All Episodes
Previous Next
July 15, 2019 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
32:03
CNN Promotes Antifa Terrorism - and Using IQ to Understand the World
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Alright, so just on the off chance that you needed more confirmation, CNN recently, apparently the evidence seems pretty clear, they glorified the ICE detention center attacker, right?
So this was the Antifa fellow.
The self-proclaimed Antifa militant killed Saturday by Washington State Police as he attacked the local Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention center was seen in a recent CNN program that critics say glorified a radical left-wing So yeah, CNN was out there massaging these guys, let's say, feet and telling them what wonderful anti-Nazi heroes they were.
And this guy, Willems von Evans-Bronsen, sent a manifesto to friends, as I said, the day before the assault, in which he wrote, I am Antifa.
Now, of course, he's a martyr to the cause and all this kind of stuff.
He appears to have been part of a May 5th episode of CNN's United Shades of America with W. Kamau Bell.
The heavily promoted CNN show featured Bell explaining the Redneck Revolt, which he identified as gun-toting liberals who defend the Second Amendment and seek to battle the alt-right and neo-Nazis.
Apparently neo-Nazis for this guy includes, I guess, mostly Hispanics guarding and in these detention centers.
So Bell, right, this is the guy, I don't know, man or woman, W. Kamau Bell.
Bell calls them, right, these Antifa guys, called them Good guys.
Let's zoom in there just to enjoy that, right?
He called them good guys.
Going to a gun range with members and even questioning why more white people don't share their viewpoints.
So, this domestic terrorist, Antifa fellow, who seems to have done death by cop by going to attack this detention center, trying to set fire to a building with people inside, could have been dozens or even more people murdered or killed.
Well, according to CNN, this guy is part of the group called The Good Guys, right?
One of the men featured on the CNN special appears to be Vance Bronson, who was armed with a rifle and incendiary device when he launched his assault on a northwest detention center at Tacoma around 4 a.m.
Saturday, according to the Tacoma Police Department.
Right, so this is what I mentioned yesterday.
He was throwing incendiary devices, setting vehicles on fire.
He was carrying flares.
He was trying to ignite a propane tank when he was confronted by the officers who opened fire.
He died a multiple gunshot.
Wounds. So this guy, right, so CNN did not respond to a request for comment and request to confirm that Vance Bronson was featured on the network, but you can look it up and you can see it.
Bell noted that the Redneck Revolt, quote, protects counter-protesters, feeds the hungry and provides gun safety courses.
Bell also organized an on-camera meeting between the Redneck Revolt and Black Lives Matter.
Vance Bronson appears to be one of the attendees.
The CNN host laughed and nodded.
His head in agreement throughout the meeting.
So Media Research Center Vice President Dan Gaynor told Fox News, CNN has done more to give the psycho-domestic terrorists of Antifa credibility than any other outlet.
Now Antifa has escalated From attacking people in the street to sending a journalist to the hospital with a brain hemorrhage to finally a deadly attack of domestic terrorism.
So he's referring, of course, to journalist Antti Ngo, who was attacked by Antifa during a protest in Portland last month.
And it was this journalist who first noticed that Vance Bronson appeared to be recently glorified by CNN. So this is from Andy.
CNN recently aired a documentary about the Antifa militia whose member was killed in an ice firebombing attack yesterday.
You can see...
Mr. Van Spronsen, I suppose to be, at the four-second timestamp in this trailer, write something.
So Ngo wrote, Andy wrote, CNN recently aired a documentary about the Antifa militia whose member was killed in an ice firebombing attack yesterday.
You can see Mr. Van Spronsen at four-second timestamp, while resurfacing a tweet that CNN's W. Kamau Bell sent promoting the special.
Really quite something.
CNN's official Twitter account also tweeted a preview of the show that appears to show Van Spronsen.
Amazing. It's going down, a website that builds itself as, quote, a digital community center for anarchist, anti-fascist, autonomous, anti-capitalist, and anti-colonial movements, end quote, with a mission, quote, to provide a resilient platform to publicize and promote revolutionary theory in action, published a piece commenting on Van Spronsen following his death.
And I quote, we understand why Willem van Spronsen decided to give his life to interrupt the violence that is perpetrated against undocumented people in the United States every day.
The site wrote, quote, he took personal responsibility and did what he could to put an end to what he recognized as injustice.
What he did was heroic.
CNN's United Shades of America episode that seemingly featured van Spronsen also spent significant time promoting Antifa and Bell even allowed a member to show off Tie-dyed brass knuckles and knife and a face mask during what CNN, what the CNN host called show-and-tell.
Amazing. Others took to Twitter to point out that Vance Bronson's group was once apparently promoted on CNN. One user noted that Bell even asked his followers to, quote, support, end quote, the, quote, good work they are doing to actively end white supremacy.
No comment, no comment, no comment.
So this is the producer, this black guy, right?
Or the host, right? He says, as you are watching the hashtag United Shades episode about Puget Sound, JBGC, and the good work they are doing to actively end white supremacy, just understand that being on my show is bringing a lot more harassment their way.
Do what you can to support them.
Man alive! People operate in a different universe out there.
I mean, people who criticize the left, you know...
It's such a tightrope.
We have to be so careful about what we say and the fear of even doing anything you can to remotely support any group that ends up nefarious is something you have to be very careful about.
But these guys, do what you can to support them.
They're doing good work and then this guy ends up as a domestic terrorist.
Imagine. I mean, again, I hate to repeat myself, but if you want to sit in this pilot's chair, feel free, but imagine what it would be like if I praised some group that then turned out to attack a mosque or attack an ICE detention center or something like that.
I mean, good Lord.
So the man who appears to be Vance Bronson is wearing a shirt during the CNN show that promotes the Puget Sound chapters, John Brown, Gun clubs, so John Brown is the abolitionist from the 19th century, which is part of the Redneck Revolt.
This is the specific group that Bell asked his followers to support.
It's hardly the first time that CNN personalities have been accused of defending Antifa and its members.
Back in April, CNN host Chris Cuomo argued that Antifa's good cause was not equivalent to the positions espoused by neo-Nazis and white supremacists.
Now Cuomo said, you can talk about Antifa.
I've watched them in streets protesting in different situations, okay?
There are certainly aspects of them that are true to a course that is a good course.
They want social justice. They want whatever they want in that context.
CNN commentator Steve Cortez fired back, Chris, Antifa is not a good course.
CNN anchor clarified he did not want to espouse Antifa, but in 2018, Cuomo also argued that Antifa's violence against police was not equal to violence carried out by white supremacists and neo-Nazis.
Well, there you have it, my friends.
There you have it.
It is perfectly fine to promote, to glorify, to ask for your listeners to support a group which seems to have in it A guy who just committed domestic terrorism against a government facility with incendiary devices, trying to blow up a propane tank, trying to set fire to cars, causing, or potentially causing who knows how many deaths, shot dead by the police.
And that's, that's fine.
That's fine. Hey!
Quick question. Do you remember when Joe Biden kicked off his presidential campaign by praising Antifa?
Do you remember Keith Ellison saying, I found something to strike fear into the heart of Donald Trump holding up an Antifa handbook?
They love these guys.
These are the low-rent attack dogs of the left.
And this guy shows up to commit a terrorist attack with a rifle.
He's shot dead. Nobody's sitting there saying, well, how did this crazy guy get a hold of a gun?
No, they love it. They love it when their side has the weaponry.
You see, they love it when their side has the weaponry.
They're not for gun control.
They just want to disarm their opponents, want to disarm their enemies.
You know, it's funny.
I don't know, and it must be a massive flaw within me, and I'll sort of try and examine it.
Let me know what you think. I am still surprised to some degree by my capacity to be surprised by these kinds of things.
This goes way back to when I remember driving in a car We're the salesman when we were on a sales call back when I was a software entrepreneur.
And the news coming on, the radio about what happened between Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky.
And thinking, oh man, he's done.
The feminists are going to go mad over this guy.
They're going to go mental over the most powerful man in the world using an unpaid intern at his own personal geisha, basically using her like a Kleenex to wipe off his jizz.
Then feminists are going to go crazy.
And then there was just this massive silence as there has been silence with the feminists regarding the almost endless immigrant rape of little white British girls in the UK. They don't say anything.
They don't care.
Feminists are so brave that they only attack white Christians because it doesn't really take a lot of courage to attack a group whose foundational message is to love your enemies.
That's And I was guilty of it.
I understand.
That's why I've apologized, right?
But CNN has promoted a group whose member seems to have been a domestic terrorist.
Support this guy.
Ah, they don't want to end white supremacy, whatever it is.
They just seem to want to end white people.
That's How it seems to roll.
So there's that. I want to talk about something else here as well, which is very interesting.
So there's this idea that see the free market capitalism is so unfair.
It's just unfair because people end up with very different outcomes in the free market, right?
And I'll put the website to this or the link to this below.
But this is the incredible correlation between IQ and income.
And this is really something if you want to understand That it is not the free market that is unfair.
It is nature who is unfair.
That's sort of important, right?
So this guy...
I think it's a guy.
I assume it's a guy. He summarizes a bunch of stuff, and he's got all the sources and all the math and all that.
You can go into great detail.
But he compares actual psychometric data of seven US economic classes.
The homeless, welfare recipients, median Americans, self-made millionaires, self-made decamillionaires, there's tens of millions, self-made billionaires, and self-made decabillionaires, right?
So not people who've inherited the money.
And largely confirms this repeated assertion that average IQ Increases by 8 to 10 points for every tenfold increase in income.
Isn't that amazing? How close this correlation is.
We'll get to the graph in a sec. Now, the reality is that for every IQ increase of 8 to 10 points, you could get a tenfold increase in income.
And there are, again, there are exceptions and there are lots of people out there who don't follow this pattern and so on.
But that is really, really quite something.
So he finds that the true correlation...
Between IQ and income, at least in America, is much higher than the 0.23.
So 1 is perfect correlation, 0 is none.
Even higher than the 0.4 correlation.
So he says it may even approach 0.5, which is a very strong correlation.
Now, there's lots of free choice and lots of smart people who don't want to make a lot of money.
And some people who kind of luck into money, so to speak, but...
This is really astounding stuff.
He says he finds tentative but shocking evidence that the IQ gap between the richest and poorest Americans may exceed an astonishing 70 points.
And this is one of the problems with a meritocracy like the free market is it produces this inequality and then people talk about exploitation and theft and predation and class conflict and all of that.
But the reality is that nature, she throws some pretty wild dice, man, and nature throws some pretty wild dice.
And therefore, sometimes you just end up with big ass IQs and sometimes you don't.
And listen, there's no bless oblige and it's not people's fault.
It's not like you earn your IQ in general.
It's not like you're a bad person if you have a low IQ.
Everyone should be equal before the law and all of that.
But this, what I'm trying to do is help people understand that it's not the free market that is unjust or unfair.
It's nature. It's nature who's unfair and unjust.
It's like singing voices. You know, some people are just born with great singing voices, and some people, no matter how much training they take, it's just not going to work out for them, right?
So this is really something, right?
So let's go down.
You can look at the more detail of that.
So the homeless, we're just going to go with U.S. white norms.
The homeless have an average IQ of 80, and that is very low, very low.
And that's a big, big problem.
You can't just sort of fix it.
And of course, people who have an IQ of 80, and particularly if they have mental illness or addiction, I mean, should not be just out there roaming the streets.
And I did this whole presentation on the destruction of the American mental health care system that you'd really check out and all that.
So it's really, really rough.
It's really, really rough.
And he gets into all of the data behind this.
Is this perfect? No, but it is a big...
It's a good and important place to start, right?
So welfare recipients mean IQ of 90 for U.S. white norms, and that's, I mean, it's not a standard deviation below the white norm of 100, but that's a big problem.
So if you're on welfare, your income and your benefits are not taxed, and I've done a show on the welfare cliff wherein I think it was a woman with two kids on welfare She would have to earn over $70,000 before taxes to match the income that she gets from the welfare state.
That's a huge issue.
That's a huge issue because she can't.
So if she's got an IQ of 90, her income potential is, well, frankly, it's kind of low.
And, I mean, I went through all the low-rent jobs, office cleaner and waiter and dishwasher and ditch digger and all of that, prospector.
So, the jobs that you can get, if you have an IQ of 90, tend not to be that great, and you're not probably going to end up making 70,000 or so US dollars.
So, this is what happens, is that people say, or women in particular, say, okay, well, if I just have two kids, I get a comfortable middle-class lifestyle for the most part, lots of free stuff.
But if I go and get a job, I'm effectively taxed at 100% of my income until I get way over 100%.
$70,000, right?
Let's say you get $77,000, but you only get to keep $7,000 of that over and above what you would have gotten from welfare.
So you're still being taxed at like 90 odd percent, right?
So that's why they go to have children, right?
Rather than go out into the workforce and deal with difficult bosses and deal with difficult customers and deal with boredom and deal with repetition and deal with stress.
Plus, of course, if you already have kids, And you go from the welfare state, and you go from welfare to working, who's going to take care of your kids?
So the tax even goes higher, because you're going to have to hire someone to take care of your kids.
So this is just one of the foundational issues that the welfare state represents, and you can't solve it except with freedom, right?
About 17% of U.S. adults between 18 and 64 receive public assistance, and this is the bottom 8.5% financially and financially.
So it says it's common knowledge in psychometric circles that reading comprehension tests are statistically equivalent to IQ tests.
A literacy study found that about two-thirds to three-quarters of adult welfare recipients, about 71%, have what's classified as level one or level two literacy, which is only half the general population.
By contrast, one half of the general adult population are at these levels.
So this is sort of how he does his calculations and all of that, and this is a huge issue.
Now, the way you test this, of course, is you say, okay, what is the mean IQ according to these calculations, and how does that compare to the average income?
Right? So we've got IQ 97 to 98, and how does that compare?
And the median income is at the 50th percentile financially, right?
I mean, the median American is at the 50th percentile cognitively, right?
So that kind of works out.
Self-made millionaires, mean IQ of 117.
That's just over a standard deviation above the norm.
So U.S. white norms.
According to the 2000 book, The Millionaire Mind, this is a survey of 773 millionaires.
That's household, not individual net worth.
The typical self-made millionaire is a 54-year-old man.
This is 1998.
It took about an individual income of about $340,000 to make the top 1% for 52 to 58-year-olds.
Surveyed millionaires, median income of $436,000.
This was household income.
So now the average self-reported SAT score of these millionaires was 1190, right?
So he adjusted it down a little bit.
90% of the sample were college graduates, likely virtually all of them took the SAT. And so using SAT data, he's able to extrapolate out, let's see the bell curve, SAT, and all of that.
He's able to get to 117, right?
So if you are a millionaire, you're likely to have an average IQ of 117.
Deca-millionaires, it is a mean IQ 117.
It has stayed about the same.
And that's important.
It could be just that you've saved more, right?
In the year 1998, it took an individual income of about 1.25 million to make the top 0.1% for 52 to 58-year-olds, right?
And so if we look at billionaires, right, people with a billion or not, IQ goes to 132, right?
So what's two standard deviations above the norm, right?
So About 80 million Americans born between 46 and 64.
Baby boomers. I'm 66, so just missed that.
They're about 42% of the richest Americans.
There are 277 self-made billionaires in America.
And 42% of these are boomers.
116 of them are self-made billionaires.
And what is the cognitive ability?
So if several boomer billionaires have SAT scores, they're apparently publicly known.
Bill Gates claims to have scored 1590.
Paul Allen also for Microsoft 1600.
That's IQs of about 170.
Steve Ballmer who took over.
He scored a perfect 800 on the math section of the SAT. IQ of 150.
But that's the ceiling, right?
He could have been even better than the higher, right?
So Steve Ballmer's IQ, you could test it on the William Lowell Putnam mathematical competition where he scored even better than Gates.
So then Ballmer got one of the 100 best scores on the exam in 1974, but probably not one of the top 45.
So let's just say this guy says he came in 73rd.
So then that gives him top 73 out of 4.3 million.
It equates to an IQ of 162.
So at least three of the 116 self-made boomer billionaires have tested IQ equivalents of at least 162 or more.
So I'll let you go through all of the data here, because if you want to go into the data, that's a fine thing to do.
But let's look at this, right?
Self-made decabillionaires with an IQ of 151.
So you see it's dose-dependent.
The higher your IQ, lower IQ, homeless, to welfare, to median, to millionaire, to tens of millions, to billions, to tens of billions, it's a step up for IQ. And if you look at the world through the lens of IQ, the world makes sense.
The capitalism is fair.
Capitalism is just. And it's not the only thing.
I mean, I'd rather be wise than smart.
I can't do anything to change people's IQ fundamentally, but I can talk to them about truth and wisdom and virtue and goodness and all this kind of stuff.
And it is better to be wise than to be smart.
And lots of smart people have terrible ideas and miserable lives and so on.
So, but if you understand that the free market rewards raw intelligence, you know, plus work, plus commitment, plus some social skills, and you name it, right?
It's not just raw IQ, but it's kind of like if you have a very fast car, you can win a race.
Having a fast car, put me behind the wheel of a fast car, I can't win the race, right?
Unlike that, what, Jason Priestley or whatever, right?
So, IQ is just having a fast car.
You still have to learn how to drive and all this kind of stuff, but if you are a good driver without a fast car, you won't win.
If you have a fast car, you might win, right?
That's the way I kind of look at it, right?
So, if the 80 million American baby boomers only 13 were self-made decabillionaires in the October 19, 2015 issue of Forbes, 6.5th most prosperous person in that group.
So 113 self-made decabillionaires at least three or 23 percent have test scores equating to IQs of 162 plus and of course you also have to be in the right place at the right time if there's a particular kind of revolution that's going on prior to you having children but after you finished high school and and so on that tends to be very important as well.
So 23 percent 23% of the decabillionaires have public IQ records 162 plus.
It's a very very small small number of course right and so when you analyze the ethnic and racial background of self-made decabillionaires in 2009 a mean IQ of about 150 and again he's got lots of caution in with this data but that's kind of important.
People who are that smart See connections and potentials and patterns and are able to, I mean, it's almost like they don't even outthink, they just are so efficient in what they do, in the thinking that they bring to particular problems.
So what I want to show you, let's look down here, let me zoom out a little bit.
So IQ as a function of money, right?
So I'll bring this up here, right?
It's well worth looking at if you're just listening, but I'll read it for you, right?
So IQ is a function of money.
So IQ, standard white norms.
Look at this staircase, right?
Look at this staircase.
Homeless, 80. Welfare recipients, 90.
Median income, 97.5.
Self-made millionaires, 117.
Self-made decamillionaires, 117.
Self-made billionaires, 132.
Self-made decabillionaires, 151.
Now, people are going to say, well, that's unfair.
And it is, you know, I mean, you can say it's unfair, but then Singing voices are unfair.
Being pretty is unfair.
Being tall is unfair.
Having a nice head of hair is unfair.
I mean, you could just say anything is unfair.
When you say something's unfair, you know, there's an old, one of the, to me, one of the most brilliant exchanges in philosophy where some guy said to a philosophy professor, I think it was a philosophy professor, said, how's your wife?
And he said, compared to what?
It's very important.
Questions. This is unfair.
Compared to what? It's like saying birth order.
It's unfair that some people, you know, you've got an older brother and a younger brother, you've got an older sister.
Well, compared to what?
What are the options?
If there aren't any options, it's not unfair.
If there's no human intervention that has produced an inequity, it's not unfair.
If some guy's just really tall with rapid-fire leg muscles and so on, then he has the potential to be a basketball player, which I don't have, even when I was younger, right?
Well, that's unfair.
Compared to what? Do you want to stop human variation?
Do you want to stop evolution?
I mean, what do you want to do? Do you want to clone everyone?
Why find one guy and clone them all?
I mean, there is no alternative to...
Nature playing around, the variance of humanity.
And of course, is it unfair that someone like, you know, people like Steve Ballmer and Bill Gates and Steve Jobs, is it unfair that they created companies that created jobs for hundreds of thousands or millions of people?
Is that unfair? So you say, well, we don't want Bill Gates to be that rich.
Okay, well, then you don't have a Microsoft and you don't have this operating system and you don't have jobs for tens or hundreds of thousands of people.
I mean, okay, so What does that mean?
The only way that you can fundamentally succeed in a free market is by satisfying the voluntary needs of customers better than the next guy.
So when people say this is unfair, I don't know what that means, other than I want free stuff without having to work for it.
Now, I believe, and I've known about this IQ stuff for a long time, since the 90s, right?
So I believe that there's a noblesse oblige if you happen to be very smart.
Take this very personally.
I happen to be very good at philosophy.
I happen to be very good at communicating.
I didn't earn that in particular.
I say, oh, well, you worked very hard at it.
It's like, well, yeah, but I mean, an opera singer goes and takes singing lessons because they already have a great voice, right?
So that you work hard at it because it pays off.
So I have a sort of natural fluid ability to generate analogies and communicate things in a way that is positive and friendly because, you know, I really always operate out of a place of love.
And so I consider that I have a great obligation to the world to communicate difficult truths in a positive and enjoyable way.
So I've helped countless people live better, richer, wiser lives, fall in love, have families, get out of bad relationships and improve their financial outlooks and buy Bitcoin.
I've helped tons of people do some great things.
And I consider that an obligation because I did not earn this horsepower, right?
It's just the way that I was born, and there's a certain family history of intelligence and all of that, so I just kind of lucked out on the genes.
And because of that, I have an obligation, I believe.
It's not like you contract.
You don't have to do it. You know, if you know how to do the hymenic maneuver and some guy next to you is choking on a chicken McNugget, you don't technically have to go over and save his life, but, you know, Kind of should.
You know, you kind of should.
So if I'm good at communicating this stuff, then I kind of have an obligation to help.
Because we're going to have to explain this somehow.
Like, look at this graph. We have to explain this somehow.
Why are some people super rich? Why are some people not?
I know. It's not a free market purely by any stretch of the imagination.
There's corruption. There's the military-industrial complex.
There's all of the decamillionaires that come out of the fairly relatively paltry Congress...
Person's salary and so on. I get this.
I mean, there's a lot of corruption. I'm aware of all that.
Don't get me wrong. I'm fully aware of that.
So I keep pushing for more and more free market.
How are you going to explain this?
How are you going to explain this?
How are you going to explain the wealth of Hong Kong versus the poverty of Somalia?
Well, starting with average IQ is a good place to start because people are going to come along and they're going to try and explain this chart for you, right?
They're going to come along and they're going to try and explain this to you.
Because everyone is aware of this.
And you see this, Bernie Sanders. Oh, the top five people control so much wealth.
Someone's going to have to explain this.
And... How do you explain it?
How have you heard this difference explained?
Why is Bill Gates so rich? Why is Jeff Bezos, well, at least until he got divorced, so rich?
IQ plus...
You know, plus work ethic, plus social skills, plus reasonably good health, plus right place, right time, plus, you know, like lots of things, right?
But again, without the IQ, it ain't going to happen.
With the IQ, it might happen, like the fast car and the race, right?
So someone's going to come along and explain this.
And the IQ argument is factual.
It's true. It's validated.
It's scientific. It's the answer.
It's the answer. But other people, of course, are going to come...
Slithering into society and they're going to say that the difference you see is theft, it's exploitation, it's colonialism, it's white privilege, it's Jewish privilege, it's East Asian privilege, it's whatever.
They're going to come along and they're going to come up with an explanation that is counterfactual and incredibly, incredibly, incredibly dangerous.
If it's a meritocracy, we should be thankful that people have the freedom to produce this amount of wealth and jobs and success and helping all of this kind of stuff out, right?
But if the explanation that all differences in outcomes are the result of exploitation, you don't get facts, you don't get science, you don't get truth.
You get propaganda, you get division, you get hatred.
And then, if people don't accept the facts and the truth and the reality of the IQ argument, you get civil war.
Well, thank you so much for enjoying this latest Free Domain Show on Philosophy and And I'm going to be frank and ask you for your help, your support, your encouragement, and your resources.
Please like, subscribe, and share, and all of that good stuff to get philosophy out into the world.
And also, equally importantly, go to freedomain.com forward slash donate.
To help out the show, to give me the resources that I need to bring more and better philosophy to an increasingly desperate world.
So thank you so much for your support, my friends.
▲
Export Selection