Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux - Men Trying to Protect Women! Twitter/X Space

All Episodes

Previous Next

July 30, 2025 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux

02:03:36

Men Trying to Protect Women! Twitter/X Space

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Okay, I just had to turn that music off because it's hypnotizing me into other spiritual dimensions.
	How are you doing, everybody?
	Stefan, Molyneux, Sunday, the 20th of July.
	I feel I should know this.
	And I hope you're doing well, having a wonderful afternoon.
	And here we are crazing on a Sunday afternoon.
	And if you have questions, comments, issues, challenges, problems, you hate what I do, you hate me, you love me, it's fine.
	I'm happy to hear what you have to say.
	Interrogate me.
	Use me.
	Bill Withers style.
	I'm all ears.
	And Steph Kinsella, Stephen Kinsella, not my spelling, but the wrong one.
	No relation.
	Posted something from Slate this morning, which was about people saying, you know, my parents are toxic.
	My family is toxic.
	I need to take a break.
	I need to go no contact and all that kind of stuff.
	Holy Batman balls, baby.
	It is pretty wild.
	So when I first started talking about this stuff, the voluntary family, the voluntary family, which is you don't have to spend time with abusive people, whether they're your family or not, parents or not, it was astounding, the response.
	That was written up in major newspapers, a cult leader, and, you know, just all kinds of crazy stuff, right?
	All kinds of crazy stuff.
	Now, the principle, of course, is inviolate.
	It is incontrovertible.
	If we're going to give people the right to break up families, to divorce, right?
	You get married, you make a vow, you make a vow, voluntarily, you make a vow to be together forever till death do us part for the most part, what people say.
	So if you're going to allow people to divorce, which is kind of like a new thing, like up until the 1960s, you needed an act of parliament to dissolve a marriage in Canada.
	So if you're going to say to people, you have the right to divorce, you made a vow to stay together forever, you don't make that vow with your parents.
	And of course, you choose to have a relationship with your husband, with your wife.
	You get to date as a reasonably attractive person.
	I'm sure you have half a dozen to a dozen options over the course of your teens and early 20.
	You get to date.
	You get to evaluate.
	You have sex before marriage, as almost everyone does these days.
	So you get to date, have sex.
	A year or two later, maybe you get engaged.
	A year later, six months to a year later, maybe you get married.
	And maybe you've lived together.
	So you have all those options, all those choices.
	And even still we say, well, you know, you don't have to stay.
	Now, in the past, usually you had to show evidence either of infidelity or abuse or abandonment, I guess you could say, as well.
	That's what you had to do to get divorced in the past, right?
	Well, not anymore.
	Not since Reagan, not since 70s in many places, 80s in America, some places.
	You don't have to show diddly squat.
	Women are initiating divorces two-thirds of the time.
	And the number one reason they give for getting divorced is not abuse, not violence, not neglect, not addiction, not abandonment, not adultery.
	It is dissatisfaction.
	It's dissatisfaction.
	I'm just not satisfied.
	I mean, I think that's a terrible reason to break up a family, but it's a reason we accept, right?
	We accept.
	We praise.
	Oh, good for you.
	Good for you.
	If you aren't satisfied, you only live once.
	You've got to move on, right?
	So people who get to test drive relationships for years ahead of time.
	People who have a choice in the matter.
	People who make vows before God and society to stay together forever, for better or for worse, in sickness and health, in richness and in poorness, until death, do us part.
	They make a vow and they get to test drive and nobody forces them.
	And divorce is not only socially acceptable.
	When I was growing up, it was kind of praised.
	Good for you, right?
	And of course, there's endless Kramer versus Kramer movies of women who are, they're divorced, they're unsatisfied.
	You had a husband who works a little too much.
	He's kind of insensitive.
	He doesn't really listen sometimes, you know, the natural hurly-burly of inevitable relationship highs and lows.
	And, you know, it's always the same story.
	Some middle-aged woman, kind of dissatisfied in her marriage, and she leaves the man.
	The big problem in the bridges of Madison County, you see, is that the men and the boys let the screen door slam as they come in and out of the house.
	So apparently, it's really, really important to bang Clint Eastwood like a gong at the end of a queen song because you can't say to your husband or do it yourself to say, maybe we can just put that little arm in that makes the doors not slam.
	Is that possible?
	Can we do that?
	Can we just put one of those little things that little pneumatic arms makes the door not slam?
	No, no!
	The bridges of Madison County.
	The perfect affair.
	The man really loves you, but he's not dangerous.
	You don't get an STD.
	You don't get an unwanted pregnancy.
	You don't get an angry wife.
	You don't get a stalker.
	No complications, no problems.
	Your husband's away.
	You have fantastic, rabid, butt animal, make the beast with two back sex all weekend long.
	And then it's really tender and beautiful and wonderful.
	And then he just despawns and life is perfect.
	Like, oh my God, it's satanic.
	The way that women have been wooed into abandoning their families and abandoning their vows over the past 50, 70 years, it's demonic, absolutely demonic.
	So we say, look, hey, man, nobody forced you to get married.
	You've got to test drive the person for years before you get married.
	You don't have to have a good reason to get divorced.
	You know, just if you're kind of dissatisfied, you know, maybe you think you can do better.
	Maybe you're going through a bit of a lull.
	Maybe somebody gets Ill and you, you know, just go, just go.
	Off you go.
	And I'm sure some well-greased sculptor who lives by the ocean will take you in and make sweet love to you from here to eternity.
	Yeah, because rock-abbed sculptors with long manes of glowing hair totally want middle-aged women with a certain amount of spread.
	It's all demonic.
	It's all just dangling lust to destroy families.
	Now, on the other hand, if you look at your parents, well, you certainly don't choose your parents.
	You certainly don't make a vow to your parents.
	You certainly don't get to test drive your parents.
	And I, of course, have never said.
	I mean, you know, it's funny, like I say stuff and people get all kinds of weird about it.
	I mean, this is a free speech thing.
	Speech has consequences.
	Yeah, for sure.
	For sure.
	For sure.
	But those who lie to get countries into literal war, well, they don't get punished.
	So speech has consequences.
	So I say stuff and then people who feel upset by what I say say that I have somehow commanded people.
	No, I'm just making a case.
	Just making an argument.
	It's all I'm doing.
	I have no puppet strings.
	Can't control people.
	Just making a case in the hurly-burly of world arguments and ideas.
	Just making a case.
	Just making a case.
	So I make the case.
	Not that you should not see your parents if you're just dissatisfied.
	I don't think that's right or fair.
	I mean, you can work to improve the relationship, but mere dissatisfaction is not a good reason.
	Of course, the fact that I've never told a single soul on this planet to leave their family, leave their parents, go no contact, I don't say that.
	What I do say, what I do say, of course, is you certainly have the right to do so.
	You don't have to be in abusive relationships.
	I'm not saying whether you should or shouldn't be with your family, but if you do decide that you don't want to be with your family of origin, then I would strongly recommend engaging with a therapist to go through that process.
	Because it's bigotry.
	Like, if a woman says, my husband is constantly yelling at me and putting me down, and I've tried to resolve it, and he just keeps doing it, I've decided to leave him.
	People are like, oh, I'm so sorry to hear that.
	But good for you.
	Good for you.
	Good for standing up for yourself if he's not going to improve.
	Now, again, she got to test drive him.
	She made a vow.
	And especially if there are kids involved, divorce is absolutely disastrous for the children.
	So, however, if you say, my mother keeps screaming at me, she keeps putting me down.
	She's really mean.
	I tried talking about her.
	I think I'm just going to not see her for a while, if ever again.
	People are like, oh, my God, she's your mother, man.
	You only get one mother.
	What are you doing?
	It's crazy.
	And, you know, again, it just shows how little people think in terms of principles.
	And really, that's, of course, the job and giga philosophy is to try and get people, you know, as a whole, in general, just try thinking in some principles.
	Just, you know, doesn't have to be massive, doesn't have to be all-encompassing, just, you know, a little bit.
	That if you're in an abusive relationship, do you have the right to leave?
	If you're in an abusive relationship, is it mentally healthy to stay?
	Now, if you're going to say you can't, like with regards to parents, you can't leave abusive relationships.
	You have to stay.
	You have to work it out.
	You have to tough it out.
	They mean the best.
	They're doing the best they can with the knowledge they had.
	Nobody's perfect.
	You only get one mother, right?
	Fine, fine.
	I understand that argument that you should just tough it out in relationships where you're being horribly treated.
	Just tough it out.
	Okay, fine.
	But you better, if you don't want to be a hypocritical asshole, then you better condemn the living crap out of anybody who ever gets divorced.
	No, no, but he was yelling at me.
	He was putting me down.
	He was mean to me.
	He called me names.
	Wouldn't stop.
	I tried for years.
	Suck it up, buttercup.
	That would have to be your argument.
	You got to stay.
	How dare you?
	You only get one first husband.
	You chose him.
	You got to stay.
	You made a vow.
	Stay together till death do you part.
	But of course nobody does that.
	Which just shows me how frightening people's parents are as a whole, right?
	More frightening than ex-husbands or ex-wives.
	Anyway, I mean, sort of the point is that I was the first semi-major or major public figure to broach the idea of the voluntary family and that you should not feel compelled to spend time in abusive relationships, particularly ones that you never chose in the first place.
	You know, it's kind of weird, right?
	It'd be like if some immigrant came over from some backwards country and she had been assigned, like she'd been forcibly married to someone.
	She didn't have a choice.
	It was an arranged marriage when she was a kid, you know, like 16 or 15 or God forbid, even younger, right?
	And she comes to your country, somewhere in the West, right?
	And she says, oh, my husband treats me really, really badly, yells at me, puts me down, blah, blah, blah, threatens me.
	And I can't leave him.
	I can't leave him.
	What would you say?
	You say, no, you can't.
	I'm not saying you should, but you absolutely can.
	But it's even crazier than that because it's like you have two women.
	You have two women.
	Let's say one is called Samir and Molla's called Anna, right?
	And Samir is from some country.
	She was sort of forcibly married off as a teenager.
	And Anna, Samir and Anna, Anna voluntarily chose her husband, got to test drive him, didn't have to get married, committed to him, made a vow.
	And both Samir and Anna, they both say, my husband's treating me really badly.
	He yells at me, puts me down, calls me names, whatever.
	Verbally abusive.
	Cold, boring, unpleasant.
	I loathe him.
	Whatever, right?
	So both of them are saying that.
	And what you say to Anna is you say, Anna, I fully support you leaving.
	Probably be healthy.
	Good idea.
	Because you chose your husband voluntarily.
	You didn't have to marry him.
	But you say to Samir, no, no, no, you didn't choose your husband.
	You were forced married to him.
	But so you have to stay.
	Like, you have to stay.
	Don't you dare think about leaving.
	Anyone who suggests, anyone who even breathes a word that you don't have to stay with the husband you were forced married to, that's a cult leader, man.
	So, Anna, yeah, absolutely.
	Sail off into the sunset.
	Godspeed.
	God bless you.
	Good for you.
	Totally healthy.
	Respect your choice.
	Girl power.
	Blah, blah, blah.
	Anna, you go, girl.
	You go get that sculptor who lives by the ocean.
	Samir, though, man, you gotta stay.
	You gotta go.
	Oh, don't even think about it.
	You gotta stay.
	You were forced married off.
	You were arranged marriage.
	No choice.
	You gotta stay.
	I mean, that's how mental we are with regards to the family.
	All right.
	I don't know what the acronym is.
	H-S-P-M.
	Disvamping as you get your mic sorted and organized.
	What's on your mind?
	Hey, Steph, can you hear me?
	Yes, sir.
	Go ahead.
	Thank you.
	I'd like to ask you about women with a dysfunctional sexual history.
	In a recent podcast, a caller mentioned a woman and her previous boyfriend called her a whole.
	And I'd like to ask you a question about that.
	Sure, go ahead.
	Those men, obviously, had no respect for that woman.
	So my assumption was that also in the bedroom, they treated her very disrespectful.
	I'm sorry, your audio is kind of cutting in and out a little bit.
	Are you on a cell line in the middle of nowhere?
	Or what's your data line?
	Yes, I'm on a cell line in the middle of nowhere, basically.
	Okay, I can follow what you're saying.
	So go ahead.
	Okay, so my assumption was that those men most likely treated her pretty badly sexually.
	Okay, I'm so sorry.
	You're making a lot of assumptions here, and I'm not saying that you're wrong, but I don't have any particular reference point.
	How long ago was the show that I did where this was talked about?
	Two weeks.
	Okay, so two weeks ago, was it a call-in show?
	Was it one of these spaces or something else?
	It was a call-in show.
	Okay.
	It was a call in the show.
	Okay, and you said these...
	Sorry, hang on.
	So you said these Yes.
	Yeah, so why would I talk about a subscriber-only show in a public square?
	I mean, it's private.
	Yes, but my question is about that.
	You asked me.
	No, no, no, no, no.
	If you're going to reference, I mean, you are aware that the subscriber-only shows are private, right?
	Yes.
	So why would you bring up the content of a subscriber show in a public forum?
	Because I have a question about, I understand that.
	But it's unfair.
	Do you know why?
	I do not follow.
	Well, because I can't talk about the contents of a subscriber-only show in a public forum because they're private.
	Yes, but why did you publish it then?
	It's published.
	Was it published to the general stream or was it published only to subscribers?
	It has a number, so if I think it's published to the general stream.
	Okay, do you happen to remember?
	I apologize for that.
	Then do you happen to remember either the number or the title?
	Just to refresh my memory, and I'm sorry if it was published publicly, then it's totally, absolutely, completely fair for you to bring it up.
	And I apologize for any sharpness of tone I had if I was completely in the wrong, so I apologize for that.
	But it was about two weeks ago.
	Do you have any idea what the title might have been?
	Just so I can refresh my memory.
	Or the number.
	Can you still hear me?
	Yeah, yeah, go ahead.
	6018, how to change your inner crit.
	Right.
	Woman he met at a dance event.
	Although initially.
	Okay, so in this call-in, Stéphane Molyneux speaks to the caller who shares his experience.
	Oh, I'm so sorry.
	So this was not a subscriber show.
	Okay, I understand now.
	My apologies.
	Well, not totally my apologies because you did, you wouldn't necessarily know the nomenclature.
	This was a private paid call-in that the person volunteered to have go public.
	So it wasn't a subscriber show.
	It was a paid call.
	And it doesn't matter hugely, but that's what was confusing.
	Okay.
	So he said it's essentially a little vague on my part.
	Okay.
	In this call-in, Stefan Molyneux speaks to the caller who shares his experience of connecting with a woman he met at a dance event.
	Although initially attracted to her charm, the caller uncovers deeper issues as their relationship develops.
	He learns about her troubled past, including prior long-term relationships, and her experiences with casual relationships, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, culminating in significant revelation of childhood trauma.
	Yeah, and the show is How to Tame Your Inner Critica did it some months ago.
	It was published July 13th.
	Okay, so I remember the call now, and I appreciate that.
	It's a public call, so yeah, we can talk about it.
	So, okay, so if you, my apologize for that maybe slight tangent, but now I understand the situation.
	So if you can go back to your question, your comments, we can speak freely.
	Go ahead.
	Okay, so given that in this instance, this woman had a very dysfunctional sexual history, that's an assumption, but that was what the show was about.
	My question is, what would happen if a woman like that would meet a real sadist?
	What would happen if a woman like that met a real sadist?
	I'm not quite sure.
	Am I supposed to have a complete hypothetical about a woman I've never talked to directly?
	I have a tough time with, because they only got a report on the woman.
	So a woman I got, in a sense, hearsay information on, how would she, or what would happen if she met a real sadist?
	Again, if you can help me understand the question a little better, I'm not quite sure I could answer it very well at the moment.
	Well, if I recall correctly, this woman did not fetch her partners very well, and she didn't have any real boundaries.
	Well, okay, so if, sorry, if you understand this, but absolutely, and let's just say up the abuse times 100, and it would get very dangerous very quickly.
	So what are your thoughts about that?
	I mean, I'm not sure that you need my thoughts.
	You've already answered.
	If you don't have boundaries, if you don't have moral judgment, if you can't evaluate people effectively, then you're rolling the dice every time you get together with someone because, yeah, I mean, eventually you're going to meet a really bad person, right?
	So, you know, 5% of people don't have any conscience.
	So if you have no boundaries, no particular moral standards for evaluating people, maybe you just go for looks or charm or something like that.
	Well, then, yeah, sooner or later, if you keep dating around, right?
	You know, one out of 20 guys is going to be, if you're a woman, and could be the other way if you're a man, of course, at least one out of 20.
	I think the number is much higher, But let's just go with sort of bare minimum data.
	So, yeah, one out of, so if you date 20 guys, odds are you're going to meet a real, a real psycho.
	And, you know, I mean, so what often happens is that women who are around nice guys, what happens is, you know, they decide maybe in the middle of at the beginning of sexual activity or in a heavy mega session or, you know, whatever, and then they say, no, I, I don't want to.
	And, you know, most men, of course, will immediately stop and apologize and, you know, make her a cup of coffee and chat with her and drop her home and, you know, be reasonable and civilized and respect the woman's boundaries and personal space and bodily autonomy, all that kind of good stuff.
	However, you know, if you've ever played Dungeons and Dragons, every now and then you just roll a one and it's a one out of 20 chance, 5% about the same as people who have no conscience.
	So what's going to happen is a woman who is used to getting into compromising situations, a woman who is used to that, and then she just changes her mind and is used to men, you know, immediately respecting her boundaries, withdrawing sexual activity and so on.
	Well, she's rolling the dice every time because every time she might have that one in 20 guy with no conscience.
	And he may very well not respect her bodily autonomy.
	He may very well not respect her boundaries because what he does is he does a rational calculation, which is the evil guy says, well, I want sex.
	What are the odds of me getting in trouble for this?
	So, you know, people who are predators, and there are, you know, fair number of predators out there in the world.
	So people who are predators, they're very good at identifying prey.
	So some guy who's a sexual predator, he's really good at being a sexual predator.
	You're not good, if you're a woman, right?
	You're not good at analyzing this, resisting this, figuring this out.
	This is sort of like the talk to the cops question.
	You know, a lot of people sail into like they get questioned by the cops, right?
	And they say, oh, I'm a smart guy.
	I'm the best debater in my small town.
	I can do this.
	It's like, no, you can't.
	Because the cop who's interrogating you has done this hundreds or thousands of times before, has years or decades worth of experience.
	And it's the first time for you.
	So it is kind of like the arrogance of if this is the first time you've picked up a tennis racket thinking you can beat someone who's been playing for 20 years when you can't.
	Well, it's possible.
	It's like, well, maybe if it has a heart attack, we can't finish the game, but it's not going to happen, right?
	So unfortunately for, and again, we're just talking about women, could happen the other way around.
	But unfortunately for women, they will, if they keep getting into sexual situations with a variety of men, sooner or later, they're going to roll that one.
	They're looking for Mr. Goodbar situation, which is a woman who ends up being attacked by one of her one-night stands.
	And that person, the evil guy in this case, is going to just do a calculation.
	And he's really good at doing this calculation.
	Because, you know, if he's, let's say, a sexual assaulter, then, you know, maybe he's done this 5, 10, 15, 20 times before.
	So he knows what he's doing and you don't.
	And he knows how this plays out and you don't.
	And he knows how to pick, right?
	So anybody who's this kind of evil guy has successfully committed evil many times before.
	So he knows what he's doing.
	Unfortunately, he's sadly experienced in the realm of corruption and violence.
	So he's experienced, you're not.
	And it is, you know, when women are around nice guys a lot, which, you know, we want women to be around nice guys, but they then get a distorted view of the dangers out there in the world.
	It's like I thought about this with sort of the atheists that I've been tangling with on X over the last sort of four or five days, is that a lot of them have this kind of naivete.
	And maybe they just grew up in like safe suburban neighborhoods with no crime.
	And like they just seem to be completely like lost little blind lambs when it comes to the reality of evil.
	Oh, there's no such thing as wolves, right?
	Says the sheep who's in a very well-protected sheep enclosure or pen, right?
	So they don't understand that there are evil people out there, right?
	Well, I don't like to lie, therefore, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
	It's like, well, yeah, but there are lots of people who do and lots of people who profit from it enormously, really good at lying.
	And it's funny to me how atheists believe in evolution.
	Human beings' default position is lying.
	When you're a kid, right?
	And you just lie.
	And there's nothing wrong with that.
	It's just our default position is lying.
	People lie all the time.
	And yet they say somehow, well, we have this innate ethics to say don't lie.
	It's like, well, ridiculous, right?
	So, yeah, I mean, one of the great dangers of sleeping around, obviously unwanted pregnancy, stalkers, STDs, and the repeated exposure to the rolling the one out of 20 dice roll where you just get a real psycho.
	And that's tough, man.
	And so, you know, we good men who are saying to women, and we say this, I say this to men as well, right?
	We're just talking about women in this circumstances, right?
	So don't do it.
	Don't do it.
	Because as a man, we are more aware of bad men than you are.
	Like men can warn women, can warn women about bad men because bad men don't try to charm us because we don't have anything they want.
	I mean, sexually, right?
	Assuming they're not gay, right?
	So as men, certainly we know our own dark hearts, but we also know that there are bad guys out there and we kind of know what they look like in terms of like their aura or whatever instinct, whatever gut instinct that prey has for the presence of predators.
	And so most men have had a creepy tail or some guy who's just kind of weird around them.
	And those men don't show that true face to the women that they want to sleep with.
	And so men, we're constantly saying to women, no, no, no, this is dangerous.
	This is a bad guy.
	You know, the bad guy's out there.
	You don't want to be doing this.
	You're rolling the dice.
	And women who've been around a lot of nice guys and had a lot of nice guys defer to them because, you know, they're women and men defer to them And chivalrous and gracious and all that kind of stuff.
	And we're like, no, no, no, but it's not all of us, man.
	It's not all of us.
	We all know the bully.
	We all know the weirdo.
	We all know the violent guy.
	We all know the guy that you can't play soccer with because he's a psycho.
	We all know the guy that you can't even play baseball with because he'll just whip the ball at your head.
	We all know the guy you can't wrestle with or swim with.
	We all know the guy you can't play fight with because he's crazy.
	Every man goes through that experience out there in the world.
	I mean, I had a friend when I was in my early teens who was kind of crazy.
	I mean, fun, but kind of crazy.
	He would like ride his bike off walls and he would cross train tracks in the middle of the night and kind of lured me into it in a very dangerous way, like big trestle bridges and all that kind of stuff.
	And he had no particular sense of self-preservation.
	And he actually ended up in a terrible motorcycle accident and was killed instantly.
	Maybe that's sort of a Thanatos or death impulse.
	I was talking about that in the premium show from this morning.
	And if you want to join the premium shows, just go to FDRURL.com slash locals.
	You can try out all of the benefits of subscriptions.
	Costs you nothing.
	You can get a refund after 30 days.
	So just give it a try.
	Now, so all men know the guy with the faraway look in his eyes and the weird fixed smile who goes too far.
	He's a sociopath, psychopath, narcissist.
	We all know.
	We all know as men or as boys that there are some guys you don't eye contact with.
	They've got those cold, frozen faces, the faraway look in their eyes.
	Again, they don't really recognize the existence of other sovereign souls.
	They just view people as meat puppets to exploit or get what they want through.
	And most guys have seen weird escalations.
	You know, the, I'm a clown to you.
	I'm funny.
	I'm here to amuse you.
	Like most guys have seen those kinds of escalations.
	I think that's why that scene in Goodfellas is so famous, where you're just kind of laughing and choking around, and then some guy takes things personally and it just gets weird, man.
	And you realize you're in like crazy town, you're in danger zone, right?
	So yeah, men are constantly trying to warn women about the dangers of men.
	And women are like, no, I can love him.
	I can fix him.
	Whatever.
	So yeah, it is really unfortunate, but it is something that happens.
	And, you know, as I've always said, some people, hopefully most people learn through sweet reason, but a lot of people end up learning through a bitter experience.
	And, you know, good men are always trying to tell women, be careful, be dangerous.
	There's going to be a price to be paid sooner or later.
	It's going to go really bad.
	And some women listen and some women don't.
	And it's tough.
	Sorry, is there anything that you wanted to mention?
	Sorry for the long speech.
	No, thank you.
	It helped me organize my thoughts.
	And since you were the one mentioning Dark Triad personalities, I'm actually really looking forward to your book.
	Oh, yeah.
	I don't know if, did you hear the chapter that I published about the sociopath?
	Not yet.
	I'm a little behind.
	Oh, yeah.
	No, no problem.
	I was very busy this week.
	No problem, no problem.
	Anyway, yes, the book is good.
	I'm about 150 pages in, like sort of on a word processor or so.
	I think I'm about halfway done and I'm really enjoying it.
	It's a very interesting process for me because normally I'll plan out the books.
	And this one, I'm completely freeballing the book, which is a high wire act, which either works really well or really badly.
	So far, I think it's good.
	But I appreciate your interest and I'll keep everyone posted about this.
	All right.
	Atlas, my friend, what's on your mind?
	Hi, Stepan.
	I was just wanted to piggyback off that discussion.
	It kind of reminds me of the evolutionary arms race that's been kicked off in the last 25 years.
	Are you familiar with the early day PUAs, like the mystery method and all that?
	I mean, I'm sort of aware of the pickup artistry.
	I mean, but my honesty, it's like nagging and leaving women on read and play hard to get other attractive women.
	I'm far from an expert on the content, but I'm certainly aware of the form of the PUAs.
	So go ahead.
	I was just, I was, I enjoy like studying the, basically the red pill market or the dating market between men and women, especially I have a little boy and I'm, I'm just wondering to myself, like, how do I, what guidance do I give him going forward in this bleak, bleak future?
	It looks like, because there's this, this trend of the sociopaths are, you know, it's an asymmetric world out there.
	Like, say the, he gets picked on a lot, but the Andrew Tates of the world.
	Are you there?
	I'm here.
	Sorry.
	Go ahead.
	Where, well, like, in, I brought it up, Rolo's, one, in one of Rolo's book, we are looking at a future where the polygamy is going to come back, but it's going to be women choosing polygamy for themselves.
	And there's going to be a huge class of men who are, who can't get their foot in the dating door because it's the 80-20 rule, the 80-20 rule.
	Yeah, that 80% of women are going for 20% of men.
	Right.
	And also combining that with the hedonic treadmill of men or the P, the pickup artists kicked off a mutual arms race where they were competing and escalating to the point like the, like nowadays, it seems like the Homath or even the what's, what is it called?
	The, that podcast.
	Those guys, that guy has his whatever.
	Yeah, the whatever podcast, like this, this delusional bubble that modern like women, women between fours and sixes, they're all gaslighting each other into thinking that they're tens, but even, even the sixes can often go to, they can get, they can sleep with a 10, but they can't get a relationship with a 10.
	And so I, I look at the, I've just the same way you'd study a financial market.
	I'm studying the, the sexual market and trying to come up with, you know, coachable advice.
	What am I going to, I worry, you know, I love my son and I want to coach him to basically be aware, like, how do you compete?
	How do I coach my son to compete with these kind of sociopaths?
	Because not all women are perfect, but you do have to play the game.
	How old is your son?
	He's four.
	Yeah, this is all going to be resolved by the time he's an adult.
	Yeah, I hope so.
	Or at least we'll all be able to keep the evidence of what everybody's human instincts or behavior is.
	I don't think the West is going to be able to financially hold itself together.
	Oh, yeah, no, no.
	I mean, it's snowballing, right?
	So.
	Okay.
	So I don't know, again, much about Tomasi and sort of the others, their sort of backstory.
	Why do they think this is happening?
	Why do they think that women have gone shallow and look-spaced and materialistic that way?
	I think it's especially what they think or what you think.
	I just want to differentiate between the two.
	I can't speak for them.
	What have you heard them say?
	Do they talk about the why or are they talking about the what?
	Ryan Stone is more of an expert on this.
	He actually wrote books called Praxeology, like as helping men get on the ladder of dating.
	And I would think it's people just reacting to the market forces of their social milieu, right?
	It's like you work out because the guy next to you is working out.
	And you have to women are spoiled for choice.
	And so that's a market and you have to compete in the market.
	Okay, but why are women spoiled for choice?
	And if you don't want to talk about other people's mindset, I understand that.
	But what's your mindset?
	Why do you think that women have changed so much just over the last, say, 40 or 50 years?
	I think the internet dating and so it's it's almost like a convergent of forces.
	Like, you know, you can start one of those old propellers where you can either push up on the propeller blade to get it started or you can pull it down to get it started.
	Right.
	I think it's the lack of immediate consequences for women.
	Like they can get, it's, it's the bailout factor, it's the moral hazard, kind of like the same way banks getting banked, bailed out, right?
	So you have.
	Okay.
	So I think you're onto something there.
	So tell me more about what you mean about the bailout situation.
	Well, women are depending on men to be Christians so they'll get a good, dutiful male who's going to give them extra scoops of forgiveness.
	And that beta male is just going to have to, you know, do what God wants him to do and be the savior for that woman.
	Okay, sorry, that's a bit abstract for me.
	So what has, I mean, there've always been beta males around.
	There's always been alpha males around.
	There have always been men who want to sleep a lot with women.
	But women said no in the past, right?
	Women said no, and they didn't sleep around nearly as much as they do now.
	So you have to give me something that is not something that's been before.
	Now, the internet is not enough of an answer because the internet doesn't fundamentally change human nature.
	And of course, before the internet, there were other explosions in communications technologies such as mail and then the telephone and chat rooms even on the telephone for things back in the day.
	So it can't just be increases in communication or information technology.
	I think it has to be something else.
	To push back, to politely push back, I think the invention of dating apps has completely changed the landscape for younger people who are looking to date or the sexual market.
	Does that make sense?
	If you would read Aaron Clary's book of numbers, a lot of modern dating has moved over to the dating apps.
	Sure.
	And the average experience for a, like, you know, you do the, do the experiment of a woman, these, some of these women are making male apps and they, they experience, they try to, to, they make themselves into a male app or present themselves on a male and they try to get a date.
	And within a couple of weeks, they report that they, they, their attitude towards women becomes more towards disgust.
	No, no, I understand all of that and I accept all of that.
	My question still remains, why are women able to sleep around now when they weren't able in the past?
	Now saying, well, they have the internet, well, that doesn't change the fundamental equation.
	That just means that women have more choice.
	It doesn't.
	The government.
	Are you asking or say?
	I'm taking my shot to answer the question of the welfare state.
	It's the government, damn it.
	Well, let's talk about that.
	So what do you think has changed now that women have access to infinite money?
	Well, the women's dual mating strategy of the alpha, alpha, and beta.
	No, no, that was not a dual mating strategy in the past.
	Well, they had that same impulse.
	They had to balance these two urges.
	They wanted resources, but they also have to balance that with wanting to sleep with the hot guy.
	Well, they get like they do what everyone does, right?
	It's not particular to women.
	They do what everyone does.
	So what everyone does is they get the best and the most that they can.
	Right.
	They have to balance those two.
	Yeah.
	Like you.
	If you want a hot girl.
	Yeah, you want a hot girl.
	I remember being in junior high school.
	I know, feels like a long time ago, but I remember being in junior high school.
	And the way that it worked was this.
	There was the guys all on one side of the gym.
	This was in grade six, or actually it was even before that, right?
	End of elementary school.
	So I remember that you would cross over.
	There's a big canyon, this big void in the middle of the gym.
	So you'd be on your side of the gym and you'd cross over to where the girls were, right?
	And you'd cross over to where the girls were.
	And then what you would do is you would try to find a girl who would dance with you.
	Now you had the balance, right?
	So you didn't want to ask a girl who was so attractive that she wouldn't dance with you because she's looking for a hotter guy, right?
	And also, if you shoot your shot at the hot girl, then you can't shoot your shot at the next girl because she's going to be offended because she knows she's your second choice, right?
	Right.
	So you walk over, and again, I'm not saying this is all conscious for people, but it's very real.
	So you walk over.
	It's our math brain, right?
	So you go over and you say, look, I could get the ugly girl to dance with me, but then my friends are going to make fun of me and I'm going to feel bad.
	And then I'm going to set that publicly as my standard, which means a more attractive girl is less likely to go out with me, right?
	Right.
	So you're looking for a girl who is attractive enough that your friends won't laugh at you, but not so attractive that she's never going to dance with you, right?
	Right.
	And of course, the women are doing the same thing.
	The girls are doing the same thing.
	They want a guy who's attractive enough that they don't feel, she doesn't feel like she's lowering herself, but not so attractive that she has no chance.
	Right.
	And the colloquialism for that would be the people say, oh, she's out of my league.
	Yeah, she's out of my league.
	She's out of my league.
	Or, you know, you deserve better, right?
	There was this sort of famous Seinfeld where this woman who was a doctor was dating a guy who was like a shoe salesman or something like that.
	Right.
	And George was like, oh, you could have done so much better.
	And I was just being colloquium, but turns out to have been a complete disaster for their entire relationship, right?
	So that's what you do as a man, right?
	Now, in the past, what would happen?
	Okay, let's eliminate the welfare state, right?
	And by the welfare state, I'm not just talking about direct welfare.
	Like I'm talking the whole thing, right?
	I mean, the welfare state that subsidizes women includes government schools, right?
	Because you have to pay for schools, free dental care, free health care, like all the stuff that women use more.
	So let's say that that's all gone and women have to pay their own way through life.
	And let's also say that women want to have children.
	So there's no government subsidies.
	And the government subsidies also include, of course, the subsidies of government employment for women HR departments, like all the pretend jobs that are made up just to meet quotas and stuff like that.
	So let's say that women have to genuinely pay their own way and that women want to have children and they can't run to the government if they make a mistake.
	So then what?
	What had played out for me?
	How does that work out for women when we return to some sort of semblance of a free market with regards to well, no, no, but like let's run through her, what's her calculation as a as a teenager?
	Her calculation would return to what it traditionally would have been like.
	So run through it.
	Not everyone knows it, right?
	Well, she needs to have the radar to make sure she doesn't get one of those, that one in 20 die of a psychopath, but she also needs to balance it with a man who has a good work ethic.
	She would have to choose the classically good man.
	You know, the, I don't know how to put it more than that.
	Okay, so she would have to choose a classically good man.
	So what does that look like?
	A man who is able to provide and also lead his family in or like he's able to, he participates with his children.
	He doesn't just go to work and then he comes and gives his, he, he, he invests in his children.
	Okay.
	So that's, that's all very theoretical and psychological and abstract, but let's talk about, because we're talking about the removal of government subsidies for women's bad decisions.
	So just from a pure survival material standpoint, right?
	Just not in terms of like dad who invests a lot, but, you know, can my kids survive?
	Can I, can I survive, right?
	So a woman who's, she's in her teens, she wants to get pregnant and she's going to have, you know, two to three kids at least.
	So she's going to be economically disabled for it's more than just the length of the kids, right?
	So one of the reasons why you had like one of the reasons why you had to put all these laws in that say men have to hire women is that, let's say that you want to hire two people to do a complex job and one of them is a young woman who recently got married and the other is a young man who recently got married who's going to be more productive on average.
	Right.
	You would choose if there wasn't a law in place, you would choose the young man.
	Well, of course you would, yeah, because the young woman is going to get pregnant, most likely, and she's going to leave to have kids and maybe she'll come back, maybe she won't.
	And even if she does come back, she's got to rush off to get to daycare and she can't travel for work because she's got kids, right?
	So in general, you're going to choose the man, which is why all these laws had to be passed to force employers to hire women to lure them away from having children and all of that kind of stuff.
	So she was to have kids.
	So she is going to be economically disabled from her early 20s until her mid-30s at best, right?
	Right.
	At least until the young, however many kids she has until her youngest kid is probably 15.
	Right.
	Or thereabouts.
	And then, of course, as her kids grow and age out of the house, she's got two sets of parents who are aging out as well who are going to need help and resources.
	Right.
	Right.
	So, I mean, if she.
	Unless they were Eskimos and you could just put grandpa on the ice flow.
	Assuming a non-Eskimo scenario.
	I think that's fair.
	I wasn't sure I was going to say that today, but we'll do it.
	So she is going to be reliant upon the man for her income, for the money she needs to run a household and to raise their kids, right?
	Right.
	So why doesn't she sleep around?
	Why doesn't she just bang, you know, 20 guys before she's 20 or 25 or whatever, right?
	Why doesn't she do that?
	She's lowering her chances of finding that man because that guy's that classically good man is he's going to have like that that heat map.
	His the disgust factor is going to go off for him.
	Yeah.
	So you're right.
	So there's two elements of one, she's going to get a bad reputation.
	Yes.
	And her pair bonding is going to get shredded.
	And she might have STD.
	She might have unwanted pregnancy.
	She's got her heart broken a bunch of times.
	And she's going to be a liability.
	So, you know, the guys who don't care about a woman's body count are the guys who don't want to pursue any kind of elevated professional career.
	Like if you are aiming to be a lawyer, you cannot marry a woman with a high body count if it's known, right?
	Because, I mean, I've been in the business world, of course, for a long time.
	And I used to bring my wife to company events and retreats and, you know, where spouses were included.
	And, you know, she's poised and wonderful and professional.
	And, you know, she practiced psychology for 25 years.
	So she's, you know, really, really, really smart and good, great conversationalist and a real asset to me.
	Like, honestly, I mean, I would get comments like, how did you get her?
	You know, kind of thing, right?
	I mean, it was kind of a joke, but that comes out of, I guess, maybe a kind of envy.
	Your subconscious calculation was accurate.
	Yes.
	So, so, you know, and she's got a great figure and, you know, all of that.
	So, I mean, I know that that sounds kind of silly, but it is to some degree how energized, right?
	So if you're a high status male, you cannot marry a woman with a high body count because other men are going to say, well, there's something wrong with you.
	Like when it comes to sort of very high calibrated careers, you know, trust is really important.
	And any red flag is enough to scotch the whole thing.
	And if you marry, you know, I hate to use the word slut because it just sounds so, so coarse.
	But if you marry a woman with a high body count, that's a red flag.
	There's something that's not quite right with you.
	You don't have good judgment.
	And if you don't have good judgment, you're not going to be trusted with a multi-million dollar budget.
	Right.
	Unless you're Jeff Bezos.
	Have you been paying attention to his life decisions lately?
	Okay.
	Sorry.
	It's kind of annoying that you keep coming in with counterexamples.
	I guess it's kind of funny, but it's really breaking the flow.
	Like you come in with the Eskimo stuff, which I guess was kind of funny, but breaks the flow.
	Jeff Bezos, he created all of his money and he created it when he was married.
	Now, the fact that he swapped out his wife for whatever's going on is not relevant now because he's already a multi-decker billionaire, right?
	Right.
	I apologize for inter adding these comments.
	Yeah, I mean, listen, I do want it to be a conversation, but it just really breaks up the flow when you come in with non-sequiturs because I either have to agree with them when they don't make any sense or I have to tell you why they're wrong, which interrupts the flow of the conversation, if that makes sense.
	Yes, I will hold on.
	No problem.
	I appreciate that.
	So, yeah, I mean, I was trusted with multi-billion dollar budgets in the business world, but that's in part because they met my wife.
	Am I kidding about that, right?
	So the reason why she's not going to sleep around is, as you're right, there's a dual factor.
	Number one is by the time she's finished sleeping around, the good guys are gone.
	That's number one.
	Number two is even if there's a good guy or two still left, they don't want to marry her, right?
	So then what, let's say there's a woman, she wants to have kids.
	Let's say she's 25, you know, she's spent six or seven years sleeping with a bunch of guys, a bunch of short-term relationships on one night stance.
	So what does she do then?
	Again, no government subsidies.
	She can't get anything for free.
	She's got to earn everything, either through getting a good guy to devote resources to her and the kids or working or like, what does she do?
	And this is after she's went and wasted her 20s.
	Well, she had fun, right?
	So she slept with a lot of guys and people know that.
	And nowadays, you can't hide it because everybody compulsively posts stuff on the internet, not thinking about the consequences, I say, as someone who's done that.
	So what's she going to do?
	She's 24, 25, 26, and she's got, you know, bodies dragging after her like a chain of guilt.
	And what does she do?
	She's going to panic.
	No, no, that didn't say what she's feel.
	What's she going to do?
	Well, I would think she's going to try to do her best to pass her off as somebody who didn't.
	No, no, she can't do that because of the trail of social media.
	Because she did all these photos.
	Here's me in Thailand with Bob, you know, here's me with Jeff.
	So she can't, she can't swing that.
	Well, I don't know what she will do, but in order to achieve her goal, she will have to lower her standard.
	She has to lower her standard.
	So she has gone from top-tier sexy guys.
	So she's gone, you know, from the sort of eight, nine, 10 guys.
	She's going to have to seriously lower her standards because anyone who can make decent money won't touch her with a 10-foot pole because she's too much of a liability.
	And she wants a smart guy and smart guys make a lot of money, but smart guys also know what's best for them and are good at negotiating and know what a liability is when they see it, right?
	So she's going to have to, instead of getting a guy making 200 grand a year, she's going to have to get a guy making 40 grand a year.
	Right.
	Right.
	So that's, that's a, that's a big change, right?
	That's 160 grand a year.
	10 years, 1.6 million, right?
	20 years, $3.2 million.
	Right.
	And that's not all of it, but that's just some of it.
	And again, let's just sort of go past the taxes thing, right?
	So, so that's really costly, right?
	And people respond to incentives, right?
	So again, we'll just make it pretty easy.
	Let's say that she slept with 15 guys and it cost her over $3 million.
	It means it cost her $213,000 for each guy she slept with.
	Now, if you were to say to a woman, she's like, oh, I really want to have sex with this hot drunken biker guy with the face tattoos.
	And you were to say to her, listen, I'm going to give you almost a quarter of a million dollars to not sleep with him.
	What would she say?
	Sure, should we go to the bank right now and you can pay him?
	Yes.
	And she would not sleep with him.
	But that's the reality.
	That's not a theory.
	That's a reality.
	That if she sleeps around absent the welfare state, then she's spending almost a quarter million dollars per man she sleeps with in diminished income from her husband.
	And that's why women didn't sleep around before.
	Right.
	Now they can get a bunch of HR nonsense jobs.
	They can get stuff from the government.
	They get free daycare.
	Often they get welfare, disability subsidies.
	They get old age pensions paid for.
	So it doesn't cost them, right?
	It doesn't cost them in the way.
	So that's why women didn't do it in the past, because it was way too expensive.
	They lost everything.
	And they then spent the rest of their lives looking at this schlub who makes 40 grand a year, knowing that they could have had a guy make a 200 grand a year and their kids would be set.
	And then every time they can't afford braces, every time they can't afford to fix the car, every time they can't afford to fix the roof, every time like she's just bitter.
	It's not just costly money.
	It's costly emotionally brutal.
	Well, and also she wouldn't have, she would have the visceral example of somebody she knew in her town who did that.
	Oh, you mean who didn't sleep around and got the good guy?
	Right.
	Well, the grapevine exists.
	You're like, oh, did you know what Debbie did?
	Well, grapevine.
	She'll social stalk media.
	She'll social media stalk in Chicago, right?
	Right.
	And I'm saying, like, in the old days, she would, all the, all the women who did participate in that riskiness would have been exposed as like other women would have talked to her, talked about that woman as because she was such an example of destroying her life.
	And it gets even worse than this.
	Are you ready for the last chapter?
	Yep.
	So this girl who could have got the $200,000 guy, now only gets the $40,000 guy.
	Now, the $40,000 guy, if he's got any brains or wisdom at all, which is certainly possible, it's not like money is the only indicator of wisdom and intelligence.
	So the $40,000 a year guy looks at her and says, oh, she's never going to be happy with me.
	She's going to be dissatisfied with me.
	And he bows out.
	Well, no, here's the thing too, is that he might say, okay, like she really wants to settle down.
	And she never would have looked at me in the past, but now she's desperate to settle down.
	And he's probably kind of upset with her for never having looked at him in the past, even though he's a good guy, a decent provider.
	So what he does is he says, you know what?
	I'll talk about marriage, but I think I'll just sleep with her because I can't commit to her because she's going to take half my stuff if she's unhappy and I won't get to see my kids again.
	So you have to have looks match and status match in order to have a sustainable relationship because otherwise one person feels they can do better is dissatisfied.
	All of these women who get divorced because of dissatisfaction is because they think they could have done better.
	So he's going to look at her and he's going to say, okay, so she slept with a lot of top tier guys and they would never commit to her.
	And so she's never going to be satisfied with my schlubby butt, right?
	Oh, Stefan, you're just being, you're insecure is what they're, if you're not willing to stand up and date one of them.
	Oh, I just, I got to tell you, I think it's absolutely hilarious that women complain about mansplaining and then try to define masculinity for men.
	I just, because I've had some women try that on X. It is the funniest thing around.
	I'm like, no, no, please, lady, tell me more about what it is to be a man.
	I'd love for you to tell me more.
	Come on, explain to me what being a man is.
	You're just insecure from avoiding this giant massive liability, right?
	Right.
	So odds are a woman who sleeps around is never going to get married because the guys she wants won't have her because they're too smart.
	And the guys she doesn't want won't have her because she doesn't want them.
	And they know that.
	Now, maybe she'll find some idiot who will, you know, who doesn't see all the signs and doesn't have anyone to warn him and his own mother doesn't help him.
	And so, yeah, but so then the best, the best that she can do is get married and divorced.
	That's the best that she can do.
	And of course, given if we're talking about no government subsidies, then all of this free money from your exes wouldn't be around either, right?
	The way that it would work in a free society, I guarantee you, is that if you got divorced, then the only money that would be available to the woman would be to pay for the kids in particular things, right?
	Not just here's two grand a month or five grand a month or whatever, but you have to show that the money is being spent on the children and not on your nails or your trips to Acapulco with your girlfriends or beer and tequila tabs, like you'd actually have to show.
	And there would have to be validation that you were, in fact, spending it on what was best for the kids.
	None of this blank check nonsense, right?
	So she wouldn't be able to get any particular money for herself.
	And then she'd be out in the market with a bunch of kids and she'd have to, like it would just get, it just gets worse and worse and worse.
	By far, the best option that the woman has in gaining a man of high value is to settle down as early as possible and not have a high body count.
	I'm not saying you've got to be a pure virgin because that's very rare these days, but you keep your body count low and you can get a good man.
	And if your body count gets too high, then good men won't want you.
	And even average men will be pretty leery if they have half a brain.
	And if he's so dumb that he doesn't even have anyone around to help protect him from lust and he doesn't have any wisdom or whatever, then, you know, she's always going to be comparing the guy she's with to the Greek gods she was with before.
	And nobody, nobody wants to, nobody wants that.
	So it's not that female nature has changed.
	It's just that it doesn't cost women a quarter million dollars to sleep with a guy who's not going to commit.
	Right.
	All right.
	Well, listen, I appreciate the conversation.
	Got a couple other people who want to challenge.
	Yeah, I appreciate it.
	Thanks, man.
	Great questions.
	You're always welcome.
	All right.
	Thank you.
	Lynn X. Lynx?
	Lynx.
	What's on your mind, my friend?
	Going once, going twice.
	Hello, hello.
	All right.
	So it looks like we're not hearing from him.
	The mystery continues.
	Spartan ows?
	Arioli.
	Spartan.
	I assume your language will be very confined, very concise.
	Yeah, you can hear me.
	Go ahead.
	Testing, test.
	Cool.
	I just wanted to clear up the 80-20 rule really quick.
	Yeah, go for it.
	So I think I heard you guys say was that 80% of men are unattractive and 20% men are attractive.
	No, it was that, sorry, it was that 80% of women are chasing 20% of the men.
	Thank you.
	So the way that works is that it actually works in that 80% of men are unattractive, and you got 20% of men that are not unattractive, and then 5% of men that are attractive.
	So just to clarify that.
	Well, yes, but the women aren't chasing only 5% of the men.
	Of course, they'd like to get the 5% of men, but they have to compromise to some degree.
	Otherwise, they won't get dates at all.
	Of course, of course.
	Of course.
	And that's based on the OKCupid survey, right?
	I think so.
	Yeah, just I'm sorry everyone knows, but just in case you don't, the OKCupid survey was from, I think, 2017.
	Men were asked to rank women's attractiveness, or I guess they get that from the app based on the swipes, and men had a bell curve of attractiveness that actually corresponded to things in reality, whereas women voted most men as unattractive, and it was not at all in accordance with reality.
	Yep.
	Yep.
	That was all I had to say.
	Thanks for the time.
	Appreciate it.
	I appreciate that clarification.
	Connor.
	Sierra Connor.
	Connor from Place Irish.
	What's on your mind, my friend?
	Is that me?
	Yes, sir.
	Is it me?
	Go for it.
	Is it me?
	Thanks.
	Oh, Stephan, you put a tweet out a couple of days ago.
	There are two in psychology, there are two conclusions that are supported more than anything.
	I can't remember the wording exactly off of the two mode.
	I find the multiplexed findings.
	But yeah, go ahead.
	Multiple findings.
	Yeah.
	One was IQ and the other was templates or something like that.
	No, so one is the predictability of IQ in life success and lifespan.
	That's number one.
	And number two is the accuracy of stereotypes.
	So go ahead.
	Stereotypes.
	Okay, so I've heard of the bell curve.
	I haven't read it.
	I'm aware of the so-called controversy around IQ.
	But I mean, is IQ accepted?
	I mean, that conclusion that predictability of IQ presupposes the existence of IQ and that IQ is a real dimension that can be measured and has a variability among humans.
	So if you just mind just going through that a little bit, especially the other one, the stereotypes, because I hadn't heard of that before.
	If you don't mind.
	No, no.
	I'm here to answer questions.
	I'm here to answer questions.
	And just because we are talking about stereotype accuracy, based upon your accent, I will need you to drink a lot of whiskey and write a great novel, just so you're aware over the course of the conversation.
	That's just because we need to maintain these stereotypes as much.
	And also eat nothing but potatoes.
	Oh, and hate the British.
	That's all fair.
	So the IQ question.
	So as a whole, the IQ question, and if you want more on this, I interviewed 17 world-renowned experts in the field of human intelligence many years ago.
	And you can find all of those interviews, which they're really worth going through.
	They really are worth going through.
	It's at FDRURL.com slash IQ.
	FDR URL, Freedom Radio, URL.com slash IQ.
	So IQ is significantly heritable, right?
	So there are some things that are 100% heritable, right?
	So eye color and height and so on is 100% heritable.
	And there are other factors that are not at all heritable.
	And then there are, and there's very few that are 100% heritable and then not at all heritable.
	And IQ, based upon a wide variety of twin studies and genetic analyses and so on, IQ is about 80% heritable by late teens.
	And it actually only goes up from there.
	So now listen, I mean, 80%, let's say 80%.
	Well, that's a big deal.
	So the fact that you can budge potentially how wise someone is, wisdom is different from intelligence, not just in D and D, but in life as a whole.
	And I'd much rather have greater wisdom than greater intelligence.
	So there's a lot that you can do with that.
	The problem is that nobody knows how to budge IQ, right?
	Hundreds of billions of dollars were spent in the 90s, I think, into the august, trying to close the black-white IQ gap, and they couldn't find any sustainable way to do it.
	So there's two areas in psychology with regards to IQ.
	One is inhabited by the scientists who generally accept that IQ is highly predictive.
	And IQ is a much better predictor of success in a complex job than any other single factor.
	It's way better than interviews.
	It's way better than your education.
	It's way better than your references or anything like that.
	So, and of course, it would make the most sense if you need to hire really smart people to just give them an IQ test.
	But that was rendered illegal.
	I think it was the late 60s or the early 70s, Duke Power versus whatever, whatever.
	You can look that up, that they made IQ tests illegal because of disparate impacts between men and women and other groups.
	So now you have to have a big weird proxy for IQ called the college degree, which is, you know, IQ is a, you know, a couple of hundred bucks in a couple of hours.
	But of course, universities or colleges, they are four plus years and, you know, hundreds of thousands is ridiculously inefficient way to figure out whether somebody's smart or not.
	And of course, it's much more corruptible than an IQ test.
	So in the realm of IQ, there are the scientists who deal with the data and work with the facts and the biology and the genetics and all that kind of stuff.
	And they, you know, accept it.
	Now, again, nobody says it's 100%, but they accept that IQ is significantly heritable and significantly predictive of life successes.
	And like I hate to say it, because it is ridiculously unfair, because nobody's responsible for their own IQ.
	It's horribly unfair.
	It's a fact that I hate just about more than any other fact, but hating it doesn't change it, right?
	I mean, you don't get to jump off the roof of your house and then hate gravity halfway down and expect a different outcome.
	You accept the facts.
	So I really hate it because it is, quote, unfair.
	And, you know, people aren't responsible for that.
	So, you know, everybody's a person, everybody's equal under the law, but there's this unfairness thing.
	So there's the people who work with the actual data and the people who work with the genetics, and they fully accept it as a whole.
	And then there are people in the goopy, softer, dare I say, slightly more estrogen-based side of psychology who hate it.
	And the reason that they hate it is that the blank slate theory is foundational to the left.
	So the left says all differences in group outcomes are the result of sexism, racism, bigotry, phobia, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, right?
	And that's a very powerful explanation that breeds a lot of resentment, breeds a lot of anger.
	That's social justice, right?
	It's blank slate, right?
	And on the other hand, there are people who say, look, there's significant disparities in human abilities that are only somewhat changeable.
	Like just about anybody who takes singing lessons will improve their singing as a whole, but not everyone who takes singing lessons is going to end up as a great singer, right?
	Because you have to have some basic biological substructure in your voice to be able to do that.
	I mean, I know this because I took years of singing lessons when I was in theater school and other places, and I did not become a great singer.
	Whereas some of the people who were in my theater school class, it was a national theater school, so it was pretty top tier, were just great singers to begin with.
	And the singing lesson certainly helped, but didn't change me into a good singer, didn't change them into, it just enhanced what was there to a large degree.
	So the softer, more, I say, would dare say ideological sides of psychology tend to oppose the science of IQ for reasons of blank slatism and so on.
	Because you can get a lot of power by pretending to fix injustice, right?
	There's this terrible injustice.
	You know, look at the wage gap, right?
	Men and women, oh, sexism.
	And we had a woman, I think, on yesterday who was talking about that.
	Oh, it's all sexism.
	And men hate women and exploit women.
	And it's like, okay, so then that breeds a lot of resentment.
	And then you get a lot of government power to rush in and fix it and take resources from these evil, patriarchal men and give it to these poor, victimized women.
	And like all of that sort of stuff, a lot of power, a lot of resentment, a lot of drama in the blank slate stuff.
	It's just not particularly scientific.
	You know, is there sexism?
	Of course there is.
	Is there racism?
	Of course there is.
	Some people unjustly denied opportunities on the basis of sex and race.
	I mean, in particular, the only institutional one seems to be against white males these days because it's written into a lot of diversity programs.
	But there is, of course, racism against other races and so on, right?
	So that's a factor, and we should not pretend that it isn't or doesn't exist.
	But there's other things as well, other than just sort of the blank slatism.
	So that is a real quick sprint through the IQ stuff.
	Does that sort of make sense as a whole?
	I say it, does that make sense as a whole?
	I'm used to aerospaces where people warbl on, somebody else jumps in, and you never really, nobody comes back.
	It's not so interactive.
	No, it does.
	Yeah, thanks, Chris.
	Chris, thank you.
	All right.
	So, and the other thing, listen, I'm certainly, I'm more of, I know more about the IQ stuff because of my interviews, but the stereotype accuracy is, in general, it comes out of a validation of game theory.
	So stereotypes that are not valid don't tend to spread or resonate with people.
	So if you had a stereotype that said elderly Asian gentlemen are the most vicious and violent and dangerous criminals on this planet, I mean, people would say, well, that's kind of a joke, right?
	I mean, because that's not generally how the data plays out.
	So human beings are very good at pattern recognition.
	Obviously, we have to be in order to survive.
	And all animals need to be good at pattern recognition in order to survive.
	So human beings are good at pattern recognition.
	And so stereotype accuracy is very robust.
	Again, it's not 100%.
	And you certainly can never judge any individual just because of membership in a particular group.
	But stereotype accuracy as a whole is pretty solid.
	So again, I sort of invite people to do their own research on that as a whole.
	But yeah, those are the two most robust findings.
	And, you know, a lot of people don't like it, right?
	And neither do I in a way, but not much, you know, the reality doesn't particularly care what I like or I don't like.
	I mean, I would like to live on a steady diet of Ouija Bix and chocolate, but that's just not how reality works.
	All right.
	Well, I hope that makes sense.
	I appreciate you calling in.
	Yeah, thanks.
	I wasn't sure if stereotype was just the same.
	It sounds like the psychological definition of stereotype is pretty much the same as the common sense everyday usage of the word.
	I didn't know that.
	I thought it might mean something a bit more specialized, but that's cool.
	That makes sense.
	Well, then it does sort of according to the question.
	It sort of accords with our sense of reality as a whole, right?
	Which is that how on earth could we have survived if we couldn't figure out ahead of time the odds of safety or danger, right?
	I mean, very few people are terrified if there's a sheep in the field, but a lot of people would be more nervous if there was a bear or a bull in heat in the field.
	So we're pretty, I mean, we couldn't possibly, evolution couldn't have worked.
	We couldn't have survived if we weren't good at figuring out threats or positives as a whole.
	All right.
	Conservative.
	What do we got here?
	I don't see the end of the name.
	Conservative non-bell.
	Non-believer?
	Non-believer?
	Yeah, conservative non-believer.
	All right.
	What is on your mind, my friend?
	How can philosophy help you today?
	Well, Seth, I've been, I follow you a lot on Twitter, and I've seen recently you've really been focusing on the point that atheists don't have a good grounding in morals as far as their moral framework.
	But it makes me wonder, does the why matter?
	If a person lives a moral life and does the right thing, does it really matter why they don't?
	I mean, do you have to have some sort of moral base to go off of?
	Is it more important that you actually just do the right thing?
	Okay, what is the right thing?
	Well, don't lie.
	Don't kill anybody.
	You know, the basic tenets of getting along with other human beings, basically.
	Okay, so don't lie, right?
	Well, that actually, that's probably not the best one because if I get a chance, I'd like to follow up on that one.
	Don't kill other people.
	Oh, so don't murder, right?
	Sure.
	Okay.
	So then we can't have law because all law is predicated on the threat of murder.
	I mean, if the cop, like, let's say you're speeding, right?
	And the cop, you know, tells you to pull over, right?
	Well, if you don't pull over, if you keep driving at some point, he's going to have to escalate, right?
	Or if you pull over and then you run away or you resist his, you don't want to, you know, you resist everything that he's doing.
	You won't talk to him.
	You won't, like, what happens to the cop?
	Or what is the cop going to do if you disobey the law?
	Well, isn't law just basically.
	Okay, bro, bro.
	I asked a question.
	You know, it's rude to answer a question with a question.
	So what does the police officer do if you defy him?
	Oh, first he'll catch you, then he'll beat you up, then he'll put you in jail, probably.
	What if you continue to resist him?
	What if you try to gouge?
	I'm not saying, I'm not recommending any of this, obviously, like obey the law, obey the cops.
	But what happens if you keep resisting him?
	What is he authorized to do?
	Use potentially deadly force to if you're going to say, don't murder, then you are going to say there's no law.
	The cop can give you a stern lecture or something like that, but at least in its current form.
	Because all law is predicated on escalations of force up to and including deadly force, right?
	Agreed, but laws aren't hard and fast.
	Laws changed by the group of people you're with.
	But that's even worse then, right?
	Because then it's arbitrary.
	I could argue that, yes, you're right, they are arbitrary, but it doesn't bring back why is murdering...
	It does matter.
	No, it really does.
	So, and I'll make a case here for that.
	So you lie and I lie.
	Is that fair to say?
	Yeah, I think everybody lies, at least on some level, yes.
	Everybody, everybody lies.
	And there are times when that lie is good or at least not bad, right?
	You know, I mean, we lie to children all the time.
	Oh, what a wonderful drawing.
	It's like, it's not a wonderful drawing.
	It's just fine for them, right?
	So we lie and, you know, we can all come up with scenarios.
	Like the common one is, you know, the Nazis are looking for Jews and you don't tell them where the Jews are, right?
	Or, you know, if I was driving along and I saw some horrible car crash and there's a guy dying at the wheel and his family is dead in the back and he says, my family okay?
	I'd say, yes, they're fine.
	Because I wouldn't have his last minutes or two be consumed with the fact that his family was dead, right?
	So there are times when a lie is kind of a kindness, like an anesthetic for an operation, right?
	You're not being injured.
	You kind of are, but you don't want to feel that, right?
	So there are times when this would happen.
	If somebody doesn't tell me the truth, I feel no obligation to tell them the truth because I treat people the best I can the first time I meet them.
	And after that, I treat them as they treat me.
	So lying is also a relationship.
	Lying, sorry, honesty is a relationship.
	Honesty is earned through honesty, right?
	So honesty is kind of complicated.
	Thou shalt not murder.
	Yeah, it's important.
	It's important and I'll tell you why.
	In science, is it important that we have principles behind what we're doing?
	Or should we just do trial and error, figure out what works and try and stick with what works?
	We should have a basic reference of how to go about like our scientific process.
	So everybody's doing it the same way and everybody finds the same results.
	Okay, so in science, do we just do a bunch of stuff and see what works or do we try to extract principles that we can apply to new situations?
	Oh, you've got me there because I don't necessarily believe that science is based in any sort of principle except to find, you know, what's true when it comes to the universe.
	Well, okay, but there's a methodology.
	There's a methodology that we do.
	Right.
	So let's take you back to your childhood.
	Here we go in our time machine.
	We go back to your childhood.
	Now, so the first time you jump off a high wall, it hurts your legs, right?
	Okay.
	I mean, you agree.
	I mean, we've usually done that, right?
	I mean, I remember my brother and I being in Scotland and running down a pier and jumping off the edge of the pier because there was all this sand at the end and we just did it over and over again until we could barely walk.
	It was a real blast.
	But you do like the first time you fall on a bike and you get your skin strawberry knee, it hurts, right?
	Now, what is the purpose of that pain?
	Well, it's to tell you not to do it again or at least try to avoid it.
	Right.
	So the purpose of the pain is the future.
	Pain is not about the past.
	Pain is about the future.
	It's an aversive mechanism by which we say, our body says to us, please don't jump off that high wall again because you're going to hurt your ankle again, right?
	Right.
	Okay.
	So there's a principle there called gravity.
	And we don't go to some new wall and say, well, maybe I'll float off this one.
	So we have a principle, which is we fall and the fall can hurt.
	So that's a principle.
	And the principle allows us to avoid future pain, right?
	Now, let's look at the infancy or the childhood of the species, which was slavery.
	And I'm not just talking about the usual ante-bellum South, but, you know, almost all societies, in fact, all societies employed slavery through almost all of human history.
	Now, did slavery, quote, work in terms of producing goods And soldiers and weapons and so on.
	Yes.
	It did.
	So it worked, right?
	Now, the problem is that it was immoral, but it didn't seem immoral to anyone at the time.
	It worked, right?
	Yes.
	Now, slavery was overturned with the principle of free will and self-ownership, and really actually private property as well.
	So private property says you own yourself and you own the effects of your actions.
	But if you can own yourself, since we all do own ourselves, you can't also be owned by someone else.
	And so there was a moral principle that was put in play that overturned the ancient evils of slavery and really delivered unto us the modern world.
	The modern world is simply the product of the end of slavery.
	So that's a principle that allowed us to change the future.
	So if as an atheist, you don't know why you shouldn't murder or why you shouldn't steal, you won't be able to develop principles that improve the future.
	I guess that's where I'm at the self, it's the self-dilemma because I am an atheist.
	And you really generated a lot of self-thought about that because I really couldn't find a moral grounding for doing the right thing.
	I think I do the right thing.
	I try not to lie.
	I've certainly never murdered anybody.
	But I also find exceptions to all those rules because sometimes the ends do justify the means.
	If the police lie to people and invite them to win a vacation because they have a warrant and they come and they arrest them, didn't that lie perpetuate into a moral good?
	Well, yeah, let's make those people like this evil a set of people or pedophiles or mass murderers.
	Like, sure, I've got no problem with the police doing that.
	In fact, I wish they'd do it more.
	But at the same time, of course, giving the police the right to lie, as they do have in most countries, they have the right.
	You can't lie to the police, but they'll lie to you.
	So the challenge for atheists, of course, is that they do support, as a whole, some extremely evil stuff.
	So, you know, atheists were very, very keen on lockdowns.
	They were very keen on mandated vaccinations.
	They were very keen on controlling people's behavior because of climate change.
	They're very keen on abortion.
	And, you know, look, it's still debatable wherever you land.
	And they support the hard left parties at a rate of 85% or more.
	So the atheists support a whole bunch of stuff that is immoral and downright evil.
	They very much supported the policies of ripping children from the homes of parents who didn't want their kids to take the experimental gene therapy and so on, right?
	And so it's pretty evil stuff.
	So just saying, well, I try to do the right thing tends to work at a personal level.
	Like you say, well, I haven't murdered.
	I haven't.
	But the thing is that if you only work at the personal level, you don't actually have any principles and it's just kind of hedonism, right?
	So I assume that you dislike lying and I assume that you, like decent people as a whole, you feel a certain amount of horror at the idea of murder, right?
	True.
	Okay.
	Now, you say, well, I just don't want to do these things.
	Okay, but what about the people who do want to do these things?
	What about the people who are really good at lying?
	They're really charismatic.
	They're really charming.
	And they get a lot of resources and genetic success, right?
	Evolutionary success out of lying.
	What do you say to them?
	It's wrong, but why?
	I don't know if I can directly answer your question except to say that there are plenty of people that believe in that moral framework that still go out and do bad things.
	I'm sorry, say that again?
	Well, I don't believe that, or I don't think atheism or religious belief is a choice.
	You either believe it or you don't.
	So these people that are religious, and I see it all the time, how the justice system will put people through this Christian revival.
	They're born again Christians, then they get out and they commit crimes again and they commit immoral acts and yet they still believe in God.
	So I don't necessarily see a direct correlation between religiosity or belief.
	I'm sorry, sorry.
	Let me just, you went through a whole lot there, and I don't want to let too much, too many facts pile up.
	So you're saying that criminals profess to believe in religion and then they go out and commit crimes again.
	Yes.
	Well, but you know how the justice system works, right?
	I mean, are you more likely to get parole if you claim to have converted to Christianity?
	Yes.
	Right.
	So they're just lying.
	They're saying, oh, I found Jesus.
	I'm never going to commit these crimes again.
	I love Jesus.
	I'm going to, right?
	So then they get released.
	They get parole and they get released.
	But how do you know that they honestly have an honest conversion?
	I mean, they're criminals.
	They're going to lie.
	Well, there's no way to know for sure if anybody truly believes or not.
	No, there are.
	No, no, there are ways.
	So for instance, if somebody says, I've converted to Christianity, which foundational aspect is thou shalt not steal, and they go out and steal, have they converted to Christianity?
	You know, I guess that's a great question because once again, I don't believe that religious belief is a choice.
	Yes, I think there are plenty of people out there that believe that there's a God and they believe in Jesus.
	Okay, hang on, hang on, hang on, hang on.
	It's this, I'm sorry, I don't mean to nag on you because you're just one of this like modern thing.
	I ask a fucking question and people don't answer.
	They don't even address the fact that now you're talking about, well, religious belief is not voluntary and so on.
	Like, do you even remember the question that I asked?
	You asked if they're truly Christian if they go out and they do these things.
	What was my specific example?
	I apologize.
	You'll have to refresh me.
	Listen, and I hate to nag on you.
	And unfortunately, you've just received my frustration since being back on X because I've been, you know, for the last five years, I've been talking to, you know, people who are, you know, sort of more closely knit in philosophy.
	And so I'm just, I'm not, I'm unused to This modern habit, maybe it's not a modern habit, where you ask a question and people just go off on a speech like you didn't say anything.
	So, my question was: You said it's impossible to know if somebody's sincere in their conversion.
	And I said, Well, if somebody converts to Christianity and they go out and steal, and Christianity says, Thou shalt not steal, and they go out and steal, wouldn't that be an indication that they haven't had a sincere conversion?
	Yes.
	But another basic tenet of Christianity is forgiveness.
	Yes, but forgiveness.
	No, no, but forgiveness has to be earned by repentance, restitution, and not sinning again.
	Go forth and sin no more.
	Right?
	So it's not a blank check.
	This is a lot of atheists believe that this is magic wand.
	Oh, you can just do all the evil you want and then just you just ask for forgiveness on your deathbed and you're totally fine.
	It's like that's not even close to how it works.
	And it's so funny that atheists think, I'm not saying this is you, right?
	But atheists think that the all-knowing God wouldn't have a single freaking clue as to whether you were honest or genuine in your repentance.
	So if you're only doing repentance to get out of prison, right?
	Because you're more likely, like, you know, a lot of the people who run prisons are Christian and they respect conversion to Christianity.
	And I assume that genuine conversions to Christianity would do something to mitigate recidivism.
	So, no, the forgiveness is not you just keep lying to me and committing crimes.
	There's no forgiveness for that at all.
	You have to genuinely repent and genuinely change your ways and not repeat the crime.
	Now, but tell me what it is that you mean when you say religious belief is not voluntary.
	Do you mean that people are taught or told about religion as kids?
	And I can only use personal experience, but I was a Christian and I took the time to read the Bible.
	And there were so many things in the Bible that were just couldn't be true.
	They just can't be true that I just don't believe.
	I don't believe it's true.
	It's not like I woke up one morning and said, you know what?
	I'm not going to believe it anymore.
	No, no, I get that.
	And sorry to interrupt.
	I'm sorry to interrupt because the question is about morals.
	So, okay, so you, by letting go of God, you let go of divinely ordained and defined morality, right?
	I suppose.
	No, no, there's not a suppose in that.
	Well, if morality in the Christian context is an all-knowing, all-good God telling you what to do to be good, then if you disbelieve in God, you now no longer have that entire justification and prop up for these moral commandments, right?
	Let me give you an example.
	Let me give you an example.
	So let's say that you are driving down the highway and a cop tells you to pull over, right?
	And then you hear on the radio that there's someone pretending to be a cop pulling people over in order to rob them, right?
	And then they give you the description, they give you the license plate, and you look in your rearview mirror and you see that that's the license plate, right?
	So you think it's a cop, right?
	So you feel obliged to pull over.
	And then you found out that it's not a real cop.
	Do you still feel the same impulse to pull over?
	Of course not.
	Right.
	So because you no longer believe that it's a cop, his rules don't apply.
	And because you no longer believe in God, his rules don't apply, right?
	So then how do you get your rules?
	That's my big question to the atheists, right?
	And this is not a question of the existence or non-existence of God.
	Let's say that you're 100% right.
	There's no God.
	Okay.
	So it's not a real cop.
	Where do you get your law?
	Where do you get your rules?
	All the rules came from God.
	You don't believe in God, which means you don't believe in those rules, at least the origin of those rules.
	Where do you get your rules from?
	You still have the rules, but the person that's trying to enforce those rules is breaking the rules themselves.
	So the hypocrisy right there can give you at least some leverage not to follow his instructions.
	But if a real cop were to pull up, first of all, you'd be thankful that he pulled up, but you're still under control of the law, whether it's all about who's enforcing it.
	And I get that.
	Okay, so sorry.
	So what you're saying is that in the absence of God, you obey the government.
	You sort of have to to survive.
	I mean, no, I get that, but is it moral?
	Obviously, the government tells you to do a whole bunch of stuff.
	I mean, let's not even take the current world, right?
	Throughout history, have all the commandments of governments accorded with morality?
	No.
	Of course not, right?
	Of course not.
	I mean, up here in Canada, right, Justin Trudeau invoked the Emergency Act.
	And if I remember rightly, he was found to have not been justified in doing that.
	Right?
	So there are lots of laws that are later found to be wrong or immoral.
	Of course, we look back in history and we can see an endless amount of utterly unjust and immoral laws.
	So saying, well, I'm not going to obey God, I'm going to obey the government doesn't solve the problem of morality.
	Because how do you know whether the government's laws, whether you obey them or not, you still should have an objective judgment about whether they're moral?
	You sort of got me at an impasse here because I still laws and even commandments of God or Christianity are just, at least from my perspective, a collection of thoughts from human beings.
	Okay.
	And how is the law different?
	It isn't.
	Okay, okay.
	So you don't gain anything by switching to the law.
	Now, the other reason why it's important to know the principles of morality is that way you can judge and improve the lot of humanity.
	So if you only had an instinct about gravity, would it be possible for you to even think of, let alone put a satellite in orbit or send a spaceship to take photographs of Jupiter?
	Yeah, there's no way you could do it.
	You couldn't do it, right?
	You couldn't do it.
	And so you need the principles of matter, energy, physics, gravity, momentum, you know, all of that.
	You need all of that so that you can do beyond the obvious.
	So you can do beyond the obvious, right?
	So if you don't have a sextant, if you don't have, if you can't navigate by the stars, you can't cross The Atlantic, right?
	You can't get from Spain to the New World, right?
	So the reason why we need to have principles is so that we can go beyond the immediate and discover things and have abilities that we didn't discover before.
	So in the past, everyone accepted slavery.
	Even the Bible has examples on instructions on how to treat your slaves well.
	And it was only really when we really began to look at self-ownership and property rights and individual liberty and free will.
	And of course, the Christians were very instrumental in this.
	And they said the slaves are, in a sense, being denied the capacity to save themselves because they're not being permitted free will in their choices.
	So they are enslaved, which means that they're barring their entry to heaven.
	So there's a whole bunch of things.
	You know, we couldn't have this conversation if people didn't have the principles of engineering and physics that went beyond the immediate.
	So if you say, well, I'm a good person, you're like, well, I know how, I know to not jump off a high wall and hurt my legs.
	I know that.
	I don't do that.
	And it's like, well, that's fine.
	So do animals.
	But the question is, if you understand the principles of physics and engineering, then you can send a spaceship to Jupiter and you can go to the moon and back and whatever it is, right?
	That's a whole, I mean, and you can design the internet and have these principles and so on, right?
	So we need to know the principles behind things and not just work with the hedonism of, well, I don't like to lie and I don't want to murder and so on, because there are lots of people who do like to lie and do want to murder.
	And evolutionarily speaking, the reason we have those abilities of lying and murdering is because they can be extremely advantageous genetically, right?
	I mean, one of the most murderous, murderingly murdery people in history was Genghis Khan.
	And like, what is it, like one out of 17 people in South Asia trace his lineage back to Genghis Khan because he was such a rapey guy.
	So from an evolutionary standpoint, his violence and aggression and rapiness spread his genes enormously, which is, you know, pretty important when it comes to genetics, right?
	It's fundamentally that's evolution, right?
	So we need to have principles so that we can look at our society and not accept what is, but also be able to build towards what should be and what ought to be, if that makes sense.
	So it is really important to know moral principles rather than just what feels good or doesn't feel good.
	It still hasn't, and I apologize, maybe it's, first of all, real quickly, if you could, and I could look it up myself, but what's hedonism?
	Oh, so hedonism is the pleasure-pain principle.
	So hedonism is I'm going to do what feels good and I'm going to avoid what feels bad.
	And so if you don't like lying, because I saw, you know, hundreds of atheists were telling me the same thing, which is, well, I gain social goods from telling the truth because people trust me.
	Well, that's a social reward.
	That's a carrot, right?
	That's a reward.
	That's a kibble.
	That's how we train dolphins is with fish, right?
	And so I get this reward.
	And also, I don't like to lie or I'm bad at lying because I can't keep my story straight with different people.
	So that's hedonism.
	I get a reward, which is social cooperation, social good, or I feel the negative, which is I don't like to lie or I'm bad at it.
	So I'm either incompetent or it makes me feel bad and incompetence makes us feel bad anyway.
	So hedonism is when we organize ourselves according to the pleasure-pain principle.
	Now, governments love hedonism, which is why governments don't act to get rid of atheism, because governments love hedonism, because in order to change people's behavior, if you don't have principles, all the government needs to do is apply negative pressure or positive rewards, and people will change their behaviors.
	And this is why atheists who are fundamentally hedonists, and I'm not saying atheism as its mindset is fundamentally hedonist.
	What I'm saying is that most, like most atheists, at least 90% of atheists are hedonists.
	And again, I can give you the data behind that.
	But it's because atheists operate on pleasure-pain, which is very primitive and not principled.
	And what that means is that atheists will conform to punishments and rewards.
	And we know this in particular under COVID, right?
	So in America, 90% of atheists lined up to take the shot and were enthusiastic about forcing people to take the shot.
	And only 57% of white evangelical Christians took the shot, right?
	So they had principles, which was don't mess with God's DNA.
	And you may disagree with all those principles, and I understand all of that.
	But nonetheless, they had principles that allowed them to resist the relentless multi-billion dollar pressure propaganda machine to take the shot, right?
	It was all very well coordinated.
	And atheists fell for it hook, lion, and synchron.
	So hedonism is when you can organize according to the pleasure-pain principle, which means you're susceptible to threats and flattery in a way that principled people are less susceptible to.
	Well, that leads me to wonder, isn't Christianity hedonistic then because of the promise of heaven or the threat of hell?
	Okay, let's say that it is, right?
	Let's just take your argument as true.
	It still gives you resistance in the here and now.
	And so addiction is when you look at benefits now rather than later, right?
	So every cigarette, I assume every cigarette that a smoker smokes is more pleasurable than quitting, but in the long run, it's really bad, right?
	So when the smoker thinks about the long run and of dying of lung cancer or something like that, then he's more likely to quit smoking.
	So he's more likely to do the right thing if he focuses on long-term punishments and rewards.
	Like if he pictures himself, you know, coughing out his bloody lungs at the age of 65, as opposed to being sort of fit and healthy and living to 90, right?
	So if he focuses on long-term positives and negatives, he's able to make better decisions in the here and now.
	Can we agree on that?
	Yes.
	So if Christians focus on the promise of heaven or the threat of hell, that allows them to deny hedonism in this life.
	Because you can say, well, they have hedonism in the next life, but that's immaterial as to whether they deny hedonism or not in this life.
	So maybe many more Christians resisted the COVID tyranny, and maybe they thought it was because of the threat of hell or the reward of heaven and so on, right?
	But nonetheless, they made better decisions in the here and now than atheists did.
	So even if we say that their pleasure, pain, the pleasure, pain is after death, which has them make much better decisions in many ways, or at least have a better reason to make better decisions in the here and now, if that makes sense.
	It makes sense, but now it just leads me into the question of basically the infinite regress.
	I mean, if where did God get his morals?
	Are morals something?
	I'm assuming you believe in objective morality rather than subjective morals.
	Absolutely.
	Universal, objective, absolute morality.
	Where does that come from?
	It comes from the fact that nothing that is true can be self-contradictory.
	And the only morals that can be valid are those morals that do not contradict themselves.
	And so I've got a whole book.
	I can give you a real quick example if you want, but I've got a whole book on this called Universally Preferable Behavior, a Rational Proof of Secular Ethics, which is available for free at freedomain.com slash books.
	So can I give you the stealing one?
	Like, why is stealing wrong?
	Yeah, please.
	Okay.
	So is a square circle a valid concept?
	Is it a true concept?
	Can there be such a thing as a square circle?
	Not by definition, no.
	Right.
	So we don't need to look around the universe.
	We don't need to check under the couch.
	Like there's no such thing as a square circle.
	Agreed?
	Agreed.
	Okay.
	So morality is universally preferable behavior.
	And let's just skip over whether there is such a thing as universally preferable behavior because you can't argue against it without using it.
	And the whole proof of that is in the book.
	So let's just say morality is universally preferable behavior.
	Okay.
	So let's say I tell you, hey, man, stealing is universally preferable behavior.
	Do you think that leads to any logical contradictions?
	I'm not great with logic.
	Never really studied that.
	Okay, that's totally fine.
	Let me ask you this.
	Let me ask you this.
	If the proposition that stealing is universally preferable behavior, if that leads to absolutely insurmountable logical contradictions, can it be a true statement?
	No.
	No, okay.
	Not if it leaves the contradiction.
	Okay.
	So in other words, if for my proposed hypothesis to be true, we have to assume that a square circle is a valid concept, then it's false, my proposition, right?
	So with stealing, stealing can never be universally preferable behavior because stealing being universally preferable behavior means that everybody must want to steal and be stolen from all the time, no matter what.
	Because it's universally preferable behavior.
	Everybody must want to steal and be stolen from all the time.
	Does that make sense?
	It does.
	Okay.
	Now, if I want you to take my property, are you stealing from me?
	If you want me to take your property.
	No, if I want you to take my property, if I want you to take my property, are you stealing from me?
	No.
	Okay.
	So stealing cannot be universally preferable behavior because if everybody wants to steal and be stolen from, the concept of stealing disintegrates because you can't want someone to take your property and have them steal from you at the same time.
	Right.
	Right.
	Like if I say, I'm not going to finish my sandwich, I've only eaten half.
	I'm not grossing you out with like swapping spin.
	Right.
	I got one of those horrible British Airways pre-washed diagonal sandwiches.
	Right.
	And I say, I'm not going to finish this sandwich.
	I don't want to keep it.
	It's yours.
	Right.
	And you take the sandwich and you eat it.
	Can I then charge you with stealing?
	You shouldn't.
	No, can I logically?
	No.
	No, because, and if I call the conductor over and I say, hey, man, I gave this guy my sandwich and then he stole it from me.
	What would the conductor say?
	He didn't steal it.
	Yeah, you gave it to him, bro.
	You can't give something to someone.
	And then, can you imagine?
	It's like my daughter's birthday.
	And I give her a pony.
	And then I call out the cops and say, my daughter stole my pony.
	I mean, they would laugh at me, right?
	I can't give something to someone.
	Actually, we used to have this term.
	I can't remember where it came from.
	I think it's to do with natives, but Indian giver, right?
	Like you'd give something to someone, then you'd demand it back, right?
	Was it the same?
	Was that just a British thing or was that somewhere else too?
	No, I grew up with that.
	Okay.
	So you can't, stealing can never be universally preferable behavior, because if you want to steal and be stolen from, then the concept of stealing completely vanishes.
	The whole thing is a square circle.
	And you can do the same thing with rape and assault and murder and so on, right?
	So that's just a very sort of brief example of how you can get absolute universal ethics.
	Now, not stealing can be universally preferable behavior.
	Everyone can simultaneously respect each other's property rights.
	That results in no logical contradictions whatsoever.
	So that's how we know that respect for property rights is moral and stealing can never be universalized because it contradicts itself and therefore it's wrong.
	I mean, again, I'm not saying this is like some final proof.
	You're not completely converted, but that's the general methodology.
	I think I understand.
	I have to say, though, I don't necessarily believe in objective morality.
	I'm more of a situational ethics because...
	Hang on.
	Hang on.
	So I just made the case.
	Now, you can't overturn the case, right?
	So stealing can never be universally preferable behavior.
	It's impossible because it is self-contradicted.
	It's a square circle, right?
	So you accept that stealing can never be universally preferable behavior, right?
	Yes, I do accept that, yes.
	Okay.
	So then you can't say things are situational.
	It's like saying, I accept that the law of gravity is universal.
	However, I accept that there are times when it's not universal.
	It's like, that's a contradiction.
	You can't say both.
	You can't say the law of gravity is universal.
	And under certain situations, it can just be reversed on a whim.
	Because if it's universal, it's universal, right?
	So stealing can never be universally preferable behavior, which means respect for property rights is universally preferable behavior.
	Now, does that mean that nobody will ever steal again?
	No, it doesn't mean that at all.
	In the same way that it is, if you want to know the truths about the physical universe, you have to use the scientific method.
	Does that mean that people will always use the scientific method and will never use tarot cards and astrology?
	Well, no, they will, but they're wrong, right?
	So it doesn't mean that the people who steal are simply violating universally preferable behavior, which is how we know we can punish them or ostracize them or jail them or something like that.
	So let's stop here because you need to digest the arguments for universal morality.
	Because if you come right back with, well, no, I don't accept universal morality, then I've just said, okay, two plus two is four and you say yes.
	And then I say, is it true at all times, under all places, in all circumstances?
	And you say yes.
	And then you say, But there are times when two and two don't make four, right?
	So that's just a bit of automatic speech, and you need to digest what it is we've been talking about.
	And I say this with, you know, due respect.
	It took me a long time to work in it, but I can't go with, once I've had a proof of you, you can't just deny it immediately because that's not how philosophy works.
	All right.
	Who have we got?
	Philip.
	Pippa.
	I used to know a woman named Pippa.
	She was a good singer.
	All right.
	Philip, going once, going twice.
	Hey, yeah.
	So I kind of had an issue with a tweet that you made a while ago, or I don't know if we call them tweets anymore.
	Whatever it is.
	Where, you know, you were scoffing the idea that there could be anything innate about morality.
	And you told people who thought that there could be innate morality to look up Baka Bazi.
	Yes.
	And I just found that rather ironic because I would imagine that you think that these people would be horrified by Acha Bazi.
	Right.
	Which is actually part of strengthening the case that there's something innate about morality.
	Not at all.
	And furthermore.
	Not at all.
	Hang on, hang on.
	I'll tell you furthermore because we've got to do things one issue at a time, right?
	I don't do 10 issues and then try and figure out what we can go back.
	So you're, and I appreciate you bringing this up, and I'm happy that you're pushing back because, you know, if I'm wrong, I want to know.
	So your argument is that, so for those of you who don't know, this Bashabazi thing is a Turkish custom and an Afghani custom wherein older men rape boys as the dancing boys.
	They finish up by raping the boys.
	And this was particularly traumatic and difficult for the soldiers who were stationed in Afghanistan who reported this abhorrent child rape and so on to their superiors.
	And they were told, you can't interfere because that's their culture, blah, blah, blah.
	So they're like, well, what the hell are we fighting for?
	This is like, I'm watching my friend's limbs get blown off for the sake of people who rape children.
	So I said, if you think that it's innate, and I'm trying to make sure I understand your case.
	So if I say you should look this up and people who look this up are horrified, and you say that only reaffirms that morality is innate.
	Is that right?
	Yeah, correct.
	Because you didn't teach them that.
	They just look it up and they are horrified.
	Right.
	Okay.
	So what's the counter argument to that?
	Well, I mean, you seem to be trying to contradict the.
	No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, don't, don't start telling me what I'm contradicting.
	I'm asking you.
	Because you have to have an internal dialogue when you're in philosophy.
	You can't do philosophy without an internal dialogue.
	And what that means is, and I'll just tell you my experience.
	I've been doing this for over 40 years, right?
	So when I'm about to tweet something or about to make a public argument, I think of the counter-arguments.
	I think of the responses, right?
	And I debate within myself, right?
	Because if you can't debate within yourself, it's very hard to get to the truth.
	In fact, I would argue it's kind of impossible.
	So if you say, well, Steph has completely contradicted himself in an obvious fashion, that's very unlikely.
	Because again, I've been doing philosophy for 40 years.
	I'm well-trained at the graduate level.
	I know what I'm doing.
	And I've engaged in countless debates and back and forth.
	Doesn't mean I'm always right, but it means I'm not going to be obviously wrong.
	It's like looking for a chess grant master with 40 years experience in chess who's just going to make a mistake.
	I mean, is it impossible?
	No, I guess not, but it's not very likely.
	So if you're going to come at me, which I'm fine with, you know, come at me, bro.
	If you're going to come at me, you have to have at least thought of the counter argument, right?
	Is that fair to say?
	Well, I think the counter argument would just be, yeah, this doesn't contradict that morality is innate.
	Well, no, that's just a statement.
	That's not a counter argument.
	That's just a denial, right?
	I mean, that's two and two makes five.
	No, it doesn't.
	I agree.
	So hang on.
	What's the counter argument?
	I appreciate you being the guinea pig here, right?
	But what's the counter argument to you telling me, Steph, you're totally wrong.
	You put up a counterproof that actually only affirms the original position and you don't even know it.
	So that's assuming that I'm not good at philosophy, that I don't know how to argue against myself, that I don't know how to have a contrary position, which is fine.
	So what is the potential counter argument to your statement that people are horrified at this bachabazi thing, therefore morality is innate?
	Well, I would imagine you would say something like people have internalized more Christian ideas of ethics because they've lived in a Christian society for so long.
	No, but that's mind-reading.
	That's mind-reading, so that's not much of an argument.
	So what is the argument?
	To be honest, you want to do counter-arguments embedded in the premises of the argument itself.
	Going outside the argument and trying to mind read people about their exposure to Christian ethics is not much of a satisfying proof because it relies on facts, not in evidence, which is the mindset of people.
	So without going out of the argument itself into mind-reading Christians, when I say, if you think that morality is innate, look up this bachabazi.
	And I knew that people would be horrified.
	What's the counter-argument?
	And says this actually does prove that morality is not innate.
	Well, I mean, that's funny.
	asked me to mind redo and then you said that I shouldn't.
	I'm asking you, did you consider a counter-argument?
	And maybe there isn't one, right?
	But did you consider a counter-argument before, you know, coming?
	And it's totally fine that you do this.
	I mean, I'm thrilled that you're doing this.
	I'm happy that you're doing this.
	But you're, you know, in a very public forum, you're calling me bad at philosophy, which is fine.
	You know, I could always have made a mistake or, you know, I don't know, tripped and accidentally hit send when I was still considering.
	I don't know, whatever.
	But you're coming and publicly saying, and I appreciate your confidence.
	I appreciate your confidence.
	You're publicly coming and you're saying To a guy who's been playing chess for 40 years, you really don't understand chess.
	And so, what is the counter argument, if you thought of one, to your argument?
	Well, I mean, I started trying to entertain one, but you interrupted and suggested that it was mind-reading.
	So, I don't really know what to say at this point.
	Okay, so listen, no problem, and I appreciate that.
	Philosophy can be tricky.
	So the counter-argument is, yes, I'm aware that most of the people who follow me on X would look up cultural institutional child rape and be horrified.
	However, the people who commit these practices in Turkey and Afghanistan not only are not horrified, but enthusiastically pursue it.
	Therefore, the morals are opposite.
	A lot of my listeners would be appalled, but the people, the men who commit these horrible attacks upon children are very happy and enthusiastic to do it.
	So that's the counter-argument.
	Well, I mean, I feel like you're mind-reading them.
	No, I'm not mind-reading them.
	They do it.
	They pursue it.
	It's not mind-reading.
	I'm not mind-reading.
	I'm looking at their specific actions.
	They enthusiastically pursue this practice of assaulting these children in this way.
	This is not mind-reading.
	I'm looking at their actual actions and what is justified in their culture.
	I'm not mind-reading.
	So go ahead.
	Well, I mean, I would think the most obvious assumption is that they're doing it because they enjoy it.
	They're not doing it because they think it's moral.
	Who cares?
	Why does it matter why they're doing it?
	They're still, I mean, obviously, you know, a sadist enjoys, okay, a sadist enjoys torturing people.
	That doesn't make it moral, right?
	Right, of course.
	And sadist exists.
	And I mean, and so still morality can be innate.
	It's just irrelevant.
	It doesn't follow.
	No, it does follow.
	It absolutely.
	So if my audience is horrified at something that other people approve of, and they don't hide it, right?
	They do it collectively.
	They do it in a group.
	It's praised in their culture.
	It's fine and a good thing for them to do.
	So my audience is horrified at what other people openly practice and enjoy and have no moral problem with.
	That says that there's two completely opposing moral standards.
	One is don't assault children in this way.
	The other is it's fine and good to assault children in this way.
	So that there's not that shows that it's not innate because these people on the other side of the world have completely opposite morals and are perfectly happy with it.
	Okay, but again, you aren't demonstrating that this is their like this is not their morals.
	And even if it was, it could be a difference in their innate morals.
	But there have been plenty of people who engage institutions.
	Hang on, hang on.
	Hang on.
	Again, you're just rushing past these big topics.
	So are you saying that it's possible that my listeners have don't assault children in this way as their morals, and these other people, and that's innate, and these other people have, it's good to assault children in this way, and both are innate morality, even though they're opposites?
	Yes, that is absolutely possible.
	However, I mean, the most simple explanation.
	No, I'm not doing that.
	I'm not doing that.
	I mean, there's a certain level of basic logic that people need to be able to pursue in order to have a conversation.
	So if you're going to say this is innate to humans, and both X and the opposite of X is innate to humans, I can't help you with that level of logic.
	Like, I just, I can't do it.
	Like, I can't support a conversation where somebody can't even admit that they're wrong about that.
	All right.
	Short and long, I guess, whether it's cold or warm outside.
	Short and long.
	What's on your mind, my friend?
	Going once, going twice.
	Hey there, how's it going?
	Good, how you doing?
	Did you just cut that guy off or not?
	Oh, yeah, totally.
	No, like, yeah, Stephan, I agree with you on a lot of things.
	I disagree with other things, but we're not going to go on stuff I disagree with.
	Can I ask you to get any closer to your microphone?
	You're really sounding kind of distant, and it's a lot of post-processing to try and fix these levels.
	Sorry, is that better?
	Yes, thank you.
	No, Steph, I agree with you on a lot of things.
	I disagree with on other things, but when it comes to the whole child rape-y victimization thing and how our government glossed over it, yeah.
	I'm a vet and right from the early days, we knew what was happening.
	I'm sorry, you've got to be, are you talking about Rotherham or things in England?
	No, I'm talking about Afghanistan.
	Oh, Afghanistan.
	Yeah, yeah, go ahead.
	And how, yeah.
	And, you know, we just turned a blind eye to it.
	I'm talking to the government.
	I'm talking to the Canadian people.
	Well, the soldiers didn't want to do that.
	The soldiers wanted to go and rescue the children, and they were told not to, at least from what I've heard.
	Yeah.
	Yes, exactly.
	And we were told to ignore it.
	And yeah, that's a horrible.
	Yeah, I was 21 years military and I was refused tasking to Afghanistan because I'd say, put me in a place where a bunch of children are being raped.
	Yeah.
	I will lock and load and I will do my own shit.
	We had a few people who were sent home because they took matters in their own hands.
	And we don't want to talk about that, but we want to talk about child raping, which didn't happen, right?
	And I'm sorry.
	I'm not sure what you mean when you say it didn't happen.
	Oh, you mean they covered it up?
	Well, yeah, they covered it up.
	Okay.
	And the government says it didn't happen, but are you in it for the good or the bad?
	And it was so covered up.
	It blew my mind when I seen the CBC news stories.
	And I knew the CBC was embedded with soldiers seeing the same shit happening, cheering the screams.
	But, oh, no, we're just going to ignore that because blah, blah, and either to stick your chin out and take a hit in the face and say, yeah, this is not right, or you sell your soul to the devil.
	And sadly, it seems a lot of Canadians or the majority of Canadians have sold their soul to the devil And say, yeah, this shit didn't happen.
	We're going to gloss it all over and hope our government never wants to sell their own children down the river, which they will.
	Well, and I think one of the things that was happening was if you've traveled, and I'm sure, as 21 years military, you've done a huge amount of travel.
	When you go to other cultures, and I remember from 1999 to the year 2000, I spent quite some time first in the Middle East, in Morocco, and then in China for business.
	And, you know, it was a long time before I saw even, you know, anything close to a language that I am in Arabic, I don't read, of course, Mandarin, I don't read.
	And, you know, these are very foreign places, very different.
	And I remember being out.
	It's of course, you know, it's more than a quarter century ago.
	But I remember being out, say, in Morocco.
	And I remember thinking, okay, so if I moved here, how long would it take for me to fully acclimatize and integrate into Moroccan Arabic culture?
	Let's say just, I moved here tomorrow.
	And I, you know, honestly, I don't think I ever would.
	I think even back then, like 25 years ago, I was 30, 34 or whatever, right?
	So, you know, maybe my kids would or whatever, right?
	But it would be like, how long would it take for me?
	Let's say I moved to Afghanistan where they have these, you know, it's not all that they have, of course, but they do have some pretty ghastly practices.
	How long would it take for me to adapt to bacha buzzy?
	And it's like, I couldn't.
	It goes too far against, well, I think objective moral sensibilities, but even if we just say the way that I was raised, it's just too, too distant.
	Like I couldn't do it.
	And I think one of the reasons that they kind of cover this stuff up is that the reverse is also true.
	So you think of, you know, if you want to empathize with somebody coming to the West from a very different culture, say, okay, well, if I were to move to that culture, if I were to move to Morocco or Afghanistan or wherever, and how long would it take for me to integrate?
	I think that's one of the challenges that people are having with the sort of mass movement of people is when you think about how long would it take for you to fully integrate into a very different culture.
	Well, I think the reverse is also true, but it seems harder to see because we're used to this culture.
	Well, staff, can I call you staff?
	Yeah, yeah, sorry.
	Oh, yeah.
	I was up the road for me in Peterborough.
	But, you know, when I enlisted in the 90s, it was like all the shit was going on with the Balkans and Rwanda, right?
	And it was like the Canadian Force was like a dog on a chain.
	Let us stop this shit.
	Let us stop these atrocities.
	Then NATO got involved and we were actually to kind of stop a lot of the crap that was happening.
	Rwanda was a horrible mess that shouldn't have happened.
	And then all of a sudden, Afghanistan comes in and it's like, oh yeah, you know, you can do what you want, but you got to watch these kids get raped.
	And I think it was a collective assault on our military soul.
	It was.
	And of course, the idea that you can just, you can go and blow people up until you create this perfect Western Jeffersonian style democracy.
	That was the illusion in Iraq as well.
	And hopefully that's not going to be the same illusion in Iran.
	But the idea that you can, you know, you can bomb people into the Stone Age, but you can't bomb people into the 21st century.
	I mean, it's a whole lot of, it's centuries of debate and, you know, hopefully not an excess of cousin marriage and, you know, all kinds of stuff that it takes to really develop into, and, you know, it's a philosophical journey.
	It's not just like, well, we just shoot people until everyone who's left is just like us.
	That just doesn't really, really work at all.
	So I really sympathize with that.
	And, you know, the, I mean, I've talked to, of course, a number of veterans over the years in this show and what the people have suffered when they wake up to some of the reality of what they're being ordered to do.
	And in this case, being ordered to not do, it's really chilling.
	And I have a lot of sympathy for people who, you know, go in with the best of intentions to create a better world and then are actively prevented from the pursuit of even combating the most basic evils.
	All I got to add to that is like when I can see the writing on the wall, I spent 21 years in the intelligence branch.
	And I'll tell you right now, they're focusing their eyes on Iran and other bullshit.
	And it's like, I think given the scorecard of the West West, we'd be better off letting them sort their own ships.
	I don't see Iran dropping bombs on the West.
	If we do Iraq on them, yeah, we're going to get the same thing.
	I was in a room when we started the Libya campaign, and all of us were talking, like, why the fuck are we doing this?
	It's going to become a mess.
	And the guy in charge says, yeah, this is our job.
	If you don't want to do this, I'll get you out of here.
	But just trust that we're trying to do the best, I guess.
	And all of us kind of looked at each other, rolled our eyes a bit.
	And yeah.
	Well, yeah, I mean, the purpose of the destruction of Libya was, I think, to oppose the gold-backed currency that Gaddafi was trying to bring into bear.
	And also, I think there are some fairly sinister elements that wanted the free flow of people into Europe and Libya was in the way.
	So I think it's stuff like that.
	But anyway, I'll give you the final words.
	So appreciate the conversation.
	Go ahead.
	No, I'm just going to let it lay at that.
	Something for you guys to chew on.
	I'm not an asshole who's trying to grab more followers or anything else.
	Yeah, Steph, nice talk.
	Cheers.
	I appreciate that.
	And of course, freedomain.com slash donate to help out the show.
	I'd really appreciate your support.
	I hope that you guys know.
	I mean, like, there's no ads.
	I don't have any sponsors.
	It's all really up to you guys to support what it is that I do.
	And I know that I'm doing a lot of good in the world.
	So freedomain.com slash donate.
	Appreciate everyone who's called in.
	And I love you guys to death.
	Thank you for just allowing me to be part of the greatest conversation I think that history has ever seen.
	Maybe that's my bias towards philosophy as a whole, but I think this is all just fantastic and wonderful.
	And I really, really do appreciate everyone's interest and engagement.
	The lovers, the haters, the in-betweeners.
	I love you all.
	So thanks, everyone.
	Have yourself a beautiful, beautiful afternoon.
	And we will see you Wednesday night for the video live stream.

▲