The Show on Video

Friends of the show, if you're somehow unaware, I'm putting video versions of all shows onto The Tom Henry Show YouTube channel, please subscribe if you haven't already done so!

I'll update the backlog of videos here onto the site, but to start with, here is the latest: 10 Lessons From The Battle Of Berkeley (Including Based Stickman's Speech)

Long Promised 'Philosophy-Themed' Podcast Now Out

Episode 14:
Without laying out detailed arguments, I discuss and speculate on these issues to give a bit more breadth to the discussion I've been seeing online about them lately.  Epistemology dictates that we should be more skeptical than most seem to be, when it comes to our underlying, unnoticed, assumptions about reality.

New podcast out: "Experiences With SJW Ideology At University of QLD + Russian Election Influence + More"

Click here to listen to or download
Click here to listen or subscribe on iTunes

In this show I share a few of my run-ins with the SJW ideology during my time at UQ.  These are mostly examples of dogma being taught as fact, with the young and impressionable minds listening to it often none-the-wiser.  One example is of a badass professor who was dealing out "Redpills", possibly unintentionally, as well as demanding critical thinking.

I then share some thoughts on the outrageous and desperate "Russia Did It" narrative, as well as the conversation Sargon of Akkad & Dave Rubin had on The Rubin Report recently. 

Been recording some audio only shows lately.  Another should be up in a day or two, on Consciousness and Materialism.  Then I've got a video show planned on the subject of filling the missing role of God and religion in our society.

#Tradlife: Tips on Relationships & Having a Family

I don't claim that this list is definitive, but I think it's a good start.


1)  Someone has to stay home to look after the kids

Why the hell would you want strangers raising your kids?  For what?  Most second incomes only exist to support the persons ability to work the second income (car payments, fuel, extra taxation), or to allow indulgence in consumer whorishness that people don't think they can live without (massive home, cable TV, three iPhones, two iPads, designer goods, etc.).  People who send their kids to daycare priortise status, consumer goods, and lifestyle, over their family.

Why would you want to be away from your children during the only time they will be innocent before they realise the truth about the world, or get cynical, or get their heads filled with programming of all sorts?  Why would you not want to be the one who gets to instill values in your children?  Why wouldn't you want to teach them while they are at their most malleable, how to live life properly?

If you don't want to do these things, why even have children?  If you do want to do these things, but still send your kids to daycare when you don't *have* to, what the fuck is wrong with you?  

2) Everyone in the family has the same last name

This one I'm going to argue purely from aesthetics: co-joined names are stupid and ugly.  Why?  Because say you get married and become Carl Brown-Cuckington, what about your kids?  Do you expect your son to be Derick Goldstein-Brown-Cuckington?  And Derick's kids?  Our ancestors long ago realised the problem with this, hence our tradition of taking the father's last name.  Keeps it simple, yo.

3) Monogamy is non-negotiable

For millennials, especially people who spend lots of time of Tumblr, polyamory and polygamy have been normalised... if not downright glamorised.

It seems these days that if you don't have a girlfriend, plus a boyfriend, plus a hook-up or two on the side, plus a transsexual orgy-buddy, a sugar-mummy/daddy, and someone you just go on coffee-dates and picnics with, then you're SO last century.  

Don't you know: "it's possessive and creepy to not want your partner to sleep with or have a romantic relationship with other people?"  This is the mindset of these people.  They do not understand loyalty, or discipline.  They are hedonists with the "if it feels good, do it" mindset that Bill Clinton epitomises.  

I've thought this through, wondered if they weren't onto something with this lifestyle of theirs... But concluded: No, monogamy exists for a reason.  Here are some of my reasons for it:
 
Firstly, between working 55 hours a week, writing articles, podcasting, working on my book, chilling out, catching up on news and researching, house work and gardening, having a social life... I barely have time to be a good partner to ONE person.  I don't have any extra spare time for an hour a week worth of yoga, let alone time for another relationship!  Which leads me to the question:

How do they have so much spare time? Do these people not sleep?  No...
They just don't work.
Seriously though... The biggest advocates of this polyarmous lifestyle seem to be:
   A) students
   B) "artists"
   C) poor
   D) combination of the above

So for people who have lives that don't revolve around sex, OR who have jobs, monogamy makes sense purely because who the fuck has time for more than one serious, committed, loving, fulfilling relationship?

Another argument against polyamory is that we are wired to fall in love with the people we sleep with.  Nature has ensured our continual reproduction and the looking after of offspring, by giving women chemicals to make them fall in love with their child and its father, and the same for men, just not as much... Oxytocin... The love drug.  The brain releases it during, and especially after, sex.  It makes people feel safe, loved, in love.  

So despite your rhetoric about it just being casual sex, or emotionless, or whatever... You can not overcome the power of your biology with your self-indulging rationalisations.  So good luck with that.

Finally, my last argument against polyamory is that people have sexually transmitted diseases, and I don't want them.  Fact is: people who make sex a lifestyle, who don't care about the sexuality of the people they sleep with, or how many, are more likely to be infected.  You may know who you're sleeping with, but you don't know who they're sleeping with.  


4) Cheating ends it

I don't really have much of a thesis on this one, except to say that in my experience: if someone cheats, and you stay with them, things are never the same.  Cheating means a lapse in loyalty, judgement, discipline, and self-control.  These are things someone who is to be the Mother or Father of your children needs to have.  If your partner doesn't have these qualities before you have a family, don't imagine they'll magically develop them when you do have a family.  Cheating in this sense is a great litmus test.  My policy is that if it is failed, it's game over.  

5) Be yourself & be honest

Be your authentic, true self.  If you change yourself and your behaviours to keep someone else happy, if they really care about you, they won't be happy if they know you aren't doing it for yourself.

Being dishonest is the most disrespectful thing you can do to someone, because you're denying them the opportunity to live in reality and engage with you on a level playing field.  You are editing their reality for your benefit.  
    It is a behaviour of cowards.  People who are confident in themselves and have courage will tell the truth, and happily invite people to share in reality with them, because they know that their authentic self is sufficient, and so they don't have to "edit" the reality of others to get by.

___________________________________________

So that's my list for now.  I might add more as I continue to mull this topic over.  Feel free to add some others, or your own list in the comments.  Cheers!

 

I Share The Same Opinion On Muslim Immigration as the Dalai Lama, You Probably Do Too

My partner is more socially progressive than I'll ever be, but luckily she knows a good argument when she hears one, so she is open to conservative ideas. 

So when I proclaim that immigration to Europe from the ME & Africa is a really, terrible idea, I've gotta be able to justify my claim.

Luckily it's really simple to realise why mass migration of people from Syria to Europe is a really terrible idea.

Basically it goes like this:

Do you mean to tell me, dear lefty, that anytime a country has a civil war or otherwise breaks down, that we, as residents of the developed, peaceful world, must allow the people of the country in question to empty out of their troubled homeland & migrate to ours?  Lets follow the logic through...

So what happens if Muslim Migrants in Sweden, or France, turn the country from peaceful and stable, to violent, with unrest, with curfews, with potentially civil war....

Where do the people of Sweden then turn to as migrants of a failed nation?

See the problem with this plan? 

If instead of temporarily assisting victims of civil unrest and war in refugee centres until they can return back to their nation and rebuild it, with international assistance, we just pick them up and move them to another (developed, first world) country, then ever time there is a civil war in a country, we just give up on that country and move its people onwards.

It's like disposable consumer culture, but for like, nations.

(Quick note to any bleeding heart liberals reading this:  the people leaving Syria and going to Europe are NOT refugees.  They are migrants.  Refugees would go to the nearest safe nation for temporary shelter before being able to return.  This is not what is happening.)

Nations are not disposable goods.  We don't throw them in the bin when they break, we fix them.  Otherwise we'll run out of nations.

Basically its not appropriate to transplant the population of one nation into another because a country has issues, rather than fixing those issues and allowing both nations to exist independently.

Turns out the Dalai Lama had roughly the same idea:

So there you have it folks: don't agree with Mass Muslim Immigration to Germany, France, Australian, or the United States?

Neither does the Dalai Lama.  Don't let Regressive Leftists bully you into not believing you have a reasonable or justified opinion.

dalai-lama 2.jpg

Freedom is a Double-Edged Sword - Philosophy of Liberal Nanny-Statism

A free child is a strong child... They also learn this new thing called "Consequences".

A free child is a strong child... They also learn this new thing called "Consequences".

Freedom: it's the thing that unites all those on the conservative arm of politics, despite their other differences.

Freedom as a political concept only needs minor restrictions.  You don't get the freedom to impede other people's freedom.  Therefore you can't do shit that interferes with, or hurts, others.  Other than that, freedom does not need to be, & should not be, restricted.

Liberals, lefties, & nanny-state lovers of all political leanings, all share a distrust & often hatred of freedom.  This comes out of fear of the back-edge of freedom: the freedom for bad shit to happen.  This can be seen in #Coddle-culture, something related to "Helicopter Parenting", something you could call the result of the modern middle class's lack of having anything better to do with their time, & the transfer of this energy, time & preoccupation to their precious children.  (Who must be built up, but most importantly, must be safe.)

This mindset has transferred to our politicians (because they are often also parents).  They want to 'Nerf' the world.  There are some out there who would support banning outside playtime for children, because a study found that they are much safer inside with iPads, no skin cancer risk either! & so "common sense should prevail" & it would be so.  Next it'll be mandatory motorbike style helmets for kids on bicycles, because they're statistically safer, & since no politician wants to be seen as "not caring about the children!" freedoms get eroded for the sake of their reputations, that simply.

Society is getting safer everyday.  Eventually this "Safety First My Child Is So Precious" mindset must cease, & give up.  It has to.  Progressiveness is not realistic here.  We have to give up the notion of progress when it comes to the safety of our community & children at a certain point.

Otherwise?  Otherwise the social scientists can make a case to our Oh So Concerned politicians that if only every child wore a full fire-proof, impact-proof suit, then serious & fatal accidents will reach zero.  In other words, if we don't give up the notion of an ever increasingly safe society, then we will restrict freedom so much you will barely be able to walk down the street without being regulated.

Is this what progressives want?  Have they thought about the philosophy of their idiotic mindset?  Thought the consequences through?

Do they want a padded-cell society where NO-ONE is ever hurt?  Do they want a police state where everyone is under such scrutiny & control that no crime is ever committed? A society like that would be unlivable, 'safe' as it may be.

So... Moral is:  Freedom is a double-edged sword.  It comes at a price.  It comes at risk to safety.  But without it, all human progress, creativity, and potential is stifled.  Kids who are allowed to skin their knees & fall out of trees, turn out smarter & tougher than those who are never allowed to get dirty, let alone hurt.  And societies that are allowed to offend, be dirty, make mistakes, will be more interesting, more true, & ultimately more humane than those that are not allowed their right to freedom of expression.

Remind yourself, your friends, your family, your politicians: that freedom IS worth the costs, & that the costs of not having it are FAR worse.