0:07 - Introduction to the Podcast
11:16 - Government and Economic Control
20:12 - The Impact of Social Media
22:42 - The Tragedy of War
23:46 - The Effects of Upbringing on Politics
25:29 - Parenting Challenges
26:44 - Reflections on Historical Events
29:32 - The Flaws in the Legal System
31:14 - Perspectives on Sound Money
33:14 - Critique of COVID-19 Responses
36:22 - Thoughts on Current Political Climate
38:13 - The Controversy of Abortion
40:48 - Understanding Fertility Perceptions
42:50 - The Nature of Disasters and Power
In this episode, I engage with a wide array of thought-provoking questions dispatched from our community, addressing some of the most pressing issues in our current socio-political landscape. One question particularly stood out: Can a politician like a president truly catalyze a transition toward a more liberated society? I delve into the implications of this inquiry, examining historical precedents such as Javier Milei's anarcho-capitalist approach and the evolution of the American government from a project of minimal intervention to one of unprecedented scale. The observation reveals a cyclical nature of freedom and wealth—a dynamic where increased liberty ultimately leads to a greater wealth gap, prompting society to confuse inequality with immorality, leading to demands for enforced equality that often erodes the very freedoms that spurred prosperity.
Exploring the theory that violence is taught as a necessity for societal order, I connect this to parenting practices and pedagogical frameworks that rely on coercion rather than reasoned dialogue. This discussion serves as a segue into my book, "Peaceful Parenting," where I advocate for non-violent yet effective methods of parenting that prioritize communication over coercion. I urge listeners to reconsider what has been ingrained in us about authority and compliance—specifically the false notion that peace and order must be maintained through strict or violent means.
I also tackle familial and societal structures by reflecting on the consequences of modern political policies, such as immigration approaches, further emphasizing that moral clarity is crucial when confronting these policies. My thoughts lead us through a discussion of public figures, including Trump, and their potential impact on societal dynamics. We explore how societal roles shape our beliefs and behaviors—highlighting the psychological aspects of those who support or resist state-sanctioned coercion.
Later, I pivot to discuss economics and the implications of state financial decisions, expressing skepticism regarding the government's ability to manage monetary supply effectively without inviting detrimental consequences. Inflation and economic policymaking are dissected through the lens of history, drawing comparisons to ancient practices such as coinage devaluation. The dialogue extends to the topic of rights, where I propose that while rights themselves may not be tangible, they represent essential claims we make against each other in a just society.
I delve into contentious topics such as women's fertility and societal pressures, particularly relating to the complexities of abortion debates and the fallout from modern mating strategies that prioritize short-term gratification over long-term stability. The conversation remains anchored in the overarching theme that societal decay often emanates from broken familial structures and the loss of personal accountability.
In responding to inquiries about our current global tensions, including the potential for future wars and the implications of political maneuvering, I maintain a sense of urgency regarding the consequences of negligence across society. I stress that fostering a culture that values emotional well-being and nurtures personal connections may mitigate some of the escalating conflicts we observe today.
Ultimately, this episode serves as a robust exploration of how historical patterns, societal expectations, and individual choices shape the world we live in. I hope to inspire listeners to challenge conventional wisdom and engage with radical ideas that prioritize freedom, personal responsibility, and a commitment to a peaceful future.
[0:00] Hi everybody, Stefan Molyneux from Freedomain. So, I asked for questions and questions I got. This is from Facebook.
[0:08] Of course, I appreciate everyone's fantastic questions. There really aren't bad questions. Hopefully, there also won't be bad answers. So, somebody wrote, do you think that a politician, say the president of a country, could help to foster a transition to a state the society. Well, of course, Javier Millet is a Rothbardian anarcho-capitalist. I would argue that at its most absolute center, the Republicans tend to be minarchists who have to contend with a society where people have made bad decisions based upon the forced redistribution of wealth. So it's been tried, right? It's been tried. America was the greatest experiment in the tiniest government known to man.
[0:55] And it took arguably, well, I mean, the whiskey rebellion happened right away or fairly soon after George Washington wrote down farmers for not wanting to pay a whiskey tax. It took about 80 years maybe for the American government to break the bonds of the Constitution. Paper doesn't tend to stop bullets. And so the experiment of the smallest government in human history has now become one of the largest governments, or if you count national debt, the biggest government, and unfunded liabilities, the biggest government in human history. I think that politicians can reverse things, but people forget, right? There's this cycle. Freedom begets wealth, wealth begets inequality, and because of radical egalitarianism, younger sibling fetishes and obsessions, we want to close the gap of inequality, which means destroying freedom, which means causing poverty, and then people get sick of that, so they try to get more freedom, which increases the inequality. We just, man, because people don't talk about sort of the basics of how this kind of stuff works. So certainly politicians can make a difference. Millet certainly is making a difference, although I'm not such a big fan of the scanning society minority report stuff, but the guy in El Salvador has made El Salvador very safe by actually locking up the people who are irredeemably evil.
[2:21] So politicians can certainly make a change, but the better they make society, the more people get anxious about inequality and destroy freedoms.
[2:31] For the sake of, um, the fantasy that human beings are equal is a very dangerous one. Now, of course, human beings are equal before the law, and they're equal in terms of rights and so on. Absolutely. But the idea that everyone can be a great singer, the idea that everyone can be a great entrepreneur, the idea that everyone can be a great gymnast, or, I mean, if you look at the reaction times of Formula One drivers, it's completely mental how fast their reaction times are, that's just hardwired. That's just hardwired. So we find this is an uncomfortable topic, right? About 80% of your IQ is genetic by your late teens. It already gets more genetic from there. Not everyone is equally tall. Not everyone has blue eyes, blah, blah, blah. So we don't like this inequality stuff. It goes against our ideas of the soul and it goes against the idea of the egalitarianism of human nature. And of course, we're all important in our own way. We're all very important to those who love us, and those who we love, we're very important too. But the idea that in a state of freedom, you're going to end up with equality is really a murderous fantasy. It is an absolute murderous fantasy. Politicians can stave that off for a little bit, but until we get to the root cause of that, it's not going to last. It's not going to last.
[3:45] People have this with dieting. They say, oh, I want to lose weight, right? And then they say, oh, well, I've been good for a month, so I should have a treat or two, and then it just falls apart, right? Only a few percentage point of people who lose weight actually keep it off. So the solution is, as childhood, why are we conditioned to believe.
[4:03] That violence is essential for the maintenance of order in society. But that's because our parents and our teachers instruct us often coercively that violence is necessary for the maintenance of order within a family, within a school, and so on. So violence is necessary for the maintenance of order is something that we're taught by, I mean, even priests with the hellfire and damnation. Violence is necessary for the sake of maintaining order, that we are animals that must be dominated through brute force rather than rational souls that need to negotiate and mediate in peaceful discussion.
[4:40] So we're taught from day one almost that violence is the only way to keep order and then until that is challenged which is my book Peaceful Parenting at PeacefulParenting.com you should absolutely get a copy of that. It's free and the Spanish version is out. If you don't have a lot of time the shortened version is out. I've made it as accessible as humanly possible there's audiobook, Mobi, EPUB, PDF. You can read it online. I've tried just about everything to make it as easy to consume as possible. That is the only way forward. I mean, since human freedom has never been sustainably achieved, the answer must be something that's never been tried before. I mean, this is a basic thing in life, you understand? It's a basic thing in life. If you want to, try something that humanity has striven for, for as long as we've known human beings, to have freedom, peace, reason, no war, no intergenerational debts, and so on. If you want to do something that has never been done before, when everybody's wanted it before, you have to try an approach that has never been tried before. And the idea of combating political power through negotiation, reasoning, and peace with children, to raise them to negotiate rather than to intimidate, that's the only thing that's never been tried before. I am more certain of it now than I was when I first came up with the thesis decades ago. Experience has certainly proven me out. So, all right.
[6:03] How do you think the deportation of illegals will go about when Trump takes office? I mean, endless legal challenges. There'll be people who resist it. There'll be all of these supposed heroes with their underground railroads to freedom. And, you know, a lot of people without kids will use their paternal and maternal instincts to shield people and so on. I mean, it's kind of tough when you look at how hard people went after the J6ers to then say the illegal should be subsidized. You know, it's just tough, right? It's a tough situation, but it's going to be a real challenge. Who are your favorite fictional characters? Well, Well, well, well. The lead in Ian Forster's novel, A Room with a View. I love the movie, and I like the book, although I read it again recently, and it was much more anti-theistic and anti-religious than I remember. But he's a wonderful character.
[6:57] John Galt seemed a bit too plasticky superhero but I really liked Howard Rourke of course I found him to be very powerful of course the Lord of the Rings I found the relationship since I don't have a great relationship with my own brother the relationship between Samwise and.
[7:20] Frodo was pretty beautiful I mean we all want people in our lives that we can be loyal to and who are loyal to us. And I have that now, but I didn't have that growing up. So I loved, when I was a kid, I absolutely loved, I used to collect these chewing gum cards.
[7:34] And I actually, there was a place I used to go to occasionally where you could buy movie posters and you could buy the little stills. They used to put up these stills in movie theaters to try and get you to come to the movie, stills from the movie. And I picked up a whole bunch. I absolutely loved Christopher Reeve in Superman I thought he was just fantastic as a great I know that's kind of a goofy one but I did find that um who else Pip in Great Expectations I found very great but my favorite fictional characters just to be perfectly straight my favorite fictional characters are the characters in my own novels freedom.com books if you haven't checked them out I would really really recommend it they're free and they're really really great all right um if you could invent one product that you believe would make the government less important what would you invent i know the government is not uh necessary now but people believe it is what product would make that belief less reasonable so you know i'm a product of my own methodology in a way right so i i've talked about social control being ostracism rather than violence right Ostracism is a very, very powerful mechanism for enforcing social conformity to, you know, hopefully good things, although, of course, it can enforce conformity to bad things.
[8:51] Ostracism activates the same pain centers in the brain as physical torture, right? Although, of course, it is not a violation of the non-aggression principle to ostracize because, you know, forced association is a violation of freedom of association.
[9:04] So, ostracism is a very powerful tool of social reinforcement of standards. I, of course, promoted this in my books, Everyday Anarchy and Practical Anarchy. I've talked about the against me argument that it doesn't make much moral sense to be friends with people who want you thrown into cages for disagreeing with them about how problems should be solved in society. If you want peaceful voluntary solutions as opposed to coercive government solutions, If people want you thrown in jail for advocating peace, then they're probably not your friends, to put it mildly. So I promoted ostracism as a means of social control. And then, by golly, was I ever ostracized as a means of social control. It's different because this was not personal. This was business-wise. And to me, at least, it went against terms of services that I'd agreed to and that the companies had agreed to with me. But nonetheless, I was willing to sacrifice my career to show just how powerful ostracism is in terms of social control. So, if the question is a product that you believe would make the government less important, don't break bread with evildoers. Don't break bread, don't get, don't, don't break bread with evildoers. People who look you in the eye and say, you should be thrown in jail for disagreeing with me.
[10:20] These people are immoral, deeply, deeply immoral, and they're driving a lot of the great evils in the world. And ostracizing evildoers is the biggest thing that anyone can do. All right. I enjoyed your video on inflation in the Roman Empire, the watering down of coins. What is your opinion? What in your opinion is causing inflation now in the West? Is it similar to antiquity, printing money? Thank you. Yes. So it's the old saying, government is the fiction by which everyone endeavors to live at the expense of everyone else. So the government, in order to provide things, the government creates nothing, right? The government doesn't produce goods and services and it doesn't generate its own income, it's not invested in anything like that. I mean, even the German government sold their bitcoins at 57k. So.
[11:17] Governments, in order to pretend that they provide value, have to print, borrow, and take. They print, borrow, and take. They print money, they borrow money, and they take money. That's how they perceive that they are providing value. If some business got a great reputation because it helped all these charities out in town, got this great reputation, and then it turns out that all of the money that they gave to these charities was counterfeit and it resulted in inflation and economic destruction you wouldn't look at that form of generosity and view it or see it as generosity right that wouldn't be the case so in order for the government to be perceived as providing value it has to auction off the unborn to foreign banksters print a lot of money take a lot of money and then redistribute it right so it is the, creation of money the creation of money should ideally match or go track with, the increase in goods and services in an economy so if the economy grows because you want things to be predictable i don't know if you've ever been an entrepreneur but i've been now an entrepreneur for like gosh um 30 years and.
[12:40] You want things to be predictable, right? You want things to be predictable. And so the best way for an economy to be predictable is for goods and services. As they increase, the economy grows objectively by 5% a year. Ideally, the money supply should grow by 5% a year. Nobody can be handled. Nobody can handle that power. Nobody can handle the power of typing whatever they want into their own bank account. Human beings cannot handle power. And those who want control over money interest rates are some of the most corrupt people on the planet and so and vainglorious and and deranged and megalomaniacal and and so on right i mean just complete fabulists of their own expertise the idea that that anyone can know how much money should be in the economy and that this is what interest rates should be and using force for all of that is completely deranged bitcoin certainly is the best situation solution because it's not open to central manipulation. It takes, the most fundamental power is the power over the money supply and interest rates. That's the most fundamental power, illegal counterfeiting and so on, right? That's the most fundamental power because it's generally quite invisible to people, especially when you have a semi-free market economy because people get mad at the grocery store, not the central bankers because they don't really understand what's going on. Not usually one person in a thousand understands the monetary system that we're all ground to dust under, right? Where they tax your money, and then if you try to save your money, they just tax it through inflation.
[14:08] So yeah, it is an increase in the money supply faster than the growth of the economy dilutes the value of each dollar, right? I mean, if you have 10 oranges and $10, right, 10 single dollar bills, and everyone's trading, a dollar is an orange.
[14:27] An orange is a dollar, right? An orange costs a dollar. If you have 10 oranges and $10. If you have...
[14:33] $20 and 10 oranges, then each orange is $2. That's really all it's about. Next question. Correct me if wrong. The moment you stopped covering politics is when Trump approved a massive spending bill early in his first term. Pretending I wrote this in the form of a question. It's more of a comment than anything, but I appreciate that. Is there such a thing as rights? I mean, a thing as in an object or a material thing? No.
[14:59] So human beings have properties, but we do not have magical rights attached or associated to our being. You can't x-ray a human being. You can find a skeleton, you can find a spleen, but you can't find rights. So I go into this in my book, which is free, freedomand.com slash books, which is universally preferable behavior, a rational proof of secular ethics. Absolutely. So there's no such thing as rights, but that's fine. There's no such thing as, quote, logic, right? There's no such thing as the scientific method. It doesn't exist like a tree. It doesn't mean it's invalid. Numbers don't exist. the things they represent do exist, right? The number five does not exist, but five discreet oranges exist. So the fact that something doesn't exist doesn't mean it shouldn't be reasoned out or isn't valid or anything like that. But no, there is no physical thing as rights. Rights are a claim that you have against others. There are negative rights, thou shalt not initiate the use of force or fraud. There are positive rights, which is you owe me free health care. All positive rights enslave others, all negative rights have to be justified by logic, and therefore that's the goal of universally preferable behavior. Is this really you?
[16:07] Ah, the basic question, but yes. Are women fertile in 2024? You know, I mean, the fertility rates are really crashing, right? I mean, 1% a year going down, right? Just like testosterone levels for men. I assume that.
[16:26] The answers are inconvenient to those in power, and maybe Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Will take a break from banging most things with half a pulse and get to the bottom of that, but it's going to be a real battle. I mean, even just to repeal the Immunity to Liability Vaccine Act of 86 is going to be a battle and a half, right? Thoughts on asset allocation towards large cap value or growth stocks? I'm not a financial advisor. I'm no financial expert and so on. I'm just, I'm a crypto guy. So, will humanity survive until January 20th, 2025? Yes. Have you considered debating Andrew Wilson? Topic idea, UPB versus Christian ethics. I like Andrew. Obviously, he's a little harsh and that's fine. I could be a little sandpaper on the nuts too. But I think he's doing some interesting work. but it's a theology versus philosophy is apples and oranges. So the debate would not be hugely productive. I mean, the issue I have with religious ethics is you can avoid them by becoming an atheist.
[17:34] It's like if you owe a million dollars, and then you can just sign a checkbox that says, I don't believe in this debt, and then you no longer owe the million dollars, that would not be a very stable financial system, right? You could just, I don't believe in this debt, right? So, if your ethics come from God, then you can not be subject to those ethics anymore simply by disbelieving in God. UPB closes that loop. You cannot escape universally preferable behavior for reasons I go into in the book. And unfortunately, the 20th century is, well, because ethics are around scarcity. And the 20th century, through its massive production, when governments went off the gold standards, the massive production of debt and unfunded liabilities means that we loosed the constraints of scarcity, which means that people no longer had to believe immorality, and therefore they avoided believing in God. So I don't like things that you can will out of existence by not believing in something abstract, right? So if you don't believe in God, then you can reject morality as a whole. And UPB closes that off. So, all right. Thoughts on UPB aspect of using public shaming as a deterrent for bad behavior in light of all of the dark, woke behavior of the far left.
[18:51] So public shaming as a deterrent for bad behavior is tricky, right? Oh, it's a little bright there, isn't it? All right, let's see if we can get my face out of the shadows a little bit. Sorry, I was not expecting this to come out in November in Canada, to put it mildly. So, public shaming?
[19:14] I mean, as long as it doesn't go into, you know, libel, slander, as long as it doesn't go into, you know, outright verbal abuse and so on. It's not public shaming to tell the truth, right? So in the church, social morality used to be enforced by kicking people out of the church who were wrong. But now we have this massive sympathy for the underdog that sort of is this massive tumor in the reason of the West. Everyone who's an underdog can cry pity and victim, and then women will lactate and cover them in kisses and men's money and so we've lost we've lost all of that and then when you don't have ostracism as a means of enforcing social control you end up with massive amounts of government force and corruption how's your health Stefan Molyneux good thank you I used to listen to all of your reports then it became difficult to find you.
[20:12] Ah yes when i when i deleted everything about my physical presence and went to live in the cave uh in mordor yes yes i remember those days yes when i just completely vanished and and went off the no wait no did any of that happen nope my website remained the same uh and you could find me uh by typing into a search engine uh really it was not that complicated was not that difficult, It became difficult to find you? I mean, come on, just be honest with me. Say, Stef, I kind of forgot about you. Turns out you weren't that important, and I found your arguments kind of controversial, so I didn't want to get caught up in that mess. That's fine, but don't say I was hard to find. I mean, come on, man. You don't need to hire a private dick to find me. So you just do it. It didn't become difficult to find me. That's just a lie. It's a lie. Thank you for the story of your enslavement, one of the best introductions to normies who can see how awful the political class is. You're welcome.
[21:13] Is what will Trump eventually decide to do regarding the war in Ukraine beneficial for the country? I don't know what you mean by beneficial for the country, but what was it about 650,000 Ukrainian men fled rather than get blown up by drones for the sake of hanging on to majority Russian districts in a part of the country they never visited? So I just want the slaughter to stop. I just want the slaughter to stop. There's absolutely no need for these horrendous missiles to be put on Russia's doorstep. Russia has been invaded by the West. I mean, I can think of three times, probably four, and has lost massive amounts of population and so on. In the same way that America found it absolutely unacceptable for Russia under communism to put missiles in Cuba. Russia, under Christianity, finds it unacceptable for NATO to put missiles right on its doorstep. And so, and of course, the Nazi problem in Ukraine was, Eastern Ukraine in particular, was not a small issue, so, let's just, the slaughter is so pointless.
[22:27] And whatever, ever, um, sorry, I, uh, um, I find that, I mean, all war is agony. All war is agony. And.
[22:43] This war is just so, the slaughterhouse, you know, they're drafting people my age, and it's just whatever can be done to stop this disassembly of young men, it needs to be done. It just, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, it just, it needs to be done. So, let's hope, let's hope it can happen. All right. Not a question, but I missed the days when your podcast was less about self-help and more about current issues and events, just a personal perspective. Yeah, I get that. I get that. I mean, I'm still doing philosophy. I'm doing practical philosophy, right? Politics is not practical philosophy because you can't achieve anything based upon your own free will. So I'm talking to people who can apply philosophy in their actual life. So it's still philosophy. Are the leftists okay? When can I let them see my joy? Yeah.
[23:46] People on the right tend to have been subject to physical discipline or spanking and so on. People on the left tend to have been subject to verbal abuse, which is why they fight verbally and attack verbally. In other words, people on the right tend to have been raised by father's influence. People on the left tend to have been raised by the mother's influence because mothers fight indirectly through language, which is why people didn't challenge me. They just aimed for my de-platforming, right? So it is, um, people who grew up with a lot of verbal abuse struggle enormously to.
[24:28] Achieve and maintain any kind of stable happiness because they've internalized their verbal abusers. Spanking you outgrow and you don't spank yourself, right? But verbal abuse embeds in your head and becomes terminate and stay resident. It becomes an auto-running program. And a lot of people verbally abuse others in order to quiet the inner voices attacking themselves. And so it is very, very tough for people who are raised with a lot of verbal abuse. It is very tough for them to be stably happy it is very tough for them to escape the language that they were raised with and they tend to attack others as a means of relieving the inner torment that they feel so they can be a little bit allergic to and hostile towards joy another person writes, i am struggling with gentle parenting my stepson do you have any resources and recommendations that can help me i'm at my wits end i'm very sorry about that that's a very tough thing you know after the age of five or so, from what I've read, it's very tough to be a primary disciplinarian to a child.
[25:29] And that just doesn't mean hitting, of course, just having any kind of authority.
[25:34] So, peacefulparenting.com, get that book. And also, you can look up at fdrpodcast.com. I've done some criticisms recently on gentle parenting, which I do not find to be compatible with virtue. All right. Some time ago, you did a video on the fall of the Roman Empire, which I consider to be an excellent piece. Could you do a similar video on Palestine and Israel covering, say, the last hundred years? I shared the fall of the Roman Empire with friends on social media multiple times. I really listen to it from time to time when I have a big painting job that allows me the luxury of absorbing lectures. So yes, I have done a video on Israel and Palestine. You can find it at fdrpodcast.com. Why do cities always turn blue once they become very densely populated. So, once you get into a city, you make your money usually through language.
[26:25] Right. You make your money through language that can be manipulated, right? So you make your money from sales, you make your money from law, you make your money even from computer programming. So you are, in a sense, designing your own physics to profit. When you do manual labor, you work in the country, you're dealing with brute factual reality that you can't manipulate.
[26:44] So, and of course, people in cities will get resources from the city by making bad mistakes, You know, single moms run to the government for welfare and people who fail run to the government for unemployment insurance and people who, you know, sometimes are careless on the job will run for and sometimes even defraud, I think, things like disability and so on, right?
[27:13] You can't nag a tree into getting you more fruit. You have to deal with actual reality. So you tend to be kind of based in reality, right? But in cities, you can whine, you can complain, you can borrow, you can threaten, you can manipulate, and so on. And so you tend to lose your objective reasoning, you tend to lose your objective relationship to tangible material, empirical reality. And so you tend to turn more towards verbal abuse, rather than practically working with, you can't yell at a cow to give you more milk, but you can threaten a rich person to pay more taxes, right? So you become, a lot of people become kind of a species that survives on verbal abuse rather than material production. Are we going to die in World War III or just the lucky ones?
[28:04] Yeah, I mean, the number of lines in the sand that the West has blown past to with regards to Russia has been quite a few. And for whatever reason, I could be completely wrong about this. I can't picture it. I think the provocation is going to continue. And at some point, I hope at some point people are going to say, well, maybe we should, I mean, in this case, literally stop poking the bear. I think it's just a desperately bad idea. But, you know, like, why would even people do this as a whole? Why would they provoke such potential planet-ending catastrophes? I assume that they're miserable. I assume that they're nihilistic. And I assume that they're consumed with hatred for mankind. Why would people be consumed with hatred for mankind? I would assume it's because they were horribly abused as children and no one did anything about it, right? They were horribly abused as children and no one did anything about it. And there's this rage that they have in the world, that they can't stand the world, that they want the whole world to burn, right? And if you donate, this is November, 2024. If you donate this month, at the end of the month, I'm going to get everyone. I'm going to send you a link to my 12 and a half hour present, a 12 hour presentation on the French Revolution where I go into this being left behind the rage against those who are progressing in much more detail.
[29:24] When and how can people hold the people responsible for the strife and suffering in the world accountable for their actions? Well, you can't.
[29:33] The legal system in the West was designed for a very small number of criminals, right? Like the 2% of genuine sociopaths or psychopaths. So this is why it's expensive. It's time consuming. There are chains of custody, rules of evidence. There is prosecutors, defendants, judges, juries, like it's very, very complicated. Because it's hard to get to the truth. People lie about crimes all the time, both the defendants and the prosecutors. So it's hard to get to the truth. So when we had relatively few truly evil people in society, you could have a complicated legal system. So the legal system, modern legal system, evolved after, in particular, England had spent 400 years plus just executing the, like, 1% of the male population every year, just the most evil and gruesome people. I mean, obviously, there were unjust executions as well. And so this is one of the reasons why British people tend to be so isolatedly polite, uh, in that the people who were just the blue painted savage Vikings that the, oh, not Vikings, the, the Celts, uh, the, uh, the Britons that the Romans encountered, uh, after a couple of hundred years of, uh, just getting rid of, and I'm not recommending this, I'm just saying this is like what happened, right?
[30:52] After a couple of hundred years, you ended up with a relatively small criminal population, and that allowed you to develop a very complicated legal system to try and get to the truth. And such a complicated legal system is very easy to overwhelm with additional criminality. If you get too many criminals, you end up with a system where, you know, most of 2% of people go to trial because everyone else pleads out and so on, because there's just so many criminals.
[31:14] All right, so what are your thoughts on Bitcoin, Bitcoin cash, gold, and silver as forms of sound money? So for this, you should look at, that was about 10 years ago now, I think I did a debate with Peter Schiff, S-C-H-I-F-F, Peter Schiff on Bitcoin versus gold. I think gold is fine. The economy grows three to 4% a year, gold tends to increase its production or new gold tends to come into the market right about 3% a year. So it can be good. As you probably know, I spent time about close to two years after high school and then after my first year of university, panning for gold, looking for gold in northern on Ontario, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba. It's quite an exciting time. Let me tell you, it told me a lot about empirical reality. This is why I don't really trust anyone who's never had a manual labor job, because it's just abstract nonsense in the head. So I think Bitcoin is fantastic. Bitcoin is the off-road to the collapse of the economy. It is an unbelievable gift that one of the greatest geniuses, and without a doubt in the long run, the guy who has benefited humanity the most, the eponymous Satoshi Nakamoto.
[32:25] And Bitcoin is the off-ramp to social collapse. It is like this bizarre wormhole that has opened as we've all fallen and bouncing down cliff edges, and it lands us on a duvet. It lands us on a pillow. It lands us in gentle, deep water with wonderful things around us. So I think Bitcoin was an advancement absolutely unguessed and unthought of and completely unpredictable. It's an absolutely white swan event that saves humanity from generic collapse in the usual cycle of history that I've sort of referred to earlier. Bitcoin cash is a nice layer over it. Gold and silver are fine, but they are hard to transport and expensive to store and risky and costly. Bitcoin is stored for free. So I think it's fantastic.
[33:15] How come you didn't speak out more against the COVID-19 agenda? Considering lockdowns, masks, and booster mandates pose such a threat to the non-aggression principles and the libertarian values you had spent your life espousing.
[33:30] So, I mean, that's a fine question. I'm perfectly open to criticisms about how I handled this. I myself did not get vaccinated, of course, right? I did not get vaccinated. And let me tell you, I suffered a lot because of it. I suffered a lot because of it. And I'm not saying I was alone in that, but Canada did go a little nuts that way. And of course, okay, so I'm not saying that I took any particular tragedies, but I did suffer a lot for not getting vaccinated. I said that the lockdowns were bad, and I said that the lockdowns, not only were they a violation to the non-aggression principle, but they were going to cause far more harm than they resolved. I, of course, am absolutely completely and totally against mandated medical procedures. That is a violation of the Nuremberg Code, which 40 million lives were expended trying to get a hold of. And I said, of course, that there was no way to know the long-term effects, just this basic logic thing of the vaccines.
[34:34] And I was against forced masking, although for a while there, I thought that masks might at least prevent you from touching your face, maybe help with transmission, but it doesn't seem to have been the case. So certainly I was wrong about that. But again, I'm no expert on that. It was just my particular thought at the time. So, and I also got into a significant amount of trouble, which, because I created this presentation, you can see it. And I think now the ex-CDC director is somewhat in agreement with this. I don't want to say things out of turn. If I got that wrong, I apologize. But I did an entire video called The Case Against China, which was all of the reasons why it came from a lab.
[35:21] So I'm not sure what principles I betrayed. I'm not sure what principles. I took a lot of bullets to not be vaccinated. And of course, I can't give people medical advice. Like, I'm just a podcaster, right? So you understand that. But I was against the mandates. I was against the lockdowns. I said it came from, I said, I can't prove it, of course, but the overwhelming evidence, to me at least, is that it came from a lab in Wuhan. And so... I'm not sure what it is you're referring to, but if there's something that I said that is against the values that I've espoused, I will certainly be happy to hear it. Well, maybe not happy, but I would certainly accept it and I will apologize for where I've deviated from my values. So from what I recall, I did speak out against these things as a whole and took a lot of challenges, both personally and professionally, to expose the truth as I saw it regarding the origins of COVID and did not get vaccinated. So, yeah, I mean, maybe there's something I'm missing.
[36:23] I'm certainly happy to hear, but, all right, why aren't you back on Twitter slash X?
[36:31] Because I have never received an apology, and I've always said this to people, that if you're wronged, you should expect an apology or restitution or not resume the relationship. What do you think the mental health effects will be on the modern liberal after the clear-cut majority election results? I see straight-up narcissism making them hang on to the dominant slash false narratives. That have been pushed by the MSM. Yeah, it's really tough, you know, when you believe something so wholeheartedly that you can't handle an opposing viewpoint, which means you don't really believe it. You're just conforming, right? So the problem is not the mainstream media. The problem is that everybody's relationships in who are addicted to this nonsense, these lies, it's dangerous, toxic, propaganda. People have founded all their relationships on that. So if you start to question it, then people don't want to do business with you. They don't want to be a friend. They don't want to invite you to Thanksgiving. You might get divorced. Your kids might just, so people just go along because their relationships are all welded together with the uncertain quicksilver of generic falsehoods. So it's really tough when reality comes in, when you have to say to your conspiracy theory friend, hey, you were right. That's really tough because people don't want to examine the relationships that rely not upon their virtue, integrity and truth and honesty and courage, the quote relationships that rely on you subjugating yourself to propaganda, the quote relationships that rely on you being quiet and repeating falsehoods, people don't want to examine that for obvious reasons.
[38:01] Ah, if Biden gets the USA in World War III, will he remain president? Ah, I don't know that that matters usually, if that's the case. Why was abortion such a contentious voting issue? Why are so many women demanding abortion?
[38:14] There is a world of contraception options. Why was it a campaign issue?
[38:21] So the trading of orgasms for offspring is one of the most demonic deals in the modern world. And so getting women to pursue sex rather than pair bonding and children and marriage and security and support and protection and provision and so on has been a great deal right so you can have more sex in the short run by pursuing our selected or spray a pray and spray mating strategies but you end up with more and better sex in the long run if you get married to someone you love. And someone who loves you and you have a great and happy life together, you end up with wonderful, fantastic sex for the rest of your life. And so it's just short-term gain versus long-term gain, right? It's easier, more pleasant for people to eat a piece of chocolate cake than to make a salad. And so you just get people to trade in short-term, they trade in their long-term stability and gains for short-term pleasures. That's really an addiction. So turning society into sex addicts at the expense of the birth rate, at the expense of future happiness, at the expense of love and connection and virtue in children and continuation of the line and so on, has been a really terrible deal.
[39:34] And abortion, as an issue, if women don't have free and easy access to abortion, they have to be more careful and cautious about the men that they sleep with. And that means that they have to look for qualities of character rather than hotness. And women have become kind of addicted to hot guys. And, you know, I understand that. Not necessarily the hot guys thing, but that's a strategy. And looking for quality of character over height, hair, and abs is tough. It means that women have to look for qualities of character, and then they have to ask themselves.
[40:13] What does a man who is virtuous want from a woman? Well, what a man who is virtuous wants from a woman is virtue. And therefore, in order to get quality men a virtue, women have to become quality women a virtue. And that's really tough. That could challenge or undermine friendships and family relations and all this kind of stuff. So it's tough. Everything I want to discuss is banned by the terms of service. Yeah, you ever see this, you know, whatever you signed up to, and they're like, we've updated our terms of service. And I'm like, that's not good. It's never good, right? No, I guess X did.
[40:48] Are you able to determine a woman's fertility by look alone? And when did you obtain this ability? Well, no, of course not, right? But men are pretty good at figuring out how young women, men are. Sorry, how young women are. Of course, I mean, that would be a foundational procreative skill. that you would have to have, right? Because if you marry a woman who looks young, but it turns out she's like 45, then you're not going to have kids, right? If she thinks she's 30 or 35 or whatever. So we're pretty good at that. I do think that one of the reasons that men learned how to make women laugh was to see those crow's feet lines around the edge. And, you know, as a woman ages, and as a man ages too, but I see, of course, notice it more among women, there's a kind of dusty quality to the skin. Have you ever noticed that? Like, you know, this sort of peach cheek younger woman, as women age, their skin just gets kind of dusty. I don't exactly know how to put it. Obviously, some of the collagen and the subcutaneous fat tends to sort of minimize, especially if the woman stays slender, right? Like you can, if you're 40 plus, you either have a good body or a good face. You don't have both, right? Because if you have a good body, then your face looks older because you have less fat. If you have a nicer, more pleasing face, then you have a less good figure because you're plumping up the face with fat that is distributed around the body.
[42:08] So yeah, it's pretty important. Now, of course, this was solved in the past by you just married a younger woman, right? But now people are dating and getting married in their 30s and 40s. So I, of course, can't, but most men have an instinct for this. Chance of the boomer crats causing World War III to prevent an overdue shift to the right. Well, I mean, boomers can make the young people pay five times.
[42:34] What they paid for the house, but in return, the young people are going to make boomers pay 100 to 1,000 times what they pay for in Bitcoin. Do you believe COVID and the vax was a concerted plant bioweapon attack upon Western nations? If so, by whom?
[42:50] I mean, I know that there's, you know, this, this rehearsal that happened before COVID and so on? Uh, I don't, I don't think so. I don't think so. I think that what happens is there are disasters and people seize upon those disasters to expand their powers, to make money, to provoke fears and have people, um.
[43:11] Turn on each other. So I think that there are people who are greedy and sadistic and amused by these chaos, but I don't think there was one big orchestrated plan.
[43:20] I mean, the big question of like, there are people who are arsonists, there are people who, what was it, there was an old commercial about risk tolerance when it came to investment, and one guy was like, I like frying bacon in the nude. Okay, that's pretty high risk tolerance. So there are some people who just get off on extreme danger, right? You've got serious thrill issues, dude. Right, that's from Finding Nemo. So there are people who just get a real thrill out of handling dangerous pathogens, and they're, I don't know, excited, or they get a thrill out of it. I mean, I had a friend like this who tragically died in a horrible motorcycle accident in his late teens, but he would just love driving his bike off walls, and it was just like, you know, just crazy, crazy stuff, doing these crazy jumps. And he just got a real thrill out of significant danger. And I assume that there are those kind of people. We shouldn't give them government money and bioweapons labs to play with, of course, right? But again, I think that like, why were all this gain of function research, right? It's just gain of death, right? And why was all this gain of function research going on? Again, I go back to some people just want to watch the world burn. Some people hate the world as a whole. And the only way to begin to ameliorate that is to really try to intervene and take care of children who are being abused.
[44:42] So, of course, over the course of my public career as a philosopher, I've talked to publicly thousands of people about their bad childhoods and given immense amounts of sympathy and compassion and hopefully some moral guidance and strength with regards to next steps in their lives. I did the rough calc the other day, about a billion to a billion and a half less hitting of children, like less smacks upon children as a result of what I'm doing. I hope that you will share peacefulparenting.com and help people with that. If we provide more sympathy to people who were abused as children, they'll hate us less and we'll get less of this heinous stuff. And hopefully that's a way of avoiding what otherwise will come and leave us a smudged out charcoal footnote in the history of the universe to be discovered in the future by races who cared more for their children. So I hope that this helps. Thank you so much. Lots of love from up here. If you appreciate what I'm doing, I would absolutely love and humbly be grateful for your support at freedomain.com. Bye.
Support the show, using a variety of donation methods
Support the show
