Fireside Chat Ep. 171 — Drama Queens | Fireside Chat

Hi everybody, Dennis Prager here with the Fireside Chat with Otto, with my fireplace, and with me talking to you. This is what number again? 170? 171. We have not missed one. No, COVID hasn't stopped us, and all my travels around the world haven't stopped us. That gives you an idea of how seriously I take the Fireside Chat. Because a lot of you watch, around the world, it means a lot to me because you don't get a chance to hear the things that I say. I'm not the only one saying this. God forbid. I don't want to be the only one. But by and large, when you think about it, the world hears the same thing. If you're in Bulgaria, or if you're in France, or you're in Uruguay, you basically hear the identical thing. The only difference is your language. When you think about it, isn't that amazing? The world media, they are utterly interchangeable. The approach to the world is almost identical. I've often said that if a New York Times editor goes to a meeting in France with the editors of Le Monde, the leading or the most prestigious paper in France, that editor or those editors of the New York Times will have everything in common except language with the editors of Le Monde. Everything in common. Same outlook, same style of life, same philosophy of life, same secularism, everything identical. And they will have nothing in common with the average American in Nebraska. A New York Times editor is much closer emotionally, psychologically, intellectually, philosophically, religiously, or secularly with an editor of a newspaper than with a guy who runs a restaurant in Omaha. And that's the way it is. You know, I was thinking about Otto here. Otto is much easier than our other dog, the Basset Hound Snoopy. And I was thinking about his nature is he's just easygoing. Very little bothers him. It's a blessing to have a nature like that. You sleep better, you live longer, and it is a pleasure for people to be around you. And it hit me because I have no problem being open about my own nature. I have an easygoing nature. And it just occurred the other day when I did a takeout order from the restaurant that is unconscionably being ruined by the lockdown where I live in California. And the woman said to me, she didn't know who I was, and she just said, you're easy. And I thought, yeah, that's a great thing to be easy. And I would offer to you that that is something to aspire to, to be easy. So I, for example, I am a parent, and I am a father-in-law. One of my sons is married, the other one just got engaged this past weekend. And I remember thinking, I want my daughter-in-law and son to think I am easy. The last thing you want is a difficult in-law or a difficult parent. Think of how many difficult parents there are. It's a beautiful thing to aspire to, to be easy. You know, people want to be smart and people want to be even kind. I don't know how many people think about that. More should. But anyway, easy is never on the list. Name the 10 things you would most like to be in good traits. I'll bet you almost no one would put down easy to get along with or just easy. So it's something for you to aspire to. So when I think about all these violent demonstrations of the last year in America, I mean, really, just month after month of violent demonstrations, violent. And of course, all we hear about is January 6th at the Capitol, because the press only wants you to think about that rather than what has happened for a year in America. But when I think about even the non-violent demonstrations, the anger that people events like the two and a half years ago, was it the million women's march or whatever it was, all these women walking around thinking they're oppressed. Oppressed in America? As a woman, you're oppressed? All these middle class and upper middle class women, you know, wearing bunny hats. How did they explore what is not bunny hats, right? Cat, because of the, our former president's reference to, to cats, as they are sometimes known. With the, with a different word. But I mean, give me a break. What do you, what do you, by the way, what do you, what did they say to their daughters? Their six year, seven year, eight year old daughters? Yeah. Mommy is wearing, you know, bunny ears or cat's ears. And mommy, why are you wearing that? And what did she say? What is it? We have made an art now of depriving young children of their innocence, like with the drag queen story hour at schools. It's really mind blowing. So I was thinking the left, and I don't mean liberals. I mean the left, as you know, I always make a distinction. They are what you may know in your own family. These are drama queens. Now, what is the defining characteristic of a drama queen? Love of turmoil. That is the opposite of the easy person. It's the opposite. They thrive. It is their oxygen. Turmoil is their oxygen. For the drama queen or drama king, turmoil is, is the air they breathe, the food they eat. Those of us who don't like turmoil, it's like telling me somebody likes to eat grass. I can't relate to it, but that's what it is. The left, they don't feel alive without turmoil. That's why there are constant hysterias. Everything's an existential threat. Have you noticed that? Everything's an existential threat. Of course, climate change. Oh, we have 12 years to go. I have been hearing we have 12 years to go since 1990. But 1990 was 31 years ago. So we had 12 years to go, then we had 12 years to go, and then we had 12 years to go. But things are doing fine. You know that? Things are pretty fine. I'm not saying the world's not getting warmer. I'm saying it's not an existential threat to the world. But people who love and thrive on turmoil see it as a threat to the existence of Earth. All right, be easy, both politically and personally. Let's go to our question. Take it away. Hi, Dennis. My name is Chris Barber, and I'm here in Los Angeles. My question for you is this. So a lot of people have a rosy perspective of Marxist and communist theory, yet we should know that wherever it was practiced in the world, millions of people were So why does Marxism or communism ultimately lead to the deaths of millions, and does it have to happen necessarily? Well, thank you, Chris. First of all, I don't even know how many of your generation even know the evil that communism and Marxism have perpetrated. I really don't think they know. They may have a vague idea of what the Nazis did, and you can't get more evil than the Nazis, but you can, in fact, kill more than the Nazis. There's nothing more evil than Nazism. But in terms of sheer numbers of murdered human beings, communism dwarfs Nazism. The Nazis may have not had as much of a chance, or they were more directed towards exterminating Jews and gypsies, basically, and enslaving Slavs. But that number is owned by the communists, plus the torture. And I'm reading a book now by a guy who is not a supporter of the Vietnam War, but he describes, he's honest about North Vietnam and what the communists did in North Vietnam. I remember when I was a kid in college, my fellow students going, ho, ho, Ho Chi Minh, like they do Che Guevara today. Ho Chi Minh was a Stalinist, meaning a mass-killing, mass-torturing, mass-incarcerating tyrant. That's all he was. That's it. And yet, people, when I was a kid going around, ho, ho, Ho Chi Minh, they didn't even know then how evil communism was, so let alone today. I wish it were studied, because if you don't know history, you're obviously going to repeat it. But not only that, you don't know what has been done. So how could you possibly have a moral grasp of the world today? Anyway, we need to know these things. So you're even mentioning millions, it's tens of millions, many tens of millions. Why does it happen? Why does Marxism-communism lead to that? Because Marxists and communists and their supporters are so certain that they are right, that they have no problem in suppressing those who differ with them. That's why. And we're seeing that in the United States. We're not seeing murder in that regard, but we are seeing suppression in that regard. You don't agree with us? You do not deserve to be able to speak. So that parlor was even removed from the internet by the left. This is a phenomenon in American history. This is the country known for liberty, and it's being suppressed. That is a characteristic of the left, to suppress liberty. Liberty is a value, as I've often said here and everywhere I have spoken. Liberty is a value, not an instinct. The human instinct is to be taken care of. It is not to be free. Okidoki. Travis, 32, Honolulu, Hawaii. How should I respond when someone says, if the government can force big tech to let conservatives on, then they can force a baker to bake a cake for a gay wedding? Very fair question, and there is a fair answer. Number one, and perhaps most important, the couple that went to the baker who would not bake a cake for a wedding, remember that that baker baked cakes for these gay people, or these gay men, for years. They were regular customers. This bakery never said, we will not bake a cake for a gay person. And they would be wrong if they said that, incidentally, even from a religious standpoint. What they said was, we will not bake a cake for a gay wedding, because they do not believe, for religious reasons, in same-sex weddings, that marriage should be defined as a man and a woman. That was the whole issue, that should be clear. But the reason for the there's no apples and apples here is, this gay couple could then have a cake baked by a baker two blocks away, or a mile away, wherever the next baker was. If you can't speak on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Google, Instagram, you can't speak. There is no Google down the block. There is no Twitter down the block. So they created their own, and even that was shut down by Amazon. Parler. That's a huge difference. There are alternatives to that baker. There are no alternatives to the big tech. So that's one of many responses. Roger, 17, Yate, Lehampshire, United Kingdom, PragerForce, great. What is the most important value an individual can hold? Well, I take a look at these questions right before I come on with you. And so that one prompted me to think, the greatest value, most important value. So I came up with two, one micro and one macro, one personal and one social value. So I came up with freedom and gratitude. Freedom, because if you believe deeply in freedom, then you will develop the courage to fight for it. And courage is a spectacularly important value to hold. Gratitude in the personal, and it spills over to the macro. Macro is the mother of happiness and goodness. What else do you need in life to be happy and to be good? You can't be happy and you can't be good if you're not grateful. That, by the way, is the dominant characteristic of the left, ingratitude. People should be grateful that they live in the United States. You know who has a privilege? American privilege. That's a privilege. And that's the reason vast numbers of people, including blacks from Africa, want to move to the United States. Far more blacks came to the United States voluntarily as immigrants in the last few decades than ever came to the United States as slaves, millions more. How many of you learned that in school? Zero. I can tell you the answer. People come here because they know how much freedom there is. Freedom and gratitude. To not be grateful for the freedom and opportunities that you have here in the United States. By the way, not just the United States. In many countries, you have this. I think you have more in the United States, but we're not the only country that provides people with freedom and opportunity. I just think we provide you with more freedom and opportunity here. For example, in America, you can homeschool your children. In Germany, it's banned. Germany has actually outlawed homeschooling children. Germany is considered a free country, but that's a pretty big thing. You can't educate your own kids. You have to send them to the government school. That's a big circumscribing of one's liberty. Again, gratitude and liberty. Philip, 69, Euricksville, Ohio. Hello, Otto. Are you catching that? I never quite understand why he does that. He hasn't just eaten or drunk anything. That is the world's busiest tongue, I have to say. It's somewhat like a carpet. It's very big. You're good, Otto. You cracked me up. Best wishes to both of you. Thank you. You have given me hope on many occasions, especially overcoming my loathing of liberals. It is the left I loathe. That's good. If I have explained to you liberals are our allies, they just don't know it. Liberals and conservatives have almost identical values. The tragedy is liberals don't know it. Liberals and conservatives share belief in freedom of speech. Liberals and conservatives share a belief in being colorblind. All these issues. The only area of difference between liberal and conservative is size of government. That's big, but it's the only one. Thank you. You're welcome. There was chatter on social media that President Trump would start a new political party. Would that excite Otto? Nothing excites Otto, just for the record. As his opinion could make a world of difference, then my apologies to you. To say that Otto does not have opinions on most major issues is to understate the case. In any event, I do, and Otto has designated me as his spokesman. So let me say, I think the idea of another party is suicidal for the people who understand the threat to the country that comes from the left. The greatest threat to America is the left. Not liberals, but the left. I hate saying it. I wish it weren't true. I mean, look at what is happening in our schools, how they just indoctrinate and they tell untruths like America was founded in 1619. So whatever enables us to overcome that threat is a healthy thing. And another party will just divide those of us who understand this threat. There is no joy in me in saying this. I wish I could say, oh, we're all Americans and our differences are much less than our similarities. It's just not true. And I don't engage in wishful thinking. Marco, Frankfurt, Germany, 55. Dear Mr. Prager, do you see the big conflict between your stated goal, small government, and your proposed actions like making the state laws against nonviolent behaviors like swearing on the radio, walking naked, or selling any narcotic to the consenting adults? I fully agree that left is both evil and without wisdom. But what about the right? If you are not willing to give up the state power even for the things correctable by the long-term parent-to-children education, how can you ever hope to achieve small government? Isn't this flawed thinking exactly the reason why the American experiment failed so miserably? Best regards from Marco. Well, it hasn't failed yet, but it is on the ropes. I will acknowledge that. It is in great danger. So here's a very fair question. I want limited government. America was founded on limited government. So he gives, Marco, you give three examples of where the government, if you, Dennis, want limited government, why are you allowing swearing on radio? That is correct. I am a radio broadcaster, three hours a day on American radio, and I am not allowed to use seven words. That is correct. The government could fine my station a great deal of money if I use one of them. So he said, well, you want small government, why do you allow government to fine radio? All right. One, two, walk naked. The city of San Francisco had this. They voted a couple of years ago on whether or not to maintain a ban on public nudity. And it won by one vote, the idea that we could still ban public nudity. And I support banning public nudity, that I do. And the third is narcotics. So the question arises, does limited government mean essentially no government or only government with regard to violent activity? So we all agree the government has to prevent or prosecute murder and rape and kidnapping and bank robbery, right? We all agree on that. That's a given. But what about nonviolent crimes like walking around naked? I don't believe that the founders of the United States, the lovers of liberty that they were, would think that the purpose of liberty is to enable people to walk naked. I think they would have said, look, we need to use common sense. There's a quality of life that we want to maintain. So for example, does the government have any role in protecting children? Do you want your children to see men's penises as they walk down Main Street in San Francisco? You've got to admit, it's a legitimate question. The government should be completely neutral. If you wish to have your genitalia on public display, hey, that's fine. We're a free country. There does seem a level of absurdity in some of this that is self-evident to me, that there are just basic minima to a quality of life. Now, by the way, I don't think government should ban private nudity. The clamp down on strip joints, I have not understood constitutionally. If people want to pay to see people who are naked behind closed doors, that is their business. I have not understood the prosecution of that. But public is not the same as private. As regards my radio, we get a license to broadcast. There is the assumption that we will do certain things, given that we are in the public wavelength, that we will do or not do certain things, again, just like public nudity. That if I could say the F-word on my radio show, then again, there are people, and I'm one of them. Again, by the way, I draw the same distinction between public cursing and private cursing. What you want to say privately is your business, but if you have a microphone, as I do, I should not be able to say any word that I want. This, to me, does not mean that in some way I have forsaken my belief in small government. The third one, narcotics, I'm completely torn. I don't know the answer. Nobody knows the answer. All I know is what is legalized increases. Where do you draw the line? Will you supply people with meth, cocaine, heroin? And if there's a new designer drug tomorrow, will the government supply it as well? Every street drug will be duplicated at a government narcotics store? I mean, you would have to do that, ultimately, if you really do believe in non-regulation of narcotics. I don't have the answer. I don't believe anybody has the answer. When we legalized marijuana, we just got a lot more people on marijuana, and the marijuana is a lot stronger than it was when the heyday of marijuana began in the 1960s. One of the things that I have made peace with, not every question has an answer. And let us experiment. Oregon wants to legalize meth? Let's see what happens. I'm okay with that. Do we legalize euthanasia? My view on euthanasia is if a person is in an un-atable, un-preventable pain, and unless you've had horrible physical pain, you don't know what I'm talking about. You know intellectually, but you don't know viscerally. And we have no painkillers that can help this person, and they have a terminal illness which is the cause of their horrific pain. I think the doctor should do what is necessary to allow that pain to end, which means allow this person to die. But I can't make it legal. What I would do is not prosecute that doctor. But society cannot go on record saying, we can now kill people who want to die. How do you know they want to die, and a relative who wanted their life insurance didn't coerce them to say they want to die? How do you know that? How do you know that the person said, I want to die in a fit of depression, and may be thrilled later that they weren't killed? Again though, not every question has a perfect answer. I get so many great questions here. But it is better for you to want me to talk more than want me to talk less. Or as I say at speeches and have for decades, my tradition is that the speaker leaves before the audience does. So my view is better that I get quiet before you turn this off. Does that make sense? That's a good attitude. Anyway, be easy. It is a wonderful goal in life. I'm Dennis Prager. This is Otto. You saw Snoopy. And I'll see you next week. Please consider making a tax-deductible donation.