Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Dec. 17, 2020 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux

01:40:05

Wednesday Night Live! Life After the Election

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	All right. Hey, look at that.
	Technology, after sacrificing the obligatory number of goat chickens and human souls, has finally agreed to let us transmit philosophy.
	Thank you for your patience. We are on tonight.
	I hope you guys are having a good evening.
	And thank you for your patience.
	We're up and running. How are you guys doing out there in COVID land in...
	Post-SCOTUS election land on Biden confirmation land.
	How are you guys doing?
	Tell me all about it. I'm hungry.
	Hungry for you. I'm hungry to know.
	And I will devote this show to you and your thoughts.
	And please don't forget to pick up a free novel.
	Yes, that's right. Free audiobook novel.
	It's, uh, what, 23 hours?
	Oof. Something like that.
	It was a bit of a voice buster doing all those different voices.
	But hey, it's really, really cool that my acting training came in to finally rescue me.
	What was it? I can't believe it.
	It was over 30 years ago that I was at the Communist Laced National Theatre School in Canada and wondering why they didn't seem to appreciate my writing talent quite as much as they should and why they loved me as an actor until they found out about my politics.
	Oh, to be that young and hairy and naive.
	Oh, how delightful it was.
	You liked the recent emergency show with the alcoholic?
	Thank you. I appreciate that.
	You know, it was tough.
	Getting him to commit to not drink because, you know, you can't do therapy.
	Sorry, you can't do...
	If you're a therapist, you can't do therapy with people who are drunk and you really can't talk philosophy with people who are drunk as well.
	So he did a great job.
	He did a great job. And it is really...
	You're hairy. Still, it's just moved.
	Yeah, that's like a post-50 thing.
	Or for me, it was like a post-40 thing.
	You know, you go to the barbers and...
	You say, well, you can't do much about the top, but do you mind trimming the ears a little?
	Because I got those Shropshire hedgerows going in there.
	So, yeah, how are you guys doing?
	I wanted to know what your thoughts were regarding, I guess, the mirage?
	Right, the mirage that everybody was charging towards, which was find some way to get Trump back into the White House, and now the state's certified two days ago.
	And I know that there's a bunch of reviews of the Dominion voting machines, and there's still some legal stuff going forward, but as far as actually retaining Trump, no.
	I mean, it was a hell of a long shot to begin with, to put it mildly.
	To put it very mildly, it was a hell of a long shot to begin with, but I'll tell you my big disappointment about it all.
	Look, maybe this is going to provoke secession.
	Who knows what's going to happen as the socialist stuff begins to ramp up in the US over the next couple of years.
	But I will tell you what I think was a real disappointment.
	No matter what you think of potential fraud, or not fraud, or hinky CCP-funded voting machines, or what the heck was happening in Germany, or the fact that Cubans and Venezuelan quasi-dictators commissioned the machines in order to retain power, whatever you think of all of that stuff.
	And, you know, I haven't directly looked at the forensic evidence.
	I've read through a bunch of the lawsuits and so on.
	Whatever you think of that stuff, the majority of Republicans and 30% of Democrats think that the election was fraudulent.
	Now, that is...
	that's a huge deal, right?
	That is a huge deal.
	Now, the people who are in the court system, and I'm thinking in particular the Nazgul 9 on SCOTUS, right?
	Supreme Court. I mean, they get a lot of money, they get a lot of prestige, and their job is to hold the country together.
	Because a country in general is defined by a uniformity of laws across a geographical area, at least a uniformity of constitutional laws, a uniformity of what's perceived to be by the majority to be legitimate authority in the geographical area of the United States.
	Now, to hold the country together means that, okay, courts can decide different things.
	It went its way up to the Supreme Court.
	The Supreme Court makes the final decision, and that is the seal of universality on the laws in the United States.
	So their job, essentially, and fundamentally, is to hold the country together.
	That's what they're paid for.
	That's what they get all that prestige for, to hold the country together.
	Now, how are they doing on that job?
	Well, they're doing worse than terrible on that job.
	And what I mean by that is that they should have heard the case.
	They should have heard the case.
	And the case should have been televised.
	And everybody should have been able to...
	You guys are probably younger, right?
	So when it comes to gripping TV, my mom was like glued to the O.J. Simpson case and was like taking notes.
	And the O.J. Simpson case back in the day was...
	The big powerful court TV stuff.
	I mean, this concerns the entire legitimacy of the US government and the legitimacy of the election process and so on.
	So the Supreme Court should have taken Texas's case.
	And they should have televised it.
	And people should have been able to hear arguments from both sides.
	Now, is that going to convince everyone?
	Well, of course not. There's always some people you're never going to be able to convince.
	They're beyond the reach of reason and evidence.
	But it would have done an enormous amount to unite the country.
	If you want to change people's minds, you have to let the best arguments from the best people come storming up against your particular citadel of truth.
	This is a philosophical thing, right?
	I've always invited people, when I put out a theory or an argument or a set of evidence, you know, come and knock at it and see if you can improve it.
	And it's like a muscle that grows through opposition.
	So the Supreme Court Has the job of keeping the country together.
	And the country, America, has never been more divided.
	Has never been more divided.
	And so, when Texas brought suit and said, Listen, I'm no lawyer.
	I'm no legal expert.
	I'm just telling you my layperson's opinion of it.
	But when Texas came and said, look, Pennsylvania screwing up the election disenfranchises Texas voters, right?
	Because if Pennsylvania screws up the election and this means, let's just say it's simplistic, right?
	Let's say people in Texas voted for Trump and people in Pennsylvania voted for Biden, right?
	Let's say that's sort of the way it played out.
	Now, if Pennsylvania Screwed up the election in some manner, then of course that affects the votes of people in Texas.
	Of course it does. Because Pennsylvania, say, screwing up the election means that the people in Texas who voted for Trump are disenfranchised.
	That's a very, very simple thing, right?
	That's a very simple thing.
	So saying, well, what on earth does Pennsylvania's internal matters have to do with taxes?
	Well, when it comes to the election of the President of the United States, it would seem to me that that has an enormous amount to do with it.
	Because if Pennsylvania ends up illegitimately running the election to the point where the voters in Texas who voted for Trump have their votes completely overturned and Biden gets in, Then that is a massive intrusion of Pennsylvania into Texas.
	And so for the Supreme Court to say, well, I mean, Texas has no standing.
	Come on, right? But it doesn't just dilute the vote.
	I mean, this is people commenting.
	It doesn't just dilute the vote. It can completely disenfranchise the Texas voters.
	Because let's say Pennsylvania is the ultimate swing state and the determination of the Pennsylvania Electoral College votes determines the presidency.
	It's not just taxes. Then every single person who voted for Trump has had their entire vote invalidated by Pennsylvania.
	So Maybe there is some wonderful, complex, magical unicorn fart explanation for all of this, but when SCOTUS comes out and says, well, there's not really any standing.
	I mean, it's Pennsylvania.
	It's not Texas.
	It's like, okay, I can understand that.
	If Pennsylvania raises property taxes...
	By 2%. Okay, I get that doesn't directly affect people in Texas, but when it comes to the actual presidential election, yeah, that seems like Texas would have an interest and all states would have an interest in ensuring the legitimacy of the electoral process in other states.
	So, it really doesn't make sense to me.
	And look, if there are people out there, you understand this better than I do.
	I would love to hear. I'm happy to hear.
	What you guys have to say about this, but the Supreme Court has the job to keep the country together.
	The country is bitterly divided, and the bitter division at the moment is over the election, the legitimacy of the presidential election.
	And there was stuff out there that certainly makes you go, hmm, you know, where they say, oh, go home, we're stopping counting for the night, then the observers go home, and then hundreds of thousands of votes magically appear for Biden.
	And when you have people being forced to stand on the other side, like you're supposed to have a Republican and a Democrat certifying every vote, and they're saying, oh, no, no, it's COVID, man, you've got to go away.
	When there's more people voting than there are people in the state.
	Assuming all that is true, and, you know, there's been fistfuls of hundreds and hundreds of affidavits and testimony and so on, when evidence Appears to be wantonly destroyed.
	USB drives go missing.
	Paper ballots go missing.
	Stuff is just gone. That's not good.
	And it's a bipartisan issue, you understand?
	When 30% of Democrats think that the election was problematic, to put it mildly, then you have a bipartisan issue.
	And for no court, really, to allow pleading, subpoenas, cross-examinations, evidence, for no court to allow the cross-examination and defense really to be able to make their case, is absolutely terrible.
	It's absolutely terrible.
	Terrible. And the SCOTUS, to me, has completely abandoned their duty to keep the country together.
	And see, here's the thing.
	I mean, this is the case that I would make, which is, you know, just a philosopher's case from an armchair, so to speak.
	But the case that I would make is, let's say you're on the SCOTUS, right?
	You're one of the Supreme Court justices.
	And Texas comes with a lawsuit that you think is...
	It's a bad lawsuit.
	It's a bad lawsuit, let's say.
	Let's say, right? The job of SCOTUS to keep the country together should demand that what they do is they say, okay, this is a bad case.
	But if we dismiss it, the country is going to end up even more divided.
	And it's going to radicalize people.
	Remember how I was on the front page of the New York Times last year?
	Because I was out there radicalizing people.
	I was three pictures of my face on an above-the-fold Sunday New York Times.
	I've made it!
	And because I was radicalizing people, because a listener of mine got a job and a Christian girlfriend.
	Radicalizing, right? So I would say, as a Supreme Court Justice, I would say, look, people really believe, really believe that this election was fraudulent in many ways.
	Now, we've looked at all the documents.
	We've cross-examined everything.
	We've looked at all the affidavits.
	We don't think there's a case there.
	But if we dismiss it, people won't ever really get a chance to go through the evidence and have it cross-examined by professionals.
	So let's take the case.
	Even though we think it's a bad case, let's take the case for the good of the country.
	Let's take the case for the good of the legitimacy of the election system.
	Let's take the case for the good of the republic.
	Let's take the case for the good of democracy.
	And let's just air it out.
	Let's just get all the dirty laundry out.
	out let's just get everything out and I think failing to do that in such a divided country is a dereliction of duty of the first order But they had a duty to let Texas make the case.
	And if the case was weak, if there wasn't, because this is what the courts kept claiming, right?
	That there wasn't enough evidence.
	That enough fraudulent voting had occurred.
	Fraudulent voting occurs in just about every election.
	I mean, of course, right? I mean, to differing degrees.
	But the courts kept saying there's not enough evidence of significant amounts of voter fraud significant enough to change the outcome of the election.
	Now, that's, to me, well, it's called begging the question.
	It's like, well, the whole point of the lawsuit is to find out.
	whether there is enough evidence and that's a pretty rigorous and big process and so for a judge to sit there on his own or her own and just say well I've reviewed the documents and I don't think there was enough a lot of evidence I don't know whether there was enough evidence to overturn the election I don't we'll never know I mean maybe we'll know at some point down the road like now they pretty much know that JFK stole the election from Nixon that's pretty much established now but It is absolutely terrible.
	It's absolutely terrible that even a bad but highly contentious and massively significant court case never got to see the light of day.
	And now I think the Supreme Court is taking up how basketball players are funded.
	Oh, God. Champagne made of Zeus's farts.
	This is what they're spending their time on.
	Well, of course. I believe that they just didn't want to take it.
	Can you imagine how battle-scarred Kavanaugh is after the Blasey Ford hearings?
	Can you imagine how shell-shocked he is with regards to this kind of stuff?
	Can you imagine? Gorsuch and, I mean, there's Clarence Thomas and the old guard, and Scalia would have been fine with it.
	The old guard had been through the wars, but the new guys are like, eh, you know, if we take this, let's say that we do find out that there were significant issues.
	Well, I think it was in Portland or there was some restaurant just firebombed because the owner criticized a group of left-wingers.
	And it happens on the Republican side too.
	I think there was some politician who was behind a mask mandate who ended up having to quit because of the number of threats to her life, to her family.
	This is what happens.
	After the light of free speech goes out, right?
	I mean, the light of free speech has gone out across America to a large degree over the last 6 to 12 months.
	And this is what happens.
	You know, you need to remove the cameras before you rob the bank, right?
	So to speak. And so, because eloquent and insightful and communication-based and persuasive analyzers are actually gone now from the public stage, for the most part.
	I mean, we few, we happy few and all of that.
	But this is what happens post-free speech, right?
	I mean, I held on. Dudes, I held on as long as I possibly could against significant and enormous headwinds and then was dislodged in, you know, a fell swoop of a week or so.
	I lost two million followers and subscribers and all of that, right?
	And this is what happens.
	Like, this is why they need to de-platform people so that they can get away with this kind of stuff.
	And so It is going to be interesting to see what happens here.
	There is going to be a rush for a hyper-left-wing agenda, for sure.
	I mean, this is what they're hungry for, and this is what they view Trump as a rude interruption in their process of gathering.
	And yeah, I mean, that's it for bipartisan American politics, as far as I can tell.
	And it's going to be pretty rough.
	It's going to be pretty rough going forward, but those of us who put decades into trying to make sure that people resolved disagreements with reason rather than force, we shall see.
	I don't think that there's going to be much reasonable dialogue going forward.
	Because reasonable dialogue, you see...
	See, reasonable dialogue resulted in Trump's election to a large degree because there was not much censorship.
	Because there was this overconfidence regarding Hillary driven by false polls in the media.
	Scorn of regular Americans, which usually means Christian Americans, particularly those in the South, which the coastal elites have always had great scorn for.
	But there was...
	A reasonable and open discourse regarding politics leading up to the 2016 election, but because reasonable, open, uncensored dialogue in the political realm led to the election of a staunch anti-communist, well, Can't be letting that happen again, right?
	Can't be Can't be letting that happen again, right?
	And they had four years, right?
	They had four years. And man, it's funny too, because to me, the real election interference, as you know, I mean, it comes from big tech in particular.
	In my particular view, and there's really good statistics to back this up.
	In my particular view, Biden would not have been elected if the Hunter Biden story Had been allowed to be shared across social media.
	The Hunter Biden laptop story and all of the crazy stuff that's going on there.
	And now it turns out the FBI has been investigating Hunter Biden for tax issues.
	Tax issues.
	I love these euphemisms, right?
	And we know that because 17 or 18% of people, when told about the Hunter Biden story, the laptop story and all of that, when told about that, said, oh, I wouldn't have voted for Joe Biden if I'd have known about the Hunter Biden stuff.
	So, I mean, the big tech, they are the ones who, they really, in a sense, cheated the American population out of essential information with regards to the voting process.
	It's a massive, massive interference in the election to not allow a story From, what was it, the Washington Post, one of the oldest newspapers in America with the circulation in the millions, to not allow that story to trend was, I mean, election interference of the very first order, in my opinion.
	And, uh...
	New York Post, sorry.
	Yeah, New York Post. New York Post, right?
	Yeah. Yeah, that, that, um...
	That's just appalling. But you see, it's only appalling if you sort of dedicate it to truth, free speech, virtue, objectivity, philosophy, and reasonable discourse.
	If you are...
	A power junkie, right?
	Then it makes perfect sense.
	You suppress the story. You get the guy elected.
	You want to get elected. Your Section 230 remains untouchable.
	And the media and social media will swoop into, in a sense, metaphorically bomb the last pockets of resistance of the alternate and independent media.
	That's just... So from a sort of power standpoint, it's great.
	It achieves the objectives.
	And again, there's no cheating in an amoral universe.
	I've talked about this before. There's no cheating in an amoral universe.
	If you decide to go hunting and you decide to go downwind of the animal, that's not cheating.
	You decide not to bring a menstruating woman because you're concerned that the blood might be smelled by animals, that's not cheating.
	A lion hiding in the grass, not cheating.
	At all. A trap spider hiding under sand then grab the crickets as they wander by, that's not cheating.
	A frog using a sticky extensible tongue, that's not cheating.
	A giraffe getting a longer neck to get the top of the trees leaves, that's not cheating.
	There's no cheating in an amoral universe.
	And unfortunately, civilization is carving off human reason, human values, philosophical morals, From the amoral muscular scum pond of screwing, fighting and killing and eating that characterizes the natural universe.
	To carve off a little section of the universe, a really tiny section of the universe for morality.
	Tiny bit. You know, in the past You conquered a tribe, you raped the women, and you enslaved the men.
	That's what you did. That's why you would do it, right?
	To get that stuff. I mean, this happened among the indigenous populations of North America, South America, Australia.
	And... We got...
	Maybe...
	100 to 150 years of some relatively decent morality out of the 150,000 year journey of human history, the 4 billion year journey of human life, and the 13 plus billion years of the universe.
	We got a tiny, tiny little corner where morality held some medium sway.
	That's all we got.
	It's a scrap. It's a tiny...
	It's like one atom of air in the world.
	102 somewhere in the world.
	That's all we get to breathe on.
	We got this little flare-up, like a solar flare.
	Once, in billions of years, we got a little corner of the world where you had...
	Some freedoms.
	Some pretty significant freedoms.
	Some freedom to trade.
	Some freedom to speak.
	Some freedom to own defensive weapons against the state, mostly.
	We had some few scraps, and this is all that humanity gets to live on.
	And, yeah, we're just reverting to form now.
	I mean, this is...
	What's going on?
	That... We're returning to the swamp.
	I mean, the swamp is a great analogy because in the swamp, there's no morality.
	In addiction, there's no morality.
	The purpose is to feed the addiction.
	Morals are for the independent, the healthy, the free, the secure, the confident, the competent.
	And yeah, we, what was it, 80 years, about 80 years from the founding of the Republic until The imposition of brute federalism in the Civil War.
	And, you know, slavery in the Republic, even though less than 5% of Southerners' own slaves was still a massive stain upon the ideals of the Republic.
	But, and prior to that, late 18th century, middle to the late 18th century in Lent, and then in capital for a good chunk of the 19th century, really up until Shortly before the First World War with the foundation of the Federal Reserve and so on, you got 100, 150 years.
	Now, of course, in the middle of that 100, 150 years of relative freedom, you got the government taking over the school system.
	And once the government takes over the school system, I mean, that's it, man.
	I mean, that's it. It's just a matter of time.
	That's termites eating at the foundations of your entire superstructure.
	Because, you know, Anything that you can imagine, anything that's good, anything that's cool, anything that's wonderful, anything that's powerful or liberating or amazing, everything that you can imagine gets taken over by power junkies as long as there's a government.
	Like, wow, we've got a wonderful social media sharing idea, free speech platform.
	No, no, you don't. Because the better it is, the more ripe it is to be taken over and subverted towards the ends of collectivism and anti-rationalism and exploitation and that's just the way things are.
	And this is a reality, like everything that you can imagine designing As long as there's a government, it's going to be taken over by the power junkies, and they're going to use it towards their own ends, and they're going to subvert it towards serving power and exploitation and corruption.
	It's so weird. We all generally kind of accept that human beings can't handle power.
	Power corrupts! Power corrupts!
	And yet, see, this is the weird thing.
	And it comes from people who are split with regards to their parents, right?
	So if you have abusive parents, you have love, hatred and fear in equal measure, right?
	So you fear their punishments, unjust and violent as they often are.
	You hate them for their abuse of power and their hypocrisy because they're usually much nicer in public than they are in private.
	So they know how to behave well, they just don't do it in any consistent kind of way.
	And you love them because you need them to like you so they'll feed you and shelter you.
	And those who didn't achieve that over the course of human history, the people who did not achieve that, the children who didn't achieve that, well, they tended to die.
	Because human history in the past and of course in the not too distant future is characterized by massive scarcity.
	So you had to please your parents.
	So you had to pretend to love them.
	You had to feel that love genuinely.
	You had to bond with big brothers, so to speak.
	And so there's this weird split.
	Where, you see, Donald Trump...
	So you say, oh, power corrupts.
	But so they say, well, Donald Trump was, you know, oh, he was benefiting his friends, he was making money, he was telling people to inject Lysol, he was pardoning his friends, and he was just totally corrupted by power.
	Power just corrupted that guy, man.
	But Joe Biden, you see, is going to be able to handle power extraordinarily responsibly in the theory, in the idea of how this...
	Even though, of course, Joe Biden has been wielding political power since the 1970s.
	And Joe Biden, I mean, one of the reasons I was disappointed that SCOTUS didn't take the Texas lawsuit was it would have just been pretty glorious to see Clarence Thomas face down Joe Biden after Joe Biden led the Anita Hill high-tech lynching of Clarence Thomas back in the day.
	So, that is a good question.
	Um, Now, let me just get to your questions.
	I said this is going to be about you, and you know, the ideas are generally about you, but let's see here.
	Steph, is it theoretically possible to have a government-less social structure?
	Well, not only is it theoretically possible, it's the only way that civilization in the long term can survive.
	Civilization is characterized by using reason and evidence to resolve disputes in the status and agents of government as an agency of force.
	It's the initiation of the use of force.
	Government is to morality in the present as slavery was to morality in the past.
	Because, you see, a slave only gets to keep 70 to 80% of the value of what he produces.
	That's a slave. A slave is taxed at the rate of 20 or 30%.
	I mean, outside of simply not being able to leave in terms of just economic productivity, a slave was taxed at 20 to 30% because you still had to feed, house, clothe, provide medical care, dentist care, and so on to your slave. And so a lot of the slave's productivity was poured back into the slave, which, of course, doesn't make slavery okay.
	I'm just looking at it from a...
	A economics resource standpoint, right?
	And so the initiation of the use of force which characterized slavery and therefore most of human history, again this tiny little window of freedom, was between the end of slavery and the beginning of the income tax.
	Which is the non-avoidable tax if you're being productive.
	You can avoid taxes, import tariffs and duties and so on.
	It's not perfect, but you can at least avoid them by not buying those goods.
	But once you get an income tax, which of course in Canada was introduced in 1917 as a temporary measure, in the same way that I'm temporarily bald, and it was a 2% tax on the very richest as a temporary measure, right? Thin head to the wedge, right?
	And so, yes, the only moral society is going to be where reason is substituted for force.
	Now, force is perfectly valid in the realm of self-defense.
	When somebody's running at you with a chainsaw, then you need to use force to protect yourself.
	Perfectly valid to do so.
	But institutionalized coercion, institutionalized violence, which formerly was the state plus religion, it was the state plus slavery.
	Now it is the state plus taxation and control.
	So, yes, not only is it theoretically possible, if you want to know the hows and whys of all of that, which I think is a great question, then what you need to do is, they're free, you can go to freedomain.com forward slash books, and you can get a number of books that I've written about this, the two that I would start with Everyday Anarchy, which is a really great argument.
	About how voluntary stuff shows up in your entire life.
	It's a great argument in that book, right?
	So they say, oh, you know, we need governments to enforce contracts.
	If you don't have governments to enforce contracts, blah, blah, blah.
	Well, of course, people who say that are people who've never tried to actually use government courts to enforce a contract, which is quite a heady process, let me tell you.
	But if you understand how democracy works, then Powerful people donate a lot of time, money and energy to politicians and then the politicians will honor the requests of those people.
	They'll take the meetings and the person says, I'm really interested in this legislation.
	Now, not only are there no contracts, For all of this, influence peddling and special interest group manipulation, there are no contracts regarding this, it's actually illegal.
	So the entire democratic system, and I don't mean the Democrats, I mean the entire voting system, runs on bribery.
	It runs on We'll forgive you student loans, which is direct bribery.
	It runs on, we're going to increase defense spending.
	That's direct bribery. We're going to up your welfare.
	We're going to increase your old age pensions.
	We're going to give you free health care.
	It's all straight up bribery. And apparently it's legal, right?
	You offer five bucks to a policeman and you go to jail, right?
	But you can offer a trillion dollars to the general population and that's just good politicking.
	That's crazy, right? So, but the influence peddling that goes on not only can never be enforced in a court of law, it's illegal.
	Like, you can't go to a politician and say, I'll donate $5,000 to your campaign, but you have to take a meeting from me and give me preferential legislation afterwards.
	That's illegal. So the entire state, and we believe that the state is necessary to enforce contracts, but the entire government runs on contracts.
	Not only can they not be enforced, they're specifically illegal, but it all works beautifully anyway, which tells you how well society will work with contracts without the government, since the entire government system runs on unenforceable contracts.
	So Everyday Anarchy, and you can then, I've got articles on my blog as well, freedomain.com forward slash blog.
	Stateless Society and Examination of Alternatives was the one I first wrote 15 years ago.
	That was my first public essay.
	And you can also get the free book Practical Anarchy, which is kind of how things might work in terms of defense and courts and roads and all that kind of stuff.
	General, Mr. Livestreams, glad to see you.
	Nice to see you too. Nice to see you too.
	This sounds like an obituary.
	I need some white pills. Well, I mean, now a lot of Americans look at elections the way that I looked at just about every election in my adult life.
	Biden said there will be gun-related fines and stuff.
	They will eventually take guns.
	Well, yeah, of course. I mean, of course.
	You have to get rid of free speech in order to commit fraud, and you have to get rid of guns in order to expand state power.
	I mean, that's natural. Where can we get your thoughts on peaceful parenting?
	Well, you can go to my channel.
	You can go to freedomain.com forward slash connect to get this kind of stuff.
	Just do a search for peaceful parenting.
	There's tons and tons of videos and podcasts and interviews and so on.
	I am working on a book.
	It's kind of slow going, but I'm grinding away on it.
	Steph, would government work with volunteer positions instead of paid positions?
	See, that's a definitional question, right?
	So, I'm sorry to use a harsh analogy, but it's like saying, would rape work if it was voluntary?
	Would theft work if the goods were transferred voluntarily?
	Well, once something is voluntary it's not rape.
	Once the transfer of property is voluntary it's not theft.
	You know, if you ask me to borrow a pen, and I lend you a pen, and back in the days when you could do these things, and you give me the pen back, or I say, oh, keep it, I've got a million, right?
	Well, that's not theft.
	Now, if you steal my pen, whatever, right?
	So when you say, would government work with volunteer positions instead of paid positions, what you're asking is not how the government is funded.
	You're asking, your fundamental question is, what can the government do?
	Because remember, there's no such thing as government.
	There's no such thing as government.
	Government is a concept.
	It is a label that we put on things.
	And it has, to philosophy, the same relationship that miracles have to physics, right?
	So I remember, I used to read these books.
	Boy, this is going way back when I was a kid.
	I used to read these books about a boarding school, a fat boarding school kid named Billy Bunter.
	And Billy Bunter, who was an overweight kid, of course, and they were pretty funny.
	And at one point, he did, I don't know, he did something amazing, like he ran really fast or did something.
	And I remember one of the kids saying to the other, what I said that the age of miracles is over.
	Miracles are direct violations of the laws of physics.
	It's a sort of special area where Fish can be reproduced in a bag without limits and water can be turned into wine and it's a special area where the laws of physics not only don't apply but can be actively reversed.
	You can have things burning that never burn down.
	You can have heavier than water objects walk on water as if it were a solid.
	So not only are the laws of physics suspended, I.e., there's no gravity, but you have reversals of the properties of matter.
	And so in the realm of miracles, which I understand are important to faith, and I'm not sort of trying to diss any of that stuff, but in the realm of physics, you can't have pockets of the universe wherein the reverse of physical laws take place.
	That's just not how physics works.
	It's not how science works.
	There's no asterisk.
	In the inverse square law, or the second law of thermodynamics, or acceleration, or mass, or electromagnets, or gravity.
	There's no asterisks, right?
	Except in Cleveland, on a full moon, you know, when you're barking like a dog.
	So there's no asterisks, right?
	Now the asterisk is what fucking gets you in society.
	It's always the asterisk that gets you that little star that is in fact a Death Star, right?
	So, government doesn't exist.
	But what government is, is a label where the opposite laws of morality apply.
	In the same way that a miracle is where the opposite laws of physics apply.
	Asterisk. Right?
	So, the asterisk is, it's wrong to initiate force.
	It's wrong to point guns at people to get them to obey you.
	It's wrong to take things by force.
	That's wrong, right?
	Now, that should be an absolute and universal moral law.
	And the reasons I go into that, you can get my free book, Universally Preferable Behavior.
	It's available at freedomain.com forward slash books, free.
	So that's the universal law.
	And there's no asterisks, you understand?
	When you're a kid, there's no asterisks.
	I feel like I'm talking about those cartoon characters in the French cartoon.
	Anyway, but there's no asterisk, a novelist.
	So, when you're a kid, if you grab another kid's candy and stuff it in your face, and the teacher sees it, daycare teacher sees it, teacher sees it, or parent sees it, some adult sees it, they don't say, you shouldn't do that.
	Oh, unless the candy's really good.
	You shouldn't do that unless you're bigger.
	You shouldn't do that unless...
	You can get three of your friends to help you and then share the candy with them.
	There's no asterisk. It's like you shouldn't do that, period.
	It's universal. It's absolute.
	It's morality.
	The physics are preferred behavior.
	Morality. There's no asterisk when you're a kid.
	I know this. I worked in a daycare.
	I had these conversations with kids all the time.
	I did not give them any asterisks.
	Now, when you look at the state, the state is...
	A miracle section of reality wherein human beings not only can do the opposite, but must do the opposite, right?
	But must do the opposite.
	So for you and I to go and initiate force is wrong, but for agents of the government who are just human beings, of course, not only is it okay, it's actually necessary to say all taxes are the price we pay to live in a civilized society.
	Yeah, yeah, ask that of the unborn, or poor orange shift.
	So, once we understand that the morals that we explain to three-year-olds don't hit, don't steal, don't use force, don't lie, the morals that we explain to three-year-olds, which have no asterisks, Those are just the morals.
	Don't initiate force, respect property rights.
	That's all it is. It's the one-two punch of irrational morality.
	Do not initiate force and respect property rights.
	And these are two sides of the same thing.
	Because your body is your property.
	And so initiating force is a violation of the self-ownership of property known as your body.
	So... Once we get rid of the asterisks, we can have a genuinely civilized society.
	All right. Couple questions!
	couple questions alright so Steph would you ever consider to have a new forum in place of the website There's nothing to do between your streams now.
	Hey, ask me how I know you're not a donor.
	Donors get a forum. So, let's see here.
	Why shouldn't porn be banned and porn company higher-ups be jailed?
	Well, that is a very good question.
	Now, gosh, I remember as a teenager reading The autobiography of Linda Lovelace, obviously not her real name.
	I can't remember her real name, which is kind of tragic.
	But this was a woman who wrote, she was in a pornography film called Deep Throat.
	And her childhood was absolutely horrifying, as was Jenna Jameson's.
	I believe she had been raped.
	And her childhood in Rosie Perez also was sexually assaulted, although she's not, of course, a porn actress.
	Linda Lovelace had the most appalling things done to her.
	That just, if I remember rightly, sex with animals is absolutely just repulsive, appalling stuff.
	And the question of pornography is the question of voluntarism.
	If The pornography that's being produced is voluntarily entered into, so to speak, by consenting adults.
	It is not, however distasteful and unpleasant it may be, aesthetically, morally, and so on.
	I mean morally in terms of, like, it's not evil insofar as nobody's being tortured, killed, and raped.
	And if they are, then that's the illegality is the issue of that behavior.
	Then, however... Society degrading it may be, the issue still holds that it is consenting adults making voluntary contracts.
	And there are lots of people out there who are making voluntary contracts that you and I find absolutely appalling, but they're still voluntary and they do not violate property rights or the initiation of force ban.
	Now, if you want to deal with something like pornography, then what you need to do is you need to improve the quality of people's childhoods.
	Because in my particular opinion, and I think there's some data to back me up, people who end up in pornography are almost always the victims of severe child abuse.
	So if you want to deal with the issue of pornography, playing whack-a-mole with it in terms of the law is one thing, and it does violate the moral...
	Requirements that force only be used against those initiating the use of force.
	So the people who are initiating the use of force in the context that leads to pornography are the parents who abuse their children, particularly of course the sexual abuse of children, particularly girls, which ends up with there being pornographic actresses, actresses, performers or whatever you want to call them.
	The violation of the non-aggression principle occurs at the level of parenting.
	That is really the statue, the evil statue that casts the shadow of this kind of exploitation.
	It's a similar issue with regards to Prostitution is, of course, paying someone for sex.
	It's voluntary. It's not coercive.
	However, why would a man or woman end up offering sexuality in return for money, thus destroying sexual market value, bonding capacities, family capacities, and so on?
	Well, because they were abused as children.
	So... I would say that...
	You know, see, it's the funny thing too, right?
	There's no point, for me at least, like there's no point being as heavily censored, deplatformed and banned as I've been and then giving up principle.
	That's sort of like locking the barn door after the horse has left.
	And so for me, however distasteful you or I may find pornography, I'm sticking to principle.
	And there's no point breaking principle for me now.
	I mean, otherwise I might as well have broken principles some time back ago when I'd still have a robust audience and all of this kind of stuff.
	Let's see here.
	If you draw boobs, is it still fraught with abuse?
	Yes.
	I'm going to need to see those, if you don't mind.
	The porn industry is fraught with abuse.
	If people knew what happened behind the scenes, they would want to burn it all.
	Well, and that is certainly an issue.
	And if abuse is used in the production of pornography, that's a violation of the non-aggression principle.
	But the issue of is filming someone who signed a voluntary contract in a sexual act And then releasing it, all part of a voluntary contract.
	Is that a violation of the non-aggression principle?
	No. Is it a violation of property rights?
	No. Look, there are people who do the most appalling things, the most appalling and self-destructive things for money, right?
	I mean, think of You know, it's not so bad now, but back in the 80s and early 90s, there was something called heroin chic, which was the models had to be ridiculously stick thin.
	And some of those models, and a lot of those models, had horrifying eating disorders.
	You know, as Taylor Swift talked about this, she wasn't one of those models, but, you know, being paranoid about everything she eats.
	Princess Diana was well known for bulimia, eating and then vomiting to maintain her skinny frame and so on.
	I remember a friend of a friend's who was telling me about being a Calvin Klein underwear model.
	He's like, oh man, it's killer.
	You know, you got a photo shoot. You can't drink any water for like two days because you have to be so dehydrated and your skin has to completely drape over your muscles.
	So you're working out and you can't even drink anything.
	That's bad for your health, man.
	A lot of people take appalling risks.
	Steve Irwin, I don't know, was he a documentarian or a nature lover?
	He did these sort of nature shows.
	He got killed by a stingray.
	People take the most appalling risks.
	They do the most self-destructive stuff just in order to make money.
	I don't agree with it. I don't think that women should starve themselves and harm their health in order to be models.
	I don't think that a man should work out and not drink for two days because he wants to look good in a pair of Calvin Klein's.
	I think that's all terrible and destructive and unhealthy stuff.
	For God's sakes, people wander into a ring and have their brains turned into fucking pomegranates.
	In boxing, or mixed martial arts, or the octagon, you name it, right?
	I mean, people get their heads pounded in football and hockey.
	People play Australian rules, i.e.
	no rules, rugby.
	People get into judo.
	And some of this stuff is touched, and it's like fencing, but some of it is really brutal.
	Now, do I think it's a great idea?
	For someone to go and say, hey, I'm Mickey Rourke.
	I'm a good-looking guy. I'm a good actor.
	I know what. I'm going to quit acting and have the crap pounded out of my brain for four years straight.
	I think that's a very bad idea.
	I think it's very destructive.
	I think it's self-abusive.
	But it does not violate the non-aggression principle or property rights.
	You disagree with it. You may agree with it.
	You may think that I'm completely wrong.
	You may prefer that people are able to do that.
	You may prefer that people sign the contracts around pornography or boxing or they starve themselves to look good in Jimmy Choo shoes or whatever goes on in these places.
	You may think that's fine.
	Matthew McConaughey To do a film where he played a guy who had AIDS. He didn't leave his house and see any sunshine for months and he dropped himself down to like a buck 20 or a buck 25 in terms of weight.
	Very unhealthy.
	Oh gosh, I can't even remember his name now.
	The silver fox these days married to Amal Clooney.
	George Clooney. I got his last name from her last name.
	George Clooney just recently had a huge health scare because he's been losing a lot of weight for a role.
	Robert De Niro gained a lot of weight to play Jake LaMotta in Raging Bull, right?
	I don't think that's healthy. To play, gosh, to play some soldier in a Meg Ryan film.
	Oh, what's his blobby?
	Matt Damon dropped an enormous amount of weight, just like eat two pieces of fish a day.
	Is that healthy? Well, it gets you good publicity, because people are just oddly fascinated with other people's weight and health and all that kind of stuff.
	And Kelly Osbourne gets her stomach stapled, loses a bunch of weight, and she's all over the newspapers.
	Newspapers, what am I saying?
	I'm dating myself. So, yeah, there are lots of people who make, I think, really, really terrible decisions.
	Bad for their health. You know, workaholics.
	Just do absolutely terrible things to their relationships, to their health, their families, for the sake of status and money and power and all of that.
	And it's a terrible thing. So the fact that people make decisions that I think are really, really bad, like Barry Gibb?
	No, Barry Gibb.
	So the Bee Gees, you know, the Stayin' Alive guys.
	There's only one of... I think there were four brothers originally.
	One of them died at the age of 30 from a cocaine addiction.
	Another one died of cancer.
	Early, mid-noughties.
	And there's just one left now.
	He's in his 70s. And he's still touring, still doing the music.
	And do you know what he said? I was just reading an interview with him.
	And you know what he said? And this is the kind of perspective...
	I really try and hammer this back down through the tunnel of time to you, young folk and all of that.
	And this is what he said.
	He said, look... I would give up all of our hits to have one day, one day more with my brothers.
	I would give up all of our hits.
	I mean, these guys sold, I don't know, between 120 and 220 million albums, depending on who you believe, right?
	And they were like, in the 70s, with their Saturday Night Fever soundtrack, they were like the biggest thing in satin pants.
	And this is what the guy says.
	In his 70s, I would give up all of our hits to have one more day with my brothers.
	One day! They've been in the music industry since they were teenagers, right?
	60 years. This guy's been a musician, and they're very successful.
	When people got burned out on the Bee Gees from the Saturday Night Fever disco era, when disco died, They ended up not being able to perform much or play much because people were really sick of them and thought they were kind of cheesy and so they ended up writing a whole bunch of hits and songs for other people.
	So there's songwriters who just handed out their songs to other people.
	And that's the kind of perspective.
	He would give up all of that. He would give up all of that.
	All of their hits. All of their success.
	All of their money for one day.
	Not having his brothers back to life.
	One more day. Because, you know, they had the problems of fame and all of that and lost track of each other and they broke up for a while and lots of hostility and all of that.
	I don't think they ended up suing each other, which happens to a depressing number of musical acts.
	But I mean, just look at Meatloaf after Bat Out of Hell.
	I mean, the guy spent the next five years being sued for like a hundred million dollars because everybody wants a piece of that massive pie.
	But that's the reality.
	They pursued that level of fame and money.
	And I mean, let's be frank, it certainly killed at least one of them.
	I mean, the guy who was the cocaine addict, he was, was that Maurice?
	I can't remember. They all kind of blend together for me in those falsetto harmonies.
	But he ended up leaving the band.
	He had a solo career, kind of rode the coattails of the band and did well in his solo career and then just burned himself out and died of a coke addiction.
	So, in a sense, his deal is kind of true, right?
	I mean, that all of that fame and all of that success and all of that money did contribute, I think, to the death of at least one, maybe two of the brothers.
	I don't know what happened to the fourth, whether he was part of the act or not.
	I've never heard of him or seen him.
	So people make decisions that you and I would consider appalling.
	People take crazy risks to get views on YouTube and other things, and sometimes they die from it.
	There was an actor in an old movie, The Twilight Zone.
	There was an actor who got killed by a helicopter blade.
	Okay. Was it bad for him to take that role and take that?
	I don't know. Again, some are more predictable, some are less predictable.
	For sure, people's brains are going to get scrambled in brain-thumping contact sports like hockey, football, boxing, rugby, you name it, right?
	I think it's a bad idea. I don't think it's a good way.
	But I'm not going to sit there and dictate and Karen and police other people's level of risk.
	And if someone says, I really want to make money by having sex on camera, I think it's a bad idea.
	It's a bad idea, I think.
	It's a bit of a one-way road these days.
	Because, you know, I mean, back in the day, I don't know, like...
	When pornography was originally, what was it, 8mm film or something like that?
	And it's like, okay, well, it just kind of gets dusty and gets forgotten.
	But now, of course, everything on the internet lives forever.
	And it's a bit of a risky thing to do.
	It's a bit of a risky thing to do.
	And it's funny, too.
	I remember Dr. Phil episode years ago where a woman who had starred in some racy movies...
	was a teacher and Dr.
	Phil was just grinding her down and grinding her down bad decision bad decision but then Dr.
	Phil's son married a woman who posed for nudes on the internet so I don't know it's a little tricky it's a little tricky all right oh yeah hey sorry about this I completely forgotten I have completely forgotten but I've remembered now can we can we give a distribution let's throw out a chest or two shall we hey we're talking about porn let's throw out our chest boom Let's do it.
	What have we got here? No, it wasn't Dr.
	Phil Nudes. Come on.
	Come on. Let's distribute...
	Let's distribute some rewards here.
	Go for it. We're throwing out a new number here.
	No, no. Boxing helped me so much in life.
	You know... The question is, could you have been helped in other ways that didn't involve potential brain damage?
	That's all. Pimping us out already, Steph.
	That's right. You've got 10 seconds.
	You're going to get chest rewards.
	Chesty rewards. I think that was Stormy Daniels' first name.
	Here we go. Two, one, boom!
	There you go. Look at that.
	Some of you guys got some serious goodies.
	Well, I appreciate the lemons and ice cream and now all I want is lemon ice cream.
	It's all I'm living for at the moment.
	It's lemon ice cream. All right.
	Give me another question or two, if you would like, if there's anything I can do that you would run through the big chatty forehead.
	We'll take this to the Supreme Court.
	Excellent. Excellent.
	Good to know. So congratulations to 13 Arbor, Mixer Account, Giggling Spy, Truth Seeker, and Heartwood.
	Good luck trying to spell that.
	Oh, you people with your tween numbers as letters.
	What can we do about the 2 million CCP spies infiltration to the West?
	Yeah, I read that number the other day.
	Take cover. Get some food in the basement.
	Tell your friends. I mean, what could you do about it directly?
	Not much. Raise awareness as best as you can.
	And see, the raising of awareness, it will give you peace.
	Because, look, I've spent now close to 40 years warning people about the dangers of collectivism, communism, national socialism, socialism, statism, you name it, right?
	I spent a lot of time.
	And there's not... Many more people who've had a bigger effect or who have worked as hard or taken as many risks or committed as strongly to warning people about the dangers of basically coercion in the world, right? Now, either I succeed, which ain't gonna happen, but let's say if I've succeeded, that would be great.
	I would be content with the work that I had done, the focus that I had taken, the risks that I had taken.
	So, If, which is a virtual certainty, if I fail, I mean, it's not really my failure, because it's whether people want to, you know, lead a horse to water, you can't make them drink.
	You can lead a man to facts, but you can't make him think.
	And so I did everything in my coming days.
	The amount I worked was truly staggering.
	And I mean, I'm still working fairly hard.
	But, you know, back in the day, I was like, it was nuts.
	I do like three or four books a week.
	I did two call-in shows, sometimes three.
	I did some live streams, tons of interviews, presentations, PowerPoints.
	I did live public speeches.
	I traveled. I did documentaries.
	I mean, ooh, baby!
	Other than cloning myself or slowing down time among a style, there was really not more that I could have done, and I'm very content and happy.
	I gave up a lot of audience in order to get the truth out, but that's the price of telling the truth, right?
	If you're not successful, you won't get attacked.
	But you've got to put your best effort out there to inform the world.
	And the way that I look at it is this.
	Winter is coming. There's a reason why Game of Thrones, which has a very long summer, followed by a very long winter, is such a popular show.
	Because the very long summer is debt and fiat currency, and the very long winter is the reckoning that comes because math cannot be denied.
	So, this is what it is for me.
	Let me give you a Northern Western European analogy.
	Do you guys remember this story?
	Two stories I loved when I was a kid.
	Two and a half. The half was the fox and the grapes, right?
	The fox wants to eat the grapes hanging from a trellis, he can't reach it, and then he walks away saying, oh, those grapes will probably be sour anyway.
	So he can't get it, so he thinks it's bad, right?
	But the emperor's new clothes.
	I'll do that story one day.
	It's a great story. I told it to my daughter.
	It took about an hour and a half. Because I'm known for occasional amounts of embellishing.
	And the other, certainly one of my favorites, was...
	Okay, well, The Tortoise and the Hare, Slow and Steady Wins the Race was pretty good.
	But The Grasshopper and the Ant.
	Probably number one fairy tale for me when I was a kid.
	Up there with The Emperor's New Clothes.
	So very briefly, the grasshopper and the ant is...
	The ant works hard all summer, storing up food for the winter.
	The grasshopper sits around strumming guitar, playing, chasing girls, relaxing, having fun, sunning himself, napping.
	And then when winter comes, the ant has food.
	And the grasshopper has no food.
	And the grasshopper knocks on the ant's door and says, I'm starving.
	I'm going to die out here. I've got nothing to eat.
	And it's kind of two versions of the story.
	So in one version of the story, the ant says, oh, you can come in.
	I've got enough for two. And they party on, dude, throughout the winter.
	And of course, the exact same thing is going to happen this summer.
	And the ant is working for two.
	The grasshopper is getting free stuff.
	And the ant will die.
	Now, the other one...
	The other story, which I didn't read that many times, but you'd see it occasionally, that is a really cool story.
	And the story goes something like this.
	Same setup, but what happens is the ant keeps warning.
	The ant keeps warning the grasshopper.
	And the ant says, dude, you know winter is coming.
	You know winter is coming.
	For God's sakes, Stop trying to figure out how to play free bird on a kazoo.
	And get some...
	Get some food for the winter.
	God's sakes, man. Stop chasing girls.
	Get some food for the winter, because come winter you're going to have nothing to eat, man.
	And... But the grasshopper basically tells him, get lost, screw off, don't be such a worrywart, don't be such a Karen.
	Relax, man, you're so uptight.
	And then what happens is the grasshopper runs out of food, knocks on the ant's door, and the ant says, hey man, I warned you, slams the door in his face.
	Now, I liked the first story when I was younger.
	I'm more partial to the second story now that I'm older.
	Because this is what's going to happen next.
	And it could happen directly. It could happen from an allegorical standpoint, right?
	I'm a saver. I will spend money on this show like a drunken sailor.
	But I don't tend to buy a lot of stuff for myself.
	My wife keeps saying, oh, we've got to go buy you some new clothes.
	You lost a little bit of weight. We've got to go buy you some new jeans.
	And I'm like, yeah, yeah, we'll go.
	On the list of things that I want to do, spending money on myself is really not...
	It's not very high on the list.
	What if I gain the weight back?
	So... And the reason why saving is important is because winter comes, right?
	I mean, you can see freedomain.com forward slash donate.
	You know, winter is here for the show.
	Straight up with you guys. Like, winter is here for the show.
	I'd appreciate it if you could support me.
	I really would. I think I've earned it.
	I think I deserve it. You don't stop paying the soldiers just because they get wounded off the battlefield, right?
	You save. Now, maybe this has happened to you over the course of this year with COVID, right?
	Like maybe you saved a bunch of money and you got family members who didn't, right?
	They went out and just had to buy the latest stuff, the cool stuff, and the women who just...
	I've talked to women about this, like, when did you last wear this dress?
	I can't even remember.
	What are you doing with all these shoes?
	I mean, there's an old Sex and the City episode where one of the characters says to the other...
	Wait, these shoes would be a down payment on a condo.
	What, are you crazy? You got 200 shoes at 200 bucks a piece?
	It's $40,000. What, are you crazy?
	You could have an apartment and instead you got a closet full of shoes you don't even wear.
	And, you know, in general women get involved in more debt, particularly student debt, than men.
	So, The winter comes and you have savings, you have money, you have food, you have whatever.
	And it could also be human capital.
	You figured out how you got some chickens, you figured out how to grow your own food or whatever it is.
	So you've got something sustainable.
	You've got something. I mean, this is why There's Keynesianism, you know, where, oh, the government should save money when the economy is good and it should spend money when the economy is bad, like human beings ever want to do that.
	Politicians in particular ever want to do that.
	And so, you know, winter came with COVID, right?
	I mean, the government revenues collapsed and the government expenses went up enormously and the government had no money.
	It didn't save a damn thing.
	Winter came and they were all grasshopper and no ant.
	So this is going to happen to you at some point.
	and probably not too long from now in some fashion there's going to be a knock at your door and there's going to be somebody you have a relationship with and they're going to want your resources I'm telling you man it's going to happen now you got to think about this ahead of time you really got to think about this ahead of time don't don't improv this shit Because you have to figure this stuff out.
	You know, when I went into business, started in business, I went from being a broke student and I made $10,000 a month plus a $700 a month car allowance And this is back when, I mean, that's great money.
	It was worth even more back then.
	So I went from broke to, you know, relatively well off in a very short period of time, in like six months, maybe eight months.
	And the person I went into business with, I mean, what did I do?
	I saved that money. And the person I went into business with, whose income kind of rose to match mine, He spent his money.
	And he's like, what's the point of earning it if you don't spend it?
	And it's like, I mean, it wasn't like I didn't spend anything, but, you know, I like to save a lot.
	I'm an ant, not a grasshopper.
	And I just, I've always had this, you know, I don't know if you guys have this, like this, I will, like, if income goes up, I'm not going to have my expenses go up to match it.
	That's just a terrifying, like, what's the point?
	Then you just have more stuff to worry about, more, anyway, it's not, it's not me.
	So, at some point, people are going to figure out, maybe you've got some savings, or you've got some food, or you've got some resources, you've got something.
	Maybe it's the places you've got a spare room, you've got something, right?
	And when the economic shit hits the fan and winter comes, you are going to get...
	Sorry if you were just dozing off.
	It's important though. Listen to this.
	You're going to get that knock on your door.
	I can't even tell you how much time I've spent thinking about this over the last five years, off and on.
	What are you going to do? Could be a neighbor.
	Could be a sibling. Could be a parent.
	Could be any number of things.
	What are you going to do?
	Are you going to, hey, come on in, we'll find a way to make it work?
	Well, what are you going to do?
	Now for me, when society runs out of money, which it will, when the supply chain begins to break down, which it will, then what I need is To close the door on people.
	It's a really, really good conscience.
	It's a really good conscience.
	Will do it for me. That will be enough for me.
	I'm not saying I will enjoy it.
	I won't. I'm not saying I'll be happy about it.
	I won't. It'll be a miserable thing.
	But... If you...
	Have poured all of your energies into waking people up.
	If they sleep off a cliff, at least you won't blame yourself.
	And that's really, really important.
	You know, I mean, the Barry Gibbs story is important because he had fractious relationships with his brothers.
	He didn't heal them. And now he would give up all of his success for just one day with his brothers again.
	And it was the pursuit of that, I think, which harmed the family so much.
	So, when you think about that, the ant and the grasshopper, you've got to think about that.
	What are you going to do when you get that knock on the door?
	And people will beg you for your stuff.
	If you have poured massive resources into waking them up and they've scorned you and mocked you and attacked you and rolled their eyes and called you racist and a Nazi and a white supremacist and all this, you can eat your insults, but you can't eat my food.
	Alright. Let's see, what do we have here?
	What do we have here?
	The Jackass guys did some awful things for money.
	Yeah, I was thinking about those too.
	Steve-O and others, right? Yeah, they did some terrible things.
	Terrible self-destructive things for money.
	Steph, you've mentioned that there are still a lot of great women out there.
	Where can one find these great women?
	I don't think I've quantified it that way.
	There are good women out there for sure.
	And as to where to find them, you're kind of asking a middle-aged married guy where the great women are.
	I mean, free domain listeners, it's funny, you know, I get these regular emails from people who's like, oh yeah, we met through your show, we've been married, we have kids, we're peaceful parents, it's the best life ever.
	So yeah, that's, you know, getting involved in philosophy communities is not bad, assuming that they're rational and objective philosophy communities.
	You don't want...
	You don't want an amoral woman.
	Seriously don't. I mean, women, you shouldn't want an amoral guy.
	But he can do you a lot less damage than an amoral woman can.
	Because an amoral woman has reverted to mammal.
	Has devolved from human to mammal.
	And when you are a mammal woman...
	Then you are hypergamy embodied, which means you'll never be satisfied, and you will attract a man when you're young with sexual offers.
	And then middle-aged and older, you will nag, and if the man leaves you, you will destroy him through the family court system, because that's just hypergamy.
	And you will not have the capacity for self-reflection, self-analysis, self-knowledge if you're not philosophical.
	If you don't have higher values, virtues, you will find no particular reason to limit your behavior.
	Because how do we limit our rampaging beast natures?
	Well, through morals.
	This is why we need morals. Why we need nutrition is the stuff that tastes good generally isn't that great for us.
	So we need nutrition. And the stuff that we want in the moment Like the Gibb brothers, all wanting screaming fans and fame and millions and millions of dollars.
	And now there's one of them, desperately lonely, who'd give it all up for one more day with his brothers.
	Because they missed what was important.
	There was a woman, I can't remember her name, She was a writer of the whodunits, like the mystery series books.
	And she'd won every award known to man.
	And she was incredibly successful.
	And she was interviewed when she was in her 50s.
	And, you know, she lived in this big-ass mansion.
	And, you know, on the walls were all of her trophies for awards.
	Her book sales. And the interviewer, of course, being young and therefore believing that ambition makes you happy and success makes you happy.
	The interviewer was like, you must be so proud.
	You must be so proud of these things.
	And she says, I'd burn it all down if it would get me one child.
	Not only do they mean nothing to me, they actually like sting my eyes when I look at them because I look at the pursuit of those.
	It cost me my marriage.
	It cost me the chance of becoming a mother.
	I'm in my 50s now. It's too late.
	Ship has sailed. Eggs are gone.
	And I have nothing to look forward to but almost a half century of bitter regret.
	And it was those plaques that did it to me.
	You see awards.
	I see condemnations.
	I see an empty crib. I see a lonely half-century ahead of me.
	Because I'm now too bitter to write.
	They're not awards.
	They're not successes. They're tombstones of the children I never had.
	Avril Lavigne will leave the world without children.
	Yeah, could be. Could be.
	And you've got to have sympathy for women, man.
	Come. You've got to have sympathy for women.
	I know a lot of you don't, but you really do.
	You really have to have a lot of sympathy for women.
	They're so lied to. And men get their rewards later, right?
	So for a man, peak sexual market value tends, if you're successful, you're in your 30s and 40s, and you're like a rock star if you're single and successful and reasonably attractive.
	So you experience when you're 40 what a woman experiences when she's 18, right?
	except you've got 22 years additional experience it's way better to hit your peak sexual market value later than earlier because you've already gone through the lower sexual market value and so you appreciate it and you have more wisdom through which to avoid mistakes but you get that kind of power when you're in your late teens Early 20s?
	Come on. Would you rather inherit money?
	I mean, in terms of ideally, not personal preference, let's say you got to inherit a million dollars.
	Would you rather get that money when you were 16 or 30?
	I mean, come on. I mean, a friend of mine, when I was younger, his mother died of cancer, and he got $100,000.
	And he was in his teens.
	And he bought a Range Rover and a really expensive computer and he just bought, bought, bought, blew through the money.
	And I remember saying to him, dude, hang on to that money.
	You're a teenager. You don't know what to spend it on.
	Everything you're spending on is going to lose value.
	Don't buy things that lose value.
	At least don't spend a lot of money on things that lose value.
	God help me if I ever spend more than $40 on a pair of shoes.
	Because they lose value, right?
	Look at my t-shirt.
	12 bucks. Anyway.
	The microphone's expensive.
	So if you're going to inherit massive wealth and you do it when you're young, it's most likely going to mess you up.
	You do it when you're older, you've got a pretty good fighting chance of doing something sensible with that.
	It's the same thing with sexual market value.
	Women inherit the world through no actions of their own, just through hormones and the imbalance of sexual market value with fertility versus resources.
	Women have peak fertility when they're young.
	Men have peak resources when they're older.
	Which is why monogamy benefits women, which is why anything, anytime you talk about sleeping around or loosening morality, it harms women a lot more than it harms men, a lot more, almost infinitely more than it harms men.
	Monogamy is designed to benefit women because a man, when he hits his peak sexual market value in his 30s and his 40s, could just trade in his wife for a younger model.
	Right? And start a new family.
	The monogamy benefits women because a man commits to the woman at the height of her sexual market value and then he stays committed to her if he believes in the virtues and values of a lifelong committed relationship.
	He stays with her even when she gets old and other women are clamoring around him, wanting his resources, wanting to start a family with him because he's already proven his value.
	He's not like some young guy, you've got to roll the dice, I hope he's successful!
	This guy who's successful in his 30s and 40s has already proven he's successful, can afford another family.
	So, monogamy enormously benefits women.
	And any time, this is what's so funny, is that feminists claim to be for women, but they break down monogamy, which results in the utter destruction of women's happiness over time, which is why women are progressively getting unhappier and unhappier and unhappier the more that feminism has taken over and dominated the West.
	Because, as it turns out, you know, for a woman to sleep around, it's like a Formula One racer trying to win the game in first gear.
	You know, you get a whole lot of whining and then things will break apart.
	It's actually kind of pithy. Stevie Nicks.
	Yeah, she was. She was beautiful.
	But, um... So yeah, don't go for the mammal woman.
	Because she's just a creature of hormones and instincts.
	And she will talk herself in and out of anything.
	And also, you know, if you want to pick a good woman, first thing you want to do, first thing you want to do, like first date, if you think she's at all remotely interesting and appealing, first thing you've got to do, meet her friends.
	Oh my God, please, I'm begging you on bended knee, meet her friends.
	And after that, meet her family.
	Now, the reason you meet her friends is that, guess what?
	You're gonna have trouble with her, and she's gonna have trouble with you, and you're not gonna get along at some point, and you're gonna be thinking of breaking up.
	Now... If she has shitty friends, you know what those friends are going to do?
	Oh, he was never good enough for you.
	You can do way better than him.
	I never liked him to begin with.
	I always thought he was putting you down.
	He's always talking down to you.
	Do you ever notice how he always talks in these terms that we don't understand, you don't understand?
	He's just trying to appear arrogant.
	He doesn't respect you.
	They're just going to detonate your entire relationship.
	And because a lot of women think socially.
	I'll get into that another time.
	A lot of men think in solitude.
	A lot of women think socially. Which is why men can advance the species more than women can as a whole.
	Because we're much more comfortable with being disliked.
	And I went into this in a recent podcast.
	You should check it out. It's a pretty good one.
	Why people love lies. But...
	If you...
	You meet her friends, and if they're happily married or in stable, positive relationships, if they've chosen good guys, if they're reasonable, if they ask you questions, if they're interested in protecting their friend, whereas if they're just, you know, catty, sex in the city, empty-headed, vacuous tartlets, then you just run.
	Because your relationship will almost certainly not survive friend sabotage on the part of her friends.
	And then you meet her family.
	Because, you know, if you meet a girl, you're going to marry a girl.
	Guess what? You get to spend the next 60 years with her.
	50 years, maybe 40 years.
	You get to spend decades with her family.
	You want to do that? And they're going to be babysitting your kids.
	And they're going to be over. And you're going to have to go over for birthdays and Christmases and christenings and everything, right?
	It's going to be a whole lot of...
	You know, because when you meet a woman, it's like there's this weird...
	Hormonal isolation, you know, like you wind yourself in sheets and you shield yourself from the world for a week or two and you just, you know, you bang like a T-Rex on a drum.
	And then you kind of emerge from that into the real world where, you know, People have dental issues, and people's mothers get ill, and cars break down, and brothers-in-law need money, and sisters want you to invest in their public speaking business, which they have no experience, and it's a whole other thing outside of having sex, right?
	And that's where the relationship is, and if you get drawn in with the sex as if there's an isolation factor, or if the woman wants to get to know you and doesn't want you to get to know her friends and family, Red, red, red, red flag.
	Run! Red rum! Red rum!
	Avril Lavigne, well, she got sick though, right?
	Didn't she spend...
	Oh man, she got really sick.
	She had a year or two or three, I think, where she got just wrecked by Lyme disease.
	I think the same thing happened to Justin Bieber.
	So yeah, she got pretty wrecked as far as that went.
	And, you know, maybe that had something to do with her family planning thoughts.
	I don't know, I will tell you.
	There are things I know quite a bit about.
	Justin Bieber, not one of them.
	And Avril Lavigne, even less.
	Hey Steph, could you get me a girlfriend?
	I really couldn't.
	But I can create a methodology by which you can choose a better girlfriend.
	Alright, let's get back to our questions.
	Do another couple of minutes. Let's see here.
	Somebody says, I had luck at mash.com.
	Took about a year. You can screen people by political leanings and race.
	No, most people who self-identify as middle-of-the-road are NPR people and not my definition of centrist.
	YMMV? YMMV. Okay, what is that acronym?
	Chronic Lyme disease or meth addiction?
	No, I think she did have Lyme disease.
	I'm in the woods all the time. I should have it, but I'm fine.
	Not bragging. Well, of course, if you're in the woods all the time, and please, people, protect yourself from ticks.
	I'm like, this could be one of the more important things you hear from me.
	Please protect yourself from ticks.
	They're nasty little buggers, man.
	They'll borrow in and they'll just strip your life of meaning and energy for like two years straight or more.
	They can just wreck you up, man.
	They're like sharks. Your mileage may vary.
	YMMV. Your mileage may vary.
	Oh, thank you very much. Yeah.
	All right. What else do we have here?
	I got Texas oil money.
	And you donated a diamond.
	Oh, thank you. Dear ticks are very hard to see as well.
	Yeah, but I mean, I spend time in the woods.
	I love walking in the woods. And, you know, you put your socks on, you put your bug repellent on, and you sure as hell check yourself all over when you get back, right?
	My ex-wife has Lyme.
	She got put through the ringer. Oh, it's brutal.
	Yeah, another friend of mine had Lyme too.
	And Minnesota is riddled with ticks.
	Yeah, ticks are nasty, man.
	They are nasty. Will you take the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine?
	So... This messenger RNA vaccine stuff, this is all my personal opinion.
	I'm not going to tell anyone what to do and everybody, you know, it's just my particular opinion about this stuff.
	No medical advice, nothing like that.
	I'm not telling anyone what to do.
	I'm just telling you my particular thoughts about it.
	So I'm fine with vaccines as a whole.
	I think they're a little clustered in the US. Pretty heavy injections are really spaced close together.
	I'm not sure why exactly, but anyway.
	No, I think that vaccines have been one of the greatest advances as a whole.
	In human medicine, pretty much a single greatest advice.
	I still think I still have my...
	Yeah, somewhere up here, I still have my smallpox vaccine when I was a kid.
	I got vaccinated for smallpox with a whole series of injections in boarding school.
	And all our tough guy kids...
	I was six years old when I went to boarding school.
	And all us tough guy kids, we would compare whether we had scratches.
	In other words, whether we jerked our arms when we got injected.
	And I remember sitting there comparing scratches.
	And I had none. Therefore, I was destined to be a...
	Blindingly successful YouTuber for a sadly brief amount of time.
	But, um...
	So, with regards to this messenger RNA, there's a whole new thing, man.
	It's a whole new thing. And maybe it's fine.
	Maybe. Um...
	I would like to see more data.
	You know, I would like to see...
	See, this is what I'd like to see.
	I'm just telling you, my ideal scenario is, first of all, I'd like people to be more mad at China, but that's, of course, asking for the moon, because people get mad at me because I'm a YouTuber.
	They don't get mad at China, or was a YouTuber, because China actually can make things difficult for you.
	So... But this is what I would like to see.
	I would like to see every single scrap of source data published.
	I would like to see vaccine skeptics cross-examine under oath the executives and the researchers and the testers and the volunteers.
	I would just like to see a full-on searchlight examination of everything that's going on with this thing.
	I'm not particularly comfortable with the fact that vaccine manufacturers are immune from liability.
	But I would like to see, given how important all of this is, and it's the same process that I was talking about earlier with the election in the Supreme Court.
	I want to see the debates.
	I want to see the cross-examinations.
	I want to see all the source data.
	I want to have interviews.
	I want to just, and you know, you can live stream this stuff for a week.
	If you want, and people will pick out the highlights, and I want cross-examinations.
	I want the skeptics to be able to make their case.
	I mean, if I was in charge of the government, and these manufacturers came and said, oh, we've got a safe vaccine, it'd be like, okay, even if I believe you, there's a lot of people out there who won't.
	So how are you going to deal with that?
	And the way that it seems to be is they're going to use government to restrict people's movements if they don't have this vaccine, and they're going to name and shame people, and they're going to be all this kind of brutal stuff, and that's really bad.
	That's really bad. So I would say to these manufacturers, okay, let's get you guys under oath.
	Let's get your researchers and scientists.
	I'm sure you guys have done a great job, but we've really got to deal with the skeptics out there.
	So let's get as hearty and robust a set of cross-examinations.
	Like, let's get the people who are really skeptical about what it is that you've done.
	Experts in their fields, well-accredentialed, well-educated, experienced people who are skeptical of what you're doing.
	Let's get them in here to cross-examine what you're doing, and that way they can satisfy themselves and the people who follow them that what you're doing is safe.
	But that's what a sane, responsible, healthy society would do.
	And that's not happening. What's happening, of course, is anybody who disagrees with the potential safety concerns of the virus, well, they're just conspiracy theorists, they're nuts, they're anti-science.
	I mean, this shaming bullshit, to me, it's just a sign of a bad argument.
	Yeah, it's a bad scene.
	I think it's a bad scene.
	And they should have the confidence to put themselves through that rigorous public process.
	They should have that confidence and they should care enough for people who have skepticism.
	Listen, if you have faith in the medical establishment after the insane, incredibly destructive bullshit of the food pyramid for the last 60 years, I don't even know what to tell you.
	I mean, I don't even know what to tell you.
	They have completely screwed up everyone's diet.
	Obesity is massive, and part of that's an IQ issue, and part of that is just people getting the wrong food advice.
	And if you have faith in the healthcare establishment after the plague of mental illness, which Various psychotropic medications we're supposed to solve.
	And the mental illness is skyrocketing, coincidental with further and further prescription of psychotropic meds.
	And I had Robert Whittaker on Mad in America.
	It's a book you really must read.
	You must read Mad in America.
	I think he's got a second edition out now.
	And you've got to have skepticism with regards to the healthcare establishment.
	It doesn't mean science is bad.
	It doesn't mean all doctors are wrong or bad or anything like that.
	But Jordan Peterson didn't end up in a coma in Russia without some doctor prescribing him a huge amount of drugs.
	Dangerous, highly addictive drugs that messed him up.
	Now, he's got some responsibility in the matter.
	Of course, he himself is knowledgeable about these things, but the opioid crisis, a lot of it comes from prescription drugs.
	And now, of course, that Biden's in, but hydrochloroquine is now okay.
	I think you can use it again.
	Again, it's just, it's appalling.
	And look at the politics that were played with coronavirus.
	You know, with COVID, what I want to know is not how many people have died because that number is not particularly helpful what I want to know is over a one-year period how many more people died that otherwise would have because if you've got somebody who's 83 who has three comorbidities the chance of them making it a year is probably not that high so I want to know how many person years have been lost not oh you know this is the total death count and again these people's lives are valuable and important and we should work to help and save them but I want to know If you say,
	well, so this many people have died of last year, I want to know, okay, well, statistically, how many of them would have not made it anyway because of health issues and age issues and so on, right?
	But you can't ask these questions because then apparently you hate grandma, right?
	So you can't. His reaction to his benzos is very unusual, though.
	Unreal. Oh, no, benzos are very, very tricky things, as far as I understand.
	Again, completely amateur outside opinion.
	But benzos are highly addictive, and they can be quite dangerous, I think.
	Yeah, flu deaths are way down.
	And yeah, I get all of that.
	So people are saying, well, but total deaths are down.
	It's like, well, of course, because people aren't driving, they're staying home.
	Other communicable illnesses aren't being communicated because everybody's doing masks.
	And, you know, I don't know about any of this stuff.
	And the lockdowns, they don't seem to have any particular effect.
	I mean... You look at places where lockdowns have been just brutal and they still have the same curves as every other place.
	And in fact, Florida, which opened up almost completely, September 25th is doing better than a lot of other places.
	New York City had massive lockdowns and it's a quarter higher cases than the nation as a whole.
	So, yeah, I mean, and I don't know that there have been any particularly confirmed cases of surface to surface transmission and all this.
	A lot of it is just people are freaking out.
	They don't know how to manage their own emotions and they need rituals to keep their anxiety at bay.
	I don't know how much of it is really solid science that is skeptically cross-examined.
	And yeah, there is the issue which is to do with fertility, right?
	That there's some of these spike protein blockers may have something to do, may have impacts upon women developing placentas and therefore viable pregnancies and so on.
	So I think somebody in the doctor in the European Union has filed an emergency injunction regarding all that stuff.
	Again, could all be nonsense, could all be false, could all be mistakes, but...
	I'm not lining up day one kind of guy.
	I'm not lining up day one kind of guy.
	Could work. And it could be a big breakthrough.
	It could be that the world has devoted enormous resources into developing these messenger RNA Vaccines that may have wonderful things in other areas or all the way through to cancers and so on.
	So it could be really, really good things.
	But I'm going to need to see more data.
	I'm not comfortable.
	I'm just like, I'm sorry the government's just lied about too much.
	Like, I'm sorry they've just lied about too much.
	And they don't care that much about COVID. If they did, they would have stopped all of these protests and riots from happening, but they didn't.
	So, anyway.
	We're actually going to see a reduction in total fatalities in the U.S. from past several years despite an aging boom of population.
	Well, sure. Yeah, absolutely.
	But are you counting all the people who can't get preventive and regular health care, right?
	So the people who can't get their cancer screenings or who are too scared to go in for their butt cameras work or whatever, right?
	I mean, so it's going to be hard to say.
	Yeah, the hydrochloroquine reversal is infuriating.
	How many lives may have been saved?
	Well, sure. I mean, they were using COVID as an attack on Trump, right?
	And the statistical analysis is pretty clear that if COVID deaths have been 5% to 10% lower, Trump would have won the election, clearly.
	And so, yeah, they needed, unfortunately, you know, I mean, hard leftists are never averse to sacrificing bodies in the pursuit of their utopia.
	In fact, it's pretty much the utopia is like the anglerfish light that allows them to harm people, so.
	Ready to hit 79 years of age in four years.
	All right. Good to know.
	Good to know. I've not read the history of central banking.
	I'm actually at the moment just cracking a biography of Margaret Thatcher.
	I've always been kind of curious about that stuff.
	We will find out in 10 years when mass women are unable to produce children, men go sterile.
	Well, aren't men kind of going sterile now?
	I mean, the testosterone levels and sperm counts are way down from our grandfathers, right?
	All right. Let's just look for one more place for...
	Look at me. You know, it's kind of cool.
	I know I get this Boomer Tech thing a lot, but my regular one didn't produce the video, so I switched entirely over to another video production thing and sent it out that way.
	It seems to be working. Aye!
	Look at those nice pearly whites.
	All right. This is one last place for questions.
	Thank you all for dropping by tonight.
	Very, very enjoyable. NPR, National Public Radio, Commie Radio.
	The more the government is involved, the more skeptical you should be.
	Yeah, yeah. And you know, it's an interesting question.
	Somebody may do this analysis at some point, I suppose.
	And the analysis is this.
	Oh, I just realized my face has been half cut off by the donate button.
	Well, that's all right. But the analysis is kind of interesting as this.
	So businesses say that, well, having open borders has saved us a lot of money, brought a lot of expertise in, and has been good for the economy.
	I wonder if...
	COVID, the cost of COVID as a whole, has vastly outstripped any economic benefits from open borders and mass migration.
	I'm going to go with, yes, it has vastly outstripped any cost savings.
	But of course, nobody will. Nobody will talk about that.
	And my prediction now, probably six to 12 months, there's no effective functioning Republican Party, just so you know.
	This, you know, they've never been, because, you know, they're going to legalize, right?
	Probably 10 to 20, 30, maybe 30 million people who are going to reliably vote left.
	So this is the funny thing, is that people are talking about 2022 for the House and 2024 for the presidency.
	No, it's... There's not going to be any functioning...
	I mean, there'll be a vestigial Republican Party that will pretend it can do something like there is in California, but no, there's not really going to be...
	That's it for any kind of bipartisanship.
	So, alright, thanks everyone so much.
	FreeDomain.com forward slash donate.
	I really, really appreciate you guys dropping by.
	Always a great pleasure to chat with you.
	The hardcore, the committed.
	It's beautiful. And have yourselves a great, great evening.
	Lots of love from here. FreeDomain.com forward slash donate.

▲