Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

July 14, 2019 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux

02:16:12

The War on Drugs Is a War on Us

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Good morning, everybody.
	It is B-9 days, ladies and gentlemen.
	B-9 days.
	That would be the 24th of September, is when I first graced the cold air of the bottom world with my presence.
	And if you'd like to drop me a little something-something, that would be very nice.
	September 24th is my birthday.
	I will be 47.
	The great thing is I can barely remember anymore.
	I have to do the math.
	Carry the three, take off your shoes.
	So yeah, it's coming up.
	And my petition within my family to have September be the official birthday month with the escalating presence of gold, frankincense and myrrh throughout the month has, I'm afraid, been soundly rejected by the committee of take a long walk off a short pier.
	But I'm still working on it.
	I have optimism that a filibuster We'll turn things around.
	But we're still waiting on that.
	I'll keep you posted.
	So yeah, birthday month.
	Please, if you can, Mike put together a really great video, which if you can go and share, that would be fantastic.
	It's called the truth about 9-11, the aftermath.
	So the truth about 9-11 colon the aftermath.
	If you go share that, that would be great.
	FDRURL.com forward slash donate.
	And upcoming we have, I'm doing a podcast with Joe Rogan, the inestimable Joe Rogan, and I'm also doing a debate with Peter Joseph about the best way to style your poodle.
	It was his suggestion.
	I thought we'd do something more along economics or social planning or what have you, but apparently he's really into poodles.
	I'm always wanting to follow other people's leads.
	So that's what we're going to be up to.
	And that's going to be a week Monday.
	Is that right, Mike?
	Yeah, next Monday, actually.
	Next Monday.
	Is it going to be live?
	It's going to be live, right?
	We're going to try and do it live.
	We'll see how that works.
	I've got to do some technical tests first.
	But I think we're going to try and stream it live.
	Yeah.
	And so we start with the poodle thing.
	Then there's a twerk-off.
	At least I think that's what he said.
	The line was a bit staticky.
	Twerk off.
	That's the most charitable way that I can put it.
	I think that's what he said.
	I hope that's what he said.
	And then we'll be taking questions from censors.
	So I look forward to that.
	It's gonna be a lot of fun.
	And I'm really glad to be able to have a chat with the guy.
	He is an astonishingly plausible guy.
	And that is like I listened to two birds with one stone, Mike Ford and me.
	the interview that Peter Joseph did with Joe Rogan, and it really is, I mean, he's very calm, he's very plausible, very well read, very knowledgeable, and experienced in these kinds of conversations.
	I would argue, perhaps, shy of a few basic principles or two, but it's really enjoyable listening to him quote Marx, and then get upset when the Zeitgeist Movement is occasionally referred to as Marxism with robots.
	Anyway, Marxbots.
	Stefbot versus Marxbots.
	So that's it for my intro, gripping and well-researched though it may be.
	So Mike, if we'd like to bring up the first caller.
	I am all with the ears like the elephant.
	All right.
	Kingsley, you're up first today.
	Okay.
	Thanks for having me on.
	My question is, have you ever heard of anyone getting a sentence of 60 years or more for selling a small quantity of cocaine?
	I've ever heard of anyone getting a sentence.
	No, I don't believe I have.
	I think even by the three strikes law, that's pretty hysterical.
	I mean, unless it's, you know, the latest, the last in a long line of, of altercations with the law.
	Okay.
	So it was kind of a loaded question, but, uh, my father, Michael Edwards was arrested and, uh, since, uh, in 1993.
	And so he's been in prison actually for, for, uh, coming up on 20 years now.
	And he's basically, we're just trying to get the word out for his fund.
	It's called the Michael Edwards Freedom Fund, and you can visit it at michaeledwardsfreedomfund.com.
	We're trying to raise some money so we can hire a constitutional lawyer.
	The story behind it was this was his, it was due to the three strikes law, but they are all non-violent crimes.
	It's just getting ridiculous now that he's been in there for 20 years.
	All my life, I'm 27 years old, I haven't been able to have my father because of something that he did wrong according to some words in a book.
	Like I said, he's non-violent and he kind of has that story of being a changed man for sure.
	He's well-read now and he's a really smart guy.
	We talk often, as we can with him being in prison.
	But yeah, so I don't know what's your – I listened to your show here and there.
	I don't know.
	Have you – your opinion on the war on drugs?
	I know obviously it comes from a libertarian standpoint.
	point.
	Well, it's a war on people.
	I mean, you can't declare war on adjectives like terror, you can't declare war on situations like poverty, you can't declare war on deficiencies like illiteracy, and you can't declare war on powder or plants.
	I think we've got them surrounded.
	I mean, it's insane.
	It is a war on people, funded by a war on people.
	The war on drugs in the U.S.
	costs, last time I checked, which was for when I was writing Practical Anarchy, I think it was $20 billion or $30 billion a year, at a sort of bare minimum.
	That's not even counting the opportunity costs of everyone who should be having a real job rather than chasing around people who are basically attempting to self-medicate, bad childhoods, and doing it, I would say, not in a very productive way, but certainly a very understandable way.
	And it's brutal.
	And I'm, you know, I'm actually, it's a heartbreaking story.
	And the people who, you know, fist pump in the air about the war on drugs and all that.
	It is incredibly brutal because people like your father are people whose lives have been quite literally destroyed by this hysteria.
	I mean that the war on drugs has so many negative consequences, it's hard to imagine.
	The war on drugs is a war.
	Sorry, I was just going to say, and not only does it destroy just his life, it destroys the people around him as well, friends and family.
	Oh yeah, the ripple effects are just horrendous.
	The war on drugs is a war on blacks.
	You know, I say, oh well, the illegitimacy rate in the black community is well over 70%.
	But what, to what degree does that have to do with guys in jail, guys on probation, and you know, the underclass created by the welfare state, which For which jobs are rare and few and far between and who are educated by the government.
	I mean, the blacks in the ghetto, and it's not just the blacks, it's Hispanics as well, the blacks in the ghetto, their parents are paid by the government usually.
	I mean, a lot of the single moms there are on welfare.
	They're educated by the government in the public schools.
	They live in government housing and their entire environment is the government and they turn out terribly.
	They end up with very few skills and the drug war of course raises the profitability factor of dealing drugs enormously.
	I mean drugs were all legal in the 19th century.
	I mean literally a child could go into a pharmacy and pick up cocaine and there were no drug wars, there were no drug murders, there was no organized crime outside of course of the government itself and so it's really chilling and I think that, I mean we're going to do a show on the history of marijuana I mean it's all nonsense.
	There's just a huge amount of hostility towards mind-altering substances.
	I mean for a variety of reasons.
	Once you get, I think once you use drugs, mind-altering drugs, I think that you understand how susceptible consciousness is to external influences and how subjective our experience can be.
	And I think that causes you to question particular tenets within society.
	I think, in particular, drugs are a significant competitor to organized religion, which is one of the reasons why organized religion tends to be so anti-drug.
	I don't know, and I'm sort of trying to think maybe you know of more, but I don't really know of many of the sort of drug pioneers who are also Christians.
	Like, I mean, going to church kind of thing, right?
	Like Timothy Leary's or the Cheech and Chong's or these kinds of guys.
	Yeah, go ahead.
	I was just going to say, yeah, I'm trying to think too, like maybe even like a Pablo Escobar or someone like that.
	I know they were actually very charitable, but they also did a lot of... Yeah, they buy the allegiance of those around them, right?
	I mean, they're not dumb, right?
	Exactly.
	They know that if they are good to the people around them, then they're less likely to be turned in, right?
	I mean, they always offer the bribe and the bullying, right?
	Mexico, you know, you get the choice of silver.
	You get a silver bullet or you get silver in your hand.
	You get bribed or you get killed.
	So yeah, I mean, I just think that as religion begins to arise as a sort of potent political force, which really wasn't much in the 19th century,
	Religion began to sort of organize itself as more and more different religions began to come in through the massive wave in American immigration in the 19th century and that's where they organized public schools to indoctrinate people and that's when they began their anti-drug campaigns which really spiked in the 1920s and 1930s.
	Marijuana prohibition was specifically anti-black and anti-Hispanic.
	They were sort of perceived as Cultures revolving or centered around those drugs.
	And so it was just, you know, more racist measures and so on.
	And now it's just become this self-perpetuating beast.
	You know, the only time to kill a government program is in its crib.
	You know, once it grows up, it's almost impossible because so many people are so heavily invested in it.
	And your father is caught in this goddamn satanic witch hunt that just seems to go on and on and on.
	And there are some chipping away at the edges kind of thing, like there are a few
	places that have legalized marijuana and the example of Portugal which is decriminalized drug use has been extremely positive saved a lot of money and the people I mean there are people who use drugs recreationally and I mean who cares I mean I just I don't understand people who wake up in the morning and all they want to do is stick their nose in other people's businesses just obsessively and and you know there's that old definition of puritanism
	which says that Puritanism is the nagging haunting fear that somebody somewhere is having a good time and I just I don't fundamentally understand why people give a shit about what other people put up their noses or what other people put in their veins or what other people bring into their lungs.
	I mean I sort of care like if somebody's an addict it's very destructive to the people around that addict it's destructive to themselves and I'd like to get them help and I'd certainly support ventures that would get that person help.
	But I don't understand how people wake up and say, I have to eradicate drug use across the land.
	I gotta stick my nose into the business of what people stick in their nose.
	I just, I find that incomprehensible.
	I mean, it's your life.
	I have to say to these people, it's your life so vacant, so hysterical, so empty, so void of love and care and affection.
	You know, I can go and play with my daughter or I can go and obsessively try and get politicians to throw people in jail for doing things I don't like.
	I can't imagine why anybody would be choosing option B, but only because they just don't have anyone who loves them.
	They don't have anyone that they care about.
	They don't have any rich, significant, important hobbies or relationships or artistic pursuits or anything.
	They don't have anything rich enough to keep them from obsessing about what other people do and bossing and bullying what other people do.
	This stick your nose in other people's business is so compulsive and so endemic to human society and I just, again, I think it comes to some degree out of religion because you save people's souls, they go to heaven and if they like, you really care about what people do because you've got a mission to save people's souls from going to hell forever and so that's, you know, everybody, I think for a lot of religious people
	It's like you and I walking past a lake and there's a drowning boy in there, a boy who's drowning, and we can't just walk past, we have to go get involved.
	And I think for a lot of religious people there is this commandment to go and save souls for eternity, which is why you get missionaries and why, I think it was just yesterday, some Jehovah's Witnesses knocked on my door and so on.
	It's just this sticky nose in other people's business.
	It's so hysterical.
	And it can't come from anything natural or rich or deep or human or affectionate or anything like that.
	It's just this empty robotic commandments to go and proselytize and indoctrinate.
	And basically, you're just a net being cast out to get fish or a combine harvester to sort of mow down wheat.
	You're just supposed to go and get people for religion so that they'll pay off the priests so the priests will cure them from a disease, a sin, which has been entirely invented by the priests.
	So I'm incredibly sorry but this is the human toll, this is the human cost and literally it can happen.
	People don't realize just how unbelievably dangerous the war on drugs is.
	It gives the police the right to invade people's privacy.
	The initiative goes to the police and that's incredibly dangerous.
	The police in a free society would be entirely passive, like wait for a complaint.
	They're not active going out there.
	stick in their hands through people's luggage.
	They're not stopping cars and frisking people and searching and you know getting warrants to go in your house and go through all your stuff because of course when you buy and sell drugs in a free society there's no one's complaining that you're buying and selling drugs.
	I mean you could you know I guess sell someone baking powder instead of cocaine or something and then that person has a problem but that's you know then somebody has a complaint but if you go and buy marijuana from someone it's entirely That is economic in nature and there's no complaint but now the complainant is the government which means the government can all get all up inside your business and people who say well I don't take drugs so that war on drugs doesn't affect me, well of course that's not true.
	It affects you through taxes, it affects you through the loss of talents, who knows what your father might have done if he were outside of prison.
	All of the great things he might have accomplished and all of the good things he would have generated in people and it doesn't matter even if you don't take any drugs.
	If you get some psycho cop who is having a bad day or wants to get you, I mean, he can just, there's videos of this on YouTube all over the place.
	He can just go plant drugs on you.
	He can just go and say, Oh, look what I found in your dashboard.
	He can get the dog that's going around sniffing your car.
	These things are notoriously unreliable, these sort of drug sniffing dogs.
	So when it gets to the wheel well, he can say to the dog, oh, do you smell something?
	Do you smell something?
	Do you smell something?
	And the dog gets super excited and he's like, ah, he smells something.
	And then he's got pretext to search your car.
	And then if he wants to plant something, guess what?
	You are now in the system.
	And if it's your word against the cops, I'm afraid you're going to lose.
	And it is an incredibly dangerous, predatory, fascistic, totalitarian tool that It puts people in a perpetual state of anxiety and last but not least, those who are addicted are put in the worst possible situation because if you are addicted to a drug, you can still function in a free society if you're addicted to a drug.
	Not a lot of people know that one of the founding fathers… Look at Wall Street!
	Yeah, yeah, look at Wall Street, well functioned.
	But that may not be the best example.
	But they're high functioning even though they're all pretty evil.
	But the founding father of American surgery, the guy who wrote the first medical textbook on surgery in America in the 19th century, was a staggering morphine addict and yet an incredible surgeon.
	I mean people would line up and pay for him and he was taking, I can't remember the dosage, but it was some absolutely insane amount of morphine.
	Every day.
	And he was incredibly high-functioning.
	He was the most famous surgeon in America.
	He wrote the first textbook on American surgery.
	Royalty would come to be operated on by him.
	He had that kind of reputation.
	And he was a complete out-and-out junkie.
	Heroin addicts in England who managed to get on methadone programs have jobs, have families, even if they continue to use heroin.
	It's not the drug that causes the junkie, it's the drug laws that causes the junkie.
	Because of course the drug laws means that he can't go and get help Because he's afraid of being arrested and he also can't have a normal life because the war on drugs has made drugs so expensive and has made drug contracts unenforceable, which means they can only be enforced through criminal violence.
	And so the junkies, I mean there's a statistic that Harry Brown used to quote in his show, the late Harry Brown, he used to quote his show about in England, like in the 1950s you could go and buy Three hits of heroin for 25 cents in a drugstore and there were like 500 addicts in London.
	Ten or 15 years later, 15 years later, it cost 10 pounds for one hit of heroin and there were tens of thousands of addicts because it becomes so profitable to sell drugs to addicts that the drug dealers have every incentive to get people addicted, to offer free samples and to string people along and to get to offer free samples and to string people along and to get people – and to concentrate their drug into the highest possible dose to provoke the greatest amount of
	So overall, it is a staggering and completely satanic human calamity.
	It is the new Gulag and in many ways much more brutal than the Soviet Gulag.
	I mean there was no, at least from what I remember reading,
	About the Soviet gulags, there was not a huge prison rape problem and in this situation your life can be destroyed through no fault of your own, through sometimes no involvement of your own and the people who then end up in the drug culture are walled off and separated from society as a whole and thrown into this demonic incredibly dangerous underworld where the quality of the drugs can't be verified.
	Where contracts can't be enforced except through breaking people's kneecaps and where the price of drugs will often have them turn to a life of crime.
	Like people say, well, you know, I became a drug addict and I lost my house and I lost my family and I lost my job and all that.
	Well, not because you became a drug addict, but because there's a war on drugs, which meant that you had to pay so much for the drugs that you lost your house and because you couldn't go and get help or find substitutes, you ended up losing your job.
	But sorry, go ahead.
	And you think we learn, at least as a nation, as you know, as recent history, you know, the prohibition during the 1920s is even with alcohol.
	How that just, you know, really just altered society and created all these gangs and violence as a result of prohibition.
	Well, yes, but of course society doesn't want the war on drugs.
	The government wants the war on drugs and the criminals.
	want the war on drugs and I can virtually guarantee you that any politician who openly was about to be successful in legalizing drugs would be killed by organized crime.
	Interesting.
	I mean because you've created this situation now where some truly psychotic and sociopathic people are making billions and billions and billions of dollars running these drugs.
	Do you think they're going to let some politician just take that away from them?
	No, you've created the ultimate lobby, which is if you think of legalizing the source of the profits of organized crime, what do you think organized criminals are going to do?
	Are they just going to say, well, I guess we had a good run.
	I'm going to go get a drop of McDonald's now.
	See you, dogs!
	It's been great!
	Now, when you say organized crime, do you mean the CIA?
	Well, I mean, there's that aspect of it as well.
	I mean, a lot of government ops are funded through this drug running.
	The CIA has been openly found to be running drugs, and I mean, the degree to which it's corrupted what was left of the integrity of law enforcement is ridiculous.
	I mean, it has completely corrupted law enforcement, and it's made law enforcement incredibly dangerous.
	Okay, it's a lot easier for a cop to just go bust someone who's smoking a joint.
	He knows he's not in any particular danger.
	But if you really want to go after drug gangs, drug-running gangs, they'll just kill your family.
	I mean, this is the holding a tiger by the ear so they can't let it go and they can't subdue it.
	And so they just profit from it now.
	They just live with it and it's become an embedded part of the American extrajudicial and judicial system.
	Yeah, no, it's, you know, I would imagine it is an incredibly dangerous thing to do these days to try and legalize drugs.
	I mean, there's so many evil people profit from it to such a degree.
	I mean, they would think nothing of assassinating someone who would take away all those profits.
	So yeah, I mean, unfortunately, it just lasted.
	Prohibition didn't last long enough for people to forget what it was like before prohibition.
	Right?
	So they'd see all this violence and then they'd say, well, man, this wasn't like this.
	I think, how long did it last?
	Like 13 years or something like that?
	12 years?
	So people could remember.
	But how many people can remember what it was like in the 1940s or the 1950s?
	Or, of course, nobody can remember what it was like in the 19th century.
	They're all dead.
	And so we've now got this problem where the problems of drug use can almost all be traced back to the war on drugs.
	But everybody thinks it's the drugs that are causing the problems, not the war on drugs that are causing the problems.
	And therefore if you talk about legalizing drugs, people think that you're talking about exacerbating addiction and violence and Doritos consumption and so on, right?
	So people think that you're talking about exacerbating all these problems.
	They think that there's this boiling hellish pit of vipers called the drug use and drug trading and trafficking and all that.
	And they think that the government is somehow struggling to contain this boiling sea of snakes that wants to strike out and bite your children or whatever.
	And then if you release this, then it's like taking the Hoover Dam, it all comes pouring down and drowns everyone.
	But the reality is that the viciousness and the violence and the danger and the destruction is all based upon The war on drugs, the drugs are not the problem.
	I mean, it's all nonsense anyway.
	The government can't even keep drugs out of prisons for heaven's sakes.
	I mean, so even if they turned all of society into a prison, you can't.
	You can't solve it.
	But of course, the war on drugs is not designed to be won.
	It is designed to continue so that the government can get the profits of drug running both directly through the CIA and other drug runners that are affiliated with the government or other government through bribes.
	And through having the power of terrorizing the general population with these, you know, invented, you know, to frame someone for murder is pretty tough.
	You know, to palm a packet of cocaine and say that you found it in their car, pretty damn easy.
	And the government loves having that kind of power.
	So I'm incredibly sorry for your father.
	And I mean, 60 years is ridiculous.
	I can only assume that he had prior brushes with the law.
	But and this is why, of course, the majority of people who are in prison.
	Did he go to trial?
	Is that what happened?
	Yeah, exactly.
	They basically said, we'll give you 15 years if you don't go to trial.
	If you do go to trial, we're going to seek the maximum.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	And that's, I mean, that's what happens, right?
	As you probably know, like 19 out of 20 prosecutions in the US law system never go to trial.
	Because they basically just bribe you with years of freedom in order to get you to plead guilty.
	Because there's so many criminals in the US system at the moment, if everybody went to trial, the whole system would collapse.
	Like tomorrow, it would never ever function.
	So they basically have to just threaten people with extra years in prison in order to get them to quote confess.
	And I mean, that's the whole prison system.
	I mean, there's a the Constitution bans cruel and unusual punishment.
	And getting people to confess, quote, confess crimes by threatening them with years of being incarcerated and raped and beaten.
	I mean, in the prison system, the prisoners do the torturing of each other.
	And the entire prison system is completely evil in every conceivable layer of its existence.
	And there's no justice system whatsoever.
	Because if people The whole system has to work on people plea bargaining down because otherwise you'd actually have to prove your case and there's no way the system could possibly, there are too many criminals, too many invented crimes, the system can't possibly function if it had to prove the guilt or innocence of anyone.
	And so what happens is that the judges know this too and the judges then punish people who go to trial, who have the audacity to endanger the whole corrupt shitty system by going to trial.
	And if they're found guilty, then yeah, they are punished.
	And then what they can say, what the prosecutors can then say to the next guy is, oh yeah, well, we're offering you 15 years.
	And the last guy, and you get out at 10 with good behavior or whatever.
	And then the last guy who went to trial, he got 60 years.
	So you make your choice.
	So they use the trials as a way of enforcing the plea bargaining by telling people, if you go to trial and you lose, which you're likely to do.
	then it's much worse and so the whole purpose is to avoid people actually going to trial because the system is not profitable if people go to trial.
	The system to make money, the system to be profitable, people have to just plead out.
	So I'm incredibly sorry.
	I mean there are no words in my heart or in my head to express just how awful and destructive and vicious and brutal a system is grinding your father's life into meal.
	Thank you, I appreciate it.
	You had mentioned the cruel and unusual punishment, and I just wanted to read a sentence off of the website that we have for him, michaeledwardsfreedomfund.com.
	Recently he has discovered several U.S.
	Supreme Court cases that say if he can show his sentence violates the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society, under the Eighth Amendment's Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause, then the judge that's sentencing can reduce his excessive sentence to a less severe one.
	So that's what we're trying to raise the funds to get a constitutional lawyer to help him put this together.
	So yeah, you mentioned that your birthday is on September 24th, and that's actually my stepdad's birthday, and my birthday is on September 23rd.
	So I'm asking your listeners to If they can, like I said, go to the website michaeledwardsfreedomfund.com and you can donate with PayPal, Visa, MasterCard and even Bitcoins or accepting Bitcoins.
	Well, I will certainly donate to that because that is a brutal cause.
	It's a good cause to get people out of these kinds of situations and I appreciate what you're doing and I'm incredibly sorry for I mean obviously you get sympathy for your father.
	I'm incredibly sorry for your family as a whole to be exposed to what the government does and to have grown up basically without your father.
	You said from the age of seven or so.
	I mean that's absolutely heartbreaking and I'm incredibly sorry.
	The government has spent basically 60 years or so completely smashing the family.
	Because the family is a bulwark against state power and smashing up the family is really great because then when you smash up the family, people become dependent on the government, particularly moms, and therefore they will always vote for the expansion of government power and will never think about things like property rights and freedom from violence because they profit from this, right?
	And so I'm sorry at every level that this wrecking ball of state brutality has smashed into your gene pool and I'm sorry that You all had to get educated on state power in this kind of way, and I certainly wish you and your father the very best in getting him out.
	Thank you.
	I appreciate it.
	Thanks for having me on.
	Yeah, hopefully Plan B isn't getting big tattoos and going in yourself.
	Let's hear that website again.
	It's michaeledwardsfreedomfund.com.
	All right.
	Well, I'll go and donate something, and I hope the people will do the same.
	Thank you so much.
	And if you do get a chance, drop me a line and let me know how it goes.
	All right.
	Thank you.
	Thank you very much.
	All right, Julio, you're up next today.
	Hello.
	Hey, Stefan.
	Oh, man, Julio.
	Can I tell you how white I am?
	Let me tell you how white I am.
	So, you know, Julio, obviously Hispanic name, rich tradition.
	Do you know the all that comes into my mind when I hear that word?
	What?
	Is the Paul Simon song.
	You know that one?
	You and Julio down by the schoolyard, that is how white I am, that my primary reference for a Hispanic name is a Jew's song.
	Anyway, go ahead.
	Well, yeah, I mean, I actually am just a white Jew, so that's okay.
	You are a white Jew named Julio?
	Yeah, I'm named Julio.
	What are you, in the George Zimmerman Fusing Name Club?
	Jesus!
	Sorry, I mean, Jesus.
	No, no.
	No, I mean, you know, my mom speaks Spanish, but is, you know, white southerner, so we're So, I'm not offended or anything.
	Okay, good.
	What's on your mind, my friend?
	Okay, yeah.
	So, I wanted to talk about the philosophy of property today.
	Wait, I'm sorry.
	Don't you have some disastrous personal story to relate to me?
	No, I'm kidding.
	This is great.
	No, no, no.
	So, I guess I'll start off this way.
	Sometimes when you talk to people who Maintain that everybody should save themselves from marriage, you know, that they should remain virgins until marriage.
	People like that, they don't feel the need and will refuse to engage in discussions about responsible and respectful ways to have sex, you know, just casually, you know, sort of good and bad ways to do that, better and worse ways to do that if you're not going to save yourself from marriage.
	And what I think is, um, you know, obviously the only people would have that discussion are people who had already, you know, either supported the fact or resigned themselves to the fact that, um, people are going to have sex before marriage, right?
	I mean, you get the point, but, um, so what I think is, you know, sort of defending the right to private property on the basis of non-aggression principle is sort of like, Insisting that everyone saves themselves for marriage and then refusing to have any discussions about responsible and respectful ways to have casual sex.
	The reason I think that is that we're all sinners in this respect.
	We're all in possession of stolen goods.
	You know, of course, I always tell you, it's not just the state, it's aggression, period.
	It's, you know, just the fact of aggression in human life that, you know, all of us, the property we hold is traceable to violence and theft at some point for various reasons.
	But, you know, that doesn't mean that private ownership is of no value.
	I mean, I guess as we keep going... I'm sorry, I'm getting a little confused by this topic.
	Because we've just gone through like five or six major philosophical issues.
	So if you could boil it down to a question, that would be great.
	Okay, so here's my question.
	I think that there are a lot of ways to argue for the value of private ownership that don't involve relying on, you know, this sacred chain of property acquisitions and transfers, you know, that can't really be maintained and that there's no point really
	In insisting on the non-aggression principle, when you can say, you know, private property brings independence and discipline to a person's life, it brings peace, you know, among people who would otherwise be at war, that there are just, there are better ways to go about defending private property.
	So, in short, does that make more sense?
	Well, again, I don't think that you need to defend private property in particular, because everybody wants to, and I mean, I still full pray to this myself, so I'm not excluding myself from this camp, but everybody wants to argue principles as if what they're doing has no impact or has no effect or proves nothing.
	Right?
	So, to me, the best way to argue private property, if somebody, you know, types on a message board, there's no such thing as private property, then they have created an argument which they are responsible for.
	Right?
	The argument is an effect of their actions.
	And so they have asserted ownership over their keyboard, over their computer, over their internet connection, over the digital bits on the server and they themselves are responsible for having produced that argument.
	So you don't have to go to these big outside abstractions, you don't have to argue well it brings peace among people and it's productive and blah blah blah.
	You simply have to look at what someone's doing.
	I would say that like the laboratory of human interaction is where 90% of important philosophical principles are proven.
	Because there is no proof of philosophical principles that is binding anywhere outside in the universe, right?
	As people say, morality, truth, reason, these things don't exist and they're not binding fundamentally upon anyone.
	I can tell you that two and two make four, I may be right, but you can go around and operate on the assumption that two and two make five, and nothing in the universe is going to stop you.
	Like, if I tell you that if you tell me gravity doesn't exist, then gravity is binding upon you.
	It acts upon you whether you believe in it or not.
	And you can sort of argue, well, you know, if you run around thinking two and two make five, you know, your life is not going to be very productive, you're not going to make a lot of sense, you're going to get incorrect change at the grocery store, you're going to be unable to hold a job or whatever, right?
	And so there are some of these slow deleterious effects of people who reject truth.
	But there are lots of people who reject truth who make a freaking fortune.
	I mean, how much did Al Gore make off carbon tax credits?
	Millions and millions and millions of dollars.
	How much power do people gather by rejecting truth, evidence and reason?
	How much power does the Pope have compared to me?
	I mean, he's infinitely greater power compared to me.
	Does he accept truth, reason and reality?
	Well, of course not.
	But he makes a fortune and gets to wear that, you know, big giant t-cozy and be carried around like some Chippendales dancer.
	Okay, not maybe the best Chippendales dancer in the world, but sorry, let me just finish the point.
	So there is nothing, like I can't prove something to someone in some sort of abstract way.
	The best way to teach philosophy is to say to somebody, what you're doing right now is a principle.
	What you're doing, if you don't think about abstractions, don't think about really obtuse principle based arguments that are disconnected from what you're doing.
	Stop and look at what you're doing to make the argument and look at all of the implicit premises bound in to you making this argument.
	And this is somewhat to do with Hoppean argumentation ethics.
	But so when somebody, I mean, basically, if I say to you, language is meaningless.
	We can get into this big argument about whether language is meaningful or meaningless or whatever, right?
	But we don't need to.
	Because the moment I say to you, language is meaningless, I have contradicted myself.
	Right?
	And the moment I say to you, because obviously I'm saying, I'm using language, and I'm relying on the meaningfulness of language, in order to tell you that language has no meaning.
	Right?
	Which is exactly the same as writing you a letter saying that letters never get delivered.
	Well, why would I do that unless I assumed that letters did get delivered?
	Right?
	So instead of going into these big abstract arguments, get people, and this is around really self-knowledge, right?
	Most of philosophy is self-knowledge.
	Because once you know what you're doing and the principles that are implicit in what you're doing, you can solve literally 90% of philosophical problems, which is why the first commandment of Socrates is know thyself, not know what Hume's argument for skepticism or the is-ought dichotomy or, you know, Nicomachean ethics or, you know, the Kantian ethics.
	It's not know those things.
	It's know yourself.
	What are you doing in the moment?
	I know, I hear you.
	I've read Hoppe.
	I mean, I just don't agree with his argument, but I mean, maybe I should also just clarify what I meant and respond to what you said, just because you're saying a lot and I'm going to forget all the things you brought up.
	So, I mean, it's not, this is not a, you know, why are you bothering with abstractions?
	What about reality type of argument?
	That's not what I'm saying.
	What I'm saying is that The non-aggression principle, it's just not a useful abstraction.
	It's not a good one because it – I mean I can – I agree with what you're doing.
	I really do think it would be good to have a world in the future without aggression, and I think what you do, tackling relationship abuse as a way of getting at that problem, it makes a lot of sense.
	There's no value in reducing aggression.
	What I'm saying is, at least in the meantime, at least before the second coming, you know, we should be able to reason about, you know, what to do with private property as responsible consenting adults without, you know, having anything close to, you know, a tightly maintained sacred chain of acquisitions and transfers.
	Okay, have a sec.
	So to me, the most important thing you said there was before the second coming?
	Yeah, before the anarchy of the future where there's no aggression.
	Let me just give an example.
	Wait, no.
	What do you mean?
	Do you mean the return of Jesus?
	No, no, no.
	I was being facetious.
	I mean, you know... Okay, sorry, I'm just checking because... An anarchist... You said earlier we're all sinners, and so when you put we're all sinners together with before the second coming, I just wanted to check our reality-based conversation or not.
	Sorry, go ahead.
	No, no, no, I'm a Jew.
	No, no, what I'm saying, what I mean by the second coming, you know, is the anarcho-capitalist future.
	You know, the voluntarist future in which there's no aggression and... Was there a first coming of that?
	Did I miss that?
	Right, okay, the first coming of that.
	But, you know, what I'm saying is like, okay, so I used to work for, you know, a union slash law firm for street vendors.
	And so these are people who... Sorry, for who?
	Sorry.
	For street vendors.
	Street vendors are.
	Right, people who like sort of set up shop on the sidewalk and like have a car.
	I know what street vendors are.
	That you don't need to define for me, but go ahead.
	Okay, so you know like these people like, what I sort of got to see with these people is that there's a big difference for a person between having zero property and having a tiny bit of property.
	And it's not just a material difference, it's not just they're less poor, it's that You know, having a productive property specifically, even a little bit of it, it brings a lot of discipline to a person's life and a lot of independence and otherwise pride.
	And so what this got me thinking about is that there's value to private ownership that doesn't have anything to do with really the non-aggression principle.
	It's just that it enriches an individual's life to have productive property.
	And so I think it's important that the propertyless have productive property.
	And the free market is a good means to that end in many cases.
	But I just think that I've sort of moved away from thinking about private property as something whose justification and purpose derives from the non-aggression principle.
	I just don't think it's that useful of a concept.
	What do you mean by the purpose?
	I'm not sure what you mean by the purpose of property.
	You're saying it has good effects in people if they have property?
	Yeah, for the individuals who own it.
	I mean, also social effects.
	Also, like I said, you know, peace.
	Sorry, but it's enormously beneficial to violate property, right?
	Well, yeah, but I'm not saying… Sorry to interrupt, but if you're looking for positive consequences, you know, there's a guy who's I think Obama's Lawrence Summers, I think his name is, he's considering appointing him to be the chair of the Federal Reserve.
	And this guy stopped doing speaking engagements.
	He's basically sitting by the phone waiting to find out if he has the godlike power to create money out of thin air and fund wars and debts and slavery and brutality and violence and all of that.
	And he's dying for it.
	I mean, he couldn't be happier to get control of this ungodly power, right?
	And so, you know, so you say, well, private property has good effects, but it seems to me that the vast majority of human history is all these people who gain enormously positive effects.
	Yeah, but I don't think that those are good effects.
	I think that, you know, that violating... No, it's good for them, though.
	It's good for them.
	In the short term, but violating the integrity of the system.
	No, no, no.
	It's good for them.
	No, no, listen, listen, listen.
	You don't understand this.
	I'm sorry to interrupt.
	Okay.
	But they gain enough money to be wealthy for like 10 generations and they're famous and people want to come and get favors from them and their phones are always ringing and they're always going to be in demand.
	Like Bill Clinton now charges $150,000 to give a speech for one hour.
	I mean these people, it's so astonishingly productive for them.
	I mean Tony Blair is worth, I think, 10 or 20 million pounds.
	I mean, he's on boards of directors, he's got, I mean, he's made a fortune.
	They get to sell, they write books, sell books, like they are, they are just making enormous amounts of money by violating property rights.
	And you can say to them, well, that may not be good for you in the long run, but I mean, you really can't make that case.
	I mean, having more money is generally better.
	It's generally perceived as better, and in many ways it is better, than having less money.
	And they have so much money that they can't possibly spend it for the rest of their lives, or their children's lives, or their children's children's lives.
	But I disagree.
	I mean, I think that real, like, you know, a lot of the greatest benefits of private property come from small holdings, and they diminish as your holdings get larger, is what I think.
	There's a kind of similarity between the rich as feet and the homeless crackhead in that both of them are not really receiving, in order to really get the self-disciplinary effects of private property, the private property has to be tied to the satisfaction of some need, that you have to be producing To support yourself.
	And the reason for that is that like...
	You know, that you have to sort of, you have to be reliant upon your private property to sort of impress your personality upon it and have it something that, you know, is necessarily attached to you.
	You know, like the street vendor's private property is very different from like, you know, the rich man's like, you know, 40 second vase that breaks and he doesn't care, right?
	It's not like, it's not the same, it's a kind of, Shallow material benefit, which is not really the same thing as the discipline that comes from... Sorry, is your argument that people like Tony Blair and Bill Clinton and so on, is your argument that they're not really happy?
	Do they know who you think they are?
	It's that it's not as important of a happiness.
	Happiness is not a unitary thing.
	Are you saying that they would be happier if they gave back all the money that they got through illicit means and if they rejected political power and they spent the rest of their life trying to make absolution for the sins that they'd committed?
	They would be happy.
	Well, no, but if, you know, if their happiness is dependent upon, you know, preventing private ownership in the hands of the many, then I can still make a consequentialist case that those people, you know, that the system of The economic system that exists right now is unjustifiable.
	Sorry to interrupt, but let's play this out.
	I won't do the accent.
	I'll pretend to be Bill Clinton, all right?
	And you want to make the case to me, and I'll rebut it, and you want to make the case to me that I'm not That I shouldn't have done what I shouldn't have gone for political power.
	I shouldn't have, you know, done all of these things that I did.
	Started wars and sexually abused my interns and all that kind of stuff.
	So make the case for me that I just want to make sure I understand the argument so you can make the case for me and now I'm of course I'm a multi-millionaire and I'm You know, in demand as a speaker and my books are sold in the millions and I'm, you know, obviously, and I still love political power because I'm still hanging around the Democratic Party, right?
	I'm not, you know, off doing other things.
	That's what I'm doing.
	So tell me how I'm not happy.
	Because of what I would say is that he's depriving others of a more basic form of happiness on which this other happiness of his is based.
	That before you can be confident enough to even pursue political power, or have sex with your interns, or whatever, even hit on a woman, you really have to You know, that you have to have independence and self-worth and discipline as a person, and I think that that comes, importantly, from having property.
	And so his lifestyle is depriving, if it does, as you're saying, you know, his lifestyle deprives, you know, millions of people of the very basic element of human dignity that is ownership.
	And so he should You know, he should give up these extra gains if they do make him happy, if subjugating others really does make him happy, which is another question.
	You know, if it really does make, he should give it up in order to provide this very, you know, this more basic building block of dignity and happiness to others.
	And yeah, like I understand, it's not an exact calculation and so what you're going to point to is that You know, if you're going to base your argument on consequences, consequences are uncertain.
	And what about, you know, these other consequences that come from doing the opposite of what you say is good?
	And yeah, I mean, that's sort of, you know, I'm sort of foraging out into the uncertain unknown by making a consequentialist argument.
	You know, the non-aggression principle is just totally inoperable.
	And so if we're talking about better and worse as an ethical principle, you know, the non-aggression principle is a principle of the future.
	It doesn't even have any application in a world in which we're all thieves, you know?
	Yeah, I'm sorry.
	We kind of lost the whole role play there, but that's alright.
	So let me just sort of finish off by telling you that You're basically going to try and tell a lion not to eat gazelles.
	Now if you tell a gazelle not to eat a gazelle, the gazelle will say, yeah, I agree with you.
	But if you're going to tell a lion not to eat a gazelle, the lion's going to say, sorry, I don't understand why you don't know that I'm a lion.
	And humanity is not a species.
	I'm not saying that you're religious, but there's this religious idea That we're kind of all the same because we all have a soul, we're all made in the image of God and we all have a conscience and so on.
	But I mean the basic biological facts are always the enemy of religious tenets, right?
	We weren't created from clay, we weren't breathed life into us, we evolved and blah blah blah.
	So the basic biological tenets always smash religious delusions.
	And the religious delusion that we're somehow all created in the image of God, we all have a conscience, and we all have a soul, and so on, and we all feel bad for the wrong that we do, is simply untrue.
	And it's untrue at every conceivable level.
	There are predators in human society.
	They're not like lions, they are lions.
	I'm sorry, can I object to that?
	No, I'm going to finish this thought, because I find that when you talk I just get more confused, so let me just finish this thought, right?
	So, the people like Tony Blair and Bill Clinton and Ayatollah Khomeini and Vladimir Putin and all these guys, they are sociopaths, they are psychopaths.
	And they do not feel bad when they do evil.
	They have no conscience.
	They get a huge amount of pleasure out of doing harm to others.
	They get a huge amount of pleasure over the accumulation of power and resources.
	It makes them happy.
	And appealing to the greatest good for the greatest number or some sort of vague consequentialist argument has no meaning to them.
	It's like saying Well, you shouldn't eat deer.
	It's like saying to a lion, you shouldn't eat zebras because it's bad for the zebras.
	And it's just not true.
	But the non-aggression principle doesn't have any appeal to them either.
	It doesn't.
	I agree.
	The non-aggression principle has no appeal to them.
	So the question is whether what I'm saying is ethically and philosophically valid, not whether they would accept it.
	And what I'm saying is that their happiness is dependent upon the deprivation of the benefits of private ownership of the many.
	That's my argument.
	So I don't understand yet.
	They wouldn't accept that argument, but they wouldn't accept the non-aggression principle.
	I agree.
	They'll use the non-aggression principle insofar as it will serve to hide their violations of the non-aggression principle, right?
	So they will invent something called the social contract to hide the fact that taxation is theft, right?
	But they use my argument, too.
	I mean, politicians go on and on about the glories of the small business owner and all that shit, and then they violate it at the next legislative vote.
	So yeah, they do both, though.
	And what I'm saying is, it's just a matter of which principle I think it's a matter of which principle is really more ethically relevant in a world in which we're all largely knowingly in possession of stolen goods.
	I just think that my principle has more immediate relevance and application.
	Well, that's fine.
	Then you should pursue that principle.
	I mean, because you're talking about the methodology of change in the world for which there is no certain answer.
	I think there are certainly indications.
	But I really, and this is not for you, but I just really want people to understand that the immorality of the leaders is something that's really, really important to understand and it's also not just the leaders, right?
	The structure of society is the way it is because it serves the needs of parents fundamentally, right?
	Because if people were to say the non-aggression principle is sacred, let's just say, it's not a great word, but let's just say that it should be upheld in all situations.
	The non-aggression principle should be upheld in all situations.
	Then the first thing that would have to change is how they treat their children because spanking and aggression and neglect violates the non-aggression principle.
	There's a fairly strong case to be made that daycare violates the non-aggression principle.
	Dumping your kids in daycare certainly before the age of three and certainly for 20 to 30 hours a week or more is profoundly destructive to their emotional and psychological development and so The first thing that we would have to do as a society if we accepted the non-aggression principle is we would have to look as parents at how we treat our children.
	That is first and foremost.
	Forget about the Federal Reserve and government awards, foreign policy.
	None of that is fundamental to what we would have to do as individuals.
	The reason that people accept the government is it allows them to reject the non-aggression principle which allows them to treat their children in a manner that is convenient to their emotional and psychological dysfunction.
	Right?
	The reason that we need leaders is so we can be bullies.
	The reason that we need a hierarchy of aggression in society is because we want a hierarchy of aggression within our family.
	Yeah.
	And so saying, you know, what makes Bill Clinton happy and so on, it's sort of irrelevant.
	But if people were to reject non-aggression principle.
	I mean you know it's funny when you start bringing up and I'm sure you've had this happen a million times, you start bringing up the non-aggression principle with people.
	The people are incredibly fluent and fluid in their rejection of it.
	It's like they've had that argument with themselves a million times before.
	There's no curiosity, there's no astonishment, there's no I've never heard this but they're just incredibly fluid and fluent in rejecting the non-aggression principle and rejecting that taxation is forced and so on.
	And they're also incredibly fluid and fluent in rejecting the facts that spanking is hitting and yelling is abuse and that you tell your children to tell the truth, you order your children to tell the truth and then you lie to them about their society and about gods and all this kind of stuff that you tell your children not to be bullies and then you bully your children by telling them all this nonsense and enforcing it with threats of abandonment and timeouts and And so on.
	And all of that is complete nonsense.
	I mean, we were negotiating with my daughter when she was two and a half years old.
	I mean, children are incredibly adept.
	Watching her negotiate now is like watching one of those county fair barkers attempting to sell a cow.
	I mean, it's just incredibly rapid fire and very efficient.
	She's really, really good at negotiating for what she wants and she's not even five yet.
	It's also completely unnecessary and we've never had to have a timeout and never raise a voice, never hear it or anything.
	Just negotiate.
	I mean that way when she becomes an adult she'll have had 16 years of negotiating experience which of course will be enormously positive in a number of ways.
	I mean she will be able to negotiate for what she wants which is basically all that life is, is this whole series of negotiations unless you want to be a bully and also she will be She will have a force field around her that will repel people who want to try and bully her because she will only have experienced negotiation and so when somebody tries to bully her she'll just recoil and stay away from those kinds of people and so on.
	So the reality is that we love the political hierarchy because it justifies the way that our families operate.
	I won't say work because you know it only works to serve dysfunction and So I just sort of really wanted to point that out, that the predators and the prey in nature are in a symbiotic relationship, right?
	So it's true that no individual zebra wants to get eaten.
	But it's also true that if none of the zebra get eaten, then the zebra will strip the grass bare and they'll starve to death, right?
	Okay.
	So you need the lions to cull the herds of zebra and gazelle and springboks and whatever because otherwise they will overpopulate and strip the land bare and starve to death.
	And in the same way people have a need for political leadership.
	They have a need for political power.
	They have a need to not be negotiated with but rather to be ordered around because in their own families with their own children They order their children around and do not negotiate with them.
	And so they need society as a whole to mirror how they deal with their children so that it normalizes everything.
	You know, if it's good for the state, if it's good for the country, it must be good for my family to not negotiate, to give orders, right?
	To demand respect.
	I mean, to demand respect is such an oxymoron.
	It's like saying to demand love.
	It's like some 80 year old woman yelling at your penis until it gets erect.
	I mean it's not how things work.
	You don't demand respect.
	But people do.
	They genuinely believe that kids owe them respect in the same way that they owe taxes to the government.
	And the government has every right to collect a contract that is not a contract but it's just an enforcement.
	Use that to mirror, the social contract is used to mirror the idea that their children owe them obedience and respect and if the children don't deliver them obedience and respect they get to use aggression against their children in the same way that if you don't pay your property taxes the government gets to use aggression against you.
	The state is an effect of the family and that's where I would focus on.
	You can't win arguments with lions about not eating gazelles and fundamentally you can't even win arguments with enlightened gazelles about not being eaten by lions because they know that if the lions aren't there they'll all starve to death and fundamentally it simply is around getting people to treat their children Well, with respect, and to treat their children with dignity.
	And if that happens, then people will be able to listen to arguments against the state.
	But until that happens, the state will simply be used as a cover for the dysfunction and aggression that's occurring within the family.
	So I'm sorry, I know we got a bunch of other callers.
	I appreciate your comments.
	I'm sorry if I just use them as a platform for my own soapbox.
	But I think you brought up some very interesting points.
	And Mike, who do we have next?
	I'm still trying to get over the visual of an 80-year-old woman yelling at my penis for it to get erect.
	Yeah, I've got to tell you, you know, worst porn ever.
	Screechy grannies.
	It's still better than screechy trannies, but nonetheless, it is a pretty rough state to try and respond to.
	Ola's up next today.
	Go ahead, Ola.
	All right.
	Hello, Stefan.
	Hi, how are you doing?
	Hi, I'm good, thank you.
	First of all, thanks for everything you're doing.
	You're doing great work.
	I had a question about upbringing.
	Basically, I'd like to know what kind of upbringing creates what kind of person?
	As in, what kind of childhood makes a communist compared to a Nazi?
	Yeah.
	Is it just like some authoritarian component and the rest is completely random or are they Other particular patterns.
	So, for example, in Sweden where I live, we have a lot of communists and a lot of left-wingers.
	Radical, really radical left.
	And other countries look quite different.
	I'm sorry, that was Sweden?
	Yes.
	Sorry, go ahead.
	No, that's basically the question.
	What makes someone become communist, or really left-wing rather than really right-wing?
	Because fundamentally, it's the same thing.
	Yeah, I mean, this is my theory.
	I don't know that it's proven.
	I think there's some evidence for it.
	So, you know, take it with a grain of salt.
	But in my experience and understanding, in general, left-wing people are produced by matriarchal family structures and right-wing people are produced by patriarchal family structures.
	So Christians tend to be right-wing and Christianity is explicitly patriarchal.
	So, the woman is to the husband as the husband is to God, to be obedient and submissive and so on.
	And patriarchal societies tend to produce more right-wing people.
	Now, right-wing people have all of the same aggressive tendencies out of dysfunctional childhoods than left-wing people do.
	They just apply it in different ways.
	So, if you think of sort of being a patriarch, of being a father.
	Then you want to raise your children to be independent and responsible so that they will help you with the work and so they will be, you know, useful producers and warriors for the tribe, which means that you want freedom for them growing up.
	You want freedom within the family, you know, freedom for them to try and experiment and fail and so on.
	But you want to help have them understand that outside the family are terrible threats, terrible dangers.
	Which is why in right-wing people, you tend to get a focus on the free market and an aggressive foreign policy, right?
	Because internally there should be responsibility and consequences.
	And that is what raises mature, helpful children to work within a patriarchy.
	But you also have to get people finally tuned to external threats, which is why Republicans are really against welfare.
	Unless that welfare is to be applied to the military-industrial complex, at which point they're enormously pro-welfare because this is why they tend to be foreign policy hawks and why there is, of course, in this neoconservatism, there is a lot of focus on having a strong military for foreign invasions and blah, blah, blah, blah.
	So they're sort of pro-free market and all of their aggression gets dumped into the into the outside world.
	Now, if you are a matriarchal society, which, you know, I think the most influential one in the Western world is Judaism, right?
	The Jewish societies are very matriarchal.
	What is that?
	Great joke by Woody Allen.
	I once wrote a short story about my mother.
	I called it the castrating Zionist.
	You know, the matriarchy is the lineage through which Judaism is biologically transmitted, right?
	If your father's a Jew and your mother's not, you're not a Jew.
	If your mother's a Jew and your father is not, you are a Jew.
	And Judaism has always been strongly associated with left-wing politics.
	Now, of course, there are lots of exceptions and so on, but in general, Judaism was foundational to communism.
	to left-wing politics as a whole.
	And there's a variety of reasons for that.
	I sort of go into every detail.
	But if you view the state as a family, which is what people do, whether it's unconscious or not doesn't really matter.
	If you view the state as a family, well, a woman is concerned, a mother is traditionally concerned not with external threats because she has the husband to take care of that and the men of the village or the tribe to take care of that.
	So she doesn't really like external threats, doesn't really care about them but she cares about you know helping within the family and of course her violence is directed internally not externally.
	The father's violence is directed externally to external threats and the mother's violence is directed internally to Internal dissent, right?
	Mothers are the traditional transmitters of religiosity, of culture, and so on.
	So mothers use aggression against children, and by that I mean spanking, screaming, yelling, hitting, throwing, threats of abandonment, and so on.
	Mothers use violence to quell internal rationality and dissent, to mold children into the shape required by the dominant culture.
	And I mean sometimes they'll use it through guilt, right, that famous Jewish mother's guilt and so on.
	But most often they use it simply through hitting, beating, smacking, yelling, threats of abandonment, withholding food, putting you in your room without dinner, that kind of stuff.
	And so because of that, on the left, because it comes from a matriarchal style brutality, the left is not invested in overseas conflicts.
	Foreign policy, they're more doves than hawks when it comes to foreign policy.
	They're very good at exposing foreign policy abuses in the same way that the right is very good at exposing domestic welfare abuses and so on, welfare moms and so on.
	And on the left in the matriarchal cultures, They focus their aggression internally, which is why the left is very comfortable using violence to produce moral conformity within society, because that's what moms do, is they use violence to produce moral conformity within the family.
	And so that's why the left is very fine and pro and positive things like the welfare state, because it's matriarchal and it's concerned with internal moral conformity, and they're fine using aggression.
	In fact, they won't even call it aggression.
	They call it discipline, right?
	So they want to reduce funding for the military-industrial complex and they want to increase funding for social programs.
	Because traditionally that would be the woman, the matriarch's sphere of influence and interest, which is domestic conformity and the enforcement of moral virtues internal to the family, which is the moral equivalent of social programs within a country.
	Not really concerned with foreign aggression, because outside the tribe aggression, that's the job of the patriarch, of the father of the men of the village or tribe.
	So, I mean, it's a big topic, and you sort of go on about it all day, but I think those are sort of the major things that influence, and this is why Christians patriarchal tend to be more pro-foreign policy interventions, more pro-strong defense, and against internal use of coercion in the form of government programs, welfare state and so on and why the matriarchal societies such as the Jews and so on tend to be less for foreign policy.
	I mean the sort of cause of Israel and American foreign policy's relationship to Israel doesn't come out of the cultural background but comes out of sort of 60-year-old geopolitical realities.
	I mean you can say, well there's an exception for this, but that's not how the culture grew.
	That's not 5,000 years of Jewish history, that's just 60 years of geopolitical stuff, which has an influence of course.
	But that's why Jews tend to be more on the left, Christians tend to be more on the right.
	It's just the difference between patriarchal and matriarchal cultures.
	Anyway, so I'm sorry that's probably a pretty fairly lengthy answer, but it's a big question.
	And the reason why I think it's important is just to realize that very few people are making any kinds of philosophical decisions.
	They're just bouncing off the family and saying that the state is justified because of that without even knowing why.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, I had my suspicions that it had to do possibly with feminism, which is very prevalent around here.
	And there's a little bit of a chicken and egg question.
	Does the left-wing culture create feminism or is it the other way around?
	No, the left wing is feminism.
	Feminism comes out of Marxism, right?
	I mean, almost all of the founding feminists were on the extreme left.
	I've done sort of a whole video about this.
	But yeah, I mean, feminism came out of the extreme left.
	And feminism, I mean, they hate the right wing.
	I mean, feminists should be, as I've mentioned before, feminists should be championing people like Sarah Palin.
	Feminists should be celebrating Ayn Rand.
	They should be celebrating Margaret Thatcher.
	But they hate those people.
	I mean, feminists, you can't even get them to talk about these people.
	I mean, the amount of verbal abuse that people like Bill Maher and Louis C.K.
	heaped upon Sarah Palin was absolutely staggering.
	I mean they called her the see you next Tuesday word, which I find such a repulsive word I can't even really say it.
	See you next Tuesday?
	Yeah, just a C-U-N-T.
	That word to me is such a brutal and ugly word.
	It's one of the few words why I just can't stomach it.
	But the amount of verbal abuse that was heaped upon Sarah Palin and this was not responded to By feminists, they did not defend her.
	They did not champion her.
	There have been no feminist celebrations of right-wing female politicians.
	It's leftism disguised as sort of pro-feminist.
	It's really pro-leftist.
	And the reason that it's pro-leftist is that by getting women into the workforce, it vastly expands the power of the state.
	You can't get women into the workforce without expanding the power of the state.
	And of course, the prior expansion of the power of the state was what drove a lot of women into the workforce.
	As taxes went up, right, you needed more and more money to satisfy.
	I mean, a guy in the 50s could make enough money to support a family of three or four kids fairly comfortably.
	And that's with, you know, house in the suburbs and
	with a car and so on and not working like 80 hours a week just having a regular old job and that all became ridiculous and there was this idea somehow that you know I mean staying home and being a homemaker and a mother to say three or so children that this was considered to be bad and this was considered to be beneath a woman's abilities which just tells me that the people who
	felt that parenting was beneath their abilities were just shitty parents.
	Parenting is really complicated.
	Parenting is really challenging.
	I mean, if you're doing it intelligently, if you're doing it consciously, I mean, it's a huge responsibility to shape and influence a developing human mind.
	It's crazy.
	And so the idea that, you know, women should not be at home doing the exquisitely challenging and most important work of raising children but rather should be out, you know, pushing papers around in some corporate cubicle.
	Let that somehow some massive step up.
	Well, I mean, it's just, it's so ridiculous.
	Trust me.
	I mean, I've been an entrepreneur.
	I've been not quite an academic but, you know, been in academia at a master's level and, you know, I do this show and I'm a stay-at-home dad.
	Being a stay-at-home dad is the most challenging part of it all.
	It's the most interesting and stimulating part of it.
	And so the idea that, you know, the real fulfillment is to be found out there in the workplace is, I mean, it's ridiculous.
	And the fact that women fell for this hook, line, and sinker, not all, but certainly the Christian women have pushed back pretty strongly against this.
	The idea that going out and getting a job is real fulfillment and staying home and raising children is What is it?
	Hillary Clinton in the 70s compared marriage to slavery.
	She included marriage in exploitive institutions like slavery and so on, you know, to which, as Phyllis Schlafly has pointed out, speaks for yourself, sister.
	And she was like, well, I guess I could have stayed home and baked cookies.
	You know, like parenting is just baking cookies.
	It's just ridiculous.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	So yeah, I mean feminism definitely comes out of the, obviously comes out of the matriarchal world and as a result is almost exclusively left-wing.
	And it's not an organic, you know, the thing to understand, feminism is not an organic phenomenon at all.
	Like in the last 20 years, feminist groups in Canada alone have received over 300 million dollars from the government.
	Feminism is a social program.
	It's a government program.
	It's not something that is organic to women.
	A lot of women, in fact the majority of women I think these days, specifically reject feminism and find it pretty distasteful to put it as nicely as possible.
	It's a government program.
	Feminism is to an organic intellectual movement as the welfare state is to charity.
	I mean it's just it's pumped full of government money and it's pumped full of government supported union positions like in academia and so it's just it's mutated and warped by all that government money.
	It doesn't have any particular life of its own.
	It is something that is just supported by government money and tenured positions and so on and I mean fundamentally it's It's kind of nonsense in a way.
	I mean, feminism to me, you know, equality under law and so on, that's fantastic.
	I mean, I think obviously that's great.
	I mean, I have huge respect for my wife and, you know, she works and I stay home and I have huge respect for my daughter.
	She's an incredible human being.
	So this has nothing to do with... I'm just talking about the statist elements of feminism.
	What you're describing is more equality between genders.
	It's not feminism.
	Well, but no, but the reality is that I mean, the amount of falsehoods put forward by feminism are just ridiculous, right?
	I mean, like, you still hear this, you know, women earn 70 cents on the dollar to what men... I mean, that's been rebutted so many times.
	It's just, it's not true.
	It's not true.
	I mean, and I'm not even, you can just go look up Warren Farrell's book on the wage gap.
	I'm not even going to, or Thomas Sowell's rebuttals.
	I mean, I'm not even going to bother with this.
	It's just, it's, but it's still something you see repeated.
	It's just lies.
	It's just designed to provoke resentment among women and to provoke conflict among the genders and so on.
	Women are not underpaid at all.
	I mean, the basic reality is, and you know, you can blame Jesus H. Christ and his daddy for this, is that women get pregnant and women breastfeed.
	And if you want to be a good mom, Then you should breastfeed your children for at least a year after they're born and ideally a year and a half to two.
	That's what human beings are designed for.
	This is what's best for the child.
	And breastfeeding is not really compatible with board meetings.
	You know, sorry, you know, it's just not the way it works.
	Babies and work don't go well together.
	And so if you want to have two kids and you want to be, you know, even lay the foundation for being a decent mom, Then you need to be home with your children for the first, I don't know, at least a minimum of three years.
	My daughter's brain development is about 80-85% done by now.
	And so if you want to have kids, nobody says you have to have kids, but if you want to have kids, and let's say you want to have two kids, and you really should be home with them at least until they're four, five is probably ideal, then you're going to be 10 to 12 years out of the workforce.
	Like I'm sorry that's just biological reality.
	Now you can be a shitty mom and you can dump your kids in daycare when they're six weeks old and you can feed them formula and they will get fat and they will have developmental problems and social problems and they will have problems with aggression and they will have problems with immunocompromisation because they'll be in this Petri dish of the daycare and they will not be played with.
	I mean one caregiver who is taking care of four babies Again, people can get mad at me, but don't shoot the messenger.
	These are just basic facts.
	Let me give you some math here.
	I'm sure you're aware of all this stuff, but let me just give you some math here.
	Let me just look it up here.
	Okay, so this is the math of daycare.
	So babies need a huge amount of physical care and attention, right?
	So they need 20 minutes of feeding every three hours or so, and 10 minutes of diapering every two hours or so.
	And then, you know, if you're taking care of more than one baby, you really need to wash your hands thoroughly and sanitize the whole area after changing each baby.
	So let's say that the standard ratio for caregivers to babies in a daycare is four to one, right?
	You have four babies for every Caregiver and often that is exceeded in reality, but this four to one ratio, right?
	So just look at the math, right?
	In an eight and a half hour workday, you have 16 diapers to change and 12 feedings to give.
	So four diaper changings and three feedings a piece.
	It's not a huge amount for each individual baby.
	So you've got four hours.
	It takes you four hours to feed the baby.
	So that's four babies times three feedings at 20 minutes each.
	It takes two hours and 40 minutes to change them, which is four babies, four changes in 10 minutes each.
	If you allow an extra two and a half minutes after each changing to put them down, clean up the area, wash your hands and so on.
	It's 40 minutes just to sanitize.
	So four babies, four changes, two and a half minutes to sanitize.
	And so basically just feeding and changing four babies takes seven hours and 20 minutes a day.
	And this is an eight and a half hour work day.
	Now this is assuming that all the babies are in sequence, right?
	They don't all get hungry at the same time.
	If you have four babies and they all get hungry at the same time, you can't feed them all at the same time.
	It takes 20 minutes for feeding, right?
	The last baby has been waiting for over an hour to be fed, screaming, crying, upsetting the other babies.
	And you know that if you have triplets in society, if you have three babies at once, you're automatically put into, you need You know, you need huge amounts of resources from your community, from your government, from your social services just to take care of those babies.
	That's three.
	We're talking four babies with somebody who's paid minimum wage to take care of them.
	If you give your baby to a daycare worker and there are four other babies in the room, your baby will almost never be played with.
	And it's not because they don't care, it's just these are the physical realities of taking care of babies.
	And this is why nature generally doesn't give you lots of babies at the same time, because you really can't.
	You can't play with and interact with.
	This is why they just put TV on and they're just running around feeding and changing diapers.
	And the children are not being held or cuddled or played with or anything like that.
	And so, you know, it's just very destructive to babies as a whole.
	And what happens is the babies, you know, if they all poop at the same time, a baby will be sitting in its own shit for about an hour while the other babies are changed.
	Or, unless they just cut back on sanitizing, in which case, you know, fecal matter is switching bodies and you get sick.
	So, I mean, the reality is, if you want to be a good mom, and you want to have two kids, then you're out of the workforce for, you know, 8 to 10 to 12 years.
	Like, that's just the reality.
	And you know, you can be in the workforce, you don't have to have children.
	If you want to have children, and if you want to be a halfway decent mom, the bare minimum is, you know, stay home with them.
	You can say, well, the dad could stay home, but the dad can't breastfeed.
	Well, the mom can pump and the dad, yeah, I guess you can sort of work that out.
	And it's certainly better than putting your kids in daycare.
	But, you know, if you want to have the kids, then, you know, stay, stay home with them.
	And so this, this sort of, this is a basic reality.
	This is the way that human biology works.
	And there's no, there's no getting around it.
	I mean, you can certainly dump your kids in daycare and you can do whatever, right?
	But it's just selfish and it's bad for the kids.
	So I mean this you know and I can say this as a stay-at-home dad.
	I hopefully have some credibility that I sort of have some idea what I'm talking about.
	I have more experience with parenting than like 98% of men do and this is just the reality.
	You know my day is mostly around parenting and my daughter she can do you know 10 or 15 minutes by herself you know but sort of with me doing the dishes or whatever I'm still chatting and all that.
	But this sort of basic reality is very important and the idea that you can have kids and compete with single women or compete with men who have wives who are taking care of their kids is ridiculous and I just think that's not something that's particularly talked about.
	So I hope that that helps a little bit.
	Well, we're going to do it by ourselves.
	That's what feminists say.
	We're going to do it by ourselves.
	Fantastic!
	You know, I would really encourage that perspective.
	Right?
	I mean, so do it by yourselves, then you don't have a welfare state, right?
	If you want women to be independent and not reliant upon men, then don't go running to politicians every time you need something, because they're mostly men.
	And since men have a higher income in general than women, it's mostly men who are being forced to pay for the irresponsible choices of women or the bad choices of women, you know, single moms and so on.
	Well, if you all can do it by yourselves, then stop asking male politicians to deliver the income of men to irresponsible women.
	That's not called doing it by yourselves.
	I mean, it's so ludicrous to even have to point this stuff out, but it's just kind of the way it is, right?
	And governments love to fund feminism because the more the family is broken up, the more people are dependent on the state, the more they'll vote for increases in state power, state funding, and so on.
	So I just wanted to point that out.
	Yeah, that's an interesting point.
	We have a lot of single moms over here.
	In Sweden?
	Yes.
	But Sweden's got this like crazy generous, generous in sort of a colloquial sense, Is it like two years or three years of you can stay home kind of thing?
	Yeah, exactly.
	I don't know.
	It's more like two, I don't know, 18 months or if it's two years.
	I don't really remember.
	I don't have kids yet myself, so I don't know.
	But it's probably one of the top countries in the world.
	about that.
	So yes, you can basically go through life as a woman.
	Rather than working, you can just continue to have children and get your income that way.
	Because you get subsidies from the government, right?
	Yes, yes.
	I mean, you will get paid.
	I mean, you will be paid to have children and stay at home.
	So that can go on as long as you're fertile, I suppose.
	Right.
	And so I guess, you know, to me, again, I'm not an expert on feminists.
	I mean, I've certainly had my exposure to it in various fields, and certainly in academia, it's all over the place.
	I mean shouldn't feminists be against the welfare state and subsidies for single moms and so on because it creates dependence?
	It's not independent.
	I thought the point of feminism was to be independent and so it would seem to me that logically feminism should be very critical of and hostile to the welfare state because it creates dependence upon a largely male.
	Let's say well, you know, politics is a patriarchy, right?
	It's all men and, you know, women really get to run things and, you know, just look at the House of Commons, you know, it's mostly men and so on.
	So it's like politics is a patriarchy according to the feminist analysis and women should be independent of the patriarchy and therefore women should be not dependent upon the government because the government is like a patriarchy.
	And so it would seem to me, according to the principles, and I would actually have a fair amount of respect for this, that feminists should be saying to women, no, you should not be dependent upon a man and you should certainly, sure as hell, should not be dependent upon the state.
	Because if you're a woman and you're dependent on a man, at least you're not taking money away from other women, right?
	But if you're a woman and you're dependent on the state, then it's women, successful women, responsible women, who get taxed to pay for You know, you're irresponsible, childbearing or you don't want to get a job or whatever it is, right?
	And so the women who are dependent on the state would seem to me entirely the exact opposite.
	I mean they're dependent on patriarchy and they're exploiting other women who are successful in order to get their money and so that to me would be a fairly fairly important.
	But I've not really read any feminist critiques of the welfare state.
	And again, I'm no expert.
	Please send me the links if there are lots of them around.
	But I've not read a lot of feminist criticism of the welfare state.
	I'm sorry?
	I don't think so.
	You won't find feminist critique of the welfare state.
	I mean, the left criticizing themselves.
	I don't think so.
	Well, but that's what that means.
	Again, that feminism is leftism.
	Yes, absolutely.
	They'll say a bunch of stuff.
	And of course, when feminists provoke hostility towards men in women, you know, men are patriarchs, men are exploiters, all sex inside marriage is functionally rape, men earn more than women, men have it all and women have none.
	Like, when they provoke resentment from women, yeah, when they provoke resentment from women to men, they're just, I mean, they're just terrible.
	It's absolutely terrible.
	It's incredibly dysfunctional and it robs women of the capacity to love men and to be loved by men and to have healthy and happy relationships with men because they're always on guard for being exploited and men are you know dangerous and sex obsessed and rapey and you know I mean it just it's so such seeds of fear and resentment among genders which nature has designed to be enormously compatible.
	I mean it's really tragic the degree to which feminists claim to want to make women happy and yet by turning women against men, which a lot of them do, they're robbing women and men of the greatest happiness in life, which is love.
	Yes, I do.
	In the same way that Marxism robs workers of ambition, feminism robs women and men of love.
	And so if love makes us the happiest and feminism says we want to make women happy and then say, well, you know, men are bastards who are out to rape you, this is making women unhappy.
	And women's happiness has significantly declined, like one in four women in America are on antidepressants.
	Well, because they've been taught to hate and fear the source of their greatest happiness, which is You know, what used to be called a Sunday kind of love, which is, you know, family and a husband and all that kind of stuff.
	And, you know, don't get me wrong.
	I mean, people like Ayn Rand, you know, chose not to have kids and lived a life of intellectual and artistic ambition.
	Fantastic.
	I mean, that's, you know, I'm not sure that she was particularly happy, but that probably didn't have anything to do fundamentally with the choice of childlessness or not.
	You know, I've tried lots of different paths to happiness and, you know, family and kids is a pretty damn fine one to do it.
	But, you know, if you tell workers that the bosses are just evil exploiters, you basically, you know, if you were a boss, you'd want to invent Marxism because it would mean that your workers wouldn't really want to compete with you.
	Hey, you want to become evil like your boss and exploiter?
	No.
	It's, you know, it's a lot of the stuff's invented by the ruling class in order to reduce competition and anything which provokes resentment causes discord and reduces the capacity for love and attachment and trust, right?
	How comfortable do women steeped in feminism feel about trusting men?
	Well, you've got to have your own income because what if he leaves you?
	You've got to have your own income because, you know, he's just going to trade you in for a young girl.
	No, no, no.
	Anyway, so this is just my thoughts.
	Again, I'm not saying this is all really It's proven and all that, but these are just sort of my thoughts about it.
	Very interesting.
	Thank you.
	You're very welcome.
	And I believe, do we have another caller, right?
	Yeah, we got two people up if we have time.
	We shall see.
	All right, have them both talk at the same time.
	This might be even more public.
	Take care.
	Thank you.
	All right, Clark, you're up next.
	Hello.
	Hello.
	All right.
	I guess I'm in the middle of a...
	Interesting situation.
	Pretty much, I'm wondering if you're in a situation where, say, a person, like you want to confront your parents or your mother about how they raised you, but they're, like, they have, they're in, they're being caregivers of
	of children themselves and you're worried about causing more conflict?
	Can you give me some specifics?
	Okay, so I mean I guess it's kind of a long story but I'll try to simplify it.
	Basically my sister, recently I did an intervention or formed like an intervention on her and sent her to rehab and then now I'm Acting as a caregiver with my mom.
	I'm living with my mom and the children.
	I'm watching them like... Oh, these are your sister's kids?
	Oh yeah.
	So I'm watching them the majority of the day.
	And, you know, I've done a lot of work with my mom.
	Like I've got her to not use time out and try, I'm trying to get her to like negotiate more rather than just like, uh, be aggressive and shit like shaming and all this other crazy stuff.
	But, and you know, of course I would like to get her more on my page to where it's all negotiation and just being patient and stuff like that.
	But, you know, I bring certain things up to her and I got her to read the PE or Apparent Effectiveness training book.
	She said she already read it, but I don't.
	Don't really believe her on that one.
	And then, you know, she kind of, she said she read it, but I think she only kind of read what she wanted to hear.
	Because she still does a lot of stuff that isn't really helpful.
	Like, you know, the two-year-old kind of throws temper tantrums sometimes, and she really makes them worse a lot of the time.
	Because she, like, expects the little two-year-old to understand that, you know, she's making her upset.
	Things like that.
	Instead of just trying to listen and listen to what she's saying and help her figure out what she wants, she just tries to, like, she starts reverting back to, oh, well, I'm just going to throw you a timeout or, oh, you know, I'm just going to ignore you or so.
	So, like, when things are calm, I can get her to listen to pretty much the negotiation thing and everything that's helpful.
	Why do you need to live with your mother?
	I don't need to.
	Why aren't you living with your mother?
	I mean, I moved in here for, I guess, a couple different reasons.
	Just to save money and to help with the children.
	Why don't you take the kids and move out?
	I'm not saying you should or not.
	I'm just curious.
	Well, I mean, I don't know.
	I don't really... I'm not in the position financially.
	And honestly, I don't know.
	I mean, I wouldn't have anybody to help me with them, so I couldn't really just move out.
	Sorry, if I understand this rightly, your mother raised your sister, right?
	Yeah.
	Who became a drug addict.
	Yep.
	So your mom's history with parenting is about as disastrous as it could be, right?
	Oh yeah.
	So now you're taking the next generation and putting them into your mom's care, right?
	Yeah.
	My sister lived with my mom already, so... And ended up as a drug addict, right?
	Yeah, so they were already here, it's not like I... Okay, so I'm just asking you to look at the evidence, right?
	Oh no, the evidence is staggering, I don't dispute that.
	The evidence is that your mom does not produce great adults when she has care of them when they're young, right?
	Not at all, no.
	So I guess my question is, if you know that your mom produced your sister, why are you exposing your sister's kids to your mom again?
	I don't mean at all, I just mean like weekends of going to visit for dinner or whatever I'm talking about, like the live-in thing.
	Well of course, you know, I would rather them not have, not live here, but like I don't have the money, I don't have... Yeah, you said you didn't have to earlier.
	I said, why are you living with your mom?
	And you said you don't have to.
	I didn't have to move here to begin with, but right now I have... I could, I guess, look into finding a place to live, but I'm working part-time and watching them the whole day, like from 7 to 5.
	And then she comes home.
	So I don't... I wouldn't be able to make... So you're working 7 to 5?
	No, I'm watching the kids 7 to 5.
	You're watching the kids 7 to 5.
	Fantastic.
	Yeah.
	So, I mean, I have a reasonably good... I've created a reasonably good atmosphere.
	I mean, when I'm not here, I'm sure it's not quite as good, but... But, I mean, you're around for most of the day, right?
	So, is your mom around then too?
	Nope.
	It's just me.
	So... Oh, so she's working?
	Yeah.
	And, you know, before my sister left the rehab, things were really bad, so I just really wanted to turn things around for the children, which I've been able to do, just because I'm always with them now, and the two-year-old's not throwing tantrums as much.
	And, you know, the next step, you know, obviously I'd I would rather really not have much to do with my mother.
	I've kind of been on this path myself before I even found this radio station, which I'm highly grateful to have found.
	I think what you do is really great, inspirational, all that good stuff.
	It's still not as good as what you're doing.
	I mean, I hugely appreciate.
	what you're doing.
	Your nieces and nephews are very, very lucky to have you in their life.
	Yeah.
	Very lucky.
	I mean, my God, where else would they be going?
	Would they be going just straight to your mom?
	Would they be going into foster care?
	I mean, you are taking a huge bullet for the future.
	And I mean, I know you probably really enjoy their company and so on, right?
	Obviously, large aspects of your life are completely on hold.
	So I really, you know, That's heroic.
	I mean, me talking into a microphone is nothing compared to what you're doing.
	I just want to point that out.
	Oh, yeah.
	Well, I think kind of listening to your show is one of the things that really made me decide I was going to do the intervention.
	I don't know.
	Because I kind of beforehand thought of crazy things like just stealing them and running away, which is kind of a joke.
	I don't know, try to get back to the point what I was talking about before.
	I would rather move out and not really have anything to do with my mom just because, you know, I've tried to bring up things about how I was raised in the past and she's, you know, she kind of brushes it off and stuff like that.
	She's not a very... What's her story about why your sister...
	Oh, she will take no blame for it whatsoever.
	I mean, my sister's in rehab right now, and you know, when I set it up, I made sure it was a plate.
	They assured me that they wouldn't put her on any type of psychotropics or drugs or anything like that, but now they're putting her on Zoloft, which I'm not really happy with, and I told my mom that I wasn't happy with that.
	You know, she's a social worker slash psychiatrist.
	So she's all about that stuff and kind of laughed it off.
	And, uh, and you know, it's, I would like to say, you know, this is, this is all because of the way you raised her, you know, and this is something we, we all need to kind of sit around and discuss.
	But at the same time, like I said, I've been able to create like a peaceful environment pretty much.
	And I don't want to.
	Do anything that's going to risk destroying that or stopping that.
	Like I wouldn't want her.
	Cause like I said, she does listen to some, she does listen to a lot of what I say.
	Well, pretty much listen to everything I say, but, um, when she does get a little bit riled up or frustrated, she does have a tendency to want to revert.
	So I have to make sure I'm present.
	So she'll be.
	Conscious of what she's doing.
	Yeah.
	So really it's, I mean, kind of the options I see now are, I feel like I really don't have any option but to wait for my sister to come back.
	How long is she going to be in rehab for?
	I guess that's unknown, right?
	It's unknown, but at least two more months.
	So it's actually one and a half more months.
	But after that, I really would rather just move out and get my financial situation together and everything like that to where I could maybe have them come with me or come visit a lot or something like that.
	Did you know if your sister wants to resume being a mom?
	Yeah, she does at the moment.
	I don't know if she realizes how much damage she's done to him yet.
	So I don't know if she's going to be capable or not, but I know she wants to be.
	And like everything, it's still too early to know what's going on until how it's going to turn out with her.
	Yeah.
	And why do you think she wants to resume parenting?
	I mean, I think she's a lot like my mom where she wants to put forth the image that she's a good person.
	That's the most important thing to her.
	I would like to think that she really cares about the kids, but I haven't seen that.
	I don't know if you say you talk to your sister quite a bit.
	I'm sorry.
	No, that was you.
	That was the first caller.
	My apologies.
	Do you know if your sister has understood the damage I mean, if you're on drugs, you just can't be emotionally available, you know, fundamentally for your kids, right?
	Yeah.
	And does your sister understand the degree to which not only by being on drugs when the babies are there, but also now, of course, she's away for a couple of months, which the babies will experience as maternal rejection, the toddlers.
	Does she really get the degree to which she's damaged?
	And it's irreparable damage, it doesn't mean the kids can't ever be healthy, it just means that you can't undo the damage, right?
	Exactly.
	Does she get that?
	I don't think she gets that completely, no.
	And I haven't talked to her much.
	That sounds to me like, what percentage do you think she does get it and why?
	How would you know?
	Well, I really don't have any way of knowing, so it would be guessed, because I've only talked to her like once or twice since she's been there.
	Does she have the capacity to write letters?
	She does, and she's supposed to write me.
	She said she was going to write me and I'm waiting for it.
	Actually, I'm supposed to be participating in some sort of group conference with her and her therapist coming up shortly.
	How old are the kids?
	One's two and a half, the other's one and a half.
	Right.
	And back on what you were saying, they call my mom, Mom.
	My mom was a major enabler when she was using, so she took care of the kids a lot.
	And they don't know if they really even understand that she's their mom.
	And where's the dad?
	Oh, he's, he's roaming the streets doing drugs.
	He's not.
	Oh, so he's like a real deadbeat, right?
	Yeah.
	Right.
	Right.
	I mean, I'm, I'm pretty much like that.
	What a disaster.
	I mean, I'm incredibly sorry.
	I mean, I'm incredibly sorry for your sister.
	I'm incredibly sorry for the situation that you're in.
	Although I'm incredibly, I'm very admiring.
	I feel Oh my God, where have all my good words gone?
	I intensely admire what it is that you're doing, but of course I'm most incredibly sorry for these children who've grown up with this kind of complete chaos and fatherlessness and drug addiction and rehab and oh my God, what a complete and total mess.
	I mean you really couldn't inflict a worse situation on I'm so sorry.
	I'm incredibly glad and grateful that they have someone like you in their life.
	But my God, what a disaster.
	Yeah.
	It sure is.
	I would like to see it all turn around and things to get better and them to be able to kind of try to re-stabilize and work with issues.
	You mean your sister?
	Yeah.
	But I don't think that's ever going to happen.
	How long has your sister been using drugs for?
	She's 23 now.
	She started when she was probably about 18 and that started escalating from that point.
	She's been pretty bad off for at least three years now.
	So she was using when she was pregnant and everything like that.
	She wasn't able to breastfeed or anything like that because she smoked too much and was on drugs.
	And was she using alcohol and stuff before then?
	Before she was 18?
	Yeah.
	Yeah, just a typical teen thing around here with a party and stuff like that.
	She wasn't like drinking at home or anything like that.
	But yeah, she was doing the she was drinking and smoking Um, well, I I Caught her talking about it talking about a party she was going to and how she's all wasted when she's like 15 or 16 and I No, I told my mom about it, and I ended up getting grounded somehow.
	Like, she didn't believe me.
	My sister's the only daughter, so she's kind of got spoiled, to say the least.
	Well, you know, spoiled may not be quite the right way of putting it.
	No, for sure.
	Yeah, no, it's definitely not.
	Yeah, I definitely, I hugely recommend, you know, anybody who's dealing with addictions look into Gabor Mate's In the Realm of Hungry Ghosts.
	It's a really good book on understanding the biochemical basis of addiction and the degree to which it is an attempt to self-medicate a significant misery.
	But, you know, again, I'm no expert.
	But my understanding is that when somebody becomes – self-medicates, self-medicates, begins to sort of use drugs or alcohol or sex or religion or whatever it is as a way of just sort of avoiding dealing with other issues.
	They kind of get stuck emotionally at that age because they're no longer developing.
	They're no longer facing life's challenges.
	They're just escaping into self-medication.
	in.
	And I say this with all sympathy because it's not like a lot of happy kids just sort of wake up and say, I think I'm going to start drinking when I'm in my mid-teens and then hit drugs and all that kind of stuff.
	Yeah.
	And what happens is if they get stuck at that emotional level, if your sister is kind of stuck at the age of like 13 or 14 or 15 or whatever, right?
	Yeah.
	Fundamentally, I mean, how on earth is she going to be a good mom?
	Again, I'm just sort of pointing this out.
	I'm no expert.
	I can't diagnose.
	I don't know.
	But I would be, I would approach this turnaround scenario with significant skepticism.
	Oh, sure.
	I mean, that's my big, one of my biggest worries is she's going to come back and, you know, maybe stay off the drugs, but she'll never really get herself together again.
	And she'll just repeat the cycle onto the children.
	Pretty much my mom.
	The different factor is that, is that you're around.
	And you're, you know, reading books on parenting and, you know, I'm sure you're doing great stuff with the kids who are in your care and you're there, you know, first thing in the morning until late afternoon.
	That's a huge amount of time and there's a huge amount that you're doing that is going to change how things go, right?
	Yeah.
	So, good for you.
	And now, is there anything, I mean, you know, other than offering my congratulations and sympathy and admiration, is there anything else that I can help you with?
	Well, I mean, Not really, but like I was saying, my original question is, do you, would you think, I mean, it's kind of hard.
	I don't, you're not, you don't know the situation completely, but I'm, I'm seriously considering trying to tell her like what, how she raised me, did to me and stuff like that to, uh, and talking about my mom, so maybe she can get An understanding, because there's a pretty good chance that it's going to be me and her raising the kid.
	Like, my mom's a social worker here, and she's going to want custody.
	I don't see how I'm going to be able to get custody over her.
	Of who?
	Of the children.
	Well, I mean, you could, you know, I don't know whether it's the right thing or not.
	I mean, I don't know.
	I mean, I'm just talking to you for the first time.
	But what I would say is that if you are in a better place emotionally to raise the children, then you could make a very strong case to your sister to say, you know, you're trying to get out of rehab.
	You're trying to stop being a drug addict.
	Do you really need two high demand screaming kids around you all day while you're trying to deal with, you know, getting out of drug addiction?
	For the foreseeable future, until you've been clean for several years, until you've got your life in order, until, until, until, let me take care of the children.
	It doesn't have to be, I don't know, formal custody.
	I don't know, because I'm not a lawyer.
	I don't know how the hell any of this stuff works.
	But obviously, they can stay at your place without there being any kind of legal battle, right?
	Or any legal work.
	But I would sit down and just say, look, you started drinking when you were 15.
	You were such a heavy drug user that you couldn't even breastfeed.
	You're trying to quit multiple addictions.
	Obviously, she's addicted to bad relationships, maybe even type of sexuality.
	You know, she's basically having kids with a drug addict street person.
	So you're trying to deal with cigarette addiction, bad relationship addiction, maybe sexual addiction.
	You're trying to deal with a narcotic or hard drug addiction.
	This is enough for you to try and deal with without trying to be a mother to two highly demanding toddlers at the same time.
	Let me take that off your plate.
	Let me be – you obviously come visit and you'll be part of their lives and so on.
	But you need to get your life straightened out and that's going to take you years of intense work and effort.
	You will not have time for that if you are trying to be a full-time mom.
	Being a full-time mom to two kids under the age of three, that is a huge, huge commitment obligation.
	And you should only be doing that when you are at your very peak, when you're at your very best, not when you're just trying to struggle to quit all these multiple addictions and get your life back in order.
	So I would make that case to her that if she tries to become a mom again at this point, my guess, I don't know, my guess would be, or a strong case could be made, that she's setting herself up for a complete disaster.
	It would be under our supervision, but there's This is like, like I said, it's going to be at least two months.
	There's a chance we'll be up to a year.
	And, um, that's not for sure yet, but yeah, there's definitely no way we're just going to hand them back to her and be like, Oh, good luck.
	Like, hope you do well.
	Like that's not going to happen.
	But if what will happen is it'll be me and my mom.
	And like I said, I'm all, I'm constantly trying to mitigate and like minimize the damage that my mom.
	We'll do when she gets frustrated and stuff like that.
	And she's been responsive to a lot of this stuff and things like that, so I'm wondering if I should just go for gold and break it down to her completely.
	Like, look, when you were raising me, you pretty much did everything wrong.
	And you really need to completely look at everything that you're doing with them.
	The two-year-old starts throwing a temper tantrum with me, it lasts not even a minute or, I mean, she doesn't even go into a full temper tantrum with me.
	But with my mom, she can prolong it for like 30 minutes or hours sometimes.
	It's just like she makes it worse.
	She doesn't, she gets her, she's, she wants to, she gets her emotions hurt that she can't make it stop.
	And then she starts kind of acting a little crazy to, to get her to stop.
	And it doesn't matter.
	Yeah, I mean I would definitely, you know, if your mom has not been humbled by what happened with your daughter.
	Yeah, she hasn't.
	Sorry, with her daughter.
	If your mom has not been humbled by what happened with her daughter, then the opportunities for self-reflection and growth are probably going to be quite minimal.
	No, listen, I'm afraid I do have to.
	One more caller I'd like to get to has been waiting quite patiently.
	All right.
	We're going to go a little bit over, but I think that's okay.
	You know, massive kudos and congratulations.
	And again, as always, you know, please drop me a line if you can at, you know, you can email operations at video.com.
	Things like that.
	Let me know how things go.
	You know, good for you.
	Good for you for being a real lifeline to these kids.
	I mean, how incredibly admirable.
	Yeah.
	So thank you so much for what you're doing for the future.
	The principles and the work, but yeah, thank you.
	Good luck with the next one.
	You're welcome.
	All right, let's bring up the next caller.
	All right, Greg.
	Go ahead, sir.
	I've heard you talk in several podcasts, and there's a meme floating around that I've heard other people talk about when they talk about the rulers, the ruling class, and how they've been developing, say, a method of control or whatever the Whether it's organic, education system through governmental policy, yadda yadda, over, say, I think I may have heard you say, well, they've been doing this for thousands of years, right?
	So, as far as I know, people don't really live for thousands of years, so when we talk about rulers that have been behaving in a particular way for generations, are they They're not a specific biological different entity.
	I have a little trouble believing that a family could impose, a specific family could impose these types of psychological controls over the course of generations.
	So, who are we talking about when we talk about the rulers, per se?
	So yeah, I understand what you're saying.
	Obviously, you know, there's not a cabal of infinite lizard men who are running everything, you know, who live forever and so on.
	So I completely understand.
	But control mechanisms evolve.
	I mean, they get better in the same way that animals, organisms and so on evolve and get more efficient and are constantly striving for domination.
	So if you look at sort of the era of tribal, inter-tribal warfare that characterized like 96% of whatever it is of human history, then you had a variety of control styles and control mechanisms, and the ones that were better would dominate, right?
	So a tribe that could convince its warriors to fight more aggressively would tend to dominate A tribe who didn't, right?
	I mean, so that's sort of important.
	Now, a tribe who taught its warriors to fight hyper aggressively no matter what would run out of warriors pretty quickly, right?
	So there's sort of a balance that needs to be maintained.
	A tribe that, you know, so for instance, if you had a tribe that convinced everyone That the moment they killed themselves they would go straight to heaven and everything would be perfect, would not last very long because if people believed that they'd just kill themselves and the tribe would be done, right?
	So, you know, whereas a tribe that said there's no afterlife and when you're dead you're dead would find its warriors a whole lot more cautious, right?
	I mean it's tough to get suicide bombers unless you promise them the 72 virgins, right?
	After they die.
	So from that standpoint these things evolve in that the memes of control that are more effective and hit the sweet spot tend to spread and to dominate.
	They either spread through conquest or they spread simply through the exchange of ideas.
	The memes can spread even without there being direct conquest so you know some Some tribal leader or some country leader finds out about some great control mechanism in some other country and they're like, oh shit, I better get that for me too, right?
	I mean, I think that's, you know, hey, public school is really great for indoctrinating children into how perfect their society is and how really fundamentally it shouldn't change.
	And so I'm going to get me some public schools.
	It's no accident that things like public school all get enacted really quickly.
	And like in a variety of countries, it tends to sort of cluster around and this is a meme spreading that, you know, it's more profitable for the rulers to take the tax money, pay and make dependent the intellectual classes through schools and universities and indoctrinate the kids.
	It's, you know, it's a win-win.
	So, like memes evolve and they attempt to optimize and so on, right?
	So, I mean, originally human beings would eat other human beings, right?
	The problem is you get a couple of meals and then they're done.
	It's tough to enslave others in a hunter-gatherer society because you can't send slaves off to go catch your food in the woods because they just don't come back, right?
	They just go somewhere else, right?
	So you can really only begin to enslave people rather than just sort of kill and eat them.
	You can only begin to enslave them when you have agriculture because when you have agriculture you can force them to stay in the fields and keep an eye out for them and so on, right?
	You know to hunt a gatherer you need to run pretty quickly and so but you can have you can pick cotton and leg irons kind of thing and stop you from running.
	You can hobble them.
	And so rather than killing and eating someone you enslave them and got them to grow your food then you got decades of meals out of them rather than just a couple of meals.
	And so those societies would tend to dominate the cannibalistic societies.
	Those societies which merely beat their children rather than killed them would tend to do Sort of better, right?
	Now, killing children would occur when there was a situation of potential starvation, right?
	So in the early days of agriculture, what they were called, sometimes called useless eaters, right?
	I mean, the kids who couldn't really produce enough to feed themselves alone, let alone feed others, would be killed.
	As agriculture improved, you didn't need to kill children, but you needed them to work like hell from night and day.
	So the best thing you could beat them until and threaten them with abandonment until they do what you want them to do.
	And so these kinds of means spread quite effectively and quite well.
	Now of course we're looking at, at least talking about, trying to treat children better and that's because governments are running a little bit low on money and so they're looking at reducing crime because that way they can shrink some of their spending without immediate social collapse.
	Yet they still need enough traumatized children that they can have their soldiers and their police and their prison guards, the enforcer class, right?
	debate us.
	So and again this is a big big complicated topic but basically almost all improvements so far in human society have been it's more profitable to the ruling classes right?
	I mean as we talked about feminism and again I know it's a big term and I think there's good concerns in the chat room about that and but feminism is great for the ruling class because They can't tax stay-at-home moms because they don't have an income.
	But if the moms go to workplace they get money they can tax and then when moms put their kids in daycare they get daycares they can tax and they end up with traumatized kids that require more government services and so they will never vote for less government kind of thing.
	So they are quite fans of single moms because single moms will never vote to shrink the size and power of the state blah blah blah.
	So a lot of this kind of stuff is just sort of driven by that which is beneficial to the people in charge.
	And they have refined their strategies for thousands of years and they get passed along culturally, they get passed along in terms of religious edicts, and they get passed along in terms of institutions.
	Right?
	I mean, if you have a country that's democracy, the next ruler is going to be raised and familiar with democratic, the democratic style of government.
	So in the same way, lions have developed this, you know, really impressive hunting patterns and, you know, baby lions will constantly play at hunting and catching and so on in the same way that baby humans love to play at hiding from predators because they're pretty helpless when they're young and the best chance is to hide, which is why hide and go seek and tag and all of that are so popular because we're just constantly rehearsing runaway and hiding.
	And it's not like individual lions need to invent all this stuff themselves.
	They just have received these instincts from generations in the past and so I think you and I didn't need to invent the fact that sex is something that is desirable and feels good.
	That's just something that has developed over a long period of time and these instincts for ownership and these mechanisms of ownership and ruling, they have developed for thousands of years.
	It's not like they're handed down in secret.
	I've written this tragic comic book, The Handbook of Human Ownership, which is available on YouTube and in the podcast feed.
	It's actually one of my more popular videos.
	I think 175,000 views and I don't know how many on the podcast and some print orders and so on.
	It's pretty good for the three, four, five hundred thousand people consuming this and it's a kind of joke like this is the handbook you get when you're the ruling class and so on but lions don't get a handbook on how to hunt.
	They just kind of have instincts for it and play at it for a long time and learn how to do it.
	There's no handbook, I think, fundamentally, but there are significant instincts that are transmitted intergenerationally and mechanisms of control and institutions, of course.
	I mean, the Pope doesn't invent the Catholic institution and the methodology of the papacy and the structure and hierarchy of the papacy.
	He just inherits it.
	But that has developed over, I guess, close to 2,000 years now.
	Does that help at all?
	To a degree.
	It seems like, though, that, you know, when you talk about a lion or Sexual fulfillment, those are actual physical traits that are inherent in the physical organism.
	But when you talk about instincts to rule and or say submit, those are, they're memes that aren't necessarily inherent.
	No, no.
	Look, you know that dogs have instincts to rule and submit, right?
	When dogs meet each other, there's a dominant and a submissive dog.
	And dogs have a hierarchy.
	There's the alpha dog, there's the beta dog, there's the zeta dogs.
	Chimpanzees have hierarchies, and they don't have language in particular.
	They have methods of communication, but they don't have sort of abstract language.
	So there are definitely instincts for dominance and submission, which you can see all throughout the animal kingdom, particularly among the mammals.
	So these are exclusive to child-rearing then?
	Tell me what you mean?
	They're mutually exclusive from child-rearing.
	Say, you're going to have an alpha male that has an instinct to be dominant, and then you're going to have another one that has an instinct to be submissive, and it's not going to matter about their environment, or is it sort of a combination?
	Well, no.
	Everybody has an instinct to be dominant, because being dominant is beneficial, right?
	So, I don't know that people have an instinct to be submissive.
	I mean, animals, they may be smaller or weaker or older or whatever.
	But, yeah, I think we all have a desire to be I think that's sort of as basic as a sexual desire.
	The great thing about the free market is it channels that into really positive situations, right?
	I mean, because then your desire for dominance means sort of pleasing your customers in a voluntary situation and so on, right?
	And, you know, to be number one in the industry in a free market is to be number one in pleasing customers in a voluntary interaction.
	So it's a good thing, right?
	That sort of desire to be number one, you want it in the free market, you don't want it in, you know, Rape and war and theft and murder and stuff like that.
	So the free market does channel that desire for dominance in very positive ways.
	In politics, though, what's happened is, and I would actually argue, I'll do a podcast on this soon, sort of on the list, that language really was fundamentally developed because it is the best way to dominate other human beings.
	This is a central thesis of the documentary as well, which is still coming along.
	But language, particularly abstract language, has simply been, I think, is demonstrably the very best way of exploiting people to get them to believe nonsense and to get them to ignore differences and to get them to gloss over opposites and so on, to get them to redefine evil as virtue and virtue as vice is the most powerful thing.
	And this is why, you know, politicians are very glib.
	They're very fluent.
	It's a very great language.
	Propaganda is fantastic.
	With language, language is a domination tool that is foundational to our environments and to our systems, which is why public school is fundamentally around language.
	It's a redefinition of things and the ignoring of things.
	So that would be my sort of suggestion.
	Okay.
	I guess I just do sort of have the impression that the systems of control seem to evolve in a way that's more organized than, say, the systems that would resist.
	Well, I guess there isn't really a particular system of resistance other than non-compliance, but it just seems like that there's more of a organized study and perhaps, I don't know, testing and empiricism, say, behind manipulation and control than there is on the other side that's developed over a period of time.
	Yeah, I mean, the resistance is philosophy, I would argue.
	This is sort of why I'm involved in the discipline, that the resistance to power is philosophy.
	You know, there's this old martial arts argument which says that the best thing to use to win a fight is the momentum of your opponent, right?
	They come charging at you, you harness that momentum and use it to win the fight, right?
	And it's the momentum of propaganda that philosophy should use to win.
	Right, so people believe in equality, you know, that human beings are equal.
	Well, fantastic.
	Okay, then let's not give special rights to politicians and police and so on, right?
	And people say that gun control is good.
	Okay, well, then let's take the guns away from the police.
	Oh, wait, how would we do that?
	Well, we'd need people with guns, so guns are good, right?
	So guns are good to hand to police, bad to the hands of citizens, blah, blah, blah.
	Theft is bad.
	Well, once you get people to understand that taxation is theft, it's their momentum of moral outrage that you use I think to overturn the meme called the state and that would be my sort of fundamental argument at philosophy by extending the principles which statism has drilled into the heads of people in order to control them by extending them to include the state and to include religion and so on.
	There's a woman on Facebook who I occasionally see her posts and she's pretty libertarian but she's also religious and she was basically pointing out that if you extend the morality of the common citizens to those in authority, then their authority vanishes.
	And I said, well, you really should also apply this to your deities, right?
	If you take the Ten Commandments and apply them to the Old Testament deity, he no look so good after a while.
	So I think it's the momentum of the absolutes which have been inflicted on people as a way of covering up the abuses of those in power.
	You take that momentum and you actually make them.
	what their claim to be, which is absolutes and universals.
	And you take that momentum and use it to erode the legitimacy of the state in people's minds.
	That's, I think, the best, the best approach.
	Okay, thanks.
	Thank you very much.
	And thank you, Mike, for once again, bypassing Sunday School to come.
	Hey, I guess this is a kind of Sunday School.
	But thank you once again for the listeners, for the most enjoyable chat, for me at least, outside of my family and friends in the known universe.
	Have yourselves a wonderful week.
	If you'd like to help the show out, as usual, please donate.
	If you've got no money to donate, hey, you know, a little bit of time.
	If the Jehovah's Witnesses can spend Saturdays walking up and down, probably netting one person in a thousand, if you could share some videos, share some podcasts, share some articles, share some books, I would really, really, really appreciate that.
	Have yourselves a wonderful week.
	Everyone, I will talk to you soon.
	Oh, Wednesday, Wednesday, 8 p.m.
	Eastern Standard Time.
	Remember.
	Thanks.
	Take care.

▲