July 13, 2019 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
01:15:52
The Philosophy of Television
|
Time
Text
Hi everybody, Stefan Molyneux from Freedom Aid Radio.
Hope you're doing well.
fdr url.com forward slash donate if you'd like to help out the show.
This is the philosophy of television.
So I've done some movie reviews, some book reviews, some art reviews, but I think it's time... a listener had a bunch of questions about TV shows and I think it's time to talk a little bit about the philosophy of television.
There's a lot to be understood and learned from the medium.
To put it front and center, I quite like television in a lot of ways.
I probably watch a couple hours a week.
That includes Netflix and stuff that's produced for that.
So yes, I think that television can be very enjoyable, very informative.
It's a great way to turn the brain off.
You get absorbed in the jokes and the fast-moving action and all that.
It's a very absorbing and, of course, easy-to-obtain and immediate medium.
So, there's a lot that I'm not... Some people write to me, I haven't had a cable or television set in, like, 15 years.
I think that's pretty cool, nothing against it.
Not my particular preference.
I do like to dip into shows for a while.
But I think it's really important to see what is going on in television, to be aware of it.
You can still enjoy something and be aware of what is happening.
And so the most fundamental thing to understand about television is it is an argument for universals without philosophy.
Let me sort of make that clear.
One of the main problems with television is it is an argument for universals without philosophy.
Now it can't really have philosophy because philosophy is a very exacting and disciplined and Difficult discipline, and there are very few people who can do it very well, and very few, even fewer people who can do it in a way that appeals to popular culture, that appeals to the masses.
So it's a real challenge.
Maynard was one, and Socrates was another.
And Nietzsche, to a smaller degree, was another.
And so, everybody wants to appeal to universals, because universals are the most powerful, right?
With universal propositions you get ethics, and with ethics you hook into the entire brainpower that the human mind has in creating universals.
Like, my daughter at about, I think, 14 or 15 months could recognize different chairs, even ones she'd never seen before, she'd know it was a chair.
And so the universal aspect of our brain is really our most powerful engine.
It's the most powerful and sophisticated and fundamental part of our intelligence as a species is the ability to abstract into universals.
So anytime you can get a perspective across and hook it into a universal You have the most powerful lever to change people's opinions, to hook into people's minds.
And when you look for this reality in television, you will see it everywhere.
It's everywhere in television.
This arguing for a perspective that is universal, but does not have any philosophical reasoning behind it.
And so what TV writers do is they create sympathetic characters and then put particular perspectives into the mouths or actions of those sympathetic characters and then the unsympathetic or foolish characters have the contrary perspectives.
And you will very rarely see a really good debate between characters in television.
The perspective, the cool, attractive, hip person who has the usually left-wing views does not ever receive good arguments from those on the opposite spectrum, political spectrum.
I mean, you'll never, you'll very rarely see a competent Republican argument on television.
In fact, it's incredibly rare.
And so, the way that writers on television get their perspective across to you is they make the characters who hold their viewpoints likable.
Now, there are two basic ways to make characters likable on television.
The first, of course, is to make them physically attractive.
That is very important.
If you make the character physically attractive, then people will automatically take what they say as not worth countering, as not worth disagreeing with.
There's advice in sort of the pickup artistry community and in Tom Lyka's shows and so on which says if you want to have sex with a woman don't bring up anything of substance.
Don't bring up politics or religion or animal rights because you just basically want to have sex with her and if you bring up something that might engage her moral intellect then she might change her position or change her mind.
And so when we are around attractive people our impulse is not to contradict.
Nutty things that they say, but to nod and smile in the hopes that being agreeable enough will give our penis a warm sheath in which to insert itself.
I mean, Genichi talked about this.
He said that there are three kinds of people who almost never hear the truth.
The very rich, the very powerful, and the very beautiful, because the reality distortion fields around them, based on people's desire for the goodies they can bestow, power, money, and sex, it just means that they don't hear a lot of the truth.
And the reality is, of course, you don't find people with crazier ideas than beautiful women, in my experience.
And it's tough because, of course, everybody wants to date or mate or whatever with them.
And so people don't say, well, you know, you're kind of crazy.
Oh, you think you have psychic powers?
I'm going to give up any chance of access to the vagina in order to tell you that that's completely irrational.
And I remember one really, really great looking woman that I was dating.
She said, I believe I have psychic powers.
And I said, well, come on, I mean, James Randi's had a million dollar prize, just go collect it.
You know, let's go to Vegas and do the tests and I mean, if you've got this stuff, let's, you know, I'll split it with you because I came up with the idea and you have the psyche power.
I knew she didn't and I knew, right, so she was of course quite nonplussed about that.
And of course, if you're a beautiful woman, you can just reject one guy and there'll be like ten more lining up to go out with you.
Each individual guy is pretty disposable, and anything which displeases you can be wished away.
It's not a universal, but it's definitely a trend.
And so, if you put your opinions into the mouth of a highly attractive actor, then the audience's skepticism is disarmed, right?
I mean, if you put opinions into a short, fat, bald man's Then people are innately skeptical, whereas if you have some tall, statuesque, beautiful, you know, man or woman, then people's skepticism is disarmed.
So if you, and this is one of the reasons why, I mean, other than that we like to look at pretty people, it's one of the reasons why everybody wants to get pretty people to say their stuff.
Because you can then disarm people's skepticism without actually having to make a coherent, rational, or empirical argument.
So that's one way.
of making sure that people are going to be more likely to accept your particular perspective, have a pretty person say it, and so on.
Now the other way in television that you get people to accept your perspective is Ooh, I am not sure.
This can so easily be used by evil.
I am cautious to release the Kraken of this particular perspective, but since evil people probably know about it and use it anyway, I don't suppose it can do a huge amount of harm.
But just be aware of this.
If you're evil, please don't use it for evil.
And if you're good, please be aware that the evil people will disregard what I just said.
One of the great revelations about society, once you understand that it has no principles whatsoever to speak of, there's no principles in society.
Theft is bad, taxation is good, violently interfering with someone's moral conscience is bad, but passing laws and regulations is good.
I mean, that there are no principles in society whatsoever.
We have to give up our disbelief in Santa Claus but retain our belief in walking on water guys and resurrections and so on, right?
So there are no principles in society whatsoever.
People only use principles to attempt to get other people to do what they want or give them stuff that they otherwise would have to earn.
So once you get that there's no principles in society, and I notice I say in society, I believe there are principles and I put forward rational arguments for those principles, but Once you get that there are no principles in society, you will understand that people will always give way to whoever has the least problem with what they're doing.
Let me make that very, very clear.
People in society will almost always give way to someone who has no problem with what he's doing.
And so, if you want people to accept your perspective, put it into the mouth of a beautiful person, physically beautiful person, and then have that person have no doubt about the righteousness of his cause.
No second doubts, no ifs, no maybes, no inner debates, just a completely clear-eyed, unconflicted, no resistance, no emphasis, approach to what it is that he or she is doing.
All right, so if you want to advance the acceptance of gay marriage, and please understand, I'm not going to make a case for or against any of these positions.
I mean, I have in other places, but this is examining television.
This is not examining the content of the moral propositions, but the methodology by which they are advanced in the most popular medium in the West.
So if you want to advance the cause of gay marriage, then you put very attractive people on the pro-gay marriage side, and you put unattractive people on the anti-gay marriage side, and you have the anti-gay marriage people have obvious tensions and problems and conflicts about what it is that they're doing, and have them say silly things.
And you have the attractive person who is the pro-gay marriage advocate.
You have the attractive person be calm and funny and appealing and attractively open-hearted and all that kind of stuff.
And then you have the other characters react in the way that you want the audience to react.
Right?
You put the position you want to espouse into the mouth of an attractive person, you put the position you wish to reject into the mouth of an unattractive person, and then you have the person whose views are yours put forward those views with no doubt, no hesitation, no unkindness, no tension of any kind.
A simple statement of facts and you have the person whose position is against yours fuss and flap their arms and get outraged and have obviously hyper-emotional reactions to the position.
And then the other people in the scene will be divided into people that the audience is supposed to like and people that the audience is not supposed to like quite as much.
And you have those people React to whatever is being said in the way that you want the audience to react.
Because there are no principles and nobody has any clue about what's real, or true, or good.
We react with the crowd.
If the crowd is shocked and appalled, we will tend to feel shocked and appalled.
If the crowd is not shocked and appalled, or is laughing, then we will tend to think things are fine.
And so science websites or popular mechanics or something like that, somebody posted this on Facebook, recently shut down the comments section on their articles because they found that people were too easily swayed into anti-scientific or anti-rational positions simply by the comments underneath the articles.
And of course trolls know this very well, that people react to other people's reactions and are swept along in this lemming-like tide with other people.
And I do this a little bit from time to time on my videos.
I certainly don't mind dissenting opinions, opposing opinions, and so on.
But people who are jerks, I just delete their comments.
Or people who just are abusive, I just delete their comments.
I remember seeing a Relationship advice video site many years ago and you know I wasn't quite sure what to make of it so I scrolled down just curious what other people made of it and there was just you know garbage and vitriol and abuse and spam and all that.
I remember thinking man you can't even pick up the garbage off your own lawn.
I mean this is the first things that people see.
I mean so that's you know it's been well shown that other people's reactions tend to condition how people react.
to particular stimuli.
Now if you look at another alarming piece of media like a speech by Hitler, one of the mesmerizing things about Hitler is he is completely and totally committed to what he is talking about and he has no inner conflicts, there's no doubt, there's no holding back, there's just 110 percent dedication to the nasty stuff that he's spewing out.
And this is, you can see this in staged political events, of course, right?
If the president signs something, I mean, nobody knows what the hell is going on, right?
Nobody knows what the hell is going on.
I mean, the average person, I mean, even the people in Congress who vote on these bills, like, they have no idea what's in them, because they're all getting edited up to the last minute, and some of them are thousands of pages long.
They have no idea what's in them.
So nobody, and even the president, would have any idea what's fundamentally in the bill.
Only the lobbyists for each particular part of the bill they're sponsoring would know only their particular part of the bill.
Nobody knows the whole bill at all.
As I think Otto von Bismarck said, there are two things that people should not see being made, sausages and laws.
And so when you stage something and you want to condition how people react to it, people don't know what the hell is going on, but if you have a bunch of
attractive, powerful people standing around smiling benignly and applauding, then naturally of course you're conditioned to accept this as a good thing, you know, because powerful, attractive, hopefully intelligent people are smiling broadly and applauding whatever the president is signing.
And so this is how you get perspectives across.
in television.
This is how you get arguments across.
Pretty people who have no problem with what it is that they're doing.
When someone comes up with a conflicting opinion, someone comes across a conflicting opinion, then what happens is most people, I mean everyone with very few exceptions, everyone has to argue from emotion and from manipulation and propaganda and all that kind of stuff.
Because reason and evidence simply can't be applied to social questions.
Because the moment you start applying reason and evidence to social questions, what happens is the entire fabric of society begins to unravel.
Right?
The entire fabric of society begins to unravel.
And I'd say, I've gone into this a million times before, taxation is theft, debt is slavery, monopoly is violence, the state is monopoly.
I mean, the moment you start applying any kind of consistent ethics to whatever social problem you're looking at, it dwarfs itself into insignificance compared to the structure of society as a whole.
Right?
Let me sort of make that very clear.
Nobody can apply reason and evidence to any particular social problem because the moment you apply reason and evidence to any social problem, the entire status structure of society gets called into question.
People freak out and throw away reason and evidence like it's a molten, lava-based snake that is about to bite them.
So people can't touch reason and evidence when it comes to social issues, social questions.
So they have to do manipulation and bullying and so on.
And most people, when they encounter an opposing position, they will attempt to shame, to guilt, to embarrass, to basically infect the other person with an inner critic or arouse the inner critic of the other person.
To provoke the person they disagree with into self-attacking.
Now, if they can provoke the other person into self-attacking, then to themselves and to observers, or to expressing self-doubt, then to themselves and to their observers they appear to have won the fight, won the conflict, won the debate.
So, they will try little things to see if you will self-attack.
They will try these little things to see if you will self-attack.
I mean, this has happened in almost every debate that I've ever been in.
They will try to get you to self-attack.
Now, if you don't self-attack, then they get very petulant.
People get very petulant if you don't self-attack because that's mostly what they've got.
Now, if the goal of getting you to self-attack fails, then their own manipulation begins to become clear to them, and they have to abandon the strategy.
People really want to believe that they're in the right, but they don't want the challenge, maturity, and responsibility of a rational philosophy, of truly universal ethics.
So they manipulate, but they don't want to know that they're manipulating, because the moment you know you're manipulating, you know that your argument is weak.
Right, so you get all of these kinds of things where if you say something that someone disagrees with, they say, oh my God, I can't believe you believe that!
Rolls eyes, I feel really embarrassed for you.
I can't believe you said that.
I mean, you seem like such a smart guy and to say something that unsmart is just shocking to me.
I mean, you really need to sit back and think about what it is that you just said.
It's really astounding.
People, don't you think?
Aren't you amazed?
This guy just said this.
Can you believe that?
I mean, that's horrifying in a way.
I don't mean to overreact or anything, but oh my God!
I can't believe you just... I guess you said that.
Well, you know, it's here forever.
People can find it.
I mean, if you're comfortable with that, I guess you're comfortable with me helping you publicize your opinions and your perspectives and making sure that Google can find it for future employers.
And, you know, I guess this is where you're at.
And, oh man, I mean, I wish I knew what to say.
I mean, it seems so retrograde.
It seems, I mean, this isn't the 1950s for heaven's sakes.
I mean, where would you even get that perspective?
Anyway, you could go on and on like that.
But you understand, there's no argument in that.
Right?
So, in my YouTube channel, or on my message board or anything, I mean, if somebody makes a bad argument, fine.
If somebody makes a good argument, great!
Even better.
I've learned a lot from really good rebuttals from listeners.
It's wonderful.
But if somebody simply makes an appeal to shame or an appeal to guilt or, you know, the attempt to invoke inner critics or whatever, I mean, it doesn't.
It doesn't invoke my inner critic.
I answer to reason and evidence, not to I mean, I'll just delete that stuff, because it has no intellectual content whatsoever.
And, you know, this is a philosophy show, it's a philosophy channel, so make an argument, make a good argument, make a bad argument, supply evidence, don't supply evidence, but do something that has something to do with philosophy.
The ZOMG, I can't believe you said that, has nothing to do with philosophy.
It's like It's like pumping dry ice into a surgery theater.
I mean, it just makes your hands cold and obscures your vision.
It actually is just interfering with what they're there for.
And somebody who does that would be evicted, and of course people who make no arguments but only have petty, soap opera-ish, enormously obvious, silly, immature manipulations, I mean, with no intellectual content whatsoever.
Well, your comment, I mean, if I see it, I don't see them all, but if I see it then I'll just remove it because it has nothing to do with what this show, what this conversation is all about.
And of course the same thing is true if people just, if they think that an adjective is proof, right?
Like if they say, well this particular form of economic organization is just more efficient, it's more practical.
I mean that's, I mean it just tells me that somebody just doesn't have any knowledge or experience in thinking.
You know if you think that that's any kind of argument then you need to not be on the court because you're holding your tennis racket the wrong way around and don't even know it.
The people who say, well, you know, capitalism is just predatory and resource-based economy is more efficient and more humane.
It's like, well, you're just putting labels on things.
You know, you're basically a fat person getting the word thin tattooed on your forehead and going out to buy size 2 jeans.
It's like, no, I have the label.
I am the thing.
The label makes the thing.
The label is the thing.
The label is reality.
No, I mean just calling something efficient.
It also shows me that people had no experience in business whatsoever.
If I have three plans and I present those plans to my board or I present those plans to employees or whatever and I say, well, plan C, which I'm not going to tell you about, is the most efficient and practical and therefore we should go with plan C.
Okay?
I mean, nobody would accept that.
They'd say, well, I don't know.
How do you know that it's mine?
What are the facts?
I mean, don't tell me your conclusions.
Don't give me your labels.
Show me your work.
As I always used to say in math class, right?
Show me your work.
But in television, you can't get that, right?
You can't have your work shown, right?
And that's really important.
And this is The tip that I will give you, right?
You know, this is why I say to people, go to therapy, develop self-knowledge, become comfortable with your own assertions, right?
Which means run them through the grinder of reason and evidence.
And when you do that, you will no longer self-attack.
It doesn't mean you won't be scared.
It doesn't mean you won't be angry.
The purpose of maturity is not to eliminate emotion.
That is the nirvana of the slave, to have no feelings.
But if you avoid or have defused the inner grenade of self-attack, which is really possible, if you have defused that, you will almost always win.
You will almost always win.
It's the nuclear option, I guess, of winning in conflicts.
You simply don't self-attack.
You don't self-attack because we wish to be dedicated to the truth and we wish to serve reason and evidence, the goddesses which we all bow before or rather rise before.
And so to self-attack is to harm philosophy, is to harm the spread of the truth.
So we simply don't do it.
It doesn't mean don't be self-critical, don't self-evaluate, don't improve where necessary, don't reject better arguments and so on, but don't self-attack.
And people will try to provoke you into self-attacking all the time.
And they sort of just create this nameless, negative judgment of you that they hope is just, that you're just gonna pick up and start, you know.
Here's a stick.
Would you like to hit yourself with it?
Uh, no?
I'm good.
Thanks.
Uh, no thanks.
Not for me.
No stick self-hitting for me.
That's what you, uh, you always say.
See, in the Peter Joseph thing, people say, you could see by Steph's body language that he was panicked and knew that he was defeated and had to start throwing all this stuff into the, make the debate with the interrupt and this.
I mean, what?
That's not an argument of any kind.
All you're telling me is, help, I can't think.
And I don't want to.
That's all I hear from most people.
Help, I can't think and I don't want to.
And, you know, it's like, well then get out of the operating theater because we're trying to save some lives here.
Stop plugging up the works with your nonsense and go and make sure the people get fries with their Happy Meal.
Because you're in the wrong place, my friends.
If you're a Stone Age savage who's illiterate, I'm afraid you must leave the library.
And so you'll see this all the time in television.
And just look for it.
I mean, this is a great intellectual exercise.
You look for whoever is the most attractive person and look for the emotional mood when they present a particular moral perspective or a particular argument.
And you will see that that almost always is going to be the writer's arguments.
And you can read more on Ben Shapiro for this kind of stuff.
But you'll see that those are usually the leftist arguments that the writers are making.
And that is the programming that you are expected to, you know, fairly blindly receive, right?
You've just got to receive that programming and do what the pretty bots tell you to do and believe what the calm people tell you to believe and react in the way that the other characters react.
And especially if there's a laugh track too, right?
Because what happens is someone who's conservative will say something stupid.
The cool, pretty left-wingers will make funny faces or quip about it.
The audience will laugh at the conservative and that is how you know conservative arguments are wrong.
See, all you have to do is work on wit and charisma.
You don't actually have to work on reason, evidence and thinking.
Television is almost exclusively a medium of sophists.
So, for example, If you look at the gay marriage issue in France, right, so Ross's ex-wife was a lesbian and she was perfectly calm, perfectly peaceful, perfectly happy, perfectly nurturing, good-humored, patient, she had all the virtues that you could conceivably imagine.
And that's, I mean, that idealization is a form of conditioning.
So, somebody who grows up to be a lesbian tragically faces a lot of prejudice and hostility in society, largely from a religious perspective.
And that has harm on the personality.
That does harm to the personality to be rejected, to have to hide who you are, maybe pretend to be straight, to basically have the endless rocks thrown at you, of going against even unconscious Old Testament commandments against decrying the evils of homosexuality.
And that's, I mean, that's all pretty tragic stuff.
And so most lesbians are, you know, have grown up with very, very difficult lives, very difficult childhoods.
Same thing is true of homosexuals, of gays, right?
I mean, it's hard being gay in the world, in the modern world.
I mean, it almost has never been easy, but it's hard being gay.
in the world.
And so there are a number of dysfunctional characteristics to the gay personality in general, which is not because there's anything dysfunctional about being gay.
It's simply because it's hard.
It's hard to be gay in a public school.
It just is hard.
Like the guy who was on Glee, the falsetto guy.
I mean, he had to be homeschooled for a couple of years.
He faced such extreme bullying in his school.
It's brutal what happens to gay people in school.
There was a guy in my high school whose name was Stephan Gerhardt.
It sounded like gay heart.
And so he would just get mercilessly taunted and it ground him down.
You could see it.
You could see it.
People didn't want to be friends with him because that would draw the attack of the bullies and sociopaths that infest public high schools and I'm sure private high schools to some degree as well.
And so to have a perfectly zen, caring, warm, nurturing, blah-de-blah-de-blah kind of person around is an argument for a particular perspective.
And it is a kind of dehumanization of where lesbians and gays are in society, which is pretty bullied and pretty traumatized, which again is pretty horrible.
But that's an argument, and the only people who would have any issues with the gay marriage would be, you know, nasty people, people who are unsympathetic.
I mean, there weren't a lot of nasty people on Friends, but that would be who would have a problem with it, would be, you know, unpleasant people.
Okay, so let's see how this works somewhat at random.
We'll pick two shows, The Big Bang Theory and Two and a Half Men.
So, in Two and a Half Men, you have Charlie, of course, and Charlie's brother.
Now, Charlie is, you know, a hound dog, a reprobate, a rake.
Oh my God, I sound like I'm in a 19th century novel.
He is a pickup artist, a ladies' man, and he's, I mean, I think Charlie He's good-looking, right?
I mean, he's a good-looking guy, right?
The actor.
And he's got easy money, he writes jingles, and so barely has to work, has a house in Malibu, and sleeps with a dizzying variety of women.
And his brother, played by John Cryer, is this sad-sack divorcee who is whipped by
His wife, pussy-whipped by his wife, dragged off to court, has to pay for everything, has no money, you know, is treated with contempt by his brother and by his son and by his wife, and is this tragicomic character who has no chance to have a sort of together and happy life.
He's desperate, he's insecure, he's whiny, and all that.
Now this of course is not At all outside the bounds of what's going on in society, right?
So I've listened to a few, I mentioned sort of earlier, there's Tom Likas shows and Tom Likas does these shows where he basically tells guys or at least gives his perspective on how men should have sex without commitment, without spending really any money and protecting their assets and so on to use Use women for sex and then move on and all that kind of stuff.
Don't stay over, don't cuddle, all that kind of stuff.
And it's interesting.
I mean, it's kind of horrifying.
But for reasons you can go listen to, just do a search for Tom Likas, L-E-Y-K-I-S, Tom Likas 101.
I mean, he's a smart guy.
You know, he's gone through, he says, 12 years of therapy.
He had a father who was an alcoholic and that, of course, has significant problems.
I was giving him some, he's been married four times and so on.
But in his marriages, he's protected his assets by making sure that The women sign documents that say when they buy communal property or when he buys property and he's married, the woman will never have any claim to it and all that kind of stuff.
So he's got out of four marriages with no alimony and so on and he's never had kids.
And that's not easy.
I mean in a weird way, that's something to be admired.
And so in Two and a Half Men, you have a guy who's putting forward a particular position, which is that women are trash to be used for sex.
And Charlie has no particular problem with his position, right?
So Jamie Lynch plays a psychologist or psychiatrist and there are some very funny scenes where he is explaining to her what he's trying to do and he's completely innocent as to any negative consequences and so on.
And of course the negative consequences of casual sex are never really discussed on Daytime TV.
So, in Darren Star's 90210, back in the, what was that, the 80s and 90s?
I don't know.
I never really watched it, but there was a sex, a losing your virginity scene, and then the network censors made the writers write in, or the network executives made the writers write in a pregnancy scare afterwards, so that, you know, they felt it sort of balanced the view of sexuality.
But, you know, while The character Charlie in Two and a Half Men is sort of joked about.
He's had STDs and so on.
He's never had an unwanted pregnancy.
He's never had sexually transmitted disease or anything like that.
So that sort of punctures the reality and so on.
And because he's got money and good looks and a full head of hair or whatever, he can continue to do what he's doing.
I mean, Tom Likas, who puts himself as a minus one of the attractiveness scale, to which I may in fact concur.
I mean, he's like at least a buck ten overweight and all that and balding.
But he's basically saying, well, women will have sex with you if you are rich and famous and powerful.
And it doesn't matter what you look like, because women are drawn to money and power and fame.
And he does not look like a pickup artist, but I guess we can take him at face value that he Picks up a lot of women.
And this polarity, and we'll talk about the polarity particularly of masculinity in the Big Bang Theory in a minute, but in two and a half men there is this polarity.
So either you treat women with contempt or women treat you with contempt.
Like the idea of a positive and loving, mutually supportive, respectful relationship is not It's not in the cards, right?
It doesn't exist.
So either women are, you know, cold-eyed, ice-fisted ball breakers who will divorce your ass and take all your money and so on.
And you see this in Gary Unmarried as well.
The two wives are pretty similar.
And then you end up having to, you know, a broken, smashed-up man having to pay for your ex-wife's new boyfriend and new car and all this kind of stuff that women will just smash you up.
Well, that's sort of put in there.
So, either you use women for sex or women use you for money.
Those are the only two possibilities.
And, of course, while there is some biological basis in that perspective, which, you know, you can look into my other podcasts or, you know, go to the expert, the fine goddess Karen of Girl Rights What on YouTube or some of the other gender specialists, I guess you could say.
Go to them.
I've talked a little bit about it, but you know, much better to go to those people.
But I do think that there is this perspective that is put forward.
And of course, of the two brothers, Charlie is the much more attractive one.
And Charlie has no insecurities and is genuinely blithe to any negative repercussions to his own lifestyle.
And that's important, right?
Because it sort of follows the pattern of what we talked about earlier, which is that if you want to put a particular perspective across, make the most attractive person with the least problem with what he's doing, talk about it or embody that.
And there's almost no way to resist the charisma of that kind of interaction, of that kind of presentation, I guess.
The fact that Charlie Sheen is kind of mental is not inconsiderable, right?
I mean, he's been caught by prostitutes with drugs.
I mean, he's kind of mental in many ways.
And the idea that he would end up with a loving relationship and so on is pretty wretched.
It's not going to happen at all.
But this is portrayed as a sort of enviable lifestyle.
And of course, I mean, absolutely, at a base traumatized society biological level, yes.
I mean, asex, you know, hot sex with an endless succession of beautiful women is in men's DNA, of course, right?
You know, if society is falling apart, you spread your seed as wide as possible among the physically healthiest and fittest mothers you can find.
So, that's definitely sewn into it.
The degree to which that continues to destroy society is, of course, not of particular concern to your biological urges.
So, there is this polarity.
And, of course, their mother is a narcissistic ball buster as well, who is only concerned with her own happiness and pleasure and barely pays any attention to her children and attempts to hang on to her youth in the same way that Charlie attempts to hang on to his youth as well.
So this is an argument for Hedonism for being a sociopath, for being a user of people.
Because the brother who has some compassion and concern and care and wishes to treat women well is laughed at by both men and women in the show as a spiritless sap who has as much attractiveness to women as
lukewarm kiddie pool urine soaked water so that's just how these this stuff is presented you know you can be cool charlie uh... or you can be sad sack brother of charlie a mooch who's been destroyed by doing the right thing, quote, doing the right thing.
It is, of course, an attack on marriage and stable relationships in the same way that the show Friends was an attack on marriage and stable relationships in that they all hooked up and blended back and forth between friends and lovers and friends again, and where the children that were the result of these unions ended up vanishing for seasons at a time is inconvenient to the free and easy twenty-something lives of the extremely talented and charismatic and attractive stars.
And so this was something that is important to understand.
The assault on marriage has been going on forever.
People on the left dislike marriage because people on the left aim to expand the state.
And strong marriages, stable intact marriages, diminish the power of the state.
Strong, stable and happy marriages produce far fewer criminals, which means that people feel less need to defend themselves from criminals by turning to the state.
It produces, of course, fewer single mothers, which means there's far less need for the welfare state.
It creates and promotes economic opportunity, creates and promotes social trust, all of which contribute to the rise in incomes in society and so on.
So it's hard to justify and argue for a growth in the state or the necessity for the state if society is largely inhabited by you know, stable, happy marriages, right?
It just doesn't work.
This is why, you know, all totalitarian regimes focus on attacking the family.
That's why Hitler had his oath of loyalty to the Fuhrer, not to the father and the mother.
And this is why in the Communist Manifesto the attack on family, on traditional marriages, is explicit.
So all those who attack the traditional forms of marriage are promoting totalitarianism to one degree or another.
Now don't get me wrong, if you're listening to this for the first time, I'm not a Republican.
The Republicans dislike the state and want to shrink the state, but only because the state is secular and interferes with the irrational authority of religion, right?
And so this is why, if you are on the left, you tend to be more secular and more skeptical, because you don't like the degree to which religion interferes with the irrational power of the state.
And if you're on the right, you tend to be religious and for small government, because you don't like the degree to which the secular state interferes with the irrational authority of your particular deity.
So, you know, it's six of one.
Half a dozen of the other.
Do you want to be ruled by bloody-headed ghosts or jack-booted thugs?
Do you want supernatural horrors or secular horrors?
The no horror checklist remains still to be talked about in society as a whole.
So, one of the things that has occurred in television, it has become much less issues driven.
And the reason, of course, that it has become much less, I mean, if you sort of compare it to MASH, All in the Family, and even Family Ties with its attack upon Republicans, endless boring attack on Republicans that was only saved by the undeniable Eighth Wonder of the World, which is Michael J. Fox's continuing charm.
Then you can see that issues have become much less prevalent in television.
Now, of course, the reason why the television shows, which are, you know, mostly left-wing, highly liberal media people, the reason why that has become so much less issues driven is because the issues that were promoted by the left throughout the 60s, 70s and 80s and 90s have all catastrophically failed, right?
I mean, the war on poverty is a complete failure, the war on illiteracy, the war on ignorance, the war on drugs.
I mean, it's all a complete and total failure.
And sorry, to be clear, just to sort of tidy up.
where I misspoke the war on drugs was not promoted by the left but rather by the right because religion as a hallucinogen doesn't like competition of chemicals where superstition is the main drug of choice but and that's why you'll still see on the left your attacks on the war on drugs and so on right but you don't see you know we need more welfare state we need bigger teachers unions we need more government spending we need
More education spending.
You'll see these attacks on, you know, gay marriage has become the thing and all of that.
And the reason why you don't see a lot of issues anymore, like in the Friends issue, they never really dealt with poverty.
Nobody ever complained about taxes.
And of course, you talk to people, they will complain about taxes quite a bit.
Nobody ever mentions the national debt.
Nobody ever mentions problems in government schools.
Nobody ever mentions bad teachers.
These are things that people actually have significant problems with.
And yet you simply can't have that talked about in left-wing media.
Now they can't talk about more because they've already gotten so much of what they wanted particularly in the 60s and 70s that They can't argue, like, a little bit more and we'll be fine.
That's just not credible, right?
The government needs to increase its welfare spending and everything will be fine.
I mean, there's just no possibility that with America $17 trillion in debt that anyone can say that, you know, a little more government spending and we'll hit paradise.
And so you go from the activism of MASH and the activism of All in the Family and the activism of family ties and so on, to the nihilism of Seinfeld, and the nihilism of Two and a Half Men, and the nihilism of the Big Bang Theory, which we'll get to.
They have no more solutions, the issues are all tired and worn out, and yet of course they can't ever admit fault because they're ideologues, and therefore they've just turned to empty entertainment in a sort of bitter spite against the universe that did not grant great virtue to their evil doctrines.
So I think that's important to understand that the way things are talked about in the two sitcoms that we're discussing here is this irascible hostility between the sexes is really there and is being really talked about a lot in sitcoms and this of course is after decades and decades of the left promoting egalitarianism
And benevolent and beneficial equality between the sexes, right?
So after you've had 40 or 50 years to propagandize everyone, then you should expect that the relations between the sexes would be positive.
But it's hard to think of a time when they have been portrayed more negatively than in the modern television show.
The relationships between the sexes are pathologically dysfunctional, hate-filled, hostile.
And contempt abounds all around.
This, of course, was not the stated goal of the left in promoting radical feminism and the Equal Rights Amendments and so on, but this is nonetheless what is occurring.
So let me sort of tell you two things that you won't see ever on television, because it's so left-dominated.
You may hear about it talked about on conservative radio maybe I've never I mean just one of these I have heard but the other one I haven't so let's imagine a scene in a modern television show where a bunch of parents are sitting around and and then they have a single friend who's a teacher who's also hanging out with them and the single parents sorry the parents are all sitting around this thing oh my god it's so incredibly inconvenient
Like, I can't believe just how screwed up our system is.
Why do I finish work at 5 o'clock and school lets kids out at 3 o'clock?
I mean, how ridiculous is that?
I mean, and then this summer's off?
What the hell are we supposed to do with our kids for eight or nine weeks in the summer?
Like, who would conceivably design a system like that when we've been encouraged for both parents to go out and work?
Who the hell would design a system where your kids get out two hours before you do, there are all these endless breaks and holidays, weeks off here and there, and then eight or nine weeks off in the summer when parents have no place to put their kids?
It's insane!
Who would design this kind of system?
And then they turn to the single person who's a teacher and they'll say, yeah, like I get you like summers off.
I get that.
I get that.
You like your summers off and you like finishing work at three o'clock.
Of course you do.
And I get that it's the law and I get you've got a big union and I get you've got all this power and we're just parents and helpless taxpaying cattle and there's nothing we can do to stop you.
But just once, once in my goddamn life, I would like some teacher to say, I'm sorry that it's really inconvenient for everyone else on the planet who's not a teacher, particularly those who are parents.
I'm sorry that it's ridiculously inconvenient for parents the way that the school year is structured.
It is horrible.
I mean, of course, it was structured originally through the free market to help farming families, right?
Kids get off early, they can help with the chores, and parents are home because they work on the farm and summer's off for farm work and so on yeah that all makes that all makes sense but now it's just ridiculously inconvenient and I'm incredibly sorry about the extra cost this imposes on parents.
And I'm not just talking about teachers working not much at all in summers.
I'm talking about how parents have to hire, like, nannies and they have to have daycare and they have to have summer programs and summer camps to have some place to put their kids.
Like, I'm sorry about the thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars per child that parents have to spend so that I can go home at three o'clock and have my summers off.
Because the reality is, if I wasn't imposing all these extra costs on parents, they could work less.
Like if I simply extended my school day to four o'clock, then parents could save all this money by being able to go pick up their parents after school.
And so everyone could work till 4 o'clock.
Parents wouldn't have to work till 5 and I wouldn't be able to get out at 3.
If I just worked summers and then parents could take the time off.
They'd get extra vacation time because they wouldn't need to be spending all this money on programs and daycares and nannies to pick up their kids after school and all this kind of crap.
Plus it would be healthier for the children and better for the kids and all that.
So, you know, just once I'd like to hear a teacher say, I'm sorry.
I'm really, really sorry about imposing all of these horrible extra costs on society as a whole just so that I can have afternoons and summers off.
So, for like teachers who are parents, I mean, it's a fantastic deal.
It couldn't be better, right?
I mean, teachers who are parents, so if they're a school, I mean, they often will have their kids in the same school they teach in.
Just walk down and pick up your kids.
Because, you know, as a teacher, you get off at the same time your kids do.
Yay!
Lovely for them.
And, of course, you get all these delicious summers off.
You don't have to worry about putting your kids in camps because you don't have to go to work because you're a teacher.
So, just once, I would really like...
for there to be a show.
And it doesn't have to be a whole scene.
It would just be like, you know, you entitled mofos, basically.
Like, I get as a teacher, you can't change it individually either.
Like, maybe if you got all the teachers together and said, you know, if we really were focused on the best interests of the children, if we really were focused on the best interests of families, we'd stop imposing all these horrible schedules, incredibly inconvenient and terrible work hours for the parents and for ourselves.
And we would stop imposing all these horrible costs that parents have to spend because of our ridiculously entitled set of benefits, right?
Just once, that would be a pretty cool thing to hear on a show, and all of that is true.
You know, any teacher who says, well, I really care about the kids, I want the best for the kids, it's like, well, the kids should be with their parents and not a nanny.
The kids should be with their parents and not in a daycare.
That would be the healthiest thing.
So any... And they all say, well, the parents aren't helping kids enough with the homework.
Well, that's partly because the parents have to work so much to pay for all the extra goddamn childcare required by these ridiculously inconvenient hours for society as a whole the teachers get to enjoy.
So if teachers were interested in children rather than their own selfish benefits, then they would be working really hard to make sure that they stayed a little longer so the parents could work a little less hard to pay for all the extra child care they need because of these selfish teachers unions.
And they would work to eliminate these summers off and all this kind of stuff, right?
If they really care.
But of course, I mean, I understand that no teachers are going to sit there and fight hard for extra hours and time off.
They're not going to fight against time off in the summer.
I get it.
It's wonderful for teachers.
It's beautiful, especially for teachers who have children.
It just really fucks everybody else in the wallet and in the heart.
But are you ever going to see a scene in a television show Like, certainly in a comedy, you could have an IRS as a bad guy.
I mean, Lord knows, the IRS is hated enough that you could have it in as a bad guy.
But you're just not going to see that, and you're not going to see anyone criticize teachers.
You get that, right?
And that's partly because, of course, although writers in Hollywood tend to be very rich, they get paid a lot, a lot of them do have their kids in public schools, and they would be afraid of repercussions against their kids.
For speaking out against teachers, that would be one thing.
And statists and left-wingers are more statists than right-wingers.
Less religious, but more statists.
A statist desperately has to praise teachers, government teachers at all times, because they're the ones who create the intellectual manure that the weeds of statism grow in and it binds the children.
So you'll never see that, right?
Now the other thing, too, is that you'll never see this conversation.
on say two-and-a-half men, which is why I would never be a writer for two-and-a-half men, or any of these media.
But you never see a conversation where the woman says, the ex-wife, right?
So this brother's, John Cryer's character's brother's ex-wife.
Ex-wife says, well, I don't need a man.
And the husband says, you don't need a man?
Are you kidding me?
You're not seriously saying that to me, are you?
You needed men?
To evict me from the house, policeman, you needed judges and lawyers who were a good chunk of them men to argue your case in a very, very female-friendly family court system.
You need men to threaten me with jail if I don't pay my child support, if I don't pay my alimony.
The idea that you don't need men is insane.
You rely much more on men as a single mom than you ever did on me as your husband.
If the single mom is poor you need men to pay the majority of taxes and you need men to pay for all of your benefits.
You're incredibly dependent on men.
Much more dependent than you ever were when you're married.
This idea that by Welding your uterus to the black power of the state that you have somehow gained independence from men is ridiculous.
What you have gained is independence from moral virtue and economic reality, but you have not gained independence from men at all.
You rely on the might and violence and weaponry of men to extract everything from men and from honest women and reasonable women and productive women and hard-working women.
You need the might and power and weaponry of men to extract everything that you need, everything that you want.
So, no, don't tell me that you're independent of men.
You are far more dependent on a wider variety of men than you ever were when you were married.
The difference is that those men aren't going to demand anything from you in return other than a vote, which I'm sure you'll be happy to supply.
But you're never going to see anything like that on television.
Well, because of course the majority of television watchers are female and Or the idea that there's a sisterhood, right?
A sisterhood of women.
I don't think you're ever going to see any female character say to a poor welfare mom and say, you ain't my sister.
You ain't my sister.
I'm working hard.
I got no money for my kids because I got to pay for your kids.
You ain't my sister.
You my enemy.
My responsibility has to pay for your irresponsibility.
My birth control has to pay for your march up the Buckingham Guards Avenue called a vagina.
My thrift has to pay for your spendthrift.
My loyalty to my husband has to pay to your loyalty to the common thugs you let impregnate you every second Tuesday.
Tell me you're his sisters.
You hanging off my neck like a lamprey.
So, I mean, you're just not going to see that.
I mean, what's not talked about and not shown on television is really important.
The stuff that people actually care about is never talked about.
The only time the politics is ever talked about is to basically imply that all Republicans are crazy, fundamentalist, homophobe racists.
There was a season of the West Wing, I think it was the last season, where Jimmy Smits played a, again, young, good-looking guy who wanted to become president running against Alan Alda.
And to their credit, they gave Alan Alda some good lines.
But in their debate, Jimmy Smits was talking about how the Democratic Party has always stood firm against racism and this and that and the other.
I mean, that's just massive lies.
KKK was an outgrowth of the Democratic Party.
The Democratic Party opposed every advancement in race relations legally that was put forward by the Republican Party and all that.
I mean, you just can't hear that, right?
In the same way that you'll hear endless whining from people on the left about the dark days of blacklisting and blackballing under Senator Joseph McCarthy.
Are you now, or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?
Yet, again, as Ben Shapiro attests, he was writing a bunch of scripts for The Good Wife, got really positive reviews, everybody wanted to hire him, then they found out that he was conservative, and he was never hired.
I mean, you just try being a conservative who wants to write, can open, wants to write about conservative issues in Hollywood, and You simply won't get hired.
There's about 500 writers in Hollywood who really define the culture, at least the TV side of the culture, and I mean, they're all in an echo chamber, right?
I mean, they're all lefties.
They're all generally upper middle class.
They all just tell each other what each other want to hear, and they think they represent society, and they're just a hall of mirrors, funhouse hall of mirrors that just reflect each other.
And Jewish, of course, right?
And, you know, overwhelmingly.
And, you know, one of the great challenges of Judaism is it's never had to revise its perspective on socialism, for reasons I'll get into in another podcast.
But whereas the West has had to grapple with the seeds that put forth fascism and national socialism and so on, the Jews have never really grappled with The religious impulses that gave birth to communism and socialism and so on, to some degree, which came out of Jewish intellectuals.
They've just never had to do that look back and revise aspect of things, which I think is a real tragedy.
And I think society is going to have a tough time advancing until that occurs.
I mean, that is, as I talked about on last Sunday's show, that's going to have to come from within the community.
So this Stuff I think is really important to understand.
So let's turn to the show, I think it's the same, Chuck Lorre is the producer.
It's the show Big Bang Theory.
Now in the Big Bang Theory, again, statism can never be discussed.
Statism permeates the entire show, but statism can never be discussed.
So, for instance, they all work in government-protected, tenured jobs in government-sponsored universities pursuing largely government-funded research.
None of them have to deal with any customers.
None of them have to compete in the free market.
And therefore they can retain, you know, the pencil-necked, flat-footed, Dungeons and Dragons 12-year-old dweebery that they so consistently and fundamentally depressingly inhabit.
Right?
So the engineer works for NASA.
He doesn't have customers.
He's not trying to sell something in the free market.
And so he can continue to be a sort of creepy, annoying guy.
I mean, imagine if he was in the free market and was that sort of creepy and annoying and sexually inappropriate.
I mean, he wouldn't last three minutes.
Sheldon, the tall visitor from another dimension, is endlessly annoying and if he had customers or had to manage employees or had to be managed by someone rather than live in splendid state-sanctioned isolation in his tenured bubble, would be fired within a week or two, no matter how brilliant he was, because he would be impossible to work with.
And I mean so the other characters that they don't, I mean they're institutionalized, I mean they eat in government cafeterias, they work in government labs, they're pursuing government projects, they only care about government funding.
Statism defines their entire lives and keeps them in an emotionally retarded state.
Imagine if they were all fired from their jobs and they had to become entrepreneurs.
Now that would be a show with some growth, right?
That would be a show, it would actually be a lot funnier as they struggle to overcome their emotionally crippled, wildly immature, delusional lives.
Because there would actually be consequences to them being emotionally idiotic.
They can't get fired from their jobs.
But if they suddenly decided to raise capital and all go into business together, then what would happen is Sheldon would alienate the potential investors.
And therefore he would have to change, right?
There'd be a female investor that the engineering guy would hit on in his creepy way and that female investor or employee or customer would be creeped out and there would be negative repercussions and so he would have to change his behavior.
He would have to deal with his demons, right?
But everyone in the world, with the exception of Penny, the cutie across the way, they're in the free market.
Sorry, they're all in the state.
Everyone else, everyone who's the Dweeby heroes, they're all in the government, enmeshed in the government, not subject to the discipline and maturity necessary in what's left of the free market.
And Penny works as a waitress.
So it's funny when Sheldon comes in and is annoyingly precise about what he wants from the restaurant.
If he ran the restaurant that way, it would fail very quickly.
He would actually have to deal with his autistic-slash-compulsive-slash-narcissistic-slash-anal behavior.
He would actually have to change.
I'm at a huge relief for the gene pool and his friends that would be.
So because their relationships do not rely on voluntarism, they do not have to provide quality to their relationships.
That's really, really important.
And that's why it's like junior high school forever.
As someone said about academics, their vitriol is so intense because the spoils are so tiny, right?
The size of the battles, what results from the battles are so tiny.
This is why you can have the guy who spits and slurs and all that in the show and on all that.
And they never meet anyone from the free market.
Now the people who work in the free market, Penny and she had a boyfriend who was, I don't know his name, he was completely dumb, like literally brain crushingly dumb, like can't tie your shoelaces dumb.
And he didn't work for the government, so then there is of course this idea that people who actually have to work in the free market are dumb and beneath the highfalutin intellectuals who need to stay coddled up to the bloody sword breast of the infinite state.
But you can't see this disgust anywhere.
You did see it pop up very briefly in a pretty good movie called Shadowlands, which I had to watch twice to really Well, the first time I watched it was with my mother, so that was a little hard to appreciate.
But in Shadowlands, Anthony Hopkins, this is no spoiler, and he plays a tenured professor.
I'm not going to give anything away.
And he talks to another tenured professor and he says, don't you ever get a sense of futility and of waste?
And he says, well, of course.
And then he basically shrugs, like, well, what are we going to do about it, right?
So, of course, they're not going to change, right?
At all.
And they can look down with contempt at those who actually have to earn their living in the free market.
Penny has a more functional emotional personality because if Sheldon were a waiter and Sheldon tried to treat his customers the way that he treats his friends and colleagues, Sheldon would be fired.
And Sheldon would continue to be fired until he ended up homeless or changed.
And he would work to overcome his problems if those problems have negative consequences, but they don't.
And that's what's so depressing about the show.
Once you get that, that they're stuck in emotionally stunted lives, where they're going to keep doing the same bullshit over and over and over again because they're stuck in a bubble of coercion, they're stuck in a status bubble.
And that one of the reasons why Penny has to work in a restaurant is because there's not enough capital to fund any kind of business that might employ her in a higher capacity because these guys are siphoning off so much tax money in grants and salary and benefits and all that, right?
Once you get that they're parasitical on the people that they condemn and that's natural, right?
Everyone who's a parasite condemns the host because if they don't condemn the host then they recognize that they're negative to the equation, right?
So you do see this constant attack on the free market in these shows.
You know, Charlie gets lots and lots of money for writing stupid jingles.
Well, isn't that bad, right?
It's like, well, if there were stupid jingles that anyone could do, then he wouldn't get paid lots of money for it.
I bet you it's really hard to write a great jingle.
And I bet you the people who write them have invested a lot of time and energy.
They don't just sort of roll out of bed, write a great jingle and go bang 12 stewardesses in a row, right?
So they have to pretend that the free market is stupid and easy and all that, only idiots.
It's no problem for idiots make money and all that kind of stuff.
That's natural because if you are a parasite Then the host you have to condemn, right?
It's the only way you can justify your parasitism, right?
Which is why people who work for the government and work for NASA say, well we wouldn't have space exploration without the government.
Like space exploration is just this absolute necessity and that people should die because they can't afford medical treatments because they have to pay for space exploration through taxes.
And that's fine, because it's true that hundreds or thousands of people died because they couldn't afford medical treatments to pay for the space program, but it's okay, because we got a moon rock.
And for people who like moon rocks, and who don't like people, that seems entirely fine.
And so you have this polarity, right, in that masculinity is either like dumb oxen brutality, Right?
The Homer Simpson stuff.
Or masculinity is this fragile hibiscus that is neurotic and all this kind of stuff, right?
And I mean the perpetual childhood is really portrayed in the engineer guy who's explicitly explained as Jewish and who has this screaming god-awful mother off in the sidelines and so on.
And he's still living at home although he's got a job and can't leave and has to ask his mother's permission for everything and so on.
It's explicit that their childhood is going on forever.
But the question is why.
And the reason why is that childhood is a state of non-voluntarism.
Right?
When you're a child, you really don't have much say in the company that you keep.
I mean, you don't have any say in who's your family, your brothers or sisters, cousins, extended family, aunts, uncles, grandparents.
They're all just there.
You don't have any choice in that.
And you sure as hell don't have any choice in who you go to school with, because that's all assigned to you and you have no choice.
And even your seats are assigned to you.
You don't even have a choice of who you sit next to and so on.
And so all that is non-voluntary is an extension of childhood.
And so when people are forced to pay for your paycheck because you're a tenured government protected status professor or academic or researcher or whatever, then you are in a state of non-voluntarism.
Voluntarism is not conditioning your relationship and all those who stay in this involuntary or coercive or coercive protected environment remain in a state of perpetual childhood.
Except that the whole point of childhood is to outgrow it.
It becomes a parody of childhood in the same way that flamboyant homosexuals are a parody of femininity.
And so there is a lot of wisdom in these shows that I'm sure escapes even the writers.
I mean, you could do a couple of Big Bang Theories where they try and raise funding and they realize that they're completely incompetent emotionally when it comes to dealing with people who actually have a choice.
in dealing with them or not, when they actually have to go out and compete with people, then they will realize very quickly how incompetent they are, and it would be wonderful if they then tried to get back into academia but couldn't, and then actually had to grow and change as people.
That, to me, would be a very satisfying show.
I watched it a little bit, I guess, too depressed, too horrible, to think of just this state-protected Festering.
People who don't grow, they don't sort of stay the same.
It festers.
Right?
That which does not grow decays in nature and in the soul.
And so watching this decay occur was just too depressing to keep watching.
The same thing was true with two and a half men.
The show is And of course, you could say, well, why, you know, these guys are selling their shows in the free market.
Why do they hate the free market so much?
Well, because they have to sell into people who've gone to government schools, right?
They have to sell into people who've had endless amounts of propaganda about how evil the free market is and how good the government is and so on.
Of course, it's completely hypocritical and they're desperate to get all the money.
But when you sell into a status population, even what you sell can't be called a product of the free market because you're selling to propagandized state bots.
So anyway, I hope this is interesting.
Please let me know if you'd like anything more like this.
As always, I bow to your needs, preferences, and desires as listeners.
So thank you so much.
This is Ivan Molyneux from Free Domain Radio.
I hope you have a wonderful day.
Once more, fdrural.com forward slash donate to help out.
And of course, if you would like to subscribe, you can go to YouTube.com forward slash Free Domain Radio to subscribe, which we would really appreciate.
And last but not least, if you'd like to give us Five stars, I would like.
Whatever stars you think the show is worth, you can go to fdrurl.com forward slash iTunes.