Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux - Ferocious Debate on Colonialism! Twitter/X Space

Jan. 23, 2026 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux

01:28:27

Ferocious Debate on Colonialism! Twitter/X Space

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
Wanting High IQ 00:04:35
	Good afternoon, my friends.
	Hope you're doing well.
	It is Stefan Molyneux from Freedomain.
	Freedomain.com slash Jonate to help out the show.
	It is the 20th of January in this year of our Lord Science Fiction 2026.
	Flying cars.
	No, not really.
	Mars, no, not really.
	But we have massive and endless income redistribution from the more economically productive to the, well, let's say slightly less economically productive.
	We don't get Star Trek.
	We get welfare.
	All right.
	So I'm happy to take questions, comments.
	Got a little bit of time this afternoon.
	And if you have questions, comments, issues, criticisms, problems, whatever you'd like to talk about, I am thrilled, happy, and overjoyed to hear you.
	I did look up earlier today, I did look up this question or issue of IQ and body count, right?
	This is just for women, right?
	This is just for women.
	And yes, when you are young as a female, if you are promiscuous, then you have a low IQ.
	On average, in general, tons of exceptions.
	It's just kind of a self-respect thing.
	It is a deferral of gratification thing.
	It is not taking the easy route thing and it is preserving your value for the future thing.
	So it just generally tends to be that kind of situation.
	And I'm always fascinated by proxies for IQ.
	I have looked up a bunch of different things related to IQ.
	And every now and then I look for these.
	And yes.
	So, you know, I mean, high-quality, high-IQ, high-value, successful men, the kind of men that women generally want.
	Well, those men tend to want intelligent women.
	And you want intelligent women because, you know, people are saying, oh, men, they just want an Applebee's waitress.
	They don't want some high IQ woman if the Applebee's waitress is nicer.
	And of course, niceness is important, but you need a smart woman if you're a smart man.
	You just do.
	You need her to run your household.
	You need her to manage the finances.
	Perhaps you need her to be intelligent enough to raise children without aggression or violence or hitting.
	And of course, you need her to be presentable at high-level corporate functions and so on.
	And so you can't have some overweight, tattooed, whatever, right?
	It's just not going to happen.
	You know, after I got married, I took my wife to a whole bunch of fairly high-level corporate events and conferences and so on.
	And she always shone and she was super gracious and great at this kind of stuff.
	And she's very poised and elegant and all that.
	And it's great.
	Obviously, it looks good on me.
	And that's a plus.
	Plus, of course, since you're going to be mingling your genetics and genetics, IQ is massively heritable, like 80% plus from late teens onwards.
	If you want to have a good parenting experience, it's not great to be much smarter than your children.
	So, you know, if you have a guy who's got an IQ of 130 and he marries a woman with an IQ of 95, well, they're going to have IQs of 110, 112, which is almost two standard deviations away from him.
	Again, I'm just talking averages, right?
	Just averages.
	And, you know, I've thought myself with regards to being a parent that if my child was not smart, it would be pretty tough to be a good parent.
	I would be, you know, because I would get impatient.
	And, you know, if you've been around or tried to teach people who aren't particularly smart, and if you are particularly smart, it's kind of frustrating.
	It really is kind of frustrating.
	And listen, of course, we all have our different skill sets.
	My daughter tries to teach me something in Rocket League, and she probably feels a little impatient because she's really good at some stuff that I'm not so good at, and so on.
	So I do think that you just want as high IQ possible.
	And one of the things that's going to happen is you're going to look for a low body camp.
	And so it is a very tough situation for women because what's dangled in front of men and women these days is just hedonism.
	It's just hedonism, man.
Why You Want a High IQ 00:07:59
	I think, because after high school, as you know, I went to work for a year, year and a half up in Northern Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba.
	And, you know, today in Southern Ontario, it's like minus, it feels like minus 27 degrees.
	And I'm like, hey, this is taking me back because it was even colder, get to minus 40 when we were working up north.
	And I remember doing that, you know, pretty hard, brutal work.
	I didn't mind it.
	I've never minded hard physical labor.
	It's actually, it feels kind of good.
	Like at the end of the day, you really feel like you've achieved something, even if it's just like shoveling the driveway.
	I did like an hour and a half shoveling the driveway the other day.
	And it just feels good.
	It's satisfying, you know, as opposed to, oh, I pushed some pixels on the internet, which seems a little gay.
	I'll like move mountains of snow to the left and to the right.
	It's a big plus.
	But man, oh, gosh, when I got back from working up north and I started an English degree at the Glendon campus of York University because it was close to where I lived in Dar Mills.
	And, oh, man, that was nice.
	It was so nice.
	Braloli, Bob, it was love it.
	So nice going to college.
	I remember being kind of shocked.
	Like, what?
	What is this?
	10 hours of classes a week?
	Playing hack a sack in the quad, chatting with girls at the cafeteria, writing some essays for the student newspaper.
	Oh, look at that.
	I'm on the debating team and they will fly me all over Canada to do yappy debates.
	Oh, how delightful.
	Man, it was nice.
	I mean, college is a fantastic way to waste your time.
	It is time well wasted.
	That's the old, what was it?
	MTV time well wasted.
	It was great.
	Loved it.
	I did theater.
	I wrote plays, performed plays that I'd written.
	Went to the gym a lot and read a lot and wrote essays, like things that I like to do.
	I like to read history.
	I like to read literature.
	I just at the moment have just, I'm putting the finishing touches on perhaps the greatest essay in the history of philosophy.
	And I say this not to brag.
	It actually is a statement of humility because I think that if I tell my unconscious this is going to be the greatest, my unconscious will be like, fine, here you go.
	I mean, I don't come up with a lot of the stuff myself.
	I just kind of transcribe, but I'm just putting the finishing touches on.
	I may in fact just call it the greatest essay in the history of philosophy.
	It's nine pages of pure concentrated social, economic, and moral analysis that tells everybody exactly why the world is so messed up and exactly how to fix it.
	So, I mean, I do this stuff for fun, for funsies.
	I remember when I was taking a class on Aristotle, I wrote extra papers trying to understand Aristotle and sat down with this, the lovely woman who was teaching Aristotle.
	She was great.
	She's just really, really opposed to relativism.
	Boom.
	She just tore someone up when it came to relativism, which, you know, made her my hero or heroine, I guess.
	I remember sitting with her office.
	You know, can we go over this essay?
	I really want to understand Aristotle's substance versus essence.
	And I wrote this essay and she's like, well, you could cut this, you could simplify this.
	But I just remember this wonder in her voice that somebody was doing extra work and trying to really, really understand things.
	I actually just, I thought of her the other day.
	I could probably dig up her name somewhere from my old files.
	And it would be nice to send her.
	It would be nice to send her my Wikipedia page saying, see what you did?
	Huh?
	Huh?
	See what you did?
	I'm sure she'd be proud of me.
	I'm sure of that.
	Because if you're into philosophy, being attacked, it means that you're doing philosophy rights, not wrong, but right.
	So, so, yeah, and for women, going to university is a whole other planet.
	Because I, gosh, I've never had things handed to me.
	I think this is true for men as a whole.
	We just don't know what it's like.
	We don't know what it's like.
	And this is something a friend of mine said to me when I was in my teens: changed my mind about life, the world, and everything.
	And again, I'm happy to take calls if you want.
	If there's anything that you wanted to chat about, please let me know.
	But I remember my friend said to me, imagine being half your size, a foot shorter or six inches shorter, half your size, and with something, you're carrying around something that everybody wants.
	So I'm a shade under six foot.
	So imagine I was like, I don't know, five, three, five, four.
	Instead of being 190 pounds, I was like 120 pounds.
	I would have, you know, less than half my muscle mass.
	And so I'd be walking around a pretty bad neighborhood with a clear bag of $100 bills while being physically weak and really not able to defend myself.
	And that was an amazing conversation to understand what the experience of women is like and why women are like, yeah, we'd love a world without men.
	And then the men say, well, who would protect you?
	And the women say, from whom would we need protection?
	There would be no men.
	So we wouldn't be attacked.
	Now, the downside, of course, is that the women would generally be dead in two weeks because the entire infrastructure would collapse because women don't do infrastructure.
	They do foundation on the face, not foundations to build house.
	So the infrastructure would collapse and the women would all die.
	Food poisoning, cholera, wild animals, starvation, right?
	Women don't do infrastructure as a whole.
	And they would die.
	So, but they wouldn't be too scary for long.
	So for women, the downside is being half the size of men with a giant precious commodity that they carry in and around their fleshly flame, fleshly, fleshly, fleshy frames, fleshly flames.
	Sounds like something that would summon a fire demon.
	But yes, they're fleshy frames.
	And the downside is that vulnerability.
	The upside is the endless conveyor belt of men just wanting to give them stuff.
	Oh, when I ask the universe for things, the universe just seems to provide.
	It's like, yeah, yeah, try that when you're 80.
	I doubt the universe.
	Well, I guess the universe still provides because the government robs men to give you an old age pension and healthcare.
	But anyway, that is how that goes.
	But in university, it's fun enough for men, but oh my gosh, for women, university?
	Oh, absolute, complete, and total blast.
	I mean, you're in a relatively safe area.
	You're around relatively high IQ people, or at least it used to be.
	I don't know what it is now.
	But yeah, everywhere you go, women are wonderful.
	You're so cool.
	You're so special.
	Guys are asking you out.
	They want to take you places.
	They want to buy you things.
	I mean, it's paradise.
	I compare that to getting pregnant and having a baby.
	Like, it's no wonder that the birth rate is collapsing.
	And now, even now, even more so now, you get to post on Instagram and a ticker talk.
	And you get to post all of this cool stuff and make your duck face and everyone envies you and you're so cool.
	And it's, I mean, it's almost impossible to resist.
	Almost impossible to resist.
	So it is real easy, real easy to rack up your body count as a young woman, particularly in university.
Why Homework Matters 00:15:39
	All right.
	Instead of getting your MRS degree, you're getting your OF degree.
	Hey, Naim.
	If you want to unmute, I'm happy to hear what's on your mind.
	Hey, can you hear me okay?
	Yes, sir.
	Go ahead.
	All right.
	Awesome.
	Hey, I had some questions for you.
	I've been listening and catching up on your content.
	I had three questions for you.
	I think maybe we can get through them.
	The first one is kind of a fun one.
	I was wondering if you had any thoughts about the philosophy of like gummy bears, like just the nature of eating varied candied fruits and people's behavior with that.
	And the reason I asked is because, you know, when I was, have you ever had any like candy that had like different flavors before?
	So, yes.
	I mean, the one thing I love about doing the show is I never have a single freaking clue what the hell is coming next.
	Ah, the philosophy of squishy gummy bears.
	Well, I will say this, that my daughter, like most kids, had a fascination with gummy candies.
	And we did once order, oh, did we get?
	I think we were in Florida and we got a gummy Gator, which had rainbow, right?
	So we went to a Gator farm or some sort of Gator exhibit, and she was really into lizards when we were in Australia in 2018.
	She was nine or ten, and she caught a giant lizard, which was pretty terrifying for her mother, actually quite exciting for me.
	I was trying to stop the lizard from escaping by holding a stick in front of it, and it just ripped the stick right out of my hands.
	And then my daughter caught it.
	Her mother was like, count your fingers, count your fingers.
	But so anyway, she loves lizards.
	So we went to a Gator farm or a Gator exhibit and we got a gummy Gator and we tried it.
	So it's, if you want to know, have I tasted rainbow gummy candy?
	Yes.
	Yes, I have.
	Okay.
	Izzy Gilizzy.
	Yeah, just different flavors.
	Because I always remember like when I was a kid, like I always liked the red gummy bears.
	And whenever my parents got them, I would just kind of eat those first.
	But as I got older and, you know, kind of threw out the ones that I hated, I started eating the ones that I hated first because I wanted the best ones last.
	And I felt like there's some type of deferral of gratification there.
	And I'm wondering if that is just a behavior that is appreciated.
	Just people that do that.
	It's kind of a weird question, but I was kind of wondering of your thoughts on that.
	Yeah, I mean, it is this question of sort of, do you save the best for last?
	Do you reward yourself with the plus?
	I mean, that's dessert, right?
	I mean, you've had your appetizer, you've had a meal, and then you have a little something sweet at the end.
	And that's what, you know, parents were always saying to their kids is have the dessert at the end.
	When I was a kid, it's a funny memory, memory just popped into my head.
	When I first moved to Canada, I was 11, just turned 11.
	And I lived in Whitby with my mother's half-brother.
	And I was in grade eight.
	They put me two years ahead.
	And then they put me two years back when I moved to Toronto.
	But I remember having this homework that was really boring.
	And it's funny because I love to learn.
	I love to think.
	I love to reason.
	I love to push things out.
	But schoolwork was just universally hell.
	Boring, No, no connection to reality or utility of any kind.
	And I remember there was a game.
	Maybe somebody can remember what this is.
	There was a little plastic game which was a shark, and you had to pick things out of the shark's mouth.
	And if you pick things wrong, it would snap shut.
	And I remember my brother was a very hard worker, and he was older than me.
	And he would go down to the basement.
	He'd just do his homework.
	And I would sit there and I would say, okay, I'm going to do math homework.
	I'm going to do a couple of questions.
	I'll do three questions of the math homework.
	And then I will pick some debris out of the shark's mouth.
	And then I will do more.
	And it was just like a little reward for things like that.
	So I think that trying to find a way to reward yourself in this way, like I'll eat the bad gummies first, and I'll eat the good gummies later.
	I think it is a way of managing yourself or sort of bribing yourself or punishing yourself in order to get things done.
	And I think it usually arises because there's no clear motivation for what it is that you're doing.
	There's an old saying from Nietzsche who says, give a man a why, he can bear almost any how.
	So if you have a reason for doing something, a purpose for doing something, then you'll figure out a way.
	And it's sort of like you wouldn't just give a random stranger your kidney, but if your child is dying and needs your kidney, then you'll give your child your kidney because you have a why.
	And if you have a why, you can bear almost any how.
	And nobody likes flossing their teeth, but you floss your teeth because you don't want to get tooth decay and have teeth problems and so on because that's no fun at all.
	So I think because we don't have things explained to us and what we do is in school is so empty of meaning.
	And when you don't have a meaningful why as to why you're doing something, then the how becomes you have to substitute.
	Like, what's the reward?
	The reward of learning something should be that you gain in knowledge and power and efficacy and you can use it for the course of your life and so on, right?
	So that's the purpose of learning something.
	But if there's no purpose to learning something, then usually what we do is we, what do parents do?
	Well, why should you do your homework?
	This kid says, well, why should I do my homework?
	It's like, because you have to, right?
	It's like, well, I don't want to.
	And it's like, okay, do your homework and then we'll go throw the ball around outside afterwards, right?
	So you bribe them, but you do that because there's no meaning or value in the task.
	So when our lives empty out of meaning and value, we tend to bribe and punish ourselves as a motivation.
	And then it becomes a vicious cycle because the more we bribe and punish ourselves, the less meaning we have in what we do.
	But yeah, I mean, one of the great, you know, absolutely awful things that happens to children the world over is you're just taught all of this absolutely useless stuff under high stress, right?
	They can hold you back for a whole year.
	You get punished, you get sent home, you get a bad report card, you get detention, you do lines, not the fun kind in an 80s LA nightclub.
	But I think because we just put children through this absolute mink grinder of meaningless busy work, they end up having to give themselves bribes and rewards rather than doing the thing for its own sake or for the sake of some future goal, if that makes sense.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, I think that that does.
	And I think as a kid myself in school, I would always do my homework last, you know, Sunday night, Monday morning before I got in, if I could.
	As an adult, try to do that first.
	Try to do the things that you don't like so that you can get to the relaxation or whatever it is.
	So, yeah, no, I really like that answer.
	And I think that's a good one.
	So I think I'm good there.
	Well, hang on.
	So, so I mean, good for you.
	I can be a bit of a procrastinator at times, and especially if I have stuff that's really not particularly urgent, but kind of negative.
	So, that's probably just a habit left over.
	So, one of the things I hated about homework was it just felt like a humiliation ritual because it was pointless and because it intruded in my life, I resisted it the same way I would resist a bully.
	I felt, and I don't think it's just me, I felt that it was bullying.
	I felt like if the teacher is a good teacher, then why the living hell do I have to do homework?
	Well, you've got to practice.
	And it's like, well, but if the teaching is good enough, I should want to do the homework.
	So, the fact that you have to do the homework is implicitly telling you that it's not a value to you.
	You know, like, so when I was learning racket sports, I wanted to be good at racket sports because I was the youngest kid around.
	Just about everywhere I went, I was the youngest kid around because I was right at the tail end of the baby boom.
	And my birthday is in September, so I was at the beginning of the school year.
	I have an older brother, like everywhere I went, I was just the youngest kid around.
	And so, I had to really work hard on my physical skills.
	I had to learn how to play racket sports so that people would want to play tennis with me, older kids.
	I had to learn how to do soccer and rounders or cricket or baseball, hitting sports, and so on.
	And I had to learn how to run fast because the older kids were faster.
	And the one thing I can do is run fast.
	So, I had a big incentive to learn racket sports.
	And so, I practiced a lot of racket sports.
	Nobody had to give me homework.
	No one had to make me do it.
	You know, I remember dragging an entire white door home from a ruined building to paint a big landscape portrait because I was really interested in drawing and painting and so on.
	So, I did all of that stuff as a kid.
	I started writing short stories when I was six.
	You know, I just loved doing it.
	So, all the things that I wanted to do that actually turned out to be productive.
	Like, I was fascinated by computers.
	And so, there was a computer lab where I could cart like a back-busting giant computer home.
	Can't drop it, right?
	Because they were thousands of dollars.
	And I would cart a computer home and learn how to program it and how to use it and what the operating system and file system meant and all of that.
	And nobody gave me that as homework.
	Like Saturdays, I would go into the computer lab with some friends and we'd puzzle out all this computer stuff.
	It wasn't paid.
	It wasn't assigned.
	So all the stuff that I was actually interested in and did turned out to be a value to my life as a whole.
	And I just felt that this was a punishment inflicted on the basis of power.
	And it was because it was punished if you didn't do it.
	It is not intrinsically a value.
	I'm not saying I puzzled all this out intellectually, but I think I sort of felt it deep down.
	So I wrote this real line when it came to homework.
	I mean, I did enough that they wouldn't hold me back a year, but I was a bare minimum kid for most of my education.
	Like, just do the bare minimum.
	I get my 60.
	I mean, where I had to work at others, like I always got 90s and plus in English, of course.
	But I hate it.
	I hated being bullied and pushed around by that.
	And it's like when a bully says, you know, I want you to dig a hole and then fill it up again.
	I mean, you'll do it because you don't want to get beaten up if the bully's like twice your size or something, but you'll resent it the whole time.
	And you'll do the minimum and you'll, right?
	I mean, this sort of slave resentment that happens.
	So if you found a way to have a better relationship with homework, I envy you.
	I just, I just, I couldn't, I couldn't do it.
	And I, you know, even thinking about it now, I feel this sort of vaguely syrupy resentment in my chest just about like, why do you asshole teachers not find a way to make me enthusiastic?
	Because I do like to learn.
	I just hate everything you're doing.
	Yeah, homework is kind of challenging in grade school and high school.
	It flips.
	It flipped for me a little bit in college and wasn't until I got older.
	You know, in college, a lot of the homework is you have to read before the class.
	I kind of like that approach.
	In college, I kind of felt that the one and a half hours or the three hours wasn't really enough to really internalize the material.
	So I kind of liked being able to read it beforehand.
	I kind of felt like that was a better way of learning.
	But sorry, what would college have to do?
	Sorry, sorry, what would college have to do with what I'm talking about?
	Because at college, you choose to go.
	And college, you choose your subjects, and you don't have to do things that you don't like.
	That's true.
	You do have general education where you kind of have to learn broad things that's kind of mandatory.
	So like if you don't like any of the general education, then I guess you could.
	Sorry, it's been a long time since I've been to college.
	So what do you mean by general education?
	I mean, when I went and took English, I just took English and a little bit of history, a little bit of poli-sci, but I didn't have to do like math or physics or chemistry or things like that.
	So what do you mean by general?
	So when I went, you had general education, which had a certain amount of credits.
	And then you had your major, which mine was, you know, business.
	So I took business classes.
	But in general education, you were taking things like biology or English, philosophy of religion, like that kind of sociology, arts, that kind of stuff.
	Sorry, so that you get to college, you say, I want to study business.
	And they say, you have to take a course in biology.
	Yeah.
	Really?
	But that's why.
	Why would they do that?
	I'm not blaming you, obviously.
	You're just trying to survive the system.
	But why on earth would they want you to take biology if you want to study business?
	Well, they have a variety of courses that fit this general education category.
	And the general education credit that you get is generally transferable to other colleges.
	At least that's the way that I understand it.
	I might be wrong.
	But when I was taking my major, which was business, I was taking random courses that I didn't really like and didn't do amazing in.
	But then I took the business classes, which I liked and I did better in.
	So there's a little bit of having to go through things that you might not be interested in college.
	But the only thing I was trying to get at was that the format of the homework seems a little bit different in college compared to elementary, just because they generally ask that you read beforehand and kind of do that homework beforehand.
	No, and I think that's fine.
	Yeah, because you couldn't take class on that included Moby Dick and just spend the time in the class reading.
	I get all of that.
	But the difference is for me with college, and again, I'm happy to open this up to other people, but the difference for me with college was that in school, so you'd go 8.30 or 9 in the morning and you'd be there till sort of 3.30 in the afternoon.
	And then often I would have something to do at the school, after school, and sports or theater or something like that.
	So then you get home sort of six.
	So you've done your 8.30 to 6 kind of thing.
	It's a long, long day.
	And then you'd have to do your homework.
	So the difference for me with college was you say maybe have an hour and a half or three hours of classes a week.
	So all of the homework that was assigned was, you know, A, something you generally would be interested in want to do anyway.
	And B, they weren't destroying your evenings because they gave you ample time during the day to do your reading or your studying and so on.
	But school for me was kind of like a nine-to-five thing, give or take.
	And it was nights and weekends that were impacted by the homework.
	That wasn't the case for me in university because you kind of got all day, all week, minus an hour and a half or three hours to do your studying.
Why Single People Face Challenges 00:14:38
	I agree.
	Yeah, I fully and entirely agree.
	Yeah.
	Okay, that was your first question.
	Yeah, yeah, five questions.
	Yeah, sorry, we went down to education.
	So my other question, and some things that I've been listening to recently from you, you know, some people trying to fight the system.
	They're trying to get the word out.
	And you mentioned that, you know, you should pick your battles.
	I think you said something along the lines of, you know, the sword of truth isn't a weapon to be drawn at all costs, right?
	You kind of pick your battles.
	And the sentiment was that, you know, people that have families generally have more to lose because if they go into battle, they could be harmed.
	It could negatively impact them and their family.
	And they generally had more to lose.
	And I was also thinking about something that you had talked about previously about how, you know, the rate of repopulation, it's kind of going down, the rate of replacement, right?
	And so there's a lot more single people out there.
	And I was wondering if having more single people out there is a societal indicator that there's something wrong.
	And the more single people that you have out there, the more single people that are able to fight that don't have anything to lose because they were never given the benefit of being able to build a family.
	And I was just kind of wondering if you would also think that would be true or not.
	Just the fact that there's more single people out there.
	So there's more single people that can fight for what they feel is right to start a family, to gather resources, things like that.
	And since they don't really have anything to lose, they're more willing to fight in that way for what is right.
	Is that your family out here in the background?
	Oh, maybe.
	Well, I hope not.
	No, no, that's fine.
	Honestly, I love hearing this out of kids.
	I love, you know, from.
	Yeah, so I think that's not because you got quite passionate when you were talking about building a family.
	And you were relatively new, father?
	Oh, I'm just nervous.
	No, I'm a little bit late in the game, but I'm going to start trying here real soon.
	So, yeah.
	Oh, so you don't have kids yet?
	Correct.
	Okay, got it.
	Got it.
	All right.
	So congratulations on getting the game going.
	I think that's a wonderful thing.
	So it's tough because the people who don't have children just have much less to fight for.
	And the people who do have children have more to fight for, but they're more vulnerable.
	Right.
	So if you attack the powers that be and they can't get you legally, what they'll do is they will attack your relationships.
	They will attack your marriage.
	And they will attack your source of income.
	Right.
	So they'll try to destroy your reputation.
	And that can be tough on your relationships.
	There's a lot of people who go through deplatforming who end up getting divorced because it's a real slogan of battle at times.
	And you have to be really deeply rooted in your respect for each other for that not to be an issue.
	So people who are single, I mean, what do they care about the future compared to people who have kids, right?
	This is the John Maynard Keynes thing, right?
	This is sort of the argument that John made with Keynes was gay, didn't have any kids.
	And when he was talking about deficit financing, his sort of big Keynesian economics is basically: well, when the government is short of money, it will print money.
	And when the government has excess money, it will contract the money supply and his excess income or the economy is doing well.
	People would say, but in the long run, and he would say, but in the long run, we're all dead.
	That was sort of his famous statement about this.
	And of course, in the long run, we're all dead would apply a little bit more to the homosexual community than the heterosexual community, because in the long run, your genes are continuing.
	So people who are single think mostly of themselves.
	I mean, you said you're starting late in the game.
	So what decade of life are you in?
	I was born in the 80s.
	Born in the 80s.
	Okay, so you're born in the 80s.
	So you're in your 40s.
	More of the 90s.
	More of a 90s kid, though.
	So, yeah, I'm not sure.
	Okay, so late, late 30s, early 40s, or something like that.
	And have you been married long or been with your partner long?
	Yeah.
	Yeah, we've been together for quite a while.
	Okay.
	So yeah, until you have kids, it's really hard.
	And I know this is annoying, and I apologize for it being annoying, but until you have kids, you don't really know what it's like to truly live for another person because you're with your wife, your partner, your husband.
	You do some negotiation.
	You're both adults, right?
	But when you have kids, everything has to be about what the kids need when they're young.
	And this goes on for a long time.
	It's funny because there's when the kids are very young, everything is about the kids.
	Obviously, babies and toddlers can't take care of themselves and so on.
	And then there's a latency period where you can kind of do your thing and your kids will go along with it.
	And then when they hit the teens, then they start to get involved with the peers and jobs and boyfriends and girlfriends and things.
	So you have to do a lot more facilitating and working around what their schedule is.
	So it's really hard to really get just how amazingly satisfying and great it is to live for the sake of others.
	And of course, you know, it is selfish.
	I enjoy doing things with my daughter.
	I enjoy sort of helping her life get better as best I can.
	And so when you are single or when you are not with children, it's just you just kind of live for yourself.
	And, you know, you compromise with your partner and so on.
	But she's an adult.
	She's there by choice.
	And you can always say no to her needs, but you can't say no to kids' needs.
	You cannot say no to what kids need.
	And so you just have to conform yourself to those requirements.
	And so because there's a certain amount, and I don't say this with any disrespect, this just seems to be a fact of life.
	Because there's a certain amount of hedonism in people who don't have children, they think about what is more comfortable for themselves in the moment and not what is, you know, kids, you're thinking decades, right?
	When you're single or without kids, you're thinking next weekend.
	And so people who are not parents mostly think about their own needs, their partner's needs, and so on, but there's not much sacrifice involved.
	In fact, you could never say with your romantic partner that you've made a sacrifice because you've chosen to be with them, right?
	And you could not be with them or you could be with anyone else.
	So it's not a sacrifice.
	So, and of course, you choose to have kids, but once you make that choice, then your life is for very large chunks of it out of your hands.
	And what's best for the kids?
	And of course, when you have kids, you think of what the world is going to be like in 20 years, 30 years, 40 years.
	You know, when I have white friends of mine who are fathers, they have talked to me about they are worried about their sons being able to get jobs because of this sort of anti-white male bias in hiring and it's a big issue for them and so on, right?
	So they're thinking about, you know, their kids are like five or 10 and they're thinking about, you know, 10, 15, 20 years in the future, what kind of life are those kids going to have?
	So you just think more deeply, you think more long term, which is why when people get married and have kids, they tend to become more conservative.
	They want less government.
	They want more freedom because they want, because if our freedoms are being chipped away, you and I might survive it.
	You may be a little less than me because I'm older.
	But you and I might survive having our freedoms chipped away.
	But if our freedoms keep getting chipped away, then our children are getting up as slaves.
	So you just have a much longer term view of the world, which is why the elites don't want people having children.
	Because when you have children, you tend to turn more towards community and you tend to be more skeptical of growth in government power or the diminishment of freedom.
	So it's true that the single people, they have more time, but they have less motive.
	And the people with kids have more motive, but less time.
	People who are without kids or who are single, they have more motive.
	Sorry, they have less motive, but less vulnerability.
	People who have kids have more motive, but more vulnerability.
	And this doesn't, of course, I understand that there's, you know, these sort of radicals on the left and the right who are young and single and kind of crazed with ideology.
	Those are very much the minority of people as a whole.
	So, yeah, if the birth rate is lowered, people don't really break out of this hedonism mindset too much.
	And I say this again with all due humility, but before I became a father, my life was largely about my own pleasures and then the pleasures of my wife and so on.
	And then you just have to put all of that stuff aside when you have kids and you have to dedicate yourself to what's best for them.
	So I think that's the challenge.
	Sorry, go ahead.
	It feels like such a double-edged sword because, like you said, the moment you have a kid, you kind of forfeit doing things for yourself.
	And if it's to fight for the good, then you have so much more to lose by way of resources and family and relationships because you'll get that pressure on you the moment you start to become prominent.
	It kind of happened with you.
	It's a little deplatforming thing, you know, and whatnot.
	Well, and in some countries, in some countries, certain beliefs are so pathologized that you might even lose custody of your kids.
	Right.
	So it is very tough in some places.
	So, sorry, you were saying it's hard to know how to move forward.
	I was trying to say, I think that's the heart of the question is, you know, who's going to save us from ourselves?
	And is it going to be a family person in a very high-ranking power?
	Like, how, I just don't know how it's going to happen.
	Sorry, how, how what?
	I mean, you know what you mean.
	I'm not sure I follow, but how, I think I generally get it, but how, how what is going to happen?
	I guess, I guess to make sure that evil does not prevail, who is going to, who is going to prevent, who is going to stop evil from prevailing until now, do you mean in a political context or something like that?
	Yeah, in a political context of, you know, you've spoken about this, the white race dwindling, right?
	People that, you know, who are boomers holding onto their houses in a tight grip of death, people that want to start families, but you have feminism that's discouraging people from getting together and parabonding and creating families.
	Who's going to save us from that just winning, you know?
	And when I think about who's out there to push the message, like you said, the moment you have a family, like you really put yourself in the sights.
	And so it's really risky.
	And I guess I was, in my thought, I was trying to think of, you know, it's got to be the single people that want a family, that can't have a family that are going to fight for it.
	It's got to be the people who don't have houses, that can't get housing that are going to fight for it.
	And the people that can't get, you know, really good wages and earn a living that are going to fight for it, as opposed to all people that already have the family, already have the job, already have the home.
	And that was just the root of the question.
	Yeah, it's a big question.
	It's a big question.
	I'll give you a couple of thoughts.
	And I do see that there's somebody else who wants to chat.
	So I'll definitely get to you in a second.
	No, no, great.
	No, we got one more question.
	So the way that I view it, and this is, you know, it might change by the end of the conversation, but this is sort of where I'm settling at the moment.
	So let's say that susceptibility to propaganda has some genetic elements.
	And we know that just about every aspect of personality and trait agreeableness, it's one of the big five personality traits where you prefer other people, you prefer the approval of other people over objective and uncomfortable truths.
	So let's say that there's a lot of propaganda, and we know that there is, there's a lot of propaganda to not have kids.
	I mean, particularly for whites, but just in general, there's a lot of propaganda to not have kids.
	Okay.
	So the people who listen to that propaganda will have fewer children.
	So that's a self-correcting situation in the long run, if that makes sense.
	Because it means that people who prefer what Ayn Rand called the secondhanders or the social metaphysicians, the people who prefer approval to truth are being outbred by those who prefer truth to approval.
	The people who say, is this true, rather than what do people believe is true?
	People who say, is this right?
	Rather than will I get praise or punishment for holding this viewpoint.
	So if propaganda is taking people who are susceptible to propaganda out of the reproductive race, there are certain Darwinian advantages to that, if that makes sense.
	So that may be a self-correcting problem in the long run.
	As far as, you know, who's going to save us and so on, I don't find it to be, and I say this with great sympathy and also great humility because I make this mistake still quite continually, but I have to sort of remind myself that I do the best I can with the skills that I have.
	After that, it's not up to me.
	I do not look at save the planet, save the West as something that I'm responsible for because I can't do it.
	You know, if you were looking at a plane falling out of the sky, would you take it upon yourself to hold it up in the air?
	No.
	No, you couldn't because you can't do it.
	So I can put the best arguments and ideas out there in the world.
Focus on Free Will 00:04:42
	I can model the kind of life that I think people should ideally lead.
	I can encourage people to have children.
	I can do shows with my daughter where hopefully people get a sense of how much fun parenting can be.
	I love my wife.
	I love my friends.
	I love my family.
	I love truth, reason, and virtue.
	And I'm sort of unashamedly putting that out there into the world.
	And, you know, without a doubt, I mean, just based upon my sort of emails and, you know, anecdotes and so on, like hundreds of thousands of kids have been born.
	I only have one child of my own, but sort of goodbye, Mr. Ship style.
	I have, quote, many more kids out there in the world who've come and do, like it's, I just talked to someone not too long ago who's had kids because he says, because I listen to you and they got a bunch.
	And that's great.
	So I do what I can with the skills that I have.
	And I do not think of whether it's going to work or not, because I don't have any control over whether it works or not.
	I have no control.
	I can put the best out there, but it's a free will situation.
	It's a free will situation.
	I try and point people towards the right direction towards the good, towards the noble, towards the virtuous, towards the honest, towards the courageous, as best I can, you know, have my faults, but I think I do pretty well that way.
	And the problem is if I start to take ownership of the world, I'm spinning my tires not on tarmac or gravel, but on ice and slush and mud.
	The wheels are spinning, but I have no traction.
	So I do the best that I can in the world.
	And if people listen, that's great.
	If they don't listen, that's a shame.
	But I'm not going to take it personally, whether the plane goes down or not.
	The only thing, and I know this sounds kind of selfish, maybe it sounds kind of narcissistic.
	I hope this makes sense.
	But the only thing that I have any real control over is my relationship with my conscience.
	Have I done that which is reasonably enough in a non-self-destructive way?
	Have I done that which is reasonably enough given the skills and talents that I have to promote philosophical virtues and values in the world?
	I think I have.
	I think if I had done, you know, 1% more, I would be in very dangerous territory because, of course, I was out there, you know, with bomb threats and death threats and all kinds of crazy stuff that was going on.
	And of course, we saw with Charlie Kirk where that kind of stuff could lead, and not just Charlie Kirk, but many others.
	So I was like right at the edge of the volcano when I stopped walking forward, which to me was a good decision because I want to do maximum philosophy and getting blown up or shot or whatever it is is not going to get me there.
	Martyrdom works for religion, not so much for philosophy, because there have been lots of philosophical martyrs, but we still don't live in a philosophical society.
	So that's not the goal.
	Because you can say of Jesus, he died for your sins.
	That creates obligations for people, but you can't say that Socrates died for your irrationality.
	So you have to worship him and model yourself after him and so on, right?
	So with regards to the world as a whole, that is a terror-laced paralytic to look at the world as a whole and say, oh my God, where's it going?
	What's going to happen?
	Who's going to fix it?
	Who's going to save us?
	Like, that will have you spilling your wheels in mud.
	And from my experience, and I'm obviously not talking about you.
	And again, I say this with all humility.
	In my experience, I do that because I'm not quite as comfortable with my own conscience as I need to be.
	I focus on the big stuff, the West, the world, the span, the good and evil of the multiverse or something.
	And because there's a more challenging moral situation that I need to deal with somewhere in my life, I tend to spin out into deep orbit so that I can look at the whole world rather than plow the field that I need to plow, if that makes sense.
	It does.
	Yeah, it sounds like the correction to this will rely more on individual actions than any type of collective power.
	Well, what is there in the world but individual action?
	What is there in the world but individual actions?
	Collective doesn't act, right?
	So, yeah, focus on promoting virtue and shun evil, do good, love deeply, and have fun.
	And other than that, the rest is up to the gods.
	The rest is up to nature.
	The rest is up to people's free will.
	And do as much good as you can without dying.
	Do as much good as you can.
	And it's up to everyone else.
The Rest Is Up To Free Will 00:12:32
	And if we, and I don't think we're going to get out of this cycle of history, it's on such a downward plummet.
	It's wild.
	So, you know, maybe what we do here is we leave the accurate story so it doesn't happen again.
	Maybe this can be the last time.
	Who knows, right?
	I mean, it's not, you know, you notice that climate change has left, right?
	Climate change has vanished from people's calculations.
	And that's because that's because the elites need AI to spy on us.
	And therefore, suddenly carbon footprints don't matter because you need all that water for AI.
	So yeah, who knows?
	Who knows?
	But nonetheless, all we can do is do the best good we can in the sphere that we have without self-destruction.
	After that, it's up to everyone else.
	But the good news is the more people you talk to about freedom and reason and so on, and the more reasonable calculated risks that you take, the less you have to worry about people who don't make it.
	You know, if you run up and down the halls and corridors of the Titanic, right?
	The Titanic, you know it's going down.
	You're a ship engineer or something.
	You know it's going down.
	You run up and down.
	Bang, bang, bang, bang.
	You pound on people's doors and you say, it's the ship's going down, ship's going down.
	Get to the top.
	Get to the top deck.
	Get to a lifeboat.
	Right?
	And you stay doing that until about eight and a half seconds before it's too late.
	And then you can't do it anymore.
	The ship's going down.
	So you get up and you get on the last, you get the last seat on the lifeboat.
	Okay.
	What else can you do?
	Well, what about all the people I didn't get to?
	Well, what about all the people, but if you'd have gotten to them, you wouldn't have made it and you would have just gone down with them.
	Did you see?
	You go up and down the corridor, right?
	Hey, hey, get up.
	Ship's going down.
	Get up.
	And maybe people believe you.
	Maybe they don't.
	I'm a ship's engineer.
	I know this for a fact.
	Get your kids.
	Get up.
	Get to the top deck.
	Now.
	Leave your shit.
	It doesn't matter.
	Go now.
	Well, some people will look at you like you're crazy.
	Some people will gather up their stuff.
	Other people will sleep through it.
	You do the maximum you can.
	You bang on the corridors.
	You bang on the doors.
	You tell people what's going on.
	What else can you do?
	I mean, are you going to go down to the bows of the ship and pull people out of their bunks and slap them in the face and splash cold water in their face and drown with them?
	That doesn't seem wise.
	Now, I don't think it's right if you know the ship's sinking to just slowly slither up.
	Hey, everything's fine, everybody.
	The ship isn't tilting.
	You're probably just a little seasick.
	You just say here, have some rum.
	It's fine.
	Oh, that water, that's somebody just, a toilet is still flushing.
	Honestly, nothing to worry about.
	Just right.
	So you don't want to do that.
	That's dishonorable.
	And so you want to help people and you want to tell them what's coming and tell them where to go.
	Hashtag the lifeboat is Bitcoin.
	But you want to tell people the danger and you want to tell them how to save themselves, but not to the point where you drown with them.
	So sorry, go ahead.
	Keeping to that analogy, you know, it really does feel a little hopeless.
	I mean, the powers that be the captain that's steering the ship, you know, it's one thing to sleep at the wheel and hit an iceberg.
	It's another thing for them to purposely hit the iceberg and put us all to doom.
	You know what I mean?
	So.
	Well, no, no, not a soul.
	No, not a soul.
	What do you mean?
	Well, everyone that's on the ship.
	No, no, no.
	Hang on.
	Sure.
	I mean, they can't doom everybody.
	Because as freedoms disappear from one country, there is a market opportunity, an arbitrage, if you will.
	So as freedoms disappeared in Europe, everyone went to America, right?
	In the past.
	The New World.
	Or Canada, right?
	Now, if freedoms are disappearing in, let's say, the West as a whole, whatever, let's say freedoms are diminishing, as they are.
	Well, what's going to happen is a country or set of countries is going to lay out the welcome mat.
	This is what has happened historically.
	They'll lay out the welcome mat and they'll say, you are welcome here.
	Come on over.
	Because they want the refugees, so to speak.
	So now, might this not happen?
	Well, I mean, historically, it generally has happened.
	The more oppression there is, the more value there is for a country to open its borders to sort of selected people who are high value and stuff like that because they're so good for the economy.
	I don't know.
	Could be Dubai, could be Hong Kong, could be El Salvador, could be, I don't know.
	Maybe one of the Western countries will turn around.
	I know they're trying to do that in America right now.
	So there are lifeboats.
	Not everyone is going down with the ship.
	There are lifeboats.
	I don't know what they're going to look like.
	Hey, you know, Alberta is thinking of breaking away from Canada.
	Maybe they'll create a bit of a northern Shangri-La with some actual freedoms.
	It could be any number of things.
	You just need to stay nimble, stay alert, stay mobile, and gather value.
	So that would be my suggestion.
	Okay.
	Okay.
	Yeah, no, I hear that.
	Thank you for that answer.
	Do you have time for one more?
	Or you want to move on?
	No, no, go ahead.
	I don't want to monopolize.
	So my last question had to do with the spanking debate that you had.
	And I just want to let you know that I'm against spanking.
	I have a couple of memories of being spanked when I was a child.
	But one of the arguments that you made during the debate and one of the arguments that you made after the debate was that, you know, if you mess up in the outside world, you're not going to get spanked.
	And so it just doesn't make sense that if someone messes up in the home, that you spank them.
	It just doesn't make any sense.
	And then I was also listening to your previous stories about how, you know, when you were in boarding school, you had gotten cane, which I guess is kind of akin to like a spanking.
	It's just a little bit more painful.
	Is that fair?
	Probably a lot, but yeah, yeah.
	It's in the same pain.
	Right.
	And, you know, and I was thinking at that time, you know, you wouldn't make that same argument that, well, I'm going to spank you at home because you could get spanked out into the world.
	The logic would be that the spanking is just inherently wrong and you'd have to figure out why.
	You have figured out why, which is great, which is great.
	But my question is that in the home, the dynamic in the home is different from the dynamic out in the world.
	You had mentioned previously that socialism in the home is all right, but outside in the actual real world, free market, capitalism, I agree with all of that.
	I think that is the best way.
	Very much the smallest government ever, the minimal government ever, or no government at all would be ideal.
	But my question, I'm trying to get to it.
	Gosh.
	My question is that if in the home, you're following the same values as you do out in a world that would be free market and archo-capitalist.
	Why would socialism in the home still be okay?
	What did you want to reprimand or adjust to get them prepared for outside in the real world?
	But I also understand that the home should also be a safe haven.
	So I'm just trying to pair the two of why the outcomes are different following the same principles.
	Could you just boil that down a little bit?
	I lost a little bit in the language.
	Yeah, I'm so sorry.
	No, it's fine.
	No, you might have done it just fine.
	Maybe I'm just missing something.
	It's okay.
	So socialism in the home is okay, but socialism out in the real world is not okay.
	I think we would both agree with that.
	Is that fair?
	Well, I mean, it's an analogy, right?
	So socialism is a political system from each according to their ability to each according to their needs.
	Now, that's how it works in the family, but in the family, it's voluntary, right?
	So having children is voluntary.
	Getting married is voluntary.
	Keeping children is also voluntary.
	Like, I'm sure you're aware that a woman can decide she doesn't want to be a mother.
	She can take her kids to the hospital, the fire station, the police station.
	She can just say, nope, I don't want to be a mother anymore.
	And they will find a home for the children and so on.
	So in the family, everything is voluntary.
	So it's kind of like an analogy, and it's a way of explaining why socialism is so attractive to people, because that's how things work voluntarily in the family.
	And so they think that's how it works voluntarily in politics, but politics is not voluntary.
	You know, my wife lives with me, but not locked in the basement, right?
	So, well, hey, if I lock her in the basement, I guess she's still living with me.
	It's like, yeah, but it's kind of different.
	And one is legal, one is not.
	So, one is moral, one is not.
	So if you say socialism is fine in the home, but not in society, that is not a contradiction because it's saying the volunteer, like saying charity in the family is, which is voluntary, is good.
	Violent redistribution in society is not good.
	So that's one of the challenges of this as an analogy is that you're not saying to your kids, socialism is mysteriously bad in society, but good in the family.
	The explanation is families operate on from each according to their ability to each according to their needs.
	So the man goes out and makes a bunch of money.
	He gives it to his wife and kids so that they can survive and flourish and culture could be transmitted and all that kind of good stuff.
	So that's all voluntary.
	So you don't say, well, mommy and daddy want to go on vacation.
	You don't say to your six-year-old, mommy and daddy want to go on vacation.
	So you have to go down the salt mines of Kessel to make us some money because that wouldn't make much sense.
	So it's not socialism in the home because socialism is a political theory based upon coercion.
	But it is the most able should provide resources to the least able.
	That's a principle that is in the family.
	Now, that's what's sold as socialism, because what happens in socialism and social democracies is they pretend that it's not coercive.
	So they put, well, no, it's a social contract.
	Well, no, you get to vote.
	Well, no, blah, blah, blah.
	So they pretend that it's voluntary.
	Well, if you didn't like the country, you could just leave.
	And it's like, well, you know, you can't, right?
	Because lots of countries have like exit taxes.
	And in the U.S., they'll tax your income no matter where you go.
	And so it's not just like, just leave, right?
	You know, it's not like some hotel.
	If you don't like the hotel, you can just check out.
	It's like, well, yeah, but what if they keep your kidney if you check out, right?
	It's a little different, right?
	So it's a way of saying that the voluntary transfer of resources from the most able to the least able is what family is.
	And then people pretend that it's voluntary in society, but it's not.
	So the difference is the force.
	Pardon me, Rud.
	The force or the non-I bet to mute there, but I didn't.
	The force versus the non-force element of it.
	So I don't think my daughter thinks that we are socialist at home because it's all voluntary.
	And/or that socialism out in the world is voluntary because it's not.
	Okay.
	I think that squares the question.
	In my mind, I was thinking of an anarcho-capitalist society, and I don't have a vivid picture of what that looks like.
	You've written books on it.
	So you're actually called The Future at freedom.com/slash books.
	Yeah, it's a great book, and it goes into as much detail as I can about a free society, how it looks in practice.
Force vs. Voluntary 00:15:47
	Okay.
	Yeah, I could take a look at that.
	I do have your physical copy of the peaceful parenting kind of ramping up to that.
	Oh, good.
	Okay, great.
	I'll look into it.
	Thank you so much.
	I appreciate the time.
	Thank you.
	Great questions.
	I really appreciate the conversation.
	You're certainly welcome back anytime.
	All right.
	You have been very patient.
	I appreciate that.
	Thank you so much.
	And I am all ears if you are still with us.
	But you will need to unmute.
	Going once, going twice.
	Sorry, sorry.
	Sorry about that.
	No, no, it's fine.
	I know there's a lag, so that's not on you.
	So, what's in your mind?
	Thank you for your patience.
	Do you hear me, I'm sorry?
	Can you hear me, Clement?
	Yes, I got you.
	Okay.
	So just steal questions, not really questions.
	They are off topic, especially because you just spoke about, you know, how society is pretty much not promoting families and having kids and things like that.
	So off topics.
	I have been listening to you for more than a decade.
	Quiet listener, let's just say.
	My brother, elder brother, introduced me to you.
	And then, anyway, anyway, to go to straight, my same elder brother right now has a, I don't know if I should call it a conspiracy theory, pretty much about he's very pro Africa, specifically Nigeria, a certain tribe in Nigeria, they're the Ibonese that the during colonization,
	making, for example, like different African countries like Nigeria.
	So different tribes.
	This is your older brother, right?
	Is he Nigerian?
	Why is he?
	Yeah.
	Yes, he is Nigerian.
	But I'm also Nigerian.
	Okay, so he's a big fan.
	Where do you guys live?
	Used to be.
	Used to be now used to be.
	I guess he will still listen to you once in a while.
	But he has a theory that you even believe in this.
	Like most white people, he believes most white people intentionally like the downfall of Africans.
	I don't know if you're familiar with the story of Babylon.
	You know, how they were building the tower and, you know, God said, make them speak different languages.
	But he believes the colonization intentionally did things like this to Africa, you know, and that's why Africa doesn't progress and things like that.
	And, you know, there were times where we have debates.
	And I even tell him, like, do you think Stefan even believes in things like this?
	And he's like, yes.
	Sorry, I believe.
	So I believe that white people just sadistically divide and carve up African nation states to what prevent progress.
	And, you know, the what $50, $50 trillion has been sent to Africa since the Second World War.
	And like white people did that because we hate Africa or Africans.
	Is that right?
	Something like that.
	Something, or it's intentional, like the prosperity of Africa was certain.
	If when colonization happened, or it's, for example, when white people were leaving, why didn't they leave it as individual tribes?
	And why did they intentionally, for example, Nigeria has over 200 tribes, totally different.
	Yeah.
	The only thing you can say, okay, skin color, that's it.
	But intentionally putting 200 different tribes in one place, he believes it was intentional.
	You know, and okay, so hang on, hang on.
	Sorry to interrupt.
	Okay, so let's say that was intentional.
	I don't know if we can read the minds of people from the colonial times or whatever.
	Okay, so let's say it was intentional.
	What would that have to do with white?
	Like, what would the actions of a tiny, tiny group of colonial administrators, what would that have to do with white people as a whole?
	Would that be like saying, well, gee, all blacks are super fast because Hussein Balt, right?
	Like that, that's just him, right?
	I mean, that's just a minority of one, so to speak, right?
	So what would that have to do with, I mean, white people didn't benefit from colonialism at all.
	White people were forced, they were dragged onto ships, they were forced to fight, they died of scurvy, like more British sailors, more white sailors died of scurvy than any kind of enemy combatants.
	They were sent to Africa.
	They were sent as administrators and as soldiers, and they died like flies from tropical diseases.
	The average life expectancy of a white person in Africa was 13 months because they just died.
	Like, how did, I mean, I get that the people at the top, like the puppet masters, they want to paint the maps certain colors and so on.
	But how did white people benefit as a whole?
	I'm an individual, right?
	If we get all these big blobs, but how did, what, what's his theory, if he said anything, like, how did the average white person who paid taxes to maintain the empire?
	And if the empire was so profitable, then why did England get rid of it right after World War II when it was broke?
	The average person paid a lot in taxes.
	They got hauled off to be in armies and navies and so on to rule this empire.
	How did the average white person benefit from colonialism?
	Again, I'm happy to hear the case, but I don't quite understand it.
	My apologies.
	Again, I'm just sort of repeating sort of his beliefs.
	So I'm not here to defend him.
	I'm not here to defend.
	No, no, I understand that.
	But if he's saying white people, is his assumption that white people benefited from colonization?
	Pretty much.
	Pretty much.
	Or just the fact that Africa or different tribes in Africa would have taken over Western civilization, the West.
	And the best way they were like, okay, we have to sort of let go of Africa.
	The whole Africa was broke.
	Sorry, the West was, England was getting broke.
	And, you know, of course, sort of there's a touch of progressivism and like, okay, we can't have, we can't be the masters and enslave people and things like that.
	He believes when they were finally leaving, they were like, okay, we're leaving.
	Let's just put all of them together and just have like a little Babylon where they all constantly fight with each other.
	They'll never be progress.
	If we let them go.
	For example, one of his beliefs is that if we left and we had individual tribes at their own nation for example, the tribe that i'm from, which pretty much has an empire, was a big empire before um, before the whites came, and you can sort of do your sort of research on that Yorba empire he believes um, you know, for example, that tribe would have taken over so much and even conquered the West as well, or England or whatever.
	So um sorry sorry sorry, hang on, hang on, hang on, sorry.
	So he's saying that sorry, which country did the?
	I know countries are sort of a colonial thing, but which country did the tribe come from that he thought would conquer England?
	Um, it's a country in the country, is Nigeria okay, and there's a tribe there that had uh, that was an empire even before.
	Literally, it was an empire even before um, before the West came, before whites came, before British came.
	Uh, they were trading with even Portuguese and he believed, you know if, if it was intentional, he goes into, goes deep and he's like the lowest iq, when even the British were leaving, they gave the power to the lowest iq group of or ethnicity or or culture pretty much, and he believes it's all intentional.
	He, you know and, and I I, I just ask also, just to cut the long story short, I think I want, I would like for you to just uh, this just sounds rough, but for you to just verbally say, like you don't, because he believes even you think so you like it that the, the West or white people are on top.
	You know, you know, and oh, you always have to sorry sorry, hang on, hang on, hang on.
	Yeah, i'm listening, i'm listening.
	White people are the top in what?
	Just in general, in general, don't give me this in general okay, i'll give you top in what you see.
	Hang on, hang on, hang on, hang on.
	Yeah, so white people, white people are not the highest iq, white people are not the highest earners.
	Yeah, so what is it that he thinks white people are on top of?
	Okay, off the top of my head, okay.
	So again, i'm not defending him, i'm just.
	These are things that we talk about, so off the top of my head.
	For example, you know, the promotion of saying Hollywood.
	You know, if you ask any Black Indian Pakistani, almost all other race, the white male or the white female uh, who most people would want to, I don't know, mate with marry, and they're on top of the pyramid, for example, Beauty Standard.
	That's what they did, that's what.
	These are one of his examples, part of his example.
	Um, so something like that.
	That's one thing.
	He believes it is intentional.
	And why is it that?
	Uh, almost all sexists, from different races and different cultures countries, only want Or see white, the definition of white beauty, at the top of the pyramid.
	You know, yeah, he would still say monetarily, like money-wise, like, you know, the West has a lot of money compared to, you know, they are more developed.
	They took a lot of resources from Africa and, you know, and that's how they built their own empires from India, things like that.
	So these are just examples.
	Uh-huh.
	Yeah.
	So does he say, does he does he believe that white people are considered the standard for physical attractiveness?
	Yes, pretty much, pretty much, yes.
	I would kind of say yes to that in general, in general.
	And Hollywood and the whole promotion of it.
	And yeah, and yes, pretty much.
	Yeah.
	So was it sexual jealousy that whites are considered more attractive than blacks?
	Is that the issue that he feels low on that standard of attractiveness?
	Again, this is just an example.
	But yeah, sexuality in terms of, which it is true, if you were to just randomly find a random person in, I don't know, in, I don't know, Abu Dhabi.
	And you told the person, hey, you know, would you rather have a girlfriend from your own state or have a girlfriend in the West or have a girlfriend in, I don't know, Cameroon or have a girlfriend in Ghana?
	You know, in general, you know, top two would always be Western whites, male or female.
	Oh, so then he would feel like more rejected or he wouldn't be able to compete or something like that.
	And that is, you know, they're not, for example, like white, sorry, black people or Africans are not, they don't see their own beauty as a proper standard.
	You know, they don't have, they don't believe in like natural hair, you know, the whole wearing of the traditional clothes.
	For example, you know, he has a big wearing of the traditional clothes instead of why is it that we all have to wear suits and that's what is classic.
	So that's what is, you know, you're going for an interview.
	Why can't I wear my African, you know, there's like a word for it?
	Agada, why can't I wear that?
	Why can't that be the norm?
	You know, why do I have to wear suits to accountants interview in Nigeria?
	You know, things like that.
	Just, and he believes it's all intentional.
	Oh, that it's intentional.
	That, that, yeah, white beauty standards are promoted to humiliate people like your brother.
	Is that right?
	Not just humiliates, not just he believes not just humiliate, but also to remain dominant, to remain in control.
	He believes he has sort of said something like this that it's pretty much white people are also aware of it.
	And I remember literally using your name because he introduced me to you.
	And I was like, do you think when Stefan talks about IQ and talks about, you know, you've had, you know, with your with your PowerPoint, blue background, sort of not Africa.
	Anyway, when you talk about, you're talking about some African countries and leaders.
	Like, I'm like, do you think Stefan is doing this intentionally?
	Do you think he knows and he's like, he knows the potential of Africa and, you know, it's just white people and he's intentionally doing it so that white people remain, you know, at the top of the food chain and, oh, and he's like, yes, he knows.
	And I'm like, what?
	So I'm just a little confused.
	Like if white people were at the top of the food chain, then why has the white population as a percentage of the world gone from 30% to like 8%?
	If white people are just winning and doing everything to stay on top, then why would say white countries become less white?
	Why would there be fewer and fewer whites in the world as a whole if white people were just so much in charge and dominating, embossing, and getting their own way all the time?
	And if you, if I want to go even deeper, I've not said exactly, which is a very good point.
	You know, I've not said, he has even said almost the elite amongst like white people are, even, for example, the reduction in population is sort of intentional, like the amount of the elite white people, like they're intentionally doing this and they have a master plan.
	And like 30, 40 years from now, you know, the outcome would sort of reverse and be in favor of white people.
	And okay, I'm sorry.
	I just find this just very incoherent.
	So, wait, white people are diminishing their own percentage of the world population in order to win in 40 years?
	Something like that.
	It's tough to debate somebody who's not here.
	So what is it that I can help you with in terms of a specific question?
	Okay.
	I think my next question is there is just there's currently like I was listening to a video on YouTube about multi different marine people from different race marrying each other.
Companies Over Governments 00:11:45
	Is there sort of any do you have any what are the sort of negatives positives from your do you have any statistics about its downfall?
	It's it's oh like biracial marriages?
	Yes, yes.
	Well, you know, I mean, if two people love each other, I mean, and they want to get married, obviously they can get married.
	That's, that's totally fine.
	But I do think that it's important to recognize that biracial children have generally more identity issues.
	They can have more mental health issues.
	They can have more health issues as a whole.
	And the reasons for that are multi-varied and there's lots of debate about all of that.
	But again, it's not 100%, obviously, right?
	But I do think that it's important to be aware that if you're going to get into a biracial marriage and you are having children, that your children will face some unique challenges as a result of being biracial that are going to be difficult for them.
	And if you want to do that, obviously that's, you know, it's a free, it's a big country and it's a free world and you can do that.
	But if you are going to do that, then I would just, as parents, you should be aware of the extra challenges in terms of identity.
	I mean, you know, with the black, white kids, sometimes there's a perception that they're too white for black people and too black for white people and they sort of fall in between the gaps and there can be sort of identity issues and so on.
	So it is a challenge.
	I'm not agreeing that these issues should be there, but it is descriptive, not prescriptive.
	But the fact is that those issues are there and it can be a challenge for the kids.
	So it's something that people should think about with regards to biracial relationships.
	Of course, if they love each other and they're aware of these issues and can help their kids navigate them, that's fine, of course, right?
	But I just think more knowledge is better, if that makes sense.
	Yeah, that makes sense.
	Yeah, that makes sense.
	I think I won't take your time.
	I just have one last question.
	I know you have spoke about capitalism, socialism, and how this is sort of my question.
	Why, for example, Elon Musk or all the very, very rich people, I always feel like, why don't they ever, not like I'm promoting socialism, but if the destruction of your community say, for example, Ato, the reason why China was able to go as far as they went, you know, I think Apple played a major role in that.
	For example, other countries and other factors played a role.
	Sorry, what you said, Apple?
	Apple, the company?
	Oh, Apple.
	So Apple, like you mean by deciding to invest in China rather than Africa.
	Yes, rather than, rather than, say, for example, America specifically now.
	The destruction of their own society just so that the company can make more profits.
	And this is happening across the board in general.
	Like, you know, companies who do things, even if it means companies who do things not thinking about their community or their country or their, I don't know, their state as well.
	As long as the company is making, and this is, this is capitalism.
	So why do okay, hang on, hang on.
	Hang on.
	So, yes.
	But companies think much more about their communities than governments do.
	Because if a company offends its community, they can boycott the company and drive it out of business.
	But you can't boycott the government.
	Right.
	So companies have to be responsive to their customers.
	Now, if their customers are governments, but that's not capitalism, right?
	So if China, if Apple in China has these terrible work conditions and people find out about it and they start boycotting Apple, then Apple will have to fix the issues in China or it's going to lose a lot of money.
	And if you compare that to, say, the Chinese government, if the Chinese government is doing bad things, then what can the average Chinese person do?
	You can always vote with your wallet, but politics is largely immune to that.
	You say, oh, yes, well, but you get a vote every couple of years.
	And it's like, well, that's true, but the politicians are under no obligation to fulfill what they promise.
	There's no contract.
	They don't have to do it.
	And study after study have shown that there's almost no correlation between what the people want and what governments actually do.
	So if people are going to say, well, you know, but the big corporations, they don't care about their communities, it's like, but they care a lot more about their communities than governments do because governments can just borrow print and tax money without your consent.
	But companies can't get your money without you buying something of your own free will in capitalism.
	So it's fine to say that, you know, people in capitalism, they prefer a profit over the community.
	And yeah, I'm sure that's true for some, but it's infinitely more true than it is.
	It's infinitely more true of governments.
	You are right.
	And I do agree.
	But then can you explain why, for example, top 10 biggest company in the world, you know, Nvidia, Apple's, things like, you know, Microsoft, why are they getting bigger, stronger?
	And America, for example, the average American is getting poorer.
	Even upper class, you know, it's getting, everything is just getting worse for them in general as a whole.
	Sure.
	Yeah, I can talk about that very, very briefly.
	It's a big topic.
	So there's a couple of, I think there's sort of three major reasons.
	The first is that when the government...
	May I just add one more, just one more quick sentence to that?
	Uh-huh.
	For example, Apple just, sorry, Microsoft just fired, I don't know, it was like 13,000 or 13,000 or 1,300 staff members, you know, and they made a profit of that quarter.
	They made a profit of like $26 billion.
	I'm like, I'm not pro-socialism or free money or something like that.
	But that's 20, even if it's 10 billion, I'm so sure it can pay.
	Like, and that's just a quarter's profits that they made.
	It can pay the salary of those people they fired.
	Why?
	And if they fire those people, it's going to affect so many companies, so many other families.
	It's going to cause divorce.
	It's going to cause then, so that's another example where I'm like, I know I'm not socialist.
	I'm not a socialist or communist or whatever, but I'm like, I don't get it.
	You're killing your own country just to make profit.
	I don't know.
	I'm like, I'm that.
	Okay, you said a sentence, bro.
	Come on.
	Don't go for the red here.
	Don't, don't, don't cheat me.
	And then say the companies are cheating.
	All right.
	So have you, and I'm sorry, this sounds like a jerky question, and I apologize for that, but have you ever run a business that is substantial?
	I would definitely say no to that.
	Okay.
	So one of the things that businesses do is they don't just have payroll and profits.
	They also pay out a share.
	They have share prices.
	And so they're in competition for investment dollars with every other company.
	So if there is, if there are useless people or people who are counterproductive on the payroll, if you don't get rid of them, but your competitor does, people will sell your stocks and buy your competitors' stocks.
	So one of the things, of course, that's happened is code, AI is writing a lot of code.
	And so you probably need, at least that's the perception, you need fewer engineers.
	So it's not a matter of just payroll and profit.
	It's a matter of the overall value of the company.
	And if you have, like, let's say that there's a bunch of tech companies and 5% or 10% of the workforce is being laid off because of AI, but you don't do that, then what happens is people will say, oh, so they're not running it efficiently.
	They're keeping a bunch of people around who don't need to be there.
	So I'm going to sell their shares because their management is making bad decisions.
	They're going to sell, I'm going to sell their shares and I'm going to buy their competitors' shares, which destroys the value of the company.
	And also the chief executives can get sued for fiduciary malfeasance, which is if you make decisions that are clearly going to harm the value of the stock, you can get sued by the shareholders because you're there to protect and expand the value of the stock, which means you have to be pretty ruthlessly efficient in the business.
	So that's one aspect.
	Now, as to why these companies are getting bigger, there's a couple of reasons.
	One is that the government keeps printing money and the money goes to the wealthy first.
	So they get like the people who are well connected, right?
	So if the government prints a bunch of money and uses it to pay for a bunch of services from some company, then the people who get that money get to spend it at full value.
	And then by the time it gets to their employees, it's like half value than it used to be.
	So the wealthy always profit from central banking because they get access to the money first.
	And then the people at the bottom get the dripping nothingness, the watered down money.
	That's number one.
	Number two is that there are so many regulations that have to be followed, especially post what's sort of called the so-called Civil Rights Act and so on, where you have all of these regulations and diversity quotas and HR standards and requirements.
	And like the Federal Registry, it's hundreds, thousands of pages of regulations.
	So small companies can't compete because they cannot ever know whether they're doing things that are illegal or not.
	Large companies have big lobbying to get the government to act in their favor.
	Large companies have big legal and accounting departments to make sure that they can stay in compliance.
	So when small to medium-sized companies simply can't compete, then the large companies can charge more because they don't have people nipping at their heels driving the price down.
	And so the government loves the poor and loves the wealthy.
	The wealthy like the government because they could use it to stay wealthy and get wealthier.
	The poor love the government because they get free stuff.
	And the middle class don't like the government, which is why the middle class is constantly targeted.
	They were very much targeted under the COVID era.
	So yeah, it's just government power.
	Government power benefits the wealthy and harms the middle class.
	The government power benefits the rich and the poor and harms the middle class.
	So I think that's probably the main reasons.
	All right.
	Thanks for that.
	Thanks for that.
	Just one last question, which would be one-centered.
	Do you ever plan on doing like a tour in Canada, pretty much?
	Do you ever plan on visiting BC anytime?
	I mean, I'd love to visit BC.
	The last time I tried to visit BC, I couldn't do a speech because of the usual Obama death threats and all kinds of terrible stuff.
	So unfortunately, the political climate and the climate of anti-free speech and hysteria is such that practical tours in Canada are not feasible because free speech is opposed these days with pretty hellacious levels of violence.
	So if I do do speeches, it would have to be in some place with the First Amendment or someplace with an effective police force that could perhaps control this level of violence.
	But unfortunately, I did try to give speeches with Lauren Sutherland years ago in BC, but it proved impossible because of the amount of threats and violence.
Visiting BC Impossibility 00:00:46
	So sadly, it is not to be.
	All right, my friends, I really appreciate the conversation.
	If your brother wants to call in and we can chew the fat about colonialism or evil Whitey, that would be totally fine.
	And I really do appreciate you calling in today.
	I do appreciate everybody who came by today.
	Thank you for a lovely chat.
	Always such a pleasure.
	Such an absolute pleasure, honor, and privilege to talk about these lovely ideas with you beautiful, beautiful people.
	Have yourself a great day or two until we talk again.
	Freedomain.com slash donate to help at the show.
	Shop.freedomain.com to get your merch and peacefulparenting.com for the new book and freedomain.com slash books for the other new books that are out, dissolution and the future and the present.
	All right.
	Take care, my friends.

Chapters

00:00:00 Wanting High IQ
00:04:35 Why You Want a High IQ
00:12:34 Why Homework Matters
00:28:14 Why Single People Face Challenges
00:42:53 Focus on Free Will
00:47:36 The Rest Is Up To Free Will
01:00:08 Force vs. Voluntary
01:15:56 Companies Over Governments
01:27:41 Visiting BC Impossibility