0:06 - Social Media Insights
1:44 - COVID Investigations
5:52 - Dutch Exit Tax
8:52 - Housing Market Analysis
11:34 - Bitcoin and Freedom
14:01 - Family Political Dynamics
16:42 - Emotional Responses to Politics
23:06 - Gender and Student Debt
25:53 - The Nature of Disagreement
31:53 - The Impact of Social Media
36:16 - Bertrand Russell's Wisdom
39:50 - Media and Bitcoin Success
42:18 - Conclusion and Farewell
In this episode, I take a thought-provoking journey through various realms of current events and historical context, beginning with a compelling comparison between gold and Bitcoin. I share insights from Rajat Soni, revealing how the value of one ounce of gold, which was once equivalent to 592 Bitcoin in 2011, is now a mere 0.020688 Bitcoin today. This dramatic 99.9% drop in gold's value relative to Bitcoin underscores the significant evolution of cryptocurrency's role in our economy.
Moving on, I delve into the findings of the recently released House COVID Committee report, which comes after a two-year investigation into the origins of the pandemic. I reflect on my experiences from four years ago when I first voiced concerns about the Wuhan lab’s involvement in the virus's release, a viewpoint that was met with harsh criticism at the time. Now, the report validates those early thoughts, emphasizing key discoveries such as NIH-funded gain-of-function research and the troubling realization that COVID-19 may have indeed emerged from a lab leak, challenging earlier narratives regarding its origins.
I also discuss the proposed Dutch exit tax on citizens leaving the Netherlands, which aims to impose income and capital gains taxes for five years post-departure. This is symptomatic of a broader trend in Europe, where the free movement of people within the EU is being put to the test, highlighting the complexities of international citizenship and taxation in an increasingly restrictive fiscal environment.
Later in the episode, I pivot to discuss trends within the American housing market, highlighting how average rent and housing prices have skyrocketed over the decades, with new homes and education costs seeing similarly drastic changes. Our current economic climate, influenced by regulation and increased demand, results in a painful scenario for many aspiring homeowners, particularly younger generations who find themselves feeling increasingly discouraged about their prospects.
Shifting gears, I dive into the world of Bitcoin, citing statistics indicating Bitcoin’s potential future value as a significant asset class. Discussion flows into the political realm, considering how governments manage their Bitcoin reserves and the implications of rising state interest in cryptocurrency. I assess the current economic landscape, including Canada's job market and reliance on government employment, and dig into narratives around debt’s impact on modern life.
Censorship and the limits of societal tolerance are underlying themes throughout our discussion, particularly as we explore individual experiences with family discord due to political disagreements. I reflect on the challenges of navigating personal relationships amid ideological divides and the pervasive influence of societal narratives. The episode culminates in a wider examination of moral perspectives, the importance of truth, and how love must coexist with a healthy dose of justified anger towards harmful ideologies.
Through this intricate tapestry of commentary, I aim to illuminate the connections between our economic realities, the political climate, and the personal stories that weave through them, fostering a deeper understanding of the forces shaping our lives today.
[0:00] Yo, yo, everybody, it's Stefan Molyneux. Let's do a little tour through social media.
[0:07] Learn from Rajat Soni, one ounce of gold cost 592 Bitcoin in 2011. Today it cost 0.020688 Bitcoin, a 99.9% loss of value of gold relative to Bitcoin. That is quite a thousand times increase in the value of Bitcoin relative to gold. That seems quite important. From Eric Doherty. The House COVID Committee has released its final report after a two-year investigation. Now, for those of you who haven't been around for a while, it was about four years ago I put out the truth.
[0:41] About COVID and Wuhan, the China lab and release and so on, and got hammered really hard. A conspiracy theorist is all wrong. So that's the problem with censorship is that you get hammered for being early and right, but you get no restitution or recognition for being late. And when people catch up with you later, right? So what are the major findings? The NIH-funded gain-of-function research at the Wuhan lab? Wild. The Constitution can't be suspended in times of crisis. Well, of course, otherwise they just invent crises to suspend the Constitution. COVID emerging from a lab leak is not a conspiracy theory. So that is really quite important. And the fact that they have not found, they said it comes from pangolins or bats or whatever, they haven't found any source of this. So it's not a conspiracy theory. It was a perfectly valid and actually quite accurate line of inquiry. And you get hammered. And this is how a society just punishes its truth tellers over and over again, is you get hammered for being right and early and get no restitution whenever a mouse catches up. So good luck with the world.
[1:44] All right, Dutch exit tax. It's actually quite common around the world. The Netherlands proposes a new exit tax for citizens who leave the country.
[1:53] Income and presumably capital gains to be taxed for five years after leaving the country expected into effect in 2025. Yeah, they don't want people to get out. I mean, this is a great experiment in Europe, the EU. Let's have no borders. And of course, we can see how all of that is working.
[2:12] James Lavish, oh, Eleanor Lavish from Room of the View, says Bitcoin is, quote, 0.2% right now at 1% of the total global assets. Bitcoin is a $9 trillion asset and worth about $450,000 at 3% it's worth $1.3 million per Bitcoin, Well, that seems quite important. That's this little graph there, and I'll put the link in the show so you can watch the whole presentation, but it is very, very interesting. This hurts me and pains me as a bald guy. So here are animals and how they look without fur. It turns into a half-elephant demon beast, a bear.
[2:52] Chimpanzees, well, you find out how buff they actually are, and they look like something that's been fashioned from somebody's lower intestines and a testicle sack. That really is something. Parrots, absolutely beautiful. Look at that. Oh, God. Demon bird. That is your nightmare. Demon sleep destructor. Raccoons, kind of furry, kind of cute, little dangerous. And here they look like rats that have swallowed too much helium and inflated beyond human proportions. Fluffy bunnies. Oh, so cute and beautiful. And they look pretty traumatized.
[3:26] And what is that? Yeah, a wrinkled forehead with ears. You take off the, I guess, feathers aren't fur, neither are spines. Horses, majestic and beautiful. And again, a kind of muscular nightmare fuel. Owls, yeah, that's not good. That looks like something that will steal your soul while you wait in line at the DMV. Oh, I was going over this. This is from the great Anthony Pompliano. No, he is the all-smiling, all-dancing Chad of the Bitcoin universe. A great guy. The average rent in America was $27 a month in 1938. New home costs under $4,000. So a new house was $3,900. The average income is $1,731. So a little more than twice the average income was a new house. Of course, taxes were lower in general. But yeah, it really is something how much. And of course, my daughter was saying, why have the house prices gone up so much? And anytime you have these things, you just need to look at two things, supply and demand. The supply of new housing is diminished because of all of the regulations and costs and expenses of building a new house.
[4:40] And of course, demand is up. If you have a bunch of kids, then they usually start buying their houses, 30 or so, late 20s, early 30s. So you've got three decades to build the houses but when you have a bunch of adults who come in through immigration they want houses right away and they used to lower standard of living so they'll snap up the houses and live you know six seven people to a house or more so yeah it's it's really uh it's really tragic and the unfortunate thing of course is that most people want to do better than their parents and if they feel they're going to do worse than their parents that discourages them from having children which is a, new car 860 bucks average rent 27 dollars per month tuition to harvard university 420 per year movie ticket 25 cents um gasoline 10 cents a gallon three cents for a postage stamp just what since 2019 47 of new jobs in canada were in the government it's mostly, a fantasy economy up here in the great white north that is sustained through.
[5:48] Debt, and drain through remittances, which we'll get to later, and government jobs.
[5:53] Bitcoin for freedom, this is 10 hours ago. Rumors of Saudi stacking, 48 days until Trump takes office. Sailor presenting to the Microsoft board. U.S. states are looking at Bitcoin reserves. Briggs wants to break free from the U.S. dollars. Of course, Trump is threatening them with 100% tariffs if they try to do that. 115,000 Bitcoin have been taken off exchanges in the last 30 days. MicroStrategy is consuming the $135 trillion bond mark. And, you know, it's interesting because the government has a bunch of Bitcoin from Silk Road, about 10,000 Bitcoin or something like that, or more. And they've moved them to a new address. My guess would be that before Trump gets in, the U.S. Will start dumping Bitcoin so that insiders can snap it up at reduced prices. That would be my guess. Who knows, right? Here's my entire business plan. Fell years ago, never gave up. I love this tree that fell over and just continued to grow. Will is everything in life. Everything else is a footnote. All right. Oh, this I was going to read this to my daughter because Brain Rot is sort of this young, skibbity-toilet, Sigma stuff.
[6:54] And this guy, he's very funny and very witty. And morals are actually pretty simple. So simple, in fact, that we put them in stories meant for children hundreds of years ago. If you don't know The Ant and the Grasshopper, the story goes like this. The ant stayed on his Sigma grind set all the way through the happy summer weather while the grasshopper neat maxed. That's not an education, employment, or training. The grasshopper neat maxed and tried to blow up on SoundCloud. It's great. I actually know what this stuff means. Then when winter rolled around, the ant was prepped and comfy AF while the grasshopper was stuck outside in the cold. We need equitable access to housing and food for underserved communities, cried the grasshopper. I'm being systemically oppressed. But the ant stayed inside and looked out this window. It's not that deep, bruh, he thought to himself, a skill issue, then the grasshopper presumably died. The moral is the same as in the Bible. He who does not work shall not eat. Whenever morality gets more complicated than that, it's usually a sign that someone's up to no good, and morality is super complicated these days. If the ant and the grasshopper lived in today's world, the story wouldn't make sense without a mosquito pushing handout laws through Ant Congress called No Grasshopper Left Behind, taking 10% off the top for himself and paying news ants to call the worker ant hateful on Ant TV if he complained about the situation. If you can't write a simple children's story with your morals in it, they're probably not morals at all. It's very good. Very, very funny and well worth a look. I lose all of that. Yes, I did. All right.
[8:18] So, yeah, it sort of struck me that if the libertarians, I don't think any libertarian, David Gordon did a really bad review of universally preferable behavior. But if any of the libertarians, particularly the academic libertarians, what I was in contact with back then when I published UPB like 13 years ago or whatever, if any of the libertarians had given a review to UPB, it would have enormously helped the theory as a whole, but they didn't, which, well, history will judge.
[8:52] It's so much in the rear view for me now. I'm just happy to have done the work and it will be the future to unearth and spread it. In July 2010, this is from Bluebird, Professor Murray Strauss, published, I always think of dancing spaceships at this point, published an article called 30 Years of Denying the Evidence on gender symmetry in partner violence, implications for prevention and treatment, that highlighted censorship of the evidence of equal rates of partner violence among the sexes. I know this goes with that saying, but partner violence cannot be conflated with other forms of violence, such as street crime. In this thread, I will post screenshots of his summary for each of the seven methods used to censor that evidence.
[9:32] It's really, yeah, conceal the evidence, and you can look at this in more detail, but female power through the court system to be victims is so intense that any sort of 50-50 part of violent statistics have to be buried. That's just for me. I love listening to good singers. The passage from Schopenhauer is so brilliantly brutal. He writes, We are always living in expectation of better things, while at the same time we often repent and long to have the past back again. We look upon the present as something to be put up with while it lasts, and serving only as the way towards our goal. Hence, most people, if they glance back when they came, when they come to the end of their life, will find that all along they have been living at interim. They will be surprised to find that the very thing they disregarded and let slip by and enjoyed was just their life. That is to say, it was the very thing in the expectation of which they lived. Of how many a man may not be said that hope made a fool of him until he danced into the arms of death.
[10:32] Yeah, so, you know, there's a funny thing that happens when you start getting close to 60 is that, and I've read this in a number of autobiographies, that your teenage years start to come back. Maybe it's like a 40 year, like 40 years ago, I was 18, right? So maybe it's a 40, 45 year thing, but your teenage years start to come back with more happiness than sometimes you experienced at the time. Although I would say I had a pretty good teenage life. I mean, I worked hard, I dated and had great roommates and was parent-free from 15 onwards and all of that. Yeah, so enjoy your life. Don't look back and say, I wish I'd enjoyed it more. Really, really try to enjoy things at the moment. And even negative things, like even negative things are worth enjoying as something that helps you enjoy the positive more. Like if you have a health issue and then it gets resolved, then that is part of how you enjoy your good health, right?
[11:35] Canada sends more remittances per capita than almost any nation. Yes.
[11:43] You should watch this. I won't do the whole thing. The fact that Michael Saylor, you know, I think in the long run is going to outrun Elon Musk in capital accumulation. The fact that Michael Saylor only gets three minutes to talk to Microsoft, my God. I mean, take Microsoft Windows three minutes to boot up sometimes.
[12:05] Yeah, they're not mentally ill. They're not mentally ill. Says my mother, a two-time Trump voter in Florida, has moved closer to us in a safely blue state. While I don't know what her vote was in the 2024 presidential election, it wouldn't have affected the outcome. I strongly oppose Trump as to my wife and family who live nearby. Now, this is just not true. 99% of people just hate who they're told to hate and love who they're told to love. That's it. They have no standard by which to evaluate things. All they do is they're usually physically weak and they simply then have to go along with the hurt. And the idea that you would hate someone without knowing great details about their life, the fact that you would hate someone just because someone tells you that they're hateful or negative, I mean, that really is one of the greatest human corruptions of all time, and it is the reason why good people often die like dogs in a deep and dark corner. So the fact that you wouldn't be troubled by, okay, I've been told to hate this person. Why am I told to hate this person? And what are the actual facts? They don't think that. It's really, really sad.
[13:14] Well, and horrifying, right? I'm troubled by my mother's support of someone I consider morally abhorrent and dangerous, especially when she voted in a former swing state. Morally abhorrent and dangerous. No, you don't have any objective morals. And dangerous is simply something that you've been told, right? With the result of the 2024 election, my wife and her family are directing their understandable fury at my mother. No, maybe you've just been taught to hate your own flesh and blood by propagandists.
[13:44] My wife's sister said, if she voted for Trump again, I'm completely done with her. I expect that the next time they interact, it will not be pretty. But my mother is a member of our family and an invaluable caregiver to our children, right? She's pleasant and kind in daily life and moved far from her home primarily for us and her grandkids. And she is my mother after all. So look at that.
[14:01] She's a wonderful caregiver, great grandmother, pleasant and kind in daily life. None of that matters because you've been taught to hate. and to surrender your reason to propaganda is like voluntarily getting rabies as a dog. Hydrophobe, like you just become feral. You are turned into a blind, programmed attack robot with no sense of self or soul. It is just appalling, right? Oh, she's wonderful. She's great. She loves the grandkids, pleasant and kind, and has moved just to help out with the grandkids. Your mother, it doesn't matter. If you're told to hate someone, the fact that they're kind and pleasant and moral and they make sacrifices for your family and are gentle and kind to your kids doesn't matter. You're taught to hate them. You're taught to hate them and hate you well. And this is Bailey, Bailey sentient. He says, I'm torn. My wife and her family expect me to brook no compromise and to speak out on an issue that feels existential to them, as it does to me. But because I know that her vote here doesn't make a difference, I have trouble feeling motivated to admonish her for her past and possibly present support of Trump.
[15:11] Now, of course, people don't support Trump. Trump's just some... Orange guy with a whirlpool blonde hairdo. It's not supportive Trump. It's particular values that they prefer, a particular approach they like. It has a lot to do with wanting the government to be smaller and less intrusion and so on, rule of law.
[15:31] People don't just blindly support Trump. They expect Trump to do positive things in their life. Of course, the same thing is true of those who support Kamala Harris and so on. It's not supportive Trump. If people oppose you politically, it's important to look at what values they're hoping to achieve through their political support and then see if you can find a way to align on those values, right? At the very least, they don't think I should expect them to be anything other than completely unfiltered with my mother. I appreciate the sacrifices my mother has made to be near her family and her children, and her kids love their grandma, and she is the woman who raised me, but my wife and her family will be channeling their anger at one of the few Trump voters they personally know, and my mother expects me to intervene and speak up for her, or to encourage my wife's family to be more civil. She sees her vote as a personal choice and doesn't seem to believe that she should be criticized for it. Ethically, is it wrong for me to hold my tongue or to try to negotiate the peace even though I agree with the substance of my wife's family's position? If I tried to protect my mother from vitriol, would I be betraying myself or my wife and her family in order to preserve harmony and child care, or would I be justified, suggesting that we all lay down our arms given that her vote no longer affects the national outcome? If I try to completely opt out of having a role in this conflict? Am I doing a disservice to all parties involved?
[16:43] What do we owe to ourselves and the respective warring sides in a situation such as this?
[16:49] Yeah. Yeah. Yep. Yep. Yep. Well, what can I tell you? I mean, it's tough. When you get an ideologue in your life, it is very tough. You can't reason with them. And a lot of times, of course, it's people who are on the receiving end of government money just trying to protect the tax farm, right? President Trump plans to immediately rescind all of the Biden administration's student loan forgiveness plans once he takes office. Let's go. The gender studies for men, X account says this is really important to men. Women owe 80% of student loan debt. Biden's forgiveness largesse was to take tax money, 80% of which is paid by men. and give it to women trained in college to hate men by forgiving their student loans. Yeah. Um...
[17:41] So it used to be that people who didn't plan ahead were kind of wiped out by winter in cold climates. And now people who don't plan ahead, people who get useless, well, the Kevin Samuels, I'm a PhD, right? The people who get these useless degrees and don't think about, okay, who's going to pay for it? How's this going to affect my sexual market value? What man is going to want to take on $100,000 or $150,000 of debt in order to have kids with me? So winter is simply not thinking about debt. And people aren't dying directly, of course, but it means that their odds of reproducing get considerably lower. And debt is the new winter. Now, is this true? This is pretty wild to me. I did not know this. Santiago Pliego says, the challenge is that most of US law is behind paywall and copyright. Seems insane, but it's true. Thompson & Reuters owns the copyright and has sued the only other company that has a private and legal copy of the entire corpus of U.S. law. So this is an AI. Is it true that a lot of U.S. law is behind paywall? Yes, a significant amount of U.S. law, particularly federal court records, is behind a paywall. The PACER system charges fees for access to these records, which has been criticized for limiting transparency and accessibility. Isn't that wild?
[18:59] Yeah, there should, of course, be an AI model. There should be an AI model that's trained on law that you should be able to ask if you're in compliance or not, and that should be admissible in court. Because if AI can't figure out the law, how can human beings be subject to it, right? Ah, yes. Whenever people say the word fragile, to me, this is just narcissistic contempt for people who disagree. So listen to this for you. them to take their money away and give it a bracket. In all my years, I've never seen anything as fragile as a MAGA man. Not a MAGA man. Listen, this is completely shallow and ridiculous. She can't help her voice. But I will tell you this, you know, one of the things that is extremely pleasant about being married to my wife, one of the many things that's extremely pleasant about being married to my wife, is the fact that she has a very, very pleasant voice, a lovely voice to listen to, I personally, you know, it's like nails on a chalkboard, however lovely this woman may be, and I don't think she is, but I could not, I could not spend, you know, 50 years listening to this voice.
[20:02] In all my years, I've never seen anything as fragile as a MAGA man. Not only do they go around worshiping. So she considers the MAGA man fragile, right? And she can't be seen on social media without literally cannon-fired globs of clown sex makeup. I mean, look at these lips. Look at the eyeliner, the mascara, the artificial eyelashes, or the pumped-up eyelashes, the trimmed eyebrows, I assume the dyed hair. And so she considers Trump voters fragile, but she can't show her real face. She basically has to turn into this Kabuki Picasso painting of hypersexuality. Being an 80-year-old, overweight, unhealthy man who wears more makeup than anyone I've ever met. So Trump wears more makeup. I mean, honestly, honestly, how are we supposed to believe? Trump wears more makeup than anyone I've ever met. You're literally looking into a camera, which is you're literally looking at someone who wears infinitely more makeup than Trump. I don't even know what to do. How can you say this? Lack of self-awareness. I just, it's truly staggering. Do these people not have an observing ego that tells them when they're being completely contradictory and ridiculous? They take his win as some kind of personal victory for them when 95% of his voters do not fall into the tax bracket that will benefit in any way from his presidency.
[21:28] Yeah, this idea that Trump only cuts taxes for the rich. I mean, it was really under Biden that trillions of dollars were transferred from the poor and the middle class to the upper class. Like trillions of dollars under COVID transferred from the poor and the middle class to the upper classes, the very top tier billionaires. And yeah, I mean, so I don't know. It's strange to me. And the idea that, Trump is interested in getting rid of the income tax and relying on tariffs, which would be amazing for the domestic U.S. economy. These are just people. They've been told what to say.
[22:10] All I see in those eyeballs is matrix code. It's just programming from propagandists to repeat stuff. They voted for him to take their money away and give it to himself and his rich friends. Okay, Trump has lost money in the presidency. right? I mean, there's a fairly famous chart. I'm sure you've seen it. I don't know exactly how accurate it is, but I think it's probably generally fairly accurate, which is the net worth of people before and after they become president. And, you know, Barack Obama went from very little to like 70 million or whatever it is. I mean, Nancy Pelosi is through the roof, but obviously just a great stock trader. But Donald Trump lost money over the course of the presidency. So the idea that he's just in it to enrich himself, that's just projection. You know, there's a huge number of people who rely on their status and income, with sort of government regulations and affirmative action and so on. So, you know, those people don't want a smaller government because then they'll have to compete in the free market and they may not make as much money.
[23:07] Eamon holler like it's some kind of victory. On top of that, Trump allows them for the first time in their life to feel superior to others. They know that women's right.
[23:16] So, this woman says, I've never seen anything as fragile and contemptuous as a Trump voter. And then she says, but you know, Trump voters are just, again, I mean, the lack of self-knowledge is almost an intergalactic force of nature. Like there's weak atomic forces, and then there are strong atomic forces. And then there are these people's capacity to delude themselves. So she holds Trump voters in infinite contempt. And she says that, Trump voters just like to look down on other people. I mean, what could you even say? This is a display of sheer anti-rationality, anti-self-knowledge. To be taken away, that Latinos will be deported, that under Trump's administration, an open racism towards black people will be far more accepted. And all of this makes the MAGA men feel good because putting other people down is the only thing that gives them joy in life. So she's putting half the country down, more than half the country down. And she's saying that they only like putting people down. And those, man, this is like the Robert Shaw speech about the USS Indianapolis in the Jaws movie, you know, lifeless eyes, like a doll's eyes. They have an ego like a fragile toddler and watching other people suffer is the way they get off. So, of course, they're all really happy right now. So, and this is a thing that some women do, men do it too, a little bit more from women, is that.
[24:38] It's a whole lot easier to psychologize. Sorry, that's almost close to English, isn't it? It's almost infinitely easier to psychologize people than it is to answer their arguments.
[24:51] So, I mean, if you want to know the nature of modern femininity, simply disagree with women online. Now, of course, this is not representative of women as a whole, but all of this small penis energy and short man energy and you can't get laid. And you just hate women because they won't date you, they just like to put people down. I don't know exactly who it is that teaches people to just engage in really silly psychologizing of other people rather than answering their arguments. And of course, I'm aware, I just said that, I'm just calling her a hypocrite, though, I'm not sort of saying what her psychological motivations are, but that this idea that you make up people's motives that diminish them, and you've answered their arguments. You know, oh, well, you know, I mean, Galileo is just advancing the heliocentric model of the solar system because he's jealous of Ptolemy, and he's shorter than him, and he's just, he's incensed that somebody else is getting more attention than he is. It's like, shut up.
[25:54] You're just adding anything. You're just subtracting, just subtracting. All right, I'll do this on a show.
[26:02] Oh, yeah, this guy, he went from a Viking prince to a guy who has a podcast, I'm going to be sick. Yeah, I don't know that that's a particularly great glow-up. That guy's got great hair, and he should absolutely keep it long. Turning into the puffball dandelion head broccoli mushroom thing is not good. He was way better off before. All right, so yeah, look at this skiing. Yikes, these are treetops. This is how deep the ski is. I love skiing, but I may be aging out of it a little bit. But when you get older, what happens is the number of people who have injuries accumulate to the point where you're like, ooh, risks are significant. This I'm just going to let this play. This is really weird. I remember seeing, oh gosh.
[26:51] Oh, it'll come back to me. But I remember at a Bitcoin conference many years ago, somebody made this case. And you just got to listen to this. In a nation state, Bitcoin is digital power. It's $350. Yeah, we can do this slightly faster, right?
[27:08] Bitcoin is digital power. It's 350 exahash. That equates to $20 billion worth of computer equipment. And then you can value the energy. If it's 5 cents a kilowatt hour, you're getting to $5, $6 billion a year. That's what it takes to run the network, but that's not what it takes to attack the network. If I'm a nation state and I wanted to block every message for the next six hours, I need to win the next 60 block. And that means I need to bring online 3,500 exahash of computer power. The problem with that is if I hijacked all of the Google, Amazon, and Microsoft computer power, I could maybe bring on five hexahertz. So you would need 2,000 times as much energy. That's all the energy on Earth. It doesn't work. You need three Earths. What government do you know that would want to spend a decade failing to attack something? It's much more likely that you'll just flip everybody in that government to support Bitcoin by the time they finish that. Andreas Antonopoulos. There we go. I should remember that. It's a Greek name. So, yeah, he was talking about how impossible it was to hijack Bitcoin, like, what was that, eight years ago, something like that? I will do a theory from the theory of natural ethics. I'll have a look at that. Look at this. At $105,000, Bitcoin overtakes the market cap of Google. Sweet, sweet, sweet. Cutting people off in terms of Bitcoin. Sorry, in terms of Trump.
[28:28] Our biggest weapon right now is cutting people off that voted against your morals it's driving them insane they're like i don't understand yeah they do yeah that or it's just feigned outrage because they didn't give a fuck about you i see this also coming from the right you know so and so is in a panic they're panicking that you know this is caesars you know after uh biden uh cut off investigations into foreign and domestic corruption by pardoning everything that his son did from 2014 onwards, really, really quite something. That is just, yeah, you see this all the time. It's driving them insane. It's driving them crazy. This is sort of positioning, and it's an art view of life, where, you know, in art, I talked about this recently with regards to The Great Gatsby. If you like an idea, you'll have a good-looking person who's confident deliver the message. If you don't like an idea you'll have an ugly person deliver the message with great tension and frustration and emotional angst and so that's driving them crazy it's really painful for them and so on.
[29:29] Honestly, you know, having people who hate you out of your life or having people who've been propagandized into hating something that you approve of is a great benefit. It's a great benefit. Wait, but they want to make you look like gaslight, you look like you're the bad person. Just keep cutting them off. Just keep doing it. Because all of these people have one thing in common, and it is narcissistic behavior. See, here we go. Immediate psychologizing. Anyone I disagree with, look at those eyes, eh? Oof. Nothing in there. Lights on, nobody home. So yeah, I mean, just immediate psychologizing. Don't evaluate anyone's arguments. Just describe them negative psychological characteristics, and you are away to the races. It doesn't generally mean that they're narcissists. It means that they idolize a narcissist and perform in the same manner that that person performs as. So just keep cutting people. So narcissists hate disagreement, and this guy is saying, those people that want to cut off for disagreeing with me are narcissists. Again, this is just absolutely chaotic, no boundaries, pure projection. Awesome. Block them. Don't talk to them. Co-workers. If you have to talk to them, like business only.
[30:42] I mean, there is a lot of pain there. And I do sympathize with that. And so people who become dependent on the media for their talking points have established entire tentacles of networks and social interactions based upon shared delusions, and it's really, really painful. You know, at some point, you have to ask yourself, or I think everyone has this at some point in their life, or almost everyone does, where you say, do people like me for my own original thoughts and preferences and perspectives? Do they like me, or do they like the services I provide for them? You know, if you're a wealthy guy, you know, and your wife stays home, you got to look and say, okay, does she love me, or does she love the lifestyle I provide, right? A woman who's very attractive has got to say, does my husband love me or does he just love my attractiveness and how high status I make him look and how other men envy? Are you loved for yourself and your original thoughts or are you loved for compliance with the needs and preferences of others? Well, you can't be loved for compliance. That's really tough. Just because you fit in, it doesn't mean you're in the right place. It's a great little picture of.
[31:54] The plates integrate plate integrate all right it was 1959 bertrand russell has a message to future generations of humans if you want to be a free thinker here's the first principle so this is very interesting because i love the fact that all of these old videos it's like in the end times the dead arise from their graves right in the sort of end times of christianity and social meter and in particular twitter or x is a resurrection of the dead and the gone it's a resurrection of the dead and the gone so this is a question that bertrand russell there's some film footage somewhere from 1959 and it is back it's like it's incredible to see all of this old footage all of these old lives just come back to life through social media it is a resurrection of the dead this film were to be looked at by our descendants like a dead sea scroll in a thousand years' time, what would you think it's worth telling that generation about the life you've lived and the lessons you've learned from it? I should like to say two things, one intellectual and one moral. The intellectual thing I should want to say to them is this.
[33:05] When you are studying any matter or considering any philosophy, ask yourself only what are the facts and what is the truth that the facts bearer. Never let yourself be diverted either by what you wish to believe or by what you think could have been efficient social effects if it were believed yeah so I mean that's very foundational to some degree it's funny because it's kind of how I was raised and you know while I didn't enjoy boarding school from the age of 6 to 8, this was very much old school British education so I was very much raised to believe you know tell the truth though the skies fall tell the truth and shame the devil that the truth shall set you free and that you had to resist the boogeyman of imaginary negative effects. Well, if this is perceived to be true, then negative effects will occur because that's just a boogeyman that can be used to chase away any rational thought at all. Any thought whatsoever can be run through the boogeyman of negative effects, which is why utilitarianism is a form of censorship, right? So utilitarianism is we judge an idea not by its truth value, but by its utility and positive effects on society, but you can just create a scenario wherein there will be negative effects and then you can censor, right? So this is kind of how I was raised. And, you know, one of the things that is different, I mean, my brother went to boarding school, but he sure as heck became a subjectivist and relativist. So maybe, I don't know, maybe it was just my...
[34:34] I don't know. I mean, certainly getting into philosophy at 15 was a huge help. But this idea that you just look at the truth of things and just, you know, follow a reason wherever reason and evidence leads and don't be chased away by the hand puppet boogeyman of negative effects or what you want to be true. So this is really, this was really valuable to me. And I remember when I was in boarding school, the professor was very, sorry, the headmaster was very old school, you You know, it looked like he was a lord in some room in Downton Abbey or the Crown or something like that. And there was this just pursued truth. And it's so much simpler. It's so much simpler than all of this nonsense about, well, what could be the positive or negative effects of X, Y, and Z? Okay, well, what about fire? Well, fire could burn people, so let's not have fire. We have magic rocks that produce electricity, but occasionally they get destabilized, so let's not have them. I mean, just negative effects, negative effects. If you start to focus on negative effects, you simply cannot have any progress in society as a whole. You can look only and solely at what are the facts. That is the intellectual thing that I should wish to say. The moral thing I should wish to say to them is very simple. I should say, love is wise, hatred is foolish. Yeah, I mean, so I'm very much with the epistemology here and the metaphysics. But the ethics, love is wise, hatred is foolish.
[36:02] But love and hatred are two sides of the same coin. You know, I can't love people without having negative emotions towards those who do them harm.
[36:17] This emasculation of anger or hatred or any sort of negative emotions is really, it leaves a society with no immune system whatsoever. You're not allowed to get angry at people. You're not allowed to hate anyone, and therefore you can't resist anything. And those of less refined and abstract sentiments, and this tells me this is somebody who lived his life, and he did, of course, Bertrand Russell did live his life in a very refined and abstract and academic air.
[36:50] So the idea that we have these positive emotions that come from morality, we have these negative emotions that come from the devil or our lizard brain or our animal nature and so on, and we must only embrace the positive emotions. We cannot have the negative emotions. It's like saying, well, I do want all of the parts of my body that build muscle and keep me healthy, but I don't want any of the parts of my body that repel negative bacteria or viruses or tumors or whatever that attack me. It's like, no, no, your body survives on love of healthy cells and anger and contempt, in a sense, hatred towards dangerous cells. That's the only way we survive. So anyway, let's just go back a sec here.
[37:30] Hatred is foolish. In this world, which is getting more and more closely interconnected, we have to learn to tolerate each other. We have to learn to put up with the fact that some people say things that we don't like. We can only live together in that way. But if we are to live together and not die together, we must learn a kind of charity and a kind of tolerance, which is absolutely vital to the continuation of human life. Okay, so this goes right back to the paradox of tolerance, right? It's sort of a well-known philosophical problem which nobody can solve because it is unsolvable. So he's saying, well, we have to be tolerant and we have to accept that people say things we don't like and so on. Okay, all right. So then, and if we don't do that, we are destroyed as a species. Like it is a world extinction event. Intolerance is a world extinction event. Okay, well, then what do we do with people who are intolerant? Well, you have to love and you have to be tolerant. Okay, well, what do we do with people who hate and are intolerant and will, you know, attack people and set fire to buildings and threaten with bombs and destruction, public speakers? I mean, you know, I've been subject to some of these things. So what do we do with the intolerant? If the intolerant will cause, according to Bertrand Russell here, if the intolerant will cause the extinction of life on earth.
[38:54] Are we not allowed to to be angry with people who could end like according to his own logic are we not allowed to be angry or to hate people who will cause the end and extinction of life on earth come on and and this obviously he's this is just a guy who likes saying things that sound good and he's a far too intelligent a man to not understand the tolerance paradox right that if tolerance is such a virtue then what do we do with people who are intolerant well we have to You have to be intolerant of the tolerant in order for tolerance to be enacted as a virtue. And so the fact that he would say this pathetic drivel is really just insulting to the entire question of philosophy. I can do this on a show. And I'll just stop here. I'll do one more. I mentioned this on the show yesterday. Here's the chart. So if you bought $100 worth of Bitcoin every time the media called it dead, you'd have almost $100 million right now.
[39:51] If you bought $100 worth of Bitcoin every time, the media said it was dead, you'd have $100 million right now. So the media, following the media, is just staying poor. It's just staying poor. Somebody says, I filmed a liberal activist trying to retrieve her iPhone back from the homeless that possibly stole it. She's encouraged them to sell anything they steal from rich scum, but that she's nice and honest and needs it back.
[40:17] So what does she have to say what does she have to say basically i am not if you stole it from rich scum by all means keep it and sell it but i'm like like yeah and um i want to say if you guys come up with my iphone i will give you more than like i'm an honest person basically i am not if you yeah so um she's going to try and reason with people because she's been around sort of civilized men who care about what women feel about and care about. So she's trying to plea for reason with people who are homeless. Now, of course, not that all homeless people are irrational, but this idea that you just plea, this is people like their amygdala, their sense of danger is completely defunct.
[41:06] And of course, the idea that, well, I'm a nice person, but you can steal from the rich scum, right? Well, you understand this woman, right? The fact that she has an iPhone means that she is rich relative to these homeless people, right? Who are in a graffiti filled trash heap of a bus shelter picking their nose, right? So she is rich scum to these people. So the idea that, you know, I'm going to just deflect these people into stealing from others and reason with them and say, no, no, no, I'm one of you. I'm on your side. I'm really nice and honest and all of that. And I need it back and so on. It's like, it's wild. It's wild when people move out of a circle they can manipulate into a circle they simply cannot manipulate. This is sort of like when people who grow up kind of spoiled and bratty and they manipulate their parents and they're giving them what they want. And then they go to someplace, usually if it's a manual labor job, they go to someplace where they can't manipulate things. And there's this existential panic that kicks in. You can see this panic, right? She just wants her phone back and she's hoping to just reason with people who really can't be reasoned with. So anyway, I hope that helps. I appreciate everyone.
[42:19] Your time, care and attention, freedomand.com slash donate to help out the show. Let me know if you enjoy these kinds of shows. And I will then continue to, quote, be productive by bookmarking things I find interesting. So lots of love from up here, guys. Talk to you soon. Bye.
Support the show, using a variety of donation methods
Support the show
