Modern Wisdom - #195 - Stefan Molyneux - Why YouTube Deleted My 1m Subscriber Channel

Episode Date: July 11, 2020

Stefan Molyneux is a philosopher & (ex)YouTuber. Stefan is the creator of one of the longest running channels on YouTube with hundreds of millions of views, last Monday it was deleted without warning. I wanted to find out why he thinks this happened, what his thoughts are on the future of free expression on the internet, his predictions for the rest of 2020 and much more... Sponsor: Sign up to FitBook at https://fitbook.co.uk/join-fitbook/ (enter code MODERNWISDOM for 50% off your membership) Extra Stuff: Check out Stefan's website - https://www.freedomain.com/ Get my free Ultimate Life Hacks List to 10x your daily productivity → https://chriswillx.com/lifehacks/ To support me on Patreon (thank you): https://www.patreon.com/modernwisdom - Get in touch. Join the discussion with me and other like minded listeners in the episode comments on the MW YouTube Channel or message me... Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/chriswillx Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/chriswillx YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/ModernWisdomPodcast Email: https://www.chriswillx.com/contact Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Hi friends, welcome back. My guest today is Stefan Molinu and he is the ex-owner of one of the biggest philosophy channels on all of YouTube. Last week he got banned and that was nearly a million subscribers, a couple of hundred million views, a couple of billion comments and that was deleted overnight. And I wanted to just find out what was going on. Stefan has an interesting insight into the current political landscape in both America and more broadly. We get into some discussions to do with welfare states, personal sovereignty,

personal agency, and a bunch of other stuff. As we move further into 2020 and issues of freedom of expression and freedom of speech online become more and more important, I thought it would be a good idea to hear from the second largest ever YouTube deletion after Alex Jones. So yeah, tons of insights to take away from today. But for now, please give it up for Stefan Mollinu. Stefan, this is a welcome return to YouTube for you. Welcome back to YouTube. Oh, wait, I feel like I should be in Cognito. Let me try another accent.

Yes, I guess I'm treading the dark horse of those who no longer wish to grace their platform with my presence. So hi. Hi, everyone. This is a Trojan horse. We've delivered you in the guise of someone else and now you're back on. So tell us what's happened. And that's weird too, because I'm currently wearing a Trojan. Anyway, they might go on. Nice. Tell us what's happened over the last week. Well, so there's been sort of a successive, de-platforming-ish kind of stuff that's been going on with me in YouTube.

It goes back to a year ago, February, right after I criticized, said to Shim at the European Union, I ended up being vanished out of, I think, suggested's the shape of it, the European Union. I ended up being vanished out of, I think suggested videos from moated videos, they took my most popular video, the story of your enslavement and made it like adult content so it couldn't show up in the searches and you had to be logged in and all that.

And that cut traffic quite a bit. I'm the kind of guy like. What did you say? You just criticized. About the, yeah. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I was just criticizing the sort of ongoing censorship issues that were occurring on social media platforms.

This was in a speech I gave in Brussels at the European Union and probably coincidentally, but right after that, they didn't seem to be such a fan. And look, that's a real challenge like that is that is a real challenge which is how much do online platforms allow for criticism of online platforms you know i mean if it's your baby you can take it personally so that's a real challenge so i got vanished as i said from suggested videos and so on but i'm the kind of guy i do well when cornered i guess you could refer to me as a rat you know like so so when'm the kind of guy, I do well when cornered. I guess you could refer to me as a rat, you know, like, so, so when I'm kind of up against the wall, I mean, it's funny because I don't want to say I do my best work, like I'm not always trying

to do my best work. But suddenly when you're in a corner, you really do some additional resources you didn't know that you had. And so my views went down significantly like 80%. But I kind of managed to wrestle them back up over time. And then the next big issue was in September of last year I went to Hong Kong and I did a documentary matched with the protesters, took face full after face full of tear gas stood and stared down the fascist barrels of the proto-communist security police

out there and did a very long detailed and brutal history of China and its illegitimate claims on certain aspects of Hong Kong. And boy, you put that out. And you know, the old philosophical question of a tree falls in the forest, but no one hears. Did it actually fall? Did it make a sound? Well, you put out a video and you put the exact title

and you can't find it. And so I think that was another big issue. Then shortly after that, I vanished from the auto-complete. As you type my name and my name is like the Welsh nickname for an Aztec God as far as spelling goes, as you probably know. So that made it progressively harder. Then I sort of heard rumors that even video titles of mine were vanishing and all of that. And then on Monday, and my account was in good standing. I didn't have any issues or strikes

or problems or anything like that. But then Monday, I got a message saying, I can't find you on YouTube. And I thought it was just people saying like the type ahead thing the auto complete wasn't working but yeah I logged into my channel and well there was nothing there. Just a message that says you've been a bad thinking guy and your 14 or 15 year history, 3700 videos and billions of comments, 300 million views plus almost a million subscribers. Oh, and that was another thing too. Like I used to be getting 10,000 new subscribers a month. And then the beginning of last year, that all just stopped. Like you'd see a subscriber can't go up

and then it would just get clawed back. I mean, I get it. They don't wanna, if they don't like me, right, they don't wanna send the plaque. Hey, you got a million subscribers. I can't get all of that. So yeah, so it's, now I do have on LBRI.com, that's library.com, on on BitShoot and other places there are still copies of the videos and I'm going to continue to publish to BitShoot and library and other

places. So the catalog remains, which is I guess the important thing. But yeah, the YouTube presence is certainly gone. No warning, no community strikes, no three yellow cards, before hand, nearly a million subs, three and a half thousand videos, a couple of billion comments, a few hundred million plays. Well, so, yeah, I mean, as as I understand it, outside of Alex Jones, it's the second biggest erasure in YouTube history. So it's, I guess I got the silver. Well, please, that's actually something bizarrely to be quite proud of. It wasn't just you that got taken.

There wasn't, there was a couple of other prominent channels that got swiped on the same day. I haven't really kept track of all of that, but I certainly do understand that I mean, there was the, are the Donald has gone from Reddit. There was a bunch of other stuff. I think I think thousands or it was a tens of thousands of Reddit stuff. All got taken off YouTube as well. I believe, yeah, Richard Spencer was taken off YouTube, a bunch of other people as well. And yeah, people that I really don't have anything could come and with the guys that complete socialist and let's get into whole other topic. We don't need to go down that hole. So what, I mean, what happens?

You said you've logged on, you've been wrong thinking, but what actually do you see? Was there an email from YouTube saying? Yeah, eventually I did get an email from YouTube saying that violations of incitement to violence or promotion of hatred or whatever, you know, this stuff. Well, that was the specific thing. Do you remember what the actual specific reasoning was that they gave? Because, no, no, that's just the general statement. I didn't get any details about what I had said or what video it was. And, you know, I mean, yeah, who knows?

It's a black box. So let's steal my YouTube's position for me. Why could they have removed your channel? Well, I mean, if you do try and put yourself into other people's shoes, this is basic empathy thing. So when it comes to YouTube, so I've been on YouTube, I was like, user number four, because it was pretty clear to me what a powerful platform that was going to be. And from 2006 to 2016, man, that was one glorious, one out west decade.

I'm telling you, for you young kids there, you come listen to grandpa, come listen to grandpa, see Whittles, a log on the back of the porch and tells you about the good old days of making moonshine and banging mules. And also back when you could actually say stuff on social media, it really was,

I mean, I've been under attack by the mainstream media, by, you know, it's going on. I mean, I think that the slander against me in various forms or has, it's almost old enough to drive. Now, if it was a human being, so, but yeah, those 10 years, you could post, you could make cases that were very much against general social narratives. And it was like, you know, more think, oh, man, you know, I'm not going to be able to use YouTube because they disagree with me. Any more than you'd think, well, I'm not going to be able to drive on the road because the maker of the road doesn't like me or I can't have a cell phone because the cell phone manufacturer doesn't like me or. And so that when it really was, as I would perceive it, a genuinely neutral platform, that

was pretty glorious times, pretty glorious times. And it was a slug fest, which is I think what intellectual rigor should be. It should be kind of like a fight club, so to speak, like all verbal, nothing physical, of course, but it really was like, you know, people would hammer you hard, you'd fight back with them, you'd have debates. And I think that some really important truths were being hammered out on that platform. And then, well, oh yeah, there was another aspect I used to, I'd never monetized my videos like I never took ads on my videos. I work on a donation model, which people can obviously help out at my website freedomain.com forward slash donate. LinkedIn show notes below, in show. Yeah, yeah. So I didn't take ads. I always

wanted to be, if you take ads, right, you know, the basic business model kind of changes for me, like for other people, it's perfectly fine. I've no issue with it whatsoever, but for me, I want to be in the business of delivering truth directly to the audience, not in the business of delivering the audience to advertisers, which is kind of a subtle difference and can have you be a little like, oh, what are the advertisers? Also, when you have advertisements, you have a sort of single point, like a single choke point where people can kind of hammer you where decentralized donations give you a certain amount of more stiffness in your spine,

I guess, when it comes to that. So they also did demonetize me. I used to do the one-aid livestream on YouTube. There was some superchance, like, you know, you get a couple of bucks and it kind of rolls it out more prominently, but they demonetized that. On some time, last year, I can't exactly remember when. It wasn't like a big source of income for me, but that definitely occurred.

So from their standpoint, I think the case is pretty easy. And it's a twofold case. Number one, I was very expensive. I mean, I got a lot of videos. And there's a lot of bandwidth they have to serve. There's a lot of management. There's storage costs and all that. So I'm expensive.

Now, of course, in business, cost benefit, right? So in business you say, okay, well, this customer is demanding, but he spends a lot of money, right? So you could say, well, I am, you know, I did high-deaf videos. There's a lot of storage, a lot of bandwidth and so on. So from their standpoint, it's like, okay, well, he's expensive and he's not making us any money because we've demonetized him, right? So that's why demonetization is often a prequel to these kinds of things because once somebody is demonetized, the business case for keeping them on becomes progressively more tenuous, right? So that I think is the first round I'm expensive, they're not making any money for me, and some people really don't like me. And so there's negative PR around all of that kind of stuff.

So it becomes, I think, progressively more difficult to make that kind of case. Now, if you're standing on principle, right, then it's like, no, man, free speech. Everything he says is legal. He's got experts on. He's got data. He's got sources. He's got science. He's got facts. And so this is a free speech issue.

Now, if you're a kind of principle from that standpoint, then the cost benefit is important, but it's not the final deciding factor. But if, for whatever reason, none, I obviously don't know what deliberations occurred. But if there is something that occurs to that free speech principle, which is kind of happening all over the place these days, that suddenly apparently real weapons are just freedom of expression, but words are somehow assaulting this kind of crazy upside down

world we got at the moment. So I can certainly see, okay, bad, it could be bad publicity, he's very expensive, doesn't make any money. So yeah, I can certainly, again, if you kind of detach that sort of free speech issue, then you get consequentialist arguments and those are harder to, when you can't really stand on principles when you've got consequentialist, because you can just invent outcomes that can have you do just about anything.

I got it, yeah. From a video standpoint, is there anything you've uploaded over the last couple of weeks that you think has, would have warranted this return? Is there anything you've uploaded over the last couple of weeks that you think has would have warranted this Return is there something that when you put it up you're like Or are you too sure how that's going to land? Well, certainly nothing. I mean, I've always I've always tried to Tell I've always explicitly indirectly told people, you know, you use your words not your fists You know reason with people and peaceful solutions

to these kinds of challenges. So, I mean, certainly nothing like that. I did have a conversation, had a great conversation with Tommy Sotomayor about policing and he's this black commentator on YouTube and other places. He's also got a lot of hits over the years and we've done a couple of shows together that was really great. Maybe because this whole racism thing gets thrown around,

that me having a really productive and enjoyable conversation and a debate and disagreements and so on with the black fellow, maybe that had something to do with it. The video that was waiting in Q was me having a really productive conversation about policing in America with two ex-cops. One was black, one was white, and we were having lots of conversations about some of the strengths and weaknesses of policing in America coming up with a lot of solutions and all that kind of stuff. Because there is a lot of people, not speaking about YouTube, of course, because I don't know, but there are a lot of people out there that kind of want to just burn it

down, like everything that's going on in the West, they're just like, you know, raise it down and start again because the whole damn thing is rotten from top to bottom they believe and maybe just maybe the idea that the cookie glimmers of productive solutions. I don't know it's almost like if you're some callous cold-hearted guy and your grandmother's dying and she's gonna leave you a lot of money and you really heavily heavily in debt and so on. And the doctor comes along and says, I think she's making a recovery. And you're like, oh, is there a plug we can pull? Yeah, oops, tripped over the cord. So if people really do want the system to burn to the ground,

then people of every race or ethnicity, having productive conversations about how to improve things, it may not be first on your shopping list of snacks to have. There's so many layers going on at the moment. When you think about the level of complexity that you need to be able to hold in your mind to just exist in 2020. It's like, if you started this year, you have to have gained a couple of IQ points just to have

been able to move through the year. You know what I mean? You get to July and everyone's had this real multifaceted like 10th dimension workout to just be able to get into the new ones of what's happening. It would appear that I don't know, I'm trying to think, because your content for the most part was philosophy, right? It's a philosophy channel. Now, obviously, philosophy covers a broad range of sins. But I'm trying to work out what the reason is. You know, I woke up on Monday, saw that your channel and a bunch of others had been removed. I'm trying to work out what the reason is. I woke up on Monday, saw that your channel

and a bunch of others had been removed. I'm thinking like, I haven't seen anything from you that would have warranted that. With Alex Jones, there's just screaming and shouting and talking about turning the frogs gay and stuff. And you think Alex, man, like it's a matter of time before this is going to happen. But I hadn't seen anything from you.

And that was why I was interested in hearing you sort of try and steal my YouTube's position in terms of the rhetoric that you're putting across, but it would appear that you're kind of a little bit of a loss as to what that could be. Well, so the big question, the big question that occurs in society is to some degree economic. It's to some degree education. The big question is, why do some people do well and why do some people do badly? You know how it goes in sports, in music, other disciplines, like 95% of the money goes to 5% of the people.

For every queen or rolling stones or insert modern artist here that I'm not aware of. There are a thousand garage bands who never seem to get out of the pub circuit, right? And it's a big question. And people from the days of the pre-sort-tradex onwards have been wrestling with this question of like, okay, why? Why do East Asians make more than whites? Why do some basketball players do really well and others don't? It's a huge, huge question. Now, the Marxists have an answer, the leftist have an answer, which is its exploitation.

The reason that the capitalist makes more money than his workers is because their work is worth 15 bucks an hour, but he only pays them 14 bucks an hour. So he pockets that extra dollar and he gets rich by stealing from them. He's not necessary. They're the ones doing the actual work. He's just sitting in the office in his bathrobe, counting his money that he's stolen from the workers. And so their answer as to why some people do better and why some people do worse is exploitation. It's basically theft. It's called the Labor Theory of Value and you're probably aware of all this kind of stuff. Now, is there exploitation? Of course there is.

Absolutely. I pay my taxes every year. Don't make it a whole lot in return. But there really is exploitation, but there are other answers. Now, one of the big competing answers is IQ. In that the higher someone's raw IQ scores, the closer it correlates with success, particularly economic success, it doesn't actually correlate with happiness, which is interesting because the goal of philosophy is happiness, not wealth, in fact, wealth can sometimes take you in the opposite direction, you know, everybody who wins the lottery regrets it a an important part of the equation. But if you raise the answer called IQ, for success in a complex job, your IQ scores 80% correlative.

It's a correlation of 0.8. More or less, so it's way better than a college degree. It's way correlation of 0.8. More or less, so it's way better than a college degree. It's way better than interviews. So just have an IQ test and they get into the point where you can literally spit into a jar and they can get your IQ from that. It's becoming quite wild, because like 80% genetic by your teens. So the IQ answer is really, really interesting. And it's really fascinated me and I've talked about that. And that is offensive to some people for, I think, pretty obvious reasons. But it's particularly offensive to the Marxists because it's a highly competing theory.

Because the more you start looking into the IQ argument, the more the theft and exploitation argument appears weaker. And Marxists use the theft and exploitation argument to create division, to cause problems, and then eventually to, you know, Salami's lie society and gain power over the whole sausage fest, so to speak. And so, I know. That's a term I'm in. I'm in. I'm going to hear today, Stefan.

This is what happens when you get kicked off YouTube. You start throwing words like sausage fest or owned. So I know, also break my rule, which is to never do a interview with people who've got cooler glasses than me, but anyway, see, look at the, I even brought my ones down that have tape on them. That's my, that's my professionalism because they're not on my face. So good. So yeah, so the more you focus on the IQ argument, again, exploitation exists, but IQ is a really, really important part of the discussion, but at weekends, the Marxists, the capitalists stealing from the poor workers and exploiting them and creating all of this resentment and rage.

I mean, we've all been there. I grew up poor. I don't know about your history in particular, but you see, there were kids in my high school. I remember these two guys, they were brothers. They got brand new Corvettes for their 16th birthday and they drove them to school and they parked and of course you know everybody was going crazy and the girls were like, you know, and and I'm sitting here with my dirt bike of seven colors, you know, and it's like they got to get it all from the garbage down but it's like I am not getting any babes with this multicolored Adam Sanders kind of dirt bike

so multicolored Adam Sanders kind of dirt bike. So we all have that. Now, and I remember, you know, going to people's houses, you know, like I they're wealthy and they got pools and, you know, that old speech, there's lots of people out there. They're happy and they have noodle salads, just nobody in this car, right? And so we have that kind of resentment. Now for me, it was kind of like, well, I'm glad that's out there. I got something to shoot for. You know, I got something to aim for. I got something where I can get out of this hellhole of poverty and dysfunction.

Because you know, the poor you are often more dysfunctional. The systems and situations are. I had something, you know, like if you're down well and it's totally black, that's pretty bad. If you can see one pinpoint of light up there, woohoo, you know, you've got, you know, it may take you a long time, but you can climb the hell out of that thing, right? So for me, I did kind of resent it, but I used the resentment as I resent that I don't have that, right? So I, you know, I work very hard. I've found it a lot.

There's a point to the system which permitted that to emerge. Well, yeah, because if I'd have thought to myself, oh, well, you know, because you're born poor, you lack the context and you lack the social skills and you lack the blah, what work ethic and you got a, you got dysfunctional parents, which you have to take care of. That bleeds you out of the marketplace and the rich will never let you get ahead. All of this stuff, I, you know, I had to drill upwards, you know, it's, you think, think of a guy who falls through, I live in Canada, so these things are like, you think about these things occasionally, you fall through the ice, right?

And there's a swift flow and current. And then you're under the ice. What the hell do you do? Your body heat is like leaching away, leo de caprio style. And you've got this half a foot thick ice. And everybody thinks, okay, I could try and swim back up current and find the hole where I came from, but that's pretty risky. Or maybe I can grab a rock from the bottom of the river and I can smash it upwards and get through this ice. And I have maybe 30 seconds or I'm gonna die, right? Because it's, and then of course, even if you get through the ice,

you then gotta get out because it's kind of broken while you did it. So the reason I'm saying all of that is looking up, it was like this layer of ice. Like this layer of ice. It's like, okay, I know on the other side, like down here is horrible, right? Down here in the, the drags of society. That's pretty wretched, right? But I got to pound my way up through there.

And it's a really, really uncomfortable situation because you really do feel out of place. Like I remember giving business presentations. I don't know whether I'm supposed to stand or sit and, and you're being invited to country clubs and, and let's go golfing. It's like, I don't even know I'm supposed to stand or sit and being invited to country clubs. And let's go golfing. It's like, I don't even know which end of the golf club to hold. And like it's, it's a big, difficult challenge. But I never thought that there was, now, some people say, oh, well, it's my privilege

and so on. But fun, because I know a lot of my friends who didn't make it out. And they were just as wide of me. It's not wider. And so, to me, that class question, I never thought it was fixed. Now, I like the Dickens novels, I like Russian novels where there's kind of churn of classes, like the great expectation style,

the David Copperfield style, even the Oliver Twist style, right? So, I think I never really bought into this argument of this idea that you were just trapped, you know, like that old Everlast song, like where you end, it's usually where you start. And it's like, no, I don't believe that. And I think the more they can get you to believe that, the more you just die under the ice, because you think like that can't get out of here, right?

There's no way the ice is like a glacier, like I can't get out. And I really, really dislike that, which is why, you is why I focus on free will and fight back against determinism and so on, particularly economic determinism. If you can provide value to people, they don't care whether you're black or white or green or bold or blue, white or you have one of those David Bowie rolling casino eyeballs, like what mix and match and all.

If you can provide value, then people will build a better mass trap and people will be to pass you to always believed that. And I was able to find a place of providing value through philosophy to people, both by talking about things that other people were kind of too chicken to talk about, Douglas Murray accepted. And also, you know, just by I have these calling shows, which I've been doing for like 15 years, I've talked to thousands and thousands of people,

you know, people who say, I got the problem in my life, okay, but let's see what philosophy can say, because I really wanted to be a rubber on the road discipline, not some abstract thing in a book or a university. It's interesting hearing about the problems that a meritocratic society brings up. And a land of bottom who I went to go and see twice

last year, actually, and was fantastic both times, the most calming, beautiful British voice ever. And he's got this story where he talks about the ancient Greeks, and he says that the back then, the beggars on the street were referred to as the unfortunate that Lady Fortuna had not blessed them. And he says, if you roll the clock forward now to the 21st century, the equivalent of an unfortunate in our modern society is a loser, someone that's a loser, right? I like the in-sale slur, right? Yeah, yeah. It's a

loser. It's because, and the reason was, he postulates that back in ancient Greece, people understood that a significant amount of what was good in life could be achieved through hard work with luck. And yet, as you start to ramp up the amount of meritocracy that you have, if the winners, the people, the millionaires, the Elon Musk, the Bill Gates, this world, if their successes are theirs to bear, then the people who fail in society, their failures must be theirs to bear, right? You can't have it that the people who do well do well because they do well and they've worked hard, but the people who fail fail purely because of look. And when you have Douglas Murray on the show talked about the collapse of Grand Narratives as someone who has an interesting view on religion from his side, he took a really nuanced position about how us no longer having an attachment to these Grand Narratives and that's trickled down into a lack of community, both like hyper locally as in you and your street and the couple of neighborhoods around you.

and your street and the couple of neighborhoods around you. All of these different things is this lack of connection to the outside world, that sense of perspective that you get when you look up at the night sky, the fact that you have super normal levels of dopamine coming in from high stimulus devices, which again kind of makes nature just feel a bit dumb, like I'm going to shoot people on call of duty, this feels a bit shit. You kind of wrap all these things together and it does, you know, meritocracy, someone not doing too good in life and feeling like it's a bit unfair. Like, I can see why someone might scrabble around for a reason to kind of work that out. And yet, I can hold in truth at the same time that I can see with all of these different structures

and how they're going on as to how this could have emerged. Does that all make sense? It really does. And one of the great gifts that Christianity gave to the West was a powerful way of dealing with the resentment of people who don't succeed. I mean, it's a powerful force in society. And of course, it's complicated.

I mean, it's hugely complicated. As you point out, you know, I mean, someone born with spine of iftar is going to have a bit more of a challenge in life than say you or I. And I have great sympathy for that. And there are people who try and fail through no particular fault with their own.

And so, you know, life isn't hurly-grorly, but material success is only one part of life. Once you've got your bare minimum taken care of. So the question of why people succeed or why they fail is really, really fascinating. But every time we try to answer that, using structure, we destroy free will. That's the problem I have.

Every time we make an excuse, so to speak, oh, so and so failed because, like, I have a friend. Oh, man, let's get all kinds of personal, right? So I have a friend, he's like five foot four, right? And he'd never had much confidence with women. Now, why? Because he's like, Hey, Steph, you can have all the confident you want. You told squared, George, blue, I almost six foot tall guy. You're above average in height and you got a cool accent and all that kind of stuff,

right? And he's like, you know, I'm a five put four and, you know, not particularly striking looking or anything like that. And he would bring up these things. He's like, oh, I saw this show where women were offered a short guy who was a doctor or a tall guy who was unemployed. And they chose the tall guy. It was unemployed. And then they finally said, okay, he's a doctor. he writes children's books, he's musical, and he's a millionaire. And finally, they were like, okay, fine, I'll go out with the short guy, right? So he said, like the amount of accomplishments you have to stand on to just make a mechanism

hustling significantly greater. Now, I get all of that. I get all of that. And I could have gone that same route when I was like 13 and started losing my hair. I'm just saying it wasn't 13, but it's pretty damn early, right? And I had a real nice, you know, a high-style shocker here and all that. But you know, genetics kicked in, thanks mom. And next thing, you know, I'm reflecting more sunlight than I'm absorbing, right?

So I could have sat there and said, oh, you know, but bald guys, they don't know. But if it's kind of thing, if you believe it, it becomes true. If you don't believe it, you'll find out how true it is. And that's what I want to get across to people. Do not cut off your own future by assuming that there's a structure or you have a deficiency or an issue that is going to prevent you from reaching your potential. Pretend that there's no barriers to what you want to do. You will absolutely be astounded because in life you're competing with people who are erecting their own barriers all the time. And if you're just one of these

insane people who are like, hey, what if they just, what if they weren't any barriers? Now, sure barriers will come up, but what if you're like, okay, what if they just, what if they weren't any barriers? Now, sure barriers will come up, but what if you're like, okay, well, this is just temporary. This is a barrier like you're driving along and you see a fog bank, you don't crash, you just slow down, right? You navigate the barrier and you just keep moving forward. And if you look at life that way, that's the complete opposite of what the Marxist world view is. And that's empowering. The Marxist world view is like the satanic temptation to externalize all the issues in your life to other structural blah, blah, blah, blah.

Right? Oh, the class or the race or the gender or whatever it is. So go ahead. I think that this is why I've had to do so much work to get myself up to the level where I can even hold a conversation with someone like Douglas Murray or Andrew Doyle because for me, I'm only child and therefore sort of personal sovereignty, individual agency, like that's been every that play time required individual agency from me, you know? Because there's no momentum to overcome the inertia of someone of you not playing.

It's like, I want to play. Okay? Well, it looks like you're going to have to start playing. And it takes a lot of work for me to get myself into the mindset of someone who does externalize in that way, who does want to rely on the structures. And yet, I have a level of empathy, which is so crippling that I don't want to see people in our society that are struggling, not cared for, and holding those two things in reality

at the same time is challenging. And that's really the key point. Our capacity to empathize with suffering without relieving it for our own sake. Because empathy is what's good for the other person. I take a silly example. You've got your brothers in alcoholic he asked you to go and pick him up at 2.4. Well empathy is my brother really wants to drink, right? And you're empathizing with your brother's needs. But real empathy for your brother is due, do you drink too much? Like, let's have a conversation about cutting back, right? So when it comes to sympathy in society, are we actually helping people or are we managing our own discomfort

about them being unhappy? That's the fundamental question because it's very selfish to say, I don't like that this person is suffering. So I'm gonna, I don't walk up and give the money or whatever because I feel uncomfortable. That's a fundamentally selfish act and so open to manipulation and so open to being preyed upon

and so open to having the opposite effect of what you want. Well, what is the question? If you go up to someone and you just say, hey, man, like, there's that, I can't remember what the comedy show is that's a sketch. It might be family guy. And there's a homeless person on the side of the road and Peter Griffin goes up and he puts it like an empty hand in there. And they say, but dad, you didn't give him anything. And he says, hope, I put hope in there.

And you're like, well, maybe, you know, well, let me ask you this. So have you in your life? I mean, I know you have, obviously, right? But so Chris, what has your experience been of trying to help someone, because we all do it. We all have people in our lives who have problems and we try to help them with those problems

just as they try to help us with our problems. What has your experience been in helping people, like directly in your life, not just money or taxes or charity, but in your life, you know, sitting down and really trying to help people fix their stuff. A lot of the young guys that work for me in my events company,

between 18 and 21, very turbulent time. A lot of them have relationships, challenges, you know, people have more relationships and they do lectures sometimes at university and assisting them to navigate that is a very common way that I deal one-to-one with someone who is in some form of emotional distress. And how does it play out? What would you say your success rate is? I know this can't after-calf, but I'm just curious. Yeah, pretty I'd say. At least, it depends on what the quantifiable metric of success is, but at the very least, I think the boys get some clarity. I think they're given clarity

because I'm able to say, look, man, here's some of the archetypes that you're going through. Here are some of the existing examples I can give you from my own life, or from other people's anonymously through. Here are some of the existing examples I can give you from my own life, or from other people's, anonymously, lives that have come before you, this weird heritage thing that's going on of different club promoters. And this is just powerful, of course. It's totally normal. It's totally normal. How can we normalize this? How do you feel? What's good? What's bad? And then hopefully they go away with a little bit more clarity. I think it's successful in that they leave in a better position than when they arrived. But even my wisdom making powers can't fix a bad relationship, you know?

No, there's no magic that way. And it's funny because I've actually had a lot more success helping people in the world than helping people in my personal life, which is causal in ways that are probably quite complex because of course the people who want to get advice from me or want to get advice from you there's already some kind of respect that's kind of baked into the situation so you have some weight perhaps that that otherwise a stranger wouldn't but it is really is really tough to help people you want to help people but helping them will often weaken them you know like some guy struggling with lifting weights, you don't go over and say,

here, I'll lift those for you. You know, it doesn't, it makes him weaker, right? You've got to let him struggle. If he's not struggling, he's not strengthening. And if he's struggling too much, he's going to injure himself, finding that sweet spot. You know, helping people is really, really complicated. And, you know, one of the issues I have with the welfare state

or sort of government redistribution of, it's just like, take money from these people, fire money at these people. Look, problem solved, as they say in England, done and dusted. And that doesn't work. I mean, that seriously, seriously does not work. And it really just turns into a pay people not to get upset, not riot and buy votes. And, you know, it turns into this complete clusterfract of incompetence and corruption.

But because it's not voluntary, because it's coercive, it's based on debt and taxes and someone, you know, you can't really fix it. And so that question of how we help people is really complicated. And when you have an overly simple and coercive, quote, solution to a highly complicated problem, people stop looking for answers. You know, how do you help people who are poor? Do you mentor them? Do you give them a better education?

Do you reform schools? Do you try to remind people that staying together for your children is probably a good idea if it's not an outright toxic relationship? Like, what do you do to solve the problem of underperformance by individuals or groups within a society? That's a big question. Now to me, the simplest answers are always the worst answers, always the worst answers.

And it's like saying, well, what song should you play? Chopsticks forever. It's really not learning very much, right? And so when it comes to helping people in society, I want as many smart people and creative people, I want lots of different experiments occurring, so to speak, lots of different options and ways of doing things so that we can figure out what works the best.

Because I'm not even convinced that pouring a lot of resources into helping people, I mean outside, perhaps, of direct medical issues, like, is actually helping them or not, because, you know, a lot of people are kind of... With the current pathways of help at the moment, is what you're doing. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. But so a lot of people, you know, they're kind of start for attention. You know, I say this is the guy who's got 300 million views, maybe I'm one of them, right?

But a lot of people are kind of startved for attention and the more attention and resources you give to people who are failing, so to speak, they may then be succeeding because they're getting a lot of attention. And they know that as soon as they actually succeed, all the attention will be withdrawn. So it's really, really complicated to help people. And you know, we just have this one size fits all income redistribution stuff that goes on. I mean, I know it buys a lot of votes and I know it disrupts a lot of families and I know

it creates multi generations of people who've never really seen a job application. But, you know, and of course, to even raise that, you know, even raise that. And people have this other simplistic thing. It's like, well, you know, if the government doesn't do it, it just isn't going to get done, which is kind of like saying, well, if we free the slaves, we're all going to start to death because no one's going to pick the food. No one's going to pick the carton. We'll be frozen and hungry in a wilderness. Society naturally sort of finds a new level point, right? I think it's good that talks about

that swing from one extreme to the other that happens with societies. Sorry, I didn't trap it. This is something I don't mean to shoehorn this in here, but I've been thinking about this for a couple of days and I'll keep this short. I mean, so, you know, for those of you who don't know, I want to state the society, right? I'm not chipping away the edge of the wealth. I want a purely voluntary free market society. I think that governments are like slaves, slave owners, and it's just an historical anachronism that we've inherited. The reason I'm saying all of that is that whenever I say to people, oh, you know, we should fundamentally change things in society, people are like, oh, but there's no way we could

adapt. There's no way we could change it. We just had this absolutely mind-boggling experiment that just occurred over the last couple of months, Chris, truly insane. Like, imagine, imagine, you go back to what everyone prefers as their safe game year 2019, right? Let's say you go back to 2019, right? And I say to you, like, we're having this conversation a year ago, hey, it might even

be on my YouTube channel. Who knows? But we're having this conversation and I say, you know what's going to happen next year and people will adapt to it pretty well. Half the population is going to be thrown out of work and all the schools are going to be closed for six months. And you sit there thinking, oh my God, what, like what an unbelievably wrenching chaotic insane thing to happen in society. Borders will be closed. Immigration is put through a stop. Schools are shut down. Mals are shut down. Half the business is closed down. And you'd sit there and think, oh, that's like an unbelievably wrenching change.

Second only, perhaps, to the declaration of a national war. And yet, look how adaptable we are. And of course, I mean, there has been a lot of suffering. There's been a lot of loss of income and all of that. But we can do amazing things. Like if they shut down government schools tomorrow, there'd be a back a week of chaos, people would be teaching other people in their garage and then we'd find a solution that would be, you know, it's like taking the government away and thinking there's no more solutions

as banks, not much sense as, you know, you cross a river, you take out a giant rock and you think that the water's just still going to go around the hole. Like, no, you know, where there's a need and the government is not providing you get a much better solution because it's voluntary. You know, like, again, let's go back even further. Let's go back to like 1850, you and I having a debate, right? And you say to me, you know what? Slavery is a moral institution.

And I said, well, come on, man, every society's had slave slavery as a permanent human institution. We've always had it. We always will have it. And by the way, you know, we can't get any cotton or can't have any possible food for the cities if there's no slavery. And I said to you, no, no, man, see what you need to get is this. We're going to eliminate slavery, right? And then you know what's going to happen. We're going to eliminate slavery, right? And then you know what's going to happen. These giant robots are going to sweep back and forth across the fields. And they're going to be powered by crushed dinosaur juice. And there's going to be this incredible swath.

And right now, 90% of people are involved in farming, but you know what, Chris, in a hundred years, it's only going to be 3% because giant robots with ancient tree juice in their veins will be sweeping all of the crops. And you say, well, what about the grapes? We'll have robots for them too. And tomatoes and strawberries. And you'd say, okay, first of all, I'm never smoking what you're smoking.

And secondly, robots is just a magic term that you use so that you don't actually have to answer how things are gonna be done in the absence of slaves. And then I'm gonna say, you know, when we get rid of slaves, the most amazing thing is gonna happen because labor is now expensive. People are gonna start investing in labor-saving devices to the likes of which you've never seen before.

Because right now, everybody, you need something done by a slave. You don't want labor-saving devices because it lowers the value of your slaves. It's like buying a car just to wreck it, you know, or park it in Paris, which is kind of the same thing. But so we don't know what's on the other side of a free society of true liberty. I mean, that's why you got to make the case based on principle. Like the people who wanted to get rid of slavery just said, look, slavery is a moral.

Only human beings is a moral, which bloody well is. And those of us who are looking for voluntary solutions to social problems, we don't have to provide blueprints of exactly how society works in the absence of coercion. If some woman is getting beaten up, we don't have to sit there and say, oh, yeah, well, who's she going to date if she leaves this guy? No, no, no, that's not the point.

The point is we've got to have some principles about how we approach these things. And for me, the non-aggression principle, like, do not initiate force against other self-defense is perfectly fine. I think not morally required, but certainly morally legitimate. I mean, that's the juicy stuff. That's the good stuff. That's where human progress is when we continue to expand the moral law. We expanded it to knockdown aristocracy. We expanded it to knockdown slavery. We got to just keep whittling it away at it. And there's a lot of people want to go the other way. And so we've got to give the state more power. Now the state can solve all inequalities. And now we we got to get rid of the family and we got to get rid of

structural this and everything that and the only way you can do that is giving the state more and more and more power. I'm willing to live with economic quote inequality that's totally fine for me. What I don't want to live with is the massive political inequality where some people in the government can point guns at everyone and try to create a utopia one bullet at a time. Long rambling speech, but there you go. Good luck. I've had a lot of evolutionary psychologists and evolutionary biologists on the show recently and it got more more to come. And upon reading and exposing myself and the audience to more of that, what I'm struck by is our ability to adapt, right? Well, the most adaptable creature that's ever been reached. With the only creature around all seven continents, right?

Yeah. And I worry that the increased convenience of the modern world and the detachment from having to do things and an increasing rhetoric of being told that we don't have agency or sovereignty over what we do or what we achieve. While still holding in our mind that there are some people who do require help, the person who is a spider-bender and the disabled ramps need making and the, but it's such a, so on and so forth. It makes me worried that we are becoming less, us, less human, less of who we are, as a species. And I said this at the beginning of the pandemic,

that it's very rare that there's something which happens across the globe at the same time, like world club, the Olympic opening ceremony, and that's pretty much it. It doesn't even rain everywhere on the planet at the same time. Like I now know what it feels like to be scared in my house of a pandemic going outside and scared for my family. The same way as you do, the same way as someone in China does, the same way as someone in Russia does. You know, there's that quote from a ex-president that talks about how united we would be as a species and forget all of our differences if we were invaded by an alien threat.

Now Paul Krugman, I think, had that as an argument as well. Thank you. So, point there is, that felt like there was some good stuff being done and we were kind of being reminded a little bit, but that was contrasted and framed against such a lack of that, such a lack of understanding that we have sort of control in, that we have agency and stuff like that. And again, the amount of complexity that you need to hold in your mind at one time to be able to get all of these, it doesn't surprise me that it's difficult and it's challenging, but as you mentioned earlier on, there's some pretty smart minds in this world.

If they were applying their thoughts to the correct problems, I'm just about to finish Toby odds the precipice on existential risk. And that again just highlights, like the best minds on the planet right now are working out how to get people to click on ads. They're not working out how to or, you know, the instead of building bridges or coming up with ways to get us all as paid passengers to Mars, they're trying to figure out how to milk one more derivative dollar out of the feds manipulation of interest rates and they're being completely parasitic all of the central banking and it's like, can be your YouTube channel, Stefan. That's what they're spending their time doing. But yeah, it's just all of this stuff,

it is complexity, there's this detachment from who we are, there's this hypernormal stimuli that's going on. And again, it's easy for me to see how a conspiracy theory and there'll be some degree of unfortunate situation and malign intent and perverse incentives and all of this sort of stuff that's going on. But there has to be some sort of unifying life principles that people can rely on.

There has to be something that people can fall back to. And as far as I can see, that is kind of sovereignty and agency. So we've got sort of 10 minutes or so left. We've highlighted it. Oh, can I do one little thing on that? There's one little thing. Yeah, I'll keep it brief. an agency. So we got sort of 10 minutes or so left. We've highlighted it. Oh, can I do one little thing on that? Just one little thing. Yeah, I'll keep it brief.

Hit me. So yeah, to me, to me, the great advantage in human life is when we realize that the personal is the universal. Like, you know, you get a, you get a rocky open, your hand drops to the ground, right? And then when you see, okay, that's gravity. Well, gravity is universal. And, you know, look at the split. We can send a man to the moon and we can send a probe to Mars, right? Because we get that the personal is the universal. Now this is, I mean, you know, I'm some people think I'm a smart guy. Maybe that maybe there's something that too, but what I am is somebody who takes

the personal and makes it the universal. So when I was a kid and when you were a kid, what would we told you two words, not your fists, what would we told Indy Kindergarten? Don't push kids. Don't take their stuff, don't, you know, use force or whatever, right? And when you have a conflict with another kid and you end up in a fight, you each pointed each other and say he started it because you know, it was considered legitimate to use some force in self-defense, right? Some kid comes running at you with your rock, you can trip them up, right? So you

got yourself to fence, so you've got your, you know, and don't take other kids stuff, right? You've got your own little cubby hole, your name on it, and that's your stuff. You shouldn't take other people's stuff. So what do you got there? You got the non-inertiation of force, non-aggression principle, you got property rights, you got self-defense. Now. Kindergarten, it's a microcosm for the real world. Right. The same way that exactly the same force that has your rock dropped to the ground can keep a satellite in geosynchronous orbit around the world. Now, so for me, like, what if everything's just a whole lot simpler than we think it is? And what if complication is a way of having us succumb to power. Oh, it's such a complicated rats nest of syllogisms,

I guess, I'll just obey, right? Like we all understand that if you and me and someone else go out for dinner and we vote that you pay, that's not fair, right? Say, well, that's, by this democracy, man, we outnumber you and we get, if two men want a rape a woman and they all vote on it, you know, we get that the majority is not equal ethics. So, but what if all of these

principles that we teach to four-year-olds, that we learn as children, what if we just take them like Newton did with the apple, everything's falling, every, the sun is falling around the adromative galaxy, the, or the Milky Way, the earth is falling around the sun, the moon is falling around the earth, like what if everything is falling? What if the personal is the universal? Ah, well, that's the birth of the modern world. And what if the same is true with ethics as it is with physics? Okay, that's my big thing. Yeah, but I like it, but the increasing complexity from rock from hand to ground to spaceship from earth to moon is the equivalent of kindergarten, keep you stuffing your locker, don't punch Billy,

to let's try and run a country. I already know. It's the same principles, that's what I'm saying. It's the same principle. One to say that the rock falling is everything and everyone in its universal, then you get all the complexity, but the complexity is based upon simple principles. In other words, if you get your basic principles, like Darwin's evolution, and you talk to these evolutionary biologists, right, you get a couple of basic principles.

Ah, if this is this random mutation, better adapts you to your environment, it's more likely to replicate blah, blah, blah, blah, right? That's a simple principle. It's been called one of the greatest ideas in the history of the world. Now from that simple principle, principle, you get, well, and inordinate number of Beatles, as we know, but you get a massive complexity of life, but just from kind of simple principles. And in the same way, some basic, you know, speed of light is constant. Boom. Oh my God. Speed of light is constant. We get Hiroshima, nuclear power, Chernobyl.

We get like a complete understanding of how the universe functions at an atomic level. I mean, that's incredible stuff. So, take a couple of simple principles. You get complexity, but you actually don't get complexity. If you don't have those simple principles, if you look back when people thought, oh, the world is flat, and the sun and the moon and stars all roll around the earth and they believed all of that stuff.

And it got really, really complicated, right? They couldn't figure out why Mars would swing backwards if the Earth was the center of the universe, right? You've seen the old aerial diagram of how the ancient astronomers presumed that the planet moved to account for that. Have you seen this? Oh, it's just like a treasure. It's called with the, the, the, the, the, it's called the Ptolemaic system. All these circles within circles. And then boom, you put the sign at the center and it all falls into place, right? And so when things get too complex, it's usually because we've forgotten our simple principles. All we've said, they only go so far. You know, not stealing, not using force.

Well, that's fine for kindergarten, but when it comes to foreign policy, things are completely different. You know, I can't go and buy a car in your name, but when it comes to signing up generations of future unborn children to international, banxed, or slavery, oh yeah, we can totally sign promissory notes and treasury notes, which they have to pay off. Like, what if the personal was the universal and all the simple ethics we learned, like that old little everything I learned, I learned a kindergarten,

but what if that was the case? That would be morally, it would rewrite our entire society to say no initiation of the use of force, property rights don't steal like my big ethical system, university preferable behavior. You are not allowed. And this is proven within the system.

No theft, no rape, no assault, no murder. Right, those are the basic things that the moral system bans. What if that's like Newton, the apple falls on him, he's like, oh my god, we're all falling and we get to go to Mars. Because we keep it from simple principles, you can get great complexity, from simple rules of spelling and grammar, you can get Shakespeare. But if you can keep the rules simple, you get great, positive, complexity, but the more complex the rules become as you're pointing out now, we're all just burning up our brains here trying to figure out how not to get the platformed. Some of us more successfully than others. Well, maybe we'll let's wait until this goes on.

Don't have any simple rules. The simple rule should be if your speech is legal, shut up. I'm here. You know, if you're not doing death threats or bomb threats or directed sightings to violence, speeches legal, that should be as simple as it is, right? But now it's like, oh, yes, but this group and that group and this, and it's like, then we lose. We lose all of the joyful complexity of our conversations because we're not going with simple legal speeches fine. It adds as you increase that complexity. And that's what was the name of the map again that I was talking about the Tolemake

Turtles within circles. Yeah. Yeah, so the tolemake map if you just Google that you'll see this hilarious image of how ancient astronomers before they Understood that the Sun was at the center of the solar system. They had this increasingly complex answer, right, for how everything worked. And the tax code. Yeah. Well, what I'm thinking is whether or not a company to loop it right back, but foreshadowing in the beginning, a company like YouTube, who is going to increase the complexity in their system by involving themselves in defining

the messages that are permitted and are not permitted. I think the analogy is between the difference of being a utility like a water company or being a broadcaster like a TV company, whether or not you're culpable for what goes on your site and then how much you should step over that line outside of just law and etc. etc. I'm wondering whether or not that doesn't scale for very long. I'm wondering whether or not that becomes the snake that eats itself type thing because they've got to increasingly inf fringe on more and more. As soon as you say, there's this Facebook thing at the moment, byCott Facebook and advertisers pulling their work.

Look at 500 companies lining up at Facebook's door to demand them to crack down on what's called hate speech or whatever, right? I mean, that's not good, man. That's not good. And I think Mark Zuckerberg's got until the 10th of July or the 13th of July to deliver some promise to, I don't know, all of this stuff, like all of this, the extra layers of complexity. First off, anyone that's ever in a business understands what a dis-economy of scale is. At the very, very least, they need to pay the person that presses the

delete Stefan Mollin's channel button. And if you're then going to scale that over time, there's going to probably going to be some meetings about is it this, is it that that's a lot of wasted talent, money, time, resources, all this sorts of stuff. And I think I wonder what the shelf life is for an increasingly sort of autocratic, parental top-down approach to what was originally the beautiful utopia that was free information online. Well, and who can handle that kind of power? I couldn't. I doubt you could. Who could handle that kind of power to say,

what is acceptable and what is not acceptable to be said in society? Because it's funny, because they seem to be going off to conservatives and they've often misidentified me as a conservative and I'm not, but they say, oh, that's so conservative, but you understand that thinking that you know

that we've reached the end of our moral progress as a species And we absolutely know what is evil and what is good and we know who the bad actors are We know what all the terrible ideas are and there's no capacity for debate at the fringes. That is Megalomaniacal and narcissistic to the degree that you'd be thrown into a an asylum in a saying Society if you if you had that perspective look their ideas out there, I consider absolutely revolting, repulsive and reprehensible. If you're going to say, oh, well, incitement of violence is bad, what about all the people in the media and the political system who started goddamn wars over false information, weapons of mass destruction and siren gas and chemical attacks in Syria and all of this kind of garbage, right?

Those people all have their social media accounts. You know what I've never done I may have made a couple of mistakes in my 15 year public career never started any wars Never started any wars that got half a million innocent people killed in Iraq and used half a million innocent people killed in Iraq and used depleted uranium weapons that are virtually genetically destroyed in entire cities like Fallujah. I've never done any of that stuff. Now those people can have all of the social media accounts that they want. But if I stop bringing up IQ, ooh, that apparently is worse than a war crime for people.

So you can't ever apply this stuff from a philosophical point consistently. I love communism. I love socialism. I love fascism. But you can have, there are thousands of communists, open communists teaching at American universities and Canadian universities and Western universities. They're taking people's tax dollars and they are preaching a doctrine that is highly toxic, highly dangerous as led to the deaths of a hundred million people

Philosophy rational philosophy is led to the deaths of zero people But Marxists can perfectly the perfectly comfortable right even though they profess an ideology I'm debating one one later tonight at 8 p.m. In case anybody wants to drop by at free domain.com but Ideas that are provably a slaughterhouse of human history, two and a half times more people killed by communists than by Nazis, who were national socialists, by the way, and not even on the right. So communists can not only have their Twitter accounts, and they can spew a toxic ideology

that's resulted in the deaths of tens of millions of people, but they can be gainfully employed in universities and nobody's protesting them. And as people have pointed out, no, Karl Marx statues are getting torn down these days. It's only Christians, right? Which kind of tells you where these people are coming from. But you can't ever apply this stuff consistently in a rational format, which means you're going to end up having to pick and choose who you've been. And we all know that bias is very strong and very powerful. So there are ideas out there. I find reprehensible. And the best cure for them is to have them go out and speak their

stuff, engage in debate, and have their ideas disproven. But if people are afraid of ideas coming out, what they're not afraid, they're not actually afraid of the speakers. They're afraid that their fellow citizens, or maybe even they themselves, will have no intellectual ammunition with which to rebuff these ideas. And that's a problem of education. You can't solve it by playing whack-a-mall with people who do actually think. What's the shelf life that you think? For this current iteration of what's going on, if you were to put your money where your mouth is, walk into the bookies. Well, it really depends what happens in America in November. What's your prediction there? Tough call, man. I was I was I was very confident about Trump even in 2015, but the social media plus demographic plus the deaths of older people

who tend to be more conservative has really changed. You know, Trump only won by 70,000 votes, right? I mean, I get from a electoral college standpoint, it was a landslide, but from a headcount standpoint, it's very narrow. But I think that the far left erupting into the kind of violence that you saw, you know, in Chas and what

was called chop and so on, where you had like murders and all forms of like terrible things going on. And statues coming down and these riots, that is really scary in the hell out of people. And there's very little persuades more than fear, which is why people use media. The media uses fear so much. So I haven't really done that much work on the election. I did on the last one, I did for the Canadian election, but I almost don't need to,

because people are gonna look at something like Chas, right? So Chas is incredible because you had a little lab experiment, a little inoculation, because they want to take, they want to steal property, they want to enable criminals, and it's going to be a complete disaster. So you have this little, like, you know, little smallpox injection cure, so you're from smallpox forever. So here we've had, for the first time in human history, a live stream of the revolution, a little microcosm of the revolution and

people can see what kind of sick shit goes on in these situations. What's the implication of that? For voters. Well, the implication of that is people are going to be pretty scared because, you know, the one thing that why is Trump so hated? Because he's anti-communist. Because his major mentor was a fervent anti-communist and the guy understands how dangerous Communism and men as a wife survived

a communist country. You don't think she's talking about what the hell is going on at the moment? Of course she is. In the same way that all of the people who fled to America from like the Romanians and Yugoslavia all terrified at the moment because they're all like, man, this is like, it's like Romania in 1946, it's two years before they took over. Scared shitless. And, sorry, here I am swearing on your show,

but, and there's no place to run, right? What are you gonna run? England? Come on. Great, like, that's not gonna help you, right? So, I think that people are, the communications technology, which is showing what happens when you get communism,

is gonna scare people into we have to go really hard in getting this stuff under control. Like, I don't know what I mean, I'd love for the universities to be defunded. I think it shall be voluntary and all that kind of stuff, right? But we have a big indoctrination and education problem in the West, you know, this long March through the institutions that the communists did starting in the West. You know, this long March 30 institutions that the communist did starting in the 1960s, I mean, they control most of the major organs of communication outside of, you know,

this wilderness out here, so to speak. And they are, you know, pretty ruthlessly shutting down to sending voices. I mean, people mad, me because I had a couple of conversations with Noam Chomsky. Well, of course not. It's because I am relentlessly focused on exposing the evils of communism and there are a lot of lefties in these organizations

and I think it's much more to do with that than anything else. So people are going to face a pretty stark choice and people of course across the West should look at jazz, should look at America and say, it's not just there, you know, it's all over and we've got to be robust, you know, the long summer of relaxation is kind of over and we've got to get on some snowshoes and get moving. Yeah, well, it does definitely just feel a little bit like winter's coming and it will be such an inflection point toward the end of this year. And the mad thing is, kind of doesn't really matter what happens. If Trump does get reelected, it is going to be crazy.

I have no idea what happens if Biden gets elected. I feel like Trump is ripped the bandaid off. Biden is slow descent in the sepsis. Yeah, well, it may not be that slow. And the consequences of 70 million Trump supporters through all heavily armed being told what to do by a bunch of jack booted thugs from the state, we've seen that before in American history and world history, and it's not a pretty place to go.

We saw that before, of course, in Germany in the 1920s, so where you had this very strong right wing response to an incipient communist takeover of the German parliament. And, you know, we're going to try and keep the conversation going as long as humanly possible, because I don't look particularly good in a helmet. That's a really good point that I'd quite like to finish off and finish on. To call back to the episode I did with Andrew Doyle. And what he was talking about there was the reason that he mocks the far left as much as he does is because he fears the far right. He has a real genuine fear of the far right and inevitably like throwing a ball against the wall, the harder that you throw it, the harder it bounces back. And that often tends to kind of be

is back and that often tends to kind of be the sensation that's going on. And Douglas Murray's quote is famous quote that says when the barbarians are at the door, we'll be debating about what gender they are. Yeah. Well, you know, that is the blowback that occurs if we can't have conversations. You know, like, I mean, we've had some jokes and some laughs, but in all seriousness, of course, the loss of something like my channel, unfortunately, is going to radicalize people because I was a voice for reason and peace and negotiation, and I still am a voice for reason and peace and negotiation. But there are people who are going to inevitably take that despite what I say,

despite, right, and say, well, you know, we gave it a shot. Man, 15 years of philosophy wiped out. These guys are playing for keeps. And it is, it is an unfortunate, really unfortunate situation. I mean, the left always goes too far. I mean, look, they had, then I still set up in chas. It could have turned into a Copenhagen style, little enclave that could have gone on for decades. But no, what do they do? They go and threaten the mayor. The person who was on their side, what do they do? They go and threaten the mayor. The person who was on their side, who controls the police, they go and threaten Jenny. And then boom, you know, they're done because they don't know when to stop. I mean,

formal money is being sent to the poor than ever existed when socialism was developed. Like 10 to 20 times more money is being sent to the poor than existed in the world when socialism was developed because of the rise in GDP in the 20th century. Still not enough, they still need more. Like they simply don't have any clue when to stop. There is no enough for the left. Now, when people are looking for, you know, you got free speech, you get your free speech, you stop. Because you got what you want. like you drive in home, you get home, you get out of your car because you're home, right? You've got an endpoint. If you want a free market, okay, once the government is out of your way and you're allowed

to trade legally and freely, okay, you stop, right? But when you're looking to control other human beings to create a utopia, there is no endpoint. There is no, this is enough, right? It's the old picture where you're only one more bullet away from perfection. And that lack of an endpoint is what is particularly chilling. Now the conservatives do have an endpoint, which is just kind of leave us alone. But in the battle between those who want to be left alone and those who just bloody well won't leave them alone, want to be left alone and those who just bloody well won't leave them alone. It can get pretty ugly once people understand that there is no endpoint where they're going to be satisfied and say, well, we've achieved everything we want and we're achieved, so now

we can leave you in peace, like historically, that never happens. I want to see, I'm both fascinated and terrified to see how the rest of 2020 plays out. It's going to be, I mean, not even half done, baby. As of yesterday, yeah, we're halfway through and that quark history doesn't crawl at leaps. It's definitely one of the years where it's leapt for 2020. So, finishing up, where can people find you, where should they go if they want to consume your content or check out what you do? Sure.

I'm a best place to go. It's freedomain.com. You can click on the video links. You can get notified from library or a bit shoot. You can donate at freedomain.com forward slash donate. I've got my podcasts up there. You can get those at fdrpodcast.com. I'm going to keep on doing what I'm doing because if it ain't words, it's

going to be fists and I'm better with the words. So I hope people will drop by and thank you so much for a great chat today. Good, man. Thank you. you