Latest / The 47 Morning Update with Ben Ferguson / In Defense of Western Civilization: Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg One-on-One

Transcript

In Defense of Western Civilization: Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg One-on-One · The 47 Morning Update with Ben Ferguson

0:00
Speaker 1: Welcome.
0:01
Speaker 2: It is Verdict with Senator Ted Cruz, Ben Ferguson with you.
0:03
Speaker 2: It's so nice to have you with us wherever you
0:06
Speaker 2: are around the country. And this episode is going to
0:08
Speaker 2: be a really fun one. So if you're listening on audio,
0:11
Speaker 2: you might want to check it out on YouTube as well. Senator,
0:13
Speaker 2: I tell you, you and I have moments. where we
0:16
Speaker 2: sit there and we're like, can you believe that went viral?
0:19
Speaker 2: We had a few of those moments with a sit-down
0:22
Speaker 2: with Tucker Carlson, and you had the brilliant idea of,
0:25
Speaker 2: you know what, that individual we should probably ask to
0:28
Speaker 2: come on Verdict and talk about the insanity of that
0:30
Speaker 2: conversation and what was said in Europe about Germany, about
0:35
Speaker 2: the Nazis. It was truly incredible, and so I want
0:38
Speaker 2: you to go ahead and introduce our guest.
0:40
Speaker 3: Well, we're very pleased to welcome to Verdict Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg.
0:44
Speaker 3: Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg was previously Minister of State and Minister
0:49
Speaker 3: for Brexit Opportunities and Government Efficiency in the Cabinet Office
0:53
Speaker 3: between February 8, 2022 and September 6, 2022. He was
0:59
Speaker 3: the Lord President of the Council and the Leader of
1:02
Speaker 3: the Commons from July 24, 2019 to February 8, 2022.
1:04
Speaker 3: And I've got to say right now, just at the outset,
1:11
Speaker 3: the British titles are so much cooler than ours are.
1:15
Speaker 3: I mean, there's just, we don't have a Lord President. Like,
1:20
Speaker 3: I'm not even exactly sure what that means. But with that,
1:27
Speaker 3: with those high accolades, we are honored to welcome Sir
1:34
Speaker 3: Jacob Rees-Mogg to Verdict.
1:36
Speaker 1: Sir Jacob, we are very glad to have you.
1:38
Speaker 4: Well, Senator, thank you so much for inviting me. And
1:42
Speaker 4: though I may have had grand titles, I've always thought
1:44
Speaker 4: that being a senator of the United States is a
1:47
Speaker 4: wonderful thing to be, a very, not just a grand title,
1:50
Speaker 4: but a powerful position that determines the future of the world.
1:54
Speaker 4: So I'm very flattered that you should invite me on
1:56
Speaker 4: to your program.
1:57
Speaker 1: Well, you are very gracious.
1:59
Speaker 3: You are officially the first knight to be on this show.
2:05
Speaker 3: And I did have a discussion of what is the
2:08
Speaker 3: proper appellation. And I was told, Sir Jacob, you Philistine cretin,
2:15
Speaker 3: which I recognize is probably fair. But in my defense,
2:20
Speaker 3: for years, Ben has been trying to convince me to
2:24
Speaker 3: call him Sir Ben.
2:25
Speaker 5: Yes, yes.
2:26
Speaker 3: And his argument is that he received a knightly ring
2:30
Speaker 3: in a box of Captain Crunch.
2:32
Speaker 5: Right, right. You get it however you can get it,
2:35
Speaker 5: Sir Jacob, right? It doesn't matter who does it.
2:37
Speaker 1: Absolutely right.
2:39
Speaker 4: But I'm sure you know that being from Texas, you
2:42
Speaker 4: must like eating beef. The sirloin of beef was knighted
2:46
Speaker 4: by King James I.
2:50
Speaker 4: Said this meat is so good, it must be knighted.
2:53
Speaker 4: And the loin of beef became the sirloin of beef.
2:56
Speaker 5: And that's actually true.
2:57
Speaker 1: Wow.
2:58
Speaker 2: Who says you don't learn something every day on this
3:00
Speaker 2: show right there?
3:01
Speaker 5: I like it.
3:02
Speaker 2: I got to tell you, I love when I get
3:03
Speaker 2: to talk to you about organizations that are having a
3:07
Speaker 2: major impact. And I get to tell you about it
3:09
Speaker 2: because then we get to make a big difference in
3:12
Speaker 2: someone's life. And if you're going to change someone's life,
3:15
Speaker 2: You want to know that it actually lasts, and that's
3:17
Speaker 2: one of the many reasons Compassion International has become one
3:21
Speaker 2: of the most trusted child development ministries in the world. Now,
3:25
Speaker 2: independent research shows children sponsored through Compassion stay in school longer.
3:31
Speaker 2: They're 40% more likely to graduate high school and 80%
3:34
Speaker 2: more likely to finish college. Now, those numbers, especially coming
3:38
Speaker 2: from third world countries, are unbelievable. And why does this happen?
3:42
Speaker 2: It's because sponsorship isn't just temporary relief. It's a long-term
3:47
Speaker 2: investment through, and this is the key, the local church,
3:51
Speaker 2: meeting the fiscal needs while sharing the hope of Jesus. Now,
3:55
Speaker 2: I do this, and it is so rewarding to know
3:58
Speaker 2: that I'm helping someone, and I want you to do
4:00
Speaker 2: it as well.
4:01
Speaker 5: For only $ 43 a.
4:02
Speaker 2: Month, you can help shape a child's future. It's also
4:06
Speaker 2: a great way to teach your children or your grandchildren
4:09
Speaker 2: about helping others. And you can sponsor a child today
4:12
Speaker 2: at Compassion.com. That's Compassion.com.
4:18
Speaker 3: So let me start with a little background, which is
4:21
Speaker 3: when did you first get into the world of politics?
4:24
Speaker 3: When did you first enter Parliament?
4:27
Speaker 4: I first entered Parliament in 2010 when David Cameron became
4:31
Speaker 4: Prime Minister and won that election. I'd obviously been involved
4:35
Speaker 4: in politics before I'd stood for parliament before, but that
4:37
Speaker 4: was when I went into the House of Commons.
4:40
Speaker 3: As Ben mentioned, recently, a couple weeks ago, you sat
4:43
Speaker 3: down for an interview with Tucker Carlson. Tucker is someone
4:47
Speaker 3: Ben and I both know exceedingly well.
4:50
Speaker 1: We've known him a long time.
4:52
Speaker 3: I'm curious, when you received the invitation to go on
4:55
Speaker 3: a show to sit for the interview, what prompted you
4:58
Speaker 3: to say yes, that this was a conversation in which
5:01
Speaker 3: you wanted to participate?
5:02
Speaker 1: It's a very good question.
5:03
Speaker 4: I'd heard of Tucker Carlson, but I knew very little
5:07
Speaker 4: about him. I knew that he'd done an interview with
5:12
Speaker 4: President Putin and that he was seen as quite a
5:15
Speaker 4: controversial figure. So I consulted some of my political advisors
5:21
Speaker 4: to see whether they thought this was a good idea
5:23
Speaker 4: or not. And I've always broadly taken the view that
5:26
Speaker 4: you want to discuss things with people. If you believe
5:29
Speaker 4: in freedom of speech, you want to debate with them.
5:32
Speaker 4: And that although he's given a platform to some pretty
5:35
Speaker 4: unsavory people, including obviously Putin himself, that's not a reason
5:39
Speaker 4: not to talk to him. Because if you talk to him,
5:41
Speaker 4: you may be able to get your message across to
5:44
Speaker 4: his supporters and followers. So I thought it was a
5:47
Speaker 4: risk worth taking. And he happened to be in London
5:51
Speaker 4: the following week. And I also thought he fundamentally misunderstood
5:55
Speaker 4: what I'd said about being prepared for war. suggesting this
5:59
Speaker 4: was warmongering, which it obviously isn't.
6:01
Speaker 7: Being prepared for.
6:01
Speaker 1: War is not warmongering.
6:04
Speaker 7: It's trying to avoid war.
6:05
Speaker 3: Well, that is exactly right. And the argument that the
6:09
Speaker 3: isolationists make is that withdrawing from the world and weakness
6:15
Speaker 3: somehow avoids the risk of military conflict. And we have
6:19
Speaker 3: only millennia of human history to the contrary, that when
6:23
Speaker 3: a nation is weak, when they are unprepared to defend themselves,
6:26
Speaker 3: that's when they become attractive to bullies and tyrants and
6:30
Speaker 3: invading armies, and history has shown that the strongest, the
6:35
Speaker 3: easiest way, the best way to avoid war is to
6:38
Speaker 3: be so strong that your enemies don't want to mess
6:40
Speaker 3: with you. It is what Ronald Reagan referred to as
6:44
Speaker 3: peace through strength, and that's a concept that the isolationists,
6:50
Speaker 3: it simply eludes them. I want to say at the
6:55
Speaker 3: outset that Sir Jacob, your performance in that interview was
7:00
Speaker 3: simply masterful and it was as if you took Tucker
7:05
Speaker 3: as an ill-behaved and petulant second grader and you very
7:09
Speaker 3: calmly put him over your knee and showed him the
7:13
Speaker 3: discipline which I am now convinced in his upbringing was
7:18
Speaker 3: sorely lacking, that I think nobody properly spanked Tucker and
7:23
Speaker 3: he has continued down this road as a consequence. I
7:27
Speaker 3: have to say, when you sat down, you may have
7:30
Speaker 3: had some curiosity. What questions is this American going to
7:35
Speaker 3: ask me? Where are they going to come from? Did
7:38
Speaker 3: you envision that it would start with the question of,
7:44
Speaker 3: are we glad with who won World War II, and
7:47
Speaker 3: wouldn't it be better if the Nazis had won World
7:49
Speaker 3: War II?
7:50
Speaker 1: Did that surprise you?
7:52
Speaker 4: Yes, it seemed to me a completely extraordinary question. It
7:55
Speaker 4: didn't seem to me a question a serious person would ask.
7:58
Speaker 4: There are debates about many wars as to whether they
8:01
Speaker 4: were right to fight or not. But the one which
8:05
Speaker 4: seems to me to be the most obvious that had
8:08
Speaker 4: to be fought is the one against Nazi Germany, that
8:12
Speaker 4: Hitler wanted to dominate the whole of Europe, ideally the world,
8:17
Speaker 4: and he was never going to stop. And he had
8:20
Speaker 4: to be stopped because what he wanted to do was evil.
8:25
Speaker 4: And I think there is a fight between good and
8:27
Speaker 4: evil and that politicians, statesmen have to take their position
8:32
Speaker 4: on this, commentators as well. So no, I was very
8:36
Speaker 4: surprised that that was the line of questioning. And it
8:40
Speaker 4: didn't seem to me to be a very difficult answer
8:41
Speaker 4: to say that that war was fundamental and that Yes,
8:46
Speaker 4: it cost the UK a great deal of money and
8:48
Speaker 4: a great number of lives, but it was nonetheless not
8:52
Speaker 4: only the right thing to do, but led to a
8:55
Speaker 4: better world afterwards for every country that came through it.
8:59
Speaker 3: Well, and I think you saw in that interview, Tucker
9:02
Speaker 3: Carlson is, I have said many times, I think he
9:05
Speaker 3: is the most dangerous demagogue in America.
9:08
Speaker 1: And he uses a host of tools. He uses sophistry.
9:12
Speaker 3: And I was very glad just a minute ago in
9:14
Speaker 3: your answer, you made reference to the fact that Hitler
9:17
Speaker 3: was evil and what he was doing was evil. And
9:21
Speaker 3: I very much believe that good and evil exist, that
9:24
Speaker 3: there is objective truth. Not everything is black and white,
9:27
Speaker 3: but many things are black and white. And what the
9:30
Speaker 3: Nazis did, standing up concentration camps, exterminating more than six
9:37
Speaker 3: million Jews, also exterminating gypsies and homosexuals and people with
9:41
Speaker 3: disabilities systematically putting human beings in gas chambers and ovens
9:48
Speaker 3: to engage in genocide, to engage in mass murder, not
9:52
Speaker 3: to mention to engage in horrific torture and rape and
9:56
Speaker 3: all kinds of human abuse, there is no gray about that.
10:00
Speaker 3: There is no ambiguity. That is not just one country
10:03
Speaker 3: ordinarily fighting. That is the very embodiment of evil. And
10:08
Speaker 3: part of what Tucker does frequently is elide over evil.
10:13
Speaker 3: When he looks to the Middle East, when he sees
10:16
Speaker 3: Hamas on October 7th coming into Israel and murdering more
10:21
Speaker 3: than 1,200 Israelis, raping little girls, raping women, kidnapping over
10:27
Speaker 3: 200 Israelis, murdering dozens of Americans, raping Americans, kidnapping Americans
10:34
Speaker 3: for him, that does not rise to the level of
10:37
Speaker 3: evil and instead he engages in a moral equivalence where
10:42
Speaker 3: he has said in another one of his shows that
10:45
Speaker 3: he doesn't know if Hamas is a terrorist organization He
10:49
Speaker 3: thinks they may just be a political movement, and that's
10:52
Speaker 3: the same process of alighting over the facts and erasing evil,
10:59
Speaker 3: and it's not a new trick for a demagogue, but
11:02
Speaker 3: it is one of Tucker's favorites, and it is, I believe,
11:06
Speaker 3: thoroughly dishonest.
11:07
Speaker 4: Well, I'm not a moral relativist. I think there are
11:10
Speaker 4: absolutes in morality, and I agree with you entirely on
11:14
Speaker 4: Hamas and the point that you make, and I think
11:18
Speaker 4: that It is in all our interests, America's interests, Britain's interests,
11:23
Speaker 4: to try and maintain as much order in the world
11:27
Speaker 4: as is possible. We can't put every wrong right. We
11:31
Speaker 4: can't do anything effectively to help the Uyghurs in China.
11:35
Speaker 4: But that there are many things we can do. And
11:38
Speaker 4: supporting Israel against a threat to its very existence is important,
11:43
Speaker 4: not least because the stable order that we want is
11:48
Speaker 4: built upon the nation state. And I think this is
11:50
Speaker 4: absolutely fundamental. The rights of countries are based on nation states,
11:55
Speaker 4: and that terrorists and foreign powers that wish to destroy
11:58
Speaker 4: individual nation states have to be opposed, because if they're not,
12:03
Speaker 4: the risk ends up coming to the bigger nation states,
12:06
Speaker 4: who find, by having sat back and done nothing, that
12:10
Speaker 4: they are ultimately under threat. It's the Old line from Kipling,
12:13
Speaker 4: if you keep paying Danegeld, the Dane doesn't go away.
12:16
Speaker 4: If you don't project strength, if you're not able to
12:18
Speaker 4: defend yourself, then you will find that ultimately people are
12:21
Speaker 4: coming after you.
12:23
Speaker 3: Well, I think that's right, and I think it is
12:26
Speaker 3: also incumbent on leaders, particularly leaders in Western democracies, to
12:32
Speaker 3: call out evil where they see it.
12:34
Speaker 1: And these are distinct questions.
12:35
Speaker 3: One question is whether you speak the truth about what
12:39
Speaker 3: is happening. A second question is which doesn't necessarily follow,
12:43
Speaker 3: is what steps do you take in response to that evil,
12:47
Speaker 3: and in particular, does that necessarily entail military conflict? That
12:51
Speaker 3: is an altogether different question. So as you noted, the Uyghurs,
12:56
Speaker 3: the Chinese communist government, has over one million Uyghurs, an
13:00
Speaker 3: ethnic minority Muslim Chinese, who are in concentration camps. It
13:05
Speaker 3: is the largest instance of human slavery on planet Earth
13:08
Speaker 3: right now. and it is a grotesque human rights violation. Now,
13:14
Speaker 3: I think any leader of decency and morality has an
13:19
Speaker 3: obligation to call it out, to call it out for
13:21
Speaker 3: what it is, which is torture and murder and slavery. Likewise,
13:26
Speaker 3: when the Chinese Communist government engages in forced organ harvesting
13:33
Speaker 3: from the Falun Gong, a religious minority where they forcibly
13:36
Speaker 3: remove organs in many instances, killing the person in the
13:40
Speaker 3: process and take the organs to give them to some
13:42
Speaker 3: other citizen whom they deem more valuable, I think all
13:46
Speaker 3: of us have an obligation to call.
13:48
Speaker 1: It out and say that is wrong. Now, there's a
13:49
Speaker 1: distinct question.
13:51
Speaker 3: Neither the United States nor the United Kingdom have sent
13:54
Speaker 3: tanks into China to invade, to shut down those concentration camps.
14:00
Speaker 3: You could make an argument that we should. You could
14:03
Speaker 3: make an argument that we should not. But either way,
14:07
Speaker 3: The threshold for military action is substantially higher, and the
14:10
Speaker 3: bare minimum is, can you speak with moral clarity and
14:13
Speaker 3: call it out? And I believe doing so has enormous power.
14:18
Speaker 3: For me, the formative and transformational foreign policy and national
14:26
Speaker 3: security event of our lifetimes was the fall of the
14:30
Speaker 3: Soviet Union, was winning the Cold War.
14:33
Speaker 1: And that did not happen by accident.
14:35
Speaker 3: That did not happen just with the.
14:38
Speaker 1: Winds of time.
14:38
Speaker 3: It happened because of clear and strong leadership. And it
14:43
Speaker 3: happened because of clear and strong leadership from President Ronald
14:46
Speaker 3: Reagan in the United States and Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher
14:50
Speaker 3: in the United Kingdom and Pope John Paul II. And
14:54
Speaker 3: the world was blessed to have those three leaders converge
14:58
Speaker 3: with the moral clarity and the moral strength.
15:01
Speaker 1: To stand up to the Soviet Union.
15:04
Speaker 3: And in my view, we are in a similar time
15:07
Speaker 3: where we need similar clarity and strength.
15:10
Speaker 4: Well, I agree with absolutely everything that you have said.
15:13
Speaker 4: I think the clear moral leadership of Pope John Paul II,
15:18
Speaker 4: the military might of Ronald Reagan, that he spent an
15:22
Speaker 4: enormous amount of your taxpayers' money to ensure that America's
15:27
Speaker 4: defense was the best in the world and Russia simply
15:30
Speaker 4: couldn't keep up. And then the sheer backbone of Margaret
15:33
Speaker 4: Thatcher was a combination that meant the Cold War was
15:37
Speaker 4: won without a shot being fired.
15:39
Speaker 1: Yes.
15:39
Speaker 4: And this is tremendously important because it was won through
15:43
Speaker 4: strength and deterrence. It wasn't won through giving in to Russia,
15:49
Speaker 4: allowing it to get away with things, saying things that
15:52
Speaker 4: were wrong were right. And I think in the context
15:54
Speaker 4: with China and Whether our relationship with China can improve
15:58
Speaker 4: or not, I don't know.
15:59
Speaker 7: But I think China is a major security risk.
16:02
Speaker 4: There, the issue is, can Taiwan be defended by.
16:07
Speaker 7: A similar level of deterrence?
16:09
Speaker 4: It's utterly impractical to go into China to protect the Uyghurs,
16:12
Speaker 4: that China is too strong and it would be too
16:16
Speaker 4: great a war and something that we could not undertake.
16:19
Speaker 4: But the doctrine of deterrence has protected Taiwan already for
16:22
Speaker 4: a long time. And I think that that is a
16:25
Speaker 4: very important issue. line in the sand for the Western world.
16:28
Speaker 2: All right, let me just take a moment. I want
16:30
Speaker 2: to talk to you real quick about Regent University. I've
16:33
Speaker 2: known about them and been working with them for years.
16:36
Speaker 2: I got to speak there over 20 years ago. And
16:39
Speaker 2: let me just say this. Somewhere along the way, we
16:41
Speaker 2: got this crazy idea that a serious education and a
16:44
Speaker 2: strong Christian faith have to live in two different worlds.
16:47
Speaker 5: Well, guess what?
16:48
Speaker 2: They don't, and they shouldn't. And at Regent University, faith
16:51
Speaker 2: isn't an afterthought. It's at the heart of the education. Now,
16:55
Speaker 2: students are challenged to think deeply, pursue excellence, and see
16:59
Speaker 2: their education through a Christian worldview. And make no mistake,
17:03
Speaker 2: Regent is serious about academics. With more than 150 areas
17:07
Speaker 2: of study, Regent has earned national recognition for academic excellence.
17:12
Speaker 2: Because a great education shouldn't just prepare you to make
17:14
Speaker 2: a living, it should prepare you to make a difference.
17:17
Speaker 2: to lead with integrity, and use your God-given talents with purpose.
17:21
Speaker 2: And here's the great part. You can get the same
17:23
Speaker 2: region education online. Learn from wherever you are on a
17:27
Speaker 2: schedule that works around your career and family without compromising
17:31
Speaker 2: your education or your faith. Exceptional academics, flexible online learning,
17:37
Speaker 2: and most importantly, unapologetically Christian. You can learn more at regent.edu.
17:44
Speaker 2: That's regent.edu, Regent University, Christian leadership to change the world.
17:50
Speaker 2: Let me ask you a question on that, and it
17:51
Speaker 2: deals with the incredible relationship the U.S. has had with
17:55
Speaker 2: the U.K., There are some that think it's very strained
17:58
Speaker 2: right now.
17:58
Speaker 5: I want your take.
18:00
Speaker 2: If things like that happen, where the UK and the
18:03
Speaker 2: US have to unite on a front to say, hey,
18:06
Speaker 2: we're going to stand with Taiwan, for example, how do
18:09
Speaker 2: you feel like the relationship is, from your perspective, with
18:13
Speaker 2: Parliament and with the leadership in your country and the
18:15
Speaker 2: US right now?
18:16
Speaker 4: Well, I think that Sir Keir Starmer made a mistake
18:21
Speaker 4: in not supporting the United States in what it's been
18:25
Speaker 4: doing in Iran. even though I wish your president had
18:28
Speaker 4: not done what he's done in Iran. I think that
18:31
Speaker 4: our relationship with America means that we should support you,
18:35
Speaker 4: even if we have questions about the policy you're following,
18:38
Speaker 4: because your contribution to global security is fundamental. And to
18:43
Speaker 4: make that contribution, you need allies.
18:45
Speaker 7: So I.
18:47
Speaker 4: Think it is really very important that the UK supports
18:51
Speaker 4: the US, works alongside the US, recognising that you are
18:55
Speaker 4: the power that it is your decision, not ours, but
18:59
Speaker 4: that our security actually is very dependent on a good
19:01
Speaker 4: relationship with you, as is global security. And I think
19:05
Speaker 4: that in relation to Taiwan, yes, there would be people
19:09
Speaker 4: in England who say it hasn't got a lot to
19:11
Speaker 4: do with us, a faraway country of which we know
19:13
Speaker 4: very little. But I would certainly be arguing that the
19:16
Speaker 4: defense of a place that has an active democracy operates
19:22
Speaker 4: like a country ought to be defended against an aggressor
19:26
Speaker 4: as a matter of principle, even if that means you're
19:29
Speaker 4: having to protect them against mainland China, against communist China.
19:35
Speaker 1: Well, and Sir Jacob, I'd say a couple of things
19:37
Speaker 1: on that.
19:38
Speaker 3: Number one, let me underscore the special relationship between your
19:42
Speaker 3: nation and our nation, that we have a long and
19:46
Speaker 3: shared history right from the very founding of our nation.
19:48
Speaker 3: And it is a it is a valuable, it is unique,
19:52
Speaker 3: it is a special relationship. I have joked that in
19:55
Speaker 3: my marriage, that we have a mixed marriage, because I'm
20:00
Speaker 3: an Anglophile and Heidi is a Francophile. And as you
20:04
Speaker 3: know well, that is a fundamentally different orientation on life.
20:08
Speaker 3: And I got to say, I have a deep respect
20:11
Speaker 3: for British society, for the courage of a not terribly
20:16
Speaker 3: large island nation through which developed the principles of the
20:21
Speaker 3: Magna Carta and rule of law and fundamental rights and
20:25
Speaker 3: democratic representation and became an empire that bestrode the world,
20:33
Speaker 3: but did so in a way that brought values, those
20:36
Speaker 3: same values of human rights, of equality, of democratic representation
20:41
Speaker 3: and and and uh... the principles upon which we based
20:44
Speaker 3: america we got very directly uh... from the united kingdom
20:49
Speaker 3: and and our shared values so so that relationship i
20:52
Speaker 3: think is and should be incredibly valuable on the second
20:57
Speaker 3: point on taiwan i would i would suggest a slightly
21:00
Speaker 3: different way of looking at it which which is you
21:03
Speaker 3: you mentioned uh... an obligation to protect a democracy in
21:07
Speaker 3: the face of uh.
21:09
Speaker 1: hostility and aggression. And I understand that argument.
21:13
Speaker 3: I would have a different take on it in that
21:15
Speaker 3: I believe American foreign policy should focus like a laser
21:19
Speaker 3: on the vital national security interest of the United States.
21:23
Speaker 3: I think a mistake American foreign policy made in previous
21:27
Speaker 3: decades is getting away from that central focus. And indeed,
21:32
Speaker 3: if you look during the George W. Bush presidency, I
21:36
Speaker 3: think you saw interventionists who argued, we must protect democracy
21:41
Speaker 3: wherever it occurs. And then, look, the Iraq War, for example,
21:47
Speaker 3: I believe the Iraq War was a mistake because we
21:50
Speaker 3: got away from the objective of protecting U.S. national security,
21:53
Speaker 3: instead came in and tried to transform Iraq into Switzerland,
22:00
Speaker 3: into a democratic utopia. And I don't think it is
22:03
Speaker 3: the job of the American military to try to transfer
22:08
Speaker 3: other countries into democratic utopias. It's certainly not our job
22:12
Speaker 3: to risk our sons and daughters to do so. The
22:15
Speaker 3: reason Taiwan is so incredibly important, and it is incredibly
22:19
Speaker 3: important to the United States, it's incredibly important to the
22:21
Speaker 3: United Kingdom, is Taiwan produces a vast percentage of the
22:28
Speaker 3: advanced semiconductors that are used in just about everything in
22:31
Speaker 3: the world, whether from our fighter jets and our destroyers
22:35
Speaker 3: and our satellites to to our cell phones, to our
22:38
Speaker 3: cars and trucks, and were China to invade Taiwan and
22:43
Speaker 3: seize that advanced semiconductor production, it would give China a
22:48
Speaker 3: massive economic stranglehold and military stranglehold. And so from my view,
22:54
Speaker 3: that's what makes it compelling, is Taiwan remaining free significantly
23:00
Speaker 3: advances American national security and economic security, and it also
23:04
Speaker 3: significantly advances British economic and national security.
23:08
Speaker 4: Yes, I certainly agree with that. I'm not a liberal interventionist.
23:11
Speaker 4: I don't think it is the job of America or
23:14
Speaker 4: Britain to go into countries, foreign countries, to enforce a
23:18
Speaker 4: particular constitutional settlement. I suppose with Taiwan, when I was
23:23
Speaker 4: saying a democracy, I was dancing around the point of
23:27
Speaker 4: it being a sovereign state. It is a de facto
23:30
Speaker 4: sovereign state, though not one either of our countries recognize.
23:33
Speaker 6: Right.
23:34
Speaker 4: And that's a complicating factor. But I don't think either
23:37
Speaker 4: of us really think that it is merely a province
23:40
Speaker 4: of China.
23:41
Speaker 3: Well, and what terrifies China is that you have ethnic
23:48
Speaker 3: Chinese living in Taiwan whose background, history, education is identical
23:56
Speaker 3: to the Chinese on mainland China. And you've got 1.3
23:59
Speaker 3: billion Chinese citizens who look over at Taiwan and they
24:03
Speaker 3: see the incredible prosperity in Taiwan. They see human rights,
24:08
Speaker 3: they see free speech in Taiwan, and they see that
24:11
Speaker 3: the lives of their Chinese brethren living in Taiwan are much,
24:15
Speaker 3: much better than the lives of the Chinese citizens living
24:19
Speaker 3: in mainland China. And that utterly terrifies the communist regime.
24:25
Speaker 3: And in my experience, dictatorial regimes are terrified of their
24:30
Speaker 3: own citizens. They're terrified of their citizens realizing It doesn't
24:35
Speaker 3: have to be this way. They don't have to live
24:37
Speaker 3: under tyranny. And it's why calling out evil is so problematic. Now,
24:44
Speaker 3: I want to go back to what Tucker's endeavor was.
24:47
Speaker 3: He's engaged in a series of endeavors. One of his
24:50
Speaker 3: endeavors is to say, Hamas and the Islamists, they aren't
24:53
Speaker 3: so bad. A second endeavor he's engaged in is to say,
24:58
Speaker 3: Putin and Russia, they aren't so bad. And a third
25:01
Speaker 3: endeavor he's engaged in saying is, Hitler and the Nazis,
25:05
Speaker 3: they aren't so bad.
25:06
Speaker 5: There's a theme there, right, Senator? Like, it's a consistent theme.
25:09
Speaker 2: Take the worst things in the world, the worst parts
25:11
Speaker 2: of history, and just kind of whitewash it or make
25:14
Speaker 2: people numb to it.
25:14
Speaker 5: Like, oh, it wasn't really that big of a deal.
25:16
Speaker 3: Well, and he goes through systematically, and one can... Actually,
25:20
Speaker 3: I was going to say, one can pose the question,
25:22
Speaker 3: why would he be trying to rehabilitate and defend Hamas
25:28
Speaker 3: and Putin... and Hitler. And let me pose that question
25:31
Speaker 3: to you. I know you're not a psychiatrist, but do
25:34
Speaker 3: you have any thoughts on what's going on there?
25:37
Speaker 7: Well, there are a number of thoughts.
25:39
Speaker 4: First of all, he could just be doing it for
25:41
Speaker 4: the cash, that it gets him a lot of clicks,
25:43
Speaker 4: it makes him a lot of money. That's his business.
25:47
Speaker 4: And there is a temptation for people whose income stream
25:51
Speaker 4: is dependent on social media to say increasingly extreme things
25:56
Speaker 4: to keep.
25:56
Speaker 7: The clicks up, the clickbait approach.
25:59
Speaker 4: The second is that there's long been a political view
26:04
Speaker 4: in America that is isolationist. And the counter to that
26:08
Speaker 4: is of course, that in the second world war, what
26:10
Speaker 4: America did was fundamentally right. And that if you can
26:15
Speaker 4: persuade Americans that actually the second world war was a
26:18
Speaker 4: mistake and it cost you much money, then you're able
26:21
Speaker 4: to make a stronger case for isolationism as a political
26:24
Speaker 4: force today. And as that strain, And I feel rather
26:29
Speaker 4: embarrassed to talk to great experts on American politics about
26:33
Speaker 4: my understanding of it from abroad. But there is this
26:37
Speaker 4: strain of isolationism. And if you can say that the
26:40
Speaker 4: Second World War wasn't worth fighting, you strengthen that strain.
26:43
Speaker 4: So it becomes very politically powerful. And it's why it's
26:47
Speaker 4: so important to stop, because the world obviously benefits from
26:52
Speaker 4: American leadership. But dare I suggest America does too, that
26:57
Speaker 4: it is actually the way in which America has become
27:01
Speaker 4: very prosperous, because by creating an essentially peaceful world, there
27:05
Speaker 4: are huge markets for American goods and services. There's economic
27:09
Speaker 4: growth that benefits American citizens. There is a world of stability,
27:15
Speaker 4: which leads to prosperity. And so there is an interest
27:18
Speaker 4: in ensuring that that is maintained. But that requires an
27:22
Speaker 4: active American presence on the world stage. And moving away
27:26
Speaker 4: from that would risk world stability, but also would probably
27:30
Speaker 4: make Americans poorer.
27:32
Speaker 1: I very much agree.
27:34
Speaker 3: You know, one of the exchanges from your interview with
27:37
Speaker 3: Tucker that went viral was the exchange where he suggested
27:41
Speaker 3: the UK would have been better off if the Nazis
27:44
Speaker 3: had won World War II. I want us to watch
27:47
Speaker 3: that exchange and then get your thoughts and comments on it.
27:52
Speaker 1: Let's give a listen.
27:53
Speaker 6: Has the UK benefited from it?
27:55
Speaker 7: We did the right thing.
27:56
Speaker 6: Is it a better country than it was? To have
27:58
Speaker 6: defeated Hitler, yes. So the UK is a better country now.
28:01
Speaker 6: It's a healthier country now.
28:03
Speaker 7: Otherwise, we'll be speaking German.
28:05
Speaker 6: Who cares? There are a lot of people in Britain
28:07
Speaker 6: who can't speak English. So it would be nice to
28:09
Speaker 6: have at least a European language spoken in your country.
28:12
Speaker 4: No, I see no advantage speaking German over any other language.
28:16
Speaker 7: We want to speak English. Thank you so much.
28:19
Speaker 5: You can't make it up, and yet it happened.
28:22
Speaker 2: And as the senator and I watched this, I remember
28:24
Speaker 2: someone texted to me, Jacob, and it was like, did
28:27
Speaker 2: that really just happen?
28:28
Speaker 5: Did he really just say that?
28:30
Speaker 2: And then I think Senator said the clip, and I
28:32
Speaker 2: was like, yep, we're all on the same page on
28:34
Speaker 2: this one.
28:35
Speaker 5: What in the world?
28:36
Speaker 2: When you were having that exchange, what was that like?
28:39
Speaker 4: Well, you know, many years ago, I was interviewed by
28:44
Speaker 4: a man called Ali G.
28:46
Speaker 1: who is a comedian.
28:48
Speaker 4: And... When he came to interview me, he'd never been
28:51
Speaker 4: on telly before, so I had no idea who he was.
28:53
Speaker 4: And he sat down, he asked me a whole stream
28:55
Speaker 4: of completely daft questions, which for an extended period I
28:59
Speaker 4: answered to the best of my ability. And I had
29:02
Speaker 4: a similar experience with Tucker Carlson, thinking, why am I
29:04
Speaker 4: being asked completely bizarre questions, to which the answer is obvious,
29:09
Speaker 4: and every sensible person will agree that the thought that
29:14
Speaker 4: Britain would have been better off if we had been
29:16
Speaker 4: taken over by the Germans.
29:18
Speaker 7: not just.
29:19
Speaker 4: Speaking German, but have lost all our ancient rights. We're
29:21
Speaker 4: already mentioned Senator Magna Carta and the history of freedom
29:24
Speaker 4: that this country has and your country enjoys too.
29:27
Speaker 7: All that would have been gone.
29:29
Speaker 4: And it's almost impossible to comprehend that somebody of such
29:33
Speaker 4: intelligence and capability as Tucker Carlson, he's clearly not a fool,
29:38
Speaker 4: would even want to posture that we would have been
29:40
Speaker 4: better off if we just allowed the Germans to take over.
29:43
Speaker 3: Well, and I will say that that clip was a
29:46
Speaker 3: particular illustration of one of the tricks of sophistry that
29:51
Speaker 3: Tucker regularly employs, which is he says, well, gosh, do
29:55
Speaker 3: you think things are better now? And I don't want
29:59
Speaker 3: to put words in your mouth, but I suspect you
30:02
Speaker 3: would agree that in certain aspects, and maybe even many aspects,
30:07
Speaker 3: life in Britain today has gotten worse than, say, life
30:11
Speaker 3: in Britain in the 50s and 60s. I would agree
30:14
Speaker 3: with that proposition in the United States, that there are
30:16
Speaker 3: many aspects of our society from the 50s and 60s
30:19
Speaker 3: that we have seen deteriorate in a way that is
30:22
Speaker 3: deeply harmful. Would you agree with that statement that life
30:26
Speaker 3: has gotten worse in some respects?
30:29
Speaker 4: Well, you mentioned life, and life seems to me to
30:31
Speaker 4: be at the heart of this. We have this great
30:33
Speaker 4: tragedy in this country that 250,000 babies are killed every year.
30:38
Speaker 4: That is something that did not happen in the 1950s.
30:41
Speaker 4: So there are elements of our society that are deemed
30:46
Speaker 4: to be progressive that I think have been extraordinarily damaging
30:50
Speaker 4: to society. but they don't really correlate with the Second
30:53
Speaker 4: World War and whether or not it was right to
30:55
Speaker 4: fight the Second World War.
30:57
Speaker 1: Well, and it slides forward.
31:00
Speaker 3: When I look at Britain and when I look at
31:02
Speaker 3: Europe as a whole, our country came in a very
31:06
Speaker 3: real sense from Britain and from Europe. My ancestors are
31:11
Speaker 3: Irish and Italian and Cuban. And our nation really has
31:15
Speaker 3: been a melting pot from nations all over the world,
31:18
Speaker 3: but Europe especially and critically in terms of culture, in
31:22
Speaker 3: terms of the first immigrants who came to America. And
31:26
Speaker 3: when one is looking at the threats facing Europe, I
31:31
Speaker 3: see no threat greater than the massive illegal immigration which
31:35
Speaker 3: the leaders of Europe have welcomed with open arms. And
31:39
Speaker 3: the Islamification of Europe, where you now see Islamists engaged
31:45
Speaker 3: in crime. I think the pattern of rapes that we
31:50
Speaker 3: have seen, rapes of young women carried out by Islamist
31:54
Speaker 3: violent criminals in the UK is deeply, deeply disturbing. And
31:58
Speaker 3: the politicians who look the other way and are complicit,
32:02
Speaker 3: that is deeply, deeply disturbing.
32:04
Speaker 1: But the.
32:06
Speaker 3: The sophistry that Tucker is playing is many of his
32:10
Speaker 3: viewers are aware of that slippery slide down, and they say, well,
32:16
Speaker 3: I don't like what's happened in the UK. And then
32:19
Speaker 3: he comes up with this weird non sequitur, which is, well,
32:23
Speaker 3: it would have been better if Nazis were in charge.
32:27
Speaker 3: There's nothing about the Nazis that would have been better
32:29
Speaker 3: than the status quo. If it is right that the
32:31
Speaker 3: Nazis are evil, if it is right that the Nazis...
32:34
Speaker 3: engaged in systematic murder and torture and oppression and an
32:39
Speaker 3: utter violation of human rights, subjecting yourself to evil and
32:43
Speaker 3: totalitarianism is never, ever, ever better. And here's the final
32:48
Speaker 3: kicker irony on all this. What Tucker is putting up
32:52
Speaker 3: as the specter of what's bad in Europe, you know,
32:56
Speaker 3: he smarmily said, well, at least German is a European language.
33:00
Speaker 1: Ha ha ha ha ha.
33:01
Speaker 3: Um, The irony is Tucker also spends a great deal
33:05
Speaker 3: of time defending Islamists and defending Sharia law and saying
33:10
Speaker 3: we would be better off with more Islamists and more
33:14
Speaker 3: Sharia law. In fact, just two weeks ago in the
33:16
Speaker 3: United States, Tucker formally endorsed Abdul Al-Sayed, an open Islamist,
33:24
Speaker 3: a man who I believe supports the Muslim Brotherhood, who
33:27
Speaker 3: is running for Senate as a Democrat in Michigan.
33:30
Speaker 1: And so the.
33:32
Speaker 3: specter that Tucker points to as bad, the rise of Islamism,
33:36
Speaker 3: is in fact a specter he defends. And so he
33:40
Speaker 3: raises that as a threat and then said, wouldn't we
33:42
Speaker 3: be better if we had Nazis instead? That is not
33:46
Speaker 3: what I would call tight or rational or even good
33:49
Speaker 3: faith argumentation.
33:51
Speaker 4: No, I completely agree with you. Mass migration has been
33:55
Speaker 4: a disaster. It's done terrible things to countries and you
34:01
Speaker 4: have shown the way actually in succeeding in stopping illegal
34:05
Speaker 4: immigration in the United States since Donald Trump became your
34:08
Speaker 4: president and we should learn from that and it's caused
34:12
Speaker 4: great dislocations within society and cultural problems of which the
34:18
Speaker 4: rape gangs that you refer.
34:19
Speaker 7: To are a part.
34:22
Speaker 4: But that has absolutely nothing to do with the defeat
34:24
Speaker 4: of Hitler as you quite rightly say it's bizarre to
34:27
Speaker 4: try to connect The two, that these were decisions that
34:31
Speaker 4: were taken long after the war, that they were taken
34:35
Speaker 4: for economic reasons that turned out to be mistaken, but
34:38
Speaker 4: also a hyper-liberalism that is unwilling to say that our
34:43
Speaker 4: culture is better than other people's. Now, the reason we
34:47
Speaker 4: were right to defeat Hitler, among other things, was that
34:51
Speaker 4: the Anglo-Saxon culture was better than the Nazi culture. And
34:56
Speaker 4: we are entitled to say that one culture is better
35:00
Speaker 4: than another and therefore to defend it and therefore to
35:03
Speaker 4: reject the premise of multiculturalism that assumes all cultures are
35:07
Speaker 4: basically equal.
35:08
Speaker 7: They're not.
35:09
Speaker 4: Some are more civilized than others. And I think the
35:12
Speaker 4: highest form of Western civilization has been achieved in what
35:16
Speaker 4: perhaps I would, with a degree of vanity, call the Anglosphere.
35:19
Speaker 4: But that's the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada
35:23
Speaker 4: and New Zealand.
35:25
Speaker 3: Well, and the multicultural lie is every cultural is equally
35:30
Speaker 3: valuable and you can't make an assessment. And if you
35:32
Speaker 3: go back to how we started this discussion, with the
35:36
Speaker 3: recognition that truth exists, good and evil exist, then you
35:40
Speaker 3: can make relative judgments.
35:42
Speaker 1: And you look at our societies.
35:44
Speaker 3: American society was predicated 250 years ago on very simple
35:50
Speaker 3: but very powerful principles. As Thomas Jefferson penned, in the
35:54
Speaker 3: Declaration of Independence, we hold these truths to be self-evident,
35:59
Speaker 3: that all men are created equal, that they are endowed
36:04
Speaker 3: by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these
36:10
Speaker 3: are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Now that
36:15
Speaker 3: was in the document that initially began the war between
36:20
Speaker 3: my nation and your nation.
36:21
Speaker 1: We were declaring our independence.
36:23
Speaker 3: The 56 signers who put their name on the bottom
36:26
Speaker 3: of that document, they pledged their names, their fortunes, and
36:29
Speaker 3: their sacred honors. And that was not an idle pledge
36:32
Speaker 3: because at the time the United Kingdom had the mightiest
36:35
Speaker 3: military in the world and they were in a very
36:37
Speaker 3: real sense risking their lives and their fortunes and many
36:41
Speaker 3: of them lost their lives and their fortunes. But the
36:45
Speaker 3: principles that were reflected in the Declaration that later were
36:48
Speaker 3: embodied in the Constitution are the principles of governance that
36:53
Speaker 3: the Americans had learned from the British, had learned from
36:57
Speaker 3: the Magna Carta, had learned from the British Bill of Rights.
37:00
Speaker 3: And those same principles to protect human rights, to treat
37:05
Speaker 3: all men as equal, to protect free speech and religious liberty.
37:10
Speaker 1: That is right.
37:12
Speaker 3: And to violate those rights, to murder and torture and
37:17
Speaker 3: engage in slavery, that is wrong. And for those moral
37:22
Speaker 3: relativists that want to blur the two, well, it leads
37:24
Speaker 3: to things like the exchange where Tucker upbraided you for
37:31
Speaker 3: the United Kingdom not apologizing to Oswald Mosley.
37:36
Speaker 1: And I want us to listen to that exchange as well.
37:39
Speaker 6: Now, the British government did that in the Second World
37:41
Speaker 6: War immediately.
37:42
Speaker 7: It did it in the Second World War.
37:43
Speaker 4: I knew a wonderful man, amazing man. I'd gathered his
37:48
Speaker 4: father's who was rounded up in 1939 when water was declared,
37:54
Speaker 4: was put in an enemy aliens camp in Shropshire. And
38:00
Speaker 4: he was German, Jewish, and all Germans were rounded up.
38:04
Speaker 4: He was a fighting age. The day he left the camp,
38:06
Speaker 4: he joined the British Army, and he ended the war
38:09
Speaker 4: as a brigadier.
38:09
Speaker 6: Amazing.
38:09
Speaker 1: Amazing.
38:10
Speaker 6: Yeah, because he sounds like a very forgiving man.
38:12
Speaker 7: He was a wonderful man.
38:13
Speaker 6: He sounds it. But I'm not talking about people who
38:16
Speaker 6: are rounded up as potential foreign nationals.
38:19
Speaker 4: We can't round up people for their expression of opinions,
38:21
Speaker 4: and people must be free to oppose.
38:23
Speaker 6: But the British government has never apologized for violating its
38:27
Speaker 6: own ancient principles by rounding up not simply members of
38:30
Speaker 6: the opposition party, but their families.
38:32
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah.
38:33
Speaker 6: And I'm talking about the Mosleys, but also everyone who
38:35
Speaker 6: worked with the Mosleys, the whole leadership, and their wives.
38:38
Speaker 6: And no one's ever apologized for that.
38:40
Speaker 1: No one.
38:42
Speaker 2: The way that he just completely tries to whitewash every
38:46
Speaker 2: scenario now, the way they just did. When you're sitting there,
38:50
Speaker 2: what was your reaction to that? Just the thoughts in
38:52
Speaker 2: your head of what he was saying.
38:54
Speaker 4: Well, I'm a great believer in freedom of speech. And
38:56
Speaker 4: I think that strong countries don't lock up their political opponents.
39:00
Speaker 4: But we were at a state of total war and
39:02
Speaker 4: that Oswald Moseley was somebody who believed that the other
39:06
Speaker 4: side should win. And of course, you lock them up
39:09
Speaker 4: in those circumstances. that you do things in war that
39:12
Speaker 4: are not the same as ones.
39:13
Speaker 7: That you do in peace.
39:14
Speaker 4: You have to, and Churchill said something about this, about
39:17
Speaker 4: how awful it was that to defeat dictators, you had
39:20
Speaker 4: to use some of the means of dictators. And that
39:23
Speaker 4: is just the fact of life. And to apologize to
39:26
Speaker 4: Oswald Moseley, I think would have been absurd. And to
39:29
Speaker 4: his family and his friends, they made a conscious decision
39:33
Speaker 4: to support the enemy at a time of war.
39:36
Speaker 5: All right, I want to take a moment.
39:37
Speaker 2: I just want to talk to you about the midterm elections.
39:40
Speaker 2: Right now, there are enough people listening to this show
39:43
Speaker 2: that if they don't vote, it could swing key states
39:46
Speaker 2: in the 2026 election to the Democrats. And everyone listening
39:50
Speaker 2: knows every single ultra far left Democratic socialist will be
39:54
Speaker 2: showing up to vote this fall. Democrats and the socialists
39:58
Speaker 2: are fired up and we can't let them win because
40:01
Speaker 2: if we lose, they'll undo everything our movement has fought
40:04
Speaker 2: so hard for. I need you to vote early so
40:07
Speaker 2: that you can bank your vote and fight back against
40:10
Speaker 2: the left's turnout machine. Now, if you live in the
40:13
Speaker 2: critical Senate battleground states of Maine or Ohio, early voting
40:17
Speaker 2: is already underway starting this week. So go to GOPvotes.org
40:24
Speaker 2: right now and find out when you can vote. Making
40:27
Speaker 2: your voice heard is easier than ever. You can get
40:30
Speaker 2: election reminders. Look up your polling location and pick a
40:34
Speaker 2: date to vote early. Go to GOPvotes.org today. Paid for
40:39
Speaker 2: by the CLF PAC, not authorized by any candidate or
40:44
Speaker 2: candidates committee. There was another interesting point, and the Senator
40:48
Speaker 2: and I, we saw this, and it was another thing
40:49
Speaker 2: that went viral. One of the things that Tucker seems
40:51
Speaker 2: to be obsessed with is defending Russia and putting out
40:56
Speaker 2: propaganda about Russia and how great it is.
40:58
Speaker 5: We saw that in the Putin interview.
40:59
Speaker 2: We saw that in the weirdest thing I've ever seen
41:03
Speaker 2: him do, which was talking about how somehow Russia had
41:06
Speaker 2: better grocery stores, United States of America. We've talked about
41:08
Speaker 2: the Cold War, and we've talked about when the former
41:11
Speaker 2: leader of the USSR came to Houston, Texas, went to
41:14
Speaker 2: a grocery store, and realized, like, we need this, we
41:18
Speaker 2: don't have this. And now he's out there saying, no, no, no, like,
41:21
Speaker 2: Russia's amazing. One other part of the interview that you
41:23
Speaker 2: guys did, he was trying to tell the world that
41:27
Speaker 2: Russia was somehow bigger and better than the UK.
41:31
Speaker 5: And I want to play that clip as well. Take
41:33
Speaker 5: a look at this.
41:34
Speaker 6: So let's explain why Russia would want to pick a
41:36
Speaker 6: fight with Britain. It's got a much... larger economy than
41:41
Speaker 6: Britain's by, I think, basic measure.
41:43
Speaker 4: No, it hasn't got a larger economy than Britain's. It's
41:45
Speaker 4: got a smaller economy than Britain's. It's got a larger military.
41:49
Speaker 4: It has a much larger economy. It has much more
41:51
Speaker 4: wealth and resources. It has a much larger manufacturing sector.
41:54
Speaker 7: Its GDP is smaller than the UK's.
41:57
Speaker 6: GDP is not, I mean, the only measure of an economy.
42:01
Speaker 7: It's a pretty important measure of an economy.
42:03
Speaker 6: It's one measure.
42:05
Speaker 7: Russia is an economic failure.
42:08
Speaker 4: That it could have a huge economy But it's got
42:11
Speaker 4: a small economy because it's deeply corrupt and it hasn't
42:15
Speaker 4: managed to use its resources effectively. And so although the
42:20
Speaker 4: population of Russia is bigger than that of the United
42:23
Speaker 4: Kingdom very significantly, its GDP per capita is so much
42:26
Speaker 4: lower that the total GDP of Russia is smaller than
42:30
Speaker 4: that of the United Kingdom.
42:31
Speaker 6: Right.
42:32
Speaker 2: I mean, that's just pure propaganda from Russia at that point.
42:35
Speaker 7: It was an extraordinary thing for him to say. So
42:38
Speaker 7: simply factually wrong.
42:40
Speaker 4: And his apologists have tried to go on about purchasing
42:42
Speaker 4: power parity GDP, but I'm afraid purchasing power parity GDP
42:47
Speaker 4: doesn't pay your bonds.
42:50
Speaker 3: Well, and listen, Tucker has an objective. His objective is
42:55
Speaker 3: to say Russia and Putin are better than America. His
42:59
Speaker 3: objective also is to say Hitler and the Nazis are
43:03
Speaker 3: better than America and better than Britain. He is engaged
43:07
Speaker 3: in an effort to rehabilitate and indeed to celebrate some
43:10
Speaker 3: of the greatest villains of the world. Many have asked
43:16
Speaker 3: whether Tucker is being paid by Qatar and other Islamist sources.
43:21
Speaker 3: I don't know if he is, but I am a
43:23
Speaker 3: believer in Occam's razor. The simplest explanation is usually the
43:26
Speaker 3: right one. And there was a time not too long
43:29
Speaker 3: ago when Tucker wore bow ties and brought out pom-poms
43:33
Speaker 3: and was cheering on the Iraq war. And almost every
43:37
Speaker 3: syllable of every word that came out of his mouth
43:39
Speaker 3: he has since repudiated. He keeps the pom-poms, but now
43:43
Speaker 3: they are reserved for Hitler and Putin. And he also engages,
43:47
Speaker 3: that shows another one of Tucker's methods, which is simply lying.
43:53
Speaker 3: He engages in debates in a fact-free environment where he
43:57
Speaker 3: makes assertions that are just wildly wrong on the assumption
44:01
Speaker 3: that he won't get called out. So he says in
44:03
Speaker 3: that discussion... well, Russia's economy is much, much larger than
44:08
Speaker 3: the UK's, to which your response was to laughingly say, well, no,
44:12
Speaker 3: that happens not to be true. And by the way,
44:16
Speaker 3: I just pulled out my phone and typed in really quickly,
44:19
Speaker 3: compare the GDPs of the UK and Russia. And here's
44:25
Speaker 3: what Google comes up with. The United Kingdom's GDP is
44:29
Speaker 3: $ 4. 26 trillion. That is ranked fifth globally. Russia's GDP is
44:36
Speaker 3: $ 2. 65 trillion, ranked ninth globally. So that means the British
44:41
Speaker 3: economy is nearly twice the size of Russia's economy. But
44:47
Speaker 3: more importantly, and this is a point, Sir Jacob, you emphasized,
44:50
Speaker 3: is GDP per capita. Because you rightly observed, Russia's a
44:55
Speaker 3: much bigger country geographically, but has a much bigger population
44:59
Speaker 3: than the United Kingdom. GDP per capita. The United Kingdom
45:04
Speaker 3: is $.
45:05
Speaker 1: 61, 000 per person.
45:06
Speaker 3: That is a robust GDP per capita among the highest
45:09
Speaker 3: in the world. Russian GDP per capita is $ 18, 500 per person.
45:18
Speaker 3: So less than a third British GDP per capita. And
45:24
Speaker 3: the reason that Tucker so desperately wants to lie about
45:28
Speaker 3: this is he's not just trying to rehabilitate Putin.
45:34
Speaker 1: He's trying to rehabilitate communism.
45:36
Speaker 3: He's trying to rehabilitate the economic system that justifies the
45:40
Speaker 3: totalitarianism of Russia and before that the Soviet Union. And
45:45
Speaker 3: you quite rightly pointed out the Russian economy is an
45:48
Speaker 3: absolute disaster.
45:49
Speaker 1: It is a failure.
45:51
Speaker 3: And Ben made reference to the fact Tucker did a
45:56
Speaker 3: year or two ago a TV show where he went
46:00
Speaker 3: to Russia. He interviewed Putin and he went to a
46:02
Speaker 3: grocery store and he oohed and aahed that they had
46:05
Speaker 3: some bread on the grocery store shelves. And in his telling,
46:09
Speaker 3: the Russian grocery store was far nicer than any grocery
46:13
Speaker 3: store these uncivilized oafs in the United States might have.
46:18
Speaker 3: And I don't know that Tucker fully realized that he
46:22
Speaker 3: was at that point, he should have pulled on a
46:26
Speaker 3: clown suit because he was clowning reality. And ironically, he
46:32
Speaker 3: was mimicking what had happened decades before when Boris Yeltsin
46:36
Speaker 3: came to my hometown of Houston and went to a
46:40
Speaker 3: local grocery store and walked through. And this was not
46:43
Speaker 3: a grocery store we had singled out as like, oh,
46:46
Speaker 3: this is the grocery store to show the Soviets and
46:48
Speaker 3: prove that. It was just a standard grocery store that's
46:51
Speaker 3: sitting there.
46:51
Speaker 1: People went shopping.
46:53
Speaker 3: And he walked in and was utterly flabbergasted at the
46:58
Speaker 3: 30 different kinds of bread and the fresh fruit and
47:02
Speaker 3: 40 different kinds of ice cream and everything. And he
47:06
Speaker 3: marveled at the time that there's no way we can
47:09
Speaker 3: compete with an economy that can produce this kind of abundance,
47:14
Speaker 3: this kind of variety. And going back to truth, free
47:17
Speaker 3: enterprise works. Communism doesn't. Socialism doesn't. Tucker is also engaged
47:24
Speaker 3: in an endeavor to defend socialism, to defend Zoran Mandami,
47:27
Speaker 3: to defend Abdul Al-Sayed, to defend Marxists and government control.
47:33
Speaker 1: And so.
47:35
Speaker 3: We should wrap up, Sir Jacob, but I want to
47:39
Speaker 3: ask a question, a general question.
47:42
Speaker 1: Two parts.
47:45
Speaker 3: One, why do you believe it is a good thing
47:50
Speaker 3: that the Allies won World War II? And number two,
47:55
Speaker 3: What is good and valuable and worth preserving about British
48:02
Speaker 3: culture and values and American culture and values?
48:06
Speaker 5: Thank you.
48:06
Speaker 4: Well, first of all, as an Englishman who's visited America
48:11
Speaker 4: from time to time, American supermarkets are a level above
48:15
Speaker 4: from British supermarkets. And we're not too impoverished here. But nonetheless,
48:19
Speaker 4: your supermarkets are on a scale that we simply don't
48:23
Speaker 4: see in this country, let alone in Russia. So to
48:26
Speaker 4: say Russian ones are better is just very, very deeply silly.
48:30
Speaker 4: What was the reason for fighting the second world war? Well,
48:34
Speaker 4: of course it was the fight of good against evil.
48:37
Speaker 4: It was the understanding that sovereign borders need to be respected.
48:41
Speaker 4: That is the foundation stone of the international order that
48:45
Speaker 4: we've had really since the treaty of Westphalia in 1648.
48:50
Speaker 4: And it creates a stability that allows for prosperity because
48:54
Speaker 4: if you look, at how prosperity comes about. It comes
48:59
Speaker 4: about because of free constitutions, where people have rights, where,
49:05
Speaker 4: in the words of John Fortescue, writing in the 15th century,
49:09
Speaker 4: so rightly put it, the king is under the law
49:12
Speaker 4: as well as everybody else. So if you make money,
49:14
Speaker 4: you keep it. Free societies become prosperous, but a free world.
49:18
Speaker 7: Is also more prosperous.
49:20
Speaker 4: The controlled dictatorial world has never managed to be very
49:24
Speaker 4: prosperous for very long. And so the Second World War
49:28
Speaker 4: was worth fighting on absolute principles, on the absolute moral
49:33
Speaker 4: principle of good against evil. And that was worth doing
49:36
Speaker 4: on and of its own because Hitler was was a
49:39
Speaker 4: degree of magnitude more evil than other dictators. But it
49:44
Speaker 4: was also worth fighting because it was in the interest
49:47
Speaker 4: of prosperity and of freedom. So what do the United
49:52
Speaker 4: States and the United Kingdom give to the world? And
49:56
Speaker 4: I expect everyone you speak to from England always says
49:59
Speaker 4: the affection we have for America. I have a particular
50:02
Speaker 4: one because, although you may think I sound very English,
50:05
Speaker 4: actually my grandmother... was American and very proud of being
50:11
Speaker 4: an American. She died when I was only eight or nine,
50:13
Speaker 4: but I was very fond of her as a child.
50:16
Speaker 4: So I have an American connection. What we have given
50:20
Speaker 4: to the world is this concept of freedom. I think
50:24
Speaker 4: two countries have beautiful constitutions, yours and mine, and they
50:30
Speaker 4: are different in one way. Ours is very easy to change.
50:34
Speaker 4: Yours is very difficult to change. Yours has the judges
50:37
Speaker 4: who have a degree of extra authority, and ours is
50:41
Speaker 4: a system where Parliament has all the authority. But the
50:44
Speaker 4: two systems have protected and preserved freedom and liberty, not
50:49
Speaker 4: just for our own citizens, but across the world, for
50:53
Speaker 4: the last 200 years, really. And we've become friends fairly
50:57
Speaker 4: soon after the American Revolution. We've patched things up. A
51:02
Speaker 4: lot of people in England recognised the rights of Americans
51:07
Speaker 4: as people who, had they been in England, would have
51:10
Speaker 4: had those rights. They're very sympathetic to the arguments being made.
51:14
Speaker 4: And so we put our differences aside relatively quickly. Certainly
51:17
Speaker 4: by the end of the Napoleonic Wars, we're getting on
51:20
Speaker 4: really very well. And we are the force for freedom globally,
51:25
Speaker 4: which has led to prosperity, living standards that are unimaginable
51:29
Speaker 4: to our forefathers. And that has been a phenomenal contribution
51:35
Speaker 4: To the world, but also to our own people. And
51:38
Speaker 4: I happen to think that if you put your own
51:40
Speaker 4: national security, your own way of life, your own civilization
51:43
Speaker 4: and culture first, you then help the rest of the world.
51:47
Speaker 4: And I think most of the time we've had it
51:49
Speaker 4: the right way around. Just one final thought on what
51:53
Speaker 4: you were saying about Mr.
51:54
Speaker 1: Carlson.
51:56
Speaker 4: Isn't it interesting that eventually that you become so right
51:59
Speaker 4: wing that you become practically a communist?
52:01
Speaker 3: Yep. The horseshoe theory is powerful. We are seeing that overlap.
52:07
Speaker 3: And it does help to remember that truth is truth
52:10
Speaker 3: is truth and evil is evil is evil. Sir Jacob,
52:14
Speaker 3: thank you for joining us. This was a delightful conversation.
52:16
Speaker 3: I will say next time we will have to do
52:19
Speaker 3: it in person and perhaps imbibe a bit of scotch
52:23
Speaker 3: and light up a cigar from my father's homeland. But
52:28
Speaker 3: fear not, if we do that, we shall burn the evidence.
52:32
Speaker 3: And I am thankful for your erudition. I am thankful
52:36
Speaker 3: for your courage. I am thankful for your good spirit.
52:40
Speaker 3: And let me say, God save the king.
52:43
Speaker 7: Thank you very much. And may I say, God bless America.
52:46
Speaker 1: Amen. Thank you.
52:48
Speaker 2: Don't forget, we do this show Monday, Wednesday, Friday. Hit
52:50
Speaker 2: that subscribe or auto-download button. The Center and I will
52:53
Speaker 2: see you back here in a few days. And also,
52:56
Speaker 2: you can watch this video on YouTube or Facebook as
52:59
Speaker 2: well and share it wherever you can.
53:00
Speaker 5: We'll see you back here again real soon.