Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux - THE TRUTH ABOUT THE BENGAL FAMINE!! Twitter/X Space

All Episodes

Previous Next

Oct. 4, 2025 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux

01:57:28

THE TRUTH ABOUT THE BENGAL FAMINE!! Twitter/X Space

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hi, everybody, Stefan Molyneux from Free Domain, 3rd of October 2025.
	Hope you're doing well.
	And I'd like to welcome all our new friends from South Asia.
	Welcome to Philosophy.
	I think you'll actually be surprised how much we have in common, and how much I agree with everything that you're saying.
	You dislike colonialism.
	I dislike colonialism, both of the effects it had on other countries and the effects that it had on the uh British people.
	My ancestors weren't my ancestors were enslaved to run an empire, your ancestors were subjugated under that empire.
	So yeah.
	I mean, you know, this is the elites, they get us fighting with each other rather than looking up and seeing who's pulling all the strings and all this kind of stuff.
	But that is a sort of tragic reality of life as a whole.
	Now, um of the things that comes up a lot is the Bengal famine.
	The Bengal famine.
	So we're gonna just touch on it uh briefly.
	I did some of this research many years ago.
	I just kind of refreshed it now, then I'd be happy to take questions, comments, criticisms, whatever's on your mind.
	But let's look at the 1943 Bengal famine, because this is often cited, along with this absolutely ludicrous idea is that somewhere between 45 trillion dollars and sixty-five or sixty-six trillion dollars, because sixty-seven would be crazy, of wealth was plundered from India, and somehow the belief is that if you take diamonds, you're taking wealth.
	Uh, you're not.
	Uh, diamonds are not wealth.
	The only thing that really matters with regards to wealth is increased worker productivity.
	That's really all that is to do with wealth.
	I get it, if a thief steals a diamond, then he can sell the diamond and can buy stuff, but simply transferring diamonds is not wealth.
	And in fact, it can be really bad.
	Uh if you want to know one of the great tragic stories of human history.
	It is uh when the Spanish discovered the new world, went into the index uh the uh the um the Incan and the Mayan civilizations, the Aztec civilizations, and scooped up all the gold and they sent it back was it, Queen Isabella, they sent it back to Spain.
	And if you've got a gold-based currency and you get a huge amount of gold coming flowing in, that drives up the prices of everything, and nobody can afford it.
	It's like money printing, it's like counterfeiting, it just drives up the prices of everything.
	And when it becomes difficult to live in a particular political or economic environment, the smart people with the most mobility tend to bug out.
	I remember being many years ago in work difficulties and business difficulties, and friends of mine saying, Man, it's time to get out of Dodge.
	It's gonna get out of Dodge.
	And the smart people left Spain because they couldn't really afford to live there with all this crazy inflation going on.
	In other words, you were being paid in gold, or you had stores of gold, and your gold could just buy less and less because there was more and more gold, right?
	If you have uh $10 and 10 oranges, each orange is going to cost a dollar.
	If you have ten oranges and twenty dollars, each orange is gonna cost, that's right, two dollars, right?
	So all of their savings they had to leave Spain in order for that they had to take their money, take their gold, leave Spain so they could actually buy something with it.
	And this caused a recession in Spain that lasted a four hundred years.
	Because IQ, intelligence, G, whatever you want to call it, significantly G for general intelligence, G also for genetic.
	By late teens.
	So when the smart people go, they take all their smart genes with them.
	And it took about 400 years for the Spanish economy to recover.
	So uh terrible, terrible stuff.
	This is the kind of stuff that can happen.
	So let's look at the Bengal famine, which is cited, and listen, let's just be obviously completely clear about the compassion and empathy situation or standard, which is death by starvation is one of the ugliest conceivable ways to die.
	And of course, we've seen it happen in a wide variety of circumstances and situations, some of which are political, some of which are military, some of which are natural disasters, some of which is undeveloped infrastructure.
	One of the horrible things that happened throughout most of European history up until like the 18th, 19th centuries, was that you could have excess food production in one place, and literally 10, 20 miles away, people could be starving to death, but there weren't roads.
	You couldn't get it there in time.
	Because whatever the farmer grows, you know, prior to freezing and refrigeration and so on, whatever the farmer grows rots in the field.
	And you can't get it, especially if it's raining heavily, you just can't get it to people.
	So starvation was a constant issue.
	It happened with the black, the sort of waves of black death that happened in Europe.
	It happened in places in China, of course.
	And it happened sometimes, it's politically engineered, which is in Ukraine and other places, primarily Ukraine, in the 1930s.
	The communist government would give to the local commissars lists and numbers of what they had to produce.
	And it's like you either produce that or you're going to a gulag, so they of course said, yes, yes, we will produce it.
	They couldn't produce it for a variety of reasons.
	And the central Russian government would then say, well, you're just hoarding, and they would come in and take all of the go uh all of the grain, including the seed crop, and tens, ten million people, sometimes more, uh, starve to death.
	That's political.
	So I really want to be clear about this, that what I'm about to talk about in no way diminishes the monstrous suffering of the Indian people in Bengal.
	In 1943, it was monstrous, horrible.
	I I I don't have enemies bad enough ever that I would wish starvation upon them.
	So I want to be really clear about that, just so nobody thinks that there's anything cold-hearted in what it is that I'm saying.
	But, you know, to understand the world, we have to put aside some of our sentimentality.
	Maybe this is a bit more of a dude thing, but we have to put aside some of our sentimentality and look at sort of the facts.
	So let's look at what is going on, or what went on.
	Now, also recognize it's really hard to get the facts about history.
	I don't know if you've ever had this in the absence of photographs.
	I've had this a couple of times in my life.
	This is not a personal anecdote, but I think it's helpful to understand how difficult history is to penetrate.
	I mean, people can't even agree what happened uh over COVID.
	Uh people can't agree uh what the cause of inflation is.
	People can't agree, I mean, they couldn't agree whether there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, which of course they turned out not to be.
	That people can't even agree on the origins of World War One or the origins of World War II, uh, World War II was a worldwide fight against communism as a whole.
	And so there's a lot of uh disagreement.
	So I'm also not saying that everything that I'm gonna say is any kind of final answer, because we weren't there, it wasn't filmed, uh people have every motive to lie about history because it controls resources in the present, and uh records are destroyed, and and so on.
	And of course, a lot of people died.
	So let's have a look at what happened.
	And the Indian horror, which I completely and totally understand and sympathize with, the Indian horror at this mass starvation estimates are from uh 1.5 to 3 million people, right?
	So a quarter to half of a Holocaust, primarily from starvation and disease and other related causes between mid-1943 and early 1944, uh, the suffering that went on in India is beyond monstrous.
	And it's also important to remember that there are some truly sinister, ugly, nasty and evil people in this world who generate outrage in order to divide humanity.
	So, of course, there are all of these people who say, and they're leftists in general, communist socialists, they say, well, the West only became rich because it stole from Africa and it stole from India, and they stole fifty trillion dollars and all of your wealth, and I and they say, well, Churchill deliberately starve to death like this is whipping people up into a frenzy of hostility and hatred.
	And listen, brothers.
	All over the world, in India, everywhere that we are broadcasting to, brothers.
	I mean, please try not to fall for these things.
	Divide and conquer, divide and conquer, divide and conquer.
	That the British just hated the Indians and stole from them and slaughtered them by the millions and raped their daughters, and like just whipping people into a frenzy.
	And what that does, of course, is it justifies blowback, karma, revenge, and you can see the revenge fantasies uh flowing over the timeline as my tweet goes past twenty-two uh million views.
	You can see this hatred that somehow the tax serfs in England uh benefited massively from the empire and then the tax serfs in India now can hate the tax serfs in England and you know, meanwhile, of course, the people in charge just fucking laughing at us.
	Just laughing at us.
	You wouldn't want a mob to be whipped into a frenzy and tear your house and family apart.
	And we have to resist the lure of those who get us to fight each other based upon falsehoods.
	It's easy to slide into hatred, and it's easy to say, oh, all the sorrows and troubles of my own people are because of these other people over there, and we're all half enslaved to the powers that be, but those slaves are really the enemy, and and my slaves aren't slaves, or they're only slaves because of those slaves, and it's like the British people didn't want the empire.
	We didn't want the empire.
	We didn't want it.
	How do you know that?
	Because we had to be forced to enforce it.
	We didn't want it.
	Do you think the average farmer in Sussex or Kent or Essex?
	Northumbria?
	Worcester.
	Do you think that they woke up and said, Oh boy, you know, I've got my lovely wife, I've got my kids here, I've got a great farm, I've got wonderful neighbors, I like having my uh pint down at the pub at the end of the day and singing songs, but you know what I really want to do is be put on a boat, sent halfway around the world to die of dysentery, enforcing a regime that steals from me and enslaves me in order to steal from and enslave others.
	Do you think that that's what the average British person wanted?
	No.
	We had to be forced into it.
	And viewing it's like if there's slave owners in the next country, and they force their slaves to fight you, saying, My enemy are the slaves.
	No.
	No.
	Brothers and sisters, come on.
	We have to be a little smarter than this.
	I say this to everyone.
	So of course people are gonna say, well, the reason your country is a bad says the government in every country.
	But the reason your country is bad is because of those other people over there they stole from I and you should watch my documentary on Hong Kong.
	Freedom Ain.com slash documentaries, totally free.
	I went out there, I took tear gas in the face for the cause of truth, and risked incarceration.
	And I talked about this is how the communists took over in in China.
	Is they went to the peasants, the poorer peasants, and they said, Ah, you see that guy up there on the hill, but the big house, the beautiful wife, the savings, the gold, the wealth.
	You know, he's only wealthy because he stole from your ancestors.
	Boom, stole.
	and just whip people up into a frenzy.
	Thank you.
	And then once they whip people up into a frenzy, those people go and kill all of the rich people, and they shoot everyone in glasses, and the cycle repeats.
	And they're a bunch of fucking cowards who whip up these hatreds.
	Bunch of fucking cows.
	They won't do the fighting themselves.
	They won't.
	They won't do they just spread vicious rumors to get strong men to fight each other.
	They're greasy little whispers and their iago finger caresses in the hairy ears of the masculine.
	You should go fight him.
	He said something mean about you.
	He stole from your ancestors.
	You fight him, you fight him, you fight him, you fight him.
	Bum.
	That's how it works.
	How it works.
	It's kind of feminine.
	No insult to our dear fairer sex, but those who can't fight themselves get other people to fight each other.
	It's a vile, greasy occupation.
	Which is never understaffed, sadly, because it's not so much the supply of lies.
	It's the consumption of lies.
	You know, it's not I'm not I'm not not in the NBA because they hate bald white guys.
	I'm just not.
	That's not why I'm not in the MBA.
	It's not because they just hate bald white guys.
	Um it's because I barely scratched six feet.
	And I don't like basketball.
	I literally could not live with that squeaking of the shoes.
	But it's like the shrieking of the damned.
	I couldn't do it.
	I couldn't do it.
	I don't even like watching sports.
	I love playing sports, I like watching sports.
	The reason that I'm not doing a worldwide singing tour is because people like good singing, apparently more than what I do, which is fair and fine.
	It's not because they hate me.
	Alright, so timeline of key events.
	We're going to cover the crises and causes leading to the famine, aid requests and deliveries, amounts were documented, reporting of the famine, British responses, Churchill's reported negative statements, with dates and contacts were available, and the factors that ended the famine.
	1941, November.
	The central British Indian government conferred powers on provincial governments under the defense of India rules to restrict food grain movement and requisition commodities, setting the stage for later wartime controls that disrupted distribution.
	So, of course, don't need to tell you all, this is two years two, two and a half years on November two, three years into the second world war, where England was arrayed against Japan and Italy and Germany.
	It was a time of crisis.
	I mean, if England had wanted to starve India, it would have done so in the hundred years or so previously.
	But anyway, so in 1942, in January, Punjab banned wheat exports, increasing rice demand in Bengal.
	Rice prices were already 69% higher than in 1939 due to wartime inflation and population growth.
	So let me give you a um a wee two-second primer on economic growth and population growth.
	If you take additional wealth and use it to produce more and more and more children, it's kind of hard to get wealthy.
	At least in the short run, because children are a consumption.
	Right?
	They cost money, and children keep women out of the workforce, and it takes, you know, 15, 17 years for women for children to become economically productive.
	And if you have increased wealth without a free market in goods, labor, land, capital, and services, then you have a whole bunch of kids who you're gonna have some really talented kids, some kids not so talented, but because there's not a raw meritocracy, which only the free market allows, you have a bunch of kids that aren't able to make a bunch of money.
	And what happens, of course, is you increase your wealth, but at the same time, you increase the mouths to feed without any continuing increase in productivity because the free market is not allowed to function.
	More food, more mouths to feed that aren't producing food.
	So, yeah, there is wartime inflation, of course, and population growth.
	So in March, Japanese conquest of Rangoon, aka Burma, aka Burma, later Myanmar began, cutting off rice imports.
	These imports accounted for 15 to 20% of Bengal's supply.
	British authorities implemented denial policies, rice and boat denial in coastal districts like Bakarganj, Midnap Border, and Kulna to prevent resources from falling to invaders, confiscating surplus paddy and about 45,000 boats, disrupting transport fishing and trade.
	Now there's this meme about Japan, and I don't want to go into big history here, but there's this meme about Japan, which goes something like this: the history of Japan, and it's like deadly bushido blade guy, samurai guy, and then a nuke, and then weird anime stuff, right?
	And this is deadly samurai guy time.
	The Japanese forces in the Second World War were staggeringly brutal in ways that can scarcely be conceived of.
	I mean, just go look up the tortures that they did on the POWs, particularly the Australians, was absolutely monstrous.
	I mean, they tested biochemical warfare, they did live vivisections, amputations, they uh just did the most appalling, appalling things.
	So it's pretty important to look at this history and say, huh.
	What would have happened if Japan had taken over, let's say, this part of India, right?
	What would have happened if Japan had taken over Bengal?
	Well, we know, to some degree.
	After the Japanese invaded Burma, they were horribly oppressive and exploited.
	They used Burma as a buffer state, they used it to obtain rubber and oil, they conscripted the population into forced slave labor to build infrastructure.
	Most notoriously, the Burma-Thailand Railway, also known as the Death Railway.
	These workers, alongside Allied prisoners of war, endured brutal conditions, beatings, torture, starvation disease, and insane levels of sanctionits and overwork.
	Punishments for minor infractions included savage physical assaults, slapping faces with tools, forcing laborers to kneel on sharp bamboo, often resulting in severe injuries or death.
	Estimates suggest up to a quarter of a million Burmese civilians died during the occupation from war-related causes, drug violence, famine, and disease.
	There were no good answers.
	In Burma in 1941, there's the British, or there's the Japanese.
	There were no good answers.
	Atrocities against civilians after the Japanese invaded Burma were widespread, particularly against groups perceived as disloyal.
	In the Atacan region, the invasion triggered intercommunal massacres in 1942 between pro-Japanese Buddhist Rakina and pro-British Muslim Rohingya communities.
	Japanese forces exacerbated this by slaughtering, raping, and torturing Rohingya villagers, expelling tens of thousands to British India.
	Of course, Bengal is...
	There's lots of refugees.
	So...
	Thank you.
	In April, Japanese forces sank 100,000 tons of merchant shipping in the Bay of Bengal.
	At least 500,000 refugees from Burma arrived in Bengal, increasing demand and spreading diseases like malaria and dysentery.
	It's kind of tough to get your crops in from the fields if you're bent over with dysentery or half dead from malaria, or dead from both.
	Either.
	So just understand the strains and the stresses.
	It's wartime.
	The Japanese are sinking merchant shipping.
	Half a million refugees from Burma come in Bengal.
	And food is short.
	In May, monsoon rains worsened refugee conditions, boat denial policy, fully implemented, halting river transport of food or supplies.
	The reason they did that was not to starve Bengal, but to prevent Japan from gaining additional resources.
	In June, the Bengal government imposed rice price controls below market rates, leading to withholding of stocks and black market growth.
	All you have to do to create shortages is mess with the prices.
	I mean, if they said you can Only sell your gold for a hundred dollars an ounce rather than three thousand plus whatever it is right now, close to four, I think.
	If they said, Well, you can only sell your gold for a hundred dollars an ounce, are you going to sell any gold?
	No.
	You're gonna hoard it.
	Or sell it on the black market.
	July.
	Bengal, Bihar and Orissa banned rice exports restricting interprovincial trade.
	The Bengal Chamber of Commerce launched the foodstuffs scheme prioritizing rice for urban war industry workers, diverting supplies from rural areas.
	Because normally the way that you solve a famine is there's a famine area, there's a shortage of food, which means the price of food goes up because there's a higher demand than there is supply, which brings food in from outside.
	Why not?
	Well, governments banned the interprovincial trade.
	So you were not allowed.
	If you were in India and you had food that you wanted to deliver or sell to Bengal, you were forbidden from doing it.
	In August, Indian National Congress launched the Quit India movement, sparking unrest and British crackdowns, including arrests and shootings of protesters, reducing political will for aid and fueling anti-British sentiment.
	that wanted to leave.
	And like it or not, if there's a big leaf...
	England wanted to get the British to quit India, there's going to be a little bit less desire to give food aid.
	sigh
	September, Churchill reportedly stated, I hate Indians.
	This is Churchill.
	I'm going to put this so nobody memes this.
	I hate Indians.
	They are beastly people with a beastly religion.
	In a conversation with Secretary of State Leo Amory, in the context of frustration over the Quit India movement and perceived disloyalty during the war.
	It was primarily Hindus that made up the Quit India movement as the Muslim League supported the British effort.
	In October, so you've got war, bans on trade, shipping catastrophes, you've got half a million refugees flooding into the region.
	It's a shit storm.
	It's a shitstorm.
	And you can't just say, well, it was just the British.
	Oh, I mean, they were fighting a war.
	Anyway, so in October, Mother Nature delivers perhaps the final blow.
	A major cyclone and storm surges hit Midnapur in southwestern Bengal, killing about 14,500 people and almost 200,000 cattle, destroying crops and spreading brown spot fungal disease on rice, reducing yields by up to 40% in affected areas.
	Japanese air raids on Calcutta triggered urban exodus and shop closures.
	This marks the start of the acute food crisis per the 1945 Famine Inquiry Commission.
	Now, Lord knows I'm not a fan of governments as a whole.
	However, I think it's fair to say that it was not the British government that caused the cyclone and storm surges.
	It was not the British government that caused this brown spot fungal disease to spread through rice, and it was not the British government that paid the Japanese to drop massive amounts of bombs on Calcutta.
	So December.
	Viceroy Linlifgau requested food imports, prioritizing military needs.
	British war cabinet responded with a small wheat offer for Western India, not Bengal, in exchange for Bengal exporting more rice to Ceylon, which was Sri Lanka.
	Officials like Governor John Herbert and General Claude Achenlak echoed raid aid requests.
	Right?
	So look, the people who ruled India were not indifferent to Indians.
	The they weren't Genghis Khan.
	They weren't the Bolsheviks.
	They weren't the Japanese.
	Certainly weren't perfect, but it was not motive by that sort of genocidal hostility that some of the Japanese had during the war.
	1943, in January, rice price rice prices nearly doubled amid alarming inflation.
	Lin Lifgau instructed Bengal's Premier to prioritize rice exports to Ceylon, even if Bengal faced shortages, reflecting wartime Priorities.
	I mean, without the troops being fed, the Japanese take over, and I guarantee you it's even worse, hard to imagine worse than what happened in Bengal in this time frame, but it would have been even worse under the Japanese of that, there is absolutely zero historical doubt.
	There's zero historical doubt that prisoners of war were treated overwhelmingly better, and domestic populations were treated overwhelmingly better by Allied forces as opposed to Japanese forces.
	I wouldn't even entertain anything to the opposite.
	That's just a historical as much of a historical fact as you can possibly get.
	But there's still all these price controls.
	So people aren't, even if they want to defy the ban on interpretable provincial trade of food, they can't bring food in.
	It's banned to bring food in.
	And is that all the fault of Churchill?
	No, Churchill is not running local provincial trade policies.
	When you get the price controls, it's like your body's pain signals aren't working.
	Right.
	You lean back and your elbow goes into a fire.
	It's like, ah, you know, how my a right?
	You want to because you're it hurts.
	But if you don't have that, you just leave your elbow in the fire until you smell the cooking flesh.
	And so price signals are there to tell you when there are there's an excess and there are shortages.
	You get rid of those price signals.
	And I know this sounds all kind of academic and abstract, but no, this is this is what gets people killed is price signals.
	If there's a shortage, the price is going to go up.
	That causes people to bring the food in.
	But prices were kept artificially low, and the trade was barred.
	So in March, rice price controls were rescinded on March 11th, leading to speculation and prices rising five to six times the pre-1942 levels, right?
	It's like you hold something underwater, shh, right?
	When you let go, it pops up really high.
	Cyclone damage continued, brown spot disease peaked, worsening crop shortfalls.
	In April, limited government relief in the form of agricultural loans, grain distribution, and test works, which were labor programs offering minimal food and pay to assess famine severity, began but was misdirected towards the wealthy and urban groups.
	Of course, this is always the problem with government policies, is they're not they're not applied objectively.
	They're it's the aristocracy of pool as Ayn Rand used to talk about, right?
	The wealthy and those in the cities have the most pull.
	The urban people are largely ignored, which is the people you'd most want to get involved in this kind of issue.
	So the miss this misdirection was carried out by agents of the provincial government and involved favoritism in distribution, with the black market siphoning off up to half of the supplies, and a focus on urban priorities over rural needs.
	The urban people are politically motivated, they're all concentrated, they're right there where the city offices are, the political offices are.
	Look, this is I mean, this is a sort of cliche about Indians being kind of scammers and stuff like that.
	I'm not going to feed into that cliche, but what I will say is that this would be the case with everyone.
	Is that if you are a political official, you get all of this wheat, you get all of this rice, you get all of this food, you're gonna give it to your friends, and you're gonna give it to your family.
	That's just an evolutionary biological imperative.
	You're not gonna send it out to no one while you watch your sister-in-law starve to death.
	The central government of India and British authorities provided directives and funding, but the day-to-day distribution remained a provincial, i.e.
	a local Indian-run matter, until October 1943.
	I'm not blaming anybody in particular here.
	There's no like, I mean, I know it's real easy.
	Churchill is like he did not make the rot disease.
	He did not make the cyclones.
	He did not cause the Japanese to become cruel.
	He did not force a half a million people to flood into an area already ridiculously short on food.
	He did not invent the fact that you can't fight a war, right?
	You know, the the the army marches on its stomach.
	You cannot fight a war.
	If your soldiers are hungry.
	You just can't.
	That's just a fact.
	And in war, horrible decisions have to be made.
	This is why we try to avoid war as much as humanly possible.
	Bitcoin fixes that.
	So it was local Indian distribution government matter.
	May first starvation deaths reported in six districts signaling the famine onset.
	Interprovincial trade barriers were abolished on May 18th to allow food inflows.
	But it doesn't just free market distribution networks, of course, supply chains or whatever, they're incredibly complex.
	I've actually worked in the business field in these areas.
	It's wild how complex.
	It is.
	So when you say you can't trade between the provinces, people just stop.
	They dismantle their whole supply chain networks because there's no point.
	And so you can't just start it up.
	People are just waiting there.
	Oh, I wonder if they'll make it legal today or tomorrow or the next day.
	They're not just waiting there.
	Right, just, okay, fine.
	The prices will go up right away.
	But it's not like everyone has changed.
	They've set up new supply chains, which are just domestic, and they've signed contracts and they can't just abandon all of that because some trade situation has opened up between you and another province, which could close again tomorrow.
	People in the business world hate political uncertainty.
	They've redirected all of their food is now they've set up their whole new business contracts.
	The population has changed.
	Food has flowed.
	And you can't just redirect it.
	It's not like a river.
	You damn it and undam it right into...
	Well, I guess it is a little bit like a river.
	If you damn it, it creates new channels and paths.
	And if you undam it, it's still going to use a lot of those old channels and paths.
	It doesn't just come right back to where it was before.
	In July.
	Newspapers like The Statesman and Amrito Bazar Petrika began detailed famine coverage, criticizing responses.
	Provincial gruel kitchens opened for a minimal caloric aid, though often contaminated.
	Churchill reportedly remarked, and again, it's probably not on tape.
	Why hasn't Gandhi died yet?
	In the context of skepticism about famine severity using Gandhi's survival during hunger strikes to question aid urgency.
	In August, the famine peaked.
	The statesman published graphic victim photos on August 22nd, raising global awareness.
	Churchill reportedly said of the Indians that they were breeding like rabbits during a war cabinet week meeting.
	Horrible.
	I absolutely get that.
	I'm not condoning any of that.
	It was wartime.
	And he probably wasn't sober, and Churchill had been bailed out by some fairly sinister forces in 1938.
	Ah, I've written a whole novel about this, so I don't need to get into all of that.
	But anyway, you should check it out.
	It's a great book.
	Called Almost at Free Domain.com slash books, also free.
	This expression, breeding like rabbits, was recorded by Aimory in his diary, which was published in 1988, but there's no exact quote.
	Amory wrote, then he got on to the theme of India breeding like rabbits and being paid a million a day by us for doing nothing about the war.
	Anyone attributing an exact quote to Churchill is not telling the truth.
	On August 4th, war crime, sorry, war cabinet, maybe recognized famine severity and approved 150,000 tons of Iraqi barley and Australian wheat.
	So the British government really did try to get food into the region.
	Rail repairs allowed supplies into Calcutta.
	Remember, stuff got bombed.
	It was really I mean, it's incredible how close we are to just going back to medieval, we're full, you're starving to death ten miles over.
	In September, Churchill stated something must be done on September 24th, and approved an additional quarter million tons of grain over four months, noting Indians were not the only people starving in this war.
	October.
	He requested and received military support, including 15,000 troops, lorries, aka trucks, and the RAF, the Royal Air Force, for distribution.
	Grain was imported from Punjab, medical resources increase around October 7th to 8th, Churchill urgent urged Wavell to divert shipping to for shortages if needed.
	In December, there was a record rice harvest, the large largest ever in Bengal.
	With land switched to rice, prices fell.
	Official relief ended by January 1944.
	This harvest combined with improved distribution marked the famine's end.
	In 1944, in January, eight deliveries arrived.
	130,000 tons of barley from Iraq, 80,000 tons of wheat from Australia, 10,000 tons from Canada, plus another hundred thousand tons from Australia.
	Total grain sent to Bengal from August 1943 through the end of 1944, over one million tons.
	In February, Churchill called an emergency war cabinet meeting on February the 14th.
	On aid, he telegraphed Wavell offering help, but noting limits.
	It was still war.
	In April, Churchill expressed grave sympathy for Italy Indian sufferings in an April 24th cabinet, but noted aid would incur grave difficulties elsewhere.
	He requested America in shipping from Roosevelt for a million more tons, which was refused due to the priorities of course of the D-Day invasion.
	In July, Churchill remarked positively to Indian delegate Sir Ramaswamy Mudalyay about ending notions of Indian inferiority and envisioning a great shining India.
	So did he say harsh things?
	Yeah, absolutely.
	But everybody's had harsh things about everybody else throughout human history, and I view it again.
	Objectively or not, the way I view it, since he said Indian should never feel inferior, and he envisioned a great shining India.
	He actually personally had great affection for India, which we know from his diaries.
	But this is the frustration of people in a long marriage occasionally getting mad at each other.
	I don't view it.
	Any more seriously.
	So there wasn't some concerted effort to starve out the people in Bengal.
	There was a horrible war.
	There were the insane cruelties of the Japanese.
	There was the need to avoid food getting into the Japanese hand, which locked also food from getting to Bengal.
	There were local there was local Indian corruption and favoritism.
	And again, I understand it.
	I would send food to my family as opposed to some stranger's family, so would you too.
	So this is not any kind of dis uh disrespect to the uh local Indians.
	That's just natural.
	But it was not some like if you look at uh sort of concentration camps, the Google Gulag archipelago, or you look at, of course, the Holocaust and so on, there's a direct, concentrated, encircled desire to eliminate and destroy.
	That was not the case.
	Not the case.
	It was not the case.
	You don't send food aid to people you're trying to kill.
	It was horrible, and the visceral ghastliness of this whole time period.
	I mean, I'm half a world away and eighty years away, and I find it horrible to even conceive of.
	You know, this is where people have to eat their pets, and oh my god, it's just unbelievable and and horrifying.
	And this, of course, is why we should try to reduce the amount of hostility and hatred in the world, because stoking that hostility and hatred leads to war, which leads to exactly these kinds of horrors.
	So if you think that uh hating the British is going to solve the problem of famine, uh, you're wrong.
	You're just falling for the psyop.
	That is put down by the powers that be, that we have to hate each other rather than recognize everything we have in common.
	And perhaps reserve our negative feelings for those running the show, rather than those of us trapped in the horror of it all.
	All right.
	So that's my statement.
	I'm very happy to take questions, comments, issues, challenges, or whatever is on your mind.
	And let's see here.
	I'm gonna try and get people I haven't uh talked to before.
	Sorry, got a swap out to my reading glasses, my slightly old and off-kilter reading glasses.
	If you have any comments, issues, challenges, whatever it is that you want to talk about, I'm happy to hear.
	Oh, uh catamello.
	Oh, caramello.
	If there's something you want to talk about, I'm happy to hear.
	I know there's a little bit of a delay, and you will need to unmute.
	Whoa, I I got it.
	Excellent.
	Thanks for having me.
	Uh Stefan.
	Uh sorry for my wrist and poor English, but uh I will try to to put in uh understoodable terms.
	I'm from Brazil, and I'm Brazilian journalist.
	My name is Marcos.
	And I would like to talk about the uh the the thing uh the famine, but as uh political political measure, as uh instrument of control.
	We we see in different periods of time that famine uh was used to submerge to put down populations uh just like happened the last century in the the Olamoto,
	uh the the fa the Ukrainian famine and the the Mao's famine, the the China's famine from the from the hipp after the revolution.
	So uh uh uh I would ask you is the instrument of control, this instrument of subjugation is always about the cities that we use the the the a form of uh to impose the will of the uh little bureaucracy or uh of the the will of uh
	empire and uh how to work uh truth is just like the Gaza's narrative.
	Uh we don't know the truth about it.
	So go how to get the truth about it before the uh the the millions of lives uh uh lost in the in this process.
	Well, I I appreciate that, and I just wanted to give a shout out to the lovely listeners in land of Brazil uh some years ago.
	I was invited down to give a speech in Sao Paulo, and um I met up with some wonderful libertarians down there and uh had the great honor of socializing with them, and I got to get out to Rio, and just what a beautiful country, lovely people.
	I know that's kind of a cliche, like, but but it really was a wonderful time down there, and I did um end up uh talking to politicians uh directly in my speech to go on about how corrupt they were.
	So it's really it was a good speech, and uh I'll put a link to the speech below.
	I also had a um uh Victor Sefatle is a professor down there, and we had a very good debate, and so I really had a wonderful time in Brazil.
	I would love to come back and I really appreciate that.
	So uh to the question is, of course, and it's a great question.
	Famine is used as a tool of political control and subjugation.
	No question.
	No question.
	So uh the two that are mentioned, of course, is the Holo Demor uh in Ukraine in the 1930s, and then in the 1950s, my 1960s in particular uh the Mao was not until a little later, but yeah, i is a tool of destroying the uh bourgeoisie, the with the Kulaks uh in Russia, the bourgeoisie.
	I don't know what the name for it is in Mandarin, but it is a way of destroying the small landowners.
	See, the middle class is a problem for totalitarians of the left.
	The reason it's a problem is that you can bribe the poor and you can capture the rich.
	Right.
	So you think of all the big big corporations in the West, They're hand in glove with the government.
	They've got their representatives, they've got their political operatives, they've got their legal departments, they've got their donations to politicians, and so they get their preferential legislation.
	Big business is pretty easy to capture in a leftist totalitarian system, or I guess even in the right.
	And the very poor don't have much political energy or effort, and they're relatively easy to bribe with uh free stuff, free health care and old-age pensions and stuff like that.
	But the middle class is a challenge, because the middle class wants lower taxes and smaller government.
	The uh upper classes, you saw this over COVID, when government power expanded immensely, the rich got fantastically richer, the poorer got their STIMI checks, and the middle class got completely destroyed.
	And in fact, I would argue that government policies in the West in particular were hostile in the greatest extent towards small business owners and the petty bourgeoisie, the shop owners, the small business owners, the bourgeoisie, and so on.
	And so uh when you have famine as a weapon of war, it is often used against the independence and resistance that comes out of the middle classes, and it is used against against them.
	So there's certainly true that a woman who has a black eye might have been punched by her husband, but it's also true there's an old book like the woman who walked into doors, right?
	She's oh, I just walked into a door.
	But it also could be the case that she walked into a door.
	In other words, it could be a conscious infliction of injury, or it could be an accident.
	And the British as a whole, for a variety of reasons, historical, philosophical, whatever it is, the British as a whole had spent a couple of hundred years killing off the one percent most psychotic and sociopathic and antisocial of their population, at least who weren't already in government.
	But uh violent criminals, excuse me, about one percent of the population had been uh either executed or exiled, or put to prison for the rest of their life, so there was a weeding out of the violent in uh British society.
	At least the violent who weren't conformists, the ones who were conformist and violent tended as they always have been to go into the military or the police force or something like that.
	So the level of cruelty, struggle sessions, sadism, torture, and mass slaughter that we saw going on under the communist regimes was not part of the British character.
	Obviously, I'm not saying that they were perfect.
	That is a yardstick for which no mortal man can compare outside perhaps Jesus.
	So it was not wielded to destroy political opposition.
	The food was not cruelly withheld in a time of peace, as it was in Russia in the 1930s and in China in the 60s.
	And it wasn't deployed against the political enemies of the existing regime.
	And as I said before, it was a response to a horrible invasion that was occurring from the Japanese, displacing half a million people.
	There was terrible weather, which of course is not something that you can plan for.
	I mean, the the as you know, Ukraine was called the bread basket basket of Europe.
	The the soil is so incredibly rich that it can feed, you know, three-quarters of Europe if properly managed.
	So while it certainly is the case that famine is a weapon of domination used by the upper classes against rebels, the best way you'd look at that is say, okay, well, was the uh was the upper classes driven by an ideology that sanctified slaughter?
	Well, communism is an ideology that sanctifies slaughter.
	Fascism, too, but we're talking about the two great leftist dictatorships, uh, Soviet Russia and communist China of the 20th century.
	And England did not have an ideology that sanctified mass slaughter.
	I mean, we can talk about war and so on, but with uh communism, it sanctifies mass slaughter because you label people as counter-revolutionaries, as reactionaries, as uh people with sympathies for the bourgeoisie, enemies of the proletariat.
	You dehumanize them.
	Uh You know, catch this fascist is sort of the typical example.
	You label someone a fascist and you can uh kill them.
	And the British did not have an ideology that justified the mass slaughter of innocent civilians.
	Whereas communists do.
	Communism is really the uncorking of the worst devils of human nature to slaughter whoever gets in their way.
	It is really I mean, I would say it's an insult to the mafia because the mafia at least has to survive within the communities in which they live and has to provide some level of justice, sort of that famous opening scene of The Godfather.
	So they can't just be random and slaughter, they call them civilians, right?
	The people outside the organized crime.
	So it is a special kind of uncorking of the devils of the human heart to have an ideology wherein you can dehumanize and label people as enemies and then slaughter them without any conscience, it seems whatsoever.
	This is the hundred million plus death count of communism just in the 20th century, which was like what, 40% of the demo side of a quarter of a billion people slaughtered outside of war by governments in the 20th century.
	So I don't see, and again, I'm obviously happy to be schooled and corrected and instructed.
	I'm far from an expert in all of this stuff, so again, I'm happy to be corrected.
	I do have a degree in this sort of stuff, but that doesn't certainly make me infallible, of course, right.
	But I don't see in the British Empire an ideology of dehumanization and mass slaughter in the same way that you get directly coming out of communism.
	Does that make any sense?
	Yeah, it does.
	And I agree with you.
	Uh the British Empire does didn't have uh uh ideology of ideas that justify the famine as uh political tool, just like the Soviet Union had and uh the China still have.
	So uh uh we can't uh we can uh uh associate this this behavior, this kind of action with the uh revolutionary behavior uh of Western of the global societies.
	And the British Empire, what happened in India, actually looks like way more to me as a circumstantial thing.
	Because of the contest and the part that they did.
	downgrading power of the British Empire that fine.
	Am I wrong?
	Yeah, I I would certainly so what we can say is let's say that India had achieved independence, not after the war, but in 1940.
	For whatever reason, India had achieved full independence.
	What would have changed?
	I mean, it was the local governments who were imposing these restrictions on food, transportation, sale, and delivery.
	The Japanese would still have been in the doorstep, half a million refugees would still have gone forward, except that they probably would have fallen to the Japanese because they wouldn't have the British troops there to protect them.
	And the weather would have still been the same, and what would have happened if India had gotten rid of the British a year before the start of the salmon, uh arguably it would have been even worse, because they would have been ruled over by the Japanese who would have been infinitely more brutal than nature and the British were.
	I mean, it's a wild thing.
	You know, the Japanese are so hated in many places in the Far East or in East Asia.
	I would I would compliment uh the the the observation because the Japanese Empire was hated in Korea, uh uh in China, every place they took uh that they took less century, hated them because of their the the kind of uh the kind of empire.
	Yeah, I mean you I'm sure you know about the rape of Nanking and the brutalities that the Japanese uh army instituted in China.
	And I'm sure you've heard this uh uh a wild thing to me that when the film Oppenheimer was being shown in South Korea, when the bombs were dropped on the Japanese cities, the audiences in South Korea would sometimes erupt into cheers.
	That's how the hatred still maintains itself.
	And I'm not blaming anybody for this.
	I'm just I'm just pointing out that this is a reality.
	And uh they have infinitely greater hatred.
	I mean, I I remember they didn't say there was some Pearl Harbor movie, pretty bad movie with Ben Affleck, but you know, the Americans weren't necessarily cheering every time a Japanese plane went down over Pearl Harbor.
	But yeah, the the cheers uh on the destruction of Japan were quite quite vivid and powerful.
	And so yeah, what would have happened to India in the absence of the British?
	Now, again, we can say, oh, well, but the British had already pillaged and blah, blah, blah.
	Okay, but let's just say they got their independence earlier, then they would have simply been taken over by the Japanese.
	Or something like it.
	Because the Japanese, uh, when they came in, they would simply work the local populations to death and then just move on to the next thing and work the local populations to death and move on to the next thing.
	And anybody who resisted would simply get uh publicly tortured to death, and that would, you know, unfortunately, well, fortunately, whatever, fortunate or unfortunate, that level of violence just works to subjugate the population.
	So I mean, it's the difference between North Korea and uh South Korea, right?
	So what would have happened if the British had left India prior to the Japanese um skirting around these these areas?
	I mean, just go and ask the Australian POWs.
	Oh, wait, you can't, because well, I guess most of them are dead by now, but uh they were tortured and slaughtered uh by the uh tens of thousands.
	So is there anything else that you wanted to uh mention?
	I would like to thank you for having me for this privilege.
	Um have I fan for a long time, and I'm very happy to coming back to here and well do this kind of space.
	It's uh it's uh it's uh great pleasure to hear you.
	Thank you, Stephen.
	Well, thank you.
	And of course, I I appreciate your very kind words, and I wish you and of course uh Brazil the the very best in your quest for freedoms.
	And we all, I guess you we can thank what the world's half filled the world's first half-trillionaire, Elon Musk, who was uh kind enough to retweet me, I guess this week.
	So uh that was uh uh we we owe him a great debt of free speech gratitude.
	And now let's go chasing rainbows in the sky.
	It's my imagination.
	Bad guy.
	See, everyone thinks of Billy Eilish.
	I think of one of the worst solo albums in history, which was Freddie Mercury's.
	Oh no, that was not somebody who was uh looking for getting in.
	That's just somebody who's at the top of the list.
	All right.
	Oh, the album Bad Guy Love Me Like There's No Tomorrow is okay.
	And sometimes I feel I want to break down and living on my own is great.
	I love that beginning.
	Bido da.
	It's just great.
	Great.
	All right, so if you have questions, comments, issues, challenges, please flood my ears.
	I don't want to uh ramble tangent my way into side quest obscurity.
	If you have things that you want to question talk about, doesn't have to be about this topic.
	You don't have to be any kind of expert on the famine.
	All right.
	Good, good, good.
	Thank you for stepping up.
	We are all right, 25th.
	25th.
	Hi, Stefan, how are you?
	Wow, you got in quick, man.
	I normally have to vamp for a second or two.
	Yeah, what's on your mind?
	I uh I left the question there, but uh, you know, let me just uh let you know uh w what I have in mind.
	I mean glad that I heard you uh talk about gold uh earlier.
	Um so my question really is about this uh cryptocurrencies at the moment.
	And is this gonna grow to the gold that you talk about many years ago and it's eventually gonna wipe out all the assets.
	Sorry, is your question is will it grow to replace gold?
	And is you did you say wipe out all the assets?
	Well, yeah, wipe out all the I mean middle class, poor people, and only the people who have, you know, bitcoins will eventually like the people who used to have gold.
	To create property, I mean.
	Right.
	So I'm not sure what you mean by wipe out the other assets.
	Because uh Bitcoin right now there's two use cases for Bitcoin.
	And one of them, of course, is as a trading mechanism.
	Now, Bitcoin, of course, because it's decentralized, it's slow, right?
	So Visa can process a billion transactions because it's all centralized and all runs um in in a couple of places, and so it's fast that way.
	Bitcoin is decentralized, which means you have to update a whole bunch of systems in order for a transaction to work, which slows things down.
	And people say, well, I can't buy a coffee.
	Who cares?
	Honestly, I mean, a huge chunk of the economy is what's called B2B, right?
	Business to business, 30, 60, 90 day turnarounds for uh bills, and so you can uh run, even if you just run it off that, that's a huge and significant advantage, and there'll be lightning network and other layers on top to make it work more at a consumer level.
	So the two use cases for uh Bitcoin, which is kind of the same for any currency, is number one, savings, store of value.
	And number two, transactions, buying and selling stuff with it.
	Now, we've kind of gotten used to the idea that currency is just about buying and selling stuff.
	Because saving currency ever since 1913, uh, the introduction of central banking and 1971, the end of the gold standard under Nixon, that we have now got the belief that money ain't for saving.
	Money is for investing, and money is for spending.
	And that's because, of course, if you put your money in a bank account and you get you know, 1% interest, half a percent interest, whatever, while inflation is running probably 9 to 12% at least, and you're losing money.
	And you're losing money really frickin' quickly.
	So you use it or lose it.
	Money has become like crops that rot in the field if you don't do something with them.
	You gotta make them into jam, or you can't just leave them there because they're gonna rot.
	So money evaporates, money under the bed.
	Like I did a I did a little thing here.
	I was just kind of curious.
	Uh I got my first job in the early 90s, my sort of first professional job as a programmer.
	I made 40,000 a year, and I'd need almost double that now.
	Even according to, and I I don't think they're even remotely accurate, but even according to general CPI increases, this doesn't count the fact that housing prices have gone through the absolute roof and other things have just gone way up.
	So I would probably need if I wanted to buy a house, you know, that 40,000 back then is probably 10 to 15,000 now.
	And so the idea that money is a store of value that is not itself reinvested, right?
	So you can go and you can say, well, I want to hang on to my money, so I'm gonna invest in some index fund or some ETF or something like that, some exchange traded funds.
	So you take your money and you protect it from the marauding mice that eat away at your money if you it's like you've you store it under your bed and you every time you pull it out, rats have eaten more away of your money.
	It's like you can't store it under the bed, so you've got to do something with it.
	So the idea that money or value can be passive and increase in value is kind of incomprehensible to us.
	But that's what Bitcoin is.
	Bitcoin is here's where you can store your value.
	It's not invested.
	It's not at risk other than you know, supply and demand.
	And the supply is fairly fixed.
	And the demand is highly variable, which is why, like it's uh right now it's 1772.
	As of uh 805 p.m. Eastern Standard Time, October 3rd, 2025.
	And the idea that you can put your money someplace and it's safe and not Evaporating is wild.
	It's wild.
	You know, uh if you have barbecues, what do you do?
	You you get a cooler and you put your ice in there.
	But by the end of the day, because people are always opening it, or maybe they leave it open to get their pops of beers or whatever, at the end of the day, the ice is just puddles.
	It's gone.
	The ice is gone, and that's our money.
	It's ice store in the sun.
	It's going to go into unpleasant tasting metallic H2O puddles at the end of the day.
	So the idea that you can put your money someplace where it's not at risk, because everything you invest in can go up and down, right?
	A store of value that's not at risk that can be transferred around the world.
	Because you know, people always uh this is a debate I had with Peter Schiff many years ago, which is uh you can easily compare the strengths of one thing against the weaknesses of the other thing.
	It doesn't really do anything, right?
	It's like saying, well, uh you you should you should stay single because you know, having a girlfriend is really expensive.
	She might break your heart, you could get an SDD, she might cheat on you, she's gonna break up with you.
	Like, so you should just stay single.
	And it's like so and and if you're single, you're gonna have more money, you can have more fun, you don't have to go with anyone else's schedule, blah, blah, blah.
	So all you're doing is taking all of the positives of being single and comparing them to all the negatives of being in a relationship, which is kind of pointless.
	I mean, it's a way of programming yourself, right?
	So there are pluses to gold and there are pluses to Bitcoin.
	I think there are way more pluses to Bitcoin than there are to gold for reasons I've talked about a bunch of times, and I've got a whole bunch of presentations on Bitcoin.
	You can find them at FDR Podcasts.com.
	Just do a search for uh Bitcoin.
	So it's not that Bitcoin is going to eliminate the value of it.
	Gold will still have value.
	I mean, you need it for electronics and and jewelry, and gold will always have value.
	And silver will always have value.
	You need that bi-metallic standard, you know, the old thing that a good steak dinner is a a piece of silver, is an ounce of silver all throughout history, and a good suit is an ounce of gold all throughout history.
	So they'll always have value.
	There are pluses and minuses to gold, pluses and minuses to Bitcoin.
	But I view Bitcoin as a superior store of value because the technology is incredible.
	The value of it has been proven.
	Bitcoin has been the fastest accumulating value asset in all of human history.
	It is the literally to me, uh, and I've characterized this for many years, it is the investment opportunity of not just your lifetime, but of any human lifetime.
	Now, please understand, I'm not saying buy Bitcoin.
	I cannot give financial advice.
	I do not want to give financial advice.
	I'm not giving financial advice.
	I'm just telling you my particular personal opinions.
	Do your own research.
	Buy and sell on your own recognizance.
	Don't take any advice from me.
	I have a degree in history, not finance.
	So for me, uh, it is the greatest store of value in human history.
	And either we get a Bitcoin future, or there is no future, because Bitcoin is currently racing with central bank digital currencies.
	So free coins are currently in a deadly race with slave coins.
	The slave coins being you get your pay, uh, social credit scores, you don't like what the government does, they'll turn off your ability to buy anything, and so on.
	As opposed to Bitcoin, which is truly liberating.
	Uh you you post something that the government doesn't like, and you're barred from your money for three days.
	And it's gonna AI automatically like the cost of enslaving humans goes down considerably with CDBCs and AI in particular, so it's Bitcoin or bust.
	Like we either have a future that's based on Bitcoin, or we have a future that's not worth having.
	So uh but I don't view it as eliminating other assets, because all currency is a reflection of things that actually have value in the real world, right?
	Tangible goods, tangible services, land, capital, real estate, uh, all those factories, capital goods.
	All of those things are things in the real world, and currency is just a way of trading them, of solving the problem of the mismatch of wants, because then you have something where, you know, if you have eggs and somebody else wants bread, but you don't want to trade with each other, you kind of got to go all over the place trying to figure out how to get these coincidence of wants to work.
	So uh Bitcoin is not the economy, but it is the way to organize the scarcity of assets in the world uh and it and it is beyond political control.
	And if there's anything that we need in this world, honestly, if there's one thing that I could change in the short run, it would be removal of currency from political control.
	Because if you remove currency from political control, you remove interests rates from political control.
	And then governments actually have to provide value rather than borrowing and printing to provide the illusion of value and enslaving the next generation in return for idiot votes in the here and now.
	In the long run, I would obviously privatize education completely, but in the short run, it would be to remove currency and interest rates from political control, because that is the greatest thief.
	That's why the money that I was making uh thirty plus years ago would be worth twenty-five percent or thirty percent now what it was back then relative to things like real estate.
	The amount of that's the greatest single human theft in history, or is the greatest theft in human history is money printing and the manipulation of interest rates and borrowing debt, unfunded liabilities, deficits and debt.
	It's the greatest theft in human history.
	People are just getting robbed while they sleep.
	And it tends to be the poorest who get hit the hardest and the rich who benefit the most.
	It is the most regressive taxation known to man, inflation.
	Bitcoin solves that, and that would be my answer.
	Is there anything else that you wanted to mention?
	All right.
	I will move on to the aforesung Mr. Bad Guy.
	If you wanted to mention something.
	Stefan, you can hear me, yeah?
	Yes, sir.
	Go ahead.
	Great.
	Uh so you're talking about the British colonization of India.
	There's one decision I'd like to understand uh your perspective on.
	The decision of uh partition, 19 uh 47.
	So creating Pakistan.
	So from the administrative point of view, was it uh this this decision resulted in one of the great migrations uh of all time.
	I don't know.
	Uh but and a lot of people had died and everything like this.
	We we know that.
	So I just wonder that decision there.
	Was it a good thing to separate the Muslims from from the Hindus?
	Uh at the expense of I don't know how many people died, but what is your perspective on that particular decision?
	Right.
	I mean, I'm just gonna talk about general principles.
	I wouldn't claim to be an expert on partition.
	Um the um the division of India into two independent dominions, Pakistan and India led to one of the largest mass migrations.
	Fifteen million people left their homes, massive communal violence.
	You can see this at the end of Ben Kingsley's uh or the movie with Ben Kingsley about Gandhi, uh one to two million deaths, and yeah, it was um it was a horrendous time.
	It was a horrendous time.
	And uh, why was it necessary?
	Well, it was necessary, or it was believed to be necessary because of the incompatibility of religious ideas.
	And philosophy solves that in that we don't have irrational beliefs that we need to enforce through indoctrination and violence.
	We have reason that we can use to solve conflicts and problems with appeal to logic and evidence.
	I mean, you don't see this kind of stuff where you say, oh, we've got this uh physics conference, and we need to get the people who believe in the big bang theory over here.
	We've got to have a huge wall with armed guards between them, because we've got to put the people who believe in the big bang theory here, and we have to have the people who believe in the solid state theory over here, and the people but the string theory people gotta put them separate, because otherwise they all kill each other.
	Like that's just not how science works.
	The same thing with mathematics.
	There may be some contentious debates.
	There may be some haughty ostracism, But there's not this violence that happens when you get uh people with beliefs that they can't logically and objectively prove jammed together uh with very high stakes, right?
	So it is uh similar to, of course, to what happened in um Europe, 300 years religious war after the Reformation under Martin Luther King and the 16th century and and onwards.
	And so I d I mean I don't know what I would do in those kinds of situations.
	Uh are there good decisions, bad decisions?
	There is no experiment in human history where you can run a parallel experiment and an A-B test, so to speak.
	Uh my preference would have been to not have uh I mean I'm an anarcho-capitalist, right?
	So I am a voluntarist, which means that uh a society without a government is the best and most peaceful peaceful society.
	And so for me, um I would have said, let's not let's not leave them with the government, and they'll work it out themselves.
	And, you know, but you know, that's probably why I was not reincarnated to somebody making those decisions in uh 1947.
	So I hope that I mean, I hope that helps as a whole.
	Whatever the whatever the problem is, the solution is more freedom.
	The solution is more freedom.
	So uh again, I I wouldn't claim to be any kind of expert on this, but my understanding it was due to religious tensions, and the result was uh brutal.
	And what I would say is that when we can institute more voluntarism and more freedom in society, in other words, less of a sort of centralized political oligarchy, uh things are better off.
	And the the problem is is that these kinds of political decisions are made when you have long histories for whatever reason.
	We have long histories of a non-focus on things like peaceful parenting, on the non-aggression principle, on reason rather than violence or mysticism as the way to resolve human disputes.
	And again, th th this would not be a philosophical decision.
	My philosophical decision would be as little government as humanly possible.
	But when you have a culture or a country, which, you know, and it's not like the British would be uh uninvolved in the development of India, of course, for 150 years the Raj ruled, and therefore part of the lack of progress in Indian philosophy had to do with the British, in my opinion.
	But there were also advancements in uh law and so on, as I pointed out uh in my last stream.
	It was in the I think at the 1850s or the 1860s that the opposition to the rape was criminalized, although marital rape I think still remains non-criminal in uh India as a whole.
	But the more that we can promote peaceful parenting, non-aggression principle, reason and evidence, the less we end up backed into these kind of corners where there aren't any good decisions to be made, if that helps.
	Well, not really.
	Uh, but I can appreciate that I've helped you.
	I think there that issue in particular, you should uh look into it's quite fascinating how they determined the boundary between Pakistan and India.
	But nevertheless, I would just uh just just uh do a question here, Stefan.
	Your philosophy, do you think in terms of peace.
	No, no, not doing that.
	Not doing that.
	No, I'm not doing that.
	Well, first of all, it was a little bit rude after I put effort into answering things from a philosophical perspective to say that it was unhelpful and need to study more.
	That's just a little rude, but that's not the end of the world.
	Yeah, I know.
	Sorry, buddy.
	It's clear.
	Like, I I respect your intelligence.
	So I know when you know, and I know when you don't know, right?
	It's okay.
	It's fine.
	But uh but I don't know.
	No, no, no, I wasn't uh I wasn't finished my point.
	Okay, then if you admit to being rude, laughing at it is also kind of rude, but that's all right.
	So but what I would say is you don't get to refer to it as my philosophy.
	Uh philosophy is either true or false, valid or invalid.
	It's not personal.
	There's no such thing as my philosophy any more than there would be my physics or my math or my logic.
	Thank you.
	Okay.
	Sorry, is that confusing to you?
	You seem to be uh confused.
	No.
	Stefan, you've come up with uh uh a philosophical principle.
	Um, more than one.
	What do you mean a philosophical principle?
	I've come up with dozens of philosophical arguments.
	Okay, your universal UPB.
	That's you.
	Right.
	But it's not my philosophy.
	It's either valid or invalid.
	It's either true or false.
	It's not mine.
	Okay, fine.
	Um, you do sound kind of bitchy, you know that, right?
	Okay, fine.
	It's important.
	It's important because if you refer to it as my philosophy, you're saying there's an element of subjectivism to it or subjectivity to it.
	Uh, and that's not the purpose of philosophy is to create sort of universal proofs, proofs.
	So you can say, you can say, Steph, uh your proposition, your argument, but not my philosophy, because I don't own philosophy and it's not subjective.
	Okay.
	I always credit you for creating that, okay, when I'm talking to people, so should I stop doing that or do you not understand what I'm saying?
	Aaron Ross Powell Yeah, I know.
	You don't own it.
	It's universal.
	You don't own it.
	You don't own universally preferred behavior.
	It's it's a it's an objective.
	No, no.
	See if you see, this is what you're not understanding.
	And I'm sorry if I'm being unclear.
	I'll try I'll try once more, otherwise I'll move on to somebody else.
	But uh it what if you'd have said to me, Steph, your theory of universally preferable behavior, totally valid.
	But that's not what you said.
	Do you remember what you said?
	Your philosophy.
	Right.
	Yeah.
	Philosophy is a generic term that is obviously much larger than me.
	Yes, universally preferable behavior is a philosophical proof of secular ethics that I generated for sure, but it's not my philosophy.
	It would be a particular theorem, right?
	So if you were talking to let's take a silly example, put myself in some elevated company here, but if you were talking to Einstein, you wouldn't say your physics, right?
	And it's an important, I mean it may sound pedantic, but it is really important.
	I wouldn't say to Einstein, your physics, I would say your proof of the general theory of relativity, let's say.
	But I wouldn't say your physics, because that would be to indicate that he somehow owned physics as a whole, not a particular theory within it.
	Okay, I accept your correction.
	But you remember you said that we weren't gonna do that.
	I never got to I I never got to ask you if your theory of universal preferable behavior would be more receptive to a Muslim or a Hindu.
	I honestly I have no particular opinion about that.
	I have no thoughts about it.
	It's interesting, though, I would say what I will say is this.
	I will say that people who believe in universal ethics already, which of course for most religion for religious people by definition would have a theological origin, a God-commanded origin.
	People who believe in universal ethics are more receptive to UPB than atheists are.
	Which I find I've I would never have guessed that, honestly.
	And and this is with a great deal of instruction for me in the world as a whole.
	And because I've been around atheists who've been very interested in universal ethics and virtues and morals and so on, and so that's sort of my particular group.
	I have never really spent any time around this sort of fedora-where nihilist atheists who just seem to want to escape any moral rules at all.
	So I would say, you know, if I had to sort of guess between Hindu and Islam, uh, or a a Muslim or a Hindu, I wouldn't I wouldn't hazard a guess, not being an expert in either religion.
	I wouldn't hazard a guess as to which one of them would be more likely.
	But I would say that religious people who believe in universal ethics, which is not the case for all religions.
	Religious people who believe in universal ethics are much more interested in UPB than atheists, which again I find quite fascinating.
	And uh I've had many more productive conversations regarding UPB with um uh religious people than I have with atheists who seem to be studiously avoiding the topic as a Whole, even though they're the ones who need it the most, which I just find quite interesting.
	But uh it's an interesting question, but I would not count myself having enough expertise on either religion to be able to gauge which one would be more or less likely to accept or be interested in UPB.
	Uh without belaboring it, and we can move on to somebody else.
	It seems to me the answer is clear, it would be a monotheistic religion, and that is the case for Islam.
	So based on what you said there, I think UPB would be more receptive to the Islamist if they if the Islamist does believe in universal ethics, which they ought to.
	I'm sorry, dude.
	As far as I understand it again, I'm no expert.
	As far as I understand it, the Muslim believes that he has slightly higher moral obligations to his fellow Muslim as opposed to non-Muslims.
	I would think so.
	To a believer, yeah.
	I I'm not an expert either.
	I mean, they have a tax on non-believers, right?
	It's called the jizya, right?
	They have a tax on people who don't accept like you either convert or you pay the jizya.
	So I would assume that that's not foundationally UPB in the way that I would formulate it.
	And it seems to be uh different from the Christian ethics.
	So because I think Christians have moral responsibilities to Christians and non-Christians alike.
	And I think for most religions, uh there seems to be more of an in-group preference.
	So uh again, I can't really speak to the Hindu religion, but that would be my understanding of uh Islam.
	Yeah, I think Islam, it varies.
	They, you know, what what what your understanding of Islam may be or what you're citing there may not actually be the case.
	There's a lot of hadith and and interpretations of of the Quran that even is uh Muslims themselves disagree on.
	So it's very checkered, but if we go to the to the point of it being monotheistic, it being monotheistic, I think lends itself to UPB more based on what you what you had said earlier about uh someone being inclined to universals as opposed to um uh subjectivity or or the opposite of universal, whatever that may be.
	Well, but it would very much it wouldn't depend so much upon monotheism.
	It would be depending upon whether you accept that the morals that your religion proposes are universal.
	In other words, that they apply equally to believers and non-believers alike, which would be the case with Christianity and other religions I'm of course not quite so sure about, but they seem to have a fairly strong in-group preference.
	So to me, the deciding factor would be the universality of the ethics, not whether it's monotheistic or polytheistic.
	Although I can I think I see your point, if I can be so bold as to take a stab at it, is that if it's polytheistic, then you have uh more than one set of ethics depending on which God is being focused upon and the gods themselves.
	This is sort of an old argument that comes out of Plato, which is do we know what good is because it's what the gods do, or do we know what good is because the gods themselves conform to a standard of good that is even higher than them?
	And one of the arguments, of course, is that the gods disagree with each other and therefore we don't know what the good is because even the gods disagree.
	So if there's a polytheistic religion where the gods disagree, then I I if I understand your point correctly, and sorry if I mischaracterizing it, but I think if there are if it's a polytheism, a polytheistic religion where the gods disagree, then I think universality would be harder.
	Is that sort of what you mean?
	Yeah, absolutely.
	Like if if we were to if we if we had the ability to create a hadith and uh say that UPB was actually endorsed by Muhammad, right?
	There's a framework within Islam that would allow UPB to take root.
	But I don't know if there's a frame, in fact, I would say there is not a framework within Hinduism that would allow UPB to sort of uh take root, flourish, be receptive to uh uh a diverse range of people because there's so many different gods and so many different uh uh interpretations.
	But I'm I'm belaboring the point, and I do have to go here, Stefan.
	It's been an excellent uh chat with you.
	God bless.
	I love your work.
	Great job.
	Thank you very much.
	All right.
	Dr. I'm not gonna say that second name, but if you wanted to um instruct me in the ways of your thinking, I'm happy to hear.
	Dr. P. Going once, going twice.
	All right.
	We will go instead with Don.
	Don, if you wanted to unmute, I'm happy to hear what's on your mind.
	Thank you.
	It's so funny, you know, because I remember when I used to listen to the radio, and actually, believe it or not, I still have this memory from decades and decades ago, calling into a radio station, identifying the song, oh it's by the Eagles, one of their last I'm gonna find your little find your inner child and kick his little ass or something like that.
	Get over it, get over it by the Eagles.
	I identified that song from the opening guitar riff, and I won a live Eagles concert that I actually never went down to collect, and they called me once or twice, like, hey man, your prize is here, and I'm like, yeah, I don't really care about the Eagles that much, and I don't have a VCR.
	So anyway, uh I used to hang on to call in and win stuff and all right, going once, done, going twice.
	Yeah, no, no, I'm very d sorry, but I um Stefan.
	Yes.
	Questi question I I asked you.
	Um what you're seeing today, let's say say that there's um the United States.
	You you sense you essentially said you're a narco-capitalist at heart.
	If you were to go back and say that this experiment in the United States of America in um being a constitutional republic, would you say what what would if you were at the table sitting with the founding fathers, what type of questions would you be asking, say to guide the how to how we should be the the type of governments that we would want to.
	Yeah, I mean that's uh it's a great question.
	I mean, the American experiment, of course, was to try to create the smallest government the world has ever known, and it has since morphed into the largest government the world has ever known.
	I mean, if you look at the uh the war, but that was but that was something but that that was something they warned about, right?
	Jefferson said you probably would have to trim the tree of trib liberty every twenty years due to human nature.
	So w w where was the where is the problem that you just mentioned?
	You went from the founding fathers to now we have the largest government, but the founding fathers were trying to essentially warn the people that you need to study history, study human nature, because we will become wools if left to our own devices.
	I'm completely aware of that.
	That was what I was trying to answer.
	So I think you have a lot that you want to say, so I think you should say it because if I start to give an answer that's quite complex, I get like eight seconds in.
	I get like eight seconds in.
	Now you're interrupting me again, right?
	So listen, I'm not trying to be a nag, I'm not trying to be mean, but if there's stuff that you want to say, you should say it because I don't particularly enjoy I'm just my personal thing.
	I'm not trying to be a nag.
	I don't particularly enjoy starting to answer a complex question and being interrupted with what I was about to say.
	So again, if there's stuff that you want to say, get it off your chest.
	Let's get it out, and then I'll give you my answer.
	Yeah, I apologize.
	I think I was trying to because it's a complex because I'm trying to ask a question away that uh understanding at the same time to understand your philosoph your framework, I'm trying to ask the question away that I probably get the best answer from you, but I don't think I can, so I'm gonna let you answer it so I bring it to the right.
	No, but if you knew what the best answer was for me, there'd be no point asking, right?
	No, no, I'm I'm just gonna say the the the uh an answer from you that I that the based on the question that I'm looking for to be answered.
	So I apologize because I've not properly thought through it because it is a complex question I'm trying to ask.
	Yes, I know.
	Okay, so can I take a swing at it?
	Yeah, yep, I apologize again.
	No, that's fine.
	Okay, so I would say uh sitting across from Jefferson or Adams or whoever, and I they would say, well, the the the tree of liberty needs to be watered with the blood of patriots and tyrants on a regular basis.
	It's like, why?
	Why would you set up a system where people have to try and kill and die and rebel just to try maybe somehow to keep it free?
	I mean, how well did the American experiment go?
	You got George Washington riding down on the farmers for the whiskey tax within 80 years it's broken the bounds of the Constitution.
	You got civil war, lying the population into World War One, Viet currency, Great Depression.
	Well, you got the massive stimulus of the 1920s, the 14 year Great Depression resulting in World War II, and then you got Korea, and then you got Vietnam, on and on, right?
	What a mess.
	Congress last declared war what?
	World War II?
	It was some.
	Russia left the seat of the table at the UN, which is what resulted in the declaration of Korean war.
	When have they declared war?
	Arming Ukraine, whatever you think of that, it's an act of war, isn't it?
	Nothing's declared.
	So why?
	Why would people need to go up against this Leviathan on a regular every 20 years?
	Are you kidding me?
	What kind of system is that?
	Well, I'm gonna give you this job.
	See, I'm gonna give you this job.
	It's a good job.
	But if you want to keep this job, you have to defeat all challengers in mortal fucking combat every three years.
	Would you want that job?
	No.
	That's an insane job to get.
	Well, it's good that you want to be a doctor.
	You know, society needs doctors, but in order to become a doctor, you gotta kill the doctor who's ahead of you.
	And then the guy behind you is gonna kill you too.
	Like, what kind of system would you set up?
	Wherein's can I kind of stop you there?
	That's I don't think that's a valid metaphor.
	Sorry.
	Okay, go ahead.
	I I was with you until you brought up doctors trying to get ahead.
	I think what they were saying again, but I think you went off task there was on human nature, that we all have the capacity to sin, and because government is force, if you elected these people who are susceptible to sin, then they could be corrupted and then use the force against their own people who elected them because in the end it is a it is a social construct that is based upon human nature.
	So I'm saying the thing that they were saying, much like Jung would argue is that you have to basically constantly do the shadow work to understand your capacity for evil.
	So you could say, what is good?
	Well, I say a lot of good people, again, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
	But those tension those intentions as people have might be based on FIS, but you what you were arguing for is perhaps based on false ideology that goes against this universal basic behavior system you're talking about.
	But they forget it because why?
	The media has steered them away in some type of false, falsely constructed narrative that applies upon emotion, not logic, and we have to remember.
	We have to remember again that we are capable of evil and that the evil that we're being led upon because of this our susceptibility to bad behavior, that we can have bad outcomes.
	And if we're not reminded constantly of that, about the the unreliability of our human emotions and that they can overrule reason, yes, we will be in this endless loop of constantly trying to find the best alternative to a flawed system uh or an agreed-upon best alternative of limited government.
	But we have to constantly do the psychological under psychological training to understand we will we are capable of sin.
	all of us.
	I can say many good people have made...
	You could say got caught up in using the constitution or whatever, or using lawfare judicial system to be weaponized to think to go for causes like whether it's climate change, which you could argue that have restricted people's behavior, which would go against your narco-capitalists say intention or rules or heuristics.
	So those are good people thinking that you're harming the environment.
	but it leads to perhaps bad outcomes.
	I, I, Sorry, uh you done your speech.
	Yeah, I just when you went off doctors, I wasn't following your logic there.
	Um no, that's not what you said, though.
	Well, you went with doctors, and I didn't understand why I would become a doctor after they killed the next doctor.
	I didn't understand where you're going with that.
	No, but you said that I was wrong or off base.
	I felt you were going off base and using that metaphor.
	I didn't understand where you're going with it.
	Well, why why wouldn't you ask me to explain it then?
	Well, you did.
	You were trying to explain it, and I didn't I'm not sure.
	I was trying to explain it.
	And you interrupted and told me that I was wrong and then gave a speech.
	What was the thing that I asked you?
	hang on, what was the thing I asked you to do when I started explaining this complex topic?
	Thank you.
	I I apologize again.
	I'm sorry.
	I will be quiet.
	No, no.
	I mean, honestly, I'm just I'm curious.
	I mean, this is not I'm not I'm not trying to nag you or anything like that.
	It's just wild to me.
	Like you gave me a nice thing.
	Now you're interrupting again.
	Can you stop?
	Can you stop?
	What's the matter with you?
	Like, seriously, this is crazy.
	He's yammering in my ear when I'm trying to talk to a worldwide audience here.
	I mean, you gave me 10 seconds the first time and maybe two minutes the second time.
	And I I this I said to you correctly.
	I said to you directly, if there's something that you want to explain, I have a feeling you got a lot of words, please get it out of your system so I can have some room to explain.
	And I'm starting to explain, and you're in my ear again.
	I'm just trying to follow this.
	Because listen, the reason I'm saying this is like I'll survive.
	I don't particularly care.
	But this is one of the few instances where you're going to get direct feedback about how you communicate, right?
	Because it's a it's a little annoying.
	Can you understand that?
	No, and again, I I realize it, so I apologize.
	No, and I'm not trying to grind you into an apology.
	I'm just saying, No, no, I know you're not.
	I say let me just say that.
	But then like why I mean if there's one thing I ask you to do is give me some room to explain a complex thing.
	And then when I'm in the middle of trying to explain, I think my own.
	Okay, so you're you're okay.
	You just can you can you not interrupt when I'm talking?
	Is that even remotely fucking possible?
	Because I keep trying to explain things and you keep talking in my ear.
	And I'm just telling you, listen, you and I'll pass by, like we'll probably never talk again.
	Not that I would have any particular objection to it, but I'm trying to give you this feedback to be honest with you, because I s i i if you can't listen and keep interrupting people, even when I've very generously gave you the entire platform to have your speech before I started to explain, you're just gonna annoy people in your life.
	You're gonna annoy bosses, coworkers, dates, children, husb uh wives, whatever it is, right?
	You just you're just gonna annoy people.
	And I'd rather you don't annoy people because you're you know a smart guy, you care about things, you have great language skills, and I'd rather you go through life not annoying people as a whole.
	And you're probably not gonna get this kind of feedback because people will just stop interacting with you if you keep interrupting them.
	If you keep asking for a complex explanation, interrupt people when you don't understand something and just tell them that they're wrong.
	And again, I'm not trying to bust your balls or grind your gears.
	I'm just trying to give you that feedback so that you can hopefully kind of get more success in your life as a whole.
	That if you're asking somebody, I have a good expertise in this, and if you're asking somebody for an explanation who's got good expertise, and then you keep interrupting them and tell them that they're wrong, then what you should do is you should write a blog post, you should explain it yourself.
	And I tried to give you that room to do that on the on on the show here, and to say, like, listen, you got a lot of words, I don't want you to interrupt me because I've got a complex explanation to get across, and so get your words out now, and then you gave me like 90 seconds or two minutes and then interrupted me again, telling me I was wrong.
	So I'm not sure what's going on, and we don't really have to get into it.
	I'm just saying that uh uh people who know stuff and are good communicators aren't gonna want to deal with that as a whole.
	So uh what I'll do is I'll I'll take another caller and I appreciate your conversation and I appreciate a question.
	Maybe I'll do a solo show about it, but I'm not gonna, you know, when you've interrupted me for the fifth time when I'm trying to explain something complex, I'm not gonna fall down that hole again because you just you don't have the ability right now to not interrupt, which is and uh you know, I don't want to take, you know, this out of my ear because then you might be talking over me and I can't hear it, which is going to interfere with the recording.
	So what I'll maybe I'll just do a solo show on this is a great topic.
	Like what would I say to the founding fathers to get them to take a different path than what they took.
	That's a great topic, but it's not something I will talk about with you in my ear.
	So I appreciate that.
	All right.
	Let's go with Monsieur, I think it's Monsieur Ash H. A B C D E F G H. Hey, Stephon.
	You want to talk with me.
	Yes, go ahead.
	I wanted to ask, do you remember that guy?
	Uh his YouTube channel was called alternative hypothesis.
	He got canceled around the time you did.
	Oh, yeah, I vaguely remember the name, but I couldn't tell you smack about the contents.
	Yeah, I mean, I think it was I think it was really great.
	Um he went back and did a bunch of uh statistical analyses and just like super in-depth uh reviews of like uh population distribution pre-colonialization in America and uh, you know, just with other narratives like that.
	And um I don't know, you were you talking about the uh what was it, the uh the famine?
	It just reminded me of that, and I, you know, thought that might provide some more context.
	Did he ever come back?
	I know Man Women Myth didn't come back.
	Uh I'm not sure what happened to Black Pigeon Speaks or like other veterans of the meme wars of the mid-20 teens, but did he ever come back?
	You know, I don't remember, but I I think there's some archives and some re-uploads on YouTube.
	Okay.
	Uh but yeah, i it's, you know, um kind of went along pretty well with the imperial agenda.
	Um yeah, I d I didn't get to listen to all the um all of your overview on that.
	Um, you mean on the famine stuff that I was talking about earlier?
	Yeah, yeah.
	So, like, was it was it like just kind of a No, no, no.
	I'm not I'm not doing that.
	No, I'm not doing the show again.
	You can go you can go listen to the beginning.
	So if there's anything else that you wanted to mention?
	Um, that's it.
	All right, thanks, man.
	I appreciate it.
	But yeah, I'm not hey, uh Mr. Class, can you start again?
	Uh all right.
	Milk.
	M-I-L-K.
	L is for the one you'll see.
	V is very, very extraordinary milk jokes, if you've got that's what my wife and I danced to at our wedding.
	L-O-V-E by Nat King Cole.
	Just a lovely song.
	What's in your mind, my friend?
	Going once, going twice.
	Nothing, nothing, nothing.
	All right.
	Jeff.
	Jeffy Jeff.
	If you want to unmute, I'm happy to hear.
	Happy to hear.
	Don't make me end the show on dead air.
	All right.
	Well, it looks like they're not saying it's just gonna remove them in case they start talking.
	So I will do a sort of very brief thing.
	Tingy ting.
	I will do a brief tingy ting about what I would have said to the founding fathers as the ostrich-headed uncle from speakers.
	All right.
	So the idea that people need to rebel against a government.
	I mean, my God, the the founding fathers and the revolutionary warriors had a tough enough time rebelling against a government that was on the other side of a six-week voyage ocean.
	How much tougher is it when it's actually in the country?
	The calls are coming from inside the house.
	The statism is coming from inside the country.
	It's not overseas.
	And of course, the British had a whole empire to run.
	And they had conflicts with France, and France was going to be funding or did fund the revolutionary warriors and so on.
	That's not the case.
	When you've got a government inside the house, and that whole empire to run doesn't have all of this conflict going over on there in Europe, it's got to manage.
	So I would say, how about not a system where the population has to regularly run into cannon fire in order to maintain any kind of freedoms?
	Because most people ain't gonna do that.
	And you guys had a tough enough time.
	I mean, look at what happened.
	I talked about this some months ago.
	Look what happened to all of the signers of the Declaration of Independence.
	Hunted down, lived in caves, families killed, died in penury, thrown in jail.
	You are a rare group of people who want to do that.
	Not many people do, and you had a tough enough time with a government thousands of miles away.
	What about one right inside the country?
	How about wouldn't it be better if you had a system where people didn't have to regularly run into cannons and musket fire in order to maintain their freedoms?
	Just possibly.
	So you've got one scenario.
	Well, I'm going to give you a house, you see, but in order to maintain the house, you're going to have to repel grappling hook swarthy, greasy Spaniard invasions.
	I don't know why I make up Standard doesn't really matter.
	You're going to have to repel every 10 to 20 years, you're going to have to repel a bloody invasion in order to keep your house.
	Or not have to do that.
	What if you just didn't have a government?
	What if people just self-regulated?
	What if they self-organized?
	You know, out on the frontier did this whole truth about the wild west, did a whole presentation on this.
	What if people could just self-organize?
	You know, when I was a kid, we went out and we just organized their own games.
	No servers, no umpires, no vampires.
	We just went out and organized our own games, and if kids cheated, we just didn't invite them along.
	We just went and played somewhere else.
	And say, hey man, why don't you invite me?
	Because you cheat.
	Okay, I'll stop cheating.
	Okay, fine, come back.
	Enforced it all.
	Complex rules.
	I wrote about this in the Battle of the Gardens scene in my novel almost.
	Incredibly complex games of war and invasion and all kinds of wild stuff.
	No written rules, no external enforcers.
	And it all worked beautifully.
	What if?
	Well, I want to organize some kids' games.
	So I'm gonna do is uh I'm gonna get a uh umpire with a BB gun who's gonna wing kids who don't obey the rules.
	Like okay, or just bear hear me out.
	Or uh don't.
	Uh let the kids organize things themselves, and that way nobody has to get shot with a BB gun.
	Less violence is better.
	You want a small government, good, less violence is better.
	Now, if you know ahead of time that your system is going to require revolutionary civil wars every decade or two, maybe, just maybe, it's not the very best system that could be conceived of in this or any other universe.
	Maybe there's a little bit of a tweak.
	That could happen that might make the system not have to require the wholesale slaughter and rebellion of citizens on a regular basis as the government gets stronger and powerful and disarms the citizens, which is what's happened in Europe.
	Maybe, hear me out, maybe we can have a system which doesn't require bodies strewn all across the landscape every couple of years in the vague hope of maintaining freedom.
	A republic if you can keep it.
	How about a system which we don't have to die to keep or kill to keep?
	Because governments are pretty big, bad and strong.
	And uh revolutionary wars are bitter and bloody.
	And of course, if the people in charge know that there's a system wherein there's gonna be this guaranteed rebellion in order to keep people free, they're gonna move against that system.
	This guy who was like, well, you gotta do the guy who was talking here, you gotta do the Jungian shadow work to blah blah blah.
	Come on.
	Jesus Christ, man.
	Sorry.
	So people who are sociopaths, I'm just rereading Cohen's book, uh the um The Science of Evil.
	I interviewed him many years ago.
	It's been sitting on my bookshelf, I've been meaning to pick it up for a while.
	I've been rereading that.
	So people who don't have the physical brain structure to process empathy.
	They don't understand other people.
	They view them as objects, as NPCs to be manipulated and used to serve the narcissists' end.
	You've got sociopaths, psychopaths, antisocial personality disorders, borderline personality disorders, sadists, uh, dark triad Machiavellian people, and um you know, garden variety sociopaths, they're gonna want to seek power, and they're gonna have no problem unleashing cannon fire, Napoleon style, whiff of grapeshot stuff on anybody who dares question their rule.
	How About we have a system which doesn't automatically guarantee massive power to the most cold hearted and sociopathic among us.
	How about we don't give the most power to those who want the most power?
	How about we don't give the most power to those who are the most evil?
	Just a possibility.
	How about we don't have a system where people get regularly enslaved and have to find some way to shoot themselves out on a regular basis?
	That does not seem like if you have a system that says, well, the tree of liberty has to be watered with the blood of patriots and tyrants on a regular basis.
	Maybe just maybe that's a shitty fucking system.
	And maybe we just let people be free.
	And maybe we let people self-organize, and maybe we recognize the fact that human nature is so constituted that we did not get to be the apex predators on top of the food chain by not loving power and dominion.
	Human beings cannot handle power and dominion.
	It is a drug addiction.
	It is a drug addiction of the worst kind because it is celebrated and reinforced and bribed and wins and gets resources.
	Look at Nancy Pelosi's assets for God's sakes on a less than $200,000 a year salary, she's got hundreds of millions of dollars.
	Human beings can't handle power.
	Doesn't matter.
	You put little pieces of paper in the way.
	It doesn't matter if you try and train people, it doesn't matter if you just say, hey man, hey, listen, you tyrant, uh, just do the Jungian shadow work and the system will be free.
	Well, gee, what if they don't want to do the Jungian shadow work?
	Which they don't, because they love power and they love dominance and they love control.
	And there were examples in history of stateless societies.
	What about that as a possibility?
	Why not just take away the endless blood-soaked cannon fire of hierarchical political power and just let people self-organize?
	What if you recognize that there is no virtue in the human soul that could survive the kind of power that politics brings?
	And just accept that as a basic fact.
	If you tried to design a medical system over the principles that human beings were both invulnerable and immortal, you would not have a successful medical system.
	If you tried to design war on the premise that human beings could flap their arms and fly, if you tried to design a military strategy based upon that false assumption, would not work.
	If you tried to navigate around the world in the eighteenth century, thinking that the world was a table top flat thing, not a sphere, you would not get to the right place.
	If you tried to send a probe to Jupiter or your anus, based upon the idea that the Earth was the center of the solar system and the entire universe revolved around the Earth, well, you wouldn't get a you wouldn't get it even close.
	If the false premise is it doesn't really matter what you do after that, okay, starting with the assumption that two and two make five, we're going to build this whole complex system.
	It's like, no, no, this is I think we're stepping over the first bit here, which seems kind of important.
	Well, I'm going to say that two and two make five, but don't worry, people can just adjust the living shit out of these calculations later.
	We'll put the Earth at the center of the solar system, then we just need 1,500 pages of calculations to figure out where Mars is, as opposed to one calculation if we put the sun at the center and the earth going around.
	Third from the sun.
	Mercury, Venus, Mars.
	Sorry, Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars.
	If you enshrine at the center of your system that the initiation of the use of force and staggering levels of violent power are somehow compatible with human nature, your system is going to fuck up forever and ever, well, until it runs out of math.
	Everything that you're going to put in place to protect people will end up being used to enslave them.
	Oh, look, let's have a currency.
	Oh, sorry, the government took it over and now you have eternal inflation and unsustainable debt.
	Ooh, I know, I got a good idea.
	Hmm.
	Go with me here.
	Whoa, let's get the government to take over the education to make sure that uh America stays free.
	Oh, sorry, the enemies of America have taken over the educational system and are now using it to program children into self-destruction, their entire society.
	Oh, uh, how about this?
	Let's get the government in control of uh nutrition and health care.
	Yeah, that's gonna be great.
	And that way everyone will get great nutrition advice and people will just get healthier and healthier over time.
	Oh, sorry.
	Morbid obesity and now a falling death rate.
	Ooh, uh, okay, let's get the government okay.
	What if there are these weird pathogens that somehow spontaneously merge, able to perfectly infect human beings from the very beginning, even though that's biologically impossible.
	Let's just say, well, let's develop a whole bunch of those in order to protect humanity from stuff that's never going to emerge in the Oh, sorry.
	We funded that stuff.
	It kind of got out, and now you have to inject mystery DNA goop as a therapeutic.
	Oh, sorry, we didn't really test that for transmission.
	Ooh, sorry, we didn't really test that on pregnant women.
	And we're confusing relative versus absolute risk to make you believe that it's somehow magically safe and effective.
	Ooh, sorry.
	It's just never gonna work.
	It's never gonna work.
	It has never worked consistently throughout human history.
	It never works anywhere across the world.
	It is a failed experiment to design a society with a state at the center.
	Now peaceful parenting, promotion of reason and evidence, that's all the good stuff that leads us to the better place.
	I know it's a race.
	But I can't do it alone.
	That's up to everyone listening to this to promote the virtues and values of reason and evidence.
	But it's a terrible system.
	If people have to regularly walk into withering machine gun fire in order to try and beg the rulers to grant them a few scraps of liberty.
	It's no good.
	It's no good.
	It's like, I'm gonna open a mall and it's gonna have a moat around it.
	The motor is gonna have alligators, and occasionally we'll take out the alligators, just surprisingly.
	We have a whole set of machinery to do this, and we coat it in oil and set it on fire.
	Gonna be great.
	Like, how about we have a mall?
	Possibly, just spitballing here.
	How about we have a mall without the flaming fucking alligator moat from hell?
	No, here's my other idea.
	Like, okay, maybe the alligator flaming moat circle.
	Okay, get them.
	It's too far.
	Okay, it's too far.
	Okay, how about this?
	How about this?
	Okay.
	The Deep Canyon, okay, okay, okay.
	This deep canyon.
	There's one drawbridge, like one sh like goes up and down.
	But this would be randomized.
	A certain number of times a day.
	It flips up so fast it shoots people.
	Half three quarters of a mile through the air.
	Wouldn't that be fun?
	I mean, comes down, people walk across, but as they're walking across, just randomly, boy, it trebuchets them into the lower stratosphere.
	What do you think?
	Would you have any place for them to land?
	No, they just land wherever, I don't know.
	It's like, okay, okay.
	Possibility.
	Again, brainstorm spitball.
	Who knows, right?
	Maybe we'll come up with something good, maybe we'll come up with the blue man group.
	I don't know.
	But what if we had just a parking lot and you go to the mall?
	No flaming alligators, no moats, no giant canyons, no flip people half a mile, whatever the hell's going on with that drawbridge.
	Just maybe a parking lot.
	Easy access to the road, the highway.
	And people could just park their cars and walk to the mall.
	Snipers?
	No, no snipers.
	Just not violence.
	Just people going to the mall.
	Landmines.
	No!
	No landmines!
	Stop it!
	Why do you want to be in some John Cleese sketch?
	Which is a combination of an apartment building and an abattoir.
	Okay, random cracks.
	Bengal tiger traps.
	No.
	None of that.
	No poison gas in the HVAC system.
	No exploding tiles.
	No guillotines that come down randomly through the storefronts.
	How about you just have a system with no violence?
	At least no initiation of violence.
	Yeah, maybe you could have some own guards if there are some shoplifters, but it's private.
	Just a possibility.
	Anyway, I thank you guys for your attention tonight.
	We will talk donors, donors, donors, donors.
	Sunday morning 11 a.m.
	And uh I really thank everyone this afternoon.
	We had a lovely little donor chat, because I had a no-show for a call and show.
	It happens.
	But yeah, I hope you will check out freedomain.com.
	Lots of great resources there.
	And I hope you'll subscribe to me on X. Don't forget to follow me on YouTube at Free Domain One, number one, Free Domain One.
	And I love you guys for these great conversations tonight.
	Take care, my friends.
	I will uh talk to you soon.
	And thank you for tonight.

▲