Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

April 5, 2020 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux

02:11:43

THE JOY OF BATTLING EVIL! Stefan Molyneux and Sargon of Akkad

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	I'm joined by Stefan Molyneux, host of Freedom Main Radio, and a man who spends his time terrorizing left-wingers with pertinent questions and uncomfortable observations.
	He's generated quite an interesting following and reputation because of it.
	And he's often maligned very unfairly, in the same way I am, in fact.
	Because he entertains questions that are difficult to answer and things that are uncomfortable in many different circumstances.
	Stefan, how are you? I'm well, Carl.
	I'm very well. It's an exciting time to be around.
	It's a great time to be a thinker, and it's one of these great tragedies of having been right for so long, warning people about communism, warning people about China and the great I'm an unmarked predator that's prowling the world these days.
	And, you know, being a philosopher is like being an oncologist.
	You always hate being right. You know, like, oh, it's going to be bad.
	It's going to be bad. Got to watch out for this stuff.
	And it was like, oh, you're crazy.
	My TV is very cheap and that's all that I need in the world.
	And now that, of course, things have come to pass that, you know, this open borders, this offshoring of...
	Manufacturing, particularly the old healthcare manufacturing, which seems a little bit more important than a cheap plasma TV, has all come to pass and is all very bad.
	You know, I guess if I was a slightly more petty person, like maybe 1%, I'd be like, in your face world, I told you so, you didn't listen, too bad for you.
	But fortunately, I'm above all of that.
	So, yeah, things are good. How are you doing?
	Yeah, I'm good. You and Alex Jones seem to have the curse of Cassandra, where you keep saying things, but no one believes you, and then something happens, and everyone goes, well, I hate that guy, so I don't want to admit he was right.
	Right, so let's talk about eggs.
	Let's begin with the thorny contention of eggs.
	Could you explain to me the meme that is the empty egg box, please?
	Well, sure. I mean, I've been talking about this for years, but I guess I kind of hooked into a particular item on the menu known as Taylor Swift.
	So I guess it's like a lot of people, myself included, you will mock time a little bit by celebrities.
	Like, just a little bit. Not a lot, but a little bit.
	And I remember, of course, being older, that Taylor Swift came along like this fresh-faced cherub in her teens and seemed to have the entire world ahead of her and so on.
	And, you know, like, Sting goes bald and Taylor Swift almost turns 30, and it just kind of struck me.
	Like, I watched a couple of her videos.
	My daughter liked her songs when she was younger, and...
	I was thinking, oh, she's turning 30, you know, seems like a nice Christian girl.
	I mean, I know she's gone a little bit feminist and globalist lately, but, you know, seemed like a nice girl, not great at choosing men and all that, but, you know, she's young and famous, and I thought, you know, gosh, you know, she's smart, she's talented, she's pretty, and, you know, wouldn't it be a shame to let all of that go down the...
	Swirling, drained soup of history with nothing to show for it.
	And I was like, eh. So I put out this tweet, which was, wow, Taylor Swift is turning 30.
	You know, by the time you're 30, 90% of your ex are dead.
	I hope she thinks about having kids.
	I think she'd be a fun mom.
	Now that's it. And what happened to that?
	Well, apparently, let me give, can I give you a sort of imitation of how I came across the people?
	Please. All right. Ladies, you must all be herded into the vat of the fertile women and you will be impregnated by right-wing Nazis against your will no matter what and you will have no way of escaping this and you will breed the master race no matter what!
	Right. That was my...
	I'm looking forward to that being clipped out of context.
	Yeah, yeah, that is going to be clipped out of context for sure.
	Hey, you know, there's no such thing as bad publicity.
	I don't care what you say about me. Just please try and spell my name right.
	But no, so this is how I came across.
	You know, just saying, yeah, this is a biological fact.
	90% of a woman's eggs are gone.
	They're dead by the time she's 30, and it's 98% by the time she's 40.
	Yeah, these are just facts.
	And it is facts that put a chill hand of mortality, I guess, up a woman's nether regions and make her realize that maybe she just shouldn't be spending her entire fertile years chasing alpha bad boys and then ending up falling into the cliff of infertility.
	And I guess it's just a reminder.
	And, you know, we get reminders all the time as men.
	You get freaky, you get old.
	And I guess the reminders for women are just somehow beyond the pale of the social contract.
	Yeah, I find that this is something I've kind of struck on myself recently as well, because I was just thinking about the idea of duty, like secular, from a secular position.
	Because I'm an atheist, I don't believe in God, but I don't hate religion and I don't hate religious people.
	And I've never been religious, so I don't have any animus against the concept of God.
	And I was thinking about the sort of...
	Pre-Enlightenment West, the groundwork that was set for the West, was founded on Christian morality, so universal morality in which a person had innate value, and you had duties that were God-given in certain respects, and these were, you know, to... Have a family, get married, procreate, raise good children, you know, be good Christians.
	And it seems to me that since the Enlightenment, we can see, and since, in fact, women's liberation, since the ability of women to control their own fertility, it seems that a drastic number of women are actually choosing not to have children.
	And that seems to be something of an issue because it's causing population decline.
	And The longer this goes on for, what I think will eventually happen, assuming we don't get subsumed by immigrants, which is also something that can happen, but we'll end up essentially hollowing out our societies.
	So in like 50 or 100 years time, we could have just empty buildings, just entire cities that are just empty because there just hasn't been the population replacement to fill those cities and fill those buildings, fill those houses.
	And that strikes me as a kind of dangerous thing to happen because I think it would desperately weaken the West's position in the world, generally, because, I mean, other countries aren't necessarily following this model.
	And so it strikes me that we might have a duty to Western civilization to at least do something to continue it.
	And I think that procreation is one of those things.
	I mean, and I don't want to...
	Before I finish, like, this little setup...
	I'm not saying that only women or only men have duties, but I think they both have duties.
	And I think you can put this in a traditional framework.
	You can just say, well, men have a duty to defend the country.
	So if the Germans invade, well, yeah, you have a duty to sign up and go to war.
	And women also have a duty to have children, do they not?
	By the same token, to make sure there is a country to defend.
	And this, I mean, just for anyone listening, both myself and Stefan are definitely on the libertarian axis when it comes to government power.
	I'm a staunch constitutionalist, and I know that you go further in that regard as well.
	So the idea is not, like you said, force someone to do something or something like that.
	The idea is, if we are free agents in a liberal society, Then the more freedom we have, surely the more responsibility we have to take on, the more personal responsibility we have to take on.
	That's the price of freedom.
	And that seems to be something that is really despised by the left-wing activists I was talking to.
	And it really upsets a few people that I was like, well...
	I mean, we can't put the duty of having children on the men.
	So do women, and we can see that women aren't having enough children to sustain a population.
	So do we need to have a conversation about it?
	And of course, I was called a Nazi.
	So what are your thoughts on that?
	That seems to dovetail into the question of fertility and age.
	Well, I don't think that you could really sell parenthood as a duty, because, man, that's a long duty.
	You know, you're a dad too, right?
	I mean, human beings grow up extraordinarily slowly.
	It really is. It's like watching a stalagmite mount itself up towards the sky, watching kids grow up.
	And my daughter has turned 11 last year.
	And, you know, it's a great thing.
	It's a long haul, though, man, especially being a stay-at-home dad, working from home and so on.
	So, there's a big picture view of all of this, and it comes out of this belief that if you're successful, you've exploited others.
	I know this sounds like a bit of a stretch, but bear with me.
	I'll sort of drop the breadcrumbs as a whole.
	Yeah. So if you're successful, you must have exploited someone.
	It's the fixed pie thing, you know, like if you have more, it must be that I have less.
	This idea that you can create out of nothing...
	It's kind of funny because atheists believe, and it comes a lot out of the left, it comes out of a lot of the sort of communist atheist axis, which I know is not, I'm an atheist too, so it's not all atheists and all that, but it's funny because atheists believe that something can come out of nothing, like the universe, but they don't believe that wealth can come out of nothing, called human ingenuity and productivity and free trade and free markets and all that kind of stuff.
	Sorry to interrupt. No, no, it's fine.
	It's a conversation, man. I just want to say, I came out of the left, philosophically, you know, politically, and And I recall very distinctly about five or six years ago, I had the impression that wealth was a fixed amount.
	And, you know, it didn't, I mean, all it took was one libertarian asking me, well, how did we get to this point if it's a fixed amount?
	And then I suddenly clicked.
	Of course, we create wealth through our labor and through our productivity.
	And so it is very much a left-wing assumption that the amount of wealth we have is fixed and we should redistribute it so it's fair, not that we should create more so we're all more prosperous.
	Sorry, again, I didn't mean to interrupt you.
	I just had a very flashback, if you will, in that regard.
	It's not an interruption if it's a conversation, so please feel free to go back and forth on this, right?
	So, if Success and wealth is always the result of exploitation.
	Then the question is, why is it that Western, white, Christian nations became so wealthy so early?
	It was kind of like a one-sided thing in history as a whole.
	And so if you believe that all wealth is the result of exploitation, then what happens is you look at sort of 17th, 18th century agricultural revolution, 18th, 19th century industrial revolution, and sort of 20th century manufacturing and information revolution, you say, man, boy, did Western countries ever get wealthy over this couple of hundred year period.
	And because you're a fixed by thinker or non-thinker, so to speak, what you can only assume is colonialism robbed all of the wealth from everyone else.
	So you end up with this virulent hatred of whites, of Western civilization, of the free market, because the free market kind of goes against your whole thesis, because it's productivity, not transfer, not theft.
	And I literally have had people on my timeline in Twitter say to me that the only way that England became wealthy as the result of the agricultural revolution, the industrial revolution, was because it stole trillions of dollars from India or other places and so on, right?
	And so if you look around the world, there are some countries that are doing well, relatively speaking, and some countries that are not doing well.
	And because you believe everyone is the same, and you also believe that all wealth is transferred, never created, then you end up with a hatred of these successful countries.
	Boy, you know, that drives a lot of policy.
	It's a very sort of unconscious thing in a lot of ways.
	But I've talked about this on Twitter.
	If you just look at from 800 BC to 1950 AD, 95% of the scientific advancements in the world came from, you know, white...
	Western males. Of course, not all Christian, because we're talking 800 BC and all that, but no whites, no modern world, right?
	Now, that's just sort of a basic fact, and it's kind of tough for people to process that stuff, and there's a huge amount of resentment, rage, and anger, which is, I think, where a lot of this anti-white racism comes from that peculiarly is called anti-racism.
	So it is kind of like a funny thing, and the way that that kind of translates is...
	If there are fewer whites, I think people kind of feel like, okay, well, they were exploiters and bad guys and they stole from the third world and so on.
	This resentment kind of translates into a lot of cultural imperatives, which is...
	I think, anti-natalist in a lot of ways.
	So that's kind of a sort of very, very big picture answer.
	And it's obviously very unfair.
	You know, I think all cultures, all ethnicities, all races should celebrate their heritage and, you know, criticize what is bad and enjoy and expand what is good and all that.
	But it doesn't seem to be much of a universal phenomenon.
	So one of the major kickbacks I got was the idea that women have responsibilities.
	Do you believe that women might have some sort of responsibility?
	Could you narrow that down just a smidge?
	Well, fitting to their gender roles.
	The particular example I gave was men have a responsibility to defend their countries.
	I think they do. You know, I think that in times of war, then men do have a responsibility to actually volunteer to defend the nation, as uncomfortable and as awful as that might be.
	But the framing here puts men as the only gender that has any responsibility, which, A, is not any form of equality in my mind.
	But it seems to be a product of essentially the current view of the left.
	There are no duties and responsibilities.
	There is nothing that you should do.
	You don't have to pay what you inherited forward.
	You can actually allow your civilization to end with you.
	As if this is a morally righteous thing to do.
	And I actually presented this to two leftists on a stream once.
	One of them was even a father as well.
	I said, look, do we have any kind of responsibility here to continue our own civilization?
	And they just shuffled their feet and looked down and go, well, I can't.
	And I can't answer that.
	It's like, what kind of wild perspective must they have to think that actually, like you say, you know, and I agree with the way that you've framed their kind of hatred of the West there as well.
	Like, they seem to have a kind of cultural guilt about being successful to the point where they can't even bring themselves to say, yes, our civilization is a good thing and we should continue it.
	Even though one of them had 500 children.
	Well, we don't know if he's continuing traditional Western values or some sort of Marxist lap trap or something like that.
	Yeah, but the civilization that provided him with what he has, he doesn't feel that he has an obligation to pass that forward.
	And I really think that we should think about this because I am actually...
	I mean, obviously demographic shifts are going to be inevitable.
	If you have a declining population and mass immigration.
	But I mean, we could solve mass immigration tomorrow by just closing our borders.
	And let's just assume for the sake of argument that we did.
	That's not going to solve the demographic crisis that is going to be the collapsing population numbers of our countries.
	And I think it does come from the fact that, frankly, there is an assumption that women have no responsibility in this regard.
	I think men have a responsibility.
	It's a man's duty to get married and have children and provide for that family.
	But I think that the woman also does have an obligation there in some regard.
	And if we don't think they do, then, man, aren't we doomed to just go extinct?
	Well, I'm going to wave the flag of false dichotomy there that you have to accept the duty of having children or you go extinct.
	What I would say or what I have said on Twitter and in a number of my call-ins, Carl, is something like this.
	Okay, so let's look at sort of these two polls, right?
	You've got minus 10 on happiness and plus 10 happens, right?
	So let's say that a woman is 30, right?
	And you can gently remind her that she might want to think about having kids because, you know, getting into your 30s, man, it can be...
	It could be a pretty long bowling alley to knock down those pins, so to speak, right?
	So you might want to think about it sooner rather than later.
	And so what happens is, if the woman is unhappy, then you could, of course, make the case, okay, well, one of the reasons why you're unhappy is, you know, we're kind of designed to have kids.
	Like, we kind of are, because that's the only reason we're all here, is going back 150,000 years or 4 billion years if you want to go to single-celled organisms.
	We've been having this reproductive race, and Racing to the top of the food chain and all of that.
	So we're really designed...
	You and I are just vehicles for our DNA to get to the next generation.
	We're like stones on a pond that they just use to cross over to the next generation.
	So if you're not going to have kids, you're kind of going against what we're built for.
	And again, people can go against what they're built for.
	We have free will, and that's perfectly valid.
	So if the woman is really unhappy, she's like minus 10 or something, then you can say, well, you know, maybe one of the reasons you're unhappy is...
	You're not having kids. You're not enjoying the creation of new life and the nurturing of a new generation and a beautiful thing that is parenthood and all that.
	So, you know, that's a possibility.
	But whenever you point that out, you know what the women say?
	They say, wait a minute, man.
	I'm super happy.
	I'm plus 10 and I don't have kids, right?
	And that's what you generally get.
	I'm living my best life. It's a perfect life.
	I couldn't be happier and so on.
	And then you see their Twitter bio and it says depression in it.
	Well, yeah, but even if they genuinely believe that they're happy, like there was this sad-faced woman holding up a sign saying, I'm 30, I'm unmarried, I'm childless, and that's okay.
	And it's like, I don't think you need to hold a sign up if something genuinely is okay, you know?
	Yeah, you don't even think about it.
	You don't even think about it. But then what you say is...
	If they're on the plus 10 side, like I'm living my best life, having a great life, it's like, oh, so you really enjoy being alive.
	You love being alive.
	And I love being alive. You love being alive.
	It's a great thing to be alive.
	Especially when you're an atheist and you know the odds of all the matter in the universe coalescing into your couple of pounds of wetware that drives all the joy that you...
	Derive out of existence. So you say, so you love being alive, my lady, and you only get to experience that joy because your parents decided to have children.
	In other words, you have inherited this great gift from the universe called life, and yet you're squandering it on yourself, on your own petty pleasures, on your own petty preferences, and you're not passing it along to the next generation.
	That, to me, is appalling. Again, assuming you can, with lots of people who are infertile and all that, but assuming you can, why would you want to?
	It's like inheriting a million dollars from...
	Your father who worked 16 hours a day down in the mines to gather that money together, and then you're like, I'm going to buy a yacht!
	You know, and it's like, don't squander your inheritance on trivialities, on nothingness, right?
	And so if you've got this great gift, my gosh, pay it forward as best as you're able to, and it will give you great satisfaction because you get to universalize your joy by creating the life in another that you get to benefit because someone created it in you.
	And I think in the case of women going into their 30s, When women tend to get into their 40s, I mean, you know, what are you living for?
	You know, how much longer can you just be, you know, essentially just indulging your own self-interest?
	It strikes me that you're going to get quite lonely as the years go on because there's a huge spate of unmarried 40-something career women at the moment.
	You see these articles being written all the time.
	I'm 42, I'm in shape, I've got an amazing job and I can't find a boyfriend.
	Is it Scarlett Johansson?
	You know, one of the most beautiful women in the world.
	Can't find a boyfriend. How is this happening?
	Well, she's 42. You know, she's adopted children and no one wants to...
	And there was an article written about where she was demanding men step up.
	That is, you know, that's entitlement if I've ever seen it.
	Sure, men love investing in another man's DNA. That's exactly how men work.
	It's like, nope, that's not how men work at all.
	No, and, you know, it's not that you can't find a man who won't, but once you're 42 years old, you're a much less attractive prospect at that.
	And it sounds cruel to say, you know, I'm not the one who made the rules, but these are the rules.
	And you have to be playing the game according to these rules, because otherwise you're going to find yourself, and I hear this from women all the time, the desire, the longing to have children get stronger as they age.
	I mean, maybe in their 20s they can defer this and say, well, no, no, no, I've got plenty of time, I'm not worried about this.
	But once you get to your late 30s, you know, it's...
	Well, but this is the thing, right?
	So you're a gamer as far as I understand it, although maybe we can get into Dungeons& Dragons at some point, but women start off on the super easy level and men start off on the super hard level.
	And that kind of crosses over, right?
	Around sort of middle age, right?
	So when you're a young man, unless you're like one of the 1% fanatically gifted, super haughty dudes or whatever, right?
	So when you're a young man, you're just a face in the crowd.
	You're like some thumbprint background in a Monet painting.
	You have to stand out.
	So you've got to go out and carve your way in the world and you've got to develop your skills and your income and your charisma and your courage.
	And, you know, it's really, really hard.
	Just look at the imbalance.
	In high school, like how hard it is to go up and ask the girl out that you want to go out with you, whereas the girl's just sitting there and she can choose from, you know, if she's reasonably attractive, she can choose from just a wide variety of men.
	So women start off with men kowtowing to them and bowing to them and begging for their attention.
	And, you know, that's a big power.
	And it's not really supposed to last that long because historically, you know, a woman hits 18, she's supposed to be married within a year or two.
	So this picky choosy stuff.
	Where you're the center of attention and you, you know, you step out of your bed like Venus on the clamshell and sprite across the world with everybody trailing after you with, you know, flowers and chocolates and gift certificates.
	That's supposed to be a pretty short-lived affair.
	But for women, of course, they're dragging it on.
	They're dragging it out into their 20s, into their 30s.
	And then, boom, like it literally can be overnight, this kind of situation.
	Like it happened to my mom when she was 40.
	She just couldn't get out of bed.
	And so what happens is suddenly it's like, boom, From all of this male gaze, oh, it's so terrifying.
	Men want to be so much, it's so bad.
	Like, it all just vanishes. Because men are like, hey, the whole point is kids, man.
	The whole reason we have these hormones, the whole reason we have the dangly bits and the desires is for kids.
	And once you can't give us kids anymore, and we're reasonably successful, we'll just go for the younger model who can.
	And that is a deep shock for women.
	And then it's too late.
	If a man screws up in his early 20s, he's got time to fix it.
	But if a woman doesn't have kids by the time she's 40, man, It's game over for the next 40, 50 years, and that's a horrible thing.
	And I just want to send a message back from the post-half century that it's pretty ugly out here for the women who haven't so they can make a better choice.
	There are some really great real-world examples of this as well.
	Perfect ones. The male gaze one is...
	The feminists might complain about it all they want, but women, I think, rely on this and expect this and feel entitled to this in many ways.
	There's a feminist author called Jessica Valenti.
	She writes for The Guardian.
	And in 2014, she wrote an article...
	I can't remember the title of it exactly, but it was a complaint about catcalling.
	She was being catcalled a lot.
	And then five years later, she wrote an article saying how she missed being catcalled.
	Because in that five year span, and I think it was between like 30 and 35 for her, That was it.
	The male attention just dropped off.
	And again, like with Scarlett Johansson, the OKCupid, I think it was, found that men tend to message, regardless of the age of the man, they tend to message 22-year-old women.
	That seems to be the peak age of attractiveness for men.
	Whereas women tend to message men around their own age.
	So, you know, the scale can be going up.
	And so you can understand Scarlett Johansson's entitlement, can't you?
	Like, you know, one of the most beautiful women in the world.
	She spent her 20s being rich and famous and desired by every man on the planet.
	And then she gets to her 40s and she's demanding men to step away.
	Where is this male attention gone?
	Well, time has moved on and you are not the same.
	Things have changed. And unfortunately, you made the wrong decisions.
	It might have been very nice in your 20s to have been on top of the pile, but now you're not.
	There are other women in their 20s now.
	Sorry. Well, it's this terrible flip, too, that happens, Carl, where a woman who's attractive can have her pick of men.
	Obviously, when she's young, and I've had a couple of women on my call-in show complaining about this, and what happens is they get into their 40s.
	Now, maybe they can get a couple of young cougarholics who want to try them on for training wheels or whatever, but they can't get settled down kind of guys.
	Commitment. And so what happens is they kind of have this weird flip that happens in their 40s where they can only get guys in their late 50s and early 60s, like guys on their second or third divorce round or whatever.
	Mm-hmm. And I remember this woman who was saying, like, oh yeah, you know, I used to date guys who could go rollerblading, and now I'm dating a guy who was probably getting down the stairs.
	And that's a weird flip, and it's very humiliating for women who were used to that kind of attention, and now they kind of got to hang like a flapping-winged Nazgul over some guy waiting to inherit a house after he dies, and it's really, really tough.
	And no one's telling women about this, you know?
	I mean, I did a whole course in university on 19th century novels, and 19th century novels were all around, hey, Don't waste your youth.
	Make sure you settle down with a good man and don't choose style over substance.
	Don't choose some good-looking rake with money over a reliable guy who's going to stick around.
	It was just reminding women that this bloom of rose, this flush of attention, this giddy excitement of having all of this attention, it's not going to last.
	And reminding them of all of that.
	And yeah, I guess, does it scare women who think they might have made a bad decision?
	I guess so. But does that mean we should never tell smokers about lung cancer because they're going to feel bad for smoking?
	That was never a rule when I was a kid.
	Honestly, it does seem that on a cultural level that we are lying to women in general.
	I know this is a silly example to bring up, but I saw a Reddit post the other day that was a young woman who was messing around with her boyfriend.
	And she got him in a headlock. And she said to him, you know, and he was pretending that he couldn't get out.
	And she said to him, no, no, no, come on, let's have a proper fight.
	And so he just took her arm and just took it off him.
	It was nothing. And her comment was, I couldn't believe how strong he was.
	I couldn't believe that he could just take this off me.
	And I'm just thinking, well, this is the result of Hollywood brainwashing, surely.
	You know, where she's watched these films where one, you know, 120-pound woman beats up a room full of five men.
	And then carries on to do whatever else it is.
	And for some reason, she has internalized the idea that, well, there's no difference between men and women, is there?
	It's like, no, there really is.
	I mean, there's a reason that a man doesn't make...
	We don't make films about men who can just kill, you know, rooms full of people.
	And if we do, there's something, you know, superheroic about them.
	Because that's just not realistic, you know?
	And I think this is something I think...
	I think a lot of young men, and in fact, young women, and not just young women, but like...
	Women in general. And like you were saying, no one gives men anything for free.
	You know, no one gives anything to men.
	Young men are not desirable.
	Young men are disposable, you know, and it's something that you have to build on yourself.
	So like you say, a young man can mess up in his 20s, but rebuild and learn from the experience and change himself in order to improve.
	But if you're a woman and you've started at the peak of your physical abilities, which in a woman's case is generally attractiveness, then why would you think that you're going to have to improve at some point in the future?
	And so for a lot of young men, I realize it's quite disheartening because they feel worthless in their 20s.
	They feel that no one cares about them. And honestly, it's because society generally doesn't.
	But there is a benefit to not being given things for free, and that's self-improvement.
	You do become better at the things you do.
	You do have to work on yourself.
	It's tough, but at least you get something out of it in the long run.
	And I think that we need to start explaining to women that this is the dynamic, whether you like it or not.
	Well, and with regards to not having kids, women are pretty much directly bribed to not have children as a whole, right?
	So if you look at sort of the free market as a whole, men, you know, depending on how you measure it, so men have significantly more value in the free market when they're young because, you know, men are pretty tireless workers.
	Men aren't going to interrupt their careers to have children and breastfeed and maybe come back and maybe not come back and so on.
	And so before all of this equal pay for work of equal value, which is just some made-up metric that's designed to bribe women into not having kids, and before diversity initiatives and all that kind of stuff, a lot of hiring managers were like, eh, you know, you're a young man.
	I've got a choice between a young man and a young woman.
	okay, the young man, if he starts a family, man, he's going to be working here like crazy because he's got a family to support.
	So he's going to be digging in and working.
	But if it's a young woman and she decides to have a family, man, she's gone, right?
	And she's probably not coming back because this is back in the day, you know, in the post-war baby boom, right?
	I guess everyone thinks you and I are part of, though, that's quite unfair.
	But, you know, you having three, four, five, six kids, a family, well, you can't have a career and raise five children like you just can fundamentally, at least until they're older.
	And so what happened was, in order to lure women into the workplace, which the government wanted to do, I mean, a couple of things had to happen.
	Of course, you had to have all of this propaganda.
	And this sounds all kinds of tinfoil had it, but it did.
	A lot of this money came out of the CIA. And it came out of the left.
	It came out of communism because communism has always had the thirst to destroy the family.
	And so you had a lot of leftist communist feminists who were saying, oh, you got to get out in the workforce and raising children is drudgery.
	And it's like, no, no, no. Jobs are drudgery.
	Raising children is glorious fun.
	Before we move on from that point, because I know that people are going to say, well, that's conspiracy theory nonsense.
	No, it's not. I mean, you can name the people involved so we can show that this isn't a conspiracy theory.
	For example, Gloria Steinem was a CIA asset, one of the world's most famous feminists.
	In the 70s, you can go back and watch adverts.
	I have watched these adverts.
	Where the advert is a very attractive woman and literally the premise is you can have it all.
	You can have the family.
	You can have the career. You can have the domestic bliss.
	You can have everything.
	You know, women can do all of this.
	Now, I would never say this to a man.
	You can't have it all. Pick one thing and try and get that.
	And if you're lucky, you'll get it.
	If you work hard enough, you'll get it.
	You will not get everything.
	You probably won't even get that, but you might get something and it might be all right.
	You know, but this was the, and it was the propaganda.
	You could see these, like, the Edward Bernays-style propaganda shorts and adverts.
	This was an active campaign from people who are communists who were connected to the CIA. So this, like, we can name the people, we can name the dates, we can show you the adverts, the newspaper articles, newspaper clippings.
	These things all exist.
	This is not a conspiracy theory.
	This is just something that happened.
	Sorry, do go on. I just wanted to nail that down because I know what people are going to say.
	That's perfectly fine. You know, in general, everything to do with communism appears as a conspiracy theory because communists are never going to tell you about it.
	So, you know, the holodomor, it's a conspiracy theory.
	No, no, it's really, really not.
	I mean, and so what happened was, okay, how do you lure women out into the workforce?
	Because a lot of men don't want to hire them, right?
	Well, what you do is you say, well, not hiring a woman is sexist.
	And then you start passing laws that force women to To get equal or greater pay or benefits.
	And then what happens is you create a huge amount of government departments that hire a lot of women because they don't have the same economic pressures that your average free market entrepreneur is going to have.
	And you bribe women by giving them artificially high wages.
	Yes, I'm going to say it. And this is me saying it, not Carl.
	So please direct all your venom at the egg man, not at the beard man.
	But you give women artificially high wages, and of course, people follow incentives, and then you just draw women into the workforce where you get to tax them rather than them having kids.
	See, governments, it's just math, right?
	I mean, yes, there's hatred for the West and all that kind of stuff, but fundamentally, if you are a government and you can get women to stop having children and start working, well, your costs as a government goes down because children are expensive for government.
	You have government schools and healthcare and this, that, and the other, right?
	And then women are not raising children, which are expensive to government.
	They're in fact working, and they are paying taxes to governments, right?
	So if you want all of this wonderful welfare, warfare state, and foreign aid in the trillions of dollars over decades, well, you've got to get women out into the salt mines if you're going to want a lot of salt.
	And this has come at enormous personal cost.
	Because what happens is women have this moment, and I've had so many women talk to me about this.
	I mean, they've had this moment. But they just wake up and they say, okay, so I've spent the last 10 years going to an office.
	And now what? And, you know, they then wake up to what men have known all along, which is work is something you do.
	Most people, most men don't have jobs that they love.
	Most men win the lottery, they quit their job, right?
	I mean, most men realize that work is just the kind of drudge that you have to do in order to experience the joys of family.
	And this has kind of been withheld for women that you can have it all and be a power woman and it's all going to be, you know, wonderful, exciting business trip to Taiwan and all.
	It's like, no, it's not. That's like 1% of 1% of people.
	Most jobs are kind of crappy and boring and repetitive and stressful and there's politics and commutes and it's not that much fun.
	And yet they've glamorized this whole thing to the point where women are willing to Not have the babies that make women the happiest in general, and men too, in order to what?
	Oh, it's been really handy for all of the capitalists who like wages going down.
	So you lure women into the workforce, you just drive down the wages of men and nobody ends up making any more money.
	And the thing as well, I want to make sure that anyone adversarial to this perspective understands that this also comes from a position of empathy towards women.
	This is the font of it.
	I mean... It's really unfair to make women compete against men because men are highly competitive, naturally highly competitive.
	I've seen many documentaries that suggest that men enjoy, they get a particular chemical rush out of competition.
	You can see a physical competition in particular, but any kind of competition.
	There's a genuine joy of it for young men especially, and older men as well.
	And women tend not to be this competitive, not to be this disagreeable, you know, as Jordan Peterson might frame it.
	And so you're essentially putting one kind of person against another kind of person who has a natural disadvantage.
	And so, like you say, you know, okay, you've got to get into the workforce.
	Okay, but the competitive people succeed.
	So it is men at the top, mostly, because they're the ones who are doing the 70-hour weeks.
	They're the ones who are putting their nose to the grindstone.
	As a preference against the women who feel that they're being held back because they're women, and it's not.
	It's just because of their own natural inclinations.
	And I have another point there, but I can't remember what it was now.
	I'm going to just reinforce what you said there real briefly, which is if you look at the...
	The verbal pyrotechnics that Carl and I, in our own shows, and even in this show in particular, the risks that we're taking, the risks to upset people, the verbal pyrotechnics, the charisma of the interaction, and all of that, the focus of what it is that we're doing, it all arises out of the basic fact that nobody wants to see our kids.
	Yes. Yeah, I can't stream on Twitch in a low-cut top.
	No, low-cut top. It would do nothing.
	Do not work for me. Yeah.
	I've got great breasts, but...
	That's right.
	But it's all floss and no plumbing.
	Yeah. Yeah, exactly.
	But that's the thing.
	The feminist propaganda in the 70s was, you know, you're a slave to your husband.
	It's like, okay, well, ladies, who are you a slave to now?
	You know, unless you own your own business, which most women don't, then you're just a slave to your boss and you go into your artificially lit office and they're late at night and are you satisfied?
	Is this what you wanted from your life?
	So you can hopefully get that promotion.
	How important really is that promotion?
	How much do you feel satisfied with your life?
	You can look at the self-reported rates of happiness of women over time and they're just declining.
	Women are not happy.
	And then you get the effect this has on men.
	And I mean, like, testosterone has gone down precipitously.
	And that's not good. That's not good for men.
	I mean, like, biologically, that's not good for men.
	You get increased risks of certain kinds of cancers, you get depression, you get all of these other effects that are actually really physically negative.
	And then you get men not knowing their place in the world.
	You get the phenomenon of incels.
	This is a modern phenomenon.
	And these men are resentful, man.
	They are really resentful.
	And there's very little you can say to persuade them that they shouldn't be.
	Because, well, it kind of looks like society has been stacked against them as much as one can stack a society at this point, especially given the legal system against men.
	And so it looks like we're arriving in a place that is really unhealthy and really...
	We're not optimizing for good things, for things that are genuinely good for the human being as an animal.
	We're optimizing for an idealistic, purely rational view of the world.
	And I think we have to accept that we're still stuck in animal bodies.
	It just strikes me as something that we need to be honest about.
	And I don't think we are being honest about it.
	Yeah, men do have a lot to be angry about.
	I mean, those of us who grew up, I'm a 60s kid, grew up 70s and 80s, and man, it was carnage in my neighborhood with regards to divorce and hostility and custody battles.
	I mean, it was a godforsaken wasteland.
	It was a hellscape of human horrors and problems.
	And there were these kids in my neighborhood who had like the magic families.
	They were like the fortresses.
	They were immune for a variety of reasons, which we could talk about perhaps, but they were kind of immune to all of this propaganda.
	This propaganda that sets men against women, that sets women against men, that sets the poor against the middle class, the middle class against the rich, and so on.
	I mean, I was in Hong Kong last year shooting a documentary, fortunately, right before COVID-19 came out, and I was out there, and you know, you really get to see this viscerally.
	I was talking about how, you know, the communists kind of wormed in, and there were these...
	Societies which had existed with complex contracts and so on for centuries in China, and they just wormed in and they say, oh, that guy's got more because he's stolen for you and he's stolen from your family.
	He's an evil landlord. And they just stoked these fires like a man blowing on a fire that's going to consume his entire world.
	They stoked these fires with these soft syllables of savagery.
	And it ended up, of course, blowing up into the entire revolution that killed tens of millions of Chinese people.
	I got a very vivid sense of that kind of combat when I was out there marching with the protesters and got facefuls of tear gas and all that kind of stuff.
	It's very, very vivid and very powerful.
	And this focus on women, how do you get people...
	To resent others. Well, you say that they have what they have because they've taken it from you.
	And so now, the way that it's supposed to work in people's minds is they say, well, women, you see, you just don't get paid as much as men.
	And it's because men are sexist and men look down upon you and men Have these wonderful lives because you're on your knees scrubbing and doing laundry and you just keep pouring.
	It's complete Iago.
	It's complete Iago and it destroys love.
	You just keep pouring these poison words into people's ears and, you know, it takes a pretty staunch spirit to resist this stuff.
	And a lot of women don't.
	A lot of men don't. A lot of women get resentful and then they become entirely unappealing to marry.
	And that's another way in which the soft erasure of an entire culture can be achieved.
	Yeah, I mean, it is ideological as well.
	It is ideological by the communists.
	I believe, in fact, a bunch of Yuri Bezmenov interviews and lectures were removed from YouTube because these started getting a lot of hits because he was just saying, well, look, this was just open communist subversion.
	You have open societies.
	We took advantage of that.
	We, you know, we in the Soviet Union, because he was a Soviet diplomat, which means spy, effectively, in the 80s, and he defected to the United States, for anyone who doesn't know who Yuri Bezmenov was.
	And he just laid out how 80% of the Soviet, the KGB's activities were subversion.
	It wasn't, you know, spying.
	It was trying to manipulate our societies.
	And there does seem to have been some kind of, you know, we seem to be living with the consequences of that.
	And I think that if, you know, if you're a woman listening to this, just ask yourself, what would make you feel fulfilled?
	You know, that's the thing.
	You've got to look at it and think, right, in 20 years time, what do I want?
	You know, and ideally, you probably want kids, don't you?
	You know, I wanted kids.
	I still want kids.
	Like, you know, I love being a father.
	I love having my kids around.
	It's the best part of my day.
	You know, like seeing my kids.
	So I think, and this is something I've noticed with millennial women in particular, they seem to have a real emotional reaction to the idea of children.
	They seem to, oh no, I hate kids.
	I hate kids. No, you don't.
	Kids are amazing. Like they've got this starry-eyed innocence.
	And when they find something and want to show it to you, look what I've done, daddy or mommy or whatever.
	It's amazing, isn't it?
	It's just the most incredible thing when they want to share that with you because you're the first thing on their mind.
	And, you know, you feel important.
	Suddenly, You understand that you have some reason to do something.
	Because this is another thing as well, the sort of like depressive, nihilistic millennial.
	Well, you're only living for yourself.
	Of course you can't find a purpose in life.
	You know, of course you can't.
	What are you going to do? You know, it was raising your kids.
	You know, now what are you doing?
	You're just taking drugs and like wasting away your youth.
	Enjoy. Right, should we talk about the internet communists that you've been having fun with?
	Yes, I would love to.
	Yes. So, for anyone who doesn't know, Stefan did a debate with Vorsch, and this hit on a point towards the end of the debate.
	The whole thing is entertaining to watch, generally.
	But you hit on the point at the end that Vorsch doesn't run a co-op, a cooperative, which is his preferred method of reforming capitalism.
	Would you like to take us through how that went, Stefan, very quickly?
	So... The argument from hypocrisy.
	So for those who don't know, I've written an entire book called The Art of the Argument, which is not a formal treatise on logic, but how to win a street fight, which we generally have to try and win if we're to save civilization on the conversational or type level.
	You can get it at outoftheargument.com.
	But the argument from hypocrisy is something that is really, really important and highly undervalued, which is if somebody says, for instance, that all value comes from labor, That if you want to become wealthy, you employ a lot of people, and you become a capitalist, and that's the only way to become wealthy, then I damn well expect them to have a couple of hundred employees at least, because that's how you become wealthy.
	That's kind of important, right?
	So if he says, no, no, no, I do it all myself, you know, or maybe I'll just hire out a couple of contractors or whatever, then it's like, okay, well, then you don't believe in the labor theory of value.
	There's something else that's providing value, and it's not labor, because you're trying to minimize the amount of labor that you're using, right?
	Yeah, surely more labor would produce more welfare.
	Exactly. You know, it's like me saying, well, you've got to play a lot of lottery tickets if you want to win, and I desperately want to win.
	Well, how many lottery tickets do you play?
	One! Like, okay, well, then something's not quite going right here.
	So then, of course, if people are...
	Saying that worker control of the means of production is really, really important.
	Well, a YouTube channel is a means of production, right?
	It's something that you've homesteaded, so to speak, right?
	You've signed up for it and you've homesteaded your YouTube channel.
	It is a means of production because it is something that you use to generate wealth and it's something that you have control over.
	You kind of own Your YouTube channel, assuming you stay within the somewhat increasingly narrow confines of what is considered acceptable these days.
	So he owns the means of production, right?
	So under this belief system, he is a capitalist, right?
	So then, of course, if you are a communist and you believe that the workers should own the means of production, then clearly his workers must have a huge degree of control over what it is that he does.
	Because, you see, having a monopoly over the means of production is really, really bad.
	So then I said, okay, well, how often...
	By his definition, he's exploiting them.
	Well, yeah, so I would say, well, by your definition, how many times have you had your workers publish their videos on your channel?
	And of course I had looked up ahead and it's all, bosh, bosh, bosh, bosh, bosh, bosh, bosh, bosh, right?
	And there's your ringtone for you, like the worst wake up alarm.
	Ah, I'm in commie land.
	So, of course, he owns the means of production.
	He should be sharing the means of production.
	And I also said, okay, well, how many other up-and-coming YouTubers who don't have as valuable a means of production as you do with your channel, do you let them come and use your channel and all this?
	And he's like, well, no, never.
	Like, okay, so you enjoy having a monopoly over the means of production.
	You don't allow your workers any access or input into your means of production.
	So what are you talking about?
	It's like, it's so weird.
	It's like, for me...
	What you value should come from the mirror before it comes from a book, right?
	No, you can change all of that, but you've got to look at what you're doing in life.
	And if you are holding on like grim death to the means of production and you don't want any additional workers and you never let the contractors you pay have any say over your means of production, Then shut up about workers controlling the means of production.
	Just shut up about it, because you're not living it.
	You're living the complete opposite, and it's a weird disconnect.
	But it's so schizoid, I can't even tell you how much it troubles me.
	And the best part about it for me was that the fact that he was advancing the argument that worker co-ops would be as or more effective than capitalistic ownership of production.
	Well, yeah, but he was arguing the efficacy of it.
	And if, okay, well, if that's the case, then you're holding your YouTube channel back by not socializing the means of production of it.
	So why don't you do that?
	And you could see, I mean, he said, well, I do 95% of the work.
	Well then, you are very much a capitalist in this regard, Vorsch.
	If you believed in your theory, you would live it, or at least try to live it.
	People can complain about Bernie Sanders all you want, but he did live on a commune.
	He did go to the Soviet Union.
	I bet he was kicked off the commune for laziness.
	He was, yes. But at least he tried to engage with the things that he was preaching.
	But when you get someone like Vorsch, who's like an arch-capitalist in his business practices, and I mean, I can't believe that the people he's working with accept what he's doing, because they surely are socialists as well, which drew them to Vorsch because of what he was preaching.
	And then you get the example of Hassan Piker from The Young Turks.
	Who was getting, you know, some other socialists online to edit his videos, send them to him, and he wasn't paying the guy for the videos.
	He was just uploading them. So he was just openly exploiting this guy.
	I mean, if you're a capitalist, that's exploitation.
	So from a socialist perspective, my God, you know, that must be some high crime or something.
	But yeah, I think it's a wonderful phenomenon how...
	Because, I mean, you know, arguing the Byzantine logic within Marxist theory is...
	Boring, pointless, and excessively complex.
	And the people who do nothing but that are probably going to win those arguments, because that's all they do.
	But just at the very end, when you got to the point, it was like, hang on, well, why don't you do it?
	And man, his argument was just special pleading.
	Well, I don't think it worked for me.
	Well, why should it work for anyone else?
	Yeah, that would be the last thing I'd want to do, but absolutely, it's what society as a whole should talk is.
	And it's the same thing, so I had a debate with an academic, Mac McManus.
	And, you know, it was a lot of abstract kind of stuff, immigration, this and that, which is, you know, it's fun and interesting and, you know, worthwhile to...
	For me, it's like a warm-up.
	It's a warm-up to the kill shot of, okay, let's look at how you're living your life, right?
	And this guy, of course, I checked.
	Did he put a lot of his lectures online?
	No, he did not. You know, he says that, you know, knowledge should be available to all and yet he then hides.
	It's funny, you know, because I'm called, you know, some art capitalist and I do all my work for free.
	I put it out all for free.
	I don't take any ads and my books are all free and all of that.
	And I don't charge for my, you know, phone calls or my...
	Same here, same here.
	Yeah, it's all free, right?
	And so for me, it's like, okay, I got 700 million views and downloads, partly because of a generosity of spirit that works out pretty well.
	And yet this guy, who is the socialist who believes everything should be liberated, knowledge should be liberated, and the poor should have access to a quality education, holds up in academia and keeps things behind this big corporate wall of academic privilege.
	And I looked into the charges his college made.
	And the charges his college made were well north of 125% of the average salary in Mexico.
	Wait a minute. You think that the poor should have access to a quality education and then you hole up in academia and you charge...
	Amounts for your courses that the average person in Mexico could never dream of affording.
	And yet you criticize me who gives out all my work for free.
	And it's like, come on, dude. I mean, just live your values.
	That's all I'm asking. If you're selling a diet book, just eat the diet that you're recommending.
	That's all I'm asking. That's all I want to see first.
	Yeah, I mean, there's nothing that shows an endorsement of a worldview like living it yourself.
	You know, that's the very first thing you expect to see.
	Because if it's not good enough for you, why is it good enough for anyone else?
	You would not expect to persuade someone if you can't show and take the first step.
	That's what leadership is.
	Come on. But this goes all the way back to Karl Marx, who talked about how terrible it was to exploit his workers, or exploit workers particularly if it was sexual exploitation.
	And then what did he do?
	Well, he banged his maid, he got her pregnant, some say rape, and then he dumped her out on the street with no pay.
	I mean, so if you want to know what the left is actually doing, all you have to do is look at what they're accusing you of, and it's a confession.
	All it is is a confession. Wasn't Engels a factory owner?
	Well, it's even worse than that.
	He inherited a factory. So he didn't even earn it himself.
	So yeah, he took a lot of the extra profits, which could have gone into paying his workers more, and plowed it into the raging Old Testament narcissism of Monsieur Lamarck's.
	That's amazing, because he financially supported Marx, didn't he?
	Yeah, absolutely. Oh my goodness.
	So yeah, it's been wonderful watching the socialists coming into contact with, I guess we'll just call them the capitalists, and revealing the socialists to be more capitalists than the capitalists in action, if not in rhetoric.
	Function from popping up with a display while we were talking just so we didn't interrupt the conversation.
	But I've turned it on now.
	So what I'm going to do is replay some of the ones that have come through and then read them out.
	Yeah, yeah, good.
	Hypothesis.
	Yeah. One to me, please do a symposium video on the Crusades.
	My roommate thinks that Islam is completely in the right on this point in history, and I need some fact fodder to shoot in his direction.
	Do you want to take this one, Stefan? Yeah, yeah.
	So people should watch my show called The Truth About the Crusades.
	Yeah, so the Crusades were an entirely defensive war after Islam had violently taken most of the centers of Western Christianity and was advancing upon Europe and making great inroads into Europe.
	Then finally, Europe began to kick back, and of course, Islam has played the victim ever since.
	This is historical fact.
	It's very well documented.
	Please remember that only 400,000 or so black slaves were taken from Africa to America, a terrible human tragedy.
	About two million white Christian Europeans were stolen from Europe.
	In fact, it got so bad after the fall of Rome that Europeans couldn't even go near the coast because they just kept getting raided and pillaged.
	About two million white Christian Europeans were taken by the Arab slave trade.
	And, well... It didn't do very well.
	The Arabs or the Muslims, when they took slaves, generally they would castrate the men, which is why there's blacks in America, but there aren't blacks in the Middle East because they castrated them.
	About 90% of them died throughout this procedure because, of course, it was a horrible thing to do and no anesthetic and no antibiotics or anything like that.
	And so it was the most brutal slave trade the world has ever had.
	And it was the slave trade from just from Africa to the Middle East was about 20 times larger than the slave trade from Africa to America.
	But, of course, communism has always allied itself with Islam in its hatred of freedom and free markets and so on.
	And so you're not going to hear a lot about that in leftist school.
	The only thing I'd push back on there is the number of slaves.
	I believe it was actually in the millions in total.
	Wait, which you mean Africa to America?
	Going in the transatlantic slave trade.
	Oh, no, no. Sorry. I was kind of specific.
	So you're right about that.
	I'm talking about specifically from Africa to America itself, not the entire transatlantic, which, of course, include middle, central and South America.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah. Okay, that's fine.
	Yeah, right.
	So, yeah, and just to reinforce, like...
	I believe that the Arabs, the Muslims, besieged Constantinople three times.
	I think it was three times.
	And they were defeated in various points by the Bulgars and other, not even Crusaders, just other Christian nations surrounding them.
	So I suppose we would call these sieges of peace, defensive sieges of peace, if Islam has done nothing wrong when it comes to the advance on Europe.
	Yeah, Stefan's summary of it is completely correct.
	The Muslims attacked first.
	It's just the way things work.
	And the main reason for this is because there was nothing in Arabia worth holding.
	There was no need for anyone to conquer Arabia.
	And obviously, you know, this is where Islam came from.
	Is the admiration of rebellion a natural side effect of prosperity?
	I don't think human beings are very good at peace and prosperity.
	I don't think we handle it very well.
	I think putting human beings in an entirely secure environment, which is kind of like the modern West, particularly post-welfare state, it's kind of like putting someone in orbit.
	You know, your bones decay, your muscles decay, and you kind of wobble when you get back to Earth.
	So I'm not sure what the solution is.
	But success for a culture generally breeds a kind of narcissistic laziness and inattention to the evils of the world that has that culture generally get swept away.
	And trying to wake people up to the dangers of the world is trying to get them out of their sleepwalking off the cliff face.
	I think the coronavirus epidemic has really nailed this home as well.
	Suddenly allegations of racism or transphobia or any other very surface level first world problem goes away when you're worried about your food supply running out or catching a dangerous disease that will kill you.
	Yeah, I think the admiration of rebellion is actually an enlightenment concoction at this point.
	Because if you take a purely enlightenment worldview, then the world is not as it should be as the enlightenment dictates it.
	In fact, there are lots of things that should change because the world didn't evolve into the communist utopia.
	Or any other kind of, you know, Enlightenment worldview, the fascist utopia or liberal one.
	It's a very revolutionary form of being.
	And normally revolutions were really about preventing tyranny, you know.
	You know, like ethnic revolutions out of empires in order to have ethnic self-governance, things like this.
	Otherwise, mostly it wasn't ideological in history, but it's only since the Enlightenment that it's become very ideological to have revolutions.
	I think that it's a natural side effect of that, actually.
	Well, and reason is the new radicalism.
	Reason is the new revolution these days.
	Having a simple, sensible life where you commit to community and family and raising your children and you triumph.
	Reason and freedom and the rule of law and small government and personal responsibility.
	That's the new revolution.
	You know, dyeing your hair blue and quoting Jack Kerouac or Karl Marx, that is so tired and conservative these days.
	That is completely lockstep into the train tracks leading you off the cliff to totalitarianism.
	So the real revolution is thinking for yourself.
	It kind of always has been, but I think it's never been more true than it is today.
	We do lie to women in general, says Artemis.
	We tell them they age like fine wine when in fact they age like milk.
	Well, we tell them a bunch of stuff, but based upon the actions, the woman hits 40 and she becomes largely invisible to successful men.
	And so that's the reality.
	Sorry, go ahead. Yeah, there was...
	I can't remember the name of this French actress.
	I don't follow film, really.
	But she was complaining that George Clooney had...
	I think it was George Clooney, but older actors had gravitas.
	They were respected.
	You know, they had the grey hair.
	They had a wizened look.
	They had a body of work under their belts.
	And she was a successful actress.
	You know, she had been in many films.
	She had made a lot of money. And yet she felt, like you say, invisible because she had reached about 60 or something like that.
	And I was just reading her complaints about this, thinking, well, no one can give you gravitas.
	You have to cultivate that yourself.
	And you cultivate that through a life of paying attention to other people's reactions to you.
	And you didn't do that.
	So you've got nothing to complain about.
	Well, listen, I mean, the basic biological symmetry is that for a man to be, say, 50 usually means that he has achieved a certain amount of resources and success in the world and can easily afford a family or maybe a second family.
	But for a woman, when she's 50, she's barren.
	And so a man can still have children and can still raise children, and this is why salt and pepper is considered fairly attractive in a man who's achieved some degree of success, whereas a woman simply can't have any more children.
	I mean, I don't know. It's so weird.
	Like, you have to remind people of these basic facts.
	But yeah, a 50-year-old man can still have a whole other family.
	Hell, a 70-year-old man can still have a whole other family.
	But a woman who's 40, who's 45, and a woman who's in her 30s, mid to late 30s, it's pretty rough, man.
	Because the other thing, too, which we didn't...
	I just wanted to mention this really briefly because it popped into my mind earlier, Carl, which is that...
	Men can survive promiscuity a whole lot better than women, psychologically.
	With women, the more sexual partners they have, the more likely they are to have lost their capacity to pair bond.
	And women are just more delicate when it comes to pair bonding, and they have a stronger pair bonding.
	And it's kind of like a Velcro that tears apart if you keep attaching it and separating it again.
	Men can handle it a little bit better, but the step up to marital hell is very dose-dependent, or you could say dick-dependent, in that the more doses of dick a woman has, the more likely she's going to end up dragging your ass through the cat-scratch fever of divorce court, and it's just not a good scene.
	And men kind of understand this instinctively, you know, good for the weekend, not to bring home to mom.
	This is something that...
	There are going to be people who complain that you framed that crudely, but it is true.
	There are studies that show that women...
	How many partners? If a woman has had more than 20 partners, she has an 80% chance of divorce.
	Oh no, it's even worse than that.
	So a woman who's a virgin is almost never going to divorce you.
	A woman who's had one sexual partner, the risk goes up sort of 5-7%, and it goes up 5-7% for every additional sexual partner or cluster of sexual partners that she has.
	Now, by the time you're starting at 18-20%, You're pretty much certain to get divorced and it's going to be an ugly divorce and so on.
	So this is a big problem.
	So when you remind men that if you want a good mother for your children and a stable life companion, if you go for a woman who's had a lot of sexual partners, man, that's Russian roulette with five chambers filled.
	Well, facts are very offensive.
	And there's exceptions. I get it.
	I get it. There's exceptions.
	But who cares about that?
	I mean, we have to make our lives decisions based on probabilities.
	And no one sits there and says, oh, yeah, you know, I smoke, I drink, I ride motorcycles, blindfolded, I fry bacon in the nude, and nothing bad ever happened to a guy I know who did that.
	It's not how we make decisions.
	We make decisions based upon probabilities.
	And yeah, there's exceptions, but oof.
	You don't want to, you know, some people who fall out of a plane without a parachute land and aren't hurt, but that's not something we really should be trying now, is it?
	Yeah, some people do survive it, but you don't want to try it as a plan, do you?
	TPVTragula says, I love everything about the stream.
	Where is the best place to go for big brain philosophical discussions in your respective discords?
	Well, what about yourself? So, you can go to subscribestar.com forward slash free domain, and this Discord is run by Subscribestar, so if you subscribe, it can be like a couple of bucks a month, then you get access to a Discord.
	We do call-in shows, we do other shows, particularly there's a lot of discussions about theories of ethics, like my universally preferable behavior theory, so you can go there to get a hold of the Discord stuff for me.
	Actually, it's the same on my Discord, although you can access my Discord other ways.
	I'm sure there's an invite, and if not, I'll pin one to this conversation.
	But I've got various politics rooms, like UK, US, Australian politics rooms, that are always full of people talking about really interesting stuff.
	So that's the best place.
	But thank you for the compliment, regular.
	Sargon Stefan. What point should men prioritize dating, marriage, raising kids over their own career?
	Should men in their late 20s prioritize finding the right girl, focusing on improving their wage, slave salary, attempt to juggle both, etc.?
	Right, okay. I'd like to answer this one.
	There is no conflict.
	There is no dichotomy here. The man becomes attractive to women by improving himself.
	Never try to attract a woman.
	Try to achieve something.
	Try to better yourself. Try to conquer something.
	Try to build something. And that will be the thing that attracts women.
	That's what women are looking for, in my opinion.
	Any critiques there? No.
	Be careful about waiting too long to settle down.
	Because if you wait too long to settle down and you want a woman who's got a similar life experience, then the chances are that she's been around the block a couple of times and might be kind of It's risky to marry.
	So I would say try and pair bond early as possible, right?
	Because both men and women are rolling the dice when they pair bond young.
	And, you know, I think ideally try and get married in your early twenties and just be serious about stuff so that you don't waste time and break hearts and get an STD and have an abortion and just, you know, just all of that baggage and mess that makes it really hard to have a simple, uncluttered, happy life.
	Down the road, because, you know, men who get married to a woman, well, she might be infertile, right?
	Most of the issues with infertility come from women, because they've got this, like, London subway map plumbing, whereas men have pretty much a straight-line Uber to get things done.
	And so men are going to take a risk that the woman could be infertile, and women are going to take a risk that the man's success might not pan out, right?
	So he might not end up making money.
	He might end up as a drunk or a drug addict or a pot smoker or whatever, right?
	So, yeah, you know, but the more you know about the risks, the more you can be very selective.
	And don't date like you.
	I've had people talk to me on shows like, oh, yeah, we've been dating for three years and we're only now discovering that one of us doesn't even want children.
	I'm like, are you kidding me?
	I mean, that's insane.
	Bring, like, it's a job interview, man.
	You've got your standards and find out if people meet those standards.
	I've walked out of first dates really quickly because it's like, you know, this woman who was, I remember telling me in a coffee shop, I thought, Oh, yeah, I'm still trying to pay off the debt because my last boyfriend stole my credit cards and racked up $17,000 worth of debt.
	And I'm like, well, you're pretty, but bye-bye.
	Right? So you've just got to have standards.
	You've got to apply them religiously and consistently and strongly and expect the woman to do the same and rise to meet those standards.
	And that's about the best certainty you're going to get.
	Sargon, I think Gotham High's current incarnation is the best example of the conversation.
	A young adult novel writer is writing this for DC and it makes that Thomas Wayne being a gold digger and Bruce's mum is the driving force of the Wayne Empire.
	What? I don't know.
	Yeah, I've not read anything Gotham High or anything, but this seems to be yet another lie that the media, the entertainment industry wishes to tell young women.
	Can we support low taxes and free-ish markets within the confines of national borders?
	Or is it globalism or communism only?
	Oh, God, you can only have borders with low taxation.
	Because with high taxation, you get the welfare state that draws people from all over the world to sit on the taxpayer's dime.
	This is an old argument.
	I've had it before. So very, very briefly, it's an old Milton Friedman argument where he says you can have a welfare state or you can have open borders.
	You can't have both. And so, yeah, if you have high taxation, your borders are going to be open.
	I mean, look at America. Four out of five Americans want zero immigration from Mexico, and the vast majority of people in the West want zero immigration for a while.
	And it's tough, though, right?
	Because a lot of people coming in, they've got family members coming in, they're sponsoring people, there's a whole legal system set up to help them in.
	And, you know, like, the vast majority of immigrants end up costing far more than they In America, at least, they end up costing far more in resources than they pay in taxes, and that's the benefit.
	They're not coming here for freedom.
	They're coming here for free stuff.
	But if you've got a small or no state, then they'll come for freedom, and they'll make it or break it, which is my preferred route.
	Which, and you can see the, I mean, it is exactly the same in Britain, by the way.
	Migration Watch, the Oxford University's Migration Observatory, has a series of studies that are correlated on their page.
	I mean, you can just see, the old study suggests there might be a slight net benefit, but mostly it's somewhere between $400 billion and $100 billion it costs us.
	Or however much.
	It's a dramatic cost.
	But you can see your exact point.
	You know, people who come for freedom, you'll notice that, like, say, in the early 20th century, when you had a lot of Eastern European immigration into the United States, very fast incorporation.
	Very, very fast. You know, they didn't speak the mother tongue in the home.
	They spoke English.
	They became Americans very, very quickly and very easily.
	And eagerly. And it's the complete opposite now.
	Now you have hyphenated Americans who don't want to incorporate and don't want to become free.
	They want to get money.
	That's the way it is.
	Sagan, have you read The Camp of the Saints?
	It predicted the West today.
	If not, can you? I haven't, but what I'll do is I'll put that in a browser window.
	Camp of the Saints and...
	Yeah, this is a futuristic novel by a French writer.
	I think it came out in the 50s, where he talks about giant ships coming from Africa with endless migrants.
	And it's considered to be, of course, fairly prophetic regarding the challenges that France and other countries are facing.
	And I haven't read it, but that's what I've heard about.
	Well, if only you'd known they'd come by airplane.
	What does he know, right?
	Yeah, exactly, yeah. Not A Band Account says, you two are the best news sources around.
	Stefan, when will you start selling picture pillows like Sargon?
	Hmm. Yeah, as far as merch goes, I mean, there are, you know, big challenges.
	I could, of course, sell giant ostrich eggs with eyeballs.
	I could sell, you know, a wide variety of things.
	Endless tour of the colonies, half English, half everything else accents.
	There's a wide variety of things I could do, but...
	I don't do merch at the moment.
	You know, reputation attack, I think, made it rather risky to be out there with Not An Argument t-shirts with me doing the big thumbs up.
	So we'll see over time.
	You know, either your reputation gets worse or you get redeemed.
	And of course, I'm aiming for the redemption arc, Rocky style.
	But yeah, no merch for me.
	You probably could make a lot of money on the Not An Argument t-shirts, though.
	Maybe, maybe. Bring up the JFG debate on moral subjective or objective.
	Oh, Jean-François Garieppe?
	Yeah, it's a debate I did with a Quebec nihilist.
	I know who he is.
	Yeah, people should go and watch it.
	I thought it was a very good debate, a very enjoyable and engaging debate.
	It's a frustrating debate, of course, because he created an alternate dimension he could retreat to when proven wrong, where contradictions were truth.
	So it's kind of like redefining chess at the end when you lose is saying, well, that actually means I won in another dimension.
	It's something that only comes up usually when talking about ethics.
	And it's really a cheat in the realm of philosophy.
	And, you know, try that in your average mass test.
	Well, you wrote that two and two make five.
	Yes, but you see, in another dimension, they could make five.
	So I'm still right. And it's like, yeah, yeah, yeah.
	So what was your contention in the debate?
	Are they objective or subjective in your view?
	No, the world is objective, and in order to engage in any kind of debate, there's a huge amount of implicit premises that you need to accept.
	Reality exists, the senses are valid, I exist, you exist, objective standards exist because you're correcting other people with reference to objective standards, and what happens is people engage in debates with all of those implicit assumptions, and then what happens is they completely try to undo every one of those implicit assumptions in the course of the debate, and it's like, hmm, It's like, you know, if you say in a debate, language has no meaning.
	It's like, well, you just use language to convey that.
	We can't have a conversation then, can we?
	Yeah, all this self-detonating stuff, it gets really boring, but that to me is real sophistry, is when you don't look at what you're doing, but try and communicate the opposite of what your empirical behavior demonstrates, as we talked about with Walsh and his exploiting of the workers.
	I think that the question being asked here is actually not formulated exactly well.
	Because I think what they're asking is...
	Effectively something like, where do you derive, is there an objective source for morality?
	So we can all point to the one source.
	And obviously, you know, the religious would say, well, God.
	And the atheist would say, no, but the source of morality is our own subjective intuitions.
	Yeah, so very, very briefly, this is like, I've got a whole free book called Universally Preferable Behavior, but very, like, I'll try and do it in, like, 30 to 60 seconds.
	In order to engage in a debate, you have to accept the validity of universally preferable behavior in that there are universal standards called truth, accuracy, and so on that we should all strive to achieve.
	Self-contradiction in an argument detonates it.
	Contradiction between argument and empirical reality detonates it.
	And so once we have engaged in a debate, we've accepted universally preferable behavior, and then all we have to do is figure out what is valid universally preferable behavior.
	Interestingly enough, when you look at something like theft, theft, Can never be universally preferable behavior because theft is asymmetric.
	And what I mean by that is if you steal something from someone, they don't want you to take it.
	Otherwise, it's not theft. You're just borrowing something or they're giving it to you.
	And so if you say theft is universally preferable behavior, then you're saying everybody should want to steal and be stolen from at all times.
	If you want to be stolen from, it's not theft.
	It's something else. So respect for property rights can be universally preferable behavior.
	Theft cannot be universally preferable behavior.
	And the same principle works with rape and assault and murder.
	These cannot be universally preferable behavior.
	If you say everybody should always want to rape at all times and at all circumstances, well, then you must want to rape and be raped at the same time.
	But of course, if you want to be raped, then maybe it's some kinky role play, but it's not actually...
	Able to be achieved from a moral standpoint.
	So once you accept universally preferable behavior, it validates the four major pillars of a rational ethical system, a ban on rape, theft, assault, and murder, and that's how you do it.
	And anyone arguing any counter perspective to this as well would have to accept that they just don't mind being stolen from.
	Like we can see with the socialists.
	If you don't mind being stolen from, it's not theft.
	Well, I mean, you might accept that you don't want the object to go missing, but you might not mind if someone had taken it, right?
	Let's assume that we, I mean, I don't think there's anyone who holds this position, even if they would claim that they did.
	I think if they came home and found their computer was missing, even if they had argued that it was acceptable to steal, they would still felt like they'd been taken advantage of, because this is effectively a theft of your labor.
	This is effectively, you know, it's not something that can be accepted.
	Yes, but personal feelings aside, because if morality was dependent upon the subjective feelings of individuals, there could be no universal morality.
	But personal feelings aside, theft itself can never be universally preferable behavior simply by reason, regardless of the feelings of the individuals involved.
	Yes. Do you think it would be a good idea for European nations to adopt the German historic perspective, tracing the European collective identity to the corded-ware proto-Indo-European?
	Why does it need to start with Charlemagne the Great?
	I think that's a terrible idea, frankly.
	What's your opinion? Just because you're British and it's something German?
	Is that the thing?
	I dare not go on a huge tangent about this.
	But no, I mean...
	What possible connection can the average German think they actually have to proto-Indo-European people?
	You don't know what they called themselves.
	You don't know what the language they used.
	You don't know how they thought.
	You don't know how they identified.
	You don't know anything about these people, really, because they left no written records.
	We have no idea what they thought.
	So it would be an artificial construct that you are creating and trying to persuade people they should believe in.
	And I think that there's no need to go back nearly that far.
	And essentially, you're trying to erase the distinctions between the European cultures.
	I think that's bad.
	I think there are the distinctions between the European cultures there for good reasons in many regards.
	And I would just be happy in general if Germany could find some happy medium between taking over other countries and giving up their own.
	That would be, you know, just find something in the middle of the pendulum would be excellent.
	This has never happened in all of German history.
	So I don't think I would...
	Come on, man! Next time!
	I wouldn't put money on it. Next time!
	It never happened.
	I've done a lot of work in this regard, and I don't think that we should be adopting very many German ideas at all, to be honest.
	And it's not that the Germans aren't brilliant.
	They are brilliant. That's part of the problem.
	They've got this kind of drive to the absolute, which forces them to go much further than is really necessary on most things and to take very absolute views on certain things.
	You can see this in Schopenhauer's attack on the very idea of free will.
	The idea that, well, I mean, you're contingent on a material body, therefore how can you call yourself free?
	But we can't even really discuss...
	Like, the idea of how we morally react to one another if we don't assume that we have free will.
	Because, I mean, I did a video on this on my supposium channel.
	If you think that someone doesn't have free will, you don't get angry at them when they do something bad to you.
	You know, some mentally incapacitated person would come over and be aggressive towards you.
	You wouldn't be angry at them for not controlling themselves.
	And yet, if we didn't have free will, we would have to assume that everyone was essentially mentally incapacitated and couldn't control themselves.
	It would have to be deterministic.
	So it's one of those things where...
	And Schopenhauer gives a beautifully constructed argument, and I really mean this.
	I really enjoyed reading his account of how he'd broken it down very systematically, and it was very thorough, and it was very difficult to refute within its own terms...
	Because that's the kind of systematic and structured thought that Germans actually have.
	And I lived in Germany for eight years.
	So I can attest to this from direct experience.
	They have this kind of thought.
	And as an Englishman, it's just not like we have in England.
	We're very muddled thinkers in England.
	And I don't think we should copy their examples.
	Well, the free will thing too, sorry, just because I've had this flyby about six million times, but the free will thing too, people who accept that there's no such thing as a soul, as there's no magic ghost that animates our choices, that escapes the strictures of physics and materialism and chemistry, They still have to explain how it is that a carbon atom is not alive, but we're alive, though we're largely made up of carbon, right?
	So there's something called an emergent property, which is greater than the sum of its parts.
	Life is something that animates.
	Like, there's no individual carbon atom that can get up, hunt a zebra, screw a female lion, and give birth to baby lions.
	There's no carbon atom that can do that.
	But you get enough of them in the right way.
	You get this magical lioness that can do all of these same things.
	And sure, there's no individual atom in our brains that has free will, but when you get enough of them together in this wonderful magic wetware of the human brain, you get an emergent property called free will.
	So the fact that you can't find it in the atoms doesn't mean that it doesn't exist in the world.
	And again, we just have to assume it does.
	I don't even think you can really act or conceive of things as if we don't.
	Well, you would never be on the receiving end of an argument of someone who was a genuine determinant, in the same way that I don't argue with a television or a computer because those things don't have free will.
	I don't argue with the weather, even though it's a complex system whose outcome I can't predict with any great certainty.
	Anybody who debates with you, it's one of these implicit assumptions.
	They have to assume that you have some capacity for free will, otherwise they wouldn't be debating with you.
	So it's one of these arguments that if you pay attention to the construct of an actual debate, it's over before it even begins.
	What do you think of the term Islamophobia?
	I think Christopher Hitchens had it right that it's a term invented by fascists to squelch free speech.
	Islam is a belief system, and it should be subject to the same rigorous analysis and criticism, yes, criticism, as every other belief system.
	And if we're going to create a magical exception for Islam, then we have a great deal of problem with the concept of multiculturalism, because multiculturalism is supposed to be where we all get together with our different cultures, we all rub together, sparks come off, and we end up with something better.
	But if there's an entire belief system that is immune from criticism, and this can fall under Judaism, it could fall under certain aspects of Christianity.
	Any belief system. Yeah, any belief system.
	Exempt it from criticism. You exempt it from criticism, and it will no longer progress.
	And if you're going to have a free speech society, you cannot invite an entire belief system into your free speech society that then becomes immune from criticism, and you can be in a great deal of trouble for criticizing it.
	Okay, well then you've just given up free speech.
	Yeah.
	Yeah. And one of the things I hate about it as well is it's terribly condescending towards Muslims.
	The idea that they can't ever evolve their own perspective.
	They can't change their point of view or even hear a counter-argument that opposes their own worldview.
	That's a terribly condescending thing and it's going to create people who are emotionally unfit to deal with people who don't agree with them.
	And so essentially you're creating a kind of mechanism by which they can I declare that you have to treat them in a certain way, or else they're going to act in ways that you won't enjoy.
	And I don't think that that's the kind of behavior or thought pattern that we should foster.
	Well, and of course, if you criticize Islam and you yourself are criticized, then you're being treated as an adult, and the Islamic belief is being treated as a child's fantasy, and that's...
	Yeah, it's not... I mean, there's a lot of critical philosophy in the history of Islam, and some of the more modern...
	Really strict and aggressive forms of Islam, well, it's not exactly a straight throughput to the origins.
	There have been a lot of critical philosophers and so on in Islam, just as the burqa is kind of a new thing in many ways.
	So let's not mistake some particular current manifestations for the entire history of the belief.
	Yeah, and I have to say, I really think this is the influence of leftist thought that has brought this term in.
	I don't think it's a respectable term.
	Both gents. Arguments for or against world government?
	Also, since I think I know Sargon's thoughts on this person, I've never heard Steph's take on Mencius Moldbug.
	Is Steph even familiar with his work?
	Well, just to say, I'm not familiar with his work.
	What was the phrase? Moldbug?
	Mencius Moldbug.
	I've heard the name, but I've never read anything.
	It sounds like we're back to a Dungeons& Dragons character.
	That's got to be a druid if ever I've heard one, or an alchemist or something.
	Well, so the world government is a terrible idea.
	Government is where people go to hide to escape the consequences of their bad decisions.
	Like, you know, like the CDC or the World Health Organization completely screw up the pandemic and what do they get?
	Billions and billions of more dollars.
	We're literally paying people to be absolutely dangerously terrible at their jobs.
	So, no, the further government is removed from people, government as a whole is bad, but the further it's removed from the people, the further it's removed from individuals, the more room there is for corruption and distance and just...
	Hiding bodies, right? So, world government is, you know, local government is best, further government is bad, national government is worse, world government would be about the worst of all, and what world government would do is it would eliminate the individualism that characterizes nations, right?
	So, world government or globalism is collectivism for the individualism of nations.
	Nations should compete with each other to try and have the best policies and the lowest taxes and the most open markets and the best free speech.
	You get globalism, you're going to get a whole bunch of restrictive rules put on there so that countries that can't compete with freer and better countries won't have to because they won't be freer or better anymore.
	And just a more pragmatic answer is just the more power that you accumulate in one body, the more damage they can do when they make mistakes.
	And the more complex the system you are handing control to a smaller body of people who are going to make those mistakes.
	That's honestly, I think, why the communists in the 20th century did so much damage.
	It's the absolute power concentrating to a tiny number of people with zero accountability, Boom.
	Millions dead. If for no other reason, that would be why I could never accept the idea of a centralized world government.
	As you say, the best thing to do is decentralize power, ultimately to the individual.
	I'm a believer in the idea of individual sovereignty.
	I think that we should be in charge of our own lives.
	I don't want the government running my life.
	Why would you want the government running your life?
	I'm going to do less damage because I can't really do that much, to be honest.
	Can we all agree that JF should not settle down and have kids given his taste in women?
	Also, did you get my previous stream map?
	I think I got your previous stream map.
	And I don't want to cast aspersions on people like that.
	I mean, it's...
	It's not an argument.
	Yeah, it's not an argument.
	Yeah, that's good. When will the US deal with the communist tumour in its backyard, Cuba?
	By the way, too many Canadians and Brits travel there for underage sexual tourism.
	I had no idea.
	I think America should deal with the tens of thousands of outright communists in its educational institutions and its news institutions and its academic and its movies.
	And I mean, good Lord, the communist infestation in the West is really, truly astonishing.
	And it just shows you how powerful they are.
	That you get a completely distorted view of the 20th century, and you get a completely distorted view that somehow Nazism, which is a repellent collectivist ideology, somehow Nazism is a great danger to the West.
	When, you know, you try and hold some pathetic Nazi rally, you're going to get like, you know, 50 guys with spaghetti arms showing up saying, you shall not replace us.
	But, you know, there are communists everywhere, and they're teaching the young, and they're exploiting the young, and they're burying the young in unfathomable student debt, and they're Programming people with anti-life, anti-Western values, and they're creating self-hatred.
	Here's an example, right? This is a stupid example, right?
	So when I was in school, you heard all about how the Europeans were responsible for genociding the Native Americans with smallpox, right?
	And, you know, nobody had a clue about germ theory.
	They didn't have any idea. And as soon as there was an inoculation, they tried to apply it to the Natives.
	I mean, it's all just a bunch of nonsense, right?
	I mean, the horrifying nonsense that had happened, but it was not intentional and there's no evidence other than one letter that was mailed that was never ever proven to have been implemented that there was ever any kind of germ warfare against the natives.
	But you then compare something like that to the Chinese Communist Party actually throwing people in jail.
	We're talking about coronavirus back in the early days, assuring the World Health Organization, though they knew differently, that human-to-human transition was not possible and so on.
	So you have a Communist Party that's implicit in actually infecting the whole world with a highly dangerous pathogen in a pandemic, and you don't hear a squat about that.
	Trump happens to say it came from China.
	Everybody loses their minds.
	Yet somehow we're all responsible as white Westerners for accidental smallpox infections when nobody had any idea about germs 200 years ago.
	I mean, it really is completely distorted and quite insane.
	So I don't think that America should be worried so much about Cuba as the little Cubas all over the place in America.
	Yeah, I mean, I stand by everything you've said there.
	That's absolutely accurate.
	I mean, in Britain, our Labour Party was, I mean, at least in my lifetime, it was never an openly communist party.
	But the shadow chancellor of the Exchequer, John McDonnell, just came out on the BBC and said it was his job to overthrow capitalism.
	You know, he's an open Marxist.
	I mean, the communists really do have a huge amount of influence in our countries.
	And in many ways, the conservatives don't understand that they are following the communist agenda.
	I really wish they'd think for a second.
	But yeah, the problem of communism in the West is a real, real one.
	Can we re-industrialize Britain, British Commonwealth countries in the US, without going toward China?
	Well, I don't see why not.
	Why could we not just, I don't know, put tariffs on Chinese imports or something?
	Oh, you just got to tear down barriers domestically.
	The reason why it all went to China was you got crazy environmentalists and ridiculously strong health and safety regulations, which sounds like you then want people to die in fiery deaths, Terminator 2 style.
	I don't mean any of that. But this idea that you can keep everybody perfectly safe simply drives manufacturing overseas.
	And, you know, funny story, by trying to keep everyone safe, we've now exposed them to a pandemic.
	So that didn't really work out so well.
	We have to just accept a certain amount of risk in our lives because, you know, the search for perfection is all very well, but to look for heaven is to live here in hell, as the old Shakespeare poem goes.
	So this idea that we can keep our environment perfectly clean and no one can ever get injured and everything...
	It just means you can't have any domestic manufacturing and then you are susceptible to the whims of totalitarian.
	And not only that, the bargain, the horrible pact with the devil we made was, okay, well, we're not going to, as we say, exploit our native labor forces.
	We'll allow China to exploit theirs and then we'll buy cheap goods.
	It's like, okay, but there's still some exploitation going on here.
	You know you shouldn't be paying two pounds for a t-shirt.
	That there's labor that's gone into that, that you wouldn't accept two pounds for the value of the shirt.
	So why do you think that you're going to be able to get this cheap?
	Well, sorry, they also did need, they needed cheap Chinese goods to counter-effect the inevitable inflation that was coming from over creation of the money supply.
	So it's kind of technical, but you keep creating all this money because it's easier to print money than raise taxes.
	And you have to do that in order to pay for these giant government programs called mass immigration.
	And so people get kind of upset if...
	There's a lot of inflation, so then you turn to China and exploiting the Chinese workers to keep the price of goods down so you can continue all your garbage socialist program.
	Yeah, but I mean, I think it would be possible for us to move manufacturing back if we wanted to incentivize that, but there's too much money involved, too much power.
	I don't think it's likely to happen, so I'll just resend that, I think.
	I don't think it's likely to happen, but maybe the political winds on China will shift now, given what's just happened with China.
	And this can be firmly pinned on the Chinese Communist Party, this current crisis.
	There's no question of it.
	Anyway, ask Stefan what he thinks about a theist that doesn't believe in free will, asking for a shadow friend.
	The theist who doesn't believe...
	Oh, you mean like a Calvinist kind of predestination or predeterminism kind of guy?
	Well, I mean... I assume so, yeah.
	No, to me it's the mirror of some horribly abusive childhood to think that you are morally responsible for that, but you have no choice.
	So, I mean, even if we accept the idea that God is this, you know, thunderbolt...
	Old Testament dude who throws people into hell and throws people into heaven based upon their moral choices in the present.
	Okay, pretty strong tonic for moral choices, but at least we could accept that there's some kind of rough justice in it because you would have a choice.
	But in the sort of Calvinist, there's only a certain number of people who are going to get into heaven.
	It's all predetermined beforehand.
	Well, they do solve the problem, which atheists have with God, which is that if God knows everything, then he knows what you're going to do tomorrow.
	If he knows what you're going to do tomorrow, then you don't really have free will.
	They solve that problem.
	But then they turn God into this weird sadist who just punishes people for things they have no choice about.
	And so I think it is not a very sustainable moral or philosophical position.
	Stefan, would you ever come back to New Zealand?
	Are you allowed back to New Zealand?
	Of course. Yeah, I've never been banned from anywhere.
	I mean, there lies about it.
	Yeah, no, I've never been banned from anywhere.
	No, I would love to come back to New Zealand.
	I think it's a wonderful country.
	The people who were there were fantastic.
	I had a wonderful time in New Zealand.
	Unfortunately, I didn't get to give my speech because of all the bomb and death threats.
	Although I did manage to struggle through and give my speeches, despite the same bomb and death threats throughout most of Australia.
	But, no, I thought it was a beautiful, beautiful country, and the people were wonderful.
	The rulers were crazy, and, I mean, this prime minister, like, she's, like, straight on hard leftist, man.
	She's, like, comrade, comrade, comrade.
	She is a straight-up dangerous woman there, and...
	I don't know what to say about that other than you guys got to, you know, shake the cobwebs out of your eyes and get yourself some freedoms back.
	And a lot of, of course, a lot of people in Australia and in New Zealand were very, very shocked at the fact that my free speech was so hampered and limited in a country that they formally think of as free.
	And a lot of really good political movements came out of that.
	I would just say, keep on going.
	I would love to come back.
	I think it's going to be kind of tricky under a socialist prime minister.
	But, you know, you'll sort out your political house and I'll be back there with bells on.
	Yeah, I thought it was quite terrible, really.
	You know, a foreigner comes to New Zealand, commits a terrible act, and suddenly the New Zealanders lose their guns.
	Okay. Yes, that's true.
	Brenton Tarrant was an Australian. Yeah, that's true.
	It wasn't a New Zealander that did this, you know, so it's not the New Zealanders who should suffer.
	But I tell you, I think it was an Australian TV interview you and Lauren Southern did.
	Patty Gower, that's right.
	It was one of the most magical things in the world to watch because they were treating you like you were emissaries from a foreign planet.
	It's like, what are you here on the earth for?
	It's like, just talk to them normally.
	You can listen to hours and hours and hours of these people speaking because they have YouTube channels and they have hundreds of thousands of followers.
	This is not a revelation, a discovery.
	I mean, how isolated must they be?
	Yeah, it's a big echo chamber.
	And I hate that phrase, butthurt, because it's so overused, but Paddy Gower is still butthurt and still complaining about me, what is it, a year and a half, more than close to two years later.
	But yeah, it's very sad.
	But when you run up against someone who's just so much better than you at something, and we all do this, like you play an online game, yeah, I think I'm pretty good, and then you're staring at your own navel in a distorted position.
	So then it's great. It's humbling, right?
	You say, okay, good. I've still got stuff to learn, right?
	So Patti Gower, you know, came and was going to just get us, right?
	And there were a bunch of interviews in that full tour with Lauren and I did where people were just trying to get us.
	And it's like, dudes, you know, like I could do this blindfolded.
	You know, I've been on the internet for 15 years.
	I've been debating for 30 years.
	I can do this stuff blindfolded.
	So then they run up against someone who's really, really good.
	That should be an opportunity to improve, as it should be for any sensible person.
	But instead, you know, they generally just go back into resentment in their echo chamber and then start throwing barbs over the wall because they don't want to talk to you face to face.
	There's definitely a lot of hurt pride there.
	Again, I found that interview, the interview with you and Lauren, very entertaining.
	Would either of you be interested in doing a video on the politics of Doom Eternal?
	I think there's something deeper to be found in the Codex Beyond Surface Level politically incorrect themes.
	Let me finish it first. Yeah, I haven't finished it yet.
	Yeah, I've been live streaming it.
	Yeah, I will get back to it.
	I've just been kind of busy over the last couple of days.
	But I'm not going to play it without live streaming it because it's going to be a blind playthrough and I'm going to just grit my teeth and get through it and take all of the insults that will justly come my way.
	I watched some of your playthrough.
	You were better than I was expecting, to be honest.
	You didn't strike me as someone who'd be into the first-person shooters.
	I love them more than any other games around because they're so zen and they're so uncomplicated.
	You know, you show me a Starcraft 7 and I'm like, okay, resources and complication?
	It's like, no, my job is complicated enough.
	I need something that's real simple and linear.
	I want something about as complicated as a ping-pong game with nukes.
	So from the liberal position and then the anarcho-capitalist position, I have to raise the important question.
	Boobs or ass?
	What is the most liberal and objective take we can have on this soul-crushing question?
	It's tough because you need a boob to breastfeed, but you also need to sit to breastfeed.
	So boobs and asses are both very important from a reproductive standpoint.
	I guess you just have to flip a coin.
	I wonder if there's any difference, really.
	I think the cleavage is...
	I think there's a visual similarity there for a reason.
	I'd have to investigate that more.
	I believe there are certain sections of the internet that will allow you to do just that, otherwise known as most of the internet.
	How can Western society be shaken from this lack of stomach for death if it's expected to fight a major war with a country that doesn't value life?
	We have utterly shut down our economies because a few thousand people have died making us utterly weak.
	From China is asshole.
	Yeah, I'm rather worried about the next major war that comes along because I don't think we're going to have the stomach to fight it.
	So I don't know.
	I mean, one of the things I find most ironic is that the gammons, those evil working class gammons, the racists, xenophobic, sexist, transphobes, Are going to be the ones they're going to say, well, don't you have a duty to your country?
	Aren't you patriotic when the time comes?
	It's not going to be guardianistas manning the trenches.
	So yes, I personally think we're in some serious trouble.
	What do you think? Well, war has become much more dastardly since conventional warfare was eliminated by nuclear weapons, right?
	So the reason why all of this Yuri Bezmenov infiltration and subversion happened was because they couldn't have a, quote, honest combat with conventional weapons.
	And so subversion has become the way of the beast at the moment.
	And in many ways, that's much more dangerous than conventional warfare.
	Countries can survive.
	I mean, look, Japan was nuked twice, and you had 100,000 a night death, firebombing raids over Tokyo and other cities, and Japan remains Japan.
	Is Germany going to remain Germany?
	Is England going to remain England?
	Well, no, certainly not in their historical forms.
	Is Sweden going to remain Sweden?
	No, not really.
	So, unfortunately or fortunately, we still have a thirst for combat and conquest and so on, but it's not happening in the battlefield anymore.
	It's happening in propaganda, it's happening through mass migration, it's happening through subversion, it's happening through convincing people to not have children.
	It's a much more subtle and creepy form of conflict, and we're not very well constituted to fight it very well.
	I agree. Then why is it okay to have pan-African media?
	I don't know what this is in reference to, sorry, but why is it okay to have pan-African media?
	Arthur is based on Sigmund...
	Oh, right, this is about the German identity question.
	Arthur is based on Sigmund, after all, nationalism of each European state, American culture, Christianity oppresses the indigenous perspective of identity.
	This, I think they mean, is the oppression of self-actualization.
	I don't think that Christianity suppresses the indigenous perspective of identity.
	I don't agree with that. I don't agree that Arthur is necessarily based on Sigmund.
	I think there's a lot of contention there.
	I'm not saying that it's a good thing to have pan-African media.
	I don't know that it is.
	I think the idea of the identity of just black, which just means African in America, I don't think is a healthy identity.
	I don't think it's very useful.
	I think it's one that they have because of slavery, not because it was a good thing.
	I think it's a reaction. I think it's something they've had to take refuge in.
	But now I think it's holding them back.
	And I don't recommend it at all, frankly.
	I just wanted to point out something.
	This is the greatest chat I've seen in quite some time.
	Somebody said, we nuked Japan into the doll-loving tentacle porn bros we love today.
	That's just so vivid.
	I didn't want that to disappear into the sands of time.
	That's a very vivid comment.
	That's not true. Unironically, there is a Japanese painting from the 19th century of a woman and an octopus, and so this is not a new phenomenon.
	I desperately wanted to go to Japan this year to do a documentary to try and understand this most fascinating culture, but yeah, it looks like that's going to be on hold for a while.
	I'm glad you boomers haven't died of the hollow flu.
	Keep up the good work. Thank you.
	Moldbug is great. You should really check out Distributist's video on him.
	I have seen it. It's very philosophically interesting and has very striking theories about the nature of right versus left thought over time.
	Well, thank you very much. I'll definitely think of that.
	Well, you've just recommended it.
	Sagan, I hope you get to ask Steph, where does your duty come from without religion?
	Steph, I appreciate debates with moral nihilists.
	Why do you think moral nihilism produces both right-wing nihilists like JF and left-wing like Destiny?
	Is Destiny a nihilist?
	I didn't know that. Yes, because I asked him.
	I mean, I would extrapolate from the fact that it was destiny that I'd asked, do we have a responsibility to carry on our civilizations?
	And he was just like, I don't know, I can't say anything.
	And if you can't even say that, you know, continuing the country you live in for your son is not worth doing, then surely you must be a nihilist of some stripe.
	Yeah, I think for me, it comes from the basic empathy I have with the future.
	I mean, what is beauty but empathy to the future?
	And so I want my daughter, and I want your children, Carl, and I want the children of people in the West and people all over the world, in fact, to grow up with the kind of freedoms that I enjoyed as a child.
	And to grow up with the capacity to have these kinds of great conversations, to interact with people, to speak our minds without fear and with a genuine commitment to the truth, that gives me enormous pleasure in life.
	In fact, I really can't see having nearly as pleasurable a life without the capacity to speak my mind and analyze the world and communicate about what I think is important and take the slings and arrows of outrageous leftists attack and rightists attack and everybody else.
	That, to me, is part of the It's the game.
	It's the game of life. It's the powerful, gladiatorial cathedral of intellectual discourse, which has produced everything that we value.
	Everything that we value is like sparks coming off a sword being sharpened on the stone of the intellect.
	And because I enjoy it so much, I can't imagine not doing everything I could to ensure that it continues.
	In the same way that you don't eat all the food and leave your children to starve.
	You don't eat all your freedoms and leave your children enslaved.
	You must find a way to pass it forward.
	Because otherwise you're saying that you're somehow out of the great cycle and wheel and pattern of humankind.
	That everything that your ancestors taught to provide you, you can consume and give nothing to anyone else.
	That seems to me monstrously Narcissistic and selfish.
	And if one generation back had done that, I would have a pretty unhappy life.
	So I'm going to pay it forward.
	It's just about consistency and empathy for the future.
	I think that's a really great answer.
	I think another aspect that is rarely looked at as well, I think emotional security is something that people need desperately to know that their parents are consistent and that they're going to be there.
	And this goes into all aspects of things.
	The most terrifying thing about a totalitarian state is that everyone is walking around in fear.
	There's a position of emotional insecurity.
	That's the first thing that's instilled in order to keep the population in line, in order to make sure that they aren't challenging the authority.
	And so the emotional security that comes with the security of free speech and the ability to say the thing that you think and know that you aren't going to go to jail for it or be beheaded for it or whatever it is, I mean, and all of the West, as you say, it really is built.
	And it was such a struggle to get to this point.
	Like, Europe, throughout the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries, especially like the Thirty Years' War and the wars of religion in Europe, just such bloodshed over different ideas to get to the point where eventually in England we got the doctrine of religious tolerance and then from that we get free speech.
	It's such hard work that we're throwing away And it would be foolish to do so.
	Just unbelievably foolish.
	I was born in 1990 and everyone my age thinks Nelson Mandela was basically a saint because of school and media.
	No, because of communism.
	He was a communist terrorist and the ascension of the ANC to rule over South Africa has been one of the greatest disasters of the modern world.
	Now, of course, this is False dichotomy is to say, oh, so you love apartheid.
	It's like, no, I don't like any government programs at all, right?
	If you're not for communism, you're for apartheid.
	I mean, come on, let's talk about what it is, which is that you have a radical left-wing slash communist Group that is now in charge of a formerly First World country and has run it into the ground.
	I mean, the rand is worth virtually nothing.
	The debts are staggering.
	The economic inefficiency is huge.
	It's the rape capital of the world.
	Sweden, of course, is second.
	And interestingly enough, the Swedish government in the 1970s also bought millions of dollars into the ANC. The communists in the Swedish government took money from the workers in Sweden and gave it to the communists in South Africa.
	Which helped to put the ANC into power.
	The media as a whole got behind him and put him forward as a saint.
	He could have got out of prison any time.
	He just had to say, I'm going to stop blowing up people.
	But he declined to do that, and I guess that makes them a saint.
	And I'd say, South Africa is in such a state as well.
	I mean, morally, like racially supremacist laws for the majority against the minority, that is unthinkable in any other country.
	Unthinkable. Well, it's going to happen.
	I mean, listen, let's be honest.
	I mean, this is pretty clear.
	If and when whites become a minority in formerly white countries, it's not going to be affirmative action for whites.
	We already see what happens, right?
	I mean, it is a constant predation.
	You get these mass farm murders.
	You get people terrified to leave their homes.
	I mean, it is, you know, I would really love...
	I would really, really love for this multiracial society experiment to be uncontaminated by everyone screaming racism all the time and whipping up all of this interracial hatred.
	But unfortunately, it is just a fault line at the moment that leftists are exploiting to create division within society.
	I don't know what a multiracial society looks like without all of this race baiting.
	And until we can find some way to tamp that down, it does remain a pretty dangerous proposition.
	I think really, if you have groups of people who don't view themselves as historic victims, it's fine.
	But I think the historic victim narrative that can be spun, and I'm not saying it's unjustified either.
	I'm not saying it's unjustified.
	Obviously, in South Africa, there is.
	The identity-based historic victim grievance, that's a thing.
	But once you accept that as the starting premise and then go from there, it's all over.
	It's terrible. Could finally spare a buck but no longer have a question.
	Well, thank you very much anyway, Raven.
	Would Stefan consider playing Captain Picard in Star Trek The Next Generation Reboot?
	The similarity, particularly in theatrical quality, in the way he and Picard deliver speeches is striking.
	Was he an inspiration for you, Stefan?
	Was he an inspiration? How old do you think I am?
	No, he's quite old.
	He's a good actor, of course.
	He's got a wonderful voice and great presence, but man, is he a crazy leftist.
	So no, not really. Well, I watched, he was on stage giving a talk or a discussion, and he was saying how his father used to be his mother.
	And this was very emotionally disturbing for him, understandably so.
	And so I don't actually take his political views very seriously because of the trauma that he experienced as a child.
	I think that his political worldview is very much the consequence of thinking that masculinity is nothing but violent and overbearing and abusive.
	I mean, my father was, you know...
	Disciplinarian, but I mean, you never touched my mother or anything like that.
	That was completely out of the question.
	So I have a positive view of masculinity because my father was a positive male role model.
	Obviously his wasn't.
	It's very clear why he's like how he is.
	Ever played Wolfenstein Enemy Territory?
	I haven't. Have you? Is that the new one?
	I don't know, actually.
	I only played the original. Yeah, boy.
	I mean, I go back to Wolfenstein on the 8-bit computers.
	No, I haven't played the latest Wolfenstein.
	Don't worry about future wars.
	America will protect you like always.
	Well, the reason we say this, Mark, is because large amounts of America like Bernie Sanders.
	Like surprising numbers of people like Bernie Sanders.
	Thankfully not enough people.
	But if we get to the point where you're majority soy boys, then you aren't protecting anything.
	Yeah. Well, I want America to stay strong for a lot of different reasons.
	Which will collapse first, Communist China or the EU? The EU. God, let's hope so.
	Well, I don't know. I mean, both.
	I'd like them to collapse on the same day, if preferable.
	But it'll be the EU. It's a much more shaky foundations.
	Sagan, I was surprised you didn't get my joke about Shadowfriend PSA Sitch.
	Oh, I didn't. Sorry. Stefan should talk to Adam Friended and Sitch.
	I think it would be incredibly entertaining.
	Yes. There are two YouTubers called Adam Friended and PSA Sitch.
	And I listen to these guys religiously.
	Every Sunday night they do a podcast where they watch something.
	You know, they'll do a watch together on a video of something.
	Like they did Ezra Klein talking to Ben Shapiro the other week.
	And it was brilliant to watch.
	Absolutely brilliant. They're very, very intelligent guys.
	Very high level discussion. Adam is very well versed in psychology and draws heavily on Jonathan Haidt.
	And Sitch is just a very intelligent chap who draws on a variety of different sources.
	I really, really would recommend.
	I'll pass you along like an email.
	Yeah, please do. And I mean, if they're fun people to chat with and they're smart, I would love to be in the conference.
	They're very smart, they're very fun, and they're very good-natured.
	They're not committed to leftism or rightism or anything like that.
	that.
	They're very, very good people.
	Question on China's OBOR initiatives.
	Do you have any thoughts on China's Silk Road really being a means to in-depth?
	In-depth, I assume that means.
	Sorry, some of these have got spelling mistakes on, so it makes them confusing to read.
	Do you have any thoughts on China's Silk Road really being a means to in-depth East Africa or Chinese ports in the area and now the FOMED equipment to Italy?
	What do you think is next for China or will end soon?
	Oh, I think I know what this is, but sorry, go ahead.
	Yeah, I personally don't want to make any predictions at this point, because I have no idea what's going to happen tomorrow, let alone in six months.
	But what do you think, Stephen?
	Well, so what China has been doing in Africa, Africa, of course, being an extraordinarily resource-rich continent, what China has been doing is they have been, of course, lending a lot of money, you know, like General Mafioso do, is that they'll lend you a lot of money, and then they own you.
	So they've been lending a lot of money for public works, for corruption, for you name it, for boat buying.
	It goes on a lot of these African tin pot dictatorships.
	And they are moving in.
	And the conflict between the East Asians and the blacks in Africa is only going to escalate And, you know, my particular concern, right, so when the whites were in charge, which I didn't agree with and didn't like in Africa as a whole, and I don't count South Africa there, because South Africa was empty, almost completely empty when the Dutch came, and the Dutch had been in South Africa longer than whites had been in America.
	But the conflict is going to be absolutely enormous.
	And what's going to happen, of course, is blacks in Africa are going to start calling the Chinese racists.
	And because that works so well with the whites, they're going to be kind of surprised that it's not going to work with the Chinese.
	They're going to be like, yes, yes, yes, we are.
	So, you know, that's like, you have black hair and you're racist.
	It's like, yeah, these are two facts.
	I don't care, right? And so the sensitivity to racial issues that characterizes the white population as a whole, perhaps to the point of pathological altruism, well, that weapon that they used to wield it, you know, manipulation, foreign aid, playing the victim and aggression and all of that, which I think has been terrible for the black community in Africa as a whole.
	Anytime you succumb to manipulation, you weaken entire cultures.
	But when the Chinese start to really throw their weight around in Africa, Well, what's going to happen?
	Well, because they're not white, the word racism isn't going to really work.
	And because they're communists, the media isn't going to call them on it.
	And I think that Africa is going to go through a great deal of suffering under China.
	And that's sort of my prediction.
	It will be way worse than the Europeans.
	Oh, far worse. Absolutely worse.
	I mean, the Chinese Communist Party is the party of Mao.
	They don't care about their own people.
	Why do you think they would care about you?
	Oh, yeah, no. And this is why, you know, when people start talking about the origins of coronavirus, it's like, well, but China would hurt their own citizens?
	It's like, are you kidding me? When does this happen?
	That's like number one on the job description.
	It's like, are you willing to kill your own citizens?
	Okay, you could be a communist. In your opinion, does Patriotic Alternatives' objective of not letting ethnic Brits become a minority make them Nazis?
	Thanks. No. No, I don't think that was what made them Nazis.
	You know what makes people Nazis?
	It's being Nazis. Yeah, well, I was going to go into that because literally the guy running it, there was a documentary made about him when he was younger.
	He is a Nazi and he was caught on film saying how Hitler was a great guy, did nothing wrong.
	And when it was revealed by, I think it was either a BBC or Channel 4 journalist, the journalist themselves was Jewish.
	And I've got to say, it was the funniest thing in the world, because you can see all of this being done on the film.
	And you can see his face fall, and then he's like, well, I'm Jewish.
	And you can just see the key is turning.
	He's like, oh my God. And so this Nazi is going on about the Jews.
	He's been fooled by a Jew, and now he's been exposed as a Nazi.
	And so it's like, no, yeah, that's what makes you a Nazi.
	I get so much from these guys.
	I've been arguing with them.
	And they've been saying things like, well, actually, Hitler was the good guy in World War II, and Winston Churchill was the villain.
	And I'm like, and they're calling themselves British nationalists.
	That's an interesting perspective.
	But no, it's the veneration of Nazis and the agreement with their worldview that makes you Nazis.
	Oh, and the thing is, too, if you're going to say that all manifestations of ethno-nationalism makes you a Nazi, then Israel?
	Mexico has a law which says it can't be non-Jewish.
	Okay, they must be Nazis.
	Mexico has a law which says you can't tinker with the demographics of Mexico.
	Oh, look, they're Nazis. India likes being Indian.
	Oh, they're Nazis. Like, everybody becomes a Nazi.
	And the term becomes completely meaningless.
	And it is really, you know, I get so mad You know, in particular because my family suffered so much under the Nazis.
	My British side of my family had to fight them to the bloody death, and the German side of my family were persecuted and killed.
	I'm not that, you know, it's like a big Jewish thing, it's just that they were free thinkers and all that thing, right?
	And so the amount of suffering that the National Socialists wreaked upon Europe and upon the British and the Germans and everybody else, and then to use that suffering as a form of political gotcha one-upmanship is absolutely repulsive and revolting to the Jews who were killed, to the Polish who were killed, to the Czechs who were killed, to the French who were killed, to the British who were killed, and to the goddamn Germans who were killed.
	Stop using! The slaughter of tens of millions of people to score cheap political points, people.
	That's how I know there's no God, because if there was, those people would come back from the grave and split your innards from top to bottom, because it is a horrible thing to do, to take their suffering and use it to score cheap political points.
	And yeah, so just to summarize, it's the fact that you guys venerate Hitler that makes you Nazis.
	Yeah, that's the thing. Sorry, I mean, I don't want British people to become a minority either.
	I think we should end mass immigration.
	I think that British people should have children.
	I think all people should have children, really.
	You know, not... I'm not getting into it again.
	But like, you know, countries should form families, you know, people in countries should form families, etc, etc.
	But the weird obsession with Hitler in these circles, that's what I think is the Nazi proof.
	Now that I have a child, I can't stop thinking about how my ancestors lived, their values, decisions that made me get to where I am now.
	Is it worth dwelling on and exploring the giants on whose shoulders I stand or knuckle down and focus on the future?
	Well, I mean, I think you've got to do both, to be honest.
	Sorry to jump in on this one again.
	But like, there's nothing wrong with appreciating the virtues of your ancestors.
	This is the thing that in England, in particular in Britain, in England, it's difficult to say that you're English.
	It's a weird thing. It's very difficult to say, well, I'm an Englishman.
	I'm very proud to be an Englishman. And when I'm saying that, what am I saying?
	You know, am I saying, like, blood or genes or anything?
	Because then suddenly people start going, oh, Nazi.
	No, I'm saying that the political tradition, the moral traditions, the development of these things that came out of England required a certain kind of worldview and a certain kind of series of events, and it was a lot of hard work.
	Hard sweat of mind to get to where we are.
	And I think there's a lot to be proud of there.
	And I'm sure that other cultures have got their own aspects of that.
	I don't see why we shouldn't, you know, be appreciative of those things, because that gives you the teleology that you're traveling into the future with.
	You know, what are you trying to achieve?
	You know, a fair and just society, I would think, at least in the case of the Brits.
	And so if you don't know where you've come from, how the hell do you know where you're going?
	Sorry, I didn't know if you want to add anything like that.
	Well, I mean, the thing I would say is that immigration would not be an issue if immigrants generally adopted the values of the country that they came to, and in the past they did before the welfare state, but now they don't.
	And in particular, free speech is an issue that if you look at immigrants into the West, and again, there are tons of exceptions.
	But as far as being a free speech absolutist, it is generally white males who are free speech absolutists.
	And it kind of goes down to females, to other ethnicities, to other races, to other cultures.
	It's just not part of other cultural history, whether that comes from how the religion works, whether that comes from their experience with the state, whether that comes from the experiences as children and discipline and so on, for whatever reason.
	And it doesn't really matter what the cause is.
	For whatever reason, free speech, which to me is just about the most important thing in the world, you lose free speech and everything else really falls apart that characterizes the West.
	If immigrants were staunchly supporting free speech and were pro-capital and so on, well then of course the left wouldn't be opening the doors to let them in, right?
	The left can't convince the general population so it feels like it has to replace them of the values of leftism.
	Yeah.
	Yeah. I mean, one thing that Britain has learned from mass immigration is that values become very, very firmly instilled by parents.
	This is why I've been talking about the idea that the sort of atheistic left need to find a way of becoming pro-family because their values are going to die out.
	When people start seeing a bunch of lonely, childless, single women and a bunch of Weak beta men who are incels and, you know, simping online and things like this.
	Like, you know, a foreigner who comes here who thinks, oh, Britain's a great country, and he sees this kind of thing.
	I'm like, okay, I'm not going to do what they're doing.
	There's nothing appealing in this.
	There's no reason I should look at that for a better set of values than I came with, because they don't seem to have accomplished anything good.
	For me, it's about intent.
	It's about being a team player.
	Are you joining the team of the country that you've come to?
	If I moved to Japan, I would be moving to Japan because I liked something that existed in Japan.
	I wouldn't set up a British counterculture in Japan.
	I would think that I was doing something wrong if I did that.
	I wouldn't be like, right, we need English pubs with fish and chip shops and things like that.
	That would not be Japanese.
	I would be like, God, I'm imposing myself on this culture.
	This is me doing something negative.
	They didn't ask for this.
	I mean, maybe they would, but assuming that was the case.
	So for me, it really comes down to intent and camaraderie.
	Are you joining Team Japan?
	And if you're not, then why are you moving there?
	You're moving there for your own selfish reasons.
	Well, and there are, of course, a lot of people, a lot of immigrants of every race and culture who moved to the UK because they liked the UK. Oh, absolutely.
	And changing it to something that is much like the country they left from is, well, what was the point of all of that?
	I mean, that's a terrible thing to do.
	I mean, it's like trying to escape literally out of the frying pan into the fire.
	Look at the Cubans in Florida.
	They hate Bernie Sanders with a passion because he supports the regime they fled from.
	Another quaint story was there's a Sikh gentleman in London who owns a pub and he put up a bunch of English flag bunting around the pub on St.
	George's Day and the local council told him to take it down.
	Because obviously you can't be English in England, especially not in London.
	And he said, no, get bent and put up more.
	So that's what I mean about joining the team.
	It's like you appreciate the thing you've come to because of what it was and what it is.
	And you want to support that.
	I think that's worthwhile. Yeah.
	Hello, Carl. I'm the Neuropsych student you chatted to when you came to Bristol in January.
	Here's the money for that brandy, I promise, just for the bar.
	Thank you, Joseph. I appreciate that.
	I'm going to just do one or two more questions, if that's all right.
	I got my stomach grumbling.
	We're actually just getting to the end.
	Sorry, I didn't even think about how long I kept you.
	It's been a great pleasure. Yeah.
	Sargon, when are you streaming with StyxHexandHammer666?
	You two would have a great conversation about American politics.
	When he can figure out how to contact me.
	I'm happy that I'd love to speak to Styx anytime.
	Styx, if you're watching, you can get me on Skype.
	I think you've got me on Skype.
	I don't check Skype very much anymore, but I will check it after this.
	Is religion necessary for a healthy, free society?
	It seems to me that without the use of force to preserve order and strength, we need social and moral pressure, which can at least be imposed without oppression, things traditionally provided by religion.
	What do you reckon?
	Well, we certainly need universal values.
	Subjectivism is always plowed under by absolutism.
	And if you don't have universal values, now you can get them from religion in that they can at least be universal.
	This is the great gift of Christianity to the world, was to not have rabid in-group preferences like other religions, but to have a universal I mean, this is a universal statement and this is why the Christian-derived countries tend to be the ones who have universal rights and property rights that are absolute and a relatively uncorrupt judiciary and the rule of law and minimal government, all that kind of stuff and tolerance and free speech and so on.
	It comes a lot out of that I think we're good to go.
	15 years as a public figure, I've been working very hard on universal ethics and really making the case for that endlessly and with endless debates and so on.
	We need to find a way to recover our universalism.
	I'm not sure that a reinvigoration of Christianity, given the youth and their lack of church attendance or respect for religion, or even appreciation of its gifts, it's not really going to happen.
	To me, it's philosophy or bust, it's reason or bust, and that's where I've staked my claim.
	Yeah, I always find it frustrating.
	As an atheist, there are so many other atheists who want to deny the Christian heritage of the West.
	And it is the universalism, the idea that every individual person has a spark of the divine and is a reflection of God.
	I mean, that was the driving force behind the ending of the slave trade.
	You know, they are God's creatures, as are we.
	That's a Christian thing, man. That's the Western thing. Totally.
	It was a Christian thing. I mean, Benjamin Franklin, in his petition to, I can't remember who it was to now, I assume to the American government, he literally is invoking them being fellow children of God.
	That's the crux of the argument.
	It's like, look, You know, I'll do a video on it on my Symposium channel actually to talk about it because there's quite a lot to go through.
	But you can't deny that that is a factor in the development and moral development of the West.
	And to pretend that it's not is mad.
	You know, it's mad. It's just not ahistorical.
	It's just ahistorical.
	Someone demanded in your chat, we stopped giving you money, so here's another dollar.
	Thank you, but I did actually turn it off a minute ago, so we can get to the end very quickly so Stefan can go.
	Will Tommy Robinson ever be accepted by the British people?
	Not while there are communists controlling our media.
	Well, he is. Are you kidding me?
	He is accepted by the British people.
	They love him. Hang on.
	When they say the British people, what they mean is the polite middle classes.
	That's what they mean. As you say, for the average working class person, they do.
	Well, I think what they'll have to do is they'll have to at some point absorb the unbelievable world-historical tragedy, horror, and abuse of the mass rape of British girls, the little white girls, the little Sikh girls, and so on, by largely Muslim-Pakistani immigrants that went on for 40-plus years and was covered up by the establishment, lied about by the media, and buried by the police and the social services and the government as a whole.
	That is... It's possibly the greatest tragedy.
	It certainly is the greatest non-war tragedy that has ever occurred on British soil.
	And it remains almost completely unprocessed.
	And the media that is desperate to overthrow the existing system with the aid of immigrants has, of course, completely turned against Tommy and has held him up as some sort of horrible human being.
	And this is a fundamental question.
	People say, well, I like having college jobs.
	And I'm like, okay, well... With that, unfortunately, not necessarily just because of immigration, but because of the complicity of the British system, the British elitist system, you get the rape of tens of thousands of children.
	And is that worth it?
	Now that's, to me, a fundamental sociopathy test.
	Like if someone has any kind of human compassion, that at least has to give them pause.
	Okay, so immigration, you hold it as a value.
	It did come with the mass institutionalized rape of tens of thousands, possibly over 100,000 little girls.
	Well, possibly up to a million.
	Possibly up to a million. I mean, you don't even know what the numbers are in general.
	Nobody knows, right? So if somebody's like, well, I'm committed to immigration, it's like, okay, well, it did come with this.
	And if there's not even a pause, you're not dealing with a human being who has a conscience or empathy or has got to at least give you a pause.
	That's a pretty high price to pay for your ideology.
	You're dealing with someone who's very ideologically possessed.
	Oh, that's monstrous.
	That's sheerly demonic at that point.
	And, you know, it's like the same question for the communists.
	You know, 100 million dead. Yes, but!
	It's like, okay, if that doesn't cause you any force, like, I don't know, you're like a different species or something.
	Yeah. If everything is subjective, forcing people to follow leftism is wrong and supremacist.
	Good observation. And the last one, Mencius Moldberg, aka Curtis Gavin, is a blogger and founder of the neo-reactionary movement.
	Fascinating stuff. Well, since I don't know what his beliefs are, I'm going to disavow in advance.
	No, and I hear the word neo and my eyes just glaze over, unless it's a major sequel.
	Right, okay. We're at the end.
	So, Stefan, thank you very much for coming on.
	And for such a long time, I didn't even realize how long we'd been going for.
	This is a very excellent conversation.
	I've left the link to Stefan's channel in the description.
	And thank you, everyone, for joining us and your questions.
	Yeah, and it was a big surprise for me.
	I thought I was going to be on a video with Carly B. It turns out I'm just chewing the fat with...
	Carly B. I'm sorry to disappoint you.
	Yeah, it's a shame. But, you know, probably a lot less leg and a lot less stoplessness.
	But no, I really, really appreciate it.
	It was a great fun. Thanks for the invite.
	Let's do it again. Oh, yeah, absolutely.
	Take care, everyone.
	Bye. Well, thank you so much for enjoying this latest Free Domain show on philosophy.
	And I'm going to be frank and ask you for your help, your support, your encouragement, and your resources.
	Please like, subscribe, and share, and all of that good stuff to get philosophy out into the world.
	And also, equally importantly, go to freedomain.com forward slash donate.
	To help out the show, to give me the resources that I need to bring more and better philosophy to an increasingly desperate world.
	So thank you so much for your support, my friends.

▲