Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux - Raising Children for a Peaceful World!

All Episodes

Previous Next

July 20, 2025 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux

26:17

Raising Children for a Peaceful World!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hi, everybody.
	Stephanne Mollini from Freedom Main Radio, listener Mailbag Time.
	I hope you're doing well.
	Steph, why do you say that we're only five years away from a peaceful society?
	Everyone raises their kids peacefully for those first five years.
	Why five years?
	Why not 10 years?
	Wouldn't there be issues between those children raised peacefully and those who've been raised through aggression and further broken by culture?
	Well, the reason I say five years is the human brain develops to 90% capacity in the first five years of life.
	And the majority of that development occurs with reference to the environment, to what's going on.
	You know, if you grow up in a house speaking Spanish, you will speak Spanish.
	If you grow up in a Muslim household, you're most likely to be a Muslim and to imbibe or incorporate the cultural values of your environment.
	And so if everybody raises their child peacefully, and then this is not just the first five years, that's the first five years after being born.
	It's the nine months prior to being born, which also needs to be peaceful and calm.
	And then we will simply develop, for the most part, bulletproof kids who won't be intimidated by authority, who will have no problem speaking back, and so on.
	And it's like my daughter, she lost her first tooth.
	And people are saying to her, oh, did you get any money from the tooth fairy?
	And she's like, seriously?
	Why do you think the tooth fairy exists?
	It's she's correct.
	And she's five, right?
	So she's just not intimidated by that kind of stuff.
	And I hope that remains her life personality.
	It's really tough to change what happens after the first five years.
	And in some ways, it's impossible.
	I mean, I guess so.
	If you speak a language up until five years of age, I guess if you don't use it for 20 years, you probably will forget a good chunk of it, although it probably would be fairly easy to get back.
	Let me know.
	I never tried this.
	But yeah, just five years.
	Now, would there be issues between children raised peacefully and those who've been raised through aggression and so on?
	Well, I'm not sure exactly what that means.
	My daughter is very good at identifying aggressive people and steering clear of them.
	Not that she's exposed to a lot, but occasionally at the playground or something like that, there'll be an aggressive or unpleasant child.
	And she gets it right away.
	And so I don't, this is the idea that if you're good, you're susceptible to being manipulated by evil people.
	That's true until you get philosophy, at which point you become both good at defense and offense.
	And so the sort of dreamy, even off from the Buddhas Karamosov style idealist who always sees the best and ends up being manipulated by everyone around him, that's not morality.
	That's just blindness.
	I mean, it's like a doctor who refuses to know that there's any such thing as illness.
	I mean, if you want to be virtuous, you have to recognize the existence and opposition of immorality.
	If you want to be a doctor, you have to recognize that there's illness and do your best to prevent or combat it.
	And if you want to be a moral human being in this world, then you must recognize the existence of immorality, evil, and to work to prevent or oppose it.
	You cannot be a moral human being without opposing evil.
	So anyone who claims to be moral without recognizing the existence and danger of human evil is a fool and is besmirshing the value of philosophy.
	Again, imagine being a doctor and saying that there's no such thing as illness and so on.
	Illnesses, you are a dangerous human being in that.
	And if you claim to be a good person and you don't recognize prevent and fight evil, you're not a good person.
	That's how you measure virtue at the moment.
	In the future, yes, it will be different.
	We won't need to be good in the same way when evil has been minimized to near inconsequentiality.
	But right now, we have to be some tough bastards with hides of armor and nails of adamantine in order to make a better world.
	So.
	All right.
	Next question.
	Naivety.
	I was always, and I'm still called naive.
	I was very shy about it.
	I was generally very, very shy.
	But now I think it was only a sort of mistuning with the world.
	I didn't or couldn't accept fundamental lies underlying our culture.
	Should we keep our naivety?
	Should we differentiate between healthy and unhealthy or real naivete?
	So naivete is a lack of knowledge about usually things that are uncomfortable.
	And again, you don't have to pursue the fight against evil.
	But if you don't, then you're just not a virtuous person.
	I mean, sorry, you may be a nice person.
	You may be helpful to people.
	People may like you a lot.
	But to be a virtuous person, you must fight against evil or work to prevent it.
	And this doesn't mean going out and doing what I'm doing.
	It can just mean raising your children peacefully and keeping aggressive or abusive people away from them.
	Or it could be that the case with your friends or with your spouse or whatever, or yourself for that matter.
	But to recognize and prevent or oppose evil is the essence of virtue as it stands.
	And so naivete is the rejection of very important truths for the sake of emotional comfort.
	I don't think that there really is a healthy way to reject essential aspects of reality.
	I just don't think it's valid.
	Does Izzy, my daughter, does she ever have imaginary friends?
	She does not.
	I mean, we do a lot of role plays where I play characters and she plays characters and we do adventures or she's into trying to convert bad people to good.
	Maybe it's genetic.
	I don't know.
	But I'm a character named Meanie and she's a character named Jenna and I'm trying to get her to join my mean gang and she's trying to get me to join her good gang and we'll talk for like 20 minutes about the various reasons why you'd be one way or the other and she's great that way.
	So no, no imaginary friends, but a lot of role play.
	Five, how deep can you dive into yourself?
	I mean self-knowledge.
	In the process of self-knowledge, is there any sort of goal or is it only a journey?
	I personally feel a lot of tension in this process.
	I always think about it as a sort of repair, fixing.
	That type of thinking makes it to the procedure with the goal of achieving something.
	So, as far as self-knowledge goes, I think that you want to know yourself like you're the only person who can repair your car.
	You know that your car is going to break down, and you know that there's no one else in the world who can fundamentally repair your car, and therefore you have to learn about your car.
	You learn about your car with the purpose of driving it, with the purpose of getting somewhere.
	You don't just fix your car and then put it up on blocks.
	That would be sort of pointless.
	So the purpose of self-knowledge is to understand and overcome that which interferes with your rational understanding of the world, right?
	The emotional blocks, the barriers, the alter egos, the cultural or religious or nationalistic or racial countercurrents to your direct and easy perception of the world or rational perceptions, not always easy.
	And so if you have some sort of cataract or something which is clouding your vision, then you would study the eye or you'd go to someone who studied the eye to the point where they will be able to clear whatever is blocking your vision.
	And the purpose of self-knowledge is to take the moat out of your own eye, the beam out of other people's eyes if possible, and to be able to see reality clearly for what it is through principles rather than through our subjective appreciation or understanding of the world.
	I mean, if you stand on the world, you know, it looks flat.
	The sun and the moon, they look about the same size.
	The clouds look like they weigh nothing.
	Birds seem to float.
	I mean, lots of stuff falls down, but helium balloons fall up.
	There's lots of things that are confusing about the world if you only look at it from your perspective without any reference to principles, right?
	And once you understand principles, you understand that the moon is what, like two light seconds away and the sun is like eight light minutes away or 93 million miles.
	The moon's like a quarter million miles or something like that.
	So they're not the same size.
	There's just various distances.
	Even though eclipses are confusing, you know the world is not flat.
	You know that clouds do weigh something.
	You know that helium balloons fall up because helium is lighter than air.
	There's lots of things that you will understand with reference to principles, with reference to physics or biology, rather than simply your own, you know, brain-in-the-box subjective experience of the world.
	And by subjective, I don't mean that it's not real.
	What you're seeing is tangible.
	I look like I'm in a little white box on your computer screen.
	Let me out.
	But the reality is that what we receive through our senses does not give us many principles.
	I mean, a dog can catch a frisbee.
	They understand the arc of a frisbee and all that.
	But they don't understand, you know, that objects fall to Earth at 9.8 meters per second per second and that kind of stuff.
	So in the way that science is supposed to replace our subjective experience of the world with objective principles, philosophy is supposed to replace our subjective experience of the world with objective principles.
	So if you had parents who beat you, biologically you're going to be bonded to them.
	But it is an immoral thing to do to beat a child.
	And understanding your family with reference to principles is like understanding looking at the world with reference to gravity.
	It looks like the sun goes around the earth and the earth stays still.
	The reality is that the sun goes around the galaxy and the earth goes around the sun and so on.
	So it's replacing our immediate sense perception with objective and universal principles.
	That's really the purpose of philosophy.
	And everything that gets in the way of that is what we pursue self-knowledge in order to achieve.
	In the future, self-knowledge will be less of a demanding and stringent requirement because there will not be all of these bombs and triggers and minds put into our minds in order to exploit us.
	So it will be easier in the future.
	I overcame religious indoctrination for the first number of years of my life.
	My daughter will not have to, so she will not have the same challenges overcoming religion and superstition as I did.
	So for her, self-knowledge with regards to that will be largely unnecessary.
	Next question.
	Frequently, you talk about how easy and inexpensive it would be in a stateless society to scan kids' brains to detect damage caused by abuse and trauma.
	And therefore, this would allow caregivers to take corrective measures.
	This sounds like taking kids to the dentist every six months to get their teeth checked and catch cavities before they get bad.
	Therefore, we don't need to wait until governments quit or fail in the future to engage in the brain scanning practice.
	However, somehow the free market has not proven its value because it appears this is not widespread practice yet.
	How would you explain this?
	It's a fascinating question.
	So the argument is, and let's forget about the radiation or whatever.
	We're going to assume that the scans are safe.
	So as the child's brain develops, you can get scans of the brain to see how the brain is developing.
	And trauma has particular markers on the brain, an enlarged amygdala or fight-o-flight mechanism, a shrunken hippocampus, which is long-term emotional memories, a shrunken neofrontal cortex with the seat of reasoning and impulse control and so on.
	And basically, if the reptile brain is strong, but the human brain, human part of the brain is weak, then trauma has usually been occurred.
	And we revert to a more primitive state of win-lose and aggression and fighting and manipulation and so on.
	If we are raised in a traumatic environment, then we're less civilized.
	We're closer to ape-on-ape brutality.
	And therefore, we activate the base monkey brain without the human 2.0 buggy as hell beta expansion pack.
	And so you can find this stuff in the brain through scans.
	And so if parents are concerned that their children may be undergoing trauma or may not be developing properly, then this would be the Case.
	Now, in a future society, people would most likely take out insurance for their kids' actions.
	You know, if their kid does something that hurts or harms someone or someone's property, then the insurance cover, and the insurance would be far cheaper if the kids get the scans and if the parents go through good parental training, which again, they'll need to do in a diminishing way if they were raised that way, right?
	Like, you don't need to go to ESL.
	English is a second language classes if you're raised speaking English, right?
	So you won't need to do that.
	If parents are raised well, then they really won't have to worry that much about taking a lot of parenting classes.
	It won't do any harm to brush up.
	But so the idea that kids would get scanned in order to find trauma, well, why is this not occurring?
	First of all, I don't know that there's really a very good benchmark of healthy human functioning at the moment.
	What is called normal is a sliding scale from like the insanity of the dark ages to the relative insanity of modern times.
	So what would you compare someone's deficiencies to in the realm of brain development?
	In other words, if you found a child, and I'm striving to raise my child this way, but of course I went through traumatic stuff as a child.
	So it's a step-by-step process.
	But if you were to take a child who has never been yelled at, who's never been aggressed against, who's never been hit, who's never been told superstitious nonsense, who's never been lied to, who's never been told about the virtue of the home sports well-armed team called the military or the government, or if they just didn't know or only knew these as false things, what would that child's brain look like?
	Well, I would submit that the number of children being raised without aggression and without delusion, maybe one in a million, maybe one in half a million.
	That would be, you know, just a guess.
	And also, what about government schools, right?
	Government schools are, I think, pretty terrible.
	And I think the statistics show that they're fairly terrible.
	But so what would it mean to have a benchmark called one in a million or one and a half a million kids, or one in a hundred thousand or one in 10,000, doesn't matter, hugely.
	I mean, that would be the benchmark.
	And then you take your kids in to get scanned.
	And then you'd find out that as your child was not, you know, was not there, was not at that place where optimal human functioning would be, which simply means not trauma, non-traumatized human functioning.
	So how many parents would feel really comfortable or happy knowing where they ranked relative to ideal peaceful parenting?
	Probably they'd feel pretty bad.
	And bad parenting is an addiction, right?
	It's an addiction based on usually a history of trauma that's been unexamined and undifferentiated and unrevealed to the psyche as trauma.
	And what will happen, of course, is after you've had kids, let's say you take your kid in for a scan at two or three years old, well, a lot's going to have to change if your kid is below the norm, right?
	And there'll be specific recommendations, like you've got to be home with the kid, you've got to apologize, you've got to change your parenting completely.
	You can't send them to government schools.
	There'll just be lots of things that have to change.
	And how many people are comfortable making those sacrifices in order to raise children in the best way?
	How many people?
	What if it turns out that there's a study that came out recently that said that children who are told religious stories as truth have a great deal of difficulty differentiating fact from fiction, which is basically two ways of saying the same thing.
	And if this proves to be, yes, I can't imagine it doesn't, but if it proves to be negative for the brain development, then the kid takes, you know, kid goes for a scan, they say, listen, you've got to stop talking about the superstitious stuff as if it's true.
	It's harming reality processing centers within the brain.
	You can see here there's a dark spot and blah, blah, blah.
	Compare this to the white spot on the rationally raised kid and so on.
	How many parents are going to want to know that?
	How many parents are going to want to reform that way?
	How many parents are going to want to change?
	You know, they might have to sell their house if they're going down to one income and one person stays home with the kid.
	And I mean, it's a huge change for people's life.
	And addicts, I mean, basically by definition, are people who are unable or unwilling to sacrifice short-term pain for the sake of long-term gain.
	And if bad parenting is like an addiction, almost by definition, people wouldn't take their kids in because they wouldn't want to know.
	And even if they did, they wouldn't want to change their behavior because it would be very disrupting and painful in the short run, while the benefits to the child would be many years down the road in the long run.
	And by the time you get to be a teenager, I mean, probably too late.
	All right.
	Let's see.
	I have a viewer question for Stephen.
	And it was inspired by the impression that his views are quite often very utopian.
	For example, he is quick to bring up the atrocities of the Iraq war and label all supporters of that war as guilty as baby murderers.
	Well, that's not exactly what I said, but anyway.
	Well, he'd be putting the likes of Christopher Hitchens in that camp then, too.
	Christopher Hitchens would quickly claim that Stefan has no idea what he is talking about.
	Okay, so I just want to talk about the utopian thing so far.
	Utopian is a rebuttal, and I put that in air quotes for those just listening.
	The word utopian is a, quote, rebuttal that is shit out from guilty and corrupted human beings who basically say, your vision of the good lights up too much evil in myself for me to accept it.
	So I'm going to reject it as unrealistic.
	Right.
	So if you have been beating slaves for 20 years and then someone comes, you know, in the 17th century or 18th century and someone comes along and says, oh, we'll have a world without slavery.
	That would be very painful to you because a world without slavery would occur because slavery is immoral, which would put you in the role of a hideous, human, brutalizing torturer for 20 years.
	And so, if your soul has been so corrupted by compliance with evil, by sadism, by false accusations, by libel, by slander, by trawling, by just being in general, all-around jerkwad, then when someone comes along who embodies or espouses a nobility of action,
	right, a rising light of virtue in the world, what it reveals within yourself is the deep and ugly scarring of your own complacency and compliance with immorality, with evil, that you become a foot soldier in the Dark Lord's journey towards the enslavement of the human race.
	And so then you must psychologically either deal with your own immorality, which is very painful, or you must then say that this vision is ridiculous, naive, utopian, human nature is not like that.
	In other words, you must say that your own corruption is normal and universal and irreversible, unchangeable, and practical.
	You must adapt to the immoralities of the world.
	That's practical because it's impossible not to.
	Immorality is just a subjective opinion.
	I pay my bills.
	I'm a decent guy.
	I have nice barbecues.
	You must do everything that is necessary to maintain the illusion that you're not an orc.
	Basically, you're not just a foot soldier in the Dark Lord's army.
	And therefore, you must say that these are, you must get angry, contemptuous.
	You must bring all of the abusive and contemptuous and hostile and degrading emotional manipulative tactics to bear.
	And you must not, of course, accept, understand, or rebut any rational piece of arguments or evidence in the situation.
	You must simply take a deep giant acid dump on the smiling, happy face of a potential human future.
	And so utopian is something which basically says, if your world exists, if the world of virtue exists, I will have no place and will most likely kill myself.
	So I must say that your vision of a peaceful, happy, virtuous, cooperative world is a utopian, dangerous, ugly, deluded fantasy.
	Because if that world comes into being, the light will burn me into ash, like the vampire that I am.
	So I just want to mention that a lot because you get a lot of this kind of stuff.
	Oh, it's utopia and you're a dreamer and so on.
	It's like, well, I may be a dreamer, but you're a nightmare.
	Under what circumstances would you endorse a declaration of war?
	What methods and weapons would you support the use of and how effective do you think they would be?
	Okay, so this is all, of course, very theoretical.
	But yeah, if there was a gathering for an invasion, if there was any particular credible documented threat of some sort of dirty bomb or some sort of poisoning of the water system or whatever, I would fully support whatever means necessary in order to protect the society that I lived in.
	That would be targeted assassinations, that would be very specific drones with DNA-coded information that would hopefully disable, or if not disable, then kill.
	My particular view is I don't view humanity as any kind of common herd at all in any way, shape, or form.
	A human society is like an ecosystem of predators and prey, of farmers and livestock.
	But the predator and prey analogy in the form of war is very important.
	The most dangerous human predator, sorry, the most dangerous predator is a human being.
	Because a human being, you know, like that, the Cylons in the reboot of Battlestar Galactica, look like people, except without the cool, glowing orgasm backbones.
	And so the most dangerous predator I will ever face is a human being.
	And if a tiger is advancing on my family and I have to call in an airstrike to take out the tiger, I will do so, right?
	I mean, because I don't want my family to get eaten or killed by a tiger.
	And the greatest tigers are the sociopaths, the monsters, the wolves in sheep's clothing that are human beings.
	The most dangerous predators you'll ever meet will be human beings, bipeds.
	We can protect ourselves from animal predators.
	It's very hard to protect yourself from human predators given their incredible proliferation in the modern world.
	So if a set of human predators was looking to take over or poison or damage the society or my family, then I would take whatever means necessary and sleep like a baby that night.
	I would take whatever means necessary to eradicate that threat.
	This is fundamental to self-defense.
	You would target as much as possible the people who were responsible, but you would do whatever was necessary to prevent that threat.
	And I would support and fight and do whatever was necessary to protect that.
	And if people died who were planning some sort of attack upon my society or my home, then I would consider that a wonderful cleansing of a human stain and a dangerous predation.
	I mean, the human predators are worse than rabbit animals.
	And we generally will try and shoot rabbit animals because they're incurable and incurably dangerous.
	The same thing is true of human predators.
	There's nobody that I know who's been able to cure sociopathy or psychopathy or a lack of empathy or sadism.
	These kinds of human characteristics are incurable and relentless.
	This is how the brain is formed.
	And human beings split into predators and prey and I guess the beautiful ones, if you know anything about the mass utopia experiments, who observe and in some cases try to intervene and improve.
	So yeah, I mean, if there are human predators who are attacking a good civilization, I believe that that civilization hopefully can enclose them, hopefully can disable them and keep them separate from that human civilization, either on an island or in even some sort of enclosure.
	But if those people end up being killed as a result of preemptive self-defense, I consider that a highly virtuous action and extremely necessary for the continued success of virtue in the world.
	So I hope that helps.
	Please continue to send in your questions, mailbag at freedommainradio.com.
	If you find these conversations useful, we are below last month's donation.
	So if you could help out, I would hugely and massively appreciate it.
	You can do so at FDRURL.com slash donate.
	And once again, thank you everyone so much for watching.
	Remember to listen to or call into the call-in shows Wednesday nights, 8 p.m. and Saturday nights, 8 p.m. Eastern Standard.
	We look forward to talking to you.

▲