6507 Mistrial for Lindsay Clancy! Twitter/X Livestream

0:00Good morning, my friends, my in-fraud lines and gentlemen, welcome to your Sunday morning live philosophy. No show last night because we were invited to a wedding proposal. Somebody we know very well, got engaged. There was sparkles, there was joy, there was tears and it was a great deal of fun. And then we celebrated with karaoke. Okay, I won't start. That's so a glorious evening of renewal and fun and all of that kind of good stuff. So I hope you had a wonderful weekend too. I guess we're going to dip a smidge into the Lindsey Clancy, happy to get your questions and comments and so on. Congratulations to the patroated couple. This are sprouting like geysers all around us and so on.

1:01You know, in those fantasy movies, they always killed the wizard and then the whole place starts collapsing and they've got to get out and lie on the grass and gaze at the sky and the centaur nuts and singled them in the women in my life. It's crumbling like a brutal collapsing castle. All right, so Friday, September the 4th for the Lindsey Clancy trial. I'm going to get into a little bit of this. I hope you'll be patient with me. There's a lot philosophically. You know, I hate that all of this happened. Of course, it goes without saying. However, I will say that the presence of unalloyed female evil in my view is not bad for philosophy as a whole. That is right. It's not bad for philosophy as a whole. Internet is fixed.

2:02So okay, sorry, I guess I get a two second of the internet. So, of course, after hurling invectives at everyone and, you know, I hate making threats, I really do, you know, but sometimes you've got to, if you're not getting the right responses. So they said, oh, we can fix it on the knife. And I said, well, that's not, no, like just no. Like, I know you can do it sooner than that. There's nobody with a higher need. It's been out for like five or six weeks. And so, no, that's not a thing. So then they said, well, we have to set it up as the ninth and we'll escalate it. We'll get back to you this day and the other. So we were out with, with house guests and we came back. And there was a guy who said, I fixed the cable outside the house. And he said, yeah, the last guy who came out to fix the cable didn't really seem like he did anything. I don't know what he did. And I'm like, okay, so does that mean I have internet? No. So the whole point is because you have no internet because of the cable outside your house.

3:04You said, fix the cable outside your house. And I said, okay, good. So I have internet. No, because the internet provider has to change the box from a small box to a large box inside the house. And I'm like, nobody ever mentioned that. That's not a thing. So basically I have to coordinate between two people who don't talk to each other to get my internet back. So, and nobody had called me. Nobody had texted me. It was just by coincidence that I happened to come across the guy who was fixing things out of my house. And so, I decided to take a couple of hours off from snarling like a feral lobster at confused people with strange accents. And so I then a couple of hours later the internet came on. Nobody had contacted me. Nobody talked to me. And it just came back on and it seems to be up. So, things have been solved in a chaotic way.

4:08Basically it's like detonating a box of IKEA furniture and having them land in another field. And so, it seems to be a lot of things to do with the stuff that I've been doing. But somehow vaguely assembled that's how it seems to be to get things fixed in this planet of no meritocracy. Anyway, so we'll get back to Lindsay Clancy. So, jury deliberations resumed for the seventh day. This is as of Friday, totaling 37 to 40 hours. It is with a heavy heart that we report we are unable to come to a unanimous decision and will not be able to now. I don't mean to be overly fussy, but it is not with a heavy heart. It is with heavy hearts. Unless they're sharing one heart, it would be plural, hey, not to be overly fussy. Alright. Sullivan, he has both sides. Prosecution does not oppose ending deliberations, of course, right?

5:11Well, prosecution does not oppose ending deliberations. Well, no, they, they, of course, want to guilty, but because it's 11 to 1 to, I assume, not guilty by reason of insanity, they don't mind that. Defense attorney Kevin Reddington wants more deliberation and or removal of the juror identified in Thursday's 11 to 1 note as not following the reasonable doubt instruction. Now, here's a complicated philosophical moral question, which is bad law. So if you've ever been a computer programmer, you know, like one bad brick usually doesn't destroy the entire wall, right? Maybe it has to be repaired or whatever, but the rest of the wall kind of holds sound. If you are a computer programmer, one bad line of code can destroy the entire program. Either render it unable to compile or even worse, it works, but does wrong things that are hard to find. So in the same way, one a bad law can kind of bring down the whole legal system.

6:15Now I'm going to go on a little bit of a rant here. But I will say, of course, I'm not a lawyer. This is just my opinion, but I've studied law and I took philosophy of law in university and I have thought long and hard about things like, I don't know, justice, philosophy, morality and so on. So I will say this, you cannot have a law that requires time travel and mind reading. You cannot have a repeat after me. You cannot have a law that requires time travel and mind reading. I'm going to take you on a journey back to Lindsay Clancy in 2023 and in the time in between her talking to her husband and sending him off in a perfectly sane and ration away when she's straggling kids, strangling kids takes a call from a husband. I highly, but strangles another kid. We're going to go back into the fragmented little amount of time. We're going to go back to that fragmented little amount of time. And what we're going to do is we are going to read her mind and find out if she was sane

7:20or not in that fragmented little smidge o time. Was she crazy in a 10 minute, interspersed by not crazy, then crazy again, we are going to read her mind from a couple years ago when she was the only witness and so on, right? This is not, I hate to use a big, free, fair word, it is not epistemologically possible to come to proof beyond a reasonable doubt about the state of mind of somebody who's alone a couple of years ago. It is logically. Empirically epistemologically completely impossible to come to proof beyond a reasonable doubt about

8:20somebody's state of mind from a couple of years ago when they were alone and when sane things were happening all around. You know, if you've ever talked to anyone who works in a psych ward and let's just say that I have, when people are crazy, there's a called flared psychosis, they can't function, they believe that Napoleon with a blow dart is chasing them down the hallway and they have to get naked and rub their face against glass in order to save themselves, like they're nuts and they can't not be nuts for a little while and then be nuts again. So proof beyond a reasonable doubt that she was unable to process right from wrong. And you know, here's the thing too, so there's lots of people in the world, I consider nuts

9:23and it's absolutely prejudice. It's absolutely prejudice on my part, maybe you're the same way too. But let's take bare grills, bare, bare grills, right? So this guy, he's kind of nuts, he goes and you know, rums around the wilderness with camera crews and eats strange things and you know, is extremely uncomfortable for, you know, his, his a thrill seeker and like that's nuts to me. Obviously he's fine, he's not, not saying he's crazy, it's just nuts to me. There are people who study mine for a decade. I think that's crazy. Hey, come on, mine is money. But they study, there are people who take liberal arts degrees with no plan, but it tends to work out later because it turns out they're a podcasting. So there are lots of people out there in the world like I was trying to have lunch with my daughter the other day. We were an outdoor restaurant in a town apparently 666 feet from hell itself where every

10:30jag-off with a motorbike thought that it was going to be great fun to rev his engine as they drove down the main strip. And I'm not a big fan of the death penalty, but for people who drink and drive and for people who rev their motorcycles when people are trying to have lunch, I don't even think there needs to be a trial. So I don't understand people like that. I don't understand people who have loud conversations on public transit with cell phone. I don't understand people who think that their salsa music is something that the entire beach in five mile directions needs to hear because they come with two Bluetooth speakers so big that if it was September 11, 2001, that would be playing fine into them. I don't understand that. I don't, I don't understand it. I don't understand cave divers. Let's take two sports that are both high fatality, mix them together and then put it in a low oxygen emergency environment. If you have to take off your scuba gear in order to climb through some, I'm having a

11:32revisiting of giving birth from a 18 year old Thai gymnast, then you might not be doing something particularly sane. I get that there are high thrill seeking people. I really get that. Because that way when I was younger, I did free climbing and I crossed railway bridges with my friends on dairs in the middle of the night, you know, 300 feet across and 200 feet in the air, lunatic. I mean, look back at my younger self. I say that was crazy. Completely insane. So there are women who meet men at bars and go home with them looking for Mr. Goodbar style. I think that's crazy. I think that's crazy. So there are lots of people out there. I think they're kind of crazy, but they're not, right? It's just changing tastes, so my prejudice or whatever it is. They're not crazy. It's just it's a life kind of so foreign to me that I just like there are people out there who don't even want kids. I think that's kind of crazy, but you know, it's not that they're crazy.

12:33So the reason I'm saying all of this is, of course, by definition, a woman who murders all three of her children while pausing to take a phone call or take phone calls is crazy. Like no sane and healthy person goes against their protective instincts to that degree and kills her children. Maybe she's just a psychopath and she just found out she didn't like the children and wanted to get them out of her life, but with two vangelories to put them up for adoption or leave. I don't know. So if you have a situation where the jury who are composed, I assume, of regular normal people who aren't getting a workout with exercise bands and their children's tracheas, I assume that they're relatively normal people. So a woman who kills her own children must be crazy. I mean, it's insane. It's insane. So by definition, a woman who kills her own children must be seriously mentally defective.

13:33Evolutionary speaking, of course, it's not the most Darwin-Darwin friendly approach to child raising. So if you have to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that she wasn't crazy in the few minutes it took to kill each of her children interrupted by sane responses to her husband's calls, I view that as a relatively impossible task, which is why I said that if they follow the law in my humble amateur opinion, if they follow the law in Massachusetts, they will find her not guilty by reason of insanity because the burden of proof is far too high. You cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that somebody doing something that you would consider insane is not insane. So you end up relying on experts and see, experts are finely tuned for the most part, especially in the field of psychiatry. They're mostly finely tuned bullshit artists because there's no objective test for

14:36crazy. Unless you have some big giant brain tumor, there's no objective test for crazy. I feel crazy. Somebody says, are they crazy or are they not? There's no test. There's no brain scan. I have postpartum depression. No hormonal test, no blood test, no nothing. It is a subjective report. It is a subjective report. It is a subjective report. And so you have someone saying, I feel crazy. I mean, even if they heard voices and maybe you could scan, it's the voice talking, maybe you could see the audio part of their brain light up with record. I don't know. I mean, I assume these things have been tried, brain scans and epimerise are pretty sophisticated these days. I assume that all of these things have been tried and somebody says, I'm hearing voices and nobody can know whether that's true or not.

15:39It is a subjective report. It's like having a physics of what I dreamed last night. I dreamed last night of a giraffe that could shoot lasers from its nipples. Is that true? I'll leave you to guess what my fetishes are. But no, no, you see, you'd have a bunch of experts saying, well, it's yes, yes, I think he did. You'd have a bunch of, no, I don't think he did. I mean, some things I assume you can have biological markers of people who are crazy or in, like, you know, again, the brain tumor or some sort of brain damage, you know, like the NFL players who played castinets with the neofrontal cortex for 20 years. Okay. So you can see something. Maybe that's an autopsy thing. Or if somebody has been dozed, somebody's been drugged with LSD and they say, my God, I'm hallucinating. I'm hallucinating.

16:40I had vision of the most manly and perfect physical and intellectual male human specimen I was hallucinating. And the doctors, of course, would say, were you watching us defend more than your livestream? And they say, well, no, and they say, well, then it's not possible. It's not possible. I'll leave my shirt on for now. For now. For now. So the experts say, yes, I think that her subjective experience of saying she was crazy is true. I think her subjective experience of saying crazy for which there's no objective test. I think it's false. So one expert says, yes, she was crazy. The other expert says she was not crazy. What do you do? That does not lead to proof beyond a reasonable doubt. I mean, that wouldn't even technically, I think, lead to a preponderance of evidence which tends to be the standard in civil cases, which are about money not prison. In a civil case, it's the preponderance of evidence on the balance more likely than

17:42not, you know, like 55%. You can, I guess you could raise it, thin it to 51% to 49%. But proof beyond a reasonable doubt is like 95% certainty. So you've got experts on one saying, say on the one side saying she's saying, got experts on the other side saying she's crazy. Can you get to 95% certainty in canceling each other out, warring spy versus spy expert testimony nonsense? No. No. You cannot. You cannot petition the Lord with prayer. Now. So the jurors in affirming that the prosecution had not proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that Lindsay was saying to the point where she understood right from wrong. She was criminally responsible and so on. I mean, to me, the standard is, did you hide it? Did you send people away? Was there any evidence that you planned it and so on? And that does seem to be some evidence that there was planning.

18:43She certainly seems to have sent her husband away and she certainly did cover up how crazy she was feeling because she had a morning of Lindsay Clancy and a took her kid to the doctor and fix breakfast and then played and made snowman and then fix lunch and then said, oh, if you can go and pick me up these things, let's get some food and right. And so she did all of that stuff kind of normally, which is to get her husband out of the picture, right? I don't know that women here voices to off their kids when they're at police stations or hospitals or fire stations or out in public where it's always, let's get people out. Let's get people, let me alone with the children, right? Let me alone with the children. It's so that to me is kind of a planning thing. And crazy people can't fake sanity. Any more than people in the midst of a stroke can do ballet or people who are in the midst

19:43of an epileptic seizure can do Rubik's cube and thread of freaking needle. It's not how it works in my humble amateur opinion. So then it comes down to there's a lone hold out as a male juror with a truly magnificent beard. The male juror said, no, no, I'm not going with that she's not criminally responsible by a reason of insanity. I mean, insanity is sort of an amateur phrase to be get all of that, right? But that's a deal, not responsible. And he couldn't get there. He couldn't get to, she's not responsible. And of course, the defense is like, well, he's not understanding what is meant by proof beyond a reasonable down. And everyone else does understand it. So I don't know, maybe we'll find out at some point, but I don't know whether this guy looked at all of the evidence, kind of ignored the experts to some degree.

20:46Because again, you can get experts to testify about just about anything. They are guns for hire. And the psychiatrist who interviewed Lindsey Clancy after the killings found her perfectly lucid. She'd never been diagnosed to my knowledge with psychosis or even post-partum depression or anything like that. You know, the number of pills that she had been prescribed to her, the numbers don't seem to add up to she was taking them consistently. The one of her psychiatrist reported that Lindsey Clancy had been drinking one to two drinks daily, about five days a week. Now I don't know if you've ever dealt with alcoholics or addicts as a whole, but they lie a lot, of course, and they misrepresent and they tend to minimize. So if Lindsey Clancy was mixing psychotropics with alcohol, well, that's not good. That's not good. So was she responsible?

21:48I mean, the legal standard is one thing. The legal standard is one thing. The moral standard is another. I want to say that there's a great line from a pretty bad movie, a dry white season, where Marlon Brando was saying, you know, law and justice have often been fairly distant. I'm afraid in this country they're not even on speaking terms. So maybe the juror just said, I really don't care what the experts say. I'm looking at the facts. If she didn't know right from wrong, why did she send her husband away? And why did she do? If you've seen the photo of her, you know, self-harm, self-self-injury, it's not particularly credible. She's got these little scary strips on. And of course, she was a nurse. She sure as hell knew how to kill her children by strangling them with the exercise cords for minutes and minutes at a time until the point, well, I guess she didn't quite finish off the baby, but he died a day or two later after being declared basically brain dead.

22:51So she sure knows how to kill people. And she was a nurse. So she knows what the carotid is. She knows where the wrist veins are. And so on, right now, if you're a nurse, right, you told all about the veins in the arms because you got to put lines in. You've got to take blood out. You've no where all the veins are. You certainly know where the dangerous veins are, so you don't jab them with the needle when you're trying to get some blood. So as a nurse, she knew exactly the configuration of the arm and where all the dangerous arteries were. She would know everything about the neck and where the dangerous arteries there are there as well. So the idea that she really did try to self-delete after the murder is, to me, it's not credible. She's basically got a scratch. She got a scratch. And then she, I don't know, did she hang drop or just jump from the second story window, which at one percent of people die from that.

23:51And she obviously went badly. So it's as credible a story to say she decided a long time before when Dr. Shopping didn't really take the pills, drank, center husband away, and then you know, planned the defense that almost worked for her. All right. Judge Sullivan replies, over the defendant's objection, I'm going to declare a mistrial at this point. Mistrial is that they can't come to a resolution. It is not fall under double jeopardy. Double jeopardy is when you have been tried and a resolution to the trial has occurred. Let's say you've been found not guilty, then you can't be tried again, right? Because of course we don't want the government to have any power at all, but we certainly don't want it to have the power to continually try people until it happens to get a guilty verdict. So a mistrial is you cannot come to a resolution. It doesn't fall under double jeopardy. So the state can choose to, I mean, they can choose a number of things.

24:55They can drop the charges. Seems very unlikely. They can change the charges, which I think requires another grand jury, or they can offer a plea or something like that. So late in the morning, there was a one hour stay before the jurors were brought in. Reddington asks for time to file a single justice emergency appeal to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. He calls the looming mistrial a travesty. Judge Sullivan grants one hour court recesses around 11.30 a.m. jurors remain sequestered by around 1 p.m. There is no ruling. So early afternoon, S.J.C. hearing defends files at the edge of the deadline around 1.30 p.m. Associate Justice Dalila Argaez went and holds a public emergency hearing. Prosecutor Jennifer Sprig walks through deliberation notes.

25:59Reddington and Clancy attend the request is stay the mistrial and force further inquiring to the hold out juror. The S.J.C. denies the petition no stay. 2.15 p.m. prosecution returns to the Plymouth courtroom. 2.20 p.m. Sullivan announces the emergency motion is denied. Reddington makes a last pitch to the judge that the judge can still dismiss the apparent hold out Sullivan refuses to do so. Now again, that is kind of putting your pinky on the scale to say, oh, is there a juror who is a hold out against the unanimity required in this case? Well, we'll just get rid of that guy. And it's like, that's really not the point. The point of unanimity is that everyone comes to the same conclusion and can agree on that. And if you simply remove people who disagree, well, then you're doing COVID vaccine trials and global warming. It's someone, right? 2.22 to 2.23, the jury is brought in right before 2.30 p.m. Sullivan formally declares mistrial. Thanks to panel, you all did everything you could.

27:01He paraphrases churchshills, brace for our duties and dismisses them. Clancy remains held without bail. The next hearing is scheduled for September the 29th, 2026 for a status trial assignment and Reddington's Rule 25 motion for a required finding of not guilty. The Rule 25 is a motion that says the evidence is legally insufficient for a rational jury to convict. In this case, Reddington is reviewing his motion after the jury is dismissed if the judge allows the motion. He would issue a finding of not guilty. This is not unequittled by the jury. Seems unlikely, but it's pretty, pretty standard. By the way, don't forget to come to Nashville September the 12th, 2026 to see me in a great debate. World War debate.com. After court, 253 to 3.10 p.m. District Attorney Timothy Cruz. Tells reporters, no retried decision today. He will meet with his team. He frames the case as three homicides committed while Clancy was in control for actions. He declines to treat the 11-1 rumour as a known split. We don't know what they believed.

28:023.20 to 4.15 p.m. Reddington's press appearance. He says the jury was robbed by one man and claims he crushed the government's case in defense of Lindsay. He says Clancy and her parents are not good. And that she will be ready if the case is reset for the fall. He says he will file the rule 25 motion within days. He also praises Judge Sullivan as, quote, wonderful. Patrick Clancy's lawyer, David Meyer, later put out a statement offering gratitude to the court in jury says that another trial would be extraordinarily painful. Yeah, Patrick Clancy, you know, you can't really judge people by the reactions to stress. Someone has a sort of different way of reacting to it, but Brodo seemed a little zen, a little zen. Outside, support as a media linko with some supporters describing the result as another failure of the system. So psychiatric medication question, right? I mean, the degree to which these psychiatric meds may have contributed to her homestidal thirst.

29:02It's a big old question, man. It's a big old question. Women in general are twice as likely to be on things like antidepressants as men and the biggest predictors for women to be on antidepressants are being single and being childless. Yes, funny thing, if you do not fulfill everything that four billion years of evolution has primed you to do, you may feel a little askew. You may feel a little hinky. It's not too, not too shocking. So Patrick Clancy called 911 at 6.11 pm on January 24th. Lindsay was taken to the ER at South Shore Hospital where her blood was drawn roughly within the hour. The sample sat at the hospital until the police collected them on January 31st. The blood tests from the Massachusetts State Police Crime Lab showed, diasopam at 8.8 nanograms per milliliter, oxacipam at 4.8. Clancy Pam at 1.9, the Resipam at 6.1 micrograms per milliliter, returseapine, lematrogen,

30:04quietapine and trasodone at indeterminate levels. That sample went to the NMS labs in Pennsylvania by Justin Browell found. Lematrogen at 6.1 micrograms per milliliter, muretsapine at 200 nanograms, quietapine at 1800 nanograms trasodone at 0.4 micrograms. Browell's opinion, it was all therapeutic or subtherapeutic. He stated that suicide overdose has typically hit around 10,000 nanograms for quietapine and usually people take handfuls of pills when they're trying to harm themselves and this is not consistent with that. What about residue question? Patrick testified that the night sand draw had empty bottles of quietapine, lematrogen and muretsapine prescribed January 5th in December 21st. He also testified that Lindsay had ground the macramixin with lemanide in a wine tumbler. He described the cop as what she shut down the crushed pills with.

31:04Sat off the prosecutor psychiatrist learned about the crushing from Patrick. On cross-reddington asked, sat off, if there was a pill crush or in the bedroom, no, if there was powder residue anywhere else in the room or on the night sand, no. Just whether the white residue in the wine tumbler was lab tested or so, no. So it is unknown. She was not on any kind of excessive dose as it appears of these psychotropic. Of course, she wasn't taking it off 13 at once. They try to mix it up. It's a voodoo mystic witchy art, if anything, certain, not a science. Take these. They're not working. Try these. Oh, try these to counteract the effects of these. Oh, try these to counter-effect the effects of these and it's a whirlpool. So what comes next? The DA has a decision to make to try Lindsay Clancy again. They can proceed with the same charges, reduced from mode of 1 to mode of 2, issue new charges, dismiss or offer a plea deal. So what has the media been saying in the mainstream New York Times Saturday afternoon, ran a profile

32:07of the police DA, Timothy Cruz is a long-serving, hard-nosed prosecutor of people who know him say they would be surprised if he walks away from first-degree murder. The piece treats the apparent 11-1 split as a reason most DAs would hesitate and they list retrying and downgrade and drop as the likely choices. An opinion piece saying that Cruz already lost the first degree theory and should not... Oh, so the globe ran an opinion piece saying Cruz already lost the first degree theory and should not put another jury through it. A separate editorial says if he retries it all, he's dropped a second degree so a judge can decide. I mean to me, you send your husband away and pretend to be sane. I mean that's all I need again, I'm not a lawyer but from a moral standpoint, if you send someone away and you lure the kids down one by one, right?

33:08And you hide the crime and you pretend to be sane when your husband calls. I mean that's premeditation. And the fact, as I said before, people who become really violent because they're crazy, just grab whatever is handy. You know, could grab the coffee cup and throw it at someone. They just grab whatever is handy. They don't premeditally... I mean, sorry, that's making the question. They don't plan to lure the kids down one by one, making sure that the baby is lost because the baby can't run. I mean that is a step by step situation. And you can't explain evil, it's the whole point. If you could explain it, it wouldn't be evil. Like if she had a brain tumor, then we would say, gosh, that's a real shame that the brain tumor ate up her brain and you know what if it right. So it is. I mean, I don't understand it. Sure, that's the point of evil. So social media response, the holdout juror, for those who sided with the prosecution,

34:10the one juror is the hero. Raise your hand if you support the holdout. The juror was the only adult in the room because of course, I mean, if Linda Clancy was found not guilty by reason of insanity, then she would go to a psychiatric facility. She would be evaluated and then at some point they might say, oh yeah, she's fine now. Based on what? Based on what objective facts. I mean, the analogy to me, this may sound harsh, but we must love the truth more than we love politeness. If there's a guy named Bob and Bob says, I have a brain tumor and they say, wow, we should scan for it. Well, we can't see it. No, no, no, but I have a brain tumor and my brain tumor is is real, but there's no scan

35:18for it. No blood test, no brain scan, no nothing. You can't biopsy anything. You can't see anything, but the tumor is real. Okay. So then they say, okay, so the tumor we can't find any physical evidence for is real because Bob says that the brain tumor made him commit a crime. We can't find the brain tumor, but okay, the brain tumor we can't find that Bob says is there is real. And so we'll blame the tumor and we'll put Bob in a mental health facility. So then how do you know if and when Bob is cured of a brain tumor that doesn't show up on any scans, that you can't biopsy, that you can't find, there's no blood test, there's nothing. How do you know when he's cured?

36:21Is it because Bob says, oh, you know what? Yeah, it's right. You know, then it was a brain tumor. Well, if it Bob says, then if it was a brain tumor, then maybe legally he's open back up to something because maybe he's purged. Oh, I used to believe that I had this brain tumor that maybe do stuff that never showed up on a scan of blood test, but now I don't believe that anymore. I'm cured of my belief in the brain tumor that there was no way to know existed. So the brain tumor that no one can detect is real enough to get them off more responsibility for the crime, but then when he goes to a facility, you know, how do you know? Now here's the thing. You can't say, and the people at the mental facility, the asylum, the people who are treating

37:25Bob can't say there never was a brain tumor, imaginary brain tumors aren't real because everyone believes in all of this stuff. I won't get into the labels, you all know about everybody believes in all of this stuff for which there's zero objective tests that people just claim subjectively and other experts say, oh yes, absolutely. And the brain tumor we can't find is real tumor. So they can't say there never was a brain tumor. So what are they supposed to say? What are they supposed to say? Because normally if someone has a delusion and you go to a mental health care facility, they're supposed to cure you of that delusion. Bob, you never had a brain tumor. You need to give up that disorder of thinking. I can't say that because half a psychiatry is based upon brain tumors that no one can find chemical in balance is that no one can find and no one can test for nothing shows up anywhere except maybe in three tiny graves.

38:26So what are you, what are you supposed to be curing her off? Oh Bob. I mean, if it was post-poderm hormones, people say hormones like that. It shows up on any kind of test. People say, oh post-poderm hormones, well then she's cured by definition if she doesn't have more kids. They don't have more kids. You'll be fine kid. So what are they curing her off? If she's found not guilty by reason of mental defect, what are they curing her off? They can say that what you believed was not true because it felt true because she had a mental defect called post-poderm or psych, whatever it is, right? I mean it's also frustratingly circular for anybody with any sort of domino cause and effect in the study of knowledge.

39:27She was psychotic. How do we know? Well she did things that were psychotic. He has a brain tumor. How do we know? We scanned and found it. Took a biopsy. It's a real thing because see it on the scan. We tested it. We examined the cells and they were cancerous. There you go. We're going to cure him with whatever, right? Something better than Neil Purt and Gord Downey. She had a self-reported symptom for which there's no test which we totally believe in and we're going to cure her off what? For those who cited but the defense, that juror is the problem. They cite the defense redding turns robbed by one man line or he wouldn't follow reasonable doubt the juror had a bias against mental illness.

40:31A third smaller group focuses on not hunting the juror. They note that redding turns remark about one man leads to people dodging jury duty. So the people who are for conviction want mode of one again and treat crews hesitating this weakness. People pro defense say 11 one means he cannot win and should fold. Lawyer accounts they mistrial as a process win for the defense. Not the moral vindication the rallies wanted and the cleaner second trial could go either away. Well, of course it's all going to depend on how this juror is treated, right? If he's hunted then a second trial is going to be very hard, right? The Musco family fund, right? This is the parents, right? The Musco family fund is past 1.1 million with the goal has been raised to 3 million

41:35framed as travel enlarging for Lindsay's parents. Critics treated it as a prize for Philosite adjacent sympathy. So legal procedure information is said before a hung jury is not an acquittal, Lindsay Clancy would not be subject to double jeopardy if she has tried again before a new jury. Lindsay Clancy was indicted on 3 mode of one charges. These indictments include the elacid charges of murder to a manslaughter. The jury was instructed that they could convict a elacid charge. The defense claims the jury deadlocked on criminal responsibility versus guilt. The original charges included strangulation and assault and battery with a dangerous weapon. If the DA revives any of those, a new grand jury will be required. In Massachusetts a person can only be convicted by a guilty plea or admission in an open court, a jury verdict accepted by the court, in any capital case, other than a capital case, a bench verdict by the judge.

42:36Murder one in Massachusetts is considered a capital case and juries cannot be waived in such a case. So of course if they drop it down to murder two, they could opt for a bench verdict, which is a non-jury verdict by the judge. If the DA prosecutes on murder two, the possibility that a jury trial may be waived, but this is something the judge and the defense must agree to. Sentencing is of course murder one, life of that parole, murder two, life eligible for parole after 15 to 25 years. And slaughter maximum 20 years in state prison or 2.5 years in a house of correction. So a couple of more notes and then I will dip over to your question. So, there are a lot of women out there who seem to point out as important that men annihilate

43:45their families a lot more often than women. True. I mean, nobody is turning on modern femininity because of Lindsey Clancy. Clearly she's a crazy outlier. So, nobody is saying that there's something wrong with modern women because of Lindsey Clancy. No, that's not it. What people are saying is that there's something wrong with modern women because so many of them are defending and supporting Lindsey Clancy. And this is called the Lindsey Clancy question, right? You ask your girlfriend, your fiance, what do you think of Lindsey Clancy? And if she says, I think the husband did it. I don't think she's responsible. The system failed her. She didn't have any support and so on. Hey, that's fine. We can all be misinformed. So that to me is not a deal breaker. So let's say that you talk to your girlfriend and she says, I think the husband did it, right? And you say, oh, what's the evidence?

44:46She comes up with stuff. She said, well, you know, he's actually on camera, like miles and miles away, had to see the S at the restaurant, like he's on camera, phone, GPS, you know, she sent him away, their phone records, like they know, like he was deaf, he was not there. And she confessed. And the defense, her defense said, yes, she did it. The question is not about whether she did it, but whether she was criminally responsible. So you know, you lay out that evidence because look, we can all, all of us can be misinformed. So all of us can make mistakes. All of us can, you know, my daughter, because my daughter is more aware of AI than I am. So when I point something out, she's like, that's AI. I'm like, no. Oh, yeah, no, you're right. So, you know, we can all be fooled. And there's a huge industry out there of people who want to fool us. So the fact that you have a girlfriend or a mother or a wife or fiancee and whatever who has been misinformed, no problem, no problem, no foul, no issue, no problem.

45:46No challenge, right? That's not the challenge. The challenge is when you lay out the facts, does that person change their mind? Now, I am deadly freaking serious about this, my friends. Apps are freaking deadly, lootly serious about all of this. You cannot marry a man or a woman who cannot reason or does not respond to evidence. You not do it. You are signing up for a lifetime of servitude, enslavement, frustration, anger, rage, betrayal, disintegration of your assets, alienation from your children. If you are dating someone who does not respond to reason and evidence, but doubles down or just says, well, that's how I feel. I'll get offended that you bring reason and evidence to the table. You want to make that wily coyote human outline through the wall if you have to to get away.

46:48Do not date or marry people who are so narcissistic that they put feelings above facts. I cannot stress this enough. I cannot tell you because I dodge that bullet like whew. Took off almost part of my ear. Do not marry people who do not respond to reason and evidence because the only way you'll ever win an argument is through escalation. And you don't want to be in a relationship where the only way you can win an argument is through escalation because that leads to very, very bad places. I know this. I knew a guy many years ago who married a woman who did not respond to reason. Of course, I told him not to marry her. This is decades ago. And he ended up in jail. Do not. It's not a problem if the woman says, oh, I think the husband did it. Whatever. You know, that's fine.

47:48But then when you lay out the facts, if, if, if, if, she doesn't thank you, oh, you know what? I clearly went to stray and so on. And I appreciate that. You've got, you make a fantastic case. It's really kind of impossible to argue. I appreciate that. That's someone you want to lock down. I mean, the first woman I met who listened to reason and evidence I waived her up in 11 months after meeting. That's just, and it's been fantastic ever since. We barely have any conflicts and we've never raised our voices. We've never yelled. We've never called names. It's beautiful because we adjudicate with reason. We reason with each other. It's a beautiful thing. So, the Lins and Clansy test is important and it's not whether she has wrong opinions or bad opinions or whatever. That's totally fine. It's how does she respond when corrected with facts? That is foundational to every successful and happy relationship you can have in this or in the lifetime. How does someone respond when you give them reason and evidence?

48:54If someone responds with a fence or upset or tight lips or disapproval or doubling down, get out. I'm like, you're in the happiness and possibly the survival of your life and freedom depends upon getting out, get out and get away from people who don't listen to reason. Of course, we're talking about dating. Could be other situations. Could be even family situations. I will not have people in my life who do not listen to reason and evidence. I won't do it. I haven't done it for 25 years and when I began applying that standard, everyone in my life fell away. And I am thrilled, overjoyed, happy and delirious with positive experiences because of those foundational decisions. Do not have people in your life who don't listen to reason and evidence because it's a war of knowledge. It's a war of sanity. People who prefer their own narrative to facts.

49:55You can't love them. They can't love you. You can't even connect with them because all they're dealing with is their own delusions. Do not do it. And the Lindsey Clancy test also, there are people, women who say, well, I think it's crazy to support Lindsey Clancy. Then of course, the next question is, okay, how many of your friends support Lindsey Clancy and what have you said to them? I know. I know. It's part of what? Which is the one who has to support이죠. But I know relatively early in this I'm looking at often like you, who are not in and some sort for자. So that's the least I can say is the one who wants to support their families, or isn't of staunch moral character in order to survive life as a whole and particularly what's coming. So it is not that men are judging women by Lindsey Clancy, they're judging women by women's

51:01support of Lindsey Clancy or at least not opposing those who support her. So women are writing men commit an estimated 91 to 95% of all family annihilate the cases. If you five to seven days a man kills his entire family, you had a single case where there's credible evidence of post-partum psychosis, systemic failure in providing care and a sketchy ass husband proves that women are evil. So this is just misinterpreting things. This is just misinterpreting things. If there's anyone in your life male or female and their first sympathy with a woman who murdered all three of her children is with the woman and not the children.

52:09Crazy. I mean this is absolutely essential and of course you have to remember that this sort of woke-world view is associated with depression and anxiety. People will dangle in front of it. It's a very demonic bargain that people make and give. They will dangle in front of you that you're a victim. Ah sweet sweet victim. It's worse for your soul than sugar for your teeth. So people will dangle in front of you sweet sweet victimhood. You can be a victim. You're a victim. You're hard done by you unsupported and and and we all wish to retreat into that amniotic sac of zero responsibility and blame. It is a very very powerful thing. Anybody who is trying to convince you as an adult that you're a victim is trying to destroy you and if you believe them you will be destroyed. It may take decades but you will be destroyed. The doctor who treated Lindsey Clancy has testified there was never signs of psychosis. That

53:13seems quite important. Jan the producer wrote these are not full endorsements. I haven't researched all of this. This is just the interesting stuff to put into the mail. You do your own research. Lindsey Clancy was on 13 psychiatric medications. Medical system failed. She was a victim of over-medication. That narrative she says has been repeated so often the people now treated as established fact. It isn't what the evidence showed. Lindsey was prescribed 13 different psychiatric medications over several months. That does not mean she was taking 13 medications simultaneously. The prosecution's evidence indicated roughly two to three at a time and then then there's the actual pill inventory presented at trial. So loft 30 prescribed 23 remained. Adivan 30 prescribed 24 remained. Bus Perone 30 prescribed 28 remained. Hydroxazine 30 prescribed 27 remained. Bus Perone

54:17refill 30 prescribed all 30 remained. Trasadone 30 prescribed 22 and a half remained. A pill missing from a bottle does not prove it was swallowed but these bottles certainly do not support the image of a woman, beautifully taking a massive cocktail of 13 psychiatric drugs at once. The trial evidence also showed repeated medication changes. Medication stopped shortly after starting them and prescribed regimens that were not consistently followed. And this matters even more. Prosecutors presented evidence that Lindsey disclosed thoughts of harming her children to Patrick and her mother but not to the mental health professionals treating her. That's big and that's very big. That's very big. Multiple clinicians who actively evaluated her testified that they did not observe psychosis. Should we scrutinize her medical care? Absolutely. For augmented psychiatric care deserves scrutiny. This is for again the woman's post. But doctors cannot accurately evaluate whether a medication is working when it isn't being taken

55:19as prescribed and they cannot properly assess dangerous symptoms they aren't being told about. There were victims in this case. Their names were Korra, Dawson and Callen. Before repeating that Lindsey was on 1813 medications and was failed by everyone around her, look at what she, well look at what was actually presented in court. Prescribed it's not the same as taken. 13 over months is not 13 at once and a rumor on social media is not evidence. So if it's true that she did not tell her providers that she had thoughts of harming her children that would be interesting. So again, it's just my amateur understanding. But most people, most providers who are licensed, particularly mental health care providers, have a duty to report. So if somebody is saying that they have serious thoughts of harming themselves or others, then they can be committed. So if she did not tell her providers about these thoughts of harming her children, then that to me would be important. Because it's one of the ways that this would indicate premeditation is if she told

56:26her husband and her mother, but not the person who was prescribing her the psych meds or not her psychiatrist or psychologist, then that would be to establish that she was crazy, but without actually telling the people who might be able to treat her properly. So that would be to me evidence of premeditation. So let me get to your questions in just a second. Thank you for your patients. I do find this very, very interesting. I wonder how strong women's commitment to the post-partum psychosis diagnosis is going to remain if women start losing custody of their children because of post-partum psychosis. So if the general perception is, of course, that post-partum psychosis can have you appear totally sane, lose your mind for five minutes, be totally sane for a minute, lose your mind for another five minutes, be totally sane for 17 seconds, and then lose your mind for another five minutes to kill your children while taking calls from your husband.

57:32If somebody can appear totally normal, sorry, not totally normal. Sorry. If somebody, I mean, she was normal to the point, or she appeared normal to the point where Patrick Lancy was comfortable leaving her alone with the children and Lancy Clancy's mother and father and Patrick Lancy's mother and father and brother providers. Everybody was comfortable that she could handle being alone with the children. So what I mean is she appeared normal enough, sorry, not totally normal. Let me correct that. She appeared normal enough that she was completely competent to take care of her children according to the people around her. And the reason I'm not saying that her parents or his parents were there that day, but what I am saying is that they did not get her institutionalized, or you know, I mean, if there's a woman in a family who has significant thoughts of harming her children, and she's not institutionalized, or the children aren't taken away, if she's not taken away from the children in some manner, then I mean, the grandparents would move in. They would

58:36say, well, I mean, I need to move in because somebody needs to be with her and the kids at all times, until this is sorted out one way or the other. So she appeared normal enough that people were comfortable leaving her alone with the children. And Patrick said, she's better, and I would assume she's better because she had decided to listen to the voices and do all of this, right? Now, there was a survey. Did you do you think the healthcare system failed Lindsey Clancy? Not very scientific, of course, but over 70% of people said yes, and 27.1 said no, and 2.7% of people said she's innocent. I mean, I do have a particular opinion and I won't get into it in great detail now because I do want to get to these callers, or sorry, to these people who have questions. But I will say this, it is my strong belief that I could be completely wrong about. I'll

59:43be obviously completely clear about that. It is my strong belief that mental illness is to some degree just a matter of willpower. And I'm not talking about like if you're do a story, you've got some organic issue with your brain or something like that, but it is my strong belief that mental illness is to some degree just a matter of willpower. We've all had crazy thoughts, we've all had intrusive thoughts. Just say no. Just say no, just say no to the voices, just say no to the intrusive thoughts, just ground yourself, just go meditate, go get psychological help, go do cognitive behavioral therapy and so on. Just say no to crazy. And it's interesting too because my mother, she really had a sort of mental collapse when she turned 40, right? Because the wall and she really began to realize that she was never going to have that red carpet, Grace Kelly, ask a party life, which she felt she deserved because of her looks and slenderness and so on. And so what happened

1:00:44was in my, obviously admittedly, almost 50 years ago, in my admittedly not photographic memory, my memory is that she became so depressed, she went to bed and wouldn't get out of bed and I've just made her a cup of tea in the morning and a piece of toast and I'd come home and I clear away the toast, make her another cup of tea at lunch and try and talk to her in the evenings and so on. I was 11 or 12, maybe 12. And from there, which I think was that she was hoping her looks, we're going to save her from having to be a better human being. And it did for a while. I mean, she had lots of boyfriends. They came regularly through. She had guys who would fly her out. She had a guy who flew her out to Texas. She had a guy who flew her outside. I think it was to Arizona or BC. So she had guys who flew her out and she was very pretty and certainly intelligent and charming in her own way. And so when she began to age out, she's like, oh, so basically no one's coming to

1:01:47rescue me and my looks aren't going to save me. And she just wouldn't get out of bed. And after that, she ended up being institutionalized where I assumed that they jammed it to the gills with all of the psychotropics, which was the final one shot that took her down, I think. So it can start psychological and then become institutional. It can start psychological and then become pharmaceutical. So to speak, I don't have any particular proof of this, but she over said later on that her doctor told her it's all in your head, baby. And she would like really them and be him and about this. And so my guess is that her doctor poor unfortunate soul, her doctor ran all of these tests to try and figure out why she was tired or anxious or nervous or hysterical or something like that. He ran all these tests and he couldn't find anything wrong.

1:02:48And then my guess is at some point, maybe he became impatient, hyper-conduroyax and doctorous, particularly female hyper-conduroyax, which is most of them. And doctors have this bizarre, intense, semi-insustuous relationship. And at some point, the doctors get impatient. And maybe he said, look, there's nothing wrong with you. It's all in your head. And maybe he said that. And that was very blunt and that was not the wise or right approach. But I'm not a doctor who's had to deal with a hyper-conduroyax for a year or two. So I would imagine that he said, it's all in your head, this put a mantle of responsibility on her which aroused or, sorry, not the best word, activated for conscience. And then she felt very angry. And I imagine that she either threw something or attacked him because she certainly did do that. And then I imagine he had her committed and then she started the pharmaceutical route. Now, as far as I know, after she left the institution, she didn't take any more psychotropics, but I assumed that she was on them. When she was there, I don't know. I occasionally think about her medical records, but they were popular. Do you

1:03:48destroyed decades ago? So I'll never know. All right. All right. And let me see. Hey, Steph, I live pretty close to you. Is it okay to say hi to you if I see you in public with someone or would you be annoyed? No, no. I mean, certainly before I was de-platformed, this used to happen every second or third time I went out somewhere that people would say hi and appreciate philosophy and so on. It was always a pleasure. I remember going to the keg with my daughter once and these two lovely Hispanic waiters demanded that I not pay for my own food and that they pay for my daughter's dinner and myself, which was very kind. All right. Boom. Let's see here. I don't know why I can't get these. Just text a little bigger. Well, the eyes, they are aging. But it's good. It's good that they're aging. All right. And if it looks, female sacrifice, a female sacrifice of children is like not a new thing, right?

1:04:52It's in demonic rituals, satanic rituals, the Aztecs did it. It is very common. Thoughts and glorious sign them. No, not a positive person in any way she performed. If I remember rightly she married a rich guy who funded her vanity MS magazine and that was not great. So she's cheating women to be all independent and she basically just got a sugar daddy and she died along. No kids, no husband, nothing right? So very sad. No. All right. What else will be got here? This case should have a big effect on divorce. You can make a good argument for the man to have custody of the kids. Spontaneous psychosis. Yeah. So again, I'm no expert. But my understanding is that it doesn't really happen that a woman gets post-pottom is crazy, then sane, then crazy, then kills her kids, but then it's sane for a minute and then it's completely sane afterwards that the voice is only shot once, come on.

1:05:52You have to do something and then they vanish forever afterwards. Again, I'm no expert, but I don't think that that's, I don't think that's the way it plays. I personally envy women a lot for how they stick together and oppose the outsiders. Instead of having a debate on your show with a pro-lensy feminist, maybe, yeah, maybe. Yeah, I mean, Jeffrey Dahmer was diagnosed with a entire basket with a borderline personality, schizophrenia, effectiveness, order. So he was diagnosed with, and he, like, ate people and like was just completely obviously off the charts as far as normalcy goes. And he was competent to stand trial. He was deemed not crazy and was competent to stand trial. So the hormone defense is going to have huge blowback on women as a whole.

1:06:58And legal things too, right? So if a woman is a hormonal and she's put in a position of responsibility and then bad things happen, then could it be a derelection of duty or a failure to protect on the part of the organization that gets her that? Right. So how do I feel about Lauren Southern being a single mother? I mean, obviously, I think it's not particularly positive and so on, but is evil the same as insanity? No, no. Biological psychiatry is a pseudoscience. It's a very strong case to be made for that. A very strong case to be made by that. The reality of somebody did something I cannot comprehend, therefore they must be crazy is not a rational viewpoint.

1:08:00If human can't control their actions, we don't let them operate around us. I still have PTSD. Yeah, yeah, for sure. Well, you and the Scientologists share the mental illness isn't real belief in common. Well done. No, we don't. I think that mental dysfunction, mental and happiness is real. I just think it's more moral and anti-rational. It's more philosophical. So people who lose touch with reality, again, assuming there's nothing directly organic and measurable going on in the brain, but people who lose touch with reality have a metaphysical and epistemological issue. Reality is what we touch and contact and interact with all the time. And if people have lost touch with reality, then they are no longer trusting the evidence of their senses and they don't have a rational methodology for determining truth and falsehood that they will into apply. I'm not saying that philosophy solves all of these things, but I'd sure love to see how many it could solve.

1:09:05So yeah, I think it's real, but I do think that it is more philosophical. Somebody says this is unverified Charles Whitman, brain tumor, John List, wife gave him syphilis, Aaron Hernandez, CTE, Herbin Mullin, act of schizophrenic, psychotic, all guilty, no controversy. Well, but the question is, was it in the deranged anti-rational hellhole of confusing legality or impossible legality known as Massachusetts? So. I mean, of course, I mean that law, I don't think it doesn't mean that it's not possible. I can't think of any rational way that that law could be consistently applied. How do you prove the state of mind of someone from years ago when there were no witnesses to her actions? I mean, I guess Patrick Clancy would be a witness to some degree, right?

1:10:18All right. Don't forget, I have a called up free domain.com. I have a full day of call-ins after this, so I'm not going to do too long a show, but I really do appreciate everyone dropping by tonight. Tip.freedemand.com, of course, sorry this morning, tip.freedemand.com to help out the show, very humbly, gratefully and deeply appreciated. And don't forget, of course, if you go to say freedemand.com slash donate and you sign up for a subscription, you get access to hundreds of premium podcasts, private shows and a whole bunch of AIs that are really powerful and helpful to your life as a whole. And it's also an interesting question and one of my characters in my novel, The Future, which you should get a freedemand.com slash books is free. It's a great novel. Is the question of can we handle comfort? Can we as a species handle comfort? Does comfort make us soft, whiny,

1:11:23neurostatic, neurotic, weak, complaining? So you sort of think of the kid who grew up, they're poor, who had to battle for everything. And then you think of the kid who grew up with their parents paying for everything and absorbing them of all errors, problems or mistakes. You know, the kid of the rich mayor, the rich mayor and make sure that he never gets into any legal trouble, even though he's drunk driving and stealing stuff and pays all his bills and he breaks his bike, he just gets a new bike. So does comfort make us weak? In other words, his adversity, both individually and perhaps even as a species, is adversity that which strengthens character. And so we yearn for that which destroys us. We yearn for peace and serenity and ease and comfort and so on. And when we get it, it makes us weak. In other words, we don't like to work out, so we like to sit on the couch, but if you sit on the couch, you get rotund, soft, your bones decay, your muscles

1:12:23decay and you die young. So if you get the comforts you want, do you become weak? It's a very big question because as a civilization, of course, we have more comfort and support now than any of our ancestors could have remotely dreamed of. Like, please understand, you live in a literal paradise compared to your ancestors. I mean, the fact that we just have this conversation that I'm sitting in a air conditioned area with a great microphone and incredible communications technology and so on, am I internet's back up? And after this, I can go and mix up a quick salad, have a piece of toast, and so on from the fridge. If it's a hot day outside, I can come in and get a popsicle. Trying to get a drink that was cold, that was certainly getting a drink that was ice cold in a warm climate was impossible. Impossible. I got a beasting last summer, my hands swelled up, just took some

1:13:30antibiotics and away it went. I might have had to cut my hand off before antibiotics. So this is heaven to your ancestors and yet I think we complain the most. And complaining gives a kind of, I don't know, is a sick dopamine rush and so on, it's tempting. It's tempting. I mean, we all subject to it, right? We all subject to it. I use AI for stuff and sometimes AI disconnects randomly. And they're like, oh man, so this incredible benefit then becomes a negative, right? So, and there's this comedian who was talking about like, oh, the Wi-Fi on the plane was slow and I was so annoyed. I'm like, the fact that you can get, if nobody offered you Wi-Fi on the plane, you'd have nothing to complain about. When you get Wi-Fi on a plane, on a plane,

1:14:31and it's too slow, you're annoyed. So all of these benefits, all of these benefits, I mean, I remember growing up, of course, I grew up in England when I was six, I went to Africa for a while and then we moved to Canada when I was 11. England wasn't so bad, but obviously Africa and Canada, Canada is brutally hot in the summer at times. And I had no air conditioning and you know, we were worried about electricity costs, so I couldn't even having a fan on all my, it wasn't really an option. So you just leave the window and hope that you get a couple of breaths of fedaday washing over your sweaty sheets. And I remember one of my roommates, my brother and I kicked my mother out when I was 15 or so. And we got roommates and one of my roommates had a father who worked in the HVAC industry and he got us an old air conditioner that we were gonna, that was going to get tossed or something like that. And he fixed it up and I just remember, I remember so clearly, coming back on a fetted hot day, there's no air conditioning in the schools or anything like that,

1:15:35right? The fetted hot day coming in, opening the door, I remember this like it was yesterday, coming in, opening the door and this breath of cool air coming out and just like, oh, I will never get used to, like I will never take this for granted. And my friend of mine had a car, the engine used to overheat, so the only way that he could drive was to have the heat going full blast into the, into the driver's area, right? The cabin, I can't remember what it's called, the interior of the car. And he'd have to drive like with his head out the window because you just get this, you know, fetted diesel fart of heat coming into his face in the summer when it's like 35 degrees outside. And, and now it's like my wife doesn't like the air conditioning, so if she's driving it out, I'm like, oh man, it's kind of hot. Oh man, the air conditioning was so, it's like, I swear, I've never taken for granted. And now I've just

1:16:35adjusted to it like most people do and I'm just annoyed when it's not there. I'm just annoyed when it's not there. So it is a sort of more foundational question about what do we do when we're comfortable. And what we do when we're comfortable is we become whiny and amoral. Morality comes from scarcity, right? People in the tropics they can share because there's, you know, fruit on every tree and fish on every pond and hunting is easy. So I mean, they don't come from bacteria and viruses, not from, I mean, some predators, right? So, you know, you can share, hey, oh, and we will cook cornmeal porridge of which I'll share with you, right? Yeah, have some, yeah, it's easy. People on welfare, you know, here have some, whatever, right? And so when you have plenty, you share where property rights and strictness and so on comes in when you have to plan for the winter in particular, these activists kind of theory. So, morals and self discipline and virtue and so on come from

1:17:44scarcity. But we live in a situation where there's almost no scarcity. And even I who grew up poor, managed to get hold of a second hand. Oh, I took an inheritance from my grandmother, a reporter computer, and then we had a second hand air conditioner that worked. And I didn't have a car until I was in my 30s, but I barked everywhere on roads, obviously, and I had public transit. I mean, it was hot, it was fatted and so on, at least until later, but I could get anywhere in the city when I was a kid for 20 cents. So it is sort of a more foundational question. If you look at this in your own life, what has comfort done to you and what has distraction done to you? And I say this to me as well. So I still know people who spend 20 hours a week playing video games. It's easy. Just fire it up and you know, I'll fire up X or whatever it is. And I'll just browse and

1:18:48it's pretty easy. And you know, I can say it's part of my job and it is and there's some valuable and useful things that I get out of it for the show. But to not be bored, is an incredible luxury. And with technology these days, you literally have the option to never be bored. I mean, I was a kid. We would read the serial boxes. I learned French to some degree, which I had to know for my graduate degree, you had to be able to translate another language. So I learned French to some degree from reading serial boxes and other things on the breakfast table. My brother once got me a book, our famous deep philosophical quotes. And it was like, yay, thick. And I just I kept it by the bathroom. So if I go to the bathroom and you have a long man, manly producer, kanji session and you can just read about interesting great philosophical thoughts and ideas. And I got that when I was in my 20s. Never be bored. Never be bored.

1:19:50Always be comfortable. Never be bored. To get sick, most times you can be cured. And you never have to be too hot. You never have to be too cold. And when I was a kid, we would feed coins into the meter. And it was there was a cold shortage because of conflicts between that. And the unions, I think and cold is cold, man. Hungry in boarding school, food shortage, meat shortage. We used to eat a lot of white bread with margarine just devils armpit here. When was the last time you were really uncomfortable? When was the last time you were really uncomfortable? Either hungry or really thirsty, or too cold or too hot? Where it wasn't like, you know, if you go and play pick-a-ball in the middle of the afternoon, it's going to be kind of hot. When were you last really uncomfortable? Were you pushing yourself physically? And what does your lack of discomfort do to you? I mean, we are kind of

1:21:00designed for discomfort and we've taken discomfort out of the equation as a species. And it's, I mean, it's one of the reasons I sort of push myself when it comes to the discomfort of challenging social discourse, when it comes to confronting people in their anti-rationalities, when it comes to physical exercise. I push myself, you know, I'll do 40, 45 minutes of hard cardio at it's uncomfortable. It's very uncomfortable. You need to be uncomfortable. And yet we are drawn towards comfort. And you really, really, really need to be uncomfortable. I think, honestly, I'll be straight up, like I think that discomfort is essential for mental health. In the same way that resistance training is essential for muscle growth, right? I mean, if you look at something like gravity, gravity is a discomfort. And when you put

1:22:04people in a space station and their gravity is very much reduced or there's no gravity, I guess it's not some Stanley Kubrick spinning wheel, then their bones soften and they have to do all these exercises and then when they get back to earth, they have to slowly build up their bones again, like our literal skeletons fade in the absence of resistance. You need to be uncomfortable. You need to have difficult conversations with people. You need to screw your courage to the sticking place and confront people when necessary. If there's something wrong happening out there in society, you need to, if it's reasonably safe, you know, to have conversations with people, you need to push yourself physically. You need to go and talk to girls rather than gooning. Like you need to, you need to do stuff that makes you uncomfortable or you just get weaker and softer and more avoidant. You know, I've never liked bugs. I grew up with cockroaches everywhere. I was a vile. And my daughter took me to a butterfly conservatory and there was a giant stick insect. I hate stick

1:23:06insects. Perhaps more than anything. I just think about their proboscuses or whatever it is going in my ear. I hear these stories of these women who wake up with roaring sounds in their ears because some cockroach called it their ear and their antennas waving on their ears. And so my daughter was like here and she put like this bug almost a size of my forearm on my arm and I'm like, you know what? I do it. I learned how to not belay climb and did that for a while. And you know, when I was out there giving public speeches, it was with bomb threats and death threats and all kinds of exciting stuff. And you know, when I was being grilled by hostile media people in New Zealand and in Australia, I just, I just comfort is essential. And we have all of us. We have, and it's completely natural. I mean, I'm not criticizing it at all. I share the same thing, but you need to be uncomfortable. You need to do some hard labor in the heat. You need to push yourself physically. You need to raise

1:24:09the stakes. You need to do that, which is uncomfortable or you just get softer and softer and softer. And you complain more when you suffer less. And I'm not sort of taking the yourself in the head with a ball, peeing hammer like something that's real, right? I mean, I know exercises in particularly real, but your muscles don't really know that and your body doesn't really know that. Do things that are uncomfortable. You know, if someone's pissing you off, say, you're pissing me off. I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just saying you're pissing me off, right? And if people ask you for honest feedback, oh, here's a thought. Give them honest feedback. If someone you know is gaining weight, say, hey, what's going on? I've noticed that you put on some weight. Is there anything I can do to help anything you want to talk about? If you notice that yourself, if you're gaining weight, eat less. Or eat differently. Do the, what was it? The Gillette. Was it no pen, the pen diet or the guy who made clerks, Kevin, someone or

1:25:15other, just he potatoes for two weeks. Oh, whatever. You know, obviously, talk to a doctor. I'm not giving you any diet advice, but just be uncomfortable. Make yourself uncomfortable. It's essential. It can be in terms of vulnerability. Like if you have people, we had some just truly lovely house guests this week. And I was saying, we were talking about something we were thinking about earlier. And I said, you know, I got to say, I got to tell you guys, like looking around us here at this table, I was just literally thinking last night, looking around at everyone here, just how amazing it is to have, you know, great, wonderful, funny, warm, good people in my life. Like, you know, mean the world to me, my life would be far more impoverished without you. And I don't want anyone to leave this lovely time together with any doubts about how truly important you all are to me and how much I absolutely treasure the time that we spend together. Now, obviously, I was raised British. That kind of felt, oh, it's just taken for granted.

1:26:17That kind of openness and vulnerability and saying to people, how much they mean to you, it's not comfortable for me. I'm white. It's not comfortable for me. But I think it's important. I think it's honest. People ask me, what are you thinking? That's literally what I'm thinking. So even vulnerability or anything like that can be important. You know, have tough conversations, push yourself physically, do things that are uncomfortable. It keeps you grounded. And when you do things that are really uncomfortable, whether physically or mentally or morally or from a standpoint of vulnerability or something, what happens is you then appreciate that when that's not happening. You appreciate it more. You know, like when I push myself physically, I appreciate it more. Like I take a day off where I don't exercise a week, you know, not a big plan or anything like that. It just kind of happens. And I'm like, oh, how nice. How nice that I don't have to do that today. And it really helps you

1:27:22appreciate. You know, if you have difficult conversations with people that really helps you appreciate when you don't have to have difficult conversations with people. So this is my advice to you. Embrace discomfort. You know, there was somebody posted about, you know, the sort of, the drill sergeants in the Marines or so on the people. And they said, it's the deprecification. You know, boys are raised with such comfort that embrace the sack, learn how to be uncomfortable, learn how to enjoy being uncomfortable or at least appreciate it, and so on. You know, it's a kind of thing that you can sort of psych yourself out a little bit. You can say, okay, well, if I was waiting, I thought, oh my gosh, I'm going to be, I'm going to get bad news from the doctor and then the doctor calls and says, oh, there's nothing wrong. It's fine or whatever, right? You'd be so happy, but you have that already. You'd be so happy to have your health, have your health, if you thought you'd lost it, but you have your health already. So enjoy that. So, but you don't need unhappy. You're only genuinely happy if you have an alternative. So I really do think it is important

1:28:29to be uncomfortable to embrace discomfort, to push yourself because the alternative is just whining and complaining and getting softer and softer and softer. And I say this with humility, having been there myself. All right. Thanks everyone, free to main.com slash donate word, word debate.com for September 12th in Nashville, Tennessee. Lots of love from my peer, my friends. Thank you so much for dropping by. We'll talk to you soon. Bye.