretty funny.
It's not one dollar, but all right It says thanks to fan.
Thank you Grizzly says socialism already ruined the game World of Warcraft by expediting high rewards with little efforts the player number dropped because of this Do you think this is foreshadowing our future make Azeroth great again?
Yeah, you know I dipped into Neverwinter Nights, and it's way too easy.
It's way too easy.
So, there's a funny thing that happened.
I was just talking about this with my daughter the other day.
So, when I was a kid, there was this common rite of passage that was brutal for some, and, I guess, satisfying or rewarding for others.
And it kind of went something like this.
What happened was, everybody would want to play Soccer or baseball was something that would happen.
I played a lot of baseball when I was... I was a really, really good hitter.
I'm left-handed, so everyone had to shift to the outfield, but I'm a really good hitter.
And I also had a problem because I couldn't afford a glove, and because I'm left-handed, I couldn't really get a glove, so I'd have to catch the glove, swap it out, and that gave us a big...
But I was good at baseball.
I was a very, very fast runner and a good hitter, a very good hitter.
And that's because I grew up with something called rounders.
I actually remember.
So in rounders, when I was growing up, it's kind of the British version of baseball, you got three hits and you could choose whether or not you wanted to run or not, right?
So you hit the ball, you're like, ah, you know, I can do better next time.
I'm just going to wait and take the next hit, right?
But of course, in baseball, if you hit the ball and it's in bounds, then you got to run.
So I just remember the first time that I was in school.
In Toronto, I was invited to play baseball, and I hit the ball real hard, but I'm like, oh, I bet I can do better than that.
And I'm like, no, I'll take the next hit.
And of course, all the kids are like, run!
Run, you limey bastard, run!
So I did.
But in baseball, you know how it works, right?
So you get two team captains, and they can be eeny, meeny, miny, moe, or they can be people who have the most experience or whatever.
You get two team captains, and what happens?
Well, they say, well, I'm choosing Bob, and I'm choosing Ralph and I'm choosing Steve or whatever, right?
So they, and of course they pick the best players because they want to win.
And, you know, I get it.
It's kind of rough.
You know, it's kind of rough for the kids who are left behind.
Because the kids who are left behind who were chosen last, I mean, it's pretty humiliating.
It's pretty, pretty unpleasant.
And you know, it's not just the sequence where you are in the pecking order of athletic desirability.
You're also like, it's the tone, right?
It's like, oh, I'll take Steve, right?
And then at the end, it's like, oh, fine, I'll take Bob.
You know, I'll put up with Bob.
I'll try and find a way to work around Bob.
And it's pretty rough, but it's really essential.
It's really essential because it helps guide people to their best use scenario, right?
So if you are really athletic, and I remember this guy, Khaled, in my junior high school, amazingly athletic guy.
You just try and grab that guy as quickly as you could when it came to this stuff.
And I was always chosen really quickly and it helps you figure out where your strengths and weaknesses are, right?
So if you're some pencil neck guy with, you know, thick glasses and so on, then, you know, sports ain't for you, right?
So you can reorient yourself.
Maybe you'll be really good at, you know, if you're kind of skinny, maybe you'd be really good at long distance running or whatever it is.
But, you know, and we all know these people like, They seem to have the reflexes like there's some half-drunken gnome squatting in their hypothalamus, working bizarre levers to get their body moving.
Like, they're just completely uncoordinated.
I played volleyball with a guy like this, and I don't get it.
I mean, I'm pretty athletic, and I'm good at a wide variety of sports, but I don't get this, like, this awkward phase that lasts forever.
Where the pulleys working my arms appear to be somewhat disconnected.
It's sad.
It's tragic.
But it also says to people, sports ain't for you, right?
So then they can start to focus on other things that they could be good at or better at.
Doesn't mean that they can't be athletic in terms of like, they could sit on a bike machine or something like that, Bill Gates style.
But this process where you, you whittle down and you get objective feedback on your value to your peers as an athlete.
Now, If you are, like when I did the debating club and I was on the debating club in high school, I was on the debating club at York University and other places.
And that was really, people wanted me like that.
You can imagine, right?
I mean, it's something that came pretty easy to me pretty early because I did so many debates with friends when I was younger.
So I mean, I was like, yeah, I'll take that guy, right?
The very first year.
I did debating, I debated all across Canada and I think I came in sixth out of all of Canada the very first year that I did it as a college student.
And I still remember one of the debates, actually I remember a couple of the debates.
Like I remember there was a debate about the government should, this will have a point I promise, the government should pay for Canadians to deliver their stories to a central repository so we don't lose people's lived experience or whatever, right?
And I said, well, no, we already have something like that.
It's called the publishing industry.
And the publishing industry will filter for quality, will filter for readability.
And there's no point having unvetted, badly written stories sitting in some government repository, because nobody's ever going to reference them.
We have to have a quality filter.
That's called the publishing industry, blah, blah, blah.
So it was a good... I used to have these rhetorical tricks.
So somebody would, as usual, I'd make great points and somebody would not rebut them.
I remember doing this when I was in St.
John's in Newfoundland with my debating partner, who was a great fun guy to debate with.
And I remember standing there saying to the judges, wait, is this Newfoundland?
This is Newfoundland.
I mean, I've been traveling so much.
This is Newfoundland, right?
And they were like, yeah, what are you talking about?
This is Newfoundland.
I said, you know, because it's really confusing.
Because I made these points.
I'm pretty sure I was in Newfoundland.
Then my opposition came up and talked about a whole bunch of stuff that had nothing to do with my point.
So I just wanted to make sure that we were actually still in the same place as when I made my first argument.
And it was kind of a laughter.
So I remember winning that one.
I also remember something very important from the judges.
So one of the judges said, I loved your analogy with the publishing industry.
That was really fantastic.
That really clinched it for me.
And the other judge says, I really hated your analogy of the publishing industry.
I thought it was specious and blah, blah, blah, right?
So anyway.
I was pretty good at all of this kind of debating, so when I would be picked for the debate team, I'd be like, I'd be first up, right?
When I was picked for baseball, I would usually be in the first or second round of people picked, and so I knew that I was pretty athletic, I knew that I was good at debating, and it gives you these social signs about what you're good at, and it helps You know, that's like the price mechanism in terms of your value to your peers.
It helps prepare you for going out into the marketplace.
Now, of course, that has largely gone by the wayside because women, female teachers, female educators, can't stand to see people sad, you know, like that Les Nesman picked last kind of thing.
It's really tragic for people.
And so because of that, people aren't getting objective feedback about their value.
They end up being scattered and confused and they just don't know when they are not having a value.
And that's really, really sad.
So yeah, socialism already ruined the game.
People don't have much capacity to deal with rejection and failure.
So they make it too easy.
They make it too easy.
And again, that's fine.
Women like that kind of stuff.
But it's terrible for men in particular.
All right.
Jared Voutrat says, Hi Steph, what's your thoughts on parental resentment towards their children?
I feel abusive parents, boomers in particular, have this.
Hmm.
Hmm.
Very interesting.
Very interesting.
So there are, I mean, two forms of parental resentment against the children.
One is that if you have this belief that children should be, you know, clear-eyed, apple-cheeked, perfectly combed hair, perfectly arranged rooms, perfectly arranged clothing, and no dirt behind their ear or anything like that, and then you don't get what you want.
Then you have expectations that aren't going to match the often messy and challenging process of just raising children.
So you're going to resent your kids because you have unrealistic expectations.
Like if you're married and you expect your wife to be just like a man in terms of how she thinks, Well, you're going to be disappointed because she's not.
She's not.
She's wonderfully incomprehensible.
That's my definition of femininity.
It's delightfully incomprehensible to men, just as men are delightfully incomprehensible to women.
And it's two pieces of a puzzle.
We fit together and it's a great teamwork thing, but there are just What's that old line from Little Women where one of the guys says to his tutor, the young guy says to his tutor, he says about the four sisters, I think it's four, he says, what do they do over there all day?
And his tutor says, there is a veil drawn over the mysteries of female behavior that no sane man dare penetrate.
It's like, yep, delightfully incomprehensible, I love it.
And so there is this expectation mismatch that can drive a lot of resentment.
But a lot of times what happens is if you're a parent and you seriously wrong your child in a consistent way, like you scream, you yell, you call them names, you hit them, you whatever, even worse, then what happens is the presence of your children provokes a bad conscience.
And because you don't have any self-ownership, you don't have any capacity or will to self-reflect, what happens is you end up Resenting the bad conscience provoked in you by the presence of the children you have wronged.
And that's a very, very hard thing to get out of.
All right, I've got something else to do.
Relatively quickly, just give me a quick let me know what you think.
I'll just go to the main chat.
And let me know what you think of this format.
To me, it's really, really... Oh yeah, the EU, yeah, they just passed, what was it, Article 13?
Where basically memes are now illegal.
Yeah, it's terrible.
Absolutely terrible what's going on over there.
I mean, I've tried to avoid any kind of copyright stuff for years and years and years.
It is just a mess.
So somebody says, Rationality Rules debunked you again!
He called you a thief!
What is your response?
That is hilarious.
He debunked you, you grifter!
No, he didn't.
No, he didn't.
He actually confessed that he'd gotten his entire moral system completely wrong in the previous video, and then he thinks that there's a problem with my moral system.
I mean, I'll get into this in more detail, but this is something, this also happened years ago.
I did a video wherein I mentioned that we own what we create, right?
And somebody said, aha, you're stealing and plagiarizing from John Locke.
And it's like, well, John Locke formalized owning the effects of your actions in a particular kind of way, the infusion of labor stuff.
But it wasn't like in the ancient world, if you made a bowl, if you made a gourd, you owned that gourd.
The parents, in a sense, owned the children that they created.
The idea that nobody had any clue that when you create something, you own it, that nobody had any clue of that before John Locke is, I mean, completely ridiculous.
I mean, you couldn't have any kind of economy, any kind of society.
You go build a house in the woods, you're considered to own that house, this is common law, this is going back thousands of years.
So this idea that if you say, well, you know, if you own something, if you create something, you own it, is, ah, you're plagiarizing from John Locke, that's just nonsense.
Now, if I said, I have created the infusion of Labor theory, and that's my response that I created, and I did it, and I used John Locke's terminology.
Well, that's plagiarism!
That's plagiarism.
But if you say, well, my argument is logical, and you say, ah, you're plagiarizing Aristotle, who first formalized logic.
It's like, no, I'm not plagiarizing Aristotle.
I'm saying my argument is logical.
Now, if I said I created and invented the formal structure of logic, then that would be plagiarism.
So he's doing the same thing.
There are imperatives and then there are optional imperatives.
And so there's some things you do for their own sake.
There's some things you do in order to do something else.
And this is a very old idea.
It's, you know, Kant formalized it in a particular kind of way.
But now if I said I had formalized it in a particular kind of way that matched exactly what Kant did, I gave no credit to Kant, I said it was all me, that would be plagiarism.
But the idea that there are some things you do in and of themselves, and there are some things you do in order to do other things.
Right?
I mean, this is the, I've talked about this for years.
So Aristotle said that happiness is our end goal because we don't achieve happiness in order to get something else.
Right?
Right.
So if we want to lose weight, we'll eat less.
We'll exercise in order to lose weight.
And we hope, I guess, that that will make us healthier and happier.
But once we have happiness, that's an end in itself, not a means to an end.
And so it's a very old idea.
And so when I reference it, I'm not talking about a particular formalization of it under Immanuel Kant.
I'm talking about, it's a very old idea, one of the most original ideas or one of the basis ideas of philosophy.
So because I know this kind of history, um, I don't know, it's just, it's just kind of silly and it's not really an argument.
Um, and he didn't respond to the basic arguments that I came up with.
Anyway, I'll do a whole video on this, but, uh, this just sort of off the top of my head.
All right.
Let's have a quick look here and see if I have anything else.
So what to do with the two Africans that beat up Smollett?
That's kind of weird, you know, because if you pay someone to beat you up, if they've really beaten you up, I have no idea.
All right.
Love your staff, says James.
Thank you very much.
Keep rocking in it, not off it.
All right.
And let's see here.
No worries, the FBI will get him.
Yeah, yeah, we'll see.
We'll see.
Okay, so I think, yeah, I appreciate everyone's drop by and let me know what you think.
In the comments below, this is kind of a healthy, sorry, a helpful way for me to do shows, like I just did 49 Minutes.
I don't have a bunch of post-processing to do and all of that.
So do let me know.
Oh, did I miss something here?
Oh, Pie Man didn't have a question, but sent me a donation.
Thank you very much.
If you want to help out the show, freedomainradio.com forward slash donate.
That's freedomainradio.com forward slash donate.
Again, let me know what you think of this format.
I hope it works for you.
It certainly works for me.
Lots of love out there to everyone.
▲
Export Selection