Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

June 12, 2020 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux

01:31:27

"EVERYTHING YOU DO MATTERS!" Stefan Molyneux Interviewed by Joseph Cotto

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	- Good afternoon, everyone.
	I'm Joseph Cotto, and joining me today is Stefan Molyneux.
	Stefan, how are you doing?
	Well, I will say the curse of living in interesting times has fallen upon us, so I am alert, I think is probably the best way to put it, and seeing how rapidly events are unfolding that those of us who've been opposing communism for decades, seeing how quickly this snowball is occurring, where you've got, what, nine blocks in Seattle have been taken over by a bunch of anarcho-communists, and they put up, well, now they like borders, now they like walls and fences,
	and their leader has absconded over fears or accusations of sexual assault, and the chaos and their leader has absconded over fears or accusations of sexual assault, and the chaos is in, and the chaos is spreading, and I hope that it's the kind of thing that will propel us back to the forefront of social discourse, because those of us who've been warning for many decades about these kinds of dangers, well, because those of us who've been warning for many decades about these kinds of dangers, well, because of the imminent election of Trump and the usual ginning up of racial conflict in an election year by the left, events have caught up as predicted,
	Mm-hmm.
	Yeah, it's worth noting, and you were about to talk about authoritarianism in Hong Kong, so this is a great, I guess, segue, It's worth knowing that the people who are on the left that are out there, you know, engaging in violence or organizing to essentially take over cities is what's been seen in Seattle, as you mentioned.
	These are not like 1960s liberals who essentially want social liberalism and a welfare state to support it.
	These guys are pretty militant individuals who want to control freedom of speech, all freedom of association, even freedom of thought.
	And they're totalitarians, period.
	They're very angry people, and I think the deep anger they have inside radiates outward and it creates this nightmarish situation.
	Well, and it is, they have a terrifying answer, the communists, they have a terrifying answer to the issue of economic, what are called inequalities.
	And their terrifying answer is that all economic inequalities result from prejudice, racism, sexism, exploitation, theft, you know, property is theft, the au Proudhon statement, although I know he was talking more about aristocratic land.
	But the free market answer is, well, people have different abilities, they have different work ethics, they have different luck.
	And that's why you end up with wildly divergent rich and poor.
	And the only alternative to the productivity that comes from allowing rich people to control more resources, because generally, if you're wealthy, you're pretty good at creating more resources out of what you have, the only alternative is to try and flatten everyone down to a two dimensional flatland egalitarian nothingness, and everybody the only alternative is to try and flatten everyone down to a two dimensional flatland
	So their answer is that, hey man, inequality comes from prejudice and exploitation and wherever there is inequality, we've got to fix it by smashing down all meritocracies and all advantages that the smart and industrious might have.
	And the other answer, the free market answer, is kind of falling out of favor and has been for quite some time.
	It's a terrible situation.
	And I guess I'll just say if anybody has any reasonable and responsible questions or comments for Stefan or I, please do leave it in the live chat.
	It's a super chat. We'll get to it.
	But talking about authoritarianism triumphing over essentially personal freedom because of the free markets you're describing it, that's the core of it, personal freedom.
	In Hong Kong, there has been a systemic erosion of the sort of political independence which was once had there.
	It was said that there's no way that it could ever be eroded after the British left.
	That's why they handed it over to China in the way which they did.
	But obviously, you know, some very unfortunate things have taken place.
	And the U.S. federal government recently announced that Hong Kong is no longer considered by it to be independent of China politically.
	Now, Stefan, you've been covering what's been going on in Hong Kong more than I think almost any other Western journalist has.
	So I guess look at the situation in Hong Kong, how it got to be what it is now.
	Before we talk about parallels here, what do you think caused the breakdown there?
	Or from the perspective of the Chinese Communist Party, their victory?
	Well, it remains hanging in the balance, but it's such a David and Goliath situation.
	It's not... Thank you.
	filmed last fall, actually a couple of weeks before coronavirus hit.
	So I was kind of lucky from that standpoint.
	And you can get that at freedomain.com forward slash documentaries.
	It's free.
	I really, really strongly suggest that you watch it and share it, please, if you can, because it's kind of hard to find on social media.
	It's kind of hard to find on social media.
	You can type the exact name of the documentary in and you can't find it.
	You can type the exact name of the documentary in and you can't find it.
	So it's really been a push down and shadow banned.
	So it's really been a push down and shadow banned.
	And I think it's really, really important, even more so now when I talk about the dangers historically of China and name it as the biggest totalitarian threat.
	And I think it's really, really important, even more so now when I talk about the dangers historically of China and name it as the biggest totalitarian threat.
	Well, this was even before the assaults on Hong Kong and its independence and before the coronavirus, which whatever you believe about its origins, was certainly fostered and handed over to the world by a Chinese government, a totalitarian state that sealed its own country off from the Wuhan province, a totalitarian state that sealed its own country off from the Wuhan province, but then let half the planet in Wuhan fly out to the rest of the planet to spread So it definitely is a massive danger to us.
	So, I mean, sort of very briefly, Hong Kong stands as a thorn in the paw of the tiger that is communism in the same way that South Korea does, in the same way that East Germany does.
	and in the same way that East and West Berlin did.
	West Berlin, of course, was a little jewel in the darkness of communism and socialism in East Germany for a variety of historical reasons.
	And communists really hate when you have a genetically identical population that ends up in a very, very different place.
	And the only thing that's different is the free market versus communism.
	And so it's really, really important to understand that Hong Kong stands as a shining light that could guide the Chinese people out of the darkness of 60, 70 years of mass starvation, of mass torture, of organ harvesting, of gulags, of executions, of firing squads. of organ harvesting, of gulags, of executions, of firing squads.
	The Chinese Revolution was the single greatest slaughterer of human beings that has ever existed in history.
	And the collectivization of the farms just as occurred in the Holodomor in Ukraine under Stalin People were so desperate for food after the farms were collectivized that they would eat tree bark.
	They would try to eat insects, of course.
	They would find the little sad shavings you get off the outside of an onion and they would try and eat that.
	They would rip open their pillows and try and eat the bird feathers to try and get any kind of nutrition.
	It was absolutely appalling and horrible and awful beyond words.
	Whereas, of course, the history of Hong Kong for more than 150 years has been since it was taken by the British after the two series of opium wars.
	It retained even greater freedoms than have been maintained in the West.
	Hong Kong is like a little slice of 19th century classical liberal freedoms that we have forgotten about even in the West and stands as a blank repudiation to the horrors of central planning and totalitarianism that characterized mainland China.
	So it has to be crushed from the Chinese perspective.
	It stands as a massive repudiation of their entire system and as a potential place where people could find the courage and the methodology and the path towards particular freedoms.
	Now, the Chinese economy is currently being racked by a variety of things.
	Of course, people have stopped trying to buy as much of China as they used to be because they've realized that getting 5% off your goods isn't quite worth it when you shut down and lose half your economy from coronavirus.
	And so the Chinese unemployment is way north of 20% and the economy is in its late terminal end of the Soviet empire stages of collapse through central planning.
	It is holding on to a bunch of U.S. treasuries, the value of which no one who holds those treasuries ever wants to try and figure out by dumping them on the market.
	And so it is in a particularly catastrophic situation.
	And so understanding all of that, this theory that was entered into in 19...
	1997, this sort of one country, two systems, was that either totalitarian China was going to overwhelm and destroy free market Hong Kong, or the freedoms in Hong Kong were going to spread to the mainland.
	It's pretty optimistic to think that the latter was going to happen, that the two countries were going to kind of grow together, because communists never give up power voluntarily.
	Either their system entirely crashes, in which case they reformulate themselves as oligarchs in a corporate capitalist system, or they have to be helicoptered out by someone like Pinochet, or there has to be just a violent civil war.
	war, but they don't decide to just give up freedom any more than a sadist becomes a kind person after a while.
	So this framework, now of course, we have a situation where the world is distracted and navel-gazing to some degree because of the Chinese Communist Party virus.
	And so now is the time when China is going to make its moves on Taiwan, it's going to make its moves on Hong Kong, and that is what is happening.
	Hong Kong, of course, has its own constitution called The Basic Law.
	I actually interviewed Daniel Lee, who's been arrested since, on that whole history there.
	And it's supposed to have an extraordinarily high degree of autonomy.
	And now what's happening, of course, is the Chinese government It's creating laws that they wish to impose in Hong Kong to curb, you know, what they call sedition, secession, terrorism and foreign interference.
	And they're trying to get mainland security and intelligence agents stationed in Hong Kong for the first time.
	Now, of course, why do they want to do that?
	Because, you know, the old analogy, right?
	They're a sheep. There are wolves and there are sheepdogs.
	And the vast majority of people, through no fault of their own, and they have wonderful skills.
	You know, I don't expect my dentist to be really good at political philosophy and history and all of that.
	I just wanted to be able to fix my teeth.
	But most people, with regards to the dangers of communism, they're kind of like sheep.
	And the wolves want to tear apart the sheep.
	And the sheepdogs are the ones who circle...
	The herd and you can't really turn the sheep into sheepdogs, but you can at least keep the wolves away from the sheep.
	And over the course of the past couple of years, really since 2003, in Hong Kong, the Chinese government has sought to suppress, silence, demonetize, and oppose the sheepdogs who are guarding the population as a whole from the wolves of and oppose the sheepdogs who are guarding the population as a whole from the wolves
	The same thing, of course, as you know and I know very well, has been happening in the West, that if you are anti-communist, you have been targeted for many, many years for violence, for terrorism, for firing, for demonetization, for the assault upon the character, the assault upon the source of income, and the assault upon your capacity the assault upon the source of income, and the assault upon your This has all been occurring.
	Now, of course, it's vastly escalated just over the, believe it or not, only two weeks since the death of George Floyd.
	And so the terrorism law that China's trying to impose upon Hong Kong defines the pro-democracy, pro-free market.
	They always call them pro-democracy, but really it's pro-free market.
	The anti-communist activists in China that I was proud to march with and proud to take facefuls of tear gas with last year Those people are going to be redefined as terrorists.
	Those people are going to be redefined as seditious.
	And they're going to be kidnapped by the state apparatchiks of the Chinese government.
	And they may either be incarcerated, because you can get up to five years for disrespecting the Chinese government, whatever that means.
	And of course, the whole point is never defined.
	find.
	It's just what they don't like about whatever it is you're doing.
	Or they'll be shipped to the mainland where they could simply disappear.
	Or they could be thrown in with the Falun Gong and they could be disassembled for profit as the organ harvesting continues.
	Or they could be thrown in with the Uyghurs, the million-plus concentration camps that's holding Muslims in China.
	The whole gulag disassembly of human beings' machinery would grab them and pull them into its more Sochranitsyn style.
	So that is the big feat.
	Fear that is gripping Hong Kong at the moment as they stare at the second biggest economy in the world, $14 trillion, the second biggest economy in the world with some of the most powerful military might and some of the most dedicated and horrendous totalitarian sadists staring directly down at tiny Hong Kong, which has no particular military presence or power to resist anything That China can do.
	And of course, the whole point was to try and lean upon the allies in the West, particularly the UK, with its historical ties to Hong Kong and America, which has, of course, a very soft spot and should for the freedoms enshrined in Hong Kong, where it actually has a constitution that says we will never be a socialist.
	But of course, as the riots and coronavirus are disabling the eyes abroad of the Western powers, now is of course the time that China is going to make its move.
	And it's a very, very desperate situation.
	Sorry for that long intro, but there's a lot to go over.
	No, absolutely. Yes, you said it very, very well.
	Before we get into, I guess, some parallels here, which I think you were already beginning to allude to, I will address the first question from the audience from Wawg of the West.
	He asks, is race a sine qua non for Western countries more so than for non-Western countries?
	Stefan, since you are the guest, please do take this first.
	I'm afraid my Latin, since I can't read it, was that a Latin phrase, sine qua non?
	Can you just give me that in common tongue?
	Sure, absolutely. I believe I know the definition myself, but...
	Let's look it up just to be a straw man, the Latin.
	I'm pretty good with Pig Latin, but not the real thing.
	No, I never taught Latin in school, but it's a language that, just I guess you know the English language, you pick it up.
	But yeah, it's defined as being a noun, an essential condition, a thing that is absolutely necessary per, I believe, the Oxford Dictionary.
	So that is that.
	Okay, so with that in mind, could you just repeat the question?
	I think you can throw them up on the screen too if you want.
	Yes, you know, I'll probably...
	There's a little plus there on the chat.
	...a certain way, but then it was rephrased, so I actually have it written down here, which is not on Streamlabs.
	Is race a sine qua non for Western countries more so than for non-Western countries?
	So, I mean, it's a very interesting question.
	And the idea that culture is tied to race is completely terrifying, of course.
	I don't believe that at the moment.
	And I'll sort of give you an example, right?
	So I have been both to China for business.
	I spent a couple of weeks there for business.
	And I've been to Hong Kong.
	Now, of course, I was not safe to speak my mind in China, and neither would I imagine doing so, given the dangers of the regime as a whole.
	I was completely free to speak my mind and to gather together socially in Hong Kong.
	In fact, things that would be kind of unimaginable to do in a Western country, such as post, hey, I'm going to be at this bar, come, let's talk philosophy all night.
	There's only been two places in the world I've actually been able to do that.
	One is Poland and the other is Hong Kong.
	Now, of course, Poland is significantly Caucasian, significantly white, overwhelmingly white.
	And Hong Kong, of course, is overwhelmingly East Asian.
	I think it's like 97% or 98% of the population.
	So in these two places, you have, of course, utterly distinct, I mean, of the three major races, right?
	The blacks, the whites, and the East Asians.
	You have two countries where I was welcomed, where I was, you know, we had good debates with people who didn't like what I had to say, but it was all very civil, where I could move without security, without the need for security through the streets.
	As an anti-communist, an avowed anti-communist, I have been violently deplatformed in Canada.
	The venues have been physically attacked and people have been assaulted in America.
	I have had venues physically attacked and listeners assaulted in Australia.
	I have been utterly deplatformed through bomb and violent threats in New Zealand.
	And I had to speak in the face of bomb threats and death threats in Detroit.
	So if you look at the Western countries outside of Poland, and I'm sure there are a couple of other places, mostly places that have had A recent history with communism and therefore welcomed me as an anti-communist.
	But if you look at Hong Kong and Poland, these are two places with different races, but a similar commitment to freedoms.
	And of course, if you look at the environment, how somebody is raised in Hong Kong versus how somebody is raised...
	In China, they're going to end up with very, very different views of communism and totalitarianism and China itself based upon their environment.
	If you look at, again, genetically identical South Koreans versus North Koreans, North Korea is a complete squalid murder pit and the largest open-air gulag in human history.
	And it has...
	A GDP about 2% that of South Korea.
	And yet you have the same population.
	If you look at South Korea and their commitment to limited government, to free markets, to relative free speech and so on, it's very high.
	If you look at North Korea, well, who knows what the North Koreans think because they're too terrified to open their mouths, just as you and I would be in that situation.
	I do think that you do need a certain amount of intelligence to be able to grasp the free market.
	It's best yet it's old, the seen versus the unseen.
	So the big challenge with the free market is that when you violate property rights through the state, the benefits are concentrated but the costs are diffused.
	The example being is a very common one that's used.
	The sugar industry in the U.S. is able to charge significantly more for sugar because they are able to maintain sugar tariffs that keep other sugar-producing countries from bringing their sugar into the United States.
	So they gain millions and millions and millions of dollars every year from these tariffs, whereas the average American consumer, it costs them $10, $20, $30 a year.
	So the incentive to keep the tariffs up is really concentrated.
	They have millions of dollars worth of incentive per year to lobby and fight for the continuance of these tariffs.
	But all the people who are losing $20, $30, $40 a year, they don't really have that incentive to do it, right?
	So it's the same thing.
	The government spends $5 million to create a bunch of jobs.
	Everyone who gets those jobs is like, woo-hoo, we love government spending.
	Look, everybody's wealthier.
	And those people get paychecks and pensions and all of that, whereas the $5 million that the government is spending to create those jobs, It's a couple of pennies from the general population's pocket And so you have to really be on principle and say it's not the visible jobs.
	That we have to be concerned about.
	That's obvious. The job creation made by the state.
	It is the invisible costs.
	You'll never see the jobs that would have been created otherwise.
	You will see the jobs the government creates, but you won't see all of the sustainable and actually productive jobs that would have been created if the government had left that $5 million in the hands of the consumers.
	So it does take a certain amount of abstract reasoning, of conceptual abilities and so on, to be able I don't tie it to race,
	although I do say that there is a significant either education or natural intelligence that's necessary to be able to really comprehend the value and morals of a free market.
	I'm trying to think if there's anything I could add to that.
	I don't think there is, Stefan, pretty much stated my position far more eloquently.
	Oh, I think we've lost you.
	Are you there? That I could have.
	Oh, thank you. Sorry, you just glitched out for a second there.
	If you could just catch up for me for a second.
	Sure. No problem.
	No, I was just saying that the sort of expanded or revised question that I read from Blog of the West, he put in the chat under the Super Chat, so I didn't know where to find it to bring that up, but I wrote it down.
	But I will bring this one up from Event Horizon, which is for me, and I should be able to answer it very quickly.
	Event Horizon says, Kato, we need to talk about the SBC. That's the Southern Baptist Convention.
	Paul and I hope to discuss this with Event Horizon Very soon about how the politics of the Southern Baptist Convention has changed tremendously.
	It has gone downhill quite rapidly.
	They now teach critical race theory in their seminaries.
	And it's interesting because they used to be the citadel of conservatism in the United States, at least religious conservatism.
	The times have changed for the Southern Baptist Convention.
	We shall discuss it at Event Horizon.
	I am very much looking forward to that.
	Let me see now. Then there's something else here.
	I think this is for me and Stefan from Wojak Woes, if I could, if it will.
	There it is. Will the political right push back at some point?
	Stefan, since I just spoke, please take this away and then I'll share my views.
	I don't like questions that seem to imply there's a domino determinism to human affairs.
	So if you sit there and say, is the quarterback on TV going to pass the ball?
	You know, we all get involved in sports.
	We jump up and down in our chairs and so on.
	But we all understand that The quarterback is either going to throw the ball or not based upon what he wants and we don't actually have an influence.
	So my concern is that if you say a question like will the political right push back at some point, you are taking a spectator approach to human affairs.
	Do not do that.
	I'm sorry to sound harsh, but here's time for a little bit of philosophy.
	Tough love, my friend. Do not take a passive approach.
	If you think the political right should push back at some point, then—and again, I'm talking sort of peacefully and reasonably and through the process of law and so on.
	I'm not talking about any sort of vigilantism here.
	But if you believe that the political right should push back at some point, don't just sit there and wonder if it's going to happen.
	You know, it's like sitting and thinking, hey, I wonder if I'm going to end up with something to drink in five minutes.
	It's like, if you're thirsty— Get up and get yourself a damn drink.
	And if you think that something should happen in the world, don't ask a question of others.
	Do you think it's going to happen?
	Go out and find a way to make it happen.
	And this can be a small thing.
	This can be social media posts.
	This can be conversation with friends.
	This can be donating to a worthy cause.
	This can be any number of things.
	But if you want something to happen in this world, get off your butt and Get to your keyboard.
	Go out. Well, maybe not these days, but when you're allowed to go back outside, go out and make something happen.
	Like I didn't sit there and say, gosh, I wonder if modern philosophy will face any kind of resurgence in the world.
	I didn't sit there.
	No, I was like, man, philosophy really needs a resurgence.
	I'm going to get down there and start the world's biggest philosophy show.
	And now here I am 15 years later, well over 700 million views and downloads, having great conversations with you all and Joseph and great people in the world.
	So don't be passive.
	Life, and particularly politics, is not a spectator sport.
	The price of not getting involved in politics, as Plato said, is being ruled by your inferiors.
	So if you want the political right to push back...
	Now, I think that Trump wants to push back, but the problem is, like, it's now been what?
	Six or seven days since he said he was going to declare Antifa a terrorist organization.
	Hello! Nothing yet!
	Kind of might be worthwhile doing that, my friend.
	But the problem is, of course, and we saw this with the whole utterly corrupt FBI, FISA court, Russia collusion, conspiracy, paranoia situation that lasted for two and a half years, followed by the ridiculous impeachment and so on, that the law enforcement arm of the United States...
	I don't know, but it's not looking pretty good.
	And so that's the problem, is that the legal methodologies for pushing back against the current communist insurrection, and let's not kill ourselves, what's going on in America, what's going on in the West right now is a communist revolution.
	They are not kidding around.
	This is what happened countless times throughout history, and it's now happening right here in the United States.
	Why? Is the American government not pushing to take back the streets?
	Well, a couple of reasons. Number one, why would Trump want all the negative photo ops of him presiding over bodies in the streets, particularly black bodies in the streets, when it's Democrat cities, Democrat policies, Democrat chiefs of police, Democrat governors, Democrat congresspeople who've put all of this stuff in place?
	Why would he rush in to save?
	Minneapolis, which has been under Democrat control for decade after decade after decade, why would he take the PR hit to save Democrats and Democrat voters from the inevitable results of their own policies?
	Well, at some point, it is going to snowball, and you understand that the communists who are out there in the street, the radical leftists, the Black Lives Matter, Black Lives Matter founded as a Marxist-Leninist party.
	They're not fooling around with this kind of stuff.
	Antifa, specifically the violent arm Of the Communist Party in 1930s Germany, just as it is in the modern West.
	It's an international organization, much stronger even in Europe than it is over here in North America.
	But these people are not fooling around.
	They absolutely want to do it, and they don't want to fix any problems.
	They don't want to solve any problems.
	All they're doing is testing America's resolve to fight back.
	All they're doing is probing for weakness.
	Can we get away with this?
	Can we toss this statue out?
	Can we take this section of town?
	Can we beat up on this cops?
	Can we occupy this police station?
	And every single time they succeed, they just get further and further emboldened.
	And the appeasement thing, I thought we'd kind of dealt with this in the 1930s, the value of appeasement, the idea that appeasement, as Churchill said, is the hope that the crocodile is going to eat you last one.
	Well, you still get a crocodile's teeth up your ass, right?
	So that is what needs to be understood.
	So why is the arm of the state not striking down these violent revolutionary lawbreakers and thieves and looters and outright murderers with David Dorn and many others?
	Why? Because I believe that the arm of the state has been rotted from the inside out.
	By infiltration from communists, from who knows who else is in there, and so I think The whole plan and goal is to sort of, oh, well, we'll just let it burn itself out.
	It's like, hello? Guess what?
	This is not going to burn itself out, my friends.
	This is not just people blowing off some steam.
	This isn't, well, we're really, really frustrated with society, so we're going to go out and riot and then remember that we're hungry and we've got jobs to go to and go back home.
	This situation snowballs and it can snowball extremely rapidly and every day that law and order is not restored, which 80% of Americans desperately want, Every day that law and order is not restored, it becomes harder and harder to do it.
	And it really just comes down to the will to power.
	Who has the will to power in this situation?
	And so far, it ain't the state.
	I agree entirely with Stefan that when you're talking about political change, you have to do something to make the change come about rather than just expecting other people to do it.
	I think that as to what Wojak Woz was saying, though, The American right, on the whole, is caught between a rock and the hard place, because if it supports a total military response to what was happening, or what is still happening now even, it does play into the hands of the people who are agitated because they want that sort of thing, because they want, number one, to play the victim.
	They're obviously not victims.
	It would be the military striking back at them.
	But number two, they want the pretext to engage in more violence.
	So these people are not like Stephan said rioters who go home at the end of the day.
	They're essentially soldiers for their cause.
	And it's a lose-lose situation with them in terms of Trump in an election year, because if he does nothing, he'll look to his base like a wimp.
	If he takes the actions which he's allowed to do under the law, he'll look, the media will portray him as some kind of, you know, slaughterer, and that will negatively impact his standing with independents who are very easily led, unfortunately.
	So it's Doronkin a hard place right now.
	And obviously, since he is the personification of the American right, as it's currently incarnated, Asking when the American right is going to push back against the craziness that's going on, it's a very difficult situation.
	I think the best thing to do is to deal with it piecemeal through the Department of Justice, Bill Barr, obviously Trump's appointee as attorney general, allowing local law enforcement agencies to deal with these problems as well.
	But if Trump were to take the sort of maximalist approach, which he is allowed to do under the law, I think it would be very bad for him electorally, unfortunately.
	And that's just the way it is.
	If this weren't an election year, it would be different.
	Well, it wouldn't be happening, right?
	If it wasn't an election year, it wouldn't be happening, right?
	And sorry, just wanted to throw one other thing in there as well regarding all of this stuff.
	So the communists have been infiltrating American society since the 1920s.
	Joseph McCarthy was wrong.
	It's much worse than even he thought.
	And it was, even at the time, worse than Joseph McCarthy thought in terms of communist infiltration.
	China was handed over to the communists as the result of Soviet spies in the State Department in the post-Second World War period.
	Eastern Europe was handed over to Soviet Russia, putting tens of millions of people into horrifying slavery for decade after decade as the result of Soviet spies.
	Massive proportions of humanity have been handed over to totalitarianism as a result of communist Soviet spies that were working in the American State Department.
	And that's just one department. There's tens of thousands of outright, openly Marxist professors who are infesting American and Western universities as a whole.
	The infiltration is huge.
	So here's the thing.
	People don't believe that the Red Scare is real.
	They don't believe in the infiltration of communists.
	And I would really recommend Diana West's book, The Red Thread, for all of this.
	Really, really important to read.
	You got time.
	Everybody's home.
	You can pick up that book and go read it.
	I also have a presentation, which is free, The Truth About Joseph McCarthy.
	You can check that out on YouTube.
	So people don't understand how much this toxic, violent, destructive, sadistic, brutal, human dismembering ideology has infested Hollywood and academia and the news and the FBI and government as a whole.
	So, So if you nip it in the bud, people are like, hey, it's not that dangerous.
	Maybe there is a sort of case for saying, well, people are really going to have to get how dangerous this is.
	Because once they get how dangerous this all is and how a country can switch like that, There were a lot of nationalists under Chiang Kai-shek in China who wanted a more Western-style democracy.
	You look at the difference between North and South Korea.
	You look at the difference between just about any decent country and Cuba.
	And it can switch like that, and it doesn't take a lot of people.
	There's not a lot of wolves.
	There's not a lot of sheepdogs.
	There are a whole lot of sheep who will just follow whatever happens.
	And so there could be an argument to sort of back up Joseph's point to say, Until people get how dangerous this all is, why would you want to nip it in the bud?
	Because once they get how dangerous it all is, not only can you put down this insurrection situation, but just the basic law that is not enforced is absolutely stunning when you think about it, right?
	So Marx and Marxists and Marxism as a whole seek the violent overthrow.
	Of the American government.
	That's right there.
	I mean, that's what the Communist Manifesto was all about.
	Violent overthrow of the existing government.
	Now, not that Joseph and I ever would, but if we did just decide to form a group and say, hey, our goal, and we openly publish that our goal is the overthrow of XYZ government, well, that's illegal.
	And yet, not only are people permitted to do it in the West, but taxpayers are forced to bloody well subsidize it.
	This might have been the first times in history where people have been forced to subsidize the ideology that is going to take away all the joy and freedoms of their life.
	So at some point, this sedition is going to have to be rooted out, and the law either has to be repealed or applied.
	And if it is illegal to advocate for the overthrow, Of the United States government, then why the hell is the Communist Manifesto the most assigned textbook in American universities?
	None of this makes any sense whatsoever.
	Well, it's not really supposed to, I suppose, but that's the reality.
	So I think people are going to have to realize how dangerous it all is so that when the blowback comes, they're like, bullet dodged.
	And before we get to the next question from Cloud Hammer, I'll say I think they hide behind the fact that I believe under American federal law there has to be an overt act to further conspiracy of some kind.
	So if they just get together and talk about it, technically that's not illegal, but until one of them actually decides to do something.
	But of course, you have these Antifa protests, if you want to call them that.
	I would say it's very clearly people trying to overthrow the government, not just a federal group, but wherever they are, as you see with Seattle, you know, literally taking over part of the city.
	So, as Stefan mentioned, there are lots of laws that can be used against these folks, but they're not being applied.
	And the situation that we have is not entirely unpredictable, to say the absolute least.
	And this is a philosophical question, if it could just come up on the screen.
	Okay, here we are.
	If force is the only language the oppressor understands, when is it moral for good people to use strike-first violence?
	Obviously, like I said, a philosophical question.
	So it's interesting.
	Since Stephan is the philosopher, why don't you address this first, Stephan?
	Yeah, I will address this very clearly in saying that I am not going to get involved in these kinds of discussions because who knows if this is some federal agent trying to lure people into suggesting violence as a way of solving social problems.
	Stay within the law, petition your political leaders, and don't break the law.
	And so I am not going to get drawn into these kinds of discussions wherein there could be significant blowback.
	When it comes to the use of force, by the time that shows up, You don't go to philosophers anymore.
	You understand that, right? It's like if you're currently having a heart attack, there's no point calling a nutritionist, right?
	Because what's the nutritionist going to say?
	Go to ER, man.
	I can't help you. Maybe if you called me 20 years ago and you hadn't eaten all those burgers and fries, maybe I could help you.
	But right now, so I'm not going to get involved in strike-first violence.
	Thank you.
	Yeah, but the law is not exactly objective.
	We saw that after Hillary Clinton and we saw that after...
	The destruction of Libya and so on.
	And we saw that after no prosecution for war crimes for various invasions that America has done.
	So the police do not get involved in discussions about strike first uses of force.
	It is a very dangerous genie to uncork and it is, you know, you never know who's on the other side of that typing and trying to get you into trouble.
	I agree 100% with Stefan.
	I wanted to address this.
	So both of our mutual commitment to, you know, reason, responsibility, and nonviolence could be unambiguous.
	Always, always remain within the bounds of law.
	I think it's never moral. It's never just to use any kind of strike-first violence.
	The only kind of violence that's ever, I think, allowable is within self-defense, within the confines of the law, wherever you are.
	And that's pretty much it.
	So, no, I don't think strike-first violence is ever justifiable, period.
	And I am adamantly opposed to anyone who is of the mindset that it's okay.
	I think the mindset that That it's some way allowable.
	It's essentially what you see with Antifa and others.
	And it's a terrible road to go down.
	And I'm very glad we were able to tell people that it is a dead-end street, essentially.
	So it should be avoided at all costs, period.
	No weasel wording around that.
	Just don't do it.
	End of story. From Top Tier Scholarship, let's see, here it is coming.
	Why do so many whites kneel in front of rioters?
	This is interesting. I think I'll probably take this one first, as long as Stefan doesn't mind.
	I think it's because there's a new civic religion, essentially a secular faith, that white people, because they're thought of as being essentially born guilty of the sins of their forefathers, can find atonement by kneeling to those who it's thought that their forefathers are oppressed.
	And this is essentially a secularized version of the Christian salvationist concept.
	And that's what this is.
	This is more or less a replacement religion for Christianity to make people feel better about themselves who are white.
	And that's basically what this is.
	Stefan, anything to say about what Top Tier asked?
	Oh, quite a lot, in fact.
	I'll try and keep it brief.
	All right. So...
	There has been, of course, layered into the law for many years and layered into the media's portrayal of conflicts between whites and say blacks or Hispanics, right?
	So in any conflict between whites and blacks and Hispanics, in general, the white person is considered the evil, patriarchal, colonial, racist and privileged and blah, blah, blah, right?
	So one of the concerns, of course, that people have is that if they do get into even a verbal conflict with a person of color, that the media is going to catch it, that the media is going to portray it, that it's going to be shared on social media, that you're going to get fired, that you're going to get kicked out of university, that you're going to get doxxed, that you're going to get attacked, that you're going to get hunted through the streets, all, you know, various levels of negative responses.
	And so people are like, OK, it's easier to take the knee than to try and get involved in a conflict where I'm always going to be portrayed as wrong.
	So there's that sort of a practical standpoint.
	And the other thing, of course, is that the people who are attacking whites, it's not fundamentally a racial thing.
	It's really, really important to understand.
	It's not fundamentally a racial thing.
	Look, they're tearing down statues of people they consider to be racists in history and so on, even people who were abolitionists.
	It's really important to remember that the British Empire and the British...
	We spent untold amounts of blood and treasure to end the practice of slavery worldwide.
	That is a crown jewel in the history of the British people and in the history of Christianity that no other people and no other religion has ever matched in human history.
	The modern world was founded upon the end of slavery.
	You cannot have a free market.
	You cannot have the modern world if you don't end slavery.
	And Britain went into such debt to buy off slaves around the world, it actually only paid that off, a mid-19th century debt.
	It only paid it off in 2015.
	That's how much they cared about the end of slavery and that was largely driven by Christian focus upon free will and empathy and sensitivity and the universality that is involved in the Christian ethics which is the closest thing to a philosophical universality that any religion has ever, ever generated and stands in stark contrast to places like Islam and Judaism which have very strong in-group preferences and not nearly as much out-group preference in terms of moralities.
	So let's be really clear. It's not about slavery.
	It's not about racism, right?
	The statues are all being torn down.
	Now, you know who was a terrible racist?
	Karl Marx. Karl Marx wished the destruction of entire races.
	Karl Marx used the N-word like he was sprinkling salt on a hot dog.
	I mean, he was an unbelievable racist.
	Miraculously, even though they're tearing down all of these racist statues of racists, you know who's not been touched?
	That's right, Daddy Kay.
	Karl Marx has been untouched in these riotings, so let's not pretend it's about racism.
	Is it about slavery? Well, of course not.
	Islam has a history of slavery that actually continues to this day, but they're not tearing down mosques, right?
	Good! They shouldn't, right?
	Is it about slavery?
	Well, no, because...
	Blacks in general and a lot of these activists would have voted for Hillary Clinton, would vote for Joe Biden, but Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama dismantled and destroyed Libya and permitted open-air slave markets to be founded and grow in Libya where you can buy a black male for $400.
	Now, did Black Lives Matter take any of that sweet Soros cash and use it to go and buy and liberate the slaves in Africa?
	No, they didn't.
	So let's not pretend like there's actually slavery in the world right now.
	Right now!
	There is slavery in the world that is largely the result of policies enacted by Democrats for regime change in various countries, in particular Libya.
	So if people are saying, well, I really care about slavery that happened 200 years ago, But they don't actually give a rat's ass about people currently enslaved in Africa at the moment, then please, let's not pretend this has anything to do with slavery.
	America held slaves legally for a grand total of 84 years, right?
	Because before that, it was the responsibility of the British.
	So when America was founded to the Civil War, it's about 80, 84 years, America...
	It's a country that has just about the least history with slavery in the entire world.
	And America fought a war to end slavery.
	The British Empire fought a war to end slavery.
	And this was the foundation of the modern world.
	None of this has anything to do with racism.
	None of this has anything to do with slavery.
	But of course, a lot of white people do.
	And a lot of white people say, well, gee, I'm richer than blacks.
	I'm richer than Hispanics. Of course, you're not as rich as Jews and East Asians, but you're richer than blacks and Hispanics.
	And so the strength of Christianity is its universal ethics and its openness.
	To having moral responsibilities to people who aren't you, who aren't your race, who aren't your religion, who aren't your tribe, who aren't your country.
	There is a universality that gave the world the end of slavery, the greatest moral advancement in the history of the world.
	Unfortunately, though, there is an aspect of Christianity which is to do with guilt and shame and discomfort with prosperity that can be used to manipulate a lot of Christians.
	So when I look at whites kneeling before black activists or white Antifa activists or whoever, I don't see a race thing.
	What I fundamentally see is a hatred of Christianity and a contempt for and a loathing of Christianity.
	Now, communists have always hated Christianity because Christianity's focus on personal responsibility, on individual free will, and universal morality stands in stark contrast I mean, I'm going to put it as nicely as humanly possible.
	I think it's love versus sociopathy, but, you know, just to put it at a very economic standpoint.
	And this is why churches aren't allowed to open.
	But you can go and riot for communism, and everybody gets behind you, from the mainstream media, from academia, even the corrupted and communist-infested healthcare systems and advocates throughout the world.
	So I view this as, you could say, really demonic, anti-Christian forces forcing Christians to kneel, and Christianity has, of course, turned the other cheek.
	Christianity has, if he asks for your shirt, give him your cloak as well.
	If he asks you to walk a mile with him, walk two miles with him.
	And that's not a terrible thing when you're dealing with reasonable people.
	But Christianity also has an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.
	And I'm really, really hoping that that switch doesn't get flipped, because when it does, well, when Christians were pushed enough with the Crusades, well, they pushed back pretty hard.
	And I think that's my very sort of brief analysis.
	Well, not very brief, but my analysis, I suppose.
	Yeah. It's very much appreciated.
	This is from K-Max McDonald, for Stefan specifically.
	Hopefully it'll come up sooner rather than later.
	Here we are. For Stefan, do you agree all the institutions are controlled by the left?
	Legal, financial, media, Hollywood, as well as education.
	He asked me to say that. This is why the right won't move on anything.
	Yeah, I mean, you can say left and right, and I get why that is somewhat useful.
	But to me, it's communist versus anti-communist.
	It's totalitarian versus freedom.
	I mean, people think that I'm on the right because I'm anti-communist.
	But I mean, technically, I'm not on the right.
	And so you can use these distinctions.
	I'm not going to nag you about them.
	But I just remember that.
	They can't obscure as much as they reveal when it comes to these kinds of discussions.
	Well, sure, of course. Absolutely.
	I mean, I get these messages all the time from people who are like, hey, man, Steph, I don't know how you do what you do, but I'd love to stand with you, brother, but I got a family to feed, right?
	And we see all of this happening now, this shakedown hysteria of, hey, man, if you're not donating to these leftist causes, these leftist groups, if you're not bowing down and licking the boots and washing the feet and throwing your money at them, well, we're just going to destroy you economically.
	We're going to, you know...
	Cassandra Fairbanks was attacked by a bunch of radical leftists, her house, and she's got a gun out and trying to figure out how she can save her daughter from whatever's coming.
	I mean, this is pretty rough stuff.
	And so, yeah, for sure.
	And we are going to have to be stern with the people in our lives.
	Like, for God's sakes, don't send your kids to these Marxist indoctrination camps called sociological universities or anything but the hard sciences, maybe legal and becoming a doctor, engineer kind of thing.
	Do not send your kids to these Marxist indoctrination camps.
	Pull your kids out of government schools.
	If it's at all even remotely possible, the stuff they're being taught in there will absolutely shock you to your core.
	It's not the schooling that you and I had when we were younger.
	It has really been compromised.
	It has really become vicious and ugly and particularly anti-white, anti-male in particular.
	It is going to mess your kids up.
	It is a cult. It is nothing to do with education.
	No education would be better than indoctrination because without education, at least you know you don't know stuff.
	But with indoctrination, you know things that aren't true.
	So things like that. Keep people away from mainstream media.
	If you've got to share articles, use the archive sites.
	Don't give clicks.
	Don't give money. Don't give income.
	This is a desperate battle, and the methodologies for fighting it are still peaceful and largely voluntary, but please go out and educate people about this kind of stuff.
	And let's just have CNN only playing to the empty airports of coronavirus age travel and not into people's homes.
	Get them to cut the cord, cut the cable, cut the websites, find better ways of getting information.
	You know, starve the beast.
	Don't go see Hollywood movies.
	Don't go, you know, just don't give these people any money.
	And maybe there'll be some reform, although I think they're happy to burn down entire economies to the ground to get their way.
	But it's certainly a good shot.
	From K-Max McDonald, for both of you, at what point did the left abandon their economic battle against billionaires and totally focus on just whites?
	I feel this shift occurred around 2012 when Occupy Wall Street failed and dispersed.
	Stephan, do you have anything to say about that?
	Well, they do have a tough time with...
	The class theory.
	I mean, you understand, the class theory has been utterly discredited.
	I mean, Marx predicted a couple of things.
	I'll just do it really briefly here.
	So Marx predicted, of course, that you would have more concentrated rich, you'd have more concentrated poor, and the middle class would vanish, right?
	And what happened?
	Well... At least early on, not so much lately, of course, and certainly not post-bailout time, but what's happened is that throughout most of American history, sort of post-19th century, the middle class grew and the poor diminished and there was a constant churn, right? This idea that there are these fixed classes.
	We've all heard the rags to riches to rags stories in three generations and so on.
	And we just know this.
	We know some people are born with this or maybe they develop it or maybe it will, some combination of all.
	They have this incredible productivity like the Steve Jobs, the people who just like everything they touch in a sense turns to gold.
	They just have this weird speak in tongues kind of capacity to charm productivity out of workers and environments.
	And they're just magic capital multipliers.
	It's hard for people to say, well, there are all these fixed classes when one of the biggest ethnic groups for wealth in the United States is the Hindus from India, right?
	I mean, they come into America, often not speaking the language, sometimes heavily accented and so on.
	They do fantastically. East Asians make more than whites.
	And so this idea that there's this fixed class, you know, when the Jews were fleeing the Holocaust, they came to America with virtually nothing.
	It took them four years to become We all know the guy who came from nothing and made a lot of money or the people who crapped away all of their inheritance and ended up with nothing because they have the economic acuity of your average sandstone carving.
	This idea that there are these fixed classes and they're continually at war with each other and that the only way that you become wealthy is through exploitation, that was a lot easier to sell when there were children being stuffed up chimneys and downed mines for 16 hours a day and you got Charles Dickens writing plaintively of David Copperfield and Oliver Twist and you name it.
	It was really easy to sell that case, but it's a whole lot harder to sell that case.
	When even the poorest people in America have cell phones, color televisions, air conditioning, two cars in the driveway.
	It's pretty tough to make that case now.
	So they had to give up on the class thing.
	So they tried the gender thing.
	They tried setting men against women, which has been pretty successful.
	That came out of the leftist feminist movement in the post-Second World War period.
	Didn't work super well because women just got increasingly miserable and now a quarter of women over 40 in America are on antidepressants, which is a terrifying thought.
	It means the rest of them aren't. So they last on the gender thing.
	They last on the class thing.
	So now they're going all in on the race thing.
	Whatever they can do to divide people.
	I mean, they'd probably set Joseph and I against each other based on hair versus non-hair, as far as I know.
	So whatever divisions they can put to try and divide people, they will.
	And so they've gone all in on race because the class thing can't really be believed.
	The Soviet model was revealed by Khrushchev in the 60s to be this cult of personality gulag nightmare.
	And the evidence now that, of course, is coming out from the communist countries, however suppressed it might be, is that it's a hellhole in there as well.
	So they're like a drowning man grabbing at everything.
	They're now grabbing onto race and they're going all in that way.
	Yeah, I agree.
	I think that perhaps a specific time when the left became less about economics and more about woke issues.
	I mean, this is something that the build-up first been going on since the 1960s, really, when the left was revolutionized then.
	But I would say that the failure of Occupy Wall Street, the Occupy movement more broadly, to influence politics in a big way, Made a lot of people on the left believe that social issues were more important, that they had a better longevity than economic issues did, and they could reach out to more people for whatever reason.
	And that just sort of threw fuel on the fire of social justice warfare, identity politics, that whole thing which had been started really in the 1960s.
	I guess I could say the seeds were sown before that, but in the 60s, it came into its own in American politics as a major force.
	And during the early 2010s, I think after the Occupy movement floundered, That's when social issues, people decide to double, triple, quadruple down on them.
	So that's my take there, K-Max.
	From Wojak Wo's prediction, will the coup d'etat end?
	We'll just say. Will it end very, very badly?
	I think that the...
	It depends what you mean by coup d'etat, because I know that there are people, militants on the left, who are trying to overthrow the government and create an uncivil society.
	And these people have already caused physical harm to people.
	I mean, that's undeniable.
	I think that eventually what will happen...
	I guess we're just waiting for Joseph to come back here.
	Hopefully he didn't kick out a cable or something like that, but we're just going to wait for Joseph to come back in here.
	You guys can't see him either.
	It's not just me, is it? Joseph frozen?
	That's right. Yeah, that's right.
	He's frozen, right? Okay.
	Shall I continue on with this show?
	Shall we find out?
	Let's see here. It is not really so much about race, but about gender and class.
	However, she could be allowed on to explain.
	You know, set up a blog and share it around and try and get it.
	Oh, we lost him. We've lost him!
	Okay, well, we'll wait for a second or more and see if he can come back.
	You guys can still see me.
	Is that correct? We can see you fine, Molly.
	Look at that. We're on a two-syllable basis.
	Do a super chat, Steph.
	I'm not going to take over his show for my super chat, so I'm sure you can continue to donate to Joseph and his show.
	But let me just scroll back up here and see.
	Am I in a war? More than a war against me, a war about who I am, a war against individualism.
	Now that's interesting too because you probably heard the kinds of stories that I've heard around or kind of arguments which says, so one of the problems is that if you have a collectivist movement like socialism, communism and so on, And it is going up against a lot of individualist people, like individualist people who have individualism as their core belief.
	Then the collectivists are going to win because the individualists are going to be too fragmented and, you know, like trying to get libertarians all to show up at the same place can be like herding cats.
	And they have a particular and quite a virulent hostility to people like Ayn Rand who promoted individualism saying that it kind of broke the collectivist defenses of the West.
	There are interesting arguments.
	I would have to sort of really mull them over and be exposed to them more, but I just wanted to mention that here, that individualism is getting quite a bad rap at the moment in a lot of people.
	Steph, do you believe there is any pragmatic reason for a single white male to remain in Southern California?
	You're currently in the OC from Alabama.
	Yeah, so California is turning into Mexico, right?
	And if you look up sort of average IQ of Hispanics in Mexico, it's not going to go well at all, right?
	And so the demographics are the destiny that you're going to have to deal with.
	So I would look up a couple of moving companies and get some quotes.
	Joseph, you're back. Yes, I do apologize.
	It said my internet went out, but the internet was still on.
	I have no idea why that happened.
	Because they're watching us, man.
	They're watching us. They've got their finger on the button again.
	You never know today, but I don't think that was it.
	I think this was just a routine technical glitch, but I think you probably addressed what Wojak brought up, right?
	Yeah, yeah. So if you want to do a couple more questions, we're coming up on an hour, but let's do a question or two more.
	Yeah, sure. Yeah, we're almost done with what's here.
	That, of course, will serve as the last call.
	If anybody has any last-minute reasonable and responsible questions or comments for Stefan or I, please do throw it in the live chat as a super chat and we'll get to it.
	That is the last call.
	Did you hear all of my response to Wojak?
	Did I cut off at a part of it?
	I would think it'd probably be worth bringing up the tail end of it.
	Yeah, so anyways, I was telling Wojak that I think that the military or militarized police will wind up dealing with these violent people who are insurrectionists, essentially, eventually when these insurrectionists go too far in their violent activities.
	So that is how I think that will go.
	Should no fault divorce be abolished?
	Well, you know, you can't get out of a cell phone contract without giving a good reason.
	You can't not pay your bills without giving a good reason.
	So why you're able to shred a family, the most sacred contract of all, without having to give a good reason, lies beyond the understanding of anybody who wants to preserve the family, as in Western civilization.
	See, once you destroy the family, you destroy the mechanism by which hard-won cultural values are transmitted, right?
	Kids don't learn about Western values in multicultural daycares, obviously, right?
	I mean, I worked at a daycare. I know.
	We didn't have a whole bunch of civics classes there, right?
	So, yeah, the whole point of no-fault divorce is to get—it's a bunch of things.
	So, I mean, destabilize the family, set women against men, make men hesitant to marry women for fear of being divorced, pillaged.
	And also, at a short-term economic standpoint, women spend a lot more money in the here and now than men do.
	just go to any mall and see how many stores there are dedicated to men.
	And so if you can get family finances into the hands of women, then you'll stimulate the economy.
	I mean, almost like a tumor, but that will be the effect.
	Sorry, go ahead.
	No problem.
	let me see did you address the I think white southern god had a question for you did you address that while I was away no oh okay let me bring that up he It's Stephan. Do you believe that?
	Oh, yes, I did. Sorry. Sorry, I did.
	Oh, okay. No problem. My mistake.
	Sorry about that. Sure.
	No, I'll just delete that.
	Not delete the quote. Just take it off the screen.
	And that means we're closer than I thought to getting through these.
	But I think there was just one that just came up.
	From K-Max McDonald.
	Here, if it could just come up.
	It's coming. Stephan, is there anyone on the dissident, right, you find most interesting?
	Who would you like to interview? Z-Man, Steve Saylor, Ramsey, Paul.
	I don't know. Who do I want to get in trouble today?
	Let's see. I don't know who Z-Man is.
	I've read some of Steve Saylor's articles, and he is a very reasonable person.
	My understanding is that he's not a huge fan of the spotlight, and trust me, there's days when I can understand that decision completely and totally, so I'm there for that.
	Ramsey Paul is very provocative and very – he's the kind of guy who will stimulate you into thinking.
	And sometimes it's like, oh, no, that's terrible.
	And you sort of can find your way as to why it's terrible.
	And other times he's like, well, that's a really shockingly interesting and good point.
	So, yeah, he's definitely worth looking into.
	And he is a very, very passionate man to his course.
	And this is what I respect about even the hard left and the communists and Antifa.
	It's very, very important to recognize the strengths of your enemies and emulate them.
	These people have been heavily committed to their view of society and their view of reorganizing, to put it as nicely as possible, reorganizing social and economic relationships.
	I mean, they're all in, man.
	They are all in.
	And they have been very, very patient.
	And they have done the 1960s post-long march through the institutions.
	And now they do have...
	The judicial system by the throat in many places.
	They have academia, Hollywood.
	They have the media as a whole, news, and a lot of the internet giants, I think, are kind of getting washed under the tsunami of leftist outrage.
	So they have been very, very patient, and they have taken incremental gains, and they have bided their time, and they are all freaking in.
	comes down to whoever wants it more wins that's the future as a whole whoever wants the future more wins and if you falter back now if you fail now i mean unfortunately because you're watching this you might as well ship yourself to a gulag and save them some time and for mark urzhabek uh the west is doomed and the next great superpower will be the chinese and Agree? I don't agree.
	I think that China has severe internal problems which will limit its ability to be a US or Soviet-style superpower.
	I think that China at some point will essentially bite off more than it can chew and it won't be able to digest that.
	And it will have its own problems internally that are so severe that it will not be able to focus enough time to building an external empire.
	Stefan, do you have anything to say about what Mark brought up?
	Well, I'd like to introduce you to a little character I call Yelly Steph.
	So please feel free to back away from your headphones, but...
	The West is now dead?
	You've got to be kidding me.
	The West has been dead for about a hundred years.
	The West has been dead really for about 150 years.
	The West has been dead in terms of its capacity to sustain itself in all of the freedoms that our ancestors fought so hard to give to us.
	The West has been dead the moment That the government took over education.
	The moment the government starts taking over education, you substitute knowledge for propaganda.
	Yeah, it's a slow process.
	Yeah, there's a lot of momentum from early smart people and wise people who just hung on to the current system in the same way when the government nationalizes anything.
	Whether it's engineers through NASA or doctors through Obamacare, you get a lot of doctors and engineers who have good conscience and good work ethics and so on because they developed it in a free market environment.
	But the slow decay sets in.
	America... Lasted...
	In terms of the ideal...
	How long did it last?
	Less than a century. Less than a century.
	I mean, really, the founding of the Republic to the Civil War.
	It lasted less than a century.
	I mean, you've got Washington riding down in the Whiskey Rebellion people who didn't want to pay tax in Pennsylvania.
	A couple of years after the whole thing started.
	The West died right before...
	World War I with the institution of central banking.
	The West took another mortal blow during World War I when the flower, the cream and the crop of the West was shredded in an utterly useless, completely destructive waste of time, money and life war.
	When almost the entire wealth that had been generated through the suffering of the Industrial Revolution was set fire On the altar of the vanity of the mostly inbred rulers of Europe.
	And then where do we go from there?
	First World War. We went straight into the Spanish flu, which was spread as a result of the First World War by the soldiers returning home.
	And then what happened? Well, you got a massive tumor called the stock market that was being fed by crushingly low interest rates and massive money printing, which then crashed into the 13-year catastrophe known as the Great Depression, which then ended up in the worst world war in history.
	40 to 60 million people killed.
	They can't even figure it out.
	And then you got a couple of years of the 1950s where things weren't so bad and then boom!
	Straight into the hedonism and squalor of the 1960s, the beginning of this dismantling of the West.
	And then you get what? You get this Vietnam War.
	You've got stagflation in the 1970s.
	You've got stock market and real estate busts and booms in the 1980s.
	You've got the narcissism of the 90s, followed by the dot-com boom, followed by 9-11, followed by the Patriot Act, followed by bank bailouts, followed by you name it!
	America, peaceful neighbors to the North and South, founded as a limited government society where only Congress could declare war has been at peace for roughly four years of its entire history.
	Four years out of 270, 280 years.
	That's all they've managed. So the West, I mean, I don't like Antifa, don't get me wrong, but this rotten system, With $170 trillion of unfunded liabilities with the capacities to sell off the unborn to foreign banksters for the sake of buying votes from the dumb in the here and now,
	with a propagandistic, soul-destroying, teach-anal-sex-to-five-year-olds retarded pedophilic educational system, it can't last!
	And like the end of Rome, it shouldn't last.
	Whatever we have now is utterly unsustainable and has been for a long, long time.
	And we've been hanging on like people who've inherited a lot of money and think we're entrepreneurs for quite a while.
	And yes, they're now leaning on the rotten tree and it's falling over.
	And let's not work with them because they're insane and evil, but let's at least recognize that they've got a point, that the system was terrible.
	The system was unsustainable.
	The system was immoral.
	And we need a change.
	Now, they're provoking a change.
	I don't want to go where they're going, because where they're going is where I can't live.
	But let's at least recognize that we do have an opportunity to reevaluate at this point.
	They have a point.
	The system is rotten.
	The system benefits the wealthy disproportionately.
	The system makes politicians and the military-industrial complex rich.
	And the system... Traps the poor into a near-permanent underclass of drone-like welfare dependency that is utterly destroying any capacity for happiness in millions and millions of people's lives around the West.
	Mass immigration is destroying any cultural cohesion in the West.
	So I don't like the fact that they're the ones leaning on the tree, and I want to push it the other way, but let's not pretend the tree could stand.
	I'm trying to think if there's anything I could add to what you said as we, you know, wrap things up here.
	I guess there's, because there would be some, you've brought so many good things that I would like to talk about, but you put it so well that I really am at a loss for words, Stefan.
	So kudos to you for that.
	Do I think? Yeah.
	This is from Jeff Halfley.
	I believe it's the second to last one.
	It's for Stefan. Do you think that IQ enhancement research like CRISPR will eliminate many of our social ills by raising IQ across populations?
	I think it has that potential.
	But IQ is not a recipe.
	High IQ is not a recipe for the free market.
	It's not just that.
	So, I mean, if you look at East Asians, they have higher IQs on average than whites.
	But they vote for the left. If you look at some of the people who have, particularly in verbal skills, the Jewish Americans, some of the highest IQ, the Ashkenazi Jews, some of the highest IQs in the world, still overwhelmingly vote for the left.
	So, simply raising everyone's IQ does not guarantee that you're going to end up with a free market paradise.
	I do think it's going to help a lot if these things, I mean, who knows?
	How they could ever be morally implemented, I have no idea.
	It kind of doesn't matter because China's already experimenting with IQ 200 babies in a test tube anyway, so whatever we think about it in terms of morals, there's a gene race that is occurring whether we like it or not.
	So, I think that it will help.
	It's necessary but not sufficient in some ways to bring up our capacity, not just for equality, but for our dedication to the free market.
	You know, equality of outcome is tyranny, right?
	Equality of outcome is tyranny.
	Equality of opportunity is freedom.
	And so when we can accept the fact that we're different, different choices, different capacities, different circumstances and so on, if we can accept the fact that we're different and recognize that just because someone has a million or a billion dollars and you don't, it doesn't make them a better human being.
	It doesn't make them more valuable than you in an existential sense.
	You can still be loved by your wife and your children.
	You can still be a pillar in your community.
	You can still do wonderful good in the world.
	And remember, remember what the Beatles say.
	It doesn't buy you happiness.
	It doesn't buy you love. Money, IQ is not correlated to happiness in any substantial way.
	To live a happy and virtuous life is available to just about everyone on this planet.
	Reason equals virtue equals happiness.
	We can all be rational if we accept philosophy, if we accept universality, if you can find it in Christianity, if that's what works for you, we can all be rational.
	From rationality, we can all be moral.
	And by being moral, We can all be happy.
	And we all know the stories of the lost little rich girls and the lonely rich guys who...
	I mean, if you think money buys you happiness and talent and wealth and beauty buys you happiness, Marilyn Monroe and Howard Hughes would be someone who does not fit into that particular curve.
	And Jeff Bezos, of course, would never have been divorced, right?
	So it is not enough to simply envy.
	Envy is one of the core deadly sins for a damn good reason, because envy breeds hatred and envy breeds paralysis.
	And envy has you think that something that someone else has acquired, and it may be that they got it unjustly or unfairly, that some material good or some person or some hot girl or some job or some fast car or some haircut or hairstyle or who knows what, that something that someone else has, if you only had that thing, Then you'd be happy and the fact that they have it and you don't is going to make you angry.
	That is a terrible way to live.
	That sends away the locus of control and your capacity to be in charge of your own happiness to circumstances and often corruption.
	You know, if you want to be Jeff Bezos, well, you're going to have some moral challenges when it comes to, say, dealing with the CIA or other things or dealing with the Washington Post and all these other things, right?
	Focus on what you can control.
	Focus on your own dedication to reason, truth, virtue, and happiness.
	That will make you happy, and if you have that kind of happiness, people can offer you all the money in the world, and it won't even tempt you for a moment.
	Profoundly stated by Stefan.
	This is the last question.
	I believe it's for him because it came in when he was speaking before, at least as far as I could tell.
	So you're saying it's bad, and I presume that means Western civilization as it presently is and the trajectory which the West is on.
	I don't know where you'd get that from.
	Maybe you were playing it all backwards, ELO style, but no.
	Well, no, it's not bad when you hit bottom.
	If you're an addict, look, we've lived in unreality for 100 years in the West because we've just been able to print money and borrow money and make it all up.
	We've not even been close to reality.
	Fundamentally, we live in a psychosis.
	That sounds like hyperbole.
	It's really not. Economics teaches us that all human desires are infinite and all resources are finite.
	We had coronavirus. Did taxes go up?
	No, they just dumped a couple of trillion dollars into the economy.
	From where? From nowhere.
	Like, counterfeiting money gives you such a disconnect from reality and limitation and difficult resources and difficult choices.
	We don't make difficult choices anymore.
	We don't. We don't say, oh man, the bills have gone up here.
	Where am I going to cut? Oh, we want the welfare state and we want the war in Vietnam.
	No problem. We'll just print money.
	We don't make difficult choices anymore.
	Oh, we've got to fire these. You know, there are teachers who've been credibly accused of pedophilia who still have their jobs.
	I mean, they're locked in these rubber rooms, they call them, in New York and other places.
	We can't even fire people who've been credibly accused of molesting children, for God's sakes.
	I mean, for heaven's sakes. We don't make tough decisions anymore.
	And that's because we live in this I mean, just follow the stories of average people who win the lottery.
	They hate it. It's terrible for them.
	There's a guy in Canada, he won the lottery.
	He got addicted to drugs.
	He ended up in prison. And he's like, you know what?
	Prison is better than winning the lottery because at least here I can't get drugs.
	So we've lived in this psychosis decade after decade.
	And people like Joseph and myself and others who've been saying, hey, man, this party can't last.
	Hey, there's going to be a big crash.
	Hey, this is unreal.
	Hey, we've got to stop doing this.
	G. Edward Griffin, all the other people who talk about Federal Reserve and central banking and so on.
	So what's happening now is, you know, we're out of excuses.
	We're out of unreality.
	And the addiction can't be sustained.
	Now that is not a bad thing.
	The sooner you hit bottom, the harder you can bounce.
	If you wait too long to hit bottom, you land like someone off the Twin Towers on 9-11.
	It's not good. So the fact that the system is now unsustainable and is becoming really rapidly recognized as such is our only chance to wake up from this dystopian fever dream of infinite resources that has corrupted us.
	What does the devil do? The devil offers you infinite power in return for your soul.
	And we gave ourselves the delusion of infinite power.
	With all of this financial muckery, and it costs us our rationality and our soul.
	Ethics is all about having to make tough decisions.
	We've just waived all of those necessities away for the infinite drug of endless money.
	Well, the bill's come due and can't come soon enough as far as I'm concerned.
	And I do apologize.
	There's one thing that, one question, a very brief one that I missed, probably when the computer was having its issues.
	But from Marty Hurst, do you think the election will be decided by the United States Supreme Court?
	I don't think it will.
	I don't think it'll get to that point.
	I think Trump will win with pretty much the same Electoral College delegate count that he did last time.
	I don't really see that happening.
	It could theoretically happen, but I don't think that it will.
	I don't think any one state would be that pivotal to his victory.
	Stefan, do you have anything to say about Marty's question?
	Well, they're going to use violence and fraud to try and win the election.
	I mean, the Democrats, you know, it's funny, you know, when they worship the guy who literally dedicated his book to Satan, it kind of tells you all you need to know, right?
	I'm talking about Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals, which Hillary Clinton wrote a thesis on and Keith Ellison of Minnesota held up in a Twitter photo and so on.
	Right, so they have no morals.
	I understand. It's a pure Nietzschean will to power.
	They're mammals seeking power using all the manipulative tricks of an amoral consciousness.
	So they will lie, cheat, steal.
	They will defraud.
	They're going to go for their mail-in ballots.
	They're going to intimidate people at the voting booth.
	They're going to try just about anything.
	And this is another reason, of course, why I think Trump is holding back from letting the hammer drop.
	It's like people are really seeing the Democrats for who they are.
	They're not the party of JFK. They're not the party of LBJ, and he was pretty damn corrupt anyway.
	But the more that society crumbles, the more people want stability and law and order.
	There's nothing like... A race riot to make people conservatives, right?
	I mean, that's just the way it happens, and we've seen this over and over again in American history and world history that when you get the chaos of the 70s, you get your Giuliani's, right?
	Your chaos of the 70s, you get your Ronald Reagans.
	So letting this kind of stuff play out, I think, is only going to serve Trump.
	But for heaven's sakes, I would say to people, don't take anything for granted at all.
	At all. I mean, because this is not the last thing that they're going to do.
	Plus, of course, it doesn't matter if he wins the election, but the Democrats gain power of the House and the Senate, then they're just going to impeach him anyway.
	So let's not pretend that everything's in the bag.
	If you're pro-Trump, there's still 6,000 different ways that this election could go really south.
	And should it go really south, then maybe we'll start talking about state secession from the Union, which may be the only way to save the remnants of the Republicans.
	And that does wrap it up for the questions.
	I do apologize to Marty again for not seeing.
	That definitely was not intentional, getting to that last.
	But I am glad that we got to your question all the same.
	Stefan, parting words here.
	I think probably looking at Hong Kong and the parallels that we see It's scary, obviously, what's going on when you have people who wish to usurp the rights of other people for their own vain glory, which they hide behind various political ideologies.
	And, you know, there's really no way of rationalizing this with people.
	It's trying to tell them, you know, what you're doing is going to be good for society.
	It's not going to be good for you, ultimately, because these totalitarian systems wind repressing everyone.
	But a lot of people don't seem to care.
	They've lost the concept of individual rights.
	They really want power and they want it right goddamn now.
	And they are like, it's almost like it's borderline sexual passion that they have for it.
	And, you know, it's scary to see this kind of thing going on.
	And I think what we need to ask ourselves is how did it get to be that so many people in society found this, you know, Chinese communist authoritarian model to be good for them here in the West or what remains of the West?
	So that's my thoughts on the parallel.
	Stefan, for the final word in this discussion, please take it away.
	Listen, my friends, you're not powerless at all.
	You are not powerless. You are not the pawns of history.
	You are not the playthings of the gods.
	You are not leaves in the wind.
	You have immense power.
	And we like to detach ourselves from our own capacity to affect change in the world because with change comes blowback and responsibility and the possibility of failure, which is why I pushed back against the listener earlier who said, well, what's going to happen?
	It's like... What do you want to have happen?
	Find a way to make it happen.
	Look, there's social media. I get it.
	There's risks involved. But you understand, at some point, you're going to understand what Joseph and I and others have understood for many decades, that there's no risk greater than the avoidance of risk, right?
	So what does it matter if you keep your job, but the economy is destroyed?
	Like the old saying that they made a desert and called it peace.
	Oh look, I kept my job but my business went out of business because the communists threatened everyone.
	And what does it matter if you make people uncomfortable at family dinners because you bring the truth to bear on important situations?
	Everything you do has an effect in the world.
	Everything you post, every conversation that you have, everything you stand up for, everything that you decry, everything you oppose, has an effect on the world and you never know who's listening, who's participating, and who you can influence.
	You might post something, maybe only five people see it.
	But maybe one of those five people...
	It has a huge amount of resources and talent and ability and oratory and they can go on to make a huge difference.
	You never know. You know the price of inaction is decay.
	You don't know everyone you might be able to influence.
	You might have a conversation at a coffee shop when we're allowed to go back in and somebody might overhear that conversation.
	In a coffee shop.
	You might share something, 99 people might say that you're a terrible person for sharing it, but that 100th person Might either be a key influencer or somebody who has the capacity to influence things.
	I know that a presentation I did, and I know this because I got this communication directly, I did a presentation called The Destruction of America's Mental Health Care System.
	And I know that legislation changed as a result of that to really help people.
	Now, I could sit there and say, because I've been so suppressed by YouTube and other places, I could say, oh, well, only 50,000 people saw that presentation.
	You know, whereas there are other presentations out there, mostly to do with cats and lasers, that get like 3 million views, right?
	But if the 3 million people who watch it don't have any influence in world affairs and don't have any intelligence or talents or whatever...
	Three million does nothing.
	It could be that of the five people or the three people or the one person who sees what it is that you do, it makes a difference.
	Do you know why the riots are happening right now?
	The riots are happening right now not because of the left, but because of the right.
	Because I have been involved in so many of these race-baiting, officer-killed-in, unarmed black guy hoaxes throughout the years that I pushed back pretty hard pretty early on this one.
	And, you know, as it turns out, George Floyd had terrible heart disease.
	He had hypertension. And it turns out that some of his arteries were 90% blocked.
	He was on fentanyl, which suppresses heart activity.
	He had meth in his system.
	He had catavinoids in his system.
	And it turns out that his heart gave out and he had cardiac arrest while violently resisting police officers and also casting what is pretty certain to be drugs aside from his vehicle while driving a vehicle stoned out of his gourd.
	And it also turns out that the woman who got the $20 bill from him, that was wet, by the way, and which means that he was probably involved in the production and distribution of it, that she went out to his car and she said to George Floyd, just give the cigarettes back and you can go home.
	But he chose to stand. He chose to stay.
	He chose to fight. And it was not.
	This knee on the neck thing, come on.
	It's been well over 200 times it's been used in Minneapolis just over the past couple of years.
	Not one single fatality.
	You don't breathe through the back of your neck.
	You don't breathe through your shoulder.
	It's legal. They're trained in it.
	He was approved in it, I'm sure.
	So what happened was, though, a number of prominent right-wing people, a number of prominent conservatives, and everybody knows who they are, and some of them are very big, They all got behind this racist cop murders innocent black man.
	And that was the crack in the line that allowed these riots.
	The left has always been trying to push for these race riots, particularly in an election year.
	But the right crumbled and the right slipped into that void and allowed this to go through.
	And so the people who've been pushing back against this race-baiting narrative We are going to be the ones who help bring this stuff under control.
	So even if you just post back and say, well, there's this.
	Like, so, you know, somebody is going to say, well, you know, he was strangled or he was, you know, it was the knee on the neck that killed him.
	It's like, nope, just push back just a little bit here and there.
	You don't have to, you know, get...
	In people's faces the way that I do or anything like that.
	But, you know, just a little bit. Everything you do has an effect in this world.
	You are not powerless, especially with social media, especially with the internet.
	But even if you're off it completely and you don't want to post anything, even in your private life, somebody says, oh, George Floyd died from the knee to the neck.
	It's like, nope. The autopsy is very clear.
	No strangulation. No asphyxiation.
	And they couldn't have saved his life.
	The guy was complaining of shortness of breath and having what looks like an exact heart attack before he was ever down on the ground.
	Couldn't have saved him. They called the ambulance.
	They could not have saved him.
	Turn it on his side. And he was having a shortness of breath.
	Medical emergency in the middle of a shortness of breath coronavirus pandemic, and the cops did not want to get sick, and that's probably why they put him on the ground, and also he refused to get into the car, and he fought them like crazy.
	You can see the car rocking back and forth, right?
	So it matters.
	You know, for all the people who got behind, oh, it's just a racist cop who's murdering people, you are the main reason why this occurred, because the left was going to try and do it no matter what, and the fact that the conservatives broke And sided with the leftist race-baiting narrative, that's why the riots are happening.
	It's on you, not on them.
	They're just machines programmed to cause conflict.
	But you're the ones who broke ranks.
	You're the ones who refused to stay with innocent until proven guilty.
	You're the ones who refused to wait to judge until the autopsy came in.
	You're the ones who refused to examine this very violent man's history and wait for what was going on with his internals.
	And you're the ones who sided with the mob.
	The mob got to America through the holes in the conservatives' integrity.
	And I, you know, people criticize the left.
	Absolutely.
	I'll criticize the right when it matters here, too.
	So don't be a little bit of pushback.
	It can be personal.
	It can be anonymous accounts or anything.
	it really really matters.
	What every single one of us do, do not succumb to the spectator sport of your own future.
	Get involved. Get in there.
	Make a difference.
	Because I'll tell you this, if you fail to stand up for what is true and what is right, At some point you will realize that the suffering you're engendering on yourself, on others, on your children, on your future, is so great that you'll wish you had stood up for what was right when you could.
	Because when it's too late, you will spend possibly a very short existence regretting it to your grave.
	Profound words from Stefan.
	Once again, he puts things far more eloquently than I could.
	This was an outstanding way to leave off.
	There is, even though came well after the last call, I'll just address it here.
	It's not a question, but a statement from Jim Edwards.
	He says, wait till Chauvin gets acquitted.
	Big chaos. I think there's a good chance Chauvin might get acquitted because they probably overcharged him.
	I think it is.
	So when you overcharge people, And then, you know, upheaval about something as sensitive as this is typically what happens.
	So it could be that the prosecutors in Minnesota made this already bad situation far, far worse.
	I don't doubt that.
	And it would be nice if the people in his community had cared as much about him when he was alive as after he was dead.
	Maybe they could have helped him get off drugs.
	Maybe they could have helped him prevent or helped prevent him becoming a violent person.
	Gun-wielding felon and home invader.
	Maybe, just maybe, they could have suggested to him that he call his kids, right?
	Because he has a son and a daughter he had not seen for 15 years.
	They did not even recognize their father on the news reports.
	So I'm always a little suspicious when people who don't seem to have cared about someone when they were alive suddenly weep and wail at their funeral.
	It just seems like a bunch of nasty theater.
	But listen, thanks everyone. I really, really appreciate it.
	Thanks, of course, Joseph, for having me on.
	It was a great pleasure to chat.
	You're very welcome, Stefan.
	Thank you very much for tuning in, everyone.
	Whether you just watched, whether you participated in the live chat or in the Super Chat, I will raise my empty glass for you to those who did the Super Chat.
	But thank you all for being here.
	All the same was an outstanding discussion.
	Very glad we were able to go over these important issues.
	And Stefan, it goes without saying, you are more than welcome back on the show again down the road.
	Thank you very much. I will look forward to your email.
	Take care. Thank you.
	Have a great night, everyone.
	Thanks again for tuning in. 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.

▲