Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
Actually--majority agreement on immoral laws will never make immorality moral.
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.
Two wrongs don't make a right,
but three left this do.
Hey, it's Lucas Skrobot, and you
are listening to the Lucas Skrobot
show where we uncover purpose, pursue
truth and own the future episode 295.
It is August 18th, 2000.
And 22 and today we will be talking a
little bit about how it's really true.
Two wrongs do not make a right, but
somehow left this, think that if they have
a majority, if they have a majority, all
of a sudden they're wrongs make rights.
And it's a, it's a very
clever moral argument.
It's a moral argument that is arguing
for immorality, uh, in the name of
fairness, in the name of equity that
essentially bludgeons people through
the rule of the majority to make wrong
things and label the labeling them, right.
Uh, is pervasive among leftist
ideology, postmodern ideology.
And it, it comes back to
what we so frequently talk.
On the show, which is postmodernism.
It is the, the, the belief, the
idea that there is no truth.
It's the belief.
And the idea that morality is just a
bunch of different shades of gray, that
there is no such thing as God, that
that religion is a thing of the past.
That religion, that, that mankind
has evolved beyond a, a moral
code that has been given to.
By our creator.
Well, the way that this is manifesting
itself right now in global politics,
specifically American politics we've
stayed away from it on, on the show.
A little bit is, is the, the
Donald Trump fiasco that continues.
It started with Russia,
Russia, Russia, Russiagate,
and all through his presidency.
And even.
It, it, the attacks on former president,
Donald Trump never sees to stop.
We haven't really talked at depth
or length about it because there's
really not much to talk about.
In my opinion, we know
that his estate was rated.
We know that the, the, the warrant is
being released and that they took a
bunch of documents and there's a bunch
of sayings of, oh, maybe he had Espina.
She had documents that was
taken from the white house.
It doesn't seem clear to me what
will actually come of this, if this
is just another ruse or if there's
actual criminal, uh, criminal
activity that president Donald
Trump, uh, associated himself with.
But with, with this in both sides,
both sides of the aisle, whether you're
on the conservative side or whether
you're on the, uh, progressive side,
we can all fall into this, which.
Believing that someone is guilty
based on their ideological, their
philosophical, philosophical,
their, their, uh, their political
standings, their political beliefs.
Now, this is essentially saying that
you are guilty until you are proven
innocent, and this is a worldview that is.
Among much of the world that you are
guilty until you're proven innocent.
And in postmodernism, in
Marxism, that is a common belief.
And the reason that there's a common
belief is because there is no such
thing as guilt or innocence right.
Or wrong in post-modernism
because it's all everything's
relative, all morality is relative.
And so because of.
Everyone is guilty as, as golds
would say, show me the man.
And I will find you the crime that
each person is automatically guilty.
When you look at socialism and communism
being rolled out in the USSR or any
other communist nation, you see that
people were swept up and taken to
gulags by the millions and disappeared.
For, for no crimes whatsoever, but
because of their political association,
if their neighbor, if there there's
stories, Gulag, arch, archipelago of
people turning in their neighbors,
they're turning in their neighbors because
their neighbor is turning off the radio
broadcast before the end of Stalin's
speech, where Len's speech, they turn
in their neighbors to the, the gusta.
To the secret police and what happens
a couple weeks later, the neighbor
gets picked up and brought in as well.
Why?
Because of the relational association,
you're guilty by association, not
because of your own merit, not because
you are innocent until proving guilty.
And I think this is really
what is happening when.
We, we look at the situation with
former president Donald Trump.
It is, they, uh, he is guilty,
guilty, guilty, guilty until
somehow proven innocent.
But because we already believe
he is a horrible evil man who
is probably worse than Hitler
has the, the left loves to say.
He is, he is instantly guilty.
Of course, espionage is probably
one of the least amount of things
that he's actually guilty of.
So why, why wouldn't he
be guilty of this as well?
A trigger word that the progressives
love to use when it comes to
making wrong things, right?
Is the word fairness or
the, or the word equity.
Now there's a difference.
Equity and equality.
So a standard definition is equality.
Means that each individual or
group of people is given the
same resources or opportunity.
Equity recognizes that each person has
different circumstances and allocates
the exact resources and opportunities
needed to reach an equal outcome.
So equality is an equal,
equal opportunity for all.
Equity is trying to manufacture in society
equal outcomes, which is just as IM.
It is absolutely impossible.
How, how are you going
to get equal outcomes?
Women live longer than men.
Should we euthanize women at the
average age that men normally die?
Is that, is that how we're
going to get an equal outcome?
People who live near water live 10% longer
than those who are in landlocked places.
How are we going to make
that an equitable situ.
The first born child makes more 40%
more than the second born child.
Are we going to, how are we
gonna make that equitable?
But they like to use these words like
fairness or equality, and they're
making these moral arguments, trying
to make moral arguments, using sly
wording in order to get what they want.
One of the things that they want is
the redistribution of wealth believing.
We should tax the rich take from the rich
and give to the poor and the way that
they do that, they say, well, we live
in a democracy and therefore it's fair.
If there's three of us and you have all
the money and then there's me, I'm broke.
Let's say, and let's say we have
a scary grand guy over here.
Who's also broke Sylvester Stallone,
and we put it to a vote
and the vote comes out to.
To one, we are the majority Rambo
and I, that we should take your money
and redistribute it to ourselves
so that we have an equal outcome.
You say no way, I worked
hard for this money.
I saved this money.
I invested this money.
We say, ah, no, see,
this is, this is fair.
This is democracy.
We voted on it.
And then we go and beat
you up and steal your.
But it's fair.
Why is it fair?
Because we called it fair.
Cuz we labeled democracy on it
because we, we, we had a majority
rule, but that's not fair.
That's theft just because
someone agrees that we should
Rob someone and take their money.
Doesn't change the fact
that it is still theft.
It is still FA theft, but in, in
Marxist ideology, it's not just Marxism.
It's it's postmodern.
Postmodern thinking
it is not about right or
wrong guilt or innocence.
It is all about pushing forward.
The party line.
It is okay.
If you lie for the sake
of the party, it is okay.
If you cheat steal and, and use violence
for the sake of the movement and you, you
see that all across leftist, uh, protest.
People blatantly calling for the use of
violence that we need to hit the streets
and use violence and force if necessary.
And it's, of course, it's getting
to the place where it must be
necessary to protect women's rights,
but in Marxism, it is all about power.
It's about power between the
bourgeoisie and the prolitary,
the, the, the, the patriarchy,
the tyrannical patriarchy, and.
Those who fall underneath the
intersection of intersectionality.
The more letters you have at the
end of your name of the G B Q Q
plus AI alphabet, the more of a
victim you are, and the more, the
more real your truth actually is.
So in order to make equitable, these
unequal things, we must use force.
We must take power and use
our power to oppress people to
make the situation equitable.
Essentially saying that the ends justify
the means, but we know, we know that
the ends do not justify the means.
Thomas Aquinas, when he
talks about, uh, morality.
And, and what makes something
moral and action moral or immoral?
One of the things, one of the points
that he says is that the ends must
align with the means and the means
must align with the ends and the
ends do not ever justify the means.
But here we have a, a worldview that
says the ends justify the means.
And if we need to usurp power and
use power to oppress people until.
We have an equitable arrangement.
Well, that's what we need to do.
And that's okay.
And that's good.
It's a good use of power
and they use the word fair.
So what, what are some of the, the,
the arguments that Marxist left, this
progressives, whatever you want to
put the label on it makes, and this
is going to a deeper, a deeper place.
Beyond, just kind of the, the surface
level arguments of progressivism,
because it's a, it's a dangerous
ideology for many different reasons.
One of the big ones is you probably know
is they want wealth redistribution tax,
rich, the wealth, you need to pay their
pay, their fair share, but we believe, and
we know that if you don't work, you don't.
That a labor is due his wages, his
or her wages that the farmer, the
hard working farmer is due his wages
in the first fruits of his crops.
Now, of course there are people
who legitimately can't work.
The question then goes to who, what about,
what about the people who can't work?
Well, we should take care of them.
This is why we have
something called charity.
And charity comes outta the
generosity of individual's hearts
to then help people that's charity.
The argument, however goes
is, well people, aren't,
people aren't being generous.
People aren't being generous and
therefore we need the government to step
in and enforce generosity upon people.
We needed the government to come in
and take money and create bureaucratic
systems to then redistribute that.
We're gonna call it.
We're gonna say because the
system's not working perfectly.
We are going to do something that
is immoral because someone else is
doing something that's immoral in, in
the thought that this will actually
change or help or fix society.
But generosity is something
that an individual chooses to
do out of the, the gratitude.
The gratefulness of their own heart.
We ought to give gratefully,
not have someone take our money.
Begrudgingly in the
name of, of good works.
Doesn't work that way.
That's not how society ought
to function, but the many times
in, in the place where we know that the
world is not perfect, I've heard people.
Immoral arguments to try to come to
a moral outcome and will never work.
It will never work.
Another big one that, uh,
progressives like to push is
quote, unquote, public education.
Now, anytime you see the word public,
all you have to do is replace the word
public with government, and the picture
will become much more clear to you.
If we, if we endorse government educat.
That sits a little different in
our, in our spirit, in our stomach,
but education and the place of
education, the rightful domain in
society of education, it falls underneath
private institutions that are led by
the parents and led by the family.
The it education falls underneath the,
the realm, the domain of society of
the family unit, not of the government.
But marks, and this is straight
from the communist manifesto and
read this point number 10, that he
wants early on in the, the communist
manifesto among, among other things.
Like, let me scroll up to it for a moment.
Among other things said in the
communist manifesto manifesto, there,
there few points starts with abolish
property and land application of all.
Rents of land to public purposes, have
a heavy, progressive or graduated income
tax, which is what we have in America.
Abolish all rights of inheritance,
which through tax laws.
It is increasingly harder to pass down
inheritance and they're heavily taxed
compensation of all property of immigrants
and rebels, centralization of credit in
the hands of the state, centralization
of the means of communication and
transport in the hands of the.
Goes on to free education for
all children in public schools.
This is, this is their goal.
And if you, if you go on to continue to
read the communist manifesto, there's a,
a section where the detail, what is the.
What is the confession of a, of a
communist of a socialist of a Marxist.
And what are the questions that
you would ask and what are the
responses of a, a typical Marxist?
And one of the questions is
what will be your first measure.
Once you've established democracy.
Once you have a democracy in the
land, what are you going to push for?
Well, the answer would be to guarantee
the substance of the proletariat.
So the proletariat does
the working class G.
That they are able to be sustained,
that we will redistribute the wealth
and the land to the people, but it's
actually not being given to people
it's being given to government and
then government controls everything.
So instead of individuals in, in, in a
quote unquote capitalist, uh, world, Which
really isn't even a capitalist worldview.
It is in a worldview
of Liberty and freedom.
It is the individual who has domain
over their domain, over their
person, over their belongings,
but in a leftist progressivist
worldview, it is the government.
Who's your dad.
The government is your daddy.
The government is the one
that says what is right.
And what is wrong?
Not God, not you.
The go.
And the government ought to own you.
The government ought to own your
land, the government and society.
They, again, they use the word public
and society because it sounds better.
It feels better, but
society owns your children.
Not you.
Society is responsible for your
children, not you as parents.
So the next question is,
how will you do this?
How will you guarantee this is
straight from the communist manifesto?
The answer.
Of of a good Marxist, a good com by
limiting private property in such a
way that it gradually prepares the
way for its transformation into social
property, AKA government property.
And we'll do this by progressive taxation.
The limitation of the rights
of inheritance in favor of the.
AKA when people pass away, they can't
pass on their wealth to their children.
Instead, the wealth goes to the state.
My, my mind number point number two
under this question, how will we do
this by employing workers in national
workshops, factories and on national
estates, AKA grow the government, grow
the government and have the government
continue to step into private sector into.
So that the government in business
realms become merged and the public
sector of bus of, of government is now
actually functioning, like private owned
corporations and private owned businesses,
where the government essentially takes
over everything and there's centralized
power and centralized control.
And here is the real
kicker, the last point.
That they see that the, of the first
thing that they wanna do to bring
about the socialist revolution.
What is it by educating all children
at the expense of the state?
Well, follow up question from that,
according to the communist manifesto
is how will you arrange this kind of
education during the period of transition?
This is the period of transition is.
You haven't reached your full blown
communist socialist dystopia, but
you're trying to enforce that.
You're trying to bring it about
what, what are you going to do?
How are you gonna do that?
The answer is all children will be
educated in state establishments
from the time when they can do
without the first maternal care.
In other words, as soon as a.
Is able to be independent from its mother.
We are going to sweep them off into
government education facilities, AKA
public schools, because if we can
break the bond, the familiar bond
between, between the, the family,
then we can destroy inheritance.
We can cause people not to be
able to be reliant on theirselves
and their family, but they'll
be forced to be reliant on this.
The state they'll be forced
to turn for us for help.
And if they need to turn for, to us for
help, we can control them because if
you need the government, if you need,
and it's not even the government, if
you need someone to, to help you and
you're beholden to them and they have
power over your light, that in a moment.
They can take everything that
you have away from you because
you are living on their land.
You're living on the society's land.
Well then instantly you can't
criticize because you set up a law
that says, Hey, there's no criticism.
There's, there's no
pushing back against us.
If you do, we will take everything
that you have away from us.
And it slowly, but actually very quickly.
Deteriorates all sorts of Liberty
and freedom and critical thought.
Cuz here's the thing.
If you want to have critical thoughts,
you have to have a freedom of thought
to be able to think critically.
You have to be able to, to, to
be able to think critically.
You have to be able to think freely
in order to think freely, you
have to be able to talk freely.
So freedom of speech is
the foundational value.
For freedom of thought, freedom
of thought is needed for critical
thinking and critical thinking
is needed for free for freedom of
belief or maybe the other way around.
Excuse me.
If you want to have freedom of belief,
you have to have freedom of thought,
which means you have to have freedom
of speech, but in these, in Marxist
societies, They do not want their
people to think they want their people
to be dependent on the government.
They do not want their people to
think they do not want their people
to speak because these are all
dangerous, dangerous tools and weapons.
Now, the arguments that I
have heard people who are not.
on where the bounds of society
lies and they're kind of in
the, in the valley of decision.
I don't, I don't really know what I think.
I mean, I think kids should, all, all
kids should have a good education.
So yeah, I think that, yeah, I
think that public schools are good.
Yeah.
The government government does
have a, a responsibility to educate
all the children in their country.
Someone has to do it.
And if the parents aren't doing it
well, then someone has to step up
and it ought to be the government.
I mean, who else is gonna do it?
So we begin to make compromises and
we give to begin to give over what
is our responsibility to carry.
We abdicate that responsibility
and we give it to the state.
We give it to someone else.
And when we give and we abdicate, what
is our responsibility to someone else,
bad things happen in every circumstance.
If you were the leader of a company
and you begin to abdicate your
responsibility, rather than taking
responsibility in ownership over
your own company, bad things will
begin to happen to your company.
If you walk into a.
That you're supposed to be leading,
but you're not leading clearly.
You're not leading firmly.
You're not setting vision and
direction and purpose at every single
moment, but you're wishy washy.
People begin to feel uncomfortable.
People begin to feel uncertain and they
will begin to step up and try to use
surp your power and you, their, your
authority, because they don't feel safe.
Now, when that happens within
your family unit, Your kids
don't feel safe, who who's dead?
Is it government or is it
school or, or, or my parents.
And when people begin to abdicate
their authority to the government
society begins to crumble.
Family units begin to crumble.
Another example of these making
immoral arguments, three left.
Make a right.
They don't actually it's from
the saying two wrongs don't make
a right, but three lefts do.
It's true.
If you turn left three
times, you've made right.
Um, three left.
This, another argument is again,
a hot topic right now in America.
It's the take on abortion.
And again, they're using,
uh, clever wording.
It's really misinformation.
It's really, uh, deceptive
lies such as abortion.
Is he.
Abortion is not healthcare.
It is the intentional
taking of a human life.
That's misinformation.
Abortion is, is really kindness
is actually quite merciful.
It's maybe the most merciful
thing that you can do.
No, it's the intentional
taking of a human life.
Ah, it's just a clump of cells.
It's not a human.
Well, we all believe maybe
we act actually we don't all.
Because actually there are many people
who don't believe there's many people
who believe that we are still, that
you, as you are listening to this
show and I, as I am are just a sack of
chemicals and we are nothing special.
We're nothing special.
There's many people who believe that,
but the majority of humanity believes
and ascertains and holds that we are
something special that human life
is something special is something.
Something to be cherished.
So what is that special?
When does that special moment happen?
At what point?
All of a sudden is human is, is
value assigned to a human being.
At what point does the human worth become
something that's worthy and valuable?
At what point in our journey is when you
become a productive member of society,
is it when you're, you're finally potty
trained when you can read, when is.
When is it?
And if it's not at the point of
conception, then when, cause biologists
95% of biologists across the world,
agree that life begins at conception.
Now, biologists, they study life,
but man, it's just a clump of cells.
You're not really doing any harm.
It's a clump of cells.
Another argument that they
make is well, what about the
14 year old girl who is raped?
It's cruel to force her to carry the baby.
Oh, it's so cruel.
We can't, we can't do that.
And I would never give up my
baby, but I can't stop someone
else from giving up theirs.
That that would be wrong.
No, what's wrong.
Is killing intentionally,
taking an innocent life.
Two wrongs do not make the
right a, a wrong, a wrong.
Of rape is not made right by the
intentional taking of a human light
that does not solve the situation
just as the wrong of someone not being
generous with what they've been given
with someone not being generous with
their wealth is not made right by
theft and taking from them by force.
It doesn't make the situation.
Correct.
So in order to, to feed.
Moral arguments.
We have to stand up and show how
these arguments that are being
made are effectively immoral.
That is the way that we win this battle.
Yeah, that makes sense.
Yeah.
That makes sense.
In a post-truth society where we
have exchanged truth for lies and
reason for postmodern irrationality,
the absurd finally makes sense.
Of course, we've been talking about
postmodern irrationality, the majority
of this podcast, including with
the, of, of, uh, leftist agendas.
Uh, but here's this new.
That's out about monkeypox now we've
avoided the conversation of monkeypox
up to this point on the show, as it's
just, it just feels like kind of after
years of being bombarded by fearmongering
of, of, uh, global pandemics and the,
the insanity that ensued you probably.
That many, many people, I'm sure it's
millions of people, probably millions
of people lost their jobs because they
decided they were not going to take an
experimental drug, millions of people.
And billions of people were coerced
into taking it under fear of losing.
Livelihood under fear of not being
able to leave their house under fear
of being labeled and fear mongered as
it's a pandemic of the unvaccinated.
Do you remember this?
Do you remember the pandemic
of the unvaccinated?
I remember the pandemic of the
unvaccinated and how it was.
If you didn't wear a mask,
you were killing grandma mask.
Work only 70% of the
time went worn properly.
But the issue is no one
ever wore them properly.
The way that you had to properly
wear a mask is you, you put it on and
you can never touch the mask or your
face and has to be completely sealed.
And when you take it off, you
gotta throw it into the trash.
I don't know anyone who did that.
I'm sure there's people
out there who did that.
Benina, you're fiddling with it.
You're itching it.
You're taking it off.
You're coughing in it.
You're moving your hand.
You're touching it.
And then you're touching something.
So if 70% of the time when it was
worn properly, it worked well.
What happens when people
aren't using it properly?
Guess what?
It doesn't work.
That's what it is.
Remember how we were
locked up in our houses.
People couldn't see in America.
People couldn't see their dying
relative in the hospital, family
members, you borrowed from visiting
grandma and grandpa in the nursing.
The, the overstep, the catastrophe,
the man made catastrophe that crippled
the global economy because of choices
of leadership across the globe to
follow this narrative, to, to look
at only one side of the science.
There's when we covered this
before there's a study, uh,
an article that came out.
I, I didn't reference it here in the show.
But that the way that the six foot
social distancing came about was from
a study on influenza, which showed that
the influenza can spread up to 10 feet.
And so you need 10 foot distance,
but the way that it became six
foot, they said, well, people
can't really conceptualize 10 feet.
That's pretty far away.
All of society would pretty
much literally shut down.
Let's make it six feet and call
it following the science when it's
really not following any science.
There's no science behind it, but
do you just take, take for a moment
and remember what was done to us?
The way that people were bludgeoned?
Because they're like, this
is said, this is ridiculous.
I'm not gonna, I'm not gonna be coerced
and forced into this, but we were, we
were locked up or here we have monkey P.
Well, it's a different story because
monkeypox affects the LGBTQ, uh,
divine community, you know, as they
say to be trans is to be divine.
And, uh, you can't say anything
against that community because
if you do, you're homophobic,
you can't say anything factual.
You can't say anything.
That's actually related to public
health, because if you do, you'll
be labeled homophobic, which is
probably the worst crime, uh, known.
Well, if you are, are listening
with kids around, yeah.
You might wanna pause us and
finish later as, uh, this article
by NBC can be a little graphic.
Well, we'll sand the edges
off for the sake of the show.
Here's the beginning of this article, the
title sex between men not skin contact is
fueling monkeypox new research suggests
since the out outset of the global.
Monkey pox outbreak, dun in may, public
health and infectious disease experts
have told the public that the virus
is largely transmitted through skin
to skin contact, particularly during
sex with between men now, however, an
expanding Keter of experts has come to
believe that sex between men itself,
both, you know, the way that men have.
Is likely to be the main driver
of global monkey pox transmission.
The skin contact that comes with
sex, these experts say is probably
much less of a risk factor.
One doctor Hara says a growing
body of evidence supports that
sexual transmission, particularly
through fluids is occur.
With the current monkeypox outbreak,
referring to the fact that recent
studies show that the virus
is found in, in men's semen.
It goes on to say, Alan blitz says, it
looks very clear to us that this is an
infection that is transmitted sexually.
The vast majority of the.
Now, this is where , it
totally falls into the, yeah.
That makes sense.
Segment of the show of
complete irrationality.
Do you remember when the globe
was locked up and, and people were
told you can't go for a walk, if
you do, you're gonna get arrested.
You remember when people were at the
beach swimming with no one around.
And the police would come by and pick,
pick 'em up because they were, they were
swimming and, or a public risk putting
millions at risk because you're swimming
on a beach with no one around you.
You gotta get arrested.
Sorry, son, do you, do you remember
the lengths that they went to lock up
the healthy and gen general population?
Uh, for a disease?
That has a 99.97% survival rate.
And the only real people were at
risk with those, with comorbidities,
the elderly, and that's it.
But if you were a normal, healthy
person between the ages of zero
and 59, probably gonna be okay.
No, we're gonna lock
down the entire globe.
So wouldn't you think.
Now we will look and say, wow, there
is a, an outbreak between a very
specific certain demographic of men.
And the study is clear.
It's the science is in.
We're gonna follow the science guys.
Stop having orgys.
Maybe that should be the guidance, maybe
the CDC and the w H O should come out
and say, um, it's probably best that
you stop having orgies that you stop
sleeping around with someone one another.
It's probably a good.
Wow.
And you can't say that mm-hmm,
that's infringing on people's
personal, personal lives.
You know, we can possibly say that we
need to, we need to be careful because
that could come across, you know,
we follow the science on that one.
We could come across as homophobic.
Well, this is exactly what
some other doctors are saying.
Completely reading the
situation is uniquely due to.
Men having sex with one another.
That's my parentheses is
highly likely to be overreach.
The correlation may appear strong, but
that does not explain the whole picture.
The disease caused by this virus.
So we need to keep an open mind, uh,
open minds at this point says Dr.
Paul Adamson, an infectious
disease specialist at the
UCLA school of medicine, UCLA.
It's a school.
Very progressive liberalism.
So of course this next sentence
is, uh, one that would make sense.
I'm not sure that we can say is primarily
the sexual transmission and not the skin
to skin contact that occurs during sex.
That's contributing to the
most transmissions during
this current outbreak.
However, emergency emerging data seems
to suggest that the monkeypox might.
More efficiently
transmitted, sexually AKA.
We don't want to warn people in a specific
community and in a specific lifestyle
that the actions that you are taking
in your bedroom is leading to this,
this, this outbreak across the globe.
No, instead they wanna generalize it.
They wanna say, ah, Any sort of
skin contact, we can't localize
it to where the real problem is.
Why, why can't we do that?
Remember we locked up billions
of people across the globe.
Why can't we say where the real
problem is and advise people to
say, maybe you need to change your
lifestyle and habits because there is
this horrible disease going around.
Well, here is, uh, towards the end of
the article, two more quotes clauses.
Another doctor says, if we accept
that this is how it spreads.
We know how to reduce the spread by
awareness and education and encouraging
people for a time, for the time
being to reduce sex with multiple
partners until they get vaccinated.
Clouder said, and if they can't reduce
the behavior, try to use a condom.
But this is, this is said so
lightly and kindly what happened to.
People.
Do you remember, do you remember
in Australia where people
got arrested in their homes?
Because they posted about going to a,
they're going to go to a concert in a
few weeks time, and that was breaking
the, the protocols or the law and
encouraging people to break rules.
People were arrested for that.
Do, do you.
How people were told to wear masks in
houses, but now I gotta be careful.
We know how this thing's spreading.
We actually know how it's spreading
Harvard, another upstanding institution.
My, how Harvard is falling
know Harvard was founded,
founded as a, a Christian seminar.
It's now fallen far from that Harvard's
Latu Alan blitz acknowledged the
pervasive concern that telling the
public that monkeypox transmit sexually
among gay men will fuel homophobia.
that?
That's it.
There it is.
That's the whole reason it's ideology.
Just as so many people believed
that it was ideology that fueled
the way the, the CDC and the w H O
and every government overstepped and
overreacted, not every government.
There were some governments who
did not take those oversteps.
Like, you know, we're
just gonna let this roll.
We're not gonna destroy
our economy over it.
He said there is however, a cost
to being kept quiet about how
the virus apparently is trans.
This keeps people at risk from
best understanding how to protect
themselves, which is true.
I find it deeply, deeply,
ironic and infuriating.
Really, if you can't tell that for
two years, we were all bludgeoned
with fear mongering over something
that was like the flu that had a 90.
Percent survival rate that people
lost their jobs because they,
they didn't wanna take a shot.
And now here we are with the same
organizations, unable to say,
to stop having sex with men gay
men, they're unable to say it.
They're unable to come out and say it
because it will be such an affront to
the LGBTQ movement and agenda because
there's such an embracing of, of.
Moral relativity.
And it would be a front to these people
and it'd be called homophobic and they
can't possibly be that they can lock up
the, the normal person, but they can't
sell someone that this pandemic, this,
this virus is spreading through gay sex.
It's just, it's infuriating.
Three lefts three lefts make
right three left this, I guess
don't they just Blu people into
believing their, their own ideology.
Well, this show is brought
to you by listeners like you.
This is a value for value podcast.
As you can tell, we don't have
advertisers here on the show.
Rather.
We think you who give to the.
On a daily, weekly, or monthly basis.
And some of the ways that you can give
value back to the show and the value that
you have received value is by visiting
Lucas, scroll robot, SK robot.com/support.
And you can give your
hard, cold Fiat there.
Or if you like the Bitcoin.
You can listen on apps like
breeze or Finks, and you can
stream micro micropayments, micro,
micro currencies of Satoshi.
As you listen, don't go away.
We'll be right back with our
closing Weaver and loom segment.
Welcome back to Weaver, Lima, 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 destiny.
Well today's segment is about leadership
and what leadership good leadership
is and what good leadership ISN.
Now leadership, let's start with what
it's not, it's not about creating
a strict system of adherence.
We like to do that.
We like to build systems.
That's six Sigma, that everything is
perfectly in line with no variation,
no deviation, which we know exactly
the steps that everyone must follow.
And if you follow these steps
perfectly, then you'll be accepted.
Then you'll be good.
Then you'll have checked all the boxes.
It, we like to build these
systems of strict adhere.
But there is coming.
This is a, there is coming a day where
right now, when we look at, as we've
been discussing, when we look at the
pervasive, amorality where we say there
is no, there is no such thing as morals.
That is a system of zero adherence.
There's adherence to the talking points.
And if you step out of that, If you step
out of that ideology by one Iotta that
people on the show in the early days where
they would say things on the show, and
then later they'd come back and be like,
ah, I don't, I don't know if I should post
that people would be upset if I say that.
And ah, and it was brutal.
It was brutal to have to
deal with those guests.
And I wasn't clear up on the front end,
but they were so afraid of having, having
said something that stepped outside.
Of their parties talk track.
But outside of that, that there, that
adherence is to an AOR worldview.
Well, there is coming today when
a strict system of adherence will
turn against this AOR worldview and
those, the life of those who love.
Liberty freedom, freedom of thought,
freedom of speech, freedom of expression,
freedom of belief, those who, who love
that of their love, their independence.
It will be far, far worse
for that group of people.
Once a strict system of adherence
is put into place to crush
that will end up crushing this.
This lifestyle, this Debs lifestyle
of postmodern irrationality, because
there is a system that's coming that
will crush it, but it'll actually
be far, it will bode far worse for
the Liberty freedom loving person.
So good leadership.
Is not creating SI strict systems
of adherence for everyone to follow.
Rather leadership is creating bonds
of relationship that ties people,
relationally, and spiritually back
to the memorials, to the testaments
of what God has spoken and done
for each and every one of us.
And for our forefathers, going
back to past generations, good
leadership is tying people.
Back to the principles, the values and
the covenants that God has given us.
Now we, in the Juda, Christian
worldview, the Abrahamic, the line
of Abrahamic faiths, we all believe
Jews, Christians, Muslims, alike.
We all believe that there
has been a revelation from
the creator God, to people.
Of how we ought to live.
There is there is a, a divine
transcendent, moral code and
moral law that has been given.
And with that, there have been
covenants that we look throughout
the holy scriptures in the
Judeo Christian worldview.
There's been covenants between
God and man and it's leadership.
Good leadership in family.
Or in any other sphere of society
is helping tie people back to those
memorials, to remember those things, those
guiding principles, those Guidestones
of the past, where we look back and
remember the, the character and the
nature of, of the creator that we follow.
Who he is and how we ought to respond, how
we have that relationship with him because
where the world is going, that is what
will be required of leaders to continually
teach cast, vision, and unify those that
we lead through relationship and trust,
not through BR brute force or title cuz
brute force and title that is building
the, the systems that we all hate.
That's not how we want to be led.
That's not how families want to be led.
We often find ourselves rebelling
against those brute force systems
instead what we want and what we need
and what people need is to be led
through casting vision, through bringing
correction and teaching by tying, tying
ourselves back to those foundational
principles and those foundational values.
That guide us all into
the vision of the future.
And, and
because the way the, the, where,
where we are going in the world, we
can't just have systems of do this.
Don't do that, do this, don't do
that because all of those, if we
build just based on systems, Those
things will break when the shakings
come, those things will B break.
When the new world order is established,
those, those are all gonna be thrown
out the window and people are gonna
be left, reeling, trying to figure
out, well then where do I fit?
Who am I?
How do I live?
Because the future is going to
look different than present day.
The coming 10, 20 years will look
very different than it does today.
We know that the world is changing.
So first we have to do
that with ourselves.
We have to continually tie ourselves
back to values and principles.
As we lead our own life, we are leaders
in our own life and if we can't lead
our own life, how can we expect to
lead our families and our children?
So then we have a responsibility as the
circles widen, we lead ourselves through.
Correction edification for, for teaching
continually putting, uh, vision before
us and continually remembering the, the
memorials, the, the covenants of the
past, and then it's with our family.
It's setting up, uh, cultural pillars
of saying, this is who we are.
People like us do things like this.
People in our family, this
is the way that we behave.
Why?
Because this is the vision for your life.
This is who you are.
You are a leader.
We don't want to behave
selfishly or rudely because
you're called to lead people.
And if you're called to lead
people, you need to gain people's.
So how then ought you act now so
that when you are a young leader,
you're able to gain people's trust.
And then as the, the circle expands,
we, we will in time as we're faithful
to steward our families and ourselves,
we'll be given responsibilities to serve.
Cuz leadership is service.
Leadership is service
to serve our communi.
To help our communities in times of need.
But if we can't keep the vision for
ourselves personally, and if we can't
bring to remembrance and stay sober
minded about who we are and what
we're called to, if we can't lead our
families, then what makes us think we
can lead a city cuz once, once you're
at the point of trying to lead a.
You're probably, you're probably gonna
have a majority of people against you,
cuz there's always gonna be people who
either don't like what you're doing.
Don't like the direction that you're
going and, or they're gunning for your
position, they're gunning for their job.
They want the position that
you have because they can't
see that leadership is service.
And when we're leading healthily, we're
serving the people that we are leaving.
That's all for today's episode.
Thank you so much for
listening to the show.
I appreciate it.
And I hope you get value out of it.
If you have any questions, you can find
me over on the Instagram and or you can,
what set me a plus 1 2 0 2 9 2 2 0 2 2 0.
Remember two wrongs do not make
a right when you're battling
against those arguments.
Always bring it back to what
is true morality, true ethics.
Finally, go out and be the leader that
you are so that you can own your future.