Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

April 22, 2021 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux

02:19:27

The Philosophy of the Derek Chauvin Trial

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	If you could share the live stream, I think it's really, really important.
	There is so much to learn about and to talk about with regards to this Derek Chauvin trial that I'm going to blow your minds.
	I'm going to blow your minds like a torpedo through a child's tugboat.
	And yeah, good evening.
	And thanks and welcome, of course.
	I really appreciate you guys dropping by.
	And we are going to talk about the philosophy of Derek Chauvin.
	And, phew, man, it's really something.
	It's really something to think about and what I have to say.
	And when I thought about it, it blew my mind.
	So what I'm going to say about this is really going to blow your minds as well.
	I will, of course, be taking questions.
	I will start up a Telegram chat.
	I'll share that with you. And we can rap about it, as they say, right?
	But now, and there was another one, was it yesterday, there was a knife fight between two black girls, one of whom didn't look like she was going to make it to 20 with the obesity she was carrying, but there was a knife fight and the cop shot the girl who was attacking another girl with a giant knife.
	And now, and then what was it?
	LeBron James was like, you're next!
	And tweeted a picture of the cop.
	Because, you know, multi-billionaire athletes taking on cops defending black girls from being stabbed for racial justice is apparently where we are right now.
	And all the people on the left are saying, come on, it's just a knife fight, man.
	Come on! Kids have been knife fighting forever.
	It's like, not really.
	You know, maybe in the Aztec ruins, somewhat of all that, but yeah.
	Reminder Joe Rogan called us all idiots, by the way.
	Stop watching his shows. Oh, and they're continuing to delete old Joe Rogan episodes, right?
	Well, sure, yeah. Are there any positives to take away from the Derek Chauvin verdict?
	Oh, absolutely. Absolutely, yeah, yeah.
	Yeah, no, I mean, for sure.
	There's really, really good stuff to get out of it, and I'm going to help you get that good stuff tonight.
	I'm going to... I'll help you get that good stuff tonight.
	Hit me with a why, if you'd like me to start straight up on the philosophy, or if you want to do a chatty chat first, a couple of questions in the chat, or you want me to dig and dive straight in, which I'm very, very happy to do.
	Yeah, lockdown. Save just one life.
	Police, how dare you save one life.
	And what was it in South Asia?
	South Asia, now what is it, 220,000 kids have died from lack of access to health care, but don't worry.
	They've had about two-thirds of that deaths from COVID. All right.
	Let's go straight in. Okay, so do you guys know much about the psychology of memory?
	The psychology of memory.
	It's really, really fascinating.
	And when you think about this stuff, it gives you both a sense of great terror with regards to your own history and great power with regards to your own future.
	Okay. Which is not a bad combo for a Wednesday night.
	So the first thing you need to understand about memory is that it is very malleable.
	So it used to be eyewitness testimony was like the gold standard of the criminal trial system, and then a bunch of research came out showing that people's memories were very easily alterable.
	Very easily alterable.
	There were studies wherein people were told by simulated cops that they'd committed crimes, and two-thirds of people after a couple of hours confessed to those crimes, even though that had never happened.
	There have been studies done.
	This one came out in 1970.
	It was a study that was done where a researcher showed a video of a car hitting a pedestrian.
	And there was a stop sign between the car and the pedestrian.
	And then when leading questions were asked of the participants, of the subjects, and the psychologist would say, I mean, did you see how it blew past the yield sign?
	Of course, a yield sign is different from a stop sign.
	And the majority of people were like, oh yeah, yeah, it totally blew past the yield sign.
	In other words, and the people who weren't prompted, said that it blew past a stop sign, right?
	So you can implant memories, memories are really malleable, and this is a wild thing to think about.
	And for a long time, eyewitness testimony was considered the gold standard now, much less so, because memory is really, really challenging, right?
	And so the psychology of memory, absolutely fascinating stuff.
	Now, the reason why I say that it's terrifying is that you have particular memories, probably very vivid memories for good and for better and for worse of your childhood or of your youth or whatever.
	And have you ever had this in your family where you're absolutely convinced that something happened to you, but it turns out you'd be too young to remember it, or you weren't even there, that it happened to someone else, but you just got confused, or something happened that you are sure happened in a particular way, and then everybody else in your family remembers it in a different way,
	or it's a story that was told that you then incorporated or it's a story that was told that you then incorporated into your own memory, and you can't be sure if you remember what was told about the story or what you actually In other words, somebody else's story about you had then incorporated into your first person perspective.
	You went from third person remote to first person internal.
	Memory is just a wild thing.
	It's just a wild thing.
	Now, the reason why it's terrifying, in a way, is that, you know, we all build our identities on these building blocks called memory, right?
	And when you realize that you're kind of building on a bit of a foggy bottom there, it's a little alarming, right?
	Because your identity takes a blow.
	Because I am who I am because of the things that happened to me, but are you sure that the things that happened to you actually happened to you in the way that you remember?
	It's a tough call. Now, the reason why it's alarming is, again, we base our identity on our memories to a large degree.
	And if the memories are goopy or easily influenced or easily changed or whatever, then it's going to be...
	I mean, you can listen to the same...
	I've told the same stories off and on on this show over 16 years.
	And, you know, at some point, someone is going to compare all these stories and find subtle differences between them.
	And that's partly because I don't want to just repeat myself like broken record style.
	And who knows, right? So if you ever played that game as a kid, it's called Broken Telephone.
	I don't know if kids still play it, because mostly it's not an Xbox game.
	But Broken Telephone is when you sit in a big circle of kids, 10 kids, 20 kids, and you whisper something to one kid, and then it goes all the way around.
	And when it comes back to you, it's completely unrecognizable from what you'd heard before.
	Now, some of this, you know, kids goofing around and changing stuff.
	But some of it, I think, is... Kind of genuine.
	So, when you realize that your memories are a narrative, there's not a documentary, and even documentaries are biased, right?
	So, your memories are a narrative.
	Now, that's kind of alarming when it comes to your personality, like, who am I, if a lot of what I remember may not be precisely true, but, but, it gives you great power, because by changing your stories, you change your personality.
	By changing your stories, you change who you are, you change what you're capable of.
	So, I grew up with a mom who continually told me to not think, right?
	I mean, I hate to say, like, if I would disagree with her and she'd say, do such and such, and then I'd do it, it would be kind of wrong, and she'd say, well, you did it wrong, and I said, well, I thought you said, and she'd just say, well, don't think, right?
	Don't think, right? So, of course, my programming was to not think, to avoid thinking, and boy, at least my entire adult life is not a reaction formation to those two words as a kid, right?
	That's what they call freedom, right?
	So, but, you know, just know thinking is that important thinking is good.
	So rather than don't think, I turned that to think.
	Because, you know, whenever really bad people tell you not to do something, it's probably a pretty good idea to do the opposite of what they tell you to do.
	So my mom said, don't think.
	It's like, oh, well, it probably would be a pretty good idea to think, right?
	So, somebody says, I don't remember when I realized that memories could be faulty since then.
	I've built my identity on the choices I make going forward.
	Yes, yes, that is right.
	That is right. Seth, what's your take on David Icke saying the vaccines are the real bioweapon and reason for the virus?
	Yeah, we can talk about that.
	We can talk about that. I'm on unauthorized.tv.
	Yes, unauthorized.tv.
	You should check it out, unauthorized.tv.
	You can subscribe to be there.
	And I would really appreciate, of course, if you would, freedomain.locals.com.
	You can also subscribe to be there.
	And freedomain.com forward slash donate would be very, very helpful as well.
	So I appreciate everybody's support.
	It's very, very helpful.
	It's just called telephone here, that telephone game.
	Yeah, so you have a, if you think that your current situation is the result of dominoes that fell in your past, those dominoes are largely in your mind and there's a lot that you can do to change who you are and who you're going to be.
	I was always in my sort of family, in my environment, partly because I was the youngest.
	It seemed like everywhere I went, I was the youngest.
	It was just partly being born in September and all of that.
	Just everywhere you go, you feel like the youngest.
	And when I went to boarding school, I was the youngest kid, maybe except for one, like in the whole boarding school and just everywhere I went.
	And I wanted to hang out with my older brother's friends and And I was always just second or last or youngest or smallest.
	You know, it's a bit of a younger sibling syndrome to some degree.
	And I just never wanted to stay small my whole life, even though that was that kind of impression.
	I was smaller than people.
	I was younger. And of course, when you lack skills relative to older kids, it can be kind of tough.
	So I just really wanted to buckle down and become as big as humanly possible to sort of bounce back from the perception of being small and unimportant when I was a kid.
	Will the number of single childless women in the West be a big issue going forward?
	I know so many, and it's very sad.
	Well, sure, yeah, because the bioweapon of...
	Hyper-ambitious feminism is used against smart women, right?
	Because to dumb down the population, what you do is you subsidize less intelligent women to have lots of kids, and what you do is you tell smart women that being a housewife is just for dummies, and how could you want to lower yourself just wiping children's diapers and so on, which of course is completely unimportant when it comes to parenting.
	Motherhood is the transmission of Values and the treasures of morality won by the blood of millions of people passed forward from shaking, trembling, bloodshot hands to the present where women abandoned it in order to go and make about two bucks an hour net at a customer service department store.
	What is the hardest thing to conquer to control your own mind?
	Well, recognizing that when you're young, most of your mind is not your mind.
	You are an occupied territory.
	So when you're young, given the way that we're raised and given the terrible miseducation, propaganda, programming we get from everything.
	The programming propaganda is in school, obviously.
	It's in movies, television shows, video games, everything.
	The hero is always a female or a person of color.
	The villain is always a white guy.
	Just the programming is relentless. So when you're young...
	Your mind is occupied territory, and fighting to free your mind of the occupiers is really tough.
	It's really tough. All right, so let's talk about Derek Chauvin.
	And welcome, everybody. It's nice to see so many new faces here.
	Okay, so...
	I've told the story before.
	I'll just touch on it really, really briefly here to sort of say why I think what's happened is so foundationally important and how much insight it gives us into what's going forward.
	And I'm telling you, nobody's talking about this as far as I know except me because I always want to bring the unique treasures to my lovely listeners and watchers.
	My very first day...
	My very first day...
	So, after high school, I went and worked up north.
	Goldpan, a prospector of hard physical labor, did me the world of good.
	Did me the world of good. Got me out of my own head.
	Got me into the physical world. Made me an empiricist because you can't screw around with reality when you're three days flight from the nearest hospital and working dangerous big rig kind of work.
	So, anyway, so I finished that and I went to university with the money I'd saved up by working relentlessly up north.
	And... First day, I was in university, and I was very eager to be there.
	I took a course in history, 101, and I was peppering the teacher with questions because, you know, everybody was sitting there like, oh, how much history, how much Canadian history can you learn at 8.30 in the morning through one bloodshot eyeball?
	And I was like, teach!
	I brought you an apple. Tell me more.
	I'm here. I'm not freezing my ass off up north.
	I'm very, very happy to be here, right?
	And... Coming back once from my...
	I went to work back up north for a couple of months in the summer.
	And when I came back from that, I had no place to live.
	Because I was... This was long before cell phones or anything like that.
	I was working up north.
	I flew in. It took me three flights to get to Montreal where I was going to school.
	And I had cardboard boxes of stuff because I didn't have any luggage because I was working up north.
	And I was dragging the stuff along the street.
	I was long-haired, ponytail...
	I'm unshaven, you know, half sunburned, you know, from working out in the woods and smelly, I'm sure, because it was kind of tough to clean yourself properly.
	And oof, it was rough.
	That was my first experience, what it's like to go through a city with cardboard boxes of stuff dragging around, looking like a crazy guy, completely like insane, right?
	And... I was exhausted because it was, you know, a bad couple of flights, no rest, and I remember trying to take refuge in a building and get some sleep, and people, of course, the security guards kicking me out, and I finally ran into a girl I used to date, and she put me up for a couple of days until I ended up renting a room in a frat house where I rented a room with another guy, another guy I'm still friends with now, actually, right?
	Ponytailed Steph? Come on!
	I was in theater school. Of course, I had a ponytail.
	It was a pretty nice one, too. So...
	First day of university when I was at the Glendon campus of York University, I was peppering the professor with questions, and she turned and she hurled her glasses at me.
	I've always had pretty good reflexes, as you can see, high IQ, fast reflexes, kind of go hand in hand, right?
	So I caught the glasses.
	And then the teacher turned and said to everyone, okay, what just happened?
	People were right there in the room.
	I was asking questions, so they were focused on me.
	And more than half, about three quarters of the class just got it completely wrong.
	They thought I threw my glasses at her.
	They thought she threw a piece of chalk at me or one of the dusters or pretended to throw something but didn't really.
	People just got it wrong. Now, they weren't looking for stuff.
	They weren't expecting it. But she said, yeah, so most of you got it wrong.
	That's history. Pretty, pretty.
	That was my sort of first inkling that a lot of the stuff that we're told is with regards to history...
	The facts are largely true, I think.
	I think the facts are largely true.
	But the reason why we study history is for the morals, right?
	The morals of history and the guides to going forward.
	And almost none of that stuff is true.
	Almost none of the reason we study history and why...
	The morals we get out of it.
	And here's the thing, too. Like, if you think you get morals out of world history, you get morals out of Western history or Canadian history, American history.
	No, no, no. The real morals you get and the morals you really have to unpack are the morals you get out of your own life story.
	What is your life story? Are you a victim?
	Are you powerful?
	Are you smart? Are you dumb?
	Are you capable? Are you popular?
	Are you charismatic? Like, the stories that you tell yourself are the train tracks that lead inexorably to where your future goes.
	And if you want to go up, if you want to go big, if you want to go extravagant, if you want to go small, if you want to hidey out in your own insecurity, the stories that you tell yourself, ah, nobody listened to me as a kid.
	I guess I'm just not worth listening to.
	Nobody's interested in what I have to say.
	I'm awkward. I'm shy.
	I'm this, I'm that, and the other. These are all stories that take free will out of your future because they're automatically putting you on a train track to a dismal non-existence.
	And the morals of your own history are what you really need to examine.
	Because the morals of your history are the ironclad train tracks into your future.
	So, let's talk about mind-blowing.
	Yeah, I should dig up some of my photos from back in the day.
	I had quite a ponytail.
	I remember I used to wind it around my ear.
	When I was born in class, I'd undo my ponytail.
	I'd wind the ponytail around my ear.
	It's pretty funny. It's pretty funny.
	When did you realize this?
	I would say probably in, like, I really kind of got it in my mid-20s that if I wanted to honor the potential for greatness within me, I had to not listen to the narrative of my history, right?
	The narrative that I was told.
	Most times we're told who we are.
	I'll tell you something that drives me completely freaking insane when it comes to families.
	Oh my God! And I've studiously avoided this in my own current family.
	So you know when you are...
	I don't know if you guys have families like this, but kind of the way it works is like this.
	You have a...
	You're carrying a tray and you trip, right?
	And your family's there and you drop your milk and cookies or whatever you've got, right?
	And Now I want to be a DJ. Now, you trip, right?
	And maybe this happens twice, right?
	And then you know what you are in your family?
	You're the clumsy one!
	You know how that works?
	You're the clumsy one!
	And then it's just like...
	The iron bars come down.
	This is your identity. You're the clumsy one.
	Oh, he's the clumsy one.
	And it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy because you get kind of nervous about carrying things and then you want to show people you're not clumsy and then you end up being clumsy and the straitjacket of clumsiness goes on and it could be, oh, you're the smart one.
	Oh, yes, he's the musical one.
	Just these straitjackets of perception.
	Oh, my God. It's just...
	Crazy. Donations to me are not tax deductible.
	No. So, yeah, and so be careful because a lot of the narrative that's put upon you is just other people.
	Other people. Oh, yeah, he's the party one.
	Oh, he's the drinking one.
	Oh, he's the studious one.
	Oh, he's the one who reads.
	It's just like, oh my God, can you let me be myself?
	Which is complexity. No, no, no.
	Family's got to boil you down to one characteristic.
	One thing, one characteristic.
	Like racist! Anyway, so the complexity is all denied, and the midwits all love to box people into these tiny categories, and then that just becomes your destiny, right?
	And then what happens is if you go against that destiny, That is...
	Like, when I got into philosophy, people thought, like, everyone around me was just like, oh, it's going to doom you, right?
	It's like, it kind of hasn't, right?
	It kind of hasn't, right? Or I guess it has defined me, but it certainly hasn't doomed me.
	So, yeah, that's really...
	And so what happens is when you go against the family stereotypes, you get great anxiety.
	Because people desperately need you to stay in your box, right?
	What's that old Talking Heads song?
	I don't even know what the name of the song is, but there's this great line that the singer warbles along.
	Everybody get in line!
	It's true. Everybody get in line.
	Just trail along your family myths like some ducklings behind a balloon.
	It's just wretched. It's wretched, wretched, wretched.
	And it stifles and crushes so much human potential that it's one of the greatest heartbreaks and tragedies in the world.
	So... Is that why teenagers and adolescents have such a difficult time discovering selves?
	Yeah, because they think that if they turn themselves into cliches, they've gained an identity.
	And they don't.
	They really, really don't.
	Yeah, the people who want to put you in a box, it's, you know, one of the reasons I decided to marry my wife was at the time I was working on being a novel writer, a novelist, and I have a bunch of novels, which you should check out, freedomain.com forward slash almost.
	It's fantastic, right? So...
	And I said, you know, I want to be, you know, Shakespeare, Dickens, Molyneux.
	That's my goal. That's my ambition.
	Because I know it sounds crazy, but that's what I think I'm capable of.
	And I am a very good novelist.
	I'm a great novelist. But unfortunately, there are too many communists in the publishing industry for an anti-communist to gain any traction.
	And if you don't believe me, if you don't believe me, freedomain.com forward slash almost.
	Just listen to the first chapter and you'll be like, my God, this guy's a great novelist.
	It's true. It's true.
	Because philosophy is... Significant narrative as well and so narrative is really really important to understand and it's one of the things that I Wanted to talk about tonight.
	What is your advice to your daughter to discover herself?
	Hmm.
	Well, do you know how there are bonsai trees, right?
	Like in Japan, and they take like full soap and they just trim the living crap out of these things until they're stunted and tiny, right?
	And they're kind of cool.
	Don't get me wrong.
	They're kind of cool, but it's very artificial, really hacked down and compressed and squished down and according to the boobs, compressed, right?
	So it's like saying, what is your advice to a tree to grow properly?
	So just don't prune the shit out of it and it'll be fine, right?
	It'll grow.
	But if you prune it and tighten it and crush it and make it smaller then, right?
	So I don't have to tell my daughter how to discover herself because I'm not interfering with her natural progression as a human being.
	All right. I didn't want almost to end.
	Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah.
	It's funny because it's a very long book and somebody emailed me the other day.
	It's like, well, where's part two?
	Oh, I still miss those characters.
	It's funny. I actually literally think of them.
	I thought of them over the years stuck in a drawer.
	Like, they're just stuck in a drawer waiting to get out into the world.
	And it's one of the benefits of being deplatformed.
	It's like, I want to create something beautiful in the world.
	And I have this beautiful novel that I wrote 20 years ago about my family history in Europe and with Churchill and Chamberlain and everything.
	It was an incredible book about how the tiniest little family issues blow up into these giant political things and the rise of Nazism and just incredible things.
	Somebody says, I just did a monthly $5, Steph.
	I wanted to keep it low, so I will always afford.
	Thank you for years of support.
	I appreciate that. Thank you so much.
	Thank you so much, and I will always try to provide as much value as I possibly can.
	All right, so are you ready?
	Hit Y if you're ready to have your mind blown, baby.
	Y, Y, Y. I like the hitting Y because, you know, W-H-Y. Making Flippy Floppy.
	Everybody get in line.
	Like, one of the best singer and non-singers in all of rock history.
	Okay, yeah, you guys are ready, right?
	Okay. Are you swear word ready?
	You know what? It's brighter.
	I'm going to swear. I'm going to swear tonight because it's just so incredible, this thought.
	And I promise you I'm not overselling.
	This is the real deal.
	All right. Eyewitness testimony is incredibly unreliable.
	Because look, in America, there are two sides of the Derek Chauvin trial.
	Two sides we all understand, right?
	So the one side is, well clearly, we saw with our own two eyes.
	We saw Derek Chauvin kneeling for nine and a half minutes on George Floyd's neck.
	George Floyd's calling out for his mama.
	He's saying he can't breathe.
	He's begging for his life. And Derek Chauvin is just looking around, looking around, not even looking down.
	And he just...
	Dies there in the gutter, and this racist cop had no care, no concern, no compassion, as the prosecution said in their closing.
	Oh, they say that George Floyd died because his heart was too big.
	No, George Floyd died because Derek Chauvin's heart was too small.
	You know, in his, if it doesn't fit, you must acquit Johnny Cochran reach around, right?
	So that's the one side.
	And people say, we saw the video.
	We saw the video, right?
	So that's, you understand...
	America, Americans were eyewitnesses in the trial of Derek Chauvin, right?
	Americans were eyewitnesses because we all saw the tape, we all saw the video, they played it over and over again.
	First two days were just playing the video and having people weep because reason and evidence, right?
	So everybody was an eyewitness, right?
	To the Derek Chauvin trial, because everybody saw the video.
	But eyewitness testimony is incredibly unreliable.
	Oh, I'm just getting started.
	So as eyewitnesses, I saw it with my own two eyes.
	Well, if you ever want to be humbled about eyewitness testimony, go play a game of Among Us.
	People don't have any clue what's going on.
	They're staring right at the screen.
	Oh, I think I saw Yellow leave the room.
	Oh, was that Cyan? You know, people get killed in this game and they don't even remember who killed them like 20 seconds later.
	Anyway, so we are all eyewitnesses to this crime.
	So, I'm going to go one step further.
	So, the problem with Iowa's testimony, of course, is that you are recalling things that you can't replay, right?
	But here, we can replay.
	And this is why America is going to fragment.
	I'm telling you this straight up.
	This is why America is going to fragment, and fragmenting being probably the best option, and there are many, many worse options out there.
	The reason is, Does anyone know, and this is a serious question, it's not a rhetorical question, does anyone know how many different pieces of video evidence there was in the death of George Floyd?
	Right? So, how many people were filming?
	I mean, there's obviously the body cam of what?
	Four policemen?
	There are bystander videos, tons of bystanders, one's got a cell phone.
	How... Many different pieces of video evidence are there in the George Floyd case.
	At least five? No, but more, because people were filming with their cell phones.
	I assume that stuff's been posted as well.
	I don't know that there's any way to tell for sure, but I would imagine at least a dozen.
	About ten? About ten-ish, right?
	Something like 10 to 20, 17, 10, more than 50.
	Anyway, so let's just say a dozen, right?
	But there's a lot, right?
	So you've got a fairly high-def video, sound, coming at the death of George Floyd.
	So people who are eyewitnesses can replay.
	They can see it from different angles.
	They can see it from different timeframes.
	They can go further back in time.
	Plus, there's security cameras, right?
	There's a security camera I talked about early last year.
	The security camera that appears to show George Floyd tossing drugs away when he's handcuffed against the wall, right?
	We got dash cams.
	We got full officer cams.
	We got security cams. We got bystander cams.
	There is more eyeballs trained on this than a Dolly Parton in her prime striptease, right?
	So, We have eyewitnesses with perfect recall because you rewind the tape.
	It's not even videotape degrades, but digital is forever, right?
	And digital is perfect. It doesn't degrade.
	So you have audio, video, multiple angles, 20 or more angles if you include the security cameras, right?
	And you have the cops' cameras that, what is it, a full 25 minutes or something like that, right, from when they first got called to the car to when George Floyd died, right?
	So you have multiple angles, audio, video, replay, ad infinitum, and that's just the visual evidence.
	You also have three to four times fatal levels of fentanyl in George Floyd's system.
	You have a heart disease.
	You have a tumor in his belly that can produce additional adrenaline.
	You have health issues post-COVID. A whole bunch of things.
	Hypertension, high blood pressure.
	You name it, right? So...
	You have what is at the moment geographically and somewhat ridiculously called a country, a country called America.
	But in America, half the people who see exactly the same footage, have exactly the same information, come to the exact opposite conclusion.
	Now tell me, how is a country supposed to survive that in any way, shape or form?
	You're not going to get better information Ever in a criminal trial than you did in the Derek Chauvin-Geord Floyd trial.
	You are never going to get, what are you, you're going to have to like, is somebody going to have to leave a catheter cam up there?
	Is there going to have to be some sort of bowel camera in there to get more footage, more angles, more audio, more video?
	No. So this is what you need to understand.
	That everybody was an eyewitness to the death of George Floyd.
	And furthermore, not just as an eyewitness, but they also were able to witness the toxicology report, the coroner's report.
	I mean, I was thinking for a while there, just by the by, I was thinking for a while that the reason they brought up the car exhaust thing was Because the prosecution's case was that George Floyd died from lack of oxygen.
	And then they brought up all of this car exhaust thing, and then the prosecution said, no, no, no, it can't have been carbon monoxide poisoning.
	George Floyd's blood was 98% oxygenated.
	To which I would say, thank you!
	That's our entire point.
	Our entire point.
	Top to bottom, back to front, the whole point.
	How can he die?
	From a lack of oxygen when his blood, by the prosecution's own data, own testimony, his blood was 98% oxygenated.
	How is that even remotely possible?
	Oh, well, they gave him oxygen when he was on the gurney.
	It's like, yeah, but he was already dead, right?
	Wasn't he?
	So if he's already dead and you pump oxygen into his lungs, his heart's not beating, the oxygen isn't getting around, he's dead.
	How can you have a country where two groups of people, looking at exactly the same information.
	Thank you.
	Because it's not even like, well, you've got one guy on one side of George Floyd and the other guy on the other side and one guy on this side of the...
	Everybody's looking at exactly the same information.
	And they're coming to diametrically opposite conclusions.
	Empirical, sense, data, math, facts, evidence, reason.
	People are saying, even though you could see from, I think it was Derek Chauvin's own camera, that his knee was not on the neck, which is why the prosecution had to keep saying his knee was in the neck area.
	Everybody's an eyewitness with perfect recall, multiple angles, facts, data, you know, the fact, as I talked about last year, that the only guy who examined George Floyd, the that the only guy who examined George Floyd, the actual government paid investigator,
	the guy who did the actual autopsy, said there was no evidence of neck compression, no evidence of harm to the neck.
	How do you choke someone out to the point where they can't even breathe for nine and a half minutes with leaving no evidence on the neck?
	Now, whether Derek Chauvin is innocent or guilty, I'm still trying to wrap my head around, wait, doesn't manslaughter mean no intent, but murder means intent?
	How can these things even be compatible?
	I'm sure there's some wrinkle in the law that makes sense.
	I'm not a lawyer, but whether or not Derek Chauvin is innocent or guilty, whether it rose to the standard of reasonable doubt, Here's the point.
	All the eyewitnesses with perfect recall, multiple angles, and all the medical data known to man are coming to diametrically opposite conclusions.
	And what that means is when they can't even remotely come close to a consensus on something with perfect recall and objective numbers, The level of fentanyl and methamphetamines and so on in his blood, his degree of heart disease and so on.
	If two groups of people looking at exactly the same information, that is objective.
	The information is objective.
	Now you can say, well, did he say I didn't do any drugs or did he say, did George Floyd say I ate too many drugs?
	It sounds like I ate too many drugs to me, but I'm sure you could make the case either way, depending on what you're primed for.
	But you've got two groups of people supposedly in the same country Looking at exactly the same information, exactly the same numbers, exactly the same camera angles, with perfect recall, coming to diametrically opposite conclusions.
	In other words, there's no possible way to get along.
	There's absolutely no... If you can't come to some kind of consensus on this, on this, on this, That George Floyd was complaining that he couldn't breathe long before he was on the ground.
	That it was...
	I mean, I remember I did a show with my friend Nick Dial, an ex-cop.
	And we brought up last year, we brought up the whole Minnesota guidance, and yep, that's a totally valid restraint.
	That's what they're trained on.
	And the reason why Derek Chauvin was not exactly paying attention to George Floyd was that he was being aggressed against by an increasingly violent and dangerous mob that was threatening violence.
	There is no possibility.
	Like, this is the acid test.
	This is a foundational test as to whether the country can get along, can find any kind of common consensus, because you're never going to have a situation where there's more evidence, more facts, more reason, more video, more numbers from the autopsy.
	It's never going to happen.
	So every single eyewitness to this event seems to be reaching, or at least the two major groups seem to be reaching completely diametrically opposed conclusions.
	One, it's reasonable doubt.
	We don't know. Two, totally guilty racist murder.
	And Derek Chauvin, isn't he married to a non-white?
	Doesn't matter. Doesn't matter.
	I don't know, none of this stuff matters.
	It's all about power, right?
	If Floyd wasn't on drugs, he most likely would have lived.
	and Yeah, well, see, the OJ day is okay, but with the OJ, there wasn't, like, footage of the entire thing from multiple angles, right?
	This is what I'm talking about, the OJ thing.
	So this is OJ back in the day when he killed Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson and all of that, right?
	Okay, but, you know, so there were bloody footprints leading to his Bronco and his shoes matched in the glove and blah, blah, blah, right?
	So, but there wasn't multiple angle footage.
	Of the entire thing. So this, I think, is both, you know, it can give you despair, it can give you black pill, but it's also kind of liberating.
	Like, there's absolutely no chance.
	Like, people aren't even in the same reality.
	People aren't even in the same reality.
	It's like a balloon lets go on a windy day.
	One person sees it goes up, the other person sees it goes down.
	How on earth are they? Like, the whole point of civilization.
	The whole point of civilization. It's for us to say, we have to have a standard by which we can moderate our opinions to have something to do with reality.
	That's it, man. That's all it is.
	We've got to have some standard by which we can say, I'm putting aside my prejudice for the sake of something that's factual.
	For the sake of something that's factual.
	This was the difference between superstition and science, right?
	The scientists said, however much I might like to believe in something, I have to put my feelings aside, and I have to try and find something that is objective, measurable, empirical, reproducible, independent of subjective opinion and time and place, and I have to find something universal.
	Mathematics, biology, physics, you name it.
	Philosophy. And you have one group that says, wow, it looks really bad.
	But the whole reason that we have a legal system is to avoid shit like this.
	Where it looks really bad, therefore we get to string someone up.
	Because you know what they call that? They call that lynching.
	Oh yeah, I'm going to say it, because it's a fact.
	When it looks really bad, and people jump to conclusions, people get hung on a tree, and they're wrong to do that.
	They're wrong to do that. The reason we need a legal system is things aren't always as they say.
	Things can look really bad.
	And somebody can be completely innocent.
	It can look like Derek Chauvin is callously kneeling on the neck and choking out the life of George Floyd, just like it can look like with Rodney King back in the day, right?
	Was it 93 or something like that with Rodney King?
	It looked like the police were just beating him up.
	Other than the fact he'd led them on a high-speed chase through the neighborhood, going like more than double the speed limit, probably potentially getting people killed.
	And then he had resisted, he was on drugs, and the takedown of Rodney King was...
	When the police chief first found that it was caught on video, he was like, oh, that's fantastic.
	We can use this for training on the very best way to bring down somebody who's resisting arrest.
	But, of course, all that the media did, and this was their warm-up for the civil war they want, because it's good for ratings and good for their sadistic impulses, is they cut off all the bits where the police were trying to bring Rodney King in, and Rodney King was fighting violently with them, and that they would go in and tap him with the baton and hit him with the baton to bring him down slowly over time, to wear him down. All they did was they took all the contacts out, And they just had a ring of cops beating on some helpless black guy, right?
	And then Los Angeles was up in flames, right?
	So, this is really important to understand.
	Really important to understand.
	How does a marriage last when the husband thinks he's done something loving and the wife thinks he's trying to kill her?
	How can a friendship last If you take your friend's car in to get it fixed and he thinks that you sabotage the brakes to kill him, when two people looking at the same information are coming to completely diametrically opposite perspectives, well, you know what that's called?
	In a marriage, legally irreconcilable differences.
	Irreconcilable differences. This was the test case as to whether or not it was possible for the left and the right in America to coexist.
	They can't. Because they're eyewitnesses.
	Now, philosophically speaking, saying that someone should go to jail because it looks bad is like saying I should only ever eat what tastes good, right?
	Well, you're not going to live very long if you do.
	So this, what you need to understand.
	Philosophically speaking, you reserve judgment because you can't trust one sense.
	You can't trust one of your senses.
	That's why we have. Well, I guess you could say we have like 20 senses if you include things like hunger and balance and stuff like that.
	But, you know, the five major senses, we have more than one because you can't trust just one.
	You ever see a mirage? You ever drive down a hot...
	You've gotten hotter than Georgia asphalt, baby.
	You ever drive down a hot Georgia street or Texas street or any street, even Ontario?
	And you see there's ripples.
	It looks like lakes. It looks like water on the road.
	It's just a... It's just a mirage.
	You can't... I mean, your eyes are correct.
	This is exactly what it looks like, but you can't go splash around in it and you're not going to hydroplane on a mirage.
	You don't run out into the desert thinking, oh my gosh, it's going to be lovely to swim in these lovely oases, right?
	You can die out there. We stand up your ass.
	So we have more than one sense and we have a virtue called patience because things aren't always as they seem.
	In history, of course, I mean, even though more whites were lynched in America than blacks, of course, it wasn't just when anybody was lynched because you needed to go through due process.
	You need to be able to confront your accusers.
	You need to be able to have court procedures.
	You need to have an able person versed in the law to defend you.
	You need to rely on evidence, right?
	So there are people who say, yeah, it looks really bad.
	And look, when I saw that video, I was like, that's bad, man.
	That's really bad. But if you're over the age of seven years old, you reserve judgment, right?
	You reserve judgment. You say, wow, that looks really bad.
	Let's wait for the facts. Because mob justice, dragging people out of their homes and beating them to death for perceived wrongs, It's not civilization at all.
	It's not civilization.
	Civilization is we say, I've got strong opinions, but I'm going to wait for the facts.
	Because we got to meet where the facts co-join us, right?
	We got to meet where the facts co-join us.
	When I was in my 20s, I lived with an Indian girl.
	And... We had a sort of foundational disagreement.
	And the disagreement was this.
	I was paying the bills and she was doing art stuff.
	And she wanted me to do half the housework and half the cooking and half the grocery shop, like half the stuff.
	And I was like, well, no, because I was working crazy hours at the time as an entrepreneur.
	So I said, no, like the 10 hours, 12 hours a day that I'm going to work.
	That's half, that's, you know, you're not, you're not, if you just take half of that, you're not spending five to six hours in a little apartment dealing with the house, right?
	So I'm actually contributing more because I'm paying all the bills, right?
	And that was the sort of foundational disagreement that we had.
	I was happy to pay the bills, but I wasn't going to do all the housework as well.
	I said, that's not fair.
	Because then I'm spending like two hours a day on housework plus 10 hours a day work and I'm spending 12 hours.
	You're only spending two hours. So I'm out investing six to one in this relationship.
	That's not fair. I thought you were a feminist.
	Well, you know how that stuff goes, right?
	So we couldn't even agree on what it meant to contribute to the relationship.
	So we broke up. Well, I broke up with her, right?
	Yeah, because, I mean, if you can't even agree that me working to pay the bills is a contribution, we can't get along.
	We're both looking at the word contribution and getting something completely different.
	And God help me when I was younger and I met a hot girl who turned out to be a socialist.
	Oh, grit your teeth.
	Stand back. Stand back.
	Stand back. So, all this means is that even if we're all looking at the same thing, we're all coming to diametrically opposite conclusions.
	And there's no mediation into any of this.
	There's no possibility of mediation into any of this.
	Because on what grounds are you going to mediate?
	On what grounds are you going to mediate?
	Everybody's looking at the same thing.
	We're all eyewitnesses with perfect recall to the same event, multiple angles.
	Multiple medical findings.
	We're all looking at exactly the same information, and people are coming to radically opposite conclusions.
	Is there another piece of information that's going to change that?
	Well, no. Because in the past, you could always say, well, but we didn't get this angle, or we didn't get the beginning of this conflict, or we didn't...
	No, we got the whole thing. Soup to nuts.
	We got the whole thing.
	Top to bottom, back to front.
	We got the medical examiner, the autopsy.
	The only guy who ever worked with the body directly.
	We got four different officer cams.
	We got security cams beginning to end of the encounter.
	We got all the audio, all the video, all the angles.
	Resisting arrest, fighting.
	This guy who says, I'm claustrophobic, I can't get in a car.
	Where was he when they first found him?
	In a car. Come on.
	I mean, I'm claustrophobic, I can't get into a car.
	You were in a car when we found you.
	Were you claustrophobic then?
	Anyway. So, it's over, man.
	It's over. The possibility of meeting, I've always said this before, philosophy is where we meet in reality.
	You and I can't meet in each other's dreams.
	Well, obviously I'm topless and holding a well-oiled cucumber in many of your dreams, but we can't meet in our dreams because they're subjective experiences.
	We can never meet in our dreams. I can't say, well, meet me at 12.30 on Captain Hook's Pirate Island in our dreams.
	Never going to happen. We can't meet in our dreams.
	We can't meet in our daydreams.
	We can't meet in our fantasies.
	We can't meet in any of this stuff.
	We can only meet in tangible, objective, material reality wherein we draw the same conclusions.
	Now, we can have differing conclusions and we can agree to go back to the...
	It's like what scientists used to do before the government took over science, right?
	They'd have a conjecture. They'd then test it with a hypothesis.
	They'd then try and test it against the facts.
	And if it worked, it became a theory, which everyone still thinks means conditional, but it doesn't.
	So... We used to have this way that we'd try and work towards each other and meet where the facts are.
	Where the facts are. And we had to have this deal where we said, I got these personal preferences, but I gotta meet where the facts are.
	I gotta put aside the personal preferences, like my personal preferences, I hate sunscreen.
	But I'm half Irish and half German, so the sun is basically as much of an enemy to me as a sunlamp is to the vampire-less stat, right?
	I mean, I burst into flames, right?
	So I don't like sunscreen. But I put it on because I got to meet with facts.
	With facts. Or as the old Steve Martin line used to go when his hair was already gray.
	One day my hair will go gray.
	One day I might lose some hair, right?
	So we got to meet in facts.
	We got to meet in reality. I mean, just look tonight.
	7 p.m. we started or so.
	We've got to meet in reality.
	We can't be here, at least live, if we're not in reality together.
	You need to be on this channel, that it needs to be this.
	If we can't agree to put aside our own personal preferences and bigotries and say, okay, I would like for this to be true, I would not like for this to be true, then we have no chance of getting along.
	We have no chance of getting along.
	With no chance of getting along.
	That's a black pill, I suppose, but isn't it kind of a relief, like you could just stop trying?
	You know, when I was with that girl, with this woman in my 20s, and I said, no, I am contributing by paying the bills.
	In fact, I'm contributing more because I'm working 10, 12 hours a day, and you're working max, I can't even imagine, two hours a day, maybe, on the home stuff.
	So I'm actually contributing more.
	She's like, no, you're not contributing enough.
	And I made the case, and I laid it out, and I drew it out, and nope.
	She wanted me to work full-time, pay all the bills, and do half the housework.
	And I'm like, I don't think I will.
	I don't think I will.
	Huh. It's a funny thing.
	I learned something really important after that relationship.
	I had to go back. I'd left something behind.
	It had been some time since I left her, right?
	I had to go back. She was still living in the same place.
	And the whole time, she was like, oh, you're messy.
	Oh, you're this. I'm not too bad as far as all of that stuff goes.
	But, oh, you're so messy and you don't keep the place tidy and all that kind of stuff.
	Anyway, so I went back. Oh my god, the place was a complete pigsty.
	It was just festive.
	So she didn't care about things being tidy.
	She just cared about bullying, right?
	Anyway, even though she had a lot of fun, had a lot of great times with her, but, you know, couldn't meet.
	Couldn't meet on what it meant to contribute to the relationship.
	Couldn't meet on that. Couldn't come to any kind of...
	And I remember when I left her, and she said, oh, I'm going to go after you for palimony.
	I'm like, you came from a wealthy family.
	I came from nothing. Don't you dare try.
	You feminist. Anyway.
	So... And of course we all know that the verdict and the interest and all of that would have been...
	I mean, if Chauvin had been black or George Floyd had been white, we never would have even heard about it, right?
	So... We're all eyewitnesses.
	We're all seeing completely opposite things.
	So there's a trial.
	There's a meta-trial, right? The meta-trial is, can we get along?
	Can the left and the right get along?
	That's the meta-trial. And the immediate trial is Derek Chauvin.
	But the meta-trial, the big trial, this is the important trial, right?
	And I don't think the jury's even out on this, right?
	So... When...
	Two experts are saying opposite things, and you saw this all the time in the Derek Chauvin trial, right?
	Two experts saying opposite things.
	One expert saying, died of a drug overdose.
	Other experts saying, no way he died of a drug overdose, right?
	So to me, that's reasonable doubt.
	That's reasonable doubt. If you have...
	Because, you know, the jury can't be experts any more than you and I can be experts on everything, right?
	The jury can't be experts.
	So if you have experts saying opposite things, that's reasonable doubt right there.
	Boom. Done. Done and dusted.
	Reasonable doubt right there.
	Because what happens is the expert testimony cancels each other out.
	Oh, he was kneeling on his neck and that caused his death.
	No, he wasn't even kneeling on his neck.
	He was kneeling on his shoulder.
	That didn't cause death. Boom.
	Right? Even with the cameras pointing directly at the knee, they can't figure out where the knee was.
	Like, it's insane. Absolutely insane.
	So we got this trial, which is, can the left and the right get along?
	Or maybe it's the whites and the blacks.
	I don't know, right? Who knows, right?
	But these two groups, right?
	It's not as simple as that, right?
	I mean, women tend to be more on the left.
	Men tend to be more on the right, because men have to work to pay the bills.
	But anyway, so there's this meta-trial.
	And the meta-trial is, we've got proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
	We need proof beyond a reasonable doubt that these two belief systems can get along.
	Now, there's times where the left is more right than the right.
	I know some of you will dislike me for saying this, but I've got to be just, I've got to be fair, at least as far as I see it.
	In the past, the left was better on free speech.
	Now the left has power. Of course, they don't like free speech anymore.
	The left was really, really good on anti-corporatism until they gained control of the corporations through coming in the magic socialist portal of the HR department and affirmative action and all that.
	So now they've got control of the corporations.
	Now they love the corporations.
	The left used to be better at anti-imperialism and 750 American military bases all over the world.
	They're still pretty good on that stuff.
	Still pretty good on that stuff.
	Oh, and by the way, America's not leaving Afghanistan.
	You all know that. Terrible day to choose September 11th, right?
	You know there's like, what is it, seven times more private contractors and mercenaries out there than American troops.
	And, uh... I mean, can you imagine somebody saying, well, we're going to invade Japan to make the Japanese people taller.
	That's what we're going to do. We're going to invade Japan, and after we invade Japan, the Japanese people are going to be taller, on average.
	Would you believe that? Would you say, no, that's...
	What? No, that's not...
	No, you can't do that. Okay, now go look up the average IQ of Afghanistan and think that invading it is going to produce a Jeffersonian democracy on the other side.
	Not going to happen. And I say this out of really a desperate sense of sympathy and empathy for the Afghani people, that it doesn't matter how many of you kill them, it doesn't matter how many of them you kill, you're not going to change the basic baseline of IQ on average in the country.
	How that's going to be changed?
	Peaceful parenting, better things, but you have to first have a culture.
	See, the culture in Afghanistan was that, you know, there's this regular dance and rape of little boys, and that's one of the reasons why.
	People turned to the Taliban was the Taliban put an end to that.
	So the Taliban was kind of anti-pedophile in its own obviously highly restrictive manner and totalitarian manner.
	But you can't bomb people into becoming taller and you can't bomb people into having higher IQs.
	You can't on average. You can't.
	There's no...
	Can you imagine this?
	You know, IQ improvement test.
	Russian roulette. Things that don't work, right?
	Things that don't work. So, have we proven beyond a reasonable doubt that people can't get along?
	Well, sure. Of course we have.
	Because we have two experts.
	Remember I said two experts that cancel each other out and you can never achieve beyond a reasonable doubt?
	So you have these experts, the experts on the left saying total racist murder, the experts on the right saying, I don't know if it came to reasonable doubt.
	I know people like Mike Cernovich have said, yeah, probably manslaughter and so on.
	Again, I don't know. I don't know.
	I don't know. If I had to say, I would say something like, I don't know that it gets to the 95% reasonable doubt threshold, because the guy was...
	Had a three to four times fatal dose of fentanyl.
	And even the prosecution witness said, oh yeah, no, if I found him alone in an apartment, I would assume he would die from drugs.
	Just put down OD, right?
	So, the excited delirium stuff, the massive fighting, the tumor that could have produced excess cortisol and adrenaline, the post-COVID stuff, the fact that he knew he was going back to jail forever, right?
	Because he was caught in the counterfeiting.
	People think it's got something to do with the counterfeiting.
	No, the counterfeiting... If he'd simply given the cigarettes back or something, it probably would have been okay, because the clerk said, just give me the cigarettes back, and we'll call it a day.
	Because the clerk probably had to pay for the 20 bucks himself, which is a lot of money when you're a clerk, right?
	So, do you get beyond, for sure, 95% certainty that it was Derek Chauvin who caused George Floyd's death?
	I don't see how you can get there myself.
	I don't. I'm trying to be as objective as humanly possible if the situation's reversed, the race is reversed.
	I don't really care. I just don't see how you can get there.
	So many other factors that were going on.
	And the fact that George Floyd had been a violent criminal in his past and jammed his gun into the belly of a pregnant woman in a home invasion with a bunch of other criminals, and he'd served multiple stints in jail and so on, he knew he was driving under the influence.
	He was behind the wheel of the car while intoxicated.
	He'd taken drugs. He was with a drug dealer, apparently, according to some reports.
	At least the guy took the fifth in the trial.
	And he was addicted to opiates.
	And I mean, he was just going down.
	And he had nothing to lose.
	He had nothing to lose. And that's a very, very sad and dangerous place for people.
	So we have two experts, right?
	I don't mean in the trial, but the people looking at the trial.
	People on the left, people on the right.
	And the people on the left, completely inflexible.
	Like, it's just racist murder, 100%, no doubt, right?
	Because, you know, Dunning-Kruger, right?
	And you've got people on the right saying, yeah, it's pretty bad.
	You know, maybe it was manslaughter.
	I don't know about second degree.
	But, you know, there was a lot of hinky stuff.
	The prosecution kept dumping, like, 500 exhibits a day on the sole lawyer for Derek Chauvin every day.
	I mean, it's crazy, right? And you've got Maxine Waters, jury tampering, apparently, reportedly, like, threatening the jurors and so on.
	And you've got half-doxing coming out of the media on the jurors.
	I mean, come on. I mean, it was like, there's this poor girl who simply was talking about how the trial was really tough, and then she got...
	Because she looked like, you know, low-rent, low-res Haley Quinn, right?
	And she got crazy threats and all of that and death threats.
	And she's like, dudes, I'm 19.
	I was talking about a mock trial in my school.
	What are you talking about?
	Right? So you have two experts looking at the same data, the left and the right, looking at the data in the Derek Chauvin trial.
	You've got two experts completely canceling each other out.
	Now, that's proof beyond a reasonable doubt that they can't get along.
	Proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
	Now, what that means, I'm simply identifying something philosophically.
	Speaking, irreconcilable differences have been achieved.
	Have been achieved. It was a little bit different in the George Zimmerman-Trayvon Martin case, because there was no video of the event.
	Here, again, we've got start to end, video of the event, multiple angles, full audio.
	With Rodney King, they sliced the video down.
	They couldn't really do that as much here, although they did some of it, right?
	They just showed the last nine and a half minutes.
	But the full video is available.
	Of course, back in the day with Rodney King in 93, this is like early infancy internet days, you couldn't get the full video of the Rodney King thing.
	In fact, you couldn't even get the full George Floyd video until I think it was at a British newspaper who leaked it or something like that.
	You could go in and watch it, but you couldn't take any notes.
	It was all crazy stuff, right? But here you have full video, start to end, multiple angles, full audio.
	People are coming to diametrically opposite conclusions.
	There's no overlap here.
	There's no place to meet in reality for people.
	There is no place.
	They took the full video off YouTube.
	Well, of course they did. YouTube's too busy twisting itself into a postmodern pretzel of 1984-ness.
	They gave themselves, what's it, Susan Wojcicki or whatever her name is, just gave herself a big pat on the back and YouTube awarded itself a Freedom of Expression Award.
	Yeah, I'm going to give myself a Mohawk award next week, too.
	The jurors were under duress from rioters.
	Yeah, of course. I mean, everybody knows.
	I mean, look, the fact that the jurors weren't sequestered, the fact that they did it in Minneapolis and the jurors weren't sequestered, to me, that's mistrial right there.
	Again, I'm not a lawyer. I'm just telling you my opinion.
	That's mistrial right there. Right there.
	Boom! Mistrial.
	Mistrial 101. Can't get a fair trial.
	You can't get a fair trial with that level of jury intimidation.
	Are you crazy? You can't get anything close to a fair trial with that level of jury intimidation.
	You got pigs, a pig's head, the only people cheering, well, half the people cheering and a bunch of pigs who didn't want to go full Lord of the Flies, you got a pig's head and pig's blood landing on the house of somebody who testified for the defense.
	They don't even live there anymore. It's their former house.
	Everybody knows the media's out there.
	And do you remember this guy? Where was it?
	Was it Utah or something like that?
	Some paramedic donated 10 bucks to the Kyle Rittenhouse defense fund.
	It's a perfectly legal thing for him to do.
	And a reporter took a picture in front of the guy's house saying, oh yeah, this guy...
	Because what happened was there was a leak of one of these donation sites, right?
	A hack, a leak, right?
	Now, remember, on Twitter, you can't post anything about the Hunter Biden laptop stuff because it came from a...
	A hack! Which it didn't.
	The Hunter Biden laptop became the property of the owner of the computer repair shop when he failed to pick it up.
	That's right there in the contract.
	It's not that complicated. But all of the leaks from the donation database to the Kyle Rittenhouse Defense Fund, they all got leaked and apparently that's totally fine.
	You can post all about that because, you know, objective rules and what a scumbag.
	I hope the people suing Twitter for keeping up child pornography get real solid discovery, man.
	I bet you it's just a whole cesspool in there.
	Anyway, so you got a reporter out front of this guy's house saying, well, he donated 10 bucks to Kyle Rittenhouse's defense fund.
	I'm here to get his side of the story.
	It's like, no, you're not. My subjective personal opinion is that that was a straight-up warning from the media to the George Floyd jurors.
	Oh, we'll find you, man.
	Yeah. We'll post a picture in front of your house.
	It'll take about eight minutes for people to figure out where you are.
	Good luck with your life now!
	And the real divide is, of course, between people who are plugged into the unholy matrix of the media and people who are actually able to think for themselves and get more than one perspective, right?
	James O'Keefe is suing Twitter.
	That man's got his hands full. He's suing CNN, suing Twitter, suing someone else, I can't recall.
	So... Yeah, it's pretty bad.
	Yeah, didn't some cop get fired for...
	Sending 25 bucks to the Kyle Rittenhouse defense fund saying you didn't do anything wrong?
	What's wrong with saying Kyle Rittenhouse didn't do anything wrong?
	Is that not a potentially valid opinion?
	Is it no longer acceptable to have a job and hold those opinions?
	What's the joke? Yeah, I asked a friend of mine what he thought of the Chinese social credit system.
	He said, yeah, can't complain.
	Chinese social credit system is nicer in some ways, because at least in the Chinese social credit system, you don't get a fucking pig's head on your doorstep.
	Alan Dershowitz predicted the Supreme Court would take up the Chauvin case.
	Personally, I doubt it. Yeah, so Alan Dershowitz's opinion, as far as I understand it, is something like, yeah, it was endless amounts of jury tampering, jury intimidation, and witness intimidation as well.
	And the Supreme Court, a Supreme Court is not going to...
	If they didn't take up the election challenges, I don't really care what the Supreme Court does.
	I'm so glad to be out of politics as a whole.
	Yeah, share, share, share this video on social media.
	Help a brother out. Oh, yeah, yeah.
	Let me give you guys some goodies.
	Let's distribute some cheddar.
	I'm going to do my maximum.
	5,000 lemons.
	Here we go. I hope you enjoy them, and thank you so much.
	Are you still taking Monero donations?
	Yeah, you can check out my donate, freedomain.com forward slash donate.
	Chinese social credit system penalizes you for cheating on video games.
	Good! That's the only thing I approve of.
	Just kidding. Just kidding.
	Just kidding. All right. So that's my big thing, man.
	That's my big thing. We're all eyewitnesses.
	Eyewitness testimony is incredibly unreliable, even if you get to replay it from start to end from multiple angles.
	Can't trust what anyone says.
	Can't trust what they're even saying.
	Steph, is why are you even saying?
	Why is Yahoo even saying Pelosi went too far in praising Freud?
	I don't care. That's what I care, what that ice cream addicted bin says.
	All right. Let's bring some chats in, my babies.
	Hope you're doing well. Nice to chat with you tonight.
	All right. Hang tight. I will promise not to do that again.
	No, you know what? I can't promise not to do that again.
	Do you guys see the great gut feel statement?
	Where he's like, yeah, I'm glad that they found him guilty because I didn't want to see the city, the country burn.
	But see, the country, as a cohesive mental unit, is destroyed less if the country burns.
	Because at least then people will rebel against the burning, right?
	But right now, everyone's just like, oh, okay, so this is where we are.
	And boom, it's gone, right?
	Went pure Freddy there.
	Yeah, I wish. I wish.
	All right, let's get ourselves a chitty chat going.
	Let me just get to the right place here.
	I will never get to the right place. Spoiler!
	He boomered out and did not get to the right place.
	No, here we go. Here we go. All right.
	All right.
	Continue. I believe I will continue, in fact.
	And I will unmute.
	And I will invite people.
	Oh, those are the wrong speakers?
	And the wrong headphones.
	Other than that, we are good to go.
	Push to talk shortcut.
	I don't think so. Okay, here's our invite link.
	Any advice for a new content creator?
	Yeah, so what you want to do is find people to interview, interview them, and gain access to their audience that way, and just be really good at interviewing people.
	You may need to start small and go bigger.
	European Super League lasted less long than I did when I was 17.
	All right. Sorry, let me just go to the right tab and get what you need to get.
	Gotten, gotten. Good, guten.
	All right. FreeDomain.com forward slash donate.
	Right. Join me.
	Join me in the chat and I'm happy to hear your thoughts.
	Please keep them interesting.
	I don't care what else you say. Just keep them interesting, if you don't mind.
	Right. What have we got here?
	Here we go.
	FreeDomain. Join me in voice.
	Oh, did I hear someone?
	Did I? Oh, wait, is that me?
	Dear God, why am I echoing?
	Wait, is that someone else? Can I hear you, man?
	Yeah, he didn't want... Gutfield was like, yeah, we went through a riot before.
	I don't want to go through it again. It's like, yeah, I get it.
	Why? All right.
	Why am I echoing? Oh, you know what?
	Okay, so if you're in here, please mute yourself.
	Oh, how are you doing? You got an echo, yeah, yeah.
	All right, people. We got people in the voice.
	I got more to talk about, so I'm happy to keep talking, but let's, you know, make this two-way.
	What is the most positive influence in your life at this time?
	Oh, listeners and family.
	Yeah, listeners and family. Do you ever think of leaving Canada, especially if Trudeau is elected again?
	Yeah, we'll talk about that one day.
	Sorry, go ahead. Come on, don't boomer me out, people.
	I know you're young and technologically savvy.
	Steph, is the separation of race and state the next separation of church and state?
	No, I don't think so.
	I think the state is just immoral.
	The state is just absolutely, completely and totally immoral.
	Violation of the non-aggression principle.
	And it needs to go into the dustbin of history in the long run.
	Just like it did.
	Oh, yeah. Just like it did.
	Just like slavery did. Just like slavery did.
	All right. Sorry about that.
	People are saying there's no audio from the listeners.
	Don't worry. Nothing good's coming through yet.
	Hello. Hello.
	Good evening. Good evening.
	Can I jump in?
	I don't know if you guys can hear me.
	I was wondering if we could do like a roundtable dialogue about the Chauvin stuff.
	I don't know. I mean, it's pretty tough to do a roundtable dialogue when I can't see anyone, but I'm just happy if you guys want to talk and give me your thoughts.
	I'm certainly happy to hear. Alright, so somebody leap in.
	Hello? Hello?
	Alright. Guys, I don't know.
	Do you want to talk or not? Somebody was in before.
	Somebody just said they really wanted to share their thoughts.
	You need to push the unmute button, people.
	You really do. Don't be shy.
	History is listening.
	History is listening. Can you hear me?
	All right. So, yeah, sorry.
	I don't think the people could hear me in Telegram.
	That's all right. That's all right.
	Can you hear me now?
	Speak up. Speak up if you've got some thoughts you want to share.
	It might just be me, but Telegram is lagging behind the live stream.
	Okay, well then just pause the live stream and listen to Telegram.
	Okay. Alright, what's up to mind, my friend?
	Okay. Well, good evening.
	Good evening. Yes, indeed.
	I've been watching you on and off for a couple of years, and the livestream you did on Good Friday was, in my opinion, one of the most profound I've ever heard from you.
	And meaningful. And it's clear that the story of Jesus is the one that means a lot to you, and that you've clearly drawn a lot from.
	It struck me that during the Lifestream there were a couple of details from the Passion narrative that maybe you weren't clear on or didn't fully understand, and I thought that as somebody who is Yeah,
	listen, first of all, I have absolutely zero doubt whatsoever that I got some details wrong.
	In fact, I'd be completely shocked and appalled if I didn't.
	So I'm very, very happy to have you, particularly if you're in theologically inclined far beyond my abilities.
	I'm very happy to be corrected or things that I May have missed.
	I would love to hear ways in which I could improve my understanding of the day on Calvary.
	Yeah, sure. That'd be...
	Happy to help out. Obviously the most, the obvious place to start is the Gospels and then, well, other than that there are biblical commentaries although they can be quite obscure sometimes.
	In fact, I'll give you One thing I might explain right now has just occurred to me.
	You, if I remember correctly, didn't fully understand why was a sign put above Jesus on the cross that read, Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews.
	You were wondering about that, if I remember correctly.
	Yes, so I'll just try to explain it.
	So the way it works is when you're crucified in Rome, Romans love making public executions.
	It's all about the fear and the terror for those passing by as much as the individual.
	So, as part of that, what they would do is they would take You put you on the cross and then above you put a sign with your name and the charge against you.
	So it would be like robber or bandits or thief or murderer or whatever.
	Now, Pilate was in an interesting situation in that what Jesus had done wasn't criminal under Roman law, but it was the worst thing you could do under Jewish law.
	So he had a bit of leeway as he walked to what he could put up.
	The main reason he put Jesus to death was to satisfy a mob that was threatening a riot.
	And mobs are fickle and also forgetful.
	So he promises to crucify Jesus and that goes to happen.
	And then the mob will all then go home because they've got the Passover to prepare for the next day.
	So they've got a lot to do.
	Most of them are not at the crucifixion, but the Pharisees send a couple of people, just to make sure he follows through, and they see that Pilate is quite a politically savvy person.
	He knows what he can do and the limits of what he can get away with.
	So, now he's very annoyed with the Jews because they have, at this point, forced him to do something that he believes is morally wrong.
	He still did it, but he still thinks it was wrong.
	So, to get back at the Pharisees, he puts up the claim, well, what did Jesus claim to be?
	He claimed to be the Son of God, which, if you're Jewish, means he claimed to be the King of the Jews.
	And, indeed, when the Pharisees go to Pilate to complain, they say, well, no, you shouldn't have said, he is the king of the Jews.
	You should have said, he said he was the king of the Jews.
	Because if he was the king of the Jews, it puts the Pharisees in a very awkward position.
	Okay, I think I'm following this.
	So was it because he felt forced to do something that went against his conscience for political reasons that he wanted to get back in a sense, maybe somewhat passive-aggressively, at the Jews by saying, oh yeah, this guy's the king of the Jews.
	The fact that he's being crucified means that that puts the Jewish community down in the eyes of the people going by.
	Is that right? Yes, like that.
	And if you remember another line from the Bible, the Jews say, we have no king but Caesar.
	And yet here's Pilate saying, well, this guy's the king of the Jews.
	So he's found a very clever way to...
	Really rile up the high priest and the Pharisees and all those other rather miserable folk in that crowd who are really jealous of Jesus more than anything else.
	Okay, I get it.
	Yeah, that makes sense to me.
	And also, of course, if he was the king of the Jews, then the Jews wouldn't have want him put to death.
	Right? The Jews wanted him put to death, as far as I understand it, was because he was claiming to be the King of the Jews, but they didn't believe him.
	Which was a form of blasphemy, right?
	Well, that was one of, if not the highest forms of blasphemy you could possibly commit, was to claim to be the Messiah, was to claim to be God, and yet not actually be God.
	The Old Testament has all sorts of very creative eternal punishments for people who do that sort of thing.
	Right, right, right.
	And, I mean, the other powerful statement as well is that the mob will always elevate the mediocre or the evil over the virtuous and the good, right?
	Because they're all like, yeah, give us Barabbas, right?
	We'll take the thief. As opposed to the guy who literally walked around healing people of leprosy and blindness and removing demons from in them.
	But no, the guy who steals from them, that's the guy they're going to elevate, which to me then goes to the worship of the communists and the socialists and so on.
	The institutional thieves of the modern world end up vastly more esteemed than philosophers who are generally deplatformed.
	Oh, certainly. One of the earliest recordings of a mob we have in history is the one that gets Socrates killed.
	The next time we see a mob in action is the one that gets a brigand, a thief, or murderer.
	That's Barabbas, depending on what version of the Gospel you read.
	He's then released, and the Son of Man, as you said, the guy who can walk on water, use a small meal to feed thousands, who can Heal the sick, give sight to the blind, even raise the dead.
	Well, yeah, he can go die.
	Well, the miracles thing, you know, I understand the miracles thing as evidence, of course, of being divine, but him working on water didn't heal anyone directly.
	To me, the more powerful thing is that, I mean, Jesus could, like, could actually materially enormously benefit people.
	And the life of a leper at any time is wretched, but in the ancient world was almost beyond imagination how awful it was.
	And... So here's someone who doesn't just say, well, you know, I can lead you to heaven, I can remake the covenant with God, I can walk on water, but it's like, I can heal you of leprosy.
	I mean, that's pretty good.
	And they go from somebody who can provide them such an unimaginable benefit.
	To someone who's a common petty thief who's going to rob them and spit in their face right after he's released.
	And that is, it's always a great tragedy, you know, that we are only elevated individually.
	The mob always seems to point us directly to Satan's toes.
	It does, yes, I think.
	Jesus makes you look up, the mob makes you look down.
	Yeah, yeah, that's right, that's right.
	Was there anything else that, I'm sure there was, right, other things that would be worth revisiting from what I said?
	Perhaps, oh, one thing you didn't, I think, touch on, but which I thought was, I've always been one of the most touching points in the story, is who's with Jesus when he's crucified?
	It's three women and a man.
	It's His mother, it is then Mary Magdalene, then another, I've forgotten, Martha and Mary Magdalene, Mary, mother of Jesus, and of course Saint John, who was the only one of the Apostles to stick with him through it all and oh sorry I thought you wanted to say something no
	I'll keep going. Which is a lot of where the Catholic veneration and appreciation of Mary comes from.
	It's the fact that she never did anything particularly spectacular in this giving birth to the Son of God not included.
	Yet all of the people who are, if you will, named and elevated around Jesus, all the other apostles, Peter and Andrew and the two Jameses and Philip and Bartholomew and Judas, they vanish.
	They disappear. They are...
	It's like, as soon as the going gets tough, they just...
	Where do they go?
	No one knows. What were they doing?
	Well, I... Let me give you a tiny pushback on that and see if this makes any sense.
	Go ahead. Because I've stepped back.
	So, you know, obviously this is pinging off me personally, right?
	I've stepped back from political commentary and other things, right?
	So, I guess the argument would be something like this, that you do scant service to the Son of God by getting crucified next to Him and not being able to tell His story going forward.
	So, for them to withdraw from that particular area, to not be identified by everyone and their dog as followers of Jesus, isn't that one of the reasons why we ended up having Christianity?
	Because people stayed alive to tell the story?
	It is. If I may then offer a counter-argument, it would be this, that the chief priests, the scribes, the Pharisees, they were interested, primarily, indeed only, in pursuing Jesus.
	They were never interested in anyone who followed him.
	It was very much an opinion of, cut off the head and the body dies.
	That's why, for example, John, he stayed with Jesus Throughout the whole thing, he went with the men who arrested him to the high priest's house, even.
	And even there, nobody touched him, nobody challenged him.
	In fact, he was recognized and allowed in.
	In contrast with Peter, who followed him in secret, was challenged and very famously denied ever knowing Jesus more than once.
	Yeah, no, I really do.
	I really do get that, but...
	There's a sort of pragmatic and practical side to me that is a war is one not with straight advancing, right?
	A war is sometimes a war of attrition, which means hanging tight, taking shelter, biding your time, and so on, right?
	I personally have had productive vengeances that have taken sometimes 10 years or more for fruition, and I know that that's maybe not too Christian of me, but that's, you know, just being, you know, I confess my sins, I suppose, here.
	But I don't know that maintaining the word of Jesus is worth...
	Because, you know, the Jews showed if they could do it to Jesus, they could do it to his followers as well, right?
	Because I assume it's not just a blasphemy to say that you are the Son of God, but also it's a blasphemy to believe someone who says they are the Son of God.
	So I think that they may have gone underground to keep the word going, which is, you know, I mean, how was France liberated after May of 1940?
	Well, I mean, obviously there was...
	There was D-Day, but there was also a lot of attrition that went on with people, you know, the freedom fighters in France would actually wound the German soldiers rather than kill them because it consumed more resources from the state and more health care and more pensions and so on.
	So, if they had simply rushed, if all of the sort of resistance fighters had simply rushed the German divisions or the German soldiers, they would have all just died.
	But so they've got to sneak in and sneak out, you know, like the rebels or the insurgents, as they call them, in Iraq and Afghanistan.
	It's just a bunch of guys in the back of a pickup truck with flip-flops and IEDs.
	Regardless of the sort of moral right or wrong, I think there is definitely very, very important times for strategic retreat.
	And, you know, he who fights and runs away lives to fight another day.
	Well, I'm sure the Romans wouldn't have been that interested in pursuing them.
	What had happened, of course, is that the Jewish high councils, by having shown that they could get people killed by complaining to the Romans and threatening to complain about Pontius Pilate to Rome itself, which had caused a huge amount of trouble for him, They would have been emboldened to pursue any successful followers.
	And again, I'm not sure how that played out going forward, but I can certainly see, you know, standing beside Jesus would be a wonderful thing, but it might not have done much good to his message in the long run, if that makes sense.
	Okay, I can understand what you're saying.
	I see where you're coming from. Yeah, definitely.
	And, you know, in a sense, I will concede you are giving a fairly, what would be a pragmatic approach, definitely.
	Um... Sorry, give me a wee minute here.
	I could be wrong.
	In my dance with the world, there are times when I charge full tilt boogie.
	There's times when I slip to one side.
	There's times when I retreat.
	It is a very complicated thing.
	To tell the truth, because I still got a lot of truths to tell.
	And if I acted in some manner that was completely self-destructive, the world would be robbed of all the truths that I can continue to grow and tell down the road.
	So I'm just telling you it's, and I'm sure you have the same thing in your environment, that it's a very complicated dance when you are working with the world to try and free it from error.
	Because error is a predator, a demonic predator, I suppose, in the Christian sense.
	But the error is a predator that strongly defends its territory and would wipe you out as soon as look at you.
	But it can't make it too obvious, right?
	So the predator evolution that holds humanity in its swall, it can't go after.
	The truth tell is too obviously because that tips the hand and frightens the people it's got in its grip.
	So it has to demonize them first, of course, right?
	And if the demonization is too successful, then the world will cheer the destruction of the truth teller and that will seal off truth forever.
	Gosh, I mean, you could say it was 2,000 years between Socrates and the Enlightenment.
	It was 2,000 years between Jesus and the Internet, which I know that sounds like an odd combination, but it has given us the chance to proselytize to the world truths that are important.
	So if truth doesn't do the dance right, humanity can lose the truth for, like, thousands of years, and that's a pretty big burden.
	Yes, yes it is, and maybe there is something It's providential in that most of the apostles, I should say, were not too closely involved.
	Wouldn't they have prayed to God and said, what should I do?
	Because, I mean, I face this all the bloody time.
	What should I do? Should I talk about this topic?
	Should I talk about that topic? Is this too dangerous?
	Like, it's really, it's so complicated.
	And, you know, you all don't see the stuff that goes on behind the scenes.
	You know, I've got these diagrams on the wall that make Mel Gibson look like...
	Do you mind if I jump in really quickly?
	Sorry to interrupt.
	Stefan, do you mind if I jump in?
	Sorry, you gentlemen are having a fabulous conversation.
	I'm very interested, but I'm also a little bit bored.
	I'm just wondering if you can tell us, the two of you gentlemen, what you think we should do today, given the circumstances of the mob and the nature of sacrifice.
	Well, it's interesting because, hang on, so you've interrupted, which is fine.
	I mean, this is a convo, right? So you've interrupted, but you've also done something which is kind of interesting, which you said, could you tell us?
	In other words, you're not, you're trying to speak on behalf of other people, rather than being directly honest and saying, well, I'm bored.
	You didn't say we're bored. You said I'm bored.
	That was true, and that's fine.
	You can certainly communicate that you're bored.
	But then you say, can you tell us, like, we have a responsibility to people.
	Sorry for interrupting. May I respond to your point?
	I think there's a little bit of a latency issue.
	So, I mean, it could be, like, charitable towards me and my rudeness.
	I have some evidence to support other people also being interested in the conversation and kind of wanting to move on.
	I was asking in the chat.
	I don't know how many people are out there, just the people who are dedicated, who are listening intently.
	And in the chat, I'm trying to talk to them.
	D-Live seems like there's a latency issue.
	Anyway, I'm sorry. I'm sorry if I'm...
	No, it's fine. It's just that in the D-Live chat, people are rapidly fascinated by me having a conversation with the priest.
	So it's...
	Maybe the people in Telegram, a little bit less so, but...
	Yeah, so I would say, you know, hang tight.
	You can always go make a sandwich and come back, but I'm going to keep with the gentleman who called in.
	And when we're done with the topic, we'll move on to other ones.
	For sure. So, yeah, sorry, just to return to my theological friend, it is crazy complicated, and you also have to, of course, wrestle with your own conscience, because I'm in it to tell the truth to the world in the long term, you know, philosophy being not a sprint but a marathon.
	And if I want to be publicly available going forward, there's a dance.
	There's a really complicated dance.
	And my interesting question is, of course, if they believed, as they did, that Jesus was the Son of God, they would have prayed to God about what to do.
	And my guess is that God said, you know, we only need one central sacrifice for the truth to spread.
	Your sacrifices...
	Would not allow for the truth to spread.
	So we need Jesus.
	The sacrifice of Jesus is the power that fulfills the prophecy and gives you the truth to spread.
	But if you sacrifice yourselves, then there's no one to tell the story other than the people who don't believe he's the son of God, in which case the story ends with him and the sacrifice has been pointless.
	The only thing that makes the sacrifice of Jesus worthwhile is there are people around to found the rock upon which the church is built.
	Sorry, I just wanted to mention something about that sacrifice.
	It reminds me of the story of the 300 Spartans sending one guy back just so he can tell the story.
	Otherwise, it's pointless. You need the story to be told.
	Without Plato, would we even know about Socrates?
	And the answer is, well, no, we wouldn't.
	So the fact that Plato did not sacrifice himself on the altar of the mob as Socrates did, and the fact that Aristotle also didn't, so Plato tells us about Socrates, whereas if Plato had sacrificed himself like Socrates, we wouldn't know, because Socrates didn't write anything down.
	So Plato has to live to a ripe old age in order to teach and communicate to Aristotle, who in his empiricism then creates the epistemological foundations for the modern world.
	You know, Plato ruled the Dark Ages and Aristotle ruled the Enlightenment as the church scholars.
	Church scholars were so enamored of Aristotle, they simply referred to him as the philosopher.
	He's not just a philosopher, he's the philosopher.
	And so if they, you can look at that as well.
	Like, shouldn't they have also gone to the grave and to the hemlock prison with Socrates?
	Well, if they had, then the cause of philosophy would have been, I mean, who knows, set back 10,000 years.
	Quite possibly. It is a very interesting fact.
	Yes, as you said, Catholic philosophers love Aristotle, St.
	Thomas Aquinas especially. To go back to the Passion, it's a very curious case, it seems, of perhaps the...
	The disappearance of some of the central characters from the New Testament, indeed some of whom actually wrote most of the New Testament between them, was in a certain way providential and did avoid causing an even greater disaster from Christianity.
	Although what is interesting is that if we fast forward past the resurrection, which is really the The point which makes it all real, proving that, yes, Jesus is in fact the Son of God.
	Oh, to see the look on Peter's face that morning when he got to the tomb, that's something I'd always like to see.
	But anyway, going past that, just briefly, we can go back to it.
	You find of the apostles, they're down to 11.
	Judas is replaced, so it comes back up to 12.
	And of those 12, only St.
	John is not killed.
	All the rest are martyred in the years and decades following.
	We don't know for certain, but by tradition, the first is St.
	James, who is killed only a couple of years after Jesus, and then in various succession, they all die in various places and by various horrible means, with the exception of St.
	John, who lives to a ripe old age, almost up until the turn of the first century.
	Right. And I should have added, St.
	John was the only person, the only man, sorry, to be present throughout the Passion.
	He kept a distance at times, as did the Mother Mary, but, I mean, you could call it a coincidence, but God isn't someone who does coincidences.
	Right. Coincidences and omniscience do not go hand in hand.
	No, they do not. All right, well, listen, I appreciate that.
	Now, it's wonderful to chat with you.
	I hope that you'll come back, but I know that there are people dying to talk about the Chauvin trial and what happened from yesterday, but really, really do appreciate that.
	And if there are people who want to jump in, and if there aren't, we'll keep chatting, but if there are people who want to jump in with their thoughts about George Floyd and Derek Chauvin, I'm more than happy to hear.
	Yeah, I'll jump in now.
	I have two questions.
	First question is, you know, Alan Dershowitz talked about how, you know, Chauvin might be able to appeal this and win, but seeing how everyone's sort of throwing him under the bus, do you think he'll be able to get a fair trial at the Supreme Court level?
	So that's my first question.
	And I'm apologizing if you've already talked about this previously.
	I jumped in midstream, so I haven't watched from the beginning.
	And my second question is, have you ever considered talking to Scott Adams?
	Oh, I've done a couple of shows with Scott Adams in the past, for sure, yeah.
	Yeah, so with Scott and I, and I don't have any contact with him, when I was talking about the IQ differences and so on, I said it was absolutely essential to talk about, and Scott was of the opinion or had the thought that...
	Maybe it's the best thing for the country for us to never speak of it again, basically, and that's just not, unfortunately, it's not factually true.
	So I think Scott chooses a pretty populist route.
	He wants to keep his audience, he wants to keep his income, he wants to keep his platforms, and so he's very careful and very much avoids very controversial stuff, though he certainly puts his neck out at times, and I respect that, but...
	Yeah, I've talked to him. I enjoyed my conversations with him, but I can't imagine that he would be all too keen with chatting with me again.
	Because as I said, he's very careful.
	You know, before you lose your platforms, you're worried about losing your platforms.
	And after you lose your platforms, you're like, that's not so bad.
	And it gives me opportunities to do other things that are equally, if not more important for the long run.
	God works in mysterious ways.
	The fates and philosophy work in mysterious ways.
	And the fact that I'm getting back to more core philosophy, which will outlast political analysis and hopefully cement this conversation in the annals of history down the...
	Age is partly the result of the deplatforming, and that's, in a sense, if I were religious, I would say that's God's way of saying get back to basics, and it's really not bad.
	But that's not really a place that Scott Adams goes.
	He's in a sort of contemporary analysis and all of that, and he wouldn't have the UPB or a particular reason to go further than that.
	So you had something else that you mentioned.
	Oh, yes. So with regards to whether...
	Derek Chauvin can get a free trial, a fair trial.
	There's only one way in which he's ever going to get anything close to a fair trial.
	And if I were his lawyer or a lawyer representing him, then what I would do is I would say, Derek, we're going to have to wait until there's bigger news.
	Because if it's a slow news cycle and you go for an appeal for a mistrial for this, that, and the other, we're doomed.
	However, if there's something even bigger, a war or some sort of disaster, or maybe the concerns about the COVID vaccine making people incredibly susceptible to coronaviruses in the future, if that starts to play out, then we should probably go for it so that it's drowned out in the general noise of a larger news cycle.
	But if we don't do that, All that's going to happen is people are going to come back and, oh, you're digging up the grave of George Floyd and desecrating his corpse of justice or whatever.
	They'll come up with these hysterical metaphors.
	But I don't think the Supreme Court does not seem to want to take on anything that is particularly...
	I mean, everybody saw what happened to Justice Kavanaugh.
	Everybody saw that, and that's hanging over everyone's head now, and that's just the way things are.
	Yeah, I got the impression that no one wants to sort of risk their career or life or city burning to the ground over a stranger.
	You know, there's no point from their perspective to helping shaman, right?
	Because, you know, it's only a lose-lose scenario for them, right?
	Yeah, the public space is, to a large degree, the arena of escalating terrorism.
	I mean, let's be clear, right?
	The threat of violence for political ends is terrorism.
	And the conviction of Chauvin was for political ends in many ways.
	And when you've got people threatening jurors, when you've got pig's heads showing up on people's doors, when you've got the media seemingly happy to half-dox people and put their lives in danger, you are not in the realm of debates or arguments or facts or reason or evidence.
	And you don't wander...
	Onto a First World War battlefield with a pacifist manifesto.
	Just going to get killed, right?
	So I think that's important.
	One last question. Um, okay.
	Um, so after seeing this, um, I'm sure you've seen many trials in your lifetime.
	Has this shaken your, you know, your belief in a sort of jury system?
	Um, like, just shaking your confidence in a jury system.
	I mean, I would never want to be judged by, um, a jury after, after seeing this.
	It's just, it's not based on, doesn't seem to be based on facts and evidence and logic, more on fear and, uh, You know, emotions and, you know, social consensus, you know, that's what it seems to be operating on.
	Well, sure. So, look, the Anglo-Saxon tradition of legal rights and trial by jury of your peers and, oh, I guess you can opt for a trial by judge as well.
	So, It is the best that's ever been developed in a government system, and I think a lot of it came out of the common law systems.
	The Irish also contributed a lot towards this kind of stuff.
	They used to have a relatively anarchic society for quite a long time, but they had to adjudicate disputes.
	So it's a pretty good system as a whole, but you wouldn't want to judge...
	The trial by jury system by things like the Chauvin trial.
	Because the Chauvin trial had the focus of an election year cycle.
	So the way that it works, I'm sure you know this, but just to sort of clarify.
	So the way it works is pretty simple.
	What happens is you find a situation of racial conflict, and this happens every midterms, it happens every...
	It's very predictable.
	You find a situation of racial conflict and then you go straight to the white is guilty, the white is a racist murderer, and then you say that anyone...
	Anyone who hesitates to say that is a racist who wants you dead, right?
	So you say, oh, you know, the white cops are hunting black men and all this kind of stuff, right?
	And then you say, anyone who doubts that is a racist who wants you dead.
	And what that means is the conservatives, those from the more Anglo-Saxon European common law position of innocent until proven guilty and don't rush to judgment and we need to let the process work, and they tend to be conservatives.
	They tend to be conservatives.
	Conservatives also, let's conserve ourselves from a rush to judgment.
	Let's be patient, let the system play out and not jump to conclusions.
	And so when you gin up racial conflict and you say the white guy's a racist murderer, the black guy was an innocent hero, noble, blah, blah, blah, right?
	Then anybody who says, yeah, could be, but let's let the system play out.
	you call them a racist, they tend to be on the conservative side, and all the leftists can just jump in and say, oh, yeah, it was a racist, murderer, cop, or Zimmerman was not a cop, but was a security guard or something like that, or he was interested in the patrol your neighborhood stuff, right?
	So what happens is then they get to, you know, make the blacks feel afraid, which is really, really sad, because, I mean, black communities in particular, I mean, if the cops aren't there, things go very badly for a lot of very good, decent, hardworking blacks, very terrible.
	So, and it gets the blacks to look at, they say, well, anyone who doubts this very clear thing that it's a racist murderer from a white guy to a black guy, anyone who doubts that is secretly a racist, and a white supremacist, and a KKK member, and blah, blah, blah.
	So then anybody who wants due process It's now a Nazi, which of course, Nazism was kind of the opposite of due process as was the KKK, right?
	So when you've got an election year cycle, when you've got the need to unify and gin off the black vote, when you've got the need to have a way to attack and de-platform conservatives or people who want due process by calling them racist, Nazis, white supremacists or whatever... Well, that's a whole different situation.
	In the average trial, the jury of the peers is not too bad.
	It's certainly among the best that's ever been developed in any status society, which is not as good as it would be in a free society, but again, it's about the best that's ever been developed in a status society, but you wouldn't judge, you wouldn't want to judge the entire jury of your peers situation by this particular focus and hysteria and race baiting because, you know, the communists have said for like a hundred years they want to inflame racial tensions to destroy America.
	I mean, that's America's been a thorn in the side of communism for, well, ever since there was communism, basically.
	So they've said they're going to do this, and they said that anyone who opposes communism or this plan, they're going to call them a racist and a Nazi and a fascist and all that.
	I mean, all of this is perfectly published, but of course you don't hear about it because the communists also happen to run the educational systems and the media and you name it.
	So I don't judge the system by what is very much an outlier for political purposes.
	Thank you, Stephan. If it's okay, if I can ask one more small question.
	You don't have to answer it if you don't want.
	If you want to move on to something, that's fine.
	How is it possible that we are all people of reason and we look at the same evidence and same hard facts from this case and people come to vastly different ways?
	Conclusions. Like, these are not dumb people.
	Like, my friend's an MD, and he said he died of, Floyd died of a fix, of choking, right?
	You can't pronounce the word. But he died of choking, and I looked at the evidence, and I said, okay, you know, three times the lethal dose of fentanyl, you know, and bad health, he had a bad heart, you know, bad coronary arteries.
	You know, he obviously died of, you know, Exerting himself too much and just an accident of, you know, drugs and bad health.
	And he said, no, it's choking.
	And so how is it possible that we are all looking at the same thing and coming to vastly different conclusions?
	Are we living in a simulation or something?
	No, no. So you can't ever be free until you get over the fear of being hated.
	Or disapproved of, or rejected, or ostracized.
	You can't ever be free, ever be free, in this world or any other.
	You can never be free until you get over the fear of being hated.
	And so your friend, the doctor, he is protecting himself from disapproval.
	Because saying that George Floyd was...
	Murdered by a racist cop is going to get you in trouble precisely nowhere.
	Seriously, it's going to get you in trouble precisely nowhere.
	It is the least courageous statement that could possibly be made.
	Now, that doesn't mean that everyone who says that doesn't genuinely believe it, but the reason I say it's the most cowardly statement that could possibly be made is because people like yourself are never going to go to people who say George Floyd was choked out by a racist cop.
	We're never going to try and get them deplatformed.
	We are never going to leave a pig's head on their doorstep.
	We're never going to try and get them fired.
	We're never going to try and ruin their lives.
	Because we generally are sane, civilized people, right?
	Now, this doesn't mean that I'm coming to any conclusions about what genuinely killed him.
	I don't know, right? I mean, I didn't watch all the trial and there's lots of stuff going on, but...
	So what he's doing, and it's a very sensible thing to do outside of morality, it's a very sensible thing to do.
	What he's doing is he's saying, okay, so there's two groups of people here.
	Okay, so one group of people...
	Have the perspective that George Floyd was killed because the racist cop callously knelt on his neck for nine and a half minutes and that killed him, right?
	So there's this one group of people who believe that.
	There's this other group of people who say, yeah, it could be, but does it pass beyond reasonable doubt?
	And there were these other factors and it's complicated and I don't know.
	And, you know, there's arguments against it and so on, right?
	And he looks at these two groups and he says, okay...
	Forget the morality, forget the right or wrong or the true or false, because most people don't have any access to a higher standard that they're going to judge their behavior.
	So what he's doing is he's saying, okay, which group is more dangerous to me?
	Which group is more dangerous, right?
	So there's one group, the group that thinks that George Floyd was choked out by the racist cop.
	What happens if you disagree with that group?
	Well, some very bad things can happen to you.
	And there's another group who say, I don't know, it's complicated, could be, could be not, reasonable doubt, it's tough, right?
	Who knows? You know, it's difficult.
	And those people won't do you any harm if you disagree with them.
	So what he does is he says, okay, so in the one room is a hungry lion.
	In the other room is a pussycat.
	Which room do I want to go into?
	So it's not that he's evaluating.
	The facts, objectively, he's evaluating the risk and danger.
	Like, he's a doctor. What do they do?
	They evaluate the risk and the danger, right?
	And so, he's simply gauging which is the lion and which is the pussycat, right?
	And, unfortunately, you and I are the pussycats, and the people who are, you know, racist cop, choked-out hero, turning his life around, they're just more dangerous.
	And so he's making a decision, and the decision is, well, what does it gain me if I walk into the room with the lion?
	It doesn't bring George Floyd back to life.
	It doesn't change the outcome of...
	The trial, I assume you talked about them.
	So, it's just a calculation based upon rational self-interest.
	Now, it's not a moral calculation, it's not a fidelity to the truth at any cost kind of calculation, but that's what's going on.
	He's not looking at you.
	He's not looking at you.
	He's not looking at the facts.
	He's looking at you versus the other side and saying, who's more dangerous?
	Okay, well, I'm going to say what the other side wants because they're more dangerous, because violence works.
	Threats work.
	Abuse works. Getting people deplatformed and fired works.
	And if it didn't work, they wouldn't do it.
	And it does work. So that's what's going on.
	I wanted to say about the outcome of the trial.
	So I don't see how on earth there's ever going to be...
	Sorry, can you end in a bit? You're kind of quiet for me.
	Sorry, I was going to say that given the outcome of the trial, I don't see how there ever is going to be any appeal or anything like that.
	And he's probably going to get killed in prison, Derek Chauvin.
	Could be. It could be.
	It could be. Unless they want to keep him alive, right?
	I mean, I would imagine that his most dangerous time would be if people thought that his appeal was going to work, then it probably would not be a good day for him in prison.
	But no, he's going to appeal, for sure.
	I mean, you have to.
	I mean... Nobody doesn't, right?
	When you have a judge saying, oh, what Maxime Waters said could be considered jury intimidation, could be grounds for a mistrial, well, yeah, you have to appeal.
	I mean, he's not going to just sit there and rot away in prison for the next 50 years, right?
	So, I mean, the fact that he got convicted of three things in the same universe, they would go concurrently, but they'll probably go back to back so that he'll never get out.
	But I will say this, though.
	You know, whatever you think of the guy, man, you couldn't really tell his expression.
	I know he had a mask on, but you couldn't really tell his expression from the verdict.
	That was... That was something else.
	Better off or worse. It's something else.
	Alright. Do you want to jump in another question?
	Issue? Comment? Problem?
	Hey, Steph. Hello.
	Can you hear me? Hey. Can you hear me okay?
	I'm sorry? Can you hear me okay?
	Yeah, kind of quiet. If you could lean in a little bit.
	Okay. Is that better?
	Yeah, kind of. Okay, well, my question really is, the more and more throughout this year I've gotten more and more blackpilled.
	You know, if you think the election was stolen, if you think that mobs run the trials, if you think that unfettered immigration is going to continue, if you think the Supreme Court won't address any real issues, I don't understand how anything we can do can really I don't understand how anything we can do can really affect.
	I mean, if voting doesn't affect the outcome, if anybody who talks online can be canceled, that doesn't affect the outcome, then is there really any option to progress?
	Well, I mean, I've said for many years that it's not going to be words that turns this around.
	Now, I don't want anyone to do anything violent.
	I oppose that enormously and foundationally, fundamentally.
	You just, you protect yourself.
	You protect your family.
	You know, this good of society crap is, to me, I'm just telling you my own sort of personal thoughts about it, is, you know, I gave it a good old shot, man.
	I put in like 15 years of hard labor in this kind of stuff, and this is where we are.
	And things have gotten worse since I started, I don't think it's causal, but things have gotten worse since I started to now, right?
	And so, for me, it's like I care about the listeners, I care about my friends, I care about my family, and I am going to keep myself safe and protected with resources and all of that.
	But, you know, I think I've said this before, but I think of all the people who fought like hell to save the Roman Empire.
	And so what? What did it do?
	Shouldn't it have fallen earlier, in a way?
	And so I can't think of a single late-stage democracy that's ever been turned around.
	Ever. And you say, oh, well, we have the internet.
	It's like, yeah, well, so do the bad guys, right?
	So, it's even Stephen as far as that goes, but people won't give up what they believe they need to survive for the sake of abstract ideals, or at least very few people will, which is why violence and threats work.
	People want to survive, right?
	And we can appreciate that they want to survive because if we didn't have a species that wanted to survive, we wouldn't be here, right?
	So, I would say that, I mean, this is certainly my perspective, is that the public world, the public life, the larger society...
	I wish everyone good luck, but I am going to work on really protecting myself and protecting my family and doing what I can to help people protect themselves.
	But, yeah, as far as, you know, going out and making the world a better place, I put my time in, and I'm very glad that I did because I wouldn't want to leave any regret on the table.
	But... Yeah, I wish everyone good luck, but after, you know, only a crazy person keeps doing the same thing, expecting a different outcome.
	And if things are worse and far worse now than when I started, despite my very best efforts and despite having a much bigger audience in the past than I have now because of the deplatforming, right?
	So if I couldn't turn things around with a much bigger audience, Then what am I expecting to do now?
	And that's part of the liberation of the deplatforming is the sense of obligation to the larger world has vanished from me.
	And now it's about me and mine.
	Unfortunately, I feel the same way.
	Hey, it's not unfortunate.
	It's not unfortunate.
	It's not unfortunate at all.
	It's simply a fact, right? Yeah, so being black-pilled is basically pragmatic at this point.
	Yeah, well, it's just...
	I mean, we just have to process the facts.
	We just have to process the facts.
	And, you know, Trump...
	You and I are never going to be as rich as Trump.
	We're never going to be as famous as Trump.
	We're never going to be as politically savvy or have as many opportunities or work as hard as Trump did.
	And he was a pretty big example of, okay, well, if we're never going to be that successful or that wealthy...
	And the guy does seem, you know, oddly impervious to just about every piece of blowback known to man.
	Well, okay. If the guy who's seven feet tall can't reach the thing you need to reach and you and I are only six feet tall, we're not going to reach it.
	That's sort of my thought, if that makes any sense.
	Yeah, no, I feel like they called her bluff and they realized they can do absolutely anything to us until everything collapses.
	We'll just take it because we don't want...
	We don't want to start something worse.
	And here's the thing too, man.
	There is... I'm sorry, you're going to have to mute yourself because you're very loud on the mic.
	So there is no better time to be alive.
	I was just talking about this with a friend of mine today.
	Like, there's no better time to be alive than the present.
	No better time. Would you want to be alive in the 1800s?
	God, we'd all be dead from smallpox or whatever, right?
	Definitely not. Do you want to be alive in the 1940s and get drafted or the 1960s and get drafted?
	Or, you know, do you want to be around in the 1970s with the key parties and rampant decadence and no internet and propaganda all over the place just slithering up your nose like a...
	Python up the ass of a blue whale.
	No, no, man. Today is the time.
	Today is the time. We can have conversations like this.
	We can lay down the foundations of human knowledge that can last all throughout time.
	We can move forward the science and discipline and morality of philosophy faster over the past 15 years than the previous 15,000.
	We've got this ultimate, incredible gas pedal called the Internet.
	We've got a high-brain Borg genius of community.
	We've got to never have to feel alone.
	When we think for ourselves, which was the great punishment of people in the past.
	So whatever happens here going forward, I would not want to have any other time in history to be alive.
	And it's really, really important to remember that.
	You want to be alive in the 18th century under the French Revolution?
	I don't think so. Do you want to be a six-year-old being stuffed up a chimney and inhaling coal dust till you die at 20 of black lung?
	I don't think so. And you want to be around in the First World War and, you know, Get your ass blown off of shrapnel or have your lungs seared by mustard gas and spend the next 30 years in an iron lung before you die?
	I don't think so. Do you want to be around in the 1930s during the Dust Bowl and 30% unemployment?
	I don't think so. So, you know, we've got it really great.
	We've got it really great. Yeah, tough times are coming.
	Brutal times are coming. But we have lived in a real paradise and there's still so much more that we can continue to do to keep safe.
	At least we can see the At least we can see the storm coming.
	In the past, you really couldn't.
	Sorry, go ahead. No, it's just that I feel like we were born on the top of the mountain and now it's all downhill.
	Not in a good way. And that's depressing to me that, yes, this is the best time to be alive.
	And maybe in 20 years, it'll still be the best time to be alive now and not in 20 years.
	And it's just kind of blackpilling, I guess.
	No, if you feel down, just buy some Bitcoin.
	Just buy some Bitcoin and you'll...
	Bitcoin is the new aristocracy.
	Bitcoin is the new landowners.
	And if you're feeling down, in my opinion, buy some Bitcoin.
	And that way, as society goes to hell, you've got to stay away to heaven.
	All right. If somebody else wants to jump in, I can do another call or two.
	I appreciate the call, though. Thanks, man.
	Can we talk about Bitcoin or no?
	It's still just the Floyd stuff?
	Whatever you like, man. I think it was Michael Saylor.
	I was watching him on YouTube recently.
	He's a really smart dude.
	He mentioned that Bitcoin and crypto is basically the millennials and Zoomers version of our one-in-a-lifetime break in our lifetimes because everything's sucked for us.
	This is our only break we've ever had in our life.
	I think I agree with that.
	What do you think? Well, it's more than just in our lifetime.
	It's the biggest break that humanity has ever had because if you don't control the currency, you don't control shit.
	If you're not free with your currency, if your currency is not free, you're a slave.
	You're a slave because the silent theft of inflation and the handing out of valuable money to close political cronies and contacts and the upper echelons of the financial industry when it finally trickles down To the shit currency that you and I expected to spend, Bitcoin is the great escape hatch.
	You know, it is the portal that opens up at the end of the movie that everyone says, well, I didn't see that coming.
	How could they possibly survive this?
	In every disaster movie, how could they possibly survive?
	Oh, wow. Oh, cool.
	I mean, I remember, gosh, going back many years, when I was in my teenage years, I read the Chronicles of Thomas' Covenant.
	By Stephen R. Donaldson.
	I think his name is the guy who never saw a more complicated word that he didn't like.
	But a great writer. And in the books, he's given the power to summon a horse in extremity.
	And I can't remember. It's like an entire book later.
	He finally summoned the horse. And you'd completely forgotten about this horse.
	And then he's in some crazy extremity.
	He's about to die. And boom!
	He says the word.
	And the horse arrives ragged and broken and all of that.
	And saves him. And, man, that's Bitcoin, man.
	I mean, that's Bitcoin.
	It's an incredible escape hatch from this descending submarine, without which we would be almost completely doomed.
	So, yeah, I think that's a pretty good way to put it.
	But I would certainly expand it beyond the millennials to, you know, all of human history.
	When have the people ever controlled currency in the past?
	It's never happened. Not just a new monetary system, but I meant it sort of in the context of us millennials and Zoomers, younger people.
	We've been priced out of everything.
	Like this, you know, everyone's black-pilled.
	Canadians are priced out of, you know, housing, property, priced out of women, priced out of PlayStation 5s, priced out of like just a long list of assets and cool stuff that people want to own.
	And it seems like, yeah, Bitcoin and crypto is like the only sort of chance...
	Only thing they can afford, they can get, even without leverage, without loans or whatever.
	There's their one chance of getting into something that could be worth a lot.
	Sort of like how the boomers had their property.
	This is sort of like their one chance to grab hold of something.
	We're certainly circling the drain as far as many things go.
	In 1970, 59% of people, 18 to 34, were married.
	And now... In 2021, it's not that long, really.
	The percentage of people who have never been married is 69%.
	That's crazy.
	Absolutely. Absolutely crazy.
	Yeah, no, I mean, I think definitely the crypto is the way to do it.
	Steph, what if Satoshi is actually the CIA and they have 5% of Bitcoin?
	Boy, wouldn't that be great if the CIA had 5% of Bitcoin?
	Because then they'd just do nasty things to anybody who tried to lower its value.
	Yeah. That would be great.
	I don't think it's true, but that would be pretty great.
	All right. Another question or so?
	About marriage. I mean, honestly, I do not...
	Sorry, you've gone quiet again. Whoever's talking now, you're going to need to lean into your...
	Okay, yeah, I wanted to say about marriage.
	How can anyone want to marry now?
	I mean, with the risk that it entails and how half of your stuff can be taken away, I really don't see any incentive to marry, so why bother?
	Yeah, I mean, you know, you're talking to a married guy, right?
	Yeah, I realize that, but I frankly...
	Did I get the only good woman in the Western world?
	I don't think so. I don't think so.
	That's right. No, so it's not that you don't trust the system or you don't trust women.
	You don't trust yourself.
	You don't trust yourself to be able to find, evaluate, and marry, and keep a really good woman, right?
	I mean, and I'd say this with due love and due respect, and I was like this until my 30s.
	I did a lot of therapy and really tried to figure out what...
	My values were in a relationship, what I was willing to stand for or not.
	Because before, I would get into relationships and then try and enforce standards.
	It's like, that's ridiculous, right?
	That's, you know, like buying a boat and then trying to turn it into a car.
	It's just a big waste of time and annoys everything involved.
	So I just started becoming ruthless.
	Okay, well, what are my standards? Well, I'm on truth, integrity, honesty, virtue, courage, all these kinds of things and loyalty and all of that.
	And so, of course, if I want these things, I have to provide these things.
	I have to grow and nurture them in myself, and I have to be relentless in saying no.
	To people, to women who didn't meet those standards.
	And not like, oh, you know, we'll date for a little while, a couple of months or whatever, and then it'll just kind of not work out or whatever.
	Like, just be ruthless, right? I mean, I went on a blind date.
	Not a blind date. So I met a woman at the gym.
	I picked her up at the gym, and we went for coffee.
	And then later on, she's like, oh, and she mentioned her husband.
	I'm like, what now? And she said, oh yeah, no, I'm married, but, you know, it's kind of open marriage, right?
	And I'm like, okay, first of all, I don't know whether that's true or not.
	Secondly, there's no way I can win in this situation.
	Because if you and I start having an affair, and I really like you, then I'm kind of doomed because you're already married, right?
	And if I don't really like you, then it's not going to be a good affair at all, right?
	It's just going to be kind of weird and gross and bad.
	So, no, right? Went on another date with a woman, and she was talking about...
	How her boyfriend stift her with $1,700 or $17,000 or something like that in credit card debt.
	And I was like, okay, bye. Because, you know, if you can't choose a good guy, you're not going to like me, right?
	And then went out with another woman who said, oh, yeah, I had this guy.
	We were living together for like two years, I think.
	And I come home from work and he's just cleared out completely.
	He's just completely gone.
	Like he cleared out everything that he had.
	And I never talk to him again.
	I don't know what happened.
	I don't know what went wrong.
	And I'm like, okay, well, if you're so clued out in your relationship, you don't know the guy's about to move out, then I don't want to get involved with you because you don't have any third eye that observes your own behavior and compares it to anything.
	So just being relentless and saying, no, no, no, no, no, to a whole bunch of people, no matter how pretty they are.
	No matter how, I mean, I get it.
	I get it. You know, no matter how pretty they are.
	But aim for virtue and you will find beauty.
	Aim for beauty and you usually find heartbreak.
	So... Oh, Tezos price, is it really?
	Is Tezos $6.66 right now?
	In Minecraft. Just kidding.
	Okay, go ahead. Yeah, no, I see what you mean.
	And that's a fair assessment, actually, of where I am right now, what you just said.
	So, yeah, I guess I'll have to think about that.
	Yeah, if you want to trade, you've got to have the coin, and if you want a woman who's great, loyal, virtuous, and wonderful, then you've got to do two things.
	You've got to say no to everyone else, and you've got to say yes to her, because don't waste your time, and relationships are not going to work out, and you can tell almost immediately if you ask the right questions whether a relationship is or is not going to work out.
	All right, last question, my friends.
	I am happy to hear, and thank you so much, everyone, for joining me tonight.
	It's such a great pleasure to chat.
	Going once. Going twice.
	Hey, sorry, Steph. One more question.
	I just talked to you. Why haven't you been on Alex Jones' show in a long time?
	Thank you. That's a good question.
	Why don't you ping him and ask? I haven't received any requests, and so, yeah, that's about it.
	That's about it. I don't have any...
	I'm sorry, I don't have any particular reasons.
	We didn't chat or have a falling out or anything like that, so...
	Okay, okay. I was not a huge fan of the Sandy Hook stuff, obviously.
	Not my particular cup of tea, but you know, everybody makes mistakes and I think he's probably learned, so.
	Okay, thanks. Alright, no problem.
	Hey Stefan. Hello.
	I just got a question.
	I know you talk about single moms a lot but I'm 37 years old and I'm dating a woman who has one child and it's always kind of stuck in the back of my head but I do find a lot of things that I like about her but I'm not sure what I should really I don't know.
	It's something that's bothered me, but I really care about the woman.
	I really love her, but I don't know if that's something that should write the person off, necessarily.
	Okay. What is it that you love about her?
	I just enjoy our time together, and I think she's a nice person.
	I'm sorry, I can't hear you very well.
	I'm at max volume here, so again, you need to lean in a little.
	I guess she makes my life feel worth living, I guess.
	She makes your life feel worth living?
	Boy, that's kind of a bit of a pressure on her, isn't it?
	You mean if she breaks up with you, you're going to kill yourself?
	No, not so much that, but just, you know, before I met her, I just was stuck in this nihilism and just unhappiness, like, living in this clown world and what's going on, and it's really tough to find things to be positive about in life,
	I find, you know, the way things are going, and, like, I've followed you for years, and I know about things that are going on in the world and it's tough to do it alone because we're isolated people who are aware of these things that you talk about in your show.
	What happened with the father of her child?
	Why did they break up? I think he was a violent person and he threatened her life.
	He was in the military.
	And is he still around?
	Is he still in the picture? He's in a different province.
	He's across the country.
	Oh, so he doesn't really have much contact with his child, right?
	Not really. He used to have full custody, but now she has full custody of him.
	Why did he get full custody?
	Because I think she's only been in the country a few years and he came before her.
	So she's Jamaican.
	So he was here like several years before she came to the country.
	So he initially got custody of the child.
	And do you want children yourself?
	I think it would be nice, maybe having one, perhaps, but I don't know.
	I think I waited a little too long.
	I don't know if it's going to happen for me.
	How old is she? She is 35.
	So if you want a kid, you're probably not going to...
	You can't wait for long, right?
	Right. And does she want to have more children?
	She said she'd like to have one more.
	She'd like a girl. Okay.
	Okay. Listen, I mean, so characteristics that are red flags aren't deterministic, right?
	So I would never say never date a single mother.
	A single mother could be a wiser person to date if she has learned from her mistakes, if she's become a better person, if she's, you know, I mean, whatever, right?
	So if you're okay raising another man's child, if you're okay with the possibility that Here's aggression, right?
	There are certain genes for aggression.
	So if you're comfortable taking on the risk that the child of a very violent man might have some predisposition towards violence, not deterministic, but there's a possibility as far as I understand it.
	If you're comfortable with the fact that this violent guy may come back into your lives and there's not much you can do to prevent or stop that, if you're comfortable with the risk of maybe in a couple of years trying to have a kid with a woman in her late 30s, which can be kind of dicey and so on, In other words, if...
	And this is going to sound bad.
	I don't mean it this way. I don't mean it the way it sounds.
	I just don't know how else to put it.
	If she's the best you can do, then it doesn't really matter what I say.
	In other words, and I don't know if she is the best you can do.
	My wife is the best I can do.
	She's the best I can. There's no upgrade.
	I can't do better than my wife, right?
	And so... I'm perfectly satisfied to be married to my wife because she's the very best that I can do.
	Now, if this is the case with the Jamaican woman, if she's the very best that you can do, Now, whether that's true or not, it doesn't really matter, right?
	Because I don't know what the objective truth is if she's the very best that you can do.
	But if she's the very best that you can do, then it doesn't really matter what I say, if that's your perception.
	If you feel you can do better, then generally it's worth trying to do better, right?
	Because otherwise you feel like you're compromising and you will grow to resent the other person for what really is your own lowering of your standards and so on.
	So, yeah, if you feel the Jamaican single mother with the violent ex...
	Is the best that you can do, then I'm not really sure what I would say that would mean anything to you.
	If you have doubts about whether that's the best you can do, then I would suggest looking for something else.
	But again, that's obviously your choice eventually.
	Okay. Thanks, man. All right.
	Anyone? Anyone else?
	Anyone else? Stefan, can you hear me?
	Yes. How are you doing, my friend? Hello.
	I just simply wanted to say that the gentlemen who are listening and who are talking, they really need to remember to use birth control with any of these women.
	I'm happy to hear you expand upon that.
	Well, I taught high school for a very long time, and I would watch so many of my students, the male students, they had so much potential.
	And these girls, they just set them up, and they would come talk to me.
	The students were very close, I guess, to me, but they would come after school and talk to me, and they would say, you know, She told me she was on birth control, or we used the withdrawal method.
	Or the old famous, oh, no, I've been told by doctors I can't get pregnant, so jam it in, baby.
	We're good to go.
	And it's like, oh, my gosh, it's a miracle I got pregnant.
	Yeah, yeah.
	Yes.
	And, Stefan, I have heard that for so many years.
	And I just want the gentlemen, regardless of their ages out there, if they would just please always keep in mind, do not trust her.
	Sorry, you just cut out there.
	You mean do not trust her? Is that what you meant?
	I'm sorry. Yes, sir.
	It is.
	Sorry. I feel like the internet gods are interfering with the most profound wisdom known to man.
	So I'm so sorry, you just keep cutting out.
	If you can just start again. I believe I was saying that the women that they may be on birth condition, But the thing is, nothing is 100% except for us.
	And that is really out of a man.
	Yes, I just wanted to point out that men do have a bit of a tough time understanding this because we don't have this offer, right?
	So nobody, you know, when I was younger, nobody was going to sit there and say, Steph, I will pay you a quarter million dollars to have sex with me, right?
	Like that never showed up.
	I mean, no figure, right?
	I mean, I did get some offers for professional advancement, which was not particularly appealing to me.
	But nobody came up to me and said, hey, Steph, I'll give you a quarter million dollars to have sex with me.
	And so as men, because we're in pursuit, we don't really think about that.
	But for a woman, of course, if she gets you pregnant and takes you to court, she can get a quarter million dollars out of you like that, right?
	Over the course of 20 years of child support and alimony or whatever, even just child support, right?
	And the child support stuff is nuts.
	I mean, even a woman who got pregnant by a boy who was underage was able to force him or I guess his parents to pay for Child support.
	The government knows it's either child support or welfare, and so the government wants you to pay as the father, not The welfare state, because you want to keep that money to buy votes, right?
	Or more votes. So we don't really understand as men what it's like that we can have sex with someone and get a quarter million dollars and be set for the next 20 years.
	Like our bills paid and rent and all that paid and healthcare paid and all of that.
	And anytime that there's a problem, we can threaten the guy and getting thrown in jail and all that.
	So we don't really know what it's like.
	But if you can put yourself in the mindset of how appealing might it be to...
	Have sex with someone and get a quarter million dollars.
	It's kind of appealing in an amoral universe.
	There's a lot of resources for a one-night stand.
	And would you necessarily...
	Tell the truth about everything to do with that?
	Probably not. So yeah, it is really important to remember that women enjoy sex as much as men do, and they also enjoy having a quarter million dollars, which they can get just by having sex unprotected.
	And yeah, people have pointed out in the chat, a condom is not enough necessarily.
	You might want to double bag it, particularly given the escalating rates of sexually transmitted diseases, but also, of course, the sperm jacking, right?
	So where a woman will take a condom that a man has thrown out, And insert the contents into her vagina and bingo, bango, bongo.
	Here's her word against yours and good luck with that, right?
	So, it is, yeah, it's crazy.
	I'll take the money without the sex.
	Is that an option? No.
	No, getting married is awesome.
	No STDs. Oh, yeah, and the sex is way better, too.
	But anyway, all right. Alright, so listen, guys, two and a half hours.
	What a tasty and toasty evening.
	I really, really thank everyone for dropping by tonight.
	Such a great pleasure to chat with you.
	And if you don't trust the woman enough, then just don't have sex with her.
	I mean, it's kind of easy that way, right?
	Oh, well, you know, I've got a condom and this, that, and the other.
	It's like, well, you know, it's not the way to go.
	Not the way to go. If you want to have sex with someone...
	Find someone who's virtuous.
	Be virtuous yourself. Love them.
	Have them love you. Get married.
	And get busy.
	And it's the way to go.
	So, all right.
	Thanks, everyone, so much.
	A great pleasure to chat. As always, freedomand.com forward slash donate.
	I really, really appreciate that. Have yourselves a wonderful evening.
	And remember, every Wednesday, 7 p.m.
	and random other times during the week, depending on what's going on, but definitely Wednesday, 7 p.m., I will be here doing this thing with y'all.
	Alright, thanks guys. Take care.

▲