Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux - What REALLY Happened with Jimmy Kimmel! Twitter/X Space

All Episodes

Previous Next

Sept. 20, 2025 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux

01:52:12

What REALLY Happened with Jimmy Kimmel! Twitter/X Space

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hey everybody, Stefan Molyneux from Free Domain, 19th of September 2025.
	Six days till my birthday.
	Hey, if you want to give a philosopher a great birthday present, spread philosophy.
	Whether you identify me by name or not, depends on your level of risk tolerance, I suppose.
	But if you could also support at free domain.com slash donate, I would very much appreciate that.
	Free domain.com slash donate.
	And now, yes, even now, even now, you can subscribe.
	And the way that you subscribe on X. You just go to X.com slash Stefan Molyneux, and you can click on subscribe on the header, or you can go to FDRURL.com slash X, F D R URL.com, Free Domain Radio URL, F D R U R L dot com slash X and subscribe there, and I really do appreciate that.
	It helps out a lot.
	It does help out a lot.
	All right.
	So, Jimmy Kimmel.
	Jimmy Von Kimmelhead.
	Yes, the man who said that the unvaccinated should be denied health care.
	Apparently it's really, really upset that he lost his job, transmitting to last I read under 200,000 people at 88,000 an episode just for paying him.
	Can you imagine everyone else?
	So this is uh some legal stuff, obviously.
	Uh it doesn't need to be said, but I'll say it anyway.
	I'm not a lawyer.
	None of this is legal advice, this is just my understanding.
	So Jimmy Kimmel versus the Federal Communications Commission, the FCC.
	What is the story there?
	Well, from the FCC's website on hoaxes.
	And I quote, the Commission's prohibition against the broadcast of hoaxes is set forth at Section 73.1217 of the Commission's rules.
	47 CFR, something that I think you have to have a stroke or epilepsy to pronounce.
	73.1217.
	This rule prohibits broadcast licensees or permittees from broadcasting f false information concerning a crime or a catastrophe if one the licensee knows this information is false.
	Two, it is foreseeable that broadcast of this information will cause substantial public harm, and three or broadcast of this information does in fact directly cause substantial public harm.
	Any programming accompanied by a disclaimer will be presumed not to pose foreseeable harm if the disclaimer clearly characterizes the program as a fiction or is presented in a way that is reasonable under the circumstances.
	For purposes of this rule, public harm must begin immediately and cause direct and actual damage to property or the health or safety of the general public or diversion of law enforcement or other public health and safety authorities from their duties.
	The public harm will be deemed foreseeable if the licensee would expect with a significant degree of certainty that public harm would occur.
	A crime is any act or omission that makes the offender subject to criminal punishment by law, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
	So and the reason that this is important is that broadcasting companies in the United States have billions of dollars of free airwaves available to them, but they have to follow a couple of rules, i.e., don't broadcast volatile incendiary, potentially harmful false information.
	That's sort of the the rule or the deal.
	So of course, let's go through the timeline.
	September 10th, horrible day.
	Charlie Kirk is slaughtered.
	The shooter was unknown to the public at this time.
	Now I personally did not think he was going to be caught.
	I thought he was in the wind.
	I was wrong about that.
	Very happy to be wrong about that.
	I'm glad he got caught.
	September 11th, Tyler Robinson surrenders at Washington County Sheriff's Office after a 30-hour manhunt.
	Although they didn't catch him with a manhunt, they caught him because he went to well, his father identified him from the FBI photos.
	And then his father went to a family clergyman or priest or religious person, and then that person contacted the authorities, as far as I remember.
	Authorities began their investigation into Tyler Robinson collecting statements from family friends and neighbors.
	And of course, the world collectively holds its breath.
	Who is he going to be affiliated with?
	Of course, he shot poor Charlie Kirk.
	Anybody with half a brain knew exactly who he was affiliated with.
	So uh for instance, in uh Christianity, there's a a wee little thing called Thou Shalt Not Murder.
	Doesn't mean that all Christians don't murder, but it does mean that they're less likely to, and it also means that Christians are very unlikely to murder another Christian, especially a very good and noble Christian, like Charlie Kirk was not exactly flying around in a diamond encrusted leader jet.
	So All right, sec September 12th.
	This is two days after the shooting, probable course affidavits are filed, referencing a family member's comments that Tyler had become more political recently without mentioning specific political leanings.
	Robinson was arrested and booked.
	September 14th, Utah Governor Spencer Cox appeared on news programs to discuss Tyler Robinson on ABC News The Week.
	He said, Tyler has not confessed to authorities.
	He is he is he is not cooperating, but but all the people around him are cooperating, and I think that's that's that's very important.
	I'm not sure why he keeps making this three repeat chant, but that's the direct quote.
	And he goes on to say, well, so far that that has come from his acquaintance and his family members.
	That's where the initial information has come from.
	Certainly there will be much more information that is released in the charging documents as they're bringing all of that together.
	Now, could you say with certainty that he was a leftist at this point?
	I mean, there's as I had a debate on Wednesday with a professor of logic and philosophy who called in to tell me what an absolute bail and turd brain I was.
	I'm I may be characterizing a little bit here.
	And we talked about the differences between deductive and inductive reasoning.
	Deductive reasoning is all men are mortal.
	Socrates is a man, therefore you know 100% Socrates is mortal.
	Inductive reasoning is more balance of probabilities, and so on.
	So basically, I I've had a whole uh show about this a couple of weeks ago, which is that so was it possible by say September the 14th, to know whether or not the shooter who'd become, quote, more political recently, was left or right.
	Well, he shot a conservative, he shot a Christian for talking about conservative and Christian positions.
	So I think it's fair to say, on the balance of probabilities, that it was a hard leftist.
	A hard leftist tend to be quite violent.
	We can look at that.
	Over the course of the 20th century, of course, the leftists hate fascism, but fascism is largely the reaction formation and a bit sometimes of an overreaction formation to the violence of the left.
	The left escalates, the right fights back, the left calls the right fascism, the right calls the left communists or socialists, and you kinda go away to the races from there.
	So, of course everybody was holding their breath.
	But the idea that a conservative Christian MAGA person would shoot a conservative Christian MAGA person for talking about conservative Christian MAGA talking points.
	It's kind of incomprehensible.
	I mean it it didn't it wouldn't make much sense at all.
	So I just sort of point that out.
	So Utah Governor Spencer Cox also appeared on NBC's Meet the Press and said, There clearly was a leftist ideology, Cox said.
	He went on to say, quote, friends have confirmed that there was this sorry, that there was kind of that deep dark internet, the Reddit culture, and these other dark places of the internet where this person was going deep.
	He said the roommate of the shooter, the roommate was a romantic partner, a male transitioning to female.
	I can say that he's been incredibly cooperative.
	This partner has been very cooperative, had no idea that this was happening.
	These programs aired at 9 a.m., with Cox making his comments on this week at 9, 11 a.m.
	September 15th.
	FBI director Cash Patel, which implies the existence of a credit card Patel, Cash Patel remarked on Fox and Friends, which runs from 6 a.m. to 9 a.m. in the mornings, that Robinson, quote, subscribed to left-wing ideology and even more so in these last couple of years.
	End quote, based on family reports to investigators.
	This affirmed earlier assertions by Governor Cox.
	Now, despite being named Jimmy Kimmel live, the show is often pre-recorded, usually around 4.30 p.m.
	It airs at 1135 p.m.
	Kimmel said, this is what he said.
	Quote We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it.
	He also mocked Trump's Trump's response to the incident.
	This implied the assassin was a MAGA supporter, which contradicted contradicted emerging details about Robinson's anti-Kirk motive, right?
	So let's look at what Kimmel said.
	The MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize the the kid this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them.
	So he's saying this is a heavy implication, in my view, that the shooter was MAGA.
	September 16th, charging documents released containing details about Robertson's left-wing ideology and evidence backing up this claim.
	September 17th, FCC Chair Brenda Brendan Carr appeared on a podcast in Fox News' Hannity, calling Kimmel's comments, quote, garbage, and a potential, quote, pattern of news distortion.
	He urged affiliates to, quote, push back on ABC to avoid FCC fines or license revocations.
	Later that day, Next Star Media, the largest local broadcast group, stated it would preempt the show, indefinitely starting that night, citing Kimmel's comments as quote, offensive and insensitive, end quote, and not reflective of community values.
	Sinclair Broadcasting replaced it with a tribute to Kirk on Friday, September 19th.
	That evening, that's the evening of September 17th, which is uh two days ago, ABC stated, quote, Jimmy Kimmel Live will be preempted indefinitely.
	This following this followed affiliate pull-outs and FCC threats.
	September 17th to 19th.
	Jimmy Kimmel has reportedly refused to apologize for his comments.
	So let's compare this to the fellow from Fox News who left his essay wanted to genocide the homeless.
	That wasn't my take.
	I watched the whole clip.
	My take was that he was his argument was it's better for homeless people to uh be in institutions or under some sort of institutional care, rather than commit murder and then have to be uh have to get a lethal injection, because they committed murder, and I guess it's uh uh a capital offense, right?
	It's a death penalty offense.
	So he was saying it's better to have them institutionalized, but it was broken up and it was kind of awkward, and I could understand if you were uncharitable, right?
	So this is I don't know if you've ever oh sorry, facial tick and and uh a spinal freezing from PTSD.
	Have you ever been in in a relationship with somebody who takes always, always takes the least charitable, most paranoid interpretation of anything and everyone you've said.
	It's called me and well, most of the world, except for you lovely people here.
	So you could look at the Fox News segment and say, oh my gosh, he's talking about lethal injections for homeless people.
	Now, he's not, he's not.
	He's saying that it's better that they get some sort of help, even if they're confined and they're out there committing murders and then getting the death penalty.
	But he did accept that he'd said things awkwardly or badly or poorly, he went and apologized, and so on, right?
	So if you make a mistake, this is sort of in defamation.
	Again, I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is if you apologize publicly correct, take down the offending material, you might be okay.
	Right?
	So that's the general idea.
	But of course, on the left, there's no redemption arc.
	There's no redemption arc.
	On the left, if you make a mistake, you're toast.
	So you the left doesn't apologize because there's no re Like I remember saying this way back in the day, when Trump's grabbed them by the pussy comments were revealed by and I don't think anyone ever figured out how they got the tape off Billy Bush's show, it was backstage tape, and the left were like, that's it, he's done, because the left don't forgive.
	On the right, they're a Christian, and Christians have a redemption arc.
	So for Christians, you know, we're all sinners, we're all going to make mistakes, we're all going to do bad things.
	What matters is not that you made a mistake, but how you handle it afterwards for the left, once they've got you, right?
	It's uh judge, jury, and executioner, and there's no redemption arc, Which is why it's so high stakes on the left.
	You can't put a foot wrong, you have to be superconformist, which is why there's very little deviation in ideology on the left, and there's much a much wider deviation of ideology on the right, because the right has a forgiveness arc that the left simply doesn't.
	So Jimmy Kimmel from September 17th and 19th, Jimmy Kimmel has reportedly refused to apologize for his comments.
	And I think that's wrong.
	I think if you've said something that is wrong and inflammatory and insults, as I talked about briefly on X this week, one of the most offensive things is saying to Christians that a beloved Christian representative of yours was in fact murdered by another Christian.
	That's that's a very, very bad and insulting thing to say.
	So you should.
	Listen.
	If you've ever done, I mean, I do a lot of live shows, I'm highwire, public act, uh, no nets, right?
	If I say something really bad or wrong, then it's out there carved into the atoms of the dataverse from here to eternity, and so nobody's perfect, right?
	I've had to apologize and retract things over twenty years.
	That's natural, nobody's perfect, but you gotta own up for it, and you've gotta uh I've got a whole series of shows called I was wrong about, right?
	The things that I've gotten wrong, that's I don't have a standard of of perfection.
	That would be uh blasphemous, right?
	Uh, because uh in the Christian view, of course, only God and Jesus are perfect.
	So, yeah, everybody makes mistakes, everybody says things that later they're like, oh, you know, maybe that wasn't ideal, uh, that was wrong, and you just apologize and you take your lumps and you move on and you learn, right?
	I mean, you you don't want to never make mistakes, right?
	Because if you never make mistakes, it means you're not really pushing the envelope, you're not testing the limits of of what you're capable of, and uh so on.
	Like when I play racket sports, sorry to use such a silly analogy, but when I play racket sports, I don't just do uh my brother and I used to call it dinky tennis, where you just bink, you're just very gentle, and you never get things out, but it's really boring to play that way.
	So you have to take risks, you have to push the envelope, you have to do the edge sport of skating on the edges of your abilities and certainties, uh, and if every now and then, of course, if you serve really hard, right, in tennis there's a first serve and a second serve.
	The first serve is a blistering one because you got the second, the second serve is more gentle because you've got to get it in.
	So you're gonna make mistakes, and the reasonable thing to do is to apologize, right?
	But um the left is all about vanity and pride, right?
	Pride.
	So you can't apologize, particularly not to those awful Christians, right.
	So multiple sources indicate that Kimmel views apologizing as caving to political censorship and is standing firm on his remarks, despite pressure from Sinclair Broadcast Group and others to issue an apology and make a meaningful political donation to Kirk's family and turning point USA.
	Insiders have stated that Kimmel is, quote, unwilling to fake an apology he doesn't believe in, and is prepared to walk away from his show rather than comply with these demands.
	Which is interesting.
	Certainly by September 17th and 19th, when a decision that you've made to say these terrible things is now placed under the scrutiny of detailed hindsight and the facts are out there.
	You know, I I'm I admire people who stand by what they believe in.
	I mean, I have that standard for myself.
	I don't think you can ever find me publicly disavowing something that I know to be true.
	Even though, even though I've paid hugely heavy prices, obviously nowhere near what other people have paid, certainly not Charlie, but I've paid massive amounts of uh uh I've gone through massive amounts of hardship for standing by what I know to be true.
	I will not.
	I would rather shut down everything I do than disavow something that I know to be true.
	There's been a lot of pressure and there's been a lot of offers, and I just I just won't do it.
	I just won't do it.
	I I'm here to talk about the truth.
	I'm not here to be famous, I'm not here to be loved, I'm not here to be liked, I'm not here to be admired, I'm just here to talk about the truth.
	And if I can't talk about the truth, I would rather not do this at all.
	So if people stand by what they know to be true, that's admirable, I think.
	I mean, that's yet still it moves, right.
	However, if you're wrong, and you won't back down, you're just an asshole.
	You're a vainglorious, petty, vengeful, resentful, immature Douchebag.
	It is noble to stand by the truth.
	It is base and ignoble to refuse to admit error and to stand by an insulting falsehood.
	So President Trump praised ABC on Truth Social for, quote, having the courage to do what had to be done.
	Democrats, endless Democrats, called for cars resignation.
	Right?
	That's FCC Chair Brendan Carr.
	Resignation.
	Labeling it, quote, corrupt abuse of power.
	Hollywood stars such as Justine Jason Bateman and unions protested, calling it a free speech issue.
	Supporters gathered outside Disney Studios.
	Yeah, it's not a free speech issue.
	You're getting countless amounts of free airwaves from the government, and in return you have to agree to not broadcast things that are false and inflammatory or dangerous, as they sort of said.
	That's the deal.
	Now, I would I would argue that if there was a Democrat in power, or the Democrat Democrat president and and so on, then they wouldn't really worry about the FCC coming down on them.
	However, because they gave an opening, there is concern that the rules might actually they might actually attempt to enforce the rules, you know, like how there used to be a border.
	So they might actually attempt to enforce the rules on the FCC, which would put the uh or the entire network at at jeopardy, right?
	So it's not a free speech issue.
	All right.
	I mean, you know who has no more free speech is dead Charlie Kirk.
	Like he has no, I mean, why this this Jimmy Kimmel is like a multi-zillionaire.
	He uh can go and talk about whatever he wants, he can go and say whatever he wants, he can go and try and get another job in media, he can go start his own show, he can fund his own studio, he can do whatever he wants.
	You don't have to go home, but you can't stay here, right?
	That's the reality of it.
	Some affiliates, E. G. Sinclair reportedly demand demanded that Kimmel apologize to Kirk's family and donate to Turning Point USA for the show to resume.
	One report claims Kimmel refused next star plans to expand local news in the time slot.
	Confirmation of Kimmel's refusal, or exact demands, is limited to single sources speculation on whether this was a formal condition from ABC.
	We don't know, right?
	Conservatives such as Speaker Mike Johnson, Benny Johnson praised the suspension as accountability, not censorship.
	California Governor Gavin Newson called ABC spineless.
	Senator Ted Cruz criticized Carr's actions as dangerous.
	The investigation into Robinson continues with no new official updates on leftist connections beyond family reported leanings.
	Uh so as far as I understand it, again, I'm no lawyer, but as far as I understand it, you uh cannot defame the dead.
	You cannot do you you cannot bring like there was this horrible thing that uh Stephen King was claiming that Charlie Kirk wanted to stone homosexuals to death, he later apologized and retracted, and people were like, ooh, should sue.
	Again, I'm no lawyer, but my understanding is you cannot defame the dead.
	Now, because it has to do material harm.
	Usually, and if you're a public figure in America, it usually means that you have to have uh reckless disregard for the truth or knowingly have presented false information and so on, and you can't do harm to somebody who's dead, because they're dead, right?
	So did Jimmy Kimmel knowingly present false information?
	Well, of course, nobody can be a mind reader for sure.
	That's what the courts are for.
	A man in Jimmy Kimmel's position absolutely has the responsibility to not present false information.
	The information available at the time was that Robinson was very likely influenced by leftist ideology, despite his family being staunchly conservative.
	Of course, there are black sheep in every family.
	My family's crazy, I'm not.
	So I can see that, right?
	Would it be foreseeable that his broadcast would cause substantial harm?
	Well, leftists have already murdered, how would this not provoke leftists into further murder?
	Maybe, maybe not, I don't know.
	Has the broadcast caused Substantial public harm.
	Again, this is all just my opinion, so don't take it with any seriousness.
	If enough people believe Jimmy Kimmel's lies, it absolutely would.
	They already hated Charlie Kirk enough to murder him and cheer about it.
	Yes, there was a public warning by the FCC chair, after which Kimmel's show was preempted indefinitely.
	Is this what would be called political pressure?
	I don't believe so myself.
	I mean, it's unfortunate that the law was so selectively enforced previously towards leftists, such that we ended up with substantial public harm, such as the riots after George Floyd, COVID lockdowns of the VAX, and oh my gosh, it's all the way back to the uh Elliot riots about Rodney King, right?
	That the the the uh networks selectively broadcast what happened with Rodney King.
	Rodney King was uh on the run uh and was driving through very fast through neighborhoods was finally stopped, and there was, I think one or two other people in the car with them who surrendered and faced no harm, but Rodney King kept on taking the cops down, and so they circled him, and every time he lunged at them, they hit him with a stick, and uh in fact the police captain who was there was so pleased with the way the officers did it in a difficult and dangerous situation,
	the way that they subdued Rodney King, that he's like, oh, when he found out it was on video, he was like, fantastic, we can use this for training on how to take down somebody who's uh violent and so on.
	And then, of course, the person who filmed it sent it into the media, the media decided to cut out the bit where he was being chased, uh, they decided to cut out the bit where he was attacking the cops, and they just showed the bit was the most inflammatory.
	And this resulted in deaths and and injuries and massive amounts of property damage, and it was just horrifying.
	So that should have been enforced back then, in my humble opinion, but the idea that people could uh the idea that people on the left might actually be uh subject to um laws or regulations or strictness, I think it's kind of incomprehensible to them in a way.
	So, yeah, is it uh uh censorship and so on?
	Uh, you know.
	My personal opinion, which I mentioned on Wednesday, I think, my personal opinion is also that they don't want to pay him out for next year when he's getting so few people to watch his show.
	Less than 200,000, I think was the last number that I saw, but again, go check it yourself.
	I can't guarantee that.
	So if they cancel him, and most people in high positions or authoritative positions, I know that when I was uh um chief technical officer and on the board of a corporation, I had a morality clause, which is if I do something that's really egregious and negative and damaging, I can be let go without uh recourse, or certainly without uh severance or anything like that.
	So if he has a morality clause and they invoked that, then maybe maybe, I don't know, maybe they can dump his loser show without having to pay him the remainder of his contract.
	I don't know.
	But it does not seem particularly wise.
	And I mean, it it's wild to me, you know.
	It's wild to me that nobody on the say very few people on the left seemed to even care that what Jimmy Kimmel said was in was false and incredibly inflammatory.
	And that information was out there, just common sense information was out there, to not paint Tyler as a MAGA.
	But this is the kind of projection, right?
	So he's falsely claiming that, or falsely implying that Tyler was MAGA and saying that, well, they're doing it to score political points.
	It's like, bro.
	I mean, the self-awareness is so low, and boy, you know, if you've ever dealt with people in your life who just completely lack self-awareness.
	It is exhausting and fatiguing almost beyond words.
	I just I don't have people like that in my life at all.
	Because like leftists will just leftists, but it's just been showing it's just been showing up a lot lately with leftists.
	So leftists will say, that person is so full of hate, they deserve the violence that happens to them.
	That person, Bob, Bob over there is so full of hate, bigot and a racist and a phobe.
	That person over there Is so full of hate, they deserve get beaten up to get deplatformed to get shot to get whatever, right?
	They're so full of hate.
	And of course the hate is coming from the person making the accusation.
	You are taking your hatred, you're projecting it into the other person in order to unleash hatred from other people.
	And this tends to be a little bit female-coded, right?
	So female coded is uh women can't usually beat up men.
	So what do women do if they want a man beaten up?
	Well, they go to their brother, their father, their uncle, their boyfriend, and they say, Oh, Bob uh grab my ass and call me a negative whatever, right?
	See you next Tuesday.
	And uh then they so they can't beat the guy up, but they can encourage others, right, to to beat beat Bob up.
	And that's how women enact violence.
	So this constant repetition of these negative labels.
	I've been talking about this for like 20 years.
	These c he's a Nazi, he's this that uh puts a target on your head, and then eventually some crazy person is going to believe all of that stuff and uh shoot you, uh, or try to, or you know, as I've sort of faced bomb threats, death threats, all that kind of stuff, right?
	And people even showing up at the events uh with the desire to do do harm, right?
	So uh that's uh generally female-coded.
	Men will just have a fight and get it over with, but women will often try to wreck or harm your reputation with these whisper campaigns, and will speak badly about you in the hopes that somebody else is gonna step up and do some great and horrible harm to you.
	And uh that's that's kind of how it plays, that's how it works.
	And it's uh it's very sad.
	It's very sad.
	And like w I mean, it's a big question.
	I'd love to get your thoughts on it.
	Um I'll take calls if you want to raise your hand.
	Right to get your thoughts in there.
	Like, what do you do with people who don't admit that they're wrong?
	What do you do?
	I've been talking about the need to expose and oppose political violence for 20 years.
	I I posted a speech from 2009, like 16 years ago, where I was talking about the need to uncover people's addiction to political violence and oppose it.
	Get them to reject and eschew political violence, or don't have them in your life.
	Because people who uh cheer on assassinations and murders are cold-hearted sociopathic psychos, in my humble opinion, however normal they might appear.
	I mean, everybody's fine when they're getting their way.
	It's when you oppose someone's will that you find out their true nature.
	And uh, you know, I think personally I think if libertarians had taken this message and had worked hard to expose people's addiction to political violence, I talked about it.
	I mean, I only started the podcasts in early 2006, but I I started talking about it within, I think, a month or two of starting the podcast.
	We actually just checked this last night on the subscriber-only X live stream.
	And yeah, it was within a couple of months of me starting the podcast in 06 that I was talking about the need to find out who in your life wants you thrown in jail for disagreeing with them.
	And it's a surprising number of people when you really get down to it.
	Who wants you?
	I called it the against me argument.
	Do you support the use of political violence against me just for disagreeing with you?
	And if we had, if libertarians had taken up that torch and got behind me and we'd had that conversation, then we'd have to go to the next episode.
	I mean, honestly, we would be um we would be living in a very different world at the moment, and we wouldn't need all these bodies to understand mankind's addiction to political violence.
	Charlie might be alive, other people might be alive, people wouldn't have been deplatformed.
	And maybe I take too much responsibility for everything in the world and in my life.
	I I will generally err on the side of taking more responsibility rather than less.
	And I do look back and I've talked about it with people like what should I have done differently?
	What could I have done differently to bring this message out?
	I mean, I tried to make it as engaging, enjoyable, entertaining, and sometimes funny as possible.
	And I demonstrated it.
	I don't know what else I could have done to promote the desperate need for society to expose and oppose people's addiction to political violence.
	I I mean, I did my best.
	It could be that I'm missing certain magic spice it girl ingredients or something to get the message out there.
	Maybe if I had even more cleavage or something like that.
	But I was not able to get this message out.
	And when I was talking to libertarian, and it was not just libertarians, because the podcast was open to everyone, but it was mostly libertarian conferences that I was at giving speeches.
	Libertarians did not warm to the message.
	They did not warm to the message.
	And they, in general, as far as I know, there was no movement towards confronting people's addiction to political violence, which meant that the world was going to head in a very bad direction.
	And I'm now persona non grata to just about all libertarians.
	Like whenever I see a list of libertarians, I won't get into the names.
	Whenever I see a list of libertarians, like I'm never there, even though I was an OG libertarian guy from way back in the day.
	But you know, what can you do in life?
	You can identify what needs to be said.
	You can work as hard as you can to put the argument forward as positively and as powerfully and as compellingly and hopefully as engaging and entertainingly as possible.
	But after that, it's a free will issue.
	People either choose to do the right thing alongside you, or they scorn and reject you and call you a cult leader or whatever it is, and then they seal the fate of those down the road.
	Because now, like, what do you do with people who don't even admit when they're wrong?
	What do you do with people?
	I mean, this is COVID.
	What do you do with people who don't admit that they were wrong about lockdown?
	What do you do with people who won't even admit that they were wrong to strip essential basic civil and human rights from people who chose not to take experimental MRNA mystery slop and dump it into their veins for all time.
	Where humanity might have forked over this.
	I don't know.
	What do you call it?
	Therapeutic, maybe?
	Maybe.
	It suppresses symptoms.
	Boy, that's gonna make the disease harder to spread.
	Not the people won't even admit that they're wrong about that stuff.
	Like, what do you do with people who don't admit that they're wrong?
	Well, you ostracize because the only alternative to people who won't admit that they're wrong.
	The only alternative to ostracism is violence, and we sure as hell don't want that.
	I've been working to oppose that, although um not successfully, but I did my best.
	I did my best, and I don't look back and say, gee, I because if you talk about it more, nobody wants to hear about anything.
	If you talk about it less, you could have done more.
	I think I hit that right.
	Balance.
	I mean, I'll never know because there's no alternate timeline, but I certainly did take my lumps.
	I took my attacks, I did my best to try and get people to oppose political violence.
	Uh they chose not to, they chose to rail against the Federal Reserve and fiat currency and government control of interest rates and tariffs and all this sort of nonsense.
	But um anyway.
	I did my best.
	My conscience is relatively at ease.
	Obviously, I wish it had been better.
	But I wonder.
	You know, I do wonder if, you know, Charlie Crook and TP USA, you know, great organization, great guy.
	If they'd reached out to me when I was deplatformed, maybe I could have helped spread this message of exposing and opposing political violence.
	Maybe things would have turned out differently.
	We'll never know.
	All right.
	We have somebody on the line.
	If you have a thought, they have come and gone.
	That's right.
	They have come and gone.
	All right.
	Somebody else, I think I just uh hit the okay.
	If there's anything that you want to whisper sweet reason into my ear, I'm all happy to have the hairs go up on the back of my neck.
	What's on your mind?
	Wolf King.
	Yes, sir.
	Hey, how are you?
	Hey, thanks for having me.
	I've been a long time listener of years uh, yeah, when I was at university and art school uh in like 2015 to 19.
	Um I was like, I was a left-wing guy in the beginning, and I I was surrounded by left-wing friends.
	And, you know, shortly after I was, you know, in my second year, I started listening to you.
	I might have already been listening to you a little bit, but and then Jordan Peterson became uh, you know, a phenomena.
	Phenomenon.
	And uh I started questioning things, right?
	And and my roommates, I started to understand that they were communists and that they resented me for asking questions and for wanting to talk to them about things.
	And, you know, a couple of years go by, and I'm known as I'm known as the uh the right wing white guy at the school who was unapologetic of being white.
	And I remember there was this one wall that was like newly constru like it was like a construction wall in inside one of the hallways.
	People were writing messages on it, you know, a lot of them were political.
	And I just decided to write it's okay to be white on this on this wall.
	Because that emerged as a was it a 4chan um uh meme that did that you can't even say that without people losing their shit.
	And that was kind of instructive, right?
	And Lauren Southern, I think wore that coming off the plane in Australia uh on a t-shirt.
	But sorry, go ahead.
	Yeah, yeah.
	So I'm gonna just for the sake of this um for anonymity on the internet, and obviously my profile picture is a little bit suspect, whatever.
	But uh, I'm just gonna use my my name Wolfgang for this.
	But anyways, the next day I walk by and someone write someone writes uh like fuck you, Wolfgang, no, it's not.
	And I was just like, oh, yeah, okay, I probably know who that was.
	But uh I ended up getting uh me too' at that school falsely and expelled.
	Um and in that was a references to my political um political leanings.
	So yeah, no.
	Um just like looking back on that.
	Um, you know, it was it was very traumatic.
	I've healed from it, I've learned from it, you know, not to uh like you know make friends with these types of people, obviously.
	I've gotten incredibly more radical in my in my poem.
	No, no, don't say radical.
	Don't say radical.
	Radical.
	That's a female coded term.
	So it's like extremists, like men love extreme stuff.
	I mean, uh, we look at he-man, right?
	The the the toy as a kid.
	The woman who me too you, and I'm really sorry to hear about that.
	I mean, the the lack of due process with this stuff is is pretty chilling.
	But the woman who me too you, was she also a leftist that you know?
	Yes.
	Yeah, she didn't really care about politics, but she was very pro-abortion, and that disgusted me, and I was open with her about that.
	Yeah.
	Right.
	Right.
	Yeah.
	I mean, uh seriously, don't be alone with people who aren't committed to the truth because they could just make up anything they want for political points, for social approval, for getting rid of the Nazi bad guy, whatever it is, right?
	So you have to be uh cautious and remember, you know, to two out of three people on the left are fine with political violence.
	Yeah, and this was what I was gonna, you know, I was gonna bring it back to the other.
	Sorry, two or three out of ten, my apologies, not two out of three.
	Two or three.
	My apologies.
	I I think I just had a brain fought there.
	So yeah, two or three out of ten are fine with political violence.
	And uh I think it was half of Dems wanted your kids taken away if you didn't vax them.
	And yeah, so um there are a lot of um in a sense, beasts in human form.
	Sorry, go ahead.
	Yeah, so you think I should use the term extreme rather than radical, yeah?
	No, I would use the term consistent integrity, absolute.
	Right.
	There you go.
	Is it an extreme position to say slavery is always wrong?
	Is that radical?
	Is that extremist?
	No, it's just an absolute.
	It's an absolute.
	Is it extreme for me to want my wife to stay at home with my kids so they're not indoctrinated by, you know, trans ideology.
	Uh yeah, no, that's just that's a good thing.
	Well, any any sort of a wide variety of ideology.
	Uh I don't think I don't think it's extreme to say that uh it's good to be able to raise your children yourselves.
	I mean, that's kind of what people did through 99.9 until about five minutes ago in human history, it was expected that you would raise your own children and you would teach them the things that you believe to be true and good and virtuous and not turn them over to I don't know, Randy Weingarten or whoever.
	Right.
	Right, exactly.
	Um so just what happened last week with with Charlie Kirk and the obviously the celebrations on the left, it made me as it did with I think millions and millions of other white men,
	um, and probably even you know, other men who aren't white who are conservative, but mostly white straight men, uh, realized that these people who they who we know, who we we've known in our lifetimes, who have been our friends in the past, they would cheer on if we got murdered like that in front of our family.
	Um and imagine if we spoke out like Charlie Kirk did.
	Imagine if we were fearless like that.
	Imagine you know what I mean?
	Well, I know what you mean.
	I don't have to imagine it, but go on.
	Well, you don't have to, obviously.
	I mean, uh you know, usually I'm on spaces just talking to anonymous people who aren't, you know, face first, right?
	So obviously I come well, maybe it's not obvious, but I do commend you, Stefan, for all that you have done and and you know, your yeah, your unwitting honesty.
	So thank you.
	Thank you.
	And um how long ago, you don't have to give me exactly was it like half a decade ago, three years, ten years uh that you left or were kicked out of university.
	It was about half a decade ago.
	Okay.
	And again, you don't have to give me any details.
	Is it fair to say that you kind of landed on your feet?
	Oh yeah.
	I'm doing better than every single person who I knew from my school.
	Good.
	Yeah.
	Good.
	Yeah, I mean, if it's any consolation, I was also I mean, I left probably about five minutes ahead of being kicked out from theater school um because I just found it kind of repulsive.
	Uh I I I love acting, I love writing, I love theater as a whole.
	I've written 30 plays, I've produced a play that I wrote and a short movie.
	Love that whole world, but it's just it's not a deep and wholesome and powerful exploration of what it is to be human.
	It's all just about who can I program and bully to increase government power.
	That that's all it's about, and has been for decades.
	And it's just not a world that I want to be uh a part of.
	And of course statism and you know, look at things like the welfare state, the military industrial complex, and so on, that's all about the forcible transfer of wealth.
	And the forcible transfer of wealth, trillions of dollars, yeah, people will do a lot to maintain that.
	And I think we're just sort of understanding how destructive to human relations it has been to have a bunch of taxpayers on the one side uh being exploited by a bunch of tax receivers on the other.
	That's a sort of more surreptitious civil war, but still very coercive and in its essence quite violent.
	And seeing that sort of bubble up to the surface is uh is pretty wild.
	Uh do you think that it's violent because those tax receivers do not have any interest in being a pr productive member of society?
	Because that's where I think the problem is with the way that socialism is played out in the West, you know.
	I think that if you know, if I may go on, I I think that if if everybody was incentivized to contribute to their society, and if uh, you know, this is gonna be whatever, whatever.
	It's uh controversial to uh maybe some libertarians out there, but if there was um a cohesive ethnic uh element to the state, then there will be there would be more unity and there would be more morale.
	And you know, you pick up those who fall, you know, maybe someone stumbles into a drug addiction, you know, from the pills they were on from because they got injured, you know, you lift that person up, you don't allow them, you know, to be on the street.
	Like I think they have that in Switzerland, like they don't allow homeless people to exist, you know.
	It's like, no, you're gonna work.
	You know, um not that Switzerland is a prime example of ethnic homogeneity, but I I kind of ask that of you.
	Um if you've at all taken that pipeline from uh that a lot of people have from uh what's it called libertarianism to more of a national socialism, dare I say.
	You can dare say whatever you want.
	No, I have not taken that pipeline.
	Um what I would say with regards to helping people is that it is such it is such a delicate operation.
	Can Let me ask you this.
	I don't want to do a monologue here.
	So let me ask you this.
	How many significantly dysfunctional people over the course of your life have you tried to really help?
	Aaron Ross Powell Just significantly dysfunctional in an in a oh man, I don't know.
	Not that many.
	No, even it could just be one or two, and I'm not saying that you, you know, gave them a kidney or something like that, but you've got to Oh, yeah, like probably a few.
	Yeah.
	Like people who have been like, hey man, like, you know, let me know if you if you need any help.
	And like they just deny it, right?
	They just don't have to.
	Well, that's not pouring a lot of resources.
	Like, let me know if you need any help.
	I mean, have you sat down and tried to, you know, really reason through things with people, tried to give them money or help or real support and and so on.
	Have you tried to do that with people where you've sort of poured heart and soul into trying to help them get to a better place?
	No.
	Right.
	No.
	It's mostly the th where I've done that is like with my dad trying to reach out to him to save him from leftism.
	Aaron Powell Okay.
	Well, that's that's something.
	And how did that go overall?
	Not good.
	He he listens and you know, it seems like a good conversation, like we're getting somewhere.
	And he just resents it.
	And then the next time I see him, he tells me I didn't raise you this way.
	You know?
	Aaron Ross Powell Is your mom, if she's around, is she also leftist.
	Um they're divorced, and she is kind of apolitical, I'd say.
	Is your father embedded socially or from a professional standard uh with a bunch of leftists?
	Aaron Powell Yes.
	Yeah.
	So that's it.
	I mean, he knows that his friends will dump him.
	His quote friends will dump him if he's not a leftist.
	Like if he everybody's had this experience.
	Everybody who who speaks their mind at all has had this experience where you're at some social events, some business events, some and someone says something just wrong and stupid and bad from the left.
	Could be from the right, but in this case, generally it's from the left.
	And you say, uh, no, no, Trump did not uh did not actually say that Nazis were very fine people.
	He didn't he didn't say that.
	Right?
	No, no, no.
	Trump did not make fun of a disabled reporter.
	Even the disabled reporter said that he didn't, and he uses those silly gestures to talk about everyone who is you know, I did a whole the untruths about Donald Trump.
	So if you bring those kinds of things up, everybody knows that freeze moat that goes around the table.
	Like people just look at you like you just sharted out of your armpits.
	And they will freeze you out.
	They care about ideology and conformity a lot more than they care about truth, honesty, and connection.
	They're NPCs, they're robots.
	They are uh the final bosses of unthinking programming receptacles.
	And so uh everybody's gone through that experience where you just bring up something that's true.
	And people just freak out.
	They just they get really cold, they get really hostile, they get really um mean uh a lot of times.
	Well, I suppose that's your opinion, you know, that all that that icy hearted Karen bullshit, right?
	And so your father, look, he's old and he's got his circle of friends, and the price of having other warm bodies around you is conforming with the lies they tell.
	I think it's very sad existence, like a pitiful existence, frankly.
	I would not be happy with that kind of life at all.
	I I would just I just want to tell the truth as as far as I see it, and if I'm wrong, I'll correct myself.
	And if I'm right, see who agrees with me.
	And uh but your father, like he is he in his uh don't tell me again, but if he's in his like sixties or seventies or whatever, either.
	Yeah, I'm in his late sixties.
	He's in his late sixties.
	So what what's he gonna do?
	Go join some whole new group.
	It's in his church, it's in his friendships, uh, it's in his girlfriends if he's got him.
	Like to to to scrub your social abacus clear of all beads and just start from scratch.
	That's tough, man.
	Yeah, it's it's uh it's it's it's a frightening proposition when I tell him that his world view is completely wrong.
	And my brother is on board with me.
	And, you know, like him and I are his most two successful sons, and like we're the smart ones or whatever you could say.
	Um but like my father, like he he looks at himself as a smart, free-thinking guy who's very well read.
	He reads the new paper.
	You know, like so he gets like super hurt, you know, when I when I bring things up, he doesn't want to talk about it anymore, you know.
	Uh again, that's kind of female-coded to be upset about things.
	Uh men, we kind of have to deal with material empirical objective reality.
	Women can deal more with feelings and relationships, which is fine.
	It's important to keep those things too.
	But I'll say this to younger people as well.
	Like the lies you tell now is the prison you live in tomorrow until the end of your life.
	So if you subjugate yourself, if you lie to others, if you bite your tongue, you are just walling yourself up in a prison of conformity and emptiness and non-relationships for the rest of your life.
	It is cascade Monteado, self-sealing, self-toom, embalming sarcophagous around you forever, the stench of death in your nose, the death of your own soul and integrity.
	Do not lie to yourself, do not lie to others.
	If you lie to yourself and lie to others, or withhold what you know to be true, all you will do is seal yourself up in the tomb of liars forever and ever Amen.
	You cannot have an honest person in your life because honest people don't want to be around liars, especially people who lie to themselves.
	And your father would be an example, I think, of just that.
	You make that choice to say, well, it's a little uh it's a little more comfortable to just go along.
	I'll just, yeah, it's not a big deal, it's just one little thing.
	I'll just I'll just go along, right?
	And that conformity muscle swells, and your independence and clear thinking muscles uh atrophy, and eventually you don't have the choice anymore.
	You just you don't have the choice.
	You've got you haven't had an original thought in 30 years.
	You've lived like a a frightened lemming at the feet of the giant dinosaurs of conformity and propaganda, and you got nothing.
	And that's it for the rest of your life.
	Your dad might have another 20 years on the planet where he can't say anything to anyone about anything that's real or true.
	And you the only bond you have is the self-slaughter of your own integrity as a permanent Aztec ritual, spilling your innards to the satisfaction of the sadists around you.
	It is wretched.
	It's a wretched life.
	And uh some people unfortunately mostly serve as a warning to others, but so the reason I'm saying like this is your own flesh and blood, right?
	This is your own father.
	This is the man you who raised you, and you're trying to bring some reason to him, and not just opinions, but proofs.
	And you can't you can't fix him.
	Uh fixing people is such a delicate operation.
	If you've got some guy out on the street.
	If you give him money, maybe he uses it to get a bus fare to get to a job, and maybe he uses it to get a change of clothes or whatever it is, or maybe he just goes and buys booze and drugs with it.
	Helping people is really, really tough.
	Helping people involves giving them enough to encourage them, but not so much that they become complacent.
	And giving money to the poor simply makes being poor a job.
	And getting people to get better.
	I mean, if it's any consolation, I didn't have any luck with my own mother or other family members or friends that I'd known for 20, 30 years.
	Bring some reason to them, psh.
	I don't know.
	It's like the world war.
	I was thinking about this just yesterday.
	Like World War I just scrubbed all of the human bonds out of our society, and the only thing we bond with now are the frigid tendon ghosts of dead propaganda.
	That's all we bond with.
	I mean, we we have our belief system like that guy in psycho has his mother up in the attic in a chair.
	That's that's who we're bonded.
	We're bonded with the dead with the wizard with the ghouls with the desiccated with the should be entombed but live and shamble through our heads, knocking away any real connections and grabbing to us the dry stick bones of other withered and beaten-down former brains.
	It's just wretched.
	And I have paid a heavy price, as you know, for speaking the truth for speaking my mind.
	But I view those who don't as paying an infinitely heavier price.
	I mean, I look at someone like Charlie Kirk, Gunned down at 31, and I look at other people I've known who were in their 70s or 80s who haven't had an original thought or spoken an honest word in over half a century.
	I think uh for all the brutality of his ending, Charlie Kirk got the better deal.
	All right, is there anything else you wanted to mention?
	That was very poetic, Stefan.
	I rip them off from time to time.
	All right, well, thanks, Ben.
	I appreciate that.
	And uh stay away from that national socialism stuff.
	The cure to statism is not more statism.
	All right.
	Uh a friendly society.
	You are here, my friend.
	What is on your mind?
	Hi.
	Uh big fan of following a long, long time, Stefan.
	Um I just wanted to ask, uh, there was recently um uh a statement made by Helen Andrews.
	I posted it in the uh comments section, uh, where she argues that feminization has led to the downfall of Western society.
	Uh and our solutions appear to be very soft to me.
	Um if masculinization is the cure, then how can we begin this process in realistic terms and in particular help women recognize the bait and switch that they've been fooled into accepting.
	Okay, let me just uh have a look here.
	Somebody asked me to discuss what's going on with Jimmy Kimmel.
	I'll do my best.
	You'll have to rewind.
	Okay.
	So I won't play that live.
	But it's not a short thing.
	Yeah, no, so and I appreciate that.
	I I'll bookmark that and hopefully get a chance to listen to it um down the road.
	She basically says everything that I agree with.
	Um and have been studying and working through for most of my adult life.
	So she did it very, very eloquently, I think.
	All right.
	So is your question how to restore masculinity to the West?
	Yeah.
	I mean, the the wider question is how do we bring back a sense of masculinity?
	Because we've had so many generations of feminization now.
	Many men don't know what that is.
	Yeah, I posted that men have not been radicalized.
	Men are about as conservative or liberal as they've always been, but women's leftism has absolutely gone through the roof.
	I mean, it's it's a social contagion of wild, wild degrees.
	Now women are supposed to conform to other women, which is I'm nothing wrong with that.
	I think that's fine and healthy because the women have to collectively help each other raise their kids and transmit values that are acceptable and amenable and positive within the tribal context or the social and national context.
	So women have a bit of a hive mind, women have they score higher technically on the trait agreeableness, which means that they tend to want to get along with people and not have a lot of conflict.
	And you know, everybody's had that heated conversation after dinner where the men are going at it politically and the women are all just they've they despawned to the kitchen or or to the backyard or something, and they're just like they don't want to be a a part of it.
	And again, this is nothing negative towards women, nothing negative or positive towards either men or women.
	It's just the way that men and women have evolved.
	And so women generally conform to the dominant culture, to the dominant people, but they also have to conform to the men who provide them the resources.
	And the balance between masculine independence and female conformity is a yin-yang thing.
	You need the independence, you also need the conformity.
	Because you have to have some cohesion in your society.
	Otherwise you just get taken over by other sci societies with more cohesion.
	So women's greater conformity is a strength, but not to excess.
	Man's greater independence is a strength, but not to excess.
	And so we're supposed to balance each other in a relatively harmonious, if occasionally jagged, State of nature.
	Now, I don't want to just do a big long speech.
	Is this something that you would reasonably agree with or could agree with, or do you view it in a different way?
	At least so far.
	That's just the beginning of the case.
	I think that to an extent, yes.
	There is the biological imperative, for example.
	The idea that, you know, men can't have babies.
	So therefore, you know, uh historically they've protected women and children.
	Uh and that role has been largely built into all of civilization.
	Um yes, there is a there is a great balance that does take place, but we've completely destabilized that balance.
	No, no, no.
	I guess that.
	Sorry, and I'll I'll get to that point.
	So uh I get that.
	To me, it's like if you bench press, and if you've ever had it where you didn't clamp the weights and one weight set just falls off the whole thing, yeah.
	Like you you just sort of happened is that we've lost all of the sort of balance between the masculine and the feminine.
	And so women tend to cleave to the historically to the men who give them resources.
	And you have to please your females if you're a woman because you need other women's help for your community, for your neighborhood to help watch your kids and so on.
	So you have to please the females, but you also have to please the male.
	And listen, men aren't any more independent because 90% of your energies go towards feeding your wife and your kids.
	So you're you know you're you're serving the family by being away, the women are serving the family by being there and so on.
	So women and men balance each other in that men's independence tends to keep women from becoming too conformist.
	And women's conformity tends to keep men from becoming too independent.
	Uh the highly independent man is like on the autistic side, he's too independent, no social cues, doesn't know uh you know how to be.
	So so the the feels and the reels.
	Uh men are supposed to be influenced by women's greater connectivity to the point where they don't become weird autistic train spotters.
	And women are supposed to be influenced by men's independence so that they don't just become blind followers of the queen bee dominant female in the environment.
	So we're supposed to balance each other.
	And we're supposed to depend upon each other.
	And women's conformity has become innately has evolved to be innately greater because it is tempered by men's independence, and men's independence had become greater because it is tempered by female connectivity.
	And we we know this.
	Uh if you've ever, you know, you've been married for a while.
	It's your wife who's like, oh, it's so-and-so's birthday.
	Oh, it's their anniversary.
	Oh, we have to do this, and we have to do that, and and uh we gotta pick up a gift for someone.
	Like they keep this social life going.
	Sorry?
	Yeah.
	They're people people.
	Yeah, and it's beautiful.
	Listen, I mean, it's not not much point just going around building bridges and then dying.
	Like you have to have human connectivity.
	And you know, when when people come over to my place, I mean it's it's paradise.
	You know, like that there's a massive spread, it's all beautiful and clean.
	Like my wife keeps a great house no matter what, but uh it's it's amazing.
	And and it's it's a wonderful time as opposed to, you know, when male friends would come over when I was single, it's like try not to get too many grease spots on the ratty old carpet from the pizza, or like it was not the same kind of thing at all.
	So women Trevor Burrus, but we're a dying breed, aren't we?
	Who are men like us, men in those kinds of relationships.
	Aaron Ross Powell, you mean in the kind do a married and stuff?
	Well, who are married who have a more traditional sense of Yeah.
	Well, I wouldn't say we're dying breed, but we're we're on on the we're we're poised for a backswing.
	So for women, women will keep you grounded in your relationships.
	And men will keep women grounded in reality, in more critical independence and so on, right?
	Both are necessary and we rely on each other.
	Now, the problem is when you separate men from women, which has been the great goal of the leftists for 150 plus years.
	When you separate men from women, men become overly independent and women become overly conformist.
	Right.
	So the old Argument is the woman, I have this actual, I have this um ferocious conflict between a father and sorry, a mother and her son in my novel The Present, towards the end, Oliver and his mother have this brutal conflict because Oliver's mother says we have to go and help such and such, a person who's family, blah, blah, blah.
	And he says we can't, and I won't get into all the details of the novel because you'd listen to read the novel.
	But women want to help everyone.
	And that's lovely.
	And the reason why women have evolved to want to help everyone is it's the man's job to say, we can't.
	We can't.
	Oh, but they're all these starving children in in Africa.
	It's like, but we can't.
	We got our own kids, we've got our own community, right?
	So that negotiation, whereas men wouldn't even think to go and help the starving kids in Africa.
	So women will remind men of social obligations and responsibilities, and men will remind women of limited resources.
	Now, you get governments, you get fiat currency, you get borrowing, unfunded liabilities, deficits, debts, and money printing, then that that lift, that that that restraint of resource availability vanishes.
	And then women, their desire to help is no longer tempered by the male, ah, we can't, we you know, we don't have the time, we don't have the money, we don't have the resources, right?
	Which is what's supposed to restrain this uh excessive it's only excessive outside of male.
	Because it's not theirs.
	It's because it's the states.
	So we don't it it's like a separate entity.
	Right.
	Right, of course, right?
	So once women get the vote and women can vote for unlimited resources, at least as they perceive, then women become addicted to the high of helping.
	Throw wide the borders, send money overseas.
	We can help, we can help.
	And there's no male restraint to say, ah, you know, we we can't.
	Like it's it, this is not good.
	We've got our own family.
	And if you can get women to not have their own children, and then you can start pumping infinite fantasy monopoly cash into women's hands, they get sweaty with semi-orgasmic joy at their ability to help everyone.
	And again, women have evolved to help within a tribal context, and under the restraint of the limited resources that men can produce, and you take away those caps, and you get this suicidal gusher of female hyper-empathy or hypercompassion, which becomes extremely pathological.
	I think this one-it's not Gadsad's argument, but he does talk about the sort of pathological outfit.
	Suicidal empathy.
	Yeah.
	So this is the problem with statism.
	Is that and this is why the leftists want to separate men from women, because if you separate men from women, women's pathological women's altruism, no longer restrained by masculine limits, becomes pathological, and they become addicted to helping, and then anybody who says we have to help less is then treated as someone who is denying a healthy drug to someone who's sick.
	Because at least somebody who's an heroin addict, and you say, oh man, you shouldn't take heroin.
	They're like, Yeah, I know, I mean, I really shouldn't, but I'm addicted, blah, blah, blah.
	But no, I'm helping.
	I'm saving the refugees and the migrants and the undocumented blah, blah, blah, and all the sick and all of the the women who had children and then the man left.
	I'm I'm helping, helping, helping.
	And it just becomes something that men really can't process.
	But women really get that when women get addicted to unlimited help.
	It's sort of like when men get addicted to the fantasy of unlimited sexual activity through pornography or something.
	When women get addicted to unlimited help and men can no longer restrain women's altruism, then the altruism goes from something that's healthy to something that's cancerous, something that grows without restraint and without respite.
	And this is why women have gone super-left, because women cleave to whoever gives them the resources, and they have become the harem of the state.
	B OTS, they're bots, they're brides of the state.
	And this is why you see women, especially if you have a, you know, I think he's kind of reptilian and greasy, but you know, Gavin Newsom from California, you know, the taller and good-looking guy generally wins the election, right?
	And so women have bonded to the state because the state feeds them their drug of choice, which is pathological altruism.
	And men are helpless.
	Because you know, I get all these comments on X, and I'll shut up in a sec, right?
	But I get all these comments on X. The men are all like, uh, why don't we gotta step up, we gotta do this?
	How are we gonna it's like you're outvoted, bro?
	You're outvoted.
	The women will continue to vote to take away money from the men because men are massive net contributors to the tax system and women are a massive net withdrawals.
	And that doesn't even count the welfare state, which is a female thing.
	And you can see this, women get the vote, government spending goes through the roof because women want to help.
	And they don't like to be restrained in their helping.
	And men, that tension, right?
	Men ha women have not learned to restrain their own desire to help others because that was the man's job to help restrain them.
	And men have not learned how to reach out and maintain social contacts over time because women have done that.
	We have divided that labor.
	And so women have now become fetishistic, altruistic, hyperthyroid, altruist bots paid for by the next generation, paid for by men, paid for by debt, paid for by money printing.
	And any time you say we can't do it.
	It's not healthy, it's not right to say, but people are suffering.
	It's like, yes.
	Yes, they are.
	And we have to let them suffer.
	That's really, really difficult for women, especially in the age of media.
	Yeah.
	To to look at someone suffering, right?
	To look at someone suffering for women, if and we gotta help them.
	We've got to help them.
	This person is sick, they have no money for treatment.
	We must help them.
	And men are like, yeah, hey, man, I'll I'll, you know, we'll let's whip around a little bit.
	But I'm not paying like, no, we've got our own bills, we've got our own family, uh, I gotta I gotta take care of us.
	And and that tension, that negotiation is really, really important between men and women, because men help too little and women help too much.
	But together we do just the right amount.
	But once the government takes over and uh prints all the money and uh uses the men as collateral to bribe the women, then the women cleave to their greatest source of pleasure, uh, which is the state.
	The state gives them the drip drip of it currency to help everyone in the known universe, and any time anybody talks about cutting that, you literally are talking about a drug addiction.
	We're talking about a dopamine addiction based upon the sweating, grunting, bloody backs of others, mostly men, and you cannot you know, come not between the dragon and his wrath, come not between the drug addict and their drug.
	And uh trying to restrain spending is because when women get into that pathological altruism thing, they're no longer emotionally available to be loved by men because their focus is on helping the world and everyone else and the outgroup, you know, that heat map outgroup thing.
	And then what happens is the reason it becomes so addictive, like the reason the addict stays on the drug after a while, after long enough time, is that if the addict stops taking the drug, everything that the drug has cost him becomes revealed.
	So if a woman has to be, I'm gonna go help the world, I'm gonna help third world and travel and and and she's then not emotionally available to help a man or to be loved by a man or to connect with a man, and then like let's say at 45, she wakes up to this she can't stop because she's like, I I don't have a kid, I don't have kids, I don't have a husband, I don't have a family, I you know it's cost you too much.
	It's cost you too much.
	And once you can get people to commit enough to an error, they can no longer ever see it as an error because it's just too painful.
	And I think that's where a lot of the older women now who are single and have sacrificed uh everything for this supposed helping the world stuff, uh you know, it has to crash because they they cannot uh they cannot give it up.
	I'm so sorry, that was a long ramble.
	I hope that made some sense and I'd love to hear your thoughts too.
	Yeah.
	Thank you.
	Are you muted?
	Did we lose you?
	Hello.
	You muted me.
	Uh I haven't touched the phone, uh, but you're unmuted.
	Go ahead.
	Okay.
	Um, I I completely agree.
	Um, but we're no closer to a solution in that.
	Well, no, the solution is that the system has to crash, and it's unfortunate and it's unpleasant.
	So you are black pill.
	Do you think we have to just let it die before we can start rebuilding?
	Well, I I what do you mean by let it die?
	Like, okay, what's what's your I mean, what do you mean?
	If you've got a world full of hundreds of millions of lonely addicts who don't even recognize their addiction as negative.
	I mean, talk to a smoker, they say, Yeah, I know I should quit smoking.
	Even most alcoholics will be like, Yeah, I kind of drink too much.
	Like but they're not even in the place where they think it's a problem.
	They think it's a good thing.
	They don't think it's negative.
	They think it's good that you're helping the world.
	Sorry, go ahead.
	I was just thinking, like, what do you think of the problem that we have with, for example, the the um contraception pill and its effects upon relationships, marriages, etc.
	I mean, if we could some way have discussions around it that that made uh young women less likely to take that and to take something less uh hormonally damaging, um we might see some positive uh outcomes in relationships, particularly you know, uh less breakages of of long-term marriages, etc.
	I think that's true.
	I think there's I mean I remember Milo Ianopoulos back in his Breitbart days was writing about this and uh got raked over the calls.
	So what the heck, let's do it again.
	So the problem isn't he?
	Yeah.
	Let's say you so let's say you were able to snap your fingers and and make this case to women.
	So you're saying to young women because they like the pill because it's virtually 100%, right?
	And it feels better for both the women and the man than say a condom or an IUD or or things like that.
	So women like the pill from that standpoint.
	So what you're saying to women is you can't subsidize the relationship with the most pleasurable form of sex, which is unprotected sex.
	You can't subsidize the relationship with that anymore.
	Well, that's tough.
	Now, it only takes one generation for knowledge to vanish.
	Right.
	And I mean, now you've had three or four generations in some places in in the West where people haven't worked because they've been in welfare for three or four generations.
	So they don't have the skills anymore.
	They don't have the skills on how to get a job, how to keep a job, how to negotiate with bosses, how to please customers, how to you know, they don't have that.
	Now I'm not saying that's impossible to learn again.
	You could, and in an emergency you would, but it's tough.
	So the problem is now we've had three generations of women, uh two or three generations of women on the pill.
	And what that means is that how is a young woman supposed to know the value she's supposed to add to a relationship outside of sex when a significant proportion of her mother's value in a relationship was the provision of sex.
	Right?
	So if you can't offer sex to women, for if you say to women you can't offer sex, what else do they know how to offer?
	Right?
	Jesus.
	I mean, that's a that's a big question.
	I mean, uh Kevin Samuels used to ask this all the time.
	He said, I've dated, you know, he's in his 50s.
	You're really gonna get in trouble for that one, Steph.
	Aaron Powell Well, no, I mean, it's it's a big question.
	And by the by, I'm not sure that men know exactly what they have to offer now either.
	So look, this is uh Kevin Samuels' point.
	I'm not trying to hide behind the great KS, but it was a sort of point that he made.
	He said, look, I've dated uh he dated a lot, and he was in his fifties and he said, I've known precisely two women over the course of my life who can cook.
	Like he would ask women, do you have a cookbook?
	Right?
	Because look, someone's got to make the meals.
	And if the man is working and the woman is home taking care of the family, then she's gonna make the meals, right?
	So do you know how to run a household?
	Do you know how to be um a great conversationalist?
	Do you know how to support a man?
	Do you know how to uh budget?
	Do you know how to cook?
	Do you know how to uh pay the bills and run a household from that standpoint?
	Are you organized?
	Uh uh are you efficient?
	You know, all of that kind of stuff, right?
	And that's all a lot of work.
	Whereas having sex is fun.
	Right.
	So you know saying to saying to women, because if you take away the pill, then the man has to wear a condom, the condom can break, and there are greater risk of there are alternatives to the pill that you know, the IEDs, for example, which are non-hormonal.
	Um, they're they're uncomfortable as well.
	They can be uncomfortable for the man and for the woman.
	And there are risks involved with those as well.
	So it's it's tough.
	Aaron Ross Powell I've got one more solution, potential.
	Trevor Burrus, Jr.
	Well, hang on, let me just hear it.
	Let me just finish this.
	So so learning the skills of raising kids, running a household, cooking, and um budgeting and like it's it's highly skilled.
	It's highly skilled work to run a household of any sort of reasonably successful man.
	And so that's that's a lot of work to provide that kind of value to a man, whereas having sex is a lot of fun.
	And you know, I I I'm I would probably be in the same boat in terms of well, you can do all of this difficult stuff, which everyone has told you is submitting to the patriarchy and and being a brood mare in a handmaiden's tale bullshit or something like that.
	Um but you know, it's just a lot more fun to go out and and have some drinks and have sex.
	You know, that's a whole lot more fun than learning how to run a household and providing value in that sense.
	So saying to women, don't use the pill is I mean, I think there's real value in it.
	I think it's really healthy and helpful.
	But you are taking away the subsidy of someone that is really important.
	It's like it's like going to a really wealthy guy who's not very good looking or tall or whatever, and saying, I want you to go out and pick up girls, but you can't show up in a Maserati.
	You can't show up, you know, flashing money around.
	You can't be like you have to just we're gonna dress you down, you're gonna take the bus, and be like, man, don't take away my advantage.
	But sorry, you were gonna say another solution?
	Well, I mean, it's not solution, but it's it's an idea, um, which would be uh attaching children to their father from let's just say birth rather than them being attached to the mother.
	Um sorry, what do you mean by attached by attached to?
	Well, I mean the the father would then be pr uh a primary caregiver to any child.
	We wouldn't have one man having forty children.
	Well, hang on, hang on.
	Sorry, the man would be the primary caregiver.
	So who breastfeeds?
	Yeah.
	Well, there is that side of it, yeah.
	It's not a side of it, bro.
	It's pretty important part of it.
	There are alternatives to breastfeeding.
	Like you mean uh formula?
	Yeah.
	The formula blows chance relative to breastfeeding.
	Breastfeeding is super important for mental development, for the development of the immune system, for lots of different things.
	Fixing the problems that are breaking the entirety of society.
	These are going to be complicated.
	Okay, are you but are you gonna say are you gonna say that women are gonna go out into the world and work as hard as men at the difficult, dangerous jobs that are necessary for society to function?
	No.
	I don't think that they can in those levels.
	Well, even if they could, they won't.
	I mean, would you I mean would you?
	I mean, I'd much rather have this conversation than be doing something in a in a sewage plant right now.
	So I'm not gonna, you know, I'm glad people do it, and I'm I'm you know, massive prompts and respect.
	I I did my manual labor when I was younger and lots of it.
	But it kind of sucks and blows, right?
	So not only I mean, you're right, women can't do those kinds of difficult and dangerous jobs.
	But if you say, well, let's have men stay home, then you've got the breastfeeding problem, and you just have the fact that women don't have the same weird half autistic endurance for men that most men do.
	Sorry, go ahead.
	For work, I mean.
	Well, I would suggest is sorry, well, what I would suggest would would happen as a consequence, would relation uh relationships would be more lasting.
	Males would likely pick uh partners based upon the fact that they would need support um after the fact.
	So the there are there are more um sociological effects that wouldn't be considered just in the I get that they look, it's not a crazy idea.
	I get that there's pluses and minuses, but it's kind of a pipe drink, right?
	How would you how would you get such a thing in force?
	I mean, how would you make that happen?
	Aaron Ross Powell That would have to be through the courts, wouldn't it?
	It would have to be that, you know, children were attached to the father of the city.
	How are you gonna get that through a dynastric voting sports?
	Almost exactly, exactly precisely the problem.
	I mean, I've been reasoning with the world for over 40 years.
	Do you think the world has become more or less rational?
	Um What do you think?
	Well no, I think them still insane is yes.
	It has become both more and less rational.
	So the reasoning that I and others, of course, countless others around the world, yourself included.
	The reasoning that we put out into the world has helped make some people more rational.
	Philosophy has never had a bigger chance for success than is occurring right now through this amazing technology.
	So people have become a lot more rational.
	And they've also become a lot less rational because they've been further corrupted by distance from reality by fiat spending and coerced money.
	Money like delusions of grandeur, megalomania, narcissism, all of these things.
	I believe I can fly, you know, I'm the greatest in Muhammad Ali, unless you're actually Muhammad Ali, in which case you were the greatest.
	But there's a kind of psychosis that is bred by fiat currency in that it removes the natural restraints.
	And restraints are in reason, eco economics, you know, all human desires are infinite, all resources are finite.
	And so the illusion that is brought about by debt makes it turns people crazy, makes people kind of psycho because they don't recognize rational limitations and therefore they don't recognize the value of reason.
	Right?
	Yeah.
	So if you say if you say to a woman, uh, well, there's a starving child in Africa and your kid's hungry, who should get the food?
	Well uh what would she say?
	If it's only one or the other.
	Oh, her child.
	Right.
	Of course.
	And she would say, oh, I got a heart in my heart, that's really tough over there, maybe I'll do something later, but right now my kid's hungry, so I gotta take the bread and give it to my kid, right?
	But if you say, oh, we can do both, then if you turn resources into like air, like free and available to everyone and everywhere, well, then why would you want to deprive someone of air?
	It costs you nothing.
	Why wouldn't you want to help?
	Like, if I help this kid in Africa, my kid doesn't go hungry.
	Why wouldn't I?
	You son of a bitch.
	Like how cruel and racist it's every black guy.
	Like how how terrible are you that you don't because because it's unreal.
	There's no reality.
	Why why don't we have a war in Vietnam and start the welfare state and expand student grants and like why wouldn't you want to and and socialized medicine and old age pensions and and well why not?
	It's all unreal.
	It's all the right solution.
	We don't have a society.
	We have a leftover burp mirage from fiat currency derangement.
	Sorry, go ahead.
	No, I was just saying, then your solution other than letting everything collapse.
	No, no, no.
	There's no letting.
	There's no my solution.
	Like if you're if you're at the top of the garden and you see a tree falling over at the foot of the garden, let's say a hundred feet away, right?
	You the tree is literally falling over.
	You're at the top of the garden, the tree's falling over at the bottom.
	What's the point of you and I certainly say, well, is your solution to just let the tree fall?
	It's like, bro, we can't do anything about it.
	It's falling.
	You say, well, what's your solution?
	It's like, it's falling.
	I I don't know.
	I have some hope.
	I have some hope in people.
	I have some hope in relationships, I guess.
	Absolutely.
	Trying to build relationships.
	You should have that hope.
	The current system cannot survive.
	It's mathematically impossible.
	You have unfunded liabilities in the United States that are 10 to 15 times the size of the entire economy.
	And that was last measured before 40% of all the dollars ever made were put into circulation over COVID.
	Like, bro.
	I mean, come on, man.
	You're you're on the deck of the Titanic at 45 degrees saying, I have hope.
	Okay, I have hope too.
	Get to the lifeboats, but don't have hope for the Titanic.
	Have invest in your relationships.
	Get people who care about you in your life, get some food in the basement.
	Get a generator, get a solar-powered whatever.
	Prep your ass off.
	Absolutely.
	Those things won't protect you in the end, though.
	Compared to Well, it's better than nothing, isn't it?
	Well, that's why I'm saying that we need to find some kind of reasonable solutions.
	Okay, great.
	Listen, I I'm not trying to tell you.
	I'm not trying to tell you, I'm not sure if you're not those ideas.
	I'm welcome to.
	I'm not trying to tell you that you're wrong.
	I'm just telling you I've studied uh shitload of history, bro.
	Yeah.
	And societies don't come back from low birth rates, and they don't come back from monetary inflation.
	They don't.
	So you think we're in the Calhoun experiment then, in real terms.
	I mean, we're not mice, but I I sort of get Where you're coming from as a whole, but unfortunately the incentives have driven like we don't live in countries, we live in asylums.
	People have been driven completely mental with uh propaganda and with fiat currency and a lack of limitations and a lack of feedback, a lack of consequences.
	Uh women can just go have three kids by three different men and they're fine.
	In fact, they make more money than women who go to work or men who go to work.
	So we don't live in a society.
	Like I look around and like it's all a mirage.
	Like the buildings are mirages, the streets are mirage, it's like a fantasy.
	And the money is a mirage.
	Because it's sort of like when somebody decides not, let's say they've got a big mansion, and they just say, I'm not going to work, and they don't have really any savings, and they just run up debt.
	So their mansion is just a mirage.
	It turns from a real thing into a mirage because they can't possibly keep it.
	Their ownership is a mirage, it's only sustained through fraud.
	Our civilization doesn't exist in a sort of foundational way.
	People still believe that it does, of course, right?
	But whatever we are planning next in society is why I talk about a stateless society, a free society, and a voluntary society through peaceful parenting and all that kind of stuff.
	Because the acceleration, if you look at the amount of debt, if you look at the amount of unfunded liabilities, if you look at the amount of money printing, the acceleration isn't even holding steady.
	It sure as hell isn't slowing down, and it sure as hell isn't reversing.
	It's going up like a mother trucker, right?
	It's going up in a uh exponential way.
	Right.
	And I've I've been working at talking to people about government debt unfunded liabilities, deficits, and money printing for 43 years.
	And the debt is almost immeasurably higher now than it was 10 years ago, 20 years ago, 30 years ago.
	So it's not there's no soft landing here.
	It's not going in the right direction.
	And of course, the purpose of those who want to take power over us is to crash the existing system.
	Because in the chaos, they can take power and we can't resist.
	And so uh the the if you look at the data, look at the statistics, look at history and so on, there is going to be something that comes next.
	We hope that it can be uh something peaceful and good.
	It's going to be a challenging transition.
	Uh, but in the long run, uh, you know, I mean, after the Roman Empire fell, uh, yes, things were a challenge for a while, uh, but at least we ended up in a society that didn't have slavery eventually.
	Took a while.
	Right?
	And it won't be that it won't be that long, because we still will retain our communication abilities, but you know, the the end of something that is corrupt and rotten is kind of necessary for the birth of something that is noble and good.
	And I view where we are in the present as a time of inoculation, because everything's being recorded, everything's gonna be available in 1080p, 60 frames a second, high def doesn't discolor or get weird and time out until the end of time.
	So everyone's gonna look back at this time and say, holy crap, they were all insane.
	Look at what everyone posted.
	Look at and the AI will go through and extract all of these lessons, and they will see the data, the money printing, and what we are is like nobody sits there in the West and says, hey, let's go back to slavery.
	Like they don't do that.
	That's one of the things that's discredited, that's gone and that's done.
	And that was one of the things I was gonna talk to you about in in relation to that was a good thing.
	Yeah, let me just finish this point, and then I'm allowed to.
	So yeah, sure, sure, sure.
	Yeah.
	So we're in a state of inoculation, which is the decisions being made are so bad and so much an inevitable product of the system that we're in, where compulsion is at the center of the system and is praised and lionized all the time, that it's been so well documented now, and this is why I keep talking about this kind of stuff, because I know I'm gonna be attacked in the present.
	That doesn't matter.
	What matters is I'm right and accepted as right in the future.
	And so we are in a time where the decisions are so bad and the logic of the system playing out is so inevitable that any time anybody suggests doing anything like this again in the future, they'll be looked at like they're completely insane.
	Like if somebody said, you know, fuck email, let's go back to the Pony Express.
	People would be like, what?
	What are you talking about?
	That's crazy.
	So when people in the future say, ah, screw this freedom, let's go back to statism, they'll be like, what?
	What are you talking about?
	Let's go back.
	That makes no sense.
	Let's let's forget modern medicine.
	Let's go back to leeches and lancing people's skulls for no reason.
	Uh people would be like, no, that what?
	Like, so we're just in a state where we're just displaying how bad the system is, how inevitably bad the decisions that are inevitably produced by the system are.
	So the future will look back at such well-documented catastrophe and saying, we're never doing that again.
	And anyway, so so go ahead.
	Well, you brought up AI.
	And that's my last point, and then I'll let somebody else come up because I have occupied a lot of your time.
	Um it's been wonderful.
	Thank you.
	Um AI will largely replace women's jobs in the market, which then creates an artificial need for women to basically start making babies again to be part of the uh social structure.
	Do you think that this could potentially hold off this catastrophe?
	I mean, anything's possible because there's free will.
	And if women spit if women's job gets destroyed, oh yeah, I was talking to AI about it.
	Yeah, actually they said, 70% of the jobs or 75% of the jobs are gonna be that are going to be toasted are are women's jobs, right?
	Yeah.
	But the problem is, of course, that the elites need women working in singles so that they vote for the left.
	Because the moment that women attach to a man, they become conservative.
	Yes.
	And they want smaller government and lower taxes.
	Because they're not getting their money from the government, instead, their husband is paying money to the government.
	So the elites aren't going to allow women to go home and make babies without a huge fight because they want to increase their power.
	And if women are home making babies and dependent upon men, there's going to be a massive pushback against the expansion of state power.
	So I don't know exactly what they'll do, but they'll probably will switch to the profits generated from AI being used to provide women with universal basic income.
	And then they'll encourage women to travel and see the world so that they stay single and lonely and thus dependent on the state and voting for more government.
	So yeah, they'll they'll probably just replace employers with UBI funded by men and AI, and then they will I mean if I were them, uh and evil, which is the same thing, then that's what I would.
	Exactly, yeah.
	Okay.
	All right.
	Well, um, it's been a pleasure.
	Um I can't be black-pilled.
	I'm not gonna be black pillowed, it's not gonna happen.
	I'm not trying to I'm not trying to black you pill you on hope.
	I'm not trying to blackpill you on hope.
	Just to be clear about that.
	I have a wonderful life.
	I'm very happy, and uh, but you you need to be realistic about where we are, and you need to develop and maintain strong relationships in your life.
	This is not a time anymore to be isolated and hyper male, half-autistic, independent.
	I'm not putting you in that category, but just maintain your relationship.
	Oh, we've we've met before, have we?
	Yeah, maintain your relationships, uh, but don't uh don't have hope in that which is mathematically impossible, which is uh finding some easy way to reverse this stuff.
	But I really appreciate your your call.
	Thank you so much.
	All right.
	Thank you.
	Uh appreciate that.
	And uh let's take one more caller, if that's all right with people.
	It's just it's so much fun to chat with you guys.
	All right.
	What the heck is going on here?
	Cancel that.
	And we had a request from Hamsund.
	Hamsund.
	I think that's a German word for a kind of pig sandwich.
	Do I have that right?
	Hamsund.
	Speak now or forever hold.
	By pieces.
	Remove him.
	You are muted.
	Yeah, yeah, go ahead.
	Um okay, I had a quick question about uh uh I followed you for quite a while and then I saw your debate again now recently with uh I think his name was uh Rationality Rules.
	Oh yes, and you guys had a discussion about uh morality and uh, you know, what you are to do and stuff like that.
	And I still didn't completely understand how you can justify on a completely objective basis what you ought to do with regards to your UPB and all of that.
	Um Because I think that at the end of the discussion, I think still you could say that as long as a person even if a person would like to see everyone else suffer, that could still be a justifiable uh position from his point of view.
	So how can you call it completely objective if it doesn't apply to every single person if you understand what I mean by that?
	Okay, is mathematics objective.
	I would think so, yeah.
	Is mathematics objective?
	I I think so, yes.
	Okay, you think so or you know?
	I I couldn't justify my position in saying so, but I would uh you know, in my limited understanding of mathematics, I would think it is, yes.
	Is there any way that two and two don't make four?
	Not as far as I know.
	Okay, what do you mean as far as you know?
	What are you talking about?
	Well, I I mean I okay I'll be.
	You're living like we're having this conversation because math works.
	Sure, I agree.
	Yeah.
	We couldn't have this conversation if math didn't work.
	Okay, I will agree with that, yeah.
	What do you mean you will agree with it?
	Is it true?
	I don't want to care about your agreement.
	Uh okay, it's true.
	It's true, it's true.
	It's true.
	Okay.
	So m is mathematics objective.
	Yes.
	Okay.
	Is logic objective?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	Is physics objective.
	Yes.
	Is the scientific method objective?
	I don't mean every conclusion that comes out of it, which can be right or wrong, but is the scientific method objective?
	Yes, I would say so.
	Okay.
	Now, if math is objective, does that mean that everyone is good at math?
	No.
	Can people be bad at math without even remotely harming math's objectivity?
	Can you repeat that?
	Sorry.
	Can people be bad at math and the fact that they're bad at math doesn't harm the objectivity of math?
	Yes, absolutely.
	In fact, the only reason we know they're bad at math is because math is objective.
	So if somebody says two and two make five, we know they're bad at math because two and two make four objectively.
	They're bad relative to a standard, right?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	So if someone is evil, that's the equivalent of someone being bad at math.
	They're bad at morality.
	But you know, being evil is already presupposing a lot of things, right?
	We we we have a whole bunch of people who disagree fundamentally about what is evil.
	Even sophisticated philosophers disagree about what is evil, right?
	I I agree with that.
	So just grant me the thought experiment.
	Shh somebody is evil.
	If somebody is evil, that means they're bad at virtue.
	Right.
	Whatever it doesn't matter what the content of evil and virtue is, right?
	Well, it would kind of it would kind of depend on what you define as evil.
	No, no, what you define.
	This is a it's a logical question.
	It's not a content question.
	It's like saying two and two make four.
	Well, it depends whether the the bananas are oranges.
	It's like, no, it doesn't.
	The content doesn't matter.
	So if someone is evil, it means they're bad at being good.
	Sure.
	If someone's bad at math, that doesn't harm the objectivity of math.
	And if somebody is evil, that doesn't harm the objectivity of virtue.
	It just means that someone's bad at math and someone's bad at virtue.
	That doesn't have a somebody could be bad at science, that doesn't mean that the scientific method is subjective, right?
	Somebody can jump off a roof thinking they can fly.
	That doesn't change the physical properties and realities of the universe, right?
	Sure, but uh I would just say that in one case you have something logical, objective, in the other case it's defined by some kind of axiom.
	No, no, I get that.
	So I get that.
	But what what I I th what I understood you saying is that there are evil people, therefore morality is not objective.
	Not necessarily that there are evil people, because that's already presupposing that there could be.
	I mean, it depends on whether you say that you believe yourself that there are evil people or that there are objectively evil people.
	Even saying that there are evil people is perhaps um that that is holding them to some kind of objective standard that I'm not uh necessarily agreeing that you can say objectively.
	Okay, but you did bring up that somebody might want to harm someone else.
	Yeah.
	Right?
	And then you use that as an argument against the objectivity of morality.
	Yeah.
	Okay, so I'm just saying that the fact that somebody's bad at being good doesn't mean the good isn't objective in the same way that someone who's bad at math doesn't prove that mathematics is not objective.
	That that was my only point.
	Uh okay, I would just say that that person could perhaps imagine in his own head that he was being a good person, harming something.
	Yeah, but that doesn't matter.
	Somebody in their own head could imagine that two and two make five, that still doesn't harm the fact that math is objective.
	It just means they're wrong.
	But couldn't they be disproven by you know, making the calculation, whatever?
	Absolutely.
	So for me, so do you know my disproof?
	I'm not sure you can.
	Hang on.
	Sorry.
	So do you know my disproof for say do you know my proof for the fact that stealing is immoral?
	I'm not intimately familiar with it, but I'm not sure.
	Don't hedge me, bro.
	Don't hedge me.
	Come on.
	You know what I mean?
	Can I try to okay?
	Can I try to explain it?
	I would love I would love you to.
	It's just like I'm not intimately familiar.
	I mean, what you don't have to have a me too fur glove hand on my leg, just want to know if you know it or not.
	I'm not trying to trick you.
	I just want to know if I need to explain it or not.
	No, sure.
	Uh I mean I appreciate if you explain it, but I would say that your your explanation is that you cannot really universalize this.
	And therefore, I mean, if everyone was stealing, then uh you couldn't possibly imagine a world where everyone was okay with that, and then thereby absolutely nag you, I'm just saying.
	I haven't read the book.
	I was just uh recently getting familiar with you, so I'm just asking the question here.
	Yeah.
	Okay, so uh that's not the answer because what we what we can or can't imagine wouldn't be a proof, right?
	Okay.
	So the answer is this.
	If you say stealing is universally preferable behavior, then you have immediately contradicted yourself.
	Because is it stealing if I take something that you want me to take from you?
	No.
	Right.
	If you hand me a piece of cake and say, Steph, have a piece of cake, and I say, yummy, that's carrot cake with cream cheese icing.
	I would love to take that from you.
	I appreciate that.
	Have I stolen from you?
	No, yeah, yeah.
	I I get it.
	Stealing is when you don't want the person to take your property.
	Right?
	If if uh I say to my um cousin, hey, you can borrow my car, here are the keys, whatever, right?
	He's not stolen, right?
	Okay.
	Is it possible to rape someone who wants to have sex with you?
	No.
	Right.
	So if you say stealing is universally preferable behavior, you're saying everyone must want to steal and be stolen from at the same time, always.
	But if you want to be stolen from, it's not stealing.
	And therefore, it is impossible, logically and practically, but logically impossible for stealing to be universally preferable behavior.
	Okay.
	Now, is it possible for everyone theoretically just I'm not saying whether they would or wouldn't, but logically, is it possible for everyone to not steal from each other at the same time.
	Um is it possible for everyone to not steal from each other at the same time?
	Yes.
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	So respecting property rights is UPP because it can be universally enacted.
	Stealing can never be universally preferable behavior because it immediately self-contradicts.
	And the ste the category called stealing evaporates because you can't want to steal and be stolen from.
	And that the same thing works with rape and assault and murder.
	Okay, but I mean my question then would be let's take the um example of like a stranded island, you you're just uh little group of people.
	Hang on, can you have somebody Yeah?
	Okay.
	I made a case.
	Do you accept it?
	I I think that it's logically consistent, but I my objection would be that.
	Hang on, hang on, hang on.
	Yeah.
	Is it possible for rape theft, assault, and murder to be universally preferable behavior?
	No.
	Okay.
	So it is impossible for rape, theft, assault, and murder to be universally preferable behavior.
	Is respecting persons and property possible as universally preferable behavior?
	Okay, good.
	So rape, theft, assault, and murder are impossible as universally preferable behavior.
	Respect of persons and property is possible and logically consistent with universally preferable behavior.
	Do we accept that?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	Now that's a pretty good thing to do, isn't it?
	Absolutely.
	I I would I would agree with it.
	No, no, it's not.
	I would.
	Is it valid?
	It's consistent.
	I support it.
	It is impossible to overturn.
	It is valid and true.
	It it is yes, it's it's valid.
	Okay.
	Yes.
	All right.
	So I j because you just blew past that whole amazing proof of of ethics and just went on to some desert island thing.
	And just, you know, a word to the wise, just when when somebody's working hard to convince you of something and you've been convinced of something, you kind of want to pause and tell them that.
	Maybe thank them a little and say that was a really good case.
	I appreciate that.
	That's clarified things before moving on to another problem that you're going to throw at them.
	Okay, but I I will I will grant you what you just said, but my my big objection here would be that um what is universally preferable doesn't necessarily uh tell you what is objectively moral.
	And my objection would be that in a lot of instances in the real world, you would have people who disregard this completely and but we already dealt with this.
	Yeah we already dealt with this.
	If I prove to you that two and two make four, does it make sense to come back at me and say, well, crazy people think that two and two make a blue unicorn?
	Okay, my objection would just be that you're calling universal, and I would say that a single individual in the world has the power to say, um this I don't want this to apply to me.
	This doesn't apply to me.
	I don't care about this.
	Um what?
	Some somebody can say I don't I don't accept the two and two make four.
	So what?
	Does that mean that two and two don't make four just because somebody doesn't believe it?
	Thank you.
	Are you still with me?
	Did we lose him?
	Thank you.
	Yeah, uh I think we lost him.
	Anyway, so I mean this is a very common objection, and I understand it and I appreciate it.
	UPB is used to evaluate moral theories.
	It is not a magical barrier that prevents anyone from doing anything evil or immoral in the world as a whole.
	We get that, right?
	So the scientific method is used to evaluate truth propositions about the nature and behavior of matter and energy.
	It doesn't mean that there aren't going to be mystics out there or people who believe in tarot cards or Ouija boards or um chicken entrails for determining the future or any kinds of nutty crazy stuff that's out there.
	Uh there are going to be people out there who believe that the nature of the universe comes to them in a dream about flying pegasi, right?
	But the scientific method is still universal and objective.
	So the scientific method would look at something like reincarnation and say, nope, there's no proof.
	They would look at something like um the um earth-centered model of the solar system would say, no, that's that's false.
	Again, people can be evil, but how do you know?
	You know because they are saying it's good for me to steal, but it's bad for you to steal.
	Right?
	So a thief who steals a car, right?
	A thief Bob steals a car, and he's driving down the road, he stops at a red light, and Doug opens the door, drags him out, and steals the car from Bob, right?
	Now Bob is angry.
	Damn it!
	I stole this car and then somebody stole it from me.
	So if you were to break that behavior down into a theory as a whole, you would say Bob wants to violate and affirm property rights.
	Bob wants to violate the property rights of the person he stole the car from, but he doesn't want Doug to steal the car from him.
	So Bob both both wants to simultaneously affirm and deny property rights.
	That's a logical contradiction.
	That's how we know it's wrong.
	You know, wrong is used in morally, and it's also used like two and two and five, that's the wrong answer.
	So everybody who steals wants to keep the product of what he steals.
	And that theory would be we're both human beings, but I should be able to violate property rights, but nobody else should be able to violate my property rights if you assume that ownership is nine-tenths of the law or whatever, right?
	I get to keep what I have in my possession, but other people don't.
	Right.
	So that would be a false theory.
	It would be like a scientific theory that says Bob is subject to gravity, but Doug, who's a human being standing right next to him, is subject to the opposite of gravity.
	Bob is going to be drawn down to the earth, and Doug is going to fly up to the sky.
	If you were to propose that, saying, well, these characters, these people have opposite physical properties.
	Bob could never walk in water, but Doug can.
	Bob, if you burn him, he will die.
	Doug uh feeds on flames, right?
	They're both human beings.
	One's a lizard and one's a mammal, right?
	And then the next one is uh an amoeba, right?
	None of that would make any sense, right?
	So if you've got two people, they have to have the same general properties.
	They have to be subject to gravity, they have to be mammals, like whatever you want to say, right?
	So it is true that you get people like Bob who want to steal someone's car and then don't want to have anyone steal it from them, sure.
	But that's just a logically inconsistent theory of behavior, because it's saying, I get to steal, nobody else gets to steal from me.
	Well, that's just a bad theory.
	It's a wrong theory.
	It's like saying this penguin is a mammal, this paint this penguin right next to him who's the same species is the opposite of a mammal.
	It doesn't make any sense.
	And again, none of this stuff prevents Bob from stealing the car, but it does mean that you can oppose the theory that Bob has, because it's not universal.
	And it's saying that human beings have opposite properties.
	One is you can take, the other is you can't take.
	I can take, you can't take from me.
	But we're both human beings.
	It's like saying you're a mammal, I'm a mammal, but you're the opposite of a mammal, right?
	And the grave danger that we face in the world is not, not, not individual thieves.
	The grave danger we face in the world is bad and wrong moral theories, because that's what is screwing up a society.
	It's not individual bad actress, which you can defend against.
	You can lock your house against a thief, but you can't lock your house against some totalitarian thief who comes and takes everything you have.
	So I hope that makes sense.
	Free domain.com slash donate.
	Thank you guys for a great evening.
	Don't forget to check out my great debate from uh Wednesday.
	Uh that was on the 17th of September 2025 was a really great debate with a philosophy and uh logician professor, philosophy professor, and a logician.
	Uh it was a great tumble, uh, great back and forth, and I really appreciated it.
	And thanks for the great comments tonight.
	Lots of love, my friends.
	I'll uh talk to you soon.

▲