All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 6, 2025 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
01:03:10
Is France Even Western? Twitter/X Space
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
So I'm sorry.
Oh my gosh.
I'm so sorry.
I just oh I'm just lying here with my pants on my head.
And I wanted to talk philosophy, so I have a few minutes until my next thing, and I just wanted to drop by and say hi to everyone and thank you all for showing your interest in philosophy.
Oh this this Indian threads which sort of erupted when our good friend Elon Musk retweeted one of my tweets about how, you know, if you go to if if people come from let's say overseas have become British, then people who are British goes to go to India and therefore they were Indian, therefore there's no colonialism, they were just Indians oppressing themselves.
And this really has become it's a wild education.
I remember back back in the day in my sort of former incarnation on X getting into some of this and you know, pointing out that what was it?
It was like some I I can't remember the number, there was some crazy number of infanticide of females in India, and anyway.
And listen, I mean, there's definitely look, obviously, some brilliant Indians and mathematics and science, amazing stuff, and and so on.
But uh somebody was saying that the caste system, which is a very sort of rigid class system, uh brutally enforced.
The the caste system in India is 3,000 years old, give or take, right?
And now somebody's telling me that that white people imposed the caste system on India.
Aryans imposed the caste system on India.
I'm sorry, and the reason like there's nothing funny about the caste system, honestly, it's it's it's not that, and I don't mean to sound cold and callous about the suffering of the untouchables and the Dalits and so on.
But uh to simply have this perspective that A, you know, you your the the Indians will say, but your ancestors were squatting in caves when our ancestors were building a great civilization.
It's like, oh okay, you know, I mean, uh the the British the British came late to civilization after being conquered by the Romans, the French, the Vikings, each other, you know.
Uh it's I made jokes in a presentation from like over ten years ago that the British were so primitive, you know, sort of 2,000 years ago, the British were so primitive they thought that they gained invulnerability by painting themselves blue, and my joke was like if there was a nuclear war, the ancient Britons would believe that the only things that would survive is cockroaches and the blue man group.
And I mean, for me, looking at the deficiencies of my quote, ancestors, yeah, I mean, this is just facts.
I don't know why people get so ego-invested in all this kind of stuff.
It's just facts.
My ancestors largely sucked, you know, if you go back far enough.
And your ancestors sucked, and most of human history until about five minutes ago, sucked into galactic chunks of sharded evil.
And I mean, the uh Indian continent, subcontinent was still there was no India, right, when the British arrived, it was just a bunch of warring principalities.
They were all exploiting each other and subjugating each other and dominating each other and and so on.
And you know, it was either going to be the British or it was gonna be the Muslims, probably, right?
So if I had the choice, I'd go a little bit more where the food is poorer and the laws are better.
But yeah, so just this paradox, and I do people get so wrapped up in this ancestral stuff, it's wild.
I mean, d don't take pride in what your ancestors did.
You can have admiration for various cultures, and I can't think of a single culture that I don't have some admiration for.
Honestly.
I've I really, you know, the the the in-group preferences of Judaism is great in many ways.
Uh the the uh asceticism and commitment of the Islamic community is is impressive, and uh the black community has brought uh amazing things to America, and you know, the Spanish community, uh Mexican community, the Hispanic community uh have uh brought wonderful things to the world, and the Europeans and uh I mean the the Asians, uh I I I look at Asian engineering, having worked with a bunch of Asian engineers in my career, sort of East Asian, not South Asian, fantastic.
Fantastic.
Uh love Indian food.
So, you know, each cultures sort of brings things, but it's just it's just wild.
It's just wild to think that people are so invested in this ancestor stuff that they don't even notice this like your your ancestors were squatting in caves when my ancestors had this great civilization.
Oh, and your ancestors, while squatting in caves, imposed the caste system on us.
So my ancestors were squatting in caves in England and Ireland, Germany, I guess.
And not only squatting in caves, I guess painting painting strange symbols on the wall with their own body products, but not only were they squatting in caves, but they were also amazing time and space travelers, squatting in caves while simultaneously imposing the car system on India 3,000 years ago, 3,000 miles away.
Amazing.
I mean, that's really uh incredible.
They had portals, you see, that portals that led them to grow a hundred times in size to be transported to India to impose the caste system.
And I don't know, it's wild.
It's wild.
Anyway, I'm here.
I'm here to chat with y'all if you have uh thoughts and uh comments.
You know, somebody said uh because I was uh I I can be pretty pretty blunt and maybe harsh with people who uh are being foolish.
And somebody said uh you don't subscribe to love thy neighbor.
And uh I do actually I do.
I will return insult for insult because I'm not a pacifist, but I very much am love thy neighbor as myself.
So I don't know how you handle it, I don't know how you do it with yourself, but I'm certainly happy to hear.
But if I'm being an idiot, what do I call myself?
An idiot.
If I'm being foolish, uh I I call myself a fool.
I am I wouldn't say harsh necessarily, but I'm strict when I'm being foolish.
And I've done this.
I mean, since I got back to X in the summer, uh I I I had uh I had a brain fart regarding statistical distribution, and I tried defending it, and I was wrong.
And I just said, you know what, brain fart, I got it wrong, and you know, I'm wrong.
I don't know why, this ego thing, who wants to be right all the time?
You gross.
You can't be.
You can only be bullying.
So I love my neighbor as myself.
If I see somebody being foolish, I'll say you're being foolish.
If I see myself being foolish, I will say to myself, you're being foolish.
I don't expect perfection from myself, I don't expect perfection from others, but we have to be honest in our striving towards the truth.
So I do love my neighbor as myself, and if someone's being a fool, I'll call them a fool, and if I'm being a fool, I'll call myself a fool.
It's not punitive, it's just accurate.
Alright, anyway, enough of my yapping.
Uh you have sim slash something something.
If you would like to unmute, I would be over over thrilled joyed to hear what you have uh to say.
Going once.
Going twice.
Don't make me vamp.
My teeth are not sharp enough.
What you get?
What you got?
Um go ahead.
Yes, go ahead.
Oh, yes.
I I am sorry because I am um I'm six beers deep right now.
Actually, no, seven.
So I don't think I have anything interesting to say.
But I'm gonna be here.
And um, if anything interesting comes up and I feel um the need to interject, I will.
Okay, good to know.
Jacob.
John Jacob Jingleheimer Smith.
What is on your mind, my friend?
Feel free to unmute.
Yes, go.
See, some people get this delay.
I don't know what goes on with that, some people don't.
Alright, what's on your mind?
So I just uh on on India, um thinking about the level of pollution that they're contributing.
India and China, I guess.
And so I wonder um this idea of preemptive self-defense where they're destroying the planet, and what can we morally do about that?
Yeah.
Yeah.
It's a bit edgy.
Uh yeah, well, listen, I I don't I mean, I don't honestly know.
Uh yeah, the the solution is in the free market.
I'm a voluntarist and anarcho-capitalist, which means I'm an advocate for a stateless society, because whatever you ask the government to do to solve these problems is just gonna make it worse.
So uh I I don't know.
It's not, it's not a uh a fun topic, it's not a pretty topic, of course.
And you know, when you have to, when you so in in the colder climates, you know, winter has just been kind of harsh on people who don't plan.
And so we just don't have as many people left from our sort of evolution who are really bad at planning.
And in warmer climates, they just don't have to plan as much.
And so you just end up with a lot of people who just don't seem to have the ability to plan very well or to consider long-term consequences and so on.
And that's uh really tough.
It's really tough.
So I, you know, I don't have an answer other than we need less government in every sphere and corner of the planet and of our lives.
People can't handle power, and the initiation of the use of force that characterizes political power is immoral.
So you know, I I never like asking the government to do anything because whatever you ask the government to protect you from will end up being taken over in general by your worst enemies and used to make your life relatively unpleasant.
So I guess uh as a free society, how would we address that uh neighbors polluting and doing things that affect us?
Right.
So the way that a free society does it, let's just do it within a particular geographical area.
So let's say you buy a house on a river, and you just you love the river, it's peaceful, lots of fish, and you love to swim in it and so on, and then I open up some battery factory or some paint factory upriver, and I just start dumping all of this crap into the river.
Now the traditional answer is well, you go to the government and you say, uh, you know, please go and solve this problem for me and get the guy to stop polluting.
Now, actually, uh pollution, you know, they always talk about these uh dark satanic mills of the 19th century, uh the the air pollution that characterized the industrial revolution in England, and not many people know it's a fairly obscure bit of history, but not many people know.
Sorry, but you might uh sorry, uh much though I love background baby noises, if you could I can do that, no problem.
So the uh uh uh apple farmers in London were having a bad time when the factory owners first started pumping all their crap into the atmosphere.
It coated all of the apples and made them inedible.
And so the apple farmers went to the court system, which, you know, Dickens was a court reporter, Charles Dickens was a court reporter and knew how bad it was, and there's many sequences or scenes within his books talking about how bad the court system was.
And uh he actually was partially responsible for getting reforms into the court system so things could be resolved relatively quickly, or at least faster than they used to be.
So all of the apple farmers went to the government and said, we're suing these manufacturers because they're putting all this crap in the air, which is destroying our apple crop and so on.
And uh unfortunately, the government, what the government did was it basically looked at the amount of taxes it was collecting from the apple farmers and said, well, that's not very much.
And then it looked at the amount of taxes it was collecting from the industrial manufacturers, and they said, Well, boy, that's a whole lot.
Because you're employing a lot of people and and you're paying a lot of taxes.
And so basically they said to the farmers, uh, too bad.
Too bad, so sad, we're not giving you uh anything, and they sided with the industry.
Now, of course, and that's sort of like giving uh immunity to vaccine manufacturers, right?
It just takes all of the desire for quality out.
So they didn't end up having to clean up the smokestacks uh because the government cited them.
Now, whether this was a rational calculation of tax revenue or you know, outright bribery because the new manufacturers had a lot more money than the apple farmers, so maybe they just bribed people, I don't know.
But the the net result, the net net, as people used to say, the net result was that the apple farmers could not get any redress for the pollution that was destroying their farms, and they ended up just having to sell and move, and and then this is set the stage for all of this absolutely appalling levels of pollution that went on from there.
So the government doesn't really solve the problem of pollution, at least in that instance, and was just a terrible thing.
So the way That it works in a free society is when you buy your property on the lake, sorry, when you buy your property on the river, it's downriver from me, then you buy insurance.
And you buy insurance that says the river has to be kept to a reasonable level of cleanliness.
It doesn't have to be perfect, whatever that means, but a reasonable level of cleanliness.
Like one hiker peeing in the river isn't going to kill the whole thing, but you know, 500 tons of arsenic will.
So you buy insurance, and then you have a company and you pay them every month, and people on the river pay that company every every month to keep the river clean.
And if the river gets dirty, there's a contract which says they have to give you five times your home value.
Or whatever, you'd make it some something punitive so that they have every incentive to keep the river clean.
So what they do is they monitor the river, they take samples from the river, they make sure that the river is clean, because they personally, personally will lose money.
I mean, if the government doesn't enforce pollution laws, no individual politician or bureaucrat loses a penny.
So you where there's no incentive, there's no quality.
It's what Nassim Taleb used to call, or probably still does call skin in the game.
People who don't have skin in the game can never be counted to produce quality, which is why you get better service at a restaurant than you do when getting your driver's license, because the waiter or waitress usually is a tip-based life form.
I've done it, and it makes a big difference in terms of quality.
So if somebody decides to open a factory up or wants to open a factory upriver, then your pollution control company leaps into action because they don't want to have to pay everyone on the river five times the home value or whatever the punishment would be.
And they go in and they say, you know, we'd really rather you didn't put your factory in here.
We're going to buy the land to make sure that doesn't happen.
We're going to maybe build it or build a nice uh summer home and so on.
And if somebody does somehow sneak and build a whole bunch of bad stuff and pump it into the river, then they find out who that is, and they that person then has to pay for the cleanup.
And if and it's kind of ironic, right?
Because what I've always been talking about, this is sort of my very first article from 2005, it's this month, 20 years, right?
I was talking about how pollution control would work in a free society.
So you have companies that make money if the environment is kept clean, and they lose money if the environment gets dirty.
Now, in a free society, there's no such thing as a corporation.
A corporation is a legal fiction that allows people to extract money from a business and take it to their own personal accounts, but it doesn't go the other way.
If a business does something really bad, the corporate shield keeps the executives from being held liable.
It's sort of like if you have an invisible friend who goes to jail, if you commit a crime, you're likely to commit more crimes.
So in a free society, it would be like it was before corporations were instituted, whereas if you ran a bank and the bank ran out of money, then you lost your home.
You know, the sort of the image of the wild west guy with a barrel around his body because he's actually even out of clothes, right?
So they made pretty good efforts to keep banks solvent because if the bank went insolvent, the bank executives would lose everything.
Lose everything.
Whereas now, it doesn't happen that way.
So yeah, you would have private incentives to keep things clean.
And let's say that there was some business that went and started polluting the river and they wouldn't listen to reason or whatever it is, okay.
Well, then you have a very powerful weapon in a civilized society.
And the most powerful weapon in a civilized society is ostracism, and by that I'm referring to in particular economic ostracism.
Like if you think of the number of interactions you have to go through in any typical day in your society, it's crazy how many there are.
I mean, to get electricity, to run the internet, to get oil or gas or whatever you use to heat your house there or air conditioners to get on the road, to drive down the road, to go into a store, to buy things like everything is an economic interaction.
And if people in your society don't want to in a free market private society, if people in your society don't want to do business with you, you can't live in that society.
I mean, I guess you could stay on your land, but if the electricity company doesn't want to deliver electricity to you, and if you don't get any heating, and you don't get any cooling, and you don't get any water and you don't get any groceries, you can't live in that society.
And so society has a very powerful tool called not interacting with people.
I remember this from high school.
I would ask girls out, and they would choose to not interact with me.
They ostracized me.
Actually, I did okay at high school.
But you know, it happened.
It happened, I mean, from time to time.
If it's not happening, you're not aiming high enough.
So, and and then of course, after spending twenty, after spending about fifteen years advocating ostracism as the means of maintaining social control.
What happened?
That's right.
That's right.
You have guessed correctly.
I got deplatformed from everywhere.
See, it was just a matter of ostracism.
So after promoting this as a method of social control, um, well, I suppose I I got to be a test case.
I got to show the world just how powerful ostracism is when society, or at least political elements within society, which wouldn't be present at a free market society, disapprove of what you do.
So there's lots of different ways to handle it.
The government won't solve your problems.
They won't solve your problem.
So sorry.
I appreciate your reply.
I have I want to go back to the original topic a little bit more, and uh just a thought, I don't know.
Um I don't have much to say on it, but basically I wonder if our ancestors would have behaved differently um in terms of the white man's burden if they had known about genetics.
Well, yes.
I was actually just uh I I want to do a post probably tomorrow.
It's probably too late tonight.
We can do a post about, you know, this is uh just endless Marxist blood labels usually, blood libels, not blood labels, endless Marxist blood libels against whites, because whites kind of naturally white Christians in particular are very resistant to communism.
And so there's all this Marxist blood libels, and of course, one of them is that the whites came to North America and they genocided the natives by giving them smallpox blankets.
And it's like, bro, there wasn't even a germ theory of disease until the late 19th century.
Nobody knew what caused these things.
They didn't even know about it Exactly.
If we wanted to genocide them, we would have done it.
Well, there's one mention of people talking about giving smallpox blankets to natives, and that is not enough.
That's not a strategy, it was not written down, it was not.
And of course, I mean, the natives gave two things back to the white man, one which was voluntary and one which which was less voluntary.
They gave back smoking and syphilis.
Syphilis is a North American disease, which we then was transferred back to uh probably through sexual I mean, certainly through sexuality, but yeah, syphilis, one of the worst illnesses known to man.
So and smoking, right?
So, yeah, just this idea, this is all these sort of crazy uh blood libels uh that go on uh just there to insult and send you to all this like, what about your ancestors' atrocities?
It's like, bro, all of human history was atrocities.
Every single slice and dice and piece of it.
The Muslim slave trade was twenty times larger than the North Atlantic slave trade.
It's just that they tend to cast they tended to castrate their slaves, most of whom died.
So yeah, it's uh it's all just a bunch of nonsense.
I'm so sorry, I wandered away from your original question.
It was uh Yeah, it was just what do you think our answer how how would our ancestors have behaved instead of uh enslaving and would they have done something differently?
If I knew that they knew that the population the sensible strategy, yeah, the sensible strategy in the world is to stay home and make your government as small as humanly possible.
I I believe that the end result or goal of a moral situation is uh zero, right?
Because uh the initiation of the use of force is immoral, and so yeah, we they're a multi-generational project for humanity, just as the end of slavery was a multi-generational project, the multi-generational project for humanity is to keep reducing the size and power of government so that people can come up with voluntary, i.e.
quality solutions to social problems.
So yeah, the idea that you can just race around the world and you can pass the laws that took thousands of years of trial and error to develop in your country and just impose them on other countries.
I mean, the British system of law and the British society was heavily conditioned by close to half a millennia, four hundred or more years of ritualistically killing the one percent of the most violent and brutal members of the population.
So you go through that process, you know, because they would put them in jail or to hang them or guillotine them or draw and quarter them, or you know, whatever it is.
They they'd kill them or reproductively disabled the most violent and aggressive, or send them to Australia.
And so after you go through that process for a couple of hundred years, you have a particular kind of society.
And you can't just take the laws from that society and then just take them to some other continent where people haven't gone through that process and they haven't had that winter whittling of the those with the least forethought.
And you can't just drop the law books on that country and have it be like your country.
Uh but again, they didn't know or understand this.
They were working on the Christian idea of the soul, which is that everyone can be like everyone else, because we all are inhabited by this uh godlike substratum of the soul, and they didn't understand these things, and uh,
you know, a significant amount of counterproductive I mean it's hard to call it foolishness because they were acting according to the beliefs of their day, and it took uh what, Watson and Crick in the 1950s, it took for them to get the double helix structure of DNA while playing an inordinate amount of table tennis, if I remember from the book.
But yeah, they just didn't understand, they didn't know, and uh they were they were wrong.
You can't just you can't just go to some country and take your laws, impose your laws on that country and then have it be like your country.
It just doesn't uh it doesn't work that way.
Also, part of the problem is that they we spent generations developing technology in science and medicine, and through that process with education birth rates dropped, and uh population stopped growing, and then we sort of bombed these other countries with modern medicine, and so they were able to increase their population size very quickly over the past hundred years, and so that's a major problem uh in the world right now.
And so we've sort of gave them a gift, not knowing where it would lead.
And um I feel like we should take it back.
Well, I think uh you can't put the toothpaste back in the future.
But uh I would say I would say for sure that all charity must be voluntary.
And fr so free speech would allow for the communication of effective ideas about human nature, biology, genetics, culture, so you'd have free speech about it.
But all charity must be voluntary and must be based on a free speech access to the truth.
So, yeah, foreign aid and things like that, uh from a state level.
I mean, you know, it's just taking money from the poor people in rich countries and giving it to the rich people in poor countries.
I think Ron Paul came up with that, but uh yeah, it's it's just absolutely terrible.
Uh it's money laundering as a whole, and uh it is uh the round trip of the foreign dollar, you know, just America gives uh India a bunch of dollars, and then because it's dollars, they have to spend it on American businesses.
It's just another form of you know, fat cash, mortgage board, corporate subsidies and so on.
So yeah, it's all it's all terrible.
And if you want to help people, then you can do it at a personal voluntary level with your own money, but you don't get to enslave my kids for your own whackadoodle do goodery because you didn't have kids and you don't want to just live with cats.
So anyway, I think yeah, it has to be voluntary.
Thanks, man.
I appreciate it.
I appreciate that.
And if there's anyone else, we can have a short, short, sharp show tonight.
But if anybody else has any uh questions or issues that they would like to bring up or chat about, I'm obviously thrilled and happy to hear from you all.
I've got a I got a show coming out this week.
It's a really good show.
You know, for me at least, when those analogies and metaphors come together just perfectly, oh, it's glorious.
And I had somebody who was dealing with somebody, you know, obviously it's an amateur way of saying it, but uh I viewed them as well.
I think that person described them as narcissistic, and I was talking about how if you want to understand a narcissist, think of how you interact with your NPC in a video game.
That you only think about your own needs and preferences, you don't think about the other person's needs and preferences, and in fact, if you're The NPC in your video game were to do things that you don't want, you'd just dump them and get another one.
And that's how the narcissists in general will deal with personal relationships and uh dating and so on.
So I hope that will be helpful when it uh when it when it comes along.
Alright, so let me see, what else did I have?
To Chitty Chatty Bing Bang about you all.
The creator of Nutella has died on Valentine's Day at the age of 97.
Uh Nutella is tasty, but Satan poop.
Uh it really is not, I think, ideally healthy for you.
And it's funny because he's like a skinny guy who lived in ninety seven, which means I can only assume that he did not eat much Nutella.
Good though it is.
It is not particularly good for you.
If you see that breakdown of Nutella, like how much oil and fat and all of that stuff is in it.
Uh I also wanted to point out, you know, this general theory that the Marxists put out, you know, that Marxists are fantastic at creating hatred and division between groups.
I talk about this in my documentary in Hong Kong.
And this idea that England became wealthy by stealing from the third world and so on.
Uh no, no.
Actually, England's wealth began to severely rise, significantly rise, it's really rise.
England's wealth began to rise in the 15th century, uh, long before it broke its international boundaries and so on, is uh important.
Uh okay, we don't have any callers right now.
I had I had some thoughts about uh a man who is both noble and flawed.
I mean, not uncommon.
Uh I have my flaws.
Hopefully I have a smidge or two of nobility.
Maybe not when I'm giggling like a helium-blaced school girl, but anyway.
Uh poor poor Jordan Peterson.
Uh Jordan Peterson's daughter asks for prayers because her father is is quite ill.
This is Dr. Jordan Peterson, famous UFT professor of psychology, who has reached a level of fame that is reserved for very few people in this life, and which comes with an inordinate amount of stressors.
You know, if if especially if you're skeptical of anything on the left, they just pump hatred into the air until people go nuts on you.
Uh, I've experienced it myself, though of course not to the degree that Jordan Peterson did, so with all humility.
Uh my my goal is speak maximum truth, maximum truth, maximum philosophy, which is speak as much truth as you can until they're gonna kill you, and then pull back.
Right?
That's uh that's that's the general goal and idea.
And of course, Jordan Peterson has had some significant health issues, I think a couple of years ago, when his wife was ill, he started taking benzodiazepines.
I think he got addicted, and didn't he get airlifted out of Russia and put in a coma for a month to detox and like things were just wild.
And then he came back.
He came back and started working again.
Uh he's had gum issues and various health issues.
Uh and now the issue is uh I I don't even know the exact terms, but his daughter seems to think that it has something to do with mould exposure as a result of clearing out his father's basement after his father died.
And so I hope, you know, I wouldn't necessarily say that they're in a spiritual battle against existential demons, but I would say that we certainly I I say we.
I I certainly wish the best for Jordan Peterson.
I hope that he gets well.
He is a powerful voice for uh skepticism and significant amounts of reason in the world, and uh fingers crossed, I hope that he gets better, and I certainly wish the best for him and his family.
Uh flawed, yes, flawed, I will get into perhaps another time, but right now we have another caller.
Domas.
There was Tom, Tom sitting on a bomb.
Hello, how you doing?
Good, how you doing?
Okay, so my question, I was reading uh ex post um today or yesterday and remember, from a Danish boster, and he wrote something like, let's move every Muslim immigrant from Denmark to Paraguay, and let's pay them 60,000 euros and and then Paraguay can deal with them.
But he received a lot of um uh hate, so to say, because people say that Paraguay was a Christian country, they don't deserve it.
But my my deeper question would be, does this person she he does not consider Paraguay to be part of the West?
Do you consider Latin America as a general to be part of the West?
What's your take on on this?
That's uh that's an interesting question.
That's interesting.
Tell me a little bit more about Paraguay.
I mean, what is its legal system relative to say British common law or I guess French French law, Napoleonic law.
Um what is its general philosophy?
What is his approach to free speech and so on?
I mean, a lot of Western countries don't even feel that Western anymore, particularly England.
Did they arrest like 12,000 people for social media posts last year?
So uh tell me a little bit more about Paraguay and its legal and free speech structure.
I cannot tell you a lot about Paraguay because I'm from Chile, so I don't I'm not I don't know the specifics of Paraguay, but I can tell you about my country, which is still in Latin America.
I know that we follow the Roman law system uh heredit inherited from the Spaniards.
And I would say that at least my country is pretty Western in that regard, but you also have countries like Bolivia or maybe I don't know, Nicaragua, which are more genetically also to the indigenous side, or you have in even countries like Uruguay, which is genetically is mostly European, so it's a mixed mix, I would say, in that sense.
Now I I know a little bit more about Chile.
I did a show on Chile um many years ago, and it's brushed with almost socialism, its recovery into relative free market capitalism, but I will admit that I mean I've kept up with El Salvador a little bit more, but I've sort of lost uh a lot of what's been going on with Chile.
So Well, I would I would say that Chile's following some similar process that the West is solving.
So we received a lot of immigration.
Our immigration came from mostly Venezuela, but but also Peru, Haiti, um Colombia, uh the Caribbean countries, and now we also have a political process ongoing.
Uh we have a left-wing government which we have presidential elections.
A woman got in who was more socialist.
No, no, no.
It was uh it was a young man uh uh I think it was the youngest president of the entire world, so a millennial president, very, very woke in that sense, and now he's going away, and the possible president, next president is a German descendant, and possibly uh uh from the extreme right, so to say.
So in that sense I would say that Chile is very is following the similar trend to the Western countries.
But what's your what's your take on that?
I don't even want to say hard right, because I mean you never hear really about hard left or extreme left, but they have a uh a more a less globalist, more nationalist woman, I think is is ascending to power in Japan and it may save them from this uh the plan, right, to bury the Japan the to bury Japan in in in the non-Japanese.
And so uh yeah, if if Chile I mean was it 73, like a Pinochet overthrew Ayende, who was uh a socialist, which meant that he was going to end up destroying the economy and uh I assuming I assume doing a lot of pretty horrible and deadly things to those who weren't socialists as the socialists tend to do.
I think I could also tell you something more, maybe people may don't not know this, but I remember that when the big strikes came into the US, I think it was around 2020, there were a lot of strikes everywhere.
Strikes, yeah, so very big strikes looting everywhere.
Six months prior to that, the same thing happened in Chile.
So we had the same strikes, uh very, very left-wing they tried to even to overthrow the government.
Then we had got uh a whole change the constitution process, and I think if that constitution were the change, then Chile would have been destroyed because that constitution gave seven or even more different judicial systems for for the country.
So uh depending on your ethnic background, you will be judged by different judges.
So basically that will destroy my the country, I I would say.
Um I remember that's what uh yeah the of uh the issue of judicial fairness in a multi-ethnic society is a is a big challenge.
I'm sure you're aware of uh the leader of Singapore who got his start as a lawyer and realized that ethnic juries don't tend to convict their own ethnic uh accused.
And this is why they went not to trial by jury, but they went to trial by judge.
Because uh juries, you know, the the juries of a particular ethnicity are much less likely to convict someone of their own ethnicity than someone of another ethnicity.
I've heard ratios is as wide apart as if you have ethnicity X and the prisoner is ethnicity ethnicity X. I could do this word, I feel it.
I feel it strongly.
Uh then if it's the same ethnicity, the conviction rate is twenty percent, and if it's another ethnicity, particularly disliked ethnicity, then the conviction rate is like eighty percent, or or they can I've heard as as wide a gap as as those kinds of things.
And of course that isn't uh that isn't justice.
That isn't justice.
And yeah, so if you can start judging people.
Sorry, if you're gonna formalize the judging of people rather than having it informal through the preferences of ethnic juries, if you're gonna formalize having different rules for different ethnicities.
And multiculturalism generally leads to multi-legalism, which is different legal standards for different ethnicities, and this sort of goal of universal morality is nixed.
I'm so sorry, I interrupted you.
Go ahead.
No, no, I was just asking is if if what decided was for every race or because I also heard that maybe Europeans are whit uh they don't tend to have this unity as a group thing.
Well, I would say that I would say that there seems to be a lot of hostility to white in-group preference.
That is not the case for other in-group preferences.
And uh that is uh a little annoying to put it mildly, because that's not a universalization of the principle.
It's sort of like if you play soccer and you have to pass to the opposing team, but the other opposing team only has to pass to themselves.
Well, it's an unfair uh competition.
And so but there is of course this belief in the world that uh all white in-group preference leads to Nazism, and therefore you have to nip it all in the bud and that's not um I mean, white uh whites working together uh actually worked to overthrow and defeat Nazism, so it's not really a very good thesis, but it's uh compelling compellingly believable to a surprising number of people.
All right, well I appreciate those uh comments and uh I would love to I would love to get to Chile one day.
I have been as far south as Brazil.
Um I think that's the furthest south uh uh I've gone, at least in in that continent, but it would be fascinating to go uh to Chile and to try and sort of understand the threats of how Chile managed to avoid the catastrophes of a lot of Central and South American countries in their endless experimentation with socialism and actually, you know, the sort of famous meme of the helicopters and all of that be fascinating to find out how that came about.
It would be a good documentary uh to do.
But uh I have to sort of rebuild my my shattered platforms uh so so to speak, because I I used to love I've done three documentaries.
Three, yeah, three.
Uh one on Poland, one on Hong Kong, and one on California, which was a six-part series.
And love doing the documentaries.
You can actually c catch me uh in Micsenovich's documentary called Host.
Uh hoaxed the movie.
You should uh check it out.
It's really good.
And uh you know, the bit at the end is great.
So I like doing the documentaries, but they're very expensive, and I don't uh have a a platform with which to distribute.
And I hope that you guys will uh check out if you go to uh YouTube, just do a search for Free Domain One, the number one free domain one, if you could subscribe to me there, I would really appreciate it.
But yeah, I'd like to do more documentaries, but right now it's just setting fire to a pile of dollar bills.
Uh sadly because I do the documentary, but I don't have a big enough venue to get the documentaries out and find any particular way to monetize them.
And of course, as an entrepreneur of now thirty years, I feel I feel good.
And I also feel that I have to and and should be responsible to your donation dollars.
So I hope that you um well subscribe here on X and donate at freedom.com slash donate.
I promise to be as responsible as I can and not throw money into big piles and set fire to it because I like to do documentaries.
But uh, you know, the world is changing.
The world is bouncing back from the edge of insanity.
You know, everyone thinks that the pendulum just swings forever, but usually it does sort of go back more towards the center, and I think I think we're getting that kind of stuff now, so who knows what could be possible.
I certainly do miss doing uh public speaking, all of that kind of stuff.
Uh I I definitely miss all of that stuff, and uh who knows.
It could it could happen, it could happen.
All right.
Uh yes, we have a Nuder caller.
If you want to unmute, I'm all ears.
Right.
No one.
No one.
Yes, sir.
How's it going?
Hi.
I want to follow up on the last question.
That uh he uh the other guy said that if Latin America is uh a part of the West, right?
And us the your response to that is I gather is that you have to uh tick uh some boxes to say if you are part of the West or not.
Between those would be common law or uh I don't I don't remember the other ones.
Can you help me, please?
Yeah, so I would put in sort of the Western category the major innovations that the West developed politically were threefold.
Uh number one, the free market, uh number two, uh free speech, number three, uh limited government, small smaller government, more voluntary uh free market activity.
And and common law, right?
So the the idea of uh uh trial by a jury of your peers according to objective rules with the general common law developed systems of discovery, uh evidence presentation, being able to interrogate your accusers and and so on.
So yeah, common law, free markets, and free speech to me would put people in general in the Western uh tradition, if that makes sense.
Okay.
I I have an observation about it.
So uh before uh in my country, before before eighteen twenty-five.
Sorry, your country is which one?
Uh Bolivia.
Bolivia, sorry, go ahead.
Right right next to Chile.
Yes.
Um before that uh date, we were part of the um uh Spanish Empire.
Right.
And after that we uh quote unquote uh we gained independence.
And the ideas that were present in the moment uh the the people were writing the constitution, I think or or I suspect uh are the ideas borrow from the French Revolution.
Right and the ideas from the French Revolution, I think, are contrary, or I mean uh are on the opposite side uh from the ideas that you just said.
Right.
Uh yeah, I would actually, and sorry, just to point out a whole 12-hour series on the French Revolution available to donors, but very briefly, I would say that the French tradition is an outlier in the Western tradition in that it tends to be uh equality of opportunity is more of the Western tradition.
Now I grew up in England, so for me, the Anglo-Saxon is at the core of the Western tradition.
But France is not uh France is not individualistic, it is collectivist in general.
France is not pro-free market, it is pro opportunity of sorry, it's pro-equality of outcome, not equality of opportunity.
Well, France, as you know, and this is true of Italy to some degree as well, is is famously hard to fire anyone, and uh hyperregulation, and they're not particularly friendly to the free market.
And of course, in the French legal system which comes out of the Napoleonic Code, you are guilty until proven innocent, which is not at all part of the Anglo-Saxon common law tradition where you are innocent until proven guilty.
France was not a big free speech, and of course, the the two big revolutions that occurred at about the same time, with truly opposite results, is the French Revolution and the American Revolution.
The American Revolution was equality of opportunity, small government, free markets, free speech, and an armed citizenry.
The French Revolution was collectivist, totalitarian, anti-clerical, and fanatically murderous, and produced an absolute catastrophe of a disaster in the West.
So and the other thing too is that uh the Anglo Saxon tradition tends to be highly protective of children, and uh France to some degree because of the uh major thinkers in terms of French France and childhood.
Yeah, we're pretty pretty terrible uh that way.
And uh Rousseau, of course, uh famously uh dumped all of his children in French orphanages, which were just brutal, and they almost certainly died, and he just ignored them.
And so uh the protection of children is really not part of certainly French intellectual life, the French intellectuals are famously pedophile adjacent, is probably the nicest way to put it, but they all signed these declarations saying, Oh, yes, you should lower the age of consent and children can consent,
and you know, they mean their big big intel biggest intellectual in France's history, at least the modern history, uh is Michel Foucault, who was a uh a violent uh horrifying drug using sadomasochist uh guy uh who just did the most appalling things in sex dungeons all over the world, and there's horrible rumors about what he did in Tunisia with the underage kids in graveyards and so on, so yeah, there's not it's not now.
Of course, you could say, and I understand it, that in the British tradition there is a lot of uh rum sodomy in the lash and uh boarding schools uh with the child sexual assault and uh the Jimmy Saville and you know all of the stuff that happens in the House of Lords in particular, a lot of which was covered up by Margaret Thatcher, by the way.
But you could also say, but it's not part of the general intellectual tradition.
It is sort of classically morally like those.
It's it's frowned upon, it's not yeah, it's not frowned upon, it's not elevated in like Jimmy Seville had to hide uh the kind of stuff that uh French intellectuals seem to praise, and that's uh it's a sort of a different matter.
But so yeah, France is uh France to me is very much an outlier in uh in the West uh for a variety of reasons, and uh so I would certainly say there are there are countries not in Europe that are closer to what I would consider the Western tradition than France.
Okay.
So Latin America would be uh 50 50 in a rough estimate, cause I would put Chile uh when it had its uh height of the free market as much closer to the West than France would be.
Oh, okay, okay, good.
Gotcha, gotcha.
But uh in the ordin of traditions uh between the French uh the French influence and the Spanish influence, uh is particularly um the modern era.
French are French influence is uh the biggest.
So therefore uh Latin America would not be uh uh great part of the West or something like that, right?
No, I I think that's I mean Spain is it's a very interesting case because of course Spanish the Spanish had an empire and the Spanish was uh a world power, which you generally get only out of the free market.
But Spain got completely eviscerated by all of the extra gold from the new world to the point, as I mentioned in the recent show, that they had a 400-year recession, like all the smart people left uh who who had you know their intellectual and mobile skills to go.
And so uh Spain was really at the height of uh the Western tradition in many ways, and then went empire and and then through empire, hyper-inflated the currency through the you know, tons of gold that it got from the new world,
and then sank into sort of second world status and uh uh uh was moribund for again like four hundred years, it's wild the effect that it has, That the incredibly long lasting effect of your smartest people leaving the country is is really brutal.
And of course, this is some of the concern that's going on with India that if all the smart people leave India, uh what happens to India?
Uh intelligent people are by far the most important resources that any country has.
So my last question.
Um if you are waiting the the thinking or the thought of French uh intellectuals and uh the thinkers that were used on the uh founding of uh America.
Can you say that uh those thinkers were more um inclined to democracy in the modern sense, or were the French thinkers more democratic in that sense, that uh equality of outcomes and uh my thesis is that democracy uh tends to help the thought of those thinkers of the French thinkers,
not the thinkers that had found their found uh America.
Right, right, right.
I mean, of course, this was the idea of we get this debate in America all the time.
It's not really a debate.
So say, well, we're a democracy is like no no no, it's a republic, and a republic is supposed to be a democracy that is limited by a constitution and a rights.
Right?
Uh whereas it's uh sort of raw democracy is just majority gets to do whatever the hell they want with almost no interference from anything else.
So the unfortunate thing with a democracy is you can think of a building, uh an apartment building with 50 people and a landlord.
And the landlord wants to raise rents, and the uh tenants want the rents to be lower.
So how do you deal with this?
Well, in a free market society, the landlord can raise or lower his rents within the contractual obligations he has or the lease that he has with his tenants, because he owns the building.
However, in a democracy, uh the landlord being outvoted 50 to one, what do the tenants want?
Well, they don't want to raise any rent any rents, in fact, they want the rents to be as low as humanly possible.
So in a democracy, the tenants of the apartment building will simply vote to take away the building and give it to themselves and then vote for the rents to be five dollars a month, right?
Because that's that's it, that's a that's a democracy.
And you know, that that is in the very short run, that's very beneficial to the tenants, right?
Because they get their rents lowered from a thousand dollars a month or two thousand dollars a month to five dollars a month, and they they dance and they skip down the hallways until right.
Until until things stop working.
Yeah.
Until their kids want to move out and maybe have apartments of their own, which they don't have because nobody is investing in apartments.
I mean, in Toronto, where I grew up from the age of eleven onwards, people simply stopped building apartment buildings because there was this ferocious rent control.
And so what did people do?
Well, they built condos instead, because condos are not subject to rent control for obvious reasons.
And they also converted apartments to uh condos.
And it's the same thing in New York where you have these key apartments called key apartments, which is the rent control is there, it's been there for 30 years or 40 years, so these apartments are ridiculously cheap, like overlooking Central Park for like 700, 800 bucks a month.
And you're supposed to be able to change the rent when somebody dies, but they just exchange keys without informing the landlord that anyone has died if somebody dies or moves out or whatever.
And so you get this whole scam, it's this game of cat and mouse, and so uh you want to look at democracy is always going to be the case that those who want will always outvose outvote those who create.
Because those who create are very rare.
Those who build apartment buildings, those who make stadiums, those who make movies and songs.
You know, when Napster was at its height, you know, people were just downloading songs all over the place, and how many people were downloading songs As opposed to how many people were writing and recording songs.
Yeah.
And it's the same thing with movies.
You know, when I was in I was doing a lot of business in China in the year 2000.
And everywhere I would go.
It's like, oh, you know, we've got these uh movies for you.
Cheap free movies, copy, paste, CDs, DVDs, you name it, right?
And those guys were a dime a dozen, but people who can write, act indirect, create, produce, and distribute movies.
Well, I guess they'd be distributors in a way, but people who can write and create good stories are very rare, but people who can copy paste a DVD are very common.
And so the people who want vastly outnumber the people who create.
People who want free apartments vastly outnumber those who can build and create and fund quality apartments.
And so the people who want always outnumber the people who create.
And so the poor take away, they vote to take away the wealth and property of the rich.
And then everybody ends up poor.
Like there's this debate in England about, as is in the case of a lot of Western countries, this inheritance tax.
Inheritance unfair for some kids to get all this money and other kids don't.
It's like, well, how do you know?
I mean, I grew up poor, it gave me a huge amount of ambition.
Some of the kids that I knew who grew up rich didn't have much ambition.
So it all tends to correct over time.
There's not some magic benefit to starting off life with more money, uh, and there's lots of costs, you know, the poor little rich girl, and a friend I had uh shortly before I met my wife, he actually helped introduce me to my wife.
Uh, he would tell me that, you know, he grew up very wealthy, but incredibly lonely, because both his parents worked and he was very sad and it's not it's not I mean the the issues with my childhood really didn't have anything to do with not having money.
So but of course, if if you say, well, you can't leave your money to your kids anymore, well, then people will just stop creating businesses and they'll stop working hard, they'll stop working their 80 hours a week.
And there are may uh way more people who want jobs than people who can create jobs.
I mean, I've been on both sides.
I've been a job applicant, and I've also, over the course of my business career, I mean, I wasn't obviously any kind of big shakes, but I did create about a hundred jobs over the course of my business career, and you know, it's that's pretty good.
But it's not that common.
None of my friends were entrepreneurs creating jobs.
Actually, I have one friend who's done it.
Uh, one friend in like 40 years who's created a business and hired a bunch of people, and I've had a lot of friends.
Sorry, that sounds kind of sinister.
I had a lot of friends, they're all sleeping with the fishes, but so yeah, the people who want jobs are very common, the people who can create jobs are very rare.
And if you just simply take away the reward, which is, you know, one of the reasons why people work hard is to create a legacy that they can give to their children.
And if you take away their ability to give that legacy to their children, they'll just work less hard.
I mean, you don't have you don't have, oh, look at all these people, they're leaving they're leaving ten billion dollars a year to their children or whatever it is, and then you say, well, we'll get that ten billion dollars.
It's like, no, you won't.
Because the moment you make it impossible to give your wealth to your children, people will just stop working to collect that much wealth, or they'll just spend it, or they'll find some legal loophole, or they'll leave the country, or like you just you won't get that money.
It's crazy.
I don't know why people don't understand this.
It's just absolute retarded fools out there in the world who think that, well, we could just we can just take stuff from people.
There's all this money there, and it it's a mirage.
It's killing the goose that lays the golden egg, ripping it open.
You don't get any golden eggs anymore.
It's just a mirage.
You run at this thing, and you don't get a lovely lake you can swim in, you just get a desert, because it all vanishes.
You you charge at it.
You know, it's like saying, well, this guy doesn't want to be my friend, but if I beat him up, he'll want to be my friend.
It's like, no, he'll just want to stay as far away from me as possible.
So the more you start using force against people, the more they'll just try to avoid it or stay away.
And anyway, sorry, I know this is a long, a long topic, but uh, if you had any any final thoughts, I'd I'd love to hear.
Yeah, thank you.
Um so you would say uh on a philosophical level that the modern democracy has more to do with uh French thought than the Western thought as you describe it.
Yeah, so I mean, to be a politician means you have to flatter the masses, and flatter them flattering the masses is to be a slave to the lowest common denominator, right?
You you have to flatter women and say that they're wonderful and nothing is their fault, and you have to insult and provoke sentiment against the rich, you have to prov provoke hostility towards the rich, and you have to, you know, uh praise designated groups, and you're like, it's just it's just uh horrible, and you can't go on any principle, and you can't ask for any sacrifice, and you just have to lie to everyone.
It's a it's a vile, hideous existence, and you just can't get any truth.
You can't get any truth out in the political arena.
So anyway, I appreciate that.
I will take one more quick call.
Thank you for a great question and agripa.
Uh, either gonna get stomach cramps or some nice Italian wine.
Alright.
Agrippa, if you wanted to tell me what's on your mind.
I love to hear your thoughts.
Alright, he's here.
He's not here.
He is Shouldn't just call her.
He requests to talk, but he will not talk.
Uh you know what?
Could be ASL, he could be miming, or he might be trying to beam his thoughts into mine.
Oh well.
That's alright.
That's all right.
Okay, well, I'll stop here because I just had a short amount of time tonight.
Uh thank you, everyone who came by this morning.
We had a really good donor only call, which we do every Sundays at 11 a.m.
We did uh all of the ways in which you can reduce your risks of getting married.
So if you'd like to get a hold of that show, free domain.com slash donate, set yourself up for a subscription on locals or subscribestar, or right here on X, and you can get a hold of that.
And thank you everyone so much for dropping by tonight.
A great pleasure, as always, to chat with you again.
Uh best wishes, hope you'll join me in putting out our best wishes into the universe for Dr. Jordan Peterson.
Hope he gets back in the saddle.
Stefan.
Yes.
Uh you were such a legend in 2015 and 2017.
I used to watch you in the living room on YouTube when YouTube was still uncensored.
I just what a what thank you for what you were doing back then, and uh thank you.
Uh thank you.
I appreciate that.
Thank you.
That was a wild time.
You know, that that time, I would say 2005 when I started, I was like the third user on YouTube.
So, like that time, 2005 to 2015.
I mean, the suppression started kind of after that, but 2005 to 2015, those ten glorious years.
To have been on the fiery forefront of free speech in that era was a glorious liberty.
I hope will come again.
I hope it'll come again.
But that means that we need more white males in the conversation because I've done a whole presentation on free speech and demographics, and generally only white males tend to be free speech absolutists, not obviously exclusively, but generally.
But that time, before the elites figured out the power of social media, when we could speak truth to power, get facts out there, and have millions of followers have a significant impact and effect, I will go to my grave with a smile on my face, having been at the forefront of free speech in the most glorious time of human liberty, in the spoken, written, or mimed-out word that has ever existed.
And I will forever look back upon that time with great gratitude that to talk about seize the day, right?
Carpe diem, talk about seizing the day.
I knew it wasn't gonna last.
I poured everything I had into communicating as much philosophy as humanly possible before the gate came down.
And boy did it come down.
But that time before, oh, it was glorious!
Glorious, I tell you, it was absolutely glorious to stand atop the world and beam the healing and pacifying thoughts of reason and evidence in a way that philosophy has never been able to achieve before.
Oh to be young, to be vocal, to be mildly cautious but largely unafraid.
Oh, it was a glorious time, and I hope it will come again, but even if it comes again, that first time will never come again in the same way you can't have sex again for the very first time.
So I was a it was a wonderful time, and I'm glad that you appreciated it, and I'm certainly glad I did everything what I did, and I'm glad that what I've done to navigate things ever since.
Once more, big shout out and thanks to our good friend, well, not my good friend, I don't know the guy, but our good friend, the good friend of free speech, Elon Musk for opening up this platform and inviting me back in.
Alright.
Love you guys.
I will talk to you Wednesday, if not before, and thanks you for your time, care, and attention tonight.
▲
Export Selection