All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 3, 2025 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
01:20:42
THE TRUTH ABOUT COLONIZATION! Twitter/X Space
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
All right, here we go.
Here we go, here we go, here we go.
2nd of October 2025.
And I wanted to, I don't normally have a show for tonight.
I have a call in later, but I did want to address something.
You know, I couldn't sleep last night, which is unusual.
My brain was churning and yearning, as it often does, but I couldn't sink down into the blissful velvet of the deep temporary goodbye of sleep that knits up the raveled sleeve of care.
And chuck it around in my brain at 3 o'clock in the morning, which actually I checked, it's 12:30 p.m. in India, I wrote a little bit of a tweet.
I wrote a little bit of a tweet.
And I didn't really think much of it because, yeah, you know, nobody knows.
Everybody wants to write the ultimate bangers, but it's hard to know.
It's hard to know what is going to work and so on.
And so I wrote a little bit of a tweet that, well, he's kind of went a little viral.
So the tweet is this.
If Indians set foot in England and became and become English.
Sorry, let me start that again, but with quality.
Once more under the breach.
All right.
If Indians set foot in England and become English, then the English who set foot in India became Indian.
Therefore, the English did not rule India.
There's no such thing as colonization.
QED.
And I woke up, obviously a little bit later because I didn't get to sleep till like 3:30.
So I woke up around 9:30 and did my morning evolutions, brushed my teeth.
And then I checked Twitter and it was at 4.7 million views.
And a friend of mine had texted me to say that Elon Musk had retweeted me, which is obviously nice, nice-ish, I suppose.
And now, let's see, what's it at?
Now we're cooking at 13 million impressions, which is not bad, I suppose.
And it's funny because it was just over the last week or two, I was like, eh, you know, Twitter is a bit repetitive, but this is kind of nice to have this.
It's a very interesting discussion.
I'm not going to go into the meat of the discussion because I think it's pretty clear what the meat of the discussion is.
But I did want to have the chance to get people to correct me if they're upset about things with regards to colonization, the British rule of India, the Raj, and so on.
And so if you have questions or comments about that, I would appreciate it if you would come to the front of the line.
I can see that there's a couple of people who want to talk already.
I just would like you to let me know if that's the topic, because that's what I'd like to talk about first.
And I also reposted a video I did.
It's funny, it's actually almost 10 years.
I think it was October the 9th, 2015, that I did a video which I reposted because it is about colonialism and Western powers and all that kind of good stuff.
So I reposted that.
And it's always interesting to me that you get, you know, you get a lot of interest in a particular tweet, and then you post something that sort of clarifies it.
And, well, what happens?
It's not that many people actually want to get the date, the data.
So the podcast number is 3097, The Truth About Empire and Western Colonialism.
It's 52 minutes.
You can watch it, I guess, at time and a half.
And I think it's worth checking out.
It's a very good presentation.
I did re-watch it and repost it.
So I won't get into all of those kinds of details.
But if you have things that you want to correct me about colonialism, I'd be happy to hear.
The other thing that I posted on X today, here's a bunch of stuff I posted, but one of them was that it really wasn't until 1860 that rape was formally made illegal in India.
There had been some kind of rupee-based or cash-based or civil penalties in the past, but it was unlawful sexual relations with a woman 15 years of age or under it didn't recognize marital rape.
And it really wasn't made a criminal offense until 1860, which, of course, is under British rule.
Because it's always interesting, like a few thousand British troops, an entire subcontinent.
Of course, there was no India when the British came.
But it's interesting as to why there wasn't more fomented rebellion.
Because again, it's only a few thousand British.
And so why was there not more rebellion?
I mean, if you look at what would happen in Ireland, I mean, I grew up under the IRA wanting to get the British out of Northern Ireland.
And I was told as a kid, you got to look out for little parcels that are unattended, plastic bags in bus shelters because they're bombing.
Of course, you look at rebellions, the French Revolution, you look at rebellions, American Revolution, of course, of which the Americans are now laughing hysterically in fluent musket at what is going on to free speech or what is being slaughtered on the altar of Staner's government, which is the absolutely monstrous levels of violations of free speech to the point where the government is like, think before you post.
Think.
Vague threats.
All over the place and all over the time.
So why wasn't there as much rebellion?
Well, I think certainly the women appreciated the British sensitivity towards the evils of rape.
There was Suthi was not hugely widespread, but definitely was a thing where if the man died, if a husband died, his wife had to throw herself on his funeral pyre and burn to death alongside with him.
It sort of reminds me of something from, oh, gosh, it's seven years of winning Game of Thrones, right?
But I mean, a monstrous and evil practice, as we all understand.
And so it's interesting too why there wasn't more rebellion.
And of course, the idea that England stole all of this wealth.
I mean, come on, come on.
It is a false dichotomy to say, well, if it wasn't for the British, the Indians would have been free.
It's like, no, what became the subcontinent or what became the country of India was a bunch of warring principalities with brutal rulers themselves.
So, you know, there's no stateless society, at least not yet.
So you don't get the choice to not be ruled.
You only have the choice as to who rules you.
And the idea that the British were brutal, but boy, oh boy, the local Indian or local sub-Indian princes and pashers, that they were all benevolent, enlightened philosopher kings is nonsense.
Absolute nonsense.
Absolute nonsense.
They will ruled brutally.
There were almost no freedoms, no freedom of speech, very small freedoms, if any, in terms of property rights.
Women were enslaved, slaves were common, caste system, gosh, you name it.
And so why was there not more rebellion?
Because clearly a lot of people preferred the British.
A lot of people preferred the British.
Certainly, women would prefer the British by outlawing rape.
The women who would be burned on their husbands' funeral pyres also preferred.
Now, of course, there were a few obscure sects.
This was not widely practiced, of course, but there were a few obscure fanatical sects that even practiced cannibalism.
Again, I'm not trying to say that that was common, but it certainly existed.
And if you want the data on how Indian lives improved, that's in my presentation.
We're going to republish it now, early October 2025.
All the data is in there.
And the sources were in a previous format, but Intrepid James went and found them and dug them up.
So the sources will all be there for this kind of data or the idea that, well, they stole all the diamonds.
It's like, well, it's really the British people who preferred and liked the diamonds.
And of course, there was a very big diamond that was taken.
I think it's in the British Museum or was for a time.
And it's so funny to me that people in India say, well, the British stole all these diamonds.
It's like, bro, come on.
You're some Indian peasant in a mud hut by the Ganges.
You're not getting to see that diamond.
You have more chance of seeing it if it's in the British Museum than if it was in some Raj's palace where you'd have your head cut off for even putting your head in through the window.
You didn't get a chance to view any of that stuff in the old country and the home country.
And the other thing, too, is that this is something that it's really, really important for people to get.
And, you know, it's sort of stupid to say that because I like to think that everything I say is sort of important, but this is even more so.
Everybody knows about the Christmas peace in 1914, which happened on the Western Front in the First World War.
The British soldiers and the German soldiers stopped fighting.
I think even Paul McCartney did a song about this once.
But the British soldiers and the German soldiers stopped all their fighting and went out.
They shared cigarettes.
They sang Christmas hymns, of course, in a mixture of cockney and German.
And they played footy, they played football or soccer, as it's known, and they had no reason to fight.
The average British soldier and the average German soldier had far more, infinitely more in common with each other than they had with their rulers.
The average German farm worker, the average British farm worker had far more in common with each other, almost infinitely more in common with each other, than with the Kaiser or the king or the queen or a baron.
And in the same way, the average British citizen hated colonialism, hated colonialism, because they were taxed, enlisted, conscripted, enslaved to maintain the map coloring exercise of the British elites.
My brother, no, I'm not that old.
He wasn't conscripted.
He maintained the Raj.
But my brother, when we were younger, he had a metal tankard.
It was inscribed with his name and his birth date.
I always envied it.
I loved that tankard.
And the tankard was all metal, except the bottom was glass.
It was very cool.
It was very cool.
Now, why was my brother's birth tankard glass bottomed?
Sounds like you're about to break into a queen song, right?
Glass-bottomed girls, they make the rock and world go red.
Why?
Because in the past, if you took the king's coin, they could legally rip you out of your life and force you onto a scurvy-ridden ship, rum, sodomy, and the lash, to go and sail the ocean blue, die of scurvy, lose your teeth, get food poisoning, get seasick, all these wretched and terrible things.
More British soldiers, sorry, more British sailors died of scurvy than combat.
One of the things that saved England and made the British Empire was the discovery of vitamin C is the cure for scurvy.
That's why British people are called lime heads.
The lions were the foundation of a lot of power.
Fruits run the world.
Not in the modern sense, but in the vitamin C sense.
Now, if you took the king's coin, they could take you, rip you away from your life, and the likelihood of you coming back in one piece healthy was not very high.
So, why were there glass bottoms on the tankards?
Because the evil SOBs who had to hit their quota of naval slaves would go round to the pubs and they would drop a shilling or a penny into someone's drink.
And the moment that their lips touched the ale that had within it the coin, they were considered legally to have taken the king's coin, and they could be ripped from their lives and turned into naval slaves forever and ever.
Amen.
So, what they did was they built tankards with glass bottoms so they could lift up the tankard, look on the bottom, and make sure there weren't any of these enslaving coin discs before they drank their ale.
That's how bad it was.
British people were taxed, enslaved, murdered, exposed to highly toxic, dangerous environments and conditions.
It's not like you're going to have a nice little old hobbit town wife and kids in Francis Drake's brigade.
So it sucked for them.
Colonialism sucked for the British.
They hated it.
I mean, I get that there was a lot of propaganda.
Rule Britannia, Britannia rules the waves.
Ironically, England never shall be slaves, but they were enslaved in the Navy and the Army, of course, to maintain all of this.
So even if we say that it was absolutely terrible for the average Indian, which is debatable, to say the least, we know for certain that colonialism absolutely sucked giant donkey balls for the average British citizen.
It was terrible, appalling, awful, wretched, monstrous, monstrous.
But I suppose there are certain cultures that look at England as one big giant blob where everyone agrees, everyone's enthusiastic, and the people who ran the British East India Company had exactly the same costs and benefits as the average cockney oar slave subjected to rum, sodomy, and the lash, and scurvy, and combat, no wife, no kids, wretched life, suicides high, jumping off ships high.
That the average multi-zillionaire, crony corporate crapitalist had exactly the same cost, benefits, and incentives as the king of the queen and the lowly British citizen who accidentally touched his lips to ale containing the king's coin.
And all one big blob.
The British, all one big blob.
I suppose that's a very collectivist, undifferentiated, non-individualistic, unsliced and diced view.
It's like looking at a meal on a plate and eating them both.
Crunch, crunch, crunch, because they occupy the same space, you see.
But it is not true.
It is not true that the British massively benefited as a whole from colonialism.
It is true that there were costs and benefits to colonialism as a whole.
If the benefits had so vastly outweighed the costs, then why did England give up its colonies after being decimated financially for two world wars?
Why?
Why?
If you've got a money-making venture called the British Empire, when you run out of money because of two world wars, why wouldn't you just get all that money from the empire and use it to pay off your bills?
Nope.
The empire was like a racehorse that never won.
I mean, if you have a racehorse that wins a lot, it's an asset.
If you have a racehorse that doesn't win, it's a cost.
And when you run out of money, you sell the racehorse that never wins.
Because otherwise, you've got to pay for the training, the upkeep, the food, the vet spills, the hay, whatever, right?
The stall.
When people are in dire financial straits, they don't ditch what makes them money.
You ever heard anybody say, you know, I'm so heavily in debt, I've just got to quit my job.
I'm so heavily in debt, I'm so desperate to pay my bills, I have to stop going to work and getting a paycheck.
I mean, if somebody said that, you'd think that they were crazy, right?
Mentally ill.
What do you mean?
You're in debt $100,000 and you're quitting your job?
What are you talking about?
No, you've got to keep your job because otherwise you can't pay off the debt.
On the other hand, if somebody's heavily in debt, maybe they'd say, ah, you know, it kind of sucks, but man, I got to tell you, I have to sell my classic motorcycle collection.
Why?
Because it doesn't generate any revenue.
Or a bad gambler who's heavily in debt says, oh, man, I got to stop gambling.
Smack me in the face if I even think of going gambling.
I'm so heavily in debt, I have to get rid of that which costs me money.
I'm so in debt, I'm going to have to cancel my gym membership.
I'm so in debt, I have to give up skate shooting or going to the gun range.
I'm so in debt, I have to give up my cottage.
When you're heavily in debt, you give up that which costs money.
You don't give up that which makes money.
And the fact that England ditched its empire when it was out of money tells you that it was a net negative for the country as a whole.
That doesn't make it moral or right, of course.
But it is a fact that the average person in India and the average person in England should look at each other and say, there is much more that unites us compared to those who rule us.
So I hope that makes sense.
All right.
Richard, I'm going to go from your name that you are not calling from Uttar Pradesh.
What is on your mind, my friend?
Don't forget to unmute.
Going once, going twice.
Don't be startled.
All right.
Tea Powers, we will go with you instead.
If you want to unmute, I'm happy to hear.
All right.
Excellent.
I put everyone to sleep.
Efre.
I'm not going to read that last name.
That's pretty funny.
Efre.
What is on your mind?
Hello, Sefan.
How are you doing?
I'm doing good.
How are you?
I'm doing well.
Superman does good.
Go ahead.
So I just wanted to clear up something you mentioned earlier regarding your tweet, which I haven't seen in full transparency.
Would you be able to restate your position on colonialism?
Like, you know, aside from the whole idea of national identity having an involvement with race?
I'm not sure I understand what you mean.
Your tweet was that, if I'm not mistaken, it was that if the if Indians coming to Great Britain are British, then that means that the British who went to India were Indian and therefore the colonialism was in effect not real, right?
No, no, so there was no such thing as foreign colonialism, because if people from India go to England to become British, then people from England go to India and become Indian.
Right.
And therefore, it was not colonialism.
It was just Indian on Indian violence.
So for instance, if an Indian comes to England and becomes British and then commits crime, the news will report a British man committed a crime.
Right.
Right?
Right.
So in which case, I mean, what the British government did in India in terms of the Raj was illegal, was legal, not was illegal, sounds like illegal, was legal.
So they were acting in accordance with British law, which I understand is not a very compelling argument.
They were acting in accordance with well-established international law, and they signed treaties with the local Indian rulers.
And so it was not like Genghis Khan.
Right.
It was legal.
And so the idea that it was just some, you know, put the village to the torch of the sword, massive invasion, it was impossible.
It couldn't have happened.
Right.
I mean, the white people in India, I mean, I don't know.
I remember working with a, well, I had a programmer who was an employee of mine many years ago.
And he told me about a time when he went to India to do coding and got a ridiculous case of Delibali, they call it, right?
From New Delhi, Deli Belly, which is he was just sick for like a week, could barely walk.
And the average life expectancy for a white person in Africa in the 19th century was 16 to 18 months because, I mean, I mean, you name it, right?
Typhus, sleeping sickness, malaria.
Bad lettuce.
Honestly, it was crazy.
Like you just couldn't survive.
They did about as well in Africa as the indigenous population of North America did with smallpox.
So they couldn't have ruled in that way.
And so it was illegal.
So, yeah, so that's just basically the argument that if somebody comes to England and it's legal, then they become British.
And then it's not foreign occupation.
It's if someone from India who becomes British attacks a British guy and kills him, it's just British on British violence, right?
British guy attacks British guy and kills British guy.
I mean, there's nothing foreign about it.
And therefore, if the British are legally in India and have signed treaties with the local potentates, then it's their India.
And therefore, it's not foreign occupation.
It's just Indians oppressing Indians.
Now, people get very upset about that, which is interesting.
I mean, people are just accusing me of rage baiting.
But it's like, what?
I mean, if the reversal of a principle enrages you, then the problem is not with me.
It's with your thinking.
Right.
Right.
Well, so I don't actually, you know, having, well, firstly, I want to apologize preemptively in case you have trouble hearing me because I'm driving right now.
But given what you said, I don't really disagree with your position all that much.
You know, I also have to apologize because colonialism and in specific African colonialism is arguably the biggest gap in my knowledge.
I've spent much more time trying to justify the beliefs I already have rather than venturing out into new things that I haven't learned about.
So don't worry about the caveats.
We understand everybody's knowledge is limited.
That's no need to.
So go ahead with your question.
Yeah, well, so then I'm one of what I assume to be the few people who think that India was probably better off despite the atrocities, or if you want to frame it that way.
They were probably better off under British rule than they are now.
And that had the sort of higher or the more globalistic society that we live in now been brought forth closer to back then, things probably would have evened down.
There wouldn't have been as big of a struggle with the British population in Britain dealing with what was happening overseas.
Sorry, this is a maybe you feel anxious about asking the question directly, but this is kind of a long trip to nowhere yet.
So if you could boil the question down, I'd appreciate it.
I apologize.
No, it's fine.
Do you think that over time, given the way the world is now, that British colonialization of India would have ended up not being as bad a thing as everybody thinks that it is?
Well, I think that it was wrong, immoral, because it involved the initiation of force, both domestically and overseas.
And so colonialism was wrong.
But colonialism is mostly just an anti-white slur because it's always and only and forever applied to whites.
So nobody talks about the Muslims carnalizing, quote, carnalizing, colonizing various countries.
I mean, Genghis Khan was one of the most violent rapey marauders in human history, if not the most.
And bro, his statues all over in Mongolia, he's on their currency, for God's sakes.
I mean, they celebrate the guy.
So colonialism is just an anti-white slur because it seems to indicate, or it very much indicates, that white people were somehow unique in conquering things or people in the world.
And this is something that I talked about in Australia when I did my speaking tour there about the Aborigines.
And this is something that I've also talked about on the show with regards to the native population of North and South America, just how brutal and evil and violent they were.
I mean, there were genocides among the natives in North America, cannibalism, sorcery, rape as a weapon of war.
They can find massive burial mounds of skulls and with torture.
I mean, the Mayans and the Aztecs and the Incans were brutal, particularly the Aztecs.
I mean, the reason why the conquistados were able, with just a few hundred, were able to overthrow the Aztecs is all the local tribes hated them so much they joined with the Spaniards.
I mean, they were just absolutely hated.
And these are the guys who would literally torture children because they felt or they believed that the tears of horrified children, probably in some sort of adrenochrome ritual, basically, that the tears and cries and agonies of tortured children were sweet to their particular local god.
And they played soccer with the heads of people and just horrible, horrible stuff, as we sort of, I think, as we generally know.
So colonialism only and forever refers to white actions.
It never refers to non-white actions in the same way that slavery seems to always refer to the 400,000 blacks that were taken, bought from black slave owners in Africa and taken to America, despite the fact that there was like 20 million slaves taken to the Middle East and other countries in that region and mostly castrated, which is why there's not that big black population in the Middle East now.
And so slavery is anti-white.
Colonialism is anti-white because it only and forever refers to actions of white governments, not white people, white governments.
And there's no other reference point.
It's just like the natural enemy of Marxism is white Christians.
And so Marxists controlled the narrative and tried to make all the negative terms in history stick and apply only to white Christians in general.
So sorry for that, Ranch, but go ahead.
No, I appreciate it a lot.
I mean, I've been learning from you for so long and I'll continue to learn from you.
This is sort of tangential to what we're talking about.
But do you think that had the British not colonized India, I don't think George Harrison would have had as big an Indian influence on his music as he did.
And I think that we probably would have had Sergeant Pepper with Strawberry Fields and or Penny Lane on it.
So that's one case, one argument against it.
Well, of course, much though, I guess a lot of people appreciate Beatles' music from a moral standpoint, it's a little tough to sustain that his sitar twang was worth what went on in India.
So, yeah, I appreciate it, but you'd have to be a very intense lover of music to overlook the other stuff.
All right.
Is there anything else you wanted to mention?
No, I appreciate your time very much.
It was an honor to finally get to speak to you.
I hope you enjoyed the rest of your time on this space, the rest of your day.
Thank you very much.
I think we just had Chris join us if you would like to unmute.
I was hoping we would have some Indians in here to talk to me about this stuff, but nothing yet.
Sorry, go ahead.
Am I audible?
Yeah, go ahead.
So first, just wanted to say basically agree with you.
I had one little comment about it.
Before that, I wanted to say I asked Rock whether or not it thought that the British colonialism was a net economic positive or cost.
And it agreed with you.
And it's very interesting because it gets into a nuanced case about it.
But regarding the morality of colonialism, I wanted to ask you, do you think that individual right apply to somebody who doesn't conceive of them and can't retropritate them?
Well, I hear what you're saying.
I mean, the argument for me to take the sort of human element out of it, the argument for me with regards to animal rights, I'm sure you're aware of, is that animals don't have rights because they cannot conceive of or process comparing proposed actions to ideal standards.
Yes.
So, you know, one of the issues that I have with Christianity, and I talked about this not too long ago on a space, I'll keep it brief here.
But one of the issues I have with Christianity is that Christianity is of the perception that everyone can be just like white Western Europeans.
Everyone, no matter what.
And that's because all men, women, all people, are made in the image of God.
And, I mean, from a legal standpoint, of course, absent severe intellectual disability, sure, everyone's equal before the law.
But it would be sort of like saying, like, let me give you sort of an analogy here, and then I'd love to hear what you have to say.
But it's something like this.
So if I genuinely believed that within every person there was an absolutely amazing singer that God had placed there, then what would I do?
Well, I wouldn't go and try and get great singers necessarily.
I would get anybody to be in my choir, to be in my opera, to be in my band or whatever as a singer.
And then I would just pray to God I would work for them to unleash their inner, beautiful, wonderful paravaroti-style singing.
And that would be the plan.
Now, if there is in fact no great singers buried in people's minds, hearts, throats, and bodies, and you kind of got the voice you've got.
And, you know, you can change it a little bit.
I mean, I took singing lessons when I was in theater school, and that made me a less worse singer, but not a great singer, of course, right?
Because you just have to have the natural physical equipment to sing.
And you can, you know, train it and all of that kind of stuff.
Freddie Mercury famously did not train his voice because he wanted more of a raw sound.
But then in the mid-70s, he started developing nodules and refused to be operated on because he was afraid they would harm his voice because he didn't take the training to keep his.
I mean, a friend of mine was a bar singer for many years, and his voice was constantly going out until he got the right kind of singing training so that he could preserve his voice.
So if I believe that there is a perfect singer buried inside everyone, that prayer, reflection, exhortation, and reading the Bible to them is going to unleash and uncork their Josh Groben Selindion inner perfect angelic voice, then I'm going to not be very good at assembling a choir if it turns out that that's not the case.
So of course, the white Christians in England and other places, I refer to this in the presentation, sort of the white man's burden, right?
I get to go around, well, everyone is the same.
We just have to teach them Christianity.
We just have to bring them the rule of law and so on.
We've been blessed by God with certain advantages, and therefore it is incumbent upon us as Christians to go around the world and bring these advantages to everyone and so on.
And that plan, that process has more than failed.
It is one of the single worst ideas in all of human history to have that as your goal plan and your idea.
If you could imagine you bring old smokers and croaky voiced people with no sense of tune or no sense of pitch and you throw them all in your choir and you just pray for them all to become fantastic singers, you just end up with a discordant choir that turns people off music forever.
And you will have wasted your life rather than just picking some good singers, giving them a little training so they can preserve their voice and unleashing, you know, the three tenors, the eight tenors.
Did I see the ten tenors or something like that?
But yeah, so you don't.
And of course, I saw this process.
It was kind of interesting because I was at the National Theater School in Montreal for almost two years and took a bunch of singing classes.
And, you know, I saw people who started with no singing training and then got a year of singing training.
I went through the same process myself.
And what happened?
Well, the people who had really good voices at the beginning had really good voices at the ends.
And the people who didn't have good voices at the beginning had slightly better voices, but nothing good.
And the people who didn't have any capacity to determine pitch sang off-key at the beginning and sang off-key at the end.
So I've seen that process.
And so have I. It's just, it was a, yeah, it's a terrible, it's a terrible idea.
It's a terrible idea that everyone can just be the same.
And the left likes it for various reasons.
And the conservatives, the Christians, and the right likes it for certain reasons.
And again, equality before the law, absolutely.
Equality of opportunity.
Everybody has the right to be free of violence and pursue contracts and enforce contracts and have bodily autonomy and they have the right to property.
Everyone, for sure.
But the idea that we can just will everyone into being like ourselves.
I mean, we saw this in Iraq, right?
They overthrew Saddam Hussein, who was, of course, a brutal dictator.
And then what they expected some wonderful Western Jeffersonian democracy to emerge out of this.
And I don't know if you're old enough to remember the little people who had blue, they dipped their thumbs, so they dipped their forefingers in blue ink to show that they voted and so on.
And it was like, ah, dawn of a new age, and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
And it's like, eh, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
So the idea that it's just a set of ideas that you can just take from one place, put in another place.
I mean, that experiment has been tried now for 300 years.
Trillions and trillions and trillions of dollars have been poured into Africa in an attempt to turn it into something other than what it is, and it doesn't work.
How many wells do we need to dig?
Sorry, go ahead.
Let me just offer a little pushback on that because I basically agree.
Don't push me.
Push me back.
You don't need to give me the caveats.
Just tell me what you decided.
You know, first of all, it's a great little analogy about the singing and stuff.
It's absolutely true.
But I'm not so sure that applies the same way to something like the ability to grasp the concept of property rights, for instance.
Maybe that's a little simpler and easier.
And maybe it's not so specialized.
And I would also offer that, in fact, those ideas have gone all around the world and have improved many places, not all places.
So, you know, some people have been able to implement classical liberal ideas and prosper from that.
People, particularly in places in Asia.
Hong Kong.
Yeah.
Hong Kong.
Yeah.
Yeah.
I did a whole documentary there.
So it's a complete failure.
I would not say it's a complete failure.
I'd say for lots of people, probably even in the billions.
Hong Kong is more free than the West in most ways.
Yeah, right.
Yeah, I would agree.
Yeah.
So anyway, that's just my observation.
I wouldn't call it a complete failure.
Obviously, a failure to try and impose those things by force, which is a contradiction.
And I think I agree with you that led to tremendous problems and was ultimately immoral.
But thank you very much for the answer on that and the explanation.
You're very welcome.
I appreciate that.
All right, Monsieur Zen, come and calm my man boobs, man.
Chill my moobs.
What's on your mind, my friend?
Zen, you might need to unmute.
Oh, there was a delay there.
I just heard you say my name.
Yeah, go ahead.
So are you calling colonization?
I'm still trying to figure out what the stance here is on the colonization.
Sorry, what do you mean by stance?
So I understand that we're discussing kind of the philosophy regarding the different perspectives and objectives that are going on with regards to the Middle East.
But I think it's important to also, just as the philosophy is important, right?
One of my favorite quotes is, mathematics can tell you how to measure a man's estate, but philosophy could tell you how to measure a man's soul, right?
These more classical endeavors of thought are important to understanding the morals and ethics.
But I also think that it's important.
Sorry, you got to stay a consistent distance from your microphone.
It's kind of coming and going.
But sorry, go ahead.
Let me try this again.
Okay, so that's great.
I appreciate that.
Let's talk about morals.
So what is good and what is evil?
If we're going to compare colonialism to good and evil, we need to have definitions of good and evil, right?
Yes.
And so this is where the history, the history is important, right?
No, Dr. Hang on.
I'm sorry to interrupt you again, but good and evil would not be historically dependent.
Our understanding of good and evil, right?
But better systems might have existed in the past than what we've been currently using.
So atoms existed in the past, even though we did not have the sort of Marlon Niels Bohr understanding of atoms in the present, right?
The periodic table of elements, by the way, each one of which was discovered by a white guy.
But the periodic table of elements, they all existed in the past, even if we didn't have them differentiated in the way that we have them now.
So if it's good and evil, it should be universal and for all time, which is not to say that everybody would agree with you in the past, but I'm trying to understand why we would bring history into it.
And this is where the communicology is important.
So my background is I have a bachelor's degree from the University of Hawaii in communicology, which is the science of human interaction.
And I found that when I was in my senior levels of studies, I began to develop an interest in studying ancient civilizations and how ancient cultures worked and ancient communities worked.
And I found that prior to Abrahamic religions, laws were significantly more fair and just in the way that they were designed and constructed and carried out, right?
We actually had a fair justice system.
Okay, hang on.
Hang on.
Like in Egypt.
So are you saying that the Aztecs and the Aboriginals in Australia had more fair and just systems than, say, British common law?
I would definitely say so based on my understanding of the Native Hawaiians.
No, no.
Did I talk about the Native Hawaiians?
I first agreed with a yes to your statement.
Okay, so you're saying that the Aztecs, say, for instance, who practiced, I'm still talking.
So what I do is I talk and then you talk.
So the Aztecs practiced ritualistic mass murder of children, right?
They had sacrificed sometimes 5,000, sometimes 10,000 children without obviously trial.
They drugged them and murdered them and held their beating hearts up as they tortured them to death.
Are you saying that that is a fair and just legal system and much more fair and just than, say, British common law?
Well, look at how many lobotomies the British performed, right?
Were you saying that, I mean, you could kind of go back and forth in semantics all day long, but we're just talking about niche.
So you can't, hang on, you can't just drop that stuff and move on.
So the lobotomies were an attempt to deal with mental illness.
They were not designed to torture.
They were not designed to murder people.
They were not superstitious.
Now, we can look back and we can say that was wrong in terms of it was incorrect, but the motive was not to harm or torture people.
The motive was to try and help and cure people.
And so you really can't compare it to an Aztec superstitious ritual, which is designed to torture, mutilate, and murder children.
So are we to say that all civilizations existing at the time of the Aztecs were savages?
Is that what you're positing?
I'm sorry, I'm not sure how we have a debate if you just make stuff up that I'm saying.
Well, what I'm suggesting is that there were civilization.
No, no, hang on.
Hang on.
No, no, no.
This is not how debate works, brother.
This is not how debate works.
So you put forward, I put forward the Aztec stuff, and then you said, what about lobotomies?
And then I provided a rebuttal to that.
And now I don't know what you're talking about because you're not addressing my rebuttal.
So what was my rebuttal to the lobotomy point?
Your rebuttal to the lobotomy point is that it's not relevant.
No, that wasn't my, I literally just like a minute ago, I had a minute or two speech rebutting your point about lobotomies.
Do you remember what it was?
That it wasn't about killing people, that it wasn't about torturing people.
But I beg to differ, but we're not going to go down that route.
No, no, no, that's not a rabbit hole.
It's a debate.
So you're saying that primitive cultures, or I would say, I would say the Aztecs tortured and murdered children by the thousands.
And you said, what about lobotomies?
And I said, but that wasn't the purpose of that wasn't torture.
That was actually a misguided attempt to try and heal mental illnesses prior to sort of modern understanding of how the mind worked.
And so it would be like leeches.
Leeches in the Middle Ages weren't, they weren't particularly effective, of course, at curing illnesses, but they were trying to, based upon the balance of humorous theory of based upon the balance of humorous theory of the Middle Ages, they were trying to help people, but the purpose was not to torture.
Whereas do you agree that the purpose of the Aztec rituals was to torture and kill children?
Was to conduct as much, it was to it was to, I would, what's the word I'm looking for?
The objective was to cause as much pain as possible before death because it was part of a ritual.
Okay, so the purpose of the Aztecs was to torture and murder children.
And would you agree?
Well, no, no, no, that was part of a ritual that a group of Aztecs performed, mainly the astrologers.
And what's the purpose of that ritual to, I'm not sure why this is tough.
What's the purpose of that ritual to torture and murder children?
It was part of an astrologer eat brains, right?
And they found that there was the part of the ritual was more, had a better performance, the more torture and pain that the individual suffered before their brains were eaten.
Okay, so I'm not sure why we're having, I'm not sure why we're having any hiccups here.
So the purpose of the ritual or the methodology of the ritual was the torture and murder of children.
It was to extract chemicals from the brain that had psychedelic effects.
Okay.
Which was by torturing and murdering children.
Yes.
I mean, other, but you have to remember that other tribe, things like ayahuasca, right?
That there were the Calathians that had the peyote, right?
I mean, there were other tribes using other means to obtain their connections with the spirit realms.
What the fuck?
What I'm trying to talk about.
What the living hell would ayahuasca, which is a plant, isn't it, right?
What would that have to do with what would picking a plant have to do with torturing and murdering thousands of children?
Well, that's a fantastic question.
But there are specific chemical compounds that can be consumed from eating human brains that have from the nervous system.
Well, what does that have to do with the torture?
So what?
So you want to talk?
So do you think that the people who performed lobotomies were torturing people in order to eat their brains and get high?
They were not.
So would you agree that however misguided it looks in hindsight, the purpose of the lobotomy was not to torture and murder people, eat their brains and get high?
The purpose of the lobotomy was actually, right, of putting women into this position of complete obedience and kind of a sex slave.
Are you saying that men did not receive lobotomies?
I'm saying that the primary victims of lobotomies were women, right?
So you're saying that the purpose of lobotomies was to create sex slaves?
I've not heard that one before.
I'm not sure if you're still here.
No, maybe he's gone.
I think he's gone.
Oh, that's a shame.
All right.
Well, that's all right.
Yeah, so I find it just kind of...
There we go.
Yeah, okay.
Hang on.
Sorry, are you the person I was talking to before?
I would like to make an actual point.
No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.
I would like to make an actual point so you don't get to jump out of a debate.
So are you saying that the purpose of lobotomies was to create female sex slaves?
The majority of victims became female sex slaves.
I don't think so.
I don't think so.
Well, you're not going to find that on the internet.
You're not going to find that in things that the public are reading.
But as somebody that has been interwoven with medical professionals that have been practicing for a long time, multi-generational medical professionals like lobotomies.
I'll ask.
But we're not here to.
I'm not sure what we're here for.
This is my show.
All right.
So, okay.
I'm here to correct you on colonization.
How many victims of lobotomies?
No, I wouldn't say victims.
How many people who were lobotomized became sex slaves?
Became sex slaves.
Sorry, I don't mean to laugh.
It's just a wild thing.
Okay.
Became sex slaves.
All right.
It says that Grock is having a bit of an issue here, but hopefully it'll give me a chance.
Let's see here.
Lobotomies were performed in the mid-20th century, often on women for mental health reasons, and there are stories of abuse, but sex slaves is specific.
Okay.
No mentions of lobotomy.
Okay.
Let's see here.
Historical records of lobotomies performed in the 30s to the 50s, estimated 40,000 to 60,000 people worldwide, mostly in the U.S. and Europe, document severe outcomes like personality changes, cognitive impairment, and institutionalization.
However, no credible sources link these patients to forced sexual slavery or prostitution.
Search across medical history, psychiatric abuse reports, and trafficking archives yield no cases.
Anecdotal or fictional references exist, but these aren't historical facts.
There's a movie, Pinocchio, 964 Pinocchio.
Sex abuse did occur in some asylums housing lobotomy patients often as part of a broader institutional mistreatment, but no evidence ties it to organized sex slavery and so on.
So it did happen.
So it did happen.
No, you said most of the victims were most of the victims were women who were turned into sex slaves.
I mean, are you familiar with what a lobotomy is?
Sure, yeah, absolutely.
They put a knife on it.
Have you observed the patients after the procedure is performed and even after the recovery phase of the procedure?
I mean, not directly, but I've certainly read something about it.
Yeah, for sure.
Okay, well, then, I mean, you can understand how anybody that's suffered that horrendous, I mean, mechanical disruption of the frontal lobe of their brain is going to be a victim for the rest of.
Hey, I'm not a fan of lobotomies, but you can't say that they're the same as torturing children and eating their brains to get hot.
I mean, I don't even know how to explain that that's just not even the same thing morally.
And of course, yeah, there were definitely victims of lobotomies who were exploited.
And I'm sure that some of them.
You really don't like to stay on a topic, do you?
You just like jump all over the place.
I'm trying to tune my competition.
Okay, so what is good and what is evil?
Because you want to compare colonization to something called good and evil.
So tell me what is good and what is evil.
I think that I have a rather personal understanding of that, but I'm happy to share my personal understanding of good and evil.
Sorry, sorry, hang on.
I believe.
I'm sorry to interrupt.
There really is no such, that's like a personal understanding of science.
Good and evil, if we're going to judge England, say, 200 years ago or colonization in the here and now, we're talking about universal value judgments.
So, you know, rape, theft, assault, and murder are always evil.
And so there's no such thing as a personal understanding, but you studied this at the undergraduate level, right?
You studied communication, which is the science of human interactions, and you are very concerned, which I applaud you for.
You're very concerned with moral issues, which is good, obviously morally good to be concerned with moral issues.
So if you studied human interactions for years and you're very concerned with moral issues, then you must have some idea, not just a sort of personal feeling like I like jazz, but some sort of objective idea of what good and evil is.
Absolutely.
Okay, good.
So don't give me, that's why I say don't give me a personal thing, but give me something more objective about good and evil.
What is good and what is evil?
I believe that good in efforts towards and unto fairness and justice.
And I believe that evil is away from justice and towards selfishness and narcissism.
Okay.
It's a bit of a synonym thing, right?
Fairness and justice.
Because there's two definitions of fairness, right?
In general, right?
So there's equality of opportunity and there's equality of outcome, right?
So equality of opportunity is everyone is subject to the same moral laws and let the chips fall where they may.
Equality of outcome is take from the rich, give to the poor.
Take from the more able, give to the less able, which tries to give some sort of fairness or equality of outcome.
And of course, there's also justice, which means punishing people for violating persons and property usually.
Or there's social justice, which means the aforementioned equalization of outcomes.
So I'm not sure when you say sort of fairness and justice, whether you're talking about equality of opportunity or equality of outcome.
It's really not that complicated.
Okay, don't insult me.
Yeah, you don't need to do that.
That's not a nice or pleasant or positive way to have a conversation.
Have I done anything to insult you?
Have I said no, it's really not that complicated?
It's kind of a snarky thing to say, right?
The most that an intellect can do is simplify things.
And I think that what you're trying to do is convulate certain things in a way that detracts from the actual point of substance.
No, that's not.
That's not how thought works.
So the way, I guess you haven't studied philosophy.
So the way that philosophy works is you need to define your terms, right?
So would you agree that fairness can mean different things to different people?
I would agree.
Fantastic.
Okay, so fairness means different things to different people.
And since we're talking to a worldwide audience for all time, there's no point having the conversation if I don't know what you mean by a term like fairness.
Like if you said the number two, I wouldn't ask the definition of the number two because that's objective.
But fairness is a word that is used by different people to mean different things.
So what we do in philosophy is we define our terms.
It's not overcomplicating things.
It's just asking for precision.
So what do you mean by fairness?
I still think that a bunch of newborn puppies have a better understanding of fairness than our politicians.
Okay, but I would like to, I don't care about the politicians or the puppies.
I care about how I care about what's your definition of fairness.
Hold on, hold on.
So I personally.
No, we're not.
You're telling me about politicians and puppies.
I need to know your definition of fairness.
Hold on.
Don't interrupt me, please.
Okay.
I work very, I try to not interrupt you, and I appreciate the same mutual respect.
Well, and I'm sorry, I won't interrupt you if you answer my question.
But if you start talking about politicians and puppies without answering my question, I'm going to interrupt you to answer my question.
Or you can tell me you're not going to answer my question, which is fine too.
Cynicism, I think, is relevant here.
Do you agree?
I have no idea.
I'm just trying to ask you what your definition of fairness is.
Cynicism is very relevant here.
Do you agree?
I have no idea what you're talking about.
I just want your definition of fairness.
Okay, what kind of your cynicism, as in the school of philosophy, right?
The philosophical school of thought, cynicism?
Well, see, the cynics of ancient Greece is one way of using the word cynicism.
Another one is generally to have a negative view of life and its outcomes.
I don't even know if you're talking about the school of thought or the general concept of cynicism.
Continue on the topic of philosophy and assume, right, that we're talking about the school of thought, cynicism.
I think that its relevance to the laws of nature and natural laws are important in this discussion.
Would you give you one more opportunity or I'm going to move on?
Because if you're not going to answer my questions, then we're not even talking to each other.
I'm going to ask you again if you can give me your, because you said that good is that which promotes fairness, but I don't know what you mean by fairness.
And so I'll just give you, you know, maybe we've had a miscommunication, maybe I haven't been clear, but I would like a definition of fairness to be the next words out of your mouth.
Otherwise, I'll bid you a good night and move on to somebody else.
I am appalled.
Good day.
Okay.
All right.
So this is somebody who doesn't want to provide any definitions.
And it's really sad, of course, that people have gone.
I don't blame this young person because this is a young person who has been unfortunately exposed to a lot of bad education and doesn't understand about the need to define terms, won't answer questions, rambles all over the place, comes up with outlandish claims like there was a lobotomy to sex slave direct pipeline, and then gets offended when I actually ask him to answer a question.
So this is unfortunately somebody who has been raised and trained badly.
And again, I have sympathy for that person as young as they are.
But if you ever listen to this again, I hope that you will learn that if you want to have a conversation with somebody and you make a claim, you have to define your terms and provide some evidence.
All right.
Oscar.
Yes.
I can second that, Stefan, and good on you.
No, thanks, man.
Appreciate it.
Hey, you know what?
I mean, I was young and confused too.
So I could be.
But go ahead.
What's on your mind?
Yes.
Thank you.
So with this colonization, it was kind of overlapped with India.
And I'm curious if you could speak to Mother Teresa, you know, who arrived in Calcutta in the 1920s and died in Calcutta approximately 70 years later.
Were you able to speak to her?
What do you think her perspective would be on colonization, given that she was targeting the case?
I couldn't honestly tell you.
And I mean, I'm sure that she did some good for the poor.
I generally, you know, there's two ways of dealing with the poor, and they're not mutually exclusive.
But one way of dealing with the poor is to give them stuff.
And listen, that can be important in emergencies and so on.
But the other way of dealing with the poor is to work hard and create jobs.
You know, so all of the leftists and the socialists who say they care about the poor, it's like I've created well over 100 jobs over the course of my life.
I've gotten massive pay raises for people, and of course, I've helped people with their careers and income and Bitcoin and all of that over the last 20 years of the show.
So I've actually helped the poor in sort of very practical ways.
And so Mother Teresa was a transfer of money.
She got money and she gave them to the poor.
And again, I don't think that's a terrible thing to do.
That can be helpful and important in an emergency.
But I have more respect in the long run for people who actually go out, start businesses, and create jobs and hire people.
And of course, everyone you hire marginally raises the income of everyone else, right?
Because it takes people out of the market, which reduces supply and increases wages through slightly incremented demand.
So I don't know what Mother Teresa would think of with regards to.
I know that what Christopher Hitchens used to rip on Mother Teresa quite a bit, I assume, because she was not of his belief system, to put it mildly.
But yeah, I don't know what Mother Teresa would think of with regards to colonialism, but I do know that she was somebody who, I mean, she said, not that I help the poor, but I help the Christ in the poor and so on, right?
And she also, wasn't she quite a fan of dictators?
Didn't she go around having fun hangouts with various dictators?
I could be wrong about that, but that's sort of my biggest question.
I don't know much about Mother Teresa.
I kind of thought that maybe years ago I may have seen one of your treat series on her, but may have been mistaken.
I did one on her, but I think I've mentioned her on the show from time to time.
Yeah, well, I think she was an amazing, amazing human being.
But thanks for that, Stefan.
You're very welcome.
You're very welcome.
All right.
Let me just look this up here.
Did Mother Teresa or Saint Teresa of Calcutta met several dictators, including receiving donations from them?
And, you know, this is the Gary Epi argument regarding Epstein that, you know, if JF Gary Eppi took some money from Epstein, at least Epstein wasn't using that money to prey on children and so on.
So I'm not going to nagged her too much for any of that kind of stuff.
But all right, if there's any other questions, issues, challenges, problems, Mike, Mike, if you want to unmute, I'd be happy to hear.
And T. Paris will get to you before the end of the show.
And I appreciate everyone's input and conversations tonight.
Ah, yes.
Mother Teresa met with Jean-Claude Baby Doc Duvalier, the Haitian dictator, in 1981.
She traveled to Haiti to receive the Legion de Honor award from him, publicly praising him as a friend of the poor and a supporter of her work despite his regime's notorious human rights abuses, including torture and extrajudicial killings.
She also met his wife, Michelle Duvalier, and accepted substantial donations from the family.
After Anvil Oxa's death in 1985, she visited Albania in 1991, her first return since fleeing as a child, and prayed at his tomb, laying a read to intercede for his soul amid reports of supernatural disturbances there and so on.
While she visited countries under dictators like Pinochet, I don't know, dictator, anti-communist, potato, potato.
But anyway.
All right.
Let's see.
I think we have not heard from Mike.
Let's go with T. Powers.
If you'd like to unmute, I would be happy to hear.
Hey, Steph.
Hello.
Sorry, you called on me earlier, and you must have cut out.
So I missed you that.
Sorry to nobody's being rude there.
So I think it's really funny that the Indian response is the way that it is.
But one thing I thought about is that India is benefiting, or maybe I shouldn't say benefiting as much from the exportation of Western technology to that country.
And you were talking about something.
Hang on, I want to make sure I understand what you mean.
India is benefiting from the exportation of Western technology to that country.
Oh, the importation.
Importation.
Okay.
So I want to make sure I understand that.
So are you saying that in the past, combustion, steam engine, internal combustion engine trains and the telegraph was a big one for India?
It's one of the things that allowed it to unite as a country.
So you're sort of saying Western technology in the past, particularly the 19th century being taken over to India was a big plus.
And I think it was.
Yeah, I think it was.
I'm also saying now today, things like the internet and electricity and things like that.
I think that you were talking about something earlier, which was this failed experiment, this 300-year experiment of Westerners exporting their ideals to the rest of the world with this idea that we could make them like us if they just knew the way that we think.
We can't even make us like us.
If it's possible to go to Haiti and turn Haitians into highfalutin Jeffersonian Republicans, why not do that in Skid Row in Washington, D.C.?
I mean, it's always struck me as kind of funny that, I mean, people in Washington Congress, they can't even fix Washington, but they expect to be able to fix Iraq.
And it's like, if you're so good at this, then how about you fix what you can literally see outside your window and not worry so much about what's on the other side of the world?
But of course, it's because it's all a fraud that they don't know how to fix anyone except their own line, their own pockets.
Yeah, and it's interesting.
I kind of want to know what you think about this too, because this spreading of Western technology, particularly in India, it seems to me that they've been given just enough rope to hang themselves with in terms of this Western technology has allowed their population to grow to some degree because they've had access to Western wealth via the internet and electricity and things like that, and also by immigration.
And, you know, not to mention immunization and malaria treatments and sanitation.
Oh, yeah, for sure, for sure.
And now, I don't know if you've seen someone was sharing a map of the fecal contamination of the ocean around India and the extreme fecal contamination and other bacterial contamination of the Ganges.
And the Ganges is a holy river, and the Ganges got so bad that they put turtles in to try and clean it up and the turtles all died.
I mean, it's terrible.
And the last time they did any measuring of this, back in 2019, they found that over 600,000 Indians died from diarrhea.
So, I mean, the cost, you know, we think like, oh, we should share our technology with the world in the same way that we've been trying to share our ideas with the world.
And the consequence is a net loss for absolutely everybody because now there's overpopulation.
Well, it's funny because everyone talks about overpopulation except for themselves, right?
But I mean, and I sympathize with the Indians to this degree that it is incredibly frustrating to look at, say, the West, you know, which a thousand years ago, 1,500 years ago, was primitive.
I mean, not necessarily, obviously, Greece and Italy and so on.
But if you look at Scotland, say, you know, I sort of talked about this in the presentation I just reposted from 10 years ago about how the reason that everyone gets conquered is our ancestors sucked.
Like, I mean, why did the Romans so easily take over the Picts?
Well, because they thought that painting themselves blue made them invulnerable.
And so, so, yeah, like the ultimate warriors of the blue man group.
So, so we want recent evidence.
And so, looking at the leaps forward that say, let me just say England, right?
I mean, it must be so bizarre to be a giant subcontinent ruled by a tiny island.
And that's a cognitive dissonance.
How is that possible?
How is it possible that a hundred million or 200 million people are ruled by a couple of thousand Brits?
And that is so incomprehensible to people that I think there's just this confusion and anger and can't be explained unless, unless, right?
And I think this is part of the general colonist or colonized narrative.
Well, the only way that a small number of pasty Brits could rule an entire subcontinent is because we were so nice and good and they were just bottomlessly evil and willing to do terrible things that we were just too pure and nice and good to do.
Does that sort of make sense?
Yeah.
Well, and I think that kind of their inability to comprehend what made us capable of doing that is part of why they're so dangerous to us now, because their hatred is sort of, you know, we can't placate that in any way constructively from our end, because they oftentimes, because of their IQ difference, they have this inability to comprehend the differences between our races and cultures and things like that.
Well, it is, it sort of reminds me of the mafia in like the British, like, so if you've got a nice town in Italy or Sicily, I guess Sicily more so.
Got a nice town in Sicily, a bunch of hardworking people, and yet it's a very small number of people who run the society, right?
They go in and out from organized crime to the politics, to the police, they sort of circulate.
And so why is the mafia in control or so wealthy in this relatively small town?
Well, it's because the mafia is willing to do terrible things that the general population is not willing to do.
The mafia have no conscience.
They're evil.
They'll just as soon as look at a guy as break his arm or slash his throat or whatever it is, right?
They'll torture them.
So it's a small number of people who can be in control of a large number of people because the large number of people are good and nice and they kiss the children on the forehead and read them stories and play with the dog and just are too good to do the horrible things that the mafia is willing to do and therefore organized crime run.
And I think that's a general, like, how is it possible that this small island run the third of the world and it's it's it's so hard to explain.
And you're right, the IQ and culture and there's a bunch of things that really go a long way towards explaining that.
And I remember reading, this is a famous book by Diamond, I think his name was for some reason, Guns, Germs, and Steel.
And I remember starting to read that book some years ago.
And it starts off with a refutation of the entire IQ hypothesis.
And I'm like, I don't think you can just wave that one away because it does seem to have some pretty solid explanatory power.
And, you know, the higher IQ stuff, so let's look at the East Asians, right?
The higher IQ stuff is the result of unbelievable levels of brutal suffering.
It's not like some gift that was given.
It's because, you know, the East Asians came out of the Siberian winters where you really had to plan well to survive those winters.
And so, yeah, it is, if we can't talk, and this is, I think, why all of this stuff is suppressed.
And I talked about this the other day too.
The IQ stuff is suppressed because it provokes a lot of social conflict.
Because then the only answer as to why a small group can rule a large group, which I don't agree with, the groups, no group should rule any group.
Voluntaryists that way.
I think that I just wanted to point that in for new listeners.
But if you don't have things like IQ and history or the very strict policies that British people had for like hundreds of years to kill or reproductively disable 1% of the population every year.
And that's going to, it's a relatively small number of people who commit the vast majority of crimes.
The Pareto principle applies to just about everything.
And so the fact that the British spent a couple of hundred years culling their most aggressive and violent citizens also has something to do with what happened.
And of course, the rich tradition that comes out of Greco-Roman philosophy combined with Christian universalist ethics and all of that kind of stuff.
And the fact, and I talked about this when I was on my speaking tour in Australia, lo those, what, seven years ago now, I think, which is I said that compared to the Aboriginal culture, let's say the Western culture, the British culture in particular, we have our eccentrics.
And we don't necessarily kill people who challenge social norms.
I mean, we'll make their lives uncomfortable.
Don't get me wrong.
I mean, I can sort of attest to that as a whole.
So we will push back, we will fight, we might deplatform, we might chase them out of town, but we won't just out and out kill them.
And so we end up with a lot of challenge, a lot of friction, and a lot of growth that comes out of that.
If you get highly conformist cultures, I'm sort of thinking of the 6,000-year copy-paste Chinese society or things like that, and Japanese where simply going against the grain is not allowed.
Like I was talking to a friend of mine who's living in Japan not too long ago, and he was reminding me, of course, of the Japanese phrase that it is the nail that sticks up that gets hammered down and cut the tall poppies and so on.
And so there are some cultures which have developed a tolerance for disagreement.
And that has to do with free speech.
And that has to do with England has this charming word eccentric, right?
Oh, that's just Bob.
He's an eccentric.
He doesn't believe blah, blah, blah.
And, you know, the difference between eccentric and crazy is often an income of £10,000 a year or more.
But we allow for disagreements.
And navigating those disagreements is very exciting and very challenging.
It is the ultimate, I don't want to say edge sport.
It's the ultimate extreme sport.
Let's just say it's the ultimate extreme sport to navigate those disagreements.
And I've been talking about this for a while, even months before what happened with Charlie Kirk, that to do that dance with society, to challenge society and to provide better explanations that offend existing power structures is something that is a, it's the most exciting challenge I've ever had in my life, which is like, tell them enough truth that you have a chance of changing the world, but not so much truth that they just kill you or disable you in some manner.
So I think in those cultures where you're just simply not allowed to disagree, and I won't get into the details, but I've had many years experience and exposure with Indian cultures.
It's not just one, obviously, but Indian cultures.
And it's not really allowed to disagree very much.
It's really just not.
There's a lot of hostility.
And if society can't tolerate its eccentrics, if it can't tolerate those who push back and disagree with dominant narratives, it can't evolve.
You need a stable body for sure, but you also need mutations.
That's what evolution is.
It's mutations that are selected for advantage or disadvantage.
And if you shout everyone down or kill them or drive them out or imprison them or whatever, then people don't speak up and they don't speak out and they don't disagree.
And without that disagreement, you don't get progress.
And that's fine.
You can have your comfort.
But the problem is, if you exist in a world where other cultures are going to allow disagreement and are going to allow that kind of progress, and those cultures will take you over.
It just is the way that it is.
And it's funny because, I mean, you can see this at the cultures, because we are losing free speech in the West quite rapidly, and certainly in England extremely rapidly, you don't have those disagreements.
And the best way to kill a culture is to kill the capacity to disagree and defend.
And we even saw this tonight, right?
Where we were kind of wrestling, in a way, wrestling for control of the conversation, right?
In that he said, do you consider colonialism bad?
And I'm like, well, we have to define good and bad.
And he said, well, good is justice and fairness and badness is narcissism and selfishness.
I was like, okay, what does goodness and fairness mean?
Well, puppies and politicians.
But then when I was quite assertive, I wasn't mean.
I didn't call him names.
I wasn't aggressive.
But I was assertive and said, the way that this works is you have to define your terms.
And he wouldn't define his terms.
And I said, give you a fourth try.
I'm either going to have this.
You're going to define your terms or I'm going to move on to someone else.
Yeah.
And he got highly offended and upset and this, that, and the other, right?
And so we couldn't even have that disagreement because I'm asking him to define his terms.
Now, if he said, listen, I'm not going to define my terms, that's fine.
Then I would just move on to someone else, right?
But so even that, like, I'm not allowed to disagree with him and say, no, you have to define your terms.
He just gets offended and huffy and in a sense, rage quits or storms off.
And I'm appalled.
You see, more appalled at me asking him to define his terms than he seemed to be about colonialism.
And here's the funny thing, too, about, I'm sorry to bitch on the guy when he's not even here, but it's something that I find absolutely fascinating that he could not condemn the torture and murder and cannibalism eating children's brains.
He seemed very hesitant to condemn that.
But when I kind of insisted that he define his terms, he got really upset and was appalled.
Like he was appalled, not at Aztecs killing and eating children's brains, but at me asking him to define his terms.
That was where he was appalled.
And I just, wow, is that ever a crazy moral system?
The only thing that appalls you is being asked to define your terms, not the literal torture and murder and cannibalism on children.
Anyway, really interesting, by the way, that he opened up the conversation.
And I'm sorry to go on as well, but since he opened up the conversation with, oh, I went to this college and studied this.
It's like, okay, so you're kind of confessing that you've been programmed by colleges to have this murderous view of our culture in the way that you justify these ancient cultures, these pre-Abrahamic cultures murdering children because, oh, but they want to get high, man.
It's like, dude, what are these classes?
I mean, the moment he says he took a bunch of years of study of a very vague degree at the University of Hawaii, which is super woke.
I mean, I've been to Hawaii.
It's like a super woke place.
I'm like, okay, so this is just going to be noble savage worship and again, anti-white, right?
Yeah, this is like boring.
The programming of the future promise of murder.
I mean, this is the programming of future generations to allow the ever-dwindling population of whites to become extinction if they get their way.
I mean, we've gone from 30% of the global population to 8% and things continue to go that way.
2% women of childbearing age.
Yeah, it's definitely an exciting challenge.
And the 20th century was not kind to European civilization.
And I'm hoping, of course, that we can, you know, get the right issues out, get the right thoughts out.
And I've certainly been encouraging, I mean, not just, I mean, not everyone, but I guess it hits whites a little bit more if they listen to me a little bit more to have kids and all of that.
All right.
Is there anything else that you wanted to mention?
I appreciate your call and your time.
I just wanted to mention one last thing.
I think that Western civilization needs a language update.
So many things have changed so rapidly in Western civilization that we don't have all the language that we need in order to defend ourselves, both ideologically and physically, from this world that is encroaching upon us and threatening our extinction.
So I often think a lot about how weak our language is in our ability to use it to defend our communities and our ideas.
Yes, well, of course, it is generally the goal that we could do it through language because the alternative is too unpleasant.
All right.
So I did ask, I think there's an Indian fellow.
I am going to butcher your name and I apologize for that.
Ujabal.
Ujaval.
If you wanted to set me straight on colonialism, I would be happy to hear your thoughts.
Divaldi?
Vijaval?
Divedi.
No?
Yes, no.
I know that there's a little bit of a delay, so I can wait there.
Going once, going twice.
Oh, I was so hoping to get the Indian perspective, but it looks like that is not going to happen.
And I'm afraid I have another call at eight, so I'm going to stop here.
But I really do appreciate your time and have yourselves a glorious evening.
If you want to follow me on X or subscribe on X would be very much gratefully appreciated.
You can go to FDRURL.com slash X and have yourself a glorious evening.
We will talk tomorrow night with full-on glorious speckled forehead video and hi deaf because the cameras get better as I get older.
It's really, really a bad combo, but I'll survive.
Thanks, everyone.
Have a great night.
We'll talk to you tomorrow night, 7 p.m.
Eastern.
▲
Export Selection