I set up an international consortium based in London. I can't tell you all the details yet, but we're we're we're trying to put together something like an alternative vision of the future, say, an alternative to that kind of apocalyptic narrative that's being put forward, at least implicitly, by organizations like the WEF, you know, and that's the Virginal Planet rapacious tyrant, you know, all devouring consumer religion.
And it's more like something like well, we want to ask people six key questions. How do we get energy and resources at the lowest possible cost as rapidly as possible to the largest number of people around the world? That's one question. And so there's a presumption in the question and here's one of the presumptions. You don't get to save the planet by making energy prices so expensive that no one poor can afford them. That's off the table. So if you want to develop alternative energy sources, no problem because, hey, man, the more energy sources we have, the better. But you don't get to impose your utopian vision in the service of your narcissism on the poor. We're going to try to make the poor rich. Can I try to alleviate absolute poverty?
Pro human view on environmental stewardship front- that's the next question. What are the major problems that are confronting us? How do we take a sophisticated multidimensional view of that? How do we prioritize our attempts to establish our states and our international relationships properly so that we prioritize human well being in harmony with nature to the degree that's possible, but human focused and not predicated on the idea that there are too many goddamn mouse on the planet to feed and that you're evil if you just think about having children. So then on the governance front, this is where it gets kind of more left wing, I would say is none of the people involved in this consortium so far are very thrilled with global corporate fascist government media and corporation collusion. And we're seeing this at the high end. It's like a Tower of Babel is that the powerful players in the world are increasingly collaborating to impose a top down vision of the future on everyone. And that's a future that's predicated on a zero growth model. And the idea that, well, we'd need five planets really to support everyone at the current standard of living that obtains in the west. So the best pathway forward is to deny loans by the World Bank to developing countries so they can't develop energy sources, which all that will mean is they're going to burn wood and coal, obviously.
So that's the third question is how do we arrange systems of governance to stop the march of something like Pathological? Gigantism. This is why I like people like Russell Brand and also you to some degree politically because you guys are very what would you say, sensitive to the danger of that kind of corrupt collusion, that regulatory capture that occurs. When corporate entities and media entities and governmental entities are all in bed together like the FDA and the CDC and so forth and so on, without end. So that's the third question.
The fourth question is what do we put forward as a vision on the family policy front to facilitate the what would you call it? The encouragement and the maintenance of long term monogamous couples who are child centered and to make increasing the birth rate part of that policy, to put policies in place that would support long term, stable, monogamous families, two parent families and child centered. Because in the west, because we're very immature, we think that the purpose of a marriage is the happiness of the people who are involved in the marriage, the husband and the wife. And that's just not the purpose of marriage at all. The purpose is long term facilitation of their psychological and spiritual development and the establishment of an environment that's beneficial to children.
That's a responsible way of thinking about it. And so we need to have a serious conversation about what that means. It's tricky because I think the ideal has to be long term, committed, monogamous, heterosexual relationships. And I had a big conversation about this with Dave Rubin, ruben's gay, and he's married, and him and his partner now have two infants. And we talked through how that was. It's a very hard thing for them to arrange, obviously. Why? Well, they're both male. That poses a severe problem on the reproductive front, right? And so they manage that, and they have two infants. But it's very complex, and it's obviously not a solution to the problem of relationship and reproduction that's duplicatable across long, large numbers of people just takes too many resources.
Now, I do think we have to have an ideal at the center of every concept. But the ideal can't be too rigid because people aren't perfect. In my own family, there's lots of people who are divorced, lots of people in lots of people's families, there are people who are gay, there are lots of people in unhappy marriages. Nobody attains the ideal. The ideal has to be surrounded by a fringe of tolerance. But that doesn't mean you sacrifice the ideal. And the ideal has to be well, we know there's a literature on fatherlessness. It's bloody catastrophe. Fatherlessness. For obvious reasons, human children are complicated. You think you can maybe if you struggle madly as a single parent, you could do a decent job, and lots of single parents do. But you're asking a lot for a woman to work 50 hours a week and then spend another 40 hours with her kids and to do both of those optimally with no help. And we know perfectly well that when women get divorced, especially if they have kids, they tend to fall down the economic hierarchy. So it's very difficult. So that's another one of the policies, then another question. We're trying to make these into questions rather than we have the answer.
The other question is, well, it's pretty clear that we have to live inside a story. And one story is power rules everything. That's not a very good story. It's a very pathological story. It's more like a confession, too, if that's the story you insist upon. So you think power governs everything, do you? Okay, I know what you're like. So that's what you truly believe. See, I believe the spirit of voluntary play governs everything, not the spirit of power. It's like voluntary association. That's what we're doing in this conversation. We're playing towards an end, and we're doing it voluntarily, and we're taking everybody along for the ride. No one's forced to do it. So that's the other thing. No compulsion here. It's got to be invitational.
So we're trying to work out what the story has to be. And on that front, I just finished a seminar in Miami, and the first eight parts of it were released on The Daily Wire three months ago. Exodus seminar. We walked through the story of Exodus. Exodus means ex, Hodos means the way forward. So it's the archetypal narrative of progression from tyranny and chaos into the future. That's what the story is. And we did half of it, released it on The Daily Wire, eight episodes, 2 hours long. And we just recorded the last eight sessions two weeks ago. And that was an absolute blast. I had really stellar people participating. Man, I learned so much. I learned so much. It's going to take me, like, two years to digest it, but The Daily Wire is going to release it all on YouTube for free starting in two months, one episode a week for 16 weeks. And then we're going to keep it on YouTube and The Daily Wire for free for four months. And it lays out a vision of appropriate governance that's an alternative to tyranny and to chaos.
So in the Exodus story, so this is very germane to the notion of what might constitute a proper story. So the question that you put forward in your life is something like, what spirit should guide you as you move ahead? And you might say, well, I don't need a spirit to guide me. It's like, yeah, you don't have that option. Some spirit guides you might be your stomach might be you might be a worshiper of the god Priapus, right? He's the god of giant erections. That's what happens if your whole identity is staked on your sexuality. It's like some spirit is going to guide you. That's life. The question is, what is the highest spirit that could guide you? So in the Exodus story, the proposition of the story is the highest spirit that could guide you is the spirit that objects to tyranny and that calls the enslaved to freedom. And that's the representation of God in Exodus. So that's what God is in the Exodus story. Now, that's not all that god is in the biblical stories, but that's God in the Exodus story. And so that is the God that if you abide by that God, then you believe that tyranny is implicitly wrong, even if you tyrannize yourself. And that there's something implicitly virtuous about striving for freedom, especially if you're enslaved.
So anyways, that's the voice that speaks to Moses and the voice tells Moses to tell the Pharaoh, the tyrant, to let his people go. That's that famous line, let my people go. But the line is actually let my people go so that they may worship me in the desert. Okay? So anyways, God, through Moses, calls the Israelites out of tyranny and he punishes the tyrant. And so if you believe that fate punishes tyrants, you're already immersed in the Exodus story to some degree. If you believe that tyranny is implicitly wrong, of course most Americans believe that. Okay, so now the Israelites leave the tyranny. You'd think, hey, man, great freedom, because now you're out of the tyranny. But that isn't how life works. This is why people won't drop their tyrannical presuppositions, because you go out of the tyranny into the desert, not to the Promised Land. Desert first. And what's the desert? Everyone's lost. No one knows which way to go. Everyone fights, everyone turns to the worship of false idols. Everyone wants the tyrant to reassert himself. That's the situation we're in in the aftermath of the death of God in the west.
So that's really useful to know because one of the things you might want to know in your life is why do people cling to their own tyrannical presuppositions? And the answer is, well, at least they're orienting structures, pathological as they might be. If you drop them, you're not redeemed, you're just lost. And the idea that being lost is freedom, that's preposterous idea, no one lost is free. They're just enveloped in chaos. Okay, so what happens in the Exodus story is now the Israelites are out in the desert wandering around for like generations, and they get all fractious and fight and bitch and complain and start worshipping false idols and they're scrapping with each other. And that's because they have the habits of slaves. They don't know how to govern themselves. And so they ask Moses to sit as a judge, and so he does. For story is very unclear about this, but for a long time, years and years, morning, dawn, till midnight, he's judging the Israelites like mad and adjudicating their squabbles. And imagine what he's doing. If you had to make peace between 1000 people who were squabbling with their wife or their friends or their enemies, you have to render judgment on that. And for judgment to work, the people who are judged have to see the judgment as just, because otherwise you have to impose it by force. Right? So if I hear you arguing with someone and I try to mediate, I have to come up with a solution that you'll both accept.
That means I have to extract out of that chaos some principle of order. Imagine you do that thousand times or 5000 times. So now you start to understand the nature of the principles of order. Okay? So now two things happen. Jethro, who's Moses father in law, comes along. He's a Midianite. A foreigner. And he says, you got to stop doing this. You can't sit as judge on the Israelites. There are two reasons they need the responsibility and you shouldn't turn yourself into another Pharaoh. So if you take all the responsibility onto yourself, you become a tyrant and the Israelites stay slaves. So he says to Jethro, this is a signal moment in the development of Western culture, by the way, he says, you take the Israelites, you divide them into groups of ten and you have each of the ten elect an elder. And then you take the groups of elders and you have them elect a meta elder. And you do that all the way up to 10,000. And then you have the judgments that are necessary rendered at the lowest level of the hierarchy possible. So if I'm arguing with you, first we go to our elder, and then if the elder can't figure it out, he gets the elders together and maybe they render judgment. If they can't, it goes to the council of Elder elders and all the way up. And if it isn't mediated by the time you have the groupings of 10,000, then Moses gets to weigh in. And that's called subsidiarity.
And the idea is you have to produce a hierarchy of responsibility, distributed responsibility as an antithesis to tyranny and to the desert. And that's the model for good governance. And that's symbolically equivalent to Mount Sinai. And it's also the model of the Ark of the Covenant and the Tabernacle. So Jonathan Pazo did a lovely job of explaining that. Part of the model that we're trying to put forward in this group that I'm describing is based on this principle of subsidiarity and the idea that we want to encourage everyone to take as much responsibility as possible at the most local level possible, right? So take responsibility for yourself until you're good enough at that. So you can take responsibility maybe for a wife, and then if you're good enough at that, maybe you can extend that to some kids. And then maybe you can serve your local community and then maybe you can serve your state. And maybe if you really get good at it, you could serve your nation, right? But you're taking the responsibility. And here's the basic rule. All the responsibility you abdicate will be taken up by tyrants. That's the cardinal rule of social organization. And so we're trying to build out this story that's based on the deepest elements of Western tradition. That's an antidote to the false claim that it's only power that rules, because it's not, that's not right.
And there is a model of proper governance in there. This idea of a hierarchical structure of responsibility. It's the proper computational structure. It's not top down tyranny with fractionated individuals and it's not utter chaos. It's ordered freedom. That's what God tells Moses to tell the Pharaoh when he says let my people go. Let my people go. No tyranny so that they may celebrate me in the desert. It's ordered freedom and it's the ordered freedom that comes along with being oriented towards the highest possible good. And so we're trying to work all that out now. We're going to have a conference in London, october 31, November 1 and November 2. We're going to bring about 2000 people together. That's an invited list.
We want to bring in people who are cultural figures and political figures, business figures and invite them to this discussion. But we want to make that completely public and we want to open up the organization to broad membership as broad as possible. And then if it's a success, then we'll open up the conferences as the years progress to larger and larger numbers of people. But we don't have the expertise or the wherewithal to manage that first off. But we've got the venue already set up in London. I've got all sorts of people on board in Australia and all through Europe and through the UK and all through the United States, South America. All sorts of people are interested in participating. And so we want to help put forward a vision that's enticing and inviting.
It's like imagine you could have the world you wanted. None of this malthusian limits to growth nonsense. We get our act together. Everyone can have enough and maybe more than enough. There'll be enough educational opportunity for everyone. No one will be scrabbling away in the dirt, burning dung, poisoning themselves, enough food for everyone.
