Latest / 775 Alive / Ep023: Trump vs. World

Transcript

Ep023: Trump vs. World · 775 Alive

• 0:03
  [Music] Crystal [voiceover] Welcome to the 775 Alive podcast, your rural Nevada headquarters for decoding politics, economics, and general global shenanigans. I'm Crystal Newton, your business strategist, breaking down why Nevada's hustle is stronger than a sagebrush root in a windstorm. Here with my trusty co-host, Scott Gavorsky, PhD historian, here to explain the smart lessons of history, even if we are likely to ignore them. Grab your boots for a wild ride through today's most important news. [music ends] Scott: Hey, welcome back to 775 Alive. Once again, Crystal and I are on opposite sides of the state. She's down in Las Vegas still finishing up some business, but we wanted to get something in here on probably what's the biggest news item here the last week, which is of course President Trump's speech before the UN General Assembly.
• 0:46
  Crystal: Yeah, he covered two big topics immigration and climate change primarily. And it's been an interesting two weeks coming off the Charlie Kirk Memorial and this pivot that the nation is making in this point of self-reflection to watch that followed up by Trump making a fairly good speech.
• 1:03
  Scott: Very unTrumpian speech.
• 1:11
  Crystal: Yeah. Yeah. Um . . .
• 1:19
  escalator. Yeah. It was and he did a riff in there about how the UN rejected his bid to to redo the United Nations and how the the bidder did a bad job. Of course, but no, it was very, very strong, firm language and I thought it was an interesting series of events to go from the nation having this point of reflection after the Charlie Kirk assassination and following with a strong message on what the United States is about and what we're not about and calling the rest of the world to join us if they like the example that we've set in the world and kind of setting ourselves in this
• 1:54
  this new pathway where we're fighting a conglomeration of enemies and so . . Scott: Well and I heard something a little different because I think particularly where he did that that wonderful summary and again it was a very . . . it wasn't his usual sort of rambling sort of speeches, although some people tried to spin it that way, but it was actually a fairly . . . not unmoderated because he does call out a lot of countries over the course of this, but it was a speech that had a very clear direction and this wonderful summary. I would argue part of what Trump was was actually arguing is a renewed faith in the possibility of the UN just not how it had been structured right and how it's been operating towards this particular point which I thought does a good job of connecting a bunch of issues coming together with the US's role within the international community.
• 2:38
  this new pathway where we're fighting a conglomeration of enemies and so . . Scott: Crystal: Yeah.
• 2:44
  this new pathway where we're fighting a conglomeration of enemies and so . . Scott: I share Trump's want for this organization to be a good one and your's as well, but I'm looking at an 80-year lifespan on the United Nations organization, and I'm I'm really trying to find what it is they actually do. It did sound a little bit more like a USAID operation, and it looks like the United States has been the primary contributor. So, it does kind of get back to that DOGE line of questioning. Are we just handing over taxpayer money to be handed out again and again and again until it finally reaches where it needs to go? And I'm really struggling to see where the United Nations is making an an efficient contribution to the problems of
• 3:22
  the world. What's your take on that? Scott: Well, yeah, I think that's one of the things we can we do a little bit of a discussion here real quick just on the history of the United Nations because you brought up the 80-year lifespan. I'm not really sure we're at the end of it, but there is there is something to that. So the United Nations, of course, arises in 1945 right as the Second World War is winding down. But it was designed to solve an issue that had emerged with the earlier post-Great War or World War I League of Nations. Woodrol Wilson, the American president, had proposed in 1919 of having sort of this international body that could step in and stop wars. But what he promises as part of the Paris Peace Conference is that the US would provide basically a neutral military force because the US at this point is still trying to separate itself from Europe. A neutral military force that can step in and stop wars before they start. Now Wilson's failure is nobody back home was going to support this, particularly not a Republican-dominated Congress, which he had. And the Senate refuses to ratify the treaty that would allow the US to join the League of Nations. So the League of Nations over the '20s and '30s for all of its promises sort of fails utterly and by the early '30s when Japan invades China, India--or Italy invades Ethiopia, it just falls apart. So the UN emerges as this sort of effort to basically do the League of Nations right by creating sort of this international network to do stuff. And one of the things that happens--and I do think they were a success is launching a lot of international cooperation on stuff. Treaties that would, for instance, prevent various countries from carving up Antarctica. Some of the outer space treaties where nobody could claim the moon for instance. Geophysical Year of 1957. Most notably big international projects like the World Health Organization ending the smallpox, eradicating smallpox
• 5:18
  in the '60s and 1970s, right? So it's done a lot of good stuff over the years. Crystal: And basically, basic you know problems that cross country borders and I'm thinking about our modern issues the ones that Trump brought up before the United Nations that would be appropriate for them to address is immigration and climate change because it's no one country right it's it's everybody in climate change and immigration. So, I think they're attempting to go down that pathway of what they've been built for. I'm not entirely sure how effective they've been, especially. I don't know if you want to dump, jump into immigration, but . . . Scott: Yeah.
• 5:57
  in the '60s and 1970s, right? So it's done a lot of good stuff over the years. Crystal: let's let's take those two issues, right? And starting with immigration because Trump said a lot of interesting stuff in that speech about international migration in particular, right? Particularly this idea that these countries were effectively destroying themselves by letting these, these migrants in in large numbers, right? And it was really undermining their own countries.
• 6:20
  in the '60s and 1970s, right? So it's done a lot of good stuff over the years. Crystal: Crystal: Yeah. And to put a fine point on that, he did mention in the European countries, the the average population in their jails is over 50% illegal immigrants. So I that's that's something to consider. It's not just bluster. It's not any kind of racism or we're actually looking at numbers. You know, 50% of your jails are these immigrants. That's a problem. The communities and societies aren't absorbing them at, in, in the right in the right way.
• 6:46
  in the '60s and 1970s, right? So it's done a lot of good stuff over the years. Crystal: Scott: Right. And you know, this is again not a new problem, right? This has been debated going all the way back at least until you know, 2001, 9/11. There was a . . . there was a whole string of this assimilation battles going on across Europe. These countries that have seen large levels of legal migration, places like Sweden and the Netherlands, are having problems. You know, assassinations um that seem to be sort of religiously driven among these immigrant communities. You had Denmark that tries to ban back in the early 2000s they tried to ban foreign imams or foreign priests from practicing or foreign-trained priests from practicing within Denmark. It's obviously aimed at, at Muslim preachers that are coming in, although their official response is they were worried about American televangelists, which is really a weird dynamic. But yeah this is, this is a real issue and you know Trump started this and that's why a lot of people have sort of taken this speech to that, that he started about him closing the borders, right. We've closed the borders. We've had no illegal immigration which is probably a bit of an understatement. There's undoubtedly some in the last four months. But his point really wasn't just about what he's done for the US. It was part of a of a broader dynamic.
• 8:03
  in the '60s and 1970s, right? So it's done a lot of good stuff over the years. Crystal: Crystal: Yeah. And I, and I not racist ideology. There's really fundamental structural problems to overrunning a country with immigration. And it's especially important with European countries because they have broader and deeper social nets and those are paid into by the people there and they can only afford so many new add-ons to the social net. So you you have a structural problem that could actually lead to the collapse of the country in that one space. But then you also want to move over to the legal aspect. We're we're largely defined by our laws. And if you start to get communities and populations that start to change their law towards a different value system, like Sharia law, you actually see the fundamental actual collapse of the country, you know. So this is I don't want to see brown people in my neighborhood. This is a real threat to the future of the country.
• 9:02
  Scott: Right. And I think that's something we're starting to see grappled with for a lot of European countries in particular. Certainly, it's hard to watch what's going on right now in the UK with some of these rising tensions. People haven't paid attention to it, but this has been a severe issue in France and Germany for years. Something, you know, I saw quite a bit when I was over there. Just these sort of everyday tensions that are now starting to, to magnify in a way. But you talk about the social safety nets and the fact that you know the these countries' taxpayers are paying into it. But to get this back to the United Nations speech, the UN has also been contributing a bunch into this. Didn't you look up some stats here about the UN?
• 9:39
  Scott: Crystal: I did. And this this is the one that really got me hopping mad at the United Nations. So in 2024, they allocated $372 million to help illegal immigrants making their way into the United States. Now, the United States contributes $500 million a year to United States. So, essentially . . .
• 10:01
  Scott: Scott: Or to the United Nations.
• 10:06
  Crystal: Sorry, United Nations. So essentially, we sent $500 million of taxpayer money to United Nations and they redistributed to illegal immigrants that we're now paying money to try to get out.
• 10:19
  Scott: Right. And this is, this, well, and this . . .
• 10:19
  Scott: Crystal: What does this body do?
• 10:26
  Scott: actually a very interesting issue because a lot of those policies are initially set up to deal with migrants, refugees coming out of war zones, coming out of disaster areas and what have you. That's what the UN's supposed to be dealing with. The question has been is how many of these, these migrants are actually coming because of those issues as opposed to coming for greater economic opportunities and then they're getting provided all this money from the United Nations that's in large part being supplied by the United States.
• 10:52
  Scott: Crystal: Yeah. And, and fundamentally the United Nations their, their jurisdiction, it's--and that's a loose term--their jurisdiction is really on those things that wants to benefit the the global community. And I'm wondering what facts, what, what theory is the United Nations following when they decide to fund a mass migration across the planet? Because you'd think from a sociological standpoint, it'd be easy to see that this is not good for anybody. It's not good for the immigrant, and it's not good for the receiving country, and it's not good for the country that's losing their people. So, I'm wondering what justification they're using to say this is the thing we spend money on. we're going to help
• 11:38
  migrants move to different countries. What do you think their thinking is? Scott: Well, I think there's a tension right now, and again, this gets back to the idea that, you know, like I've been saying, the UN's one of these institutions that's now decades old and probably is not functioning the way it should. The world has sort of shifted out from under it. But its original purpose was in the era where nation-states were seen as the primary international actors. So you have, you know, the United States, you have France, you have the United Kingdom, you have Germany, you have Saudi Arabia, so on and so forth. I think one of the things certainly that a lot of people on the, on the right political parties, regardless of which country they're in, have argued for years is the UN is sort of the initial stage towards a one-world government. So if you were cynical in some ways you should see this as or the UN's thinking is that migration helps break down those nation state barriers and helps create that one world right. Now if we don't want to be as cynical, right, I think part of the thinking is that there's populations desperately in need and it's the obligation, the UN would argue, for the individual nation-states to step up, right? And the fact that it's not quite working, well, that's just a hurdle that has to be overcome. It's a hurdle that has to be worked at. The question is right now is I think we're in the middle, right? We have a lot of people that are saying, "No, we, you know, we've got, we've got nation-states that have these social safety nets that were set up and one understanding of which population they're supposed to serve that are now being used for other populations." And at the same time you have other people that, you know, the arguments for open borders, the arguments that nation-states no longer serve a purpose, that in fact are antithetical to a just world.
• 13:18
  migrants move to different countries. What do you think their thinking is? Scott: Crystal: Yeah. I in theory I love the idea that, you know, people from a disadvantaged area could move to a better place and have a better opportunity, but as everyone keeps saying, it really should be through legal means. And the idea that United Nations is helping people illegally immigrate seems pretty nefarious to me.
• 13:44
  migrants move to different countries. What do you think their thinking is? Scott: Scott: Right. Right. And I think, and years, particularly in Africa, the so-called brain drain issue, right? Where you have these programs where, you know, medical students come over from African countries, get a, you know, become doctors in Europe or the United States, and instead of going back to help their countries, they stay here because the economic opportunities are better, right? Which leaves Africa with not only no doctors but with a very truncated sort of professional middle class that when the UN was set up was seen as sort of the nor . . . or necessary for sort of national stability. Right. So you get in the question these UN programs or this migration is actually undermining what it was actually supposed to be solving. Crystal: Yeah.
• 14:33
  migrants move to different countries. What do you think their thinking is? Scott: in with the, with getting back to this UN issue and this international stuff where nation-states might not actually work right so if you take immigration as sort of breaking apart these nation-states, is of, course, the climate change issue and Trump had a lot to say about climate change.
• 14:47
  migrants move to different countries. What do you think their thinking is? Scott: Crystal: It's a scam Scott, it's a scam Scott: Right. And and you know talking about renewables being, you know, not working and . . .
• 14:56
  migrants move to different countries. What do you think their thinking is? Scott: Crystal: Yeah. There's a lot places nations, but he did I think one thing that really struck me about the climate change component of his speech was there was a very poignant fact that he pointed out to Europe. He said, "Look, Europe, you bent over backwards to go green. You've lost a lot of jobs. You've lost a lot of productivity. You've lost a lot of capacity on your grid system. And what you have to show for that is a 37% drop in emissions. Good job. Congratulations. In the meantime, the global export and production has gone up 56%." So, he's really just asking them to look look what what this is a huge price. We're all paying for this, but the biggest the biggest emitters and the biggest climate change perpetrators are not on board. So, why, why are we doing this? Why are we shooting ourselves in the foot and bending over backwards when it's really not going to make a difference in the end? And I like that because it it really does point out that it's like unless we're all on the same page, it's not I don't know what we're doing here.
• 15:57
  migrants move to different countries. What do you think their thinking is? Scott: Scott: Well, and, and just to break down on that a little bit more, because it was interesting, because his exact point is we're not all paying for it.
• 16:08
  Crystal: Yeah.
• 16:08
  Crystal: Scott: Right. The whole thing is set up that Western countries and again he points to Europe are doing an excellent job, as is the US. I mean the US has done a phenomenal job since 2005 reducing emissions. But the argument is they need to do more. But at the same time, the emissions are going up in places like China. And he has that wonderful run where he calls out the the, calls out China. It's like they're selling windmills, they're selling all these renewables, but they're not using them themselves. They're using coal. They're using nuclear. They're using gas. And you know, this is this is a real question. If this is really a global situation, why aren't these other sources being cracked down on? It's to the point now I think a lot of people agree that you know western countries, developed countries, have, are probably close to hitting a wall what they're going to be able to reduce in terms of emissions without fundamentally tearing apart their societies. And that was part of Trump's, uh Trump's warning. You know we're we're doing all we can and it's not working because everybody else, all these other countries are being exempted from this.
• 17:08
  Crystal: Crystal: Yeah. And it's really problematic when you think about China selling all the green energy products and becoming tremendously wealthy off the sale of it. Not only are they not using it themselves, which is kind of that's a bad indication, but we, we're spending all of our treasure in the Western Hemisphere on these products. That's eventually it's depleting our treasure, but also reducing our grid system and increasing the expenses for our citizens. Energy is your number one economic unit. You know, if your energy prices are low, the rest of the economy has a good chance of surviving. But I mean, we spent all this money on this inefficient technology and I mean, what do we have to show for it? So, I like that Trump was making that plea and and making the economic argument, but also the human argument.
• 17:53
  Crystal: Scott: Yeah. And I think that is something that caught a lot of resonance. And, of course, he also calls out, not only calls out China for being you know using coal and these other things, but also calls out or points out that Germany under its new administration has basically backed away from a lot of these renewables. It spun back up coal production. It spun back up natural gas production. The European Union President Leyden was just talking about this a couple days afterwards that Europe is really looking at increasing its gas export from the United States and other countries in part because it's caught in this weird situation of buying their natural gas resources from Russia. So Europe's actually helping fund the Ukrainian conflict at the same time they're funding the Ukrainians to fight back against the Russians.
• 18:41
  Crystal: Crystal: Right. Yeah. Yeah, you really do have to take a look at where we spend our money. And that was the thing that really upset me the most throughout the Biden administration was shutting down our domestic energy supply which forced us to buy from aggressive countries like Russia and it funds conflicts and it's just it's horrifying and it's it's one of the biggest I would like to call it an oversight by the Biden administration. I fear it's much worse. I just we spent so many billions of dollars buying their their resources and it made them so rich. So I'm glad he . . . Trump keeps calling it out.
• 19:15
  Crystal: Scott: Well, yeah. And you know, we might have a slightly different take on on that, but this does get back to your original question. What has the UN done? Again, the whole purpose of the League of Nations and the, and the, and the UN was not initially to fund these charitable activities. It was to prevent conflict. Yeah.
• 19:37
  Crystal: Scott: And that's one of the things that's always sort of amazed me is that the only place the UN has largely been successful and, one could have an argument whether it was because of the UN, is preventing a European war which is of course the goal in 1945. But you know conflicts, global conflicts have been rampant since 1945 and the UN has proved itself remarkably unable to step in unless the US aligns its policies with the UN, right?
• 20:00
  Crystal: Crystal: Yeah.
• 20:06
  Crystal: the Korean War. We could point to the situation in, in, as Yugoslavia fragmented in the 1990s, the conflict with Slobodan Milošević. But you know now we have a conflict on European soil. So the UN's even failing at that.
• 20:18
  Crystal: Crystal: I did have a thought. It's a we, we in the West we tend to think that a diplomatic solution is what everybody would want. That's common sense and it's rational. But I think we have a tendency to forget that nations that don't come from the western values background. I you know it would be hard for them to have someone, an international body, knock on their door and say do what we say and live like we live. And I think a lot of times we overlook that cultural difference and it's kind of, it's kind of culturally, like an affront to other parts of the . . .
• 20:56
  Crystal: I think that's why the United Nations has a hard time managing conflicts around the world because we have this western idea that diplomacy is great and we can all talk things out before it becomes a conflict. It's not necessarily in alignment with the majority of countries around the world. And I know they do participate in the United Nations but at the end of the day they have to go home to their own culture and answer to their own societies and I think United Nations fails to really take that into account when they try to do things in the world.
• 21:21
  Crystal: Scott: Yeah, I'm going to disagree with that somewhat. I don't, I don't think it's it's that these countries don't want to engage in diplomacy. I think the fundamental problem is that the UN is seen as predominantly a western European-dominated institution. So you know as we go through decolonization in the, in the ' 50s and 60s, the UN seem to make sense because now these newly independent countries could have a seat at the table. But by the time we get into the 70s and particularly the 80s and down to today with the rise of what's sometimes called neo-colonialism where a lot of these foreign colonies or former colonies now find themselves as independent nations economically dependent on western countries. And increasingly should we point out China with its belt, Road and Belt initiative.
• 22:07
  Crystal: Crystal: Yes.
• 22:13
  Crystal: the UN seems to be supporting right and the result has been, I think, that there's an impression that the UN has largely become an anti-western agency. Not because these countries don't want to engage diplomatically but they need a counterweight to what they see as western economic influence.
• 22:30
  Crystal: Crystal: Yeah. And a lot of that will come down . . . . It what's interesting to me is usually when you're the primary donor to an organization that buys you influence within that body. And it seems to me the exact opposite has happened here where United States is of the major donor to this body, but the body absolutely resents us. And it's the most interesting thing I've ever seen. And I'm not quite sure how that came to be other than to think there's a whole conglomerate of actors working behind the scenes. But I've never quite seen that where someone's the primary funder,
• 23:03
  but then they, they get a total FU from Scott: Well, yeah. I actually think it might be a little bit more common than we're willing to admit. But in the UN, this is an interesting thing. Stepping away from Trump's speech to the General Assembly for a moment. You know, the next day, Marco Rubio has that very heated interview with George Stephanopoulos on ABC's Good Morning where the issue of USAID has come up. Of course this agency that gets dismantled as part of the, you know, probably the one unambiguous victory of the DOGE team, right? And what's interesting about the debate is, you know, there's this, there's this email or memo that was going around saying it's a . . . it's going to cost $6.4 4 billion dollars to dismantle USAID. That's money that can't be spent on foreign aid. But the response has really been Rubio actually pushes back on that very, very strongly with outlining why USAID--which is one of the primary US government components that's participating in some of these UN practices, right, this globalized initiatives-- and why it needed to disappear and what they're, and I thought this was an important point, what the US is planning to replace it with. So let's listen to this clip, a little short two minutes as US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and George Stephanopoulos are going back and forth. [Begin clip] Rubio: This is not about cutting aid. We're going to do it.
• 24:36
  but then they, they get a total FU from Scott: a fact.
• 24:36
  but then they, they get a total FU from Scott: Rubio: No, we didn't shut it down. We moved Well, a couple things. We shut down aid because it was a dysfunctional organization. We moved it under the State Department. Number two, we are going to do more foreign aid than any country in the world. We're going to do more than anyone in the world again this year. But we're going to do it the right way. We're going to do it holistically. We're going to do it as part of an integrated foreign policy. We are not going to fund an NGO industrial complex that built itself up that was taking a substantial percentage of the money and not going directly to the recipients. It was going to these organizations that had multi-billion dollar projects and budgets. We're not going to continue to do it that way. We are going to provide aid. We're providing aid now. We just rolled out our new initiative on health. It's going to be much more successful and much more effective. We're going to enter into direct contacts with the countries. We're going to empower our embassies and our ambassadors to direct which projects we fund and and how much money countries are going to be receiving. We're going to and so we are restructuring the way we do aid. It's going to be far more effective and it's going to be integrated into our holistic foreign policy.
• 25:33
  but then they, they get a total FU from Scott: Stephanopoulos: That's all in the future. But are you standing by that comment? You're saying that no one . . .
• 25:37
  but then they, they get a total FU from Scott: Rubio: No, it's happening now. No one has died because of the aid cuts.
• 25:41
  but then they, they get a total FU from Scott: Stephanopoulos: Are all those aid organizations lying?
• 25:46
  but then they, they get a total FU from Scott: well, first of all, well, then they died because England didn't give enough money or Canada didn't give more or China did. Let's blame the other countries that don't do any foreign aid. How about China? I mean, China's second largest economy in the world. They don't give money to these.
• 25:57
  Stephanopoulos: So you're no longer disputing the aid cuts cost people's lives. You're no longer disputing that.
• 25:57
  Stephanopoulos: Rubio: It didn't.
• 26:02
  Stephanopoulos: I think anybody who tells you that somehow it's the United States if we cut a dollar, somehow we're responsible for some horrific thing that's going on in the world is is just not true. [End clip]
• 26:13
  Scott: Okay, so we've got this, we've got this heated discussion where you know Stephanopoulos and you know trying to get to the gotcha question which now passes for journalistic depth, right, has anybody died because the US cuts funding? And I think Rubio says two things that struck out to me as part of this clip that directly sort of relates to this UN discussion. First of all, if cutting one American dollar sort of means these programs are falling apart, can we really say they're international programs, right? Wasn't the whole goal for other countries to be stepping up and potentially filling these gaps? The way it sounds, the way it's been treated is the US seems to be the the one that should be funding everything, right? And the second thing that he said getting into looking at what the the Trump administration is trying to do, I thought was very interesting because he talks about making these aid compacts directly with countries and leveraging the US embassies in these countries to identify where US funds can be best spent, right? As opposed to giving them to an NGO or something associated with the UN where the money seems to be disappearing. What's interesting about that is taking all that together, what seems to be the argument is the Trump administration seems to be saying that US foreign aid is probably better delivered under 100% under US control than going through these international bodies where we're losing track of where the money's going and not sure it's getting there.
• 27:38
  Scott: Crystal: Yeah. And that was what I was trying to make. That was my point in the opening of this episode was it just seems like it's mostly US funded and we hand this money off to this organization and then they divvy it up and hand it off to another organization who divies it up and hand and it's like you know by the time it hits the ground it's only 10- 15% of the original funds. So it's like why not just do this directly. That was exactly my thought.
• 28:01
  Scott: Scott: And that allows it to be tied directly to US foreign policy which I think is the other dimension here that actually doesn't come out too much in Trump's speech, right? That you know the US has interests that might not align with the UN but that certainly seems to be an undercurrent to Rubio's reaction here to this question.
• 28:19
  Scott: Crystal: Uh, Rubio, remind me. He was suggesting that the USAID funds get moved under the Defense Department?
• 28:32
  Scott: No, State Department.
• 28:32
  Scott: Crystal: The State Department. to bypass all these organizations, that's a perfect place to distribute it directly from, Right. And it . . . I mean part of, part of why they were doing this if we remember we talked a little bit one of our earliest episodes was actually on DOGE and talking about this a little bit that there seems to be a lot of disagreement with what USAID was spending money on and the interest of not just the Trump administration but who knows what the connection was between, you know, the executive government and what this bureaucratic body was doing ,right? It seemed to be very loose. But moving that over . . . under the State Department seems to be aimed not only car, or not only could having greater oversight over where those funds are being spent but also tying it explicitly to US foreign policy goals, right? That we're not going to continue just to have this money disappearing on who knows what projects that might not align at all with US interests.
• 29:29
  Scott: Crystal: Yeah. And if you think about it's going to be people that are in war zones and famines and genocides. And really, you want the people distributing that aid to have some military intel and some strategy to be able to get it to them. One of the things we've seen in Gaza, and it's puzzled me to no end, Israel has sent enough food aid into Gaza for every man, woman, and child to have 3,000 calories per day. And none of that is getting to the people. So I'm puzzled because people are so angry at Israel, but it's really in Gaza where that food distribution or that that food being put in is being taken by enemies and used for themselves and resold to keep funding their their mission. And it's . . . to me that's an example of the UN and how they do things. It's so sloppy that it's almost counterproductive because if you drop a big, big thing of food aid into a place where you know Gaza operatives are, of course they're going to take it and they're going to use it to keep funding their operation. It doesn't make any sense. But if I were to watch the State Department try to distribute food in Gaza, they're definitely going to have some military intel on how to get it to the people. And it it makes the best chance for it actually getting to where it needs to go.
• 30:47
  Scott: Well, and that, and that raises one of the, one of the problems getting back to that original purpose of the UN, right? I mean, it was recognized that one of the goals of the UN was to have and why the US was important was to have this military force that could step in and open up these areas to accept raids, right? Accept aid, right? Where they could go in and stop fighting, stop against the gangs. But that's now treated as something that the that the US and the UN shouldn't be doing, right? Certainly there's no appetite in the US at all to go into some place like Gaza to make sure the aid gets through. But the question you get is, you know, if this aid's just being stolen and used by Hamas or Rubio actually talks about Haiti and these other areas, you know, what what sense does it make to keep sending the aid in? It's not reaching the people who need it and it's just helping fuel the people who are stopping the aid from coming in. So what are we actually doing here?
• 31:37
  Scott: Crystal: Bit of a catch-22 there. Israel is in a bit of a catch-22 there because if they they obviously recognize the food's being confiscated, but if they stop sending it in, they're going to look like look really terrible, right? But getting back to that question of what does the UN do and and what is it for? Israel is another example of a place where the UN should probably be a lot more involved because this is an international conflict and it's a very long conflict and it stems from the beginning of the UN. I watched Benjamin Netanyahu's address to the United Nations and I watched Trump's, of course, and every seat was filled in the United Nations when Trump spoke, but when Netanyahu spoke it was 20% maybe and 80% of the seats were empty. And so I asked myself again, what does this body really do? Because you'd think this is one of the most important things, one of the most important topics on their plate they need to address. and everyone's gone. So, it it really does make me wonder like what is your point? I mean, why weren't you there? Why aren't you trying to understand this conflict?
• 32:50
  Scott: Well, actually, they were there. I mean, the the what happened is they got up when not in a very public display of an insult to Netanyahu. They stood up and walked out before he was able to start a speech, right. And that's that's one of the issues when you have the United Nations that feels justified in treating a country like a pariah, right? But not willing to seem to do
• 33:15
  anything to actually resolve the issues. Crystal: Right. Scott: Right. The UN has been remarkably, you know, it's passed resolutions and stuff and of course it's been controversial for years. The US blocks a lot of these resolutions. But it still seems to treat Israel as the real problem in the region, not these non-state actors. Which I would argue is actually one of the real problems with the UN.
• 33:39
  anything to actually resolve the issues. Crystal: And one of the areas where it needs to be reformed because when set up in 40s . . . in 1945,
• 33:44
  there's really nothing like a non-state actor on the international scene, right? Crystal: Yeah.
• 33:44
  there's really nothing like a non-state actor on the international scene, right? Crystal: Scott: In the same way that Hamas or or ISIS or these other groups are nowadays. And that's one thing the UN has really struggled with handling. And, and you know that's not a knock at the UN. It's just it's an example of an issue that the UN's going to have to change its approach. But trying to sort of force countries to recognize these non-state actors is probably not the best approach to that.
• 34:11
  Crystal: No. And I just . . . again I think the beginning of the story of the United Nations really starts with post-World War II and the establishment of Israel is kind of central to that storyline. So it makes me wonder why they're not in the room.
• 34:24
  Crystal: Scott: [laughter] Well, and that's a good question. But more importantly, I think sort of bringing us back to Trump's speech. The thing that really got me was the end, right? The last four minutes or so. Because it actually was a beautifully crafted, in my view, a beautifully crafted sort of series that basically outlined the original goal of the UN which was to have nation-states that are proud and secure in their culture and their heritage coming together collectively to address issues, right? In some ways it was almost a callback trying to remind the UN of what they needed to do right as well as summarizing some of his points. You . . . do you mind if we go ahead and play this because it is a wonderful thing.
• 35:05
  Crystal: Crystal: Yeah.
• 35:11
  Crystal: [Begin clip] Trump: And let us safeguard our sovereignty and cherish qualities incredible, and extraordinary. In closing, I just want to repeat that immigration and the high cost of so-called green renewable energy is destroying a large part of the free world and a large part of our planet. Countries that cherish freedom are fading fast because of their policies on these two subjects. You need strong borders and traditional energy sources if you are going to be great again. Whether you have come from north or south, east or west, near or far, every leader in this beautiful hall today represents a rich culture, a noble history, and a proud heritage that makes each nation majestic and unique unlike anything else in human history or any other place on the face of the earth. From London to Lima, from Rome to Athens, from Paris to Seoul, from Cairo to Tokyo and Amsterdam to right here in New York City, we stand on the shoulders of the leaders and legends, generals and giants, heroes and titans who won and built our beloved nations. All of our nations with their own courage, strength, spirit, and skill. Our ancestors climbed to mountains, conquered oceans, crossed deserts, and tked over wide open plains. They charged into thunderous battles, plunged into grave dangers. And they were soldiers and farmers and workers and warriors and explorers and patriots. They built towns into cities, tribes into kingdoms, ideas into industries, and small islands into mighty empires. You're a part of all of that. They were champions for their people who never gave up and who never ever gave in. Their values defined our national identities. Their visions forged our magnificent destiny. Everybody in this room is a part of it in your own way. Each of us inherits the deeds and the myths, the triumphs, the legacies of our own heroes and founders who so bravely showed us the way. Our ancestors gave everything for homelands that they defended with pride, with sweat, with blood, with life, and with death. Now the righteous task of protecting the nations that they built belongs to each and every one of us. So together, let us uphold our sacred duty to our people and to our citizens. Let us protect their borders, ensure their safety, preserve their cultures, treasure and traditions, and fight fight for their precious dreams and their cherished freedoms. and in friendship and really a beautiful vision. Let us all work together to build a bright, beautiful planet. A planet that we all share, a planet of peace and a world that is richer, better, and more beautiful than ever before. That can happen. It will happen. It will happen. And I hope it can happen and start right now, right at this moment. We'll turn it around. We're going to make our countries better, safer, more beautiful. We're going to take care of our people. Thank you very much. It's been an honor. God bless the nations of the world. Thank you very much. Bye.
• 38:47
  Scott: So, there you have it.
• 38:47
  Scott: Crystal: Yeah. Um, one thing I really, I do I really like that he not only made the flowery speech that we're all united on this one planet and we want to make things better and that that whole thing that I what I really like though is he really platformed and underlined that speech with reminding people that the things we have built today have been bought by the blood, sweat, and tears of hundreds of generations of our ancestors. And it's not, it's not an easy task that we have. We have to maintain what has been built, but also we have to watch people that are trying to tear it down. But I love that he reminded people that the world we have today was bought by very high price.
• 39:33
  Scott: Well, not only bought by very high price, but bought by different groups paying high prices. That was the thing he got to me was when he was talking about each one of our countries has uh these heroes that have shaped it. And in some ways I thought the more I listen to it, the more I see a counterpoint to Barack Obama, one of his speeches to the UN General Assembly where he denied American exceptionalism. Oh, America is not an exceptional country. We're not unique. Uh, which, you know, caught a lot of people. There were a lot of cheers because now the US is getting rid of its vanity. The other side is saying, well, you know, you're just we're just saying the US has nothing unique to offer the world, which is not true. But Trump sort of turns that around and says, look, yes, we're unique. were exceptional, but so are you. And you, we should be celebrating that difference, right? Oddly, this is a remarkably pro- diversity [laughter] sort of speech , right?
• 40:26
  Scott: were so many layers to that speech. I felt like it it was one of the best speeches yet delivered and the timing is perfectly timed. It's just one of those things where it lined up exactly how it was supposed to line up. So, if you haven't watched it, I I recommend going watching it. It is an hour, but it it is worth listening to.
• 40:40
  Scott: Scott: Yeah, like I said, it was a very unTrumpian speech, and there's, there's a lot that I think we're going to be unpacking here over the coming years. But in some ways, I didn't see it as a speech that argued the UN wasn't necessary. Quite the opposite, right? That it needs to be restructured to recognize . . .
• 41:02
  Crystal: And to people who don't really follow global politics what's happened the last 20-40 years has been China has been going around and telling everybody about the great future and the great promise of China's belt and road initiative and we've really lacked that on the United States side. So it was really nice to see our our, our main speaker, our president, go out and make an equally strong call to the to the planet. Hey, we offer something, too. And we really haven't said that in a while. And I think because China is definitely selling their program and saying, hey, we're more involved than the United States. We're moving the world into a better place. We're going to leave the United States behind. And meanwhile, we're twiddling, like twiddling our thumbs. So, I'm like I'm glad he went up and said the things he said.
• 41:49
  Crystal: it's going to it's, it's I think it's a much more monumental shift than is being seen in the moment. But if you have thoughts about this Trump speech or something we said please by all means go ahead and shoot us an email at info@775alive.com. I just want to give a quick shout out to . . . of course this podcast is born video but we also do an audio version and Buzzprout, one of our audio platforms, just informed us we had 250 downloads. Thank you.
• 42:16
  Crystal: So we'll keep, we'll keep that up so you can, you know, even if you don't have time to watch us, you're driving down the road like so many of us do in rural Nevada, you can listen to us on audio as well. Until then, I'm Scott Gavorsky.
• 42:25
  Crystal: Crystal: And I'm Crystal Newton.
• 42:42
  Crystal: [Music]