Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Feb. 25, 2021 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux

02:26:44

"I REFUSE TO LOSE!" Stefan Molyneux Interviewed

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Knowledge is power.
	Speaking of knowledge being power, tonight I am joined by two men who have a wealth of knowledge.
	It's almost overwhelming.
	Of course, my co-host, Paul Gottfried, and tonight's guest, the one and the only, Stefan Molyneux, who is, as the Bee Gees song goes, staying alive.
	He is still very much with us.
	Paul and Stefan, how's it going?
	You know, it's going pretty well.
	It's going pretty well.
	Here's what I would suggest.
	Like, if you get kicked off the Titanic, you're not necessarily in the worst place in the world.
	Or if you're driven to a new, untapped, untouched virgin soil, and you start setting up your shop on that virgin soil, you're also not doing pretty badly.
	So getting kicked off a lot of media platforms, Twitter, Facebook...
	Sorry, no, I'm still on Facebook.
	Sorry, Twitter... And YouTube and PayPal and other places.
	Like, okay, so I have to go find new places and being one of the earlier people to find those new places, given that everyone's probably going to end up following me, it's not bad to get the prime real estate before the boom.
	Yeah, yeah, it's interesting because Kato Gottfried is still on, we still live stream here on YouTube, but then we take down the episodes that are uploaded to Rumble and various podcasting websites, so we're sort of in a transitional phase because we no longer upload full episodes to YouTube because YouTube's content policy is Are simply too perilous for any such thing.
	You can't discuss even mundane subjects, and the level of censorship really is just off the charts.
	So it's an interesting time to do content creation in, because I do think we are in a bridge period.
	Between the old and the new.
	And you have been forced to become a pioneer.
	But even those of us who have been forced, we're still sort of getting our cover wagging out and going down the trail, just not at the highest of speeds.
	Yeah, I mean, the way that I sort of look at it now is I was in a relationship before I met my current wife, and that relationship didn't work out.
	And it made me unhappy at the time for a little while.
	But looking back in it now, it's like, oh my gosh, I am so glad that relationship didn't work out because I ended up meeting the woman I've been married to for close to 20 years now.
	We raised a child together, have a wonderful life, and so...
	Yeah, you know, they didn't want me.
	So if you have a girlfriend and she dumps you and then she ends up going out with a criminal, you're like, oof.
	That's probably a good bullet to dodge right there, wouldn't you say?
	And so, you know, getting kicked off Twitter, and then Twitter has to be, what, forced by the Department of Homeland Security to take down child exploitation imagery, even though they got the exact age of the person through.
	It's just unbelievably gross what these platforms are up to.
	And if they're like, well, you know, we're fine with death to Israel from various mullers around the world, but, you know, Steph talking about science, my God, that's a bridge too far!
	We can't have anything to do with those facts, reason, evidence, interviews with subject matter experts, because we've got to make room for all the lunatics in the world to bring down all the theological hellfire on the infidels.
	Like, okay, man... So you dumped me, but you're dating a bunch of psycho mullahs.
	I guess I'm okay with that decision.
	Yeah, you know, I was going to mention that Stefan has been fortunate that Facebook has not canceled him.
	The intellectual takeout, which is published by the Charlemagne or...
	It's a website which is paid for by the Charlemagne Institute, which also finances my magazine Chronicles, lost their access to Facebook because they published something about Hunter Biden.
	It was a kind of indirect reference to Hunter Biden just before the election, so they kicked him out.
	In comparison to the stuff that Stephan serves up, most of what you read on intellectual takeout is fairly bland, but they apparently cross some kind of line by giving...
	Some reference or mentioning obliquely the Hunter Biden story.
	They've never been taken back.
	So I think what you see here is it's very arbitrary.
	I wouldn't say it's arbitrary because the Hunter Biden story was the difference between Biden getting elected and Trump getting elected.
	There's not even an opinion.
	That's a straight-up fact.
	They've done sort of surveys And like one in six or one in seven Biden voters would have switched their vote if they'd known about Hunter Biden, which is why the Washington Post story was so viciously suppressed and their account was locked.
	They desperately needed to keep the Hunter Biden story away from the voting public so that the lefties could gain control of the House, the Senate and the presidency.
	So I don't think it's too arbitrary.
	It's a pretty clear pattern of, you know, the bloody path to power.
	You know, I think that's true.
	But in comparison to what you provide, the stuff that you read on intellectual takeout, as I said, is extremely bland.
	But I think you're right. The Hunter Biden story was absolutely critical for the left taking power, being able to suppress the story or cancel people.
	But they never took them back afterwards, which is interesting.
	I mean, obviously, intellectual takeout is less of a challenge to the dominant PC ideology than what you're providing.
	But once they're cancelled, they're cancelled.
	I mean, it seems to be a kind of irreversible or revocable process.
	There's no way they're going to let you back in afterwards.
	Well, no. I mean, see, the purpose of this whole de-platforming thing, to me, is pretty simple.
	I mean, obviously, there's the drive to power and all that stuff.
	That's pretty clear. But if they can, I want you to think of a line of cocaine.
	I mean, assuming you haven't already thought of that today.
	So a line of cocaine, what do you do, right?
	I don't know. I've seen it in movies.
	I have no idea. But what you do is you take your credit card, you go down the middle of the line of cocaine, you separate it.
	You get two lines of cocaine, and I guess that's double the high or something like that.
	So this slice and separate the portion, they're dividing it into the oldest category of humanity, the category described by Plato in his most famous allegory of the cave, right?
	You've got the people who are chained in a cave, and they're looking at...
	The shapes cast by shadows of objects moving in front of a fire, right?
	So you've got a fire, you've got these objects, you've got the flickering cave firewall, and they're looking at that and they think that those are real.
	And then you've got people like us and people like others, they sort of break free of their chains and they start saying, oh my gosh, the shadows on the wall aren't the real things.
	The things in front of the fire are the real things.
	And then they say, well, no, maybe that's not the real things.
	Maybe the fire is the real thing.
	And then they notice that there's a A passageway leading up and out into the world and they pursue that passageway and they go up and they see the real world.
	Unmanipulated, uncontrolled, unconstrained facts.
	They're not looking through the lens of somebody else's eyesight.
	They're not looking through the language of somebody else's propaganda.
	They're seeing the thing itself entire and complete.
	And they're stunned and their ice waters, you know, like when you go out from a movie theater in the middle of the afternoon, it's like zot.
	And they go back down and they start to tell everyone that there's a whole world outside of the cave that's actually real.
	They can see for themselves.
	They don't have to look at these manipulated images.
	And then they're usually put to death for being heretics because they're going against that.
	So what they're trying to do is the oldest, right?
	The people who rely on language and the people who rely on thought.
	The people who believe what they're told and the people who are skeptical and think for themselves.
	Now, the further you can move these groups apart, the better it is to control human beings.
	Because there are lots of people who just believe all the stuff that they're told.
	Like they've done a survey recently and they asked a whole bunch of people like how many unarmed black It's called low information but basically it's just low thought.
	By the propagandists, then people like us, we come along and say, how do you know that's true?
	Or are you certain that's true?
	Or how do you know?
	It's an epistemological question.
	How do you know what is true and what is false?
	And we can be the tinder that sets fire to the entire spark and supernova of thought in people.
	So they have to keep us away from the general population.
	So take that line of cocaine.
	Uh-oh, here are the people who think for themselves.
	We've got to take them out of the equation so that other people who aren't thinking for themselves don't brush up against them and accidentally learn how to think.
	You know, because they want to control what you think because once you think, you're beyond their control.
	So they're just taking us out of the equation in the same way that, you know, you would want to keep your forest free of a forest fire.
	They've just got to keep the sparks of thought away from the dry tinderwood of people's potential, and that way those people are easier to control and we're kind of neutered in that sense.
	My question to you is, why the pervasiveness of what I call the post-Marxist left?
	It's post-Marxist in the sense that they're not concerned about socio-economic questions.
	They hate white male Christians.
	They hate Western civilization.
	They're absolutely determined to destroy any civilization that existed in the West before they took over.
	And the most interesting thing is the absolute pervasiveness of this.
	For instance, I can read in an American newspaper that the people who are protesting the lockdowns are neo-Nazis.
	Then I pick up a German newspaper, maybe not the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, but the Süddeutsche Zeitung, which is leftist, or the Tagge Zeitung in Berlin.
	It's exactly the same story.
	Everyone in Germany who has questioned these horrendous lockdowns is really a Nazi sympathizer.
	If I pick up Le Monde, I read the same thing.
	How is it that this silliness, this absolute made-up reality is so widespread and is meeting with so little resistance?
	In the United States, it's very different from Canada because we have 75 million people who voted for Trump.
	But in a place like Germany, you know, you're talking about 10 or 11 percent might oppose this.
	In Canada, I'd be surprised if we're even that many people or that percentage of the population.
	Why is this insanity so ubiquitous?
	Well, what I find extraordinary is the complete lack of historical understanding to the point where people who are protesting against government overreach are called Nazis.
	I mean, as if the Nazis weren't all about government overreach.
	I just think that's just completely...
	It's a lot easier to hate than it is to think.
	This is one of the great tragedies of human history.
	It's a lot easier to hate than it is to think.
	So the left has very carefully cultivated these evil statements like racist, white supremacist, white nationalist, Nazi, far-right, neo-no.
	They've very carefully cultivated these terms and they've injected these terms with such hateful vitriol That's the moment they attach these terms to someone, that someone can no longer be listened to.
	And it's a wonderful, terrible, terrifying, malevolent, vicious power.
	I mean, that you could have a disagreement with someone, and you can say, this person is X negative term, and then the vast majority of people immediately think that you've won.
	I mean, it's a superpower.
	I mean, it's not a good superpower.
	It's not a positive superpower.
	But it is a superpower.
	And I've said this before, but it's probably worth repeating here.
	I mean, I grew up debating with people, arguing with people, I mean, since I was like 10 years old.
	I've always loved to debate, always loved to think, always loved to argue.
	And my friends and I, even our early teens, we'd be debating abortion and the death penalty and foreign policy.
	And I remember having a very energetic discussion when I was 12 with a friend of mine's family about whether European or British colonialism was a good thing or a bad thing.
	And, you know, just really, really interesting topics.
	I mean, I lost most of the times because I was new to the whole thing, but that's how I kind of cut my teeth on debating and it went on for many years.
	You know, I can't remember one single time, one single time, where, let's say, I beat someone in a debate.
	Now, again, you can't really lose a debate, because if you're beaten, it means you've gained the truth, which is a good thing, right?
	Or at least you've let go of an error.
	But can you imagine, you know, some 13 or 14-year-old kid, you're having a debate, and you win at some point, and the kid turns to you and says, I'm going to get you kicked out of school.
	I'm going to get you fired from your paper route, man.
	Like that would be the actions of a psycho stalker.
	That would not be the actions of a sane human being.
	So de-platforming is, I can't win the argument, so I'm just going to lie about you.
	I'm going to try and destroy your source of income.
	I'm going to try and destroy your reputation.
	I'm going to attempt to rouse the passions of the foolish mob against your very existence.
	That's an extraordinarily dangerous game.
	You know, boy, if there's one thing that the 20th century should have bloody well taught us, bloody well taught us, that to hate instead of thinking is a world-wrecking perspective and being able to restrain your hatred.
	You know, if somebody's pointing at someone else and saying that person is the greatest and worst enemy, normally what you do is you follow that finger straight up, the arm, and it's the person who's pointing who's actually your greatest enemy.
	Because they are calling in the airstrike of foolish mob biases against somebody who's usually asking sensible questions.
	And it's a bad scene, man.
	I don't know. I can't believe we're going to have to learn this lesson again.
	I can't believe.
	We're going to have to learn this lesson again.
	Maybe if we learn this lesson in color instead of black and white, like the World War II, maybe it'll take.
	Maybe if we learn this lesson in 60 frames a second 4K ultra-high-definition video instead of grainy D-Day footage in black and white, maybe we'll learn this lesson.
	But I literally can't believe.
	I mean, it's like what Solzhenitsyn said in the 80s.
	He said, oh, man, the communists are going to take over the West.
	And I was like, no way! Couldn't possibly happen.
	We know too much. There's 100 million people dead.
	But of course, anybody who reads Wikipedia doesn't even know about that because they gloss over that stuff and instead attack me because whatever, whoever.
	So, yeah, I just, it's really, I would say disheartening, but if people have to learn this lesson again, giving the government a lot of power, allowing yourself to be trained into hating people who are probably trying to tell you the truth, how's that going to go?
	Well, It goes really, really badly, and we're going to have to learn it again, it looks like.
	Excuse me, gentlemen, one second, Paul.
	I just had to say, if you have a reasonable or responsible question or comment from the panel, everyone, please leave it via Streamlabs.
	I will throw a link in the chat.
	Yeah, bring them on. It would be interesting to see what the audience has to say about this, as well as the despair among millennials and Zoomers, which is the The point of the conversation.
	I actually think that Stefan May thinks he said, segue well into that.
	I know, Paul, it's quite a few things to say about the matter as well.
	And once again, Paul, I'm not supposed to cut you off, but just to address this, is looking at a lot of millennials and Zoomers out there.
	I do see a lot of despair, a lot of anger, a lot of hopelessness, and it comes in different forms.
	It's not like one sort of problem that people have across the board, but it has certainly caused a unique state of mind among these people.
	There is a disproportionate desire, I think, in relation to past generations, and this is whether they're on the left or the right or in the so-called center, to look to the government to solve their problems, an extreme lust for force, for aggression against those whom they dislike, physical force, physical aggression.
	And there is a real lack of interest in hearing out what the other side has to say.
	This is obviously the stuff of desperation, but it comes out of this sort of anguish that millennials and Zoomers are feeling.
	You know, I think that there's so many different ways to go with this.
	I know that Paul and Stefan have no shortage of things to say, but Stefan, since you're the guest, we'll start with you.
	Anything to say about this matter?
	And obviously Paul can share his two cents.
	Yeah, I mean, so I guess it's useful to start defining terms.
	So the Baby Boomers are born post-Second World War up to 1964, I think it is.
	1965 plus is my generation, the Gen Xers.
	And then come the Millennials, what, mid-80s to end of the century, something like that.
	And after that come the Zoomers. Do I have that sort of right?
	Until 1997 are the Millennials and then after 97 come the Zoomers.
	Okay. Yeah, listen, the millennials have been hosed more than any other generation in the West in recent memory for sure.
	They are facing triple the housing prices.
	They're facing triple the car prices.
	They're facing triple the education prices and a much worse education.
	They're facing endless importation of cheap labor.
	I mean, everybody thinks that importing all this cheap labor is somehow good for the economy because you can pay people less.
	It's like, no, it's not. It's not.
	They generally don't come from very skilled cultures or histories, and you end up just having to circle back and patch up all the work that they've done badly, so it hasn't really helped them.
	It's really been absolutely brutal, and you can see what's been going on compared to the boomers.
	They have far less economic ownership.
	They've been forced into smaller and smaller apartments, more and more compromises.
	The males are facing a generation of women who've really been trained to resent and hate and fear men.
	And they've also saw their own parents, the Gen Xers, usually go through horrible divorces, even worse than the boomers.
	The boomers were later when they hit the divorces, but the divorces that hit...
	Going for the Gen Xs has really shredded the Millennials and some of their faith in the basic institutions.
	They face incredible fear-mongering that was just like we had fear-mongering in my generation, but it was more to do with...
	Nuclear weapons, that was the big fear-mongering.
	And there was, of course, you know, America's gonna, what was it, the late great planet, Earth was the big thing, and I was being told, oh, we're gonna run out of oil and food by 1980.
	But I never really believed that, because you could never see any particular diminishing of these resources.
	And... The nuclear weapons stuff, you know, kind of went away after the fall of the Soviet Empire, and so it was kind of peaceful.
	There was options, there was solutions, there were geopolitical movements that took away that anxiety, and I remember talking to one younger person whose big fear was Y2K, and it's like, dude, I don't mean to pull, like, nuclear shadow rank on you, but nuclear war was just a little bit more of an issue when I was a kid.
	But the relentless fear-mongering Of global warming and this environmental catastrophism that has been inflicted on the younger generation is really horrendous.
	And they've grown up with this kind of nihilism.
	Plus, of course, the incredible amount of national debt, unfunded liabilities, the absolute unsustainability of the system.
	Mass migration is unsustainable.
	Debt and unfunded liabilities are unsustainable.
	Government unions are unsustainable.
	Monetary policy is unsustainable.
	But you're not allowed to talk about any of that.
	That, the only thing you're allowed to talk about is that plant food kills all life on the planet.
	You know, CO2 just kills all life on the planet, and taxation is much higher, and of course, nobody, because they're not economically important, because they've been so squeezed out of the economy, they have virtually no say.
	In political affairs.
	And so they're being shafted with the bill, getting almost none of the benefits.
	And, you know, the politicians are just listening to Boomer women because they're the biggest voting demographic who are shaping policies in the West at the moment.
	So, yeah, I mean, I'm not at all surprised.
	That they're kind of pissed off.
	And I really understand it.
	It hit my generation to some degree.
	It hit their generation the hardest.
	And the youngest generation has had some slight more benefits than the millennials.
	But they really got the short end of the stick.
	And the only thing they got on the other side was cell phones that are constantly squawking at them about the end of the world.
	So it's not really a very good deal, in my opinion.
	And the Zoomers seem to be even angrier than the Millennials.
	I've noticed that.
	The Millennials, they're angry too, but they whine a lot.
	The Zoomers just seem to have this sort of bizarre rage.
	And that's, once again, both the left and the right.
	Anything to say about that, Stefan, or Paul shares his views?
	So it's one thing to be told that the end of the world is nigh.
	It's another thing to say, and it's going to happen before you hit middle age.
	Right. So I was told that the end of the world is nigh.
	You had all of these Russian or Soviet communist funded documentary, quasi documentaries on the end of the world, you know, like Threads and The Day After and all of this stuff.
	Like most of what I thought of as culture when I was growing up just turned out to be KGB propaganda as a whole.
	And that's not even just an opinion.
	That's pretty well documented fact by these days.
	Right. But it's one thing to have this kind of abstract thing that's floating out there that doesn't have a timetable, and mutually assured destruction was a pretty good way of getting out from under the nihilism provoked by nuclear weapons.
	But for the millennials, it's like it's coming and it's going to hit before...
	You die. And for the even younger generation, like, it's coming, and it's going to hit before you even have kids.
	And, okay, what is the civilization?
	What differentiates us from the animals?
	Because if we try to run an advanced civilization with the mindset of animals, we're worse than animals.
	You can't be an animal if you're a human being.
	All you can be is inhuman, because we can't actually be animals, right?
	So what happens...
	To a civilization that's built on the deferral of gratification.
	That's all that civilization is.
	I said storing value with regards to Bitcoin, but that has to do with the deferral of gratification.
	Save your money rather than spend your money.
	That means having faith in the future.
	Study hard now, which can be unpleasant, in order to have a better life later.
	Don't eat too much now because you don't want to kill your knees climbing a set of stairs when you're 50.
	Don't smoke now.
	Don't do drugs now. Don't get a tattoo.
	Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. You just have to defer gratification.
	And that also includes don't go along with the crowd because anywhere the crowd is running is usually lemming like off a cliff or certainly in the wrong direction.
	So defer the gratification.
	But you can't and won't defer gratification if you don't believe you have a future.
	What is there to defer to?
	It's like there's this old joke about you're on death row.
	You're on death row and you get your final meal.
	Well, you're not worried about dessert, are you?
	Because you're going to be dead in 20 minutes.
	You know, dead man walking. It's like, well, you know, I've got to watch my cholesterol because this fried chicken may not be that good for me.
	So there's no need or reason or purpose in deferring gratification if you haven't got long to live.
	Now, here's the terrible thing.
	And I knew some of my friends as a teenager, they fell prey to this nihilism.
	They fell prey to this nihilism and they did not plan for their future.
	They're like, well, why on earth would I bother going to school?
	And why on earth would I bother...
	I'm going to go travel. I'm just going to go work for a little while.
	I'm going to be at Tampa. I'm going to live in my parents' basement.
	I'm going to go travel. I'm going to enjoy the world.
	I'm going to go have fun. Why?
	Because... The whole shite show is going to come down, so grab your kicks while you can, right?
	I mean, this hope I die before I get old nonsense warbled by Roger Daltrey back in the day.
	And, you know, if they're right and the world does come to a creaking conflagration and revelation style, then you look pretty stupid for not having cheesecake and doing lots of sit-ups, because neither of those is particularly fun.
	So if there is no future...
	If there is no future, the nihilists are doing it just right.
	But the problem is, if there does turn out to be a future, boy, you done messed up seriously bad.
	Because you've got no skills, you've got no work experience, your health is shot, you've trained yourself in bad, lazy, self-indulgent habits, and then you've got to go try and get a job, and everybody looks at you like, okay, what have you been doing for the last five years?
	Well, I did go and pick grapes in Queensland, and then I did a little stint...
	On a commune in British Columbia, and then I went and planted some trees around Seattle, and then I volunteered, or just hung around and traveled, and nobody wants to hire you.
	So then it doesn't look so good.
	And I think, because almost, I mean, the lies of the end of the world are almost all false.
	Almost all false.
	And if they can lure you in, and I think this is what the Zoomers are waking up to, right?
	If they can lure you into this nihilism, Then you don't care about politics, you don't care about the long term, you don't care about your health, you don't care about...
	You don't care about your future. You don't care about your human capital.
	You don't care about much of anything.
	You've got your porn. You've got your video games.
	You've got your distractions. You've got your nothingness that's going to define every...
	It's just every little day.
	Like a dog doesn't have a long-term plan.
	They don't open up retirement savings plans.
	They just, oh, stick. Oh, sex.
	Oh, whatever, right? So if they can convince you to live for the now, they've turned you into something...
	Far less than human and not even with the satisfactions of an animal.
	Because your conscience is still going to nag you and say, you're really rolling the dice here, brother.
	You're really rolling the dice, you know?
	I mean, so...
	I think that the Zoomers are even more frustrated because they're told that the disaster is going to occur in their lifetime and they believed it, right?
	And what was it, Psaki, the White House press secretary, is that her title at the moment?
	She was just asked if Joe Biden still sticks to this, only nine years left until climate change becomes irreversible and, you know, we're all supposed to be underwater by now and so on.
	She wouldn't even respond to that.
	So they're going to try and tell you the end of the world is coming.
	have any long-term plans and you stay out of the way of the path to power that the sociopaths want and then if it turns out you then become invested in there being no future and if it turns out there is a future and you've been scammed out of your entire life arc of success yeah you're going to be kind of mad yeah And then with all of that frustration, what they do is they point at, you know, innocent YouTubers and say, that guy's a bad guy!
	And then all that rage and frustration that's been generated by the nihilism that failed to pan out.
	The lack of a future that turns out to be false.
	You have a future, you're just completely unprepared for it.
	There's all this rage and frustration and they'll take it out on contemporaries.
	They'll take it out on the innocent rather than, you know, getting mad at the people who lied to them and robbed them of their future.
	Paul?
	Yeah, I agree with most of what Stefan has said, but I would perhaps turn the discussion in a slightly different direction.
	Perhaps one that is more in line with a book that I finished and which is now in press on anti-fascism.
	It's called Anti-Fascism, the Course of a Crusade.
	And it's written as a sequel to my book, Fascism, the Career of a Concept.
	It seems to me we're sort of at the end of a process that sort of begins in the 1960s in the United States, and by extension in most of the Western world, in which we have turned fascism, however we define it, into the greatest evil that ever existed.
	And this fascism isn't necessarily the same as what existed in Rome in 1925 or 1930, or even in its more virulent form, what could be found in Berlin in 1938.
	It is whatever stands in the way of the left's agenda to destroy Western society, gender roles, any kind of pride in being a Western or having a Western identity, or being white.
	Any kind of sympathy for any traditional Western identity is considered something that puts us on the path to Auschwitz.
	There's really no turning back from this unless we totally destroy the evil civilization that gave us fascism and which will give us fascism again.
	And which still gave us fascism in the form of Donald Trump and even worse monsters who can come along in the future.
	Well, one of the ways we prevent this from happening It's by constantly humiliating white male Christians or anybody who is not seen as sufficiently diverse, however diversity is defined, whether it's transgendered one day or, you know, black racist the next day.
	I think what drives most of this is hate.
	The hate and the desire for power.
	I see absolutely nothing positive about this.
	You know, when I was a kid, I ran into these sort of Christian socialists or others who meant well were humanitarians.
	They were just misguided.
	The left that I encounter now are either cowardly, docile fools or people who are driven by hatred for what I consider normal people when I was growing up were normal people.
	I think we're at the end of this process, because I don't know where it can go from this.
	And I think young people who happen to have the misfortune of being white, male, Christian, whatever it is, find themselves being constantly debased, humiliated.
	And you turn on TV, if you're a white southerner, you're going to be treated as human trash.
	Black thugs who are shooting policemen are actually heroes.
	People who have normal heterosexual lives are seen as part of the problem that can lead to fascism.
	Somehow the transgendered or the homosexuals are seen as holding a higher moral card.
	And I think young people who are exposed to this nonsense I was told by my daughter, my grandson was going to school.
	They finally opened schools in Massachusetts, and he dressed as some Black Panther from a Black Panther movie, and he was sent home on the grounds of this cultural appropriation.
	My daughter went crazy.
	First, I wouldn't even let my grandson dress like that.
	She was very upset.
	She said, how do you commit cultural appropriation?
	I said, it's holding views that the ruling class doesn't like or just being there to be bullied.
	Now, if you're Governor Northam of Virginia, you can wear blackface, you can have a Ku Klux Klan, and they love you anyhow, because you favor the right of a woman to be able to kill her newborn baby, or you favor the right of Black Lives Matter to burn down a city.
	This becomes more and more severe.
	In the city of Richmond, you go to Monument Avenue, which was part of what was the Athens of the Old South.
	What you see there are graffiti all over these monuments.
	Richmond looks like Kampala, looks like the capital of Uganda by now.
	This is just an ongoing process.
	By which everything that Americans once had pride in is being degraded.
	And I think the young people understand this very well.
	Now, they're not going to fight back because their minds have been absolutely saturated with political correctness.
	But I know they sense there's something wrong.
	And I know they understand that they're the targets.
	You know, if you're a normal person, you're going to be the target.
	And even black people who notice that there's something wrong, you know, are now accused of multiracial whiteness, about which I've written articles.
	There's no way you can be saved unless you do exactly what the bullies who run society and are driven by hatred want you to do.
	And sort of like looking for the point of departure for this, one of the things I noticed going all the way back to the 1960s, in the 1950s I think there was an understanding that there were certain aberrant forms of government that we call totalitarian.
	Whether it was Nazi Germany or Stalin's Russia.
	These were vicious systems, brutal systems.
	Whether we want to put them on the right or the left is not essential.
	They operated through terror and total control of people and distorting truth.
	In the 1960s, the left pushes back on this and says, how dare you compare Even Franco's Spain to these wonderful socialist experiments of the kind that are going on in Cuba, right?
	So whatever the left does is fine, and we should not describe it as totalitarian.
	It is simply an attempt to reform a fascist or reactionary society.
	I think we've now reached the point where totalitarianism in the West has become a sort of prosaic.
	It's a kind of everyday occurrence for us.
	But it's not totalitarianism.
	It's an attempt to prevent a fascist takeover.
	Right? So, therefore, we have to shut people down, tell them what to say, push them around.
	And it sort of goes on and on.
	What I find the most interesting, as I said before, is its pervasiveness.
	I mean, you think people in Germany or France or Belgium or someone would act differently, but they don't.
	In most of these countries, they're worse than we are in the United States.
	And Canada, of course, I think is terrible.
	I put them in the forefront of these fallen places.
	I think some of this pervasiveness that I'm talking about has to do with America's hegemonic position.
	You know, that whatever kind of poison we produce here is absorbed or imbibed and swallowed by all these other countries which are under our influence.
	But it's the same language.
	My brother listens to Deutsche Welle.
	He likes German, so he listens to this.
	And he says, it's different.
	Well, having listened to Deutsche Welle, it's exactly the same as CBS. It's just in German.
	You pick up Le Monde, it's the New York Times and French.
	And it's exactly, I mean, obviously there are some differences, like they have different leftists in other countries, but it is, the overlap is absolutely frightening.
	And, sorry, Stephon was just going to say, there is some stuff on Streamlabs that we have to get to.
	And of course, if you have a reasonable, responsible question or comment from Paul, myself, or Stefan, please do leave it on Streamlabs.
	We'll get to it. But leave it as soon as you can, because Paul has to go a bit sooner than usual tonight.
	So please, leave your stuff as soon as you can on Streamlabs.
	No delay there. Thank you very much.
	From Mark Urjavik, and I'll read this one first.
	This is for Stefan and Steph slash Paul.
	All the comments on Bitchute point the anti-Western, anti-white agenda to the Jews and even call Steph a Zionist shill.
	How do you both address this?
	Sounds like it was mainly for Stephan, but Paul was addressed as well, so I guess we'll get to him afterward.
	But Stephan, if there's anything you would like to say, please feel free to do so.
	Yeah, so, I mean, the anti-Semites hate me with a yearning, burning, biblical passion.
	And so, yeah, look, there are, Jews are extraordinarily talented, intelligent, and industrious group of people.
	There are a lot of Jews on the side of freedom and small markets.
	A lot of my economic education on not just minimal government, but pure voluntarism through Murray Rothbard and so on.
	A lot of my Ayn Rand, you name it, right?
	So there are a lot of...
	Jews are going to be overrepresented in all spheres of intellectual activity because of the high IQ and a very industrious work ethic and so on, right?
	So you're going to see a lot of Jews who are very pro-freedom and And very small government, very free market thinkers.
	And again, you can go through the whole list.
	I'm sure it's pretty easy to find.
	And then, of course, if you go and look at some of the more totalitarian doctrines, there's going to be maybe a slightly disproportionate number of Jews over there as well, simply because of the talent of the group as a whole.
	So my purpose is really just take the best ideas that are put forward, argue for them strenuously, and try and bring as much freedom As possible, but yeah, I mean, the people who just, you know, blame the Jews for everything, this is a huge mistake, and it's disempowering, and it is not, it's only looking at one side of the equation, and saying that, well, there's a couple of bad Jews, it's like saying, well, there are a couple of bad Christians, therefore the entire world's problems are Christians, and that's not true.
	The case. Jews have good and bad people in them.
	I happen to have had an enormous amount of benefit from Jewish intellectuals over the course of my life, and I've interviewed a bunch of them, not because they're Jewish, just because I find them to be very interesting and original, and simply focusing on the negative side of an entire group, an entire race, an entire culture.
	Well, that's very bigoted, and it then generally has people Focusing on negative externalities rather than what they can do to make their lives better.
	And the blame game usually is a pretty short-term satisfaction, long-term disaster scenario.
	Paul? You would have to wait until I let my bastard hound out of the house.
	Well, I knew you were going to say that next.
	I mean, that's very much clear.
	I have money on that, actually, as a whole.
	So while he's doing that, let me just mention something else about this fascism thing.
	Because fascism has just become one of these words that people don't even understand what it means anymore.
	It's just this general negative pejorative.
	And if you ask most people what exactly is fascism, they won't give you any kind of clear definition.
	Fascism is just...
	People I don't like, people I've been taught to hate, people who disagree with me about my leftist virtue signaling.
	But fascism has a pretty technical and clear definition.
	Sorry, Paul, I don't want to interrupt your response to the Jewish question, but I do want to just mention this really briefly because communism is when the government owns the means of production.
	And fascism is when government allows corporations to own the means of production, but they work in lockstep with government policy.
	So when the corporations are doing the government's bidding, when the corporations allow for the private profit in the pursuit of public policy, which is not allowed under communism, that is fascism.
	And this is what to me is so tragic about all these leftists, these leftist groups as a whole, Going to these giant corporations and saying, we want you to enact our political ideology by banning people we disagree with,
	with deplatforming, then what they're demanding is that giant corporations, which leftists used to actually be quite skeptical of, I'm old enough to remember when they didn't like giant corporations, but that's, of course, before they could wrestle giant corporations into doing their bidding and dismantling and destroying people they disagreed with.
	But when you go to a giant corporation and demand that that giant corporation enact a particular political belief system that you have, and that giant corporation works in lockstep with the government to do so,
	Right now, with people in Congress demanding that fact checkers and people be banned and all that.
	I mean, misinformation, like that's just such an easy term.
	But misinformation, well, then most of the mainstream media would have to be banned for the entire Russia collusion conspiracy hoax, right?
	I mean, how about the war in Iraq?
	Or, I mean, all the wars of the past half century have been fostered and fanned by the media.
	So, you know, somebody claims that COVID doesn't exist.
	Well, that's a bad thing to say.
	But you know what it's not doing?
	It's not getting tens of millions of people killed in useless wars.
	So I think I can live with that.
	So when the left goes to these big giant corporations, which are working lockstep with the government, that is pure fascism.
	That is pure fascism.
	That is demanding the corporations do what the American government cannot do because of the First Amendment.
	First Amendment is very clear all the way to the Supreme Court.
	There's no such thing as hate speech.
	So you can't get someone deplatformed legally.
	You can't get them deplatformed in America because there's no such thing as hate speech.
	There's no hate speech laws.
	So what do you do? Well, you can't get the government to do it.
	But you really, really need that person's silence.
	So you go and work in lockstep with the big corporations who have specific government protections, the Section 230 immunities and so on.
	So they work in lockstep with the government.
	And you get people deplatformed by deploying corporations to enact a political agenda.
	But corporations enacting a political agenda is the very definition.
	Of fascism. So to me, when the anti-fascists are demanding that the fascist structure of corporations pursuing political agendas is how they get things done, again, it just takes a staggering amount of historical ignorance to not see that for what it is.
	Sorry, Paul, go ahead. If the hound is released, which I always thought was an analogy for something else, but okay, if the hound is released, go on.
	Well, two points.
	I can probably stay an extra five minutes.
	They'll just have to wait for me to appear.
	Okay. First of all, I think you could say Jews are disproportionately represented on the crazy left and are very often sort of leaders of the crazy left.
	I have to say, having grown up in a Jewish subculture in the northeastern part of the United States, I never came across Jews as crazy as the ones I'm finding now.
	I suppose it could be said generally about people nowadays, but I think that one of the reasons...
	that Jews have moved and they have moved to the left on all the cultural social issues is that from the 1960s on a concerted effort is made by Jewish organizations something which Peter Novick discusses in his book on the Holocaust and American culture but a concerted effort is made to identify the extermination of Jews under the Nazis with with With whites and with Christianity.
	And I think that this is an absolutely pernicious development.
	And I think many of the Jewish organization leaders actually believe this junk.
	But I think it was also a way of preventing Jewish assimilation, that the white Christians are your enemy.
	Of course they warned they were the allies of the Jews, but I think this was done in a very deliberate and destructive fashion.
	And having seen how this Developed as an idea, and I sort of lived through this, I can understand why Jews have become anti-Christian, anti-white, and so forth.
	It is because of these persistent lies that they were told by leaders of Jewish organizations, who may in fact have felt these prejudices and were also concerned about the danger of Jewish assimilation.
	The other point I was going to make is that you have revealed what is one aspect of fascism, which is the cooperation of corporations with the state.
	They become almost interchangeable or intertwined in such a way that it's hard to see where one begins and the other one ends.
	But I think it's only a single aspect of fascism.
	Fascism also contains an aspect of revolutionary nationalism.
	Which the left certainly does not believe.
	I mean, the left hates white Christian Western societies.
	They hate them. They want to destroy them.
	So in that sense, they are not fascist.
	Fascism also is a cult of virility and manliness, which, of course, blacks are allowed to have, but not whites.
	I think there are other aspects of fascism, also elitism, a hierarchy, which in effect exists, but we simply deny it's here and we pretend the people on top are really leveling down differences and making us more equal.
	But I think there are very different ideologies that are at work in different time periods.
	I would however agree that the alliance of corporations with the state, which is exactly what the left wants today, is an essential aspect of fascism.
	Well, and there is this, I don't know if you've been following this Coca-Cola story, where there's a trading program, I think from LinkedIn, that was leaked by an insider, which was demanding that white people be less white.
	And of course, that's unbelievably offensive and racist and vile and disgusting and all of that.
	But you just look at the logical problems with it.
	Even if you put aside all of the horrendous immorality of this very race-based identity structure, you say, okay, well, be less white.
	Okay.
	But if I'm anything other than white, it's cultural appropriation.
	So it's basically just don't exist.
	Just be nothing.
	Just be less of whatever you are but nothing of anything else.
	It's like, okay, so that's great.
	Okay, do we have any other questions?
	Yes, certainly. And there's two other things from Mark, but there are for Stephan and I. We'll get to that in a little bit because Paul should go earlier, but I'll get to the ones that are for all of us.
	And I guess there's something of a lightning round here.
	From Eddie Amin Data, is the difference between today and past civilizational crises the fact that the modern world's unprecedented wealth and technology That sounds reasonable enough to me, Eddie.
	I never actually looked at it that way before, but it does make a good deal of sense.
	Stefan and Paul, do you have anything to say about what Eddie brought up?
	Sorry, is the issue that part of our catastrophe has arisen as a result of our wealth and success?
	I believe so, but I'll just reread it so there's no question.
	Is the difference between today and past civilizational crises the fact that the modern world's unprecedented wealth and technology allows a great deal of degeneration before system collapse?
	Well, sure. Listen, I mean, a man who's healthy who takes up bad habits will last longer than a man who's unhealthy and takes up bad habits.
	A man who's fat can live longer without food than a man who's skinny.
	So, for sure, excess breeds the buffer that allows for cultural rot to take in.
	You know, if the termites get into the base of a big house, they have a lot more food than a small house.
	But this, to me, all comes back to the question of the state.
	You know, Paul had an observation that the sort of leftist tropes are very common throughout the West, and it's like, well, of course, because to me, the West died 170 years ago, fundamentally.
	I mean, there's been a lot of aftershocks, but the West died once the government took over the education of the young.
	Once the government takes over the education of the young, you have a giant hammer with which to beat down the fragile eggshell brains of the young and refill them and reshape them according to the propaganda.
	You know, the old Jesuit thing, give me a child until he's seven and he's mine for life, right?
	So, in the 1850s, 1860s, it depends where you are, the governments took over education and from there, you had a central place wherein sophistry could take hold.
	If you had private education, homeschooling, schools that weren't following a government agenda, schools that didn't take money from government and have to hire government teachers and so on, then you would have a giant pushback.
	But, you know, the old Archimedes thing, give me a lever big enough and I can move the world.
	Well, when you have central coercive control of education, you go in there and you write the curricula and you control the future.
	And having that single point of control, although it's a multi-generational lever, it does end up levering everyone Towards the left and away from reason and reality.
	Having government education chains people back down, looking at the shadows cast in Plato's cave, it walls up and destroys the staircase that leads to the outside world and everybody who's out there never gets back in.
	Which is why when you talk to people, you know, this non-player character meme that comes out of video games, the grey-faced guy who doesn't think for himself.
	Well, yeah, this is because you have a central mechanism wherein you can imprint your ideology on the helpless and dependent, controlled and half enslaved minds of the young.
	And this is the case all over the West.
	So if you want to control the West and you don't have good arguments and you don't have good data, in fact, the arguments, the data and 100 million plus killed by communism in the 20th century, if you can't stand up to a single bit of scrutiny, then you bypass everyone you're supposed to debate with.
	And you simply go to the school boards, you go to the places where the curriculum are developed and you insert your ideology into the giant Pink Floyd conveyor belt brain mashing machinery of state education.
	and then you just wait a generation or two and you won't have anyone left to debate with.
	Paul, anything to say about what Eddie brought up?
	Yeah, I entirely agree with Stefan on the role that public education has played.
	Now, this was not its intended role in the 1850s.
	The intended role was to turn people into good Germans or good American nationalists or something, or good Protestants in America, because public schools were developed to protect the young against the Catholic influence coming in with the Irish.
	So, I mean, there were various reasons that public education was introduced.
	I think the real villain...
	No, but that's just how it's sold.
	That's, you know, like the 1965 Immigration Act.
	No, it's not going to change American demographics.
	It's just how it's sold. That's not actually how it gets planned, right?
	It is certainly not the way it has operated in the last 60 or 70 years, and I think even earlier than that.
	I think the main villain in understanding why Western societies took the turn that they did, in my humble view, is the so-called democratic left.
	Communism was never that much of a problem in Western countries, even if they did pick up one quarter of the vote in France and Italy after the Second World War.
	They never came to power.
	In the United States, the most that a Communist candidate for president ever won was Earl Browder in 1936.
	He got 83,000 votes.
	Now, of course, we know if Black Lives Matter were to run a candidate for president, they probably would get 50 million votes or something like that.
	So it is not the Communist Party or Communist candidates who are the problem.
	It's what the Democratic left has done over generations, creating a vast, what I call the administrative therapeutic state.
	Which not only looks after your money and other stuff, but socializes you and helps you to overcome prejudice and what I call the pathology of dissent.
	If you disagree with their underlying philosophy, you're obviously mentally sick.
	Just the way the Soviets treated you.
	It's exactly the same.
	But this is done through elections, which by now, of course, are rigged elections.
	You don't have to worry about real elections anymore.
	You have COVID and you have to give harvest votes and do whatever you want.
	And the media tells you how to vote.
	And people are terrified of standing out and being called fascist.
	But what the Democratic left has done over a period of generations is to make people totally dependent on the state, for education, sources of information, and the socialization of families.
	And this has really created the means by which the present order came about.
	And the same thing develops actually even stage by stage in every Western country.
	There's something I point out in my book on after liberalism that in the 1960s every Western democracy in quotation develops an expanded welfare state that becomes more interested in socializing people.
	This happens in the United States, and this happens a little later in France, Germany, England, other countries.
	Of course, in England, the great change comes about after the war with the athlete government, the labor government, which, as I tell people, makes Mussolini's economic change in Italy look like small beer.
	There's just no comparison.
	It is the success of these so-called administrative reformers and social reformers in Western countries using elections, claiming to be democratic, being able to create majorities for themselves that have been more than any other force to undermine freedom and constitutional government.
	And from DouglasEdward84, I don't think there's any question that This is the case, Douglas Edward, everything you pointed out here is really spot on to me.
	I think that COVID will create a more radicalized political climate among the young, will also radicalize society, generally speaking.
	I think that it will have a very negative impact, even though certain positive things like working I've come about because of it, but I think it will hamper a lot of opportunity, and it will make people look to the state to solve more and more problems.
	It will increase the power of the leftist administrative state, which is definitely not good for people who want, shall we say, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, at least not in any reasonable sense.
	Stephon, then Paul, anything to say about what Douglas said?
	Paul is going to have to leave.
	I have to leave. Oh, anything you want to say?
	Okay, I'll wait around for the next...
	I'll be quick.
	The COVID thing is going to split the population, as it's always designed to do, like race and class issues and all of this, men hating women, blacks hating whites, and Christians hating Jews.
	It's all designed to split us up, because when we're fighting with each other, we're that much easier to rule.
	That's pretty much divide and conquer.
	It's the way the British Empire worked, and it's the way powers worked since the very beginning.
	So the way that COVID is working is it's dividing people into two groups, and those groups are drifting rapidly further apart.
	There are those who say, well, because of COVID, we need more government.
	And then there are those who say COVID has revealed that we have bad people in charge.
	And so that divide is really important.
	It's kind of the divide that happens with the single mothers versus the married women, right?
	The married women tend to vote for smaller government because their husbands are often paying the taxes and single women vote for bigger government because they're dependent on government handouts and that just has people opposing it.
	There are a lot of people who say, well, gosh, COVID means that we've got to join the World Health Organization or fund it again.
	And we've got to really listen to government.
	And they've got to control whether we put face diapers on from now until the end of time.
	And we've got to control, let them control everything because we've got this big danger.
	And everyone else is, you know, whether how large or small the group is, it's hard to tell.
	But everyone else is saying, wait a minute.
	So China closed their internal borders to domestic travel while allowing everyone who could be infected to travel internationally.
	They did not allow people knowledge of the pandemic, which they had to do.
	The only reason they ever got into the World Trade Organization was they signed the most solemn treaties that governments can sign, which is to give everybody advanced knowledge of any potential pandemic that might be occurring.
	They did not do that.
	They let people fly around internationally saying there was no evidence of human transmission while they raced around the entire planet picking up personal protective gear.
	And then they put a patent on remdesivir, which is a treatment domestically.
	So these facts, you know, they're kind of there.
	And a lot of people are saying that, OK, so they're teaching us to hate the guy who walks into Walmart without a mask.
	But what about and also they left the borders wide open.
	They left the borders wide open.
	Now with Biden's America, of course, you are letting masses of people in through the border with no COVID testing whatsoever.
	But they're talking about vaccine passports for domestic travel, especially.
	I mean, it's completely mad. Biden's toying with the idea of putting interstate barriers to travel, but the southern border is wide open.
	So there are some people who are saying, wow, the danger of COVID means that we really, really need the government now and it's got to get bigger.
	And other people are like, wait a minute, the government failed to protect me and now I have to pay with my liberty for their malevolence and incompetence.
	I trust them even less now than I did before.
	And this split, you know, boy...
	It really doesn't have a good end for most countries.
	No, it doesn't. And Paul, I presume that you agreed with what Douglas Edward brought up.
	Yeah, I absolutely agree.
	But what is the most striking feature of this whole COVID scare is the transparency of what the left is doing.
	It's not that they're doing this with any great subtlety.
	We know that they're trying to keep this going until the next election.
	At which point we're going to have more vote harvesting.
	You'll be told old people, minorities can't go to the polls because they're especially susceptible to COVID or something like that.
	Just going to go on and on.
	The so-called bailouts are all aimed at democratic constituencies.
	Including something like $200 million for a train for high-tech executives who fixed the election.
	It goes on and on.
	In Germany, they have seized power, the government that has not been exercised since the time of Hitler by the Senate.
	And anyone who disagrees is attacked as a Nazi, dutifully by the German media.
	But this goes on and on.
	And I think, as Stephan pointed out, they've opened the borders.
	We don't only open the borders, we also allow Black Lives Matter to riot, right?
	And this was okay.
	In fact, the medical, I don't know, functionary authority figure in New York City said it was necessary to do this because of all the frustration and anger felt by blacks.
	They'd feel better if they were able to riot, apparently.
	A riot is the language of the unheard.
	Yet the people who wanted hearings on the election are just straight up insurrectionists, right?
	And isn't it funny to see how the American politicians react when they're threatened as opposed to when they have regime changes in foreign countries, which pretty much threatens the domestic population over there, or if they experience a mild version at the Capitol of what small business owners in the or if they experience a mild version at the Capitol of Yes, exactly.
	Well, no, but there's something else involved here, which is that the Democratic Party can use this to create a police state in the United States or to extend the police state they've already created, right?
	Isn't the National Guard staying through the fall at the moment?
	Yes. The National Guard staying through the fall?
	In Washington? Yeah.
	Holy impassi comitatus, Batman, that just seems like quite a big thing there that nobody's really talking about.
	And there was not a single person who was killed by the rioters, unlike the peaceful demonstrators over the summer who killed, I think, 25 people.
	Yeah, even this security guard, what was it, Sicknick?
	He was revealed to be alive afterwards and texting his brother, and then they cremated his body.
	We don't even know the cause of death.
	Is that where things stand at the moment?
	I mean, it's shut down.
	I mean, trying to talk about this stuff is like trying to talk about COVID in China in December.
	It is.
	It's an insane situation, to say the least.
	I am going to have to go.
	Okay, nice to chat with you again, Paul.
	Great speaking with you, Paul.
	Take it easy. Have a good meeting.
	So, Joseph, I assume you and I are now going to meet in the middle, as we're supposed to as good thinkers, right?
	Yeah, I think, yeah, sure.
	That's a great way of putting it.
	And there are some fascinating questions here.
	Yeah, good questions. The audience typically asks very good questions.
	I must raise my unfortunately empty glasses.
	You guys do a great job.
	No, but the next three are from Row House and they are for Stefan.
	So, or it's Kato and Stefan and Paul.
	One of them says Paul's not here.
	He said Paul's still there, so obviously Paul's not here.
	So that was meant to be an alter for Kato and Stefan.
	But anyway, this one's for Stefan.
	For all the elites say allowing speech causes violence.
	To me, it is the opposite.
	Banning speech causes violence.
	Jared Holt's banning everyone is responsible for more violence by far than Stefan or any other right-wing YouTuber.
	I think that's very clearly for Stefan.
	Anything to say about that?
	Yes. Okay, so...
	Boy, I always want to make sure I go back far enough that we have good definitions, but not so far that I'm doing an intro to philosophy course.
	So, you have to think of violence in two ways.
	And I'm not saying that it is two ways, but to understand this perspective that speech is violence, you have to understand it in two ways.
	So violence can either be fist to the face, bat to the knees, initiation of the direct use of force, and that's what most reasonable, free-thinking, mature, responsible adults think of in terms of violence.
	Ah, but violence is theft, right?
	Because that's another way that you can stick a knife in someone's ribs and take away their property, and that's theft, right?
	And that's violence. Now, if you believe that The government owes you money through the welfare state.
	You need that money in order to survive, and you've made significant slash catastrophic life decisions based upon the continuation of the welfare state, right?
	You've had children out of wedlock, you haven't pursued an education, you maybe stayed addicted to drugs, whatever's going on.
	You need that welfare state.
	That's your basic perception.
	And whether you objectively need it or don't, it's kind of moot.
	The point is you believe that you need that money so passionately Now, let's say that intergalactic dungbats like Joseph and I come wandering down the street, and I don't know what your views on the welfare state are.
	I can kind of guess. But to me, it's a violation of the initiation of the use of force.
	It's funded by taxation. It's a bad thing.
	It ruts and corrupts the family.
	It punishes people for making good decisions and rewards people for making bad decisions.
	There's nothing good to say about it, in my opinion.
	So we come along and we start advocating private property, freedom of association, free markets, charity over the welfare state, and what happens is we are viewed...
	As taking food out of the mouths of their children.
	We are viewed as kicking them out on the streets.
	Their children are going to go hungry.
	They won't be able to get their diabetes insulin shots.
	They won't be able to get health care.
	Their kids won't be able to get dental care.
	And so it feels like an assault upon everything that allows them to survive.
	And so, like, you and I don't have to feed everyone in the known universe, but if we lock a guy in our basement, yeah, we kind of have to feed him because he's got no other source of food.
	So the guy, like, a guy who you don't feed who lives down the street can't come and beat you up illegally, right?
	But if you lock a guy in your basement and he beats you up to get out, that's perfectly fine.
	So they view themselves as entirely trapped, and when people feel trapped, it's never their own choices.
	They never feel it's their own choices, and they need that money.
	And so if you come along talking about freedom of association, property rights, taxation and theft, the welfare state is bad, you're viewed as directly threatening the sustainability, if not the survivability, of enormous swaths of the population.
	I don't believe that the next generation should be responsible for the massive pork of government pensions from the previous generation.
	Like, I just don't think that's fair. That's not right.
	But if you start talking about that kind of stuff, then people are looking and saying, hey, man, I worked for 20 years at least 12 hours a week to get that money.
	I mean, sometimes I showed up to work on time.
	Sometimes I answered the phone.
	I mean, I worked, man.
	I slaved. I mean, sometimes I'd leave at 5.02.
	I mean, it was brutal.
	It was like Normandy out there, man.
	It was brutal. Sometimes I came back from lunch in less than two hours.
	Sometimes I remained sober at my desk for the entire afternoon.
	I mean, I'm like a character out of a Dickens novel.
	You might as well have been stuffing me up chimneys in the 19th century, how hard I kind of worked on occasion.
	And I did that 12 hours a week, 42 weeks a year.
	For 20 years, man, you owe me that $150,000 a year and free healthcare.
	Now, you come along and start saying, I don't know, intergenerational contracts, that's pretty evil, man.
	And then you're viewed as robbing them, right?
	If you feel entitled to stuff, even if that stuff is totally unjust, and someone comes along and stands between you and the free stuff you believe is yours, whew!
	You know, you are stealing from them and they have the right to initiate force against you.
	So advocating for freedom brings this tidal wave of aggression because people think you're killing them with your words.
	And man, it's just self-defense!
	It's crazy. It really is.
	I mean, the power that language holds over people.
	And the left understands that quite well.
	That's why you see this pronoun revolution going on.
	It's not about the welfare state, but it's about controlling people's minds through controlling their language.
	And really, that's all it is.
	There's a lot to it when I say that's all it is, but in a nutshell, that's what it is.
	So, yeah, no, language is a means of controlling thought, and the left certainly is much better at playing that game than the right is.
	Well, that's because, to take a sort of general cliche, right, Joseph?
	Men fight with fists and women fight with words.
	This is all the way back to the Mean Girls gossip machine of junior high school.
	I mean, women fight by spreading slander and women fight by destroying reputations and the Mean Girl drumbeats of negative characterizations.
	That's how... Whereas, you know, boys, you know, we push each other in the hallway and we might have a sort of mild, goofy punch out and then shake hands afterwards and go play baseball.
	So men... We have the limitation to our aggression that we can get punched back.
	We're spreading rumors in the girls' bathroom, whisper campaigns, and they very rarely have any kind of objective blowback.
	So that's just, again, it's a bit of a cliche, and it may be 51%, 49%, but there is this general idea that for men, violence are fists.
	For women, violence tends to be language because that's how they engage in combat, so to speak.
	Certainly. No question about that at all.
	A very interesting distinction, which I think deserves more attention.
	And from Row House as well.
	Stefan, it's just the fact you were more popular, they took down your channel and Twitter down.
	Richard Spencer or Nick Fuentes have far more extreme views compared to you, yet both have Twitter.
	That's a brilliant point, Row House.
	There's obviously a huge amount of unfairness here, but I don't think fairness was ever the point among these people who torpedoed Stephan.
	Anything to say about what Roehouse brought up, Stephan?
	Well, yes, there's a lot to say.
	And I'm just delicately picking my way through the minefield here in my head to figure out the best way to phrase this without, you know, the entire shite storm of humanity coming down on my head.
	you know, just to be diplomatic, if not necessarily forthrights straight up. So, I mean, Richard Spencer, you know, a straight up hard socialist.
	He was a supporter of the Democrats.
	He's a supporter of Joe Biden.
	And they need him as a whipping boy.
	They need him. I mean, he was being given airtime by CNN and other places.
	And so he is a straight up boogeyman.
	They need him out there as a way of attacking others.
	They need him visible. They need him up there so that other people who are associated with him can be taken down and splash damage and stuff like that.
	I haven't followed Nick Fuentes.
	He was on my show many, many years ago.
	I haven't followed him in forever, so I don't know kind of where he's at, but certainly when I was at the peak of my public powers, I mean, intellectually, I think I hit new peaks for me at least every time I do shows.
	I'm at the top of my game right now, tonight, Joseph.
	This is the summit. This is the penultimate.
	This is the meridian of my existence.
	So I think I keep getting better, but when it comes to my actual...
	I mean, it was huge.
	I mean, it was absolutely enormous.
	They started cutting me down on YouTube.
	So I gave a speech in the European Parliament about big tax censorship.
	It was a wonderful idea.
	It couldn't have gone better for me.
	I actually have no regrets.
	So after that, they began cutting me down hard on YouTube.
	Before that, I was heading towards a million subscribers.
	I was getting 10,000 new subscribers every single month.
	My livestreams were being watched by thousands and thousands of people, and that was just one outlet.
	that my podcasts were enormous in terms of their reach you know i did shows in the millions of views pretty esoteric topics and and all of that so yeah my reach was absolutely enormous i mean my my untruths about donald trump were viewed millions and millions of times they were downloaded millions of times my books are read uh at the heights uh 10 10 million a year 10 million books a year.
	I mean, that's ridiculous. It's completely ridiculous.
	I was incredibly proud of it, very happy about it.
	And I'm pretty happy to not be doing that anymore.
	Because, you know, that was a blast.
	But because... People could not debate me, and I was happy to have debates with people, but I did pretty well in those debates because they couldn't debate me.
	They ended up having to silence me.
	So they don't mind having people they disagree with out there if those people aren't doing a huge amount to change politics.
	The conversation and I was, I mean, one of the biggest intellectuals online.
	I mean, over the course of my peak, 750 million views and downloads, not even counting tens and tens of millions of books.
	And this isn't even counting all the other people who republished me and things that were shared, like my books for free, which I could never keep track of.
	People just sending PDFs and links to MP3s around and all of that.
	So, yeah, I mean, probably close to a billion views and downloads.
	You know, that's no small potatoes.
	No, not at all.
	Yeah, so I mean, of course, you know, if they're going to...
	And, you know, foundational anti-communism, which comes both from my intellectual understanding of communism and my grim family history.
	My family was half destroyed by the Nazis and half destroyed by the communists because they were in Germany.
	My mother was born in Berlin in 1937, so she went through the war.
	The family was suppressed and chased out of public life by the Nazis.
	It's funny how these generational things just kind of cycle, kind of cycle, right?
	My family was suppressed by the Nazis, and then the communists invaded and half destroyed the remainder of the family's.
	So it's very nice that this time it's the left who's suppressing this generation, whereas it was the right and the left who was suppressing the last generation.
	So it's just kind of a family curse that we have of charisma and communication skills, followed by success, followed by mad blowback from the people in power, our word threatened.
	So, that is the cycle.
	And that was pretty huge.
	So, you know, I mean, as to these other guys, again, I don't really know what they're up to these days.
	I think Richard Spencer is fighting a bunch of lawsuits that come out of Charlottesville, and I don't know what Nick Fuentes is up to these days.
	But... Yeah, they're still on.
	And it's funny, too, because here's the thing, right?
	I mean, you mentioned that your views are more extreme.
	No, they're not. This is the funny thing.
	My views are not extreme at all.
	And I know you're not characterizing this from your perspective, but my views are not extreme.
	Look, the non-initiation of force...
	That's not an extreme position, is it?
	I mean, we tell this to three-year-olds, don't hit, don't take, don't use force to get what you want.
	That's not a radical position regarding my position on IQ and ethnicity and so on.
	That's mainstream science, man.
	I had 17 world experts on talking about IQ and genetics and ethnicity, and that's not an extreme position.
	That's totally mainstream.
	Not hitting your kids.
	I hope that's not too radical a position that you can actually reason with your kids rather than hit them with a belt.
	I mean, I hope that's not too radical a position.
	So, it's not that I'm any kind of radical.
	It's just non-initiation of force and I like following the science.
	I'm naturally skeptical.
	I don't believe anything anyone in authority tells me until proven otherwise.
	I don't think that that's extreme at all.
	I think that it's characterized as extreme to give me this aura of bad dude that, you know, people think that that's a negative.
	Oh no, he's a really dangerous philosopher.
	It's like, dude, you can't get better marketing, frankly.
	No. And I'll just repeat what Rohal said before we move on to the next question from him.
	But he said, Stefan is just the fact you were more popular.
	They took your channel and Twitter down.
	Richard Spencer and McQuentis have far more extreme views compared to you, you both, and Twitter.
	And I wouldn't characterize Stefan's views of the extreme period, and I don't think Rohal's pleased as much either.
	He was just talking about someone like Spencer or Quentis in relation to someone like Stefan.
	I do think the fact that both, even though it's supposed to be directed I just have to share my two cents here.
	I do think that the fact that both Spencer and Quintus are still on Twitter, it's because Twitter wants them there.
	They're serving a purpose for Twitter's political agenda.
	There's no two ways around that.
	They go after people with the force of a thousand sons that they find to be a threat to their perspective.
	And obviously, Stefan's perspective was something they found very threatening because he was at the height of his, you know, e-celebrity, one might say, like a one-man television network.
	And they were not pleased by that.
	Well, and, you know, not to toot my own horn, because mostly it's the listenership that drove this, Joseph, but I was bigger than a lot of TV stations in terms of, like, how many views I got.
	And remember, part of it is ideology, and another part of it is just the Benjamins.
	It's just about the money. The eyeballs that were coming to me weren't going to the mainstream media.
	So, of course, the mainstream media is going to write hit pieces on me and call me a bad guy, because people are reading books.
	What I write. They're listening to what I say.
	They're calling in and talking with me about ideas and not going to the mainstream media.
	The mainstream media writing about alternative media is about as objective as Coke writing about Pepsi.
	It's nothing objective about it whatsoever.
	They're just trying to take out a competitor.
	It works sometimes.
	It doesn't work other times.
	It discredits Sometimes the attacker wins.
	Sometimes the attacker gets discredited.
	It mostly has to do with the persistence of the victim and I frankly refuse to lose.
	I just refuse to lose. If you keep cornering me, I'll just keep switching tactics and switching momentum and switching goals and approaches because my responsibility is to philosophy.
	My responsibility is to the truth.
	My responsibility is to being the best communicator of the most important ideas that I can possibly be.
	That's the dedication. You know, some people will devote their lives to Jesus.
	More power to them. I think that's wonderful.
	I devote my life to philosophy, and therefore, the persistence is kind of out of my hands, because until somebody comes along who's better at explaining and engaging the world with philosophy, man, this is it, man.
	I've got to stand my ground, because the world has gone too long without reason.
	It has, and I don't want to belabor the point before we move on, but one of the most irrational, disgusting things I've seen, and that's saying something, is the campaign of defamation waged against you.
	I like reading your Wikipedia page and other things.
	I've read some truly insane things out there, but without exaggeration, the defamatory campaign against you personally that was waged to discredit you is so far beyond what I would have even thought they could get away with, people who are doing this.
	It's unbelievable.
	And I have such low expectations of people, but even by my experience- - Why is it unbelievable?
	I mean, this is exactly what the communists said they were gonna do.
	I mean, you can go all the way back to the 1940s They say, well, we're just going to call people who oppose us racists and Nazis and fascists, and we're going to keep hammering those terms until they become so unpopular that nobody wants to listen to them.
	Right? So when it comes to that kind of stuff, you know, people are going to hear all these terrible things about me.
	They're going to hear some good things as well, but they're going to hear some, oh, he's a bad guy, he's a terrible guy and all that.
	And then, you know, out of curiosity, you know, like they're just going to be like, ooh...
	Let's expose myself to a true face gale blast of sand scrubbing evil and I'm going to tune into this guy and it's like they hear me being pretty reasonable, citing sources, having positive conversations with people about personal liberty and how to achieve freedom and We're good to go.
	I don't want to say some people say, it feeds me.
	I don't want to feed me. It's just the natural eddying of the current as opposed to philosophers.
	You've got to aim a couple of hundred years in the future if you know what's good for you and if you know what philosophy is all about.
	So they hear all these terrible things and maybe they tune into this very show.
	Maybe Joseph is bringing the great villain of the universe.
	It's coming on his show and if I'm not showing up with glowing eyes and dead kittens hanging on the wall behind me, then people are like, well, Wait a minute.
	This guy's, you know, a pretty nice guy.
	He's pretty reasonable.
	You know, he's pretty measured.
	So then when that collision comes between this guy's the worst guy ever and he seems pretty reasonable, he seems like a happy guy, he's happily married, he's a stay-at-home dad as well, enjoys and loves the company of his daughter and so on.
	I'm writing a book right now on peaceful parenting.
	Okay, so wait a minute.
	And what happens?
	There's a cognitive dissonance that happens there.
	And say, okay, well, why is he so hated by some people?
	He's not a hateful guy.
	He doesn't promote hate.
	He doesn't promote extremism.
	He has reasonable arguments.
	Consistent arguments, but these days, consistency is the new radical, right?
	And so then there's a cognitive dissonance, and they have to choose a side.
	Now, that's not a bad thing.
	To hear terrible things about someone, to go and see that person, or maybe even interact with that person and see a reasonable, positive, friendly individual, That gives you sides to choose.
	Are you going to choose the side of the people who say such things?
	Or are you going to at least explore the possibility that they may be false?
	And then if they turn out to be false, and I've got a whole section, what I believe on my website, just going through a lot of this nonsense and how absolutely false it is.
	It's not even taken out of context.
	It's completely reversed.
	It's like, you know, the Bible says, the fool in his heart has said there is no God, and you just take out there is no God, and you say, the Bible is an atheist document.
	It's like, come on. I mean, it's not even trying.
	They're not even trying anymore.
	So the cognitive dissonance is where free will comes from, because as long as you're certain, you really don't have choice.
	You know, I'm certain that gravity exists if I don't try and fly every day.
	Like, I don't have choice with regards to gravity.
	So when you get that kind of cognitive dissonance, Steph is a bad guy.
	Wait a minute. He doesn't seem like a bad guy.
	He doesn't seem like a terrible guy.
	Maybe it's really camouflaged.
	Okay, well, I'll watch some more and I'm going to wait to see.
	I'm going to see this beast come out of this bald guy's head.
	You know, he's going to split and some velociraptor is going to come out and chew my nads off or something, right?
	No, it still hasn't happened.
	Okay, I'm going to watch one more show.
	Okay, thank you.
	Now you get it, right?
	And that's where people get their free will and that's a great gift, I think.
	It is, absolutely.
	YouTube, I'll have to take this stream down once it's done and then upload it to Rumble, and of course I'll send you the link, but the fact that YouTube is doing what it's doing with regard to censorship, it knows that somebody can watch this show, see that you're not crazy, and then come to take your point of view With a good deal of seriousness, and that's what it fears, and that's why it tries to stamp out everything it can, creating new rationales for doing so.
	It's a bizarre state of affairs, but that is what we're faced with, and it is all about mind control.
	And this is the last one from Rohaus, and then I'll make the last call after I've read this, but after we've addressed this, from Rohaus, for Cato and Stephan and if Paul is still there, him too, the big new issue is this equal outcomes religion.
	No two groups of people achieve equal outcomes at everything.
	The left cannot tolerate this and thus want life to be like sports with no winners.
	I agree with that entirely.
	I think that is what they find to be attractive.
	I think that they They're of this mindset because they want to feel safe and happy and fulfilled even though they don't deserve any kind of fulfillment or really happiness.
	They've not done anything to be happy about.
	And they expect to have this situation in which society more or less hands life to them on a silver platter so they always have a smile on their face.
	But if you look at studies, real studies, You find that people who are self-described as being on the left are much angrier than people who are self-described as being on the right.
	And I think this goes to show that these people are not really getting what they're looking for out of their politics, but they're not going to change their mind all the same.
	But brilliant points you bring up Brohaus, and I agree with them in totality.
	Stephan, anything to say about what Brohaus brought up?
	Yeah, great points.
	Compliments to the intelligence and perceptiveness of your listeners, Joseph.
	Listen, I'd be really enraged, too, on a perpetual basis if I had, as my possibility of happiness, a moral task that was impossible.
	I mean, that would really suck.
	It'd be like me saying, well, I can't be happy until I'm 12 feet tall.
	Right? And I'm going to stretch myself.
	I'm going to have a bed with ropes at some ancient Greek hotel.
	Well, if I'm never going to be happy until I'm 12 feet tall, I've condemned myself to a life of misery.
	Frustration and anger. So people give you impossible moral tasks to set you at war with yourself and to fill you full of such frustration, rage and anger that you've got to take it out on someone and then you become a useful weapon in the hands of the powerful.
	Because then they can point and they say, Aha!
	This guy over there, he doesn't believe in your impossible moral task and he's living a happy life so you've got to go destroy him.
	Because if he's living a happy life and he doesn't believe in your impossible moral goal, you might want to listen to what he's got to say.
	And if you say we can't have a just society until everyone is equal in their outcomes, not in their opportunities, not in their rights, I'm perfectly...
	equality of rights, equality of opportunity, fantastic.
	I'm 100% behind that.
	But if you say...
	We can't be happy in this world until everyone can sing like Pavarotti.
	Well, dude, you may find some people that training will help them, for sure.
	Maybe Paul Potts could be one of them, but, you know, it's not going to happen.
	You know, I can't be happy until everyone is over six feet tall.
	Nah, you know, you may get a bunch of Danish people, probably not so many Japanese guys, right?
	It's just the way it is.
	We can't be happy Until everyone has the same income.
	Never going to happen.
	Because free will, some degree genetics, who knows, environment, and we can do stuff.
	You know, even though the science is pretty clear that in our late teens our IQ is 80% genetic, 20% is not bad.
	20% is not bad.
	I mean, I'm a little under 200 pounds, right?
	So, you know, 20% of my weight is 40 pounds.
	That's not a bad sum to work with.
	If I'm 220, I'm not happy.
	If I'm 180, I might be too thin.
	I got a 40-pound spread.
	That's only 20%. 20% is a good number to work with.
	And wisdom is more important than IQ. IQ can't really be transferred, but wisdom certainly can.
	And that's why the purpose of me has always been to translate philosophy into...
	Ideas, arguments, terms that the everyday person can use to improve his or her life.
	Like, you never heard Socrates use the word metaphysics.
	Not once. Not once.
	It's for the people. Philosophy is for the people, and it's not dumbed down.
	It's just clarified to be usable by the people.
	And so, if you have an impossible moral task, you can't ever be happy.
	You can't ever be satisfied.
	The work is never done.
	I mean, Christians understand this.
	Jesus was perfect. It's what would Jesus do, not I must be Jesus.
	Because you can't be Jesus.
	Because Jesus was perfect, but you can have Jesus as a goal.
	With the human limitations that you have.
	And so having an impossible moral task is a surefire way to scream at the sky if Trump gets elected.
	It's a surefire way...
	To be miserable, to be aggressive, to be dissatisfied, to be unlovable.
	Because you can't love someone who's continually dissatisfied with themselves.
	And you can't love yourself.
	You can't be happy with yourself if you can only ever be happy when the impossible occurs.
	I will be happy When the world is banana shaped.
	This is not a recipe for human joy or human achievement or human happiness.
	If you align yourself with reality and you aim for that which can be achieved, which is to be consistent and moral in your own life, we can achieve that.
	Say, ah, can we achieve it perfectly?
	No, no, no. You've got to scrub that.
	You know, they're two-syllable words, right?
	Two-syllable words. In Christianity, it's Satan, and in philosophy, it's perfect.
	These are not things that make any sense.
	It's like health. Are you in perfect health?
	I don't know what that would even mean.
	What does that even mean? I don't know.
	Am I pursuing exercise, eating well, other things, you know, getting enough sleep?
	You know, the general things that will aim at health.
	Okay, well, I can be perfect in my actions to a large degree.
	I can't be perfect in the outcomes.
	You know, I was a healthy guy.
	Just happened to get cancer out of nowhere.
	No reason. Just happens, right?
	Just some bad luck. So, but what I can do is continue to live a healthy life afterwards and maintain a good weight and eat well and all that kind of stuff, right?
	So, you know, it's this old argument.
	The perfect is the enemy of the good.
	Yeah. And people will sell you on perfection, on perfection.
	So we can't ever be happy or content as a society until East Asians and Hispanics and Blacks all make the same amount of money.
	Well, there's lots of reasons why that is not a realistic goal.
	What we want is freedom, but then freedom breeds inequality, inequality breeds resentment, and then you get this cycle as long as you have a state that can redistribute all of this money.
	So I just invite everyone out there who's listening to this, look into your heart, look into the mirror, Is there any historical or rational evidence that what you think is the good can actually be achieved and sustained without massive government power?
	I mean, this is really important. The massive government power is a pretty important part of the equation because that's a bad.
	That for sure is a bad.
	So if you say, well, you know, until X condition is achieved, We don't live in a just society.
	And the only way to achieve X is massive government power, borrowing, debt, promotion, affirmative action, quota systems, and massive punishment, the banning of IQ tests.
	If that is how you achieve the good, guess what, sucker?
	You've just been roped into achieving the bad.
	You're fully in the service of evil.
	They give you an impossible goal, and they say, if you give us enough power...
	We will tell you you've achieved a just society and you can start to live a happy life.
	We're going to hold your happiness hostage until you give up your freedoms.
	And then we will call you a good person and you can sleep at night without feeling evil.
	That's a terrible deal.
	That's the basic thing that bad people do is they take your happiness hostage by giving you impossible moral goals.
	And they will only release you to have happiness after your happiness becomes impossible because they control everything you do.
	You don't have free will. You can't have integrity.
	You can't earn anything. You can't be free.
	You can't be yourself.
	And so you never get that happiness.
	They'll take it hostage and they shoot the hostage.
	You'll never get it back. You have to relinquish the idea or the ideal of impossible moral goals.
	You know, my goal in a day, you know, I was thinking about this conversation tonight, Joseph, so I did some research and I'm thinking, okay, what am I going to say?
	When you get a question, I take a moment, you can see me do it, where I'm like, okay, well, my goal, yeah, tell the truth.
	Well, that's a big enough goal.
	You can get through life telling the truth for the most part.
	You've done an amazing thing and you've done more than 99.9% of people will ever do.
	Telling the truth is a tough thing.
	You know, we've got questions coming in like, hey, you want to talk about Jews and communism?
	It's like, yeah, that's kind of tricky.
	Tell the truth about this kind of stuff in a way that's accessible, in a way that's understandable, in a way that doesn't get you flamed.
	That's a tough balancing act to do, right?
	So you've got your work cut out for you just telling the truth.
	I went through the entire day without initiating violence against anyone, anyone.
	Okay, I played a bit of Among Us with my daughter.
	But other than that, man, other than that, the whole day, I didn't initiate any force.
	I didn't tell any lies.
	I didn't defraud anyone.
	You know? That's achievable, man.
	I can go to bed saying, yeah, I was a good guy today.
	I did good.
	I did well. That's not an impossible moral goal.
	So instead of there being this giant Atlantis city that you have to raise from an invisible ocean with some weird force of will, equality of outcome, how about don't lie, don't steal, don't bear false witness, the most important one that I was growing up, one I still live by, do not bear false witness, do not cheat, do not lie, do not steal.
	You do that, That's fantastic.
	That's as close to perfection as you're ever going to get.
	And the God of the gaps is critical to ignore with this.
	I could have told more truth.
	It's like, yeah, okay, but other people got to get some sleep.
	So maybe shut up about the truth for a little while so people can get some sleep.
	Joseph may want to say something at some point in this conversation, so I'll shut up at some point.
	I could tell more truth. Is what you said true?
	To the best of your knowledge, if you're corrected, do you say, I appreciate the correction, thank you, you're right.
	I will drop this prior perspective or opinion and I will take this new one.
	Like you could see this in Trump's impeachment trial.
	They played the entire fine people hoax.
	People think he called neo-Nazis fine people.
	He absolutely did not. He condemned them utterly.
	People watched the whole video and I saw the comments underneath the video.
	People saying, yeah, well, look, he saw it.
	We saw it. He said it, man.
	Like, no, no, they played the whole clip.
	Did he ever make fun of a disabled reporter?
	No, he didn't. He's made that gesture to say people are idiots for 40 years.
	And he didn't even know the guy was disabled because he'd only ever read anything he'd written.
	So this was... Not true.
	Just lies. Was he an agent of Russia?
	Absolutely not. So that's the kind of moral integrity that people need to have.
	If you find out something is false, get mad at the people who lied to you, thank the people who told you the truth, and stop holding that perspective.
	You try and do that in today's world, man, you're carrying a huge burden, you've got a heavy load, and you'll never be done.
	So I would rather people focus on the morals of That you can't virtue signal.
	You know, you put hashtag BLM on your Twitter bio, yeah, yeah, good for you, right?
	I mean, what does it cost you?
	It doesn't cost you anything. It doesn't actually give you the challenging task of telling the truth in a world that's increasingly hostile to the truth.
	It doesn't, like, how about everybody knows some kid who's being mistreated in your environment?
	You know, they're being yelled at.
	They're being hit, maybe.
	They're being lied to.
	There's some crazy parent who's filling them full of weird indoctrination.
	How about you go and have a conversation with that family about treating their kids better?
	You know, that's a pretty good thing you can...
	No, no! Hashtag BLM! Oh, come on, you know?
	Pronouns in the bio is lazy.
	It's lazy. It is.
	And it's a lot easier to pat yourself on the back For pretending to be good when it costs you nothing and achieves nothing, in fact, achieves ill in many cases.
	But how about you just go through the day, just try it for a day.
	I'm not saying to you. I mean, I'm sure you do.
	But just tell the truth.
	Just tell the truth for a day.
	I have doubts about this.
	I'm not sure I believe this.
	I heard this and it seems true.
	Someone says the fine people hoax.
	how about you just say, I'm sorry, you were lied to, but that's false.
	If you're skeptical of global warming and the hysteria of handing over everything we own to a giant intercontinental tyranny, yeah, okay.
	How about you're skeptical?
	You may be skeptical of the value of masks.
	Maybe you're right, maybe you're wrong, but how about you just talk about that?
	How about you just open up, give people free will by giving them cognitive dissonance.
	They may dislike you in the moment, but they'll like you in the long run.
	It's like intervening with someone who's got a drug addiction.
	They'll dislike you in the moment, they'll like you in the long run.
	So forget all of these big, grandiose, we've got to make society equal and we've got to stop racism in all police forces.
	Just tell the truth in your personal life.
	Stand up for people being victimized in your personal life.
	And you can achieve that, and that will make you happy.
	That will genuinely make you happy and make you lovable and make you popular in the right circles and unpopular in the wrong circles, which is kind of what you want, right?
	You don't just navigate by one star, right?
	You've got to have a whole bunch of things, the wind, the sextant, the GPS, not just the one star.
	You navigate by everything, and the dislike of bad people is as important as the love of good people to navigate yourself.
	Bye. You don't want to run from one fire to another.
	You run from the fire to the cool, right?
	So I can understand why people on the left are so angry.
	Because they're burning their entire possibility of happiness in the pursuit of an impossible goal.
	And they know every single day is a day that they're further away from their happiness.
	And closer towards self-immolation.
	And that's a pretty stressful place to be.
	And just drop it, man.
	Just drop these impossible moral goals defined by others that are used to control and destroy you.
	Just let it go. Return to the light.
	Return to reason. Get out of the cave.
	There's a beautiful world out here of love and self-comfort and happiness.
	I'm a comfortable guy in my own skin.
	Joseph's a comfortable guy in his own skin.
	Because we're in alignment with what's possible and what's good and we're actually achieving good things in this world.
	I mean, you can't ask for more than that and as soon as you try to ask for more than that, boom, the manacle goes around your neck and you're done.
	You know, I have to say, Stephan, that was one of your most brilliant monologues.
	I mean, the answer to that question, really.
	You mentioned that tonight is the best you've ever been.
	I don't think that was an exaggeration.
	It was a brilliant response. Well, that's why I love doing these shows, Joseph, is lightning hits the brain and just sprays out all over the planet.
	It doesn't happen and I'm just sitting there playing Candy Crush.
	But I get the stimulus and it's like, boom.
	So that's why I appreciate the audience and the questions and the show.
	It's a great chance to disco ball my brain, which doesn't happen otherwise.
	Thank you. Well, you're most welcome, and like I said, that was brilliant.
	Thank you for that. And this is now the last call.
	If you have a reasonable and responsible question or comment for Stephan or myself, please do leave it via Streamlabs and leave it as soon as you can because this is the last call.
	Quite a few things came up when you were answering that question, so I guess we'll go through these in something of a lightning round, but from KMAC. Stefan, to me, the craziest memory was Australia, you and Lauren Southern.
	To me, you guys were more moderate and reasonable, yet those places seemed insane.
	What was Australia like?
	New Zealand too, I believe.
	Well, Australia was the bichromatic extreme rainbow that happens when you tell the truth.
	You know, you never be more loved or hated than when you tell the truth.
	And Australia was a place I went to and told the truth.
	I told the truth about the Aborigines in Australia.
	Aborigines in Australia.
	I did a long series of Q&As with Lauren, and there were people who disagreed who came in.
	I did a long series of Q&As with Lauren and there were people who disagreed, who came in.
	We had great debates and people changed my mind about some stuff.
	We had great debates, and people changed my mind about some stuff.
	I changed some people's minds about some stuff.
	I changed some people's minds about some stuff.
	So inside was not an echo chamber.
	Inside these halls, and we spoke to up to a thousand or more people at a time, inside the halls was a palace and cathedral of reason and evidence and argumentation and civilization.
	Outside was a hellish maelstrom of violence and abuse.
	And it was incredibly powerful and useful for people to see the difference between rational debate and external violence.
	And anybody who was aware of what was going on had a very clear choice.
	You either get the reason in the cathedral or you get the blood in the parking lot.
	I mean, that's it, man. We either reason together or we fight to the death.
	That's all we have as a species is reason or violence.
	And reason in the hall and violence in the parking lot.
	I mean, these people, these hard leftists, they were...
	Overturning buses with people inside them.
	They were hurling projectiles at the bus windows.
	They were ripping the sides off buses.
	This is straight up brutality.
	For what? I was advocating violence.
	I came with well-sourced, well-argued documentation from major anthropologists about the history of Aborigines.
	I praised the West and mocked the people who disliked the fact the West provided them all of the technology by which they get to express their disagreement.
	I talked about the basic facts, like 98% of the world's scientific advancements came from Europe and North America from 800 BC to 1950 AD. Yeah, 98%.
	Oh, that's pretty high.
	Sorry, no white males, no modern world.
	It's just a fact. And there's lots of interesting reasons as to why that's a fact, but it's something we should explore and we should accept as a fact.
	So... People hating on facts, people hating on rational discourse, people hating on debate with violence.
	And the vast majority of people are very positive.
	Now, in my interviews with the media, Patty Gower was his name or something like that, had some pretty interesting interactions with the media, which are well worth looking up.
	But yeah, they were just relentlessly vile and underhanded.
	And well, you know, it's the media, you know, they're the modern sophists.
	So yeah, it was an experience I'm very proud to have had.
	I loved meeting all the listeners.
	I would stay afterwards for conversations, and we had dinners with people beforehand, and I loved sitting there signing books with my daughter by my side.
	She signed them as well and put little pictures of dragons and butterflies in there because girliness.
	It was a beautiful time.
	It was a wonderful time. It was a vivid time.
	It was a powerful time. I'd do it again in a heartbeat, but of course, it's kind of tough to travel right now.
	In New Zealand, we were just completely shut down.
	Completely shut down.
	I even had trouble leaving the country.
	So, yeah, it was kind of rough.
	Out there, you know, more of a left-wing government and, you know, why?
	I mean, why fear what people have to say?
	I've never quite understood that.
	And the idea that there's some kind of hate speech coming out of what I do, oh my God.
	You know, no argument I've ever made has caused the death of one person.
	You want to talk about a body count?
	You want to talk about a body count?
	100 million dead through communism.
	And yet they classify me talking about free markets as hate speech, me talking about science, reason, and evidence as hate speech.
	If there is ever a hate speech category that does not include advocacy for communism, you know it's run by communists.
	So, yeah, it was a wild time.
	Indeed it was. And this is going back to the beginning tonight.
	This is the stuff I skipped over because Paul had to go.
	But now I'm getting to it from Mark Urjavek.
	Hi, Steph. Huge fan.
	Now that you are on BitChute and therefore not subject to censorship, can you go back to political?
	I can tell you that is what your audience tunes into you for.
	Well, some. Some audience tunes in for politics.
	There's nothing to say about politics anymore.
	Honestly, I mean, no disrespect.
	Maybe, Joseph, you do politics all the time, but from a philosophical standpoint, No, the things are now decided by threats, by riots, by violence.
	You know, why is the Supreme Court not hearing election stuff?
	You know, why the Supreme Court is not hearing election stuff?
	You know, the judge who blocked Trump's border closures got 40,000 threats.
	This is where things are.
	This is not a place for a philosopher anymore.
	This is a place for a whole different kind of animal.
	You know, this is a place where street fights are determining policies and death and bomb threats are determining who gets to speak.
	I couldn't even speak in Canada here because of threats.
	The New Zealand venue is apparently shut down because of bomb threats, right?
	So, that's where political discourse is at the moment.
	You know, I've got a whole novel, and it's a great novel.
	People should read this. You should read it to get it tattooed on your forehead.
	Actually, it's a long novel. It might be my forehead that needs to get it tattooed on it, but it's called Almost, and it's basically the story of my mother's side and my...
	It's a pan-European novel, and it's about one of the central themes is the reasons why political violence escalated and became the dominant form of, quote, dispute resolution in the 1930s throughout, not just in Germany, as we know, post-Weimar, but throughout the Western world, with the exclusion to a large degree of the UK, for reasons I talk about in the book.
	You can get it at freedomain.com forward slash almost.
	It's like a 20-hour audio book.
	I read it. I went to theater school, so I kind of know what I'm doing around characterizations and voice, and I hope that people will read it.
	And I wrote this 20 years ago about the rise in patterns of political violence.
	And yeah, it's just not a place where another PowerPoint is going to make much of a difference, unfortunately.
	So yeah, that's not my beat anymore.
	And also from Mark Urzavek, this too was left much earlier.
	Stefan, you have a libertarian philosophy, and I can understand how this would work with pre-1965 Western homogenous countries.
	Now we live in a different world.
	Should it be time for Western men and their allies to collectivize?
	Yeah, see, I'd like to talk to the FBI agent who's putting that question in as a possible goad for me to talk about something coercive.
	I don't know what you mean by collectivize.
	Oh, I don't know. You don't mean anything.
	No, no, I'm just kidding.
	I'm kidding. I'm kidding here.
	But, no, look, it is important to recognize, Joseph earlier was talking about the hatred for white males and Christians and so on.
	You know, it's nothing personal.
	The reason that white males are hated is we tend to be very pro-free speech.
	We tend to be very pro-free markets.
	We tend to be very pro-small government.
	And so people who want to silence people Well, we're kind of, unfortunately, not exactly allied in the world.
	People who want government control of the economy run up against white males.
	White males tend to be pro-free speech.
	They tend to be pro-Second Amendment, of course.
	And so...
	You know, this is just the demographic that's in the way.
	And I don't know what you mean by collectivize.
	I do certainly think that in a situation where racial, ethnic, and gender groups are collectivizing, individuals don't tend to do very well against groups in pure isolation.
	And, you know, it's the old thing, I've used this analogy for many years, if you're playing soccer, You keep passing the ball to the enemy team and they only pass it to themselves, you're going to lose.
	So I do think that one of the challenges of identity politics is, okay, if everybody else has a collective group that works hard to influence the government and we're all just individualists out here doing our own thing, we're going to get steamrolled.
	So, again, peacefully, reasonably, legally, you know, if you want to get together and start to get a voting bloc, just recognize you will be called a Nazi because that's just the way things go.
	But, yeah, there could be worse things to do with your time.
	But, again, this is not something that – I mean, this is sort of an analysis of cause and effect.
	It's not really a philosophical position.
	And, again, I just want to emphasize peacefully, reasonably, and legally and all of that.
	So, yeah, that's my thoughts on that.
	Mark has brought this up before.
	He means not have an individual value set in terms of political philosophy, but to be more group-based, more collectivistic, as you typically see with other groups in politics.
	That's what he meant. But to have sort of like a group political identity.
	And I'm not in favor of that personally.
	I much favor the individualism.
	Yeah, the best thing to do is to make really, I think, really powerful and compelling arguments.
	Obviously, I think that's the best thing to do, because it's what I do, right?
	I mean, but I think making the best arguments possible is a good thing to do and look into crypto.
	And from Why Should I? He asks, does Stephan still say he's half-Jewish like he used to imply?
	Oh, yeah. No, I mean, that's on me.
	I completely accept that's on me.
	So this is sort of family history time for anybody who's remotely interested.
	So grandmother, a Jewish.
	And so because it's matrilineal, I had some questions about that.
	I talked to more family members, found out that she was a stepmother.
	In other words, it was not a lineage down to me.
	And again, family history, you all may know your grandmothers very well, but this is all Second World War.
	My grandmother was killed and the paperwork is wrecked and my family is scattered.
	So it's just not easy to get this kind of stuff.
	So I completely understand people's frustration and annoyance with that.
	I mean, I don't get it at a very deep level because what the hell does it matter with regards to my arguments?
	But I completely understand why there's some confusion about that, and it's entirely on me.
	I said things based upon what I had been told.
	I looked into it more, and it was a step-grandmother.
	So it's totally fine for people to ask that question, and I'm sorry for the confusion, but, you know, let's focus on the actual arguments rather than, you know, who banged who two generations ago.
	Tell me about it. From Wojak Woz as we get down to the last few here.
	Hi, guys. I'm a 19-year-old Zoomer with little to hope for.
	Women are total trash.
	Wages get destroyed by chief Chinese and foreign workers and relentless wokeism with zero representation.
	Why shouldn't I and others be extremely angry?
	We'll put it that way. And then the hashtag, screw boomers.
	I'll just say, I never got into the whole anti-boomer thing.
	I mean, baby boomers are more agreeable politically than other generations are, with the possible exception of Generation X. But, you know, I think that For a lot of young people, this strikes the core of what we were saying earlier in the conversation, and Paul was here for this, people just don't feel like there's a lot to look forward to, so why not be nihilistic?
	And that, you know, it's this sort of, you know, I'll put it this way, figure out how to put things, especially today.
	The film, The Joker, was very popular among Zoomers because it spoke to a sort of nihilism there where you have this guy who's disaffected from And he eventually sort of disassociates himself from it and to just try to cause as much carnage as he basically can in the name of illustrating the absurdity of it and why does anything matter.
	I think that this film was so popular with Zoomers because what I just said speaks to the core of what they feel now.
	So then the question would be, you know, why shouldn't they feel this way?
	What can be done to make them feel better?
	And that's a hard question to answer because It's almost like predicting the future.
	Nobody can really do that.
	I would say that the best thing people can do is enjoy the decline.
	That's what Aaron Clary wrote a book about.
	Enjoy the decline of the United States.
	And what he means by enjoy the decline is not the Joker.
	What he means is that you have to do what benefits you, what your interests are, you have to live your life to the fullest extent you can, and just not really worry about things that are beyond your control.
	It's more complicated than that, but I highly recommend that people check out the book by Aaron Clary, Enjoy the Decline.
	He's someone who needs to come on the show.
	But, you know, that would be my take there, Bojack.
	I direct you not only to Clary's book, Enjoy the Decline, but a lot of other stuff he's written.
	So that would be my take there.
	Stefan, anything to say about what Bojack brought up?
	Well, shape up, son.
	Are you drafted?
	No? No. Are you facing polio?
	Smallpox? No.
	Do you have enough to eat?
	Do you have shelter? Are you going to look forward to half your kids dying before the age of five?
	No. Are you being hunted by any large predators that are going to rip your legs off?
	No. Because if that's not the case, if you're not being drafted, If you're not dying of disease, starvation, predation, you're better off than 99.9999% of all humanity who ever came before you.
	And they would look at your life while they're having their ass chewed off by a pack of wild hyenas.
	And they'd say, oh, are you having some trouble with your existential angst?
	I haven't eaten in three days.
	I'm sorry, did you lose your saved game on cyberpunk?
	You're privileged! You live in the most magnificent era of peace and human communication that has ever existed in the history of the world.
	Is there a shitstorm coming?
	Yeah, kinda. But it ain't here.
	And there's still things that you can do.
	You understand that nihilism is the shit in your mouth that has you never taste a good meal in your life that's put there by the powers that be.
	That you sigh and you stare at a wall and you feel hopeless.
	So you're out of the equation.
	You're out of the improvement. Imagine, imagine where you'd be or where you wouldn't be if your ancestors felt the same way.
	If your ancestors said, holy crap, we just had a 30 years war and now we're going to have another 30 years war, I'm not having any kids.
	I'm not getting out of bed.
	They didn't. They had a lot more adversity than you or I or Joseph are ever going to have.
	Their adversity was...
	Shaking someone's hand, getting the bubonic plague, coughing up their lungs and sneezing until their eyeballs exploded Roger Rabbit style, okay?
	That's the shit they had to go through.
	People died of heat.
	The Black Death was so bad that in many places in Europe, half the population died.
	You get one, oh my gosh, there could be climate change, do you understand that?
	You get one bad winter, You might end up eating pets, or even worse.
	I had ancestors.
	One of my ancestors was best friends with the English philosopher John Locke.
	I read his biography.
	My ancestor's name is William Molyneux.
	He came up with a famous philosophical problem called the Molyneux problem, which apparently now is just me having a social media presence.
	But... They were questioning certain aspects of divine rule and they were chased all over Ireland by the king's troops with pick axes.
	Okay? Do you have any of that?
	No. This is the beauty of studying history is by God does it ever have you appreciate the present.
	Joseph and I and you can have this conversation.
	Do you know what I would give?
	I'm not comparing myself to Socrates, but do you know what I would give to be able to ask Socrates a question?
	I mean, my God! I'm one of the preeminent philosophers of the modern world and you could just ask me a question and I love to answer it!
	You look at any time throughout human history when that could have occurred.
	You could get this kind of quality of unfettered, unfiltered, unedited, ungate-keeper conversation from other human beings Never before.
	When did you ever have the entire universe of human knowledge in your ass when you have your phone in your back pocket?
	Never. There was no butt-dialing people in the 19th century.
	You live in a glorious land of almost infinite opportunity.
	Yeah, if you're a young white male, you're not going to get far in the corporate world because wokeism, because affirmative action, because you've got to hold your nose and go along with all of a crap, statist government policy is currently being vomited out of the estrogen whirlpool of HR. Oh no, that means I've got to start looking into Bitcoin and being an entrepreneur.
	Oh no!
	Heaven forbid! The corruption that I experienced in the business world was one of the things that drove me to do what I do.
	I would kiss the hem of those garments of the people who were corrupt in the business world for putting me out here in this glorious mental landscape of human acuity.
	The people who are doing you wrong can only do you wrong if you let them.
	Again, assuming that they're not running after you with pickaxes like my ancestor, okay?
	So you're barred from being in the veal-fattening, brain-emptying, cubicle pen of mainstream corporate America.
	Oh no! Good!
	That opens up a whole vista of you to define your career for yourself.
	Start adding to your human values.
	Start learning stuff.
	Important stuff.
	Start learning economics.
	Start learning about the blockchain.
	Start learning about political philosophy or philosophy as a whole.
	Start learning about how to be a good parent and a good husband, which is a knowledge that's been lost for generations now for many people.
	Start learning. You have an infinity of time.
	You have an infinity of information relative to all prior aspects and times of human history.
	The gods have given you Gold and the capacity for glory that they incomprehensibly withheld from almost all human beings across the world and throughout human history.
	So shake it off, son.
	It's a glorious world out there.
	Not seven months ago, 15 years of my life were erased.
	Thousands of videos, hundreds of millions of conversations.
	A platform I had developed since 2005 was vaporized.
	Million followers gone, half a million on Twitter gone.
	My income on PayPal gone.
	And what did you see me do?
	Did you see me roll up into a ball?
	Did you see me curl into a fetal position under a divan and cry for mom?
	No. It's what happens when you do good in the world.
	You're going to get punished for it.
	But the punishment only lands if you let it.
	You know, you hear the whistling sound and you stay where you are.
	Something's going to hit you from the sky, but you just move.
	Find something new. Do something different.
	You're not in a cage.
	You're not in a uniform.
	You're not having a gun held to your head and saying, go over that trench and face the Bosch or I'll blow your brains all over the Somme.
	No! You're not on the Titanic.
	You're not lost in space.
	You're here. What opportunities you have.
	And how many people across the world and throughout human history would not give their right arm to be where you are at this moment in time?
	Bad things are happening.
	Do not focus on them and magnify them to the point where you become paralyzed.
	That's exactly what the bad people want you to do.
	I'm here having this conversation, pouring my heart and soul into communicating with you.
	I faced a setback or two.
	A couple of bumps in the road, a couple of hiccups along the way.
	And maybe it's just a post-cancer perspective.
	But any day you don't get a, hey, you got cancer phone call, that's a pretty good day.
	It's a pretty good day.
	So, shake it off.
	Shake it off.
	Maybe you were raised without a dad.
	It's one thing they don't talk about in the Joker movie much.
	Single mom, no siblings, goes crazy.
	Not a totally unknown scenario.
	But it is an insult to all of the people who labored to bring you the precious gift of life under far worse circumstances than you or I could ever dream of.
	To be paralyzed with all the opportunities that lie before you.
	To do good in this world right now.
	So people are going to hate you for doing the right thing.
	Guess what? Welcome to the essential moral battle of the universe, not even just of this world.
	People will hate you for doing good.
	And their hatred is designed to paralyze you into not doing good, into not being ambitious, into not learning and growing and fighting for what's right and what's true.
	And you probably have watched a whole bunch of Marvel movies and a whole bunch of DC Comics movies Where the good guys keep going against impossible odds.
	I'm giving you the superpower called philosophy.
	Far more powerful than any of that crap they pull on CGI. Because what's CGI? Philosophy is evil.
	CGI is come get it!
	If you dare. No, go out and do something good in the world.
	Do something good for yourself. Do something good for your community.
	Do something good for your family.
	Do something good for the truth.
	And learn to enjoy the moral battle.
	Because it's the only reason you have any freedoms at all.
	Don't just parasite off the people who came before you, who fought hard to give you everything you have, all the freedoms you possess, which are still greater than the freedoms of just about anybody else throughout human history.
	You say, oh yes, but in the past, there weren't negative consequences there.
	For speaking to the world.
	You didn't get deplatformed.
	They went hate speech laws, blah, blah, blah.
	Yes, but there was no internet.
	So you couldn't talk anyway.
	Did you hear of me before 2005?
	No! Did you hear of me before YouTube?
	No! So there are negative consequences only because you have a voice which nobody had in the past before.
	So yeah, there's punishments and you can get, people can get mad at you and you might get toxic lunatics on Wikipedia projecting their inner selves onto your illustrious frame.
	Yeah, okay. But we have a voice.
	We have a capacity to communicate.
	You know, hundreds of thousands or millions of people are going to listen to this over time.
	Over the course of human history, this could be studied in the future.
	If the speeches are as good as Joseph says.
	Hope you're right. Oh, they are.
	Right? They are.
	They absolutely are. You have this capacity.
	You can dig deep into the glory and power of the truth within you, which we all have.
	All of us who study reality and face facts and consistency.
	You have a modern world because scientists stood up to fastly more persecution than you can dream of.
	Oh no, they took my Twitter account.
	Yeah, you know what they're not doing?
	Burning me at the stake!
	Yay! That's what they call progress!
	No hemlock! Come on!
	If people could face far greater adversity to bring you the freedoms that you enjoy and you shrug and say, it's too hard.
	What the hell did they do it for?
	They did it. They sacrificed themselves so you could have a voice.
	And you whine and say, it's too hard, there are too many negative consequences, I'm depressed, I'm tempted by nihilism.
	You're taking a deep crap on all of the aspirations and all of the sacrifices and all the suffering that everyone went through to bring you the opportunities that you have.
	If 12 people die to bring you the Mona Lisa, you don't wipe your ass with it, okay?
	No. You add to the beauty and you show it to the world.
	Honor what came before.
	Add to it so that everybody can invite you to join the line of heroes who bring freedom to the world and say, good on you, mate.
	You deserve a place with us.
	That's available to you.
	You just have to will it.
	Stephan's previous brilliance has been rivaled by what he just said.
	That was profound to say the absolute least.
	This is really...
	Hey, I've had to give that speech to myself a few times over the last 15 years, so I hope I'm glad to be able to give it to someone else, too.
	It's one of the most worthwhile speeches I think anyone could hear for reasons that are self-explanatory.
	You don't need my commentary on it.
	But that was a brilliant answer to Bojack, and I'm sure I hope very strongly that he values it.
	It was a hell of a lot more.
	I thought I had a substantive answer, but Steffens, I mean, knocked the ball into the park.
	Oh, my God, have we been going two and a quarter hours?
	Holy crap. Yeah, I think we're getting to the last few here, but it's interesting.
	Let's just do one more, because my brain's going to cave in from empty language any moment now.
	So let's do one more. Okay.
	Actually, it makes sense, because I'll just read these quickly.
	I don't think you have to respond. It's just Mark reiterating himself, Mark Rejavik.
	Stephan, I'm a big fan.
	Since being a platform, you have largely abandoned politics, but I can advise you.
	Roddy's largely going to apologize.
	for politics and issues of censorship.
	Would you consider getting back to politics?
	Then Mark wrote, Steppen, since mass migration is happening over the Western world and the left used identity politics to win, has this changed your libertarian perspective?
	This is a time for white people to reflect the vice and politically, obviously.
	But I think you pretty much addressed both of those, Steppen, so you have nothing more to say about them, correct?
	Agreed.
	And then the last one is also from Mark Steppen, Stephan, you rightly say that the West is the best.
	Instead of trying to transform the West, why can't we westernize third world countries, i.e.
	turn Liberia into Belgium?
	That's an interesting perspective.
	Anything to say about it, Stephan?
	Yeah, I mean, there's a lot to say about it, and everybody put on their crash helmets because here come the truth bombs, right?
	So, if you move to Somalia and some sort of backwater of Somalia, I remember in the year 1999, I was traveling with a friend of mine through Morocco, and we had a driver, and we were going to various places in Morocco.
	I went from Morocco straight to China.
	I went two months without seeing an English sign, but anyway.
	At one point we stopped because our driver was Muslim and he prayed, of course, five times a day.
	So we stopped and I went for a walk because we'd been driving for a while and we were in the desert.
	I walked up to the top of a hill and looked down into a valley and there was a little village down there.
	And You know, that's as far from my growing up in Ireland, England and Canada kind of experience as you could imagine, right?
	It's a foreign language, it's a foreign religion, foreign culture, foreign history, you know, foreign everything, right?
	So how long would it take if I just, on a whim, decided to go and move into that village?
	How long would it take before I felt fully at home and completely natural in that village?
	I mean, there's language, history, religion, culture, race, child-raising practices, personal hygiene, you name it, couldn't be more different in many ways, right?
	So, expecting to transplant culture goes against the very foundation of what runs these countries.
	So, what runs these countries very often is theological or totalitarian or both hierarchies.
	which rely upon culture to sustain themselves.
	If you start affecting the culture of these other countries, you're saying to the rulers you should change to a different set of rulers.
	Now, rulers, they don't really want to change to a different set of rulers.
	They like being in charge.
	They like ruling things, right?
	So, the idea that we can simply transplant culture, this was, of course, it's been tried before.
	I mean, this really was the story of the 18th and 19th century.
	19th century in particular, it was called The White Man's Burden.
	And it was the idea that white...
	Western European males had happened to come across a superior form of social organization, democracy, constitutional rule, minarchism, free markets, and boy, you know, we're just going to head overseas and we're going to bring these wonderful things and everyone's going to be super happy and the whole world's going to turn into Shropshire.
	I may be oversimplifying things a tiny bit, but not a huge amount.
	This was the white man's burden to bring Western civilization to the world as a whole.
	It didn't work. It didn't work because you're coming smack up against the powers that be.
	And even if you replace the powers that be, as happened in Iraq, it doesn't turn it into a Jeffersonian democracy.
	There are issues of culture.
	There are IQ differences.
	It takes a lot of smarts, fundamentally, to understand the value of the free market.
	There's a reason why it is a very recent invention or discovery in the modern world.
	And political freedom, the expansion of the non-aggression principle, if you want to improve third world countries, first give them better parenting.
	Because the children often grow up so brutalized that it's very tough for them to think for themselves.
	They're so punished by authority that they either become authoritarians or they submit to just about everything, neither of which is going to breed any kind of liberty.
	So there's a lot that's going on.
	And you can look at here's a pretty compatible culture relative to, say, Somalia and Shropshire.
	Germany, a bunch of Germans went to Russia in the 18th century and they stayed until the Russian Revolution of 1917 and these Germans They continued to speak German for many generations.
	They never learned any Russian.
	They never integrated in the moment that the Tsar was gone.
	They all went back to Germany and fit back perfectly into Germany.
	So you've got 130, 140 years of Germans in Russia, never integrated, never did any of that stuff.
	So there's not a great history of this kind of stuff occurring.
	So I don't think that our goal should be, again, you're looking, it's sort of back to my earlier answer about the impossible moral task.
	We can't be safe or secure until the third world countries become like the West.
	Okay, then you want equality of outcome, not equality of opportunity, and you're giving yourself an impossible moral task that is going to make you endlessly frustrated, bitter, ill-tempered, and unlovable.
	Don't do that. Your goal here is to be happy, not to try and fix the world and make yourself miserable in the process while doing nothing to help the world.
	I think that you put it far better than I could.
	Two last things here from Wojak.
	I understand, Stefan, if you want to respond, but one of them was directed at both of us, and I'll just share my two cents on it.
	And if you'd like to say things perfectly fine as well, but Wojak says, given that equal outcomes are impossible in any way, why do communist regimes always end in mass murder?
	My take on that It's simply because what they seek is not possible.
	So they have to try to change the world in order to make it possible.
	It's never going to be possible.
	And people in the conflict that ensues from trying to achieve the impossible are going to die.
	And that's what, you know, the communist regimes I'd go a tiny bit further.
	So there are a particular class of human beings who are genuinely sadistic and enjoy hurting people.
	Killing and destroying others.
	They show up, of course, in wars.
	They show up as serial killers in the more peaceful environments and so on.
	But yeah, there are people who they get their kicks, they get their dopamine rush, they get their happiness from exercising brutal power over others.
	And communism is not a utopia gone wrong.
	It is an evil gone right.
	So they'll just say whatever they say to gain power over you.
	They give you these impossible moral tasks to set you against yourself and make you irritable and then they can point you at their enemies and have you try and destroy them.
	The goal of communism is...
	To give sadists the power to destroy others and get away with it and not only make it legal, but have them be celebrated for it.
	It is the ultimate sadist playground.
	And to me, it's not like, oh, well, you know, they want this egalitarianism, but it never seems to work out.
	I mean, come on, after the evidence of the 20th century, everybody who's pro-communist is just a latent sadist, as far as I can tell.
	Because it's very clear exactly where it's going to lead.
	Now, of course, you know, I mean, Satan doesn't sit there and say, I'm going to throw you in hell.
	He says, I'm going to give you paradise.
	But the purpose is to get you into hell.
	The paradise is just a distraction.
	It's just something that lures you off the cliff.
	You know, like those fish with these big bright lights deep down in the ocean.
	People like, fish are like, wow, pretty lights.
	That's really cool, right?
	The light is there so you can be eaten.
	The utopia is there so you can be destroyed.
	It's a bait and switch that say this always happens.
	Always do. And so, to me, you know, you could have said the first round, although Marx himself was, you know, pretty much a Satanist as a whole, right?
	I mean, he wrote poems in praise of Satan and he, you know, half-raped his maid and abandoned her in the street and then complained that the most evil people in the world sexually exploited their workers.
	I mean, come on. I mean, this is a straight-up confession of bottomless malevolence and a desire to...
	To destroy. And, you know, what hellscape of a brutalized childhood produces these kinds of personalities, we can only speculate.
	But, no, it's not, well, you know, they want good things and then it just seems to go wrong.
	But, you know, no, it's especially now.
	I mean, especially now. It's like sawing off someone's leg and saying, well, I thought that would make you a better runner.
	I mean, it's just an excuse for sadism now.
	Basically, I agree. I didn't think of it that way, but if you look at it, I suppose, from a moral perspective, that essentially is what it is.
	Stephan, as per usual, goes beyond my sort of brass tacks take on things, and I'm very glad that he does.
	And Stephan, we are about to leave now, but there is one last thing for you, which is both a question and a compliment.
	If you'd rather not get to it, that's fine.
	I could read it anyway if you want to respond or not.
	I want to respond that I suppose I could do a compliment if I must, Joseph.
	Okay, the question slash compliment is also from Wojak.
	Steph, you're an honest man, and I appreciate it.
	Can you tell us why Christian supporters, universal suffrage for women's rights in the Hart-Celler Act, yes, Christians created these conditions with my love and tolerance?
	Well, the challenge for Christianity is...
	The soul is fundamentally egalitarian.
	I mean, it's not like you get a better soul and somebody else gets a bad soul.
	You get a higher soul and somebody else gets a lower soul.
	That would be more like the caste system in India, right?
	So Christianity has as its great core power its universality.
	Which is why Christian nations tend to gravitate towards more universal ethics, limited government, non-initiation of force, that kind of stuff.
	And it's why, having been raised as a Christian, my fundamental work on ethics is called universally preferable behavior.
	It's what I got out of the non-in-group preference that characterizes Christianity.
	The Christian morals are not just for Christians and everyone else be damned, which is more the case with other religions and other belief systems, but it's universal.
	And the universality of the ethics comes out of the egalitarian nature of the soul.
	Now from a biological perspective, Brains vary in terms of neural density.
	They vary in terms of size, which is roughly correlated with IQ in some vague measures.
	I hate to say better and worse because it doesn't mean better or worse.
	It's just different, right? Some people are faster runners.
	Some people are slower runners. They may be better wrestlers.
	It's just if you're looking at the particular metric, then some people have faster brains and some people have less fast brains as a whole.
	And so the egalitarian nature of the perception of the soul, that everybody is equidistant from God, everybody has the same capacity for free will, everybody has the same capacity for redemption, if they pray and introspect and become one with Jesus and the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, there is an egalitarian aspect to Christianity which has given us incredible liberties and power.
	To have a universal morality, one of the great challenges is then we think the universal morality is going to quickly sweep away the caste system and suti and various superstitions in various foreign countries and so on.
	You know, it doesn't really, unfortunately, work out that way.
	So the egalitarian nature, which gives us the universal ethics, also gives us the problem when you have such a wide variety.
	Like the disparities in outcomes in a free market are beyond imagination.
	I mean, you go from homeless guys to Elon Musk, and that's in a somewhat free market.
	And a truly free market, again, the rising tide lifts all boats.
	Everybody ends up better off and so on.
	But it's, I mean, it's called the Pareto Principle.
	I've mentioned this before. Everybody knows it, I'm sure.
	Of people in any meritocracy produce half the value.
	The square root of 10,000 singers, 100 of them are producing half the hit songs of songwriters.
	You have 10,000 engineers, only 100 of them are producing half the value of whatever it is you're creating.
	I mean, it's just the way things are.
	People have this weird...
	Touched by the God's capacity to produce things.
	I have it maybe a little bit with speeches and stuff like that, but it is just incomprehensible.
	It's incomprehensible to me how people can just churn out hit songs after hit songs after hit songs.
	I'm lucky to hit the right notes on Happy Birthday, right?
	I mean, it's just incomprehensible to me.
	But it happens. It happens all the time.
	It happens in every field. Same thing in sports.
	You know, out of 10,000 athletes, 100 of them are producing half...
	The points, the scoring.
	And out of those, out of those hundred, ten.
	So ten out of ten thousand are producing 25% of the value.
	Ten people out of ten thousand.
	Doesn't matter if it's a company, everybody in sports, everybody in music, everybody, podcast, doesn't matter.
	It holds true everywhere you go.
	And when you have that incredible disparity in outcome, it challenges the conception of the universality and egalitarian nature of the human soul.
	So these are just tensions that, you know, we can have more conversations, we can start to resolve these tensions, but as long as they get suppressed, things just go kind of haywire.
	But I hope that helps a little bit.
	I think that was a very good response, Stephen.
	I've chatted with you in the past, and so has Paul, but this, I think, is the best, and the other chats were great, but this is, I think, usually the best of them.
	We really covered a lot.
	I'm good under adversity, Joseph.
	You know, I get put into a corner.
	I will spit out speeches like nobody's business, so I would also like to thank the people who have insulted and harmed me over the years.
	For inspiring and causing a response of hopefully even better philosophy from me.
	You are part of the quality of what I produce, and I thank you greatly and deeply for it.
	Well, I thank you for coming on tonight.
	It goes without saying, you're welcome to come back in the future, and I very much hope that you do.
	Well, thank you. I appreciate the invitation.
	It's great to be back on enemy territory.
	Not you, of course, but you too.
	But I appreciate that.
	And do give my thanks to your lovely colleague as well.
	And I'm sure we'll talk again soon.
	And thanks, everybody, for tuning in tonight.
	It's a long show, but I hope it was worth it.
	And I appreciate everybody's great, great questions.
	And thanks again to Joseph. Lots of love from up here.
	Take care. We'll talk to you soon.
	It absolutely was worth it.
	I really enjoyed it. Thank you for tuning in, everyone.
	See you next time. Before we go, though, if you liked this episode and want to support the show, please consider donating to it by clicking on the PayPal link in the description below.
	Paul and I appreciate your generosity very much.

▲