Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

April 19, 2021 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux

04:30:31

GREATEST STEFAN MOLYNEUX LIVESTREAM EVER!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	I'm comfy. I'm going comfy.
	Full-on comfy, my friends.
	No shame.
	No embarrassment.
	I am on the softest and plushest couch known to mankind, with the softest and most plush, but known to the mid-50s.
	All right. What have we got here?
	Yes. Mmm.
	Saucy. And tasty.
	All right. How you guys doing?
	We'll get some chatty chats in a bit.
	But for now, we're just going to roll with some chat.
	And I'll give you guys a Telegram link and all kinds of cool stuff to do with that.
	And we will go with that.
	And let me just make sure everything's coming through all right.
	Fancy zebra pillow. That's right.
	I'm so smart. I had books coming out of my ear.
	Was curious about Bitcoin, but will it be there later?
	Yes, it will be. It will be.
	Hello from Rhode Island. Is this better than the chair?
	Yeah. Boy, do you remember when I was younger and I used to stand to do shows?
	Because, you know, I said standing is really healthy, which it is, but I don't know.
	I'm just feeling like flopping at the moment.
	So... When can we get a podcast from the car?
	I guess as soon as they un-Rubik's Cube it from wherever it is right now because that car, you know, you get those piles of bills and eventually it's just like, oh, forget it.
	I'll just get a new car, right? All right.
	Yeah, that's right. I should paint this wall red and get back into it.
	All right. So let's...
	Have you guys let me know? Hit me a Y. Give me a Y if you've been following the Derek Chauvin trial.
	Chauvin? Chauvin. Jeans or pajama bottoms?
	I think you're assuming something that you...
	You're assuming facts, not in evidence.
	I'm afraid to say so.
	Yes. Handheld microphone ear annexed.
	You know, I thought of that, but I thought if we're going to have a...
	Long, lengthy, deep, and involved old chitty chat.
	I don't want to sit there and hold a mic and look like I've turned a mechanical gay for a while.
	Not that there's anything wrong with that.
	So you've been following it, not completely?
	All right. So let's go over some of the facts about all of this.
	Oh, Tim Pool's been following this, right?
	It's his wheelhouse, I suppose.
	Okay, so beginning on March 8th, can you believe how long this trial's been going on?
	It's pretty wild. March 8th, state of Minnesota versus Derek Michael Chauvin seeks to establish whether or not former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin is guilty of unlawfully killing George Floyd during the infamous May 25th, 2020 arrest.
	Have you seen... It's a pretty good meme, actually.
	It's the dominoes leading to the larger dominoes.
	And the first domino is a store clerk saying, hey, I think this $20 bill looks counterfeited.
	And then the last domino is complete and utter destruction of the entire United States.
	So there were 11 days of trial, of prosecution.
	And listen, I just wanted to mention something, too.
	This is why the burden of proof is so high.
	I'll just tell you this right now.
	So the amount of resources that the government is bringing to bear on this is absolutely – they have teams, reams of experts.
	They have volunteers, all the social justice warrior lawyers and legal aides and all of that.
	And they just have been piling massive, ungodly amount of resources into this.
	And, of course, they've had a long time to prepare.
	In general, it does take about a year to prepare for a murder trial, maybe a year and a half.
	And Derek Chauvin has, like, what, one dude?
	Like one dude paid for by his union?
	It's pretty rough.
	It's pretty rough. Popular lawyers seem to believe feelings are going to win over facts with this jury.
	Well, that's because...
	Okay, we have an entire system that completely and totally has adapted to and relies for its profits on the dumbed-down idiocy of the unthinking population.
	This is why the media won't talk against teachers' unions, really.
	Because the media needs the teachers' unions to keep the population dumbed down because everybody who makes money in the media makes money because of their ability to manipulate the uninformed.
	So, of course, they don't want to inform people.
	This is why you have half of liberals thinking that the hospitalization rate for your garden variety COVID case is 50 plus percent.
	It's completely insane. Completely insane.
	So, yeah, the OJ trial, yeah, he was innocent to prevent riots and damage.
	Well, no, wasn't there a black power guy in the OJ trial and all that?
	Okay. Also, he went to the fact that OJ Simpson killed Nicole Brown Simpson so brutally, I believe, like sawed her head off or whatever, and the waiter who came to deliver her mom's glasses or whatever, Went against the race mixing stuff that's pushed so hard, right?
	Okay, so the prosecution, it's like David versus Goliath, prosecution versus defense.
	So there are three charges levied against Chauvin, second degree murder, third degree murder, and second degree manslaughter.
	So in order to get Chauvin charged, the prosecution must prove two things beyond a reasonable doubt.
	One, that Floyd died because of interaction with police.
	And two, that Chauvin used excessive and unnecessary force when restraining Floyd.
	So, for the first couple of days, I don't know why, why would people say, did you see this video when I'm in the middle of doing a live stream?
	I'm sorry, this is just such an odd thing to do.
	Hey, why don't I pause my live stream and go and check out your video because that seems like a productive use of everyone's time.
	I don't know, it's kind of funny. Maybe after.
	So, first couple of days of the trial were all about the feels, right?
	Various videos capturing the incident from different angles and numerous...
	Eye-watering testimonies from bystanders on the scene at the time.
	On day three of the trial, one of the bystanders broke down into tears while watching footage of the arrest.
	When asked what he was feeling, Macmillan spoke to the fact that Floyd had been calling for his mother as former Officer Shervin knelt on his neck.
	He didn't kneel on his neck.
	That's very well established at this point.
	So the bystander said, I feel helpless.
	I didn't have a mama either.
	I understand him. My mom died June 25th.
	So I mentioned this in the live stream recently.
	Average trial lawyer belief or expectation is that juries operate maybe 10 to 20% on facts.
	Maybe 10 to 20% on facts.
	The rest of it is all on the fields, right?
	So they may make people cry, they make people feel emotional, but it doesn't really advance the state's case on any evidentiary basis, right?
	One bystander whose testimony was noticeably absent from the trial.
	Anybody want to give me a name or a quote, occupation, alleged occupation of the bystander who had pretty close-up view of everything, who didn't end up providing any evidence?
	Does anybody want to take a spin and make a guess on that?
	Because that's pretty wild stuff.
	Yeah, the alleged drug dealer.
	So... I think that the defense was saying, oh, we're going to call on this guy who's going to talk about Floyd and all that.
	So this is a quote from an article.
	One bystander whose testimony was noticeably absent from the trial was Morris Hall, Floyd's drug dealer, who was in a car with Floyd at the time he was arrested.
	In the defense's opening statement, attorney Eric Nelson claimed that the jury would hear from Mr.
	Hall regarding evidence that while they were in the car, Mr.
	Floyd consumed what were thought to be two Percocet pills.
	Um... I don't know anything about Percocet other than painkillers are pretty good to stay away from.
	I don't even know if they're painkillers.
	I'm going to assume two Percocet pills is quite a lot.
	Does anybody know?
	I don't know if you guys know or not, but is that a lot?
	Seems like a lot, right? However, according to law and crime, Judge Peter Cahill denied Nelson's request to allow the jury to hear testimony about the statement Hall had previously made regarding what he and Floyd were doing leading up to the arrest.
	Yeah, undocumented pharmacist.
	Is it an overdose?
	A small amount for George. Well, he was a big guy, right?
	So the judge also ruled that Hall would not have to testify after the alleged drug dealer invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.
	Hall's defender, Adrian Cousins, claimed that if Hall were to testify, it could lead to a potential third-degree murder charge due to his alleged drug activity with Floyd leading up to the arrest, Daily Wire reported.
	So I think the way it works in Minnesota and other places as well is if you give drugs to someone, that person takes the drugs, and then that person dies, you can be guilty of manslaughter, right?
	So, Hall's lawyer, Cousins, told Cahill, the judge, that Hall couldn't answer any of the defense's proposed questions because he couldn't afford to place himself in the SUV that night and risk exposing himself to constructive possession charges.
	She pointed out that the vehicle was searched twice and drugs were recovered both times.
	Good job searching the first time.
	I just have nothing but confidence in these people.
	The state also could potentially charge him with third-degree murder under a provision that applies for drug overdoses.
	So, this is his lawyer.
	Let's say Mr. Chauvin is then acquitted.
	He, Hall, has now given the state on a silver platter testimony to use against him in a third degree murder charge.
	Then acquitted. Oh, oh, I see, I see.
	So, the reason why...
	Okay, I thought this was a mistake.
	So, the reason... I think this is right.
	The reason why this would occur is if...
	If Chauvin is acquitted, then the answer as to why George Floyd died is the drugs.
	And then the guy who gave him the drugs would be charged with the third-degree murder charge.
	What is it? Self-proclaimed greatest philosopher confounded by the mechanics of answering questions during livestream.
	Well, aren't you a bitchy little non-entity out there?
	What a crappy little thing to say.
	I'm just saying I'm not going to go and do, um, to watch a video while I'm in the middle of a live stream.
	That would just be weird, right? So, oh man, you are one man.
	You, you got, go and get your testosterone levels checked.
	Try and break the orbit of your single mother and go and rub elbows with a few people who work with their hands for a living because this, uh, uh, bitchy hyper feminine insult to women crap is, uh, what's going to get you beaten up one day.
	It really is. Well, I guess you're a tough guy on the internet, right?
	All right. So, Shawanda Hill, Floyd's friend and a passenger in the vehicle when he was arrested last May, I think this is his girlfriend, and she said that they both struggled with addiction, right?
	Testified that Floyd was happy, normal, talking, and alert when she saw him at the Cup Foods corner store.
	He offered to give her a ride, so she got into the back passenger side of the vehicle he was driving.
	Story employees came to the vehicle to discuss a suspected counterfeit $20 bill Floyd had used, but he was sleepy, hard to wake up, and wasn't that coherent, she testified.
	When police arrived to the vehicle, she again tried to wake up Floyd.
	So he's really, he's alert and all of that, and he goes to get cigarettes, I think it was, with this.
	I think the counterfeit bill was so bad, it was like literally wet, like it left ink on your hands, it was that bad.
	The store clerk went out and said, hey man, just give us cigarettes back.
	We'll call it a day. You know, lose-lose, whatever, right?
	But that's not what happened.
	That's not what went down. It was really pretty tragic.
	And so the police ended up having to be called.
	And I think it was a policy, not even up to an individual.
	So, okay, I'll engage.
	Hang on. Dear Lord, people say you are prissy and I have said you're not, but your projection here proves them correct.
	Oh my God.
	What a pussy-whipped form of communication.
	Holy pathetic passive aggression.
	Oh my God. You can stay.
	You can stay. I just think it's funny.
	Oh my God. All right.
	So... So Floyd was very...
	Oh, okay. So this is what the woman said.
	She said, I kept saying, baby, get up.
	The police is here. So he looked, and we looked to the right, and the police tapped on the window with the flashlight, she testified.
	When he seen the man, the man had a gun at the window when he looked back to him.
	So he instantly grabbed the wheel, and he was like, please, please don't kill me.
	Don't shoot me. Floyd was very startled by the police officer with his gun out, she said.
	He did not complain of shortness of breast or chest pains and was not acting abnormal, she testified.
	Um, not acting abnormal?
	That seems a bit odd to me. She says he's happy and relaxed, his normal self, and then he, what, takes these Percocets allegedly, and then he basically passes out, and he wakes up, and then he sees a gun, and of course he's going to freak out, right?
	Oh, is that right? The clerk would be out the 20 bucks, which is probably a lot for the young man?
	Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah.
	That is true.
	I remember when I was a kid, I borrowed somebody's Atari 2600 and he claimed that I... I was in my early teens.
	He claimed that I broke his joystick.
	I don't think I did.
	But then he demanded $10 to get a new joystick and I had to dodge the guy.
	I didn't have 10 bucks to my name. Are you kidding me?
	Crazy. Crazy.
	And here's the thing too. This is part of the media as well, right?
	So the media has driven so much of this stuff as they generally do.
	So the media... Makes black people terrified of cops by constantly saying, oh, the white cops are out there hunting.
	They're hunting the blacks.
	They're taking them down.
	They're murdering them in the streets and so on.
	This guy wakes up with a white cop and he just completely freaks out, right?
	Just completely freaks out.
	Okay, so the prosecution's case, they've put forward several co-workers and colleagues of Chauvin, all of whom believed his restraint of Floyd to be excessive.
	On day six of the trial, Minneapolis Police Chief Madeira Arredondo claimed that neck restraint used by Chauvin violated police procedure.
	Now, this is very interesting, right?
	Because I've seen that the shoulder restraint, it's called the neck restraint, but you absolutely do have, you can see very clearly it's on the shoulder blade, right?
	So... Oh, disk space remaining for recording, 69 hours.
	Okay, we should just make it.
	14 minutes, okay. Remind me in 69 hours and 13 minutes to start, right?
	So, if you look at all-time donations, you will see I'm at second place, but he's still hurting from being platformed, so he's lashing out.
	Have you learned nothing about mind reading from people?
	I don't know. You can just make up whatever motivations you want from people to justify any pushback on your silliness.
	Anyway, So, the enact restraint, as far as I understand it, was in the manual.
	So, here's the interesting thing. This is what the belief chief says, right?
	He says, that action is not de-escalation.
	And when we talk about the framework of our sanctity of life, and when we talk about the principles and values that we have, that action goes contrary to what we're taught.
	Now, talk about a goopy piece of nonsense, right?
	I mean, is not de-escalation.
	Well, I'm not sure what de-escalation means.
	If you have a 6'4", 220-pound guy fighting off four cops, he's on drugs, you're terrified.
	This is back last spring when everyone was terrified of coronavirus because the numbers weren't in yet.
	And I guessed before, and it was confirmed later, that George Floyd did tell the cops that he had COVID. He'd had COVID, so they were terrified of infection.
	So you've got this guy foaming and spitting and fighting, and he can't breathe, and he's freaking out, and he's screaming.
	How do you de-escalate from that?
	Well, you handcuff him, you put him on the ground.
	And here's the thing, too.
	You have to restrain somebody who's handcuffed.
	Because if, and they're fighting, right?
	If you comply, you're fine, right?
	But if you're handcuffed and you flee, you know what happens?
	You trip on something and because your hands are behind your back, when you fall, your face smashes and you can completely destroy your face, right?
	I'm sorry, this guy is too much fun.
	Not trolling. I'm just disappointed.
	It appears that many of Steph's haters were correct and I defended this clown.
	So disappointing. Oh no.
	Some anonymous guy is disappointed in me.
	That's really, really funny.
	That's really funny. Well, so Bitcoin, this wouldn't have happened, right?
	Because you can't counterfeit Bitcoin.
	And the government has made currency that's relatively easy to copy.
	See, George Floyd passes a $20 counterfeit bill and this is kind of what shakes out down the road.
	The Fed can print a trillion dollars a minute and that's totally legal and fine, right?
	The amateur criminals rob banks.
	The real professionals own the banks, right?
	So yeah, it's not de-escalation, of course.
	I mean, you're trying to calm a guy down who's been really violent.
	When we talk about the framework of our sanctity of life, what does that even mean?
	It doesn't mean anything at all.
	When we talk about the principles and values that we have, that action goes contrary to what we're talking about.
	That is just a cover-your-ass bunch of mealy-mouthed nonsense, right?
	So the prosecution, they got three main pranks of attack making the case.
	They got the emotionally compelling testimonies from bystanders, right?
	This happens immediately.
	This is all the way back to Trayvon Martin, all the way back to before.
	And isn't it funny and tragic that Donald Trump has to be excised from home alone too, but O.J. Simpson can stay in all the Police Squad movies, right?
	Anyway, so this emotionally compelling testimony, at the moment that, in particular, the black criminal dies, you know, they show pictures of him with their kids, they show pictures of him when they were 12, all this kind of stuff, right?
	It's really, really boring, really, really predictable, and incredibly violent, right?
	So... Emotionally compelling testimonies and the hagiography, the worship of George Floyd, who was a violent criminal who jammed a gun into a pregnant woman's belly in his hunt for drugs during an incredibly brutal home invasion, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Expert medical opinions and depositions from disillusioned colleagues and co-workers of Chauvin.
	So this is pretty, pretty important.
	And you should... The threatening of the mistrial from the judge and the reprimanding of the prosecution...
	For recalling a witness based on information they should have had for a long time when the defense witness was already on a plane out of there.
	You should look that up. I won't go into that here.
	It's pretty wild stuff. So when shown a picture of Chauvin on Floyd's neck, Inspector Katie Blackwell, who was the head of the training department at the time Floyd was killed, claimed Chauvin was not using a trained technique when he placed his knee on Floyd's neck.
	I don't know what kind of improvised position that is.
	It's not what we train, Blackwell said.
	So that's important, right?
	It's important that she says this is not what we train, right?
	So the third facet of the prosecution's argument involved expert media opinions, with the consensus between the experts called upon being that Chauvin's actions directly caused George Floyd's death.
	So, here we go.
	Let's talk about Dr. Martin Tobin.
	In regards to Chauvin's restraint, medical expert and pulmonologist, pulmonary, that's what heart and lungs kind of thing, oxygenation, asserted even a, quote, healthy person subject to what Mr.
	Floyd was subject to would have died as a result.
	So that's really, really important.
	This is their case against him, saying even a healthy person subject to what Mr.
	Floyd was subject to would have died as a result.
	That's a very certain statement.
	Right? That is a very, very certain statement that is made and that to me is kind of suspect.
	But, you know, again, I'm not a lawyer.
	I'm just some guy reading stuff and trying to reason through it.
	Because, you know, I mean, you and I, I don't think there's a lot of lawyers here, but you and I, when smart people, we'd be on the jury, we'd be hearing this stuff and trying to sort of puzzle it out, right?
	So forensic pathologist Lindsay Thomas also concluded that subdual restraint and compression led to Floyd's death and confirmed she had ruled out drug overdose as a cause of death.
	Now that's a pretty wild thing.
	To rule out drug overdose as a cause of death.
	Because the first guy who examined the body said that there was no evidence of neck compression or any constriction as far as that, no bruising, no, nothing like that, right?
	So, this is pretty wild.
	So, this forensic pathologist, Lindsay Thomas, the defense posed a theoretical question to Thomas, right, in Cross.
	Quote, you find a person at home, no struggle with the police, and the person doesn't have a heart problem, but you find fentanyl and methamphetamine in this person's system at the levels That they were at in George Floyd.
	Would you certify this as an overdose?
	Wow! Isn't that just wild?
	Isn't that just wild?
	Right? So that's the question.
	You find a person at home. And you find that they're dead, and you find fentanyl and methamphetamine in this person's system at the levels they were at in George Floyd, would you certify that as an overdose?
	And she said, yeah.
	Oh yeah. Absolutely.
	She said, in the absence of any of these other realities, yes.
	How, the rude word, do you rule out drug overdose as a cause of death and then say, well, if we found someone dead with this level of drugs in their system, it would be an overdose.
	Death. Oh my gosh.
	Isn't that wild? So, according to documents from the Hennepin County Medical Examiner's findings, Floyd had 11 NG per milligram, sorry, per milliliter of fentanyl in his system.
	So, 11 NG per ML. Nanograms per milliliters?
	I don't know. I grew up pre-metrics, so sorry about this.
	We got 11 ng per ml.
	Does anyone want to guess at what level you can be certified as an overdose?
	What level? We got 11.
	It just doesn't really matter what the numbers were.
	We got 11. What level has been previously certified as an overdose?
	Death. Anybody want to throw it?
	I'm sorry, I know we're a little bit delayed here, but anyone want to throw a number in here?
	We've got five, we've got seven.
	Anything else? I feel like a guy trying to sell some cattle.
	About three. Four to six.
	So, the deaths have been certified with levels of three.
	Right? So, the Hennepin County Medical Examiner told investigators...
	Back in the day, if he were found dead at home alone and with no other apparent causes, this could be acceptable to call an overdose.
	Deaths have been certified with levels of three.
	So he is almost four times the amount, right?
	In another document, the examiner, right?
	This is the medical examiner back in the day when they had access to the body and all of that.
	Is it milligrams per deciliter?
	Yeah, I know it's a concentrate. Yeah, for sure.
	Okay. So, in another document, the examiner, who actually examined the body, said, that is a fatal level of fentanyl under normal circumstances.
	Although he added, I'm not saying this killed him, because, you know, everybody's terrified.
	And, you know, it's kind of understandable why.
	Everybody's terrified of whatever could happen from this, right?
	So, does this prove George Floyd died of an overdose?
	I have no idea. Is it nanograms per milliliter, right?
	That's what I thought. Okay. So, does it prove that George Floyd died of an overdose?
	I don't know.
	It doesn't seem to, but it doesn't really matter.
	It doesn't really matter because they don't need to prove that George Floyd died of an overdose.
	What they need to do is they need to create reasonable doubt.
	Reasonable doubt. So you've got a guy with hypertension, with heart disease, with a weird tumor in his belly, with COVID, and he's on drugs.
	And if this two Percocet thing is real, he's, you know, you know how fentanyl and Percocet and these opioids, how they kill you is you can't breathe.
	You can't breathe. That's how you die.
	I mean, eventually we all die from oxygen deprivation, but you can't breathe.
	So reasonable doubt.
	I mean, you know, guys know, I'm sure that there's two standards of proof in the legal system.
	There's civil and criminal. Criminal is beyond a reasonable doubt.
	It's like 95% probability, right?
	You can't usually get to 100%, but like 95% probability.
	Now, in civil, it's preponderance of evidence, which is like 51%.
	So, The question is a reasonable doubt.
	Can it be proven to a 95% certainty that it was Officer Chauvin and Chauvin alone who killed George Floyd with all of these other confounding factors?
	The heart disease, the COVID, the potential excited delirium as I talked about last year.
	And can you get to 95% when you have a fatal level of fentanyl in his system?
	If you have a fatal level of fentanyl, well, actually, almost four times, what, three into 11, almost three and a half, whatever, three and two thirds, right?
	So if you have almost four times the fatal amount of fentanyl in a man's system, and that all of the symptoms of fentanyl overdose, from what I can understand, were all present when he was fighting the cops.
	Because I'm sure you know this, but he, George Floyd that is, cried out repeatedly that he couldn't breathe long before he was on the ground.
	And that is, yeah, the methamphetamines too, right?
	But that is a symptom of fentanyl overdose, is an inability to breathe, as far as I understand it, right?
	So, you can't predict these things, right?
	You simply can't predict these things.
	And logically, you're probably going to get a hung jury, right?
	I mean, if the jurors have, to me at least, fidelity to the rules that they're given, they're probably going to say, well, we can't get to 95%.
	Because even the defense, sorry, even the prosecution witnesses were saying that it was a fatal level, right?
	So how do you get to 95%?
	I don't know. I don't know.
	George Mithridates Floyd had built up a tolerance to the drugs, hence he was alive with four times the lethal dose.
	Well, unless he wasn't, right?
	Unless he wasn't. And if he went from, as his girlfriend said, sunny and peppy and happy to completely passed out in the car, that's not good, right?
	And it always does seem to be the case As it was with the recent shooting of Duante, right?
	I think it was? That these guys all have a huge amount to lose because if he'd just taken the drugs, if he's in the car with a drug dealer, there are drugs in the car, he gets arrested, they search the car.
	I mean, George Floyd is going away for an eternity, right?
	So he's going to try and do street lawyering, right?
	The doctor said he had, yeah, he had heart disease for sure, for sure.
	So, and, you know, look, God, everyone who's got a heart is looking at George Floyd dying, crying out for mama and all of that.
	That's awful. I mean, there's really – and, of course, we want someone to pay.
	This shouldn't happen. I get all of this, right?
	And, I mean, I've got a heart and compassion, and it's a horrible, horrible thing to watch, you know?
	I'm glad I'm not doing politics that much anymore, but anyway – But the mama stuff, right?
	And I remember being struck by this when I was doing research for my first novel called The Jealous War about World War I that the soldiers would get disemboweled by some god-awful human disassembling machine gun and they'd lie there crying for their mama, right?
	So Derek Chauvin's defense attorney was questioning George Floyd's girlfriend about the couple buying drugs when he abruptly shifted gears for what seemed like an innocuous question.
	He presumed the couple had pet names for each other.
	Under what name, he asked, did she appear on Floyd's phone?
	Courtney Ross first smiled at the question, then paused before replying, Mama.
	Mama. So he probably was calling for his girlfriend rather than his mother.
	And you see, the black community or the community, whether it's black or not, that was around Duante or George Floyd or whatever, they're all like, oh, they were great.
	They were wonderful. It's like, well, why didn't you save them from a life of crime then?
	Why didn't you intervene? Why didn't you save them from drugs if they were so wonderful?
	But they're only wonderful after they're dead and you can make a lot of money from them through civil suits.
	Anyway. So, a use of force expert testifying for Chauvin's defense team on Tuesday said the former Minneapolis police officer was justified in kneeling on George Floyd for over nine minutes and did not use deadly force.
	So this is Barry Broad, a former police officer.
	He said, I felt that Derek Chauvin was justified and was acting with objective reasonableness following Minneapolis Police Department policy and current standards of law enforcement in its interactions with Mr.
	Floyd. So the crux of the argument goes like this.
	Is it Daunte? It's Daunte?
	Daunte. Daunte. Daunte.
	Sorry, I'm just French background and all that.
	Okay. So, thank you for the correction.
	I appreciate that. So the crux of his argument is he did not consider putting a handcuffed Floyd to the prone control position on the street to be a use of force.
	He even suggested that it was safer for the subject because if they get up and fall, they might hurt their face.
	Right. Just as if Daunte, formerly known as, the artist formerly known as Duante, if Daunte goes on, like, hits the gas and goes roaring down the highway, panicked and freaked out of his brain, possibly on drugs, then he can get people killed, which is why you can use deadly force if you are fleeing a police officer.
	The police officer can use deadly force, I believe.
	So, yeah, if people are resisting and they are handcuffed, you keep them prone so they don't flee, run into something, trip, and smash their face.
	So Broad said, it doesn't hurt.
	You've put the suspect in a position where it's safe for you, the officer, safe for them, the suspect, and you're using minimal effort to keep them on the ground.
	On cross-examination, Broad explained that he doesn't consider the prone control position to be a use of force because it does not cause pain.
	Prosecutor Steve Schleicher then showed broad a still image of Chauvin's knee digging into Floyd's neck.
	See, what does it mean, digging into Floyd's neck?
	That's the conclusion. And asked whether the position might cause pain.
	And this is, right, I mean, again, it's the court.
	They've got to do their job, right? Is it conceivably possible that someone kneeling on a shoulder blade could cause pain?
	Well, sure. You could have tendinitis.
	You could have arthritis. You could be in a weird position.
	There could be a rock under your shoulder.
	Yeah, of course it could conceivably cause pain.
	I mean, being handcuffed could conceivably cause pain.
	Broad said, it could.
	So, if that means that Chauvin's action was a use of force, shown in this picture, that could be a use of force.
	Again, is it beyond reasonable doubt, right?
	So, the defense has three main arguments, right?
	Defense got three main arguments.
	And they go something like this.
	Oh, you guys, feel free to share the stream as well.
	If you wouldn't mind, I would appreciate that.
	So, the defense, the first argument is that George Floyd died due to drug and health problems.
	The second, of course, is that Chauvin's use of force was ugly but appropriate.
	And the third, which is really interesting and something, of course, the media has not talked about.
	I talked about it last year.
	A hostile crowd of bystanders distracted Chauvin.
	Get into this. Really, really interesting.
	I find this stuff fascinating, so I hope you guys do as well.
	So, so the Broad's testimony, the guy who testified on defense, starkly contradicted prosecution's policing experts.
	So, Broad said it didn't matter that Floyd was already handcuffed because any person resisting should go to the ground in a prone control position.
	He said the officers didn't flip Floyd on his side into the recovery position because there was limited space.
	Traffic was passing by officers and the crowd of bystanders distracted them, which he described as relatively valid reasons.
	So the picture, I don't know, it's a famous picture of Derek Chauvin looking.
	He's looking. He's not looking down.
	He's looking out at the crowd. Why?
	Because there was this crowd of violent, aggressive people.
	Some people were restraining others from rushing forward and attacking the police.
	And you can look up an article put out just yesterday, I think it was, by Ann Coulter.
	Talking about just how many people, how many times cops get attacked by bystanders when they're trying to do police work.
	So they were in an extremely dangerous position.
	And this is even the case with the ambulance that came, right?
	The ambulance people assessed the situation and said, holy crap, it's way too dangerous.
	It's way too dangerous for us to try and give George Floyd any...
	Proactive medical attention or attempt resuscitation efforts here.
	We got to just load them on the gurney and get, and they drove a couple of blocks away so they were safe.
	So the crowd was mostly black.
	Some of them were, you know, and some of them, you know, I want to be fair, right?
	Some of the people in the crowd were saying, stop resisting.
	You can't win. Like, just comply.
	What are you doing? You're crazy.
	And other people were, you're killing him and they were going to attack the cops.
	And that is a pretty significant issue.
	So people are like, well, how come he didn't know that George Floyd had stopped breathing?
	It's like, the guy was in a combat situation.
	He was in a war zone.
	Like, literally a war zone.
	He's looking around.
	He's trying to look. Is somebody going to throw a rock?
	Is somebody going to throw a Molotov cocktail in the car?
	Is somebody going to shoot?
	Is somebody... Who knows?
	Who knows?
	So... Brad also said a slow breathing weakened Floyd was not acting as a compliant person would.
	A compliant person would have both their hands in the small of their back resting comfortably versus he's George Floyd still moving around.
	So, upon further questioning, Broad conceded that a reasonable officer in Chauvin's position would have known that Floyd had eventually stopped breathing, had no pulse, and was not resisting.
	Chauvin did not change his position from on top of Floyd despite that knowledge, Broad testified.
	Well, I'm not, again, I'm not a lawyer, so I'm just sort of trying to puzzle this as I go forward.
	But what... Why does it matter whether Chauvin knew in the middle of a war combat situation, why would it matter if Chauvin knew when George Floyd stopped breathing and had no pulse?
	Because at that point, isn't he kind of dead?
	I guess what the idea is you can put him on and try resuscitation or whatever it is.
	But when you have a hostile, potentially violent, incredibly dangerous crowd circling around you, I mean, are you supposed to know when somebody has stopped breathing?
	It's really tough, right?
	And plus, if you are on the shoulder, the shoulder doesn't move much when you breathe, right?
	And was it Steve Crowder tried the knee-on-the-shoulder thing and he could breathe?
	Okay, so what have we got here?
	Oh yeah, so Minneapolis Park Police Officer Peter Chang testified Tuesday he drove to the scene of Floyd's arrest last May after he heard a dispatch call for additional help.
	Upon arrival, Chang was asked to watch over Floyd's vehicle and kept tabs on the two passengers who'd been with him, Hall and...
	Sorry, Hill and Maurice Hall, according to more than 25 minutes of Chang's body camera footage played in court.
	The three of them stood across the street from where Chauvin kneeled on Floyd, and so only partially saw what was going on in front of Cup Foods.
	In court, Chang testified that he heard the bystanders on the scene yelling.
	The crowd was becoming loud and aggressive, a lot of yelling across the street, he said.
	Yep. Yep, yep, yep.
	Okay, so a forensic pathologist, I think we're almost done, and let's see here.
	I think, what do we got here?
	So, yeah, I don't know the taser thing.
	I'm not sure why.
	I mean, other than the lady cop who apparently mistook her taser for a gun.
	No, gun for a taser.
	So, a forensic pathologist testified to the defense at the murder trial who said George Floyd died of a sudden heart rhythm disturbance as a result of his heart disease.
	So, okay, I mean...
	If you have heart disease and you have high blood pressure and a myriad number of other health issues, You take, I'm trying to, like, this contradiction to me.
	It's the rubber band that pulls and then snaps.
	This is kind of how it works for me.
	Again, it's just my amateur opinion, obviously, right?
	But if you take fentanyl and you're going down, just in terms of energy, your heart rate is depressed, your breathing is depressed, and you're floating off into the big, wide ether, right?
	If you go from that To a complete and total freak-out panic attack because you wake up and as a black man who is, what, a felon who served time and who, if he goes down again, is going to go down forever.
	And you wake up in...
	A drug haze of severely depressed physical functioning and there's a cop with a gun at your window and your life is now completely destroyed and you go from that depressed state to a manic, full-on cortisol, adrenaline, fight-and-flight, massive dump into your system.
	What the hell does that do to your system as a whole to go from that incredibly depressed state of the two Percocets or whatever else he had, and then this massive spike in fight or flight?
	That to me would stress, I think, a healthy man's system, and he was not a healthy man.
	So the forensic pathologist said, no, Floyd died of a sudden heart rhythm disturbance.
	And the prosecution expert said Floyd succumbed to a lack of oxygen from the way he was pinned down.
	Now, lack of oxygen that didn't leave a mark.
	It's really, really important to understand, right?
	So he was pinned down apparently enough that he couldn't breathe.
	And there was this idea that it was a chokehold like the carotid.
	But you need both carotids to be stopped, as far as I understand it, for the chokehold.
	And he was only on one side, of course, right?
	Dr. David Fowler, former Maryland chief medical examiner, who is now with a consulting firm, said Wednesday, the fentanyl and methamphetamine and Floyd system and possibly carbon monoxide poisoning from auto exhaust were contributing factors in the 46-year-old black man's death last May.
	All of those combined to cause Mr.
	Floyd's death, he said, on the second day of the defense case.
	Fowler also testified that he would classify the manner of death undetermined rather than homicide, as the county's chief medical examiner ruled.
	He said Floyd's death had too many conflicting factors, some of which could be ruled homicide and some that could be considered accidental.
	So, of course, the prosecutors say White Officer's knee was pressed against George Floyd's neck or neck area.
	The neck area is kind of important, right?
	For nine and a half minutes and all of that, Fowler listed a multitude of factors or potential ones.
	Floyd's narrowed arteries, his enlarged heart, his high blood pressure, his drug use, the stress of his restraint, the vehicle exhaust, and a tumor or growth in his lower abdomen that can sometimes play a role in high blood pressure by releasing fight-or-flight hormones.
	It's kind of what I mentioned earlier.
	Fowler said all of those factors could have acted together to cause Floyd's heart to work harder, suffer an arrhythmia or abnormal rhythm, and suddenly stop.
	So, let's give the prosecution, when they cross-examined, they attacked Fowler's findings.
	He got Fowler to acknowledge that even someone who dies from being deprived of oxygen ultimately dies of an arrhythmia, right?
	Well, sure. Yeah, I mean, if you run out of oxygen, then your heart fails and all of that.
	He also got Fowler to admit that he didn't take the weight of Chauvin's gear into account when he analyzed the pressure on Floyd's body.
	That's kind of weird, right?
	I mean, that seems like Expert Witness 101, right?
	To not even bother taking into account the weight of the gear that the police officer has.
	I don't really understand that, right? So a number of medical experts called by prosecutors have said that George Floyd died from a lack of oxygen because his breathing was constricted by the way he was held down.
	A cardiology expert rejected the notion.
	That Floyd died of heart problems saying all indications were that he had an exceptionally strong heart.
	And I've heard heart disease, exceptionally strong heart.
	How does this get you to beyond a reasonable doubt?
	I do not know. But Fowler said Chauvin's knee on Floyd was nowhere close to his airway and that Floyd's speaking and groaning showed that his airway was still open.
	He also testified that Chauvin's knee was not applied with enough pressure to cause any bruises or scrapes on Floyd's neck or back.
	And he said that Floyd did not complain of vision changes or other symptoms consistent with hypoxia or insufficient oxygen to the brain, and that he was coherent until shortly before he stopped moving.
	Fowler said the bottom line is moving air in and out and speaking and making noise is very good evidence that the airway was not closed.
	All right. So, almost done here.
	And then we can move on, take some questions, have some chats.
	I got other stuff to talk about.
	Whatever your glorious heart's desire.
	So, reasonable.
	So, this is really important. And this is just kind of an IQ question.
	I sort of hate to say it.
	The two letters that helped get me deplatformed.
	But, you know, what's done is done.
	And I have no regrets. So, Reasonable use of force, right?
	So here we go, here we go.
	The reasonableness of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20-20 vision of hindsight.
	That's really, really important.
	That means jurors must not consider what they would have done in Chauvin's shoes, but rather what any reasonable officer would have done under the same circumstances.
	So, you can look up the case if you want, Graham v.
	Conner. An officer's actions leading to a suspect's death may be legal if the officer believed his or her life was at risk, even if in hindsight it becomes clear there was no such danger.
	So, to take a sort of example, if you pull out a toy gun and point it at an officer, the officer shoots you, the officer won't be liable because the officer doesn't know it's a fake gun.
	And even if you find out later it was a fake gun, it doesn't matter.
	If you pull out one of those stage knives that go in when you stab someone and you go up to a cop and try to stab and the cop shoots you, okay, well, the cop believes his life was at risk, right?
	Not that he was about to be killed, but his life was at risk.
	And if you have a gathering crowd, and of course, as a policeman, see, policemen, they all talk amongst each other, they watch the videos, they get the training, they know that a hostile crowd can be exceptionally dangerous.
	And there was a hostile crowd that was gathering, and that was exceptionally dangerous.
	I mean, that's just a fact, right?
	So even if it was, which goes against all the medical evidence that I've read, except for the testimony and part of the prosecution, of course, right?
	But there was no bruising or scrapes or anything.
	And George Floyd was talking.
	And you can't talk without breathing in.
	You can't talk without breathing in, obviously.
	Like, try it. Let all your breath out and then try and talk without breathing anything in and see how far you get.
	So clearly he could breathe because he was saying, I can't breathe.
	And he was saying, Mama. And of course...
	The fact is as well, and this is well known in police circles, that a suspect, particularly if they're on drugs, can go from really compliant to hyper-aggressive like that.
	They can lie down and then they suddenly get a wave of some irrational something or other, particularly true with PCP. But somebody can be compliant and then can just be savage, jump up, and like out of nowhere, right?
	So staying on someone's back is really important.
	And so that's pretty important.
	So even if...
	As far as I understand this, even if Chauvin was kneeling on George Floyd's neck and that constricted the airway, he didn't notice that maybe his position had changed or whatever, even all of this happened.
	If the officer was so distracted by a clear and present threat to his safety, that can still be okay in the eyes of the law, right?
	In other words, the mob killed Floyd, as is so often the case in many ways.
	Prosecutors say Chauvin faced no imminent threat, was never forced to make the kind of split-second decisions the high court envisioned.
	And so, So, that's important, right?
	So, the defense says looks can be deceiving.
	They've called witnesses to tell jurors that suspects, especially large men like Floyd, can suddenly present a threat, even if bystanders can't see that.
	Broad testified that Floyd appeared to be under the influence of drugs.
	He said, they, those under the influence, may have superhuman strength, or they may have an ability to go from compliant to extreme noncompliance in a heartbeat.
	And this is the guy who told jurists he believed Chauvin was justified, was acting with objective reasonableness in how he treated Floyd.
	And the last thing that I wanted to mention as well was...
	I've listened to it a bunch of times.
	You can listen to it yourself.
	It's not 100% clear, right?
	So, the tape was played where George Floyd appears to be yelling, either, I ate too many drugs, or I ain't do no drugs.
	I ate too many drugs, or I ain't do no drugs.
	To me, it sounds like I ate too many drugs, but...
	Again, even if we say it's 50-50 or 60-40, it doesn't get to beyond reasonable doubt, right?
	So, that's pretty important.
	That's pretty important. Okay.
	Here's another thing that I wanted to say as well.
	So, Legal Insurrection is a pretty good blog for all of this, right?
	So... He says, frankly, in my professional opinion, a mistrial in this case would be entirely warranted if not from this particular incident in isolation, the one I talked about earlier, then from the accumulated harms done to the defense by the state's untimely dropping of thousands of exhibits on the defense even as the trial proper was taking place, averaging nearly 500 new exhibits each day of the trial.
	Oh my God! If I understand what he's saying correctly, he's saying that, you know, the massive amounts of resources that the government prosecutors had to go after show then that they dropped thousands of exhibits on the defense, even during the trial, averaging nearly 500 new exhibits each day of the trial.
	How on earth could that be legal?
	How on earth could that be allowed or be legal for a giant team to keep dropping 500 new exhibits That one lawyer is supposed to somehow be able to process while the trial is going on.
	I don't have any idea how that can be allowed, how that can be legal, or anything of the sort.
	Anything of the sort.
	So... So, yeah, a couple of things to mention about this, the big philosophy stuff.
	First of all, it's also ungodly sorted.
	It's also ungodly sorted.
	Like, this is where we... I mean, we used to have Shakespeare.
	We used to have Dickens. We used to have all of this incredible stuff in the world, in the West, and now we're mucking about whether...
	A knee on a particular guy who was a violent felon is too long or too short and fearing riots and burning down.
	Good Lord. I mean, it's all so appalling.
	Was it Footlocker donated a whole bunch of money to BLM? They still got all their stores burned down.
	The Apple store was burned down.
	And yeah, there's going to be...
	And this is what we're reduced to.
	This is what we're doing with our life, with our resources, with our time.
	It's just crazy, right?
	So, what about...
	The state, right? The state.
	Okay, counterfeiting is a government crime.
	It's created by government currency.
	It's a government crime. George Floyd, didn't he grow up without a dad?
	I'm assuming he grew up without a dad.
	I think he did. And that's because of the welfare state, and it's another government crime.
	War on drugs. Another made-up government crime.
	There's no aggrieved victim in a voluntary drug transfer.
	So... The war on drugs.
	Why was he a thief?
	Because drugs are so expensive.
	If you have a $200 a day drug habit, you have to steal $2,000 worth of stuff a day just to stay even because when you fence stuff, you lose about 90% of its value.
	So he swallowed the drugs.
	If he swallowed the drugs in particular because he feared being arrested with drugs on him, then the war on drugs also helped kill George Floyd.
	And yeah, the media lying about the prevalence.
	The majority of liberals believe that 1,000 black men are murdered by the cops every year.
	The actual number is 27, last count, of which a significant number of those are justified because the blacks are shooting or have guns out towards the cops.
	Like the 13-year-old kid who somebody told me was an actual gang member and all of that.
	So it's just crazy.
	The media is just going to lie about all of this.
	And so, yeah, George Floyd was terrified of the police.
	And to me, in my particular opinion, it's overdose.
	And he fought.
	He panicked. He took...
	He ate too many drugs, as you may have said.
	And the reason why...
	His breathing slowed was because of the fentanyl.
	The reason why he couldn't breathe was because of the fentanyl.
	The reason why his heart ended up stopping was because of the fentanyl, which does depress breathing.
	And it was really, really tragic.
	And you can see from the other footage, the knee was not on the neck.
	And I think that even the prosecution witnesses said the knee was not on the neck.
	So, yeah, it's pretty rough.
	It's pretty rough. And what's going to happen from this?
	I mean, I don't know. I mean, we know what's going to happen.
	We know what's going to happen is there's...
	I mean, there's going to be riots.
	What are they deliberating this weekend, right?
	So, yeah, get out of the cities, man.
	For a couple of days, man.
	Get out of the cities, man.
	It's not going to work. It's not going to work because there are these two realities, right?
	There are St. George Floyd who was just murdered by a racist cop.
	That's one reality. Another reality is it's complicated.
	And it looks really terrible, but the whole point of a legal system is we don't just go on looks.
	We don't just go, well, it looked like it, right?
	Like Emmett Till was accused of raping a white woman, and there was a mob that murdered him, and that's terrible.
	Well, sure, because even if it looks, right, even if it looks really, really bad, the whole point we have a legal system is you can't tell.
	I mean, people never read or seen 12 Angry Men.
	My God, it's crazy, right?
	It's crazy. So, yeah, there is...
	And, of course, the leftists want to gin up this race war and don't want to tell the truth.
	And it's gotten so violent to the point where now I think even media that might report on things honestly could face the riots and violence and all kinds of crazy stuff.
	So, all right. So, yeah, the problem is the government.
	So, I'm going to... If anybody wants to chat, I've got so much stuff to talk about here.
	Like, totally. It's only been an hour, man.
	man we can be here all afternoon if you like um so let's see here Bye.
	Let's go to Telegram.
	Because that's a good way to do it, right?
	It's a good way to do it. Let's go to the free main chat.
	And let's turn on the voice chat.
	And here is the voice chat.
	Let's make sure we record the voice chat.
	And... Floyd has just got me, George Floyd got me listening to Pink Floyd just by association.
	As a whole, my baby.
	All right. So let's do an invite.
	Invite everyone. Invite the planet.
	Can I ever remember?
	Here we go. Share invite link.
	All right.
	So let's throw that in.
	And so, yeah, the IQ 80 minus, it's really tough, right?
	The army won't take anyone with an IQ of 83 or below because they can't find anything productive for them to do, no matter how much training.
	There's a comfortably numb joke in there somewhere, yeah, I guess so.
	Animals is a great song, yeah, for sure.
	Okay, albums are a great album.
	Alright, so the invite link is out, and people can join.
	And you can just unmute yourself.
	You're muted by default when you come in.
	You can just unmute yourself if you want to chat.
	I'll give people a second or two, and if people aren't feeling too chatty just yet, that's totally fine.
	Again, I have topics aplenty to chat about.
	And I've just... You know what? I'm giving up on.
	I'm always like, oh, I shouldn't release too much new material, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, right?
	So... I don't want to start on a big topic if somebody has a yearning-burning topic they want to talk about.
	So let me just wait for a second here, just in case this duff show up.
	And... I'm pretty sure I have my audio.
	I'm just going to check the chat, so just in case the audio is not working, I'm not going to the right place.
	Did you catch my question above?
	It says, Tim Pool's hairpiece.
	No worries if not. If you can please redo it, I would appreciate that.
	So the way that we deal, so people are asking sort of the IQ 80 stuff, right?
	So listen, this is my solution.
	It's a fantastic solution.
	Let me tell you straight up. I mean, let me sort of sweeten the well.
	It's a great solution. So what we do with the people who aren't smart is we have compassion.
	We have sensitivity.
	We have understanding because it's not their fault.
	It's not their fault. If somebody...
	IQ is 80% genetic by our late teens and becomes even more so over time.
	So we have sympathy.
	If somebody is short, it's not his or her fault that he or she is short.
	If somebody is bald, like I'm bald, right?
	I started balding in my 20s.
	It's not my fault. It wasn't like I ate the wrong thing or...
	Committed a sin of some kind, just the way it is, right?
	If somebody is born blind, it's not their fault.
	These are just things we should have compassion and we should have sympathy for.
	So the way that we deal with this in a free society, assuming that, you know, you snap your fingers and get a free society.
	Well, first of all, we educate people, and that's been a lot of what I did, and partly what I was deplatforming for was to educate people about having sympathy and compassion for the less intelligent among us.
	because I did not earn being almost six feet tall.
	I did not earn blue eyes.
	I did not earn an attractive face.
	I did not earn relatively good health.
	I didn't, I mean, the health thing may be a little bit.
	I sort of try exercise and eat well and all that.
	But there's a lot of characteristics about me.
	I didn't earn the fact that I was born as a white guy.
	I didn't earn the fact as a male.
	I didn't earn the fact that I was born speaking English, which is a pretty good language to speak if you want a podcast.
	I just, I wasn't, a lot of things I didn't earn.
	I certainly didn't earn, I earned the contents of my intelligence.
	I did not earn my capacity for intelligence because, again, I understand that the high IQ stratosphere that I inhabit is not something that is 100% mine.
	It's 80% genetic plus, right?
	So I'm lucky.
	Some other people are unlucky. So what do we do?
	Well, we teach compassion.
	We teach understanding.
	We teach a lack of judgment.
	And I was always, you know, because of the IQ differences between the races, I was always teaching.
	You know, people were posting...
	Oh, some school in Africa where the water was pouring in through the roof, and I'm like, look at the average IQ in sub-Saharan Africa among the blacks and have some compassion, for heaven's sakes.
	I mean, good heavens, it's not their fault.
	It's just the way that the world evolved, and we should really be kind and sensitive and understanding about these things.
	But the way that we do it is we teach this understanding and this sensitivity, and we set up charities to deal with people who don't have much of a functional place in a modern, increasingly automated economy.
	We would set up charities to help people who, through no fault of their own, are having a really tough time and it may in fact be more or less impossible for them to find a sustainable and productive place in a modern, again, increasingly automated economy.
	Automation is going to strip low IQ jobs left, right and center over the next couple of decades.
	In a free society, you have a huge amount of wealth that's generated.
	I mean, this is a statistic that I talked about some years ago on the show, which is that if you had simply kept the regulations in the US the same as they were after the Second World War, then we would all have hundreds of thousands of dollars a year in income.
	And if taxes are low and people are charitable and generous and kind, when taxes go down, charitable donations go up on a regular basis, a very predictable thing, particularly among the right, among Christians, right?
	So the right is very generous, and if you look at Bernie Sanders, what, 2% of his income goes to charity?
	The great terror of the leftist is that everyone is as stingy and selfish as they are, and therefore you need government programs, whereas on the right, we're like, well, I'm generous.
	Everyone I know is generous, so why do we need a welfare state?
	And a welfare state, of course, just turns into a permanent underclass, culture-destroying, vote-buying mechanism, as we know.
	So that's not the solution.
	So the solution is to educate people about IQ differences, to teach people that some of us are born lucky and some of us are born unlucky.
	It's not a moral fault.
	It's not something that we should blame people for, but it's something that we need to be compassionate and kind about within society.
	The welfare state is not the answer.
	But a free society would generate so much wealth that we could easily take care of the lower IQ people without the brutality and corruption of the welfare state.
	All right, let's see here.
	I'm curious about your thoughts in relation to morality on this new push for acceptance of incestuous relationships.
	Okay.
	Well, I mean, you've brought in a large number of cultures into the West that are into cousin marriage, right?
	So, I mean, you can either have a civilization or you can have cousin marriage because cousin marriage shaves 10 to 12 IQ points off the general population, right?
	And there is the general just degeneracy and the push of incredibly dysfunctional and corrosive and destructive lifestyles, so...
	Yeah, for sure. Best source for an IQ test.
	Now, you got to go to a professional and get it done professionally.
	It cost you a couple of hundred bucks, but whatever, right?
	Sorry about you being bald, Steph.
	Signed, full head of hair. That's...
	I don't know if you know how annoying you are.
	I mean, to be perfectly frank with you, I don't know.
	First of all, what's wrong with being bald?
	I mean, do you think I have to spend a lot of time getting my hair ready for a live stream?
	It saved me thousands and thousands and thousands of hours over the course of my life where I've actually got to do something productive like research crypto.
	So that's not such a bad thing.
	And also sign full head of hair and a big smiley face.
	Do you actually take some sort of pride and Having a head of hair?
	I mean, that's just a very sad thing.
	It's a very sad thing.
	It'd be like me saying, well, I'm better than you because I have attractive blue eyes and healthy teeth and a hair, right?
	Nice little lines on my strong jawline.
	That makes me, oh, I'm sorry that you've got a weak jaw signed, really strong jawline.
	I mean, that's just really sad.
	It's really sad that some accidental characteristic like having a head of hair, which you did nothing to earn, That you would feel any kind of satisfaction or smugness about that.
	And the reason I'm saying this is that not because I think badly of you, but because I want to think well of you.
	And I want to think well. What I want you to do is to live a life of moral courage and quality and excellence and stimulation and challenging evil and promoting the cause of virtue and Helping people learning how to think and being a great parent and a great husband to your wife and all of that.
	But, you know, smugness because you happen to genetically have strands of protein growing out of your scalp.
	It just, my God, man.
	This is a philosophy show.
	I mean, not a, I don't even know what, that's just really sad.
	And you say, well, it's just a joke, man.
	No, it's not. It's not. Everybody types these things because they want me to help them.
	They want me to help them get free of their own stupid delusions and pettiness, right?
	That's what, right? You make this comment because you want me to free you from the stupid blind genetic vanity of having a full head of hair.
	I mean, you want me to help because you're not typing this.
	You're typing this on a philosophy show where you know I'm going to tell you the truth, Joe.
	Stop taking pride in the unearned, man.
	It will cost you everything in life.
	Taking pride in the unearned will cost you absolutely everything in life because you will never be able to be loved if you take pride in what you did not earn.
	Let's see here. A friend got COVID and subsequently got his dad sick and hospitalized.
	He feels it's his fault.
	How do I console him? Tell him to get angry at China.
	Let's see here. And here's the funny thing.
	Here's the funny thing. Let me just ask you guys this.
	Actually, let me catch up on the questions first.
	Have you ever had a hard time managing stress?
	Yeah, for sure. This is what I do.
	It can be stressful at times, and you've just got to make decisions to limit your exposure to toxic people, for sure.
	Steph has a great wife, great child, great career.
	Bald doesn't mean anything.
	I mean, I asked this question once just because I was reading some article where somebody sent me an article like, you could take this pill and regrow your hair.
	And I asked my wife, I mean, would you, should I? I mean, if there's no side effects.
	And she's like, oh, God, no. No, you're perfect.
	Like, don't change anything because her dad was bald and all that stuff.
	Anyway. Okay.
	Let's see here. Yes, sir.
	Go ahead. Can you hear me just fine?
	Boy, you've got a bad mic. Anything you can do about that?
	Yeah, give me a second.
	One second. Let me try something. Yeah, yeah.
	Sure. No problem. Your pronounced brow ridges and sharp jawline more than make up for it.
	So would you like to see my Cro-Mannion look?
	That's my John Cleese taking a shit Cro-Mannion look.
	Since I'm legally forbidden from seeing a barber, bald is looking pretty good right now.
	See, here's the thing. Bald, Steph, you're going to hate me.
	I have not gotten bald and I'm 50.
	Why would I hate you for that?
	Why would I care? I don't care.
	I don't hate you for it. I mean, so, it's just, do you feel like this is an achievement on your part?
	Do you feel like you've achieved something by having the genetics that keep your hair?
	It's just weird. And the thing is, too, like, so, and you also would have lost in hand-to-hand combat.
	So, bald helps because there's less hair to grab onto in hand-to-hand combat.
	So, the fighters were bald, which is why bald and high testosterone is kind of, right?
	Right. Bolt and heistostrum are restated, right?
	Are related.
	Maxine Waters crossing state lines and inciting riots.
	Oh, absolutely. Yeah, absolutely.
	The media, by any legal standards, is completely inciting riots, without a doubt.
	And of course, they walked back this whole Russia put a bounty on American troops in Afghanistan.
	This all just lies.
	And it was a foundational to Kamala Harris and Joe Biden's campaign and all of that.
	Everything that the The Harris-Biden campaign was based on is basically a lie.
	Everything. Just about everything.
	I mean, even Scott Adams talking about, oh yeah, we absolutely need immigration to keep the economy going.
	I don't know. He's just so basic with this kind of, oh, it's all about the mindset, man.
	It's like, can you look up anything about IQ? He's been on my show.
	And he knows about these issues because before I left Twitter, I talked to him about it.
	And he's just decided to blank them out as Jordan Peterson did because...
	I know a guy's worth, what, $70 million and he still grieved for his platform, still grieved for misrepresentation.
	It's fine. Look, if you don't want to talk about topics, don't talk about them.
	But don't say, oh, yeah, economists all say that we need mass immigration to keep our economy.
	Right? Come on. A load of nonsense.
	That's absolutely a load of nonsense.
	By the way, tell Sebastian Gorka he's low T because he's not bald.
	How do you know he's not bald? You ever hear of hair transplants?
	How do you know he's not bald? John Cleese has had the same haircut since 1970, and he was high forehead back then.
	We all know you keep your hair if your mother's dad still had hair.
	Isn't that science? I don't think it's that simple.
	I think that's a factor for sure, but it's not that complicated.
	All right, so I don't know if the guy's coming back or not.
	If you wanted to say something, otherwise I'd go on to my topic that people are asking me about.
	Yeah, like Jordan Peterson and Scott Adams, just don't talk about immigration.
	You just don't know what you're talking about. If you invite people with low average IQs and cousin marriages into your country, that is disastrous for free speech.
	That's disastrous for the free market.
	It's disastrous for limited government.
	It is just the way it goes.
	I mean, these are just basic facts.
	No country with an average IQ of 90 or below retains any semblance of what you and I would understand of as linguistic or political freedoms.
	So... Just stay clear of the topic, but don't misinform people.
	Don't lie to people. Don't lie to people and be smug and self-satisfied that you're a wise guy about it.
	That's all I'm asking for.
	That's all I'm asking for. I still like Scott in a lot of ways, but man alive, is he ever basic on this stuff?
	Oh my God. So, right?
	I don't think I have...
	I don't think I got any audio coming in, right?
	Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Somebody asked why I dumb people so confident.
	Just look up Dunning-Kruger, D-U-N-N-I-N-G dash K-R-U-G-E-R, Dunning-Kruger.
	The less intelligent you are, the more easy you think solutions are and all of that.
	All right, so you had something you wanted to ask me?
	Yeah, just checking the mic.
	Is it good? It's fine.
	Go ahead. Okay, so a few, about a livestream or two ago, someone has meant, they brought up how controlling mothers, right?
	And how, oh, I birthed you, I brought you into this world, so I can take you out.
	And that reminded me of a recent relationship I had, where it was a very controlling mother, and she used those exact same words against her daughter.
	And In the end, I believe that the relationship between her and I ended because of this controlling mother, and I found it increasingly stressful on how to, because I noticed it present in the beginning, and It became more and more stressful as the relationship continued on.
	And I was just kind of wondering, how do you manage that?
	Because every time I brought it up, as the relationship continued, I brought it up more and more and tried to help my girlfriend at the time understand kind of the situation she was in and how her mother was being so controlling and how I thought it wasn't right.
	And I was trying to help her out of the situation.
	But it never really worked out.
	I was wanting to Is it just that I'm not honest enough in that?
	I'm sorry, I'm trying to understand what you mean.
	Were you hoping to free someone else from a controlling relationship?
	Well, yeah, it was a relationship that I was in with someone, but her mother was very controlling.
	And every time I brought it up, she would almost defend her mother, but then at the same time, realize what I was saying was true about her mother.
	And she would say things like, well, yeah, but it's family.
	And she expected me, she said, I expect you to love my mother, too, even though she's all these things.
	And I'd bring it up like, oh, she'd hit her.
	And my girlfriend, she was 21, right?
	She's 21 living with a mother, and she's still being hit and being verbally abused.
	And I told her, how can you put up with this stuff?
	How can you live...
	Under that. And I know because she's in college and her mother is the one paying for it all.
	And it's like, even though your mom's paying for it all, it's not something I could put up with.
	What was she taking in college?
	She's still engineering. Engineering?
	Yeah, so she's a very smart girl, very capable.
	She has some health issues.
	Her mother has a lot of health issues.
	It seems that whole family kind of has a health issue background.
	And the mother would kind of use that against her daughter, her daughter, the one I'm dating.
	And say, oh, you're always spending time with him, you're not here to take care of me, and stuff like that.
	And the daughter herself had some health issues back in, because I went to high school with this girl.
	And she, back in high school, she had this issue with her back, I guess like the disc collapsed, but she was able to recover from that.
	She's very smart, very capable.
	She got back into working out.
	She, you know, didn't let that destroy her, but it seems like her mother's kind of the opposite, wanting, oh, I have all these health issues.
	You need to take care of me.
	You're a bad daughter for doing anything but that.
	And even when her name would just say is, for the sake of this, is Jen.
	So Jen, she would...
	Be taking a test for school, right?
	And this is COVID, so it was online tests and all that.
	And her mother would start yelling at her for taking this test instead of going and taking care of her or going to the grocery store to pick her up something or picking up her medication or something like that.
	And I pointed out, and Emma just defended her mother, defended her mother, and I just couldn't understand it.
	And I tried to point it out in an understanding way where I was like, okay, I know your mother has health issues, and I know you care about her, and I know you want to take care of her, and I can see that.
	But at the same time, you have to be able to live your life And you have to find happiness, and you can't let her berate you and bring you down doing all these things because, you know, taking a test for your engineering classes, and I'm not an engineer, but I know engineering can be pretty tough.
	I was like, you've got to be focused on that, especially if you really want to graduate and become an engineer and do all this stuff.
	And I tried to help her out of these situations, and it was a long-distance relationship for part of the time because I go to school in Arizona, and she goes to school in California.
	So a lot of this would be over the phone.
	But it was weird when I came back when I was in California visiting when I had my breaks.
	This was never present while I was there as an in-person in the house.
	Her mother would seem like the nicest person ever.
	But every time I was gone, her mother would bash on her for doing anything that wasn't involved in focusing on her.
	Okay. How pretty was she?
	Pretty attractive. Right.
	So, what were her virtues that you wanted to bring into your life?
	She was intelligent.
	She was a critical thinker.
	She liked to question things.
	No, no, she didn't. No, no, no, she didn't.
	Sorry. Sorry. There we go.
	Intelligence is not a virtue.
	And if she wanted to question things and was a critical thinker, then she would have already reached these conclusions about her mother.
	But in fact, she resisted these conclusions about her mother, which were blindingly obvious as far as I can tell, right?
	You know, I think you're right, actually.
	Again, I'm not trying to nag you.
	I'm really not. I mean, I'm trying to help.
	No, no, no. Okay, so we've got to scratch the critical thinking and all of that.
	And the intelligence stuff is not a virtue.
	I mean, lots of people are intelligent and, you know, stone evil.
	I'm not saying she was, right, but it's not innately a virtue.
	So give me virtues that she had, not characteristics that are positive in some economic or whatever, like actual virtues.
	She was kind. Okay.
	But kind how?
	Kind in like appeasement or kind because she's not helping her mother, right?
	By appeasing and running around and destroying her own career to assuage her mother's hypochondria or neediness or narcissistic predation, she's not.
	I don't see how that's kind.
	Kind is not being nice.
	And not agreeing with bad people or enabling bad behavior.
	Like if somebody's a drunk and they don't have any alcohol and you, oh, I'll run to the store to get you alcohol because I'm kind.
	It's like, that's not being kind.
	So help me understand the kindness part here because she's, you understand, I think one of your arguments is, look, you're not helping your mom here.
	Kind as in she's very, I guess the better word would be understanding then.
	And she'd want to help people.
	And even though, like, she has to grow out of her way a little bit, not to, I mean, sometimes her self-destruction, and I guess that counts with her mother, but other times, just any little things, you know, you see her and there'd be a party going on and, you know, the...
	There would be kids at the party, and the kids, they play on their own, and the adults are separate.
	And she'd want to go with the kids and take care of them and play with them and talk with them.
	And just seeing those interactions and the way she interacted with people, it's something I really found attractive.
	No, and I appreciate that.
	And that's, I guess, being nice, but that's not really a virtue because that's niceness without any cost.
	That's, you know, going to play with the kids.
	First of all, she could have social anxiety with adults or whatever.
	Who knows, right? But going to play with the kids, which is a nice thing to do.
	I mean, I would do that kind of stuff as well.
	But that's not a virtue.
	Virtue is like moral courage, honesty, integrity.
	Standing up for what's right, not being pushed around, those are virtues.
	Does that make sense? Okay, I think, yeah.
	I see what you're saying.
	You know, going to play with the kids is nice, but there's no cost to it.
	It doesn't require any virtues.
	It's like calling someone really great with alcohol if they're allergic to alcohol.
	There's no real temptation there, right?
	We need the virtues for the things that are hard.
	Right? And standing up to a narcissistic mother is hard.
	Going to play with some kids at a party is not.
	And again, I'm not saying it's bad.
	Go play with the kids at the party, but don't put it in the category of virtues.
	Virtues are what are necessary for when things are hard.
	So for somebody who doesn't feel like exercising, having the integrity to go and exercise is a good thing.
	For somebody who's compulsive, like they're an exercise addict, for them, not exercising or exercising less would be hard.
	So to get that Aristotelian mean, you've got to carve in from the two extremes.
	And those are kind of tough.
	Some people have too much. Some people are too aggressive and they need to learn to manage their temper.
	Some people aren't aggressive enough and need to become more assertive and For the first person, cooling their temper is difficult and is a virtue when they do it.
	For the other person, becoming more angry and assertive is a virtue and something they need.
	So what I'm talking about in these virtues is where did she do a difficult thing with grace and strength?
	Well, after her issues with her back and getting out of the hospital and recovering from that, she continued to work out.
	I'm sorry, can you say it? After her back got messed up and she recovered from that, she continued to work out and work out with me and pretty tough workouts too.
	And I guess you could say that's integrity to her degree to her physical health.
	But did she enjoy the workouts?
	She did. She did. Okay, so back to the virtues.
	The virtues are needed for when we don't like things.
	There's no diet that says eat whatever you want and that tastes good because it's not a diet, right?
	So if she enjoyed the workouts, you know, good for her for working out.
	I don't think it's a bad thing. It's not a vice or anything, but it's not where virtue is not necessary to do something you enjoy, if that makes sense.
	Okay. That's just a kind of hedonism, and I'm glad her hedonism involves exercise, but it's not the same as that kind of real virtue, if that makes sense.
	She did go on a diet, actually, which she didn't really...
	She enjoyed what he was doing for her, but she didn't like the diet itself because even though she was working out, she still noticed she was gaining a little bit of weight.
	So she went on this diet to help her with that, and it was working.
	She was enjoying that it was working, but she didn't enjoy the diet.
	Let's see. With Virtue, with regards to her school, she She loved engineering and math and science and all that.
	But she didn't love, I guess, a lot of her.
	There were some professors she really hated.
	Would that count? She's still going through this school and Yeah, no, I mean, so, yeah, I mean, I think there's some resolution and some sacrifice of immediate pleasure for the sake of a larger goal.
	I think that can be good for sure.
	That can be good for sure. So, look, I'm not saying she has no virtues.
	The question is, does she have the kind of virtues that make her once in a lifetime for you?
	Right? Because if you want to pair bond with this, did you want to marry this girl?
	We did talk about it, yes.
	Sorry, did you want, let me ask that question because that was not quite the answer.
	Did you want to marry her?
	I did. Okay.
	And did she have the kind of virtues that would keep you safe and happy and protected going forward?
	Because you understand, if she wasn't able to stand up to her mom, she was going to invite the mom into your life permanently, right?
	That you would be...
	Having sex with the daughter but kind of married to the mom in a way because the mom would have so much influence over the daughter.
	And then, of course, when you had kids, the grandmom, her mom would be like all over the family and so on.
	So that's my sort of question is were her virtues of a great and sustainable enough Manner or depth that you could be safe and happy in the exercise of your virtues in the marriage.
	Again, you might have trouble outside in the world exercising your virtues, but in the marriage, she would be behind you 100%.
	Actually, I don't think that could have been a thing, at least with the way she was with her mother at the time.
	No, it couldn't have been. So she had clearly signaled to you that she would bow to the person who would apply the most pressure.
	So you, as a reasonable free domain listener and a reasonable boyfriend, you were trying to reason with her, right?
	And I applaud you for that.
	I think that's a wonderful thing to do.
	So you were reasoning with the girl, but her mother was just straight up emotional terrorist bullying her, right?
	Yeah, and when she found out, because Emma became, when I was finally in a relationship with her, she became kind of, not standing up fully to her mother, but a little more, what's the word?
	More noticeably, at least to her mother, more noticeably standing up for herself to a small degree.
	And that mother detected that and pinpointed it to me.
	Oh yeah, you're an intruder, right?
	So you're an intruder, so you have to be dealt with.
	And so she has to show you as the intruder on her daughter's resource.
	She wants to acquire pillage resources, vampire-like, from her daughter.
	And so when you come into the picture, the mother...
	Absolutely needs to show you who's boss and to assert in a very powerful way her dominance over her daughter to make sure that you know your place and that you only get the daughter when the mom needs nothing from her in the moment.
	And what's interesting though is the mother never confronted me in any sort of aggressive way up front about it.
	Sorry, I don't understand.
	Why would she bother confronting you?
	If she can get what she wants from her daughter, why would she confront you?
	There was a time when my girlfriend was coming to visit me in the state.
	I'm in Arizona. We had already bought a plane ticket.
	It was past the time already to get a refund for it, and her mother ended up falling and breaking her ankles.
	So broke both her ankles, was in the hospital, and Emma was like, she was freaking out.
	Okay, what am I going to do? What am I going to do?
	My mother, she's in the hospital.
	She's hurt. And here I am.
	I have this plane ticket. I have this plan to go.
	And I told her, calm down.
	It's okay. If you want to stay there and help take care of her, then I'm not going to be mad at you.
	We can get another ticket another time.
	It's going to be completely...
	Don't worry.
	I won't be mad at you because I was the one paying for all the plane tickets.
	I was like, don't worry about it.
	It's just a plane ticket.
	If you need to stay there, take care of it, then do it.
	And I told her, it's all up to you.
	So she went, she talked with her dad, and her dad was like, I don't know, like, kind of, like, didn't really give an answer.
	So she went and asked her mom, and her mom gave her the answer, like, yeah, whatever, do what you want, like, kind of like a passive aggressive thing.
	So Emma took that as, okay, I can go.
	So she got on the plane.
	And she ended up coming to Arizona and we had a nice dinner and everything.
	And then we get back to my apartment and The moment we get back in my apartment, she checks her phone and it's her mother just going off on her through text and her mood completely flips.
	So I have to calm her down again.
	And when I convinced her, are you already here?
	Let's just have a good time.
	Don't let that get to you.
	So we have a good time.
	And she goes back to California and then I come back to California.
	When I'm on a break for school and the mother, she comes and has to talk with me.
	I'm sitting down in the kitchen with her and two other friends, mutual friends of ours.
	And she starts crying in front of me like, I just really needed my daughter.
	And I felt like...
	You know, you pressured her into going and that you forced Arhan saying, like, oh, I bought the tickets, so I forced the mother to, like, agree with sending her daughter over to see me.
	Right. I'm still waiting for the moral of the story, so to speak, if you can help me understand what that story was about.
	So the thing about that was...
	We were talking about, oh, the mother's never confronted me up front about it, but she'd confront me in more emotional ways where she'd start crying in front of everyone to me, and she was almost looking for an apology from me.
	Oh, sorry. So you scored a victory in the battle between the daughter and the mom, so the mom put leverage on you, is that right?
	Yeah, she...
	Sorry, sorry. So for the mom, your girlfriend's mom, where's the dad?
	The dad, he's present.
	He's more quiet though.
	Oh, so she's married to the dad, right?
	Yeah. So why does she need the daughter if the dad's there?
	The dad is usually at work.
	He usually gets home later in the evening.
	No, no, but if your wife breaks, hang on, if your wife breaks both ankles, you take time off work.
	I mean, I don't understand.
	Sorry, again, I don't know the whole backstory here, but why is the daughter having to take care of her father's wife?
	That's something I kind of question, too.
	I'd say, well, what about your dad?
	Can he take time off work?
	And she would tell me, oh, but, you know, he has to work and he has to make money.
	Because she has another daughter and a son, and they have their own medical things, and the father has his own medical things, too, but not as bad as all the rest of the family.
	Wait, so the daughter, your girlfriend has to fly to her mother...
	When the dad is living in the same house?
	No, she lives with her mother.
	Oh, she lives with her mother. So she was flying to you and then back.
	Okay. Yeah.
	Well, you can't fix people.
	You know that, right? It's kind of why you're calling me, right?
	You can say to people, look, These are my standards.
	These are my standards.
	And you can say, I am not willing to be in a relationship with you if you have such a toxic relationship with your mother.
	Not going to work for me. Doesn't work for me at all.
	So I'm not going to...
	Because here's the thing. This is the big secret to life, right?
	The big secret to life, one of them, is never try to control people.
	You state your values.
	You make your choice.
	State your values. Make your choice.
	You can say, I don't find your relationship with your mother healthy.
	Now, your goal then is to say, well, I've got to figure out how to get my girlfriend away from her mother or get her to fix her relationship with her mother, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, right?
	No, no, no. That's nonsense.
	I mean, it's tempting, obviously, because we want to have a cake and eat it too.
	But You can explain why you think the relationship is toxic.
	Oh, she's controlling. She's manipulative.
	She's blah, blah, blah, right? And you say, listen, I don't want that in my life.
	I don't think you should have that in your life, but that's your business.
	I will tell you, I will not have that in my life.
	I will not have that in my life, and I also will not have that in the lives of my children.
	I won't do it. And you can give her the reasons why.
	You can say you think it's healthier if you don't, blah, blah, blah.
	But you simply state your values.
	And you make your choice. And if your girlfriend chooses her mother over you, that's painful but necessary information.
	Now, in order to avoid that information, right, so all mental dysfunction is the avoidance, almost all mental dysfunction is the avoidance of legitimate suffering.
	You don't want to find out if she will choose you over her mother, right?
	Sorry, there's an odd background noise.
	I don't know if that's coming from you or something else.
	Is there water running where you are?
	That's better. Can you hear me still?
	I still can. Yeah, okay.
	So, you want to find some way that you can manipulate your...
	Do you see how manipulators get you to manipulate, right?
	So, the mom manipulates the daughter, and then you try to manipulate the daughter into resisting the manipulations of the mom, which doesn't work, because all it does is reaffirm the principle of manipulation.
	And manipulation is when you try to control an outcome that is not under your control.
	Now, you can control whether you state your values.
	If you say, I don't want dysfunctional narcissists in my life, I won't do it.
	You're not manipulating anyone.
	You're simply stating a fact, a truth, right?
	You're not trying to control someone else.
	But when you try to control something that you can't control, then you are manipulating.
	You are manipulating 101, right?
	And so the mother manipulates the daughter, but rather than say to the daughter, your girlfriend, no, no, no, I'm not, like, I think you're great.
	I think we can have a great future together.
	I'm not trying to bully you.
	I'm simply staying as a statement of fact, like it's raining out, that the earth has gravity, and I don't have dysfunctional, manipulative people in my life.
	I just, like, I don't do that. That's not my thing.
	And then you let her make a choice.
	Now, letting people make choices...
	It's painful. It's why we try not to let people make choices, right?
	It's why we have to force everyone.
	Affirmative action, right? Women, you've got to hire women.
	We don't want to just let people be free to make choices because a lot of times we don't like or we won't appreciate or it hurts us the choices that they make.
	It's the same thing with free speech, right?
	Like, I mean, I say things that people don't like rather than engage with me, argue with me, prove me wrong, blah, blah, blah, just de-platform, right?
	They just can't handle any adult or rational, civilized discussion, right?
	Right. So you want to control the outcome.
	You want your girlfriend to stand up to her mother, to fix that relationship, blah, blah, blah, blah, but you can't do it by manipulating her.
	You can only offer her the true, honest standpoint of, I, you lead by example, I don't allow manipulative people in my life, but you want to keep your girlfriend and separate her from her mother, which is a manipulative position.
	It's not an honest position.
	Because you can't be upfront with her.
	You can't say, well, I want to be with you, but I need to find some way to detach you from your mom and blah, blah, blah, right?
	So, you can't beat a manipulator by manipulating yourself.
	You can't beat your girlfriend's mother manipulating her by you manipulating your girlfriend.
	You can say, You make that line.
	You draw those boundaries.
	I don't have manipulative people in my life.
	Now, she may be like, oh, really?
	Well, tell me more. I'd be curious about that because, you know, I've had trouble with my mom and blah, blah, blah, right?
	And now, not having manipulative people in your life doesn't mean that everyone who's manipulative has to leave.
	It just means they can't stay and continue to be manipulative.
	That's an important distinction, right?
	And so, if you want to model Not being manipulative.
	You state your values and you see what comes back.
	And it may be the case.
	It may be the case that she says, no, I'm choosing my mom, right?
	And then you say, like, I'm really sorry.
	I appreciate your honesty.
	Thank you for saving me time.
	I wish you the best.
	And I'm not going to be here for this life that you have.
	Sorry. Now, she may then, you know, a month or two down the road, I wouldn't hold my breath, but she may sit there and say, oh, you know, he got out, why can't I, right?
	If people won't leave prison, you leave prison and send them a postcard.
	You know, maybe that will be tempting, if that makes sense.
	Does that help at all? I think...
	It does, but I think she already made her choice.
	I don't think I mentioned her, but this relationship ended back in December.
	Oh no, I got that she was an ex, right?
	I got that, right? But I don't think that you accepted that the fact that she chose a manipulator over you, you seem like a nicer guy than her mom, that's unfortunate.
	You can't control what people do.
	You can't control what people think.
	You can attempt to be a positive influence.
	You can attempt to lead them by reason.
	And if that doesn't work, you can lead them by example, but you cannot control them.
	You got to let go of controlling people.
	Because you never get to know someone if you're controlling her.
	You will never get to know her if you're controlling her.
	Because she can't be with you in an unfiltered state that you can accept for what it is.
	This is why you can't sustain a relationship with somebody you want to change.
	Because your desire to change them means they can never fully be themselves with you.
	You will never be intimate.
	You will never get to know them.
	You will never have connection and pair bonding.
	You have to find someone and Not want to change them at all.
	I mean, I remember being on a hike with my wife back when we were still dating.
	We've been dating two or three months.
	And I don't know, we were chatting away.
	I was watching her climb a hill.
	And I was like, it just came to me.
	Like, I don't want her to be different at all.
	There's nothing I would change about her.
	So then you get the ring.
	There's nothing you want to change.
	And so if you have someone in your life, this is true for everyone, if you have someone in your life And you really desperately need them to be different in some manner or other.
	It's like, it's not, it's never going to work.
	You have to let go of that.
	Accept them for who they are or get out.
	Now, accepting them for who they are doesn't mean they're never going to change.
	The fact that my wife listens to reason and adjusts her beliefs based upon new evidence and all of that, it's glorious.
	I do too. So we both continue to grow and change, but I don't want to change anything about her personality.
	There's nothing about her that I would change at all, in any way, shape, or form.
	Not even the tiniest tinker. Because, of course, also, the moment I tried to change something, I would be rejecting her.
	You understand? If you want to change something, if you want to change someone, you are rejecting that person.
	And there's no way that every personality is kind of like a house of cards.
	You either accept it for what it is, but you start mucking around with the base.
	It's just going to come collapsing down, or at least the relationship will.
	Accept her for who she is.
	And if she is codependent with a narcissistic mother, which for a young woman or a young man is a pretty common situation.
	If she is codependent with a narcissistic mother, she doesn't have separate ego.
	She doesn't have boundaries.
	She is run like the tail of a kite, like by the winds and chaos of her mother's life.
	I think that's a real shame.
	But if you can't accept that about who she is, you can state your case, you can state your reasons, but then you have to live your values.
	And if your values are, don't be with manipulative people.
	And then the mother manipulates the daughter and then the daughter kind of gets into this chaos of manipulation with you or lying or you lie with her because you want her to change, then you have to reject the very fundamental principle of manipulation.
	All manipulation is rejection.
	It's rejection of integrity, truth, honesty, and the other person for who they are.
	So I think that you look upon this as if, well, if I'd only been able to change her into somebody who wasn't codependent with her narcissistic mom, if that's the case, but you got to be an empiricist.
	You got to roll with what is, and she is.
	And that's not at all unusual for such a young woman with such a destructive mother.
	Got to take a deep breath, accept that that's the way it is, and move on.
	You never know in five years. It may be different.
	Maybe you'll both be single. Maybe you'll be back in touch with each other.
	Because it doesn't come down to you.
	It comes down to what's best for your future kids.
	That's what matters. If you want to have kids, I assume.
	It comes down to what's best for your future kids.
	That's the whole deal, man. That's all.
	And, you know, I remember thinking with my wife, like, I couldn't imagine a better mom for my kids.
	And she is ungodly good as a mom.
	So that's all it comes down to.
	And do your kids want a mom who's controlled by a narcissistic mother?
	Nope. No, they don't.
	So, you know, it's with great regret, but on the advice of your future children that you got to move on, if that makes sense.
	Yeah, I see what you're saying.
	I think right now the status about it for me is...
	Okay. Good.
	I'm glad to help. I appreciate the call.
	And you've got to lead by example, man.
	You've got to lead by example.
	I mean, it's funny because people say, I've had a couple of emails of like, oh, why do you publish videos of you playing games with your daughter?
	It's like, because I want you guys, I mean, it's fun and it's genuine and honest and real, but also I want you to see parent-child interactions that are enjoyable and fun and the fruits of peaceful parenting.
	This is not fake. This is how we actually live, right?
	So I think people don't really get some of that or why it's there or what it's about or anything like that, so.
	Alright, does anybody have another comment or question?
	Because, oh yeah, I got me some topics, baby.
	I got me some topics, but I'm happy.
	Who doesn't want to see more Izzy?
	Exactly. Exactly.
	Exactly. Alright, so let me just check in here if there's anyone.
	If you want to say, you will need to unmute yourself and then talk as you see fit.
	Yeah, PreSearch. You should check out PreSearch.com.
	P-R-E-S-E-A-R-C-H. PreSearch.com.
	I interviewed a senior guy there.
	I'll put that interview out this week.
	And it's really a good, good search engine.
	Vaguely honest. Anyway.
	All right. My girlfriend recently broke up with me because I refused to get circumcised.
	Tried to make a case for foreskin, but it never worked.
	I, uh... Oh, Wednesday, 7 p.m.
	Wednesday, 7 p.m. Eastern, I stream next.
	God, my girlfriend recently broke up with me because I refused to get circumcised.
	Was she Jewish? I don't understand why that would be...
	Oh, I just...
	Longest live stream. I don't understand why that would be a...
	How on earth could that be a deal breaker?
	Uncircumcised penises are vastly better for women.
	For, you know, it's less chafy on the vagina.
	It's, you know, it's much better for women in terms of pleasure.
	She was Christian. Wow.
	I couldn't tell you.
	I couldn't tell you.
	That is very, very strange in my opinion.
	But, you know, as the old song goes, good riddance.
	That's terrible. Because the other thing too, right, that's to do with your future kids as well, right?
	So you're going to have sons and are they going to have A third of their penis skin hacked off upon entry to this veil of tears?
	Well, yeah. Because if you have a wife who's pro-circumcision, she might make arrangements, she might defy you, she might take them off to get it done, and then you can't undo it.
	And so, do your future kids want to have their healthy tissue hacked?
	Well, no. So, you know, your future kids, sorry, like, you can't, you can't, that's not even up to you.
	You can't even make that choice.
	Can't even make that choice.
	Alright, let me see.
	Let me just put the thing in here.
	Anyone else?
	Anybody? It has to be a troll question.
	Oh man, I've been doing this for 16 years.
	I don't think I've ever had it.
	I think I had one troll once.
	But I think that was about it.
	I think that was about it.
	All right. I think that's there.
	Let me just see if there's anybody else.
	Bring up the chat. The police state in Ontario has revealed the wolves from the sheep.
	Now I know who not to associate with.
	Yeah, kind of rough, right?
	Kind of rough. Want to chat about dip?
	Yeah, dial in, brother.
	Happy to hear. Happy to hear.
	There's your chat. You mean the Bitcoin dip, right?
	I don't know. Who thinks that the Treasury releases massive and powerful information about an entire asset class on a Saturday night, on a weekend?
	I don't know, man. I don't know.
	Paper hands. Good riddance to them as well, in my humble opinion.
	How is Bitcoin? You haven't touched on it.
	Yes. All right.
	I guess I'll take these headphones off first since our other fellow seems to have vanished into the ether.
	And we will get on to talking about Bitcoin.
	All right, let's have a look and see where we'd be at.
	So, let's see.
	We hit a high April 14th of 80,000 Canadian, right?
	And now we're down to 69,600 Canadian.
	And... I'll just mute this in case the guy comes back in.
	So yeah, we're back.
	And what's been going on?
	Well, so there was a rumor on the weekend that the Treasury Department, I think it was, or the SEC or someone like that, is going to start looking into money laundering and other illicit uses of Bitcoin and so on.
	I don't believe that to be the case.
	The sources weren't revealed.
	It came in through Zero Hedge, a couple other places.
	The sources weren't revealed.
	As I said in a short video I put out this morning, I talked about this a number of times in the crypto roundtables.
	People want to buy Bitcoin, but Bitcoin is expensive.
	So what do they want to do? They want to drive down the price of Bitcoin and then they want to buy it.
	So somebody well-placed is going to put out some rumor and then what's going to happen is The paper hand people are going to panic and sell and flee and blah, and then they're going to buy the bitcoins, whoever wants them, and then, gosh, don't you know, it just turns out, my goodness, they just had bad information, don't you know?
	It's pretty funny, right?
	Let's see here.
	Um...
	A bunch of shorts came up, and of course, you know, the Dogecoin thing, right?
	So Doge shot up like 500% over the last week, right?
	So the Dogecoin thing, it's a fun meme, and it's a goofy Elon Musk-driven bit of nonsense, and it's a fun, you know, I have a couple of them.
	I think it's a fun little thing to have tucked away somewhere, but it's crazy.
	Let's see here.
	So... In the past 24 hours, 895,487 traders were liquidated.
	And... So the other thing that happened, of course, was people are all saying that Turkey banned Bitcoin.
	No, that's not the case.
	It was the Turkish Central Bank.
	It's kind of an important distinction, difference that I think is kind of important.
	And listen, you should be very happy at the paper-handed people.
	You should be very happy with them.
	They are wonderful for us as a whole, right?
	Because, look...
	Two kinds of people in the world.
	People who are in it for reasons of hedonism and people who are in it for reasons of virtue.
	It's the same thing with...
	It's kind of what I was bitching about with Scott Adams and it's people like Jordan...
	A little bit Jordan Peterson, Joe Rogan.
	Boy, you can do a search for how the searches for Joe Rogan's name have crashed ever since he went to Spotify because he straight up lied to the audience, right?
	He straight up lied to his audience, right?
	So when he was asked about the Spotify deal, there were concerns or questions about censorship.
	And he said, no, no, no, there won't be any censorship.
	I've got my integrity. What are you, crazy?
	And then it turns out that he just let it slip in a show, I think by accident, that he knew about the censorship of his shows when he took the $100 million.
	So he's in it for the hedonism.
	He's in it for the popularity.
	He's in it for the numbers. He's in it for the money.
	It's like a squirrel gathering nuts for the winter.
	It's not a moral thing. It's just a resource acquisition thing.
	I don't have any big issue with it.
	I'm not like, everyone's got to be like me, right?
	But that's fine. I'm into diversity.
	But are you in it for the world tour?
	Are you in it for the publishing contracts?
	Are you in it for the money? Are you in it for the eyeballs?
	Or are you in it for the fucking truth?
	Are you in it for the virtue?
	Are you in it for the, fuck you, you can't buy me off.
	I'm here to take a stand for good.
	And look, there's balances.
	It's not, you know...
	It's never pure one or the other.
	And, you know, Joe Rogan and Jordan Peterson and Dave Rubin have done some good.
	And I've had to make a couple of compromises along the way.
	You know, I'm not trying to say some big black and white thing, right?
	But... But there's still two camps.
	There's two camps. There are people who are in it as a gig and there are people who are in it as a calling.
	And I've literally had this wrestle in my brain for 17 years now.
	Is it a gig or is it a calling?
	Now, I've pretty early on decided it's a calling.
	Right. Because if it was a gig, I would have played it very differently and would have A massive audience, a TV show maybe.
	I would have played it differently if it was a gig.
	I'm smart enough to make the gig work.
	I made it work in the software field if it was a gig.
	But it's not a gig. It's a calling.
	It's a calling, which means there have to be foundational principles that you live by that you don't fuck with.
	You just don't. You just don't.
	You don't lie to your audience. You don't misdirect.
	You don't withhold essential information.
	You just... You never fly that white flag.
	We tell the truth that the sky should fall.
	You tell the truth and shame the devil.
	I shall not bear false witness to you, my treasured audience.
	It's not a gig, right?
	So, and that's just a matter of...
	So aiming big, aiming for the long term, aiming for a role in history, aiming for changing the world for the better.
	Because, you know, people who compromise, it's just a dime a dozen, right?
	People who compromise are just a dime a dozen, right?
	So, you know, Joe Rogan was a huge fan of mine.
	We did a couple of shows together.
	Then he got his orders from someone somewhere, maybe his wife, who knows, right?
	He got his orders, and it's like, you got to take this guy down.
	All right, so he did. He did what he was told.
	And step by step, by betraying the good people, he gets led down the road where he gets paid $100 million from a company allied with a company that is allied with the Chinese fucking communist government.
	And that's his life now.
	I would pay just about everything to not have that life.
	He would probably be paid.
	I guess he's taken a lot of money to not have my life.
	That's fine. It's not a gig.
	The truth and virtue and philosophy, it's way too powerful to try and use it.
	Thinking that you can gain virtue and permanence and truth and honesty and integrity by manipulating the crowd and managing the numbers and taking the money 99 times out of 100, the only reason you receive a paycheck is to shut the hell up.
	In this sphere, this unfiltered sphere.
	I'm sorry to be closing my eyes, I just want to really concentrate on what I'm saying.
	Because it's a very important series of sentences.
	I mean, I do want to plant a tree of knowledge so deep that it can't be uprooted by the random winds of the moment.
	And I do want to get the hardy plants watered with reason and evidence to the point where not just I, but everyone can grow into like a mighty tree that can withstand the storms of the present.
	I want to dig as deep as I can into the essential spinal element of my personality that fuses with reality through the alchemy of reason and evidence and philosophy and empiricism I'm going to do.
	I want to connect myself like iron to the essential truths and nature of reality to the point where we get enough of us, even scattered though we are.
	We get enough of this iron bolted to the truth and the electricity like ball lightning, chain lightning can go between us and spell out some fantastic language in the night sky of the world.
	And this incredibly glorious opportunity to speak unfiltered truth to the world Never before existed.
	Never before existed.
	Everything was filtered. Everything was censored.
	Everything was silenced.
	And as I said before, we don't have a history of philosophy.
	We don't have a history of human thought.
	We have a history of those who were useful enough to the powers that be that they elevated them to prominence so that their sickly liquid words could further grease the skids of the powertrain that runs over the face of humanity.
	It's a funny thing, too.
	If someone like Joe Rogan had stayed friends with me, he would have made way more than $100 billion given his wealth through Bitcoin.
	Bye.
	It's pretty funny. It's pretty funny.
	So, with regards to Bitcoin...
	Sorry, just one sec.
	Okay, so...
	Yeah, almost half the Bitcoin network has gone offline in just 48 hours.
	Financial innovation designed to avoid the chaos of fiat currencies and manipulated investors sideswiped by.
	From FX hedge, U.S. Treasury to charge several financial institutions for money laundering using cryptocurrencies.
	I don't know, man.
	I don't know. It seems very, very unlikely.
	Yeah. So the people who are into Bitcoin because of hedonism, because it's a gig, they will buy and sell based upon dips and rumors.
	Sorry. That wasn't bile, but a friend of mine, when we were teenagers, I wrote about this group of friends I had as a teenager.
	I wrote about them In my novel, The God of Atheists, you should really get it.
	It's a great novel. You can get it at FDRURL.com forward slash TGOA. FDRURL.com forward slash TGOA. I wrote about a very group of very cynical but very funny friends.
	And one of them, these are jokes that otherwise would have been lost in the mists of time.
	It's something I always remembered as a very funny joke.
	He said, Ah, bile.
	It's your body's way of saying, you're not going to vomit right now, but if you were, this is exactly what it would taste like.
	I don't know, I just remember that for some reason being a very funny comment.
	And so sorry, that wasn't bile, but it just reminded me of that joke and I wanted to pull it from my memory and carve it out into the ether of the universe before it vanishes with me.
	But... So the people who are into Bitcoin, they'll buy and sell on the dips and they want to make money and, you know, Pompliano was with Jim Cramer.
	That's a pretty funny story. So Jim Cramer was like incredibly thankful that Anthony Pompliano He praised Bitcoin and explained Bitcoin to him and he bought some and it went up a huge amount.
	And then the guy just sold half his Bitcoin.
	Jim Cramer, that is, Anthony.
	I know we'll never sell his Bitcoin.
	There'll be pride from his descendants' hands maybe.
	But Jim Cramer ended up selling half his Bitcoin to pay off his own mortgage.
	I'm like, what? You've been like a financial analyst for ever and you need to sell Bitcoin to pay off your mortgage?
	What? Do you own Paraguay?
	What are you talking about? Why on earth would you need to sell half your Bitcoin to pay off your mortgage?
	Why on earth would you trade an asset that appreciates 200% a year for an asset that depreciates 3-5% a year?
	I don't know. It's just very strange to me.
	So, yeah, the paper-handed people, they're just people in it for the profits.
	They're in it for the money, and they'll take their short-term gains, and that's fine.
	But the people who are in it for the calling, that Bitcoin is a tyranny-fighting mechanism for shrinking the size and power of the state without a violent revolution, right?
	That's Bitcoin, right?
	Bitcoin is a technological innovation to fight central banking through ostracism, ostracize the dollar.
	And it is the single best and most peaceful methodology for shrinking the size and power of the state.
	Certainly the most peaceful and that's very good.
	I've always said that we'll gain freedom through ostracism and being able to ostracize the dollar is the greatest power that has ever been handed to the population in all of human history.
	So people who understand what the hell Bitcoin is all about, that it's not just a mechanism by which you make a couple of bucks You're cuck bucks of the fiat currency universe.
	The people who are diamond handed, not because they, oh, when Bitcoin gets to a million dollars of Bitcoin, I'll be wealthy.
	It's like, okay, as Napoleon said, no matter how much money you have, you still only need one dinner a night, right?
	You can never be in one room at a time.
	You can only ever drive one car at a time.
	Seinfeld and that Lantern, George, Nighthost, Jay Leno, nonwithstanding.
	I can't believe we collect all the stupid cars.
	What the hell's the matter with you people?
	So the people who understand that Bitcoin is a liberating technology even superior to the internet as a whole, they're holding because to sell You don't sell Bitcoin.
	You sell your fucking children into slavery.
	That's the reality of it, right?
	You don't sell Bitcoin. You sell your children into slavery.
	Now, I get it. You know, some people got to sell Bitcoin.
	You got to live. And that's fine.
	It's fine. It's a transitory thing.
	And, you know, I'm not 100% Bitcoin guy.
	I think some diversified portfolio.
	I get all of that. But fundamentally, you don't sell on the dips.
	You buy on the dips, you dips.
	Right? Because Bitcoin empowers humanity to fight their way free of oligarchical hierarchy without a guillotine and the deaths of tens of millions of people.
	So that seems pretty good, wouldn't you say?
	So the paper-handed people are just The Joe Rogans of the financial world, they'll sell their soul for a six-pack and a handjob.
	So, yeah, the fact that people are selling.
	Fantastic. Fantastic.
	Let's see here. Do you know what's more volatile than Bitcoin escalating in measurement in the Middle East?
	Let's see here. I also have a...
	Here's a little graph for you guys.
	Here's a graph for you guys.
	Can you see that? Get this over here, right?
	Global annual CO2 emissions.
	Current annual CO2 emissions globally.
	See that big black thing?
	That's... Oh, look, there's Bitcoin.
	Not Bitcoin. Not Bitcoin.
	Bitcoin. Not Bitcoin.
	Bitcoin. But I think it's wonderful.
	I do think it's absolutely wonderful that they're making environmental arguments against buying Bitcoin.
	I think it's because I don't want socialist environmentalists to have Bitcoin.
	I don't want them to have it. So yes, it's absolutely toxic.
	Nick Carter and his ilk will literally boil the oceans into space through Bitcoin and forget it.
	Joe Rogan says, what's Bitcoin?
	Can I smoke it? No, he didn't.
	I'm sure he didn't say that. Let's see here.
	I must rejoin the stream.
	Can I get the free domain chat telegram link, please?
	Yes. Is it contradictory to own Bitcoin while also being an employee of the state?
	It is not. Is it worth having a mortgage given the inevitability of negative interest rates?
	Good question. All right.
	Would love to chat. My Bitcoin runs on 100% crude oil.
	All right. Again, I got more topics.
	I'm here for the duration, man. It's only been two and a quarter hours.
	I've only just begun to chat.
	All right. What have we got here?
	It's somebody going to jump in.
	Are you jumping? Are you ready?
	Unmute yourself or forever hold thy peace.
	Hello. I'm well.
	Oh, we've chatted before on Clubhouse.
	How are you doing? Oh, sorry, sorry, sorry.
	I had you muted on the stream.
	I'm so sorry. My apologies.
	Sorry, I had her muted because I didn't want the other guy jumping in and killing my thoughts.
	So she's back. This is, I don't know, what do you want?
	Doesn't matter. Doesn't matter what you call you.
	The fine lady, I've chatted with her once before on Clubhouse and she's back with a question about something I talked about previously.
	Sorry, back to you. All yours. It's okay.
	So my name is pronounced Soad.
	And you had brought up at your previous podcast, or live, I should say, during Easter, about your mom.
	And I caught you a couple days ago, just kind of in passing and in mentioning, that you found a way to forgive her, but then didn't really elaborate on it.
	I'm such a tease. So the therapist that I am, I want some elaboration.
	I want to kind of know what is that way that you were able to forgive her and what brought you to it and was the show the reason for it and kind of what that process is if you're willing to kind of dive into that again.
	I will. Will you therapy me afterwards?
	Sure. All right.
	Okay. I will do that.
	I will... Tell you, tell you what it is.
	It may take a few minutes, so get comfortable, do a little light stretching, whatever you need to do.
	I'll unmute when you're done.
	All right. So, gosh, where do I even start?
	I know, I had this all prepared in my head, and then I'm like, oh, maybe there's a better way to explain it.
	All right, so I will start, and you guys just let me know if this...
	Comprehends things as a whole.
	All right. So, here's how I have been able to forgive my mother.
	It's a very interesting process.
	I refused to forgive my mother because I wanted to remain close to her.
	It was an attempt to maintain a connection.
	And that's why I wouldn't forgive her.
	And this took a fair amount of brain-meltingly vicious introspection to uproot.
	So I hope this makes some sense when I explain it.
	When I was thinking of my mother, I didn't forgive her because I had a bad childhood, but I've been able to be a peaceful parent.
	And I think in some ways my bad childhood turned me into a great parent.
	So what I did was I looked at myself, right?
	And I said, well, my God, I've been able to become a better person though I had a bad childhood.
	Why was my mother not able to become a better person while she had a bad childhood?
	And then, you know, that Pac-Man image, you know, that I'm a fact muncher.
	I just absorb facts and try and process them as best I can.
	And so I asked myself a pretty bone chilling question.
	And I said, okay, Mr.
	Reason and Evidence. Okay, Mr.
	Empiricism. I'm sorry if I'm going to get emotional.
	I'm not sorry. I'm not sorry if I get emotional.
	Okay, Mr. Empiricism.
	What evidence? What evidence do you have that your mother was capable of making choices?
	Forget your free will arguments.
	Forget your abstractions.
	You know, just work straight from the evidence.
	What evidence do you actually have that your mother was capable of making choices?
	And again, I can attach this ghostly free will thing to her, but that's like inserting the soul into the body and saying that you've answered something.
	Philosophically, you haven't.
	Theologically, maybe, yes, but philosophically, you haven't.
	What evidence do I have that she was capable of making a choice at all?
	And the answer came back to me right away.
	Flatline. None. None.
	There's no evidence. There's no evidence that my mother is capable of making choices.
	And I say this, and this probably happened because her birthday just passed, and she's, I think, 82.
	And... 84?
	Something, she's in her 80s. And, man, she's still 100% committed to the things that...
	She still believed when she was younger.
	100% committed. And what has cost her is everything.
	It's cost her her relationship with me.
	She never was able to hold on to a boyfriend.
	Her friends were either violent or absent or left her.
	She is 100% committed to these crazy beliefs she has.
	And it doesn't matter what they are at the moment.
	She's 100% committed to those crazy beliefs in the entirety of the time that I've known her.
	54 years.
	What evidence do I have?
	Physical, tangible evidence do I have?
	That she's able to make a choice.
	Now, I can drill back through the tunnel of time and I can say, well, but theoretically when she was in the womb and theoretically when she was born and theoretically when she was younger, she had some choice and she made some – then she didn't make choices.
	She let the defenses take over and then she became a hide of bright armor that completely extinguished the candle of her being and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
	It's like, okay, that's – but that's before me.
	That's even more theoretical.
	And I'll never know the facts about any of that because the only person who could tell me the facts would be my mother who doesn't tell the truth.
	That's completely inaccessible to me.
	That's not even like, oh, well, if I find the Rosetta Stone, I can get the ancient Aramaic and then I can get to the hieroglyphics from the Egyptians.
	It's completely inaccessible to me.
	The theoretical time before I was around where my mother was able to make choices, that is absolutely, completely and totally theoretical to me.
	Doesn't exist in any practical...
	It certainly doesn't exist empirically because I can't...
	There's no time machine drone I can go back and even if I could, I couldn't read her mind.
	What evidence do I have that she has free will?
	She can make a choice.
	None. None.
	Now, Why did I want to believe that she could make better choices?
	Because if she can't make better choices, I can forgive her.
	In the same way, I mean, it's almost like forgiveness doesn't even exist as a category.
	Like a puppy can't make better choices, so you don't have to forgive the puppy for peeing on the floor.
	A baby can't make better choices, so you forgive the baby for peeing in your eye.
	You know, like Patrick Swayze, he's going to be a fireman style, right?
	If she can't make better choices, then she's in the category of a toddler.
	color.
	And you don't think of forgiving a toddler.
	Right?
	You don't think of forgiving a robot.
	Because a robot can't make choices.
	A toddler can't really make choices.
	A baby can't make choices. So it would be wrong...
	To be angry at someone who can't make choices.
	It's in a strange way, and this is what I said at the beginning, it's because I wanted to stay close to her that I it's because I wanted to stay close to her that I stayed angry at Because if I can make better choices and my mother can make better choices, then we are similar.
	We're in the same category, right, of people who can make choices.
	Does it make sense? Yes.
	We were... Family.
	Let me know if this doesn't make any sense at all because it's really tough to communicate this stuff without going astray.
	So much concentration.
	My brain is like white hot right now.
	I wanted to be my mother's son.
	And because I could make better choices to remain close to her, I wanted to believe that she could make better choices.
	Therefore, I couldn't forgive her for making worse choices because I wanted to be her son.
	I wanted to be in the category of humanity that included her.
	Steph.
	Somebody says, holy fuck, my brain just went click.
	I appreciate you for bringing this up, Saf, but this was on my topic, my list, but it's better to talk about it with someone.
	Can I ask and interject real quick if that's okay?
	Now, if my mother and I are fundamentally different, that I can make better choices but she can't, But the question is why, and I get all of that.
	I get all of that, and we'll talk about that.
	But if my mother and I are fundamentally different, then I can't rationally be angry at her for making worse choices because she doesn't have a choice about that.
	By the time I met her, she was post-free will.
	No, the call is muted at the moment.
	She's not talking yet. I took my headphones off, so I have to wait.
	Wait till I'm done, and then I'm happy to be cross-examined, so just be patient.
	By the time I met her, she was a robot.
	By the time I met her, she was post-free will.
	So here's an analogy, right?
	If you have a mother and when you're born, she's 400 pounds, she can't play with you much, right?
	She can't go and play baseball.
	She can't go into the play center and swing around.
	She can't ride with you.
	Now, That's just the way she is.
	Now, if you're 400 pounds too, you know, the odds that you're going to get down to some kind of healthy weight with your kids and keep it off and stay healthy and not have all this excess skin, right?
	So, by the time you meet your mother who's 400 pounds, she's post-playing.
	She's post-able to play with you.
	She can't play with you much.
	I mean, let's just say playing means sort of energetic monkey bar stuff, right?
	Can you blame her for From the time you knew her for not playing with you because she's already 400 pounds.
	Now, you can say, well, she had a responsibility in the past.
	She became 400 pounds.
	I get all of that. I really do.
	I really do. And I'll get to that.
	But can you blame her for not playing with you when she's 400 pounds?
	No. Not from when you knew her forward.
	Does that make sense? From when you knew her forward, she's not responsible for not playing with you because she's 400 pounds and she can't play with you.
	She'll injure herself. She'll kill her joints.
	She'll break a leg. She'll break the equipment.
	She can't play with you.
	So from the time you know her and she's 400 pounds, you can't be mad at her.
	From the empirical time you know her forward, you can't be mad at her for not playing with you because she can't play with you.
	Ah, but before she could play with you and she made the choice.
	Okay, what if we go even further back?
	Right down the tunnel of time.
	What if we go even further back and you find out that your mother had a mother who was 500 pounds and who force-fed her awful food and wouldn't let her out of the house, wouldn't let her exercise, and that your mother was bloated and obese As a child.
	As a baby. Okay?
	Is your mother responsible for being 400 pounds if she's overfed like a veal fattening pen and confined as a child?
	And she weighs less than her mother.
	Her mother was 500 pounds.
	She's only 400 pounds.
	And she was... You know what happens.
	You get obese as a child.
	You've got the fat cells. You can't ever lose the fat cells.
	All you can do is shrink them, right? Unless you get lipo or something, right?
	So you can't eliminate the fat cells.
	You can only grow or shrink them.
	Your mother was force-fed as a child.
	She grew up and she weighs less than her mother but still not low enough of weight to be able to play with you.
	Is she responsible for not playing with you?
	When she was force-fed as a child and is doing better than her own mother was.
	Yeah, 400 is an improvement.
	You're right. Aha!
	So then we go back one further generation.
	We say, yes, but her mother force-fed her.
	Ah, but her mother was 500 pounds.
	Her mother's mother was 600 pounds.
	Do you see how this goes?
	You see how this goes?
	Now, with my mother...
	You say, ah, well... And there's limitations to the weight analogy.
	It's just a way that it clarifies in my brain, right?
	So, with this analogy...
	You say, ah, but was my mother force-fed food when she was a kid?
	No, no, but, but my mother was force-fed trauma as a child.
	My mother was force-fed trauma as a child, just as I was, although her trauma was worse, because I had an insane household in a relatively sane world.
	She had a household of unknown composition in an insane world where bombs were raining down from the sky and people were getting blown to bits.
	And she had to do something hellish with a Russian tank commander so he would not blow up the entire village where she was hiding.
	My mother was force-fed trauma in the way that you as a child could be force-fed food.
	And maybe there's trauma going back in my parents' generation.
	My father was force-fed trauma, no, not in the same way.
	I don't know the trauma that my father was force-fed, because my father was too young to be of military service in the Second World War, and he was not in a country that was bombed directly, because he grew up in Ireland.
	Southern Ireland was neutral in the Second World War.
	It's not part of England, right?
	It couldn't be summoned up like the Empire.
	I don't know what happened to my father, and I've been thinking about this too.
	Not only was it my mother's birthday a couple of days ago, but it's almost the anniversary of my father's death last year.
	I don't know what caused him to have such terrible mental health.
	I don't know. He went to boarding school.
	But so did I. Anyway, don't know.
	Again, I try to avoid the voids of things that can only be theoretical.
	My definition of free will is our capacity to compare proposed actions to ideal standards, right?
	Telling the truth is good.
	Should I tell the truth in this situation?
	Yes, because telling the truth is good, so you can compare your proposed actions to ideal standards.
	That's your choice. That's your free will.
	Did my mother have ideal standards?
	No. She was not religious.
	She never went to church. She was not philosophical.
	She did not have ideal standards that I know of.
	And here's where this shit will really blow your minds, people.
	Here's where this shit will completely blow your minds.
	As it has been doing mine over the last day or two.
	Okay. If...
	And I made this argument like 15 years ago.
	I believe it even more solidly now.
	It's not proof. I'm just saying I believe in it even more solidly now.
	If free will is our capacity to compare proposed actions to ideal standards, who do you know who has ideal standards?
	Who do you know who has moral absolutes that they must surrender to?
	Because we have the hedonism and we have the ideal.
	We have the Actually, we have the proposed.
	What would Jesus do versus what would Darwin do?
	What does the mammal in us want?
	What does the philosopher or the god in us want?
	Now, there used to be these ideal standards of Christianity or even patriotism or whatever it is.
	So who do you know who has a standard that is ideal and absolute that they are willing to surrender their behavior to to compare proposed actions to?
	Integrity, virtue, honor, courage, honesty, universally preferable behavior.
	UPB is free will.
	See, it all fits together.
	If you don't have UPB, universally preferable behavior, you can take that theologically, you can take that philosophically.
	If you don't have universally preferable behavior, you don't have free will because you have no standard by which to compare proposed actions to.
	Therefore, you have nothing to choose other than various states of hedonism.
	Ah, well, I have a choice to smoke or to not smoke.
	Okay, so smoking, pleasurable in the here and now.
	Cost down the road. Not smoking, beneficial down the road.
	Difficult in the here and now. Okay, but you're choosing between various states of hedonism.
	It's not a moral choice, fundamentally.
	It's not an ideal standard.
	It's like, well, I don't want to have lung cancer later, so I'll stop smoking now.
	Oh, I don't like the way it smells. It's too expensive, but it's negative, blah, blah, blah, right?
	My mother had no ideal standards by which to compare her behavior.
	So she had no free will.
	Now, why did she have no ideal standards?
	Because she couldn't believe in...
	You know, the Second World War killed Christianity more than any other single thing.
	First World War was the left hook.
	The Second World War was the right hook.
	Because how could my mother believe in God when she couldn't find anything of her own mother after the Dresden bombing other than A clasp from her purse in a ruined building.
	They couldn't even find a piece of the body.
	The bombing was so bad.
	The fire was so bad.
	She was melted into ashes and poured into the stratosphere of non-existence, my grandmother.
	How is my mother going to believe in God when her entire childhood was run by devils?
	It's not going to happen.
	I mean, practically, you can say, well, she should, or human beings are fallible, but practically, it's not going to happen.
	So she had no higher standards.
	and So she went for a hedonism.
	She went for the hedonism of men are attracted to me because I'm beautiful and I'm witty and she was and I'm intelligent and she was and I'm literate because she was.
	So she was a catch and men pursued her and she got to pick and choose and then she hit 40, couldn't get out of bed because she realized that the gig was up, the game was done.
	So Who is responsible for my mother having no higher standards and therefore no free will?
	Is it the Germans?
	Is it Hitler? Is it the communists that Hitler was a response to?
	Is it... Again, the causality trails off into vapor.
	Was it possible for her to have higher standards?
	I relentlessly oppose empty theoreticals.
	It's like saying, is it possible that everything we know is a complete lie and we're a brain in a tank being manipulated by a demon, Descartes style, right?
	Or Cartesian style, right? I relentlessly oppose useless theoreticals.
	Was it possible for my mother to have or manifest better behavior?
	Now, the answer to that is, again, back to the empiricism.
	Did she ever beat me in front of a policeman or a teacher or relatives or a priest or anything?
	Well, no, she didn't. She was always relentlessly fun and positive and a very peppy.
	She was a peaceful parent in public.
	Triple P, peaceful parent in public.
	So then you would say, ah, so she did have higher standards.
	And I use this and I've talked about this myself.
	So she did have higher standards because she could suppress her bad behavior when there were negative consequences.
	Therefore, she had higher standards.
	She knew how to behave better, right?
	No! False.
	A mistake. An error.
	Because I wanted to be close to her.
	I wanted her and I to be the same.
	Because I could do better.
	I assumed she could do better.
	Therefore, I was angry at her. Therefore, I couldn't forgive her.
	Right? Because...
	We can't have, as a standard for people, that which can also be attained by animals, right?
	And everybody's seen, I mean, if you have kids, they like watching these funny videos, right?
	Perfectly cut screams and stuff like that, or scare cams or whatever, right?
	And in it, you see a dog is going for a treat, and the owner turns around, the dog pulls back, right?
	And the dog's going for the treat, the owner turns around, the dog pulls back, right?
	All seen it. The dog doesn't have a higher standard called, I shouldn't steal.
	The dog just doesn't want to get caught, right?
	Dog just doesn't want to get caught.
	Um... If you're a shoplifter and you're about to steal something and then you just notice right up there, there's a camera.
	Right up there, there's a camera and the light's blinking among a star, right?
	And you're like, oh, okay, I'm not going to steal.
	Is that because you've suddenly discovered property rights and thou shalt not steal?
	No, you don't want to get caught.
	It's not a higher standard.
	It's not a moral standard. It's just I don't want to suffer negative consequences.
	For what I do, like how you train a puppy, right?
	Poop outside. Negative consequences, right?
	So sure, my mother was aware that she would get in trouble if she beat us in public.
	So she didn't beat us in public.
	But not because she could do better or had higher standards any more than the thief is a better person because there's a camera blinking and he doesn't want to get caught.
	It's like saying a bank robber is the paragon of virtue because he goes in with a balaclava on, right, for a face mask, right?
	So, sure, she was able to restrain her behavior, but that's not a characteristic specific to human beings.
	That's how you train, positively and negatively, anything from a dolphin to a dog to a monkey, you name it, right?
	I can't have as a moral consideration that which is attainable by other mammals, right?
	So ask yourself, I don't want to make this about you because I know this is, I mean, normally I say I don't want to make this about me, but I don't want to make this about you because look at the people in your life.
	What practical evidence do you have that they're capable of making choices?
	Moral choices. I mean, do they choose between a red and a blue card?
	Yeah, it doesn't matter.
	It's not a moral choice, right? What evidence?
	Specific and practical evidence.
	Now, what evidence could that be?
	Well, there could be evidence where, you know, my mother could say, oh, I was listening to some of your shows.
	I really get it. I'm so sorry.
	Let's go to therapy. Here's what I did wrong.
	These she could, right? I mean, it's not going to happen.
	It's not going to happen. Waiting for that to happen is why I couldn't forgive her.
	Waiting for that to happen... Or expecting that could happen or imagining that there was a possibility of that happening.
	My mother no more has free will than I can speak any Japanese outside of a stick song.
	Now, that's painful because she and I are human to NPC. Human to robot.
	Self-actualized free will to defensive automaton.
	She's let go of nothing. So she has this belief that the doctors poisoned her and that's why she abused her children and that's her defense mechanism to explain why she did such wrong and why she's not at fault and all of that.
	It's another way to plea for sympathy from her victims and it's all this big self-manipulation.
	Now, she came up with this thesis when I was maybe 14 or 15 years old.
	Coincidentally, she came up with this thesis when I became too big and began fighting back against her aggression, her violence towards me.
	And without us to bully, she then started bullying people.
	She launched lawsuits and all of that kind of stuff.
	So that is 40 years ago, more than 40 years ago.
	I think I was maybe 13, about 40 years ago.
	She used to leave messages.
	I had a number just for people I didn't want to talk to, right?
	And so she would leave messages there, and the messages would still be the same.
	You know, the court case is just about to finish.
	There's going to be a lot of money coming your way, and I want to share it with you, and we've been vindicated, and all of this verbal diarrhea, this logorrhea, right?
	So 40 years straight, she's got the same explanation as to what happened with her life, which is that she was poisoned by doctors and she's a victim and I should have sympathy for her and we're all in this together and blah, blah, blah, right?
	So she's committed, man.
	40 years. What evidence do I have that she's able to make any choices?
	No. She gets a gap between perception and reality.
	And she then fills it up with a defense, and she's really committed to this defense, man.
	I mean, she believed that a car would backfire.
	She'd think people were shooting at her.
	She slept with a big bread knife under her pillow because she was afraid of being attacked.
	She really committed to this, and she's not changed or wavered in that commitment for over 40 years.
	What evidence do I have that she's able to make any choices or is just dominated by these defenses, dominated by these explanations?
	I mean, Superman as a toddler can lift a car, but no human can.
	So the forgiveness to me...
	The forgiveness to me is almost like...
	And again, I'm going to blow your mind with this as well.
	So, forgiveness is something that we provide to equals.
	Forgiveness is a currency that circulates among people with the capacity for honor.
	Forgiveness is a category of respect we give to people who actually have free will.
	To this I would say people who accept UPB and Christians.
	Sorry, that's it, man.
	That's it. Because there's only two universal standards.
	There's Christian theology and UPB. And the fact that I was raised a Christian and came up with UPB is not coincidental.
	So, forgiveness or lack of forgiveness is appropriate only to people who have moral standards.
	To everyone else, there is forbearance, indulgence, avoidance, But the category of forgiveness does not apply to people without free will.
	You don't forgive someone for peeing on your hand if they're in a coma.
	There's no category called forgiveness because they don't have any free will in that situation.
	You don't forgive a baby for waking you up the third time overnight.
	Category makes no sense.
	I have withdrawn forgiveness as a coin in the fiat currency of determinism.
	Forgiveness is appropriate to people who can make choices.
	Forgiveness is an inappropriate construct for people who cannot make choices.
	I don't have any evidence that my mother is capable of making choices.
	I have every evidence that she's not capable of making choices.
	And when I first bought, you know, one of these, I think the Roombas, I only used it a couple of times.
	I was just kind of curious. I bought the Roomba.
	The Roomba went around and unfortunately it went under, it went by a couch where there was a set of headphones and it sucked the headphones up and I had to disassemble the whole damn thing to get my headphones out, right?
	Now, am I mad at that?
	Am I mad at the Roomba for sucking up my headphones and wrecking them?
	No. I'm mad at myself, I suppose, for leaving the headphones out or whatever.
	I forgot about them.
	You know, everyone has this thing.
	If we're watching a show, I like to lie on the ground.
	I do leg exercises and sit-ups and stuff like that.
	And I left my glasses down and I stepped on my glasses.
	It's like, ah, am I mad at the glasses for being in the wrong place?
	No, I left them there, right? So the inanimate objects, the objects without free will, they're not in the category of forgiveness.
	I don't have to forgive the Roomba.
	I'm sorry, this sounds kind of weird, right?
	But it's true. I don't have to forgive the Roomba.
	And how is my mother distinguishable from the moist robot of defensive determinism?
	How does the category of forgiveness apply to people who can't make better choices?
	And again, I can theorize all the way I want about the causality and the dominoes and maybe back and further, right?
	But that has no emotional or philosophical content because it's all theory with no evidence.
	It's all imagination.
	So, my mother, my mother, my mother, In a very real and practical sense did not do me wrong.
	She was through no fault of her own that I know of.
	Again, I could theorize before I was born.
	It doesn't really mean anything. Nobody's going to tell me the truth about anything that happened back then.
	The people who abused her in the war, the communists and the Nazis, they're all dead.
	I won't get the truth out of her.
	And nobody else was there that I know of.
	So, she certainly, obviously, it doesn't even bear repeating that she's in no way responsible for the war or Nazism or Communism or Totalitarianism or the bombing of Dresden or the Thousand Plane Raids or Churchill's murderousness to the German population.
	She in no way is responsible.
	So through no fault of her own, she was traumatized beyond free will, which can happen.
	People can certainly get traumatized beyond free will.
	And I think if you're kind of rapidly honest, and I've been really thinking about myself and asking people around me over the last couple of days, who do you know who has free will?
	And not just like in some philosophical definition sense, but in a practical sense.
	Who do you know who's genuinely taken self-ownership, apologized, improved, listened to reason, listened to evidence, changed their mind for the better, according to some standard that is not mere willpower or a will to power?
	Who do you know who is human?
	I mean, or superhuman, if the definition of human is to not have free will, which statistically and democratically appears to be the case.
	Who do you know who has manifested choice?
	Not who has choice in the theoretical.
	Who do you know who has manifested free will?
	It's a pretty chilling question, frankly.
	It's a pretty chilling question.
	And one of the ways that you know whether somebody manifests free will is do they make excuses for themselves?
	Excuses are promises of repetition.
	Whatever behavior people excuse, they will simply repeat.
	And Jordan Peterson knows damn well that benzodiazepines are highly addictive.
	Does he go through the enormously fruitful and deep exercise of saying, okay, what was I doing and why?
	No, just a doctor prescribed it and I took him.
	So I have gained.
	And it's funny because I wasn't like, oh, I'm so angry at my mom or anything like that.
	But there certainly is...
	It's a pretty wrenching and mind-blowing and blinding perspective or visioning perspective.
	But it comes at a cost, right?
	As I said earlier, that mental dysfunction is the avoidance of legitimate suffering.
	So it comes at a cost. And the cost is that...
	My mother and I are as different as two human beings can be.
	And maybe, just maybe, she was able to shield me from enough trauma that she delivered free will to me.
	In other words, 600 pounds, 500 pounds, 400 pounds, generation, 300 pounds, 200 pounds, normal weight.
	And maybe the trauma in my family, maybe you need Four or less to be able to develop free will.
	And maybe it was generationally, right?
	Ten, nine, eight, seven, six.
	My mother was five, gave me four, which liberated me from the machinery.
	which gave me the capacity to develop free will.
	Maybe she couldn't make it to the shore, but she gave me enough momentum that I could get to the shore when she drowned in history.
	Thank you.
	Maybe she couldn't save me from herself, but she was able to save me from myself.
	Maybe I had...
	little enough trauma that when philosophy came I could create a cathedral of free will through an appeal to universal standards through reason and evidence you're right people are saying yeah that's the NPC meme right The NPC meme, right?
	Oh, well, you know, adverse reactions to the vaccine is very, very small number of people.
	Therefore, we should take the vaccine.
	Well, but the people who die from COVID are very small number of people, so we don't need the vaccine.
	Right? Just an MPC meme, right?
	How many people are free?
	And maybe going back dozens of generations, Have you ever had to start a fire in the woods on your own?
	You get a tinder, a flint, or maybe you get the sticks going and you keep doing it and you keep doing it and then you get the flame.
	So maybe there's just been a slow step down, a slippery slope down of trauma to the point where free will ignites in me and I can spread it to the world.
	Maybe I could achieve normal weight because each generation was 10% lighter than the previous one.
	Thank you.
	All these perspectives that arise out of a brutal and fundamental commitment to empiricism.
	How do you know? My mother could have made better choices.
	How do you know? Aren't you putting a ghost in the machine where there's no evidence of a ghost in the machine?
	Aren't you ascribing free will because you have it to someone who's shown no evidence of it whatsoever and doesn't even have the methodology that you, i.e., I defined the methodology for free will 15 years ago?
	The ability to compare proposed actions to a universal or higher standard.
	I really should have listened to myself.
	I really should have. Because I... Defined and created the exact methodology that excuses my mother.
	She did not have access to, did not internalize, and could not manifest any allegiance to a higher or universal standard.
	By my own definition of free will, my mother could not have had free will.
	Thank you.
	By my own definition of free will, my mother could not have had free will.
	Now, my father became a Christian later on in his life, so I can't explain why he never manifested free will to me.
	I have no evidence.
	And maybe this is to do with also research in the Chauvin trial where...
	Remember I was saying earlier, proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
	Proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
	It's not a civil case. This is a criminal case.
	It's a criminal case. My mother was a criminal.
	She was a violent, child-abusing criminal.
	So I need to convict her because she has the defense of insanity.
	So to convict her...
	I need proof beyond a reasonable doubt that she had free will.
	But that's what you need in a court case.
	You need proof beyond reasonable doubt that somebody at least has free will, otherwise they're insane, right?
	They go somewhere else.
	They don't go to prison, right?
	Yeah, people say, but she acted differently depending on whether you were in private or public.
	Absolutely. Doesn't mean she has free will.
	Because dogs will do that too.
	Pets will do that. Whether you come in the room and they look at you guiltily or they stop what they're doing because you come in the room.
	It's not a human characteristic.
	It's not a fundamental philosophical characteristic at all.
	That's just self-preservation.
	You know, that's like saying, well, a rabbit changes course when being hunted by a wolf.
	It's not free will. It's just trying to dodge the wolf, right?
	It's not a moral thing. You can't forgive people who don't have free will because they're not in the category of forgiveness.
	Forgiveness is a gift or a prize reserved for those.
	Something just struck me too.
	That by holding her responsible for something she could not have chosen and did not choose, I have actually acted As an adult, more unjustly than she has.
	In other words, if you get mad at a toddler for eating too much candy or for peeing their bed or whatever, you're actually an unjust yourself.
	You're unjust yourself. So as far as me judging my mother as morally deficient, when there was no evidence that she could make moral choices at all, I've actually been cruel to a toddler.
	I shouldn't laugh because it's not funny, but it's a little funny.
	It's as funny as me defining free will in a way that excludes my mother from having free will while still remaining angry at her for her bad choices.
	I've been more unjust. Especially because I had the definition and didn't apply it fundamentally.
	I mean, I didn't have the insight, right?
	But I have been unjust in providing a moral category to my mother.
	Said moral category requires free will and there's no evidence my mother has it.
	That's not fair. That's not just.
	That's not right. So, sorry mom.
	You'll never hear this, but I'm sorry.
	I was wrong. I was wrong to blame you for something that, even by my own philosophy, you couldn't control.
	I have gotten angry at an epileptic for knocking over my drink.
	I've gotten angry at gravity because I fell.
	So then the real question is, not forgiveness of her, but forgiveness of myself for an error, and a pretty substantial error.
	Now, I'm not beating myself up.
	You continue to think and learn as you grow, but the forgiveness then probably needs to go more to myself for castigating someone for a moral failing when there's no evidence that they have any moral choice.
	I have been railing at a toddler who, you know, confusingly was much bigger than me and gave birth to me, but I have been railing against a toddler, which by my own philosophy, it's unjust to do.
	Who's cutting onions?
	you Yeah. That's not fair to yourself.
	No, listen. See, I can judge myself as being deficient morally without self-attacking because I don't have a standard of perfection.
	I have a standard of growth, right?
	So, to me, if I had had this insight and kept it to myself and continued, like you can't know before you know, right?
	So if I'd had this insight or these series of mind-blowing insights and kept them to myself and continued to describe my history of my mother in the same terms as before, and I may fall into that again because it's an old habit, but you can't know before you know, right? So I don't castigate myself.
	I don't self-attack myself.
	For something that I was genuinely unaware of and was not studiously avoiding becoming aware of.
	And what she did was wrong, but she herself was not evil.
	And It comes out of Jesus, right?
	Comes out of the Easter show.
	Because I couldn't, I couldn't stop thinking about what he says on the cross.
	And, What is you, I guess, remember?
	Do you remember what he says as he's dying?
	Torture to death. He says forgive them father for they know not what they do.
	They don't know what they're doing.
	They have no choice.
	They're obeying power, they're obeying convenience, they're obeying force, they're obeying pilot.
	They know not what they do would be the modern synonym for they have no free will.
	Right?
	And so Jesus is saying that they are in a situation of pre-free will.
	in the same way when we're babies and we're toddlers, we're in a situation of pre-free will.
	My mother has remained and my father died in a situation of pre-free will, as far as I know, certainly with regards to my mother I know, with my father I can theorize.
	But that statement has just been rolling around in my brain like a boulder in a bucket.
	They know not what they do.
	Because Pilate said, based upon the pressure of the Jewish leaders, Pilate said, go crucify Jesus.
	So they're like, okay, we'll go crucify Jesus.
	Now, Then he said, well, we'll set one of them free.
	And they said, ah, let's set Barabbas, the thief, free.
	So they went and they, they're machines, right?
	They're the centurions, right?
	They're just NPCs, right?
	And if Pilot had come down and said, we've changed our mind, cut Jesus down, they would have cut Jesus down.
	Bye.
	They know not what they do.
	They're just moving around the pinball of power, like those little silver balls of my youth.
	It means you stop waiting.
	Isn't forgiveness about closure that you stop waiting?
	There's a great film, Shadowlands.
	You should watch it.
	About a guy who's just waiting for his mother to, in a sense, be better.
	Wait, I just blanked out.
	What did I just say? Just before that, I wanted to follow that thought, but I lost it.
	I can't rewind myself. Shadowlands, I think it's called.
	Somebody said, I think you had a podcast with Cernovich where he said maybe your mom didn't have the ability to make the right choice.
	Well, and I don't recall that.
	I certainly don't disbelieve you, but the reality is that because I relentlessly oppose empty theoreticals, and I'm not saying that that wasn't empty theoretical, but I relentlessly oppose empty theoreticals, so maybe your mom didn't have a better question for me, and it's not Mike's fault, but a better question for me is give me the evidence that your mom could make better choices.
	What is the empirical evidence, right?
	Oh yes, thank you, thank you.
	So forgiveness is closure, right?
	Forgiveness is when you stop waiting.
	So as long as I can, I mistook my mother for myself, my capacity for choice with my mother's capacity for choice.
	As long as I projected my own capacity for free will onto my mother or my father or my brother or whoever, right?
	As long as I projected my own capacity for growth and change onto those around me, I was forever waiting, in a sense, for those apologies to come in, for that redemption to come in, for that change to come in, for that healing to come in.
	Right?
	You wait.
	And it's not just family members.
	I mean, there are friends, there are others who've done me wrong.
	And again, I want to seem like I'm some big victim.
	I've done people wrong as well. I've tried my best to make amends and apologize where that has occurred.
	But if I sort of understand that I'm waiting for an apology from a robot, you can stop waiting and that releases energies for other things, if that makes sense.
	I mean, it's not just family.
	The people who de-platform me, do they have a choice?
	Do they have ideal standards called free speech and honesty?
	No, they don't. They don't have those as moral standards.
	Because the whole point of post-modernism is to reduce us down to amoral pain avoiders and pleasure seekers.
	And it's clearly easier for them to de-platform me than to stand up for a principle.
	And because they don't value the principle, there's nothing to pull them in that direction.
	They have no free will.
	They have no free will.
	The only person in my engagement with Twitter and YouTube and other places, the only person in those equations who had free will, was me, I think.
	Habits start off as cobwebs and turn into chains.
	If someone is living with chains, you can't judge them the same as someone with cobwebs.
	My mother was a robot when I met her and has shown no indication, no indication at all in the 54 years since I've known her.
	I mean, she would even say the same, she would even say the same stories over and over and over and over again to justify, to explain to, right?
	Here's what happened. Your father did this.
	And it was the same thing, the same stories over and over again.
	This is a mark of robots, right?
	I've always been intensely self-conscious of if I have said a story before, I will say, oh, I said this before.
	You hear me say this. Oh, I said this before.
	I talked about this. I want people to know because I grew up around so many people who just tell the same damn stories over and over and, oh, don't grow me crazy.
	Now I understand, right?
	It's broken record, right?
	It's like getting mad at a record skipping.
	Sorry, Squire, the record's stuck.
	Sorry, Squire, the record's stuck.
	You don't get mad at that record for being repetitive because it's just stuck in a groove, right?
	Sorry.
	For those, it happens with CDs, I guess too, right?
	I hate repeating myself.
	I will. And I remember with Harry Brown, he used to have the same stories over and over again.
	And I had a boss once who used to tell the same stories.
	Like, in the same week, he'd tell the same story twice as if it was totally new.
	And what do you do? He's your boss, right?
	Oh yeah, you told me. You just keep going, right?
	It's a train track at the brain, right?
	No free will. No choice.
	Fixed way of being. So as long as I was projecting my own capacity for Free will and choice onto the world around me, I was frustrated.
	Why aren't they doing the right thing?
	Because they can't. Because they can't.
	Is indifference worse than not forgiving?
	You can't ever be indifferent to your parents.
	I mean, that's... No, you can't.
	I mean, that's, that's a, and you don't want to be, even if it was possible because I mean, you're kind of a sociopath, right?
	Let's see here.
	Holy shit.
	Me and my siblings wrote a list of all the phrases and stories we had heard before from my dad.
	Oh yeah, no, it's rough, man.
	Because when people are repetitive, they're dissociated.
	They're just on autopilot, right?
	And to be alive in the conversation, like I'm trying, I mean, I'm not telling anything new here, I don't think.
	Sorry, I'm not telling anything that I've said before.
	This is new flow of consciousness, alive in the moment kind of conversation, right?
	But can the people that de-platform you reach a free will state?
	A lion will eventually eat you.
	Well, but that's the point of this show, right?
	The point of this show is not to promulgate morality, but to create morality.
	The purpose of what I do, and I've said this before, but the purpose of what I do is not to identify and spread morality but to create the very conditions wherein morality is possible.
	In other words, if you don't have A higher standard by which you can compare proposed actions, you can't have any free will.
	And so for those of you who don't believe in God and Jesus, then UPB is your ideal standard, right?
	Rape, theft, assault, murder bans, they're in, property rights, respect, self-defense, all the things that UPB validates, that's your higher standard.
	Non-aggression principle, that's your higher standard.
	So when you give people higher standards, you are actually summoning them.
	To the superhuman state of free will.
	You are giving them an entirely new life.
	An entirely new brain.
	A brain that is not a mere mammal pursuit of pleasure and avoidance of pain.
	But the capacity to glory in pursuit of and make sacrifices for the ideal, the good, the virtuous.
	Morality is created Through the power of language and the transfer of ideals from one mind to another through the medium of communication.
	That's the electric arc that I was talking about before where we bolt ourselves like iron into the fabric of reality.
	We arc and the ideal standards, the truth, the virtue, the good arcs between us when we bolt ourselves to reality through reason and evidence.
	We become the electrical transmission lines that bring power to remote locations that allow the desert to bloom, the forest to give way to cities and the sea to let slip on its skin the speed of the forest to give way to cities and the sea to Just got in here.
	Can someone in chat tell me what's happened so far?
	I don't think so.
	I don't think so.
	Does this mean you agree with Jesse Lee Peterson about forgiveness?
	That's annoying to me. I'm just...
	I'm not saying you're annoying. I'm just saying that's annoying to me.
	Because I'm sort of trying to unpack my heart here and you're trying to drag me onto some comparative land and what Jesse Lee Peterson said to me about forgiveness two years ago.
	go.
	Forget it.
	Just try and be in the conversation as it's happening.
	All right.
	I still live with my dad and I feel the need to finish his stories for him because it's so annoying and I'm still mad at him for other stuff.
	Yeah, yeah, listen, you will remember how to be here alive.
	We few, we happy few.
	So to me, repetition of stories is a cry out from the remnants of the true self to dislodge the avalanche of empty repetition that has buried our capacity to be alive in the moment.
	People tell you repeat stories because they want you to interrupt those stories and say, hello, anybody here behind the show?
	Anybody here behind the show?
	Is there anybody alive in here?
	Nobody but us.
	Is there anybody out there?
	Yeah.
	So we're not convincing people.
	We're creating people.
	We're not communicating with people.
	We're summoning humanity to them.
	So, yeah, thank you for your patience.
	I'm all ears to the fine lady who called in before.
	Hey Steph, thanks so much for being so open and honest about this.
	I know From the last time you spoke, it was a difficult topic and I must say there was a lot of tears on my end as well for you.
	So I just know that it's a very vulnerable place.
	For me, really? Not for you at all?
	Come on, a little bit, right? A little bit.
	Not all me, right? Very vulnerable for me too.
	But it was wonderful. It was wonderful.
	So I do have a follow-up question for you.
	Oh, yes. So you mentioned that What it sounds like you were saying, and correct me if I'm wrong, but you kept your mother in that place because you needed her close to you.
	And what that translates to me is you needed her to be mom and you needed to be child.
	But you came to a place where you realized, okay, there was never really a mom and therefore I have to surrender to this.
	Therefore, I am no longer a child.
	And if that is true, if that is what you were stating, then have you come to terms or have you recognized then what is your title?
	What has been your title moving forward?
	Yeah, it's a very, very good question.
	And what that brings up in me, just hearing what you say, and I'm not trying to avoid the question.
	I just want to keep you current with what my thoughts are.
	I think I needed to think that my mother was like me, because otherwise, where the hell do I come from?
	If I'm my mother, but better, then, okay, I'm an improvement.
	I'm a step, you know?
	She's a human, I'm a human, upgraded.
	But if I have free will and she doesn't have free will, if I have the capacity for morality and she doesn't, where the hell do I come from?
	And I think wanting to have that continuity with the previous generations was why I gave them the responsibility that I take on for myself.
	Otherwise, it's really kind of a...
	I mean, it is one of those weird existential questions like, do I come out of like Zeus gives birth to his kids fully formed from his forehead?
	Like, where the hell did I come from?
	And that is, I think, one of the reasons why I wanted to keep that judgment going and say, well, I have capacity for morality.
	My mother has capacity for morality.
	I have free will. Therefore, my mother had free will because that way I'm part of the human chain.
	I'm part of history.
	Otherwise, like, blank, where the hell am I from?
	And because I'm a Christian, The answer for me is kind of obvious when you come from a God who wanted more for you than what happened to your mother.
	And I think because, and again, please correct me if I'm wrong, I think because in your past you were so opposed to the Christianity to God connection that was so easy for you to know there needs to be so much proof there needs to be a reason for why I am who I am but now that your heart maybe has softened a little bit with the idea of God as a greater being maybe that's why you're able to kind of tackle this wait a minute where where is this coming from who am I how did I can forgive my mother.
	I mean, you gave an incredible Easter podcast.
	It was incredible. As if a true, God-fearing man was speaking to us.
	So I think I have to believe that there's this part of you that's kind of growing.
	Forgive me for using such a horrible word.
	No, no. Don't count your terms.
	I mean, honestly, just give it to me straight.
	Doc, I can take it. I mean, just don't count your terms.
	You don't have to pussyfoot around me.
	You don't have to be delicate.
	Just give it to me straight.
	Just tell me what you want.
	So there is this part of you that is growing in spirituality, whereas it was very resistant before.
	And I think because of that, because of this desire to grow spiritually, you are seeing so much more.
	God's finally like, hey, he's ready for this.
	He's ready for the abundance that I'm about to show him, and so here we go.
	And perhaps that's why forgiveness was much more attainable to you now than it has ever been.
	Your thoughts on that?
	Well, it's tempting. You know, it's like you're a god with a low-cut top.
	It's tempting. Well, so, I mean, the challenge is, it's like, okay, why all that suffering then?
	Couldn't I have been made good without all that pain?
	But I have to believe that you are so awesome because of that pain.
	You are so incredible.
	I mean, look at all the many lives you have touched because of your pain.
	There is no way you would have reached so many souls the way you have if you didn't have so much passion the way you do behind your words.
	You truly have incredible passion.
	And it comes from suffering and pain.
	So then shouldn't we praise people who abuse children for creating a better world down the road?
	Obviously, I wouldn't say praise, but I would understand why they have a place on this earth.
	Yeah.
	Or how they have a place on this earth.
	Or you could say that the devil provoked my mother to free himself from his darker nature.
	It's really hard to justify the existence.
	I'm there with you, the existence of God and why.
	Well, yeah, because if God is going to intervene, then why didn't he?
	And again, I can say afterwards, you know, good things came out of the evil that was done.
	Right. But isn't there another way?
	Right. Because here's the thing.
	I'm not doing evil in the world hoping that good comes out of it.
	Do you know what I mean? Yes.
	And I'm not allowing, quote, allowing evil to happen.
	I'm steadfastly opposing it and trying to.
	So I'm not just letting evil happen in the hopes that good moral strength comes out of that evil.
	So does that mean that God's morals and mind are different?
	Well, then it goes into the whole...
	The difference between the Old Testament and then the New Testament.
	And then we're obviously getting into theologies.
	But, you know, the whole Old Testament being God who was very jealous and angry.
	And he knew that his people were doomed.
	And therefore, he had to bring Jesus to create a way for us to be able to get close to him and be near to him.
	He knew that we were going down a route that was just...
	Disgusting and unforgivable in so many ways and so that's why Christ and that's why we are now born again in Him.
	I just think inevitably we were gonna have bad.
	We were always gonna have evil.
	It's gonna be there and He created another path and another way for us to get to Him and hopefully take the bad and the ugly and somehow turn it into stories like Step On where He touches thousands of lives.
	And I have no problem reconciling the existence of evil with the existence of God.
	I really don't.
	Because I accept that the gift of free will is the gift to do wrong.
	And that if God forced us to be good, goodness wouldn't exist.
	We have to have the choice. It's just, I mean, again, I sort of think about the suffering that my mother went through as a child and whatever happened to my father, and that it seemed to give them no functional free will.
	Now, I get that the Christian argument is that there's still a soul in there that they have access to and that they can achieve that, that there's a part of them that retains the capacity for free will regardless of what has happened to them in terms of experience, if I understand that correctly.
	But, my Lord...
	Does it ever...
	Or maybe the argument is if there's no higher standard.
	Well, my mother didn't have free will because she rejected higher standards of theology or philosophy.
	And that's the price.
	That's the price of not having higher standards is not having any free will.
	No choice. Right.
	Do you mind if I kind of segue a little and ask another question unless you have more thoughts on this?
	No, no, that's...
	Go ahead. So, now that you're here, now that we're at the place of forgiveness, where you so humbly also asked your mother for forgiveness, do we call her?
	Do we reach out?
	Do we let her back in?
	I mean, the problem is that my mother is, I mean, she was institutionalized.
	She is genuinely, like, crazy.
	And she has not been able to have a conversation with me for decades.
	And, you know, whatever the healing power of the Lord is, I don't think it can repair a mind shattered to that extent.
	And in the times that I've tried to have any kind of coherent, and not angry conversations, not conversations where I'm blaming her, just conversations where I try to have some say or sway.
	I mean, you may have heard this before, but the last conversation that I had with her was I was just getting completely exhausted in these continual legal trials, battles, tribulations that were just always going on, always the same.
	And I said, listen, I accept that you've got this battle going on and I respect you for it.
	And I know it's been tough, but I really need us to have...
	A couple of other topics of conversation because I feel like I'm kind of not here.
	I'm just receiving all this legal stuff.
	And honestly, I mean, I know that people are like, well, I did nothing and then blah, blah, blah.
	I mean, literally it was that gentle and then she's like screaming at me top of her lungs.
	She's throwing things around the kitchen.
	She's like sobbing in the fetal position on the floor.
	And this is long.
	This is like 30 years ago or maybe 28 years ago, something like that.
	And it's not like she's gotten saner ever since.
	I mean, she's, I assume, worse now than even back then.
	And so I think just in terms of basic processing, and you wouldn't know this stuff, right?
	So the basic processing of reality of my mother, as well as a sense of self-preservation, because if I get involved in another one of these nightmare conversations where she's screaming and throwing things, that's incredibly damaging to her, to me, to my parenting as a whole.
	I mean, it's very traumatic because that was my childhood.
	So I think that that generally applies to people who Are sane, or at least dysfunctional, but not insane.
	So I don't feel any particularly strong impulse to ask for her forgiveness.
	Although, I mean, I can certainly see the case to be made that I have ascribed to her, also in public, of course, moral motivations that I now kind of accept that she was not capable of.
	Right. And remember, you know, this is now the Steph with a forgiving heart who has now changed his heart into having a softer side for her and towards her.
	So perhaps a conversation now with her wouldn't have an agenda, wouldn't have a plea, would literally just be an open heart, a forgiving heart to just hear her talk about her endless You know, legal battles,
	if that's what she continues to talk about, that there would be this kindness and softness to you that's more about, let me just have her hear my voice, whether it's just a yes or no, or uh-huh, okay, that sounds great, Mom, and vice versa, that she hears my voice.
	You have such a different position now than you did, obviously, decades ago.
	Well, okay, but would you suggest to someone, if they have someone who's I don't think you would assume that that kind of conversation could occur, would you? I'm not quite sure if I'm even saying what kind of a conversation.
	It's just that a conversation.
	I think maybe you have more of an agenda of what the conversation is supposed to be like.
	I'm just saying maybe a phone call and just saying, hey mom.
	And then seeing where the conversation goes to kind of be able to evaluate Where her mental capacity is.
	Obviously she's not in front of me. I don't know what her diagnosis has been.
	I'm assuming with pretty much 95% certainty that she does have some kind of borderline personality disorder in there.
	I've mentioned to you before that people with borderline personality disorders, they tend to actually get quote-unquote a little better because they get exhausted from their scheming and manipulating.
	They just can't do it. They don't have the energy as much.
	But whatever else she may have that's more chemical-based, like if she does have schizophrenia or bipolar, I'm not sure, those do tend to get worse.
	But again, this is not about a conversation to have these enlightening conversations, but instead to kind of almost seal the deal.
	You've forgiven her. I mean, I appreciate that.
	Somebody's asked about a relationship with your kids, but I think I remember this correctly from our previous conversation.
	You don't have kids, right? No.
	I do not. Yeah, that's fine.
	Somebody asked.
	Okay, so I see a huge downside in the conversation, but I'm trying to understand the upside.
	Well, let's go further into the downside.
	You did explain, like, okay, I'm going to go into this endless thing with her talking about nonsense and just me ending up getting mad and angry and so forth and so on.
	Is that correct? No, that's not what I said.
	Sorry? No, no, no.
	As I said, the last conversation that I had with her was me being very reasonable and simply asking for an adjustment to our conversational parameters so that it included something other than her just driving all this crazy legal stuff into my brain for an hour straight.
	Right. And she got physically violent and screamed, sobbed through things, was dangerous, in a fetal position on the ground at the end of it.
	And I just like... It's not like, oh, I'm mad and she's non-responsive.
	She's physically dangerous.
	I see the downside for sure, and that would be very traumatic, of course, for me, because then it re-triggers wounds that I've spent a lot of time stitching back up and all of that.
	The other thing, of course, is that it opens up a portal for communication going forward.
	That's also not something that I would want.
	And that's fair. I mean, you've made your case, and that's absolutely fair, that of course you don't want that kind of life back into your life, and that's absolutely reasonable.
	I guess... My reason for bringing this up, even at all, is just to make sure that we've gone down to the forgiveness.
	Are we going to seal it all now with an actual conversation?
	Is that something later on down the line you may regret that you don't have with her if God forbid she does pass tomorrow?
	Looking at it at a broader picture, I guess.
	Yeah, yeah, I know. And again, this is also coming up to my mind as well because I was just thinking yesterday about how my father died a year ago.
	And I certainly did try to have some conversations with my father about the past.
	He was absolutely dismissive and unresponsive.
	And I don't have any regrets.
	And I'm not saying you're saying this, but there is this sort of idea, well, you're going to have this regret.
	I think if it's a year, and I've thought about it intermittently over the course of that year, and of course I'm pretty frank and open with people about my I'm happy that I had conversations with him.
	I can't control what other people do.
	I can only control what I do.
	So I'm pleased that I had those conversations with him.
	Oh, they weren't really conversations.
	But after he's I've now been dead for a year.
	I don't have any regret that I didn't try again, because I think there is that repetition thing you have to kind of, again, empiricism, right?
	Which is, if I had the conversation a couple of times and nothing happened, and I had the conversations with him probably 20 years ago, so he had 19 years to get back to me, never did, and I accept that as just a reality.
	Right. Now that you have forgiven Mom, how does it feel?
	Does it feel any different?
	I think it opens up a very profound and exciting mystery, which is not only where do I come from, But where the hell does this show come from?
	Why are you and I even talking?
	I don't mean this like, why are we talking?
	What's the point? I don't mean that. It's a great, it's a fantastic conversation.
	But it's another question that I have.
	Where does my language come from?
	Where do the insights come from?
	Where does the analysis, where do the analogies come from?
	And The break that I had with my past, I always assumed was an improvement.
	But it's not, really.
	It's like saying that a spaceship is an improvement over a horse.
	It's a whole different thing.
	To not be something that is a domino, knocked down by previous dominoes of history, gives a profound sense of the potential for originality.
	And I think as long as I tied myself in my essence to what had come before, I think I was always limited and I've always had a sense of frustration that, not always, I've often had a sense of frustration that I should be doing more, I could be doing more, I could come up with better analogies, better metaphors, like almost like I can summon an entirely new world through language or an entirely new humanity through language or something like that.
	And so I do think though for me, Recognizing that I am profoundly different from those who came before me, genetically, biologically, culturally, historically, or whatever, I think has given me a sense of scope, that I'm not limited by what came before.
	And I think people would say, you know, like here I am on a Sunday afternoon, I've been talking for like three hours and 40 minutes, and I knew that there was something new that I could do.
	And I think that what I'm doing today is something new That has come out of a break with history.
	That I am something new that is in isolation from the causal chain of what came before, if this makes any sense at all.
	That I can be even more profoundly original myself with fidelity to ideals.
	Than before, because before I was always tangled up with the mistake, with the illusion, the delusion.
	I was all tangled up that I was just like before, but different.
	Like before, but better.
	Like my mother, but like I had the same choices of my mother, I just made better choices.
	It's like if I'm more fundamentally different, then there's more foundational capacity for originality and scope and power.
	I'm not limited by what came before, if that makes sense.
	Yes, it does. You're excited.
	Yeah. It's something new.
	Yes. Because I've always had this horror, literally a visceral horror of doing the same thing over and over again.
	Like Groundhog Day is part comedy, mostly horror for me.
	Like the idea that you just live in the same day over and over and over again.
	And I'm always looking for something new that is fertile ground for me.
	And I think this is something that comes out of that very, very strongly.
	And like you mentioned before about how so much good comes from bad, your de-platforming has truly created a new in you.
	I was just telling my boyfriend just while we were listening to you earlier, he has become a different stuff.
	It's a more intimate stuff and I greatly appreciate it.
	Don't take this the wrong way, but it's brought me closer to you, if that makes sense.
	I completely agree.
	I mean, I was very much tangled.
	I mean, the politics was a continuation of the past.
	Politics was a continuation of what came before.
	And for a long time, and this is partly due to the influence of my producer and partly, of course, my own choices as well, but...
	To me, getting back to foundational questions of morality and identity and history and potential, you know, people have been saying in the chat that...
	One guy said something very interesting.
	He said, I was feeling bad all morning before the show, not anymore.
	And people have been getting these kinds of revelations as I have been getting through these kinds of conversations.
	That's kind of where I started in a lot of ways.
	Right. Yet, it's so much stronger now than it was when I started.
	And I do think that this Uniqueness of these kinds of insights, these kinds of conversations, this foundational, lava-filled crucible of what it is to actually be alive and human and have choice is where the real power is.
	And I think where the real forward arc goes, you know, the website Brighteon is a video website, and they have been uploading my old videos.
	And so when I log in to post a new video, I can see the old videos that I've uploaded.
	and it was like the death of Justice Scalia and so on.
	It's like, yeah, that was good and that got views and that was fine and it was helpful.
	It was interesting, but it doesn't mean shit for the future.
	I think this, this is the foundation that grows the conversation into the future and it's a foundation that is sustainable long after you and I are gone.
	And the whole question that you had of how did I get here?
	How did I, from a family that was, excuse my language, so fucked up and so screwed me over and just was a shit show for me to grow up in, How did I become this?
	I think that question in and of itself seeking the answer to that is going to be the meat of so many of your newer shows, newer lives, podcasts, whatever else you end up doing.
	Yeah, because if I don't know, as you don't know, if I don't know how I did it, how the hell can I teach anyone else to do it?
	And how much of what I can do has been limited by me tying myself to the dominoes of history?
	You know, I mean, it's that old David Bowie song.
	I've seen the ripples change the side but never leave the stream in any permanent way.
	Right? Which is okay. So I am a product of history.
	Therefore, I'm limited by history.
	I'm limited by what came before.
	And what if I'm not a product of history, but a product of the universal?
	And in your conception, this would be God.
	But what if I'm a product of the universal, not just a product of history?
	If I'm a product of the universal, then I've only done 1% of what I can do, because I've been limited by the dominoes that came before and constrained by an identification of something which is fundamentally dissimilar for me, if that makes sense. Yes.
	Somebody said, if you were still on Twitter right now, you'd be tweeting about Dems expanding Supreme Court.
	You know, it's funny because it's true.
	I would have to agree with that statement.
	Right, right. Good work, Steph.
	All right. Well, thank you very much.
	I appreciate that. Thank you so much.
	I appreciate that. Thank you for joining the conversation.
	You're welcome back anytime. And if there's anybody else who wants to bring up anything else, I'm happy to hear.
	Yes, my friend. Hey, I was hoping to ask about the different denominations of Christianity and maybe get into the specifics of that, if that's okay with you.
	I may not be your guy. I may not be your guy for that.
	I'm not an expert at all, but I'm happy to sort of say my thoughts, but I certainly don't mistake me for somebody who's a detailed expert on this stuff.
	I'm not looking for a PhD in theology, but your opinion is always of immeasurable value to me and has been for many years, and I would love to hear it.
	That being said, in your show with the Australian, with the troubled history, you did recently, you posted on Locals.
	He made a barb about Catholicism, which you corrected, and then you went on to mention various denominations of Protestantism, and you said to avoid Unitarianism.
	I don't know what that is, but you didn't mention Orthodox Christianity, which I think is the most valid branch of Christianity.
	It's my own branch. And I would love to hear your thoughts on that.
	Also, my criticism of Protestantism, I would also like to hear your opinion of it.
	But first, you address Orthodox Christianity, so I don't overload you with topics.
	Well, I mean, I would say that most of the denominations would view themselves as orthodox, right?
	Because orthodox means inconformity to the original teachings, right?
	So I think that this is probably just my appalling ignorance, but I'm not sure how to differentiate orthodox from every denomination's view of themselves.
	Well, Greek Orthodox. I mean, if I speak Greek, go to Byzantine churches, you know what I mean?
	Black robes, bearded priests, the Byzantine tradition.
	Right, right, right.
	I don't know enough of the content of the theology of Greek Orthodoxy to, and if you want to tell me, I'm certainly happy to give you my thoughts on it, but I'm not going to pretend if you've grown up in the religion that I have much to add in that from the outside.
	Well, it's more centered on the New Testament.
	Not much similar to Catholicism, but very oriented in the Greek tradition.
	Certainly, I would say just worth looking into for your audience.
	Just because I don't have long, I want to get into the main point, which is the criticism of Protestantism that I have.
	Yeah, yeah, go for it. Let's go. I'm more familiar with Protestantism, so that's what I was raised in, so go ahead.
	Yeah, I think that's a better topic.
	It seems to me that Protestantism is a bit maybe too individualistic and perhaps has descended into decadence because of that.
	I mean, I haven't met much youth in the West that identifies as Protestant.
	They've all seemed to abandon their tradition.
	The one person under 30 I met who identified as a Protestant was an R-selected ketamine dealer.
	I mean, not that I've ever done ketamine, of course, but I met him through other circumstances.
	I can't believe that there's an R-selected guy dealing special K, because it should be K-selected, but anyway, go ahead.
	Yes, yes, you're correct about that.
	But yeah, I mean, it seems to me that Protestantism has just fizzled out into this nothingness of do what you want, shag who you want, you know, it doesn't really matter.
	What is it really?
	It seems empty, it seems valueless, hollow.
	It's people have abandoned it.
	Most women, it seems, who are currently...
	I mean, young people who come from a Protestant tradition, the women specifically tend to be more promiscuous.
	I mean, Catholic girls to this day will at least wait for three dates.
	I haven't met a Protestant woman, you know, with the same standards.
	It seems, you know, is maybe Protestantism an aberration from Christianity that we should be correcting?
	Well, I mean, that's...
	It's a big question around the fall of Christianity as a whole in the West.
	I don't know that it's totally specific to Protestantism, but...
	I mean, so the fall of Christianity is R-selected versus K-selected, and in particular, it's the mammal versus the god, right?
	The animal versus the divine.
	The hedonism versus the universal.
	And so when you get...
	Good universals in place in your society.
	Property rights, limited government, free speech, good judicial system, rights, and so on.
	You end up with a very prosperous and productive and Wealthy society.
	And then that prosperity and that wealth tend to blunt down people's need for virtues.
	And then people fall to decadence.
	I don't think we can necessarily blame a particular denomination of Christianity for the fact that wealth breeds decadence.
	Wealth breeds decadence with regards to the state.
	Because what happens is when you—you know this, I'm sure, but just for the others, if you don't— The only way you get wealth is through massive inequality, like staggering, unbelievable levels of inequality.
	Because we're used to physical characteristics.
	You know, there are good-looking guys, there are ugly guys, but everyone has the same number of eyes, noses, and mouths, right?
	There are tall guys and there are short guys, but they're usually within two feet of each other.
	But inequality from a wealth standpoint ranges into the hundreds or thousands or millions of times.
	You know, the richest people in the world are decabillionaires or hundred billionaires or whatever.
	And the poorest people are in debt, right?
	So it's a factor in the millions of difference.
	And so when we get inequality of that to that extent, which is the only reason we have wealth, the inequality is when productive capital flows into the hands of those best able to maximize and reproduce it and create more.
	So the only reason we have wealth or the only way we have wealth is this massive inequality.
	This massive inequality creates a giant hole through which soffits come through and say, well, let's make things equal.
	And, you know, these people are so rich, these people are so poor, let's just take a little bit from the rich people, but give it to the poor people, everybody will end up fine.
	Or like that old Bruce Hornsby song, they passed the law in 64 to give those who ain't got a little more, but it only goes so far.
	And that sophistry, it only works because of the state.
	Because if it was private charity, it would be limited and controllable.
	And so that level of decadence, and it comes in the form of socialism, it comes Fabian socialism, it comes in communism and so on, which is we don't like inequality, it makes us feel very anxious.
	And it also has anxiety with regards to human value, because people who have $100 billion obviously can have much more.
	I mean, look at George Soros, right?
	People who have that amount of money have a massive disproportionate effect on the world.
	Versus those who don't have that kind of money.
	So we feel very anxious, especially with the government.
	I mean, George Soros is a shadow cast by the state power, right?
	Because he's constantly funding DAs and think tanks and all of that that have to do with affecting state power.
	So George Soros is not the problem.
	He's a shadow cast by the problem, which is the state.
	The people who want to close the anxiety that we have around inequality because we assume that the guy who's 500 billion times richer than the poor guy, that he's somehow, there are different species, or there's this perception of this anxiety of difference that occurs.
	And that difference of influence, particularly with the state, right?
	You get a small state which produces very wealthy people.
	The very wealthy people then have a disproportionate effect on the state, and we feel we need to balance that by redistributing resources.
	And it's, you know, it's a very complicated cycle that goes on in civilization.
	I don't think you can sort of put that down to one denomination in particular.
	So the way that Christianity as a whole, and this is sort of the way that I was raised, was to some degree it's like, well, screw the rich.
	How do you know that they're happy? Man does not live by bread alone.
	It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.
	So the fact that wealth is considered a great danger to the soul, a great danger to virtue, and it is.
	Because wealth comes with it, the possibility of power and control and influence and value and being special and being in demand.
	You know, I mean, everywhere that rich people go, if people know they're rich, people are descending upon them trying to get money and charity and investment and they just, you know, constant attention and so on.
	It's like very beautiful people.
	It's the kind of power that ill suits virtue.
	Not always, but often.
	And so when you have That inequality that draws in the people who wish to correct that inequality through the power of the state.
	But Christianity deals with that by saying, it doesn't matter if they're rich or not.
	But what does Jesus say?
	Your real treasure is in heaven.
	Your real treasure is with me, is with God.
	It is not with the things of this world, the things of this world.
	As I've said before, the word possessions, the word possession refers to things that you own and also things that own you, like demonic possession, the possession from an evil spirit, and It's very easy to get lost in stuff and leave behind virtue.
	Just in the same way, it's very easy to imagine that a beautiful, sexy woman somehow has virtue as well and is a good mother for your children because of lust.
	So, the assault upon Christianity is the assault upon something that gives us comfort in the face of economic Inequality or inequality of outcomes in a free market system.
	Because as I said before, Christianity deals with the problem of envy, envy of the wealthy, envy of the beautiful, envy of the powerful.
	Christianity deals or tries to deal with the problem of envy by saying, well, they're probably going to hell and you're probably going to heaven.
	And there's some truth in that because, you know, the poor little rich girl, the lonely rich guy and all of that's pretty common trope because there is A real truth behind it that great wealth can isolate, right?
	I mean, there's an old Friends episode where You've got the three friends who are making money and the three friends who are poor and they're always frustrated because the poor friends are saying, well, you keep wanting to go to these concerts.
	They're expensive. He's going to go to these nice restaurants and we can't afford this stuff.
	And that's bad enough when one guy is making 50, the other guy is making 20.
	If you start making, I don't know, $10 million a year or whatever, what are you going to have in common with the people you grew up with?
	What kind of circles are you going to move in?
	What kind of opportunities are you going to have?
	What kind of conversation topics are you going to have?
	There is a great isolation situation.
	To wealth. And so Christianity says, well, it's the quality of your relationships and in particular your relationship to virtue that matters.
	Or there's an old line from Wall Street where Martin Sheen tells his son, when did I ever teach you?
	He snarls it out like, when did I ever teach you to measure a man by the size of his wallet?
	Right? And it's an important thing.
	So again, I'm not sure it's one denomination or another.
	And sorry for the long speech, but I hope that at least gives you a place to start.
	No, I mean, you make sense.
	But yes, again, it doesn't seem that it relates to denominations specifically.
	And again, I want to point to the similarities between Catholicism and Orthodoxy.
	You know, we have the seven mysteries or sacraments, I think the Catholics call them.
	In Orthodox Christianity, we have the Holy Trinity, Indivisible, Father, Son, Holy Spirit.
	We prioritize the resurrection of Christ as the biggest celebration of the year.
	I'm currently in fasting, not allowed to eat meat or eggs until the 2nd of May this year, just for religious reasons.
	Next year, I'll be taking it even further.
	I'll be cutting out oil and dairy as well.
	But, you know, I have to ease into it.
	I don't want to go the whole way, you know, because I haven't fasted in the past years due to my own spiritual weakness, unfortunately.
	But do the Protestants have any of this?
	Do they have seven mysteries?
	Do they have fasting?
	Oh, yeah, there's fasting for sure.
	Yeah, no, there's Lent. There's Lent for sure.
	And there's Pancake Tuesday is how you break it.
	So, yeah, there is definitely an asceticism to it for sure.
	But it doesn't have the same punishment of the body that often is in Catholicism where you have the flagellation of the saints and so on and the mortification of the flesh.
	So there is a skepticism but not a hostility towards the flesh in Protestantism in that the flesh can lead you astray, but Protestantism also is that you glory God by Good, economically productive works in the here and now.
	And it's not as...
	Yeah, the Protestant work ethic.
	And then some of that's a bit overstated, but I think there is definitely this idea that you provide, you create wealth, that if you, you know, Jesus says, you know, give to the poor and the Protestant answer is, oh, so Jesus says, sell everything you own, give the money to the poor.
	It's like, okay, but what about next week?
	You know, they'll still be poor and you don't have any stuff.
	You can't give anything to them, right?
	So the Protestant idea is, you know, create a sustainable business, hire people, help the poor, and that definitely idle hands are the devil's playground, right?
	That you've got to be busy.
	You've got to be working on self-improvement.
	You've got to be adding to your human capital because that way you can create wealth and value in the world.
	You can help people not through charity in particular, but through giving them jobs, which will give them a greater sense of self-respect and productivity.
	And so on. And yeah, there's skepticism towards the flesh, but there's not the body is the devil's and you've got to be really aesthetic and so on.
	That was never something that was very strong in what I grew up with.
	Yeah, that makes sense.
	I mean, okay, to approach this from, again, the word lived experience I'm sure has a lot of bad connotation given the people who use it, but from what I have seen in person, the people most willing to weaponize the state And the people most willing to destroy basic human liberties and dignities have been descended from a Protestant tradition and they obviously call themselves atheists now,
	they don't identify as Christians but they were either raised as Protestants or with Protestant parents The people who are either Catholics or Orthodox still have that sort of reservation about condemning others as immoral for disagreeing with them, less likely to be inclined to redistribute wealth, or should I say steal wealth, You know, I mean, the most art-selected people I've met have come from a Protestant tradition.
	Well, I guess we're just limiting ourselves to Christianity here, right?
	Because there have been some elements of Judaism and Islam that are not exactly totally positive to limited government, right?
	Don't get me started on those two.
	Those aren't even comparable in the same moral universe as Christianity.
	Christianity was the great moral revolution that might just save mankind from the troubles.
	Okay, so I just want to...
	Just for those of us, the fact that we're sort of reviewing the Christian tradition is great, but let's not forget some of the other delightful moral systems out there that can have some challenges to human freedom.
	I'd rather live next to a Protestant than a Muslim or a Jew of any kind, but again...
	Not by much. You wouldn't want to judge any individual by a belief system as a whole.
	You would classify Quakers as Protestants, right?
	Yes, and I was actually going to get to that.
	The exception I have met who pray for me and bake me bread and have good souls are Quakers.
	Because, you know, they're pretty big on the no-government wars.
	They're pretty big. I mean, the Quakers were one of the foundational drivers for the great moral revolution of the end of slavery.
	I mean, that didn't come heavily out of Catholicism.
	You're right. Anti-lockdown, specifically, the Quakers have been excellent.
	I will have to give credit where credit is due.
	The Quakers, or Mennonites, I think they're called, have been above and beyond even some Catholics I have met.
	But, again, allow me to invoke the Muslim argument, which is don't judge the bushel by one apple.
	And Quakers being an exception to the Protestant rule in the modern West, I think, is no defense of Protestantism.
	Right. Yeah, no, and you could say it's the exception that proves the rule, that we notice them because they're a deviation from the general trend, right?
	Oh, exactly. Oh, yeah, yeah.
	The best people I've met, some of the best people I've met have been Quakers.
	And I love Quakers just as people, amazing people, lovely people.
	They'll have you in your home. They'll feed you.
	They'll pray for you. They'll pray with you.
	Amazing people, amazing people.
	Quakers are something special, really.
	So I don't want to...
	When I say Protestant, always assume that I'm making Quakers as an exception.
	It's Protestant with an asterisk, right?
	Yes, yes. Protestant, the good kind.
	But as far as most of them go, they seem to be the reason the West is declining.
	Oh, okay. So how do you explain some of the...
	I don't know how to put this as nicely as possible for my Catholic friends.
	No, hit me straight up.
	Don't be nice. Cuck Pope?
	Okay, yes. The Pope is a communist.
	Yes, we agree. So that seems like a pretty important consideration, wouldn't you say?
	Okay, okay. You've exposed the hole in my thinking.
	I appreciate that. It is unfortunate that the Pope is a communist and the vulnerability of the Vatican and Catholicism to subversion is definitely something we need to talk about.
	But again, if you notice comment sections, specifically Facebook, Catholics, for some reason they tend to be overly Catholic.
	They will criticize the pope.
	Even though there's this Catholic doctrine about the pope being infallible or some BS, they will criticize him.
	I've never seen this much criticism of a pope before.
	And it just so happened that the first communist pope is the one that gets called out on his bullshit.
	And I think that's not a coincidence.
	Well, and there's also a lot of, not just Protestant, but the Catholic involvement in taking the 30 pieces of Judas silver from the state in order to facilitate mass migration into the West.
	I mean, the churches are right front and center in that stuff, and that's pretty brutal, man.
	Well, that's the difference, right?
	Communists have subverted the Vatican and the Papacy, but the mainline Catholics in their individual lives are still wonderful people, whereas Protestantism is the opposite.
	You can hear a friar be what you and I would call maybe based, you know?
	But the average Protestant, the average, specifically young Protestant, under 30, are just hopeless, are selected up the wazoo, if I can use American expressions here, even though I dislike Americanisms.
	They are dangerous, I would say.
	Okay, but you understand, I'm sure, that one of the reasons why the Protestants have been so harmed is that they did not...
	Managed to maintain separate educational facilities such as the Catholic schools did.
	And so the Protestants are being raised in, you know, amoral socialist, our selected government indoctrination camps, whereas the Catholic schools are still able to transmit the ancient and venerable traditions of Catholicism to the children.
	And so That's pretty substantial.
	Now, you could blame the Protestants for saying, well, why don't you keep your values in the school?
	But that's sort of another question.
	But as far as the kids go, I mean, the Catholic kids are still getting training in Catholicism, and all the Protestant kids are getting a sex ed.
	That's a good point.
	I went to Orthodox Saturday and Sunday school and it was taught in school as well where I went so I grew up hearing about Christianity before adopting it fully.
	I'm an ex-Muslim myself so I understand the transition and the journey of discovering Christianity but In my experience, yes, you are right that education is maybe the number one thing that has allowed Catholicism and Orthodoxy to outlast this strange, should I say, I don't want to use the word sect because it's a bit strong, but should I say branch called Protestantism?
	Yeah, I mean, that's a valid point you raise.
	I can't think of a rebuttal.
	I don't think a rebuttal is necessary.
	I agree with you. Again, sorry, not again, but to criticize Protestantism to a degree as well.
	Because Protestantism is based mostly upon intellectual or moral arguments rather than particular rituals.
	I'm sorry? Sorry, because Protestantism is based more upon intellectual or theological arguments and perspectives or beliefs rather than particular rituals, then there is the belief in Protestantism that the ideas can be transplanted without the rituals, and therefore they're willing to let the rituals go.
	But then they find that when the rituals have gone, so has the transplantation of ideas, so has the continuity of the theology.
	And it's the same thing that people have with the sort of civic nationalism thing.
	Well, we'll just bring people over to the West and we'll just teach them to be Westerners because it's just a bunch of ideas, right?
	And the problem is that they find that it doesn't happen, right?
	And the reasons for that are we can sort of talk about perhaps another time.
	But I certainly do think that, I mean, if you look at the big crusades, sorry, that's the wrong phrase to use in any context with Christianity.
	But if you look at something like The Protestant empires, and in particular I'm thinking the British Empire, the German to a smaller degree empire, and so on.
	If you look at the British Empire, we'll take in particular.
	So the British Empire was based upon the notion that you could take Protestantism and you could simply transplant it around the world using particular government educational structures.
	Mm-hmm. And it was one of the greatest and most disastrous delusions that the West has ever indulged in.
	Because it simply wrecked the West.
	It didn't do a huge amount to improve anything other than specific material fortunes of other countries.
	And it created a giant portal where the ex-Empire could send everyone they want into Europe or whatever, right?
	And so the idea that you can...
	Transplant theology without history, without sacrifice, without commitment, without rituals, or any of these things.
	Catholicism, and I think Orthodox, the Greek Orthodox, by maintaining ritual, they have maintained a much better flow of theological values from generation to generation, whereas the Protestants are more like, well, we'll just write it down and hand it out.
	And that really hasn't worked to do anything other than not transplant and dilute Protestantism at home.
	Oh yeah, the Protestants definitely seem to be infested with this noble, savage BS where all we need to do is talk to someone and they'll eventually get it right.
	Well, maybe, but generally they don't.
	Or someone comes along who's much more aggressive and assertive, like Islam, and then it's like all that stuff goes out the window.
	And it's like, yeah, well, okay, so the words versus the swords, that doesn't tend to work very well.
	I mean, is it a coincidence that the first country in Europe to take an actual stance against Islamism is France, a Catholic country and not a Protestant country?
	Is it a coincidence that the UK where I live is cocked beyond belief where it relates to Islamism and that we would rather let them win than stand up to them here in the UK? I mean, is that a coincidence?
	I think not. I think you'll find that the rhetoric In both politicians and individuals, in Catholic and Orthodox countries, is a lot more, should I say, the opposite of spineless, should I say, spineful, in non-Protestant countries.
	And Protestant countries are all this, yeah, you can be whatever you want, you can do whatever you want, it doesn't matter, you know, it's hippy-dippy, whatever.
	It's the worst hymn I've ever heard in my life, but all right, go on.
	That basically describes Protestantism.
	Worst hymns ever. They don't have beautiful hymns.
	They don't even speak these traditional languages.
	I learned ancient Greek through Christianity, and I'm sure many Catholics have a familiarity with Latin.
	Do Protestants have any familiarity with their history, or is it just our selected nonsense that they call Christianity?
	Well, I mean, the criticism being that Protestantism is a delusory Sivnat chamber of commerce justification for becoming bourgeois middle class.
	But anyway, that's a whole other...
	And somebody's pointing out Poland.
	Yeah, of course, Poland is pretty powerful that way as well.
	So he's saying, somebody said here, he's talking about the Protestants, that real Protestants considered to be literal Satanists.
	Don't give me this not real Protestantism shit.
	What are you, a commie? Like, come on, this not real socialism is not real Protestantism.
	It seems analogous. No, no, no.
	Hang on, hang on, hang on. You just talked about not the real Pope.
	So, come on. I mean, you can have that discussion in Catholicism.
	You can also have that discussion in Protestantism too, right?
	Every belief system is going to get hijacked by its opposite.
	That's inevitable, right? Okay, maybe good of you to call me out on that.
	If I can invoke the Muslim argument with one apple, not the whole bushel, it can apply to other areas as well.
	But the majority is what I'm pointing towards.
	If you walk, for example, in a Catholic or Orthodox country in the street and speak to the people, They will defend their tradition.
	They will be familiar with their tradition.
	They will participate in the mysteries.
	Their children will be baptized.
	They will get married in churches.
	They will participate in communion and confession.
	I enjoy confession. It's a load off my shoulders.
	It's carrying my cross up the hill.
	Do Protestants have any of this?
	Not as far as I know.
	I think we outsourced confession to Freud, which I don't think worked out very well for anyone, except for maybe cocaine dealers.
	Is it a coincidence that Freud came from a Protestant tradition?
	You what now? He was Jewish.
	Is it a coincidence? No, I mean Germany.
	He was surrounded by...
	Oh, come on. He was in Vienna.
	He was totally embedded in the Jewish community.
	So, I don't know. But you could say maybe he was more embraced in a Protestant...
	Yes, that's what I mean.
	Well, you know, that's interesting. I mean, I've often thought how if you get rid of confession, you get psychoanalysis, psychiatry, and the mass drugging of children.
	So I'm not sure that there's a huge step in the right direction.
	Well, I think that's a valid point as well.
	You'll find that Protestant countries have the highest rates of mental illness and depression.
	The majority of people you speak to here, they will casually describe themselves as depressed, whereas where I grew up in the Orthodox tradition, to be depressed is a taboo.
	How could you be depressed? Life is good.
	Christ gave Himself for our sins.
	You know, enjoy life. Carry or cross up the hill.
	Wait, Ireland is a Catholic country and they voted for abortion, says somebody here.
	Yeah, but that took a lot of propaganda, man.
	That did take a lot of propaganda.
	I know it's not much of an answer, but it certainly did.
	Plenty of good Catholics voted for abortion, says Chauvin.
	Well, are they good Catholics if they vote for abortion?
	Those seem a bit contradictory. I mean, that's like saying that Joe Biden, well, he raised his son and...
	Oh yeah, he raised a perverted crackhead and you trust him to govern your country?
	By God. You're not ashamed.
	Also took a lot of propaganda, but yeah.
	Okay, so yes, there are...
	I think there are certainly some weaknesses in...
	So, and this is the issue sort of I have with the Just so, for those of you who don't know the history of Christianity, Protestants are like the progressives of Christianity in that what they did was they threw out a lot of old stuff without asking why it was there in the first place.
	This sort of over-critical, this doesn't make absolutely empirical sense, so it must be tossed out, but no, it has value.
	That's why it survived 2,000 years, dumbass.
	Right, right, right.
	So, I mean, and this is the same thing with, you know, this sort of modern social justice warrior.
	We've got to tear down these statues.
	It's like, well, they're kind of there for a reason.
	And the reason is to remind people of the history, and it's not to celebrate everything that happened in history.
	Otherwise, you'd have to say to Germany, tear down Auschwitz or tear down Treblanca in, was it Poland or whatever, right?
	So we keep these things to remind us of history and simply erasing history because you find some parts of it offensive leaves people rudderless and without a root and it's like taking up the roots of a tree and thinking you've got a healthier tree.
	And so I think with...
	And of course Catholicism was...
	Well, the splintering happened of course because of the translating of the Bible into the vernacular by Martin Luther.
	It happened because there were some excesses of...
	Indulgences and paying priests for absolution from sin, even to the point where you could say, I want to do something bad next weekend.
	Here's, you know, five copper pieces so that I can be forgiven now.
	There was the sale of reduction of the time that you'd have to spend in purgatory because of the excess virtues of Jesus and the saints, which were considered owned by the Catholic Church.
	There was some corruption and you needed to clean house.
	All human institutions need to be cleaned house From time to time, and this is what the free market is so good at, is that all institutions get polluted by inactivity and ideology, and the free market will regularly destroy those institutions through better competitors coming along.
	It never happens with governments except in this big agonizing 250-year cycle of destruction.
	But I think they did come along and they say, okay, there's some bad stuff in the Catholic Church.
	We're going to throw it all out. We're going to start from scratch with like the Soviet new man or whatever without saying, okay, well, the bad things are the outcrop of human fallibility and sin, but the good things are there for a reason and evolved and developed over time, and we should really try and figure out the value of those things before we just toss them out.
	Absolutely. I think you hit the nail on the head where you point out legitimate criticisms of Catholicism, the corruption of the modern papacy as well, but as you said, the selling of indulgences and the reduction of time in purgatory and all that.
	Does it justify throwing the baby out with the bathwater and creating an entirely new splinter of Christianity that will then lead to the collapse of the West?
	Obviously not. Again, so you're putting dominoes on Protestantism.
	I see with my own eyes.
	That's not an argument. I see that you're wrong with my own eyes.
	Oh look, our eyes are crossed. Sorry, go ahead.
	I have read miniscule amounts of literature on Protestantism, so I'm sure you can educate me very much so on this topic, and I'm happy to be corrected on anything I say.
	However, what I have seen is not one or two anecdotal cases.
	It is thousands of young people that have come across that come from Protestant tradition that now are the ones that want to tear it all down.
	The people, for example, tearing down the Churchill statue or the one who wanted to tear down the Churchill statue, they wrote Churchill was a racist and they tore down the statue of Colston in Bristol.
	Is it a coincidence that that happened in the UK and that the statue debate is going on in the US, which are two Protestant countries?
	I mean, the idea of tear it down, it's all evil.
	I mean, that does have something to do with Protestantism.
	I mean, if I'm wrong, please tell me.
	I mean, it seems like a valid thought.
	You know, that's a pretty good case, my friend.
	Yeah, that's, you know, tear it all down is the revolutionary mantra, right?
	Everything that's old is prejudiced.
	Everything that's new is, by definition, better.
	And I guess it's this revolutionary eschatology is pretty hard to separate from Protestant theology, which did seek not to reform but to reinvent, right?
	Yeah, I got nothing, man.
	I mean, I got nothing.
	That's a very good...
	That's a very good point. I think we've both made rational arguments here, in good faith, of course, because even if you do come from a Protestant tradition, and I come from an Orthodox tradition, we are still fellow Christians fighting against Marxism, which is the main enemy, and we should not forget that for a bloody second.
	Oh yeah, and that comes straight out of Satanism.
	I mean, Marx was an out-and-out Satanist writing poems to worship Satan when he was younger.
	I would be happy to call any Protestant my ally in the fight against tyranny and in the fight against...
	Marxism. I'm pointing out what I consider to be good faith, valid criticisms of the Protestant tendency to abandon what works, tear it all down, and which is what has led to the increased promiscuity among Protestant women, the extraordinarily high single motherhood rate among Protestants, my bad.
	I mean, these are valid criticisms, I think, that should be addressed over time, patiently, in good faith, with fellow Christians.
	They are not a gotcha. They are not a, ah, you have to be baptized as an Orthodox tomorrow.
	No, God forbid. Like, if you have come from a Protestant tradition, because I'm a traditionalist, I will not tell you to tear down your tradition and condemn it and adopt my tradition.
	That would be awfully Islamist of me.
	But still, I think it's worth asking themselves, Protestants, whether it's really worth pursuing this rebellion against central authority that stems back to the 1500s.
	Because when Martin Luther pinned his 95 points to the church door, did he envisage An entire splinter from the Catholic Church or did he envisage reform from the Catholic Church?
	And here I want to point to Dan Carlin's Prophets of Doom.
	That's an excellent podcast on this topic.
	Four and a half hours, I believe.
	It touches on the Protestant Reformation and the revolution and the sectarian wars that occurred there.
	It's worth asking yourself.
	It's worth asking yourself, if you're a Protestant, exactly what it is you stand for?
	And I think they'll find that the answer is not much, and it's no coincidence that the most R-selected people I have met have come from a Protestant tradition.
	Hmm. I think in the absence of state, Protestantism would have had to deal with its own shit and come up with its own standards and its own transmission of values.
	But once a state came along in Protestant countries, I mean, there's this terrible story of state education that is an integration of Christianity.
	As you're probably aware, In America, government education came about because of the influx of Catholics and the Protestant majority was concerned that Protestant values were going to get diluted because of Catholic activism in the schools and that you weren't going to have sort of the one Protestant story of civilization.
	So the Protestants, and again, this is a very big general story, but the Protestants turned over the education of their children to the state with the hopes of maintaining Protestant values in a Protestant country or Protestant countries as a whole.
	Funny story. Is that just not further...
	I'm sorry. No, go ahead.
	Is that just not further evidence of the stupidity that arises in Protestantism?
	You want to maintain your values so you hand them to the state.
	You deserve to lose your values.
	What the fuck, man? Well, you know, you and I are completely on the same side as this divide.
	Because... You know what happens, like cocaine.
	Hey, I got a couple of months of happiness and then my life is hell and I end up hanging myself, Michael Hutchins, auto asphyxiation style in a hotel somewhere.
	Because what happened was the Protestant values were strengthened for a generation or two and then the Marxists were like, hey, government schools, we can get in there and completely strip the transmission of Western values from everything.
	And the Catholics remained a separate area where values continued to be transmitted, but it is always my question.
	I guess the Protestants do seem to be significantly more tempted by state power.
	Which is funny because they arose against a rebellion against corrupt authority, right?
	But the Protestants do seem to be a little bit more tempted by the satanic state power as a methodology.
	Oh, charity is good, therefore the welfare state.
	Or education is good, therefore government education.
	And I'm not sure exactly where that comes from, but this constant turning over...
	The transmission of values and the protection, or not just transmission of values, even the enforcement, so to speak, of values, the manifestation of values, like charity and so on.
	Turning all that stuff over to the state is, I mean, it's pretty terrible.
	I mean, being tempted, the state coming along and saying, oh, we'll protect you from those nasty Catholics.
	We'll transmit your values, no problem.
	And then two generations later, you get, you know, Drag Queen Story Hour and stuff, and No God and the...
	In the schools, that seemed kind of predictable, and it seems strange that a belief system or theology that was developed out of a fear and loathing of the corruption of centralized power finds that it really wants to manifest its values through the power of the state.
	That doesn't seem to be a very good plan.
	Well, absolutely. The delegation of authority to the state is evidence of a lack of intelligence, for sure.
	And I would ask why that came from Protestants in America, as you highlighted.
	But I also want to shift to another topic just quickly.
	It's the same main theme, but where Protestantism is related.
	I've also noticed within the few Protestants I've met that have been at least identified as Protestants under the age of 30, I pointed to the ketamine dealer before, but others as well.
	Again, smugness that I notice is a big problem for them.
	They will refer to the Orthodox and the Catholics as, you sheeple, why do you need a relationship with a priest?
	Why do you need a priest to tell you what to do?
	Why do you need these mysteries?
	Your relationship with God should be individual.
	It should be individualized.
	But if you lose the community aspect of Christianity and you have no reason to go to church and participate in the Seven Mysteries, why be a Christian?
	The ritual is the conduit by which the values are conveyed.
	I believe. And without the ritual, it's dangerous, you know?
	And smugness, I think, that comes from Protestants and this, you know, we're better than you because we figured it out and we rebelled against the authority and you guys didn't.
	Sounds a lot like Marxism.
	Like, you capitalists, you, you know, we're the ones who have it all figured out.
	If only you listened to us.
	I mean, am I making sense here?
	Well, you are.
	You are. And there's a lot of sort of thoughts tumbling around in my brain.
	I'll just give you two of them.
	Go for it. I'm just trying to figure out which one to do first.
	Human beings go mad in isolation.
	It's only through communities that we stay sane.
	And this is one of the big problems with the lockdown and the isolation of people working from home.
	Like a third of Americans are cripplingly affected with loneliness and they don't even get Monday morning going into the office to deal with people.
	And this is why you have little old ladies trying to pay for their groceries with quarters and coupons, because that way they can stretch out the interaction with the cashier to the point where they can have a remote semblance of a human conversation.
	And so in pure individualism, like the sort of Ayn Rand boiled down to its essence superhero Howard Rourke, John Galt stuff, it's how we go crazy.
	This is why I have conversations with people.
	This is why I do shows, because it is through conversation that we maintain and polish our sanity and our morality.
	It is not something that occurs in isolation.
	Aristotle's right. He said the only people who can live alone are animals and gods.
	It's not for human beings. We're dogs, not cats.
	I put the dogs, not cats in.
	It's not Aristotle. So I think that this idea that, well, we don't need the priest, we don't need the church, it's just me, us, and God, It takes away the community and the tribalism by which the values are reinforced and polished and discussed and all of that.
	And I think that's pretty important.
	The second is, though, I will tell you not who it is, but the content of a conversation with a Christian that I have a pretty strong professional relationship with.
	And there is...
	I think in Christianity as a whole, it's sort of a truism that Christians do their very best when they're persecuted.
	They do their very best when they're cornered.
	They do their very best when they're losing heart.
	I agree. If I think of, and I don't know whether this is more, I think Catholics want to maintain and continue, but there is something a little bit masochistic about Protestantism, or maybe Christianity as a whole, which is We can't really be good if we're not being persecuted.
	I think that one of the drivers behind mass immigration is to bring in people with hostile belief systems so they can enjoy the Colosseum virtue again, if that makes sense.
	That seems like it makes sense.
	I mean, for me, mass immigration, the way I interpret it was an attempt first to lower the IQ, and secondly, an attempt to divide the population.
	I never really saw it from a religious angle.
	Of course, it does have religious connotations because of Islam, for sure, but...
	I've never really analyzed it through a religious lens.
	I've always analyzed it through the lens of the elites who do what they need to get power.
	And if that means importing half of Africa, you know, let's do that.
	But, yeah, I mean, as someone who migrated to the West, I try to be very careful with my criticisms of mass immigration because I do find myself often having it turned against me.
	Well, you don't support immigration.
	How come you migrated here?
	So, it does require delicate balance, maybe where it relates to immigration being based upon shared values rather than simply this strange perception of charity that people have been brainwashed into thinking they are carrying out when they open their borders.
	I don't know.
	You're pointing out of that religious aspect maybe to mass immigration is worth analyzing, but I haven't considered it myself.
	Yeah, no, I just remember a Christian saying to me, and again, this is one person, this is not a big theological argument, but...
	You know, we do our best when we're being hunted.
	We get closer to God when we're being persecuted.
	And that means that for some people there would be a sin to success that would maybe drive some of the self-sabotage of the West.
	For sure. I mean, I've definitely found that my faith has strengthened and the reason I got back into fasting, I think it's not a coincidence.
	I recently started standing up to the wokest in my local community and I found that their attempt to throw vitriol at me and their attempt to deplatform and harass and criticize And their portrayal, their use of the words racist, regressive, bigot, homophobic, that's what has strengthened my faith.
	If people like you oppose me, now I have even more of an incentive to carry my cross up the hill.
	I will leave my bones on this battlefield if it means standing up to you people.
	And my Christianity is definitely a contributing factor to that and I think it's no coincidence that when I finally decided I was sick of watching this bullshit take place and this willing attempt to destroy everything that humanity has ever created that is even moderately positive that is named Western Civilization that once I decided to make a stand and once I met this vitriolic opposition and have to worry about Who knows your address and who knows your phone number because the prank calls are coming in.
	That's definitely what strengthened my...
	Having the strength to fight is really, really important, but the question is for people who can't get to their faith except by fighting, they will invite opposition into their lives in order to strengthen their faith, which to me is not a very proactive way of strengthening your faith.
	It's like saying, well, I don't have much motivation to go jogging, so what I'll do is go into a bad neighborhood with a fistful of money and wait for people to chase me.
	It just doesn't seem like a very proactive approach to achieving virtue.
	I didn't stand up to the left in order to strengthen my faith.
	I stood up to the left in order to do the right thing.
	And in doing so, my faith has been strengthened.
	But when I decided to stand up to the left, initially it was the COVID lockdown, and that turned into, you're a COVID idiot, I hope you die, whatever.
	And I'm like, okay, well, why is it only leftists that want to criticize me for opposing the lockdown?
	And, you know, from there it went into everything.
	The BLM, they had a protest in my town.
	I went there just to spy on them, see what's going on.
	For sure it has been since I decided to do the right thing.
	The opposition I have met has led me to faith, but it was not my intention going in on day one.
	Hey, I want to be a Christian again.
	Not again. I was always a Christian.
	I just weakened over the past few years.
	I did not go into fighting the left with the intention of rediscovering my faith.
	Rediscovering my faith has been a proxy of fighting the left.
	Right, right. That's very good.
	Well, listen, I really appreciate your call.
	And there's a few people in the chat who wanted to, if you wanted to share information about, they're certainly curious about your journey.
	And I would as well.
	We should talk about that another time if you'd like to.
	But I really do appreciate you calling in.
	I can do, I guess, one more question or topic if people want.
	I am starting to get a little hungry.
	I've had three fig newtons all afternoon.
	And actually, I used to love fig newtons, but I haven't had them in years and actually pretty tasty.
	All right. Thank you very much. If there's anybody else who wants to jump in.
	Yeah, thank you, man. I appreciate that.
	If there's anybody else who wants to jump in, I could do one more question before we close down for the day.
	But what a delightful and wonderful Sunday afternoon.
	And I really, really appreciate you guys dropping by.
	And what a great treasure and pleasure it is to speak with you.
	Unmute, unmute. Or I can go and get a falafel.
	Going once, going twice, type them or talk them.
	Anybody? Anybody?
	Hello? Yes, sir.
	Yes, sir. Hi, it's me again.
	I have another question. So I was the one who asked about The owning Bitcoin, but then also being an employee of the state earlier.
	Yeah. I'm trying to...
	You said it's not a contradiction.
	And I'm trying to reconcile that in my head.
	I don't know if you could kind of go in more depth with that to help me out.
	What's the contradiction that you perceive?
	Because maybe I'm wrong. Well, just that Bitcoin is opposed to the state.
	And here I am...
	So, I mean, the argument about the state is...
	Is this a function that would be there in the absence of a state?
	If you make roads for the government, in the absence of a government, probably still need roads or whatever it is.
	If you were a police officer, well, in the absence of the government, you would still need some sort of security, maybe obviously not with the amount of laws and so on.
	A tax collector, well, you might need to collect on bills or overdue payments or whatever it is.
	So, and you don't have to tell me anything about the content or field that you're working in, but if it's a job that would exist in the absence of the state, to me, that's not such a big deal.
	There are, as far as interacting with the state, I oppose taxation.
	I promptly and fully pay my taxes.
	Does that mean that I'm a hypocrite?
	Well, no. I don't even think of it that way.
	It's not my fault there's a government.
	It's not my fault there's taxation.
	It's not my fault there's a national debt.
	In fact, I've done more than most and more than just about everyone to oppose the notion and all that.
	So I don't have any particular issues with paying taxes.
	I mean, morally, yes, but I'm going to do it because that's the system I was born into and I want to change it for the better.
	So What's wrong with getting money from the state and transferring it into Bitcoin?
	Can't you say at the same time that I'm the one helping support that system that, well, this is just where I grew up.
	There's taxes and I live under it and I don't have any options.
	This is how it is. And can't you say I'm supporting that and in a way I'm contradicting Bitcoin?
	Well, aren't I supporting the state by paying taxes?
	But in a way, my career field that I go into is now more voluntary.
	Well, why would you work for the state rather than a private entity?
	They have more resources.
	You mean they pay more?
	More, I guess, job security.
	Well, wouldn't you being competent be the best job security?
	I mean, why do you need job security for the government?
	If you're good at what you do, then you'll either have your contributions valued or you'll go start your own business.
	I'm not sure why you would need the government to provide you job security when, I mean, unless, you know, it's a white male thing and affirmative action and, you know, whatever, I don't know, but I'm not sure why you'd need the government for job security.
	So, so with the field that I'm because I'm still in school right now, and this is work that I'm going to be getting into.
	I'm so I'm going to school for global security and intelligence studies.
	And that's like intelligence collection, counterintelligence, stuff like that.
	So how would that field exist without a government?
	Well, I mean, there would still be global threats to a free society, right?
	Mm-hmm. And so you would still need intelligence and information gathering.
	It's not like if you have a free society that every other society in the world is immediately going to become free, so there would still be threats and dangerous to a free society, so there would still need to be that level of analysis of foreign information and so on.
	I think that would be the case, but...
	Is there an intelligence agency that you can work for that you feel is decent?
	I'm just thinking about this story that is now being walked back by the intelligence agencies that Russia put a bounty on American soldiers in Afghanistan.
	That doesn't seem to be particularly ideal.
	The 17 intelligence agencies that seem to say that Russia did collude with Trump or Trump did collude with Russia in the 2016 election, that got walked back pretty hard after the Mueller investigation.
	I guess I'd just be more concerned for where you're heading in terms of moral compromise.
	I mean, maybe there's good pockets, I'm sure there's good people in these agencies, but certainly the stuff that you see from the consumer of news standpoint doesn't appear to be overly noble.
	What's interesting, like with the CIA and the FBI and the investigations that were involved with the Trump and the election thing with that, what actually happened, so there's the WFO, the Washington field office, and then there's HQ for the FBI. And so the people that work in the field office for Washington, they're the professionals, like the top of the top FBI people who work in these investigations.
	And they put all the caveats in, right?
	We can't confirm, we don't know, probability low to moderate, and then they get exaggerated all the way up to the Washington Post, right?
	Right. So the people in the field office in Washington are the ones who are saying, yeah, we can't find any evidence of this.
	And then the political stuff got involved, and then it went to HQ. Those people who don't work in those types of investigations ever, hardly, they're the ones who took control of it.
	So a lot of the people in the FBI were like, whoa, this is a huge violation of how we normally run things here.
	Right. So you're in that system, though, then, aren't you?
	Yeah, so that's the line of work I'd be getting into.
	And I'm just trying to justify it as, okay, here I am, and we're supporting the state, and at the same time, I'm advocating for a free society.
	Well, no, listen, even in the government, given that we have a status system, There are certainly very valid and helpful and powerful uses for military intelligence, for espionage, for spying and all of these kinds of things can be enormously helpful and protect the country and do really, really good things to Shield citizens from bad actors and terrorists.
	And I think a lot of this stuff could be very good.
	And of course, again, as the consumer of news, we see the stuff that goes sideways, right?
	We generally would see the stuff which is highly salacious, like the steel document and so on.
	They called it a dossier, like that just suddenly makes it magically true or something.
	They couldn't just say fever dream from some crazy British guy.
	So, we see a lot of the stuff that goes sideways.
	Of course, the best intelligence you never hear about because it prevents stuff from coming into being and nobody does a victory lap, right?
	So, again, I'm sure there's good stuff to be done.
	There would be necessary stuff to be done even in a free society.
	I guess you'll just have to keep your wits about you with regards to whether you end up Providing fodder for the political arm of the intelligence agencies and does political arms these days to Coca-Cola and Major League Baseball and the NFL and the NBA. Everybody's got a political arm these days.
	It's not like you can escape that in the private sector.
	But whether you end up with your work being used in some political manner to Do things that you probably wouldn't be overly proud of.
	I think that's something you'll, I mean, you have to keep an eye out, but yeah, the work itself, I think can be honorable and decent and very helpful.
	Okay. So there's a place for this in a world without, you know, a government, let's say, and I can put it to good use in protecting people outside.
	I think so. Yeah. And listen, certainly if, if there are to be people in the government intelligence agencies, I would much rather they be people like you It's not like they're going to shut the government down if you don't take the job.
	They'll just hire someone else, right?
	And again, I know it's a bit of a slippery slope thing, but nonetheless, I would be mildly happier in my existence knowing that somebody like you was doing honorable, decent work in the intelligence agency rather than some guy with a hat facing out with saying communism will win.
	And part of my hope was after I get done with my career, I want to go back to school and get a second degree in aerospace engineering and start kind of like a mixture of my two degrees in aerospace and then global security intelligence and create almost like a space security type company.
	On my own. And I was just kind of wondering, okay, how do I balance all these things I learned in the government?
	And certainly there are things that impede on people's rights.
	How do I balance, okay, security and protecting people within that?
	I applaud the ambition.
	I thought you were going to say that you were going to get a spaceship tomorrow so we could all have free red dust in our lungs.
	But no, that's a laudable ambition, man.
	Laudable ambition for sure.
	I would certainly keep one eye on entrepreneurship if you're that smart and that ambitious.
	I think the government may not give full scope to what you want.
	And of course, the thing is too, as you start to succeed in just about any organization these days, probably more true of the government.
	as you start to succeed, things get more and more political.
	And so I would say, you know, get your skills down, get your contacts down, get your resume down.
	And then as you go forward, I would say, begin to look at an exit strategy, because if you get really good, you'll be leveraged by the political people.
	And then that may become a little bit more than you can stomach. - Okay.
	All right, I know you're hungry too, Yeah, I appreciate that. Everybody's starting to look like a big piece of chicken to me on screen.
	So, all right. Well, thanks everyone so much.
	A really, really great pleasure to chat with you this afternoon.
	Did we hit our record?
	I think we did, right? Yeah, certainly the longest live stream at four hours and 42 minutes almost.
	So, I guess there's no point stopping right now because if you've listened this far, I really appreciate it.
	Thank you so much. FreeDomain.com forward slash donate.
	Help out the show. I really, really would appreciate that.
	And thank you for a wonderful 18th of April 2021.
	A great pleasure to chat with you all and have a great evening.

▲