Tom Woods began by recalling Stefan Molyneux’s earlier days as a prominent philosophy podcaster and the deplatforming that followed. They talked about how the Overton window had moved, with ideas that once got him removed now discussed more openly in other places.
Molyneux noted that his deplatforming actually helped spread his arguments and sparked curiosity about his work. When he returned to Twitter, now X, he found many of the views that had seemed extreme were now widely held. He felt that being erased from platforms ended up drawing more attention to what he had to say.
They also touched on their shared experience filling in for Peter Schiff on radio. Molyneux said that work broadened his audience and gave him a new respect for live radio, with its demands of handling callers, managing breaks, and keeping to time.
He explained how he built Freedomain largely on his own, without institutional backing. Drawing on his background in theater, history, business, sales, marketing, and technical skills, he spent years promoting the show himself. His goal was to make philosophy something practical that people could actually use in their lives.
Growth picked up when he started covering politics and current events, particularly through his True News segments and series on Donald Trump. He pointed to the Truth About series as a key development, and mentioned that a recent episode on marijuana followed the same approach.
The conversation moved to call-in shows and the role of childhood. Molyneux said callers often raised personal struggles, and he would trace them back to early experiences, loneliness, and family dynamics. He argued that recognizing these roots helps people stop blaming themselves and start making changes.
He also spoke about challenges facing young men, male development, and what he described as institutional bias against boys. He stressed that boys need guidance, physical activity, and male role models, linking difficulties to school systems, single motherhood, and higher education.
A central theme in his work, he said, has been exposing hidden forms of violence and coercion in family life, politics, money, and social structures. He believes his main contribution has been helping people see the kinds of violence they have come to accept as normal.
He concluded that real progress comes through peaceful parenting, voluntary families, and gradual cultural shifts. He directed listeners to his website and reaffirmed his commitment to the long project of human liberation.
0:00:03 - Introduction
0:11:48 - Philosophy Meets Politics
0:16:27 - Helping Lost Young Men
0:28:06 - Masculinity and Purpose
0:32:41 - Boys Face Bias
0:34:02 - Schools and AI Collapse
0:35:57 - Entrepreneurship as Escape
0:37:11 - Lowering Marriage Risk
0:40:55 - Legacy of Exposing Violence
0:46:03 - Voluntary Families and Peace
0:47:30 - Reputation and Smears
0:51:53 - Leftist Power Explained
0:55:39 - Root Causes and Resentment
1:03:03 - Still Standing Strong
[0:00:00] Hey everybody, Tom Woods here. It's episode 2779 of The Tom Woods Show. And joining me, as you can see, those of you who are watching on screen, is Stefan Molyneux, a name and face you surely recognize. We might say that for a period of time, there is no doubt whatsoever that Stefan Molyneux hosted the biggest philosophy show on the planet, probably in the history of the world, in terms of downloads and every other metric you can possibly imagine.
[0:00:31] And then Stefan Molyneux ran afoul of the, I don't know what you want to call them, the thought police, whatever, and suddenly you couldn't find him anywhere. And yet, and I'm sure we'll get to this, I see people on a regular basis, on a regular basis, on so-called X or the old Twitter, saying things that make Stefan Molyneux look like Mitt Romney. And this goes on every single day and there are no consequences. So it must have been an interesting thing for you to observe the Overton window shifting, kind of over to where you were when they kicked you off everywhere and then continuing to shift. And meanwhile, you've got all these people popping up who are kind of sounding like you and are not really suffering those kinds of consequences. So it's kind of like you hit... At just the wrong moment in terms of when this was done to you was almost just the wrong moment. You know what I'm saying?
[0:01:32] Yeah. I mean, it's an interesting question. I actually had to grow a beard much like you. I got so deplatformed and so removed from screens. I couldn't even use the mirror. It was just appalling. I became a vampire. They even got to my mirror. So yeah, it's a funny thing. I think that the impact of my deplatforming scattered the ideas and arguments that I was making for many years, of course, far and wide. You know, there is this kind of cliche that you want to get flat when you're over the target. And so it's almost like a self-sacrificial, you know, take me down. So borrow me a style so the hobbits can escape or, or take me down so that the ideas can spread because I was off all the major platforms. I probably got like 20 places in a very coordinated effort by whoever, whoever, right? Somebody above the clouds pulling the strings.
[0:02:22] And my daughter was the one who actually convinced me and made a very good argument as to return to Twitter. And so then when I returned to Twitter and was sort of browsing around and looking at things, I was like, what planet have I returned to? Because everything that was absolutely cliff edge, leaning into the abyss stuff, when I was back on X in 2020 had just become like, well, you just toss it off like a nice weather for this time of year. And the Overton window had moved. Was it the right time, the wrong time? I don't know. I mean, I have a billion views and downloads and yeah, like I was top of the heap as far as things go that way.
[0:03:05] And I think that my unpersoning, you know, you've seen that picture of Stalin with the guy by the river and then he's erased. So now everyone's like, hey, who was that guy? Who was That guy who was there and not there, and why was he worth erasing?
[0:03:19] Because now it's just a picture of a river.
[0:03:21] It is! Oh, it's just even Stalin's gone. Yeah. So when there's a giant smoking crater where a prominent person used to be, especially for, I say the young folks, I'm going to be 60 in a couple of months. So yeah, the young folks are like, well, if he's hated by the powers that be, he's got to have something of value to say. And so it was, you know, I don't want to say martyrdom because, you know, I still have a pretty great life, but there definitely was this, oh, wow, he got nuked from orbit. Let's go look at the smoking crater and see what was going on. And I think it actually, not quite the Streisand effect, but I think it drew, arguments that I was making more to the center of people's minds.
[0:04:07] Well, we'll get to that in a second. And I feel like most people listening to me will know you, but some people who, let's say, maybe came to our, I don't know if you want to call it our movement or what, but more recently might not be familiar with you. So we are going to talk about things you think and ideas that you associate with yourself that maybe you're particularly proud of and get to all that. But you and I have an interesting thing in common in that one of the things, just one, but a significant one, one of the ways that we came to be more widely known is. Was that you and I both used to fill in for Peter Schiff when he had a terrestrial radio show. And I don't know if you've had the same experience I have, Stefan, but I have people, you know, even today telling me, this was like 17 years ago or something, 16 years ago. I have people today telling me, I first heard about you through Peter Schiff. Did you have the same experience?
[0:05:02] Oh, absolutely. Yeah. I love Peter. We have diverged on things like Bitcoin fairly considerably, but that's relatively minor given to our criticisms of central banking and Federal Reserve and money creation and so on. So all the sort of hypnotic illusion of the modern economy that seems like something until you actually look at the numbers and it's just this mirage over a bottomless hole of debt. So, yeah, I love Peter. I did a debate with him about Bitcoin, I think, over 10 years ago. And so, yeah, well, he's a gold guy. I'm a Bitcoin guy. It's relatively minor disagreement. But yeah, Peter has been a great guy. And he was one of the few people who did actually have me on after the deplatforming and he's, whether that's courage or blindness to general movements, I'm going to go with the former because he seems like a great guy. But yeah, we love Peter. And yeah, we both did his radio show. And this was the first time that I'd worked with things like commercial breaks and callers and so on. And having people you could call to say, hey, can you bring up this cue? And it was really, it gave me great respect for the radio host because, you know, we can just yammer without interruptions, without a clock, without, oh, got to bring this segment to a close. And so it is really quite a tap dance on the terrestrial radio side of things. And I was glad to have that experience.
[0:06:16] So was I. They make it look easy. But then after a few times of doing it, I felt like a pro. I'm ready. I know when the break is. I know how to start shutting up the guests. I know how to, you know, but there would be little challenges like, well, it's one minute to the break. I can't go to the break now. I can't ask anything significant now. So I probably have to riff for about 45 seconds. I mean, it's just, it is interesting. You have to adapt yourself to that. But one thing that impresses me about what you did in building up Freedomain, is, I mean, I, look, I had some institutional support. Ron Paul liked me. And now that didn't come from nowhere. That was a part of a function of my work over the years. But still, he amplified me, which helped. And, you know, I was at the Mises Institute. And so I had some institutional support. You did not have institutional support. I mean, yes, you had people who would, you know, share your articles, stuff like that, because you used to write more than you do. So you would have that.
[0:07:18] But you really built this thing yourself. I don't want to compare you to Alex Jones because you're a completely different kind of person, but I can compare you to him in the sense that he had everybody in the world against him. Nobody wants to touch him with a 10-foot pole. And somehow he built something that all his enemies would slit the throats of their own grandmother to have, you know, and you kind of did the same thing. And it's I mean, the growth that you had from zero to this incredible thing, even forgetting about the later cancellation, what do you attribute that to?
[0:07:53] Don't ask about my grandmother. No. So, well, I had, of course, the great good fortune or experience that for many years I was in the business world and I did sales, marketing. I was chief technical officer. Before that, of course, I have a graduate degree in history, really focusing on the history of philosophy. And before that, I was in the theater world. I did acting, playwriting. I went to the National Theater School. So, yeah, I had voiced. I had a good coincidence of things like I had some voice training. I had entrepreneurial experience beforehand. And I knew how important marketing was because the job that I had before I vaulted into full-time podcasting was a director of marketing. So I knew how to bootstrap stuff up and get it into the public eye. And, you know, everybody looks at the beginnings of shows like, oh, so glamorous and so on. But it's like, you know, if you're starting out as a band, right, like a music band, you spend most of your time driving and setting up equipment for, you know, a cozy 90 minute set. And then you go to the next town and most of your time is not doing music. It is just getting ready for and all of that. It's the same thing with podcasting back in the day without institutional support.
[0:09:06] And I mean, remember, I started in 2006. It was like crazy. Well, I started 2005 and then I sort of went full time 2006, 2007. So there really was no institutional support back then. I was like the third guy on YouTube, and so there was no structure to build these kinds of things up. So, I did the usual boring grind that you have to do when you have something great. You know, you think of MC Hammer back in the 80s and 90s, he was roaming around clubs with his home-pressed records in the back of a trunk, just begging DJs to play his song, and there's just a lot of background stuff, you know, and that sort of 10-year overnight success stuff. So I'd spend like 80% of my time just promoting the show, you know, going to websites, going to forums, emailing people, and, you know, coming up with catchy stuff to get people to start listening to the show. So you just have to do a lot of, it's kind of dull stuff, it's necessary stuff. And that way you can get things into prominence.
[0:10:05] And you do that because, at least I did that, because I really feel that rational philosophy was not particularly actionable. It's one of the things that's kind of frustrated me about philosophy over the course of history is, you know, a lot of interesting debates, metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics, and all of that. But how much of it is actionable? And how much of it can you directly use to improve the quality of your own life? How much of it is tire spinning in air? And how much of it is actually on the track getting you somewhere? So I really felt that after 3000 years of philosophy, the philosophy should be doing a whole lot more. If you compare that to something like Christianity, which even over the course of Jesus's life and shortly thereafter was transforming lives by the millions and now by the billions. And it's like, well, why is philosophy not able to keep up with that kind of track record and bring some of the values of rational debate and reason and evidence to people's lives? So I really felt a sort of yearning, burning hunger to bring practical philosophy to people as a whole in a way that was digestible. You know, we have to start teaching philosophy and ethics to kids as young as two and three years old, like, you know, don't bite, don't hit, don't grab, don't steal, don't push, all of that kind of stuff.
[0:11:18] And, you know, reading through someone like Schopenhauer or Heidegger, it's not exactly kindergarten friendly stuff. So I really wanted to make it more accessible, more practical, more useful to people as a whole. And that just became this crazy burning mission for me that guided everything I did every day. And, you know, if you have a big enough goal, you'll do any sacrifice to get there. And so I did the boring stuff and built it up just based upon a whole lot of practical entrepreneurial, technical and marketing experience.
[0:11:48] Was the growth consistent and gradual, or were there occasional spikes, and what caused the spikes?
[0:11:56] Oh, there was very little growth, really, as a whole, until I turned the beady laser eyes of philosophy to politics. And so I started doing a segment called True News, where I started analyzing, current events, and then the focus on politics and current events really boosted the show. Like it was growing a little here and there, but, you know, people think abstract philosophy is not particularly gripping. But when you take philosophical principles, you bring them to current events and to politics. There was a big boost there. And then I would say the biggest thing was 2015, 2016. I did a whole series of videos on the lies about Donald Trump. And people, it's funny, you know, again, this is just sort of a false dichotomy people have. People say, oh, my gosh, you must have been rabidly pro-Trump. And it's like, no, I just didn't like the fact that the media lied about everyone, including me. Like I'd been in the media and just sort of live...
[0:12:49] You have a certain kinship with people who have the same experience.
[0:12:52] That's right. That's right. So, so, you know, I'll, I'll play communist. I'll play tennis with someone I disagree with because we have tennis in common. And if someone's lied about in the media, then I don't mind exposing those. Lies because it helps discredit a pretty pernicious element in society, which is the modern media, which is all agenda driven, everything for the revolution, nothing for the truth. And so because I put out, they were called the untruths about Donald Trump. I think it was a three part series, got like millions and millions of views. And that brought people to my truth about series and my truth about series. I did the truth about just about everything under the George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Joseph McCarthy. I did the truth about series, the truth about the Crusades and the truth about the fall of Rome and things like that. So the sort of the blue screen PowerPoint presentations, I actually just did the Truth About Marijuana a couple of days ago, which is being received with a great alarm by habitual weed heads, which I hope will help change their minds about the dangers of marijuana.
[0:13:56] So, yeah, that really began to boost things. And I think because I pushed back so effectively against the lies of the media in 2016, they didn't seem to want me around too much in 2020. I don't know, that four-year thing, I was trying to map it out, you know, crazy charts on the wall, and I couldn't figure out the pattern. Maybe you can help me out 2020. They just seemed to want to despawn me and deactivate me and send me out to the outer rim and they did very, very effectively. And then, you know, I, I went from playing stadiums to playing coffee houses, which is fine. You know, it's still, it's still music. And so I worked with the core audience. I wrote four more books and, and now I'm sort of coming back a little, a little bit here.
[0:14:44] So I went down to Sam Hyde. I don't know if you know, he's a pretty wild comedian. And I went down to Sam Hyde's show in January, and then that came out, and that's been doing fairly well. And YouTube has even invited people back. Not me personally. That's a little too far. It's a pretty little too far. But YouTube have said, you know, sorry, we went a little bit overboard with the censorship. I mean, we can't give you a channel back, but, you know, come on back. Now, I don't know if this is like, you know, Chairman Mao's let a thousand flowers bloom so that we can cut them down later. But it seems like some of the more hysterical censorship stuff has eased off as these things tend to peak and fall. So it looks like there is more scope for the kinds of stuff that I was talking about before now than before. So we'll see how that goes.
[0:15:34] How many subscribers you have on YouTube when they canceled you?
[0:15:37] Oh, it was a funny game that YouTube and I were playing, Tom. It was really wild. So if I got to a million subscribers, they'd have to send me a plaque.
[0:15:47] Oh, they can't do that.
[0:15:49] So it was it was like it was like watching the fox and the grapes, you know, like I'm reaching up to try and get that. And they're like, oh, you seem to have lost some subscribers. And so I do a big show and I get a bunch of subscribers to say, oh, you seem to have lost some subscribers again. And we just did this ragged edge dance around a million for I think well over a year. But, yeah, I mean, I had, you know, two plus million subscribers overall, like on social media as as a whole. And but yeah they never they never quite wanted to trigger that that plaque uh to to me. So, it was a funny dance, like I remember seeing it. Like, oh getting close! What are they gonna do? Oh surprise it's gone again.
[0:16:27] Okay. Well, that sounds incredibly petty, but that also sounds exactly like these people. So we cannot rule that out. Now, let me ask you about, we could do a whole show on this and I don't really want to, but Jordan Peterson has become associated with one particular thing. Even though he has opinions on a wide range of topics and he's not right about everything. And he's not good at everything, by the way. He shouldn't debate Marxism. I think he got to the point where he felt infallible. He's great at everything. He's not. But what we associate him with is young men feeling aimless and useless, and he connects with them. That's the thing we think of when we, we don't think about Zionism. What we really think about is that, that that was what he tried to do was connect with them. Now that you have, you know, you have the call in shows where people can call in and say, I'm having this problem and I don't know what to do about it. And you help them. Do you think of yourself as playing in that limited sense, a kind of Jordan Peterson role? Not that your call ins are just for men, far from it. But do you see yourself as being a kindred spirit on that particular issue?
[0:17:43] It's interesting. Yeah. So the call-in shows were just, I really like chatting with people. I love having conversations. Philosophy is a conversation and reason and evidence are a social collective endeavor. Everybody who isolates themselves goes mad because we always need other people to bounce ideas and thoughts off and get feedback. So the call-in shows were just like, hey, I really like talking to people. Also, they're easier because, you know, I don't have to do research. Like I don't have to do all these graphs and sources and math. And so it's not quite laziness. It's a public service, Tom. But it also happens to coincide with something that takes a lot less labor because if somebody calls in and they just have a question or a challenge or a problem, I can just roll with that. So it's nice that way. But it was never designed to be for people's personal problems. It wasn't like there's nothing in the call in show format, which says you can't call me up to debate ethics or determinism or free will or whatever the nature of reality. And in fact, I just had one yesterday where we went through the question of does infinity exist? It's a great, interesting, challenging question.
[0:18:53] But what I found was that when I talked about things like childhood, you know, this is nothing new in particular as the old poem, that the child is the father of the man, that childhood experiences have a huge impact on adulthood, particularly in the realm of good relationships, productive work environments. And at the more extreme end, you know, things like criminality is often associated with childhood trauma, addiction, hypersexuality, and all other sorts of dysregulated dysfunctions. And so the fact that I was willing to talk about childhood, which, again, has really frustrated me in the history of philosophy, very few philosophers have talked about childhood. Like, can you be easily rational if you were raised by crazy people? Can you be really peaceful if you were raised in a situation of chaos and violence? And the statistics for child abuse are fairly appalling as a whole. I mean, much better now than they used to be in the past, but they're fairly appalling.
[0:20:00] And so the idea that the child is the father of the man, the child is the mother of the woman. So the fact that I was willing to talk about childhood and its effects is a conversation that should be happening in society. But I was very happy to talk about these kinds of things. I've gone through talk therapy myself, and I have a lot of exposure to these kinds of ideas. I've been sort of studying self-knowledge and all of that since I was in my teens. So I think I have some useful principles to bring to bear on this kind of stuff. And so when people called in and they wanted to talk about their childhoods or they wanted to talk about their adult problems, you know, someone calls up and says, you know, I'm lonely and I can't talk to people and so on. Well, I mean, you're not born that if you're born that way, there's nothing you can do it. Like if somebody calls up and says, I'm I'm short or I'm tall, it's like, well, philosophy can't rewire that or I can't change that. But why would somebody be lonely and isolated? Well, I would assume it would be for the same reason that I don't speak Japanese because I didn't grow up speaking Japanese. And so if somebody is lonely and isolated, we assume, or at least the first place to ask the question is, were you lonely and isolated as a child? And if you were lonely and isolated as a child, then that's probably a good reason as to why you're that way. And then you have a causality and then you stop blaming yourself. Like I don't wake up every morning and say, I'm such an idiot. I don't even speak Japanese. It's like, well, I didn't grow up with Japanese and I haven't put in the 10 years needed to study it so I don't blame myself. That's just the way that I was raised.
[0:21:28] And stopping attacking yourself for deficiencies, putting the causality on childhood, then frees you up to stop attacking yourself and start actually fixing the problem. Because you can't really fix the problem if you just attack yourself. And it's funny because I remember many years ago, you did a very interesting show that really stuck in my head. You do lots of very interesting shows, but one of them that stuck in my head was when you were talking about losing weight. And you said that as a guy who wasn't super tall, you felt that if you were a bigger person, you would have more weight and impact. And I don't know if you remember that.
[0:22:01] I think a lot that if I were taller and of larger build, for one thing, I would pick a lot more fights. When I see obnoxious people out in society, I would go over there and lecture them because they wouldn't dare say anything. And I've kind of taken it as, well, maybe it's on purpose that I'm not that way because all I would do is fight with people. But I have indeed thought about how my life would be different if I weren't 5'6 and the way I am.
[0:22:24] Right, right, right, right. And for me, losing my hair was a great advantage in life because I was a bit of a vain and shallow young stud muffin. So I actually grew up a lot better because of that. So I think that's one of those evolutionary things. Like all of the, so many of the man children that I talked to in their 40s have kept their thick head of hair and you don't really notice aging other than hair as a man in general, unless you gain a lot of weight. So, yeah, so I started doing that sort of call-in stuff, and that also really helped grow the show because to have information that is practical and can change your life for the better is, I mean, it's kind of catnip to the world as a whole, as it should be. And so the fact that I was able to bring some philosophical principles and self-knowledge principles to bear on people's actual lives, I think, really brought philosophy to life for people. And they're like, oh, this is not just an abstract ivory tower cloud-based discussion that's never going to change anything. It is something that can really help me improve my life.
[0:23:30] And the thou shalt bear false witness was really, really important to me growing up. You know, there were a couple of things I was told growing up, I was raised heavily Christian, and thou shalt not bear false witness and tell the truth and shame the devil, or tell the truth though the skies fall. Those two things were very, very important to me. And telling the truth about childhood and the good and bad experiences that we've all had, very important. And tell the truth though it shamed the devil or though the skies fall was very important to me because it gave me the sense that if you tell the truth, liars are going to hate you because you expose them. And I'm sure you've experienced this as well many times, that when you do good in the world, if the good actually really genuinely achieves something
[0:24:19] Well, how do you further the cause of virtue without harming the desires of vice? I don't think you can. Like, you can't do good, effective good in the world without harming the interests of evildoers. And, you know, When I was younger, I'd sort of strive forward confidently like, well, I have truth and righteousness and virtue and values on my side and I'm right and it's logical and so on. And then, you know, like most first time generals, you generally forget the basic thing that the enemy has their say as well. And what it was a basic calculation mistake that I made and one of many, but it was like, well, but I'm right. And you say, well, but I'm right. And it's true. And it's good. And it's proven. And I had all the charts and the value value data and all of that. And then you think, okay, so I can take on all comers. You know, if you're, you know, Mike Tyson in his prime, hungry for some earlobe, then you're pretty confident that whoever's going to come into the ring that you can beat them. So I kind of got myself into a trim fighting weight intellectually. I wrote a whole book on debating and I've been debating since I was in my teens.
[0:25:27] But they don't fight fair. Right. So, so that's the difference is that you say, okay, I'm ready for this boxing match. But then all they do is they just, uh, they slip you a poison or they, um, they call in an airstrike. Like you don't end up fighting in the ring. The Queensbury rules, you don't end up with a fair fight. And so because I had arguments that couldn't be answered, I had to be silenced. Right. And, and that was a calculation error that in the hubris and overconfidence of being in the right, you think, okay, well, then the world is going to sway to my will because my will is aligned, but that is true and reasonable. But if they just can't beat you fairly, they'll just take you out unfairly. And that obviously has been a pretty valid strategy because it works quite well. Now, in the long run, it doesn't work particularly well as Galileo, Jesus, Socrates, and so on, Plato, Aristotle, all of the people who've been attacked for telling the truth. Not to put myself often too crazy, illustrious a company, but I'm a sort of minor example of a much larger pattern. But in the short run, you lose, but in the long run, the truth, I believe, does win.
[0:26:34] In part, I ask you that question because I do read your so-called ex feed and, you know, some of it has to do with the angst between the sexes, you know, and women tend to be this way and men struggle with such and such and all that. And I was just what I what I want to know is suppose I mean, and obviously it depends on the circumstances. You can't give me a generic response, but still, I don't know, maybe you could try. I'm imagining if in 2026, a young man, let's say a 20 year old man calls you up and his and he just seems like purposeless and aimless and he's searching for something to anchor his life to. And he he looks around at social media and everybody seems to have everything put together except him, you know, and and he he finds the opposite sex to be hopeless. And impossible and the you know the the dating world is impossible and and you know he looks to his future and it you know it seems like um, you know he's worried about the price of homes and all that and it seems like everything is organized against him in some way like even if it isn't deliberately done that way if it were it would look exactly like this, so how do you, if somebody calls you who's in that kind of despair, how do you orient somebody like that? Because as I say, that's the Jordan Peterson demographic.
[0:28:03] How do you, where do you even start?
[0:28:07] Yeah, it's a big question. I don't believe that the place to start is to tidy your room. I mean, it's not a bad thing to do to tidy your room, but I don't think it's really the central place to start. What is it that motivates human beings as a whole and young men in particular? Well, young men are hungry, ambitious, want to conquer the world, want to do good and fight evil. Like, well, what are all the games that we played as kids? Cowboys and Indians, cops and robbers. You know we used to play world war one scenario games with tennis balls and and so on and so young men want to take on the world to do good fight the bad guys promote virtue and and so on, and that has been you know progressively kind of squished and sandwiched, a society that cannot tame and channel the aggression of young men is doomed, is doomed. We need that level of aggression. I mean, not violence. I'm talking about violence, but assertiveness, aggression, and so on.
[0:29:07] Now, a big problem, of course, is that young men grow up in highly gynocentric environments, right? So the vast majority of people who teach kids' daycare and primary school and so on. Vast majority are women. So you're under the thumb of females, which, you know, that's fine. It's not the end of the world, but there's not male authority. There's not male mentors and so on. And then, you know, maybe you'll start to get some male teachers in high school and so on. But the other problem is that the rise of single motherhood means that boys are growing up without a father, because without fathers. And unfortunately for single mothers, the men who kind of parade through the household tend to be of lower quality because higher quality men don't generally want to spend their time, energy, and resources raising other men's children. So usually they're just there for sexual access or dating frivolously and so on.
[0:30:02] So, for the kids of single moms, they generally don't get much access to quality male role models. And single mothers tend to cluster because they tend to be rather poor. So they tend to cluster around other single mothers. So you just don't see a lot of males around that are high quality. And then you don't have any particular mentors. So then you don't really know what to do with your masculine energy. And we know, I mean, just statistically and factually, that most female teachers are prejudiced against boys. Because when you take the gender or you take the sex off the essay that's handed in or the test that's handed in, boys get mocked better if the female teachers don't know that they're boys. So female teachers mock down boys and mock up girls. If you look at something like the rise of ADHD, to me, ADHD is just boys. It's a complicated, some Roman SPQR way of spelling boys. Because boys are not designed to sit nicely in a chair for six hours at the age of six. We are climbing trees. We are roaming around. We are building things. That's all we wanted to do and there used to be some understanding of this. It gives kids a lot of physical activity and and so on. And actual hands-on stuff, like, boys learn generally by doing. Girls learn a little bit more by reading and seeing.
[0:31:23] And of course the majority of, or a disproportionate number of ADHD diagnoses are just boys who are younger, right? Just younger boys can, because, you know, the difference between early six and late six is quite considerable in terms of brain development. I mean, it's like 10, 15% of their life.
[0:31:38] So, I think that boys do face a lot of hostility and opposition. And, you know, they're associated with the patriarchy, which is bad. And boys are just considered to be like broken girls. Like, why are you so loud? Why don't you sit still? Why do you keep whispering? Why do you lose track? Why don't you pay attention and all of that? So boys are just sort of seen as defective girls. And that's really tough if the females around you, if your single mother associates you with the man who left or whatever it is, then you get some negative feedback from your single moms. If you're surrounded by a bunch of single moms, like in your environment, they're all kind of bitter towards men for the most part. And then you have teachers who kind of put you down and then you, you know, maybe you make it to university and then in university you're told, particularly if you're white male, that you're an evil part of the patriarchy and a colonizer and a slave owner and an oppressor and so on. And it's just, man, it's just, I mean, it just seems in particular towards boys, there's just a massive amount of institutional bias and just frankly, verbal abuse towards boys.
[0:32:41] And girls are promoted and girls are... they're liked very much. They're viewed as positive role models. And that's fine for girls. I mean, good. You know, I have a daughter and you have daughters and we like all of that sort of stuff. But, you know, if I had a son and when in talking to dads in my social circle, they are concerned about their sons. They are concerned about institutional bias. They're concerned about sexism against boys. I'm sure you saw this statistic recently that like over 90% of the jobs created since COVID went to women. And when women get jobs, they don't form families. In fact, they tend to delay forming families. When men get jobs, they tend to form families. It's sort of a general principle of sociology that when men come into money, they tend to found families. When women come into money, they tend to delay the foundation of families, which does have something to do with the birth rate decline and so on. So I think that young men are facing a very hard uphill battle. Now, the good news for me, at least, is that the kind of men who listen to me tend to be very smart.
[0:33:49] I'm not trying to sort of praise my own show. It's just, you know, we deal with complicated topics and math and statistics and data and syllogisms and so on. So it tends to be high IQ males and females who listen to what I do. So they have options.
[0:34:03] And so every government program in the long run achieves the opposite of its stated goals. Right. So communism says we want equality. It ends up with wild inequality. Communism says it wants peace. It ends up with war and gulags and and so on. And so we know that government programs lead to the opposite of their stated goals, as violence does. You know, some guy says, I'm going to bully my girlfriend into staying and loving me. Well, then she ends up getting away or hating you. Right. Or both. And so the good news is that by being very anti-male, it's going to push more males into the entrepreneurial world. Like if you can't get a job, you have to make a job. And there's not anything about that, of course, in government schools. They don't want to teach you to be independent of the system and so on. And higher education has become, particularly in the arts, just a ridiculous joke. I mean, Tom, can you understand this? I know you're a very well-educated man. Have you heard this stuff when you get take-home exams in the age of AI? Have you heard this stuff?
[0:35:04] Oh, yeah. So I saw the thing where they gave the take-home exam for the midterm. And then for the final, suddenly it was, oh, by the way, you have to come in for that. And the first one, everybody did great. The second one was a catastrophe.
[0:35:19] There were three people out of the whole class. And it was not a small class. There were three people who weren't cheating. Now, I'm not saying that's necessarily how you find the autistic people, but it could be. It could be a little bit. But yeah, so higher education is completely imploding in and of itself, because, you know, it used to be 10% of the creme de la creme went to higher education. Now it's 50%. So, you know, putting somebody on the basketball team doesn't make them taller and putting someone in university doesn't make them smarter. And so they've just had to lower the standards. And now with AI, it's all become nonsense. And so hopefully that's all going the way of the dodo and people can actually learn in productive ways through experience and reason.
[0:35:58] But so, yeah, so for my audience, I'm sort of trying to give across business skills. I do, you know, public business consultations about I've been an entrepreneur for like 30 years. I know a little bit of my way around the playground. So I really do try to help people understand it's actually not that hard to build your own business. It's very satisfying. It's very productive. And you don't even need that great an idea. You just need follow through commitment, conscientiousness and hard work and in market research and all of that sort of stuff. And so most of my audience can absolutely make the transition to an entrepreneurial life. And I've known a whole bunch of them who have, and I've certainly helped a bunch of people ahead and behind the scenes in that process. And it's kind of like what happened in South Africa when whites were excluded from government contracts and whites were excluded from a lot of jobs. And then the whites just became entrepreneurs. And then you end up better off thereby. So it's just that bob and weave and that judo, you know, roll with your enemies energy to end up with a victory. So I'm definitely trying to help people understand that.
[0:37:07] The entrepreneurial life is really the only life where you can stay in control.
[0:37:11] And the other thing, too, is that people mix all of this data together that is really, really paralyzing to people. So, you know, if you said, you know, boy, there's this lifelong danger of lung cancer. You'd be like, oh, my gosh, that's really dangerous. It's like, yeah, but take out the people who smoke and the people exposed to a bunch of asbestos and mold or whatever it is, right?
[0:37:32] Then your lifetime risks are actually very low. And when it comes to something like marriage, people say, oh, 50% marriage ends in divorce and it destroyed my father and it's just terrible. And you lose half your stuff and you get dragged through court and you get accused of terrible things. And that's all, that's all very true. And that's all very valid. But, but, and I've got a whole set of questions that people just need to ask and get answers to of people they date. I mean, if you have value alignments and, you look for people who are reasonably mature and you look for markers of mental health and stability and you can negotiate and you can, you know, if you disagree with someone, the first question to ask is, okay, explain my perspective. You don't have to agree with it, but at least explain my perspective so I know if you understand it. Just some basic life skills and all of that. If you do that, then your odds of divorce are like 5%.
[0:38:23] And so you can lower the odds of negative things by taking some basic data ahead of time. And if you do that, then you're in control of your life. But if you go into marriage thinking, well, everybody faces a 50-50 divorce risk, which isn't even quite true, but, there's things that you can do to lower your risk to the point where you gain far more benefits than risk because marriages, as you and I know, are just incredibly beneficial to both parties, in particular for men, right? We live longer, we have better mental health, we have more purpose and less depression and so on. So marriage is incredibly beneficial. And if you can get all those benefits with a less than 5% risk of divorce, why wouldn't you take that? But if people don't even know how to ask the right questions to lower the risks of danger, then it's like, well, you know, if you mix the people driving blindfolded with the people who were looking out the window, then risk of crashing seems way higher, but just take off the blindfolds and you're probably okay.
[0:39:26] You mentioned before your series, The Truth About, which is just such a brilliant idea, The Truth About. And I have a tongue-in-cheek e-book series called Your Facebook Friends Are Wrong About XYZ. That's a pretty good one, but yours is much, much pithier. But if you had to look back on all the stuff you've done, all the ideas that are associated with you, I wonder if there's one that you can pick out and say that you're the proudest of. Now, I'll say, by the way, that in terms of the various presentations you've done, I think my wife told you that she is a huge fan of your Bomb in the Brain series, which indeed has to do with childhood. She's a huge fan of that. And she said, I don't care what they ever say about him or whatever he says. I'm never not going to love him for that alone. But as you look back, I mean, it could have to do with parenting. It could have to do with UPB. Is there any one that you say, now that, if I had to just sum up my legacy in one thing, it would be that?
[0:40:29] Oof. That's a good question.
[0:40:33] Yeah, I know. I should have prepped you for that.
[0:40:34] No, no. I like the on-the-fly stuff. I'm jazz, not rehearsed. That's interesting.
[0:40:41] Think of it as like a call-in show, right? A caller just called in and said, come on now. What's your what's the thing that, it doesn't have to sum up your career, but that you're particularly proud of like that? You can't ever take that away from me. I did that.
[0:40:55] Yeah. So let me sort of give the reason why and then tell you what. So. The non-aggression principle is the barrier against the greatest evil in the world, which is the initiation of the use of violence. And everybody says that, oh yeah, violence is bad, but they don't realize how prevalent it is. So aggression against children is a form of violence. I made the case many years ago that spanking is a violation of the non-aggression principle. Politics is based upon coercion. Money printing is based upon counterfeiting, which is a form of theft, which is a form of coercion, debt, and so on. So our entire system is run like this giant inverted pyramid on the gun, on the gun in the room, which people spend their whole lives ignoring and pretending it's some sort of social contract or it's for the kid's own good and so on.
[0:41:48] So I think that showing the violence. It's like that old Monty Python, come see the violence inherent in the system. I think that's from the Holy Grail or something like that. But it's like, you know, you see those procedural shows, those like cop shows or whatever, and they go into some room where the murder happened and then they turn on that special light, some infrared thing that shows the blood everywhere, right? And that's sort of what I want to do is people can't change what they won't acknowledge. And you can't work to build a society that's less violent if you don't see the violence that's everywhere in your own society. So the various things that I've done to show people the violence that surrounds them that they don't see, that's been normalized, I think that is probably the greatest legacy in the long run. You know, until people see slaves as human beings and slavery is a great evil, you can't change into a less slave society. We don't have a non-slave society because we get to choose our own jobs. We're still largely enslaved, but we have a less slave society. So I would say that in the goal of building a peaceful world, my ideal, of course, as an anarcho-capitalist is a property rights-based, non-aggression-based, stateless society.
[0:43:11] And so how do we get there? Well, if you can't see the violence in the family, you can't see the violence in society, you can neither make the family more peaceful, nor society more peaceful. And so, of course, people are like, well, geez, we have this big abstract goal of a stateless society. Yes, I do. It's my very first article on Lou Rockwell back in 2005 was the stateless society, an examination of alternatives about how society could function in the absence of a centralized state.
[0:43:41] And so how do we get there? Well, you know, people far more competent than me, von Mises, Rothbard, and, you know, countless others, have made the case for, I mean, gosh, you could go back to the 19th century where people talking about the stateless society and the government's only grown bigger. And I'm a big one for cause and effect. If something isn't working, you have to figure out what's missing, what needs to change. And so very competent, brilliant people have made incredible cases for stateless society and it's not really taking root and government's getting bigger and bigger. So there has to be a factor that's not being taken into account, which is one of the reasons why I went towards childhood. Because if in our childhood we accept and worship coercive authority in the form of parents, then how are we supposed to go out into society and not have an automatic respect and deference to a centralized coercive authority called the state, right?
[0:44:38] So if you are taught the value of coercive authority as a child, then it's going to be very hard to overturn that in your mind because it feels like a betrayal of parenting and your childhood and your family values and so on. So recognizing that people's susceptibility to political power arises out of childhood experiences in the same way that you and I will never not know English, right? I mean, we can speak another language, but if somebody speaks to us in English, we'll always be able to understand it absent some catastrophic brain injury.
[0:45:12] So tracing the threads of our addiction to political power from early coercive experiences, I think is one of the best things that I've done. And the promotion of peaceful parenting, which it's a free book at peacefulparenting.com, the promotion of peaceful parenting and the promotion of the voluntary families. We want a voluntary society. We want a society when we're not forced to interact with people. We're not barred from interacting with people. And we have a society that flourishes on the non-initiation of force. And it's a peace and property rights. I don't mean pacifism because self-defense is fine. And so how do we get there? Well, we get there by teaching children the language of peace and reason from the beginning, not violence and subjugation, both in schools and in more extreme forms of religion where children are threatened with hell from an early age, which is terrifying.
[0:46:03] And so can we reason with children and can we show them peaceful, benevolent authority? Well, then they'll grow up and the state will seem like a very foreign concept. Whereas if we're just aggressive towards kids, then they will grow up thinking that aggression and authority is the only way things can be run. And then they're susceptible to state power. And this kills people by the hundreds of millions. I mean, democide, as you know, in the 20th century was a quarter of a billion people killed by their own governments, like, the deference to violent coercive power is dozens of major wars worth of bodies, not even counting wars, just in peacetime. So I think turning the family into a voluntary institution rather than a coercive institution, I think is the only way to turn in the long run society into a voluntary institution rather than a coercive institution. I'm not going to live to see it, but that's fine. I mean, most of these things, that you really want to change in society are multi-generational, But I think I have sort of cracked the code as to how we can get to a voluntary and peaceful society, which is the reformation of childhood. And of course, you know, good arguments, which I've had some and other people have had many as well. But I think the one missing ingredient is the childhood. And you can't have a voluntary society if you don't have a voluntary family. And a voluntary family means that we judge people by their virtues, not by their genetics.
[0:47:30] All right, I have a couple more things before I feel like I can let you go. The first one has to do with what actually happened to you, because I... I myself, you know, have have have attracted the I haven't had to deal with what you've had to deal with, but I've attracted negative attention from people.
[0:47:52] It's a nice way of saying that you managed it better than I did. It's a good thing. It's something to be proud of.
[0:47:59] It's that in the old days, for some reason, I cared what the libertarian movement thought. And I just shouldn't. I mean, I just say what you want to say and, you know, and say it the way you want to say who cares. Just say what you know, no one, no one can, you know, and the thing is, in particular, it was that I really felt like there should be nobody who dislikes me in the movement because I'm just putting forth the idea.
[0:48:21] And you are, to be fair, a very, very likable, charming fellow. So, I mean, it would take a fair amount of willpower to dislike you. I mean, what would be wrong with people? They would have had to hit their head or be hit by lightning or something.
[0:48:32] That's exactly what I said. That's how I feel. But it turns out like I it used to really fascinate me that there was a wing that like, you know, they would really, really like to see me dead. You know, it was a crazy thing. I mean, it was just crazy. But I don't I don't give these I don't give these people a single moment's thought. But what they would do is I would take some position that, yeah, it's probably jarring and jolting to most people. They haven't thought about it or they've been told it's a forbidden thing to think or say. And they would sum up my position by taking the wildest sentence they could find me saying about it and saying that's his position. Whereas even I, even with my own audience, I feel like sometimes I have to ease people into this one, you know? So if I took the wildest, craziest sentence I said in the midst of the hundreds of millions of sentences I've uttered over the course of my career, yeah, that would not be the way I would go about it. But if you want to discredit somebody, Of course, you think of the what's the craziest thing it's like. When they want to make you look ridiculous, they find the craziest photo of you they can, and they post that. As if we don't all have a crazy photo that was taken at that instantaneous moment when we were making a funny face. You know, like, as if we don't all know how cameras work. Or they do that...
[0:49:47] Or they even change the lighting and give you, like, that bottom-lit Hitchcock lighting and so on.
[0:49:51] I mean, sometimes I have enough bad pictures they don't even need to do that, but I don't know exactly what you're talking about. But anyway, but you were the victim of this because there are like certain Stefan Molyneux quotations that are out there. Do you believe such and such? And the answer is, yes, I do. But that is not the most charitable formulation of my views. So, I mean, is is that kind of what you feel like happened? Is that because I know that MailChimp threw you off because somebody on Twitter quoted one thing you said one thing in a career of millions of words, they quote seven, and that's all MailChimp... MailChimp's, uh, they're, they're terrible but um, do you see what I'm saying? Like, is it, is it that? Was it that they they just took like three little things here and there and to make it sound as terrible as possible and then instantly, well, sorry you're gone?
[0:50:49] Yeah. Well, I mean, you can destroy a career with seven words. I mean, and justly so. You know, if somebody comes, Bob comes along and says, well, I, as Bob, killed a hobo last night. Okay, well, that's, you know, that is a real--but it's only one of seven words over an entire career! It's like, yeah, but they're kind of important seven words, and so on. Or, you know, we could sort of come up with any number of sort of funny seven-word career-destroying things. That would be just! You know, like it takes a lifetime to build up a reputation, and it takes only a short time or a moment really to destroy it. Or like someone who's a serial killer can very justly say, hey, man, most of the time, like 99.9999% of my life, I wasn't killing anyone. I mean, I had to sleep. I had to eat.
[0:51:40] You know, Stefan, you're so generous to your enemies that you're sitting here coming up with plausible ways that you might say very few words that justify doing what was. But all right. Enough's enough.
[0:51:53] OK. So, so, so, the big... OK. So the big the big conflict, I think, other than politics and so on, which which I dipped into. I mean, the big part, the big, the big conflict is that on the left, they have the basic theory that all differences in outcomes are the result of bigotry. Right. So if women are paid less, that's just straight up sexism. If some like if if blacks are doing less well than East Asians, it's because of racism. Right. So every disparity in outcome in any group you want to aggregate is absolutely the result of racism, sexism, prejudice, hatred, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
[0:52:37] Now, that's just not true. I mean, we know this with the wage gap, and this is sort of an old thing that the wage gap is not because men hate women. And, you know, when I was talking about IQ differences in various groups, then, you know, that goes, I mean, this is all the way back to Charles Murray in the 90s with the bell curve, that everyone with an IQ of 110 makes about the same amount of money. Everybody with an IQ of 90 makes the same amount of money. And if you have different average IQs, that is going to explain a good portion, not all, but a good portion of the differences. So if there are reasons that are not based upon historical hatred and prejudice, which are bad, historical hatred and prejudice and sexism and racism, all bad, I accept that.
[0:53:24] But if there are differences in outcome that is not based upon hatred, then the left loses a foundational argument which supports their power, which is the only differences in outcomes result from hatred. Hatred is bad. Therefore, we need to eliminate the haters and we need to make everything equal. Right. And so we, if there are arguments against that, IQ being one of the ones and, you know, the fact that women, you know, it's kind of nice if we get a continuity of the human race. So women have to have children. And when women are pregnant and breastfeeding. And, you know, you've had more toddlers than I have, but you know, they're tiny little death magnets. So you've got to be around them all the time and you've got to focus on them and so on. And so if we want to have a civilization that continues and we want to have the best health outcomes for our children, which is 18 months of breastfeeding, and being with mom and dad and growing up with mom and dad and in particular mom, if we want that, then women are going to have to make less money. At least directly, they'll make more money because their husbands are more motivated to work.
[0:54:36] You multiply like a photocopier. So I'm sure that drives some of your ambition as a whole, which is great. So if we want to have, you know, a continuity of civilization and human beings and all of that, which is kind of what we work for, then women are going to have to make less in the free market and they're going to make more through their husbands. And if we say, well, we want to have men and women make exactly the equal amount of money, the only way we can do that is to not have children. And so economic equality between males and females in the direct marketplace sense can only be achieved by women not having children. And we know this. We know this statistically. So before women have children, they make just about the same amount of money as men. And then when they have children, that's when the path diverges. So saying that we want men and women, there's no wage gap means no children. And it's a subtle form of depopulation or antinatalism and kind of murderous in many ways. I mean, geez, I mean, I think we're similar ages. I think you're a little younger than me, but I mean, in our generation, like a third of the babies were aborted. Part of that had to do with this focus on economic equality.
[0:55:39] So I think the fact that I was sort of, you know, that old, is it Ben Franklin, like there are a thousand people trimming the tree of evil to every one person hacking at the root. I really like to very much look at the root causes and not the effects, right? If you want to move, if you want to move a shadow, you have to either move the light source or move what's blocking it. There's no point pushing at the shadow or, you know, whatever. You need to look at the actual root causes of things like evil, of things like dysfunction, of things like a depression or lack of ambition, or look at the root causes. And the closer you get to the root causes, the more you can change. You know, the Archimedes said, give me a lever big enough, I can move the world. Well, give me early enough causes, and we can all change our lives incredibly.
[0:56:23] And so for the left, they feed on all differences are based on hatred. Hatred is bad. Therefore, we need to eliminate the haters, which in the extreme case, of course, is gulags. You know, if I went to Hong Kong to do a documentary right before COVID and I was talking about this there that, you know, some people have a green thumb. I don't know if you've ever done any gardening, but some people just have this amazing ability to grow things. And instinct, they're at one with the chlorophyll. I don't know what's going on, but there's just wild stuff that happens. And those people, if they're farmers, they tend to grow a lot of stuff. And then because they can grow a lot of stuff, they can bid more for land because they can get more crop yields from it. And then they end up accumulating more and more crops. The good news is that it doesn't last long. You know, rags to riches to rags in three generations. Their kids are going to regress to the mean and not be as good at farming. So it generally cycles. But at any given moment, there's some guy with 100 acres and you're slaving away on one acre because he's, you know, maybe you're kind of lazy. Maybe you want to write books instead of garden or farm or whatever. And maybe he just works all the time.
[0:57:25] And then, you know, the communists kind of slither up to you like the serpent in the Garden of Eden and like, hey man, you know, the only reason, the only reason that he's got all that money and he's got that pretty wife and he's got all those kids, the only reason that he's got all that money, and you have only one acre is he stole from you and he's exploited you and he robbed your fathers and they just gin up all of this. Uh, hatred, uh, and so on by saying that the only difference between the wealthy and the poor is that the wealthy are evil and the wealthy have stolen. And we're going to steal it back from you. We're going to give it back to you and so on. Right. And, and that's, I mean, if you can get people to start, I mean, there's a lot of sadistic people in the world who just love, uh, to watch people attack each other and they'd love goading up resentment between classes and races and sexes and so on.
[0:58:10] But in order to do that, they have to put forward that the only reason for the difference is evil, corruption, theft, exploitation, and so on. Like the only reason that that guy's got a Rolls Royce and you're riding a bike is he stole that Rolls Royce from your ancestors and you just whip people up into this frenzy and then they go and attack and kill people. And it's just, I mean, this is the 20th century and actually leading into the 21st century quite a bit. You know, the tax of the rich. It's like the rich are already paying the vast majority of taxes, for heaven's sakes. Half of the people don't pay any taxes at all. So if you come up with a counter narrative, which says maybe he's just a better farmer and maybe the fact that he's a better farmer means you have more to eat. You know, if the guy's got 100 acres and he can produce twice the crops, everybody ends up with 200 acres worth of food for only 100 acres. So the price of food goes down for you. And like rather than saying the basic free market principles that, you're better off because, I mean, to put it in a sort of technical sense, you're better off as a person if the person with the best ability to maximize value, gets the resources.
[0:59:21] You're better off, right? And helping people to understand that's never going to happen from government schools because they operate on the opposite principle. The government schools are communists, which is why we kind of get communism over time. And so when I come along or other people come along and say, there are valid, statistically accurate, true explanations for differences in outcome.
[0:59:46] That have nothing to do with hatred, exploitation, theft, racism, sexism, whatever it is. That strikes right at the core of leftist power, which is to arouse resentment by saying that people who are less successful are robbed from, stolen from, exploited, and generating that kind of class hatred. And it is, you know, I mean, it's a red tide of blood that comes in from these ideologies that all differences in outcome are based on exploitation and hatred is really one of the most dangerous ideas in the world as a whole. And it destroys nations, it destroys cultures, and it destroys hundreds of millions of people in the most brutal possible ways. And so when someone stands up and says, that is not true, I mean, is there hatred and bigotry in the world? Of course there is. But I mean, the fundamental contradiction of socialism is capitalists are just greedy for whatever money they, they can get a hold of but capitalists are also so racist and sexist that they won't hire people because like it doesn't make any sense, like, fundamentally.
[1:00:53] And so I think that the major opposition was that I was you know standing like you and like a lot of people of course we're just standing in this oncoming, I don't want to use the tsunami example because you can't stand... you're just gonna get washed away... it's probably not the best, maybe not the best example, but we are building roadblocks on this, you know, increasing thundering Mad Max freight train of violence that's coming down the pipe. If people think that the only differences in outcomes arise from exploitation, violence, theft, and evil, then it's a really brutal world that we end up in if that idea goes forward. And there's lots of people who want that brutal world because they're better at violence than we are and we're better at thinking than they are. So we want to give reason and they want to provoke violence. And so I think that when you interfere with the goals of evil, then evil will have its way with you. And I would say, as far as most people in history, I've got off remarkably light, as far as a whole. I'm still out there talking and I'm still in one piece and I'm still six feet north of the deep dive.
[1:01:54] So, if you have a counter explanation to that which evil needs to promote, to provoke violence, evil will target you. And it can't answer your arguments because they're reasonable and statistical and factual and verified and so on. IQ as a predictor of life outcomes is one of the most validated metrics in all of human psychology and sociology along with the accuracy of stereotype bias. And so you get in the way of the evildoers and they want you out of the way and they can't reason you out of the way. So they just have to, you know, do what evil people do, which is lie and provoke hysteria and so on. So, I mean, it was very well done to be fair, You know, I mean, you got to give your enemy their due. Like they built up the case for many years and not just with me, but, you know, people like us. And then when they execute, they're ready to roll. And it's very well done. But, you know, evil is good at being evil. You got to give them their credit where credit is due. And I actually consider that reasonable. I wouldn't want to consider myself a good boxer if I was only fighting Girl Guides.
[1:03:04] How do people follow you given the limited options, but they're more than there were before? How do they follow you? Website, Twitter, what do you want to share?
[1:03:13] Oh, yeah. So freedomain.com/connect is where my social media is. And yeah, it's, you know, it's it's it's coming back. It's it's it's I'm like that, you know, the end of the horror movie, you know, they bury the guy and then they walk away. You know, the hand comes out, grabs the ankle. It's like, I'm still alive. I'm not dead yet. Again, to to do my Monty Python references. So yeah, you know, I mean, I'm still doing my thing and enjoying it as much as ever. And I have a 500-year plan for the liberation of humanity. So I'm not looking at the day-to-day. I'm looking at the long-term. And so, and I really do appreciate chatting with you. For those of you who don't know, Tom and I go way back in a ways. And so it's really a great pleasure to have this conversation today.
[1:04:02] All right, excellent. Well, I'll also have links for you up at tomwoods.com/2779, the show notes page for today. So Stefan, glad you're... I'm glad you're grabbing that ankle and you're, you know, they, they may have buried you, but you weren't dead. So, uh, thanks a million.
[1:04:18] Thanks Tom. Always a great pleasure.
[1:04:20] And thank you, ladies and gentlemen.
Support the show, using a variety of donation methods
Support the show
