Latest / Yaron Brook Show / AMA & Hangout with Contributors (March 2026) | Yaron Brook Show

Transcript

AMA & Hangout with Contributors (March 2026) | Yaron Brook Show · Yaron Brook Show

• 0:02
  Speaker 1: A lot of the fun of the metal, principles of
• 0:05
  Speaker 1: weedo at cell of interest and an individual ones.
• 0:14
  Speaker 2: This is the book show, right everybody, Welcome to your
• 0:21
  Speaker 2: own book show on this Saturday, March twenty eight. Today's
• 0:29
  Speaker 2: show is Ask Me Anything Show. We've got a panel
• 0:33
  Speaker 2: here on video that will be asking questions, but the
• 0:37
  Speaker 2: super chat is also open and those of you who
• 0:39
  Speaker 2: are on YouTube can ask questions on using the ship chat.
• 0:45
  Speaker 2: And those of you are not on YouTube, come on
• 0:48
  Speaker 2: over to YouTube where you can where you can participate
• 0:52
  Speaker 2: and interact. And those of you who still want to
• 0:55
  Speaker 2: join the panel, You're welcome to do so. Just log
• 1:00
  Speaker 2: in and I'll let you in. Let us start with
• 1:04
  Speaker 2: our panels panel and the questions will start with John.
• 1:10
  Speaker 3: Oh you muted, I think, thanks very much and thank
• 1:15
  Speaker 3: you for all you do. You're the best news source
• 1:20
  Speaker 3: on how to stay rational and uh you know, in
• 1:23
  Speaker 3: the in the irrational world, and and when I was
• 1:27
  Speaker 3: thinking about that, uh, you helped me deal with my
• 1:30
  Speaker 3: own occasional irrational uh beig. So thanks much for keeping
• 1:36
  Speaker 3: the center. Today's question, Uh, it's it's about uh uh
• 1:43
  Speaker 3: kind of cross marketing. Uh. The the the public voices
• 1:48
  Speaker 3: of of U A r I and uh uh here's
• 1:55
  Speaker 3: the thought, uh your audience and the other audience that
• 1:59
  Speaker 3: I'm part of. This Harry ben Swanger's h email and
• 2:05
  Speaker 3: I remember a plug I think you gave Harry's uh
• 2:09
  Speaker 3: after rand Day.
• 2:11
  Speaker 4: Uh.
• 2:11
  Speaker 3: My question is this uh yourself, Don Watkins tye Harry,
• 2:18
  Speaker 3: Uh he had you. You know, different people are attracted
• 2:24
  Speaker 3: by the you know, the the talk and the personalities
• 2:28
  Speaker 3: and such. Is there a way that you keeping you
• 2:32
  Speaker 3: know that somebody that's new to Don Watkins becomes new
• 2:36
  Speaker 3: to your on Brook becomes new to Harry Benswagger.
• 2:40
  Speaker 2: Sure, absolutely so. Uh. I think cross marketing is good.
• 2:47
  Speaker 2: I mean I try, you know, I'm trying to make money,
• 2:50
  Speaker 2: so I take sponsorships. So like AOI sponsors to show shop.
• 2:54
  Speaker 2: I market ao I when the confidence when the conference
• 2:59
  Speaker 2: was on, then I was going to be a speaker there.
• 3:02
  Speaker 2: I plugged Harry how he's been on the show, so
• 3:05
  Speaker 2: I plug him when he's on the show. Obviously Don
• 3:09
  Speaker 2: was on the show a week ago, so that's a
• 3:12
  Speaker 2: plug for Don. I've plugged.
• 3:14
  Speaker 1: Yeah.
• 3:15
  Speaker 2: I mean one of the reasons I do the interviews
• 3:18
  Speaker 2: it is to plug those people, right, So so Nicos
• 3:24
  Speaker 2: and you know Greg's Lamiery and all these guys who
• 3:30
  Speaker 2: are doing their own thing all over the place. Yeah,
• 3:33
  Speaker 2: they come on my show and hopefully that gives them
• 3:34
  Speaker 2: greater exposure on their shows. I often I just shared
• 3:40
  Speaker 2: something Peter Schwartz wrote on Twitter. So yeah, you know,
• 3:45
  Speaker 2: I think cross marketing is good. I go and Harry
• 3:48
  Speaker 2: he's been been swaring his list once in a while,
• 3:50
  Speaker 2: and and and speak during their Sunday sessions. I've done
• 3:55
  Speaker 2: that a couple of times. So yeah, absolutely, we should
• 3:57
  Speaker 2: all be cross marketing each other all the time. There's
• 4:00
  Speaker 2: only so much, you know, you can't do it all
• 4:03
  Speaker 2: the time. It becomes But but yeah, I'm on full
• 4:06
  Speaker 2: course marketing. There's only so many of us objectives out there.
• 4:12
  Speaker 2: We've got to get help get the wood out.
• 4:14
  Speaker 1: Yeah, who are the next ones?
• 4:19
  Speaker 2: Next ones? Young and up and coming. Oh yes, well
• 4:26
  Speaker 2: it depends on the timescale. I mean you can see them,
• 4:30
  Speaker 2: you know at O'Connor. Now we've got these twenty minute
• 4:34
  Speaker 2: sessions where a lot of our younger intellectuals give short
• 4:37
  Speaker 2: talks and you'll see a bunch of them there, you
• 4:42
  Speaker 2: know who you know. I think I've featured people like
• 4:45
  Speaker 2: Ibis and on the show, and and and others. You know,
• 4:52
  Speaker 2: I'm blanking on names right now, but but there's a
• 4:55
  Speaker 2: whole cadre of them. I I do a public a
• 5:01
  Speaker 2: comment events semon off of the Institute every Wednesday, uh,
• 5:06
  Speaker 2: where there's a whole group of them, probably a dozen
• 5:09
  Speaker 2: of them that we talk about coming events on cars
• 5:11
  Speaker 2: on the call as well, and Elan and as part
• 5:14
  Speaker 2: of this is part of the teaching.
• 5:17
  Speaker 1: Uh.
• 5:17
  Speaker 2: And yeah, there's a lot of I think there's a
• 5:22
  Speaker 2: there's a group coming up that is uh that is
• 5:25
  Speaker 2: really good. Uh. Which which one of them becomes kind
• 5:29
  Speaker 2: of more of a public intellectual and which ones of
• 5:31
  Speaker 2: them go and and teach. I mean it is well,
• 5:36
  Speaker 2: we'll see, we'll see. I mean obviously the Institute has
• 5:38
  Speaker 2: been Bear and Elanono and Keith and you know and
• 5:42
  Speaker 2: and on cough course. So there there's Yeah, there's a
• 5:45
  Speaker 2: big cadre of intellectuals now, particularly as compared to when
• 5:48
  Speaker 2: I was young and and coming up through the thing,
• 5:52
  Speaker 2: and it was there there were three of them, right,
• 5:54
  Speaker 2: four five maybe right there was Harry Peter Leonard of course,
• 5:59
  Speaker 2: and John Ridpath and not much more so right, and
• 6:06
  Speaker 2: today there's a lot and and a lot of people
• 6:08
  Speaker 2: are doing stuff that is outward focused, right, It is
• 6:13
  Speaker 2: appealing to an outward audience, which is good. Thanks Sean Jennifer.
• 6:22
  Speaker 5: I wanted to talk about the AI art a little
• 6:25
  Speaker 5: more because I thought of something else. Yep, there's when
• 6:29
  Speaker 5: you look at art. Obviously, there's the technique how well
• 6:32
  Speaker 5: did they paint whatever they painted? But then isn't there
• 6:35
  Speaker 5: also the psychological aspect you as the viewer get knowing
• 6:39
  Speaker 5: that you're interacting with another a living, conscious human you know,
• 6:46
  Speaker 5: not a missimash that a computer does, but an actual
• 6:49
  Speaker 5: person that has a sense of life, and you're responding
• 6:53
  Speaker 5: to that psychologically. It's sort of like, you know, you
• 6:55
  Speaker 5: wouldn't like we've talked about having a AI robot boyfriend,
• 6:59
  Speaker 5: it wouldn't be the same, and that they're programmed to
• 7:01
  Speaker 5: do everything, you know, because it's not alive and conscious,
• 7:05
  Speaker 5: you know what I mean.
• 7:06
  Speaker 2: But what if what if at the bottom of the
• 7:07
  Speaker 2: art there was there was a name of an individual
• 7:10
  Speaker 2: and a little bio of him, so you thought it
• 7:12
  Speaker 2: was a person.
• 7:14
  Speaker 5: Well, yeah, that's true too. What if he didn't know
• 7:17
  Speaker 5: If he didn't know, you didn't know, But what if
• 7:18
  Speaker 5: you did know? Could that psychological effectory response or not.
• 7:21
  Speaker 5: I mean, I don't think it's complicated. I'm not sure
• 7:23
  Speaker 5: what I think about it.
• 7:24
  Speaker 2: I mean maybe maybe today, but okay, let's project fifty
• 7:28
  Speaker 2: years into the future, and there's a lot of this
• 7:30
  Speaker 2: ought out there and you interact with AI all the time,
• 7:33
  Speaker 2: and I just I just don't know, particularly given that
• 7:37
  Speaker 2: ninety percent of the people, maybe ninety nine point nine
• 7:40
  Speaker 2: percent of the people couldn't tell the difference. They'd look
• 7:44
  Speaker 2: at a piece of art done by AI and they
• 7:46
  Speaker 2: couldn't tell it was AI. I mean, maybe an expert could,
• 7:50
  Speaker 2: a real expert, but most people couldn't.
• 7:53
  Speaker 5: I wasn't there between that and like we've discussed having
• 7:57
  Speaker 5: like a robot spouse, it's not quote real, you know.
• 8:05
  Speaker 2: Sadly, I think they're going to be people who are
• 8:08
  Speaker 2: I mean, all these movies about robot boyfriends and girlfriends
• 8:13
  Speaker 2: I think are real. I think a lot of people
• 8:14
  Speaker 2: are going to be. That's going to happen to a
• 8:17
  Speaker 2: lot of people. I think they all because but the
• 8:21
  Speaker 2: reality is that the differences that you can look into
• 8:25
  Speaker 2: the eyes of your real boyfriend girlfriend and it's a
• 8:28
  Speaker 2: real person and their thoughts and you know, they have
• 8:33
  Speaker 2: will you know they're choosing and you know them right,
• 8:38
  Speaker 2: But what if I could create a robot that look
• 8:40
  Speaker 2: exactly like a human being and acted exactly like a
• 8:43
  Speaker 2: human being, and had eyes that looked exactly like a
• 8:46
  Speaker 2: human being.
• 8:47
  Speaker 5: Yeah, they did, Like at Star Trek years ago, they
• 8:49
  Speaker 5: talked about these things.
• 8:50
  Speaker 2: Yeah, so you know, if they're if they were, if
• 8:53
  Speaker 2: they're that much like a human being, then maybe they
• 8:56
  Speaker 2: are human being. Right. So I don't think you can
• 8:58
  Speaker 2: do that. Was it was the ones I think you
• 9:00
  Speaker 2: have to, you'd have to get into biology. But can
• 9:03
  Speaker 2: we create life? Yeah, can we create artificial life? Whatever
• 9:07
  Speaker 2: the hell that means. But but so I think it
• 9:10
  Speaker 2: gets m key and complicated, and and I think, you know,
• 9:16
  Speaker 2: people who will probably live after we're gone. You know,
• 9:20
  Speaker 2: it's gonna be It's gonna be interesting. One of the
• 9:22
  Speaker 2: reasons I don't know, I hate the idea of dying
• 9:25
  Speaker 2: is I want to see how this plays out. I'd
• 9:27
  Speaker 2: like to see one hundred years from now, what's what's
• 9:29
  Speaker 2: happening with robots and AI and all this stuff. I'm curious.
• 9:34
  Speaker 2: And so it's but I think it becomes I think
• 9:39
  Speaker 2: it becomes complicated. I think it really and becomes interesting
• 9:43
  Speaker 2: and people are gonna have to come up with new
• 9:46
  Speaker 2: ideas and new thoughts and about all these things. And
• 9:50
  Speaker 2: my psychology might have to change to some extent. And uh,
• 9:55
  Speaker 2: the way we relate to yeah, relate to auto, relate
• 10:00
  Speaker 2: to machines or you know, and and then what happens
• 10:02
  Speaker 2: when we become partially machines? Right, so have chips in
• 10:06
  Speaker 2: our brains and all of that stuff. So I wish
• 10:09
  Speaker 2: I was a fair you know, if I was a
• 10:11
  Speaker 2: sci fi wright, I could, I could speculate in sci fi,
• 10:14
  Speaker 2: but I'm not. I don't have that kind of imagination.
• 10:16
  Speaker 2: But it would be kind of cool. This is what
• 10:18
  Speaker 2: sci fi writ should be writing about.
• 10:20
  Speaker 1: Right, But yeah, there.
• 10:22
  Speaker 5: Was Twilight Zone episodes about this stuff.
• 10:24
  Speaker 2: Yeah, I know, but now it's now it's not twilight
• 10:27
  Speaker 2: Zone anymore. It's getting real, so it's time to do
• 10:30
  Speaker 2: something real. So it's it's it's definitely I find it fascinating.
• 10:37
  Speaker 5: Okay, thank you?
• 10:38
  Speaker 2: Yeah, Uh, Dunnley, you muted in video is off right,
• 10:50
  Speaker 2: I'm gonna skip Donley. Maybe you'll be back in a minute. Robert.
• 10:57
  Speaker 4: So, I have a question from Amy, from missus Naser.
• 11:01
  Speaker 4: I was telling her we got the AMA today, and
• 11:03
  Speaker 4: I don't know that I have any questions. I feel
• 11:05
  Speaker 4: like I know what Yurin has to say about everything,
• 11:08
  Speaker 4: even when my answers might be a little bit different.
• 11:10
  Speaker 4: She said, no, I got a.
• 11:11
  Speaker 2: Question that predictable. Huh.
• 11:14
  Speaker 4: Now, just hours and hours and hours of listening and
• 11:17
  Speaker 4: taking it in. But here's what Amy sent me, and
• 11:20
  Speaker 4: this is typed out and it's kind of two parts here.
• 11:23
  Speaker 4: She's been trying to hammer home to folks what altruism
• 11:28
  Speaker 4: is doing to us politically, and right now, Donald Trump
• 11:33
  Speaker 4: is not your archtypical altruist. So she here's her question,
• 11:37
  Speaker 4: what would be the best designation for what Donald Trump
• 11:40
  Speaker 4: is in regard to altruism. He's not an altruist in
• 11:43
  Speaker 4: the general sense of the term that we use as
• 11:46
  Speaker 4: an objectivist. He doesn't seem to sacrifice himself, but he
• 11:49
  Speaker 4: does promote altruism in the sense of asking for sacrifices
• 11:53
  Speaker 4: from others. Okay, that's the first half of the question.
• 11:56
  Speaker 4: And right away I thought, well, here's what your own
• 12:00
  Speaker 4: will say. He'll say he's not in anything, he's nothing,
• 12:02
  Speaker 4: he's not ideological. But maybe that's too quick an answer.
• 12:08
  Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, I think I think he. I mean,
• 12:11
  Speaker 2: we've described him as a narcissist, and I think that's right.
• 12:15
  Speaker 2: He is an exploita. You could describe as an exploiter, right,
• 12:20
  Speaker 2: he believes in exploiting others to achieve his aims.
• 12:25
  Speaker 4: Yeah, he's definitely the Attila versus the witch doctor.
• 12:28
  Speaker 2: Yeah, he's an Attila. And he's definitely an Attila. And
• 12:31
  Speaker 2: he's he's not you know, he's not an altruist, but
• 12:36
  Speaker 2: is he shaped? But he is an altruist in a
• 12:38
  Speaker 2: sense that expect other people to be altruistic, Right, he
• 12:41
  Speaker 2: expects other people to sacrifice. And is he shaped by altruism? Yes,
• 12:45
  Speaker 2: I would say he is a he is one of
• 12:48
  Speaker 2: the many options people have if they reject altruism but
• 12:53
  Speaker 2: don't have an alternative and yet a shape within a
• 12:57
  Speaker 2: culture of altruism and have a particular psychology. And and
• 13:01
  Speaker 2: so he's he's he's a kind of an exploitative narcissist.
• 13:08
  Speaker 1: You know.
• 13:09
  Speaker 2: Uh, he's not a power lester in the traditional sense,
• 13:13
  Speaker 2: but he's definitely and and you know, he likes having
• 13:16
  Speaker 2: the power. He he enjoys power, and he'd like to
• 13:21
  Speaker 2: have more of it. But he's not he's not kind
• 13:23
  Speaker 2: of a scheming I don't human as a scheming fascist
• 13:26
  Speaker 2: who wants to take control of everything. He's just pissed
• 13:28
  Speaker 2: off that anybody has say, you know, he's like the president.
• 13:31
  Speaker 2: He should have all the authority in the world. He's
• 13:33
  Speaker 2: like the top gun. How how come? How come he
• 13:36
  Speaker 2: has to get permission from anybody? It just it kind
• 13:38
  Speaker 2: of pisses him off. It's not like he's a he's
• 13:41
  Speaker 2: he's in. He's a scheming hitler. He's not. He's not
• 13:45
  Speaker 2: that sophisticated.
• 13:47
  Speaker 4: No, he's a schoolyard bully.
• 13:48
  Speaker 2: Yeah, says shape by altruism, but he's not. He's not
• 13:52
  Speaker 2: an altruist, although he expects that altruism from everybody else.
• 13:57
  Speaker 4: Okay, good, I'll do the second half the next time
• 13:59
  Speaker 4: we go around.
• 14:00
  Speaker 2: Hey, sounds good.
• 14:01
  Speaker 4: It's a little different.
• 14:02
  Speaker 2: Sounds good, Adam.
• 14:07
  Speaker 1: Yes.
• 14:08
  Speaker 6: Recently, the Wall Street Journal ran an article about.
• 14:18
  Speaker 7: Pogidaeva, who was one of.
• 14:25
  Speaker 6: Jeffrey Epstein's assistance, and What's the Free Press ran a
• 14:36
  Speaker 6: counter article. The Wall Street Journal portrayed her as just
• 14:41
  Speaker 6: another victim, even though she first met Jeffrey Epstein when
• 14:48
  Speaker 6: she was twenty four years old, so definitely not a teenager.
• 14:54
  Speaker 7: Anymore.
• 14:57
  Speaker 6: The Free Press exposes a lot of material that was
• 15:02
  Speaker 6: not in the Wall Street Journal article. And what struck
• 15:07
  Speaker 6: me is that she graduated at the top of her
• 15:12
  Speaker 6: class from the Moscow State Institute of International Relations, which
• 15:20
  Speaker 6: is the graduate school of the Soviet Foreign intelligence Services.
• 15:27
  Speaker 6: That's essentially, spies who will be working under diplomatic cover
• 15:34
  Speaker 6: get their final education in international relations and everything else
• 15:43
  Speaker 6: that they will need to know as tap agents under
• 15:48
  Speaker 6: diplomatic cover. Now, this woman, Posideva was not under the
• 16:00
  Speaker 6: dramatic cover. She got a green card as a model
• 16:07
  Speaker 6: instantly from the same agency from which Trump got a
• 16:15
  Speaker 6: green card for his wife as a model. Why there
• 16:20
  Speaker 6: are green cards for models is beyond by understand ordinary talent. Well, yeah,
• 16:33
  Speaker 6: I mean the extraordinary talent provision was meant for engineers
• 16:39
  Speaker 6: and scientists.
• 16:40
  Speaker 7: And how it got applied to models, I don't know.
• 16:47
  Speaker 7: And I guess she was pretty enough. But the idea
• 16:54
  Speaker 7: that a.
• 16:55
  Speaker 6: Graduate of the Moscow State Institute of International Relations would
• 17:01
  Speaker 6: be admitted on a green card, I mean, there's a
• 17:07
  Speaker 6: limited number of those people who are here under diplomatic
• 17:12
  Speaker 6: cover and diplomatic passports. But I thought that was it,
• 17:19
  Speaker 6: And here we have you know, somebody who was graduating
• 17:25
  Speaker 6: from the have a graduate school for Russian spies and
• 17:31
  Speaker 6: she gets a regular green card.
• 17:35
  Speaker 7: How is that possible?
• 17:37
  Speaker 2: Well, she had powerful fans, I mean obviously she you know,
• 17:41
  Speaker 2: Jeffrey Epstein had a lot of fans in the right places.
• 17:45
  Speaker 2: A lot of this green card stuff is I think,
• 17:50
  Speaker 2: you know, a lot of it can be secumvented if
• 17:52
  Speaker 2: you know, the white people. We have a rule of law,
• 17:56
  Speaker 2: but you know a lot of times who you know
• 18:00
  Speaker 2: matters in these kind of things, and and it, you know,
• 18:05
  Speaker 2: it somewhat relates to this idea of how do we
• 18:07
  Speaker 2: get green cuts for models? Yeah, I mean there are men,
• 18:12
  Speaker 2: you know, and they're pretty women, and you know, powerful
• 18:16
  Speaker 2: men will do a lot of a lot in order
• 18:19
  Speaker 2: to make sure the pretty women, uh, you know, can
• 18:23
  Speaker 2: that that they can they can invite pretty women into
• 18:26
  Speaker 2: their universe. And that includes rigging the the visa system
• 18:32
  Speaker 2: in order to make that possible. But I think she look,
• 18:35
  Speaker 2: I don't know, I mean, there's this reason, you know,
• 18:38
  Speaker 2: everybody says that Jeffrey Epstein it was a massad agent.
• 18:43
  Speaker 2: I think that's very unlikely. But could he have been
• 18:45
  Speaker 2: a Russian agent? You know, could could she have been
• 18:49
  Speaker 2: his contact to the to the KGB.
• 18:52
  Speaker 1: Who knows.
• 18:53
  Speaker 2: I mean, I doubt it again, but it's it's certainly,
• 18:57
  Speaker 2: it's certainly possible.
• 18:59
  Speaker 1: Why do you doubt it.
• 19:03
  Speaker 2: Because because it because it worked too well, Because I
• 19:08
  Speaker 2: don't know that that's competent.
• 19:12
  Speaker 6: She's had the right educational background for being his control there.
• 19:19
  Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean maybe, but it's also very obvious, right,
• 19:22
  Speaker 2: So you think that if she really was KGB, and
• 19:26
  Speaker 2: given where she went to school, everybody knows that, you
• 19:29
  Speaker 2: think you think the CIA or the FBI, whoever is
• 19:31
  Speaker 2: responsible would know that. You know, I'm not against some
• 19:38
  Speaker 2: conspiracy theories, but the baden of proof is high, right,
• 19:43
  Speaker 2: Usually what is at Arkhams Raiser, the simple explanation is
• 19:46
  Speaker 2: the right one. Jeffrey Epstein, you know, thought she was
• 19:50
  Speaker 2: beautiful and wanted her around, and he got her a visa,
• 19:54
  Speaker 2: and in spite of her being really really smart, she
• 19:57
  Speaker 2: was a naive Russian woman who could easily be manipulated
• 20:01
  Speaker 2: by a rich by rich American sophisticated whatever, which is
• 20:05
  Speaker 2: what Jeffy Epstein was. So I think that's a more
• 20:09
  Speaker 2: likely explanation. But if it turned out that Jeffrey Epstein
• 20:12
  Speaker 2: was feeding information to the Russians, I would not be surprised.
• 20:16
  Speaker 2: And if it turns out that some of that information
• 20:19
  Speaker 2: is about Donald Trump, I certainly wouldn't be surprised, given
• 20:22
  Speaker 2: how Trump, how friendly Trump is with Putins. So it
• 20:28
  Speaker 2: just it's just the deburn. The proof is on those
• 20:30
  Speaker 2: who claiming the conspiracy theory, and you need a lot
• 20:33
  Speaker 2: to be able to prove that one, and you know,
• 20:37
  Speaker 2: not a lot. Not enough lines up.
• 20:40
  Speaker 7: The thing is, people who graduate.
• 20:44
  Speaker 6: From the muster of State Institute of International Relations become
• 20:53
  Speaker 6: ration diplomats, which means, you know, the spies for their
• 20:58
  Speaker 6: various foreign service agencies, and someone who graduates near the
• 21:04
  Speaker 6: top of the school, you know, normally you would not
• 21:11
  Speaker 6: expect her to pretend to be living an ordinary model's life.
• 21:17
  Speaker 2: But maybe she was bored with Maybe she didn't want
• 21:20
  Speaker 2: to be a diplomat and she wanted the jet setting
• 21:24
  Speaker 2: kind of lifestyle of a model and and the kind
• 21:28
  Speaker 2: of lifestyle that Jeffrey could could offer her. And maybe
• 21:31
  Speaker 2: she wanted to leave Russia because she hated Russia. I mean,
• 21:33
  Speaker 2: she was intelligent, so maybe she wanted to leave Russia.
• 21:36
  Speaker 2: That would be an intelligent thing to do, so I
• 21:39
  Speaker 2: don't know. Neither do you, And we could speculate all
• 21:42
  Speaker 2: day long, but we just don't know. It's suspicious, but
• 21:45
  Speaker 2: that's all it is it. We'll leave it at that.
• 21:48
  Speaker 2: Will Beckham's razer thinks.
• 21:54
  Speaker 7: I have a related question, but I guess that can't wait.
• 21:57
  Speaker 2: There's wait there. We've got a bunch of people. Thanks
• 22:00
  Speaker 2: Adam Okay online, Hey you're Ron.
• 22:03
  Speaker 1: How arey? So I've we just finished about a month
• 22:09
  Speaker 1: and a half to a trip in South America, and
• 22:13
  Speaker 1: by the way, I got to Rio as part of that.
• 22:14
  Speaker 1: And yeah, mostly agree with you that it's a pretty
• 22:18
  Speaker 1: pretty city, but the buildings have looked a little ugly
• 22:21
  Speaker 1: to me at times. Overall quite nice. But my question
• 22:24
  Speaker 1: was more, I had an unfortunate incident happened, which was
• 22:27
  Speaker 1: in Santiago on the subway where my phone got stolen, pickpocketed,
• 22:32
  Speaker 1: And I mean, these bastards are really good. I wish
• 22:35
  Speaker 1: they would use that capabilities for months something useful because
• 22:38
  Speaker 1: they could be they could contribute. But my question is more,
• 22:43
  Speaker 1: and by no means that my supporter of Sharia law
• 22:46
  Speaker 1: and stuff like that. But you you've said many times
• 22:49
  Speaker 1: that you know the punishments that happened in Sharia law
• 22:54
  Speaker 1: for theft are immoral, And I guess my question to
• 22:58
  Speaker 1: he would be what And I'm not advocating. Okay, the
• 23:01
  Speaker 1: first time, you know, you chop the hand off with
• 23:04
  Speaker 1: a with a meat cleaver, you know, I mean, but
• 23:07
  Speaker 1: why not after the third time, say okay, you know
• 23:09
  Speaker 1: what you're you're irredeemable. We're removing your ability to do this.
• 23:14
  Speaker 1: And maybe he's done under surgery and all that, but
• 23:16
  Speaker 1: you know, why not have a little bit more strict.
• 23:19
  Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, but you know, most strict punishment could
• 23:23
  Speaker 2: be twenty five years in jail. It doesn't have to
• 23:25
  Speaker 2: be literally chopping a handoff, because I don't think chopping
• 23:29
  Speaker 2: a handoff will actually solve the problem because he's got
• 23:32
  Speaker 2: another hand. You could use a gun. I mean, the
• 23:36
  Speaker 2: other things that a bad person can do. What you
• 23:38
  Speaker 2: really want to do is that somebody is a repeat offender,
• 23:42
  Speaker 2: is to lock him up and throw away the keys.
• 23:44
  Speaker 2: I mean, I'm much more inclined towards that than anything else,
• 23:50
  Speaker 2: because I want him off the streets because he might
• 23:53
  Speaker 2: not be able to pickpocket, but he might be able
• 23:55
  Speaker 2: to do other things. So uh, you know that to
• 24:00
  Speaker 2: me is the solution. I you know, I'm sympathetic to
• 24:03
  Speaker 2: castrating rapists, but again, I don't want them on the streets.
• 24:09
  Speaker 2: They're violent criminals. They should be behind bars and they
• 24:11
  Speaker 2: should stay there. So I would I would definitely have
• 24:14
  Speaker 2: harsher penalties. I think we're way too lax, particularly for
• 24:18
  Speaker 2: violent crimes. I know the property is really bad, but
• 24:21
  Speaker 2: violent crimes to me, is even worse, and we should
• 24:24
  Speaker 2: we should. Definitely, I think we're way too lenient. I
• 24:28
  Speaker 2: like the idea in California they had three strikes and
• 24:31
  Speaker 2: you're out. You know, you get three strikes of a
• 24:34
  Speaker 2: criminal offense and you're in jail forever. And I think
• 24:37
  Speaker 2: that's that's right.
• 24:40
  Speaker 1: Yeah.
• 24:40
  Speaker 2: I think we should have much much stricter penalties, and
• 24:43
  Speaker 2: including on property right violations like pickpocketing. But there's something
• 24:50
  Speaker 2: about spilling blood. It's a good question. Why is spilling
• 24:53
  Speaker 2: spilling blood you know, uh, you know different than locking
• 24:58
  Speaker 2: somebody up for a long time.
• 25:01
  Speaker 8: I think that would be because it's irreversible. So what
• 25:04
  Speaker 8: if it was bad testimony and it came out five
• 25:07
  Speaker 8: years later and you're like, well, sorry, you have a
• 25:09
  Speaker 8: hand loss.
• 25:10
  Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, your time in jail is reversible as well,
• 25:15
  Speaker 2: I get that with life, but I'm just not sure
• 25:19
  Speaker 2: there's something but Barwick about cutting somebody's hands off. But
• 25:22
  Speaker 2: one has to think about whether that's you know, to
• 25:26
  Speaker 2: what extent that is, uh, that is rational or not.
• 25:33
  Speaker 2: You know, maybe maybe it's not.
• 25:35
  Speaker 1: I mean, I'll be honest, I was frankly very jealous
• 25:38
  Speaker 1: of the Israeli guys who did the page or stuff. Yeah,
• 25:41
  Speaker 1: and I wish that had that in my phone.
• 25:42
  Speaker 2: In your phone, yeah, yeah, I mean here's the here's
• 25:45
  Speaker 2: the thing about South America though, I mean, you're lucky
• 25:48
  Speaker 2: you only had one phone stolen, right, Yeah. So usually
• 25:53
  Speaker 2: I mean when you particularly, I don't know if you're
• 25:56
  Speaker 2: in Brazil, but Brazil, if you take your phone out
• 26:00
  Speaker 2: and you hold it in your hand, it's it's history.
• 26:02
  Speaker 2: It's done. I mean, motorcycle will come and they'll they'll
• 26:04
  Speaker 2: grab it and run away.
• 26:06
  Speaker 1: We saw, we saw right in front of us broad daylight,
• 26:11
  Speaker 1: a cop maybe one hundred and fifty meters out of sight,
• 26:13
  Speaker 1: but there the young kids. There was a group of
• 26:17
  Speaker 1: women walking the other way. They just reached over and
• 26:19
  Speaker 1: grabbed the necklace right off her neck.
• 26:21
  Speaker 2: Yeah, and then they run and their little kids.
• 26:23
  Speaker 1: No, no, they didn't even bother running.
• 26:25
  Speaker 2: Oh, we were like okay, okay, so we started in Rio.
• 26:28
  Speaker 2: They they'll grab your wallets or they'll pickpocket you or whatever,
• 26:31
  Speaker 2: and then they run and the little kids and usually
• 26:35
  Speaker 2: they so even if they get caught, they'll go to
• 26:38
  Speaker 2: courts and they'll release them because they're little kids.
• 26:40
  Speaker 1: Yeah.
• 26:40
  Speaker 2: And and but there, you know, in Buonos cibus, which
• 26:45
  Speaker 2: is relatively safe, motorcycle came by a friend of mine.
• 26:50
  Speaker 2: He just grabbed his phone while he was looking at it,
• 26:52
  Speaker 2: just grabbed the phone and he was gone.
• 26:54
  Speaker 1: And we had our phones on scraps who were very
• 26:58
  Speaker 1: careful and all that stuff actually after what I had happened. Yeah,
• 27:02
  Speaker 1: I mean it's related. And maybe it's a separate question.
• 27:05
  Speaker 1: If you want to answer it separately, that's fine. But
• 27:08
  Speaker 1: I think this property theft of pick pockets, like, to me,
• 27:15
  Speaker 1: it's like there's an understanding between politicians, cops and these
• 27:18
  Speaker 1: crooks and don't okay, don't be too violent, don't you know,
• 27:21
  Speaker 1: like hurt people, don't kill people, and we don't care,
• 27:24
  Speaker 1: especially if it's tourists, because we're really just redistributing wealth.
• 27:28
  Speaker 1: And it's to me, it's part of the Catholic thing too,
• 27:32
  Speaker 1: that it seems to be worse in Catholic countries like
• 27:34
  Speaker 1: in Europe. I believe it's worse in places like France
• 27:37
  Speaker 1: and Italy, although who knows, maybe it's not anymore.
• 27:41
  Speaker 2: Well, it used to be the Gypsies, I mean, the
• 27:43
  Speaker 2: Gypsies in those countries, and it's if you take out
• 27:46
  Speaker 2: the Gypsies, there's not much of it that's happening even
• 27:48
  Speaker 2: in those in Europe. There's just not a lot of
• 27:50
  Speaker 2: it other than the Gypsies. But it's yeah, I mean
• 27:54
  Speaker 2: there's something to it. It's why, for example, in San Francisco,
• 27:57
  Speaker 2: if you steal from a Macy's, or if you steal
• 28:00
  Speaker 2: from a CBS, nobody cares because you're just stealing for
• 28:03
  Speaker 2: big rich corporations. It's no big deal. In Chicago in
• 28:06
  Speaker 2: there with the riots and they went on the Million
• 28:08
  Speaker 2: Mile Road, you know that, with the high end stores on.
• 28:11
  Speaker 2: They broke in the Loui Viton and they stole stuff. Literally,
• 28:15
  Speaker 2: the mayor of Chicago said, well, it's just a little
• 28:17
  Speaker 2: bit of redistribution of wealth. It's so, you know, no
• 28:19
  Speaker 2: big deal.
• 28:19
  Speaker 1: At least at least she was honest about it.
• 28:21
  Speaker 2: Yeah, there's definitely. There's definitely a sense of that, and
• 28:25
  Speaker 2: that's why penalties are very low. And you know it's
• 28:30
  Speaker 2: and this is why I think, I think all those
• 28:31
  Speaker 2: penalties need to be significantly higher for all crimes, including
• 28:36
  Speaker 2: property property theft, and and.
• 28:38
  Speaker 1: I don't believe that catching these people with technology, to me,
• 28:41
  Speaker 1: should be that difficult. I mean, put the trackers in
• 28:45
  Speaker 1: there that they can't turn off and just grab them.
• 28:48
  Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean your phone should I assume you could
• 28:50
  Speaker 2: track your phone.
• 28:53
  Speaker 1: You know what, though, they're very smart because I tried,
• 28:55
  Speaker 1: like literally within a minute, and they turned it watch
• 28:59
  Speaker 1: trying to track it. No luck, like the phone was offline.
• 29:02
  Speaker 1: So I think I don't know if they carried like
• 29:03
  Speaker 1: Faraday bags or something prep like that.
• 29:06
  Speaker 2: I don't know, you know, like they just I remember
• 29:09
  Speaker 2: once it was a phone or iPad what it was,
• 29:12
  Speaker 2: and like a week late I tracked it and it
• 29:15
  Speaker 2: was an and it was in Africa. Really yeah, I'd
• 29:20
  Speaker 2: lost it in the US and it was in Africa
• 29:22
  Speaker 2: being sold for or something.
• 29:24
  Speaker 1: I have no idea anyway, Yeah, okay, thanks thanks for so.
• 29:28
  Speaker 2: You had that experience. But Santiago is a beautiful place.
• 29:31
  Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. Other other than that, it was nice, but
• 29:34
  Speaker 1: that particular things soured it quite a bit.
• 29:37
  Speaker 8: Yeah, hey Jacob, thanks for the reminder online on head
• 29:43
  Speaker 8: to Terrino in three weeks, so remember to keep the
• 29:47
  Speaker 8: phone tight.
• 29:47
  Speaker 1: Yes, oh yeah, And and I actually had mine on
• 29:50
  Speaker 1: a strap and they unclipped it in in my in
• 29:53
  Speaker 1: my bag and I didn't feel a thing. That's that's
• 29:56
  Speaker 1: how good they are. Like, make sure it's locked with
• 29:58
  Speaker 1: a zip tie on top of it.
• 30:00
  Speaker 2: In fun, you should be carrying the bag in front,
• 30:03
  Speaker 2: not in the back.
• 30:04
  Speaker 1: It was in the front. It wasn't the front. It's
• 30:06
  Speaker 1: just that my hand must have slipped just enough that
• 30:09
  Speaker 1: they were able to get I should have had it
• 30:10
  Speaker 1: inside my shirt. Like I might look like a gufas,
• 30:13
  Speaker 1: but who cares.
• 30:14
  Speaker 8: Hell me with my Italian coworkers, So maybe I'll just
• 30:17
  Speaker 8: give them my stuff.
• 30:18
  Speaker 1: For the night. And is not bad.
• 30:20
  Speaker 2: It's at least not bad. I didn't see anything in Italy.
• 30:25
  Speaker 8: So my question was, I'm sure you saw the stuff
• 30:28
  Speaker 8: on X on the texto that peared his doog of cancer?
• 30:34
  Speaker 8: That did what peared his doog of cancer? Tumors cuties,
• 30:38
  Speaker 8: good doctor cancer.
• 30:39
  Speaker 2: Yes, I saw that, yep.
• 30:41
  Speaker 8: I was very excited about it. But then I started thinking,
• 30:45
  Speaker 8: what if you had a bad actor and it seemed
• 30:47
  Speaker 8: like it was he spent out four thousand, maybe five
• 30:49
  Speaker 8: thousand dollars, You had a bad actor that wanted to
• 30:52
  Speaker 8: do a biological virus or some other virus. What would
• 30:56
  Speaker 8: the appropriate oversight be from a government perspective on biological
• 31:03
  Speaker 8: agents that could be produced by the AI?
• 31:07
  Speaker 3: Uh?
• 31:07
  Speaker 8: What do you You'd obviously want to legislation legislative late
• 31:12
  Speaker 8: passed rather than just an administrative control. But where would
• 31:16
  Speaker 8: you where are you initially thinking on the line between
• 31:20
  Speaker 8: oversight versus a mass casualty event due to someone spending
• 31:25
  Speaker 8: ten thousand dollars to create biological weapons.
• 31:29
  Speaker 2: I mean, there's a sension which it's it's very hard
• 31:32
  Speaker 2: to prevent that. But you could have through legislation that
• 31:39
  Speaker 2: AI that that any request for information that could lead
• 31:45
  Speaker 2: to the creation of biological weapon should not be supplied
• 31:49
  Speaker 2: by an AI and and should should automatically trigger AH,
• 31:57
  Speaker 2: you know, disclosure to the authorities. So you could legislate
• 32:01
  Speaker 2: that if you want to run AI, all these AI
• 32:04
  Speaker 2: companies they have to abide by this. There has to
• 32:07
  Speaker 2: be code in the AI that makes requests like this
• 32:11
  Speaker 2: basically illegal. It would be like child porn. What about
• 32:15
  Speaker 2: you know, I'm sure there's stuff that prohibits AI from
• 32:19
  Speaker 2: distributing child porn or creating child porn or whatever. The
• 32:23
  Speaker 2: same thing would apply to certain biological, certain chemical compositions,
• 32:28
  Speaker 2: and with the required notification to police.
• 32:34
  Speaker 8: Would that be a reactive oversight where you wait for
• 32:39
  Speaker 8: that thing to happen, then you prohibit it.
• 32:41
  Speaker 2: You can prohibit it, you know the risk, you know
• 32:43
  Speaker 2: what's possible, you prohibit it.
• 32:46
  Speaker 8: But what if so childborn say that impacts five people.
• 32:52
  Speaker 8: Tried with that as it is, but what if you
• 32:54
  Speaker 8: had an agent that impacted one hundred thousand people? What
• 32:58
  Speaker 8: do you have a sense that analogy but similar to finance,
• 33:02
  Speaker 8: where you have people in the big banks overseeing some
• 33:07
  Speaker 8: of the operations. Would you have that similarly or would
• 33:10
  Speaker 8: you wait for an event happened and then see, all right,
• 33:12
  Speaker 8: where did we fail and what new regulations or controls
• 33:17
  Speaker 8: need to be implemented from happening again?
• 33:20
  Speaker 2: I mean, it's not like the people who regulate the
• 33:25
  Speaker 2: banks prevent financial crisis. They don't. So it's not like
• 33:29
  Speaker 2: by putting people in there you're going to prevent this.
• 33:32
  Speaker 8: He wasn't a perfect analogy that I was trying to
• 33:34
  Speaker 8: get a point out.
• 33:35
  Speaker 2: I think the point is, you make it illegal for
• 33:38
  Speaker 2: the AI to provide information that could be used to
• 33:42
  Speaker 2: build an atomic bomb, a chemical weapon, or biological weapon,
• 33:47
  Speaker 2: and you know, you you make it very clear and
• 33:50
  Speaker 2: that it is to be notified. The authorities need to
• 33:53
  Speaker 2: be notified if anybody asks for such information. And that's it,
• 34:00
  Speaker 2: and and that's it. You can't supervise every query on
• 34:05
  Speaker 2: on AI. You can't supervise everything that happens. And uh,
• 34:11
  Speaker 2: you know, the companies have to be it's clear to
• 34:14
  Speaker 2: them that they are majorly liable for for that because
• 34:19
  Speaker 2: it's it's you know, it's information that can only be
• 34:24
  Speaker 2: used in a for violence, and that it's up to
• 34:28
  Speaker 2: them to figure out how to code it in a
• 34:30
  Speaker 2: way that restricts the ability of people to get that information.
• 34:38
  Speaker 8: Well, I understand that, but I also struggle with what
• 34:44
  Speaker 8: is it.
• 34:46
  Speaker 7: For?
• 34:46
  Speaker 8: Like BSL labs, But you have no solution for it.
• 34:50
  Speaker 8: I know I haven't figured out one, no, but there is.
• 34:52
  Speaker 2: No solution for it. Right, Mistakes can happen, People will
• 34:56
  Speaker 2: do bad stuff. Bad stuff happens, that's just life. I mean,
• 35:00
  Speaker 2: if you're trying to eradicate all bad stuff from life.
• 35:03
  Speaker 2: It's impossible even under the even under the most restrictive conditions,
• 35:08
  Speaker 2: people will find ways to do bad stuff.
• 35:13
  Speaker 8: Is a very different standard criteria for mass casually Uh,
• 35:19
  Speaker 8: say a nuclear reactor, you have different safety standards, but you.
• 35:23
  Speaker 2: Should nuclear reactors should be I mean nuclear reactors should
• 35:28
  Speaker 2: be if the nuclear reactor company, you know, maybe you
• 35:30
  Speaker 2: could have them as long as they can find insurance
• 35:33
  Speaker 2: to ensure the place they can build it.
• 35:35
  Speaker 9: Uh.
• 35:36
  Speaker 2: The government, the government, the government is not good at
• 35:39
  Speaker 2: setting safety standards and it shouldn't. So mass casualty is
• 35:44
  Speaker 2: if if somebody is willing to ensure, uh, then it
• 35:48
  Speaker 2: will get built. If they're not willing to ensure it
• 35:50
  Speaker 2: won't get built. Something like that, something simple, straightforward.
• 35:55
  Speaker 1: That you know, and and.
• 35:58
  Speaker 2: They will not be mass casualty of it. The incentives
• 36:05
  Speaker 2: are not aligned for mass casualty events.
• 36:09
  Speaker 8: Okay, yeah, I'll think on it more than any And it's.
• 36:11
  Speaker 2: Not a numbers game at the end of the day.
• 36:12
  Speaker 2: It's a rights game. So you know, it's certain things
• 36:18
  Speaker 2: the government has a role in. If there's if there's violence,
• 36:21
  Speaker 2: certainly somebody building a biological weapon that's violent. So the
• 36:25
  Speaker 2: government has a role in supervising that making sure it
• 36:29
  Speaker 2: doesn't happen. But a chemical plant can blow up. Before
• 36:33
  Speaker 2: in India blew up and killed forty thousand people. That
• 36:36
  Speaker 2: was a mass casualty event. But the solution to that
• 36:39
  Speaker 2: is on more regulation. That's never happened in the US.
• 36:44
  Speaker 2: It's by the fact that India had more regulations in
• 36:46
  Speaker 2: the US does. So it's it's or what happened in Chernovil,
• 36:51
  Speaker 2: chernovl you had maximum regulations, the government controlled everything, and
• 36:54
  Speaker 2: yet it happened, and it's never happened in the US.
• 36:59
  Speaker 8: You have that standard for I'm not a huge Second
• 37:02
  Speaker 8: Amendment person, but you have that standard for Second Amendment
• 37:04
  Speaker 8: of you can't have a tank? Is that imposed?
• 37:07
  Speaker 2: But that's not because of mass calgy. Is you can't
• 37:09
  Speaker 2: have a tank because a tank there's only one purpose
• 37:12
  Speaker 2: for a tank, and that's offensive violence. And you cannot
• 37:17
  Speaker 2: have tools of violence that cannot serve you in self
• 37:21
  Speaker 2: defense and not reasonably serve you in self defense. Uh,
• 37:24
  Speaker 2: that's the standard. Yet the standard of self defense, it's
• 37:28
  Speaker 2: not because of tank can do mass casualties. You can't,
• 37:34
  Speaker 2: you know. So it's and by the way, it's it's
• 37:40
  Speaker 2: very easy to create biological weapons and and uh, you
• 37:45
  Speaker 2: know you can you can take you know people people
• 37:48
  Speaker 2: do it. It's it's it's actually happened where people have
• 37:51
  Speaker 2: put some bacteria in salads or in salads and open
• 37:55
  Speaker 2: bar in what do you call the buffets and stuff
• 37:57
  Speaker 2: and people get sick and uh, these things happen because
• 38:01
  Speaker 2: it's not that hard to do, but they happened very
• 38:03
  Speaker 2: very really because not a lot of people have an incentive.
• 38:06
  Speaker 9: To do it.
• 38:08
  Speaker 8: Okay, appreciate it.
• 38:10
  Speaker 2: Yep, Eric.
• 38:22
  Speaker 1: There you sorry.
• 38:23
  Speaker 10: I just donnen muting myself. I just wanted to follo
• 38:26
  Speaker 10: up a question I asked. I didn't hear the answer
• 38:28
  Speaker 10: in super Tech, but I had seen a guy called
• 38:33
  Speaker 10: Tom Bill you and on his podcast he's mentioned like
• 38:36
  Speaker 10: I RAND a couple of times, and I was wondering if.
• 38:39
  Speaker 2: You were familiar with him. I am not familiar with him.
• 38:45
  Speaker 1: What is he?
• 38:46
  Speaker 2: Remind me of what he is because I looked him up,
• 38:48
  Speaker 2: but I can't remember.
• 38:49
  Speaker 10: Now he runs a podcast called Impact Theory. I think
• 38:52
  Speaker 10: he made a bunch of money doing some sort of
• 38:55
  Speaker 10: pech stuff and now he just has a podcast. He
• 38:59
  Speaker 10: seems to be a d thinker. But I've just seen
• 39:04
  Speaker 10: on the show a couple of times he's referenced at
• 39:06
  Speaker 10: LASH and I was like, I wonder if you know
• 39:10
  Speaker 10: he's ever reached out to the institute.
• 39:12
  Speaker 2: I mean, I I don't know about everybody reaches out.
• 39:15
  Speaker 2: I haven't been I'm not involved with fundraising anymore. But
• 39:18
  Speaker 2: I have not come across him. So I've not come
• 39:23
  Speaker 2: across him. Maybe somebody from the institute.
• 39:26
  Speaker 10: So he's wealthy, Yeah, it seems like it. He's building
• 39:31
  Speaker 10: his own video game. He's he's always inspiring people to
• 39:34
  Speaker 10: go out to be entrepreneurs, like and she's a building.
• 39:38
  Speaker 2: All entrepreneurs, right. I will I will let a fundraising
• 39:44
  Speaker 2: team know about him and see if they can. They
• 39:46
  Speaker 2: can get in touch, they can contact him, see if
• 39:50
  Speaker 2: you can get in touch. Thanks thanks for the for
• 39:53
  Speaker 2: the lead. Yeah, absolutely, guys, send me leads of people
• 39:56
  Speaker 2: who are wealthy who've mentioned im band. Uh.
• 39:59
  Speaker 10: There, he's give you an interesting person to probably interview too,
• 40:03
  Speaker 10: if if he's zip, if you will.
• 40:06
  Speaker 2: Yeah, I'd have to even on the show a little bit. Yeah, yeah,
• 40:10
  Speaker 2: good idea. I'll check him out.
• 40:12
  Speaker 1: Thanks, thank you?
• 40:14
  Speaker 2: All right, Thanks Eric, Ryan.
• 40:20
  Speaker 1: How you around can hear me?
• 40:21
  Speaker 2: Yeah?
• 40:22
  Speaker 11: Yep, so a lot of people on the right these
• 40:26
  Speaker 11: days are jumping on the bandwagon of blaming the roths
• 40:29
  Speaker 11: Childs for a lot of stuff and so other than
• 40:33
  Speaker 11: the fact that they're Jewish, do you know, like, did
• 40:37
  Speaker 11: the ross Childs even have a history of being influential
• 40:39
  Speaker 11: in controversial things or what explains just everyone picking on them?
• 40:46
  Speaker 2: They were, They were for a while in the I
• 40:51
  Speaker 2: think late I think early nineteenth century, and I'm not
• 40:54
  Speaker 2: trying to win. They were probably the richest bankers in
• 40:57
  Speaker 2: the world. They were incredibly successful. The other thing that
• 41:02
  Speaker 2: they also were, which leads to the conspiracies, is they
• 41:05
  Speaker 2: had a They were one of the first. I don't
• 41:09
  Speaker 2: think the first, because a lot of people had this,
• 41:11
  Speaker 2: but there's certainly one of the most successful kind of
• 41:13
  Speaker 2: international banks. So they had branches in London and Paris
• 41:17
  Speaker 2: and in Berlin and all over Europe way back in
• 41:22
  Speaker 2: the eighteenth century already, and certainly in the nineteenth century,
• 41:25
  Speaker 2: they were incredibly successful. They were known. So for example,
• 41:31
  Speaker 2: I can't remember the exact thing about this, the exact context,
• 41:36
  Speaker 2: but there was a war between Fans and England, I
• 41:38
  Speaker 2: think during the Napoleonic Wars, and they learned of the
• 41:42
  Speaker 2: British victory before anybody else, right, because they have agents
• 41:46
  Speaker 2: in all these places, so they could get a message
• 41:50
  Speaker 2: their London office the bits of one, so they traded
• 41:55
  Speaker 2: on that information before anybody else, traded on that information
• 41:59
  Speaker 2: and made a lot of money. And the conspiracies back
• 42:01
  Speaker 2: then were that the Rothchilds were instigators of war. So
• 42:07
  Speaker 2: they're the ones who who encouraged war. They wanted war
• 42:10
  Speaker 2: because they could profit off of it. They found ways
• 42:13
  Speaker 2: to arbitrage it, to buy install in different places, and
• 42:17
  Speaker 2: and often they had offices in both the both sides
• 42:21
  Speaker 2: of the war. They had officers banks in both of
• 42:23
  Speaker 2: both sides of those so so they were incredibly influential.
• 42:31
  Speaker 2: They were definitely influential politically, I'd say in Great Britain,
• 42:37
  Speaker 2: probably in the nineteenth century. I don't know how influential
• 42:41
  Speaker 2: they ever got in Germany or if they if they were,
• 42:43
  Speaker 2: but they were. They were big time in Germany and
• 42:45
  Speaker 2: then the rest of Europe. I think they're originally from Germany.
• 42:51
  Speaker 2: There's a bunch of books about them. I mean it's
• 42:53
  Speaker 2: a big family now, they've had lots of kids, so
• 42:56
  Speaker 2: the fortunes being dispersed through the generations, right, I don't
• 43:03
  Speaker 2: think they have influence at all today. They're relatively small.
• 43:06
  Speaker 2: They're much smaller that you don't hear much about the Rothchilds.
• 43:10
  Speaker 2: Rothchilds in terms of banks they have. They still have
• 43:13
  Speaker 2: a bank in England. I think, maybe an investment bank.
• 43:16
  Speaker 2: I'm sure they still as a family, they still certain
• 43:18
  Speaker 2: members of the family still own assets. But again it's
• 43:21
  Speaker 2: dispersed a lot of great great great great great great grandchildren,
• 43:25
  Speaker 2: so there's not concentration of power like they used to be. Look,
• 43:29
  Speaker 2: they funded the rock Chields funded a lot of the
• 43:32
  Speaker 2: early settlement in Israel. So when their first Jews went
• 43:36
  Speaker 2: to Israel, the rock Chields would send them money to
• 43:39
  Speaker 2: support them building, you know, drying the swamps and building
• 43:42
  Speaker 2: settlements and and and so early early nineteenth century they
• 43:47
  Speaker 2: were very involved. They had their big presence in Paris.
• 43:51
  Speaker 2: That's right, they're big in Paris. I think post World
• 43:54
  Speaker 2: War Two they kind of they seem to have lost
• 43:59
  Speaker 2: a lot of their influence and kind of faded away,
• 44:01
  Speaker 2: I think because of the dispersion of power, dispersion of wealth.
• 44:05
  Speaker 2: But there was a time where they were the biggest
• 44:06
  Speaker 2: bank and most powerful bank in the world, possibly ciddenly
• 44:11
  Speaker 2: in Europe.
• 44:12
  Speaker 11: But acting like nefariously or doing anything like that, that's.
• 44:15
  Speaker 2: Just like made up, yeah, I mean other than making money.
• 44:19
  Speaker 2: That's the most the farious thing they did, right, And
• 44:21
  Speaker 2: that's ultimately what people hate is bankers who make money.
• 44:25
  Speaker 2: Bank is always at the end of a conspiracy theory
• 44:29
  Speaker 2: because what they do is so mysterious. They make money
• 44:32
  Speaker 2: off of money, right. Even Aristotle didn't understand how you
• 44:36
  Speaker 2: do that and thought it was it was deceptive in
• 44:39
  Speaker 2: some way. So the very fact that they make money
• 44:44
  Speaker 2: and and and sometimes make money off of what some
• 44:46
  Speaker 2: people consider inside information. But just being fast, being first
• 44:50
  Speaker 2: to something is considered nefarious. But no, there's no there's
• 44:55
  Speaker 2: no evidence to suggest that they they've done anything, you know,
• 45:00
  Speaker 2: anything particularly bad or it's like what's the other there's
• 45:04
  Speaker 2: another group, but the bed books build yeah, something like that.
• 45:10
  Speaker 2: They have a meeting of the year and all the
• 45:12
  Speaker 2: leaders in the world get there, and that they're running
• 45:14
  Speaker 2: the world and whatever. They're also a banking family that
• 45:17
  Speaker 2: goes way back to Central Europe in the in the
• 45:19
  Speaker 2: eighteenth century. It always it's always bankers, right, it's always
• 45:22
  Speaker 2: bank yeah, right, But no, nothing special about the watch
• 45:26
  Speaker 2: us particularly today. I mean it's an old conspiracy theory
• 45:29
  Speaker 2: that is. I mean, they're the last of the names.
• 45:33
  Speaker 2: I mean, here's the thing about them, it's a name
• 45:35
  Speaker 2: people know.
• 45:37
  Speaker 11: Yeah, it's they're like the New State, and it's responsible
• 45:40
  Speaker 11: for all evil.
• 45:42
  Speaker 2: Because they Jews. Because yeah, because they Jews. And it's
• 45:46
  Speaker 2: like Joe Soros. Everybody hates Joe Sours. He's the conspiracy
• 45:49
  Speaker 2: by everything. Now, he does a lot of bad stuff,
• 45:51
  Speaker 2: but it's not a conspiracy. Does it out and open,
• 45:53
  Speaker 2: We all know exactly.
• 45:54
  Speaker 5: What it is.
• 45:55
  Speaker 1: He's blamed about it.
• 45:57
  Speaker 2: Yeah, but it's Jewish and and that gives them a
• 46:00
  Speaker 2: lot of fuel.
• 46:02
  Speaker 1: Yeah. JP Sears, he's a redhead comedian guy.
• 46:06
  Speaker 11: He just did a video recently like complaints or comparing
• 46:10
  Speaker 11: Zionism to Judaism. He was sticking up for Judaism but
• 46:15
  Speaker 11: then saying, oh, that's different from Zionism, and then he
• 46:17
  Speaker 11: had this whole conspiracy thing where he was playing in
• 46:20
  Speaker 11: the rothschilds.
• 46:22
  Speaker 2: Yeah, he's an anti Semit who's trying to hide behind
• 46:26
  Speaker 2: anti Zionism because Zionism and Judaism are different. You can
• 46:29
  Speaker 2: be a Jew and you can be anti an anti Zionist.
• 46:32
  Speaker 2: You can be both. But you know, most people who
• 46:40
  Speaker 2: are anti Zionist all sc antisemitic because there it's just
• 46:43
  Speaker 2: a wait for them to disguise their anti semitism. John
• 46:48
  Speaker 2: I thinks, all right, let's take some super chats over
• 46:53
  Speaker 2: here and then we'll go back top panel. Hop I
• 46:56
  Speaker 2: thanks for the fifty dollars. Appreciate it, he says. A
• 46:59
  Speaker 2: pot part of me thinks Tucker Calls and Candice Nickfoyintus
• 47:03
  Speaker 2: are clowns, nothing to worry about. But people said the
• 47:06
  Speaker 2: same about Gobbals in nineteen twenties. It is remarkable the
• 47:11
  Speaker 2: percentage of the population that cannot use logic when analyzing politics. Yeah,
• 47:16
  Speaker 2: I mean again, I refer Youse Inman's Missing Link. There
• 47:21
  Speaker 2: are a lot of people who just can't think, and
• 47:23
  Speaker 2: they're secondhanded, and they go with the flow, and they
• 47:26
  Speaker 2: go with what's popular and what's entertaining and what's amusing
• 47:30
  Speaker 2: and what's emotionally appealing at any given point in time.
• 47:32
  Speaker 2: And I think Candace and Nick Fointis and Tucker all
• 47:36
  Speaker 2: appeal to that they have massive audiences. I don't think
• 47:40
  Speaker 2: they should just brushed off as crazy because they have
• 47:44
  Speaker 2: large audiences. If that's small audiences, Yeah, I mean, they're
• 47:46
  Speaker 2: insignificant nobody's but they have large audiences, which means that
• 47:51
  Speaker 2: a lot of people listening to them, at the very
• 47:53
  Speaker 2: least for entertainment value. But if you view them as
• 47:57
  Speaker 2: entertainment even you're still getting corrupted by this. They're saying,
• 48:01
  Speaker 2: there's no way to be a regular listener to these
• 48:04
  Speaker 2: and not be polluted by the stuff they're advocating for. Otherwise,
• 48:08
  Speaker 2: why would you be a regular listener. So I think
• 48:12
  Speaker 2: you have to take them seriously, and you have to beware,
• 48:16
  Speaker 2: and you have to recognize that most people, most of
• 48:18
  Speaker 2: the time, are not rational. It's just the reality of
• 48:23
  Speaker 2: the world in which we live. And again nine RAN's
• 48:27
  Speaker 2: missing link I think captures that really, really, really well.
• 48:34
  Speaker 2: All right, thanks Hapa Liam. How long could a Christian
• 48:39
  Speaker 2: nationalist dictatorship even sustain itself a decaded most what comes
• 48:44
  Speaker 2: after and individualism and capitalism. I mean, I wish, but
• 48:48
  Speaker 2: who knows. I don't know how long a Christian nationalist
• 48:50
  Speaker 2: dictatorship can sustain itself. It depends on a lot of
• 48:54
  Speaker 2: different things. Depends on what is going on in the
• 48:56
  Speaker 2: rest of the world, depends on where the Americans rebell quickly.
• 49:00
  Speaker 2: They rebel, and in the name of what do they rebel?
• 49:06
  Speaker 2: It depends on how many thinking people are out there,
• 49:10
  Speaker 2: So I don't know. I you know, if a Christian
• 49:14
  Speaker 2: nationalist comes to power and the American people are willing
• 49:19
  Speaker 2: to give them power and they become dictators, then it
• 49:23
  Speaker 2: might last for a long time. I mean, who would
• 49:26
  Speaker 2: have thought the Iranian regime would last as long as
• 49:29
  Speaker 2: it has u and even under the kind of pressure
• 49:35
  Speaker 2: it's under today, still continues to last. So don't underestimate
• 49:39
  Speaker 2: the ability of authoritarians to ruin people's lives but sustain power,
• 49:45
  Speaker 2: particularly if it's centered around an ideology. An ideology they
• 49:49
  Speaker 2: got them elected, ideology, they've got them chosen. Let's say
• 49:52
  Speaker 2: by the masses. Well, is that ideology defeated. And by
• 49:57
  Speaker 2: the time that ideology is defeated, have they entrenched themselves
• 49:59
  Speaker 2: and your way that it's almost impossible to get them out?
• 50:03
  Speaker 2: So I wouldn't be so bless about Oh, it's just
• 50:05
  Speaker 2: going to be a decade. Mark does a lot of
• 50:12
  Speaker 2: right wing influence talk of demons, et cetera come from
• 50:16
  Speaker 2: this Christian idea that the West has become disenchanted a
• 50:21
  Speaker 2: lah Wa Dueja's book Living in wonder and that spiritualism
• 50:26
  Speaker 2: needs to be reintroduced. Yeah, I mean, I think a
• 50:29
  Speaker 2: lot of people are influenced by Juan de Heer, who
• 50:32
  Speaker 2: you know today lives in Budapest, Hungary, and this idea
• 50:36
  Speaker 2: of spiritualism. I think a lot of them are influenced
• 50:39
  Speaker 2: by kind of Catholic Catholic mythology about the devil and
• 50:44
  Speaker 2: the devil's army and the devil's influence in our lives
• 50:48
  Speaker 2: and the devil's influence in the world. This has always
• 50:52
  Speaker 2: been part of Catholic theology. Maybe Protestant, I don't know,
• 50:55
  Speaker 2: but it's only Catholic. I think der got so upset
• 51:00
  Speaker 2: with the Catholics over the child abuse that he became
• 51:03
  Speaker 2: an Orthodox Christian, so he adopted kind of Eastern Orthodoxy
• 51:07
  Speaker 2: as his religion. It's the same thing, very very very
• 51:10
  Speaker 2: mystical Catholicism and Orthodoxy embraced from Zerah to Strinism something
• 51:21
  Speaker 2: like that. I'm not trying to pronounce a good right
• 51:23
  Speaker 2: the ancient Persian religion, this idea of a constant battle
• 51:28
  Speaker 2: between good and evil, a constant battle between a good
• 51:31
  Speaker 2: God and a devil, and they embrace that. And these
• 51:36
  Speaker 2: demons represent the devils, you know, just like they believe
• 51:40
  Speaker 2: that they are angels, and they really do believe they
• 51:44
  Speaker 2: are angels. They believe they are demons, demons just like
• 51:47
  Speaker 2: angels sent by Satan. Now how this fits in with
• 51:52
  Speaker 2: the idea that God is all knowing, you know, OMNISI
• 51:56
  Speaker 2: and amptipotent, all loving, all of this, I don't know.
• 52:00
  Speaker 2: But then I'm not a Christian, so I couldn't tell you.
• 52:03
  Speaker 2: But yes, I think it is basically this idea that
• 52:06
  Speaker 2: we have to reintroduce spiritualism, and for them, spiritualism means
• 52:12
  Speaker 2: the existence. I mean, I don't know if you saw JD. Vance.
• 52:15
  Speaker 2: So this clip from JD Vance where he says he's
• 52:20
  Speaker 2: really interested in UFOs and now he's vice president, so
• 52:23
  Speaker 2: he's going to get the bottom of the UFOs. But
• 52:26
  Speaker 2: he doesn't believe it's extraterrestrial. He doesn't believe it's, you know,
• 52:30
  Speaker 2: being from another planet. He literally says this with a
• 52:34
  Speaker 2: complete straight face. He says he believes it's demons, and
• 52:37
  Speaker 2: then the interviewer kind of pushes on him in a
• 52:39
  Speaker 2: little bit and he says, look, I believe there's spiritual
• 52:43
  Speaker 2: entities out there and that they function in the world.
• 52:46
  Speaker 2: And they are good spiritual entities and they're bad spiritual entities, demons,
• 52:51
  Speaker 2: and we are part of this struggle in the world
• 52:53
  Speaker 2: between good and evil, between angels and demons. But literally.
• 52:57
  Speaker 5: JD.
• 52:57
  Speaker 2: Evans, the Vice President of the United States of America,
• 53:00
  Speaker 2: said that he thinks UFOs are not extraterrestrial the demons,
• 53:04
  Speaker 2: and he's going to get the bottom of it. He's
• 53:06
  Speaker 2: going to go to Area fifty one. He is going
• 53:08
  Speaker 2: to figure this out because he has now the security
• 53:11
  Speaker 2: clearance to figure it out. And would I be surprised
• 53:15
  Speaker 2: if tomorrow he said, the demons attacked me so I
• 53:17
  Speaker 2: couldn't go to Area fifty one. You know, I got
• 53:19
  Speaker 2: sick because I couldn't so I couldn't go. I mean,
• 53:22
  Speaker 2: these people are outs, but it is it's this whole
• 53:25
  Speaker 2: revivalist I mean, I take back my positive statement about Protestantism. No,
• 53:32
  Speaker 2: I mean they're just as bad, right, you know, those
• 53:33
  Speaker 2: ones who's speaking tongues and all that stuff, So they're
• 53:38
  Speaker 2: just as Mystically, mysticism just is crazy. It's crazy stuff.
• 53:43
  Speaker 2: These people are nuts. Thank you, Stephen. Can you comment
• 53:49
  Speaker 2: on the idea that it is impossible to travel at
• 53:51
  Speaker 2: the speed of light? No, I have no comment. I
• 53:56
  Speaker 2: have no idea. It's way above my pay grade. And
• 54:02
  Speaker 2: I don't do physics. I don't know physics. I don't
• 54:05
  Speaker 2: understand physics. I tried. I don't get it. That's okay,
• 54:09
  Speaker 2: I've you know, I have whatever IQ I have, I have,
• 54:13
  Speaker 2: and I think the understanding of relatively theory and quantum
• 54:18
  Speaker 2: mechanics requires something that I do not have, and that's fine.
• 54:21
  Speaker 2: I have no problem with it. I never have. I
• 54:23
  Speaker 2: walked out of my undergraduate physics class and I said
• 54:26
  Speaker 2: to myself, I have no idea what they're talking about.
• 54:29
  Speaker 2: I could probably pass the exam because I can do
• 54:31
  Speaker 2: the math a past exam, and I don't know quantum
• 54:35
  Speaker 2: mechanics and relativet theory. And I'm quite happy in life
• 54:39
  Speaker 2: knowing that I don't know. Right, If somebody knows the stuff, great,
• 54:43
  Speaker 2: But I have no idea. If you can travel the
• 54:45
  Speaker 2: speed of light or not? Why? And I don't care.
• 54:47
  Speaker 8: It would take an infinite amount of energy for anything
• 54:50
  Speaker 8: with masks to start going to speed of light. So
• 54:52
  Speaker 8: that's the problem.
• 54:54
  Speaker 2: Yeah, that's what is it? Ecous? She's quid? Yeah, that
• 54:58
  Speaker 2: I get, but I don't know if that equations right?
• 55:03
  Speaker 2: I don't know. I you know, I Einstein's a genius,
• 55:07
  Speaker 2: and I believe him. I have no reason to doubt
• 55:11
  Speaker 2: it's right. But I don't know it's right. I don't
• 55:13
  Speaker 2: have the understanding of physics that would say I know
• 55:17
  Speaker 2: it's right. I mean, it would be a shame if
• 55:21
  Speaker 2: we can't travel faster than the speed of light, because
• 55:23
  Speaker 2: then we can go and see the many stars and
• 55:26
  Speaker 2: planets that are out there in a universe. So because
• 55:30
  Speaker 2: you know, unless there's some way to traverse space that
• 55:35
  Speaker 2: does not require speed. But again, all of this is
• 55:38
  Speaker 2: beyond my pay grade, so I'm not That's the sense
• 55:41
  Speaker 2: in which I'm not a science fiction writer, so I
• 55:43
  Speaker 2: don't have to worry about it, and I'm not a physicist.
• 55:48
  Speaker 2: But I have no reason to doubt Einstein who says
• 55:52
  Speaker 2: you cannot travel faster than the speed of light. But
• 55:54
  Speaker 2: I also don't know that that is the truth. Right
• 56:02
  Speaker 2: back to a panel. Oh you guys got all gobbled up. Okay,
• 56:06
  Speaker 2: we'll go. We'll go with the order I have now
• 56:08
  Speaker 2: on my screen, So we'll start with you, Jacob.
• 56:11
  Speaker 8: I'm actually at the again this month. Can I email
• 56:16
  Speaker 8: your question for the show that you have coming up?
• 56:19
  Speaker 2: Yeah, you won't be able to be daylife.
• 56:22
  Speaker 1: No, I won't.
• 56:23
  Speaker 8: Okay, I'm at the gym right now, so I don't
• 56:25
  Speaker 8: want to bother other people with my questions.
• 56:27
  Speaker 2: Okay, so send it. I'll have Amos answer it perfect Ryan, Okay,
• 56:35
  Speaker 2: so I'm going to order, Yeah, all right.
• 56:38
  Speaker 1: Yeah.
• 56:39
  Speaker 11: So when the Warren I Ran started, I'm a big
• 56:43
  Speaker 11: fan of Roger Waters music and Pink Boyd, but I
• 56:46
  Speaker 11: despise his politics. And uh so when the Iran war started,
• 56:51
  Speaker 11: I knew he'd have some things to say that we're
• 56:54
  Speaker 11: just ridiculous. Of course, so one of the things he
• 56:57
  Speaker 11: did was blame the protests on first he said kind
• 57:03
  Speaker 11: of said, oh, because their.
• 57:04
  Speaker 1: Economy is doing bad.
• 57:05
  Speaker 11: But then he of course he blamed America for causing
• 57:08
  Speaker 11: their economy to be bad, saying things and all that stuff,
• 57:12
  Speaker 11: and uh and then related to that like a comment
• 57:16
  Speaker 11: from Norman Norman Pinkelstein recently he was criticizing BB and
• 57:21
  Speaker 11: then called him a psychopath. And then he said, but
• 57:26
  Speaker 11: he just represents the people that they're a nation of psychopaths.
• 57:30
  Speaker 11: And then I just want to mention two other people,
• 57:32
  Speaker 11: just Jeffrey Sachs and Meerscheimer commented on these people a lot.
• 57:37
  Speaker 11: What do you think I mean, they don't come out
• 57:39
  Speaker 11: as like I'm for Iran, I want them to kill
• 57:42
  Speaker 11: people and win. But they get away with almost causing
• 57:47
  Speaker 11: that sort of drive with their with their commentary, like
• 57:52
  Speaker 11: and they couched it as like, oh the United States
• 57:55
  Speaker 11: can't win or we're losing and we're to blame all
• 57:59
  Speaker 11: that kind of stuff. What what do you think motivates
• 58:01
  Speaker 11: these types of people there?
• 58:04
  Speaker 2: I mean, the only thing I can think of really
• 58:06
  Speaker 2: that motivates them is hatred of the West. It's hatred
• 58:10
  Speaker 2: of civilization, It's hatred of the good for being the good, right,
• 58:16
  Speaker 2: So it's it really is hatred of America. It's the
• 58:19
  Speaker 2: same thing that motivates Dave Smith, like the Libertarians, the
• 58:23
  Speaker 2: cad of anarchists Rothbod who used to toast every time
• 58:28
  Speaker 2: a pilot was shut down over Vietnam, a US pilot.
• 58:34
  Speaker 2: You know, these people hate hate America, hate hate what
• 58:38
  Speaker 2: America stands for for all kinds of reasons. They all
• 58:42
  Speaker 2: have their different reasons why they hate America, but they do,
• 58:45
  Speaker 2: and everything else is a rationalization. So they love Russia.
• 58:51
  Speaker 2: Russia's often the antithesis of America, right because Russia's mystical,
• 58:56
  Speaker 2: and Russia's authoritarian, and Russia's got to his street. That
• 59:01
  Speaker 2: is long out. We don't and and and and Russia
• 59:04
  Speaker 2: is not the West. It doesn't. It doesn't have any
• 59:06
  Speaker 2: of the kind of trappings of the West. Of course,
• 59:08
  Speaker 2: they would all be probably in the gulags if they
• 59:11
  Speaker 2: were in Russia. But they all love Russia. Rothbad said,
• 59:14
  Speaker 2: there's no real difference between President of the United States
• 59:16
  Speaker 2: and Stalin. So you saw that during the Iraq War.
• 59:21
  Speaker 2: That was probably the first time you really saw it
• 59:24
  Speaker 2: where they were clearly rooting for Russia. York doesn't have
• 59:27
  Speaker 2: a chance, Ukraine doesn't have a chance. They will be
• 59:30
  Speaker 2: over in a week or three weeks or a month
• 59:32
  Speaker 2: or a year. They kept changing it, uh and uh.
• 59:35
  Speaker 2: But but basically the Russians are good guys. They're just
• 59:38
  Speaker 2: trying to protect themselves. Need o the bad guys. Western
• 59:40
  Speaker 2: Europe are the bad guys again, that's all this hatred
• 59:44
  Speaker 2: of the West, Western Europe. The United States still represent
• 59:47
  Speaker 2: the West and and uh in Israel represents the West,
• 59:50
  Speaker 2: and they just they hate it. I think with mershim
• 59:55
  Speaker 2: and sas As is an element of anti Semitism in
• 59:59
  Speaker 2: the background the height is are all kind of with
• 1:00:02
  Speaker 2: a passion. It's hot that you don't see without an
• 1:00:06
  Speaker 2: element of anti Semitism, and then everything else. Their whole
• 1:00:10
  Speaker 2: life is a rationalization. The whole theory of politics is
• 1:00:14
  Speaker 2: a rationalization. Is trying to explain why the bad guys
• 1:00:20
  Speaker 2: are the good guys and the good guys are the
• 1:00:22
  Speaker 2: bad guys, and they spend their whole life just doing that. Yeah,
• 1:00:29
  Speaker 2: and I can't think of an explanation other than it's
• 1:00:33
  Speaker 2: not that they're advocating for something else. Right, they're not communists,
• 1:00:38
  Speaker 2: I mean the leftists in some vague sense, most of them,
• 1:00:41
  Speaker 2: other than old libertarians or right wing nuts, the statists
• 1:00:46
  Speaker 2: in one form or another. But they're not like most
• 1:00:49
  Speaker 2: and Sacks are not communists, they're not right wing religious fanatics.
• 1:00:55
  Speaker 2: Then they don't have a positive agenda. They don't stand
• 1:00:58
  Speaker 2: for anything. I mean, sax Is probably traumatized by the
• 1:01:01
  Speaker 2: fact they completely screwed up Russia. Right, the guys responsible
• 1:01:07
  Speaker 2: for screwing up Russia like the Russia we have today
• 1:01:10
  Speaker 2: is to some extent, the creation of Jeffrey Sachs. Right,
• 1:01:12
  Speaker 2: He's the one who went there and advised the ELTs
• 1:01:15
  Speaker 2: in on how to privatize the economy, and the way
• 1:01:18
  Speaker 2: he did it basically created the Oligock system and created
• 1:01:22
  Speaker 2: the concentration of power and created the kind of Russia
• 1:01:25
  Speaker 2: we have today. So maybe feels guilty for that, But
• 1:01:28
  Speaker 2: you know, I don't know. But then what's Musheimer's excuse,
• 1:01:31
  Speaker 2: and what's the excuse of all these others. There's no,
• 1:01:34
  Speaker 2: there's nothing there there. It's not even pragmatism, it's just
• 1:01:37
  Speaker 2: it's it's driven by it was maybe initially pragmatism, and
• 1:01:41
  Speaker 2: then it's hate and the need to constantly come up
• 1:01:45
  Speaker 2: with excusism why their predictions are failed.
• 1:01:48
  Speaker 9: Yeah, Iran, it's different with Iran versus Hamas and Gaza
• 1:01:53
  Speaker 9: because like with Gaza, you can point to the altruism
• 1:01:57
  Speaker 9: that they hold, which is they stand up for the
• 1:01:59
  Speaker 9: little guy.
• 1:02:00
  Speaker 11: But I don't view Iran as. I don't view Iran
• 1:02:03
  Speaker 11: as like the little guy. They're quite not powerful compared
• 1:02:06
  Speaker 11: to the United States, but they're pretty powerful in the
• 1:02:09
  Speaker 11: sense that they control their people and they're wealthy, so
• 1:02:12
  Speaker 11: it's not like they are these poor people in caves.
• 1:02:14
  Speaker 2: You know, absolutely absolutely, And they're religious fanatics, and you
• 1:02:18
  Speaker 2: think people on the left would view religious fanatics as
• 1:02:21
  Speaker 2: bad guys, but no, because they bought into this whole
• 1:02:25
  Speaker 2: post colonial stuff about it's all America's full. They go
• 1:02:28
  Speaker 2: back to nineteen nineteen fifties where the United States was
• 1:02:32
  Speaker 2: involved in the in the coup that got rid of
• 1:02:38
  Speaker 2: the leftist prime minister Anyonon that led to the Shaw
• 1:02:42
  Speaker 2: taking on more power. But it's all vationalizations at the
• 1:02:45
  Speaker 2: end of the day to try to justify the fact
• 1:02:47
  Speaker 2: that they hate the West. Thanks, yep, thanks, thanks Ryanne Aline.
• 1:02:56
  Speaker 1: Yeah, hey, Iran, did you did you see this recent
• 1:02:59
  Speaker 1: essay by Jonah Goldberg about the Parisian fog of a
• 1:03:03
  Speaker 1: Trump led war?
• 1:03:06
  Speaker 2: What's it called?
• 1:03:06
  Speaker 1: The Pots and Fog of a Trump Led War?
• 1:03:10
  Speaker 7: No?
• 1:03:10
  Speaker 2: I didn't see that one by him? Did some other ones?
• 1:03:13
  Speaker 1: All right, Well, I guess then my question doesn't was.
• 1:03:17
  Speaker 1: I wanted to get your view on it. I mean
• 1:03:20
  Speaker 1: a lot of times I like what Jonah writes. You know,
• 1:03:24
  Speaker 1: he's obviously got that religious thing, but he doesn't really
• 1:03:27
  Speaker 1: bring that into account here. And maybe maybe next time,
• 1:03:31
  Speaker 1: if you have a chance, I can ask you about it.
• 1:03:33
  Speaker 1: Next time.
• 1:03:33
  Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, he I like. I like a lot
• 1:03:36
  Speaker 2: of his writings as well, but I also hate a
• 1:03:38
  Speaker 2: lot of his writings.
• 1:03:39
  Speaker 1: It varies.
• 1:03:43
  Speaker 2: He uh, he's sometimes really good and sometimes really bad.
• 1:03:47
  Speaker 2: I just I just was looking an article of his God,
• 1:03:50
  Speaker 2: it was it about oh, it's about Paul, and it
• 1:03:56
  Speaker 2: was it was so bad.
• 1:03:58
  Speaker 1: It was just so bad.
• 1:03:59
  Speaker 2: Really yeah, it was critical of IF, but for all
• 1:04:02
  Speaker 2: the just so yeah, so evil ultimately in its intent.
• 1:04:09
  Speaker 1: It was Okay, I didn't see that one, right.
• 1:04:11
  Speaker 2: But he's a good writer, and he's a clever.
• 1:04:13
  Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah, yeah, he's a really good writer, very entertaining. Okay, well,
• 1:04:18
  Speaker 1: I guess I'll skip my question then this time, unless
• 1:04:20
  Speaker 1: you let me ask another one.
• 1:04:22
  Speaker 2: But you can ask another one. You didn't ask one, now.
• 1:04:24
  Speaker 1: Okay, all right. So one of the things when we
• 1:04:28
  Speaker 1: had all that ice stuff happening in Minneapolis, when you
• 1:04:32
  Speaker 1: were analyzing the videos and and kind of you were
• 1:04:35
  Speaker 1: using them as you know, as a, let's say, evidence
• 1:04:38
  Speaker 1: towards the malfeasans, how does that kind of jive with
• 1:04:42
  Speaker 1: what Leonard has written around the picture is not an
• 1:04:45
  Speaker 1: argument piece of things? All right? So you wish I
• 1:04:55
  Speaker 1: hadn't asked.
• 1:04:56
  Speaker 2: No, it's a good question, but I don't think it's
• 1:04:58
  Speaker 2: I don't think it's completely element The question is why
• 1:05:01
  Speaker 2: is a picture not an argument? Is the is the
• 1:05:04
  Speaker 2: picture an argument about? Uh, you know what's in the picture?
• 1:05:11
  Speaker 2: Is what's in the picture in the picture?
• 1:05:14
  Speaker 1: Right?
• 1:05:14
  Speaker 2: If I'm trying to if I'm trying to say, is
• 1:05:17
  Speaker 2: there a mountain here? And I get and I get
• 1:05:20
  Speaker 2: a picture of a mountain, then yeah, there's a there's
• 1:05:22
  Speaker 2: a mountain there. So the the the picture is evidence
• 1:05:27
  Speaker 2: about the reality that's being photographed. It's not an argument
• 1:05:32
  Speaker 2: in a sense that if you take an abstract idea
• 1:05:38
  Speaker 2: that it is the defining concluding. All you have to
• 1:05:45
  Speaker 2: do is show you a picture that disgusts you and therefore, well,
• 1:05:49
  Speaker 2: obviously you know, I show you a picture of in
• 1:05:53
  Speaker 2: Leonard's case, it was abortion, but I show you a
• 1:05:56
  Speaker 2: picture of children dead in Gaza? Say, see, is it
• 1:06:00
  Speaker 2: also being imal? But I've taken it to a level
• 1:06:03
  Speaker 2: of abstraction that is pretty stunning. Right, there's a whole context.
• 1:06:08
  Speaker 2: But the picture of the children dead in Gaza is
• 1:06:13
  Speaker 2: an argument for children died in Gaza, if if if
• 1:06:17
  Speaker 2: their picture hasn't be doctored, right, if it hasn't been
• 1:06:19
  Speaker 2: assuming the picture is true, and then picture says children
• 1:06:22
  Speaker 2: have died in Garza and that's okay, Now what do
• 1:06:24
  Speaker 2: I do with that?
• 1:06:25
  Speaker 1: Now?
• 1:06:26
  Speaker 2: You know there's still so so the videos all they
• 1:06:31
  Speaker 2: all they gave you, and particularly given that there were
• 1:06:33
  Speaker 2: multiple angles and it wasn't just one video, is they
• 1:06:36
  Speaker 2: gave you? Okay, this appears to be what happened, and
• 1:06:40
  Speaker 2: then you can then make a judgment about you know,
• 1:06:45
  Speaker 2: is it model, is it imol?
• 1:06:46
  Speaker 1: Is good? Is it bad?
• 1:06:47
  Speaker 2: What else do I know about what happened? What do
• 1:06:49
  Speaker 2: I know about Ice? And you can bring all that,
• 1:06:51
  Speaker 2: but the only way we can know what actually happened
• 1:06:55
  Speaker 2: is the video. I mean, even the people who are
• 1:06:57
  Speaker 2: there only got one angle, yeah, you know in an instance,
• 1:07:03
  Speaker 2: So the video is evidence towards what happened. And then
• 1:07:06
  Speaker 2: the judgment. That's the argument that Lenda is saying. You
• 1:07:09
  Speaker 2: can't make. You can't make the judgment based on a picture.
• 1:07:12
  Speaker 2: The picture is just giving you information. So so just
• 1:07:16
  Speaker 2: amollel So what.
• 1:07:17
  Speaker 1: You're saying is that, Okay, here's here's what happened in
• 1:07:20
  Speaker 1: this specific case. You can't just on the basis of
• 1:07:26
  Speaker 1: that say that, okay, what Ice is doing in totality
• 1:07:30
  Speaker 1: is immoral. You have to you have to make a
• 1:07:32
  Speaker 1: broader argument you.
• 1:07:33
  Speaker 2: Can't even say that what the cop did by shooting
• 1:07:37
  Speaker 2: let's say the woman was imo unless you know, Okay,
• 1:07:40
  Speaker 2: what are the procedures that cops are supposed to engage
• 1:07:43
  Speaker 2: in when standing in front of a vehicle? And in
• 1:07:46
  Speaker 2: what context was she then? And what I mean? Maybe
• 1:07:48
  Speaker 2: she's a murderer fleeing the scene and heading to Mexico. Right,
• 1:07:53
  Speaker 2: Let's say this is on the border with Apasso, and
• 1:07:55
  Speaker 2: she could she could make it across the border. Maybe
• 1:07:57
  Speaker 2: then it's justified to shoot. All you can say is
• 1:08:01
  Speaker 2: all I said was from the video, it does not
• 1:08:05
  Speaker 2: appear she was really threatening his life and he shot
• 1:08:08
  Speaker 2: her three times in what appeared to me as a
• 1:08:11
  Speaker 2: good tour of this manner. Yeah, then what that means
• 1:08:14
  Speaker 2: and that you have to bring other information in order
• 1:08:17
  Speaker 2: to judge it.
• 1:08:18
  Speaker 1: Okay, Okay, No, that's that's that's great, good, good explanation.
• 1:08:22
  Speaker 2: Thank you, Thanks someone, Jennifer.
• 1:08:26
  Speaker 5: Do you think part of the reason these crazy type JD.
• 1:08:30
  Speaker 5: Van's people like they believe in these all these conspiracies,
• 1:08:34
  Speaker 5: you know, like com trails or they think the water
• 1:08:36
  Speaker 5: vapor some kind of chemicals or some crazy stuff, is
• 1:08:41
  Speaker 5: part of that from religion because they think they just
• 1:08:44
  Speaker 5: think humans are bad in general, you know, because they
• 1:08:46
  Speaker 5: teach him they're fallen and all that. So they're paranoid,
• 1:08:48
  Speaker 5: and I mean it's crazy, theo afraid of everything.
• 1:08:52
  Speaker 8: Is that part of it?
• 1:08:53
  Speaker 3: Do you think?
• 1:08:53
  Speaker 2: I definitely think that's part of it. I don't think
• 1:08:55
  Speaker 2: think they expect the worst. They they But it's also
• 1:09:02
  Speaker 2: the fact that they embrace mysticism, and therefore they embrace
• 1:09:07
  Speaker 2: mystical explanations. So you know, science to them is on
• 1:09:12
  Speaker 2: the same level as demons, as mystical stuff, right, it's
• 1:09:16
  Speaker 2: the same thing.
• 1:09:17
  Speaker 5: I don't worry about evidence.
• 1:09:18
  Speaker 2: Yeah, so science presents this evidence. But yeah, well that's
• 1:09:22
  Speaker 2: what those people say, the authorities, and they leverage off
• 1:09:26
  Speaker 2: of the fact that we all don't trust the authorities
• 1:09:28
  Speaker 2: now because of nine to eleven and COVID and financial
• 1:09:30
  Speaker 2: crisis and all that stuff, So we don't trust authorities
• 1:09:32
  Speaker 2: and say, but it could be chemicals. I don't know.
• 1:09:36
  Speaker 2: I'm just asking questions, right, And you know, but do
• 1:09:40
  Speaker 2: we really want to trust the scientists. I mean, they
• 1:09:43
  Speaker 2: told us masks were good, right, so what do they know?
• 1:09:46
  Speaker 2: Scientists don't know anything, so.
• 1:09:48
  Speaker 1: They the.
• 1:09:51
  Speaker 2: You know, it's the mysticism, the fall of the kind
• 1:09:54
  Speaker 2: of the man has fallen, a combination of all that,
• 1:09:59
  Speaker 2: which is what makes it these things even possible for them.
• 1:10:05
  Speaker 2: I said, I mean, yeah, I can't. I literally cannot
• 1:10:11
  Speaker 2: put myself in a position where I can understand somebody
• 1:10:15
  Speaker 2: who is who is uh, who thinks that demons in
• 1:10:22
  Speaker 2: the world. I just can't comprehend that consciousness. That consciousness
• 1:10:26
  Speaker 2: is beyond my So it's beyond understanding to me. That
• 1:10:30
  Speaker 2: is like, go back to twelve twenty. You don't belong,
• 1:10:33
  Speaker 2: you don't belong. In the twenty first century, you just
• 1:10:35
  Speaker 2: don't belong.
• 1:10:36
  Speaker 5: I was thinking, I like the sale and witch childs
• 1:10:37
  Speaker 5: and stuff, and it's really scary that that happened, and
• 1:10:40
  Speaker 5: there's still crazy people like that.
• 1:10:41
  Speaker 2: Yep, yeah, I mean, all right, rob it part two
• 1:10:49
  Speaker 2: of the question.
• 1:10:51
  Speaker 4: Yeah. Part two. We established that Donald Trump doesn't really
• 1:10:54
  Speaker 4: fit in ideology. He's definitely an until a narcissist. But
• 1:11:00
  Speaker 4: what would you say I got to read this here
• 1:11:03
  Speaker 4: from her note, what would you say to objectivists who
• 1:11:06
  Speaker 4: think he is an egoist, maybe not rational, but that
• 1:11:10
  Speaker 4: he promotes his own self interest and that that might
• 1:11:13
  Speaker 4: be a good thing. In terms of objectivists who who
• 1:11:18
  Speaker 4: support him and and does this further the cause of egoism?
• 1:11:26
  Speaker 12: Did you see did you see this quote from him
• 1:11:28
  Speaker 12: yesterday that furthering this is in the I have to
• 1:11:32
  Speaker 12: find this, This is in the context of furthering the
• 1:11:34
  Speaker 12: cause of I have to read this to you.
• 1:11:36
  Speaker 2: He said this in his in this talk that he
• 1:11:39
  Speaker 2: gave yesterday. Let me let me see if I can
• 1:11:41
  Speaker 2: find it. I mean, God helped him. That's all I
• 1:11:47
  Speaker 2: really have to say to those objectivists, God help all
• 1:11:51
  Speaker 2: of us if that is the view, Because if this
• 1:11:56
  Speaker 2: is the view of egoist, then I don't want to
• 1:11:58
  Speaker 2: be an egoist. And if this is what egoism means,
• 1:12:02
  Speaker 2: nobody should want to be an egoist. And he does
• 1:12:03
  Speaker 2: this much more harm than good. Yeah, I don't know
• 1:12:08
  Speaker 2: if I'll be able to find it. That's not it.
• 1:12:11
  Speaker 2: This is yesterday.
• 1:12:17
  Speaker 1: That you know.
• 1:12:25
  Speaker 4: I missed the days when we had presidents who would
• 1:12:27
  Speaker 4: say terrible things and they had staying power because they
• 1:12:30
  Speaker 4: could go a week no, no, without saying anything else.
• 1:12:32
  Speaker 2: That he you know, he said, he said lots of
• 1:12:36
  Speaker 2: amazing things yesterday, right there was a speech he said,
• 1:12:39
  Speaker 2: he said that the Conference of Saudi Arabia was liaking
• 1:12:42
  Speaker 2: his ass. I mean he literally said this right a
• 1:12:45
  Speaker 2: kissing his ass, not like kissing is that's right?
• 1:12:47
  Speaker 1: I mean this is the president of the United States.
• 1:12:49
  Speaker 2: The president of the units said that the NBS the
• 1:12:53
  Speaker 2: conference of Sadu Abros kissing Donald Trump's ass. This is
• 1:12:58
  Speaker 2: an ally in the count wall. This is what he said.
• 1:13:04
  Speaker 2: I hang out with losers because it makes me feel better.
• 1:13:08
  Speaker 2: I hate guys. They're very, very successful, and you have
• 1:13:11
  Speaker 2: to listen to their success stories. I like people that
• 1:13:15
  Speaker 2: like to listen to my successes. I mean, has they
• 1:13:21
  Speaker 2: ever been a child? Has there ever been a greater
• 1:13:26
  Speaker 2: iron man villain than this guy? You know, in the
• 1:13:29
  Speaker 2: deepest kind of sense of of it's it's no. I
• 1:13:36
  Speaker 2: don't think children are like that. It's an insult to children.
• 1:13:42
  Speaker 5: He just says it.
• 1:13:44
  Speaker 2: I like to hang out with losers because because they
• 1:13:49
  Speaker 2: like to. I want them to listen to my success
• 1:13:51
  Speaker 2: stories because I want to feel better than them. And
• 1:13:53
  Speaker 2: when I sit with like I don't know, Jeff Bezos,
• 1:13:56
  Speaker 2: he's richer than me. I don't like that he's most succesllued.
• 1:13:59
  Speaker 2: He didn't say this. This is this is my example,
• 1:14:01
  Speaker 2: but that's the implication, right, he's more successful than me.
• 1:14:04
  Speaker 2: I you know, I don't like that. I don't like
• 1:14:06
  Speaker 2: people being most successful. Then so look, he is the
• 1:14:12
  Speaker 2: opposite of an egoist. He is a is a self
• 1:14:15
  Speaker 2: destructive crazy man who has no mind. You know, I
• 1:14:22
  Speaker 2: did a show on the selfishness without a self. Donald
• 1:14:27
  Speaker 2: Trump is the epitome of a selfishness without a self.
• 1:14:32
  Speaker 2: So you want to be an egoist without an ego,
• 1:14:35
  Speaker 2: then yeah, okay, this is an egost without an ego.
• 1:14:39
  Speaker 2: That's not an egoist, not the way we should understand egoism.
• 1:14:43
  Speaker 2: And all that can do is do us massive amounts
• 1:14:47
  Speaker 2: of harm to be associated with that, to be associated
• 1:14:51
  Speaker 2: with an egos without an ego. Selfishness self selfish without self.
• 1:14:56
  Speaker 2: Our whole point is to have a self, and you
• 1:15:01
  Speaker 2: can't be selfish without her self. So again, selfish a
• 1:15:04
  Speaker 2: contradiction in terms, but she uses it. He is exactly that.
• 1:15:07
  Speaker 2: He he he's incapable of rational thought, which is the
• 1:15:12
  Speaker 2: basis of egoism and the basis of selfishness.
• 1:15:15
  Speaker 1: Uh.
• 1:15:16
  Speaker 2: And he is he's got he's got the mentality and
• 1:15:21
  Speaker 2: the emotional life of a five year old. In that sense,
• 1:15:23
  Speaker 2: he's a child, but but an envious child. So one
• 1:15:28
  Speaker 2: of those nasty children. It likes knock down buildings, don
• 1:15:31
  Speaker 2: knock down the things, not building. He's just a He's
• 1:15:35
  Speaker 2: just a really really bad human being, and any association
• 1:15:38
  Speaker 2: with him only diminishes you.
• 1:15:42
  Speaker 4: That that that quote should be all that I supposed
• 1:15:45
  Speaker 4: objectivist needs to hear. Yeah, if anybody thinks that Trump
• 1:15:49
  Speaker 4: is an egoist.
• 1:15:50
  Speaker 2: That is, blash this all over the place because it.
• 1:15:52
  Speaker 4: Should be the most embarrassing thing he could possibly say.
• 1:15:55
  Speaker 2: Yeah, And he said it with a smile, and he
• 1:15:57
  Speaker 2: thought he was funny. He thought he was clever.
• 1:15:59
  Speaker 1: You know that.
• 1:16:00
  Speaker 2: How cool is he that he likes to hang out
• 1:16:02
  Speaker 2: with loss?
• 1:16:03
  Speaker 4: Yeah, because because of course we're all like that, right, Yeah,
• 1:16:08
  Speaker 4: Well thank you that that and I think that's the answer.
• 1:16:10
  Speaker 4: Like I said before, past presidents would say something horrible,
• 1:16:14
  Speaker 4: you know, every year or two. Yeah, I think of
• 1:16:16
  Speaker 4: Obama he had a phone in a pen, or or
• 1:16:18
  Speaker 4: you didn't build that.
• 1:16:20
  Speaker 1: Yeah.
• 1:16:20
  Speaker 4: But you see, you can't pick with Trump. He says
• 1:16:23
  Speaker 4: something horrible every day.
• 1:16:24
  Speaker 2: But you didn't build that was deep, right, So this
• 1:16:27
  Speaker 2: is the difference. You didn't build that was a representation
• 1:16:31
  Speaker 2: of a philosophical point of view that we think is evil,
• 1:16:35
  Speaker 2: but it's a serious view. It's the egalitarian view. It's
• 1:16:39
  Speaker 2: John Walls. It's a philosopher, and he's presenting a serious view,
• 1:16:44
  Speaker 2: and he's he's doing it in a pretty articulate way,
• 1:16:47
  Speaker 2: in a very you know, uh, in a way that
• 1:16:50
  Speaker 2: I think the common man can understand. He's taking John
• 1:16:52
  Speaker 2: Walls and simplifying it. I mean, it's quite smart, like
• 1:16:56
  Speaker 2: it's it's the it's one of the most evil speeches
• 1:16:58
  Speaker 2: the president has ever given. But that's because it's philosophical.
• 1:17:04
  Speaker 2: This president has no you know, cannot conceive a philosophy. Excellent,
• 1:17:15
  Speaker 2: Thank you, Adam.
• 1:17:22
  Speaker 6: The feeling that I had from speaking with well informed
• 1:17:31
  Speaker 6: Iranians and Israelis, at least those whom I know personally,
• 1:17:40
  Speaker 6: was that before Trump started the Round War, they were
• 1:17:48
  Speaker 6: like within a few weeks of being organized enough that
• 1:17:55
  Speaker 6: if the Mola regime were decapitated, they were they would
• 1:18:02
  Speaker 6: be organized enough to take over Iran and essentially do
• 1:18:09
  Speaker 6: away with the Mola regime.
• 1:18:13
  Speaker 7: And instead of.
• 1:18:17
  Speaker 6: Waiting until everything was organized and prepared, somehow, Trump went
• 1:18:26
  Speaker 6: into this war several weeks before things were ready.
• 1:18:35
  Speaker 2: Do you have a comment yeah. I mean I'm skeptical
• 1:18:40
  Speaker 2: about that. I mean, they were complaining a lot of
• 1:18:43
  Speaker 2: people complaining they didn't go in in January when it
• 1:18:47
  Speaker 2: demonstrates on the street and he promised to come and
• 1:18:49
  Speaker 2: save them. I think that there are real problems on
• 1:18:55
  Speaker 2: the ground any one with the opposition, there's no organized opposition.
• 1:19:00
  Speaker 2: Is there's the son of the Shah, but he's he's
• 1:19:02
  Speaker 2: in the US, he's not any On. It's not clear
• 1:19:05
  Speaker 2: how much of a basis support he has in you On,
• 1:19:08
  Speaker 2: and it's not clear who Inyon would represent him.
• 1:19:15
  Speaker 1: Who are the.
• 1:19:16
  Speaker 2: People that have any kind of any kind of leadership
• 1:19:20
  Speaker 2: skill there? And you know, they've had four weeks now
• 1:19:25
  Speaker 2: of the war. They could organize during the war. There's
• 1:19:27
  Speaker 2: no reason they can't organize during the war. It's been
• 1:19:30
  Speaker 2: more than decapitation. It is all as taken out hundreds
• 1:19:34
  Speaker 2: of besiege if not thousands of besieged fighters and.
• 1:19:39
  Speaker 1: You know what do you call it?
• 1:19:43
  Speaker 2: IRGC And if there really is an opposition ready to
• 1:19:49
  Speaker 2: take over and willing to take over, I think they will.
• 1:19:53
  Speaker 2: And maybe they'll wait until the fighting stops to do it,
• 1:19:56
  Speaker 2: but I think they will, and I'm hopeful that once
• 1:19:59
  Speaker 2: the fighting stops. They will they you know, they're not
• 1:20:02
  Speaker 2: going to go on in the streets when the bombs
• 1:20:03
  Speaker 2: are falling. You know, the most odd beliefs that there
• 1:20:09
  Speaker 2: will be the regime will be overthrown, but it will
• 1:20:12
  Speaker 2: be in the weeks after the war, not during the war.
• 1:20:14
  Speaker 2: And I think that probably makes sense. And it's hard
• 1:20:18
  Speaker 2: to tell whether you know one clearly. Look, Trump ended
• 1:20:23
  Speaker 2: this war without a without certain strategic plans, right, didn't
• 1:20:29
  Speaker 2: have a plan for the Homo Straits, and he didn't
• 1:20:32
  Speaker 2: have a plan for regime change. He could have put
• 1:20:35
  Speaker 2: all his capital behind behind the shaw Son. I think
• 1:20:44
  Speaker 2: that would have sped things up. I think without the
• 1:20:47
  Speaker 2: US support, the shaw Son is going to have a
• 1:20:50
  Speaker 2: real problem in you know, leading a revolution in Iran.
• 1:20:54
  Speaker 2: I think he needs American support, which he doesn't have,
• 1:20:58
  Speaker 2: so that would have been having a plan would have
• 1:21:02
  Speaker 2: been good. But again Trump is irrational. He's not a
• 1:21:07
  Speaker 2: he's so he's not a planner. But I don't think
• 1:21:10
  Speaker 2: it was imminent. I don't think the regime was going
• 1:21:13
  Speaker 2: to fall even if they even if there and it's
• 1:21:17
  Speaker 2: not clear they could have decapitated quite as effectively. I mean,
• 1:21:20
  Speaker 2: I think one of the reasons they went to war.
• 1:21:22
  Speaker 2: When they went to war was they had clear intelligence
• 1:21:26
  Speaker 2: that everybody was going to be in the same place
• 1:21:28
  Speaker 2: at the same time on that Saturday morning, and they
• 1:21:32
  Speaker 2: took advantage of that fact to a large extent. The
• 1:21:35
  Speaker 2: timing of the war was dictated by when they could decapitate,
• 1:21:40
  Speaker 2: completely decapitate the regime. The you know, they killed a
• 1:21:46
  Speaker 2: lot of people that one day. I mean, a lot
• 1:21:48
  Speaker 2: of the senior leadership has gone. That's why I think
• 1:21:52
  Speaker 2: Ewan is much weaker than people think it is, and
• 1:21:54
  Speaker 2: why I think that ultimately the regime Wolfall.
• 1:22:02
  Speaker 6: Will there be a third turn because I do have
• 1:22:06
  Speaker 6: something completely different.
• 1:22:08
  Speaker 2: Yes, I think there will be a third term.
• 1:22:11
  Speaker 1: Good all right, Eric, Hey, you're on.
• 1:22:19
  Speaker 2: Hey.
• 1:22:20
  Speaker 3: I was gonna ask.
• 1:22:23
  Speaker 1: About ICE.
• 1:22:24
  Speaker 10: I know you've talked about like I don't know if
• 1:22:27
  Speaker 10: you specifically said abolishing ICE is a good thing or not,
• 1:22:30
  Speaker 10: but I felt like they do have some functions that
• 1:22:34
  Speaker 10: are legitimate, Like people that would enter our country legally
• 1:22:39
  Speaker 10: and actually pose a threat. Would they not Would that
• 1:22:42
  Speaker 10: agency not be like necessary for getting those people out
• 1:22:47
  Speaker 10: of the country that pose a threat to the country.
• 1:22:50
  Speaker 2: Well, I mean, if the threat is an objective threat,
• 1:22:52
  Speaker 2: then that's what you have police for and FBI for you.
• 1:22:55
  Speaker 2: I don't think you need an agency that specializes in
• 1:22:58
  Speaker 2: If we had a decent immigration policy, the number of
• 1:23:01
  Speaker 2: people who came into the country so called illegally would
• 1:23:03
  Speaker 2: be minimal, and it would be relatively easy to deal
• 1:23:07
  Speaker 2: with him. That's what the police are for. I don't
• 1:23:09
  Speaker 2: see why you need a special agency unless it's to
• 1:23:13
  Speaker 2: round up millions or hundreds of thousands of people and
• 1:23:18
  Speaker 2: send them out. So no, I don't.
• 1:23:25
  Speaker 10: I guess I'll give you like my thought process. Yeah,
• 1:23:29
  Speaker 10: so when I look at it, I think of like
• 1:23:31
  Speaker 10: Milton Friedman, like you can either have like I don't
• 1:23:36
  Speaker 10: know any exact words, but it's essentially was It's like
• 1:23:38
  Speaker 10: you need to have a closed borders in a welfare state,
• 1:23:41
  Speaker 10: or you can have a free economy and open borders,
• 1:23:45
  Speaker 10: but you can't have both.
• 1:23:47
  Speaker 2: I think Milton freedom is full of it. I think
• 1:23:48
  Speaker 2: he's wrong.
• 1:23:49
  Speaker 10: But you don't think the ICE would need to have
• 1:23:54
  Speaker 10: a capacity before you get the point where you end
• 1:23:59
  Speaker 10: the welfare.
• 1:24:00
  Speaker 2: No, because no, because illegal immigrants don't represent a threat
• 1:24:04
  Speaker 2: to anybody. What are they doing? This's threatening? And if
• 1:24:07
  Speaker 2: there are people who a threat, I don't know terrorists
• 1:24:09
  Speaker 2: coming in. That's what they FBI is for, and that's
• 1:24:11
  Speaker 2: what police is for. And if they're criminals, that's what
• 1:24:13
  Speaker 2: the police is for. The police should round up the
• 1:24:15
  Speaker 2: criminals and put them in jail. And you know the
• 1:24:20
  Speaker 2: reality is that right now the border is closed and
• 1:24:23
  Speaker 2: no illegal immigrants are coming in. And for that, all
• 1:24:25
  Speaker 2: you need is the border police. You don't need ICE
• 1:24:28
  Speaker 2: so you can close the border. I'm open to that argument,
• 1:24:32
  Speaker 2: but you don't need an additional police force inside the
• 1:24:39
  Speaker 2: country to round people up because they're not a threat
• 1:24:44
  Speaker 2: and the ones who are threat should go to jail.
• 1:24:48
  Speaker 2: And if you and Feaman is wrong, because you can
• 1:24:50
  Speaker 2: have I mean, it depends what you mean by open borders.
• 1:24:53
  Speaker 2: But I proposed an immigration system where you lie anybody in,
• 1:24:58
  Speaker 2: anybody in who who can who has a job, right,
• 1:25:06
  Speaker 2: Devin Aphalletta for an employer you in, Well, then none
• 1:25:09
  Speaker 2: of them on warfare, So why do we care if
• 1:25:11
  Speaker 2: there's a warfare state. So you know, there are lots
• 1:25:16
  Speaker 2: of solutions, and none of them Acquie ICE. Even today
• 1:25:20
  Speaker 2: with I don't know twenty million illegal immigrants in the
• 1:25:23
  Speaker 2: United States, I don't want ICE because twenty million illegal
• 1:25:27
  Speaker 2: immigrants are not doing me any harm. Oh gotcha.
• 1:25:31
  Speaker 10: So you're looking at it from the perspective of it's
• 1:25:35
  Speaker 10: not that they are completely illegitimate and some of the
• 1:25:38
  Speaker 10: stuff that they do, but it just think I could
• 1:25:40
  Speaker 10: handle it or some other brands that already exist.
• 1:25:43
  Speaker 1: You don't need an additional.
• 1:25:45
  Speaker 2: Yeah, and there's very little to do because there's nothing
• 1:25:48
  Speaker 2: there's nothing unique about illegal immigrants. They are low breaking
• 1:25:52
  Speaker 2: the people who break the law, they need to be
• 1:25:54
  Speaker 2: dealt with to have police for that, and the reality
• 1:25:57
  Speaker 2: is that illegal immigrants commit crimes that have fall a
• 1:26:00
  Speaker 2: rate than Americans, So it's not like they increased the
• 1:26:05
  Speaker 2: amount of crime significantly. Maybe you have to hire a
• 1:26:07
  Speaker 2: little bit more police, but not significantly. And you know,
• 1:26:13
  Speaker 2: it's just a illegal imigrants are not violating rights, and
• 1:26:17
  Speaker 2: if they do violate rights, then put them in jail.
• 1:26:19
  Speaker 2: But that's what police are for. I don't see why
• 1:26:23
  Speaker 2: you need a special special branch of a police in
• 1:26:26
  Speaker 2: order to deal with in qua immigrants.
• 1:26:29
  Speaker 1: I gotcha.
• 1:26:30
  Speaker 10: Yeah, I was just thinking through the problem because I
• 1:26:32
  Speaker 10: was looking at it from the perspective, Oh, there are
• 1:26:35
  Speaker 10: some things they do that are legitimate, and but you're right, yeah,
• 1:26:39
  Speaker 10: that could be handled by FBI and other agencies.
• 1:26:42
  Speaker 2: Yeah. The only thing that the legitimate that they can
• 1:26:43
  Speaker 2: do is catch criminals and catch criminals.
• 1:26:45
  Speaker 1: We have other.
• 1:26:46
  Speaker 2: Agencies to do that. We don't need them.
• 1:26:49
  Speaker 1: Got thank you.
• 1:26:50
  Speaker 2: Sure, all right, let's go to the super chat quickly. Michael.
• 1:26:56
  Speaker 2: What is the issue with the Frankfurt airport? What is
• 1:27:00
  Speaker 2: the best airport? You've been to? Singapore? Oh, I don't know.
• 1:27:04
  Speaker 2: I hate the fank for the airport because it's big,
• 1:27:07
  Speaker 2: it's inefficient, the security people a security are jokes. I've
• 1:27:13
  Speaker 2: missed flights there, I've run had to run to flights
• 1:27:17
  Speaker 2: and it's long, long corridors without moving walkways you have
• 1:27:21
  Speaker 2: to anyway. It's I just found it super inconvenient and horrible.
• 1:27:29
  Speaker 2: And I don't like the security people because as you
• 1:27:32
  Speaker 2: shift between terminos, you have to go through security and
• 1:27:36
  Speaker 2: it's just it's it's a nightmare. What are the best airports?
• 1:27:39
  Speaker 1: I don't know.
• 1:27:40
  Speaker 2: Singapore is beautiful, it's a gorgeous airport, but I've only
• 1:27:43
  Speaker 2: been to Singapore once. Hong Kong has a really nice airport. China.
• 1:27:47
  Speaker 2: All the airports in China that I've been to, well
• 1:27:50
  Speaker 2: not all of them, but the big ones are beautiful
• 1:27:52
  Speaker 2: and amazing, amazing inputs. I don't know. Madrid is pretty
• 1:27:57
  Speaker 2: good at least Terminal four is once you go out
• 1:28:02
  Speaker 2: of terminal four. I don't know. I'm usually just in
• 1:28:04
  Speaker 2: terminal four. Yeah, I mean, I I don't know. It's
• 1:28:10
  Speaker 2: not like it's not like they're good airports. Like inputs
• 1:28:13
  Speaker 2: is something you have to tolerate. H Yeah, I mean
• 1:28:21
  Speaker 2: Atlanta's okay. I mean it's it's busy, which is which
• 1:28:24
  Speaker 2: is so harassing. Miami's okay, I mean, but mostly okay.
• 1:28:28
  Speaker 2: Frankfurt just stands out as being really really bad. But
• 1:28:30
  Speaker 2: there's nothing like the Asian airports. The new, the new
• 1:28:34
  Speaker 2: what do you call it? LaGuardia is gonna be amazing.
• 1:28:38
  Speaker 1: Yeah.
• 1:28:38
  Speaker 2: Stockholm is good. Stockholm's nice condensed, it's pretty tight and
• 1:28:42
  Speaker 2: it's easy to get around. I think, if I remember right,
• 1:28:48
  Speaker 2: Copenhagan's pretty good. Yeah, I mean, Scandinavian inputs are good.
• 1:28:52
  Speaker 1: Yeah.
• 1:28:54
  Speaker 2: James thoughts on attending these no Kings protests. I really
• 1:28:59
  Speaker 2: want to protest Trump, but I hate associating with leftisuetos. Yeah,
• 1:29:03
  Speaker 2: me too. I don't like associating with leftsuetos, so I
• 1:29:06
  Speaker 2: don't go to I don't go to protests. I don't
• 1:29:08
  Speaker 2: like protest period, but certainly ones where half the people
• 1:29:12
  Speaker 2: away in kafirs. If there's a Kafir in the audience,
• 1:29:15
  Speaker 2: I'm out of there. And you know they're going to
• 1:29:17
  Speaker 2: be Kafia's there. You know there's going to be some idiot,
• 1:29:21
  Speaker 2: you know, flying a Palestinian or Hamas flag. You can't
• 1:29:24
  Speaker 2: watch with somebody like that. I wouldn't anyway. James, congratulations
• 1:29:31
  Speaker 2: reaching forty one thousand subscribers. Yes, I made it to
• 1:29:34
  Speaker 2: forty one thousand. Thank you, James. I made it last night.
• 1:29:40
  Speaker 2: I think not to have I'll go with them. I
• 1:29:43
  Speaker 2: disagree that the choice to live is pre model. If
• 1:29:47
  Speaker 2: you're healthy, you can achieve values in your life, you
• 1:29:49
  Speaker 2: should rationally choose life. Yeah, but that you're distorting the
• 1:29:54
  Speaker 2: meaning of morality. Morality is a is is the tool
• 1:30:02
  Speaker 2: to teach you how to live. But the underlying fundamental
• 1:30:06
  Speaker 2: assumption is that you've chosen to live. Moraality only applies
• 1:30:11
  Speaker 2: once you choose to live. If you haven't chosen to live,
• 1:30:14
  Speaker 2: there's no there's no morality there. Morality is not a
• 1:30:19
  Speaker 2: field of human cognition that applies to the choices before
• 1:30:24
  Speaker 2: you choose life because morality, what morality is about, is
• 1:30:31
  Speaker 2: how to live under the assumption that you want to
• 1:30:38
  Speaker 2: not you have a jogorithm. It is bizarre that legalized
• 1:30:41
  Speaker 2: the sister suicidey in Switzerland stipulates will only perform the
• 1:30:46
  Speaker 2: euthanasia if you're doing this for unselfish reasons? What does
• 1:30:51
  Speaker 2: that even mean? Yeah, I mean that's ridiculous. I mean
• 1:30:54
  Speaker 2: what it means is you're a burden to your family.
• 1:30:58
  Speaker 2: Are You're a burden to the text because they're paying
• 1:31:01
  Speaker 2: a lot of money to keep you alive. You're burden
• 1:31:04
  Speaker 2: to somebody and and and that's why it's unselfish. That's
• 1:31:08
  Speaker 2: really bad. I have to look for a different country
• 1:31:10
  Speaker 2: to do my youth in Asia in uh Clark, are
• 1:31:14
  Speaker 2: you speaking with Destiny this week about the war? Not
• 1:31:18
  Speaker 2: that I know of, No, Clark. Are you interviewing Jason
• 1:31:23
  Speaker 2: Ryans the following Monday. No, there's no show the following Monday.
• 1:31:28
  Speaker 2: I am traveling. He's one of Very's best unknown thinkers.
• 1:31:32
  Speaker 1: He is.
• 1:31:33
  Speaker 2: He is really good. I like I like Jason. I
• 1:31:35
  Speaker 2: like interviewing him. Kend Damy, thanks for answering my question.
• 1:31:39
  Speaker 2: You're on my pleasure Gail. How does a creature like
• 1:31:44
  Speaker 2: Donald J. Trump get created in the first place? It's
• 1:31:47
  Speaker 2: so scary he's president. I think that a lot of
• 1:31:49
  Speaker 2: people like Trump. The difference is they don't get this powerful.
• 1:31:53
  Speaker 2: How does he get created? You know, makes really really
• 1:31:56
  Speaker 2: bad choices his whole life from when he's a very
• 1:31:58
  Speaker 2: little kid, bad choices that probably get reinforced by the
• 1:32:02
  Speaker 2: culture in which he grows up bye bye by his father,
• 1:32:05
  Speaker 2: by his mom and stuff like that. So it probably
• 1:32:10
  Speaker 2: is there's a reinforcing mechanism. But yeah, I mean, people
• 1:32:14
  Speaker 2: are self creating. So Donald Trump created himself to a
• 1:32:17
  Speaker 2: loge extent, and partially it's our culture. I mean, in
• 1:32:23
  Speaker 2: a in a healthy culture, you wouldn't know he existed.
• 1:32:27
  Speaker 2: That'd be a Donald Trump, but you wouldn't know it existed. Stephen.
• 1:32:32
  Speaker 2: Would you visit a Trump resort? There's a nice one
• 1:32:35
  Speaker 2: in Paulace Vertics, where I went today. I probably not.
• 1:32:40
  Speaker 2: I have options, There are lots of nice resorts. Why
• 1:32:44
  Speaker 2: go to something where you're going to have Trump's name
• 1:32:46
  Speaker 2: all over the place everywhere? It just would would spoil
• 1:32:49
  Speaker 2: the fun, It would it would It would make it
• 1:32:51
  Speaker 2: very difficult for me to enjoy myself. So right in
• 1:32:54
  Speaker 2: Pauis verts there are lots of beautiful resorts. Why would
• 1:32:56
  Speaker 2: I go that one? I wouldn't so, I mean, I
• 1:33:00
  Speaker 2: wouldn't avoid it. If somebody invited me to have lunch
• 1:33:02
  Speaker 2: with him, there I go. But I wouldn't seek out
• 1:33:06
  Speaker 2: a vacation at a Trump resort. All right, it's go
• 1:33:12
  Speaker 2: back top panel. Last round. We'll start with Jennifer.
• 1:33:20
  Speaker 5: Oh, I'm done for today.
• 1:33:21
  Speaker 2: Thank you, Thanks Jennifer.
• 1:33:23
  Speaker 1: Eric, I'm good.
• 1:33:28
  Speaker 5: Thanks.
• 1:33:28
  Speaker 2: Jar Okay, I'm lying.
• 1:33:31
  Speaker 1: Oh okay, I wasn't ready.
• 1:33:33
  Speaker 2: You want me to come back?
• 1:33:36
  Speaker 1: Yeah, if you don't mind, Okay, that's right.
• 1:33:38
  Speaker 2: Robert.
• 1:33:41
  Speaker 4: Yeah, all I got is looking forward to New Orleans
• 1:33:43
  Speaker 4: and if anybody hasn't signed up for OCON yet, you know,
• 1:33:47
  Speaker 4: we've had some really great ones lately, but I think
• 1:33:49
  Speaker 4: this is going to be the best in a long time.
• 1:33:50
  Speaker 4: New Orleans is an amazing place, and the idea of
• 1:33:54
  Speaker 4: getting a bunch of objectivists in New Orleans, of all places,
• 1:33:57
  Speaker 4: it's going to be awesome. So looking forward to that.
• 1:33:59
  Speaker 2: The objective is going to go, go, go listen to jazz.
• 1:34:03
  Speaker 2: But what are the objective is going to do in
• 1:34:04
  Speaker 2: New Orleans?
• 1:34:05
  Speaker 4: Oh?
• 1:34:06
  Speaker 2: Hell yeah?
• 1:34:06
  Speaker 4: Yeah, we'll be out at night having a good time,
• 1:34:08
  Speaker 4: and we will be doing things that look irrational but aren't.
• 1:34:11
  Speaker 4: We'll be you know, partying and drinking and karaoke and
• 1:34:14
  Speaker 4: all the things that you can do in the evening.
• 1:34:16
  Speaker 4: And unlike, for example, here in Motown in Detroit, where
• 1:34:20
  Speaker 4: we would go to a bar and listen to rock music,
• 1:34:22
  Speaker 4: we'll be listening to a much better caliber of music
• 1:34:25
  Speaker 4: that's true while being loud and obnoxious. And there are
• 1:34:29
  Speaker 4: secret places in New Orleans. Amy knows a bunch of them.
• 1:34:32
  Speaker 4: Folks should reach out to us if you're going to
• 1:34:34
  Speaker 4: get to New Orleans, especially if you're coming early. We're
• 1:34:36
  Speaker 4: going to get there about five days before okon starts,
• 1:34:39
  Speaker 4: and yeah, reach out to us on the socials.
• 1:34:42
  Speaker 1: It's going to be good, all right.
• 1:34:44
  Speaker 2: So if you want to behave rationally but not really
• 1:34:48
  Speaker 2: just appear to behavior rationally, then New Orleans is the
• 1:34:51
  Speaker 2: place for you to go. It's it's it's a fun
• 1:34:54
  Speaker 2: place if you want if you want culture other than
• 1:34:59
  Speaker 2: the great jazz and the great blues that New Orleans has.
• 1:35:02
  Speaker 2: The antique stores in New Orleans at least used to be.
• 1:35:08
  Speaker 2: I haven't been to New Orleans in twenty years. But
• 1:35:10
  Speaker 2: when I last time I was there, the antique stores
• 1:35:12
  Speaker 2: were amazing. They would have this amazing nineteenth century art
• 1:35:15
  Speaker 2: in them, paintings and sculptures and really really cool stuff.
• 1:35:19
  Speaker 2: So antique store crawls definitely worth doing in New Orleans.
• 1:35:27
  Speaker 2: I could do without the smell of alcohol in the streets.
• 1:35:29
  Speaker 2: That I have to say is the one thing I
• 1:35:31
  Speaker 2: do not like about New Orleans is everywhere you go, Yeah,
• 1:35:34
  Speaker 2: it reeks a beer of rotten beer right from in
• 1:35:39
  Speaker 2: the streets. At least again twenty plus years ago last
• 1:35:41
  Speaker 2: time I was there, So maybe that's change.
• 1:35:44
  Speaker 4: And NOMA is a New Orleans Museum of Art is amazing.
• 1:35:48
  Speaker 4: It's besides all of the partying in festivities, it's an
• 1:35:52
  Speaker 4: amazing town.
• 1:35:53
  Speaker 2: Oh and the food is amazing, by the way, amazing,
• 1:35:56
  Speaker 2: amazing food. And if you can, if you have the
• 1:35:59
  Speaker 2: money in the time, try to get to Enralls. It's
• 1:36:01
  Speaker 2: considered one of the top restaurants in the country. Uh,
• 1:36:04
  Speaker 2: but there's a bunch of restaurants that are just and
• 1:36:08
  Speaker 2: this is in real some of you might be familiar
• 1:36:11
  Speaker 2: with this in real Lagrange or whatever his name is,
• 1:36:14
  Speaker 2: but this is his Sun now runs the restaurant and
• 1:36:17
  Speaker 2: it's uh much more modern and uh supposed to be spectacular.
• 1:36:23
  Speaker 2: So I'm trying to get a visuation some of.
• 1:36:26
  Speaker 4: The nice restaurants if you're very casual like me, so
• 1:36:29
  Speaker 4: you're not necessarily going to the highest end restaurants, but
• 1:36:31
  Speaker 4: you can go to Commander's Palace have an amazing meal
• 1:36:34
  Speaker 4: and yet you know, there are people going around the
• 1:36:37
  Speaker 4: tables playing jazz music and trios.
• 1:36:39
  Speaker 2: And palacemal, white tablecloths, nice cutlery. It's a it's a
• 1:36:45
  Speaker 2: formal place. But yeah, I guess they.
• 1:36:47
  Speaker 4: Will usually go to lunch. So lunch lunchtime. The prices
• 1:36:51
  Speaker 4: are better as that's true, and the in the atmosphere
• 1:36:54
  Speaker 4: is very it's it's a very good time.
• 1:36:56
  Speaker 2: Tons and tons of good food in uleans. There's no
• 1:36:58
  Speaker 2: that's the one one of the one of the great
• 1:37:00
  Speaker 2: things about New Orleans.
• 1:37:01
  Speaker 4: Yeah, this is this is gonna be a great o'con.
• 1:37:03
  Speaker 2: Good good all right online.
• 1:37:08
  Speaker 1: Yeah. So one of the things that's been happening for
• 1:37:11
  Speaker 1: the past few years, a couple of years of maybe
• 1:37:14
  Speaker 1: three now, basically I think since the Ukraine War started,
• 1:37:17
  Speaker 1: is that GPS spoofing has gone up a lot and
• 1:37:21
  Speaker 1: GPS what very likely it's the Russians of probably others too,
• 1:37:25
  Speaker 1: but it's happened a lot in like the Baltic States,
• 1:37:29
  Speaker 1: Eastern Eastern Europe and Scandinavia, things like that.
• 1:37:33
  Speaker 2: GPS what I missed.
• 1:37:34
  Speaker 1: A GPS spoofing. So basically yeah, yeah, So it's extremely dangerous,
• 1:37:39
  Speaker 1: particularly for aircraft and marine vehicle yep as you know,
• 1:37:43
  Speaker 1: they can they can be driven off course, they can
• 1:37:45
  Speaker 1: end up hostile territory crash even you know, if if
• 1:37:50
  Speaker 1: that's what the pilots are relying on. So my question is,
• 1:37:53
  Speaker 1: you know, what what to do with this case? Now,
• 1:37:55
  Speaker 1: obviously there's a longer term thing, is why we should
• 1:37:57
  Speaker 1: be army in Ukraine and all that kind of stuff.
• 1:37:59
  Speaker 1: But in general, when you have states doing this kind
• 1:38:04
  Speaker 1: of bas and states that have nuclear weapons, so you know,
• 1:38:07
  Speaker 1: it's not easy to just go to war with them
• 1:38:09
  Speaker 1: and blast them out of the sky. What what can
• 1:38:13
  Speaker 1: we do?
• 1:38:16
  Speaker 7: You know?
• 1:38:17
  Speaker 2: I don't know. I mean my guess is that we
• 1:38:20
  Speaker 2: are the developing technologies that would replace GPS ultimately, I
• 1:38:25
  Speaker 2: know they're already doing that with some drones and stuff
• 1:38:27
  Speaker 2: like that. I think if there is an accident that
• 1:38:32
  Speaker 2: happens because of this, I think it should be like
• 1:38:36
  Speaker 2: a declaration of war. I think if we can identify
• 1:38:38
  Speaker 2: who did it exactly, it should be perceived as a
• 1:38:41
  Speaker 2: declaration of war. It was funny because when I was
• 1:38:43
  Speaker 2: in Israel last time or the time before last, I
• 1:38:47
  Speaker 2: think these Raelis were doing it because they they because
• 1:38:52
  Speaker 2: they wanted to fool the missiles coming in. So so
• 1:38:56
  Speaker 2: I would look at my phone and it would tell
• 1:38:57
  Speaker 2: me I was in Baywot or you know, I'm on Jordan.
• 1:39:00
  Speaker 2: And indeed, I have this app on my phone that
• 1:39:03
  Speaker 2: keeps tracks of all the places I go in the
• 1:39:05
  Speaker 2: world because for the for the for the iOS, you know,
• 1:39:09
  Speaker 2: to say, I really am one hundred and eighty three
• 1:39:10
  Speaker 2: days in Puerto Rico, and the app has me in
• 1:39:14
  Speaker 2: I'm on Jordan for three days and in be Root
• 1:39:16
  Speaker 2: for five days because because of the GPS proofing, these
• 1:39:19
  Speaker 2: Raelis were doing to as an act of self defense.
• 1:39:22
  Speaker 2: But yeah, if it's done in a way that is
• 1:39:26
  Speaker 2: that that hurts people, then they have to be consequences.
• 1:39:29
  Speaker 2: And the only consequences between countries are either kind of
• 1:39:33
  Speaker 2: sanctioned as a war, So you know you would have
• 1:39:36
  Speaker 2: to act against them, no question.
• 1:39:38
  Speaker 1: So what do you do with a country like Russia.
• 1:39:40
  Speaker 2: I mean, with a country like Russia, it's very difficult
• 1:39:42
  Speaker 2: that This is why it's so crucial to support Ukraine
• 1:39:48
  Speaker 2: and let let them humiliate the Russians, because that's you know,
• 1:39:52
  Speaker 2: a way to make them poorer and make them, make
• 1:39:54
  Speaker 2: them less aggressive. You can't go to war with them
• 1:39:56
  Speaker 2: because they have nukes, so but you can sanction them.
• 1:39:59
  Speaker 2: You can i them, you know, you can. You can
• 1:40:02
  Speaker 2: stop them for selling oil, you can, you can, you
• 1:40:06
  Speaker 2: can hurt them. I mean, all these sanctions really did
• 1:40:09
  Speaker 2: hurt Russia. It just hasn't stopped them from going to war,
• 1:40:12
  Speaker 2: but it really has hurt them, and you need to
• 1:40:14
  Speaker 2: do things like that.
• 1:40:16
  Speaker 1: But could you could you do things like okay, fine,
• 1:40:18
  Speaker 1: we're going to do the same and crash a couple
• 1:40:19
  Speaker 1: of your airplanes.
• 1:40:21
  Speaker 2: I mean you could. I think that would be legitimate. Yeah,
• 1:40:24
  Speaker 2: you'd have to call it. You'd have to actually say
• 1:40:27
  Speaker 2: that's what you're doing, which nobody will do today. But yeah, yeah, I.
• 1:40:32
  Speaker 1: Mean I don't expect anybody to actually do any I.
• 1:40:35
  Speaker 2: Mean, yeah, if they won't change their ways without that
• 1:40:38
  Speaker 2: didn't show absolutely.
• 1:40:39
  Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean personally I would say that, you know, okay,
• 1:40:44
  Speaker 1: you got Russian airplanes flying. I mean, you know countries
• 1:40:47
  Speaker 1: that are still accepting Russian travelers like Thailand and stuff.
• 1:40:51
  Speaker 1: I mean, shoot down one of their planes on the
• 1:40:52
  Speaker 1: way sure, and say okay, well you know, what do
• 1:40:55
  Speaker 1: you want to do but go to war? Yeah, that
• 1:40:58
  Speaker 1: would take courage. We don't have anymore.
• 1:41:01
  Speaker 2: Yeah, and it would better to shoot down Putin's plane
• 1:41:03
  Speaker 2: when he was flying somewhere.
• 1:41:05
  Speaker 1: Oh yeah, of course, but yeah, yeah, okay, all.
• 1:41:10
  Speaker 2: Right, thanks someone, Adam.
• 1:41:20
  Speaker 6: I wanted to tell you that in season two of
• 1:41:25
  Speaker 6: Doctor Romantic, there is a whole sub stream in the
• 1:41:38
  Speaker 6: plot that's based on Pitcher Keating and Peacher Keating's mother.
• 1:41:46
  Speaker 6: There is a mother who raises her two children, her
• 1:41:53
  Speaker 6: son and her daughter to be Pitcher Keatings, and the
• 1:42:01
  Speaker 6: sun follows the second underpath, and there is a dramatic
• 1:42:08
  Speaker 6: scene where the doctor rejects being a second hander in
• 1:42:16
  Speaker 6: a face to face confrontation with her mother.
• 1:42:21
  Speaker 7: And I think, even if it weren't for anything.
• 1:42:27
  Speaker 6: Else that's good about that show, that particular sub theme
• 1:42:33
  Speaker 6: is really excellently done.
• 1:42:37
  Speaker 1: Good.
• 1:42:37
  Speaker 2: I'm gonna have to check out Mister Romantic. Sounds good.
• 1:42:41
  Speaker 7: This is in season two.
• 1:42:44
  Speaker 2: Okay, the season one you said is also good?
• 1:42:46
  Speaker 7: Right, Season one is good. There is a character.
• 1:42:54
  Speaker 6: Who approaches surgery the way Howard draw approaches architecture. Cool
• 1:43:04
  Speaker 6: and so this makes it a very interesting show.
• 1:43:11
  Speaker 1: Good.
• 1:43:11
  Speaker 2: I'll check it out. Thank you. Thanks Adam Ryan, you
• 1:43:17
  Speaker 2: get the last wood from the panel.
• 1:43:22
  Speaker 11: So related to what Robert was saying earlier about Trump,
• 1:43:26
  Speaker 11: I remember, I think when he was first running for office,
• 1:43:28
  Speaker 11: he said he was asked the question like who is
• 1:43:32
  Speaker 11: someone you look up to, like a philosophical or historical figure,
• 1:43:35
  Speaker 11: like who's your hero? And he couldn't think of anybody.
• 1:43:40
  Speaker 11: And then he kind of said, well, I do my
• 1:43:42
  Speaker 11: business and I and then I said I don't know,
• 1:43:45
  Speaker 11: and then he think. I think he mentioned his dad
• 1:43:47
  Speaker 11: as someone who looked up So what do you? I
• 1:43:51
  Speaker 11: had a lot of thoughts, like when I heard the question,
• 1:43:53
  Speaker 11: I obviously I thought about people I look up to,
• 1:43:55
  Speaker 11: like Iron Rand and Founding Fathers, a lot of.
• 1:43:58
  Speaker 1: People in history, and then of course what do you?
• 1:44:02
  Speaker 11: But what would you say about someone who can't admit
• 1:44:04
  Speaker 11: to having someone that they someone that they look up to?
• 1:44:08
  Speaker 7: I mean, I.
• 1:44:10
  Speaker 2: I think a you know, he's he's an ocissist, he's
• 1:44:16
  Speaker 2: he's self what do they call it? Self centered?
• 1:44:19
  Speaker 3: Not?
• 1:44:20
  Speaker 2: You know, he's all he can think about is him,
• 1:44:22
  Speaker 2: is himself in a kind of a sick provoted way,
• 1:44:26
  Speaker 2: not in a self interested, rational way, but in a
• 1:44:29
  Speaker 2: kind of provoted way. Looking up to somebody means that
• 1:44:32
  Speaker 2: there's somebody who in some respect is better than you.
• 1:44:35
  Speaker 2: And that's inconceivable to him, right that that that it's
• 1:44:38
  Speaker 2: not that he doesn't think that that people better than him.
• 1:44:40
  Speaker 2: He knows that, but he won't. He can't. He can't
• 1:44:43
  Speaker 2: admire them for that. He was instant for it, right
• 1:44:47
  Speaker 2: because because it's all about him, it really is, and
• 1:44:51
  Speaker 2: it's all about how the world sees him. So he
• 1:44:53
  Speaker 2: would never admit to the rest of the world that
• 1:44:55
  Speaker 2: the people better than him. But it's yeah, But it's
• 1:44:59
  Speaker 2: also he's not he's not thoughtful. He's not not introspective.
• 1:45:04
  Speaker 2: He doesn't think about what has inspired me, what has
• 1:45:07
  Speaker 2: driven me? Who are the good guys out there in
• 1:45:10
  Speaker 2: the world, who are the bad guys out of the world.
• 1:45:12
  Speaker 2: Those are the kind of thoughts that the introspective, thoughtful
• 1:45:15
  Speaker 2: puss and engages in it. And that's not him, you know,
• 1:45:19
  Speaker 2: He's just not that kind of a human being. He's emotional,
• 1:45:24
  Speaker 2: and he's inside his own head. It's his whims and
• 1:45:28
  Speaker 2: his wishes, which is which is his command?
• 1:45:31
  Speaker 1: That's it.
• 1:45:33
  Speaker 11: I ask one more quick thing. Sure the super chat
• 1:45:37
  Speaker 11: earlier about uh so the choice to live being the
• 1:45:42
  Speaker 11: precondition for like good and evil. I'm totally on board
• 1:45:46
  Speaker 11: with that and I understand it. But how does that
• 1:45:49
  Speaker 11: relate to somebody who, let's say, chooses not to live,
• 1:45:52
  Speaker 11: but they want to spend a decent amount of their
• 1:45:55
  Speaker 11: life to do except that they will choose to tactually,
• 1:45:59
  Speaker 11: but they don't want to live, but they want to
• 1:46:02
  Speaker 11: live long enough to harm other people, and like they
• 1:46:04
  Speaker 11: want to murder, They want to, you know, just cause
• 1:46:06
  Speaker 11: chaos and destruction. So that would obviously be you would
• 1:46:10
  Speaker 11: want to consider that evil. So but if they're like, well,
• 1:46:13
  Speaker 11: I choose not to live, so I don't care what
• 1:46:15
  Speaker 11: happens to me, but I just want to harm harm
• 1:46:17
  Speaker 11: other people, how would you go about, like category categorizing
• 1:46:21
  Speaker 11: that as evil?
• 1:46:22
  Speaker 2: Well, because then you're choosing to harm other people. You
• 1:46:25
  Speaker 2: you're you're actually making a choice in the context of
• 1:46:27
  Speaker 2: living to hurt other people, and then that's evil. But
• 1:46:31
  Speaker 2: more importantly, but how is it evil Because it's but
• 1:46:34
  Speaker 2: but let's say, let's say you've got somebody who is
• 1:46:36
  Speaker 2: born with some kind of you know, brain disease that
• 1:46:42
  Speaker 2: causes him to want to hood other people. I don't
• 1:46:45
  Speaker 2: know if that's possible, but let's let's you know, let's
• 1:46:48
  Speaker 2: just I don't know, they talk about tycho paths or whatever,
• 1:46:52
  Speaker 2: you know, they want to Then you say, Okay, maybe
• 1:46:54
  Speaker 2: it's not evil in the sense that he didn't choose it.
• 1:46:59
  Speaker 2: I still want to kill him, right, I'm still gonna
• 1:47:02
  Speaker 2: send him to jail for the rest of his life.
• 1:47:04
  Speaker 2: I'll still hang him, right, So he's still a threat
• 1:47:06
  Speaker 2: to my life. So it's evil for me in the
• 1:47:09
  Speaker 2: sense that it's a threat to me, and therefore I
• 1:47:12
  Speaker 2: will penalize him. So maybe he doesn't have any control
• 1:47:14
  Speaker 2: of what he's doing. Maybe imagine if somebody is given
• 1:47:20
  Speaker 2: a drug it makes them completely susceptible to some master criminal,
• 1:47:24
  Speaker 2: and that master criminal says, go kill and they and
• 1:47:27
  Speaker 2: they're not in control. They're really not in control. The
• 1:47:29
  Speaker 2: drug has overtaking their mind. Doesn't matter. Still, still you
• 1:47:35
  Speaker 2: still defend yourself, you still kill them, and you still
• 1:47:37
  Speaker 2: evaluate their actions as evil, even if they, as an
• 1:47:40
  Speaker 2: individual was not evil because they weren't in control. Yeah, okay, thanks,
• 1:47:48
  Speaker 2: all right, we got a few super chats. Let's do
• 1:47:49
  Speaker 2: these and then we'll call it today. Uh Lois says,
• 1:47:53
  Speaker 2: what do you think is behind tiger Woods extracurricular activity.
• 1:47:57
  Speaker 2: I mean, I think it's a it's a basic lack
• 1:47:59
  Speaker 2: of self esteem, which is pretty amazing from from somebody
• 1:48:03
  Speaker 2: who's been so successful in obviously golf, but appeared so
• 1:48:09
  Speaker 2: successful in life. He obviously has some real psychological demons
• 1:48:13
  Speaker 2: and they have undermined, undermined his own ability to be happy,
• 1:48:17
  Speaker 2: undermining his own ability to be satisfied with his life,
• 1:48:20
  Speaker 2: undermine his ability to be irrational. He's this is not
• 1:48:23
  Speaker 2: his first dui. He's drunk before and driven. He's he
• 1:48:29
  Speaker 2: cheated on his wife, he had he had affairs. You know,
• 1:48:31
  Speaker 2: he's not lived a good life other than his phenomenal golf,
• 1:48:35
  Speaker 2: and of course it's affected his golf. The consequence of
• 1:48:39
  Speaker 2: that is he hasn't lived up to the promise. Right,
• 1:48:42
  Speaker 2: he was going to win more majors than anybody in history.
• 1:48:45
  Speaker 2: He was going to be, by father, the greatest golf
• 1:48:47
  Speaker 2: in all in all of history, and he never lived
• 1:48:50
  Speaker 2: up to that. Because of this, whatever irrational way of
• 1:48:56
  Speaker 2: life that he has embraced, and I think he's suffering
• 1:48:59
  Speaker 2: for I think he knows he didn't live up to
• 1:49:02
  Speaker 2: his potential, which makes it worse. So now he you know,
• 1:49:05
  Speaker 2: he probably drows his solo in Our Call because of that.
• 1:49:10
  Speaker 2: But it ultimately it boils down to some basic lack
• 1:49:14
  Speaker 2: of self esteem somewhere deep down inside of him, which
• 1:49:18
  Speaker 2: is said because he was a credibly talented, credibly talented
• 1:49:23
  Speaker 2: person who worked really, really, really hard and could have
• 1:49:28
  Speaker 2: gone down in history. It will still go down in
• 1:49:30
  Speaker 2: history as one of the great golfers, but not as
• 1:49:32
  Speaker 2: the greatest necessarily Raphael, how you Ron, I think there
• 1:49:37
  Speaker 2: isn't much written about art from an objective's perspective beyond
• 1:49:41
  Speaker 2: Romantic manifesto. Any book suggestions for a comprehensive view of
• 1:49:45
  Speaker 2: art history, styles, and evaluations, Oh wow, I don't.
• 1:49:49
  Speaker 1: Really have one.
• 1:49:50
  Speaker 2: I mean, there is no Glennon's done on art. It's
• 1:49:54
  Speaker 2: more on plays and poetry and things like that, but
• 1:49:57
  Speaker 2: it's still definitely worth consuming all of that. There's Mary
• 1:50:01
  Speaker 2: Answers work on art, particularly metaphysics and marble, and maybe
• 1:50:09
  Speaker 2: there's some other There's some other stuff by Mary answers.
• 1:50:14
  Speaker 2: But in terms of a comprehensive art history, I mean,
• 1:50:18
  Speaker 2: there are a lot of them out there. You know,
• 1:50:21
  Speaker 2: I'm watching a bunch of documentaries right now in art history.
• 1:50:26
  Speaker 2: I don't agree with everything the guy is saying, but
• 1:50:28
  Speaker 2: it's super interesting. I forget the guy's name, he's got
• 1:50:32
  Speaker 2: a long kind of poll his sounding name. I can
• 1:50:37
  Speaker 2: send you a link, But I think there's tons of
• 1:50:41
  Speaker 2: content out there. Just just look at anything that's survey
• 1:50:49
  Speaker 2: of art before the twentieth century, and I think most
• 1:50:51
  Speaker 2: of the stuff you'll find is good. It won't be
• 1:50:53
  Speaker 2: great because, for example, most US most art historians are
• 1:50:59
  Speaker 2: pretty dismissive of kind of the academic tradition in the
• 1:51:03
  Speaker 2: nineteenth century, academic art in the nineteenth century, so you know,
• 1:51:08
  Speaker 2: you have to accept the fact. But you can find
• 1:51:10
  Speaker 2: books specifically on those topics. I have a huge library
• 1:51:14
  Speaker 2: here of art books about art and about particular pains,
• 1:51:19
  Speaker 2: particular sculptors, and about the history of art. But I
• 1:51:22
  Speaker 2: don't have anyone that I would recommend. Is is the
• 1:51:25
  Speaker 2: definitive source for this? Thanks fell Daniel. If you know it,
• 1:51:33
  Speaker 2: you can you give the five minute version of what
• 1:51:36
  Speaker 2: led to the Shaw's reign in Iran. Well, I mean
• 1:51:46
  Speaker 2: the five minute is that they were the they were
• 1:51:51
  Speaker 2: the what do you call the monarchs in Iran? Going
• 1:51:56
  Speaker 2: back to nineteenth century, there was nothing this particular show was.
• 1:52:00
  Speaker 2: It was a young man in the nineteen fifties, who
• 1:52:03
  Speaker 2: I mean, there was some attempt to shift some of
• 1:52:07
  Speaker 2: the power to a parliament and kind of a democratic
• 1:52:10
  Speaker 2: process that didn't go well and the ultimately he objected
• 1:52:14
  Speaker 2: to and he rebelled against it and was aided in
• 1:52:19
  Speaker 2: that by the CIA in the primarily by the British,
• 1:52:23
  Speaker 2: partially because the government was nationalizing the British oil and
• 1:52:27
  Speaker 2: and aligning itself with the Soviet Union, so it was
• 1:52:31
  Speaker 2: viewed as a Cold War issue. And but the Shaw
• 1:52:34
  Speaker 2: was the show was going to be in power. That is,
• 1:52:37
  Speaker 2: he was keme from a long line of Shaws that
• 1:52:39
  Speaker 2: have wouoled Iran. I don't know for how long, but
• 1:52:42
  Speaker 2: for a long time. But yeah, so that's the best
• 1:52:47
  Speaker 2: I can do right now. I would have to do
• 1:52:49
  Speaker 2: more research to get back to you on that. Uh
• 1:52:53
  Speaker 2: Kiki says, can a can we use an a bomb
• 1:52:56
  Speaker 2: on Iran mountain facilities? Yeah? Absolutely, that is the way
• 1:53:00
  Speaker 2: to that would do the job. That would destroy the
• 1:53:04
  Speaker 2: tunnel systems that would do. It's a good use of
• 1:53:07
  Speaker 2: a tactical nuke would be nuke the nuke the mountain
• 1:53:10
  Speaker 2: facilities and any bunker that the bunk bunker busting bomb
• 1:53:14
  Speaker 2: can't reach, use a nuke on it, particularly if it's
• 1:53:17
  Speaker 2: an isolated area and there's no risk of UH radio
• 1:53:22
  Speaker 2: you know, radioactivity spreading to populated areas, and a lot
• 1:53:25
  Speaker 2: of these bunkers and mountain things are in remote areas.
• 1:53:30
  Speaker 2: So yeah, I think it's definitely something you should be considered.
• 1:53:33
  Speaker 2: But I never mentioned it because they won't be considered.
• 1:53:35
  Speaker 2: Nobody will consider it, all right. Last question from Michael.
• 1:53:40
  Speaker 2: Do all the top objectivists have parents in the medical field.
• 1:53:44
  Speaker 2: Your father was a doctor, Leer and Peacocks with father
• 1:53:46
  Speaker 2: was a doctor. Ironman's father was a pharmacist. Is there
• 1:53:50
  Speaker 2: something about thinking methods of a doctor that translate well
• 1:53:53
  Speaker 2: into interacting with objectives philosophy? No, I don't think that's
• 1:53:58
  Speaker 2: the case, and I wouldn't put myself together with Iman
• 1:54:04
  Speaker 2: and Leonard. I don't think that goes together. No, I
• 1:54:11
  Speaker 2: don't know. Is hav you Bin Swayne's father doctor is
• 1:54:14
  Speaker 2: uncle Gatez, is Greg slamiois is No. I don't think
• 1:54:19
  Speaker 2: there's anything. I don't think there's any relationship there. I
• 1:54:23
  Speaker 2: mean other than you know, we come from educated parents
• 1:54:27
  Speaker 2: who emphasize education and coverage thinking or maybe independent thinking.
• 1:54:30
  Speaker 2: Maybe maybe that's it. I don't think it's a medical
• 1:54:33
  Speaker 2: field necessarily. It's just a stand in for education. All right,
• 1:54:42
  Speaker 2: Thank you guys, Thank you to our panel. Really appreciate
• 1:54:45
  Speaker 2: the support and you being here and asking questions. Thank
• 1:54:48
  Speaker 2: you to all of you. I think we're gonna have
• 1:54:50
  Speaker 2: a show tomorrow. I might take the day off, but
• 1:54:53
  Speaker 2: we'll probably do a show tomorrow. I will let you
• 1:54:55
  Speaker 2: know tomorrow. Definitely be back on Monday with two shows.
• 1:54:59
  Speaker 2: We've got Amish Adult you Monday Night at seven pm
• 1:55:02
  Speaker 2: Eastern Time, talking about all things healthcare, and then we'll
• 1:55:06
  Speaker 2: do a new show earlier in the day, and then
• 1:55:08
  Speaker 2: there'll be a show. There'll be shows all next week,
• 1:55:11
  Speaker 2: so week after week after that, when we will have
• 1:55:16
  Speaker 2: significantly fewer shows because I'm traveling. All right, have a
• 1:55:20
  Speaker 2: great weekend, everybody. Bye, Okay,