0:04 - Introduction to Philosophy Tonight
0:52 - Women's Voting Rights Discussion
4:23 - Desire for Cultural Influence
6:37 - The Power of Storytelling
8:36 - COVID-19 Origins Revealed
12:01 - Accountability for Bioweapon Release
17:05 - Moral Reversals in Society
22:25 - Personal Empiricism and Society
26:24 - The Autism Crisis
38:30 - Global Autism Rates
42:19 - Dangers of Thalidomide
44:24 - Socialism and Birth Order
52:27 - Carl Sagan's Legacy
57:09 - The Autism Epidemic
1:01:28 - The Impact of Literacy on Society
This episode of Friday Night Live features a deep dive into various philosophical perspectives and contemporary issues facing society today. I begin by inviting listeners to share their questions, challenges, or topics of interest as we aim to align the principles of philosophy with real-world applications. We begin by exploring the historical context of political rights in Western civilization, focusing on voting rights and the implications of property ownership on suffrage. I argue that the historical narrative surrounding women’s voting rights is often presented without the necessary context of men’s own voting struggles, addressing misconceptions prevalent within certain discourse communities, particularly within the manosphere.
We pivot towards a discussion on the role of storytelling in society, highlighting how narratives shape cultural influences and decision-making within a stateless society, absent state control. I express concern over how modern storytelling often focuses on resentment rather than constructive narratives, which I believe leads to societal destabilization. As we transition to current events, I reference recent discussions on the origins of COVID-19, unpacking the narrative around the lab leak theory and the complexities surrounding health authorities' responses during such crises.
As I examine the implications of accountability in governance, particularly regarding public health officials like Dr. Fauci, I delve into the legal and systemic challenges that hinder accountability within large-scale corrupt practices. I emphasize how uncovering such corruption may unravel deep societal threads, presenting a profound difficulty in navigating moral revelations, both personally and socially.
We then tackle the contentious topic of autism rates, particularly the dramatic increase over the past decades, and contemplate environmental factors involved. I raise questions about public health narratives, exploring potential correlations with childhood vaccinations, while also considering the societal implications if such correlations are proven true. The ongoing dialogue reflects a growing unease surrounding public trust in health institutions and the quest for truth amid complex narratives.
Towards the end of the episode, I take a more personal and reflective turn, discussing the difficulties of moral transformations in society. By asking the audience to reflect on their personal experiences with significant moral changes, I challenge them to consider whether they have witnessed such changes in their social circles. This becomes a powerful lens through which we assess societal expectations for change in the collective moral landscape. As we prepare to close, I emphasize the importance of critical thinking and personal accountability in a rapidly changing world, inviting listeners to engage with the ideas discussed and encouraging them to challenge their own worldviews.
This thought-provoking dialogue is an exploration of history, societal structures, and personal agency, all intertwined with the principles of philosophy that drive our understanding of freedom and responsibility in an evolving landscape.
[0:00] Welcome to Friday Night Live. Stefan Molyneux from Freedom, Maine.
[0:05] We're talking on 18th of April, 2024. Hope you're doing well. Thank you for joining me for Philosophy Tonight. And I'm happy to take your questions, issues, challenges, problems, whatever is on your mind. I will strive to bring the various pull goats of philosophy in a line to get you to the next place, the better place as a whole.
[0:32] So i am of course happy to take questions comments whatever is on your mind i am thrilled to hear and.
[0:46] I don't know if you've seen this just while we're waiting for the questions to come in.
[0:52] You know that there's this uh kind of constant thing about how women didn't get the right to vote, women needed the right to vote. You know, the period where all men could vote but women could not vote was a tiny blip in humanity as a whole. And this is what Alexander wrote, this is at Date Psych on X. Western men didn't gain the universal right to vote until about 150 years ago. When people talk about how women's voting rights need to be restricted, because that is how it was always done, we should keep in mind that Western civilization was built on the rule by a small aristocracy. This was the landscape. A supermajority of men were not allowed to hold even a single scrap of political power. Even among the minority of men who were, their power was restricted to the village and the township. Their, quote, betters, as he writes, did not believe that common men had the sense to govern themselves. When men began to expand the right to vote, it was largely based on property ownership. He says, occasionally I see modern variations such as married men with family should be allowed to vote, but merely wedding and having offspring was not important. What was important was having shown sufficient investment in society as well as aptitude by having become monetarily successful.
[2:20] So today we see the descendants of these men who were not allowed to vote for most of western history spinning fantasies about how restricting female suffrage but not male suffrage as we did for the past 1800 years was instrumental in the rise of the west and this is largely manosphere discourse so now so we can't forget one of the fact that manosphere is disproportionately non-white many of the men espousing women should not be allowed to vote have recent ancestors who could not vote. Ancestors who were considered to be property and who the dominant members of society gave fewer rights to than white women. Is that true? The manosphere is disproportionately non-white? I didn't know that.
[2:59] The fantasy that women should be restricted in political power, as it was done in the West, is ahistorical, without the context that we should also restrict political power exclusively to the aristocracy, he writes, or at the very least, the monetarily successful. So no populist movements, no neats collectively bargaining the state for jobs and wives, a polity, he writes, ruled by a small minority of elites. This is the real history for anyone who wants to, quote, return. He says, I don't support it. Of course, neither do I. I would prefer a straightforward and equal meritocracy, but I wanted to make a reminder that in the tradition some wish to return to, they would be politically powerless as women were, potentially even slaves. So I thought that was very well put. And of course, the fact that women had, there was a certain period of time where men had the vote, but women didn't have the vote. And the fact that women didn't have to be drafted, the women weren't responsible for military service and haven't been as a whole, is quite important. Quite important.
[4:12] So just remember that when people complain about this kind of stuff, they're really talking about a very different kind of world.
[4:23] Now, I'm, you know, because I'm a voluntarist, an advocate for, in generations from now, through Peaceful Parenting, a stateless society, what I want, what I really want, is a kind of cultural influence.
[4:43] We're going to have to make decisions in society. Absent the state, those decisions will be more dispersed and voluntary. We're going to have to make decisions in society. And one of the things that I like the idea of is, of course, you know, parents having major decision points for their own children, absent sort of the ridiculously propagandistic media and, quote, education that's going on these days. But i think those who have the skill to tell powerful stories that affect, people's gut i think they should have a lot of say in society, i mean they kind of do at the moment but it's all corrupted it's all corrupted because everybody's trying to get proximity to state power, proximity to the power of the state and of its benefits. And so because there is something to destabilize, which is the statist organization of society, because there's something to destabilize.
[5:56] The value of destabilizing that becomes very large. So I like the idea of people who can tell really great stories Having a lot of influence in society That's kind of how it used to be in a lot of ways Think of the sort of ancient myths, the Greeks, Romans, the stories, That are embedded in many religious texts and so on Those who could tell fantastic stories Had a significant amount of authority in society, Which is why, I mean, storytelling is still very powerful But it's been corrupted as a whole, a storytelling these days. Tell me what you guys think. I'm curious what you guys think.
[6:38] But storytelling these days, I think, tends to be about the stoking of resentment and little else. It tends to be just about the stoking of resentment and almost nothing else.
[7:04] So everyone who is not successful is not successful because someone else stole from them, right? Everybody who's at the bottom is at the bottom because they're, you know, the fascist boot or the communist, well, usually the fascist boot on the neck. It is all about stoking resentment. And that stoking of resentment is what is aimed to have, I think, regular eruptions of violence so that, that the destabilizations can continue. It's very sad how power corrupts and corruption drives more power, which drives more corruption, which drives more power. It's very sad.
[7:57] Did you see? I'm sure you have seen this. I'm sure you have seen this. If you go to, is it? Let me just double check this. If you go to COVID.gov, which I think used to be more around just general COVID information. Try this. Try this. Go to COVID.gov. And you know this is unusual because frankly, how often do I recommend a .gov site? I honestly can't remember if I've ever done it. But if you go to covid.gov, you will see something quite remarkable.
[8:36] I think it just came out today or yesterday. And for those of you who are just listening or whatever, I will tell you, if you go to covid.gov, you get redirected to the whitehouse.gov. And there's a big picture of Trump. And it says lab leak. the true origins of COVID-19.
[8:58] And it writes, the proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2 publication, which was used repeatedly by public health officials and the media to discredit the lab leak theory, was prompted by Dr. Fauci to push the preferred narrative that COVID-19 originated naturally. One, the virus possesses biological characteristics, sorry, the virus possesses a biological characteristic that is not found in nature. Two, data shows that all COVID-19 cases stem from a single introduction into humans. This runs contrary to previous pandemics where there were multiple spillover events. Right, so if you have, if the pangolins or whatever they were saying was the case, if the virus was in nature, in pangolins or bats or whatever, then it would come from a bunch of different places, right? It came from a single introduction. direction.
[9:50] Wuhan, you may remember this from my presentation called The Case Against China, Wuhan is home to China's foremost SARS research lab, which has a history of conducting gain-of-function research, gene altering, and organism supercharging at inadequate biosafety levels. Yes, I do distinctly remember talking about the Wuhan Institute of Virology having about the same level of security and containment as your average dentist's office. Wuhan Institute of Virology, WIV researchers, were sick with COVID-19, sorry, with COVID-like symptoms in the fall of 2019, months before COVID-19 was discovered at the wet market. Five, by nearly all measures of science, if there was evidence of a natural origin, it would have already surfaced. But it hasn't.
[10:44] So anyway it it's well worth having a look i'll put the you can go to covid.gov but i'll also put it in here as well, oh thanks james yeah the show is for fdr 4600 the case against china and i think it's worth looking at the video for that as a whole, I remember Stef and Alex Jones saying back in the day it looked like it came out of a lab, I think my phrase was of course it came out of a lab but they thought that the caves where the bats were was 800 kilometers away that the bats were just going to just fly all the way up to Wuhan, crazy, So, a dentist says, I personally analyzed the COVID-19 virus genome, and it has the HIV virus genome into a PUC vector. Are the inserts right?
[12:02] Are you surprised that no major players in the release of the bioweapon have been arrested or prosecuted yet by the Department of Justice? I am... Not only am I not surprised, I would be deeply shocked if it ever happened. The law is one of these often, right? the law is this funny net that it's like an inverse fishing net. It catches all the little fish and all the big fish go away. All the big fish get away. Does that seem pale to you? My video? Oh well, I've got the, backup. No, everything's pale on the screen. Yeah, freedomain.com slash playlist slash coronavirus. I think I did pretty well overall. I did pretty well overall with COVID.
[13:07] No, I don't think the law is like a spider's web. The flies get caught and the wasps go free. Um yeah uh would would you be interested in the reasons why uh people will not be prosecuted just hit me with a why i want to make sure i'm tailoring the show to things that are of interest and value to you do you uh want to know why i think people will never be persecuted, prosecuted let's get the word right, I mean, if you have other questions, comments, I'm very, very happy to hear all of that.
[13:54] Well, when a conspiracy gets big enough, then it's very, very hard to break, aka the state, right? It's very, very hard to break. So in order for, Or, I mean, in order, let's say, to go after Fauci or something like that, and I know that there are some referrals and so on, but I was also reading it, I don't know if it's true that he's trying to go to China, I don't know. And he got his pardon back to 2014 from Biden. And...
[14:29] There was a very sort of bitter meme on X, which was like, oh, so the guy who recommended you get the COVID jab just got a full pardon back to 2014. So the reason why is that it would simply undo and unravel too much. The rabbit holes are too deep. The web, the interconnection is just too broad. It's too wide as a whole. Where would you stop? Where would you stop? Right? If you go into, let's say, Echo Health, you go into the funding, you go into DASIC, you go, does that lead you to the CDC? Does that lead you to the World Health Organization? Does that lead you to the NIH? Like, where would it stop? That's the challenge. And building those kinds of cases against, obviously, some very desperate people would take a huge, I mean, almost an infinity of time. Building these kinds of cases is really tough. And you have the pardons. You could try and work things in at the state level maybe, but.
[15:41] There'd be a huge amount of warning. It would take a long time to sniff your way up and down and through the tendrils. As far as I understand it, some data, some emails, some, trails have already been, have already been erased or deleted. And.
[16:08] The media would not report on it. In fact, they would report on it negatively. And the politicians who would be pursuing this, I mean, I know it would be DOJ, but there'd need to be some political involvement. The politicians who would be pursuing this, would not make it into their next term. Because this would be at least a half-decade-long process in which they would simply just make sure that they funded everyone and their dog to displace whoever was in pursuit of this incredibly complicated system.
[16:51] So that's one side. And again, it's just my opinion, right? I'm no expert. But the other side is... Okay, let me ask you this, guys, directly.
[17:05] If you could, please. Tell me the number of people, tell me the number of people you've known in your life who've had a significant moral reversal, a big, big, big moral reversal. They've come to some astounding revelation about something. Down to 180, because most people skid past the 180 and go to the 360, right?
[17:41] Zero, zero, one, one. Not counting yourself. I assume that if we're in this conversation, we're doing a lot of, right?
[17:55] Right. So it's very low. Okay, so that's the first one. Let me ask you this. How many people do you know who've gone through that process, but not a moral revelation regarding something abstract or in relationship to themselves, but in regard to something personal that they've done to someone else? That's the big question. Oh, yeah, don't forget, freedomand.com slash donate to help out the show. I really would appreciate that. Excuse me. So how many people have done a big moral 180 with regards to something personal, that they have done to someone else, some significant wrong that they've done to someone else? I've talked to a couple of parents over the last, you know, close to 20 years. I've talked to a couple of parents who've changed their mind, reversed their view on their spanking or things that they did that way with kids.
[19:09] But when it comes to a moral revolution regarding yourself, regarding the world, regarding life as a whole, your society, history, whatever it is, that's abstract and that's personal, which is not to say that that's bad. And what I mean, sorry, what I mean by abstract is it's not something that you did. Like when I went from minarchist to voluntarist, that was a big revolution. It was abstract, but it was also personal, because that's what I began to advocate for, that's what I began to really accept and understand, and so on, and formed the foundation of, really, the universal non-aggression principle that I talk about in this conversation. So that's abstract, and it's personal, but it wasn't something that I did. It wasn't something that I did that was bad, or wrong, or mean, or whatever it is, right?
[20:02] So how many people, thank you, Freedom, how many people have you known who have woken, and known personally, not like, you know, heard of, who've woken up personally to a wrong, a significant wrong that they've done and reversed it? Without being caught, without being cornered, without being forced, without, like, they just have had that revelation. I think for me it's zero I'm trying to be sort of rigorous about this James says not a one anyone I've known that apologized for a wrong was already moral to begin with, right, right.
[20:51] Right, oh without being cornered then it's a zero for sure zero yeah yeah yes that's right.
[21:10] So, you know, when this is, I think, a useful metric as a whole. And the useful metric is this. If you are expecting something big in society, right, if you're expecting something or thinking of something big in society, you need to look at your own personal life and you need to see who has made those changes or those revolutions or those changes already before. If you're expecting a big moral revolution in society, then you need to look and say, okay, I'm asking for something big and abstract and personal in society. The abstract is the morals, the personal is it involves you. So, if you are looking for something big to happen in society, ask yourself, how much has it happened in your life? I mean, I sort of refer to this as personal empiricism, if that makes sense.
[22:26] The personal empiricism is, have I seen what I want in society in and among the people in my own life?
[22:39] Say that again, it's really, really important. Have I seen what I want in society play out among people in my own life? Now, if you haven't, There's no point holding your breath for society as a whole, Just imagine, Just imagine what would happen in society, If I mean, whether it's Fauci or whoever, right? Let's just take this as a sort of theoretical journey. Let's just take this as a theoretical journey. What would happen in society if somehow some sort of brain squeal fast forward could be hit on prosecuting gain-of-function research, prosecuting corruption, prosecuting claiming science when there was no science, right? What did Fauci say about the six-foot rule? It just kind of appeared. And they were flip-flopped a lot on the science, and, imagine that you could do that in six months whatever right some number if you could do that in six months.
[24:08] And you could come to the conclusion that it was all funded, lied about, corrupt, falsified, driven for profit and power. And that people had been fooled into doing very negative and dangerous things as a result of rampant and rank corruption. Imagine. What would that do to people's minds?
[24:46] When people become confused and corrupt enough, moral clarity becomes their enemy. They don't want it. They don't want it. It is anathema to them. It is toxic, dangerous, negative. They don't want it. They would rather, and I think personally we all have this temptation, I certainly do, they would rather live in ignorance than realize the wrongs they've done. And you just have to trick or fool or bully or tempt or give a free donut to enough people to get them to do corrupt things and you.
[25:43] They then will rail against moral clarity. Oh, we're so grateful to hear you, even more so alive. Thank you, appreciate that. You know, I mean, if there is suspicion, and I think there is among a lot of people, if there is a suspicion that this is all very corrupt and done for greed, control, money, power, you name it, if people realized that they were fools that badly, that they were that compliant, that they were that empty, and they did it to their kids.
[26:24] They did it to their kids.
[26:38] How are they going to process that? You know, I mean, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., as I talked about recently, says that he's going to move heaven and earth over the next six months or so to get to the multi-factor causality behind autism. It could be wrong, of course, but it seems to me that the data for that, if it involves vaccines, would be fairly prevalent. You would simply go through and collect the data from the general practitioners and say, okay, well, within seven to 14 days of getting a vaccine, did the parents call with autistic symptoms? You know, there'd be some correlation there that might imply some pretty significant causality. But I don't know. I don't know what people would do.
[27:37] If it turns out they were fooled to that degree, or lied to to that degree, or what would the doctors do if it turned out that they were pushing the wrong stuff, or at least stuff that was dangerous, I mean, what would they do? What would people do? You know, 27% of autistic people, according to what I've read, 27% of autistic people are seriously low-functioning. You know, they might have to wear helmets, they will never have a job, They will never be independent. Of course, as they get bigger and their caregivers get older, the impulsivity, aggression, violence, sometimes intellectual disabilities, it is rough, really rough, lifelong. And it destroys marriages, drains finances, and profits a lot of people, of course, sadly, through the state in general. If you've been wrestling with an autistic guy the size of a linebacker for the last 20 years or 30 years or 40 years or more and you find out that there was information that had causality that was ignored oh my god, it's wild.
[29:00] And what would the punishment for all of that be if it turns out that there was some... And anyway, I've read the stories about the correlations that... The MMR vaccines... And I don't know if any of this is true, because everything is so partisan in this area that it's hard to say, right? I mean, I remember back in COVID, people were like, oh, everyone who takes a jab is going to be dead in two years, and it's just terrible, right?
[29:30] But, you know, that there was these studies that were burned about the MMR and its relationship to autism and so on. And I don't know. I'm not putting this forward as if I know. I don't know. I don't know. People are desperate for answers, but the answers are not being gathered. And as I said before, when the answers aren't being gathered, it is my deep belief that people have the answers that they're not being gathered.
[30:00] They just don't want to release them for various reasons. It would be one of the most staggering crimes in the history of the world. Beggars believe beggars' imagination. If it turns out that there is a causality, and it's not just better diagnosis otherwise it would be showing up among older people too which it's not it's only among the young, it would be so staggering it would produce some fairly general massive psychological destabilization like in the population at all, that's the big lie right and there have been studies You just bombard people with fear messages for a month or two, and they'll almost believe anything, and you almost can't talk them out of it afterwards.
[31:15] Yeah, it's... I mean, it would be... It could be, it could be. I don't know, it could be. You know, like the 2020 Summer of Love, of the George Floyd riots and so on. If it turns out that there has been a causality that's been known but it's been hidden between environmental factor X and autism, it can't be genetic. You can't get an epidemic increasing this rapidly based upon genetics. You can't mutate genetics that quickly. So if it turns out that it's, I don't know, some Van Halen belt solar radiation, whatever, something that would make no sense that some people had never thought of. Okay, well, I'm glad we know, but nobody's really to blame, right? But if it turns out that there has been information that has been kept from the public about this stuff, I mean, I think there will be staggering levels of violence.
[32:19] Yeah, caused by climate change. Oof. Bitter but mildly funny. Yeah, and of course, this is the challenge. So Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Was talking about how autistic kids don't get jobs, they don't write. Now, of course, it's not talking about this high-functioning autism and so on, or as we used to say in England, eccentric. Eccentric. But, of course, people are like, well, my autistic kid is high-functioning. It's like, yes. And some people get a little bit of skin cancer on their nose, and they get it cut away, and they're fine. And they say, ah, cancer's nothing. It's like, your cancer was nothing. It's not that everyone's cancer is nothing. And I remember reading this. Oh, it just broke my heart. I can't even remember. I read this probably 15 years ago. It was a blog by a woman, And it was like living with a very big, strong, impulsive, low self-control autistic teen. And she said, you know, the first 45 minutes of my day is just trying to hold him down so I can brush his teeth.
[33:37] That's vivid to me.
[33:43] But the idea that there could be people in the world, who would be willing, and again, whether it's true, we'll find out, we'll find out, maybe we will, maybe we won't. I think we probably will. I think he's really dedicated on this. But the very idea that there could be people in the world.
[34:07] Who would be willing to allow for the continued injection of children, and hide, if it turns out to be true, the connection that vaccines have significant impact on autism or the vaccine schedule or the 74 vaccines or whatever it is now, including ones for, what is that, HPV, is it? No, not HPV. The one where you can only get it from sex and dirty needles. I mean, we know that there are sociopaths and psychopaths in the world, of course, right? But the idea that there would be large numbers of people who would be willing to allow for the continued injection of the young, with this kind of risk. Is autism out of control in the US only, or is it all over the world too? Hep C, thank you. Um...
[35:19] It is not all over the world. It's not all over the world. And I have read, although I'm not sure, because I've read two versions. One is that there's no autism among the Amish, because they don't do vaccines. right? And then I've looked that up and said, no, no, there are autism rates in the Amish equivalent to the general population. Let's see here. Yeah, so autism is present among the Amish community, with studies indicating that the prevalence of autism spectrum disorder is comparable to that in non-Amish populations. Factors such as cultural beliefs and limited access to healthcare may influence the diagnosis and recognition of autism within these. Yeah, they might consider them touched by God or something like that, right?
[36:36] And then John Hookway on brainwave.watch writes, several key studies have examined autism rates in Amish communities. One early study in Pennsylvania by a research group from Johns Hopkins University found only three cases of autism out of almost 10,000 Amish children surveyed. One in 3,000 compared to about one in 150 for the general U.S. population at the time. A follow-up study by the same group looked at almost 16,000 Amish children in Indiana found only 11 cases of autism. But these relied on educational medical records rather than direct clinical assessments. Some milder cases may have been missed. And they also may be reluctant to seek a diagnosis and so on. And more recent studies have attempted to directly screen and diagnose Amish children. A 2016 study assessed almost 300 Amish children in Ohio and found four cases of autism, a rate of around one in 75. So, I don't know. I don't know.
[37:45] So, we'll see. We'll see. I mean, because I've also read, you know, people saying, oh, well, the only people who have autism in the Amish communities are those who were adopted in from outside who actually got vaccinated, and I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I mean, I was taking the fun to do the research myself. But no, there are places where autism appears to be lower, but, again, whether that's diagnosis or not.
[38:30] But I mean, is it now in California, one in 12.5 boys? I mean, this is, it's beyond shocking that this is just not a massive crisis and catastrophe. Thank you for your tips, of course, freedomain.com slash donate to help out the show. And as I said before, and I'm sorry to keep harping on this, it's just one of the things that it really is cooking in my brain quite a bit. Is the fact that people are not moving heaven and earth to find the source of this. Yeah, so autism rates vary significantly across the globe. About 1 in 100 children are affected worldwide. US, South Korea, higher rates, 1 in 36, 1 in 38.
[39:35] And let's see, put 100,000. Let's see what's considered low of Bangladesh. That's probably some diagnostic stuff there. 594 goes all the way up to Singapore with 1,460. So Singapore apparently is higher. This is interesting. Singapore, South Korea, Japan, Brunei, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and Chile, US, and Ireland. Are sort of among the highest. But this is 2021. Interesting. I mean, let's see here. So, of course, Singapore, South Korea, Japan, Brunei. South Korea and Japan, of course, have a very high IQ population. Some of the highest IQ populations really in the world. And maybe there's more destabilization with whatever environmental factor is happening. Maybe it destabilizes more higher IQ populations.
[40:33] James says, I'm reminded of thalidomide and leaded gasoline except this is clearly different if true it took a while for them to figure that stuff out too, thalidomide, I think there was 800 severely, severely mutated kids like kids born with flippers and all kinds of terrible stuff. Thalidomide was a drug that was there to help women with morning sickness. And I also used to treat a number of cancers and so on. But I was first developed as a tranquilizer. More than 10,000 children around the world born with a range of severe deformities and thousands of miscarriages.
[41:36] And I think in America, this was responsible for the foundation of the FDA, if I understand this correctly. But in the U.S., oh no, sorry, the U.S., the FDA refused to approval to market thalidomide, saying that further study... So thalidomide was... Oh no, so only 17 children were born in the US with thalidomide-associated deformities.
[42:20] But it's funny, right? I mean, the dangers of more recently developed medications versus this. Wild and this was you know pulled very very quickly, yeah it was a medication for anxiety trouble sleeping tension and morning sickness, it was introduced as a sedative and medication for morning sickness without having been tested on pregnant women initially deemed to be safe in pregnancy concerns regarding birth defects were noted in 1961 the medication was removed from the market in Europe that year.
[43:04] All right, let's get back to your questions and comments. Just Grock it. I mean, I think Grock is a great AI, but Grock is, I mean, I've done a whole presentation on this. Thanks, Jared. On the two presentations on AI. It's a word guesser, and it's very sophisticated. It's very intelligent. It's very, sorry, intelligent. It's very good at pattern recognition and so on. I played around with something today, earlier today, which I thought was interesting with regards to AI. So as you know, I have a general theory that socialists, it tends to be kind of a younger sibling phenomenon.
[43:58] And that the running to authority to redistribute resources is something that younger siblings do in order to survive. So what I did was I wanted to do some math behind this. Look at me getting all fancy with the math. So I asked for 20 socialists, 20 famous socialists.
[44:25] And i asked if if it was not correlated to birth order and i'm not saying that it is i mean we're looking for evidence that it might be so if socialist tendencies are not correlated to birth order then it should be a correlation of zero right doesn't matter where you're where you are in the birth order doesn't matter where you are in the birth order you're equally likely to become a socialist or not.
[44:56] So, what I did was I asked it to look at 20 socialists, and the reason I did that was that it was tough to find information for more, at least that's what I was complaining about. And so, in the birth order distribution of 20 famous socialists, we tossed out the only child, but at the firstborn, there's only two of the 20, so 10%. Secondborn, six. Thirdborn or later is 11 or 55%. So, of the 19 individuals with siblings who were socialists, 14, or 73.7, had a birth order numerically higher than their family's average. They were later born closer to the youngest. Does that make sense? So, that's significant. It should be 50%, right? If it's random, then they should be 50% higher, 50% lower. It should just be at 50%. That's a pretty big correlation. So it's almost 74%. Almost 74% of the socialists are younger than the average. They're at the lower end of the birth order.
[46:14] And that's interesting. So for AI, I mean, to do that kind of work would have been quite, would have been at least a couple of days, and Grock did it in 10 minutes or so. Somebody says, there's a good documentary on thalidomide called No Limits.
[46:46] Oh, you said you worked with someone who was a child with a drug. Her limb is far too short. Did I read that? Interesting theory. In my family, my younger sister is socialist-leaning, if not an outright socialist. Second of four, older twin. I mean, to me, it's really fascinating that you can just go and query AI and get it to just plug through this kind of stuff. The barrier to entry to get this kind of research is really low.
[47:25] All right. So here's what's interesting as well. Two centuries after the French Revolution, descendants of aristocratic families are nine times more likely to get into prestigious universities. The French Revolution did not change rates of intergenerational mobility in France. The French Revolution did not cause an increase in the rate of change of total intergenerational mobility. The rate of change was unchanged despite revolution. Because it has a lot to do with IQ and revolution. I mean, you may kill off some of the smarter people, but it doesn't change the sort of fundamental metrics in society.
[48:19] Now, okay, let me ask you this. Let me ask you this. How many galaxies are there? Galaxy brain question. How many galaxies are there? The number always blows my mind. Don't look it up. He said, looking it up. I'm just double-checking here. And this is the known universe. Everything that you can see going back 14 billion years and change, I suppose, right?
[48:59] This is absolutely astonishing, because this is world of engineering. The known universe, they write, is made up of 50 billion galaxies. But recent estimates, like those from the Hubble Extreme Deep Field, suggests around 2 trillion galaxies. 2 trillion galaxies. And each of those galaxies are home to billions of planets. Which, you know, because the reason that they haven't visited is it just takes forever to get anywhere, right? Billions and billions. Man, I dislike Carl Sagan. In a deep, powerful, and passionate way. In my gut, I really dislike Carl Sagan. Woke. Socialist.
[50:04] Somebody says i've heard podcasts between two ais almost convincing that they're human too agreeable influenced biogic what does biogic mean be unless it's a typer, yeah it's a typer okay you mean logic i don't know i don't know what you mean something argic, You know, it is, for those of us of a certain age, it does seem to be an absolutely insurmountable temptation that when any large number about the universe is plugged into our brains, we simply have to regurgitate, billions and billions, which I don't think he actually said. I don't think he actually said it. Oh, he wrote. He wrote a book.
[51:16] Oh, to help viewers of cost must distinguish between millions and billions. He stressed the billions. Oh, yeah, that's right. The public's association... Of Billions and Billions comes from a Tonight Show skit. Parodying Sagan's affect, Johnny Carson quipped Billions and Billions. The phrase has now become a humorous, fictitious unit, the Sagan.
[51:47] Was he was a socialist, right? I think so. Yes, that's right. A second who was politically active throughout the 1980s is an opponent of the nuclear arms race and Ronald Reagan's SDI, or Star Wars, argues that the U.S. Is unique from other wealthy countries in its unwillingness to care for and invest in its own citizens. The United States is perfectly able to do that, he says. It chooses not to.
[52:27] He uh argues for investing in policies like free tuition at public universities universal health care decreasing the defense budget, so yeah straight up inevitable public intellectual socialist wet rag billions and billions of cells combined to slaughter your freedom, socialist douche-wad.
[53:05] Let's see here. That was Bernie Sanders. No, he sounded like Bernie Sanders. When I hear billions and billions I think Trump, he was a socialist I just saw the video in school and contact movie was good, yeah he did complain that Star Wars was full of white actors hmm.
[53:42] I mean, a lot of scientists and physicists in particular are drawn to socialism because they don't get free will. It's hard for a physicist to get free will. I mean, you can understand it philosophically, but they look at atoms and energy, and they don't see a ghost in the machine, right? So they think that human beings are closer to rocks, minerals, or livestock, so they need to be cared for and all of that, right? I mean, if you want to see something really gross.
[54:22] Yeah. He praised. He praised Lenin. Absolutely praised Lenin. He said, Albert Einstein said, I honor Lenin as a man who completely sacrificed himself and devoted all his energy to the realization of social justice. I do not consider his methods practical, but one thing is certain men of his type are the guardians and restorers of humanity. And as proportion of the population goes, that Lenin murdered or set into the motion the murder of Pol Pot levels Just absolutely murderous and monstrous. Absolutely murderous and monstrous. And it doesn't matter. Nobody cares. Nobody cares because he's got funky hair. And he stuck out his tongue.
[55:33] Uh mastercard mastercard is working to that it's over 1 billion users spend bitcoin and crypto from the bitcoin historian this is not priced in.
[55:52] And the poor dad of um austin butler, No. Do-do-do-do-do. I am having no memory for these things. Yeah i'm gonna do it anyway yeah but the the uh the guy the young black fellow who stabbed the twin, he um austin metcalf yeah carmelo anthony um yeah carmelo anthony i think they were doing a press conference and Austin Metcalf's dad showed up and they kind of ordered him out or dragged him out or pulled him out or something like that. Oof. It's just, it's going to go so badly. All of this stuff is going to go so badly. I don't think by accident. Certainly not by accident, I would assume.
[57:09] All right let's get to other questions, yeah this is a rfk, he says in 1987 out of every 1 million kids 330 were diagnosed with autism Today, there are 27,777 for every million. The epidemic is real, and it's time for everybody to stop attributing to this ideology of epidemic denial. We know it's an environmental exposure. Genes do not cause epidemics. They can provide a vulnerability, but you need an environmental toxin. We're going to announce a series of new studies to identify precisely what the environmental toxins are that are causing it. We're going to look at all the potential culprits. We're going to look at mold, food additives, pesticides, air and water, and medicines. We will have some of the answers by September.
[58:05] Did you also know, this was as of yesterday, 50 years ago, Pol Pot's forces entered the Cambodian capital, Phnom Penh, ushering in perhaps the most insanely murderous regime in all of human history. Per capita, they did this to the cheers and satisfaction of Western left intellectualism. Malcolm Caldwell was a communist who went out to visit Pol Pot and ended up just getting shot. The Khmer Rouge, if you've seen The Killing Fields, I mean, it's just hell on earth. Michael Naina wrote, many of his fans wouldn't know that the famous intellectual Noam Chomsky was responsible for casting doubt on the first reports of the Khmer Rouge atrocities. He didn't deny the killings outright, but his skepticism muddied the waters at a critical moment.
[59:00] In 1977 chomsky wrote a co-wrote an article in the nation questioning refugee testimony testimonies and accusing western media of exaggerating claims against the regime, chomsky favorably cited cambodia starvation and revolution by hilda brandon porter a book criticized for repeating khmire rouge propaganda while dismissing year zero by francois panchot the first major account of the genocide despite not fully reading it, It doesn't matter. People don't care. You can minimize the crimes of one of the most murderous regimes in history. Nobody cares.
[59:46] In After the Cataclysm in 1979, Chomsky again downplayed reports of mass murder in Cambodia, writing that the slaughter was uncorroborated by any physical evidence and based on slender proof, he would later claim he never denied the atrocities only questioned early evidence but his framing provided ideological support for leftist allies like Malcolm Caldwell a Scottish communist academic who admired both Chomsky and Pol Pot.
[1:00:18] Given his profile at the time Chomsky's scepticism played a role In delaying recognition of the Khmer Rouge's Systematic torture and mass murder Crimes had killed up to 2 million people, I like this, you know, the progressive and more intelligent meme. You're fired. Your employment is hereby terminated. You're job-int. You're promoted to customer. That's pretty funny. I just wanted to remind you as well. This is a post. Friendly reminder that there's a likely chance that the person you're thinking about going back and forth with who commented something ridiculous in your post didn't properly comprehend what you originally wrote. 21% of adults in the U.S. read below a fifth grade level. 19% of high school graduates in the U.S. can't read.
[1:01:28] 42 million U.S. adults can't read past a fifth grade level. 50% of adults in the U.S. can't read a book written at an eighth grade level.
[1:01:47] All right. Let's get back to your questions and comments. I've not debated Noam Chomsky. I had him on the show twice. This is before I really found out about this kind of history. Let's see here.
[1:02:15] Uh there will there be new riots over the metcalf incident oh yeah i think so, all right i have a question with a comment to start the free domain ais are amazing thank you the more i use them the more i'm blown away by them the question i have is where do they get their information inquiries from. Using the call-in AI earlier, it was amazing, but it was giving advice and asking questions I wouldn't have expected in the call-in. And well, we load, we've got some transcripts and we load me and the callers into the AI and let it do its magical deep brain cooking. So, Stef, you do lots of help with callers dealing with the past and the present. Would you do calls future planning too, regarding future planning? Yeah. If you, I mean, a lot of the calls that I'm doing around the future tend to be private because people are talking about their sort of future plans, want to keep it a little bit off the web as a whole. But freedomain.com slash call to help it out. And if you want to sign up for private, you're certainly welcome to do that. You can do a public call, they're free, whatever you like.
[1:03:33] And cleaning up the past does a lot to help, of course, with the future. Sorry, that's kind of an obvious thing to say, but I'd like to mention it anyway. Indulge me. Just this once.
[1:03:53] There's a potential signature of life that's been found on an exoplanet. I have doubt. Whatever that's worth. I have some doubt. Exoplanet K2-18b. It's 124 light years away in the constellation Leo. The James Webb Space Telescope detected dimethyl sulfide and dimethyl disulfide, molecules associated with life on Earth. And it's 2.6 times larger than our planet, lies in the stars, the Goldilocks zone, the habitable zone, and maybe a high-seeing world with a global ocean and hydrogen-rich atmosphere. Now, the DMS detection is debated. It can also form abiotically, like not from life, as seen on a comet, which I'm not going to pronounce. So, we'll see. We'll see. As the joke goes, as soon as life is discovered there, I'm sure the American government will start sending it foreign aid.
[1:05:04] Somebody wrote, in a six-year-long study of 13,146 first-graders in four different U.S. Regions, researchers found that a minimum of 3.1% and possibly up to 9.9% had some level or type of fetal alcohol spectrum disorders. Drinking while pregnant is not a joke. Don't do it.
[1:05:40] All right. Let's see if I have any other last questions or comments. Best hope they don't discover oil there, yeah. Oh, you've called in before? Okay. Can you do a tiktok live stream to help appeal to a younger audience i appreciate that i will i will look into that for sure all right my friends well i really do appreciate your time if you're listening to this later of course freedom.com slash donate to help out the show, i really really would appreciate it enormously deeply and humbly freedom.com slash donate um So if it's been a low donation month, if you could help out, I would really, really appreciate that. And have yourself an absolutely wonderful, wonderful weekend. I will speak to you Sunday. And thank you for dropping by tonight. It's a great pleasure to chat as always. Lots of love from up here. I'll talk to you soon. Bye.
Support the show, using a variety of donation methods
Support the show
