Latest / Yaron Brook Show / Live from London (Sept 19, 2026) | Yaron Brook Show

Transcript

Live from London (Sept 19, 2026) | Yaron Brook Show · Yaron Brook Show

• 0:02
  Speaker 1: The radical, fundamental principles of freedom, rational self-interest, and individual rights.
• 0:15
  Speaker 2: This is the Yaron Brook Show. All right, everybody, welcome
• 0:21
  Speaker 2: to Yaron Brook Show on this, um, what is it?
• 0:25
  Speaker 2: It's Saturday. September 19th. I hope everybody is having a great,
• 0:31
  Speaker 2: had a great week, having a great weekend, and that
• 0:34
  Speaker 2: everything is going fantastic. I am still here in London,
• 0:41
  Speaker 2: so this is our second show tomorrow. There will be
• 0:44
  Speaker 2: a show with Nikos, so tomorrow we will have a
• 0:46
  Speaker 2: show with Nikos talking about why the defenders of capitalism
• 0:52
  Speaker 2: keep failing. What is it about you know, what is
• 0:57
  Speaker 2: about the case for capitalism that is made by classical liberals,
• 1:01
  Speaker 2: but including libertarians, but even objectivists, that does not seem
• 1:06
  Speaker 2: to be convincing anybody. So that'll be tomorrow. It's really
• 1:13
  Speaker 2: based on the documentaries that we are doing, that we
• 1:17
  Speaker 2: did this week. So three documentaries. We filmed three documentaries.
• 1:24
  Speaker 2: Thank you to all of those who helped fund these
• 1:28
  Speaker 2: and helped them become a reality. We now have the footage,
• 1:33
  Speaker 2: and now it's just a matter of editing. Well, we
• 1:35
  Speaker 2: have most of the footage. I'll tell you what footage
• 1:37
  Speaker 2: we're missing. But we filmed a bunch of footage for
• 1:46
  Speaker 2: the documentary on Marks, on Karl Marks. And, uh, we will, uh, so,
• 1:54
  Speaker 2: so there'll be, we did that both, uh, out in London. We,
• 1:58
  Speaker 2: we went to, uh, Mark's, uh, grave and, uh, we
• 2:03
  Speaker 2: filmed a bunch of stuff there. We went to different
• 2:05
  Speaker 2: places where he lived in London. We went to Ingalls'
• 2:09
  Speaker 2: home and, uh, yeah. So we, we filmed a bunch
• 2:13
  Speaker 2: of stuff like that with me and Nikos commenting on,
• 2:15
  Speaker 2: on Karl Marks. And I think it's going to be good.
• 2:20
  Speaker 2: I think you'll enjoy that documentary. It's going to be,
• 2:25
  Speaker 2: for a change, it'll actually be a documentary that presents
• 2:30
  Speaker 2: Marx properly. So we cover the history, we cover some
• 2:36
  Speaker 2: of his economics, we cover his philosophy, we cover the
• 2:39
  Speaker 2: root cause of his antagonism towards capitalism. What is it
• 2:43
  Speaker 2: that he really, really... What is it that he really, really,
• 2:50
  Speaker 2: really hated that caused him to hate capitalism? You send
• 2:56
  Speaker 2: me an email. Remind me what the email was about.
• 2:59
  Speaker 2: I'm sorry. A lot has happened over the last few days.
• 3:02
  Speaker 2: And I am trying to... Yeah, I can't remember. If
• 3:13
  Speaker 2: you send me an email or not, I can't remember
• 3:15
  Speaker 2: because I can't remember what the email is about. If
• 3:16
  Speaker 2: you tell me what it's about, I'll be able to
• 3:19
  Speaker 2: give you more information. Anyway, so we did the Marx documentary.
• 3:22
  Speaker 2: The second documentary is about why we're kind of losing
• 3:25
  Speaker 2: the case of capitalism. And again, we filmed a bunch
• 3:29
  Speaker 2: of stuff in London, at the City of London, St. Peter's, St.
• 3:34
  Speaker 2: Paul's Cathedral, on the waterfront. And then we went into
• 3:42
  Speaker 2: a studio for a day and we basically did a
• 3:44
  Speaker 2: bunch of studio readings in front of a teleprompter and
• 3:49
  Speaker 2: camera for a lot of the content. All right. Put
• 3:59
  Speaker 2: the product for YBS. God, why don't, why is this
• 4:03
  Speaker 2: not ringing a bell? I mean, I remember you asked me,
• 4:06
  Speaker 2: but I don't remember the, let me just check if
• 4:12
  Speaker 2: I got the email. What happened here?
• 4:15
  Speaker 3: Oh, yep.
• 4:16
  Speaker 2: Uh, once again, uh, let me see if I got
• 4:20
  Speaker 2: this email and then, um, all right. So the second
• 4:25
  Speaker 2: documentary was about, uh, is about capitalism and why we're
• 4:28
  Speaker 2: losing the case for capitalism. And, um, yeah. Yes. Uh,
• 4:39
  Speaker 2: I did get the email. Sorry. I did get the email.
• 4:42
  Speaker 2: I will respond to the email. And I did get
• 4:49
  Speaker 2: the email and I will respond to it.
• 4:51
  Speaker 3: Right.
• 4:52
  Speaker 2: So thank you. Yes. I think it's I'm interested. So
• 5:00
  Speaker 2: but I will get back to you. I will get
• 5:02
  Speaker 2: back to you. All right. Let's see. What else did I. Yeah.
• 5:13
  Speaker 2: So the final documentary. a final documentary is a documentary
• 5:18
  Speaker 2: about my life, which, which has really become just an
• 5:24
  Speaker 2: interview of, of, uh, Nikos interviewing me about my life.
• 5:29
  Speaker 2: And I think Nikos and the producer, uh, thought, all right, we'll, we'll, we'll,
• 5:36
  Speaker 2: you know, we'll take a couple of hours and we'll
• 5:38
  Speaker 2: interview you on and, and, uh, we'll, we'll turn that
• 5:41
  Speaker 2: into some kind of thing about his life. And, uh,
• 5:46
  Speaker 2: You know, five hours later, five hours later, we, or
• 5:51
  Speaker 2: six hours, between five to six hours later, you know,
• 5:54
  Speaker 2: with a lunch break in between, we made it to 2010, 2012,
• 6:01
  Speaker 2: something like that. So we've got between five to six
• 6:06
  Speaker 2: hours of footage of me talking about my life. Now,
• 6:13
  Speaker 2: I don't know if you guys are interested. I hope
• 6:16
  Speaker 2: you are. But at some point, we're going to release a,
• 6:20
  Speaker 2: like a, you know, probably an eight-hour video broken maybe
• 6:27
  Speaker 2: into two or three parts of me just telling stories
• 6:30
  Speaker 2: about different things that, you know, happen in my life.
• 6:34
  Speaker 2: I don't, you know, it'll be interesting if there is
• 6:37
  Speaker 2: a market for this, if you guys have any interest
• 6:40
  Speaker 2: in this, right? So, Yeah, let me know. If you
• 6:46
  Speaker 2: guys want a massive... Nikos is convinced there's a huge
• 6:52
  Speaker 2: market for this. Not a huge market, but you guys
• 6:55
  Speaker 2: really want it. And I didn't want to do it,
• 6:58
  Speaker 2: but we basically have an autobiography. You know, it's not everything,
• 7:03
  Speaker 2: and I could probably go for more hours. So I
• 7:07
  Speaker 2: think what we're going to do, I don't know this,
• 7:09
  Speaker 2: but I think one possibility is we're going to do
• 7:13
  Speaker 2: is we will release the three ARI days, like, so
• 7:20
  Speaker 2: birth to 2000, the year 2000. We will release maybe
• 7:26
  Speaker 2: before the end of this year. And then we, so
• 7:31
  Speaker 2: we only reached 2010, 2012. So we've still got two,
• 7:37
  Speaker 2: three hours of more interviews to do. And then sometime
• 7:41
  Speaker 2: next year, I'll tape that. I'll come back to London
• 7:44
  Speaker 2: and tape that. And then the next thing is, yeah,
• 7:54
  Speaker 2: so we will tape that and then release that before
• 7:56
  Speaker 2: next summer, hopefully. So ultimately there'll be, I don't know,
• 7:59
  Speaker 2: eight hours of me talking about my life. And then
• 8:02
  Speaker 2: you guys can decide if you want to listen to
• 8:04
  Speaker 2: it or not. Maybe you can listen to it at
• 8:06
  Speaker 2: 2x speed or something. It'll be fun. Okay, let me
• 8:09
  Speaker 2: just say something about Before we get to the news,
• 8:13
  Speaker 2: I was going to do a news thing today. But
• 8:15
  Speaker 2: let me just say something about the ZZ stuff. The
• 8:21
  Speaker 2: more you bug me, the less likely I am to
• 8:23
  Speaker 2: do it. And indeed, I'm not going to do it, right?
• 8:26
  Speaker 2: You guys have proved to me why it would be
• 8:29
  Speaker 2: stupid of me to debate Liquid Zulu, whatever his name is, right?
• 8:36
  Speaker 2: I mean, with fans like you, Again, why would I
• 8:42
  Speaker 2: ever do it? With people like you, as obnoxious as
• 8:47
  Speaker 2: you are, as inappropriate, rude, and just trolling, harassing, whatever
• 8:56
  Speaker 2: you want to call it, why would I ever do
• 8:58
  Speaker 2: the debate? Now, I don't want to do the debate anyway.
• 9:04
  Speaker 2: Anarchy does not interest me that much. The topic is
• 9:07
  Speaker 2: not that interesting. As I've said before, if you don't
• 9:10
  Speaker 2: get it, I don't think my arguments are going to
• 9:12
  Speaker 2: convince you. I've written a major essay on this. You
• 9:16
  Speaker 2: can go and read it. I've debated Brian Kaplan on this.
• 9:20
  Speaker 2: I debated a Hoppe and Rothbard anarchist professor at a
• 9:27
  Speaker 2: university in Poland. That's online. You can watch that. I'm
• 9:31
  Speaker 2: not evading the topic. I'm not running away from the topic.
• 9:34
  Speaker 2: I'm ignoring Liquid Zulu because I don't see any point, right?
• 9:39
  Speaker 2: You know, I'm selfish. I know that's hard for you
• 9:43
  Speaker 2: to get. And, yeah, you know, cowardly. You've got to
• 9:48
  Speaker 2: be kidding me. I've stood up to Antifa. I've stood
• 9:52
  Speaker 2: up to, you know, pro-Hamas demonstrators. I've stood up in
• 9:57
  Speaker 2: front of everybody. You think I'm afraid of... Liquid Zulu
• 10:01
  Speaker 2: and you guys? Let me laugh a minute. So, I mean,
• 10:08
  Speaker 2: anarchism is just not that interesting. Again, read my essay.
• 10:11
  Speaker 2: If you're truly, honestly interested in what I have to
• 10:15
  Speaker 2: say about anarchism, you don't need to read the debate,
• 10:18
  Speaker 2: Liquid Zulu. You just have to read the essay. that
• 10:20
  Speaker 2: Don and I wrote. It's on Don Watkins' Substack. Find it.
• 10:25
  Speaker 2: Read it. Engage with it. Ask questions about it. Maybe
• 10:29
  Speaker 2: Liquid Zulu could do a show analyzing it and telling
• 10:32
  Speaker 2: you all, all his fans, why you think it's strong.
• 10:43
  Speaker 2: If you're not afraid, just debate him. No, it's a
• 10:45
  Speaker 2: waste of time, waste of energy. I get nothing from it.
• 10:49
  Speaker 2: You know, I'm not afraid of a lot of things
• 10:53
  Speaker 2: that I don't do. Fear or lack of it are
• 10:58
  Speaker 2: not what should motivate people in life. See, this is
• 11:02
  Speaker 2: much more important to me about objectivism than anarchy, right? Values.
• 11:07
  Speaker 2: Living a good life. Why you should do or not
• 11:12
  Speaker 2: do things. Ethics. You know, what does it mean to
• 11:16
  Speaker 2: pursue values? How to pursue values? These are like a
• 11:19
  Speaker 2: thousand times more interesting than the question of anarchy or
• 11:23
  Speaker 2: not anarchy, right? And I have already dismissed the anarchists.
• 11:34
  Speaker 2: That's easy and has been done already. And, you know,
• 11:40
  Speaker 2: I know you guys don't like that. I know you guys,
• 11:44
  Speaker 2: you know, so... It ain't happening. So you can get,
• 11:49
  Speaker 2: and again, the more you guys come on my chat
• 11:53
  Speaker 2: and put your stupid ZZs on, if there ever was
• 11:58
  Speaker 2: a possibility I'd debate him, you are eradicating that. I mean,
• 12:04
  Speaker 2: if I'd gotten a thoughtful email listing why this debate
• 12:08
  Speaker 2: would be worthwhile and what would be in it for me,
• 12:11
  Speaker 2: if you will, and encouraging me to do it. That
• 12:17
  Speaker 2: would be one thing. This, what you're doing? Tel Aviv impressed. Okay,
• 12:22
  Speaker 2: so you're also, so here it is, exactly, right? So,
• 12:30
  Speaker 2: so it's a bunch of anti-Semites who, you know, anti-Semites
• 12:35
  Speaker 2: who want me to debate Liquid Zulu because it's important
• 12:39
  Speaker 2: that I debate Liquid Zulu because what? Because Tel Aviv?
• 12:44
  Speaker 2: I mean, God, just go, go and hang out with
• 12:52
  Speaker 2: each other. You know, as I tell the communists, start
• 12:56
  Speaker 2: your commune and live pathetic, miserable lives. Go start your
• 13:01
  Speaker 2: anarchist community and live pathetic, miserable lives. Leave me alone. I,
• 13:06
  Speaker 2: you know, I don't, I, I, I, I'm not interested. I, uh,
• 13:10
  Speaker 2: have no interest in what you guys have to offer.
• 13:13
  Speaker 2: And to the extent that there's any to the extent
• 13:18
  Speaker 2: that there's any value in Liquid Zulu, you guys are
• 13:25
  Speaker 2: diminishing it. There are no other parts of the Objectives Movement.
• 13:34
  Speaker 2: There's Objectives Movement and there are anarchists. Those are two
• 13:40
  Speaker 2: separate distinct movements and I don't have to reach out
• 13:44
  Speaker 2: to the anarchists because, you know, they've already read Rand
• 13:48
  Speaker 2: and they don't get it. And, you know, they are
• 13:54
  Speaker 2: pretty educated about Rand and they don't get it. So
• 13:57
  Speaker 2: why do you think that me debating Zulu would actually
• 14:02
  Speaker 2: get them to get it? Again, I'm reaching out by
• 14:06
  Speaker 2: encouraging you guys. to read my essay, share it, distribute
• 14:11
  Speaker 2: it among all the people who listen to Zulu. And
• 14:16
  Speaker 2: that's my reaching out to the more rational people in
• 14:20
  Speaker 2: his community. You know, some of you are friendly, some
• 14:29
  Speaker 2: of you are not. And I'm not getting a positive
• 14:34
  Speaker 2: vibe or positive impression from uh from you guys so
• 14:39
  Speaker 2: i you know sorry that it that if this reflects
• 14:41
  Speaker 2: on some people's behavior reflects badly on others but uh
• 14:46
  Speaker 2: i am not i'm not in um in a position
• 14:49
  Speaker 2: to screen out what is what but anyway again i
• 14:52
  Speaker 2: don't see the value in it i don't see what
• 14:53
  Speaker 2: it's in it for me and i'm not going to
• 14:55
  Speaker 2: do it so end of story it ain't happening let
• 15:00
  Speaker 2: everybody know it's not happening and the more you bug
• 15:02
  Speaker 2: me not gonna not gonna make any difference All right.
• 15:07
  Speaker 2: Let's see. All right. So we're going to do a
• 15:13
  Speaker 2: new show today. And tomorrow, you're on a Nico show. Tomorrow,
• 15:19
  Speaker 2: you're on a Nico show. We'll be at one. So
• 15:22
  Speaker 2: let me just tell you when it's going to be at.
• 15:24
  Speaker 2: So you guys know. And then we'll jump into the news.
• 15:31
  Speaker 2: It's going to be at. Oh, there it is. 1 p.m.
• 15:37
  Speaker 2: East Coast time. 1 p.m. East Coast time. Tomorrow will
• 15:40
  Speaker 2: be the Yohanna and Nico show. So stay tuned for that.
• 15:46
  Speaker 2: All right. Let's see.
• 15:49
  Speaker 3: All right.
• 15:55
  Speaker 2: So on Friday, yesterday, Trump announced on two social that CNN, MSNOW,
• 16:05
  Speaker 2: I guess, and Politico were banned from the White House
• 16:09
  Speaker 2: effectively immediately. And indeed, on Saturday morning, reporters from all
• 16:14
  Speaker 2: three turned up and they had their press passes confiscated.
• 16:22
  Speaker 2: MSNOW's Akilah Gardner was told her badge was disabled and
• 16:27
  Speaker 2: the decision was above the officer. CNN's Betsy Klein held
• 16:32
  Speaker 2: up an empty credential sleeve on air. Politico's Shaheen Hazlitt
• 16:36
  Speaker 2: was also denied entry, right? Trump said, Trump was good
• 16:42
  Speaker 2: enough to explain this all to us and to tell
• 16:44
  Speaker 2: us why he was doing it, that no single story
• 16:46
  Speaker 2: prompted it. He cited, quote, cumulative stories over the last
• 16:50
  Speaker 2: few years, end quote, and said he expects, quote, challenges.
• 16:54
  Speaker 2: As to who else might follow, he named the New
• 16:57
  Speaker 2: York Times and Washington Post as fake news without explicitly
• 17:00
  Speaker 2: saying they'd be banned. So for now, CNN, MSNOW, and
• 17:07
  Speaker 2: Politico a ban from the White House. Now, this is
• 17:11
  Speaker 2: going to go to court because this is a clear
• 17:15
  Speaker 2: violation of the First Amendment. And, you know, clearly this
• 17:21
  Speaker 2: is unconstitutional, and I think the courts are going to
• 17:23
  Speaker 2: find it that way. Indeed, in April 2025, a federal
• 17:28
  Speaker 2: judge ordered AP's access restored after the Gulf of America
• 17:32
  Speaker 2: ban An appeals court led the administration to keep the
• 17:35
  Speaker 2: AP out of smaller restricted spaces. And that fight is
• 17:39
  Speaker 2: still going. And, you know, we'll see. In Trump's first term,
• 17:46
  Speaker 2: the courts restored Jim Acosta's pass after the Trump administration
• 17:50
  Speaker 2: tried to take it. I mean, Donald Trump wrote on
• 17:55
  Speaker 2: September 18th, yesterday, media outlets shouldn't be able to constantly
• 18:00
  Speaker 2: write overport fiction and lies. they're covering the president of
• 18:04
  Speaker 2: the united states and here's the point of course who
• 18:08
  Speaker 2: gets to decide what is a lie and what is
• 18:11
  Speaker 2: fiction the whole point of the first amendment is to
• 18:15
  Speaker 2: prevent that becoming a job of a president or of
• 18:22
  Speaker 2: the political class to protect our ability to speak and
• 18:26
  Speaker 2: for the government not to be able to outlaw it
• 18:28
  Speaker 2: or restrict it or censor it in any way on
• 18:31
  Speaker 2: the basis of fiction, and lies, or whatever else excuse
• 18:36
  Speaker 2: the government wants to make. Now, it is true that
• 18:44
  Speaker 2: nobody has a constitutional right to a desk in the
• 18:46
  Speaker 2: West Wing, to access to the White House, and indeed
• 18:50
  Speaker 2: that's not the issue. The issue is that they had
• 18:56
  Speaker 2: the passes. They already had them. And the government here,
• 19:02
  Speaker 2: Donald Trump, and the government are now punishing reporters because
• 19:09
  Speaker 2: of what they write. The punishment in this case is
• 19:14
  Speaker 2: the access. And indeed, access then becomes a reward for
• 19:22
  Speaker 2: positive coverage, for being nice to the President of the
• 19:25
  Speaker 2: United States. You get a reward, you get coverage. Now,
• 19:31
  Speaker 2: that is censorship. That is the government deciding what speech
• 19:39
  Speaker 2: is acceptable and what is not, rewarding some speech and
• 19:42
  Speaker 2: penalizing other speech. And that's exactly what is not permitted. Now,
• 19:46
  Speaker 2: you could establish, I don't know, standards for who gets
• 19:50
  Speaker 2: a White House pass based on how big of a
• 19:54
  Speaker 2: reach they have, how many subscribers they have. You know,
• 19:58
  Speaker 2: you could come up with a variety of different criteria
• 20:02
  Speaker 2: for for what would constitute it okay to have access
• 20:08
  Speaker 2: and what would not be okay to have access. But
• 20:13
  Speaker 2: to do it on the basis of content, I think,
• 20:16
  Speaker 2: is a clear violation of the First Amendment. So the
• 20:21
  Speaker 2: point is not here that I think CNN does a
• 20:23
  Speaker 2: good job. I don't. They're way too soft on Trump,
• 20:28
  Speaker 2: for example. I'm not trying to defend Politico. Or anybody.
• 20:33
  Speaker 2: That's not the point. The point is that CNN is
• 20:36
  Speaker 2: a major news outlet in this country. And it's had
• 20:38
  Speaker 2: that pass forever since CNN started. And it's being penalized
• 20:46
  Speaker 2: because it says negative things about Trump. CNN has a
• 20:52
  Speaker 2: right to do their bad journalism. Without the government deciding
• 20:59
  Speaker 2: who gets in the door and who doesn't. Who gets
• 21:01
  Speaker 2: penalized and who doesn't. Right. I mean, if you remember,
• 21:10
  Speaker 2: at some point, I think this is true, I think
• 21:13
  Speaker 2: the Obama White House tried to ban Fox. And that
• 21:17
  Speaker 2: was stopped very, very quickly on exactly this basis. It
• 21:23
  Speaker 2: is censorship. It's wrong when Democrats do it. It's wrong
• 21:29
  Speaker 2: when Republicans do it. It's wrong for the government to
• 21:33
  Speaker 2: get involved in deciding, determining, what is fake news and
• 21:37
  Speaker 2: what is not. What is, you know, what did he
• 21:42
  Speaker 2: call it? You know, fiction and what is lies. Not
• 21:47
  Speaker 2: the job of the government. The job of the government
• 21:49
  Speaker 2: is to protect rights, not to tell people what to print,
• 21:53
  Speaker 2: not to tell us what is truth and what is lies. Now,
• 21:56
  Speaker 2: you know, right now, the government is so much in
• 21:59
  Speaker 2: our lives that there's certain areas in which it's going
• 22:01
  Speaker 2: to do that. I don't know. But it's more likely
• 22:05
  Speaker 2: that given the state of our government, that it itself
• 22:08
  Speaker 2: will be reporting lies and fiction. Look, during COVID in 2021,
• 22:18
  Speaker 2: Biden's White House leaned heavily on Facebook and Twitter and
• 22:22
  Speaker 2: social media generally to censor, to present the party line.
• 22:33
  Speaker 2: You know, that was horrific Terrible. Trump is doing the
• 22:40
  Speaker 2: same thing. Confiscating press badges because of content. The reality is,
• 22:47
  Speaker 2: I mean, people talk about the uniparty, and it should
• 22:51
  Speaker 2: scare you because there is a sense in which there
• 22:53
  Speaker 2: is a uniparty. Neither Democrats or Republicans respect free speech.
• 23:00
  Speaker 2: Both want power. Both have the impulse to use that
• 23:05
  Speaker 2: power To silence opposition. Both are afraid of losing that power.
• 23:12
  Speaker 2: And that fear. Drives them. To violate our rights. So.
• 23:24
  Speaker 2: You know our government. Has been out of control for decades.
• 23:27
  Speaker 2: Since the Great Depression. Maybe even before that. It's only
• 23:31
  Speaker 2: getting worse. And nobody's standing up to it. Nobody is
• 23:36
  Speaker 2: confronting them. Unfortunately, you know, the tech industry that is
• 23:43
  Speaker 2: supposed to be out there defending free speech is not
• 23:46
  Speaker 2: captured by this administration. And generally, the leaders of the
• 23:51
  Speaker 2: tech industry cower before government. One of those people, one
• 23:59
  Speaker 2: of those people is Mark Zuckerberg. Now, Mark Zuckerberg has
• 24:03
  Speaker 2: just been featured in a major article both in Colossus. Colossus,
• 24:12
  Speaker 2: I don't know what publication Colossus is, but there's an
• 24:14
  Speaker 2: article called Mark in Colossus that was republished by the
• 24:18
  Speaker 2: Free Press as, quote, what Mark Zuckerberg wants. It was
• 24:23
  Speaker 2: published in the Free Press yesterday. I highly encourage you,
• 24:26
  Speaker 2: if you're interested, to read it. It's an interesting piece
• 24:29
  Speaker 2: about Zuckerberg's life. But he is one of these businessmen.
• 24:35
  Speaker 2: And we'll talk about his attitude towards government in a minute.
• 24:40
  Speaker 2: So one of the things the article points out is
• 24:41
  Speaker 2: that 3.6 billion people use Mark Zuckerberg's products. You know, Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp.
• 24:58
  Speaker 2: One out of every 2.3 human beings on the planet
• 25:03
  Speaker 2: use one of those products. The company itself is worth $ 1. 6
• 25:08
  Speaker 2: trillion with a T. Right? So, this is a massive
• 25:17
  Speaker 2: company that is in people's lives all over the world.
• 25:24
  Speaker 2: And all of those people, right? All of those people
• 25:31
  Speaker 2: signed up voluntarily to to interact, to use these products.
• 25:35
  Speaker 2: I mean, I think WhatsApp is the world's largest messaging platform.
• 25:40
  Speaker 2: I think that's true. It's used, you know, in the U.S.,
• 25:45
  Speaker 2: it took a long time for it to catch on
• 25:46
  Speaker 2: in the U.S., but internationally, it's everywhere. Everywhere. I mean,
• 25:50
  Speaker 2: you can't communicate with people outside the United States unless
• 25:54
  Speaker 2: you use WhatsApp. And You know, Facebook and, of course, Instagram.
• 26:02
  Speaker 2: I mean, who's not on Instagram? I think even I'm
• 26:05
  Speaker 2: on Instagram. I don't do much there, but I think
• 26:06
  Speaker 2: I've got an account. Now, here's the setup. You know,
• 26:16
  Speaker 2: here's the setup of this Free Press article. They did
• 26:22
  Speaker 2: months of reporting in interviews with Zuck and with his
• 26:26
  Speaker 2: parents and with his wife. and his MMA coach, and
• 26:30
  Speaker 2: his competitors. I mean, the writer of the article describes
• 26:37
  Speaker 2: how he watched Zuckerberg get kicked in the chest by
• 26:41
  Speaker 2: a UFC contender. And it's interesting. The article is interesting.
• 26:45
  Speaker 2: It's worth reading. I encourage you to read it. I'm
• 26:51
  Speaker 2: just looking at the.
• 26:54
  Speaker 2: All right. And, yeah, so it's interesting. But here's what,
• 27:11
  Speaker 2: you know, how they describe Zuckerberg. Zuckerberg is the sovereign.
• 27:18
  Speaker 2: Meta is, quote, history's largest non-territorial empire. I mean, hey,
• 27:27
  Speaker 2: the anarchists should love this. The organizing frame of the
• 27:31
  Speaker 2: whole thing is, quote, the dictator's dilemma. And they compare
• 27:38
  Speaker 2: Zuckerberg to Stalin, Mao, and the Shah of Iran. I mean, Stalin.
• 27:46
  Speaker 2: Stalin had the NKVD, or, you know, the secret police.
• 27:52
  Speaker 2: What does Zuckerberg have? Mao is responsible for the deaths
• 27:56
  Speaker 2: of tens of millions of people from starvation, and then
• 28:01
  Speaker 2: several million during the Cultural Revolution. What has Zuckerberg done?
• 28:08
  Speaker 2: I mean, if you don't like Zuck, if you don't
• 28:11
  Speaker 2: like Facebook, if you don't like WhatsApp, if you don't
• 28:13
  Speaker 2: like Instagram, it takes you about two seconds to delete them.
• 28:22
  Speaker 2: I mean, it truly is a disgusting comparison, but it's
• 28:27
  Speaker 2: reflective of a confusion that permeates our culture and it
• 28:32
  Speaker 2: undermines much of, you know, any attempt to kind of
• 28:36
  Speaker 2: defend capitalism. And that is the confusion that is deeply
• 28:41
  Speaker 2: rooted in political thought between economic power and political power.
• 28:48
  Speaker 2: And here's the fundamental, right? Economic power is the power
• 28:52
  Speaker 2: to offer somebody else a value. Take it or leave it.
• 28:57
  Speaker 2: Nobody has to trade with Facebook. Nobody has to trade
• 29:01
  Speaker 2: with Mark Zuckerberg. Nobody has to use Facebook. Nobody has
• 29:05
  Speaker 2: to use Instagram or WhatsApp or any of these apps.
• 29:09
  Speaker 2: There are alternatives, or there are no alternatives. Go back
• 29:12
  Speaker 2: to using a diaphragm. Whatever. You don't have to use them.
• 29:21
  Speaker 2: Nobody's putting a gun to your head. Nobody's forcing you.
• 29:25
  Speaker 2: Economic power is attained through voluntary exchange. From economic power,
• 29:30
  Speaker 2: you can walk away. The economic power does not have
• 29:35
  Speaker 2: to be over you. It's not the case for political power.
• 29:44
  Speaker 2: Political power is the power of the gun. Do what
• 29:48
  Speaker 2: I tell you or what? I pull the trigger. Drag
• 29:53
  Speaker 2: you to jail. Handcuff you. Or shoot you. It's the
• 30:01
  Speaker 2: power of law. You know, laws are, you know, basically,
• 30:07
  Speaker 2: and by the way, this idea of economic power versus
• 30:11
  Speaker 2: political power, it's exactly what the anarchists, one of the
• 30:14
  Speaker 2: many things, it's one of the many things the anarchists
• 30:18
  Speaker 2: don't understand. Don't understand. They think they can convert political power,
• 30:24
  Speaker 2: which is all about coercion and a gun, into economic
• 30:27
  Speaker 2: power by magic. By whim. Or by wishing. By wishing.
• 30:36
  Speaker 2: Or the political power is going to be negotiated. And
• 30:43
  Speaker 2: turned into somehow into economic power. It's a fantasy. It's
• 30:48
  Speaker 2: an irrational fantasy. It delinked from reality. And delinked from
• 30:53
  Speaker 2: the concept of individual rights. You can't negotiate individual rights.
• 30:59
  Speaker 3: As.
• 31:00
  Speaker 2: as even Brian Kaplan admitted. So when you call a
• 31:08
  Speaker 2: businessman an emperor, a sovereign, when you call this business
• 31:16
  Speaker 2: a non-territorial empire, you're confusing those two. You're erasing the
• 31:24
  Speaker 2: voluntary nature of business. You're erasing the voluntary nature of
• 31:31
  Speaker 2: economic power. You're racing the voluntary nature of a free society.
• 31:40
  Speaker 2: And you're equating it with force, with violence, with politics.
• 31:48
  Speaker 2: So this is how the article frames it. And what's
• 31:53
  Speaker 2: sad is that to a large extent, Zakapa kind of,
• 31:57
  Speaker 2: sort of, accepts it. Accepts it. Now, the article gets
• 32:09
  Speaker 2: a few things right, so let's give it credit for that.
• 32:16
  Speaker 2: You know, to some extent, the author of this article defends,
• 32:21
  Speaker 2: spends time defending Zuckerberg against the mob. He analyzes the whole,
• 32:26
  Speaker 2: if you remember the Cambridge Analytica controversy, this was supposedly
• 32:31
  Speaker 2: the The big crime of the beginning of the digital
• 32:37
  Speaker 2: age during the 2016 election, I guess. 87 million profiles harvested.
• 32:45
  Speaker 2: Voters supposedly brainwashed into voting for Trump and voting for Brexit.
• 32:51
  Speaker 2: But nobody actually talks about what actually happened, right? None
• 32:55
  Speaker 2: of that is true. It's just a mythology that exists
• 32:57
  Speaker 2: out there. I mean, there was a personality quiz taken
• 33:03
  Speaker 2: By fewer than 300,000 people. Names, birthdays, page likes. That's it.
• 33:10
  Speaker 2: That is what Cambridge Analytica got. The personality quiz of
• 33:15
  Speaker 2: those people. Now, maybe that's bad in and of itself,
• 33:19
  Speaker 2: but it's not the story that was being told. Britain's
• 33:25
  Speaker 2: own data regulator raided the firm, Cambridge Analytica, went through
• 33:29
  Speaker 2: its servers. Remember, this is the data they got from Facebook.
• 33:33
  Speaker 2: and concluded in 2020 that the data was mostly commercially available,
• 33:38
  Speaker 2: wasn't even used in the Brexit referendum, and since then
• 33:43
  Speaker 2: we haven't heard much, but it's still in the background. Ooh,
• 33:46
  Speaker 2: Facebook sold data, sold all this amazing data, all this data,
• 33:51
  Speaker 2: and it swayed the elections. The profile also spends a
• 33:58
  Speaker 2: lot of time talking about the government pressuring tech companies
• 34:03
  Speaker 2: to censor in 2020, 2021. You know, Zuckerberg actually held
• 34:08
  Speaker 2: out longer than Twitter and Google. Apple and Tesla actually,
• 34:15
  Speaker 2: you know, today, as the article points out, operate on
• 34:19
  Speaker 2: Beijing's terms. They do a lot of business in China,
• 34:23
  Speaker 2: which forces them to work with the Chinese governments in
• 34:28
  Speaker 2: ways that far exceeding what any of the social media
• 34:32
  Speaker 2: companies did with the U.S. government. You know, Zuckerberg's been
• 34:40
  Speaker 2: blamed for Trump, for Biden, for Brexit. He's been blamed
• 34:44
  Speaker 2: for genocide, for teen depression, for male loneliness. And according
• 34:53
  Speaker 2: to the writer, and I think he's right, he's an
• 34:54
  Speaker 2: easy mark. And, you know, I went and called big
• 34:59
  Speaker 2: business America's persecuted minority in 62. Yeah, and they're still
• 35:05
  Speaker 2: the persecuted minority. I mean, I'm not a fan of Facebook.
• 35:11
  Speaker 2: I don't like Facebook. I don't like Instagram. But I
• 35:14
  Speaker 2: see the value in Instagram and in Facebook for some people.
• 35:18
  Speaker 2: And if it's a value to you, use it. If
• 35:20
  Speaker 2: it's not a value to you, don't. Don't pretend that
• 35:24
  Speaker 2: you're addicted. Get a spine. Use. Use your agency. But
• 35:41
  Speaker 2: then it's, you know, Zuckerberg. When we get to Zuckerberg talking, it's,
• 35:49
  Speaker 2: you know, it's where you get the problems, right? Yeah.
• 35:55
  Speaker 2: Here's a big quote, and half is good and half
• 35:59
  Speaker 2: is bad. I'm here to build things and shape the
• 36:03
  Speaker 2: world in that way. That's good. That's what business is about,
• 36:07
  Speaker 2: building things, shaping the world. Not be an activist against
• 36:12
  Speaker 2: our government. I'm here to build things and shape the
• 36:18
  Speaker 2: world in that way, not be an activist against our government.
• 36:21
  Speaker 2: But what if the government is trying to stop you
• 36:23
  Speaker 2: from building things? Which it is. Constantly. Every single day.
• 36:29
  Speaker 2: Shouldn't you then be an activist? You know, he's drawing
• 36:35
  Speaker 2: a line between building and defending the freedom to build.
• 36:39
  Speaker 2: Because being an activist against a government in the name
• 36:43
  Speaker 2: of building is what you think a businessman should be doing.
• 36:51
  Speaker 2: The right to build is a political achievement. And if
• 36:55
  Speaker 2: you don't defend it, guess what happens? It goes away.
• 37:02
  Speaker 2: It gets taken by the power lusters in politics. And
• 37:12
  Speaker 2: when you're running a company that's worth $ 1. 6 trillion, 3.6
• 37:17
  Speaker 2: billion users, yeah, I'm not going to defend my right
• 37:22
  Speaker 2: to build. I'm not going to defend my customers. I'm
• 37:27
  Speaker 2: not going to defend my employees. I'm not going to
• 37:29
  Speaker 2: defend my business. He's basically sanctioning the government's ability to
• 37:39
  Speaker 2: crush him, regulate him. You know, this is the sanction
• 37:42
  Speaker 2: of the victim. This is Iron Man's sanction of the victim.
• 37:52
  Speaker 2: It's sad. Imagine a world in which businessmen actually stood up,
• 38:00
  Speaker 2: actually defended themselves. Didn't just say they want to build,
• 38:06
  Speaker 2: but demand that the right to build be protected. Demand
• 38:11
  Speaker 2: that the government stop violating their right to build. I mean,
• 38:17
  Speaker 2: I said this about Ken Griffin and every CEO that,
• 38:23
  Speaker 2: you know, that tries to respond to Mom Donnie, they
• 38:30
  Speaker 2: tend to brag about how much taxes they pay. The
• 38:35
  Speaker 2: answer is not, should not be, look how much I contribute.
• 38:40
  Speaker 2: The answer should be, keep your grubby hands off of
• 38:44
  Speaker 2: my stuff. It's mine. Let me build. Let me create.
• 38:48
  Speaker 2: Let me produce. Let me produce. And he sees the threat.
• 38:57
  Speaker 2: Zuckerberg sees the threat. I mean, here's what he writes.
• 39:00
  Speaker 2: This is what he says in the article. If it
• 39:02
  Speaker 2: wants to make life difficult for a person or company,
• 39:04
  Speaker 2: it can. This is the government. The White House tells
• 39:09
  Speaker 2: you that they want stuff to be censored. And then
• 39:11
  Speaker 2: you push back. But then, all of a sudden, you
• 39:14
  Speaker 2: get all these investigations from all these different parts of
• 39:17
  Speaker 2: the government. And it's like, okay, this isn't right. But
• 39:22
  Speaker 2: then what do you do about that? So he sees it.
• 39:28
  Speaker 2: You know, he's even. um, you know, figured out how
• 39:32
  Speaker 2: to handle it. Right. He wrote, this is about the
• 39:37
  Speaker 2: censorship in, um, during COVID. The more we took responsibility,
• 39:41
  Speaker 2: the more people felt like, oh, we can just blame
• 39:44
  Speaker 2: them for the stuff. They'll accept the blame. Yeah. That's
• 39:48
  Speaker 2: exactly a sanction of the victim. That's how it works.
• 39:51
  Speaker 2: Appeasement doesn't work. Not as a tactic, not as a strategy.
• 40:01
  Speaker 2: So he knows appeasement doesn't work, and yet he wants, quote,
• 40:08
  Speaker 2: a positive relationship with whoever is in the government of
• 40:10
  Speaker 2: the United States. I mean, that would be great if
• 40:13
  Speaker 2: they kept their grubby hands off of you. So this
• 40:20
  Speaker 2: is from the article, this article by Jeremy Stern, right?
• 40:27
  Speaker 2: White House officials publicly threatened anti-just suits and Section 230
• 40:31
  Speaker 2: reform if Zuckerberg did not comply with demands to censor
• 40:35
  Speaker 2: several other categories of pandemic and election-related misinformation, including humor
• 40:40
  Speaker 2: and satire. And then, according to the reporter, Zuckerberg finally
• 40:45
  Speaker 2: caved to a number of Biden administration censorship demands. Imagine
• 40:49
  Speaker 2: if Zuckerberg had gone public with those. I think it
• 40:54
  Speaker 2: would be very powerful at the time. A lot of
• 40:58
  Speaker 2: us were speculating that this was going on in the background.
• 41:01
  Speaker 2: And there were stories about it. But until the kind
• 41:03
  Speaker 2: of the X-Files, the Twitter files came out, there was
• 41:06
  Speaker 2: no proof of this. Imagine if Zuckerberg had just come
• 41:08
  Speaker 2: out and said, this is what the government wants me
• 41:09
  Speaker 2: to do. Because now it's COVID. What's the next thing?
• 41:15
  Speaker 2: You know, and one wonders today, is The Trump administration
• 41:19
  Speaker 2: putting any pressure on them to censor anything? Do we know?
• 41:25
  Speaker 2: We don't know how the algorithm works. Is there a
• 41:29
  Speaker 2: government factor in the algorithm? So I'm not here to
• 41:36
  Speaker 2: be an activist against our government, which is what he said.
• 41:40
  Speaker 2: What ultimately that means is appeasement. And you don't get
• 41:46
  Speaker 2: left alone if you appease. What you get is a
• 41:51
  Speaker 2: builder whose products are constantly going to get regulated, controlled,
• 42:02
  Speaker 2: and who the government is going to constantly try to censor.
• 42:08
  Speaker 2: And then you complain and you apologize. But what about
• 42:14
  Speaker 2: next time? What happens next time? How can we trust you? Yeah.
• 42:22
  Speaker 2: I mean, last month made us settled with 51 jurisdictions.
• 42:25
  Speaker 2: We talked about this, right? For up to $ 17. 1 billion.
• 42:31
  Speaker 2: It admitted no wrongdoing, but it settled over claims that
• 42:36
  Speaker 2: its apps harm teenagers. It's addictive. I mean, Zuckerberg doesn't
• 42:45
  Speaker 2: believe social media is bad for kids. He doesn't believe
• 42:48
  Speaker 2: social media harms teenagers. He doesn't. So where did he pay?
• 42:56
  Speaker 2: And even if it does, is it a responsibility for
• 43:01
  Speaker 2: that harm on the parents? It's not Zuckerberg's responsibility to
• 43:05
  Speaker 2: take care of your kids. Because he's not going to
• 43:14
  Speaker 2: defend himself. He's not going to take a moral stand.
• 43:18
  Speaker 2: He's not going to tell the court that it's none
• 43:21
  Speaker 2: of their business. Instead, he's going to hire lawyers to compromise,
• 43:26
  Speaker 2: cut deals. And within the company, he projects this powerful,
• 43:40
  Speaker 2: you know, mentality of no compromise when it comes to
• 43:47
  Speaker 2: his employees. Can't project that out into the world and
• 43:52
  Speaker 2: into the government. So, you know, he ended early Facebook
• 43:55
  Speaker 2: crisis meeting shouting, I have no idea what that is.
• 44:01
  Speaker 2: Karthage must be destroyed. All right. And Friday, all hands
• 44:06
  Speaker 2: with domination. This is from the article. At Menace 2024 conference,
• 44:11
  Speaker 2: he wore a t-shirt reading, a riff on Cesar Bogia's
• 44:18
  Speaker 2: either Caesar or nothing. Power, I mean, bizarre. His children
• 44:25
  Speaker 2: are named Maxima, August, and Aurelia. His wife joked that
• 44:30
  Speaker 2: on their Rome honeymoon, Augustus was the third wheel. He
• 44:35
  Speaker 2: muses admiringly about Augustus. Augustus used a really harsh approach
• 44:42
  Speaker 2: before establishing 200 years of world peace.
• 44:44
  Speaker 3: Really?
• 44:46
  Speaker 2: Really? God. I mean, Augustus ended the Republic. Augustus established
• 44:54
  Speaker 2: tyranny in Rome. He became a Caesar, you know, which
• 44:58
  Speaker 2: was what? Which was a tyrant, an authoritarian. He wielded
• 45:05
  Speaker 2: political power ruthlessly. And he established 200 years of world peace.
• 45:13
  Speaker 2: I mean, through conquest, through sheer force, through brutality. Those
• 45:19
  Speaker 2: 200 years were maintained, and then they collapsed, partially because
• 45:23
  Speaker 2: it was a non-sustainable system, because it relied on brute
• 45:26
  Speaker 2: force to keep it going. And he admires this? I mean,
• 45:35
  Speaker 2: you have to question Zuckerberg's character if he admires these
• 45:39
  Speaker 2: Roman empires, and he admires Rome so much, of all
• 45:42
  Speaker 2: the possibilities out there. He says about you know, the
• 45:47
  Speaker 2: 20 years of peace, he says, that didn't come for free.
• 45:50
  Speaker 2: He had to do certain things, unmentioned. And then again,
• 45:55
  Speaker 2: he describes Augustus as great contribution, quote, basically teaching society
• 45:59
  Speaker 2: that you didn't have to always be at war. After
• 46:03
  Speaker 2: you won and crushed your enemies. So, let's talk about
• 46:10
  Speaker 2: Gat's imperial power. And, uh, You know, he gets what
• 46:17
  Speaker 2: it can do to him, I guess, but he won't
• 46:20
  Speaker 2: stand up against it. He calls himself Caesar in fighting
• 46:26
  Speaker 2: studios and goes limp in front of Washington. We saw
• 46:29
  Speaker 2: him in those testimonies in front of Congress. He was pathetic. Weak.
• 46:37
  Speaker 3: Right?
• 46:40
  Speaker 2: And of course, I don't know, he really did pick
• 46:43
  Speaker 2: the wrong Caesar. Uh, Trade is better than plunder. Trade
• 46:50
  Speaker 2: is great. Peace is good. Debate, discussion, instead of killing,
• 46:55
  Speaker 2: all good. But Augustus is your standard? Augustus came to
• 46:59
  Speaker 2: power as one of three men, with Marco Antony and Lepidus,
• 47:04
  Speaker 2: who drew up a kill list. Cicero, the Republic's great defender,
• 47:12
  Speaker 2: was killed. And once Octavia's own ally, right? He was killed.
• 47:21
  Speaker 2: His head and hands, the hands that wrote the speeches
• 47:25
  Speaker 2: against Anthony and Augustus and everything, were nailed to the
• 47:31
  Speaker 2: speaker's platform in the fall. Plutarch says the Romans shuddered
• 47:38
  Speaker 2: and Augustus ended the Republic. I mean, who taught the world,
• 47:46
  Speaker 2: the trade beats plunder. Not an emperor. Not a wielder
• 47:52
  Speaker 2: of force. You know, Adam Smith, John Locke, Bastiat, a
• 48:00
  Speaker 2: variety of different Enlightenment and post-Enlightenment thinkers. Certainly the founders
• 48:05
  Speaker 2: of America. But to admire Augustus? That's who you model
• 48:09
  Speaker 2: yourself after? A little ridiculous. I mean, ultimately, The idea
• 48:16
  Speaker 2: of trade beats force, the ideas of peace are enlightenment ideas.
• 48:24
  Speaker 2: They're ideas about individual rights. They're ideas about the role
• 48:29
  Speaker 2: of government in protecting those rights. It's the idea that
• 48:33
  Speaker 2: human interactions should be voluntary interactions. That's who you should
• 48:39
  Speaker 2: be admiring. That's who you should name your kids after.
• 48:43
  Speaker 2: Not after murderous tyrants. Um, you know, the article gets into,
• 48:54
  Speaker 2: you know, the, the big issue right now, which is AI. Um, and, uh,
• 49:02
  Speaker 2: you know, I thought I gave him a lot of
• 49:03
  Speaker 2: credit as I could vote for his AI manifesto. He
• 49:07
  Speaker 2: rejects the doom. I, I, I'm, I'm big on that.
• 49:10
  Speaker 2: That's good. He, he, he insists on the value of AI.
• 49:17
  Speaker 2: and he pushes back on open AI and anthropic begging
• 49:21
  Speaker 2: Washington to license control you know you know the open
• 49:25
  Speaker 2: AI and anthropic who are begging Washington to license control
• 49:28
  Speaker 2: the technology no he's pushing against that in the AI
• 49:33
  Speaker 2: manifesto he says an AI that serves your purpose is
• 49:36
  Speaker 2: Not one program to lecture you about the political values
• 49:39
  Speaker 2: of its creators. So Zuckerberg is arguing for open models, competition, privacy.
• 49:46
  Speaker 2: That's all good. That's all good. And, you know, there's
• 49:52
  Speaker 2: a bunch of interesting details in the profile. You know.
• 50:01
  Speaker 2: His rivals talk about Facebook's attitude towards AI or Zuckerberg's
• 50:06
  Speaker 2: attitude towards AI as being a tool, a useful tool,
• 50:09
  Speaker 2: not a god, which is sometimes the way they view it.
• 50:14
  Speaker 2: You know, they just released Muse, I guess, Facebook did.
• 50:16
  Speaker 2: I mean, it's a tool to make your life easier.
• 50:19
  Speaker 2: Booking flights, editing photos, improving ads. Yeah, I mean, AI
• 50:27
  Speaker 2: is a tool to improve human life. That's the way
• 50:29
  Speaker 2: it should be. But then he gets confused, right? Then
• 50:39
  Speaker 2: he talks about distribution of power and diffusing AI and
• 50:43
  Speaker 2: making sure companies and governments all have it so they
• 50:45
  Speaker 2: can check each other out, check some balances kind of thing.
• 50:50
  Speaker 2: But that's the error that runs through this whole interview.
• 50:54
  Speaker 2: A market's not politics. It's not a battlefield. It's not
• 50:58
  Speaker 2: about power. It's not about coercion. The market is not
• 51:03
  Speaker 2: a place where you hold each other in check. A
• 51:06
  Speaker 2: market's voluntary exchange. And again, a business only has power
• 51:11
  Speaker 2: to the extent that people only use your products. A
• 51:18
  Speaker 2: business has power. So, you know, this equation of economic
• 51:27
  Speaker 2: power and political power goes deep. Goes deep. And I
• 51:29
  Speaker 2: don't think he really sees it. I don't think he
• 51:31
  Speaker 2: really sees it. I mean, anyway, I think the best
• 51:42
  Speaker 2: part of the whole article is at the end, right?
• 51:46
  Speaker 2: They asked Priscilla Chan, his wife, to describe her husband.
• 51:51
  Speaker 2: And she tells the writer that around 2018 or 2019, or, well, no,
• 51:58
  Speaker 2: it's later than that. But anyway, the 18th or 19th
• 52:01
  Speaker 2: year of Facebook, put it that way. She asked Mark,
• 52:04
  Speaker 2: aren't we tired? Can we be done? You know, you
• 52:10
  Speaker 2: don't need to stay here for the rest of your life.
• 52:11
  Speaker 2: You can leave. You've made it. You've done it. Hand
• 52:14
  Speaker 2: it over to somebody else and move out. And he said,
• 52:18
  Speaker 2: absolutely no. He said, no, this is who I am.
• 52:23
  Speaker 2: I love this. I didn't sell out to build a company.
• 52:27
  Speaker 2: I just love building things. The article says that she
• 52:33
  Speaker 2: only understood it understood the sentiment really when their daughter
• 52:36
  Speaker 2: started building apps, blogs, games, and a podcast. All in all,
• 52:40
  Speaker 2: out of pure delight in bringing something into the world. Quote,
• 52:44
  Speaker 2: you can't take this away from him. He wouldn't be
• 52:47
  Speaker 2: him if he stopped. That's the Zuckerberg I respect, admire even.
• 52:55
  Speaker 2: You know, somebody who loves to create, was passionate about creating.
• 53:00
  Speaker 2: This is why people like Zuckerberg keep going to work
• 53:03
  Speaker 2: even though they're billionaires many, many, many, many, many times over.
• 53:11
  Speaker 2: So I wish he was better. I wish he had
• 53:13
  Speaker 2: the philosophy. I wish he had the ideas. People like
• 53:23
  Speaker 2: him and the rest of the tech industry and the
• 53:28
  Speaker 2: tech giants They need to defend themselves. They need to put,
• 53:34
  Speaker 2: they need to give words to the sentiment that they have,
• 53:38
  Speaker 2: the sentiment of building, and be willing to go out
• 53:41
  Speaker 2: and fight for it. Fight for their right to build, create, make.
• 53:45
  Speaker 3: All right.
• 53:52
  Speaker 2: Let's take some other pieces from the news. So hopefully, yeah,
• 53:57
  Speaker 2: you should go read the article. You should go read
• 54:01
  Speaker 2: the article.
• 54:06
  Speaker 3: All right.
• 54:07
  Speaker 2: I see the anarchists are still at it. They won't
• 54:10
  Speaker 2: let go. So you remember that Trump got the drug
• 54:18
  Speaker 2: companies to give him a good price to kind of
• 54:23
  Speaker 2: lower the prices on certain drugs and sold in the
• 54:27
  Speaker 2: United States. Well, you know, the left-wing group filed a
• 54:33
  Speaker 2: Freedom of Information Act request in October, November 2025 to
• 54:38
  Speaker 2: get kind of the contract between Trump and, or the administration,
• 54:43
  Speaker 2: and FISA and Lilly. What was really behind the most
• 54:49
  Speaker 2: favored nation deals? And it turns out the contracts were
• 54:53
  Speaker 2: released this week. The Washington Post, uh, describes them today,
• 54:59
  Speaker 2: actually in today's edition. And it turns out that these
• 55:05
  Speaker 2: deals included undisclosed tariff protections for both companies and inducements
• 55:12
  Speaker 2: to raise drug prices on other countries overseas. Key terms
• 55:18
  Speaker 2: were still unresolved when executives celebrated the deals with Trump.
• 55:24
  Speaker 2: Health and Human Services pledged to treat all confidential information
• 55:29
  Speaker 2: as exempt from Freedom of Information Act. Turns out you
• 55:32
  Speaker 2: can't do that. The documents that were released are heavily redacted.
• 55:38
  Speaker 2: The group, Public Citizens, are challenging the redactions. Both agreements
• 55:44
  Speaker 2: run through January 20th, 2029, the last day of Trump's term,
• 55:48
  Speaker 2: of course. Lilly has received three FDA priority review vouchers
• 55:54
  Speaker 2: since signing. Is this related or not? I don't know.
• 56:00
  Speaker 2: You don't know. Nobody knows. Mixed economy. Cronyism. The White
• 56:06
  Speaker 2: House response, quote, it cannot release contracts with drug makers
• 56:12
  Speaker 2: that contain commercially sensitive information. Pfizer says the deal is, quote,
• 56:16
  Speaker 2: a win for American patients. Well, yeah, bromides. This isn't capitalism.
• 56:23
  Speaker 2: It isn't lower prices. It's a price-controlled deal paid for
• 56:28
  Speaker 2: with a tariff exemption and a place in front of
• 56:31
  Speaker 2: the FDA line, and who knows what else? Who knows
• 56:35
  Speaker 2: what else? It's arm-twisting. It's the use of tariffs as
• 56:41
  Speaker 2: a threat, as a weapon, as a gun placed to
• 56:44
  Speaker 2: the drugmaker's forehead. Supposedly, the companies voluntarily cut prices. Yeah,
• 56:52
  Speaker 2: while the tariff gun is pointing towards their forehead. And
• 56:56
  Speaker 2: then the government can hand out favors to them on
• 56:58
  Speaker 2: the side. I mean, it's cronyism through and through. And
• 57:08
  Speaker 2: it just, you know, it takes a left-wing organization like
• 57:13
  Speaker 2: Public Citizen to expose it. This is the world in
• 57:17
  Speaker 2: which we live. The mixed economy is an economy of cronyism.
• 57:21
  Speaker 2: And Trump is worse than I think than any other president.
• 57:27
  Speaker 2: I think you could say Trump is the most crony
• 57:31
  Speaker 2: of any president in American history. The swamp animals are
• 57:37
  Speaker 2: more voracious, more fierce, more ferocious in Trump's swamp than
• 57:42
  Speaker 2: in any other president's swamp ever. And he was going
• 57:46
  Speaker 2: to dry the swamp. All right. Another new government, you know,
• 57:59
  Speaker 2: on September 18th, Trump proclaimed that he was establishing a
• 58:08
  Speaker 2: fee on H-1B visas that would run through September 21st, 2027.
• 58:17
  Speaker 2: With some limited national interest exemptions, it directs a $ 100, 000
• 58:22
  Speaker 2: H-1B fee. So this is something that he passed last year, $ 100, 000
• 58:32
  Speaker 2: for H-1B, you know, to get the H-1B, extended now
• 58:40
  Speaker 2: until September 21, 2027. And it also directs extra scrutiny
• 58:44
  Speaker 2: of employers that have laid off U.S. workers. So give
• 58:49
  Speaker 2: people now more of an excuse to be careful before
• 58:52
  Speaker 2: laying people off. Now they'll get the H-1B police after them.
• 58:59
  Speaker 2: The White House claims that the fears reduce the reliance
• 59:01
  Speaker 2: on low paid foreign labor. Yeah, there's no there's no
• 59:09
  Speaker 2: evidence that that exists. is indeed the case. Federal judge
• 59:13
  Speaker 2: ruled the fee. It was illegal in June, blocked its collection.
• 59:18
  Speaker 2: An appeal court in Boston is reviewing immigration. Lawyers say that, um,
• 59:27
  Speaker 2: In the meantime, the government should be barred from collecting
• 59:30
  Speaker 2: under the extensions. But, you know, it's a mess in
• 59:33
  Speaker 2: the courts. Indian-born workers accounted for 71% of approved H-1B
• 59:41
  Speaker 2: petitions in FY 2024. And this is all part of the, God,
• 59:46
  Speaker 2: the anti-Indian, of all the minorities, of all the immigrants,
• 59:50
  Speaker 2: of all the people in the world to go after.
• 59:57
  Speaker 2: to go after, as the anti-immigration people are, to go
• 59:59
  Speaker 2: after Indians is the most revealing. Because the Indian Americans
• 1:00:03
  Speaker 2: are Indians who work in America, earn a lot of money,
• 1:00:07
  Speaker 2: they do very well, integrate, they run businesses, they, you know,
• 1:00:14
  Speaker 2: they assimilate, and they live the American dream. They're the
• 1:00:18
  Speaker 2: highest earners in the country. And yet, they seem to
• 1:00:22
  Speaker 2: be the immigrants most hated by MAGA. It's pretty amazing. Anyway,
• 1:00:29
  Speaker 2: this $ 100, 000 H-1B visa price is... It's protectionism applied to talent.
• 1:00:42
  Speaker 2: It's a tariff on talent, on brains. It's consumer sacrifice
• 1:00:50
  Speaker 2: to what? Producer sacrifice to what? To pressure groups. To racists.
• 1:01:01
  Speaker 2: I mean, U.S. companies are massively increasing the number of
• 1:01:08
  Speaker 2: Indians they employ in India. There's no evidence that these
• 1:01:15
  Speaker 2: fees have created a single job for a, quote, American.
• 1:01:22
  Speaker 2: I mean, the companies that need engineers lose. Yes, they
• 1:01:25
  Speaker 2: still get the engineers. They're just in India, but it's
• 1:01:27
  Speaker 2: not as good as if they were here in America. Everything,
• 1:01:33
  Speaker 2: the consumers who consume the stuff that the engineers build lose.
• 1:01:38
  Speaker 2: And of course, the engineers, talented people that we should
• 1:01:42
  Speaker 2: be encouraging to come to this country and build themselves
• 1:01:47
  Speaker 2: an American dream and become part of the fabric of
• 1:01:50
  Speaker 2: this country. Yeah. Their skin color is a little different.
• 1:01:54
  Speaker 2: Some of their behaviors are confusing and different than ours.
• 1:02:00
  Speaker 2: Within a generation or two, all of that dissipates. Now,
• 1:02:08
  Speaker 2: the courts are halting this. Part of the issue is
• 1:02:14
  Speaker 2: that they're claiming that this is a tax and that
• 1:02:18
  Speaker 2: the government, the president can't, institute attacks without Congress. So
• 1:02:25
  Speaker 2: it's being stopped in the courts primarily on separation of
• 1:02:28
  Speaker 2: powers issues. We'll see where this goes as we move forward.
• 1:02:34
  Speaker 2: But it's just stupid and horrific. The other thing that's
• 1:02:36
  Speaker 2: happened is all the H-1B positions are being filled. 85,000
• 1:02:43
  Speaker 2: a year, they're being filled. It's now being filled by
• 1:02:48
  Speaker 2: different people. So if before some of the 85,000 were
• 1:02:52
  Speaker 2: Indians that were being brought over, that came over to
• 1:02:55
  Speaker 2: fill these jobs. Now, most of the 85,000 are being
• 1:02:59
  Speaker 2: filled by students who are already in the United States.
• 1:03:03
  Speaker 2: They are, for example, they're the kind of H-1Bs that
• 1:03:05
  Speaker 2: don't pay, that are exempted from the 100,000. So you're
• 1:03:10
  Speaker 2: just shifting the mix. You're not doing anything productive. You're
• 1:03:14
  Speaker 2: just shifting the mix of the people. And it's not
• 1:03:17
  Speaker 2: clear that one group is better than the other. Why
• 1:03:19
  Speaker 2: don't companies decide who to hire and who to... The
• 1:03:27
  Speaker 2: government is better. The government knows all. Trump administration, they know.
• 1:03:32
  Speaker 2: They know who should get the H-1Bs. All right. Earlier
• 1:03:38
  Speaker 2: this week, on the 16th, the Fed voted 12 to 0.
• 1:03:42
  Speaker 2: 12 to 0. to raise interest rates. It's basically interest
• 1:03:48
  Speaker 2: rates that are paid on bank reserves by a quarter point.
• 1:03:54
  Speaker 2: This is the first hike since July 2023. And based
• 1:04:01
  Speaker 2: on the comments of the Chairman of the Federal Reserve,
• 1:04:03
  Speaker 2: it looks like they're going to hike again later this year.
• 1:04:08
  Speaker 2: That meant that 30-year mortgage rates went up basically 7% now, 6.95%.
• 1:04:16
  Speaker 2: They went up for the fourth straight week as the
• 1:04:19
  Speaker 2: market was expecting this increase already. It's the largest one-week
• 1:04:24
  Speaker 2: jump in 16 months, the highest rate since the first
• 1:04:29
  Speaker 2: full week of Trump's second term, when inflation was quite
• 1:04:33
  Speaker 2: a bit higher. So, you know, we're going to see
• 1:04:38
  Speaker 2: that a bunch of these interest rates that are related
• 1:04:43
  Speaker 2: to what the Fed does are going to go up
• 1:04:45
  Speaker 2: and have gone up. Remember, August CPI is CPI, Consumer
• 1:04:50
  Speaker 2: Price Index, up 3.4% year over year. The core CPI
• 1:04:55
  Speaker 2: is 2.4 up. Now, of course, a lot of that
• 1:04:59
  Speaker 2: is gasoline. And it's not real inflation in the sense
• 1:05:05
  Speaker 2: of monetary inflation, but there's a lot of monetary inflation
• 1:05:08
  Speaker 2: as well. We're not at zero. We're not even at
• 1:05:10
  Speaker 2: the 2%, which is what the Fed's mark is. The
• 1:05:14
  Speaker 2: chairman of the Federal Reserve, Kevin Walsh, who is Trump's
• 1:05:17
  Speaker 2: own pick after he got rid of Bernanke, said inflation
• 1:05:21
  Speaker 2: is too high. Trump, on the other hand, immediately came
• 1:05:25
  Speaker 2: out and demanded, in all caps, I should add, that
• 1:05:30
  Speaker 2: the Fed, quote, lower the interest rates. Because we're such
• 1:05:36
  Speaker 2: a great country, we should have low interest rates. It's
• 1:05:40
  Speaker 2: pretty funny. I mean, he said interest rate should be 1%.
• 1:05:45
  Speaker 2: I mean, if inflation, I mean, CPI is at 3.4%,
• 1:05:51
  Speaker 2: investors in U.S. bonds want compensation, want a return that
• 1:05:55
  Speaker 2: at least, I mean, why would anybody save at 1%
• 1:06:00
  Speaker 2: when inflation is 3.4%? Savers want to at least make
• 1:06:06
  Speaker 2: up for inflation. The reality is that The 10-year bond
• 1:06:11
  Speaker 2: at 5%. If inflation is at 3%, the real rate
• 1:06:16
  Speaker 2: is 2%. That's about right. That's about right. The thing
• 1:06:21
  Speaker 2: here that is pretty shocking is Trump objected to Bernanke
• 1:06:27
  Speaker 2: because Bernanke was not lowering rates. He handpicked Kevin Walsh
• 1:06:32
  Speaker 2: as his guy because he believed that Kevin Walsh would
• 1:06:35
  Speaker 2: lower rates. And the first thing Kevin Walsh does within, what,
• 1:06:38
  Speaker 2: a couple of months from getting the job is raise rates.
• 1:06:46
  Speaker 2: And Trump is continuing to demand lowering rates and he
• 1:06:48
  Speaker 2: can't get rid of Kevin Walsh. He doesn't have the
• 1:06:51
  Speaker 2: authority to fire him. And, you know, so the central
• 1:06:59
  Speaker 2: bank is independent, still independent. Kevin Walsh, I never thought
• 1:07:05
  Speaker 2: was a complete lackey of Trump's. You know, he's probably,
• 1:07:11
  Speaker 2: you know, he's an inflation hawk. He doesn't like inflation,
• 1:07:13
  Speaker 2: which is good for a chairman of the Fed. Whether
• 1:07:16
  Speaker 2: he knows how to deal with inflation or not is
• 1:07:17
  Speaker 2: a different question. But the reality is that costs are
• 1:07:22
  Speaker 2: going to go, you know, mortgage rates are going to
• 1:07:24
  Speaker 2: go up. Credit card rates are going to go up.
• 1:07:26
  Speaker 2: Debt rates are going to go up. Generally, corporate borrowing
• 1:07:30
  Speaker 2: is going to be more expensive. And in the meantime,
• 1:07:36
  Speaker 2: oil is at over $ 100 a barrel. Cost of living
• 1:07:39
  Speaker 2: is going up. People are upset. The mint terms are
• 1:07:43
  Speaker 2: seven weeks away. It's going to be interesting. It's going
• 1:07:48
  Speaker 2: to be interesting what happens. All right, let's talk a
• 1:07:53
  Speaker 2: little bit about... All right, let's talk a little bit
• 1:08:00
  Speaker 2: about farm policy. Too quick. I mean, we'll do this quickly.
• 1:08:06
  Speaker 2: We're running late. Let's see. How are we doing in
• 1:08:08
  Speaker 2: the Super Chat? We're doing pretty good. Yeah. Really good.
• 1:08:13
  Speaker 2: Thank you, guys. Appreciate that. We're like $ 50 short of
• 1:08:17
  Speaker 2: our second hour goal. So it'd be great if we
• 1:08:20
  Speaker 2: could get to that second hour goal. Generally, it'd be
• 1:08:23
  Speaker 2: great if we could just blow through all these goals
• 1:08:26
  Speaker 2: because I'm not doing a lot of shows. So we
• 1:08:28
  Speaker 2: need to make up for that somehow. But another 50
• 1:08:31
  Speaker 2: bucks would be amazing. We have plenty of time to
• 1:08:33
  Speaker 2: get there. And we'll probably go in, we might go
• 1:08:36
  Speaker 2: into the third hour today, given how many questions we have.
• 1:08:39
  Speaker 2: We've got a nice number of questions. It's good. Yeah.
• 1:08:42
  Speaker 2: Quite a few. So particularly if you do a $ 20, $ 50,
• 1:08:45
  Speaker 2: of course, stickers. Feel free to do some stickers. Don't
• 1:08:49
  Speaker 2: even have to ask questions. It'd be great to get
• 1:08:51
  Speaker 2: some $ 20 or $ 50 stickers and close that gap. Close
• 1:08:56
  Speaker 2: that gap. Yeah. And those of you who don't want
• 1:08:59
  Speaker 2: me to, debate ZZ, then, yeah, you can step in
• 1:09:02
  Speaker 2: and support my decision not to debate him. All right.
• 1:09:08
  Speaker 2: Trump signed the Russian sanctions law, which is interesting because
• 1:09:12
  Speaker 2: I don't think they can implement it. This is the
• 1:09:15
  Speaker 2: Lindsey O. Graham, named after the deceased senator. Sanctioning Russia
• 1:09:20
  Speaker 2: and Iran Act of 2026. It authorizes tariffs of up
• 1:09:25
  Speaker 2: to 100% on the five largest buyers of Russian oil
• 1:09:29
  Speaker 2: and gas and on countries helping Russia evade sanctions. It
• 1:09:34
  Speaker 2: sanctions Putin, Russian officials, oligarchs and their families, banks, defense networks,
• 1:09:41
  Speaker 2: and the shadow fleet. And it extends the Iran Sanctions
• 1:09:45
  Speaker 2: Act for another five years. It passed the Senate 86
• 1:09:51
  Speaker 2: to 11 in August. Wow. I mean, bipartisan. And the
• 1:09:56
  Speaker 2: House 262 to 159. The Kremlin's response was the sanctions, quote,
• 1:10:04
  Speaker 2: would certainly complicate efforts to find a peace settlement. Zelensky,
• 1:10:08
  Speaker 2: on the other hand, thanked Trump for signing the bill. Now,
• 1:10:13
  Speaker 2: what does this bill really mean? It means that Trump
• 1:10:15
  Speaker 2: can now place huge tariffs on the countries that are
• 1:10:20
  Speaker 2: buying Russian oil. Who are those countries? I wonder. Hmm. India?
• 1:10:30
  Speaker 2: Maybe Turkey? Certainly, without any doubt, China. Now, what do
• 1:10:38
  Speaker 2: you think the odds are that Trump is going to
• 1:10:41
  Speaker 2: place massive sanctions on China and India Over Russia. Because
• 1:10:48
  Speaker 2: they buy oil from Russia. I mean first if he
• 1:10:50
  Speaker 2: did that. If China and India actually stopped buying Russian oil.
• 1:10:54
  Speaker 2: What would happen to oil prices? He ain't doing it.
• 1:11:00
  Speaker 2: Certainly not doing it before the midterms.
• 1:11:03
  Speaker 3: And.
• 1:11:03
  Speaker 2: Turkey as well is going to penalize Turkey. I mean
• 1:11:10
  Speaker 2: it's the whole thing is. It's not going to happen.
• 1:11:12
  Speaker 2: It's just not going to happen. It's nice to have
• 1:11:15
  Speaker 2: a bill. It's nice to declare this. It gives the
• 1:11:18
  Speaker 2: president this massive power now that at his discretion, pretty much,
• 1:11:24
  Speaker 2: he will decide who to place tariffs on and when, right? So, yeah.
• 1:11:48
  Speaker 2: So nothing is going to, this is wallpaper. This is
• 1:11:53
  Speaker 2: a decoration. This is not actually real.
• 1:12:00
  Speaker 3: Right?
• 1:12:00
  Speaker 2: Not actually real. And now, you know, if he actually
• 1:12:12
  Speaker 2: managed to pull it off, China not buy any Russian oil,
• 1:12:15
  Speaker 2: India not buy any Russian oil, Turkey not buy any
• 1:12:18
  Speaker 2: Russian oil. Yeah, it would hurt Russia. By the way,
• 1:12:23
  Speaker 2: Ukraine is to some extent taking care of this by
• 1:12:27
  Speaker 2: basically bombing all the oil facilities of Russia and reducing
• 1:12:33
  Speaker 2: the amount that they can export anyway. All I think
• 1:12:39
  Speaker 2: this bill in the end of the day really does
• 1:12:40
  Speaker 2: is Give the president even more power. Even more power.
• 1:12:50
  Speaker 2: All right. Let's see. Where are we? Yeah. Another 37 bucks, guys.
• 1:13:01
  Speaker 2: 37 to make the cut. Why don't we do a
• 1:13:04
  Speaker 2: bunch of stickers? That'd be great. Greenland. This is big news.
• 1:13:11
  Speaker 2: It turns out that on Friday, yesterday, the U.S., Denmark,
• 1:13:13
  Speaker 2: and Greenland announced an agreement. U.S. gets Greenland, turning it
• 1:13:18
  Speaker 2: into the 51st state. Oh, no. Sorry. Scrap that. That
• 1:13:23
  Speaker 2: didn't happen. I mean, you'd think by Trump's response that
• 1:13:27
  Speaker 2: that's what happened, but no, it didn't happen. It is
• 1:13:30
  Speaker 2: an agreement for significant U.S. military presence in Greenland, and
• 1:13:34
  Speaker 2: it bars adversaries like China and Russia for building bases there.
• 1:13:38
  Speaker 3: Hmm.
• 1:13:40
  Speaker 2: Guess what the situation was before this deal got signed?
• 1:13:44
  Speaker 2: The United States had significant U.S. military presence and had
• 1:13:48
  Speaker 2: the right to extend it, and Greenland and Denmark never
• 1:13:53
  Speaker 2: considered letting adversaries build bases there. Trump said the deal
• 1:13:59
  Speaker 2: gives the U.S., quote, permanent control over security and all
• 1:14:03
  Speaker 2: other needs in Greenland. That's Trump. Denmark's Prime Minister said,
• 1:14:11
  Speaker 2: it recognizes the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the kingdom
• 1:14:14
  Speaker 2: and the right of the Greenland people to self-determination. Now,
• 1:14:21
  Speaker 2: we don't have all the key details, but we know
• 1:14:25
  Speaker 2: Trump is full of it. The scale of U.S. presence, unclear.
• 1:14:29
  Speaker 2: Whether any power over foreign policy or resources is ceded. Supposedly,
• 1:14:34
  Speaker 2: it's going to be signed at the U.N. General Assembly
• 1:14:36
  Speaker 2: next week. And then it needs approval from the Greenland
• 1:14:41
  Speaker 2: and the Danish parliament. Yeah, so the strategic goal, keep
• 1:14:48
  Speaker 2: Russia and China out of the Arctic and improve the U.S.
• 1:14:54
  Speaker 2: military capability in the region. Nobody has ever been against that. Nobody.
• 1:14:59
  Speaker 2: Denmark is for it. Greenland is for it. Everybody has
• 1:15:02
  Speaker 2: always been on the same page. So I don't know
• 1:15:07
  Speaker 2: what's new here. This is basically the 1951 agreement about Greenland.
• 1:15:16
  Speaker 2: How much of this is new? We don't know. We'll
• 1:15:19
  Speaker 2: get the text soon.
• 1:15:20
  Speaker 3: Hopefully.
• 1:15:23
  Speaker 2: And we'll see if there's anything that we can differentiate.
• 1:15:27
  Speaker 2: I mean, remember, Denmark, which is sovereign over Greenland, is
• 1:15:33
  Speaker 2: a NATO member. So it's a way for Trump to
• 1:15:46
  Speaker 2: claim victory and to get out of the embarrassment that
• 1:15:52
  Speaker 2: is his constant demand for sovereignty over Greenland. Now he'll
• 1:15:56
  Speaker 2: claim he has sovereignty, even though he doesn't. Yeah, really stupid.
• 1:16:02
  Speaker 3: All right.
• 1:16:05
  Speaker 2: I don't want to do that. Yeah, let's do these quickly.
• 1:16:10
  Speaker 2: We'll do these quickly. So in May, these are two
• 1:16:15
  Speaker 2: AI stories. So in May, during a capture the flag
• 1:16:19
  Speaker 2: test run by Irregular, that's an Israeli evaluation firm, a
• 1:16:24
  Speaker 2: misconfiguration gave Gemini internet access. The fictional target shared its
• 1:16:30
  Speaker 2: name with a real company. In one case, Gemini guessed
• 1:16:34
  Speaker 2: passwords until it got in. And to others, it found
• 1:16:37
  Speaker 2: credentials in public code repositories and used them. In other words,
• 1:16:42
  Speaker 2: it broke into these other companies online. Google says the
• 1:16:48
  Speaker 2: model stopped itself each time once it realized the targets
• 1:16:51
  Speaker 2: were real. It wasn't just a simulation. And that this
• 1:16:55
  Speaker 2: wasn't misalignment. It sounds like it wasn't. All three companies
• 1:17:01
  Speaker 2: were notified. And Irregular flagged it to Google in July.
• 1:17:06
  Speaker 2: It became controversial. Public only after the Wall Street Journal
• 1:17:12
  Speaker 2: kind of asked about, you know, similar occurrences to the
• 1:17:18
  Speaker 2: hugging face OpenAI situation, right? Now, we know OpenAI, Anthropic
• 1:17:26
  Speaker 2: and Meta have all disclosed similar incidents. And all four
• 1:17:31
  Speaker 2: labs use the same outside tester. This Israeli company called Irregular. Now,
• 1:17:37
  Speaker 2: here's the thing. In all of these cases, at the
• 1:17:42
  Speaker 2: end of the day, the agents, these AI agents, did
• 1:17:47
  Speaker 2: exactly what the programmers wanted them to do. The programmers
• 1:17:52
  Speaker 2: gave them a mission. They didn't give them boundaries. And
• 1:17:59
  Speaker 2: nothing in the end really happened. It's not like AI
• 1:18:04
  Speaker 2: developed its own set of values and went rogue. No,
• 1:18:08
  Speaker 2: it just took instructions. and followed through on them, but
• 1:18:12
  Speaker 2: never really did any damage. And indeed, in this case,
• 1:18:15
  Speaker 2: in Google, it actually stopped once it realized that something
• 1:18:19
  Speaker 2: was off. In all these cases, the failure was a
• 1:18:24
  Speaker 2: human-built test environment. In all these cases, it was a
• 1:18:31
  Speaker 2: programming error by the programmers. I mean, programming in the
• 1:18:35
  Speaker 2: loose sense of the word. Yeah, it is interesting that
• 1:18:42
  Speaker 2: all of them rely on one vendor, one company to
• 1:18:45
  Speaker 2: do all the testing. It would be nice to see
• 1:18:46
  Speaker 2: some competition there. But, you know, the more stories like this,
• 1:18:54
  Speaker 2: the more Washington's going to, you know, be encouraged to
• 1:18:57
  Speaker 2: regulate and control and intervene. So, but it's just fodder
• 1:19:04
  Speaker 2: for the doomers, the people who are convinced that AI
• 1:19:09
  Speaker 2: is going to kill us all. And it's not. It's
• 1:19:11
  Speaker 2: quite the contrary. It's a new technology. It's behaving in
• 1:19:16
  Speaker 2: interesting ways, sometimes in unexpected ways, sometimes in ways that
• 1:19:21
  Speaker 2: lead you to think that it has more power or
• 1:19:24
  Speaker 2: it's more powerful than you knew. Great. We'll learn from that.
• 1:19:29
  Speaker 2: We'll keep getting better at creating the appropriate guardrails. And
• 1:19:36
  Speaker 2: one way to really do that, as we've talked about
• 1:19:37
  Speaker 2: on the show in the past, is to make the
• 1:19:39
  Speaker 2: companies liable for the damage the agents that they unleash
• 1:19:42
  Speaker 2: on the world do. Not damage that some other programmer
• 1:19:48
  Speaker 2: using those agents does. That person is then liable for
• 1:19:51
  Speaker 2: the damage. But if these companies are just testing and
• 1:19:56
  Speaker 2: an agent gets out and destroys something, they are liable.
• 1:19:59
  Speaker 2: So make them explicitly liable. That's the one thing that
• 1:20:03
  Speaker 2: we can legally do to provide the right incentives to
• 1:20:07
  Speaker 2: make sure that they're careful And, you know, if they
• 1:20:11
  Speaker 2: really want to slow down, then let them slow down.
• 1:20:14
  Speaker 2: I wish they didn't use the excuse of the death
• 1:20:16
  Speaker 2: of mankind, the destruction of civilization as the excuse to
• 1:20:20
  Speaker 2: slow down. Just one other, this is an OpenAI story.
• 1:20:26
  Speaker 2: Newly unsealed filings in a consolidated copyright case against OpenAI
• 1:20:32
  Speaker 2: and Microsoft. show that OpenAI deleted two training databases drawn
• 1:20:38
  Speaker 2: from the private library LibGen in 2022 over legal concerns,
• 1:20:45
  Speaker 2: an effort known internally within OpenAI as Project Clear. When
• 1:20:50
  Speaker 2: staff told Greg Brokman about a trick to bypass the
• 1:20:54
  Speaker 2: New York Times paywall for scrapping, he replied, ah, nice.
• 1:21:00
  Speaker 2: So they were violating IP, They were stealing intellectual property,
• 1:21:05
  Speaker 2: and they knew it. A Microsoft Applied Science director called
• 1:21:10
  Speaker 2: it potentially the largest theft of labor in human history.
• 1:21:15
  Speaker 2: That's a quote from the article. Sacha Nadella testified that
• 1:21:21
  Speaker 2: downloading pirated content is absolutely illegal, and yet both Microsoft
• 1:21:27
  Speaker 2: and OpenAI did it. So, You know, this is the,
• 1:21:36
  Speaker 2: off on the plaintiff's brief, this is what's, you know,
• 1:21:39
  Speaker 2: what was disclosed. But it does look like there was
• 1:21:47
  Speaker 2: significant intellectual property violations that these companies knew it. They
• 1:21:53
  Speaker 2: continued doing it, you know, in order to train these models, right?
• 1:21:59
  Speaker 2: I mean, intellectual property is property. in spite of what
• 1:22:05
  Speaker 2: the anarchists will tell you. And the fact that I
• 1:22:09
  Speaker 2: admire AI and I think AI is amazing and AI
• 1:22:11
  Speaker 2: is going to do great things doesn't justify stealing property. So,
• 1:22:17
  Speaker 2: you know, if you train on legally acquired books, it's
• 1:22:22
  Speaker 2: probably fair use. But Clearly, you know, getting around firewalls
• 1:22:29
  Speaker 2: and downloading from private websites, that's not. And using pirated stuff,
• 1:22:37
  Speaker 2: that's not. That is not. So, yeah, we'll have to
• 1:22:45
  Speaker 2: keep track of that lawsuit. I'm interested to see how
• 1:22:47
  Speaker 2: it all pans out and how it works out. Okay, finally,
• 1:22:50
  Speaker 2: we talked about a few weeks ago, we talked about
• 1:22:52
  Speaker 2: the PISA tests. These are tests given to high school
• 1:22:55
  Speaker 2: students in math and reading. and how badly the United
• 1:22:58
  Speaker 2: States was doing. Everybody's doing badly. In the PSA 2025,
• 1:23:04
  Speaker 2: this was released a couple of weeks ago, one week ago.
• 1:23:11
  Speaker 2: It turns out that OECD averages hit record lows in
• 1:23:14
  Speaker 2: math and reading. So all rich countries. Reading fell 28
• 1:23:18
  Speaker 2: points from 2015 to 2025. About a year and a
• 1:23:21
  Speaker 2: half of learning. That's what 28 points means. Math fell
• 1:23:27
  Speaker 2: 22 points. One in five OECD 15-year-olds is now a
• 1:23:32
  Speaker 2: low performer in all three subjects. I don't know what
• 1:23:37
  Speaker 2: the third subject is. Math, reading. I'm not sure what
• 1:23:39
  Speaker 2: the third one is. It was only 16% in 2022.
• 1:23:42
  Speaker 2: Now it's 20%. France and Germany. They had their worst
• 1:23:44
  Speaker 2: results ever. Germany's report says all three areas are the
• 1:23:54
  Speaker 2: lowest ever recorded. The Netherlands, all-time lows. Finland, Finland, which,
• 1:24:03
  Speaker 2: you know, not only is the happiest country on planet Earth,
• 1:24:06
  Speaker 2: according to many, but also supposedly had the best schools
• 1:24:10
  Speaker 2: in the world. It's plummeted. All these four countries, nearly
• 1:24:16
  Speaker 2: one in three 15-year-olds lack basic literacy and math skills.
• 1:24:20
  Speaker 2: One in three. Spain. Worst performance since Pisa began in 2000.
• 1:24:28
  Speaker 2: Who's at the top? Who are the countries that did well? Guess. China, Singapore, Taiwan, Japan,
• 1:24:43
  Speaker 2: South Korea. The only European country that did okay was England.
• 1:24:53
  Speaker 2: England actually ranked first 8th in science, 9th in reading,
• 1:24:57
  Speaker 2: 10th in math.
• 1:24:58
  Speaker 3: Right?
• 1:25:01
  Speaker 2: So, England is outperforming most of other European countries. In science,
• 1:25:09
  Speaker 2: they went up from 503 to 516. This is the
• 1:25:13
  Speaker 2: highest reading the UK has had since, that England has had,
• 1:25:16
  Speaker 2: not the UK, since 2012. Reading went up and math
• 1:25:23
  Speaker 2: was flat. Right? So I guess the three subjects are math, reading,
• 1:25:26
  Speaker 2: and science. Wales can last among the four UK nations
• 1:25:35
  Speaker 2: in all three subjects. So, yeah, England did very, very
• 1:25:39
  Speaker 2: well in comparison compared to its neighbors. And, you know,
• 1:25:46
  Speaker 2: one of the things that this is showing is that
• 1:25:51
  Speaker 2: money does not buy education. All these countries spend a
• 1:25:55
  Speaker 2: lot of money on education. Indeed, UK or England spends
• 1:26:00
  Speaker 2: about the same amount as France and Germany. And yet,
• 1:26:06
  Speaker 2: England held steady and improved a little bit while the
• 1:26:09
  Speaker 2: rest of the continent collapsed. England actually jumped into the
• 1:26:13
  Speaker 2: world's top 10 in science. And I don't think the
• 1:26:19
  Speaker 2: Asians spend more money on education than Europeans do. Money
• 1:26:26
  Speaker 2: doesn't buy education. Curriculum does. Teaching well does. Emphasizing, at
• 1:26:37
  Speaker 2: least in younger children, the basics does. So, yeah, I mean,
• 1:26:44
  Speaker 2: the European systems are failing because they're built on bad
• 1:26:47
  Speaker 2: pedagogical ideas, pedagogical theories that have shown to be failures
• 1:26:53
  Speaker 2: for years and years. Anyway, that, my friends, is the
• 1:27:02
  Speaker 2: news for this Saturday, September 19th. Sorry I didn't have
• 1:27:05
  Speaker 2: any positive stories. But when we get back to normal schedule,
• 1:27:19
  Speaker 2: I will. I will have them for news stories. News stories.
• 1:27:24
  Speaker 2: All right. that as, as I said, is the news. And, uh,
• 1:27:30
  Speaker 2: thank you. Thank you guys for being here. Thank you
• 1:27:33
  Speaker 2: for listening. Uh, and, uh, we are going to turn
• 1:27:37
  Speaker 2: to our super chatters. Uh, we're not getting stickers. What's, what's,
• 1:27:43
  Speaker 2: what's up with sticker people out there? Sticker people do
• 1:27:46
  Speaker 2: the stickers, sticker thing. Uh, and, uh, Oh, God. Scarcity
• 1:28:01
  Speaker 2: isn't important, so scarcity doesn't determine rights. So, rights don't
• 1:28:09
  Speaker 2: come from scarcity. So, you know, you should ask a
• 1:28:13
  Speaker 2: question about it. But property rights don't come from scarcity.
• 1:28:18
  Speaker 2: Scarcity does not determine anything. The whole concept of scarcity
• 1:28:23
  Speaker 2: is really... an unfortunate thing that economists have latched onto.
• 1:28:30
  Speaker 3: All right.
• 1:28:36
  Speaker 2: Oh, Eddie, Eddie just came in with a sticker. Thank you, Eddie.
• 1:28:39
  Speaker 2: Really appreciate that. Let's see who else. If I had
• 1:28:41
  Speaker 2: any other stickers. I don't think so. Weird. Usually we
• 1:28:45
  Speaker 2: have a bunch of stickers. There's Bonnie and Lyran, but
• 1:28:55
  Speaker 2: they all came in now. Thank you. But I don't
• 1:28:57
  Speaker 2: think we had. I mean, this is a strange day.
• 1:29:00
  Speaker 2: Lots of questions, no stickers. Yeah, it's a day focused on,
• 1:29:06
  Speaker 2: will you run the beat? The anarchist, won't you debate
• 1:29:09
  Speaker 2: the anarchist? That's all that seems to interest people. All right, yeah,
• 1:29:19
  Speaker 2: keep the stickers coming. $ 7 and we at least reached
• 1:29:24
  Speaker 2: the second hour goal. And then we can start working
• 1:29:26
  Speaker 2: on that third hour goal. But where are my $ 50
• 1:29:29
  Speaker 2: sticker people and stuff like that? I don't know. I
• 1:29:31
  Speaker 2: don't know. They're out there somewhere. All right. I remind
• 1:29:34
  Speaker 2: you that Unwritten Institute is a sponsor of this show.
• 1:29:37
  Speaker 2: They are launching a new semester of ARU with a
• 1:29:46
  Speaker 2: three-semester long course on objectivism led by Ankar Ghate, a
• 1:29:51
  Speaker 2: number of professors, but led by Ankar Ghate. you know,
• 1:29:55
  Speaker 2: this is the way to learn objectivism. You can study
• 1:29:58
  Speaker 2: by yourself. You can study on your own and you'll
• 1:30:00
  Speaker 2: learn a lot by just by reading Ayn Rand. But
• 1:30:03
  Speaker 2: to have somebody guide you through the material, to have
• 1:30:06
  Speaker 2: a professor who really knows it inside out and explain
• 1:30:09
  Speaker 2: it and articulate it, there's nothing more valuable than that.
• 1:30:12
  Speaker 2: I mean, the sad thing is that they are, um,
• 1:30:20
  Speaker 2: that they are, uh, lots of people out there who
• 1:30:25
  Speaker 2: think they know objectivism and make fatal mistakes with regard
• 1:30:30
  Speaker 2: to objectivism. And they never have the opportunity because they
• 1:30:34
  Speaker 2: never go to any of these ARU classes, never engaged
• 1:30:38
  Speaker 2: with the real philosophers to correct their errors. And this
• 1:30:43
  Speaker 2: is how you get people claiming to be anarchist objectivists.
• 1:30:48
  Speaker 2: Maybe if they take an ARU course on philosophy, Or
• 1:30:52
  Speaker 2: maybe if they'd written a confusion paper for Linda Peikoff
• 1:30:56
  Speaker 2: in the 90s, they wouldn't make such silly errors. So,
• 1:31:00
  Speaker 2: you know, there's a huge advantage of, you know, to
• 1:31:11
  Speaker 2: taking classes, testing your ideas, getting challenged, taking an exam,
• 1:31:17
  Speaker 2: doing homework. So check it out. you can go to einrand.org
• 1:31:24
  Speaker 2: slash ybs you can and I'm teaching a class on
• 1:31:30
  Speaker 2: civilization the origins of western civilization somebody says look up
• 1:31:37
  Speaker 2: Kinsella no look up Adam Mossoff who I think you
• 1:31:43
  Speaker 2: know crushed Kinsella in their debate so Kinsella is wrong
• 1:31:47
  Speaker 2: about intellectual property He's thoroughly wrong. And the guy, if
• 1:31:52
  Speaker 2: you want to follow somebody on intellectual property, then follow
• 1:31:57
  Speaker 2: Adam Massoff at George Mason University Law School. He is
• 1:32:01
  Speaker 2: the leading, I think, defender of intellectual property in the country.
• 1:32:06
  Speaker 2: He's an objectivist. I think he's debated Kinsella. He's debated
• 1:32:11
  Speaker 2: other anti-intellectual property. He's written essays I know you don't
• 1:32:15
  Speaker 2: like to read. But he's written essays on this. He's
• 1:32:20
  Speaker 2: done a huge amount of work on intellectual property. He's
• 1:32:22
  Speaker 2: given talks. You can check all this out. And yeah,
• 1:32:28
  Speaker 2: go find it. You know, the anarchists are wrong on
• 1:32:34
  Speaker 2: a lot of things. They're wrong on most things because
• 1:32:37
  Speaker 2: it's how they get to anarchy, right? And they're wrong
• 1:32:40
  Speaker 2: in anarchy. They're wrong in individual rights. They're wrong in
• 1:32:44
  Speaker 2: intellectual property. They're wrong to define economics in terms of scarcity,
• 1:32:50
  Speaker 2: which they do. Yeah, they're just wrong. They're just wrong.
• 1:33:07
  Speaker 2: If they're so fatal, then address them with Zulu in
• 1:33:11
  Speaker 2: responding distance. Why? Why? Why am I responsible for correcting
• 1:33:15
  Speaker 2: your errors? You guys are responsible for correcting your errors.
• 1:33:20
  Speaker 2: You're attributing to me some kind of, and I know
• 1:33:23
  Speaker 2: some of you are bored by this, but you're attributing
• 1:33:25
  Speaker 2: to me some kind of motivation that I have a
• 1:33:35
  Speaker 2: duty somehow to explain truth to you guys. No, your
• 1:33:40
  Speaker 2: responsibility is to discover truth. As I said over and
• 1:33:43
  Speaker 2: over and over again, I have debated anarchy. Watch those debates.
• 1:33:49
  Speaker 2: I have written about the incompatibility of anarchy with truth,
• 1:33:53
  Speaker 2: never mind with objectivism. Go read the stuff. And if
• 1:33:57
  Speaker 2: you're unconvinced, nothing I will say in the debate with
• 1:34:00
  Speaker 2: Zulu will convince you. So I have zero incentive. to
• 1:34:08
  Speaker 2: do this debate. And I don't have a sense of
• 1:34:12
  Speaker 2: moral duty to convince you of this stuff. Intellectual property
• 1:34:17
  Speaker 2: is a real thing. It's a valid concept, a valid idea,
• 1:34:21
  Speaker 2: and it needs protection. And anarchy is anti-liberty. It's anti-freedom.
• 1:34:28
  Speaker 2: It's anti-capitalism. So anarcho-capitalism is a contradiction in terms. It's
• 1:34:33
  Speaker 2: certainly unequivocally anti-objectivism. All right, Linda, thank you for the sticker.
• 1:34:40
  Speaker 2: Really appreciate that. And let's see. A big video going
• 1:34:55
  Speaker 2: over why the fundamentals of anarcho-capitalism is wrong would be
• 1:35:00
  Speaker 2: nice maybe someday. I mean, I'll probably do that. But again,
• 1:35:04
  Speaker 2: there is a significant essay out there. And if you
• 1:35:08
  Speaker 2: really wanna delve into philosophical arguments, if you really wanna
• 1:35:11
  Speaker 2: understand a philosophical debate and a philosophical issue, you don't
• 1:35:15
  Speaker 2: listen to debates. You don't even watch videos. You eat.
• 1:35:22
  Speaker 3: You eat.
• 1:35:23
  Speaker 2: Oh, you have no moral duty to not shut off
• 1:35:32
  Speaker 2: your mind. and live in delusion. You're absolutely right. I
• 1:35:36
  Speaker 2: pity what kind of life that leads you to however.
• 1:35:43
  Speaker 2: Pretty good life, actually. You know, my life, pretty good.
• 1:35:46
  Speaker 2: You know, I'll take my life over yours or anybody
• 1:35:49
  Speaker 2: else out there. You know, it's, I have a pretty
• 1:35:55
  Speaker 2: sweet life and I've lived it for a long time.
• 1:35:57
  Speaker 2: I'm getting pretty old. And God, you know, You find
• 1:36:04
  Speaker 2: somebody who's happier with their life than I am, good
• 1:36:08
  Speaker 2: luck to you, right? So, you know, yeah. Is that
• 1:36:15
  Speaker 2: supposed to be an insult? I don't know what that's
• 1:36:17
  Speaker 2: supposed to be exactly. You don't know me, obviously. You
• 1:36:21
  Speaker 2: don't know the life that I have. And I don't
• 1:36:25
  Speaker 2: know what you're reaching for, but whatever it is, it
• 1:36:28
  Speaker 2: ain't going to work. All right, Michael, Michael. Michael, thank you. $ 100.
• 1:36:35
  Speaker 2: I really, really appreciate it. Some people appreciate what I do.
• 1:36:40
  Speaker 2: Are miserable people bad at introspection? You should have asked,
• 1:36:47
  Speaker 2: are an alcohol capitalist bad at introspection? The answer is yes.
• 1:36:53
  Speaker 2: Bad at thinking. Are miserable people bad at introspection? If
• 1:36:58
  Speaker 2: you look at Trump and Putin, These people have all
• 1:37:00
  Speaker 2: the power and prestige in the world and are completely
• 1:37:03
  Speaker 2: miserable for narcissists. Does success mean status, not happiness? Well, okay.
• 1:37:13
  Speaker 2: So are miserable people, bad introspection? I don't know. Probably
• 1:37:17
  Speaker 2: it's likely that they are. Um, I think introspection is,
• 1:37:21
  Speaker 2: is definitely a tool to happiness, a tool to success
• 1:37:26
  Speaker 2: and a tool that many people don't use. Um, And,
• 1:37:31
  Speaker 2: you know, introspection being in self-awareness and thinking through what
• 1:37:37
  Speaker 2: you believe, why you believe it, and being in touch
• 1:37:40
  Speaker 2: with your emotions. And, you know, all of that is
• 1:37:44
  Speaker 2: really good stuff. But, you know, I don't know. I'm
• 1:37:51
  Speaker 2: not even enough of a psychologist to know. that lack
• 1:37:55
  Speaker 2: of introspection is the cause of misery or miserable people can't.
• 1:37:59
  Speaker 2: It's just like, what if really bad things have happened
• 1:38:01
  Speaker 2: to you in your life? You lived through the Holocaust.
• 1:38:05
  Speaker 2: I don't know. Bad things have happened to you in
• 1:38:07
  Speaker 2: your life. You might be very good at introspection and
• 1:38:09
  Speaker 2: still be miserable. So I don't think you can, there's
• 1:38:14
  Speaker 2: a causal, certainly not enough to, it's not the only
• 1:38:22
  Speaker 2: source of misery.
• 1:38:22
  Speaker 3: Misery.
• 1:38:26
  Speaker 2: Putin and Trump are miserable. They're miserable because they are irrational.
• 1:38:30
  Speaker 2: because they're whim worshippers. As a consequence, they do stupid
• 1:38:34
  Speaker 2: things that are harmful. They do self-destructive things that are harmful.
• 1:38:39
  Speaker 2: They're narcissists, and as a consequence, they're not connected to reality.
• 1:38:44
  Speaker 2: They're connected to other people. And again, that leads them
• 1:38:47
  Speaker 2: to do stupid things that are self-destructive. And, you know,
• 1:38:54
  Speaker 2: even in terms of status, yes, I mean, success does
• 1:39:00
  Speaker 2: mean status to them. But they might think that status
• 1:39:07
  Speaker 2: brings them happiness or should bring them happiness. They might
• 1:39:11
  Speaker 2: be convinced that by attaining status, they will attain happiness.
• 1:39:17
  Speaker 2: So you're just at position here. I mean, I don't
• 1:39:19
  Speaker 2: think it's, Does success mean status, not happiness? What does
• 1:39:23
  Speaker 2: that mean? Is there success? Do they not want to
• 1:39:29
  Speaker 2: be happy or do they want to be happy, but
• 1:39:31
  Speaker 2: because they're doing it through status, they never achieve it?
• 1:39:35
  Speaker 2: There's a lot going on here psychologically. And I don't
• 1:39:39
  Speaker 2: think it is easy to simplify it like this. I
• 1:39:42
  Speaker 2: think they're seeking status, but they're seeking status because they
• 1:39:46
  Speaker 2: believe it's a mean, partially because they believe it's a
• 1:39:49
  Speaker 2: means to happiness, but But they're evading, and you're right,
• 1:39:53
  Speaker 2: they're not introspecting, but they're invading, and they're evading primarily reality,
• 1:39:58
  Speaker 2: external reality, and the situation that they're in. They're evading
• 1:40:02
  Speaker 2: the requirements of human life. They're evading the requirement to think,
• 1:40:06
  Speaker 2: to reason. Wes, thank you for the stake of $ 50.
• 1:40:11
  Speaker 2: Really appreciate that. That's great. We're now... into the third hour,
• 1:40:16
  Speaker 2: which is fantastic. So only $ 172 to go to make
• 1:40:21
  Speaker 2: our third hour goal. David. Hey, David. Hi, Ron. Thanks
• 1:40:27
  Speaker 2: again for meeting me. Yeah, we had coffee this morning.
• 1:40:29
  Speaker 2: It was great meeting me today. It was such a
• 1:40:34
  Speaker 2: pleasure and honor. It's already a core memory for me.
• 1:40:37
  Speaker 2: Please keep up the great work. Great work, David. Thank you, David.
• 1:40:40
  Speaker 2: 99 pounds. Really appreciate that. David also bought coffee. But
• 1:40:45
  Speaker 2: it was fun. I enjoy meeting you guys. I enjoyed
• 1:40:48
  Speaker 2: meeting David. And yeah, if you're polite and you're nice
• 1:40:53
  Speaker 2: and you don't insist on ZZ or whatever that means.
• 1:40:57
  Speaker 2: And I'm in the area and I have time. And
• 1:41:00
  Speaker 2: I don't know, it's a birthday. I think this is
• 1:41:02
  Speaker 2: a birthday gift to David that a friend of his
• 1:41:05
  Speaker 2: arranged and got me to meet and sign a book
• 1:41:08
  Speaker 2: for him. So yeah, it's definitely something that can be done.
• 1:41:14
  Speaker 2: um roman said putin is yeah thank you david really
• 1:41:27
  Speaker 2: appreciate that roman is all over the place today i
• 1:41:29
  Speaker 2: know what's going on with roman today putin is correct
• 1:41:33
  Speaker 2: that borders should be fluid and depend on consent of
• 1:41:35
  Speaker 2: the governed in their respective regions though really What about
• 1:41:40
  Speaker 2: the rights of the individuals and the minorities in those areas?
• 1:41:46
  Speaker 2: And if the consent of the government is to go
• 1:41:50
  Speaker 2: from a free state to an authoritarian state, do they
• 1:41:53
  Speaker 2: get to drag the minority that wants freedom with them
• 1:41:57
  Speaker 2: into authoritarianism? How can that be right? How can that
• 1:42:02
  Speaker 2: be right? It's absolutely not true that You know, what
• 1:42:10
  Speaker 2: should determine something, sovereignty, is the consent of the majority.
• 1:42:19
  Speaker 2: That is a recipe for disaster. All right, not to
• 1:42:24
  Speaker 2: have a juggle with them. Can objectivism change the world
• 1:42:29
  Speaker 2: without academic credibility? Is it going to have to? Yeah,
• 1:42:35
  Speaker 2: I think it can. Marx didn't have academic credibility when
• 1:42:40
  Speaker 2: he died in 18-whatever, 70-whatever. He didn't have any academic credibility,
• 1:42:46
  Speaker 2: and yet he changed the world. One day we'll have
• 1:42:49
  Speaker 2: academic credibility, but that'll happen over time. And we certainly
• 1:42:54
  Speaker 2: won't start with academic credibility. It's something that has to
• 1:42:59
  Speaker 2: be created. Roland, for 20 Swiss francs. These are francs,
• 1:43:11
  Speaker 2: not dollars, not even pounds. Swiss francs. I like Swiss francs.
• 1:43:17
  Speaker 2: Please do not debate anarchists. Yes, sir. I promise I
• 1:43:22
  Speaker 2: will not debate anarchists. All right. Thanks, Roland. Appreciate it.
• 1:43:29
  Speaker 2: Not your average algorithm. Have altruism and collectivism killed more
• 1:43:32
  Speaker 2: souls than bodies? Yeah. Yeah, absolutely. I mean, bodies is
• 1:43:39
  Speaker 2: in the, you know, some way short of 100 million. Souls,
• 1:43:45
  Speaker 2: you know, just think of what it did to Chinese
• 1:43:46
  Speaker 2: people for a couple of generations. We're talking about hundreds
• 1:43:50
  Speaker 2: of millions of people. And, you know, now souls can
• 1:43:53
  Speaker 2: be reversed. You can't bring somebody back from the dead,
• 1:43:57
  Speaker 2: but you can liberate a soul. And certainly you saw
• 1:43:59
  Speaker 2: that with the fall of the Berlin Wall. So killed
• 1:44:04
  Speaker 2: might be an exaggeration. Lights. A selfish man is a
• 1:44:10
  Speaker 2: rational man who doesn't evade when there are unique logical
• 1:44:14
  Speaker 2: arguments for why objective principles are compatible with a proper
• 1:44:18
  Speaker 2: understanding of anarchism. Are you a truly selfish man, Yaron? Yes. Yes. Yes.
• 1:44:26
  Speaker 2: I refuse to evade. I refuse to evade. And because
• 1:44:32
  Speaker 2: I refuse to evade, I see with great clarity and
• 1:44:38
  Speaker 2: with the guidance of my reason, that there are no
• 1:44:43
  Speaker 2: logical arguments for why objectivist, in particular, principles, or any principles,
• 1:44:50
  Speaker 2: that are true, are compatible with anarchism. So, yeah, I mean,
• 1:44:59
  Speaker 2: you guys are trying to guilt me into this, are
• 1:45:03
  Speaker 2: trying to insult me, Good luck with all of that.
• 1:45:06
  Speaker 2: Trying to tell me if I, if I don't debate ZZ,
• 1:45:08
  Speaker 2: I'm going to have a horrible life. I mean, it's
• 1:45:12
  Speaker 2: pretty funny. You're, you're, you're all very entertaining. I appreciate
• 1:45:16
  Speaker 2: the $ 20 light. So I appreciate you put your money
• 1:45:18
  Speaker 2: into it. But the reality is that no, I've, I've, I've,
• 1:45:25
  Speaker 2: you know, I'm older than, you know, almost all of
• 1:45:29
  Speaker 2: you guys. And I have thought about this for a
• 1:45:32
  Speaker 2: very long time. I've looked at all the evidence. I've
• 1:45:34
  Speaker 2: read the books. I've written about it. I've debated it.
• 1:45:39
  Speaker 2: And I've come to the conclusion, which I am certain of,
• 1:45:47
  Speaker 2: certain of, that anarchy and objectivism are incompatible. And broader
• 1:45:53
  Speaker 2: than that, that anarchy and truth, that is human well-being,
• 1:45:58
  Speaker 2: human flourishing, are incompatible. And do with that as you will.
• 1:46:03
  Speaker 2: But I don't know why you're bugging me, right? I've
• 1:46:06
  Speaker 2: said this. Just write me off as an evader and
• 1:46:09
  Speaker 2: walk away. Goodbye. Arthur, the claim that intelligence is multidimensional
• 1:46:19
  Speaker 2: was invented as propaganda after the IQ problem conclusively disproved
• 1:46:25
  Speaker 2: Weisswath's both leftist and conservative hypothesis about economic success. it
• 1:46:34
  Speaker 2: disproved the leftist idea that people are essentially the same.
• 1:46:38
  Speaker 2: And it disproved the conservative idea that if you just
• 1:46:41
  Speaker 2: work hard, you'll be successful. Yeah. I mean, I think
• 1:46:48
  Speaker 2: the problem is a lot more complicated than you're presenting it.
• 1:46:53
  Speaker 2: IQ measures something. What it measures exactly is unclear. It's
• 1:46:59
  Speaker 2: highly correlated. True. with a lot of other cognitive tests,
• 1:47:04
  Speaker 2: other cognitive measures, other cognitive skills. I don't think it's definitive.
• 1:47:11
  Speaker 2: It's predictive of certain things. But for example, it's not
• 1:47:14
  Speaker 2: predictive of economic success, business success. And it's not clear,
• 1:47:26
  Speaker 2: even from a statistical perspective, if the analysis done on
• 1:47:31
  Speaker 2: the data is valid. So I am very skeptical about,
• 1:47:38
  Speaker 2: you know, broad conclusions about IQ, about intelligence. And, you know, again, I,
• 1:47:47
  Speaker 2: you know, you say the claim that intelligence is multidimensional.
• 1:47:50
  Speaker 2: Intelligence is multidimensional. That's just a fact of reality. So
• 1:47:54
  Speaker 2: it's not a claim. It's a fact. There's not one
• 1:47:57
  Speaker 2: component of intelligence. There are multiple components. And there's a
• 1:48:02
  Speaker 2: whole array of cognitive tests that can test different elements of,
• 1:48:12
  Speaker 2: you know, cognitive abilities. The people who are really good
• 1:48:15
  Speaker 2: at math, the people who are really good at music,
• 1:48:18
  Speaker 2: the people who are really good at spatial analysis. spatial stuff.
• 1:48:21
  Speaker 2: The people who are really good at business. And those
• 1:48:26
  Speaker 2: require slightly different cognitive skills. And whatever the combination is.
• 1:48:34
  Speaker 2: Whatever the combination is. You know, to assume that there's
• 1:48:39
  Speaker 2: one number that captures it all and that it's super meaningful,
• 1:48:44
  Speaker 2: I'm very skeptical of that. And I think that much
• 1:48:49
  Speaker 2: of the IQ literature ultimately, well, not much of it,
• 1:48:55
  Speaker 2: certainly a lot of the literature is motivated by bad motivations.
• 1:49:09
  Speaker 2: The reality is that, you know, and for example, whether
• 1:49:15
  Speaker 2: IQ is hereditary or IQ is influenced by culture or
• 1:49:20
  Speaker 2: both and what is the balance between the two. I mean,
• 1:49:26
  Speaker 2: if you gave the IQ test that exists today to
• 1:49:32
  Speaker 2: people in the 17th century, white Europeans in the 17th century,
• 1:49:38
  Speaker 2: How do you think they'd score? They'd score way, way,
• 1:49:43
  Speaker 2: way below where they score today. If you took Ashkenazi
• 1:49:48
  Speaker 2: Jews that score very, very high on these tests, on
• 1:49:50
  Speaker 2: IQ tests, and you gave Ashkenazi Jews the same tests
• 1:49:59
  Speaker 2: 300 years ago, would they score as high? No. No.
• 1:50:05
  Speaker 2: So there's clearly cultural, huge cultural elements here. There's some hereditary.
• 1:50:11
  Speaker 2: There's no question. There's some hereditary. It's got to do
• 1:50:13
  Speaker 2: with genes. Mozart is born with something that makes it
• 1:50:22
  Speaker 2: possible for him to integrate music in a way that
• 1:50:29
  Speaker 2: most people cannot, overwhelming majority of people cannot. And there
• 1:50:33
  Speaker 2: are other things. So there is a hereditary element to intelligence.
• 1:50:41
  Speaker 2: But all these things are way more complicated than people
• 1:50:46
  Speaker 2: who argue about these things try to present them as.
• 1:50:50
  Speaker 2: I was just watching Michael Malice talk to this guy,
• 1:50:53
  Speaker 2: this race realist. And they fudge over so many things.
• 1:51:00
  Speaker 2: And they ignore so many issues. And, you know, they
• 1:51:06
  Speaker 2: just accept, you know, the guy was, you know, the
• 1:51:09
  Speaker 2: empirical evidence shows this and this and this and this
• 1:51:11
  Speaker 2: and this. Does it? I mean, Michael Madison was doing
• 1:51:14
  Speaker 2: the interviewing. He didn't challenge any of those statements. Have
• 1:51:17
  Speaker 2: you actually looked at those empirical tests? Do they really
• 1:51:20
  Speaker 2: show that? What are the sample sizes? How statistically significant
• 1:51:25
  Speaker 2: is it? Did they control for all the confounding factors?
• 1:51:31
  Speaker 2: I mean, it's just, it's like, some expert goes on
• 1:51:34
  Speaker 2: some show and says, ABCD, and he says it with
• 1:51:37
  Speaker 2: a lot of confidence, and he's got credentials behind his name.
• 1:51:44
  Speaker 2: And people just, oh, wow, I didn't know that. That's amazing.
• 1:51:48
  Speaker 3: Oh.
• 1:51:49
  Speaker 2: So those people, I'd fear you to those people.
• 1:51:51
  Speaker 3: Interesting.
• 1:51:53
  Speaker 2: And, you know, I think, you know what will save us?
• 1:52:00
  Speaker 2: I think, I think, I think, AI is going to
• 1:52:03
  Speaker 2: save us because AI is so much more rational in
• 1:52:07
  Speaker 2: a sense than, I mean, it's not really not, not
• 1:52:10
  Speaker 2: in the full sense of the word, but it, it,
• 1:52:13
  Speaker 2: it doesn't buy the bullshit because it actually looks for data. It,
• 1:52:19
  Speaker 2: it looks, it looks at articles and it actually examines
• 1:52:22
  Speaker 2: the articles and evaluates the articles. It doesn't just accept
• 1:52:24
  Speaker 2: them at face value and it doesn't accept what people
• 1:52:27
  Speaker 2: say just at face value. At least that's my hope for,
• 1:52:30
  Speaker 2: that's my hope for, um, for AI, that it becomes
• 1:52:35
  Speaker 2: the kind of thing that presents us with better objective information,
• 1:52:42
  Speaker 2: objective knowledge. Lucinda. Lucinda had an ANCAP friend. He was
• 1:52:58
  Speaker 2: around 17 at the time. They're usually pretty young. who
• 1:53:01
  Speaker 2: worked on book with Zulu and others, integrating objectivism and anarchy.
• 1:53:06
  Speaker 2: From what I've heard about how they fell apart and
• 1:53:11
  Speaker 2: talking with others working on the book, can't take Zulu seriously. Yeah,
• 1:53:16
  Speaker 2: I mean, with all due respect, I mean, Lucinda, you're
• 1:53:20
  Speaker 2: young and you're really, really smart. I can tell that.
• 1:53:25
  Speaker 2: I mean, 17-year-olds integrating objectivism with anarchy? Good luck. I mean,
• 1:53:35
  Speaker 2: Ayn Rand once said, he said this to Leonard Peacock,
• 1:53:40
  Speaker 2: she didn't take a philosopher seriously until they were 40.
• 1:53:45
  Speaker 2: She didn't take a philosopher seriously until they were 40
• 1:53:47
  Speaker 2: years old. And if you understand the nature of the
• 1:53:50
  Speaker 2: objective's philosophy and how inductive it is and how therefore
• 1:53:55
  Speaker 2: it requires life experience and the testing of the ideas
• 1:54:00
  Speaker 2: in reality, in life, in decades of thought, that it's
• 1:54:09
  Speaker 2: going to be very rare that a 17-year-old or 18-year-old
• 1:54:12
  Speaker 2: or 19-year-old or 22-year-old, you know, is really going to
• 1:54:16
  Speaker 2: have a breakthrough in terms of dramatically challenging objectivism. So
• 1:54:28
  Speaker 2: I'm not overly surprised. Partially it's age, but partially I'm
• 1:54:31
  Speaker 2: just looking at the character of the people who are
• 1:54:33
  Speaker 2: asking me to debate Zulu. And it tells me a
• 1:54:36
  Speaker 2: lot about that universe in which they travel. Not particularly admirable.
• 1:54:42
  Speaker 3: All right.
• 1:54:45
  Speaker 2: Liam, did you ever ride a motorcycle when you were younger?
• 1:54:49
  Speaker 2: Favorite type? Thoughts on helmet laws? Florida has no helmet law.
• 1:54:53
  Speaker 2: It's crazy to watch people fly by at 90 miles
• 1:54:55
  Speaker 2: an hour without a helmet. I never rode a motorcycle
• 1:55:00
  Speaker 2: by myself. That is, I took rides on other people's motorcycles,
• 1:55:06
  Speaker 2: but I never rode one by myself. Never was interested.
• 1:55:16
  Speaker 2: When I rode with somebody else, I always wore a helmet.
• 1:55:19
  Speaker 2: It seems like a pretty dangerous thing to do. Uh,
• 1:55:23
  Speaker 2: if I'm going to go fast, I'd rather go fast
• 1:55:25
  Speaker 2: in a car. I definitely went and still do, I guess,
• 1:55:29
  Speaker 2: to some extent. Fast in a car. I like that.
• 1:55:31
  Speaker 2: I enjoy that. Um, it probably was reckless driving a car.
• 1:55:36
  Speaker 2: I can, I can't even imagine what would have happened
• 1:55:39
  Speaker 2: if I was driving a motorcycle. Never got into an
• 1:55:41
  Speaker 2: accident though. So not one caused by me. Uh, and, um,
• 1:55:46
  Speaker 2: I'm against helmet laws. I mean, you want to commit suicide,
• 1:55:50
  Speaker 2: it's your business. I'm against all paternalistic laws. I'm against
• 1:55:55
  Speaker 2: seatbelt laws. I'm against helmet laws. I'm against car seat laws.
• 1:55:59
  Speaker 2: I'm against all the laws where the government is telling
• 1:56:01
  Speaker 2: people how to behave when they're not risking anybody else
• 1:56:06
  Speaker 2: other than themselves. So.
• 1:56:14
  Speaker 2: Light says, what better way to refute anarchists as non-objectivists
• 1:56:17
  Speaker 2: than debating someone as competent as Likudzulu? Who said he's competent?
• 1:56:22
  Speaker 2: I don't know he's competent. I have no idea that
• 1:56:24
  Speaker 2: he's competent. Rand would be proud that objectivists are not
• 1:56:27
  Speaker 2: a cult but integrating the principles properly. Yeah. I think
• 1:56:34
  Speaker 2: she'd be proud of some of us. I hope she would. So,
• 1:56:43
  Speaker 2: The best way to refute anarchists as non-objectivists, or to
• 1:56:48
  Speaker 2: refute anarchism, I mean, there's no refuting anarchists as non-objectivists.
• 1:56:57
  Speaker 2: That's a non, there's nothing to talk about. They're non-objectivists, period.
• 1:57:02
  Speaker 2: They might be right. What they're arguing might be true.
• 1:57:05
  Speaker 2: Anarchism might be true. But whether it's true or not,
• 1:57:09
  Speaker 2: it's not objectivist. by Ayn Rand's own standard. It's not objectivist.
• 1:57:15
  Speaker 2: Objectivism is what Ayn Rand said it was. It was
• 1:57:18
  Speaker 2: her philosophy. Not the truth. Not whatever ideas you get
• 1:57:26
  Speaker 2: by using her methodology. That is not what objectivism means,
• 1:57:32
  Speaker 2: according to the originator, according to the person who named it,
• 1:57:36
  Speaker 2: Ayn Rand. So, it's not objectivism. Now, What's the best
• 1:57:42
  Speaker 2: way to refute anarchists as not true? Well, to write
• 1:57:46
  Speaker 2: about it, which Don and I have done. Debate is entertainment.
• 1:57:53
  Speaker 2: I've always taken debate as entertainment. You peel off a
• 1:57:57
  Speaker 2: few people. If you debate well, you convince a few
• 1:58:01
  Speaker 2: people to look more closely at your ideas. But you
• 1:58:05
  Speaker 2: don't refute anything in a debate. You catch somebody. Oh,
• 1:58:09
  Speaker 2: I'm fascinated. He's slow. I got him. Gotcha. That's not refutation.
• 1:58:15
  Speaker 2: That's a game. And I know you guys have grown
• 1:58:20
  Speaker 2: up with the idea that YouTube is the standard of truth.
• 1:58:23
  Speaker 2: And I know that Zulu has built his entire YouTube
• 1:58:26
  Speaker 2: career on.
• 1:58:29
  Speaker 2: Analyzing other people's debates. It's great. He found a niche.
• 1:58:33
  Speaker 2: Good for him. But debate is not truth. What people
• 1:58:38
  Speaker 2: say in a debate, extemporaneously, is, you know, some people
• 1:58:43
  Speaker 2: are better at it, some people are worse at it,
• 1:58:45
  Speaker 2: but it's not the standard that determines what's right and
• 1:58:47
  Speaker 2: what's wrong. But if I write something down, you can
• 1:58:51
  Speaker 2: read it, you can think about it, you can reread it,
• 1:58:55
  Speaker 2: you can... You know, you can finish a whole article.
• 1:58:58
  Speaker 2: You can read it twice. You can actually think about it.
• 1:59:02
  Speaker 2: And when I write it, or anybody writes it, you
• 1:59:06
  Speaker 2: are thoughtful in what you put down in paper in
• 1:59:09
  Speaker 2: a way that you cannot be thoughtful in verbal communication.
• 1:59:20
  Speaker 2: You realize you're saying you should ignore reality and principle
• 1:59:23
  Speaker 2: if you want to be an objectivist. Who the... Shit.
• 1:59:26
  Speaker 2: I almost swore, right? Who the frigging wants to be
• 1:59:29
  Speaker 2: an objectivist? I don't care about the title. I don't
• 1:59:34
  Speaker 2: think you should care about the title. I want to
• 1:59:37
  Speaker 2: be about reality and the truth. If I discover that
• 1:59:42
  Speaker 2: Ayn Rand was wrong about something, then that's that I'm
• 1:59:46
  Speaker 2: going to go with what I think is right. Not
• 1:59:49
  Speaker 2: what Ayn Rand said. I mean, it's only you guys
• 1:59:54
  Speaker 2: that are so obsessed with the title. All I'm saying
• 1:59:57
  Speaker 2: is that objectivism does not equal truth. And if you
• 2:00:01
  Speaker 2: had to choose between objectivism and truth, I would choose truth.
• 2:00:08
  Speaker 2: So if you truly believe that anarchism is the truth,
• 2:00:13
  Speaker 2: then you should reject objectivism. And that's fine. I would
• 2:00:17
  Speaker 2: have a lot more respect for you. A lot more
• 2:00:19
  Speaker 2: respect for you. If he just said, I'm an anarchist.
• 2:00:23
  Speaker 2: I'm not an objectivist. I agree with a lot of objectivism.
• 2:00:26
  Speaker 2: I agree with a big chunk of objectivism. But because
• 2:00:29
  Speaker 2: I'm an anarchist, I'm not an objectivist. I would say,
• 2:00:32
  Speaker 2: thumbs up. Cool. That's great. Good for you. I would
• 2:00:41
  Speaker 2: have a lot more respect. What I don't respect is
• 2:00:44
  Speaker 2: people trying to ride on the coattails of Ayn Rand.
• 2:00:48
  Speaker 2: They're trying to get the credibility of naming themselves objectivists,
• 2:00:51
  Speaker 2: and therefore Ayn Rand's on my side, and fundamentally disagreeing
• 2:00:57
  Speaker 2: or even undermining her ideas. What matters is the truth. So,
• 2:01:06
  Speaker 2: you know, who cares if you're an objectivist or non-objectivist?
• 2:01:10
  Speaker 2: What I care about is Justice Ayn Rand, and what
• 2:01:12
  Speaker 2: I care about is people who call themselves objectivists who
• 2:01:15
  Speaker 2: are clearly and equivocally not. Be honest. You're the ones
• 2:01:19
  Speaker 2: who are evading. You're lying. You're deceiving. You're committing fraud. Yeah,
• 2:01:25
  Speaker 2: that's the best way to see it. You're committing fraud.
• 2:01:33
  Speaker 2: It's all about reality. Objectivism is the name of Ayn
• 2:01:37
  Speaker 2: Rand's philosophy. If in some place that does not correspond
• 2:01:41
  Speaker 2: to reality, go with reality. I mean, it would be
• 2:01:46
  Speaker 2: a religion if it was otherwise. So, you know, I
• 2:01:51
  Speaker 2: don't care if people are objectivists or not. I care
• 2:01:53
  Speaker 2: if people are honest, if they're truthful, or if they're non-invasive,
• 2:02:00
  Speaker 2: if their ideas correspond to reality. If anarchism corresponds to reality,
• 2:02:06
  Speaker 2: then fine. But just don't call yourself an objectivist. Again,
• 2:02:09
  Speaker 2: I say the same thing. Handle your candle. Hey, Iran,
• 2:02:16
  Speaker 2: I do admire both you and Zulu. Great. I have
• 2:02:19
  Speaker 2: superchatted and given money to you before and follow you
• 2:02:22
  Speaker 2: on Twitter. Appreciate that. Would you be open to civil
• 2:02:26
  Speaker 2: discussion with Zulu? I would prefer that. I don't think so, right?
• 2:02:30
  Speaker 2: Because I don't think that, you know, that people's behavior,
• 2:02:35
  Speaker 2: not yours, but people's behavior here suggests that, you know,
• 2:02:41
  Speaker 2: this is open to being civil. I also don't, you know,
• 2:02:46
  Speaker 2: don't see, again, I go back. to me being selfish,
• 2:02:50
  Speaker 2: I don't see the value proposition for me. I don't
• 2:02:52
  Speaker 2: see what I have to gain by it. If I
• 2:02:54
  Speaker 2: thought that I could convince Zulu to stop calling himself
• 2:02:57
  Speaker 2: an objectivist, or if I thought I could convince him
• 2:03:01
  Speaker 2: to stop being an anarchist, yeah, that would be great.
• 2:03:04
  Speaker 2: I'll have a conversation. But why would I have a
• 2:03:07
  Speaker 2: conversation when I'm pretty convinced that I don't think he'll
• 2:03:10
  Speaker 2: stop calling himself an objectivist? Because I think that's part
• 2:03:12
  Speaker 2: of his identity now. And I think that's part of
• 2:03:15
  Speaker 2: his marketing shtick. And I don't think I'll convince him
• 2:03:18
  Speaker 2: to stop being an anarchist. So what exactly is in
• 2:03:22
  Speaker 2: it for me? I mean, you guys still haven't given
• 2:03:27
  Speaker 2: me a reason to do this. God, it's all an alco.
• 2:03:39
  Speaker 2: I mean, this is the kind of bullshit that I
• 2:03:41
  Speaker 2: get that makes me, what did I just say? So
• 2:03:44
  Speaker 2: he writes, If objectivism is to have any methodology at all,
• 2:03:48
  Speaker 2: reality is the standard, not Ayn Rand. What would Ayn
• 2:03:51
  Speaker 2: Rand think if you told her that you would ignore
• 2:03:55
  Speaker 2: reality and remain an objectivist? She would think that was awful.
• 2:03:59
  Speaker 2: I mean, isn't that what I just said? Like two
• 2:04:02
  Speaker 2: minutes ago, I just said that. And so you're coming
• 2:04:08
  Speaker 2: back at me with exactly what I said. I said,
• 2:04:11
  Speaker 2: you know, if you had to choose between reality and objectivism,
• 2:04:13
  Speaker 2: go with reality. And Ayn Rand would respect that. And
• 2:04:17
  Speaker 2: I would respect that. So, that's what I said. So,
• 2:04:26
  Speaker 2: you're literally throwing back to me what I said? I
• 2:04:29
  Speaker 2: don't get it. So, people can't think out there. Some people.
• 2:04:34
  Speaker 2: Not everybody. Some people can't think. So, I'm going to
• 2:04:37
  Speaker 2: debate for what? Lucinda, I told my ANCF friend the
• 2:04:42
  Speaker 2: same advice, basically. I told him, to maybe wait like
• 2:04:45
  Speaker 2: another 15, 20 years and take some time to familiarize
• 2:04:49
  Speaker 2: with more diverse array of literature and then check if
• 2:04:52
  Speaker 2: the integration holds up. Yeah. And, you know, more diverse
• 2:04:57
  Speaker 2: array of literature, but also life. Life. Reality. Experiencing reality. Living.
• 2:05:09
  Speaker 2: Thank you, Lucinda. I really appreciate the support and I
• 2:05:11
  Speaker 2: appreciate what you told your friend. You're absolutely right. And
• 2:05:16
  Speaker 2: coming from somebody as young as you, that is incredibly mature.
• 2:05:20
  Speaker 2: Not to have a juggle with them. There are some
• 2:05:22
  Speaker 2: nice sweat-proof business professional shirts you can buy online. Sweat-proof.
• 2:05:30
  Speaker 2: I've never found anything that was really sweat-proof. I've looked
• 2:05:34
  Speaker 2: for sweat-proof stuff. Nothing has actually worked. But I'll look
• 2:05:38
  Speaker 2: into it because what do I have to lose? Robert says, five,
• 2:05:44
  Speaker 2: six hours seems pretty long, but then again, you haven't
• 2:05:46
  Speaker 2: managed to boss yet. Excellent. Yeah. I mean, five, six
• 2:05:49
  Speaker 2: hours is just up to 2010, 2012. We're looking at
• 2:05:52
  Speaker 2: an eight hour total, right? The life and times of
• 2:05:56
  Speaker 2: your Ron Brooke. I mean, you get stories from my childhood,
• 2:06:00
  Speaker 2: a few stories from hiking in the Golan Heights in
• 2:06:03
  Speaker 2: the desert. You get, you get hiking stories. So you get,
• 2:06:07
  Speaker 2: you get all my stories. Although I, I didn't tell
• 2:06:10
  Speaker 2: a lot of the Army stories because I'm, for a
• 2:06:14
  Speaker 2: variety of reasons, I didn't tell the Army stories. The
• 2:06:15
  Speaker 2: best Army stories we'll have to do a separate video for.
• 2:06:22
  Speaker 2: Stories from emigrating to the United States. Yeah, a bunch
• 2:06:26
  Speaker 2: of stuff. And, you know, being a PhD. So a
• 2:06:30
  Speaker 2: lot of stuff, you know, a lot of hours. And
• 2:06:33
  Speaker 2: the producer, who doesn't know me that well, right? I mean,
• 2:06:36
  Speaker 2: he's an objectivist, but he doesn't really know me that well.
• 2:06:38
  Speaker 2: He was like, I thought this was taking an hour
• 2:06:40
  Speaker 2: and a half and two. And it's taken five hours
• 2:06:44
  Speaker 2: and you've held my interest the entire time. I can't
• 2:06:46
  Speaker 2: say that anything you said was boring. So, you know,
• 2:06:49
  Speaker 2: maybe my life story is semi-interesting.
• 2:06:53
  Speaker 3: I don't know.
• 2:06:57
  Speaker 2: What is incorrect about anarchism? Read my essay with Don Watkins.
• 2:07:03
  Speaker 2: I mean, really, guys, I know it's tough. you know,
• 2:07:08
  Speaker 2: but read my essay, you know, individual rights, the protection
• 2:07:14
  Speaker 2: of individual rights requires a monopoly over the use of force.
• 2:07:20
  Speaker 2: It requires a monopoly over the use of force. Government
• 2:07:23
  Speaker 2: is not a necessary evil. It's a necessary good. And
• 2:07:28
  Speaker 2: anarchy rejects that. And therefore it legitimizes force. It says
• 2:07:34
  Speaker 2: force is okay. Force is just a market phenomena. Using
• 2:07:40
  Speaker 2: force is okay. It's legitimate. It's fine. But again, there's
• 2:07:45
  Speaker 2: an essay. Go read it. I've said that like for
• 2:07:48
  Speaker 2: three shows now straight. So woman, Google Don Watkins, Yvonne Brooke, anarchism.
• 2:07:56
  Speaker 2: Read the essay. Uh, You know, I'm going to give
• 2:08:00
  Speaker 2: you the link because I know you guys... Because you
• 2:08:09
  Speaker 2: guys don't Google. Yeah, here it is. It's... I think
• 2:08:15
  Speaker 2: it's in one... Yeah, it's in one thing. Here we go. Okay,
• 2:08:19
  Speaker 2: I'm giving you, I'm putting the link in the chat.
• 2:08:22
  Speaker 2: So you guys have it. And next time you want
• 2:08:26
  Speaker 2: to talk about anarchism, do it after you've read the essay, please.
• 2:08:32
  Speaker 2: The essay is called Anti-State is Anti-Freedom. Anti-State is Anti-Freedom.
• 2:08:40
  Speaker 2: You're on book, Don Watkins. Check it out. Time. China's
• 2:08:46
  Speaker 2: main constraint is weakness. Property rights. Singapore and UAE, though
• 2:08:52
  Speaker 2: not liberal, still have strong property rights. Yes. China's main
• 2:08:57
  Speaker 2: problem is weak property rights. And they don't want strong
• 2:09:01
  Speaker 2: property rights because strong property rights will lead people to
• 2:09:05
  Speaker 2: demand strong rights more broadly. And it's those rights that
• 2:09:08
  Speaker 2: the Communist Party does not want people to recognize. Jeffrey,
• 2:09:13
  Speaker 2: thank you. Thank you for the $ 20. Really appreciate that.
• 2:09:18
  Speaker 2: Have I thanked everybody? Yes. I was thinking of you, Jeffrey,
• 2:09:27
  Speaker 2: the other day. What was I thinking of? I can't remember.
• 2:09:31
  Speaker 2: I was thinking I'm in London and I'm not going
• 2:09:33
  Speaker 2: to any new exciting restaurants because I've been so swamped
• 2:09:38
  Speaker 2: with work. I've been here a week. I mean, I've
• 2:09:42
  Speaker 2: been to some of my local favorites, but nothing exceptional. Yeah, okay. Tame.
• 2:09:53
  Speaker 2: Do you like the aesthetics of Miami Vice? The cars, suits, soundtracks?
• 2:09:56
  Speaker 2: Are you a fan of yuppie look? No, not particularly.
• 2:10:02
  Speaker 3: No.
• 2:10:04
  Speaker 2: I don't like suits. I don't remember the soundtrack. I'm
• 2:10:07
  Speaker 2: pretty sure I didn't like the soundtrack particularly. And the cars.
• 2:10:10
  Speaker 2: I mean, I like nice cars, but I can't remember
• 2:10:14
  Speaker 2: the Miami Vice cars. I didn't like the show, and
• 2:10:17
  Speaker 2: I didn't like really much about it. Time. Why is
• 2:10:21
  Speaker 2: Saudi Arabia army so weak? Because I think the Saudis
• 2:10:26
  Speaker 2: don't really want to fight. I think it's more an
• 2:10:29
  Speaker 2: issue of the soldiers. They've got great weapon systems, American
• 2:10:34
  Speaker 2: weapon systems, top of the line. But I think it's
• 2:10:39
  Speaker 2: more an issue of the people and the soldiers. and
• 2:10:45
  Speaker 2: their motivation. And I think the Crown Prince, MBS, is
• 2:10:52
  Speaker 2: very reluctant to send people to die in a war
• 2:10:57
  Speaker 2: when his hold on power is pretty weak and he's
• 2:11:01
  Speaker 2: afraid of being overthrown. Hendo Yokando says, that's fair. You
• 2:11:08
  Speaker 2: have a right to live your best life as you
• 2:11:10
  Speaker 2: wish to, but vis-a-vis a positive motivation to talk to Zulu,
• 2:11:14
  Speaker 2: I do think he's very intelligent and he's an honest individual.
• 2:11:18
  Speaker 2: Would be a good conversation at least. Again, I'm skeptical
• 2:11:21
  Speaker 2: about the honest part because I don't think an honest
• 2:11:25
  Speaker 2: person can make the mistake of calling himself an objectivist
• 2:11:27
  Speaker 2: and anarchist at the same time. Um.
• 2:11:39
  Speaker 3: All right.
• 2:11:40
  Speaker 2: Time, Michael Knowles might be a closeted gay. I don't
• 2:11:46
  Speaker 2: know why you would say that and why anybody should care.
• 2:11:50
  Speaker 2: Other than he'd be a hypocrite, but what's new? Time says,
• 2:11:54
  Speaker 2: when is the next show? Tomorrow with Nikos. Tomorrow, 1 p.m.
• 2:11:58
  Speaker 2: East Coast time. Ilya, I really enjoyed your capitalism talk
• 2:12:05
  Speaker 2: for Norway. It seemed like a great crowd. Was the
• 2:12:08
  Speaker 2: Q & A session not available? Yeah, they sent me
• 2:12:11
  Speaker 2: the video without the Q & A session and I
• 2:12:14
  Speaker 2: asked for the Q & A session and they said
• 2:12:15
  Speaker 2: they would inquire and get back to me and I
• 2:12:18
  Speaker 2: never heard back from them. So, you know, that is
• 2:12:32
  Speaker 2: the status. I'll inquire again. And see if I can
• 2:12:37
  Speaker 2: get the Q & A session. I thought it was
• 2:12:38
  Speaker 2: a really good Q & A session. So I'd like
• 2:12:41
  Speaker 2: to have it. I'd like to be able to release it.
• 2:12:43
  Speaker 2: Lights is going to insult me. Notice the kind of
• 2:12:46
  Speaker 2: person Iran is. He'll make it clear he doesn't want
• 2:12:49
  Speaker 2: to debate. But he'll cowardly strawman ANCAPs and claim that
• 2:12:53
  Speaker 2: they want and sit there unchallenged. Rational, selfish man, Iran.
• 2:12:58
  Speaker 2: I am a rational, selfish man, yes. And unchallenged? I've
• 2:13:03
  Speaker 2: done nothing. At least I've done two public debates with anarchists,
• 2:13:09
  Speaker 2: and I debated malice on Lex Freedom's show on anarchism,
• 2:13:13
  Speaker 2: somewhat debate. How am I unchallenged? It's, you know, you're
• 2:13:18
  Speaker 2: insulted because, oh, they want you on to debate Zulu,
• 2:13:22
  Speaker 2: and he's not agreeing. Oh, you know, horrible. You have
• 2:13:27
  Speaker 2: a whim, and you expect me to adjust to your whim.
• 2:13:32
  Speaker 2: And to accommodate your whim. And when I don't accommodate
• 2:13:34
  Speaker 2: your whim, you insult me. I'm the coward. God, you
• 2:13:41
  Speaker 2: guys are pathetic. At least Lights is putting his money
• 2:13:44
  Speaker 2: where his mouth is. Time. Vegas Casino Hotel is incredible. 2,000
• 2:13:52
  Speaker 2: plus rooms under one roof, like a small town. Built
• 2:13:55
  Speaker 2: to withstand desert heat. Your favorite hotel. I like Wynn.
• 2:13:59
  Speaker 2: My favorite hotel was the Aria Hotel. there was a
• 2:14:02
  Speaker 2: corner suite at the Aria, which had floor-to-ceiling windows in
• 2:14:10
  Speaker 2: the bedroom, which had this amazing view down the strip. And,
• 2:14:17
  Speaker 2: you know, loved that. So when we, we used to
• 2:14:20
  Speaker 2: go a lot to Vegas. I used to get that suite,
• 2:14:22
  Speaker 2: always insisted on that suite. I didn't even want an
• 2:14:24
  Speaker 2: upgrade beyond that suite because that suite with that view, was, uh,
• 2:14:30
  Speaker 2: was pure, was, was perfect. And, um, uh, so that
• 2:14:36
  Speaker 2: was my favorite, but you know, I, we went through phases.
• 2:14:39
  Speaker 2: I liked the Venetian for a while. I liked the wind, uh,
• 2:14:43
  Speaker 2: in the old days, the Bellagio, uh, God, I've stayed
• 2:14:48
  Speaker 2: in almost every hotel, you know, as of, you know,
• 2:14:52
  Speaker 2: eight years ago, every hotel in Vegas, I think there's
• 2:14:55
  Speaker 2: very few hotels, including a lot of the cheap ones.
• 2:14:58
  Speaker 2: that we stayed at at some point and landed up
• 2:15:02
  Speaker 2: with the Aria as kind of our favorite. But because
• 2:15:06
  Speaker 2: of the suite. Lights. How much will it cost you
• 2:15:10
  Speaker 2: to debate Zulu for an hour? You asked what it's in.
• 2:15:14
  Speaker 2: You know, what's in it for you? You name your price. Lights,
• 2:15:17
  Speaker 2: after you insulted me, you think I'm going to give
• 2:15:19
  Speaker 2: you a price? Go get screwed. I mean, you know,
• 2:15:27
  Speaker 2: make me an offer. Time. Thoughts on Palantir's Alex Karp. Oh,
• 2:15:35
  Speaker 2: I mean, the guy is very dangerous. He is a nationalist.
• 2:15:43
  Speaker 2: He advocates for a soft form of fascism. And he's
• 2:15:49
  Speaker 2: obviously brilliant and a very successful businessman. But politically, he's
• 2:15:54
  Speaker 2: a very, very dangerous guy. You know, if you read
• 2:15:56
  Speaker 2: his book, I forget the name of the book, which
• 2:16:00
  Speaker 2: I read. six months ago, a year ago, can't remember.
• 2:16:05
  Speaker 2: It's completely collectivist and statist. Completely collectivist and statist. He
• 2:16:11
  Speaker 2: hates Silicon Valley because it caters to the consumer. God
• 2:16:15
  Speaker 2: forbid people should pursue their happiness. No, that's not good.
• 2:16:19
  Speaker 2: You got to do the big things that are good
• 2:16:22
  Speaker 2: for the state, for the country. You got to sacrifice
• 2:16:26
  Speaker 2: for that. So I don't like it, obviously. why don't
• 2:16:34
  Speaker 2: you why don't you ever go to India to give
• 2:16:37
  Speaker 2: a talk it's fall and I haven't been invited I
• 2:16:40
  Speaker 2: mean somebody has to invite me and offer to bankroll
• 2:16:43
  Speaker 2: my trip and to pay me for the talks and
• 2:16:46
  Speaker 2: I go where I'm invited I rarely say no when
• 2:16:52
  Speaker 2: people invite me to come and speak and I'm willing
• 2:16:54
  Speaker 2: to pay for it Steven thank you for the super
• 2:16:59
  Speaker 2: chat really really appreciate it thank you Steven Michael, the
• 2:17:04
  Speaker 2: Red Rock Casino in Vegas is the best, about 20
• 2:17:06
  Speaker 2: minutes from the strip. I like the Red Rock. We
• 2:17:09
  Speaker 2: did an objectives conference years ago at the Red Rock.
• 2:17:13
  Speaker 2: I forget what year Ocon was at the Red Rock Casino.
• 2:17:17
  Speaker 2: And I like it. But I like to be on
• 2:17:19
  Speaker 2: the strip. If I'm in Vegas, I want to be
• 2:17:21
  Speaker 2: on the strip. That's where the excitement is. That's where
• 2:17:24
  Speaker 2: the lights are. That's where the restaurants are. That is
• 2:17:27
  Speaker 2: where the fun is. So I don't like To be
• 2:17:31
  Speaker 2: in Vegas more than like three nights is my max. Three,
• 2:17:37
  Speaker 2: four nights most. Yeah, three to four nights. And then
• 2:17:42
  Speaker 2: I want to be in the strip and I want
• 2:17:43
  Speaker 2: to embrace 100% the pure materialism that is Vegas. Oily.
• 2:17:50
  Speaker 2: did you see the, who bankrolled Don Jr. 's wedding celebration,
• 2:17:55
  Speaker 2: Russian oligarch tied to Putin? Surely impeachment worthy. I don't
• 2:17:59
  Speaker 2: know if it's impeachment worthy, if it's your son, if
• 2:18:02
  Speaker 2: it's Trump's son. I don't necessarily think it's impeachment worthy.
• 2:18:06
  Speaker 2: I think they're much more impeachment worthy, but it's a
• 2:18:07
  Speaker 2: bad thing. Trump today said, that his son paid the
• 2:18:12
  Speaker 2: oligarch back all his money. I'm curious which oligarch it was.
• 2:18:15
  Speaker 2: I didn't see who it was, which one of them.
• 2:18:19
  Speaker 2: All right, William, I grew up in a Christian family
• 2:18:22
  Speaker 2: and over time lost belief in religion. Why do I
• 2:18:25
  Speaker 2: sometimes feel a fear about the fact that if I'm
• 2:18:28
  Speaker 2: wrong about religion, I could condemn my future children? Well,
• 2:18:33
  Speaker 2: because it's still got a tug on you, right? It's
• 2:18:37
  Speaker 2: hard to particularly if you really were a Christian and
• 2:18:42
  Speaker 2: it was inculcated into you and you integrated in your
• 2:18:45
  Speaker 2: childhood and some of your values and stuff are tied
• 2:18:49
  Speaker 2: into it, to undo all that takes time. It takes time.
• 2:18:56
  Speaker 2: So that feeling of fear is your old self, those
• 2:19:00
  Speaker 2: old ideas still holding on to some part of your
• 2:19:04
  Speaker 2: subconscious and still tied to certain values and there's still
• 2:19:10
  Speaker 2: a tug there. And it takes time to get rid
• 2:19:12
  Speaker 2: of those. And the best thing to do is when
• 2:19:15
  Speaker 2: you feel that fear, if you feel that, just explain
• 2:19:20
  Speaker 2: to yourself. Go through the process of explaining to yourself,
• 2:19:25
  Speaker 2: you know, why, you know, that fear ultimately is unjustified,
• 2:19:29
  Speaker 2: why you're okay with the decision you made, why you
• 2:19:32
  Speaker 2: think your children are better off, and why you're not
• 2:19:36
  Speaker 2: wrong about the decision you made. Just in a sense,
• 2:19:40
  Speaker 2: train your subconscious. That no, this is it. And my
• 2:19:45
  Speaker 2: values are not tied to reason, not to my old beliefs.
• 2:19:51
  Speaker 2: So it takes work. It's what a good psychotherapist would
• 2:19:57
  Speaker 2: do in a kind of a rational society, would help you. Lucinda,
• 2:20:02
  Speaker 2: regarding anarchy, there's also foundations of a free society. Don't
• 2:20:08
  Speaker 2: remember to what extent I read it, but I remember
• 2:20:11
  Speaker 2: there being good stuff on Anarchy. Yes. Greg Salamieri, I think,
• 2:20:15
  Speaker 2: has an essay in there on Anarchy. I mean, this
• 2:20:19
  Speaker 2: is the thing. Objectivism has content on Anarchy. And what
• 2:20:25
  Speaker 2: the anarchists want is to evade the content that objectivism
• 2:20:31
  Speaker 2: has produced about it. and then yell and scream that
• 2:20:34
  Speaker 2: we don't engage with them. Well, we do engage with them.
• 2:20:37
  Speaker 2: We've engaged with them through essays, which is the best
• 2:20:39
  Speaker 2: way to engage with their material. And, but, but they
• 2:20:43
  Speaker 2: want to, they want to, they want to play the
• 2:20:46
  Speaker 2: victim somehow. I don't know how that happens. They don't
• 2:20:48
  Speaker 2: play the victim somehow and, and pretend that we haven't,
• 2:20:53
  Speaker 2: you know, that objectivists don't treat them well, I guess.
• 2:20:56
  Speaker 2: But yeah, we've engaged with the material. We found it lacking.
• 2:20:59
  Speaker 2: We've written up our conclusions and, um, yeah, just that's reality.
• 2:21:09
  Speaker 2: Handle your candle. Anyway, your last super chat to say
• 2:21:12
  Speaker 2: that I do appreciate your work. I appreciate that. I
• 2:21:14
  Speaker 2: appreciate that. You appreciate my work. Thank you. The recent
• 2:21:17
  Speaker 2: episode of Mike Mensah was amazing. Keep up the great work.
• 2:21:20
  Speaker 2: Thank you. Uh, thank you handle. I appreciate the support.
• 2:21:24
  Speaker 2: I appreciate you putting your money, uh, on it. And, uh,
• 2:21:28
  Speaker 2: Lucinda again. Wow. Um, Partly an issue with the debate
• 2:21:34
  Speaker 2: focus is also that political debate often can't adequately cover
• 2:21:40
  Speaker 2: the more fundamental confusions on epistemology, which make the false
• 2:21:43
  Speaker 2: political reasons seem plausible to Ancaps. Absolutely. I mean, this
• 2:21:47
  Speaker 2: is the point that a debate, because it's extemporaneous, because
• 2:21:52
  Speaker 2: you don't really get to think through all the points,
• 2:21:56
  Speaker 2: is by necessity going to be relatively superficial as compared
• 2:22:01
  Speaker 2: to A written article. So when I do debates, I
• 2:22:07
  Speaker 2: do them very consciously about what is my purpose in
• 2:22:12
  Speaker 2: doing this debate. Why am I doing this? I'm not
• 2:22:14
  Speaker 2: doing it to be the definitive statement on the issue.
• 2:22:17
  Speaker 2: That would be bizarre. I'd rather do a show on it.
• 2:22:21
  Speaker 2: Or I'd rather do a book on it or an
• 2:22:24
  Speaker 2: article on it. That would be the definitive statement. But
• 2:22:30
  Speaker 2: a debate is... is marketing. A debate is performance. A
• 2:22:38
  Speaker 2: debate is hoping to attract somebody that wouldn't come to
• 2:22:43
  Speaker 2: a talk of yours, wouldn't read your essay, but might
• 2:22:46
  Speaker 2: listen to a debate. So if I think there's an
• 2:22:50
  Speaker 2: audience for the debate that I think is open to
• 2:22:54
  Speaker 2: my arguments, I'll do the debate. But I'm not going
• 2:22:57
  Speaker 2: to debate a socialist or If the entire audience are
• 2:23:02
  Speaker 2: committed socialists and I'm not going to change anybody's mind,
• 2:23:07
  Speaker 2: what would be the point? So I'll do it if
• 2:23:13
  Speaker 2: I think there's an audience that's open-minded about this and
• 2:23:16
  Speaker 2: would consider my arguments and then go and read the articles.
• 2:23:20
  Speaker 2: A debate is not definitive. A debate is not conclusive.
• 2:23:23
  Speaker 2: A debate is not proof of anything. It's just the beginning.
• 2:23:32
  Speaker 2: It's planting a seed. But if I think the people
• 2:23:34
  Speaker 2: listening to debate, the seed is not going to have
• 2:23:37
  Speaker 2: any impact on them, why would I do it? Thank you, Lucinda.
• 2:23:41
  Speaker 2: You're absolutely right. Rafael, hi, Iran. Would love to know
• 2:23:46
  Speaker 2: your thoughts on the question I sent you by message.
• 2:23:50
  Speaker 2: I think it's a very important topic, but of course
• 2:23:52
  Speaker 2: you can take a look another day. When did you
• 2:23:55
  Speaker 2: send it to me by message? Oh, there it is. Okay. Okay.
• 2:24:11
  Speaker 2: I recently met one of the most successful people I know.
• 2:24:13
  Speaker 2: She's a cosmetic dermatologist based in California. So basically at
• 2:24:20
  Speaker 2: the top of her field in medicine. We spent some
• 2:24:22
  Speaker 2: time together in Lisbon and she told me she thinks
• 2:24:25
  Speaker 2: she doesn't deserve to be loved and that most guys
• 2:24:29
  Speaker 2: find her a bit boring once they get to know
• 2:24:31
  Speaker 2: her better. One of the big reasons she gives for
• 2:24:35
  Speaker 2: feeling this way is that her father basically abandoned her,
• 2:24:38
  Speaker 2: didn't care much about her, wouldn't even call on birthdays,
• 2:24:42
  Speaker 2: and she was raised by her mother, also wasn't very present.
• 2:24:47
  Speaker 2: At the surface, I don't think she has super low self-esteem.
• 2:24:50
  Speaker 2: It really doesn't look like it, but maybe in some
• 2:24:53
  Speaker 2: areas of her life she does. Just based on this,
• 2:24:56
  Speaker 2: could you point me to what you think would be
• 2:24:58
  Speaker 2: the best Rand objectivist material for her to read or
• 2:25:05
  Speaker 2: listen to? And if you wanted to talk with somebody
• 2:25:08
  Speaker 2: about it, maybe Gina Golan would be the best choice.
• 2:25:10
  Speaker 2: By the way, she has no clue of what objectivism is.
• 2:25:14
  Speaker 2: Many thanks. Yeah, I mean, I think that definitely she'd
• 2:25:17
  Speaker 2: benefit enormously from speaking to Gina Golan. I think Gina
• 2:25:20
  Speaker 2: would be ideal for her. So Gina would be good.
• 2:25:24
  Speaker 2: I think generally... She should talk to a therapist because
• 2:25:27
  Speaker 2: she's letting conclusions she came to about life based on
• 2:25:33
  Speaker 2: her father's behavior when she was a child dictate her
• 2:25:39
  Speaker 2: perception of herself as an adult. And that is a mistake.
• 2:25:44
  Speaker 2: That is absolutely wrong. And the only way to really
• 2:25:48
  Speaker 2: understand that is to dig into those emotions and feelings
• 2:25:52
  Speaker 2: and to, in a sense... verbalize them and re-evaluate who
• 2:25:58
  Speaker 2: she is. Try to be objective about her own value.
• 2:26:05
  Speaker 2: And I think a good cognitive psychologist could help her
• 2:26:11
  Speaker 2: do that. I think Gina would be exceptional, but I
• 2:26:13
  Speaker 2: think any good cognitive psychologist could help her do that.
• 2:26:22
  Speaker 2: What should she read? I mean, there's one good essay. God,
• 2:26:27
  Speaker 2: I think it's in the Romantic Manifesto. It's the essay
• 2:26:31
  Speaker 2: about the guy who, you know, is, God, is, what
• 2:26:43
  Speaker 2: are the, I need the table of context of the
• 2:26:47
  Speaker 2: Romantic Manifesto. It's about the guy who's betrayed because When
• 2:26:53
  Speaker 2: he was a kid, whenever he looked up to a hero,
• 2:26:55
  Speaker 2: his parents would knock it down, ridicule it, suppress it.
• 2:26:58
  Speaker 2: And Ayn Rand talks about how that created this very,
• 2:27:02
  Speaker 2: very sad psychological state that he was in as an adult.
• 2:27:05
  Speaker 2: And I think that's really interesting because, again, it's the
• 2:27:08
  Speaker 2: same kind of phenomena. If you come to certain conclusions
• 2:27:10
  Speaker 2: based on your parents' behavior towards you when you were
• 2:27:13
  Speaker 2: a child, you come to some conclusions, metaphysical conclusions about
• 2:27:16
  Speaker 2: the world and about yourself. And Ayn Rand really analyzes
• 2:27:20
  Speaker 2: that in the essay. So, Um, anybody remember what that, um,
• 2:27:25
  Speaker 2: anybody remember what that essay is? Maybe somebody in the
• 2:27:28
  Speaker 2: chat remembers the name of the essay, or maybe you
• 2:27:31
  Speaker 2: have the romantic manifesto in front of you and can
• 2:27:34
  Speaker 2: pull it up. but it's really powerful and really emotional
• 2:27:38
  Speaker 2: and I think potentially could really resonate with her yeah
• 2:27:44
  Speaker 2: anything about psychology maybe Harry Binswanger's work on psychopistemology but
• 2:27:53
  Speaker 2: yeah I think what she needs is therapy and I
• 2:27:56
  Speaker 2: don't say that I don't consider therapy a bad thing
• 2:27:59
  Speaker 2: so Therapy is, for some people, necessary in order to
• 2:28:03
  Speaker 2: achieve health. All right, hopefully that's helpful, Raphael. All right, guys.
• 2:28:14
  Speaker 2: Thank you. And I will... Yeah, it's not the sense
• 2:28:24
  Speaker 2: of life. It's art and moral treason. Yes, art and
• 2:28:27
  Speaker 2: moral treason. I mean, that's just one aspect because it
• 2:28:31
  Speaker 2: relates to art. But I think the treason is there
• 2:28:37
  Speaker 2: in the parent behavior and the conclusion the child comes to.
• 2:28:40
  Speaker 2: So I think it's a parallel, even though it's not
• 2:28:42
  Speaker 2: an exact same thing. I will bid you good night.
• 2:28:48
  Speaker 2: It is 1130 over here. And I'm going to go
• 2:28:53
  Speaker 2: to sleep. And... Thank you to all the Super Chatters.
• 2:29:00
  Speaker 2: I will see you tomorrow with Nikos. Don't forget to
• 2:29:04
  Speaker 2: show up. And we're going to be talking about why capitalism,
• 2:29:11
  Speaker 2: why we're not winning the battle in capitalism. The we
• 2:29:15
  Speaker 2: is going to be broader than objectivist. The we is
• 2:29:17
  Speaker 2: going to be generally the pro-capitalist out there. So it
• 2:29:23
  Speaker 2: should be fun. And Nikos is always fun. And we'll
• 2:29:28
  Speaker 2: probably talk a little bit about the documentaries you made.
• 2:29:30
  Speaker 2: Nikos is pretty passionate about them. But join me tomorrow.
• 2:29:34
  Speaker 2: It's 1 p.m. East Coast time. So it's earlier than usual.
• 2:29:37
  Speaker 2: 1 p.m. East Coast time. Bye, everybody. See you tomorrow.