All Episodes
Previous Next
May 16, 2019 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
01:05:47
How To Save Australia!
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
So we're now down to the last couple of days before the Australian election.
I'm going to weigh in with my thoughts.
This of course is going to be focused on my fine friends in Australia and it's going to be a little bit confusing to those outside because the nomenclature is kind of different.
So Australia of course has two houses of parliament, the lower house, the house of representatives, and the upper house called the senate.
As far as major political parties go we have the liberals who are conservative, a little confusing for Americans, and they're currently the party in power.
The liberals have traditionally been the party of lower taxes, less regulation and more free markets.
They are very supportive of small to medium business and they are cynically seen by some as the party of big business.
Now there's the National Party, also known as the Nats, founded in 1920.
And called the country party for many years, the Nats have traditionally been the party for rural, regional areas.
Now the Nationalists form coalitions with the Liberals.
Under a Liberal Prime Minister, the Deputy PM is the Nats leader.
Recently support for the Nats has declined as many people see them as little more than a lapdog for the Liberals.
It's a little hard to fight that perception sometimes.
The coalition between the Liberals and the Nationals is called the Liberal National Party or LNP.
Labor, the left.
Yes, there's always one in every country in the West.
Now this is founded in the 1890s and is basically the political arm of the union movement, much as it is elsewhere in the West.
It's often described as a socialist democratic party, right?
See, socialism is bad, but you put the word democracy in and magic, it becomes better.
Labor has for many years supported causes like fair conditions for workers, increased wages, and ending conscription amongst others.
And, you know, back in the day you could really make a case for this kind of stuff.
I love unions as a whole.
I think that they're a wonderful part of the free market.
I don't like it when they run to the government to have scab laws that prevent people from competing with them.
But unions as a whole Collectivism, if it's voluntary, is wonderful.
Getting together to improve your working conditions is wonderful.
And yet, of course, from originally representing the workers, they kind of seem to have turned on them considerably throughout the West.
despite a significant fall in union membership in the workforce over the years and that's kind of true in america as well as as well as other countries competition from overseas and a wide variety of other things has driven down union membership and what's happened of course is unions have shifted to public sector unions.
There was never ever supposed to be such a thing as public sector unions because the whole point of unions was to fight against the profit motive that would cause the capitalists to drive down the price of labor but there is no profit motive in the public sector therefore there never should have been any unions in the public sector but as private sector union membership declined they kind of jumped ship to the more stable if not run western civilization into the shoals of socialism
I guess harbor of government unions.
So there has been a fall in union membership over the years, but at least three-quarters of Labour politicians are ex-union members or leaders, and the party has drifted further left, while at the same time, as is the case throughout the West, embracing identity politics.
Identity politics, of course, is the idea that we judge the group, not the individual, And that all outcomes that differ between groups are the result of prejudice, right?
So if women make less than men, it's not because women prefer particular workforces.
It's not because women don't work as hard.
It's not because women maybe aren't quite as competitive.
They lack testosterone.
It's not because women take time out to have babies and thus, you know, do the wonderful work of actually continuing the civilization we've spent about three billion years as carbon-based life-forms building.
It's because men hate women.
Men hate women.
That's the only answer for group outcomes.
And this, of course, since there are differences between groups, some environmental and some biological, this answer is never, you can't ever solve disparities in group outcomes in a free market, which is why they use disparities in group outcomes to destroy the free market.
So that's been going on.
They no longer represent the workers.
They now are taking on the general communist policy of activating groups against each other.
There are the Greens, starting in 1972, originally on a platform of protecting the environment.
The Greens are basically the party for, and this is a quote from an Australian, I think it's vivid, let's put it that way, that the party for, quote, loonies, tree huggers, dole bludgers, and any other blight on society you can think of.
Now, again, Protecting the environment is a wonderful thing and was actually occurring before the environmentalist movement.
The environmentalist movement, also known as the watermelon movement, you know it's green on the outside but red or communist on the inside, is a way of destroying the free market.
I see basically what happens when societies become free disparities between high IQ people, low IQ people, hard-working people, not hard-working people, ambitious people, less ambitious people, the gap tends to widen.
Now everyone gets richer but the gap tends to widen and then what happens is people get really upset.
They feel left behind.
They resent the rich.
They feel like less or lower class citizens or less important citizens and so they just want to claw things down from the rich and it's really painful of course and ugly and unpleasant because it involves stripping people of Property rights and ending up destroying their ambition and destroying the wealth that is actually supporting the lives of billions of poor people around the world.
But we'll talk about that.
So that's where the Greens are.
The Greens have a very socialist agenda and are not afraid to show it.
And I have taken issue so many times about this.
I'm going to just mention it once here, which is this.
Look.
If you want to help the environment, and of course we all want to live in a sustainable and greenish environment, but if you want to help the environment, there's a couple of things that you can fundamentally do.
Number one, of course, stop government debts, right?
Government debts pillage and destroy often nature's scarce resources for the sake of buying votes on the backs of the unborn future debt serfs called, um, twinkles in their daddy's eye at the moment, right?
So if you do want to help, not consume nature's scarce resources, then you have to eliminate, get rid of government debt, government deficits, and so on.
That's one thing.
And the Greens never talk about that.
They just talk about carbon taxes and other ways to interfere with the free operations of the free market.
And the other thing, of course, that you should do is you should strongly oppose mass migration from the third world to the first world, because you go from a low carbon footprint in the third world to a massively high, often subsidized by the aforementioned government debts
Carbon footprint in the first world and absolutely it destroys any capacity for us to create sustainable environmental programs but of course this Debate went on a long time ago in the green movement and they said to hell with it We're not going to oppose immigration, even though we know it's incredibly destructive to the environment Because they're just useful idiots for leftists, right?
So So despite this socialist agenda support for the greens has grown especially as climate change and identity politics have taken center stage Now for a long time, let's look at this political turmoil in Australia.
It's kind of unprecedented.
For a long time Australia was used to stable governments regardless of which side was in power.
Until late 2007 the Liberals under John Howard had been in power for over 11 Years.
Before that, Labour, under Bob Hawke and later Paul Keating, were in power for 13 years.
What has happened since could make Australia the laughingstock of the world.
If it were remotely funny, which it's really not.
So, November 2007, Kevin Rudd, Labour, replaces John Howard as PM in a landslide election.
Rudd is seen as a new generation politician – he was the first Australian politician to capitalise on the millennial vote through social media.
And he enjoys record support and afforning media coverage for the next two years.
Of course all of the conservative politicians are swimming upstream against the acidic flow, the sewage flow, of the left-leaning media which gets behind and supports every conceivable leftist politician and relentlessly undermines and opposes every Non-leftist politicians.
So, it's one of the reasons I have slightly more respect for conservative politicians.
I just prefer people who are willing to take that on.
Now this changes with the liberals electing Tony Abbott as leader in late 2009.
His no-nonsense style, for example, he calls climate change absolute crap, quickly energizes the conservative vote.
June 2010.
Support for Rudd declines over a backflip in climate change policy so he is dumped as leader and replaced by Julia Gillard.
Although unprecedented in Australian politics, this soon becomes normal practice.
Gillard almost immediately announces an election.
So we're sliding down into the banana pit, constant vending machine rotation of new leaders every time there's a shift in electoral hysteria or whatever the current fetish can be whipped up by the media.
The chaos really exacerbates in many ways.
August 2010 the election results in a hung parliament so no side can claim a majority.
After almost three weeks of negotiation, Gillard forms power with the help of one Green MP and three independents, one left-leaning and the other two former national members who are supposedly conservative.
Now part of the deal It's the condition that labor introduce a carbon tax, something Gillard had previously promised never to do.
Now, of course, the Greens nearly always vote with labor in the Senate.
Basically, they hold the balance of power.
June 2013, after nearly three years of chaos, backflips, broken promises, disastrous polls, and other scandals, Kevin Rudd successfully challenges for leadership.
His first unsuccessful challenge was in early 2012.
September 2013.
The election results in a significant victory to Tony Abbott's liberals.
Although he lost, Kevin Rudd is still credited for saving around 10 to 15 seats that would otherwise have fallen under Gillard.
Despite the victory the liberals don't have the majority in the Senate so they will have to negotiate with a number of minor parties and independents meaning that any meaningful legislation will be an uphill battle.
Now this of course is the point of the divisive left and the divisive right to some degree which is you create Opposition among various groups in society, and you constantly denigrate the capacity of reason to negotiate differences, right?
This is part of the postmodernism.
Postmodernism is when you shatter the objectivity of rationality and empiricism and reason, and what happens then is, of course, without the umbrella or the third party negotiating epistemology of reason, You end up with just groups that have opposing views and can't possibly reconcile.
Everyone becomes the enemy and everyone's trying to fight with everyone else because, again, scientists can resolve their disputes according to reason.
Investors can resolve their disputes according to profitability.
Mathematicians can resolve their disputes according to an objective methodology called mathematics.
But once you destroy reason, Then the mirror is shattered in society, and people don't have a methodology by which they can resolve their disputes, so it just becomes vicious infighting, and that's the purpose, really, of destroying rationality, which has been, I guess, a century-long process for the cultural Marxists.
So, Malcolm Turnbull.
September 2015.
Amid declining support in the polls, Malcolm Turnbull successfully challenges Abbott for The PM.
Turnbull justifies his challenge by citing that the Liberals have lost 30 news polls in a row, a statement that would later come back to haunt him.
Although viewed as a better speaker than Abbott, Turnbull seems unable to achieve anything meaningful, leading to the tag of the do-nothing Prime Minister.
And of course, the left is by any means necessary, no compromise, and they're certainly willing to support look the other way or tacitly or explicitly encourage the use of violence against their enemies.
When I went on a speaking tour of Australia, particularly in Melbourne, there was uh I mean it was feral leftists attacking buses trying to tip them over because why?
Because they I see things that they disagree with and rather than reason and rather than make counter-arguments or even protest but not violently they just Use violence so it's very easy to end up in a situation where you can't get anything done because The violence of the left is generally covered up by the leftist media who support this violence.
They encourage this violence continually So July 2016, election results give a Liberal victory by only one seat, which does nothing for the confidence of the Liberals.
Turnbull seems to be afraid to do anything.
By August 2018, after two years of poor poll results, internal bickering, mainly over climate change policy and other distractions, Turnbull is dumped as PM to be replaced by Scott Morrison.
So again, you see this churn of leadership based upon discontent and a lack of capacity to reason with people, or for them to reason with each other.
A by-election in Turnbull seats cost the Liberals their one-seat majority.
So here's some of the major issues that are going on, most importantly for the future of Australia's border security and immigration.
So border security in Australia hit national headlines in 2001 with what became known as the Tampa Affair.
So there was a Norwegian freighter, MV Tampa, that carried 433 rescued asylum seekers, and even that phrase is hard to know.
Are they actually Fleeing?
Are they refugees?
I think in Italy only a couple of percentage points of those claiming to be refugees actually turned out to be refugees.
A refugee has to be somebody who's fleeing persecution.
They can't be fleeing war or civil war.
That's not enough to make you a refugee.
So there's this Norwegian freighter carrying 433 rescued asylum seekers and it has refused entry to Australian Waters!
See, the asylum seekers, when they're on a freighter, are already in a place where they're no longer being persecuted, if they are in fact fleeing persecution.
If you're an asylum seeker, you're supposed to stay in the first country you land in that is safe.
You can't just go shopping all over the place and go rambling and wander all over to try and find, usually, The best welfare state you can get a hold of in Germany.
So, given that they were already safe, it would seem to me, again, I'm no lawyer, but it seems to me that I can understand why they'd be refused entry to Australian borders.
So this sparked a national media outcry and bought the issue of asylum seekers and boat people illegally entering Australia into Central Stage.
Now, I'm just going to do a wee sidebar here.
It's really, really important to understand this as a whole.
You remember I was saying earlier that the leftist focus is to say all disparities in group outcomes are the result of prejudice or immorality.
The only way that someone can substantially win a race is if they've cheated, right?
And winning a race substantially means that you have cheated and therefore you should have your prize money redistributed and so on.
That's the way.
Anyone who wins has cheated.
And so the West, having become extraordinarily wealthy since the agricultural revolution about 300 or so years, the West having become extraordinarily wealthy because the West is wealthy and the third world is poor, the only way that the left can conceive of the causality behind this disparity is to say that the West is rich because it has stolen resources from the third world.
That the West is rich because it pillaged resources, because of colonialism, because of exploitation, or the West is rich because the West has polluted so much that climate change is destroying the environment of the third world and therefore they're climate refugees and so on.
Now, of course, if you set fire to your neighbor's house, you're kind of a jerk if you don't give him shelter, at least for a certain amount of time.
So this is the kind of guilt that is generally imposed upon the West, whether it's the history of colonialism, or subjugation of the native populations, or slavery, or imperialism, or you name it, right?
I mean, the idea that wealth can be created rather than transferred is not something that the left has a very good handle on.
And so, when people want to come into Western countries, the left says, well, you've destroyed their countries, you've bombed their countries, you enslaved them, you exploited them, you were colonists, you're destroying their environment through carbon emissions and so on, and therefore, how can you be such a jerk as to say no to the people you've displaced?
And that's kind of the hook under which they get you.
Now, none of this is foundationally true.
The free market creates wealth, Not through theft.
Theft has been the standard way of transferring resources in history, but the free market creates wealth.
Which is not to say that the Western countries have never done anything wrong, but, you know, as a whole, Western countries are the least racist countries around.
Western countries had the most benevolent colonial situations around.
I mean, you compare this to the Turks occupying Greece, or You know, the communist invasions of various countries where just about everybody in glasses was shot.
It's fairly benevolent.
The West, of course, the white Christians ended slavery both in their own countries, in their own empires and around the world as best they could.
So the West has got a pretty good track record and of course if the West is so horrible and racist then why on earth would people want to come to the West?
Makes no sense right?
So I just sort of want to point that out that that's the backstory as to why it is hard for the West to have boundaries.
Hey man you burnt down my house and now you're not even going to give me a cup of water?
So, when this Norwegian freighter was not allowed to enter Australian waters, then there was a response that was needed.
So, Howard's response was to initiate a range of measures, including offshore processing, the introduction of temporary protection visas, TPVs, in what was called the Pacific Solution.
This was aimed at discouraging further illegal arrivals from human smugglers, right?
So, really, really important to understand this.
that human smuggling is a very very big huge business around this and you know howard has had some intelligent and reasonable things to say or at least they would be considered intelligent and reasonable pre-hysteria times The effect was immediate.
Arrivals dropped from 5,516 people in 2001 to just one person in 2002.
So, yeah, walls work, barriers work, fewer people get killed.
I mean, you remember this poor child who washed up on a beach in Turkey that was held up to dissolve European borders?
Well, his father was trying to get to Canada for dental work.
The boat was overloaded.
This policy of just opening borders gets people killed.
The vast majority of women who are traversing through Central and North America through Mexico to get to America, the vast majority of girls and women there are raped along the way and the cartels own the whole thing and it's just brutal and vicious and damaging and horrendous and so on.
So I just want to sort of point that out.
Now although some saw this Pacific Solution has a rather harsh reaction, the response struck a chord with the Australian people, turning around his support at the time, this is Howard's support, and leading Howard to claim, quote, we will decide who comes to this country and in the circumstances in which they come.
And he also said, I don't think it is wrong, racist, immoral or anything for a country to say we will decide what the cultural identity and the cultural destiny of this country will be and nobody else.
Back when politicians had... some kind of spine.
Now, although Labour supported the introduction of the Pacific Solution, it's interesting to note that they spent most of their time demonizing a measure that was clearly working.
Obviously, the left wing of the Labour Party were unhappy with it, as well, of course, the Greens, right?
It fundamentally bothers them because they genuinely believe that white Western Christian countries destroyed the planet and people are just fleeing from the destruction wrought by the Old Testament selfishness, or I guess New Testament selfishness of the white countries, and so It rankles them and it bothers them because they don't understand how wealth is created.
So, after coming to power in November 2007, labor, under Kevin Rudd, wasted no time in dismantling the Pacific solution.
Almost overnight, the human smugglers and illegal boat arrivals started again, resulting in at least 50,000 illegal arrivals and an estimated 1,200 drownings at See, now, I'm always cautious about, you know, what I say and measured responses and sources and reason and evidence and so on.
If I had supported some kind of policy that resulted in 1200 drownings at sea, I'd feel terrible.
I could look in the mirror and say, yeah, this is not good.
This is really, really bad.
And they don't, I don't know, it's weird.
It's like they're missing some circuitry, like they're missing some empathy switch or something like that, or their empathy switch is set to off.
It's like, that's, that's not good.
That's not good.
I mean, these journeys to Australia, they're undertaken often on sort of these leaky old fishing boats, nearly always overloaded and so on.
And it's, it's terrible.
In December 2010, a boat carrying around 90 asylum seekers was washed ashore in rough seas at Christmas Island and sank, killing 48 people.
It's actually on YouTube.
It's not recommended viewing, but you can if you want.
And what happens, of course, is people say, well, the reason that these people drowned is because we didn't let them in easily or we didn't just open our borders.
It's like, no, the reason these people drowned is because they can't get in and therefore it's worth it for them to make the journey, right?
So, despite this and other terrible incidents happening, Labour would not take any meaningful measures to address the problem.
After winning the government in September 2013, the Liberals, under Tony Abbott, immediately enacted nearly all the measures of the Pacific Solution, including turning back boats at sea when safe to do so.
This was named Operation Sovereign Borders!
And this was quite important.
They claimed a 90% reduction in maritime arrivals of asylum seekers.
There were only 207 in November 2013 as opposed to 2629 in November 2012.
2013 as opposed to 2629 in November 2012.
There have been no significant successful boat arrivals since early 2014.
So it's the plight of asylum seekers in detention centers that upsets the left the most.
And it's understandable, right?
So what happens is, what is it, Guano Island, or like, so what happens is they get diverted, they're not allowed into Australia, and they refuse to go back home, and the stalemate can go on for years.
Well, in fact, the stalemate can only go on for years because the taxpayers, I assume, are forced to fund the bill for these people stuck in limbo.
And there have been at least 12 deaths in these detention centers, either suicides or deaths in violent riots.
Almost every time this happens, of course, there's this outpouring of grief from the left, usually in the form of protests or candlelight vigils and other estrogen-tweaking hallmark card sentimentality rallies.
And it's terrible, of course, because, I mean, no deaths are reasonable or good in this situation, but of course this didn't actually happen after the Christmas Island boat disaster that was simply used for political purposes.
In early 2019, independent Karen Phelps proposed a bill with the support of Labor to let asylum seekers in detention centers travel to the mainland for medical assistance.
Many left-leaning doctors and lawyers volunteer their services to help asylum seekers onto the mainland.
Despite fears that this would weaken Australia's border security, so far no boats have arrived.
Labour leader Bill Shorten, probably the next Prime Minister, appears to agree with the measures undertaken under Operation Sovereign Borders, but there are plenty within Labour who are quite vocal against it.
Because what's going to happen, I'm going to guess, is that if the leftist Labour Party wins the government, the boats are going to start arriving, and how Shorten responds to this will be a huge test of his leadership.
The Labour Party being split on this issue, some say let him in, some say turn them back.
Well, given that turning them back reduces deaths, they'll be split of course.
I mean, it's fine to root for the underdog, but not at the expense of the entire free market structure that keeps all these underdogs alive.
Now, with regards to immigration, there has been no mention in the media of the UN Migration Pact.
Of course, the media in Australia, as elsewhere, is overwhelmingly left-wing.
I've got a whole presentation on the UN Migration Pact.
It's a very dangerous document.
I'll link to it below.
Most Australians, and this is true throughout the West, most Australians feel that our immigration levels are too high.
The states in particular are screaming out for a reduction.
The major cities, Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane in particular, are feeling this strain.
Housing and infrastructure battling to keep up with demand, right?
So you flow people in who are adults or have families already.
You need the schools, you need the roads, you need the housing and all that.
And a lot of people make a huge amount of money, particularly those who are renting out low-income housing.
And then what happens is the displacement of Australians out of that environment pushes housing prices up along the whole upward stream of housing prices.
Because if you have birth rates, you have time to plan, right?
You have time to plan for what you need.
But if you just have adults and teenagers and so on flooding into the country, well, Are the resources, are the structures, are the infrastructure, is the environment being developed to take care of all of this?
Well, of course not.
It's all built ad hoc and it's all a complete chaos, right?
Scott Morrison has refused to sign up to the UN Migration Pact, arguing that it could weaken Australia's border security.
He has also pledged to reduce Australia's immigration intake.
And I'll be perfectly frank with my friends out there in Australia, you have to reduce your immigration intake.
You have to reduce your immigration intake.
And there's a wide variety of reasons for this, but Most importantly this question of how all of this multiculturalism is going to work is very much an open question and we need more data to find out if multiculturalism is going to work or if it's going to fragment into both political and then perhaps even outright civil war.
It's an experiment that's never really been performed before in human history.
The evidence is not strong that it works.
Immigrants in the UK are becoming more radicalized over time and less integrating.
So yeah, you need to slow down or stop your immigration because You need a time to find out whether this wild experiment is actually going to work.
And you can look up the Putnam studies, P-U-T-N-A-M studies, to see how multiculturalism is very destructive to neighborhoods, to cohesion and so on.
I mean, if kids are afraid to play outside because they don't know how to communicate or have cultural values incompatible sometimes with some of their neighbors, They stay home, they play video games, they get fat.
It reduces social trust, having a wide diversity in a neighborhood, even within people who are within the same cultural groups within that neighborhood.
The data is almost overwhelmingly negative.
In fact, Putnam was so horrified by the results of his study, he sat on the results for half a decade before publishing them because he was afraid to or really wanted to check them and so on.
So the data is not good.
And when you're engaged in experiment, right, if you switch your diet, don't you want to see if it actually causes you to lose weight or gain weight or get sick or have good or bad digestion?
You don't just change your diet and keep eating no matter what.
So the data, it's not my advice.
It's what the data says.
Bill Shorten has so far not commented on signing up or not.
But it's pledged to increase Australia's immigration intake as well as pledging to provide an extra 500 million dollars to the UN.
It's so weird.
It's so weird to be praised as an organ donor when you're just donating other people's organs.
You know, it's just, he's not, he's not the 500 million dollars, it's the taxpayers.
And it's not even the taxpayers who are going to be charged for this, right?
It's all debt and money printing and bonds and borrowing and it's all, it's just absolutely Wretched how much praise people can get for spending money that isn't their own Australia of course as a Rather toasty climate has heard a lot about climate change, but it's actually relatively new So the narrative around climate change is nothing new.
It didn't actually have much effect on Australian politics until 2007 and you know just for the I've got a whole series on on climate change that interviews with with experts and so on and But those of us who are a little older, I'm a wee bit north of a half century.
I'd be a fine wine and a rather creaky-kneed individual.
But if you have been older, you've been around these hysterias before, right?
So there was originally it was going to be global cooling, then it was global warming, now it's climate change.
There was why there were holes in the ozone that were going to fry us.
There was Alar in the apples.
There were razor blades in candy bars.
It's not really an environmental thing, but also turned out to be false.
Acid rain and just a wide variety of environmental hysteria.
When I was growing up, we were told in schools and other places that the world was going to run out of oil by 1980, that people were going to starve to death, that there was going to be mass extinction events, that the seas were dying, that we were out of fish.
And just none of this came to pass.
It's monstrously sociopathic to terrify in particular children with imminent death, not just of themselves or their family, but the world and humanity as a whole in pursuit of political power.
So it's again, not to say there aren't environmental issues, but they really haven't played out the way that I was terrified into believing that they would as a child.
And this was even more scary than nuclear war, which was a constant threat in the American Soviet tensions in the 1970s in particular.
But This was the environmental catastrophe and collapse was considered to be a done deal.
Like at least they could choose.
There was mutually assured destruction which minimized the capacity for a nuclear winter to occur.
A nuclear winter was when the bombs would land and so much dust and so on would be kicked up into the atmosphere that you'd end up with a permanent winter.
Which actually was the KGB PSYOP.
You can read more about this from Diane West, a great author on this kind of stuff.
I've interviewed her a couple times but It's really, it's terrible stuff.
And those of us whose childhood was battle-scarred by these endless scenarios of worldwide extinction events, which is the most terrifying thing you could submit a child to, well, we have some skepticism.
And because we remember, at least I remember how tough that was for me as a child, I really don't like seeing it inflicted on kids.
Now, until Kevin Rudd started talking about this in the 2007 election, not many Australians had even heard of the term climate change.
Now, Rudd's victory, as well as a visit to Australia by Al Gore soon after to promote his film An Inconvenient Truth, made sure climate change became front and center in the national debate.
Well, it's really not a debate.
It's, you know, you see this 97% consensus trotted out, which is completely false, by the way.
And anybody who questions I mean, there's not really climate science behind projecting the climate in 100 years.
It's computer modeling.
And I did environmental computer modeling when I was a software entrepreneur.
And I was chief technical officer of a software company that sold environmental solutions to military, government, big corporations, and so on.
So I did some coding of environmental modeling.
And you can tweak the numbers to get anything that you want.
Again, it's not to say there aren't issues, but It's not science to say what the temperature will be in 100 years or 50 years.
And of course, they've been consistently wrong in the past.
Nobody predicted this 18-year pause in warming and so on.
So, you know, it's not a debate.
It's like you either accept climate change or you hate the planet and want to see children's eyeballs explode from the heat.
I mean, it's not a debate.
Again, because postmodernism has destroyed our capacity to have rational debates.
Now, Rudd was quick to introduce an emissions trading scheme and a carbon pollution reduction scheme, right?
Again, the government could very easily reduce the carbon footprint of the entire country simply by refusing to spend more than it collected in taxes.
Everything you spend now is an extra consumption of resources.
So, you could do that.
You could also, of course, reduce carbon footprint by stopping paying women on welfare for having additional children, particularly without fathers.
Because each child, then, which you pay the woman to have, or pay extra for the woman to have, then results in more carbon footprint stomping on Mother Nature's nads and all that.
So, yeah, you could do all of these things, but you see, that would be a reduction in government power.
They always want an extension in government power, which is why you know what the modern environmental movement is really about.
Now the Liberals, still reeling from a huge election defeat, are terrified to rock the boat and offer support under then-leader Malcolm Turnbull.
Now, just by the by, for a, quote, Conservative, and these days, with a few exceptions, few populist exceptions, most Conservatives are, quote, Conservatives.
For a Conservative, Turnbull is very left-leaning on some issues, earning him the nickname, not Turnbull, but Turncoat.
Now this changed in December 2009 with the elevation of Tony Abbott as liberal leader.
Unafraid of upsetting the thermogenites, the alarmists, Abbott's brash style, as well as his withdrawal of support for climate change action, quickly energizes the conservative vote, as well as panicking the left, right?
Because remember, if you're not taking direct action on climate change, you are ensuring that the world is going to enter into an irretrievable Bill Nye F-bomb, world on fire, flameball into hell itself within, well, I've heard estimates as little as five years, ten years, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez had a famous 12-year prediction and so on, which she's now said, well, it was just parody, just satire.
It was just goofiness, right?
Yeah, I wonder if her tax increases to pay for her 94 trillion dollar Green New Deal would also be, you know, just parody and suggestions and satire.
It's like, nope, they would be enforced at the point of a gun, right?
Terrible.
So after a loss of support in the polls, Rudd drops plans for his ETS, right, his emissions trading scheme.
It wasn't long before he was dumped as PM.
Now, during the 2010 election campaign, the Liberals continually claimed that Labour would introduce a carbon tax, a claim that was continually scoffed by Labour.
Carbon tax?
You must be crazy!
We're sort of in this Ayn Rand universe now, where the only way that you know what politicians are going to do is what they strenuously deny they're going to do.
But the claim seems to stick, causing Gil Gilard, a few days out from polling day, to utter the immortal words, there will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.
George Bush Senior, read my lips, no new taxes.
Now, after the election results in a hung parliament, Gillard forms a government with the support of the Greens, on the condition that a carbon tax is introduced.
That's an amazing thing.
When the left has power, or have authority, or have influence, they squeeze and use it for every conceivable jewel of juice that they can get to get their way.
And that's just not the way that conservatives play.
Which is why conservatives generally lose.
This broken promise, along with many other scandals, causes a massive drop in support for the Labour Party.
The backlash over the carbon tax even led to threats from the Australian Workers' Union to withdraw support for Labour.
Now remember, the Labour Party, the leftist parties in general, started with protection of workers' rights or expansion of the franchise and so on, which you could argue is a positive thing, and I think it's a very good argument that it's a positive thing.
But it has now shifted to allegiance to state power, right?
They've been co-opted by those who will use environmental concerns, sometimes environmental hysteria, in the pursuit of the ever-expanding nature of government power.
And that comes at the expense of the workers.
It really has turned into the opposite of what it started as.
Now during this time Abbott continues to hammer labor of the carbon tax calling it, quote, a big new tax on everything and, quote, war on coal and saying it will push up electricity prices.
Well, of course it will.
Now the Greens were only too happy to demonize the coal industry blaming it for any and all extreme weather events, right?
This is sort of part of what's happened with the fear about the weather and the fear about the weather generally comes from sort of northern European culture and history because And also it comes from Siberian or East Asian culture and history because as agricultural-based societies that had long winters, weather was very, very important.
And you can see the rise and fall of some civilizations along with certain weather patterns.
We're kind of like European based civilizations kind of paranoid about the weather, which is why this climate change stuff kind of takes roots in our minds, at least for one reason.
And now, of course, in the past, you didn't have 24 hour news stations, you didn't have the internet, you didn't have endless video.
I guess of which I'm one.
But so now you can see all these extreme weather events, whereas in the past you couldn't, and it just, if you have that mindset, you know, if you have a rational mindset, you say, well, there's a bell curve of weather, and there's going to be extremes at either end, and it's natural.
But if you have this belief already that climate change is going to cause more extreme weather events than every time you see a new weather event, that's this confirmation bias, a new extreme weather event, aha, you see, blah, blah, blah, right?
Now, after gaining power in 2013, the liberals eventually repealed the carbon tax.
And just remember, the liberals are the conservatives for those Americans who are baffled and confused by the idea that the liberals would ever repeal a tax.
Now, despite this early victory, support for Abbott wanes.
After replacing him as leader, Malcolm Turnbull makes new progress on the issue.
During this time, despite political upheavals, the climate change narrative continued on with many coal-fired power stations being shut down and or demolished, right?
It's an affront to the religion of environmentalism.
It is blasphemy and therefore must be bulldozed.
The lack of any political leadership has led to a reluctance to invest in any new coal power stations, right?
So, again, at the same time as massive numbers of immigrants are pouring into Australia, you're reducing your capacity to actually produce electricity.
And the reason for that, of course, is if politicians said to the left, if non-leftists or conservative politicians said to the left, oh, no, no, no, you guys want huge amounts of immigration, so we're going to need more power stations, we're going to need more power production, then that would expose the contradiction.
The left says, well, we want to reduce carbon emissions, but at the same time they're very pro-mass immigration.
So, to me, that would be a pretty easy thing to do, but maybe that's why I'm not in politics.
Now this is all despite the fact that Australia has one of the biggest coal deposits in the world, and also that coal, along with gas, produces around 85% of Australia's electricity.
With the closure of many of these coal-fired power stations and renewables, of course, being unable to meet demand, renewables are just a Hail Mary, hope and pray situation.
The last few summers in Australia have seen power shortages in major cities like Adelaide during the hottest days and it's completely crazy for what is supposedly a first world country.
So because of all of this, right, mass immigration and shutting down of the vast majority of the sources of electricity, coal and so on, Australia has insanely high electricity prices.
Now that of course is terrible and this is part of the reason why native populations in the West have their birth rates declining while of course those who come in and often go on welfare and so on, we know the whole story, they can afford as many kids as they want and this is part of the population replacement that has been talked about Recently in National Geographic, it was called a conspiracy theory, but it's been talked about in major periodicals.
Now the current liberal party cannot bring itself to dare utter the C-word.
Not C-U-N-X-U, say coal, for fear of backlash from the left, right?
So you're not allowed to speak rationally about energy requirements, particularly based on mass immigration, because the left will just, the leftist media will just try and destroy you, right?
They will just try and destroy your life and try and get you fired.
I mean, it's, they're really bulls in a china shop.
The china shop being civilization itself.
Now of course there have been questions of whether the data has been perhaps a little over massaged to talk about this adjustment of between one and two degrees which makes the most recent summers the hottest around and of course in general and you can see this happening throughout the west the kids are being heavily bombarded you know they're let out of school to attend these marches for climate change and so on and that is uh
Now, despite demonizing coal, both parties are still happy to export coal to other countries for the royalties.
Coal, of course, is one of Australia's biggest exports.
Now, this is part of the general hypocrisy.
Like, if you've got some radioactive substance in your house, do you say to your neighbor, oh, yeah, I'll sell this to you, no problem, right?
I mean, that's...
He's gonna die, right?
So the idea that coal is destroying the planet and that the massive movement of tens of millions of people around the world all coming to the West is not because the West has opened up the infinite buffet of its welfare state to any and all comers, but rather because these people are fleeing man-made climate change, man-made catastrophic Anthropogenic, disaster-based climate change?
Well, it makes no sense, because if coal is so bad, then it gets even worse when you have to use additional energy to ship it overseas so it can be burned closer to the actual migrants' homes.
So, of course, it's nonsense, right?
The Greens, on the other hand, have not changed.
They recently called for all coal mining to be banned within 10 years, calling coal the modern-day asbestos.
The vast expansion in human life that has occurred over the past 100 years or so is based upon energy.
It's based upon energy.
Energy for agriculture, energy to heat, energy to cool, energy for transportation, energy for health care, energy for you name it.
And if that energy is restricted, is raised in price, then what happens of course is that people begin to die.
And far more people are dying of cold-related issues than heat-related issues.
So if you want to start restricting energy output, I mean you can make that case if you want, but just understand hundreds of millions of people are going to die.
Now, if you're comfortable with that, I don't even know what to say.
Surely that should be a debate, right?
Well, okay, it's worth a couple hundred million people dying so we can save billions of people who otherwise... Okay, well, then you're in a weird kind of calculus where you're still best-case scenario is hundreds of millions of people die now.
I don't know about you, but to me, hundreds of millions of people dying requires a pretty high evidentiary bar.
Like, if you want to put in policies that are going to result in the deaths of hundreds of millions of people by restricting the energy supply that is keeping them alive, oof.
I mean, what do you think?
Do you think that people, if they don't get coal, they just die?
Freeze to death?
No, what they do is they cut down huge amounts of forests and use the wood to burn whatever they want to burn.
Or you think, oh, carbon is really bad and it produces excess heat and that's tricky for people and so on.
It's like, well, coal generally burns cleaner than other stuff, right?
If you've got a bunch of rotten wet wood and you set fire to that in your house, you're going to get a lot more localized air pollution.
Anyway, you know all of this stuff, I'm sure.
If you're going to say that because of computer models that predict the temperature of the earth in a hundred years, we need to introduce policies that are going to likely result in the deaths of hundreds of millions of people, those computer models better be pretty good.
And also, you'll also notice that the hundreds of millions of people, it's always other people, always overseas, elsewhere, invisible.
Well, they're not invisible to anybody but the conscience.
Put it that way.
Now, the Australian economy has been very strong for a long time.
Some might say a little too long, right?
You know, the seven years of summer, seven years of winter, Game of Thrones scenario.
Well, that's all about fiat currency and propping up the economy and so on.
So Australia's not really had a recession since 1991.
So that means, of course, anyone under the age of 40 really has no idea what it's like to go through one.
And that contributes to a growing complacency, right?
So I just wanted to mention this.
If you, if you want to understand the left, all you have to do is imagine that money is air, like it's just there.
It's infinite.
And to deny anyone air is because you hate them and want them dead.
It's right.
So if you just imagine that money is just kind of around it, it pumps, it grows on trees, like all this kind of stuff, it doesn't require a free market.
It doesn't require.
motivated ambitious and hard-working population it doesn't require incentives it just it's just there like like air well then you can understand the left right because then you say well we got to watch we got to watch how much air we give to people it's like why would you why would you want to do that that's horrible and and if people want to hoard air it's like well they're just mean and right so if you think that money is just like air you're just a long way towards understanding the left
Now during their time in power the Howard government ran a very stable economy something even their critics actually had to admit.
There were ten budget surpluses in eleven years helping to wipe out the previous government debt of around ninety billion dollars and setting up a future fund right so everybody who can count recognizes the coming retirement of the boomer generation for you know they're not contributing taxes but they're hoovering up health care and retirement benefits and so on so this future fund was set up to help alleviate that burden.
And regardless of what you think of it, it's interesting and unusual that a government should actually prepare that far ahead.
Well, if you want to know why, so one of the differences between the left is this R versus K selection.
You can check out my presentation on gene wars, G-E-N-E wars.
I'll link to that below as well.
Soon after the election of labor in 2007, the world was hit by the global financial crisis, which came out of, well, came out of this other idea that the left has in America and elsewhere that all disparities in outcomes must be the result of prejudice.
And because blacks, Hispanics, and other groups had lower rates of home ownership, the government forced banks to lend to underqualified people, which they then had to bundle up those potential losses in complex financial instruments, which they then sold around the world and blah, blah, blah.
Right.
So just another form of affirmative action disaster.
So, So quick measures were taken by the Australian government, including guaranteeing the major banks, increasing first home buyer grants and $900 checks to most Australians, which is a terrible violation of property rights and a sleight of hand maneuver to imagine that you can create wealth by borrowing.
But, to be frank, it's nice to see the money going to the people rather than to the banksters, as was the case in the US.
Other measures included lowering interest rates to 3%, they were called emergency lows at the time.
Well, that's terrible, of course.
When you lower interest rates that low, it makes it cheap to borrow, but it makes it kind of worthless to save, right?
Because you're not getting any money in your savings.
So again, it just creates the illusion.
I mean, you can eat through your seed crop all winter and emerge fat, but that just means you starve to death next year.
In the red equals red category, thanks to the surplus of funds left by the previous government, labor is able to spend its way through this global financial crisis eventually, meaning that Australia is one of the few countries to get through this GFC without going into recession.
Canada was another one.
And again, this is just a general pattern, right, which is feast to famine to feast to famine to feast.
It's just a stupid cycle that the government sets up, and it's part of what the Austrians would call the business cycle, but basically you get a responsible government, creates a surplus, and then everyone says, wow I guess we could spend, and then they just destroy it all.
It's terrible.
Now regardless of how they did it, it is considered a proud achievement.
In 2013, Labour left the government 370 billion dollars in the red.
In his first budget in 2014, Tony Abbott was keen to turn things around, announcing sweeping cuts, leading to an outcry with Labour leader Bill Shorten calling it an unfair budget, right?
This is always the case.
So things are so upwardly sticky with the government insofar as you start spending on people and those people then want to keep getting that money, of course.
And then if you start cutting it, it's like, oh, no, right?
It's like, you know, someone doesn't need a particular opiate, but if they become addicted to it, suddenly they really, really need it because they become addicted to it.
And the other, of course, concentration of benefits, diffusion of cost situation is...
Is let's say you spend a hundred million dollars on a particular group or that group has a hundred million dollars worth of incentives to keep that money flowing Whereas the cost to each taxpayer can only be may only be a couple of bucks a year So they have almost no incentive to oppose it.
It's just part of the whole sickening death spiral of this status system So because labor and the Greens held the majority in the Senate any real budget-saving measures are blocked which of course just increases the debt this backlash And the government's inability to explain the reasons for the spending cuts went a long way to the downfall of Tony Abbott.
Around communication, it's interesting because I have a lot of contempt for politicians who don't tell the truth, but at the same time I have a lot of contempt to an electorate that doesn't want to hear the truth, right?
So if you've got your hands in your ear, la la la, I'm not listening style, then you can't really blame a politician for not telling you the truth if all you want to hear is comfortable lies, right?
I mean it's the old Socratic argument that you've got one politician who says eat your And another politician who says sugar is good for you, who do people vote for?
Well, who's to blame for the resulting cavities and obesity and diabetes and so on?
Is it the politician or is it the people who lap up that saccharin message?
Well, it's an interesting question.
The same pattern of course continues for years.
The liberals are unable to make any significant spending cuts and labor blocks any meaningful cuts while claiming the liberals can't manage the economy.
During this time the debt skyrockets to over 550 billion dollars.
Now despite all of this the liberals are still able to predict a budget surplus for 2019.
Now unfortunately the damage has been done.
The liberals have no credibility in managing the economy which previously had been their strong suit.
It also means that the incoming treasurer will be Chris Bowen, someone who joined politics straight out of university.
You know, it's so funny, it's so funny that people look at someone like Donald Trump, who has done great things for the American economy, versus someone like Barack Obama.
Well, Barack Obama never ran a business.
I mean, he'd been a politician in the quasi-public sector university system his whole life.
He's never been an entrepreneur, never been responsible for payroll and so on.
And so the idea that these People who've never done anything in the free market can somehow manage the free market?
It's completely insane.
It's literally like saying that anybody who's handled a butter knife can go be a surgeon and everything will be just fine.
So, despite the so-called good news, the Australian economy isn't nearly as good as we are led to believe.
Despite record low interest rates, currently 1.5%, and low unemployment, a lot of Australians are struggling.
High property prices.
Again, a lot of that's driven by immigration.
High cost of living prices.
Stagnant wage growth and other issues have put Australia in a precarious position.
And of course, when you raise something as foundational as electricity prices, that has a ripple effect throughout everything.
It's not just your home bill, right?
It's everything that you... All of the groceries go up in price because of the trucks required to deliver it.
I mean, just name it.
Household debt is at an all-time high and a recent fall in property prices means that many Australians owe more on their homes than what they're worth.
Many are struggling to get by.
And this is amazing.
I mean, you can look at this data.
If you look at inflation versus the growth in the stock market and so on, you could really make the case that in a lot of places there's been virtually no economic growth for 30 or 40 years.
And how has this all sustained?
How do we have any illusion of wealth?
Well, just based on debt.
Based on personal debt, consumer debt, credit card debt, you name it.
And of course this fantasy that your house is an ATM, right?
That it's just going to keep spitting out money ad infinitum.
Well, one of the reasons for mass immigration is to keep pushing up the price of real estate.
Real estate prices should be collapsing as the boomers retire and the baby bus generation has a lower demand for houses, which again should drive up birth rates because it's cheaper to own a house, you can afford more kids.
But the system, and we saw this in 07-08, the economic pillage fest known as our modern central banking system cannot sustain a drop in property values and even politicians can't sustain it either because if the boomers lose property values Just as they're heading into retirement, they're going to go kind of hysterical.
Two reasons.
One, their interests have been harmed.
And two, they're boomers.
So hysteria is their default position because of postmodernism.
They can only bully and scream and screech and manipulate because the universities and the cultural Marxists stripped away our ability to reason with each other.
So yeah, it's a house of cards.
It's a house of cards.
So the current situation in Australia has led many onlookers to draw similarities to Ireland just before the global financial crisis.
The economy is definitely slowing in Australia.
The government knows what's coming, but they're too scared to be honest with the public because they're afraid of this backlash.
The current government seems to be incapable of being honest on a range of issues including the economy, climate change, identity politics and other issues.
This inability to do anything has seen their support evaporate and they can't seem to realize this.
This has seen a rise in support for a number of minor parties such as One Nation, Australian Conservatives, Catter's Australia Party, Shooters, Fishers and Farmers, Palmer United Party and others.
And this kind of fragmentation, of course, plays right into the hands of Labour and the Greens.
So if Conservatives are betrayed by the major Conservative Party, they start looking for alternatives which splits the Conservative vote, which hands over power to the Leftists and the Socialists, which is a disaster, but this is kind of what they want to do, right?
So it should be noted that for...
All the opinion polls that point to a preference to Labour, the other half of the poll is the question of preferred Prime Minister.
For the past five years Tony Abbott, Malcolm Turnbull and Scott Morrison have all always scored higher as preferred Prime Minister.
Kind of tells you everything you need to know about Bill Shorten.
It goes to show just how fed up most people in Australia are with politics and why the regard for politicians is at an all-time low.
The West is in a desperately bad situation at the moment.
That's the bad news.
The good news is there's something relatively easy to do about it.
Something that is practically easy but can be emotionally difficult.
So one of the big problems, of course, is that we've lost or had stripped from us the ability for critical reasoning, for thinking and challenging other people's viewpoints with facts and data.
It's generally become that people have become programmed to react to hysterical phrases in hysterical ways.
And this is the result of sophistry, this is a result of terrible education, this is a result of a lack of philosophy in the world, which is why I work so hard on Free Domain, which is the world's largest philosophy show, to bring this kind of reason and evidence to people's lives.
If we in the West succumb to the fantasy, the libel of our ancestors and our system, that the only reason that we're wealthy is because we have stolen and pillaged from the planet, Stealing and pillaging was the de facto situation in almost all of human history.
That's what human beings did.
It's how society kind of limped along and pretended to function.
Something changed 200 years, 250 years ago.
Private property, free markets, free trade, all of that produced staggering amounts of wealth.
And the reason for that can be called the Pareto Principle or Price's Law, which is that the square root of any group produces half the value.
If you have a company with 10,000 people, 100 of them produce half the value and 10 of those produce half the value of that.
So 10 out of 10,000 people produce a quarter of the value of the entire company.
It's just this weird magic like in Just about any endeavor, 95% of the money goes to 5% of the people.
Actors, sports, podcasting, you name it.
It's just how things work.
There are some people who are so astoundingly productive that if they have the right incentives and they have the freedom to operate in the market, staggering amounts of wealth are produced.
And it's not pillaging.
Pillaging goes in the way of that.
And people in the West suffered under colonialism.
They were drafted and taxed to support Colonialism, it was a disaster for the average person.
The free market and freedoms are what count and it's what is literally keeping billions of people alive at the moment.
If we fall to the slander that we have wealth not because our ancestors fought and died for our freedoms, not because we perhaps evolved to Think in the long term, because those who didn't never made it through the winter months and so on.
If we understand all of that, then we can take pride in what we've achieved, we can share the ideas by which we have achieved it.
Free market, personal responsibility, property rights, the rule of law, contract enforcement, and avoidance of corruption, and personal integrity, and all of those good things that came out of Greco-Roman and Christian universality of ethics we can spread those ideas and that's the greatest good that we can do for other cultures other countries and other ethnicities but saying well we're just terrible and you should just come in and take everything we've got is truly committing seppuku
And that makes no sense.
It is a form of suicidality.
Not just for us, but for all of the world that depends upon the productivity of the remaining free market nations.
So this misplaced guilt, misplaced sympathy is absolutely terrible.
And we need to sort of fight back against that.
Now that means that there needs to be a border, at least until we can figure out what to do with the welfare state.
Because if people come to Western countries because they want free stuff rather than freedom, then their desire for free stuff is going to undermine, cripple, and destroy the remaining freedoms that we have.
If it also turns out to be the case that lack of productivity has to do with factors beyond anyone's control, then it means that we're going to end up with permanent disparities, which mean permanent blame, race baiting, culture baiting, ethnicity baiting, conflict, escalation, hatred, culture baiting, ethnicity baiting, conflict, escalation, hatred, crime, you name it.
That's all going to escalate.
And I've talked about some of the possible causalities in a wide variety of other contexts.
I won't get into it here.
But these are the stakes that you're facing.
Your ancestors came to Australia and other countries of course and fought hard to establish some pretty amazing and wonderful and free civilizations.
How do we honor what has been built under great suffering and under great duress and handed to us?
Well, we offer it by at least fighting 1% as hard to maintain what others spend 100% to build to us.
And what that means, of course, is you need to talk to people about freedom, about sovereignty, about nationalism, about borders, about cultural pride.
And that means people are going to get mad at you.
So what?
It's not like you have to charge over the trenches of the psalm and join a mountain high collection of human bodies.
You simply have to put up with the disapproval of people who think you're terrible for wanting to preserve your way of life.
It's not the hugest battle in the world.
It's not the nastiest battle in the world.
Boy, you want to talk about a nasty week or so?
Look up the Bataan Death March, which a lot of Australians, of course, participated in or, it's not really participation, were forced into and slaughtered along the way.
That was a tough fight!
Saying to people, listen, you need to vote for free markets.
You need to vote for borders.
You need to vote to minimize state spending.
We need to try and expand upon the freedoms rather than giving them away for fear of being called whatever, some negative word.
I mean, all the sacrifices of our ancestors, all of the hard battles fought to win our freedoms should not be burned upon the hysteria of name calling.
We'll find out if there's life after death, because if we fail to maintain what our ancestors fought and died and bled for to build and to hand to us, if they don't come back and haunt us for our cowardice, We'll know.
We'll know for sure.
So yeah, challenge your relationships.
You know, people had to fight hard to build our societies and what do we have to do?
You have to say to people, you have to vote for this, you have to vote for that, you have to vote for freedom, you have to vote for whatever maintains everything that has been built for us and by us.
And if people say, well that makes you a terrible human being, well, take it.
There are bigger issues at stake.
People suffered enormously for the societies we live in.
Tell them the truth.
Tell them the facts.
Tell them who to vote for.
So your dinners may be a little bit uncomfortable.
If you can't handle that, you don't deserve to keep what you've been handed.
Well, thank you so much for enjoying this latest free domain show on philosophy.
And I'm going to be frank and ask you for your help, your support, your encouragement, and your resources.
Please like, subscribe, and share, and all of that good stuff to get philosophy out into the world.
And also, equally importantly, go to freedomain.com forward slash donate.
To help out the show, to give me the resources that I need to bring more and better philosophy to an increasingly desperate world.
▲
Export Selection