Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

March 22, 2021 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux

01:50:05

LEFTIST FASCISM: Stefan Molyneux Interviewed

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Ladies and gentlemen, all those who don't know me, I'm editor-in-chief of new Slovene fascist media called NTA, National Press Agency, and my guest tonight will be Stefan Molyneux,
	if I pronounce it in American English, and Stefan Molyneux, if I pronounce it in I'm French, Canadian.
	I'm joking. Stefan, it's a great pleasure.
	Thank you for accepting my invitation.
	Thanks, Alex. It's a great pleasure to meet you.
	I think we can just drop that StreamYard comment down below.
	It's covering up my name.
	The name must never be covered.
	I'm a marketing guy, 101.
	Nice to meet you. Thank you very much for the invitation.
	Great pleasure to chat. Thank you.
	Well, you are...
	You are an editor, a founder, and a host of Free Domain Radio.
	I know many Slovenes watched you, listened to you.
	You were a star to many Slovenes, democratically thinking Slovenes.
	Yet, I do believe that there are still many Slovenes that don't know either about you nor about your Free Domain Radio.
	What is Free Domain Radio and who is Stefan Molyneux?
	Those are some big questions.
	The eternal questions you could ask.
	So I dropped the radio part a little while ago.
	So it's just Free Domain, freedomain.com.
	So the show is a philosophy show.
	But it's a philosophy show like people don't really know about.
	Because like most people, they think that philosophy is some very abstract, very...
	Ivory Tower, you know, do nouns really exist?
	What is the nature of existence?
	As opposed to my big philosophical hero is Socrates.
	And what did Socrates do?
	He went to the people of Athens and wandered around and said, hey, if you wouldn't mind buying me a coffee or buying me some lunch, we can talk philosophy.
	And so I kind of modeled myself on philosophy should be the discipline that gives the most utility to people in their lives.
	The most possible conceivable utility.
	The idea that it's been ripped out of people's hearts and minds and thrown up to this ivory tower of bullcrap called academia is one of the greatest tragedies of the modern world.
	And where philosophy leaves the stage, the manipulators, the sophists, the liars, they end up taking over society.
	And then human beings, we kind of like...
	You ever see those... Images or the videos of little baby ducks, right?
	Little baby ducks come out and they imprint on the first thing they see.
	And when I was a kid, I remember seeing a video where the baby ducks were following around an orange balloon.
	You know, you've seen those things, right?
	I guess that's sort of my Trump reference.
	So people imprint upon values, whether we like it or not.
	People are going to get values, they're going to imprint on those values, and they're going to follow those values, right?
	In other words, if people are just programmed to believe, like if you're white, any form of ethnic in-group preference is exactly the same as being a Nazi, well, okay, then you'll follow that and things will probably not go too well for you in a multicultural society.
	If you believe as a woman that men throughout history just subjugated and assaulted and raped women and controlled them and women had no choice, no say, no life, no choice, like nothing, then you will believe that and that will have negative consequences.
	If you believe that having and raising children is a task of mindless drudgery and any smart person avoids it like the plague, that will have particular effects on your birth rate.
	If you believe that experts Always tell the truth.
	And anybody in a white coat, anybody who's a scientist who's talking about climate change or coronavirus or lockdowns, or if you believe, well, they're just, they're so full of integrity, and boy, the peer review process is just the gold standard of intellectual achievement and facts and reality, and then you'll follow those things.
	So we're going to imprint on something.
	We need some thing, some methodology, some way...
	Of organizing our lives and organizing our morals.
	Because we're drawn towards morality.
	Because we know deep down that to be moral is to be happy.
	What Aristotle called eudomania, which is the pursuit of excellence, in particular moral excellence, is the best and most reliable path to happiness.
	So we are going to be drawn like moths to a flame.
	We're going to be drawn to virtue.
	We're going to be drawn to abstractions.
	We're going to be drawn to philosophy.
	Now philosophy is either inhabited by...
	People with integrity, people with honesty, people with curiosity, people with resolution, people with the truth, the basic truth.
	Or if the philosophy is not there and what's happened is the society has taken all of this money and power and prestige and they've dropped these little bedcrumbs away from...
	The market away from people's houses, away from the central square where people gather, and they've said to anybody interested in philosophy, oh, to hell with the common people, man.
	To hell with the problems that anyone's facing in their real life.
	To hell with anything that's going to actually have an effect on the world.
	What you need to do is follow these little breadcrumbs right up to that ivory tower, where we will seal you off from the society that protects you and gave you birth.
	And you all can squabble up there about the most useless crap known to man, woman, child, or alien.
	And that way, you're out.
	You're no longer defending the public.
	You're no longer defending your society.
	Just follow these breadcrumbs.
	Well, you know, hey man, you'll only have to work like 10 hours a week.
	We'll make sure you can't get fired.
	You're going to have a powerful union.
	Hey, I know, how about three and a half months off during the summer and every fifth year you can just take the whole year off and we'll pay you a full salary to write a book, man.
	There's your 30 pieces of silver.
	Get the hell out of the public square and let us do our evil business with society.
	And that's what's happened. Now, for the internet, though, those breadcrumbs, well, they were never tempting to me in particular, but those breadcrumbs don't exist in the internet because what I want to do is bring philosophy to...
	The people, I've done, you know, thousands of these call-in shows.
	People call in and say, hey, I've got this problem in my life.
	How can philosophy help? And we bring, you know, real solutions to real problems.
	I've talked about ethics and free will and a stateless society and virtue, the non-aggression principle, peaceful parenting, anti-spanking, you name it.
	All things which people, to me, if you can't achieve it in your life, It doesn't have much interest to me.
	Can you achieve? Oh, it would be great to end central banking.
	Sure would be. But can you actually achieve that in your life?
	Philosophy is something that should be actionable.
	And it should not be an abstraction that leads you to nowhere or a concrete that you can't act on, like ending war or something like that.
	So that's been my goal.
	And I've taken the very simple philosophy of the non-aggression principle.
	You cannot initiate the use of force against others.
	I've given it a theoretical justification in my theory on ethics called universally preferable behavior and I've pushed the non-aggression principle as far into everybody's life as humanly possible I mean, it's amazing.
	The results have been amazing.
	I just got an email. I think it was yesterday.
	A guy was saying that he called me a couple of years ago because his girlfriend wanted an abortion.
	And we talked about the ethics, the morality, and gave him some good solutions to get along better with his girlfriend.
	They've had the baby.
	The baby is 17 months old now.
	They're absolutely loving being parents and are enormously happy.
	That's the kind of catcher-in-the-ry turnabout that philosophy should be achieving.
	And all the people out there who claim to be philosophers, who haven't talked to a real person with real problems, you can refer to them as Klingon doctors.
	You know, like in Star Trek, there are the Klingons, right?
	Now, it's an imaginary creature with an imaginary physiognomy.
	And you're just a Klingon doctor.
	It's like you know where the spleen is in a Klingon, but you've never actually helped a human being not be sick or get healthy or avoid illness.
	So philosophy, simple principles consistently and universally applied from the personal to all the way to the most abstract political entities that you can imagine.
	That's been my goal for...
	I mean, I got into philosophy 40 years ago.
	40 years ago.
	And I've been doing it publicly for 16 years.
	And, you know, at my peak, I was like one of the biggest intellectuals in the world.
	I was doing, I don't know, millions and millions of views and downloads every month.
	I've hit close to a quarter billion views and downloads, 100,000 books a month read.
	I travel the world, I've done documentaries, I did one in Poland, did one in California, did one in Hong Kong.
	And then, you know, as you probably know, last year, I guess I touched the third rail of anti-statism, anti-communism in particular, and I got yanked off most of the major platforms, which was a drag, except those very same forces are driving up the value of Bitcoin.
	So it's kind of a mixed bag.
	So I hope that helps a little bit with a background and intro, and ask away, or your audience can ask away.
	I'm happy to hear. Yeah, of course.
	I see some people have been asking about the non-aggression principle not being able to...
	The non-aggression principle cannot not work in a Do we want to do those questions?
	I'm happy to do those if that helps.
	Yeah, okay, let's do this question.
	If you want to be led by the audience, I just gave a big lecture on being led by the audience, so hopefully that will help and we'll see.
	I don't have any issues with ethno-nationalism.
	I'm not a statist.
	So the non-aggression principle, you cannot initiate the use of force against others.
	In philosophy...
	So think of science, right?
	Let's say that you have a theory, right?
	So you have a theory. I don't know.
	What can I grab here that's going to be of any utility?
	I know. I've got a lens cap here.
	Arr, look, I'm a pirate. All right.
	So you've got a lens cap here, right?
	And you have a theory. My theory, Alish, is, you know, when I let go of this lens cap, That's my theory, man.
	It's going to float.
	Now, you and I can argue about the physics and the science and the math and the theory and blah, blah, blah, right?
	The conjecture, the hypothesis, we can get a period.
	But the big question is, okay, what happens when I let go of it?
	Well, when I let go of it, it drops.
	So, when you have a concept in your mind, what's going to happen to the lens gap when you let go of it, the important thing is to test it.
	In reality, to test it in reality.
	The facts on the ground, what happens in the world, which we get through the evidence of our senses, that is far more important than any theory, infinitely more important.
	In any conflict between a theory and the facts, the theory must give way.
	Another way of putting that is that concepts don't exist.
	Ideas in the mind don't exist.
	Truth doesn't exist.
	Virtue doesn't exist.
	Love doesn't exist.
	Now, people get...
	When I say truth doesn't exist, they think, oh, then there's no such thing as truth.
	No, no, no, no. That's not what I'm saying.
	Truth doesn't exist like a physical thing, right?
	Like is a little controller for a camera, right?
	This exists, right? This exists.
	Truth, you can't tap truth.
	You can't mold it.
	You can't use it as the base for a bridge.
	Truth is a relationship between ideas in the mind and things in the world.
	If I say that you are in Slovenia, that is a statement of truth, or it's a statement of claim, and if you are in fact in Slovenia, then that statement is true, and if you're not, then that statement is false.
	So we have concepts in the mind and we have things in the world.
	Now the concepts that we have in our mind are derived from the things in the world, which is why you can't ever have Something in your mind that claims to be a truth statement about the world that is not verified by things in reality.
	The concepts in the mind are mere shadows cast by the things in the world.
	And the more that we are slaves to the world in our concept formation, the better off we are, the more honest we are, the more truthful we are, and the more power we have over nature and society.
	Not over people, but over things.
	So the reason I'm saying all of that is that the non-aggression principle...
	There are only individuals in this world.
	Now, that doesn't mean we can't have collective interests.
	It doesn't mean we don't have family structures.
	We can't band together.
	We can't have collective, you know, that's fine.
	But individuals exist in the world.
	Like, individual trees exist.
	A forest, which is a concept, does not exist in the world.
	Now, once we understand that, we understand that there's no abstract concept that can violate the moral law.
	There's no abstract concept that can violate the moral law of the non-aggression principle.
	So what that means is the people who call themselves the government, right?
	The government is a concept.
	Does it exist in the world?
	I remember years and years ago in some libertarian mailing group, this is like when you had only mailing groups, not even forums, right?
	Libertarian mailing group was talking about the state, the government, the this, the that, the other, and I said, but the government doesn't exist.
	And they said, what are you talking about?
	And they sent me these photos, right?
	They sent me these, look, here's the Washington Monument, here's the Capitol building, here's the Supreme Court building.
	And I said, yeah, those buildings exist.
	Sure. Flags exist.
	They're real. But the government is a concept.
	It does not exist. Now, you can't have a concept called mammal and include in it, so mammal is what?
	Like warm-blooded, it gives birth to life young, asterisk, duck-billed platypus, whatever, right?
	So the mammal is warm-blooded, it's got hair, it gives birth to life young, and so on, right?
	Now, you can't then say, well, in the concept mammal, I'm also going to throw in a turtle.
	Which is cold-blooded, does not give birth to live young, has no hair, right?
	Because you've got a concept called the mammal with specific characteristics.
	You can't just throw the opposite in and say it's part of the same So the government, we say individuals cannot initiate the use of force against others.
	But then we create this giant fiction, this imaginary thing called the government, and we then say, well, if you're in this magical circle called the government, now you can initiate the use of force against others.
	It's amazing. It's literally like saying, if I drew a magic circle on the ground, and I said, hey man, Alish, if you go into this magic circle, gravity reverses itself, man.
	It's amazing. Or if somebody says to me, Steph, you go into this magic circle, you get Alish's full lustrous head of hair.
	It could be any number of things that'd be going on, but opposite properties would accrue, right?
	So we create these magic circles in society, we put people into those magic circles, and we say, aha!
	What is evil for me is now good for you.
	It's the upside-down opposite world.
	And can you imagine such a thing?
	You can't imagine such a thing in science, in biology, in physics, any of these things, where they say, oh, well, no.
	If I create this imaginary circle or concept, then the opposite of all physical properties apply.
	So you and I, we're not allowed to initiate the use of force.
	Now, that means we can't go up and punch someone.
	If somebody is running at us with a chainsaw, we can shoot them because that's self-defense.
	That's perfectly fine.
	So all of the most fundamental immoralities in society, you know, structural immoralities, Occur when we pretend that we can wrap people in these imaginary concepts and then they get opposite moral requirements.
	You and I can't initiate force.
	Governments exist on the initiation of force.
	That's what they do. If you try to compete with a government service, they will throw you in jail.
	If you don't want to pay your taxes and don't pay your taxes, they will throw you in jail.
	If you don't obey any one of tens of thousands of completely incomprehensible laws, they will throw you in jail.
	If you say the wrong words, they will throw you in jail.
	Now, you and I can't do that.
	I can't go and say, hey, you know what?
	Alash looks like he's a pretty fertile guy.
	I bet he's got a lot of kids or he's going to have a lot of kids, so I'm going to take out a million dollar loan and, oh yeah, Alash's kids will pay it back.
	You try and go to a bank and see if you can get that deal, right?
	Well, that's not going to happen. But if you're the government, you can take out loans on future taxpayers who aren't even born yet, aren't even imagined yet.
	The parents haven't even met.
	So we can't go and initiate force, but the government can.
	Now, creating these weird concepts wherein we put people inside And now, the opposite moral rules apply.
	I mean, it's completely anti-philosophical.
	That's not how reality works.
	You can't just create magic.
	That's magic as a form of spell.
	Like, you might as well have this in Dungeons and Dragons, like the opposite moral spell that we cast on society.
	So, I don't approve of...
	This magical language called the state, the law, the government, or whatever, that they then get opposite moral qualities to everyone.
	And expanding moral rules to include everyone, I mean, that's kind of the progress of civilization, isn't it?
	It's good to end slavery, to extend moral self-ownership, and the ownership of property to everyone was a good thing.
	I like equal rights for women.
	Female supremacy through the state is a whole other matter, and we certainly got that going on in the West, but that's the inevitable result not of females, but of the state as a whole, and its corrupting nature.
	So, when we, you know, in the Old Testament, there were these miracles, and I remember when I was a kid saying, well, where are the miracles?
	I was in church, where are the miracles?
	And the pastor said, ah, the age of miracles is over.
	And in other words, we've taken science and we've said, okay, it applies everywhere, all over the place, no matter where we go.
	These are the scientific rules.
	These are the rules of physics, of gravity, and electromagnetism, and radiation, and all this is right.
	This is just a fact.
	There's no exceptions to these things.
	So pushing principles out to their true universal, ah, fantastic!
	That's the whole point of advancing as a civilization.
	But we still have this weird thing that keeps growing like a tumor in the middle of our society, this magical circle called the state.
	Where the opposite moral rules apply.
	Now, when it comes to ethno-nationalism, okay, let's just step aside the nationalistic side of things, because I'm not a big fan of the government running things, but to say that those who share genetics may have in-group preferences, if you say that to a biologist, the biologist would say, well, duh...
	Of course. I mean, if you go to anyone who's honest, like anybody who's honest and who loves his or her kids, right?
	And you say, okay, two kids are drowning in a pond.
	You can only save one of them.
	Who are you going to save?
	Well... It's going to be your own kid.
	Obviously, right? So, we have genetic in-group preferences to our own kids.
	We have genetic in-group preferences to our own ethnicities.
	Now, this doesn't mean we can't be universal, we can't be fair, we can't be moral, we can't accept everyone as human.
	Of course, right? Absolutely. But, the fact is that we have drivers for similar genetics.
	Evolution only works.
	Only works. Which is a foundational belief of the left in particular, right?
	Evolution only works if there's a preference for similar genetics.
	Because the genetics that your child has are the closest to yours if you don't have...
	A preference for your child over others.
	You will do nothing to further your child's survival, which means your genes will not flourish.
	The only way that evolution has ever worked is genetic in-group preferences, starting with the family.
	And that's just the way things roll.
	Now, again, doesn't mean we're slaves to that.
	I mean, we can come up with lots of different ways to organize society that benefit other people and so on, but...
	The idea, I mean, even babies prefer their own race when shown pictures.
	It's built into us.
	It's entirely natural.
	And again, it doesn't mean we shouldn't ever oppose it.
	It doesn't mean it can't be surmounted.
	But that's kind of where we're starting from, is genetic similarity in group preference.
	There's no question of that.
	You can ask any biologist about that.
	That's the entire mechanism.
	I don't have any issues with it.
	Fighting against it rather than trying to work with it is kind of like the new Soviet man, you know, like back in the days of communism, which, you know, I thought were in the rear view but seemed to be coming up pretty fast ahead of us.
	There was this idea that, well, we can have a human being who doesn't respond to self-interest.
	We can have a human being who sacrifices himself for no gain whatsoever.
	You know, basic principle of economics is that people do respond to incentives.
	I mean, people will work hard if they get to make more money.
	And if they won't make more money, they won't work hard.
	And so... This idea that you could create this new Soviet man, this new communist man who just fought for the collective, fought for the proletariat, fought for his class interests with no sense of any benefit to himself.
	This doesn't exist. It doesn't exist.
	It doesn't happen at all.
	And yet holding that as a stick, as a carrot for people to pursue has people regularly flagellate themselves forever.
	Like, is it possible for us to not notice patterns?
	Yeah, I mean, it is impossible for us to not notice patterns.
	I mean, if you grew up in a multicultural school, is it impossible to notice that East Asians tend to be kind of slender?
	Pretty good at math.
	And, well, I guess in my school they liked breakdancing, which might have been a bit of an exception, but you can't help but notice these patterns.
	If you look at these statistics for criminality, it's hard not to notice that blacks in America contribute, unfortunately, a huge degree of criminality to America.
	I mean, this was Larry Elder was just talking about this the other day, and he was saying that, you know, a couple of percentage points of people in America, which is the young black males, contribute close to 50% of the murderers.
	Okay, we can talk about the reasons why, but it's impossible not to notice these patterns.
	So if you have a goal which says that the only way I can be virtuous in this life is not notice any patterns whatsoever, well, you're just fighting against your own nature because it is our very essence as human beings to notice patterns.
	I mean, God, if every animal alive has to notice patterns.
	You know, if you've ever had a pond, if you go at 5 o'clock to feed your fish, for the first couple of days or weeks they won't come, but if you go at 5 o'clock to feed your fish, within a couple of days usually, they'll just be, you know, they're sitting there just below the surface waiting for their food.
	They've got the pattern.
	And particularly if you come to Slovenia, other places where you've got a cold climate, if you don't notice the pattern that you can't grow food half the year, you're going to die because you won't store the food for the winter.
	So we are pattern-recognitive.
	All animals, all sentient beings, all creatures have to notice patterns in order to survive.
	And so the idea that we can somehow have in a multicultural society or a multi-ethnic society that we're just...
	Anybody who notices patterns is an evil racist bigot.
	It's like you have set people against themselves.
	It's like in Christianity, right, there's the temptation and there's the devil and then there's hell, but you get a path to redemption.
	But if the path to redemption in the left is you have to not do everything that your entire biological apparatus is designed to do, which is notice patterns and act upon them, right?
	I mean, can you imagine some guy in the woods?
	Like, well, the last three spotted berries almost killed me.
	I'll try the fourth one.
	Like, he wouldn't notice the pattern.
	It's like, no, that guy's not going to survive.
	We have only survived by noticing patterns, particularly patterns that are dangerous to us.
	But now, if you notice or speak about pretty obvious patterns, patterns that are statistical, patterns that are objective, patterns that are factual...
	Well, you're just an evil bigot, blah, blah, blah, and so on, right?
	The fact that women tend to go into lower-paying professions, the fact that women tend to have less testosterone or less aggressive, the fact that women have slightly lower IQs on average, the fact...
	I mean, this is going to have outcomes in society as a whole.
	But you can't notice those patterns...
	Because everything has to be completely equal, and you can't notice any patterns.
	Or if you do notice patterns, well, always it's white people who are to blame, right?
	So, yeah, it is a horrible thing.
	And there's no path to redemption, other than the denial of everything that keeps you alive as an organism, which is noticing patterns of safety and danger.
	You're muted my brother.
	Can I ask you a sincere question about Jordan Peterson?
	I have a great respect for him and I'm glad he's back.
	I know he's been on your channel.
	You probably have a great respect to him too, but let's be honest, many ethno-nationalists who also watch my show and Watch your show would have problems with Jordan Peterson and would call him a gatekeeper for ethno-nationalism.
	What would be your comment on his...
	Okay, this is oversimplification of what he says, but...
	Nevertheless, he says, hey there, white ethno-nationalists, go clean your room first, then get involved in collectivization of your politics.
	And this is really an oversimplification.
	Yet, we can see, we saw in America, we've been seeing this for two years now, The so-called white people, Caucasians, people from European descent,
	at least in America because of the black lives matter movement and because of the Democratic Party that is that promotes it people from European descent are basically physically in danger We could say that.
	It's a fair statement, isn't it?
	And if you take this into consideration, isn't it also dangerous and counterproductive to tell white people, white people or European people, not to think about their Collective identity when it's possible.
	They will have to group themselves to survive.
	Yeah, I mean, there's a lot in what you said, so I've just sort of tried to sift through it in my mind.
	There's a story in the world...
	That goes something like this.
	So, you know, there were these great disasters in the West and in the world.
	The First World War and the Second World War.
	Now, the First World War and the Second World War were, in general, white countries battling other white countries.
	And so, and the rest of the world got dragged into it through empire, through a variety of other things.
	And so, when you look at the First and Second World War, two of the greatest disasters ever to strike the world as a whole, the question was, okay, well, what the hell happened?
	How on earth did it end up being the case?
	I mean, you and I didn't get dragged into a war between India and Pakistan, but, you know, Indians and Pakistanis got dragged into a war between England and Germany, or, you know, to give one example.
	So, the big question is, okay, what happened?
	What happened? And the answer seems to have been, well, when white people are in charge of a country, you know, you tend to get world wars.
	Now, I don't agree with that answer.
	I think it's more complex. Certainly, the First World War...
	I've got a whole video on the origins of the First World War, but certainly the Second World War was largely a battle between international socialism, which is communism, and national socialism, which was the German Workers' Party and the Nazis.
	And the Second World War is impossible really to understand without understanding the battle that was occurring in Russia between the Communists and the Christians and the Holodomor and the slaughter of tens of millions of Christians by the Communists, which the Germans felt was coming their way and they ran to Hitler to protect them from that.
	And so the issue of White national self-determination has, in many people's minds, been conflated with, you know, when whites are in charge, you get world wars.
	And, you know, on the surface, I can completely understand that perspective.
	I don't think it's historical accurately.
	It's not accurately historical.
	But that's kind of what's going on.
	And so there is this general move to say, okay, well, let's try and remove white people from the seats of power, I think, because we don't want world wars, we don't want more atomic bombs being dropped, that the weapons of mass destruction have become so deadly and so dangerous that we just can't have another world war, and that association of white nationalism being the causes of The wars, I think, is kind of what's going on deep down.
	You know, plus, of course, the communists.
	White Christians in particular tend to be very anti-communist.
	Of course, Russia. I remember being back in the day when everybody loved Russia, when it was still communist, like in the media and all the leftists.
	They loved Russia. We were in Canada.
	They were sending, you know, billions of dollars of aid and food to Russia to make sure they prop up the regime as long as possible.
	And then when Russia became Christian and nationalistic, Suddenly it became the great Satan and every villain has to be a white Russian these days and that's really quite tragic.
	But I think that's the general narrative and this is a very dangerous thing as a whole.
	White people have done absolutely appalling and terrible things throughout history.
	However, on the reality stage, if you look, this comes out of a Charles Murray book, from 800 BC to 1950 AD, 97% of the scientific advancements came from Europeans, white Europeans, and North America, Europe, and so on.
	There's no modern world without white people's truly peculiar levels of ingenuity and curiosity.
	Now, whether that comes from the fact that in Europe, about 1% of the population was put to death every year, thus diminishing the genes for sociopathy and psychopathy and so on, whether it's due to the amazing Greek philosophy combined with Christian universal ethics,
	Whether it's to do with the fact that white people seem to be slightly more comfortable with, quote, heretics or freethinkers or being questioned or anything like that.
	Nobody knows in particular what in particular is causing this.
	Why did the Chinese have, you know, fiat currency and IQ exams for the bureaucracy and gunpowder and all of that, you know, thousands and thousands of years ago and generally stagnated?
	It's not anything to do with the Chinese nature, because the Chinese in mainland China seem to have very different perspectives than the Chinese in Hong Kong, right?
	Or if you look at North and South Korea, you have a genetically identical population with vastly different outcomes.
	So it's not the genes determine society.
	But there is something about Europeans that has gifted...
	The modern world, the scientific worldview, and in particular the end of slavery.
	the end of slavery was by far the greatest gift that society and the world has ever, ever received.
	Because when you end slavery, you raise the value of labor-saving devices, and then you end up with the Industrial Revolution, you end up with the modern world.
	You also end up with terrible mechanics for weapons and all these terrible things.
	So having a free market plus the state is one of the reasons why white people in the 20th century were so astonishingly destructive, because you've got all this amazing stuff coming out of the free market, all of this technology, and then it gets taken over by the state, and then terrible things happen around the world.
	So the problem is not that white people were in charge.
	The problem is that you had amazing leaps forward in technology combined with governments that, as they always do, want to maintain and expand their power.
	And, you know, the war is the health of the state, right?
	When you get to war, the government gets bigger and stronger, like under COVID, when you are warring against the invisible, like climate change and COVID. So I think that's one of the issues.
	And to me, I mean, for other cultures, other ethnicities, other races, you know, looking...
	Now everybody says, oh my gosh, that's really...
	It's really an amazing thing that the end of slavery, boy, we should have thought of that ourselves.
	It's kind of a tough thing to look at that.
	I mean, I occasionally will look at people, you know, they're still on social media, they still keep their platforms, and I'm like, that's kind of nice.
	A little bit of envy can be kind of helpful and kind of useful to give you a path to go, but...
	Father, you know, white people, and, you know, I don't claim any virtue for this myself.
	It's happened to be born the way I'm born.
	But if you sort of look objectively, you know, modern science, modern medicine, modern philosophy, modern economics, end of slavery, limited government, free speech, these all white people things, white male things, right?
	And it's great that it's spread around the world.
	I love that there's an Indian restaurant in my neighborhood.
	And I'm sure that India likes the fact that they have access to a free market, which was not really the case before the free market theories kind of came along or were kind of inflicted in the 19th and 20th century on India through the empire, which again, I don't like the empire.
	I think it was a terrible idea as a whole.
	So, yeah, it's a misreading of history.
	What happened in the 20th century?
	Well, white people were in charge.
	Okay, well, let's make sure that white people don't band together because when they do, boy, we get world wars.
	And it's like, that's not an accurate view of history at all, at all.
	And we should continue the path that the Christians and the Greeks and to some degree the early Romans set us on, which is let's keep making the government smaller until it winks out of sight completely, not let's...
	Make government bigger in order to combat this omnipresent white supremacy that is not a very real thing.
	I don't know if that helps at all, but...
	Yeah. I wanted to ask you about this term some of Slovene right-wingers have been using, and I would like you yourself to reflect upon it.
	Left fascism.
	When... Slovene right-wingers want to say lefts being authoritarian and mean they use the term left fascism and my argument throughout the time has been that Bolshevism has been the first one so Bolshevism or Communism should be should be A synonym for authoritarianism and being mean to people,
	to individuals and so forth.
	Not fascism. This does not mean that I like fascism, that I promote fascism, that I'm a fan of fascism.
	Yet, it's...
	It is so that it is the fact of the matter that fascism and national socialism have been reactions to communism and as reactions cannot be totally or In any way responsible for what communism meant and what communism did.
	So the phrase left fascism is, I think, very accurate.
	Very accurate. The left is gaining power through the corporations.
	And the enactment of political will through corporate power is the very definition of fascism.
	So in the past, what happened?
	Well, they got a bunch of weapons, and during a time of particular critical weakness, such as was occurring in Russia during the First World War, when you had tens of millions of men dying and just an absolute catastrophe within the society, Well, they just came in well-armed, you know, and they were funded by the Germans, right?
	The Germans wanted to take Russia out of the war, so they sent Lenin through Finland with a bunch of weapons, and they just killed everyone and took over the state, right?
	So that's one way, and that's a way that it happened, of course, in places like Cuba.
	There was a violent revolution and Khmer Rouge in Cambodia and so on.
	And so, one of the ways that the Communists take over is through direct, straight up, you know, gun to the head force, right?
	But that's not particularly effective in a relatively free market, relatively democratic, and certainly in America with the vestiges of the Republic still holding on through the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.
	They could get hate speech through in the United States, right?
	And the Supreme Court has ruled very clearly there's no such thing as hate speech.
	It's a made-up term, which it is, right?
	It's a complete bullshit term.
	So what do they do? How do they silence people they don't agree with?
	Or how do they silence people who are anti-communist?
	Well, it's too early to just go around shooting people because there's still vestiges of a legal system.
	That are going to end up thrown in jail.
	Plus, if you act too soon with direct violence and terrorism, you scare people into a reaction against communism.
	So you don't want to do that, right?
	So one of the things that I have been incredibly vocal about, which I have zero regrets for, is...
	You could say fanatically anti-communist since, well, since before I was even a public figure.
	Anti-communism came out of the Objectivist and Ayn Rand readings and Rothbard readings and other Solzhenitsyn readings that I did in my teens.
	So, yeah, anti-communist, you know, I'm anti-fascist too, but fascism isn't really a big issue and everybody's kind of anti-fascist these days.
	I'm anti-Nazi too, but Nazism is not really a big deal, but the communists are a very big deal and a very powerful deal.
	So how do the communists win?
	They win by going through the corporations.
	How do they silence people when they can't get them thrown in jail for being anti-communist?
	Well, what you do is you get a whole bunch of communists to go into an organization.
	I mean, this is not my observation.
	This is exactly what the communists said they were going to do, starting in the 1920s.
	It's called the Long March Through the Institutions.
	So what they do is they...
	Burrow into the corporations and they start to determine that every piece of relevant factual information that undermines the case for communism is hate speech.
	Noticing patterns is hate speech.
	Wanting free markets is hate speech.
	Opposing mass immigration from third world countries is hate speech, right?
	And so that's how they do it.
	They go through the corporations And they silence people by creating vague emotional terms of service and then just pulling the plug.
	I mean, again, I think I could speak about this with some authority because that's kind of the way it played out for me over the last couple of years.
	And so... As you get bigger and bigger and bigger, and again, as I said at my peak, I was just huge, right?
	You get bigger and bigger and bigger. They start to physically attack venues where you might speak, knowing that they're almost likely to face no repercussions legally and certainly no repercussions from the mainstream media or the newspapers or anything like that who are entirely in sympathy with their goals and plans.
	They can't shut you up.
	By proving you wrong, that's kind of an important thing.
	The first person to pull a gun in a debate is the stupidest, most dangerous and sick and evil person that there is, right?
	The first person to smack you across the face when you're speaking reason in the world is just about the most dangerous person on the planet.
	So, yeah, that's kind of what happened to me.
	I got suppressed, and then I got silenced.
	I got demonetized.
	I got physical venues where I wanted to speak would be attacked and threatened with bombs, and they threatened to kill me and whoever I was speaking with.
	And then eventually you just get kicked off the most of the major platforms.
	They can't answer your arguments.
	So that's no good, right?
	I mean, if I get a flat earth guy on my show, I can answer his arguments, right?
	I don't have to de-platform the guy.
	It's totally fine.
	They can't answer my arguments.
	And they can't silence me legally because there are still enough vestiges of free speech.
	So what they do is instead of going through the law, instead of going direct through violence, instead of engaging in intellectual debate, which they keep losing, they simply try and cut you off from the source by burrowing through the corporations to enact their political will.
	Now, using the union of corporate and state power is the very definition of fascism.
	So if you don't have corporate power and you just have state power, that's totalitarianism.
	That's communism.
	If you have corporations without the state power, that's to some degree the free market.
	But when you have state power uniting with corporations to achieve a political agenda, I mean, that's straight up fascism.
	And of course, it is ironic and ridiculous that the left calls everyone else a Nazi, because Nazism was very much the combination of state power and corporate power.
	Because corporations are kind of half-children of the state to begin with, because corporate power is a legal shield given to wealthy and powerful people so that they never face any legal or financial repercussions for their own misdeeds.
	You know what it is.
	It is there's just always a fine that you have to pay, which never comes out of the pockets of the rich owners of the company.
	It always comes out of the shareholders or the customers or the employees or whatever.
	So, yeah, you create and charge up such negative labels and then you attach those negative labels to people and then those people get nuked out of society.
	And then everyone else, you know, I wasn't deplatformed for me.
	I was deplatformed for everyone else.
	I was deplatformed so that everyone else would look and say, oh, that stuff that Steph was talking about.
	Oh, you know, I better stay away from that stuff.
	And I better not have him on my show.
	Good for you, Elish. I appreciate the chance to be on the show.
	I also appreciate the chance for people to see.
	I'm a really nice and reasonable guy.
	I don't know if they expect to see some foaming at the mouth lunatic, but I'm a reasonable, peaceful guy who wants to engage in debate in the world and find a better way forward in society.
	But, of course, trying to find a reasonable way forward in society goes right against the grain of those who want to use violence to subjugate us for their black-hearted whims.
	So, yeah, so the union of corporate and political power, which manifests in endless deplatformings, yeah, that's the very nature of fascism, and Saying that, you know, the left wouldn't use corporations...
	You know, I'm old enough to remember when the left hated corporations rather than praised them for their wokeness, right?
	Because they hated corporations until they controlled corporations and now they love corporations.
	So all they want is power and whatever path they can use to get there, they'll get there.
	I mean, regardless of conscience because it's a will-to-power universe on the left.
	I wanted to tell you this...
	Yeah, I understand what you're saying in theory, but isn't this too intellectual for a term for the masses to understand?
	Because on one hand, I should tell you about the situation in Slovenia.
	Slovenia has 80% to 90% left-wing media monopoles.
	This means You have commercial TVs that are left-wing and partially owned by some Americans or some rich Czechs who are probably also left-wing inclined.
	You have national TV that is left-wing.
	You have all the great Slovene, all the traditional Slovene newspapers are left-wing.
	You have This media, Nova24TV, that is right-wing and some small media like us.
	We started 10 days, 14 days ago.
	We currently have a government that is led by Yanis Janša, that leads SDS, that is Social Democratic Party.
	That's not a right-wing in cultural sense, nor in economical sense.
	It's not fully libertarian.
	It's not fully...
	It's civic nationalism and so forth.
	Yeah, and it's being called a fascist, a Extreme right-wing government and so forth.
	And the media have been calling the EU, the European Commission and so forth, to tell them that this government oppresses the media in Slovenia.
	Oh, the poor media.
	It's so hard for them, you know?
	It's so hard for them when they're not able to take wrecking balls to people's lives with impunity.
	They're such victims, the poor dears.
	Oh, let's give the media a hug.
	They have it so tough.
	It's tough when you interfere with sadist ability to torture their victims, man.
	You might as well be a sadist yourself.
	They're poor things. Yeah, there's a prime minister that's been demonized for 30 years by fully monopolized media and he critiques or he responds to critiques of the media and he was not supposed to do that because media was supposed to be independent and another thing When they're being taken away the government money or the taxpayer money or they've been called to show some responsibilities for becoming taxpayers' money,
	they react as if this was their own money.
	So, the majority of Slovenia media is taxpayer-financed either directly or indirectly.
	And, yeah, this is the situation in Slovenia.
	And, yeah, I lost my point.
	Go finish your thought.
	I have a couple of thoughts. Yeah, I'm over.
	Well, yes.
	So the co-opting of the media by the state is pretty powerful, and this is another reason why people like me get deplatformed, because I was regularly pulling more audience than state broadcasters in Western countries.
	So, they don't like that, because, you know, I'm sort of beyond the control.
	The government, I'm sure, wanted me silenced.
	The media wanted me silenced.
	And that's just the way that power plays itself out.
	And the only way you can avoid that is not talk about anything important or meaningful, which, you know, I'd rather tell the truth and de-platform than lie my way to fame, because that's a bad situation.
	That's a bad situation.
	So... Yeah.
	So here's the thing, right?
	So it's easy to be a leftist in your minds, right?
	And it's easy to end up hating people like you and me.
	It just takes one little switch, like one little switch that has to go off in your brain.
	And the little switch that has to go off in your brain is this.
	Resources are infinite. That's all you need to think.
	It's the three-word mantra.
	Resources are infinite.
	Like, so, Elish, if you and I were discussing some guy...
	That we didn't like. And we said, you know what?
	That guy shouldn't have access to oxygen.
	That guy shouldn't have access to air.
	Well, we would only do that because we wanted him dead, right?
	Because air is free. Air is everywhere.
	And me breathing doesn't mean you can't breathe.
	So air is infinite for all intents and purposes, right?
	So if air is infinite, why on earth would you want to deny someone air?
	You monster!
	And they literally feel that way with money.
	They feel that money is infinite.
	That it's just a matter of willpower.
	That you can have all the government programs in the known universe.
	That you can give all the money to everyone.
	That you can give free healthcare, free education, free higher education.
	You can give massive subsidies to corporations.
	You can do anything you want.
	You can give massive pensions.
	You can have all the government workers you want.
	Because money is free.
	Resources are infinite.
	Resources are infinite.
	And so, when you and I say, you know, they're not infinite, we do have to make tough decisions, then, you know, and also it'd be great if people actually control their own resources rather than have them funnel through the state, but they genuinely and generally believe that resources are infinite.
	And that's... I mean, it's a very bizarre mindset.
	And this is why a lot of the leftists tend to come from wealthy families.
	I mean, you've heard this sort of, you know, Pantifa, right?
	Like Antifa, they often come from upper-level class backgrounds because they grow up being spoiled.
	I think the path to these kinds of people is pretty clear, right?
	The hard leftists and some of the violent leftists, it's pretty clear.
	All that happens is...
	When they're babies, their moms go back to work pretty quickly.
	They dump them with daycare workers and nannies, and they don't bond, and they have all the material things that they want.
	They grow up in material infinity.
	Like a friend of mine, when I was first working in the corporate world, a friend of mine who grew up rich, he said, you know, I didn't value anything.
	I didn't value anything I had.
	If I lost a bike or my bike broke, just buy me a new bike.
	But I never really got to spend much time with my parents.
	Because to make that kind of money, you usually have to work like kind of crazy hours and be gone a lot, a lot of travel and stuff like that.
	So when you grow up in a situation where the wealth seems infinite, But you don't really value anything.
	You don't understand where it comes from.
	You don't get how hard it is to make money and all of that.
	Then you just grow up with this idea that you feel guilty and you're not bonded.
	You don't have empathy because you didn't bond with your mom or your dad.
	And you hate materialism in a way because you feel like, why do you hate capitalism?
	Because capitalism stole mommy and daddy.
	I hate to get all psyche on everyone, but it's a real phenomenon, right?
	Mom chose to go to work for a corporation, and Dad chose to go to work for a corporation rather than spend time with me.
	Of course you're going to grow up hating corporations and capitalism and the free market because it stole Mom and Dad.
	And it gave you all of this crap that you don't care about that makes you feel resentful.
	So when you say, I want to smash capitalism, you're saying, I miss Mom.
	I miss Dad. And it can't be fixed.
	And I'm not kidding. I've actually talked to people at great depth about this, and this theory is held true every time.
	Abandoned as kids. Mom and Dad choose work.
	Oh, for spending time with their kids.
	And then the kids grow up thinking resources are infinite and hating corporations, capitalism, the free market because it stole mom and dad.
	It's like how a woman will hate the girlfriend of her husband.
	If her husband's cheating on her, she'll just hate that woman.
	Okay, well, it's the same thing.
	if parents cheat on parenthood by going to run after the almighty dollar, then the kids are going to grow up hating capitalism and they'll want to smash capitalism rather than blame their parents for making bad decisions to pursue money rather than human love and parenting and contact, which is kind of what matters in the world in the long run.
	So that, to become a left, is pretty easy.
	Be abandoned as a kid, grow up in a relatively wealthy environment and unconsciously believe that capitalism stole mommy and daddy from you.
	And anybody who says resources are limited is a strangler.
	Like, as if you and I said, well, we want to deprive oxygen from some guy, it would mean we're going to strangle him.
	We're literally going to choke him, or we're going to put a plastic bag over his head, right?
	And it would be a murderous intention to say, We want to deprive someone of oxygen.
	If you say the welfare state is a moral abomination, it's destroying society by undermining the family that protects children.
	We have a couple of generations now raised under situations of extraordinary levels of child abuse.
	Seriously, no kidding, extraordinary levels of child abuse.
	Because single moms...
	With some exceptions, mostly theoretical, but let's just say for the sake of argument, some exceptions.
	Single moms cannot protect their children.
	Single moms cannot protect their children.
	Children If the father is gone and there's a man living in the house who's not related to the child, the child is over 30 times more likely to be abused.
	30 times more likely to be abused.
	So you have the welfare state, which drives the man out of the home.
	You have feminism that makes women undateable and unlivable with.
	And you have pornography, which allows men to, and women of course, but to a large degree men to satisfy sexual urges without being in a relationship.
	All of this destroys the family.
	The family being destroyed is pretty bad for the adults, but it's absolutely catastrophic for the children.
	I mean, if you look at the immigrant gang rapes in the UK and other places, the single moms can't protect these kids.
	They just can't. And if you look at rising rates of childhood obesity and addiction and promiscuity and so on, it's just, maybe it would be the case of single dads too, but they're too small a number numerically to really study.
	But single moms, they cannot protect their children.
	That's the job. Of the husband, of the father, to do that.
	And so right now, we have hundreds of millions of kids across the West who've grown up under situations of extraordinary child abuse and neglect and abandonment, violence and child rape and pedophiles all over the place.
	A lot of the guys who want to date single moms want to date single moms in order to get access to their kids.
	You can just look at Woody Allen for a really grim example of this kind of stuff, in my opinion.
	So, unfortunately, we've just got such a traumatized group of individuals that society is not sympathizing with, is not apologizing to, to say, I'm so sorry that we ended up wrecking the family and exposing you to this pedophile or this child predator or this child abuser or whatever it is.
	We're so sorry, we're going to rethink these things.
	No, no, no, it's all, you know, the single moms are heroes and it's the men who are bad who just abandoned and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, right?
	Right? So, no, you're right.
	Sorry, somebody just posted and said, probably also due to the child being genetically more distant from the non-biological father.
	Yeah, yeah, for sure. So, I mean, you're much less likely to abuse a child, particularly to sexually abuse a child if you grew up with that child.
	And the child is yours, much less likely.
	But the single moms, unfortunately, and again, this is not super common, but it's definitely there.
	They're kind of pedophile magnets because you can put up with a single mom in order to get access to her kids, particularly if she's down and broke and you have some money and can help support her.
	Sometimes it's even an unholy bargain that the single mom knows something about it, but is willing to put up with it in return for the money that she feels she needs to live.
	So, yeah, we have a giant mess to clean up.
	So, yeah, as far as the leftist stuff goes, and, of course, the leftist as well, you know, very pro.
	I don't know how to put it as nicely as possible.
	And if there is a nice way to put it, they seem to be pretty pro-pedophile.
	And I think that that's one of the things that's going to happen is they're going to try and normalize.
	Well, they have tried in the past. A bunch of French intellectuals in the 60s signed a document trying to lower the age of consent to 12 because they wanted to remove the stigma of pedophilia.
	And so, to me, anybody who talks about breaking up the family is suspect, as far as I'm concerned.
	It means that, well, why do you want to break up the family?
	Well, we've got to get the men out of the house.
	Well, why do you want to get the men out of the house?
	Dot, dot, dot. So we can get access to the kids!
	You know, it always seems to me to be going that way.
	And all of these new societal measures that have been put in since the 60s all seem to give child abusers greater access to children.
	I don't know if that's just a...
	Coincidence. Or not so much of a coincidence, though.
	We'll see as it goes out.
	But, of course, a number of the people who are hard leftists as well get arrested for child pornography charges, get arrested for other sorts of child predation charges.
	There was a guy who was running the...
	It was a judge in America who was running one of the drag queen story hours.
	An LGBTQ activist just got arrested or charged with a bunch of child pornography stuff.
	Again, not convicted yet, but it just seems to be pretty good.
	The hard-left terrorists seem to have pretty troubled relationships with children, to put it mildly.
	So, unfortunately, it is one of these cycles in society that's pretty grim.
	Don't forget to unmute. Sorry, I didn't mean to tell you your job.
	Thank you, Stefan. Jan Kokofram asks, in regards to Slovenian normies slowly waking up to the leftist monopoly of media and state institutions, what practical steps does Stefan think can be offered to the public to counter this reality?
	It's a good question.
	So, I mean, it's a tipping point that I've sort of been mulling over for the last couple of years, because it wasn't exactly too tough to see that.
	A train coming down the tracks to deplatform me.
	So the question is, do you stay in fight or do you build something new?
	That's always the big question when it comes to these kinds of fights.
	Do you stay in fight or do you build something new?
	Now, the best cure for leftism is unfortunately and inevitably the collapse of the currency.
	Because it's the currency, the money system, central banking, debt, bonds, inflation controls, you name it.
	All of that...
	Gives leftists the delusion that resources are infinite.
	Because you can just borrow more, you can print more, you can, you know, lend more and all of that.
	So, leftists have this delusion that resources are infinite.
	The only cure for that is to remind them that resources are finite.
	And the only way that you can do that is, well, that that will happen to them is through the collapse of the currency.
	Now, currencies, the U.S. dollar is right at the end of its life cycle.
	That's the U.S. democracy is right at the end of its life cycle.
	You get 250 years out of a democracy and certainly out of a currency, the one exception being the British pound sterling lasted 400 years, with the minor caveat that it's lost 98% of its value over that time.
	So when the currency collapses, people are very grimly reminded that resources are finite.
	I mean, look at Venezuela, right?
	Look at when the currency collapses.
	Look at the Weimar Republic.
	Look at the French Revolution.
	Look at the late Rome where they had 95% crap in the gold coins.
	When the currency collapses, then you go from this delusion of infinite resources to there's nothing on the supermarket shelves.
	It's not a soft landing.
	I mean, my whole goal was to try and create somewhat of a soft landing.
	That was the purpose of being somewhat supportive of Trump was that Trump was supposed to try and angle the U.S. out of a hard fall and into a sort of soft recovery and that kind of stuff, right?
	So that was scotched, right?
	So when the...
	Like, it's all fine and well to be a feminist and to rail against the patriarchy, but when you run out of groceries and there are armed gangs in the street, guess who the women are looking for?
	You know, suddenly they're not such feminists anymore because they need a strong man to protect them from the problems, the scarcities and the coercion that might be roaming around in society.
	So the cure for all delusions...
	It's either death or hitting bottom, right?
	That's the only cure to delusions.
	Most people won't voluntarily give up their delusions.
	They hang on to them like grim death.
	So in terms of what do we do?
	Oh, the media is very dominated by leftists and so on.
	Well, it depends whether you're what's called an accelerationist or not, right?
	An accelerationist is like, let's just get this band-aid off, man.
	Let's get this damn thing over with.
	You know, the sooner the better. The sooner the better, because the longer things go on in this delusory stage, the worse it's going to be when we have to correct ourselves, right?
	Because, you know, if you're heading to the ground as a pilot, if you pull up the stick soon enough, you can have some kind of rough landing.
	But if it's too late, it doesn't matter.
	You go in, you know, John F. Kennedy Jr.
	style, straight into the ocean or wherever, right?
	So it depends whether you're an accelerationist or not.
	Now, whether you're an accelerationist, which is, let's just make the system crash as quickly as possible so that we can rebuild.
	Okay, then you bring the wrecking ball, right?
	Now, whether you're an accelerationist or not doesn't really matter anymore, because COVID has made the acceleration happen whether you like it or not.
	Because I don't know how things are in Slovenia in particular, but I mean, in America in particular, and in Canada too, Canada's debt to GDP ratio is now, what, 300 plus percent?
	It's even north of Japan, which is saying something.
	In America, 40% of all the dollars in existence just got created in the last 12 months.
	And this is part of the deplatforming and the Bitcoin price rise and all of that is one of these, you know, I'm not sure which way is up anymore.
	There's good and bad in the whole situation.
	but if people deny scarcity because they can create whatever they want by typing whatever they want into their own bank account, the only way to cure them of that delusion is for the system that supports that delusion to end and for them to say, oh, wow, this is what happens when we run out of things. the only way to cure them of that delusion is Now, when you run out of things, you have to make tough decisions.
	And the whole point of leftism is wild aggression against anybody who says we have to make tough decisions because they don't believe any decisions need to be made that are tough because resources are infinite.
	So you just hand them out like Santa Claus, right?
	So I used to be, I started off as an accelerationist and then I became, let's try and find a peaceful way out of this, which was always my goal.
	And now it's been ripped out of our hands.
	I mean, the system is eating itself at such a ferocious pace that the current system can't last much longer.
	And it's just hopefully a matter that we can tell people what happened and why so they can choose freedom rather than the state when the currencies begin to go down.
	Yeah, I wanted to ask you this, because at least it sounds similar.
	In 1991, I was a child back then, Slovenia got independent from Yugoslavia, and we all fought and we were all taught that we were going away from the Communism.
	And the right-wing story or the narrative is that in 1945, communists killed our Slovene elites.
	Many people got killed, many people got away to America, to Argentina, or wherever, into the world.
	And this probably changed our national character and so forth.
	But according to the ex-big communist, Gilas, who wrote a book, new elites formed, new communist elites formed.
	That's why the situation in Slovenia nowadays is similar to Canada or to the United States.
	But what I wanted to say is that part of the narrative of the right-wing in Slovenia is also that the so-called lustration didn't happen in 1991.
	We tried to democratically incorporate communists in our everyday life.
	So we just...
	We supposedly got away from communism, but we said to the communists, okay, you just have to play to act Democrats and everything will be fine.
	What communists did is they took over the country once again, and they own it through...
	The Slovene version of corporativism, of course, this is the situation of...
	Yeah, and this is what I meant with a situation being similar to...
	But you will always end up with communism if you have two conditions.
	The first condition is government control of education and the second condition is government control of currency.
	Because if the government controls education, the children will be propagandized into believing that they need the state, that the state is the source of all good things.
	It's the source of security, of health care, of education, of protection, of sucker for the old and the infirm and the aged.
	It is necessary for roads.
	It is necessary for national self-defense.
	It is necessary, necessary.
	Of course, the government that raises you is going to teach you how necessary the government is.
	And, of course, the government that raises you has to hide the very foundational nature.
	Of the educational system.
	Because the very educational system is funded when it's run by the government, which it is just about everywhere.
	The educational system is funded on violence, right?
	People are forced to pay a perpetual tax on their property, whether directly through ownership or indirectly through part of their rental fees.
	Governments take that money by force, right?
	And then the teachers, whose salary is paid by force, then goes around nagging the kids, saying, well, you shouldn't use force to get what you want.
	Don't push that kid and take their banana.
	That's wrong. It's immoral.
	You can't use force to get what you want.
	So the system has to lie about itself, top to bottom, back to front.
	It has to pretend that it somehow runs on benevolence, or it's somehow democratic, or the government just has a bunch of resources that it hands out like some rich uncle.
	That it's a Fezziwig, you know, from A Christmas Carol.
	Just this wonderfully generous entity that just hands out money to the arts and just has all this money.
	They can never, ever tell you that taxation is force instead of violence.
	They can't ever tell you the truth about the system.
	And not only would they not tell you the truth about the system, but I know this from my own experience.
	I was still in high school when I began to learn about the true nature of the state.
	You bring that stuff up and they'll just...
	They'll hang you out to dry.
	They'll punish you.
	They'll mock you down.
	They'll give you detention. Like, you get seriously punished for mentioning any of the basic moral truths about your environment.
	And, you know, I said earlier, we, you know, like with docs, we bond with balloons, we bond with the person, we bond with hopefully the mother duckling or whatever, or the mother duck.
	So kids bond with the state, and they also can't imagine that their parents would put them into a violent institution that's a prison for children.
	They can't imagine that.
	So they have to say, well, I mean, it's good, it's true, it's right, it's honest, it's...
	And, of course, the government will teach you that if the government doesn't do it, it just won't get done.
	So if the government educates children, if the government doesn't educate children, no children will be educated.
	But just the same argument as saying, well, if we free the slaves, nobody's going to pick the food, nobody's going to pick the vegetables, nobody's going to pick the cotton, and we'll all starve and freeze to death.
	If the government doesn't do it, it won't get done.
	If the slaves don't do it, it won't get done.
	And of course, it will get done infinitely better.
	So, on the one hand, the rulers are never going to teach you the true nature of power, of course, because once you see the true nature of power, they can't rule you.
	Fundamentally, we can only rule ourselves.
	We can't be ruled by other people.
	We have to attack each other and pull each other down and call each other racist, and that's how they win, right?
	Get us to fight amongst ourselves and We're good to go.
	So all narratives which serve the state, we must attack each other for.
	And you see this on Twitter, you see this on Facebook, everywhere.
	You deviate from the standard orthodoxy that serves the needs of those in power.
	You don't get a call from the cops.
	You don't get dragged in front of a magistrate.
	You don't get deplatformed right away.
	What happens is your fellow slaves attack you for questioning the virtue of slavery.
	And they've got us so well trained that we just turn on each other all the time.
	So... When the government runs education, they have to hide the nature of the state power.
	They have to pretend that the state is benevolent and wonderful and great, in which case, well, why wouldn't you want more of it?
	I mean, on what possible ground?
	Like, they've never taught you any of the dangers of the state, except Nazism, right?
	Because, you know, that's associated with white nationalism and blah, blah, blah, right?
	Even though Nazism was defeated by white countries.
	But anyway, so they're not going to teach you the true nature of power.
	They're not going to teach you the true nature of political violence.
	They're not going to teach you the true nature of those who rule you.
	Of course not.
	And they're going to pretend that everything they do is benevolent and wonderful.
	So why on earth wouldn't you want more of it, right?
	And so that's on the one hand.
	Now, on the other hand, if you've got the government controlling the currency, then the government can create the illusion that it's adding economic value to the situation.
	And when the government can just create and print money and control interest rates, then it can continually, well, not continually, a certain amount of mathematical impossibility follows eventually, but it can pretend that it is generating just wonderful value And why wouldn't you want all of this wonderful value that the government is bringing to you, this benevolent institution filled by wonderful people who just want everyone to be happy and seem to have an infinite supply of resources?
	Why wouldn't you want? Any of that, right?
	So if the government controls the educational system, the government controls the currency, it's just a matter of time.
	And that's why you can't, you know, the currency is being undermined by massive overprinting at the moment and the competition of Bitcoin.
	And so I've been quite interested in the Bitcoin stuff again lately.
	But yeah, it's not, you know, the same thing happened in Poland.
	They tried to reintegrate the The communist judges still got to continue.
	I mean, that's not what happened in Germany after the Nazis.
	After the Nazis, they had all denazification process.
	But when communism leaves a country, it's like, oh yeah, come on back in.
	I'm sure you've seen the errors of your ways.
	You'll be reformed and so on.
	But no, the communists don't change.
	They don't reform and they can't be reasoned with.
	What if we change the definition of the concept of the government into being a tool for the preservation of ethnicity, for example, so that The viewers asked a couple of comments before.
	Who will protect the ethnic group if we don't have the state in the world full of states?
	Well, no, but you have to understand if your goal is some sort of protection of an ethnic group, the state is impossible.
	You can't have the state. You can't have the state because the state is the avenue by which resources are redistributed away from whoever you like to whoever you don't like.
	I mean, without a doubt.
	I mean, you could see this very clearly.
	There was a guy coming up from Mexico into America, was just interviewed today, and they said, well, why are you coming?
	He said, because Biden's offering free stuff.
	Would you have come if President Biden hadn't been elected?
	Well, no. If Trump was still in, no, he wouldn't come.
	So they're coming for free stuff.
	Now, how do they get the free stuff?
	They don't get the free stuff through charity.
	They don't get the free stuff through any mechanism other than the power of the state.
	The state has the power to take money from you, to take money from your children, and to hand it to all the groups who can make it across the border.
	And so the original American experiment was people fleeing tyranny for freedom in America.
	Now it's people fleeing their countries of origin.
	Like a third of the entire population of El Salvador has emptied out and gone to America.
	And they're not coming there for freedom.
	We know that because three-quarters of them end up on welfare and the rest of them are probably taking other forms of government subsidies.
	They get their free health care.
	They get their free education. They get all of this wonderful stuff from the American taxpayer.
	Right? And as soon as you have a state that can redistribute income, which is basically what the state does, then at some point people will take it over and they will invite people in who vote for the left.
	And in America's case, it happens to be the people from Mexico and Guatemala and Belize and other, maybe Belize not so much, but Mexico, Guatemala, Brazil, other places.
	They will try, Honduras, they will try and get those people in because guaranteed 80 to 90% of those people are going to vote for the left.
	So it's just a form of vote buying.
	And so if you're going to say, well, we've got to protect our ethnic interest or whatever, then as soon as you have a state, how can you guarantee that the state is always going to be run by people of your ethnicity?
	Well, you can't. You can't.
	And so what happens if people who are opposed to your ethnicity gain control of the state?
	You're not going to do very well, are you, as we can sort of see?
	I understand the logics of this because the right-wingers have been mocking the so-called right-wing parties in Slovenia when they'd be...
	Trying to propose policies that would change the demographics, for example, that would promote Slovenes to have more children and so forth.
	And they'd be mocking them in the sense that, yeah, the Slovenes would be working for this subsidies and the foreigners.
	Ethnically foreign people who are also citizens would be coming to take these subsidies and have more children.
	This is basically the oversimplification, but yeah, this is how the red-wingers or the ethno-nationalists have been mocking the so-called red-wing parties in Slovenia.
	I mean, this is the Hungarian experiment, right, where if you have a bunch of kids by the age of 25, you don't have to pay income tax and stuff.
	But they are lucky because they are ethnically homogenous, or at least more ethnically homogenous than, for example, Slovenes.
	Slovenes have nowadays...
	We are not allowed to count ourselves anymore, for example.
	The governments don't let us count ourselves.
	So it's basically civic nationalism all the way in Slovenia.
	But the problem, as I see it, is not in the state itself, the definition of the state itself does not contain the so-called privileges or the fact that the majority of European countries have been founded on The will of the ethnos.
	So if there weren't for the will of the ethnos, there would be no states in Europe.
	For example, the Slovene state is founded on the will of the Slovene people.
	This is what says our constitution.
	Right. Of course it does, because, you know, they want to pretend that the state is somehow what everyone chose at some point.
	That's why they call it a social contract.
	It's not a social contract. You don't choose the state.
	You're born into it and you're exploited by it.
	And if you want to look at Europe, just look at the 20th century.
	I mean, 10 million people killed in Europe in the First World War, 40 million killed in the Second World War.
	The Spanish flu facilitated by troops returning from the First World War killed another country.
	10 million or so.
	And if you look at the death toll of communism, which is only enacted through the power of the state, right?
	The governments are taken over by the communists, and then they use the power of the state.
	You've got another 70 million people killed through communism.
	Some people say it's high. Well, that's just in Russia, 100 million people around the world.
	So if the governments are there to protect Europeans, it seems pretty tough to make the case that this is actually happening.
	Yeah, the question, can I ask Stefani if he's familiar with the work of Spendrell on bio-Leninism to describe the New Left, especially intersectionalism?
	I don't know bio-Leninism.
	I do know that there's a whole series of work that I did on the genetics of left and right.
	So I'll just mention that briefly.
	Oh, and people are saying, where are my videos?
	So you can go to freedomain.com forward slash connect to find where my videos are.
	And you can also go to fdrpodcast.com.
	You can do a search, a great search engine there.
	The videos will be below once you find them.
	They're almost all back up on the web somewhere.
	There is, in biology, there's a difference between what's called R and K selection.
	So our selected creatures, think of a rabbit, right?
	What does a rabbit do? Rabbit has tons of babies, and they just have kids, have kids, eat, eat, eat, and the only thing that limits them is either running out of food or predators, right?
	They just expand, expand, expand, and they have short maturation periods, they largely abandon their young, they have a high birth cycle, and they just expand, expand, expand.
	Now, if you look at something like, it's called K, K selection.
	K selection is small number of children, high parental investment, lots of knowledge to transfer, and you're not limited by anything other than your own skill.
	I mean, you may be limited to some degree by the presence of prey and so on, but you're not limited in the same way.
	And so you think of a wolf, is K selected, the rabbit is R. I remember rabbit R. That's my way of doing it.
	So R versus K selection is really, really important.
	And if you have a population, and there are human beings, various human groups, it's not necessarily race or ethnicity, it could be any number of things, they exhibit R versus K. Predilections or ways of functioning.
	So the R, they just have a bunch of kids.
	They mature early. There tends to be a lot of child abuse, child sexual abuse in particular.
	There tends to be father absence, which promotes earlier menstruation on the part of the girls and so on.
	There tends to be high impulsivity and behavior, lots of addiction and so on.
	That's just R selected.
	Kind of live for the moment. Don't think about the future and just expand until you run out of resources.
	And that's really fueled by fiat currency and money printing and so on.
	Case selection tends to be have fewer kids, high parental investment, strong bond between the parents, planning, forethought, management of resources, and all that kind of stuff.
	And that tends to be between the left and the right.
	There are, in fact, even genetic markers.
	In fact, a lot of people's political opinions are significantly genetic.
	I mean, in twin studies, they found that between 60% and 70% of views in immigration are genetic.
	And so you understand that to call people who oppose you politically just Nazis or far-right extremists or whatever, it is actually a form of genetic discrimination, that there is a significant amount of political perspectives that are informed by genes.
	And you can search for Freedom and Gene Wars.
	There's a whole series of videos and interviews I did explaining this in more detail.
	But I hope that that helps people sort of understand that when we're talking about the left and right, it's not just a battle of ideas.
	There are actually genetic factors involved, and this is why the fights tend to be so bitter.
	Stefan, did you ever read about near-reaction Menchus-Molbach, for example?
	I think it's a step further from anarcho-capitalism.
	I've heard the term Enzius Moldbug because it's so hard to ignore the power of that name.
	But no. Bio-Lenism, in short, means the left using those who are not able to be successful or have high status without discriminating against those who are capable members and use them to revolt and get votes.
	Well, for sure. So this is work that I did some years ago that...
	For Hispanics, there tends to be, on average, lower IQs than, say, for East Asians, and these differences have persisted, I think, last count for six generations.
	And so when you get a group coming in, like Hispanics, into America, the second generation will do much better than the first generation, but it tends to peak out after that and still below the average of the society.
	Now, whether that's genetic, whether that's environment, whether that's diet, I don't know.
	And it doesn't really matter in the moment, because even if we found out it was 100% environment, we still couldn't fix it for a couple of generations, right?
	Because it takes a while for this stuff to change.
	So... So what happens is you, or the way that women work.
	Women are fantastic at certain things, wonderful at certain things.
	They love women to death. Some things they're just not good at.
	They lack up a body strength at the highest levels of IQ. There are very few women.
	And so what happens is you have people who have significant average differences.
	This is the left, right? This is what they do.
	It's kind of a boring repetition thing that they do.
	In the human ecosystem, everybody's good at something, everybody's bad at something.
	Everybody's good at a bunch of things, everybody's bad.
	I can do shows like this until I fall over, but when it comes to three-dimensional chess, it's not my thing.
	It's not my thing. I think they're really good at stuff and bad at stuff.
	And what you do is you say there are disparate groups like men and women, various ethnicities, and so on.
	And then you say, well, every conceivable difference in outcome is all to do with racism, bigotry, prejudice, and evil.
	Right? And there's no curiosity about ways to talk about these kinds of things.
	Like, why are there not that many East Asians in American basketball?
	Right? Why?
	Why? Well, the left would say, well, because of racism.
	Now, other people would say, well, it may be the fact that blacks have these amazing fast-fire muscles on their legs and narrower hips, which makes for better running.
	It could be that East Asians tend not to be quite as tall.
	I mean, it could be, you know, there are other things that we could talk about that would help cool and calm the tensions.
	That the left is constantly needling and saying, well, if there's any disparity in group outcomes, it's all 100% to do with racism and bigotry, and there's no other possible explanation.
	When did they lose all the humor?
	For example... I remember when...
	I'm not really fond of him because he's a communist, or at least...
	Wait, who? Slavoj Žižek.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah. He said that...
	Yeah, he once went to Croatia and told this anecdote to the host that in Axioslavia, all these different ethnicities, they went to the same...
	To the same army and they would all somehow connect and everything would be fine before the 90s when the war started and so forth.
	But his point was they did it with humor and the humor, he said, was...
	a little bit politically incorrect for example we used to to say to Bosnians that they were They're stupid.
	The Bosnians were stupid in ex-Syroslavia.
	And we all laughed. Even Bosnians laughed to that.
	The Montenegrins were lazy.
	And so forth and so forth.
	When I was younger, I used to think that the left wing was cool.
	Well, no, but see, they use humor.
	Humor is a tool you use to get power.
	Because when you're outside of power, then you mock and you joke and you make fun of and you undermine so that you can discredit your opponents and look cooler in comparison.
	But then when you get power, you don't need to make jokes anymore because you have the power that the jokes were designed to get you to.
	It's like saying, why does a rocket drop stages?
	Well, because it doesn't need them anymore.
	It's already gotten high enough.
	A little bit off topic and a little bit about philosophy.
	Once again, what we started with in the beginning, I hosted many times Jared Taylor and, you know, Dr.
	E. Michael Jones. Did you have Dr.
	E. Michael? I've not had him on my show, but I'm aware of him, though not very well aware of him.
	But sorry, go ahead. Yeah, I consider myself a Catholic, and Dr.
	E. Michael Jones is a Catholic intellectual, but I know his argument, although I don't always agree with his definition of...
	Well, he says, as opposed to Jared Taylor, that ethnicities exist, but races don't.
	He says, yeah, races don't exist, ethnicities do, because ethnicities have this part of them, which is language.
	For example, you are born into a tribe that speaks a certain language, and this is ethnicity.
	And he says that you're not aware of the fact that you're part of a race up till the moment...
	You, for example, you and your racial co-bodies meet another race, for example.
	But I never fully understood his argument.
	What would you say in the context of what we spoke in the beginning?
	Yeah, so, I mean, without a doubt, I mean, this is a pretty boring observation, but I'll mention it anyway.
	It's a prelude to something else.
	So, without a doubt, the races grew up geographically separate.
	I mean, there's no question of that.
	I mean, particularly sub-Saharan Africa.
	I mean, Sahara is kind of a bitch to get across, as far as I can imagine.
	So, we evolved with...
	And the more different the races, the further the geographical separation.
	Yeah. And my concern is not with races living together.
	My concern is races living together when there's enormous political profit from setting races against each other.
	That's the big issue.
	You know, races living together, I could care less, right?
	But when you have a state, then you have, through the races, a very powerful mechanism of divide and conquer, of setting people against each other.
	And that, to me, is the big issue.
	That is the big, big issue.
	Race and racism is just...
	And I say this, of course, having been called a racist and all these kinds of things, right?
	But it's such a powerful tool for divide and conquer that when you have the state plus...
	We're just so easy to pit against each other for a variety of reasons.
	And that, to me, is the major concern.
	And that's why I don't think that a diverse and multicultural society will ever be able to successfully shrink the power of the state in sort of peaceful and reasonable means, because we're just so easy to stand against each other for various reasons that...
	It seems hard that we can...
	I have much more in common with my black brother and sister than I do with some white guy who's got political power over me, but that's pretty hard to see when we're so easy to set against each other.
	Me and Dr.
	John spoke about some examples from the American society.
	I watched last year a video on YouTube, probably.
	There was a group of...
	Probably ten black people coming towards a white dude, and they wanted to attack him.
	I don't know, it could be that it was seen, but the white dude said, oh no, no, I'm not white, I'm Jewish, for example.
	And Dr. E. Michael Jones says that it could be done the same way, For Catholics, and that he did it.
	It's a tool to steal the identity, to talk about races.
	And that you could always say, similarly to the Jewish guy, that, no, no, no, I'm not white, I'm Catholic, for example.
	Right, right. No, and so that, I mean, that's a very interesting observation.
	A similar thing happened with one of the Weinstein brothers confronted by a black woman on Clubhouse where he said, well, I'm Jewish and therefore she said, oh, so you're white and spicy or white spicy or something like that.
	And there is that kind of, do they feel more white?
	Do Jews feel more white? Do they feel more Jewish?
	You know, I've heard it certainly both ways.
	But the problem is also pattern recognition, right?
	So Hispanics and blacks tend to vote Democrat, or they tend to vote for the left for a variety of reasons.
	And so when you start to say that ethnic identity and political and or philosophical beliefs are co-joined, then you have a big problem.
	And you saw this in the last election, Joe Biden literally saying, if you don't vote Democrat, then you're not black, right?
	That black identity is a particular political perspective.
	And only that.
	And if you don't have that particular political perspective, you're not black, right?
	Jewish people tend to vote significantly Democrat in the elections.
	And Christians, of course, evangelical Christians tend to vote for the right.
	So... These are patterns which, again, you'd have to not be a human being to not notice these patterns or not be alive or something like that.
	So this is another thing when particular political beliefs manifest in particular ethnicities to such a high degree, again, exacerbates tensions.
	If you want border control, if you want less mass immigration, if you want a smaller government and lower taxes...
	Then I can pretty much guess your ethnicity and your religion.
	And if you vote for the left, I can, you know, more women.
	I even know whether a woman is married or not, but whether she supports the Democrats because married women tend to support Republicans and single women tend to support Democrats because the government can be their provider.
	So with these kinds of patterns, it's just another reason to be hostile.
	So if you're a black guy and you look at a white evangelical Christian, then you're going to dislike him because you want, you know, a bigger welfare state, you want whatever, like the Democrats are offering as the bribe du jour.
	And that just, whereas if we didn't have a state, we could, you know, you wouldn't have these identities inflicted in general and in a collective, and we could probably get along a whole lot better.
	Alright, I've got another minute or two, but I really appreciate the conversation.
	Great questions from you and the audience.
	Yeah, um...
	Okay. Another interesting question.
	Stefan, isn't it time to make your peace with the fact that the state will always exist?
	I feel that... Isn't it time to make your peace with the fact that the state will always exist?
	So, I feel that's a bit of a leading question.
	That is not a question coming from a wide swath of intellectual curiosity.
	No, I'm... It's not, it's philosophy is not about making a peace with anything.
	Oh my god, I mean, make peace with anything, I'd still be on YouTube, right?
	So no, philosophy is not about making a peace with anything.
	It's simply about accepting the fact and accepting the truth.
	The state doesn't exist. The state does not exist.
	You say, the state will always exist.
	No. The state exists as an idea in people's minds and people's minds can be changed.
	Through reason, through bitter experience, through hitting bottom, through death, and, you know, the old saying in science that science advances one funeral at a time because it takes time for the old scientists to give way and the new scientists to make their case.
	The state is just a concept.
	It's an idea in people's minds.
	Like, slavery was a concept and an idea in people's minds.
	The category called slave was just a concept and an idea in people's minds, and it changed.
	And it changed. And human beings are capable of changing their minds.
	I'm a free will guy. And I would say that if you believe the state will always exist, you're merely confessing to me that you're very bad at changing people's minds.
	Okay, that's fine.
	You don't have to be good at everything.
	But when I'm not good at things, I try not to make knowledge claims about them.
	So if you're not good at changing people's minds and therefore you think that people will always believe in the state...
	It's just a confession not about the future of humanity, but your own incompetence at changing people's minds, so you might want to look into that first.
	Talk about Hans Hermann Harpe.
	Yeah, pretty great guy.
	A pretty great guy. You know, he's one of these guys who's been floating around libertarianism forever.
	I think he's... Is he the boy toy of some countess out in Eastern Europe?
	Austria or something like that?
	I'm not exactly sure, but, you know, I've never read one of his books.
	I've read a couple of his articles.
	I've seen a couple of his interviews.
	I'm not a fan that he's a fan of spanking, but, you know, for the most part, he seems like a great guy and, you know, more power to him.
	I wish people would...
	You know, if you have that level of skill and ability, you know, get out more in public.
	Well, I guess not that much anymore, but when you could.
	But yeah, seems like a great guy as far as I can tell.
	Yeah, the last question, I promise.
	This is what I always wanted to ask you.
	I remember when you hosted Noam Chomsky, and you called him fellow libertarian.
	What did you mean by that?
	So, yeah, so he's an anarchist, right?
	So, I know he doesn't like American political libertarianism, but he is an anarchist, and if he's an anarchist, then if he wants a left anarchism, which, you know, he's a left anarchist, right?
	Fantastic, you know, then he's not a statist, right?
	Now, if he's a statist, he's not an anarchist, but I've read some of his writings on anarchism, and he certainly is into voluntary solutions.
	Now, The way that he would configure the anarchism that he would like to be a part of is, you know, culty, collectivist, hypey stuff where nobody has any ownership and all of that.
	Hey, that's totally fine.
	You know, in a free society, you can have any number of experiments and people can very quickly realize how crappy that stuff is and how destructive it is and how these kibbutzes just don't work without subsidies, right?
	But as far as his criticism of American imperialism, his criticisms of state power, his criticisms of the Fed, his criticisms of oligarchies as a whole, fantastic.
	We're there. Now, the fact that he would say, well, I want a different anarchism than you...
	Well, that's like two straight guys saying, I want a different girlfriend from you.
	It's like, yeah, that's fine.
	It's totally fine. I don't want any sloppy seconds.
	I don't want to figure out those gymnastics.
	So, yeah, as far as that goes, I know he's pretty hostile to American political libertarianism.
	But as far as if he and I are both in an environment where we say, yeah, we don't want a government.
	And he says, well, yeah, but I want to have an environment where we don't enforce property rights.
	I'm like, sure.
	You know, if somebody wants to be a swinger, it doesn't mean my marriage can't be monogamous.
	We have this party in our parliament in Slovenia that's called Levitsat, which is basically the left.
	They're called the left and...
	They have this guy that's called Miha Kordish, and he calls himself a anarcho-syndicalist.
	So an anarchist, basically, similar to Noam Chomsky.
	Yeah, they want to own property in common.
	They want to have, you know, that scene from Monty Python and the Holy Grail, you know, with a series of executive orders, a ratifying officer.
	Hey, if you want to do all of that crap, do all of that crap.
	It's not going to work. It's going to totally fail.
	It's going to be a complete nightmare, and you'll learn your lesson.
	So there are always going to be those people.
	Now, those people are either going to be in charge of the government, or we're not going to have a government, because eventually they're going to be in charge of a government.
	Because to be a leftist means to be perpetually unhappy.
	It's really, really important to understand for people listening.
	To be a leftist is to be perpetually unhappy.
	Because if you can't think that your world is moral, as long as there are differences between ethnicities and men and women and races, and as long as there are any differences in group outcome, it means you live in a horrible, unjust society.
	You will never, ever be happy because you can never erase those differences.
	You can never completely...
	Like, just say male and female.
	You can never, ever completely erase those differences because there are biological differences between men and women.
	Muscle strength, skeletal strength, brain size, the fact that one of us gives birth and one of us doesn't.
	You just can't... The important thing to remember is that leftists are perpetually unhappy people.
	Now, the fact that they're unhappy people is why they're leftists.
	They didn't become leftists and then become unhappy.
	They're unhappy to begin with, for various psychological reasons.
	And then what they do is they gravitate towards the belief system that's going to make them reinforce and make permanent that unhappiness.
	So you're a miserable human being.
	You feel hard done by, you feel victimized, you know, probably for reasons of child abuse and all of that.
	And then because of that, you're drawn towards a belief system where you can never, ever be happy.
	Because then you can feel unhappy, which you always have been, but you can say that it's moral.
	That you're a good person because when you're faced with such structural racism and injustice and misogyny, then of course you're unhappy.
	And when you face climate change, it's going to erase the planet and destroy life and drown us all.
	But you're already anxious, miserable, unhappy, worried, resentful, scared, angry.
	And you have that cluster of destructive emotional personality situations.
	And then... Someone comes along and says, oh, here's the external justification for all of your misery, resentment, and unhappiness.
	And you're like, aha! So I don't have to deal with being miserable and unhappy and resentful.
	I can say that it's because I'm such a pure and high moral specimen of mankind that of course I'm unhappy because the only way I'll ever be happy is if the impossible occurs.
	Well, you've just sealed yourself in a tomb of misery for the rest of your life, and then when you blow your entire life in hot pursuit of the impossible...
	Then you can look back and say, well, life was just terrible.
	It's like, no, no, you believe the wrong things.
	This is a fundamental philosophy.
	Life is not terrible. You just have to believe the right things.
	You have to believe the true things. You have to believe the real things.
	You have to ask for proof and be skeptical.
	But when you already have a miserable personality and someone comes along and says...
	I can turn that misery into a justified virtue.
	You're like, oh, thank you.
	Now I don't have to deal with being miserable and I don't have to change being miserable and I don't have to show my friends who prefer me being miserable.
	I can just go march with everyone and pretend that my misery is because the world is unjust.
	It's like, no, no, you're a miserable person and you're just looking for justification.
	What I wanted to also say about this, the left and the Miha Kordis guy from Slovenia.
	The left from Slovenia is always behind all these NGOs, non-governmental organizations that get millions, millions from the government.
	Sure. And then they complain that the corporations exploit the workers.
	It's like, you know that you're taking your salary by force from the workers.
	You're the worst parasite that could possibly be imagined because it's not an essential service.
	You're using the power of the state to put a gun to the workers to strip them of their money and resources and time.
	And then you complain, well, you see, the capitalist takes the excess labor.
	Come on, you asshole.
	Jeez. They always pay their workers and their students the least.
	Of course. And they keep the majority of the unjustly acquired.
	They think that profit is unjust, but being the recipient of gun-extracted taxes is somehow the paragon of moral virtue.
	This is why they don't have to have consistency.
	It's all psychologically driven.
	They're miserable and unhappy people.
	And I don't know the solution is, other than, you know, look in the mirror, you don't have to be miserable, and once you learn how to not be miserable, then you won't be a leftist.
	You won't be drawn to that ideology.
	Right now, it's just, it's their crack, it's their drug, and it just makes them more and more...
	Like women. Women were happiest in the 1950s.
	Every single decade since then, they've been listening to the feminists, and they've gotten more and more and more and more and more miserable every single decade, statistically.
	And now, going back and saying, whoops, we made a huge mistake.
	Well, of course, the communists had to demonize the 1950s because it was really good for Christian society.
	I lied to you.
	One last question.
	Okay, one more, one more moment. One more.
	But this is really the last question.
	Poland. You went to Poland.
	You did a really great documentary.
	We all loved it.
	That's precisely why I was a bit, not disappointed, but surprised when I heard that it was Poland that banned Jared Taylor for coming into EU. What would be your comment?
	Well, I mean...
	I absolutely loved Poland, and my spiritual home these days is Eastern Europe.
	It's one of the reasons why it's great to have these kinds of conversations, Central and Eastern Europe.
	We never know what's going on behind the scenes.
	We never know if there happened to be some Polish politician who happened to visit Jeffrey Epstein and get filmed having sex acts with a goat.
	We never know.
	Honestly, we never know what's going on behind the scenes.
	Every time people have made incomprehensible decisions, and I've had some insight or even some revelation from them about why they made those decisions, It was always because of some pressure that had nothing to do with their belief system.
	We don't know who's compromised in Poland.
	We don't know what they have.
	And I love Poland.
	I can't even tell you.
	If people want to go see that, I'm in tears just at the beauty of the Polish stance against communism and so on.
	And the fact that I was safe there.
	I mean, where I travel, I face bomb threats, death threats, violence of all kinds.
	My audience gets attacked. Their buses get attacked.
	I mean, this is just life in the West when you're anti-communist.
	I go to Poland. I can walk the streets.
	I don't need security.
	I'm not afraid of getting stabbed when I'm peeing in a urinal.
	I can gather... At a pub, I had an evening of talking philosophy with people.
	I poured them drinks and fed them drinks, and we talked about ideas all night.
	It was beautiful. I couldn't do that in any other place that I'd ever been to, except I could do it also in Hong Kong, which has, of course, a very strong anti-communist.
	But I tell you, I wasn't going to be doing that in California, obviously, right?
	So, yeah, Poland was amazing.
	When it came to why they would ban...
	If I were the EU, I would want it to be Poland who banned Jared Taylor, right?
	Because it would go so much against the grain, it would cause division within the community that supports Jared Taylor or whatever it is, right?
	So my guess is that they simply found somebody in Poland who they had some significant leverage or pressure over or something to offer, right?
	You know, there's some carrot, some stick or some combination of the two.
	And it was part of their general sadistic pleasure to make Poland be the one who got Jared Taylor banned because, again, that harms the community of people who support both Poland and Jared Taylor.
	I know that they're not the same community or whatever it is, right?
	So, I would say that it was not an objective evaluation of Jared Taylor, who is a scholar and a gentleman and does some fantastic work with data and statistics, was educated at the Sorbonne, and I've never seen him lose his temper.
	He's certainly better than me that way, because I used to lose my temper on a regular basis.
	But I know, I guarantee you, it was not any kind of objective thing.
	It was just a special, sadistic thing from the EU to make sure that it was Poland who did it and no one else.
	Stefan Molyneux, the star, probably the first YouTube star many Slovenes had.
	I hope you will still do your philosophy show for many years, sadly not on YouTube.
	But when you said you're on beat shoot and you have your own side free domain radio, it's been a Pleasure.
	And I've been really delighted to accept my invitation.
	I hope we can speak some other time again.
	I'd be very happy to. And Aleš, I really appreciate the invitation.
	It was a great pleasure to chat.
	Maybe we'll get to meet in person one day.
	If and when all of these crazy restrictions lift.
	And thank you so much for the invitation and the time.
	It was a great pleasure. And keep me posted.
	We'll talk soon. Of course, if I can do a little commercial at the end.
	The NTA is a new media in Slovenia, national press agency.
	We started our media 10 days, 14 days ago, and we already have four to five Twitter accounts suspended.
	So we're doing...
	I was going to say good, but then bad.
	Yeah. Okay, guys.
	Thank you, Stefan.
	I hope we can see each other soon.

▲