0:11 - Introduction to Philosophy
1:31 - Reflections on War and Military Action
5:08 - The Political Landscape of Military Decisions
8:15 - The One Big Beautiful Bill Debate
11:23 - The Role of Government and Contracts
12:35 - Political Theories and Historical Context
16:30 - Understanding Iran and Foreign Policy
18:19 - The Threat of Theocratic States
20:44 - The Complex Nature of Foreign Interventions
24:06 - The Consequences of War and Intervention
26:58 - Exploring Alternative Societal Structures
29:55 - The Dynamics of Cultural Change
33:39 - The Impact of Technology on Relationships
40:00 - Addressing Modern Hedonism and its Effects
47:38 - The Future of Societal Structures and Solutions
56:33 - Closing Thoughts and Future Discussions
In this episode, I delve deep into the various facets of philosophical thought and current events, inviting listeners to engage in meaningful discourse that encompasses everything from personal reflections to geopolitical analysis. Having faced a challenging day myself, I turn to philosophy as a source of solace, welcoming questions, criticisms, and commentary from the audience. This open exchange fosters a rich dialogue about the complexities of life, encapsulated in a responsive and interactive manner.
The discussion transitions to the pervasive tensions unfolding globally, focusing on regions like Iran and Iraq, and questioning the justification behind military actions. I ponder whether it is justifiable to employ extreme measures, like military strikes, while advocating for careful scrutiny and proof of intent behind such actions. My skepticism grows with age, as I find myself wrestling with the complexities of governance, military action, and the ethical implications of state decisions. I emphasize the imperative for transparency and accountability in political actions, urging a thorough analysis of the rationale behind military interventions.
A conversational thread emerges from audience interactions, where participants voice their perspectives on recent political maneuvers, particularly those related to looming military threats in the Middle East. I explore various theories surrounding political motivations—in particular, the relationship between domestic legislation and foreign policy. Through exchanges with audience members, we dive into speculation about the motivations surrounding proposed legislation like the "One Big Beautiful Bill" and its relation to military actions in foreign affairs. This segment highlights the interconnectedness of domestic and foreign policies, scrutinizing the implications of quid pro quo scenarios in political circles.
The philosophical exploration extends to the nature of power, human action, and accountability in larger governing structures. Here, I initiate discussions on how societal systems often fail to recognize the moral implications of interventionism; notably, the patterns of corruption and power dynamics that govern the behaviors of those in authority. I question whether a desire for a freer society can be achieved through traditional political frameworks or if alternative avenues warrant exploration, particularly in relation to historical notions of interventionist policies versus non-interference.
As the talk progresses, I address the cultural and philosophical shifts observed in contemporary society—and notably, how each generation navigates the complexities of modern relationships, especially amidst rampant digital influences and evolving societal norms around sexuality and morality. Participants share insights on generational differences and the pervasive influence of digital landscapes on dating cultures, sexual values, and personal expectations. These exchanges lead to a collective reflection on what constitutes fulfillment and meaningful relationships in a world often saturated with superficial experiences.
Through personal stories and critical analysis, I reflect on the evolving landscape of human connection, exploring the way philosophical beliefs intersect with practical realities. Drawing on historical parallels and philosophical heuristics, I emphasize the importance of nurturing genuine relationships amidst modern distractions—arguing that intentional living can counterbalance the high-stress reality of contemporary life.
Listeners are invited to reflect on their own experiences within the dialogue, juxtaposing philosophical thought with real-world challenges. By the end of the episode, we foster an ongoing inquiry into the future of individual and collective action, highlighting the need for genuine community-building, coalesced around shared values and robust ethical frameworks. This thought-provoking discourse concludes with an invitation to continue the conversation and explore ways to engage meaningfully in shaping an evolving cultural narrative.
[0:00] Thank you so much. And I, of course, am perfectly thrilled and happy because I'm here for you, my friends, to talk philosophy, whatever is on your mind.
[0:11] And, you know, I had a bit of a tough day. I'm sure they happened to everyone from time to time. Nothing major, nothing dire. But every now and then, life just gives you one of those sideways ball sacks to the face. There it is. I guess that's fun for some people, but not for everyone, and not in particular for me. So I'm looking to take consolation in the solaces of philosophy. So if you want to ask a question, make a comment, have a criticism, have a challenge, have a raging piece of contempt for something I may or may not have said, I'm all ears. Help me course correct if I've gone astray and help me do the right thing if I'm doing wrong. And hopefully it would go a little bit better than the person who tried to get me to approve of salacious sharing of underage pictures. What was it yesterday, the day before? It's all becoming a wee smidge of a blur. So you can just raise your hand, want to speak, want to question, anything that's on your mind. And I'm thrilled to hear there's, of course, a lot, a lot going on at the moment. Rumbles of war on the horizon, always in the same region for some mysterious reason.
[1:31] Always, always in the same region for some mysterious reason.
[1:36] And I would say, of course, Iraq is very different from Iran. But, boy, they seem to be very certain about these weapons of mass destruction, right? They seem to be absolutely certain about these weapons. Now, they're going to nuke Tehran. They're going to nuke New York. They're going to nuke Los Angeles.
[1:54] And, you know, as you get older, you get more skeptical. As you get older, it's a funny thing. Like, you believe in more and you believe in less. Do you believe in love? So, you believe. I believe in love. I believe in virtue. I believe in the trust. I believe in beautiful relationships. I believe reasonably in my own capacity and enactment of virtue. So there's more things that you believe as you move forward in life, if you've led a reasonably decent, productive, and moral life. And then there are things you don't believe. So I think most people in the world understand that you can't share all of your reasons for military action prior to the military action, right? Of course not, right? However, post-military action, I think it's only fair to say, okay, why did that happen? If you're so absolutely certain that you're dropping 30,000-pound bunker busters in various locations, you've got to be pretty certain. I mean, I can't tell you how many times I checked the audio and video sync and quality of something before i upload it and that's just a a little video that can be re-uploaded at any time.
[3:07] But boy dropping a whole bunch of bombs on a sovereign nation i think that's got to take some certainty am i wrong just i think i think that's got to take some certainty and i think the whole world is looking to see how the certainty is is going to work where the certainty is is is shown is proven like if you use i said this in my live stream this morning i'll just touching it briefly i know we've got some people who want to chat so i'll get to it very quickly but if you use violence in an extremity of self-defense that you you're about to be inflicted upon the grievous bodily harm injury or death okay so after you do that right what you have to do in most common law systems if you have to prove your case well officer or well ladies and gentlemen of the jury, well, your honor, the reason I use force against this guy is because X, Y, Z, and you have to make the case. As the old saying goes, it's better to be judged by 12 than carried by six. So I think the world as a whole is looking forward to.
[4:15] Eagerly, if not extremely eagerly, for the proof as to the rationale of self-defense, on the part of one Donald J. Trump. And I, of course, invite one Donald J. Trump to make the case in such a way that the world can calm the frack down and say, okay, all right, given everything you've laid out here in this stellar presentation, Hopefully, it won't be a copy-paste of the Colin Powell one regarding Iraq many moons ago.
[4:47] But it will be a presentation where people say, OK, wow, now you lay it out like that, I could see why you had to do what you did. In the absence of that, in the absence of that, well, I think we all know what it means in the absence of that. All right, Sean.
[5:09] Sean the Sheep. Yes, it's been a while since my daughter watched that, but I will tell you it was a fun show. Sean, what's on your mind, my friend? Well, just going in line with what you're talking about, the whole bombing of Iran, somebody has a theory that basically there was a bunch of politicians that were holding up their vote on what they call the One Big Beautiful Bill, and that this whole One Big Beautiful Bill was a game-changer enough to justify this, I don't want to say theater of Iran, but the bombing of it. So that's my question, I guess, is what do you think about this one big, beautiful bill? And do you think this theater, or is it even theater? I mean, I guess all politicians have some theater in it. What's your opinion on that? Can you lay out the case that you're making about the bill and the bombing? Well, from what I understand, I don't want to say I'm arguing for the bill.
[6:04] But from what I'm understanding about what they call the one big beautiful bill is that it is changing the fundamentals of who wins and who loses in the current political structure, which is basically who benefits from the immigration or the lack of immigration, you know, with the tighter border security, the no taxing on tips, which is laying the groundwork for what I understand, the abolition of the IRS. So there's more tax cuts to come for the middle class. And there was one more aspect to the bill. But yeah, that's what I'm laying out there, that the no taxes on tips is a stepping stone for basically no taxes in general on the middle class and the closure of the border, which they're pretty fundamental there. So I don't want to say what I don't know. So I'm just going to leave it at that. Well, and I'm sorry, I'm not quite sure that I follow how wanting no tax on tips requires bunker busters in.
[7:04] It ran, and I'm not saying you're wrong. I apologize if I'm missing something obvious, but if you could just run that through me, again, I'd appreciate it. Okay, so first of all, I don't think there's any justification for putting people's lives at risk, even if it's for theater. So I just want to make sure you know that at least in that part, I'm on the same page. I'm not justifying it. What I am saying is that these guys, from what I understand, there's a political game where there were certain politicians in the Senate who said, if you do not take this sort of action against Iran, we will not get your, what they call the one big, beautiful bill through. So with that being said, I don't know what I would do in that situation. I wouldn't want, you know, I'm anti-war in general. I do not like what happened and I do not want any more escalation. But what it's looking like to me is that Trump engaged in this bombing of Iran with trading for some votes in the Senate for his beautiful bill. And I'm wondering, is it going to be worth it?
[8:15] I don't want to, I don't know. What are your thoughts on that?
[8:19] Yeah. I mean, I don't think it's worth it to go to war to pass a domestic bill or risk war to pass a domestic bill. I don't know if that's the case or that's not the case. I doubt we'll ever know for sure because this is all sort of very shady background deal stuff, right? So it's very, very hard to know, if impossible to know. You know, it's funny because I'm an advocate for a stateless society in the long run, many generations down the road as we get peaceful parenting underway and so on. So I'm an advocate for a state and a society. And people, of course, always say, well, gee, how could you possibly enforce contracts without the government? First of all, the people who say that, I know it's a bit of a segue, but I think it's important. The people who say, gee, how could we possibly enforce contracts without the government are usually the exact same people.
[9:09] Who have never tried to enforce their contracts with the government, because whenever you try to use the government to enforce a contract, things get quite complicated quite quickly, so there's that. And also, I would say that government itself runs on contracts that can't be enforced. In fact, government itself runs on contracts that are kind of illegal. And if government itself can run on contracts unenforceable by the government, then surely we can find some way of enforcing contracts without requiring the, you know, weighty, meaty, somewhat bloody apparatus of statism as a whole. So, I mean, is it possible? I mean, I guess in politics, anything except consistent virtue is possible. But of course, the challenge is, I don't know if you've ever seen, oh gosh, it's an old Martin Scorsese movie, Taxi Driver.
[9:58] And if I remember rightly, it's been many, many years since I saw that, you know, fairly repellent abortion of a movie, but in it, there's people talking about a fragment of bathtub and, oh, here's where, gosh, what was it? Errol Flynn. Here's, you can see where the water level went up when he got some other girl in the bathtub. And it's really, of course, a sad image of people so far removed from that kind of hedonistic fun that they're just observing it at a great distance. I could I could get this reference entirely wrong, but that's my sort of vague memory of it. And so when you and I are talking about how the machinery of power works, like the old quote from Bismarck, the 19th century Russian, sorry, German politician, a chancellor, who said he was actually the first guy to bring in the welfare state in Germany. And he said, there's two things you never want to see getting made, sausages and laws. And so is it possible that there was some sort of.
[11:00] Domestic agenda consideration in return for a foreign policy initiation or potential initiation of force. Again, it might not be initiation of force if there was some proof as to Iran's imminent capacity to wipe out a city. Of course, nobody wants to have that happen, I guess, except the people who want it to happen, but you know what I mean. So we can theorize about these things. Is it possible? Sure.
[11:24] You and I don't have any inside information. And of course, the people who do have the inside information will almost certainly never tell anyone until such time as it's no longer relevant. Until such time as nothing can change and nothing is fixable and so on. If you look at Nixon versus JFK in the 60s, it is widely accepted now that Nixon last because JFK cheated his Harvard ass off. His Harvard ass was cheated off. And you can sort of look it up now. It's fairly white. Okay, but so what? So now it's too late to do anything. You can't undo the agenda and so on, right? So I try not to spend too much time theorizing about the backroom deals of politics because I'll never know. The people who do it will never tell. If the truth comes out, it'll be far too late to do anything about it. It'll just be a sort of historical curiosity. Does that make sense?
[12:29] Yeah, you know, and I'm sorry to get you on that topic because it's kind of a dead end, right?
[12:35] But I just wanted to bring it up because you were talking about Iran. I remember watching on you, and I'm going to close on this because I don't want to.
[12:45] Taking you down this path. And like we said, it's a dead end because we'll never know until it doesn't matter. But yeah, I remember watching on YouTube, it was a video, a short video called Rules for Rulers. And, you know, there was, it was talking about corruption, mainly in political structures, but any, any structure in general, where, you know, you had the keys to power, which were these people in positions of authority or influence within any kind of structure. And there would be the democracy democratic part of it which would be the little people i guess you could say the public and then there would be these shady figures in the background for them all intents and purposes and it was always it wasn't a question of was somebody corrupt or not it was just about how much did they engage in that corruption it was like a sliding scale very little corruption meant they less listened to the public for most of the the issues and then And obviously on the other side of that spectrum, which is they only listen to the people of influence meant that you were living under a dictatorship. And so whenever we get into these questions where where Trump dump speech on, you know, no regime change, no new wars, no nothing like of any of no bunker busters, anything like that. And then he makes this I don't want to say a 180. OK, but he's doing a lot of wordplay to justify this action. And it just leaves us, the public, scratching our heads like, why?
[14:13] What was the trade-off? What was the gain? Well, the gain was something we couldn't see. And so that means that there was people in influence that were saying, hey, if you want this, then this is what we want. And so I'll just leave it at that. I don't want to speculate any more than that. Well, and I think it's fairly safe to say that regime change generally refers to the imposition of a traditional Western-style central bank, right? Because Iran doesn't have one. And that's of great sorrow to central bankers. So when they talk about regime change, I think that's often what they're talking about. Not that they would make that case very clearly, but I think that's it. All right.
[14:57] Preterite. I love having these names. I do not even know a little bit what that means or how to pronounce it, but Preterite. If you want to unmute all ears, if you have a question or comment or criticism, hit me up. Hey, Stephen, can you hear me? Yes, sir. I guess the question I wanted to pose to you is, do you think a theocratic, influence, nation-state necessarily poses an existential threat to humanity and to all non-Muslims? Sorry, did you say a theocratic state? Yeah, a theocratic Islamist state.
[15:38] Sorry, you're very baffled. Can you just repeat a theocratic what kind of state? A theocratic what kind of state? Islamist Muslim. Oh, Islamist state. Well, I mean, certainly there has been some rather punchy expansions of Islam throughout human history. I have a show, you can find it at fdrpodcasts.com. That's fdrpodcasts.com. The Truth About the Crusades and so on. And of course, you can ask what happened in India and in Pakistan and sort of other places. But it's funny because, well, I say funny is not funny. The question is, if Iran, let's say the hate America. America is the big Satan. Israel is the little Satan. They sort of hate America and say, okay, but why? And it's an important question. Is it, well, they hate us for their freedoms? Well, you know, places like Switzerland are also kind of free, but Switzerland doesn't seem to be overly worried about countries in the Middle East.
[16:30] You know, if countries hate other countries for their freedoms, well, first of all, the countries whose freedoms are supposedly so hated should work like hell to preserve them. They usually don't. But Javier Millet in Argentina is liberalizing and liberating the Argentinian economy pretty well. And where are all of the countries that hate freedoms? Why are they not targeting? Well, because I think everybody understands it's not just freedom. And this is sort of what is said in a lot of Islamic or Muslim countries. It's like, we don't hate your freedoms. We hate your foreign policy. I mean, they're very.
[17:06] I think that's an important consideration. America is in the unique position of having friendly neighbors to the north and south to a large degree, giant oceans to the east and west. If there's any country that could have made it in terms of, I mean, I hate to use that phrase isolationism because it's just a pejorative for people who don't want to initiate, fairly brutal foreign policy, but you can just look at the US interventions overseas and the The list just goes on and on and on, and that's going to cause a lot of problems, aggression, blowback, resentment, and hostility. I mean, it would be interesting to see if America took a break from interventionist foreign policy for, say, half a century, it would be very interesting to see who'd still be mad. Because if you stop trying to do all of these interventions overseas, Americans are freer, that the taxes are lower and their restrictions are lower because there's not as much fear of blowback.
[18:03] And if America or any country in particular stopped doing this kind of aggressive foreign policy for half a century, then America would be freer. Does anyone think that they'd be more hated or less hated by other countries? And I think it would be less. And I think that the reasons for that would be clear.
[18:20] So I hope that makes some kind of sense. Is there anything that you wanted to add? Sorry, I can't get into much of a convo because it sounds like you're speaking from the cracked hole of the Titanic. Do I sound better now? Ah, much better. Yes, thank you. You startled my ears. Okay, go ahead. I guess, I think the history of Islam is, you know, a history of genocide.
[18:41] And I think the Mullah's regime was, you know, put in place in part by, you know, American actors. I'm sorry, just to interrupt. And I think there's certainly some truth that American foreign policy has, in many ways, facilitated the spread of Islam. But where do you live? I live in the United States. Okay. So would you agree with the idea that, a foreign policy of non-intervention, of not having these sort of foreign entanglements as the founding fathers sort of advocated for, would be beneficial? Well, it depends. I wouldn't say that's like a kind of categorical statement. No. I think a strong secular Iran would be beneficial for America, you know, economically.
[19:30] No, no, hang on, hang on, hang on. But that's wish fulfillment, right? You know, like if I were to say, if I had a magic wand that would make all parents stop hitting their children, that would be great. But magic is not something that we generally reach for in situations of practical consequence, right? So, I mean, if you were to say, yes, a secular Iran based on a Jeffersonian-style democracy would be an improvement. Well, sure. I mean, of course, right? But, I mean, there's a here and there's a there, right? Because America was heavily invested in the Shah, and then the Shah was fairly brutal, and then there was the 1979 uprising and so on. So let me put it another way. Do you trust people to wage these kinds of interventions morally and justly with both eyes firmly fixed on long-term virtues, or do you think the power corrupts? I'm not sure. I think this kind of folk psychology of intentions is not necessarily the best way to understand geopolitics.
[20:38] No, but that's not my question. I mean, do you think that human beings are fallible and often corrupted by power?
[20:44] Sure, yes. Okay, so because there's no such thing as government plans or programs or interventions without the rather messy and difficult reality of human corruptibility, right? So if, for instance, as a lot of people suspect, lawmakers have been compromised by blackmail or compromise, as they say in Russian.
[21:08] Then you're not dealing with people who are making rational, objective, moral calculations. You're dealing with people who are subject to blackmail. You're dealing with people who are subject to funding and having their campaigns paid for and so on. And you're dealing with people who may have reputational threats if the media goes after them. And so everything that you try to implement involves the messy reality of human beings. And the more power that people have to change the course of coercion and to change the course of money, the more power that people have to change those things, the more other people are going to try and control them through various positive or negative incentives, like a carrot or a stick. I've got this terrible video of you. On the one hand, if you don't do what I want, I'll release this terrible video of you. On the other hand, I'll fund your campaign and so on.
[21:57] The problem is that whatever it is that you want people in power to do, it's not the power that you need to focus on, it's the people. Because there is no power without people deciding to use it and deciding to implement it. So whatever you want to tick off, like, oh, yeah, it would be great if this happened, it'd be great if that happened. But whatever you want to have happen through the application of political power, it's going to have human beings in it. And it's sort of like saying, yeah, I'd love to be driven to Boston. And then the guy who gets into the car is blind. And it's like, okay, maybe I don't really want to be driven to Boston because the driver is blind. So that's my sort of issue that I think a lot of people, and I'm not putting you in this category necessarily, but I think a lot of people have a wish list. That'd be great if this happened, great if that happened. Yes, but the messy machinery of power is highly susceptible to sticks and carrots and blackmail and bribery and human fallibility and vanity. I mean, just appealing to people's vanity can be huge. I mean, if you look at the number of people who are praising what Trump did with regards to Iran, it's pretty considerable. You look at the number of people who are condemning, So people can be sensitive to all kinds of factors that can have them veer away from objective moral decision making. So I think that's my concern.
[23:10] Yeah, I don't really disagree with a whole lot of that. I mean, as Thomas Hobbes said, man unto man is like a god and man unto man is like an errant beast. So I don't have some kind of naive utopian view here. I think these questions involve a lot of contingency. And I think in the case of Iran, you have an Islamic tyrannical theocracy that's ruling over a populace who, you know, identifies as, you know, 50% non-Muslim. And to me, it seems like that situation simply can't persist. And so, yeah, I would generally support Israel and the United States, you know, facilitating a regime change. I don't necessarily support, you know, American boots on the ground. I think it can be done without that. Sorry, and how old are you? I'm 23. Okay, so you were too young for the Iraq invasion, right? Right, yeah. And how did that go? It went poorly.
[24:06] But I think Iran and Iraq are in poor countries. Poorly.
[24:13] I've got a whole video called Iraq, a decade of hell. Hundreds of thousands of people were killed. And before that, half a million Iraqi children died as the result of sanctions. And there were depleted uranium weapons used in Iraq that have genetically destroyed entire populations, particularly around Fallujah. That's not poorly, bro. Maybe poorly is an understatement. I mean, I think it's fair to say that intervention went poorly. I think Iran is a very different country. Sorry, what about Afghanistan? It was a disaster, but Afghanistan is a very different country than Iran. Iran had a disaster. Okay, what about Libya? Yeah, again, that went poorly as well, but Libya is a very different country than Iran, Georgia. Yes, but it's the same structure that's in charge. I mean, it may not be exactly the same people, but it's the same structure that's in charge. Same structure? Yeah, so let me ask you this. I mean, I assume that you're fairly familiar with some economic principles, such as the reality that incentives matter, right? Absolutely. So who has been fired as a result of the disasters of foreign policy and regime change and invasions that have occurred in the past?
[25:34] Who has been fired? Yeah. I can't really name anyone who's been fired. Has anyone been charged with, say, leading a country into war or making promises that turned out to be false or lying about things? You know, that's pretty important. I mean, if you lie to someone in the government, you can go to jail, right? If you lie to the population about war, what happens, right? Has anyone been charged or convicted? Not that I know of. Right. So...
[26:04] There's a saying in the army and in business, which is fudge up, move up, although the word, of course, is not fudge, which means that if you make a huge mistake, you get promoted. And so people who've made some of the most appalling mistakes in modern history have been protected, have been lionized. They still get book deals. They still go on television. Their pensions are not threatened. they are praised and rewarded, and there are no negative consequences. In fact, there seem to be largely positive results from it. So, you are asking a situation, you are asking for an entity or a group of people to do something moral when they don't even fire or punish people who do some pretty immoral stuff. So, it's not an inert tool that you get to use to fulfill your wish list. That's sort of my point.
[26:59] All right, well, I appreciate the comments. And Biago, Biago?
[27:05] Biagio, you're on the show. What's on your mind, my friend? And the unmuting, if it has not occurred, needs to occur. Going once, going twice. Oh, this is me now. There you go. It seems to be downstream of the Marxists really taking over the United States Department and the United States flooding. The Middle East take the property.
[27:31] Both American and English citizens. Okay. And is there anything else that you wanted to mention about that? I don't think there's any way of the United States to win. There's no way that we could actually push any sort of good interests. I mean, I love the Iranian people. I, one of the most, in fact, I would say the most noble man that I knew growing up was an Iranian gentleman, a true scholar, and just a wonderful guy, and really gave me a beautiful model of what a father and a husband could look like. And I have had wonderful relationships with Iranian people over the course of my life. And I massively respect the people and the culture and the history. And, you know, it's the old, if I could snap my fingers, but there is no snapping of the fingers, right? It's like, if I could snap my fingers, there'd be a staircase to the moon. It's like, that'd be kind of cool, but we do actually have to work with fallible human nature and the corrupting aspects of power. So that is, I mean, it is to dangle something, and I'm not putting you necessarily in this category, but to dangle something in front of you that you really want, oh, don't you want a sort of a free Iran? It's like, yeah, be nice.
[28:41] Sure. I mean, if I have my wish list, yeah. I mean, but if wishes were horses, beggars would write, right? That's the old statement. So be careful when people dangle something in front of you and say, well, don't you want to free Elbonia? Don't you want Elbonians to be free? It's like, yeah, I want Elbonians to free. Then give us all that this power and money. It's like, no, no, no, hang on, hang on, hang on. I mean, that's a wish list. You taking actual money and power because I have a wish is not valid. So I hope that makes some kind of sense. And let us move on to Davidson, not David father, but son of David, the only one. If you unmute, you can speak well you can speak if you don't unmute it just is a little less compelling, actually i'll skip sorry okay so he's going to show us some skipping rope it's going to be very cool i'm sure he'll do some excellent dancing and we'll get to see his glistening calves pumping away in the glorious sunset so yeah the wish thing is tough man people will say don't you want this thing that is desirable, right? And this is, you know, politicians, of course, do this all the time. This is not really current politics. It's just an analysis of political power.
[29:56] And by the way, if you want to talk or debate or argue, I'm happy to hear.
[30:01] But they'll just angle something in front of you that you want. And then they'll say, well, if you give me power, I'll get it for you. Don't you want X? Like, you know, I mean, And over the years, I used to get contacted by people who were like, don't you want your YouTube channel back? I'm like, well, yeah, kind of do. Well, just do give me money. It's like, well, that's a different matter. Right. So be careful of all the people who will. Dangle something in front of you. And then what happens is they want resources and surrender to provide it. I mean, this happens, you can see this if you flip through a woman's magazine, right? Don't you want to be pretty? Don't you want to have a gorgeous smoky eye? Don't you want to have a firm set of calf muscles? Don't you want longer lashes? Don't you want lustrous hair? Buy her stuff and you can have it. I remember many years ago, a friend of mine who was a woman, there was some cream that was supposed to get rid of cellulite. I mean, you look like a moon landing crater. Don't you want smooth skin? Sure. Yeah. Why not? I want yes. Yes. I want smooth skin. Well, buy our cream and you'll get your smooth skin. And the woman who was on, she looked this up. The woman who was on the ad for the cellulite cream was a 14-year-old gymnast.
[31:27] So apparently, if you're 40 and have cottage cheese legs, you could rub this cream on and you get the legs of a 14-year-old gymnast. And I'm pretty sure the 14-year-old gymnast might have an objection to that, but they're just dangled. And you see this in the manosphere, what happens with men. Don't you want sex with women? Don't you want confidence? You see this all the time with supplements, right? Now, I mean, I've done supplements from time to time, and I think they're fine, but it's always like, I was so tired. I had nothing. I couldn't sleep. My toenails were falling off, and my calf was attempting to exit through my butt cheeks. And then I took comorbidity blue extract of Yaksak, and I burst it with energy. I can see through walls and my nipples can cut steel. And it's just, you know, do you want energy? Well, then buy this. Do you want focus? Well, buy this. And I know that that sounds a little cheesy, but.
[32:30] Do you want this? You say yes, because the purpose of a marketer is to get you to say yes to something, anything, doesn't really matter, something, just get you to say yes to something. Well, if you want to be loved by a man, you need longer eyelashes, honey. You want to be loved by a man, don't you? Yes, well then, here you go, right? Oh, that'll be 50 bucks, 20 bucks, 40 bucks, right? And even if it's stuff that men don't want, but women think they want, like these long, ridiculous nails. I mean, you can see them in Florida, clacking along like a bunch of castanets falling down a set of tin stairs.
[33:08] It's, I mean, men don't want these nails. They don't want things that look like they can carve graffiti into diamond glass. No, we don't want these things. But apparently women have convinced each other that men want these things or that they're attractive. Of course, it is a status thing, right? If you have long nails, you're not doing manual labor, right? If you wear white, you're not doing manual labor. If your hair is coiffed, you're not doing manual labor. If you're wearing makeup, you're not doing manual labor. And if you have long nails, you're not doing manual labor.
[33:39] So, so if you've got questions, comments, I'm happy to go through them, but there is something that I, I, I would like to talk about. And because I would like to talk about it, I'm sure it's enormously important to you. So I'm not saying no.
[34:03] Techno barbarian my god okay well septimus got in a little sooner septimus if you want to unmute i'm all ears brother what's on your mind yes she wanted to talk about a uh a culture uh phenomenon that i've noticed now i used to listen to your show uh back in the the aughts um and also, our first part of the tweens now between millennials and gen z you know there's a lot of conversation online about promiscuity, teenage promiscuity, you know, the problems of women. And we've been talking about that on X, especially for the last few years.
[34:39] I've noticed, though, a lot of people talk in, sorry, I'm looking for my words here. They talk of the younger generations and how promiscuity has worsened. But, and I know this is only my own experience, but now I live in Australia just to preface. I'm aware i'm aware it's hard to hide you know to take this as a national observation but i find gen z woman whenever i interface with them uh they tend to i have more mixed and various experiences with them and i wanted to bro what does that mean mixed various experiences i will talk to let's say a gen z woman who let's say they have a gym body they wearing those tight leggings and they very much fit the caricature that people have been building. But then you'll talk to others and it will be, you know, they'll be espousing some of the views that are more common with, let's say, some of the millennial male generations. You know, they want a calmer life. They don't want to get into the consumerist culture. They don't want to get into the hyper-promiscuous culture.
[35:54] What I mean when I say I have more mixed experiences with them is that when I speak to a woman of my age, and I'm a millennial, I tend to find the sex-positive feminists to be much more numerous, if that makes sense. I don't have as many positive experiences with them. And I don't know if this is a cultural change because I don't have the data. But I wanted to talk as well about, or I wanted your idea about how culture has changed from the time that you were in U2 back in the aughts to what it's like now, and how that cultural change has affected Gen Z in particular, and also the later generation after that. Boy, you really are fishing with dynamite here, brother. I mean, you talked about three different generations. You've talked about sex, hedonism, gym culture, tight leggings, culture of all kinds. What is your question?
[36:49] Yeah, my question was that last one. How do you think culture has changed between the orts and now in regards to sex, positive culture and hedonism? So, sex-positive culture I mean, I have a sex-positive culture in my marriage So, did you mean promiscuity? I'm not sure what you mean by sex-positive culture Most healthy people are sex-positive I should say hypersexual sex-positive culture Yes, so, you know Sex-positive culture Yes, yes I didn't want to be crude I didn't want to be crude, no No, it's fine So, what you're saying is, Well, I think what you're asking is how have attitudes towards promiscuity changed over time? Yes, yes, in your view.
[37:40] Right. Well, I mean, because pornography has taken over the young brains of males and females, I think males a little bit more, there's been a sort of split, which is that there are some people who are avoiding sex because they're addicts to pornography. And then there are some people who use, I guess, pornographic concepts or images as a leaping space or a leaping platform into promiscuity in the real world. And I think it's an addiction. I think it is taking a sort of very powerful and primary bonding mechanism and turning it towards your own happiness at the expense of future joy. So I think, I don't know for sure, but I think something like cocaine, which gives people significant happiness in the moment, hooks into the kind of reward centers we're supposed to have when we achieve virtue, truth, courage, victory, love, all of the things that are supposed to motivate us to move forward in life and take risks and win, achieve. Video games do the same thing. Like, hey, I won a digital helmet. Okay. I mean, unless you can sell, I guess some people can sell these things, but it's all very unreal.
[38:54] It's all hooking into a kind of reward mechanism that's supposed to pull you forward in life, You're supposed to enjoy and get rewards out of going on dates and getting a fiance and getting a wife and becoming a dad and getting a promotion and making more money and doing good in the world and conquering bad people and promoting virtue. You're supposed to get all these rewards, which is why they're so powerful, these rewards. Whereas I think if you take drugs, you get those reward light-ups and some people get them from video games and so on. And.
[39:26] Don't actually have anything. You just have the appearance. So I think that there's that fork in the road. I've talked to a lot of men over the years who don't date, but use pornography. And I've talked to other men who date excessively and it often came out of pornography, but they then stepped off screen, so to speak, into the real world and attempted, but varying degrees of success to recreate that stuff. So I think this is the incel, just talking on the male side, This is the incel side versus the hypersexual side for the men, the chad, the sleeping around guy.
[40:00] And so, I mean, both of these are avoidant to pair bonding. They're two extremes, and extremes are usually a response to the same void.
[40:09] And so, the void is love. The void is virtue. The void is tangible achievements, not just in terms of the material sense, but in terms of the sense of virtue. We are at our happiest, and this is all the way back to Aristotle and even before, we are at our happiest when we are pursuing and promoting moral excellence in the world. That's when we are at our happiest. That's our very highest dopamine or highest reward chemicals come out in those circumstances. And the reason we need the highest reward chemicals for those circumstances is those circumstances are pretty dangerous. They're pretty risky, right? To do good in the world is to interfere with the self-interest of evil people. And when evil people have their self-interest thwarted, they can get a little bit testy, just a tiny bit. It's hard to notice sometimes, but you might, if you squint, you can see it out of your peripheral vision. So I think that promiscuity has split into people who are promiscuous with themselves, so to speak, by staying home and people who are promiscuous out in the world, neither of which is leading to any kind of stable pair bonding. And hopefully people can overcome their addictions to these pretend rewards and continue to move towards the real rewards of girlfriend, fiance, the wife, mother, and then, you know, grandmother, grandfather, and so on. Does that make sense?
[41:31] Yeah, it makes sense. It makes sense. I did say that I've noticed a change, I think, between two generations, which is specifically millennials and Gen Z. And I don't know if it's because you can burn out in pornography, as you know. Just like anything that... I know.
[41:50] That's rather personal. Okay, go on. No, no, I mean, that's because you... I'm just kidding. That was just kind of funny. But go ahead. Stef, you of all people, Mr. Firm Handshake. Okay, go on.
[42:01] So you can burn out. And I wonder if the change that I've noticed in Gen Z is due to the burning out of their receptors or if it's due to a change in culture. Because I do meet a lot of people in Gen Z who are moving away from this. And it will be in a very extreme way. Many of them are just disengaging from romantic and personal relationships in general and not engaging in the consumption of pornography. Any longer but nonetheless i do find that there is a cultural change with a plurality not a majority but a plurality of gen z people and yeah that was really the thing i was trying to say there well i think also northern and sort of the ice people like the the northern europeans and the siberians which is sort of the origin of the east asian races we have a very deep deep sensitivity to sustainability, because obviously, if you didn't know what was sustainable and what wasn't, you didn't store enough food for the winter and tended to not do very well over time. And so I think for a lot of people, you know, when I was a kid, I don't know if other people have had this experience. When I was a kid, I had a generalized sense of uneasiness.
[43:21] And I think that generalized sense of uneasiness is to do with things aren't sustainable. Like the system that we have, the debt, the money printing, the corruption, the ever escalating political powers, it's not sustainable.
[43:38] Violence and escalating coercion in society either needs to be turned back or it consumes its host, right? You need to find a way to restrain it. It's an addiction. And addictions, if you can't restrain them, they kind of go exponential until self-destruction. And I remember when I was, I think, in grade seven or grade eight, there was a teacher in my history class who was talking about, well, when you guys get your pensions, and half the class just laughed at him. And this is an instinct. This wasn't like we had done the math and the pension and the payouts. But it was just fun. Like, there's just no way. there's there's no way and people and i remember that's a really striking moment for me because it's an instinct and i think an instinct for sustainability is common to the ice people for reasons of winter and and so on right now so the the problem is that if you are if you emerge into a system that's not sustainable you want to do something about it obviously right i mean because the whole purpose of the uneasiness is to get you to change your behavior so that you either get more food or eat less food or somehow bend the equation so you make it through till springtime.
[44:52] So we have this desire. Now, people will try to do something about it. And if they can't do something about it, they often will lapse into a kind of depressed hedonism, which is there's this hopelessness. And think about this, right? I mean, if you just knew for whatever reason that you had three days to live, you'd probably go on a bender. You'd probably try all the drugs known to man because your timeframe is very short. Why would you bother?
[45:20] If somebody says, you want a candy bar, you wouldn't sit there and say, well, I've got a dentist visit in two months. You'd be like, hey, I've got three days to live. I'm going to eat some candy. I'm going to whatever, right? You would do those things because you have no reason to defer gratification. And so I think people go through this phase of like, well, I really want to change this unsustainable system so that it becomes sustainable. And, you know, I think Trump and other people have been sort of attempts at that, not massively successful, arguably, but.
[45:49] But maybe better than the alternative. It's, you know, alternative history is kind of hard to tell.
[45:54] You could almost describe Trump as a complete reaction to a political reality. Yeah, I think there is certainly nothing within the system that's working. Let's pull someone in from outside the system in the sort of desperate hope that the outsider can fix what the insiders can't.
[46:10] So I think that the hedonism, the reason why it's hedonism and depression are kind of two sides of the same coin is hedonism is a kind of desperation. Which means I'll consume pleasures in the here and now because I don't believe in the future. The nihilism and hedonism, depression and hedonism, in my view, kind of go hand in hand. So I think that the split that I was sort of talking about is depression for the people who stay home and kind of hedonism for the people who go out. But the people who stay home, you know, video games and not dating and pornography, they're not building a future because they don't believe in one. The people who go out and just do all this hedonistic stuff, even though it burns out their capacity to pair, bond, and form love, and families are doing it because they just don't believe that these things are attainable. And it all has to do with predictability, right? That there's this meme of Jesus smoking like 50 cigarettes. And it was like, you know, millennials going through their 18th major crisis in their lifetime, right? And it's a real thing. It's a real thing. And so, I think particularly post-COVID, the world feels so unpredictable to people. And for the smarter people with longer-term planning horizons, unpredictability is a paralysis. It is a paralysis.
[47:27] And that paralysis, again, breeds despair and the inceldom, and it also breeds just a desire for transitory pleasures because there really isn't anything to plan for.
[47:39] Makes a lot of sense. Thank you. You're very welcome. Great. I'm glad that we were able to get to that. All right. Let's see here. Mr. Barbarian of the techno kind. We did have some problems last time, but I think you're going to give it a try now. Go ahead.
[47:57] Thank you. I have a question about the strategy here. I know we talk a lot about how women are affecting XYZ, feminism, this, politics, that, and kind of piggybacking off what you just talked about when we're talking about saving a system or participating in a system we don't have any power in, is it actually viable or have we examined all the available options to us is my question. And what I mean by that is, do we have to really save the system that we're in, or can we approach this from more of a natural evolutionary kind of perspective with iteration rather than fixing the system and kind of looking in the spirit of the pilgrims, if you will, and the founding of America in general, where, you know, we initially came to this spot because, a group of people decided that the system wasn't working for them. So they formed their own parallel society. And eventually, after a few hundred years, we're now fizzling that out. But it seems like, you know, maybe that is more of a viable path forward than trying to fix the system that we're all stuck in that is broken and kind of leading to all of our modern woes, if you will. What do you think about that strategy? Hey, I'm always keen on strategies for freedom and so on. So give me these specific steps.
[49:13] Yeah, so the modeling really that I'm looking at is along the lines of, for example, the Amish, the Mennonites, the Lutherans, the religious groups out in Salt Lake City, Utah. They've got large parallel societies where they're largely insulated, if you will, I guess that's the best word to use, from the modern woes that we all face. They're not having issues, or at least if they are, they're greatly diminished in terms of sexual promiscuity. To go back to the previous listener and his points. They have much less issues. They care a lot less about things like bombing Iran. They care a lot less about food supply outages, power grid issues. I mean, they're decentralized. That's really what it is. These are all decentralized, smaller communities.
[49:54] And I don't think they really care about who's going to be president next period or the one after that. They're less concerned with those ephemeral voting cycles, which we all otherwise rely on to kind of manifest our will politically into the country. That's really the peak level of agency that we all have. We're not doing anything in our own lives to reduce the power of the government on our own. We're simply waiting for four years to check a box and then hope that things go well. And right after it's done, we all acknowledge that voting is rigged anyway. So it seems like there's really small chance for anyone to manifest any agency in the system that we have, but we're all still sitting here saying, hey, we got to fix this system. Meanwhile, there's the opportunity to create, of course, smaller scale, decentralized parallel societies where we just simply, the objective would be to simply reduce our dependency and the effect of the government on our own lives day to day.
[50:50] And that, as opposed to voting, I think, would produce tangible real-world results now in our life, not creating momentum for change to happen 30, 40 years in the future politically, which could just be overturned overnight with another vote by the Supreme Court. This is going to create tangible, realistic change in our lives today or tomorrow or next month. Well, no, not today or tomorrow because it takes a while to build up these communities, right?
[51:19] Yeah. Unless you go and join a pre-existing one. That's kind of what I'm getting at is, you know, we have to kind of start to sort ourselves. If we want to get back to a masculine society where we're not as hyper-feminized, we do have to acknowledge that a masculine society would respect hierarchies and meritocracy. A lot of people are going to be followers in that kind of model where, hey, so this guy over here, he's got his tribe. That looks interesting to me. It resonates. And I'm going to join that and contribute in a way that I could spend my time that's actually much more beneficial than going to a corpo office and slaving away there and really not serving any greater purpose other than, again, waiting four years to vote. So not everyone's going to start their own thing, but if we can get some leaders, you know, I mean, someone like you or I'm doing that now, I'm dedicating a lot of my own life to doing that, largely as a result of listening to your stuff for many years. So thank you for that. And, you know, I'm hoping that people can start to see, all I want to do is open up other options and say that, hey, we're not all stuck necessarily having to be forced to fix this system that we're in right now. It is possible in the spirit of the pilgrims to create your own thing. And it's not going to be perfect. Well, of course, the pilgrims went, as you know, to unowned or largely unowned land with very little government. So that's a little tougher to find in the present world. I suppose the issue that I have with some communities, like let's say the Amish, right?
[52:38] Well, I don't know much about the Amish ideology, but I suspect that it's fairly far removed from rational empirical philosophy. So the question is always, can you create a community that is countercultural without deploying a fair number of falsehoods?
[52:52] The instruction of children, right? That's the big question. And I'm not a big fan, of course, of deploying significant amounts of falsehood towards children.
[53:02] So a lot of communities will lie to their kids, you know, with the chosen, with the special, with the this, with the that, and, you know, we have to stick together. They enforce it with a lot of aggression and ostracism and so on. So you may escape a certain kind of hierarchy, but you actually end up with another kind of hierarchy, arguably, you know, better or worse, but there's aspects that are better and worse to both. But of course, the goal of peaceful parenting is to try and move us out of hierarchies as a whole. Sorry, you were going to say? Yeah, I was just going to say, you know, it's definitely something I've thought about. You don't want to end up becoming a cult leader, right? And or forming a new cult. So I think the closest approximation that I can come to based on a philosophy and underlying ideology that's there that everyone can agree on that would kind of drive the thing going forward is really a return to what I call, I think the word traditional is kind of really, it's really stupid. It's indefensible kind of on the political, cultural discussion. It's more natural, but also return to natural gender roles and creating kind of a smaller scale society that's aligned with gender psychology and how masculine psychology and feminine psychology can operate as per their, the closest approximation to what would result in them being happy while fulfilling their own innate propensities. So basically, the.
[54:26] Going back to a situation where, hey, we have to all come to some kind of self-awareness where we realize that the men in modern society, if you want to participate in mainstream society, you're going to be powerless, you're going to be disenfranchised, you're going to be weak, you're not going to have a lot of agency, you can't manifest masculine psychology very well in modern society. And at the same time, we have hyperfeminization happening within modern society that's driving the women absolutely nuts and creating hyperfeminized societies in general. The men are becoming feminized, politics, everything we're talking about is becoming feminized. So first step is to just say, hey, we need to define or at least acknowledge gendered psychology, line that up as our kind of golden rule, if you will, and say, hey, look, we want to acknowledge, first of all, that we have these innate propensities, build a system that incentivizes, the good side of those propensities for women and the feminine psychology and the good sides of the masculine psychology as well. So that's the only kind of way that I've so far come up with a way to kind of get a central ideology that everyone can agree on. It's not going to create any cults, but it also incorporates the key aspect of we all need that self-awareness so we don't get into runaway situations like we are in now where everyone's just banging and hypergamy is run away and everyone just wants money and no one wants to have kids or marriage or anything like that.
[55:49] Yeah. And then by the time the bill comes due, nobody has any time or money left to pay and then misery ensues for the next couple of decades. No, I think it's very interesting. If you can found a community based on sort of reason and evidence and the non-aggression principle, I think that's great. But of course, a lot of the sort of counter-major cultural societies do end up not telling a lot of truths and having them. And they say, well, we're going to lure you away from mainstream society by pumping up your ego with excessive specialness and chosen people and this, that, and the other. So if you found a way to do that without having to pump people's ego to the point where they explode, I think that's fantastic. All right. Well, listen, I'll stop here. I just, I wanted to give a little tech test and I really do appreciate everyone coming out tonight. Really, really great conversations.
[56:34] And that's Technobarbarism, Technobarbarism, if you want to follow him on X. And I really do appreciate everyone's time tonight, freedomain.com slash donate. If you would like to help out the show, I'd appreciate that. We will talk on Wednesday night. I'm sure I'll try something before and I'm glad that this technology seemed to work because the audio quality of the speakerphone was driving me mad. Just mad. Fredomain.com slash donate. Thanks again a million times everyone and we'll talk to you soon. Bye.
Support the show, using a variety of donation methods
Support the show
