Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

June 12, 2023 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux

01:46:36

STOP BOWING TO GHOSTS! Freedomain Livestream

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	We are absolutely completely doing a song quiz.
	Alright, this is an oldie.
	I don't know why glasses off.
	Song quizzes, glasses off.
	Alright. How does it go?
	Well, I followed her to the station with a suitcase in my hand.
	Yeah, and I followed her to the station with a suitcase in my hand.
	And it's hard to tell, it's hard to tell when all your love is in vain.
	What do we got? Give me the artist, too.
	At least the one who made it. Oh, somebody is with it.
	Somebody is with it. All right, let's do one more verse.
	When the train came in the station While I looked her in the eye When the train came in the station Well, I looked her in the eye.
	Well, I felt so sad and lonesome.
	I could not help but cry.
	Yeah, baby.
	Lady Gaga. Well, the train left the station.
	It had two lights on behind.
	When the train left the station, it had two lights on behind.
	Well, the blue light was my baby, and the red light was my mind.
	It's not Johnny Cash.
	It is not Pat Boone.
	It is not Lady Gaga.
	Okay, but give me, I mean, come on, give me a title.
	Alright, yes.
	MD Cass, you have got it.
	Rolling Stones, Love in Vain.
	Now, I assume that's a cover.
	Like, See What a Fool I've Been was covered by, I think Brian May did the rearrangement for Queen.
	Who did the original, though?
	And every time I hear, I see love in vain.
	Well, they say you stand by your man.
	Tell me something I don't understand.
	Train in vain, right? That's The Clash.
	Also covered by a really nice version with Annie Lennox, who gets full Aretha Franklin towards the end of that.
	Alright, there's our wee bit of white blues culture.
	So, alright.
	Questions! Questions, questions.
	Also, also, if you have questions for the StephBot, I've been playing around with the StephBot and I'll give you a couple of Q&As from it.
	What is an aesthetically preferable actions?
	Or what are aesthetically preferable actions?
	Answer, aesthetically preferable actions are actions that are universally preferable but not enforceable through violence, such as politeness and being on time.
	That's good. That's good.
	Is rape UPP? No, rape is not UPP. The article states that the only logical possibility for rape is that not raping is universally preferable behavior, or that rape is universally banned behavior.
	The UPP framework has currently validated the moral premise that rape is evil.
	And that's not making an argument that's stating a conclusion.
	But still, not bad.
	What is peaceful parenting?
	Peaceful parenting is a parenting approach that emphasizes the use of non-violent communication,
	empathy and mutual respect between parents and children.
	It involves avoiding physical punishment, yelling and other forms of aggressive behavior
	towards children, and instead focusing on positive reinforcement, active listening and
	problem solving.
	The goal of peaceful parenting is to create a nurturing and supportive environment that
	promotes the healthy emotional and psychological development of children.
	Alright, let us get to your questions.
	So yes, if you have questions for the StephBot, just type in StephBot.
	That's S-T-E-F-B-O-T and a colon.
	I'll put the question in there. We can see what we get back.
	I appreciate that feedback. All right.
	Any books on parenting you'd recommend?
	I thought parent effectiveness training was not too bad.
	I had a parent effectiveness training expert on the show some years ago.
	You can look at it up at fdrpodcast.com.
	I think parent effectiveness training is not bad.
	Robert Johnson was the original artist.
	Yeah, pretty much a lot of the Delta-style blues go back to Robert Johnson, an amazing artist.
	All right. In the world of the future, would HR departments still be a thing?
	No, HR departments would not be a thing in the businesses of the future.
	Listen, when I was in my university days, I worked in HR departments.
	And you see, particularly engineering companies, technical companies, computer companies, they have to hire a bunch of women, but women don't particularly go into those fields.
	So you have to create a department of touchy-feeliness in order to insert the women that you're kind of Semi-forced to hire, but who haven't studied stuff that would be useful to your core business.
	So HR is a shadow cast by the delusions of radical gender equality of outcome, and there's no particular reason for them to be in there.
	Like, for companies that deal with things, it's like, okay, how can we pay women who don't deal with things, but rather want to deal with people?
	Okay, well, we'll create a major department.
	That's the only thing.
	Thoughts on the philosophy of Ted Kaczynski?
	Yeah, he just died, right? He was 81.
	I think he was found dead.
	I don't know. I think it might be suicide.
	He was found dead in his prison.
	So, Ted Kaczynski was an extraordinarily talented person.
	He's a mathematician, like one of the most talented mathematicians around, and I think he got sucked into this bizarre, hit people with a whole bunch of drugs and see if you can mind control them in the same way that other people of the 60s and 70s were sucked into these kinds of programs.
	I think Charles Manson was as well.
	So as far as the philosophy of Ted Kaczynski goes, he doesn't have philosophy.
	He has a brain scramble.
	He's brain scrambled. He also found himself sexually aroused by the idea of being a woman and started to go into this whole process and then ran away.
	He sort of panicked. And so he, unfortunately, his brain was rewired by, I assume, some voluntary drugs or some government program drugs, so I would not view him as a philosopher.
	And his sort of ideas that technology is really bad and so on, you know, there is nothing good or bad in things, right?
	There's nothing good or bad in things.
	Is a knife good or bad?
	Well, if you use the knife to, I don't know, cut some fruit down and feed your child, that's a good thing.
	If you use the knife to stab someone in the heart, that's a bad thing.
	But there is no good or evil in the things themselves.
	There's no good or evil in computers.
	There's no good or evil in guns.
	There is no good or evil in the things themselves.
	And this desire, this strange desire that people have to infuse good and evil into the things themselves.
	Gun control! No, guns are neither good nor evil.
	They are merely tools.
	And this idea that we have to project morality into inanimate objects, it's a strange thing.
	Of course, if you want to control people, then you take away the evil from the individuals and you put it into the thing itself.
	There are people who hate.
	There's no such thing as hate speech.
	Speech is a series of letters produced as a tool by human beings.
	The speech themselves contain neither good nor evil, hatred nor love.
	They are just words.
	There are people who have good and evil and not just the inanimate products of their actions.
	So, did you watch the documentary Plandemic 3?
	No, I don't particularly get into that stuff.
	I'm sure it's a fine documentary, and I'm sure there's lots of very important information in it, but I am very much focused on the things that I can control.
	The things that I can control.
	Larger, you know, like the UN is planning on these fax passports and so on, and I spent a lot and a lot of decades in my life trying to focus on things that I could not control.
	I mean, I can do some sort of maybe indirect influence here and there, but I leave that for younger and possibly wiser people than myself to focus on.
	But I am focusing on the stuff that I can control, which is the quality of the philosophy that I produce.
	But I am not going head-to-head with near-infinitely empowered semi-socialist bureaucracies with the power to, you know, print money, start wars, and jail at will.
	So, yeah, that's not my particular thing, so...
	Hey, Steph, this is the first live stream I've caught since the deplatforming.
	Wait, mine? Oh, good.
	Well, nice to hear you. Are individual freedoms and social stability always compatible?
	Are individual freedoms and societal stability always compatible?
	I'm just trying to feel if there's a rant here, and I feel there might be.
	But I don't know if it's too soon in the live stream to put the climax at the beginning.
	Normally I like to last more than, say, four minutes.
	You know, is it too soon?
	Is it too early in the day?
	Is it too soon in the show to do a rant?
	I don't know. I mean, I'm half naked anyway.
	I just don't know how far to take this.
	You know, I don't want to be inappropriate because I don't want you calling the free domain HR department.
	I mean, HR is not human resources here.
	It's heavy rant. HR is heavy rant.
	I mean, just let me know.
	Is it too soon for you?
	Is it too early? It'll surface again.
	No, sometimes you go right down desk boat style.
	Why for rent? It's a bit too soon.
	It could be too soon. I'm happy.
	If you guys want a warm-up, if you want a couple of flowers, a box of chocolates, me pretending to fake interest in your little career, there's lots of things that I can do to make it feel like a date before we consummate.
	It seems there's some ambivalence in the audience.
	All right. I mean, who's kidding who?
	I'm going to do the rant either way, but I like to have the pretense of choice.
	I'm just kidding. If you'd all have said no, I wouldn't have done the rant.
	All right. Are individual freedoms and societal stability always compatible?
	Society does not exist.
	It's a phantasm. It's a concept.
	It's sort of like saying, well, can the life of human beings and the life of ghosts coexist?
	It's like, well, no, there is no life to ghosts because ghosts don't exist.
	Should I get an operation on the imaginary third arm that's growing out of my forehead, Doc?
	There is no imaginary thumb at arm growing out of your forehead.
	The desire to enslave individual and real human beings according to phantasms that have never existed is an unholy, bottomless compulsion both on the slave owners and the victims of their power.
	You can't have freedoms because ghosts will be upset.
	You can't have liberties because my imaginary friend doesn't want you to.
	I'm sorry, you must defer your property rights, you must defer your liberty, you must defer your free speech because some imaginary entity is upset and you know you can't ever talk to that imaginary entity.
	No, there's no direct communication to that imaginary entity.
	The only thing that I can tell you is that I'm pretty sure that imaginary entity is upset and therefore you can't be free.
	This group might be offended.
	This gender might be upset.
	Society, society might be destabilized.
	My imaginary elven army will cry if you have freedom so you can't have freedoms.
	I'm so sorry, but think of the imaginary elven army.
	What is your humanity for things that don't exist?
	I'm sorry, honey, you can't leave the house because ghost riders from Narnia are circling the place and could run you over.
	Hey, don't get mad at me, man.
	It's just the ghost riders from Narnia.
	Don't shoot the messenger.
	I'm just informing you as to why you can't have freedoms because imaginary bullshit has imaginary negative feelings and you can't ever talk to the imaginary bullshit because it doesn't exist.
	but I'm just here to tell you that the imaginary bullshit has a negative experience,
	therefore you have to stay a slave!
	Oh, societal stability is so important that you can't have any freedoms.
	Blah blah blah blah blah.
	Okay. Monty Python had this right many years ago in a rather surreal skit.
	Well, a lot of them were surreal.
	About a guy caught for a crime.
	Well, I admit I copped to it, but society is too blind.
	Agreed, we'll be charging them too.
	Society is to blame. Agreed, we'll be charging them too.
	I'm sorry, but the ferocity of my imaginary goop buddies tells you through me that you can't have any freedoms.
	You can't sustain any freedoms.
	Because it's upsetting my imaginary friends!
	Heheheheheheheheheheheheheheh...
	Oh my gosh...
	This con on human beings is truly, truly shocking when you see it.
	Oh gosh. Imagine somebody arguing that...
	Thanks.
	Look, you have to go on a date with me.
	You have to go on a date with me because if you don't go on a date with me, my imaginary friends will be very upset and they'll be angry.
	And you don't want to upset my imaginary friends, so get in the van!
	Honey, maybe this chloroform will help you because my imaginary friends are very insistent!
	It's as logical as saying, well, you know, you all, you mere petty material beings, you all, are subject to the whims of gravity.
	Oh, it's so pathetic.
	Whims of gravity, you're just glued to the ground, aren't you?
	You're just stuck down there with this mass, mass attraction.
	It's like the earth is your stalker and just wants to pull you down and hold you down.
	Me, on the other hand, you see, I have all of these imaginary friends that have informed me, most laughterly and most insistently, they've informed you, you see, that I am no longer subject to gravity because my imaginary friends have broken the chains of mass-on-mass attraction and I can just float like a gossamer, ghosts through the atmosphere, I can step off cliffs, I can turn the grey skies blue, I can make it rain whenever I want it to.
	I can do anything, you see, because my imaginary friends are my physics.
	And if my imaginary friends say that I can fly, well, looky, looky, I'm flying.
	My imaginary friends have told me that I can fly.
	So, yeah, I mean, you have your physics, you think they're absolute, but my imaginary friends can reverse physics whenever they want.
	So, yeah, you just hang on to that weird gravity fetish you've got.
	got I'm going to float and fly because I have imaginary friends backing me up.
	Imagine every rule of physics Well, it's true that there is an inverse square law.
	Yes, yes, that's true.
	Asterisk, unless my imaginary friends proclaim the opposite or immunity from it.
	Two and two, yes.
	It is true that in the common parlance, two and two do make form, but my imaginary friends say that two and two can make a blue unicorn if they want.
	Two and two can make anything that my imaginary friends say that they can.
	So yes, you see, there's such a thing as called individual liberty, but individual liberty must, of course, be subject to the whims of a made-up entity called society.
	It's wild. It's wild!
	The absolute nonsense that people just repeat with a straight face.
	And I'm not saying you, right?
	I mean, maybe you the guy.
	Not you as a whole, but you asking that question.
	Why am I not getting...
	Is the rant too stunning for everyone?
	Is nobody commenting at all?
	That is wild stuff, man.
	If I can't talk to it...
	I submit to nothing somebody says well society has to limit your freedom
	It's like, okay, I'd be happy to debate society.
	Wait, I have to debate an individual?
	I have to debate, like, an individual?
	No, no, no. I don't want to debate an individual.
	I want to debate this thing called society that you say enslaves me.
	You say that there's this entity called society that is supposed to enslave me and limit my freedoms.
	Great, I would like to debate with it.
	Just, you know, serve it up.
	Let me type to society. Bring it up, man!
	Bring it up! Wait, I can't?
	Oh, would I have to just talk to individuals?
	Oh, so you're saying that I have to limit my freedoms, or my freedoms must be limited because of other individuals?
	Well, why would I be singled out to subject myself to them?
	Why wouldn't they subject themselves to me?
	Or better yet, nobody subjects themselves to anyone.
	Is there a line between the family and society?
	Is there a line between the family and society?
	Okay, let me ask you this.
	Can you take a picture of a family without anyone in the picture?
	Can you take a picture of me without any of my atoms?
	I'm going for a family portrait.
	And the photographer says, okay, go sit there.
	Say, no, no, no. We don't want to be in it.
	We want a family portrait, but we don't want mom, dad, grandparents, aunts, uncles, nieces, cousins, and children.
	We don't want to be in the picture, but we want you to take a picture of a family.
	Would that not be an insane statement?
	I was like a forest without any trees.
	I would like a herd of cattle with no cattle.
	I would like a shadow with nothing blocking the light.
	Concepts are almost always, almost always manipulative bullshit designed to get you to bow down to an imaginary larger force.
	See, here's the thing.
	As an individual, you can't, like we evolved, as an individual, you can't win against a hundred guys.
	If a hundred guys are coming for you, you've got to run.
	You can't win against a hundred guys.
	And you know the great scene, well, they're all great, Lord of the Rings, Aragorn.
	He's got to win against the forces of Mordor, right?
	Now, what does Aragorn bring with him to win against the forces of Mordor or to rescue, what is it, Helm's Deep or something like that?
	What does Aragorn bring with him to win that battle?
	He brings an army of ghosts.
	He brings an army of ghosts.
	Now, if you believe that Aragorn has an army of invisible ghosts, right?
	If it's just Aragorn coming at you on his horse and you've got a thousand guys, you'd be like, okay, we'll kill him, right?
	But no, if he's got 10,000 ghosts riding with him, then he is inflated.
	He's like the... The hair on the back of the cat puts it up, right?
	Make yourself larger. This is a constant feature in animals to make themselves appear larger.
	Raccoons do it with that weird Joe Biden lurchy step, right?
	That trash panda Frankenstein lurch.
	It makes you seem larger.
	So if you have an argument that's a lie, you want to tie your argument into a ghost army.
	Otherwise you're just one guy with a lie.
	You don't want to be one guy with a lie.
	There's no power in that.
	There's no power in being one guy with a lie.
	So you've got to make yourself bigger.
	You've got to bring a ghost army and you create these concepts.
	Like society.
	You've got to subjugate your values for the good of society.
	Well, you gotta surrender even though you vastly outnumber me,
	because I have a ghost army and we could win!
	Sacrifice yourself for your country!
	.
	A soul, a soul, a soldier I will be.
	Two pistols, two pistols on my knee.
	Fuck you, fuck you, for curiosity.
	fight for the old anyway, that's an old song I remember from when I was a kid
	there are no ghosts the entire purpose of politics is to have you surrender
	because you feel outnumbered, that you're being selfish and you're
	taking away from the good of society as a whole and you're harming others
	real world harm, as somebody was saying, real world harm, your free speech could lead to
	real world harm right
	bye bye
	.
	And that's why when you have bullshit comedians like, you know, the John Olivers and others, right?
	What do they do? There's a reason they have to have a laugh track.
	Because if you disagree with them, they're smoking, the camera's at them, and everybody,
	everybody is laughing with them, and therefore will be hostile to you if you disagree.
	The postmodernists deal with the devil.
	There is no truth. All is permitted.
	No, the postmodernists don't want to say that there is no truth.
	They just want to say that the truth is what you will, not what you prove.
	The truth is what you will, not what you prove.
	and all that interferes with their will, in other words, objective facts that interfere
	with their will, must be crushed and destroyed.
	It's the substitution of will and power for truth.
	Bye-bye.
	Bye-bye.
	.
	It used to be that the people with the truth would win.
	Now, and this is a line from my novel, The Future, where the president says to one of his victims, you have an argument because you don't have power.
	If you had power, you wouldn't need an argument.
	You would just get your way.
	You just win. Just enforce it.
	An argument is a plea to be spared the brutalities of power based upon an alignment with reality.
	But power is all about denying that which is aligned with reality.
	We used to have a society built on reason.
	Now we have a society built on force.
	That transition was about a hundred years in the making.
	And we know where that leads.
	That's why I'm not surfing it anymore.
	So, should I sacrifice my freedoms for the stability of society?
	It's like saying, well, I don't want to work out, but I'm going to send my imaginary friend to go do some bench presses so that I get muscular.
	Why would I sacrifice myself for anything that doesn't exist?
	It doesn't make any sense.
	Now, a family, of course, you can say, ah, yes, but there are such a thing as families.
	Absolutely. Absolutely.
	There is such a thing as families.
	And absolutely, there are, in law, such things as countries.
	And absolutely, you can talk about a herd of animals.
	Yeah, you can talk about a herd. I've got no problem with that.
	Concepts are not all bullshit.
	It's just that concepts must never, ever, ever override the individual properties of anything they describe.
	Ever! That is the basic enslavement of mankind.
	You create a concept that is an aggregation of a group that contradicts the properties of some of that group.
	So you've got societal stability versus individual freedom.
	So if I say...
	Lizards are defined as cold-blooded.
	Here's a group of lizards that include one warm-blooded animal.
	Oh, and one rock.
	Okay, so I have a concept, cold-blooded, and now I include one thing which doesn't have any blood called the rock and another thing which has warm blood, which is a mammal.
	That would be insane. That would be insane.
	I've said this since the very beginning of the show.
	The very first video I ever did was about concepts and their relationship to reality.
	Concepts are imperfectly derived from instances, which means that if there's any contradiction between the concept and the instance, the instance wins.
	So if you say, lizards are cold-blooded, and you throw a warm-blooded animal there, and you call it a lizard, The warm-blooded animal wins and can't be called a lizard.
	You got a thing called society?
	Great! Okay, absolutely.
	Society is composed of individuals.
	If you have a concept in society that overwrites the properties and nature of any individual, it's incorrect.
	It's wrong. It's wrong.
	And the instance, the individual wins in that.
	So you say, well, society is composed of individuals, individuals should be free, but there's a tension between individuals' freedom and societal stability.
	Okay, so now you have a description of individuals.
	Who should be free, who are free, that you say, okay, but that's this group of individuals and the group now, like this collective mystical abstract concept called the group, now has the capacity to override and oppose the properties of each or some individual in there.
	No! The concept is imperfectly derived from the instance.
	Here's a tree! Trees are plants with wood and bark and limbs and twigs and leaves and so on.
	And that's what a tree is.
	But I'm also going to throw in there a kraken.
	A giant squid.
	Is a giant squid made of wood?
	Nope. I thought you said trees were made of wood.
	How can you throw a giant squid in there?
	I just do. Well, you can't.
	You can't. You're wrong.
	You're wrong. We know this in science all the time.
	All the time.
	isn't personal freedom and human rights also just a concept.
	So you gotta listen clearly.
	Don't listen. With prejudice.
	Don't listen for a gotcha.
	Doesn't mean you have to agree with me, but you've got to understand what I'm saying first.
	And don't ask questions I've already answered, or you're disqualifying yourself from a response.
	Did I say all concepts are false?
	Nope. I said most concepts are used to bully and control human beings.
	I didn't say all concepts are false.
	I said concepts are fine.
	And I already made that case.
	You've got a concept called warm-blooded.
	You've got a concept called lizard.
	You've got a concept called jungle.
	You've got a concept, yeah, crowd.
	These are all valid concepts.
	And the question is, can the initiation of the use of force
	be universally preferable behavior?
	Nope. No, it cannot be.
	Can assault be universally preferable behavior?
	No. Universally preferable behavior is what all human beings want to do at all times, in all circumstances, no matter what.
	They must do that. Now, assault cannot be universally preferable behavior because it's asymmetrical.
	One person is assaulting, the other person is being assaulted and does not want to be assaulted.
	If you're in a boxing ring, you want to be assaulted.
	That's the game. The initiation of the use of force cannot be universally preferable behavior.
	The initiation of the use of force is when one person wants it and the other person desperately doesn't want it, in the same way that rape is when one person is engaging in sexual activity that the other person desperately does not want them to engage in, and theft is when you're taking someone's property and that person desperately does not want you to take his or her property.
	It's asymmetrical. It can't be universalized.
	So, not all concepts are invalid.
	I'm a philosopher, for heaven's sakes.
	But when you have a group of individual things and then you have a concept that opposes the definition of those individual things, the concept is invalid.
	It's invalid. Come on, man.
	You sit down at your dinner table and you're four years old, right?
	Right? Do you use the food to eat the fork?
	No. Do you pick up the spoon with a couple of Cheerios and try to use the Cheerios to eat the spoon?
	No. Why not?
	Because you've got a category called edible and implement to eat with.
	You've got that category at the age of four.
	I've been around a lot of kids in my life, raised a kid myself, you never see, never see the kid use the potatoes to pick up the spoon to eat the spoon.
	They've got categories called edible and things to make eating easier and less messy.
	In general, there are exceptions.
	In general, babies do not bite the nipple.
	They will bite other things, they do not bite the nipple.
	So even babies, like, you know, you're born as a baby, the nipple touches your cheek, you turn your head.
	So you're born with this. Classification.
	This is food. I suck.
	this is not food I eat or chew.
	My daughter has never tried to use water to pick up a glass and drink the glass.
	.
	So here's the thing. This is the wild thing about philosophy.
	Philosophy is trying to understand how a three-year-old can get things perfectly right.
	Can we at least have ideas that match the intellectual competence
	of somebody who's 36 months out of the wet dark?
	If you were to say to a four-year-old, the spoon is also food, they'd look at you like, no it's
	not.
	you What's the spoon for? For eating?
	Is the spoon food? No.
	Why not? You can't eat it.
	No, no. Use the potato to pick up the spoon to eat the spoon.
	They would just be like, no, because they're three or four-year-olds.
	Perfectly understand this, know this.
	Boy, does it take a lot of education to forget this stuff.
	It really does take a lot of education.
	You know, I've never seen a child who's hungry try to eat Monopoly money.
	I've never even seen a child seriously take monopoly money into a store to buy food or to buy candy or to buy a toy.
	It doesn't work. They've got their categories perfectly down, perfectly sliced and diced.
	They understand it absolutely completely.
	Philosophy is just conceptualizing what a three-year-old does automatically and even
	before that.
	Thank you.
	It takes a lot of education.
	You know, I remember reading this poem or something when I was a kid.
	I remember reading this and it was like, well, if you're going to give me a candy bar, give me two because I have an invisible friend named Mikey.
	He loves candy too.
	Now, I have to eat it for him because his teeth are kind of new, but he loves it, right?
	So you've got to give me two candy bars because my invisible friend wants one, but his teeth are new, so I'll have to eat it for him.
	Now, clearly, clearly...
	That is a ploy to get two candy bars, right?
	You understand? It's just a ploy to get two candy bars.
	Making up, oh, I've got an imaginary friend who wants a candy bar, but I'll have to eat it for him.
	It's a ploy to get two candy bars.
	I get it. Deploy, right?
	If you say to your kid, uh, eat your vegetables.
	And they say, I don't want to eat my vegetables.
	And they say, I have a friend here, Mr.
	Hand, who says, eat your vegetables.
	They just laugh at you.
	There's no Mr. Hand. There's no second imaginary person there that's talking through my thumb.
	Can we at least have the intellectual acuity of your average three-year-old?
	That's really all we're asking for as a whole.
	All right. Now, you know the stuff is gold, baby, so I will, of course, do my responsible pause for income.
	We spent a lot of money on AI. I think it's really, really worthwhile.
	We've got some great stuff, really great stuff coming out of it, and you will be able to query that and get some just great, concise stuff out of it.
	Working on developing a...
	Documentary for this summer. It's been a while.
	Get all that going. I've got one higher here, another one on the way, and if you could help out the show, I would really, really appreciate it.
	You can do this here with the tip function, and I will absolutely get to your questions, and if you could help out the show, I'd really appreciate it.
	If you're listening to this later, freedomain.com forward slash donate.
	I would really... I need your help.
	I need your help and I really, really do appreciate it.
	Let's keep everything going here so that we can keep doing what we're doing in the realm of philosophy.
	I really, really appreciate that.
	So you can tip me here and I will get back to your questions.
	I really, really do appreciate those.
	I think we're doing... I think we're doing civil war.
	Civil war in the US. All right.
	Somebody says, what if someone is researching a potentially dangerous bioweapon?
	Do we classify this as the initiation of the use of force, even if we have not yet seen the outcome of this research?
	What if someone is researching a potentially dangerous bioweapon?
	Do we classify this as the initiation of the use of force, even if we have not yet seen the outcome of the research?
	Why... Why...
	Why are individuals developing potentially dangerous bioweapons?
	but we know this is all called gain of function.
	Why are people doing that in the world as it stands?
	All right. Because, you know, if we have a danger, we should try and figure out the source.
	And just while we wait for your answer there, the person said, you should prompt the bot with, are individual freedoms and societal stability always compatible?
	And see what the Mott says.
	That is a fine question. Let's try that.
	Are individual freedoms and societal stability always compatible?
	It won't give the answer. The AI cannot think.
	It cannot create. It's just a word guesser.
	Alright, let's see why it's got the answer.
	The text does not provide a clear answer to this question.
	However, it does suggest that the centralized political state poses a danger to individual freedoms and societal stability.
	It argues that the state's increasing control over economic and civic life has led to a population helpless to challenge the expansion of state power, which has effectively arrested the forward momentum of society.
	The text suggests that the idea that society can exist without a centralized state is the greatest lesson that the grisly years of the 20th century can teach us.
	So, yeah, not bad. Not bad.
	Jared says, it's been amazing working with you.
	That's about to change. I'm kidding.
	Thank you. Thank you from the bottom of my heart to everyone that helped support the show.
	It's a passion to work on the show and I constantly strive to bring more and more value.
	Thank you. Maybe people research bioweapons out of a desire for leverage over their enemies.
	Well, of course. Yeah, right. But, okay, why?
	Why has gain of function been pursued in the world?
	It's good that we're doing a live stream because this one, once you get the principle,
	once you get the principle, you'll be able to solve 99% of the world's problems.
	Thank you for watching.
	Why have people researched gain of function?
	Yes, you got it.
	Gain of function has been pursued because the money funding is from coercion.
	Yeah. Why are they doing it?
	Because they're paid to do it. Now, has anyone chosen to pay them to do it?
	They have not. I'm sure most people were incredibly surprised.
	I think the DoD has confirmed, what, 26?
	They were doing 26 bioweapons labs in Ukraine, right off the coast, right off the border of Russia.
	So, why did people choose the vaccine?
	The mRNA vaccine rather than, again I'm no doctor, but the Zelensky thing, like whatever
	else they could have done, lose weight, exercise more, get vitamin D, ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine,
	I can't recommend any of these things, I'm not a doctor, but why is it that society went
	for a very, very expensive solution?
	Because that was all paid for.
	Right?
	When you want to solve something, you generally want to do it in an effective way that's the
	And if there's a cheaper alternative that's as effective or more effective, you will do that.
	Like, I don't know if you know this, but I've read these reports that say if you simply, you know, you squirt this nasal wash up into your sinus cavities, if you do that with the first signs of COVID, it solves a lot of your problems.
	That stuff is virtually free.
	It's a couple of bucks. So why did people go for the most expensive solution?
	Because it was paid for.
	Where's the efficiency principle?
	There's no efficiency principle, right?
	So why are they doing gain of function?
	Because they're paid to. Now, you've got to think in a free society, right?
	In a free society... Hi there, I'm from ABC Pharmaceuticals.
	We would really, really like to weaponize bat coronaviruses to more efficiently and effectively infect human beings.
	We love your support.
	Please donate at the number below or buy shares in our company or just find some way to give us the money so that we can effectively change bat coronaviruses to much more effectively and efficiently infect human beings.
	The solution will be airborne and it will be inescapable should it possibly get out of the weapons lab.
	Now also, just by the by, the weapons lab will probably have about the same security as your average dentist's office.
	And we, of course, you'll have to sign a contract if you give us any money that we are not liable for anything that happens with this highly enhanced bat coronavirus that we are kind of holding on to with the biosafety security level of your average dental office.
	We're not liable.
	Could escape. Just telling you ahead of time.
	We have no idea what the benefits could be.
	But send your money to the address below and we'll be right on it.
	I mean, would you send the money? I mean, that's your basic question, right?
	Shut up and take my money.
	Yeah, would you? I mean, this is not complicated, right?
	This stuff only happens because you're not told about it.
	You're forced to pay and if you don't want to pay they'll just borrow or print the money and do it
	Why would you want gain a function?
	Thank you.
	Why would anyone want gain of function?
	It was supposed to have been banned and all they did was move it to Wuhan, right?
	Why would you want gain of function?
	What benefit is that to you?
	Why would you want to pay for that? So, when you say, let me get back to the question.
	What if someone is researching a potentially dangerous bioweapon?
	Why would they be doing that?
	How would they be funding it?
	You say, ah, well, maybe some super rich guy just decides to fund it himself.
	Okay, let's say he does, right?
	Let's say that he just is like crazy, he's lost his mind, he's gone full, shuffling around with super long fingernails and his feet in Kleenex boxes, Howard Hughes nuts.
	Okay, that could happen, right?
	We can do a worst-case scenario.
	Okay. So, he's obviously not doing it himself.
	He needs to hire scientists, right?
	And the scientists in a free society would be personally responsible for what they did.
	Plus, he would need to create the lab.
	The people who delivered the lab materials would also be liable for what they were doing.
	And he would need to get energy, and the energy company that supplied the bio lab would also be legally and morally responsible for what they were doing.
	And the people who delivered the beakers and the people who delivered the units, like everybody would be liable.
	So people would make sure they weren't doing that.
	And he'd need computers and computer programs and he'd need to share information with other people to do the research.
	And all of this, everybody would be perfectly aware of everything that was happening from the moment he decided to order Dr.
	Evil's underground lair.
	And people would say, no, we're not doing that.
	that, he's lost his mind. And society would deal with that.
	Do you think AI research poses a credible threat to societal stability?
	Bye.
	I'm going to just be nice and say you've just joined because I just did this whole societal stability thing.
	It's all right. It's probably just a coincidence.
	Do you think AI research poses a credible threat to societal stability?
	This was privately funded and can lead to mass job layoffs.
	Right? Right.
	I'm sure you understand that all economic progress requires mass job layoffs.
	Unless you're out there cutting your food down by hand, you're relying on On mass layoffs, right?
	So, turn to the last century, well over 90% of Americans were involved in farming.
	Now it's about 2%. What happened to all those people, right?
	88% of people lost their jobs.
	That's why we have a society.
	That's why we have a civilization. That's why the economy is generally advanced.
	You throw people out of work.
	You automate their work.
	Right? I mean, am I going to talk about the problem of mass layoffs when I use the internet to deliver my speeches and arguments rather than going door-to-door knocking and engaging with everyone individually?
	No. So...
	The problem, it's like the minimum wage thing, right?
	Why does there have to be a minimum wage?
	Because people go through 10,000 hours of government instruction and get spat out with the economic value of your average barnacle.
	They've been trained to sit and be bored and get restless.
	They've been drugged.
	They've been humiliated. They've been bullied.
	They've been controlled. They've been rendered passive.
	And then they get spat out into the marketplace that values initiative and creativity and energy.
	And they have no value to add to that marketplace.
	So rather than fix the educational system, which you can't do in a statist environment, rather than fix the educational system, what do people do?
	They say, oh, well, we've got to force employers to pay more.
	Which is like saying well, I I could lose weight and I could get my teeth whitened and I could exercise and I
	could Become more appealing and I could or I could just kidnap
	someone and make her my girlfriend by chaining her to the basement, right?
	So yeah, yay yay to mass layoffs Absolutely, yay to mass layoffs.
	When I was in the environmental software field, I wrote software that replaced an entire army of regulatory compliance and record tracking.
	I literally wrote a program that could figure out...
	It was like AI back in the day.
	This is why when I looked at climate change models, I smelled the bullshit from 40,000 feet.
	I wrote entire programs that said, okay, here's your entire industrial layout.
	How can you arrange things so that you produce the least amount of pollution possible?
	And also, by the way, we'll prove this and it will fill out all of your paperwork and all of your forms and send them off to the government.
	So, I mean, that's the basic value proposition.
	Is my software sold, I mean, the first one we sold for $5,000 and then later on I was selling my software for a million dollars plus.
	Now, how do you justify?
	Well, you're not taking a million dollars plus.
	I think 1.5 million was the most expensive implementation of the software that I wrote for a company that you would absolutely know.
	Okay. Okay. So I'm not taking a million dollars from them or a million and a half dollars from them.
	I'm saving them three million dollars a year.
	My software, we aimed, like I think all good entrepreneurs, you aim to have your investment payoff in six months.
	So I saved them three million dollars a year.
	And, you know, we jacked that and established it and so on, right?
	So I got a lot of people fired.
	Right. That's progress.
	If you're not getting anybody fired, you're not growing the economy.
	And somebody pointed out, right, so people say, oh, you've got to have these illegal immigrants to pick the fruits and vegetables in Florida, right?
	So New Florida law passed to restrict the hiring of illegal immigrants, some sort of e-verified thing, and now they're just using robots.
	Yeah, yeah.
	So, AI is not a problem to anyone who can think.
	People say, ah, well, AI is going to replace a lot of people.
	It's like, yes, and why can AI replace a lot of people?
	Because the government has produced a whole bunch of people who can't think.
	AI can't think, but it can assemble things in a coherent fashion based upon preordained rules.
	Yeah. Yeah. Like propaganda, like wokeness, like whatever, right?
	Yes, I can arrange sentences in a relatively coherent fashion based upon pre-programmed stimuli called ideology or propaganda.
	So yes, if you have failed to read, failed to think, failed to learn, if you've swallowed propaganda and become an NPC, you can be replaced by AI. Yeah, Yeah, AI can respond like NPCs, yeah, absolutely.
	Absolutely.
	But the problem is not AI.
	The problem is a government educational system that can't produce people or won't
	produce people who can't compete with something that doesn't think.
	I mean, it's really tragic when you think about it, right?
	The problem is not that AI has automated not thinking.
	The problem is that governments won't produce people who can think and therefore they're replaceable by AI which does not think.
	It's just the way that it is.
	Do you think that the Apple VR snorkel will revolutionize the world or end up like the metaverse?
	VR is very cool.
	I did some VR. I got a VR helmet and researched it and played some games and did some exploration because I wanted to understand VR in the context of my science fiction novel called The Future, which you can get at freedomand.locals.com for free.
	And it's very vivid.
	It's very vivid. And it's very cool.
	And it kind of burns you out from flat 2D video games.
	Like, I really haven't played any.
	I played, well, I played a bit of Serious Sam, which is a very fun, from Croteam, it's a very fun Eastern European-developed I need a steak and a massage after this battle.
	You know, he's just a very kind of cool guy.
	And he, you know, so I played this, a couple of them on 2D sort of flat mouse and cursor thing, and they were kind of fun.
	It was a good way to while away 20 minutes.
	And then I tried it on VR through Steam, and it's like, whoa, this is like right in there.
	So it kind of cured me of any real fun with 2D. It'd be great if they did the new Doom in VR, but I don't think they have.
	So, yeah. Once you're actually doing it and you're moving and all of that, just mouse and keyboard gets it.
	So I really haven't played many games since the VR thing.
	And so VR is enormously cool.
	I think, like everyone, I have some concerns about being encased in radiation.
	You know, that doesn't seem particularly ideal.
	But I know that the new Apple one, which is $3,500 US, apparently comes to sale early next year.
	The new Apple one could, I think, be completely airplane mode, right?
	Yeah. So the MetaQuest 2 needed Wi-Fi, now you can turn it off, but it always needs Bluetooth because you've got to have the controllers, right?
	And I've heard mixed things about Bluetooth, but in general I'm sort of trying to stay away from extra radiation around the old noggin.
	But because the new Apple VR just works on hand gestures, you don't need any controllers, it could potentially be...
	No Wi-Fi, no Bluetooth.
	Of course, you've still got, you know, screens jammed up against your eyeballs and all of that.
	But so it could be a much lower radiation sort of situation.
	And that's my particular concern because I had radiation from my lymphoma.
	And so I'm trying to keep radiation down as much as possible.
	So I think it would be very cool.
	I think it will be very vivid.
	And I think that VR... I played through some of...
	Gosh, what was it called? Half-Life Alyx.
	And yeah, it's very neat.
	It's very neat. Especially if you've got a computer running the VR because you can get extraordinarily...
	I played a little bit of X-Wing Squadrons.
	I just wanted to get a sense of the sort of flight aspect of it and being in a cockpit and kind of looking around and flying with the joysticks, like it really feels incredibly vivid and lifelike and absorbing.
	And so I got what I needed for my book and there are sort of VR sequences in the book imagining sort of 500 years down the road.
	Of course, they're going to work on tactile feedback.
	There are already VR platforms that you strap yourself in and you run in various directions and you run in the game.
	Because the movement stuff is still a bit dizzying.
	Like if you do the smooth movement, then for me at least, it gets a bit nauseous after a while and you do the sort of jump step movement where you say, here's where I want to go and you move, that's much more.
	But yeah, if you're doing a sword fight in VR... I mean, I remember playing some Pirates game on the Apple II, like, I don't know, 40 years, 45 years ago or whatever.
	And, you know, like, keyboard Karatika was something on the Atari 800.
	But if you're actually doing the combat, like, shield up and then you fight, you're moving, like, it's pretty vivid, man.
	And... It's pretty wild to be in the games.
	It's like the difference between being a reader of books and a writer of books, right?
	Because when you are a reader, you're passively absorbing, which is kind of like video games.
	You're outside the action and you're controlling an avatar on the screen, even if you can't see the guy.
	But when you're actually in the game and it's your movements and there's no translation between your movements and the keyboard and the mouse or the joystick or whatever, right?
	That is wild.
	And so I found it quite entertaining to check out.
	And you can get a bit of a workout.
	And I tried a climbing game when I was doing my novel, The Present.
	Again, freedomain.locals.com.
	There was a climbing scene and I got a climbing game and tried that to sort of remember what it was like because I did climbing when I was younger.
	And it's just really, really, it's neat and it's cool.
	And is it going to revolutionize the world?
	It still can't teach you how to think, right?
	It's like saying that there's a new program that's really, really great when it comes to drawing on a tablet or something like that.
	And, you know, the brushes and sizes, and Izzy has shown me some of the stuff she uses.
	It's pretty cool. AI can accelerate your process, but it can't make your process creative, right?
	Like this whole system, this whole setup, right?
	I've got a nice camera. I've got an amp.
	I've got a nice microphone.
	I've got a backdrop. I've got lighting.
	All of that, right? All of that is very efficient.
	I can come into your brain, into your house, into your phone, into your car.
	We're having this conversation back and forth.
	It's beautiful, man. All of this facilitates what?
	It can't make me think.
	It can't make me interesting.
	It can't make me creative.
	I could just do three hours of song quizzes.
	Well, it could be fun, but not particularly creative.
	None of this makes me think.
	If I am thinking, it facilitates the broadcast of me thinking, of us reasoning together.
	It facilitates that, but it can't make me think.
	You see? So the VR stuff, yeah, might make things more efficient, people more efficient.
	Still can't make you think. Can't make you more creative.
	If you're going nowhere, tech will just get you there faster.
	All right.
	How would a free society school or educate those of a lower intelligence?
	Thank you.
	Bye bye.
	Bye bye.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	So those who are less smart can often be more wise.
	One of the things that's really dangerous about intelligence is your capacity to talk yourself in and out of just about any sky-stretching bullshit that you come across.
	The question isn't, for me, how would free society school educate those of a lower intelligence?
	It's how would those of a lower intelligence keep the brilliant idiots grounded?
	How can we transmit the common sense of lower intelligence to the madcap, cocaine-laced, scurrying, rabbit stratosphere of high intelligence?
	It's like there's this slider.
	High intelligence, low wisdom.
	Higher wisdom, lower intelligence.
	under the current propaganda model.
	I have not had, I've often had better luck talking about UPB with people who are less educated and less intelligent
	than with people who are very intelligent.
	The problem with high intelligence is vanity.
	The problem with high intelligence is It's agony to admit that you're wrong for a lot of people who are smart because it's like smartness is considered omniscience and the ego death that is necessary for true wisdom.
	Well, you must, must forego and destroy your vanity in order to get to the truth.
	Vanity is I'm right because I am.
	Vanity is I'm right because I'm smart.
	Vanity is I'm right because I'm smarter than you.
	Vanity is I'm right because I'm eloquent.
	All of that is nonsense. All of that is a massive barrier.
	See, dumb people or less intelligent people, they know that they're not super smart, and so they approach things with humility.
	We're all retarded in certain areas, right?
	We're all dumb in certain areas.
	For you, it may be if you tried to learn piano.
	For you, it may be if you tried to learn math.
	For you, it may be if you tried to learn a foreign language.
	You know, some people, Sir Richard Burton way back in the day, not the actor, the explorer, he spoke like 17 different languages.
	Now, I learned 15 different computer languages.
	I know English very well, of course.
	Some French, not much.
	And a couple of words elsewhere, that's it.
	And I've tried learning foreign languages.
	It's not for me. I had to learn how to translate French for my master's degree, so I worked very hard at that.
	It doesn't come easily to me at all.
	So I approach that with humility.
	The stuff that screws you up is the stuff that comes real easy to you.
	If it comes real easy to you, man, that is your satanic trap.
	Because you get stuff for free and you feel all kinds of smart.
	So what happens is you focus on the stuff that comes easily and best to you.
	You avoid all the stuff that is tough for you and you become vainglorious.
	And when you become vainglorious, your skill and your ability and your eloquence and your talent and all the stuff that comes easily to you, everybody's driving on ice.
	And they think, well, I'll just go faster because I can gun this, baby.
	I can really get those rubber wheels going.
	But you're on ice. I mean, if you've ever had to cross ice, I know I have, because I did in working up north, you've got to cross the ice.
	You've got to go slow, man. Slow and careful, especially.
	I remember carrying the Pianjar drill equipment on my back.
	We stayed a little too long in the spring, and I remember...
	Crossing about a half a mile of lake and it was slushy and wet on top and I took steps and do you know what I heard?
	I heard the sound literally of doom.
	You know what that is?
	That's the ice cracking.
	And there was me, 200 pounds of muscle mostly back then, 80 to 90 pounds of drill equipment.
	That was not the most relaxing traverse I've ever had in my life.
	Because you go through that ice, man.
	Especially with this drill stuff on you, man.
	You're dead. Most likely.
	So, yeah. But it's very humbling.
	Because that's where you're like, okay, I have to deal with reality.
	My eloquence ain't going to help me.
	me, my intelligence ain't gonna help me.
	Ability plus vanity is delusion.
	And especially if you're eloquent enough to convince other people to give you resources, then the urge to relativize morality in order to allow your eloquence to exploit those less able in the arts of language and reason, or at least language, is very tempting. The devil is vanity.
	And vanity and ability go hand in hand, which is why for me...
	For me, and I hope for you as well, because this is really all I've been up to, lo, these many, many years and decades.
	What I've been up to, for me, my language abilities, my reasoning abilities, my eloquence, my, you know, on-the-fly analogy generation, which you've always seen in me, and which I take no credit for.
	I mean, I've worked on it, but one of the reasons I worked on it was working on it paid off!
	Spontaneous generation of vivid, real-time analogies.
	And analogies is one of the capacity to perceive, let alone generate analogies, is one of the highest marks of intelligence.
	This is an argument that goes all the way back to Aristotle.
	The creation of vivid analogies, effective analogies, is because you see things that are similar and dissimilar things, one of the highest marks of intelligence that there is.
	So, because I'm very good at that stuff, the great danger was driving super fast on ice.
	Can't stop, can't turn, can't slow down, gonna crash.
	You always run out of ice.
	So how was I going to stay in that which I'm fantastic at?
	And not fall prey to vanity or the desire to exploit others through eloquence.
	Eloquence is developed not as a means of communicating truth, but as a means of exploiting others by baffling them with imaginary made-up friends that they have to give their goods to.
	Eloquence was invented.
	Sophistry was invented to steal from people without the risk of direct violence.
	To steal from people without the risk of direct violence.
	Direct violence, they can stab you back.
	They can hunt you down.
	But you convince them that your invisible friends demand and require that they hand over their resources.
	Eloquence... And moral philosophy was invented as a form of exploitation and theft.
	We are attempting to wrestle it to its stated goals which is merely a cover for its actual goals which is to lie people into surrendering resources voluntarily so it's way cheaper to rule them than having to rule them by force.
	We are attempting to rescue philosophy from its intended purpose and sophistry and eloquence from its intended purpose which is as a tool of subjugation and exploitation.
	Not the easiest thing in the world, but absolutely the most necessary.
	So I'm really good at this stuff.
	How am I going to limit my vanity?
	Well, you limit your vanity by subjecting yourself to the absolute strictures of reason and evidence.
	After studying philosophy for 30 years, I was like, you know what, I actually can't make an ironclad argument for morality.
	I can't. Or property rights.
	Or why we should follow reason and evidence.
	What's beautiful about reason and evidence is they are the ego killers.
	They are the one-two punch that takes down the vainglorious ego that merely flashes ability in order to exploit others.
	It turns an ability which could be used for good to good rather than to exploitation which was its original purpose.
	It smashes you into a humility that can actually learn something.
	Reason and evidence.
	If it's not rational, it's wrong.
	If it's not supported by the evidence, it's wrong.
	Suddenly, you're not just doing donuts on the ice floes.
	You actually have a destination and you have boundaries.
	And you know when you're right.
	And you know when you're wrong.
	By my theory, atheists should have been more moral than Christians.
	Reason equals virtue equals happiness.
	By my theory, atheists should have been more moral than Christians.
	However, that theory was wrong because Christians were far more moral than atheists.
	So I was humbled.
	I was wrong.
	I was humbled.
	And this is why I did a series of videos, why I was wrong about and my apology to Christians and why I wrote my last novel as a praise and homage to Christianity.
	What advice does Oliver give to the desperate Rachel who's terrified of losing her status like a monkey falling down the totem pole of tribal power?
	She's afraid of losing her status.
	She's falling apart and he says, what does he say?
	Do you remember? He says, go to church.
	Go to church.
	Without external standards that you must follow, that exist independent of your will and preference,
	you are a vanity-based, exploitive life-form.
	Yeah.
	Well, like when I was younger and a very handsome young fellow, I thought that my looks in some way were to date and get sexual satisfaction and whatever, right?
	No, that's not what they're for.
	They're there as the foundation to build a family.
	Where would you point someone to learn how to think?
	Thank you.
	Well, the best way to learn how to think is to learn that you don't first, right?
	So, everybody has their opinions, they put them forward, and you...
	You prove to them that their arguments are incorrect.
	So in order for someone to learn how to think, they have to first understand that they do not think.
	They merely mouth platitudes.
	And you have to get them to overcome their fear of disagreeing with the mob.
	Because you cannot think if you're afraid.
	This is why they constantly pound you with fear after fear after fear.
	Everything. COVID. Global warming.
	Societal collapse, Trump, fascism, right?
	All but the real fears, right?
	You can't think if you're afraid.
	This is not just my theory.
	Like when you're in fight or flight, your higher reasoning shuts down because you're just there to run away from the bear and not get your head ripped off.
	You're there to fight.
	You're not there to reason. Your higher brain functioning shuts down with fight or flight, with cortisol.
	They've got to keep you afraid. So most people are afraid, and the thing they're most afraid of is admitting that they're afraid.
	Why do I agree with crazy proposition X, Y, or Z? Because I'm afraid!
	I'm afraid of being fired, deplatformed, attacked, harassed.
	Boy, there's freedom on the other side of that, but I understand it's scary.
	So the first thing you have to understand if you want to learn how to think is you don't know how, you've been trained out of it, you've been punished for exercising it, you've been rewarded for abandoning your reason and you're scared of thinking because thinkers get attacked!
	Because thinking attacks power and power fights back by attacking thinkers.
	The destruction of reason is self-defense for the exploiters, obviously.
	I thought I knew what virtue was.
	I thought I knew. My metaphysics was good.
	My epistemology was good.
	Ethics and politics were not.
	So I had to realize that what I had were answers, not proofs.
	Because, you know, I read a bunch of philosophers and I, oh, here's the definition of morality.
	I get that. This is the definition, right?
	I get all of that. And, you know, I would, you know, when I was, you know, the dark tea time of the soul, the 3 a.m.
	was like, okay, but I have answers, but aren't I just AI? I am just reassembling other people's arguments and thinking I have the truth!
	And UPB came out of that ego killer of like, no, I can't prove it beyond the shadow of a doubt.
	It's not up to my standards.
	Or, to put it another way, I can prove the metaphysics nature of reality.
	I can prove the epistemology, the nature of truth.
	When it comes to ethics and politics, I don't have the same proofs.
	I don't have the same rigor. That's humbling to be studying something for 30 years and realize that you can't even prove the entire purpose of it.
	The entire purpose of philosophy is morality.
	And people think that they have answers, but the only answer they have is this word salad is safer than thinking.
	This repeating of nonsense is safer physically, reputationally, financially, emotionally, reproductively often.
	Because they don't usually argue against men.
	men, they propagandize women and men have to fall in line, or they feel they have to,
	right?
	And it's very humiliating to realize that you mouth platitudes and agree with insane
	people and evil people because you're afraid of attack.
	That's humbling. It's the truth, because it works.
	It's humbling. So, I believe that we know how to think kind of instinctively.
	I mean, certainly children do.
	I mean, my daughter, her reasoning has always been fantastic.
	She's a bit of an outlier, obviously, but kids that I've always talked to, they know how to reason.
	You give them a contradiction, they sniff it out like that.
	They know how to reason. They know how to think.
	But you've been bullied out of it.
	Your birthright, your soul, was taken by the demonology of power.
	And vainglorious compliance.
	Compliance and vanity have to go hand in hand, because if you recognize that you are subjugated, that's a sting to your ego, and then you start to resist it.
	But if they can get you to feel that you're a good and righteous and wonderful person for being enslaved to error, then you will fight the truth, because the truth reveals that you're enslaved.
	That you're subjugated.
	So learning how to think is just to do with humility.
	.
	And you have to deal with the fear of thinking.
	And look, we all have this.
	I mean, gosh, everybody in school, everybody in school has endless stories of the kid who
	thought, the kid who questioned, the kid who got failed and held back and expelled and
	attacked and bullied.
	Appreciate that. Did you just work out?
	I did not just work out.
	I was actually going to.
	I played some racquetball this morning.
	I was going to go and work out.
	I just didn't have quite enough time.
	And so sorry for the slightly sloppy attire, but I'm going right after this to do weights.
	Love the shows. God bless.
	Thank you my friend, I appreciate that.
	Take me to church, I'll worship like a junk at the shrine of your lies.
	All right. Can a free market solution ever rival people who can print money slash want to prevent everyone else from rising to their level?
	But printing money is not a solution.
	Printing money is a vainglorious way of saying, I'm adding value by diluting everybody else's value and stealing from their savings.
	There is no solution that is involved in printing money, a sort of centrally, coercively money printing situation.
	All right, sorry, there was a question here that I wanted to get to.
	Oh, how did you come up with the idea for your environmental software?
	This is why I say I co-founded a software company, because I worked with an environmental engineer who had good ideas for all of this stuff.
	Rock climbing is my favorite workout, a good physical puzzle you navigate with your body.
	Hey, Steph, I posted a question with a tip earlier.
	Sorry, I missed that. The other day, listening to a live stream, I had realized how much I want to be like you, Steph, mixed with my own likes and preferences.
	What steps would you recommend for me to gain your wisdom, strength, and integrity?
	I have had some rough idea.
	I would love your input, though. Look, I appreciate that.
	It's a very, very kind thing.
	The moment that I really learned how to think was the moment I gave up wanting to be anyone other than me.
	And I know that you're saying that maybe I have some virtues or values that you would like to replicate within yourself.
	But you don't want to be like me.
	This is a funny line from Oscar Wilde, who was very witty, very corrupt, but very witty.
	And he said, be yourself, everyone else is taken.
	It's kind of true in a way, right?
	Be yourself no matter what they say.
	So, you don't want to be like me, because you can't be like me any more than I can be like you.
	Now, You can get down to the very core of where we all subsist as human beings, which is the universal principles, right?
	You can't play tennis with somebody who doesn't believe in gravity.
	You can't play tennis with somebody who tries to will the ball.
	I have a scene in the future where people can curve the racquetball, they can curve the ball with their mind, and that's part of the game, right?
	But that's part of the physics.
	everybody knows that. You can't play chess with somebody who follows different rules.
	What's the old joke? Why does the Queen have all the power on chessboard?
	Because it looks like a kitchen floor.
	So, when you let go of your vanity, you let go of your fear, you let go of your ego.
	See, the ego is something that has convinced us that subjugation is virtue.
	Subjugation is truth. Obedience is truth.
	Mouthing platitudes we're afraid to contradict is truth.
	The compliance is virtue.
	The ego is that which reverses the cause and effect, which is why the first virtue is always honesty with the self.
	People say, well, you know, I don't want to say this because it's rude.
	I don't want to say this because it's not diplomatic.
	I don't want to say this because I want to be sensitive towards the feelings of others.
	I don't want to say this because it could promote real-world harm.
	No, you don't want to say this because you're afraid of being attacked.
	That's all. And I'm not saying you should say it.
	I'm just saying be honest with yourself as to why you're not.
	I don't want to be insensitive.
	No, you just don't want to be attacked.
	I don't want to say this because women might not go out with me.
	I don't want to say this because I might lose my job.
	Okay, that's not ego.
	Ego is when you say, well, it's wrong to say this, and people who lose their job deserve to blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, right?
	That's when you're in the realm of ego, and that's when you are a useful idiot for those in power.
	But just be honest. So, when it comes to wisdom, strength, and integrity, you know, I just do my very best.
	Nobody's perfect at it. I just do my very best to not lie to myself.
	to not lie to myself.
	Which is why I say to people you can do whatever you want outside of obviously direct UPB violations like rape, theft,
	assault, murder, This is not the crowd that has to worry about that.
	Do whatever you want. Just be honest with yourself and be honest with others, right?
	If you're attracted to a woman solely because of her looks, she has no qualities of personality, right?
	She's just hot for you, right?
	Okay. Be honest with yourself, saying, I only care for her flesh, I don't like her personality, and I'm operating at an R-selected monkey brain level.
	And then, what if so?
	That's not lying to yourself. Now, what if you don't lie to her?
	What if you don't lie to her and you walk up to her and you say, look...
	My sperm wants your eggs.
	Sex looks great.
	You have physical characteristics that really turn me on.
	I don't particularly like you as a person, but let's go out and I'll pretend to be interested so we can have sex.
	Can you be honest?
	Now, if you are honest...
	Right? If you're honest, then you will have honest people in your life.
	If you have honest people in your life, you're halfway to moral philosophy because honest people in your life will tell you the truth and keep you on track.
	Just be honest. All right.
	Love the shows, God bless, thank you very much.
	Has central banking collapsed in the future?
	Well, it is an ideal society, so I will let you guess as to that.
	Sorry, just in the conversation about the narcissism stuff, somebody was saying that...
	Wow, so true. I had a friend who was so intelligent, it seems that he could only use his intelligence to justify bad choices.
	Well, we've seen some evidence of that lately on Twitter.
	Alright. Make sure you get your questions in.
	Thank you so much for your tips.
	How come one learn to negotiate with oneself better?
	How can one learn to negotiate with oneself better?
	So censorship occurs in the world because people censor themselves first.
	They cut and carve their personalities into that which is acceptable and that which is not acceptable.
	Right? So, if you notice a pattern, like, okay, East Asians, they study really hard, they tend to be very good at math and engineering, and spatial reasoning is great, and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
	You notice that, right? And there's tons of exceptions, but that's a trend you can see.
	And then what you do is, because of propaganda, you say, that's wrong, I'm not allowed to notice that.
	Or you create some explanation.
	Well, any group can do the same thing if they just follow the same habits, right?
	Or whatever. Like you slam that shut.
	You're not allowed to notice any whatever, right?
	And then what happens is because you've censored yourself, then anyone else who talks about that creates great anxiety in you.
	And of course, as you know, you either manage your own emotions or you end up having to control other people.
	You either handle your own emotions like a mature adult or you end up being a petty tyrant controlling other people.
	So censorship occurs in the world because people censor themselves, first and foremost.
	So don't censor yourself.
	Don't censor yourself. If I have a dream that is horrifying and unacceptable to my conscious mind, do I just sit there and say, well, that was weird, that's just some weird anomaly, and just move on?
	No. The dream has something to tell me.
	The dream might have something The dream has manifested itself in something that is absolutely unacceptable to me in my waking life, and I sit there and say, well, there is no real-world harm from having a dream.
	Curiosity is the key.
	What does the dream have to tell me?
	What does the dream have to tell me?
	I do not censor myself.
	Every aspect of myself gets a seat at the table.
	My mom, my inner mom, is fantastic at figuring out hypocrisy and manipulation.
	My mom is fantastic at it.
	Because my mom, my inner mom, is a reaction to my external mom.
	So if I say, well, anything that my inner mom has to say is just like my outer mom and therefore is unacceptable, then I'm going to be exploited.
	Right? So if you want to negotiate with yourself better, don't censor yourself.
	You and I and everyone have unholy thoughts.
	In whatever mindset you have, you have unholy thoughts.
	Thoughts that are unacceptable to your waking sensibilities.
	.
	Right. And you have the desire to censor that, to distance yourself, to alienate yourself from that.
	Of course, right? And that is the root of censorship, right?
	This is hate speech even in my own mind.
	All right.
	No, everything gets a seat at the table.
	Everyone gets a seat at the table.
	Every aspect of myself gets a seat at the table.
	Is it wrong to not speak the truth in order to not lose your job, for example?
	There is no morality at the end of a gun barrel.
	There is no morality at the end of a gun barrel.
	So whatever you're forced to do, the immorality is on the part of the person forcing you to do it.
	You do it or you don't do it.
	I mean, if you've got a family and you've got to feed your family and so on, right?
	Feed your family. But you don't sit there and say, I mean, the honest thing is not, like, whether you do or don't speak the truth, you have to be honest to yourself about why you are or aren't.
	So if it's like, well, if I speak the truth, I'm going to get fired and I need the job and I need the money, okay, sure.
	I mean, you have to make your compromises to get by in the world and it's not your fault that there's this crazy cancel culture stuff that's going on.
	But just don't lie to yourself.
	Say, well, I'm not going to say this because I'm going to lose my job.
	My issue is with the people who are getting people fired.
	I don't have much internal dialogue with myself anymore.
	How can I start doing this?
	Do you have any starter topics for arguing with myself, etc.?
	Well, everyone has a different way of doing it.
	I think the sentence completion exercises from Nathaniel Brandon and John Gray are very good.
	You can just write arguments with yourself.
	You can voice, go for a walk, voice arguments with yourself.
	Just write... How much time per day or week do you do cardio or weight lift?
	I think overall it's probably about six to eight hours a week of exercise and by exercise I mean more than just strolling around.
	I will try to do 45 minutes of weights every other day and I will try to do 35 minutes of cardio every other day and I tend to sort of mix those things in.
	Now I mean yesterday I had a sort of family outing and we did like I don't know 17,000 steps And of course, when I do the call-in shows, I walk around and I just try to be moving as much as possible.
	So I think my watch says, you know, seven hours of exercise a week.
	Now, a lot of that exercise I'm reading or researching or whatever it is.
	So I'm not just doing nothing, right?
	Or whatever it is. When you say inner mom, do you mean imagining your mom in your head?
	No. Imagining my mom in my head.
	So the prey knows a lot more about the predator, right?
	So if you've been prey in a sort of home situation, then you know a lot about the predators, right?
	So if you have a volatile parent, you try to learn that which...
	Sets off your parent, that which triggers your parent, right?
	And then you learn to avoid those situations when you're young.
	And then if you're a man, usually when you become a teenager, you then push those buttons because you need to fight back, right?
	You need to overcome your fear.
	So, my inner mother is the part of me that studied my mother in order to survive my mother.
	And so, she knows a lot about building violence and exploitation and bullying and all of that.
	Because I've learned a lot about that through her.
	So, if I deny the lessons that I was forced to learn from my mother, then I'm exploitable
	in the world as a whole.
	Let's see here.
	A former mentor of mine passed away recently.
	I told me a while before passing that he had a dream of seeing the painting on the wall
	of a road with a vantage point, and in the dream he was in the picture.
	He had another dream where he saw a coffin next to his bed.
	He had no regrets and was at peace when he passed.
	That's nice. I don't understand how UPB is universal.
	You say that you don't owe people UPB if they don't reciprocate.
	If the behavior is relatively based on the dynamics of the relationship, isn't it not universal?
	That's a very good question. It's a very good question.
	Let me make sure that I fully understand it.
	So, universally preferable behavior is a theory that validates moral statements.
	And it's kind of axiomatic in a way, because that which you claim to be universal must be universal.
	That which you claim to be universal must be universal.
	And so, if somebody...
	Steals from you. Can you take your property back?
	Sure. Because somebody has violated UPB, And therefore they are in unjust possession of your property.
	Like you're a kid and your neighbor's kid steals your bike and leaves it and then you just go and take your...
	You ask for the bike back if they're right.
	If they won't give you, just go back and take the bike, right?
	And then lock it up or whatever, right? So how could you have self-defense?
	This is an argument from consequences, but it's an important one.
	How could you have self-defense?
	How could you have the restoration of property that was stolen if...
	The rule was...
	taking other people's...
	taking goods other people are in possession of is always wrong.
	Then you couldn't steal back.
	And therefore, UPB would never be enforceable.
	You wouldn't have any self-defense.
	If somebody's rushing at you with a chainsaw, then clearly they are intending an imminent desire to give you death or grievous bodily harm.
	So you have to use... you can use self-defense.
	Right? So if UPB is universal...
	Then you owe UPB to people who are respecting UPB. But if people are not respecting UPB, you don't owe them UPB. That doesn't mean that the principles are not universal.
	But people who are not applying those principles don't get the protection of those principles.
	Right? If you order something online, cost 20 bucks, and they don't send it to you, do you owe them 20 bucks?
	No. Now, if they send it to you, you owe them the 20 bucks.
	If you keep the product, right?
	But if they don't send it to you, then you don't owe them the 20 bucks.
	So the principles are universal.
	And you owe UPB to those who are respecting UPB. But if they're violating UPB, you do not owe them the protection because they're acting in an anti-UPB fashion.
	So why would they get the protection of UPB If they're acting against UPB. All right.
	I wish I had done more to defend you during your cancellation.
	I had the opportunity to do something, but I chickened out and still feel shame for this.
	I appreciate that.
	That's very, very kind.
	And it's very thoughtful.
	It's very thoughtful.
	And my cancellation was a godsend.
	My cancellation was a godsend.
	So, let's say that you had been able to snap your fingers and have me not cancelled.
	I would be worse off in my life if that had happened.
	So, you may have chickened out.
	I wouldn't phrase it.
	That's a lack of curiosity, right?
	So you say, okay, I didn't defend Steph during his cancellation, therefore I chickened out.
	You don't know that. You don't know that.
	Cancellation gave me much more time with my daughter.
	Cancellation allowed me to focus on core philosophy.
	Cancellation got me back into novel writing, which I love, and work with with my daughter, which is great.
	And It has allowed me to build a value for the future that would have been impossible.
	Like, how many times are people going to go back and say, oh, gee, I wonder what Steph had to say about this passing political thing from seven years ago.
	That's not building a legacy for the future.
	That's not building a philosophical base that can help free the world of immorality and error over centuries.
	I mean, I'm sure you're aware that Mark Twain, or Samuel Clemens, Mark Twain, had a weekly newspaper column for years.
	Who cares? What do we remember him for?
	We remember him for his anti-imperialism and we remember him for what Huck Finn and a couple
	other books.
	So I appreciate that, that you think that the cancel, my cancellation was a really bad
	thing and you should have defended me and it was bad that you didn't.
	And again, I appreciate the thoughts, very kind, but you're wrong.
	You're wrong. You're wrong.
	Of course, it was a shock and all of that, and I get that, and it was a readjustment, but if I were offered back my prior platforms tomorrow...
	Absent, massive apologies, restitution, a process by which it wasn't going to happen again.
	And we know this from Twitter, right?
	I was offered back my close to half a million followers on Twitter.
	If I were offered back my former platforms tomorrow, I would not take them.
	I would not take them.
	All right. What do you think is going on with Bitcoin?
	It seems to struggle to take off.
	I don't know.
	I don't know. All right.
	Jordan, is that JBP? Is that Jordan Peterson, right?
	He's writing a book about how morality cannot be objective.
	Thoughts? Thoughts?
	I mean, yeah, he's got this argument that says you have to have a mythical basis for morality.
	I'd have to read it, but I assume it's going to be fairly subjective.
	Look, the guy, he's a psychologist, he's not a moral philosopher.
	He's not trained in that and all of that, so...
	And it's not like everybody who's trained in philosophy is automatically right or anything like that.
	All right. Any last comments, questions?
	I would appreciate any tips.
	A bit of a low tip Sunday.
	So if you find what I'm saying to be of value, if you could help me out, I would appreciate that.
	If you're listening to this later, freedomain.locals.com or FreeDomain.com forward slash donate.
	Does love between adults have to be based on providing value?
	No. No.
	You go to McDonald's, you order a hamburger, they give you a hamburger, you give them money.
	You prefer the hamburger to your money, they prefer your money to their hamburger.
	You've both exchanged value.
	You don't love each other. Love between adults is based upon the provision and promotion of virtue.
	Could you clarify this point?
	If someone steals your property, it isn't their property and you're just in retrieving it.
	It doesn't mean that you have the moral right to take their property.
	What? If someone steals your property, it isn't their property and you're just retrieving it.
	It doesn't mean you have the moral right to take their property.
	I don't know. Yes.
	I don't know what needs to be somebody steals your property, it's still your property, right?
	If somebody steals your property, it's still your property and you're just getting it back.
	But it doesn't mean you have the moral right to take their property.
	Well, it might, right?
	If somebody steals something very important from you that costs you a lot of money, maybe you get them property back and restitution, right?
	Let's say that somebody steals your laptop right before you're about to give a huge presentation to a bunch of donors or to a bunch of investors.
	Then maybe you get more than just your laptop back.
	Maybe you also get some restitution for not being able to get the investment and so on, right?
	Would you debate Jordan Peterson on his new book if you were given a chance?
	I mean, I really don't know.
	I don't know. I mean, I try not to go with theoreticals that will never happen, so...
	Been stuck in bumper-to-bumper traffic this whole live stream.
	Thanks for saving the day as always.
	I'm so glad to help.
	I'm sorry about that. Thank you, Henri.
	That's very kind. I really appreciate that tip.
	That is gorgeous and wonderful.
	And don't forget, of course, if you're not, subscribe to freedomand.locals.com.
	Then you can sign up.
	You can get a full year for the price of 10 months.
	You get your diamond badge after a while, which, you know, nice little bragging point.
	And you can also use the promo code, all caps, UBB2022, in order to try it out for a month and see it.
	Let me ask you a slightly uncomfortable question.
	Let me ask you this. Would you be interested...
	In a back-to-back five and a half hour show with a guy dealing with his addiction to pornography.
	Hit me with a why. If you'd be interested, it was a back-to-back show.
	It's five plus hours, believe it or not, and it's a guy who's addicted to pornography.
	You would? Okay.
	Does he talk slow? No, he's not a slow talker.
	Break the record on show length.
	Well, it's a funny thing because I said, this is a bit of a spoiler, but you'll sort of, it'll make sense.
	I identified that, or at least I think I identified, that part of his addiction to pornography had to do with his wife shaming him.
	So we did the whole show, and then he called back because he said, I need to retract all these things I said about my wife.
	I was being unfair, unjust. She's really upset.
	I'm like, I don't really think that breaks the whole wife shaming thing, so...
	It sounds alright, but I'd be more interested in other things, yeah?
	Okay, but yeah, so people seem to be interested in that, and that's great.
	I appreciate that. Did you post your autobiography you mentioned last time?
	I have not. I have not.
	I have to reread it, and I will put that out this week.
	But yeah, there's a lot of call-in shows.
	I am backed up.
	I've done basically a call-in show every day for the last two weeks, and some pretty lengthy and powerful ones.
	I did a really big one today.
	Explaining to a Christian the morality of the demonology of his parents, which was really, really something.
	Thanks for the stream. Thank you, Chris.
	I got a lot of value out of it.
	I really appreciate it. The call-ins are wild, man.
	The call-ins are just like I am.
	I feel like I'm turning myself inside out.
	I feel like I'm excavating to the planetary core.
	You know, the core of the Earth is hotter than the surface of the sun.
	And I feel like I'm just digging down into the core with these call-in shows.
	And if there's things that you want me to help you with or you think philosophy can help you with, call in, C-A-L-L-I-N, call in at freedomain.com.
	Just let me know your Skype ID and availability and we will.
	Talk, my friends.
	All right. And...
	Sorry, I hate...
	I hate... I hate ending the show when people are typing.
	It feels so rude. Doesn't the allowance of stealing you inferred kind of go against the eye for an eye leaves the world blind idea?
	That's not... Eye for an eye leaves the world blind is like a fortune cookie.
	It's not an argument. It's not right.
	An eye for an eye leaves the world blind.
	Okay. Okay.
	Yeah, so if your kid's being kidnapped, you're just going to wave and watch them go?
	I don't think so. I mean, God help you if you would, right?
	God wouldn't even help you if you would.
	Your call-ins have been the most impactful for me.
	Well, I'm glad. I'm glad for that.
	Yes, I'm way behind on publishing all the call-ins, and I'm sorry for that.
	But I've been doing other things, man.
	So there. All right. Thank you, Steph.
	Your work will help the future and millions of people.
	I really, really appreciate you guys dropping by today.
	Thank you so much. Again, freedomain.com slash donate if you would like to help out and you're listening to this later.
	What a wonderful, wonderful livestream.
	You guys seriously are the best.
	I am Amir Basketball.
	You are the one bouncing me and shooting the hoops.
	I'm just bouncing and reacting off these fantastic questions and great comments, and I really, really, really, really thank you.
	And appreciate you for dropping by and helping to stimulate my thought.
	I really, really appreciate that.
	I am as good as you provoke and encourage and goad me to being.
	And if there's any greatness in what I do, it is the result of these fantastic questions and interest and support.
	So I really, really mean that.
	I humbly thank you for these great shows.
	They are a real great piece of teamwork.
	And if I scored, it's because you passed beautifully.
	And thank you so much for all of that.
	All right. Have yourselves a great afternoon and evening.
	I will talk to you soon and look for these call-in shows.
	They are coming and they will blow your mind.

▲