Latest / Yaron Brook Show / Tariffs wind down?; Noem; Ukraine; Iran; Milei; "White Culture"; RFK; Penis-Gate | Yaron Brook Show

Transcript

Tariffs wind down?; Noem; Ukraine; Iran; Milei; "White Culture"; RFK; Penis-Gate | Yaron Brook Show · Yaron Brook Show

0:02
Speaker 1: A lot of fundamental principles of edom national self interesting
0:10
Speaker 1: and an individual Wise, this is the show.
0:20
Speaker 2: Oh right, everybody welcome tore One book show on this Friday,
0:24
Speaker 2: Friday the thirteenth. I didn't realize that it's the thirteenth.
0:31
Speaker 2: Those of you who are fastitious out there, it's a
0:33
Speaker 2: bad omening.
0:35
Speaker 1: Uh.
0:35
Speaker 2: Anyway, I've got a I think we've got a fun
0:38
Speaker 2: show today. I think we've we've we've got some entertaining topics. Uh,
0:43
Speaker 2: unusual or less serious We've got yeah, I mean the
0:48
Speaker 2: white culture. I think you'll find quite entertaining if k
0:51
Speaker 2: definitely an entertaining video. And uh and then of course
0:55
Speaker 2: we cap it all off, We finish it all off
0:57
Speaker 2: and head into the weekend with the cushion a penis gate.
1:04
Speaker 2: I didn't make that time up. It's it's it's it's
1:07
Speaker 2: from it's from the Wall Street Journal, so don't don't
1:10
Speaker 2: ask me. And it has nothing to do with Jeffrey Epstein.
1:13
Speaker 2: So you'll have to wait. You'll have to wait to
1:17
Speaker 2: find out. Uh yeah, huh, you'll have to wait to
1:20
Speaker 2: find out about penis skate. It's got to do with
1:23
Speaker 2: the Olympics. It's it's it's a big it's a big
1:26
Speaker 2: scandal in the Olympics. But yeah, you know, so let's uh,
1:32
Speaker 2: let's get started and get rolling. I did want to
1:35
Speaker 2: mention there will be shows over the weekend, Saturday and Sunday. Saturday,
1:41
Speaker 2: I think both days expected to be around two pm
1:46
Speaker 2: East Coast time, maybe Sunday one pm East Coast time.
1:49
Speaker 2: But but shows both days. Topics to be determined. I'll
1:53
Speaker 2: figure them out hopefully tomorrow. Next Sunday will be in
1:58
Speaker 2: Mamazona show, I think so, but we will see. All right,
2:03
Speaker 2: let's jump in. So the lead story today is tariffs
2:09
Speaker 2: and some good news. Good news on the tariff front,
2:14
Speaker 2: at least according to Financial Times. Now this is just
2:18
Speaker 2: Financial Times, so they might be wrong, but it seems
2:21
Speaker 2: to be some verification or from other sources as well.
2:25
Speaker 2: But it seems like the Trumpet Station has discovered something
2:29
Speaker 2: unpredictable completely about terraff, something completely surprising that nobody could
2:34
Speaker 2: have anticipated at all in advance. It seems that they've
2:39
Speaker 2: now realized that tariffs are actually increasing the price of
2:43
Speaker 2: everyday items. I don't like beer and soda cans and
2:47
Speaker 2: things like that, and it's plenty to scale back some
2:54
Speaker 2: tariffs on steel and aluminum in particular. I mean shocking.
3:02
Speaker 2: I mean who would have expected that? Who who could
3:06
Speaker 2: have predicted that this would happen? So a number of
3:14
Speaker 2: different things. Uh, the the as we've talked about, the
3:18
Speaker 2: tabs on steel and aluminium are causing prices of things
3:22
Speaker 2: made from steel and aluminum to increase, significantly, increase significantly.
3:37
Speaker 2: Oh god, I'm I'm sorry. I'm reading a comment from
3:41
Speaker 2: Wyatt which brings a smilet to my face. What can
3:43
Speaker 2: I say? We'll get to that in a minute. We'll
3:46
Speaker 2: get to then in the in the in the super chat.
3:50
Speaker 2: But no, I I I didn't. I didn't know and
3:52
Speaker 2: don't know anything about this lawsuit and probably will not
3:54
Speaker 2: comment on the lawsuit either. But anyway, uh Donald, try so.
4:02
Speaker 2: The tariffs on stealing aluminum make products that are made
4:06
Speaker 2: from stealing aluminum more expensive, including be a cans that
4:10
Speaker 2: are made from aluminum and soda cans made from aluminum.
4:14
Speaker 2: And the prices are gone up because illuminum prices are
4:17
Speaker 2: gone up because the tariff's on aluminum.
4:18
Speaker 3: It's very very very very very predictable, very predictable.
4:30
Speaker 2: So this is all about affordability. Remember, this is all
4:37
Speaker 2: about people's angst about prices going up. Yeah, tariffs do that.
4:43
Speaker 2: They don't cause inflation, but they call some prices to
4:47
Speaker 2: go up. They don't cause all prices to go up.
4:50
Speaker 2: Tariffs are not a monetary phenomena. They don't shift them
4:54
Speaker 2: in that direction. But what happens is some prices go up.
4:58
Speaker 2: The prices of things that affect did directly or indirectly
5:02
Speaker 2: by tariffs. Other prices, you know, don't move necessarily, they
5:08
Speaker 2: might go down, but the tariff goods go up. And
5:13
Speaker 2: so for example, beer cans, soda cans, aluminum, that's one cause.
5:19
Speaker 2: So according to officials in the Commerce Department and US
5:22
Speaker 2: Trade Representatives Office, they now believe shockingly, again it's surprising.
5:29
Speaker 2: I mean, obviously they don't want to be economists in
5:31
Speaker 2: either the Commics Department or the US Trade Office. You'd
5:35
Speaker 2: think they'd have economists, but obviously they don't because there's
5:37
Speaker 2: no economists in the world who didn't know this is
5:39
Speaker 2: what would happen. They now believe that taffs were hurting
5:42
Speaker 2: consumers by raising prices for goods just such as pie
5:46
Speaker 2: tins and food and drink cans. According to Financial Times,
5:55
Speaker 2: Trump's taff blitz has pushed US duties to the highest
5:58
Speaker 2: level since before the Second World War, but the President
6:02
Speaker 2: has repeatedly walked back some of his stiffest levies amid
6:06
Speaker 2: voter angy anger at US affordability crisis. It goes on.
6:11
Speaker 2: The last move on the medals. Tariffs is also design
6:16
Speaker 2: to bring clarity, to bring clarity to an increasingly complicated
6:27
Speaker 2: lobbying process in Washington that has emerged since Trump and
6:31
Speaker 2: post levees. I get who would have known that tariffs
6:37
Speaker 2: lead to cronyism, and lead to lobbying, and lead to
6:42
Speaker 2: every single business out there trying to get exclusions and
6:46
Speaker 2: protections from the tariffs because they're bad for American businesses
6:49
Speaker 2: and bad for American consumers. But again, nobody knew this.
6:53
Speaker 2: This has all been an amazing, miraculous revelation that has
6:59
Speaker 2: been achieved by the Department of Commerce. So good the
7:03
Speaker 2: good for the Trumpet administry. You know, I'm in a
7:05
Speaker 2: good mood because of Penis Gate. It goes on. The
7:11
Speaker 2: administration has so far largely allowed US businesses to lobby
7:15
Speaker 2: for products made of steel of aluminum made by rival
7:18
Speaker 2: foreign producers to be hit with tariffs in the so
7:21
Speaker 2: called inclusion process c see Americans who now have to
7:25
Speaker 2: pay more for their illuminum have to charge higher prices,
7:29
Speaker 2: but the importer that inputs that final product doesn't have
7:34
Speaker 2: to pay tariffs, at least supposely. So what the Trumpet
7:37
Speaker 2: verstation is to increase the tariffs on the foreign producer
7:41
Speaker 2: coming in so that Americans could compete. So even when
7:45
Speaker 2: they didn't intend to put tariffs originally, they did put
7:48
Speaker 2: taffs in order to protect the American company that was
7:52
Speaker 2: It gets really complicated. The process has been run by
7:58
Speaker 2: the Commas Department, which is mostly proved the requestion for
8:01
Speaker 2: domestic companies, which have cited the national security risks associated
8:06
Speaker 2: with goods associated with goods including bicycle parts, because I mean, god,
8:13
Speaker 2: what would do we do from a national security perspective
8:16
Speaker 2: if war broke out and we couldn't manufacture bicycle parts
8:21
Speaker 2: in the United States? I mean, these people are insane, crazy, ignorant, stupid, corrupt.
8:36
Speaker 2: I don't know what would you want to use and
8:38
Speaker 2: then actrapolate those to Trump again for the fighters times.
8:45
Speaker 2: But the mechanism has led to sprawling lists of household
8:48
Speaker 2: goods subjected to tariffs of up to fifty percent on
8:52
Speaker 2: their metal content. Now some people I know, some people
8:57
Speaker 2: I know, we'll say you are you're just using mainstream
9:01
Speaker 2: media sources. How do you know the Financial Times is right?
9:05
Speaker 2: Because I've been saying this from the day tariffs were imposed.
9:09
Speaker 2: Because this is just basic simple economics one oh one.
9:14
Speaker 2: Because this is easily verifiable. You can go out and
9:18
Speaker 2: look at prices and check and see and indeed, all
9:22
Speaker 2: of you out there who use alternative media sources, yeah,
9:26
Speaker 2: you'll never read about the damaged tariffs do. You'll never
9:30
Speaker 2: read about who pays for the tariffs. You'll never read
9:33
Speaker 2: about the actual cost of them. You'll never read about
9:36
Speaker 2: how they impact domestic prices because your alternative sources are
9:41
Speaker 2: obsessed with defending anything Trump does, and they don't do reporting.
9:47
Speaker 2: They don't actually go and look and talk to sources
9:50
Speaker 2: and actually do investigative reporting at all. It continues. Officials
9:59
Speaker 2: felt felt the tariff regime was too complicated to enforce
10:07
Speaker 2: and need to be simplified. It's one interpretation too complicated
10:12
Speaker 2: to enforce. Countries including the UK, Mexico and Canada as
10:15
Speaker 2: well as U members, could stand to benefit from any
10:18
Speaker 2: using of US tariffs and goods made of steel and aluminum.
10:22
Speaker 2: Why not get rid of the tarffs on steel and
10:23
Speaker 2: the NUMAN to begin with. That'll simplify everything. One European
10:28
Speaker 2: business leader who declined to be named said they knew
10:30
Speaker 2: of a company that had sent four identical containers of
10:33
Speaker 2: machinery to the US and was charged at different rates
10:37
Speaker 2: for each one. The Commerce Department last offered US companies
10:49
Speaker 2: an opportunity to nominate foreign suppliers to be hit with
10:53
Speaker 2: tariffs in October, but BLEW pasted its own sixty day
10:58
Speaker 2: deadline to green light new levee. So note that the
11:01
Speaker 2: Commerce Department has an official policy where they go out
11:04
Speaker 2: to American companies and tell them, you can nominate things
11:09
Speaker 2: that we will put tariffs on. Please nominate things for
11:13
Speaker 2: US to add tariffs on in order to protect you.
11:22
Speaker 2: I mean, at some point you have to say, yeah,
11:27
Speaker 2: it's just insane, it's just incredibly it's so stupid, it's
11:31
Speaker 2: so nuts. What is the point. I mean, one of
11:36
Speaker 2: the biggest problems with the tariff, indeed, are not just
11:39
Speaker 2: the price hikes. Those are simple, But the bigger problem
11:43
Speaker 2: might be the complexity. There are two hundred and thirty
11:47
Speaker 2: two tariffs plus the inclusion process, you know, and even
11:55
Speaker 2: if the Supreme Court gets rid of I E. E. PA.
11:59
Speaker 2: Then what happens yah? And and what is Trump gonna
12:02
Speaker 2: use instead? And how is that going to? Probably increase
12:05
Speaker 2: even more so there's no end to it. Indeed, it
12:17
Speaker 2: sounds like, uh, the White House is communicated to companies corporations.
12:23
Speaker 2: The terrif adjustments are in the works, but details and
12:27
Speaker 2: timing remain unclear. I wonder if anybody traded on that.
12:35
Speaker 2: I wonder if anybody traded on that hum inside information
12:42
Speaker 2: maybe uh, pretty insane. We'll see Joanne, We'll see journal today.
12:53
Speaker 2: Yesterday I think Peter and Navauo I came out with
12:56
Speaker 2: a U with a letter basically claiming that feigners are
13:02
Speaker 2: paying US tariffs. And today the Wall Seat Journal published
13:08
Speaker 2: a letter by Scott Linscombe basically challenging Petadvara and Navalla's
13:21
Speaker 2: argument is basically this, the United States is the only
13:27
Speaker 2: buyer of certain goods. The United States market is so
13:30
Speaker 2: big we dominate the buyer. So when a Chinese company
13:34
Speaker 2: has goods that it needs to sell, it can't sell
13:37
Speaker 2: them to anybody else. Allthough, is the United States? So
13:40
Speaker 2: given the tariffs, and they still want to sell into
13:42
Speaker 2: the United States, they have to lower prices, so they
13:46
Speaker 2: have to absorb the cost of the tariffs. And indeed
13:50
Speaker 2: that would be the case if there were many suppliers
13:53
Speaker 2: and only one buyer, the suppliers would have to absorb
13:57
Speaker 2: the prices. But that is a of course ludicrous. It's
14:02
Speaker 2: typical of PANA Andavs, complete and utter detachment from reality,
14:09
Speaker 2: logic and economics. Better than that, pen andavours phenomenal. Here's
14:17
Speaker 2: Scott linchingm. If the US actually had the market power
14:20
Speaker 2: he describes, foreign exporters would in many cases lower their
14:23
Speaker 2: prices to keep selling the goods. Here. That's offsetting the
14:26
Speaker 2: taffs domestic costs. In practice, however, the United States hasn't
14:32
Speaker 2: been hegamonic in global markets for many years, thanks to
14:36
Speaker 2: the proliferation of regional supply chains and growing economies outside
14:41
Speaker 2: our voters. Probably since the nineteen fifties. We haven't been
14:44
Speaker 2: hegemonic in that sense. Given the relatively low in declining
14:50
Speaker 2: US share of global merchandise trade economists predicted in twenty
14:55
Speaker 2: twenty four that producers abroad would respond to US tafts
14:59
Speaker 2: not by law their price, but by divoting trade elsewhere
15:04
Speaker 2: and forcing Americans to bear the tariffs. Costs. This is
15:09
Speaker 2: exactly what happened. Got it economists correct again. At least
15:14
Speaker 2: the free market was China, for example, saw it's US
15:17
Speaker 2: export's decline in twenty twenty five. He had had strong
15:21
Speaker 2: overall export growth and a record trades sour plus thanks
15:25
Speaker 2: to higher sales in other markets. US non fuel import prices,
15:30
Speaker 2: which include discounts and rebates but exclude tariffs, would show
15:35
Speaker 2: major declines. If exporters were eating mister Trump's tariffs, they
15:40
Speaker 2: would lower the prices. And see they haven't, but they
15:44
Speaker 2: were slightly up in twenty twenty five. They can actually
15:47
Speaker 2: they feel like they can actually charge a little bit more.
15:51
Speaker 2: Many studies, not only from Harvard and the Kiel Institute,
15:55
Speaker 2: which mister Navarro blithely dismisses, but also the Saint Louis
15:59
Speaker 2: Federal Bank, the Tax Foundation, economists, and Goldman Sachs, among others,
16:05
Speaker 2: have examined real world transactions and found that US companies
16:08
Speaker 2: and consumers are bearing almost all the tariff burden ya
16:13
Speaker 2: higher retail prices or input costs. There are exceptions, but
16:17
Speaker 2: the data confirm they are not the rule. Mister Navarro needed, however,
16:24
Speaker 2: read wonky economic papers to see that Americans are paying
16:28
Speaker 2: mister Trump's tariffs. God forbid Navarro, who claims to be
16:33
Speaker 2: an economist, read a wonky economics paper. Instead, he could
16:39
Speaker 2: ask the thousands of American business owners and farmers who
16:43
Speaker 2: say they're suffering under the way to mister Trump's ill
16:46
Speaker 2: conceived trade war. They have voiced these concerns and sharehold
16:50
Speaker 2: their earnings calls, media interviews, court challenges, bankruptcy filings, regulatory comments,
16:56
Speaker 2: and tower hall town hall meetings. Hundreds of small business
17:00
Speaker 2: owners from across the country. Have you even formed a
17:03
Speaker 2: coalition called we pay the Tariffs? These good folks would
17:08
Speaker 2: jump at the chance to go to the White House
17:09
Speaker 2: and tell mister Navarro, who exactly is paying these taxes?
17:14
Speaker 2: If that is, they had enough lobbying clout to get
17:18
Speaker 2: through the front door. And of course, as a consequence
17:31
Speaker 2: of all this, another article by Scott Linsingham published yesterday
17:37
Speaker 2: in Bloomberg has the title of global trade is leaving
17:40
Speaker 2: the US behind. As we've talked about many times in
17:45
Speaker 2: the show, other countries are moving forward with trade agreements.
17:51
Speaker 2: Here's a quote from the article. America's departure from the
17:54
Speaker 2: epicent of global trade began years ago and has accelerated
17:58
Speaker 2: in recent months. According to World Trade Organization, the US
18:01
Speaker 2: share of global merchandise trade inputs plus exports in the
18:05
Speaker 2: third quarter was the lowest for that period of the
18:08
Speaker 2: year since twenty fourteen, and the draw and the drop
18:12
Speaker 2: from twenty twenty four was larger than the cumulative loss
18:16
Speaker 2: between twenty fifteen and twenty twenty four. Bloomberg News ads
18:21
Speaker 2: that inbound contain a volume through North America, some eighty
18:25
Speaker 2: percent of which is the US went from the world
18:30
Speaker 2: leader to a laggard last year. Boston Consulting Groom Projects.
18:36
Speaker 2: Consulting Group projects the trend will continue in the years ahead,
18:40
Speaker 2: with the US share of world trade falling from twelve
18:43
Speaker 2: percent in twenty twenty four to nine percent in twenty
18:47
Speaker 2: thirty four because of policies pursued by the Trump administration,
18:52
Speaker 2: and these are going to be hard to reverse. Remember
18:55
Speaker 2: Biden didn't reverse any of the tariff policies that Trump
18:58
Speaker 2: put in place in his first term. Even bigger moves,
19:05
Speaker 2: he writes, are happening beneath the surface, especially we got
19:07
Speaker 2: in China when Trump fired is opening trapped tariff salvo.
19:12
Speaker 2: In twenty eighteen, the US absorbed roughly nineteen percent of
19:15
Speaker 2: Chinese exports, but the share tumbled to eleven percent by
19:18
Speaker 2: the end of last year. China total exports and trades,
19:21
Speaker 2: soap pluss have nevertheless continued, nevertheless continued to grow because
19:26
Speaker 2: exporters there targeted other markets, notably in Southeast Asia, but
19:31
Speaker 2: also in Africa, Europe and Latin America. So there is
19:36
Speaker 2: a great reallocation going on. Many of those other nations,
19:42
Speaker 2: he writes, are trading more with each other and relatively
19:44
Speaker 2: less with the US. Last year, Indian exports to China,
19:48
Speaker 2: the Middle East, and North Africa increased, even as high
19:51
Speaker 2: US tariffs weighed on sales. In America. Brazil, Chile, Argentina
19:55
Speaker 2: and Peru enjoyed record exports, owing again mainly to increase
19:59
Speaker 2: trade with China and the rest of the world, not
20:02
Speaker 2: the US. The US remains a massive economy, of course,
20:09
Speaker 2: and not every market has follow China's lead. Canada and
20:12
Speaker 2: Mexico still depend on the US economy and are highly
20:14
Speaker 2: integrated into North American supply chain. That's something Trump seems
20:19
Speaker 2: to really want to change, right, I mean, the consequence
20:27
Speaker 2: of these trade policies, because the American economy is so big,
20:31
Speaker 2: are relatively small, but over time, if you compound the
20:37
Speaker 2: effect over years, over the next ten years, where they
20:40
Speaker 2: expect the US share of world trade to decline so much,
20:44
Speaker 2: it is huge. That is, we as Americans become poorer,
20:49
Speaker 2: We as Americans have a lower standard of living and
20:53
Speaker 2: quality of life. That is the outcome, that is the
20:57
Speaker 2: consequence of Trump's trade policies. Here's what Scotland Skin writes
21:10
Speaker 2: about the long run. Over the long term, the US
21:12
Speaker 2: retreat from the global economy will make Washington less influential
21:15
Speaker 2: as economic integration deepens elsewhere and other governments set new
21:19
Speaker 2: standards in trade agreements to which America is not a party.
21:22
Speaker 2: It will make the US less resilient as nationalized supply
21:26
Speaker 2: chains create single choke points like the one that caused
21:30
Speaker 2: the US baby formula market to collapse in twenty twenty two.
21:33
Speaker 2: We've talked about that. It will make America less secure
21:37
Speaker 2: as the commercial ties that historically reduced on conflict risk
21:42
Speaker 2: become more brital and attenuated. And it will make the
21:46
Speaker 2: US poorer as multinational specialization gives way to duplicative inefficiencies. Others.
21:55
Speaker 2: Refusal to follow Trump's protectionist lead shows that most governments
22:00
Speaker 2: and companies understand these costs. After ten years of US
22:04
Speaker 2: retreat from global from the global economy, It's unclear if
22:08
Speaker 2: anyone in Washington still does so. Yeah, Democrats, Republicans, the
22:13
Speaker 2: one thing they share is hatred of globalization. So that
22:27
Speaker 2: is where we are with regard to trade. Sece, you
22:35
Speaker 2: know who ran a major story another one you won't
22:38
Speaker 2: read an alternative media. You have to be part of
22:41
Speaker 2: the mainstream media to actually have reporters who actually do
22:44
Speaker 2: the digging and actually go find all this out. I mean,
22:48
Speaker 2: I'm not gonna read much. I'm not going to read
22:50
Speaker 2: you this. I'll read your summary of it. But I
22:53
Speaker 2: think it gives you a sense of the incompetence, the stupidity,
22:57
Speaker 2: the pettiness, the noism, not just of Trump but of
23:02
Speaker 2: many of his cabinet members. In this case Christi Noom
23:05
Speaker 2: at the Department of Homeland Security in an important position,
23:10
Speaker 2: a massive department, second only maybe to Defense and size
23:14
Speaker 2: and influence. Uh and and and and of course she's
23:18
Speaker 2: the one who called the two people killed by DHS
23:22
Speaker 2: by by ice domestic terrorists. I mean, she's just a liar.
23:26
Speaker 2: Uh and an Nevada and and and just sucks up
23:30
Speaker 2: to Trumpet every opportunity, but way beyond that, she's obsessed
23:34
Speaker 2: with media appearances. Uh, you know, she's uh, she's obsessed
23:39
Speaker 2: with appearing, appearing on TV. She's obsessed with the image.
23:43
Speaker 2: She's obsessed with with Trump loving him. Here's a kind
23:49
Speaker 2: of a summary of the Walls Journal article. Throughout her tenure,
23:53
Speaker 2: a secutive of Homeland Security sprawling agency charged with carrying
23:57
Speaker 2: out Trump's central campaign promise a massive potato, Christy Noma's
24:01
Speaker 2: attempted to burnish her personal stardom at every turn. With
24:07
Speaker 2: Corein Lewandowski, Trump's former campaign manager, at her side, she
24:11
Speaker 2: has staged a headline grabbing immigration crackdown while sidelining rivals
24:17
Speaker 2: and dissenters. She's carried out confrontational operations over the objections
24:21
Speaker 2: of longtime immigration officials, who warn such flashy displays will
24:26
Speaker 2: discredit the department's ultimate mission, according to two dozen current
24:30
Speaker 2: and former administration officials. Instead, she's made the case that
24:34
Speaker 2: her approach would lead to more rests and as well
24:37
Speaker 2: as induce more people to leave on their own. Within DHS,
24:42
Speaker 2: Gnome and Lewandowski frequently brate senior level staff get polygraph
24:48
Speaker 2: tasks to employees that they don't trust, and a fired employees.
24:52
Speaker 2: In one incident, Lewandowski fired a US Coast Guard pilot
24:57
Speaker 2: after Noma's blanket was left behind on a plane. Now,
25:02
Speaker 2: according to the story, they then had immediately hired the
25:05
Speaker 2: pilot back, like within a few hours, because they realized
25:08
Speaker 2: that without the pilot they were standard. Where they were,
25:11
Speaker 2: there was nobody else who could fly the plane, so
25:12
Speaker 2: that they re hire him and wrote to fly him
25:14
Speaker 2: back because of a blanket, Yes, because of a blanket.
25:19
Speaker 2: Since taking office the second day, is also closely monitored
25:22
Speaker 2: how her national profile compared to other administration officials. Top
25:26
Speaker 2: of her list was Tom Homan, the guy who went
25:29
Speaker 2: to Minneapolis to say face and has withdrawn ice from Minneapolis.
25:33
Speaker 2: Trump's borders are with whom she has been in a
25:36
Speaker 2: battle for power and influence inside the administration. I guess
25:41
Speaker 2: she thought she was the borders are. What does Homan
25:44
Speaker 2: do it? No, routinely berated staff, a routini berated staff
25:51
Speaker 2: if she saw Holman on TV, and kept track both
25:54
Speaker 2: of their appearances to make sure she was on TV
25:57
Speaker 2: more than him. According to people famili with the matter,
26:00
Speaker 2: it's like narcissism, like spreads, or maybe she was always narcissistic.
26:05
Speaker 2: That's what attracted Trump to her. Though some in Trump's
26:08
Speaker 2: in a circle have tried to persuade the President of
26:11
Speaker 2: fire Note and Lewandowski, according to the administration officials, he
26:15
Speaker 2: has so far resisted, saying publicly he has no plans
26:18
Speaker 2: to dismiss her. A DHS spokesman said Nome serves at
26:21
Speaker 2: the pleasure of the President and has successfully clammed down
26:24
Speaker 2: and inefficiencies to save billions of dollars. Calling her efforts
26:30
Speaker 2: a roaring success. She said all officials are on the
26:34
Speaker 2: same page and in agreement on the president's immigration crackdown.
26:38
Speaker 2: You can find the full article in the Wall Street Journal.
26:43
Speaker 2: It's just full of revelations about this crap and the
26:49
Speaker 2: spending and the waste and the abuse and the mismanagement
26:54
Speaker 2: and again in fighting and disagreements, and the consequence of
26:58
Speaker 2: that in fighting is you send people to Minnesota are
27:01
Speaker 2: not trained to do what they're supposed to do, and
27:04
Speaker 2: you get people killed. I mean, there are real consequences,
27:08
Speaker 2: real consequences to administration that is this amateur and pathetic
27:19
Speaker 2: and uninterested in what's good for the American people. You
27:21
Speaker 2: see that with the tariffs. If they're interested in American people.
27:25
Speaker 2: Tasks were much much law or non existent, and you
27:29
Speaker 2: see that. Well, no, she doesn't get about American people.
27:32
Speaker 2: She just wants to appear on television. She wants opportunities.
27:34
Speaker 2: She wants to show Trump she can deport more people
27:37
Speaker 2: than anybody else. Standard is not truth or or doing
27:42
Speaker 2: your job. The standard is appeasing Trump. And the standard
27:45
Speaker 2: is being a TV a lot, getting your face on TV. Well,
27:52
Speaker 2: when Americans get shot, you're going to be in TV
27:55
Speaker 2: a lot, so huge advantage getting American shot. I mean,
28:00
Speaker 2: what's going on with these people? Philosophic Getectas said, they're narcissists.
28:04
Speaker 2: This is what they want. So they've learned from Trump,
28:08
Speaker 2: but they probably always narcissist. That's why they go into politics.
28:11
Speaker 2: And they want the picture in the newspaper. They want
28:16
Speaker 2: that used to be the case. Now they want to
28:18
Speaker 2: be on TV or on Twitter or whatever whatever the
28:21
Speaker 2: medium is that they want attention on. But yeah, this
28:26
Speaker 2: is who they are, This is who we voted in.
28:28
Speaker 2: We voted in a narcissist in chief and he's appointed
28:31
Speaker 2: a bunch of narcissists to run various departments of the government.
28:39
Speaker 2: All right, a few items. On Ukraine. This is Trump
28:45
Speaker 2: today talking about the peace deal between Russia and Ukraine.
28:51
Speaker 2: And I've told you, I've cited Lava of the Russian
28:55
Speaker 2: Foreign Minister a few days ago about how, yeah, I mean,
28:59
Speaker 2: they're not retreating from any anything that they have demanded,
29:02
Speaker 2: including vast quantities of territory in Ukraine and demilitarization and
29:07
Speaker 2: no security guarantees and all these things. The Russians are
29:11
Speaker 2: not budgeting, They're not moving an inch on any of
29:14
Speaker 2: those things. And indeed, love or Of was blaming Trump
29:18
Speaker 2: for renegging unsupposedly a deal that he had made with
29:22
Speaker 2: Putin in Alaska, which you know, I don't think Trump
29:27
Speaker 2: knows he made a deal with Putin, so it really
29:31
Speaker 2: looked like it was the Russians really holding up any
29:34
Speaker 2: peace deal. Well, this is Trump today, quote, Zelensky gonna
29:39
Speaker 2: have to get moving. Russia wants to make a deal,
29:42
Speaker 2: and Zelensky is gonna have to get moving otherwise he's
29:45
Speaker 2: going to miss a great opportunity. He has to move.
29:50
Speaker 2: So Trump, no matter how you spin it, no matter
29:53
Speaker 2: what happens in the world, no matter how many people
29:56
Speaker 2: talk to him, no matter how much sense does they
29:58
Speaker 2: try to drive into no matter how many facts they
30:01
Speaker 2: present to him, no matter what Putin does or says,
30:03
Speaker 2: no matter what lover of does, says Trump and his
30:10
Speaker 2: mini self wit Cough, it's always Ukraine's fold. It's always
30:18
Speaker 2: Ukraine's fold. Trump, I mean, Russia can do no wrong. Russia,
30:25
Speaker 2: the good guys. They want peace, They're begging for peace.
30:27
Speaker 2: They constantly, they're willing to do anything for peace. Zelenski
30:31
Speaker 2: just hasn't surrendered yet. Zolanski needs a surrender, and until
30:36
Speaker 2: he surrenders will be no peace. And Trump is saying,
30:38
Speaker 2: you gotta surrender. It's just I keep saying this, it's unbelievable.
30:46
Speaker 2: But it's unbelievable. How corrupt or dumb or I'm not
30:54
Speaker 2: sure what exactly this president is. I know I just
30:59
Speaker 2: lost another twenty subscribes. It is what it is. I
31:03
Speaker 2: have to call it the way it is. Putin could
31:05
Speaker 2: do no wrong, according to Trump. And again, I don't
31:10
Speaker 2: think Putin has anything on him like some people think.
31:13
Speaker 2: I just think he admires Putin, he loves Putin. It's
31:18
Speaker 2: a romance. Mike says, it's no longer unbelievable. Sure, it's
31:24
Speaker 2: just God, I don't know what to say to you guys,
31:29
Speaker 2: possibly because I'd been saying it for ten years now,
31:32
Speaker 2: and I feel like I'm just repeating myself, repeating myself,
31:34
Speaker 2: but I have to because that's the news, that's what's
31:37
Speaker 2: going on. Trump is worse than any of us thought,
31:42
Speaker 2: certainly as bad as I thought, maybe worse than I thought,
31:46
Speaker 2: and much worse than many of you guys thought. And
31:50
Speaker 2: every day, every single day, there are multiple instances of this,
31:55
Speaker 2: and yet many of you still go, yeah, but he's better, Kamala,
31:58
Speaker 2: is he really really speaking of Ukraine? While Trump is
32:09
Speaker 2: cut off A to Ukraine, I mean, Ukraine gets no
32:12
Speaker 2: weight from the United States, I mean intelligence information, and
32:15
Speaker 2: we sell, sell, sell, sell weapons to Europe NATO and
32:21
Speaker 2: then to the Europeans, and then Europeans give it to Ukraine. Indeed,
32:27
Speaker 2: while Trump is cut off all A to Ukraine and
32:31
Speaker 2: now it's trying to force them to surrender to Russia,
32:34
Speaker 2: Ukraine has gotten much more aid from Europe and there's
32:38
Speaker 2: actually arguably, you know, improving his position visa of you Russia.
32:45
Speaker 2: Russia's advance were very slow, very were slower. Now in
32:49
Speaker 2: some funch, Ukraine is making slow progress. And if you
32:54
Speaker 2: look at the amount of military equipment flowing into Ukraine
33:00
Speaker 2: right now from Europe. From Europe, you know this is
33:08
Speaker 2: going to be Europe could produce a lot more military
33:13
Speaker 2: stuff for Ukraine and Russia can. The Russians will not
33:19
Speaker 2: be able to keep up. They won't be able to
33:21
Speaker 2: advance the twenty you know, in twenty twenty six, and
33:25
Speaker 2: they're likely to start falling behind and starting to lose
33:27
Speaker 2: territory in the future. I mean, there's just that much
33:31
Speaker 2: military aid flowing in. Remember I told you about this
33:34
Speaker 2: factory in Germany that's not producing more artillery shells than
33:40
Speaker 2: the entire production in the United States. I mean, if
33:43
Speaker 2: the Germans really gets serious, but military production they can produce,
33:53
Speaker 2: they can't produce. So yeah, it's in addition this kind
34:02
Speaker 2: of funny story. I don't know what to make of this,
34:04
Speaker 2: you guys. Supposedly China is now agreed. As of today,
34:10
Speaker 2: the Chinese Fawn Minister met with with Ukraine's fawn minister
34:17
Speaker 2: and they have agreed to provide energy aid to Ukraine.
34:22
Speaker 2: I guess there's a lot of damage of course, the
34:24
Speaker 2: energy infrastructure, to power plants and things like that. The
34:27
Speaker 2: Chinese are very good at building poplants and they're providing
34:32
Speaker 2: they're providing energy. They want to provide energy expertise to
34:38
Speaker 2: the Ukrainians. Why it says the German Islamists will become
34:43
Speaker 2: a mighty machine. How many Islamists are they in Germany?
34:46
Speaker 2: I mean, I'm really curious. Anybody have a number for
34:49
Speaker 2: what percentage of the German population not a Muslim but Islamists?
34:53
Speaker 2: What percentage? Yeah, I'm curious because this stupidity, and it
35:04
Speaker 2: is stupidity. After all, Germany is not Islamist and not
35:07
Speaker 2: going to become Islamist. Islamism is a threat to Germany.
35:10
Speaker 2: It's a it's a it's a it's a you know,
35:13
Speaker 2: it's it's a past. It's a past. But there's Islamism
35:19
Speaker 2: threatened the existence of Germany. Give me a break anyway.
35:24
Speaker 2: China and Ukraine signing deals of corporation. Merka can, but
35:30
Speaker 2: Chinese can. In addition, Zelensky today in Germany in Munich
35:37
Speaker 2: this quoting is Zelensky today, I received the first jointly
35:40
Speaker 2: produced attack drone. This is a modern, battle tested Ukrainian
35:45
Speaker 2: technology powered by AI, built in Germany. It will strike,
35:51
Speaker 2: scout and protect our soldiers. This year ten thousand drones
35:54
Speaker 2: manufactured here will go to Ukraine. So Germany minus the
36:01
Speaker 2: Slambists has opened the first Ukrainian co production lines in Europe,
36:07
Speaker 2: so they are working with the Ukrainians to build drones. Overall.
36:12
Speaker 2: By the end of the year, ten more joint ventures
36:15
Speaker 2: producing Ukrainian drones expected to be launched, I think, all
36:20
Speaker 2: over all over Europe. So Ukraine has among the best
36:26
Speaker 2: drones in the world, not best in terms of technology,
36:28
Speaker 2: best in terms of usability, best in terms of battlefield
36:34
Speaker 2: battlefield proof of concept. And they're building those drones all
36:39
Speaker 2: over Europe, which means Europe is building massive capacity and
36:44
Speaker 2: drone manufacturing, maybe more so than the United States. And
36:48
Speaker 2: it's providing those dones to Ukraine because they're building them together.
36:52
Speaker 2: So again more positive steps. And finally, it appears that
36:59
Speaker 2: Ukraine has a laser anti drone laser called Sunray laser
37:06
Speaker 2: that can si silently take out Russian drones. They'd be
37:10
Speaker 2: testing a silent, undetectable laser system capable of downing drones
37:15
Speaker 2: instantly like invisible lightning, at a fraction of the cost
37:18
Speaker 2: of US equivalents. I wonder if Israel has any involvement here.
37:22
Speaker 2: I hope so, although I doubt it given Israel's reluctance
37:26
Speaker 2: to sell any military equipment to Ukraine, the truck mounted
37:30
Speaker 2: sunray could be brought for could be bought for a
37:33
Speaker 2: few hundred thousand dollars, making it a cost effective high
37:37
Speaker 2: tech defense against Russia's constant drone attacks. So it's there's
37:43
Speaker 2: the New York Post that would be interesting and very cool.
37:48
Speaker 2: We talked about the fact that the US is building
37:50
Speaker 2: laser systems against drones. That's maybe what happened around the
37:55
Speaker 2: apasso a port shutting down. Is if the US wasting
38:01
Speaker 2: those lasers. Israel is now deployed laser systems against drones.
38:09
Speaker 2: They have them deployed on the ground ready to take
38:13
Speaker 2: down Uranian or Rizabella drones, and now Ukraine has laser
38:20
Speaker 2: laser technology to down drones. So drones might be the
38:24
Speaker 2: future of the battle field. But if lasers are effective
38:28
Speaker 2: and fast and quick and cheap in downing those drones,
38:32
Speaker 2: well maybe that basically takes away the advantage the drones have.
38:39
Speaker 2: I mean, warfe is evolving, and it's not clear in
38:43
Speaker 2: five years where that evolution will lead to, not clear
38:47
Speaker 2: at all all Right, quickly, Iran We've talked about this,
38:55
Speaker 2: but now it's official. I guess Trump said that he
38:59
Speaker 2: is asked the USS Gerald Ford and its carry a
39:03
Speaker 2: strike group to be deployed to the Middle East from
39:05
Speaker 2: the Caribbean. Remember they're they're not far from here. I'm
39:09
Speaker 2: in Puerto Rico. This is the carrier group that was
39:13
Speaker 2: there was a raid against Venezuela again as part of
39:18
Speaker 2: the effort to put pressure on the Uranians. This will
39:21
Speaker 2: be the second aircraft carrier group to be stationed in
39:24
Speaker 2: the Middle East, together with the USS Abram Lincoln, who's
39:27
Speaker 2: been there for more than two weeks. The Ford is
39:31
Speaker 2: the largest aircraft carrier in the US fleet, the most
39:35
Speaker 2: advanced one. And this means, you know, it's going to
39:43
Speaker 2: be really really interesting to see what this means because
39:53
Speaker 2: it'll take anyway from two weeks to month for the
39:57
Speaker 2: US is probably a month for the USS Forward to
40:00
Speaker 2: get to the Middle East. Does that mean any attack
40:03
Speaker 2: on Iran is being delayed now by a month? Is
40:07
Speaker 2: there going to be an attack on Iran? Is anybody
40:08
Speaker 2: really planning one? What is exactly going on?
40:13
Speaker 4: But?
40:13
Speaker 2: Oh, is this just a pressure thing? And all the
40:15
Speaker 2: assets will come home when Trump's gets a deal, which
40:18
Speaker 2: will probably be a weak deal because I can't imagine
40:21
Speaker 2: Iran agreeing to anything stronger. They would rather be attacked,
40:24
Speaker 2: I think. So this is going to be a real test.
40:28
Speaker 2: We'll see, but nothing happening anytime soon, at least if
40:33
Speaker 2: you believe this story. Now it could be all diversion
40:35
Speaker 2: tactics and the attack is imminent. We will see, we
40:41
Speaker 2: will see what happens. Tomorrow has been declared a a
40:50
Speaker 2: demonstration date by the son of the Shah, who is
40:54
Speaker 2: asked Uranians all over the world, including an Iran itself,
40:57
Speaker 2: to demonstrate tomorrow. Again the regime. Demonstrations will be occurring
41:03
Speaker 2: all over Europe and assume in some places in the
41:05
Speaker 2: United States. And we'll see if demonstration demonstrators go out
41:11
Speaker 2: into the streets in Iran to what extent is the
41:13
Speaker 2: murder of thirty to forty thousand Iranians going to slow
41:17
Speaker 2: down the Iranians going to stop the Ranians from actually
41:20
Speaker 2: demonstrating in the street. Yeah, it's going to be interesting.
41:25
Speaker 2: In the meantime, while the Ranians are killing their own
41:28
Speaker 2: people in mass the Ranian embassy, the Ranian embassy in
41:32
Speaker 2: Paris hosted a large lavish reception for the forty seventh
41:38
Speaker 2: anniversary of the so called Islamic Revolution, and it was
41:43
Speaker 2: attended by lots of high ranking guests, European guests, French guests.
41:54
Speaker 2: I mean, again, unbelievable that the West can look at
41:58
Speaker 2: what's happening in Iran and just pretend it's not happening,
42:04
Speaker 2: treat the Iranians just like they have always treat this
42:08
Speaker 2: regime as a legitimate regime. I mean, maybe you say, look,
42:13
Speaker 2: it's in a sense, it's you know, I'm not gonna
42:15
Speaker 2: I'm not gonna spend money or blood in sending people
42:20
Speaker 2: to fight in you on. That's fine, I understand that completely.
42:23
Speaker 2: That doesn't mean you go to an Ranian party. That
42:26
Speaker 2: doesn't mean you celebrate Ayatula. It doesn't mean you whitewash
42:30
Speaker 2: the regime. At the very least, you would expect European
42:38
Speaker 2: high ranking officials to denounce the regime, to call them out,
42:44
Speaker 2: to to take them all, stand against them. I mean me,
42:50
Speaker 2: I would shut down all their embassies in Europe, send
42:52
Speaker 2: them all packing home, kick them out of every international
42:55
Speaker 2: organization that they still belong to. That's but that's me.
42:58
Speaker 2: I would have bummed them a long time ago. There
43:00
Speaker 2: would be no need of any of that. But they
43:03
Speaker 2: are doing nothing, zero zilch, not a that's pretty amazing.
43:11
Speaker 2: Oh right, good news, uh me lay I told you
43:15
Speaker 2: about this, that Melay, you remember, he passed a reform
43:19
Speaker 2: of of of some of the taxes. Make it, make it,
43:22
Speaker 2: uh you know, basically give amnesty for people who are
43:25
Speaker 2: holding dollars. And so that's all passed, and that's great.
43:29
Speaker 2: And then yesterday or the day before yesterday, the Senate
43:32
Speaker 2: in Argentina past Malay's labor reform bill, which makes it
43:38
Speaker 2: much easier to hire people, to fire people a little
43:43
Speaker 2: more difficult for unions to go and strike. Now it's
43:47
Speaker 2: not a perfect bill, it's not lezific capitalism and employment.
43:50
Speaker 2: He doesn't have the votes for any of that even
43:52
Speaker 2: if he wanted to, but it is. It is a
43:59
Speaker 2: huge win to liberalize the labor market. The peronists, the
44:05
Speaker 2: fascist like socialist opposition opposed this. Now Melay had to
44:11
Speaker 2: make about twenty eight concessions, you know, so changes in
44:16
Speaker 2: the bill in order to get it passed. But it
44:22
Speaker 2: ultimately did past revolutionizing revolutionizing employment in Argentina. Again not perfect,
44:30
Speaker 2: far and perfect, but much much better. In the meantime,
44:34
Speaker 2: while the senators were debating the bill, a small group
44:38
Speaker 2: of protesters were outside throwing molotough cocktails at riot police,
44:44
Speaker 2: who responded with water cannons and tear gas. But other
44:48
Speaker 2: than that, very little. The Argentina people broadly support Malay's reforms.
44:57
Speaker 2: This is a bill. The passage of this bill will
44:59
Speaker 2: give some indication to investors and others about Melay's ability
45:04
Speaker 2: to actually get reforms done well, give an indication of
45:08
Speaker 2: how strong he is politically. Remember, he still doesn't have
45:10
Speaker 2: a majority in Parliament. He's just significantly boasted his position
45:17
Speaker 2: there after the last election. I mean, unfortunately, things like
45:23
Speaker 2: Mila wanted to make it possible to have companies pay
45:29
Speaker 2: the worker directly into virtual wallets, like something called the
45:35
Speaker 2: Mercado Libra, which is an electronic wallet that people haven't
45:39
Speaker 2: used quite a bit in Argentina. He wanted employees to
45:41
Speaker 2: be able to deposit wages directly there. Banks opposed it,
45:46
Speaker 2: lobbied heavily in the Senate, so now you still have
45:50
Speaker 2: to deposit it in a bank. So things like that
45:53
Speaker 2: he had to give into right, but which is sad
45:58
Speaker 2: because there is a real effort in the fintech community
46:03
Speaker 2: in Argentina to try to disrupt the world of finance. So,
46:12
Speaker 2: you know, we will see, we will see what happens.
46:14
Speaker 2: But here's some key changes. It's going to lower companies
46:18
Speaker 2: non salary costs such as social security contributions. Uh so
46:25
Speaker 2: the employers employing people is just going to be cheaper.
46:28
Speaker 2: Seven funds. It creates an it creates an obligation and
46:33
Speaker 2: obligatory fund employers contribute into to finance seven payments. You know. Uh,
46:40
Speaker 2: but this fund, Ah, it's giving employees a lot more
46:47
Speaker 2: flexibility in terms of dealing with sevens, whereas previous laws
46:51
Speaker 2: dictated it. Clearly. It also now is the definition of
46:56
Speaker 2: what is sevens. Yeah, so a bunch of things that
47:06
Speaker 2: just they reduced collective bargaining, make it a little little harder. Again,
47:10
Speaker 2: revolutionary for Argentina, maybe not for the rest of us.
47:15
Speaker 2: And by the way, this bill also reduce removes taxes
47:20
Speaker 2: on sales of cause cell phones and other consumer goods,
47:24
Speaker 2: so it reduces taxes. Argentina today has the highest cost
47:30
Speaker 2: of labor in Latin America, significantly higher than Brazil, Mexico
47:36
Speaker 2: and like what four times five times higher than in Chile.
47:44
Speaker 2: This is aimed at resused, dramatically reducing those costs, dramatically
47:49
Speaker 2: reducing those costs. So yeah, good news. Melay continues with
47:56
Speaker 2: his reforms, and I think this will have a long
48:03
Speaker 2: term an incredibly positive impact on the Argentinian economy. It
48:08
Speaker 2: takes time for these things to have an impact, but
48:11
Speaker 2: will have an impact. All right, now to the more
48:16
Speaker 2: entertaining part of the show today. Let me let me
48:21
Speaker 2: show you this first video. So Trump is nominated a
48:25
Speaker 2: known kind of kind of antisemitic, anti Israel racist individual
48:35
Speaker 2: to be kind of the under secretary in the Department
48:38
Speaker 2: of State, under secretary for like international organizations something like that.
48:44
Speaker 2: And is you know he his name is Jemmy Call.
48:53
Speaker 2: And Jemmy Call testified before Congress. I think it was
48:55
Speaker 2: this morning. No, it was yesterday. Sorry, it was yesterday,
48:59
Speaker 2: yes to day morning. And some of the stuff is
49:03
Speaker 2: pretty entertaining, it's pretty funny. So this is an exchange
49:08
Speaker 2: between him, this is Jimmy Call and uh Senator uh
49:14
Speaker 2: Senator Murphy from a Connecticut and uh, I'll let you
49:20
Speaker 2: watch it and and and and and notice whoops, that's
49:23
Speaker 2: the next video and and just notice how well I mean,
49:28
Speaker 2: you'll see you don't you don't have to. I don't
49:30
Speaker 2: have to tell you what to notice me. Oops. All right, uh,
49:35
Speaker 2: I think I'm ready. So here it is.
49:38
Speaker 5: Tell me how you define white identity and what you
49:40
Speaker 5: think is being erased about white identity.
49:42
Speaker 6: Certain types of Anglo derived culture that comes from our history.
49:49
Speaker 2: There's what Let me think about this. He's written a
49:56
Speaker 2: book on white identity, by the way, so just to
49:58
Speaker 2: so you know, this is not a you question for him,
50:01
Speaker 2: So watch as he maneuvers around this question. It's I
50:06
Speaker 2: think super entertaining.
50:08
Speaker 6: You know, Senator, I would say if you were to
50:09
Speaker 6: look at the book by one of your former senate
50:13
Speaker 6: colleagues born in Fighting about the sort of scotch Irish
50:16
Speaker 6: military culture and certain you know pride that went with that,
50:20
Speaker 6: that would so.
50:21
Speaker 2: Wide identity is scotch Irish military culture. Hmm hmm.
50:27
Speaker 6: Interesting be one example. Obviously you could have sub elements
50:31
Speaker 6: of that culture. You could have Italians, you could have
50:33
Speaker 6: Irish And did you.
50:35
Speaker 2: Know that the the Italians are subculture of the scott
50:39
Speaker 2: Irish military culture. I mean, the guy is digging himself
50:43
Speaker 2: in a deep, deep deep hole. Deep hoole Italians scott
50:49
Speaker 2: Scott Irish. Yeah, scott Irish, some Scots. I mean, we
50:53
Speaker 2: could go into the whole history of Scotland and immigration
50:55
Speaker 2: to the United States. A lot of Scots came to
50:57
Speaker 2: the US. Some of them came through Ireland, and that
51:00
Speaker 2: is all Scott's emigrated island and ultimately immigrated to the
51:03
Speaker 2: United States. This is this scott Irish, which is going
51:06
Speaker 2: to be uh uh, you know, Protestant Irish, Protestant scott
51:14
Speaker 2: and uh you know, a lot of poor Scotts emigrated,
51:17
Speaker 2: a lot of educated Scots. You know, Scotland had a
51:22
Speaker 2: disproportionate impact on the founding of America. But white identity,
51:28
Speaker 2: Notice he was asked to define white identity. Is scott
51:31
Speaker 2: Irish Italians a subculture of scott Irish. That's interesting.
51:36
Speaker 6: Those are in many ways more.
51:37
Speaker 5: But you're worried about white culture. You're not worried about
51:39
Speaker 5: You're You're you're now retreating to ethnic identity. You don't
51:44
Speaker 5: speak about ethnic identity. You speak about white identity. So
51:47
Speaker 5: tell me the values that stitch together white identity. This
51:51
Speaker 5: is good, and then make it different than black identity.
51:54
Speaker 6: I would say that the white church is very different
51:56
Speaker 6: than the black church in terms of its tone and
51:58
Speaker 6: style on average foods, food waves could often be different.
52:04
Speaker 5: Yeah, those music different, those are being a race.
52:08
Speaker 2: Music could be different.
52:08
Speaker 6: Way if you look at the super Bowl hop offtime show,
52:11
Speaker 6: which was not in English, this are.
52:13
Speaker 2: So white food? You know that bland, tasteless, pretty disgusting food.
52:21
Speaker 2: That food is in danger because white identities in danger?
52:27
Speaker 2: Was what else was there? You know? White churches, White
52:31
Speaker 2: churches endangered because white identities in dangered. And then of
52:35
Speaker 2: course white music is endangered because because bad money. Saying
52:40
Speaker 2: at the super Bowl in Spanish that's not a white
52:45
Speaker 2: that's not a white language. Well wait a minute, I
52:49
Speaker 2: sketched my head because I think I think Spain is
52:52
Speaker 2: considered white, but I'm not sure. Uh, And what does
52:57
Speaker 2: all this add up to? Exactly nothing? And he's mumbling
52:59
Speaker 2: and he don't know what the hell he's talking about,
53:01
Speaker 2: and he's trying to not sound as racist as he
53:04
Speaker 2: really is by hedging himself and mumbling, and he doesn't
53:08
Speaker 2: a way to take this. You think he'd be prepared
53:11
Speaker 2: for this line of questioning. He's been nominated for months,
53:14
Speaker 2: he's known he's going to have to testify, he's known
53:17
Speaker 2: these are the questions he's going to get and this
53:20
Speaker 2: is the best he could do white music? What does
53:24
Speaker 2: he mean by that? Mick Jagger beatles, Well those are
53:30
Speaker 2: not those are British, so they're not Irish, Scotch. It's
53:34
Speaker 2: well from Liverpool, that's England. Where do you go with this?
53:39
Speaker 2: And again, bad bunny, But think about all the whites
53:43
Speaker 2: that have performed in a halftime shows and even if
53:45
Speaker 2: that were true, one show diminishes white music whatever the
53:50
Speaker 2: hell that is. Eminem was there, but he's saying African music. See,
53:56
Speaker 2: this is the problem. It's a white guy pretending to
53:59
Speaker 2: be a black guy singing black music. At least that's
54:01
Speaker 2: how he thinks. Not me, right, because everything's categorized to
54:04
Speaker 2: ethnicities and rap, which is what Eminem does, is not
54:08
Speaker 2: white music, even though he's white. And you could go
54:14
Speaker 2: on and on with this absurdity nonsense. This is racism
54:17
Speaker 2: is stupid. Racism is stupid, and it's it's dumb. It
54:24
Speaker 2: attracts dumb people, immobil but ultimately it makes you stupid. Right.
54:31
Speaker 2: I don't know what his IQ is, but racism makes
54:33
Speaker 2: you stupid no matter what you are.
54:35
Speaker 1: C is.
54:37
Speaker 2: So I don't know anybody with a name like Lady Gaga.
54:42
Speaker 2: He says, Lady Gaga is they're pretty sure she's white.
54:44
Speaker 2: I don't know Lee Gaga. That's not a white name,
54:46
Speaker 2: certainly not a Scotch Irish name. Gaga Gaga. I don't
54:51
Speaker 2: know what. Yeah, I don't know those are being a race.
54:54
Speaker 6: Music could be different way if you look at the
54:55
Speaker 6: super Bowl halftime show, which was not in English.
54:57
Speaker 5: This is so our ability to access white churches, or
55:01
Speaker 5: white food or white music is being erased.
55:05
Speaker 6: I am concerned with the majority common American culture that
55:09
Speaker 6: we had for some time that, through particularly mass immigration,
55:14
Speaker 6: I think has become much more Balkanized, and I think
55:17
Speaker 6: that weakens us. And again, I'm not running away from
55:19
Speaker 6: that comment. I'm not apologizing for well, I'm way over
55:22
Speaker 6: my time.
55:22
Speaker 5: I think you're struggling to answer this question, right because
55:26
Speaker 5: underlying your beliefs is is is a sentiment that white
55:31
Speaker 5: culture is just simply better.
55:34
Speaker 2: I mean yeah, I think I think Santa Mophi's absolutely right.
55:37
Speaker 2: This guy is a is just a racist and he
55:43
Speaker 2: can't answer the question. Now. He wrote a post where
55:45
Speaker 2: he he's explaining and he is much moreticulate. Somebody edited it.
55:51
Speaker 2: He's thought about it and he's not. He says he's
55:53
Speaker 2: not a racist, and he's not about white supurity. It's
55:56
Speaker 2: just about all these immigrants. He's also you know, but
56:00
Speaker 2: if you go back to his tweets, over the last
56:03
Speaker 2: ten years, he's made derogatory comments or comments minimizing the Holocaust.
56:09
Speaker 2: He's made comments about replacement theory. We've talked about replacement
56:14
Speaker 2: theory in the past. He's talked about the superiority of
56:18
Speaker 2: white culture, white values, very derogatory against you know, immigrants.
56:26
Speaker 2: But at the end of the day, you know, what
56:28
Speaker 2: they hate is immigration. What they hate is immigrants. What
56:32
Speaker 2: they hate is you know, they like pizzas, they like
56:35
Speaker 2: Italian immigrants coming. They're kind of white and they're kind
56:38
Speaker 2: of European, so that's okay. But they don't like they
56:42
Speaker 2: don't like the refect. I mean, that's that's what they
56:45
Speaker 2: consider it. They don't they don't like these Latin American
56:47
Speaker 2: people coming over. They don't like Asians coming suddenly South Asians.
56:51
Speaker 2: They don't like this. Now, the good news is he
56:55
Speaker 2: did so badly in this hearing that it's it's probably
56:59
Speaker 2: the case that he will not be confirmed. That they
57:01
Speaker 2: will which was confirmation. There's another you know, there's some
57:07
Speaker 2: other exchanges that are also a pretty funny, you know
57:12
Speaker 2: about about his views. He comes across as a complete
57:18
Speaker 2: numb skull, and I'm sure he is. And yeah, I
57:23
Speaker 2: think a number of Republicans now have said that they
57:25
Speaker 2: will not vote for him, so it looks like he
57:27
Speaker 2: will actually not be confirmed, so that maybe there is
57:29
Speaker 2: a little bit a sliver of sanity in the Senate,
57:34
Speaker 2: even among Republicans, so they will they will actually go
57:38
Speaker 2: against Trump on the maybe on this one, because he
57:43
Speaker 2: is trying to appoint a explicit weight white identitarian for
57:50
Speaker 2: the Department of State. I mean, Trump is exactly who
57:55
Speaker 2: he said he was, who I said he was, who
57:58
Speaker 2: he said he was. You just have to believe him,
58:00
Speaker 2: all right. Now, let's talk about somebody who is who
58:05
Speaker 2: is approved by the Senate, who Senator Republicans voted for,
58:11
Speaker 2: and they should be I mean, if they're not ashamed
58:17
Speaker 2: of themselves already, they never will be. But they should
58:19
Speaker 2: be ashamed of themselves, and they should be shamed. I'm
58:22
Speaker 2: gonna play you in this clip. It's eleven seconds long.
58:25
Speaker 2: It's self explanatory. I don't know that there's much I
58:29
Speaker 2: can comment on it. It's just really funny for many,
58:34
Speaker 2: many reasons. But listen to this clip.
58:37
Speaker 4: Of of RFK explaining why he's not scared of germs.
58:47
Speaker 4: Why is RFK the head of Health and Human Services
58:51
Speaker 4: Department in the United States government, the senior most position
58:56
Speaker 4: when he comes to health, why he is not afraid
59:00
Speaker 4: of germs?
59:02
Speaker 7: And I said, I'm not scared of a germ. You know,
59:05
Speaker 7: I used to snort cocaine off a toilet seats, and
59:09
Speaker 7: then I know this disease will kill me? Right, Get
59:12
Speaker 7: I don't And I.
59:19
Speaker 2: I mean, does it get any better than that? I mean,
59:23
Speaker 2: I often human sericis guy is basically telling us that
59:28
Speaker 2: it's okay to snot cocaine off of a toilet seat.
59:32
Speaker 2: Gopher it guys. I mean, he snorts cocaine. That's bad enough,
59:41
Speaker 2: But then he does that of a toilet seat. I mean,
59:43
Speaker 2: I wonder what else is okay to do off of
59:44
Speaker 2: a toilet seat? Eat? This actually happened? This is this
59:52
Speaker 2: is not a This is not I remember, this is
59:56
Speaker 2: a guy who admits that it won' eight part of
1:00:00
Speaker 2: his brain. He probably got that wormb on the toilet seed. Now, yeah,
1:00:06
Speaker 2: I don't know. Maybe it is a I. You know,
1:00:08
Speaker 2: I didn't spend a lot of time vera find this video.
1:00:11
Speaker 2: So maybe it is a I. You know, maybe you'll
1:00:14
Speaker 2: tell me it's a I. And I'll have to attract
1:00:16
Speaker 2: these stories. This story. It's a funny story, no matter what.
1:00:19
Speaker 2: Uh So, you know, but but they go, but you know,
1:00:23
Speaker 2: the worm eating his brain is real and and uh oh,
1:00:35
Speaker 2: number one number one authority in the Health and Human
1:00:38
Speaker 2: Service departments recommends, I mean it's now, it's now on
1:00:42
Speaker 2: every package of cocaine. You're gonna get best if storted
1:00:45
Speaker 2: off of a toilet seed. This is this is this
1:00:55
Speaker 2: is good, this is good. All right. Finally, it turns
1:01:00
Speaker 2: out that there was a scandal at the Winter Olympics.
1:01:08
Speaker 2: So when the World Anti Doping Agency this is again
1:01:11
Speaker 2: from the Wall Seat Journal, When the World Anti Doping
1:01:14
Speaker 2: Agency delivered their pre games briefing, you know, in Milan
1:01:20
Speaker 2: at the either though Winter Olympics, they feel that questions
1:01:23
Speaker 2: about the most urgent issues in global sports, for example,
1:01:29
Speaker 2: whether ski jumpers are injecting themselves with performance enhancing supplements
1:01:36
Speaker 2: to enlarge the penises. Now you might ask, why would
1:01:45
Speaker 2: a ski jumper want to enlarge the penis?
1:01:51
Speaker 1: Now?
1:01:52
Speaker 2: This is not a permanent enlargement. This is a temporary enlargement.
1:01:57
Speaker 2: Why would they want to temporary barely in large their penises.
1:02:06
Speaker 2: It changes the sense of gravity. That's pretty funny. No,
1:02:10
Speaker 2: it turns out that it really does affect aerodynamics. It
1:02:13
Speaker 2: turns out that the larger the what do you call it,
1:02:18
Speaker 2: the space of the fabric on your trousers, the further
1:02:27
Speaker 2: you fly, the further you go. So it's just simple aerodynamics.
1:02:38
Speaker 2: If a ski jumper happens to require a slightly bigger suit,
1:02:44
Speaker 2: the broader surface area allows him to catch more air
1:02:49
Speaker 2: underneath and fly even longer. Now, in a sport, and
1:03:00
Speaker 2: this is not tongue in cheek, this is actually an article.
1:03:03
Speaker 2: So I'm reading an article. But this is funny. In
1:03:06
Speaker 2: a sport where a few inches can make a huge difference,
1:03:13
Speaker 2: size matters, suit size really does matter. As a result,
1:03:20
Speaker 2: suit tempering has long been a prickly issued at the
1:03:24
Speaker 2: highest levels of ski jumping, where equipment is rigorously examined
1:03:29
Speaker 2: and athletes fudge their measurements to gain a few extra
1:03:34
Speaker 2: inches of material. But until now, nobody had imagined manipulating
1:03:41
Speaker 2: what went inside the suit, you know, to justify a
1:03:45
Speaker 2: bigger suit. Oh God, it turns out that no athlete
1:03:52
Speaker 2: in Milan has been accused of using shots of higher
1:03:57
Speaker 2: luronic acid. For those of you really inches, if you
1:04:01
Speaker 2: inject hyaluronic acid into your penis, it will expand, it
1:04:05
Speaker 2: will grow. I'm sure some of you, some of you
1:04:11
Speaker 2: might be interested in this. I'm not recommending, not a
1:04:15
Speaker 2: recommendation for me or the Wall Street Journal. So no
1:04:20
Speaker 2: athletes has been accused of doing this, But it started
1:04:24
Speaker 2: about a year ago. Last year, when an equipment technician
1:04:29
Speaker 2: of the Norwegian team was secretly filmed making illegal alterations
1:04:34
Speaker 2: to the suits after they had been cleared by inspectors.
1:04:39
Speaker 2: When a whistleblower shared the covert footage, investigators meant to
1:04:44
Speaker 2: the scene of the alleged crime, the crotch area. That's
1:04:51
Speaker 2: the scene of the alleged crime. According to the Olympic Committee,
1:04:56
Speaker 2: the cheating scandal ripped through the sport and spoke at
1:04:59
Speaker 2: the international Norway's top ski jumpers were disqualified from the competition.
1:05:03
Speaker 2: In the later sanctioned the team's coaches and equipment managers
1:05:06
Speaker 2: were slapped with lengthy suspensions. The embarrassing national saga brought
1:05:10
Speaker 2: shame to the country and pride itself on having fun
1:05:14
Speaker 2: and pride that prides itself on having fun while dominating
1:05:17
Speaker 2: winter sports Since then, an October study published in the
1:05:22
Speaker 2: journal Frontiers and Sports an Active Living showed just how
1:05:27
Speaker 2: much could be gained by a nearly imperceptible amount of
1:05:32
Speaker 2: extra fabric Enlauging the suit by around three quarters of
1:05:36
Speaker 2: an inch was enough to increase lift by five percent
1:05:41
Speaker 2: and lengthened jumps by more than sixteen feet. Wow. The
1:05:49
Speaker 2: latest twist came from a January report in the German
1:05:52
Speaker 2: newspaper Build about other possibly possible enlargements. The sudden interest
1:05:59
Speaker 2: in cutting edge in the cutting edge of ski jumping
1:06:04
Speaker 2: exploded on Thursday when an anti doping authorities found themselves
1:06:09
Speaker 2: answering questions about tabloid fueled speculation. German media coined the
1:06:22
Speaker 2: phrase penis gait. Anyway, there's no evidence that anybody is
1:06:33
Speaker 2: enlarged a penis in order to get a bigger suit.
1:06:36
Speaker 2: But now that the science justifies it by increasing your
1:06:43
Speaker 2: jump by sixteen feet, which could be the difference between
1:06:46
Speaker 2: getting a metal or not. Who knows in the future
1:06:50
Speaker 2: what these ski jumpers might or might not be willing
1:06:54
Speaker 2: to do. All right, that is it for the news
1:07:02
Speaker 2: for this Friday, February thirteenth, And that'll keep you smiling
1:07:13
Speaker 2: over the weekend. I hope we need we need some
1:07:16
Speaker 2: of that. All right, Thank you guys, and let's let's
1:07:23
Speaker 2: turn to our super chat. Before we do that, I
1:07:26
Speaker 2: want to remind you a few things. One, I'm doing
1:07:29
Speaker 2: this seminar in London on February twenty eighth. It'll be
1:07:35
Speaker 2: from one to five pm and it'll be on everything
1:07:42
Speaker 2: to do with capitalism or anything to do with capitalism
1:07:44
Speaker 2: that I'm mainly going to be addressing issues that you
1:07:48
Speaker 2: guys think are relevant. I might ask all those attendees
1:07:51
Speaker 2: in advance, what would you like me to talk about?
1:07:54
Speaker 2: What would you like to ask about capitalism? What issues
1:07:57
Speaker 2: would you like covered? But generally I mean and we'll
1:08:00
Speaker 2: talk about the profit motive. We'll talk about profit, We'll
1:08:03
Speaker 2: talk about, you know, how capitalism works, how it works
1:08:07
Speaker 2: as a system. White prosperity exploded after eighteen hundred. Why
1:08:12
Speaker 2: is human life spans doubled? You know? What is it?
1:08:14
Speaker 2: The drove capitalism? What caused it? I gave this course
1:08:18
Speaker 2: on capitalism at the Peterson Academy, so this will be
1:08:22
Speaker 2: a part of that course, we will cover some of
1:08:25
Speaker 2: this material and then we'll talk about its morality and
1:08:28
Speaker 2: its efficiency. We'll talk about economics, and we'll talk about history,
1:08:31
Speaker 2: and we'll talk about morality and philosophy. You can join
1:08:34
Speaker 2: us and you can sign up for this event again.
1:08:39
Speaker 2: It's on February twenty eighth, on Saturday, between one and
1:08:43
Speaker 2: five pm London time. It'll be in London, Central London. Probably.
1:08:49
Speaker 2: You can find information about it on my wenz website.
1:08:53
Speaker 2: You're on bookshow dot com. You're on bookshow dot com
1:08:57
Speaker 2: and just go down the first page and you'll find
1:09:00
Speaker 2: the London event day. You click on the link with
1:09:03
Speaker 2: tickets and there's a full description of the event. There
1:09:07
Speaker 2: is the price, there is how to pay. It should
1:09:10
Speaker 2: be really simple, hopefully this year. Let me know if
1:09:13
Speaker 2: that is not the case. And yeah, it would be
1:09:18
Speaker 2: great if we got I don't know a dozen people.
1:09:21
Speaker 2: I think that is kind of the updoalle amount number
1:09:23
Speaker 2: of people to have a conversation about capitalism. We'll also
1:09:27
Speaker 2: go out to dinner together afterwards, if you're up for that,
1:09:31
Speaker 2: and so overall you'll have a lot of time to
1:09:36
Speaker 2: just hang out and ask questions and interact and engage
1:09:39
Speaker 2: and socialize and cover of material and do all that.
1:09:43
Speaker 2: So I think it's three hundred pounds three hundred and
1:09:46
Speaker 2: twenty five pounds exactly. So please join us in London
1:09:51
Speaker 2: February twenty eighth from one to five pm. The sooner
1:09:56
Speaker 2: you guys sign up, the better because I will end registrations.
1:09:59
Speaker 2: I guess once we reach probably fifteen Also the soon
1:10:05
Speaker 2: I know how many people are coming. If it's going
1:10:06
Speaker 2: to be five, ten or fifteen, the soon, I can
1:10:09
Speaker 2: book a room and actually get a room that will
1:10:13
Speaker 2: fit for purpose for what we need, so please consider
1:10:16
Speaker 2: doing that'd be great to hang out in London. I
1:10:19
Speaker 2: know I have a lot of listeners in London. It's
1:10:21
Speaker 2: the second third most watched the UK at least the
1:10:27
Speaker 2: second third most watched place in the world after the
1:10:29
Speaker 2: United States. It's it's I think US, Canada, UK, Australia, Germany.
1:10:35
Speaker 2: I think that's the order. So yeah, let's do something
1:10:39
Speaker 2: fun in London that day and opportunity to support my
1:10:43
Speaker 2: efforts to bring these ideas to the world. So join us,
1:10:48
Speaker 2: all right. Reminder that we have AOI has a confidence
1:10:52
Speaker 2: in Poto on April eighteenth, and it's it'll be me
1:11:02
Speaker 2: an on call and me on call and tell it's
1:11:05
Speaker 2: funny and program to be determined, but it'll be I
1:11:10
Speaker 2: promise a lot of fun and interesting. Uh. And uh.
1:11:13
Speaker 2: Porto's a nice place and it's relatively I think cheap
1:11:16
Speaker 2: to get to because of Ryan Air. And yeah, join
1:11:20
Speaker 2: us if you're anyway in Europe. If you're a student,
1:11:22
Speaker 2: you can get a scholarship. If you're not a student,
1:11:26
Speaker 2: well not just students, anyone under thirty four can get
1:11:28
Speaker 2: a scholarship if you're if you're an adult and you
1:11:32
Speaker 2: have to pay, you can get a discount twenty six
1:11:35
Speaker 2: ybs ten. Find out all the information you need on
1:11:40
Speaker 2: iron rand dot org slash start here, Ironman dot org
1:11:43
Speaker 2: slash start here. Objectives, who comes to Europe? You objectivists
1:11:47
Speaker 2: out there, you should come, come and and support us
1:11:50
Speaker 2: and help us and and you know, engage with the
1:11:53
Speaker 2: growing community of European objectivists. So come join us. Equal
1:12:00
Speaker 2: to realities is always you could join. But I'm saving
1:12:03
Speaker 2: for a new house, all right, Nope, that's good. Uh.
1:12:13
Speaker 2: And what else did I want to do today? Let's
1:12:15
Speaker 2: do Defenders of capitalism, Defenders of capitalism dot com, Defenders
1:12:19
Speaker 2: of capitalism dot com. Check out the website. Michael Williams
1:12:25
Speaker 2: and Michael and I do a Defenders of Capitalism course
1:12:29
Speaker 2: for leadership program in the rockies of the year, So
1:12:32
Speaker 2: a lot of good content on Definders of Capitalism dot com. Uh,
1:12:35
Speaker 2: check it out and get involved if you can. And
1:12:38
Speaker 2: then Hendershot intershot wealth dot com, slash ybs hander shot
1:12:42
Speaker 2: with two t's strategies for reducing your capital gains taxes.
1:12:47
Speaker 2: Check out the interview I did with Robert Hendershott on
1:12:51
Speaker 2: YouTube on my playlists on the sponsors. I think you'll
1:12:56
Speaker 2: enjoy the interview. Robert's a fascinating guy, really really really
1:13:00
Speaker 2: off the charts. And if the product is of interest,
1:13:03
Speaker 2: then contact Tendershut Wealth dot com, hendershell well dot com,
1:13:07
Speaker 2: slash ybs. All right, lastly, I shouldn't forget. You can
1:13:12
Speaker 2: ask questions, you ask I answer. You can do a
1:13:17
Speaker 2: sticker to support the show, trade value for value, and
1:13:21
Speaker 2: you can go to Patreon Patreon dot com where you
1:13:24
Speaker 2: can become a monthly support of the show with a
1:13:26
Speaker 2: regular monthly contribution anyway from two to to one thousand
1:13:30
Speaker 2: dollars whatever you choose. Incredibly, I value that incredibly. It
1:13:36
Speaker 2: gives predictability, and we're talking about ten new subscribers to
1:13:42
Speaker 2: Patreon a month, so we've got a way to go still.
1:13:46
Speaker 2: I think we're a at about three or four, so
1:13:48
Speaker 2: almost halfway with half the month, so please consider doing that.
1:13:52
Speaker 2: If you're not yet a subscriber to the One Book Show,
1:13:55
Speaker 2: please do it over there. Patreon is the easiest I
1:13:58
Speaker 2: think for you and for me in so of interaction,
1:14:01
Speaker 2: although pay Palace fine, I'm not asking you to switch,
1:14:04
Speaker 2: but Petreon, I think is easier. All right, I think
1:14:10
Speaker 2: those are the announcements. Let's now turn to super chat.
1:14:14
Speaker 2: We've got three fifty dollars questions, so we'll start with those.
1:14:17
Speaker 2: Thank you, James. Our intellectuals more Christian than the general
1:14:23
Speaker 2: population that wants to be selfish. Most Americans put their
1:14:28
Speaker 2: capitalism before their Christianity, while most intellectuals put their altruism
1:14:33
Speaker 2: before their secularism. Why the inversion, I mean, so, let's
1:14:37
Speaker 2: be clear, intellectuals tend not to be Christian in their
1:14:42
Speaker 2: metaphysics and epistemology, at least not explicitly they but everybody
1:14:47
Speaker 2: is Christian when it comes to morality. The difference between
1:14:50
Speaker 2: intellectuals and the general public is not religiosity. The difference
1:14:55
Speaker 2: between them is how seriously they take ideas. People can't
1:15:00
Speaker 2: afford to take altruism too seriously. They've got a life
1:15:05
Speaker 2: to live, and they feel the consequences of the altruism
1:15:09
Speaker 2: immediately on themselves. Intellectuals have to take altruism seriously because
1:15:15
Speaker 2: the intellectuals they deal with ideas, and this is an important,
1:15:20
Speaker 2: crucial foundational idea, and they have to preach it. They
1:15:26
Speaker 2: might not in their personal lives practice it, but they
1:15:31
Speaker 2: have to preach it, they have to advocate it for
1:15:33
Speaker 2: it because it's part of their philosophy. A common person
1:15:37
Speaker 2: also preaches and advocates for it, and certainly prais for
1:15:41
Speaker 2: it in church, but they don't live it because the
1:15:45
Speaker 2: two connects it to reality and they've got it. They've
1:15:48
Speaker 2: got to survive somehow. Again, the intellectual when they preach,
1:15:55
Speaker 2: just like the common right, preaches it with a megaphone
1:15:59
Speaker 2: and it reaches all of us. They have the influence.
1:16:03
Speaker 2: So it's not really that much of a difference between them.
1:16:06
Speaker 2: It's just the one has a big megaphone, the other
1:16:08
Speaker 2: one doesn't, and the one takes ideas more seriously because
1:16:11
Speaker 2: it's a profession than the other. That's the real difference.
1:16:15
Speaker 2: And most intellectual is a secular altruist. I mean secular
1:16:19
Speaker 2: artists get their altruism ultimately from Christianity, but through Kant
1:16:24
Speaker 2: and Marks and postmodernists and Peter Singer, who's a contemporary
1:16:31
Speaker 2: altruistic philosopher, and many others. The altruism today is very
1:16:37
Speaker 2: much a secular ideology rooted in Christianity, but secularized. Augustine Compt.
1:16:46
Speaker 2: Augustine is it Augustine? Ok Now, I can't remember. People
1:16:51
Speaker 2: tell me I mispronounced his name, and I can't remember
1:16:53
Speaker 2: how I mispronounced him. Anyway, Comped was a secular altruist.
1:16:59
Speaker 2: Any coin the name, the term altruism. He came up
1:17:03
Speaker 2: with the word altruism. So yes, if you're in the
1:17:12
Speaker 2: business of ideas, you take ideas seriously. And the only
1:17:14
Speaker 2: ideas and ethics that exist really today that in the
1:17:19
Speaker 2: culture out there among intellectuals is oh, it's Auguste Compt.
1:17:25
Speaker 2: Auguste Compt. Thank you, it's Auguste. Comp That's the mistake.
1:17:33
Speaker 2: I'm make you all right, Michael, thank you. James. Michael
1:17:37
Speaker 2: mcdanie just opened New York's first free grocery store in
1:17:41
Speaker 2: the West Village, people waiting in line for hours Soviet
1:17:44
Speaker 2: style they did. Why did they open it in one
1:17:48
Speaker 2: of the richest parts of Manhattan where people spend eleven
1:17:51
Speaker 2: dollars on a cup of coffee. I have no idea.
1:17:54
Speaker 2: I have no idea. I don't know how free grocery
1:17:56
Speaker 2: store works. I'll have to read up on that story.
1:18:01
Speaker 2: I left to read up on that. But where do
1:18:04
Speaker 2: they opened in the West Village? I guess it is
1:18:08
Speaker 2: a pretty chic hit place to live, not cheap, so
1:18:16
Speaker 2: no no poor people there, and yet they hand out
1:18:19
Speaker 2: free coffee. I mean, the reason they opened it theirs.
1:18:21
Speaker 2: That's the people who voted for Mum Danny, right, who
1:18:24
Speaker 2: voted for Mumdani. It wasn't the poor, it was the
1:18:30
Speaker 2: it was the rich, young young people. Rich young people
1:18:36
Speaker 2: we used to call then old days yuppies. They're the
1:18:39
Speaker 2: ones who voted for Mumdani. So this is consistent. Shasbot
1:18:45
Speaker 2: also for fifty dollars. Thank you, thank you, Michael, thank
1:18:47
Speaker 2: you Chabot. What the stans is? This is a story
1:18:50
Speaker 2: out of Asla Schuk. This is a question out of
1:18:53
Speaker 2: Attaler Shuck. They thought the twentieth century motor company name
1:18:56
Speaker 2: was a magic formula that brought value to the company,
1:19:00
Speaker 2: but after they ruined everything, the magic was reversed and
1:19:04
Speaker 2: they couldn't give a motorway as a gift. Beware America. Yes,
1:19:09
Speaker 2: that is reputation will last as long as it's justified,
1:19:14
Speaker 2: as long as you live up to the reputation. Reputation
1:19:20
Speaker 2: will not survive. A scandal will not survive. Bad quality
1:19:25
Speaker 2: will not survive bad ethics, and regaining reputation is almost impossible,
1:19:34
Speaker 2: very very difficult. And that is very much true about America.
1:19:39
Speaker 2: America has a history, it has a promise, it has
1:19:44
Speaker 2: and ideas that the foundation. But if you don't live
1:19:46
Speaker 2: up to them, they will be forgotten. They will be gone,
1:19:52
Speaker 2: forgotten and gone. And yeah, this is sense in which
1:20:02
Speaker 2: being imola doesn't work in the world out there. People
1:20:04
Speaker 2: figure it out and they and you live a miserable
1:20:11
Speaker 2: life and people figure it out. All right. Clock Ice
1:20:27
Speaker 2: is now even targeting immigrants of European descent. I guess
1:20:31
Speaker 2: federal agents can't hit their quotas by permalality targeting people
1:20:35
Speaker 2: accused of existing of existing wild brown, so the system
1:20:42
Speaker 2: is being turned on itself. Yeah, I don't know. I
1:20:47
Speaker 2: mean The problem with targeting white illegal immigrants is how
1:20:52
Speaker 2: do you find them. There's no identifier like there is
1:20:56
Speaker 2: with being bound skinned, and you know you might be wrong,
1:20:59
Speaker 2: but you know, if land up being wrong with the
1:21:01
Speaker 2: bound skilled people, person who cares. If they land up
1:21:04
Speaker 2: being too wrong with a bunch of Europeans or Americans
1:21:09
Speaker 2: who happen to be white, there'll be a big backlash
1:21:11
Speaker 2: against them. So yeah, I mean, look, ICE is gonna
1:21:16
Speaker 2: be They're going to try to use ICE and all
1:21:20
Speaker 2: kinds of things in order to test it out. See
1:21:22
Speaker 2: what we will let it get away with. I mean,
1:21:24
Speaker 2: one of the best thing that's happened this week is
1:21:26
Speaker 2: the decision by Homan to withdraw from Minneapolis, which basically
1:21:31
Speaker 2: is a victory for all of us who have spoken
1:21:35
Speaker 2: up Pamelia, victory for all those people who demonstrated and
1:21:38
Speaker 2: filmed what the ICE agents were doing. You know, it's
1:21:44
Speaker 2: a it's a victory for the voices who have opposed ICE.
1:21:48
Speaker 2: And that's good because that was suggested. They'll think twice
1:21:50
Speaker 2: about engaging in the same tactics in other cities, and
1:21:55
Speaker 2: other cities will be encouraged to demonstrate into a post
1:22:00
Speaker 2: them because it was successful. In Minneapolis. All right, Liam,
1:22:09
Speaker 2: a three part question, isn't morally acceptable to tell white
1:22:13
Speaker 2: lies if the people around you don't care about the truth,
1:22:17
Speaker 2: and telling the truth would cause upset because these people
1:22:21
Speaker 2: don't actually want to know reality. For example, my in
1:22:24
Speaker 2: law is a very superficial phony everything fine type people.
1:22:30
Speaker 2: When asking how I'm doing, they don't really want to
1:22:33
Speaker 2: know the reality. They want to pretend everything's rosy. I
1:22:38
Speaker 2: see no problem lying to phony people. Well, I mean,
1:22:42
Speaker 2: you have to be careful because you have to be
1:22:45
Speaker 2: make sure you're really being objective about them being phony,
1:22:48
Speaker 2: and you have to be really careful. You don't get
1:22:50
Speaker 2: into a habit of doing that. But look, when somebody
1:22:52
Speaker 2: asks you how it's going, that's a private question. You
1:22:55
Speaker 2: don't owe them an exact and nobody who asks how's
1:23:00
Speaker 2: it going really wants to know how's it going. It's
1:23:04
Speaker 2: more of a greeting than an actually inquiry into the
1:23:07
Speaker 2: state of your being. So generally say fine and walking away,
1:23:12
Speaker 2: or just fine and continuing the conversation in a different direction.
1:23:16
Speaker 2: It's fine. It's not really lying, it's it's more of
1:23:19
Speaker 2: a hello. So, I mean, what are you gonna say
1:23:22
Speaker 2: if somebody asks you how you're doing. Oh god, you
1:23:25
Speaker 2: know today, you know this happened, and that happened, and
1:23:30
Speaker 2: I'm feeling a little down. Nobody wants to know all that.
1:23:32
Speaker 2: Nobody's asking about all that. That's not how you're doing. Now,
1:23:36
Speaker 2: if somebody really, if you know, somebody's really interested in
1:23:39
Speaker 2: how you are and asks out of a genuine then
1:23:43
Speaker 2: you give them the right answer. But how you're doing
1:23:48
Speaker 2: is not a question that requires an answer. It's a
1:23:54
Speaker 2: it's a greeting. You have to be very careful about
1:24:00
Speaker 2: out white lives. You know. You have to be sure
1:24:04
Speaker 2: that you're not gaining any value by doing it. You
1:24:08
Speaker 2: have to be sure that the people you're engaging in
1:24:10
Speaker 2: the white lives with are indeed, you know, not interested
1:24:15
Speaker 2: in the truth. It's much easier, generally, I mean, aside
1:24:20
Speaker 2: from these pleasanties, to actually tell people the truth much easier,
1:24:26
Speaker 2: and you get into a lot less trouble and you
1:24:29
Speaker 2: don't confuse things. But I understand family. Family sometimes not
1:24:35
Speaker 2: quite lying, but abbreviating makes a lot of sense and
1:24:40
Speaker 2: it makes things go smoother. I get it. So I
1:24:49
Speaker 2: think you have to be careful. You're not rationalizing lying.
1:24:53
Speaker 2: So I'm not saying you are, Liam, because I don't
1:24:54
Speaker 2: think you are, and I think from the context of
1:24:57
Speaker 2: what you're presenting, you're not. And certainly people don't have
1:25:01
Speaker 2: to know all the truth. You can tell them something
1:25:04
Speaker 2: without telling them everything. Nobody has a right to the
1:25:08
Speaker 2: information you have, and lots of ways to scoot answering
1:25:15
Speaker 2: what sometimes I just inappropriate questions, questions that are probing
1:25:19
Speaker 2: into stuff that it's none of somebody's business. Molten Splendor.
1:25:27
Speaker 2: You were recently featured on a Stossil segment about socialism
1:25:31
Speaker 2: and how communes don't work the only communes that have
1:25:35
Speaker 2: survived and done so Vivi Capitalism. Great segment. Wish more
1:25:38
Speaker 2: people understood this. Yes, I mean it's actually a clip
1:25:44
Speaker 2: that I did for Stosal years ago that when he
1:25:47
Speaker 2: was doing is Commune's show he found. They actually called
1:25:53
Speaker 2: me up and said can we use this and can
1:25:57
Speaker 2: you give us a reference? And I sent him a
1:25:59
Speaker 2: couple of books reference you know where I this was
1:26:03
Speaker 2: about to keep with see him and you know the
1:26:05
Speaker 2: context then, so they use my segment. I actually got
1:26:07
Speaker 2: an email yesterday from Starsel asking me about Puerto Rico,
1:26:11
Speaker 2: something which I owe him a reply on. So I
1:26:13
Speaker 2: need to I need to do that tonight to tomorrow.
1:26:16
Speaker 2: But yeah, Starcell's very friendly and very interested and likes
1:26:20
Speaker 2: I don't know if he likes me personally, I don't know,
1:26:23
Speaker 2: but he likes my stuff. He likes I do I
1:26:27
Speaker 2: do a good interview. I do a good Invene. I
1:26:30
Speaker 2: can say that to myself. I do a get interview interview.
1:26:34
Speaker 2: I don't know why I don't have a lot more subscribers,
1:26:37
Speaker 2: given how many times I've been on Starsol and how
1:26:39
Speaker 2: many millions of views the stars Soel stuff I've done
1:26:42
Speaker 2: gets you think some of them would come over and
1:26:45
Speaker 2: subscribe to this show. But no, they like me in Starsel,
1:26:49
Speaker 2: they don't like me here Len starsl is always a journalist.
1:26:59
Speaker 2: So many of our problems seem to be epistemological. People
1:27:02
Speaker 2: simply don't believe what's true due to tribalism, religion, evasion.
1:27:08
Speaker 2: How can people learn and or accept proper pistemology. It's
1:27:12
Speaker 2: not about accepting proper pistemology. It's not about epistemology. It's
1:27:19
Speaker 2: about the foundation of pristemology. It's about thinking. It's about thinking.
1:27:28
Speaker 2: People don't believe what's true. People are tribalists, People evade
1:27:37
Speaker 2: and go on religion because they choose not to think.
1:27:41
Speaker 2: It's not that they don't know the theory of concepts,
1:27:46
Speaker 2: it's not that they don't know the theory of how
1:27:49
Speaker 2: to validate truth. It's that they won't think, and they
1:27:56
Speaker 2: haven't been encouraged or trained to do so. So the
1:28:00
Speaker 2: best we can do is, you know, reform our educational system,
1:28:11
Speaker 2: teach people the value and the method of thinking through
1:28:18
Speaker 2: teaching science and math and history with the causal links,
1:28:22
Speaker 2: and just emphasizing thinking and rewarding them for thinking. But
1:28:27
Speaker 2: that's a massive cultural change, massive cultural change. But it's
1:28:33
Speaker 2: not any particular epistemological issue. It's they can't think and
1:28:37
Speaker 2: they choose not to. It's not that they can't, well
1:28:40
Speaker 2: some of them can't, but they choose not to, and
1:28:44
Speaker 2: that can only be cured by a complete revolution in education.
1:28:50
Speaker 2: It's why it's going to take a long long time
1:28:53
Speaker 2: for objectivesm to win. Andrew, If ideas are the driver
1:28:59
Speaker 2: of history, is it the lack thereof that led to
1:29:03
Speaker 2: the rise of Trump. What gives rise to the marginalization
1:29:07
Speaker 2: of ideas over time? Well, it's not that ideas are marginalized,
1:29:13
Speaker 2: it's that bad ideas went out over good ideas. So
1:29:19
Speaker 2: the good ideas of the Enlightenment created America. They had
1:29:23
Speaker 2: sway over America for one hundred and fifty years. That
1:29:27
Speaker 2: sway has been diminishing for one hundred and fifty years,
1:29:30
Speaker 2: and his overlap I know, and you know, the slow, consistent,
1:29:36
Speaker 2: steady erosion of Enlightenment ideas has led to the lack
1:29:40
Speaker 2: of people's ability to think, which has led to tribalism,
1:29:44
Speaker 2: which has led ad to their wanting to appease their emotions,
1:29:48
Speaker 2: which has led to the election of Trump. So it's
1:29:53
Speaker 2: the erosion of particular good ideas and the expansion of
1:29:59
Speaker 2: bad idea. Ironmand has just not being enough of a
1:30:02
Speaker 2: force in the culture to reverse the march of collectivism
1:30:06
Speaker 2: and altruism and mysticism in the world in which we live.
1:30:15
Speaker 2: So and that that will lead to Trump. Yeah, and words,
1:30:21
Speaker 2: why it says Bonnie this call Bonnie just file suit
1:30:26
Speaker 2: against Biddle for fraudulent transfer. I don't even know what
1:30:29
Speaker 2: that means. Is there a degree of indication for you
1:30:33
Speaker 2: in Bonnie realized you back the Longhorse. I have no comment.
1:30:39
Speaker 2: I don't know what the lawsuits about. No, No, you know, no,
1:30:46
Speaker 2: and and look, I'm not gonna say anything. I don't
1:30:49
Speaker 2: want to say anything because I don't want to be
1:30:52
Speaker 2: I don't want to be on the other side of
1:30:54
Speaker 2: a lawsuit or anything. But you know, it is what
1:30:57
Speaker 2: it is. It's not surprising. M it's not surprising. I
1:31:02
Speaker 2: guess that that I'll say that. It's just not surprising.
1:31:05
Speaker 2: But I've been vindicated a long time ago, so I
1:31:11
Speaker 2: and I don't need vindication, vindication from whom in vocation
1:31:14
Speaker 2: to what you know, I've known, I've known, I've been right.
1:31:20
Speaker 2: The people I care about know that I was right.
1:31:25
Speaker 2: Beyond that, why do I care? I mean, this is
1:31:28
Speaker 2: a problem between Colbonnie and Craig. And again, I don't
1:31:36
Speaker 2: know the nature of a lawsuit. I don't know what
1:31:39
Speaker 2: he's doing. Biddle for as far as I know, Biddle
1:31:41
Speaker 2: has no ask I mean, business is not particularly wealthy.
1:31:45
Speaker 2: I just don't I don't understand. I don't know. So
1:31:48
Speaker 2: I'll look into it, but I'm not going to talk
1:31:50
Speaker 2: about it on the show. I'm just not interested in
1:31:53
Speaker 2: dabbling in other people's problems. Uh. And again, I don't
1:31:57
Speaker 2: need vindication. I've been you know, I've been right all along,
1:32:04
Speaker 2: and I've been writing on lots of things all along,
1:32:06
Speaker 2: and one day, one day, you know, a lot of
1:32:10
Speaker 2: people will know that. And today today a lot of
1:32:14
Speaker 2: people know that. One day more people will know that
1:32:17
Speaker 2: even more. Not youavage algorithm? Why did Rance say the
1:32:21
Speaker 2: virtue of integrity is consistency? Aren't there many consistent evil
1:32:25
Speaker 2: operators out there? Yeah? Well, I mean she didn't. She
1:32:31
Speaker 2: didn't If you read the whole thing, she didn't mean
1:32:35
Speaker 2: consistency with anything. She meant consistency with pro life ideas,
1:32:40
Speaker 2: with pro life values. So you can't take a sentence
1:32:44
Speaker 2: out of context. And that's a sentence out of context.
1:32:49
Speaker 2: I mean nine man is very clear that integrity is
1:32:51
Speaker 2: not integrity to any values. It's not consistency with anything.
1:32:56
Speaker 2: It's consistency with pro life values. Stephen, do you think
1:33:04
Speaker 2: a loss of male as in USPS is not liable
1:33:09
Speaker 2: for damages arising out of the loss of mail includes
1:33:13
Speaker 2: intentional losing one's mail? I do not know. How do
1:33:17
Speaker 2: you prove intentionality? I guess if you could prove intentionality,
1:33:22
Speaker 2: maybe they're still liable. But how would you prove intentionality?
1:33:26
Speaker 2: But I don't know. I'm not involved. And him if
1:33:31
Speaker 2: Islamism isn't a threat to Germany. It's not what I said. God,
1:33:35
Speaker 2: you guys are so you take my words and you
1:33:38
Speaker 2: twist them. It is so frustrating. It really is frustrating,
1:33:43
Speaker 2: because I don't think you're dumb, and I don't think
1:33:46
Speaker 2: I'm inarticulate. So you're purposefully not listening or you're purposefully
1:33:52
Speaker 2: twisting my words. If Islam is a threat to Germany,
1:34:01
Speaker 2: then there's no war to declare after all, and no
1:34:04
Speaker 2: Russia now for vetting the EU either by your standard? Really,
1:34:09
Speaker 2: is that what I said? What did I actually say?
1:34:15
Speaker 2: I said that Islamists weren't a threat to Germany, not
1:34:19
Speaker 2: being able to produce stuff, canons because that was the context,
1:34:23
Speaker 2: and drones militarily, and I said that Islamists we're not
1:34:30
Speaker 2: going to overtake Germany. That does that mean they won't
1:34:33
Speaker 2: commit terrorist attacks? It doesn't mean they won't kill Germans.
1:34:37
Speaker 2: It doesn't mean they're not a threat to day to
1:34:40
Speaker 2: day Germans. They're not a threat to Germany as a
1:34:43
Speaker 2: political entity. They're not going to take over Germany as
1:34:47
Speaker 2: a country. But does that mean does that mean they're
1:34:55
Speaker 2: not a you know, does that mean they're not a
1:35:00
Speaker 2: threat to individual Germans. Does that mean they're not a
1:35:03
Speaker 2: terrorist threat? Yeah, they are, So you deal with the
1:35:08
Speaker 2: terrorist threat by declaring war. Doesn't mean islamis you know,
1:35:13
Speaker 2: you know forces invading. They couldn't. They don't have the
1:35:16
Speaker 2: military force to invade. So they're terrorist threat and needs
1:35:19
Speaker 2: to be dealt with by declaring war. The ideology needs
1:35:23
Speaker 2: to be clearly articulate as an anime ideology, and they
1:35:26
Speaker 2: need to be kicked out. And why I did give
1:35:28
Speaker 2: you a hard time about German Islamis and it was justified.
1:35:32
Speaker 2: I didn't take you out of context. I gave you
1:35:35
Speaker 2: a hard time because you were dropping context and anam
1:35:40
Speaker 2: is dropping context again. Islamism is a threat to Germany
1:35:47
Speaker 2: in a sense of in the same sense a KaiA
1:35:51
Speaker 2: is a threat to the United States. Is a KaiA
1:35:53
Speaker 2: going to overturn the government of the United States? No?
1:35:57
Speaker 2: Is kita going to make the United States a Muslim country? No?
1:36:01
Speaker 2: But is al kaeda trying to kill Americans? Yes? Is
1:36:04
Speaker 2: killing Americans? Counter is a threat to America? Yes, it's
1:36:08
Speaker 2: a Kaia's a threat to America. Islamists in Germany and
1:36:12
Speaker 2: outside of Germany trying to kill Germans? Yes? Are they
1:36:16
Speaker 2: going to succeed to overthrow the German government.
1:36:19
Speaker 1: No.
1:36:20
Speaker 2: Are they going to turn Germany into Sharia law? No?
1:36:24
Speaker 2: But are they a threat yes, because they're trying to
1:36:26
Speaker 2: kill Germans. I mean, is this that hard?
1:36:29
Speaker 8: I've said this like a hundred times over the last
1:36:33
Speaker 8: I don't know, five years, So you know, I don't know,
1:36:39
Speaker 8: and I.
1:36:40
Speaker 2: Think I'm pretty clear. So you know, you should really
1:36:43
Speaker 2: think about are you being dishonest with yourself in not
1:36:48
Speaker 2: understanding this? It's not hard, not how There're all kinds
1:36:55
Speaker 2: of threats. Some threat to the very existence of a state.
1:37:01
Speaker 2: Russia is a threat to Germany, it could overtake Germany,
1:37:05
Speaker 2: could run it over. Others, a threat to some things
1:37:08
Speaker 2: within that political entity. Sorry, it's frustrating, guys. It just
1:37:15
Speaker 2: is what can I say? You know, I think I'm
1:37:18
Speaker 2: pretty clear, and then people asking questions like I'm a
1:37:22
Speaker 2: babbling idiot, and I don't believe that's the case. You
1:37:32
Speaker 2: declare war again. I've said this a million times because
1:37:36
Speaker 2: it's not just individual attacks in the country, it's a
1:37:38
Speaker 2: coordinated network with international implications, with state support. I've written
1:37:43
Speaker 2: about this extensively. It's in you know, winning an unwinnable war.
1:37:48
Speaker 2: It's in my essays after nine to eleven, it's in
1:37:51
Speaker 2: a dozen talks I've given, It's in I don't know
1:37:54
Speaker 2: fifty different shows I've done on here. It's not individuals
1:37:58
Speaker 2: just waking up one day. Those are criminals individu. I
1:38:00
Speaker 2: was waking out one day deciding to go up and
1:38:01
Speaker 2: kill a bunch. No, this is an ideological front that
1:38:06
Speaker 2: is funded and where there's training, and where there's an
1:38:11
Speaker 2: ideological strategy that is based on people outside of Germany
1:38:17
Speaker 2: and outside of Europe, based in states. There is no
1:38:20
Speaker 2: terrorism without states. States support terrorism. Without Without states, terrorism
1:38:26
Speaker 2: would evaporate. This is why it's so important to get
1:38:31
Speaker 2: rid of you on. Much of the terrorism in Europe
1:38:34
Speaker 2: would go away. The Islamist threat to Germany would not
1:38:37
Speaker 2: completely eliminate, because you'd still get Katar and you get
1:38:40
Speaker 2: Saudi Arabia, but a lot of it would go away
1:38:42
Speaker 2: when you get rid of you on. How does that
1:38:45
Speaker 2: work you on? Isn't it just individuals waking up? I mean,
1:38:47
Speaker 2: I'm sure I'll get that question again and again again.
1:38:52
Speaker 2: I explained it again impatiently, but I did explain it.
1:38:58
Speaker 2: We'll see how long it takes the same people that
1:39:01
Speaker 2: a'sk the same question again, Stephen, Have you thought about
1:39:06
Speaker 2: solve an immunity. It's the doctrine that says no one
1:39:09
Speaker 2: can ever sue government entities without their consent. I mean
1:39:12
Speaker 2: so many immunity. You know, of course they'll never get
1:39:15
Speaker 2: consent to be sued so many renity doesn't exactly mean
1:39:18
Speaker 2: that it makes it very difficult to sue the government.
1:39:21
Speaker 2: You can still sue it. I'm against solving immunity, now
1:39:25
Speaker 2: you know you have to. I'm look, I think there's
1:39:27
Speaker 2: a real problem in the United States, a real, big,
1:39:30
Speaker 2: significant problem in the United States of too many lawsuits,
1:39:34
Speaker 2: of using the legal system for things that it isn't
1:39:37
Speaker 2: designed to do, and somebody needs to do the thinking
1:39:43
Speaker 2: about how to fix the liability system. I understand why
1:39:47
Speaker 2: you want to give people immunity when anybody can sue
1:39:52
Speaker 2: anybody for so many different things. We need a more
1:39:56
Speaker 2: rational liability system in this country. There's a book called
1:39:59
Speaker 2: Liability by Peter Cuba that that spells it out how
1:40:02
Speaker 2: the Left basically destroyed our court system and our ability,
1:40:09
Speaker 2: you know, the standards by which these lawsuits get adjudicated.
1:40:14
Speaker 2: That needs to be fixed and ultimately in a in
1:40:18
Speaker 2: a proper society, there is no such thing as sovereign immunity.
1:40:22
Speaker 2: I mean, the sovereign has to be accountable for everything
1:40:27
Speaker 2: that they do. But we need to get rid of
1:40:33
Speaker 2: the ship number of frivolous lawsuits and the ability of
1:40:36
Speaker 2: people to use the legal system to it, you know,
1:40:41
Speaker 2: to to to really penalize other people, penalize companies, penalize,
1:40:48
Speaker 2: you know. And it could be used to I guess,
1:40:50
Speaker 2: to penalize government agencies or cops, for example. But I'm
1:40:54
Speaker 2: against it, certainly in an ideal situation, in ideal government.
1:40:59
Speaker 2: Stephen Katsch, what the dictionary is the best? I don't know.
1:41:02
Speaker 2: I don't know Oxford, you know, Oxford Dictionary is one
1:41:06
Speaker 2: that Lennipeacock used to use to these old ones new ones.
1:41:11
Speaker 2: But I don't know. I'm not not a particularly expert
1:41:13
Speaker 2: on dictionaries or even You said something yesterday about Western
1:41:19
Speaker 2: shows not being unapologetically heroic. Yes, I have a recommendation
1:41:26
Speaker 2: A Night of Seven Kingdoms. It is fantastic with the
1:41:30
Speaker 2: truly inspiring protagonist. So I'm watching it. I caught up yesterday,
1:41:35
Speaker 2: so there's still one more. I think there's still the seasons,
1:41:40
Speaker 2: isn't finished. But I think the first four or five
1:41:42
Speaker 2: episodes I've seen and it's cute, I just don't it's not.
1:41:49
Speaker 2: It's not inspiring to me. I mean, the the hero
1:41:54
Speaker 2: is a little bit of a dufus and he's portrayed
1:41:57
Speaker 2: that way. He's a little dumb, he's a little slow.
1:42:03
Speaker 5: It.
1:42:04
Speaker 2: What's he heroic about? What is he fighting for? He's
1:42:09
Speaker 2: joining the this this tournament where the goal of the
1:42:13
Speaker 2: tournament is to kill and maim your opponent. Ultimately, this
1:42:18
Speaker 2: this is not heroism in the sense that I want
1:42:22
Speaker 2: to see it, And it's not it's not terrorism in
1:42:26
Speaker 2: the modern sense in kind of a modern way that
1:42:32
Speaker 2: would appeal and and have resonance in the modern world.
1:42:36
Speaker 2: These are nights, So I mean, I find it very hard.
1:42:40
Speaker 2: I mean, I like Game of Thrones, but it was
1:42:42
Speaker 2: it's very hard to to to really like it because
1:42:47
Speaker 2: it's about kings and queens and power and sheer, just
1:42:51
Speaker 2: the sheer want for power. Now in in in the
1:42:57
Speaker 2: show Seven Kingdoms Night of seven Kids, there is an
1:43:00
Speaker 2: element of he's the good guy, helping out the week
1:43:03
Speaker 2: and the innocent, which is what a knight's supposed to do,
1:43:05
Speaker 2: versus the power lusting sadistic monsters of the Tulgarian Klan.
1:43:12
Speaker 2: And Okay, I get that, and I'm all for it,
1:43:14
Speaker 2: and I like it, But you know, I want more.
1:43:20
Speaker 2: I want bigger and more important values to fight for.
1:43:23
Speaker 2: And again, I think it too has to make him
1:43:29
Speaker 2: a little dumb. It has to make him, I don't know,
1:43:32
Speaker 2: begin strong. I'm curious how he does in the fights.
1:43:36
Speaker 2: The fights are going to start next episode. I assume
1:43:39
Speaker 2: he's going to win. Yeah, I mean, I like the show,
1:43:44
Speaker 2: but I just don't think of it as anapologetic of Roics.
1:43:50
Speaker 2: It's difficult to make things unapologetically heroic in the context
1:43:54
Speaker 2: of knights and kings and queens. You can, you can,
1:43:59
Speaker 2: and he will be, but not for me. Not that inspiring. Sorry,
1:44:08
Speaker 2: here we've been Stephen. Who was the more moral party
1:44:12
Speaker 2: in the recent Thailand Cambodia border stand up that recently
1:44:16
Speaker 2: ended why, I don't know. I don't know. Thailand is
1:44:21
Speaker 2: the stronger party, Cambodia is the weaker party. But in
1:44:25
Speaker 2: terms of who is right and who is wrong, I
1:44:28
Speaker 2: don't know. I don't even know why they're doing it.
1:44:31
Speaker 2: Why now it's it's a dispute over land, But I
1:44:36
Speaker 2: don't know who's right or who's wrong about it, and
1:44:38
Speaker 2: it probably isn't any right or wrong. It's Yeah. If
1:44:46
Speaker 2: you want to see heroic, yes, I don't know. I'd
1:44:50
Speaker 2: have to research the history. I'd have to go into it,
1:44:52
Speaker 2: and it's not of that interesting. If you want heroic,
1:44:56
Speaker 2: I like the show that it's on Fine right now
1:45:01
Speaker 2: called Night Manager Night Manager, which is kind of a
1:45:04
Speaker 2: spy thriller James Bond like. It's, well, it's not James
1:45:09
Speaker 2: Bond because it's small, down to earth, realistic, but it's
1:45:13
Speaker 2: it's very heroic. The lead character is very heroic. There's
1:45:17
Speaker 2: a season one which is excellent, Season two is good.
1:45:21
Speaker 2: It's based in John le Carrey. Now, John le Carrey
1:45:23
Speaker 2: was very cynical, but that cynicism does not come across
1:45:27
Speaker 2: in the show. So I'd recommend Night Manager. I'd recommend
1:45:34
Speaker 2: Night Manager. Okay, new lead Dan. If Ice is abolished,
1:45:38
Speaker 2: will that mean that there's no more border patrol? Would
1:45:41
Speaker 2: individuals arrive in the US unverified? How will police track
1:45:45
Speaker 2: these individuals when they have committed a crime? So one, No,
1:45:51
Speaker 2: there are two different entities. There is the boat patrol
1:45:53
Speaker 2: and there's Ice. The border patrol has always been around,
1:45:56
Speaker 2: and it's responsible for the border. ICE was created in
1:45:59
Speaker 2: the two thousands specifically to hunt down I guess, illegal
1:46:06
Speaker 2: immigrants once they entered the United States in the United States,
1:46:09
Speaker 2: So if you abolished ICE, nothing would change at the border.
1:46:13
Speaker 2: You would still have border patrol. At the border. You
1:46:15
Speaker 2: select border patrol and customs. It's the border control and
1:46:18
Speaker 2: customs at the airports. You still have all of that.
1:46:21
Speaker 2: Now we can talk about what should happen to that,
1:46:24
Speaker 2: but that would still exist. Police. Why should police track
1:46:29
Speaker 2: individuals when they committed crime. If they committed crime, if
1:46:32
Speaker 2: you go to jail. Now, if you want to jail
1:46:34
Speaker 2: and then they find out they were legal, deport them.
1:46:37
Speaker 2: So I don't think you need a big, vast entity
1:46:42
Speaker 2: to deport criminals. So if you commit crime, serve your time,
1:46:48
Speaker 2: that's justice, and then you put them on a plane
1:46:50
Speaker 2: and you're out of here. So that's not hard to do.
1:46:53
Speaker 2: You don't need a whole, big, massive, what is it,
1:46:56
Speaker 2: seventy billion dollars or something like that entity in order
1:46:58
Speaker 2: to do it. Both agencies under the Department of Homeland Security,
1:47:05
Speaker 2: and they're both under the umbrella of I guess, border
1:47:10
Speaker 2: patrol of something something something, But there are two separate entities.
1:47:15
Speaker 2: All right, last question, it appears I think in Britain.
1:47:18
Speaker 2: This is Jennifer. I think in Britain you have to
1:47:21
Speaker 2: pay the other's legal fees if you lose. Seems like
1:47:24
Speaker 2: a good idea. Yes, I agree, it does seem like
1:47:26
Speaker 2: a good idea. That would be a positive innovation in
1:47:29
Speaker 2: the United States if that happened, But you know there
1:47:35
Speaker 2: were But more importantly than that, what you really need
1:47:39
Speaker 2: is a reconceptualization of liability. There's in the United States,
1:47:45
Speaker 2: there's a deep pockets theory where something happens to you, you
1:47:49
Speaker 2: sue the person or entity with the deepest pockets, and
1:47:54
Speaker 2: the courts will accept that, even if they had a
1:47:56
Speaker 2: tangential relationship with what happened to you. What happened, And
1:48:03
Speaker 2: it's fascinating, right, this is the book Liability. What happened
1:48:06
Speaker 2: in the sixties and early seventies is that law professors,
1:48:10
Speaker 2: leftist law professors, came to the conclusion that the best
1:48:14
Speaker 2: way to redistribute wealth in the United States was not
1:48:18
Speaker 2: through the tax system because they didn't have enough political
1:48:20
Speaker 2: power to do that, but through the court system, and
1:48:25
Speaker 2: they basically set up to make the courts in a
1:48:29
Speaker 2: sense no fault. That is, make the courts a mechanism
1:48:32
Speaker 2: to redistribute wealth from anybody to anybody who had an accident,
1:48:38
Speaker 2: from people and corporations who have money. So if you
1:48:43
Speaker 2: slip on the street on a banan appeal, you don't
1:48:46
Speaker 2: have to prove the the I don't know Sex Fifth
1:48:52
Speaker 2: Avenue across the street actually placed the banan appeal there.
1:48:56
Speaker 2: Sax Fifth Avenue will pay you because that is a
1:48:59
Speaker 2: just moral thing to do. It's a way to redistribute
1:49:03
Speaker 2: wealth from those who have to those who haven't, and
1:49:05
Speaker 2: now is explicitly their agenda, and they succeeded. So in
1:49:10
Speaker 2: America today, it's so easy to sue, it's so easy
1:49:13
Speaker 2: to win. It's so easy to get big, outrageous law,
1:49:16
Speaker 2: you know, and most lawsuits are settled, so people get
1:49:19
Speaker 2: money in settlements and a lot of it has nothing
1:49:23
Speaker 2: to do with fault. Nothing you do with fault. Right,
1:49:34
Speaker 2: all right, guys, have a great weekend, and I hope,
1:49:44
Speaker 2: I hope you have a good weekend. I will be
1:49:45
Speaker 2: doing some show tomorrow and Sunday, so stay tuned. Tomorrow
1:49:49
Speaker 2: it will be to be an Eastern time Sunday. I'm
1:49:53
Speaker 2: not sure maybe one, maybe two. We'll see. Thank you
1:49:56
Speaker 2: to all the super chatters. Thank you everybody. I really
1:50:00
Speaker 2: we shared, particularly the fifty dollars guys show us a bought.
1:50:03
Speaker 2: Michael and James really appreciate that. And uh, it's somebody.
1:50:07
Speaker 2: Liam asked a three part question that added up to
1:50:10
Speaker 2: sixty dollars. So thank you Liam, Thank you guys. I
1:50:13
Speaker 2: will see you all tomorrow. Have a great weekend. Bye.