All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 15, 2025 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
01:11:15
EVEN MORE ANSWERS TO ‘X’ LISTENER QUESTIONS 6!
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
All right, this is Questions from the Fine Listeners at X with due respect to the bloody raging sorrows of the past few days we must continue on with our good work in the world.
So philosophical questions.
Somebody writes the morality of unarned privilege.
Whether beauty, high IQ, or natural athleticism, etc.
Largely unearned gifts.
Are they to be enjoyed fully to the benefit of the holder?
Or should they use them in some way to help the less fortunate?
Modesty charity protection.
For one, two, uh beauty modesty, high IQ charity, natural athleticism protection, one two three.
A great big and good question, and I really do appreciate you asking it.
I mean I always knew I was kind of different from those around me, but it didn't really flower until I remember very clearly I think I was maybe nineteen years old.
So still almost half a decade away from brain maturity.
And I started writing a book about the first world war.
It's called The Jealous War, it's never been published.
It's about how war is possessive and jealous of life.
And a soldier who has an affair with war, so to speak, rather than his fiance.
And the language and the imagery and the vividness and the sm I could smell it, I could feel the mud, I could listen to the bullets, it all just kind of erupted in my brain.
When I was writing it, it just blew me away.
It just it just happened.
And now, gosh, many, many decades later, and forty years later, I'm still writing.
And I have just finished and or I'm going through the second edits of my novel called Dissolution, and these are by far the most real characters that I've ever created, and I know them in some ways better than I know others in my life or myself, 'cause I can go into their inner thoughts directly.
So if you have an analogy creating mind, which I certainly have, I'm really really good at coming up with analogies.
Oh that's so funny.
I'm hiking, and there's a spider on my hat.
Uh it was hanging from a thread.
Which is like no I'm kidding.
So I have an analogy brain.
I can create analogies effortlessly instantaneously and to great effect.
I have a good artistic brain, I have a good philosophical brain, I have a good programming brain, I have a good business brain, and a good sense of humor, and so there's a lot that has sort of come together both in the theoretical and the practical in my mind.
And I did not earn that.
I mean, I wrote my first short story when I was six years old.
And wrote poems and plays in my teens and then novels in my twenties, and I wrote like thirty plays, I've written like I don't know, seven or eight novels, and ten books of non fiction and you know, uh hundreds of articles and anyway, so I mean I've written a lot, communicated a lot, debated a lot.
And it's not that I have developed these skills in and of themselves.
It's not like, well, gee, um Pavarotti was a good singer because he sang a lot.
It's like no no, Pavarotti sung a lot because he was a great singer.
And that's what we need to be looking at.
I have done philosophy and art and business and programming because my mind is really good at those things.
And programming was a great training in logic.
So people say, Ah, Steph, but you don't have a PhD in philosophy.
It's like, yeah, but I have twenty years I was twenty years experience in programming.
And boy, that's gonna teach us him logic in a way that's especially when the stakes are very high, like your programming works or you uh your the business that you founded uh goes out of business, which is a uh well it's sort of negative experience, especially when you've signed a whole bunch of pieces of paper saying that you're gonna be on the hook for a huge amount of money if the business doth go out of business, so it's uh kind of a big deal.
High stakes.
High stakes.
So I have done these things because they work in my mind and they work in the world.
So I I did not earn my brain.
To me, it is like inheriting a lot of money.
And my ancestors uh chose to marry smart women, so I chose to marry a very intelligent woman, because you know, gotta hang under those smart genes.
And my ancestors survived and reproduced, therefore it is important for me to reproduce.
And if you inherit a lot of money, what should you do with it?
Well, you didn't earn it yourself, you just inherited it.
Now, it is not a violation of personhood, UPB, property rights to hoard and spend all that money yourself.
You can do that.
You can absolutely do that, and no one should initiate the use of force to prevent you from doing that.
So this is where we uh sort of live in society with regards to or where uh uh the difference between UPB and virtues.
To me, ethics is what you shouldn't do, right?
Don't rape steal assault murder, that's what you shouldn't do.
And uh virtue is what you should do.
Uh be honest have moral courage, be benevolent, kinderous and exacting.
Virtue is benevolence to the virtuous, encouragement to the intermediate, and opposition to evil.
It's the triage, right?
So the morality of unearned privilege.
So if you inherit, let's say, very high intelligence, and there's things, of course, that you can do to budge your intelligence and wisdom is far more important to happiness than mere intelligence, so that's important as well.
But if you inherit high intelligence, you are in possession of a collective good.
And I don't mean of course that everyone directly owns your brain, but your brain is not your own production.
And if you paint a painting, you write a poem, that is your own production.
Your brain is not your own production.
Your brain is the result of four billion years of evolution.
And another thing that you have with regards to your intelligence is that your ancestors resisted lust.
Because it wasn't always like the most intelligent woman was the sexiest woman, but they resisted lust and went for intelligent women.
And you should do that too.
Now again, intelligent women can be sexy, I get all of that, but not isn't it there's overlapping circles, but they're not wildly overlapping.
So you are in possession of a collective good.
In other words, it's like being tall, right?
I mean, you didn't earn it yourself.
Being your height is the reflection of choices made for I mean countless hundreds of thousands of years, and so you are in possession of a collective good.
Now, of course nobody should initiate the use of force against you for hoarding money that you happened to inherit.
You can't spend it all on yourself.
And you understand that's kind of a corrective mechanism in society.
So if you are a horribly selfish person, and you only care about your own pleasures, then you will dissolve your family's income.
And your family's income will, in general, as you know, then transfer to other people who are unlikely to be that selfish.
So if you're really selfish, and you blow all your money, expensive occasions, you buy yachts, I don't know, whatever you blow your money.
Well then the people who run the hotels, the people who run the airlines, the people who deliver your food, the people who make the yacht are statistically, of course, much less likely to be a selfish as you are.
So you are shifting or transferring the money to people who are less selfish than you are.
And money tends to accrue to people who are less selfish.
Again, I'm talking in a free market, I get, and I understand that there's uh tons of exceptions and central banking and uh I I get all of that, but I'm talking sort of in a free market.
So selfish people have a fewer children.
Right, so then what happens to the money of people who are very selfish?
Well, they tend not to have children, they tend to blow it all, which transfers the money to people who are hard working, who provide value, who have children for the most part.
So money tends to accrue to people in the middle curve of selflessness, of benevolence.
You know, people who are hyper benevolent, like pathological altruism, well, they're gonna lose a lot of their money just giving it away to, you know, often sketchy charities and and so on.
People who are too selfish uh lose their money because they just focus on their own pleasures and and so on.
People in the middle tend to hang on to it.
As is so often the case, the Aristotelian mean is rewarded.
What a beautiful day, by the way.
Oh I hope you're out enjoying nature.
Sorry for the slight panting.
But uh I just had a salmon wrap.
So unarned privilege I mean, I don't really like calling it privilege.
Privilege is something that is usually imposed in some sort of social structure, you know, by men or by the government or whatever it is.
It's an award or something that is put forward in some kind of social structure.
Being told it's not really a privilege in the same way that, say, inheriting an aristocratic title is a privilege.
It's sort of a different different situation.
It's different different system as a whole.
So it is a an attribute or a characteristic.
And how should you apply it?
Well, I happen to have a particular brilliance for uh reasoning and analogies and communication.
And, you know, I get the stuff that I'm not good at, the stuff that I suck at and so on, but I mean, honestly, I'm close to a billion views and downloads.
It's not uh you know, i false modesty would just be uh I don't like it because false modesty is uh cucking to the resentment of the mob.
And so, yeah, these are the things that I'm very, very good at.
And tons of things that I earn, but these are the things I am good at.
So for me, if I have a particular brilliance with regards to reasoning, debating, and communicating, particularly in the realm of analogies, then do I have an obligation to help my fellow man?
Well, yes, both selflessly and selfishly.
Selflessly it's because look, if I have let's say blood that cures people of an illness.
And it's like a a a tiny microdrop or whatever it is, right?
So if I have blood that cures people of an illness, do I have to donate blood?
I do not.
I don't.
So that's the extreme selfish position.
I'm not gonna donate any blood.
Now, the overgenerous position would be I'm gonna donate all my blood as a goose that lays the golden egg stuff, right?
That would be unwise.
I'd save more people in the short run, but fewer people in the long run.
Which is the issue with charity, right?
Is that you want to help people in the long run in a sustainable fashion rather than uh save people in the short run.
Uh saving people in the short run tends to reinforce bad behavior or negative behavior.
You know, this is the old, oh when we got had a baby outside of wedlock, let's just give her a hundred thousand dollars a year for the next twenty years.
That's a bad a bad decision.
However, providing her no charity and support is also a bad decision.
So you want to somewhere in the middle, right?
So enough support to help, but not enough support to incentivize others to do the same thing.
It's a very tricky balance.
So I do want to help people, but given the nature of how people perceive others, you know, there's this I mean so many people I've I've sort of seen the I've sort of seen the number of people who are like, well, Ayn Rand took a pensions in her old age.
Therefore I can dismiss her entire philosophical ouvre.
Well, no, I mean she made a a case that she's just getting money back into a system she was forced to pay into, blah blah blah.
And I mean, yeah, people I mean it's so funny, you know, when you know the truth about your own life and you see what people say about you, it's wild just how susceptible people are to nonsense like Steph, I stopped following in you when you haranged a listener for donating a dollar.
It's like, nope, didn't do that, never did that.
Never did that.
So I express a mild preference to not get small donations because they made me feel bad.
Right?
If if somebody's donating two dollars, right, I feel bad.
Well, first of all, it's work, I've got to sort of track it and report it and so on.
So it's not helpful to me particularly, and if somebody only has two dollars, the last thing that I'd want is for them to donate it to me, my God.
Save that for bus fare so you can go for a job interview and get some money.
My God, don't give me if you're if two dollars is all you can afford, and uh you know this is back when two dollars meant a lot, right?
But no, honestly, if two if two dollars is all you can afford, please, dear Lord above, do not send it to me or anyone else use it to buy food or a bus fare again, something gifted resumes printed off.
Do what you can.
So it just made me um did not it don't did not feel good, and I was expressing a preference, of course, that people not uh send me uh two dollars, right?
So and this of course comes because I have a lot of experience with tipping culture as a waiter.
So anyway, I mean so yep, but people just make up makeup stuff one thickin' dollar.
Oh no, I expressed a preference.
Anyway.
So are they to be enjoyed fully to the benefit of the holder?
Okay.
So I have a particular and peculiar talent for reasoning, speaking, analogies, debating, whatever you want to call it, and I have a rather wild bath escape level insight into human nature and motivations and the unconscious.
Some of that, of course, is to do with the work that I've done before on the unconscious, and of course, some of it is uh just a wild talent.
I have these core shafts that go down to the roots of the unconscious that tell me about myself and inform me even more about others, as is generally the case.
So is it possible for me to enjoy reason without sharing it?
Well, no.
Especially if I want to have kids, because I want, you know, I want my daughter to grow up in a world that is uh rational and reasonable.
And if she if I hoard all the reason to myself, then she grows up in a world that is less rational, which means more conflict prone, more aggressive, more violent.
Uh so it does not bring me happiness.
Now, on the other hand, if I were to totally self-imolate on the altar of reason, to push rationality on society to the point where the blowback got me uh murdered or or maimed or something like that.
Then unfortunately, or or let's just say that I worked so hard that I became, I don't know, stressed, depressed, negative, or whatever it was, right?
Well then unfortunately it would be the case that people wouldn't listen to my arguments because they'd say, look how stressed and messed and depressed this guy is.
Doesn't seem happy, he's kind of pale, either underweight or overweight.
So I mean, it certainly is true that I'll do some philosophy while I'm exercising.
I actually used to do shows at a gym, believe it or not, back in the day.
But uh the time that I'm spending exercising, I am not spending doing philosophy directly, usually.
However, if I was, you know, thin without any strength or fat or whatever however I would be without it's hard to know, right?
However I would be without exercising.
Because if I'm injured or whatever and I can't exercise for a while, my appetite collapses, right?
And oh, I'm also kind of lashed to exercising now because I'm getting to the age where it's very, very hard to build new muscle.
So I simply have to maintain one and half.
JK Simmons accepted, God knows what that monster truck did.
So part of selling philosophy, so to speak, is being healthy, happy, robust, in love, you know.
When I take my wife out for dinner, I'm not doing philosophy over dinner.
I mean, we may be chatting ideas or whatever, eh?
But I'm not doing sort of philosophical shows over dinner.
But it's important both for me and for philosophy to show, or to at least report on a happy marriage to a good woman.
If I was uh single or at a bad marriage or something like that, that would be negative for philosophy, so I'm sort of trying to make the case that you want the Aristotelian mean in these kinds of things.
Is it possible to be happy if you inherit a bunch of money?
Sorry, this crash is in the undergrowth here.
I just want to stay alert.
So I can continue to do maximum philosophy.
I'm kind of in a lonely spot here.
Oh, let's be alright.
Excellent.
Good lift to reason another day.
Now look over my shoulder.
Good, good.
Alright.
So it looks to be in the mean is where you're happiest.
Is it happy if you inherit ten million dollars or hundred million dollars or whatever, you blow it all on yourself?
Is it possible to be happy?
Well, I don't think so.
I mean, there'll be some dopamine floods when you buy stuff, but not having kids, just eating a bunch of stuff, buying a bunch of stuff, is kind of living the life of an animal, right?
Except human beings can't live the lives of animals, because we reason.
So and of course, unconsciously you know that you are taking pride and value in things that you have not earned.
And of course, I wrestled with this quite a bit in some of my favorite writing as a fiction author is the first half of just poor.
The first third in particular, where the girl who's born brilliant is railing against the man who is born privileged, Lord Lawrence, and Mary O'Donnell.
So I don't think it's a long-term happiness to um to blow all the money you've inherited, and I don't think it's a long-term happiness to simply say, like if I have a really good brain for communication, to use that for lying to women, seducing women, uh and so on, or to go into politics for the sake of personal aggrandizement and and things like that.
If that was the case then I would not be I would not be happy.
Because I would be bending something that was collectively owned to something only from for only my own personal pleasure.
And my brain is a collective phenomenon.
I did not create my brain.
I'm responsible for the use I put my brain to, but I did not create my brain.
The creation of my brain is the result of an infinity of decisions over a untrackable uh amount of eons.
And by an infinity of decisions, I mean like you know, my uh my my ancestors uh spoke the truth, but not so much that they got killed, but enough that they could progress society, and an impatience for social advancement is often a form of uh uh suicide, right?
And I've certainly danced at the edge of that volcano for many, many years.
And I'm pretty proud about the way that I navigated it, because I'm still here doing what I'm doing.
And doing a lot.
So do you have an obligation to society if you are in possession of a particular talent or ability?
Well, let's take a singer, for example.
Let's say that somebody is a beautiful singer and they have a beautiful voice, beautiful pitch, and not just that, but phrasing and emotional content, Like ever since I listened to Billy Joel talk about Fran Sinatra's impeccable phrasing, I listened to Frank Sinatra in a deeper kind of way.
So if you are a great singer, and you sing the ancient songs of your people around a fire li around a fire at night in a way that gives people peace and unity and courage or let's say you're in a battle and you start singing a war song which rallies your companions to be uh braver to be m braver and and more effective soldiers and so on,
well is that is that a bad thing?
No, that's a good thing.
That's a good thing.
You can give uh comfort, strength, depth, richness, meaning, and a maintenance of your culture by singing.
Because this is back where singing was evolved in many ways to maintain a culture.
Music is now used by you know fairly corrupt execs in the music industry to destroy culture, but originally it was designed to allow people to maintain culture because we remember things better when sung.
I mean try to memorize the lyrics to like a rolling stone without the song, it's tough, but uh or Hotel California or say if they were just written poems, but you could remember them better if they're sung.
So is a singer uh a person who's born with a great singing voice and a great emotional connection to songs, is he does he have to sing for his tribe?
Nope.
Nobody can cut his head off for not singing, right, morally, right?
Now is it better for him if he sings for his tribe?
Yeah.
Yes it is.
He gets status.
Uh his tribe is more unified.
They'll fight to protect him, and if he sings a war song in a crucial moment of battle, thus rallying his troops, then I mean Hank Sank, right?
Henry V, with his very famous we happy few uh speech, that's a guy with serious eloquence, serious thrilling oratorical abilities, and he uses it to win a battle.
Now, if a singer does nothing but sing, he's gonna hurt his voice, you know, Paul Young, Stop Paul Young, the very famous singer from the eighties, did a beautiful cover of Wherever I Lay My Hat.
And uh I think the only song of his that he wrote was Broken Man, which actually really good.
I didn't like it at the beginning, but it grew on me enormously.
And uh he sung uh so hard that he couldn't sing for like a year, and I think his voice is fairly wrecked now, so you'd want to be somewhere in the middle.
Don't not sing.
It's not good for you.
Plus you take pleasure in singing, I take pleasure in philosophy.
So you should do things for the benefit of those around you, given that your skills, talents, abilities are inherited from those before you, you should use them to the benefit of those around you.
But that is subject to the Aristotelian mean.
Too little and you're selfish and won't be happy, and your society will deteriorate too much and you're killed or hurt or you can't sing or and then you uh have a life that nobody envies.
Like we live in a world where you have to have a life that people at least to some degree envy in order for them to listen to the virtues and values that you personalize.
And so if I have a life where I'm sacrificing health and well being for philosophy, I look sickly or fat or stressed or whatever it is, then well, people will look at me and say, Well, I don't want that, so why would I listen to a guy? 'Cause you have to sell some version of happiness in order to get people to listen to your philosophy, especially if the equation reason equals virtue equals happiness is something you're proposing.
So if I'm unhappy, which is too much philosophy, then that's not good.
It's like exercise.
Exercise too little you're weak and frail.
Exercise too much, you're injured and frail.
Alright.
So that makes sense.
Next question.
I'm sure we can do the next one a little faster, but that was a very important one.
Next question.
How do you know if you're being abused versus receiving righteous anger for past wrongs to that person?
That's a great question.
So abuse is when you put another person down without a cause that is objective.
Right, so some drunk driver runs over your dog, You're yelling at the drunk driver, calling him an idiot, stupid, irresponsible dangerous.
But that's an objective wrong.
Guy drove drunk, ran over your dog.
So that is an objective wrong.
That's not abuse.
However, if you don't give to someone who's homeless, maybe they stink of alcohol or whatever it is, or they're drugged out.
And you don't give to that person because you're concerned they're going to spend the money on drinker drugs, and then they abuse you as being a selfish a-hole or whatever.
That's right, random swearing non swearing.
Get used to it.
It depends on how I feel.
So it is not an objective wrong to not give money to somebody who reeks of alcohol.
That's not an objective wrong.
If you have let's say an aunt who never does anything for you.
You know, she she doesn't visit you, she doesn't visit your kids, she doesn't remember their birthdays and so on.
And then she has uh a big ask, right, for whatever.
She's got some I don't know, let's say she's got a um a pit bull, and you've got a bunch of young kids, and she's got a pit bull, and she says, uh I'm going away for a month.
Uh I'd really appreciate it if you would uh take care of my pit bull.
Uh that's a big ask, right?
And she hasn't deposited in the bank of goodwill, because she doesn't even remember your kids' birthdays or do anything about them or that.
So that's uh that's a big ask, right?
And if you say, uh no, I I'm sorry, I'm not going to do that, it's a lot of work, it's kind of risky for my kids, and uh I don't really want to, and then she's like, Oh, you selfish this, that and the other.
Well that's abusive because she is calling you selfish when she is in fact has been the selfish one.
Uh not helping with your kids or even acknowledging their birthdays or whatever it is, right?
So she's been selfish, but instead she's calling you uh selfish, right?
So that's uh bad and wrong and and hypocritical.
And so when people have not been kind to you but demand kindness from you, and then call you terrible names if you refuse acts of kindness which they have not earned through reciprocity, well that's that's bad, right?
If someone sends you five hundred bucks on your promise to send them an iPad, as is my standard example, then uh if you don't send them the iPad, they ha and they call you up and they say, dude, you're being a a thieving fraudulent doofus by taking the five hundred bucks but not sending me the iPad, that's not abuse because they have a just claim, which you're not fulfilling.
Right, so that's that's that.
Now, if on the other hand somebody you don't even know just uh emails you and says uh give me five hundred bucks, you a-hole.
Right, but that that's abuse because they don't have a a claim.
They don't have an objective claim.
So if you have admitted wrong like uh if you go to your girlfriend and you say, I cheated on you, and then she says, Well, you're an untrustworthy son of a gun.
That's not abuse because you've done an objective wrong.
And she's talking about her feelings.
And also you agree, right?
Now you don't have to agree, because people can then just deny they've never done any wrong, then everything looks unjust, but if you've cheated on your girlfriend and you agree that cheating is bad, then she calls you an untrustworthy cheater, you are agreeing with her.
So it's not abuse if you agree, but it's not necessary that you agree in order for that to be valid.
Cause again, you can just disagree, just choose to disagree.
I have now walked onto a dirt road, and I do not have my phone, and I do not know where the heck I am.
And so was the question. 'Cause if I take this road when you're explory hiking, like you don't know where you're going, it's always if I take this road, it could lead me somewhere useful, or it could lead me further astray, and then maybe I can't even find this all right, I think I just had back the way I came.
Yes, let's do that.
Let's do that.
Alright.
So hopefully that makes sense.
Um and also uh there is an expiration date.
Sorry, let me just add to that last one after saying it'll be short.
There is a rational expiration date to being roundly or harshly criticized for wrong that you've done.
So there was a horrible, horrible Allie McBeale.
Was it Allie McBeal or something like that?
Allie McBeal or some law show or whatever it was.
Courtney Thornsmith was like this great haired actress from the nineties, and she said to her husband, you're more interesting when you're cheating.
Ugh, just vile.
Oh just vile is the amount of crap that gets pushed in these shows.
Anyway.
Lucy Lou was the dragon lady back then.
She was very funny, although crazed now.
But anyway, that's the price of fame is you've got to be insane.
So if you cheat on your girlfriend, let's say you just kiss another girl.
Like let's not go full belly slaps.
So Huh.
Lots of undergrowth crashing, but I'm not in an area where there could be hunters.
So I'm fairly likely to survive.
Alright.
But yeah, lots of crashing in the woods today.
Hopefully this won't be uh found audio um in a year.
Anyway, let's find out.
So if you kiss another girl, you confess your girlfriend or she finds out, and you apologize and you try to get to the root of it and you figure out what's wrong with the relationship, and let's say you guys decide to continue.
Then uh when when you are forgiven, it means that the subject does not keep coming up.
You you can't hold it in abeyance, you can't use it to win arguments down the road.
Right?
That's uh you know, you you apologize, you make restitution, you make amends, and then once the other person has accepted the apology, then the subject has to be uh closed.
Unless again there's some recurrence.
Alright.
Um how should a society determine its values if the mechanism of quote democracy is distorted by deliberate misinformation, and the voters lack even the basic tools of reasons slash congruence?
Well, every political system you build to protect yourself will inevitably end up staffed by those who hate you and will destroy you using these same mechanisms, right?
So, uh let's say that you want borders.
Well you build uh a government that's supposed to protect you from the borders, but sooner or later that government will be inhabited by your enemies and will not only open your borders, but will jail anyone who tries to protect the borders, right?
So uh this is why I'm a voluntarist, anarcho capitalist, whatever you want to call it, but a consistent uh applier of the non aggression principle.
And so uh values should be determined voluntarily through reason and evidence.
In other words, values should not be imposed upon children through forced government education.
Right?
And the reason why propaganda is so prevalent is is because propaganda leads people to accept political rule.
And through political rule, you know, countless trillions of dollars around the world get created and transferred.
So uh propaganda you know, the propaganda does not show up where power political power does not exist, or at least very little of it shows up.
In other words, I mean I'm sure there's some Pakistani politician trying to win some election at the moment, but he's not advertising in Alaska.
Because the people in Alaska can't determine whether he wins or loses his political campaign, right?
So he keeps the politician in Pakistan keeps his propaganda to the people who vote for him.
So power is uh is it summons propaganda.
And if there's no centralized oligarchical political power, then propaganda is not as valuable and lies and distortion will not really occur.
Alright.
Uh what is the most important single book about philosophy for non philosophers to read, to understand as much as one book can teach about the subject?
Um well philosophy has a history of asking questions and having asking great questions and having terrible answers.
And if you sort of look at Socrates, uh he asked great questions and dismantled people's false thoughts but did not provide any particular answers.
Or the answers of Plato were terrible.
Or you know, the the criticisms and objections that uh Friedrich Nietzsche had were a powerful and insightful and and so on, but the answers were all uh scattered and aphoristic and you know, it's deep at ease, right?
Right?
Whoever fights monsters needs to be sure that they do not turn into a monster.
I mean it sounds kind of deep.
What does it mean?
In any sort of practical sense, I don't know.
If you gaze into the abyss, the abyss also gazes into you.
I mean it sounds kind of cool, sounds interesting.
Uh dorm room three and blunt session deep.
What does it mean?
What does it mean in practical terms?
Uh well nothing.
I mean philosophy has been poking holes at sophistry for three thousand years.
Until universally preferable behavior, there was no proof of virtue.
So three thousand years of nipping at the heels of other people without providing any answers.
Philosophy is just nihilistic nagging for the most part.
And all the answers are just terrible, you know, like uh the answer what was it from Hegel that uh well, you know, the the world spirit sometimes chooses a particular nation to dominate all other nations, it's like well that's a terrible answer, my friend.
That is just absolutely appalling.
So I'm a big fan, of course, of my own work, so I'll put that forward.
Essential Philosophy at Essential Philosophy dot com is a great book to take on you know, it takes on three big issues, right?
It takes on simulation theory, it takes on free will versus determinism, and it takes on rational ethics.
That's some pretty good stuff.
I have an eighteen part introduction to philosophy series I recorded in two thousand six, almost twenty years ago, which you should check out as well, so I think there's a good maybe I should write an introduction to philosophy as a whole.
All right, is there an Aristotelian mean for premarital sex?
Too much is a bad thing, but someone with no dating experience getting married at eighteen seems absurd too.
Uh why?
Why does it seem absurd?
Someone with no dating experience, so you've conflated two things premarital sex and dating experience.
Uh so uh for women in particular, don't blame me, it's just biology, for women in particular, being a virgin on your marriage day is um is best, in terms of the longevity and stability of the marriage, right?
So women who uh have more and more sexual partners are more and more likely to get divorced.
So I don't know why being a virgin on your wedding night at the age of eighteen is a bad thing.
I don't know, but it seems absurd.
I do understand being a virgin at thirty five, if you're a woman or a man, uh something's uh something's wrong with you.
Uh almost certainly, right?
Uh something's something's deeply wrong with you.
And people who remain virgins into their you know, mid late twenties, thirties almost certainly uh pornography addicts and probably have burned out their receptors to the point where it's going to take a lot of abstinence from pornography to get any kind of normal sexual response to an actual human being, so Alright.
Hi Steph.
I've really enjoyed listening to your content for years now and think in many ways libertarianism is the only way forward.
One thing I struggle with understanding is how we employ forces against bad actors in such a society.
What if I'm poor and cannot afford security?
Well if you're poor and cannot afford security, let me let me ask you this.
So let's say that you're poor, you're the only poor person in a reasonably wealthy neighborhood.
Let's say you inherited your house but you're unemployed for whatever reason, right?
You just don't have any money, and you didn't have any insurance for being unemployed or whatever it is.
So you don't have much money.
Well, do you think that it is beneficial or harmful if you are completely unprotected in a free society?
So let's say that everyone who has paid for protection gets a sticker in the window or a sign in the yard, and you don't.
Well will your neighbors feel safer or less safe?
If you're the only house without the yard sign or the sticker that says I'm protected.
Well no, they because they know that criminals are going to be driving around looking for places without those signs.
And so it will invite criminals into the neighborhood, and it will endanger them.
Right?
Because the criminals will be there, they might be a home invasion, and then uh maybe there's a hostage situation or a standoff, or you know, maybe there's just, you know, bad people with guns roaming around the neighborhood.
Uh and uh maybe they'll be driving home, see the person get shot.
Uh it could be any number of things you have there's a shooting battle, bullets flying all over the place.
I mean it's take an extreme example, right?
So if people who can afford security will part of that security is extending security protection to those who can't afford it.
So there would be charity in those situations.
However, of course, human nature being what it is, which is neither positive or negative, it just is nature.
Human nature being what it is, there will be, I mean, less so when peacefully parented, but there will, of course, be a bunch of super skeevy people in society who's like, oh, so if I'm poor, other people will pay for me, so I guess I don't have to work.
Yeah, well, that's uh a real concern.
So I don't have any particular answer as to how that's solved, except to say that it will be solved in an optimum fashion.
In the same way that prices are solved in an optimum fashion.
The distribution of resources based upon so the transfer of resources or the aggregation of resources based upon price signals is optimal.
There's no better solution.
So society will extend its charity and protection to people to minimize exploitation.
Right?
And now that I don't know what the answer to that is because that's something that people need to work out in a free market, and we're talking about a society at least probably I say fifty, but probably closer to a hundred years from now, best case scenario.
So people will extend protection to those who can't afford it, but not to the point where people will not pay for protection in order to get it for free.
Now how that's worked out, no idea.
Doesn't matter, but it will be worked out.
Alright, any suggestions on how to deprogram people who've swallowed a load of propaganda.
So okay, you understand sorry, I'm gonna be completely annoying.
Well, maybe I've been annoying the whole time, but I'm gonna be even more annoying just now, which is it is not propaganda, primarily, that keeps people believing propaganda.
So the problem is that people hold on to false beliefs because they are embedded in relationships that require those false beliefs.
So if, God help you, you send off your daughter to university and she becomes a quasi-Marxist blue haired hysteric feminist, then she's gonna have a whole bunch of friends who all believe the same thing.
And they're all gonna cling to each other and be desperate to retain these beliefs, and they are gonna drive away anyone who questions or opposes these beliefs.
Most people, almost everyone, they're not embedded in propaganda.
They are embedded in social relationships.
And if they question or oppose these belief systems, they are ditched and removed from their social circle.
Because the social circle is about shared delusions, and the identity, the sense of identity and virtue and efficacy and all of that, is all based on shared delusions.
And if you question or oppose those shared delusions, you must be ejected from the group because you threaten the entire identity of those people.
So the way that I approach people who've swallowed a lot of pro propaganda is I evaluate how deeply embedded in false relationships they are.
So let's say there's a guy, and I've met people like this.
Well, he's cucked, because he should be the leader in the ideological areas of the marriage as a whole.
It could be exceptions, and women have their own areas of leadership, which are very important.
But men are generally better at this sort of debating, abstractly principled reasoning thing.
You know that meme of the woman who says, How is it possible that my husband understands cryptocurrency and bitcoin and the Federal Reserve and inflation and the economy and politics, but doesn't know when I'm upset?
Right.
So uh men should be uh I should have ideological leadership in the family, and again, there are tons of areas where women have leadership In the family, which are very important and in fact in the short run more important than what the men are doing.
But again, in general, men should have that.
So what I do, if I'm thinking of talking to someone about facts, reason, and evidence, is I look at their relationships.
So if the man is more let's say free market, free speech, conservative, whatever it is, right?
If he's more that way, but his wife is super liberal, I know that he doesn't have her respect.
And that he's cocked in in these areas.
And if he tries to assert, you know, it's really tough to assert your authority when you've trained people for decades in subjugating you.
So you need to be assertive early on in the dating process.
And if the woman, say, and I could only really talk about this from the male perspective, but if the woman believes things that aren't true, then early on in the dating relationship, you need to set her straight, you know, kindly, gently, positively, and so on.
And if she accepts not the authority of you as a man, but the authority of reason and evidence, if she accepts that, good.
Then that's great, and you can move forward.
And then she can teach you some very important truths about relationships and health and having a beautiful environment and all things that are very important, and certainly more important in many ways in the short run in your life.
So if he has abandoned any sort of leadership or authority as a man, I don't bother.
Because if he's going to try and exercise some authority with a woman who's chosen him for his weakness, then the relationship is unlikely to survive.
And I mean, although American Beauty was a corrupt film in many ways, the portrayal of the man attempting to stand up against an abusive and belittling wife was really, really quite powerful.
And that doesn't tend to work out very well.
So I look at the environment.
So if there's someone who's a leftist and they're surrounded entirely by leftist people, their leftist boyfriend or girlfriend, and and all their friends are leftists and and so on, then are they going to have the robustness to cross that desert which we all have to cross to of isolation until we find our people?
Well, unlikely.
So to me it's just a cost benefit, and I don't view people I don't view people as having beliefs, I view people as conforming.
Because conformity was how people reproduce throughout almost all of human history.
The odds or chance of being able to think critically and originally was almost zero throughout almost all of human history for almost everyone.
So we have evolved not to think or to reason or to believe, but to comply.
And people's genes rebel against independent thought and unpopularity because unpopularity meant the end of your genetic lineage.
I'm not blaming people in the past for that, that's just the way things were.
We can't survive on our own.
We need a group to survive, and in return for the protection of the group, we give up our independent thought and integrity.
But again, it's an Aristotelian mean.
People who were overly compliant, tribes that were overly compliant that forced overcompliance, lost to tribes with more individuality.
Right?
The Chinese to the Europeans, the indigenous North Americans to the Europeans, and so on, right?
Europeans had more critical thinking, more individuality, and that allowed them to progress and technol technological advancements and so on, to the point where the even more conformist tribes tended to fall apart.
Too much opposition to social norms gets you ostracized or killed, or God forbid, sent to Australia.
Just kidding.
Love love the Aussies.
So that's the choice that you have to try and uh balance in society.
So most people don't have thoughts, ideas, personalities, really, they don't have uh critical thinking, they th all they do is is sniff and navigate for what is approved of, uh copy paste what is approved of, and at least it used to be the case.
It used to be the case that conformity bred reproduction.
See, get it bred reproduction, it's very subtle.
Now, of course, conformity to leftist stuff, which is generally antinatalist, conformity breeds sterility.
Leftists have far fewer kids than people on the right.
So, alright.
Um can you do an episode on a Bunch of variations on the trolley problem LOL.
I'm genuinely think you could make it interesting.
Yeah, the trolley problem, so it's all you know, there's a trolley going down the tracks.
There's this person or group on the left side, there's this personal group on the right side.
Do you throw the switch and have the trolley wipe out the group on the left or the group on the right or whatever it is, right?
So the trolley problem, right?
Now the trolley problem is allowed because it's anti philosophical.
Right?
Anti philosophical.
So it's going to a nutritionist and saying, well, you have uh a guy on the left who's dying of a heart attack, and you have a guy on the right who's dying of an aneurysm.
What would you feed them?
Right?
You understand that that's not a question that makes any sense for a nutritionist.
Because we're already in a situation of emergency.
And nutrition is about long-term prevention, not short-term cure.
And philosophy is about long-term prevention, not short-term cure.
Wisdom is about the prevention of problems and not solution to an immediate crisis.
So wisdom has you not flirt with the woman at the office.
You know, it's a little bit different once you're already having sex with her.
Then the rubricon has been crossed and philosophy has failed to prevent, or you have failed to prevent using philosophy or wisdom failed to prevent the emergency from coming to pass.
So a trolley thundering along its tracks and you've got to throw a switch one person to the other.
That is not a philosophical problem.
Because philosophy is about preventing these situations.
It's like what philosophical position should you hold when you're facing the wall and about to be shot by a totalitarian communist death squad.
Right?
Well, it doesn't matter.
It's too late.
What diet should you adopt to solve the problem of currently having a heart attack?
Well, it doesn't matter what you eat.
You've got to get to the emergency room.
You gotta call an ambulance, right?
So going to a nutritionist with a problem that nutrition cannot solve is just a way of discrediting nutrition.
Because the nutritionist when says, Well, what should the person eat who's having an aneurysm?
Say, well, uh I I I I don't know.
I mean i I can't, right?
That's not my wheelhouse.
It's like it's a way of discrediting nutrition.
Now, if you were to say to a nutritionist, uh, what should someone eat to prevent potentially getting diabetes, right?
I don't know what they would say, but I assume it would be normal normal stuff.
But they would have something to say.
They would have something to say, oh yeah, but what you should do to reduce your chances of getting diabetes is X, Y, and Z. Right?
They can answer that question with confidence, right?
Now, philosophy can say, how should society best organize itself so that you don't end up with the trolley problem?
That's good.
What should you eat to avoid becoming morbidly obese?
Or dangerously underweight, or whatever, right?
Well, nutritionists would be able to tell you that.
Now, if you are dangerously obese, your odds of having a heart attack go up considerably.
But that's because you didn't listen to the nutritionist.
So then sending a poll to nutritionist saying what should someone eat when they're currently experiencing a heart attack, the nutritionist, it's it's a trick.
It's just a way of making nutrition look retarded.
Well, nutrition can't help you.
Well, what good is nutrition then?
Right?
So if somebody asked me a trolley problem, uh I would be um uh no, that's not a philosophical problem.
A philosophical problem is how do you prevent extreme emergency situations like the Sophie's choice, right?
She's got to choose between one kid or the other in the death camp, right?
Well, that's no longer a philosophical problem or question.
That's a heart attack.
And you know, if you can shoot your way out of the Nazi death camp and get your kids to safety, do that, right?
It's a self-defense coercive issue.
It's not a philosophical.
The philosophical question is how do we prevent people ending up in totalitarian death camps?
Okay, that's a philosophical question.
How do we prevent people from having heart attacks?
You know, what foods should you eat to minimize your chances of getting a heart attack?
Well, I'm sure that there are good answers to that in the nutritional field.
Once you're having the heart attack, anyway.
So uh it's not the trolley problem is anti-philosophy, which is why it's promoted.
It's promoted to make sorry, I'm a strip there.
It's promoted, sorry, didn't mean to start here.
Uh it's promoted to have people not be able to come up with a good answer and say, Oh my God, philosophy is useless.
It can't give you any good answers, right?
In the same way that saying to a nutritionist, see, that's my analogy brain, right?
Saying to a nutritionist, what should someone eat when they're having an aneurysm to fix themselves, so it doesn't you can't oh see, nutrition doesn't do any good.
It's useless, right?
Okay.
Uh where does one draw the line between dysfunctional and realistic understanding of their exceptionality?
I don't understand that one.
Okay.
If power corrupts everyone and we have power over our children, aren't we inevitably condemned to abuse this power?
Well, power is different when it is political.
Because in political power, like one of the definitions of political power is immunity from consequences.
Rises like the 1986 Vaccine Injury Act, right?
Which means that vaccine manufacturers cannot be sued for problems with their product.
So that's political power.
That would never exist in a free market.
Or with COVID, right, the COVID vaccine, the manufacturers insisted it was perfectly safe and effective, and also insisted that they could never be sued for any any problem.
I don't mean to laugh, because it's like a grim grim subject.
But I mean that was just your basic IQ test that sadly most people failed.
Uh if it's perfectly safe, then why would you need immunity from liability?
So uh that's political power, right?
So political power is when you escape the consequences of your actions, and you face no negative consequences for uh bad decisions, right?
So the government you know they had a program called uh strip Saddam Hussein off his weapons of mass destruction.
You know, we know where they are.
They're north, east, south, west, in the sky, under the ground, by the misty mountains and deep in the minds of Moria, they said.
Was that Runsfeld?
Maybe misquoting.
But there was a program.
He's definitely got weapons of mass destruction.
He's about to use them on America, we wouldn't want the smoking gun to be in the form of a mushroom cloud, and so that's what was put into place, thousands of Americans killed and wounded, half a million Iraqis slaughtered, and there were no weapons of mass destruction.
So who faced any negative consequences for that?
So power is the power to escape negative consequences.
It is the power to force other people to do your bidding, and the power to escape any negative consequences.
So given that, let's compare political power, which is the power to force others to give you resources and obey your will.
Do parents have that power?
Not with regards to others.
Not with regards to others, not with regards to strangers.
Parents don't get the magical ability to charge everyone two percent of the value of their house and throw them in jail if they don't pay it, right?
Parents, you know, when you become a dad or a mom, you don't get the power to initiate military action and escape any negative consequences for lying an entire region into war.
Right.
So power political power, which is the ability to initiate the use of force and escape consequences across a wide geographical area, that's not well, parents have.
So in a free society, parents would not have the right to initiate the use of force against their children, because we only get a free society when we finally accept the non aggression principle, and we only accept the non-aggression principle when people who are parents stop initiating the use of force against their children, right?
So parents will not have the power to initiate force against their children.
That would be uh strongly discouraged in a free society, and I've got a whole book called The Future, which you can read for more about that.
Free domain.com slash books.
I mean, my wife has great power over me and over my happiness.
When she smiles, my room and heart lights up.
If she scowls and frowns, um I am not happy, need to find out what the issue is, hopefully fix it.
And so uh if if she were to wake up tomorrow and say, um uh I I've read what the media says, you're a bad guy, I'm leaving you, uh then I would be very unhappy.
And so she has a great deal of power over my happiness.
But it's not political power.
All relationships involve entwining yourself in other people's lives and being vulnerable to their ups and downs.
And surrendering at least some part of your self-evaluation to the evaluation of others.
So even if I think I'm doing the right thing, if my wife or my friends or my daughter think I'm doing the wrong thing, then they can make the case, and they should make the case, and of course they have made the case, is why I'm back on X, because my daughter made the case.
So people have power over you, but that's not institutional political coercive power.
And of course, parents who mistreat their children do not automatically escape the consequences.
I mean, this is sort of the fight that I had with the world about twenty years ago.
I was reading this article.
Like in the UK, one in five families is going through parental alienation or estrangement.
And of course, you know, back in the day when I first brought this up as an argument, the world lost its collective mind and, you know, called me an evil manipulative cult leader and so on for saying that people didn't have to stay in abusive relationships.
Now it's commonplace, it's understood.
And of course, as usual, nobody comes back to say, oops, sorry about that, yeah, you're right.
Uh that's all right.
So I mean it sucks to be first as a whole.
That's why I don't really want to do it as much anymore.
So parents don't get to escape the consequences of abusive parenting, because adult children or children as they age uh don't have to spend time with their parents.
Right?
And, you know, when you leave home, I mean I was um flying solo in terms of paying bills and not having a uh not having parents around from the age of fifteen onwards.
And uh I assume my father knew and did nothing.
Um it's just the way.
Anyway, he's dead now, what does it matter?
So uh parents don't get to escape the consequences of bad parenting, and power is the ability to escape consequences of bad decisions, but parents don't get to escape consequences of bad parenting.
I mean, it doesn't mean that the negative consequences will automatically be inflicted upon them because adult victims of child abuse can of course always continue to see their parents, but they can't force or compel their children to stay in their lives, right?
And uh I would assume even sort of mid to late teen onwards, you can't lock your kids in the basement, right?
They've got to go out to school, they gotta go out with friends or whatever it is, right?
So uh it's true that uh parents have some power and authority over their children, children bond with their parents, listen to them, we teach them language values, and so on.
That's all very true.
But it's not the same as political power, because certainly in the future, but it's not based upon the initiation of the use of force, right?
My daughter is not my daughter because I forced someone or stole the kid or something like that.
So uh that's important to differentiate.
Not all power is is the same.
It's like saying uh it's like saying, well, you say that power corrupts, but the electricity company delivers power, right?
So power is not all the same.
All right.
So let's see here.
Pim pum pum pumit to another good one.
Uh what are your thoughts on stoicism?
So a stoicism, and I'm obviously bastardizing it to some degree, so I'll you know, because I'm not doing a full deep dive on it.
But stoicism as a whole is uh just putting up with uh negative things.
Uh it's recognizing that there are negative things, and we should not rail against that which we cannot change.
Now when it comes to most of human history, there was really not much that could be changed.
I mean, if you were born a slave or you were born a serf, or I mean even if you were born an aristocrat or whatever, there really wasn't much that you could change.
The ancient Roman times, which is where stoicism really gained its popularity, I mean there really wasn't much that you could change in in your life, right?
And in England, the social classes I mean, certainly for most of British history, the social classes were the social classes were were pretty inviolate.
Yeah, you've got an accounting accent, you're staying at the bottom.
You've got the posh accent, you stay at the top, don't you know what what?
So this is sort of the Eliza do little thing, right?
Soicism, which is you can't change your circumstances if you were born a Russian serf or an English surf or whatever it is.
You uh that was your life.
I mean, you really couldn't escape it or get away.
And this is why so many people were desperate to get to the new world, right?
Because you could at least escape the iron stratosphere, thermocline layers of social classes and economic classes and so on.
I mean, you could you could be the brilliant son of a poor family, and maybe you could go and become a priest or something like that, but you you really had to you had very little capacity to change your circumstances throughout almost all of human history.
I mean, you're born to some godforsaken Aztec civilization, and uh you don't really have much of a much of a choice, right?
In things.
So Stoicism in terms of accept what you cannot change made a lot more sense to me when you couldn't change much.
However, now I mean, almost more than at any other time in human history, now the world is your oyster.
Now you can change and do almost whatever you want.
I mean, I don't want to make it about me, but you know, I went from dirt poor welfare trash planet to um, you know, something uh a smidge more refined and uh less trashy, right?
So you can do a lot.
And and the internet has changed that to an almost infinitely greater uh degree in terms of what you can change and what you can do.
So I don't think that stoicism is nearly as valuable as it used to be.
And my concern is that when you are unhappy, right, about something.
And Stoicism says, well, the best thing you can do is to accept your unhappiness, to to stop fighting it, to learn to work with and and not try to fundamentally oppose and change that which makes you unhappy.
Again, you're born a slave into ancient Greece or ancient Rome or in the Middle East or whatever, you're gonna be born a slave, you're gonna live a slave, you're gonna die a slave.
There's very little that you can do.
So you might as well accept it, right?
Which is to some degree what happened with Christianity, right?
So this is the to be an ought to be speech, right?
To take arms against a sea of troubles, and by opposing, end them.
Whether it is noble in their mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, or to take arms against a sea of troubles, and by opposing end them, right?
To be an ought to be, that is the question.
Whether it is nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, does it suffer?
Do we accept bad things?
Or do we fight them?
Well, in the modern world, we have a near infinity of opportunities to escape bad situations.
In the past, in general, you're born into a screwed-up clan, as most clans were.
You're born into a screwed-up clan.
Do you have any opportunity to escape it?
Nope, you don't.
No, you really don't.
So now you can go anywhere, do anything.
You can go from country to country, you can go from profession to profession, particularly there's so much economic opportunity in the world these days that is unlicensed, that you don't need to jump through a bunch of bureaucratic hoops in order to do a job.
I mean, you can't be a doctor without being licensed, but you can write a program that runs healthcare without being a quote licensed programmer, right?
So all of that to me makes stoicism of much less value.
Stoicism in terms of I can find ways to be at peace with and endure terrible negative things.
Now, there's some things, like you you you just get some illness out of nowhere, then yeah, then you're gonna have to deal with that, and you're gonna have to find ways to endure that.
You know, like I mean, uh I got um tinnitus as a result of the radiation treatments uh uh in my left ear.
And it's been eleven years or whatever it is, right?
Uh ten years.
And I mean, I just deal with it.
I I don't pay much attention to it.
I, you know, put music on or something like that, and it's fine.
It's it's not a big deal.
And so I have to be stoic about that.
Uh I haven't found any particularly reliable way.
It's only in one ear, it's not a big deal.
And I haven't found any particular way to prevent or stop that.
I've tried a bunch of different things.
And so am I stoic about that?
Well yeah it's not a huge issue in my life.
It's fine, it's no biggie and I again ninety nine percent of the day I don't even pay it any attention.
Oh, I can hear it now.
So is that stoic?
Sure, yeah.
So there are times where stoicism makes sense, like it's just getting completely enraged and frustrated.
However, if there is a way to change it that's you know reasonably safe and and uh proven, uh then I would uh I would work to change it.
But I haven't found anything reliable and I've talked to a bunch of specialists and so on, right?
So stoicism for things like aging where you can't do you know I mean this I mean there's things you can do about aging, but there's things you can't do about aging, right?
So I you know I think I'm pretty pretty good at at aging, but I'm still not the same as when I was twenty, right?
No matter how much exercise or how many supplements or stretching or whatever it is.
Like I'm still pushing sixty, I'm almost sixty, and I'm not twenty, right?
That's just not a thing.
So yeah, I mean the the wisdom to accept the things you cannot change, the courage to change you sorry, the um serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can change, and the wisdom to know the difference, sure.
Stoicism leans to me too more too much towards accept difficulty.
So if you have, you know, brutal parents or whatever, well you just have to stoically accept it and ride out the wave and there's a certain grim jawed nobility in just accepting things.
And I think that's largely bullshite.
I think that you should not accept corrupt and immoral things and people in your life.
I think that you should not accept graciously the uh inevitable decays of aging, but you should rage rage against the dying of the light and fight fight to retain your strength and mobility and all that kind of good stuff.
And so stoicism I think leans a little bit too far towards accepting things.
Like if you're drafted into the army and you can't escape and you gotta go fight, yeah, then there's very very little that you can do other than work to try and survive and accept your circumstances.
If you're unjustly thrown in prison, there's no way to escape, then yes, stoic but the whole point is to prevent those kinds of things and you do that by fighting like hell as much as possible against the evils of the world as a whole.
But do not accept them.
So yeah, circumstances, amoral things, things beyond your control, sure, accept those, that makes sense, but I'm concerned that it develops too much the muscularity of endurance and not the muscularity of fighting against corruption and immorality.
And escaping those things and escaping circumstances that you had nothing to do with being embedded in.
Free domain dot com slash donate to help out Le Show, I would really really appreciate that.
Help our philosophy at free domain.com slash donate.
Thanks for all these great questions.
I will see you well, I don't know when this is going out, but I'll see you remember.
Wednesday night seven PM, Friday night seven PM, Sundays eleven AM other regularly scheduled live streams.
Lots of love my friends.
Take care.
▲
Export Selection