Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Oct. 19, 2021 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux

01:28:31

THE TRUTH ABOUT COLIN POWELL: Freedomain Livestream 18 10 2021

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	So there's kind of two shows that I've watched wherein the they're actually in hell hypothesis would make sense to me.
	One, of course, is Lost where the plane goes down and the basic argument is they all died in the crash, but they end up in hell.
	Hell itself. That sort of one.
	The other is a show called Ozark, where, you know, there's a bunch of murders at the beginning, and I'm pretty sure that the case could be strongly made, that everybody dies in the beginning and they're just in hell forever after that.
	Have you ever thought of this?
	Like, this idea?
	It's obviously a bit of a Goofy but powerful idea that where you live is hell.
	Not like, oh, it's kind of like hell, but literally like you were just terrible in a bad life and you got reincarnated in this timeline to watch civilization slowly suck its own schlong into impotency.
	You ever have this? Hit me with a Y if you've ever considered that you were bad in a past life and have woken up in the modern West because it's hell itself.
	Lord of the Flies hypothesis.
	Oh, is that that they all died?
	All drowned and they're actually in hell?
	I mean, it's funny too, because I don't feel like I'm in hell, because most of my life is incredibly enjoyable and fun, and we got ducks, and I got a great wife, and wonderful hobbies, and friends, and my wonderful daughter, and these great conversations, but it's like I've sort of created this biodome, like...
	I've separated myself from the hell of the world in the way that my skull and skin and hair remnants separate my brain from the outside world.
	Should it ever touch oxygen directly, it's having a pretty bad day.
	So, yeah, I've had this feeling that you can create personal heaven, but you are still embedded in hell as a whole, and it's this combat between the personal heaven and the...
	The leaky vaccine of the personal heaven with the virus mutation of hell itself, always trying to wend its way in and separate you from your bliss.
	So, anyway, we can have the bliss conversations together today.
	And just so you know, I'm not doing politics per se, but I'm not not doing politics today because...
	I guess hell got one more devil, right?
	Colin Powell died today, this morning, I think.
	And of course, they say he died of complications from COVID. Not, he died of COVID. Now, he was double vaccinated.
	Was he 84 years old?
	But I think he had some kind of illness or cancer or something which required a treatment that immunosuppressed him.
	So, of course, everyone's grabbing that.
	The people, the anti-vaxxers are saying, ah, he was double vaccinated and died of COVID. And the other people are like, no, complications of, plus he was immunosuppressed anyway.
	But that's really interesting, of course, because then you'd have to revisit all the COVID deaths and find out if there was blood and prostate cancer.
	Is that right? Is that right?
	Yeah. Oh, by the way, sorry, just a little minor informal sideways move here.
	Do you guys, have you heard of this super cold?
	Like the worst cold ever?
	Have you heard of this? I was just talking to a friend of mine today who said that he's been laid up for 10 days straight.
	And he's a pretty healthy guy. And he said like he's never had anything like it.
	And of course he got checked for COVID. It wasn't COVID. It was just the most God forsaken cold that he has ever experienced.
	So, did you live in Wembley or Sutton in your childhood?
	No. No. I lived on Hermitage Road.
	No, my 12th Priory Crescent was my childhood home.
	I think that's okay now. To say, I'm doxing myself from 40 years ago.
	So, same thing happened to you too.
	Have you heard of this or have you had it yourself where you just have got this cold from hell?
	Took you two weeks to get over it?
	About two months ago, right?
	Yeah. It's pretty wild.
	So, yeah, I don't know.
	I mean, because it's an interesting question, right?
	The theory, as you know, one of the theories about the vaccines and all of this and the lockdowns, and I talked about this last year, one of them is that the vaccines, because they're very focused on the alpha strain, right, the spike protein of the alpha strain, that the vaccines...
	When you get another coronavirus, they will coat it and prevent your immune system from dealing with it, but they won't actually kill it, and therefore it could make it longer or worse, just a regular old coronavirus thing as a whole.
	So that's one sort of theory.
	And the other theory, which is much more prosaic and I think well understood, is that when you put yourself in an isolation bubble and a hyper...
	Clean bubble for 18 months straight, then the next time you hit a germ, your underutilized, under-exercised, under-stimulated immune system is going to go haywire.
	So, let's see here.
	Super cold when COVID was beginning to spread in my country.
	Got a negative test. Not a normal cold or flu.
	Yeah. Really bad cold in January.
	Wasn't COVID because it didn't have antibodies.
	January 2020, yeah. I've only eaten beef, bacon, butter, and eggs for two years, and I haven't been ill in that time.
	I applaud your willpower, man.
	I like all of those things, but not for two years.
	Good for you. All right.
	Okay, so let's get into it.
	Colin Powell. Minus one human being here, plus one soul in hell itself.
	So... Did you know Colin Powell was a war criminal?
	And not just like a leftist hyper, everyone who's an imperialist is a war criminal.
	Like technically, and also not by anybody else's estimation other than his own.
	Other than his own, right?
	So he wrote a memoir called My American Journey.
	And he led South Vietnamese soldiers in an attack on a village full of families, the elderly, and other specifically non-combatants, right?
	So the targeting and killing of non-combatants is a war crime.
	Now, I know, and I'm aware, I'm aware of all of this.
	So the problem with the Viet Cong, right, with the North Vietnamese...
	Other than that they were sociopathic communists, of course, was that they blended into the general population.
	They used the general population as covers for their attacks because they're very much the end justifies the means.
	They're not restrained. Communists in general, being atheists and powerless people, are not constrained by any particular sense of morality.
	And you saw that in my debate with the two communists that happened recently, where they were like, yeah, you can't You can't achieve communism by being a good person.
	I guess that's fairly frank, right?
	It's an amoral, will-to-power, Nietzschean, Darwinian lust for control, right?
	Human beings as a whole have evolved with a strong thirst to own and control other human beings because we are the most profitable livestock that exists on this planet.
	This is the story of your enslavement, my video from many years ago that really Hit a chord with people because I was describing something very foundational.
	That we are born with a power lust to own and control other human beings.
	Because that's what we did for almost all of our evolution up until the last 200 years or so or less in many places.
	Zero years in some places around the world.
	So we're born with this lust to control other human beings.
	When slavery ended, communism emerged as a...
	Different way to channel our lust to control and own other human beings like livestock.
	The fact that communism didn't emerge until after the end of slavery as a powerful political force, well, simply because there are a whole bunch of power elites adapted to controlling human beings.
	When slavery was eliminated, they found a way to turn the entire state into a slave-owning entity rather than a state-supporting entity.
	So that's kind of important.
	So I get the fact that you were dealing with the Vietnamese were using very much guerrilla warfare and so on.
	But this is Colin Powell in his own words.
	This is his memoir, his own written down words.
	And this is what he said when he led South Vietnamese soldiers in an attack on a village full of families, the elderly and other non-combatants.
	And he said, the people had fled at our approach, except for an old woman too feeble to move.
	We burned down the thatched huts, starting to blaze with Ronson and Zippo cigarette lighters.
	Because Ho Chi Minh had said the people were like the sea in which his guerrillas swam, we tried to solve the problem by making the whole sea uninhabitable.
	An old woman too feeble to move.
	So, was he apologetic for violating the Geneva Convention by killing innocent people?
	people.
	Nope. But I guess he did take a stab at explaining his thinking.
	He wrote, I had been conditioned to believe in the wisdom of my superiors and to obey.
	He said, I had no qualms about what we were doing.
	No qualms. So I don't know if you know this, the My Lai massacre occurred in Vietnam, which of course was trumped up and trumpeted up by the pro-communist press and so on, right?
	Which doesn't make it any less of an atrocity.
	But this is when there was the raping of girls and the mass murder of...
	Civilians in the My Lai village.
	There were some Americans who stood between the American soldiers and their prey.
	And remember, of course, that Vietnam was heavily conditioned by the catastrophic drop in IQ requirements.
	They just ran out of people to get to go to Vietnam, so they just kept lowering their requirements and took dumber and dumber and dumber people.
	They were actually called McNamara's Morons after Robert McNamara, of course.
	And one of the reasons why Vietnam was lost was because you just put dumber and dumber people in.
	Like you would set up a century and you'd say to somebody the IQ of 80 or whatever, right?
	Someone barely functional, right?
	10 points up and above from being called mentally handicapped.
	And you would say to this guy, okay, here's the password.
	Repeat back the password to me.
	And then he'd repeat back the password to you.
	And then he'd scream, give me a password at someone 20 minutes later, having forgotten the password and gunned them down.
	And there was a guy, one of these really dumb people.
	And again, no disrespect, you know, being dumb is like being short.
	It's not your fault, but it doesn't mean you get on the basketball team.
	He found it really funny to pull the pins out of the grenades and roll them into tents and watch everyone scatter until, of course, he blew up people.
	So this was a huge issue.
	But so a couple of the soldiers in the My Lai Massacre...
	There was a helicopter pilot who lowered his helicopter and told his crew to point their, like, between the American soldiers and the villagers, he landed his helicopter, pointed his guns at the soldiers, and said, we will shoot anyone who tries to harm, rape, kill, or violate the villagers.
	And they did sort of seethe forward and then eventually pull back.
	So there were some people who defended this.
	But having no qualms about what you're doing.
	Sounds to me like he set fire to a village with an old woman too feeble to move.
	So... That's not exactly ideal.
	Now, you could say maybe they moved the old woman.
	Maybe they just burned down the houses, but...
	Doesn't sound good. Powell also stated that, quote, if a helicopter spotted a peasant in black pajamas who looked remotely suspicious, a possible MAM, the pilot would circle and fire in front of him.
	If he moved, his movement was judged evidence of hostile intent, and the next burst was not in front but at him.
	So... That's not good.
	And to say I had no qualms about what we were doing.
	No qualms. That's chilling, man.
	That's chilling. I mean, Powell had a hand in a fair amount of imperialistic violence throughout his entire career.
	Of course, there was Panama and other places, right?
	But the Iraq War, right?
	So I remember watching this on TV. So in making the case for the invasion of Iraq, like if you invade a country that is not imminently threatening you, it's called the international war crime of aggression, and it's about the worst war crime that exists in international law.
	And so Colin Powell went to the United Nations and made the case for the invasion of Iraq.
	And he made this case in front of the whole world, and he knew that some of what he said, if not a good proportion, if not the majority of what he said, were lies.
	He fabricated evidence to build this public support for the Iraq war, and What was the death count, right?
	I've got a whole... Just a reminder, you can go to fdrpodcasts.com, fdrpodcasts.com, and you can...
	Look for Iraq, say, for instance, and I've got Iraq, a decade of hell, was my presentation.
	I went on TV to talk about that, just how unbelievably disastrous the Iraqi invasion.
	And the Iraqi invasion has killed an estimated 275 to 306,000 people, and that's just direct deaths, not indirect deaths, through the destruction of infrastructure and water and medicine and hospitals and all fire engines and all of that, right?
	And that's according to the Costs of War project.
	And just to sort of whip back, sorry, just whip back quickly to Vietnam.
	Do you remember Muhammad Ali?
	You know, Muhammad Ali went to jail to avoid the draft, right?
	And he said, Muhammad Ali said, my conscience won't let me shoot my brother or some darker people or some poor hungry people in the mud for big powerful America.
	And shoot them for what? They never called me N-word.
	They never lynched me.
	They didn't put no dogs on me.
	They didn't rob me of my nationality, rape and kill my mother and father.
	Shoot them for what? How can I shoot them poor people?
	So that's Muhammad Ali, not Colin Powell.
	So, because Colin Powell was so integral in the role, in his role of selling the invasion of Iraq, he repeatedly claimed that his support for the war haunted him and was a blot.
	On his record. Isn't that a strange word?
	Isn't that a truly strange word?
	A blot.
	A blot on his record.
	A blot.
	A blot on your record is, yeah, I may have oversold some feature set in something I was selling.
	A blot on your record, well, you know, I failed to stand up heroically for somebody who was being unjustly attacked or whatever it is.
	A blot? A blot on your record?
	Lying to the world to start a war that's killed hundreds of thousands of people?
	A blot? How could you refer to that as a blot?
	Could you refer to Hitler's actions as a blot?
	And if you did, how would you be perceived, right?
	Now, of course, as a bloodthirsty, murderous imperialist, Colin Powell, of course, was anti-Trump.
	He was a never-Trumper. He claimed he didn't vote for Trump in 2016 or 2020.
	And Colin Powell even gave a speech at the Democratic National Convention in 2020.
	Whatever you think of Trump, and this is the big talking point for me, you know, if I get into it with people about Trump in sort of conversation or whatever it is, right?
	But like...
	The guy was the first president in, what, 150 years?
	First U.S. president to not start a war.
	Trump was the first president to not start a war.
	Yeah, but he may have said mean things about Mexicans.
	It's like, he didn't start a fucking war, okay?
	Didn't start a war! Yes, but he said mean things about Rosie O'Donnell.
	Didn't start a war!
	Didn't start a war!
	Can you... Can you get that at all?
	Does that mean anything?
	Didn't start a war?
	Now... As Colin Powell, chief bloodthirsty warmonger, of course he's going to be mad at Trump because Trump as a capitalist is innately a pacifist.
	Now, I don't mean by pacifist that he's never used any violence ever and Trump would have used self-defense against America, of course, right?
	But as far as imperialism goes, capitalists don't think that way.
	Free market people don't think that way.
	Statists think that way because statists can offload the costs and responsibilities of all this stuff onto everyone else.
	But capitalists kind of used to paying their own bills.
	And so the idea that you would then go and invade a country, no, that comes from the state.
	That doesn't come from capitalists.
	And that's one of the reasons why I wanted to push back against all the lies about Trump back in 2015, 2016, because it was as clear as the sun coming up tomorrow that the guy was not going to start another war.
	And if you look at what Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton did in the destruction of Libya, the resurrection of open-air slave markets, and the uncorking of millions of, quote, refugees pouring across the Mediterranean into Europe, it seemed to me kind of important to not start another war.
	So... Colin Powell, seems to me, committed a whole bunch of war crimes.
	And... Admitted them.
	I don't know that there's a rule of war that says, shoot at people, and if they move, kill them.
	From a helicopter. So, being ordered to do that?
	No problem. Burning down villages, it seems, with people in them?
	No qualms, no issues, no problems whatsoever.
	Lying? America into a war that destroyed hundreds of thousands of people probably caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of more destabilized and wrecked an entire region.
	Well, that's fine.
	He can handle all of that.
	But by God, when Trump comes along, well, you got to have your fucking standards, man.
	You've got to have your standards.
	George Bush, the younger, yeah.
	They went hand in fist in bloody fucking glove to undo and wreck the Middle East.
	Colin Powell's like, yeah, it's a blot.
	It's a blot on my record.
	I can handle it.
	I'm still a Republican.
	I'm still a Republican. Barack Obama, who, of course, Colin Powell, was quite keen on.
	Barack Obama drops 100,000 bombs on mostly innocent people in the Middle East.
	He's totally fine with that.
	But you see, Donald Trump, the non-warmonger, comes along.
	Oh, no! Man's got to have a lion in the sand somewhere, brothers and sisters.
	That's a bridge too far.
	Setting fire to villages with old people around?
	Yes, totally fine.
	Shooting unidentified people from the air?
	Totally fine. Being a key propellant in the war to Iraq, the unjust illegal international war crime called aggression?
	Totally fine.
	Well, but Trump comes along...
	That dude's not even going to start a war.
	Got to break with him, man.
	I'm going to flee back to the embrace of the Democrats who had just spent eight years bombing the living hell out of the Middle East.
	Because he said, yeah, following the Capitol riot in January, Powell said he could no longer call himself a Republican.
	Capitol riot where the only person killed was one unarmed female American veteran.
	it.
	Capital Riot, where, as far as I can tell, not one person has been charged under the Insurrection Act.
	Not one. So, yeah, starting unjust wars, killing hundreds of thousands of people, causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands more.
	Destabilizing an entire region, creating a mass movement of human beings, people staggering across the desert with crying babies half-dehydrated to death on their backs.
	That's fine. January 6th, man.
	Crazy. So...
	Colin Powell's book...
	Nearly every line that he spoke in his 2003 presentation before the United Nations on Iraq's alleged stockpiling of weapons of mass destruction, nearly every line in that speech has since proven to be false.
	And in fact, it's not even later.
	Much of his presentation was known to be false at the time.
	What is he right? Does he take responsibility as a true leader would?
	No. What does he write?
	There is nothing worse than a leader believing he has accurate information when folks who know he doesn't don't tell them that he doesn't.
	I found myself in trouble on more than one occasion because people kept silent when they should have spoken up.
	My infamous speech at the UN in 2003 about Iraqi WMD programs was not based on facts, although I thought it was.
	It's not his fault, you see.
	There's just, you know, anonymous underlings.
	It's their fault.
	Because these State Department staffers, they're just so timid.
	They didn't have the courage to speak the truth to their boss.
	The reason why it's the leader's fault is that as a leader, you want to create an entire environment where people are very comfortable, in fact, encouraged and praised and rewarded for coming forward encouraged and praised and rewarded for coming forward with inconvenient information.
	Right?
	I mean, just...
	Tiny little example, right?
	I had this debate with the communists right afterwards, because I was pumped and jazzed, I did a workout and asked the people who joined me in the call-in show, I said, hey, what could I have done better?
	What could I have done different? What could have been improved, right?
	I get that I'm representing and I want to make sure I do a good job.
	So encouraging people to give you corrective feedback, to give you negative feedback, that's your entire fucking job as a leader.
	And if you fail to do that, if you cultivate an environment where people don't want to tell you the truth, where they won't give you the facts, where they won't push back about something this important, if you have cultivated that kind of environment, you know, like the Sonny Balwani, Elizabeth Holmes, anyone who speaks up gets fired and sued and shit like that, that's your fault! Fucking blaming your underlings?
	It's your fault!
	Completely and totally.
	Well, my underlings didn't tell me the truth, and so I started a war and it was not my fault.
	Did you sit down with everyone and say, okay, here's the shit I'm supposed to be saying.
	Does anyone have any doubts, any hesitations, any counter-information, anything?
	Because if I'm going to go out there and start a war, it better be rock-solid 100%.
	Anybody. I mean, they say this at a wedding.
	If anybody knows any reason why these two may not be joined together in holy matrimony, let him speak now and forever hold his peace.
	At a wedding, they say that.
	Slightly more, slightly less important than starting a fucking war.
	No, my anonymous underlings lied to me.
	It's your job. You know, the words coming out of your fucking mouth, it's your job.
	Especially in something this important.
	It's your job to know that what you're saying is the truth.
	So, these State Department underlings that Powell blamed for all of his reporting and repeating these thinly sourced lies before the international community, do you know what?
	They did, in fact, speak up.
	They begged and pleaded for him not to say things that weren't verified, that weren't credible, that weren't sourced, that weren't documented.
	He ignored them. Why?
	Because he wanted to sell a ghastly war against a third-rate military power to gin up patriotism and increase arms sales, make a lot of money, for the government to gain a lot of power through the hysteria of war.
	War is the health of the state.
	No, no, no. The State Department staff actually did go through all of the claims that Powell was making in his UN speech.
	And they found most of them, to put it mildly, wanting.
	But Powell ignored them.
	And he boasted that, and I quote, every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources.
	These are not assertions.
	What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence.
	Okay? Let's unpack a few of these, right?
	So that we understand that the grave that opened to accept his body goes all the way down to hell itself.
	So, Colin Powell, of course, had a problem.
	He had to dismiss the value of the UN weapons inspectors who were on the ground.
	And, of course, they weren't finding anything.
	They weren't finding anything. So, Powell declared that the Iraqis, you see, they just replaced the actual scientists in at least one facility with, quote, Iraqi intelligence agents who were to deceive inspectors about the work that was being done there.
	However, in a memo prepared by the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, that assertion was characterized as weak and not credible.
	Let's lie your way to war, Colin.
	Lie your way to war.
	Ah, good old Honest Powell.
	Then the, what is it, the INR, Bureau of Intelligence and Research, the INR. Powell went on to make another claim and the INR termed it highly questionable because Powell claimed that the Iraqi government was placing its WMD experts under house arrest at one of Saddam Hussein's guest houses.
	And whatever my issues with Bob Woodward, Bob Woodward did note in his book Plan of Attack that Powell took a transcript of a benign conversation between Iraqi soldiers talking about complying with UN's weapons inspectors and portrayed it, quote, in the most negative light possible, as an effort to deceive the inspectors, even adding dialogue that wasn't in the original.
	Boy, taken out of context and having your meaning entirely reversed, well, that's me and the planet as a whole, isn't it?
	The fool in his heart has said, there is no God, is written in the Bible.
	And if you slice and dice that, the Bible says, there is no God.
	So they added dialogue that wasn't even in the original.
	And the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research termed this, highly questionable, Do you go to war on something that is highly questionable, on stuff that is weak and not credible, but then say, it's backed up by solid sources?
	They're not assertions, facts, conclusions based on solid intelligence, as opposed to gaseous, sociopathic sophistry.
	Powell's credibility is In the UN presentation, he cited documents smuggled out of Iraq by Saddam Hussein's son-in-law as evidence of ongoing Iraqi perfidy.
	Powell insisted that Iraq only came clean about its possession of the deadly nerve agent VX after, quote, inspectors came across documentation as a result of the defection of Hussein Kamal.
	Oh, but he did leave something out in this assertion.
	He left out that Kamal was categorical, that all weapons of mass destruction Iraq may have ever had in the past were destroyed well before the 2003 invasion.
	Kamal told inspectors, and I quote,"...all weapons, biological, chemical, missile, nuclear, were destroyed." Now, Sam Husseini was a journalist, asked Powell about this in 2006.
	Powell claimed ignorance and angrily shut the door to his chauffeured vehicle.
	He's never taken responsibility, not one shred of responsibility for his own role in starting a war that killed hundreds of thousands of people.
	Now, In my view, and I think according to law, I'm no lawyer, but that's the way I read it, there were quite a few war criminals in the Bush administration.
	But President Barack Obama decided to let them go free.
	Look forward, not backward, was his general approach to the generals.
	So, you see, if you are caught with a certain amount of drugs, go to jail.
	But if you lie to start a war that kills hundreds of thousands of people, it's important to look forward, not backward.
	You know, there are 2.3 million prisoners in America in jail for mostly nonviolent crimes.
	We've got to look forward, not backwards.
	Oh, yeah. You know, that's why, you know, if the IRS catches cheating on taxes and you say, no, no, no, we're...
	You've got to look forward, not backward.
	They're going to listen to that, right?
	It's monstrous. So the reason I wanted to mention all of this...
	Let me just catch up on your chats here.
	Yeah, yeah. Crazy, eh?
	Yeah, they hate the peace. They hate peace, right?
	Yeah, a lot of dead children in Iraq as well.
	Let's just see here.
	Do you think he paid for it with regards to his own conscience?
	So, that's a big question.
	You never know what's going on in people's private minds as opposed to their public personas, he says, because I'm giving you my public persona.
	I mean, you know, this is not an argument and you can't prove it, but I think the people who know me in my private life say that I'm basically just the same as I am in my public life.
	So I've seen people...
	In my life, from my childhood, who did significant wrong and refused to admit it, refused to make amends, refused to admit any responsibility.
	And life and conscience and society punishes them in a way that no matter how angry I was at them when I was younger, life punishes them in a way that I would not want no matter how much I may have disliked them or feared them or even at times hated them in the past.
	You see the hellscape that people's lives become after they do great wrong, and you understand that there is a conscience that exists almost independent of human consciousness.
	I know that sounds quasi-religious, but in the same way that Jung talked about our collective unconscious and the fact that all of us put our hands outside of lepers or whatever, all of us put our hands in a fire, we all burn, that there is a price to be paid for a lack of conscience.
	Now, people who have a conscience and do wrong are tortured by that.
	But people who don't have a conscience and do wrong are tortured in a foundational way in that they genuinely sail through life without any capacity to connect to others.
	And what happens is you attempt to reformulate your conscience based upon status.
	This is the great temptation of amorality.
	And of course, while he probably claimed to be a Christian, he was not in any functional manner, because the first thing with Christianity, one of the major things with Christianity, is thou shalt not bear false witness.
	Speak the truth and shame the devil.
	And of course, that you must take responsibility for the crimes that you commit, and you must seek restitution.
	I don't know what the restitution is for a couple of hundred thousand people being killed as the result of your fucking PowerPoint, but I imagine it's pretty significant.
	So, what happens when you do wrong and you have prestige or power is you will attempt to carve out And expel or expunge your conscience and replace it with status.
	Do I have money?
	Am I in the right neighborhood?
	Do people envy me or look up to me?
	Do I have a pension?
	Do I have praise from pundits?
	Do I have status and success in the social or political world or whatever it is?
	Now, when you take your conscience and you expunge it, because your conscience is the measure of Of your behavior relative to universals.
	This is why people hate and fear universally preferable behavior, my work on ethics.
	Why they hate and fear it so much, because UPB is the conscience.
	There is a machine in our mind, whether we like it or not, that compares what we do to the universal values we claim.
	And not even just to the universal values that we claim, because we can't just claim universal values anymore, that we can just claim that a scientific theory is accurate.
	True universals. True, because all moral claims are based on universally preferable behavior, and there's a machine that constantly compares our actions to universally preferable behavior.
	Now, it is going to condemn and damn us and attempt through the pain of a bad conscience to get us to change our behavior.
	What is the point of pain except to get us to change our behavior?
	Oh, your hand is in a fire.
	That really hurts. I'm pulling it out.
	It's an attempt to get you to change your behavior.
	The conscience is an attempt to have you realign Your actions in conformity with universal morals.
	That's what the conscience is there for in the same way a compass is there to get you in the woods to continually align yourself because you have to, you know, I worked in the woods for quite a long time as a gold pen and prospector and you've got to move out of the way sometimes.
	You've got canyons, gullies, you've got rivers, you've got things like you have to constantly change your position when you're claimstaking around a kilometer square or something.
	And so the compass is there to get you back in alignment after life, or in this case, terrain blows you off course or moves you off course.
	And in the realm of the conscience, yeah, there are things that we, the compromises that we have to make to survive in a society, and then we kind of have to try and find a way to reorient ourself back, and the conscience does that.
	Either by giving you the dopamine hit of satisfaction with your conscience or the moral agony of violating our conscience is there to try and guide us with the sticks and carrots of positive and negative, positive rewards and negative punishments.
	Rewards and punishments, probably a better way to put it.
	But what people do is they'll scoop that out like some crazy lobotomy guy with an ice cream scoop from hell, right?
	Carve out the conscience and say, I'm not going to judge my actions or allow myself to be judged by any universal moral standards.
	What I'm going to do is I'm going to realign myself like salmon in a swift current.
	I'm going to realign myself to that which is praised and approved.
	That which is praised and that's how they get you.
	That's how they turn you into their slave.
	That's how the system turns you and you say, well, what is it that people approve?
	What is it that people like? Not, is it good, but am I praised?
	Not, is it moral, but am I rewarded?
	Not, is it ethical, but am I paid?
	Am I paid?
	Am I paid? And it's the devil's bargain.
	It's the devil's bargain. Now, when you...
	Scoop out the guidance of your conscience and replace it with the stimuli of status, you are now owned by other human beings.
	Because what happens is, their disapproval lashes you as strongly, if not more strongly, than the lashings of your own conscience.
	Because now you have two wrongs.
	A, you've done wrong, and B, you've now sought status as a means of remedying that wrong, and you've lost your own capacity to become moral.
	All you can do is follow the crowd and be praised, be approved.
	And so, it's kind of a fundamentally left-wing thing, which is why when he did something that violated the conscience of any sane human being, and he wasn't insane, of course, but when he did something that violated the conscience of any sane human being, he had to drift to the left.
	Because the left is fine with saying, well, it's, you know, we will substitute our praise for your conscience and you'll be fine.
	I mean, I'm not an ethno-nationalist, but of course that was the accusation from the communists.
	In Mexico, they actually have something in the Constitution that says you can't mess with the demographics of Mexico.
	Total ethno-nationalism written into the actual fabric of law.
	Have they ever confronted a Mexican with ethno-nationalism even though they voted for it?
	It's written right into their Constitution?
	Of course not. Indians want to keep India Indian.
	Has he ever lambasted them?
	No, of course, just racist, right?
	It's only white people who aren't allowed these sorts of things.
	And the other thing, too, was one of the guys was a Buddhist.
	He's a Buddhist! And the Dalai Lama has actually said that Europe should remain European.
	Europe belongs to the Europeans. So the Dalai Lama is an ethno-nationalist with regards to whites in Europe.
	Yet this supposed Buddhist thinks that all ethno-nationalism, including that of the Dalai Lama, is apparently just totally immoral and evil.
	And evil. So, yeah, that's the way.
	All right. Let's see here.
	What do we got here?
	Oh, only 42 minutes.
	Oh, Dwight Eisenhower.
	Oh, God. The military industrial complex and Dwight Eisenhower.
	Please. I have nothing but contempt for Dwight Eisenhower and his statements about the military industrial complex.
	What the fuck did he do when he was president about it?
	Oh, well, now that I'm leaving, I'm going to warn you about something that's really bad.
	Come on, man.
	I mean, if he really cared about the military industrial complex, he would have done something to expose it.
	And he also would have done something to expose the mass infiltration of communists into the American government.
	But nope! Nope, nope, nope, nope.
	Didn't want to do any of that. Didn't want to do any of that.
	The UN is useless?
	God, it's far worse than useless.
	My God. Far worse than useless.
	You know, it's like saying a landmine in your backyard is useless.
	It's like, no, it's worse than useless, right?
	Somebody says, I was in the military and honestly a private could have gotten us out of Afghanistan more efficiently and saved more lives and weapons than Millie.
	He needs to spend time at Leavenworth with this racist trope.
	Well, yeah, but of course, you know, it's the old thing that an amateur robs a bank, a professional owns a bank, and the true criminal mastermind owns central banking, right?
	Higher up you go.
	Crimes are for when the sheep harm the sheep or the sheep harm the shepherd.
	When the shepherd harms the sheep, it's not a crime.
	It's leadership, right?
	When shepherds harm another shepherd, assuming that it's just a will-to-power scenario, there's nothing immoral about that, right?
	So, all right, so if you've got any other questions, I'm happy to hear them about that.
	But I did also want to mention...
	A general hypothesis about the world.
	And I'm only going to go for about an hour today.
	I've been sort of working quite a lot.
	Was it Friday night? I did a Bitcoin thing.
	I did a three-hour debate.
	I did another thing, post-debate analysis.
	So, yeah, it's been quite a lot of work lately.
	And I want to make sure that I do my rest work scenario.
	But I'm happy to...
	When are you going to finish?
	Almost. I wrote that book 20 years ago.
	So it's done, for better or for worse, freedomain.com forward slash almost, or you can go to almostnovel.com.
	So it's also now available in an e-book format if you want to read it, just turning pages.
	And we are working on a print version, but it's taking a while.
	So yeah, you can, the book's done.
	I couldn't do more than that ending, so that book is done.
	Alright, any other comments, issues, questions?
	Why did you debate those Communist children?
	I'm not sure why would I debate them because it gives the chance for hundreds of thousands of people to hear good arguments and to have revelations about sophistry.
	I mean, I can't even tell you the number of messages that I get from people who are, you know, wow, thanks, it's really great to see you dismantle this kind of sophistry.
	It's really great for you to take these approaches, these arguments to reveal people and so on because of the general utility.
	ETA on Peaceful Parenting book?
	Early next year. I'm sorry, it's just taking a lot of time.
	There are parts of it which can go fast because it's philosophical and then there are parts of it which are detailed and data-oriented which is longer.
	Is sympathy for evil people without dismissing the act healthy?
	So it's a great question, Daniel, and I appreciate that.
	I will tell you my thoughts. So here's the thing.
	You have to differentiate, logically, you have to differentiate the people who have earned things in your life and the people who haven't earned things in your life.
	So let's say you have two workers, Simon and Adrian.
	Ooh, you said you didn't know their names.
	Simon and Adrian, right?
	And you hire them to do gardening in your house.
	And Simon shows up and Adrian doesn't show up.
	So you would pay Simon.
	For his work. Now let's say that Simon even does extra work.
	Does a good chunk of what Adrian was supposed to do.
	And let's say Simon has made $200 from you that day.
	Adrian didn't even show up.
	Do you pay Adrian?
	Do you pay the people who don't show up to do the work?
	As well as paying the people who do show up to do the work, right?
	Of course the answer would be no.
	You don't pay the people who don't show up to do the work.
	I mean, if somebody says, I will ship you an iPad, you give me 500 bucks, and they say the iPad will be there by Friday, you can pay me Saturday.
	If the iPad hasn't shown up by Friday, do you pay them Saturday?
	Well, no, right? You wait until the iPad shows up and then you pay them, right?
	So, in your life, I hope, you have people who do good and people who...
	Don't, right? I mean, hopefully you can at some point not spend time with the people who don't do good.
	But most of us here are born into this environment, born into the situation.
	We've got friends, we've got family, we've got people we grew up with and so on.
	So there's an ecosystem of good and bad in our lives.
	So there are some people who show up and do the work and there are other people who don't.
	So if someone does you wrong and then owns up to that, wrong that they did.
	Someone apologizes profusely, makes reasonable restitution, vows never to do it again, and doesn't do it again.
	That's all that can be expected.
	That's all that can be...
	Look, we are always going to do each other wrong in life.
	And by always, I mean it's going to happen at some point or another, and it's going to happen more than once, not that it's a continual process, right?
	In your life, you generally walk very well.
	Occasionally, you will stumble.
	Stumbling will happen in your life.
	Falling down will happen in your life.
	But for the most part, you walk pretty well.
	So, the key ingredients of rebuilding trust.
	Rebuilding trust is essential.
	Trust is required because people are imperfect.
	I've made mistakes. I've quoted things incorrectly in my show.
	I've done wrong, and I have had to.
	I remember when I was doing a review of the movie Joker, and I made a claim about the movie because I was making notes and blah, blah, blah, but I made a claim and defended it vigorously, and people told me that I was wrong, so I went and gritted my teeth and watched the movie again, and I was completely wrong, and I apologized and said I will try to do better and, you know, whatever, right?
	So, we're going to make mistakes, and how you handle the mistakes and the wrongs that you do to other people, how you handle that, is what builds trust.
	You can't have trust in people if you have a standard of perfection, because trust is only required because of imperfection.
	I mean, you don't trust gravity.
	It just is, right? Gravity is not imperfect.
	Gravity is a constant force in your life.
	So you don't trust it or not trust it or have to negotiate it.
	All of these things occur because we will inevitably do wrong to the people we love and inevitably they will do wrong to us.
	So that's a natural part of life.
	Health is not perfection, you understand.
	Health is when you get better, right?
	So, health is required because there is a negative state, ill health, unwellness, and so health is how you recover from these things to a large degree, right?
	Or being so strong that you prevent them from occurring in the first place, right?
	Health doesn't mean never get sick.
	Health means recover reasonably well.
	So, if you do wrong to someone, then what you do is you take ownership for doing wrong.
	You apologize. You make restitution as much as reasonably possible and not to access either.
	And you promise to work hard to never do it again.
	And if you do it again, you catch yourself quickly or hopefully you don't do it again ever.
	And that's how you build trust.
	So you have people in your life who do your yard work on a Saturday and you give them 200 bucks.
	Right? And then there are other people who don't show up.
	And then there are other people who wreck your yard.
	Now, there are three classes of people.
	People who help, people who are neutral, and people who harm.
	And in a way, the people who, like Adrian, who didn't show up to do your yard work, did you harm because by not showing up, you ended up not getting your yard work done because it was a two-man job.
	And by not showing up, he prevented you from completing the yard work on the Saturday because if he'd have phoned you a week before or maybe even the night before and said, I'm not coming, then you would have found somebody else.
	So he's actually harmed you, right?
	And then there are people who take their ATVs and ride roughshod through your dandelions and chew up your rose bushes and all that, right?
	So the people who do good in your life, who are honorable and helpful and positive and take responsibility and make restitution and apologize and improve, you pay them with love and respect and trust and all of that.
	Sure. That's your 200 bucks, right?
	They've earned it. They've earned it.
	They've earned it. So you pay them.
	And then there are people who make promises but don't do it, right?
	Right? Oh, I'm so sorry.
	I'll never do it again. And then a week later, they're doing it again.
	And then there are people who actively harm you.
	They spread vicious rumors out about you.
	They damage your property.
	They damage your relationships.
	They, whatever, right? I mean, actively doing harm to you.
	So you pay the guy who shows up to do the work.
	200 bucks. The people who act honorably in your life, you owe them.
	You owe them respect. I mean, if you yourself are acting the same way.
	Love is our involuntary response to virtue, if we're virtuous.
	So you give them the 200 bucks.
	You don't give the 200 bucks to the people who don't show up.
	Doesn't mean you'll never work with them again, right?
	Maybe he had a terrible car accident and he didn't show up and then you're like, oh man, that's really bad.
	I'm so sorry, all that, right? So you would work with him again if something was kind of beyond his control or let's just say he just forgot to set the alarm and slept in, woke up with a headache and calls you and says, I'm so sorry, this is so unprofessional.
	Oh my gosh, I can't believe it.
	I just can't come and work today, but I will come tomorrow or please accept my apologies.
	And mistakes happen, accidents happen, bad things happen, whatever, right?
	But you don't pay him.
	You don't pay the 200 bucks.
	And then would you pay the 200 bucks?
	You pay the guy to fix your garden.
	Would you pay another guy 200 bucks to wreck your garden?
	Well, of course not. Just rewarding bad behavior.
	So with regards to the question, what is your relationship to people who do you wrong?
	Do you just forgive people?
	Well... Forgiveness is something that is earned, and you have to have a differentiator between the people who've earned your forgiveness and the people who have not earned your forgiveness, and the people who continually put you in the, like, harm your interests, right?
	So, forgiveness...
	is the restoration of security in your relationships, right?
	That's what forgiveness is for.
	So if somebody does you wrong, Apologizes, makes restitution, promises not to do it again, and generally doesn't.
	Then you're secure in that relationship, right?
	They've recognized they're wrong, and you're now secure and safe, in a sense, in your relationship.
	It's a good thing. It's a fine thing, and it's inevitable.
	It's going to happen. It's going to happen.
	You're going to do it. I'm going to do it.
	Other people are going to do it. They're going to do you harm.
	They're going to do you wrong. They're going to mess up your life in some way, and it's going to happen.
	So when they...
	Honorably earn your forgiveness.
	You have restored yourself to a state of security, of safety.
	You can trust me, and trust is I'm safe, right?
	And I have reason for that, right?
	Now, if somebody harms you, or somebody is just repeatedly unreliable, then how do you restore yourself to a state of safety and security?
	You fire them. Or if you have an employee who just keeps not showing up to work and messing up your business and harming your reputation and wrecking the trust of your customers in you, you fire that person, which is restoring yourself to a state of security and safety.
	So you would say to that person who just never shows up on time or shows up I forgive you for what you're doing because you don't at the moment have a functional capacity to choose otherwise.
	So if you have someone in your life who's a drug addict and produces the usual array of blazing emotional terrorism that characterizes interactions with addicts, if that person just continually wrecks and destroys and undermines your happiness, security, safety, or whatever it is, right?
	Then you would disconnect from that person in order to restore safety and security to your life.
	Now the forgiveness is, I look at you and your behavior, you do not have any functional free will that I can tell.
	So somebody who doesn't have empathy will not be able to feel what you feel, will not take your feelings into consideration any more than you can listen to a Japanese conversation And contribute in any meaningful way if you don't speak Japanese, right?
	They don't speak the language of empathy, of having your self-interest include the happiness of other people as part of your long-term security setup.
	If you don't speak Japanese and there's two people conversing in Japanese and they turn to you in the language you speak and say, what do you think?
	You'd say, I don't speak Japanese.
	Now, they won't continue to involve you in their conversation because now they understand you don't speak Japanese, right?
	So in a sense, they've forgiven you for your ignorance and they have understood that you simply can't learn Japanese in time to contribute anything to the conversation.
	So if somebody does you wrong repeatedly, you can forgive them by saying, okay, you functionally can't change in this particular situation.
	I've remonstrated with you, I've debated you, I've given you facts, reason, evidence, I've talked about how negative it is for me, and I've bent over backwards to try and have you understand how negative and destructive your behavior is towards me.
	But you continue to act in this negative way, and so there's no free will That is functionally operating in your consciousness.
	And then you forgive that person because they're not, in a sense, trying to harm you.
	They have no capacity to do otherwise in the foreseeable future, in the moment, at the time, or whatever.
	And then it just becomes like you're hiking and someone dislodges a rock and it comes bouncing down.
	You're not mad at the rock.
	It's like the rock is doing you evil.
	It doesn't have any free will.
	You just get out of the way.
	You just get out of the way. You say, whew, that was close, right?
	In a sense, you forgive the rock because the rock doesn't have a choice.
	You don't blame the rock.
	You're not angry at the rock. You're just like, okay, this rock is going to harm me if I stay in my current path, so I'm going to move.
	Step it aside. That's sensible, right?
	Now, when human beings turn into the equivalent of dislodged rocks bouncing down the mountainside with no free will and they're on a destructive path with you, you move aside.
	So you forgive them, but you don't continue to engage with them.
	Now, somebody who's actively trying to hurt you, actively, well, in a sense, you can say they have no free will.
	Their malevolence is really beyond their control.
	You can, again, talk with them.
	And I've had this with trolls various times or whatever, right?
	You say, look, this is really destructive.
	It's kind of negative, blah, blah, blah, right?
	And I don't like it, right?
	But then you also disassociate from them as well.
	So you can forgive people who've earned it, and then you forgive people who've harmed you because they can't do any different, but then you can't be safe around them, right?
	You can't be safe around them. You then would become a predator that you can't be safe around, and so you wouldn't have that in your environment, right?
	You wouldn't take a wild mountain lion and have it roam around your house or your backyard, right?
	So... We're looking forward to a print version of Almost.
	Yes. I think the audiobook reading is very good, but...
	Let's see.
	Do you have a database of all the videos you created on YouTube that the fascists stole from humanity?
	Yeah, they're mostly back.
	I have, gosh, I have hundreds and hundreds of shows that I never released, but I have those as well.
	You know, one of the great tragedies, of course, that YouTube stole from the future and from philosophy, as did Twitter, of course, and other places, but those two in particular, you know, all the comments, you know, hundreds of millions of comments, hundreds of millions of comments and conversations and arguments and debates, wonderful footnotes and a great snapshot of where humanity was.
	In the early parts of the 21st century with regards to philosophy, they stole and destroyed all of those comments, and that's a real tragedy for the future, for sure.
	All right, so yes, is sympathy for evil people without dismissing the act healthy?
	Yes, but self-protection is really important.
	What is the purpose of anger?
	It's the immune system of the soul, right?
	If somebody's taking advantage of me, you're going to get angry to push back against them, right?
	Why is there a blockage in people's thinking in regards to the non-aggression principle?
	The communists we're speaking with just couldn't get it.
	Oh, yeah. No, they could. That's a great question, Jake.
	But Jake the Jew, I like to say.
	So there's two reasons why people gap out.
	A friend of my daughter's was talking about her dad driving and just kind of gapping out.
	He gaps out, which I thought was a great phrase about just kind of dissociating.
	So why do people have such emotional problems with the non-aggression principle?
	Well, two reasons, and one is the domino of the other.
	The first is that they were violently aggressed against as children, but they internalized and normalized that as positive human behavior.
	I would have been a real... Of course I got spanked.
	I was a real brat as a kid. I didn't listen.
	So you've now internalized that and you've said that the violence that was committed against me as a child was for my benefit and was for the good.
	In other words, virtue results from violence, which is the communist fundamentals, right?
	And only violence can produce virtue, right?
	In other words, your parents reasoning with you or having a more stable, a secure, a happy environment wouldn't have produced virtue.
	But only violence, only violence produces virtue.
	There was no other way for me to be a good kid other than to be violently aggressed against.
	So when you don't denormalize the violence that was done against you as children and say...
	I was abused and it would have been way better and more positive and more moral for me to have been reasoned with rather than beaten or starved or whatever, right?
	So you fuse those two things together, right?
	Virtue and violence, right?
	Violence produces virtue. I was only a good kid because I was spanked.
	I was only a safe kid because I was spanked.
	Kids running into the road, you get spanked, you keep them from dying and violence produces virtue or security or safety or whatever positive emotional state or moral state that you're committing.
	So when you fuse these two things together, that violence is the only path that produces virtue, that virtue can only be generated by violence, then the non-aggression principle foundationally goes against the fundamental moral principle that is running you.
	So, if you say that the initiation of the use of force is evil, and yet you believe that virtue can only be produced by the initiation of the use of force, in other words, beating or harming children, your inner parents desperately need you to believe that their evil was your good.
	That your good was produced by their evil.
	It's a funny thing. Two things my mom said about my childhood.
	Number one, she said, you did it all yourself.
	You raised yourself. Pretty true.
	She was pretty non-functional for most of it.
	And the other was she got really mad because she said, I felt that Ayn Rand replaced me.
	Well, I had to get some guidance, right?
	Get some virtues out of things. So the first thing is when the non-aggression principle comes up, it summons the Emotional response, the hellish antibodies of the inner parental alter egos, who then move to block the non-aggression principle as threatening their authority over you and threatening their sense of themselves as good people.
	Because the parents obviously believe that beating children is the only path to virtue and security and good things.
	So that's the first reason.
	The second reason is that once you believe that violence leads to virtue...
	Then that uncorks the devil within you, that when you want to achieve good in the world, you can use violence.
	You can use abuse, right?
	So when the communist, the chubby guy, who clearly taken more than he absolutely needed from the proletariat's mouth, so he had to start off with the verbal abuse of repeating things about me, which is not true, right?
	He had to start off with that because...
	Abuse is how you produce good things in the world, right?
	That's, I assume, what came from his own family, his own parents.
	I have great sympathy for that, for him as a child, but how he's acting out as an adult.
	So once you have internalized that abuse or violence leads to virtue, and then, based upon that principle, you have gone out into the world and abused people in order to produce the utopia or the virtue that you want.
	And the Swallow Terriot guy was saying very clearly, you can't get communism out of virtue, you can't be a good guy.
	In other words, violence, abuse leads to virtue.
	So the non-aggression principle says that you think you're serving the angels, but you're serving the devils.
	You think you are a tool of virtue, but you are a tool of evil.
	You think that you are leading mankind to heaven, but you're leading mankind to hell.
	Violence equals virtue, a.k.a.
	circumcision. All right. Hope that helps.
	If you listen to Steph's debates with the socialists, often they will boil down their arguments to the point that they admit how F their definition of violence is.
	For example, not supporting a person with enough income to support themselves is violence.
	Therefore, using violence against the person not supporting you is justified.
	Well, I mean, there is a great deal of frustration, fear, and hatred in the human heart and the human soul, particularly when you're on the cracking, sinking, upending Titanic of propeller meeting the forehead collapse, as we are right now.
	There's a lot of fear, anxiety, frustration.
	And a sense of powerlessness and victimization and moral horror and so on.
	And what happens, of course, is the sophist creates a state of chaos, anxiety, and fear in people's minds, which makes them feel helpless, powerless, and so on.
	And then the sophist comes along with a drug.
	And the drug is, I will help you restore your sense of power by giving you someone to hate.
	Sophists create a situation of chaos and powerlessness and helplessness and frustration on the part of the general population.
	And human beings recoil against a sense of helplessness.
	Of course, we're biological organisms.
	Helplessness is death. And the sophist comes along and says, ooh, yes...
	I will restore to you your sense of power and purpose by serving up to you sacrificial lambs on a plate of lies so that I will give you someone to hate and through that hatred you will Restore your sense of power, because now, because you feel helpless in the face of the state, I would give you fellow citizens to dominate, and then you will no longer feel helpless.
	In fact, you're even more enslaved to the state, but that's by the by, right?
	So when people are frustrated and helpless and hopeless, giving them someone to hate is heroin, it's cocaine, it's a massive uplift to their endorphins.
	Depression is a feeling of helplessness that strips you of your endorphins, But then when you...
	Hatred, you see, hatred is a signal that you can do something, that you have power in a situation, right?
	And people, when they feel, when they've felt helpless for long enough, will grab at anything that gives them a sense of power, and hatred is the easiest thing for the sophist to give to them by delivering up to them enemies, right?
	Now, whoever is pointing at you and saying, feel better by hating those people, that's the person you probably should hate, but people rarely seem to make that connection.
	All right. Another socialist argued that opening up a small business was a war crime equal to Bush going to Iraq.
	See, if you open up a small business, the petit bourgeois, right?
	If you open up a small business, you are no longer helpless, right?
	So the people I've talked to over the course of the pandemic, the people who've been doing the best are the people who invested in Bitcoin, which is one reason why the leftists are going hard against Bitcoin at the moment, because it gives you a sense of independence, and you don't feel helpless, and they need you to feel helpless so that they can point you at an enemy and get you to fight amongst yourselves.
	And the people who are self-employed, who have some flexibility and some sense of nimbleness when it comes to avoiding disasters and so on.
	And so, yeah, they really dislike the small businesses and all that, right?
	Let's see here. I have difficulty not shutting off when listening to sophists.
	You analyze the news and debate communists in order to develop philosophy.
	How do you stay engaged with these kinds of conversations?
	You mean with sophists? Well, the purpose, right?
	Give a man a why.
	He can be out almost anyhow.
	The purpose of engaging with a sophist is for the audience.
	If these guys had cornered me on a train and said, let's debate communism, and there's nobody else around, I would have said, can I record it?
	And if they'd have said no, I would have said, God, no.
	It's a show. For the audience, right?
	Because there are people who will never accept the free market.
	There were people who already accept the free market.
	And there are people in the middle, right?
	The undecideds. So the purpose of the debate is for the undecideds.
	The purpose of the debate is for the audience.
	I know my own mind.
	I know what truth and reason and virtue is.
	So it's not going to change unless I hit some crazy great argument I've never heard of before.
	And after 40 years, it seems less likely that's going to happen every day.
	So... Steph, do you think communism resonates more with women, feeling the need to make society more equal or more for men with low sexual market value, terrified of competing with wealthy capitalists?
	So women, I've said this before, so men are going to compete whether you like it or not, and women are going to mother whether you like it or not.
	And if women don't mother their own children, they will end up claustrophobically mothering society, which when combined with the power of the state produces socialism and communism.
	And, I mean, this is sort of like an end on this point, this sort of argument.
	So let's take feminism, right?
	So without a doubt, feminism results in lower birth rates, right?
	It's a form of population diminishment, right?
	So, feminists say we've got to be equal to men.
	We've got to get educated.
	We've got to go out and work.
	And all of that means that you don't have kids, right?
	And every year you delay having children.
	It's just one less year you get to spend with your grandkids, right?
	So, it is a form of population diminishment.
	What you don't really hear often is, okay, so feminists, what you say results in massively lowered birth rates, but then if you also support the importation of other cultures, often very anti-feminist cultures, but then have much higher birth rates, then your system can't possibly survive.
	Your system can't possibly survive.
	Maybe if you were completely isolated, like in your own island somewhere, I mean, it wouldn't last very long once you get below 2.1 replacement rates in terms of fecundity, but if you're in a situation where, oh boy, we don't have enough people because of feminism, so what we need to do is import a whole bunch of people who are very much against feminism and have them have three, four, five kids per family.
	No, can't survive. And nobody sort of asked that basic question because the purpose of feminism is to destroy fecundity, particularly among higher IQ people, right?
	The high IQ and the low IQ are always engaged in conflict and through the proxy of the state in general.
	So it's like diversity, right?
	So diversity is a substitution of racial or sexual characteristics for a meritocracy.
	And It doesn't mean anything.
	It doesn't have any sustainability.
	Because, I mean, you look at what's going on in the two armies, right?
	The American army and the Chinese army.
	The Chinese army is putting up these supersonic planet-spanning missiles, and you have female generals in the U.S. military posting pictures of their painted nails.
	The Chinese military is a relentless meritocracy, whereas the American military is diluting war readiness and warfighting readiness for the sake of pursuing It's egalitarian numbers games, right?
	And it's all...
	Now, if every single army was doing the same thing, you could maybe make a case of it.
	But all it takes is one army to have a relentless meritocracy, and all of the other armies dabbling in diversity stuff just become meaningless because they're going to lose.
	You can't ever win by diluting meritocracy.
	You can't! I think that's the point, right?
	If you want America to lose, then you...
	Try to destroy meritocracy.
	Any culture that you want to wreck, you propose standards for it other than raw meritocracy, raw talent, raw scores, raw IQ, raw ability, raw success.
	I mean, if you want to destroy some corporation, then all you do is you promote a standard of promotion other than meritocracy.
	And it may take a generation, but it's going to happen.
	It will just be destroyed. And if you are promoting relentless meritocracy in your own organization and you can get the other company, the other culture, the other country to promote some standard other than raw meritocracy, you'll just win.
	And then your meritocracy will replace their lack of meritocracy.
	It's the same thing in education.
	If you start, I mean, you know, we promote all of these other standards for acceptance other than raw scores.
	Okay. But then you're just going to end up being displaced by whatever organization promotes relentless meritocracy.
	And this is why you have to replace meritocracy with other factors across the entire legal system.
	Because if you allow, like let's say one university can just go raw meritocracy, the other one has to go diversity.
	Well, the one that goes diversity will lose out to the one that does meritocracy.
	You've got to make it law, right? Right.
	And the law would be promoted, of course, by other cultures or countries that promote raw meritocracy.
	And I'm a victim of this kind of diversity, right?
	Because the raw meritocracy that represented the growth of the Internet and alternative media from 2006 to 2016, that was a raw meritocracy, and I was doing pretty damn well, thank you very much.
	I was top of the heap, right? But then meritocracy had to be replaced with I hurt people's feelings, therefore I must be unpersoned, right?
	Okay. Well, we'll still keep the conversation going here, which will be even more valuable to the future, but I won't substitute radical egalitarianism for meritocracy.
	I won't do it. It's just a way of making everything I do useless and in vain, right?
	The meritocracy is the only way that things last.
	The moment you put in another standard, you sign your own cultural decay warrant, so to speak, right?
	I remember somebody says hearing something about the U.S. military getting breast pumps for pregnant soldiers.
	Thank you.
	Amen.
	Yeah, I mean, of course, right?
	I mean, you can just look at Elizabeth Theranos, right?
	What's her, you know, this incredibly powerful, entrepreneurial, youngest, self-made female billionaire of all time, a powerful force, the new Steve Jobs.
	Oh, did she lie and get into trouble?
	Oh, she got pregnant and she's claiming she's a victim of abuse.
	Tsk, tsk, tsk. It's inevitable, right?
	It's inevitable. It's the same thing with, oh, you're getting called up for a war and you're a female.
	Oh, I got pregnant.
	I can't go.
	Whatever, right? All right.
	So, let's see here.
	Oh, yeah. If I could ask you guys for a favor, because I'm trying to sort of figure out where the good questions are, the more you guys talk to each other, the worse the show becomes.
	It's not absolutely essential, but I would appreciate it as a personal favor.
	If you can bookmark the people and talk about them offline, but if I'm trying to find good questions, and you all are arguing back and forth, I really can't find the good questions, and it makes it a little tougher to do the show.
	So, will boomers dying be the cause of the housing crisis?
	You think we'll last you that long?
	I would not say so.
	No, because they'll just import more people.
	I mean, a lot of mass immigration has to do with propping up the price of housing because of over-leveraged financial institutions.
	And you saw when diversity mandates led to the...
	07-08 housing crisis led to a near collapse of the entire financial system.
	They've got to keep the population up, the demand up, even if it's through debt and mass immigration, so that the boomers don't get mad and the system doesn't collapse.
	All right.
	Let's see here.
	I have strong urge to take my shirt off.
	You'd ever have this thing where, I don't know if I bust my hair or something with this shirt on, but it's just like, prickle, prickle, spider leg, spider leg, spider leg.
	All right. I think...
	COVID restrictions have made me angry.
	How can I relieve my anger?
	Well, I mean, you're going to get mad at me.
	That's fine. Shoot the messenger if you want.
	But... What did you do or not do to contribute to the current crisis?
	And you've got to look in the mirror, man.
	Ownership, right? It's not just for Colin Powell.
	Not that he can take it now because he's dead.
	But what is the harshest case you can bring as to how you had causal responsibility in the current disasters?
	If you've been listening to my show for a long time, you will know that 12, 13 years ago, I said you cannot keep status in your life if they are unreformed, if they are unrepentant.
	You cannot reward people who want you thrown in jail for disagreeing with them.
	You cannot reward them with time, attention, friendship, and resources.
	I mean, you can if you want, but if people don't suffer for their ideals, they'll make you suffer for their ideals instead.
	So did you take a stand against people who want to use violence to solve social problems?
	Did you? Or did you say, well, you know, it's Thanksgiving.
	I just won't bring anything up.
	I'll be mild. I'll, you know, maybe argue a little bit after dinner, but I'm not going to make any foundational decisions about my social circle or anything like that based upon abstract philosophical blah, blah, blah.
	Okay. Well, then you can do that for sure.
	But if people don't suffer any negative consequences for their bad beliefs, they won't change them.
	Most people aren't responding to abstract arguments.
	They're responding to the pain and pleasure principle.
	And so if you, in your life, did not stand for what you believe in and organize your social circle based upon what you believe in, then you are part of the problem.
	And I'm saying this not to make you feel bad, but if you think that everything is being done unto you, you will feel bad, helpless, angry, frustrated, and then you'll be tempted to hatred, right?
	Right. When I was deplatformed, who was responsible for that?
	Yes, people made bad decisions in large organizations, but I knew that there was going to be a pretty significant price to be paid for telling the truth and trying to restore and retain peace in the world.
	Like, IQ is different.
	And we're either going to say it's based upon exploitation and provoke rage and destruction in the world, or we can talk about the science and hopefully calm the waters, right?
	So I took the calm the waters to approach.
	I knew there were going to be consequences.
	Do you see me raging against the social media platforms that deplatformed me?
	No. I made a conscious choice.
	Make the conscious choice.
	Accept the consequences.
	I knew what Scott Adams said the other day.
	It's pretty easy to not get deplatformed.
	That's true. It is actually pretty easy to not get deplatformed.
	I did not choose to take that easy choice.
	I'm not raging against the consequences of my decisions.
	Now, if you, and I know this sounds harsh, I'm just sort of pointing out that I'm trying to rescue you from the nihilism and the fear and the frustration of feeling helpless and acted upon.
	You have participated in the disasters of the world if you have not acted with deep and extraordinary levels of integrity regarding your values.
	People can't judge your values.
	They can only judge how you judge your values.
	It's one of the great secrets of how not to be ground down by the world.
	Most people can't blame you They can't judge you.
	They simply, they'll try stuff and see if you judge yourself.
	They'll try stuff, I'm going to attack you and see if you attack yourself.
	Now, if you don't attack yourself, they'll just move on to easier prey.
	It's like a guy walking up the streets trying to, wants to break into a car.
	What does he do? He rattles the door handles and he just sees something.
	Hey, there's a car that's unlocked.
	I'll take that one, right? It's not because he hates that particular car.
	Oh, that's the car that was unlocked.
	And so people will just try and shame you, and if you agree with them and you feel ashamed, right?
	I mean, they tried this in the commie debate, right?
	Communist debate, where they were like, oh, you said this about this and this about, like, yeah, this is the facts, this is science.
	I'm not going to be ashamed of quoting scientific facts or having subject matter experts on the show.
	I'm not going to be shamed by that.
	And so... People can't judge whether your ideas are good or bad.
	They can only judge your commitment to those ideas.
	And they also know that commitment wins.
	And so if the left says, you can't associate with anyone who's skeptical of the vaccines, you can't associate with anyone who is pro-Trump, you can't associate blah, blah, blah, right?
	Then they're using the power of social connection in order to enforce the value and virtue of their ideals.
	Okay. And so they're more committed than you are, because you won't adjust your social circle to include only people who value virtue.
	You're willing to hang with evildoers.
	Again, you've talked to them about it, blah, blah, blah.
	It's not like, you know, one and done situation, right?
	So... People look at you and they look at the left and they say, who's going to win?
	And they know who's going to win is the people who are most committed.
	So if you took the comfort of not confronting people about the immoralities they have supported, again, unconsciously until they know for sure it's understandable and we have patience and love and all of that.
	But if they're relentlessly committed to the use of violence against you for peaceful disagreements and you're still willing to hang with them, Then to me it's like, okay, there's someone in your life who's a really dangerous drug addict and keeps dragging criminals into your life and some sensible person comes along to you and says, you know, until that person reforms, they really can't be in your life.
	You're just exposing yourself to needless danger, right?
	And then they bring some criminal into your life who's really dangerous or they crash your car or whatever and you say, oh my God, I'm so mad at what was done to me.
	It wasn't done to you.
	It wasn't done to you. You participated in the doing.
	The story of the vampires. It's the basic fact about vampires.
	Well, garlic, sunlight, and also, they can't come into your home unless you invite them.
	The devil can't take your soul unless you sell it.
	Unless you agree. So, for everything, there is a price.
	And if you took...
	Let's say you heard this argument ten years ago.
	It's an ironclad argument.
	That you can't love evildoers and people who want you thrown in jail and possibly right for disagreeing with them peacefully are evildoers.
	They want evil done to you for disagreeing with them.
	You can't love them. You may forgive them, but continuing to associate with them is a form of moral self-flagellation that is just ridiculously humiliating.
	So if you didn't want to have those confrontations and you sat down and you broke bread with people who wanted you thrown in jail, then you are an active participant in the disasters of the world in the present.
	And I say that not to make you feel bad, but to give you a sense of empowerment.
	It doesn't come out of nowhere. People are constantly probing the solidity of your belief system, your commitment to it.
	And we are committed to peaceful, reasonable discourse and discussion.
	And we are, at least I will say, I'm committed to not enabling evildoers in my life.
	What about in a business setting?
	A business setting is not a philosophical endeavor.
	Fundamentally, right? It's an economic endeavor.
	In your personal life, it matters.
	I don't do business with people who don't share my values in general.
	On a personal level, I mean, obviously, you know, not everyone at Windows or whatever shares my values, but wherever I can make that decision reasonably, I do.
	But no, you don't...
	So I'm just saying that where you are in the world, it's the price that you pay for the compromises that you've made.
	It's the price that you pay.
	And I say that, again, not to make you feel bad.
	It's actually quite freeing to know that you've owned your life, that I owned my deplatforming.
	That's why I'm still a happy guy, and I'm not raging, and I'm not embittered, and I'm like...
	I did the conversation as long and as hard as I could.
	When I couldn't, I didn't. No regrets, no shame, no...
	It's the world's last, not mine, right?
	So you've got to look in the mirror and you've got to say, okay, so I fed, claimed to love and supported the people who wanted the use of violence against me.
	Now the use of violence against me is escalating.
	Well, whatever you feed grows.
	Whatever you starve diminishes.
	If you feed all of the people with your time and attention, Who want the state to act against you, don't be shocked when the state ends up acting against you!
	Trying to empower you, my friends.
	All right. We're out of time.
	We're out of time. Hope you have a wonderful evening.
	Thank you so much for dropping by tonight.
	A great pleasure to chat with you.
	If you would like to help out the show, I'd really appreciate it.
	Freedomain.com forward slash the net.
	Or you can do it right here.
	Freedomain.locals.com.
	Lots of love from me up here. Have yourself a wonderful evening, my friends.
	Take care. I'll talk to you soon.

▲