All Episodes
Previous Next
April 12, 2025 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
01:23:31
Rogan Smith Murray Debate!
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Good evening, everybody.
Welcome to your Friday Night Live.
We are going to go deep into a very interesting debate.
A lot of philosophical depth in this debate.
And the debate is Joe Rogan experienced 2303, Dave Smith, and Douglas Murray.
And this was a debate.
And it's interesting.
I did double check this.
Three shows with Joe Rogan.
I've done a bunch of shows with Dave Smith back in the day.
And I did a show with Douglas Murray, I think, back in 2017.
Which is not to throw shade on Douglas Murray, but we did a show together.
So I've actually talked to all three of these men.
And Joe I did three times in person, and then of course with Dave.
It was remote, as it was with Douglas.
So, had a little bit of a chat.
About all of that.
And this was a very interesting debate, and there's a lot to talk about.
You don't have to have watched the debate in order to gain value out of what it is I'm going to talk about.
I mean, it wouldn't hurt, it doesn't hurt, but you don't have to have watched the debate to get value out of what it is that I'm going to say.
So... *sad* *sad* *sad* *sad*
The question of expertise came up.
I'm going to go real wide and deep.
I've got a bunch of notes here.
The show with Douglas Murray is 3738, The Strange Death of Europe.
The debate is around expertise.
That's kind of an interesting...
And it's a big difference between American culture and British culture.
British culture is very hierarchical.
There's snobbery in the schools.
There's a sort of insufferable superiority in this kind of elitism that goes on in the UK, a very class-based society.
And the question is around expertise.
Now, what I found fascinating about this discussion is that I can see everybody's point of view.
I can see Everyone's point of view.
Now, I'm going to characterize these individuals' points of view.
Whether I get it exactly right doesn't really matter, but this is the general thing.
So, Douglas Murray is saying, look, if you're going to put yourself forward as an expert, you need to have some rigor, some discipline, some standards, some strictness.
You need to not to just do confirmation bias.
You need to do a proper analysis.
...of the topic as a whole, if you're going to put yourself forward as an expert.
Now, the frustration that Douglas Murray had was he was talking about some podcasters, I can't remember, Jake Shields, I think, was one.
There was some other guy.
And he was talking to Dave Smith and saying, look, you're an expert on this, that, or the other.
You talk about history, you talk about US foreign policy, you talk about whatever, right?
And if you're going to be an expert, you need to have some rigor.
You need to have some discipline.
Maybe you need some training.
Maybe you need to work in the archives.
You need to have some...
You can't just go and shoot from the hip and then say, you're an expert.
And then, of course, the response to that tends to be, hey man, I never claimed to be an expert.
And that is...
And to which Douglas Murray was like, this is like...
I'm trying to nail Jell-O to a wall, trying to sort of get an answer, right?
So if you freeform have a debate conversation for two hours on U.S. foreign policy, you're explicitly, you're implicitly communicating expertise, right?
So I've done one show on the Armenian genocide.
I really don't know much about Armenian history, so I couldn't do two hours on Armenian history.
But, you know, if you're Dave Smith and you do two hours on U.S. foreign policy and things like that, then you're implicitly communicating expertise.
So if someone says, well, you claim to be an expert, but you don't have the rigor of an expert, the answer is not to say, hey man, I never claimed to be an expert.
That's a cop-out.
That's a cop-out.
And love Dave Smith.
I have a bias towards Dave Smith.
But nonetheless, if somebody were to say to you, you claim to be an expert, but you don't have the rigor and discipline and training and credentials, maybe credentials of an expert, the answer is not to say, hey man, I never claimed to be an expert.
The correct answer is, what is an expert?
What is an expert?
Now, you could say somebody with a PhD in Armenian history is an expert.
Me, who knows virtually nothing about Armenian history, am not an expert.
Somewhere in there, right?
What is an expert?
And this frustration where they were talking about, was it Ian Carroll?
And there was some other guy, I can't remember.
This guy is not working in the archives, this historian guy.
He's not the historian of the generation to which, you know, Joe Rogan and Dave Smith say, well, he never claimed to be.
He never claimed to be these things.
That's not an answer, though.
If you're going to do 30 hours on, say, the rise of Nazism or the fall of Constantinople or the...
Roman Empire, then you are, this is the Dan Carlin argument, I did some shows with him back in the day, you are implicitly communicating expertise.
And if you are communicating that you are an expert in something, you have to have some rigor.
And the way that I view it, this is sort of my definition of an expert, an expert is someone with deep knowledge That surmounts or opposes confirmation bias.
In other words, have you read opposing arguments?
Have you integrated opposing arguments, opposing data, opposing quote facts or whatever, right?
So an expert to me is someone who has a more 360 view, right?
Of a particular issue, right?
So if you are going to put yourself forward as an expert, Ideally, you should work with some source materials and not just read what other people say, because then you're just an expert who's interpreting what other people say.
You know, if I was in my History of Philosophy series, if I didn't read the actual philosophers, but just read what other people said about them, I'd be an expert in other people's opinions of those philosophers, but not the philosophers directly.
So, the frustration that Douglas Murray had, which I sympathize with to some degree, and I'll sort of get into when and how and why.
And by the way, is this of interest to you guys?
Do you hit me with a why?
I want to make sure that the show is of interest and of value to you.
Yeah, okay, good.
I think the question of expertise is really, really fascinating.
So, If, like Dave Smith does, you're going to talk for a long time about particular technical subjects like US foreign policy or the causes of the war in Ukraine or the sort of Wesley, the General Wesley,
the seven nations that were supposed to have a regime change and so on, right?
Well, then you're claiming a certain amount of expertise.
And if somebody says, well, you claim to be an expert, but you lack this or that or the other, the answer is like, hey, man, I never know.
I never claim to be an expert.
But if you don't claim to be an expert, why are you talking continually about these particular topics?
So I think that's a dodge.
And I don't think it's a reasonable dodge.
So the answer is, what is an expert?
And that's a fascinating question to me.
A really deeply fascinating question.
What is an expert?
Now, in the past, I would say, as a whole, in general, that expertise used to be credentialism.
You went to Yale, you went to Harvard, you went to Stanford, you went to Oxford, you went to Cambridge, you come out and you've got the four-point hat and you've got the cloak of all of that, and you are an expert.
Okay? But tell me if you think this is true.
I think, for the most part, for a lot of people, not for everyone, but for a lot of people, for the most part, credentialism is kind of dead.
Do you agree?
Do you disagree?
Credentialism. Well, this person has a PhD, this person is a professor, and therefore this person is correct.
I mean, not for everyone, but I certainly think in this group, certainly for me, I'll just be honest, I view credentialism as a negative now.
To me, it's not just dead, it's like anti-life.
Now, Douglas Murray has an undergraduate degree in English and speaks about all kinds of topics.
In fact, I saw a clip of him not too long ago talking about AI.
I'm not sure how having an undergraduate degree in English qualifies you.
To talk deeply about AI.
But... So, what is an expert?
I think to me, an expert is someone who's read deeply in a topic, has thought deeply about a topic, and has absorbed more than one perspective.
Right? I mean, I did a whole presentation, it was available at NFT a while ago, called The Rise of Narcissism.
And I read an ungodly amount of fairly horrible material at times, and went...
With a variety of sort of understandings and explanations.
And... Oh, congratulations on getting your PhD, my lady.
So... So I just did a little bit on just a couple of notes here about big things that experts got wrong.
COVID lockdowns, the vaccine, if you get it, you can't get COVID.
A lot of people who got it got COVID even more.
If you get it, you can't transmit it.
Turns out it was never tested for transmission.
Big things experts got wrong.
Global warming, at least in terms of the catastrophes that were predicted in the 80s, totally wrong.
And if you look at all the models versus the actual temperatures, there's really not much in common.
The melting pot, that you can just get a wide variety of cultures and they're going to kind of blend into one goo.
That was foundational to a lot of policies.
Doesn't really seem to be happening.
The IQ research that I was revealing to the world some years ago, the sort of chemical imbalance theory of mental unease, depression, anxiety, and so on, that you have a chemical imbalance and you take these pills to restore that chemical imbalance,
that appears to be pretty false.
There's a replication crisis in science as a whole, and in particular in psychology, Experts have seen the rise in autism, and experts are not moving heaven and earth to find the source of autism,
although RFK Jr. is now talking about having that data out by September, October, which is going to be interesting.
Although it's fair to say that the diagnosis of autism has gone up with government money for autism.
Media bias, right?
So these in the media, mainstream Western media.
These are experts who claim to be unbiased.
They're reporters, they're well-trained, they claim to be unbiased.
And I think fairly clearly, it's pretty ridiculously biased, right?
What was it, NPR?
I'm sure that they would say that they're objective.
And NPR has, like, no non-democrats in any positions of power.
Feminism is supposed to be about female equality and has morphed into female supremacy in many ways.
Almost 60% of university attendees are women now.
There isn't like, oh, we've got to find a way to bring more men back.
It's just going more and more women.
Immigration, certainly what the experts want and what the general population want is quite divergent.
The welfare state solving the problems of poverty has not happened.
And of course, you know, one of the things that I talked about many years ago was people in the West were told, oh, there's too many people.
You shouldn't have kids.
And then it's like, oh, we don't have enough people, we need lots of immigration.
And there's this intransigence to all of this expertise, right?
The intransigence is they just don't admit fault.
You know, one of the things that is really essential for me in terms of credibility as a whole is I need people to admit fault and take responsibility for getting things wrong.
Right? I mean, as you know, I've got a whole...
Series of shows called I Was Wrong About.
Now, I've made my apologies.
Because if you want to be an expert, you have to be able to admit fault.
Otherwise, you're just an ideologue, right?
So, I think people are quite frustrated about all of this stuff.
Yeah, you guys are...
Ability to process source data is my big criteria if you're an expert.
Either source data or, in the philosophical realm, being able to make arguments from first principles.
If somebody says, same.
Oh, and by the way, freedomain.com slash donate if you could help out the show.
I know I've been a little bit lower energy this month, but it was just a health issue.
And if you could help me out, I'd really appreciate it.
Freedomain.com slash donate.
We're quite low compared to where we were last month, and I really would appreciate your support.
Somebody says, same.
If I hear on the news, experts say, I assume they're just trying to push a narrative.
Someone says, he says Dave Murray, I think you mean Douglas Murray, also criticized poor white Americans for being hopeful that Trump would help them, as if they had any choices.
Somebody says, trust me, bro, versus my university trusts me, bro.
Either way, doesn't prove actual understanding.
Predictions, track record, seems to be the way forward.
These experts' failures are almost always in trying to prove leftist narratives, yeah?
Yeah. Yeah, credentialism is important, right?
People in higher ed cannot admit wrong unless it's in submission to someone else with a sparkly PhD.
Yeah, and so where are the error corrections, right?
Expertise means that you have to have an error correction.
Other things that I thought about with terms of experts got wrong.
People have real big questions about the food pyramid, the idea that fat causes fat was not very well studied in many ways, lots of doubts about statins, and of course post-COVID and post-vaccine, post-COVID vaccine,
there's a lot of people who have massive amounts of skepticism about what in general is considered factual or true.
In medicine as a whole, right?
And particularly in diet, right?
Because the problems of obesity, particularly in America, are so extraordinarily high that there has to be some real problems and issues about this stuff.
And I had Robert Whitaker on the show twice, I think.
Really great.
You should read the book, Mad in America.
I think there's a revised version out now.
Fantastic book.
And the basic thesis is...
That if all of these psychotropics are supposed to help with mental illness, then why is mental illness getting worse and worse as time goes forward?
Right? I mean, if you have something like insulin supposed to help with people with diabetes, then as insulin spreads, issues with diabetes should go down.
If you have an antibiotic that's very effective against infection, then that spreads and is used, infections should go down, people should be healthier, and so on, right?
So, are people Oh, yes.
So, you want to look at 3175, Myths and Facts about Antidepressants.
So, what I want to know with people who are credentialed, or they have credentialism, it's like, okay, so what is the price of being wrong?
What is the price of being wrong?
That's an interesting question, right?
Thank you for your tips.
It's an interesting question.
And if somebody doesn't pay any particular price for being wrong, you know, I mean, what happened to all the people who got the Iraq war wrong?
What happened to all the people who were of the opinion or the perspective that going into Afghanistan was going to create a Jeffersonian paradise of democracy and freedom?
So...
So, that's a big, big question.
All right.
Now, the credentialed class is having a big problem with the podcasting class.
Of course.
I mean, this is the aristocracy versus the bourgeoisie.
Those who have a kind of privilege versus those who have particular talents.
So, the aristocracy, Inherited all the land, largely by being very efficient murderers on behalf of the king.
And then the bourgeoisie came along and started to make money through capital and investment and businesses and factories and so on, right?
Oh my god, the upstarts, right?
So, why are people going to podcasters?
Why are they going to podcasters?
Well, if you like your doctor, if your doctor's good, Your health is good and you get good advice.
You don't go looking for a new doctor.
So I think a lot of podcasters, a lot of the audience for podcasts comes out of frustration with the experts.
Have the experts been accurate and right and self-critical enough and self-policing enough to maintain or to win over and maintain the trust of the audience?
And I think the answer to that is no.
The experts, the credentialed classes, the professional intellectual classes have not had the rigor, the objectivity, the incentives, the motivations, the self-criticism to maintain the general population's trust in their expertise.
So you can look at Martin Luther's criticism of the Catholic Church.
In the 15th century, in the Reformation, where the Catholic Church was selling these indulgences, where you could buy your way out of purgatory by giving money to the priest who would then take a thousand years off your time in purgatory.
You could end up doing this ahead of time.
I'm going to go have a naughty weekend with my mistress.
Here's five gold coins and I'll be fine.
And he kind of grossed out by that.
And so there was a split.
A split from traditional Catholicism to The various denominations of Protestantism.
So why are people going to podcasters?
You have a competition issue if you are a credential person, a quote expert, a credential person.
You have a credibility issue.
The other thing, too, is that they don't tend to criticize each other very much.
You know, one thing that's true in the sort of alternative media space is there's a lot of cross-pollination and cross-criticism, which is, you know, a lot of competition, a lot of people taking digs at each other, you know, sometimes fairly, sometimes unfairly, but it's a brawl, brawl space, right?
Whereas the credential classes don't tend to criticize people that much.
*sad* *thud* *Sigh*
So, This is the big question to me.
So when experts are faced with growing competition of alternative media, which is, I'm going to say experts versus podcasters, just because it's, I just need a common phrase for the two.
experts are those generally with credentials and social support for their perspectives.
And the podcasters are, you know, the Wild West, the Freeformists, the Freeballers, and so on, right?
So, yeah.
So, when experts are faced with growing competition, what do they do?
I mean, I remember many years ago showing my daughter, like, I do a tweet, and here's how many people like and read and share it.
And then we went to CNN, we went to the New York Times, and so on, and here's their tweets, and, you know, it was night and day, right?
So, when experts are faced with growing competition, What do they do?
What do they do?
Now, two things that heavily influenced me in my life, the business world and the sports world.
I was very big into sports, played a lot of team sports when I was younger.
I had a water polo team, swimming team, cross-country running team, although that's more solo.
I was both singles and doubles, tennis, volleyball, soccer, a lot of team sports.
And I would play several times a week.
I'm not a morning person.
I would get up and practice swimming.
So I did a fairly massive amount of sports when I was younger.
Now, sports are really important because you don't sabotage.
I remember seeing a couple of episodes of the show Glee where I think the cheerleaders were sabotaging.
Another cheerleader by telling her she had to stop eating or couldn't eat and then she had no energy to compete with them.
So when you're on a sports team and somebody comes along who's really good, it tends to up your game.
They've done studies on this that runners run faster when somebody's running slightly faster than them.
You get better with competition.
I learned a lot about competition from doing huge amounts of sports, and I still do fairly significant amounts of sports.
So, you don't sabotage, right?
You certainly don't sabotage on your own team, and you don't sabotage the other team, right?
So, in the business world, there's competition, and competition drives innovation.
Right? So, I mean, because our customers always wanted to change the system, I wrote code that allowed the program to change itself.
So they'd just hand over the program, let the customers change the system as they saw fit.
This gave us a huge competitive advantage.
And I learned a lot about, because I did a lot of sales and marketing, so I learned a lot about how you deal with competition when you're talking to clients, potential clients.
RFPs, requests for proposals, you go down and give a presentation.
So, you don't badmouth your competitors.
You position your strengths against their weaknesses.
You admit where their weaknesses are stronger, where their strengths are better than yours.
And you would learn from them.
You would try to...
You'd go to their website.
You'd look at their demos.
You wouldn't cheat and pretend to be a customer, but you would try and figure out what they were doing.
And so on, right?
So, you don't badmouth your competitors.
You say, here's where our strength is.
They do have these strengths, to be fair, so that you sound...
You're objective.
And you learn from them, right?
And it actually is, it's fierce but friendly, if that makes sense.
Fierce but good-natured, like sports.
Sports are fierce but good-natured, right?
You try to win and then you shake hands afterwards, right?
Now, and because I came from the sports world and I came from the business world, entering into the world of media and politics, Was fucking foul.
Was fucking foul.
I don't think I've ever, like, other than coming home from a rational universe to my family of origin, I don't think I've experienced anything fouler.
It's one of the reasons why I eventually just had to bust out of politics and this sort of media stuff.
It's foul.
It's foul.
I didn't find it foul among the podcasters, but it's fucking foul.
It really is.
So, when I was in competition with other businesses to try and sell environmental management information systems, health and safety information systems, all the stuff that I had programmed and worked on, I mean, we fought hard.
I remember calling people up, congratulating them.
They called me up to congratulate me.
But we fought hard against each other, but we shook hands, right?
And we needed each other because, you know, if you've got five competitors, they're all advertising.
And that saves you money on your advertising.
If you're the only person, then you have to do all the advertising.
So, it's fierce but friendly.
Now, what I couldn't imagine, what I couldn't imagine,...was going up against a fierce competitor or a series of fierce competitors,
losing to them, and then trying to get them debanked by lying and saying they were money laundering or they were fraudulent.
I couldn't conceive of that.
I mean, that would be like your concerns that you're going to lose a running race to some guy.
So what you do...
Is you spike his drink with some performance-enhancing drug and then you make an anonymous call to get him tested.
That's fucking foul.
Oh. Oh.
Oh. Thank you.
That's incomprehensible.
I've never heard of anything like that, honestly.
Never heard of anything like that in the business world.
sorry. Thank you.
Yeah, mis, dis, mal.
Yeah, misinformation, disinformation, malinformation is all they do, yeah.
Yeah, they run to the government, and that happens in the business world as well.
Joe Rogan was pretty foul to you, as far as I recall.
Yeah, that's true, that's true.
Yeah, you're right, James, you don't go Nancy Kerrigan, right?
Well, actually, Tonya Harding was the one who, I think she hired her boyfriend to take a pipe wrench in Nancy Kerrigan's knee or something like that, right?
I mean, I used to, uh, so...
Back in the day in another life, I've always been, well, I was an introvert, pretty shy as a kid, but I really worked hard to sort of overcome that.
And I used to go down to Vegas and you set up this whole, I'm sure you've been to conferences properly at one time or another.
So we would go down, you'd set up your booth and I would chat with people and make jokes and show them our software and you'd offer them an iPod if they'd give you a business card and then you'd go and call them later and so on, right?
And, of course, we would go over to our competitors' booths.
We would.
We would go over to our competitors' booths.
And, you know, it was a tiny bit intense, but it wasn't hostile.
You joke with them a little bit, and you got us on that one, but we got you on this one, and, you know, you just, you play like children play, very seriously, right?
Right. So, that's the sports world.
If you want to beat somebody, you figure out what they're doing that's better than you, and you try to replicate it, right?
If somebody's got a...
What was it?
Andre Agassi versus Bjorn Borg.
I think Andre Agassi figured out that Bjorn Borg used to stick out his tongue when he was going to go left or right on the serve, so it gave him a tiny advantage, right?
So, in the sports world, in the business world, you compete hard, you play hard, but you don't lie about people.
You don't accuse them of heinous things.
You don't sabotage them.
You don't spike their drinks.
You don't spread rumors about them that are dangerous and false.
I've never heard of that in business.
I'm sure it happens occasionally, but I did a lot of You know, I did a lot of business with a lot of different companies, and this was never a thing.
It was fair.
It was fierce, but it was fair.
But media politics is foul.
And the one thing that I did notice, certainly in the world of business, most people had done sports.
Like, serious sports.
I mean, there was still that stuff going on, right?
I mean, when I worked at my first programming gig, we went and played squash a lot.
People were pretty good.
A lot of golf, of course, tennis, pickleball, and all of that.
A lot of people do sports.
Particularly the salespeople.
So, you know, hopefully this makes sense as to what I'm talking about.
You've got The expert class and you have the podcasting class.
And the podcasting class is eating the expert class alive.
Now, in general, if you're losing to a competitor, you've got to figure out what they're doing that's better.
That's one option.
But that's not the option in general.
That happens in the realm of politics.
What happens in the realm of politics and the media is Lying about people, trying to get people de-platformed, trying to get people to not talk to people, attacking anyone who talks to someone, you know, that kind of stuff.
So in my view, in my view, Douglas Murray was really talking to Joe Rogan, not really to Dave Smith.
And there was this whole, was it 40-minute struggle session at the beginning, like how dare you platform these people kind of thing?
But that's the big challenge, right?
And I'll go with what Douglas Murray says.
Like, let's say that there is...
I'm not talking about any particular individuals because I don't know their work, but let's just say there's Bob.
Bob is out there and Bob is just saying terrible stuff.
Just terrible stuff, right?
Stuff that's just really bad.
Okay? And let's say Bob has a big audience, right?
So what do you do?
Bob has got a big audience and he's saying terrible stuff.
Let's just make the case, right?
What do you do?
What do you do?
Well, I think you have to fill, you have to figure out what niche Bob is filling.
Why do people want to listen to Bob?
And let's just say, again, we'll just make Douglas Murray's case as strong as possible, say Bob is saying objectively terrible stuff.
Well, how do you How do you help people who are drawn to bad information?
Bad arguments, negative stuff, whatever.
How do you help them?
Well, you have to figure out what need is being served, right?
And then you have to try and fulfill that need in a better way.
You have to understand why people are drawn to Bob.
And then you have to figure out How to give them better information, lure them away.
Because the moment you say, nobody should talk to Bob, now, it's not censorship, right?
It's not censorship to say, you shouldn't talk to so-and-so.
I mean, just making a case, right?
Censorship is, to me, certainly...
If you get people deplatformed fraudulently, or if you lie about people, and that's fraudulent, and that's bad.
Or, of course, if the government passes a law, you can't talk about X, Y, or Z. That's censorship, right?
So, if Bob is saying bad things, then you need to engage with Bob.
You need to set up a debate with Bob because that's how things work in the real world, right?
In the world of business, right?
In the world of sports, right?
So if Bob is saying this egregious stuff and...
I mean, I've talked to...
Gosh, I've talked to child abusers on this show.
I've talked to communists.
I've talked to fascists.
I've talked to not quite the same category, of course, the modern monetary theory people.
I've talked to socialists.
I've talked to, you know, people that I would consider, you know, fairly terrible, but try to have those conversations, right?
And I have, you know, gone through the Communist Manifesto.
I did this with my daughter some years ago.
I've gone through the Communist Manifesto and I have struggled to understand and explain why people are drawn to it, to childhood stuff and all of that, right?
The Origins of Evil.
I've read the whole Origins of War and Child Abuse, which you should check out, freedomand.com slash books.
It's a great book.
Lloyd DeMoss, the late Lloyd DeMoss.
So, obviously, I'm not trying to say, oh, the cinquena, the perfection is me.
I'm not trying to say anything like that.
I'm just saying that I've tried to sort of live by this, engage with people.
I've engaged with mystics.
I've had debates with out-and-out mystics.
Was it Thaddeus Russell who believed that a woman could get pregnant by having sex with a tree?
I had conversations with a leftist anarchist.
I had two shows with Noam Chomsky.
When it came to the IQ research, I talked to people who are from all left-right centrists, people who believed it was more genetic, people who believed it was more environmental, or exclusively environmental, let them make their case.
So you engage with people, right?
You engage with people.
I had a conversation with a fine young black fellow about the IQ issues.
And it's really important to keep the conversation open.
Now, I understand people like Richard Dawkins who say, look, I'm not going to debate creationists because that's science versus a form of superstition or mysticism.
I can sort of understand that.
But this is not that, right?
Sorry, let me just check in with you guys.
Yeah, I did a whole show with...
Thank you, Oliver.
Yeah, I did a whole show with the Flat Earther.
it's very interesting so
John Stossel tries to get people to debate all the time.
Dodging direct debate is a common strategy for these Bob types.
Right. Could be.
It could be.
It could be.
Absolutely could be.
So let's say that Bob is saying all this terrible stuff.
And... Bob won't debate with you.
Okay. So then you, as an expert, should get a transcript of what Bob has said, and you should take it apart sentence by sentence, and I've done this a lot.
I just did this with Noam Chomsky and Lordy Buff.
Prayed for it.
I have it.
I always forget this guy's name because of revulsion.
Michel Foucault.
I did Michel Foucault and Noam Chomsky, a famous debate that they had, I think in the early 70s.
And I've gone through a bunch of socialist stuff.
So if you can't get the debate going, then go through what they're saying.
Peter Joseph, I did the whole Peter Joseph debate and all of that.
Yeah, the show is 5886.
Noam Chomsky debates with Michel Foucault, debate analysis.
So, if you're bothered by people having bad ideas, engage with them or engage with their ideas.
Make the case.
Show them how they're wrong.
Tell them how they're wrong.
I think that's the thing to do.
Then the question is, well, why wouldn't you, right?
Because... Actually, it's completely unfair.
It's not his fault at all.
But Douglas Murray reminds me so much of my brother, it almost gives me hives.
I'm telling you.
My brother spent a lot more time in England than I did.
So I had to sort of, you know, ah, zen, breathe through that, right?
So, The hostility and contempt that Murray had towards these, you know, Bob, whoever the bad actress that he was viewing, I think it comes from a kind of despair, which is the people who,
like whatever the eponymous Bob has to say, won't listen.
They can't reason.
They're just reactive.
They're dangerous.
They're beyond reason.
So we can't save people, we can't help people, they won't listen to reason, so silencing them is the only course of action.
We just don't talk to them, don't platform them, don't have them on.
As opposed to, well, they're saying these things that are false, and therefore we should say things that are true.
Now, when it comes to things like Now,
whatever Bob is saying, That's negative.
This made-up guy, Bob, right?
Whatever he's saying that's negative, did it get 100 million people killed in the 20th century?
So, if you're comfortable having outright Marxists in the university, it's kind of tough to make the case for deplatforming people, isn't it?
so
So, If Bob's audience is just full of terrible people who believe terrible things, then you should engage with Bob, or you should at least engage with Bob's ideas or arguments.
Because if you say, well, you just can't talk to Bob and Bob should not be platformed, so to speak.
I'm not saying that's the same as censorship, unless you lie and misrepresent.
That's a form of fraud or slander, maybe.
Silencing is the only cause of action, either because you don't have a good answer to what Bob's saying, or because you believe that Bob's audience is just too dumb and bigoted to ever be helped, right?
Okay, but to abandon people in that kind of way is to just carve off entire slices of the population and say that they're completely beyond reason and should just be absolutely segregated and separated from society as a whole.
It's kind of like a moral apartheid state.
Mm. Mm.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Yeah, so the hostility and contempt and disgust from Douglas Murray was really, really kind of fascinating.
And I think that the underlying part of that is just this despair.
That there are just these people who believe whatever Bob is saying.
It's just terrible.
It can't be fixed.
It can't be helped.
There's no point engaging.
You just have to cut them out.
You have to separate them from society, carve them off, amputate them from social discourse.
I gotta tell you, I'm not entirely sure that works as well as you think it does.
Like, refusing to engage with bad ideas, I don't think it works out as well as you think it does, because it doesn't make those bad ideas go away.
It just means that they no longer get corrected in the public square.
And you are, of course, handing a bit of a weapon.
Saying, look, they won't even engage with us because they can't disprove us or whatever, right?
And of course it is kind of anti-democratic to say that people are so easily influenced by a podcaster that they can't think for themselves, they just swallow whatever bad stuff the podcaster is putting out.
Well, So people can't choose their own podcasts rationally, but apparently they can choose their own political leaders?
it's very anti-democratic right um um
I mean, I don't advocate for silencing other philosophers.
I just try to win over their audience, in the same way that I wouldn't lie about a business competitor and accuse them of fraud in order to get them investigated, or money laundering to get them investigated.
I'll just try and write better software.
Okay.
Oh, yeah.
Taxi cab geometry guy.
Yeah, the guy with the missing wife.
right.
Somebody says, I didn't get that sense from Douglas.
I only watched the first 50 minutes.
I believe he was saying that the people who advocate for this crazy stuff should get paired with some expert who could pick them apart.
Yeah, maybe.
Maybe. It's not what I got, but, you know, again, I'm not going to argue with you about that.
Yeah, I think most philosophers have not done a great job in philosophy.
They just haven't.
And do I then say they should have their books burned or be stripped in the library or nobody should read them?
I mean, I literally have done in 20...
Three-year, 24-part series, History of Philosophers, where I talk about the philosophers, strengths and weaknesses, comparisons to my own arguments, and so on.
I do think that people should not be forced to pay for propagandists or ideologues in universities and schools, but that's a free-market education scenario.
All right, we'll get to your questions and comments.
say.
Can you talk about places you've not visited?
That was an interesting question.
And he was basically saying, can you talk about Gaza and Israel if you've not visited those places?
Which he was saying to Dave Smith, right?
And Dave Smith, I didn't think it was a particularly strong argument to say, well, can you talk about Nazi Germany?
Because you can't time travel, right?
But can you talk about North Korea if you've never been to North Korea?
Now, obviously, it's a little easier to go to Israel than it is to go to North Korea.
But Michael Malice managed it, if I remember rightly.
But the consequences of these arguments are very dark and bad.
Again, if you are concerned about the consequences of arguments, Being very dark and bad, which I accept can happen, then you need to figure out what's going on with communists in both lower and higher education.
Or, you know, some hostility that comes out of the concept of white privilege and so on.
If you're not talking about that stuff, then don't cherry pick, right?
All right.
So, it was a very interesting conversation.
To me, I always find it just unsatisfying.
To me, it's just very unsatisfying.
And of course, you know, I kind of help put myself, oh, I would have said this.
Of course, it's easy, right?
It's easy when it's not you, right?
I would have said this, I would have said that, and so on, right?
And maybe I'll do a little bit more of that if I review this in more detail.
I do think that it is a shame, of course, that people can't build up from first principles.
And, I mean, I know Dave Smith is a very smart guy and can do that.
I think that Douglas Murray, obviously a very smart guy too, but I don't think he's got quite as much first principle stuff.
Okay.
Anyway, so those are my thoughts.
If you want to give me your questions, comments, issues, challenges, I'm very happy to hear, and thank you for your patience as I work through this, and of course, freedomain.com slash donate.
freedomain.com slash donate to help out the show.
You can, of course, tip as well here on the app, which I appreciate as well.
Alright, let me just make sure I...
I'm not seeing any...
I'm not seeing any tips on the app.
Blinded by the light.
Ah, there we go.
Blinded by the light.
Wrapped up like a deuce, another runner in the night.
No live tips.
My gosh.
When our taxpayer dollars are being sent to the Middle East, I think we have at least some input in the disaster.
Can you go into more detail about why you didn't like Dave's rebuttal about visiting countries?
Well, because if something is possible, you can't compare it to something that's impossible.
So when Douglas Murray says, well, You haven't been to Israel or Gaza, therefore you can't talk about it, or therefore you have less credibility.
And he used this particularly, at least of the courtesy, to go and visit these places.
Bitter, scathing, fang-dripping contempt.
So if Douglas Murray is saying to Dave Smith, you could have gone to Israel, you could have gone to Gaza, and that would give you more credibility.
I mean, you can argue whether it would or wouldn't, but...
Then for Dave Smith to say, but you haven't visited Nazi Germany, well, you can't visit Nazi Germany because you can't time travel.
So taking something which is possible, which is going to Israel, and comparing it to something that's impossible, which is to visit Nazi Germany, is not a valid comparison.
I think it's a very good answer.
Okay.
But, I mean, my particular answer would be that I don't need to go to Israel to know that physics work in Israel.
I don't need to go to Israel to know that there's sunshine in Israel.
I don't need to go to Israel to know that there's gravity in Israel, and
is universal.
Thank you.
And this is why I don't need to go to Nazi Germany to know that it was a totalitarian dictatorship, because I saw the laws, I know what happened, right?
You can see the laws, right?
Thank you, Lloyd.
And best of luck with your job interviews.
Somebody says, it's a shame that this trust that was put into the experts has been transferred to the podcasters instead of the trust being destroyed altogether, like it should have been.
Well, I think some people don't trust.
I hope.
But of course, the interesting thing with Douglas Murray is he's saying that those who make bad arguments or those who say things that are egregious, that they should suffer negative consequences.
consequences.
Well, what negative consequences has Douglas Murray advocated for those who got the war in Iraq wrong, the war in Afghanistan wrong, COVID wrong, the financial crisis wrong?
Has he also suggested that those people should suffer massive negative consequences, or is it only for people in the podcasting world?
Because if you're saying that negative consequences should accrue to people in the podcasting world, and I don't know, I don't know, maybe he has, you know, like Iceland did, you know, advocated for jail for the banksters who ripped off a lot of people in the 07-08 financial crisis,
or maybe he said war crimes tribunal should have been convened for those who lie people into war and so on, right?
Maybe he has.
I don't think so.
I don't think so.
Because then it's just kind of punching down, right?
And that's fine.
I mean, You know, punch down all you want, but let's not pretend you're principles, right?
I want Bob deplatformed.
Bob has no particular power, right?
Okay, then it's not people who do bad things should suffer negative consequences.
It's just that I have power over Bob and I can make Bob do stuff and whatever it is, right?
Or harm Bob in a way that I can't.
Yeah, is he applying these things universally?
Right. I mean...
It seems to be fairly clear that some American funding went into the Wuhan virology lab.
Right. And what should happen to people who fund gain-of-function research?
What should happen?
I think Douglas Murray was like, yeah, yes, people definitely got things wrong over COVID, but moving on, it's like, it's kind of a big moving on thing.
I think.
But no, this podcaster must pay.
Okay. Ah.
Okay.
Yeah, experts are kind of for sale, right?
Yeah.
All right.
Let's see if you have any other questions, comments, issues, problems.
Zarol says, Hey Steph, hope you're having an awesome evening.
Have missed your show, but continue to support your work.
Hope everything's going well with you and the family.
Thank you.
I am recovering.
More questions.
Would you be interested in a Minecraft movie review?
Minecraft movie review.
Yes. No.
Or indifferent.
Yes. No.
Maybe. What you got?
What you got?
Um, bye!
Oh, let me see if I have any good bookmarks here.
Oh, let me see if I can.
Jeffrey Tucker wrote, promoted, and you should check this out, the Brownstone Institute's got a book coming out called The COVID-Responsored Five Years, A History at the End of Civilization.
Keep your eyes peeled for that.
Thank you.
This is pretty wild.
The man named Juan Catalan spent nearly six months in jail for the murder of a teenage girl until his lawyer found unused footage from HBO's Curb Your Enthusiasm, which provided evidence.
That he was at a Dodgers game with his six-year-old daughter at the time of the crime.
Isn't that wild?
Oh yeah, there's a terrifying movie that came out in 2019 called Marriage Story with Scarlett Johansson and that Neanderthal-looking guy, Adam Driver.
He used to be a Marine, I think.
Terrifying movie.
Oh my god.
People just tearing each other apart.
Directed by Noah Baumbach.
Just shredding each other.
Horrible. Just horrifying.
Horrible.
The red-headed libertarian wrote, George Washington received a limited formal education and was mostly self-taught.
American exceptionalism does not require credentials, right?
I mean, America was founded on a repudiation of the old world and all of the experts who said, here's how society should run.
It's given free speech and guns, right?
So, credentialism does not work very well in America.
So somebody said, what Douglas Murray was saying, Was that, oh, so this is the historian Darrell Cooper, Ian Carroll, are happy to wield a degree of influence in public historical discourse that is typically reserved for experts but refuse to be held to the intellectual standards we hold experts to.
Okay, so if you're going to hold experts to these standards, what happens when they fail these standards?
Right? What happens when they fail these standards?
In other words, has Douglas Murray gone on a tour saying, well, these Experts got a whole bunch of stuff wrong.
These experts got a whole bunch of stuff wrong.
And, you know, COVID, danger wrong, vaccine dangers wrong, global warming, the melting pot, IQ research, some psychotropics, replication crisis in science, causes of autism, media bias, feminism, welfare state,
depopulation versus we need immigration, and so on.
So, If Douglas Murray is, well, you know, you've got to hold people's feet to the fire if they get things wrong.
Okay? So, has Douglas Murray gone on a tour to try and get no one to talk to all of the experts who got all of these things wrong?
If not, then it's not about expertise.
And it's not about blowback for errors or wrongs or problems.
Okay.
Then it's just going for the competition.
So long as it's with Izzy.
Izzy has already seen.
She's already seen the Minecraft movie.
And she loved it.
She was very, very concerned that it was going to shred some of her key childhood memories, but she loved the movie, and she and her friends had a blast.
They went to a late show.
I'm sure she'll see it again, though.
She could just do the whole movie review.
Yeah, maybe.
I'd be interested in the phenomenon of Minecraft audiences throwing food all over the theater like rabid animals.
It's a long way from going with the wind, isn't it?
That was a bitter movie.
Saw it two years after my parents divorced.
Felt like a sequel.
Yeah, it's a nasty movie, man.
The mash guy.
He's also very good in that.
Plays an old lawyer.
Hmm. What are your thoughts on the philosophy of the labyrinth or maze?
Why are some interested in them and some royal gardens made into them?
Well, I would certainly say that It's a form of status signaling, like I'm rich enough to afford a maze.
Alan Alda, thank you.
And also I would say that mazes are a good torture device for older siblings, the younger siblings.
To be an expert says someone to know that the government shouldn't be taking 30% of my money for 27 years to send it to almost every other country.
Yeah. Yeah.
Yeah. And of course, all disciplines are founded by non-experts, by definition, right?
I mean, Socratic reasoning was founded by Socrates, who was not an accredited expert because he was inventing it, right?
like Pascal with probabilities or calculus.
Thank you.
From Isaac Newton and so on, right?
So, if I've got some of these right, it's always funny to me that credentialism arises from non-credentialism and then attacks non-credentialism, which is the source of its power, right?
My nephews love Minecraft, would be interested in a review.
I have never liked that game, really.
Never liked that game.
Blocky as hell.
I only got 10 minutes into the Rogan video, says someone, but Murray seemed to have a motive further than simply holding amateurs accountable for their arguments.
Okay, so who has caused more problems and negatives and dangers and blah blah blah in the world?
The people that Douglas Murray is listed?
Or the communists and COVID and COVID lockdowns and harms from vaccines, the COVID vaccine and so on, right?
So, you know, I mean, just have a standard, right?
The way that it works in my brain is if you're going to say, well, I need to hold people's feet to the fire for negative consequences for their arguments or perspectives, okay, then let's hold people's feet to the fire for these things.
So then what you do is you don't just say, well, I don't like this guy.
I mean, that's emotional.
That's immature, you say.
Okay. So, I wish to hold people's feet to the fire and cause negative outcomes for people who have said or done destructive things.
Well, done destructive things, I guess, would be the...
For the courts, right?
But people who have said egregious, terrible things that have caused a lot of real-world harm.
Okay, so let's do that sorting, right?
Okay, so those who advocate for spanking, it's pretty bad, right?
Those who advocate for communism, totalitarianism, those who advocate for lockdowns, those who advocate for war under false pretenses, a little bit more fucking dangerous than a couple of podcasters, wouldn't you say?
So I look for the sorting mechanism.
Ah. Ah, says someone.
You know, those people who say bad things, they make arguments that have negative, real-world negative outcomes.
Oof. Damn it.
I'm going to make those people pay.
You're going to advocate for negative consequences.
is.
I'm going for these podcasters.
Oh. Oh.
Oh. Amen.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Melbourne, Australia was the most locked down place on earth.
It caused a 25 year high in suicides.
No one is held accountable for this.
An immediate memory halted.
Oh yeah.
Lockdowns were brutal and I remember standing up against some trees making the case.
I think it was very early in 2020.
I think it was March or so saying the lockdowns are going to cause far more harm than they could possibly save.
Yeah, I mean you had massive crash outs in Children's IQ and educational attainment, you had people missing preventive treatments, cancer screenings, you had depression, anxiety, suicidality, you had addiction,
you had just, you know, and of course, you know, there's a number of people whose constitution, mental constitution is kind of weak, and if you expose them to too much fear, it becomes a permanent state of mind.
Really, really does.
Tears people apart.
I mean, how many hypochondriacs, lifelong hypochondriacs could have been made from this, right?
And what are the consequences for those who advocated these things?
What are the consequences for all of those who said, COVID vaccines, they stop transmission, they stop you, you'll never get sick, right?
Okay. you Thank you.
If they had stopped travel from China right away, there's estimates that it would have had a 97% reduction in illness.
There was a study that came out, I think it was in 2020, where they polled Americans' belief in the danger of COVID, and it was 50 times higher than the actual number.
I mean, this is something else that was wild as well, which is, you know, they said, well, you can't get together with four friends, but there can be, you know, massive riots all summer in 2020.
That's fine.
It's fine.
You know, they arrested people walking alone on the beach.
That was just madness.
I mean, I myself and my family, my daughter and I got kicked out of malls on a regular basis.
We wanted to eat.
to go eat in the snow.
you.
I mean, all the fraud that is being uncovered by Doge?
I mean, we'll see.
We'll see.
Okay.
Yeah, you can't go to church, but the liquor stores stay open.
Mom and pop stores have to be closed, but the big box stores can stay open.
Right? Thank you.
Thank you.
I mean, you were told to wear a mask that on the box is said does not protect from coronaviruses.
Thank you.
So, you know, if you want to hold people's feet to the fire and suggest negative consequences to people because of what they said had bad outcomes, okay.
Are you going to start with podcasters?
Objectively? Objectively.
I mean, this is the same argument I have with the libertarians.
Non-aggression principle?
Great. Let's do the non-aggression principle.
What's the biggest violation of the non-aggression principle that you can do the most about?
Spanking. So let's focus on that.
Nope. It's a little bit depressing over on Locals that I got two bucks.
I'll just tell you, straight up, it's a little sad.
I worked pretty hard on this show.
But, I'm not going to blame the customers.
I just have to do better.
Yeah, somebody says, Chris says, Walmart was essential and a local organic grocer wasn't in some cases.
Somebody says, Victoria Police.
Open fire with rubber bullets on protesters.
At the war memorial in Victoria, all they were doing was holding up signs.
Yeah. Yeah,
I mean, media lies are pretty common, right?
I mean, You'd think that Douglas Murray would be upset about things like the Russia collusion conspiracy hoax theory, right?
What sanctions is he proposing for that?
No, no, but that podcaster.
Joe Rogan, you talk to that podcaster.
It's really bad.
Alright, any other last questions, comments, issues, challenges, if you're listening to this later?
And you find it helpful and valuable?
What I am doing?
If you could help me out at freedomain.com slash donate.
Trying to recover the finances for this month.
I would really appreciate that.
Thank you.
Just in case anybody's typing any last questions, I'll wait for a moment.
Oh, that's interesting.
Dudes posting their wins.
Guys will receive one compliment and remember it for the rest of their lives.
And somebody wrote, I think it was a woman, how rare is it for men to receive genuine compliments?
And she said, there's this guy that I see frequently at a story visit.
He works there and I've been interacting with him for probably two years.
I've always thought he was attractive and made a point to see if he wears a wedding ring.
He doesn't.
In the past, I've also tried to extend our conversations a couple of times, but he never really seemed interested.
He's usually in a t-shirt and jeans, but today he was wearing a very nice button-up shirt.
I mentioned to him that he was a little dressed up today, and he replied that he just felt like wearing a button-up.
I replied that it looks nice on him.
His jaw dropped.
You'd think I flashed him.
He eventually replied, Thank you.
I was leaving when we had the conversation, so I continued towards the door and then turned around to wish him a good night.
And he was still staring at me with a confused and shocked face.
All I did was pay him a genuine compliment.
I felt like I just unlocked a dating achievement and the giving a guy a genuine compliment.
It's key to initiating flirting.
Just curious to learn how often men in this group receive genuine compliments.
Somebody wrote, whenever somebody wants something from me.
Somebody says, 2001, two young female sales associates said they were jostling to serve me because I smelled good.
Remember it as if it was yesterday.
They did a lot.
Married three times, some in the military.
No compliments.
The one effing compliment I recall was a rando Mexican girl in her HB market in El Paso who noticed my butt when I was leg-pressing 850.
I spent two to four hours working out every day for ten years and she was the only one to say a word.
If I didn't speak Spanish, I wouldn't have even known.
Somebody wrote, two women opened the door for me at the bank a few weeks ago and smiled.
I was frozen.
I didn't know what to do.
I just said, thanks.
Walked back to my car and left.
Never went to the bank.
It messed me up.
Somebody says, I remember I took my teenage daughter clothes shopping, and when she was trying on clothes, it wouldn't compliment the way I spoke with my daughter about the items she chose.
That was over 25 years ago.
I still feel good about it.
Fellas, a single compliment is our Nobel Prize.
Yes. Yes.
Thank you.
That's pretty funny.
Okay. Okay.
Okay.
Yeah, I still remember after I was in to play R-Town in high school, and this one guy was very drunk at the after-party and said, you're gorgeous, Steph, but you flirt with everybody.
I still remember that.
Good Lord.
Forty years later.
Forty-one.
Crazy, man.
Thank you, Chris.
I appreciate that.
The tip.
tip.
My dispatch lady used to call me honey and I appreciated that.
Damn, life as a dude sounds pretty sad.
Yeah, it's true.
What is your take on revisionist history as an argument for criticizing events or historical figures?
I've got to tell you, I've kind of lost interest in history.
I really have.
I've kind of lost interest in history.
Because Because I studied and did a lot of work in politics, and I've realized really just how much has been lied about over the last 15 years.
When did I really start politics?
About 10 years ago.
Maybe 12 years ago.
I started doing true news.
No, it was probably about 15 years ago.
I started to do true news.
When you do enough of that, like you do enough philosophical analysis of current events, and you just realize like, holy crap, just everything's a repulsive lie.
And you just, I just have less interest in history.
Because when you see how much is lied, I mean, here's the funny thing, right?
This is sort of the fine people hooks, right?
The idea that Charlottesville in, was it 2016?
That Donald Trump said that neo-Nazis were very fine people, which he didn't, right?
He said they should be condemned.
Actually, he said there's fine people on both sides.
So even when people can see the video, like you can beam it to their pocket in three seconds, and they can play the video, and that lie persists.
So even if you...
Even if you show people the directest, what Yuri Bezmusov referred to as demoralized, it doesn't matter what facts you bring anymore, it's demoralized.
you can show people something right in front of their face, and they won't believe you, what good is history going to do?
Okay.
So, I don't have as much...
I mean, Peaceful Parenting, peacefulparenting.com, you should check that out.
But I'm not particularly interested in history anymore.
People don't even believe what's in front of their face.
What are they going to believe about 500 years ago?
Somebody says, I always remember some beautiful woman with a British accent helped me bring out my groceries to my apartment.
Steph, your daughter's argument re-empirical apologies versus mere verbal ones was good.
Care to talk more about your thoughts?
On the matter since then.
Because I've been dealing with a health issue, I haven't really had much time to think about it, but now that seems to be resolving, I certainly will.
I appreciate that.
Let me just make a note of that lovely question of yours.
Choo-choo-choo-choo-choo.
Oh, it's not there.
That's over there.
There we go.
Thank you for the question, Oliver.
I will not forget it.
Ah! Apparently I can't copy it either.
There we go.
All right.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Look at that.
We've done a bit of a longer show lately.
Because that buzzing in my ear is much, much better.
Any other last questions?
Last cues.
Oh, you know what?
Let me ask you this.
Let me ask you this.
That's depressing and comforting at the same time, oddly.
I have not watched any anime yet, I'm afraid.
I'm currently trashing on White Collar.
It's trash, but it's fun trash.
Yeah, Trump told people.
I mean, I did the whole end truth about Donald Trump, right?
Let me ask you this.
In terms of the show, I should start doing this now that I'm almost 20 years in.
19. How would you rate the show, the conversation tonight, the back and forth, the arguments, and the level of interest?
Give me a 1 to 10. I'd like to know how I'm doing.
I'm going to start doing this.
I should start doing this.
I mean, I'm supposed to be good at marketing, right?
I'm supposed to be good at marketing, right?
I'm going to give this show I think 8.5.
I think that's pretty good.
Chris says, good point about history.
I've tried to present lesser-known information about 9-11, but it clearly doesn't address the virtue and honesty one is applying in their own lives in the present.
Oh, honesty one is applying, yeah, for sure.
I still absolutely love your historical shows like the French Revolution.
Yes, but the French Revolution, sorry, I found I really did enjoy.
Doing the French Revolution, but that really is about the future, right?
The French Revolution show is about the future.
Five, but came in very late.
Nine. Thank you, JP.
Appreciate that.
Eight, Chris.
Appreciate that.
I will obviously strive to do a ten every time.
Four. I'm in Scotland.
It's 1.26 a.m. and I miss geopolitics, but still love you.
Thank you.
I appreciate that.
Well, certainly if you've come here for geopolitics, a four
a fair mark.
All right.
And again, if you're listening to this later, freedomain.com slash donate.
Eight seems like a great idea to me.
Yeah, I think so.
Seven. Appreciate that.
Nine. Thank you, Johanna.
Appreciate that.
Okay. I appreciate that.
Solid nine.
Great engagement.
Thank you very much.
I have so many notes about this show that, you know what?
I'm going to put this up with the notes.
I'll put my notes.
Bob is a mean podcaster.
I'm going to put these notes in the show notes.
I'm going to go with a 7. It was a great show.
I found the topic interesting.
It also got me to vent out some frustrations, but it's not my preferred topic.
I appreciate that.
9 for sure.
I came in absolutely against Douglas, but gained a different view.
9. Thank you.
It was very cool having some homework before the show.
That was a first.
Yeah. High 7, low 8. I think that's fair.
I appreciate that.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I mean, I do get where darkness is coming from.
I really do.
It is frustrating when people hold themselves forward as implicit experts and you say, well, you don't have the same rigor as experts.
I say, hey man, I never claimed to be an expert.
It's like, eh.
Nine for the portion of the show I watched.
Thank you, Zyrol.
Nice to see you back.
Yeah, it's a cop-out.
I'm an expert in philosophy.
I don't claim to be an expert.
I rewrote all the moral rules of mankind from first principles.
I think that's about as good an expert as you can get.
I think that's about as good an expert.
Won't you please let that sun look good going down?
Alright. Thank you everyone for a lovely evening.
I need to help out the show.
Really do appreciate your time, care, and attention.
Lots of love from up here, my friends.
I will talk to you Sunday morning, and we're going to aim for a 10. A 10, baby!
Big 10-inch record.
Alright, lots of love, my friends.
▲
Export Selection