Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

March 20, 2021 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux

01:27:35

Stefan Molyneux on Trump, Politics, Communism and Peaceful Parenting!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	You are now listening to the CounterFlow Podcast, a place for dissonant voices and unapproved opinions.
	Here is your host and humble narrator, Buck Johnson. Welcome back, you guys.
	Welcome back to the CounterFlow Podcast.
	You've probably noticed at the beginning of each episode, once the music kicks in, the announcer proclaims that this is a place for dissident voices and unapproved opinions.
	My guest today will fit in quite well with those descriptions, no doubt about it.
	I've got Stefan Molyneux here on the show.
	Stefan is one of the greatest intellectuals in the history of libertarianism.
	He's the founder and host of Free Domain, the largest and most popular philosophy show in the world.
	With more than 4,500 podcasts, 10 books, and check this out, more than 600 million downloads.
	Stefan has spread the cause of liberty and philosophy to millions of listeners around the world.
	A lot of the powers that be, they don't want you to hear his voice.
	He's been deplatformed and demonetized for multiple platforms.
	He's back on his feet at Freedomain.com where you can get all of his material.
	He is the host and founder of Freedomain.
	He is with us today, dare I say, the great Stefan Molyneux.
	Welcome to the show, sir.
	How are you? I appreciate that.
	I suppose you dare say.
	I'll certainly try and rise to the occasion, but I appreciate the conversation today.
	Thank you. Yes, I appreciate it too.
	For those of my listeners who don't know, you've been doing this stuff way longer than most of us have.
	When did you first start, kind of the format that we know now, YouTube, BitChute, and podcasting, when did you start putting that stuff out?
	So, I mean, I've been studying philosophy since I was in my mid-teens.
	My graduate degree is in the history of philosophy.
	I studied Hegel and Locke and Plato and Kant and had a sort of specific theory that the philosophers who believe in this otherworldly, platonic, higher realm of ideals always end up advocating for oligarchical dictatorship as the ideal higher realm of ideals always end up advocating for oligarchical dictatorship as the ideal political model, whereas those who believe in sense-based empirical reality like Locke and Aristotle end up with a limited government and That was sort of my thesis and it held true.
	And then I guess I saw which way the wind were blowing in academia, a lot of Marxists and some of the anti-white stuff that was coming in.
	And I was like, I've always loved programming computers.
	I got an inheritance when I was 12, a little bit of inheritance, and I bought an Atari 800 with the glorious 8K. of RAM and learned how to program and created games and text adventures and stuff like that.
	So I ended up going into the business world.
	I spent about 15 years. I co-founded a software company, grew it and sold it and then was involved in a couple of other businesses at the executive level and had a fairly long commute.
	And I was trundling along in the business world but it was not It's satisfying my sort of deep philosophical yearnings.
	I mean, you can get somewhat philosophical in business, but it kind of shallows out pretty quickly.
	And ethics in the business world were not always the most...
	Top tier that you can imagine, particularly in the software world, where a lot of times it's fake it till you make it.
	And if you're not willing to lie, but your competitor is, they get the business and you don't.
	So there's a certain amount of honesty erosion that goes on, particularly in the software field.
	So I had a pretty long commute and I thought I was kind of tired of audiobooks and, you know, music and all that.
	So I thought, okay, well, I'll just...
	I'll start recording the thoughts I've had.
	You know, this was about 16 years ago, 2005, 2006.
	2005, I got some articles published on Lou Rockwell.
	I was having a debate with somebody I worked with about the state, and I was at that time an objectivist, like a libertarian minarchist.
	You know, the government should only be military.
	The court system may be prisons.
	That's kind of about it.
	Dispute resolution. And I started coming up with these ideas of insurance companies and ways that you could figure out how to solve social problems without the state, and I just had this epiphany breakthrough, and I started writing about it, and Lou Rockwell was kind enough to publish a few of my early articles, and then I started recording in my car.
	Like, you can still hear, you know, horns and sirens, and I guess the occasional screens of pedestrians, but I started recording in my car, and It was the first, of course, audio, and I remember sitting there trying to figure out XML, like long before there was any, you know, drag and drop, point and click. You had to really figure this stuff out from the ground up.
	But I had a technical background, so it wasn't too bad.
	And I then went to video, and then people said, hey, you know, I could donate to this.
	I'm like, well, okay, sort of a hobby, I guess.
	But I guess if people, you know, like the people who play video games as a hobby, and then they broadcast, and people will donate.
	So I started taking donations, and...
	Although it was about a 75% pay cut from my earnings as a software executive, I'm like, this is a fork in the road.
	If you can ask the right questions in life, the answers are blindingly obvious.
	I married my wife because I looked at her one day and I said, okay, is there anything else that I want from a woman?
	Can I upgrade from here?
	The answer being no.
	Okay, well then you get married, right?
	If you can ask yourself the right questions, the answers in life become pretty easy.
	And so for me, I sort of sat there and talked about it with friends and family, and I said, okay, does the world need another software executive, or is the world a little short on philosophy?
	And it really wasn't, you know, again, you ask the right questions, the answers in life become pretty easy.
	And most of life, if you're living a foolish life, most of it is about avoiding the right questions.
	It's the clear questions. So I said, okay, well, obviously the world needs more philosophy and not just another software executive or software entrepreneur.
	So I quit. I started to go.
	Full-time, and then I came under this blistering attack, like very early on from the media, about my stance on voluntary relationships within the family, that you're not obligated if you're an adult to spend time with abusive family members.
	Of course, you know, I'm a cult.
	I'm just out there breaking up families for fun and profit and so on.
	And I was like, okay, wow, that's a bit of a sort of a door opening to the very pits of hell itself.
	And so I realized, of course, I needed to start interviewing experts in the field because, you know, just me as a podcaster, you know, so I started interviewing psychologists.
	I started interviewing people who are experts in the field.
	And that kind of got me into the groove of interviewing.
	and then I started just taking calls from listeners about how philosophy might help them in their actual sort of daily life 'cause I hate that abstract ivory tower stuff.
	Is it now and a real thing, man?
	It's like, no, no, no, no.
	We got evil to deal with in the world.
	We got dysfunction to deal with in the world.
	So the basic format of the show of detailed presentations, which sort of come out of my academic career, which is sort of the truth about PowerPoints, interviews, listener calls, and solo shows of me talking about philosophy It just kind of evolved. Partly it was proactive and some of it was reactive based upon hostility from the media.
	And yeah, so it grew and, you know, became I think objectively, fairly to say, became huge.
	Now, some people, of course, would say it was only my ego that became big.
	But I try to keep all that stuff in check because I'm really a slave to philosophy and the idea that I'm out there for my own ego.
	Well, I mean, there's about 12 billion different stances I could have taken that would have been better for my ego.
	It had a big effect on...
	I started doing politics about 2012, 2013, and then that sort of peaked 2015, 2016, around the Trump election, and continued on through the Trump years.
	You know, basically, take you down the media, right?
	If I can convince people that the media lies about Trump, then they'll understand that the media lies, and then when the media lies about me, you know, there was a tertiary benefit, I guess, to all of this stuff, which had somewhat of a primary driver to it, and then...
	I gave a speech on high-tech censorship at the European Parliament.
	At the beginning of 2018, and after that, I really started to, you know, self-fulfilling prophecy, right?
	Hey, these guys really censor.
	Oh, damn, start to get suppressed.
	You know, my name doesn't come up in the searches.
	And then that sort of culminated in the summer of last year.
	I think it was June. I got kicked off YouTube, which I'd been on for 15 years.
	No, I didn't get any warnings, didn't get any strikes, didn't...
	All the stuff that they're supposed to go through, they're just...
	Toasted the whole channel.
	And of course, it was prior to the election.
	And some people thought I had a minor influence in the last election.
	Kicked off Twitter for reasons I can't understand.
	Again, no warnings, no, you know, timeouts or anything like that.
	And so originally, it was YouTube and podcasting.
	And I did, you know, three quarters of a billion views and downloads through those mediums.
	And now people can go to freedomain.com forward slash connect if they want to get the other platforms I'm on.
	But yeah, I'm still doing my thing.
	I'm off politics basically since last summer because I don't view it as a particularly fertile ground for philosophy anymore.
	We can talk about that if you like.
	But that was sort of the general evolution of the show.
	I regret nothing. I'm very happy and proud and pleased at the stances that I took.
	I stuck my neck up.
	I took my blows.
	And, you know, I will say still fewer blows than most philosophers throughout history have had to take.
	So I consider myself fortunate in that regard.
	Yeah, no doubt. Jeff Deist often says we're living in post-persuasion America over here.
	And I'm guessing maybe you would probably say we're kind of in an anti-philosophical moment right now as well.
	Is that correct in your view?
	Huh, that's interesting. So post-persuasion.
	Yeah, I can see that.
	Yeah, so, I mean, just look at the George Floyd trial that's coming up, right?
	And you already have activists who are out there, and they have an outcome that they demand, right?
	They demand, of course, that Chauvin and the others are guilty of the most heinous crimes and should be thrown in jail and the lock to their jail cell door thrown away or eaten by Jabba the Hutt or something like that.
	And so there is this, okay, we're not going to wait for the process to come about.
	We're not going to wait for facts to emerge.
	And basically, we're back to the days of lynching.
	Where the mob is absolutely certain of the outcome.
	That is the only just reasonable and possible outcome.
	They're not waiting for the evidence.
	The media, of course, is fanning all these flames.
	They're not providing context.
	The guy had COVID. George Floyd had hypertension.
	He'd ingested a significant amount of fentanyl.
	He complained that he couldn't breathe before.
	The officers took him down.
	He was resisting arrest.
	All of this context.
	And of course, he had been an extraordinarily violent criminal in the past.
	He had broken into a house and jammed a gun into a pregnant woman's belly, demanding money and drugs.
	And of course, that it was a legal procedure that was being done, that they excited delirium and other problems, that people just kind of fade out when they get arrested, that he was going back to jail almost certainly for a very long time.
	And he was a big guy.
	The offices were pretty small.
	So all of this context.
	And again, whether they're innocent or whether they're guilty, I just want to wait for the process to work out.
	But there's a lot of context.
	But context doesn't, and sadly, doesn't breed ratings these days.
	So if you just look at that particular instance where there's a lot of complication.
	And people look at, oh, there's a white cop kneeling on a black guy who says he can't breathe.
	He's choking him out. And it's all based on racism.
	And it's straight up murder. And in the past, of course, if a black man was seen running away from a white woman's house and she'd been raped, they would just chase him down and hang him.
	No due process, no lawyers, no examining your witnesses, no evidence requirements, no innocent until proven guilty.
	And everybody said that was a terrible thing.
	And they're right. It was a terrible thing.
	But unfortunately, now we're back to just the results that people want.
	And if they don't get the results that they want, well, they're just going to riot.
	And I was sort of at the forefront of this because, well, this is back five or six years ago, when I was giving a speech in Detroit at a men's rights conference, bomb threats, death threats, and all of that.
	You've got to speak under that cloud.
	They didn't succeed at that time, but then it escalated when I toured Australia and New Zealand with Lauren Southern.
	You know, bomb threats, death threats, violence against supporters, buses getting tipped over.
	I mean, it was really feral.
	And it wasn't that people had arguments that they wanted to deploy against me.
	If they wanted to deploy arguments against me, we had a whole Q&A session.
	And I've always welcomed, you know, I mean, if I'm wrong about controversial issues, help me out of my error.
	Like, I'd be thrilled to drop some of the stuff that's more controversial.
	It's just, you know, I'm kind of beholden to the truth.
	But rather than helping me out by pointing out my errors, people just, you know, use violence and attack.
	And same thing happened in Vancouver.
	I tried to give a speech, and there was threats and violence.
	The people who are on the receiving end of that, they even called 911, nobody showed up.
	So, yeah, so, I mean, it's sort of been, I suppose, at the cutting edge of this, you know, they say cancel culture, but it's not really cancel culture, it's just straight up violence.
	I mean, violence in pursuit of a political goal is kind of the definition of terrorism.
	So when the fist has replaced the word, right, when the bullet has replaced the tongue, When it's swords, not words, they add that little S to words and you get swords, it turns into a whole different situation.
	And so where decisions are being, or where outcomes are being decided through violence, right?
	And of course the jurors in this George Floyd trial are going to face, if their names get out, a huge amount of aggression against them if they vote in a way that the mob doesn't want them to vote.
	And if they vote to acquit, because I think that these guys were overcharged, and then what's going to happen?
	We know there's going to be riots and dozens or hundreds of people are going to die and billions of dollars of worth of property damage is going to occur.
	And this is...
	How decisions are being made anymore and you don't bring a PowerPoint to a riot.
	It's just not going to do you much good.
	And also when you bring the wrong tool to the job, you're discrediting everything.
	That you do. So you don't, you know, you don't bring out reasoned arguments in a mugging.
	And you don't bring philosophy to what is essentially a knife fight.
	That discredits philosophy because as a philosopher you should know what philosophy is for.
	And philosophy is for convincing people who respond to reason and evidence.
	And right now we have a society where people are so programmed and unaware, low information, counter information, that when they encounter Information that goes against their perceived narrative, they actually harden their position.
	Like, bringing reason and evidence to most people these days makes them more committed to anti-rationality.
	That's not just my opinion.
	I did a whole presentation called The Death of Reason.
	This is a very well-known phenomenon that you provide counter-evidence and people harden their original irrational position.
	At this point, things just, they have to play out.
	You know, people who won't learn from reason, then they have to learn from bitter experience.
	There's no magic other solution, you know, like either the drug addict quits his drugs, or he has to hit rock bottom, or he's going to die.
	And at this point, I've done the intervention for, you know, I did the intervention for sort of 14, 15 years, and now I'm observing the decline, and we'll see how it plays out.
	I know exactly how it's going to play out.
	I did a whole thing on the fall of Rome, so you know how it's going to play out.
	And hopefully credibility will return to those who made correct predictions.
	But right now, it's a fever dream.
	And it's sort of like trying to stand up for the witches in the Salem witch trial.
	It doesn't really do you much good.
	You have to wait for history. You have to wait for the hysteria to collapse.
	And all the people who thought they were heroes...
	During this time, like in the McCarthy's time, all the people who thought they were heroes when they were prosecuting Socrates or throwing Galileo in prison and torturing him, all of those people who thought they were heroes, well, history has its own say afterwards, and they then have to, they usually don't live to see what villains they actually became or were, but weren't aware of it.
	So, at this point, I think, you know, I've made my predictions how things are going to go.
	And hopefully some credibility will return to those who predicted bad outcomes from all of these irrational ideas and being in the realm of politics at the moment when it is the fist that is making the final decisions.
	You know, words are merely words.
	They can only convince the rational.
	Did the Trump years change certain things of maybe how you viewed politically charged issues and the way, I think one of his brilliant, I don't know if this was on purpose or not, but the brilliance of the Trump phenomenon to me is So many people were unmasked, so many forces. Yeah, no pun intended with the mask.
	I remember that was just a phrase.
	Yeah, exactly. But it red-pilled so many people, like boomer conservatives, like my parents, for instance, now see things much different than they used to.
	And I think that's a silver lining of the Trump years.
	How did what happened in the last five years change the way you viewed certain issues?
	Well, I'm an empiricist.
	I love the scientific method, and in a rational philosophy, evidence trumps theory.
	In a Platonic philosophy, theory trumps evidence, because there are all these perfect ideas out there that don't correspond to things in the world.
	But reason is derived.
	What is reason? Reason is consistency in thought that is derived from the consistency of matter.
	I mean, think of all of the physical principles that you and I are relying on, Buck, just to have this conversation.
	You know, like the electricity and gravity and lights and all of the consistent realities that we are relying on just to have this conversation.
	The fact that we have to trust at least our hearing.
	To some degree, we have to trust that language has some capacity for meaning and that there's productivity in this discourse and so on, which there is.
	So all of these physical principles are absolute and universal and consistent.
	And that's where... Reason comes from as a whole.
	So I'm very much one for if you have a theory, you test it against the evidence.
	And Trump was a giant test of the evidence.
	So the theory goes something like this.
	Politics is bullshit.
	This is the theory, right?
	The theory is that Politicians will lie to you and bribe you and then not deliver on what you want.
	That's sort of the theory.
	And also, everybody who is put in front of you as a potential potentate, as a potential person who's in charge, has already been vetted by the establishment or what some people call the permanent bureaucracy or the deep state or whatever it is.
	So everyone who's presented to you as an option...is already compromised and owned and they have compromise or blackmail or whatever it is, right?
	So this idea that you have a particular preference, I want X, Y, and Z, and then you go and find a politician who says he's going to do X, Y, and Z, you vote for him, and then you get X, Y, and Z. That's the basic idea behind democracy.
	Many years ago, I said, you know, that choosing a different president is like choosing a different hood ornament on the car that runs you over, right?
	It doesn't really make any difference to the final outcome.
	And people didn't believe me, right?
	Oh, we're going to vote for it. We're going to organize.
	We're going to, you know, get the Libertarian Party's going to do this, and Ron Paul's going to do that, and we're going to get all these great things.
	And it's like, no, no, no. The data's pretty clear.
	Like, they've tracked this stuff very closely.
	A lot of researchers have tracked this stuff very closely, and they say, okay, this is what the general population wants.
	Did the general population want mass migration?
	Well, of course not, because mass migration harms those particularly at the bottom of the economic ladder by continually driving down wages.
	And then you get all these cultural issues.
	Everyone gets accused of racism all the time.
	You get cancel culture. Like, why would you want this?
	And so people don't particularly want that kind of stuff.
	Do people like government schools?
	No, they don't. Which is kind of why they have to be forced at gunpoint to fund them.
	So people don't really like government schools.
	Do they like teachers unions? No, they don't really like teachers unions at all.
	Do they like free speech?
	Yeah, for the most part. People like free speech.
	And do they like communism?
	Well, no. Well, then why are they forced to fund communists teaching in schools and in universities all over the place, right?
	So people have these kind of preferences.
	And if you ask them what their preferences are, they're pretty clear about them.
	And public policy. I mean, again, they've done these scatter charts, right?
	Public policy versus what people actually want.
	What they clearly express that they actually want.
	Public policy versus what people say they want.
	No connection. In fact, the estimate is about 70% of people in America have zero impact on public policy.
	70% of people in America have zero impact on public policy.
	So Trump was a giant experiment.
	So Trump... I mean, I don't know if you know the backstory behind this.
	It's really quite fascinating. So Trump...
	Before he ran for office, he hired a guy to listen to talk radio, to scour the internet, to look, you know, more Republican or conservative issues.
	And what do people want? He said, what do they want?
	Well, they want a border. They want at least the DOJ to look into the Clintons.
	They want an end to the refugee resettlement program.
	They want restraints on government spending.
	They want lower taxes. All of these things that people want.
	So Trump, you know, he's a smart businessman.
	Whatever you think of him as a politician, and there's lots to think of him as a politician, smart businessman.
	So what does he do? He hires a guy to scour all of the conservative sites and other sites as well.
	So he goes, what do American people want?
	And he built his platform based on that, because he's not an idiot, right?
	I mean, if you want to sell a product, you do your market research.
	You don't just throw something at the wall and hope it sticks.
	You don't just build something and hope that you do your market research, right?
	As an entrepreneur, that's pretty clear, right?
	So... Trump researched what people want, and he delivered that message.
	How many Americans genuinely believe, and rightly so, that the invasion of Iraq was one of the greatest disasters in modern American history, and certainly a massive catastrophe for the Iraqis?
	Most. Most Americans believe that and accept that.
	So in the debate, and everyone remembers these, they were electric moments.
	It's like you've lived your whole world in darkness and then a beam of light comes through the smoky clouds above and lights up a little angel of truth flitting around like a cocaine-laced butterfly.
	And in the debates, he said, oh man, you know, I said to Jay Bush, oh, the invasion of Iraq was a good boy.
	Boy, that was a complete disaster.
	What a mess, right? And people are just like, oh my God, somebody finally said it!
	Or when Megyn Kelly came at him at the beginning, and he said, well, you've called women this, that, and the other.
	Like, only Rosie O'Donnell, right?
	It's a brilliant moment. It's like, who cares about this identity politics?
	Let's try and solve problems and stop nagging and nagging everyone about everything, right?
	So Trump was just, hey, let's give the people what they want.
	This is what the voters want, and that's why I predicted he was going to win.
	That's why Ann Coulter predicted he was going to win.
	It's like, okay, finally, someone has come along, and the propaganda about democracy is now going to be tested.
	Here's a guy, he's going to offer you what you want, you're going to vote for him, and he's going to deliver what you want.
	You know, order a pizza? If they deliver Chinese food or a bag of hazelnuts, you're not so happy, right?
	And so Trump was really fascinating.
	And I thought, gosh, what a great test of the theory.
	Someone who is incredibly popular, somebody who's been a public figure for 40 years, somebody who was pretty universally beloved by the media.
	Like, he was never called a racist until he was a Republican, right, and had some power.
	So, and he's got billions of dollars.
	He's very smart and, you know, beautiful wife and lots of high status stuff, right?
	So, you couldn't design a better experiment to test the thesis of democracy.
	Now, if Trump hadn't gotten in, the thesis of democracy would never have been tested.
	Now, I wanted that thesis to be tested because I'm an empiricist.
	Let's find out what actually happens if a politician or anybody Actually listens to the people and tries to give them what they want.
	Isn't that amazing? And what happened?
	You know what happened as well as I did.
	I mean, the counteract, it wasn't Trump, right?
	Trump was irrelevant to the equation.
	They were moving against the American people, or the majority of the American people who voted for Trump, at least the Electoral College-based votes.
	So people are like, oh great, someone finally is in there to give me what I want.
	And then they saw what the state is really all about.
	Which is they attacked everyone around him, they attacked him endlessly, they undermined him, they lied about him, they slandered him, they called his supporters Nazis and racists and white supremacists, and they just coiled snake time, right?
	Oh, well we told you that democracy was about identifying what you want and voting for someone who was going to...
	But we only said that!
	So you'd shut up and pay your taxes!
	Oh, you're actually trying to do that?
	Oh boy! Well, as you say, the mask comes off.
	You say, oh, well, that's just bullshit we tell you so you'll obey.
	If you actually try and do it, you'll see what happens.
	And then it culminated in, you know, a huge disaster last November, where you have significant portions of the American population who believe that the election was entirely stolen, and you have a court system that simply refuses to hear the cases.
	The last of Trump's election lawsuits were just tossed out, I think, by the Supreme Court.
	And people say, well, they've all been tossed out.
	It's like, but that's terrible.
	Because let's say the election was not stolen.
	Okay, great. But the problem is not whether the election was stolen or not.
	The problem is more than half the population in America believes the election was stolen.
	So give them their day in court.
	Let them see the evidence.
	But the fact that the courts are simply refusing to see the evidence...
	Takes the courts from hopefully remotely objective arbiters of truth and falsehood into, you know, this show trial crap, right?
	And, you know, you can see, of course, the people who wandered in at the Capitol on January 6th being hammered legally.
	And meanwhile, the Portland rioters are all slowly getting their charges dismissed.
	It's, yeah, it's a bad scene.
	And people aren't getting their day in court.
	And that's really, it's really terrible.
	They should have all of this All of this Lin Wood stuff, the Sidney Powell stuff, all of the stuff should be tested in the court of law.
	That's kind of what the courts are for, right?
	Is to adjudicate massive social disputes and whether the election was stolen or not is one of the biggest and most foundational disputes in American political history, if not outright history.
	They won't hear the cases.
	So what does it come down to?
	It comes down to people without subpoena power I think that Trump...
	He was convinced, and this is, you know, the great, one of the reasons that the Republicans are always called racist is so they end up trying to court the votes, particularly of blacks and Hispanics, which they're almost never going to get.
	And then that just means that they end up losing the election.
	You can see that pretty clearly. Trump didn't gain that much a bunch of blacks and Hispanics, but he lost particularly among rural white male voters and all of that.
	And, yeah, it's pretty much a matrix that we're living in now, to the point where, you know, they can dial up and down coronavirus testing results based on the number of times they cycled this PCR test.
	And, yeah, wouldn't you know it, like right after Biden gets in, the cases start to go down.
	You know, people are just incredibly suspicious, and there's no place where they can go to get things adjudicated anymore.
	Their trust in public institutions is down, so...
	I don't know. I don't like the fact that this introduces a certain amount of instability, but I do appreciate the fact that people are starting to see the reality of the political power that they labor under, that the moment that they actually found someone who was trying to genuinely deliver what the people wanted, you know, they saw the system.
	And by the system, I don't just mean the state, the military-industrial complex, the media matrix propaganda complex, like, all just moved in sync and as one.
	to counter not Trump but what the people actually want and that's that's a pretty big red pill for people to take and I don't think that there's going to be a What is that, that old singing schoolhouse rock thing, how a bill becomes a law and all that stuff we sort of, yeah, grew up with and like these little sing songs and here's how it works.
	Like, man, that's the day the music died, man.
	One of the strange things that I saw since 2016, we could say, was the American left calling themselves the resistance movement.
	And... When clearly every institution, every structure of legitimate power is on their side, from the military-industrial complex to the universities to Hollywood.
	Almost everything, except AM talk radio, maybe.
	And we'll see where that goes.
	And podcasting.
	But as we can see with some of the other voices that aren't left, they get deplatformed, as you well know.
	But do you think the right is a more natural fit in America to be the resistance movement?
	Well, certainly the pattern that you see, and it's Boringly predictable, I mean, if you know anything about history.
	But the pattern that you see is that the outsiders, they will continually claim that they desire and thirst for free speech.
	And then when they gain power, they violate free speech to crush their enemies, right?
	This is pretty predictable. So in the 60s, yeah, you know, there was a lot.
	The left gained a lot of cachet in the 60s based upon two foundational things.
	Well, no, four foundational things.
	Let me just multiply that. The first was advocating for black rights.
	Fantastic. You know, we all want the equality under the law.
	Advocating for more equality for women.
	Fantastic. We all want equality under the law.
	So there's two... Yes. Yes, absolutely.
	The fact that blacks and women tend to vote left...
	Probably played a little bit into who they select, whose courses they want to champion, but nonetheless, some good stuff.
	Now, the third thing that the left did in the 60s was they were supposedly, or at least in a titular sense, anti-war, right?
	Turns out, funny story back, they're only against war against communist countries.
	Why? Because they're communists. So they don't want America fighting communist countries.
	So they were against war, but they really were just against war against communism, because since then they've loved every war that America's embraced that's against non-communist countries.
	And then the fourth thing was free speech.
	So black rights, women's rights, anti-war, free speech.
	They got a lot of cash out of that, and some of it was just, some of it was fair, some of it was right.
	And then, of course, it went from let's have equality to let's have preferential treatment for blacks and Hispanics and women, which again, you know, the pendulum, when you've got a government, the pendulum always swings too far.
	You know, we want to aim at the middle point of equality.
	Nope, you're going to go to unjust advantages for a particular group citing history as the great motivator.
	Anti-war? Oh, man, come on.
	I mean, Trump, if the left was even remotely anti-war, they would have been completely pro-Trump.
	Because, as you know, Trump was the first American president in living in mostly dead memory to not start a war.
	And, you know, he did bomb some stuff in Syria, just as Biden just did and so on.
	But if you were anti-war, Trump's your guy.
	And whatever else you say about the guy, yeah, you know, he's no fiscal conservative.
	He spent money, like, completely mad.
	But, he cut regulations, he cut taxes, there was some free market revival, and he didn't start a war.
	So all of those who were pro-Trump, you have that, you can take that to your grave.
	That he's, you probably saved a couple of hundred thousand, if not a couple of million lives.
	That's pretty good. That's a pretty good day's work, whatever you did for the 2016 election.
	So if the left, and he was pro-free speech, right?
	He was against cancel culture.
	Now, he didn't for reasons that will never be understood because now the Republicans are very keen on let's pass legislation to rein in the power of social media.
	Like in Poland, if you suppress speech that is legal in Poland, you get fined like a million plus euros a day or something.
	It's a crazy huge fine.
	And in Texas, they're trying to put this sort of stuff in that you can't suppress.
	But Trump didn't work on that, even though his supporters, particularly those who had...
	People who supported Trump, I mean, they put their relationships on the line, they put their careers on the line, they put their lives on the line sometimes, at least their physical safety.
	And what he should have done, of course, was at the very beginning start working on reigning in tech censorship.
	Because tech censorship is wildly out of control.
	I mean, whatever you think of the election, without a doubt, Twitter in particular, other places, totally swayed that election by suppressing the Hunter Biden story from the New York Post, I think it was.
	I mean, that was clear.
	And in post-election polls, people say, if I found out about that, I wouldn't have voted for Biden and all that.
	So they totally swung the election, at least as far as I can see.
	But what he did, he didn't do much about tech censorship other than, you know, we're monitoring the situation It kind of became a meme and a joke.
	But then what he did was, you know, a month or two before the election, he starts talking tough on big tech.
	And I'm like, dude, no, no, no, don't do it now.
	Of all the times to do it now, because now they're totally committed to making sure you don't get elected, right?
	So he just played that badly.
	It could be a boomer thing.
	It could be that he had just had bad tech advisors, but he should have taken that stuff off.
	But that would have been a big, rather abstract battle.
	And, you know, Trump is a showman.
	He's a marketing guy.
	So he likes cutting the ribbons.
	He doesn't like the boring work of maintaining stuff.
	And this would have been a maintenance issue that would have had a big effect.
	And knowing that the Democrats, I mean, they're pretty hinky about elections and always have been.
	So if you don't look out for that, that's, you know, that's like, you know, if you get that million dollars from the Nigerian prince and you give them all your bank account, yeah, the Nigerian prince is totally wrong, but you kind of know what the score is.
	You kind of know what the deal is.
	So, yeah, I do think that the way he played it was not right.
	I just don't think he had the right advisors.
	He, you know, for a guy who runs a business empire, he was bad at hiring people.
	I mean, he just hired a whole bunch of never-Trumpers.
	He didn't keep the people around him close.
	But, of course, he also ran out of people who wanted to work with him because every time people worked with him, they got investigated up the yin-yang, and they didn't really want to do that so much anymore.
	So, yeah, I hope that does something to circle your question.
	But, yeah, I... I think we are...
	We're certainly in a post-truth world.
	It's all will to power now.
	This has a lot to do with the fall of Christianity and the stymied rise of philosophy, right?
	So as Christianity began to fail, this was the fall.
	This was one of my sort of central ideas.
	It was, okay, so Christianity clearly is losing its control over the moral landscape of the West.
	Well, I don't know that we can go back and resurrect it to use a phrase that hopefully is not too offensive to Christians.
	So we've got to push forward and we've got to get to philosophy.
	And this is why one of the first books I wrote was a universal defense of ethics from a secular standpoint, how to ethics without God's commandments or the government's guns, and worked really hard to get that out into the libertarian world.
	You know, there was some pushback, a lot of indifference, and people, they just didn't really understand.
	That, you know, if you're in a ship that's sinking, you've got to get to a lifeboat.
	And UPB, universally preferable behavior, was the lifeboat which you've got to get to.
	And I guess a lot of people just kind of choose to bubble up and go down with the ship.
	Because we have come to a...
	If ethics as they are, and historically have been in the West, tied so closely into Christianity, if Christianity falls, the ethical center of the West falls, and then what you get is the Nietzschean will-to-power universe.
	Where deception is simply another strategy to gain resources.
	Like, you know, this is in nature all the time.
	You know, we got creatures in nature, they cheat all the time.
	You know, like the tigers are like, I mean, the zebra are like, to the tigers, hey man, you got these stripes that makes you blend in with the grass, that's cheating.
	You got to be upfront, you got to announce yourself.
	And the birds that raise the cuckoo, right, lays its eggs in other birds' nests.
	It's like, you're cheating! You're just taking care of the fact that we like big eggs because we don't have a cap out on the size of things that we like.
	So it's cheating, man! The anglerfish down in the ocean, they...
	You've got a light brighter than my forehead, right?
	And they... Hey, man, you know, we're just curious about light, and then you eat us?
	That's cheating. Deception and fraud and lying, so to speak, is all over the place in nature.
	And you take thou shalt not bear false witness out of the moral conscience of mankind, And lying to gain resources is perfectly morally acceptable.
	It is perfectly morally acceptable.
	Like, you know, if you're in a dogfight in the Second World War, you know, this was a big thing.
	I wrote a whole novel about the First World War to the Second World War.
	It's available for free if you want, freedomain.com slash almost.
	And one of the things that would happen is if you were attacking enemy fighters, you'd come with this, the sun would be behind you because, you know, you look around and all you see is the sun.
	You don't see the flames coming out of the sun, right?
	Is that cheating? No!
	No! Is it fair?
	It doesn't mean anything.
	Fair is for morals.
	So, cheating, you know, if you're in an amoral universe, cheating to win an election, lying about your opponent, if that's going to gain you votes and thus gain you political power, like, you know, the fine people hoax where this lie was going around since Charlottesville that Trump called neo-Nazis very fine people, it's totally false. It's totally false.
	And the Christians and the moralists and people like myself and others are like, that's not true.
	But that's not true. You're cheating.
	It's lying. But that's only if you live in a moral universe.
	If you live in an amoral universe, deception is perfectly valid.
	I mean, do you take rubbing alcohol on a piece of Kleenex to your date and take off her makeup and say, you're cheating.
	You're faking fertility symbols to mess with my head, man.
	No. I mean, makeup is just part of the game.
	It's a tool of the trade. If a guy rents a Lamborghini for the night and then goes out picking up women, turns out he can barely afford the rental.
	Is he immoral, lying, cheating, wrong, immoral?
	It's just a dating strategy.
	It's a mating strategy, right?
	And so when you live...
	And you can see this all the time.
	All the time. People on the right say to the people on the left, oh, but you had this stance in the past, and now you have this stance now, and it's totally contradictable, and it's hypocritical, and the whataboutism, and in the past there were kids in cages, now there are children migrant facilities with rainbows and unicorns and all of that.
	Well, of course, that's like saying to the cheetah, well, you went really slow, and then you went really fast.
	Which is it? You're contradicting yourself.
	It's like, no, I went really slow when I was creeping up, when I was close enough to attack.
	Boom! I'm out of the gate like I'm out of the hell, right?
	And so it's like saying to the lion, well, all you do, I think this is where the word comes from, all you do, you're just lying around, lying around, all you're just lying around, and then you move like the wind.
	Which is it? It's like, no, I lie around to conserve energy.
	Then when I get hungry, I go chase a gazelle and eat its ass off because I need more calories.
	And then I go back to lying around. So for people who are moral, they look at the people who are amoral and say, well, you keep changing your story But that's like, look, they're in pursuit of power.
	Of course they're going to change their story.
	It's like, if you've ever seen the videos of the little rabbit running across the tundra, and what's the rabbit doing?
	It's changing directions all the time.
	And what's the wolf that's chasing it doing?
	It's changing directions all the time.
	And all the people on the right are saying to the wolf, Well, you keep changing direction.
	You're contradicting yourself.
	You go forward, backwards, left, right.
	No pattern. It's like, no, there is a pattern.
	It's a very clear pattern.
	The pattern is they want the rabbit.
	The rabbit being political power and putting you in cages.
	So, yeah, the fact that they're twisting and turning and changing this, of course they are.
	Because they live in an amoral Nietzschean will-to-power universe without ethics.
	And it's a state of nature.
	It is nature.
	And nobody looks at nature.
	And says, well, that animal is totally cheating.
	You know, the cat is fluffing up its fur to look bigger.
	It's not that big. It's cheating.
	It's like, no, it's nature.
	Cheating is... Nature is cheating.
	Nature is cheating. And lying in subterfuge and sneaking up.
	And that's what nature is.
	I mean, that's why the animals run in a herd.
	So that they can... Avoid the predators or kick the predators.
	I mean, they're not cheating. It's just the game.
	The game is whoever gets the resources wins, and that's where we're heading to, and that's just not a place for moral philosophy in particular.
	You can identify it as we're doing in the show, but, you know, you can't fix it until morals come back, and morals coming back, it's a, you know, it's a lot easier to lose your keys sometimes than it is to find it, and it's a lot easier to lose your morals than it is to get them back.
	That's a pretty ugly process.
	I want to talk about you a little bit.
	Obviously, I suppose that you know you're a bit of a lightning bolt figure.
	And me saying the great Stefan Molyneux is going to get me some pushback.
	Because if you say your name with a positive adjective...
	Well, no. You can be great without being good.
	Great white shark.
	Those people aren't going to make that nuanced.
	No, no. I guess so.
	I mean, there are a lot of rulers in history who have the great at the end of them.
	It doesn't mean that they were really good people.
	But anyway, go ahead. Yeah, fair enough.
	People in my circles, the term racism is thrown around quite a bit at us.
	At this point, that just means you've beat a progressive in an argument, it seems like.
	But why is that term thrown at you seemingly so often?
	I watch your stuff, I listen to your podcasts, and And I can hear certainly some thorny issues that might ruffle some feathers, certainly, but nothing where I would target you with that word.
	Why does it get thrown at you?
	Well, I don't need to explain that.
	I mean, the communists have already explained that.
	And this goes back to the 1940s.
	So, way back in the day, and I've been talking about this for many years, I'll keep it really brief here in case people have heard it before, but back in, I think it was 1921, the Internationale Association or the aggregation of the communists, they said that what we're going to do is we're going to heighten and exacerbate racial tensions in order to bring down the West, to bring down the United States.
	This was their goal, right?
	And in the 1940s, they were very clear.
	This is recorded. This is published.
	This is not a conspiracy theory.
	It is right there in the public documentation.
	They say, okay, well, we're going to use the word racist.
	As a pejorative to mark people who oppose communism.
	So that's not particularly complicated.
	And so the general process has been that you bring in groups that have different outcomes.
	It could be racial, it could be gender-based, it could be ethnic, and they have different outcomes in a free market.
	Now, some of those outcomes can be explained by poor parenting, poor nutrition, poor education, cultural issues.
	Some of it, no doubt, is to do with racism.
	And then I bring, and it's not even me who brings this, there's another mix, there's another factor to bring into the mix, which is ethnic or racial differences in IQ, which have been recorded all the way back to the beginning of the 20th century.
	It is about the most settled metric in all of the social sciences.
	It's very tragic. I mean, it takes a sort of stir and soul to look at this information and avoid the sort of sticky and pits of despair.
	But it is important.
	It is important to bring into the mix when we're talking about racial issues.
	And the reason, of course, that the left doesn't want you talking about these issues is that they lose a primary weapon Which is to say, you know how the left works, right?
	The left works basically in this repetitive mechanic.
	They identify any difference in outcome for any group in society.
	And what they then do is they say all these differences in outcomes are to do with bigotry, right?
	So everybody's the same and therefore the only reason there could be differences in group outcomes is because of bigotry.
	And then they end up fighting that bigotry.
	They end up labeling anybody who provides at least complementary, if not alternative, explanations to these different outcomes.
	They label them as bigots.
	Only a bigot would say that, only a racist would say that, only a person who hates women, a misogynist, whatever it is, right?
	So they actually Are the ones who are incredibly bigoted because they say that all differences in group outcomes result from bigotry.
	Well, that's a very bigoted statement because it's not true.
	I mean, there are many other metrics that more accurately predict differences in group outcomes.
	Is there bigotry in the world? Absolutely.
	And the biggest bigotry is those who say that all group outcomes result from bigotry.
	And you understand, it's the same thing economically, right?
	So they say, what is the difference between a manager and a worker, a capitalist and a worker?
	Well, they say, since everyone is the same, then the only reason that the capitalist or the business owner makes more money is he's stealing it from his workers.
	Because somehow, magically, they would be able to make as much money if there wasn't a factory.
	Like, I was a waiter, right? Carry around, when I was a teenager, I was a waiter, carry around a lot of plates of food and so on, and you make a certain amount of money.
	It's not a huge amount, but it's not terrible.
	It's not a bad job.
	I was very happy to have it as a teenager.
	Now, you carry those plates around in the woods, how much money are you going to make?
	If there's not a restaurant around you...
	If there's not somebody paying for the chef and the electricity bills and the building and the property taxes and the wages and the income taxes, if somebody hasn't built all this structure around you, you're just carrying around a bunch of plates in the woods, you're not going to make any money at all.
	And so, generally, and it's not always the case, but generally, There's an IQ curve, right?
	The bell curve, right? The people who are the managers tend to be 115 IQ, like a standard deviation about 15 IQ points from the median, right?
	And so the managers tend to be a little smarter.
	They can see a little further.
	They can be a little bit more ambitious.
	They can learn better. They can retain information better.
	They can spot patterns faster, and they can do things that the people of average intelligence or below average intelligence in general can't do.
	Some people, Harry from the royal family, kind of bought into it, and it's not necessarily a mark of intelligence to inherit a bunch of money.
	So there is an answer which says, okay, well, the reason why the capitalist gets paid more is he's identified a market issue.
	He's worked crazy hours for a long time.
	He's sacrificed spending so that he can save money to build his business.
	He's taken on a lot of risk because, you know, I knew this.
	I mean, I had to sign blindingly large...
	Debt notes to cover payroll sometimes in my business because we were waiting for a contract to come in and if the business had failed, I would have spent the next 10 years paying that stuff off if I was lucky.
	So you take on a huge amount of risk that your employees don't and I worked for free for a long time before I got paid as I did in what I do now and what I did in the software world.
	So, you know, there's reasons why.
	There's reasons why, and I'm sure you've heard of the prices law, the Pareto principle is sometimes called two different things, which is that the square root of any group of productive people produces half the value.
	You've got 10,000 people in the company, 100 of them produce half the value.
	And 10 of those produce half the value.
	So you've got 10 people out of 10,000 producing one quarter of the value.
	Now, socialism doesn't work because it ignores that completely.
	So everyone is the same. Everyone's this blank-faced NPC, just dun-dun-dun-dun, like lines of grooms in the background, or lines of tuxedoed men in the background of a picture.
	Everybody's just the same, like thumbprint, blurry-faced Matisse background paintings at a regatta race.
	Everyone's the same. So the only reason that someone makes more than somebody else, given that everyone's the same, is that they're stealing.
	And they've lied. And that's the way it works.
	But everyone's not the same.
	There are bell curves everywhere.
	And if you say everyone gets paid the same, you just lose all the productivity of the people who work harder and produce more.
	It's kind of like the green thumb with gardening.
	The people that just have this Midas touch.
	They just, I mean, Elon Musk and Joe Rogan in podcasts, there's Midas Touch.
	There's something that they do, for better or for worse, that just people love it, they want more of it, and they're willing to pay for it.
	And they're just incredibly productive.
	The same thing in sports. I mean, if you've ever known musicians, you've got tattoos, you know what musicians, you know some musicians, it's kind of, you know what it's like.
	The musicians are like, I don't know, so back in the day, the police, right?
	Sting and Andy Summers and Stuart Copeland, right?
	Sting, their first single, Fallout, was terrible.
	And then, you know, Next to You is pretty bad.
	And then Sting just has this brain fart called Roxanne.
	The first time they release it, it doesn't go anywhere.
	The second time, it becomes this massive hit and cements their entire career, right?
	All incredibly talented musicians.
	The drummer Stuart Copeland, so I'm a bit of a music nerd, so the drummer Stuart Copeland, who I actually met once, he created this group called Clark Kent or something like that.
	It may have been pronounced a little bit differently, and then he ended up having to stop because it was copyrighted by the Superman guys.
	And he wrote these songs, and they were absolutely terrible.
	They were just, I mean, Sting has a golden touch when it comes to writing songs.
	He's a great singer, but great singers are a dime a dozen, but he can just write these songs.
	And Andy Summers, you know, I loved that Synchronicity album when I was in my teens, except for that one giant pimple called Mother.
	I don't know if you've ever heard that song, but it's like Andy Summers' pen thing.
	I don't think Stingy wouldn't even sing it.
	And he was just, he's basically just screaming about his Oedipal relationship with his mother for like three minutes straight.
	And it's absolutely a musical abortion and it's horrifying.
	And I think Miss Gredenko...
	It's not so bad. It's not up to the quality of Sting's songs.
	I think that was penned by the drummer.
	So Sting has just got this golden touch when it comes to writing songs.
	And of all of the musicians who are out there, he's just the guy.
	And, you know, there's Drake and others.
	They're just... And that's the whole reason we have a music industry.
	If the music industry relied on Andy Somers' mother and Clark Kent's I Don't Want to Be Rich, I Don't Want to Work in a Ditch.
	That was the level of his songwriting.
	It was absolutely terrible. So we all know that this is the case when it comes to our actual life.
	You know, there are some people who can just catch and throw balls really well.
	Like, Tiger Woods, an incredible golfer.
	I mean, it's hard to know if he's worse at driving or being a father, but it's somewhere in there.
	But, you know, an amazing golfer.
	And yes, he definitely had, you know, like Serena Williams, great tennis players, but their parents put him up to it pretty early.
	Andre Agassi, a great tennis player.
	His father strapped ping pong paddles to him when he was two years old and started.
	But you still have to have some innate talent, some investment, and it's not just coaching.
	I mean, people just have to have this.
	I mean, you go to any karaoke night.
	I mean, when you could, in the past, go to karaoke nights.
	And most people are terrible.
	And there are a few people who are okay, and then there's like one person who's like, wow, this guy sounds really good, you know?
	And then he just wanders off, goes back to welding or whatever he does, right?
	And that's just the way life is.
	There are a few people who are just amazing at stuff.
	And we should honor and treasure those people.
	Look at the history of philosophy. You know, even people in the biz, so to speak, know maybe 20 philosophers.
	Out of like 6,000 years, maybe no 20 philosophers, that's almost nothing.
	It's almost nothing. And even the people who are incredible at stuff fail all the time.
	All the time. Sting puts out his album wobbling about medieval music and nobody gives a rat's ass, right?
	Of the Charles Dickens novels, What did he write, like 38 novels or something like that?
	People know maybe five or six.
	You look at Shakespeare with his 50-plus plays or, you know, however many hundreds of sonnets he did.
	How many plays do people regularly put on of Shakespeare, the greatest literary genius in the history of the planet?
	Maybe five or six. Every now and then you'll see The Merry Wives of Windsor put on as a curiosity piece, but even the people who are the very best maybe could get a 25% excellence batting record.
	It's just hard to be good at anything.
	Come on! I'm trying to be good at this speech right now.
	50-50, right? It's hard to be good at anything.
	And you need a lot of incentives and there's going to be an inequality of outcome and that's how we advance.
	Hey, do you feel like having a vaccine?
	For something, some idiot has got to dedicate his life to doing it, to the exclusion of just about anything else.
	Do you want penicillin?
	What is it, Alexander Fleming or something?
	You want penicillin? Well, some idiot's got to get obsessed with moldy bread.
	For like 10 years straight.
	Even Queen, a great, great recording act, they spent three years coming up with their first album, and it kind of sucked, but three years, three years coming up with their first, I couldn't imagine, I couldn't imagine, you know, like 40 minutes of music or whatever, right?
	So the Marxists, why am I called a racist?
	Because I'm anti-communist.
	And because they point out that there are It's not, you know, I hate the one-answer people.
	Like, it all comes down to one thing.
	Because the one-answer people are just...
	They call them the period people.
	It's just this. Period.
	All differences in outcomes are due to bigotry.
	Period. You know, I had a debate with a guy the other day.
	It's like, just wear a mask.
	Period. It's like... No, there's no period in life.
	Okay, we all come from a period, so to speak, but there's no period in life because there's lots of complexity and lots of things you've got to puzzle out and figure out.
	And smart people love complexity, and to dumb people, complexity is like a predator that's going to chew their leg off.
	I don't know why they respond to it this way, but any kind of nuance in complexity.
	Is there racism and bigotry? Yes.
	It's the only reason that women make 75 cents on the dollar.
	It's the only reason.
	Because men just hate women.
	I mean, that's a retarded answer.
	I mean, sorry, that is really an insult to retarded people.
	I apologize. That's the wrong way to put it.
	It's ridiculous. It's a ridiculous answer.
	I mean, Matt Groening, I knew him way before The Simpsons.
	He had this very, very funny comic called Life in Hell.
	And, you know, the one professor you meet who's got the single explanation for everything, the price of magnesium determines world history.
	And, you know, there's always these people, there's one thing, and that's it.
	And, I mean, so what I do is I bring some additional information that releases people from hatred.
	You know, if we don't hate each other, we can live in peace.
	If we hate each other, we can.
	It's really, okay, period. It's that simple.
	I mean, it's complex how you get there.
	But if we can look at each other with some sympathy and respect and curiosity, then we can actually get along.
	And we have this multiracial society.
	That's where we are. Nobody's going back to their corners.
	I'm not saying they should. Nobody is, right?
	We've got this multiracial society.
	How are we going to deal with disparities in outcome?
	How are we going to deal with the fact that Jews make a huge amount of money, East Asians make a huge amount of money, whites are in the middle, Hispanics make less money, blacks make less money, and it goes, like, how are we going to deal with that?
	It's a fact. Now, one explanation is that falls completely in accordance with the IQ spectrum.
	Right? So that's not the end of the world as far as something to bring to the mix.
	Because if we say, look, we have this challenge.
	We have this challenge in society.
	You never judge individuals.
	Ever, ever, never, ever judge individuals by group averages.
	But we have this challenge. We do have disparate outcomes.
	Now we can either sit there and say, well, the only reason we have disparate outcomes is whites hate everyone.
	How's that? I mean, how do people think that's going to play out?
	I mean, do people forget Rwanda?
	The Hootsies and the Tootsies and how much they called each other cockroaches and hated each other.
	Like, the language is so destructive and so divisive and enrages so many people.
	How do people think it's gonna play out?
	I mean, forget about the satisfaction in the moment of just calling people racist and feeling like a good person in the moment.
	Like, forget about that stuff.
	Forget about that instant dopamine hit of cocaine that you get to pat yourself on the back and virtue signal.
	How is this gonna play out?
	When you call hundreds of millions of people racists and supremacists and haters, how do you think that's going to play out?
	I mean, just look six months down the road, a year down the road, a couple of years down the road.
	How's that going to play out? How did it play out in South Africa?
	Well, not too well. Not too well.
	And so when people, like people who want to create division, who want to bring down the West, who want us to hate each other, who want us to fight with each other and ignore the real powers that be, real conflict is not between blacks and whites.
	Real conflict is between the people who have political power and the people who are half enslaved through taxation and debt.
	But if they get us to fight each other, we...
	We don't look up. We're just horizontally battling.
	We don't look up and say, look, I have way more in common with a black taxpayer than some pasty white political overlord.
	We're brothers, man. I've got nothing in common with that white guy who's wielding the gun of the state, the black guy and I. We're brothers, man.
	We're allies. So people who come along with information that can cool ethnic hatred, And say, yeah, we've got to challenge this off in society.
	Let's talk about it reasonably. Let's examine all the evidence.
	Let's not jump to conclusions.
	Let's not blame people for things that aren't their fault.
	IQ or being white or whatever.
	It's not a productive use of people's time.
	But if you want...
	Okay, I'll end with an analogy, and I appreciate your patience here.
	So let's say...
	That you are a shallow, mean, greedy guy, right?
	And you're also addicted to cocaine, right?
	So you need a lot of money. And you're tired of robbing, and you're tired of begging, and you're tired of cajoling, and you're tired of faking injuries and suing people, and you just want some money so you can have your cocaine in peace.
	And you've got a grandmother who's going to leave you a million dollars.
	And you're just waiting for that million dollars, man.
	And your grandmother's sick, and you're putting on your face, like, oh, it's so sad that granny's sick and secretly.
	You're like, oh, yes, I'm going to get my money, I'm going to get my coke on.
	And then someone comes along and says, you know what?
	I've got a wonderful medicine, and your grandmother is going to recover.
	Do you like that person?
	Well, no, because they're now standing between you and the million dollars.
	So when people like me come along and say, look, we don't have to hate each other.
	We can deal with the science. We can deal with the facts.
	We can approach this in a roundtable of concerned citizens that we have a challenge and a problem to solve.
	Men and women, we don't have to hate each other.
	Because if women are trained to hate and fear men, society is going to freaking end.
	Because we're not going to have any kids.
	There's going to be lots of divorces.
	Children are going to be traumatized and abused and unprotected, which is what happens when fathers aren't in the house.
	So if women are trained to hate and fear men, because we're all just evil patriarchs who just want to underpay them, Guess what?
	We're done as a society, so maybe we can sit there and say, okay, yes, women do get paid less than men.
	It's complex. And it is complex.
	We know it's complex. Factually, it's complex.
	Because in places like India, when women get more freedom and have more choice to choose their own professions, the wage gap actually widens.
	Because women then choose to go into, you know, the traditional thing, you know, like a teacher and social worker and, you know, some of the touchy-feely stuff.
	Great respect for it. You know, we need our teachers.
	We need our social workers. And men go in, you know, women work with people.
	Men work with things. And sometimes working with things in the modern replication economy is just more economically productive.
	Men have more testosterone. They tend to work harder.
	Their careers are not interrupted by having babies.
	And say, well, you know, but...
	The whole point of life is to have babies.
	It's the only reason we're all here.
	So saying, well, we've got to close this wage gap by making sure that women don't have any babies.
	I guess you get one generation where the wage gap is somewhat closer, and then that's it for the 4 billion year march of human evolution, right?
	So, when people say, Granny's about to die, in other words, social tensions and social hostilities are about to rise to such a crescendo that we're going to get mass chaos, mass rioting, and we can take over.
	We get our million dollars, we get our cocaine of political power, and then people like me come along and say, there's a cure for all of this hatred, which is science, reason, knowledge, understanding, empathy, sympathy, right?
	There's a cure, at least a potential cure.
	The people who want Granny to die, who want the society to die, so that they can get political power over everyone, people like me come along with a cure, they hate us.
	Because we are standing between them and the powerless that they want.
	So of course they're going to call me all kinds of terrible names, they're going to cook up horrible Wikipedia nonsense about me, they're going to de-platform me, because they don't want Granny to live, they want to get Their money.
	They want to get their drug. They want to get their power.
	And philosophy, and this is another reason why they hate Christianity, because Christianity says there's something higher than power.
	Power corrupts. We're in a fallen state.
	Don't trust people with power.
	And there's something more virtuous, there's something better than controlling people, which is being virtuous, following your conscience.
	And those who have a conscience, those who promote universal ethics, those who bring reason, those who bring facts to a fistfight, are condemned by the people who seek to divide and conquer.
	Well done. Well put.
	Could you kind of give my audience a brief overview of what peaceful parenting is and why it is so virtuous?
	Absolutely not. I cannot possibly give you a brief overview.
	So get comfortable. It's my time.
	If it's okay with you, I'll spend it as I see fit.
	And there's really nothing that's more important in terms of what we can do.
	In terms of what we can do. So maybe it's my business training or business experience and so on, but...
	You have to build things that are practical in the business world.
	So in the business world, you can't have a business plan called, I'm going to try and get the Fed to change interest rates.
	What you have to say is, I can build a product that's going to be sold in the next six months, and here's my projections.
	You have to have something that's practical and actionable.
	And I view freedom, the pursuit of freedom, as a business plan.
	Now, libertarians who often claim to love business and so on, I don't know if they listen to businessmen enough.
	I don't know if there are enough business people in libertarianism.
	So when I was in libertarianism, and, you know, I still, you know, 90% overlap with libertarians, love them to death, but, you know, we don't serve our friends by withholding facts from them at all, right?
	It's not a good thing to do. So, you know, I hate the Fed as much as everyone.
	And I love the non-aggression principle.
	You should not initiate the use of force.
	In the world, right? You should not initiate the use of force.
	Self-defense is fine. You should not initiate the use of force.
	Okay. So my practical Anglo-Saxon business brain says to me, okay, so the non-aggression principle, where is it most violated that we can do the most about?
	See, those two overlaps are really, really important.
	Where is it the most isolated that we can do something about?
	Like, if you're a doctor and you've got a bag full of pills that cure a particular disease, and you want to do the most good, you take your pills to where the disease is most prevalent, and most people will take it, right?
	That's what you do. There's the two overlapping circles.
	Where is it the most prevalent that we can do the most about?
	You say, ah, well, war and national debt are huge violations of the non-aggression principle, incredibly prevalent, but Can you do anything about it in a practical short-term sense?
	No, you can't. I mean, you can write your articles, you can do your speeches, you can whatever, but you can't change it.
	You can't change it.
	So, what is the most prevalent violation of the non-aggression principle that we can do something about?
	Pretty simple. It's hitting children.
	Now, I've also made the case, people can go to bombinthebrain.com, that hitting children is the cause of just about every other social ill.
	Violence and abuse towards children is just about the cause of every other social ill, from addiction to promiscuity to family breakdown to criminality.
	All of these things can be traced back to early childhood abuse, dysfunction.
	So, I made this case.
	Does spanking violate the non-aggression principle?
	I had a debate with Dr.
	Walter Block about this kind of stuff.
	Endless podcasts and articles and videos about it.
	The truth about spanking and all of these things.
	Circumcision is another big one.
	Circumcision is incredibly brutal on boys.
	So, if people, like libertarians, say, I oppose violations of the non-aggression principle, then Mr.
	Practical over here says, oh, fantastic!
	So let's look at the most prevalent violation of the non-aggression principle.
	That we can do the most about, without a doubt, that's spanking.
	Now, more than just spanking, I mean, but all forms of aggression against children.
	Is government schools really bad for kids?
	Absolutely! And I don't recommend putting your kids in government schools in any way, shape or form, but an individual can't just go around and eliminate government schooling.
	But what you can do is you can talk to people about peaceful parenting.
	Peaceful parenting is basically the application of the non-aggression principle to the group of citizens it most concerns who is children.
	How many...
	Who are the individuals in the West most aggressed against?
	Children. No question.
	No question. There are studies, real-time studies.
	They hooked up a bunch of recorders to mostly moms, and they recorded prevalence of child hitting, and these children were being hit multiple times during the day for absolutely innocuous things, for turning the page in the book ahead of where mommy was reading.
	It would get smacked. Children are hit relentlessly, and...
	Depending on ethnicity, East Asians, what used to be called Orientals, hit their children the least.
	Whites hit them more. Hispanics hit more.
	Blacks hit even more. And gosh, you know, I mean, they are the people being hit the most.
	They are the most defenseless.
	They are the most vulnerable. They are the most dependent.
	So if we care about the non-aggression principle, And we also care about getting things done, then we should focus on parenting.
	And we should focus on not having children hit.
	Now, that's just the start of the equation.
	You know, you don't say, well, I'm a great husband because I don't beat my wife.
	It's like, well, okay, necessary but not sufficient.
	You can't be a great husband if you do beat your wife, but just because you don't doesn't mean you're a great husband.
	So, what do we do with kids?
	Well, we negotiate with them.
	We reason with them. We don't use size and force.
	To compel them to do what we want.
	We treat them with respect.
	We treat them with dignity. Why?
	Because they have no choice in the matter.
	You know, you have a psycho girlfriend, you can break up with her.
	You know, if you've got to move to Sweden, you move to Sweden.
	You voluntarily chose to get into that relationship.
	Turns out to be crazy. You can just get right back out again, right?
	Your children didn't choose you.
	They didn't choose to be born. They didn't choose the family they're in.
	They didn't choose you as a mom or you as a dad.
	And they can't leave. They have no legal rights, no legal recourse, nothing like that.
	So they have the least choice and freedom of any member of our society.
	They are the most vulnerable of any member of our society.
	And they are the most violently treated of any member of society.
	So if you care about the non-aggression principle and actually opposing the non-aggression principle, violations of the non-aggression principle, then focus on parenting.
	Focus on... And this goes all the way back to...
	I did some of my first interviews with...
	Dr. Elizabeth Gershoff, I think I interviewed her three times, and the science of spanking is very clear.
	Spanking does not get you what you want.
	Because, you know, if libertarians say that spanking is good, then they're saying that the initiation of force against helpless and dependent individuals achieves a moral good.
	In which case, okay, then shut up about the non-aggression principle and shut up about sadism.
	Because you've already violated it by defending spanking.
	You've got to be consistent. I mean, that's the basic thing.
	Just be consistent. That's all we're asking for.
	Or if you say, well, I'm going to reserve my outrage about violations of the non-aggression principle to all the things I can't do anything about, and I'm not going to touch one topic that I could actually affect and alter in my life, it's like, okay, then it's just a posture.
	You just like railing against the Fed.
	And don't get me wrong, everybody likes railing against the Fed except Janet Yellen and her doc, right?
	Everybody like, but can we be practical?
	Can we actually achieve things? And also we can create a lap, right?
	So I first started talking about peaceful parenting like 15 years ago.
	And to their credit, some libertarians have listened, but it's not become a big thing in the movement for reasons that we could talk about perhaps another time.
	But let's say that libertarians had really accepted and embraced peaceful parenting 15 years ago.
	We would have millions of children raised in this manner by now.
	What an amazing example that would be for the world of how respecting the non-aggression principle produces great glories and happiness in your life.
	You know, I do shows with my daughter and I'm constantly getting these comments.
	Oh, she's so fun. She's so happy.
	She's so relaxed. You guys have such a great relationship.
	It's like, hello! Don't hit her.
	Don't yell at her. Don't call her names.
	Don't intimidate her. Don't use my size and strength.
	She already knows I'm bigger. And if you use your size and strength as a parent, all you're saying is might makes right.
	Might makes right. Okay, then you're in an amoral universe of power.
	And then you wonder why people subjugate themselves to the state.
	If you think that hitting children is necessary to raise moral people...
	Then you can't possibly complain about governments initiating the use of force against people, because according to your own philosophy, initiating the use of force, violating the non-aggression principle, produces great things in terms of parenting, so why wouldn't it produce great things in terms of the welfare state?
	Socialized medicine, all these things.
	You've got to be consistent. And the last thing, too, is that if you believe, if I said, Let's say I was, I know, 300 pounds, right?
	And I said, I've got this wonderful diet, Buck, that you should really follow.
	It's great. You know, being overweight is terrible for your health, and being healthy weight is so important, so positive.
	I've got this wonderful diet, and I'm 300 pounds.
	It would be like stupid comedy, right?
	Like grade 5 comedy, right?
	Like, if losing weight is important and you're overweight and you've got a great method by which to do it, why aren't you doing it?
	No, no, no, I'm railing against people who are overweight in Micronesia.
	It's like, do you look down?
	Can you see your dick? No? Okay, then maybe lose some weight, right?
	It's not the end of the way. So if you've got a diet and you're not willing to try it yourself...
	You're not going to be able to sell it to anyone else.
	Come on. I mean, you never go to a workout book and there's a fat guy on the cover.
	Like, maybe he's a before and after.
	You never. You never go.
	You never go to a diet book and there's a chunky man or woman on the cover.
	They're always slender and great and perfect, you know.
	So, if you have a recipe called the world should be run according to the non-aggression principle, the first place you need to enact that is in your own life.
	And if you enact it in your own life, then you will be able, potentially, to sell it to others.
	But if you refuse it to enact it in your own life, because libertarians say, why isn't it working?
	Why are we not? We're right.
	We've got Austrian economics.
	We've got Mises. We've got Rand.
	We've got Rothbard. Why aren't people listening?
	Why aren't we more successful?
	Because you're not doing it yourself!
	And you're not advocating for it yourself.
	And you're not enacting it yourself.
	You're a fat guy trying to sell a diet book saying, I can't believe nobody's taking my diet book seriously.
	Well, of course they're not! Because the one place that you could really, really enact the non-aggression principle is advocacy for the peaceful and reasonable and non-violent treatment of children.
	You could enact that in your own communities.
	You could oppose it in the world as a whole.
	You could talk about it with friends and family.
	You know, you've got to pay your taxes or you go to jail.
	Guess what? Nobody sends you to jail for not hitting your kids.
	It is a perfectly peaceful Protests.
	You never will suffer any negative effects from the state.
	I mean, these days you go and try and organize an anti-mask protest, you're going to get your ass thrown in a jail overnight, maybe, right?
	But it's a perfectly peaceful, perfectly safe, no negative repercussion situation where you can enact the non-aggression principle in your own life, in your own circumstances, in your own society.
	You're never going to get in trouble with anyone.
	Your children will love you more for it.
	And you will gain the magic.
	What is the magic superpower?
	Why was I so big?
	Because I had the credibility of having genuinely done it myself.
	Of having raised a child.
	With no aggression.
	Never raised my voice.
	Never yelled at her. Never called her names.
	Never used my size and strength.
	Never hit her. Never intimidated her.
	Never bullied her. So I know it works.
	It's the same thing with all my personal relationships.
	I know it works, and you can't fake that.
	You can't pretend it.
	It's again like, you can't hide the fact that you're 300 pounds.
	And you can't hide the fact, if you believe in the non-aggression principle, you cannot hide the fact that you refuse to enact it in your own community.
	Now, I was naive enough to think, wow, I've created this wonderful laboratory for people who believe in the non-aggression principle to actually enact it in our own society, in our own families, in our own lives, to advocate it for that, and to gain all of the incredible credibility of having lived the non-aggression principle as much as you are humanly able in this pretty coercive society.
	But, I don't know, I got called a cult leader and disinvited from, you know, like it's just, it's sad, but it just, this is where we are.
	People would much rather talk about virtue and talk about virtue in situations they can't possibly affect, like Federal Reserve policy or whether Biden drops bombs on Syria.
	You can't change that. You can't change that.
	But, you know, whether the troops stay in Afghanistan, you can't change that.
	So people love to talk tough about morals in environments they can't possibly affect.
	And then when someone comes along and says, oh, look, here's how you can incredibly productively apply your moral standards in your own community, you will never be aggressed against for doing that.
	You'll have a much happier life thereby and you will serve as a wonderful shining example to the world of how powerful the non-aggression principle is.
	No, no, no, we don't...
	We don't really want any of that.
	It's like... Then I'm sorry that you're...
	I'm sorry you're advocating for the non-aggression principle if you're not willing to live it.
	You know, I've always said this to people.
	If you don't...
	If you don't want to live philosophy, don't tell people you like my show.
	Like, please don't. Like, tell people you hate me, you have nothing to do with me, you think I'm a terrible guy, whatever.
	Because people who say, well, the non-aggression principle is everything.
	But we will absolutely refuse to enact it in our own communities...
	You know you're just besmirching the non-aggression principle.
	Because people think it's just language.
	Man, it's not just language.
	95%, 90% of communication is non-verbal.
	And you can't fake it.
	You can't fake it any more than you can will a boner if you're in the vicinity of Lena Dunham, right?
	You just, you cannot fake it.
	And you've got to gain the credibility of experience, of having lived something, of having really enacted the moral philosophy you claim that should run the world.
	You have to enact it in your own life first and foremost.
	And if you haven't done that, you know, like the libertarians in academia, right?
	Okay, libertarians in academia.
	Come on. The free market is the best.
	Well, why aren't you in it? I get to teach other people.
	No, no, no, because I had more reach than all the libertarian academics put together.
	So I was in the free market.
	So why are you still in academia?
	I've shown, you don't have to go as far as I did in certain topics, but I've shown that you can have more reach Than if you're outside of academia.
	And that's fascinating too, right?
	Because people think, oh, it's just education.
	If we just educate people about free market principles, they'll love them.
	It's like you have academics who have PhDs in free market economics who won't leave academia.
	And so even if we gave everybody PhDs in free market theory, they still would cling to their government programs.
	So it's not about education.
	It's about demonstration.
	And if you try and educate other people into something you're not living yourself, you will never get anywhere.
	You won't, because their bullshit detector, their hypocrisy detector, you have to really live your values.
	You have to really live your values in every area that you have the most power, influence, and authority over, and that is primarily your personal relationships.
	You have to really live your values.
	And the other thing which I got in trouble for in the libertarian community, back to a 2010 speech I gave at Libertopia, Is, you know, if you genuinely believe that, you know, the government initiates the use of force against you for being a peaceful person, then people who advocate statism are advocating the use of violence against you.
	It's just a fact. And you can spend time educating them in this and that and the other and so on.
	But at some point, at some point, you have to take your belief seriously enough to not hang out with people who want you thrown in jail and possibly raped to death just for disagreeing with them.
	You know, I love charity.
	I hate the welfare state, because one is voluntary and one is violence.
	I love lovemaking.
	I hate rape, because one is voluntary and one is violent.
	And if somebody around you is advocating rape, do you stay friends with them?
	No! Of course you don't.
	And if somebody's out there advocating violence, not just in the abstract, but against you directly, for disagreeing with them about how society should be organized.
	I mean, it's just a matter of self-respect, isn't it?
	I mean, shouldn't you just respect yourself enough to say I know I'm not going to have anything to do with people who want me thrown in jail for disagreeing with them.
	Why? Because I've got a sense of basic self-respect and a spine.
	But then, of course, it's like, oh, you want to disassociate with everyone who disagrees with you.
	It's like, no, no, no, I want people to disagree with me.
	I have them on my show all the time.
	I just don't want to hang out with people who want me thrown in the rape room of government prisons Because I don't want to do what they want to do politically.
	That's just a matter of self-respect.
	And so, if you had this situation where the libertarians were shunning relentless advocates of violence against them, statists, and they had raised their children perfectly, over the last 15 years, I mean, there would be a huge movement.
	A huge and powerful movement.
	I guess I went over that parapet mostly alone, which is fine.
	You know, sometimes you've got to pave the way.
	And again, I'm an empiricist, and I want to see how much people actually do.
	Accept the value. So people who are listening to this, I'm not trying to nag or belittle, right?
	I'm just sort of pointing out the facts as I've seen them.
	But the non-aggression principle is as beautiful a thing as you can conceive of.
	It is exactly as beautiful as you picture, as you dream of, as you imagine.
	And you will really get that when you put it into your own life.
	You take that non-aggression principle, build everything out from there.
	You know, if you want an accurate model of the solar system, you don't start with the Earth being the center of it.
	Or you don't say, well, maybe a bit of the Earth, maybe a bit of the Sun.
	No, you've got to relentlessly start with the Sun being the center of the solar system, build yourself out from there, then you get an accurate view of the way things are.
	You've got to build a non-aggression principle right at the center of what you do.
	Build everything out from there and gain the credibility of act.
	In the non-aggression principle, somebody around you is talking about genitally mutilating their little boy through circumcision.
	That's a violation of the non-aggression principle.
	I have dropped friendships with people who circumcise.
	I will drop friendships with people who circumcise, and I have.
	Because that is the mutilation principle.
	Of an innocent, helpless little boy.
	If that's not a violation, if hacking off a third of the penis skin of a newborn baby is not a violation of the non-aggression principle, then don't talk to me about the Fed.
	If you have somebody who hits their children in your life, Stand up for those children.
	Stand up for the non-aggression principle.
	Put some rubber on the road with regards to your principles.
	Because another windy explanation of how inflation is really just an increase in the money supply, not an increase in price, is not going to protect that kid from being hit.
	And that kid is going to look back at you when that kid gets older.
	Because my beliefs are going to win, because there's just facts, and facts eventually win.
	They're going to look old and they're going to say, you know what, Uncle Bob?
	Uncle Bob, I clearly remember you talking about the evils of imperialism, talking about the evils of taxation, talking about the evils of central banking and how much of a violation of the non-aggression principle.
	I remember that from when I was a kid.
	You talk all the time. People get kind of uncomfortable because, you know, they do.
	But you know what? I never remember you telling my parents to stop hitting me.
	Now, how are you going to answer that?
	How are you going to answer that fundamental question that there was massive violations of the non-aggression principle in your vicinity that you could have done something about?
	And you didn't. Now maybe you've got a conscience that can survive that, God help you if you do.
	I don't. So I don't hang with people who violate the non-aggression principle.
	I'll educate them, absolutely.
	You know, be patient and understanding, and it takes a while to unplug from the matrix.
	But at some point, at some point, they've got to make a decision.
	You follow the non-aggression principle...
	You're with me. You violate the non-aggression principle, and you know it, and I've explained it to you, and you continue to do it.
	Get lost. Because you don't hang with evil.
	It's got to be kind of a fundamental thing if you're a moralist.
	So, yeah, that's my sort of brief spiel.
	And I hope that people will, you know, I don't mean to shame.
	I don't mean to be negative. I mean to be encouraging, but I lay out the facts as I see them.
	Embody the non-aggression principle in every area you have the most influence, and that's your parenting and your relationships as a whole.
	Be that shining beacon of personal change that people can gravitate towards, not some abstract, polysyllabic windbaggery of abstract ideas that don't move anybody one inch.
	So I hope that helps clarify my position on that at least.
	That was pretty eloquent as I expected.
	Steph, before we get you out of here, obviously people know you've been deplatformed and taken off this site and that site.
	Where can my audience find your work?
	You're free to plug away at anything you'd like, your novels, your books, everything.
	Well, thanks. The way things are going, you may see me out front of your house waxing your car for a spare change.
	But right now, as it stands, you can go to freedomain.com slash connect.
	You can follow me. I'm on BitChute.
	I'm on Library. I'm on Brighteon.
	I'm on Streamanity. Lots of video platforms that are out there, some of which are blockchain-based.
	I'm on a wide variety of social media platforms.
	And do me a solid, because people are like, oh, man, I really care about you.
	I really miss you. It's like, I'm one website over.
	I'm literally one website.
	It's like four more letters or fewer letters that you have to type.
	That's it. And if that's the big barrier between you and the consumption of philosophy, you know, that's not very encouraging to me.
	So I hope that people will do that.
	I've got a free novel out there.
	It's a big... Deep and meaty family history novel.
	I'm half British and half German.
	It's a story of a British family and a German family from World War I to World War II, literally from the trenches of World War I to the Battle of Britain in World War II. And I've got big historical figures in there, Churchill and Anthony Eden and German High Command and so on.
	I did a year of my life, massive research into it, poured my heart and soul into it, and it's available for free.
	I've got the audiobook. EPUB will be out in a while.
	It's just taking a little bit of polishing, but the audiobook I've finished, and you can get that at freedomain.com forward slash almost.
	I really, really strongly encourage people, give it 10 minutes.
	It's a big-ass book, I'm afraid to say.
	It's not quite Lord of the Rings length, but it ain't The Hobbit either.
	I'm a trained actor.
	I went to the National Theatre School.
	I know my way around characters and acting, and I hope that you will just give it 10 minutes, and I think you'll be hooked.
	I'm really, really happy with it and proud of it.
	I actually wrote it a long time ago, but after deplatforming, I'm like, eh, let's bring some beauty to the world, and I think it is a wonderful story.
	It's a powerful story and a very good central thesis.
	I was, of course, incredibly influenced by Ayn Rand as a novelist, so I did my best in that vein.
	I think my best is pretty good in this realm, so...
	Yeah, that's my thing.
	I have an investment roundtable.
	We talk a lot about crypto issues.
	I hope people will join in to that.
	I live stream every Wednesday night at 7pm Eastern on dlive.tv forward slash free domain, where I've also now been de-lemoned.
	But, you know, that's just the way things go.
	But yeah, so I hope that people will continue to follow philosophy.
	And if all you do from this conversation is start thinking about applying the non-aggression principle to your friends and family, then you don't have to follow me at all because you've learned all there is to know.
	Stéphane Molyneux, this has been quite, quite amazing.
	Thank you so much for being here on CounterFlow.
	My pleasure. Thank you very much.
	I hope I can come back, and I hope you don't take too much flack, but it was a great pleasure to chat.
	I welcome the flack.
	Thank you so much, Stefan. All right.

▲