Latest / Yaron Brook Show / Financiers Acquitted; Iran; Peace Nobel; Skilled Immigration; SpaceX; Cancer | Yaron Brook Show

Transcript

Financiers Acquitted; Iran; Peace Nobel; Skilled Immigration; SpaceX; Cancer | Yaron Brook Show · Yaron Brook Show

• 0:02
  Speaker 1: The Radical. Fundamental Principles of Freedom. Rational Self-Interest. And Individual Rights.
• 0:14
  Speaker 1: This is the Yaron Brook Show. Alright everybody, welcome to
• 0:21
  Speaker 1: Yaron Brook Show on this Friday, October 9th. Hope everybody's
• 0:26
  Speaker 1: having a great time. We're actually going to start today's
• 0:31
  Speaker 1: show with a story you probably are not hearing elsewhere,
• 0:34
  Speaker 1: you're probably not covering, and certainly you will not get
• 0:37
  Speaker 1: covered in the depth that we will cover it here
• 0:41
  Speaker 1: on the Iran Book Show. Lately, I'm starting with more
• 0:44
  Speaker 1: in-depth stories. Let me know if you like that, and
• 0:48
  Speaker 1: then doing more quickly going over some of the more
• 0:52
  Speaker 1: newsy stuff. But today, we're definitely going to cover that. So,
• 0:58
  Speaker 1: you know, this morning, A man, financier, sat in, former financier,
• 1:05
  Speaker 1: sat in Switzerland and watched a London court say he
• 1:08
  Speaker 1: was never a criminal. He couldn't be in the room
• 1:12
  Speaker 1: because Britain wouldn't give him a visa because the conviction
• 1:16
  Speaker 1: that no longer exists, right? He was a criminal from
• 1:19
  Speaker 1: England's perspective. 18 of 19 LIBOR traders have now been
• 1:25
  Speaker 1: cleared and the people who actually rigged the rate, uh,
• 1:31
  Speaker 1: sitting in the Bank of England. After that, we'll cover
• 1:36
  Speaker 1: the Pentagon's three-day plan to restart the Iran war. We'll
• 1:41
  Speaker 1: talk about the three carriers on the way that are
• 1:43
  Speaker 1: going to be in the Mediterranean and the pause the
• 1:48
  Speaker 1: president has let the Iranians have. We'll talk about the
• 1:51
  Speaker 1: Nobel Peace Prize. Let me puke for a minute. We'll
• 1:56
  Speaker 1: talk about that. The Vice President of the United States, J.D. Vance,
• 2:04
  Speaker 1: suspends Microsoft from the green card system because, you know,
• 2:09
  Speaker 1: they only care about illegal immigrants. No, legal, they were
• 2:11
  Speaker 1: always for legal immigration, just illegals they don't like. And
• 2:15
  Speaker 1: we'll talk about the bigger fight over Asians, particularly Indians.
• 2:23
  Speaker 1: And then finally, SpaceX spends $ 8 billion to become Your
• 2:28
  Speaker 1: data provider and AT & T and Verizon and T-Mobile,
• 2:35
  Speaker 1: their shareholders are panicking, panicking as they should. All right.
• 2:43
  Speaker 1: I mean, let's start with the story about financiers. This is,
• 2:47
  Speaker 1: I know, the geeky story, but that's what you tune
• 2:51
  Speaker 1: in for the Iran book show, right? Bond Vigilantes. And
• 2:55
  Speaker 1: LIBOR traders, that is an important part of what we
• 3:02
  Speaker 1: do here. As you know, I believe finance to be
• 3:05
  Speaker 1: an incredibly productive endeavor, a crucial endeavor for a free society,
• 3:12
  Speaker 1: and crucial for capitalism. So, yeah, today, a former financier
• 3:19
  Speaker 1: by the name of Christian Bitarba, watched by video link
• 3:22
  Speaker 1: from Switzerland, where he lives, as he was acquitted by
• 3:27
  Speaker 1: a British court from a crime that he had actually
• 3:32
  Speaker 1: pleaded guilty of in 2018. The crime at the time
• 3:38
  Speaker 1: was rigging the URIBOR. URIBOR is the equivalent of LIBOR.
• 3:46
  Speaker 1: We'll get to what LIBOR is in a minute. It's
• 3:49
  Speaker 1: an interest rate or a measure of interest rate. When
• 3:56
  Speaker 1: he had pleaded guilty, he was sentenced to five years
• 4:00
  Speaker 1: and four months. He served 23 months. His life was destroyed.
• 4:08
  Speaker 1: His wife is quoted as saying that the family lost
• 4:11
  Speaker 1: 15 years. Because remember, they've been fighting this in court
• 4:15
  Speaker 1: since the early 20-teens. So, if you look at this case,
• 4:30
  Speaker 1: and we're going to look at it more clearly or
• 4:33
  Speaker 1: more in depth, 19 traitors were convicted across nine trials
• 4:40
  Speaker 1: in both London and New York. 18 of them are
• 4:44
  Speaker 1: now cleared. Five Barclays traitors Wednesday, Tom Hayes, who got
• 4:53
  Speaker 1: 14 years, 14 years in prison, a term we usually
• 4:56
  Speaker 1: reserve for, I don't know, armed burglary. Does that get
• 5:01
  Speaker 1: 14 years? Probably not. I mean, a second-degree murder gets
• 5:06
  Speaker 1: 14 years maybe in Europe. That's probably first-degree murder. And
• 5:13
  Speaker 1: a guy named Palumbo was cleared by the Supreme Court
• 5:18
  Speaker 1: last summer. Every U.S. conviction, every one of the convictions
• 5:21
  Speaker 1: in the U.S. were overturned in 2022. There's one man
• 5:26
  Speaker 1: still convicted, Peter Johnson, who was the original whistleblower who
• 5:30
  Speaker 1: cut a deal, but he is already appealing as well.
• 5:35
  Speaker 1: The prosecutors, in response to the court basically throwing out
• 5:39
  Speaker 1: their entire case yesterday and basically over the last, since
• 5:45
  Speaker 1: 2022 to today, over the last four years, The whole
• 5:47
  Speaker 1: case has been thrown out. Prosecutors this morning said, we
• 5:51
  Speaker 1: argued for a different outcome. Respect the court's decision. Destroyed
• 5:57
  Speaker 1: the lives of 19 people. Destroyed them financially. Took time
• 6:03
  Speaker 1: away from them. Put them in jail. And, you know,
• 6:09
  Speaker 1: these are men that did not see their kids grow up.
• 6:11
  Speaker 1: These are men that have been consumed by legal battles.
• 6:15
  Speaker 1: These are men who were all incredibly successful at what
• 6:18
  Speaker 1: they did in the world of finance, and they were
• 6:21
  Speaker 1: ripped away from that world, and probably will never return.
• 6:27
  Speaker 1: And yet, and yet, nobody cares. Nobody's mourning them. Nobody is,
• 6:37
  Speaker 1: I mean, there's no demonstrations, there's no There's no articles,
• 6:42
  Speaker 1: big articles in the newspapers for what went wrong with
• 6:45
  Speaker 1: our system of justice, that this has happened. Because the
• 6:48
  Speaker 1: reality is, as we'll talk about, this happens all the time.
• 6:52
  Speaker 1: It's just financiers. Who cares? So let's talk a little
• 6:57
  Speaker 1: bit about what actually happened. LIBOR. LIBOR is a kind
• 7:03
  Speaker 1: of measure of interest, which was used for many, many,
• 7:09
  Speaker 1: for decades, I think, many, many years, As a benchmark
• 7:12
  Speaker 1: for a lot of mortgages, a lot of loans, different
• 7:16
  Speaker 1: types of loans, auto loans, maybe even corporate loans, it
• 7:22
  Speaker 1: was used on trillions of dollars of debt in the
• 7:26
  Speaker 1: economy as the benchmark. And what did it represent? It
• 7:31
  Speaker 1: wasn't really a price. It wasn't an actual interest rate.
• 7:35
  Speaker 1: It was a survey. Every morning, a panel of banks...
• 7:41
  Speaker 1: would basically answer a question. At what rate could you borrow?
• 7:46
  Speaker 1: Not at what rate did you borrow, but at what
• 7:49
  Speaker 1: rate could you borrow if you went into the market today?
• 7:54
  Speaker 1: And they would get this information from a bunch of banks.
• 7:58
  Speaker 1: Then they would trim the top number and the bottom number,
• 8:01
  Speaker 1: and they would average the rest. And that average would
• 8:05
  Speaker 1: be published as LIBOR. LIBOR was the interest rate on
• 8:10
  Speaker 1: dollar-denominated loans, and what was it, Euribo? Euribo was the
• 8:17
  Speaker 1: interest rate for euro-denominated loans. Now, the reality is, the
• 8:26
  Speaker 1: honest answer to at what rate can you borrow is
• 8:29
  Speaker 1: a range. I mean, it could be 4.5, it could
• 8:32
  Speaker 1: be 4.51, 4.52, etc., I mean, again, it's an estimate.
• 8:37
  Speaker 1: It's not an actual borrowing rate. But, you know, the
• 8:40
  Speaker 1: bank is thinking, yeah, if I went out to the
• 8:42
  Speaker 1: market right now and I tried to borrow money, I'd
• 8:45
  Speaker 1: probably borrow it at 4.51, 4.52, somewhere between 4.5 and 4.3,
• 8:51
  Speaker 1: something like 4.53, something like that. Now, what is the
• 8:57
  Speaker 1: crime that they were charged with these traders? Now, I
• 8:59
  Speaker 1: know this is technical. I apologize. I know some of
• 9:02
  Speaker 1: you This is, you don't care. But this is important
• 9:07
  Speaker 1: because financial, the injustice towards financiers is something that I
• 9:11
  Speaker 1: have documented extensively throughout my career. I've written a book
• 9:15
  Speaker 1: about it, written essays about it. And I will publish
• 9:19
  Speaker 1: this as an essay on my sub stack probably later today.
• 9:24
  Speaker 1: This is one of the great injustices that goes back 2,000 years.
• 9:30
  Speaker 1: So here's the charge. A trader with a position, right?
• 9:35
  Speaker 1: So I've got a portfolio. It moves a little bit
• 9:39
  Speaker 1: with LIBOR. It's connected to LIBOR. Maybe I've got a
• 9:41
  Speaker 1: derivatives portfolio that's somehow linked to LIBOR. And, you know,
• 9:46
  Speaker 1: I send out a note to the bankers when I'm
• 9:48
  Speaker 1: asking them for what their rate is. And I say,
• 9:51
  Speaker 1: a high three month would help me today, which basically
• 9:57
  Speaker 1: says in the range of what you could borrow right
• 10:00
  Speaker 1: now on a three month loan give me the high
• 10:02
  Speaker 1: number and then the submitter would pick the top of
• 10:06
  Speaker 1: the range instead of the middle and would send it
• 10:12
  Speaker 1: off you know this would be a deviation of something
• 10:16
  Speaker 1: like one basis point you know what one basis point
• 10:18
  Speaker 1: is it's a hundredth of 1%. It's instead of 4.51,
• 10:24
  Speaker 1: it's 4.52. Sometimes it's even half of a basis point,
• 10:29
  Speaker 1: one half of a hundredth of a percentage point. And again,
• 10:34
  Speaker 1: when publishing LIBOR, they drop the top number, they drop
• 10:38
  Speaker 1: the bottom number. This is what these guys did, these
• 10:42
  Speaker 1: traders who aggregated this number and published the LIBOR. And
• 10:46
  Speaker 1: then they would average the rest. So in terms of
• 10:49
  Speaker 1: actual impact out there, almost none. And it's not false.
• 10:58
  Speaker 1: The bank could borrow at 4.52. It might borrow at 4.51.
• 11:03
  Speaker 1: If the subminister said 4.52, it's still true. But the
• 11:07
  Speaker 1: prosecution's theory is it became a lie because the trader
• 11:12
  Speaker 1: wanted it. because the trader might make a profit if
• 11:17
  Speaker 1: it came out a little higher. So the very fact
• 11:21
  Speaker 1: that there was a profit motive involved, the very fact
• 11:24
  Speaker 1: that there was, quote, a conflict of interest, made a
• 11:29
  Speaker 1: statement that was actually true, dishonest, and a crime, and
• 11:33
  Speaker 1: a fraud. Now, every single submission in history came from
• 11:41
  Speaker 1: a commercial enterprise that with positions on his books. This
• 11:44
  Speaker 1: is what they do. They're traitors. I mean, taken seriously,
• 11:50
  Speaker 1: the theory would make every submission ever a potential fraud
• 11:54
  Speaker 1: because there's always conflict of interest. Now notice, in this crime,
• 12:05
  Speaker 1: they published a false libel which cost people. No victim
• 12:11
  Speaker 1: was ever identified. Not a single one. Not one counterparty
• 12:15
  Speaker 1: testified that half a base point in a survey average
• 12:20
  Speaker 1: cost them $ 1. Nothing. They got nobody. Instead, who was
• 12:26
  Speaker 1: the victim? Mortgage holders. The public. I guess society. That's
• 12:33
  Speaker 1: exactly the kind of victim you invoke when you don't
• 12:37
  Speaker 1: really have one. But think about the kind of real
• 12:50
  Speaker 1: rigging that went on. Now, notice, why were these people going?
• 12:54
  Speaker 1: Why did they go after this? Why did they go
• 12:57
  Speaker 1: after these traders? I mean, this is a practice that
• 12:59
  Speaker 1: had been going on probably for 20 years or more.
• 13:02
  Speaker 1: Why did they suddenly go after these guys in the
• 13:05
  Speaker 1: early 20 teens? Because they needed a scapegoat. Everybody, everybody
• 13:14
  Speaker 1: was out for blood. The financial crisis had just happened.
• 13:18
  Speaker 1: Everybody blamed the banks for it. They wanted heads to roll.
• 13:23
  Speaker 1: They wanted bankers to pay the price. They needed somebody
• 13:27
  Speaker 1: they could blame the financial crisis on. Now, not a
• 13:30
  Speaker 1: single one of these LIBOR or whatever you want to
• 13:33
  Speaker 1: call it had anything to do with the financial crisis.
• 13:36
  Speaker 1: We'll get to what did in a minute. It doesn't matter.
• 13:41
  Speaker 1: The public, the public, wanted to see some banker blood
• 13:48
  Speaker 1: in the street. They wanted to see the money lenders
• 13:54
  Speaker 1: pay a price. And you heard this in the United
• 14:03
  Speaker 1: States right after the financial crisis constantly. They got a bailout.
• 14:06
  Speaker 1: They should go to jail. All of them should go
• 14:08
  Speaker 1: to jail. They're all crooks. They caused the financial crisis.
• 14:12
  Speaker 1: Those bankers And these poor traders were some of the scapegoats,
• 14:17
  Speaker 1: some of the victims of that push. But the reality is,
• 14:21
  Speaker 1: the reality is, as always, it's not the bankers whose fault.
• 14:26
  Speaker 1: It's the central bankers. I remember I did an Oxford
• 14:29
  Speaker 1: debate right after the financial crisis, maybe 2011. Oxford, Oxford University,
• 14:36
  Speaker 1: and the proposition was the House blames the bankers. The
• 14:40
  Speaker 1: House blames the bankers, right? And I was opposed to
• 14:43
  Speaker 1: the proposition. And everybody was arguing, yes, it's bankers. You know,
• 14:49
  Speaker 1: all the CEOs of the bank should be fired. Some
• 14:51
  Speaker 1: of them should go to jail. They're all crooks. And
• 14:53
  Speaker 1: I said, no, the financial crisis was caused by central bankers,
• 14:59
  Speaker 1: not by private bankers. You're going after... I actually won
• 15:02
  Speaker 1: that debate. It's the only Oxford debate, I think, that
• 15:05
  Speaker 1: at the end, when they count the votes, my side won.
• 15:08
  Speaker 1: And I think I won it. It's four against four.
• 15:11
  Speaker 1: But I think my argument is what won it. And
• 15:13
  Speaker 1: here's the same thing. If you go back to 2008,
• 15:18
  Speaker 1: If a bank actually submitted and said, yeah, to borrow
• 15:24
  Speaker 1: right now, I would have to pay a huge interest.
• 15:28
  Speaker 1: That would be a confession that that bank was in trouble.
• 15:33
  Speaker 1: A high published libel was, yeah, is a sign the
• 15:39
  Speaker 1: system's in trouble. The whole system, the whole banking system
• 15:42
  Speaker 1: is in trouble. Now the whole banking system was in trouble. Indeed,
• 15:46
  Speaker 1: if the bankers were honest, Some of them would have
• 15:49
  Speaker 1: to say, I cannot borrow money today. There's no interest
• 15:55
  Speaker 1: rate in the world that I can pay that would
• 16:01
  Speaker 1: get me a loan. Things are so bad right now
• 16:06
  Speaker 1: that I cannot borrow money right now. That would have been,
• 16:12
  Speaker 1: for some of them, the honest thing to say. But
• 16:16
  Speaker 1: guess who didn't want them to say that? Guess who
• 16:20
  Speaker 1: didn't want the world to know how bad things were? Well,
• 16:32
  Speaker 1: the government. So what happened was the banks low-balled their numbers.
• 16:43
  Speaker 1: Not by a basis point, but by Tens of basis points.
• 16:51
  Speaker 1: And sometimes by infinity because they couldn't borrow. And now
• 16:54
  Speaker 1: they're saying, yeah, I can borrow at four points, whatever.
• 16:57
  Speaker 1: And they did it day after day and they all
• 16:59
  Speaker 1: did it. All the banks did it. Why did they
• 17:01
  Speaker 1: do it? Because that is what the Bank of England,
• 17:08
  Speaker 1: in the case of British banks, that's what the Fed,
• 17:11
  Speaker 1: in the case of American banks, that's what the Treasury wanted.
• 17:14
  Speaker 1: I mean, A guy named Andy Verity, who is a BBC, BBC,
• 17:23
  Speaker 1: not exactly friendly to markets, who's a BBC economics reporter.
• 17:28
  Speaker 1: By the way, is the chat working? You know, if
• 17:31
  Speaker 1: you guys can just chat, just post hi, something. Anyway,
• 17:35
  Speaker 1: Andy Verity is a BBC reporter who wrote a book
• 17:38
  Speaker 1: about this whole phenomena. He actually has recordings of Barclays
• 17:43
  Speaker 1: managers telling submitters the pressure came from The Bank of England.
• 17:52
  Speaker 1: And that pressure originated from the government. It was government policy.
• 17:59
  Speaker 1: Government policy. For the banks to lowball it so people
• 18:03
  Speaker 1: wouldn't panic. So a trader nudging a survey, a hundredth
• 18:08
  Speaker 1: of a percentage point, go to prison. A central bank
• 18:12
  Speaker 1: leaning on the whole system to misstate the health of
• 18:17
  Speaker 1: the banking system by a full point. To protect the
• 18:20
  Speaker 1: government's handling of a crisis? Nada. Nothing. Nothing. Thank you.
• 18:30
  Speaker 1: Chat is working. I appreciate it. You guys were just quiet. Now, this,
• 18:37
  Speaker 1: of course, evidence was all kept from the juries. The
• 18:40
  Speaker 1: juries were not even allowed to judge whether what these
• 18:44
  Speaker 1: people did was fraud or not. That was a judge
• 18:47
  Speaker 1: made that decision. David Davis this week wrote, the traitors were, quote,
• 18:59
  Speaker 1: the victims of a scapegoating exercise which arose as a
• 19:03
  Speaker 1: result of the government's own misbehavior in low-balling libel. Yes. Now,
• 19:10
  Speaker 1: how do you invent this crime? Because it wasn't a crime.
• 19:13
  Speaker 1: There's no statute. How do you turn it into a fraud? Well,
• 19:18
  Speaker 1: in 2015... Mr. Justice Cook, a judge, ruled as a
• 19:25
  Speaker 1: matter of law that any submission influenced by commercial interests
• 19:30
  Speaker 1: was false. So automatically fraudulent. The jury wasn't allowed to
• 19:36
  Speaker 1: decide if it was false. They weren't allowed to decide
• 19:41
  Speaker 1: if it was fraud. The judge ruled that it was.
• 19:44
  Speaker 1: And then eight judges in other cases all copied him.
• 19:50
  Speaker 1: That's why some of these guys pleaded guilty. It was
• 19:53
  Speaker 1: stacked against them. They had no hope. It wasn't a confession.
• 19:58
  Speaker 1: It was a surrender to a rigged system, a rigged rule.
• 20:08
  Speaker 1: And look, the state collected money. One of them lost
• 20:12
  Speaker 1: their home. A 70-year-old was ordered to pay 300,000 pounds.
• 20:18
  Speaker 1: And it goes on and on and on. Now, as
• 20:24
  Speaker 1: I've written many, many times, every generation has its Shylock. Shylock,
• 20:31
  Speaker 1: the famous character from Shakespeare. Almost 20 years ago, you know,
• 20:41
  Speaker 1: I wrote that line when I was talking about Milken.
• 20:45
  Speaker 1: Milken was the Shylock of the 1980s. The mortgage lenders
• 20:50
  Speaker 1: and bankers were the Shylocks of the 2008. These guys,
• 20:56
  Speaker 1: these traders were the Shylocks of the 2010s. The next
• 20:59
  Speaker 1: one is somewhere out there already being chosen. I mean,
• 21:04
  Speaker 1: they're chosen every day because every day Financiers are persecuted,
• 21:08
  Speaker 1: prosecuted for things that should not be crimes. The medieval church,
• 21:16
  Speaker 1: medieval church started all this. I mean, it started before
• 21:19
  Speaker 1: the medieval church, but the medieval church elevated this. If
• 21:27
  Speaker 1: a user's victim could be found, they gave him restitution,
• 21:30
  Speaker 1: but usually a user's victim couldn't be found, so the
• 21:33
  Speaker 1: church would take the restitution itself. for pious purposes. Clerics
• 21:41
  Speaker 1: actually bought licenses to hunt usurers. The Pope laid claim
• 21:46
  Speaker 1: to dead usurers' assets in England. Pogroms very often had
• 21:52
  Speaker 1: a purpose. Destroy the records of the Jewish moneylenders so
• 21:59
  Speaker 1: my debts get wiped clean. The prosecution's With no victims,
• 22:06
  Speaker 1: there are no victims when a loan is given out.
• 22:10
  Speaker 1: But confiscation of property, enforcement, enforcement that only tightens when
• 22:18
  Speaker 1: there's a crisis. Whenever there's a crisis, we need scapegoats.
• 22:23
  Speaker 1: We need somebody to blame. And financiers are always the
• 22:27
  Speaker 1: ones to blame. You know, that was true in 2015
• 22:33
  Speaker 1: when these guys went to court, went to When I
• 22:35
  Speaker 1: got caught in jail, it was 2 and 12.50. I mean,
• 22:41
  Speaker 1: luckily we don't burn the finances like we did the
• 22:45
  Speaker 1: Jewish pawnbrokers. And the same thing happens, right? The church
• 22:52
  Speaker 1: in the Middle Ages would forgive its friends, the Medici's maybe,
• 22:58
  Speaker 1: who financed the popes, but went after the ones who
• 23:03
  Speaker 1: weren't so friendly, the Jews. Bank of England is going
• 23:07
  Speaker 1: to forgive the bankers they want to forgive and go
• 23:09
  Speaker 1: after the bankers they want to go after. I mean,
• 23:14
  Speaker 1: and just now, think about the world now. Six months ago,
• 23:20
  Speaker 1: Tucker Carlson told millions of people who watch his show, millions,
• 23:25
  Speaker 1: to treat, quote, the people who are getting rich from usury, usury,
• 23:30
  Speaker 1: same terms as the Middle Ages, like the criminals they are, and, quote,
• 23:36
  Speaker 1: make them suffer. I mean, the hatred is always there.
• 23:44
  Speaker 1: The hatred of financiers, always there. The hatred of businessmen,
• 23:49
  Speaker 1: always there. The hatred of the profit motive, always there.
• 23:53
  Speaker 1: And then it just needs a crisis to see its
• 23:57
  Speaker 1: manifestation within the legal system, to get the Rudy Giuliani's
• 24:02
  Speaker 1: of the world to go after those evil bankers. And again,
• 24:08
  Speaker 1: it keeps happening because finance has never been defended morally,
• 24:11
  Speaker 1: cannot be perceived as morally. I mean, Keynes wrote that
• 24:15
  Speaker 1: avarice and usury must be, quote, our gods for little
• 24:19
  Speaker 1: longer still because, quote, foul is useful and fair is not.
• 24:24
  Speaker 1: So finance is useful, but foul. That's how everybody perceives finance.
• 24:30
  Speaker 1: We don't want to get rid of it because we
• 24:32
  Speaker 1: need it. But it's not moral. It's not right. It's
• 24:34
  Speaker 1: not just. It's not good because it is self-interested. And
• 24:44
  Speaker 1: when these traitors were prosecuted, did the banks, who they
• 24:49
  Speaker 1: worked for and who knew exactly what they were doing,
• 24:53
  Speaker 1: did they go out there and defend them? Did they
• 24:56
  Speaker 1: stand with them and say these guys did their jobs
• 24:58
  Speaker 1: well and what they did is not a crime? Of
• 25:00
  Speaker 1: course they didn't. Not a single bank did that. But
• 25:06
  Speaker 1: nobody out there, nobody out there except me, right, and
• 25:09
  Speaker 1: maybe a few others, will say it. Finance is not
• 25:14
  Speaker 1: an evil. Indeed, it's the opposite. It's profoundly productive and
• 25:20
  Speaker 1: profoundly moral. A trader projects the future, weighs the risks.
• 25:28
  Speaker 1: moves a price towards truth to reflect reality, information, faster
• 25:36
  Speaker 1: than it would get there otherwise. His profit is a
• 25:41
  Speaker 1: measure of the value his judgment created. His self-interest, the
• 25:47
  Speaker 1: thing prosecutors use as proof of guilt, is the engine,
• 25:53
  Speaker 1: the motivation every honest trade in the world has. in
• 25:57
  Speaker 1: history has had. I mean, every exchange we engage in
• 26:02
  Speaker 1: is we engage in in order to win. Not at
• 26:05
  Speaker 1: somebody else's expense, but to mutually benefit. To say someone's
• 26:12
  Speaker 1: desire to profit makes this true statement a lie. It's
• 26:17
  Speaker 1: to say all commerce is fraud, which the left does
• 26:20
  Speaker 1: all the time. This is socialism 101. And it's what
• 26:25
  Speaker 1: the church believed. And modern prosecutors selectively, when they decide to,
• 26:32
  Speaker 1: use the prosecutor. So Christian Bittar and the other traitors,
• 26:44
  Speaker 1: these were men who were persecuted for their virtues. Now,
• 26:53
  Speaker 1: the court system worked in the end. And all of
• 26:57
  Speaker 1: them have been cleared. That's something Shylock never got. It's
• 27:04
  Speaker 1: something Milken never got. He got a pardon, but that's
• 27:07
  Speaker 1: not really a clearing in determining you're innocent. So the
• 27:15
  Speaker 1: court system worked, and we should be relieved about that.
• 27:17
  Speaker 1: But it takes a long time. In this case, 11 years.
• 27:23
  Speaker 1: It takes a long time. Courts are slow. The process
• 27:26
  Speaker 1: is slow. I'm reassured. The process still works in England
• 27:31
  Speaker 1: and here. U.S. courts, British courts, British Supreme Court, they
• 27:36
  Speaker 1: all got this right in the end. But the only
• 27:42
  Speaker 1: way to prevent this from happening over and over and
• 27:43
  Speaker 1: over and over again is we need to defend Shylock.
• 27:51
  Speaker 1: We need to defend him morally. We need to stand
• 27:54
  Speaker 1: up for him. And, um, I don't know how many
• 28:03
  Speaker 1: people are willing to do that, right? You can join me, but, uh,
• 28:08
  Speaker 1: it's tricky out there. It's tricky. All right. Um, that
• 28:13
  Speaker 1: is our lead story today. Uh, the financiers being acquitted.
• 28:17
  Speaker 1: I'll remind you to keep asking questions. I see a
• 28:19
  Speaker 1: nice flow, a nice stream of questions. Uh, and, uh, let's,
• 28:24
  Speaker 1: let's try to get to our targets today. All right. Uh,
• 28:29
  Speaker 1: Let's see, let's turn now to, we could title this
• 28:35
  Speaker 1: Credibility Day 3. According to the New York Times, the
• 28:40
  Speaker 1: Pentagon has drawn up a three-day strike plan. Missiles, drones,
• 28:45
  Speaker 1: and energy sites, you know, so they know what they
• 28:48
  Speaker 1: want to attack, energy sites, IRGC command, missile stockpiles, and
• 28:53
  Speaker 1: drone stockpiles. So missile sites, drone sites, energy sites, IRGC command.
• 29:01
  Speaker 1: Vance reviewed the plan at Camp David last Friday. Vance,
• 29:06
  Speaker 1: you know, our expert in military operations. He knows what
• 29:09
  Speaker 1: he's doing. This is the, according to the New Times
• 29:13
  Speaker 1: at least, the sixth set of major combat plans put
• 29:18
  Speaker 1: to Trump in recent months. He's rejected the previous five. And,
• 29:26
  Speaker 1: you know, we'll see what happens. Now, we do know
• 29:30
  Speaker 1: that a third aircraft carrier with its group is heading
• 29:34
  Speaker 1: to the Middle East, which would, if they're all there together,
• 29:37
  Speaker 1: that would be the first time since 2003. There was
• 29:40
  Speaker 1: almost a case where we had three carriers earlier in
• 29:42
  Speaker 1: the war, but you remember the Ford turned around, it
• 29:45
  Speaker 1: had a fire in the laundry and landed up turning
• 29:47
  Speaker 1: around and leaving. Three carrier groups in the Middle East. Now,
• 29:51
  Speaker 1: it could be that by the time this one arrives,
• 29:53
  Speaker 1: one of the carrier groups will leave. So it's not
• 29:56
  Speaker 1: clear that there will actually be three carriers. But the
• 29:59
  Speaker 1: assets are in place. If Trump wanted to do a
• 30:04
  Speaker 1: three-day strike plan and go aggressively after the Iranians, he
• 30:08
  Speaker 1: has the assets in place. He has the assets in place.
• 30:18
  Speaker 1: All right. I just need to do some cleanup here.
• 30:20
  Speaker 1: One second. So Tommy is now a Holocaust denier. All right.
• 30:26
  Speaker 1: That puts him in a new category. Let me just
• 30:31
  Speaker 1: get rid of him. All right. We got rid of him.
• 30:40
  Speaker 1: I don't entertain Holocaust deniers on this channel. All right.
• 30:47
  Speaker 1: So we've got the assets in the Middle East. There's
• 30:50
  Speaker 1: a plan. Now what? Well, the same day that this
• 30:55
  Speaker 1: plan was presented to Vance, Trump said there won't be
• 30:59
  Speaker 1: an attack before November 3rd. The talks with Iran are productive.
• 31:07
  Speaker 1: You know, on the other hand, Israeli television, Israeli media
• 31:11
  Speaker 1: is reporting a massive attack within three weeks involving Israel
• 31:14
  Speaker 1: and the United States. Supposedly that was the plan presented
• 31:17
  Speaker 1: to Vance, included the Israelis. Vance would never be supportive
• 31:21
  Speaker 1: of that. And then Trump goes on and talks about
• 31:27
  Speaker 1: Iran would have probably hit places like San Diego, Los
• 31:31
  Speaker 1: Angeles first in attacking the United States because that route
• 31:38
  Speaker 1: is more convenient. Nobody knows what he's talking about. I mean,
• 31:42
  Speaker 1: the good thing is Trump doesn't know what he's talking
• 31:44
  Speaker 1: about either, but there's all this stuff about San Diego,
• 31:47
  Speaker 1: Los Angeles, which people were flipping out, right? Um, Iran
• 31:56
  Speaker 1: does not have intergalactic missiles yet, intergalactic, intercontinental missiles yet.
• 32:04
  Speaker 1: It was developing them, and it probably will continue to
• 32:06
  Speaker 1: develop them, but it doesn't have them yet. So I
• 32:09
  Speaker 1: don't know why Trump is talking about attacking San Diego,
• 32:11
  Speaker 1: Los Angeles. I don't know why is Iran directly attacking
• 32:15
  Speaker 1: the United States. I mean, in the future, yes, but
• 32:18
  Speaker 1: anytime soon. And again, today, the White House reports that
• 32:27
  Speaker 1: the American armed forces are keeping Iran from having a
• 32:30
  Speaker 1: nuclear weapon. How are they doing that exactly? So it's
• 32:38
  Speaker 1: still massive confusion out there. There's still no plan. There's
• 32:42
  Speaker 1: still no, I mean, there's no strategy as far as
• 32:44
  Speaker 1: I can tell. Now, it could be this is all
• 32:47
  Speaker 1: prep for right after the election. Trump is going to
• 32:50
  Speaker 1: go full on. to crush the Iranians. Although he keeps
• 32:54
  Speaker 1: saying that negotiations are going well and a deal is
• 32:57
  Speaker 1: going to happen any day now. In the meantime, the
• 33:01
  Speaker 1: Houthis and the Saudis still going at it. Uh, Houthis
• 33:05
  Speaker 1: are striking, uh, the, uh, Riyadh international airport. The, the,
• 33:10
  Speaker 1: you know, they, they actually hit a plane, a Saudi
• 33:12
  Speaker 1: plane on the ground. Saudis are dead, including one Saudi pilot. Um,
• 33:20
  Speaker 1: You know, Pakistan is offering its military under the Mutual
• 33:23
  Speaker 1: Defense Pact. We'll see if that actually happens. And the
• 33:30
  Speaker 1: Saudi ambassador is claiming Bab al-Mandab is cleansed of Houthis,
• 33:35
  Speaker 1: but there's no details. There's no proof that the Yemeni
• 33:40
  Speaker 1: government has managed to get the Houthis to retreat from
• 33:43
  Speaker 1: the Bab al-Mandab area. what is the Saudis trying to
• 33:48
  Speaker 1: do in Yemen nobody knows I mean they have no
• 33:52
  Speaker 1: strategic clarity any more than Trump has strategic clarity about
• 33:55
  Speaker 1: what he wants to do with Iran none of them
• 33:57
  Speaker 1: know anything about what they're trying to do sad so
• 34:08
  Speaker 1: we've had six war plans five rejected six on the
• 34:12
  Speaker 1: desk not before the election public that doesn't want war.
• 34:22
  Speaker 1: You know, Rubio yesterday in Greece with that beautiful background said,
• 34:28
  Speaker 1: power requires, quote, the credibility that you're willing to use it. Okay,
• 34:34
  Speaker 1: we're waiting. Pentagon keeps drafting credibility and president keeps declining
• 34:39
  Speaker 1: to sign it. And of course, strategically, you know, you
• 34:44
  Speaker 1: have to be willing to win and no winning has
• 34:48
  Speaker 1: been happening. Now we know Iran cannot hit San Diego.
• 34:55
  Speaker 1: I don't understand what the hell Trump is talking about,
• 34:59
  Speaker 1: but again, I don't think he knows what he's talking
• 35:00
  Speaker 1: about either. Um, and if they could hit San Diego,
• 35:06
  Speaker 1: then why did we stop the war in March? Uh,
• 35:13
  Speaker 1: And yeah, so Middle East is a mess and continues
• 35:16
  Speaker 1: to be a mess and nothing is really changing. In
• 35:20
  Speaker 1: the meantime, the Nobel Prize for Peace, you know, one
• 35:24
  Speaker 1: of those incredibly prestigious awards that Obama got for actually
• 35:29
  Speaker 1: doing nothing, literally nothing. He got it for just being elected.
• 35:37
  Speaker 1: Did nothing. And the Nobel Prize committee actually recognized it.
• 35:41
  Speaker 1: He did nothing. But he got it. And you remember,
• 35:46
  Speaker 1: you know who else has gotten the Nobel Prize for Peace?
• 35:49
  Speaker 1: Yasser Arafat. Just as he was launching the second intifada.
• 35:57
  Speaker 1: He got the Nobel Prize for Peace after signing the
• 35:59
  Speaker 1: Oslo Accords together with his Israeli counterpart, Robin Pesach. And
• 36:04
  Speaker 1: then within a few years, launched the Second Intifada, one
• 36:06
  Speaker 1: of the bloodiest episodes in Israeli history. Didn't help the
• 36:10
  Speaker 1: Palestinians much. You know who else got Nobel Peace Prize?
• 36:17
  Speaker 1: Henry Kissinger. Henry Kissinger. You know what he got his
• 36:20
  Speaker 1: Nobel Peace Prize for? I mentioned this. You know, I
• 36:25
  Speaker 1: mentioned this several times. in the past. He got his
• 36:29
  Speaker 1: Nobel Peace Prize for negotiating a peace deal between North
• 36:34
  Speaker 1: and South Vietnam. He got the prize, and then within
• 36:39
  Speaker 1: a few months, North invaded the South and took it
• 36:42
  Speaker 1: over and turned it communist. Famous helicopter, famous photos of
• 36:46
  Speaker 1: the helicopter leaving the American embassy. Yeah, it's one of
• 36:52
  Speaker 1: the most, I mean, I find it the most despicable
• 36:54
  Speaker 1: of all the prizes. Usually, It's given to somebody who
• 36:57
  Speaker 1: doesn't deserve it. And in this case today, it was
• 37:03
  Speaker 1: given to somebody who clearly does not deserve it. It
• 37:07
  Speaker 1: was given to a woman by the name of Navi Pillai.
• 37:10
  Speaker 1: She's 85 from South Africa. She's the UN High Commissioner
• 37:14
  Speaker 1: for Human Rights from 2008 to 2014. Chairman of the
• 37:18
  Speaker 1: UN Human Rights Council Commission. I mean, just as failure
• 37:21
  Speaker 1: with the UN should rule you out of a peace prize.
• 37:25
  Speaker 1: And she was the chair of the UN Human Rights
• 37:28
  Speaker 1: Council when it found a year ago that Israel is
• 37:31
  Speaker 1: committing genocide in Gaza. There were 287 nominees. The committee chair,
• 37:38
  Speaker 1: the prize, you know, doesn't endorse the genocide finding. It doesn't.
• 37:44
  Speaker 1: But then he says, that belongs to ICJ. So, in
• 37:47
  Speaker 1: a sense, he endorsed the genocide finding. Now, here's the
• 37:52
  Speaker 1: UN Watcher's Record on her. UN Watch is an anti-UN,
• 37:57
  Speaker 1: pro-Israeli website that kind of ranks them. She chaired the
• 38:03
  Speaker 1: open-ended Pakistani-sponsored commission from 2021, signed a June 2020 manifesto
• 38:09
  Speaker 1: called for sanctions on apartheid Israel, 2020, before October 7th,
• 38:14
  Speaker 1: wrote to Biden in 2021 calling for Israel to be punished,
• 38:18
  Speaker 1: defended Commissioner Milun Kathari, After his Jewish lobby remark in 2022,
• 38:28
  Speaker 1: Berlin's mayor actually withdrew from a 2022 event honoring her.
• 38:40
  Speaker 1: She's a real hater. A real hater of Israel. Israel's
• 38:45
  Speaker 1: foreign minister compared the committee to Goebbels. Netanyahu, the committee, quote,
• 38:50
  Speaker 1: has lost its moral compass. She has spread blood libels,
• 38:56
  Speaker 1: he said. Pillai on camera joked about sharing the prize
• 39:00
  Speaker 1: with Trump. So, yes, Nobel Prize is given to somebody
• 39:13
  Speaker 1: who believes Israel committed genocide. And it's been calling the
• 39:17
  Speaker 1: Israeli an apartheid Israel and an apartheid state from well
• 39:21
  Speaker 1: before October 23rd. So a real anti-Israeli, call him an anti-Semite.
• 39:28
  Speaker 1: That is who the committee chose to give. the peace prize.
• 39:31
  Speaker 1: I mean, par for the course. The way I see it,
• 39:34
  Speaker 1: that's what the prize is worth. In the meantime, in Britain,
• 39:40
  Speaker 1: the leader of the Greens, Zach Polanski, lost a by-election
• 39:48
  Speaker 1: days after the party voted Zionism as racism. into its
• 39:53
  Speaker 1: official policy. The party, in its official policy document, said
• 40:00
  Speaker 1: it supported a, quote, it supported a one Palestinian state
• 40:08
  Speaker 1: in all of historic Palestine. No Jews allowed, is my guess.
• 40:14
  Speaker 1: Or is the outcome, right? Um, Four or five Green
• 40:22
  Speaker 1: members of Parliament opposed it. Even the Greens found this embarrassing.
• 40:28
  Speaker 1: Asked whether Israel has a right to exist, Polonsky said
• 40:32
  Speaker 1: no state has a right to oppress, so he wouldn't
• 40:34
  Speaker 1: even give a straight answer on it. Jewish Greens leader
• 40:39
  Speaker 1: calls for him to resign. He's staying. Well, if you're
• 40:42
  Speaker 1: a Jewish Greens leader, I think you've got to start
• 40:46
  Speaker 1: having thoughts about your political affiliation. In the meantime, in
• 40:55
  Speaker 1: the United States, Michigan Senate debate. At the Michigan Senate debate,
• 41:01
  Speaker 1: Abdul El-Sayed. I know we have a lot of Michiganians here.
• 41:05
  Speaker 1: Michiganers from Michigan. That's Michiganians. This is going to be
• 41:11
  Speaker 1: your senator. Abdul El-Sayed. He refused to call Iran a
• 41:18
  Speaker 1: bigger threat than Israel. He called it a ridiculous hypothetical.
• 41:24
  Speaker 1: That they're both dangerous in their own way. Really? Israel's
• 41:29
  Speaker 1: killed so many Americans. It has nuclear weapons and it's
• 41:35
  Speaker 1: targeting San Diego and L.A., right? God. He said Israel
• 41:41
  Speaker 1: dragged America into a stupid war and reportedly indicated he'd
• 41:45
  Speaker 1: oppose defensive weapons for Israel if it was attacked. That's
• 41:50
  Speaker 1: who you guys are going to elect senator from the
• 41:54
  Speaker 1: state of Michigan. Abdul El-Sayed. I know it's Michiganders. I'm
• 42:05
  Speaker 1: giving them a hard time. How many times do I
• 42:07
  Speaker 1: have to say this, guys? I know it's Michiganders, but
• 42:12
  Speaker 1: I like Michiganders. It's much better. It's a better term. It's...
• 42:20
  Speaker 1: I think the people from Michigan appreciate my kidding with them.
• 42:26
  Speaker 1: And Rick says, Mike Rogers did poorly in the debate.
• 42:28
  Speaker 1: I'm shocked. I'm shocked that Mike Rogers would do poorly
• 42:32
  Speaker 1: in a debate. What does Mike Rogers stand for? He
• 42:37
  Speaker 1: was in the freedom caucus in the house, but never
• 42:39
  Speaker 1: really stood for freedom. So, yes, I mean, um, What
• 42:51
  Speaker 1: we get is the Nobel Prize Committee endorsing the genocide claim.
• 42:59
  Speaker 1: You know, we get the whole perspective of, I mean,
• 43:05
  Speaker 1: the Nobel Committee said that the reason they were giving
• 43:08
  Speaker 1: it to her was in recognition of international law and
• 43:11
  Speaker 1: the value of international law and international organizations. No, the
• 43:15
  Speaker 1: UN is one of the most immoral institutions ever created
• 43:19
  Speaker 1: by man America and those who value Western civilization, countries
• 43:25
  Speaker 1: who value Western civilization should leave it, should leave it,
• 43:32
  Speaker 1: and New York should kick it out of New York,
• 43:37
  Speaker 1: send it to Caracas. Well, no, Caracas is now a
• 43:41
  Speaker 1: strong ally of the United States. They should send it to,
• 43:44
  Speaker 1: I don't know, Tehran. Tehran seems like a good place
• 43:49
  Speaker 1: to hold UN meetings. All right. You remember when I
• 44:12
  Speaker 1: used to say Republicans are anti-immigration and people on the
• 44:18
  Speaker 1: chat and people, uh, you know, in, um, at events
• 44:22
  Speaker 1: and everybody would say, no, no, no, no, they're just
• 44:25
  Speaker 1: illegal immigrants. Illegal, not immigration, just illegal immigrants. And they
• 44:31
  Speaker 1: would just flip out over how dare I accuse them
• 44:34
  Speaker 1: of being anti-immigration. That is not true. That's absolutely not true.
• 44:41
  Speaker 1: And yet, the Trump administration consistently, consistently, for, you know,
• 44:49
  Speaker 1: since he was elected in the second term, has done
• 44:52
  Speaker 1: what it can to suppress and destroy legal immigration, particularly
• 44:57
  Speaker 1: legal immigration of highly skilled individuals. So yesterday, J.D. Vance
• 45:08
  Speaker 1: and the Labor Secretary basically announced the suspension of eight
• 45:12
  Speaker 1: companies from sponsoring employment-based green cards. These are the permanent
• 45:18
  Speaker 1: labor certification route. Microsoft, Adobe, Cognizant, Infosys, all tech companies, TCS, Wipro, HCL, Capgemini.
• 45:33
  Speaker 1: They cannot apply for any new, and the ones that
• 45:37
  Speaker 1: are pending will not be reviewed. What's the duration? As
• 45:41
  Speaker 1: long as it needs to be, whatever the hell that means.
• 45:44
  Speaker 1: What's the allegation? That they abused H-1Bs and green cards.
• 45:50
  Speaker 1: To replace, replacement theory, replace Americans. Replace Americans. Microsoft supposedly
• 46:01
  Speaker 1: laid off 6,000 U.S. workers last year while getting 6,300
• 46:04
  Speaker 1: H-1Bs and nearly 3,000 green cards. Oh, my God. They
• 46:10
  Speaker 1: hired 9,000 foreigners, foreigners, worse than Michiganians, foreigners, and they
• 46:18
  Speaker 1: laid off 6,000 Americans. The Secretary of Labor said that
• 46:27
  Speaker 1: the eight companies sought almost 3 million foreign workers, got 230,000
• 46:32
  Speaker 1: plus H-1B's approvals, and 100,000, more than 100,000 labor certifications
• 46:37
  Speaker 1: since 2009. They published supposedly token job ads posted to
• 46:44
  Speaker 1: justify the foreign hires. No case files were released, no audits, no,
• 46:50
  Speaker 1: the findings weren't released. These are just numbers that were
• 46:52
  Speaker 1: thrown out there. Remember, the $ 3 million is filings over
• 46:57
  Speaker 1: 17 years, and it's not the number of people they hired.
• 47:01
  Speaker 1: What did Microsoft say about this? It said, look, 80%
• 47:04
  Speaker 1: of last year's H-1B filings were extensions or status changes
• 47:10
  Speaker 1: for existing employees. These are people already working for us.
• 47:15
  Speaker 1: New hire filings equaled 1% of its U.S. workforce. H-1Bs
• 47:23
  Speaker 1: paid the same as comparable Americans. So it's not getting
• 47:27
  Speaker 1: cheaper labor. But this is what they don't want you
• 47:31
  Speaker 1: to know. It's getting better labor. And that would be
• 47:35
  Speaker 1: insulting to Americans, the idea that there might be people
• 47:37
  Speaker 1: out there in the world who are better than them.
• 47:40
  Speaker 1: We also don't know who these 6,000 U.S. employees who
• 47:43
  Speaker 1: were laid off. Are they jobs equivalent to the 6,300
• 47:45
  Speaker 1: H-1Bs or the 3,000 green cards? Or are they completely
• 47:47
  Speaker 1: different I mean, 6,000 janitors were laid off and 6,300
• 47:53
  Speaker 1: engineers were hired. I mean, again, we don't know because
• 47:57
  Speaker 1: nobody wants to tell you. They want just the equivalent.
• 48:00
  Speaker 1: They want you to pretend that it's the same. They
• 48:05
  Speaker 1: want you to blame the firing on the hiring so
• 48:12
  Speaker 1: they can justify their hostility. But this is all made
• 48:18
  Speaker 1: up BS. Now, on the same day, the United States
• 48:26
  Speaker 1: launched a J-1 probe. J-1 is a special visa for
• 48:31
  Speaker 1: students who are getting graduate degrees. You can't stay in
• 48:38
  Speaker 1: the United States and continue working if you're a J-1.
• 48:41
  Speaker 1: You have to go back to your country of origin
• 48:43
  Speaker 1: if you come on a J-1 as compared to an F-1,
• 48:45
  Speaker 1: which can be converted into a work visa ultimately. Anyway,
• 48:49
  Speaker 1: Labor's inspector general subpoenaed nine universities, Harvard, Yale, Stanford, MIT, Caltech, Brown, Pitt,
• 48:55
  Speaker 1: UC Davis, Arizona State. Vance said all these universities overused
• 49:00
  Speaker 1: J-1 exchange visas to undercut, undercut American grad students' wages.
• 49:07
  Speaker 1: So they bought in J-1 students so that they could
• 49:10
  Speaker 1: be teaching assistants cheaper than American grad students. That's just
• 49:18
  Speaker 1: made up, again, BS. The Inspector General will also look
• 49:28
  Speaker 1: at foreign influence and improper financial relationships. in federally funded research.
• 49:34
  Speaker 1: I wonder if they look at the Qatari money. I wonder.
• 49:36
  Speaker 1: You think they'll look at the Qatari money, the money
• 49:38
  Speaker 1: from Qatar? Qatar is the largest funder of American universities
• 49:43
  Speaker 1: outside of the United States government. Will they look at
• 49:46
  Speaker 1: the Qatari money? What do you think? Harvard sponsored 2,218
• 49:53
  Speaker 1: new J-1 scholars in 2024. Stanford, 1,436. Yale, 1,069. MIT, 1,087.
• 50:01
  Speaker 1: New J1 research scholars nationwide already down 27% from last year.
• 50:08
  Speaker 1: They're only 17,622. Again, these are people who cannot stay
• 50:14
  Speaker 1: to get a green card. They have to go home.
• 50:21
  Speaker 1: But they're really, these are usually extraordinary talent type people. Now,
• 50:27
  Speaker 1: we also have the fees of $ 100, 000 for an H-1B
• 50:29
  Speaker 1: that were implemented starting in September 2025. Now, it's being
• 50:36
  Speaker 1: struck down by a federal judge this June as an
• 50:44
  Speaker 1: unauthorized tax. The appeal is pending. On October 8th, DHS
• 50:49
  Speaker 1: proposed a $ 70, 000 fee on universities for every student in
• 50:56
  Speaker 1: its post-graduate work program, who was a foreigner. 103,265 feet
• 51:04
  Speaker 1: was announced in August for a different program, also relating
• 51:08
  Speaker 1: to immigrants. Now, the reality is that illegals are way down, right,
• 51:17
  Speaker 1: under Trump. Trump has done a good job closing the border.
• 51:20
  Speaker 1: No illegals. But the reality is that illegal immigration is
• 51:25
  Speaker 1: being cut more than illegal. Legal immigration is down 2.7
• 51:31
  Speaker 1: times more than illegal immigration. Now, granted, we're talking about
• 51:36
  Speaker 1: legal immigration that includes refugees and parolees and all this stuff.
• 51:40
  Speaker 1: But a lot of it's just H-1B type immigrants, students, H-1Bs, fiancés. No,
• 51:55
  Speaker 1: they want to shut down legal immigration. And they want
• 51:57
  Speaker 1: to shut down legal immigration of whom? Of the able.
• 52:04
  Speaker 1: They want to shut down legal immigration of the talented.
• 52:08
  Speaker 1: Other people who start companies in Silicon Valley. You know,
• 52:12
  Speaker 1: Trump just awarded seven, I think, medals of honor for
• 52:18
  Speaker 1: tech and business achievements, something like that. And six of
• 52:23
  Speaker 1: the seven or seven of the eight, whatever the number was,
• 52:26
  Speaker 1: were immigrants. Americans now, but immigrants. But that's what they
• 52:36
  Speaker 1: want to shut down. That's what they're going after. Helen Andrews,
• 52:43
  Speaker 1: a conservative writer who wrote in Compact, in an article
• 52:48
  Speaker 1: called America Needs a Better Meritocracy. This was earlier this year.
• 52:53
  Speaker 1: She said Asian grind culture and alleged test cheating are
• 52:57
  Speaker 1: reasons to worry about Asian over-representation. Grind culture means hard work,
• 53:02
  Speaker 1: by the way. She said it's too much competition, and
• 53:06
  Speaker 1: too much competition can be toxic. She opposes high-skilled immigration.
• 53:11
  Speaker 1: It's not fair to Americans who don't want to work
• 53:13
  Speaker 1: that hard. They don't want grind culture. They don't want
• 53:17
  Speaker 1: the competition. According to her, these are the numbers from Harvard.
• 53:23
  Speaker 1: After 2023, after the 2023 ruling that said Harvard could
• 53:28
  Speaker 1: not discriminate based on race, remember that? Asians went from
• 53:32
  Speaker 1: 26% to 41% of the freshman class. Whites from 47%
• 53:36
  Speaker 1: to 31%. Oh, my God, whites. Whites are losing their
• 53:40
  Speaker 1: positions in Harvard. Black and Latino stayed roughly the same.
• 53:45
  Speaker 1: That's good. Her conclusion, Harvard simply stopped discriminating against Asians.
• 53:51
  Speaker 1: So affirmative action now works entirely at the expense of
• 53:55
  Speaker 1: one race instead of two. So Asians are taking over America.
• 54:06
  Speaker 1: We thought it was Hispanics. We thought it was those
• 54:09
  Speaker 1: migrants coming over the border. No, it's smart Asians. You know,
• 54:14
  Speaker 1: Chinese and Taiwanese and maybe refugees from Hong Kong and Koreans,
• 54:19
  Speaker 1: but primarily Indians. Can't tolerate those Indians. They're not only Asians,
• 54:24
  Speaker 1: but they have dark skin. That's completely unacceptable. And the
• 54:33
  Speaker 1: fact is the numbers she represents are just not true.
• 54:36
  Speaker 1: The black and Hispanic percentages in Harvard actually dropped, were large.
• 54:40
  Speaker 1: They weren't roughly the same. Hispanics went from 16% to
• 54:43
  Speaker 1: 11% in one year. Blacks went down, you know, 2.5%
• 54:52
  Speaker 1: after being down 4% the previous year. Ending preferences helped
• 54:56
  Speaker 1: the most disfavored group, Asians. They were the ones who
• 55:00
  Speaker 1: were being discriminated against. And everybody else, quote, suffered. But
• 55:09
  Speaker 1: I thought we wanted meritocracy. We wanted the best students
• 55:12
  Speaker 1: to get in. You know, Helen claims in Asia, Indian
• 55:21
  Speaker 1: doctors perform unnecessary surgeries in India. That doesn't happen in
• 55:25
  Speaker 1: the US. What? So she's a racist. And You know,
• 55:34
  Speaker 1: what she wants is D.I. for white people, which is
• 55:36
  Speaker 1: what they've always wanted. And it just shows how insecure
• 55:41
  Speaker 1: these people are, how afraid these people are, how panicked
• 55:46
  Speaker 1: these people are. What they don't want is competition. What
• 55:49
  Speaker 1: they don't want is freedom, because under freedom, there's actually competition.
• 55:52
  Speaker 1: Under freedom, they'll actually have to perform. And what they
• 55:55
  Speaker 1: want is just to be given the goodies. They don't
• 55:57
  Speaker 1: want to be able to live up to the American dream.
• 56:00
  Speaker 1: They want to just get it on a silver platter.
• 56:03
  Speaker 1: Who's exactly going to give it to them? Not clear. Now,
• 56:11
  Speaker 1: a lot of people are questioning all of the numbers.
• 56:15
  Speaker 1: According to another source, the white chair is actually stable
• 56:18
  Speaker 1: since preferences ended. Same thing in California and Washington when
• 56:23
  Speaker 1: they ended preferences in 1990s. But the whole thing is sick. Sick.
• 56:33
  Speaker 1: We shouldn't be measuring any of this stuff. Who the
• 56:36
  Speaker 1: F cares? How many, what percentage of Harvard is white
• 56:39
  Speaker 1: versus Asian versus this versus that? That's racist. Now, Chris
• 56:51
  Speaker 1: Ruffo jump into the whole Indian American immigration debate. Right.
• 56:59
  Speaker 1: Rufus says the racialist left and racialist right tell Indian
• 57:04
  Speaker 1: Americans the same kind of mirror image lies. One's in
• 57:08
  Speaker 1: a press group, one's a permanent outsider. But Indian Americans
• 57:15
  Speaker 1: assimilate exceptionally well. They have high education, high income, family stability.
• 57:21
  Speaker 1: They're entrepreneurial. But he says... That's not good enough, according
• 57:29
  Speaker 1: to Christopher, right? Immigration is nonlinear. You know, past some volume,
• 57:36
  Speaker 1: costs rise. To whom? Costs to whom? To our American culture.
• 57:42
  Speaker 1: Past some number, you start getting enclaves and balkanization and
• 57:45
  Speaker 1: nepotism and H-1Bs as a legal but broken system. What?
• 57:54
  Speaker 1: Every time he wants to give an example, a bad
• 57:56
  Speaker 1: culture uses Muslims. but he wants to limit Indian American immigration.
• 58:04
  Speaker 1: I mean, he says Indian culture rewards work, but it
• 58:07
  Speaker 1: also brings, quote, grueling study routines, zero-sum competition, cheating rings, depression,
• 58:14
  Speaker 1: and suicide. Really? Is that right? Is that the problem
• 58:21
  Speaker 1: in America? Too many Indians that are creating competition that
• 58:27
  Speaker 1: is causing depression and suicides. He says we need both
• 58:32
  Speaker 1: valedictorians and the football captain. Yeah, okay, but since when
• 58:38
  Speaker 1: did bringing in immigrants who land up being valedictorians make
• 58:43
  Speaker 1: it a problem to have a football captain? You can
• 58:45
  Speaker 1: have both. It's not zero-sum. Richard Hanania has a piece
• 58:55
  Speaker 1: titled Jocks and Nerds are Compliments, Not Substitutes. You can
• 58:59
  Speaker 1: have both. So Kusufo, it's a slow immigration to match
• 59:04
  Speaker 1: assimilation capability is defined by Kusufo, I guess. You know,
• 59:09
  Speaker 1: Farnburn says there's an all-time high. That's enough. We need
• 59:12
  Speaker 1: to slow it down. What's the right number? The bureaucrats
• 59:15
  Speaker 1: in Washington will decide. They know. They know best. Trust them.
• 59:20
  Speaker 1: I mean, they got diesel prices right. Why would they
• 59:23
  Speaker 1: not get the Farnburn percentage right? Hanania points out that
• 59:34
  Speaker 1: conservatives supported objective merit standards until five minutes ago. The
• 59:41
  Speaker 1: cost of immigration are either made up or so insignificant
• 59:45
  Speaker 1: next to the benefits of getting the most capable people
• 59:48
  Speaker 1: in the world to come to the United States. And
• 59:50
  Speaker 1: costs to whom? Again, some kind of social costs, cost
• 59:55
  Speaker 1: to society, cost to what? Economics? The benefits way outweigh
• 1:00:02
  Speaker 1: the costs economically. Again, to whom? So, yeah, education is
• 1:00:12
  Speaker 1: kind of a zero-sum game because it's a credentials game.
• 1:00:16
  Speaker 1: And if, you know, one group of people gets in,
• 1:00:19
  Speaker 1: another group of people gets out, but who cares? Oh,
• 1:00:25
  Speaker 1: so the Trump thing was six science and technology awards,
• 1:00:29
  Speaker 1: five went to immigrants. I mean, if you want progress
• 1:00:34
  Speaker 1: in the United States, if you want economic growth, you
• 1:00:38
  Speaker 1: want immigrants, you want them to come here and start
• 1:00:40
  Speaker 1: businesses because starting businesses is how you get economic growth.
• 1:00:48
  Speaker 1: There is no future in which America is successful in tech, AI, robotics, whatever,
• 1:00:59
  Speaker 1: drones and advanced warfare. There is no version of the
• 1:01:03
  Speaker 1: future in which America is successful in any of those things.
• 1:01:08
  Speaker 1: Which doesn't involve more immigration rather than less. And yet,
• 1:01:20
  Speaker 1: MAGA seems to be anti-growth, anti-progress. The color of your
• 1:01:29
  Speaker 1: skin is far more important than than whether they'll be
• 1:01:32
  Speaker 1: wealthier or not in the future. They care about China
• 1:01:37
  Speaker 1: overtaking the United States, except they're willing to suffer that
• 1:01:46
  Speaker 1: just not to have immigrants come into the country. Talk
• 1:01:49
  Speaker 1: about suicidal policies. So again, the hostility of this administration...
• 1:02:00
  Speaker 1: is the legal immigration. And they're succeeding. They're reducing the
• 1:02:15
  Speaker 1: number of illegal immigrants significantly, the number of foreign students significantly.
• 1:02:21
  Speaker 1: And the increased racism all across the board, where everybody
• 1:02:28
  Speaker 1: is focused on What race these students are? What race
• 1:02:31
  Speaker 1: those students are? How many of these race and how
• 1:02:34
  Speaker 1: many of those race? God. Where's Martin Luther King when
• 1:02:39
  Speaker 1: you need one? When you need him? Wouldn't it be
• 1:02:43
  Speaker 1: amazing if we lived in a colorblind society and we
• 1:02:47
  Speaker 1: just look at somebody who's a Harvard student and didn't, ooh,
• 1:02:50
  Speaker 1: he's Asian, he's white, he's Hispanic, he's black. Who cares?
• 1:02:53
  Speaker 2: Who cares?
• 1:02:59
  Speaker 1: All right, a couple of positive stories, I think. Positive
• 1:03:03
  Speaker 1: to some people anyway. Most of us. Progress, right? That's good. SpaceX.
• 1:03:09
  Speaker 1: SpaceX has agreed to buy nationwide 800 megahertz low band
• 1:03:15
  Speaker 1: spectrum from green management. They're paying $ 8 billion in cash. Now,
• 1:03:22
  Speaker 1: this still needs FCC approval. But if they get this
• 1:03:26
  Speaker 1: deal done, what does that mean? It means the SpaceX
• 1:03:31
  Speaker 1: will own low-band spectrum. Now, what does low-band spectrum allow
• 1:03:36
  Speaker 1: them to do? It allows the signal to travel further
• 1:03:43
  Speaker 1: and to go through walls. That's the key, go through walls. Now,
• 1:03:48
  Speaker 1: if you think about Starlink, the main problem with Starlink,
• 1:03:52
  Speaker 1: the main thing that doesn't allow Starlink to dominate, I think,
• 1:03:56
  Speaker 1: the reason I don't get Starlink is It's because it
• 1:03:59
  Speaker 1: has to see the satellite. It has to see the sky.
• 1:04:02
  Speaker 1: It cannot be inside a room. And imagine if I
• 1:04:05
  Speaker 1: could travel with the Starlink satellite with me everywhere that
• 1:04:08
  Speaker 1: I go. I would always have high quality internet. But
• 1:04:15
  Speaker 1: I can't because I always need to find a place
• 1:04:17
  Speaker 1: to put it outdoors and for it to see the sky.
• 1:04:20
  Speaker 1: But this would allow Starlink to work indoors. It would
• 1:04:25
  Speaker 1: allow phones to be linked to Starlink. Most phones already
• 1:04:32
  Speaker 1: support this 800 megahertz low band spectrum. So, you know,
• 1:04:41
  Speaker 1: this is a move by SpaceX to really become a
• 1:04:47
  Speaker 1: competitor to companies that are offering internet, wireless internet. Same day,
• 1:04:56
  Speaker 1: the FCC approved 15,000 Starlink mobile Gen 2 satellites. which
• 1:05:02
  Speaker 1: used the two gigahertz spectrum. That's from a deal that
• 1:05:07
  Speaker 1: Starlink made last year with EcoStar. Cost them $ 17 billion. Now,
• 1:05:15
  Speaker 1: what happened today as a consequence of this? Well, what
• 1:05:19
  Speaker 1: happened was AT & T stock dropped 6.6%. Verizon stock
• 1:05:21
  Speaker 1: dropped 7.2%. T-Mobile stock dropped 6.8%. That was in the pre-market.
• 1:05:35
  Speaker 1: In the pre-market, SpaceX went up 3.6% after it had
• 1:05:40
  Speaker 1: gone down 4% yesterday. So in other words, the market
• 1:05:43
  Speaker 1: is saying, huge positive move for SpaceX. They'll be able
• 1:05:48
  Speaker 1: to increase their market share significantly. Massive potential loss for
• 1:05:54
  Speaker 1: AT & T, Verizon, and T-Mobile. The incumbents, they have
• 1:05:59
  Speaker 1: a problem Right. They have a problem because once SpaceX
• 1:06:04
  Speaker 1: can go through walls and if it's reliable and if
• 1:06:08
  Speaker 1: the speed is there, who the hell wants, you know, well,
• 1:06:13
  Speaker 1: I mean, people still want fiber and they'll still want
• 1:06:16
  Speaker 1: all that. But now there's competition. Now there's real competition.
• 1:06:22
  Speaker 1: And this is exactly what competition looks like. It's great.
• 1:06:28
  Speaker 1: So the three companies lost tens of billions of dollars
• 1:06:31
  Speaker 1: because now they have a new competitor. Now we'll see
• 1:06:34
  Speaker 1: what happens, right? FCC has not approved this yet. The
• 1:06:39
  Speaker 1: incumbents will probably lobby like hell to try to keep it.
• 1:06:45
  Speaker 1: But we will see. Now, you know, let's just add
• 1:06:48
  Speaker 1: that SpaceX yesterday brought home four astronauts from the space station.
• 1:06:55
  Speaker 1: It's about to borrow $ 40 billion so it can buy
• 1:06:58
  Speaker 1: NVIDIA chips. And, yeah, and the stock is doing really,
• 1:07:05
  Speaker 1: really well. SpaceX stock is doing really, really well. All right,
• 1:07:12
  Speaker 1: let's see. I wanted one more story here. I had
• 1:07:16
  Speaker 1: one more story. Skip those, skip those, skip those, skip those. Yeah,
• 1:07:22
  Speaker 1: this one. This is some research from the American Association
• 1:07:28
  Speaker 1: of Cancer. American Association of Cancer. Reported today, I think,
• 1:07:33
  Speaker 1: that 71% of U.S. cancer patients now live at least
• 1:07:37
  Speaker 1: five years. That's up from 49% in the late 1970s.
• 1:07:41
  Speaker 1: Lung cancer in the 1970s was at 13%. Today it's 29%.
• 1:07:44
  Speaker 1: Childhood and teen lymphoma. Lymphoid leukemia was at 57% in
• 1:07:55
  Speaker 1: the 1970s. It's up to 90% today. Liver cancer, 22%.
• 1:08:01
  Speaker 1: It's tripled to over 66%. Now, you know, there's earlier detection,
• 1:08:12
  Speaker 1: so five-year survival is inflated. But, you know, this is
• 1:08:18
  Speaker 1: a trend. This is a good trend. In one lifetime,
• 1:08:24
  Speaker 1: we've seen cancer diagnosis become less of a death diagnosis.
• 1:08:32
  Speaker 1: We now do better scanning. We do better with drugs.
• 1:08:36
  Speaker 1: We do better with surgery. And I get the sense,
• 1:08:41
  Speaker 1: and I don't know if you guys do, but I
• 1:08:43
  Speaker 1: really get the sense that in the last few years,
• 1:08:48
  Speaker 1: we've made some major breakthroughs. Immunotherapy has improved dramatically. mRNA-targeted
• 1:08:57
  Speaker 1: vaccines against cancer have improved dramatically. These numbers are going
• 1:09:01
  Speaker 1: to get so much better in the next few years.
• 1:09:06
  Speaker 1: This is what building, this is what improving, this is
• 1:09:10
  Speaker 1: what progress looks like. This is what improving human life,
• 1:09:13
  Speaker 1: standard of living, quality of life looks like. And I
• 1:09:18
  Speaker 1: think To get it from 71% to 90% to 99%?
• 1:09:25
  Speaker 1: A lot of that is just the FDA's clock. How
• 1:09:29
  Speaker 1: quickly will the FDA approve so many of the drugs
• 1:09:31
  Speaker 1: that seem so promising and seem to be out there?
• 1:09:40
  Speaker 1: The statists would hold this back, if anything else. All right.
• 1:09:51
  Speaker 1: That is the news for today. October 9th, 2026. Thank
• 1:10:01
  Speaker 1: you to all the Super Chatters, to all of you
• 1:10:04
  Speaker 1: listening and watching. Don't forget to like the show before
• 1:10:07
  Speaker 1: you leave. Assume you liked it. Don't like it unless
• 1:10:10
  Speaker 1: you liked it. Don't press the like button unless you
• 1:10:12
  Speaker 1: liked it. But yeah, we're way behind on the likes.
• 1:10:15
  Speaker 1: A lot of you... A lot of you don't bother,
• 1:10:18
  Speaker 1: but it helps a lot with the algorithm. We've got
• 1:10:20
  Speaker 1: 42 likes. We've got over 100 people watching. We probably
• 1:10:23
  Speaker 1: had 300 people watching overall. Should be well over 100
• 1:10:28
  Speaker 1: likes right now. So like, share, comment, and of course,
• 1:10:34
  Speaker 1: the most important thing, super chat and sticker and support
• 1:10:40
  Speaker 1: the show. Right. So we're doing OK with Super Chat stickers.
• 1:10:44
  Speaker 1: Not great. Doing OK. We're still about $ 200 short of
• 1:10:47
  Speaker 1: our goal. So plenty of room for you guys to
• 1:10:50
  Speaker 1: any applying time for you guys to step in and
• 1:10:52
  Speaker 1: help us reach the goal. Thank you, Bonnie, for the sticker.
• 1:10:56
  Speaker 1: Thank you, Roland. Wes with $ 50. Thank you, Wes. That
• 1:11:00
  Speaker 1: helps a lot. And let's see what other stickers we have.
• 1:11:06
  Speaker 1: I saw a few in the beginning. Yes. Jonathan Honing
• 1:11:09
  Speaker 1: CP Milken Jonathan Honing has a appropriate you know celebrating
• 1:11:14
  Speaker 1: Milken in his name I like that consistent with the
• 1:11:18
  Speaker 1: theme of today's show and Matthew thank you for the
• 1:11:21
  Speaker 1: sticker so really really appreciate the stickers oh you just
• 1:11:26
  Speaker 1: chopped a bunch of stuff off of the only 168
• 1:11:30
  Speaker 1: now so 168 dollars short of our second hour goal
• 1:11:36
  Speaker 1: so please consider doing you know that's what Eight $ 20 questions.
• 1:11:40
  Speaker 1: We can do that. Eight $ 20 questions. That would be cool.
• 1:11:43
  Speaker 1: Or three and a half $ 50 questions. All good stuff.
• 1:11:49
  Speaker 2: All right.
• 1:11:49
  Speaker 1: I will remind you of the fact that we have
• 1:11:54
  Speaker 1: a Nikos and Yoran show tomorrow. Nikos and Yoran will
• 1:11:58
  Speaker 1: be talking about Gad Saad's, what do you call it,
• 1:12:06
  Speaker 1: latest book, which is named has slipped my mind, even
• 1:12:10
  Speaker 1: the suicidal empathy, suicidal empathy. So we'll talk about suicidal
• 1:12:13
  Speaker 1: empathy from God's side and its relationship to altruism and
• 1:12:17
  Speaker 1: so on. Some of you might have been excited about
• 1:12:19
  Speaker 1: suicidal empathy, thinking it was an attack on altruism. We'll
• 1:12:21
  Speaker 1: talk about that tomorrow with Nikos. Next week, remind you again,
• 1:12:25
  Speaker 1: I keep reminding you, next week is Fauda, so you
• 1:12:31
  Speaker 1: got to watch it. We'll primarily be talking about season five,
• 1:12:36
  Speaker 1: So you got to speed up to make it so
• 1:12:38
  Speaker 1: that you see all of season five before we talk
• 1:12:41
  Speaker 1: about it, because there'll be spoilers. And you should watch
• 1:12:45
  Speaker 1: season one through four as well. If you got to
• 1:12:46
  Speaker 1: skip something, skip season four. One and two and five
• 1:12:52
  Speaker 1: are the most important. One, two, five, then three, then four.
• 1:12:56
  Speaker 1: Four is the least good of the seasons, I think.
• 1:13:03
  Speaker 1: Reminder that the Ironman Institute is a sponsor. of the
• 1:13:07
  Speaker 1: Iran Book Show, and it is, we'd like to encourage
• 1:13:10
  Speaker 1: you to download the app. There is an Ayn Rand
• 1:13:14
  Speaker 1: Institute app, and the app has on it, provides access
• 1:13:23
  Speaker 1: to a huge quantity of Leonard Peikoff courses, Ayn Rand lectures,
• 1:13:29
  Speaker 1: and it also has a Iran Book and Donald Watkins
• 1:13:33
  Speaker 1: 12-hour lecture series on capitalism which if you haven't seen
• 1:13:39
  Speaker 1: is really worthwhile, very well produced, beautifully done, like in
• 1:13:43
  Speaker 1: documentary style. So check it out, 12-hour series on capitalism. Yeah,
• 1:13:51
  Speaker 1: but get the app. Download the app. Go to the
• 1:13:53
  Speaker 1: App Store, Google App Store, Apple App Store, and download
• 1:13:56
  Speaker 1: the Ayn Rand Institute app and get access to all
• 1:13:59
  Speaker 1: this amazing content. I mean, primarily you'd want it for
• 1:14:02
  Speaker 1: the Peacock lectures, which you can't really get anywhere else
• 1:14:06
  Speaker 1: for free. The app is free, by the way. It
• 1:14:10
  Speaker 1: is free. Alex Epstein, the number one authority in the
• 1:14:15
  Speaker 1: world on all things electricity and power, power generally, fossil fuels,
• 1:14:20
  Speaker 1: of course, and lately, data centers. Data centers. So, yeah,
• 1:14:28
  Speaker 1: check it out. And.
• 1:14:33
  Speaker 1: Check out Alex, alexepstein.substack.com. alexepstein.substack.com. He's doing really good work
• 1:14:39
  Speaker 1: on data centers right now, and you'll learn a lot
• 1:14:41
  Speaker 1: that I don't think you know about data centers and
• 1:14:44
  Speaker 1: about the battle to save them and about the contributions
• 1:14:46
  Speaker 1: they make to all of our lives. All right. I'll
• 1:14:52
  Speaker 1: remind you that you can become a monthly supporter of
• 1:14:55
  Speaker 1: the Iran Book Show. I saw somebody did yesterday at
• 1:14:57
  Speaker 1: the $ 25 level. Thank you. On patreon.com, patreon.com. So go
• 1:15:02
  Speaker 1: to Patreon and just put Your Own Book Show in,
• 1:15:04
  Speaker 1: and you can become a regular monthly supporter. You don't
• 1:15:08
  Speaker 1: have to think about it. You don't have to worry
• 1:15:09
  Speaker 1: about it. You know I'm giving The Your Own Book Show.
• 1:15:12
  Speaker 1: I'm trading with him, trading with your own. I get
• 1:15:15
  Speaker 1: value from him. I provide value to him. Very simple proposition. Win-win.
• 1:15:19
  Speaker 1: Mutually beneficial. And you can do the same thing on PayPal.
• 1:15:24
  Speaker 1: Same thing on PayPal. All right. We just got another
• 1:15:27
  Speaker 1: sticker from– we got more stickers from Barney. Thank you, Bonnie. Roland,
• 1:15:32
  Speaker 1: I thanked already. And from Josh from India. Thank you. Rupees.
• 1:15:36
  Speaker 1: I got some rupees. All right. Let's turn to your questions.
• 1:15:42
  Speaker 1: I've got here three $ 50 questions and then three $ 20 questions.
• 1:15:47
  Speaker 1: So we'll start with the 50 and then we'll go
• 1:15:49
  Speaker 1: to 20. But I encourage you, we need another three
• 1:15:53
  Speaker 1: $ 50 questions or, I don't know, eight $ 20 questions and
• 1:15:58
  Speaker 1: we're done. We're done with the first hour goal, with
• 1:16:00
  Speaker 1: the second hour goal, which would be great. Reminder, tomorrow,
• 1:16:04
  Speaker 1: show Nicos Saturday. Oh, Sunday. Sunday will be Attackers of Capitalism.
• 1:16:09
  Speaker 1: It will be one of those shows where I analyze
• 1:16:13
  Speaker 1: somebody's attack on capitalism and defend capitalism. So that we
• 1:16:17
  Speaker 1: will do on Sunday. So we're switching Nicos and the
• 1:16:20
  Speaker 1: capitalism one around. So check out on Saturday the... Yeah,
• 1:16:33
  Speaker 1: so on Saturday, we will have Nikos on Sunday. I
• 1:16:37
  Speaker 1: will be doing the capitalism one. So check both those out.
• 1:16:40
  Speaker 1: 2 p.m. East Coast time, I think. All right, anonymous. Anonymous.
• 1:16:46
  Speaker 1: A proper institution of higher learning has students in order
• 1:16:49
  Speaker 1: to teach. It does not teach in order to have students.
• 1:16:54
  Speaker 1: Its product is great minds. As such, the only criteria
• 1:16:58
  Speaker 1: for entry should be only the minds with the highest potential. True. Yes.
• 1:17:04
  Speaker 1: I mean, you have to think about mind in a
• 1:17:07
  Speaker 1: broad sense because I think character, for example, matters to
• 1:17:14
  Speaker 1: utilization of the mind, right? Are you going to use
• 1:17:17
  Speaker 1: the mind that you have? So I don't think it's
• 1:17:22
  Speaker 1: just a simple IQ test and you take on all
• 1:17:25
  Speaker 1: the top IQ people. I think you have to think
• 1:17:27
  Speaker 1: about what are the skills, what are the qualities, what
• 1:17:29
  Speaker 1: are the qualities of the people you want? And I
• 1:17:32
  Speaker 1: think something that evaluates and gets at the character of
• 1:17:38
  Speaker 1: the people is probably important for a higher learning institution.
• 1:17:46
  Speaker 1: But yes, you want the best. You want the best. And,
• 1:17:51
  Speaker 1: you know, if you're going to position yourself, as the
• 1:17:56
  Speaker 1: best institution in the world, one of the best institutions
• 1:17:58
  Speaker 1: in the world, you want to be teaching the best students.
• 1:18:01
  Speaker 1: And again, the best students in the world. Why not?
• 1:18:05
  Speaker 1: Why limit it to Americans? Why, you know, if people
• 1:18:10
  Speaker 1: outside of America are willing to pay and have the ability,
• 1:18:13
  Speaker 1: why wouldn't you want to teach them? So yes, the
• 1:18:21
  Speaker 1: main criteria should be their mind and character, and the
• 1:18:25
  Speaker 1: second is you can give scholarships, but most of your
• 1:18:30
  Speaker 1: students need to be able to pay their way. John,
• 1:18:35
  Speaker 1: thank you for the sticker. We really appreciate that. We
• 1:18:38
  Speaker 1: just need seven $ 20 questions. Questions are great because you
• 1:18:44
  Speaker 1: get to shape the show. I get to answer what
• 1:18:46
  Speaker 1: you want me to talk about. Here's Michael with $ 50.
• 1:18:50
  Speaker 1: Thank you, Michael. It's incredible what a juggernaut altruism is.
• 1:18:55
  Speaker 1: People will not shake it. Both left and right are
• 1:18:58
  Speaker 1: Christian altruists. Yes, I think that's absolutely right. Human beings
• 1:19:06
  Speaker 1: need a roadmap for life. They need ethics. They need morality.
• 1:19:11
  Speaker 1: They need guidance in terms of what to do. They
• 1:19:16
  Speaker 1: can't all rethink morality from scratch. They can't figure out
• 1:19:20
  Speaker 1: what should I live for, how should I live. This
• 1:19:23
  Speaker 1: is the role of intellectuals is to help them, to
• 1:19:26
  Speaker 1: guide them, to give them ideas about what they should
• 1:19:30
  Speaker 1: live for and how they should live. And there's no alternative.
• 1:19:35
  Speaker 1: They're going to get it from some way. And usually
• 1:19:39
  Speaker 1: people get it from the intellectuals, and the intellectuals have
• 1:19:41
  Speaker 1: been dominantly collective, you know, altruistic since Christ. Well, since
• 1:19:50
  Speaker 1: Christianity became dominant in Western culture. And it's, you know, shaking,
• 1:19:57
  Speaker 1: changing those intellectuals is very, very, very hard because it's
• 1:20:01
  Speaker 1: today's intellectuals who train tomorrow's intellectuals who train tomorrow's intellectuals.
• 1:20:05
  Speaker 1: You have to create an alternative training track, which is
• 1:20:08
  Speaker 1: what we're trying to do at the Enron Institute, in
• 1:20:10
  Speaker 1: order to train alternative intellectuals who will take the job
• 1:20:14
  Speaker 1: and then go out there and teach people and train
• 1:20:18
  Speaker 1: people and help people to reject altruism and to live
• 1:20:23
  Speaker 1: for themselves, to use reason to live their lives for themselves,
• 1:20:28
  Speaker 1: which is the only alternative to altruism, the only legit
• 1:20:31
  Speaker 1: alternative to altruism. So that's what we need. We need
• 1:20:35
  Speaker 1: more and more and more intellectuals who will teach people,
• 1:20:38
  Speaker 1: train people, inculcate people with an alternative to altruism. Until
• 1:20:43
  Speaker 1: we have that, as long as our intellectuals are dominantly altruistic,
• 1:20:48
  Speaker 1: it's very, very hard, very, very hard to change a culture.
• 1:20:51
  Speaker 1: Maybe impossible. Andrew, $ 20 for me to emote on your
• 1:20:58
  Speaker 1: show about the United Nations. Can you please look at
• 1:21:03
  Speaker 1: the chat for it? Super Chat doesn't appear to like
• 1:21:06
  Speaker 1: me insulting that vaulted institution. Let's see if we can
• 1:21:09
  Speaker 1: find it. Where is Andrew? I thought you were paying
• 1:21:14
  Speaker 1: me to vent about the UN, but it sounds like
• 1:21:17
  Speaker 1: you want to vent to me about the UN. That's fine.
• 1:21:20
  Speaker 1: I need to find where you do that. It's not
• 1:21:24
  Speaker 1: easy finding stuff on the chat. Andrew, Andrew, Andrew, Andrew.
• 1:21:28
  Speaker 1: We're looking for Andrew's stuff. All right. I agree, Andrew.
• 1:21:40
  Speaker 2: All right. Where does it start? I'm looking for the start.
• 1:21:51
  Speaker 2: All right.
• 1:21:58
  Speaker 1: Andrew says, kick the UN the hell out of New
• 1:22:00
  Speaker 1: York City. It doesn't belong in the country. What else
• 1:22:04
  Speaker 1: do you want to say? What else do you say?
• 1:22:06
  Speaker 1: What else do you say? Yeah, I don't... Is that it?
• 1:22:11
  Speaker 1: Is that it? Right at the bottom you're on. Right
• 1:22:15
  Speaker 1: at the bottom. Where's the bottom? Oh, there it is.
• 1:22:21
  Speaker 2: Yeah.
• 1:22:24
  Speaker 1: The chat wanted to block it. You collection of pretentious
• 1:22:29
  Speaker 1: medievalist bastards invoke respect for international law to cover your
• 1:22:34
  Speaker 1: filthy anti-semitic nihilism some people see who you are crystal
• 1:22:40
  Speaker 1: clear savages in suits yeah absolutely savages in suits i
• 1:22:48
  Speaker 1: like that so um thank you andrew for paying me
• 1:22:55
  Speaker 1: to uh vent on the iran book show i like
• 1:22:58
  Speaker 1: it and it's it wasn't twenty dollars it was fifty
• 1:23:01
  Speaker 1: dollars you put fifty dollars into this did you make
• 1:23:03
  Speaker 1: a mistake Well, you did. Either you type $ 20 instead
• 1:23:07
  Speaker 1: of $ 50 or you, in one of the places, you
• 1:23:10
  Speaker 1: type $ 50 instead of $ 20, $ 20 instead of $ 50, something
• 1:23:13
  Speaker 1: like that. So, yes, got it. You collected pretentious medievalists, bastards,
• 1:23:21
  Speaker 1: invoke respect for international law to cover your filthy anti-Semitic nihilism.
• 1:23:26
  Speaker 1: Some people see you are crystal, see who you are
• 1:23:29
  Speaker 1: crystal clear, savages in suits. All right, we got it.
• 1:23:35
  Speaker 1: Thank you, Andrew. It started with $ 20. It grew to $ 50.
• 1:23:39
  Speaker 1: I appreciate that. Hope you're enjoying your new job. All right.
• 1:23:49
  Speaker 1: Lucinda looked into claim that Gaza's population increased during the war.
• 1:23:57
  Speaker 1: And from what I found, it seemed like that claim
• 1:24:00
  Speaker 1: is false. And Gaza's population decreased with a decline of 5%.
• 1:24:04
  Speaker 1: and a shortfall of a pre-war projection of 10%. I'll
• 1:24:12
  Speaker 1: look into that. Maybe that is false. It doesn't really
• 1:24:15
  Speaker 1: matter for the claim, but it decreased by 5%, which
• 1:24:20
  Speaker 1: is a pretty small decline, and it was expected to
• 1:24:23
  Speaker 1: grow by 5%. Is that the point? That's a shortfall? No,
• 1:24:28
  Speaker 1: it's suddenly... didn't grow as fast as projection, right? 70-something
• 1:24:34
  Speaker 1: thousand people were killed. And although that includes probably some
• 1:24:38
  Speaker 1: natural deaths. So some tens of thousands of people were
• 1:24:41
  Speaker 1: killed by the Israelis. So you'd expect the growth rate
• 1:24:44
  Speaker 1: to be slower. But I will look into, and I'll
• 1:24:47
  Speaker 1: get back to you, about the population of Gaza on
• 1:24:51
  Speaker 1: October 7th versus today. And I will let you know.
• 1:25:00
  Speaker 1: All right. Listen to this second question. Some of Israel's
• 1:25:08
  Speaker 1: PR moves seem counterproductive. The little bot campaign and a
• 1:25:13
  Speaker 1: few paid TikTok Israel seem to have engaged in probably
• 1:25:17
  Speaker 1: ended up fueling more conspiracy nuts than any desired effect
• 1:25:24
  Speaker 1: was going on. Yeah, I mean, I've been arguing from
• 1:25:26
  Speaker 1: the beginning that... uh, that this is not an issue
• 1:25:35
  Speaker 1: of PR. Israel, you know, it's not the fact that
• 1:25:40
  Speaker 1: Israel didn't do enough PR that is the, it is
• 1:25:43
  Speaker 1: the antisemitism and everything. It's, it's the philosophy people hold
• 1:25:50
  Speaker 1: and their inclination to, to, to, to, uh, support the
• 1:25:54
  Speaker 1: Palestinians over the Israelis, no matter what, no matter what. So, uh,
• 1:26:03
  Speaker 1: One second. All right. Anonymous, anonymous. What caused the distrust?
• 1:26:30
  Speaker 1: of the mainstream historical narrative, the inversion of the good
• 1:26:33
  Speaker 1: guys of World War II, it seemed to me that
• 1:26:36
  Speaker 1: the official story has lost credibility in a lot of
• 1:26:39
  Speaker 1: different areas. Well, I don't think it's lost credibility in
• 1:26:43
  Speaker 1: any kind of, in any legitimate sense. I think it's
• 1:26:49
  Speaker 1: lost credibility because in the post-COVID world, post-9-11, post-financial crisis,
• 1:26:59
  Speaker 1: post-COVID world, the experts, elites, authorities on various topics have
• 1:27:08
  Speaker 1: lost all credibility. And everything is being questioned. And I
• 1:27:14
  Speaker 1: think that basically the idea is that... And that the
• 1:27:32
  Speaker 1: reason for that is.
• 1:27:37
  Speaker 1: Let me just... I just want to do something here. So...
• 1:27:59
  Speaker 1: We distrust authorities. We distrust the experts. We distrust historians.
• 1:28:03
  Speaker 1: We distrust it. And, you know, and then people like
• 1:28:07
  Speaker 1: Nick Fuentes and Tucker Carlson and, you know, Hassan Paika
• 1:28:13
  Speaker 1: come into that void of the distrust or the willingness
• 1:28:18
  Speaker 1: to distrust. And the consequence of that. Is that, you know,
• 1:28:28
  Speaker 1: we're open to the craziest ideas. Because why not? But
• 1:28:36
  Speaker 1: there's no basis for the distrust. The mainstream historical narrative.
• 1:28:40
  Speaker 1: of World War II is correct but we look at
• 1:28:46
  Speaker 1: Europe today and we see you know it's if you're
• 1:28:51
  Speaker 1: if you're on the right you see it as leftist
• 1:28:54
  Speaker 1: and you go what's alternative to the left well it
• 1:28:57
  Speaker 1: was Hitler not that long ago maybe Hitler wasn't that
• 1:28:59
  Speaker 1: bad If you're on the left, the story is what's
• 1:29:03
  Speaker 1: alternative to kind of the craziness in Europe today? Well,
• 1:29:08
  Speaker 1: the alternative is the Soviet Union. Maybe the Soviet Union
• 1:29:11
  Speaker 1: wasn't that bad. And you get revisionist historians, both on
• 1:29:14
  Speaker 1: the left and on the right, redoing everything, right? Redoing everything.
• 1:29:21
  Speaker 1: So it's, again, I think it's the complete collapse of,
• 1:29:30
  Speaker 1: of trust, particularly among young people, of the people who
• 1:29:35
  Speaker 1: locked them down during COVID. But among older people, this
• 1:29:39
  Speaker 1: goes back to 9-11, and I've talked about this many,
• 1:29:41
  Speaker 1: many times, the lies they were told, the deceptions, the
• 1:29:47
  Speaker 1: incursions on their own freedoms in order supposedly to protect them,
• 1:29:52
  Speaker 1: that have resulted in the fact that people are willing
• 1:29:54
  Speaker 1: to question all these things, even though, again, No, Soviet
• 1:29:59
  Speaker 1: Union was evil. The Nazis were evil. Churchill was a hero.
• 1:30:05
  Speaker 1: It's not an issue of mainstream. Those are just issues
• 1:30:07
  Speaker 1: of fact. But it's an issue of moral estimation that
• 1:30:13
  Speaker 1: you have to have a certain perspective on the world
• 1:30:17
  Speaker 1: and on Western civilization and on the world as it
• 1:30:22
  Speaker 1: is today to attain. All right. I'm going to go
• 1:30:28
  Speaker 1: back to Lucinda and her question, right? So she says, uh,
• 1:30:33
  Speaker 1: she looked into it in the population of Gaza has down,
• 1:30:36
  Speaker 1: gone down 5%. And that is true. So, um, according
• 1:30:40
  Speaker 1: to chat GPT, right. Uh, which is based on some
• 1:30:44
  Speaker 1: kind of PCBS. I'm not sure who PCBS is, uh,
• 1:30:50
  Speaker 1: trying to look at who at PC, PCBS, I don't know.
• 1:30:53
  Speaker 1: PCBS wasn't here. It is, um, Who is PCBS? Anyway,
• 1:31:02
  Speaker 1: we'll find out. According to them, the population on October
• 1:31:05
  Speaker 1: 7th in Gaza was 2.23 million people, maybe 2.25, somewhere
• 1:31:10
  Speaker 1: in that range, right? Between 2.23 and 2.25 million people. Today,
• 1:31:16
  Speaker 1: it's about 2.1 to 2.13 million people. So by their estimate,
• 1:31:21
  Speaker 1: Gaza has lost somewhere around 100,000 to 150,000 people, right?
• 1:31:24
  Speaker 1: So there's been... a decrease of 5% to 7% in
• 1:31:30
  Speaker 1: the population of Gaza during this period. Now you go, oh, wow,
• 1:31:35
  Speaker 1: so Israel killed 5% to 7% of the population. Well, no, right?
• 1:31:42
  Speaker 1: Even if they did, so what, right? They need to
• 1:31:45
  Speaker 1: kill as many as they need to kill in order
• 1:31:46
  Speaker 1: to win this. But here's the thing. By, again, the
• 1:31:50
  Speaker 1: same organization's estimate, about 100,000 people left Gaza between October
• 1:32:00
  Speaker 1: 7th and today. So between 4% to 5% of its
• 1:32:03
  Speaker 1: pre-war population left. Okay, so if you take out 100,000
• 1:32:11
  Speaker 1: and the population has shrunk by 100,000, maybe 150, then
• 1:32:17
  Speaker 1: the population is either about the same as it was,
• 1:32:20
  Speaker 1: so the number of births equals the number of deaths,
• 1:32:24
  Speaker 1: during the war, deaths from natural causes and Israel, right?
• 1:32:29
  Speaker 1: Or maybe the population has decreased by 50,000 independent of
• 1:32:34
  Speaker 1: people leaving. Either case, those are pretty small numbers. And
• 1:32:42
  Speaker 1: the idea that the population of Gaza has not shrunk
• 1:32:48
  Speaker 1: because of Israeli activities, that is, if they're trying to
• 1:32:51
  Speaker 1: annihilate as some people accuse them constantly of, the Arab
• 1:32:57
  Speaker 1: population of Gaza, they have failed dramatically because the population
• 1:33:01
  Speaker 1: of Gaza is fairly stable. Now, Gazans are leaving, and
• 1:33:05
  Speaker 1: more would leave if they were allowed to. But in
• 1:33:09
  Speaker 1: terms of the people in Gaza, they're having babies at
• 1:33:14
  Speaker 1: the rate in which they're dying and being killed. Approximately. Approximately.
• 1:33:25
  Speaker 1: I mean, the whole thing is ridiculous. I still haven't
• 1:33:27
  Speaker 1: gotten a sense of who PC... Not sure why... Yeah, okay. Oh, yeah.
• 1:33:36
  Speaker 1: PCBS is the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics. So these
• 1:33:40
  Speaker 1: are Palestinian numbers. So these are not numbers that are
• 1:33:44
  Speaker 1: cooked up by Israel. This is not numbers by anybody.
• 1:33:46
  Speaker 1: So these are Palestinian numbers. So... If you're wondering where
• 1:33:57
  Speaker 1: they're going, the Palestinians leaving Gaza, watch Fauda season five.
• 1:34:03
  Speaker 1: Some of them you'll find in Fauda season five. All right.
• 1:34:08
  Speaker 1: Anomalous says, by the way, we're still $ 146 short of
• 1:34:16
  Speaker 1: our goal. So please consider supporting the show with a sticker.
• 1:34:23
  Speaker 1: value for value. You're listening to the show. You're getting
• 1:34:25
  Speaker 1: some value out of it. Hopefully, you can contribute to
• 1:34:29
  Speaker 1: the continuation and growth of the show and to paying
• 1:34:33
  Speaker 1: for my time producing the show by making a contribution here.
• 1:34:40
  Speaker 1: All right. Anomalous says, Nobel lost all credibility after he
• 1:34:43
  Speaker 1: gave Obama the prize. Changed my mind. Even Obama seems
• 1:34:46
  Speaker 1: to agree he didn't deserve it. Well, he lost all
• 1:34:50
  Speaker 1: credibility when he gave Yasser Arafat the prize. It probably
• 1:34:54
  Speaker 1: lost all credibility when he gave Henry Kissinger the prize.
• 1:34:58
  Speaker 1: By the time it got to Obama, it had zero
• 1:35:00
  Speaker 1: credibility in my mind, already zero credibility. So it's never
• 1:35:03
  Speaker 1: had credibility in my mind. Jacob, are you still a
• 1:35:07
  Speaker 1: fan of Zehut? Who was on their website today, mentioned
• 1:35:10
  Speaker 1: some good things, selling of land, separation of church and state,
• 1:35:14
  Speaker 1: more capitalism. No, I'm not a fan of Zehut. And
• 1:35:19
  Speaker 1: even though they have a lot of good stuff in
• 1:35:21
  Speaker 1: their manifesto, I just don't believe them I was a
• 1:35:25
  Speaker 1: fan of Zahoud when leading members of that political party
• 1:35:29
  Speaker 1: were real capitalists. One was a good friend of mine
• 1:35:34
  Speaker 1: from way back by the name of Libby. And the
• 1:35:37
  Speaker 1: other is a guy named Gilad Alpert, who was a very,
• 1:35:42
  Speaker 1: very good free market economist. Both, as far as I
• 1:35:45
  Speaker 1: can tell, and I haven't talked to either one of
• 1:35:48
  Speaker 1: them recently, are no longer affiliated with Zehut, partially because
• 1:35:52
  Speaker 1: the guy who runs Zehut, really the only guy who's
• 1:35:55
  Speaker 1: going to make it into the parliament as a part
• 1:35:58
  Speaker 1: of Zehut, is a religious nut, to put it mildly.
• 1:36:04
  Speaker 1: A religious nut whose priority was never capitalism, priority was
• 1:36:08
  Speaker 1: never freedom. His priority is to build the third temple,
• 1:36:11
  Speaker 1: you know, to tear down Al-Aqsa Mosque and to build
• 1:36:16
  Speaker 1: the third temple there. And while he says he believes
• 1:36:20
  Speaker 1: in separation of church and state, I find it very
• 1:36:22
  Speaker 1: hard to believe that he really does because of how
• 1:36:25
  Speaker 1: religious he is and how everything is animated by religion.
• 1:36:30
  Speaker 1: He's a huge critic of objectivism and a huge critic
• 1:36:34
  Speaker 1: of real, I think, capitalism. So I'm skeptical of him.
• 1:36:40
  Speaker 1: And because of his super religiosity, I just wouldn't want
• 1:36:44
  Speaker 1: to be affiliated with him. I understand why people would
• 1:36:46
  Speaker 1: vote for him. He says the right stuff on economics.
• 1:36:51
  Speaker 1: He says mostly the right stuff on foreign policy. And
• 1:36:55
  Speaker 1: he's really, really, really tough on the Palestinians. But because
• 1:37:00
  Speaker 1: I know where it's all coming from, I don't trust
• 1:37:02
  Speaker 1: him for one iota. Any more than I would trust
• 1:37:07
  Speaker 1: an American who is a religious fanatic who suddenly came
• 1:37:10
  Speaker 1: out for a bunch of stuff I agreed with. Anomalous.
• 1:37:15
  Speaker 1: Trump likes to say if you don't have borders, you
• 1:37:18
  Speaker 1: don't have a country. In what sense is this statement
• 1:37:21
  Speaker 1: true and in what sense is it false? Yeah, it's true.
• 1:37:23
  Speaker 1: I mean, a country is defined geographically by its borders.
• 1:37:27
  Speaker 1: And that is important because within those borders, the governing
• 1:37:33
  Speaker 1: laws are the laws of country A. Outside of those borders,
• 1:37:38
  Speaker 1: country B, C, D, whatever the country is outside the borders,
• 1:37:42
  Speaker 1: their laws govern. and whose laws govern matter. It matters
• 1:37:46
  Speaker 1: what's criminal and what's not, what's civil, what's not, what's
• 1:37:50
  Speaker 1: allowed and what's not allowed. That's it. He means it
• 1:37:57
  Speaker 1: as can't cross them. But there's nothing about a border
• 1:38:04
  Speaker 1: that says who should cross it, under what circumstances, when, how, if.
• 1:38:10
  Speaker 1: A border is just a line. I mean, there's a
• 1:38:12
  Speaker 1: border between the state of Texas and the state of
• 1:38:15
  Speaker 1: Oklahoma or New Mexico. And nobody checks you when you
• 1:38:21
  Speaker 1: cross that border. And yet they each have different laws.
• 1:38:26
  Speaker 1: And we still recognize that there is a border between
• 1:38:28
  Speaker 1: the states and that border matters. for example in Texas
• 1:38:32
  Speaker 1: well I don't know yeah I think that's true in
• 1:38:35
  Speaker 1: Texas you can go to jail for performing an abortion
• 1:38:40
  Speaker 1: or getting an abortion and in New Mexico you can't
• 1:38:44
  Speaker 1: so the border matters because different set of laws apply
• 1:38:46
  Speaker 1: in each location But it doesn't prohibit people from crossing
• 1:38:50
  Speaker 1: it freely. In Europe, there are borders between countries like
• 1:38:56
  Speaker 1: Germany and France. But people can cross it freely and
• 1:39:01
  Speaker 1: work in those places, different places. And yet they each
• 1:39:06
  Speaker 1: have a set of their own laws. They each are
• 1:39:09
  Speaker 1: governed by their own laws. So, yeah, borders. You need
• 1:39:12
  Speaker 1: borders to have a country because you need borders to
• 1:39:15
  Speaker 1: define where your laws apply. That's it. No implication to
• 1:39:21
  Speaker 1: immigration at all. But that's what Trump means by it.
• 1:39:23
  Speaker 1: That's the only thing Trump means by it. Lucinda says,
• 1:39:28
  Speaker 1: started reading Faust. Normally, I dislike the German language. But
• 1:39:32
  Speaker 1: when it comes to Goethe and Schiller, you don't know
• 1:39:36
  Speaker 1: what you're missing not reading it in the original. Yeah,
• 1:39:39
  Speaker 1: I mean, I think that's true. I mean, it's probably
• 1:39:41
  Speaker 1: true of Hugo in French.
• 1:39:42
  Speaker 2: And I.
• 1:39:45
  Speaker 1: Don't know. I'm thinking I'm an Italian author to say Italian,
• 1:39:52
  Speaker 1: but I can't think of one. Anyway, Schiller and Goethe,
• 1:40:00
  Speaker 1: you know, Ayn Rand was really, really, really favorably inclined
• 1:40:03
  Speaker 1: towards them. They're kind of the originators of romanticism in
• 1:40:06
  Speaker 1: many ways. Great artists. And yeah, I'm sure they're even
• 1:40:15
  Speaker 1: better in German. I can't remember if Ayn Rand, she
• 1:40:18
  Speaker 1: read Hugo in French. I can't remember if she read,
• 1:40:21
  Speaker 1: I can't remember if she knew German, enough German to
• 1:40:24
  Speaker 1: read them. I don't know. Good biographical question to somebody
• 1:40:29
  Speaker 1: who knows her biography better than I do. All right. Materially,
• 1:40:36
  Speaker 1: everything is better than ever. Yet spiritually, it seems the
• 1:40:40
  Speaker 1: world gets worse every year. Most popular art like TV, movies,
• 1:40:44
  Speaker 1: and modern literature seem to be woke propaganda or just baseless. Yeah,
• 1:40:51
  Speaker 1: I think that's right. But the focus is on most.
• 1:40:54
  Speaker 1: Most popular art is usually bad, generally. And I don't
• 1:40:58
  Speaker 1: know about woke propaganda, but most of it's bad. And
• 1:41:01
  Speaker 1: you've got to seek out the good. You've got to
• 1:41:03
  Speaker 1: make an effort to find it, even if it's historical
• 1:41:06
  Speaker 1: or present. But it is out there. So it's accessible
• 1:41:10
  Speaker 1: to you. But yes, spiritually is more directly related to
• 1:41:16
  Speaker 1: the philosophy. And therefore... philosophy is in decline, you'd expect
• 1:41:24
  Speaker 1: the arts and the kind of the spiritual stuff to
• 1:41:28
  Speaker 1: be in decline as well. And that's what we're getting.
• 1:41:34
  Speaker 1: All right. Frank, you've been with $ 100. Thank you, Frank. Frank,
• 1:41:37
  Speaker 1: thank you. We're only $ 36 away from the target because
• 1:41:41
  Speaker 1: of Frank. Frank says, isn't trade not only free exchange
• 1:41:46
  Speaker 1: between equals? but also the implicit understanding that one has
• 1:41:50
  Speaker 1: better logical production of purposeful service. Didn't Wong's argument for
• 1:41:55
  Speaker 1: AI limitations reflect the distinction between tasks and purpose of work? Yes.
• 1:42:04
  Speaker 1: So trade, it's not about exchange between equals because equals
• 1:42:11
  Speaker 1: in what sense? You don't have equality of knowledge. You
• 1:42:15
  Speaker 1: don't necessarily have equality of skill. You don't have equality
• 1:42:19
  Speaker 1: at all. I mean, free exchange is exchange between equals
• 1:42:26
  Speaker 1: only in their freedoms to trade. Not in terms of equality,
• 1:42:32
  Speaker 1: in terms of anything else that characterizes the people. But
• 1:42:39
  Speaker 1: it does imply that you have the ability To assess
• 1:42:48
  Speaker 1: the value of a good to you, the rational value
• 1:42:54
  Speaker 1: of something to your life, and therefore to be engaged
• 1:43:01
  Speaker 1: in a mutually beneficial transaction, to do a mutually beneficial transaction,
• 1:43:07
  Speaker 1: you need to know what your benefit is. What is
• 1:43:11
  Speaker 1: good for you? So logical production and purposeful service, yeah,
• 1:43:17
  Speaker 1: the sense in which you understand the value of those
• 1:43:19
  Speaker 1: things to you, the sense in which those are meaningful
• 1:43:22
  Speaker 1: to you. Every trade assumes rational actors, even when the
• 1:43:27
  Speaker 1: actors are not rational, it assumes that. And it makes
• 1:43:31
  Speaker 1: it possible for rational actors to win. And then you said,
• 1:43:38
  Speaker 1: didn't Wong's argument for AI limitations reflect the distinction between
• 1:43:42
  Speaker 1: task and purpose? Yes. Yes. So Wong said, look, the
• 1:43:47
  Speaker 1: purpose of a programmer is not to code. The purpose
• 1:43:51
  Speaker 1: of a programmer is to create a product. And if
• 1:43:57
  Speaker 1: the coding can be delegated to an AI, that doesn't
• 1:44:01
  Speaker 1: change the need for a programmer. It just makes that
• 1:44:06
  Speaker 1: programmer or that engineer much, much more productive because he
• 1:44:10
  Speaker 1: can now assign the coding work To an AI, well,
• 1:44:15
  Speaker 1: he focuses on other stuff or he focuses on managing
• 1:44:20
  Speaker 1: many AIs to create many products, whereas before he could
• 1:44:25
  Speaker 1: only focus on one product because he was doing the
• 1:44:28
  Speaker 1: coding for it. So it dramatically increases the productivity of
• 1:44:34
  Speaker 1: that worker. It doesn't change his purpose. His purpose is
• 1:44:37
  Speaker 1: the product, not the coding. Now, sometimes some programmers, where
• 1:44:45
  Speaker 1: they're just a code, they're the ones who are going
• 1:44:49
  Speaker 1: to lose their jobs the fastest. And they're going to
• 1:44:54
  Speaker 1: be replaced by AI the fastest. But most engineers, their
• 1:44:59
  Speaker 1: responsibility is the product. How they get the product to
• 1:45:05
  Speaker 1: where it needs to be matters little as long as
• 1:45:09
  Speaker 1: the product does what it's supposed to do. And that
• 1:45:15
  Speaker 1: still needs the human being, because only humans can value.
• 1:45:18
  Speaker 1: And therefore, it's only humans that can be able to
• 1:45:22
  Speaker 1: do this. Thank you, Fank. Really appreciate the support. Lenny, hi.
• 1:45:33
  Speaker 1: Really enjoyed your analysis of Rubio's speech in Athens, especially
• 1:45:36
  Speaker 1: the plot twist where he confused Athenians with the Spartan collectivists.
• 1:45:43
  Speaker 1: Hope you appreciate the support from a student. Cheers from Zurich. Absolutely.
• 1:45:48
  Speaker 1: Thank you, Lenny. Really appreciate that. 20 euro for a student,
• 1:45:52
  Speaker 1: that's a significant amount of money. I appreciate it. And Zurich,
• 1:45:57
  Speaker 1: a wonderful city. When did I speak in Zurich? I
• 1:46:00
  Speaker 1: spoke there, I can't remember if I spoke this year,
• 1:46:03
  Speaker 1: early this year. Probably. Lucinda's back. All right. I'm pretty
• 1:46:10
  Speaker 1: sure Rand was able to read German. but not able
• 1:46:13
  Speaker 1: to really speak it. Not sure if she knew enough
• 1:46:18
  Speaker 1: to read Goethe and Schiller in German. I don't know either.
• 1:46:20
  Speaker 1: That would be interesting. I think she encountered Schiller while
• 1:46:24
  Speaker 1: still in Russia, so maybe she read it in Russian. Yeah,
• 1:46:28
  Speaker 1: I don't know. I think you're right about encountering Schiller
• 1:46:31
  Speaker 1: that early. Maybe she read it in Russian. Maybe it
• 1:46:35
  Speaker 1: was part of a German class, but I don't know.
• 1:46:37
  Speaker 1: I know Leonard knows German as well, But I don't
• 1:46:40
  Speaker 1: know if he's ever read Schiller. I know he loves Schiller.
• 1:46:46
  Speaker 1: One of Schiller's plays was one of his eight great
• 1:46:49
  Speaker 1: plays talk, of course. But I don't know if he's
• 1:46:56
  Speaker 1: ever read Schiller. Yeah, I don't know. All right. Enric,
• 1:47:05
  Speaker 1: what is the objectivist discussion on AI in Austin in December?
• 1:47:10
  Speaker 1: Who is available? Is it available to attend? No, it's
• 1:47:13
  Speaker 1: a closed session. It's a bunch of people from the Institute,
• 1:47:19
  Speaker 1: some philosophers, some professionals from the AI space getting together
• 1:47:27
  Speaker 1: to talk about some issues related to AI. I'll be there.
• 1:47:34
  Speaker 1: Uncle Greg, people like that will be there. I don't
• 1:47:39
  Speaker 1: have the details yet. Michael, did you see ICE just unveiled, unalived,
• 1:47:54
  Speaker 1: just killed someone in New York City in front of
• 1:47:56
  Speaker 1: his five-year-old child? I quickly read about that. I didn't
• 1:48:00
  Speaker 1: have enough to put it into the news show. But yes,
• 1:48:03
  Speaker 1: I did see that. I'll try to gather more information
• 1:48:06
  Speaker 1: to maybe include it next week. Michael says, do statistics,
• 1:48:10
  Speaker 1: do statists know our system is resilient so they don't
• 1:48:15
  Speaker 1: mind tinkering with it? I don't think they care. I
• 1:48:20
  Speaker 1: don't think they care. They're statists. They're about power. They're
• 1:48:23
  Speaker 1: not about... I mean, I think they think, true or not,
• 1:48:30
  Speaker 1: that the system will survive them. I think some of
• 1:48:33
  Speaker 1: them even delude themselves, evade into thinking that they will
• 1:48:37
  Speaker 1: improve it. Michael, would you be willing to engage in
• 1:48:43
  Speaker 1: civil disobedience if they abolish free speech, even if we
• 1:48:48
  Speaker 1: don't have the numbers to achieve victory? Well, it depends.
• 1:48:52
  Speaker 1: Would it serve a purpose? Would it help raise the
• 1:49:00
  Speaker 1: profile of the issue? Would it get people more enthusiastic
• 1:49:04
  Speaker 1: about it? So it has to serve a purpose. It's
• 1:49:07
  Speaker 1: not we'll do civil disobedience for the sake of feeling
• 1:49:14
  Speaker 1: good about ourselves. It has to serve a purpose. It
• 1:49:17
  Speaker 1: has to achieve something. Micah says, I never thought that
• 1:49:21
  Speaker 1: within my lifetime I would see anti-Semitism be not only
• 1:49:26
  Speaker 1: socially acceptable, but encouraged. I agree. I never thought that either.
• 1:49:29
  Speaker 1: Never thought that was possible. Daniel says, later in the chat,
• 1:49:35
  Speaker 1: did you see Trump is buying diesel from Russia? No.
• 1:49:41
  Speaker 1: That's funny. You mean the diesel that the Ukrainians are
• 1:49:45
  Speaker 1: not blowing up, Trump is buying the leftovers? I thought
• 1:49:50
  Speaker 1: Russia banned the export of diesel. So how's he even
• 1:49:54
  Speaker 1: getting diesel from Russia? I'd be skeptical of this story.
• 1:49:59
  Speaker 1: Not that I'd put it past Trump, but because I
• 1:50:01
  Speaker 1: don't think Russia has any diesel to sell. I think
• 1:50:06
  Speaker 1: they're keeping all the diesel to themselves because they don't
• 1:50:09
  Speaker 1: have enough. That's why I would be skeptical. All right, guys.
• 1:50:15
  Speaker 1: Thank you. We met our target. That's always good. Thumbs
• 1:50:18
  Speaker 1: up to all of you guys. Thank you. Thank you.
• 1:50:20
  Speaker 1: Thank you. We will reconvene tomorrow with Nikos to talk
• 1:50:27
  Speaker 1: about suicidal empathy. And we will then be on Sunday
• 1:50:32
  Speaker 1: to talk about, to analyze a critic of capitalism. Otherwise,
• 1:50:37
  Speaker 1: I'll be back on Monday with another, Monday shows would
• 1:50:40
  Speaker 1: be a little later, but another show, another new show. Okay,
• 1:50:45
  Speaker 1: Lucinda has a quick last minute question. Let's see. She says,
• 1:50:50
  Speaker 1: since Ayn Rand knew German purely for reading, I'd assume
• 1:50:54
  Speaker 1: she learned that in part by reading Schiller and Goethe.
• 1:50:58
  Speaker 1: Can't think how somebody could learn to read German back
• 1:51:01
  Speaker 1: then without engaging with Goethe. I think you're probably right.
• 1:51:06
  Speaker 1: I think you're probably right. I'll try to get us
• 1:51:09
  Speaker 1: an answer from the archives. All right, Andrew comes in
• 1:51:12
  Speaker 1: with a question. Added to J.D. defining socialism by transgenderism. Yeah,
• 1:51:19
  Speaker 1: added to J.D. Vance defining socialism by transgenderism. We talked
• 1:51:24
  Speaker 1: about that yesterday. He also equated it with open borders. Yes,
• 1:51:27
  Speaker 1: I said that, I think, yesterday. I guess anything by
• 1:51:30
  Speaker 1: collectivism to which he adheres... Bernie responded, assuring he opposes
• 1:51:36
  Speaker 1: mass immigration, too. He does. Bernie's not for mass immigration.
• 1:51:40
  Speaker 1: The two sides grasping at straws to disagree. Yeah, I mean,
• 1:51:45
  Speaker 1: they basically agree on the collectivism. They both hate open borders,
• 1:51:51
  Speaker 1: if you will, mass immigration. Bernie's always been anti-mass immigration. So,
• 1:52:00
  Speaker 1: because Bernie's Very in favor of unions, and he's afraid
• 1:52:02
  Speaker 1: mass immigration lowers wages. So they're all the same. All
• 1:52:07
  Speaker 1: the same. J.D. is Bernie. There's not a big difference
• 1:52:10
  Speaker 1: between them, except on transgenderism, I guess. I don't think
• 1:52:13
  Speaker 1: Bernie really cares about transgender issues at all. But for him,
• 1:52:18
  Speaker 1: he has to pretend because that's his base. Thank you, Andrew.
• 1:52:24
  Speaker 1: That was $ 50. Really, really, really appreciate that. Thank you, guys.
• 1:52:29
  Speaker 1: I will see you guys tomorrow. Have a great weekend. Bye.