Latest / Yaron Brook Show / Mamdani; Iran; Jack Smith; Tariffs Flip-Flop; Anti-immigration Evil; Inequality | Yaron Brook Show

Transcript

Mamdani; Iran; Jack Smith; Tariffs Flip-Flop; Anti-immigration Evil; Inequality | Yaron Brook Show · Yaron Brook Show

• 0:02
  Speaker 1: A lot of the fundamental principles of edom Lattle, self interest,
• 0:09
  Speaker 1: and the individual loss.
• 0:14
  Speaker 2: This is the.
• 0:15
  Speaker 1: Show, all right, everybody walk up here, one book show
• 0:22
  Speaker 1: on this January the second, twenty twenty six have been
• 0:27
  Speaker 1: New Year. Everybody hope by the year has started amazingly
• 0:31
  Speaker 1: well for you guys, it did for me thanks to you.
• 0:36
  Speaker 1: I mean, you guys were amazing New Year's Eve. That
• 0:39
  Speaker 1: show just blew everything out of the water.
• 0:42
  Speaker 2: It was the.
• 0:44
  Speaker 1: Single most we've ever raised in a on a show.
• 0:50
  Speaker 1: December was the biggest months we've ever had from a
• 0:55
  Speaker 1: super Chat perspective, So you guys were fantastic.
• 1:01
  Speaker 2: Thank you, thank you, thank you. Happy New Year, everybody.
• 1:04
  Speaker 1: Thank you to everybody participated. We exceeded sixteen thousand on
• 1:10
  Speaker 1: super Chat. There was another like six thousand in PayPal,
• 1:16
  Speaker 1: and yeah, it was phenomenal. So really really appreciate the
• 1:22
  Speaker 1: support and the confidence.
• 1:25
  Speaker 3: Of you guys, and.
• 1:27
  Speaker 1: Let's make twenty twenty six even a better year, even
• 1:31
  Speaker 1: a better year. It turned out twenty twenty four was
• 1:35
  Speaker 1: actually a better year over wall for super Chat. We
• 1:38
  Speaker 1: had some weak months during twenty twenty five, so even
• 1:40
  Speaker 1: though we had the best, you know, best month ever
• 1:42
  Speaker 1: was December, we had some earlier week of months. So
• 1:47
  Speaker 1: let's make twenty twenty six for sure in a big way,
• 1:53
  Speaker 1: like the best, the best year ever. To do that,
• 1:56
  Speaker 1: we have to make our hourly goals two fifty. If
• 1:59
  Speaker 1: we make those fifty every time we do it, if
• 2:02
  Speaker 1: we as we crossed in the second hour, we get
• 2:04
  Speaker 1: a five hundred and so on, then we will and
• 2:07
  Speaker 1: have a great New Year's Eve. Then we will break
• 2:10
  Speaker 1: the record. So let's let's keep it going. Not inflation
• 2:14
  Speaker 1: adjusted absolute dollars. I don't have the energy to CPI
• 2:18
  Speaker 1: adjust these numbers.
• 2:20
  Speaker 2: It ain't worth it.
• 2:23
  Speaker 1: So we're still to the twenty twenty four exceeded twenty
• 2:28
  Speaker 1: twenty three, even non inflation adjusted. So we need to
• 2:31
  Speaker 1: make twenty twenty six better than twenty twenty four, not
• 2:34
  Speaker 1: by a lot, bye bye, you know, by by four
• 2:37
  Speaker 1: thousand dollars. So we need a four thousand dollars after
• 2:41
  Speaker 1: YouTube takes its cut, So we need to make an
• 2:45
  Speaker 1: exhuded effort. I think it was all the traveling, all
• 2:48
  Speaker 1: the traveling, all right, anyway, that was amazing. Thank you,
• 2:53
  Speaker 1: you guys were phenomenal. I did want to mention a
• 2:55
  Speaker 1: number of you sent questions in through PayPal, which I
• 3:00
  Speaker 1: just I was going to answer, and it just just
• 3:03
  Speaker 1: I just forgot, So I apologize had them already, but
• 3:06
  Speaker 1: we got I just got caught up in the whole
• 3:08
  Speaker 1: atmosphere of the show and answering questions from the super
• 3:12
  Speaker 1: chat and super chat thing and the whole thing that
• 3:15
  Speaker 1: I basically basically forgot the questions from PayPal. So I
• 3:20
  Speaker 1: will be answering them today, so they will be the
• 3:22
  Speaker 1: first questions answered today. I know there was even one
• 3:26
  Speaker 1: question from Dan. There was actually posted for Nikos way
• 3:32
  Speaker 1: before the show even started. And this is what happens
• 3:36
  Speaker 1: if you post on the chat things way but like
• 3:41
  Speaker 1: more than half an hour before the show starts. By
• 3:44
  Speaker 1: the time I start to show, those disappear and I
• 3:46
  Speaker 1: can't see them, and so I don't I don't have
• 3:50
  Speaker 1: access to them, so I don't know. So make sure
• 3:54
  Speaker 1: to only post questions in the last half hour before
• 3:56
  Speaker 1: the show or during the show itself. And so we'll
• 4:00
  Speaker 1: get to that question as well. I'll answer it instead
• 4:03
  Speaker 1: of Nicos, and then next time Nicos is here, we'll
• 4:06
  Speaker 1: try to get him to answer it as well.
• 4:10
  Speaker 2: I think.
• 4:13
  Speaker 1: I think we're good. I'll just mention Tomorrow there will
• 4:15
  Speaker 1: be a show. Saturday, there will be a show. I'm
• 4:17
  Speaker 1: not sure what it will be to be determined. I
• 4:20
  Speaker 1: will be doing reviews of two movies tomorrow, Ford Versus Ferrari,
• 4:25
  Speaker 1: Ford Versus Ferrari and God was the name of the
• 4:29
  Speaker 1: other movie and the other movie's name was better Man,
• 4:34
  Speaker 1: Better Man. So those two movies I will be reviewing.
• 4:37
  Speaker 1: I actually have to say I like them both, So
• 4:42
  Speaker 1: two positive reviews.
• 4:44
  Speaker 2: I think.
• 4:44
  Speaker 1: I don't think I've ever done that, So stay tuned
• 4:47
  Speaker 1: for those tomorrow and then a week from Saturday. A
• 4:51
  Speaker 1: week from tomorrow, I'll be reviewing the book right the
• 4:55
  Speaker 1: Tiger but Ivola, So if Ali is out there, I'll
• 5:00
  Speaker 1: be doing his review on on Evola's Ride Attiger. And
• 5:06
  Speaker 1: Saturday after that, I'll do the last short story from
• 5:11
  Speaker 1: the book, Folks in the Road. And I'll try while
• 5:15
  Speaker 1: i'm doing those to also include some of the some
• 5:19
  Speaker 1: of the songs you sent me. It will probably take
• 5:21
  Speaker 1: me longer to do the book review that that Doug
• 5:28
  Speaker 1: asked me to do, but song reviews I can probably do.
• 5:33
  Speaker 2: Fairly easily. All Right, let's jump in.
• 5:50
  Speaker 1: Midnights, you know, December thirty first and midnight or January first,
• 5:57
  Speaker 1: Mamdani was sworn in as Mayor of New York. He
• 6:02
  Speaker 1: is one of the youngest mayors, at least the youngest
• 6:05
  Speaker 1: mayor in many, many decades. He is the first Muslim
• 6:09
  Speaker 1: mayor of New York and the first Indian I guess
• 6:15
  Speaker 1: or Southern Asian to be mayor of New York. And
• 6:20
  Speaker 1: he is certainly the first, and most importantly, much more
• 6:23
  Speaker 1: important than all those other things, much more important overwriting
• 6:26
  Speaker 1: all those other things.
• 6:28
  Speaker 2: Mamdani is the first socialist mayor of New York.
• 6:32
  Speaker 1: And he wanted to make very clear in a speech,
• 6:36
  Speaker 1: in a speech when he took office, that he was
• 6:40
  Speaker 1: serious about a socialism, that this was not just a
• 6:44
  Speaker 1: marketing ploy, this was not just a gimmick, This was
• 6:48
  Speaker 1: not just principles that he had no plan to abide by,
• 6:52
  Speaker 1: but that he was going to govern as a socialist.
• 6:55
  Speaker 1: I mean to the extent that you can as mayor, right,
• 6:59
  Speaker 1: there's only so many power as you have, but as mayor,
• 7:01
  Speaker 1: that he was going to govern as a democratic socialist
• 7:04
  Speaker 1: that he is.
• 7:06
  Speaker 2: That he has committed.
• 7:08
  Speaker 1: Indeed, he articulated in one sentence one of the most striking,
• 7:15
  Speaker 1: horrific just a scary statements anybody's ever made straight out
• 7:22
  Speaker 1: of the villains of that shrugged, straight out of the
• 7:24
  Speaker 1: villains of Einman, he declared. During his speech, he said,
• 7:32
  Speaker 1: we will replace the frigidity, frigidity, coldness, frigidity. We will
• 7:38
  Speaker 1: replace the frigidity of rugged individualism with the warmth of collectivism. Now,
• 7:46
  Speaker 1: there are lots of commentary online about what that warmth
• 7:51
  Speaker 1: of collectivism looks like. Maybe it looks like the darkness
• 7:55
  Speaker 1: at night in North Korea. Maybe it looks like the
• 7:58
  Speaker 1: lower the long linees in the unbelievable frigid cold a
• 8:04
  Speaker 1: Moscow for for for bread. Maybe it looks like the
• 8:09
  Speaker 1: warmth experienced by the the prisoners or the the prisoners
• 8:17
  Speaker 1: in the gulags in in Siberia, as they huddle together
• 8:21
  Speaker 1: to try to.
• 8:22
  Speaker 2: Keep a little warm.
• 8:24
  Speaker 1: They were going to die anyway, it's pretty quickly. Maybe
• 8:28
  Speaker 1: maybe maybe it's it's the warmth that those Nazis experienced. Collectivism,
• 8:34
  Speaker 1: he said, not socialism. Collectivism is just as much a
• 8:38
  Speaker 1: fascist trade as it is a just as much a
• 8:41
  Speaker 1: right wing trade as is a left wing trade. Collectivism
• 8:45
  Speaker 1: of those Nazi troops as they as they uh you know,
• 8:50
  Speaker 1: marched into Poland, or surrounded starlingrad or just dyed in
• 8:56
  Speaker 1: huge numbers on the East and Western fronts of.
• 8:58
  Speaker 3: World War Two.
• 9:00
  Speaker 1: I mean, there's a whole, this whole thing I should
• 9:03
  Speaker 1: do at some point about all this Hitler worship. I mean,
• 9:08
  Speaker 1: has there ever been a bigger loser in history than Hitler?
• 9:13
  Speaker 1: I mean he lost, and he got more people killed
• 9:19
  Speaker 1: than almost anybody, and they will mostly non Jews. I mean,
• 9:24
  Speaker 1: he got more Germans killed than anybody, and he destroyed Germany,
• 9:28
  Speaker 1: obliterated it. I mean, has there ever been a bigger
• 9:30
  Speaker 1: loser and a bigger idiot who made so many blatant,
• 9:36
  Speaker 1: unbelievable strategic mistakes opening in Eastern Front when we haven't
• 9:39
  Speaker 1: finished the Western Front, and you could go on and
• 9:41
  Speaker 1: on and on. Has there ever been anybody quite as
• 9:44
  Speaker 1: bad as he is? And yet people wish anyway, that's
• 9:47
  Speaker 1: taking us off topic. We're talking about the guy who
• 9:50
  Speaker 1: worships you know, socialism. Socialism a system that is brought poverty, destruction,
• 10:01
  Speaker 1: death starvation to more people than any other any other
• 10:05
  Speaker 1: political system in probably human history. I think at the
• 10:09
  Speaker 1: end of the day, feudalism was probably most sustainable than socialism.
• 10:14
  Speaker 1: Were taken seriously so yes, no accident that the other
• 10:22
  Speaker 1: people speaking at his swearing in ceremony Bernie Sanders, another
• 10:28
  Speaker 1: Democratic socialist who would like to bring socialism to America,
• 10:33
  Speaker 1: and AOC. AOC who is I think writing for president.
• 10:37
  Speaker 1: We'll see and it is I. You know, I don't
• 10:43
  Speaker 1: think AOC is a socialist because I don't think she's
• 10:47
  Speaker 1: particularly intellectual versus Mumdonie. I think is quite intellectual and
• 10:51
  Speaker 1: quite serious about his socialism.
• 10:53
  Speaker 2: I'm not sure about AOC, but.
• 10:56
  Speaker 1: Clearly aligned with his agenda, clearly aligned with everything that
• 11:01
  Speaker 1: he believes. He believes out there, It's really interesting to
• 11:06
  Speaker 1: see people responding to this line from Mamdani about individualism
• 11:14
  Speaker 1: and collectivism.
• 11:16
  Speaker 3: Right.
• 11:16
  Speaker 1: Some people are getting it and putting up quotes by
• 11:19
  Speaker 1: iron Rand, videos of Ironrand clearly pointing to Ironrand as
• 11:24
  Speaker 1: an example. Others are putting again pictures of the consequences
• 11:28
  Speaker 1: of socialism in various parts of the world and how
• 11:31
  Speaker 1: much warmth that has brought its people. So, you know,
• 11:36
  Speaker 1: so there's a variety of different responses out there, many
• 11:40
  Speaker 1: of them, many of them you know, pretty good about it.
• 11:45
  Speaker 1: But there is you know, there is also a lot
• 11:50
  Speaker 1: of people who are confused by it because ultimately they
• 11:55
  Speaker 1: kind of agree. Even Tom Borelli. I haven't seen Tomborelli
• 11:58
  Speaker 1: in years and years and years. Tombarelli a conservative, I
• 12:02
  Speaker 1: guess commentator out.
• 12:03
  Speaker 3: There who is? Who is?
• 12:10
  Speaker 1: Yeah, who attended my leadership courses that I gave at
• 12:16
  Speaker 1: Hutchinson Technologies twenty years ago and so got the whole
• 12:20
  Speaker 1: morality of capitalism from me ethics, I mean days and
• 12:25
  Speaker 1: days of content. He and his wife attended those. Tom, Yeah,
• 12:31
  Speaker 1: but I haven't seen him in a very long time. Anyway.
• 12:34
  Speaker 1: Tom posted a quote from mind Man in any compromise
• 12:38
  Speaker 1: between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit,
• 12:41
  Speaker 1: a quote from Attela Shrug. And he's got the cover
• 12:43
  Speaker 1: of Atlas Shrugged out.
• 12:44
  Speaker 2: There, and he is he is.
• 12:48
  Speaker 1: Seeing on the tweet both Bill Ackerman, who wants to compromise,
• 12:53
  Speaker 1: of course, and Mom Donnie. So you get a whole
• 12:57
  Speaker 1: variety of.
• 13:00
  Speaker 2: Stuff.
• 13:01
  Speaker 1: But but what is what you see is also like
• 13:06
  Speaker 1: the conservatives don't know exactly what to do about about
• 13:09
  Speaker 1: this statement about collectivism and individualism because they they kind
• 13:13
  Speaker 1: of they kind of agree with Mamdani. But you know,
• 13:16
  Speaker 1: really so Tim Connie, Tim Connie from Uh, Tim Connie
• 13:21
  Speaker 1: from the Institute of Economic Affairs. So somebody who writes
• 13:26
  Speaker 1: a conservative, who writes for the American Enterprise Institute, did
• 13:30
  Speaker 1: I say in Schieff Economic Affairs, that's in London. I
• 13:33
  Speaker 1: meant the American Enterprise Institute. He writes for the American
• 13:35
  Speaker 1: Enterprise Institute. He's a senior economist there. And this is
• 13:38
  Speaker 1: what he writes in a tweet after the quote from mcdanie.
• 13:42
  Speaker 1: He says, Guys Mamdani accepted Einman's false the economy between
• 13:47
  Speaker 1: collectivism and individualism. We should reject this premise. There is
• 13:51
  Speaker 1: another way. So his problem is it's not individualism, it's
• 13:56
  Speaker 1: his collectivism. The other way is is a unity am
• 14:00
  Speaker 1: o eyes a merger a A we need to be
• 14:03
  Speaker 1: We need to be collectivist in some things in life,
• 14:05
  Speaker 1: and maybe individualists in others and and oh god. Collectivism
• 14:12
  Speaker 1: is the placement of the individual above sorry, the place
• 14:16
  Speaker 1: on the collective above the individual. It is the doctrine
• 14:19
  Speaker 1: that says that one should live for the sake of
• 14:22
  Speaker 1: the collective. Individualism is the position that the individual is
• 14:31
  Speaker 1: an end in ourself. The individual is his life is sacred.
• 14:37
  Speaker 1: That it is that we establish governments and we live
• 14:43
  Speaker 1: in a society so that individuals can benefit, and therefore
• 14:48
  Speaker 1: the roll of the goverment is to protect individual rights. That
• 14:52
  Speaker 1: doesn't mean we don't you know, we don't have groups,
• 14:56
  Speaker 1: and we don't hang out in groups, and we don't
• 14:58
  Speaker 1: care about groups or teams or our friends or our
• 15:04
  Speaker 1: you know, even our neighborhood. But it means that we
• 15:06
  Speaker 1: don't sacrifice for their sake, and we don't give up
• 15:10
  Speaker 1: our rights. We don't give up our lives for the
• 15:14
  Speaker 1: sake of the group, for the sake of the collective.
• 15:18
  Speaker 1: Another way, other than individually, collectivism is what how it's
• 15:24
  Speaker 1: the mixed economy, it's the mixed morality. Yeah, you should
• 15:30
  Speaker 1: probably take care of yourself, but really to be good,
• 15:33
  Speaker 1: it's the sacrifice. But we can't take of us all
• 15:35
  Speaker 1: the time. You have to live a little, so you
• 15:38
  Speaker 1: should enjoy life, and you should pursue money, and you
• 15:41
  Speaker 1: should do that, but not too much. Don't forget at
• 15:43
  Speaker 1: the end of the day, you've got to do some sacrificing,
• 15:46
  Speaker 1: so you know, carve out a period every week to
• 15:51
  Speaker 1: do the sacrificing and the rest you can be somewhat selfish.
• 15:57
  Speaker 1: That mixed the economy of the soul is what destroys
• 16:02
  Speaker 1: individual human beings. It destroys ability to live fully, and
• 16:08
  Speaker 1: it destroys ability to defend capitalism political liberty. And it's
• 16:14
  Speaker 1: what makes possible the rise of socialism because Timborelli. Tomborelli
• 16:24
  Speaker 1: is absolutely right when he quotes I random saying and
• 16:27
  Speaker 1: amy compromise between good individualism and evil collectivism. It is
• 16:31
  Speaker 1: only evil collectivism that can profit, that makes the economy
• 16:36
  Speaker 1: is a compromise, and as such, only collectivism, only altruism,
• 16:44
  Speaker 1: will benefit. Altruism collectivism is winning because too many people
• 16:50
  Speaker 1: are willing to compromise. Uh launch Chen Law and Chen
• 16:58
  Speaker 1: the the right wing Law and Chin she is not
• 17:03
  Speaker 1: about compromising. Here's what she had to write about Mumdonnie's statement.
• 17:10
  Speaker 1: My unpopular opinion is that extreme individualism kills societies too.
• 17:14
  Speaker 2: It just takes longer.
• 17:16
  Speaker 1: Boomers not caring about their kids, grandkids and important in
• 17:20
  Speaker 1: importing infinity, migrants, millennials not having children at all. These
• 17:25
  Speaker 1: are civilization ending problems we have no idea how to fix.
• 17:29
  Speaker 1: And of course they're all caused, all caused. Not caring
• 17:32
  Speaker 1: about your kids and grandkids is definitely caused by too
• 17:35
  Speaker 1: much individualism. I mean, if kids and grandkids are value,
• 17:45
  Speaker 1: then you should care about them. If they're not of value,
• 17:47
  Speaker 1: then you shouldn't care about them. But for most people,
• 17:49
  Speaker 1: there are value. That's why most people care about their
• 17:54
  Speaker 1: kids and grandkids. I don't know what Boomers don't care
• 17:56
  Speaker 1: about their kids and care kids, and it's not out
• 17:58
  Speaker 1: of being selfish. And millennials not having children, well, maybe
• 18:04
  Speaker 1: that's a consequence of individualism. That's good. Maybe not having
• 18:08
  Speaker 1: kids is okay. Maybe not having kids is okay, finding
• 18:15
  Speaker 1: a new equilibrium, all right. So yeah, some people on
• 18:20
  Speaker 1: the right are little uncomfortable because they find themselves agreeing
• 18:22
  Speaker 1: with Mumdani. Kind of collectivism is good? I mean, what
• 18:25
  Speaker 1: is nationalism? What is nationalism? Christian nationalism, conservative of nationalism,
• 18:31
  Speaker 1: national conservatism, whatever, nationalism, What is it if not collectivism?
• 18:36
  Speaker 1: It's a type of collectivism. What are the gropers? What
• 18:42
  Speaker 1: is racism if not collectivism? What is tribalism of all
• 18:46
  Speaker 1: its kind if not collectivism? I mean, I think that
• 18:49
  Speaker 1: Mumdani is channeling the zeitgeist of the moment left and right,
• 19:00
  Speaker 1: rid of that rugged individualism that leads to capitalism, and
• 19:03
  Speaker 1: that leads to that leads to immigration. Oh my god,
• 19:07
  Speaker 1: that leads to you know, globalization, Oh my god, globalism.
• 19:13
  Speaker 1: We don't want any of that. Individualism. Get rid of
• 19:15
  Speaker 1: global get rid of that that leads to people pursuing
• 19:18
  Speaker 1: their own profit motive, that leads to companies pursuing sharehold
• 19:23
  Speaker 1: of wealth. We can't have any of that. The left
• 19:25
  Speaker 1: and the right agree on this, They agree on it.
• 19:29
  Speaker 1: So let's get rid of that rugged individualism. Let's embrace collectivism.
• 19:33
  Speaker 1: The warmth of collectivism, the beauty of collectivism, the death, destruction, starvation,
• 19:38
  Speaker 1: and horror of collectivism. So yeah, we still find that
• 19:48
  Speaker 1: the one thing, the one thing under attack, without any question,
• 19:53
  Speaker 1: the one thing under attack is is individualism.
• 20:02
  Speaker 2: The good is under attack.
• 20:05
  Speaker 1: They're united against the good and really united for collectivism.
• 20:10
  Speaker 1: They just disagree. And this is how wars get started.
• 20:13
  Speaker 1: If you read in Vans the Roots of War, this
• 20:16
  Speaker 1: is how wards get will get started. Is what they
• 20:19
  Speaker 1: disagree about is which collective should be, Which collectives should
• 20:23
  Speaker 1: be the focal point of our sacrifice? Who should be
• 20:27
  Speaker 1: the beneficiary or a sacrifice? Should be the race, ethnicity,
• 20:32
  Speaker 1: Should it be the politarian or the poor? Should it
• 20:36
  Speaker 1: be politicians? Who is a beneficiary or a sacrifice? They
• 20:40
  Speaker 1: all agree. All of them, left, right, and to some
• 20:44
  Speaker 1: extent center, all agree you you need to be sacrificed.
• 20:50
  Speaker 1: What they disagree about is to whom, to whom? And
• 20:59
  Speaker 1: this is where we, as advocates of individualism, as philosophical
• 21:06
  Speaker 1: moral advocates for individualism, we differentiate to ourselves from left
• 21:11
  Speaker 1: and right. We differential as to ourselves, differentiate ourselves from
• 21:15
  Speaker 1: the entire political spectrum. We believe nobody, nobody, should be sacrificed,
• 21:30
  Speaker 1: that sacrifice is wrong, sacrifice is evil, and that the
• 21:33
  Speaker 1: only role of government is to protect your freedom, to
• 21:37
  Speaker 1: protect your ability to live in pursuit of your own values,
• 21:42
  Speaker 1: using your own mind. Objectivism rejects whoops all, what is
• 21:55
  Speaker 1: going on here? One second, st all forms of collectivism
• 22:04
  Speaker 1: in the name of an ideal, not some horrible thing
• 22:08
  Speaker 1: that people don't like, an ideal of individualism. Individualism does
• 22:12
  Speaker 1: not mean living on a desert island. Individualism does not
• 22:16
  Speaker 1: mean not caring about other people. Caring about other people
• 22:19
  Speaker 1: is important because other people are traders with you. It
• 22:22
  Speaker 1: depends on which people and under what circumstances. It holds
• 22:27
  Speaker 1: you should have a sacrifice of those people you should
• 22:29
  Speaker 1: trade with them, and it holds again that the role
• 22:32
  Speaker 1: of governance to protect your rights, not team post sacrifice
• 22:38
  Speaker 1: on you. So yep, I mean nobody completely understands the
• 22:50
  Speaker 1: statement of Mamdani's other than really if you've ved I
• 22:54
  Speaker 1: rand and you understand what individualism really means.
• 23:01
  Speaker 3: Yes, so you know the.
• 23:04
  Speaker 2: This idea that.
• 23:08
  Speaker 1: The galatianism of collectivism, you know, one of the one
• 23:14
  Speaker 1: of the.
• 23:15
  Speaker 2: Most evil ideas.
• 23:15
  Speaker 1: Now somebody is saying here the quote I have his
• 23:17
  Speaker 1: frigidity of ugged individualism, Carl says, it's fragility. So somebody,
• 23:24
  Speaker 1: somebody mistyped it when they wrote it down. Let me
• 23:27
  Speaker 1: see if I can find another. And you know, another
• 23:31
  Speaker 1: quote from his speech, I've got a frigidity, not fragility,
• 23:38
  Speaker 1: but fragility, frigidity. We will place the frigidity of rugged
• 23:42
  Speaker 1: individualism with a warmth. I mean fragility makes sense, coldness
• 23:46
  Speaker 1: versus warmth of collectivism. Uh, fragilities. Find all of them,
• 23:52
  Speaker 1: all of them?
• 23:53
  Speaker 3: Are you know?
• 24:00
  Speaker 2: It's the same evil wrong?
• 24:04
  Speaker 3: And uh.
• 24:07
  Speaker 1: What every collectivist I e. Every socialist, communist, uh fascist,
• 24:14
  Speaker 1: uh perhonist, authoritarian in history, they never say we're doing
• 24:19
  Speaker 1: this so you can sacrifice, So you can sacrifice.
• 24:22
  Speaker 2: To that group.
• 24:23
  Speaker 1: They say this is it's going to be good. It's
• 24:26
  Speaker 1: going to be you know, we'll kill that group, but
• 24:28
  Speaker 1: we we are going to feel warm. We're gonna feel
• 24:30
  Speaker 1: a warm and fuzzy insight. We're going to be good.
• 24:33
  Speaker 1: We're going to be good. I like Numbers says it
• 24:36
  Speaker 1: is frigidity. I think it is uh frigidity, not fragility.
• 24:42
  Speaker 2: Anyway, call you'll get it right.
• 24:47
  Speaker 1: Anyway, Mam Donnie has coming to office, ruing to go.
• 24:51
  Speaker 1: On day one, he is tackling the housing crisis.
• 24:56
  Speaker 2: And this is the thing with Mam Donnie.
• 24:59
  Speaker 1: It's uh, it's one step forward, two steps back with him.
• 25:04
  Speaker 1: But he does take a step forward. I'll give him
• 25:06
  Speaker 1: credit for that, but it is it is uh, uh
• 25:11
  Speaker 1: you know, pretty horrific. So he started out the day
• 25:15
  Speaker 1: with executive orders relating to the housing crisis, and h
• 25:20
  Speaker 1: the first one and then I think the main one,
• 25:23
  Speaker 1: the one that's actually actually actually actionable immediately, is one
• 25:30
  Speaker 1: way he is going to uh protect tenants, protect the
• 25:34
  Speaker 1: tenants from evil, greedy, rugged, individualistic landlords. And so you know,
• 25:43
  Speaker 1: he's re established and revitalizing the Mayor's office to protect tenants.
• 25:49
  Speaker 1: That's the name of the office. Uh, and uh, he's
• 25:54
  Speaker 1: getting involved in.
• 25:57
  Speaker 2: Uh, you know, a numb of different.
• 26:02
  Speaker 1: Cases that have to do with tenants going after landlords,
• 26:06
  Speaker 1: A big bankruptcy case of landlords. The city is not
• 26:11
  Speaker 1: going to be heavily involved in regulating landlords, whether they
• 26:16
  Speaker 1: whether they renovate their apartments on a regular basis or not.
• 26:20
  Speaker 1: Even if the rents are too low to justify their renovation,
• 26:23
  Speaker 1: it doesn't matter too low because rent control, remember rent control.
• 26:28
  Speaker 2: So you know, he.
• 26:31
  Speaker 1: Is going to immediately start harassing landlords. There's a big
• 26:38
  Speaker 1: bankruptcy case in New York affecting ninety three different buildings.
• 26:45
  Speaker 1: The city now is going to interject into that case
• 26:51
  Speaker 1: and make sure whoever buys those buildings out of bankruptcy
• 26:55
  Speaker 1: is committed to you know, to you know, residents in
• 27:02
  Speaker 1: you know, he's talking about you know, bad landlords who
• 27:05
  Speaker 1: don't make repairs and don't solve issues like cockroaches and
• 27:09
  Speaker 1: lack of heating and things like that. So he's going
• 27:13
  Speaker 1: to be he's going to be in the face of landlords.
• 27:15
  Speaker 1: He has made that a bigger gender item. I think
• 27:19
  Speaker 1: over time what's going to happen is more and more
• 27:23
  Speaker 1: landlords are going to go into bankruptcy. And I wouldn't
• 27:25
  Speaker 1: be surprised if the city of New York becomes a
• 27:29
  Speaker 1: bigger and bigger landlord, a bigger and bigger landlord over time.
• 27:36
  Speaker 1: So you could see socialism manifesting here in the city
• 27:42
  Speaker 1: owning more of these, and then the city we'll have
• 27:44
  Speaker 1: to figure out how to pay for renovations and keeping
• 27:47
  Speaker 1: up the heat and dealing with cockroaches and all of
• 27:49
  Speaker 1: that when they can't raise the rent because their own
• 27:53
  Speaker 1: rent control is imposed. I guess they can raise taxes
• 27:55
  Speaker 1: and redistribute wealth that way from some to others. But
• 27:59
  Speaker 1: I wouldn't be priced if if we're if we're.
• 28:02
  Speaker 2: Going to see that.
• 28:03
  Speaker 1: The mayor made this announcement about these executive voters around
• 28:07
  Speaker 1: housing at a property called eighty five clockson Avenue, which
• 28:11
  Speaker 1: is a rent stabilizing building when controlled in other words, uh,
• 28:15
  Speaker 1: which is owned by a company called Pinnacle Realty, which
• 28:20
  Speaker 1: the mayor Mayor described as a notorious, notorious landlord. UH.
• 28:27
  Speaker 1: So you can expect significant deterioration the equality of housing
• 28:32
  Speaker 1: in New York. I would also expect a significant deterioration
• 28:36
  Speaker 1: in both the quality and the quantity of housing, and
• 28:40
  Speaker 1: therefore prices to go up in the non in the
• 28:44
  Speaker 1: non rent control parts of the city. The more expensive
• 28:49
  Speaker 1: you make it the landlords to make repairs and and
• 28:53
  Speaker 1: and to manage buildings the list like they are they
• 28:56
  Speaker 1: are to manage buildings.
• 28:59
  Speaker 3: Uh.
• 29:00
  Speaker 1: We know a lot of landlords in New York basically
• 29:03
  Speaker 1: are sitting on empty apartments and just not renting them
• 29:05
  Speaker 1: out because the cost of ending them out is higher
• 29:08
  Speaker 1: than having them sit there empty. It's going to be
• 29:12
  Speaker 1: interesting to see if, for example, he tries to pass
• 29:16
  Speaker 1: a law that forces them to rent out their empty properties,
• 29:21
  Speaker 1: and whether that will be upheld by the courts, and
• 29:25
  Speaker 1: if it is upheld by the courts, or if it's
• 29:27
  Speaker 1: not upheld better courts, whether then the city just takes
• 29:29
  Speaker 1: over those properties from the greedy landlords who won't rent
• 29:34
  Speaker 1: them outs and lose money while they're renting them outs.
• 29:38
  Speaker 3: And let's see.
• 29:39
  Speaker 1: The other two executive voters were actually maybe maybe potentially positive,
• 29:46
  Speaker 1: but we won't know for months. One is the creation
• 29:49
  Speaker 1: of something called the Lift Task Force the Land Inventory
• 29:54
  Speaker 1: Fast Track. This is going to leverage city owned land
• 29:58
  Speaker 1: to accelerate housing development, thus increasing supply to drive down costs.
• 30:04
  Speaker 1: The task Force will renew City Owned will review Sitney
• 30:07
  Speaker 1: owned properties and identify sites suitable for housing development. They'll
• 30:12
  Speaker 1: do this no later than July one, twenty six, so
• 30:15
  Speaker 1: within six months we'll know lift will over It will
• 30:18
  Speaker 1: be overseen by Deputy Mayor Layla Bozog, who is a
• 30:24
  Speaker 1: yeah anyway. So that's one. You know, review land that
• 30:29
  Speaker 1: the city owns. It could be turned into housing. That's
• 30:31
  Speaker 1: a positive.
• 30:33
  Speaker 2: Of course.
• 30:33
  Speaker 1: The solution is to sell that land to private developers.
• 30:36
  Speaker 1: We'll see what the city actually twice to do with it.
• 30:40
  Speaker 1: You know, it's it's it's not clear, but that is
• 30:45
  Speaker 1: a positive move that might offset some of the damage
• 30:50
  Speaker 1: he's doing elsewhere. And then the third one is called
• 30:53
  Speaker 1: the Speed Task Force, another positive one. SPEED stands for
• 30:57
  Speaker 1: streamlining procedure to expedite equitable development. You know, everybody should
• 31:04
  Speaker 1: worry about equitable development. What does that mean? Who defines
• 31:08
  Speaker 1: equitable actually mean? Does it mean bad development? Does it
• 31:14
  Speaker 1: mean development of the same types of how you know?
• 31:17
  Speaker 1: I don't know, of course, it's it's right for corruption
• 31:21
  Speaker 1: and distortion and uh and again you know it's steam
• 31:26
  Speaker 1: lighting procedure is.
• 31:27
  Speaker 2: Good equitable pretty bad?
• 31:30
  Speaker 1: H The description is will identify and remove bureaucratic and
• 31:34
  Speaker 1: permitting barriers. That's good, the drive up costs and slow
• 31:38
  Speaker 1: housing construction and lease up, making it moreffordable to build
• 31:41
  Speaker 1: and easy to access housing across New York City. Again,
• 31:45
  Speaker 1: ask what will be overseen by the same person. I mean,
• 31:50
  Speaker 1: one of the easiest ways to access housing across New
• 31:53
  Speaker 1: York City is to abolish all price controls, all rent controls.
• 32:00
  Speaker 1: That would, immediately, as it happened in bis in Buenosiris,
• 32:05
  Speaker 1: will immediately free up a huge number of new apartments
• 32:08
  Speaker 1: for rent and immediately lower rents and increased quality. You know,
• 32:14
  Speaker 1: lower rents in some areas, increase quality because landlords would
• 32:18
  Speaker 1: be incentivized to just do what they need to do
• 32:27
  Speaker 1: to make their apartments better, more livable, so they can
• 32:32
  Speaker 1: then charge higher rents.
• 32:37
  Speaker 3: Right.
• 32:38
  Speaker 1: I mean, when asked about what his agenda is going
• 32:41
  Speaker 1: to comprise, a zor any basically said Mamdani, basically said
• 32:46
  Speaker 1: Zorn Mamdney basically said all about affordability in abundance.
• 32:50
  Speaker 2: Affordability in abundance.
• 32:52
  Speaker 1: The problem is that most things were leading to affordability,
• 32:55
  Speaker 1: which in and of itself is probably an anti concept.
• 32:58
  Speaker 1: I don't think it means anything, but I mean you know,
• 33:00
  Speaker 1: making things cheaper. Anything that he does to make things
• 33:04
  Speaker 1: cheaper is probably going to undermine his abundance agenda, and
• 33:09
  Speaker 1: his abundance agenda is probably so statist there will actually
• 33:14
  Speaker 1: undermine guess what abundance actual abundance. So anyway, I guess
• 33:25
  Speaker 1: we'll we'll have to wait and see what actually comes
• 33:29
  Speaker 1: of all of this.
• 33:30
  Speaker 2: But it does.
• 33:33
  Speaker 1: I mean, the fact that he's using abundance terminology is
• 33:36
  Speaker 1: a good thing. But in the name of making being
• 33:40
  Speaker 1: about the warmth of collectivism one's wonders. I mean, it's
• 33:45
  Speaker 1: it's more of an old Marxist kind of versus woke leftism.
• 33:50
  Speaker 1: Woke lefts don't want abundance, they don't want progress, they
• 33:54
  Speaker 1: don't want prosperity, they want you to be poor. They
• 33:58
  Speaker 1: want equality above all their tour egalitarians. The question is
• 34:03
  Speaker 1: what kind of leftist is Mumdani. And if he's a
• 34:08
  Speaker 1: socialist rather than woke, that is better for certain things.
• 34:13
  Speaker 1: That at least says that he's going to be focused
• 34:15
  Speaker 1: on building and creating inefficiently expensively and maybe drive New York,
• 34:23
  Speaker 1: you know, a bankrupt But he's not going to be
• 34:26
  Speaker 1: all focused on woke and all of that, you know,
• 34:30
  Speaker 1: racist and disruptive stuff.
• 34:33
  Speaker 2: I lost to say.
• 34:35
  Speaker 1: So. The one other thing Mum Donnie did is he
• 34:38
  Speaker 1: nullified and the first day coming into office, he nullified
• 34:42
  Speaker 1: all of the executive orders that Adams, the previous Man
• 34:47
  Speaker 1: of New York had put into plays from September twenty sixth,
• 34:53
  Speaker 1: twenty twenty four on September twenty twenty.
• 34:56
  Speaker 2: September twenty six, twenty twenty four is.
• 34:59
  Speaker 1: The day eight in which Adams was indicted for corruption.
• 35:04
  Speaker 1: Of course that indictment went away thanks to Donald Trump,
• 35:07
  Speaker 1: but he was indicted on September twenty two, twenty twenty four.
• 35:10
  Speaker 1: So anything he did from Sturmy twenty twenty four until
• 35:16
  Speaker 1: the in a twenty twenty five anything he did to
• 35:17
  Speaker 1: an executive order, Mam Donnie wrote one executive vote to
• 35:21
  Speaker 1: wipe that all out. So we will see what all
• 35:28
  Speaker 1: of that adds up to.
• 35:30
  Speaker 3: In the end.
• 35:32
  Speaker 4: All right, what is this? All right, let's see.
• 35:50
  Speaker 1: Okay, So that's wm Donny. We will keep track. We
• 35:56
  Speaker 1: will see what's going on. And howard he to get
• 36:02
  Speaker 1: all his plans to get everything he wants done done,
• 36:05
  Speaker 1: He's gonna have to significantly increase taxes. It'll be interesting
• 36:08
  Speaker 1: to see if he can get away with that. You know,
• 36:13
  Speaker 1: we will see what a socialist can do at a
• 36:16
  Speaker 1: city level versus at a state or federal level. We
• 36:21
  Speaker 1: can we have a lot more levels of power, you
• 36:23
  Speaker 1: can get a lot more done.
• 36:26
  Speaker 2: So we will keep a track of it.
• 36:28
  Speaker 1: I will keep you updated on it. A bad start
• 36:34
  Speaker 1: in terms of his what he said, A mixed start
• 36:38
  Speaker 1: in terms of the actual executive orders. Two of them,
• 36:42
  Speaker 1: you know, mildly positive, one of them horvable, really really bad.
• 36:47
  Speaker 1: You know how to tell where the balance will be.
• 36:50
  Speaker 1: I think the balance will be unbad ultimately because even
• 36:53
  Speaker 1: the good ones will not actually be good because.
• 36:56
  Speaker 2: It'll be too corrupt.
• 36:57
  Speaker 1: The will be two many special interests, too many anti
• 37:00
  Speaker 1: too many anti development groups within the left will have
• 37:03
  Speaker 1: any influence on it. But we will keep tracking and
• 37:08
  Speaker 1: uh and check ooh, somebody says. The socialist who often
• 37:13
  Speaker 1: posts on our chat says, we need a system that
• 37:18
  Speaker 1: operates that creates opportunities for everybody, not to create trillion
• 37:22
  Speaker 1: is so. Capitalism is the system that creates opportunities for everybody,
• 37:28
  Speaker 1: and it creates more opportunities for everybody than any other system.
• 37:32
  Speaker 1: And partially the way it does that is by allowing
• 37:36
  Speaker 1: for the creation of trillion is because it is trillion is,
• 37:41
  Speaker 1: of which there's zero right now, although what's his name,
• 37:44
  Speaker 1: Elon musk Is on the way. A trillion is are
• 37:46
  Speaker 1: the ones who create the jobs. Trillion is are the
• 37:49
  Speaker 1: ones who create the technology. Trillion is are the ones
• 37:51
  Speaker 1: who push us.
• 37:52
  Speaker 2: Forward into the future.
• 37:54
  Speaker 1: That's creating the millions and millions and millions and millions
• 37:58
  Speaker 1: of opportunities for all the rest of us. Indeed, think
• 38:03
  Speaker 1: about the opportunities that are going to be created by AI,
• 38:06
  Speaker 1: and think about the billionaires that have made AI possible.
• 38:11
  Speaker 1: It's not trickle down economics. Capitalism is not trickle down economics.
• 38:16
  Speaker 1: It's waterfall economics. It's not that a few opportunities trickle
• 38:22
  Speaker 1: down from the top. It's that basically all opportunities trickle
• 38:27
  Speaker 1: down from the top. Jobs are created by entrepreneurs. They
• 38:32
  Speaker 1: don't just exist. New industries are created by entrepreneurs. They
• 38:40
  Speaker 1: don't just come about out of nowhere. Government doesn't create them.
• 38:43
  Speaker 1: And even when government creates the technology, it takes on
• 38:46
  Speaker 1: entrepreneur to turn it as something useful that creates opportunities.
• 38:52
  Speaker 1: So opportunities you want to maximize opportunities. Capitalism and socialism
• 38:58
  Speaker 1: destroys opportunities. It disincentivizes people from creating jobs, It disincentivizes
• 39:05
  Speaker 1: people from building, creating, making, changing, innovating. It not just disincentivizes,
• 39:13
  Speaker 1: it penalizes people. It destroys opportunities. That's why every socialist
• 39:20
  Speaker 1: country who takes their socialism seriously in all of human history,
• 39:25
  Speaker 1: has been a place of misery and poverty and drudgery
• 39:31
  Speaker 1: and no opportunities, a place of death of starvation. And
• 39:40
  Speaker 1: yes they didn't have billionaires, no billions, no billions, but
• 39:46
  Speaker 1: they're all poor and they were all hungry. So I
• 39:54
  Speaker 1: don't believe in trickle down. I believe in waterfall down,
• 39:58
  Speaker 1: flood of opportunities, the billionaires, and when they are by
• 40:05
  Speaker 1: the trillions, when we have some looking.
• 40:07
  Speaker 2: Forward to that day.
• 40:08
  Speaker 1: Yes, very excited about having trillionaires in our midst So cool.
• 40:13
  Speaker 1: Why is it there only government can spend trillions, much
• 40:18
  Speaker 1: more effective when individuals can spend trillions. Now, you know,
• 40:22
  Speaker 1: in capitalism, they might be fewer trillions, there might be
• 40:25
  Speaker 1: few billionaires than the system we have today, which is
• 40:28
  Speaker 1: rigged and corrupt and all kinds of problems. But you
• 40:31
  Speaker 1: don't fix the system by going after billionaires. You fix
• 40:33
  Speaker 1: the system by eliminating the corruption, the corruption, eliminating cronyism,
• 40:37
  Speaker 1: eliminating favors, eliminating subsidies, eliminating government control over business. In
• 40:43
  Speaker 1: other words, you free up the system. You embrace capitalism.
• 40:48
  Speaker 1: That's the system that maximizes opportunities. So give me a break.
• 40:54
  Speaker 1: Socialism is only destructive. All right, shifting gears.
• 40:59
  Speaker 2: Oh, we are move moving on Iran.
• 41:02
  Speaker 1: This is going to be a daily update for me,
• 41:04
  Speaker 1: I think, or at least a very frequent update. Iran
• 41:10
  Speaker 1: demonstrations are continuing all over Iran in a record number
• 41:14
  Speaker 1: of cities.
• 41:16
  Speaker 2: It appears it's.
• 41:17
  Speaker 1: Hard to tell, but the demonstrations today or as large
• 41:20
  Speaker 1: as any of the large demonstrations that were in the past,
• 41:23
  Speaker 1: where there was twenty twenty two during the Goals revolution
• 41:26
  Speaker 1: or previous to that, when its twenty seventeen and two
• 41:30
  Speaker 1: thousand and seven, These.
• 41:32
  Speaker 2: Might be as large, if not larger.
• 41:35
  Speaker 1: It is also true that at least in some of
• 41:38
  Speaker 1: the smaller towns and possibly also in Tehran, the regimius
• 41:43
  Speaker 1: started shooting demonstrators that as we have seen the first
• 41:46
  Speaker 1: casualties come out of Iran, the first numbers of casualties
• 41:49
  Speaker 1: coming out of Iran. They are also arresting, particularly students,
• 41:55
  Speaker 1: not the shopkeepers. They're very careful about the shopkeepers. But
• 41:58
  Speaker 1: they're arresting students and and and there they are putting them.
• 42:06
  Speaker 2: You know that, you see arrests happening.
• 42:10
  Speaker 1: So things are getting worse for the demonstrators in Iran,
• 42:13
  Speaker 1: but it is it's getting out of control. Now, this
• 42:18
  Speaker 1: is what Donald Trump had to say. And maybe if
• 42:23
  Speaker 1: I could take this seriously and if he was serious
• 42:25
  Speaker 1: about what he's saying, then maybe this is one of
• 42:28
  Speaker 1: the best things he has said in his what now
• 42:31
  Speaker 1: five years of presidency, first term and second term.
• 42:34
  Speaker 2: I'm including this is what he posted.
• 42:38
  Speaker 1: If Ran shoots and violently kills peaceful protesters, which is
• 42:43
  Speaker 1: their custom, the United States of America will come to
• 42:46
  Speaker 1: their rescue. We are locked and loaded and ready to go.
• 42:52
  Speaker 1: Thank you for your attention in this matter. Now, this
• 42:55
  Speaker 1: is good, you know I support this, But two things. One,
• 43:04
  Speaker 1: is there any reason to believe him, any reason to
• 43:07
  Speaker 1: believe him? So, for example, protests is already being shot,
• 43:14
  Speaker 1: people already dying. Is the United States actually going to
• 43:18
  Speaker 1: do something? It is doing something, means that the United
• 43:23
  Speaker 1: States will give Israel a greenlight to do something. Maybe
• 43:25
  Speaker 1: and maybe that will be the thing, and maybe that's
• 43:28
  Speaker 1: a good thing. But is the United States really locked
• 43:32
  Speaker 1: and loaded, locked and loaded to go and do stuff?
• 43:35
  Speaker 1: Is this for real? Does he mean it? So that's
• 43:39
  Speaker 1: issue number one. Second, why why now? I know why
• 43:47
  Speaker 1: I think they should do it. I've been advocating for
• 43:49
  Speaker 1: war with you on since nineteen seventy nine. So I've
• 43:52
  Speaker 1: been advocating for war my entire adult life. I graduated
• 43:56
  Speaker 1: from high school in nineteen seventy nine, and so since then,
• 44:04
  Speaker 1: is issual still have intelligence opportives in Iran? Capitalist spite says, yeah, yeah,
• 44:11
  Speaker 1: of course, you know lots, But you know this, I've
• 44:20
  Speaker 1: been advocating for war since HOWMANI and since the Iranian
• 44:24
  Speaker 1: regime basically took hostages American hostages. That's an active war.
• 44:28
  Speaker 1: The Americana should have responded with an active war, not negotiations.
• 44:38
  Speaker 1: So but the question is, I know why Iran is
• 44:42
  Speaker 1: a threat to the United States, has been since seventy nine,
• 44:45
  Speaker 1: engaged in war activities against the United States consistently from
• 44:50
  Speaker 1: seventy nine to this day, and the United States, and
• 44:54
  Speaker 1: as an act of self defense, should take this opportunity
• 44:59
  Speaker 1: to destroy the regime anyone. But why does Donald Trump
• 45:05
  Speaker 1: want to do it? Is this a return to the
• 45:08
  Speaker 1: era of America's policeman of the world. I mean, they're
• 45:13
  Speaker 1: shooting their own citizens, They're not shooting Americans. Why is
• 45:16
  Speaker 1: this according to Donald Trump's narrow view of American interests,
• 45:20
  Speaker 1: mega super narrow view of American interests?
• 45:23
  Speaker 2: Why is this an American interest?
• 45:26
  Speaker 1: I mean, we just bombed Isis in Nigeria to defend Christians, supposedly,
• 45:32
  Speaker 1: is that the new strategy. Are we now literally the
• 45:36
  Speaker 1: policeman of the world going to go out there and
• 45:38
  Speaker 1: every time a regime shoots up his own citizens.
• 45:41
  Speaker 2: America is going to intervene. That can't be the case.
• 45:47
  Speaker 1: So what is it? So I'm all in favor of it,
• 45:52
  Speaker 1: and I you know, will congratulate Donald Trump if indeed
• 45:56
  Speaker 1: the United States intervenes. People like Dave Smith, by the way, Daveson,
• 46:00
  Speaker 1: the libertarian comedian non serious guide, is you know, flipping
• 46:05
  Speaker 1: out over this, flipping out like there goes America intervening
• 46:11
  Speaker 1: fighting a war for Israel. You know, I'm sure Techa
• 46:13
  Speaker 1: Cosson will have the same perspective going to war for
• 46:15
  Speaker 1: these Raelies, you know, starting a war we don't need.
• 46:21
  Speaker 1: What's the purpose of it, what's it for? And it
• 46:23
  Speaker 1: would be good if Donaldrump could answer those questions. Sadly
• 46:26
  Speaker 1: he can't, but good. I mean, this is a war
• 46:33
  Speaker 1: that the United States should be should have fought a
• 46:36
  Speaker 1: long long time ago. Better late than never, And maybe
• 46:40
  Speaker 1: it's time to follow up the bombing of the NUCA
• 46:43
  Speaker 1: facilities with the bombing of regime facilities that could indeed
• 46:49
  Speaker 1: lead to the fall of the regime. Now. One of
• 46:55
  Speaker 1: the things that's happened, and this is you know, worth noting,
• 47:02
  Speaker 1: I mean, just is that Israel during the Twelve Day War,
• 47:15
  Speaker 1: Israel actually took out the primary bases in Tehran, the
• 47:22
  Speaker 1: three main big bases of those units responsible for suppression
• 47:30
  Speaker 1: of internal dissent. So the units of the Islamic Revolutionary
• 47:36
  Speaker 1: God that would be out now.
• 47:39
  Speaker 2: In the streets suppressing this.
• 47:42
  Speaker 1: Were actually taken out by the Israelis during the Twelve
• 47:45
  Speaker 1: Day War, three locations supposedly, and I have no way
• 47:49
  Speaker 1: to verify this. Hundreds, probably thousands of people dead, their
• 47:54
  Speaker 1: infrastructure destroyed, The base is gone, the buildings are gone,
• 47:58
  Speaker 1: the whole thing has gone.
• 47:59
  Speaker 2: So it seems.
• 48:04
  Speaker 1: That that Israel has weakened the regime's hand in terms
• 48:11
  Speaker 1: of their ability to actually oppress their own people in
• 48:17
  Speaker 1: a significant way. This is why I think that if
• 48:22
  Speaker 1: Israel had continued on a twelve day they could have
• 48:24
  Speaker 1: actually brought down the regime, but they were stopped by Trump.
• 48:30
  Speaker 1: But we're seeing probably right now, we're seeing that the
• 48:34
  Speaker 1: regime is responding with less force and is having a problem.
• 48:39
  Speaker 1: One of the problems I have is that this has
• 48:41
  Speaker 1: now sped to fifty different cities. How do they control
• 48:44
  Speaker 1: people in fifty different cities. They might not have the
• 48:51
  Speaker 1: forces to do. And I did see stories today and
• 48:53
  Speaker 1: I don't know if they're true, but I sew stories.
• 48:56
  Speaker 2: It's hard to tell.
• 48:57
  Speaker 1: You see so much news come across it's very hard
• 48:59
  Speaker 1: to verify these things, particularly when they come from the other.
• 49:01
  Speaker 2: Side of the world.
• 49:02
  Speaker 1: I still story saying that the Iranians were bringing in
• 49:07
  Speaker 1: Arabs to help suppress. Now they've done this in the past,
• 49:12
  Speaker 1: but even there, Israel has limited the availability. They can't
• 49:17
  Speaker 1: go get Syrians, they can't get Lebanese. I think they're
• 49:23
  Speaker 1: probably getting people from the militias in New York to
• 49:27
  Speaker 1: help them suppress. So the United States is locked, locked
• 49:32
  Speaker 1: and loaded. Let's see what happens. Let's see what happens.
• 49:37
  Speaker 1: It would be interesting if Israel used this opportunity to
• 49:43
  Speaker 1: further degrade Iran's ballistic missile program. I mean, Trump did
• 49:49
  Speaker 1: say in his meeting with Benjamin to Taniel that Iwon
• 49:53
  Speaker 1: would face military strikes if they try to rebuild ballistic missiles.
• 49:56
  Speaker 1: On nuclear program was there was a destroyed There every
• 50:00
  Speaker 1: evidence to suggest that they are and getting help maybe
• 50:03
  Speaker 1: from the Chinese, certainly from the Russians, you know, doing that. Yeah,
• 50:08
  Speaker 1: it's it's gonna be it's gonna be interesting. As I said,
• 50:11
  Speaker 1: people are already being killed. So by that standard, the
• 50:16
  Speaker 1: United States should already be have planes in the air
• 50:18
  Speaker 1: bombing you on. But so we'll see how serious Trump
• 50:22
  Speaker 1: is about this. But yeah, one of at least in intent,
• 50:26
  Speaker 1: one of the most more positive things.
• 50:29
  Speaker 2: What's it gonna take for this uprising to succeed?
• 50:32
  Speaker 1: Really? I think three things. And there's a good article
• 50:36
  Speaker 1: in this that Andrew Fox, who's.
• 50:39
  Speaker 2: A military.
• 50:42
  Speaker 1: Military commentative who's very good, very good on Gaza, very
• 50:45
  Speaker 1: good and you won very good in the Middle East
• 50:48
  Speaker 1: wrote He wrote this a while back during the Twelve
• 50:50
  Speaker 1: Day war, but he basically three criteria four.
• 50:56
  Speaker 2: Regime collapsed.
• 50:57
  Speaker 1: One is mass civil unrest, widespread sustained protests and chaos
• 51:03
  Speaker 1: in the streets. That would that that has to be
• 51:07
  Speaker 1: kind of the beginning. This is already you know, as
• 51:13
  Speaker 1: we're seeing already happening. He mentions, a general strike is important.
• 51:16
  Speaker 1: That is happening. A protester is overrunning government buildings, supposedly,
• 51:21
  Speaker 1: that's happening in some of the smallert cities, large across
• 51:24
  Speaker 1: gathering in Tehran's Azadi Square, uh, which which I think
• 51:29
  Speaker 1: we're seeing protests would have to you know, uh, you know,
• 51:35
  Speaker 1: would have to sustain this, and it has to grow,
• 51:40
  Speaker 1: and it has to come from, you know, across different
• 51:44
  Speaker 1: parts of society, not just shopkeepers, not just students, not
• 51:49
  Speaker 1: just girls. It has to be wide, and it looks
• 51:51
  Speaker 1: like it is, so, you know, I think these demonstrations
• 51:57
  Speaker 1: are emboldened by the Twelve Day War, the emboldened by
• 52:00
  Speaker 1: the weakness of the Iranian regime. They're emboldened by the
• 52:06
  Speaker 1: fact that the regime is divided and uh, and they're
• 52:09
  Speaker 1: going forward. So that's one second condition. The security forces
• 52:15
  Speaker 1: have to be fractured.
• 52:17
  Speaker 2: The Ranian regime.
• 52:19
  Speaker 1: You know, baby seek survive survivals, hinges on the loyalties
• 52:24
  Speaker 1: of its military organs, the Islamic Revolutionary God, the besiege militia,
• 52:33
  Speaker 1: and the regular army. If any one of these sides
• 52:39
  Speaker 1: with the demonstrate is, it's all over the regime. Uh.
• 52:43
  Speaker 1: You know, you could see mid level commanders refusing orders
• 52:46
  Speaker 1: to fire on crowds. You could see garrisons surrendering or deserting. Uh.
• 52:53
  Speaker 1: Firefights between factions i GC, the Islamic Islamic Revolutionary God
• 52:59
  Speaker 1: versus the army.
• 53:00
  Speaker 2: As chain of command breaks down.
• 53:04
  Speaker 1: You know, you've got a lot of you know, Islamic
• 53:07
  Speaker 1: Revolutionary God commanders are gone. They were killed by the Israelis.
• 53:11
  Speaker 1: So there's weakness at the top that is going to
• 53:16
  Speaker 1: be We're gonna have to see some kind of fracture.
• 53:17
  Speaker 1: We're gonna have to see some military units sighting with
• 53:20
  Speaker 1: the demonstrators. This is what happened in seventy nine and
• 53:27
  Speaker 1: seventy nine Islamic Revolution. What happened was major military units,
• 53:31
  Speaker 1: divisions even openly switching sides and supporting the people. You
• 53:37
  Speaker 1: would have to see here some generals coming out and
• 53:41
  Speaker 1: saying were with the people, We're not with the regime
• 53:44
  Speaker 1: anymore now. I think this is what the shaw Son,
• 53:49
  Speaker 1: who is in exile in the United States is trying
• 53:51
  Speaker 1: to do. Is trying to put trying to is communicating
• 53:54
  Speaker 1: with leadership figures within the military, trying to get some
• 53:57
  Speaker 1: of them to come to the side of the demonstrators.
• 54:01
  Speaker 1: I don't think they're ready quite yet. The demonstrations are
• 54:03
  Speaker 1: going to have to become even bigger. I think one
• 54:06
  Speaker 1: of the reasons the regime is hesitating firing on the
• 54:09
  Speaker 1: demonstrators is fear that if they kill a lot of people,
• 54:13
  Speaker 1: that will only increase the size of the demonstrations. And
• 54:17
  Speaker 1: if they fire on people, they might give an opportunity
• 54:20
  Speaker 1: for some military units to say no to rebel. Finally,
• 54:26
  Speaker 1: you need a psychological shock at the top. This is
• 54:30
  Speaker 1: from Andrew's Andrew Fox's Blood. Authoritarian regimes often project an
• 54:37
  Speaker 1: aura of invincibility. Shattering that illusion can trigger a rapid unraveling.
• 54:44
  Speaker 1: In Iran's case, the sight or rumor of Supreme leader
• 54:48
  Speaker 1: to la Jaminian is in a circle fleeing by plane
• 54:52
  Speaker 1: to a foreign haven could be that shock. If the
• 54:55
  Speaker 1: Supreme leader is perceived to have given up or gone
• 54:59
  Speaker 1: into hiding, it is game over.
• 55:01
  Speaker 2: For regime cohesion.
• 55:03
  Speaker 1: Midle level officials and clerics would begin defecting or disappearing
• 55:07
  Speaker 1: anticipating the regime's fall. The remaining loyalists might resort to desperate,
• 55:13
  Speaker 1: vicious measures, but their morale would be in free fall.
• 55:17
  Speaker 1: Each additional blow, be at the fall of a major
• 55:20
  Speaker 1: city to protesters, or a light broadcast of a prominent
• 55:23
  Speaker 1: Ietola or Revolutionary Guard general announcing his resignation, would reinforce
• 55:28
  Speaker 1: the collective sense that this is the end. We saw
• 55:32
  Speaker 1: similar dynamics and other collapses. Once fear shift sides the
• 55:36
  Speaker 1: regime that, once terrified everyone suddenly finds itself the one
• 55:42
  Speaker 1: fightened of its people, as we saw last year in Syria.
• 55:46
  Speaker 2: Psychological tipping points can be abrupt.
• 55:49
  Speaker 1: One day a dictatorship seems securely intent, entrenched. The next
• 55:53
  Speaker 1: day it is melting away like ice in the sun. Now,
• 55:57
  Speaker 1: whether we are there, whether this is the event, whether
• 55:59
  Speaker 1: these stations it, I.
• 56:01
  Speaker 2: Do not know, but.
• 56:06
  Speaker 1: It could be close. It could be that this is it. Anyway,
• 56:10
  Speaker 1: I encourage you to follow Andrew Fox on Twitter, and
• 56:14
  Speaker 1: he's got a subsack and he's a really good source
• 56:18
  Speaker 1: of information about these things. Wa way behind God gotten
• 56:25
  Speaker 1: an hour and we've only done two items and we've
• 56:27
  Speaker 1: got one, two, three, four, five, okay five more? All right, Yeah,
• 56:41
  Speaker 1: I'll just say so we chat, we've raised more than
• 56:44
  Speaker 1: three hours worth in one hour.
• 56:47
  Speaker 2: So thank you, thank you.
• 56:48
  Speaker 1: Particular Skyler, sky Skyler, Sounders Skyler, thank you, thank you,
• 56:53
  Speaker 1: thank you. Skyler's done five hundred dollars in one hundred
• 56:57
  Speaker 1: dollars increments, So thank you Skyler. I'll get your questions
• 57:01
  Speaker 1: in a little bit. I really appreciate the support. I
• 57:05
  Speaker 1: guess Skyla is doing. I don't think he was there
• 57:10
  Speaker 1: on New Year's Eve, so he's doing his New Year's
• 57:12
  Speaker 1: Eve today, which is great starting off twenty twenty six
• 57:15
  Speaker 1: in a phenomenal form. Thank you guys. Andrew's there, rational
• 57:20
  Speaker 1: Ip is there with fifty dollars questions and a bunch
• 57:23
  Speaker 1: of twenty dollars questions, and you guys.
• 57:24
  Speaker 2: Are just walking.
• 57:26
  Speaker 1: We're definitely gonna go three hours today or we're definitely
• 57:28
  Speaker 1: gonna exceed two hours with all these questions, we have,
• 57:31
  Speaker 1: all these.
• 57:32
  Speaker 2: Been pent up.
• 57:33
  Speaker 1: God what happened over the last day, So again, thank
• 57:37
  Speaker 1: you Skyler and everybody else. All right, let's see, Yeah,
• 57:42
  Speaker 1: I'll just mention this It's a complex story and a
• 57:48
  Speaker 1: lengthy story. But Jack Smith, who is the special prosecutor
• 57:55
  Speaker 1: appointed by the Justice Department to investigate Trump, to invest
• 58:00
  Speaker 1: gate the Trump's incitement of January sixth riot and Trump's
• 58:07
  Speaker 1: handling of documents. Jack Smith's his transcripts, He, I guess,
• 58:15
  Speaker 1: testified a full day of testimony in Capitol Hill. You know,
• 58:20
  Speaker 1: hours and hours of content those testimony testimonies are being
• 58:26
  Speaker 1: being released by special of Special counsel Jack Smith. Jack
• 58:32
  Speaker 1: Smith was like a career prosecutor, suppose he never lost
• 58:36
  Speaker 1: a case. Not particularly known for being partisan one way
• 58:40
  Speaker 1: or the other. But anyway, the Republican led House Judicial
• 58:44
  Speaker 1: Committee released on Wednesday and transcript and video I have
• 58:48
  Speaker 1: a closed though interview Smith gave to investigate about two
• 58:55
  Speaker 1: investigations of Trump, and there long, it's a day long
• 59:00
  Speaker 1: depositions of these hours of content here. I've seen some
• 59:04
  Speaker 1: of the video and it is unbelievably damning of Trump. Now,
• 59:10
  Speaker 1: nothing here is new. What's new is the confidence with
• 59:15
  Speaker 1: which with which Jack Smith describes what happens. You know,
• 59:24
  Speaker 1: that his confidence that he could have prosecuted this case,
• 59:29
  Speaker 1: his belief that there was this no doubt of Trump's guilt.
• 59:35
  Speaker 1: Now you're innocent. It's'l proven guilty in a court of law.
• 59:38
  Speaker 1: But according to Jack Smith, at least he thought he
• 59:41
  Speaker 1: had a robust.
• 59:43
  Speaker 2: Strong case.
• 59:43
  Speaker 1: He also says that almost all the testimony against Trump
• 59:48
  Speaker 1: came from associates of Trump, came from people Republicans, came
• 59:54
  Speaker 1: from just factual stuff of what they said under evidence
• 59:57
  Speaker 1: and the you know oath. Even Giuliani, who contradicted most
• 1:00:03
  Speaker 1: of what he said publicly under oath, contradicted himself, and
• 1:00:08
  Speaker 1: many many others who just testified about what was going
• 1:00:12
  Speaker 1: on after the election leading up to.
• 1:00:17
  Speaker 2: January twelfth. His is one quote, This is in jectsmouth.
• 1:00:22
  Speaker 1: The evidence here made clear the President Trump was, by
• 1:00:26
  Speaker 1: a large measure, the most culpable and most responsible person
• 1:00:32
  Speaker 1: in this conspiracy. These crimes, the crimes of trying to
• 1:00:36
  Speaker 1: overturn an election, These crimes were committed for his benefit.
• 1:00:41
  Speaker 1: The attack that happened at the capitol of his case
• 1:00:44
  Speaker 1: part of this case, does not happen without him. The
• 1:00:48
  Speaker 1: other co conspirators were doing this for his benefit. So
• 1:00:55
  Speaker 1: in terms of why we would pursue a case against him,
• 1:01:00
  Speaker 1: entirely disagree with any characterization that our work was in
• 1:01:04
  Speaker 1: any way meant to hamper him in the presidential election.
• 1:01:09
  Speaker 2: You know this was meant.
• 1:01:12
  Speaker 1: There's an act of justice. Now, the deposition was connected privately,
• 1:01:21
  Speaker 1: in spite of the fact that he requested to do
• 1:01:23
  Speaker 1: it publicly. But they have released all of it now.
• 1:01:26
  Speaker 1: They did release the New Year's Eve, I don't think
• 1:01:29
  Speaker 1: accidentally under the assumption, and very.
• 1:01:32
  Speaker 2: Few people would listen to it New Year's Eve.
• 1:01:36
  Speaker 1: Smith repeatedly made clear that his belief that the evidence
• 1:01:39
  Speaker 1: gathered against Trump was strong enough to sustain a conviction.
• 1:01:45
  Speaker 2: Part of that was.
• 1:01:47
  Speaker 1: The extent and I'm reading from news article, was the
• 1:01:50
  Speaker 1: extent to which it relied on the testimony of Trump
• 1:01:54
  Speaker 1: allies and supporters who cooperated with the investigation.
• 1:02:01
  Speaker 2: This is a quote from him.
• 1:02:02
  Speaker 1: We had an elector in Pennsylvania who is a former
• 1:02:06
  Speaker 1: congressman who is going to be an elector for Donald Trump,
• 1:02:10
  Speaker 1: who said that what they were trying to do was
• 1:02:12
  Speaker 1: an attempt to overthrow the government and illegal. Our case,
• 1:02:17
  Speaker 1: Smith continues, was built unfrankly Republicans who put their allegiance
• 1:02:23
  Speaker 1: to the country before the party. And he said, these Republicans,
• 1:02:31
  Speaker 1: even though it could mean trouble for them, these Republicans.
• 1:02:37
  Speaker 1: Their evidence was the most powerful evidence against Trump when
• 1:02:44
  Speaker 1: it comes to Capital riot itself. The riot on January sixth,
• 1:02:49
  Speaker 1: the evidence showed that Trump quote caused it, and that
• 1:02:53
  Speaker 1: he exploited it, and it was foreseeable to him, and
• 1:02:57
  Speaker 1: he knew it was going to happen if we continue,
• 1:03:03
  Speaker 1: Trump made false statements of state legislatures to his supporters
• 1:03:08
  Speaker 1: in all sorts of contacts, and was aware in the
• 1:03:11
  Speaker 1: days leading up to January sixth that his supporters were
• 1:03:14
  Speaker 1: angry when he invited them and then directed them to
• 1:03:17
  Speaker 1: the Capitol. Now, once they were at the Capitol, and
• 1:03:21
  Speaker 1: once they attack on Capital happened, he refused to stop it.
• 1:03:25
  Speaker 1: He instead issued a tweet that, without question, in my mind,
• 1:03:29
  Speaker 1: endangered the lives.
• 1:03:30
  Speaker 2: Of his own vice president.
• 1:03:32
  Speaker 1: And when the violence was going on, he had to
• 1:03:35
  Speaker 1: be pushed repeatedly by his staff members to do anything
• 1:03:39
  Speaker 1: to quell it. I mean, we know this, but now
• 1:03:49
  Speaker 1: it's coming out of somebody who investigated this. I think
• 1:03:59
  Speaker 1: who should be accountable for this is Donald Trump. These
• 1:04:02
  Speaker 1: records are people. These records are people. In the case
• 1:04:05
  Speaker 1: of senators, Donald Trump directed his co conspirators to call
• 1:04:09
  Speaker 1: these people to further delay the proceedings he chose to
• 1:04:13
  Speaker 1: do that, you know, and again it was all under
• 1:04:18
  Speaker 1: Trump's guidance.
• 1:04:27
  Speaker 2: Again, this is this is some Smith.
• 1:04:30
  Speaker 1: I recall what I call was Meadows, Mike Meadows stating
• 1:04:36
  Speaker 1: I've never seen Jim Jordan's scared of anything. And the
• 1:04:39
  Speaker 1: fact that we were in this different, different situation now
• 1:04:42
  Speaker 1: where people were scared, really made it clear that what
• 1:04:46
  Speaker 1: was going on in the Capitol could not be mistaken
• 1:04:49
  Speaker 1: for anything other than what it was, a riot in
• 1:04:52
  Speaker 1: an attempt to overturn an election.
• 1:05:06
  Speaker 3: All right, so.
• 1:05:12
  Speaker 2: Pretty amazing.
• 1:05:13
  Speaker 1: I mean, if you listen to the whole thing, there
• 1:05:16
  Speaker 1: is a list of the co conspirators that were flipping
• 1:05:20
  Speaker 1: on Trump and they would have testimhied against him. Loyalists
• 1:05:27
  Speaker 1: for Trump told Jack Smith they repeatedly told Trump the
• 1:05:30
  Speaker 1: election wasn't stolen. Loyalists to Trump planned to cooperate with Jack.
• 1:05:36
  Speaker 2: Smith in court.
• 1:05:38
  Speaker 1: Smith said he didn't rule out indicting these co conspirators.
• 1:05:43
  Speaker 1: He said he would have gotten a conviction. He didn't
• 1:05:47
  Speaker 1: think he had a doubt that he would get a conviction.
• 1:05:50
  Speaker 1: He thinks that Trump is a criminal. When he was
• 1:05:53
  Speaker 1: pushed about isn't Trump saying the election was stolen. Just
• 1:05:57
  Speaker 1: an issue of free speech, he said. No, these speech
• 1:06:00
  Speaker 1: does not apply to fraud. And what Trump was trying
• 1:06:03
  Speaker 1: to do was commit fraud. He was trying to gain
• 1:06:06
  Speaker 1: something from this speech. He was trying to gain the
• 1:06:08
  Speaker 1: Overturning an election that is fraught and fought is not
• 1:06:12
  Speaker 1: protected speech, he said, and equivocally, the Trump attempted to
• 1:06:20
  Speaker 1: overturn the twenty twenty election and to stop the peaceful
• 1:06:23
  Speaker 1: transfer of power. He said, he put the life of
• 1:06:27
  Speaker 1: the vice president in jeopardy. Trump obstructed justice and their investigation. Personally,
• 1:06:37
  Speaker 1: Trump willfully and with intent kept classified documents and showed
• 1:06:41
  Speaker 1: them to people without clearance.
• 1:06:42
  Speaker 2: This is the document case.
• 1:06:49
  Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, all these stories about jack Smith tapping
• 1:06:52
  Speaker 1: the phones of Congressman and all this other stuff all bogus,
• 1:06:57
  Speaker 1: All never happened, and he denies there was any intent
• 1:07:02
  Speaker 1: for any of it to happen. It's quite an indictment.
• 1:07:07
  Speaker 1: And again, as far as we know, Jack Smith is
• 1:07:09
  Speaker 1: not particularly partisan. He's also was told by a judge
• 1:07:22
  Speaker 1: Canon that he couldn't talk in his deposition about the
• 1:07:25
  Speaker 1: document's case, and he thought that was illegal what she
• 1:07:32
  Speaker 1: was doing. He didn't talk about much about the document's case.
• 1:07:36
  Speaker 1: He mostly talked about the January sixth, But that's Judge Cannon,
• 1:07:40
  Speaker 1: who was in Trump's pocket from the beginning of that
• 1:07:44
  Speaker 1: whole procedure. So I don't know if anything's ever going
• 1:07:50
  Speaker 1: to come of this. You can find clips of the videos.
• 1:07:53
  Speaker 1: You can find the entire video if you want to
• 1:07:55
  Speaker 1: watch the entire thing, it's hours long. But there are
• 1:07:57
  Speaker 1: many many clips out there. I've seen in them on Twitter,
• 1:08:01
  Speaker 1: And I mean, Smith comes across as an unequivocal straight
• 1:08:05
  Speaker 1: shooter and just tells it like it is, or at
• 1:08:10
  Speaker 1: least tells it like he understands it Trump is. And
• 1:08:14
  Speaker 1: I said this when these indictments happened. The stuff in
• 1:08:17
  Speaker 1: New York was stupid. Trying Trump and all these other
• 1:08:20
  Speaker 1: charges were stupid. This was the real heart of it.
• 1:08:23
  Speaker 1: It was January sixth, It was the documents, and it
• 1:08:26
  Speaker 1: was Georgia. What happened in Georgia. That was what should
• 1:08:31
  Speaker 1: have been pursued. And you know, I hope some of
• 1:08:36
  Speaker 1: this is pursued after he leaves office. I hope some
• 1:08:40
  Speaker 1: of this would be pursued after he leaves office. And
• 1:08:44
  Speaker 1: the attempt of the right of the Republicans to rewrite history.
• 1:08:50
  Speaker 1: It is truly embarrassing and really unbelievable. And to make
• 1:08:55
  Speaker 1: the January sixth anything but the right and the riots
• 1:09:02
  Speaker 1: and in an attempt to overturn constitutional proceedings is thoroughly outrageous.
• 1:09:12
  Speaker 2: And yeah, I mean he should be locked up.
• 1:09:14
  Speaker 1: He found guilty. If a jury of his peers found him,
• 1:09:17
  Speaker 1: finds him guilty of all that, he should.
• 1:09:19
  Speaker 2: Be locked up.
• 1:09:20
  Speaker 1: They should go through a process, a legal process, in
• 1:09:22
  Speaker 1: order to achieve it. But there's no doubt in my
• 1:09:26
  Speaker 1: mind that he is for the at least for the
• 1:09:30
  Speaker 1: January sixth trying to overturn the election, but also for
• 1:09:34
  Speaker 1: the document Carase. I don't know what the penalty should
• 1:09:37
  Speaker 1: be in the document case, probably not jail, but he
• 1:09:40
  Speaker 1: should be found guilty for both of those, at least
• 1:09:42
  Speaker 1: based on all the evidence I have seen. But that's
• 1:09:47
  Speaker 1: not going to happen. And I'm going to get my
• 1:09:49
  Speaker 1: guess is I just lost an enormous number of subscribers
• 1:09:53
  Speaker 1: who do think I'm buying into left wing Democratic Party
• 1:09:58
  Speaker 1: far left conspiracy theories. All right, what do we want
• 1:10:03
  Speaker 1: to do now?
• 1:10:04
  Speaker 2: We uh tariff flip flop?
• 1:10:06
  Speaker 1: Yeah, I was gonna show you this. This is ah Oops,
• 1:10:10
  Speaker 1: why is it moved away like that? This is a
• 1:10:20
  Speaker 1: an editorial by the editorial staff at the Wall Street Journal,
• 1:10:24
  Speaker 1: which I think is is worth reading to you, you know,
• 1:10:27
  Speaker 1: I think this is this is another indictment of the
• 1:10:30
  Speaker 1: whole punitive of the whole tariff thing, and I'm just
• 1:10:34
  Speaker 1: gonna I'm just gonna read you this thing. One of
• 1:10:35
  Speaker 1: the striking contradictions of President Trump's tariff tariffs is the
• 1:10:40
  Speaker 1: way his chorus claims the rousing success even as he
• 1:10:45
  Speaker 1: carves out hundreds of exemptions. Really, as a president works
• 1:10:49
  Speaker 1: so hard to cover the damage from his own policies
• 1:10:54
  Speaker 1: without admitting it. The latest is his New Year's Eve
• 1:11:00
  Speaker 1: retreat on new tariffs on unupholstered furniture, kitchen cabinets, and vanities.
• 1:11:10
  Speaker 1: His plan thirty to fifty levees will now be the
• 1:11:14
  Speaker 1: later year, maintaining as still damaging twenty five percent vote attacks.
• 1:11:18
  Speaker 1: Mister Trump is imposed the higher tariff in the name
• 1:11:22
  Speaker 1: of national security. But apparently the killer love seats aren't
• 1:11:27
  Speaker 1: as dangerous as advertised.
• 1:11:30
  Speaker 2: That's pretty good.
• 1:11:31
  Speaker 1: Maybe you can now buy one without the fear of
• 1:11:35
  Speaker 1: assault from a foreign spy. All right, So the writers
• 1:11:40
  Speaker 1: on the Wall Street Journal pretty good. The furniture reprieve
• 1:11:45
  Speaker 1: is no doubt intended to limit price increases for consumers.
• 1:11:49
  Speaker 1: Prices for living room furnishing rose four point six percent
• 1:11:52
  Speaker 1: in November from a year earlier, which makes it harder
• 1:11:56
  Speaker 1: for young families trying to buy new places to actually sit.
• 1:12:02
  Speaker 1: The retreat is another in a string of policy reversals
• 1:12:07
  Speaker 1: to mute the tariff harm to American consumers. First was
• 1:12:12
  Speaker 1: the carve out from his punit of tariffs and Chinese
• 1:12:16
  Speaker 1: goods for smartphones and other consumer electronics. Then came the
• 1:12:19
  Speaker 1: relief on bananas, coffee, beef, and many farm products. Behind
• 1:12:24
  Speaker 1: the scenes at the Commerce Department, countless firms and industries
• 1:12:28
  Speaker 1: are begging.
• 1:12:30
  Speaker 2: This is their pressure.
• 1:12:31
  Speaker 1: Politics of the mixed economy are begging for their own exemptions.
• 1:12:36
  Speaker 1: Are your chances better if you donate it to the
• 1:12:38
  Speaker 1: Trump campaigns question mark. You'd think the tariff cheerleaders would
• 1:12:44
  Speaker 1: be embarrassed by these walkbacks, but they ignore them, as
• 1:12:49
  Speaker 1: they promised that the tariff golden age will soon arrive.
• 1:12:52
  Speaker 1: At least for your next sofa. The golden age will
• 1:12:56
  Speaker 1: have to wait until after the November elections. That's good writing,
• 1:13:04
  Speaker 1: good synct and true. But this is exactly it, right.
• 1:13:08
  Speaker 1: I mean, the tariffs have done one thing well, They've
• 1:13:13
  Speaker 1: achieved one goal completely, and that is that now every
• 1:13:18
  Speaker 1: industry in America, every business person in America is beholden
• 1:13:23
  Speaker 1: to Trump. Every one of them once a meeting with Trump,
• 1:13:27
  Speaker 1: wants to find a way to get relief from Trump,
• 1:13:30
  Speaker 1: wants to find a way to get tariffs on his competitor,
• 1:13:32
  Speaker 1: and has reduced this is I've been a cash call
• 1:13:38
  Speaker 1: for Trump in terms of just plain old corruption, but
• 1:13:43
  Speaker 1: this is, this is so obviously cronyism and encouraging cornyism
• 1:13:50
  Speaker 1: and supporting cornelism. And if your goal was to increase
• 1:13:53
  Speaker 1: corneism in America, you have succeeded one hundred percent. It
• 1:13:57
  Speaker 1: is amazing how well you have succeeded. If your goal
• 1:14:03
  Speaker 1: was to actually encourage I don't know, business in America, success,
• 1:14:08
  Speaker 1: success in America, capitalism in America, I don't know, increase
• 1:14:13
  Speaker 1: prosperity in America, then this has been a massive, unequivocal failure.
• 1:14:19
  Speaker 1: And uh, and you know it hasn't. It hasn't a
• 1:14:22
  Speaker 1: late economic disaster. I predicted it wouldn't lead to economic disaster,
• 1:14:26
  Speaker 1: but it's just dulled economic progress. It's taken an edge off.
• 1:14:31
  Speaker 1: It's made it. It's made a stagnant. It's encourages stagnation.
• 1:14:39
  Speaker 1: All right, I saw this. I guess you call it meme,
• 1:14:43
  Speaker 1: a meme published by God? Who published this? It's uh,
• 1:14:49
  Speaker 1: by the government, by our government, the US government. Uh No,
• 1:14:57
  Speaker 1: I don't want to do that.
• 1:14:58
  Speaker 2: Let me just I say the meme, but I didn't
• 1:15:00
  Speaker 2: save who published it.
• 1:15:03
  Speaker 1: And I want to actually include that because it was
• 1:15:06
  Speaker 1: a government, it was a government department. So let me
• 1:15:09
  Speaker 1: just search this one second. Let's see if we can
• 1:15:16
  Speaker 1: find it now a few hours old. Huh, God, I'll
• 1:15:37
  Speaker 1: show you the meme in the meantime.
• 1:15:40
  Speaker 2: There it is.
• 1:15:41
  Speaker 1: That's it. It's isn't that is that beautiful? See what's
• 1:15:50
  Speaker 1: written in the middle, that beautiful that beautiful statement?
• 1:15:56
  Speaker 3: Uh?
• 1:15:56
  Speaker 1: And uh and what is uh what is written there?
• 1:16:01
  Speaker 1: One second, I know how to find it. Well, this
• 1:16:15
  Speaker 1: was published by Homeland Security, by DHS government, So the
• 1:16:21
  Speaker 1: Department of Homeland Security, this is your tax money funded
• 1:16:24
  Speaker 1: this meme. This meme says, this is America or America
• 1:16:28
  Speaker 1: after one hundred million deportations. Look at that beautiful, beautiful coast,
• 1:16:33
  Speaker 1: A wonderful nineteen fifties looking car. You know, this is
• 1:16:39
  Speaker 1: somewhere in the coast of Florida. It looks like with
• 1:16:42
  Speaker 1: palm trees and just beautiful. But think about what one
• 1:16:46
  Speaker 1: hundred million deportations mean there. I think about fifty one
• 1:16:52
  Speaker 1: million foreign born people living in America, legal and illegal immigrants.
• 1:17:01
  Speaker 1: Maybe fifty one, maybe sixty, I don't know. Fifty one
• 1:17:06
  Speaker 1: is the number. Who the other forty nine? Who are
• 1:17:12
  Speaker 1: the other forty nine? So let's say we now deport
• 1:17:16
  Speaker 1: every single foreign born for America, includes me, by the way,
• 1:17:23
  Speaker 1: includes some of you, so illegal we just deport them all.
• 1:17:30
  Speaker 1: Then what then? How do we figure out how to
• 1:17:32
  Speaker 1: deport the next forty nine million?
• 1:17:33
  Speaker 2: Because they want to.
• 1:17:34
  Speaker 1: Deport a hundred million. This is your government speaking, your government,
• 1:17:41
  Speaker 1: about a third of the population they want to deport.
• 1:17:45
  Speaker 1: So who with out of forty nine million, Well maybe
• 1:17:48
  Speaker 1: maybe people who don't like Trump, who disagree with Trump.
• 1:17:55
  Speaker 1: Maybe people who have brown skin who might have been
• 1:17:59
  Speaker 1: born in America, but they still at bond skin, they're
• 1:18:04
  Speaker 1: not heritage Americans. Although some people with bond skin are
• 1:18:08
  Speaker 1: heritage Americans, they were you know, Hispanics in America from
• 1:18:15
  Speaker 1: very early on. How about blacks maybe blacks who want
• 1:18:21
  Speaker 1: come don't come from a slave family. But you know,
• 1:18:24
  Speaker 1: how do you do that? Maybe just all the blacks?
• 1:18:27
  Speaker 2: What the hell? Why not?
• 1:18:31
  Speaker 1: I mean, who are they thinking of deporting Jews? It's
• 1:18:35
  Speaker 1: not a lot of people. Maybe six million, one hundred million.
• 1:18:40
  Speaker 1: They have to get a hundred million atheists. That's good.
• 1:18:43
  Speaker 1: I like the atheists. Who else? Who else would you deport?
• 1:18:50
  Speaker 1: I mean, this is insane, unequivocally evil, evil, a third,
• 1:19:03
  Speaker 1: almost a third of population.
• 1:19:06
  Speaker 2: Deporting.
• 1:19:10
  Speaker 1: You know, this is I don't know what adjectives do
• 1:19:13
  Speaker 1: you want to give it? This is just terrific. This
• 1:19:17
  Speaker 1: is Donald Trump's administration. This is by some accounts, the
• 1:19:21
  Speaker 1: best administration in American history. But you know, a great president,
• 1:19:25
  Speaker 1: heroic president, and yet his administration is going out there,
• 1:19:30
  Speaker 1: all out saying they wanted to devote one hundred million people.
• 1:19:38
  Speaker 1: It really is insane. Now they can't do it, they
• 1:19:40
  Speaker 1: won't do it. This is just bs. But this is
• 1:19:43
  Speaker 1: the think of the mentality, think of the fact that
• 1:19:49
  Speaker 1: this is what they're putting out there. Here's the numbers.
• 1:19:54
  Speaker 1: According to the Census, they're about forty five point three
• 1:19:57
  Speaker 1: million foreign bone residents in the United States. That was
• 1:20:00
  Speaker 1: of twenty eighteen, So maybe it's fifty to fifty one today.
• 1:20:11
  Speaker 1: I mean half a Silicon Valley is gone. Many of
• 1:20:16
  Speaker 1: the CEOs of leading American corporations are gone. Some people
• 1:20:21
  Speaker 1: in Congress are going to be gone, some of us
• 1:20:28
  Speaker 1: me And it's hard to believe this is a government account,
• 1:20:33
  Speaker 1: a government account. This is mega projecting what they really think.
• 1:20:38
  Speaker 1: Remember remember, remember a long time ago, before the election,
• 1:20:42
  Speaker 1: it was only illegal immigrants. We just hate illegal Immigrants's
• 1:20:45
  Speaker 1: not about immigration. We love immigrants, immigrants amazing. We just
• 1:20:50
  Speaker 1: don't like illegal immigrants because the illegal you remember that illegal.
• 1:20:53
  Speaker 1: It's all about the illegal immigrants. We don't want illegal
• 1:20:55
  Speaker 1: immigrants in America because they broke the law. They shouldn't
• 1:20:57
  Speaker 1: come here if they break the law. All I said, Okay,
• 1:21:01
  Speaker 1: so we gave them that, or some people gave them that.
• 1:21:03
  Speaker 1: It's just illegal. And then once they got into power up,
• 1:21:07
  Speaker 1: they said, well, it's also some of the legal immigrants,
• 1:21:10
  Speaker 1: like if you're Indian or if you h one b.
• 1:21:14
  Speaker 1: There's some mystical evil thing about the h one b
• 1:21:17
  Speaker 1: h one b's we don't like. And then Miller has
• 1:21:20
  Speaker 1: basically said the Golden age of America's well when we
• 1:21:23
  Speaker 1: had negative immigration.
• 1:21:25
  Speaker 2: So let's go for negative immigration.
• 1:21:26
  Speaker 1: So that means no legal immigrants, no net increase in
• 1:21:30
  Speaker 1: legal immigration, no net legal immigration. So they started out
• 1:21:36
  Speaker 1: with just illegal immigrants. Then they said, oh no, it's
• 1:21:39
  Speaker 1: all immigrants. We don't want immigration, we don't need immigrants.
• 1:21:41
  Speaker 1: It's all about America first, Americans first. We don't want,
• 1:21:45
  Speaker 1: you know, send those Indians home, h one b's and
• 1:21:49
  Speaker 1: everything else. And now they're saying, it's not even about immigration,
• 1:21:55
  Speaker 1: legal or illegal. It's about past immigration. It's about anybody
• 1:21:59
  Speaker 1: who's born in a different place. And really what's behind
• 1:22:03
  Speaker 1: it is it's about anybody who's not a heritage American,
• 1:22:06
  Speaker 1: who doesn't have the right skin color, didn't fight in
• 1:22:08
  Speaker 1: the right battles, didn't have ancestors who fought in the
• 1:22:11
  Speaker 1: right battles. These people do not deserve to be leading
• 1:22:20
  Speaker 1: the United States of America. They should emigrate to Russia
• 1:22:27
  Speaker 1: or Venezuela. Stephen, I have the questions that you gave,
• 1:22:50
  Speaker 1: and we'll do those first when we get to the
• 1:22:52
  Speaker 1: questions here in a few minutes. I don't have your
• 1:22:55
  Speaker 1: question from today. I just can't keep track of PayPal.
• 1:22:58
  Speaker 1: It's better if you want to ask questions to do
• 1:23:00
  Speaker 1: them live. I'll try to pull it up. I'll try
• 1:23:05
  Speaker 1: to pull up the question from today. If I can
• 1:23:07
  Speaker 1: get PayPal, if I can get people to cooperate.
• 1:23:12
  Speaker 2: All right, let's see quickly, that's the definancing stories quickly.
• 1:23:17
  Speaker 2: Only one story.
• 1:23:18
  Speaker 1: We just left with one story, all right, inequality. I'll
• 1:23:22
  Speaker 1: just mention this quickly. We don't have to spend a
• 1:23:26
  Speaker 1: lot of time on this. But Nature magazine, Nature, the
• 1:23:30
  Speaker 1: science journal, published a paper that is worth reflecting on quickly.
• 1:23:37
  Speaker 1: Although it won't surprise those of you who've read my
• 1:23:40
  Speaker 1: works in the past, particularly my book An Equal is Unfair.
• 1:23:45
  Speaker 1: According to a mega analysis, a meta analysis, this is
• 1:23:49
  Speaker 1: a paper that analyzes many other papers, in this case,
• 1:23:53
  Speaker 1: an analysis of one hundred and sixty eight studies one
• 1:23:57
  Speaker 1: hundred and sixty eight studies.
• 1:23:59
  Speaker 2: Covering more than eleven million people.
• 1:24:04
  Speaker 1: Looking at the effects of inequality on things like well being,
• 1:24:09
  Speaker 1: individual wellbeing, and mental health. So for over a decade,
• 1:24:16
  Speaker 1: really a decade and a half fifteen years, we are
• 1:24:18
  Speaker 1: being told by the Thomas Pikettis of the world that
• 1:24:24
  Speaker 1: inequality is the main source of social ills. It's responsible
• 1:24:29
  Speaker 1: for depression, it's responsible for political tribalism. It is responsible
• 1:24:35
  Speaker 1: for every ill, everything bad possible. Inequality, inequality of income
• 1:24:44
  Speaker 1: and wealth is responsible. Well, it turns out that after
• 1:24:50
  Speaker 1: looking at one hundred and sixty eight different studies, this
• 1:24:54
  Speaker 1: paper concludes that there is no no and oh reliable
• 1:25:01
  Speaker 1: link between economic inequality and well being or mental health,
• 1:25:08
  Speaker 1: no relationship.
• 1:25:11
  Speaker 2: Now, if you read my book, which you all should.
• 1:25:17
  Speaker 1: If you haven't yet, you should read it now, my
• 1:25:21
  Speaker 1: book on equal is Unfair, then you would know this already.
• 1:25:31
  Speaker 1: I am looking for Stephen's question.
• 1:25:34
  Speaker 2: You get one today on PayPal.
• 1:25:38
  Speaker 1: I don't see one today. I don't see Stephen katz
• 1:25:43
  Speaker 1: Let's cats k t z. I see two contributions and
• 1:25:52
  Speaker 1: questions I think from twelve thirty one. I don't see
• 1:25:55
  Speaker 1: anything today. One for twenty dollars and one for thirty dollars.
• 1:26:03
  Speaker 1: All right, anyway, I will answer those two in a
• 1:26:08
  Speaker 1: few minutes. All right, guys, that is the news for
• 1:26:15
  Speaker 1: January second, the first working day in January. Thank you
• 1:26:24
  Speaker 1: for joining me. Thanks for all that. There's a ton
• 1:26:27
  Speaker 1: of questions which I will now turn to. I will
• 1:26:31
  Speaker 1: turn to start with the questions that I got through
• 1:26:34
  Speaker 1: PayPal on New Year's Even and didn't get to answer,
• 1:26:38
  Speaker 1: and I'll start with those. I'll start with Stevens, and
• 1:26:40
  Speaker 1: then Dan and I have one from Nathan Smith, and
• 1:26:43
  Speaker 1: then I'll get to the super chat questions for today.
• 1:26:48
  Speaker 2: What else do I want to tell you?
• 1:26:49
  Speaker 1: I want to remind you that there will be a
• 1:26:51
  Speaker 1: show tomorrow, probably at two pm Eastern time, and as
• 1:26:55
  Speaker 1: part of that show, I will review the two movies
• 1:26:58
  Speaker 1: that you know, you guys have paid me to review. Also,
• 1:27:06
  Speaker 1: I wanted what else did I want to remind you? Yeah,
• 1:27:09
  Speaker 1: I want to remind you. Let's make a big push
• 1:27:13
  Speaker 1: this year in twenty twenty six to dramatically, I mean
• 1:27:17
  Speaker 1: dramatically increase the number of people supporting the show on
• 1:27:20
  Speaker 1: a monthly basis. So please consider going to Patreon dot com,
• 1:27:24
  Speaker 1: putting in your on books show, and making a commitment
• 1:27:28
  Speaker 1: of a monthly contribution to the show. You can do
• 1:27:30
  Speaker 1: the two dollars all the way to one thousand dollars.
• 1:27:32
  Speaker 1: I need a few people to do it.
• 1:27:33
  Speaker 2: One thousand dollars.
• 1:27:34
  Speaker 1: That would really help.
• 1:27:36
  Speaker 2: If you can afford it and you value the show enough.
• 1:27:38
  Speaker 1: But anything, all of it matters, So it would be
• 1:27:42
  Speaker 1: great if we could get at least ten people every
• 1:27:45
  Speaker 1: month joining in on Patreon.
• 1:27:49
  Speaker 2: So those of you don't watch live and.
• 1:27:51
  Speaker 1: Don't do super chat, wait, if you do super chat,
• 1:27:54
  Speaker 1: this is a way to just get it regularly in
• 1:27:57
  Speaker 1: in the sequence. And you know, also those of you
• 1:28:05
  Speaker 1: who listen who are not live, which is most people.
• 1:28:08
  Speaker 1: You know, ninety percent of the people who watch the
• 1:28:10
  Speaker 1: show are not watching it live. And if we do
• 1:28:13
  Speaker 1: not participate in a super chat, most of those people,
• 1:28:17
  Speaker 1: more than fifty percent of the people listening not live,
• 1:28:21
  Speaker 1: don't contribute financially to the show. So what I'm urging
• 1:28:24
  Speaker 1: you to is become a trader, a trade a value
• 1:28:27
  Speaker 1: for value. I provide the show, that's my the value
• 1:28:30
  Speaker 1: I'm providing. You provide the funding, which is the way
• 1:28:34
  Speaker 1: you trade with me. And you can do that on Patreon,
• 1:28:37
  Speaker 1: on PayPal, you can do PayPal a one time gift,
• 1:28:40
  Speaker 1: or you can do a monthly on Patreon. Monthly contributions
• 1:28:45
  Speaker 1: incredibly valuable. I know the money's coming, I know how
• 1:28:49
  Speaker 1: to plan. You know super chet, you never know. Today
• 1:28:54
  Speaker 1: is an amazing day. Other days are tougher, but but yeah,
• 1:29:01
  Speaker 1: Patreon dot com, you run book show. Become a monthly
• 1:29:05
  Speaker 1: contributor at whatever level you can afford and you think
• 1:29:10
  Speaker 1: is worth your while. It has to be selfish. Don't
• 1:29:14
  Speaker 1: do it as a sacrifice. Do it because it's in
• 1:29:16
  Speaker 1: your self interest to trade with me, to be a trader.
• 1:29:22
  Speaker 1: All right, let's jump in. Let's jump in, uh with
• 1:29:29
  Speaker 1: with this. Let's start with Stephen Stephen Katz. What do
• 1:29:37
  Speaker 1: you think of the result in the PGA Tour versus Martin?
• 1:29:40
  Speaker 1: The Supreme Court found that the PGA Tour had to
• 1:29:43
  Speaker 1: let him drive a golf cart in the PGA Tour events,
• 1:29:47
  Speaker 1: Scalia wrote a scathing and funny descent. We can only
• 1:29:51
  Speaker 1: play federal platonic golf. Now, he said, do you agree
• 1:29:55
  Speaker 1: that games don't have any purpose? There's no way to
• 1:29:59
  Speaker 1: say that any rule is essential or not, so that
• 1:30:02
  Speaker 1: the court should defer to the PGA. What do you
• 1:30:05
  Speaker 1: think of the ADA? How did disabled people do before
• 1:30:09
  Speaker 1: the ADA? So I reject the whole premise that it's
• 1:30:14
  Speaker 1: any of the government's business how a private enterprise deals
• 1:30:20
  Speaker 1: with disabled people. So I think the American Disability Act
• 1:30:26
  Speaker 1: should have been ruled unconstitutional. It is intervening in private
• 1:30:32
  Speaker 1: transactions where the government has no role to intervene. You
• 1:30:36
  Speaker 1: don't have a right because you're disabled to get special
• 1:30:40
  Speaker 1: treatment or to get any treatment. You don't have a
• 1:30:44
  Speaker 1: right to be able to enter into any store that
• 1:30:48
  Speaker 1: you desire to enter into. So look, there's no question
• 1:30:54
  Speaker 1: the ADA has made it easier for disabled people to
• 1:30:59
  Speaker 1: act in the world out there. Yeah, it's done that,
• 1:31:04
  Speaker 1: but at what cost and who bore the cost? And
• 1:31:10
  Speaker 1: they were cost into doing it. So now under capitalism,
• 1:31:17
  Speaker 1: I think ultimately people would invest in facilities that make
• 1:31:20
  Speaker 1: it possible for people to access because it's in their
• 1:31:23
  Speaker 1: self in its just have more customers rather than less customers,
• 1:31:26
  Speaker 1: more employees rather than less employees. But if a business
• 1:31:29
  Speaker 1: wants to discriminate against disable people, they have every right
• 1:31:34
  Speaker 1: to do it. They're evil and wrong, but they have
• 1:31:37
  Speaker 1: every right to do it. So objectivism capitalism les if capitalism.
• 1:31:45
  Speaker 1: The ideology of Lesia capitalism holds that government intervention and
• 1:31:49
  Speaker 1: such things as unwarranted, unjustified, unconstitutional anymore. It is the
• 1:31:55
  Speaker 1: use of cousion to take from one group and give
• 1:31:58
  Speaker 1: to the other. Why because one group is hoating and
• 1:32:01
  Speaker 1: the other one looks like it has stuff. It's a
• 1:32:04
  Speaker 1: massive redistribution of wealth from those who have to those
• 1:32:08
  Speaker 1: who are disabled. And in that sense it is wrong,
• 1:32:13
  Speaker 1: and sometimes by the way, the redistribution of wealth is
• 1:32:15
  Speaker 1: from those who haven't to those who are disabled. If
• 1:32:19
  Speaker 1: you're a small business and you couldn't afford to put
• 1:32:22
  Speaker 1: in a ramp for whatever, for wheelchairs or whatever the
• 1:32:27
  Speaker 1: Act required you to do, you were out of business
• 1:32:31
  Speaker 1: because you can afford it. So I'm against the ADA,
• 1:32:41
  Speaker 1: the PGA tour. It's not the fact that it's a
• 1:32:44
  Speaker 1: game that has nothing to do with it. It's the
• 1:32:47
  Speaker 1: fact that it's a private business. It's a fact that
• 1:32:50
  Speaker 1: it's not the job of government to regulate private contractual relationships.
• 1:32:57
  Speaker 1: It's none of the government's business. Not because it's a game. Again,
• 1:33:00
  Speaker 1: because it's a non government institution. Now the government can
• 1:33:04
  Speaker 1: decide that it's going to help, you know, disabled people
• 1:33:10
  Speaker 1: access government facilities.
• 1:33:12
  Speaker 2: That makes sense.
• 1:33:14
  Speaker 1: It can impose on government departments what to do. It
• 1:33:18
  Speaker 1: should not be able to impose anything on private companies.
• 1:33:24
  Speaker 1: All right. Second question for Stephen, how are you one
• 1:33:26
  Speaker 1: hundred percent sure that the toomach bombing of Ushumannagasaki one
• 1:33:29
  Speaker 1: hundred percent model? What does it mean to be one
• 1:33:32
  Speaker 1: hundred percent model?
• 1:33:33
  Speaker 2: Anyway?
• 1:33:34
  Speaker 1: Does it mean that your actions were the very best
• 1:33:36
  Speaker 1: actions you could have taken in that context. No, it
• 1:33:39
  Speaker 1: doesn't have to be the very best actions. It asks
• 1:33:43
  Speaker 1: to be actions that are consistent with your long term
• 1:33:47
  Speaker 1: rational self interest. What was the long term rational self
• 1:33:51
  Speaker 1: interest of the United States. The long term rational self
• 1:33:55
  Speaker 1: interest of the United States was to end the war quickly, decisively,
• 1:34:00
  Speaker 1: with minimal casualties to their own people. It's not the
• 1:34:05
  Speaker 1: responsibility of the United States to care or to take
• 1:34:09
  Speaker 1: into account the casualties on the enemy side. That's the
• 1:34:13
  Speaker 1: enemy government's responsibility. The United States gave Japan the opportunity
• 1:34:22
  Speaker 1: to surrender before the bombs were dropped. They gave the
• 1:34:27
  Speaker 1: Japanese government opportunities surrender after one drop bomb was dropped.
• 1:34:32
  Speaker 1: That's it. That's all. So dropping the bombs is moral
• 1:34:39
  Speaker 1: because it served the necessary interests of the United States
• 1:34:45
  Speaker 1: to win the war quickly, decisively and with minimal casualties.
• 1:34:53
  Speaker 1: That's all I have to know. Was there a better option? Maybe,
• 1:34:57
  Speaker 1: But that doesn't make this small option lists more. It
• 1:35:00
  Speaker 1: just means they might have been a better option. I
• 1:35:01
  Speaker 1: don't know what that would be. Again, minimal casualties to
• 1:35:05
  Speaker 1: your own side. That's the only standard.
• 1:35:09
  Speaker 2: There is no other standard.
• 1:35:10
  Speaker 1: The standard cannot be how many casualties are caused on
• 1:35:13
  Speaker 1: the other side, that's irrelevant, should be irrelevant to your
• 1:35:16
  Speaker 1: decision making. I know that makes me come out brutal
• 1:35:20
  Speaker 1: and uncarrying. Indeed, I think that he is knobbing of
• 1:35:26
  Speaker 1: Yushman Niggasak. He was one of the most moral actions.
• 1:35:29
  Speaker 1: Why because it rejected the standard of altruism. It rejected
• 1:35:36
  Speaker 1: the idea that America should sacrifice its own troops to
• 1:35:41
  Speaker 1: save Japanese civilians. That is altruism in war, and that
• 1:35:45
  Speaker 1: is what I thoroughly reject for every country. You do
• 1:35:53
  Speaker 1: not sacrifice your own people to save the lives of
• 1:35:56
  Speaker 1: enemies people, even if they're civilians, even if they were innocents.
• 1:36:00
  Speaker 1: They are the responsibility of their government, not your responsibility.
• 1:36:04
  Speaker 1: Your responsibility is to your people, including your soldiers. It
• 1:36:08
  Speaker 1: means minimizing the danger that they face and maximizing the
• 1:36:15
  Speaker 1: speed by which victory is attained that they could go home.
• 1:36:21
  Speaker 1: That's it. If you're interested in this. If you want
• 1:36:25
  Speaker 1: more clarity on this, check out Just War Theory versus America.
• 1:36:31
  Speaker 2: I think that was the name of my essay.
• 1:36:33
  Speaker 1: Just do just.
• 1:36:36
  Speaker 2: War Theory.
• 1:36:37
  Speaker 1: You run Brook on Google and you will find it's
• 1:36:40
  Speaker 1: on the Ironman Institute website. Read that essay. It explains
• 1:36:44
  Speaker 1: my whole theory around how to fight wars and why
• 1:36:48
  Speaker 1: here was she Wannagasaki a necessarily model?
• 1:36:53
  Speaker 2: Okay.
• 1:36:54
  Speaker 1: Dan asked a couple of questions that didn't get answered. Yvon,
• 1:36:58
  Speaker 1: you often don't play the good things BB does because
• 1:37:02
  Speaker 1: other Israeli politicians would do the same thing. Don't you
• 1:37:06
  Speaker 1: think that applies to fd On World War Two, for example,
• 1:37:09
  Speaker 1: didn't everyone support total war and unconditional surrender? And surely
• 1:37:14
  Speaker 1: other polls wouldn't have appeased Stalin continually an excluded pattern
• 1:37:19
  Speaker 1: from fighting.
• 1:37:20
  Speaker 2: Have a good new year and thank you for all
• 1:37:22
  Speaker 2: you do.
• 1:37:25
  Speaker 1: I mean, look, no other president since has fought a
• 1:37:33
  Speaker 1: total war. No other president since FDRs fort a total war.
• 1:37:40
  Speaker 2: I mean maybe Truman, but he was just continuing FDR.
• 1:37:43
  Speaker 1: So I don't know that anyone everyone supported total war.
• 1:37:48
  Speaker 1: I don't know that everyone is supported now. Maybe maybe
• 1:37:51
  Speaker 1: it's just my ignorance. Maybe in that period, indeed, any
• 1:37:55
  Speaker 1: politician in power would have done the same thing as FDR.
• 1:37:58
  Speaker 2: And he doesn't deserve credit for that.
• 1:38:00
  Speaker 1: And it's possible, it's possible I give him too much
• 1:38:03
  Speaker 1: credit for that. I admit that, and surely all the
• 1:38:06
  Speaker 1: evil that FDR did on the economy and everything else,
• 1:38:10
  Speaker 1: I mean, it's not wiped out by the fact.
• 1:38:12
  Speaker 2: That he was a good war president.
• 1:38:15
  Speaker 1: And I certainly wouldn't have supported IFT. I wouldn't voted
• 1:38:17
  Speaker 1: for IFTYR during the war, after the war, in the
• 1:38:20
  Speaker 1: middle of the war, I wouldn't voted for him in
• 1:38:21
  Speaker 1: spite of him being good on this. And yes, the
• 1:38:26
  Speaker 1: sin of appeasing Stalin and not letting patent fight, and
• 1:38:30
  Speaker 1: not taking Eastern Europe and all of that that is
• 1:38:33
  Speaker 1: a grave sin. So yeah, I mean, maybe you're right.
• 1:38:35
  Speaker 1: Maybe I should be much harsher on I FDR. Maybe
• 1:38:39
  Speaker 1: I'll change my position.
• 1:38:41
  Speaker 2: There's a lot of yeah. I mean.
• 1:38:46
  Speaker 1: That that makes sense to me that I should be
• 1:38:48
  Speaker 1: harsher on FDR, not softer on bb Ntenno. This is
• 1:38:56
  Speaker 1: a question Dan asked of Nikos, but we didn't get
• 1:38:59
  Speaker 1: to it, or it was YouTube disappeared it. What's the
• 1:39:05
  Speaker 1: difference between communism and Marxism. I assume Mamdani doesn't believe
• 1:39:10
  Speaker 1: in dialectical materialism, et cetera, so he isn't a Marxist.
• 1:39:14
  Speaker 1: Is it legit to call him a communist? Why do
• 1:39:17
  Speaker 1: I not love your Videosnicos. So communism is ultimately the
• 1:39:23
  Speaker 1: political agenda of Marx. I think Marxism is broader than communism.
• 1:39:30
  Speaker 1: So it's like, what's the different between objectivism and capitalism.
• 1:39:33
  Speaker 1: Capitalism is the political philosophy of objectivism, but objectivism is
• 1:39:39
  Speaker 1: a broader philosophy that says a lot more than just
• 1:39:42
  Speaker 1: a political and I think that's true Marx. Marx is
• 1:39:46
  Speaker 1: not much broader. It's mostly political. But there's a lot
• 1:39:50
  Speaker 1: of theory that he develops wrongly to justify his communism
• 1:39:58
  Speaker 1: that is not communism. It's you know, the dialectical materialism
• 1:40:03
  Speaker 1: and history of history and all of that that leads
• 1:40:06
  Speaker 1: to his theory of communism, but is not directly so.
• 1:40:09
  Speaker 1: So I think the difference is Marxism is more broadly philosophical.
• 1:40:13
  Speaker 1: Communism is a political philosophy. It's not a broad philosophy
• 1:40:18
  Speaker 1: with an epistemology and a theory of history and the
• 1:40:20
  Speaker 1: theory of morality and all of that. Now, Mamdani is
• 1:40:25
  Speaker 1: not a full blown Marxist, but he is influenced by Marx.
• 1:40:30
  Speaker 1: He is much more of a Marxist in a sense
• 1:40:33
  Speaker 1: of thinking of people in terms of classes than he
• 1:40:37
  Speaker 1: is than a lot of the woke left is the
• 1:40:41
  Speaker 1: wolf left. I don't think all Marxists. Mamdani is more
• 1:40:44
  Speaker 1: of a Marxist. He's not one hundred percent of Marxist,
• 1:40:47
  Speaker 1: but he is and he's not a communist. That is,
• 1:40:50
  Speaker 1: he does not believe in, you know, the dictatorship of
• 1:40:54
  Speaker 1: the politarian. As far as I can tell, he's a
• 1:40:56
  Speaker 1: democratic socialist, which is almost a communist. But it's a
• 1:41:01
  Speaker 1: it's a it's a it's this delusion that you can
• 1:41:04
  Speaker 1: have socialism with elections uh and uh and with big
• 1:41:10
  Speaker 1: elements of you know, social freedom. Indeed, people like mc
• 1:41:17
  Speaker 1: donnie and I don't know mam donny's specific views, but
• 1:41:19
  Speaker 1: people are mcdonny often.
• 1:41:23
  Speaker 2: Reject or or a critical of critical of.
• 1:41:32
  Speaker 1: Uh, you know, uh, Soviet communism and Maoist communism. So
• 1:41:41
  Speaker 1: he is a committed social Socialism is older than marx socialism,
• 1:41:46
  Speaker 1: as is more varied than marx It's it's built on
• 1:41:50
  Speaker 1: a variety of different egalitarian uh, you know, doctrines, uh
• 1:41:56
  Speaker 1: and uh. But Marx is definitely an influence on him.
• 1:41:59
  Speaker 1: If even though I don't know that you would.
• 1:42:01
  Speaker 2: Call him monoxist.
• 1:42:02
  Speaker 1: I don't like using communists willy nilly communists should be
• 1:42:07
  Speaker 1: a signed to people who really believe in communism. There
• 1:42:09
  Speaker 1: are people like that, and people who argue for democratic
• 1:42:14
  Speaker 1: socialists are socialists. That's bad enough. It's bad enough. Socialism
• 1:42:18
  Speaker 1: is bad enough. It's not like socialism and what's a
• 1:42:21
  Speaker 1: big deal. No, that's bad twenty first century. To be
• 1:42:24
  Speaker 1: a socialist is to be pretty evil, all right. Nathan
• 1:42:31
  Speaker 1: also asked the question that didn't get answers new as eves.
• 1:42:35
  Speaker 1: I want to cover this and then we'll go to
• 1:42:36
  Speaker 1: your super chat. Nathan says, all forms of taxation are wrong,
• 1:42:41
  Speaker 1: but what are better forms of taxation and what are
• 1:42:43
  Speaker 1: worse forms and why? Well, I think fundamentally.
• 1:42:49
  Speaker 2: You're right that all texas Is are wrong. I think that.
• 1:42:53
  Speaker 1: There are few kinds of taxes that are particularly bad. One,
• 1:42:58
  Speaker 1: taxes that tried to influence your specific behavior are bad
• 1:43:06
  Speaker 1: because that is the government trying to be a social engineer,
• 1:43:11
  Speaker 1: not just economically but also socially. It's an expansion of
• 1:43:15
  Speaker 1: government power beyond that. So syntaxes, alcohol taxes, cigarette taxes
• 1:43:23
  Speaker 1: are particularly evil taxes because there are taxes that try
• 1:43:27
  Speaker 1: to adjust your behavior, sugar taxes, all of those evil
• 1:43:32
  Speaker 1: taxes regressive taxes, taxes that penalize you for being successful.
• 1:43:39
  Speaker 1: It's not just that you pay more taxes that more
• 1:43:42
  Speaker 1: rich you are, you pay a higher percentage of your
• 1:43:44
  Speaker 1: income as taxes the richer you are. Those are evil taxes,
• 1:43:48
  Speaker 1: Those are wrong. So anything regressive taxes on corporations are
• 1:43:57
  Speaker 1: particularly bad because corporations don't pay taxes, So these are
• 1:44:03
  Speaker 1: taxes that are hidden and passed on to consumers and
• 1:44:07
  Speaker 1: to employees. So hidden taxes, hidden taxes are particularly bad taxes.
• 1:44:13
  Speaker 1: You don't feel anything when you pay them because they're
• 1:44:16
  Speaker 1: just built in a particularly bad so corporate taxes, which
• 1:44:21
  Speaker 1: is a hidden tax. Other forms of hidden taxes taxes
• 1:44:25
  Speaker 1: that manipulate behavior, or tax deductions the manipulate behavior. They're
• 1:44:30
  Speaker 1: not paying interest on mortgages is an example of a
• 1:44:34
  Speaker 1: really evil uh manipulation of the tax code to manipulate
• 1:44:39
  Speaker 1: your behavior away from rent and towards buying, which is
• 1:44:42
  Speaker 1: completely unjustified. What else capital gains, taxes, taxes on investment,
• 1:44:49
  Speaker 1: double taxation, taxation of dividends.
• 1:44:52
  Speaker 2: Dividends are taxed twice.
• 1:44:55
  Speaker 1: So a lot of anything that's double taxation, anything that's
• 1:44:59
  Speaker 1: taxes on estimate, all of those are bad. Ideally you
• 1:45:04
  Speaker 1: would have one simple flat tax. It could be a
• 1:45:08
  Speaker 1: flat simple income tax that everybody pays everybody, no exclusions,
• 1:45:13
  Speaker 1: no deductions, nothing, ten percent of whatever you make, I
• 1:45:17
  Speaker 1: don't know, five percent, three percent, whatever, it is, flat
• 1:45:22
  Speaker 1: tax or a flat consumption tax. I say, those are
• 1:45:29
  Speaker 1: the only you know, those are the least destructive and
• 1:45:34
  Speaker 1: least immodel taxes. And the consumption tax is better than
• 1:45:38
  Speaker 1: income tax because income taxes, you're taxing work, You're taxing production,
• 1:45:43
  Speaker 1: You're taxing you know, essentially virtuous activity. Now consumption is
• 1:45:50
  Speaker 1: virtuous too, but to consume, you have to produce, so
• 1:45:53
  Speaker 1: the production is primary taxing. Consumption is less damaging economically.
• 1:46:00
  Speaker 1: So ideally you will place all taxes, including property taxes
• 1:46:04
  Speaker 1: and everything else with a flat simple consumption TEX. All right,
• 1:46:14
  Speaker 1: those all the questions that I didn't answer New Year's Eve.
• 1:46:19
  Speaker 2: So we can we can do away with those.
• 1:46:24
  Speaker 1: Now let's turn to today's super chats, of which there
• 1:46:28
  Speaker 1: are many, so it's gonna be a whole hang on there, guys.
• 1:46:35
  Speaker 1: All right, we're gonna do Skylar's four hundred dollars questions first,
• 1:46:41
  Speaker 1: and then we'll do rational Ip and Andrew's fifty dollars questions.
• 1:46:46
  Speaker 1: So we'll start with Skylab one hundred dollars.
• 1:46:49
  Speaker 3: Start.
• 1:46:50
  Speaker 1: What do you think is the greatest affront experienced by believers?
• 1:46:56
  Speaker 1: Do you say you're an objectivist or atheist whenever you
• 1:46:59
  Speaker 1: meet a few theists you encounter, Well, it's completely dependent
• 1:47:05
  Speaker 1: on the context, right. If the context is religion. If
• 1:47:10
  Speaker 1: we're talking about religion, then I'm an atheist. Just to
• 1:47:13
  Speaker 1: make clear that all the crap that're saying, I just
• 1:47:16
  Speaker 1: don't believe, there's just no basis for I think is.
• 1:47:19
  Speaker 2: Just chatter that means nothing.
• 1:47:23
  Speaker 1: If we're talking about more philosophical issues, or if we're
• 1:47:27
  Speaker 1: talking about politics, or if we're talking about something that
• 1:47:29
  Speaker 1: is related to a broader philosophical question not to just
• 1:47:34
  Speaker 1: religion in the existence of God, then I'm an objectivist.
• 1:47:37
  Speaker 1: Then what you want to confront them with is a
• 1:47:40
  Speaker 1: whole philosophy.
• 1:47:42
  Speaker 2: I don't know what's a bigger front.
• 1:47:44
  Speaker 1: I mean, the problem is that they mostly don't know
• 1:47:47
  Speaker 1: what objectivism is. And objectivism is after all implicitly atheistic, so.
• 1:47:56
  Speaker 2: I mean by very nature atheistic.
• 1:47:58
  Speaker 1: So you'd expect objective to be more of a fund
• 1:48:01
  Speaker 1: because it combines atheism with a positive ideology that's anti
• 1:48:05
  Speaker 1: everything these people believe in. So I think that's a
• 1:48:08
  Speaker 1: bigger fund, even if they knew what it was. Oh,
• 1:48:18
  Speaker 1: what was the most important.
• 1:48:19
  Speaker 2: Thing you learned in the Israeli Army?
• 1:48:27
  Speaker 1: God, I tell you, I'll give you two things, two
• 1:48:32
  Speaker 1: different dimensions. I mean, in two different dimensions, I guess
• 1:48:35
  Speaker 1: one at the personal level. I think I gained a
• 1:48:39
  Speaker 1: lot of self esteem in the army. I was good
• 1:48:43
  Speaker 1: at what I did. Uh. Maybe this isn't a military
• 1:48:46
  Speaker 1: intelligence tank call, you know. I don't think I learned
• 1:48:50
  Speaker 1: very much in the tank call about anything. Uh, But
• 1:48:54
  Speaker 1: in military intelligence I learned. I learned about myself that
• 1:49:00
  Speaker 1: I was competent. I could get stuff done. I could
• 1:49:04
  Speaker 1: get stuff done better pretty much to anybody else, certainly
• 1:49:07
  Speaker 1: anybody else in my unit, including people who were who
• 1:49:12
  Speaker 1: were my commanding officers, significantly senior to me, when it
• 1:49:19
  Speaker 1: came down to emergencies, when it came down to wars,
• 1:49:22
  Speaker 1: when it came down to special operations, I was the
• 1:49:26
  Speaker 1: guy who had to get it done. They froze. They
• 1:49:30
  Speaker 1: were not that competent. I was more competent than any
• 1:49:35
  Speaker 1: of them, and that was surprising to me. It still
• 1:49:39
  Speaker 1: kind of surprises me. It surprises me. So I got
• 1:49:41
  Speaker 1: a lot of I get self esteem from my time
• 1:49:46
  Speaker 1: in the army in a way that accelerated it, because
• 1:49:51
  Speaker 1: if I'd gone to work somewhere, I would have ultimately
• 1:49:53
  Speaker 1: discovered the same thing, probably would have taken longer. And
• 1:49:57
  Speaker 1: of course work is never quite as intense as.
• 1:50:01
  Speaker 2: Lives at stake.
• 1:50:02
  Speaker 1: Are wars going on, horrors are happening, you better do
• 1:50:05
  Speaker 1: something about it. So the second thing I learned was
• 1:50:14
  Speaker 1: that even the best army in the world, arguably the
• 1:50:18
  Speaker 1: Israeli military, is massively flawed and destructive and makes mistakes
• 1:50:28
  Speaker 1: and mistakes that can be avoided. I saw what people's
• 1:50:36
  Speaker 1: you know what hierarchy can do. Hierarchy that is not
• 1:50:39
  Speaker 1: ultimately ultimately based on merit and not exposed to the marketplace.
• 1:50:45
  Speaker 1: So they can't expose the military to the marketplace. So
• 1:50:47
  Speaker 1: maybe this is just part of the military, but in
• 1:50:49
  Speaker 1: a bit of society would not exist. How incompetent people
• 1:50:53
  Speaker 1: can be, how really really smart and senior people can
• 1:50:57
  Speaker 1: be incredibly incompetent, and how that can result in the
• 1:51:00
  Speaker 1: deaths of people. And yeah, I guess the things that
• 1:51:06
  Speaker 1: remain with me are the times in which people did
• 1:51:08
  Speaker 1: stuff that led to Israeli's dying for no reason, and
• 1:51:12
  Speaker 1: I you know, I was witnessed to it because of
• 1:51:16
  Speaker 1: their only competence, because of you know, petty disagreements, petty
• 1:51:23
  Speaker 1: arguments between people. All right, still with sky Limb, is
• 1:51:28
  Speaker 1: there a paradox with consuming being before you produce, for example,
• 1:51:35
  Speaker 1: reading a free book you found and then applying and
• 1:51:38
  Speaker 1: integrating its content and improving your capacity to work. I mean, yeah,
• 1:51:43
  Speaker 1: if you can get free stuff, but most stuff you
• 1:51:48
  Speaker 1: can't get free. And indeed, even getting a free book
• 1:51:52
  Speaker 1: you found, I mean, wait, you know, on the street,
• 1:51:55
  Speaker 1: where did you find it? I mean, sure you can.
• 1:52:00
  Speaker 1: You can consume free food, you can consume free books.
• 1:52:06
  Speaker 1: But you could argue that even the free book, somebody
• 1:52:10
  Speaker 1: had to buy it and then leave it on the
• 1:52:11
  Speaker 1: side of the street. Somebody had to produce in order
• 1:52:14
  Speaker 1: to buy it. Of course, the book needed to be produced.
• 1:52:21
  Speaker 1: So sure, you can find examples of people living without producing,
• 1:52:28
  Speaker 1: but somebody had to produce. So no, I don't think
• 1:52:33
  Speaker 1: it's a paradox. It's the reality is that in an
• 1:52:38
  Speaker 1: individual case, you can consume before you produce.
• 1:52:41
  Speaker 2: Indeed you do as a child.
• 1:52:44
  Speaker 1: You are consuming your entire childhood without having produced anything,
• 1:52:50
  Speaker 1: and that consumption during your childhood is necessary for you
• 1:52:54
  Speaker 1: to produce in the future. So there are these exceptions,
• 1:53:01
  Speaker 1: but generally in life, in order to consume, you need
• 1:53:06
  Speaker 1: to produce because books are typically not free. Typically nothing
• 1:53:14
  Speaker 1: is free, really, and you need to be able to
• 1:53:18
  Speaker 1: produce in order to be able to benefit from those things.
• 1:53:25
  Speaker 2: And consuming. Hopefully that's clarifying.
• 1:53:31
  Speaker 1: Last question for Skyla, at least at this level, Well
• 1:53:35
  Speaker 1: it is because he ran out of question money.
• 1:53:38
  Speaker 2: You can't do more than five hundred on YouTube.
• 1:53:41
  Speaker 1: When is it rational to use a dictionary to point
• 1:53:44
  Speaker 1: out the meaning of a word? The only dictionaries printed
• 1:53:48
  Speaker 1: during and before nineteen thirties have credibility. No, I mean
• 1:53:53
  Speaker 1: I think that it's always rational to look at it
• 1:53:56
  Speaker 1: to at least give you a sense of how it's
• 1:53:58
  Speaker 1: typically used as a starting point to understand the meaning
• 1:54:04
  Speaker 1: of a word. Dictionaries are very useful for that, and
• 1:54:07
  Speaker 1: Ran use them. Lend A Peacoff always used them. Yes,
• 1:54:10
  Speaker 1: old the dictionaries for more important words, more philosophical words
• 1:54:14
  Speaker 1: are going to be more valuable. There's less corruption. But
• 1:54:21
  Speaker 1: new dictionaries give you a general sense of what the
• 1:54:24
  Speaker 1: word means in the culture, and then you can say
• 1:54:29
  Speaker 1: is this definition right? Is it accurate? Is the way
• 1:54:32
  Speaker 1: people are using it in the culture right? And then
• 1:54:35
  Speaker 1: maybe you can investigate old the dictionaries. So I think
• 1:54:39
  Speaker 1: dictionaries are very useful and should be used when you're
• 1:54:43
  Speaker 1: trying to understand something. I often during the show will
• 1:54:46
  Speaker 1: open up a dictionary and see, okay, what is that?
• 1:54:48
  Speaker 2: What did that mean?
• 1:54:56
  Speaker 1: Thank you?
• 1:54:56
  Speaker 2: Thank you Skyler.
• 1:54:57
  Speaker 1: Really appreciated the five hundred dollars today. That is amazing
• 1:55:00
  Speaker 1: saying we are doing really well with a super chet today,
• 1:55:03
  Speaker 1: way over our goal.
• 1:55:05
  Speaker 2: So appreciated.
• 1:55:06
  Speaker 1: All right, rational Ip.
• 1:55:08
  Speaker 2: First of all, Happy New Year, Happy New year to
• 1:55:09
  Speaker 2: you too.
• 1:55:11
  Speaker 1: If society would rely on individual self regulation, what concretely
• 1:55:16
  Speaker 1: prevents evil ideas from scaling and overtaking civilization, especially in
• 1:55:22
  Speaker 1: a full free market of education, without any shared epistemic guidance, Well.
• 1:55:28
  Speaker 2: Nothing other than good ideas.
• 1:55:31
  Speaker 1: How do we get to a fully free society, a
• 1:55:36
  Speaker 1: society of individual self regulation? How do we get to
• 1:55:38
  Speaker 1: that society? We got to that society with good ideas.
• 1:55:42
  Speaker 1: Can't have that society without good ideas? First, those good ideas,
• 1:55:48
  Speaker 1: why would they not be taught in schools. Why would
• 1:55:51
  Speaker 1: those good ideas not be prevalent? And then the face
• 1:55:55
  Speaker 1: of bad ideas, good ideas went out fairly easily, particularly
• 1:56:00
  Speaker 1: when they've at least for a time dominated, So the
• 1:56:05
  Speaker 1: bad ideas would have to overcome good ideas to get
• 1:56:09
  Speaker 1: into the free market of education. They'd have to appeal
• 1:56:12
  Speaker 1: to people with something positive. So it's not clear to me,
• 1:56:18
  Speaker 1: and there is no concrete way to prevent it other
• 1:56:20
  Speaker 1: than ideas. You can't use force, you can't outlaw ideas,
• 1:56:25
  Speaker 1: you can't do any of that. That's the essence of
• 1:56:28
  Speaker 1: good ideas is that you can't do that. So the
• 1:56:30
  Speaker 1: only way to combat bad ideas is what good ideas.
• 1:56:32
  Speaker 1: So the good ideas need to be constantly You need
• 1:56:35
  Speaker 1: to be constantly diligent about them and argue for them,
• 1:56:38
  Speaker 1: and debate them, and argue against the evil. So what
• 1:56:45
  Speaker 1: protects us from evil? Good? Nothing else can.
• 1:56:50
  Speaker 2: Andrew?
• 1:56:51
  Speaker 1: Can you explain how if one mark makes the primary
• 1:56:54
  Speaker 1: philosophical choice between life and death and chooses life, that
• 1:56:58
  Speaker 1: choice to live leads logically to the conclusion that altruism
• 1:57:02
  Speaker 1: is wrong and egoism is right. Oh God, I mean
• 1:57:10
  Speaker 1: it should be fairly simple. One makes the choice to live, well,
• 1:57:17
  Speaker 1: who is to live.
• 1:57:20
  Speaker 3: Me?
• 1:57:23
  Speaker 1: So who should be the beneficiaries of the actions that
• 1:57:25
  Speaker 1: I take my life? I can't write and because if not,
• 1:57:33
  Speaker 1: then if it's not benefiting my life, then it's hurting
• 1:57:37
  Speaker 1: my life.
• 1:57:37
  Speaker 2: There is no intermediate section.
• 1:57:39
  Speaker 1: So placing the war being of other people above my
• 1:57:42
  Speaker 1: own is not taking the choice to life seriously. It's
• 1:57:47
  Speaker 1: not really committed to that choice. It's abrogating that choice.
• 1:57:52
  Speaker 1: It's saying I've chosen to live, and now I'm going
• 1:57:56
  Speaker 1: to undermine my life by living for other people. It's
• 1:58:01
  Speaker 1: a logical and existential contradiction, and it gives you no
• 1:58:09
  Speaker 1: guidance in terms of it gives you contradictory drife, which
• 1:58:12
  Speaker 1: most people have in their head, contradictory ideas on how
• 1:58:16
  Speaker 1: they should live. Sacrifice. Oh but I need to survive sacrifice.
• 1:58:20
  Speaker 2: I need to.
• 1:58:20
  Speaker 1: Thrive, I need to live. I want to live as
• 1:58:24
  Speaker 1: a human being. Remember she advocates her life as a
• 1:58:27
  Speaker 1: human being, not just live as a biological entity, but
• 1:58:30
  Speaker 1: as a human being. Now, the point about that is
• 1:58:33
  Speaker 1: that to live as a human being requires effort. We
• 1:58:37
  Speaker 1: know that the specific effort that it requires is thinking,
• 1:58:43
  Speaker 1: you only have so much time, so much energy. I
• 1:58:48
  Speaker 1: need to devote it to thinking about how to make
• 1:58:50
  Speaker 1: my life better all the time. And now you want
• 1:58:55
  Speaker 1: to divert my focus how to make my life better? Two?
• 1:59:07
  Speaker 1: How to sacrifice others? How to do something that goes
• 1:59:10
  Speaker 1: against the very premise on which I'm working, which is life.
• 1:59:15
  Speaker 2: It's just a contradiction.
• 1:59:17
  Speaker 1: If you understand what life is and what life requires,
• 1:59:20
  Speaker 1: it requires action, it requires something you don't have life automatically. Okay, Andrew,
• 1:59:30
  Speaker 1: can the riff? Can you riff on this? Can you
• 1:59:39
  Speaker 1: riff on this? Skepticism as automatic? Suspicion of intellectual certainty
• 1:59:45
  Speaker 1: is a big mistake. One can be wrong and feign certainty,
• 1:59:50
  Speaker 1: but certainly as a practical value to pursue, and one
• 1:59:54
  Speaker 1: ought to feel secure in one's possession of knowledge. Yeah,
• 1:59:59
  Speaker 1: I mean it's really important to know what you know
• 2:00:02
  Speaker 1: and to know whether you know it and how confident
• 2:00:06
  Speaker 1: you are in that knowledge, because you're gonna have to act.
• 2:00:08
  Speaker 2: On this knowledge. Is the knowledge so so? And I
• 2:00:13
  Speaker 2: shouldn't be too or is there not? Is this is this?
• 2:00:17
  Speaker 1: Yeah? I know it? Sudden? Ye?
• 2:00:18
  Speaker 2: I should you know? Move right ahead immediately.
• 2:00:22
  Speaker 1: The extent to which the knowledge you're confident in the
• 2:00:24
  Speaker 1: knowledge is really really important. It's your survival depends on it.
• 2:00:30
  Speaker 1: Skepticism ideo I can't never be certain who knows well,
• 2:00:34
  Speaker 1: But then you can't even be certain about the extent
• 2:00:39
  Speaker 1: to which we know. Let's say there's something that you
• 2:00:41
  Speaker 1: really are not certain about. I mean a lot of
• 2:00:44
  Speaker 1: our knowledge, you could call it probabilistic, A lot of
• 2:00:48
  Speaker 1: what we know. It's like, I mean, there's a eighty
• 2:00:53
  Speaker 1: percent chance of raining tomorrow. It's not one hundred percent.
• 2:00:56
  Speaker 1: I don't know what's cuddin, but there's an eighty percent chance. Well,
• 2:00:59
  Speaker 1: if I'm skeptical, well, how do I know an eighty Yes,
• 2:01:02
  Speaker 1: maybe it's corny, maybe it's fifty. I don't know. So
• 2:01:07
  Speaker 1: what do I do? I don't know what to do
• 2:01:08
  Speaker 1: because I don't know what it's the probability of it
• 2:01:10
  Speaker 1: rain tomorrow, I don't know if it's going to rain
• 2:01:12
  Speaker 1: on it.
• 2:01:12
  Speaker 2: I don't know how to plan. I don't know.
• 2:01:14
  Speaker 1: It shuts you down. So even so, the idea that
• 2:01:21
  Speaker 1: you have standards of knowledge suddenly be certain t being
• 2:01:26
  Speaker 1: the benchmark, right, I know it was certainty, But the
• 2:01:31
  Speaker 1: fact that all other knowledge is, you know, I have
• 2:01:36
  Speaker 1: confidence in this knowledge based on these facts. That is
• 2:01:42
  Speaker 1: the guide to our action without and skepticism undermines all
• 2:01:45
  Speaker 1: of it. Doesn't just undermine certainty, it undermines every aspect
• 2:01:48
  Speaker 1: of knowledge, because every aspect depends on you being certain
• 2:01:52
  Speaker 1: about something. At least you should be certain about ASA
• 2:01:58
  Speaker 1: if you think about how knowledge rests one on top
• 2:02:00
  Speaker 1: of the other. All right, Liam, if you've got a question,
• 2:02:11
  Speaker 1: there's a super chat you can ask it. I do
• 2:02:15
  Speaker 1: not answer questions out of the super chat, out of
• 2:02:17
  Speaker 1: the regular chat.
• 2:02:26
  Speaker 2: Liam.
• 2:02:27
  Speaker 1: Is the bill in Congress, the streamline permits and licensure
• 2:02:31
  Speaker 1: there to make labor markets more dynamic. For when AI
• 2:02:35
  Speaker 1: takes off and causes disruptions, work is displaced by AI
• 2:02:39
  Speaker 1: will have an easier time finding your employment. I don't
• 2:02:42
  Speaker 1: think that's the purpose of it. I think the purpose
• 2:02:44
  Speaker 1: of it is part of a push by certain people
• 2:02:49
  Speaker 1: within the administration to, you know, to reduce regulations. There
• 2:03:03
  Speaker 1: is a push, particularly on energy and environment to build, build, build,
• 2:03:08
  Speaker 1: to get the country into a motor building and a
• 2:03:11
  Speaker 1: lot of this permitting is to reduce into streamline the
• 2:03:15
  Speaker 1: ability to build. I don't think the thinking I don't
• 2:03:17
  Speaker 1: think that that thoughtful. I don't think they're thinking advanced
• 2:03:20
  Speaker 1: to AI. I think they're just thinking about we in
• 2:03:22
  Speaker 1: America need to develop a better capacity, better capabilities.
• 2:03:28
  Speaker 2: A building, a building. So I think that's the motivation.
• 2:03:36
  Speaker 1: But it will make easier for AI because it'll make
• 2:03:39
  Speaker 1: the economy more dynamic, more jobs created, and therefore you know,
• 2:03:44
  Speaker 1: a landing pad for the for the AI that people
• 2:03:48
  Speaker 1: lose their jobs so young James says. A German commentator
• 2:03:52
  Speaker 1: argued anti Semitism is far greater in America than Germany
• 2:03:55
  Speaker 1: at this point because Germans are so aware of and
• 2:03:58
  Speaker 1: trained to identify fast propaganda, whereas Americans are falling for
• 2:04:02
  Speaker 1: it hook line and sinker. I think that's absolutely right.
• 2:04:04
  Speaker 2: I think that.
• 2:04:06
  Speaker 1: I mean, I think there's a lot of anti Semotism
• 2:04:08
  Speaker 1: in Germany, but it's quiet, it's more on the ground.
• 2:04:12
  Speaker 1: It's less expressed publicly, partially because the laws that limit
• 2:04:17
  Speaker 1: your ability to do that, and partially because yes, there's
• 2:04:19
  Speaker 1: a certain cultural cultural rejection of it and a sensitivity
• 2:04:27
  Speaker 1: to fascist talking points, which where America doesn't exist. America's
• 2:04:32
  Speaker 1: virgin territory in that sense, and they're buying into it absolutely. Jennifer.
• 2:04:39
  Speaker 1: So when the New Year, when the New York mayor's
• 2:04:42
  Speaker 1: policy create havoc. This time, they will learn right. Right,
• 2:04:47
  Speaker 1: Sometimes I feel like hope is all I have left.
• 2:04:51
  Speaker 1: No reason is all you have left? Forget about hope.
• 2:04:55
  Speaker 1: I mean, no, they won't learn from it. But there
• 2:04:58
  Speaker 1: might be a backlash again. Instead, you might get a
• 2:05:01
  Speaker 1: better mayn next time, just like there was a backlash
• 2:05:04
  Speaker 1: to de Blasio. There might be a black or was there.
• 2:05:07
  Speaker 1: I mean, this guy's going to be worse than the Blazio.
• 2:05:09
  Speaker 1: So we'll see. I mean, maybe that'll buy answered, maybe
• 2:05:12
  Speaker 1: that want to live in poverty, you know me. It
• 2:05:15
  Speaker 1: possibly depends on whether companies leave New York, billionaires leave
• 2:05:20
  Speaker 1: New York, professionals leave New York. What people respond by
• 2:05:24
  Speaker 1: leaving when things get out of hand. But they won't
• 2:05:28
  Speaker 1: learn any principle from it, even if they'll learn in
• 2:05:32
  Speaker 1: this concrete it doesn't work. Andrew, would you agree that
• 2:05:39
  Speaker 1: ultimately right and left demand sacrifice from the strong to
• 2:05:43
  Speaker 1: the weak, whether from rich to poor or working immigrants
• 2:05:47
  Speaker 1: to native workers. When Donnie and Trump both want to
• 2:05:50
  Speaker 1: be good Christian saviors. Yeah, absolutely. I mean basically everybody
• 2:05:56
  Speaker 1: wants sacrifice. I mean the middle, the non left, non right,
• 2:05:59
  Speaker 1: just much less sacrifice. But they still want sacrifice. Everybody
• 2:06:04
  Speaker 1: is about sacrifice. Everybody's an altruist. Altruism is the dominant
• 2:06:08
  Speaker 1: moral code in our culture, and everybody, to lesser degree
• 2:06:14
  Speaker 1: or a smaller degree, wants to sacrifice some groups to
• 2:06:16
  Speaker 1: other groups based on their particular affinity, not you average
• 2:06:22
  Speaker 1: algorithm Part one.
• 2:06:24
  Speaker 2: Okay, two point questions.
• 2:06:26
  Speaker 1: With transhumanism, we will be able to create artificial limbs
• 2:06:30
  Speaker 1: and organs. Will we be able to regrow parts of
• 2:06:34
  Speaker 1: the brain in a lab? Will someone with a brain
• 2:06:37
  Speaker 1: injury be able to have their consciousness restored? What does
• 2:06:41
  Speaker 1: this say about objectivisms claim that consciousness is not physical
• 2:06:45
  Speaker 1: If consciousness can be restored through physically creating segments of
• 2:06:51
  Speaker 1: a damaged brain, I don't I don't think it implies
• 2:06:54
  Speaker 1: anything about objectivism, because objectivism doesn't say necessarily it's some
• 2:06:59
  Speaker 1: other thing. It says that it's not physical, it's not
• 2:07:04
  Speaker 1: the brain. It's something that the brain creates. It's a
• 2:07:09
  Speaker 1: manifestation of the brain, or at least that's one interpretation
• 2:07:13
  Speaker 1: of objectivism. It's the manifestation of brain activity, but it's
• 2:07:17
  Speaker 1: not the brain activity itself. So there's clearly a relationship
• 2:07:25
  Speaker 1: between a brain and consciousness. A consciousnesses does not exist
• 2:07:31
  Speaker 1: without a brain. So if you can, if you can
• 2:07:35
  Speaker 1: break the brain and lose consciousness, well maybe you can
• 2:07:38
  Speaker 1: fix it and regain it.
• 2:07:41
  Speaker 2: I don't see why not.
• 2:07:43
  Speaker 1: I don't see why that contradicts objectivism in any kind
• 2:07:45
  Speaker 1: of way. Again, consciousness is not physical. It could be
• 2:07:49
  Speaker 1: a you know, anymore than God. Consciousness is not it's
• 2:08:00
  Speaker 1: it's a product of physical activity, but it's not physical
• 2:08:03
  Speaker 1: in and of itself. There's no thing that is consciousness.
• 2:08:11
  Speaker 1: Consciousness is an attribute of a well functioning human brain.
• 2:08:15
  Speaker 1: I mean, human consciousness is Andrew not a primary critique.
• 2:08:20
  Speaker 1: But altruism creates an arrogant, imperial, jerky attitude in those
• 2:08:25
  Speaker 1: who accept it. There's a reason Rand referred to Katie's
• 2:08:30
  Speaker 1: to Katie across Social Worker post two y influence as
• 2:08:34
  Speaker 1: a frustrated little tyrant. Yes, but not in everybody, right,
• 2:08:41
  Speaker 1: because it can create, you know, it can create all
• 2:08:46
  Speaker 1: kinds of personalities in some people. It definitely creates an
• 2:08:53
  Speaker 1: arrogant imperial particularly in people that have influence over other people.
• 2:09:01
  Speaker 2: Altruism is.
• 2:09:05
  Speaker 1: Build resentment towards other people. I have to sacrifice my
• 2:09:09
  Speaker 1: life for you for those people. God really hate that,
• 2:09:17
  Speaker 1: and and they want to They rebel against it by
• 2:09:21
  Speaker 1: loading off off the people over the people that this
• 2:09:24
  Speaker 1: they should be and they know they should be sacrificing too,
• 2:09:29
  Speaker 1: Harper Campbell is individualism. Even rugged, working remotely for my
• 2:09:35
  Speaker 1: air conditioning home office seems a lot more gentle than
• 2:09:39
  Speaker 1: Soviet style famines and persias. Collectivism forces you to be
• 2:09:44
  Speaker 1: rugged by reverting man back into an animal.
• 2:09:48
  Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, it's not rugged. In America.
• 2:09:51
  Speaker 1: The term developed out of the idea of going out
• 2:09:54
  Speaker 1: into the wilderness and working. So I don't think rugged
• 2:09:58
  Speaker 1: is inherently collectivistic, going to vigualistic.
• 2:10:00
  Speaker 3: Right.
• 2:10:00
  Speaker 2: You could be a farmer.
• 2:10:05
  Speaker 1: On your own private property in the Midwest in eighteen
• 2:10:09
  Speaker 1: hundreds and that's rugged. That's rugged. So rugged has nothing
• 2:10:14
  Speaker 1: to do with collectivism or individualism. Individualism is just individualism,
• 2:10:18
  Speaker 1: there's no qualifier. Rugged individualism came into being as a
• 2:10:22
  Speaker 1: consequence of the experience of i'd say nineteenth century America
• 2:10:27
  Speaker 1: building businesses, building farms out in the wilderness in very
• 2:10:33
  Speaker 1: difficult conditions, and standing up before those conditions. Yep, Andrew.
• 2:10:41
  Speaker 1: One thing I feared in embracing rationality fully was losing
• 2:10:46
  Speaker 1: my sense of humor. But anyone else who struggles with
• 2:10:49
  Speaker 1: this embracing rationality fully won't devalue humor. It will lead
• 2:10:53
  Speaker 1: to valuing taking life more seriously. Yeah, and humor is
• 2:10:57
  Speaker 1: part of life and it's fun and it's into you know.
• 2:10:59
  Speaker 1: So no, it doesn't do that to humor at all.
• 2:11:02
  Speaker 1: You actually gain an appreciation for certain subtleties around humor.
• 2:11:08
  Speaker 1: And them says, would a big Demo Democratic win in
• 2:11:12
  Speaker 1: November be seen as a Mumdani win? I mean, it
• 2:11:17
  Speaker 1: depends what kind of candidates the Democrats field. To the
• 2:11:21
  Speaker 1: extent that a lot of progressive new left fall left
• 2:11:27
  Speaker 1: socialist types win, it will be attributed to the AOC
• 2:11:31
  Speaker 1: and Mamdani's and Bernie Sanders of the world. To the
• 2:11:35
  Speaker 1: extent that the Democrats who win are more centrist, it
• 2:11:40
  Speaker 1: won't be. But yeah, I mean, I look, the progressive
• 2:11:43
  Speaker 1: wing of the Democratic Party is going to take credit
• 2:11:45
  Speaker 1: wherever they can, and they will try certainly to take
• 2:11:47
  Speaker 1: credit of November win and the position to do so.
• 2:11:51
  Speaker 1: But it will depend objectively on who the candidates are.
• 2:11:57
  Speaker 1: Doctor X, what do you think about the attitude that
• 2:11:59
  Speaker 1: the rich and the lucky get to pursue their dreams
• 2:12:03
  Speaker 1: in this country, but everyone else is forced to live
• 2:12:06
  Speaker 1: a dull life working for the man. Well, I mean
• 2:12:09
  Speaker 1: think that's a dull life perspective. That is what makes
• 2:12:15
  Speaker 1: your life dull? Is you you responsible for the dullness
• 2:12:19
  Speaker 1: of your life if it's dull? You know people can
• 2:12:24
  Speaker 1: people make a living today in America at any level
• 2:12:28
  Speaker 1: of income that is significantly higher than what it was
• 2:12:31
  Speaker 1: in the past, and significantly higher than.
• 2:12:33
  Speaker 2: What it is anywhere else in the world.
• 2:12:35
  Speaker 1: And that income makes it possible for you to live
• 2:12:38
  Speaker 1: a comfortable life. And that comfort is then the question
• 2:12:41
  Speaker 1: of how you want to live it. So what kind
• 2:12:46
  Speaker 1: of job you want? There more jobs in America than
• 2:12:49
  Speaker 1: anywhere else. And then what you do with that job?
• 2:12:53
  Speaker 1: Do you take it seriously and make it into a
• 2:12:54
  Speaker 1: career or do you just check in and check out?
• 2:12:59
  Speaker 1: Do you use that income to pursue real values, things
• 2:13:04
  Speaker 1: that make your life better or they use the income
• 2:13:07
  Speaker 1: to just buy beer and veg out in front of
• 2:13:09
  Speaker 1: the television and have a dull life. But look, there's
• 2:13:14
  Speaker 1: no question money buys you opportunities. Money makes accessing certain
• 2:13:23
  Speaker 1: values possible, Money makes life easier, and money can make
• 2:13:28
  Speaker 1: one more fun, life more fun.
• 2:13:29
  Speaker 2: But look, a lot of rich people live dull lives.
• 2:13:33
  Speaker 1: They have no purpose, they have no meaning, they don't
• 2:13:35
  Speaker 1: know what to do with themselves, they don't what to
• 2:13:37
  Speaker 1: do with the money, and they're depressed. And I know
• 2:13:40
  Speaker 1: a lot of working class people who have exciting lives
• 2:13:43
  Speaker 1: because they make them exciting. So the dullars exciting is
• 2:13:47
  Speaker 1: an issue of your personal values and what you do
• 2:13:50
  Speaker 1: with the work, how you work it, how you approach
• 2:13:53
  Speaker 1: your work, and then what you do with the money
• 2:13:56
  Speaker 1: that you make from the work. Harper Campbell does Trump
• 2:14:15
  Speaker 1: want his buddies in big business to succeed while small
• 2:14:19
  Speaker 1: businesses are held down by tariffs? I mean it's not
• 2:14:22
  Speaker 1: that he wants them to succeed. They're in a position
• 2:14:25
  Speaker 1: to grant him favors and give him money and support
• 2:14:30
  Speaker 1: his businesses where small businesses can't. There is buddies, there
• 2:14:38
  Speaker 1: is friends. They're the people he hangs out with. They're
• 2:14:40
  Speaker 1: the people he invites the White House. They're the people here.
• 2:14:42
  Speaker 1: He considered himself one of them. He was never a
• 2:14:46
  Speaker 1: small business. His father made sure of that. So he
• 2:14:50
  Speaker 1: relates to them. He doesn't care about small and medium
• 2:14:53
  Speaker 1: sized businesses because he can't relate to them.
• 2:14:58
  Speaker 2: And they don't give him anything.
• 2:15:01
  Speaker 1: Andrew from what ideas does Bernie Sanders derived is ZEO
• 2:15:07
  Speaker 1: for being against AI? Oh? The standard Luddites ideas technology
• 2:15:13
  Speaker 1: destroys jobs. I mean, these ideas have been around since
• 2:15:16
  Speaker 1: the beginning of the industry of revolution. Technology destroys jobs.
• 2:15:20
  Speaker 1: We need to focus on the workers. It's socialism of
• 2:15:24
  Speaker 1: some type another, not really Marxism, but socialism. You know,
• 2:15:29
  Speaker 1: Luddites have always existed. Of course, Lates exist on the
• 2:15:33
  Speaker 1: right as well. Not you have a jog go with them.
• 2:15:38
  Speaker 1: You'd have to be crazy to look at the super
• 2:15:40
  Speaker 1: chat army you've created. And I think you haven't changed
• 2:15:43
  Speaker 1: the segment of the world already. Yeah, it's just it's just,
• 2:15:49
  Speaker 1: you know, no insult to you, guys. It's just a
• 2:15:51
  Speaker 1: small segment. Not enough impact yet the direction of humanity.
• 2:15:58
  Speaker 1: I think maybe you are maybe this beginning, But yes,
• 2:16:02
  Speaker 1: no question. It's one mind at a time, and I've
• 2:16:04
  Speaker 1: impacted a lot of one minds now, Javi j algorithm.
• 2:16:08
  Speaker 1: Everything will be all right in the end. It is
• 2:16:11
  Speaker 1: not all right. It is not the end. Well, I
• 2:16:14
  Speaker 1: don't know about that. You know, when you're dead, everything
• 2:16:17
  Speaker 1: is all right. I guess not so much. But the
• 2:16:21
  Speaker 1: end will come one way or the other, whether it's
• 2:16:24
  Speaker 1: all right or not. Harper Campbell said the New York
• 2:16:28
  Speaker 1: is simum. Donnie is an antidote to Trump. Trump consistently
• 2:16:31
  Speaker 1: brings out the worst in the left and right. That's true,
• 2:16:34
  Speaker 1: absolutely true. And again I said this during the election season.
• 2:16:39
  Speaker 1: Trump brings out the worst. He will bring out the
• 2:16:41
  Speaker 1: worst in the left, he will bring out the worst
• 2:16:43
  Speaker 1: in the right. Trump is has done unimaginable damage to
• 2:16:48
  Speaker 1: the psyche of America and to it's it's its future,
• 2:16:52
  Speaker 1: to its future politics, its future ability to thrive. And
• 2:16:59
  Speaker 1: it's not through policies, it's through who he is and
• 2:17:01
  Speaker 1: how he conducts himself. Clark mcdanie's warmth of collectivism is
• 2:17:08
  Speaker 1: as warm as a gulag in Siberia. Yes, very warm.
• 2:17:16
  Speaker 2: I like numbers.
• 2:17:17
  Speaker 1: Why the individualism to immigration. Mamdani wants open immigration in
• 2:17:22
  Speaker 1: the name of collectivism, and his idea of globalization involves
• 2:17:26
  Speaker 1: the Intafada. So first, at the end of the day,
• 2:17:31
  Speaker 1: Mamdani does not approve of immigration. The left never really does,
• 2:17:38
  Speaker 1: you know. They as soon as the immigrants come and
• 2:17:40
  Speaker 1: they take jobs from locals and wages. In some areas decline,
• 2:17:45
  Speaker 1: unions get really really really upset. The left turns against
• 2:17:49
  Speaker 1: immigrants always, so don't believe this idea that the left
• 2:17:55
  Speaker 1: is pro open immigration. Then not right now. They think
• 2:17:59
  Speaker 1: with immigration and pisses off the right, so they're proet
• 2:18:02
  Speaker 1: they're pro open immigration because it pisses off the right.
• 2:18:05
  Speaker 1: And some of them might be pro open immigration because
• 2:18:08
  Speaker 1: of altruism. But if you're a politician altruism, you have
• 2:18:14
  Speaker 1: to think about who you're sacrificing. And if you're sacrificing
• 2:18:18
  Speaker 1: your constituents, the people who vote for you, you're going
• 2:18:20
  Speaker 1: to stop. And some of them are pro open immigration
• 2:18:25
  Speaker 1: because they thought they think that these immigrants will ultimately
• 2:18:29
  Speaker 1: vote for them, but as the twenty twenty elections showed,
• 2:18:34
  Speaker 1: that's not guaranteed.
• 2:18:38
  Speaker 2: So it's not obvious that they want more immigrants.
• 2:18:42
  Speaker 1: So and whether they want immigrants will vote for them
• 2:18:45
  Speaker 1: might be from some countries not from others. I don't
• 2:18:48
  Speaker 1: believe he's pro.
• 2:18:48
  Speaker 2: Open immigration ultimately.
• 2:18:52
  Speaker 1: But the collectivism in the pro open immigration is you've
• 2:18:57
  Speaker 1: got to help the poor and the suffering around the
• 2:18:59
  Speaker 1: world to bring them in.
• 2:19:04
  Speaker 2: I mean, he doesn't know what any fodder is.
• 2:19:08
  Speaker 1: I don't actually believe that he wants to globalize the Intofada.
• 2:19:11
  Speaker 1: In terms of what that actually means, I don't think
• 2:19:13
  Speaker 1: he's an Islamist.
• 2:19:15
  Speaker 2: I don't think he's.
• 2:19:16
  Speaker 1: A Muslim Brotherhood type he is. He's a socialist who
• 2:19:25
  Speaker 1: you know, is fairly secular and is he doesn't believe
• 2:19:29
  Speaker 1: in Sharia law.
• 2:19:32
  Speaker 2: You can see by how many women he's appointed.
• 2:19:34
  Speaker 1: He doesn't require them to cover their hair when they're
• 2:19:36
  Speaker 1: appointed in his administration. He doesn't believe in Sharia laws.
• 2:19:41
  Speaker 1: He's a Muslim who's a leftist like and who's anti
• 2:19:45
  Speaker 1: Israel and you know, ultimately anti Jews, antisemitic, but he's
• 2:19:50
  Speaker 1: fundamentally he hates Israel. He'd like to see Israel wiped
• 2:19:53
  Speaker 1: off the face of the earth. That's there's no question.
• 2:19:57
  Speaker 1: Does he believe in Sharia law and and and globalizing
• 2:20:01
  Speaker 1: the FATA means Sharia law and Islam in its Islamist
• 2:20:07
  Speaker 1: manifestation taking over the world. I don't think he believes that.
• 2:20:10
  Speaker 1: I think that would hamper his style. I mean he's
• 2:20:14
  Speaker 1: a modern, hip leftist Clark as he run deposes evil
• 2:20:22
  Speaker 1: Islamic authoritarianism, the clueless of New York annoyed one. He's
• 2:20:27
  Speaker 1: not an Islamist. He's a Muslim, but he's not an Islamist.
• 2:20:32
  Speaker 1: I mean, I hate Mamdani everything he stands for, but
• 2:20:37
  Speaker 1: let's be truthful about what he actually is.
• 2:20:40
  Speaker 2: It doesn't do.
• 2:20:41
  Speaker 1: Us good to exaggerate blood of proportion and attribute something
• 2:20:45
  Speaker 1: to him that is not real. He is not an Islamist.
• 2:20:49
  Speaker 1: He's not sure real law. He's not you know, a
• 2:20:54
  Speaker 1: four Islamic domination of the earth. That is not his agenda.
• 2:20:58
  Speaker 1: His agenda his socialism, and that's a pretty leftist agenda,
• 2:21:03
  Speaker 1: which is left.
• 2:21:06
  Speaker 2: The left is not Islamist.
• 2:21:08
  Speaker 1: Now they might form a coalition with Islamists to achieve particular.
• 2:21:12
  Speaker 2: Goals, bet they're not it.
• 2:21:19
  Speaker 1: I think it's much more likely that the right, like
• 2:21:23
  Speaker 1: Taker Causon, affiliate with Islamists than the left because the right,
• 2:21:28
  Speaker 1: as Tackerson says, the Islamists on social issues are much
• 2:21:33
  Speaker 1: more aligned with the right. And as Taker Calson says,
• 2:21:37
  Speaker 1: what's so bad about Churia law? They ban abortions, they
• 2:21:41
  Speaker 1: put women in their plays. I mean, Schuria law is fine.
• 2:21:45
  Speaker 1: They don't do you know, they stop criminals. So I
• 2:21:52
  Speaker 1: think the left has a harder time with Sharia law
• 2:21:54
  Speaker 1: than the right. Michael, New York was built by free,
• 2:21:59
  Speaker 1: individ jewels. Every skyscraper there was willed into existence by
• 2:22:03
  Speaker 1: men who thought and worked to make it. So a
• 2:22:06
  Speaker 1: culture that cheers their disposition disposition deserves contempt. Yeah, I mean,
• 2:22:11
  Speaker 1: those people who cheered Mamdanie with his collectivism really disgusting, really,
• 2:22:17
  Speaker 1: really really disgusting.
• 2:22:22
  Speaker 3: All right, let's see.
• 2:22:38
  Speaker 1: Steve O hi Ron, are you familiar with the Supreme
• 2:22:41
  Speaker 1: Court's trend? They decided of one hundred and twenty cases
• 2:22:46
  Speaker 1: a year through nineteen ninety three, now under seventy. What
• 2:22:49
  Speaker 1: do you think about that? Should they hear more cases?
• 2:22:52
  Speaker 1: You know, I don't know. I don't have an opinion.
• 2:22:53
  Speaker 1: It's good to ask, like somebody like Larry Salizman that
• 2:22:59
  Speaker 1: I don't know. I mean, it seems like they should
• 2:23:05
  Speaker 1: do more, but it's also important that they do it right.
• 2:23:07
  Speaker 1: And one hundred and twenty cases seems like a lot
• 2:23:10
  Speaker 1: to do right. So much more important than how many
• 2:23:14
  Speaker 1: cases they hear, it's the quality of their decisions, and
• 2:23:19
  Speaker 1: we'll see in the next few days how good those
• 2:23:21
  Speaker 1: decisions are.
• 2:23:23
  Speaker 2: Michael, have.
• 2:23:28
  Speaker 1: Governing philosophies of hate and force ever been sustainable long
• 2:23:33
  Speaker 1: term in a post Enlightenment world. Well, I mean North
• 2:23:38
  Speaker 1: Korea has been going on for a long time, long time.
• 2:23:41
  Speaker 1: The Muslim world has been going on for a long time.
• 2:23:47
  Speaker 1: I mean, Russia has just shifted from communism to a
• 2:23:53
  Speaker 1: kind of fascism, but it still has a really bad
• 2:23:56
  Speaker 1: governing philosophy and that's been going on forever, right, So
• 2:24:02
  Speaker 1: outside of the core western countries, yes, even post Enlightenment,
• 2:24:08
  Speaker 1: there have been governing philosophies that have hated in force,
• 2:24:11
  Speaker 1: that have sustained long term. Michael, eighty millionaires in the
• 2:24:18
  Speaker 1: US inherited nothing. Is that not the case in Western Europe?
• 2:24:22
  Speaker 1: The majority of millionaires come from old money passed down. Yes,
• 2:24:26
  Speaker 1: Europe is different. Majority of millionaires in Europe it's passed down.
• 2:24:29
  Speaker 1: I mean, think about the kind of wealth that you
• 2:24:31
  Speaker 1: accumulate in things like real estate over many, many, many generations,
• 2:24:36
  Speaker 1: particularly over the last two hundred years, in places like
• 2:24:39
  Speaker 1: Holland and England and France and Germany. I mean a
• 2:24:44
  Speaker 1: lot of the wealth is family wealth that's passed down. Michael,
• 2:24:51
  Speaker 1: you said you wouldn't live in a cold place even
• 2:24:54
  Speaker 1: if there were no income tax. Would you live in
• 2:24:57
  Speaker 1: a cold place if it was fully objectivist yes, yes,
• 2:25:02
  Speaker 1: fully capitalist. I would live in a cold place it
• 2:25:05
  Speaker 1: was fully capitalist. Yes, whether it's not that big of
• 2:25:08
  Speaker 1: a value, but given that the world is full of
• 2:25:10
  Speaker 1: mixed places, whether is a.
• 2:25:13
  Speaker 2: Is relatively high on the list.
• 2:25:16
  Speaker 1: Steve O. What's your favorite non human animal? Cat or
• 2:25:22
  Speaker 1: dog person, tiger or lion or some other type of cat.
• 2:25:27
  Speaker 1: Do you admire animals being selfish? No, because they're not selfish,
• 2:25:30
  Speaker 1: they don't choose it. I like it. I like lions.
• 2:25:35
  Speaker 1: I've already admired male lions, I guess, but.
• 2:25:42
  Speaker 2: Really, I mean, once I saw a tiger in a zoo.
• 2:25:45
  Speaker 1: Tigers are more impressive, and they're more active, you know,
• 2:25:51
  Speaker 1: mayle lions sit around a lot and do nothing. But uh,
• 2:25:55
  Speaker 1: lions and tigers are my favorites of the of the animals.
• 2:25:59
  Speaker 3: Uh.
• 2:25:59
  Speaker 1: The ferocious there there, you know, just unbelievable specimens. I
• 2:26:05
  Speaker 1: mean when you see them live, man, they're impressive beings.
• 2:26:10
  Speaker 1: I don't like cats and I don't like dogs. I mean,
• 2:26:14
  Speaker 1: I don't not like them, but I don't. I'm not
• 2:26:17
  Speaker 1: a cat person or a dog person.
• 2:26:19
  Speaker 2: I don't have pets. I don't have any pets. I
• 2:26:22
  Speaker 2: don't I don't.
• 2:26:24
  Speaker 1: Too much work, too much focus on something that doesn't
• 2:26:27
  Speaker 1: give back enough. Yeah, so I'm not big on animals generally.
• 2:26:33
  Speaker 2: I like watching them for far Abraham.
• 2:26:38
  Speaker 1: I recently learned that lenar Peacus supported Trump on the
• 2:26:42
  Speaker 1: last two elections. Who are other prominent objectives who prefer
• 2:26:45
  Speaker 1: MAGA over the left? Have you debated them on this topic?
• 2:26:54
  Speaker 2: Yes?
• 2:26:54
  Speaker 1: As far as I know, Leonard Leonard voted for uh
• 2:26:58
  Speaker 1: Trump twice. Other objectivests Andy Bernstein, Richard Salzman, and Dave Harriman.
• 2:27:08
  Speaker 2: Have I debated them?
• 2:27:09
  Speaker 1: No? I know I've debated Leonard privately, private in private,
• 2:27:15
  Speaker 1: one on one, but I haven't debated anybody publicly, and
• 2:27:17
  Speaker 1: and I'm not going to. I'm not going to. Uh, Steve,
• 2:27:25
  Speaker 1: what do you think of people who always talk about
• 2:27:27
  Speaker 1: how much they make and stuff they have? Greed is good,
• 2:27:31
  Speaker 1: but at some point they must be a problem. Well,
• 2:27:33
  Speaker 1: that's not greed, that that's just uh, you know, showing
• 2:27:37
  Speaker 1: off and being not proud.
• 2:27:40
  Speaker 2: But what do you what do you call it?
• 2:27:41
  Speaker 1: Uh?
• 2:27:42
  Speaker 2: Boastful?
• 2:27:44
  Speaker 1: And and you know it's it's I think it's a
• 2:27:47
  Speaker 1: sign of low self esteem where they have to show
• 2:27:50
  Speaker 1: how big they are and how important they are on
• 2:27:51
  Speaker 1: how strong are they are? On how everything else. So yeah,
• 2:27:56
  Speaker 1: I think that. I think that it's not an issue
• 2:28:01
  Speaker 1: of greed. It's an issue of low self esteem. Low
• 2:28:04
  Speaker 1: self esteem results in people boastful about stuff rather than
• 2:28:12
  Speaker 1: just being proud or just being objective. Michael, are we
• 2:28:22
  Speaker 1: still two young of a species for freedom?
• 2:28:25
  Speaker 2: It appears that way. It certainly appears that way.
• 2:28:28
  Speaker 1: It appears that you're going to have to have reason,
• 2:28:31
  Speaker 1: as man's means basicly means a survival. You need that
• 2:28:34
  Speaker 1: needs to be integrated into a man's experience much more
• 2:28:37
  Speaker 1: thoroughly over the next few hundred years to achieve freedom. James,
• 2:28:43
  Speaker 1: do you think Mam Donnie is just corrupt or is
• 2:28:46
  Speaker 1: he evil? The chilling part is most people agree with him.
• 2:28:50
  Speaker 1: They only disagree in application, and the most consistent among
• 2:28:53
  Speaker 1: them will win the end. I think he's bad. I
• 2:28:57
  Speaker 1: think he's imo and you know how evil as we'll see,
• 2:29:00
  Speaker 1: but it's it's it's I don't think he's corrupt. I
• 2:29:03
  Speaker 1: don't think it's about money. I think he's ideological. I
• 2:29:05
  Speaker 1: think he holds evil ideas, and you have to judge
• 2:29:09
  Speaker 1: a person based on his ideas at some point, and
• 2:29:12
  Speaker 1: based on his ideas, he's a bad guy. It's a
• 2:29:16
  Speaker 1: bad guy. Liam. As the more notable intellectuals like Pinka
• 2:29:25
  Speaker 1: start to interact with objectivists, they will begin to absorb
• 2:29:31
  Speaker 1: that the damnation, that the damnation of selfishness is wrong.
• 2:29:35
  Speaker 2: Oh yeah, that's a question.
• 2:29:36
  Speaker 1: As Richard Hanania has a lot of respect for Rand,
• 2:29:40
  Speaker 1: if a big shot like Pinker starts to gain respect
• 2:29:42
  Speaker 1: for Rand and starts writing about her, could the game
• 2:29:45
  Speaker 1: It could be a game ship. Look, I definitely think
• 2:29:48
  Speaker 1: if Pinka became uh, you know, a sympathetic to objectivism,
• 2:29:54
  Speaker 1: an interest in objectivism, it would it could be a
• 2:29:57
  Speaker 1: game changer. I mean, he has the stature and and
• 2:30:00
  Speaker 1: the following and the respect of people out there that
• 2:30:04
  Speaker 1: could really change people's attitudes. So yes, I think could
• 2:30:07
  Speaker 1: be good big I don't know if that's going to happen.
• 2:30:13
  Speaker 1: I'm skeptical about whether that's going to happen. Stephen Picker
• 2:30:17
  Speaker 1: is older, you know, and pretty solid in what he
• 2:30:23
  Speaker 1: thinks and what he believes.
• 2:30:24
  Speaker 2: He's an intellectual.
• 2:30:26
  Speaker 1: Intellectuals, older intellectuals very rarely change their minds about fundamental things,
• 2:30:34
  Speaker 1: and the differences between Pinker and objectives am are pretty fundamental.
• 2:30:38
  Speaker 1: And I don't expect him to suddenly have a change
• 2:30:42
  Speaker 1: of heart. He might be a little bit more sympathetic.
• 2:30:44
  Speaker 1: He might find it interesting, and all of that is good,
• 2:30:47
  Speaker 1: and all of that is is helpful. It's not a
• 2:30:49
  Speaker 1: game change, but it's helpful. I think Richard Hanania being
• 2:30:54
  Speaker 1: more sympathetic to Rand is helpful for now, as long
• 2:30:58
  Speaker 1: as Richard Hanania doesn't go off and become crazy, which
• 2:31:04
  Speaker 1: it was in his past. So you know, it's possible
• 2:31:06
  Speaker 1: for the future crazy I mean as bad goes bad.
• 2:31:12
  Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, so we'll see what happens with Pink.
• 2:31:14
  Speaker 2: It's going to be interesting.
• 2:31:16
  Speaker 1: But I don't have huge expectations about him changing, I
• 2:31:22
  Speaker 1: mean significant ways. Maybe maybe at homogin changing and being
• 2:31:26
  Speaker 1: more respectful, which would be good. I mean, it would
• 2:31:28
  Speaker 1: be good if he didn't mis represent her views in
• 2:31:33
  Speaker 1: the things he wrote and when he does interviews. That
• 2:31:36
  Speaker 1: just that would be a positive change. John says ironic
• 2:31:40
  Speaker 1: that Homeland used a foreign artist for the meme h
• 2:31:44
  Speaker 1: Woshi and the Guy. Yeah, not ironic. I mean they're
• 2:31:47
  Speaker 1: so dumb over there, it wouldn't. It doesn't suffice me
• 2:31:50
  Speaker 1: at all. Capitalist Spicyes, keep up the good work, love
• 2:31:54
  Speaker 1: your shows. Thank you, Capitalist spy Abraham, I'm curious to
• 2:31:58
  Speaker 1: know your views on a rights movement. If the government
• 2:32:02
  Speaker 1: should not prevent discrimination against the stabilities, why should it
• 2:32:05
  Speaker 1: prevent any forms of discrimination? It shouldn't so I am.
• 2:32:10
  Speaker 1: I'm a huge support of the civil rights movement. I
• 2:32:12
  Speaker 1: think it was absolutely right and a good cause that
• 2:32:17
  Speaker 1: then took a really bad turn.
• 2:32:20
  Speaker 2: The bad turn was the.
• 2:32:21
  Speaker 1: Government dictating whether private individuals can discriminate or not. The
• 2:32:26
  Speaker 1: civil rights movement should have focused on government discrimination and
• 2:32:32
  Speaker 1: morally on private discrimination, but politically on government discrimination, getting
• 2:32:38
  Speaker 1: rid of the gym core laws, getting rid of redlining
• 2:32:41
  Speaker 1: by government entities, getting rid of all of that should
• 2:32:44
  Speaker 1: have been the project. And shaming, ridiculing philosophically and morally
• 2:32:52
  Speaker 1: objecting to private discrimination.
• 2:32:55
  Speaker 2: All of that should have happened.
• 2:32:57
  Speaker 1: But the law that says that a private business cannot
• 2:33:01
  Speaker 1: discriminate isn't evil law. It's wrong. It's destructive and ultimately
• 2:33:06
  Speaker 1: leads the resurrection in racism, which is what happened. What
• 2:33:10
  Speaker 1: Iinman said would happen, predicted would happen, and what's happening now.
• 2:33:15
  Speaker 1: So affirmative action in all its different forms, you should
• 2:33:18
  Speaker 1: be able to discriminate against gaze and against Jews and
• 2:33:23
  Speaker 1: against blacks, against anybody as an individual, as a private business,
• 2:33:29
  Speaker 1: that's what freedom means. As a government, you shouldn't be
• 2:33:34
  Speaker 1: able to and I should be free to boycott your
• 2:33:41
  Speaker 1: business if you discriminate. If you have a sign outside
• 2:33:43
  Speaker 1: your window saying no Blacks allowed, I will not only
• 2:33:48
  Speaker 1: boycott your store, but I will organize regular demonstrations in
• 2:33:51
  Speaker 1: front of your store to let everybody know that you
• 2:33:55
  Speaker 1: are a racist, bigot who nobody should trade with. But
• 2:34:00
  Speaker 1: it's not the government's business, so you Ron Brook, I
• 2:34:08
  Speaker 1: me I'm radical. I'm not a conservative. I'm not you
• 2:34:14
  Speaker 1: know a little bit more freedom. I'm for freedom. Freedom
• 2:34:17
  Speaker 1: means it's none in the government's business what I do,
• 2:34:20
  Speaker 1: as long as I'm not infringing on somebody else's rights.
• 2:34:23
  Speaker 1: Nobody has a right to buy stuff in my store.
• 2:34:27
  Speaker 1: I get to decide who buys and who doesn't buy
• 2:34:29
  Speaker 1: in my store, so I have a right to discriminate.
• 2:34:34
  Speaker 1: Just think about your home. You have a right to
• 2:34:36
  Speaker 1: choose to decide who can enter your home and who not.
• 2:34:40
  Speaker 1: Why is a store different than a home?
• 2:34:42
  Speaker 2: It's not.
• 2:34:45
  Speaker 1: Jamie from Canada, I agree with tax funds to Ukraine
• 2:34:49
  Speaker 1: fight to fight Russia. But some people say you should
• 2:34:52
  Speaker 1: send your own money and not tax dollars that I
• 2:34:55
  Speaker 1: pay into. Do you think that's correct, Morali, should the
• 2:34:59
  Speaker 1: federal government be said money? Look, if we lived in
• 2:35:04
  Speaker 1: a rational society, if we were lived with a government
• 2:35:08
  Speaker 1: that limited its activities to protecting the individual rights of Americans,
• 2:35:15
  Speaker 1: and that used its military only in defense of the
• 2:35:21
  Speaker 1: of the lives and property of Americans, then it's quite
• 2:35:26
  Speaker 1: likely that for self defense reasons, defending Ukraine would only
• 2:35:33
  Speaker 1: would mean spending very little money. It might mean that
• 2:35:39
  Speaker 1: and that the burden to protect Ukraine would fall on
• 2:35:42
  Speaker 1: American citizens who want to support Ukraine by sending Ukraine money.
• 2:35:49
  Speaker 1: But we don't live in that world. We live in
• 2:35:50
  Speaker 1: a world in which we get taxed fifty to sixty percent.
• 2:35:54
  Speaker 1: We live in a world in which our government has
• 2:35:57
  Speaker 1: troops in one hundred and twenty something countries in the world.
• 2:36:01
  Speaker 1: We live in a world where military is used for
• 2:36:04
  Speaker 1: all kinds of things that have nothing to do we're
• 2:36:08
  Speaker 1: securing the rights of Americans. We live in a world
• 2:36:11
  Speaker 1: in which we're bombing boats out of the and every
• 2:36:14
  Speaker 1: one of those bombs costs thousands, if not millions, of dollars.
• 2:36:21
  Speaker 1: We live in a world that is not guided by
• 2:36:23
  Speaker 1: any of those principles and where we as individuals, you know,
• 2:36:28
  Speaker 1: I'd like to live in a world where the government
• 2:36:30
  Speaker 1: doesn't provide welfare and when if you want to help
• 2:36:33
  Speaker 1: people you help them directly.
• 2:36:36
  Speaker 2: We don't live in that world.
• 2:36:39
  Speaker 1: So in this world in which we live, and by
• 2:36:42
  Speaker 1: the way, we are members of NATO, I think in
• 2:36:45
  Speaker 1: a completely objectivist world, in a capitalist we wouldn't be
• 2:36:49
  Speaker 1: members in NATO, which means we have to come to
• 2:36:53
  Speaker 1: the defense of Europe, which means that if put in
• 2:36:56
  Speaker 1: a successful in Ukraine, he will then attack Europe and
• 2:37:00
  Speaker 1: be engaged in a war. So we have a strong
• 2:37:03
  Speaker 1: motivation not to get to that point, which is why
• 2:37:06
  Speaker 1: we should fund Ukraine. But in a world where we
• 2:37:09
  Speaker 1: as individuals are being taxed to death and our government
• 2:37:14
  Speaker 1: is doing a gazillion things. Of all the things the
• 2:37:17
  Speaker 1: government is doing, funding the Ukrainian war seems one of
• 2:37:20
  Speaker 1: the most reasonable. So if I'm going to object to
• 2:37:26
  Speaker 1: the government sending money to Ukraine, there's like one hundred
• 2:37:32
  Speaker 1: thousand programs that the government spends money on that are
• 2:37:36
  Speaker 1: more objectionable. The Ukraine money is going for a good cause.
• 2:37:41
  Speaker 1: It's going ultimately for an American interest to stop an
• 2:37:48
  Speaker 1: explicit enemy of the United States. It's going to prevent
• 2:37:54
  Speaker 1: the potential of actually having to put American troops in
• 2:37:57
  Speaker 1: danger if there's aware war with NATO. There are lots
• 2:38:03
  Speaker 1: of reasons why this is a war. Why Ukraine's war
• 2:38:08
  Speaker 1: is our is in our interest for Ukraine to win.
• 2:38:12
  Speaker 1: It's a fund it now. Yes, in an ideal world,
• 2:38:15
  Speaker 1: I would encourage Americans to send money to Ukraine, less
• 2:38:20
  Speaker 1: so the government.
• 2:38:21
  Speaker 2: In this world, No, the government should do it.
• 2:38:24
  Speaker 1: And if you object, I want to see the hundred
• 2:38:27
  Speaker 1: hundreds other things that you also object to government doing
• 2:38:31
  Speaker 1: that are much more offensive than this. Huh, something's wrong
• 2:38:41
  Speaker 1: with this? Clicker? Oh?
• 2:38:48
  Speaker 2: Come on?
• 2:38:53
  Speaker 3: Okay?
• 2:38:55
  Speaker 1: Uh? Kudaia a reminder for you to check with ARII
• 2:38:58
  Speaker 1: if cheap rand books and and they'll illegally approved or not.
• 2:39:01
  Speaker 1: I'm pretty sure they are, but I will check. Jacob,
• 2:39:09
  Speaker 1: I joined late. Did you see my email regarding PayPal?
• 2:39:14
  Speaker 1: Maybe just an email reply if you don't want to
• 2:39:17
  Speaker 1: discuss on stream as it is personal, I need to
• 2:39:21
  Speaker 1: find the questions you asked and then I'll see if
• 2:39:26
  Speaker 1: I want to do it live. I haven't had a
• 2:39:28
  Speaker 1: chance to find them and get them. If I don't
• 2:39:31
  Speaker 1: do it by email, i'll do it on the show
• 2:39:33
  Speaker 1: on tomorrow or Monday, probably tomorrow, but I need to
• 2:39:36
  Speaker 1: find it first, Thanks Jacob.
• 2:39:39
  Speaker 2: Andrew.
• 2:39:40
  Speaker 1: Is the morality reflected in the David and Goliath story
• 2:39:44
  Speaker 1: overall good in a sense of man's reason being more
• 2:39:48
  Speaker 1: powerful than brutality. Yes, I mean the idea that it's
• 2:39:52
  Speaker 1: not about physical size and physical strength. It's about technique
• 2:39:57
  Speaker 1: and ability and and uh and and and uh one's mind.
• 2:40:03
  Speaker 1: So even a brave, young small person can beat a
• 2:40:06
  Speaker 1: big giant. So yes, it's a it's a good story. Andrew,
• 2:40:14
  Speaker 1: Is it rational to enjoy? Is it rational to enjoy suddainty? Yes?
• 2:40:20
  Speaker 2: I wonder if it?
• 2:40:20
  Speaker 1: If it disallowing oneself to focus on and enjoy the
• 2:40:24
  Speaker 1: creation of firm knowledge in one's mind, is in repressed
• 2:40:28
  Speaker 1: individuals weakens a man's motivation to seek union knowledge thoughts, Yeah,
• 2:40:33
  Speaker 1: I mean that sounds right. I think I certainly you
• 2:40:37
  Speaker 1: know if you brought it to knowledge, not just certainty,
• 2:40:40
  Speaker 1: but all knowledge, that's true. There's a there's a definitely
• 2:40:43
  Speaker 1: a pleasure and a joy in knowing stuff, and in
• 2:40:47
  Speaker 1: discovering new knowledge and learning something new. I mean I
• 2:40:51
  Speaker 1: read a book, Well, I learned something I didn't know before.
• 2:40:54
  Speaker 1: That's fun. That is so much fun. I really, really,
• 2:40:58
  Speaker 1: really enjoy that. And that comes from this discovery of
• 2:41:02
  Speaker 1: new knowledge and embracing new knowledge and knowing what knowledge
• 2:41:05
  Speaker 1: means to your life and its importance and all of that.
• 2:41:08
  Speaker 1: So yeah, and if you don't do that, and part
• 2:41:11
  Speaker 1: of the rejecting, so do you, Well, how do I
• 2:41:13
  Speaker 1: know that this book is right? Maybe it's not true,
• 2:41:15
  Speaker 1: maybe he's wrong everything. How does he know there's no
• 2:41:18
  Speaker 1: nothing is right, nothing is true. Yeah, you undermine any
• 2:41:21
  Speaker 1: kind of enjoyment you get from knowledge.
• 2:41:26
  Speaker 2: Blaze guitar lessons.
• 2:41:27
  Speaker 1: How bad is Trump economically versus Carl Marx, Well, I
• 2:41:32
  Speaker 1: mean it's not as bad as Carl Marx.
• 2:41:34
  Speaker 2: I mean very few are. Carl Marx is worse.
• 2:41:37
  Speaker 1: But then again, there's almost nobody in the world today
• 2:41:41
  Speaker 1: outside of North Korea who actually advocates for what Car
• 2:41:47
  Speaker 1: Marx advocates. I mean politically and in a position of power.
• 2:41:53
  Speaker 1: I mean, uh, Car Marx is about as bad as
• 2:41:57
  Speaker 1: it gets. I mean, how many people are out there
• 2:42:01
  Speaker 1: national advocating for nationalizing all the industries doing it with
• 2:42:05
  Speaker 1: all private property. Just nobody does other than North Korea.
• 2:42:09
  Speaker 1: Even in Cuba, the rhetoric has been mellowed over the years.
• 2:42:18
  Speaker 1: All right, everybody, thank you, thank you, thank you. Terrific
• 2:42:22
  Speaker 1: fundraising start for the year, terrific super chats start for
• 2:42:26
  Speaker 1: the year. We got oh I did? I think I
• 2:42:30
  Speaker 1: didn't thank the stickers. There's a bunch of good stickers.
• 2:42:33
  Speaker 1: I think early on, let me go to the top.
• 2:42:37
  Speaker 1: I think there were a bunch of good stickers. Yeah,
• 2:42:40
  Speaker 1: Jonathan Honey was there with the sticker, and Roland was
• 2:42:44
  Speaker 1: there with the sticker, and Skyland did one sticker. That's
• 2:42:49
  Speaker 1: how we got to five hundred, and Olie had a sticker.
• 2:42:55
  Speaker 2: So thank you.
• 2:42:56
  Speaker 1: Guys, and Mary Ellen and Mary Ellen and all Lean
• 2:43:01
  Speaker 1: and who else. I think that might be it. But yeah,
• 2:43:06
  Speaker 1: thank you guys. Really really appreciate the support today. It's
• 2:43:10
  Speaker 1: a great way to start the year with over a
• 2:43:12
  Speaker 1: thousand dollars in super chat And yeah, looking forward to
• 2:43:17
  Speaker 1: an exciting twenty twenty six and launching some new project.
• 2:43:21
  Speaker 2: We'll do an OPAS study group.
• 2:43:23
  Speaker 1: I'm I'm starting to think about how to make that
• 2:43:25
  Speaker 1: happen and how to make that work and of course
• 2:43:28
  Speaker 1: we'll be doing our regular shows, news shows on a
• 2:43:31
  Speaker 1: regular basis, and everything else. I will see you all tomorrow.
• 2:43:37
  Speaker 1: Bye everybody, and thank you.