Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

June 8, 2021 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux

01:46:36

THE FALL (and rise) OF THE WEST! Stefan Molyneux Interviewed

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Good evening everybody.
	Thank you very much for joining my live stream this evening and tonight I am really delighted to be joined by a man who is without doubt one of the greatest minds of our time, possibly the greatest living philosopher and he is a person who has incredible courage, who has been speaking uncomfortable truths For many, many years.
	And every time he has been censored by big tech, he comes back stronger and stronger.
	And I'm so proud to be able to say that he's also an Irish man, but he may not want that label.
	But I'll now bring Stefan Molyneux into...
	The studio. The beauty of philosophy, Gemma, is that the labels exist whether you like them or not.
	Truth exists whether you like it or not.
	Facts, reason and evidence exist.
	So yes, I was born in Ireland and I've spent a good deal of my youth there in the summers with relatives, although I technically grew up in England and went to boarding school in Cheltenham.
	But yeah, a lot of connections to Ireland and love the place.
	And it's a little heartbreaking what's going on, but we'll speak the truth nonetheless.
	Oh, yes. And you're not in any way surprised that Ireland has turned out to be the most fascist dictatorship in the EU. And you're going to explain how that happened.
	Where were you born, Stefan, just to let people know?
	So I was born in a pretty small town.
	Although, of course, in Canada, when you say small town, it could be any one of 10,000 and it's a giant country.
	But when you say small town in Ireland, half the time people are like, I know that place.
	It's just the way it works.
	So I was born right in the middle of Southern Ireland, a little town called Athlone.
	Oh, yeah. One of my ancestors was best friends with John Locke.
	I actually, when I was taking my Intro to Psych class when I was in my early 20s, I came across the Molyneux problem, which I thought was just a mirror.
	But it turned out to be that this is a philosophical problem posed by one of my ancestors.
	So I guess the lineage is fairly robust to deliver my philosophical brain to me and for me to the world.
	But yeah, and I haven't been back to Ireland in a long time.
	You know, partly because it's like going back to England where I grew up.
	It would be kind of heartbreaking in a way to see.
	Because when you've been away for a while, you really see the changes when you come back, right?
	You really notice this gradualism of population change and mass immigration and the hunted look and haunted look in people's eyes.
	That wasn't anything to do.
	I'm sorry to monopolize the beginning here, but I was just thinking before we came on that when I was a kid growing up in London, I was born in 1966, so I was growing up in my conscious stuff.
	I remember the moon landing very, very vaguely, watching it on a 10-inch black and white TV, which was probably the same quality as what they were broadcasting it originally.
	But I remember, of course, the IRA, the troubles, and that I was told as a little kid that if I was in a bus stop, And there was an unattended plastic bag that I should call the police, I should evacuate because there were bombs going off and so on.
	And boy, isn't it a strange thing that the IRA and the terrorists really fought mightily against the British and yet are rolling over completely for globalism.
	I mean, isn't that an astounding thing that there was Irish pride and Ireland for Irish and now they're just like, yeah, yeah, let's bring half of Africa in.
	What could go wrong? Well, I think we've discovered that those people who were blowing up Britain really were working for MI5 all of the time.
	It never made sense that they would blow up innocent civilians, you know.
	And look at Sinn Féin, probably the most globalist party in the EU, funded by George Soros, you know.
	So do you think that they were originally they had a kind of nationalistic, patriotic fervor and then they just got displaced once they had some kind of power and effect?
	Or do you think originally the whole Ireland for the Irish was just a kind of lie and just to get people on their side, but they were Marxists all along looking to dissolve any kind of culture or history?
	I think, well, when I was growing up and when the troubles were really getting going and, you know, late 60s, 70s, it is certainly the case that, you know, the hunger strikers, Bobby Sands, they were probably genuine patriots.
	But there's a theory that when a lot of these men were in prison, Stefan, you might go along with this, the women took over and these were sort of hardcore radical feminists who were abandoning, who had no interest in protecting Christianity or Catholic values in Northern Ireland, which was what the fight was really supposed to be about.
	And because it was the fight against Freemasonry, the orange identity, really.
	And as a result, they led us down this road of, you know, focusing on, well, the values of feminism and politics.
	You know, look at Sinn Féin today.
	They're led by hardcore feminazis, you know, who are all about pushing abortion, pushing LGBT, transgenderism, nothing to do with Catholic nationalist values.
	It is a real tragedy how much of a bait and switch occurred with some of these supposedly nationalistic and inward-facing organizations.
	And, you know, one of the horrible things about what's happened in the 1950s and onwards, I'm working actually on a book on parenting at the moment, and I went back to look at how parenting was portrayed in popular culture.
	And I remember watching a show when I was a kid called My Three Sons with Fred McMurray.
	And I went back and I watched it because you can get all of this stuff pretty easily on video sharing sites.
	And I went back and, my gosh, it was a pretty glorious existence back then.
	You have a guy.
	He's got a middle-class job.
	He's supporting his father-in-law.
	He's supporting three sons, all of whom have expensive hobbies and so on.
	They've got two cars, a lovely house on a shady street.
	The neighbors are all pleasant.
	I know that there's a little bit of whitewashing, so to speak, with this kind of stuff.
	You know, the 1950s was a pretty glorious time.
	And of course, when I grew up, all I heard about was how stodgy and repressive and boring and so on it was.
	This is all just a Marxist lie.
	They couldn't stand the fact that you had a flourishing, Christian, capitalist, free market, free speech, ownership of arms society.
	And it stood as a mute thumb in the eye of totalitarian socialism.
	And oligarchical communism.
	And so they really had to work to undermine and destroy it as much as possible.
	And what they did, of course, was they went and they started sowing the seeds of discontent among the women, saying, well, you know...
	It may seem that you have four or five children, a loving husband, a comfortable and safe neighborhood, but you're not an astronaut, and you're not a physicist, and you're not all of these things, which very few of us are ever going to be.
	But this poking of discontent seems to me one of the great weaknesses of Western culture.
	We're very, very easy.
	To be made discontented and to reach so far out of the nest that we fall to our deaths.
	And this discontentedness is kind of part of our culture.
	It's good. You know, we were discontented with caves, so we built houses.
	We were discontented with being cold, so we built fire.
	We were discontented with endless religious warfare, so we tried a rough separation of church and state.
	We were discontented with endless violence over speech, so we created free speech.
	So that discontentedness It's a really strong part of our culture and our values, but boy can it ever be weaponized against us to the point where a woman feels a slave if she's raising her children but feels liberated if she's being commanded by an unpleasant boss in a work environment.
	Like, it really is. Quite strange.
	And most of the women that I know who set out on this sale to become engineers and to become lawyers and so on, I mean, many of them achieved it, but they didn't find it to be very fulfilling, very pleasant.
	And they ended up in their 30s, of course, mostly abandoning their careers to raise children, which is kind of pricey for society as a whole.
	Because, you know, you train all these doctors and lawyers and engineers, and then they end up raising kids, which I'm glad they're doing.
	But it's not very cash efficient for society as a whole to train people and then have them leave the workforce.
	And so yeah, this discontentedness that was sown in the 50s and the 60s.
	Because you know, they say it's feminism, it's just anti male, like racism is just anti white and feminism is just anti male and And Marxism is just anti-life, anti-freedom, and the beginning of wisdom is to call things by their proper names, but that seems to be impossible to do these days.
	Accurate names, true facts, empirical evidence.
	Well, it's hate speech these days, right?
	Simply pointing out basic facts about life will get you deplatformed and attacked, and violent people will show up at your speeches and try and set fire to things, and It's, you know, we hopefully are being able to push back some of this dark age resurgence of medieval anti-science, but it's not looking wildly positive at the moment.
	How are things with what you're doing?
	Well, Stefan, I have to say few people have been at the forefront of this war against our Western values, as you have, and few people are able to articulate that.
	What has gone wrong?
	Why we end up in a situation today where I was just listening to some healthcare workers saying that, you know, they're watching nurses swabbing, dying, people who have three days to live and they're sticking these bloody swabs up their noses and giving them vaccinations when they're dying.
	And I wanted to say to you how...
	Did it reach this level of evil?
	But, you know, you have to go, you go right back to where it started to really go so wrong.
	And it started with the war of the sexes.
	It really did. Taking women away from their primary role, which is raising their children, especially in the formative years, and being with them rather than dumping them into the hands of strangers.
	Talk a bit about that.
	Oh, I mean, it's absolutely heartbreaking.
	It's heartbreaking on so many levels.
	So these are all generalizations, so there's tons of exceptions, but women as a whole are the transmitters of culture.
	So men go out and do battle with the world and battle with each other and battle with the elements in order to carve out a civilization and to create cultural values.
	Free speech, free markets, private property, separation of church and state, minimal government and maximum freedom and so on.
	Now, why do men do this?
	Well, for the same reason that you may want to go out and earn more money than you're ever going to be able to spend in your lifetime.
	So you can leave it for your children.
	You can leave it to your children.
	We gather these incredible values, unique in world history, unique across the planet.
	We gather together these incredible Western values.
	And then what we do is we hand those values to the women.
	And the job of the women is to transmit these values to the children.
	That's why we go and make them.
	If there's no transmission of the values to the children, there's really no point having these values, working so hard to fight and create these values, because we hand it to the women, and the women say, no, I would like to go and work as a...
	Customer service wrap at a local department store, and then what they do is they take these hard-earned values, they go to a department store, they work eight hours, they commute for another two hours, and they put their kids in daycare.
	Now, I actually worked in a daycare for a number of years when I was a teenager.
	I worked three hours every day after school.
	I worked on the summers full-time And I can't tell you, I mean, I don't think I was unique in this, not a lot of cultural transmission of philosophical values in the daycare.
	The daycare is mostly share be nice, share be nice, pulling kids off each other, making sure they're not too violent and all of that.
	It's just Lord of the Flies basic management of the lowest common denominator sociopaths.
	That run the entire show.
	No transmission of values.
	And I think I was the only white guy there.
	And so, yeah, I sort of did my best to talk about important values for these kids.
	But there were no dads in the homes.
	There were people who barely spoke English and certainly didn't have Western cultural traditions who were teaching the kids or rather managing the kids.
	And for what? And for what?
	These women go. And I've said this to my show millions of times.
	If you're a woman and you want to go...
	To work and you've got kids, you've got to do the actual calculation.
	Like you say, oh, well, I could make 20,000 pounds or 30,000 pounds going to work.
	It's like, but that's your gross. What's your net?
	What's your net? Just in terms of the cash, right?
	So after you pay your taxes, after you pay the cost of a second automobile, after you pay dry cleaning and lunches out and the extra education, and after you pay for childcare costs, what are you actually bringing home?
	And just about every woman I've ever sat down and done this calculation with, it's worked out to be Maybe a dollar or maybe a pound or two an hour.
	That's it. And that's all.
	That's all you get. But of course, what's happened now is that women have been made very jumpy because you know how this particular lie goes, right?
	The lie goes like this. Half of marriages you see end in divorce.
	So as a woman you can't possibly end up being dependent on a man because that man is going to leave you for a younger woman or he's going to leave you for a man or a goat or something like that.
	And next thing you know you'll be trying to raise these kids with no money and you'll have no one to take care of them and your grandparents are far away and so you've got to keep working because you can't ever rely on a man.
	Now basic public choice theory says that the moment you start telling women this The risk of a man leaving you or a woman leaving you, but talking to women, the risk of a man leaving you is pretty considerable.
	So given that you have that risk, it's very important that as a married woman and as a married man, you make sure your partner is happy.
	You ask them, hey, how are you doing?
	Are you happy? Like, you know, when you go to a pizza shop or a curry shop, they'll often have that little thing on the receipt that says, rate our service, rate our food, rate our whatever, rate our value, and you get more Request for feedback from a local chip shop than you do often within a marriage.
	So you just make sure that the person remains happy and positive.
	And that's the best security that you can get is strong relationships where you're providing value and receiving value.
	That's the welfare state.
	That's the safety net that you need in your life.
	But when you make women all kinds of jumpy and say, well, men just leave women.
	They're just inconstant.
	And so you've got to keep working.
	Otherwise you're going to starve to death and so on.
	All that means is that women don't feel the need to choose as good and stable and solid a provider as they otherwise would have.
	So what's happened is, of course, the women are out there chasing the dollar.
	They're bringing home very little money net.
	And, of course, what they're doing, and you take half of the people who didn't used to be in the workforce and you put them in the workforce, all you've done is drive down The wages of men.
	Of course, right? I mean, the man who used to earn $100,000 a year when women come into the workforce, he's making $50,000 or $60,000 a year.
	The woman's making the other $50,000 because supply and demand.
	You haven't ended up making any more money.
	But what you've done is twofold.
	And this is what the Marxists just love about this whole system.
	Number one, you've killed cultural transmission of values.
	All those values, which took thousands and thousands of years and untold millions of lives to gather together, can be burned to an ash within a generation or two just by getting women to go into the workforce and not stay home and transmit their values.
	That's number one.
	Number two, of course, you turn a non-taxable form of labor, which is raising children and maintaining cultural transmission, and you turn it into taxable labor.
	So the government gets more money, gets to destroy the cultural transmission of small government, gets to expand massively.
	And the result now is that people believe that the only path forward to getting any kind of life back is to participate in, I shouldn't laugh because it's just gruesome, to participate in a medical study they're not being told about that doesn't end until next year called the COVID vaccine, which had to participate in a medical study they're not being told about that doesn't end until next year called Months of trials. No animal trials whatsoever.
	And the reason they did no animal trials on the COVID vaccine was because every time they tried animal trials of the past, the animals didn't do very well, now did they?
	So this is where things are, that we've lost completely the idea that we're supposed to be free.
	And all of the people, because all of these socialists who are like, my body, my choice when it comes to abortion, We're good to go.
	And now we've completely lost our ideas of freedom.
	The majority of people have completely lost the ideas of freedom.
	And it's been, unfortunately, a very effective strategy.
	I hope that's not too long a speech.
	If you stayed awake, I appreciate it.
	I'm absolutely gripped, and I know our audience will be too.
	And you really are one of your areas of expertise is, without doubt, parenting, which, because I think a lot of, certainly in this country, People in their 70s and 80s have really lost their voice.
	We don't value the wisdom of age any longer.
	And they're bossed around by their 40-something, 50-something daughters in terms of just take the children and they're just not appreciated in the same way.
	And also a lot of them have...
	They themselves abandoned the values that were passed on.
	I'm talking about, you know, the older generation seemed to have, they've, you know, really abandoned their Christian values that they would have been reared with.
	So, but these formative years, I'm a horsewoman, Stefan, and, you know, you look at a foal, when a foal is born, And they get up and go so quickly on their four little legs.
	Like they are able, within hours, to stand on those fragile legs because they need to be able to fend for themselves.
	And it happens so quickly.
	There's a reason why humans take A while to get up on their legs, at least a year.
	And during that whole period, now often babies are not learning those vital skills that they would normally pick up from their mother primarily, but also their father.
	Now in the last year, we have the parents walking around with masks on.
	How is all of that going to impact on this generation that has been born during this horrific period?
	But talk generally about the importance of those first couple of years.
	Well, I think in general, Gemma, the oldest generation has taken the health hit, but the youngest generation has taken the mental health hit.
	And that is what is really deep and really lasting.
	So the science is pretty clear.
	The first five years of a child's life is very deterministic when it comes to the quality of their adult's existence.
	And what we need, morality, is based upon the personal trait of empathy.
	Empathy is based upon a physical structure within the brain, mirror neurons, right?
	So if you ever see those videos of guys taking shots of the gonads on movies or videos or whatever, some people laugh and other people, like myself, are like, oh, you know, because you kind of feel it yourself.
	And the development of those mirror neurons is the result of a complex interaction of 13 particular parts of the brain that all need to be developed in concert.
	And nobody has figured out if the baby doesn't get the skin contact, doesn't get the breastfeeding, doesn't get the eye contact, doesn't get the back and forth interaction that babies are so wonderful at, you know, where you...
	I remember with my daughter who was very little...
	I was standing there, and I was trying to spray a plant, and I had the nozzle turned the wrong way, and I sprayed myself.
	And she was, I don't know, four or five months old, and she just roared out laughing.
	And then naturally, of course, as a responsible parent, I spent the next hour pretending to spray myself and be surprised by it, just for her particular engagement.
	But that's engaging with the world, taking pleasure in your children's company, enjoying their milestones, and all of that.
	And If you've had kids, you've spent a lot of time with them.
	I've been a stay-at-home dad. Now my daughter's going to be 13 this year.
	You know that you feed the kid and eventually the kid looks at you, looks at the food, and then will feed you back.
	That's just the development of those people are like me.
	There's empathy and all of that.
	It's a wonderful thing to see.
	Again, it doesn't happen in daycare.
	In daycare, there were two of us and there were 25 to 30 kids aged 5 to 10.
	Mixed race, mixed genders, of course, and just a lot of Just basically crowd control rather than kind of any empathy.
	And so if the children miss that developmental window, and studies out of the Canadian province of Quebec has shown that empathy is challenged significantly by daycare and also cognitive development and language, the first year of a baby's life, I mean...
	Biologically, they should still be in the womb, right?
	Because it's called the fourth trimester.
	Because we have this incredible complex brain that is the most astounding thing in all of nature.
	And that which is more complex takes longer to develop, which is why it takes a quarter century for a male brain to reach full maturity.
	Some might say it never does.
	But, you know, biologically, technically speaking, that's the way it works.
	And so the only reason why the babies are born when they are is because if they wait any longer in the womb, the head's become too big to pass through the birth canal.
	And let's not get into the gruesome details.
	I'm sure you're vividly aware of them much more than I am, but...
	We have to kind of get them out before they get too big.
	But then that first year, you know, if you've been a mom or a dad and you spend a lot of time with the babies, you're like, you're really cute, but you're totally useless.
	You can't even turn over.
	You can't say anything. And again, you've seen the foals, right?
	A day or two, they're up prancing around.
	I'm like... That's weird.
	That's voodoo, man.
	Whereas we're just like got this giant head completely disproportionate from the body.
	It's like putting a potato on a popsicle.
	And it just takes forever for us to grow.
	And the empathy aspect of things requires, requires, requires love, care, attention, and so on.
	And I know that for myself, my mother was not particularly great, but I had this wonderful Irish aunt who completely bonded with me to the point where...
	We had such a great relationship and I loved seeing her in the summers.
	And that particular eye contact and the love and affection that she had for me certainly changed my life.
	I mean, it absolutely changed my life.
	Other people in my family who didn't get that experience didn't turn out nearly as well.
	So just having that is so, so important.
	and to separate mothers from their babies is an act of cultural genocide.
	I know that sounds like a strong phrase, but it's an act of cultural genocide, and it's an act of empathy genocide because you dump these kids in daycare and particularly babies.
	I mean, there's a lot of disease transmission because you've got diaper changes, nappy changes from one baby to the other with fecal matter transfer, And basically, all you're doing is it takes 10 minutes to change a diaper properly.
	If you've got five babies, assuming that they're all pooping on a regular schedule, you're spending all of your time changing diapers and not playing with the children.
	And the last thing I'll say is, of course, you remember in Romania, Ceausescu, the communist dictator in Romania, he outlawed abortion.
	But, of course, it was communism.
	So there wasn't anything else that could be done with the babies.
	So there's about 100,000, a little bit more of these babies who were taken and put in these daycares.
	Now, they had enough to eat.
	They had comfortable temperatures.
	They had their diapers changed.
	But there were far too few attendants.
	And the kids, they watched Lion King on VHS tape over and over again.
	And I guess there was trying to be some interaction with them.
	But almost to a man, to a woman, these children grew up with incredible psychological disorders, lack of empathy, sociopathy, psychopathy, endocrity.
	And there was, of course, a lot of people in Europe, France in particular, who, oh, you know, they would see these documentaries about these kids and they would adopt these kids when they were sort of six or seven years old.
	And almost universally, it was a complete disaster.
	I mean, you had kids who would torture cats.
	You had kids who were violent towards other kids.
	You can see that these poor parents, lacking scientific knowledge about developmental milestones, they brought these kids home and they would actually have to construct rage rooms.
	Where when the kids would get violent and out of control with no capacity to self-soothe, why?
	Because they'd never been soothed, right?
	Kids get upset, you soothe them down, and then they learn how to soothe themselves so their tempers don't continue to escalate to this modern social justice warrior hysteria.
	And so they couldn't self-soothe, they'd get angry, they would just continue to escalate, and you can see all of the parents would just throw the kids into this room and let them destroy the few things in the room that were breakable, and this is just life.
	And then these kids are very likely to end up in prison, and It's just so destructive.
	And this is the sad, sad thing about this sort of modern world, this brave new world, is that, and this is part of the communist thing, this idea that you can simply take our entire evolutionary development, throw it all completely out the window, and everything will be just fine.
	You can just strip mothers away from their children through guilt, through shame, through, oh, you're just a mother, all you do is wipe butts and so on.
	That's the least important thing about what mothers do, and completely inconsequential to the equation.
	It's like saying if two married couples, well, all you do is snore in the same room.
	It's like, that's not really the essence of marriage at all.
	And they just, this new man, the new communist man, he's gonna be working for the good of the proletariat regardless of any kind of incentives, whether he gets paid more or less, No, that's not how we work.
	And just taking this giant meat cleaver and separating mother from child for the last 60 or 70 years, well, what's happened?
	Well, we've got a group of people who've grown up with very little intimate human contact.
	With very little good temper and equanimity because, you know, two-parent working households are stress centers, right?
	Everybody's late, everybody's hysterical, everybody's fighting about homework and you've got to just throw some crap processed food into the microwave because nobody's had time to cook properly and then everyone gets obese.
	The neighborhoods are dead after 5 p.m.
	because all the kids are home doing their homework, so kids don't go out to play, so they get obese.
	I mean, just really the ripple effects of this fundamental mother and child separation.
	But it's just this idea that, oh, well, you know, we can just try this.
	You know, say Bill Gates with this educational thing, this common core.
	Well, we don't have any proof.
	Let's try it on a couple of generation or two kids and just see how that plays out.
	And it's like, you absolute psychotic monsters.
	You absolute armpit of Satan, nasty folk from hell.
	You can't just take our entire development as a species and say, well, we're just going to change it all through the power of the state, through the power of perverse incentives and debt.
	We are just going to change it all.
	And we end up neither beast nor human.
	We don't end up warm.
	We don't end up with empathy.
	And you can see all of these people out there.
	They get so triggered by words.
	They do not know how to handle disagreement.
	They do not know how to handle debate.
	It comes from their babyhood.
	It comes from the fact that they cried and cried and cried as babies.
	Nobody came to help them.
	Nobody came to soothe them. They didn't learn how to manage their own emotions that way.
	They're terrified of themselves.
	You know, the attempts to silence people like you And people like me, it's not about us.
	It's because what we say is so upsetting to people, they're terrified of their own upset.
	They're not terrified of you and I. We're nice people who speak reasonable truths and want the world to be a better place.
	But if you say something that goes against a narrative, it triggers so foundationally people's stress and anxiety that they need to control us because they cannot manage themselves.
	Because what we say throws them into such a spiral of upset and depression.
	Like one word, one fact from you and I. Can throw these people into a spiral of hysteria that could last days or weeks or longer and they can't sleep and they're stressed and they're angry.
	So because we have so much, quote, control over them, they have to control us.
	Like, you know, if you fall into the lion's den at the zoo, you spend a whole lot of time looking at the lion because it can do you a lot of damage.
	But it's not anything to do with us.
	It's simply because the ripple effect of their own lack of capacity to manage themselves.
	Like all tyrants are unsoothed infants.
	And unfortunately, we just have a lot of unsoothed infants around.
	And they're big and pretty dangerous, in fact.
	Absolutely. Yeah.
	And that's such a good explanation.
	And I think in Ireland, like one of the great things about Ireland when I was growing up is that everyone had...
	Came from big families.
	Like you had maybe 15 aunts and 15 uncles and it was amazing.
	I mean, and thankfully, well, you know, I have to say most of them were, they were all lovely people.
	And it was a great security to know that you had these, you didn't maybe see them for months on end, but you knew that you were part of a big family and a big network.
	And then Ireland was just like one big family, really, because of the homogeneity of the society.
	And most people either, you know, two or three degrees of separation.
	They everyone seemed to know each other, especially in the small.
	And everybody looked good for each other, right?
	Everybody felt fairly comfortable, not exactly disciplining, but giving feedback to kids.
	Everybody kept an eye on everyone else.
	And that extended community also been completely shredded in the modern world to the great detriment of children as a whole who barely venture outside the home anymore.
	And so many children today are only growing up, you know, they're only children, they don't have siblings, they don't have cousins, and it's quite an isolating sort of existence for many.
	They don't have those strong roots.
	But yeah, so like there's so many factors, but then we look at the millennials and we see how damaged they are.
	And I mean, it's incredibly worrying, Stefan.
	Do you see any hope for them?
	I mean, they need an awful lot of healing, but they don't seem to be able to know how to do that.
	And the problem is everyone else, not them.
	So, I mean, the intergenerational conflict in the modern West is probably second only to King Lear or, you know, I mean, Shakespeare was a past master of depicting generational conflict.
	And the boomers, of course, had the devil's bargain, right?
	They had the devil's bargain, which is the government came along and said, you all can get stuff for free.
	Did you know that?
	Did you know you could just get stuff for free?
	This thing, there's no such thing as a free lunch.
	Pure nonsense.
	You can get stuff for free.
	We can have a war in Vietnam.
	We can have 750 military bases overseas, they said, to the American population.
	We can have all of this incredible stuff.
	We can have a welfare state.
	We can have half-socialized medicine.
	We can have free drugs.
	We can have all of this free stuff.
	And your taxes barely need to go up.
	Now, I don't know when math or economic illiteracy first took its root in the American population, but I think it's probably a post-war situation.
	And maybe it had something to do with more female teachers.
	Women in debt tends to be a little bit more excessive than men in debt and so on.
	But you had this unholy bargain.
	They came along and they said, you can get all this free stuff.
	And the boomers, for a wide variety of reasons, a lot to do with, of course, the cultural takeover of the West by the communists.
	And also the communists infiltrated very significantly, very powerfully into the Catholic Church.
	And the child rape, the child pedophilia scandals, a lot of this came out of communist infiltration of the Catholic Church.
	It's been fairly well documented.
	So they were given free stuff and a consequence-free existence.
	In other words, you can have your drugs, you can have your sex, you can have your hippie communes, you can have your welfare warfare state, you don't have to worry about paying your taxes, because we're going to take this big giant pile of A fiat currency dung and we're just going to shovel it onto the futures and faces of the next generation.
	And that has created a lot of resentment.
	In other words, what millennials do, I know it's not just two generations, just to generalize in general, but the millennials look at the boomers and they say, okay, what's the world that you inherited and what's the world that I've inherited?
	Did you make the world or keep the world at least as good as it was for you for me?
	And the answer, of course, is no.
	There's these funny memes, bitter funny memes, called Old Economy Steve, and it's some guy with the feather-cut, you know, kiss hairdo with the mullet from the 1870s, and the memes are sort of like, Old Economy Steve got fired from his job, walked across the street, got another job. Old Economy Steve has a high school education but can afford a house in the suburbs and two children and a car, right?
	All of these things that were natural for our parents' generation and don't exist anymore.
	Don't exist anymore.
	And so people look at the elder generation and they see people who had divorced themselves from basic mathematical reality, who got sucked into the satanic lie that you can get something for nothing and have displaced the vanity of their cost-free do-goodery, their virtue signaling, right?
	Which is, oh, we care about the poor, so we're going to have a welfare state.
	And, oh, by the way, the next generation gets to pay for the welfare state.
	But we felt really good that we were helping the poor, didn't we?
	Aren't we great people? And the generation who now inherits two things.
	They, one, inherit the fact that the welfare state has not helped the poor.
	In fact, it has created a near permanent underclass of people who now haven't seen the inside of a job.
	Application for three generations or more where you've got 60-75%, 75% of the black community of kids growing up without a father.
	And you have an entire group of masses of people, millions of people in the Western world have now adapted themselves to the infinite gravy train of imaginary money based on the welfare state.
	So the millennials have inherited that the welfare state didn't work.
	Oh, but we're still being billed for it.
	And not only did it not work and we're being billed for it, but if we try and reverse it, We're going to get riots and neighborhoods burned down because people don't believe that they can survive without it.
	And so you're taking away their believed source of survival.
	You're threatening their entire lives and livelihood if you question the welfare state.
	Oh, and also, by the way, the welfare state has then been used for a giant magnet from everyone in the world coming into your country, not for freedom, but for free stuff, which is a very different and quite oppositional scenario.
	So... When you say, well, we don't really recognize the virtues of our elders, it's like, well, yeah, because...
	If you've had an inheritance of a million dollars, fought for and worked for hard by dozens of generations of your ancestors, and then you hand down to your children not just a million dollars, not just half a million dollars, but a debt of a million dollars.
	People look at you and say, wait a minute, come on.
	Everybody worked so hard to give you that million dollars, and in one generation you turned it from an asset into a debt, and from one generation.
	They turned the economic productivity and positivity of Western economies to unfunded liabilities running into the hundreds of trillions of dollars that are going to bury the young unless the system has a hard reset.
	And it is hard.
	It is hard to respect your elders when you see what pile of rubble they've handed you when they were handed a glorious cathedral.
	That's so true.
	We do tend to look down on the 20 and 30-somethings, but who can blame them?
	They have been reared by strangers.
	Their parents never grew up in many cases and didn't give them those important Christian values, thought that they could raise them without God, without respect and these important values.
	We can't blame them.
	It is our generation, really, Stefan, that is responsible for this mess.
	And, you know, in the way that children are dumped into creches, the elderly are dumped into nursing homes.
	And this is where it all goes terribly wrong.
	And we end up with these maniacs who are basically carrying out a genocide before our eyes.
	It's absolutely devastating.
	It's devastating to think about how we have fallen so far.
	Well, I would say it was a wee bit of a push.
	It wasn't like we just tripped and fell in front of a court.
	And this is a phrase, of course, from the Bible that has been resonating with me quite a lot recently, which is, you know what the wages of sin are, right?
	The wages of sin are death.
	And, of course, one of the primary...
	One of the primary...
	Well, Thou shalt not bear false witness is my favorite one, which has driven me pretty strongly, but Thou shalt not steal.
	Thou shalt not steal.
	Thou shalt not steal. And everyone thinks about money.
	Money is pretty inconsequential.
	You can always go get more money. If somebody takes your car, you can go and get a new car or something.
	Thou shalt not steal... Thy children's freedoms.
	Thou shalt not steal thy children's independence.
	Thou shalt not steal thy children's capacity for rationality.
	Thou shalt not steal virtue from the next generation to make yourself feel good.
	Vanity, the big sin, right?
	Everybody wants to feel good.
	Nobody wants to do good, right?
	Everybody wants a slimming mirror.
	Nobody wants to go on a diet.
	Everybody wants muscles. Nobody wants to work out, right?
	So this desire to get the fruits of virtue without the pain of virtue has...
	Really undone. But of course, there were these devils in human form, so to speak, offering us all of this something-for-nothing stuff, all of this imaginary, you-can-have-it-all without...
	And this is what says the women. You can have it all.
	You can have it all. Time means nothing.
	You can be in two places at once.
	You have an infinity to live.
	You can both be a wonderful career woman and a great mother, though these two things are mutually exclusive.
	You can have it all. That invitation to have it all.
	You can have your cake and eat it, too.
	Like, this is what crazy people...
	This is what crazy people think.
	Crazy people think that they can be in two places at the same time.
	And, you know, sane women don't imagine that they can be both wonderful mothers and wonderful career women in the same span of time.
	Yeah, you can be a great mom.
	You can raise your kids. You can go have a wonderful career.
	That's all great. You can go and have a wonderful career.
	If you don't want kids, you can stay home and raise your kids and be wonderful about all of that.
	But this idea that you can simply break the bonds of reality, Everybody who says you can have it all and you can get free stuff, they are bearing false witness, but you have to participate in that lie.
	You have to participate in that lie.
	And this is where I do give full moral responsibility and ownership.
	Of course the governments are going to come along and they're going to say, oh, you can have this wonderful life and we're going to take care of everything.
	You don't have to worry about the poor.
	You don't have to dirty your hands going to get to know the poor.
	You don't actually have to go and create a business which is going to hire the poor.
	You don't have to sit down and figure out what is it that's making them poor.
	Is it simply a lack of money?
	No. Because most times you give a lot of money to poor people, they end up blowing it and their lives end up even worse.
	Just follow whoever wins the lottery who comes from a poor background and it generally destroys their life completely.
	The idea that they're poor in money and not poverty in spirit or histories of child abuse or addictions or whatever.
	I mean, that's the real driver of poverty.
	But the government said to people, well...
	You don't have to worry about the poor.
	You don't have to get involved.
	You don't have to dirty your hands.
	You don't have to go down. We'll go.
	We'll take care of them for you. Don't worry about it.
	You just go and have a wonderful life and we'll just take care of the sick, the poor, the tired, the hungry, the old.
	We got it, man. You can just abandon your communal responsibilities to take care of each other.
	You don't have to We'll take that job, man.
	We got it. You go and have a blast.
	You know what? Bora Bora is beautiful this time of year.
	Why don't you go snorkeling in the Seychelles?
	You know, if you want a divorce, no problem, man.
	We'll just take care of everything.
	We'll just take care of everything.
	As long as we pay for it.
	The abandonment of responsibility and the umbilical cord of fantasy money coming out of central banking, that it was just going to make everything fine, that everyone would just plug into the matrix of an infinite childhood and have all of the, quote, adults take care of all of the difficult issues.
	That's really tempting, man.
	It's really, really tempting.
	And we used to have Christianity.
	We used to have philosophy that said, oh, no, no, no, no.
	No, no. Nobody can take your free will.
	Nobody can take your moral responsibility from you.
	And anybody who promises to is setting you up to a pretty quick luge slide to hell itself.
	And we lost that skepticism.
	We lost that defense against unreality.
	And people just swallowed that fishhook hole and they thought it was going to be only bait and no blood.
	That's it. And I mean, you know, in terms of bringing people back to God, I know that your relationship with Christianity is probably warming up quite a lot.
	Oh, it's great now. It's great now.
	Absolutely. Absolutely.
	Good. Well, I'm glad to hear that.
	I'm glad to because Christianity is making it's probably its biggest ever comeback.
	But before we leave that, I want to just to talk a little bit about that.
	But I do really want to discuss mass uncontrolled immigration, which is another area of expertise for you.
	It's role in destroying nations and nobody really explains it better than you do.
	And you made a very significant video about Ireland, two hours long.
	Of course, it was removed very quickly.
	I think I have it on my website.
	If I don't, I will put it up in the next couple of days.
	But we'll talk about that.
	But just, I mean, as far as the revival of Christianity in the West and around the world is concerned, what are your views on that?
	Solzhenitsyn said, all that happened was that we abandoned God.
	Right. Ooh.
	How comfortable are you at the moment?
	Are you sitting comfortably? It's a big, big, big, big topic.
	I always am. Big, big topic.
	All right. I'm going to try and boil it down.
	I'm going to take an entire herd of cattle and turn it into one oxo cube just for you and your audience.
	Yeah, yeah. Just for you and your... Okay. So...
	As a philosopher and not a theologian, I was interested in, fascinated by, building a system of ethics without requiring God, because that would be the province of a theologian.
	And so I worked, of course, for many years on a theory of ethics called universally preferable behavior.
	The book is free. You get the book for free.
	And I would really strongly urge people.
	It's very much in line with Christianity.
	But I needed to, as a philosopher, to remove God from the equation with regards to the development of ethics, not out of any desire to displace God, but simply that's the province of philosophy.
	You can't, as a scientist, you can't say that gravity is God's will.
	You do have to examine it in a secular context.
	And the same thing was true with me for ethics.
	So I was very critical of Christianity and other religions too, but I come from a Christian background.
	And so that was my particular focus.
	And I handed to the atheists one of the greatest gifts in the history of philosophy, which is a rational proof of secular ethics, and not this kind of like, well, reciprocal altruism is beneficial for evolution, like none of that stuff, because that's not absolute, that's not universal.
	And it's not binding because it's just a description of what happens in evolution and biology rather than a universal standard of good behavior.
	And so here's the funny thing, right?
	Funny, not funny. So after criticizing Christians enormously and after giving atheists a great gift, I was attacked and deplatformed largely by atheists and defended and supported largely by Christians.
	I'm an empiricist, which means theory can never outbid evidence, right?
	And this is true in science as a whole, right?
	I mean, if you say the ball bounces sideways when you drop it and the ball bounces down, your theory that the ball bounces sideways is 100% wrong.
	You don't need to do anything else because it's not what matter does.
	So in absorbing evidence, This unbelievable, unforeseen, incomprehensible-to-be pattern that I was attacked and deplatformed largely by more secular and more atheist organizations after giving atheists great gifts of morality and clarity.
	And yet, the people who I had criticized in some ways the most returned criticism and sometimes hostility with love and support and acceptance.
	Man... That's a lot of information for my little brain to process, and I spent quite a long time trying to process that basic information.
	And even the libertarians, like the small government people, of whom there are some Christians in, but the people who want government to be very small, they also did not take to me pretty well.
	And so I realized, of course, that atheism is really more about a rejection of moral standards than it is an acceptance of secularism.
	In other words, if an atheist is running away from morality, And I chase him down and say, hey man, I've got a morality, and you're an atheist.
	It works perfectly. It bans rape, theft, assault, and murder, justifies self-defense, and you can work with first principles.
	You don't need theological intervention.
	You don't need a God for this morality, which supports just about all of the Ten Commandments.
	You can have this morality because I thought you were just running away from what you called superstition, that you did not like the fact that...
	God was necessary for ethics.
	Like, you desperately wanted ethics, you just didn't like the foundation upon which it was built.
	So, no problem, guys.
	I've got it sorted out.
	I have got a great, glorious gift for you.
	Because if you treasure ethics but didn't like the source of God, I've got those ethics for you, and you don't need the source of God to understand and accept this ethical absolutes.
	Man. Now, people say, oh, well, you know, but your theory is incorrect.
	No, no, no, no. The theory has stood 15 years strong, every comer, every debate.
	It's done, baby.
	It's good. It's solid.
	It is about as established as anything can be in the realm of philosophy.
	And again, I won't get into the details of it here, but it was kind of like, it was the strangest thing.
	It was kind of like, you know, there's all these people, imagine, like lost in the desert.
	You can say 40 days and 40 nights.
	They're lost in the desert. And their skin is cracking and their eyes are watering and their lips are parched and cracked and they've got no water and they're starving and they're lost in the desert.
	And, you know, I come up with a mighty tank full of water and food and sunscreen and hats and they're like, run!
	Run away from the tank that has the food and the water and the sunscreen and the hats!
	And the aloe vera.
	Like, run! And here I am in my tank of salvation driving across.
	Guys, I've got exactly what you're looking for.
	I've got the water. I've got the sunscreen.
	I've got the hats. I've got the aloe vera.
	You guys, I've got the umbrellas.
	I've got the parasols.
	You'll be safer. And they're all just running across the desert.
	And they say, well, we've got to go and find this oasis.
	I'm like, you don't need an oasis.
	I've got it right here in the tank.
	And all the Christians are saying, dude, We told you this would happen.
	And I'm like, no, no, no.
	But that's anti-philosophical superstition.
	It happens to be 100% correct, which is not unimportant.
	But, you know, and the Christians said, no, no, no, you see, but the secular humanists became atheists because they didn't want morality.
	So you chastened them down with moral standards.
	Of course, they're going to run away and turn and try and de-platform you.
	They're not running away from the irrationality they call God.
	They're running away from the absolute standards of Christian morality.
	They're running away from moral responsibility.
	They're running away from self-ownership.
	They're running away from the ghost in the machine called the soul, which gives them incontrovertible moral responsibility and free will.
	So you chasing them down with your little proofs of free will and your little proofs of morality and your little proofs of the non-aggression principle.
	No. You appear to the atheists as a tiger in a daycare.
	Of course they're going to scoop up their children, their vanities, their inconstancies, their subjectivism, their relativism.
	Of course they're going to... You're chasing them down.
	You think you're bringing them a benefit, and all you're doing is bringing the predator-called responsibility they just spent their entire lives fleeing from.
	So of course they're going to turn and try and deplatform you.
	And of course the Christians, to whom your philosophical proofs have reinforced most of the ethics that they have...
	Free will, personal responsibility, private property, communal responsibility.
	Of course, the Christians are going to say, well, it's really great that you found a philosophical justification for that which God gave us 2,000 years ago.
	Good for you. You're a little late to the party.
	It wasn't exactly necessary that you had to bring your brain into that kind of pretzel to come up with this kind of stuff, but we're really glad you're here.
	You've got a little lost on the way, but you've shown up and you've supported.
	Like a Christian doesn't look at a scientist who studies the nature of matter and say, well, that's all anti-God.
	No, you're exploring the mind of God as you are exploring the physics of the universe.
	And as I explore philosophical, rational, secular, objective, universal ethics, the Christians will say, and they're right to say, yeah, it's good that it makes sense because God didn't give us reason in order to torture us.
	And so that particular process, I mean, in hindsight, there is obviously some black comedy to it that people who claim to be desperate for something and then I approach them with it and all they do is run away.
	All they do, it's like...
	Arguably, it serves you right in a way.
	Well, I agree with you, except for the word arguably.
	I think it serves me exactly right.
	I think I made, you know, it's like me making this coffee from scratch and then sipping it and saying, wow, it's hot coffee.
	Where did that come from? It's like, no, this is exactly the journey of full circle-ness.
	That I had to go through to understand how the world worked, or rather to catch up with the way that the Christians said.
	Because I remember when I was growing up as a kid, you know, there was all of these...
	They always would put forward these kind of ridiculous, hyper-coiffed, polyester-clad televangelists from American television and say, that's Christianity, right?
	And they would rail on against the secular humanists and so on.
	And they're like, oh, secular humanists?
	Well, if these ridiculous people rail against it, it must be pretty good, right?
	There must be something positive there.
	But the real moral strength and meat of the West comes out of Christianity.
	Now, I like to think I might have complimented it a little bit by working on a secular proof of ethics.
	But what it really has done is, you know, secular ethics of the atheists is like sunlight to a vampire.
	I'm like Van Helsing coming out there with a wooden stake, trying to nail them to, I guess, their version of the cross, which is the vampire's tombstone.
	But, yeah, it's been really a truly remarkable journey of faith.
	Fundamental. I am so often surprised and just gobsmacked by the obvious.
	I almost feel like a babe new in the woods, but it's kind of embarrassing that it happens.
	Has it brought you closer to God?
	To a belief in God?
	You seem to suggest that being a philosopher does not permit belief in God, which I don't get that at all.
	I mean, some of the greatest philosophers, St.
	Thomas Aquinas, You know, we're devout servants of Jesus.
	And when I studied philosophy in UCD, I mean, he was, you know, one of the core reading materials.
	And, you know, we certainly studied an awful lot of atheistic philosophy as well.
	But I think his philosophy now is nearly more relevant than any secular philosophers.
	The problem... I mean, that's a whole question of sort of, I mean, metaphysics and the nature of reality.
	So as a...
	A philosopher, and look, I'm not trying to say I own the term or this is how philosophy has to be done, but my particular approach to philosophy, which I would defend pretty strongly, but again, I'm not going to sort of claim that me saying that makes it universal, is that everything has to be built from a logical structure according to empirical fact.
	And I'm not allowed any...
	Any leapovers. Like, I have to burrow through everything.
	I'm not allowed any leapovers.
	And, of course, with God, you do get a little bit of a leapover.
	Where did the universe come from? It came from God.
	Okay? Where do morals come from?
	They're God's commandments. And my refusal or avoidance of those leapovers, I think, has produced a great...
	I think I've done something wrong somewhere.
	I have, for those with the eyes to see, and I've certainly been repeating it often enough that they should see, what I've done is by holding up a system of secular ethics that the atheist world has largely attacked and rejected, that's a pretty powerful light to shine on my secular brothers and sisters.
	And that's...
	I think a great service as a whole.
	And again, it's not all. Some of the atheists have been like, wow, this is fantastic.
	This is the holy grail of what we've been looking for and so on.
	But the vast majority of them, again, that tank full of water driving through the desert thinking you're going to pick people up and they're going to be very grateful and they just run screaming.
	I think that has been a very illuminating process to see going on in the world.
	And for those of you who are just sort of catching up with me here and now, I've taken a wee bit of a hit, right?
	I mean, last summer I was deplatformed from just about everything.
	Even my calculator wouldn't take any touches.
	It's like, sorry, man! Those numbers are hate speech, so I'm not going to do any rational calculations for you.
	That's it, man. You can't do it.
	My car was like, no, no, no.
	I'm not taking you anywhere.
	You're probably going to a Klan rally, aren't you?
	So I got deplatformed enormously.
	But, you know, at the height of my reach, that was pretty big, man.
	Pretty big. I mean, I had three quarters of a billion views and downloads.
	You know, my videos would regularly get half a million hits and more and so on.
	And the podcast would get another half a million.
	I was getting 10,000 new viewers a month just on YouTube.
	You were having more views.
	Were you on a million?
	You were on a million subs on YouTube, weren't you?
	Well, but I was on a million subs on YouTube after years of suppression.
	Like, I would get a couple of subs, they'd just take them away.
	I'd get some, they'd take them away.
	I was on track for well over two million by the time, like, based on the sort of earlier projections.
	Yeah. Yeah. And so I had to, you know, and this, I don't mean to sound like, well, but now I am slumming with Gemma.
	Gemma, I don't mean that at all.
	This is a great conversation, but for those of you who are like, well, who are you with this, you know, little show that I've never heard?
	I was like, well, it's little now in the same way that I'm bald now, but I wasn't when I was younger.
	But that was a pretty big and pretty powerful reach.
	And that level of humbling has been Fantastic for me.
	It's been so good for me.
	And the pride goeth before a fall, the overreach, the Icarus story, you know, that you kind of need to be humbled to get back to your roots and to not be swayed by the glittering flashbulbs of social media fame, but really to get back to what's Most important.
	For me, I was just chasing politics all over the place.
	After having great skepticism about the value of analyzing and evaluating and attempting to change the minds of people in the political realm, and arguably I had some minor effect on things like Brexit and the 2016 election, and the fact that I did is one of the reasons why shortly before the 2020 election in America I was ghost-shadowed off the map.
	But it is not through political activism at the moment, I think, that the potential salvation is going to come.
	It's much more personal and much deeper, I think, that this is going to be one of the reasons I'm working on the parenting book to try and get people to understand how children should be raised in a natural, philosophical, and positive and peaceful environment.
	And so being, in a sense, chased off politics by, again, largely secular people, I can't think of a single Christian personal organization that ever lied about me or slandered me or attacked me or tried to de-platform me.
	And so that devil's playground of politics, which is very, very tempting.
	And I can turn a phrase or two, and I can be a fairly compelling speaker, so I could have some levers to move in that area.
	But returning back to the roots of philosophy and parenting and so on, I think has been very positive for me in terms of what you can affect.
	Because if I was just, you know...
	If you're cranking your way on a bicycle and it turns out the chain is not even attached, you only have the illusion of motion.
	And I think that the illusion of progress in the realm of politics can be quite compelling.
	And I didn't learn my philosophical history.
	Like every philosopher who tries to get involved in politics, Plato tried this.
	He ran for election. In Syracuse back in the day.
	And he did so well that his political enemies caught him and sold him into slavery.
	And he only happened to be redeemed because one of his former students happened to notice him and paid about 200 bucks to free him.
	So that was his particular reality.
	And of course, when politics and Socrates intersected, he ended up with a steady diet of hemlock, not a steady diet, a pretty short diet of hemlock, I suppose.
	And Aristotle, of course, had to flee political persecution.
	My ancestor, William Molyneux, had to flee political persecution for questioning the omnipotence of the English king.
	So, yeah, I think it's very tempting because you really feel like you're doing something, and maybe you are, but the more that you do, the more the blowback hits.
	And, well, I don't have to tell you anything about that, right?
	Yeah, yeah. I think there's so much disillusionment now in general with politics.
	We're really starting to realize that I mean, I would have thought maybe up to about a year ago, yeah, government running for election, that's the only way to fix this.
	But in fact, now my position has changed utterly on that and it's about dismantling the whole system of government because power corrupts and it has corrupted utterly.
	Not only in this country, but it has brought us into the mess that we are in today.
	And it's about basically teaching people to move away from government and looking to others to save them, looking for leaders.
	I mean, we fell into that trap, I suppose, with Trump to a degree, didn't we?
	We all thought he was going to come and rescue us.
	Well, and in my home province here of Ontario, Canada, we got rid of a very leftist liberal woman and we voted in a nice staunch solid conservative fellow.
	And we're now the most locked down place on the entire planet and will be at least until December when the emergency powers just got extended and so on.
	And the science is pretty clear, like they've done massive studies of what people want versus what actually happens in politics.
	People don't want mass immigration.
	People do not want mass immigration.
	And yet, mass immigration keeps happening.
	People want smaller government.
	People want fewer services.
	They want lower taxes as a whole.
	And none of these things come into being.
	People in America do not want an empire.
	They do not want the military-industrial complex, yet the military-industrial complex continues onward.
	Because what happens, of course, is the media lies everybody into believing and accepting something, and then once that thing is in place, like the war in Iraq or the war in Afghanistan, it becomes a semi-permanent fixture of foreign policy.
	Nobody can vote it out. And people lie about, oh, the welfare state, well, you see...
	We only have a couple of percentage of really poor people, so all we have to do is take a little bit from the rich, bypass the middle class.
	The middle class can be fine. Just take a little bit from those stinky rich capitalists, you know, the guys with the monocle and the big bellies and the five yachts.
	Just take a little bit of them.
	We'll give it to the poor and lickety-split, everything's going to be totally fine.
	And then turns out the rich evade taxes, the middle class get hit and the poor expand under the welfare state and by then it's in place, the machinery is in motion and attempting to fight it is incredibly...
	In Canada, I can't remember how it played out in Ireland, but the income tax in Canada was 3% on the top 5% richest people introduced as a temporary measure in the First World War.
	Just temporary, man. Tiny, tiny little bit.
	That's the thin edge of the wedge, right?
	The slippery slope, right? And, yeah, now the question is, Is it float the Titanic or hit the lifeboats, right?
	That's the big question, right?
	And for me, up until quite recently, it's like, float the Titanic, man.
	We will find a way. This thing ain't going to sink, right?
	But if the physics of the sinking are inescapable, and, you know, I did a whole presentation on the fall of Rome, which was very popular, because Rome fell because of fiat currency, the welfare state, and mass immigration, because, you know, history is just the same damn story over and over again, just slightly different costumes.
	Hey, we don't have to wear a toga anymore, but it's still the same plot.
	And in that, you know, I couldn't help but think more recently about that.
	You know, fall of Rome, you could argue Rome took like, you know, 500 years to fall or whatever, right?
	And just think of the amount of debates and articles and people ran for office and they tried to reverse things, they tried to change things, they did their best.
	But the logic of the system unwinds almost with no intervention from human will.
	Almost with no intervention from human will.
	In other words, once you set that momentum up, like the question is, when you push a big rock from the top of a mountain and it just goes bouncing and crashing down into the valley, the choice is in the push.
	After the push, the bouncing, the crashing, the descent is outside your will.
	And the morality is whether you push the rock or not, whether you could be tempted into pushing that rock.
	But once the rock is in motion, What could you really do to stop it?
	And that question of, you know, go back to America, the 1965 Immigration Act, which was promised was not going to change American demographics, but which opened the gates and the doors to lots of third world immigration and so on.
	Well, that was before I was even born.
	That push of the big rock on top of the mountain, what stops it from its inevitable resting place?
	And I'm not entirely positive, or I suppose a strong case could be made, Gemma, that I won't speak for you, but for me, have I just been...
	I don't mean to laugh because it's kind of gruesome.
	Have I just been yelling at this rock?
	Go left! Go right!
	Stop! Bounce higher!
	Don't bounce there! Don't land on the...
	Have I just been yelling at a rock that is the unthinking mass's inertia and the events put in place before I was even born?
	And I'm just one of the millions of people in the last half millennia of the fall of Rome just saying things should be different.
	You know what I mean? Like, are we just yelling at a rock?
	Or if it's true, and I think it's a good strong case to be made, that I have just been yelling at a rock, shouldn't I just take shelter?
	Shouldn't I just say, okay, I don't know where the hell this rock's going to land, but I sure as hell am going to make sure it doesn't land on me and my family, my friends, my community, whoever I can warn.
	Get out of the path.
	But, you know, if you...
	Or, you know, the tsunami, right?
	You stand... There's just a big, giant tsunami coming here.
	You just stand... Stop! You know?
	Are you... Should you just...
	No, we've got to head in land, man.
	Tsunami's coming. But we have this...
	Again, maybe it comes back to vanity.
	Or, for me at least, you know, I had so many people listening and I influenced and affected things and changed things and so on.
	It's like, okay, I think there's a strong case to be made for all of that.
	But... Am I yelling at a rock?
	Am I yelling at a tsunami?
	Because the unthinking, self-interested, hypocritical masses are the machinery that...
	Well, really, it's the oil on the machinery of the state.
	Like, once you get people dependent on the income of the government for their survival, they've got Stockholm Syndrome plus, you know, base mammalian desire for resources bound up with the government.
	And if you try and cut back government spending, you get riots and looting and fire and much more destruction in the short run than even the welfare state.
	If you try to stop the military industrial complex, I mean, JFK tried that and it wasn't like he had a wonderful day in Dallas.
	So is it simply a matter of, look, we know that the rock is many rocks and it's actually a massive avalanche.
	Yelling at the avalanche simply keeps you in harm's way.
	Is it time to batten down, to hunker down and to ride out the storm that's coming?
	Is it time to get inland and rebuild after the tsunami?
	I'm leaning a little bit that way to be honest with you and that's a big change.
	Well, what that is, and your secularism is creepy, your pessimistic secularism, or secular pessimism is creeping in there, whereas a Christian would instinctively be saying, well, there's always hope, and we've, you know, Got to fight for our values and for our civilization and it's our duty.
	So, and I think you, I know you will never, you will never stop because deep down you have these profoundly Christian traits, I think, in your character.
	Are you saying I don't have free will?
	That's it. I'm stopping now just because Gemma said I couldn't.
	I'm just kidding. Free will is all about Christianity and vice versa.
	That's the whole core of it.
	But Stefan, you're not seriously thinking of taking a step back though, are you?
	Well, I mean, I'm not really talking about politics that much anymore.
	No, I know. Because I think that politics now is in the realm.
	I mean, so I was on this speaking tour, as you probably have heard about, the speaking tour back in 2018.
	In Australia and New Zealand.
	And it was not a particularly radical speaking tour.
	I was simply talking about well accepted anthropological facts about the history of Australia and, and all of that.
	But of course, the level of hostility and madness and hysteria and violence.
	That emerged in the course of that speaking tour to the point, you know, it's very tough to get into the country.
	There was a lot of opposition from officials and, you know, we would go out and give speeches and people would come out.
	They would attack buses. They tried to tip over the buses.
	They threw massive batteries at the bus windows.
	It was feral. I mean, this literally was Planet of the Apes out there.
	And were people arrested?
	No. Were people, you know, did the police come and protect us?
	Not really, I would say.
	Not in any particularly strong way.
	The venues, for the most part, in Australia held strong.
	Once we got to New Zealand, then the bomb threats and the death threats did take out the venue from under us.
	And, of course, when I would talk to the media, which I was still doing back then because optimism, but when I would talk to the media...
	They would all be like, well, yes, but you are a Nazi, remember?
	So, of course, right?
	All of this stuff, even though, I mean, this is unbelievably offensive to me because I'm half Irish and half German, which meant both sides of my family tree suffered enormously in the Second World War.
	The German side were hunted and suppressed and fled a lot of times, so the idea that I would have any alignment with a brutal...
	Totalitarian ideologies such as National Socialism is...
	But, you know, again, it's not any kind of reasoned thing.
	It's just, here's the magic word that will get people to attack my enemy, and so I'll say these magic words like some fireball spell.
	And so during the process of that speech and that speaking tour, which was really great, you know, we would get thousand people or more coming out and I, you know, we'd have these lengthy Q and A's where, you know, grill me, tell me where I'm wrong.
	I love engaging in criticism and civil debate and so on.
	And then we, you know, we get to New Zealand and we just, we can't speak like this.
	We tried our very best, but there was just no, no possible way to, to have it occur.
	And so What happens through that process is you realize that in the battle between reason and violence, because that's all we have.
	People think there's some other thing.
	There's a magic X factor that you could have that's neither reason nor violence.
	But, you know, it's like if you dial up the violence, you dial down the reason.
	If you dial up the reason, you dial down the violence.
	And everybody who suppresses...
	Free speech is dialing up the violence.
	I hope people understand that at this point for sure.
	If you are suppressing free speech, you are radicalizing, arming, and encouraging terrorists.
	And I'm not just speaking allegorically.
	The violence that was committed against my speaking tour was straight-up terrorism because it's the use of violence for the pursuit of a political end.
	That's the very definition of terrorism.
	So everybody who...
	If sides with that level of violence against free speech, which is what I was legally exercising, legal free speech, you are siding with terrorists and you are creating a future of near-bottomless violence.
	And it's, of course, easy to say, oh, well, he's a bad guy.
	We should let him speak. All right.
	So let's say I was a bad guy.
	Let's say I was a bad guy.
	I'm not a violent guy.
	I'm not a terrorist, right?
	And so even if you think I was a bad guy, which I'm not, of course, but even if you thought I was a bad guy, the idea that that somehow justifies the use of terrorist violence against me for speaking to people who want to come and hear me and who want to disagree with me and want to engage in a debate with me, I mean, the idea of that is monstrous.
	That is pure medievalism winning over the Enlightenment and post-Enlightenment values of free speech.
	And if you are going to side with those kinds of people, If you believe that thinkers...
	And I'm a well-educated, well-read, well-respected guy in certain circles.
	I'm not some crazy guy screaming at a street corner.
	But even if I was, still should be allowed to speak, right?
	I've never... I mean, I hate the communism.
	I hate socialism.
	But I would never sit there and phone in bomb threats and death threats to get them shut down.
	Because I know, I know that the fundamental...
	Truth is we either talk or we fight.
	There's nothing else. There's no third option.
	There's no plan C. We talk, we reason, we speak.
	Or it's fists to the face and buildings on fire.
	Like, that's it, man. There's nothing else.
	And the degree to which society is like, oh yeah, well, you know, but he's a bad guy, so it's fine for people to use terrorist violence to shut him down.
	It's like, okay, well, you're just walking straight into the bloody arms of a scimitar-wielding devil there, and I can't talk you out of it because you believe that the fist should reign over the tongue, that the sword should reign over the word.
	And you believe that people you disagree with should have a fist to the face.
	And should not be allowed a space in the public square.
	And this is where The greatest challenge for me arises.
	Now, you, of course, have a perfect answer to this challenge, which is love your enemies.
	But my challenge with this, and feel free to talk sense into me in this as in everything else, Gemma, is that, so they want violence to be used against me.
	And I was traveling with my family, so it includes them as well.
	They want violence used against me.
	They want to silence, de-platform, attack, bomb threats, death threats, and so on.
	Why should I save these people again?
	Why should I put my neck out in order to save the people who would be happy to watch me burn at the stake?
	Now, again, I don't want to speak for you, but as far as I understand it from my Christian upbringing, it's like, yes, but forgive them for they know not what they do.
	And love your enemies and stuff like that.
	So part of it is also like...
	That's a New World Order sort of version of Christianity.
	Okay, well, so speak reason to me and disabuse me of this because part of me is like, you know, Australia and New Zealand, you know, they're having some pretty tough times of it as a whole.
	And I'm like, well... You all are supporting the media and the politicians that said terrible things about me that were completely false, and you all were fine.
	You know, the media never interviewed me and said, well, you know, we disagree with this stuff, but I can't believe that your venue's getting physically attacked and your supporters are getting physically attacked.
	You're getting bomb and death threats.
	That's terrible. They never said that.
	Not one person in the media has ever said that to me, right?
	They're always like, well, so tell me about your white supremacy, because that seems really...
	I don't believe any race should ever rule over any other race.
	That's a horrible idea, right? So, it's like, I assume that the media and the politicians are to some degree a reflection of the culture.
	It has to be to some, I mean, somebody's watching the ads on these media stations, somebody's tuning in, somebody's voting in these politicians, and the fact that a good man gets lied about and slanted in this kind of way doesn't seem to give anybody any particular pause at all.
	And it's like, hmm, well, why should I stand between you and the fire and the devils that you're summoning?
	Well, because that's the way you're made, Stefan.
	And I don't need to explain to you, you know, the concept of love thine enemy because nobody understands it probably or articulates it better than you.
	What, me? No, I'm saying I can't love my enemies.
	That's the problem right now.
	Well, I mean, I think that it's like, you know, the love line enemy concept is, you know, it's very subtle.
	And it's, you know, I said recently, I was talking about, you know, the LGBT mob that have taken over this country and, you know, are promoting paedophilia now.
	And, you know, how we now have a situation, Stefan, in Ireland where There are so many gay people looking for help and they believe that they're straight, but they've been told since they were in kindergarten that they're probably gay.
	Are you gay? Are you gay?
	Do you want to cut off your perfectly healthy reproductive organs?
	So many now are looking for help that it is now going to be a crime, Stefan, to advise or help or provide any sort of therapy for somebody who wants to be themselves and be heterosexual.
	I was speaking about this recently on a stream and I was making the point that I don't know any gay people that are happy and it is against our Christian faith.
	Most Christians are too frightened to say that, but Jesus makes it very, very clear.
	It's man and woman and that's it.
	And anything against the natural order And is a perversion and it is sodomy and it is wicked and it is satanic.
	And that's actually what Christians should really be saying.
	So the whole love thine enemy, of course we love the sinner and we hate the sin, but we have to be able to talk about the sin and why the sin is wrong.
	And in doing so, then we give the next generation coming up some boundaries and we give them The values that we would want them to have that will keep them safe in their lives.
	Well, yeah, I wouldn't go as far as the homosexuality is a sin.
	Maybe that's just because my theatre school background and my time in theatre and so on.
	But what I would say is this, when you have organisations like the United Nations saying that it may go against children's rights to prevent them from having access to pornography, Is there not some foundational moral fiber that shudders at such a thing?
	When you have children being taught about masturbation in government schools, is there not a part of us that simply revolts about that?
	For the life of me, Gemma, I have never, ever understood why the government is teaching sex education at all.
	And there was a guy involved in, I think it was Ontario, in the design of the sex education, turned out to be a total pedophile.
	Like, why is it that the government is teaching children about sex at all?
	Surely if there's one thing, this is not factual knowledge like where countries are and how a caterpillar turns into a butterfly.
	This is not science. This is deeply personal and powerful revelations about human sexuality and bonding and family and values and morals and truth and so on.
	And they teach it in such a bare mechanistic way.
	Filthy way. I remember the sex education that was occurring.
	I could not stay in the room with the sex education that was occurring when I was a boy, and I'm sure it's almost infinitely worse now.
	And they were talking about, I won't even get into just how vile A depiction of the glories of human sexuality and the power of human sexuality, how degraded and rutting and basic and venereal, diseasy, and just how absolutely vile it was.
	I got up and I walked out and I would not go back in because it was just...
	What was that for?
	Oh, this is when I was receiving sex education in government schools, when I was in my early to mid-teens.
	I simply could not stomach it.
	I felt nauseous.
	I felt a sole revolt against the degradation of human sexuality to the point of mere disease and physical and rubbing.
	And it was just, like, it was creepy.
	It was weird. It was vile.
	That's perversion.
	That is... Pedophilia.
	Like you and I are not years apart in age.
	I did not get at school and we were educated by Dominican nuns.
	We didn't get sex education because we didn't need it.
	Why, Stefan? Because there isn't a huge amount to procreation and all of the shit that people talk about.
	Oh, he's not great in bed and all this rubbish.
	This is what is causing the breakdown of marriages, you know, where women...
	obsessed with the physicality.
	And that's what's turning us, turning humanity into people who just satisfy the flesh.
	It's about gorging themselves on food, pornography, and just feeding the body.
	And the soul and the mind are completely neglected.
	And And this is where we end up.
	Well, it's also something that I've sort of noticed.
	Yeah, something I've... I mean, who is it who wakes up in the morning and really wants to talk about masturbation and sexuality to children?
	Like, what kind of unbelievably messed up kind of human being?
	I can't wait to get strangers' kids trapped in a room and talk to them about...
	Sex and masturbation and orgasms and anal sex.
	What kind of human being wakes up with that as a particular goal?
	And is that not precisely the kind of human being we'd want a civilized legal distance away from our children?
	If you were to take curriculum in the school and you were to talk about that with kids in a playground, they'd throw your ass in jail and they'd be right to.
	If you take exactly the same information that they teach in government schools and you take that...
	To some kids at a playground, they throw you in jail.
	You would not be allowed anywhere near children.
	But of course, it's the government, so you have whole different standards.
	And of course, it is designed.
	This is the great offer, too, right?
	Because if the government can get you sex-obsessed...
	Then what happens is you then value things like the welfare state.
	Because you can then go and have sex with women.
	You can go and impregnate women.
	They can have babies. And you're not responsible.
	There's no shotgun wedding. There's no father and brothers who are going to hunt you down and force you to marry the girl.
	Because there's a welfare state. You can be a sex addict.
	Everyone else can pick up the bill for the babies, the venereal diseases, the broken families, you name it, right?
	And we know, like the data is very clear, that for women, the more sexual partners is the greater likelihood of divorce.
	Women's bonding capacity is like, I don't know what they called it in Ireland.
	They called it sellotape when I was in England.
	They called it scotch tape in North America.
	You know, that sticky tape that comes in the room.
	Sellotape, right? So, you know, you get sellotape, you put it on a couch, you pull it off, you put it on, and eventually it just doesn't stick.
	It just doesn't stick at all.
	And for women in particular, the data is not out there as far as men go.
	I think it's better for men. But for women, if you have...
	No sexual partners before you get married.
	You're almost never going to divorce.
	You're going to have a 2% or 3% divorce rate.
	If you have one partner, it goes up to 5% or 10%.
	And it goes up more and more, higher and higher, to the point where if you've had 16 or 17 partners, more than 75-80% chance of divorce.
	And so promoting...
	Promiscuity is again undermining in particular women's capacity to bond and then of course what happens is women milk the full fertility of their youthful sexuality and then they panic towards their late 30s and want to settle down but they're too smashed up,
	they're too broken and of course any successful man in his late 30s or early 40s isn't going to want to settle down with a woman who's had 15 or 20 boyfriends He's going to want to go to a younger, less broken, less spoiled, more optimistic, happier woman with the capacity to bond.
	And these women completely panic.
	And then they surf over 40 and they just vanish from society.
	Like, you can't talk about them anymore.
	Because you don't want those broken lives to be a warning to younger women.
	To say, oof, you know, if you go this route, you go around just like milking your youthful sexuality, which is designed to have you pair bond and instead use it for...
	Free meals and free trips and so on.
	And then you get... And all these women are complaining, you know, I'm invisible over 40.
	Nobody cares about me. I'm over 50.
	It's like, well, they would if you had kids.
	Because your kids would care about you.
	Your husband would care about you.
	Your extended family would care about you.
	Your cousins and your nieces would care about you.
	But because you just milked your youth and fertility for sexual market value points and then the game ended after you could no longer have children, of course you're going to vanish in society.
	And you won't open up Netflix and see these stories because you can't scare women into rejecting the life of the flesh by showing what happens afterwards.
	Like I was just reading about Heidi Fleiss.
	I don't know if you remember, this is a story from the 90s, right?
	Heidi Fleiss was the New York matter with the black book of famous people.
	I guess she had a lot of dirt on everyone.
	She never gave anyone up as far as I know.
	And, you know, she ended up in jail.
	She was in an abusive relationship.
	She was a drug addict and so on.
	And now her life consists of caring for some broken down parrots, believe it or not.
	Like, that's her life now. And she said recently in an interview, you know, the idea of a man or a woman standing naked in front of me fills me with disgust and loathing.
	And I hope to never have sex again for the rest of my life.
	Because that's what happens if you pursue that kind of hedonistic life, that you burn yourself out, that the normal, joyful pleasures of life get burned out.
	It's like sticking a searchlight to your eyeball.
	It just hurts like hell.
	There's an illumination followed by a blindness.
	And in my experience, the people who present themselves the most sexually, the low-cut tops and And the guys do it with their own displays as well, you know, like the million-dollar watches and the big cars.
	The people who present themselves the most sexually are the people who actually enjoy sex the least.
	And study after study shows that married Christian women have the very best sex life and the greatest satisfaction with their sex life.
	Of course, because sex is the glue that promotes pair bonding.
	It's not something that's just supposed to promote vanity and casual pairing and all that kind of stuff.
	It's way too powerful a mechanism to be used for a slutty weekend in Denmark or just make up some country.
	And the people who present themselves in the least sexualized manner are the ones who generally and genuinely enjoy sex the most because the sex is then used in its proper context to promote pair bonding and family cohesion.
	To procreate.
	That's its purpose, to procreate.
	This is definitely another conversation we should probably have because it's so wide-ranging.
	And I think you and I may be slightly on different sides of the fence in this because I would be, you know, my views would be coming from a Catholic perspective.
	Well, and even from a secular scientific perspective, the data bears out.
	Because, I mean, Catholicism didn't obviously arise out of nothing.
	And even if we take the religious, and I'm sorry to say, we just take the religious element out like it's not the core.
	But the way that I would look at it from a sort of more anthropological standpoint is people have tried a wide variety of ways of organizing society.
	Hell, we're in some hellish experiment now about how to reorganize society.
	And the reason that Catholicism and Christianity found it the most free and benevolent societies the world has ever seen is because that containment of sexuality within a pair-bonded marriage works.
	It works in terms of having a father around to protect the children.
	You know, people talk about the single, oh, the brave and single mothers and their heroes and so on.
	I mean, my God, the data is unbelievably appalling for the children of single mothers, just in terms of outcomes.
	But in particular, the one that strikes me is that if you have a man in the household with a single mother who is not related to the children, they are 35 times more likely to be abused.
	I mean, this is like the lion.
	You know, if the father of the cub's The lioness's cubs gets killed or wanders off.
	The new lion comes along. He just kills the cubs so that he doesn't raise some other guys.
	And we have still those elements of evolution within us.
	And you need fathers to protect children.
	And when I look and see the amount of hyper-sexualized trauma that's going on among young people these days, I simply can only assume that every single person who tries their very hardest to get fathers out of the household is doing so because that person wishes to prey upon the children.
	That's all. That's all it's about for me.
	The people who want to hyper-sexualize children and get the fathers out of the household are creeps who want to prey on children.
	Now, I'm not saying that's certain proof of that, but that's my starting position for all of this stuff now.
	Anybody who promotes social policies that destroy...
	The presence and authority of the fathers in the family is doing so because they wish to pray upon the children.
	And there's a lot of data to support that kind of stuff at the moment.
	So Catholicism arose because it protected children the most by keeping the father and the father's authority.
	And by that, I don't mean the father ruling the entire family.
	There are certain areas where the man has to have authority and there are certain areas where the women have to have authority because division of labor is the essence of efficiency.
	And so it protected children the most.
	And then, of course, the blood libel had to be created.
	The Catholicism put children at risk.
	No, no, no, no. The breakup of the family is the single greatest factor that has put children at the most risk and produced an entirely traumatized and broken generation that were preyed upon, often by the boyfriends of single mothers.
	And it's unbelievably wretched.
	And, of course, now we say that the single mothers are heroes and the Catholic Church harms children.
	It's like, no, no, no, that's not what the data says at all.
	They're quite the opposite. Exactly.
	And I mean, even when you look at the numbers of priests that were involved in child abuse, they're very, very small relative to, say, you know, other professions.
	But we, as you explained earlier, we know that the monasteries were infiltrated by communists who wanted to bring pederasty in, in order to basically warp the minds of the children that were being educated by these monks and to destroy generations. in order to basically warp the minds of the children And that's what they've done.
	You know, it wasn't, I don't think it was, it was never a sexual thing.
	It was about the wholesale destruction of children.
	Well, and the data, at least in America, is very clear that you are hundreds of times more likely to be molested in a government school than you are ever in any kind of religious institution, a Christian institution, a Catholic institution, a Christian institution.
	But, of course, you won't hear about that because Catholics vote on the right and teachers vote on the left.
	And, of course, the teachers' unions are big conduits of free money society.
	For leftist political organizations.
	So you'll never hear about the appalling levels of physical and sexual abuse that occur in the government prisons known as public schools.
	I guess I don't know what they're called in Ireland.
	The terminology is a little reverse North America to England, at least.
	But yeah, government schools are absolute pits of values.
	Yeah, most of our schools were run by the church, but now that's, you know, completely reversed.
	But Stefan, I'm conscious of the time.
	Can you talk a little bit about mass immigration?
	And I sent you a video earlier of a scene from St.
	Stephen's Green. People can see the video.
	It was of a stabbing that took place on Tuesday, I think, of this week.
	And you have gangs of African youths.
	When I saw the video first, I said, this looks like Mogadishu or Nairobi.
	But yet my gut was that it was a park where I spent some of my childhood.
	And I knew instinctively, yes, it is Ireland.
	And my heart was breaking watching it.
	And it's been seriously censored.
	But You have warned about this, that this was going to happen to Ireland.
	What are your most stark figures on Ireland?
	Because you've done all of the maths in relation to how we're going to become basically extinct as a people.
	Well, I mean, the question of...
	Whether Europeans are allowed homelands is a pretty significant question.
	And it seems to me that everybody is allowed a homeland except for Europeans.
	And if this seems like a controversial thing to you, I mean, I guess you can throw me in with the Dalai Lama who said that this is important as well.
	And I think it comes out of, to some degree, a sort of fundamental misperception.
	And the fundamental misperception is that...
	World War II, which of course, as a world war, involved a lot of the colonies and dragged a lot of people into what was essentially, I guess, European and American-Japanese conflict.
	That the idea is that, well, you see, when whites are in control of their own countries, you end up with these terrible world wars.
	Now, I think there's a very strong case to be made that World War II was a reaction to communism and communism in...
	Obviously, Russia, fundamentally, coming out of 1917.
	And people don't really know this history, which is really tragic, that the Christians were hunted by the communists and Christians were murdered by the millions in concentration camps.
	Because communism and Christianity are opposing forces, one is collectivist and environmental, the other is individualistic and free will-based.
	And one sees the world in terms of giant categories eternally at war, and the other sees the world as a temptation, and the war is with sin and with the devil, not with...
	The rich or the poor or some other race or whatever.
	And so if you look at things like the Holodomor in Ukraine, this was where millions and millions of largely Christians were murdered by small numbers of secular communists.
	And so communism being a war against Christianity, fundamentally and significantly, when you look at the reactions of the Europeans to this You know, murderous anti-Christian dictatorship on the very eastern edges of Europe that had a massive impact on people's perception of safety and security.
	And, of course, the Germans were terrified of communism and saw communism growing and then ran into the arms of the National Socialists in the vain attempt to stop that process.
	And, of course, in many ways, and this is General Patton's view, the view from General Patton was, he said this shortly after the war, he said, well, we basically fought the wrong enemy.
	We basically fought to save communism, and that's really what came out of it.
	If you look at the territorial gains made by communism either during the Second World War or shortly thereafter, it was massive, of course, all of Eastern Europe and so on.
	And so the idea that somehow white nationalism was responsible for the Second World War as opposed to the stimulus response was communism followed by this kind of socialist nationalism.
	And without the stimulation or the stimulus or fear of communism, it's hard to know exactly how it would have played out, but I doubt there would have been any kind of world war at all.
	So the communists, of course, want to say that it was nationalism and white nationalism and Christianity and so on that was responsible for all of these things.
	And, of course, the death count of communism, if you count coronavirus now, is 103.5 million, just 20th century to early 21st century.
	So... There is this idea that if Europeans or whites have their own countries, bad things will happen.
	And this, of course, is put forward by the communists.
	And so what they started saying in the 1920s and onwards, this is public record, this is not...
	Any kind of made-up thing, you can go look this up for yourself, is they said, well, what we really want to do is provoke racial conflict in the West to the point where it fragments and destroys the free market and the remnants of republics, democracies, and so on.
	And this is a stated goal.
	And they said, starting in the Second World War, shortly after the Second World War, they openly said, well, you know, we don't really have any good arguments because capitalism is Capitalism has succeeded and the predictions of communism have all failed.
	So what we're going to do is, if anybody opposes us, we will simply refer to them as Nazis and white supremacists and fascists and so on, and that way we'll exclude them from the public debate and we will simply take over from there.
	And so the war plan, the game plan has been very public for a very long time.
	And of course, people aren't educated at all on this because, again, communists have infiltrated the educational system significantly.
	And you look back at the battle that Joseph McCarthy had with the communists in the 50s and along with Richard Nixon.
	Well, they both got discredited and taken out of public life by the communists and they were more right than they knew.
	And the decrypted Russian cables, the Venona project of the 1990s, has amply affirmed that McCarthyism was way too conservative, that there was much more infiltration into the senior and more elite sectors of media and art and politics and education in America than even Joseph McCarthy suspected.
	So this game plan of provoke racial conflict in the West in order to undermine and crack the unity and the cohesion of Western societies, it's right out there.
	This is not... I mean, they've openly said it, publicly said it.
	It's been a published... It's not some big secret plan.
	It's a published plan starting from the 1920s onwards.
	And unfortunately, though, it's just kind of moved that way.
	And it's, you know, they're importing, of course, groups that are universally going to vote for the left.
	They're universally going to vote for more government, less free markets, more hate speech laws and so on.
	And this is very clear, right?
	Because if you have groups like the people from Hong Kong that I marched with back in 2019, shortly before COVID, and if you have people like the white South African farmers who've seen this kind of destruction of a country based upon racial animus, they're not considered to be people that you'd want to import or people who they're not considered to be people that you'd want to import or people who could be, their stories can be told or refugees that the West should accept and so on, because they're not going to vote So the left is – they can't convince the West.
	They can't convince the Western voters, so they're just replacing them with people who are going to reliably be dependent upon the government as a whole, not in general, but, you know, three quarters of immigrants to America end up on significant or total levels of government dole, government support, government money.
	And so, yeah, you will import people who will end up dependent on government, who reliably vote for larger and larger government.
	And then when you have enough of them, you can start to provoke racial animus in among these people.
	And this is part of the whole 1619 project, the critical race theory and so on.
	It's just there to provoke racial animus, particularly from blacks towards whites.
	Again, we saw this stuff happening in South Africa in the past.
	So it's a very published plan.
	It's a very well, easily spoken plan.
	You can see Democrats in America very clearly talking about population replacement and so on.
	This is their strategy for...
	Power. And people will talk about it until we're blue in the face and so on.
	I'll talk about it until I match my background.
	But will people actually listen and understand it?
	That remains to be seen.
	I think increasingly they are.
	Thanks again to you and others like you who are explaining it.
	But I mean, you're particularly pessimistic about Ireland.
	Ireland is going to be the South Africa of Europe.
	I mean, because our population is so small.
	And the immigration has been so fast.
	South Africa, I think, has about 100 rapes a day, 60 murders a day.
	This is coming to us.
	Just finally, Stefan, just explain what Ireland is going to be like in 20 years' time, because you've done those figures and you've said there's no way that the Irish people basically, you know, once we become minority, which we are in many Irish towns already, And it ends very quickly for us.
	This country is no longer going to be an Irish country, full stop.
	Well, I would assume that Ireland is targeted in particular because of its Christianity and its Catholicism.
	It is the testbed or the test case.
	And as you say, it's a smaller population.
	And I mean, they've really done a very powerful and positive job of saying that anybody who criticizes mass immigration is an evil, racist Nazi and so on.
	And that is, you know, I mean, if you look at places like Israel and its proximity to Palestine, it's hard to see how Israel is benefiting from all of this wonderful diversity that everybody claims is so beneficial, and it really hasn't worked.
	In fact, there was a researcher some years ago, Putnam, I think his name was, Who did research on, quote, you know, these diverse neighborhoods and so on.
	And he actually sat on these results for five years because he was so appalled.
	And eventually he did end up publishing them.
	And it was very clear that social cohesion and neighborliness all declined.
	And people were less happy.
	They stayed home more. They didn't have any sense of community.
	And it's kind of inevitable that way.
	And yeah, they've simply found that if they can simply try to destroy and in some cases succeed in destroying the lives of people who criticize this particular process, then people are kind of scared and they don't want to stick their neck out.
	They don't want to be targeted.
	They don't want to be ostracized and lose their job and so on.
	So it is a very difficult situation.
	I mean, to me, the hope is secular despair and so on.
	Well, the hope is that so coronavirus, of course, has accelerated government hyperprinting of money.
	It has accelerated government expansion of power.
	And it is really crippling the economy in ways that are just appalling.
	And it's almost impossible to restart an economy when you've killed it this much, particularly, you know, the people who poured their lifeblood into their small businesses, into their barbershops and their restaurants and so on.
	Well, those people have had their livelihoods eviscerated, disemboweled and destroyed.
	Are they going to sit there when the restrictions are lifted and say, great, I can't wait to start again, because who knows if there's going to be a fourth wave or a fifth wave, everything's going to get shut down again.
	So small businesses have been eviscerated, and this, of course, is to the great benefit of the larger businesses who can control the government.
	And the tech companies, of course, are really railing against anybody who speaks out against these kinds of lockdowns, because when people are home, they're on their tablets, they're on their phones, they're supplying, they're buying online, they're supplying lots of Value and advertising dollar revenue to the big tech companies have completely compromised in discussing these kinds of things.
	And so it really is very tough to have any kind of rational, fact-based discussion about all of these things.
	But look, we all understand.
	This is not brain surgery.
	We all understand that if we took everyone who's Japanese out of Japan and we replaced them with, say, people from Mexico, Mestizos or whatever, people from Mexico...
	That it wouldn't be Japan anymore.
	I mean, this is not that complicated.
	If we took everyone out of Gibraltar and replaced them with everyone from Communist China, it wouldn't be Gibraltar anymore.
	It'd be something else. And the fact that demographics define culture is just one of these uncomfortable facts that people are going to need to try and figure out how to get their heads around.
	But if the economy continues to be shredded and destroyed, then The welfare handouts that a lot of people, not all, but a lot of people are coming for, will simply be hyperinflated out or defaulted out of existence.
	And it may be the case that we have to watch the economy go in order to save the culture of the country and rebuild from there.
	So that's one possibility because there's nothing inevitable in the future.
	And certainly the intervention of COVID in accelerating COVID The decline of fiat currency statist economies was a kind of white swan unexpected event that has really hit the gas as far as wrecking the free stuff fantasy that brings a lot of people to Western countries.
	And in that, there could be some real hope.
	That could be. The other option is, though, that they will come for owners of private property and just say, sorry, we're going to have to take that from you, as communists have tended to.
	But that will also destroy the economy even faster.
	And that will, I mean, of course, you know, the boomers' retirement funds and so on, they'll be coming for all of that.
	But that's where, there's a reason I talk about cryptocurrencies.
	There's a reason I talk about this kind of stuff.
	And I would certainly suggest people look into that as a really unexpected safe haven.
	That's a good excuse for you to come back on.
	Anytime, anytime.
	I just want to thank you so much for your time, Stefan, because you're just incredible.
	Two hours have nearly passed and you're just so generous and you've covered an absolute multitude.
	So you will come back on again, I hope soon.
	Anytime. It was always a great pleasure to chat.
	I think we've left it too long, so let's not leave it this long again next time.
	We definitely have. Okay, thank you again.
	My very best to your listeners, thank you again, and we'll stay in touch.
	Absolutely. Good night.
	God bless. God bless everyone.

▲