Should You Save Marriages? Freedomain Listener Questions

Stefan Molyneux

In this episode, we explore complex familial relationships through a listener's struggles with anger and resentment towards their mother. I stress the importance of free will in decision-making and the need for personal accountability in addressing difficult emotions. We discuss the role of community in marital issues, using Stephen Crowder's divorce as a lens, and examine how societal values shape relationship choices.  Additionally, we touch on the influence of religion and philosophy on moral development and the implications of biohacking and longevity on emotional connections. Finally, we consider the effects of parentlessness and societal structures on fertility rates, encouraging listeners to actively engage with their relationship complexities and submit questions for future exploration.  GET MY NEW BOOK 'PEACEFUL PARENTING', THE INTERACTIVE PEACEFUL PARENTING AI, AND THE FULL AUDIOBOOK! https://peacefulparenting.com/  Join the PREMIUM philosophy community on the web for free!  Subscribers get 12 HOURS on the "Truth About the French Revolution," multiple interactive multi-lingual philosophy AIs trained on thousands of hours of my material - as well as AIs for Real-Time Relationships, Bitcoin, Peaceful Parenting, and Call-In Shows!  You also receive private livestreams, HUNDREDS of exclusive premium shows, early release podcasts, the 22 Part History of Philosophers series and much more!  See you soon! https://freedomain.locals.com/support/promo/UPB2025

Transcript

00:00All right. Good morning, everybody. Hope you're doing well. Stefan Molyneux from Freedom, Maine.

00:05And we have great questions from a variety of locations across, around, and among the web.

00:13First question. Stefan, I'm wondering if I should go to talk with my mother.

00:18Since my call-in with you, I wrote my parents both about my entire childhood, the terror,

00:23my pain, the suffering, and so on. My father talked with me about it,

00:27but my mother stayed silent and hasn't said anything substantial herself.

00:32Because of that, I despise and hate her now and don't want to talk with her and don't have to.

00:37I still feel a lot of anger and hatred towards her. They're still married,

00:41and I think my father is too dangerous to have a meaningful conversation with in person.

00:46Now, listen, of course, look, you know it's a central policy of mine that I wouldn't presume

00:55to try and override your free will in any way, shape, or form by telling you what you should or

01:01should not do. So, it is one of the, you know, really the grimmest but the most liberating

01:08aspects of life is we are desperate to be led, but to be led is to lose our free will.

01:20So, listen, I know you're wondering about this, and you're not asking me to tell you what to do,

01:26but it is really, really important in life. You know, you're asking for advice, and that's great.

01:30Obviously, I can't tell you whether you should or should not talk to your mother. I think there are

01:34various considerations involved in the decision, for sure. And I hope I'm not coming across too heavy

01:42here, but you have to, have to, have to make your own choices in life according to rational values.

01:48And again, you know, I mean, you're asking for feedback, I'll give you feedback, but I can't

01:53tell you whether you should or shouldn't talk to her. And I know you're wondering, I just want to

01:58sort of make that clear. Life is glorious and terrifying when you own all your own decisions.

02:05I prefer the glory. Okay, there can be a little bit of the terror at times, but you have to own

02:10your own decisions. And I think, of course, you're asking me for various principles by which you

02:16might help make those decisions, which I'm happy to provide. But it has to be your decision for better

02:22or for worse. And yeah, I mean, there are certain exceptions in general, of course, but you cannot

02:30make only bad decisions, can make wholly bad decisions. Let's say you decide to go and talk to

02:37your mother. Let's say it goes really badly. Well, you've learned something really important.

02:42You've learned something really important. So even bad decisions, quote, bad decisions are

02:49educational. And sometimes you need the bad decisions to get the best education. So let me

02:55just look at this in sort of more detail. So you suffered a lot throughout the course of your

03:02childhood, suffering terror. Oh, it's a powerful word, terror and so on. My father talked with me about

03:10it. But my mother stayed silent and hasn't said anything substantial herself. Because of that,

03:16you say I despise and hate her now and don't want to talk with her and don't have to. I still feel a

03:20lot of anger and hatred towards her. They're still married. And I think my father is too dangerous to

03:24have a meaningful conversation with in person. So in general, I would recommend avoiding situations

03:32where conversations could escalate to physical violence. Because then it's not a conversation.

03:40It's a sort of conversation under threat, so to speak, right? And if it's a conversation under threat,

03:46it's not really a conversation at all. So I would definitely work to avoid that. If you say your

03:54father is too dangerous, then I would recommend avoiding those kinds of conversations. It's not a

03:59conversation. I mean, if some guy's got a knife to your ribs in an alley and saying, give me your

04:04wallet, that's not a conversation, right? That's a compliance or resistance. In general, you can

04:09replace your wallet, but not your kidney very easily. So I would comply. So if your mother is not

04:17accepting any responsibility for the train wreck of your childhood, and if she has remained married to a

04:25man who poses, I assume, physical danger, to you, if you have any kind of honest conversation,

04:32then I'm not sure what is to be gained from all of that. The feelings you have for people do not

04:39require their assent or participation. So if you feel very strong emotions towards your mother,

04:48I sympathize, I think I understand. But your feelings do not need validation from the people

04:57they attach to. If you feel anger and hatred towards your mother, it's a terrible experience

05:04to go through, and I really sympathize with that. But if you feel those things, you do not need your

05:10mother's permission or consent in order to have those feelings, to experience those feelings.

05:17You don't need her to agree with you. You don't need her to validate your feelings.

05:21You don't need her to give her assent and approval to what you feel. In fact, in general, if your mother

05:28is dysfunctional to the point where you have these very strong negative feelings towards her,

05:33probably the last thing you want to really do is put yourself in a situation of need.

05:43Very dangerous. So one of the ways that cruel people gain power over you is they provoke a need,

05:52then defy, and then defy the need. Right? So, I mean, obviously a kidnapper steals you away,

06:00locks you up in some basement or dungeon, knowing that you want to be free and reunited

06:04with your loved ones. So he provokes a need and then denies the need. So working with that is

06:12very tough as a whole. Provoke a need, deny a need. So if you have the feeling that the way it should

06:21work with your mother is that you need her to listen to your upset and your anger and all

06:30of that, and then you need her to give some sort of approval or assent to that anger that you feel

06:38towards her, then she has provoked in you a need, which is her listening to or approval of your anger.

06:47And then you go to her and she gaslights, rejects, you sort of, you name it. And you are then

06:56frustrated and thwarted in your emotional self-expression. So peeling away the need for

07:04people to agree with your feelings is one of the most foundational steps towards liberation in the

07:11world. If you have negative feelings towards someone, angry towards them, you don't need them

07:18to agree with your anger. In fact, it would probably be quite unhealthy to try to get them to agree with

07:27your anger. Now, if you have a healthy relationship, that's kind of a different matter, right? Because

07:34if you have a healthy relationship, then if you're angry with someone, if they agree with your anger,

07:42right, let's say somebody does something thoughtless or mean or whatever, and, you know, it happens,

07:47right? Then if you're angry towards that person, and they then agree with that anger, oh, you know,

07:54you're right to be angry, that makes sense, I'm so sorry, then you have repaired the relationship. And,

07:59you know, you probably have gotten closer, you've gotten the other person has more self-knowledge

08:05and all kinds of good stuff. So in a healthy relationship, being angry with someone, it would

08:12require, oh, sorry, it would benefit from you communicating your anger, them understanding

08:17and agreeing with it, or if they don't agree with it, telling you why your anger was unjust, right?

08:25So, I mean, if you arrange to meet someone at a certain place and location, and they're not there,

08:31that could be annoying. But if it turns out you messaged the wrong person, then your anger would

08:38be unjust, right? So having agreement on your negative feelings is, it repairs things in a

08:46healthy relationship. In a toxic or unhealthy relationship, it does not fix or solve things

08:55as a whole. Because if you're in a relationship where the person is foundationally cruel, not,

09:00you know, thoughtlessly mean or whatever it is, like, it's just, it's an accident rather

09:06than a sort of central driving force. Somebody can be thoughtless rather than, say, sadistic.

09:11But if you're in a relationship, it's not really a relationship, if you're in a situation of

09:16exploitation, where the person is driving that particular approach of provoke a need, and then

09:27deny a need. To be in a position of someone needing something from you, and then denying

09:31that need puts people in a situation of power. And this is why so many people pursue, or they

09:41pump up the virtue of family, right? So, if you have a desire for a good meal, right, a nice

09:50meal, you go to a nice restaurant, and you order, and either you don't get what you want, you get

09:55something bad, or you just don't get anything at all, well, then you are not going to go

10:04back to that restaurant. So, if people provoke a need, oh, here's some mouth-watering descriptions

10:10and photos of our food, they provoke a need, and then they deny that need by not bringing

10:15you what you want, or bringing you something bad, or bringing you nothing at all, then you

10:18just don't go back to that restaurant, right? Like that sort of famous Seinfeld episode where

10:25he's reserved a car, but there's no car, right? You know, the important thing is not to just

10:32take the reservations. Anyone can take the reservations. The important thing is to actually

10:35have the car. And most people who've traveled, you know, for business or extensively even for

10:41your personal life, you've had some experience, some negative experience usually with a car rental

10:46place. And you just, you know, generally don't go back. Now, people in the business world who

10:54provoke a need and then refuse to satisfy that need go out of business pretty quickly, which is why,

11:00you know, people like working for the government, people like working in academia, and people like

11:05families, they pump up the sort of families, everything stuff, and because they don't want to be

11:10subject to the free market principles that drive quality. There is no quality without the voluntary.

11:17Voluntary and quality are the same thing. So, when you are locked into a particular relationship

11:22that is not based upon the provision of virtues and values, which is generally the humped up tradition

11:29of family relations, then quality is almost impossible to come by. So, I would recommend working

11:38with a therapist to deal with the feelings because, you know, having this degree of negative feelings

11:44towards your mother and father is a challenge. And I'm really, really incredibly and deeply sorry

11:50that you're in this situation at all. I mean, it's really tough, and I really sympathize.

11:55You can get to a wonderfully great, a wonderful and great place in life as a whole from here.

12:01And I'm really sorry, a therapist, I think, would be great to work through these things. But remember,

12:08you do not have to have cruel people agree with your negative feelings in order for your negative

12:15feelings to be of great value and positive effect in your life. So, all right. Somebody writes,

12:24good morning. Do you remember the Stephen Crowder situation with his wife? The two were engaging in

12:32an unpleasant public divorce battle. I remember you covering the story and asking the question,

12:39where were their fellow Christian family members slash friends, etc.? These people could have acted as

12:44guardrails and reminded them that they were not behaving like good Christians and looking out for the

12:48welfare of their children. It makes me think about the abuse parents who only abuse their children at

13:00home, but no better than to abuse their children in, I think that means in public, and makes me wonder

13:06about responsibility. We do not know the ins and outs of their relationship. But what if someone

13:12approached Stephen, for example, and questioned him about not having a car for his pregnant wife,

13:17shamed him for his behavior? What if that took place and in general people intervened? I believe

13:23there is a line that says that the hottest places in hell is reserved for those who observe a moral

13:30injustice and choose to remain neutral. So let's say that they get divorced. Can we say that of course

13:38his wife made the decision to marry him and should have chosen better? But does the community bear any

13:43responsibility at all for not intervening? Is what happened between the two of them 100% their

13:50faults slash responsibilities? Well, I actually haven't kept track of this as a whole. Okay, so there's

13:59no definitive answer, although of course it could have been answered if they have sorted things out

14:03privately. But there does not appear to be a definitive answer. At the moment as to what's going on with

14:09that divorce, March 2024 report discussed ongoing legal battles, including a lawsuit filed by Crowder's

14:15company against Hillary and a former employee. So I guess as of a little over a year ago, it was still

14:20unresolved. So with regards to people and their responsibility, if you're part of a community,

14:30then you are responsible for, at least to some degree, for the moral outcomes of the people in

14:38that community. Right? So if you are a part of a couple, they're going through difficult times,

14:45they're having trouble in their marriage and so on, then you have some responsibility regarding

14:52the outcomes of that couple. Now, you're not definitive, right? You're not 100% responsible because

14:59they have their own choices to make and so on, right? So you're 100% responsible. But you are

15:04responsible to some degree. And the responsibility that you have is, did you work to try to intervene?

15:12Did you work to try and bring reason? Did you work to try and resolve things? Did you work to try and

15:16have them sit down? Did you work to try and listen to each person's complaints? Did you work to try and

15:22find common ground? Now, of course, you know, some of this might be more skilled than others and

15:27nobody's expecting everyone in their vicinity to be some sort of genius, some marital therapist or

15:35something like that. But yes, I would say that I'm trying to think, I don't think I've ever

15:44presided over a couple getting divorced. I don't think I've ever gone through that process

15:50with anyone. I certainly have listened to couples that are having trouble or problems or issues, right?

16:02And what happened, I wouldn't say too often because I haven't done this much, but what's happened a

16:10couple of times is I've listened to one party about the issues, given some feedback, but then

16:17unfortunately, my feedback got kind of distorted and sort of thrown in the other person's face in a

16:23fairly negative and escalating fashion, right? Well, you know what Steph said about you and, you

16:28know, just my sort of feedback got used as a kind of weapon. And that, of course, did to some degree

16:39diminish my desire to help the couple out. So as far as that went, that was not particularly helpful.

16:47Now, I don't think that I've had friends who've really helped me with my own relationship issues

16:56sort of back when I was, before I got married and so on, right? And it is really tragic, of course,

17:04because if you can help a couple with their marital issues to the point where they, you know, even if

17:09you just guide them towards a counseling or whatever else might be helpful in their marital issues,

17:13if you pursue that, I mean, my gosh, because, you know, when, when couples split up, you know,

17:22one or the other parties usually gets custody of the friends and so on, right? So if you can help a

17:28couple do something to stay together, of course, that's way better for the kids. It's way better for

17:34the community, for the family, for just about everyone involved. So yeah, try and get involved

17:41in your friends' relationships, especially if there's something going wrong, and at least have

17:47a good conscience, whether they stay together or not, that you did something to help. All right.

17:53Somebody asks, if women lose their ability to pair bond after too many sexual partners,

17:57then what is the equivalent for men? I'm thinking it's repeated exposure to infidelity.

18:01Well, but of course, a woman's repeated exposure to infidelity would do that too. So that wouldn't

18:06be particular to men. I would think that for men, a pornography addiction would probably

18:14significantly challenge their ability, men's ability to pair bond. And the dissociation that

18:22comes with the video game addictions, I think also would have negative effects on a man's ability

18:26to pair bond. I mean, addictions as a whole. If a man is over-focused on status and money,

18:32then pair bonding becomes a real challenge, because he is working on pleasing people outside

18:40the family, which you have to do to some degree, of course, right? But if a man gets overly focused

18:45on status and money and success, and all of that, then I think pair bonding becomes more tricky.

18:52You want to get your primary emotional sustenance from your marriage partner, your life partner,

18:59and everything should serve that end. And if a man pursues status, money, success at the expense

19:07of pair bonding, then I think that would be negative as well. All right. Let's see here.

19:14Hi, Steph. It is my opinion that mankind has always used different tools to figure out the world

19:18that he lives in. And the tools that he has, and the tools that has always been used. Sorry,

19:25I think that means the tools that have always been used is religion, which some consider to be the

19:29first science philosophy and science. All right. Please check your questions. Just read them over

19:35and see if they make sense. Don't have me try to decipher things on the fly.

19:39It's my opinion, says the listener, that there is overlap between the disciplines and some common

19:46ground. I believe that using these tools, it's possible to have good ethical and moral principles

19:52and arrive at the same conclusion. So, for example, the Bible frowns on divorce, but scientific studies

19:57have also shown that divorce, for example, can affect children adversely. So, in my opinion,

20:01a Christian, for example, and an atheist have common ground when it comes to the importance of

20:05maintaining the family unit. Now, when a Christian decides that they will not pursue and engage in a

20:11relationship with a non-Christian, is that a form of bigotry and an ivory tower perspective where they

20:17are not willing to even see if there is a chance of compatibility? We all have free will, but I have

20:22seen Christian women be single forever simply because they want a Christian man. Are they limiting

20:27their possibilities, or is there really such a large chasm making it impossible for Christians

20:31and non-Christians to be involved in romantic relationships? Well, I think this is a subset of

20:37a larger question. So, I had a conversation with someone not too long ago. Actually, no, this was

20:43actually in the live stream that I did yesterday, where somebody said, you know, I was playing

20:50Steph's podcast to a woman, and she got upset and whatever, right? So, in general, you want to be

20:59able to grow with each other towards wisdom and virtue. Wisdom and virtue is pretty hard to attain

21:04for the young, at least it was when I was young, and I think there's good reasons for that, which is that

21:09we tend to be heavily propagandized when we're young. I mean, we are not given a reason, evidence

21:18in a blank slate from which to think ourselves up from scratch. We have, of course, our predilections

21:24from times of personality. We have those around us who have influence. We have schools. We have the

21:30media. We get just, you know, a massive amount of programming. Now, all of that programming

21:36means that if we do achieve virtue, it tends to be somewhat coincidental because we are often not

21:46given, or we are rarely given, the chance to reason out virtue from first principles.

21:52So, the purpose of life in its current incarnation, I think, is to replace the inflicted opinions

22:03of others with the genuine thoughts of our own. The inflicted opinions of others with the genuine

22:11thoughts of our own. And when we're young, our mental models tend to be the inflicted opinions

22:19of others. Now, by opinions, I don't mean that they're necessarily false. As you point out,

22:24with Christianity frowning upon divorce, well, there's very good reasons to frown upon divorce,

22:28particularly when children are involved. But you want to grow together with your partner

22:31in reason and understanding. And so, if you're just going to, say, reject people because they

22:39don't share your thoughts and opinions and perspectives, well, what you're doing is you are

22:45bypassing the possibility of instructing that, instructing that, and being instructed by them.

22:52My wife has taught me an enormous amount. I've taught my wife some stuff. I've taught my daughter

22:57some stuff. My daughter has taught me some stuff. Particularly, she's gotten older.

23:01So, I think if you take a sort of freeze frame of someone, like you meet some woman and she's on

23:08the left, right? Okay, well, does that mean that you can't have anything to do with her?

23:15I mean, my wife and I obviously did not share each of our opinions or all of our opinions with each

23:22other when we met. So, if people have a good methodology for pursuing truth, then they're worth

23:29spending time with because you will learn from them, they will learn from you, and so on.

23:33So, learning to reason together is one of the great delights of a relationship. Don't view people

23:38as fixed entities that you can't change. If you're looking for people to agree with everything that

23:44you believe, you are going to be alone. So, all right. Somebody says, recently I've become

23:50interested in biohacking. The thought of living longer and with more vitality is attractive.

23:55Have you been interested in the subject? Is it in any way immoral?

23:57Well, I've never been particularly interested in the subject. I mean, of course, you read

24:02all of these people. He's 55 with the heart of a 25-year-old. I mean, I eat well, I exercise

24:09and live a reasonably healthy life. But the idea of sort of biohacking, I mean, it doesn't

24:17particularly appeal to me. And the idea of living on and on, I mean, past all your friends,

24:24past your, I guess you've got kids and grandkids, but maybe past your spouse and all of that,

24:29doesn't seem particularly appealing to me. There's a thing about life as you get older

24:34that's kind of hard to understand when you're younger, which is, you know, if you've lived

24:40a good, healthy, productive, and virtuous life, I mean, I think there comes a time where you're

24:45like, okay, I'm ready to go. I'm done my work. I've put my effort in. And I can certainly

24:52understand this sort of perspective that it's time. It's time to, you know, pack up and

24:59leave. And I assume that's kind of baked into biology. Otherwise, I don't know, the last

25:06third of your life would be terrifying and appalling. So I would say that, I mean, the

25:12biohackers, you know, maybe they'll get their wish. Maybe they will live another decade or

25:18two or three, and maybe that's great for them. But as I sort of get close to 60, and I am

25:26three quarters, if I'm lucky, right up my way through life, I can certainly see how you'd

25:32say, yeah, you know, I made the maximum use of my abilities. I did, you know, great good

25:38in the world. I loved, I was loved, I was passionate, I won, I lost, I fought, I failed, I

25:46triumphed. I can certainly see, at some point, you're like, you know, I had a great run, and

25:52I have no particular complaints. But certainly, if there's a lot of repetition in life, then

25:59to me, it would be like being locked in a movie theater, having to watch the same movie

26:02over and over again. At some point, you'd want to leave, right? So, all right. In response

26:08to the Just War Theory video, is there a responsibility on the act of striking civilian infrastructure

26:14they claim is being used militarily to provide proof as such? Is there a responsibility on

26:21the act of striking civilian infrastructure? Well, if you have an opponent or an enemy who

26:29is hiding without uniforms among civilians, then the responsibility for strikes on civilian

26:37infrastructure is on the part of the person who is not fighting according to the rules

26:43of war. The rules of war are you have a uniform, and you don't hide and blend in among civilians.

26:49So, and in the fog of war, I'm not sure who would accept such proof, right? So, if you have

26:56a military striking civilian infrastructure, they will say, well, no, we have proof that it was

27:01being used for war purposes, and here's some documents, and here's some video, and it will

27:06be believed by the people on the side of the force striking the civilian infrastructure, and

27:13it will not be believed by the people who are not on the side of the people striking the civilian

27:19infrastructure. People believe what they want, in general. I mean, this shouldn't be a huge shock

27:26surprise to people who've been part of this conversation for a while, but people believe

27:30what they want. I mean, we can see this all over the place, right? I mean, you see this

27:35with Trump, you see this with COVID, you see this with Doge, you see this with all over. People,

27:40they just believe what they want. It's all ex post facto reasoning, reasoning after the fact.

27:45This is what I like, this is what I prefer, this is what makes me popular, this is what keeps my

27:50social circle intact, this is what gets me praised, so I'll just believe that. And that's what people do.

27:57So, what you're looking at is, and in particular, in such a contentious and fractious topic as war,

28:05what you're looking for is, well, I mean, if this person has proof that they were striking a military

28:13target masquerading as civilian infrastructure, if they have proof, then people will accept that proof.

28:21Now, maybe you live at a slightly different planet than I do, but in the planet that I've lived in,

28:27lo these many moons, people do not accept proof that goes against what they already believe.

28:36Most people will reject proof that goes against what they believe. So, there was a study, I think I called the

28:45presentation The Death of Reason. This was many years ago, I did a study, I did a presentation, and in it was a study

28:51where people were asked to argue for a particular moral position, they then moved on, and then they went back

28:58and asked them to argue for that moral position again. But a certain glue had been put on the paper

29:03so that the opposite moral opinion showed up, and most people just completely reasoned out that

29:07opposite moral opinion, with no reference to the fact that not too long before, sometimes even a

29:13matter of minutes, they'd argue the exact opposite moral position. So, you have this belief, faith,

29:21in a God called proof, but most people are atheists to the God called proof. So, you say, oh, well,

29:28but if they prove it, all right, if they prove it, then that would change people's minds. And proof

29:34doesn't do much to change people's minds. All right. Hello, Steph. Recently, in one of your shows,

29:42you put the theory forward that the decline in fertility rates is caused by the transfer of

29:47resources to women through the state. You mentioned, for example, Japan has a feminist society.

29:53I have an alternative. Well, it's not the only thing, right? It's not the only thing,

29:56but it's one of the important things. One of the transfer of resources from women to the state

30:01is higher education. Now, of course, not really education, particularly in what women go into,

30:06which tends to be away from the STEM side of things, but it's, you know, it's just heavy

30:10propaganda stuff, right? So, in a free society, what would the economic value of young women be?

30:19Knowing that in a free society, most women would choose to have children rather than work, right?

30:29So, in the state of society, employers are forbidden to ask about marriage or baby plans,

30:35and they're forbidden to discriminate against women of childbearing age, and they have to provide

30:40maternity leaves and all kinds of complicated stuff and hold their jobs open for a year,

30:46in which case they may choose to not come back. And if the woman is kind of senior,

30:51then you have to hire someone to get up to speed with what they're doing, complicated stuff,

30:55project management, court cases, whatever, accounting stuff. You have to hire someone

31:00to be around for, it depends where you are in Canada. I think it's up to a year or something like

31:06that. And maybe they'll come back, maybe they won't. And it's really a big complicated mess.

31:11Listen, it's a real challenge, right? So, one of the reasons why women enjoy higher education is

31:19higher education gives them access to jobs that in a free market, they would have less of a chance

31:25to get. It doesn't mean no, it just means less of a chance to get. Because if you're the average

31:30employer, and you have the choice, let's say, between a 25-year-old man and a 25-year-old woman,

31:38all other things being equal, you would be more likely to choose the man. Because the man,

31:45or at least up until recently, the man was, you know, slightly less likely to get pregnant.

31:50And then, I'll be breastfeeding and maybe have more kids and so on, right? So, all right. He says,

31:57I have an alternative theory that is completely to your, sorry, complementary to yours. I think

32:02the causal reason for reduced fertility is parentlessness. Let me explain in detail.

32:08Abstract. Kids who are raised without strong, stable bonds are not having kids. Strong,

32:12stable bonds can be parents, grandparents, or another people. As long as they are present and

32:18take care of the kid, there is an inverse correlation between strong bonds and daycare.

32:23Why do I think that? Data collected by personal experience. I was born and raised in Greece. Until I

32:27was 15, I was living in a rural area in a village of 1,000 to 2,000 people, where I went to elementary

32:33school. And the big village in the area was 8,000 people, where I went to 12 to 15 years

32:39old high school. Back in the 90s, there was no public daycare programs. All the kids were raised

32:43either by their parents or grandparents, especially the grandparents, where were there all the time

32:48for the kids. 15 to 18 years old, I moved to the big city in a rich private school. Kids were

32:54definitely smarter and the environment more civilized, but they were mostly grew up in private

32:58daycares. The fertility rate between those two groups is not even close. At 32 to 33 years old,

33:05I'm the only one who has had kids from the private school class. But from the rural class,

33:10most of them have kids. From the private school, there's probably like 100 kids split in four

33:15classes. I have most of them on Facebook as friends, and there are a handful with kids.

33:19But one of them that I knew a bit better was raised by their grandparents, and she had a scholarship

33:23there. The private school, now men, the vast majority, do not even comprehend of having

33:30kids and getting married. I understand that there might be other factors, obviously wealth

33:35is one of them, that might have played a role. All right, let's see here. So, it could be,

33:44of course, that the kids in the private school in the big city would have a higher IQ, and therefore

33:49more access to higher education, and more access to better paying jobs, largely funded by the state.

33:56All right, so that certainly could be an issue. All right. From the documentary Birth Gap, it looks

34:02like even countries that are Muslim, hence less prone to feminism, at least to my understanding,

34:06also suffer from below-replacement birth rates. Is that right? It says, I agree with you that the

34:12transfer of wealth to women can assist in the decline, with examples like a woman gives a child to

34:17state-sponsored daycare to go to work in a government job. Childcare costs and income are

34:20both states subsidized, hence making it financially profitable. Then the kid is experiencing parental

34:24parentlessness, which then causes the lower fertility rate of the next generation. Interesting.

34:31So, in my understanding, then, what you're saying is that if a kid is not raised by a close family

34:37member, they are less likely to have kids themselves. And I certainly think that's true, because in order

34:47to want to have kids yourself, you, in general, have to have enjoyed being a kid yourself. And I think

34:54it's a lot less, it's a lot less likely that people enjoy their childhoods if they're, you know,

35:01move from daycare to daycare or have nannies that come and go or whatever, right? So, if you yourself

35:10did not have a fun childhood, then you probably are less likely to want to have kids, right? But I will

35:18make a sort of spirited defense of my first point. My first point being that the fact that children can

35:27experience parentlessness is the result, largely, of transfers of resources, which is money, the value

35:36of education, jobs, particularly in the public sector, so, and subsidized daycare and government

35:45schools for the kids and all that kind of stuff, right? So, I would argue that the reason why children

35:52experience parentlessness is because the government bribes women to abandon their children, for the

36:01most part, or not have children. If female employment was left to the free market, then women would make

36:14a rational decision, for the most part, to have children rather than work. Because young women would

36:23be less likely to secure high-value jobs. Now, this has nothing to do with thinking that women can't do

36:29wonderful things. This has nothing to do with sexism or anything like that. I'm simply talking cause and

36:34effect. Women would be less likely to secure, you know, great, cool, plum jobs. Now, they may have them

36:42after their kids are grown, and there will be some women who don't want to have kids, don't want to

36:47get married, and they might be, I mean, they would be, of great value in the workforce. So, this is

36:53nothing negative. It's just that as an employer, you generally would rather hire people who aren't

37:01going to have a bunch of kids and be responsible for taking care of those babies, breastfeeding those

37:07babies, raising those babies, and so on, right? Because even if we just look at two kids, right? Sorry, two kids

37:14a couple of years apart, and then we're talking, you know, late pregnancy, the woman is probably not super

37:20productive. So, she has a kid, and then a couple of years later, she has another kid. So, and then if you wait

37:27until those kids are sort of school age, and five, then we're talking, see, second kid, two years in,

37:35first kid is five, second kid is three. So, yeah, we're talking a lot of years. Is that seven years?

37:43Seven years until the kids are school age, if you want to sort of stay home and raise the kids,

37:49breastfeed the kids, and so on, right? And it's less likely, of course, if the woman is very ambitious

37:55and career-driven, for some reason, there seems to be a correlation between that and sort of less of

38:01or lack of an involvement from the grandparents. So, parentlessness comes about because the government

38:12is using its powers to transfer resources to young women. If young women faced a, quote, penalty,

38:22and listen, I'm sensitive to the fact that this is volatile for people, and it's fair, it's unfair.

38:28Like, it's just nature. It's just biology. Someone's got to raise the kids. And in a free market,

38:35there would be less of an incentive to hire young women of childbearing age because they're going to

38:41take, you know, X number of years, right? If they have three kids two years apart, we're talking nine

38:45years, right, out of the workplace. More, actually, right? So, at least, right?

38:51Right. So, the parentlessness, which is women choosing to put their kids in daycare and pursue

38:59jobs and careers, well, the jobs and careers are, to some degree, subsidized by the state. The daycare

39:04is subsidized by the state. So, I would put parentlessness as a subset or second-order effect

39:10or a shadow cast by the transfer of resources through the state from men as a whole to women

39:16as a whole. So, I hope that helps. And I really do appreciate everybody's great questions. Just

39:23wonderful. Good brain tickles. I really do appreciate you sending those questions in.

39:28freedomain.com slash donate. If you would like to help out the show, it would be deeply humbly and

39:32gratefully appreciated. Don't forget to check out my free books at freedomain.com slash books. Don't

39:37forget to check out my documentaries at freedomain.com slash documentaries. And

39:41fdrurl.com slash locals to sign up for a subscription or subscribestar.com slash freedomain.

39:49Lots of love, my friends. Thank you so much. I look forward to your next round of questions. Bye!

Category

Transcript

Recommended