How to Destroy the World

Hi everybody this is Stefan Molyneux from Freedomain Radio, I hope you're doing well. This is: How to Destroy the World. Now, destroying the world? Lot easier than you might actually think – you will have to be patient, of course, but remember this: the longer evil takes to win the longer it tends to stay in power. Now,to destroy the world, you need to do three things – first: break the bond between husband and wife – second: break the bond between parent and child – and third: convince the people that they are helpless. (There is one more, which enables the other three, which we will talk about in a moment.) When you break the bond between husband and wife, you make marriage far less inviting. When fewer people get married, fewer people have children (at least, the smarter ones). When fewer people have children, the male population generally becomes both apathetic and feral, since male testosterone declines significantly when men get married, and again when men become fathers.

Marriage, of course, is an ancient institution designed to ensure that the massive resources necessary to raise children to adulthood remain stable and available for decades. The destruction of marriage creates a perfect storm for expanding the power of the state. Irresponsible women have children without fathers to provide for them, which means that they need – and vote for – more and more government spending, and anyone who resists this trend is easily attacked for waging a war against women, when really what they’re doing is criticizing rampant irresponsibility. Now, fatherless children tend to become promiscuous, criminals or both, which also helps grow government power. Promiscuous women demand that governments provide free birth control, abortions and welfare for the inevitable fatherless children they produce, while male criminals frighten the population into surrendering their rights for the illusion of protection. Traditionally, fathers fight expansions of government power because they love their children, and don't want them to grow up as tax and debt slaves – once men give up having children, they tend to give up on fighting government power, because they really have nothing to protect anymore.

Traditionally also, men fought to protect women and children. When women turn on men by using the state to steal their income, and men either have no children, or their children have been turned against them, men no longer oppose the growth of government power, instead taking refuge in futile online combat. So much for marriage. What about parents and children? Well, when you break the bond between parent and child, the loyalties of the children shift from the family to the state. The best way to do this is to convince women that motherhood is oppressive and boring and far beneath their spectacular abilities. Although it might seem unlikely, you will be surprised to find just how easy it is to get mothers to walk away from their babies – to dump them in daycare and government schools – in order to go to work, because – freedom? Now, of course, a few intelligent and perceptive people will point out that having a boss is generally far more oppressive than having a husband, but who will listen to them? Clearly, they just hate women, am I right? (Also, working women have a hard time competing with men whose wives take care of their households, so getting those wives into the workforce reduces competition.

) "Ah," you might say, "But what about the famous maternal instincts?" It turns out to be mostly myth and nonsense – a relic of prior historical convenience. You see, in the past, religions venerated motherhood because religion is transmitted to children maternally. In the present, and the foreseeable future, governments denigrate motherhood so that nationalism can be transmitted to children institutionally. So in the past, priests praised mothers for their supposedly wonderful maternal instincts – now, feminists praise mothers for abandoning their children, and so off they go. You will be utterly surprised at how quickly the illusion of the maternal instinct – falls away. Now, getting young mothers to enter the workforce helps the destruction of the world enormously – first of all, motherhood – not a taxable occupation; secondly, when mothers work instead of taking care of their children, not only can you now tax the mothers, but you can also tax the people she now needs to take care of her children (added bonus: they are usually government union employees!) Thirdly, traumatized children are essential to stoking social dysfunctions provoking demands for more powerful governments.

And the best way to traumatize children is to separate them from their mothers, throw them into the brutal mosh pit of unmanageable peer-to-peer interactions, and let the lowest common denominator kiddie sociopaths do all the traumatizing for you. Of course, another advantage of cramming children into peer-dominated government institutions is that they will become so terrified of horizontal attacks that they will be wonderfully susceptible to media lynchings should they ever step out of line as adults. Alright, you with me so far? So, once women are in the workforce (and have kids), the quality of family life deteriorates, because there is never enough time to get everything done, everyone is always playing catch-up, and the children no longer respect and love their parents, because this is not the life that children want, and so it is clear that for their parents, and for society as a whole, the children and their needs, come last.

(This impression is cemented the moment they find out about the national debt, and the hundreds of thousands of dollars that they are expected to pay for the blind foolishness of their elders.) To destroy the world, it is essential to make divorce as simple and easy as possible, and to make sure that women in particular are well paid for destroying their families. You need to make it practically impossible to get out of a cell phone contract, but relatively easy to get out of a marriage. Because, you know, cellphones are important and all! So, the two traditional standards for legally ending a marriage – abuse and infidelity – need to be thrown out, and spouses must be able to end their marriages for any reason, or no reason at all. Because you see, once women fear for the stability of their marriages, they will also want to keep working out of anxiety – because if the marriage breaks up, and they have no job skills, they feel doomed.

(Oh, by the way, don't forget the under appreciated value of homework in helping to destroy the peace and happiness of family life – homework, of course, has no educational benefit whatsoever, but it helps destroy the family, and makes sure that government teachers don't have to work past 3 PM – it also allows the parents to blame their children for the crappy educational system. Remember, contempt for parents is the essence of state power – since kids have to bond with something, and God is mostly gone, hello flag!) Now, once women can end their marriages at will – and receive alimony and child support to boot – they will no longer carefully select potential mates for long-term stability and mental health. Vanity, status, abs, and eye-blink sexual attractiveness will become the new pseudo-standard. A small proportion of alpha males will thus end up having most of the sex, further ensuring that stable and embittered betas will rarely marry and have children. Lowering the permanence of marriage means lowering the quality of men, which means in turn lowering the quality of women, to the point where they had little to offer any sane person after their youthful sexual peak.

The third leg of the stool of destroying the world – after destroying marriage and the parent-child bond – is fostering helplessness. Why? Good question! Well, because once you can convince people that they are helpless, they will inevitably become vicious, greedy and coldhearted – all essential ingredients for destroying the world. Now, in this area, economic determinism is your best friend. Religion generally emphasizes free will, but atheists generally trend towards socialism, which is a synonym for economic determinism. You need to convince people that the free market is unfair – that poor people are just destined to remain poor, but rich people get to enjoy being rich, as the result of larger invisible forces beyond anyone's control. See, once you can convince people that freedom is unfair, they will constantly run to the government to "fix" the inequalities of liberty. To achieve this, constantly tell people that wealth can only be distributed, never created. Keep reminding people over and over again how 5% of the population owns 50% of the wealth, and so on. (This is obviously a ridiculous argument, because did you know? Picasso owned 100% of the paintings he created, but he didn't steal them from anyone else, but don't worry – the first ability jettisoned by helpless and resentful people is critical thinking.

) Alright, so once you have convinced people that there is some sort of uberclass of aristocratic rich people, whose dizzying heights of exploitation they can never hope to reach, the genpop will view the rich as their enemy, and the government as their savior. The wonderfully destructive appeal of economic determinism is that it is such a juicily self-fulfilling prophecy – it literally becomes true, the more it is believed. If you tell people often enough that they are doomed to remain poor if they happen to be born poor, they tend not to do the work necessary to escape poverty – and lo and behold, the word "statue" actually becomes a real statue, tangible to the touch. Point at a thin man and say the word fat over and over, his weight does not change, even if he believes you – but call him helpless, long enough, and you take his very soul. So once people believe that richer people have stolen the people's money, they will naturally demand that the government go steal it back.

This has the double benefit of creating dependence on government handouts among the poor, and wonderful shakedown opportunities for the rich, who will donate to political candidates in order to escape the increased government power. Alright, once people believe in economic determinism, they will also actually start to attack people whose choices deny it. Poor people who believe it is impossible to escape poverty will generally attack poor people trying to rise above their station. Like a family of fat people marking the one person who diets, the poor will attack, abuse and undermine anyone striving to escape their imaginary destiny – which has the delicious effect of making economic determinism not just true for those who believe it, but for most anyone around them too. Since most of these arguments are obviously ridiculous, you really need to work on substituting offense for thought in order to keep any emerging truths at bay. The poor are always victims, and anyone who suggests otherwise is offensive.

Women are always victims, and anyone who suggests otherwise is offensive. White males or never victims, and anyone who suggests otherwise is offensive. This raises the value of blind prejudicial emotion, while making critical thinking and courage a social liability rather than the foundation of a civilized society. In the past you see, people would have been too embarrassed to admit that reality was upsetting to them – a mark of insanity in general – in the present, truth tellers must be trained to step around the landmines of other people’s irrational emotional reactions, and call such pandering to delusion “sensitivity.” All this destruction is relatively easy to achieve – embarrassingly easy, really, if you wish to retain any respect for the human race – but all this requires one fundamental precondition to succeed. In order to create the conditions necessary to destroy the world, governments need to be removed from the rational limitations of cause and effect, empiricism, rationality – hell, even basic math has to go.

Governments must be seen as the providers of largess, the holders of treasure, and the grantors of favors – just like ancient Kings. Now, in order to do this, the costs of government must be willed and wished out of existence, at least for the time being. In general, of course, governments are overhead – they are a net cost to society. If society can voluntarily perform the same services as a government, it saves the cost of the government. If you and I can resolve a dispute without third-party arbitration, hey! We save the cost of third-party arbitration. This is particularly true in the realm of income transfers – in order to pay a poor person $1,000, governments have to tax another person $2,000, since the bureaucratic costs of taxation and transfer are huge. This $1,000 loss is very clear to society as a whole, and causes a resistance to expansions of government power – particularly of course, if the taxpayer and the recipient are the same person. If a politician promises Bob a $500 benefit, but then taxes him $1,000 to pay for his “benefit,” the scam and loss become brutally clear.

It no workey. Now, governments can use taxes as collateral to borrow money, but this quickly runs into the law of diminishing returns, because if future unfunded liabilities – you know, the promises made without the money to pay for them – exceed potential tax revenue, loans dry up very quickly – either directly, or indirectly, through massive increases in interest charges. Now, in order to truly destroy the world, governments need a mechanism to bypass all the limitations of evidence, mathematics and economic self-interest or, as it is sometimes called: Reality! To truly destroy the world, governments need to take over the supply and creation of money. Now, they cannot do this directly, because existing financial interests would use the power of the media to reject the government takeover of their businesses. Rather, governments need to use the time-honored mercantilist trick of granting a monopoly to formerly free market businesses, in return for special favors to the government.

Governments thus create central banks – or government monopolies over the creation of money – and hand the significant profits to the private sector which owns them, in return for government control over money creation and interest rates. So, once central banks can create money, governments can promise a $500 benefit to a citizen without having to directly increase taxes – it can now borrow or print the money, without the signals of excessive borrowing or money printing showing up in the form of higher interest rates, which it now controls. Also, through central banking, governments can sell multi-decade bonds, thus pushing off the day of reckoning until long after the current crop of politicians have left the stage. (Multi-decade bonds pretty much aren't heard of in a free market, because who can guarantee which companies will even be around 30 years from now, let alone making enough money to pay back a bond?) Added bonus: The presence of central banking also tends to make highly intelligent people look like paranoid idiots – because the day of reckoning is pushed so far into the future, and the costs are so diffused and abstracted throughout the whole economy, that all those who pound the drums of early warning and eventual doom look like people wanting to end a great party for no good reason at all.

Thus intelligence and foresight become liabilities, while the level of intelligence required to ignore simple math becomes a treasure. Alright, alright, let’s put it all together. When all this is in place, you will have a problem in a generation or two, which is that the smarter people will simply stop breeding, while the less intelligent will breed like vampiric rabbits – overall, your population will still decline, but the quality of your population will decline even faster. Now, of course, the art of politics is the art of making promises impossible to keep – because if you could keep them, you would be making your billions in the free market. See, the further off your promises are, the less you are liable for fulfilling them. But at some point, the taxable base of younger people will be utterly unable to sustain the retirement requirements of the old. When this moment comes, you will have little choice but to turn to immigration.

Now, you have no hope of attracting intelligent people to your dying country – what young person wants to move thousands of miles in order to be a tax slave to entitled geriatrics? Can you imagine the following commercial? Hey! Are you tired of being able to save money and build your future? Would you like to pay 60 or 70% of your income in taxes to elderly strangers? Are you willing to give up taking care of your own parents, in order to take care of old people in another country who couldn't be bothered to even have their own children? Then come on over to Taxcapistan, we're waiting for you with open arms, massive debts, and potential audits! Intelligent people will not come to your country, and intelligent people within your own country have not had children, so you end up basically having to pay retirement benefits out of a population largely composed of welfare recipients – less a matter of burning the candle at both ends, than inserting lit dynamite into your rectum.

No, the only people you will be able to attract to your country will be those to whom a disastrous, decadent, wildly indebted and economically unstable first world country is a massive step up. In other words: third-worlders. Of course, you must invite third world immigrants to your country not because you expect them to magically integrate into what is, to them, a foreign language, culture, economy and society – no no, you invite third world immigrants to your country in order to create the kind of catastrophic social problems that will distract your citizens from your basic inability to pay what you promised. You will note that as Western populations age, more and more Third World immigrants pour into Western countries. Now, one cover story is that, hey! Immigrants will provide the missing labour and capital required to pay for elderly white retirements. This is such obvious nonsense it's scarcely even worth rebutting! Let's just say that (a) these immigrants generally remain on welfare, or under perform economically relative to the general population and (b) even if this were not the case, if you have enough immigrants to pay retirement benefits, you also have enough immigrants to radically alter voting patterns. Will immigrants from Somalia really vote to pay exorbitant taxes to take care of elderly white Austrian people? I'll just leave you to ponder that one.

Remember, it's a whole lot more fun to endlessly race bait and scream "Nazi," "xenophobe," and "racist" at people than it is to get voted out of office by reminding to the general population that there's no money left. Remember, it's a whole lot more fun to endlessly race bait and scream "Nazi," "xenophobe," and "racist" at people than it is to get voted out of office by reminding to the general population that there's no money left. Look, you have to remember: Political power is a physical addiction stronger than cocaine. Telling citizens the truth will take away your power, while traumatizing and abusing them will increase your power. So go ahead, import wildly incompatible population groups, and then blame the government's lack of money on the racism of your native population. "We are out of money because you racists refuse to hire uneducated Somalis with an IQ of 85 who can't speak English – sorry old people, that's what happens when you’re racists!" Does it make any sense at all? Who cares? People will be too cowed and frightened to challenge the narrative, too terrified of being called racists to see through the scheme – and too busy dealing with and running from immigrant problems to turn on their governments.

OK, ok, you may say, all of this is great, truly great, but what happens to the country in the long run? You gotta be kidding me. Look, the addiction to political power is kind of a moment-to-moment affair – a drunk does not think of the long-term health of his liver, but rather on his shaky need to swallow the next drink. Politicians? God, they're just trying to get through the next press conference, the next quarter, the next election – they give no more thought to the long-term survival of their country than an extreme sports thrill junkie does to his elderly arthritis. And remember, those with political power use that power to shield themselves from the consequences of their own policies. Of course they're willing to import waves of utterly incompatible immigrants, because they don't have to live among them, and never will. I mean, do you know what you can get a house for in a Detroit ghetto these days? It's like a dollar! Why aren’t all the socialist race baiters moving to Detroit? It’s really cheap! Nah, who cares what happens to the country in the long run? Most of the countries around the world are run by a tiny super-wealthy elites, who live in gated and armoured communities, surrounded by a sea of discontented and helpless poverty.

Who are we to fight the general trend? Politicians will in fact destroy the world – with the collusion and cowardice of their people – but it is only the world beyond their walls. They will only destroy the world that they can easily escape from, only the world that you – and your children – will have to live in. Good luck..