All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 27, 2026 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
35:51
Jesus vs Secular Ethics!
|

Time Text
Morality Still Exists 00:06:14
Hey everybody, Stephen Molly Nicken Free Domain.
I have a fellow who posts some great questions about UPB, some great objections to UPB.
Always love to talk me some UPB.
So let's dive straight in.
And I'm going to do this bit by bit so that I don't just sort of give you the wall of objections and then we try and sort it out from there.
So he says, UPB reduces down to, quote, morality is being, or by the act of living, you prefer life.
Or universal preference for being, but even without beings, morality still exists.
Okay, so here's the thing.
If you're going to tell me what UPB reduces down to, then don't you need to prove that?
UPB reduces down to morality is being, or by the act of living, you prefer life.
Well, that's one argument.
But when you're going to say something reduces down to, you know, this is sort of basic thing.
If you're going to say that, well, a 416th reduces down to 2 eighths, which reduces down to 1 quarter, you kind of need to, you know, make the case or show how that happens or how that works or whatever it is, right?
So UPB reduces down to morality being, or by the act of living, you prefer life.
Or universal preference for being.
But even without beings, morality still exists.
So you haven't defined morality, you haven't defined being, and you haven't defined existence, like what exists or does not exist.
So just so you know, as a whole, when a competent philosopher looks for the opening statement of your argument, what a competent philosopher is going to look for is definitions and arguments.
Statements do not philosophy make.
Otherwise, UPB would be a pretty short book saying morality is rational, right?
So if you want to be taken seriously, and this is not just like professional philosophy thing, this is just sort of anyone that you're trying to have a debate or an argument with, you need to define your terms.
So let's just go back and look at what is not defined and or not proven in this opening to three sentences, two sentences.
UPB reduces down to morality is being, and I don't know what that means, or by the act of living you prefer life.
Well, there certainly is truth to that.
Somebody who is alive has preferred life to death.
That's almost a tautology, but not quite.
But even without beings, morality still exists.
I don't know what you mean by beings there, because are you saying humanity, rational actors, rational animals, critters, bacteria, jellyfish, God?
I don't know.
Morality still exists.
I don't know what you mean by exists.
Do you mean that it exists like a tree exists?
Or do you mean that it exists as a concept?
Can the concept exist in the absence of a mind?
So this is, you know, I'm not saying it's incompetent, but it is a failure to sort of understand and process a basic philosophical premises, arguments, requirements, you know, such as the good old define your term stuff, right?
Anyway, so it goes on.
So morality is God-based and is the rational pursuit of participation in and defense of the good, the true, and the beautiful.
And you know, philosophy is having a rough time when you go to all like the cap-cap philosophy.
The good is capitalized, the true, the T is capitalized, and the beautiful.
So morality is God-based and is the rational pursuit of participation in and defense of the good, the true, and the beautiful, with evil being precisely whatever actively undermines or destroys those ends.
Okay.
So positive language, positive adjectives are not philosophy.
Putting things in caps is not philosophy.
Punctuation is not reason.
So morality is God-based.
So you say, UPB reduces down to morality as being, or by the act of living, you prefer life.
Okay.
No, it doesn't.
Or universal preference for being.
Don't know what that means.
But even without beings, morality still exists.
So that's just a bunch of statements.
And just because you say therefore doesn't mean that something follows.
So morality is God-based.
It's like, well, no, you haven't made an argument.
You've made a bunch of statements.
And now you're saying, well, this means that morality is God-based, right?
Well, that's not how philosophy works.
If we say that two plus green equals unicorn, therefore my argument is correct, eh, not so much.
So morality is God-based and is the rational pursuit of participation in and defense of the good.
Okay, so that's called begging the question, right?
If you are trying to define what morality is, you can't say morality is whatever defends morality.
Morality is whatever defends the good.
Virtue is whatever defends that which is virtuous because you're actually trying to define virtue and you haven't done it, right?
You haven't done it.
And therefore, putting things in caps doesn't help.
The good, the true, and the beautiful.
Okay, so you haven't defined what the good is.
You haven't defined what being is.
You haven't defined what morality is.
And you haven't defined what truth is, and you haven't defined what beauty is.
So this is just a bunch of positive sounding, chaotic verbiage that is emotionally driven, which is why it defies augury and it defies definition.
Plato would agree.
Plato And The Truth About Parents 00:06:21
Jesus said, oh, Plato would agree.
So I could give a living shite what Plato would agree or not agree with, just as Plato, if he knew me, would not give a living shite what I agreed with or disagreed with.
Argument from authority is not an argument.
And Plato, of course, got a lot of things wrong.
Plato thought that the ideal society had no problems with incest.
So yes, not so much with the Plato.
Jesus said to love God with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength, and to love and love others as yourself.
And the whole of the law rests on these two principles.
Okay?
So love God with all your mind, heart, soul, and strength.
I'm not sure what it means to love God.
You haven't defined love.
I mean, I assume we can go with God as the Christian God as Yahweh and so on.
But you haven't defined love.
So one of the challenges in Christianity is the opposing commandments, honor thy mother and thy father, and thou shalt not bear false witness.
This has really been at the heart of the challenges that I face in the world as a whole, is these contradictions.
So if your parents were mean, vicious, abusive, nasty, evil, to some degree, to a significant degree, then you should tell them the truth about that.
And the Bible says if someone has wronged you, you must sit down with that person individually and show them how they've wronged you.
If they do not repent, then you go with a small group of people.
If they still do not acknowledge or repent, then you bring them before the whole congregation.
They still do not acknowledge and repent, then you ostracize them, you kick them out of the community.
Jesus also says that he has come to set father against child, family member against family member.
And so the idea that you just honor your mother and your father no matter what is not particularly helpful because if your parents have done you wrong and you care about them, and we all care about our parents no matter what, right?
If your parents have done you wrong and you care about them, then you should tell them how they've done you wrong and what they've done that is wrong so that they have the chance to repent and go to heaven.
There's nothing really more sinister in many ways than colluding to cover up your parents' sins by complying and not calling them out on the things they did wrong, because then you are damning them to hell.
It's like watching someone you hate who's blind and deaf walking towards a highway and not doing anything to intervene.
That would be a form of murderousness.
We are supposed to save people from sin.
Abuse of children is a grave sin according to Christianity.
And so if we do not tell our parents, if we bear false witness about our parents sinning, then we damn them to hell, which is, or we permit them to continue on the path to hell, which is about as horrible a thing as can be imagined.
So we're supposed to tell the truth to our parents.
You know, these are the principles that I work with.
Number one, tell the truth, which is what I was always told.
So if someone does me wrong, I tell them the truth about it, try to work it out.
And the other thing is that if your parents can't handle power, like I speak about my own mother, my own mother cannot handle power, and she has power over me simply by virtue of being my mother.
And what that means, of course, is that she acts worse when she's around me.
I am sort of like a drug that has her act in really negative ways.
It's not me personally.
It's just it could be any child's, right?
Because she can't handle power.
She abuses power.
And so when I'm around her, she will act in a worse manner than if I wasn't.
Which would be like if my mother was a horrible gambling addict and I kept taking her on vacation to Atlantic City or to Vegas or some Monte Carlo, some other gambling mecca and gave her $10,000.
And then she ended up $20,000 in the hole.
And every time I took her on vacation, knowing that she was a gambling addict, I took her to a gambling mecca and gave her a lot of money.
That would be bad of me, right?
Because I would be causing or provoking the worst possible behavior in her.
And so it's like, you know, handing the drunk a drink or the Coke addict cocaine and so on.
So my mother behaves in a worse manner when I'm around.
And so the best thing I can do, the most caring thing that I can do for her, is to not be around, to tell her the truth and to not be around.
And of course, in a massively Christian society, a substantially Christian society, I was attacked for holding up Christian principles.
And so it's obviously just sort of be aware of that.
It's a little confusing.
So what does it mean to love God?
Does it mean to hold sinners accountable for their sin and tell them the truth to try and save them or at least give them a chance to save themselves from the fires of hell?
You know, if you had a kid who had a terrible toothache, you know, just a raging tooth infection.
It was all red and swollen and pus was oozing and so on.
Would you just say to that kid, oh, here, just take some aspirin, take some painkillers, take some Tylenol, you'll be fine.
No, you would want to get the child to the dentist and the dentist would poke around and it would be very painful, but the child would end up being cured in one way or another of the toothache, the infection, which could be fatal, right?
That bacteria goes down into your heart and very bad things happen from there.
So if somebody is in a spiritual crisis, if their soul is sick with sin, and you collude with them to cover up that sin, oh no, everything's fine.
Oh no, you didn't do anything wrong.
Oh, hey, let's get together over Thanksgiving.
And you act as if they were not rotting and dying and heading towards hell from their sin, that would be an act of grave hostility and almost murderousness, right?
So I wanted to give my chance.
I wanted to give my mother and my father and other people.
I wanted to give them the chance to save themselves, to redeem themselves, right?
That would be, that's a kind and nice thing to do.
And of course, I was casticated for all of that and so on.
So what does it mean to love God with all your heart?
Does that mean to stop colluding with and enabling sinners regarding their sin?
Why Conscience Seeks Rationality 00:02:48
Does it mean tell the truth?
Or does it mean blindly go along with those who've abused you and thus prevent them from recovery from sin?
No, nobody can tell me.
So I don't know what that means.
So he says it means to fight for the good, the true, and the beautiful for order.
Of course, this can only be done through rationality and power.
So the good must take the power back.
Now, see, I don't know what is meant by rationality here.
I don't know what is meant by power here.
So these are just all things without definition are just confirmation bias.
That's all that's happening.
Without definition, all that happens is confirmation bias.
So if you agree with this guy, then you will nod along and it will all make sense to you.
If you don't agree with this guy, then what will you do?
You will frown and recoil and like whatever it is, but you won't just go along with it because everything that is undefined is trying to hit you in the feels and get you to agree with whatever's being said because of generic positive language, right?
So the good must take the power back.
okay, what does that mean?
People that hear their conscience seek, oh, sorry, this cannot be done through secular materialism, which only reduces to hedonism.
Okay.
Secular materialism only reduces to hedonism again.
I think I generally understand what secular materialism is, although we may have slightly different definitions.
Hedonism is a challenge.
Is hedonist, are hedonistic pursuits mere short-term pleasure goals, cocaine and sex and whatever it is now?
Damn the future, getting drunk because it's fun, forget tomorrow, your health as a whole.
Or is hedonism what Aristotle talks about, that the end goal of philosophy is happiness, long-term moral satisfaction and happiness?
So I don't, hedonism, the pursuit of pleasure.
Well, you don't want morality to be purely masochistic and just like hurting you and all of that.
So what does that mean?
Hedonism.
He says, people that hear their conscience seek rationality in God more than anything else because everything else is temporary.
Okay.
What is a conscience?
So again, these are all just interesting, challenging statements that are not defined.
So he goes on to say, however, Christianity displays false theories.
Ah, the biggest one is the idea that an innocent person needed to suffer and be sacrificed for evils committed by everyone else.
Well, see, that's not true.
That's not true.
Because children are formed in a state of sinlessness in most sort of Christian, right?
Rationality and Miracles 00:04:53
So it wasn't everyone else.
It was everyone else who had some sort of moral choice.
So that's not quite true.
God would never require this because God is 100% good.
The reality is that Jesus needed to be killed and resurrected so that his story would be way bigger and spread goodness to way more people and last forever.
So he did die.
So he did die for sins in that sense alone, so that more people would hear his story and turn away from sin.
All right, that's certainly an interesting, interesting theory.
It is a bit of a problem, though, I think.
I mean, it's a number of problems.
One of those problems, of course, is that if the people in Jesus' time needed Jesus to prove his divinity through miracles, right, then we have the not inconsiderable problem of why doesn't everyone else also need that?
Right.
So the people, the disciples of the people who were around in the time of Jesus, well, they got to see Jesus performing all of these great and wonderful and cool miracles and so on, and that was required for them to accept his divinity and so on.
So if it was necessary for people 2,000 years ago to see miracles in order to accept Jesus' divinity, then why?
Why would it not be required for, well, for everyone else, right?
God says, well, I built people to be skeptical.
And also, we know that people who see things that aren't true, that aren't real, that aren't there, that those people are insane, right?
They're psychotic.
They have delusions, right?
So we also know, because it is not God's justice, it is not a just legal system if you accept hearsay.
Well, someone said you did it.
Someone said you did it.
Someone said, like, you've got a thousand, like imagine, you've got a thousand witnesses that say, oh, yeah, I saw him right there at the baseball game.
He was on the camera.
He was on the kiss cam at the baseball game, and it's absolutely him.
He's got a special scar above his eye.
Like we know for sure that it's him.
And then one guy says, no, you were killing a guy on the other side of town, right?
And then the judge says, oh, the one guy who said you were killing a guy on the other side of town, he's correct.
And you go to jail or you get executed for murder, right?
Capital punishment.
Would that make sense?
Well, no, that would be horribly unjust because you've got a thousand witnesses.
You've got the recorded camera that you were at a baseball game at the exact time of the killing.
And you could not possibly have been on the other side of town killing a guy when you were at the baseball game or the sports, whatever sports ball game.
So because it's impossible for you to be in two places at the same time.
Now, if you were to say, no, it's a miracle.
You were in two places at the same time.
It's just a miracle.
You say, well, no, you can't base an entire justice system on the acceptance of miracles, right?
So you would reject that and God would reject that.
And that would be a bad and unjust system.
So you can't found a system of morality on impossibilities, right?
I mean, alibis are accepted by any rational court system because it's impossible to be in two places at the same time, right?
So, well, that's that.
All right.
So how does it make sense that people, in order to make sure that you're not crazy, other people have to see the miracle?
But if other people have to see the miracle, then why do only those people have to see the miracle?
And for the last couple of thousand years, nobody's really needed to see the miracles directly, right?
All right.
There is no other practical moral framework to turn to.
Philosophy alone is rational, but it does not grant morality the same way God does.
Actually, rationality requires one to accept God.
Without God, people literally have absolutely no reason to be moral at all.
And deism's impersonal God doesn't connect with people.
So, you know, when you say rationality requires one to accept God, okay.
So what about God is rational?
What about God is empirical?
God cannot be proven through reason.
God cannot be proven through empiricism.
These are facts.
So if you're going to say, well, rationality is required.
Sorry, the opposite of rationality is required in order for there to be rationality.
I would submit that that is not a statement that is even remotely consistent as a whole.
I say, notwithstanding its interpretations, Christianity appears to be the only effective thing people can actually believe in and follow.
Rationality and Religious Beliefs 00:03:09
Well, I have a problem with that.
And of course, I want to talk about my emotional experience, experiences, right?
Experiences.
So I grew up, I was born in 1966, and I grew up in a very Christian society.
My parents were not particularly Christian, but they were outliers.
We did the Lord's Prayer every morning in school.
We went, I went to church twice a week for years, and my aunts were all religious.
And as far as I knew, the people in my community were religious.
And my teachers were religious, and the families around me were Christian, and so on.
And this was after Christianity had 2,000 years, well, I guess not quite 2,000 years, 1,966 years, give or take.
This was after Christianity has had 2,000 years to get things right.
And I remember asking my mother, hey, who started the First World War?
And she said, the Germans.
I said, how long did it last?
Four or five years.
Who started the Second World War?
Oh, the Germans.
Well, how long did that last?
Oh, four or five years.
And were they all Christians?
Oh, yes, all the countries certainly involved in the First World War.
And, you know, give or take, obviously, the sort of central powers in the Second World War.
I know that, of course, Christianity was not deeply rooted in Japanese culture, but Germany and Italy, of course, the fountainhead in many ways of Christianity in the Western Catholicism.
France and England and Scotland and Northern Ireland and Canada and New Zealand and Australia, all, you know, foundationally Christian countries.
And they all went to war with each other and kind of destroyed the West as a whole.
And World War I started after Christianity had over 1,900 years to make a better, more moral world.
And by the time I was born, certainly child abuse was rampant in my community and nobody wanted to help me at all.
Nobody lifted a finger, even made one anonymous phone call when they could clearly hear me being assaulted and beaten and screamed at and so on.
And that's the world.
I went to school.
I went to one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten different schools, and nobody lifted a finger or asked a single question, despite the fact that I was hungry and tired and smelly and had bad clothing on and so on and was obviously very smart, which was constantly commented on, but couldn't really get any work done, couldn't do any homework and so on.
And not one person ever of the hundreds and hundreds of teachers I ran into, not one person ever asked how I was doing at home.
They just gave me bad marks and lectures and lines and punishments.
People Are Irrational 00:12:22
And so that is the world that I grew up in after Christianity had almost 2,000 years to make a good society.
So I hope that you will forgive me for having a couple of questions about the efficacy and power of Christian morality.
So if Christianity is the best we've got, if Christianity is the highest possible and best possible way for human beings to achieve virtue, then we are royally, completely, and totally macfracked.
It's not able to last.
And Christianity is kind of dying out in the West anyway.
And Christians are being replaced by people not only who are non-Christians, but are very anti-Christian.
So Christianity has been unable to protect the West and unable to stop war and unable to stop child abuse and unable or unwilling to even lift a finger.
Now you could say, oh, yes, but human beings are so corrupt that this is the best thing that Christianity could do.
And they're, okay, well, then fuck it.
Why would you care at all about morality?
Why wouldn't you just become an amoral power-seeking hedonist?
Because they're going to win anyway.
You might as well join the winning team.
All right.
He says, Anietchi would say the will to power is too potent for UPB to control.
However, Christianity at least affords a will to power of the true, the beautiful, and the good.
Jesus whipped the little bastards in the temple.
That needs to come back because that is all the little bastards can understand.
Well, of course, UPB is very much focused on the will to power.
UPB accepts that human beings have a lust for power that has arrived evolutionarily or evolved evolutionarily speaking.
Human beings have a complete lust for power.
Yeah, absolutely.
Which is why you can't have a state.
That's why politics is never going to work.
Human beings have a lust for power, which is why decentralized, voluntary, spontaneous organizations are the only ones that can create a society that can survive.
So I don't know.
I mean, the idea that it's utopian or the idea that UPB or voluntarism is utopian is kind of wild to me.
It's kind of wild to me.
Because what's really utopian, in my view, what's really utopian is the idea that human beings can somehow handle political power.
Now, that's what I call utopian.
All right.
Someone wants to, or someone wants steak for dinner, he says, and the other person doesn't, or go hungry forever.
That does not make the steak forcing the other to eat the steak immoral.
UPB is a logical construction that falls in the real world and honestly, not even to be a jerk, but literally no one at all gives the slightest fuck about it.
It's a little rude, obviously, which is fine.
It's not the end of the world.
I'm not made of glass.
But it's a little confusing.
It's a little confusing.
UPB has been very powerful for many, many people.
Like, even if people don't fully understand the UPB argument, UPB has caused hundreds of thousands, if not millions of parents, to stop abusing their children.
Or not to start at all.
Because UPB gives you the anti-spanking arguments and UPB gives you the bomb in the brain arguments and so on, right?
So literally no one at all gives the slightest fuck about it.
Well, that would be not true.
It has, in fact, saved millions and millions of children from direct physical harm.
It has saved millions of children from being brutalized.
And the number could be higher, but definitely millions.
I mean, I've done a billion views and downloads.
So millions is a very low estimate.
It could be tens of millions, could be 100 million.
But let's just be conservative and say millions of children have not been abused.
As a result, I did the calculations not too, too long ago that 1.5 billion assaults upon children have been prevented by what I've done.
What the fuck have you done?
All of these moralists, they fill my inbox with this moral bullshit, rambling, nonsense, spiky, emotional, girlish, estrogen-drowning tsunami of nothingness and non-definitions.
What the fuck have you done?
Well, I've talked about the good, the true, and the beautiful with caps at the beginning of each word.
Oh my God.
The fuck have you done?
Show me the empirical evidence.
that you have done great good in the world before telling me about the useless and pointless moral theories that you staff have.
They've achieved nothing, right?
Well, they've achieved nothing with you because you're nuts because you're corrupt, right?
So it's interesting that he gets the aggression, right?
Not even to be a jerk, but literally no one at all gives the slightest fuck about UPB.
And it's like, well, you don't because you want to type hysterical stuff to me rather than actually go do some real good in the world.
And I get that.
It's a lot easier to sort of castigate me and to get impatient and rude with me because I'm a good guy, right?
So this tough guy, this tough guy is not taking on Satanists.
He's not taking on corrupt political leaders.
He's not taking on the corrupt and false media.
No, no, no.
He's emailing me, who's a nice and reasonable guy, because he's a fucking coward.
He's a fucking coward.
Because he's getting all kinds of aggressive with me, but he's not going to a mosque or a synagogue and screaming his epithets at them, right?
Of course not, right?
So yeah, he's filling my inbox because he's a coward.
And I guess he's trying to be a bully or something like that, but it's really pathetic.
And, you know, here's the thing.
You know, if you're representing a particular belief system, you kind of need to have some nobility and character because people are going to judge you.
You know, if you're a dietitian, you should not be obese, right?
Because people are going to judge you by how fat you are.
So if he's saying, listen, I, Steph, I, this person who emails me quite a lot, I follow the virtue, the noble, the true, the good, the blah, And I'm going to swear at you and I'm going to not define anything and so on.
So you are a representative of what you believe.
And people who take their beliefs very seriously take good care to be positive representatives of what they believe.
You can't get a fat guy to sell a diet book.
So when people are this sort of hysterical and aggressive and petty and vindictive and mean and, you know, just and cowardly and so on, it's like, well, you were doing a very effective job of having me not believe anything that you say with regards to morals.
He said, sorry for the language.
Well, I can understand sorry for the language if you just let rip a cuss in spoken conversation, but you get to type this out.
He says, and I really do appreciate your efforts and all your good work.
And sure, UPB is a true logical construction, but people are irrational and would never be rational.
Okay, so he's saying that God is rational, belief in God is rational, and then he's saying that people aren't rational.
So they're not going to believe in God any more than UPP.
He goes on to say, and that is why the real world philosophy is 100% might makes right.
And this is why Christianity must be forced down their throats until the world is functional again.
Irrational people only understand force.
And Christianity is the valid, justified moral, virtuous reason, and purpose of true physical force against irrational and evil people.
So a theocratic tyranny.
Yeah, thanks.
Thanks, but no.
And why are people so irrational?
If God made people, why are they so irrational?
I don't find people to be particularly irrational.
I mean, they're rational in their pursuit of survival and so on.
There is an attempt at logic in UPB, and it sort of works, but not really.
All right.
Morality already existed before mankind, and UPB only points out the effects of immorality.
It does not define morality.
Yeah, it does.
Yeah, it does.
I mean, straw men are kind of funny.
Do I want to go on for more?
Yeah, let's go a little more.
And lastly, to include with all the arguments I have made against UPB, I will just say that bottom line, UPB is merely a survival instinct desire and not the creation of morality.
Every person would agree that they don't want to be attacked or stolen from simply because they want to live and survive.
So that would make that universally preferable behavior.
No, it's not what people agree with or don't agree with.
It's can rape, theft, assault, and murder ever be universally preferable behavior.
The answer is no.
I mean, self-contradictory.
However, because this is all survival instinct-based, as soon as a person sees a chance to steal or attack that best serves their own survival, they will immediately not care the slightest about UPB because they are about their own survival over everyone else's.
All right.
Okay.
So let's say that people are predatory and so on.
Well, that's why you can't have a government, right?
I mean, so he's saying that you need a theocratic dictatorship to ram Christianity down everyone's throats, but everyone's irrational and does evil for the sake of their own power lust.
And, you know, to not even notice that these two things are incredibly contradictory.
Nobody can handle power.
So let's give some people total power.
I mean, people are irrational.
Let's give irrational people who are very violent and greedy and want status and power over everything else.
Let's give them an entire government to force a belief system down people's throats.
It's like, you really think that's going to, that the angels are going to serve Christianity with that power?
I don't think so.
What did we say here?
UPP is matter-based, biologically-based morality and simply does not hold up, just like all the other secular ethical frameworks before it.
See, he's just saying shit.
I mean, just blah, It doesn't work.
It's wrong.
People have power, blah, blah, blah.
This is just impatience and frustration.
And this is a guy who's failing to combat his own corruption and immorality, right?
Because he's aggressive and manipulative and so on, right?
This is because God-based, soul-based morality is the only truth as proven at his website.
Okay.
Yeah, it's a shame, you know?
I mean, I do appreciate criticisms of UPP, people who criticize, who have criticisms of me or what it is that I argue for.
They're always put to the front of the line in conversations.
And I do love when people give me pushback.
But I thought this was a good example of like what not to do, right?
So if you want to convince someone who's rational, well, first of all, if you just say, well, everyone's irrational, then he's irrational too, right?
If he's saying everyone just manipulates for the will to power, then I will not view his arguments as having anything to do with the truth.
So you've got to pursue truth, but everyone's irrational and just wants power.
It's like, well, you're going to have to pick a lane there, bro.
And so what people are doing is they're confessing.
So just so you know, like, I mean, I'm sure you understand this, but it's probably worth mentioning just briefly here.
So everyone who says this is all humanity, humanity is just X.
Oh, they're talking about themselves, their parents, maybe their siblings, their immediate family and their social circle, all that kind of stuff.
That's all they're doing.
They're not talking about anything objective.
They're not talking about, they're just, everyone around me is corrupt.
My parents are corrupt.
I'm corrupt.
And he's saying that everyone is focused on the will to power.
So what that means is that he's trying to exercise his aggressive will to power over me, but in the guise of being philosophical, of being rational.
So, this is crazy rantings, completely self-contradictory, disappointing because I do like a good critique.
But it is an important thing that if you want to convince someone, define your terms and restate their arguments.
So, when people tell me everything about UPB without actually quoting anything from the book, I mean, it's just projection and nonsense.
So, I hope that helps.
Freedeman.com/slash tonight.
Appreciate your support, my friends.
I'll talk to you soon.
Export Selection