All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 23, 2025 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
40:59
EVEN MORE ANSWERS TO ‘X’ LISTENER QUESTIONS 9!
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
All right.
Finishing up with questions from the fine listeners at X, hope you're doing well.
Free domain.com slash donate to help out the show, and you can also go to FDRURL.com slash X to sign up for a subscription on X, which would be gratefully appreciated.
And we had our first conversation yesterday with the uh subscribers on X, it was really great, so I hope you'll check it out.
And the question is I don't get why UPB matters.
So a person accepts that they contradict themselves when they advocate theft slash murder in one context but not another.
Then what?
Why are they evil slash immoral for defining the logic of UPB from a secular point of view?
Just because you defined morality as UPP?
So it's a great question.
Uh UPB, of course, is uh what's the old thing about uh the the Pope the Pope is opposed something it's like, well how many how many divisions does the Pope have, right?
Uh violence versus ideas philosophy versus weaponry.
I mean, obviously I'm a philosopher, so I'm gonna put my uh uh trust in reason, which of course doesn't mean that reason is going to somehow overcome direct violence.
Uh there's, you know, you know, there's those old memes of the two sort of libertarians uh facing the wall, uh about to get shot, and it says, Well, but at least we have our principles, and it's like, yeah, but the principles won't stop the bullet, right?
So I I get all of that for sure.
That that all makes perfect sense.
Now the sane human mind is troubled by contradictions.
And this is why uh people go to great lengths to obscure, to justify, to create social contracts, to appeal to self-interest in the Hobbesian tradition, you know what we need political tyranny in order to keep ourselves safe from violence and things like that.
So the human mind is troubled by contradictions, and we can sort of understand this that one of the marks of insanity is to be untroubled by contradictions.
So if you hear a voice and there's no one there, and you you go and check around and there's nothing playing, you go out into the woods without a phone and there's still a voice and so on, then you're troubled because there's a contradiction.
There is a voice but no one's talking.
Now this is sort of what Brian Wilson was complaining about.
So the human mind is sane to the degree that it is bothered by contradictions, a contradiction such as two and two makes five.
Two and two make five is a contradiction because it's saying four is the same as five.
And if you believe the four is the same as five, you are not long for this world because you're crazy.
And you know, society has always had this balancing act of uh sort of tribalistic violent society always has this balancing act.
And the balancing act is this if you're too crazy, then you don't survive or succeed as a tribe.
But you also need shared cultural or religious or narcissistic delusions about superiority in order to fight for your tribe.
So in order for tribes to survive in a state of perpetual warfare, which is most of human history, what you need to do is you need to have the men be willing to expend themselves to to to die, right?
And how do you get men become willing to die?
And I remember this process, of course, when I was a kid, and I think it's also genetic at this point, certainly in England and Ireland where I grew up, it's a genetic at this point.
And uh I remember of you know, Forward for St. George and and the the the flag and the and uh the the Battle of Britain and nobility and war and combat and fighting and all of the I used to read a lot of comic books about World War II, some of which were actually quite sad and tragic, as I remember.
And so how do you get men to sacrifice themselves?
Well, you have to tell them that there's a bigger reward, uh They'll go to Valhalla, they'll go to heaven, uh their family will be uh taken care of, you know, it's the same way that you how do you get people to uh in the mafia how do you get people to go to prison instead of informing on others?
Well they say, well, take care of your family, and we'll have a big celebration when you get out, and uh everything will be good, but if you you know, if you uh do inform, then we'll get you killed in prison or harm your family or whatever it is, right?
So how do you get people to make sacrifices?
Well, you make them promises that are not empirical.
To die gloriously in battle, uh you go to heaven, you go to Valhalla, you get to Nirvana, you you are, you know, the self-sacrifice is noble and good, and you put up all these statues and you give people ticket tape parades, and you give them medals, and you give their wives posthumous medals and and so on, right?
And it's a sort of sort of a chilling sentence I remember from some woman who was being interviewed in the fifties, I think it was, and she was married to for for a short amount of time to a young man who was killed in the first world war, and she said, I don't even remember him that well.
He was just this terribly nice young man I was married to for a few months, and he went away and he never came back.
Just a little blur, a smudge in passing.
And that's what she remembers.
So throughout again, throughout a sort of evolution, you can not be sane if everything if you're not at all troubled by contradictions, right, and this is sort of the balance that we evolve to.
If you're not at all bothered by contradictions, you're crazy.
And then you're not no one's gonna marry you, no one's gonna have kids with you, and you probably will be expelled or whatever, at least confined somewhere, or you know, because you're you're truly crazy, like you don't know the real from the unreal, and you think that two and two make five.
So if you are too crazy, you don't succeed, you don't survive, or your genes don't.
But if you're not crazy enough, and you start to question the shared delusions of the tribe, well, then you're also a threat.
And th this is sort of the conflict that's going on in the West.
It's a bit subterranean, but it's you know, you can definitely feel it, it's definitely real.
Which is you know, if if we are too individualistic, then how do we how do we deal with other people who are more tribal?
And again, this is all based on statism and I mean I'm just giving you an analysis, none of this is a recommendation or a moral analysis.
I'm just saying that you have to walk this balance, or human beings had to walk this balance throughout human history, which is if you're too crazy, it's bad.
If you're too sane, it's bad.
So we have to have this middle ground.
We have to walk this middle ground.
I have to walk it, you have to walk it, we we all have to walk this middle ground.
And this is why the battle of reason is incremental.
Unfortunately the battle of craziness or the battle of subjugation tends to be massive, but the battle of reason tends to be incremental.
It's the old Malthusian thing where human populations go up exponentially, but food production is only linear, therefore starvation is always the result.
Craziness goes up exponentially and sanity goes up linear, if at best.
And this is not because craziness is easier, it's just because I mean the people who are sane don't control the entire uh media and educational systems and currency systems and legal systems, I mean, that's just not the way that it is.
And in particular the indoctrination of the young.
So there is uh a line from an old Walt Whitman poem.
Well, it's there's two.
One is uh sorry, it's not a poem, I think this is Ambrus Beers Hobgoblin.
Uh consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.
And in Walt Whitman, I don't know if it's in Leaves of Grass or somewhere else, he says, You say I contradict myself.
Very well, I contradict myself.
And that's I mean, to me that's a famous line because it is very powerful.
So if you look at the witch doctor, right, with his bone through his uh nose and his big headdress and and all of that, and he's dancing around and it's like, well, this is a crazy guy.
It's just a crazy guy.
But the witch doctor is the one who commands allegiance to the warlord.
So if you say to the witch doctor, you're just a crazy guy, the warlord will probably kill you because the witch doctor is the person who indoctrinates you to worship the warlord and sacrifice yourself for they say the good of the tribe, which always ends up being the good of the warlord.
So if you're too crazy, you're not of use to the rulers because you're too crazy to go hunting, you're too crazy to plant crops, you're too crazy to be a uh a shoemaker or a mason or a blacksmith, you're too crazy, right?
So you've no good to anybody, and you tend to get expelled or killed or ostracized or whatever, right?
If you're too sane and you say, well, the witch doctor's just a crazy guy with a bone through his nose, uh then you're also dangerous, and you will be ostracized and killed and so on, right?
So we have an uneasy relationship with consistency, right?
Right, which is the old uh you you go to some school teacher and the teacher says you don't use violence to get what you want.
And then you say, Well, hang on, isn't your aren't you paid through property taxes, uh, which are you know, if you don't pay, you go to jail.
So that's uh, you know, consistency, we haven't we have an uneasy relationship with consistency, and not being able to be consistent is really the mark of dominance, right?
So if somebody can force you to lie, which is, you know, a lot of the humiliation rituals floating around, the public space of quote, ideas these days, they're just they're just humiliation rituals which you're forced to lie, and the people who force you to lie enjoy that you are forced to lie, enjoy that you know the truth, but you can't speak the truth because it is a mark of their power over you, and sadists and power seekers love to force other people to comply.
They get a great deal of pleasure and joy and thrill and quasi sexual excitement out of forcing people to lie.
This is the uh a bit of the story of the Emperor's new clothes.
So UPB is both a future basis for societal morality, but right what it is right now is a test of moral sanity.
I mean, right now, that's what it that's what it's for.
I mean, obviously UPB isn't going to fundamentally alter the power structures I mean what it's been close to twenty years since I first came up with the argument, and it certainly has helped a lot of individuals, for sure.
But of course it hasn't fundamentally altered the power structures in society.
So what UPB is for right now, so what's the what's the why why does a UPV matter?
Well, the reason that UPB matters is it is a great way of teasing out and finding people to whom moral contradictions don't matter.
So somebody who wants to be good would care about moral consistency.
Like somebody who wants to be good genuinely has a desire for consistency and virtue.
Someone like that will be troubled if you come up and say, Well, you approve of murder in this context, but you disapprove of murder in that context, help me understand the difference, they'll be troubled by that.
So if you put forward a business plan that's supposed to get you five million dollars of investment, right?
If you are an honest businessman and somebody says, hey, this number contradicts this number, then it'd be like, oh gosh, um I I I should resolve that because I don't want to hand over anything that's wrong to people who are going to give me millions of dollars of investment.
That's an honest businessman or businesswoman.
However, if you point out, hey, this number doesn't match that number, and they just say, Oh, shut up.
Shut up about it.
We'll deal with it later.
It's not important, it doesn't matter, it's not important.
And if you bring this to the attention of the investors, you're fired.
And I'm going to give you a terrible reference, and you'll never work in this industry again.
Right?
Now, if you're an investor and you point out a contradiction in a business plan, and you say, you know, on this page it says that you'll get seventy percent of your income from Europe, and on this page it says you're going to get seventy percent of your income from Asia.
Well, it's a contradiction, right?
Can't get 140% of income.
So if you point out a contradiction, and someone is troubled by it and says, Oh, you know what, that that that does seem important, let me let me mull that over, let me think about it or let's talk about it, that's important.
That means that somebody is genuinely interested in virtue and integrity and consistency and all that other kind of good stuff, right?
If on the other hand, you point out this contradiction, and somebody says, who cares?
It doesn't matter.
It doesn't matter that there are contradictions in a moral theory.
Who cares?
Well, that's somebody who has no interest in being good.
That's a fraudulent businessman.
That's a dangerous person to be around.
Right, I posted this on X this morning.
Power for me, principles from my enemies.
Right?
So power for me is when I have power, I will silence my enemies.
But when I don't have power, I will cry out for free speech, so that my enemies won't try to silence me.
So UPB is a great way to find out.
Who are cheats and liars and hypocrites and people so morally or emotionally damaged that contradictions don't bother them.
Those are really, really good people to figure out in your life.
All right.
How does full free market capitalism the low IQ, the infirm, those who cannot help themselves for one reason or another?
I'd I have my own answers for it, but I'd like it fleshed out.
Yeah.
It's obviously honest.
Police would be nice, but it's not the end of the world.
All right.
So first of all, a system is not designed by who it helps, but it's designed by the morals of it, right?
Particularly if it is a moral system, such as free market capitalism.
Free market capitalism simply consistency and universality in property rights and self-ownership.
Owning yourself, only the effects of your actions, those are property rights.
And it's just consistency in those things.
So it doesn't matter who it helps or who it harms in any individual context.
Of course, full free market capitalism will produce massive benefits and wealth aggregations to society as a whole, we've seen that proven uh repeatedly and so on.
So that's North Korea, South Korea, that kind of stuff.
East Germany, West Germany, blah blah blah, right?
So who it benefits and who it hurts is not how you judge a system, because every system benefits and harms some particular individual or a set of individuals.
So if you are a sociopathic power monger of totalitarianism is a good system for you.
If you are a sophist, then the university system is great for you.
If you are a tyrant of little minds, being head of the teachers union is a good system for you.
If you are a slave catcher, and you are a slave seller, and a slave transporter, slavery is a good system for you.
Right.
And so if you end slavery, and you know, I can imagine, I can imagine that there are certain uh, let's say, elderly slaves that might have been taken care of out of sentimentality by their slave slave owners, might have fallen on hard times after the end of slavery.
So the reason that you have to be robust and judge a system by its virtues and its consistency, and virtue and consistency kind of two sides of the same coin, is because it renders you far less susceptible to propaganda if you avoid judging a system by its individual consequences.
So uh to take an example that was a little over ten years ago, that Europe opened its borders because of the Turkish boy whose father irresponsibly put him on an overcrowded vessel trying to cross the Mediterranean.
And so uh people will say, well, closed borders caused that boy to die on the beach to be drowned.
Right?
And people have that sort of emotional, which I understand.
Have that emotion I mean, it's a ugly thing to see.
And because people say, well, I'm going to judge a system by its by who it helps and who it's harms, then you don't have any principles because most people are so easy to manipulate, so if you if you don't like a system, you will simply broadcast endlessly the people who have not benefited but may have in fact been harmed by that system, and then people will turn against the system.
Whereas if you like a system, then you will simply broadcast and focus on and repeat the stories of those who have benefited from the system.
And if you can't find any, you'll just invent them.
Right, like the Potemkin villages, sort of famously was it I think it was under Stalin, could have been Lenin, where they uh fattened up a bunch of gulag prisoners, put them in a village, gave them a lot of great equipment, and uh so on, and then they let all of the Western intellectuals and journalists come over and see just how wonderful, how wonderful communism was, how healthy, happy, and wealthy the workers were, the peasants.
So if you try to judge a system by its consequences, you can't have any principles at all as a society, because propagandists will simply cherry pick people, and if they like the system, they'll show how it benefits people, and if they don't like the system, they'll find those people who are negatively impacted by the system and broadcast their stories, and then nobody can have any principles at all.
You're just yanked back and forth by various propaganda folk.
So there are people who will be harmed in the short run, let's say, I mean, take an obvious example, the end of the welfare state.
Uh there will be people who are harmed.
No question.
There'll be people who have a very great deal of difficulty because let's say they have three kids by three different men, and they're obese and uh their kids are young, uh say there's an end to the welfare state.
Now people will rush in and they will try and help, and they will get people, and I think in a relatively short order, those people will be better off, because the problem, one of the big problems of the welfare state is it isolates people.
I could see this with my mother, right?
My mother gets money from the welfare state.
Well, I guess now, pensions and so on.
But before that, it was I think it was disability or welfare or something like that.
I mean, I know it was disability.
I don't know if she also got buffer supplements as well.
But it isolates people.
Because the money just comes in and then mysteriously doesn't, and you've got to make a bunch of phone calls.
But the money just uh comes in and you don't have like there's no community, there's no attempt to get you back into society, there's no attempt to connect you with others, there's not nothing of that, right?
Whereas if it's a charity that won't just send you money and forget about you like you're a body in a the bottom of a soprano garden, uh they will come and visit you and try and get you back in the community, try and get you back on your feet, figure out what the issues are so that they can help you through hard times without making those hard times isolated and permanent through endless wheelbarrows of money.
So in the short run, uh people who are on welfare, or let's say the disability system is uh ended, well, there are people who will uh and of course you would do this with some extra payments to tide them over until private charity can take over and stuff like that, but there will be people who will weep and wail and cry and moan, and some of whom are in genuine challenges, for sure.
And of course, one of the great tragedies of the welfare state is because of the welfare state, people have not had to maintain their social networks.
So the ultimate welfare state used to be uh the family.
And because other people had the ability to take care of you in an emergency or had the obligation to take care of you in an emergency, you had obligations back, right?
So the welfare state has created this weird isolated in society, lonely planet, solitude in a crowd, place where people get benefits without having to provide any benefits.
So in general, in families or clans, if you fall on hard times, uh people will help you out.
But you also owe the people who helped you out or who help you out something, so when you were doing well and other people weren't on hard times, you should have helped them, and you probably have to do something to um be a positive contributor into that community, right?
So let's say that you've got carpal tunnel syndrome and you can't uh work at a particular job, then your your clan will help you out.
But you know, they'll maybe fund some rehab or Fund some job training that doesn't involve that wrist movement or something like that, and you know, maybe they'll say, Well, while we're helping you out, it would be great if you could uh watch the kids from this family who's currently going through a hard time.
You know, something, so you're sort of kept in the in the flow of society by the welfare state, uh people up end up crushingly isolated because they don't need each other anymore.
So yeah, there's gonna be uh difficulties with uh transition.
But to help people first of all so so just very briefly, to help people you need excess resources, and there's no better system for creating excess resources than the free market.
To simply give people money when they claim to be out of choices, out of options, disabled, right?
I mentioned this before that I remember being out in California many years ago.
I was taking a bus with my daughter to go to that doesn't really matter.
And there was a guy.
He was uh you know, he'd been on disability for many years, looked hail and hardy, and uh he was going to go surfing.
Uh he was meeting some friends who were bringing his surfboard, he was gonna go surfing, but he'd been on disability for many years because of a back injury.
Because that's the other thing too, right?
I mean, when you just give people, quote, free money, well it's free to them, right?
You give people free money for claiming disability, then people will claim disability rather than uh work to get better.
And once they're in that sticky trap, then the sort of sap flows over them a fiat currency and they get trapped and and they get soft and weak and weird, isolated, lose their social skills, job skills, uh, and their work ethic and so on, right?
So if yeah, if if you want to help people, you need excess resources and you need standards.
And voluntary charity provides the standards, which is you should really try to prevent yourself from ending up on disability or with three kids by three different men.
Uh number one, and number two, if you do end up in a situation where you need that kind of help, then you should get the help that you need, and people should work as quickly and as hard as possible to get you off that help and get you back into society, because that's what's going to be good for you in the long run, like the guy I met on the bus.
No girlfriend.
I mean, I think he's slept around from place to place.
But yeah, no girlfriend, no future, no family, no work ethic.
And yeah, he'd been rotted out from the inside with all this with all this free stuff.
Uh people tend to stop growing emotionally once resistance is taken away.
And uh muscles.
Integrity virtue, these are muscles that require resistance.
And just as if you stop working out, then you end up in a situation where your muscles atrophy, and if if you're old enough, they it's very, very hard, if not impossible, to get them to come back.
And the same thing happens, of course, with your work ethic and your virtues and so on.
So this guy and you stop emotionally growing when you no longer have any challenges or resistance or things to overcome or things to grow towards.
So the people on welfare and on disability and so on, and you know, I wouldn't say everyone, but to a large degree.
And I remember a friend of mine's mother who was on welfare.
I mean, a lot of my friends' mothers were on welfare, and uh just immature.
Yeah, just didn't grow up uh petty and uh childish, and you know, not that's necessarily mean nasty, but they just didn't grow up because they didn't have to.
And this amniotic sack of free stuff, they just don't have to grow and progress.
So uh that yeah, uh you want standards and you want excess resources and free market private charities provide both in great abundance, and that's to actually help people.
And the other thing too is that uh fiat currency is kind of like a drug, right?
So with fiat currency, uh you get people addicted to it, and then the drug stops, and then people crash out, right?
So uh this guy, uh on the bus many years ago, been on disability for a bad back for ten years, hail and hardy, and you know, fairly good natures in the way that people immune from responsibilities can sometimes be.
And uh so let's say it all ends tomorrow, right?
Government runs out of money or inflation wastes away his cavalcade of free stuff.
Well, then what?
I mean, he hasn't had to maintain any strong social bonds, he hasn't been charitable, kind to others, he's lost his worth work ethic, he's got a uh ten year gap since he last had a job.
Then what?
Right?
It's not uh so first of all we have to question whether the welfare state is helping people at the moment, and I would say not, right?
I mean i again it's the old analogy that I've used is it's like it's like heroin for a toothache.
Does it make you feel better in the moment?
Yes.
Does it help you in the long run?
No.
So yeah, there are people when it but it ends as mathematically at will what's going to happen to those people, right?
Alright Explain in rational philosophical terms what satanic means in terms of ideology It's interesting, you know, and I maybe I'm just noticing this at the moment uh these are not subscribers.
And they're kind of giving me orders.
Ask me questions.
Would you mind if or would I'd appreciate it if or thank you you know a little bit of but you know explain in rational philosophical terms what satanic means in terms of ideology.
I think that's an interesting question, but I'm not going to reward that kind of declaratory rudeness.
Alright.
Stefan, is bullying ever justified amongst kids and teens?
Well the question is and and I've seen that meme, right, which is uh you know crazy people, eighties bullies and then civilization below, eighties bullies, nineteen eighties bullies were keeping the weirdos and the freaks from society as a whole.
I don't think bullying is the answer.
I think that kids can certainly ostracize and should have the right to ostracize.
Right if I mean we did this all the time as kids which is if we had a game and some kid didn't follow the rules we just wouldn't invite that kid anymore.
Right?
You gotta follow the rules, man.
I'm only gonna follow rules, right?
So you know the the big one is uh being tagged, right?
In the game of tag, right?
So being tagged means somebody touches you.
Now if some kid is chasing you and you don't feel them touch you and they say I touched you and you say no you didn't, I didn't feel anything, and then they continue to insist that they touched you, and then the debate was well what if it's just the clothing?
I touched your clothing right so we had to have it that you had to feel the touch, right?
Now, it could work both ways.
So some kid claims they touched you in a game of tag and you didn't feel it then it wouldn't count.
So it could work that they didn't tag you but claimed that they did.
It could also be that they did tag you like they they touched you directly on the back and you claim that you didn't feel it so then you get into these arguments.
And it doesn't take long to figure out the pattern.
You don't have a conflict the first time that's particularly suspicious like okay well we'll just reset and we'll we'll start again, right?
However, the kids who repeatedly have these problems are kids who are not fun to play with so the kid who continually says that he was never tagged, even when other people see the tag well those are kids who aren't fun to play with Now the kids can't go and solve whatever's going on in the family that's causing this the kids can't go and fix that.
But they can ostracize those kids, which means you don't get to play unless you obey the rules And so it doesn't take long for our general statistical brains to say every time Bob plays every time that kid Bob plays, there's a problem and that problem always involves Bob.
So let's not have Bob come.
And that's just a cost benefit analysis.
I mean I grew up sort of tail end of the baby boom every time I walked out of the council estate I lived in in England there were like ten or twenty kids to set up a game with and no adults around and there were roads and nobody ever got killed.
So actually no, a friend of my brother's got killed but not because of the road in particular but because he got out of the car on the wrong side and jumped out into the street so really that was on the parents because or whoever the adults were in the car.
And he got hit by a car and died.
But not because the kids were playing around streets so it's just a cost benefit in that you can't really play tag with two people you know four is okay, five is good, eight is great, ten is fantastic, right?
So more the more the merrier, to a certain degree, to a certain limit, the more the merrier.
So you want more kids, but you don't want to spend your entire time arguing.
So let's say one extra kid makes the game ten percent better, but constant arguing makes the game fifty percent worse.
So you're minus forty percent in terms of fun.
So you just won't invite that kid, right?
So uh is that bullying?
Well I don't think in particular.
If you have some kid who you know, you invite him to your birthday party and he steals a present and digs his hand into the cake and eats from there, it's kind of gross.
Well, you're not gonna invite that kid back.
And that's just a way of getting the social rules.
And of course, kids don't really have that anymore, which is one of the reasons why kids become more totalitarian, is that when I was a kid, you know, starting from the age of four or five, we would all go out, have complicated games, and I write about this in my novel almost, but we would go out and we would have complicated games with no adults to enforce the rules.
We would simply enforce the rules through arguments, negotiation, and ostracism.
So if a kid kept causing problems in a game, we wouldn't invite that kid, or we say you can't play.
And the kid'd be like, Oh, I'm sorry, you know, blah blah blah.
I mean, maybe we can give them another chance, and if they were okay, then we keep to keep them around, but yeah, that's so how we would do it so.
All right.
What do we get?
Uh how can it possibly be after Liebnitz, Hume and Kant, that the tabula rasa is still very much part of Western thinking.
It's so ubiquitous you'd think it was inherent.
So tabula rasa, of course, is the idea that we are born a blank slate.
We are born as formless clay, and society molds us in some manner or another.
A tabular rasa is common both among leftists and Christians.
And for Christians, of course, the tabular rasa is that we're all born with a divine soul that makes us equal.
And for the leftists the tabular rasa is important because if they accept innate differences, there's an explanation for differences in outcome that don't provide them the weapon of resentment based upon exploitation.
So let's say that you did a study, and this would be the case, right?
So you do a study and you would say, what's the IQ of those on the board of a large corporation?
And what is the IQ of the janitors?
And you would find that the IQ of the board members would almost certainly be something like one forty plus, and you would find that the IQ of the janitors would be a couple of standard deviations lower.
On average, right?
And if IQ is an explanation as to differences, an IQ is not visible like height, right?
So you don't expect to see a lot of short guys on a pro basketball team.
Right?
So because of that, you you don't sit there and say, well, there's all of this weird prejudice against this group people, say pygmies, right?
Well the the MBA it just systematically hates pygmies.
And we gotta have laws to get pygmies onto the basketball team.
Because you could see that the pygmies are like four feet tall, and can't do much against a six foot eight guy.
In basketball.
So the left's the leftists need tabular rasa to fertilize the resentment of those who aren't as successful by saying the only reason you aren't as successful is because other people stole from you.
Other people exploited you.
Right?
As opposed to saying, well, the reason you're not a lead singer in a band is because your voice sounds terrible, you have no musical sense, and you can't distinguish between various pitches.
So that's why you're not a lead singer.
Don't take it like everybody has tried this at some time or another, right?
I remember doing this as a little kid.
Hey, I wonder if I can sing.
Like everybody tries this, right?
Try singing along to something.
I remember even in my late teens when I was working up north, I was listening to um Home by the Sea by Genesis.
Where we relive our lives in what we tell you.
And so he really belts it, right?
The Phil Collins had both a nice falsetto and a soft voice, but also was a great belter.
And I I could barely do it, right?
I could do it, but it wasn't particularly pleasant.
My voice tends to tighten up when I belt, whereas his was a full throated command of the vocal tone.
What's that song?
We work like the devil for our pain and through We weren't gonna it doesn't really matter.
But yeah, so he's he's a big big belter, and you can hear it when he does uh uh say something um alive like Take Me Home, which he originally did with Peter Gabriel and Sting, but uh yeah, he's a great belter.
And so we we all try it, and so the reason I'm not a singer in a rock band is because I don't have a good enough voice.
I mean I think musically I'm okay, but I also don't have a massive amount of musical talent like I've tried to play a couple of instruments and unfortunately philosophy comes easy and piano doesn't, so I gravitate towards philosophy.
But I don't sit there and say, well, I'm just as good as Robert Plant or Freddie Mercury or staying I'm just as good as those guys.
But those black balling bastards just keep me out of the music industry.
Well, thank God these days, right?
Or maybe always.
I'm not really sure if the music industry exists to supply music to the masses or young, naive musicians to the giant chomping predatory financial mores of the record company executives.
But tabula rasa is necessary for leftists to generate the resentment that allows them to set society against each other and gain power thereby.
The Iago thing, right?
Iago is not a strong guy compared to Othello, but if he whispers into Othello's ear he can get Othello to kill his wife.
So it's a very sad thing.
The reason why the leftists, who generally are secular and atheist and pro evolution, the reason why the leftists hate the IQ arguments is because it provides a rational scientific explanation for differences in outcome that could cool resentment, right?
All right.
Why do people think humans are worth more than animals?
Uh because uh humans have language and negotiation skills and uh moral sense, they can compare proposed actions to ideal standards, and animals cannot.
Does freedom of speech protect fraudulent speech?
Isn't communist ideology fraudulent?
Well, I mean, I made this post on X some time ago, which is that uh people talk about hate speech, you know, speech that that results in hatred or anger towards a particular group.
It's always a protected group, and the protected group is always people who vote for the left, right?
But if there is any such thing as hate speech, then communism, the communist manifesto would be hate speech.
I mean, it literally talks about violent revolution and the liquidation of entire classes of people.
And it has resulted in well over a hundred million deaths.
So and yet it's openly and proudly taught by avowed Marxists in countless universities daughtered across the West.
So there's no such thing as uh as hate speech.
Uh hate speech is it's a set of laws that is extended by leftists to protect those who vote for them from criticism.
So uh fraudulent speech is it fraudulent?
I mean, obviously it promises a stateless utopia and delivers totalitarian hellscape every single time.
Uh I don't know.
I I mean obviously I think that communism is a wretched, corrupt and vicious set of argumentations.
But uh is it fraudulent?
I don't think so technically.
All right.
Uh last question, we're seeing how ideas can possess people and spread like illness without needing to tie anything supernatural to it.
How likely do you think it is that biblical demons were early attempts at naming social contagions and or conversion disorders?
And it certainly is true, of course, that ideas take hold and spread like wildfire, but they are like blowing uh they are like blowing seeds, right?
Do they fall on concrete?
Or do they fall on fertile soil?
So the ideas that spread tend to be uh those ideas that fall on fertile soil.
So what is the fertile soil for particular ideas?
Well, the fertile soil for particular ideas uh tends to be those ideas that are programmed into people when they're very young.
So if you've ever had the situation in school where someone says the teacher says, Did you bring enough for everyone?
You can't have something of your own if you haven't brought enough for everyone.
Did you bring enough gum for everyone?
Then you can't have any gum of your own.
So if you get that hammered into your head, then socialism seems more likely so.
Uh I think it is early programming that tends to make these ideas spread like wildfire, and that's what we need to focus on.
Thank you so much, freedomain.com slash donate, to help out the show, I appreciate these great questions.
Lots of love 'em up here.
I'll talk to you soon.
▲
Export Selection