0:00 - Introduction to Today's Questions
1:18 - The Non-Aggression Principle
4:24 - Prioritizing Child Abuse
6:19 - The Illusion of Free Speech
7:10 - Exploring Evidence and Belief
10:09 - Miracles vs. Moral Arguments
13:15 - Understanding Universal Moral Principles
17:23 - The Journey to Morality
18:31 - The Challenge of Personal Accountability
21:35 - The Conflict of Universal and Tribal Morality
24:58 - The Struggle with Moral Hypocrisy
26:59 - Barriers to Understanding UPB
In this episode, I delve into the complex topic of conspiracy theories, focusing specifically on the notion of chemtrailsóone of the many theories circulating in our modern discourse. I reflect on the myriad theories that flood my inbox and online platforms, and I emphasize the necessity of critical analysis when encountering such claims. My approach hinges on three pivotal questions: Is the theory objectively provable? Can I impact its outcome? Is it of greater importance than other pressing societal issues, such as child abuse, the national debt, or systemic propaganda?
Chemtrails, the assertion that harmful chemicals are deliberately released from airplanes into the atmosphere, serves as a case study in prioritization philosophy. I argue that while this theory raises valid concerns about environmental and public health, it ultimately falls short in terms of personal verification and actionable outcomes compared to more immediate and verifiable issues like child abuse. The prioritization of concerns is paramount; the prevalence and the ability to enact change are factors that must guide our focus. I illustrate this prioritization through the lens of the non-aggression principle, advocating that real harm occurring against children should take precedence over unprovable theories that produce little more than intellectual gymnastics.
As I transition into a more personal reflection, I share insights from my extensive background in business analysis and software development. My experience in constructing frameworks for prioritizing issues in corporate environments informs my perspective on moral and ethical debates. I point out that while theories can provide an interesting mental exercise, the urgent matters affecting the most vulnerable populationóchildrenómust take precedence. The ramifications of ignoring these pressing needs may have lasting impacts on our society, which I describe as a moral failing that we must address.
I then pivot to the topic of universal morality, discussing the implications of my work on Universal Proof of Bonafide (UPB). This philosophical framework posits that true morality must be universally applicable and verifiable, a position that inherently challenges deeply ingrained social norms and personal relationships. I elaborate on how accepting UPB requires a departure from tribalistic moral reasoning to a more universal moral standardóthis transition can deeply unsettle existing familial structures and personal relationships often based on historical or tribal preferences.
Diving deeper, I contextualize the fear and resistance many people exhibit towards concepts like UPB and universal morality. I draw parallels between the moral teachings of Jesus and my philosophical assertions, noting that while Jesus utilized miraculous proofs of divinity to establish moral authority, my arguments rely solely on rational discourse and logical frameworks. I stress the tension that arises when individuals confront their moral hypocrisy, which often leads to a defensive posture. The discomfort of realizing oneís moral failures is a powerful deterrent against the acceptance of new philosophical models.
Throughout the episode, I address the philosophical dissonance and rationalization often employed by individuals who are confronted with their moral shortcomings. The discussion weaves together various threads, from the psychology of moral hypocrisy to the societal implications of actively ignoring pressing moral dilemmas. It becomes clear that the avoidance of confronting real, actionable moral issues often results in a societal preference for discussing abstract theories that carry no immediate consequences, a phenomenon rooted in fear of change.
Finally, I emphasize that grappling with these concepts is a journey that only individuals can undertake for themselves. The weight of acknowledgmentóof having lived in contradiction to oneís stated moralsóis immense and can feel akin to a kind of existential death. Yet, I argue that through accepting the truth of our moral posture, there lies a potential for rebirth on the other side, a more virtuous existence where genuine actions align with spoken beliefs.
As the episode concludes, I invite listeners to reflect on the intricate dance of morality, prioritization, and personal accountability in a world full of distractions and unfounded theories, urging them to focus on what truly mattersóthe welfare of our children and the ethical implications of our everyday choices.
[0:00] Good morning, everybody. Hope you're doing well. Okay, questions from freedomain.locals.com, great community. Hope you will join our chemtrails reel. Well, I don't know. I don't know. I get a lot of theories in my inbox. Of course, I see a lot of theories online. And I try to focus on an analysis of theories and ideas and arguments that goes along something like this. Is it objectively provable? Can I do something about it? Is it of more importance than child abuse? Or, say, I don't know, the national debt or bad education or propaganda and brain programming of the young and so on. And so the chemtrails is the argument that bad chemicals are being sprayed from airplanes over populations. Now, I mean, some of this is just confusion about what it means for there to be vapor trails in the high atmosphere.
[1:00] But is it something I can objectively verify myself? It is not. Is it something that I can do something about? It is not. Is it something that is of higher importance than child abuse? It is not. So I tend not to spend a lot of time and energy in these things.
[1:19] And this is just a mortality thing. So unprovable theories generally have to do with a sense of immortality. And they have to do with a sense of, well, I have forever and ever amen with which to spend my precious intellectual, moral, and willpower time on this planet. I tend to prioritize, you know, this is the old thing I talked about with regards to the non-aggression principle. If you care about the non-aggression principle, then you must sort actions in the world that violate the non-aggression principle according to two standards. Number one, the most prevalent. Number two, that you can do the most about? What is the most prevalent violation of the non-aggression principle that you can do the most about? And of course, that is harm against children. That is spanking. That is various kinds of neglect and abuse. So that is what you do. Now, what is the greatest? Obviously, spraying chemicals on people would be a violation of the non-aggression principle.
[2:20] Is it the most prevalent, and the most certain that I can do the most about. The most certain in that we know for a fact that thanking children is a violation of the non-aggression principle, that it is incredibly widespread.
[2:33] That the vast majority of parents engage in this or other forms of physical aggression against their children. So is it...
[2:41] The most prevalent, the most certain that I can do the most about. And clearly that's child abuse. This is not something that's just a little pet project of mine. This isn't some weird fetish. This is just the result. And I mean, I hate to sort of be the annoying business guy, but in the business world, you know, a SWOT analysis, strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats, prioritization. I wrote entire computer programs to help giant corporations prioritize their business and health and safety and environmental and profit-based objectives.
[3:15] I was involved in software that attempted to tell businesses through a wide variety of metrics what their most profitable products were so they could spend more time on them. I was involved in software that helped prioritize all maintenance, upcoming maintenance in large real estate portfolios. I I wrote software directly that helped people prioritize health and safety and environmental issues relative to profitability and productivity. So I'm just really, really knowledgeable. It's just one of these annoying things. There's tons of stuff I don't know about. But as far as prioritization goes, that was a lot of my career was defining, programming, creating, and sharing the metrics on how to prioritize. So I just have, oh gosh, I mean, a decade plus direct business experience on prioritization. So I just know prioritization inside and out, backwards and forwards.
[4:13] And it's tough to beat me on that, right? I mean, you beat me on a bunch of things, but it's pretty tough to beat me on rational prioritization of objectives relative to a goal.
[4:24] So if the goal is to have people that understand and enact the non-aggression principle, well, it's not much you can do about foreign policy, not much you can do about money printing, not much you can do about interest rates, not much you can do about other forms of aggression, but you sure as hell can do something both if you have children and everybody knows somebody who has children in your community, and even if you don't know anyone who has children, You can still spread the word in the community about spanking and child abuse. And the fact that people avoid that stuff is, well, it's beyond suspicious. It means that it's mostly nonsense. They want to talk about the things they can't affect because they don't want to provoke any evildoers. See, you have free speech as long as you can't affect change, right? You have free speech as long as you don't interfere with the objectives and goals and actions of any immoral people. You can yap away as much as you want as long as you can't actually change anything. And as you'll sort of notice, this is a glorious decade of 2006 to 2016, where free speech was actually a thing that got to be exercised. That was fine until the powers that be realized, oh no, free speech is actually changing things.
[5:41] Shut it down, right? So it's got to be canceled, right? That's just the nature of the beast. so evil people in the world they don't mind if you're yapping about things that you can't change and and all of that so if you want to go off on the jfk assassination you want to go off on on chemtrails you want to go off on all of this stuff uh that's totally fine for them because what 9-11 theories and so on you can go off on all of that stuff because it doesn't change anything it doesn't change anything well i'm spreading awareness i'm okay i get all of that so you just You want to get the feeling that you're standing against people who do deeply immoral things.
[6:20] You want to get that feeling, but you don't want to actually interfere with the goals and objectives of any actually immoral people. I get that. I mean, everybody wants the fruits of virtue without the risks of virtue.
[6:33] Everybody wants to lose weight without feeling uncomfortable because you're hungry. Everybody wants to exercise without the discomfort of exercise. I get that. I mean, everybody wants the effect without the cause. And that's fine. That's fine. I mean, I want the effect of having a conversation with you without having to drive to your house. So, I mean, I get all of that. That's fine. But just recognize it for what it is. So, if you're spending a lot of time and energy on chemtrails and not on child abuse, I mean, it's a pose. It's posture, right? All right. How can I find your great old video about Egypt, its perpetual poverty, and it providing a high percentage of the daily bread for its population?
[7:11] As usual, fdrpodcasts.com.
[7:16] Fdrpodcasts.com. All right. So, oops, just dropped the paper. Somebody wrote a bit of a short answer on the last one that didn't quite seem to answer the question fully. I think I may have done this one before, but I had another thought about it. So if I haven't, I'll give it. this is an addendum, otherwise it's a full answer. If UPB is true, it doesn't need more than one proof to establish that fact. It just needs one correct proof. Similarly, Jesus doesn't need four gospels. One is enough. The reason there are four of them is because they were written with different audiences in mind. Matthew for the Jews, Mark for the Gentiles, John for the Greeks, and Luke for those wanting a longer version. Similarly, I suppose there could be different versions of UPB for people who find the existing proof to be somewhat inaccessible or difficult to comprehend. hand. But I suppose those people could also try listening to some of the debates you had about it. Perhaps they will find those more convincing. While it's certainly not necessary to have more than one proof for UPB to establish its truth value, I suppose it could in fact help convince some people who are deeply stuck, who are still stuck so deeply in unreality that they find the existing proof difficult to process. Some mathematical proofs also have several different proofs for them, even though one would completely suffice. I don't think it's impossible that someone might find a different proof for UBB that's more convincing or accessible to people who are having their trouble wrapping their minds around the original one, but that person would likely not be Stef. And of course, finding such proof wouldn't make UBB more true, but it might help convince more people. Right, right.
[8:39] So I'm actually listening to a biography of Jesus at the moment, so this is fairly timely. So Jesus, of course, enacted a moral revolution in the world, probably one of the biggest, if not the biggest moral revolutions that ever occurred. How did he do it? Did he do it through debates, arguments, and syllogisms? Well, obviously, he debated with his elders and so on, but did he convince people with syllogisms, PowerPoints, graphs, charts, facts, data, and evidence?
[9:11] No, he convinced people because he was perceived to be and eventually claimed to be or accepted that he was the son of God who performed, depending on how you count it, between 18 and 20 substantial miracles, most of which in full sight of everyone. So there was massive amounts of actual evidence, massive amounts of eyewitness proof and people who said that they had been cured by Jesus. He walked on water, he turned water into wine, he had the endless loaves and fishes, he healed people, he drove demons out of people into pigs and drove pigs off a cliff, which seems a little cruel to the pigs, but perhaps that's what's needed. And he manifested and fulfilled a wide variety of, obviously, pre-Christian predictions about the Messiah.
[10:02] So that's, let's just say, putting a wee bit of a bump on your moral arguments.
[10:10] So if I claimed to be right because I was divine and then gave everybody irrefutable proof of my divinity, right, just to take a silly, obviously, a silly argument from my perspective, right? But if I said, I'm right, and the reason that you know I'm right is I can walk on water, and I have access to omnipotence and omniscience, I can turn water into wine, I can create endless loaves and fishes from the same container. If I performed verifiable what would be considered violations of the laws of biology and physics, if I cured people, right and and not in a sort of hearsay way but i was on video you know touching a man with no eyes and his eyes regrew and he could see if if well then who would not accept my moral arguments, right i mean i wouldn't need to prove anything so comparing philosophy to theology is is not fair, right? It's not, not fair. It's not reasonable because in theology, you simply need to believe that the person is a manifestation of divine will. And then their moral arguments are accepted prima facie, like on the face of things, they, you don't need.
[11:33] Jesus was not Socrates, did not make syllogistical proof of his arguments. His proof was, if you accept that Jesus is divine, this is the basic syllogism, right? God is all perfect, God is all moral, God is all good. If Jesus is the son of God, then Jesus is all moral, all perfect, all good. You don't need any arguments because it is a matter of acceptance of virtue based upon divinity. So the arguments that Jesus had were obviously amazing eloquence and charisma and so on, and presence, but his arguments were his miracles. His miracles proved that Jesus was in possession of divine access, divine grace, was the Son of God, the Messiah, the first coming, and so on, right? And so because he was those things, his moral arguments were accepted to be true.
[12:35] So talking about the proof of moral arguments from a theological standpoint versus a moral, rational, philosophical standpoint is comparing apples to, I suppose, the opposite of apples. Because I'm an empirical science-based rationalist, it's impossible for me, and I believe it's impossible certainly for, let's just say, non-divine creatures, mere mortals such as myself. It is impossible for us to provide miracles as substantive proof of our relationship to the divine, which embeds by definition, not even by faith, because you've witnessed the actual miracles.
[13:15] It embeds the morals in the minds of the people through magic, through those amazing abilities, right?
[13:24] So there is no comparison. Now, why do people have such a tough time with UPB? Well, because UPB fundamentally rewrites the moral contract of society to peace, reason, voluntarism, and the non-aggression principle, which overturns a lot of existing social structures and rewrites radically people's relationships to their society, to their schools, and to their families, their parents. It threatens relationships. If the relationships are bound on virtue and morality, then the relationships can not only be sustained but flourish through an understanding of UPB. But if the relationships are not based on virtue, if they're based on history, dominance, aggression, sexual attraction, and little else, and money and resources and shared history, and they're just the normal detritus and momentum and semi-sludge of circumstances.
[14:21] Then UPB puts a lie to the statement, I love you, if the I love you, the object of I love you, and the person saying it are not virtuous. And then if you say, UPP explains virtue to me, then you have to say before that you weren't virtuous. Or at least, if you were virtuous, you were accidentally virtuous. Like, if everybody ate what was good for them, you wouldn't need the science of nutrition. You wouldn't need nutritionists. Now, it could be the case that all the foods you like just happen to be the foods that are really, really good for you, but you still wouldn't understand nutrition. You would just be following your tastes. So it is possible for people to be moral without UPB, but I would say not particularly consistently. And it would be such a rare thing. It would be like somebody whose taste buds just automatically guide them to the exact perfect food for themselves and their optimum health. That would not be the case. And it would certainly not be the case over the course of your life, because over the course of your life, you have to change your diet, right? Obviously, you need more calories when you're a teenager who's growing, particularly if you're a boy. As I get older, I need fewer and fewer calories to maintain the same weight, even though I maintain the same level of exercise.
[15:37] So if you are someone who has claimed to be moral, and then it turns out you didn't understand morality, then the greatest vanity is the moral posture, right? Saying that you're good without understanding virtue. It was very, very, very difficult for me to say, gee, I've been studying philosophy for 20 years, right? Give or take, right? Let's say mid-teens to early mid-30s, just round it up a little, right? 20 years, nice round number. So when I had to say to myself, I've been studying philosophy for 20 years and I still don't have an irrefutable definition, understanding of and proof of morality. I just don't.
[16:23] Well, that cratered everything, man. That cratered my romantic relationships. It cratered my friendships. It cratered my family relations. It, to a large degree, cratered my career as a software executive, an entrepreneur. Man, it's rough. I mean, it lands like a nuclear shadow detonation thing in your life. And you know it was very very very tough and i don't know that there's any particular way to bypass that you know the first pill can cost 10 billion dollars to make the second pill might cost a dollar and at least under the current system there's no particular way to get over that 10 billion dollars or 10 million dollars or whatever it's going to be for the first pill so i can give you the fruits and products of my intellectual labors but i can't.
[17:16] I can't do the journey to morality with you or for you. I can do it with you, but I can't do it for you.
[17:23] So if I figured out how to lose weight, let's say I was some nutritionist hypothetically, right? If I figured out to lose weight, I can give you the fruits on how to lose weight. I can tell you how to lose weight. I can't lose the weight for you. If I figured out how to bulk up my traps in 10 easy exercises, I can share that information with you, but I cannot do the exercise for you. So people avoid UPB or they static themselves about UPB because deep down, they instinctively understand that their lives will never be the same if they truly accept morality. It's the same thing with child abuse. So you can go to a Thanksgiving dinner and you can yap about the dangers of the Federal Reserve and people, they might just roll their eyes a little bit, but it's just noise and nobody can do anything about it really. So you can spread awareness, whatever that means, right? But if you say to people, not there's this abstract system out there that violates, the non-aggression principle, blah, blah, blah. But if you say, you, Aunt Ethel and Uncle Albert are violating the non-aggression principle by hitting your children, you are doing wrong.
[18:31] And I'm going to make you aware of that fact, and I'm going to try to get you to change for the better. Well, that's a whole different matter, right? Now it's personal. Now it's action-based. now it's real.
[18:42] And keeping philosophy from becoming real is really the goal of modern sophistry, right? This is the, you know, the people who are sort of pro-mass migration. And then you say, you've seen these videos, I'm sure, right? People who are, should we take in more migrants or should we take in more refugees? And people say, yes, yes, yes. And then they say, well, I have this guy. Can he come live at your house? Oh, no, no, no. I don't have enough space. I'm going to be away. My roommate wouldn't like it. I don't have enough money. Right? So from abstract to personal, everybody loves, and I've been there myself and I'm not, you know, it's not some big, massive criticism. We're all in the same trenches together in that way, but everybody loves puffing out their chest about all their imaginary virtues, but actually doing it, actually enacting those virtues in a practical, tangible way. Well, that's a whole different thing. And so we're fed unactionable virtues or virtues that that don't have any impact on our visceral lives. We're fed those so that we can feel good about ourself.
[19:45] And feeling good about ourselves through the pretense of virtue is one of the foundational aspects of human nature in the current system. We don't know what human nature is in a state of freedom, but in the current system that we have. So if you understand the barriers to UPP in people's minds, that it is probably going, and Jesus said this himself, right? He said, basically, if I'm going to come up with a moral system of universality.
[20:13] The prior ethical systems were to do with in-group preference, right? I owe moral standards to my people, my group. And Jesus said, no, the moral standards are universal, and we should really focus on taking care of children and being kind and benevolent to children, and moral standards are universal. Well, that was pretty rough, and that's why Jesus said, my presence here, not I have come to the way that I sort of read it is universal morality will set families against each other because the family claims to be moral, but is in fact tribal, right? This is really, really important. The family claims to be moral, but is in fact tribal. And tribal is an in-group preference that does not partake of universal morality, right? It's, you know, like sort of obviously philosophically ridiculous spectacle of people on one side of the stadium cheering on the the blue team, my team is the best, my team is the good, my team is the greatest. And then people on the other side on the red team saying, my team is the greatest, my team is the best, my team is the most excellent, and so on. But that's not a moral thing, right? That's just a tribal thing. And so morality is universal, tribal is in group preference.
[21:24] And so by in group preference, it is by definition, not universal. And so that's why Jesus said that your foundational relationships are going to be rewritten.
[21:36] If you accept universal morality, it's no different with UPB. In fact, it is in a way even deeper than UPB because UPB does not require that you believe in divinity. UPB not being theological cannot be denied. So if you don't want to follow the teachings of Jesus, what you can do is disbelieve in the God of the Old Testament, in Jesus's divinity, you can disbelieve in all of that, and it all just goes away. But UPB can't be waved away like that. And please understand, I know that I'm saying a lot by saying just waved away, but we can see in the modern world that there is a lot of waving away of morality through a rejection of, the existence of God and the divinity of Jesus in particular. Whereas UPB, you can't wave it away, unless you're willing to wave away logic completely. But then if, so people who would be most interested in UPB would be people who are secular, and people who are secular tend to say, you know, science, reason, evidence, logic, I discard the superstition of blah, blah, blah. And so they focus on science, evidence, reason, objectivity, modern world, materialism, and so on. And so they can't just say, well, well, I'm going to reject logic.
[22:47] And so they have to work very, very hard to avoid understanding UPB because they've rejected God and therefore they've rejected morality that way. They've accepted science and reason. And if reason leads them to UPB, then there is no escape from morality. Now, they may have corrupt relationships, but I'll tell you the most foundational thing about why people reject UPB is UPB is the philosophical manifestation of the conscience. The conscience universalizes moral principles at all times. We, and I did a show on this recently, so I'll just touch on it very briefly here, but our minds universalize everything. We are concept making machines. We universalize everything.
[23:32] And so people who act in a manner they claim to be moral, the unconscious is like, oh, moral. Okay, well, let's universalize it, right? Let's universalize it right and then when they don't like those same morals applied to themselves right when they don't like those same morals applied to themselves when they become or they are revealed to themselves as moral hypocrites they just redefine things immediately right you know my mother would hit me constantly but then when i used some physical strength in self-defense she was absolutely appalled and shocked and we don't use violence and this like you know just immediately change the rules and so on but your unconscious notes all of that which is why people who keep changing the rules and are moral hypocrites are miserable and aggressive and tense. They're tense because the fragility of their moral pomposity and their moral vanity can be undone in about like 30 seconds to a minute. Most people are 30 seconds to a minute from a kind of moral psychosis. Most people are 30 seconds to a minute unraveling if they are confronted. And knowing that they're walking on these bladed eggshells is really tough for people. It's one of the reasons why people are kind of tense and anxious and stressed and volatile and aggressive because they're not fighting me or UPB or truth or reality. They're fighting their own conscience.
[24:48] They're fighting their own conscience. And UPB, by saying morality is way simpler than you think, these are the universal principles. They're very easy to understand.
[24:59] People fight that because they have done wrong and they don't want to be exposed to themselves and to others.
[25:08] So when people react in a very volatile fashion against UPB, it is a combination of they want to keep their moral posturing and their vanity. They want to seem good or appear good rather than actually be good because seeming good doesn't harm the interest of any evil people and therefore you will not get any blowback. In fact, evil people are quite comfortable if you've got moral posturing because it means that you get the benefits of virtue without having to interfere with the plans and actions of any evil people. So they're fine with that. So you get your supposed it benefits of virtue without the cost of virtue, but it comes at the price of setting your conscience against you. Because your conscience records reality whether you like it or not. Your conscience records reality whether you like it or not. If you're a hypocrite, a moral hypocrite in particular, your conscience knows that and will take away your happiness. And the only way to solve that and recover your happiness is to apologize to your conscience and to those you have lied to about your virtue and commit to doing true good in the world, right? A moral reformation, a moral hit rock bottom and recovery from addiction. The worst addiction in the world is moral posturing, is the pretense of virtue.
[26:18] So when people have done a lot of harm through moral hypocrisy, their conscience is upset with them, right? Reality processing is upset with you. Your universalization that you claim to be, you claim to have universal virtues, but you are monstrously hypocritical. And so your conscience is plaguing you. Conscience is plaguing you.
[26:41] And UPB comes along and provokes your conscience into sensing an external ally. So the conscience senses an external ally that it can team up with to take down your moral vanity, and your moral vanity fights back by attacking me, Stef, or UPB, but without actually understanding it.
[27:00] Right so given all of these barriers i mean philosophy has gone you know thousands and thousands and thousands of years without a robust empirical objective rational syllogistical proof of virtue and there's a reason why there's a reason why and if it wasn't for the internet my proof would never have gone anywhere this is why i'm so grateful to be living at the time that i'm living in so the idea that you know one more slightly different or slightly better explanation of UPB would solve it for people is not understanding the barriers that people have to accepting UPB. To accept UPB, you have to accept that you pretended to be good rather than knowing how to be good. And that is so incredibly hard for the false self. It feels like a kind of death. But there is a resurrection on the other side, but most people don't want to make that journey. Thanks everyone, freedomain.com slash donate. We'd really, Really, really appreciate your support. I'll talk to you tonight, Wednesday Night Live. Bye.
Support the show, using a variety of donation methods
Support the show
