Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

June 23, 2025 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux

01:49:23

How to STOP Defending Evil! Twitter/X Space

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	All right.
	Hey, everybody, how are you doing?
	This is Stefan Molyneux from Freedomain.
	Freedomain.com.
	The best philosophy nuggets of wisdom in this or any other multiverse.
	Somebody asked me, what I bench, what do I bench?
	Well, I bench two things.
	I bench bad players and I bench my ego.
	Few can handle.
	So I hope you're doing well.
	I am here to talk philosophy with y'all as we eagerly await the feedback from YouTube as to whether the modern digital library of Alexandria, known as my work, but most importantly, the comments section gets resurrected from the YouTube tomb of political correctness.
	We wait.
	We see.
	I think almost 270,000 of y'all have viewed that.
	And if you could at Team YouTube and request a return of my channel, I would be beyond thrilled.
	Thank you very much.
	I humbly await and look forward to your questions, comments, issues, challenges, problems, whatever is on your mind.
	I am thrilled to hear.
	I just have to remember how it works.
	I just have to remember.
	I was really like two days ago.
	I did my last one, so it shouldn't really be that complicated.
	Yet somehow it is.
	Let's just say that I'm a bit of a guppy fish that lives in the hypersonic blur of the cocaine moment.
	That is my life as a whole.
	So if you want to, if you want to chat, if you have comments, questions, issues, criticisms, whatever you like.
	I posted it's funny last night.
	I haven't done this in quite a long time, but I did wear my tear away philosophy shirt and ripped it off to try to reproduce the vaguely Eastern European Uber Chad meme.
	I think the guy that's based on was asked on a podcast and he said, what the hell is a podcast?
	Which is kind of interesting.
	So I did that.
	And I don't know.
	It got a pretty cool thumb.
	So I posted it because, you know, I think spontaneity and all of that is good.
	And I'm 59 this year.
	I weigh 180 pounds.
	I'm a shade under six feet tall.
	And I've been doing weights since I was in my mid-teens.
	So it's a long-ass time.
	That is a long shadow at sunset time.
	I did take a break for a couple of years when I was really intense in the entrepreneurial world.
	And to my detriment.
	But I'm back.
	I'm not a super muscle guy, obviously, right?
	I'm not a ripped, shredded super muscle guy, but I like to stay trim.
	I like to stay fit.
	It's partly out of gratitude for my wife, for her wonderful company.
	You want to stay as attractive as possible to the people you rope into an exclusive sexual arrangement with.
	So I just like feeling strong.
	I like feeling competent.
	And I do a fair amount of sports.
	So that's also helpful.
	You know, I mean, my daughter wants to go rock climbing or treetop trekking.
	I'd like to be able to do it without pulling my ass tendons through my eye sockets.
	That seems like a plus.
	So I am thrilled for that.
	And so, and also, I mean, I'm an older parent.
	And so as an older parent, you know, I kind of want to make sure that I am staying sort of relatively fit and healthy.
	The last thing I'd want is for my lovely daughter to be burdened with some sort of caring of an aged and decrepit giant forehead in a wheelchair when she's just springing forward in the eager spring of life.
	So, all right.
	But I can talk anytime.
	And here is a time.
	Here is the time in Sprockets where we turn to the conversations.
	All right, Kevin, I think you were up first.
	You may need to unmute.
	I'm Olio's brother.
	What's on your mind?
	Just love getting to know you again.
	It's terrific to hear your voice.
	By the way, I started rucking fairly regularly.
	Picked up, I'll call it a rucksack, but it's a case designed for inserting a plate.
	Sorry, rucking?
	Rucking.
	I thought that was like grape.
	It was some safe word for the algorithm for something else.
	Safe word.
	I'm glad, yeah.
	My safe word is about 14 syllables and a mixture of German, Dutch, Swahili, and Klingon.
	But so sorry, I misunderstood.
	Yeah, go ahead.
	Sorry.
	No, no, no.
	I was just saying I've added this to my exercise routine.
	It's been terrific three, four, five times a week, you know.
	But what is it?
	Is it hiking with a backpack of weights?
	Yes.
	That's it.
	And you can have, they make specialized products to make it a little less bulky and easier to use.
	I've found immense growth in stamina using that.
	But anyway, that wasn't what I was going to ask you about.
	I have a couple of young adult children, and they have a curiosity in philosophy.
	And I was just wondering if you had like a reader's list for the team set or the young adults or a place they would start.
	Perhaps some of your work.
	Any thoughts there?
	Yeah.
	I mean, for integrity and stoic suffering, you can't do much better than, of course, the Stoics.
	But in particular, The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand is very good on enduring Stoic suffering and the integrity and pain that comes with a reasonable pursuit of virtue.
	And I say reasonable because we don't want to self-immolate on the altar of virtue.
	Self-sacrifice does not sell virtue to others, neither does cowardice.
	So it's an Aristotelian mean in the pursuit of virtue.
	Aristotle is great.
	The Platonic dialogues are good, but they tend to be kind of circular, and I'm not sure that they would add much to your children's lives at the moment because they're about sort of critical thinking and the Socratic method, which is great.
	Are they religious or is your family religious?
	One, our family is somewhat modestly religious.
	Not my son as much.
	He's probably more agnostic, but my daughter, yes, she's Christian.
	Okay.
	So St. Augustine is good for the attempt.
	And he does just about, in my view, the best attempt to merge reason and faith.
	And it is a bit of a square circle, but he does a magnificent job of sanding out the edges.
	So I think that's great.
	And if they're interested in philosophy as a history, Will Durant's got a great series on the history of philosophy, which is very cool.
	And I, of course, have my own history of philosophers where I deal with 23 or so of the major philosophers up to the giant precipice that I'm standing before is Immanuel Kant, which is something that I'm going to need quite a bit of research.
	I've done weeks of research.
	I need more because he is a very multifaceted, complex thinker that's very central to the way the world is going minorly right and majorly wrong at the moment.
	So I really want to take that on with a great deal of passion and devotion.
	So, of course, I don't want to skip forward too ahead, but essential philosophy for me is a great way of showing the practical applications of philosophy.
	I mean, peaceful parenting, of course, but that's more relevant when they become parents.
	Essential philosophy, I deal with three major topics.
	One is assimilation theory, which goes all the way back to Plato.
	And in particular, Descartes was very big on, well, how do we know we're not a brain in a tank being controlled by a demon matrix style?
	So I take on that.
	I take on free will, which is really an essential topic.
	And I take on rational morality.
	So essential philosophy is a short read on truth, the tyranny of evolution, which is also a very short read.
	It's designed to shake people out of their hypnotic complacency of the, you know, the giant car snake of modern culture that has you dissociate into not thinking about things too deeply because we're all skating the shallow pleasures of life and tablets.
	And for ethics, university preferable behavior, a rational proof of secular ethics for politics, I obviously recommend my book, my books, Everyday Anarchy and Practical Anarchy.
	And if they want a good introduction to philosophy, I've got a 17-part series.
	You can find all of my videos at fdrpodcast.com.
	Very few of them got nuked in the great neutron bomb of deplatforming that happened half a decade ago.
	Most of them have been resurrected in alternate sites.
	FDRpodcast.com, just do a search and you can go and watch the videos at the bottom.
	So sorry, that's a real sprint, but I mean, I think those things would be good places to start.
	Wonderful.
	Thank you.
	All right.
	And I appreciate that.
	Based reporter, you have the mic.
	What's on your mind, brother or sister?
	You must remember to unmute.
	I've been told to remind you of that.
	Don't meet an egg, but go ahead.
	Yes, Stevon.
	Actually, that was a great previous guest you had because I had a similar question I want to add on that.
	I purchased the set of the great books of the Western World, and they have like a 10-year reading plan, and even that is a lot to take on.
	And there's also other sets out there, I think like Harvard Classics, there's the Loeb, then there's all kinds of very large sets.
	If we wanted to get more into, you know, to do a serious read of over our lifetime of the great books, you know, that we were ready to take the time and do the full survey of the full, you know, great books of the Western world.
	Do you have any thoughts on any specific set or, you know, if we were to, you know, to add on to what the previous guest said, you know, if we were ready to do sort of the full survey of the great books over our lifetime, you know, how would you, how would you go about that?
	Any specific set or yeah.
	Yeah, I hear what you're saying.
	And I certainly don't mean to dismiss the project that a lot of people have of, you know, here are the great books.
	And I think you could, I remember way back in the day, you could order, I think it was a thumb drive or a USB stick, which had like audio books of all the great books and so on.
	So my concern is that it's a little bit paint by numbers in that I think that philosophy should try to solve particular issues in your life.
	And I know you're not just talking philosophy, you're talking about literature and so on.
	So my concern is it's just kind of jumping from one lily pad to another, and it doesn't take into account the genuine hedonism that you need.
	So for instance, I went on a Dostoevsky kick for a couple of years.
	I went on a fetish for Dickens for a number of years.
	Of course, I've talked about my history with Ayn Rand and other sort of writers that I've really, really dug deep into.
	So I think that you should read a book when it really grabs your interest or grabs you by the nads or the spleen or the spine.
	Then you should pursue that writer's thoughts until they sort of run out.
	I went on a big Nietzsche kick in my late teens and just read everything that I could get my hands on and absorbed a lot.
	And then I actually had, I had a book club many years ago at Free Domain where we did the Antichrist and actually read back and I found it was a lot less deep than I thought it was.
	But, you know, that may be just aging out of some of the teenage rebellion stuff that Nietzsche seems to encapsulate.
	So I think find something, like read through the books, find something you're passionate about, but then don't feel like, well, I have to go to the next one or I have to have the menu called out by other people.
	I would say if you have particular problems, like if you have problems with stress, then the Stoics can be really good.
	Marcus Aurelius can be really good with regards to stress.
	If you have a trouble with passion, Nietzsche will plug five electric eels into every available orifice you have in terms of energizing you.
	So I would say if you have particular issues, cast about until you find something or someone who speaks to those issues in a way that's highly motivating.
	If you have issues with procrastination, I've done a lot of work on procrastination.
	I mean, it was always later, obviously, but boom, boom.
	But I've got a whole video on procrastination and podcasts on procrastination you should check out.
	Procrastination basically coming from, it's a slave morality.
	When we're ordered and told what to do, we end up resisting and procrastinating.
	The slave can't say no, but he can do a bad job later.
	Not so much that he gets beaten, but enough that he registers his protest.
	So procrastination usually comes from being ordered around, which we generally are, Have been in society and are particularly males at the moment in school.
	So I think it's great.
	You should definitely dip into just about every great writer you can get your hands on.
	If they don't speak to you, I mean, I've never had much luck with Tolstoy.
	Marcel Proust, Remembrance of Things Past, which is a paperweight that puts Atlas Shrugged to shame.
	It makes it look like a bazooka joke comic in terms of length and breadth.
	So, or James Joyce, actually many years ago, I was reading Portrait of the Artist as a young man with my daughter, and we found it hilarious in that it was so incomprehensible.
	But when you had to approach the general attack on Christianity that characterizes the 20th century, you've got to be kind of delicate in your language, and that's what that was.
	So don't feel like just because other people like something, you have to like it.
	It's very rare for me to see a good Shakespeare production these days.
	And so you don't feel like you have to like it.
	But when an author grabs you, I would jump off the beaten path and just pursue that author until you've drank his cup dry, so to speak.
	And then if you have particular issues, I mean, you can ask AI these days, you know, what are the best philosophers to deal with, you know, X, Y, or Z?
	If you have problems with social conformity, Ayn Rand is very good.
	If you have problems with basic reasoning, Aristotle is fantastic because he packs so much reasoning power into his philosophy as a whole.
	Sorry, I'm outside, so there may be a little bit of background noise from time to time, but I think it will pass.
	Will it pass?
	I think it will pass.
	So that would be my suggestion.
	They're great places to start, but I view it as a menu.
	You don't have to order the menu alphabetically.
	You don't have to order the menu by price.
	You should find a food you like and eat that food and all of its related foods, and then you can move on to something else, if that makes sense.
	I would strongly advise against just, you know, like when I was a kid, I don't think these are things that are around anymore, really.
	But when I was a kid, there were these, you'd get a big piece of paper and there'd be a bunch of dots with numbers.
	And they'd go from like one to 40 or something like that.
	And you'd start in the one, you'd draw to the two and then you'd go to the three.
	And then when you got to the 40, I mean, you'd usually figure it out before that, but when you got to the 40, you'd see an elephant or a knight or there would be some drawing that you had gotten by following these numbers.
	Now, that was fun, but I never pretended that I was learning how to be an artist.
	And I guess I just don't want the sequence to be dictated by other people and editors and so on.
	So I think they're great places to start, but don't feel like you have to go in sequence or in any particular pattern.
	I think you should have the joyful hedonism of just indulging in the writers who move you the most, if that makes sense.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	Sitting here thinking, I just thought of another question, but I'm sure there's others in line.
	I can drop down, and then if there's time, I'll pop back up.
	Is it a long question or a short question, do you think?
	Medium.
	Medium.
	Oh, you're an Aristotelian mean guy.
	Okay, hit me with a question, and I'll see if I can answer it.
	Heaven above help me.
	Briefly.
	Oh, God, it's going to hurt.
	Go on.
	Okay.
	Going a little out on the margin here.
	In terms of like secret societies, esoteric readings, occult readings, whatever you want to call it, first of all, do you think, and I'll ask it together, but do you think that secret societies have any value when it comes to understanding the direction of civilization?
	And if so, are there any readings in that realm of the occult esoteric, whatever you want to call it, that you would hermetic, that you would recommend?
	Yeah, that's a great question.
	And it's funny.
	I mean, I'm sure everybody knows this is pretty common knowledge these days, but the term conspiracy theory was invented by intelligence agencies to discredit people who were figuring things out.
	Like it's just become this blanket term.
	And the funny thing is, is that people say, oh, there's this impression that conspiracy theories are false, which is weird because conspiracy is a well-known relationship.
	It's a well-known issue.
	I mean, just look at law.
	Conspiracy to commit murder, conspiracy to defraud, conspiracy to whatever, right?
	So conspiracy is a known legal term that people get charged, convicted, and go to jail for.
	Yet somehow when you put the word theory on, I mean, everyone who tries to break up a smuggling ring is focusing, they have a conspiracy theory.
	The conspiracy theory is there's a smuggling ring.
	There's a number of people who are part of this smuggling ring.
	We can identify them.
	We can get enough proof.
	We can bring them to justice or whatever it is, right?
	People who are trying to break up these ghastly human trafficking or pedo rings or whatever, they have a conspiracy theory.
	They have a theory about a conspiracy.
	And that's how a good proportion of the law works.
	Whenever you're going after people, whether it's through RICO or through just a generalized conspiracy, you are trying to get a gang or a group or a number of people all who are conspiring, conspiring together.
	So it's a well-known term in policing, in law, in the court system.
	Just about everyone who goes after any group of more than one criminal has a conspiracy theory.
	And so it's perfectly valid.
	It's a perfectly valid thing to say that people in power tend to act in ways that maintain or expand their power.
	Of course they do.
	Is it a conspiracy theory to say that Coke would like to do better against Pepsi and it will advertise to outstrip Pepsi?
	Is it a conspiracy theory to say that one pizza joint wants to do better than another pizza joint and will work to enhance their marketplace?
	Well, of course not.
	The fact that people act in their own interests and often unjustly is not a conspiracy theory.
	That is observable fact.
	So that phrase, and I'm not saying you used it in any particularly negative way, but that phrase, it's an NPC phrase, right?
	It's like grifter or, you know, this kind of like it's an NPC phrase.
	Somebody who uses the phrase conspiracy theory in a pejorative sense, like it's just a, it's like debunked.
	Debunked is just another, it's just another debunk is just another NPC word, you know, actually debunked and so on.
	Or if you put out a general rule, which is like 99% and then people swarm you with the 1%, that's NPC response, right?
	That's just, I don't want to be certain about anything because otherwise I have moral responsibility.
	So of course there are secret societies and of course that they act in ways that benefit their own power, either maintain their power or expand their own power.
	It's not a conspiracy theory, for instance, to say that central banks manipulate interest rates in the currency in order to favor a preferred candidate or harm an unpreferred candidate.
	That's actually been studied and is pretty solid.
	Is it a conspiracy theory to say that your rulers will not teach you the truth about the system that rules you?
	I mean, would slave owners have a lot of classes on the evils of slavery and how to most effectively rebel to their slaves?
	Of course not.
	Like, that's not even, how would that even be a question, right?
	So, oh my gosh, there's a conspiracy theory that slave owners don't want to teach their slaves about the evils of slavery and how to most effectively rebel against them.
	Here's your path to freedom.
	You know, go through that hedge and you get the Underground Railway, you get to Canada, right?
	So these are not, the idea that people don't act in concert towards their own self-interest.
	You know, there's a Hispanic organization.
	You know, there's tons of Hispanic organizations.
	They act to further Hispanic interests.
	Well, of course they do.
	Is that a conspiracy theory?
	No.
	La Raza, right?
	They're pro their own race, right?
	So the idea that there aren't secret societies is just people who don't want to look at the sort of hidden truth behind the obvious, right?
	This sort of fifth generation warfare, well, you don't even know who the enemy is.
	Throughout the West, people have been skeptical of or hostile to mass immigration, and yet they can't seem to do much to control it, absent Trump with the border right now.
	So what is the reason why?
	You can't point at someone and say it's that guy, right?
	And so, yeah, of course, of course, there are conspiracies, and of course there are people who act in concert to further their own interests.
	I guess my concern with all of that, though, is that studying this stuff is stuff you can't change, right?
	You can't go to the Bohemian Grove and set them straight, you know, and turn them into voluntariates or peaceful parents or whatever, get them to relinquish their dastardly power.
	So my concern is that you spend a lot of time in researching things that make you feel helpless.
	And, you know, it's really, really important to avoid feeling helpless in the world.
	And Lord knows there's a lot of people who want to make you feel helpless, either through brain-twisty, pointless conversations or trawling or having you focus on things you can't change, which is why, as an empiricist, what matters in your life are the moral influences you can affect in whatever environment you work in.
	So I think it's a bit of a rabbit hole and it's a bit of a hole with no bottom.
	It's obviously, since they're secret societies, it's somewhat unverifiable and you can't change it.
	So I would ration it very closely while recognizing that they certainly exist.
	Does that help at all?
	Yeah, yeah, that's really good.
	I think the perspective is good because you have two roads in front of you.
	You have the road of like the great books, so to speak, or you have the road of the secret society sort of reading.
	And I think you make a good point about sort of what's solid, you know, that you could work to make your life better in this world versus sort of the endless rabbit hole.
	And I think that's a good perspective.
	And I think I'll definitely take it as I move forward.
	And of course, you can't stop fully the curiosity we have as humans.
	Yeah, I would put it in the realm of hobby rather than calling.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	Very.
	Yeah.
	I mean, like, I have a shelf here of books on that sort of stuff, but I haven't really touched them, you know.
	And I think that's a good perspective.
	And thank you so much for that.
	And I wasn't expecting this.
	I really appreciate it.
	And I'll circle back again if I have any more questions about the great books or this.
	I really appreciate it.
	I appreciate that.
	I mean, really, the praise goes to our good friend Elon Musk, who has lost a quarter of his wealth in the defense of free speech and other aims and goals, which is a staggering amount of money, although I get its marginal utility.
	But thanks go to Elon.
	All right.
	I appreciate that.
	Noble, it's a well-named user nomenclature for a philosophy show.
	What's on your mind, my friend?
	Don't forget to unmute.
	Hello.
	Can you hear me?
	Yes, sir.
	Yeah.
	Thank you for bringing me up, Stephan.
	I just had a quick question.
	So I do a lot of digital art.
	A lot of it's AI assisted.
	And I've been noticing, and it's not just with like art, it's with a lot of different things.
	I'm sure you're aware of this conversation.
	A lot of people who, you know, like, for example, a lot of digital artists are very scared and very upset about, I guess, what's capable now, especially ones who create a lot of nihilistic art.
	So I'm just wondering why it is that there's just a lot of people that are just so against this.
	It's sort of like your thoughts on this.
	Sorry, sorry.
	Against what?
	Against like these tools, I suppose, these learned language models.
	Like they just, there's people that are petitioning to have them shut down.
	There's people who are saying that this undermines the entire art world, the entire music industry, and that this stuff needs to be regulated heavily because it, you know, it's it's not art.
	It's slop, I guess.
	Slop.
	Okay.
	So do you mean the visual artists?
	Because you also said LLM.
	So I want to make sure if, are we talking visual art?
	Are we talking language arts or both?
	I'm speaking, yeah.
	I mean, I'm speaking primarily on, because I do a lot of AI art and digital art, and they kind of blend together lately with some of these tools available to me.
	But I've noticed this conversation even with like how ChapGPT is helping writers proofread and stuff like this.
	So I see a lot of people are just, especially people with government jobs, they're just very threatened by this.
	And, you know, I think I kind of have it sorted out.
	But sometimes I think like, maybe, you know, am I undermining like a really crucial process in getting as much virtuous art out there?
	Is there a specific, do I have to like do it the way people are saying I'm supposed to be doing it, even though I think they're just sort of gatekeeping?
	So that's kind of like what I'm getting at.
	I'm not sure if any of that makes any sense.
	No, it makes good sense.
	And I'm going to just go on a little bit of a rant here.
	So people hate artists these days and have for a long time, particularly the visual artists.
	But this also goes to the creative artists in the realm of movies and television.
	They hate artists for a number of reasons.
	Artists ran to the government for money.
	Artists ran to the government for subsidizing their art school education.
	Artists ran to the government for subsidies.
	And artists run to the government for, I mean, all kinds of government protections and support.
	They ran to the government for the implementation of copyrights and so on.
	And so artists, and this is a real unconscious process, I think, but people dislike the fact that artists have run to the state rather than protect the sensibilities and desire for beauty of the people.
	And because the artists ran to the state, they turned their backs on the people and became court toadies of those in power.
	And there's a very sort of deep and instinctive sense that the artists are supposed to sustain the culture through the ennobling of people's souls with the regular application of beauty and truth and power of the senses to make a world that is better than the world so that you love the ideal and like the world.
	And artists, when they faced the challenge of the free market, they said, we are not going to find a way to serve the people better.
	We're going to run to the tax bandits and take every form of state protection, subsidy, and control that we possibly can.
	Blah, blah, blah, exceptions.
	I get all of that.
	But in general, modern art is an eye-gouging abomination of chaos, madness, and money laundering.
	You look back at the art of the Renaissance at Ancre and people like the people who created such beauty that, you know, like when you stare at a bright light and then you look into darkness, the light still has an afterimage, like a ghostly soul of light fading away into the darkness.
	You're supposed to look at art to get beauty and elevation.
	So that then when you look at the world, you get this afterimage of beauty and elevation and you have something to love and you have something to protect.
	Who the living hell would go to the wall, go to the barricades to protect the looks like somebody got shot and brain splattered against the wall.
	Jackson Pollock coalesced madness dots.
	No.
	There was a famous painting up here in Canada many years ago called Voice of Fire.
	And it was two blue stripes with a red stripe.
	That is an offense to the public.
	And they took a lot of money, I assume, from the government to produce this absolute insult to the soul.
	Assault on the culture.
	Garbage.
	You go to art museums and it's divided into two areas.
	The stuff that is good and the stuff that is modern.
	It's garbage.
	I mean, you've heard of these stories like the banana taped to the wall and so on.
	And the woman who said, oh, you can do whatever you want to me for 12 hours or 24 hours or whatever.
	This is horrendous.
	This is appalling.
	And this is an absolute betrayal.
	So the artists ran to the money launderers and the political power, and they decided to jam their probiskai into the taxpayers' financial wounds and bleed them dry of every spot of jugular sustenance they could get a hold of.
	Vampires.
	A lot of them.
	Andy Warhol, absolutely predatory on children.
	Oh, don't even, like, my God, it's just horrendous, right?
	And he's held up.
	Yeah, he's held up as some sort of elevated guy.
	Oh, here's a can of soup.
	Here's Elvis.
	Here's Marilyn.
	Ooh, so daring.
	It's trash.
	It's insulting trash.
	And it's there to give people despair and give them nothing to protect, nothing to revere so they can be taken over.
	So when AI comes along and the artists are like, oh, this is bad for us, screw you, artists.
	You turned your back on us and you turned to the state and you pillaged us and our children of every dollar you could jam your political tentacles into.
	So the question is not, how is AI harming the artists?
	The question is, why is nobody loving the artists and protecting the artists?
	And I think that's why.
	Well said.
	Thank you so much.
	That answered it really succinctly.
	And yeah, I read a little bit about Warhol and an absolute, yeah, people around him, people who were personally close to him, suffered greatly underneath his private tyrannies.
	So thank you for this.
	Oh, yeah.
	I mean, what was it?
	The Tropic of Cancer guy, Miller, stabbed his wife, is that right?
	And said, well, as long as you only use a knife, there's still some love left.
	Like, this is vile, psychopathic, corrupt, evil, immoral, wretched behavior.
	And these guys are held up as absolute lions of the culture.
	I mean, isn't there this horrifying orgy scene in the Stephen King novel, It, which I won't even describe in any detail because I've never read it.
	I've simply read about it.
	I assume it's true.
	So, yeah, I mean, it is it is, it's like, it's like I used to like going to movies.
	I don't like going to movies anymore because it's all just horror.
	It's all horror and it's all madness.
	And I just, it's repulsive.
	So, and theater is, anyway, it's a whole other conversation.
	So, yeah, our artists have turned to the state rather than stay with the people.
	The artists are there to elevate the people and strengthen the people So that they can resist the encroachments of power, but instead they joined with political power to pillage the people, and now they have no sympathy left and nobody's lifting a finger to help them.
	All right.
	Well, thanks, man.
	I appreciate the question and the comment.
	My friend Josh, what's on your mind, my friend?
	Don't forget to unmute.
	Thank you.
	Going once.
	Oh, hello, Stefan.
	Can you hear me?
	Yes, sir.
	Wow.
	Stefan Molyneux on X. Amazing.
	I'm proud of you, Stefan.
	I appreciate that.
	Thank you.
	What's on your mind?
	Okay, Stefan, it's a pleasure to speak with you.
	First time, long time.
	You're a Canadian treasure.
	I've been thinking recently about the secular versus religious approaches to death.
	This sort of comfort care versus taking nature's path.
	Okay, just to make sure I understand.
	So what you're saying is give people as many painkillers and keep them alive as long as possible?
	Yeah, as long as they're comfortable.
	Okay.
	So I live in Ontario.
	I'm Josh Ferkin.
	I live in Ontario and I've experienced our medical system here.
	And I just saw that this sort of numbing of pain sort of removes a certain dignity from death, I suppose.
	And also like the secular doesn't seem to offer comfort for the soul when a person is grappling with the meaning of life and death when they're at their sort of finest hour.
	So I'm wondering if you could expound on that in a certain way, however you see fit, the secular versus the religious approach to death.
	Well, that's not a small topic, but I'll try and do it justice.
	And I will start with the religious approach to death.
	Of course, the religious approach to death is that there is no such thing.
	There is the discarding of your mortal shell, thus revealing your soul to ascend like a butterfly from the remains of a caterpillar.
	So there is no death.
	And in fact, as Hamlet says, tis a consummation devoutly to be wished, because assuming a natural death, since suicide is a sin certainly in Christianity and other religions as well, assuming a natural death, you end up in a much better place if you've been a moral man, a moral woman.
	So death is not death.
	Death is a promotion.
	Death is an upgrade to the eternal bliss of being in close proximity to divine virtue and love and reuniting with your loved ones.
	And, you know, people are all like, oh, yo, Jimi Hendrix jamming with Freddie Mercury up there in the Great Beyond and so on.
	So it is paradise.
	Now, the idea that there is a paradise after death means that life is a job you hate and death is a vacation that never ends.
	Now, if you compare life to a perfect bliss for eternity, then the suffering of life is worse.
	Like if you compare all of your days to your very best day, then your days feel bad.
	If I were to compare, like I'm 40 years past the age of 18, now if I were to say, I need to look and move and sleep and spring out of bed at 58, exactly as I did at 18, if I were to compare peak health to where I am now, which is, you know, pretty healthy, but not 18, then I will feel unwell.
	Because if I had the body I had and I was 18, I mean, I'd be studied by specialists for vastly premature aging.
	So you can't compare everything in life to the best.
	Otherwise, everything else seems drag and deficient.
	So my concern is that, yes, with religion, you diminish the fear of death, you diminish the sorrow of death, right?
	He's gone to a better place.
	He's gone to a better place.
	Well, not just a better place, but the very best conceivable place where he's going to be in perfect bliss for all of eternity, which, again, colors and washes out the vitality, joy, passion, and power of the life that we have.
	Everybody has a perfect moment.
	Everybody has a perfect day.
	Everybody has a good or bad year.
	And the challenge is to surf life, enjoying the highs, but without using them to further lower the lows.
	I know this is very abstract.
	I hope it makes some kind of sense.
	And again, I really, it's a great question.
	So it's just an old Dr. Soule quote, there are no solutions, there are only trade-offs.
	So what you gain from religion in losing a good portion of your fear of death, in fact, looking forward to it and celebrating the fact that people have passed on to an infinitely better place, the ultimate promotion.
	So you lose a lot of the sting of death, you lose a lot of the fear of death, but what's the price?
	There are no solutions, only trade-offs.
	What is the price of that?
	Well, the price of that is that this life is what?
	In most religions, a Vale of Tears.
	Though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, it is a constipated, bad knee, trip and fall, stub your toe, toothache, hair loss, fading vitality, torture prison of decaying Fleshly loss.
	Not great.
	Compared to perfection, mortal life is hell.
	And it is not a price that I want to pay because it's the big question.
	It's always the big question.
	What if you're wrong?
	What if you're wrong?
	What if I wrote this in a poem when I was 19?
	What if there is nothing to greet you at the end of your life other than the chilling regret, regret of quietly discharged atoms, right?
	Your atoms are eternal.
	They just move from your body into something else, into worms, into soil, into crops, into whatever, right?
	What if you're wrong?
	What if by comparing your life to infinite, eternal, perfect, blissful joy, you scrub the pleasure out of your life, you wait for happiness rather than carve it out of the indifferent universe by your bare claws if you have to.
	You lose in this life by believing in the eternal perfection of the afterlife.
	It has an effect, a big, deep, powerful effect on you.
	If you only look at Victoria Secrets supermodels in their prime when they haven't eaten for two days or drunk water for 14 hours, then you are imprinting upon yourself ideals of female beauty that then, when you date a woman, she looks less pleasant.
	So there's a price.
	I get the comfort.
	Look, the idea that I could spend eternity with my wife, my daughter, and my friends is a beautiful thought.
	But it does provoke a lack of commitment to the everyday.
	It does promote procrastination and it does promote a lack of pursuit of joy and virtue in the world that is.
	And it promotes procrastination.
	If I'm going to spend eternity with my friends, is it important that I call them tomorrow?
	If this is our only life, and science, reason, facts, empiricism, and history says that it is, why would I think I have an afterlife?
	If I have an eternal soul, I should remember before I was born, but I don't.
	I don't.
	Nobody does.
	So it's a, outside of the sort of philosophical reason and evidence and empiricism arguments, I just want people to understand that there is a trade-off.
	Now, this is a Pascal's wager, right?
	Not the same, but a similar sort of vein.
	So if I'm wrong and there is life after death and you merge with the almighty, perfect, beautiful, blissful divine, but I've lived my life passionately and proactively and with a great desire to define and spread the tenets and arguments of virtue and truth, I haven't lost, right?
	Assuming I'm living a virtuous life, I get to go to heaven.
	I haven't lost because I've had a powerful, vital life based upon the idea that it's your only life.
	Then you commit.
	You commit.
	Right?
	Now, if I'm wrong and there is life after death, then what have I lost?
	I've had a powerful, passionate, positive, proactive life.
	Let's get our peas shuffling along.
	But if I live my life with three-quarters of my vision cast upon the afterlife, and I'm wrong, and I have deferred, and I have viewed my life far more negatively, because in my mind and heart's eye, I've compared it to the eternal perfection of the divine, then I have lost.
	I have lost significantly.
	I have reduced my commitment to the life that is in exchange for an imaginary life that does not come to pass.
	It's like a guy who scrimps and saves and scrimps and saves and denies himself everything because he wants to buy whatever, whatever your heart desires.
	He wants to buy a cool car, some Maserati.
	So he scrimps and saves and scrimps and saves.
	And then, on the way to go pick up his Maserati, he gets hit by a bus and dies.
	All that scrimping and saving was just sad because he didn't get the Maserati.
	Now, if he scrimps and saves and scrimps and saves and then gets the Maserati, and he's thrilled with the Maserati and it's the greatest thing ever and it makes him blissfully happy, not that it could, but let's imagine that it does, okay, then at least his sacrifice was not in vain.
	What if there is no Maserati?
	What if you're going to get hit by a bus on your way to pick it up and you never get to enjoy it?
	Is it worth the scrimping and saving?
	Believing in an afterlife has very powerful effects on how much people commit to the world that is.
	And part of the passivity, and I'll speak specifically here, part of the passivity of Christianity is the belief in the end times.
	It is the belief that Satan rules this world.
	It is the belief that you've just got to struggle through and get to the afterlife with as little damage as possible.
	And there is not that same passionate commitment to spreading truth, reason, and virtue.
	There used to be, for reasons that are historical, which we can touch on perhaps another time.
	But that's my concern.
	Why focus on the now when the forever never is beckoning?
	Why dig into and get the most out of Life when it's a prison of suffering relative to the perfection to come.
	How hard are you going to work at a job you hate when you are retiring tomorrow with a lot of money in the bank?
	Because your job that you hate, and you hate your job relative to this glorious retirement you're about to embark on, the job that you hate is a negative and you're about to retire into a comparatively infinite positive.
	So you're not going to work very hard.
	You're not going to commit to your job.
	And we've all had that, right?
	You're in some job and it's your last day.
	I remember once, my first programming job, I worked with COBOL 74, then COBOL 85 on a tandem system.
	And I worked there for about a year.
	And during that time, I co-founded a software company.
	And I used to have these horrible, I'd go and do presentations and they'd go on and on.
	And I was only supposed to be at lunch and I was completely paranoid.
	And a friend of mine said, hey, man, you take your job too seriously.
	I'm like, but I'm British and why should it's what we do?
	So I remember the last day there was a guy there who was explaining to me how the disk allocation system and the file allocation table worked on the tandem system.
	And I'm like, bro, it's my last day.
	Why are you teaching me this?
	I'm never going to use this.
	I'm never going back to tandem.
	So that last day, I didn't care.
	I mean, how hard do you work?
	Do you remember the last day of school?
	Last day of school, I loved it, man.
	I was like, why can't school be like this every day?
	Last day of school, you know, there were games, there was fun, free donuts.
	And I remember they would divide the girls on one side, the boys on the other side.
	There'd be trivia contests with prizes.
	Man, it was blessed.
	Beautiful.
	Beautiful.
	But nobody was studying because last day.
	So outside of the sort of recent science, biology, empiricism, evidence, which are important, there are costs and benefits to both beliefs.
	I am a bird in the hand kind of guy.
	I'm an empiricist.
	I don't like to risk that much.
	I know that sounds kind of odd, given the entire mad, evil-knievil trajectory of my, quote, career, but I don't like to risk.
	I don't like the idea that I'm going to defer my passion and commitment to the world that is for the sake of a world that might be that remains unproven because if I'm wrong, I've lost not everything, because I still lived, but an enormous amount.
	I never want a day to go by without the people I love knowing how much I love them.
	Because we can all get wet-fingered candle disappeared any moment.
	I want to be as passionately devoted and committed to the definition and expansion of truth, reason, and virtue in the world as humanly possible.
	Because I will not come this way again.
	Humanity has waited thousands of years for a rational proof of secular ethics.
	I've done it.
	And if I have any particular gifts, which I think I do, in not just reason, but in rhetoric, in presentation, then I will stake everything on the good that I can do in the world.
	If there are benefits after I die, I will take them with gratitude.
	I do not expect them because I will not withdraw one ounce, one atom of commitment that I have to the virtues that I can define, achieve, and promote in the world that is.
	Does that help at all?
	It does help.
	Could I provide you a hypothetical here?
	Imagine you're a cancer patient and you know that you are going to die in two months.
	Death is assured in two months or so.
	And you're presented with an option, as patients often are in Canada, with, let's say, medical assistance in dying.
	And you can end it early.
	Forget the two months.
	You know it's going to be extremely painful.
	So you can end it early.
	But you're, let's say, a person of Christian upbringing, and the other option says escaping early is a sin or something of its nature.
	And you have to see the process out until its natural conclusion.
	I think a lot of people in the modern day are presented with these two options.
	And I wonder what is the case for someone who's going to die suffering until the bitter end.
	Oftentimes they will say, oh, like, what's the point of this pain?
	Why don't just end it early?
	Why don't I end it early?
	Right.
	What's the point of enduring that pain?
	Tell me, I'm sorry to be overly definitional, but I'm not sure what you mean by what's the point.
	For the Christian, the point is that you're not allowed to kill yourself.
	It's in God's hands, and God will take you when he's ready, and you don't interfere with God's will.
	So that's the point for Christians, if I understand it correctly.
	Is that what you mean?
	That is what I mean.
	Okay, so that's the answer for the Christians.
	Is your question, what is the point for an atheist?
	Sure, yes, yes.
	Well, fully half of the money that you're ever going to spend on healthcare in your life is spent in the last couple of months of your life.
	So because we have, sorry, coughing up a hairball of revulsion, because we have socialized medicine in Canada, people don't have cost-benefit calculations.
	The cost-benefit calculation in Canada now is I better stay healthy because healthcare is really hard to get.
	You know, people are pouring into the country like nobody's business and a lot of them need healthcare and it's not like the housing and we went all of that.
	So, in the past, it used to be the case where people would say, Okay, I can, let's say it's going to cost you a quarter of a million dollars for the last six months of your life.
	So, people used to be able to make a sort of more rational decision about these things.
	They say, Well, do I want to blow $100,000, $200,000, a quarter million or whatever, or do I want to leave that for my kids to get their lives started?
	And so, there used to be a sort of cost-benefit calculation.
	Now, if there was insurance, so some of this would pay for by insurance and so on.
	But even for insurance, if you say, Well, I want to go to the bitter end no matter what, you can prop me alive with like three chipmunks and a taser, then your insurance is going to be more expensive if you want to be kept alive at all costs.
	So people have to make costs.
	I mean, in the past, people would make rational cost-benefit calculations.
	If I end my life early, given that I'm, you know, the doctors have all assured me I'm not getting better.
	The pain is going to get worse.
	It's going to become unmanageable and it's going to cost a fortune.
	Well, then, again, I don't know what the answer is because this is not a moral decision.
	This is a resource decision, right?
	Should you spend your money or should you save your money?
	Nobody can tell you that in any objective, rational way.
	Because there are benefits and costs to either saving or to spending.
	So nobody can tell you.
	So these are resource allocation decisions.
	So people would make those resource allocation decisions when they actually had resources to allocate, but because it's all debt and tax and money printed and funding, people don't make those cost-benefit decisions.
	So the meaning of going to gruesome end of life for somebody who's not religious would be to some degree, not perfectly, of course, but it would be to some degree a cost-benefit calculation.
	And it is not, of course, just the person himself because the people you love, you hate to see them suffer.
	And so it would be a family decision, an extended family decision.
	It would be a bunch of things that would be going on.
	So the meaning would be, perhaps, to reduce suffering in the world by taking an early exit, and also to preserve resources for your family that otherwise will be spent on ever-increasing suffering, pain, and expense, if that makes sense.
	There's one, I'm going to drop down here so other people can speak, but there's one part of this that it would be necessary for you to expand on regarding what is the moral imperative in this case, in that if you're an atheist and you're presented with an option to endure pain or avoid pain, that there is no real moral calculation within that.
	Like pursuing suffering for an atheist or a Christian is a moral decision in my view.
	Okay, hang on, hang on, hang on.
	Hang on.
	So what do you mean by a moral decision?
	And let me just very briefly, very briefly, I promise, say what I mean by it.
	So let me ask you this.
	Are you allowed to destroy your own property without going to jail?
	I would think so.
	Yeah.
	If you want to take a vase and you want to smash it on the ground, do you go to jail?
	No, of course not.
	Because you can destroy your own property without it being evil.
	Is that fair to say?
	But of course, if you go and you key someone's car, then you're a vandal and you would be arrested, right?
	Correct, right?
	Okay, so we can destroy our own property without that kind of moral consideration.
	Now, we can say it's impractical or whatever it is, right?
	But we can destroy our own property.
	Now, do we own ourselves, our own bodies?
	So we can destroy our own property without being called evil, without foundational moral considerations.
	We own ourselves.
	Therefore, we can choose to destroy ourselves because we are ourselves.
	We own ourselves.
	Our body is our self-ownership.
	We own ourselves.
	We own the effects of our actions.
	So if we can destroy our own property without being called evil, without foundational moral considerations, then the same thing would be with assisted suicide.
	Now, this is not to say that there aren't deep emotional considerations and relational considerations and all of that, but I'm not sure I see the moral considerations like good or evil.
	I couldn't articulate, correct, good or evil from the viewpoint of an atheist when they're posed with the decision of ending their life early or pursuing a finality that is just going to be painful, absolutely painful.
	I could not articulate the alternative.
	Like, what would be the moral argument for an atheist to pursue weeks and weeks and weeks of pain, ultimate pain, to ultimately die?
	Like, I suppose within the Christian framework, we can articulate the moral argument there.
	But from the atheist point of view, I wonder what the moral case would be for pursuing pain.
	So with all due respect, my friends, you're not much of a listener.
	Because this is the third sort of question, and you've not acknowledged any of my sort of previous answers, really.
	And I thought we had just agreed that there were no foundational moral issues with regards to end-of-life discussions.
	And now we're back to the, I thought we talked about that and said it's not foundationally moral.
	And now you're back to, well, what are the moral decisions?
	Like, I'm not sure that we're actually communicating here.
	I'm sorry, Stefan.
	I'm happy that this is recorded.
	So I'll revisit it.
	I'll check myself before I wreck myself.
	Okay, my friend.
	I'm very happy that you're on this platform.
	No, no, no.
	Listen, it sounds like you're dismissing the conversation.
	I'm happy to answer it.
	But it just feels like it's a bit of a, I'm speaking a bit To a television set.
	Like, you have your questions, you have your perspectives, and it's not much that I say that makes a difference because we had said you can destroy your own property without being called evil.
	It's not a moral decision.
	It may be a practical decision or an efficiency decision.
	It's not a moral decision.
	And then we said, well, you can end your own life because you own yourself.
	That's not a moral decision.
	And then you were like, but what about the morality of end-of-life stuff?
	So we're kind of back to that.
	So let me just, I just wanted to point that out and then I'll tell you, I mean, I think most people have thought through this kind of stuff.
	So I can absolutely, and I did have cancer many years ago.
	So I did sort of roll these questions around in my brain like a bunch of bowling balls in the hold of a ship in a storm.
	But there are absolutely circumstances wherein I would suffer brutal agony and prolong my own life.
	Totally.
	If I was working on a very important book or some project that I felt that it was essential to finish, then I would do whatever I could to complete that project, even if it meant enduring significant pain.
	So if there is something that you need to get done, something that you want to get done, something that is more important than suffering, and of course virtue, we have to place above suffering.
	Otherwise, we're just hedonists.
	I'm not putting you in that category, right?
	But we have to place virtue above suffering.
	Otherwise, we do that which is most pleasant, which only serves immorality.
	Like we have to put self-discipline above what we like to eat, because if all we did was eat what we like to eat, we'd get very unhealthy very quickly.
	So we have to have something above hedonism.
	And so if I was engaged, for me, it could be different things for other people.
	It could be finishing a novel or finishing a painting or whatever it is, right?
	Or you might want to stay alive to see the birth of a grandchild or a great-grandchild or something like that.
	To be able to hold that precious life before you die could be a very big thing.
	A friend of mine many years ago got married early and had a child early because his father had been diagnosed with cancer and he wanted his son or daughter to be able to meet his father, who was a great man, honestly.
	And so, yeah, there could be a number of things that would have an atheist or an agnostic hold on to achieve some good despite the pain.
	Does that make sense?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	Well, I appreciate that.
	And big tech, if you want to step up and chatty chat, I'm all ears.
	And by the way, guys, great questions.
	I can't tell you just how much I appreciate these conversations.
	Go ahead.
	Oh, don't forget to unmute, of course.
	usual statement.
	Thank you.
	All right.
	Going once, going twice.
	All right.
	Matter flattering, something like that.
	You've been added to the queue or added to the live chat.
	If you want to unmute and tell me what's on your mind, I'll do my best to help.
	Thank you.
	Sometimes, sometimes, when you take too long to answer a question, people end up AFK away from knowledge.
	Ah, you thought I was going to say keyboard, didn't I?
	All right.
	Let's try our good friend Fauvel.
	Fauvel?
	I think that's how it's pronounced.
	If you wanted to unmute and let me know what's on your mind, I'd be happy to chat.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	All right.
	Let's try good texture.
	Good texture, unmute.
	Pretty sure I didn't completely destroy.
	No, because I'm hearing binks when I say to people.
	Going once, going twice.
	Me being who?
	Favel.
	Yes.
	That was absolutely intentional.
	What's on your mind?
	Hi.
	Your take on Bitcoin, about the little bits of sand and how they would destroy it, from my perspective, was so accurate.
	And it was said so early on.
	I was wondering if you had an update of your thoughts on this entire industry that has developed since.
	Because mine basically is all rubbish, but I would actually be interested to know what you would think.
	Sorry, can you appreciate that?
	What was I saying about grains of sand?
	If the nation to destroy Bitcoin, if it is a genuinely positive development technologically, the way they would destroy it would be putting little bits of sand in it.
	Oh, yes.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	A little bit of regulations, a little bit of control, just a little bit of paper, and so on.
	And then they would sell as they knew that down the pipeline, the value was going to go down.
	So yes, that certainly is something that I gave a speech about.
	Sorry, is there more that you want to add or would you like to hear a tiny slice of- Yeah, I would like to hear what your update on your thoughts on it is, because I think that they've done that.
	Like, if you want an example of how to confuse an entire market, you take one asset and turn it into 50 million, you know, so that people go, well, I have a coin for this, I have a coin for that, and I have a coin for this.
	Whereas really, from my readings of what Satoshi wrote, his idea was this is a unified protocol, much like the internet, in that every device in the world would eventually be connected to it.
	Whether it's being used as money itself is an entirely different question.
	So is your issue with the altcoins?
	No, my issue is with the entire industry.
	I think that everyone got dollar signs in their eyes.
	They got distracted.
	And they go, well, the world works a certain way.
	You can't do anything about it.
	Move on.
	Whereas, hang on.
	True paradigms.
	Hang on, hang on.
	Hang on.
	Hang on.
	So these are all very abstract criticisms.
	People got dollar signs in their eyes.
	Well, no shit, of course they did, right?
	I mean, there's money to be made, and some people want to cash out.
	And again, whether you're diamond hands or paper hands is not particularly relevant.
	There's costs and benefits to both, right?
	I mean, if somebody's 80, they may want to, or 70, they may want to sell their Bitcoin to go and travel the world and enjoy the last remaining years of their life or whatever it is, right?
	So if it's not about altcoins and it's about the entire industry and greed, it's too abstract, it's too broad, it's too general.
	Can you give me something more specific?
	Let me be a bit more specific then.
	The developers of the space, the people that code, they either have been misled by some false prophets or they are truly stupid in that a system that does seven transactions for the entire world is beyond ridiculous, even if it's used as a settlement layer.
	Like the thing you have Bitcoin for is to solve the double spend problem.
	And if you have to take that problem and reintegrate it and solve it somewhere else, you're kind of building a Rube Goldberg machine that will never really work because your foundations are rotten.
	And I see that.
	Okay, so sorry, again, hang on, hang on, hang on.
	And I'm wondering whether it's analogies and abstractions don't really help.
	So saying it's like a Rube Goldberg machine.
	So is your issue that Bitcoin, just boil it down for me, brother.
	Is your issue that Bitcoin is too slow?
	It's too slow and has been co-opted from my perspective.
	Okay, but what is co-opted?
	Give me something specific rather than dollar signs in the eyes, which I can't debate.
	What specifically means, what do you mean by co-opted?
	Legally, to have a contract, you need a signature.
	And that signature tends to need to be on the document.
	In Bitcoin in 2017, they removed the signatures.
	So legally, it's very gray now, whereas before it was like a very concrete, yes, this is a contract legal thing of property.
	And now it's changed and we're already dealing with something new.
	It seems like a tactic to divide and destroy what it is.
	Hang on.
	I need you to stay off the abstractions.
	Okay.
	I just want to know what the issue is.
	So in 2017, you're saying they took off a form of e-signature.
	Is that right?
	Yeah.
	They put it in a different data structure.
	And what was their rationale for doing that?
	Increase the seven transactions per second limit that they refused to remove.
	So they said we're going to make it faster, but then they did not remove the seven transactions per second limit.
	Is that right?
	Precisely.
	They said they would, and there was a whole like SegWit2X thing that became a sort of Reddit and X mob.
	And yeah, they never did that.
	Okay, so what you're saying, and I don't know the details of this, I did a presentation last year, which was an update on my original truth about Bitcoin from like 2014 or whenever it was.
	So you can go and check that out.
	So is it my understanding that you are concerned that human beings are fallible and corruptible?
	No.
	My concern is that what should have been obvious slipped everyone by because they were lied to and accepted that liar's truth.
	And I'm wondering if you're not.
	Okay, so that means that they're fallable and corruptible, doesn't it?
	Yep.
	Okay, so we're kind of going in circles here.
	So, okay, I don't know the details, but let's take your argument at face value that people are fallible and corruptible, right?
	And that is not limited to the Bitcoin space.
	Is it better in the Bitcoin space or is it better in the realm of central banking, borrowing, debt, and war?
	If we get it right, it should be better in the Bitcoin space.
	No, no, no, no, no.
	Right now, right now, right now.
	Right now?
	Is it better in central banking, the human fallibility and corruptibility?
	Is it better in Bitcoin or in war and debt?
	Well, if you know what the people at the top of Bitcoin are doing, it's better in war and debt.
	So central banking and money printing and borrowing against the receipts of the next generation, every child born a million or more dollars in debt and unfunded liabilities, and the ability to fund war at will, that is worse than what's going on in the Bitcoin world.
	Well, you already have all those properties in the Bitcoin world, except you also have instantaneous anonymous communication, which is the difference between anonymous.
	It's a huge, hang on, hang on, hang on.
	It's a huge statement.
	I think we got a delay, so don't worry about it.
	But I think that there's a huge statement that you're making.
	Okay, can the people who are running Bitcoin enslave the next generation in virtually bottomless debt?
	Yes.
	How?
	It's fractional reserve Bitcoins, and they've kind of potentially already done that.
	We don't know how many people claim, have certain claims on Bitcoins.
	Okay, fantastic.
	So I think we failed your banking system.
	Sorry, I need to know what the hell you're talking about.
	You keep rushing forward as if this is all self-evident.
	So my daughter is born into catastrophic amounts of debt because of fiat currency.
	Can we agree on that?
	Yep.
	Okay.
	How is she born into debt because of the fact that people can borrow multiples against their Bitcoin holdings?
	Well, the banking system used to work on gold and then we put it in vaults and we issued the debt on that.
	And the banking system evolved into the whole debt slavery from birth.
	And if you can do it with gold in vaults, you can definitely do it with Bitcoin.
	How is my daughter, hang on, how is my daughter liable for any losses from people who borrow multiples on their Bitcoins as individuals or corporations?
	How is my daughter legally liable for those aspects of Bitcoin?
	I wouldn't say she was.
	Okay, so then she can't be born into debt through Bitcoin in the way that she is through central banking and fiat currency.
	Yeah, I see what you're saying.
	My issue, I guess, to be more concrete, is that they've rebuilt the banking system on top of Bitcoin and said it's better because it's got Bitcoin.
	They have not.
	That is absolutely not true.
	Come on, man.
	I mean, listen, I appreciate your passion and your obvious focus on the improvement stuff, but you've got to say stuff that is not nonsense.
	Sorry, with all due respect.
	Come on.
	No, no, hang on, hang on, hang on, hang on, hang on.
	Hang on.
	So the banking system is built on monopolies provided by the state, loaning from central banks and the creation of assets through borrowing.
	None of that is possible in Bitcoin.
	I can't ask for a loan and have Bitcoin magically created.
	I cannot print Bitcoin.
	No one can.
	I cannot legally enslave other people through Bitcoin, which is through a fiat currency.
	So when you say Bitcoin is worse than fiat currency, is war being funded through the creation out of thin air of Bitcoin?
	Yes, because the altcoins are a lot of times used by terrorist organizations to fund their operations.
	No, you're not listening.
	And I will not have a conversation if you're not listening.
	Okay, what did I say?
	I said, is war being funded by the creation out of thin air of Bitcoin?
	And then you said, altcoins and terrorist organizations.
	Okay, terrorist organizations are not nation-state war, which is what I was referring to.
	That's what war generally refers to as a nation-state.
	And they are not creating Bitcoin out of thin air because you can't.
	So you're not listening.
	And it's really tough to have a conversation if you're not listening.
	Because you redefined war to mean terrorism.
	And then you said altcoins, which, again, most of which you can't create out of thin air.
	At least I assume if you can, they're not worth very much.
	So I said, is war, nation-state war, being funded by the arbitrary creation of Bitcoin?
	And the answer to that, as you and I both know, is no.
	Is that fair?
	Is that fair?
	Thank you.
	Well, I suppose it is fair because it doesn't sound like he's responding.
	All right, let's do one more.
	Monsieur, big tech.
	Big tech.
	What's on your mind, my friend?
	Don't forget to unmute.
	Going once, going twice.
	Listen, and I just wanted to point out, you know, like, no hate, no foul, that's fine.
	But if you want to have a conversation, I'm a really good listener.
	I mean, if you've heard my call-in shows, I spend, you know, a two-hour conversation, I'll spend the first hour to an hour and a half asking questions and just really listening.
	So if you want to convince people, and, you know, this guy had a public forum to make his case, if you want to convince people, you have to first listen.
	There's a lot of life that's about sales, right?
	I had lots of speeches to start, but people wanted to talk, which was great.
	Happy to hear.
	But if you've ever been in sales, right?
	And sales can be a very noble and elevated profession, right?
	If you've ever been in sales, let's say you're a car salesman, you can't sell anything to anyone without listening to them first.
	If you're a car salesman and you just, some guy comes in, he's got a wife and he's got four kids, and you take him to the most expensive sports car and say, this is what you need, he's not going to buy from you.
	In fact, he's not going to want to talk to you at all because you're not asking him what he needs.
	So in order to convince people, you first must listen to them very carefully.
	And if you don't want to listen to them, you will only do whatever cause you're pursuing some significant harm.
	All right.
	Big tech did not seem to be around.
	Let's try one more round.
	Haggaz.
	Hagaz, great D and D name for an intermediate demon.
	Is he here?
	Is he not?
	Me?
	Ah, perfect.
	Yes, sir.
	Go ahead.
	Yes, nice.
	I was just going to bounce on something you were exploring before with the person before the last one.
	It was...
	So it was on your justification for living as an atheist framework.
	And you were mentioning how did I justify it?
	I said there were costs and benefits to both.
	I talked about my decision.
	I talked about my decision and my calculation.
	But where did I, and if I did, you know, I may have forgotten, so I'm happy to be reminded.
	But I'm not sure I justified it.
	I talked about the costs and benefits, and I seriously avoided the sort of rational empirical arguments for or against an afterlife.
	And I said, I'm really going to work on just the costs, benefits.
	And there are costs and benefits to both.
	Here's my choice.
	I don't think I justified it in that sense, like for everyone.
	I just, like, if I say, well, you can have salad, you can have cheesecake, I choose to eat cheesecake.
	I'm not justifying it.
	I'm just saying that's my preference.
	And here's the cost and benefits to both.
	Does that make sense?
	Yes, yes.
	That was not my intent.
	So sorry for that.
	I wanted like you, you provided an argument, let's say.
	Anyway, it was not really the subject.
	What I wanted to go is about how the argument that was used, if I'm not wrong, was at least one of the argument was that you own your body, right?
	And so, therefore, well, you have this right to, I guess, get rid of it.
	And so, here I was actually trying to bump on this on basically on your conception of property, I guess, of ownership.
	Yeah.
	And for me, at least the most concrete way, because I hate abstraction as much as I've seen that you seem to also despise it in general.
	For me, the only way I can see property stripped away from all these abstractions is to see property as what cannot escape your grasp in any sort of way.
	So, no, no, money is a form of grasp, physical grasp, any kind of influence.
	And so.
	Sorry, hang on, hang on.
	Sorry, hang on, hang on.
	You can't just define property without my input and then just move on.
	I mean, that's a big topic, right?
	Okay, it's like if I say, okay, so if we assume that two and two make five, moving on, right?
	Then maybe your definition of property has some validity, but the definition of property is not a tiny subject.
	And if you say property is that which people can't get out of your grasp or which you cannot lose your grasp over, was that the right definition?
	Did I have that correct?
	Yeah, what cannot escape your grasp is your property.
	Okay, so if somebody kidnaps a woman and locks her in his basement, she becomes his property because she can't escape his grasp.
	Yes.
	Until someone else can maybe beat him up and has grasp over him.
	So, for example, the state usually tends to be more powerful.
	No, no, hang on, hang on, hang on, hang on.
	Let's just do one analogy at a time.
	Let's not brace all over the analogy woods.
	Okay.
	So is there a difference?
	Hang on, hang on.
	Is there a difference or what is your difference between just and unjust property?
	Right.
	So if you're a kid and I'm a kid and you got a bag of Halloween candy and I grab it and run away into the woods, according to your definition, you can't find me or whatever.
	I disappear into the woods.
	It's now my pro like your candy is now my property, right?
	Yeah, so I don't ascribe a moral value to property itself.
	Hang on.
	No, no.
	So that's all.
	So that's you.
	Okay.
	Is there a difference between just and unjust property?
	In other words, if you have a candy bar and I have an orange and you're dying of scurvy or some nonsense, right?
	Then I give you my orange and you give me your candy bar and then I run off into the woods.
	I haven't stolen, right?
	Yes, yes, yes.
	So is there a difference between stolen and non-stolen property in your framework?
	Oh, yes, yes, definitely.
	Okay, and what is because it's not encapsulated in your definition of that, which you can hold on to.
	No, of course, yeah, that's why you add an adjective to it, right?
	Like stolen or adverb or something.
	So, yeah.
	So is there, hang on, hang on.
	So if somebody steals property, is that valid property or just something that they can defend?
	Not sure I understand.
	Sorry, I was like, yeah, let me take another run at it.
	Sorry, that was my bad.
	Okay.
	So if you steal, like we're kids, right?
	You steal my bike.
	Yes.
	Is it fair for me to take it back by force if need be?
	I will not ascribe a universal morality.
	So I will not say fairness is universal here.
	For me, if you start to talk of fairness in such terms right now, it seems that you're trying to establish there is a universal moral standard.
	Well, I'm a moral philosopher, so of course I'm going to try and establish that there's a universal moral standard.
	Of course I am.
	Okay, okay.
	Not Nietzschean.
	God, no.
	Okay, all right.
	But at least that's good.
	So therefore, so you can understand more.
	Okay, so let me frame you.
	Hang on for a minute.
	Let me ask you this then.
	So if you have a kid and you buy him a $200 bike and you don't have a lot of money, and then he comes home and he says, Dad, Dad, Bob took my bike.
	He pushed me over and he took my bike.
	And Bob lives like two doors down, right?
	What do you do?
	Well, it depends on the state, but of course I'll try to defend my property extended.
	Okay, so you would go and get the bike back, right?
	Yeah, in general, yes.
	I'm not sure what you mean by in general.
	No, it depends on the context, but like here, no, it's like a I'm giving you the theoretical.
	Your son's bike is stolen by Bob, who lives two doors down.
	Do you go and get it back?
	Yes, yes.
	Okay, so in practical terms, there is just and unjust property.
	Whereas if your son comes home and says, Bob got a new bike, I really like it.
	I want you to go and take Bob's bike from him and give it to me.
	Would you do that?
	Oh, could work, yes.
	That's why I've said there's some.
	So you would, hang on, hang on.
	You would go and steal Bob's bike and give it to your son.
	That's what I meant.
	Here, you are asking for this kind of in-to-day society?
	No, I would not.
	For example.
	Okay, so your actions, hang on, your actions are entirely different based upon whether the property is justly acquired or unjustly acquired.
	In other words, if Bob takes your kid's bike, you'll go get it back.
	If Bob has a bike and your kid wants you to go and take it, you won't do it.
	So your actions are opposite, going to retrieve the bike versus refusing to retrieve the bike based upon whether the property was justly acquired or not.
	If Bob steals the property, you'll go get it back.
	If it is his property justly acquired by given to him by his parents, then you won't steal it.
	So when you say, I don't really create a distinction, that's just not true because that's not how you would live.
	Empirically, you do have a distinction on just versus unjust property.
	Well, it depends on who the child is, whose child it is, what kind of bike, and all these different options.
	That does not.
	Come on, man.
	Don't give me that crap.
	It does not depend on what kind of bike it is.
	Are you saying that the property rights and just and unjust depends on whether it's a tricycle or a bike or a mountain bike or a 10-speed?
	That doesn't make any damn bit of difference at all.
	Well, it's a risk, cost and benefits analysis that you do as well for these kinds of things.
	No, no, no, no.
	the cost-benefit analysis is not about the justice, but about the practicality.
	So let's say that Bob's dad is a trigger-happy shooting guy who might gun you down if you go and get, well, That would simply take the practicality of action out of it.
	But the impulse would still be the same.
	you'd want to get the bike back, but it might be too dangerous for whatever reason.
	I mean, to take a silly example, hang on.
	No, so to take a silly example, if Bob steals your kid's bike and then he keeps it in his house and you go over to Bob's house and it's currently burning down, you're probably not going to go in to get the bike, right?
	So, but we're talking about the morals of the situation, that you would be justified in retrieving the stolen bike, but not in stealing the bike that was justly owned.
	So we both agree on that.
	And it doesn't matter what kind of bike it is or anything like that.
	That's a absolute.
	It assumes of the equality of Bob that you ascribe to him.
	Sorry, an equal to him.
	Sorry, I didn't follow.
	The quality of Bob or the equality of Bob?
	Actually, both.
	In a sense, if you value Bob as some kind of an equal to you, and that's why you ascribe this kind of justice and fairness.
	And this, at least, I don't know what that means.
	What does that mean?
	Bob is not an equal to you as the father because Bob is a kid.
	Yeah, or just as a human.
	No, like today, most people tend to evaluate every human as equal of some sort because they are human.
	And that's why we tend to ascribe this kind of justice.
	What the hell are you talking about?
	You think I'm talking about if a squirrel stole some nuts from your table, that you take it to court?
	Like, I don't know what you're talking about.
	Of course, we're talking about human beings.
	That's every analogy has been about a human being.
	So what are you taking about human beings for?
	Like, it's like there's some option.
	Yeah, in certain frameworks, you judge human beings differently based on not because they're the fact that they're human is irrelevant to your moral judgment.
	The fact that they're human is irrelevant to your moral judgment.
	I don't know what that means.
	Okay.
	Okay.
	Well, maybe I'll get an example.
	Like in lots of tribes, they tend to call themselves literally by the word that means human.
	So they are called the human in their language.
	And all the other nearby tribes are monsters.
	They're non-humans.
	Even they transform into myths as the devils and the monsters they kill.
	And it's morally justified for them to exploit and kill and do whatever these kind of things to them because they're simply not considered in any kind of their perspective is irrelevant.
	So there's not this sense of fairness.
	So you're talking about very primitive tribes pre-reason, pre usually pre-written language, pre-argumentation, pre-conceptual definition of just about anything.
	You're talking about like really primitive tribes, pygmies and I'll say the Greeks too.
	The ancient Greeks.
	For example, I don't know if I yeah, I would just expand and then you will counteract it.
	So what would I try?
	Because I know I'm not making an appeal to nature.
	That's not what I'm trying.
	I'm not trying to make an appeal to nature, which not necessarily.
	So for example, what I would say for the ancient Greeks, they more than often disregarded the values, judgment of all the other people around them.
	And they might say, oh yeah, the Persians, they are inbred with the sisters, but no, that's their way.
	Doesn't matter.
	And so, I mean, you can find that in a lot of different civilized groups, where the fact that another person is a human being is irrelevant to necessarily your moral.
	Yes, but the Greeks, the ancient Greeks and Romans, and just about every other tribe and culture in the ancient world, in fact, all of them that we know of, had no system of universal morality for the simple reason we know of that, because they owned slaves.
	Okay, okay.
	So you're talking about people who don't have a system of universal morality, right?
	Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes.
	But I mean, like people tend to value still the ancient Greeks or a lot of things.
	So it's just trying to counteract the point that I'm not just talking about primitive people that maybe we might want to disvalue because with regards to universal ethics, they were primitive because they didn't even recognize them.
	So this is like they thought the world was flat and they thought that the sun went around the earth and they thought the sun and the moon were the same size and they didn't know what caused the tides because they didn't understand the pull of the moon on the ocean.
	So with regards to science, we would say they were quite primitive.
	With regards to ethics, we would say that they were extremely primitive because they did not recognize even that the slaves in their household were human beings.
	Yeah, well, I would say the difference is that science is empirical, where most of philosophy is the result of the abstraction of language kind of circling its way.
	So I would say most of philosophy is to hang on.
	Most of the, I mean, most of the, most of philosophy is the abstraction of language circling its way.
	Do you feel that that communicates much?
	Okay, yes.
	Yeah, I will, yes.
	Because I'm too much into these things.
	I can go further.
	Let's get back to property.
	Let's get back to property.
	Because if you were to judge a scientific theory, a modern scientific theory, let's say something to do with relativity or quantum mechanics or something like that, if you were to judge a modern scientific theory by what the Greeks believed, would that be valid?
	No, but here I would say it's different kind of false equivalent, I would say.
	So is it fair to you?
	Hang on.
	Is it fair then to judge a universal moral system by what the Greeks believed?
	Here I would say yes, for Example, or others, but I would say for me, because morality, okay, if I can expand, I would say morality is a solution or a set of solutions to problems which became unconscious.
	And so, hang on, hang on, hang on.
	Again, you come up with these definitions and like I agree with them.
	A definition, so your morality is a set of solutions to problems that became unconscious.
	Yes, contrary to ethics, I would say, where ethics.
	Hang on, but what does that?
	I don't even know what that means.
	Ah, well, okay.
	I don't know, for example, well, I'll take something stupid.
	I don't have anything else in mind, but maybe people realize that killing their own children is not very successful strategy.
	So eventually it became a solution and some kind of moral behavior to not kill your children.
	And you don't even think about it, right?
	You don't argue.
	And you call that it's good not to kill your children, or whether it's evil to kill your children.
	Usually.
	Okay.
	So help me understand if you don't believe in morality.
	Yeah.
	Continue.
	Tori, do you believe or do you think that there's a validity to objective morality?
	I will say morality is a very useful tool.
	It's a set of solutions, as well as a very useful tool.
	So I'm not saying people should be immoral.
	It's just that they would say morality is dependent.
	It has evolved, let's say, in a given context from a given people at a given time.
	And sometimes, no, they need to shift because the environment might change.
	And so the solutions might be wrong.
	A bit whole science process, right?
	Okay, so why should people not be immoral?
	That's the thing.
	For me, but this is just for me.
	So I agree.
	This is me being not normal.
	No, no, no.
	I don't want to.
	No, no, no, no.
	This is philosophy.
	Your opinion is irrelevant.
	So if you're going to say this is just for me, you're making an argument about...
	I meant when you say morality for me as a, how to say, as a term, morality itself today is a term that is universal.
	So for me, if you, okay, when you say morality, it's a loaded word that already assumes universality.
	It does not try to say a moral, amorality.
	You know, I am for moralities, let's say.
	You have different morals, but not like, oh, I'm for morality itself, because that usually assumes these things.
	I'm for moral behavior, okay?
	But that already, it also has this kind of universalism in it, which for me, it becomes a very bad term, inefficient term, let's say.
	Because it hides.
	This is just a bunch of syllables.
	Do you feel like you're making a coherent case?
	I felt so.
	Okay, you're not.
	You're not.
	No, because you need to have definitions and so on.
	So you said that morality is just like a useful tool or there's certain efficiencies and so on.
	So if people, let's say someone can get away with it, right?
	Why should they not be immoral?
	Get away with what?
	Okay, they killed someone.
	Let's say somebody can steal and they won't be caught.
	They know they won't be caught.
	Why should they not steal?
	Well, there are lots of different cost-benefit analysis in general, I would say.
	And in general, you also have this, that's why I said this inner instinctual responses, which we call morality, which usually drives you not to do these things, which allows a society to thrive.
	No, no, no.
	Because if human beings had morality as an instinct, we would expect it to be universal because all human beings would have this moral...
	Let me finish.
	Okay, sorry.
	All human beings have this moral instinct.
	And therefore, we would expect all human beings to have the same morality.
	But they don't.
	There are people who exploit and people who steal and people who rape and people who kill and people who start wars and people who borrow on behalf of others through central banking and people who do all other kinds.
	They propagandize people, they lie, they cheat, they, right?
	So if we are to say human beings have a moral instinct like human beings and mammals, well, then all human beings would be mammals and all human beings would have the same moral instinct, which they clearly don't.
	Okay, I would say then they have an instinct for moral behavior.
	I'd not say for the ability to evolve, develop morals.
	No, because there are people who are well studied in psychology called psychopaths or sociopaths who don't have a conscience.
	They show no psychological distress.
	They show no psychological distress when they see cruelty, brutality, torture.
	There are sadists who enjoy causing pain and get deep spiritual or sexual pleasure from causing pain to others.
	So tell me again about this moral instinct.
	Unconscious rather than instinct.
	It becomes an unconscious acceptance.
	If you read the royal term that instinct is a bit of a misnomer, I agree because it's more, it has this kind of even deeper thing.
	But morality is this kind of unconscious set of filters that makes you act a certain way.
	And that is something I would say is innate, this ability to develop the system of values, which may be different, that's a thing.
	But then it's very useful to have this system of values because usually it allows a group to survive.
	Morality is a very...
	So this is the standard atheist argument that a common set of rules in a tribe and reciprocal altruism aids in survival, right?
	Yeah, to some extent, but I would not say altruism because it could be the opposite.
	So both altruism and its opposite are moral?
	I have to find out, but it could be in the sense that if this becomes But yeah, that's the one they used.
	I believe it's a good idea.
	So that which allows or causes a tribe to survive or flourish or spread is the good.
	So you're just talking about evolutionary success is the good.
	And if, quote, morals serve that evolutionary success, then they're positive.
	And if they inhibit that evolutionary success, then they're negative.
	Is it something like that?
	Yes, they're negative, unless you believe in some kind of afterworld, of course.
	No, I have a whole book called A Rational Proof of Secular Ethics, which relies on neither God nor government for the definition of universal virtue.
	And I would strongly suggest that you read it because you sound a little incoherent to me.
	And you're basically just talking about evolutionary pressures, that there are certain habits that creatures have, and it's not just human beings, but there are certain habits that creatures have that can aid survival in a group context.
	And there are other habits which might inhibit that survival.
	And so the most moral man in human history would be Genghis Khan, because Genghis Khan raped his way across Mongolia and good parts of Asia.
	And like one out of 17 people in that region now can trace their genetics back to him.
	And he allowed his soldiers to rape and pillage.
	And so as far as genetic survival goes and the flourishing and spread of the tribe, Genghis Khan would be the most moral man in human history.
	Is that your argument?
	I would not say entirely because you also have all the kinds of aspects that have to survive, you know, the culture, the feeling of belonging.
	Bro, Genghis Khan is on the money in Mongolia.
	They love him.
	They revere him.
	Yes.
	And he was one of the most rapey, slaughtery, murderous human beings in history.
	But by your moral stand, by your, hang on, by your moral standard, he is the most moral man because he succeeded the most.
	Well, I would say he's more moral for the Mongolians and his genetic line.
	No, evolution, evolution is evolution.
	It is universal.
	It is not confined to Mongolia.
	No, but in a sense, the pressures happen everywhere, but they create different kinds of results.
	No.
	Different environments.
	Raping is the most efficient way to spread your genetics.
	Often.
	There are ways to, but yes, it could be.
	It depends.
	It depends if you have power.
	If you don't have power, does it trouble you that your ethical system calls mass rapists the most moral?
	No, because I don't think it's exactly that, and because I don't really ascribe the value of the material.
	No, it is exactly that.
	It is exactly that.
	I asked you very specifically, is moral that which serves the growth and spread of the tribe?
	You said, yes.
	I said, Genghis Khan, by raping, murdering, and pillaging, most caused the success of his own tribe.
	This is not shades of gray.
	This is entirely based upon your argument.
	And what I'm asking you is, if you have a conscience, does it not trouble you that according to your own definition, mass rape is the most moral action that can be taken?
	That's because you ascribe so much value in the word morality, and so therefore it will make me appear as a monster.
	Trouble you.
	I asked you what was moral.
	You said that which serves the genetics or the tribe.
	Mass rape serves the genetics and the tribe.
	Therefore, mass rape is the most moral.
	Does that syllogism not trouble you at all?
	It troubles me with the emotional ties that we give to morality.
	Yes, I would not like to be then ascribed that.
	But for me, that's a kind of a flaw of the term morality itself.
	So it doesn't really trouble you.
	It's just a definitional term.
	Does it trouble you that you may not, in fact, have a conscience if mass rape, according to your moral system, is the most moral thing you can do, that that doesn't have you say, holy shit, that's terrible.
	That's really terrible.
	It's terrible for you're not bothered by it.
	You're not bothered by it.
	Well, yes, in a sense.
	Of course, I would not have that to happen to me or to my people or to my tribe.
	Well, okay, but that doesn't matter what your personal preferences are.
	Your moral system defines mass rape as the good, the highest good.
	Not only if that doesn't make you recoil and say, holy shit, have I ever taken a wrong turn at Albuquerque?
	Have I ever taken a wrong turn?
	Of course, I understand.
	I understand your point.
	No, it's not my point.
	It's not my point.
	It's your point.
	Your point that I'm simply turning the light on.
	It's your point that I'm illuminating.
	So here's my homework to you.
	If you want to avoid being in this absolutely fucking horrible situation of having a moral system that can be used to defend mass murder and rape, right?
	If you, that's not what you know.
	That's not what you want.
	I get that's not what you want.
	On my website is a free book.
	And that free book is called Universally Preferable Behavior, a rational proof of secular ethics.
	Please, I'm begging you on my knees because your soul is at peril here.
	I know you're not religious.
	If you want to say that the conscience, the morality of your entire emotional and mental apparatus is in dire peril.
	You are serving corruption and immorality at the moment.
	I don't think that that's your nature.
	I don't think that's your goal.
	This is an intervention that is, hang on.
	Well, then I want to save you from what you are doing, which is justifying the grossest acts of evil as moral.
	I don't want you to be doing that.
	You don't want to be doing that because you don't want to look in the mirror at some point in your life and saying, I've corrupted my entire being.
	You don't want to pursue this goal of advocating gross evil under the guise of biological evolutionary quote morality.
	What is good for the genes is not the moral.
	But anyway, if you have a system, if you have a, if you, maybe I can make one point, They're all no, they're all leading to a very dark.
	It's a bit sad.
	It is very sad.
	I agree with you.
	It is very sad.
	It is very sad.
	And I want you to stop talking at the moment because this is important.
	And this is a time as a younger man than me, I've seen a lot of corruption in my day, brother.
	I've seen people lose their souls to the darkest tendrils of relativism, subjectivism, atheism, and evolution.
	Evolution is a giant beast.
	No, I asked you.
	Sorry.
	Please respect my show.
	I've had a long conversation with you.
	Sorry.
	Thank you.
	You are in grave peril, and the grave peril is that you use your obvious intellectual and verbal skills in the service of corruption and immorality.
	Well, you don't have to.
	Sorry, I have not expressed myself accurately.
	Thank you to me.
	Okay.
	No.
	So if you can hang up, I would appreciate that.
	I'll do the speech.
	I'll do the speech to someone else.
	But look into the book, UPB, Universally Preferable Behavior, a Rational Proof of Secular Ethics.
	You have great skills in rhetoric.
	You have great skills in debate.
	You have great skills in language.
	But you have been co-opted by people with a pretty sinister agenda, which is the erasure and subjugation of universal ethics to mere evolutionary kill or be killed, rape or don't rape, murder or don't.
	Don't myself.
	I'm sorry.
	Well, I'm just going by the arguments that you made.
	I am not afraid of that.
	This is not by the time.
	Okay, I need you to stop talking.
	Okay, I'm sorry.
	Sorry.
	I'm just going to have to turn down the volume.
	I've asked you so many times.
	I've asked you so many times.
	So let me finish.
	Yes, I stopped.
	This is not a time for you to talk, young man.
	This is a time for you to listen to an elder who knows a little bit about virtue, who has sacrificed more than you may ever achieve in the pursuit of virtue.
	You need to listen to someone other than the sophists who have corrupted or are in danger of corrupting your mind.
	There is universal truth.
	There is universal morality.
	Rape, theft, assault, and murder are all evil.
	And if you have a moral system that justifies any of them, you are in the service of corruption.
	And I'm not saying this consciously.
	I'm not saying you're a bad guy who wakes up and strokes his mustache, rubs his hands together, and wants to go out there and do immorality or evil in the world.
	I'm not saying that.
	But that's the path.
	And it is a very serious path, my friend, because there are a lot of people out there promoting corruption.
	And you don't want to be one of them because you will never be loved.
	Can you imagine a moral, virtuous woman finding out that your moral approach can be used to justify mass rape?
	do you not know that she will recoil from you?
	And that the only woman who will hang around is a very dark and twisted woman who's going to make you...
	These are very serious matters.
	I have been surrounded by the matter.
	And like a magic spell, they draw people closer to you or drive people further away.
	And your approach to morality will draw the darkest possible people into your orbit and drive the healthiest and happiest and most moral people away.
	And I know that this feels intellectual to you.
	It feels abstract and it's kind of cool to debate.
	But this is some very serious and dark shit that you're working with, my friend.
	This is like, if you believed in devils, and I don't, but if you believed in devils, this is like goofily painting a pentagram and trying to summon a beast.
	It will work and you will be corrupted.
	You will be corrupted.
	And you need to fight against that with all of your might, which means don't go around repeating this kind of nonsense and this dangerous nonsense.
	Go and learn about true morality, universality, and pursue your conscience to the point where you are recoiling from your moral arguments that portray Genghis Khan as the most moral man in human history or whoever it is who was the most genetically successful.
	So really, really try to avoid that.
	Your life, your happiness, the love of your heart and the respect of your children hangs in the balance.
	Do not go any further down this road.
	Turn back and claw your way back to the sunlight because modern education has done a number and a half on you.
	And I say this myself with great sympathy, with great sympathy and great respect for your intellectual and language skills, which are considerable.
	And this is why I'm very passionate about this, as you can be an enormous force for good.
	But you have to reject this insouciant Nietzschean amoral worship of evolution and genetic success, which is about as brutal a thing as has ever existed in human history.
	And you will never be on the winning side of that.
	All right.
	Thank you, everybody, so much for a great chat, a great conversation.
	It is absolutely delightful to be back.
	And I wish you all the very best with the rest of your day.
	And thank you all so much.
	Lots of love from up here.
	If you find the show helpful, freedomain.com/slash donate to help out the show would be gratefully and humbly appreciated.
	And I will see you tomorrow night, 7 p.m.
	Eastern Standard for a juicy live stream.
	Thank you, everyone, for the great questions and comments.
	And I'm very, very sorry to the people I did not get to.
	But next time, next time.
	All right.
	Thanks, everyone.
	Have a great day.

▲