All Episodes
Previous Next
March 4, 2025 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
47:53
The Darkest Subject...
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Yes, yes.
Good morning, everybody.
Stefan Molyneux from Freedom, Maine.
And it's a tough subject this morning, but I aim to bring philosophy to every nook and cranny known to man.
Beast, God, and Devil.
And this is from a listener.
Disclaimer, he writes, I'm not at all suicidal, and if my discourse herein convinces you, suicide is a good option for you.
You probably went wrong somewhere.
Community challenge.
Sorry if this reads like a paralysis question.
It's relevant to how I might live out the faith to which I'm in the process of converting.
Would suicide violate UPB so long as anyone in creation loved or depended upon the person committing it?
I should think that it would definitely constitute forcing a win-lose situation.
What if we're given that and also literally no other party would be immediately affected?
The suicide would, I guess, quote, only, end quote, be depriving the world of some potential utility they could provide.
There are people like this today, from a secular perspective, is it just then kind of a lame and ugly thing to do, i.e.
not aesthetically preferable and far from being really wrong?
So, as far as suicide goes, it is obviously a highly emotional topic for people, which I completely sympathize with.
And understand, I've talked to a lot of listeners over the years who've had direct family members kill themselves, and of course, you can just listen to the agony in Christopher Hitchens when he talks about his mother.
So, with regards to suicide, the moral principle is, I own myself, and do you have the right to destroy Your own property.
Obviously, you can't go to a coffee shop, grab someone's laptop and smash it on the ground.
But can you take your own laptop and smash it on the ground?
Foolish, immature, petty, ridiculous, moody.
But do you have the right to take your own property and destroy it?
Well, yes and no.
Or yes and no.
So, for instance, if you are fully in ownership of the property, you destroy it yourself, it doesn't harm anyone else, right?
I mean, you can't even, in a coffee shop, you can't smash your own computer on the ground because that's distressing to the business.
There's a mess to clean up.
There's problems.
It might be off-putting to others.
It harms the business to some degree.
So, you can't do that.
But, you know, sort of in the privacy of your own home, if you do all the cleanup, can you destroy your own property?
Well, of course you can.
Of course you can.
So the only reason you can't, though, and this is really, really important, the only reason you can't is if you have a lien or a demand on that property from someone else.
So even though you might be in ownership of the property or you might be a custodian of the property or have sold use of that property, You do not have the right to destroy or transfer property if there's a lien on it from someone else.
So, for instance, if you go and rent a car, you can't then go and sell that car.
Can you sell your own car?
Absolutely.
If you completely own the car, you've got the pink slip, you can sell the car.
But you cannot sell the car if it's someone else's, right?
You can't borrow someone's car and then sell it.
You can't rent a car and then sell it because you simply have the use of the property for the time being.
Permanent ownership.
You can't sell outright a house and keep all the proceeds if there remains a mortgage on the house.
You can transfer the mortgage to somebody else, or you can transfer the ownership and then pay off the mortgage with part of the proceeds.
But if you have a house for half a million dollars, you still have a $400,000 mortgage on it, you can't sell the house for half a million dollars and run off.
Giggling into the sunset with the half a million dollars because you still owe $400,000 to the bank.
So you don't get to sell that property free and clear because other people have a lien on it.
You got to pay that off.
The same thing with if you lease a car.
You understand.
Okay.
Sorry.
Don't mean to be overly repetitive.
It's more for me to gather my next thoughts than any insult to your intelligence.
So if you are in a divorce and half of your property is going to go To your wife, then you can't sell your property and keep all the proceeds, right?
Because there's a lien on it.
There's a legal or property rights demand on it from someone else, right?
So, can you destroy your own property?
Yes.
Is your life your own property?
Yes.
Can you destroy yourself?
Yes, unless, unless somebody else has a right to your body, right?
Thank you.
So, if you are a father of young children, let's say, let's make this easy, your children have a lean on your life.
They have a demand on your life.
Or to put it another way, if...
Would your wife or girlfriend have had children with you?
I talk about men here.
Men are much more likely to commit suicide.
Men are much more likely to threaten or fake it or do in ways that someone can call and they can be rescued.
Like they take a bunch of pills.
They say, I've taken a bunch of pills.
They're going to get their stomach pumped.
For women, it's more often a cry to help.
For men, often it's a direct end.
So, would your wife or partner have had children with you if she knew you weren't going to be around?
Right?
So, the answer to that is, well, no, in the vows, right?
It's till death do us part, right?
Death, not suicide, right?
Till death do us part.
Would your wife have married you and had children with you if she knew that you could or would consider or would kill yourself?
Well, the answer is no.
So, you have a wife and you have children predicated on the belief that you won't kill yourself, right?
Not that you won't have difficulties, not that you might not be unhappy, not that you might be very sick, but you won't kill yourself.
So that is founded into the vows.
You've made a solemn vow before God, community, nature, conscience, virtue, whatever, to not kill yourself, because that is in the marriage vows, right?
And that is something that is a lien or a demand on your life, that you will not end it of your own accord.
And that's why you got married, and that's why you have children.
And your children have a demand for your time and money and resources and attention, right?
By creating children that are heavily dependent, of course, upon parents, by creating children, you have created a lien, an obligation, a moral responsibility to be there for them, right?
So, you can't.
In a sense, you owe your life to your children.
And therefore, you can't end it in the same way that you...
I mean, I know it's a ridiculous example, but if you borrow something, you owe it back to the person.
It's not yours.
And so you owe your life to your children, which is the price of having children, right?
That's why when my daughter was young for like 10 years, I really didn't write any books or anything like that or do documentaries or anything like that because my daughter had a lien on my time and I was very happy.
It wasn't like some negative obligation.
obligation is very happy to do it.
So, the question is, and let's just say it's a friendship, right?
Let's just say it's a friendship.
So, would someone become friends with you if they knew that you were going to kill yourself?
Well, the answer to that is no.
We generally become friends with people knowing that they're going to have difficulties and challenges, but we generally become friends with people predicated on the idea that they're not just going to do something.
Appalling and negative and harmful to others, right?
So, if you are in relationships, then you owe them self-preservation because self-preservation is the reason why you're in a relationship, right?
Nobody wants to become friends with someone.
Like, if someone called you up and said, I really want you to be my best buddy, I'm thinking of killing myself over the next six months.
I'm going to kill myself.
I want it.
Whatever, right?
Would you become friends like that with someone?
Well, no.
I mean, unless you're very, very codependent and whatever, right?
I know some people do kind of try and pull people back from the cliff edge and so on, but that's, I mean, highly dysfunctional and messed up.
So, a reasonably healthy person would not want to become friends with someone.
Who's like, I'm going to kill myself.
I'm constantly thinking of this, that, the other, right?
Just wouldn't do it.
So, your relationships are predicated on the basic principle of self-preservation.
Now, the other thing, too, of course, is that if you have signed, and I know this is important, though.
I know it sounds a little odd, but it is really important.
So, if you signed a mortgage, if you've got a cell phone, if you've got a car lease, if you have an obligation to pay, Then they've lent you all of this money on the basis that you're not going to kill yourself, right?
Because most debts are erased through death, right?
So people won't lend you money.
They won't give you a mortgage.
They won't have you sign a multi-year car loan or whatever it is.
You wouldn't even get a credit card, right?
So people have a lien on your time because you've borrowed money.
Now, of course, I know it sounds kind of, you must keep living to pay off your debts.
But you have an obligation now.
You could say, well, no, but in my will, all the debts should be paid.
I get all of that.
But that's still a lot of paperwork for people because they have to wait for the will.
They have to follow it up.
It's a lot of extra work and labor for people to try and collect, even if you do something like that, which most people who kill themselves don't.
So you have obtained a large number of goods from society predicated on the basic notion that you're not going to kill yourself.
Because if you go to a mortgage company and you say, well, I'm thinking of this, they won't lend you the money.
What about life insurance?
Life insurance generally doesn't pay out in terms of suicide, but it's a lot of paperwork.
It's a lot of complicated stuff.
It could get challenged.
And of course, you could fake your own death in a way that seemed credible, and then you get the insurance, so your family would get the insurance.
So if you go to a life insurance company and say, hey, I'm feeling totally self-destructive, can I get a life insurance policy?
They would say no.
So you have gained an enormous amount of value in society predicated on the notion that you're not going to kill yourself, right?
You get a wife, girlfriend.
Kids, love, friendship, affections, extended family members still want to hang out with you.
You get money, loans, financial security, a place to live, mobility, a car.
Like, you get all of these things which you wouldn't get if you were honest about your desire or thought of self-destruction.
Now, if you say, well, I'm so unhappy that this is on the radar for me.
And then you start making all of these arrangements, right?
You start detaching from people, you pay off your bills, you close out your cell phone contracts.
I mean, honestly, like a lot of people get new cell phones and they'll pay it off over two years and so on.
Well, you're only getting that because you are hiding from people your desire for self-destruction or your consideration of this as an option.
So, and if people start winding down all of this, then that's a big signal to other people that they may be in a self-destructive path and therefore...
Intervention can happen, right?
So, other people have a lead.
Now, I know that this guy's talking about somebody that has no obligations anywhere, in any way, shape, or form, right?
So, I know that that's what he's saying, right?
He's saying, well, this is someone who, how did he put it?
No other party would be immediately affected.
Well, okay, everyone's affected.
By a suicide.
Everyone is affected by a suicide.
Now, you could say, well, what if it's a guy, I don't know, I mean, let's just make up some ridiculous scenario.
I don't particularly mind the edge cases, they're fine.
So, some guy, he, at the age of 18, he left his community, he went to go and live in the woods, and he has no obligations to anyone, and...
Well, I mean, but he's still paying property taxes.
You know, he still has to have some connection with society.
And so, but let's just say, right, some guy totally atomized.
He's living on his own in the middle of nowhere, no property taxes.
Well, then he has no social obligations and he's not part of any social contract.
So what would it really matter?
You couldn't prevent him.
You wouldn't know anything about it.
That is, if it was completely invisible to society, some guy, everyone has forgotten about him.
He's been living in the woods for 60 years, and maybe his body is discovered and he killed himself 100 years from now.
I mean, that's not really part of society.
That's not part of anything that we can reason with or matter or whatever, right?
So let's not worry about, you know, Bushman for half a century plus that nobody has any connection.
Like, that's so unusual.
It is so out of the norm that it really doesn't make much sense to deal with that kind of stuff.
You can't prevent it.
Nobody knows about it.
And it doesn't affect anyone.
So really, it is the dog that didn't bark.
It doesn't really make any sense to go into that, right?
So he certainly doesn't have any obligations to anyone.
We could say everyone's dead.
Nobody knows about him.
He lives in the middle of nowhere.
Nobody ever comes across him.
Nobody's even going to be traumatized by finding his body because it's going to be 100 years from now.
Whatever, right?
Well, then he falls into the category of he owns his own life.
Can he destroy his own property?
Yes, he can destroy his own property and so on, right?
Now, Again, that is like one in a million.
Like there's one in a million, so it's irrelevant to what we're talking about because we're talking about how it affects others, right?
An action that you take that has zero effect on other people cannot be considered a moral choice.
So I, you know, scratch my ear a little here.
Does that have any effect on anyone?
Well, no.
And so it has no particular moral content.
Does anything have a moral content if it has zero effect on other people?
Well, morality...
Is when you interfere with universal moral principles and you harm other people's persons or property, so morality only comes into play when you negatively affect someone else, right?
Otherwise, it is not part of morality.
It's maybe aesthetically preferable actions to some degree, but there's this big moral category.
Of morally neutral actions.
I'm running for the bus.
Is that morally good or morally bad?
Well, it doesn't negatively affect anyone else, and so it's not part of morality.
It's like going to a nutritionist and saying, does playing the violin positively or negatively affect your nutritional choices?
It's like playing the violin doesn't have anything to do with what you put in your mouth, so it's not part of the category.
So anything which has no effect on other people...
It's not part of morality, and if we can conduct some scenario where some guy jumps off a cliff after living for 60 years in the woods and nobody knows about it, nobody's traumatized, doesn't land on anyone, he's not traumatizing anyone who finds his body because maybe the body's never found, he just wanders into a cave in the middle of nowhere, then it has no effect on anyone else, and therefore it's really not part of moral considerations.
If he destroys his own property, his own life, it's not really part of anything, so it doesn't matter.
If you owe yourself to other people and you destroy yourself, then you are destroying that which other people own, right?
It's not self-ownership if you have moral, legal, financial obligations to others, right?
And it's a form of fraud to gain a value and a resource by withholding information from people who wouldn't give you that resource if they knew that you had this information.
So, for instance, If they knew the information that you have.
So, for instance, would you get married to a woman who said, I'm perfectly happy to sleep with everyone else, and I'm going to scream and yell at you, I'm going to hit you, and then what I really want to do is have you, I'm going to encourage you to make a lot of money, and then I'm going to drag you through court, accuse you of terrible things with the children in order to get half your money.
Like, if some real, you know, sociopath woman or whatever, right?
Would you marry someone like that?
And the answer is no.
So what happens is people defraud.
They pretend to be nice.
They pretend to be loving.
Oh, I would never, I would never, never dream of it.
Marriage is forever.
Well, you know, in the back of their mind, they're keeping information from you, which is why you engage in the social contract or the legal contract these days of marriage.
So they're defrauding you by not telling you the truth about their thoughts, lives, intentions, lack of morality, and so on, right?
So, if you withhold information from people and they get into a relationship with you, which they would not get into that relationship with you if they had that information, that's a form of fraud, right?
So, I think Robert Williams got sued for this in that I think a woman got some STD from him.
If that's not the case, I apologize, but this is what I sort of remember, whether it was true or not, whether he did or did not give her the STD, she sued.
So, if a woman has an STD and she doesn't tell you about it, and then, If you have sex and you get the STD, that is a form, I would view that as a form of assault, right?
She's transferring things harmful to you, which she knows about and you don't, and she's withholding that information.
Or if you ask her, do you have any STDs?
And she says no, and then she does, and it was pretty obvious, and she knew ahead of time that the tests had been done, right?
That would be a form of assault.
So, if you withhold information that gets you into a relationship, then that is a form of fraud.
And other people have a right to demand of you a fulfillment of the contract that you entered into, not the secret information you withheld from them.
So, once you're in economic, social, legal, moral, familial relationships with people, you owe them the continuation of your life because that's the standard upon which the relationship exists.
The relationship would not exist if that standard was not upheld.
Right?
I mean, any sane woman, like some guy says, well, you know, I'm fine to live, but I'm telling you, if I have a couple of bad days in a row, I'm jumping off a cliff.
Would she marry him?
Would she give his heart to him?
Would she wind her life together with him?
Would she have children with him?
And the answer is, of course not, right?
I mean, if she was even remotely healthy and not some sort of sadist or masochist or something like that.
So, you don't.
Personally, this is a personal feeling.
I have an almost bottomless contempt for urban suicides.
It's just my feeling.
I'm not trying to say there's some big moral thing here.
I'm just, this is my particular.
You know, I'm with the Catholics on this one.
You will not bury them in hallowed ground.
You bury them outside the graveyard, not in concentrated soil.
They have done a mortal sin.
They're going straight to hell.
Because...
Because of the damage it does to everyone else.
An open suicide, and by that I don't mean somebody who goes driving in the rain and, quote, accidentally drives off a cliff in a way that people can say, well, that was a terrible accident.
It's an act of soul-smashing rage against everyone who cares about you.
It is an act of, you know, F-U, infinity to the people.
It is a contemptible, horrifying.
One of the most ungodly abusive things that people can ever do.
Now, again, there are people, I don't know, you have some terminal disease and you're in constant pain.
Like, I don't know.
I mean, that's a real personal choice and so on.
And if people have released you from their obligations, you own yourself.
And if people have released you from obligations, if everyone around you, you wind up your financial affairs, everyone around you says, I don't want to see you suffer like this.
I'm with you.
Like, if you then return to self-ownership by people releasing you from Your obligations, then it would not be a violation of UPB, but that would be a pretty lengthy conversation to have and there would need to be some pretty good reasons in place and so on, right?
And since I don't live with chronic pain and I very rarely get sick, you know, I can't put myself in the mindset, but I can understand why people, if there's no cure, it's chronic pain, it can't be managed, life just gets worse and worse.
You've had a good life.
Like, I can understand the idea or the argument, but you would need to be released from all legal, moral, familial, economic obligations with everyone's agreement ahead of time.
So that's sort of another question.
But we're talking about people who just, you know, they hang themselves.
People who, like, hang themselves or shoot themselves in people's houses.
It's such an act of rage.
It's such an act of destruction.
It's such an act of trauma, particularly if there are children involved, that...
The best way to prevent this kind of stuff from happening is for people to hold such rage-filled self-destructive monsters in open and bottomless contempt, as used to be the case, and I think is validly the case.
It is just such an act of unbelievable destruction against everyone in your life, whoever cares about you or cared about you.
It is putting permanent trauma on other people, and it is such an act of How can a smart writer write dumb characters?
Can a professional gifted painter paint something similar to what a five-year-old would paint or similar to an inexperienced dance painter?
Can Freddie Mercury sing badly?
Gilmore played guitar like he's never held one in his hands before.
I'm not really sure why it's an interesting question.
Well, yes, of course, right?
I can write bad philosophy because I was a bad philosopher, right?
When I first started thinking about the world and thinking about things, I mostly spouted back stuff I'd heard before.
I didn't think things through from first principles.
I hadn't been taught.
Even the best painter in the world at some point drew skinny stick figures when he was four years old.
And so on, right?
And most singers sing badly until they get control of their voice.
Freddie Mercury was famously, and you can listen to Wreckage, Freddie Mercury was not great with his voice at the beginning.
I remember Bono from U2 saying that he didn't really know what he was doing at the beginning until he figured out how to do it.
So, yeah, all singers start off singing badly.
All painters start off painting badly.
And David Gilmour.
Could remember what it was like to first pick up the guitar because he actually experienced it.
So yeah, I would imagine that people can do that.
And of course, we are surrounded by people.
If we're excellent at something, we're surrounded by people who are bad at that, right?
I mean, Freddie Mercury, I'm sure, sang happy birthday with a bunch of people who weren't singers to someone, right?
And so he's surrounded by bad singers.
I'm sure, I don't know if he was, I guess, was karaoke around back then?
I guess so.
So, he would have heard bad singers, and so, constantly being around people who are bad at stuff allows you to mimic being bad at stuff, right?
Somebody says, I pay for a YouTube premium subscription.
The main benefit is no ads, which saves time, and YouTube also has the widest range of video content on a range of subjects.
However, I also view it as YouTube is a corrupt organization that has censored and defamed good people, including the one and only Sir Eggers Cheeseburger.
that's a reference to me am I not supporting my enemy I would cancel my premium subscription but then end up paying with my time by watching ads and driving CPM ad revenue for YouTube at the same time more broadly how should I think about finding my enemies when if ever is this moral or just thanks Steph well I mean I hear what you're saying So, if you pay for a YouTube subscription and you use it to research...
Freedom, liberty, reason, rationality, morality, and you find out about peaceful parenting, and you become a better parent, and your children grow up to be honest and direct and not corrupt, and so on and so forth, then you have invested in your own morality by paying people.
You know, I also don't know the degree to which...
I want to talk about YouTube in particular, and we know this from the Twitter files, right?
So, I don't know the degree to which...
People are voluntarily censoring others, right?
I don't know the degree to which people are under legal pressure or governmental pressure or audit pressure or other kinds of threats, and I don't know if there is some sort of revolt within the organization and they say, we're going to file unfair practices lawsuits if you don't ban this, that, or the other person.
I don't know how much free will genuinely is involved in censorship.
Now, again, all moral choices, I get all of that, but people bring pressure to bear on others because it works, right?
People bring pressure to bear.
I mean, if suicides, if suicidal people or people who committed suicide openly were held in genuine contempt, we would get far fewer suicides because what they're trying to do is hurt people, and if they knew that they were going to be held in contempt rather than...
People would be teary and I wish I'd done more and the sentimental blah blah blah, right?
You know, like there's this scene in a movie, A Christmas Story, where the kid pretends to be blind so that his parents have sympathy for him and so on and feel so wrong about him and there's that sort of sick satisfaction of, well, I'm injured but you're hurt even more.
If it was just not held in contempt, then there would be fewer suicides and people would probably try and get actual help rather than inflicting this amount of...
So, I don't know.
So, let's look at something like, you know, like the Department of Government efficiency, right?
This, hopefully not mythical beast that's been spotted in people's minds.
So, if you have a bunch of government workers who are, you know, may Lose their jobs.
I'm talking about giving them two-year severance and so on.
A bunch of government workers might lose their jobs if the government is made more efficient.
So they may, or they would have an incentive to censor and to work against, to maybe undermine, attack, and so on.
Is there free will involved in losing your career with the government?
In other words, are you kind of bribed to censor?
In other words...
If you censor, successfully censor, and prevent the Department of Government efficiency from manifesting its mission, the mission which the majority of American people desperately want, if, through censorship, you then get to make a million dollars, right?
So, I don't know, you paid $100,000 a year, you've got 10 years to retirement, so if you successfully censor, I guess it would be you get two years severance, so you get $800,000, right?
So, if you pay someone $800,000, To try and get someone else censored.
Is that a total free will decision?
Well, no.
A free will decision, and again, I understand the morals and you don't need to tell me, well, they still have a choice.
I get, I get, but people respond to incentives, right?
People respond to incentives.
If somebody offered you a Bitcoin, a full Bitcoin for a dollar, they said, here, give me a dollar, I'll give you a Bitcoin, you would take that deal.
Right?
Apparently not Taylor Swift tickets, according to a video.
People would rather have Taylor Swift tickets than a Bitcoin, but whatever, right?
So, if somebody said, I'll give you a Bitcoin for a dollar, how many people would take that?
Like, who understood Bitcoin?
And here's the price of a Bitcoin.
I'll sell you one for a dollar.
What's it currently?
Like, I don't know, $93,000, $94,000 Canadian.
Here's a Bitcoin for a dollar.
And you'd say, well, people still have a choice as to whether they take the Bitcoin or not.
Yes, they do.
But people will take the Bitcoin.
So, you can talk about people still having a choice, but when the incentives are so slanted, the choice becomes pretty predictable.
So, I don't know how many people high up in various organizations, I don't know whether they are motivated by pure ideological intolerance and hatred for reasoned arguments and empirical evidence.
I don't know.
The degree to which they are corrupt or the degree to which they're trying to survive in a business environment where there is a massive amount of pressure based upon the movement of trillions of dollars and massive amounts of power.
I don't know how much this is a pure blank slate free will decision.
Certainly the Twitter files are pretty revealing and you should do more research into those if you want to.
I figured this out.
No, I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
So, I do, I personally, I have sympathy for people who are under massive amounts of pressure and who are threatened.
I really have sympathy for people like that.
And of course, most people don't have access to some big moral mission that allows them to overcome.
All of this sort of stuff, right?
And so they're just trying to survive in a cost-benefit analysis, which is why this kind of pressure tends to work, because the opposite of manipulation is principles, right?
Manipulation happens when you respond to positive and negative stimuli and try to minimize negative stimuli and maximize positive stimuli, pain avoidance, pleasure pursuit, and so on.
And then if people threaten to avoid, they threaten to inflict pain, Then you will change your behavior for the most part, right?
Universal principles, which have been notably absent from most of the public square since the decline of Christianity and prior to the rise of UPB. So people don't have much access to universal principles and so it's pleasure pain, right?
And pleasure pain is while I apply negative things, I apply negative stimuli, I threaten you and I can get you to do what I want.
So...
For people who don't have morals, they don't have moral principles, which is, honestly, this is most people.
Most people do not have moral principles.
And yes, they are prone to manipulation, bullying, and threats from others.
Absolutely.
Absolutely.
So, what I think of with regards to people like that is I think how much it costs them to not have moral principles. what I think of with regards to people like that Thank you.
Oof and ouch.
Because if you don't have moral principles, you can neither love nor be loved.
I just tried to mash those two together.
And that's how entwined they are.
If you...
If you don't have moral principles you can't have self-respect.
If you don't have moral principles you can't fall in love, you can't maintain love and you can't be loved.
And what do people want in the absence of love?
What do they thirst for in the absence of love?
Well, in the absence of love they thirst for power.
Over others.
And it's a vicious cycle.
The fewer moral principles you have, the less you can be loved.
The less you can be loved, the more you thirst for power.
The more you thirst for power, the more moral compromises you have to make.
Therefore, the less you can be loved.
Therefore, the more you thirst for power.
Therefore, the less you can be moral.
Therefore, the less you can be loved.
Therefore, the more you thirst for power.
Which is why the thirst for power has no end.
Now, I've occasionally, I know it's more than occasionally because I've talked to listeners about this stuff, but even in my own personal life, I've occasionally lifted the lid on amoral people's souls, and it is an absolute hellscape down there.
It is an absolute hellscape down there.
Avoid it though they desire.
Pursue everything, every distraction and every power-mongering mechanism, every manipulation and control over others that they may, The furnace that endlessly consumes their melting hearts burns forever and ever, amen, and probably continues burning after they die.
The lust for power that elbows, shoulders, and tackles aside the desire for love consumes the soul and turns the mind against itself.
And everything has to become a lie.
And here's the problem.
When people become addicted to power due to a lack of love, due to a lack of morals, what happens is they will cling to that power, yea, even verily unto death.
They will cling to that power.
Because if you take that power away from them, the power that they exercise in order to cover up The hatred they have for themselves.
The power that they exercise when you take that away.
The hatred for themselves becomes real and reality, conscience and morality are loosed from a cage and pursue them forever.
Power is a jailer that keeps self-hatred in a cage.
If you take away the power, the cage is opened, the self-hatred, the self-contempt, the conscience, then hunt that person forever.
Which is why when you see, you know, these hysterical lies and this defamation, this lawfare and so on, you see all of this, this is just people terrified of the beast in the cage that will hunt them forever if they lose their power.
That's ugly stuff, man.
That's ugly, ugly stuff, and this is why these things tend to get so desperate and so wild.
People don't fear or hate the virtuous man or woman.
People hate and fear virtuous people because virtuous people unlock the cage.
The cage is the beast that hunts them forever by denying them the legitimacy of the power they hold.
And this is the step by step by which you lose your soul.
You are tempted to manipulate.
You are tempted to do wrong.
You are tempted to be dishonest.
You are tempted to bully.
You are tempted to play the victim, to get resources unjustly.
Women are tempted to have excessive sexual displays, excessive makeup.
Men are tempted to excessive displays of wealth and status.
In order to be loved for something other than your virtue.
That's what we are.
I mean, that's the great temptation.
Attach to me.
Find me a value for something other than my virtue.
So you make these little compromises and step by step, as your manipulation and power lust grows, your capacity for morality decreases.
Because morality...
When you have to look in the mirror and say, I've done wrong and I've done bad, I've done evil, that's very hard, very hard.
It is an absolute black midnight of the soul that can last for months or years.
I mean, you can become a morning person in three days if you want, but looking in your soul and saying, I've done evil, that is a brutal experience which very few people wish to go through because their life turns from, A dopamine-laced addiction to power to a vulnerable and weak being hunted by the beast called their own conscience and having to make restitution to people they formerly lorded it over.
Oof, I mean, I've not really seen many people at all go through that process at all.
So bit by bit, you replace the happiness, intimacy, trust, and virtue of love With the arrogant, self-aggrandizing, hollow-hearted, dopamine addiction of power.
And love is a stable source of happiness.
But all addictions have you pursue a happiness that diminishes over time and then you end up not chasing that happiness at all, but rather just avoiding the withdrawal.
And this is the case with power mongers, the hollowed out people.
They are no longer interested even in the joys of power.
All they're doing is avoiding.
The rattling of the beast in the cage, whose lock is picked only by the virtue of others, which is why the corrupt hate the virtuous.
They don't, I mean, they don't, I mean, they don't hate the virtuous.
Nobody hates me.
I mean, I'm really such a nice guy, a friendly guy, positive guy, friendly guy.
I'm fairly funny and warm-hearted.
They don't.
I mean, there's nothing really about me to hate.
People don't hate me.
They hate what my presence and choices have done or will do to their own conscience, right?
They hate the fact that Simply having me in the vicinity gives the beast of their conscience enough strength to bend the bars of the cage and get out and hunt them for what they feel is like forever.
Now, if they surrender to the beast, they find that it will not destroy them but rather save them.
But people don't want to go through that process.
They don't want to be vulnerable to morality because their vulnerability has been covered up by pompous and vainglorious lording it over others in terms of power.
So...
It's a very sad story.
It's a very sad story.
When I see people who are addicted to power, I just know that they've given up on the possibility of love.
They have given up their principles.
They've given up morality, honesty, virtue, courage, integrity.
They've given up all of that for the sake of getting a little bit of height by stomping on the faces of others.
It's really tragic.
And there are people who seek power in order to diminish power.
I get that.
And that is a noble occupation.
I seek influence in order to diminish corruption, right?
So I want people to listen to me so that they get philosophy, understand philosophy, internalize values.
Of course, I seek through Peaceful Parenting.
Peacefulparenting.com, please share.
I seek to diminish the power of parents over their own children.
Or rather, To have the power that parents have for their own children to be composed of love rather than brutality, right?
I mean, you want to have influence in the people around you, but you want to have that influence based upon their love for you and your shared love for virtue rather than their fear of you or desire for, you know, your resources.
Well, I'm nice to my dad because he's going to die and give me money or whatever.
It's really sad stuff.
So when you see the power mongers, I see...
A sad spectacle of self-aggrandizement, which is a child-scrawled tombstone over the grave of former virtues.
It is animated by an unholy avoidance of their own self-hatred, and it is really, really a tragic spectacle.
So people who are driven to censor others, I mean, it's far better to be wronged than do wrong.
Far better.
You can be wronged and be virtuous.
You can't do wrong and be virtuous.
You can be wronged.
And have love, which is the greatest prize of all.
Greatest prize of all, I'm telling you.
If you have love, and you can give love, it is the greatest prize of all.
There's nothing else that comes even remotely close.
Nothing else that comes even remotely close.
Offer me money, offer me power, offer me control.
I don't want it, I say no.
Once you have love, everything else, Is absolutely unappealing.
And especially when you know that all other power that is offered to you comes at the expense of love?
No.
I mean, it's so not tempting.
So the people who fall in prey to that temptation and have censored others for their virtues, the punishment that exists in their heart, is far greater than anything that could be devised by mortal means.
I do feel genuine sorrow and sadness for people who've chosen corruption and power over virtue and love.
Now, I'm a human being, and in particular for a man, so if they suffer in some practical material way, I shed no tears.
And so, if you focus On how people with power are, quote, winning, then you are turning your capacity for love into a resentment of those who hate themselves.
And that doesn't seem like a very good trait, if that makes any sense.
Yes, the people who've corrupted themselves gain a lot of material advantage.
Yeah.
I mean, it's mysterious how politicians who are on a salary of $100,000 or $200,000 or $300,000 a year become multi-decker millionaires over the course.
Oh, it's an odd thing.
It's a very strange thing.
Yes, they have all this money.
Yes, they have all this money.
They have all this money.
And they have the opposite of love.
They have the opposite of a good conscience.
They have the opposite of integrity.
They have the opposite of self-respect.
No, it's a wretched, wretched deal.
Don't envy anybody for that.
Just absolutely appalling and horrible.
And they do get a sense of what they've given up, which is why there's this enmity with virtuous people, right?
Everybody who's corrupt wants to think that corruption was inevitable or it's being street smart or wise to the ways of the world and they want to view all of the moral people as foolish.
and when a moral person succeeds, it renders their choice a choice rather than an inevitable adaptation to the ways of the world that is, right?
Corrupt people are always surrounded by corrupt people, and that makes corruption seem like physics inevitable, like you've It's not corruption, it's just adaptation to gravity, right?
Or the facts of nature or the reality.
And so good people have to be portrayed as foolish and naive.
And when a good person is strong and successful, it reminds the corrupt people that you can be virtuous and succeed.
So then they try to inflict a lack of success or a punishment or a disaster on the virtuous, and then they get to say, oh, look at that virtuous guy.
It was disastrous for him.
He ended badly, and therefore I'm wise and practical in my pursuit of adapting to a corrupt world.
It's just common sense, right?
Like, I'm running away from a lion called Integrity.
Look at the guy who didn't run away from the lion called Integrity.
He just got killed and eaten, right?
So they try to inflict all this negative stuff.
And they need to erase the success of a virtuous person from society, which is really what censorship is all about.
So, I mean, to use the resources of corrupt people and organizations to skyhook or judo move your way to a higher virtue, nothing wrong with that.
Nothing wrong with that.
So, One last question.
I won't get into it.
It was fairly lengthy.
It was, Steph, you say that you shouldn't change people.
You shouldn't try to change people foundationally, like if you marry a woman, you don't try and change her into someone else.
But is it considered changing people if you're asking people to, say, stick to their marriage vows, right?
Don't cheat on people.
Don't cheat on me and so on, right?
No.
It is not trying to change people to keep them to their vows, right?
So...
If a woman says and a man say to each other on their wedding day, we're going to not cheat on each other, and then the woman or the man starts to drift towards cheating, bringing them back in line is not trying to change them.
It's actually trying to keep them the same, as I was sort of talking about earlier.
So, no, it is not trying to change someone to get them to stick to their vows.
Now, again, you can renegotiate anything, but it has to be mutual and open and above board.
So, I hope that helps.
If you find what I say to be of value, I would really, really appreciate your support.
FreeDomain.com slash donate to help out the show.
Lots of love from up here.
Thanks, guys.
I'll talk to you soon.
▲
Export Selection