Decoding the Gurus - Stefan Molyneux, Part 1: A fun guy, who is here to help...

Episode Date: November 21, 2025

Welcome back to Cult Season, where we continue our sincere attempt to make you feel a little bit worse about the world and everything in it.This week, we turn to Stefan Molyneux, online pioneer, prolific content creator, and self-proclaimed most popular philosopher in the world. Alternatively his wikipedia entry describes him as "an Irish-born Canadian white nationalist podcaster and proponent of conspiracy theories, white supremacy, scientific racism, and the men's rights movement." Charming...One thing is for sure: Molyneux is the only man alive who can turn literally any question into a monologue that combines demonic liberals, cutting off friends and family, and female reproductive choices. A true Renaissance man for people who hate Renaissance values.In this first episode we take a brief tour through the Molyneux Expanded Universe™, which includes some infamous clips from his early days as the creator of an online 'philosophy' cult themed around anti-spanking, anarcho-capitalism, and misogyny. We also cover his pivot to MAGA apologetics and overt white nationalism and finally to late-stage Molyneux, where he now lurks in Twitter Spaces, berating callers and insisting the world is populated by demon-ridden NPCs gleefully urinating on their moral superiors.Look forward to learning about his extensive rhetorical techniques, which include thin-skinned narcissism, a penchant for violent metaphors usually featuring urine and anal torture, his constant demand that listeners cut off their families and, of course, his favourite claim: that anyone who disagrees with him is a man-whore NPC who wants to kill you.Also featuring:A Weinstein cameo (because of course)Chris recounting the proto–Decoding the Gurus origin story involving a Facebook post and some early Molyneux contentAnd a rare chance to hear Matt physically wince at a Rocky Horror cold openIf you’ve ever wanted to hear a preening narcissist berate his listener for raising entirely reasonable points... well, this is the episode for you.Scott Adams should be careful, a new contender has emerged for his crown...Part 2 coming soon, assuming we survive this one.LinksFreedomain Radio 6162: The Most Frightening Fact! (Twitter/X Space)Philosophy student reviews Molyneux’s The Art of the ArgumentMichael Shermer’s amazing excuse for endorsing MolyneuxFormer guest discusses Molyneux’s descent into racist pseudoscience (2016)Guardian article (2008) on Molyneux’s online cult & “DeFooing”Daily Mail article (2015) on a family impacted by Molyneux’s communityDaily Beast profile on Molyneux during his Trump pivotSPLC profile on Stefan...

Hello and welcome to the Godine the Gurus, the podcast, we're an anthropologist and to the greatest minds in the world, offer and we try to understand what they're talking about. It's the kind of reductive materialist podcast that if you were to even throw a bone, even hand it to thinkers like pan-psychists in any way, shape or form, you will be hung, drawn and quartered. I'm Matt Brown. I'm the benevolent pope of this podcast and with me is Chris Kavanaugh, the evil cardinal, the Inquisitor. to my to my pope how like Chris I I like that I thought you were going to say eager bishop I was like I'm not sure I like that but uh inquisitor I can I can live with I like that yeah no one no one expects the inquisition that's right the reductive materialist

inquisition you'll no one is safe even the pope occasionally yeah this is this is true and certainly no one is safe in this episode Matt because we're turning to a figure who has been on the docket for a number of years but we never got round to for a lot of reasons

one of the reasons was that he got banned from a lot of platforms and then he was less relevant than kind of he faded into obscurity and things that shouldn't have been forgotten about Matt were lost they

they found their way back with Elon Musk gaining power on Twitter, but the person we're talking about is one Stefan Mullenew a free domain radio. As he

describes it, the largest philosophy community on the internet. That's what he describes. Yes. Yes. It does. If I read his Wikipedia, just the first few lines, it says,

Stefan Basil Mulniew is an Irish-born Canadian white nationalist podcaster and proponent of conspiracy theories, white supremacy, scientific racism and the men's rights movement. He is the founder of the free domain radio website. Multiple sources describe the freedom in internet community as a cult referring to the indoctrination techniques Malnyu has used as his leader. So that's that's not a Wikipedia page anyone wants. really that's not that's not a good Wikipedia page I think um it's like we're in this episode we're not covering I think the worst of what Molyneux has said it done oh don't don't be so sure we'll be so sure about we'll cover plenty of things and and there is a little introductory segment that you don't know about which I I need to play to get you up the speed

but there's a guy who interviewed Chris Williamson he's a comedian called Finn Taylor. And when Chris Williamson was giving his back story about, you know, there was a club promoter, he was on Love Island before he became an alternative media podcaster and he exclaimed cunt bingo.

I feel like the description that Stefan Voladu has at the start of that Wikipedia, like conspiracy theorist, white nationalist, scientific racist, African cult leader, it does, I think, justify

the term can't be go. Yeah, I was going to describe it as the trough fictor of all things awful, but there's far more than three things there. There's such a long list. Yeah, that's true. And this episode is part of cult season. As you know,

editor Andy created a theme song, which had a very 90s pop kind of aesthetic to it. There were complaints man. People said cultural appropriation, this isn't suitable for the show, you need something that properly captures your essence. So I said, Andy, Andy go back, commission whoever you need, you know, get on it, fix this, fix this. And Andy

supplied something, a revised version of the intro theme. So I'd like to play that for you now. Okay, I'm ready. Culturally appropriate this time. Grooos are the reason for the season So don't listen to the leader Come with us and fire up your gorameter It's time for cold season Get out your decodering This is cold season

On the DTG It's time for cold season It's time for decoding This cold season Chris and Matt On the DTG Oh Oh God I've got to

I got a tear in my eye. I got a tear of my eye after hearing that. I did expect it to segue into, you know, armored cars and tanks and guns came to go where else? Never have I felt my culture so accurately represented in that Irish lament. Slight, slight odd choice of pronunciation with gerometer. But, you know, he made her, he brought the rhyme home. That's the main thing. What a talented singer that man must be that person.

That's right. And he's a man of multiple talents. So there you go. So any further completes direct his way, editor, Andy at gmio.com. Yeah. It's not his email, but you can direct them there anyway. We outsource all content like this to him. Yeah, that's right. Anything, basically anything in the podcast.

podcast that's a little bit, you know, if there's anything that causes trouble or you might find annoying or offensive, that's probably at our editor, Andy. Yeah, and he's ready to receive your emails anytime. Oh, yeah, he's ready, willing and enable. So, yeah, editor Andy at you know, like that's, that's the, all right. So anyway, let's continue on, shall we? Yes, let's. The content we're going to be looking at is episode 6,162, the most frightening, Twitter, X-Bias, and this was posted on the 2nd of November. It's from the 31st of October. I have to stop you there.

Read that number out to me again. What episode number? 6,163. Right. So I think this is connected to something you told me, which is that this guy produces an incredible amount of content. And I think this is a fact not unconnected with this reputation. of being something of a cold leader, no?

Yes, yes. He used to put out more content than he currently puts out, but he's still putting out, looks like over an hour of content a day. But at one stage, it was like four hours a day. He was, you know, in a way, it's kind of predating the streamers

because he wasn't doing live streaming, but he was kind of doing talk radio call-in style stuff in podcast format. So he was along those lines, But also, he has been doing this since 2004. He's an early adopter of this. He's really a pioneer in technology. So I think even knowing nothing about the content,

there's a little bit of a red flag there in terms of cultishness, right? Because if you are listening to Stefan Molyneux in your ears for four hours a day, then, you know, let's... to say, you made some bad life choices. Well, yeah, yes, yes. And you are spending far too much time listening to a single source, I would say. You know, something like how cults operate, right? Yeah, yep, I'd agree with that.

And many cult experts have. You're hooked now. You said it twice. I know, I said it twice. Look, I normally wouldn't be so vulgar. Matt, but in this occasion, I think it's warranted. I apologize. I won't invoke it again, but it's, I think it's necessary, right?

And I do want to mention in regards to this episode that there's actually a little bit of encoding the guru's lore here, Matt, because Stefan Malnew is part of the origins of this podcast that you don't know about, in fact. Is that right? Hang on, no, I am the origin of this podcast. And there's no way that I could not know. there are there origins that predate me are there Chris so tell me about them tell me about them well so

I was aware of Stefan Molyneux back in the day just from paying attention to terrible people online but one of my university friends got interested in him and we're sharing his content on Facebook and this was back when people would you know use Facebook and argue about things and whatever And I responded to some of the things that he posted and was like, this is a terrible person. And then he was like, well, you didn't refute anything he said. And he posted this video of him talking to a caller, right?

It was like a 30 minute video or maybe it was longer. And he said, you didn't, you know, if he's that wrong, you should be able to show some of the mistakes he made. So I took that challenge. And I went through the audio and wrote like a Facebook comment. that was probably, you know, 2,000 words longer so, but it actually was only the first seven minutes of the video. I went through,

and I put quotation marks and was like, he said this, this is undermining the collar, this is him inferring something he can't know, blah, blah, blah, and it took me ages, right? And I did seven minutes, and I was like,

this will take me all day. And I said, there's the first seven minutes. That's enough. That should be enough to get you started. But that was a, if you like Matt, a precursor to the podcast

format that we adopt. Wow. I like that. I like that. I see now that the podcast is simply me and everyone else living in your world. You simply embraced the podcast. I was bored.

Yeah. So, and the thing with Stefan Molnu is as well, like I said, as Matt mentions, we're not going to go deep through everything that he's done because there's literally a lifetime's work of terrible things. But I will mention just a couple of the highlights. Okay. So as mentioned, he was an early adopter of online technology and has been incredibly accused of running an online cult. At that time, it focused around a couple of things.

One of them was anarcho-capitalism, a variation of libertarianism, American libertarianism. What some people might describe as just bog standard extreme right-wing views in a fancy dress. That's the way it could be described. But so anarcho-capitalism, okay, plasma, a kind of Freudian, Jungian, psychoanalytic, pseudosychology view that all the issues that people face are due to mistreatment of their parents, primarily through the issue of spanking and Mullers mistreating their children.

He had a very big chip in the shoulder about women and a very big chip about spanking. So he kind of made an internet cult around anti-spanking and anarcho-capavism. That was back when the internet was

fresh and young and you could make a cult around anything. Well, the anti-spanking doesn't sound that bad. Oh yeah, He made it bad. It does it sound bad, but he made it bad. And I want to just give people a little bit of a taste of what kind of stuff he was on about then. Because, you know, you hear anti-spanking, potentially misogynistic stuff, and you're

like, okay, all right. But I think it's different when you hear it. Okay, so this is a rather famous clip where he's talking to a caller who was initially trying to complain about his father, being an asshole and mistreating his muller. but Stefan took it a different route so listen to this your father was in your life because your mother chose him over a wide variety of other suitors women define the relationship particularly the longer term relationship because men ask women out and women say yes or now

and a pretty woman has lots of guys who want to ask her out and some of them are nice and some of them are pricks women who choose the assholes will fucking end this race they will fucking end this human race if we don't start holding them a fucking countable I agree with that. They are the gatekeepers, as you've said.

They're the gate. Look, women who choose assholes guarantee child abuse. Women who choose assholes guarantee criminality. Sociopathy. Politicians. All the cold-hearted jerks who run. the world came out of the vaginas of women who married assholes. And I don't know how to make the world a better place without holding women accountable for

choosing assholes. Your dad was an asshole because your mother chose him. Because it works on so many women. if asshole wasn't a great reproductive strategy it would have been gone long ago there you go my up okay all right yeah i was wondering how an anti-spanking theme could be made to be sinister and uh now i know yeah so there you you also hear the early stages of the evolutionary psychology of the monosphere right like like it's it's all women are all the blame for wars and politicians apparently they just

got forward in there they got a lot to answer for they got a lot to answer for the women look is it true or false that all people that are alive today were born from vaginas all born of women true or false matt true false just answer it well actually it's had in the size cesarean births but well yeah didn't think about that one did you um yeah yeah yeah so i guess look he's a he's a interesting historical artifact. He was still, unfortunately, rattling around. I take your point that he definitely an OG, an early adopter of a lot of this red-pilled, in-cell, nanosphere, misogynistic, just internet, weirdness. Yeah, a trailblazer in that regard. A trailblazer. Let's just let them finish that. You thought that was the climax, Mark. That's not the climax. Here's the end of

this round. Women keep that black bastard flame alive. They cup their hands around it. They protect it with their bodies. They keep the evil of the species going by continually choosing these guys. If being an asshole didn't get women, there would be no assholes left. If women chose nice guys over assholes, we would have a glorious and peaceful world in one generation.

Women determine the personality traits of the men because women choose who to have sex with and who to have children with and who to expose those children to. I get that you're angry at your dad and you have every reason to be angry at your dad. your dad is who he is fundamentally because your mother was willing to fuck him and have you willing and eager to fuck the monster stop fucking monstrous we get a great world keep fucking monstrous we get catastrophes we get war we get nuclear weapons we get national debts we get incarcerations and prison guards and all the other florida

assholes who rule the world. Women worship at the feet of the devil and wonder why the world is evil. And then, you know what they say? We're victims. Poor us. Right. Yes. So it's an interesting argument to let the blame of all of the bad things that men do. And their specific circumstance as well. Yeah. So all the bad things are plus this specific thing. Everything that then do. Actually, it's a women's fault. You know, an idiot

might think the blame might lie with men. But Stefan Molinio is very clever there, isn't he? He's figured it out. Yes. And this kind of clip, by the way, makes it clear. Like when you hear him talking to other people, like Joe Rogen, notably, had Stefan Molleer on four times or so back in the day. And when Joe kind of pushed him on these points, he would adopt a much more reasonable. There was no fucking assholes mentioned or this extreme rhetoric, right?

It was all, well, of course, men are to blame too, but I just want to highlight that there are issues, you know, that are sometimes overlooked and so on. So, yeah, this is, this is power for the course. So, I mean, you might have detected a note of misogyny there. There was like a little bit. A little bit, yeah. You picked it up.

He's got a lot of issues, this, Stefan. But so that's the misogyny side of things. But that's not all I did. So I mentioned anarcho-capitalism. And not already a fairly silly fringe political ideology, right? Mostly for internet fedora wearing teenagers. But there are some bald men that also get into it like Stefan. And let's just hear a little bit about where he goes with that rhetoric.

Somebody says, I support farm subsidies. You simply say to them, do you support me getting shot if I don't support them? I think we need socialized medicine. Will you support me getting shot if I don't agree? Or thrown into an ass-raping gang-bang hellish prison hole? do you support torture or violence against me if I disagree with you? We need old age security. Will you shoot me if I disagree?

Yes or no. It's a yes or no question. Will you support me getting shot if I disagree? Do you advocate the use of violence against me if I disagree with you? If every libertarian in the world did this, we would be free very quickly. And that's how to put some skin in the game, my friends. To look people in the eye.

And you say to them, do you support me getting shot if I disagree with you? Do you support the initiation of the use of force against me? Against me. You following the logic there, Mark? Yeah, yeah. I detect a small gap in the logic there. I mean, I get the vibe. Like, it reminds me of sovereign citizens

and how they feel quite strongly that they can basically proclaim their sovereign independence of any kind of social control taxation or registrations or anything like that. So if you don't agree with them, in other words, let them do whatever they want, then you have to force them to by violence is kind of the weird logic there.

It's kind of ultimately at the end of the chain of state powers against you is the monopoly on violence, right? The police and the military. So you don't pay your taxes. Okay, you start to get fines. What if you don't pay your fines? Yeah. They come to your door.

Eventually, they'll try to lock you up. What if you resist, you know, then you pull a weapon, then the military gunned you down. So you're saying that do you want people? to execute me and that is the logic so that's what he's talking about

is like you know that because the state has a monopoly of violence that by not endorsing the anti-state anarcho capitalism you're basically endorsing him dead

and so keep that in mind Bob while you hear this are you willing to look me in the eye and say Steph you should be shot because that's what we're talking about forget all the abstracts and the statistics and

it comes down to a very simple question should I be shot are you going to cheer when they drag me away and throw me in a pit of anal rape. Do you support the use of violence against me? Not others, not over there or that side of the street, but me, as a human being sitting right in front of you,

across the dinner table, across the bar, do you support me being shot? That's all it comes down to. That is integrity, courage, and certainty. Now the certainty comes with the effects of that conversation. This is where libertarians fall down, go boom. If we truly believe that the initiation of the use of violence is the core evil in the world, and it is, if you don't believe me, read my book, if we believe that the

The initiation of the use of force is the core evil in the world. And if we understand that the state is an effect of the moral beliefs of society, then those who advocate justifications or who justify the use of force are creating a world that enslaves us actively and purposefully. So what are you going to do with those people in your life? are we done you're done for an eye there's one more clip

no more pregnant pauses well i gotta say the more you listen to al stephan the more inclined you are going to be to answer yes to those binary questions he is asking

throwing into a pit of anal rape yeah why not you might deserve it it's also i think the funny thing is there, he's relying on you being a listener who, like, feels positively inclined towards Stefan, because he's like, don't talk about other people, but it's be, Stefan, baldy man here.

And in all these videos, he's at a camera, right, you know, zoomed in on his face, speaking directly to the listener as well. Yeah, like the 984 leader. And you get some hints of the cultishness there too, of course, because he's, he's, in there, right, you need to separate those people that are not 100% on. with his particular brand of, let's face it, incredibly juvenile libertarianism, then you need to get them out of your life. So, yeah, Chris, yeah, it does, and picking up, he hasn't changed his style in the content

we're going to listen to for the main part of this episode. He's got the same style, the same pregnant pauses, and the, you know, that kind of interrogating, you know, stupid, you know, binary questions, you know, to the... Oh, yes. He's got a little battery of rhetorical tricks there that are pretty primitive. Yes, and this is actually what I want, part of the reason I wanted to play this, because although the delivery in some aspects is a little bit different, like you probably won't hear him invoke Guillain or rape as much as he does in these clips, but a lot of the

stuff is very similar, and he hasn't really changed. He's just kind of moved with the times in terms of what he focuses on. Because, like, for example, now he's MAGA, right? He was a big Trump supporter. So that's a strange thing for somebody that is here talking about state powers being, you know, essentially wanting people to die. Donald Trump, not exactly somebody that is hesitant to use the powers of the state in a way that a libertarian should especially object to, right?

But that was no problem for old Stefan. And so, yeah, it is, in all fairness, he's hardly the only libertarian that has failed to pass that bar. That's true. But, you know, just here, the level of rhetoric where it's so high, the kind of non-aggression principle that's been evoked, all this kind of thing. But, Matt, you hinted that there was, you know, there was an element of cultishness creeping in there towards the end. Yes, yes, just a hint. One more clip. Let's see if people can pick up on the element that you're noting.

So, if you genuinely believe, if you are certain, that the initiation of the use of force is immoral, and that those in your life, not in the news, those in your life, who advocate and praise you, you know, you getting shot what are you going to do with those people if you're certain what are you going to do with those people you know the answer it's nothing i need to tell you you don't keep people it's amazing do even have to say this but let me say it so there's no misunderstanding it's nothing you don't know you don't keep people in your life who want you shot you don't hang with people who want you shot you don't go to dinner-potties with people who want you shot do you understand what about you means what against me in terms of violence really means.

You don't go to Thanksgiving dinner with people who want you thrown in jail. You don't go on little shopping excursions with a mother who wants you shot. If you do, and I mean, you can do whatever you want, but just now so you understand with real clarity, real clarity, that if you sit down with something, somebody, look them in the eye and say, you support the use of violence against me. And that person says, yep. And then you say, great, let's go play some air hockey, right?

Then you're a coward. Is that subtle? It is not subtle. Of course, listeners will know that a standard practice of cults is to separate people. Well, first of all, get them on board with a very totalizing philosophy spouted. by the binary yes no they they want you dead or they agree entirely with your insane anarcho-capitalist right exactly exactly it's it's only as Sith deals in absolutes never never was better advice given in the movie but but yeah that is what they do and they separate you from your family

and your friends and all your social networks um anyone really on the grounds that the other people have not accepted the absolute truth. So, yeah, Chris, I'm really seeing the benefit, actually, of us doing this cult season because I think it is helpful to listen to these cultish figures like Keith Ranieri at Stefan Molyne, you back to back, and you hear the kinds of things they're saying. I mean, he is like a less sophisticated, less plausible cult leader than Keith Ranieri, and I think that's why he was, but probably had less success. sis, I think, but also didn't go to jail. Yeah, yeah, that's part of the issue, right? He's still

around. He's, Matt, a point here that I feel that's worth noting is these clips are quite old, right? They're from back in the day in the internet. These clips existed and previously, notably Sam Harris and various other people were unable to determine whether Stefan Molyneux was actually like a problematic figure or not. Sam Harris notably, I think talked about. a year that he couldn't work out if the smears against Stefan Malnyu were legitimate or not. Like, it's not that hard. Even Joe Rogan raised some of these clips in the interviews he did with him. But like Michael Shermer went on this show many years after all these clips were public knowledge

and tweeted out that Stefan Malew was an important force for reason. Right. So, you know, you feel like it should be very clear. but it's not very clear. It certainly was not very clear to the IDW people. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, I don't understand it.

The studied obtusiness of some of those figures. And yeah, like eventually people like Sam seem to get it, at least sometimes, with some figures. It just takes them so long. And I still don't understand

whether or not there's something wrong with his brain or whether he's just so incredibly lazy that he never, even spins half an hour. Exactly. All these clips were, you know, they used to be... Actually, Molnue has done an effort to try and scrub all these.

It took me a little bit of time to find the originals of these because they've been scrubbed from the internet by him, like making copyright claims. But there you go. I do think that people do deserve condemnation if they couldn't work this out. Like there's many long detailed art that goes like on the Southern Poverty Law Center. and I know that figures in the intellectual dark web have issues with that organization

because they felt they were smeared. But you could just follow the links and see the videos of him spouting the thing right down there. In regards to the Southern Party Law Center, the main reason they were interested in them is, of course, because he's an ethno nationalist, a white nationalist. And he was that for quite a while.

Also dabbled in kind of Holocaust denialism, But as Sam Harris said when we talked to him, I brought up Stefan Maloney, by the way, when we originally talked to him. But he said that specific charge wasn't correct because Stefan does not overtly deny the Holocaust, which is true. But he engaged in the kind of frustration, shall we say, Matt, that, you know, the Nazi event is because the Jews were involved with various actions like trade union movements and Marxist movements and so on. So it was, it's not overt Holocaust nationalism, but it's, it's in that territory. And he's since become a lot more avert about all manner of things that he believed. He went on Dave Rubin and talked about Ries IQ in the size of black people's skulls and so on, right? So just to hear a little bit of this, he made a documentary about Poland and how Poland was a great country because it's predominantly white.

And I'll play a little clip of him talking about that so you can hear, you know, the white nationalists. elements you know i go to poland what is it 99% white i don't need any security the streets are incredibly clean crime is almost non-existent nobody gets called a racist there's no talk of white privilege no identity politics no endless diversity nagging you know i spoken again white nationalism, but I'm an empiricist. I'm an empiricist. I went to the country. I saw how it was like.

We could put something out on social media to have a social gathering, and we actually had the social gathering without bomb threats, without violence, without attacks, without things coming through the window. I've spoken out against white nationalism, but I'm an empiricist.

I'm listening. I'm listening to my experiences. Can't argue with the facts. Can't argue with the reality. I mean, you can, but there you go. There you go. Lovely guy. Lovely guy.

What a guy. But, you know, and oh, I'm mad, I forgot to mention that, you know, with the whole cutting off the family things. There was a specific terminology as we're often as in cults. He had a thing that he called Diefuene. It's what made him the subject of various anti-cult documentaries in the mid-2000s and whatnot. D-Fuene is the family of origin yourself, like removing yourself, cutting out your family of origin,

and embracing your new family. The freedom and philosophical family. He's also published a whole bunch of books about philosophy and his politics and all that kind of thing. at one point some philosophers reviewed his book and completely tore to shred and said it was she felt like this is a deep in philosophy right like this is even an undergraduate level philosophy but he presented that as you would imagine that he would that that's just the mainstream elites responding against him and and so on yeah so yeah it's it's interesting

I mean like Reneery too likes to like to present himself as a philosopher and And I think that's probably the go-to category for the secular type of gurus, as opposed to the religious ones, right? The religious guru will present themselves as a seer, as a prophet, and even some kind of divine figure. For a secular guru, philosopher is a convenient category for them. Yes, yes. And there's all the things we could go into.

He was, you know, a new atheist, fancy religion guy at one point. we'll hear that he's somewhat moved on those things. But, you know, so the thing that was interesting to me about was I'd actually written an article by Stefan Molyneux back in the day. So I spent some time looking at his content, looking at the survivor communities that were around him and some of the cult profiles and stuff. So I knew about his lore. But I had stopped paying attention to him after he got kicked off Twitter and YouTube.

I knew that he was still choosing content, but he, you know, it kind of faded into the background. And then whenever we were deciding to do cult season, I was like, okay, now is a good time to cover him. I went back through his content and saw, oh, you know, it's still here. It's been put out. It's up on YouTube again now. But he doesn't have his original account back, so it's not a big following. But he now does Twitter spaces and so on. And I listened to one piece of content.

And it was him talking about gaslighting. And it was the same delivery. It was the same, you know, pontificating thing. But unless you knew most of the things that underlie what he's talking about, it was mostly unobjectionable. And this is part of what he used to do in the day. He would like do a PowerPoint presentation about the Roman Empire. You could be Googling around for some history topic.

His video would come up. And it would mostly be, you know, like a kind of normal history summary video. But it would be sprinkled through with these bits that pointed towards his bigger. And it was mostly like a gateway to get you into his content. So like he started putting out videos explaining why Robin Williams killed himself, which he blamed, as you might imagine, on his wife or ex-wife and alimony payments. Like he put out videos as soon as some event happened, like doing an explainer, even when it turned out he knew nothing.

Well, this again reminds me of Reneery and I suspect it's a way that many cults operate, which is they put out the bait. Right. There's the innocuous lures out there, which, you know, could be pretty innocuous. Here's a little training session to help you be a more confident public speaker. This will help you with your acting. Here's an explainer about the Roman Empire or whatever's in the news. And that acts as a funnel, as a recruitment kind of drive. And you can get people coming further and further in. And that's when the rhetoric starts getting a bit stronger once you get into a few levels.

deep. Exactly. Exactly. Now, I was wondering when I heard that first piece of content, oh, maybe he's modulated his content to make it like less extreme. Although I didn't really know why, given that in the Trump era, it's kind of like the more extreme, the better. Candace Owens is the most popular podcaster in the world and all that kind of thing. But then I was looking and I was looking for a long piece of content. And I saw, oh, an hour and a half from at that time, the most recent piece of content. It was a Twitter space. And it was called the most frightening fact, right? It was just a Halloween themed episode. So I thought, oh, long form, you know, one and a half hour. That's when people often, you know, get more into their thing. And this is the content we're going to look at

the day. So it's, it is like a random, just recent, just a few days ago piece of content. And you're going to hear he hasn't changed at all. He's doing the exact same stuff, the same badgering of people, the same delivery. He's changed his ideology. Like he, you know, he can move around between anti-state, anti-spranking, whatever now to like a MAGA advocate. He could become like a far left person. I think it's, you know, it's entirely possible he could have went that route as well. But the fundamental nature that he's a narcissistic, manipulative individual who relies on one-on-one interactions where it can parade people, that is exactly the same as it's always been. Yeah, fascinating. Yeah, like, I think that even before we hear the content, there's a lesson

there already, and it's the same lesson as from Keith Reneery, which is that, like, a cultish kind of figure is never going to promote themselves by saying, hey, here's my cult, I want you to sign up and just follow, you know, obey my every word. and I'm going to mind control you, okay? And people go, yeah, yeah, that sounds great. I want to join. No, no, no. They always present themselves as, I'm a philosopher.

I've got deep thoughts, very interesting frameworks for understanding this, that, and the other. Come join us and join our wonderful community. And here you'll be able to learn and to grow and thrive. That is always the cell. And, you know, he does, I mean, when you put a. aside what he's saying. Similar to Ranieri, he's got a tone of voice and a method of delivery that sounds very considered and very authoritative and of course incredibly confident,

which is very important for a cult leader. Might also be a little base boosted. Let's see, you can be the judge, all right? You heard those clips of him talking in the past. Let's see how he sounds more recently. But last thing, Matt, very last thing I just want to mention, that that parallels some things we've experienced with Jordan Peterson and with Dr. Kay. So Mullenew's wife, Christina Papadopoulos, she was a psychologist, registered with the College of Psychologists of Ontario. This might be the same one that disciplined Jordan Peterson. But actually, she was also disciplined back in the day for her participation in Malinues

call-in shows where she would like kind of support his takes and reference psychology and the Psychology Association reprimanded her for practices that would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonorable or

unprofessional. And in much the same way, she stepped back from getting involved after that, but Malinue spun that as you know this was them being targeted for speaking out and all this kind of thing.

So there go. There's another parallel. Like the official reprimands don't really do anything. You know, this is the general thing. Once they've cultivated a large enough audience,

they might reel against it. They might get annoyed, but they don't really require anymore the endorsement of, you know, and in this case, it's his wife, but still,

just wanted to reference that. So links in the show notes, links in the show notes, as they say. But to turn to the recent, 2025, Halloween-themed episode. So after hearing Stefan and all those clips, I'm sure people will really enjoy the delivery

of this introductory clip where he's just having a fun time to introduce the episode. Well, you got caught with a flat. Well, how about that? Well, babies, don't you panic? By the line of the night, it'll all seem all right. I'll get you a satanic mechanic. Why don't you stay for the night, or maybe a bite?

I could show you my favorite obsession. I've been making a man with a blonde hair and a tan, and he's good for relieving my attention. It's a weird movie man. I never quite got into it, but that seems pretty funny. All right. I hope you're doing well. I hope you're doing well.

Happy Halloween to you. 31st of October, 2025. and I am here for you, my friends. I am here to listen and respond with whatever is on your mind, on your questioning, on your thoughts, and your oppositions. So I, of course, have my own thoughts. I have my own thoughts, but if you have questions, comments,

I am happy to hear. All right. Let us go. Yeah. I really, I really, I really, I really, I really wish he'd stopped with the, uh, Frankenfeiter impression or who, the, the, the, the, the, the voiceover impression, um, earlier. But he kept going as I cringed harder. That's, uh, and, uh, as he says, well, you know, he's, he's got his own ideas, but this is about responding

to other people's points, hearing different opinions, just let's have a discussion, right? Let's get into it. He's welcome to hear other people's stuff with you. Let's just keep that in mind as we go forward. Okay, that's explicitly how it's free of, that he recognizes, you know, that other people have different positions

that they'll be interested to hear them. I feel like he did emphasize that he's got his own views, his own thoughts, a little bit heavily. I think that was a bit of a hint. So the first caller, first caller we've got here, Matt, he gives him a softball. It's a softball to start off with. It's actually a fairly innocuous question

where you could give any answer and he manages to go for one of the most sinister possible. But let's hear it. Let's hear it. Hey, just since it's Halloween, I thought I'd ask you a throwaway question. What is the scariest, most frightening insight in philosophy that you've come across.

Ooh, the scariest insight that I've come across. I think for me, maybe this is for others as well. I'd love to hear your thoughts, Nat. That's a great question. Thank you. For me, it's not people's inability to think. the troubles me. If somebody's unable to think, hey, man, I'm not a tenor. I can't, I can't sing along with so lonely by the police, but it's not people's inability to think.

It's their refusal to think. Their refusal to think. I sort of feel like, like people's minds are sort of trapped in these encircling tentacled bladed iron bars of demonic possession almost if that makes sense yeah yeah I noticed his answer didn't involve any like actual philosophy like he's a philosopher no he was a question about you know what's the scariest idea in philosophy

that you come across he obviously didn't know any so he just um I think fell back on his own stuff. There's so many easy things for anybody who have even basic knowledge of philosophy too that they could have worked there but his invocation is like all the people that

refuse to think and then he moves to this quite florid description, right? People with minds trapped in encircle, tentacle-bladed iron bars of demonic possession, right? Yeah. These are in fact all the

people that don't agree with him. um yes would fall into this category yeah yeah um yeah so like i mean we're going to hear more of this right but it just i'm a bit stuck on it how these people like him they describe themselves as as philosophers they write books and stuff and they've got their frameworks and they're very nuanced ideas but they don't know any philosophy like you could have mentioned some some freaky late 19th century german philosopher i don't know well maybe someone like shop an hour or someone like they all got weird there's a lot of weird shit existentialist stuff or the dark forest ideas yeah camus maybe it's like you don't there's lots of options nietzsche would it would have

you never feel that he i don't think he would know any any of it really and you know his deep thoughts are just that all of these people that don't agree with me totally are so stupid um and so diluted that's his deep thought there yeah but you got to be careful mark because like he can easily invoke those people. Like, I'm sure he's made videos talking about a whole bunch of philosophers and whatnot, right? Like, I'm sure he has done that. Oh, yeah, I'm sure he can name drop them and do the superficial thing. But I don't think when asked a specific question, I think he would struggle to, yeah, anyway.

Yeah, yeah, I agree. It's kind of, you know, the same way Peterson invokes people, where it's mostly like a very, very superficial engagement. with ideas usually and it went pressed it turns out he hasn't even read anything beyond like kind of Wikipediaish descriptions of people so yeah but um so there go mad that's the scariest thought that he these come up with but um let's hear him elaborate a little bit more on this yeah i've seen examples in my own life uh trying to rest someone from a bad idea uh they they they start frothing almost. And people in my personal life, especially.

Yeah, it's like you bring them some facts, reason, and evidence of there's this pushback, this aggression, this violence. I'm really, we can see what people mean by demonic possession throughout history. Or even more sadly, there's this smirk. Like, oh, you want me to reason? Oh, come on, come on, try and reason with me. I'll play with you a little. pretend a little. I'll bat you around like a cat with a rat. You're never actually getting through

to me, but I don't mind you beating your head against my indifferent ice wall of anti-rationality. I'm not going to reveal it too much, but you can just tire yourself out trying to climb these walls where I pour the inevitable grease of avoidance down the bricks. So that, either it's like, like fight back, fight back, or it's just this sort of snarky, superior, like a, like a waiter peeing on you from a great height a french waiter a french waiter a french waiter peeing on you from a great height and that either demonic pushback or that oh oh that you're bringing that little philosophy brain of yours to the table well i suppose we can indulge you for a little while i can't really go very far with it because heaven forbid we actually think about anything but

i certainly don't mind you tiring yourself if that's what you feel like yeah like all of those um colorful images, the imagery invokes, it's a bit of a smoke screen for the fact that what he's saying is pretty basic, right? He's complaining about the fact that when he says stuff, people don't always agree with him. Sometimes they, and he records that they're just not trying to understand or they're being dismissive about his ideas. And it's the lack of self-awareness there, Chris, because as listeners will hear, he does all of those things when somebody says something to him that he doesn't immediately agree with it. That isn't perfectly in line with what he already believes. He's incredibly dismissive. He gets really angry and pissed off. But, you know,

someone like this, they never, they never actually go that far in terms of self-reflection. No, and he's got a very, you know, like he's talking about people looking down on a loose. and, like, being pretentious and dismissive. And that's everything. That's what he is, right? He is exactly that. Even his tone in this whole delivery is superior and dismissive and, like, demonizing the art group, right?

So he's talking about people who adopt these kind of, you know, hardy airs as he doesn't. As he's doing right there. It reminds me of Joe Rogan talking about liberals. You got these fucking liberals. like, they're just like, they're, you know, they're so stupid and they're little namby-pambies and you can't reason with them. They refuse to listen. And the worst thing is, is that they look down on us. They don't respect us at all. Yeah, they're always saying mean things about us.

They're so partisan, these liberals. And it's like, Joe. Anyway, so yes, a good example there, Chris, of what he knows. So there we have, right? And this is laying the foundation for Anybody that disagrees, you know, like you said, originally, they can't think they're, they're, they're, they're, you know, this relates to demonic possession. And he, it actually one thing that brought up to me was the, uh, Alex Jones kind of theatrics around when he, you know, imitates demons going, rah, they're frashing and the like it's, it's, it's a, it's a it's a slightly more restrained delivery, but not a very far from it. So in any case, there you go. So you've got that. And as I said, Matt, Stefan was a atheist, that kind of new atheist person, a bit

like a James Lindsay type. But he since become, you know, maga and pro-effner nationalism and the right-wing audience tends to like Christianity a bit more. So let's see if you can detect a slight pivot here. I had that, I was talking about the atheist today. And atheists way more superstitious than Christians. Because at least Christian faith leads to objective reasons. reason, objective rationality, but the faith that atheists have in the state, which is far more improbable than God, leads to like universal slaughter. So, yeah, I think it's the fact that people seem to be captured. I view people around me, not immediate people, of course, but I view the people that kind of interact with in the world, as they've got all of these puppet threads going

up to some demonic machinery. Literally, I mean, this is my view. They've got these threads. And they think they're moving themselves. They think that they're opening their mouth. They think they're making sounds, but they just sound like everyone else. Laying it on a little bit thick there. Everyone is an MPC robot rhetoric.

Like, God damn, Matt, these cult leaders, they really just go for the classics, right? Like, everyone's a demon puppet. Yeah, the totalizing language is worth zeroing in on and just picking up on. Like, they want you dead. They want to commit violence to you. They want universal slaughter. They're possessed by demons. They're empty shells with their strings being pulled by puppets.

I mean, this is... That they don't even recognize. That's right. So this is the out group. This is everyone else who is not fully on board with this particular, this is called a cult. Yeah, this worldview, shall we say. And you heard of Matt, you know, the invocation that or atheists are way more like irrational, right, their belief in the state. And that relates, of course, as you might imagine, to his kind of anti-communist stuff, right? You and I, Matt, not great fans

of communist regimes, but, you know, the right wing have a particular demonization word, like socialized health care is essentially the gateway drug for, you know, the pogroms and so on. It's a slippery, it's a slippery slope, Chris. If you can't see how universal healthcare is going to lead to universal slaughter, then I can't help you, mate. That's right. Anarcho-capitalists, their mean enemy is the communist. You might imagine, like it's the actual state that they exist and live in,

but no, no, it's left wing, anything left quoted. Laying it on a little bit thick there Everyone is an MPC robot rhetoric Like God damn that these cult leaders They really just go for the classics Like everyone's a demon puppet Yeah the totalising language Is worth zeroing in on

And just picking up on Like they want you dead They want to commit violence to you They want universal slaughter They're possessed by demons They're empty shells with their strings being pulled by puppets. That they don't even recognize. That's right.

So this is the out group. This is everyone else who is not fully on board with this particular, this is called a cult. Yeah, this worldview, shall we say. And you heard there, Matt, the invocation that, or atheists are way more irrational, right? their belief in the state. And that relates, of course, as you might imagine, to his anti-communist stuff, right? You know, like, you and I'm not, not great fans of communist regimes, but the right wing have a particular demonization word, like socialized health care is essentially the gateway drug for the pogroms. It's a slippery, it's a slippery slope, Chris. If you can't see how

universal health care is going to lead to universal slaughter, then I can't help you, mate. That's right. An anarcho-capitalist, their mean enemy is the communist. You might imagine like it's the actual states that they exist and live in. But no, no, anything left quoted. But so, Atheist, let's hear a little bit more. Oh, and Matt, just in case you thought that the Weinstein's wouldn't be invoked in this content. Oh, how wrong you were. And in it, one of the characters is talking about NPCs.

And it's just really sad. It's really sad how eager and willing people are to give up their humanity for the sake of conformity and emptiness and it's the superiority in which they go to the original and scorn them. That is nails on a chalkboard to me. People today, like I took on the atheists, they're like, well, but the atheists, I think Brett Weinstein was sort of quoting about how people are. going back to religion and atheism, the new atheism is dead. It's like, well, no fucking kidding. It was one of the Weinstein brothers. Anyway, no kidding, because the atheists didn't get to universal morality.

They, in fact, rejected it. I gave them the answer 20 years ago, worked hard to publicize it, did speeches, presentations, PowerPoints, debates, you name it, to get their word out. And atheists just walked away from the ultimate and final proof. of secular ethics. They don't care about virtue at all. We can't live without virtue. So if you lead a bunch of people out into the desert and they say, you know, we need

some water out here and you're like, oh, but that's such a subjective, you know, you put on your fucking fedora and, oh, that's just a subjective preference. And people are like, no, we like we seriously need some water here. Well, I can produce some urine, maybe some bilge water. A couple of day old Guinness that's been left in the sun. No, no, no, sorry. We need some water. The human beings, we need water.

We can't live in the desert on urine. And eventually, if you don't produce the water, people just go back to the town they came from. Because that's where the water is. So the atheists lure people away from Christianity, out into the desert, refused to give them water, and now, well, it's failed. No, you just didn't provide people the water that they need

in order to survive as a society, which is universal ethics. You lured them out, into the desert, and fucked them over. Again, colorful imagery. A lot of references to urine and anal rip and stuff. Like, you know, I said that he didn't invoke that, but I'm just noticing he does, like, he does gravitate towards extreme examples. Yeah, I think it's part of the, part of the schick, isn't it? Like, I think you're a right to compare him to Alex Jones, who also has that really strong imagery. Yeah, lurid.

That's the word. And I think it helps with the rhetoric quite a bit, doing a fair bit of heavy lifting. But you strip that part out, and he's basically saying that he figured it all out 20 years ago, back when I suppose he was a new atheistic type before he didn't embrace the Maga type, pseudo-religious. So he had it all figured out a way to have this universal morality, whatever the fuck that is, to figure it all out from his philosophy, I suppose. But you know, stupid atheists, they didn't accept it. And that's why people are going back to religion. The ultimate of final proof of secular ethics he offered my... And he had PowerPoints.

We need to find this PowerPoint presentation. Yeah, but like the thing that I got here is, you know, just to do our own horn. Revolutionary theory, ding, grievance-mongering about your theory not being accepted, ding, right? Like he's got the same narrative that the Weinstein brothers do. He discovered this amazing thing. Nobody was willing to pay attention,

and now they're paying the consequences. So this is part of how he's cursed the circle about, you know, he was an atheist, but he still wants to condemn the atheist's like new audience. So he's like, If they had done what I said, it would have all been a utopian future. Yeah, and instead they're getting fucked over in the desert. Just in the desert?

Yeah. A lot of fucking going on to the people. And there again, I just have to say that, you know, the projection is strong because he is in a way like one of the king of the in-cell. Like when Elliot Rogers went on this spree and killed all the people and left the manifesto, blooming women for not sleeping with him and him the ultimate gentleman right yeah the ultimate the ultimate nice guy exactly step from all you made a video saying we we can't be sure this is about misogy and stuff like it's right but there he invokes like fedora wearing people online who are going

to raise these like kind of rationalists is what he's been now but i'm like but what are you talking about that's like you and your audience like you are the the federa is coming from inside the height. It's just the projection is so strong. Yeah. And I am really interested in his audience that the people who are calling in that he's talking to are big fans, presumably. They'd listen to hundreds of hours of his content are fully bought in. And yeah, you know, getting to call up and have a one-on-one with the master is a big deal for them. And I am just curious to profile them. I think you described them as most likely being, lost boys, seekers, and really quite sort of, they seem to not mind being bullied and dominated

by Stefan Molinian. No, now in this case, we should say that like this case are mostly agreeing with them, yes-handed and saying, you're not going to see it yet, the bullying aspect. But here you're just getting basically, you know, the kind of cultish, everybody else is an MPC. And when it disagrees, they can't think. They're demonic puppets. They want you to drink urine in the desert. And one more just colorful imagery matter for we leave this segment.

So, yeah, people get mad and I understand it. And then, of course, people are like, yes, but yours isn't a real proof. You never proved your ethics. You never proved that anything was universal. You never just fucking idiots. just absolute idiots and people who are

urinating on the watercolors of their batterers sorry you were about to say something and I may have overspoken you because I heard of Russell was there something you wanted to mention yeah I like that he got you know taken up by his

metaphor right urinating in the water colors of the batter so he's the better right he's the philosopher king yes he criticized and Jordan Peters

technique off make your opponents don't like this never fails it's it's a powerful it's a powerful approach and he seems to have really adopted this kind of fancy accent like he sometimes increases it bungs it on a bit more to sort of make a point but his default seems to be like kind of pretentious right yeah yeah pretentious is the way I would describe it and There's been some suggestions about Biosperstein voice effects, but regardless of what the source of it is, he does like to have that very multifiless delivery and pregnant pauses and so on.

Yeah, yeah. He's very good at those. I guess they give him time to think and figure out what his next colorful metaphor is going to be. So, okay, he's these silly, silly critics. He had the fantastic ethics. it would have sorted everything out, resolved any problems the atheists and the religious people might have had.

It's not that he's now pandering to a different audience and he wants to criticize the atheists instead of religious people. It wouldn't be that, Matt. It's definitely not that. And there was one thing that he mentioned because he was talking about, he's recording in another audio book. He self-published a large number of books, as you might anticipate. But, yeah, this reminds.

It reminded me, actually, of the Verviki school of little side stories where people praise him for his insight. So listen to this. I just, I had a very, I had an emotional day. I just tell you that straight up. I had an emotional day because I'm reading one of, I mean, it's the most passionate book in many ways that I've ever written, the book I'm working on, or just finishing up the audiobook reading of. I've got two, one more chapter to go, an audiobook. just finish the chapter 20 no i think i have two more two more to go you have two more chapters to go and it is the book is about the sadness as you trace someone through life from early bad

decisions to what happens later on when they can't escape those bad decisions and i read uh i did the audiobook reading of just an absolutely horribly sad chapter my wife cried reading reading it this morning, we did some work on it, and then I cried reading the audiobook this afternoon. Everybody's crying. You know, when he was talking about, I had an emotional thing, you know, I was reading a really emotional thing. I, like, at the beginning, I didn't anticipate that it was going to be his own work. You know, I was just watching a couple of Garth Marengi clips on Stasat, and this is

something Garth Marengi would say. He was reading his own book, and he was absolutely. absolutely floored by the profundity and the sheer emotional power of it. His wife, too, Matt, though, is wife too? You know, Jordan Peterson's wife, she often tells him how brilliant. John Vervakey's wife said that he was the most true Christian she's ever met. And Brett Weins, as we know, infamously, has Heller Haying to keep him in check when he's going off. It's almost like people shouldn't rely on their close relatives as, you know, perhaps the most, you know, objective, independent people.

I don't know what. I don't know. Call me crazy. Well, wasn't Molyneux himself saying it was all women's fault. They're the ones enabling these terrible people. Maybe there's something to that, Chris. Yeah. I said, not his wife, though, Ma. It's other people's wives. So, you know, you meet a schoolboy era there. So anyway, let's hear a little bit more with the call-in interaction, you know, because he was, he's given advice. He's, he's, he's, he's providing feedback, but you got a bit distracted talking about people pissing on his watercolors. But what happens next? Thank you for your answer. It anticipates something

frightful that I get to probably look forward to this holiday season. I'm going to ask my family member, I guess the Charlie Kirk question, how they reacted to it. And then get to, I anticipate, I think I know their reaction. I haven't asked them about it formally yet. I think they might have enjoyed it and then i have to deal with the consequences of that and i'm sorry about that that's a tough thing to do but holy schister balls is it ever worth doing because there's going to come a time in the not too distant future when people will be informing on you or making things up uh east germany stasi style and you really can't have traders in your midst in what is coming you need people who are going to be with you 150 so it's it's time to clean house

it's sad though it is but if uh if the the party and the position of tolerance and humanity giggles over a father and a husband being shot through the neck and bleeding out you are not breaking bread with people you're breaking bed with demons in control of people and again i'm not saying this is a literal truth but this possession thing you know like the bird like how the possessions, the bird hand, the white eyes, the, hmm, huh, huh, like all the little facial ticks and the bird hands and the staring eyes and the piercings. It's all just like, yeah, the demon's got me and I ain't even fighting it anymore. You know, you see these horror movies. Oh no, the demon is possessed a child. Fight, Stacy, fight. And it's like, nah, I'm good.

I'm happy to be squatting in the fretted lap of a smoky skin demon. Yeah, yeah, just where I want be. Perfect. Yeah. I couldn't, couldn't, couldn't be better. Things couldn't be better. Yeah, I'm actually a little bit triggered by that. The, the Charlie Kirk thing, like, it just so quickly became this litmus test amongst conservatives where you had to show, you know, so much respect for the man. You had to not say anything bad about him. He was the best of all possible men immediately promoted to demigod status. And I kind of, I mean, I'm inferring here, but I suspect the guest there is, is taking the opportunity to do that with one of his relatives, who is liberal leaning.

And of course, Molyneux jumps on that, because he is an excellent opportunity to cut them off, you know, you pin them down, you make them say their loyalty oaths about Charlie Kirk. And if they don't meet the standard, then you cut them off because they're positioning. by demons and in the what the civil war or the revolution or whatever apocalyptic thing is coming you need to sever all ties oh he's just yeah he's i mean he's he's saying there there's a ton of stuff right but there's the one as you noted like he's suggesting about the need to cut off people we don't adhere to your political interpretations there he's presenting

it like, you'd have to be a demon, right? An absolute demon. And he's invoking the kind of people gleefully celebrating Charlie Kirk's death. But like, it doesn't have to be that, right? It can just be people that don't have this hallowed reverence towards Charlie Kirk. And you can see that because he immediately starts talking about possession and demons and stuff. And you heard, Matt, that thing that always comes up where the people, can be quick to denounce that.

They're not talking about literal demons, but then go on to say, but it is actually very like what demon possession is described that. So you've got that this clear more where people can say, well, he's not talking about literal demons, but he very much is talking about like stereotypical demon possession. And like this is, you know, outgroup demonization. It's in the fucking war.

You couldn't find a more textbook example. Yeah, and also Shades of Pajot and Peterson and Info Wars guy. Alex Jones, yeah, absolutely. Alex Jones, I mean, Alex Jones likes to invoke people being possessed by literal demons. But, I mean, as we'll hear in Oly Cups, Maloneyu, it's all just disclaimers because he has no issue invoking actual possession and stuff like that. But so there, you know, you get the recommendation to cut out your family over conservative political test. And so this is towards the end of the call. Let's hear a little bit more.

And the superiority, when people get beyond reason and they're beyond the reach of reasonable, compassion, humanity. Humanity. We are nothing if we don't reason. We do not inhabit our humanity if we don't reason. when somebody doesn't reason doesn't listen to reason doesn't reason evidence doesn't listen to reason or evidence they're telling you straight up that they have dehumanized themselves and when they have dehumanized themselves it follows as night follows day they will dehumanize you they will dehumanize others they have become machines of murder and it's best to get out of their way like there are

some giant threshing machine that's gone loose and languid in a field, you know, it's going to take you down. Hey, happy Halloween. Hope that makes sense. Yeah. He sure does love his evocative metaphors, doesn't he, Chris?

A giant thrashing machine that's gotten loose and gone languid. The language is a curveball in a field. Yeah, machine a murder. And I like that, hey, happy Halloween. super upbeat but yeah so he's constantly

invoking that these people look down on you they dehumanize you you know they want you dead like we heard him invoke that kind of rhetoric right in the earlier clip when he was talking about like people not being libertarians and here it's again you know they're monstrous they want you to die

like Charlie Kirk and then it's all projection because he's saying they will dehumanize you you know it's like they will present you like demons like inhuman machines or what they are like is people possessed by demons or

monstrous machines how do people not notice like you know the blatant double standards it's shocking projection is the right word there projection is the right word yeah well what I was hearing there was just this is like textbook rhetoric isn't it

you can follow the little rhetorical angle which is these other bad people, if they don't agree with me, it means they can't reason, means they're beyond the reach of reason or compassion, which means they've lost their humanity. And because they've lost their humanity, they've become these demons and they will straight up murder you if they get a chance. So we have to. Yeah, like it's perfect, perfect example of rhetorical language. Yeah, yeah. And it's just like providing the justification again for, you know, cutting people outright. Like, why would you want people around you who want you dead or who think that, you know,

you're not human and all these kind of things? It's, yeah, this peaceful man. But then let's hear what the listener gets from this. With regards to demonic possession, it makes me think there's a book I found that you recommended by what's his name, Richard Schwartz, no bad parts on the internal family systems model, and just everything that you've said about like inner parents and so on, it's making me think about neuroplasticity and the psychological, I guess, or material reality of these dysfunctional, like bad inner parents

that sort of manifest and take control of people's minds, I think that's probably what's happening in a lot of these cases that a lot of these political matters are very surface level and it's all just tied to trauma. Yeah, I mean, there is a very horrible bargain that is put forward by the educational systems and the media systems of the modern world. Are you familiar with this book, Chris, by Richard Schwartz?

Well, I'm becoming increasingly familiar with this because if you remember, internal family systems therapy was the therapy that John Verveke was undergoing when he referenced Hermes at sneaking in. And I've heard it come up

in other contexts. I also heard it Allison Mack, for example, in the podcast that she's doing kind of detailing her life after Nixium, she's talking about it, right?

And this is the therapy system whereby you kind of personify elements of yourself like they're an autonomous character that you can engage in dialogue with through a therapist. Oh, so is this where Hermes comes from?

Is he? Hermes was, I mean, he broke out of the internal family system. They were busy doing internal family stuff and then Hermes just interjected like like the Kool-Aid man. Hermes, what are you doing here? Okay. So, I don't know. Yeah, I don't like the sound of this. I'm going to have to look into this internal family systems model.

Oh, yes. Well, internal family systems has some issues. Now, people will swear by it, Matt, because they have done it and they've received positive benefits. But I will just say that does not validate the actual claims of a therapeutic system. Right. And as it turns out, the founder, the person who they're mentioning there, Richard Schwartz, has recently. come out with a, like a refinement, shall we say, of the system, which reveals that there are actual spiritual elements. You can use it to connect with disembodied spirits and non-corporial beings and so on. So there you go. So I just think internal family systems, it's so hot right now. But here, you have somebody talking about trauma, dysfunctional, relationships and so on. And we've already heard how that's fertile ground for Molnou. But his response, Matt, as well, you know, immediately ties it.

Oh, yeah, that makes me think about the educational and media systems of the modern world. Like, you know, the corrupted world narrative. So, yeah, it just shows, you know, they're ready for the pivot whenever they get the opportunity. Yeah. And now we've raised the flagmat about. hypocrisy, it being a concern, like these double standards that are being deployed, being of

concern. Let's see if you can note any like hint of hypocrisy in this millennium. It's the most unholy and historical deal of all, which is you can be good by hating people. Hatred, like let the hatred flow through

you. Because you literally see, what was this woman? I can't remember her. Jennifer Welsh. I think her name is she runs a big podcast. Her husband, if I remember rightly, was a lawyer and an addict for quite some time. I'm not sure what kind of addict. She had a couple of kids with him. They split up.

They're kind of back together, but half back together. And just a horrible life, you know, to have, to give children to an addict. And then, oh, it's just monstrous. And she was, Riley Gaines has been opposed to sort of this, trans participation in female sports. Now, whatever you think of the debate or whatever you think of the argument, it is an important debate to have.

And Jennifer Weller's just, you're so full of hate. And then, you know, like a twat, nobody likes you or like just spewing this thick verbal. And she's got this weird, I don't know if she had the buckle fat sort it out, like snorted out of her cheeks. You've got this weird hollow skull-like cheeks

and just this venom, right? and I hate you, so I'm good. I'm going to trash you. I'm going to cheer on murder. I'm going to verbally abuse people, and that makes me the good guy. Because goodness should be earned, like the feeling of being virtuous,

should be earned by knowledge, wisdom, both compassion and strength. And to just literally grab people by the fucking ears and scream in their faces that you're a header and it's like not even notice that contradiction is wild to me

it's like beating children saying don't hit people sorry go ahead yes yes a lot of compassion I could I could hear it oozing through his voice there his caricatures yeah when he brought up her hollow cheeks the book of fat surgery that she might have had

and you know just a weird fierce and all that like But it just strikes me because, you know, he starts off, he's complaining about people demonizing art groups and like portraying themselves as holier than vow people, right? And then that justifying them being very cruel and venomous. And then he immediately slips into like a venomous personal attack on the person. And then you hear him switch to the siege philosopher, right? Like goodness should be earned, right? It should be blah, blah. It should be blah. It's It's all very theatrical, but the, like, the hypocrisy isn't hidden.

Like, it's, it's right there. He's saying, you know, imagine somebody who doesn't even describe you like a person, you know, just caricatures you're in, those impressions or something like that. And then slips into an impression. It's so weird. Yeah. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, now, his fans there, the people he's talking to, don't seem to notice any of this.

Yeah. I know. And there is actually a bit where he immediately after this will try to, I think he's aware, like it kind of flags up in his brain, wait a minute, and going to be accused of being hypocritical. So he tries to head it off at the past. But just to highlight the hypocrisy one more time. I think I've nailed it. But here you go. That level of sort of vengeance. But they do it around language and propaganda. I mean, honestly, it's just struggle sessions. You create class enemies. You label them, bigot, phob, racist, whatever, right? And then that just

get Nazi. And then that just gives you permission to hate them and feel like a good person, to let the hatred flow and feel like you're just the best person in the world because you've dehumanized others and you now no longer seek to understand them. You no longer seek for dialogue and so on. I mean, I've had debates with the communists and socialists and I've even had debates with fascists, which are, you know, fascists are kind of rare, although Well, not these days, because a fascism is very often a response to escalating communism. But, yeah, I mean, I'll try and talk with just about anybody, but they won't do it. They just, they're told, these are people you can legitimately and virtuously hate and want dead.

And they love it, man. They love like slurp, slurp, right? They love sucking the bone marrow out of the perceived. enemies. And I mean, they're even worse than murderous soldiers, because murderous soldiers know that, you know, the enemy is a little bit like them, right? Is you what I mean? It's almost like a skit or something. Yeah. Like in the same breath that he's describing them as these like vultures or something, sucking the marrow out of the bodies of their dead enemies.

Slope, Slope, Slope, Slope. Worse than murderous soldiers. Worse than murderous soldiers. Yeah, he's sort of lamenting their lack of empathy for their, and lack of, you know, trying to understand Bill Bridges with their fellow human beings. It's kind of, I find the juxtaposition so impressive because it's like, on the one hand it's kind of this peon to civility point like yeah i can dialogue with anyone i'm you know i'm a theme the dialogos provider and but then and they're always telling you

how evil the other people are but it's literally 30 seconds data and he's like and they blood-sucking monsters that they are like i mean i can only assume that it works on his cult members because they have deeply absorbed the truth that he is a great guy and that he hears everything that he said he is. So he can't get away with this kind of stuff, right? Chris, we have to just mention, you notice he's had dialogue with all kinds of people, even communists and fascists and Nazis. But I mean, I'm sure you noticed how when he mentioned the fascists, he had to sort of cut him a break a little bit. Because these days, the people they call fascists, they're really just reacting against this escapade and communism that's going on right now.

Yes. Well, this reminded me that Raller infamously, he suggested that, you know, the Nazis were just responding to kind of the Jewish-led Bolsheviks. Like it was the reason that the Nazis targeted the Jews was because they were so prominent in these kind of communist movements, right? That's it. Not that he's blaming the Jews, of course. but yeah so it's just a reaction map it's a natural reaction the holocaust yeah yeah i did

notice that so after after that i do think he picked up on that the level of hypocrisy might be approaching breaking point like it's it's a bit on the nose what he's what he's up to so this is the disclaimer and preemptive defective of criticism that he's about to receive so listen to this now of course I understand. I understand. And I'll address this, right? I understand people saying, well, Steph, my God, how hypocritical can you be? Well, I'm always trying to plumb those deaths, right? How hypocritical can you be? Steph, you're talking about people dehumanizing others through hatred. And yet you hate them or you are dehumanized. You're conning them demonically possessed and puppets and NPCs. You're dehumanizing them. Like, no, but that's different because it's in response to. It's in response to. If somebody celebrates the murder of someone and you say that person has dehumanized others and they've become intellectually corrupt beyond words, it's not like, oh, but you're just the same.

Because that would be, for that equivalent, it would be like if there was somebody on the left who went around having sort of reasonable debates with people and they got. shot and people celebrated that, be like, no, no, that's, it's not right either. So to point out the people are dehumanized and dangerous, it's saying that the people who want you dead, and I mean, let's not kid ourselves, right, the left ones and people like us dead. And so people who want you dead to say, well, you're just dehumanizing them. It's like, I don't know, would you go to a Jewish guy who said, I think the Nazis are evil and say, well, you're just like them because you're dehumanizing them, it's like, no, no, no, but that's a bit of a different point, right?

Very different point. It's a opposing point. So, yeah, it is, it is just that they'll give you these words that are so charged with hatred that you just attach them to someone and now you are legitimately moral for hating this person and wanting them dead. And, yeah, it is absolutely, absolutely monstrous. And it is not symmetrical. It is not symmetrical.

You tempted at all to point out the Achilles heel? in that argument there, Chris, is there any issue of that? I've got one or two that I've seen the one that I just want to flag up before you provide the kill shot, Matt. It's the, no, no, these words like that, you know. Yeah, kill him, Matt. Take that slurping demon. I'm not demonizing an art group. I've just responded to someone who displays hatred. But yeah, so he's mentioning that he is responding only to these kind of, you know, murderous dehumanizing people, people that are, you know, ghoulishly celebrating the death of Charlie Kirk and to criticize

them. It's only reasonable. And now, he does however go on to say, let's not kid ourselves. The left wants us all dead. The left, the left, the left, everyone on the left. So, you know, you and I, we didn't celebrate in Charlie Kirk's death, but we are on the left. So I guess we want everyone on the right dead as he says you know so he's in this thing where it's like it's only very specific people that are absolutely doing the same level of rhetoric no i've never done this florid metaphorical painting of my enemies as monsters right that are slurping bones and all these kind of things that's him and alex jones do that so my point would be he claims it's it's in response to like a specific group that's dehumanizing him and his friends, right?

But it's, it's not. He is piercing that on to every critic and ideological enemy. But what did you notice? Well, it's kind of boring because it's exactly the same thing. You stole my thunder, my friend. That's just because you're very astute. I mean, his argument would make sense if you accept the premise. And premises that like everyone more progressive than,

then him and his circle. Like, I think his definition of the left is so expansive that it includes, like, 70% of Americans, probably. He's not talking about a dozen random accounts, shit posting online, is talking about all of us. That's right. And he likens us to Nazis, essentially. And that is, you know, it's just that absolutist us and them type language that cults do. Like, you can look at how, what is it, the West Barrow Baptist Church, for instance, operates, which is everyone except for their circle is fallen, is just absolutely evil grovelling

in the dirt worms. And if you accept that premise, then a whole bunch of other stuff follows around, you know, cutting yourself off and protesting outside places and so on, swearing, you know, yelling at them in the street and so on. So, yeah, so he's, yeah, he's like a pure rhetoric monster, you know, sets up, sets up certain premises. Monster, you said, Matt, you're dehumanizing The funny thing is as well. And I just want to clarify that. You said he would cast 70% of America, but you don't mean 70% of America is liberal.

You mean that he regards anybody to the left of him, which would include conservatives, right? Yes, exactly. They're just clarifying the percentage is there. I think a lot of moderate conservatives would, like everyday people. Never Trumpers. Yes, for example. Exactly.

Yeah, yeah. So just in case anybody thought, Matt, for America was 70% liberal. I'm just pointing that out for your benefit, Ma. The C-Bast of you meals. So, well, so you heard this, right? And this deflection, I think it's actually pretty good, pretty savvy,

because this is the kind of thing like Brett Weinstein does or Russell Brand. You know, they provide their listener with the deflection. This is the talking point if people bring up that I am demonizing people. You know, Joe Rogan and Chris Williamson, if they had of being a bit more self-reflective, they could have immediately after demonizing all Democrats said, now this isn't the same as what we are completely about damn hearing. That's right, because we're describing something factually real.

Yeah, so that's what he did. So I kind of, like, I'm impressed at the rhetoric scale, but, you know, I'm not impressed in any any moral sense of it, right? You just got to admire the technique. But so his caller continues. There's still in dialogue goes here. And I think you might pick up on why some of this kind of rhetoric might appeal to his caller. Well, a curious thing I noticed in my personal conversations or debates is the harshest

reaction I've gotten and from men in particular is, taking a dance against abortion because I've talked to women about it and I've talked to men about it and for some reason the men get more vociferous and I think going back to the sort of internal family systems at least this is my assumption my psychological reading of it I assume that it must be like like coming from a place of being scolded by a woman harshly as a child I'm assuming. I mean, I'm reading into people I know in particular, but yeah. How do you interpret this psychoanalysis here? He's saying that he's experienced harsh reactions from men when he's argued with them about abortion. I assume that he's against it. And he ascribes these men's response attitudes or reaction to being scolded by a woman harshly as a child. Does that make any kind of sense? It's the kind of psychoanalytic approach, but there again, Matt, just not in internal family systems being invoked, right?

I mean, it's just a gloss, right, to make that point. But the general notion of all knew, like we heard of the clips of the start, is women are to blame for men's behavior, right? So the caller here is mirroring his rhetoric, which is like, men have responded more harshly when I've been opposing abortion. So how to attribute that to where? What is this women's fault? I know. Yeah. And he says, well, what about, you know, is it maybe that they were scolded by women?

That must be it. That makes sense. Yeah, they've compensated. And, well, let's see how Stefan feels about, you know, that particular tier. So let's say there's a bunch of women and not theoretical. There's a bunch of women who are like, well, it's a woman's choice and it's abortionist healthcare and so on, right? You want to enslave women in turn of it.

and the breeding cows and so on, like this hysteria of The Handmaid's Tale, which does exist in the world, but I guess the Margaret Atwood was too much of a chicken shit to write about where it really happens. She has to make up where it doesn't happen, which is Christianity.

Fucking coward. Oh, repulsive. Brill of a head, which. I just had it was. He got to be sartrecked by how much he hated Margaret Atwoods. I'm sorry. God, like, he's cartoonish in a way, right?

Like, because there's so much there. You hear a little bit of the kind of new atheists looking through, right? Because, I mean, also, he doesn't like Muslims, right? Matt, so this is, naturally. And so he's appealing to Christians, but he wants to say, like, if you want to talk about real misogyny and stuff, you'd be willing to, you know, critique Islam, right? You couldn't possibly critique both.

So that, of course, is the natural trajectory for someone who is a former new atheist or whatever, who now is transformed, or long ago transformed into a full-on right-wing polemicist to sort of, you know, I guess locate all of their previously universal anti-religious sentiments to just Islam. Christianity is actually fine. Yeah, maybe there's certain bits of Christianity that you take issue with, but like overall, it's so much better than, you know, the communist, godless agenda of the left. So, yeah, he got distracted there, but, you know, let's hear him continue on.

So he was talking about, you know, the abortion thing and the suggestion that maybe it's scolding women that are actually to blame. Because if you're like, you know, I'm not so sure about the ethics of abortion. You know, I mean, women have killed more human beings in the past 50 or 60 years than all of the wars throughout all of history. I mean, is it possible it's gone too far? Is it possible that it's irresponsible? Is it possible that it's being used as a form of birth control? Is it possible that dehumanizing babies is not the way to go in society?

Is it possible that it has long-term psychological and physical negative effects on women? And it does, as far as I understand it. But if you even bring that up, right, what happens in a lot of places? Because women have just become hysterically left, like left to center. Men are as or maybe even a little bit more conservative women have just gone completely. They've been completely radicalized into hyper-leftism, particularly among the young. And so what happens if you're like, you take some position that's not hyper-leftist and the women lose their shit? Oh, he's such a creep.

Oh, he's a MAGA. Oh, he's a conservative. Oh, he's a patriarch. and they spread it around and you can't get any dates. It's interesting. I'm trying to get a feeling for the kind of audience that he's catered to. And increasingly, it's becoming clearer. You've got the intel kind of, you know, they won't even date like a man, right?

The women, they're hyper-leftists. Like, they're looking down on you. And I like the just asking questions segments. Is it possible it's going before? Is it possible? Is it possible? Yes. Yes, Stephen.

You know, you're right. You're right. It is possible. I can't believe they won't let you say that. Yeah. But, you know, like, again, I think the way Stefan would frame it is that if somebody even suggested that it's possible that there might be, you know, some possible downsides to abortion that there might be some negative effects.

Then, of course, as a progressive person, your instinct would be to grab them and scream in their face. Throw them off the building, like Spendendorfirce. And, yeah, like, no. No, there's like, and it being used as a form of birth control. Find me one woman that would prefer to have an abortion rather than to use some other method of birth control.

It's so ridiculous. Don't say one woman, that's too little of a bar. in a world of seven billion people. You know, you know what I'm saying. You're just protecting me against internet patents. I know. Yes, I am. So, but yes, so he presents it that there's simply,

you're not allowed to even have to be. It's about any of those issues or whatever. And like, but there are Christian left-wing people who take issues with abortion or moral rights as well. Like, it is a topic that people debate and have different opinions on in liberal circles, maybe not in like the most extreme, you know, progressive leftist, I don't know, fucking Wicking communist book club or whatever, but across the whole left, yes, it is. There are various positions and just the general thing is that there is an inclination

towards women have the most right over their own body, right? That is the, that's, that's a big he's pointing to, that's legitimate. But the rest of it is just, like, it's hysterically overwrought. And it is. Yeah. It is. No, no, Chris, it's the women that are hysterical. Oh, well, well, no, we have to, as we say, women have gone crazy.

Yes, well, take him for granted. But the question was about men, right? And Stefan wants to psychoanalyze the man and what they're up to. I think, I think there's two answers. Obviously, they're not the only answers. They may not, I didn't be the right ones, but I'll tell you the answers that are pop into my mind. The first is that men who want women to sleep around,

in other words, men who are sex addicts and variety sex addicts definitely want abortion to be legal. I mean, that's for pretty obvious reasons, right? So your sex addicts definitely want abortion to remain legal, so that women don't have to be as picky about who they have sex with and they don't have to face negative consequences of sexual activity which would cause them to pair bond and get married and so on and take them off the market for the sex addicts to plow

like Farmer Jones on the back 40. So that's one. If, let's say, abortion becomes illegal, then a lot of manhors lose access to easy sex and then they actually have to develop qualities character rather than this weird negging charisma nonsense that floats around the manosphere which i guess seems to work with some women and that's number one uh number two is that they want to they want to they want to signal to the women how what an ally they are right what what

they're just they're so allied with women they they they will defend women against those men who want to take away women's abortion rights and health care and choice and who want to control women's bodies. I'm with you, sister. I'm not with those creepy men over there. I'm with you. Right? It's the male feminist cuttlefish strategy, right? So I assume those are the two reasons. Could be tons of others, but that's the ones that pop into my mind. He's so repellent, isn't he? So I like the Stamers. I like the strategic deceivers are these are beautiful things to behold where it's like, you know, I've got two answers. They're not the only answers. They might not even be the right answers. But, you know,

there's two. Let me just throw them out. Right. like very Jordan Peters and I'm not saying this is right there's like my first one right they're all sex addicts they want to plow them like a farmer in the back they're sex people there's sex people

farmer drawn the second one of causes that just virtue signaling sneaky fuckers that's right that's right sex addicts or sneaky fuckers so I think it's it's like impossible for him to just like it's so amazing like he said the contrast between

how he presents himself as someone He can hear lots of ideas. Yeah, that's right. He's all about dialogue. He's all about the exchange of ideas. He's a philosopher, Chris. He's a philosopher. But he can't admit the possibility that somebody could say, well, I've got a different opinion from you about abortion.

No. Because it's pretty easy to do, right? You can represent someone who's against abortion and not make out that they're an insane freak who wants to kill everybody. But rather just go, well, they believe. that, you know, all wife is important and wife begins at conception and it's a moral for these reasons. I mean, it's not hard to do, but he's incapable of doing it. You don't even have to tie it to religion, right? It doesn't have to believe in life and conception. You can just believe that human life is precious and infants and collections of cells have the potential

to form into human life and they can, you know, at a certain point they can suffer. And would you have preferred that you were, you know, terminated before you were born and stuff. You can easily have the mind space and be like... But the point is that he is incapable of... No, he cannot. Admitting even the slightest bit of decency in someone that doesn't agree with him.

That's the interesting thing. And so, you know, I stand by it. He is a rhetoric monster. He's just pure rhetoric. It is so ridiculous that he presents himself as a philosopher. I know, I know. He's just a pure Pellanicist with these little, you know, colorful metaphors and so on. Well, the other bit about it there is like, so this explanation, Matt, say this was true,

let's grant them. This is the two possibilities, right? Maybe the rollers. So that would mean that, like, say people who are much older, you know, their testosterone has dramatically feed it. Or they've had many children and they're happy. being content in their family life. Of course, then they should have been for abortion. It would only be the young people that want to have sex. Like, unless I'm planning to cheat on my wife

with these various, like, sex people, right? I shouldn't support women's rights to abortion. No, it's only like a strategy to pick up with. Well, unless, of course, Stefan thinks of a couple of other reasons. He's just given this two. He did leave open the past. That's right. That's right. But I think we can be sure that whatever reasons you have, they would be pretty terrible. They would reflect badly upon you as a person, Chris. And did you also notice, Matt, that he kind of suggests that he's criticizing the manosphere. He's talking about negging.

And negging is more with the pickup artist scene, which is the precursor for the manosphere. But actually, the banosphere is much more O'Fey with Stefan's approach, right? want women to only sleep with the high status man, right? And the women should always be chaste and all these kind of things. So he's presenting that as if he's critiquing all sides, right? He's critiquing, you know, the monosphere and all these kind of people. But actually, again, it's just the kind of right-wing centrist virtue signaling where you're actually only criticizing liberals or progressive, but you present it as if it's a critique of

all sides. Yeah. Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but it feels like he's very much targeting a, you know, like a paleo-conservative, traditionalist Christian kind of demographic that wants women to be chased, to be subservient, and for there not to be any kind of recreational sex, essentially. It should all happen within the bounds of marriage. I mean, I think it's, he might be targeting that group, but he's also got the people in his audience who are more, a little more liberal than that, and at least are okay with non-procreational sex. I think he would present that as, you know, that's the caricature of people. So people are saying, I'm saying, you know, that we, you can't even have sex for pleasure. I've never said that, right? Like, that would be

the thing. But the way he frames this kind of thing, I mean, the other thing that's all about it is he's, is this stuff about abortion is kind of presuming that birth control doesn't exist, that there's no other forms of preventing birth, right? Because he's presenting it as, well, people are pro abortion because they want to be sex people and they want to have sex with random people all the time without any consequences. But, you know, like, that doesn't make sense. Controception exists. Like most people who do that use contraception, right? Yeah, well, but I think he's just saying, you know, he would argue contraception is not 100%. So there was. always be, you know, like some amount of amount of pregnancies and this is the feel safe.

But, well, he does have an dollar suggestion, Matt. So we give two options, though, right? You have the sneaky fuckers and you have the manhors. Those are the two meals who might support abortions. But he does say, actually, there is a third. But if a man has participated in an abortion, he can't be objective. Maybe his mother had an abortion or more than one. It can't be objective.

Maybe his sister had an abortion. maybe his aunt had an abortion. And so because it's become so widespread, you get an automatic base of people who've done wrong who are going to defend it no matter what because they've invested in their moral standing into it. And if you've done, if you had an abortion and then you start to look at the possibility

that abortion might be wrong, ooh, you know, that's really, really, I mean, that's an ugly, ugly thing for people to have to deal with. I mean, one of the ways that you entrench sin in people's minds is you just get enough people to sin that social control doesn't work anymore. You can't ostracize. You can't reject. Because everyone's now bound up in the sin, right? Well, this kind of speaks to the point I was making that he's like he's talking about sin there. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And, you know, these these progressives who have been sinning so much now they have to abandon all kinds of, kinds of social control. He's

describing this is a good thing, that you need to be able to control society and ostracize people that sin, right? Yeah, the sin is abortion, though. Yeah. Yeah, but I'm sure there are, I'm sure there are other, he's got a bunch of other. Yeah, it's not just abortion. I know that, but like, just the, again, Matt, the rhetoric is so back here, you could, you know, cut for it. Because he's suggesting that any society that accepts abortion or that if anybody has ever known anybody that

has abortion, they'll automatically want to defend that person as a good person. So they'll be unwilling to accept that it's a sin, that it's an evil in the world because they want to think positively of women. I did also like one clip ago that he invoked

women have killed more people than, you know, any of the amount of wars for abortion. But like, if he applies that logic, haven't they also produced more people than any? Like, also, like, but usually with the wrong men, you see, Chris, so you can't hand it to them for that. They're always, they're always doing wrong. Don't worry about that. One way or the other. That's, that's it. And I guess they're, they're just doomed to it. But yeah, so it's just like, it's very, very, like, you know, the way he demonized the media, the way he demonizes education. He's basically saying by being socialized in a liberal society, you've inherited an original sin

that you didn't even realize was a sin and you need to like purge it, right? Like by adopting these correct set of beliefs and stuff. So it is very religiously coded material, but he's very fluid like that. doesn't mind flipping between and Saint Denis. And he might say, no, of course, saying it's just a label for a moral vice or whatever. But yeah, he obviously wants the effect, the emotional heft of that invoking that concept. Oh, yes. Yes, we should take that as a given that with any time you're accusing him of, yeah, any of this specific religious stuff, he can always flip to, well, this is just metaphorical. He's doing the Jordan Peterson thing.

he's really talking about moral character and conscience and that kind of thing. Yeah. So that was caller one, Matt, at Joyous. We've got three colors on this call, right? So we've already, we've experienced some high, some lows, right? I think it's, yeah, I think it's fair to say we've noticed a little bit of rhetoric, a little bit of hypocrisy, and some florid metaphors, which they like. Now, the next guy to come is, I think he says his name is Draggle. And he wants to continue a conversation that they began on a previous call.

And so you know, you just said, what kind of people interact with him? Apparently, there are repeat callers, right? So. Yeah. Just a spoiler alert, it doesn't end well. Oh, well, no, but spoiler. I mean, the first call was beautiful. And here comes color two.

Okay. So let's see her the end of color one. and the arrival of caller, Terry. Hey, to all great conversations, as always. I wanted to follow up a couple days ago to better understand your perspective on how we would talk about, you know, let's say truth, I know we're talking about reproducibility, et cetera. So if I may ask a few questions to see,

if I'm understanding you correctly, is that okay? Yeah, of course. so okay so if would you say this statement the earth revolves around the sun would you say that that statement or proposition corresponds to reality yeah i mean we could caveat and say that the sun also orbits a tiny bit around the earth the center of the the relationship is not quite at the center of the sun because the earth has its mass too but yeah i mean in in a sort of general term it is certainly more true to say that the Earth goes around the Sun

than the inverse. So yes, I would say that that corresponds to reality. Got it, okay. And then is it fair to say that it's always corresponded to reality? Yeah.

Well, always is a tough thing, right? Because we've got the origins of the solar system and, you know, the aggregation of the atoms and particles into planets and the disks.

So certainly I would say since the solar system was stable, It is a, and since the two exists, it is fair to say that the earth goes around the sun. Yes. This is a brilliant blend of science and philosophy here. We've established that the Earth probably, for the most part, goes around the sun. Not always, you know, things could have changed in the distant past billion years ago. He knows it was just dust, Chris.

Yeah. Yeah. But, you know, I think we're getting somewhere. We're getting somewhere. This gives me flashbacks to sense making. But I do appreciate here. Like, you know, as we were talking about, what kind of people, right? This seems like someone who enjoys philosophical thought experiments somewhat. And he's arriving, you know, let's continue this conversation we were having about reproducibility and so on. Right, topic's dear to my heart, and the first thing he's doing is laying out, so first of all, you accept that there are objective truths that exist, you know, out there in the world, and we cannot identify them. I was being a bit unfair, yes, the caller is trying to say, you can have statements, and then you can say that the statements correspond to the statements correspondents' theory of truth is what he's invoking here. Okay, and you heard Stefan, he was like, can I ask a couple of questions?

And he's like, yeah, of course. You know, go ahead. That's what this is all about. It's a philosophy show, Chris. It's a philosophy show. We got a bit sidetracked by politics in the first call. But, you know, this is the bread and meat of the Stefan Molyneux experience. Okay.

So let's continue on, right? Carry on, Collier to build your argument. Okay. Now, can I swap the phrase correspond to reality with true? So can I say that, you know, is the proposition the earth revolves around the sun true? Yes. Okay. So, okay.

So then if 2,000 years ago or 3,000 years ago, I mean, whatever, before we could prove it, if someone said the proposition, does the earth revolve around the sun? Are they saying a true statement, even though they can't actually demonstrate it through any, you know, scientific method? No, they are not saying a true statement. because they're stating an opinion, but they cannot prove it. So, okay, so if I'm tracking correctly, before I propose this historical, you know, 2,000 years ago thing, we agreed that the statement, Earth revolves around the sun, is a true statement, and it's always been true, you know,

as far as there's been a stable cosmos. But if a person said this statement, is it that the person is not, that true or the statement is no longer true because the person delivering the message didn't have a way to know it. Truth is when it is established, not uttered. A bit of a curveball there. Are you parsing and what old Stefan is throwing into the mix there?

I think so. I think so. I think so. I'm not a professional philosophy here, but my... You're not even a professional philosopher, let alone no philosophy. what did I say philosophy well I'm not a professional philosopher Chris I'm just a simple country chicken

but my gut feeling would be that you know if you were like 5,000 years ago and you were just saying stuff randomly because you had thoughts that were coming to you in dreams and you could say that the earth revolves around the sun and you'd be saying something true even if you couldn't prove it

even if it was accidental even if you flipped it Right. Now, Matt, you have adopted what is called the correspondence theory of truth there. Okay. Now, Stefan is not endorsing this, right? He has a more subjective relative clause where he wants to say that even if they say a statement which corresponds with reality, if they don't have the basis for it, we can't say it's true. Now, the problem for him is, is that the caller already established before he asked, him this question. Is it possible? Is it true to say that, like he, first of all, he said, does it correspond to reality that the sun goes or the earth goes around the sun? And Stefan said, yes. And he said, has that always been the case? And he said, yes. And then he said, can I replace corresponds with reality with truth? And Stefan said, yes. So following the logic, again, I'm not a philosopher either. But I see the kind of, you know, premises that he laid out there, which leads to okay so when this person says this back in history they were making a statement that was true

but stephen doesn't like that right because he has a different definition of truth so even though he's endorsed all these statements that make that the obvious conclusion he has to say no right so he's contradicted himself but yes yes that's where we are yes yes i follow the the call actually set up a bit of a contradiction there in moweners um yeah all Almost like he knew that there was a contradiction in his outline. But so that's where we are, right? So Mullen, you will explain a little bit more about his non-correspondence theory of truth. So here you go.

Okay. Now, well, I guess right, I'm trying to understand your definition of the use of the word truth. Because in my mind, isn't there a difference between what something is and how you know it, you know, knowing something that is versus what it is? Yes. Well, I mean, if you're making a truth claim about the structure of the solar system, then you need to be able to prove it. And the reason that I'm saying that is that lots of people say lots of crazy stuff in the world, right? Oh, sure. And so is it possible that as someone who was insane, let's sort of go back to the year minus 2000 or minus 3,000, like before you could even remotely prove it, right? I think I was talking about this in the show the other day that sort of 17th, 18th century, they got it pretty, the size of the sun, and they got it down pretty well. But let's go way back in time.

3,000 BC, in the middle of nowhere, some guy's insane, right? He's just, he's schizophrenic, he's lost his place, no, no, no, but the earth goes around the sun, don't you, don't you know, right? And that's because they had a vision, they hit their head, they had a dream, they're on drugs, they've gotten, their mind is misfiring, or whatever, right? Is it a true statement? No, it's not a true statement. statement because it's not proof it because it's what I hear you saying is that the contents of

the statement cannot be separated from the psychological causes that led to that conclusion so in this case I can't just take his conclusion and evaluate it on its own correspondence to reality because his process of getting there was flawed I wouldn't say the psychological state what I would say is that truth means it's been proven, not it's been said. Yeah, Chris, when I did a little bit of ginkly about this, it seems that the caller there is describing a correspondence theory of truth, which is that it's different. The statements you can make about something is separate from the evidence and so on

that you can put forward to support it. But what Molineers seems to like is, seems to be actually closer to, like, there are some streams of philosophical thought that believe this, that truth is intimately connected to the means by which it's verified or whatever. So, yeah. Yeah. So, I mean, they're just both talking to like a classic little conundrum that's been out there and the philosophical dismal. courses. But it's worth saying that the perspective that the cooler has, the correspondence one, is much more broadly accepted these days. You know, pretty much all scientists and stuff like that implicitly work from that kind of assumption. It's Molyneux and his point of view,

which is a bit more bespoke and not so common really these days. Well, philosophers, they believe 100 crazy things before breakfast. But yes, in this particular debate, you can take whatever definition you want of true, right? Like you said, there are different schools of thought around this and the Mollinews one is like a more subjective one, right?

It's on like relative understandings or whatever. So it's, but the problem is that he endorsed an objective true prior. At the beginning. Yeah. Yeah. So I think that's the point here that Molineer is, at the very least, he hasn't staked out his

position in a very sophisticated or internally consistent way. Yeah, I would say that basically he accidentally endorsed something that he doesn't want to. And now he's endorsing a different position, but he doesn't want to acknowledge that he said something that's contradictory, right? So he's just acting like it, you know, like it completely, it makes sense. It makes sense. Yeah, like it's all coherent. So anyway, the discriminant is what it is and it continues.

Caller number two tries to highlight word, the issue is that he detects in this reasoning. Right. And what I meant by psychological causes, I don't mean specifically like brain chemistry or things like that, but that there's a premise that leads to conclusion. So I guess the question is, if someone states a conclusion but hasn't justified that conclusion with premises, does it mean that the conclusion is not rude? Or can the conclusion be true, but their argument to be? false they just have a bad argument while still having a coincidentally true conclusion i'm sorry i feel

like i'm not getting through and i'm sure that's on me truth is when something is proven not when something is stated yeah i mean i hear the assertion i just like this i'm trying to well i'm trying to ask a question i think it's it's combined no no but let's let's just pause on that because i feel like we're just kind of skidding past each other mentally sure So there, my, some things to know. First of all is, like, the caller is trying to identify the disagreement. And he's correctly, like, doing that, right? Like, he really sounds like he's trying to work this through.

Like, it'll be really useful to talk to Stefan about that. I question that, but whatever. That's what he's trying to do. And you hear Stefan, you know, they kind of apologize. Oh, look, oh, maybe, Jito, I'm not explaining this well. You sound confused, right? It's probably my fault, right? Let's try a game.

And hold on. We're skating past each other, right? We got to resolve this. But Chris, the method that he's using there, like, Stefan doesn't clarify or justify what he said. He just repeats his flat position. Truth is when something is proven, not when something is stated. Are you stupid?

Do you just not get this? This is what I have said. Oh, yeah. Don't jump ahead, Rob, because that's. That's where he's going to go. But yes, that is the underlying impression, right? But the caller is correctly highlighting, right? But there's a contradiction in what's different.

Between what you said, right? And so anyway, this is the, just for the sake of completion, this is the core boring disagreement stated. Incredibly boring. Truth is a category that we assign an opinion to when it moves from opinion to proven. Proven. So truth is like a medal

that an opinion gets when it's proven. There is no truth to an opinion that is not proven. It is just an opinion. I think that the earth goes around the sun. Okay? I think that the sun goes around the earth. There is no such thing

as is it true before it's proven. I suppose, and maybe we're just a different language, but to me there's the difference between the recognition of a truth, as you said, the assigning of a label, like if I assign the label of truth, I need to prove it, but something is true before I can assign it the label, I just might not know

that it's true until we have the part. You're looking at truth as if it exists independent of human consciousness. It doesn't. Yes, exactly. No, but it doesn't. Truth is the relationship. between concepts in the mind and reality out there. It's a relationship between concepts in the

mind and the reality that's out there. As you keep saying, Chris, the problem is, is at the very beginning, Stepan said that the earth revolves around the sun and it has done so, and it's true, and it truly has been doing that for whatever, billions of years, before humans walk to the earth. before the humans knew that, before they had a chance to put a metal on it. And the caller even explicitly said, can I say it's true? Like, can I replace that word of truth? That's it, yeah. Now, can I swap the phrase correspond to reality with true?

So can I say that, you know, is the proposition the Earth revolves around the sun true? Yes. So he's now advanced a different definition where that doesn't make any sense, right? Because like he's now said it's only a thing which is attached to like a specific opinion that the person holds, right? And you hear the caller saying, oh, this is a difference of language, right? We have different opinions. And then, you know, Stefan is like, no, no, what you're saying is truth exists independent of human opinions. And he's like, yes, yes.

And he's like, no, but that's right. wrong, right? You're like, no, Stefan, this is called someone having a different opinion. Opinion. You have an opinion. I think a really interesting thing here just looking at the dynamics of this conversation is what you just said, Chris, which is Stefan doesn't really have place in his mind for the possibility that someone else can have a different point of view and have reasons for having that. And it's correct. Yeah, like there is what Stefan thinks, right? And then there are people that don't understand. That's exactly. That is the situation. Him and Sam Harris would get on quite well. Well, actually, probably not.

Poor sir. No, no, that'd be, that'd be budding heads like mad. I don't, I don't feel, I don't feel comfortable putting Steve Harris to the same spot as Stefan Molyne. On this specific issue, I do. But in any case, I like this color. Well, I should be careful of my priest. I like him in this regard because he doesn't give up this point. So Stefan has laid out, okay, you're just making a mistake. You're just confused, right?

That's, you're making a fake. And he brings back the point of contention. I guess going back to the first question, I just want to make sure I'm not misrepresenting. Because when I asked you, did the state, meant the earth revolves around the sun correspond to reality, always, that it's always corresponded to reality. You said yes, but it sounds like you're saying it corresponded to reality, but it was not always true. No, no, no. So hang on. How do we know, so some crazy guy three thousand years ago says the earth revolves around the sun, how would we know that that

corresponds to reality? Because corresponds with reality means there's some objective way. of comparing the statement to the facts, right? So what he said was just a bunch of syllables, right? I would agree when we don't know, yeah, I'm sorry, go ahead. Oh, no, I would say, right, to answer your question of, I don't know, like, we wouldn't, so does lack of knowing the mechanism of correspondence? No, I'm sorry, this is just, I don't know why this is hard. I'm sorry, I'm just getting a little annoying.

Doesn't mean it's anything to do with you. doesn't mean it's your fault. Okay. If I claim something true about the universe, how do we know whether it's true or not? Now, another little spoiler, these little polite asides, doesn't mean it's anything to do you,

doesn't mean it's your fault. Those are going to go away shortly. I'll be refused to say something inside who's talker, but yeah, so the guy, you know, he's trying to love, but you're contradicting. rejected yourself and he's like, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, because we can't know if anything, like, it doesn't even make sense. And you're like, well, hold on, but you said it was true, right? This is why he's confused because your definition means that you should

have said, no. He's likely, I think you should leave character. I'm just trying to understand what's going on here. But, yeah, but Stefan, like, just refuses to accept that... He could have been a misnute. Yeah. That is impossible. He's just, he's memory hole at the beginning of that conversation. He's fastened on the second lot of stuff he said, which is about this, you know,

verificationist, subjectivist definition of truth. And the guy's just an idiot because he's not accepting that. Yes. And so, well, the next part, Matt, it supports your position. that Stefan cannot inhabit the world where people can disagree with him and have valid opinions. Like the two things. He cannot imagine that scenario. And just to see that I'm not strawminding him, he explicitly states this. So truth is when it is proven, it is reproduced. It is internally self-consistent and it corresponds to reproducible experiments in the real world, right?

I think we just use the language differently, but I understand how you're using. No, no, we need to use the language the same. We need to use the language. Either you need to come to me or I need to come to you or we need to meet in the middle. Because if we don't have the same definitions, then it doesn't work, right? The conversation doesn't work. So you can't, it would be impossible, Matt, to have a conversation with someone who has, is operating on a different definition of a particular concept.

Is that true? No, what would be hard is if you don't make clear the different definitions, right? So you're using two words inconsistently, right? But if someone says, well, I take this word to apply to this set of scenarios and you say, well, actually, I use it more for referring to this, right? It's perfectly possible to have, like, for example, I can have a conversation with someone about religion and they regard it as religion relates to, like, the revealed truth of the divine creator, right, their religion.

Whereas I regard it as a system about, you know, beliefs and rituals that correspond to supernatural things and so on, right? I understand their definition. They understand my definition. And I can understand when they're referencing religious truth or whatever that they're adopting their perspective, right? That's just the nature. you, if you have to force everyone to adopt your definition, to have a conversation,

it kind of suggests that you fundamentally can't have strong disagreements about things, right? Like, because you all have to sign up to the same set of assumptions and stuff. And yeah. I kind of feel for this guy because, I mean, I question his choices, his life choices. Like, for one, like for one. Why is he doing this? why are you doing this? Why are you thinking about the differences between verification theories of truth and correspondence? There is a truth that's not very interesting to begin with,

I think. And then, like, why are you treating Stefan Molyneuxe as your little guru to go to that you, you know, very, very cautiously and very politely offer your thoughts to? He's not going to help you with this. And Stefan, like, refuses to acknowledge that, I mean, you know, Again, he calls himself a philosopher. But the reason why I wanted to point that stuff out with the getting Chris is that, like, these are hackney questions, right? Yes. Time immemorial, right? You know, I'm sure philosophy 101 undergraduate courses teach them.

And the position this guy has, the correspondence type general position. Is the very common. Is the very common, most commonly accepted, like more modern, if you like, point of view. It's Stefan, who is the outlier here and has to, has to, but for him, there is none of that. None of that exists. It's just his way. There's his bespoke kind of opinions about philosophy. It doesn't, you know, it doesn't cite his sources or anything like that.

They're just, he's his proclamations of what's true. And he just refuses to acknowledge that anyone could have a different opinion. Yeah. So this is really beating a dead horse, but it's a one-minute clip map where he, he can repeats his position on truth. And it's important because the fact that he lays this out means that in Molyneux land,

it's resolved, right? Like he's explained it, and that's it. So, this plays the basis for what happens in the next. So let's just hear Volanue lay out his fucking position on truth one more time. If I say rape, theft, assault, and murder are wrong,

evil, that's just a statement. I need to actually prove it. Now, the fact that people said murder is wrong is it turns out that through universally preferable behavior yes it turns out murder can never be universally preferable behavior rate theft assault all that sort of stuff so they were right they were right but it wasn't true and maybe that's sort of the difference so somebody can turn out to be right if they have a crazy statement right but it's not true right so if somebody says they they they've lost their minds or they go on LSD and they say the the price of Apple shares is

going to be $1,000 tomorrow at 11.09 a.m. Eastern Standard time. And let's say that that does turn out to be the case. Were they right? Nope. Because they have no methodology. And they said a whole bunch of other crazy stuff that wasn't right. It's not even accidentally right. It has no truth value until it's proven. So you're saying, well, it turned out to be true, but you can't go back in time and say, ah, this person who said this crazy thing, they lost their mind or they said the earth goes around the sun, we can go back and assign truth to that person. Nope. You can't because it wasn't proven. There was no methodology by which we could establish the truth or falsehood of that statement. It is just an opinion. Say, well, but it turned out to have a

relationship to the truth. It's like only by accident. Okay. There's a point I have to note here, Matt. He says at the start about universally preferable behavior and that it turns out the people had intuitions towards us and then it was in fact that this is the only way the organises society and then he says, so they were right they were right but it wasn't true right? So he's made

a distinction, rightness and trueness yes. You can be then later like literally 30 seconds or so later when he talks about the person making the prediction about the Apple shares he says and let's say that turns out to be the case

were they right? Nope because they have no methodology and they said a whole bunch of crazy stuff that wasn't right. It's not even accidentally right. So he's now he's mixing up his terminology or he's...

Yeah, so he's now like he forgot that he'd be an distinction between right and true at the start because the thing is his position it's not complicated. This isn't like a super complicated position. He just wants to say, you know, Alex Jones makes a prediction

and it turns out to be correct under my definition that truth requires like scientific evidence it can't have been true but the reason that sounds confusing is because the normal thing that people would say is he was right it was true but his like reasons and all he just happened to get lucky right that's right yeah yeah yeah but he can't do that because he has a very non-intuitive concept of what truth means so yeah This is, it's not, it's not fair to pass any judgments of philosophy from the, from the ratings of modern you, but, but this is the kind of thing that just makes me so bored and so uninterested in any of these questions, because so much of the time it boils down to just splitting hairs about definitions. You know, they're making a distinction between things being true, things being right and correct. And there's probably a couple of other words too.

And it's like, who the fuck cares? Define it. You know, just use the normal version of the word. And when you're creating bespoke definitions of words, like words, like as a bespoke definition of something like true, which actually doesn't correspond to any of your intuitions about the word, then I just think that's just a recipe for disaster. You know, it's just...

I hear you. I hear it, though I do think there are things where there are technical definitions. I know. I know. There's the smart stuff behind all of this, you know, because you can take a subjective point of view and make a distinction between someone who's just guessing, making a thousand guesses a day, you know, whatever, five out of a thousand are true. And you want to make a distinction between that kind of behavior and the very careful scientist-type person works for 10 years, makes five statements and they're all backed up evidence on their true, right? I get it.

I get it. It's not just that. I'm also in the self-sum. serving manner of thinking about like when I'm thinking about in-group bias or whatever, I'm thinking about the psychological definition, right? But like when we talk to Sam Harris, he took in-group bias to mean complete correspondence with everything of a very specifically defined political group, right? And those were two different definitions that led too much confusion and wheeling and gnashing of thief. But I do think you can have, you know, like a technical.

technical definition, which is reasonable for use. I know, I know it's true. Like, I know that there's, like, you know, whatever, logical positivists and the, I don't know, the... Neimanela one. Yeah, I don't know. The apologists, utilitarians, act utilitarians. Carry on.

I've read about all this stuff. I've just forgotten it because it's not interesting to me. But I know that there are a lot of philosophers who think very carefully about the philosophy of science and our methodologies and models. and models and assumptions. And when it intersects with actual practical or statistical modeling, they have my interest for a very short period of time. So look, I know the substance there before any philosophers email us.

But I'm talking about it at this level, right? Like these kinds of conversations. Mollonoo. Mottonoo level. It's not just Mollonue. It's any kind of like dorm room. Sense making. It does end up just being splitting hair.

over who owns what word. Oh, yeah. Well, I don't think Stefan's position is hard to understand. This is a bit like a Peterson approach to truth, right? This also ended up with him and Sam Harris getting stuck on this topic around truth, right? So if you wanted to hear an hour and a half of that, you could listen to that conversation. But listen to the caller attempting to just resolve the issue. He just wants to make it clear, like, you know, the connections.

Like, I'm sure the caller will be quite happy to walk away going, well, you know, I think this and Mullenue thinks that, and it's different and I'm probably wrong. I defer to you, Mullenu. He just wanted to make things clear. Yeah. Yeah. So, and Stefan, we heard his cheery attitude at the start. We've heard him get a little bit frustrated. Let's see it. Continue on. So there is no truth statement in a claim until it is both theoretically comprehended and. proven in reproducible experiments, and there's no time machine that takes earlier perspectives and validates them. At least that's my claim. I'm certainly happy to hear counter arguments. Yeah, well, I guess two quick clarifiers. One, so from what you described, right, we said, well, we would be uncomfortable labeling the person 3,000 years ago is making a true statement because he had no method. It was just, could have been crazy. It's just opinion. Can we say,

Would you be comfortable saying in your system that the person had an opinion that corresponded to reality, but it wasn't true? Is that how you would be comfortable saying it or no? Is that still? I don't know what you mean by corresponded to reality. They made a claim with no methodology. And people can make crazy claims all the time. And this is, I mean, the reason why, and first of all, I got to tell you, it's kind of annoying

when you say my system. I'm not trying to create my system. Like, why would you have any interest in my system? Right? That would be like, if I come up with some Dungeons and Dragons World and you say that it's universal, it's not, that that would be my little world. So it's not my system. I experience that as kind of diminishing what it is that I'm trying to do here because I'm trying to come up with universal statements. That's what philosophy does.

It doesn't create a self-encapsulated system that's only self-referential. So I just find that kind of annoying. But so, no, you don't get to go back in time and claim. that things are true. So he got a little bit sidetracked there. He got a bit of triggered there that the guy callously and carelessly and offensively referred to Milano's work as his as his system, not not the system or not the like universal universal whatever. That was very diminishing of him. I understand why Stefan got upset. I'd be I'd be very upset if somebody did that to me. Suggesting it's just her opinion.

Yeah, so I also like the weaponizing of therapy, let's say. Like, I just want to flag up. I find that kind of annoying. That was, you know, your attempt to diminish me. Like, this is the Dr. K. Kiferniery thing where you stop and you say, no, I just want to talk about what's happening here. Like, you're in the position, the whole conversation, flag the dynamics that's occurring. And I saw this kind of thing happening in my life, Chris.

Way back when I was an undergraduate student, There were psychology courses where they were kind of training people to do this, which is to stop, reflect on the process of the conversation and, you know, presented as like a way to develop better relationships. But what it was in practice is exactly variations of this and Dr. K and all the rest of it, which it is this therapy talk, this reflecting on, just going to stop you there, Chris. I'm just going to say that that thing you just said, I mean, like that is, it is always, weaponized as a little power game. It is not a good thing.

Surely there must be uses of it in therapy that are like within the pop or therapeutic session. Like, you know, somebody spills out their guts and they're just demonizing everyone and talking about how the world is against them and you say, okay, you know, we'll get to that. But just let me highlight a couple of things that you did there. Like I feel like that's reasonable, no? You are quite right, I think, in the context of a, I'd expect. especially for like a genuine therapy session, right, where you actually have. Yes, not a Dr. K.

No, nothing televised, nothing on social media, a private session where you actually have a decent therapist who is actually trying to help you and doesn't want to do any of that stuff. Then, sure, right? They can stop you and go, look, Chris, you actually, you know, when you start talking about your mother, you start sounding very aggressive and defensive. Yeah. And that's totally cool. Yeah, but it's just when you see it out there in the real world.

whether it's a corporate setting or some sort of group performing. Oh, right, that training stuff, right. So you're, are you talking, I thought you were talking about, like, when they're training therapists, you saw people weaponize that and I was like, but. No, I was actually referring to back when I was studying psychology in undergrad, we had a series of units that were taught by these freaks who were not orthodox psychologists and they were right into, like, they had titles like group chat. and process facilitation and they would have these interminable three-hour workshops and they would

make a big deal that it was like a Seinfeld episode like there was no there's no content there was no you know what I mean there was about nothing so you had to sit there for three hours and reflect on nothing in a group for three hours and people would just get bored and snarky and whatever it was like a little petri dish for inciting yeah maladaptive behavior it was terrible I get it I get I thought you were talking about like clinical psychology courses that you taught where people did, you know, like expansive listening techniques or whatever. And I was like, I think there's valid stuff to that. I've never had any to do with the clinical psychology, like postgraduate course.

But I would hope that they're nothing like that. Okay, good to clarify. Good to clarify what we're referring to. So this is a short clip. It's just the highlight that, you know, you mentioned the way people, the way that you mentioned your Mueller. Stephen Malnui definitely has a lot of issues he's defooder amongst other things

but he's talked many times about his abusive Mueller and what you know the torture that she put him for but also it sounds like his childhood you know I'm going to do my amateur psychologist hat here it might be him that has a couple of issues so listen to this and I mean

the reason it's important is I grew up in the 70s which are heavily mystical and people had you know an Nostradamus and all this kind of crazy stuff was going on that you could sharpen a razor blade by putting it under a pyramid and all just nutty telekinesis and psych psychic phenomenon, all this bullshit, absolute brain rotting bullshit. I'm not saying that you're in that category or advocating for that. I'm just telling you why I'm passionate about it because I had to dig my way out of this fetid, greasy rubble of epistemological insanity that came out of my childhood.

So this is why I'm very strict about this kind of stuff and so on. Now, Matt, there, I want to note this because apart from Molini, just like, whatever, talking about he grew up in the 70s and they were talking about pyramids and what a fetid swamp of, you know, pseudoscience it was. My cousin used to sleep inside a pyramid, Chris. She was part of the problem. She or he, I should say. Well, he, he, well, look at my pasties, shiny period. But then, Matt, the other thing I want to know this, he's sharing here about his childhood. He's explaining why this topic matters to him, okay?

He's sharing as, you know, he's not a tick, ticker. He's saying, look, this is why it matters to me. I have serious convictions and so on. This will be important later. So the conversation progresses. Lord, does it continue. Here we go. So I'm just randomly swiping stuff, right?

And it turns out it's a beautiful haiku. I mean, obviously very unlikely. the infinite monkeys making Shakespeare. But let's say I did that. Would you then go back and say at that time, he knew Japanese? Yeah, of course not. So that's the same. You understand that's the same thing, right?

Well, I wouldn't say it's the same thing, but I understand your point. Okay, tell me, hang on, because we need to agree on this, right? So tell me how it's different. If some crazy guy says the earth is going around the same, sun and I am blindfolded and randomly painting on a wall and I don't know Japanese when I'm randomly painting on a wall blindfolded and this guy doesn't know that the earth goes around the sun he's just saying stuff in the same way that I he's crazy right and we're just painting random like how is it different and I'm not challenge you in any negative way I'm just you say

they're not the same how are they different because what I'm my position is to separate knowledge of something from the specific, no, no, the specific things. How are they different? Let me, can I ask it? It's a similar question. I'm going to ask it. It's a similar question.

Maybe this will help. So I understand why the call is a little bit confused here, right? Because Malniew's example isn't exactly analogous. Like, he's giving the example about like, you know, you do something and you utter a statement about the world and the relationships with it. And it turns out that it was true, but you didn't know the knowledge under. And in the other example, it's like, you produce a random image and it happens by chance to correspond to another language.

So that's not making a claim about, like you did in Cleum, it was a Japanese haiku, right? And then it turns out to be correct. I take your point. So, so Moline would have you believe that, like if he accidentally wrote some well-formed Japanese characters on the wall, right, after, you know, swiping around madly for for months and months and months, then he's saying, well, you know, it'd be crazy to say that I knew Japanese, that I could, that I could write Japanese, but that's not quite the right thing that the statement would be what you wrote accidentally, that is a piece of correct Japanese catacana. Those characters are, yeah, which any normal person would

agree with, right? Like, you may have done it accidentally, but actually those characters that are on the wall are separate from you and how you got there and how you made them. I mean, you could copy them out from a book without knowing. Don't confuse the example, mine. Don't say you're on the actually. Actually, you know what? This is a total of psychrish, but it did remind me a little bit of these sort of these debates around AI and stuff because there are many people that would like to refuse to admit that anything artistic could come out of one of these image generating programs that exist. But they have a bit of a problem similar to Stefan, which is that often the pictures that come out of them look very good, and they can't tell

the difference between them and a really nice one that a human did. So they actually have a similar theory, right, which is that it's not just the product. It's not just the statement. It's not just the scroll that matters. It's the intent and the process that went into making it is what makes it good and worthy in art. Yeah, sure. So like the, I think the, I think the, thing that the caller would try to highlight here is like, you could say, did what Stefan put on the wall represent Japanese characters? Is that true? Yes, that's true. Right. Did he intentionally do it with knowledge of Japanese characters? No. So you could easily resolve this, but like Stefan regards this as like a killer thing, but I can see that he's a little bit, you know, tripped up,

by the example because it has different characteristics, right? That's why he's saying it. So he says, let me give you another example. And actually, his example is much better, right? So here's his attempt to clarify it. So if I, let's say I make the claim right now, today in this, as we're speaking, that the earth revolves around the sun. But me personally, you know, I don't, I don't currently have the experience or

expertise to tell you what experimental condition we would need to set up to demonstrate it. I can't actually prove it to you just because I don't have that knowledge. So I am speaking that statement, but I can't demonstrate it. And then let's say someone else here, whether it's here, or someone else actually can demonstrate, you know, heliocentrism right now. And both of us say the same sentence, the earth revolves around the sun. Does it mean that when I say it's not true because I can't demonstrate it, but when the other person says it's true because they can and they know it, or are we saying that because some human, you know, inhumanity proved heliocentricism, therefore any human today who makes that statement, we say, well, yeah, that's a true statement

because at least some human proved it. So you as a human can now say this, you know, Earth revolves around the sun, even though you personally have never demonstrated it or set up the experiment. Ooh. Pretty good. That's very good. I like that. He clarified, here's two possibilities, right? And he's brought up the very clear difference in our opinion. So what will Molyneux respond? It's a simple question. You can simply clarify which of the positions. Up to A.

Up to B. What does he? It's not a gotcha. It's just an attempt to clarify what's your position on this, right? Let's hear what Malonyu says. So, I mean, this comes down to do you trust? And we've got to take government science out of this because government science is horribly, viciously, brutally,

compromised. So if astronomers, and I don't know how you could not know this, you're sort of growing up in the West, right? Because, you know, when I was a kid, there were astronomy books. We studied all of this stuff in school and so on, right? And it made sense, right? I mean, you can make the little models yourself and I was very interested, it was very into astronomy when I was younger. And so we know that larger objects tend to attract smaller objects, right? So we also know that smaller objects tend to orbit larger objects, which is why the moon, which is one-sixth the size of the Earth orbits the Earth, and not the other way round.

And so we also know that the Sun is much larger than the Earth. And now you say, well, how do we know? I haven't done the experiments myself. And for sure. for sure you could you could say but then you start to get real close to radical skepticism like this is this is the um the brain and a tank hypothesis and so on maybe there's a giant conspiracy to uh to to show that um to to have people believe in the globe earth and the heliocentric solar system and so on and um i don't view that as possible. It would, obviously, too much, too much dissent. Dear, dear, dear, dear, Mr. philosopher, Mr. philosopher, he really, he's really zeroing

in, making, you know, making the, being precise, zeroing in on the problem, making it clear. He's not filibustering it, though. It's such, Matt, the moon is one sect that, as we, as we know, and, you know, you'll have read. You've seen the books with a little biographs. Unless you're a brain in the tank, but then it would have to be...

Yeah, he doesn't want to answer the question, does he? Because he... He's so simple. I know. I mean, it's like... Like, I get that he's like... He prefers this slightly more bespoke version of truth. That's fine.

But the important thing is he doesn't seem to have the chops to sort of defend it. He doesn't seem to be willing to accept, you know, the implications of it. Like, it is a subjectivist kind of thing of truth where you, where it is connected. Just like you said, it's connected to you being able to verify it. So there would be a situation where two people could say the same thing at the same time. And when one person's, according to him, his definition, one person would be speaking the truth,

the other person wouldn't. It's very simple. Yeah, yeah. That should be simple. But just highlight, Matt, that it's not so simple for Valnyu. So you heard him there, you know, kind of get to the point that he doesn't, you know, well, he was just, that was just the problem, like the pre-bobble-bubble. Yeah.

Those is him, that was just him avoiding the Christian. Yeah, initially. Or just setting the premises out, you know, don't be so cynical. Here he's going to get to the real answer, and it'll be crystal clear, okay? So when people say the earth goes around the sun, what I would say is, I accept that the earth goes around the sun. I would not say, I personally have proven that the earth goes around the sun. I accept that the earth goes around the sun because it conforms to my lived experience. It conforms to all the theory and it is accepted universally by all astronomers.

And it conforms with everything that we know about gravity and momentum. and inertia and centrifugal forces and all of that. So I would say there is not one piece of evidence that goes against that which is universally affirmed by the experts and they do not dissent at all and it conforms with everything that I understand about reality and therefore there's no higher standard of truth other than, you can't because we can't be,

we can't do the Emmanuel Kant thing and know the things in of themselves and know every Adam and so on. I've not personally flown out among the solar system and checked it out myself. So it's still filibustering. It is just introducing more things.

So it's very unclear from what he's saying. If all the scientists say it's true and it's generally accepted to be true and when I look up, it seems like the earth is going around the sun. So now there's a new thing you can do. You can be accepting of something,

not just correct, not just right, not just speaking the truth actually you're accepting something but it sounds like he's saying that's the same as being true because i don't it's very what the hell is he saying he's philipus doing yeah oh you think so much how how dare you i can't believe that you you would say that i mean it's all sounds so so perfectly clear the way he puts it that it's just i'd like i say about it just said the purposes well hold on maybe a little bit more and you'll you'll finally you know, be able to appreciate what he was trying to get like a dollar like you do understand. So I would say, I, you know, if somebody said, uh, uh, I, does the earth go around

the solar system? I said, yeah. I said, well, how do you know? It's like, well, I'm, I haven't performed the experiments myself, but, you know, here's what I understand and here's how it conforms to everything that I know and, uh, and so on, right? So, uh, you know, you could say, well, my, the true statement is I accept it. But, uh, um, you know, you could say, well, um, the, the true statement is I accept it. but if I have no reason to doubt it and it conforms with every single piece of reason and evidence that I personally know and that all the experts confirm.

Sadly, he's not there yet, but he's not there. He's not there. This is absolutely filibustering. They're just pointless blather, right? The guy gave him a simple scenario with two possibilities. And he's just invoked to all the technical terms he can.

Emmanuel Kant came up. There he said the Earth orbits the solar system, which I don't think is generally the way that people typically describe that. But he's also doing his best to muddy the waters. Like it's very unclear then. Like what is he saying now? He's sort of implying at certain points that unless he's done the actual experiments, unless he's been like, I don't know who was it,

democratist or someone like that, they've stuck a stick in the desert, you know, at the equator and then a thousand miles of the direction. Unless you do the experiments and you prove it, then you can't say the earth revolves or a sudden to speak in the truth. That could be what he's saying, but mainly what he's doing is just obscuring the question. Like, because he took issue with the fact that the caller would suggest that somebody could have a different opinion. Like it was just, it's such a simple thought experiment and he's like, what, if you grew up in the you've obviously read those books and like it's so uh i mean but the main takeaway here is this is not how a philosopher talks about things right like this caller is doing a pretty good

amateur yeah version of what a philosopher does which is to zero down to the precise you know disagreement encapsulation of the problem a nice simple thought experiment which which highlights the contradiction and then you work with that. And Stefan is doing the exact opposite of what a philosopher does, which is bringing in a thousand unrelated things, trying to muddy the waters and make everything very confusing. Because he's just not. I just think it's so funny because this is his job. This is how he promotes himself. He is the philosopher sage and these people are fans calling in to get his wisdom. Well, so he's been put on his bike foot there. And actually, that was the end of it, Matt. That was the end of his answer. It moves on now. And so you're sure,

it works. But you'll see what happens here. I think that's actually very relevant because he sounds a bit flustered, right? He's grasping for things. He's trying to, you know, just demonstrate he knows lots of things. But he can't just like very simply deal with a very, very simple, like thought experiment, right? Yeah. And so listen to what happens here. Right. So the caller tries to say, okay, you know, let's try a different one, maybe that will help, right? Because he didn't really get a clear answer there. So I'm watching on your response. So interesting, so, uh, and I, interesting, I accept it. Yeah. Okay. So if I, let's say my son, my young son, you know, I mean, toddler, right? So let's say I teach him. I, I, I, the fact, like,

hey, son, listen, the earth revolves around the son. And now he doesn't know the method. He doesn't hang on, hang on, hang on. Hang on. Hang on. And I, hang on. So, You just say that to him or do you try and show it somehow and draw it out or get a little model or show him online or, you know, show that I'm sure we could find six million JavaScript heliocentric solar system models and like, and you talk about the history of it and the world looks flat so it's kind of confusing and the sun and the moon look the same size kind of like you wouldn't just say it to him, right? You would just you wouldn't be teaching him anything, right? Yeah. Like it's so exhausting. So stupid. It is exhausting and stupid. Because you. you actually know where the caller is going with this, right? It's another simple thought experiment. You know, somebody's teaching something to someone else who isn't so well-informed and so on.

And it's different. Well, he's trying to preempt it, right? Because, like, he got the whole deflection that, well, you're an adult, you should know, right? And that wasn't the point. He still wants this scenario where is it true for one person and not true for the other one if they don't have the right method. So he tried to make it simpler. Okay, a kid who just someone tells them,

like, is it not true for them? Because they don't know the method, right? They don't know all this stuff. So it's like, it's a more pure example. And then he's like, well, hold on. You know, wouldn't you have taught the kid of the experimental details and stuff? They're like, no, not in this part experiment.

That's the whole point. Yeah. It's just so funny that he's so funny that he's so. bad at this. Like this guy's not an oppositional person. Like he's a, he's a fan. He's a fan. Yeah. He's calling into Stefan's fucking show twice in a row. Right. Oh, well, you said, you know, Stefan's so bad at this, Matt, but here's what he's good at. So he's not a good philosopher. He doesn't give good life advice. He's like Danger Will Robinson. But look at how he flips the dynamics here, right?

So this guy's trying to give him, you know, examples. Like, it's all based around this fairly silly, fairly inconsequential debate about how you define truth. But watch the judo flip, which occurs here. Well, I would, but I was going to ask a question whether I would or not, I guess I'm trying to first just ask the question, assuming I don't give a robust explanation, like assuming I'm just teaching him a fact. Like, this is just what happens.

and then my question I don't know what was I gave you an example of how you teach him and you said well suppose I don't give him a robust explanation how the hell am I supposed to know what you mean by hang on hang on hang on okay for us to have a productive conversation you've got to just stop dropping things in that are highly subjective and think you've said anything so when you say well what if I don't give him a robust explanation I don't know what the hell you mean by robust

no sorry Stefan just because I was trying to ask a question but then no no no this is important to me okay okay okay so you can't use all of these you can't put all of these caveats in and move forward as if they're clear i don't know what you mean by a robust explanation and if you drop that stuff in and keep moving i doubt that you have good intentions in the conversation because that's an obvious one like that's an obviously subjective term right so i gave you some examples of how you might teach your son and you say well suppose i don't know that, but I don't give him a robust exclamation, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Like, I don't know what that means.

And you've got to stop dropping these subjective terms and moving on and then not being particularly gracious when I point that out. Because that's not a healthy way to have a conversation, right, to drop subjective terms in and move on as if they're understood. Passive aggression, my name is Stefan. Yeah. So, again, perfect example, isn't it? We'd like to take us through it.

What was the first little passive-aggressive judo flippy thing you did there? Well, he chastises him with like, well, hold on, hold on. You know, I've said that you give him a robust explanation and you're not just saying you didn't. And it's like, why do you have the magic power to step the hypothetical, right? Actually, you adjusted his hypothetical. And then he was like, no, well, just imagine I didn't give like robustness. He's like, I can't even concede. And then he can't understand what robust means.

Even though he applied what the robust explanation would be. I don't know what it means. So it's so silly, isn't it? Like this is the flimsyest pretext upon which to, you know, flap around like you're being like intellectually wronged. Yeah, he, I mean, he, overreacts so much here. It's so dramatic, right? Well, hold on. Let me just, you know, no, you're dropping in subjective things left and right. And it's very important, right? So

Stefan is giving the impression that, like, he's outraged not because he's been caught out or because he's unable to answer to your board questions. But this guy is starting to operate in bad faith, right? Like he's, you know, frankly, I'm noticing that you're, you know, your little subjective asides and what these are actually undermining of the quality of the conversation or or maybe you don't have good intentions and yeah like stephen is the one inserting yeah subjective stuff and asserting it like he's the one saying my thing has to be universal and well before you described his motorcycle ranta as projection and this is perfectly it right this this this guy's done nothing wrong but he's straight away accusing him of yeah undermining the

conversation, then not being particularly gracious, but I point that out, because that's not a very healthy way to have a conversation. So he, so step upon you is, as you say, it's clearly obvious that he is just turning this into an abuse session of some kind because he doesn't like the way this conversation is going. And he sort of knows he cannot give a clear answer here. So he doesn't, he wants to stop. Stop probing his, like a philosophical system, right? And move on to something that he can do, which is undermining the confidence of the caller and talking about relationship dynamics and shit. Yeah, exactly, exactly.

This is a meta move gurus do all the time. Like, I don't want to answer this until we talk about what you're doing here, right? Like, and now the caller, Matt, just to say as well, as you mentioned many times, he's a big fan, right? So you or I might be like, shut the fuck up, Stefan, you piece of shit. You're such a narcissistic dickhead. doing all this stuff that you're accused of me of but but this is what the caller says uh maybe i miscommunicate it's not my bad intent at all i'm i'm actually trying to get to good point what i'm what i'm saying what i meant by robust is you offered a robust like i use that word to suggest like a a detailed

a thorough explanation which is what you did right i would say you just in in my that's what i meant when i use that word that where there's an actual explanation cause and effect there's logic right the whole thing. Right. So he's apologetic and, you know, even trying to like kind of pander. You know, what you did, Stefan, that's a very robust explanation, you know. Yeah. Yeah.

I fucking get this. Yeah. Yeah, me too. I just, I wish these people would just stay away from people like this. But anyway, it goes on. It goes on. Yeah. So you might think that that would mollify.

on you, but you'd be wrong. I'm saying, what if my teaching method was, I mean, if I could just ask the question, let's assume that I'm teaching my son where I just show a picture and I show, you know, here's the son. Hang on, sorry, just for the sake of fucking sanity.

Are you just going to edge case me? Well, what if you give him semi-robust, but not quite enough? Is that what, you're just going to edge case me? Am I going to? Give me an edge case of like, well, I'm not just saying, at him, but I only give him 40% explanation.

Is it 40% are you just going to edge case me? Because I don't have any particular interest in that. No, it's not, I'm not, I'm not edge casing. I'm trying to, can I complete the question, please? Okay, so in the interest of time and sanity, let's not make it too long. But yeah, go ahead. Yeah, yeah. Such a creepy motherfucker, Maladry.

It's such a little piece of shit, isn't he? Like, what is it? Like, now he's getting on his high horse and flancing around, because the guy's purportedly edge casing him. Like, it is just, like, his pretexts for his umbrage are so flimsy. I think, I think that's the thing that annoys me the most. I know. It's, it's like, it's, it's so obvious what he's doing, but he's, he's not.

But I, the bit that gets me is why would you go along with this as a caller? Like, why would you have any respect after you heard someone do this unless you bought in on their rhetoric and stuff, which is just the horrified? Yeah. That's the horrifying aspect to it because the broader context here is that Stefan Malonyu is the guru in this cult and all of these people defer to him 100%. He cannot be wrong. He could never be doing the stuff that you and I are accusing him of. And so they take it, right? They apologize for things when they've done nothing wrong. When Stefan is acting like a petulant child, they, they, they, they, they take it. They apologize. They apologize for things when they've done nothing wrong. When when Stefan is acting like a petulant child, they, they, they, they, they, they, they, they I say, I'm so sorry, sir, I'll try harder. That kind of, it's a power dynamic, I suppose, but that's one of the really revolting things, I guess, about these cultish dynamics. Yeah, yeah, and you can even hear, like, that the colour is a bit exasperated,

but he just, he does what he needs to do, right? And the one thing I'll give him credit for is he's still fixing it, like he's down. He's dogged, I'll give him that. He's like a human punching bag, but he just sort of, he's like a bo-bob doll. He just comes back. So I find this part really despicable. So this is the start of it going even further downhill, Matt, than where it is. Okay, so well, there, we're not quite at the end, right?

You haven't had your fill yet about it, but we thought it might be healthy for everyone involved, including us. Let me just take a little break. And there's that little break. We'll be back with Port Turin and the deeper depths that this. Plums before too long. But yeah, we don't want to overdose people with Mollonew. Yeah. I think that's a trick with Moulonew, small doses, small doses.

And yeah, I mean, you know, if so far it's felt like a little bit icky. If you're getting like a bad vibe from this guy, it gets a whole lot worse in part two. It's going to go way, way worse as you imagine. So, yeah, so you've got that to look forward to. but um yeah just a little bricky you know we we pioneered this this system a mental health break chris mental health break yeah cult season cult season involves some health breaks okay you get some some little uh alone time but uh yeah just be careful out there that's what i want to do just be careful okay and uh we'll we'll be back

with part two before too long um if you if you want to see all our content there is stuff available on the patreon now that you haven't seen Recoding Academia interviews, unannounced live streams, all tons of exciting things are all there. So, you know, knock yourself out. If you count with, if you literally count with the extra couple of days, there's extra content there. Sure is.

Okay, see you. Bye-bye. You know, I'm going to be able to be. I'm going to be. You know, I'm going to