Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
Centennial of Hitler's Rise to power, and how the pandemic is reshaping sociopolitical ideas.
Tired of being gaslit by progressive media?
Wanna fight back against deceptive narratives being pushed across the globe?
At the Lucas Skrobot show we tear down cultural & geopolitical events giving you the context you need to expose the worldviews driving the cultural agendas of our day.
Ultimately connecting back to why it matters to your world, and how to order our lives and society to own the future.
Join Lucas Skrobot and follow the show on your favorite podcasts app today to understand the world, discern the truth, own the future.
Over the weekend, July 29th, 2021,
mark the Centennial the hundred year
anniversary of Hitler's rise to power.
Now the terrifying news for you and I
in 2021 is that the path that we are
walking on today as a globe has an eerie
resemblance to the path that gave way
to Hitler and Nazi Germany coming to
power and all of the horrific atrocities
that followed Hey it's Lucas Skrobot.
And you're listening to the Lucas
Skrobot show where we uncover
purpose, pursue truth and own the
future episode 245 August 1st, 2021.
And this past weekend, we missed the a
hundred year anniversary of Hitler being
elected to the national socialist party.
Now, now a lot of.
Frame the nationalist socialist
party as being on the right or
alt-right or ultra conservative.
One thing to note about the
nationalist socialist party is the
word socialist within that party.
They did not hold onto the belief that the
individual is a Supreme expression of the
state, but they were a collectivist group.
They believed in top down approaches.
They believed that the government
should solve all of the problems.
They were not looking to the
individual, but they were saying the
state will solve all the problems.
Now, the context that gave rise to
Nazi Germany and give rise to Hitler
being elected for the first time in
1921 was the Spanish flu of 1918.
And as we all know, we are in a
somewhat repeat of the Spanish flu,
very different, but it's still having
a global global effect, if not a
bigger global economic effect than
the Spanish flu due to globalization.
But that Spanish flu was one of the, a
big, or that we'll be talking about in the
beginning of this episode, that led to a
society that wanted to adopt collective
ideology to adopt adopt ideology.
So it would keep them safe from the
other that would keep them safe from the
stranger that would keep them safe from
the perils of the world, because the
world is a dangerous, dangerous place.
Now in 1931, Hitler had an
interview with Richard brightening.
And in this interview, he, he said this
the good of the community pates priority
of that over the individual, but the
state should remain and retain control.
Every owner should feel himself
to be an agent of the state.
It is, it is his duty not to misuse his
possessions to the detriment of the state
or the interest of his fellow countrymen.
That is the overriding point.
The third Reich will always retain
the right to control property owners.
This was the fundamental belief
that Hitler would repeat time and
time again, that the individual.
Is an agent of the state, not the
state, an agent of the individual.
And this is an important, important
thing to lay a foundation piece to
lay at the beginning of this episode,
because traditionally people think
of Nazi, Germany as being far right,
or alt-right, or ultra conservative.
When as on today's standards, if you
look at the conservative movement,
one of the foundational ideas in the
conservative movement is that the state
is an agent of the individual and the
individual has the Supreme, right?
And the individual's rights should
be protected before the collective.
But Nazi Germany was the opposite.
They moved far far into collective
ism in collective thinking.
And this is what we're seeing
with progressivism right now in
the west progresses, progressive
ism and, uh, the latter.
Is all about the group.
It is all about the group's identity.
Now, Lawrence Reed wrote this article
in the foundation for economic
education where he's, he's talking
about Hitler's rise to power.
He's talking about some of the factors
that led up to Hitler coming into power
and the underlying worldview behind
Hitler's Germany and Nazi Germany.
So the leading worldview
was not capitalism.
It was not personal liberties and
freedoms, but instead it was socialism.
It was the states will and should
control everything that you own.
Everything that you have.
And as this quote says, the
overriding point of the third
strike will always retain the right
to control the property owners.
The government will always have
control over your business, what
you do, the way you spend your
money, how you price your goods.
It is top down control, both on
both sides of the political spectrum
can lead and lend itself to this.
But in the middle is where we find
what has been classically termed as
liberalism or libertarianism, where
it says that each individual has their
own autonomy has their own agency.
Now classically in the past.
That was a position that
was more on the left.
That individual freedom was something
that was more on the left, but we have
seen progressive have, have pushed further
and further pushing their ideologies.
They have become, um, more and more group
think and become more and more or afraid
of outside ideas, more and more sensorial
and, and canceling ideas that contradict,
or that might challenge their worldview.
In, in many essence, the progressive
movement as from my, from my standards
of view, from what I see is becoming
more and more of a conservative
movement conservative in the fact of.
Isolating itself from outside
ideas, isolating itself and echo
chambers and isolating itself.
And saying, if you are on the
outside, if you are not like us,
if you do not hold our political
ideas, then you are dangerous and
we should isolate and punish you.
We should segregate you away from
society because you could harm society.
Well, Lawrence Reed writes that Lenin
Mao, POL pot Castro, Hitler, and Mussolini
were all anti-capitalist peas in the
same socialist collective pod, meaning
to all of these dictators, we're all
anticapitalists in are all socialists.
The argument that is made about fascism
is that it's rooted in capitalism.
But when we look at fascists
like Mussolini or Hitler, we
can see that their ideas, their
ideology is rooted in socialism.
Morin's rights.
They all claim to be socialists.
The all sought to concentrate the power
of the state and to glorify the state.
They stomped on individuals who
wanted nothing more than to pursue
their own ambitions of peaceful
commerce, the all gender gated,
private property, either by outright
seizure or regulation for regulating
it to serve the purpose of the state.
These, these leaders, these dictators,
these fascists were not about capitalism.
They're not about free markets.
They're about controlling markets.
They were about controlling everything
from the top down in after world war one.
Ended November 11th, 1918.
We saw the Spanish flu come onto the
scene and it ravaged Europe, ravaged
Germany, and it ravaged America.
Now there are studies that have been
done between the connection between
parasite stress in a region or
parasite stress among a population
group and their tendency towards both
conservative, which is protecting them
and isolating and collectivist ideas.
I heard this clip it's been, this
interview has been floating around on the,
the Interworld of Instagram and YouTube.
And this is an interview that Dr.
Jordan Peterson did with Dr.
Randy thorn, who has been studying
parasitic stress levels and their effect
on the social guilt political viewpoints.
Here is Dr.
Randy thorn.
You know, if you take measures of parasite
stress across the world, Uh, countries or
states in the United States or whatever
that, that will correspond to conservative
or collective space measured by, uh,
measured by political scientists and
these measures and put in the literature
for countries and states measures of,
uh, psychologists of individualism and
collectivism put into the literature.
So we pull those data and look
for the predictive relationship
between parasite stress and, uh,
conservatism and liberalism and found,
uh, what we expected and strongly.
So the more parasites, the more
conservative said differently, the more
parasites, the more collectivist, the
more parasites, the more conservative,
the more parasites, the more collectivist.
Why, why is that well in, in communities
and societies, where there are a
lot of parasites, there are a few
different factors that come in one.
We, we have infectious diseases.
We want to draw closer to our family,
to our support system, because if we
get sick, we need to defend ourselves.
We need to protect ourselves.
And our family is a support
system that can help us if we
get sick, to help us recover.
The other thing with parasites,
even when you look at TB is that
different strains of TB or of
parasites can form enclosed collective
communities, even within the same city.
So with TB, for example, in one city, you
can have three or four different pockets
of communities that have different strains
of tuberculosis, of TB, which is highly
infectious and highly deadly disease.
If not treated, it's totally
treatable, but it's very deadly.
If it goes untreated well before
there was treatment for TB.
People would isolate themselves
within their community.
And they were developed a natural
immunity to the strand of TB that
was going on within their community.
But the moment that they moved outside of
their community of their neighborhood and
interacted with other close knit groups
of people, the vector of transmission
went up and their danger level went
up and they could then contract TB and
bring that new strand back to their
community causing illness and sickness.
So over time, people subconsciously
realized that the outsider, someone
outside of my known family and community
is dangerous because they could be
a carrier, a vector of this disease.
So that causes people to be more
closed and it causes people to
tend towards a collectivist.
Viewpoint of looking, taking
care of the whole and making sure
that the hole is protected in
the midst of this viral strain.
And the converse is true that where
there were low risk or, or situations
in society where there was not a lot of
viruses, there's not a lot of parasites.
For instance, when we begin a better
sanitation system of indoor plumbing,
when we were able to clean and chlorinate
our water and have clean water,
people naturally became more liberal.
And when I say more liberal, I mean more
open to new ideas, more open to travel,
more open to talking to other people who
didn't look like them, who weren't from
their community, who weren't part of.
They're tight knit social group.
Why?
Because it was now safe.
Cause people weren't worried about
catching different diseases that they
might bring back to their community.
But right now, of course, what
we're seeing with COVID is people
are moving back into protectionism.
There, the people are afraid of picking
up a virus, a disease from someone
that they don't know, someone that
doesn't look like them from someone
outside of their family, community.
So many people, not just in America,
but across the globe are sticking
closer to their family, ties the circles
that they know because it's safer.
Now.
After 1918, with the Spanish
flu, there was a hard swing.
To collectivism and
conservatism in Nazi Germany.
And they were the third
Reich kept crazy data.
They were data fanatics.
They recorded all of these
data, tablets, uh, tables.
And so we have this record of them.
So social scientists have gone back and
studied the correlation between the amount
of deaths in a city, from the Spanish
flu and from tuberculosis and the amount
of votes that Nazi Germany, uh, the,
the national socialist party received
and Hitler received during, uh, this
critical time of Hitler's rise to power.
Here is Dr.
Grandy thorn talking about this, uh,
shocking correlation, recent study.
You'd be interested to know as looked
at infectious disease in, um, German
regions, CDs in relation to, uh,
voting for Nazi for Hitler's party.
So these data, these data, uh,
have number of votes, uh, in
the different cities for the.
Uh, Nazi party, they have the number
of votes for the communist party and
number of votes for various things.
So the, the, the communist
party was considered extremist
than, as was the Nazi party.
Um, and, uh, the votes are from, uh,
the C the years, 1930 to 1933, I think.
So the critical years, uh, for the rise
of, uh, really Nazi-ism to get big there.
And, uh, the more, the more people
dying from the Spanish flu in 1918 to
1920 in a city, the greater the vote
for the Nazi party in 19 30, 2 33.
When I heard this, I was shocked
them more people that died, the
more deaths that a city saw from.
The Spanish flu or from TB, it
correlated directly to more votes
for an extremist conservative.
And when I say conservative, I don't
mean conservative as an, as in what
we would tend to think of conservative
ideas today, but closed off group think
identities and, and policies today.
And so all of this then led
to more conservative ideas
and more collectivist ideas.
And it also.
Because of everything that
was happening, it led to hyper
cleanliness and hyper disgust.
Now Mussolini, who is also rising to power
at the same time, as Hitler, as a fascist,
they even in Italy, they even banned
handshaking as they found it disgusting.
And a vector of transmission, there
was a headline from April 15th, 1928.
The New York times ran this headline that
says handshake meets its doom in Italy.
Fascist SMO finds that it is an hygienic
custom that should be replaced by
germ proof, Roman salutes and goes
on to talk about how American as a
horrible example of, of handshakes,
they were so hyper cleanli.
There were so germ adverse
because they were afraid they
were afraid of what those germs.
Would do they're afraid of what those
germs would bring to their society.
Now, this all then flows over
to deeper worldviews and deeper
ways of viewing the world.
It led to xenophobia because if the
person across the way from you, the
person in the community across town
could be carrying a vector of disease.
If you're not supposed to shake hands,
if you shouldn't trust your neighbor,
if your neighbor could carry a vector of
disease, as they are saying in places like
Australia right now, if that is the truth,
well then yeah, we should hunker down.
We should protect our borders.
Should we should make sure
that no one is able to get in.
We should have a top down solution
because us as individuals, we don't
know what is safe or what isn't safe.
We don't know who we can and can't trust.
So we're going to give our
power over to the government
because we are staying at home.
Why are we staying at home?
Because outside is dangerous
because people are.
Dangerous.
Here's a clip from 2017, Jordan Peterson,
giving a lecture, talking about how, how
Hitler was had such disgust and contempt.
He, he wanted everything to be
ultra cleanli and how that actually
then morphed and formed into these
xenophobic genocidal ideologies.
One of the things about Hitler was
that he was very disgust sensitive,
and a lot of his hatred for non Ariens.
So imagine inside the area in
box, it was all uniform outside.
It was all parasites and predators.
Now now discuss sensitive.
I need to add, he's talking about
the big five, a psychometric test
where it's, it's one of the most
standardized tests to measure personality
of, of openness or closeness, um,
introvert or extrovert as them.
And one of them is.
It's uh, discussed versus, uh, well, I
guess it's, it's more along the lines of.
Being conscientious, wanting everything
to be orderly, wanting everything
to be just so, and with that, if you
want everything to be just so you have
high levels of discuss, if something
is unclean or, or someone is unclean.
So it's important to know the
context in which Jordan is
speaking in, in this clip here.
And so, and that was a manifestation
of disgust, not a fear, it's
a whole different thing.
And if you read Hitler's table
talk, which is a collection of his
spontaneous dinner speeches from 1939
to 1942, it's a very interesting book.
You see that his metaphor for the
area and race was a body appear.
On assaulted by parasites or predators,
and that he was trying to erect a
border around it to keep all of that.
Wait, now, remember this is all
happening post 1918, post the Spanish
flu, where there's been this explosion
of death and parasites in a flu, and
they have been pushing for cleansing
and health protocols to keep the
collective, to keep the German body safe.
So it's an immunological disgust like
metaphor, and there's some recent
work that was published in Plaus one
about three years ago, showing that
brilliant study should have gotten
much more attention showing that if you
went around and, and sampled political
attitudes in different countries, or
even within the same country, what
you found was that the higher, the
prevalence of infectious disease.
The higher, the probability
of totalitarian political
attitudes at the local level.
That's an important bit, listen to this
again, or even within the same country.
What you found was that the higher, the
prevalence of infectious diseases, the
higher, the probability of totalitarian
political attitudes at the local level,
and you can imagine, well, what happens
if there's infectious diseases is you
want to put borders around everything.
You don't want free movement between
ideas or people, because that's
partly how the disease spreads you're
going to have much more strict sex.
Rules for example, because that's a
great way for diseases to be transmitted.
And before Hitler went on his
rampage against the non Ariens,
he cleaned up all the factories.
Like he went in there and fumigated them.
It was part of the law.
He went on a public health campaign to
get rid of tuberculosis and he got rid
of the bugs in the factories as well.
Yeah.
So before we go on with this clip, notice
what's happening right now across the
globe, we have highly infectious diseases.
That means that we're w we're C we're
in the midst of seeing a trend towards
totalitarianism because people want to
keep the group at the collective safe.
And with that, we're seeing places
like in the UK where they passed
laws, saying you can't have sexual
relations with other people.
They, they pass laws saying
you can't visit your family.
You can't visit other people.
They're putting boundaries
around everything.
Now the UK, is it.
Exactly the most
conservative place on earth.
If you look at their, how
liberal they are in, in their
policies, they're quite liberal.
If you look in places in America like
New York or California, which are some
of the most liberal states, you see that
they're taking the most conservative,
putting borders around everything,
borders around communication, borders,
around information that anything that
is outside of their borders is now
deemed misinformation or disinformation.
This all.
We're going to go back to
this clip, as you can see.
Hitler then took what was
happening, took his disgust.
And they began to go on Peppa,
public health campaigns.
They began to purify and
cleanse factories and schools
for diseases to be transmitted.
And before Hitler went on his
rampage against the non-Armenians,
he'd cleaned up all the factories.
And like he went in
there and fumigated them.
It was part of the law and he
went on a public health campaign
to get rid of tuberculosis.
And he got rid of the bugs
in the factories as well.
And he used Zyklon B.
That's an insecticide.
And now it's the gas that he used
in the gas chambers eventually.
So first it was the bugs in the
rats, and then it was people
who were that it was euthanasia.
That was the next move
and forest you euthanasia.
And the rationale for that was compassion
by the way, just so you all know it's.
So to recap, what Jordan seen here,
the path that Hitler went on was
we're going to Shopify the land.
We're going to purify the factories.
We're going to get rid of the bus.
We can get rid of the rats.
We're going to get rid of, uh, TB.
And they use, uh, an, a pesticide
cyclo and B, which is the very thing
that they used in the gas chambers
to genocide, millions of Jews.
And then from there, he said, it moved
on to euthanasia out of compassion.
We're going to euthanize
people with down syndrome.
We're going to use denies the old
we're going to use tonight, the
disabled, because it's compassionate.
It's compassionate, the same
arguments that the same things we are
seeing today, arguments in society
saying euthanasia is compassionate.
We should have it.
It is compassionate.
We just covered this.
In the previous episode, it is
compassionate to abort your child.
It is the most loving
thing that you can do.
We, we talked about this
in episode 244 goes on.
It's merciful to put these people
who are burdens to themselves and
their families and the state who
are living second grade lives.
It's merciful to euthanize.
That is the exact argument that we're
hearing when it comes to abortion.
That it's merciful that
these, these children.
That are being aborted there.
They're going to be, they're going
to be burdensome to theirselves.
They're going to be
burdensome to their family.
There's going to be
burdensome to their states.
They're not going to have a good life.
It's actually merciful and
compassionate to abort these babies.
I was a huge campaign in Germany.
It was after that, that the
more racial purifications began.
And so that's the disgusting,
that's unbelievable.
Well, that's where we are today.
This is the beginnings of that same
movement yet on a global scale due to
globalization that we're seeing today,
the question is, will we stem this
tide will, uh, ideas of liberalism.
It's really ideas of liberalism.
Will they succeed?
Will they win out over,
over top-down control?
And, and, and this sort of conservatism
that Jordan is describing here, this
conservatives, and that puts the group
above the individual, which is different
from the way that most conservatives
would describe their own ideology today.
And what I see is conservatism is moving
and swinging court's classical liberalism.
Whereas what was considered liberal
20, 25 years ago has swung to this
progressive ism that is all about
controlling the individual individual.
It's all about controlling speech.
It's all about controlling sexual norms.
It's all about.
Control top down, putting the
croup over the individual control.
Well, what does this mean?
If we are seeing this on a global
scale, are we going to see a shift
in the coming years currently and
in the coming years to more of these
collectivism border driven, conservative
ideas, as, as we saw in Nazi Germany?
No, it was 1918 and it wasn't until.
10 20 years later that we really saw
the birth and the fruit of those ideas
that have that social view point that
was formed during the Spanish flu.
Well, here it goes back to
this first interview with Dr.
Randy thorn.
I think there'll be a swing towards
conservative political beliefs in across
the world because of the, because of this
pandemic, will that shape the political
beliefs of, of, uh, and is, is there a
crucial period for that to be shaped?
So for example, will this have
a bigger effect on say 14 to 16
year olds or 16 to 18 year olds
who are catalyzing their identity?
Would you w would there be a cohort
that would be most disrupted?
That's a really interesting point.
And I've thought a lot about it.
We don't there's no, there's
no, there's no data on that now.
So we don't have data now on how the
timeframe and what demographics are
really going to be shaped by this.
But Jordan, in this interview, he
brought up another question, which.
It's the question that I have been
thinking it's why is it that we're
seeing across, across the globe?
It's not just an America.
Why are we seeing the fact that it
is more the left, those who, who
tend to have more openness to ideas?
Why are they the ones that are
reacting with more conservative
or, or collectivist ideas versus
what we think we should be beat?
Well, the conservatives would be the
ones that are trying to shut the borders.
The conservatives would be the
ones that are, are trying to
mandate the mass and trying to, to
force on vaccinations on people.
But it's the opposite.
It's the liberal side.
That's seen it.
Well, Dr.
Ronnie thorn and I disagree with this.
He, he thinks, and maybe this
is true for America, but he
thinks well it's because Trump.
Former president Donald Trump, because
he was pretty skeptical about some
of the COVID stuff early on that, uh,
that caused the liberals to swing to
the other side and the conservatives
to swing to a more liberal standpoint.
But I actually think it's different.
I think the reason is, is conservatives
are, are viewing the individual
as the Supreme and rejecting
collectivist ideas because they
want their individual freedom.
As individually it's being able to run
their businesses, able to run their lives,
able to make decisions for themselves.
Whereas today liberalism
is about collectivism.
It is about top down control of
that is their mode of operation.
So we're seeing the collectivists
across the globe moving towards the
control of society from top down.
And that, and the reason I think it's
this, that is not because of former
president Donald Trump is because
we're seeing it all across the globe.
We're seen in France, we're seen in
Australia, we're seeing it in Italy.
We're seeing it in Greece.
We're seeing it in the UK.
We're seeing it across the middle
east, across the middle east is a
place that is generally, normally
considered very conservative.
And, and yet they have some of the
highest rates of vaccine hesitancy
across middle east, north Africa.
Why is that?
I think it's because there is a new
generation that is holding onto and
stepping into these ideas, these
liberalism ideas of, of capitalism, of
free market, of being able to make the
best choice for them and their family.
And so I reject the notion
that it's, oh, it's a pushback
against president Donald Trump.
At the same time, we are seeing
the left and the progressivism,
these progressive ideology is
becoming more and more totalitarian.
They're becoming more and more controlling
of the way you live the way you think.
And these are, are, are the dangers
that we are seeing within societies
that are experiencing pandemics that
are experiencing, uh, viral vectors.
Is that within those communities?
Totalitarian and totalitarianism
rises to the top.
And those who are once conservative
are now becoming libertarian
or liberal and saying, actually
we do not want totalitarianism.
We do not want the government
controlling our lives and
setting arbitrary rules for us.
We actually want open borders in that.
I want the freedom to be able to travel
and do business and explore the world.
And I want to have that
choice to be on me.
I don't want that choice being
put on me by someone else.
And that's where I think the path
that we are on and we'll have to
see over the next coming decades.
What will the fruit of all of this be?
And how will society shake itself
out of this, this, this worldview.
What will happen?
Will we see more conservative ideas
that are, tend to be more libertarian
or tend to be more of conservative
in the way that we say today?
Or are we going to see a continual
push towards greater totalitarianism,
greater collectivist laws and control
importers of society in attempt to
control society and make every one safe?
Well, where do all of
these laws come from?
Where do we get laws from?
I've been thinking about how about
this for a while, where all, all of
our laws come from, the way that we
view morality, each law is based on
morality and our worldview of morality.
Now, all Abrahamic faiths, as I've
been pondering this with a varying
degree, have, do two forms of loss,
one set of rules or laws or morals.
Uh, for those who don't hold onto
their worldview and one, for those who
adhere to their religious worldview.
And so we see that with Judaism
and they have a secular court for
the laws that applies to everyone.
And of course those laws are, are
informed largely by, uh, Judaic,
worldviews and Judaic writings.
And then they have religious courts
for matters of marriage and divorce.
They have go courts for Jews,
Sharia courts for Muslims and
Drew's and words for Christians.
Now the same thing is in the UAE,
they have a different system.
It's different courts for Muslims and
non-Muslims ones that operate based
more on, based on Sharia law or Sharia.
It just means the law.
So based on Sharia and.
Other systems that are for non-Muslims
or ex-pats that are based on their
universal legal system, which has
been informed by the Islamic faith.
Now in Christianity, we
see something different.
Now my reading of the Christian
faith probably is going to be
different than someone else's.
So I'm sure someone's going to
leave comment or message me.
He's like, well, not all Christians
think that way, but the same thing
can be said for the Jewish faith.
The same thing can be said
for these L'Amic faith.
There are many different views
and expressions of those.
So this is my reading of my faith.
So in reading it, I see it to be much
more Christianity, to be much, have a
greater tendency towards libertarianism
where the people who are outside
the faith should not be judged fully
by the moral code within the faith.
For instance, We are, we're told in the
scriptures not to associate with people
who are full on embracing the lifestyle of
sexual immorality, greed, or drunkenness.
It says not to even associate with
those people who at the same time
claim to be followers of Jesus Christ.
Wow.
It also says in very same passage that
that doesn't mean to don't associate
with anyone who is sexual immoral,
only those who claim to follow the
faith, but do not actually follow the
tenants of the faith and therefore
the sexual immoral of the world.
Those who don't adhere to my faith.
I'm not barred from engaging
with them from sitting down
and having a meal from within.
In fact, it's encouraged.
It's encouraged for us to interact within
the world, but not be of the world.
So there, there are clear standards.
Within the Christian faith that
apply to those who believe in the
faith and those who are outside.
And we can't judge those people the
same way, because if you don't believe
what I believe, well, then why should
I expect you to hold the same level of
morality as I, now, this is where this is
libertarianism and everything that we're
seeing right now, because this ties all
the way back to the way we view personal
choice around things like vaccination.
Is, should that be a personal choice?
Is that something that depends on your
individual Liberty or is that, and
infringing upon someone else's Liberty
and four it's a collectivist choice
and that is able to be forced upon.
These are all questions of morality.
When people say, well, you
can't legislate morality.
Well, these are every law is a question
of morality and that all comes from
where do you derive your morality?
What is the source of that?
Well, this is very important because
when we look at, for instance, issues
that we've been talking here, like
the trans agenda, there is this moral
tension that we must all walk in.
Now, the, the Abrahamic faiths, they
derive their morality from what Thomas
Aquinas calls, the divine laws that is.
The law is the systems of
law we're giving, given to
them by divine revelation.
Now all three Abrahamic faiths
go all the way back to Abraham.
So why it's called the Abrahamic faiths.
They believe, we believe that God
gave Abraham a set of divine laws.
Now Judaism, Islam, and Christianity,
both walk those out in very different and
nuanced, nuanced to non nuanced levels.
Now, most of the laws are immutable.
These laws of malaria that are,
are measuring rods for each
person and they will be judged.
Each person will be judged by these
laws regardless, but there are laws.
Really, as far as in a court of law on
this earth, you can't be judged by, for
instance, in Christianity, we have these
higher laws or higher callings that go
beyond baseline morality, go beyond,
uh, do not steal or do not murder.
So do not steal and do not murder.
That can be judged in a court of law,
but we've been given a higher law to
follow, which is, do not hate because
if you hate, well, then you're liable.
It's the same as murder.
Well, you can't, you go to a court on this
earth and accuse someone of hate and just,
oh, that person hates me in their heart
and therefore they need to go to prison.
I mean, how, how is the court going to
put you in jail for hatred that you have
in your heart or the same, same ghost?
Do not envy.
It's a sin of the heart.
Bow can a government legislate that.
Can they, can they go and search through
every photo that you liked on Instagram
and say, aha, you were jealous and envious
and therefore you have to go to prison.
No.
So there are moral codes that we are
called to follow in varying faiths
that cannot be legislated, right?
You can't legislate that.
And the same way governments can't
legislate everything about your life.
For instance, it's soda
and sugar is bad for you.
Should the government be able to step
in and control exactly what you eat?
Should we have dietary plans set
to each and every one of our doors?
Or do we have freedom to make
bad choices for our life?
Do we have freedom?
Do you eat one piece of candy
because that's bad for you or one
too many pieces of candy or does the
collective have the ability to step in?
Well, this is really the, the questions
that we are grappling with right now
across the globe in these culture wars.
Is it an individual's agency to walk
that out or is it a group's agency
to enforce their beliefs upon you?
And we're seeing this when it, when
it comes to the sexual more sexual
morality and the, the attack of
the family normative, what we'd
consider normative family values.
We're seeing that in the attack
of private property, and you've
been able to keep what you earn.
We see that in mandating of vaccines,
where governments are beginning
to mandate vaccines, So what are,
what are the moral arguments?
What are the, the positionings that
you and I are going to take between
a collectivist viewpoint, where we
are all agents of the state or an
individualist viewpoint, where the
state is the agent of the individual.
Now here's the, here's the kicker.
The thing that it really gets me it's
as we move away, as society moves
away from the belief of divine laws,
as Thomas Aquinas would say, when
we move away from the belief that
there is a creator, God who revealed
what is the best form of society.
When we move away from that's into
Post's face or human secular, or cosmic
secular worldviews foundations that
have been built into modern society,
modern civilization from centuries past.
All of a sudden begin to erode because
our politics follow the culture, the
culture true, and that the community
standards and norms that we are in,
those are the things that dictate
what our policy and our politics is.
So as culture shifts and changes,
it erodes the laws of the
land for better or for worse.
Cause sometimes as culture shifts, it
actually improves the laws of the land.
And we can have arguments for both.
Now here's an argument with when it
comes to this whole trans movement,
when it comes to the things that
we're talking about of the fi erosion
and the attack of normative family
violence, you use the progressive
argument, is that what we call it?
Quote, unquote, normative family values.
As one mom, one dad stay
married, have babies.
This is the healthiest for children.
That standpoint, that belief, they
progressivism argues that that is
a result of colonialism and Judeo
Christian moral values and ethics.
And for most of history,
these have not in the norms.
And they're absolutely
correct for most of history.
One mom, one dad have kids
stay married as, as a standard.
Obviously not one that is upheld
free well across the globe, but as a
cultural standard and ideal to live.
That has not been the
norm for most of history.
In fact, that was only introduced
really into mainstream culture, about
seven or 800 years ago in the 13th
century when Rome, the Roman empire
fell and Christianity became the
state religion of constant noble,
and that then began to form and shape
civilization around these normative.
What are now what we would
consider normative family values
before that in Roman and Greek
societies, women had no rights.
They had no rights.
And to bring that up, because
this is where we're going today.
This is the direction
that progressivism is on.
Is Socrates famously.
That women should, you know, this was
the progressive idea of their day that
women should be able to be educated with
the men handclap to Socrates, except
he goes on to say, yeah, they should do
so without any clothes on with the men.
And they should be the
common property of all men.
In other words, you know, each man
is being able to share that woman
just as the teacher would have
relations with his pupils, essentially
saying her body is not her own.
And they're all going to sexually
share in her body and in each
other's body, this was, this was
the idea of, of, of Greek society.
Women were, had no rights, same
with Roman society in Roman society.
It was not enough.
That your wife merely
regulated her sexual behavior.
This is from Wikipedia.
It is required that she
was virtuous in all areas.
This is where we get kissing on the cheek.
From when her husband would come home
in Roman society, they would kiss on
the cheek to make sure that they didn't
smell alcohol on her breath because
they believe that if a woman even had
one sip of wine, that instantly she
would become pure miss promiscuous
and having an affair on the husband.
And then the wife would be put to death.
If the husband would smell wine or
alcohol on his wife's breast breath,
while at the same time, men were
able to have live in mistresses.
Men were able to be promiscuous
and, and sleep around.
That was of no consequence.
They even say that men were able to have.
Pedophilia relationship
and sex with young boys.
And that was a little, this is
Roman society and yet Christianity.
So do establish standards, equal
standards, equal sexual standards for both
men and women, whether young or old or
slave or free, they had a standard that
was equally applied to all people, but
that standard is being attacked right now.
That's standard that it took
many centuries for, to give the
liberties, the rightful liberties
to women that we see today.
But it was from that foundation, from
that foundation that both men and
women have equal equal rights within a
marriage that ideal led to women rights.
And freedom.
It goes on in this article and Wikipedia
says Athenian women, legally classified
as children, regardless of their age
and legal property of some men at all
stages of her life, women in the Roman
empire had li limited legal rights and
could not enter professions, female and
fantasize and abortion were participated
by all classes and family life.
Men could have lovers prostitutes or
concubines and wives who engage in
extramarital affairs were considered
guilty of it and be put to death.
It was not rare for pagan women to be
married before age of purity, and then
forced to consummate marriage with her
much, often older husband, husbands,
or divorced their wives at any time,
simply by telling the wife to leave.
And wives did not have a similar
ability to divorce their husbands.
And yet.
What we see as normative relationship
normative family values was argued by
the early church fathers who advocated
against polygamy against abortion,
against infanticide, against child
abuse and against homosexuality and
transfers, scientism and incest.
These were all these normative family
values that we think are normative
are actually quite new to society,
but progressivism does not want
to see these be the norm anymore.
They want to go back to that Hellenistic
to that Greek and Roman way of thinking
because after all love is love.
Right?
Love is love.
If you love someone, no matter who they
are and it's consensual, no matter what
your age, then it is, okay, this is not,
this is not a slippery slope argument.
This is not one thing leads to another.
This is the worldview that is being pushed
on in society right now across the globe.
It is a worldview that is rejecting these
norms that have built up civilization
over the last 700 years to move back
to a time where it's really what we're
seeing in the trans movement, where
the erosion of women's rights, where
it's saying, if you want to be woman
of a year, well, then you need to
be a man who calls himself a woman.
That is what wins you woman of the year.
If you want to be a woman athlete,
well, it's best that you were a man
that became a woman because then,
you know, you have an advantage.
That's what we're seeing in
this trans movement, where it's
actually an attack against women's
rights and the same, same way.
We're seeing a bunch
of girls becoming men.
It's it's, as it's as if the
argument that is being made is that
the best woman is really a man.
And that the man is a Supreme ideal.
An idea that I have, uh, poured
and reject, I think is ugly.
And it, nothing could be
further from the truth.
Yeah, that makes sense.
That makes sense.
In a post-truth society where we
have exchanged truth for lies and a
reason for postmodernity rationality,
the absurd finally makes sense.
Well, we have a new, all inclusive, at
least for this month, maybe next week,
pride flag, a new inclusive pride flag.
Includes, uh, before if you guys
and girls remember the pride flag
was just, uh, a nice rainbow.
And then we added, um, transgendered
colors of a white, pink and blue triangle.
And then we forgot out people of color.
I don't know about people of non-color,
um, you know, but there are the
oppressors, they don't matter.
But so then we added a light
brown and a dark brown Stripe
to represent people of color.
And now the new one, which is just
seems everything's getting overlaid on
this rainbow flag is a red umbrella,
which represents sex workers, global
sex work, sex, sex workers to raise
awareness about abuse among sex workers.
And so I'm split on this one.
I'm glad that people are raising awareness
of abuse, but what's happening here.
It's not the raising of abuse and
saying, we need to, we need to stop this.
We need to help these women.
Most of them who come from
trafficking across the globe.
When you look at the sex work as a
global industry, not just in small
pockets of, of Europe or America or
amp or in Vegas and Amsterdam, whereas
women who you are willfully and wanting
Lee going into these professions.
But most of them are, are
victims of human trafficking.
But when you're throwing this red
umbrella onto the flag, you're again,
you're, you're embracing another
form of in my, in my view, making
a woman, just a piece of paper.
A piece of property for exchange
to be bought and sold going back
to that Hellenistic worldview.
But at the same time, as I said,
most, most women in trafficking
are not there by choice.
Some of the, the stats are shocking and
what's sad to me about this umbrella.
It's not calling for it.
The liberation, the freedom
of women from trafficking.
It is the liberation of women to
practice sex work just hopefully
without being abused by a man.
If a man is going in buying sex,
work, sex work, then, uh, I,
I, you know, you've gotten to a
pretty, pretty low place as it is.
Well, here's some stats on
human trafficking across
the globe, every 30 seconds.
And another person is trafficked
40.3 million people across the
globe are currently in trafficking.
Some form of human trafficking, whether
it's sex trafficking or labor trafficking.
71% of the people who are
trafficked are females.
25% are children and less
than 1% are ever rescued.
Trafficking represents eight generates
$150 billion in profit and 99 billion
of that comes from commercial sexual
exploitation, $99 billion out of the
$150 billion is sexual exploitation.
Why, why on this flag?
Are we seeing th th the further promotion
of the sexual exploitation of women?
Well, I'll tell you.
Because we're, we must, we must throw
away these Christian Judeo values that
are based on divine revelation that
are based on Abrahamic worldviews.
We must throw that away and liberate
ourselves back to the ways of the
Greeks and the Romans back to the ways
of marks and Ingles, which says that
well, every person should be free to
make love with every other person that
there is no such thing as right and
wrong morality and guilt or innocence.
It is all just power.
And if it's all just power, then.
We should let these people and we should
support and celebrate the trafficking of
women because this is the way that women
can empower themselves when really it
is further propagating of human slavery.
Well, this show is
brought to you by viewers.
Like you.
I'm assuming that if you're
listening to this show, you're
getting value out of this show.
So I would ask if you'd like to, to
support the show in the same value that
you get out of the show, thousands of
people turn to the show every month
to help inform them and us against
the Simons that are being propped
up against us to destroy our lives,
to destroy our, our purpose and our.
Destiny, you can make a contribution
to the show to keep the show alive and
well, and to improve it and to reach
more people by visiting Lucas, scroll
bot.com, where you can give your heart
cold Fiat, or you can visit a new
podcast apps.com and find a podcasting
2.0 certified app like pot friend,
freeze, or Sphinx or pod station where
you can stream Bitcoin as you listen.
And I like listening to my podcasts
that way, because I can boost,
I can add a couple more seconds.
Per minute as I listen as a way
to support independent creators
in the midst of me listening.
Well, don't go away.
We'll be right back
with our short closing.
We've around named segment.
Welcome back to Weaver.
Aluma part of the show where we take
ancient wisdom and we weave it in
with our everyday lives so we can own
our future and weave our destinies.
Well, last week I lost my wallet.
I mean, I really lost it.
I, this, this story has context.
Believe me.
I went to the gas station
Monday afternoon, I came, used
my wallet came straight home.
And the next day when I went
out, I could not find it over
the next three or four days.
I searched high and low
for hours and hours.
I probably spent 10 to 12
hours looking for my wallet.
I ripped apart the car.
I tore up carpets and B you know, in
the most absurd places I looked there
because, you know, we have four kids
and, uh, sometimes our kids will take
stuff and you know, her, her almost
two year old will find something
and take it and hide it somewhere.
So we're, we're looking in
every single place possible.
And I'm sure it's in the house
somewhere, but I can not find it.
I was about to give up hope.
When finally I rephrased the
question that I was asking
instead of where is my wallet?
I thought, okay, well, w the likelihood
of my youngest child taking my wallet and
stashing it somewhere is probably greater
than my absentmindedness of just setting
it on some obscure shelf in the kitchen,
which I've already searched 10 times.
So instead of searching my shelf again
for the 11th time or under carpets,
or in drawers in my office, which
I've emptied out, maybe I should
reframe the question that I'm asking.
And instead of asking, where is my wallet?
I should ask if my child took my
wallet, where would he hide it?
So I approached my kids.
I said, Hey, it's my two oldest.
I said, Hey, I have a riddle for you.
Whoever cracks is, griddle wins a prize.
If our youngest would steal
something, where would he stash it?
And within 15 seconds, one of my kids
light bulb comes on in his, in his mind.
He runs upstairs and 10 seconds later, he
is back downstairs with my wallet after
hours and hours and hours of searching
over the course of days within a moment.
Because I asked the right question.
He found my wallet.
Well, today's quote comes from Eugene
Nesco, who is a, Roman was a Roman
French playwright who was considered
the avant-garde of theater in the 20th
century, uh, famous for the anti play.
And for coming in with the theater of the
absurd, the theater of the absurd is a
term in theater in place that represents,
uh, plays that are focused on existential
ideas and ideologies, uh, where the
human existence lacks, meaning there's
communication, breakdowns, and enlarge.
Those plays in the theater of the
absurd are cyclical, where they end
in the same place that they start.
Well, he was born in 1909
and died in 94 and he wrote.
This, he said it is not the answer
that enlightens, but the question and
I found that it's true this week after
searching for the answer, the answer,
the answer, I changed the question.
I stopped my path of insanity, looking
and looking and searching for the answer.
And I said, okay, maybe I'm
asking the wrong question.
That has happened over
the evolution of the show.
We started years ago, looking, looking
for an answer, questioning and talking
about purpose and to realize that
we were asking the wrong question.
And instead, when we began to reframe,
I feel when we begin to reframe
from, from looking at ourselves
and saying, what is my purpose?
What is my purpose?
What is my purpose?
And we shifted to how
do we view the world?
And how do I act and live in the world
that it changes the very path that
we are on from something that is self
focused to something that is other focus
from something that is, is narcissistic
in nature, that we always doubt do
something that we can look at someone
else across the table and realize I have
purpose because I'm able to serve you.
I'm able to serve people around
you because I have a right
way of viewing the world.
And so that is our role to ask
better questions, not to continually
ask questions, not to never get an
answer, but when we ask the right
questions, we come up with answers that
actually are fruitful and productive.
So.
If you want to get more value out
of this show, ask better questions
and help your community around.
You ask better questions because it
is through the asking of questions and
through the sharing of this episode with
other people so that you can dialogue
and talk, you can then build a framework.
You can build the perks in your
walls and strong gates to defend
against ideas and pathogens that
might come to try to destroy you.
Thanks for listening.
See you next time.