All Episodes
Previous
Feb. 6, 2026 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
36:39
The Greatest Listener Question OF ALL!
|

Time Text
What Do I Truly Want? 00:01:31
All right, so good morning, everybody.
Hope you're doing well.
So I asked Grok, what is the number one most important question I can answer for my listeners?
And Grock answered.
We'll do this bit by bit.
Hopefully, this will help.
Hopefully, I'm sure Grok is pretty good at this kind of stuff.
But said, the number one most important question you can answer for your listeners based on the core themes that run through your work on Free Domain, your philosophy shows, universally preferable behavior, UPP, peaceful parenting, ethics, and call-ins is what do I want to achieve with my life?
Or more precisely, what do I truly want?
Followed closely by how do I live in accordance with virtue to achieve it?
This stands out repeatedly as the foundational starting point you emphasize when people drift into nihilism, hedonism, or meaninglessness.
In discussions like hedonism versus nihilism, you frame it as the first and most essential question people ask or should ask upon waking up each day, planning their months, years, or facing choices.
What is my aim?
What goal or value am I pursuing?
Without a clear virtue-lined answer to this, people fall into traps, chasing fleeting pleasures, hedonism, which fades and slides into despair, declaring life worthless, nihilism when virtue is abandoned, making poor decisions in relationships, parenting, economics, or society because they lack a rational moral compass.
Why Courage Is Punished 00:07:23
So that's pretty good.
I gotta tell you this.
That's pretty good.
AI is, I know it's just a very sophisticated word guesser, but it is pretty cool how it's able to synthesize things in this kind of way.
So what do I want to achieve with my life?
So courage is the opposite of slavery.
If you're a slave, courage destroys you, right?
So if you stand, maybe you're like some ancient Roman slave or some Bantu slave in Africa, if you stand up against your master, you get killed or ostracized or castrated or like your genetic line ends in one way or another.
And the purpose of punishing courage, which of course I have experienced very substantially and directly, the purpose of punishing courage is to make other people view courage as suicide and therefore program them to feel like slaves.
That is the point of these horrendous censorship laws and so on, so that if you courageously speak the truth that is good and important, then you will be wildly punished and attacked and so on.
And what this does is the impact crater on, say, my life then sort of spreads to others.
And they say, oh, well, we are in fact slaves because courage is being punished.
Because if you look at something like the military, in the military, courage, if it's in alignment with the goals of the leaders, courage is rewarded.
Courage is praised and rewarded, and you get a medal, a ticker-tape parade, and a pension, as I've said on more than one occasion.
So when you are in service of the rulers or the leaders, then courage is praised and rewarded.
But if what you're saying is against the pleasures and preferences of your rulers and leaders, then courage is punished and so on, right?
I remember when I was in my early 20s, I played Macbeth and I poured a huge amount of thought into the role.
And some people loved what I did, some people hated what I did.
Lord knows that's not the first time or the last time that's ever going to happen.
Because what I decided to do was to play Macbeth as a complete sociopath, as a serial killer.
Because I couldn't help but notice, and I remember arguing with the director quite a bit about this, I couldn't help but notice that Macbeth is a soldier and a warrior who probably has been out there killing 20, 30 peasants or knights or whatever you want to call them.
He's just, the king has ordered him to go and kill a whole bunch of other people.
And he went out with his sword and his armor and he went out and killed a whole bunch of people in the service of the king.
And he was praised for that.
And that was a good thing.
And the king was happy with him.
And yay, mass murdering psychopath, good for you.
And then his wife convinces him to kill the king and he kills the king, which is like a mafia hitman turning on the mafia leader.
And what I did was I played his subsequent insomnia and descent into madness and nihilism and suicidality as he cannot resolve this contradiction.
Why is it bad for him to kill the guy who orders him to kill 50 guys?
And the world says it's great for you to kill the 50 guys.
And, you know, over the course of his career, it was probably thousands of guys that Macbeth murdered as a soldier and a warrior and so on, either directly or, you know, right running the military or whatever.
But why would it be wrong to kill the guy who orders you to kill 5,000 guys?
I mean, the king got to, and I remember saying this to the director, the king got to his old age with all of his pomp and circumstance and power and grace and so on.
He got to his old age intact, whereas Macbeth was out there killing a whole bunch of young men who didn't get into the, you know, however old the king is, the 70s or 80s.
So it is, it was far less just to kill the young men than it was to kill the old king.
But of course, you know, the natural order rises up against him and so on, right?
And he can't sleep and the gods desert him and the witches haunt him and all of that.
And to me, Macbeth, it's just a mafia movie.
It's just a mafia story.
Sorry, mafia play.
But of course, because Shakespeare was writing in the constraints of the time, he had to write that the king ordering Macbeth to kill 5,000 guys was good and right and noble and virtuous and excellent.
Whereas Macbeth killing the old man is horrifying and upsetting the natural order, condemned by God and run by the devil and so on.
And I mean, I sympathize with that.
I mean, Shakespeare is the greatest writer in human history, but not a philosopher.
Although he had the most succinct description of socialism, that distribution should do an distribution should undo excess and each man have enough.
So he was not a philosopher.
He was a writer.
So, and he couldn't have staged his plays if he had included any of these sorts of elements.
So people were very disoriented by what I did.
I think there's a video of it somewhere.
The director has a video of it somewhere from many decades ago.
But the audience was fundamentally discombobulated by.
I mean, to me, morally, this is not an interpretation.
I played Macbeth as a mafioso.
I even did a nod to Don Corleone by adopting a slightly softer voice, slightly more sinister, softer voice.
And of course, the king became king by killing other people.
I mean, the aristocracy are murder champions, and that's why they got the land, because they were very good at killing people.
So why should we mourn the death of a mafia chief, of a chief of organized crime?
Who would have thought the old man had so much blood in him?
Well, I mean, this is Macbeth who just chopped the heads off 50 guys in a day's battle, being surprised that someone has so much blood in him.
Again, that's one of these prickly horror scenarios that is very effectively done in the play, Macbeth.
But I remember people said it was uniquely powerful, and they hated it at the same time.
Fundamental Truths That Go Against Programming 00:15:22
But, I mean, that's what philosophy does, is it tells you fundamental truths in ways that go against your programming.
So your deepest self recognizes the fundamental truth and your programmed self hates it, which is why people have such an ambivalent relationship with what I do.
I'll tell the truth.
You know it's the truth.
It's proven, but you hate it at the same time.
Because once you're in possession of the truth, well, you can't be satisfied by hanging with liars anymore.
So the purpose of punishment is to spread the perception of enslavement so that people don't fight back.
So what do I want to achieve with my life?
What do I truly want?
How do I live in accordance with virtue to achieve it?
What we want in life is to be seriously fucking free.
Maximum freedom.
Maximum freedom.
Maximum freedom has to take into account dangerous predation.
If you are training for a swimming race and you go down to the ocean to train, but there's a whole bunch of sharks offshore, then you don't swim there that day.
Because otherwise, obviously they're likely to be bitten and you're not going to do very well in the swimming race.
So we want maximum freedom.
Maximum freedom.
Because we can't have a life unless we choose a life and we can't choose a life without courage.
Otherwise, we're just conformists, right?
Like salmon in that swift current.
You are just going with the flow.
And then you don't really exist in any psychologically independent or authentic way.
We inherit praise and punishment from the slaves who rule us.
Well, it's interesting because people like teachers are both slaves and masters.
They're slaves to the curriculum, slaves to the powers that be, but they're also masters because they get their income through force, through property taxes and other forms of coercion.
They're like the court toadies, the sycophants at the court.
They're both slaves and rulers at the same time.
So we inherit punishment and praise.
And doing good means being praised.
Doing bad means being punished.
But none of these things have any rational or objective moral standing.
It's not like doing good is rationally proven and being bad is rationally disproven.
Or any of this is consistent, right?
The teacher says, don't use force to get what you want.
Don't steal, don't hit.
But if your parents don't pay my salary, I'm going to send them to jail.
So it's all convoluted, hypocritical, vile, predatory, exploitive, parasitical nonsense.
But it's what trains us.
And we are trained to punishment and reward.
If we please the teacher, if we get check marks on the curriculum, we are praised.
If we displease the teacher or challenge or question the foundations of the curriculum, we are punished.
We are punished.
If we try to take consistency in things, we say, oh, well, there's a black student group.
Why can't there be a white student group?
Well, that's racist.
It's like, well, but that's racism to say that, right?
I mean, if racism is bad, then anyway.
So you're not allowed, right?
You're not allowed.
You're just punished and marked down and the parents are alerted and flagged as dangerous, subversive, racist, whatever.
I mean, the usual stuff throughout history.
Heretic, right?
Unbeliever.
And you're punished.
So we are punished for consistency and praised for successfully enslaving ourselves.
Asking questions is punished and repeating answers is praised.
Remember, was it Barack Obama who said, you know, it's time for us to have an honest conversation about race?
Okay, let's bring some science in.
No.
Let's bring some facts in.
No.
That's bad.
So, I mean, they want an honest conversation about these sorts of things in the same way that Chairman Mao wanted to let a thousand flowers bloom so he could find out who the subversive were and slaughter them.
So we want maximum freedom because it is far more satisfactory to make your own mistakes than to imitate other people's successes.
It is better in your soul in the long run to write your own songs than it is to be a reasonably successful cover band, right?
It is better to write your own books than to be a monk kind of copying out other people's books in the Middle Ages.
So we want maximum freedom, which means reasonable courage.
If you dial up the courage too far, well, you don't really get much freedom because you're silenced, enslaved, shot, imprisoned, whatever, right?
So if you don't have enough courage, then you have to lie to yourself.
See, I mean, this is the problem with not having courage, reasonable courage, is that you have to lie to yourself.
There was a guy on X, I can't remember his name, who was saying, well, I just don't find IQ discussions between ethnicities to be particularly interesting, but blah, And it's like, no, that's not true.
It is, unfortunately, it has to be interesting because massive amounts of policy decisions are based upon ethnic disparities in outcome.
I mean, you can't not be interested in it because it's interested in you.
So if you say, look, it's too volatile, it is an important subject.
It's just, it's too volatile.
Okay.
I can respect that honesty.
I really can't.
It's just this, well, you know, I just, I find it's sort of belief beneath my lofty attention.
It's not interesting.
It's petty.
Small.
Only the midwits would be interested in such a silly topic.
It's that pomposity that drives me in particular into paroxysms of body-wretching rage.
But what are you going to do, right?
You are in a situation where there's an essential topic and you find it too volatile to talk about, then don't talk about it or talk about it and say it's too volatile, right?
Like Jordan Peterson said many years ago: yes, there are ethnic IQ differences.
They're pretty tough to resolve.
Nobody can figure out how to solve them.
Nobody can figure out an intelligence test that doesn't have disparate outcome on averages in IQ, but people get killed for it, so I'm not really going to talk about it.
Okay.
I mean, he knows about it.
I mean, maybe don't give a whole bunch of speeches on immigration without mentioning it, but hey, meh, hey.
So, yeah, you can say it's too volatile.
I don't want to talk about it or shut up about it entirely.
But don't say, well, it's just not an important topic and I'm too lofty and blah, blah.
So the problem with a lack of courage is you have to lie to yourself because no man can survive contempt for himself in his own mind.
No man can say, I'm a coward and survive psychologically.
No man can say, I'm a liar, I'm a coward.
I avoid essential conversations and lie about why.
Because if you look at yourself with the just contempt you would have as a coward, if you reveal to yourself honestly your own cowardice without, and we've all, you know, we've all done it.
I won't speak for you.
I've certainly done it.
I've had to recognize where I was being cowardly and work to close that gap.
I mean, people pointed out years and years ago that the religion I criticized the most was Christianity.
And it was, wasn't it amazing that the religion I happened to criticize the most happened to be the one that commanded its followers to love their enemies and was peaceful and so on.
And that that was an absolutely right and fair and true and good point.
So I had to figure out how to close that gap.
So no man can look in the mirror and say, I'm a contemptible coward who lies about being brave and psychologically or even economically continue.
If you are a teacher or a professor or somewhere, then you say to people, you should defer to my wisdom and expertise.
And if you've looked in the mirror and you said, I'm a contemptible coward who lies about his courage, and you have admitted that to yourself and you won't close the gap, then all credibility and authority is going to drain out of your demeanor and your and everyone's going to pick up on it.
Everyone's going to pick up on it.
And nobody will have any respect for you.
Your children will look upon you with contempt.
Your wife, husband, look upon you with contempt.
You will have a crisis of conscience.
You will be unable to sleep.
Because no man can look in the mirror and say, I'm a lying coward and continue on in his life as if that had not occurred.
That is not a thing that can happen.
So people have to lie to themselves.
If you lack courage, which we all do from time to time, so that's fine.
That's a struggle, right?
But if you lack courage, if you are a lying coward, you have to lie about that to yourself.
You have to.
Now, what are the consequences of having to lie to yourself?
No man can look in the mirror and say, I'm a contemptible, lying coward, and go about his day.
It doesn't happen.
People have to lie to themselves.
So what are the consequences of having to lie to yourself?
Well, touchiness, vanity.
And now you have to, consciously or unconsciously, avoid anyone who is consistent, moral, and perceptive.
Because if you are consistent, moral, and perceptive, you will call out someone who is lying to themselves about their virtues.
And you will do it not necessarily out of hostility.
You could do it out of a care and concern for their conscience.
Right?
So if somebody who's 300 pounds just says, well, I'm big-boned, you would say, no, dinosaurs, I think they could be considered big-boned.
Your skeleton is pretty much the same as everybody else's, except maybe softer because you don't exercise.
The exercises you're hauling around 120 pounds of extra weight.
So you would say to that person, now you wouldn't necessarily say it out of contempt or hostility or anger, but you would say it because what they're saying is something false.
And if you value the truth, you should try to correct people when they say things that are false.
So if you lie to yourself, I'm not talking about you, obviously, I just, I can't do that third.
If one lies to oneself, one, blah, blah, blah.
My blood is not quite that blue.
Close, but not quite.
Yeah, so if you lie to yourself, then you have to be around other people who lie to themselves so you can all reinforce your delusions like dawn drunkards, propping each other up as they stagger home to their rolling pin wielding wives.
And you have to be around other people who lie to themselves, who reinforce your lies.
You're surrounded by liars.
And because you're surrounded by liars, you can't trust anyone.
Because you all know that you're shaking hands under the table to reinforce each other's self-praise.
So it conditions everyone who is in your life or not in your life.
Everybody who pursues you or avoids you.
And when you first meet someone, you have these very sensitive and often unconscious, but very sensitive feelers out because you are trying to figure out whether they will tell you the truth or not.
And then, because you have no leg to stand on philosophically, morally, or rationally, what you have to do is resort to reward and punishment.
A professor, right?
A professor of, say, free market economics who is cross-examined by a skeptical, rational student as to why he believes that the free market is virtuous and valuable, yet he works in a government-protected cartel, often paid for by the government.
Or why, if he says, well, student loans or government loans are bad, and he said, well, most of your salary is paid for the fact that your classes give the university access to government-subsidized and backed student loans.
These are real questions and important questions.
And everybody knows that the professor will get very hostile.
Now, he doesn't have a leg to stand on, so he has to get hostile.
And because he's hostile, he then punishes people.
How dare you, you know, this sort of boring, pompous posturing stuff.
So if you lie to yourself about your level of courage and you call cowardice courage, then you don't have a leg to stand on because you will warn and threaten people who are going to expose you, and you will praise and reward people who conform with you.
I remember taking on a professor in my class in university, the rise of capitalism and the socialist response.
And, you know, he didn't fail me, but he certainly didn't give me marks that were in accordance with the skill and knowledge that I had.
So you're punished.
And I mean, this is all known, right?
So if you lie to yourself about, I mean, most things, but particularly moral things, then you end up inflicting punishment on people who question you and rewarding people, giving praise and marks and jobs and money to people who reinforce your delusions about yourself.
Right?
If you are a wise and learned professor emeritus who has been teaching the wayward youth Mr. Chip style low these many decades and blah and, you know, but it's mostly bullshit and conformity and punishment for pricking the balloons of vanity and reward for inflating the balloons of vanity.
Seeing PhDs as Liers 00:02:22
You're just a carnival barker with giant plush toys or the loss of money as your rewards and punishment.
And having contempt.
And then this is one of the things that's coming out of these Epstein files is that all of these people who claim to be sort of moral leaders and, I mean, they're all just a bunch of pedo-adjacent, vile, parasitical scumbags.
And it's, you know, good, good.
Let's get the truth about these things, right?
So the problem with lying to yourself is you end up having to punish the truth and reward your co-conspirators in falsehood, which means you can't be loved.
You're always prickly.
You're always defensive.
And you always have to scan people for the vile danger that faces you called honesty, curiosity, and integrity.
And so you have to actively repel honest, curious, moral people from your life.
And you can only have those around you who also lie and manipulate.
And that's vile.
That's vile.
And what happens, of course, is that like a trained seal or dolphin who gets some herring for doing a nice trick, the more you serve the powers that be, the more you are rewarded.
And therefore, what happens is you get addicted to the status that is given to you by the powers that be for lying to yourself and others.
You are the best liar.
Like I see someone, I mean, these days in particular, it might have been a little different when I was younger, but not much.
But these days, when I see someone with a PhD, I'm like, wow, so you are a really good liar.
You're really good at serving the powers that be.
You're really good at not rocking the boat.
You're really good at navigating the conformity minefield to get your prize on the other side.
I view these kinds of things as a whole, not exclusively, but as a whole, I view these kinds of things as, boy, you moved up really quickly in the Red Guard in Communist China.
Or wow, you became pretty top dog at the KGB or the NKVD.
And people saying that, what, they should be proud of that?
I think not.
I think not.
Adhering to Principle 00:09:59
So what should you do?
Well, you should have reasonable amounts of honesty, reasonable amounts of courage.
Now, this is public-facing.
In private, you should be able to be completely honest.
It's an old statement about in the Soviet Union, the only place you could be honest was under the covers of the bed with your wife.
So in private, you should be able to be honest.
In public, yeah, I mean, I get you have to have some caution.
You have to have some recognition of challenges and problems and so on.
I get all of that.
But what should you want to achieve with your life?
I mean, a good relationship with yourself is essential for happiness in life.
A good relationship with your own conscience.
Now, your conscience has standards and values, whether you like it or not.
In the same way that you can't look at a bird, let's say that you're 20 and you've been a bird watcher your whole life and you're out in the woods and a winged creature flies overhead.
You can't look at that and not know that it's a bird, right?
In the same way, if somebody speaks to you in English, you can't not understand what they're talking about.
Like the operations of consciousness, the universalizations of consciousness, are unconscious processes.
I can't look at the giant ball of light in the sky and say, What the hell is that?
I have no idea what that is, right?
Yeah, you don't come out of your bedroom every morning and wonder where you are and not know how to turn on the lights.
And like, you know, right?
And if you go to a hotel, you know how to turn on the lights for them.
Well, I guess now they have these funny key things got to be in or whatever, right?
Or, you know, I remember I wrote about this in The God of Atheists, but in business travel, trying to figure out how to get hot water in these various contraption taps in various hotels can be a challenge, but you know, you figure it out.
But you don't, you know, you don't sit there and say, gee, what's that giant soup bowl in the bathroom for?
Oh, look, it's a bathtub and all that, right?
So the operations of consciousness are unconscious, particularly universalization.
You don't go to a hotel room and have no idea where to sleep, right?
You recognize what the bed is, even though it's slightly different shape and size and whatever, right?
So it's the same thing with consistency, virtue, and so on, right?
If you say that honesty is a virtue and you lie, that's recorded.
It doesn't matter that you lie to yourself as far as your conscience goes in terms of it, your conscience being able to record it.
Oh, okay, so this is the stated virtue.
And this is the actual action.
Your consciousness, your conscience in particular, is like your body.
If you say, I want to diet, but you eat 5,000 calories a day, your body doesn't care that you want a diet.
Your body just accumulates the fat, right?
3,500 calories a pound or whatever, right?
And your conscience doesn't particularly care what you say, other than to note discrepancies between statements and actions.
It only cares what you do.
Your conscience is empirical.
Like, yeah, yeah, yeah.
You know, somebody says, well, I want to lose weight, but they keep ordering giant meals in, eating a whole pizza, never going to the gym.
After a while, you're like, yeah, yeah, yeah.
I mean, I don't, I don't, I mean, it's, it's, it's like, shut up.
Like, you know, you don't want to lose weight.
You just talk about it, right?
So your conscience will chew out your stated goals because it only really cares about what you're doing, what the facts of the matter are, what is objective.
Because concepts being universal have to be objective.
And if you're a hypocrite, then your conscience will recast you as a slave to delusion.
And most people who are hypocritical are that way because they're slaves, because they have no capacity for consistency, because they'll be beaten if they try to be consistent.
I mean, if the slave says to the master, we're both human beings, why should you get to rule me?
And the slave owner says, well, because I can punish you.
And then the slaves all rise up and kill the slave owner.
This is what happened.
Dostoevsky's father was punished by his serfs.
He was apparently such a drunk that the serfs punished him by pouring liquor down his throat until he died.
Now, then you may, of course, get punished by the state or whatever, but that's the Macbeth thing.
If killing people for power is good, then why would I kill for the ruler?
Why not just kill the ruler and become the ruler?
There's consistency to it.
And then he has to be punished by Shakespeare for this consistency.
So the operations of empiricism, what you actually do in the world, is all recorded by your conscience.
And if you are hypocritical, your conscience automatically puts you in the master slave category.
I mean, masters are hypocritical because they have to lie about virtue when they're just deploying power to reward and punish people for the transfer of resources and all that, right?
So if you're hypocritical, you go into the master-slave category.
And if you're in the master-slave category, then you can't be equal with anyone.
You can't have any kind of horizontal contact or connection with anyone.
And you can't be close to anyone.
You can't be loved by anyone because the master cannot love the slave.
The slave cannot love the master.
And when you're hypocritical, when you claim virtues, but do the opposite, you're in the master-slave category in your conscience because you're either lying to others in order to control them or you're lying because you are controlled.
And then you don't get love.
You don't have a good relationship with yourself.
Like when you lie to yourself, you get pretty uneasy.
I mean, if the slave says, I'm like, I'm just a slave and the guy can kill me, so I'm just not going to say anything.
Okay, well, at least you're not lying to yourself.
You may have to lie out there in the world, but at least you're not lying to yourself, right?
But if you're lying to yourself, then you are really locked into being a slave or a master and you can't adjust it.
And so if by acting in the opposite way that you preach, sorry, your unconscious or your conscience puts you in the master slave category, then all you can do is manipulate, bully, and bribe, or be manipulated, bullied, and bribed.
You cannot have any meeting of the minds.
You cannot have any quality.
You cannot have any love.
And you cannot have a good relationship with yourself.
And you have to avoid the good people.
And you have to hold close to you, or at least as best you can, the bad people.
But of course, the bad people, you can't trust.
So we don't pair bond with people.
We pair bond on principles.
If there's Bob and Doug, and Bob keeps his word in business and Doug breaks his word in business, you're going to do business not with Bob, but with Bob's adherence to principle.
It's not Bob who's trustworthy.
It's Bob's adherence to principle.
It's the principle that's trustworthy.
And Bob's adherence to that principle makes you trust Bob.
But what you aren't trusting is not Bob the individual, but Bob's commitment to the principle of don't cheat your business partners.
We pair bond on philosophy.
We trust on principle.
I don't wake up every morning wondering if my wife is going to be nice or mean.
She is relentlessly nice and thoughtful and caring and wonderful and all kinds of good stuff.
And that's her commitment to principle.
It's her nature to some degree, but it's her commitment to principle.
So you can't pair bond without principle and you can't have principle if you lie to yourself, corrupt, immoral, cowardly.
And so you lose all the good things in life without principles.
And when you're happy and doing good and you're proud of yourself and you're content with your actions and you have a good relationship with your conscience and you are loved by those around you and you love those around you and you are happy to see them and delighted to spend time with them, would it ever cross your mind to say, well, what's the meaning of all of this?
What's the purpose of all of this?
You've done the right thing.
You've had reasonable amounts of courage.
You love and are loved by those around you.
You have a good conscience.
You've done good in the world.
You can die satisfied that you've known.
You know that you've added to the good of the world.
Would it ever cross your mind in a state of happiness, contentment, love, and security to ponder and wonder what the meaning of it all is?
What's the purpose of it all?
Meaninglessness is the nihilism that rushes to fill in the void of integrity.
And I, again, I say this with humility.
I really do.
I'm not like, I've not made perfect decisions, blah, blah, blah.
But if you feel things are meaningless or you can't figure out the point, then you're probably lying to yourself about courage and virtue and lying to others.
And then it's hard to figure out what the point is if you're surrounded by bad people and you're making bad decisions and you have a bad relationship with your own conscience and you can't find peace of mind and you lack love and pride and self-respect.
Then of course it's like, well, what's the purpose of all of this?
What's the point of all of this?
Well, the point of all of that is to fix it by taking steps towards reasonable amounts of courage, virtue, integrity, and honesty.
I hope that helps.
Love these questions.
Freedomain.com slash donate to help out the show.
Really would appreciate it.
Shop.freedomain.com for your merch and freedomain.com slash books for all of the tasty new print versions of my favorite books.
Thanks, everybody.
Lots of love.
Take care.
Export Selection