All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 8, 2021 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
30:10
FREEDOMAIN TRUE NEWS: WELCOME TO THE AGE OF RAGE!
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
So, yeah, I go through the news and I save some articles.
And I guess we can talk about them and get your thoughts.
So, Brian Stelter, who is, I guess, the 36-year-old, slightly pudgy George Stanzer Pillsbury Doughboy of News, He tweeted not too long ago, he said, an unvaccinated minority that doesn't watch the news or trust the news is putting the unvaccinated majority at undue risk.
There's no way around that reality.
Right? So, I mean, you can hear, you know, the mob obviously is being roused up to mass hatred of The unvaccinated.
And even that language, like you're missing something, it's like uncircumcised.
I remember when I was talking about circumcision, people said, no, call it uncircumcised because that's like you're missing something, like uneducated.
It means what you want to talk about is intact, right?
So people who haven't taken the vaccine are intact, relying on nature's, I don't know, multibillionaire development of an immune system.
And first of all, you know, not to, you know, body shame anyone, but, you know, this guy wants to tell you all about how to be healthy.
Just how to be healthy.
That's all he wants to do is just tell you how to be healthy.
And if you look at him.
So what's interesting about this is, have you ever had someone in your life, hit me with a Y, if you've had someone in your life, Who is massively untrustworthy, like staggeringly, massively, massively untrustworthy.
You know, we used to use this word when I was a kid.
I don't know if people still use it anymore.
It's called skeevy, right?
This person is skeevy, just like oily.
I was teaching my daughter the other day and she's become quite a fan of this.
It's the, first of all, in business you have the handshake, obviously, and then you have the hand witch, right?
So you do your handshake and then you put your other hand around to clasp him.
And then I said to my daughter, and what's really creepy is if you run your hands up the guy's forearm.
So those kinds of skeevy, creepy guys.
Now, what I've experienced in my life is when people are untrustworthy, then they get mad at you for not trusting them.
You ever had that? Like people just untrustworthy and then they get really mad at you for not trusting them.
Isn't that wild? Doesn't that blow your mind?
And of course, it's a lot easier to bully people into pretending to trust you than to actually be trustworthy, right?
And seeing what people are going to say here.
Yeah, you've had these kinds of things around, right?
You've kind of had these things around.
So yeah, this untrustworthy stuff is really important.
So the mainstream media has, at least for half the country, right?
In America, the mainstream media has pursued massive, easily identifiable, easily rejected lies.
I mean, regarding Trump derangement syndrome was one of them, but of course there's more.
So they've really lied to people.
Now, if someone lies to you and you suffer the consequences, that's not so bad.
But what happens, of course, is that the mainstream media You know, divides families, splits up families, divides marriages, breaks up marriages because often it's the man, sometimes could be the other way around, but often it's the man who will be skeptical of the media and the woman just follows it hook, line and sinker. And so you end up with this It's not a chasm.
You turn families against each other.
You turn husbands and wives against each other.
You turn boyfriend-girlfriend against each other.
You turn parent-child against each other.
And these fragmenting, dividing, destructive, oppositional, corrosive lies that the media has been pushing have hit people really personally.
It's one thing if somebody says, Oh, the start of the Vietnam War was for the domino theory that communism was going to take down countries one by one and that was what it's for.
And other people say, oh, the start of the Vietnam War was based upon a lie for the Gulf of Tonkin incident and it was a military industrial complex and like whatever you and other people say, oh, well, the leftists wanted to start a war, were willing to sacrifice North Korean, sorry, North Vietnamese troops in order to kill off the white Christians who generally sign up for the military because they are the enemies of communism in general.
So you have these debates about the origins of things or, you know, who was really responsible for the start of World War I or even World War II for that matter.
So you have these debates and they're interesting academic debates, but they don't hit you where it hurts.
They don't divide families.
They don't end up with generations opposing each other.
They don't end up causing divorces and breakups and right.
But these lies, when you, when you hysterically portray a man as you know like a Nazi or white supremacist like all all the stuff they were talking about with regards to Trump then you create such a stark and oppositional reality that people's lives quite literally I'm not even talking for quite literally people's lives get utterly destroyed by the media marriages relationships love familial relations filial relations Parent-child relations,
not just destroyed, but set in massive opposition to each other.
And when the media calls someone evil, who's not evil, right?
I mean, yeah, Trump has his flaws and there's lots of criticisms that can be made of Trump.
But he's not Hitler. He's not Stalin.
He's not Mao. He's not an evil guy.
That way. But when the media does that, it's real brinksmanship.
It's real brinksmanship because then everyone who's skeptical of that, the media puts on the side of evil.
And everybody who swallows it wholesale, the media praises and approves like mad.
So this wedge society, this divide and conquer society, this turn people against each other society, has been really fostered by the media.
Fostered, created, grown, nurtured.
This internecine hatred has really been grown by the media.
The people who everyone accepts what the media says, they're in the matrix.
They're in Plato's cave.
Everybody who accepts, oh well the media, they care about what's best for us and they're interested in giving us the truth and transferring facts to us.
Then everybody who believes that is inhabiting an alternate reality Of savage moral dimension and savage moral condemnation.
You know, for, see the philosophy, there's no such thing as right and wrong, right?
That's the philosophy.
I watched the movie Stillwater and I actually made you a review and it was actually an interesting movie in more layers than most movies are these days.
But in it, there's, it's not a spoiler, there's a play, fragments of a French play, you know, there is no truth, there is only stories, you know, this kind of stuff.
There is no truth, there is only stories and all that.
So all of this, there's no truth, is not to create an amoral universe, it's to create a universe where moral condemnation doesn't have to follow any rational standards.
Right? That is, excuse me, That is what goes on.
Postmodernism and the destruction of reason and the destruction of truth and morality is so that it's like the disabling of a security camera so a robbery can occur.
And you know like of course the criminal who wants to disable the security camera So all the people who said, well, there's no such thing as truth, there's no such thing as morality.
The reason they did that was so that they could rouse the mob with no rational restriction, right?
Because if there is morality, then we sensibly and intelligently discuss morality, which means that we have to define what is good and what is evil.
But to destroy the concepts of morality doesn't eliminate our addiction or preference for morality in our hearts and souls.
It simply means that it's very easy to manipulate, right?
So the destruction of morality was the destruction of universal morality so that tribal substitutes could be enacted that allowed the elites to weaponize us against each other, right?
When he says, you know, when Brian Stelter is all like, well, they don't watch the news.
They don't trust the news.
Now, anybody with half a brain, and I mean, I really do feel like a completely different life form in a way from people who just aren't skeptical and aren't critical and aren't curious and don't do these kinds of things.
Anybody with half a brain would say, gosh, you know, if half the country doesn't trust me, I wonder if I've ever done something untrustworthy.
Interesting question, right?
Important question. If, you know, half the people I meet have, like, serious, aggressive, hostile, massive distrust of me, Maybe I've done something untrustworthy.
And that's, you know, this is why I'm pretty self-critical and have all these videos, I was wrong about this, that and the other, and refining and adapting and improving my views, hopefully over time.
But that's sort of important, right?
If every girlfriend accuses you of being untrustworthy and leaves you, you...
You clearly can't trust yourself because if you are trustworthy and you keep choosing people who call you untrustworthy, then you're terrible at choosing people and can't trust yourself.
You're not trustworthy to yourself.
If you're not trustworthy and the women are correctly identifying that lack of trustworthiness to you, then you can't be trustworthy, right?
So there's no way out of that.
If every woman you date leaves you for being untrustworthy, you're not trustworthy.
No. Axiomatically.
Because either they're right, in which case you're not trustworthy, or they're wrong, in which case you have no trust with yourself because you keep choosing these terrible women who accuse you of terrible things.
So, with the media, there would be, or should be, I've given up waiting for it, of course, but there would be something like What have we done that's caused people to not trust us?
What have we done that's caused people to not trust us?
Now, that wouldn't be hard to do, right?
Because what you do is you go back critically over the last, say, five years or ten years, and you'd say, okay, what did we get wrong, and what did we do about it?
I said, oh, well, we issued corrections, but everybody knows corrections are just legal maneuvering, right?
It's just to give you credence in a lawsuit because the headlines blare all over the place and then the footnote is buried somewhere and the retraction is buried somewhere, the correction is buried somewhere.
And even if that's the case, what they don't do is they don't say, okay, how did we get things wrong?
How do we get things wrong?
And of course the media pushes the narrative that universally benefits the pharmaceutical industry because the pharmaceutical industry in America in particular is responsible for a significant if not the majority of ad sales because the media focuses on older people.
Older people need more medication and so in America of course you can advertise for medication and so pharmaceutical companies pump untold amounts of money into the mainstream media and so the mainstream media is never going to promote Can you imagine if they sort of got behind ivermectin?
Which again, I don't know if it's right or wrong, but if they got behind ivermectin, then the pharma company, whichever network Got behind ivermectin, the pharmaceutical companies would simply stop advertising on that network and thus drive them out of business.
This is the death grip on the economy because they haven't pivoted to whatever model would work with younger people and therefore because the media is focused on older people, like the average age of CNN viewers is in the mid-60s, I think it is.
And same thing is true of Fox. I think Fox is a little bit younger.
So because they're trapped in an old person demographic, they need pharmaceutical sales.
Therefore, they cannot promote anything that goes against the profit motives of pharmaceuticals.
And there's probably even more sinister things that are going on.
But there's no, gosh, what am I doing that's causing all of these problems, right?
And these are really dangerous people to be around in your life as a whole.
People who don't ever ask, what am I doing to cause all of my problems?
They're just absolutely disastrous for your life as a whole.
Peter Boghossian? A guy I had on my show a couple of times.
Liked him a lot. Good philosopher.
Good rational thinker.
Good critical thinker. Wrote some very populist books.
Street epistemology was his thing.
I definitely did not have a fun time reading his article on Trump, which I thought was pretty bad.
I did a review of. Anyway, he's basically been forced out of his position at his university, which I have significant sympathy for.
And people say, why am I not saying to people it's a great idea to go to university?
Because people get aggressed against, threatened, and then, you know, if they're rational, they have to leave.
So, sympathies for him there, of course.
What else have we got? Oh, yes.
So, the Texas ruling on abortion, right?
And the legality of it is, you know, I haven't dug into it in great detail, but basically there's limitations on abortions.
I think it's after six weeks or after the fetal heartbeat is detected or whatever it is.
And, of course, there was some feminist who was out there like, oh, women should just...
Shut down all their Tinder profiles and they should shut down all of their Plenty of Fish profiles.
Like in Texas, out of protest, the entire women's dating profile should go dark.
And it's like, somebody said, okay, so progressives reverse engineer rather healthy sexual behavior and act like they've discovered Atlantis, right?
Because, yeah, of course, I mean, for the most part, these are terrible dating apps that spread disease and immorality and depression and anxiety and low self-esteem and dependence on the state.
And I mean, they're just, it's fuel.
It's the sexual addiction that's fueled by the absence of fathers in the household, right?
When you don't have fathers in the household, women and men, boys and girls, turn to our selected reproductive strategies and it's the spray and pray and they end up with very little attachment bonding and very high sex drives.
Rabbits as opposed to wolves, as I've talked about in gene wars.
And so the fallout of sexual addiction because of father absent households Is catastrophic for society as a whole.
Absolutely catastrophic for society as a whole.
And when you restrict abortion, whatever else you think of it, when you restrict abortion, you are interfering with the steady supply of the cock carousel or the vagina conveyor belt for the top 20% of men and the top 80% of women.
And you are stopping the Flow of the drug that they're addicted to, which is continual and novel sexual experiences.
And of course it gives them a slight high and a great low, which then, you know, is why there's such addiction.
So just so you understand that anything that restricts or limits or even moralizes on, you know, unrestricted soul and family and society destroying wanton sexual activity You come between the addict and her drug.
You come between the addict and his drug.
And of course, if women can't easily offer sexuality in return for male interest, then they actually have to be, you know, good women and loyal women and reliable women and moral women and so on.
And it's a lot easier to open your legs than it is to raise your mind, right?
And that's just unfortunately true.
It's a lot easier to live as a mammal than it is to become an angel.
So, just so you understand, That's why there's such hysteria about it.
And of course, an addict doesn't care who they destroy in order to get their drug.
They don't. They don't care who they destroy in order to get their drug.
It's emotional terrorism. It's bullying.
I have sympathy because once you're at that level of addiction, you really don't have a whole lot of free will anymore.
But anything that's going to restrict easy access to sexuality, which means that you have to bring something more to the table than your ass on a photocopier, is going to be railed against because people are addicted to hypersexuality.
Lack of easy access to abortion limits the benefit of hypersexuality and they then face self-hatred, self-recrimination, self-blame, incredibly low self-esteem because they can't get their next dopamine high from having some guy Ping them and say, oh, you're so hot, you know, or whatever it is, right?
They don't get that dopamine rush of flesh on flesh.
And you come between a drug addict and their drug, and you are not going to have a good day.
And, you know, one of the people who didn't have a good day, of course, was this guy Tripwire.
So the Tripwire, I think they're a video game maker, posted his personal approval of the SCOTUS decision on...
There's Texas law on fetal heartbeat and it was a game design company and another company canceled the contract with Tripwire and so Tripwire has now fired the CEO. Now Tripwire makes violent shoot-em-up video games right so a Tripwire is first I assume first-person shooter violent you know blood spraying all over the wall uh rocket uh packs up the butt and stuff But you see, that's just not allowed.
And this is where we are.
This is really, really important.
This is why I don't do politics, right?
This is where we are as a society.
It's the rule of rage. We're in the age of rage.
We had the age of enlightenment, we had the age of reason, we had the age of industrialization, we had the age of communications, and now we're in the age of rage.
That's all it is, rage. We had, and I talked about this years ago in my speeches in Australia, where of course I tried to warn the Australians about The dangers of their government, which I guess they're figuring out empirically now, those who didn't come to the speeches or watch them.
But we're in the age of rage.
So when I was talking about the Aborigines in Australia and New Zealand, well, Maoris, I guess, in New Zealand, I was talking about how we in the West, when someone comes along who's smarter than the average and skeptical and asks questions, We generally still kill them or drive them from social life, but we do it a little bit less than other cultures.
And this is the lesson of, it's the one, two of Socrates and Jesus, right?
The people who were sacrificed for the attempts, one for skepticism and the other for universal morality, right?
So skepticism of existing moral systems leads to truly universal morality, although theology in Christian sense also leads that way.
So we will regularly destroy our critical thinkers, but we do it a little bit less.
You know, and progress 2,500 years from Socrates to someone like me is, you know, they killed him, whereas me, I'm just deplatformed, right?
And that's what they call progress, right?
So, doubt is progress.
Doubt is progress, because most of what we inherit is not true.
Most of the ideas put in our head are not true.
Now, they may be accidentally true, but they're not epistemologically true.
In other words, they're not philosophically true.
If you accidentally answer a question right because you mishear it, then are you right?
You could pass an oral exam, I suppose, but You know, if you're about to hit your golf ball and somebody says, what's two and two, and you yell four, are you a mathematician?
Have you answered that correctly?
Well, of course, it's a, no, no, you haven't.
I mean, you've accidentally answered it correctly.
So there are certainly some truths in what we've inherited, but most of what we've inherited is not philosophically true.
And this was, of course, the whole point behind Socrates and the article of Delphi, who said, you're the wisest, and he says, but I don't know anything, right?
Even though Well, Socrates is a whole Gordian knot because he says it doesn't know anything, but then he says it's very important to stand up to what is right and just and true and virtuous.
I'm afraid you're going to need to pick a lane, buddy.
So we will kill them to satisfy the mob in the moment.
We'll kill the philosophers, we'll kill the thinkers to satisfy the mob in the moment.
But later we might venerate them, right?
So this is what happened with Plato writing about the trial and death of Socrates.
Socrates was vilified and attacked and mocked and the mocking a lot came through art, right?
Through Aristophanes and the clouds and so on, right?
Through plays. So Socrates was portrayed a number of times in a fictional way, as I am in many ways.
So We will kill our thinkers but we'll kill fewer of them and we maybe will venerate them later.
I mean obviously Jesus killed but venerated later.
So that gives us some progress and the only way you get progress is skepticism and doubt.
But skepticism and doubt and humility with regards to inherited absolutes is a higher IQ situation and IQ as we know over the West has just been declining.
When the IQ declines you get the Dunning-Kruger effect.
Now the Dunning-Kruger effect is that the least you know the less you know about something the more likely you are to think something is easy.
You know it'd be like me yelling at a surgeon like you know Ben Carson or some brilliant surgeon on some 12-hour You know, just cut them correctly.
Just do it correctly. Or, you know, the people who yell at the TV, elite athletes who've been training for 20 years, you know, just hit the ball, throw the ball, catch the ball.
You know, like it's really not that easy.
It's really not that easy, right?
So the Dunning-Kruger effect is when you're stupid and lack knowledge, you are most likely to be confident that you're absolutely right.
And everything is simple.
And the more knowledge you gain, in a field the more complicated you realize that it is and this is the you know the vaccination versus unvaccination debate is people who aren't experts in the field are trumpeting simplistic absolutes safe and effective Is that a known thing for sure?
The experiment is still ongoing, and it's constantly being tweaked as we speak right now.
They're talking about third and fourth doses of booster shots, right?
Which weren't predicted at the beginning, and therefore there's...
You know, so if you didn't predict something early on, and then it turns out that you're wrong, you know, when you get the vaccine, things can go back to normal, okay?
Israel has now the most vaccinated country and has the highest rate of infection in the world, so things aren't going back to normal.
Huh, I was wrong. I wonder what I got wrong.
I wonder what I missed. I wonder what I didn't take into account.
I wonder who I didn't interview, blah, blah, blah, blah, right?
So because people are just getting dumber, the Dunning-Kruger effect is generally only beaten back by the media as a whole, and to some degree, academia and so on, right?
But because dumber and dumber people are being stuffed into the halls of academia and because dumber and dumber people are consuming the mainstream media now, there's no profit in skepticism.
There is only loss and tragedy and disaster in skepticism.
As is the case for almost all of human history except for a few brief flashes here and there where although you may be ostracized, although you may be jailed, although you may be killed for being skeptical, there's a chance your message might get out and there's a chance that in the next generation You'll be somewhat venerated and therefore it may be worth it if you don't mind living on after you die in other people's minds.
But we are in the age of rage and the age of rage is the age of stupidity because stupid people are absolutely certain they have no doubt And that's one thing when it comes to science or whatever, engineering.
But when it comes to morality, there's simply a dangerous and easily programmed mob of killbots that can be easily activated to swarm particular individuals who are doubtful, who are skeptical, who are asking questions.
Because dumb people think they're smart.
Dumb people think that they're smart.
I'm good at philosophy, but philosophy is a slice of human knowledge for most of the rest of it.
Go ask me some questions on geography or algebra or ancient Aramaic.
I know virtually nothing.
When you're good at something, you recognize how hard it is to become good at something.
I've got 60,000 hours into philosophy probably by now.
And so I'm good at that, but all of that, becoming good at philosophy, has come at the expense of other things, which is why I'm not a jazz pianist or a guitarist or a gymnast or whatever it is, right?
So dumb people, because they're not good at anything, they think everything's easy because they've never put in the time or effort to truly master something, and therefore you don't have humility.
Now, in order to truly master something, though, you have to have the capacity to be good at it.
I mean, I remember when I was learning guitar, I would look at, you know, Brian May's, like, elongated, stick-inset spider fingers and be like, oh, my fingers are kind of short, right?
You know, you see a lot of guitarists, they have these little, tall, skinny guys, long fingers or whatever, and I'm sure there are guitarists with short fingers.
B.B. King, maybe? Anyway, but I don't do chords, man.
That's what he said. I don't do chords.
I suck at chords.
He's good at finger-picking, good at solos, but sucks at chords, right?
So you have to have capacity to become good at something, which has something to do with dexterity, which has something to do with IQ, which has something to do with capacity.
So if you're not very smart, You generally can't become very good at much.
Because you can't become very good at much, you think everything's easy because everything you've had to do in your life has been pretty easy to master.
If you're a waiter, how long does it take to become good at a waiter?
A couple of days. How long does it take to become good at being a short order cook or pouring tarmac on a road?
And again, no disrespect to any of these professions.
They're all necessary, at least for the next five or ten years until we get robots, which is probably what COVID is all about.
But No disrespect to any of these things, but when everything that you've tried in your life has been ridiculously easy to master, you don't know what difficulty is.
You don't know what complicated is.
You don't know what ambivalent is.
You don't know. And you don't have the humility of knowing people who are really, really good at what they do and have worked 10,000, 20,000, 30,000 or more hours to get really good at what they do.
Because when you're not smart, you don't generally hang around smart people.
IQ segregates by sedimentary layer, right?
By quintile, for sure.
And so if you're not smart, you don't know smart people.
You don't know skilled people.
You don't know people who have the humility of becoming really good at something and recognizing how long it takes to become really good at something and having humility when judging other people's application of a skill set they don't possess.
So, everything seems easy and you have this insatiable hunger for people to tell you it's simple and it's easy, the experts say so, everyone's in a line, give me your money.
To pay for people to tell you you're smart when you're dumb is a foundational drive of the age of rage and age of idiocy in modern economics.
So much money has been taken from the smart and given to the less intelligent through a wide variety of subsidies and the welfare state and even student loans and so on, right?
So, so much money has been taken from the intelligent and given to the unintelligent that the unintelligent represent a disproportionate market to sell Justifications for stupidity, too. I couldn't think of an elegant way to put it, which happens at times, right?
So if you take trillions of dollars from the intelligent and give it to the unintelligent, the unintelligent now have trillions of dollars to spend, and the market adapts to the supply and the demand of the money that the unintelligents have gotten through state force.
So this is why you completely twist and destroy culture with redistributive coerced taxation.
Because the smart people end up as a tiny economic minority as far as mainstream purchases go, whereas the dumb end up with two or three or four or five or more times the economic purchasing power than they would have otherwise in a free market.
▲
Export Selection