Latest / Yaron Brook Show / In the mind of Curtis Yarvin | Yaron & Nikos Dialogues

Transcript

In the mind of Curtis Yarvin | Yaron & Nikos Dialogues · Yaron Brook Show

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: Oh well, fundamental principles of.
• 0:09
  Speaker 2: Little dust and an individual lots.
• 0:16
  Speaker 3: This is show, all right, everybody. Welcome to you Ron
• 0:23
  Speaker 3: and Nikos Show or a Dialogue, a regular program on Sundays.
• 0:29
  Speaker 3: I apologize for not having a show in a while,
• 0:31
  Speaker 3: but circumstances will be on my control. So here we
• 0:35
  Speaker 3: are the show we intended to do two weeks ago.
• 0:39
  Speaker 3: But before we get to Curtis Yovin, which is an
• 0:42
  Speaker 3: interesting and yet depressing topic, I wanted to ask Nicos
• 0:47
  Speaker 3: about his real true area of expertise, and that is
• 0:51
  Speaker 3: the World Cup.
• 0:52
  Speaker 2: So how you enjoying the Cup so far?
• 0:55
  Speaker 1: I'm not enjoying it because I'm so much invested in
• 0:58
  Speaker 1: Massive winning again that I can't enjoy it. I told
• 1:01
  Speaker 1: myself he wanted he won in twenty twenty two. This
• 1:04
  Speaker 1: time I'm gonna be relaxed. But now what I'm enjoying
• 1:07
  Speaker 1: is finally you people in the US appreciating the sports
• 1:11
  Speaker 1: started calling it football, and I think there's a good
• 1:14
  Speaker 1: chance the US can be in the in the quarterfinals.
• 1:19
  Speaker 2: Who they played. They're playing Belgium.
• 1:21
  Speaker 1: They're playing Belgium, which is not the Belgium that it
• 1:24
  Speaker 1: used to be.
• 1:24
  Speaker 4: It's past its Golden Generation.
• 1:26
  Speaker 1: So I think the game starts from maybe not fifty
• 1:30
  Speaker 1: to fifty, but at maximumy fifty two forty eight for Belgium.
• 1:34
  Speaker 4: So it's a good day. It's a good day chance
• 1:36
  Speaker 4: for the United States.
• 1:37
  Speaker 3: Yeah, they really do have a chance to make it.
• 1:41
  Speaker 3: Any any thoughts about today's games, We've got We've got
• 1:45
  Speaker 3: Bazil playing and we've got England playing Mexico in Mexico City.
• 1:48
  Speaker 2: With the altitude and all of that.
• 1:50
  Speaker 1: This this is not to be missed. I'm gonna so
• 1:53
  Speaker 1: my plan is we're gonna finish eleven o'clock local time.
• 1:56
  Speaker 1: I'm watching Brazil, Norwegia, Norway. I go to sleep for
• 2:00
  Speaker 1: two hours, then I watch England and then I sleep again.
• 2:04
  Speaker 2: So prediction.
• 2:05
  Speaker 1: That's been my life in the last days, self inflicted
• 2:10
  Speaker 1: sleep deprivedness. But it's worth it.
• 2:12
  Speaker 2: Predictions, predictions.
• 2:15
  Speaker 1: I want better against Brazil, and I think England is
• 2:19
  Speaker 1: the better team.
• 2:19
  Speaker 4: England will eventually win.
• 2:22
  Speaker 3: So we will have Brazil England in the in the
• 2:26
  Speaker 3: quarter final. That would be a great game. That'll be
• 2:28
  Speaker 3: that would be really interesting.
• 2:30
  Speaker 1: That would be really interesting. I hope the other teams
• 2:33
  Speaker 1: go through because again I'm keeping an eye on who
• 2:35
  Speaker 1: ar Argentina will meet in the semi finals, and I
• 2:39
  Speaker 1: want it to be I don't know a weaker team.
• 2:43
  Speaker 3: I wanted to be Brazil. I think Argentina, Brazil fans, Spain.
• 2:48
  Speaker 3: Those are the two semifinals that should happen, and whoever
• 2:53
  Speaker 3: comes to on that one, I'm gonna be happy. So,
• 2:56
  Speaker 3: you know, except for Friends, I hate Friends, but they
• 2:59
  Speaker 3: are probably the best team in the tournament. But they're French,
• 3:01
  Speaker 3: So I hate Friends.
• 3:03
  Speaker 1: In the tournament is an understatement. I think it's we
• 3:07
  Speaker 1: like to be nostalgic about the past. I think this
• 3:09
  Speaker 1: French team is one of the at least three best
• 3:12
  Speaker 1: teams I've ever seen in my life, and I to
• 3:14
  Speaker 1: be honest, I cannot think which the other two would
• 3:17
  Speaker 1: be till now. It's the most it's the scariest team
• 3:20
  Speaker 1: if you're an opponent.
• 3:21
  Speaker 4: The four guys they have front, they're scary.
• 3:24
  Speaker 1: Yep.
• 3:24
  Speaker 3: Yeah, So it's been a fun World Cup so far.
• 3:29
  Speaker 3: That Argentinian game against Cape Verde, which you probably were,
• 3:36
  Speaker 3: you know, we're distressed over it was a fun game.
• 3:40
  Speaker 3: I mean that was cape Verde. Give them a credit.
• 3:43
  Speaker 3: They played a good game.
• 3:44
  Speaker 1: I was they played a very good game, yes, But
• 3:47
  Speaker 1: to be honest, I was never very much worried because
• 3:50
  Speaker 1: the gravitas of Argentina and the gravitys of Messia at
• 3:52
  Speaker 1: that stage, you know, it was an it was an
• 3:55
  Speaker 1: ideal game.
• 3:56
  Speaker 4: Good upload for caovere Argentina goes to the next round.
• 4:00
  Speaker 3: Agree, I agree that was good. All right, let's get
• 4:04
  Speaker 3: to a topic. Let's get to a topic. I think
• 4:07
  Speaker 3: I think in spite of your belief that Americans are
• 4:10
  Speaker 3: starting to like football, I think the I think the
• 4:15
  Speaker 3: audience here is getting antsy.
• 4:17
  Speaker 2: They don't like it that much.
• 4:19
  Speaker 3: All right, So Curtis Yovin, I mean, i'd say since
• 4:28
  Speaker 3: really the twenty sixteen election, you Havevin came out of
• 4:33
  Speaker 3: nowhere for many many people, serilly for me, I had
• 4:35
  Speaker 3: never heard of him before that, And and and then
• 4:39
  Speaker 3: seem to be everywhere on the intellectual white front, the
• 4:45
  Speaker 3: Clement Institute him and and you know what's his name,
• 4:50
  Speaker 3: Bronze Age Provits. They were the two people who kind
• 4:52
  Speaker 3: of arose out of that election. And it seems like
• 4:55
  Speaker 3: Curtis Yavin has had a longer life, like more of
• 4:58
  Speaker 3: a shelf life than bonje. It kind of burnt out
• 5:01
  Speaker 3: I think, much faster, but.
• 5:02
  Speaker 4: Only backwards then forwards longer life.
• 5:05
  Speaker 3: Yeah, and and but you know, started out the claim
• 5:09
  Speaker 3: On Institute, which was you know, claim On institt is
• 5:11
  Speaker 3: an interesting place. It's a bastion of old line conservativism,
• 5:17
  Speaker 3: you know, founded by one of the big advocates for
• 5:21
  Speaker 3: the Declaration of Independence and the American system of government.
• 5:24
  Speaker 3: And with the twenty sixteen with Obama presidency and then
• 5:27
  Speaker 3: the twenty sixteen election, completely shifted and moved away from
• 5:31
  Speaker 3: that and Bronze age privots. And then Kurtishavin became huge
• 5:35
  Speaker 3: heroes to these academic conservatives that you really wouldn't expect it, right,
• 5:41
  Speaker 3: And then in Silicon Valley we started seeing Kurtis Javin
• 5:45
  Speaker 3: being mentioned by people like Mark and Dressen. Maybe that's
• 5:49
  Speaker 3: more recently and among young i think entrepreneurs in Sulicin Valley,
• 5:54
  Speaker 3: particularly over the last few years, Kurtishovin's name is everywhere.
• 6:00
  Speaker 3: And then recently he's just got a lot of visibility
• 6:05
  Speaker 3: in the mainstream media. You know, there's a New Yorker profile.
• 6:08
  Speaker 3: I think there was an interview with the New York Times,
• 6:11
  Speaker 3: but but a big profile on the New Yoka interview
• 6:14
  Speaker 3: in New York Times, huge profile and So he's a
• 6:20
  Speaker 3: fast he's an interesting character. And part of what's interesting
• 6:24
  Speaker 3: as well, I think we'll get to is why he's
• 6:27
  Speaker 3: so influential, because I think that's that's an important question,
• 6:30
  Speaker 3: what what what is it about him that that has increased.
• 6:33
  Speaker 3: But he's clearly influential on the on the intellectuals who
• 6:39
  Speaker 3: then are helping shape the New Right and maybe shape MAGA.
• 6:44
  Speaker 3: I don't think many of the mega day to day
• 6:47
  Speaker 3: people know who he is, but whether they know who
• 6:50
  Speaker 3: he is or not, they're being influenced by him through
• 6:54
  Speaker 3: the mechanism of other intellectuals. So you know, let's maybe
• 6:59
  Speaker 3: let's start at at the beginning. So here's a real crucial,
• 7:04
  Speaker 3: you know, character that I think we can learn.
• 7:06
  Speaker 2: It's important that we learn about.
• 7:08
  Speaker 3: Because he has a huge influence on the way and
• 7:13
  Speaker 3: potentially has growing influence, particularly if JD.
• 7:15
  Speaker 2: Evans I think follows him. So JD. Evans is quite
• 7:18
  Speaker 2: close and you know, he has the potential to have
• 7:23
  Speaker 2: even more influence in the future.
• 7:24
  Speaker 3: Important for us or who years and what he is
• 7:27
  Speaker 3: about and why he's been so successful.
• 7:30
  Speaker 2: I mean that always is interesting.
• 7:31
  Speaker 1: Yeah, Nichols, Yes, First of all, I think the attention
• 7:35
  Speaker 1: he's getting is warranty. So he deserves it intellectually because
• 7:40
  Speaker 1: he does something that no one else in the right,
• 7:43
  Speaker 1: or these days even in the left does. He provides
• 7:45
  Speaker 1: a theory of resume change. He provides a theory of
• 7:50
  Speaker 1: let's say, right, we counter revolution because he doesn't like
• 7:54
  Speaker 1: the term revolution. He sees himself as a reactionary. But
• 7:57
  Speaker 1: he's doing two things. And this is going to be
• 7:59
  Speaker 1: a sort of production and then we're going to say
• 8:01
  Speaker 1: who he is. So for people who understand what are
• 8:05
  Speaker 1: what is his audience looking forward to? So he's trying
• 8:08
  Speaker 1: to answer two important questions. Number one, where does power
• 8:12
  Speaker 1: reside in the modern state? So you can think of
• 8:14
  Speaker 1: him a bit like the call of the New Right,
• 8:17
  Speaker 1: the myself who call the new Right. He's the theorist
• 8:19
  Speaker 1: of power. Where does power like? Because his answer is
• 8:22
  Speaker 1: it's not where most of you think. And the second
• 8:25
  Speaker 1: question he's asking is how do we go from one
• 8:27
  Speaker 1: type of government, one type of regime, actually one type
• 8:31
  Speaker 1: of quality, to another type of resim So that's why
• 8:35
  Speaker 1: I call it the theory of revolution.
• 8:38
  Speaker 3: And he has an idea of what an idea of
• 8:40
  Speaker 3: regime looks like, exactly what kind of regime we should
• 8:43
  Speaker 3: have exactly.
• 8:44
  Speaker 4: He also has a desired end state.
• 8:47
  Speaker 1: The desired tellers is the group word, the desired goal,
• 8:50
  Speaker 1: and this goal is a type of monarchy you can
• 8:53
  Speaker 1: call he calls it an accountable monarchy. We can use
• 8:56
  Speaker 1: different ways. But his working and nat Sell is this,
• 9:01
  Speaker 1: This regime deserves to fall. This regime is driving us
• 9:05
  Speaker 1: to hell, in which case we need to think out
• 9:08
  Speaker 1: of the box and do everything within the memes of
• 9:12
  Speaker 1: a civilized society. Everything before getting the mascetis to stop that,
• 9:19
  Speaker 1: to stop that resipme. So this is who he is
• 9:21
  Speaker 1: in a natural In terms of the biography. He used
• 9:24
  Speaker 1: to be in Silicon Valley. He used to be I
• 9:26
  Speaker 1: think a software engineer. He used to blog in the
• 9:31
  Speaker 1: late two thousands as Mensus mold Bag. That's how I
• 9:37
  Speaker 1: met him. I didn't know him as characters Garden. I
• 9:39
  Speaker 1: knew him as Mensus mold.
• 9:40
  Speaker 3: Back until the twenty mid twenty teens.
• 9:43
  Speaker 2: He was more big.
• 9:45
  Speaker 1: Yes, he was mentioned small back then. Then he started
• 9:47
  Speaker 1: writing with his with his real name. His intellectual ancestry
• 9:53
  Speaker 1: used to be he was a libertarian in a previous phase.
• 9:57
  Speaker 1: You can influenced by Hope. I ever mentioned nine Round,
• 10:01
  Speaker 1: as far as I'm concerned, and I think at some
• 10:03
  Speaker 1: point I think I had consumed it's one of his
• 10:06
  Speaker 1: podcasts and writings. I never saw him mention mentioned nine Run.
• 10:11
  Speaker 1: So mostly influenced by the austral Libertarians, and maybe his
• 10:17
  Speaker 1: appreciation for a monarchy maybe has something to do also
• 10:20
  Speaker 1: with Hans Herman hoope infamous theory that the monarchy is
• 10:25
  Speaker 1: more accountable to not accountable, but more responsible not to
• 10:31
  Speaker 1: completely ruin a counter because there is something at stake
• 10:34
  Speaker 1: there for the monarch.
• 10:36
  Speaker 4: So this is his trajectory.
• 10:38
  Speaker 1: These days. He's only doing intellectual work. He's not anymore
• 10:40
  Speaker 1: in software. So if you could, if you want demeaningly,
• 10:45
  Speaker 1: you could say he's a blogger.
• 10:46
  Speaker 4: But I think he is.
• 10:47
  Speaker 1: A political theorist because the questions he asked are important
• 10:52
  Speaker 1: questions of political theory.
• 10:54
  Speaker 4: Whether we like the answers or not, we're going to
• 10:56
  Speaker 4: get to that in a second.
• 10:57
  Speaker 1: Yeah.
• 10:58
  Speaker 3: And I think even as monarchy is interesting, right, it's
• 11:02
  Speaker 3: not a pure monarch. It's it's kind of a Copet CEO,
• 11:06
  Speaker 3: and a lot of it he frames in terms of
• 11:08
  Speaker 3: kind of libertarian incentive structures around.
• 11:12
  Speaker 2: The corport CEO.
• 11:13
  Speaker 3: So I think that's as appeal to Silicon Valley is
• 11:17
  Speaker 3: is hey, you guys, you smart guys, you startup guys,
• 11:20
  Speaker 3: you can run the country.
• 11:21
  Speaker 2: Right.
• 11:22
  Speaker 3: You could be the monarchs. It's not, it's not some
• 11:25
  Speaker 3: it's not hereditary. It's more based on ability.
• 11:30
  Speaker 1: But there's something also, one more thing in the whole
• 11:33
  Speaker 1: monarchy thing before we get into details. One of our
• 11:36
  Speaker 1: hearers would say this sounds a bit aristocratic and a
• 11:39
  Speaker 1: bit elitist, and Jargon would say yes, proudly he would,
• 11:44
  Speaker 1: As he often says, most people do not think for themselves,
• 11:49
  Speaker 1: should not think for themselves, and should not be expected
• 11:53
  Speaker 1: to think for themselves. So the example he uses, I
• 11:56
  Speaker 1: don't remember if it's from Mussolini or Nits or Hitler
• 11:59
  Speaker 1: or all of them.
• 12:00
  Speaker 4: He says something like, the masses are like women.
• 12:02
  Speaker 1: They are they're waiting to be led, they want to
• 12:06
  Speaker 1: be led, and actually you're doing them a favor if
• 12:09
  Speaker 1: you lead them. So the best thing to do is
• 12:12
  Speaker 1: for a political figure, like a Caesar figure, a strong
• 12:17
  Speaker 1: man figure, to actually lead, because the masses cannot think
• 12:20
  Speaker 1: of themselves and they have to be led.
• 12:24
  Speaker 3: Yeah, and like much of the New Way, he's very
• 12:27
  Speaker 3: anti egalitarian and he's very pro hierarchy, so you know,
• 12:33
  Speaker 3: he believes in leaders, he believes in in in leading others.
• 12:36
  Speaker 3: He believes they are better people and worse people. So
• 12:41
  Speaker 3: he's definitely you know, his critique of egalitarianism, I think
• 12:47
  Speaker 3: is I mean, it has elements of truth and and
• 12:51
  Speaker 3: but but let's maybe start with his where I think
• 12:55
  Speaker 3: he's actually right or close to right, which is way
• 12:59
  Speaker 3: he belie is power lies. That is where your power
• 13:02
  Speaker 3: lies in the world in which we live. So you know,
• 13:08
  Speaker 3: most people think it's a partitions, it's a political party,
• 13:11
  Speaker 3: is it's a president, it's a supreme court. But where
• 13:14
  Speaker 3: does you even think that power really lies?
• 13:17
  Speaker 1: And this brings us to chartsy aving most famous intellectual
• 13:23
  Speaker 1: product less intellectual construction, intellectual concept, which is the theory
• 13:27
  Speaker 1: of the cathedral, the cathedral, thing of the urch, the cathedral.
• 13:30
  Speaker 4: So what is the cathedral?
• 13:32
  Speaker 1: Think about it as the institutions that truly rule, where
• 13:37
  Speaker 1: power truly lies, and most importantly, the institutions that can
• 13:41
  Speaker 1: tell people what to think. So think about the universities,
• 13:46
  Speaker 1: research institutions, nzos, civil services, and think about them not
• 13:51
  Speaker 1: as a conspiracy.
• 13:53
  Speaker 4: He describes it as an archipelago.
• 13:55
  Speaker 1: This loose network without a central authority, and yet this archipelago, somehow,
• 14:04
  Speaker 1: almost entirely, these people think of the same things. So
• 14:07
  Speaker 1: to put simply, if you go to a social sciences
• 14:10
  Speaker 1: department in Harvard, or in Oxford, or in a University
• 14:15
  Speaker 1: of Kent, everywhere you will find people who believe more
• 14:19
  Speaker 1: or less the same things, for example, about critical race theory,
• 14:23
  Speaker 1: or about how capitalism sucks and all that stuff. Now
• 14:27
  Speaker 1: it is like a party line without a party.
• 14:31
  Speaker 4: So this is what the cathedral does. It tells people
• 14:34
  Speaker 4: what to think.
• 14:36
  Speaker 1: And then these people expect from their politicians to do
• 14:41
  Speaker 1: things in accordance with what the cathedral tells them, that
• 14:45
  Speaker 1: is the proper thing to do. So the cathedral is,
• 14:48
  Speaker 1: in a few words, the intellectual and bureaucratic elites, and
• 14:53
  Speaker 1: the life mission of Cartis Garvian is to dismantle this
• 14:57
  Speaker 1: rule of the intellectual bureaucratic elit.
• 15:00
  Speaker 4: To use even simpler Twitter terminology.
• 15:04
  Speaker 1: The cathedral is what dictates what we call the current thing.
• 15:08
  Speaker 1: The current thing changes, it can be environmentalism. Then the
• 15:12
  Speaker 1: studies d I. All this says Jarving comes from the cathedral.
• 15:18
  Speaker 3: How do we in this yes, how do we relate
• 15:20
  Speaker 3: that to let's say Ivan's view that yeah, I was
• 15:24
  Speaker 3: about to ask you, Yeah, the the universities are what
• 15:28
  Speaker 3: actually shape culture. It's it's the culture shape and culture
• 15:34
  Speaker 3: is what ultimately we shay politics. It's politics is not
• 15:36
  Speaker 3: it doesn't start with politics, it ends with politics.
• 15:41
  Speaker 2: So what are the what are the differences here?
• 15:45
  Speaker 1: The one difference would be that actually it's not the difference,
• 15:49
  Speaker 1: it's it's more of.
• 15:50
  Speaker 4: A practical application.
• 15:53
  Speaker 1: So he would say that the bureaucratic intellectually leads.
• 15:57
  Speaker 4: It's not just a saddle power. It is in essence
• 16:01
  Speaker 4: a real power.
• 16:03
  Speaker 1: So you have this interview with Tiger Carson and he
• 16:05
  Speaker 1: said something like, these days, you don't need to hack
• 16:08
  Speaker 1: an election. What you have to do is to make
• 16:11
  Speaker 1: an election meaningless. And how do you make an election meaningless? Well,
• 16:15
  Speaker 1: whoever wins, it's the same governing elite, which is the
• 16:19
  Speaker 1: truly ruling eld. It's the same people what we call
• 16:23
  Speaker 1: the deep state, however were going to call it. They've
• 16:25
  Speaker 1: been taught at the same universities from the same people
• 16:29
  Speaker 1: with the same ideas. So if you're a Democrat, for example,
• 16:33
  Speaker 1: if you're in power, you don't have to do much.
• 16:35
  Speaker 1: Let these bureaucrats who believe all these diversity stuff. Just
• 16:41
  Speaker 1: let them do their work, just let them cook. You're
• 16:44
  Speaker 1: just going to be the frontman. And these are the
• 16:47
  Speaker 1: people who actually do the actual, the actual exercising of power.
• 16:53
  Speaker 1: So you could say a sympathetic reading would be that, yes,
• 16:57
  Speaker 1: this is actually recognizing or the role of the lections.
• 17:01
  Speaker 1: The problem is that for Jarvin the cathedral is just
• 17:05
  Speaker 1: you know, the left, but he doesn't go anywhere near
• 17:11
  Speaker 1: in terms of explaining what exactly is this left? What
• 17:14
  Speaker 1: is the essence of the left. For Jarvin, the essence
• 17:17
  Speaker 1: of the left is power last, and the essence of
• 17:22
  Speaker 1: the left is changed. We can come back later and
• 17:27
  Speaker 1: explain why Wikipedia, let's say we describe him as reactionary.
• 17:31
  Speaker 1: But for now, for Jarving, for example, the Union in
• 17:36
  Speaker 1: the American Civil War, the Union was the left.
• 17:38
  Speaker 3: Yes, yeah, I mean, he's he's got a tweet today.
• 17:42
  Speaker 3: Let me just find this. He's got a tweet today.
• 17:44
  Speaker 3: This is what it says. The US was created by
• 17:47
  Speaker 3: a leftist revolution in the seventeen seventies. Then we created
• 17:53
  Speaker 3: by a widest counter revolution in the seventeen eighties. This
• 17:57
  Speaker 3: is the Constitution, the seventy the seventeen ninety state was
• 18:02
  Speaker 3: run by a national monarchy by the Revolutions General and
• 18:07
  Speaker 3: his top aid working as co founders. Basically, basically nobody
• 18:12
  Speaker 3: knows the basic fact. And then he explains, but it's
• 18:16
  Speaker 3: I think it's all nonsense. But the the here's the thing.
• 18:22
  Speaker 3: The way he views left and right. So I think
• 18:25
  Speaker 3: for him, left and right, you're right is in a
• 18:28
  Speaker 3: sense left is egalitarian in some sense, although the founding
• 18:33
  Speaker 3: is egalitarian only in the political sense. It's not in
• 18:36
  Speaker 3: the economic sense. It's a galitarian and it's what was
• 18:42
  Speaker 3: I gonna say, So it's a galaitarian and it's progress
• 18:46
  Speaker 3: and the right is hierarchical and reactionary and traditional there
• 18:51
  Speaker 3: and tradition. But and what he misses and what's missing
• 18:54
  Speaker 3: from the cathedral and why the cathedral is ultimately a
• 18:57
  Speaker 3: false theory is this theory of power. So in that sense,
• 19:01
  Speaker 3: he's is a he's a leftist right left us see
• 19:05
  Speaker 3: everything in terms of power, power, structures.
• 19:08
  Speaker 2: Who you know, there's no everything is.
• 19:10
  Speaker 3: About control and power, and what's missing ideas, what's missing
• 19:16
  Speaker 3: is reason, what's missing his thought, what's missing is free
• 19:20
  Speaker 3: Will you know if if you control, if you control
• 19:24
  Speaker 3: the citadel. By definition, you control everything. But it's all
• 19:28
  Speaker 3: about exercise of power. There's nothing underneath it. There's no
• 19:34
  Speaker 3: thinking about fundamental ideas. I don't see anything in him
• 19:40
  Speaker 3: that is deeper than politics. Right, there's nothing. There's no metaphysics,
• 19:46
  Speaker 3: small geoethics. There's implied and the implied. There is kind
• 19:50
  Speaker 3: of a traditionalist view of all those areas. But he
• 19:55
  Speaker 3: doesn't see ideas shaping the world. You see into let
• 20:00
  Speaker 3: Joe shape in the world, which is not the same thing.
• 20:03
  Speaker 1: Yes, exactly so for exact so, he claims that this
• 20:08
  Speaker 1: domination of the left is not an issue of the
• 20:10
  Speaker 1: last thirty years.
• 20:11
  Speaker 4: He says, for ages we've been.
• 20:13
  Speaker 1: Ruled by the left, and he says the rule of
• 20:16
  Speaker 1: the left is basically the rule of Harvard.
• 20:19
  Speaker 2: It's but to him it's it's an Enlightenment.
• 20:21
  Speaker 3: It's the whole ideas of the Enlightenment, the fundamentally ideas
• 20:25
  Speaker 3: of the left. And therefore since the Enlightenment we've been
• 20:29
  Speaker 3: ruled by the left.
• 20:30
  Speaker 1: That's why, for example, he would claim that a figure
• 20:34
  Speaker 1: like Thomas Jefferson, he would say this the cult of Jefferson,
• 20:38
  Speaker 1: as he refirstedly, he says, it's a communist scile, it's
• 20:41
  Speaker 1: a communist, it's a communist the development because they recognized
• 20:45
  Speaker 1: in Jefferson one of their role. Because he would say
• 20:49
  Speaker 1: Jefferson was influenced so much by the ideas of the
• 20:53
  Speaker 1: French Revolution, and therefore Jefferson was a leftist yep. Whereas
• 20:58
  Speaker 1: he would say, we know, first of all, let me
• 20:59
  Speaker 1: say here, I'm just parting staff. I'm not an expert
• 21:02
  Speaker 1: in the American Revolution. By any chime, you will comment
• 21:04
  Speaker 1: on this. So here so the way he viewed, we
• 21:07
  Speaker 1: can we can have a whole section on the American Revolution.
• 21:09
  Speaker 1: But he basically says that there are two American revolutions.
• 21:13
  Speaker 1: There are many actually American revolutions. Initially it's a leftist project.
• 21:17
  Speaker 1: It goes nowhere, it brings chaos, and then the adults
• 21:21
  Speaker 1: in the room, like Washington, they decide, Okay, we've had
• 21:25
  Speaker 1: enough of this whole madness declaration whatever. Now let's elect
• 21:31
  Speaker 1: practically a king and let the adults clean clean the mess.
• 21:36
  Speaker 1: So this is how this is how he would view
• 21:39
  Speaker 1: the American Revolution, and we can we can also discuss
• 21:42
  Speaker 1: why he would consider him the American Revolution a mistake
• 21:46
  Speaker 1: and why we should have stayed loyal to the king.
• 21:50
  Speaker 3: But but again I think this goes to the heart
• 21:54
  Speaker 3: of the true ideas.
• 21:56
  Speaker 2: That is what you rejects as Enlightenment. What's the core
• 22:01
  Speaker 2: of the Enlightenment.
• 22:02
  Speaker 3: The core of the Enlightenment from his perspective, progress is
• 22:05
  Speaker 3: the idea of human progress and the emphasis on progress,
• 22:08
  Speaker 3: progressive growth, and a rejection of the old odor, a
• 22:14
  Speaker 3: rejection of the church, a rejection of monarchy, and an
• 22:22
  Speaker 3: embrace of reason and God forbid individualism and political liberty.
• 22:29
  Speaker 2: And he rejects all.
• 22:30
  Speaker 3: Of that reason as reason is something that every human
• 22:34
  Speaker 3: being has. He rejects that right that most people are sheep,
• 22:38
  Speaker 3: and he rejects the idea of individualism as the standard
• 22:44
  Speaker 3: by which we should guide that he rejects individual rights.
• 22:47
  Speaker 3: He's anti Locke and in that sense, and he rejects
• 22:50
  Speaker 3: political freedom. He's an anti Enlightenment intellectual, which fits him
• 22:56
  Speaker 3: in with the post liberals and the the whole New Weight,
• 23:01
  Speaker 3: which is basically the basic agenda of the New Way,
• 23:06
  Speaker 3: is to reject the Enlightenment.
• 23:08
  Speaker 1: And notice also that even in his libertarian phase, it's
• 23:13
  Speaker 1: a libertarian phase that follows not necessarily anti Enlightenedment libertarians,
• 23:21
  Speaker 1: but the Libertarians, which is agnostic towards the Enlightenment.
• 23:25
  Speaker 4: And since we mentioned the Hope, give me one second.
• 23:27
  Speaker 4: I want to show something to our audience.
• 23:31
  Speaker 3: Yeah, and Hope, of course is also reactionary, right, I
• 23:35
  Speaker 3: mean he's also cockns back to the Middle Ages, the
• 23:38
  Speaker 3: wonders of the Middle Ages, with city states and monarchs.
• 23:41
  Speaker 2: Yeah, he hates the Enlightenment.
• 23:43
  Speaker 4: So this is I'm sure this is not Hope's choice.
• 23:47
  Speaker 1: But it's interesting that in his book The Economic and
• 23:49
  Speaker 1: Ethics of Private Property, what do you see at the front.
• 23:52
  Speaker 2: Yeah, not a skyscraper, not a factory.
• 23:55
  Speaker 1: It's this isolated little hat. And I found something. I
• 24:00
  Speaker 1: might be looking too much into it, but I always thought, hm,
• 24:03
  Speaker 1: that's interesting. Why would this be? Why would this be
• 24:06
  Speaker 1: what you have in mind with with with private property?
• 24:11
  Speaker 1: So so yes, that's why he finds himself comfortable with
• 24:16
  Speaker 1: this miliare. And actually, let me make a more general comment.
• 24:19
  Speaker 1: My biggest disappointment with characters Jarvin. I expected that when
• 24:25
  Speaker 1: he started hanging out with a New Right, because to me,
• 24:28
  Speaker 1: there's no question he's very intelligent that he would raise
• 24:32
  Speaker 1: the collective viq of the New Right. But what happened
• 24:35
  Speaker 1: is the opposite lately he we can talk about his
• 24:39
  Speaker 1: views on Maga and all that stuff, but lately seems
• 24:41
  Speaker 1: to be the opposite. His latest views is that the
• 24:45
  Speaker 1: Democrats are about to import hundreds of millions potentially of immigrants,
• 24:50
  Speaker 1: hundreds of millions. You know, he thinks fout it should
• 24:53
  Speaker 1: be should be tried, and all that stuff, even though.
• 24:56
  Speaker 3: He oven was pro lockdowns in the COVID pandemic, and
• 25:03
  Speaker 3: I saw recently also complement the Nazis on the uniforms
• 25:07
  Speaker 3: and on area.
• 25:10
  Speaker 4: Yeah, well, okay, that's you.
• 25:11
  Speaker 1: You can never be sure how much so kadz Jarwen
• 25:14
  Speaker 1: to me really reminds me of Zizek because in my
• 25:18
  Speaker 1: mind he is the Zezek of the right. And you know,
• 25:22
  Speaker 1: I had the same fascination about Zizek that later I
• 25:24
  Speaker 1: had with Jarvin. Both of these thinkers have the same symptom.
• 25:29
  Speaker 1: You they never get to what is actually the point.
• 25:32
  Speaker 1: They are intellectual teasers. They're both intelligent, and it's it's
• 25:37
  Speaker 1: interesting I recently figured out that Zee is reading Jarvin.
• 25:41
  Speaker 1: They have these kind of parallel, parallel lines, but when
• 25:46
  Speaker 1: they get to the basics, you call them metaphysics is
• 25:50
  Speaker 1: the mools.
• 25:51
  Speaker 4: But even in the Okay, guess what exactly.
• 25:53
  Speaker 1: Do we do you want? What is your specifically the
• 25:56
  Speaker 1: ideal thing. So, for example, Jarvin used to say that,
• 26:01
  Speaker 1: you know, the transition to the new regime needs to
• 26:04
  Speaker 1: respect everyone's rights. It needs to be a bit like
• 26:07
  Speaker 1: is Germany. You know, the Resimfels. You go to the stats,
• 26:11
  Speaker 1: the people, you tell them, okay, guys, thank you for
• 26:13
  Speaker 1: your service.
• 26:14
  Speaker 4: Go home, you're gonna get a pension.
• 26:16
  Speaker 1: This abomination of a institution doesn't exist anymore recently, And
• 26:21
  Speaker 1: again I don't know is he trolling. He talks about, yeah,
• 26:24
  Speaker 1: you know, maybe we should execute this, or that we
• 26:27
  Speaker 1: should go to George Soro's bank account and bring it
• 26:32
  Speaker 1: down to zero, and as oh, I know, but people
• 26:35
  Speaker 1: would say, property right, property right, So okay, then so
• 26:40
  Speaker 1: you want full of Italianism? Do you want basically socialism
• 26:45
  Speaker 1: of the right? And why is this going to be
• 26:47
  Speaker 1: better than socialism of the left. Well, he would say,
• 26:50
  Speaker 1: this is gonna be hierarchical. We're not going to end
• 26:53
  Speaker 1: up being the third world. So he's at the point
• 26:56
  Speaker 1: where at this time, the ends which are unclear, the
• 27:00
  Speaker 1: way justify any means anything goes violence or the retiremy
• 27:05
  Speaker 1: to hell with property rights, anything goes.
• 27:09
  Speaker 2: And I think that's true at the end, right in
• 27:11
  Speaker 2: the end.
• 27:12
  Speaker 3: That's why he never really tells you because what he
• 27:16
  Speaker 3: really thinks is too ugly even for his audience.
• 27:21
  Speaker 1: Well, he absolutely, He actually told us in a book
• 27:25
  Speaker 1: that has the Guillotin at front, so he was he
• 27:30
  Speaker 1: was braving that. By the way, I have to say,
• 27:32
  Speaker 1: this has nothing to do with this episode. I'm so
• 27:36
  Speaker 1: sad that you never got to have a debate with ziz.
• 27:39
  Speaker 1: We should not give up on that. We should not
• 27:41
  Speaker 1: give up on that.
• 27:41
  Speaker 3: Our contact and in UH Slovenia says he won't do it,
• 27:46
  Speaker 3: but they keep trying.
• 27:48
  Speaker 4: So he has read again, he has read Eyeing right.
• 27:50
  Speaker 3: Now, his insight into how it work is pretty good.
• 27:55
  Speaker 3: So yes, I mean he would be he would be.
• 27:57
  Speaker 2: An interesting guy to debate.
• 27:58
  Speaker 3: And it is debate where Jordan Peterson was so disappointing
• 28:03
  Speaker 3: because Peterson was so weak in that debate, he was
• 28:06
  Speaker 3: so terrible that ZIZI didn't really have an opponent there.
• 28:10
  Speaker 3: So yes, it would be fun to debate Isaac. But
• 28:14
  Speaker 3: and we've tried, and we continue to try. I spoke
• 28:17
  Speaker 3: to forget her name from from UH Slovenia. Where he lives.
• 28:22
  Speaker 2: She's still trying, supposedly.
• 28:24
  Speaker 4: But let's let's hope it will it will happen.
• 28:27
  Speaker 3: Yeah, him and him and the two people who have
• 28:29
  Speaker 3: tried to debate several times and have turned me down.
• 28:35
  Speaker 2: Your two favorite people, Zizzik and.
• 28:38
  Speaker 1: Focus, Well, I wouldn't put them in the same I
• 28:42
  Speaker 1: know he's intelligent and has some good takes. The other
• 28:47
  Speaker 1: guy anyway, don't get me start. Okay, let's go, let's
• 28:50
  Speaker 1: go back to jar Yes, yeah, so yeah. As time
• 28:55
  Speaker 1: goes by, I think the quality of his thoughts goes
• 29:00
  Speaker 1: downhill the more he hangs out with the with the
• 29:03
  Speaker 1: new Right, with a new Right will He's still the
• 29:08
  Speaker 1: most serious thinking in the new Right. I consider him
• 29:11
  Speaker 1: way more interested than that the Nmes and the has
• 29:14
  Speaker 1: Onis and the and the Christian nationalists. He's definitely putting
• 29:18
  Speaker 1: the most interesting questions. He's most he's the most well read,
• 29:23
  Speaker 1: or at least he gives the most interesting references. But
• 29:26
  Speaker 1: the answers he gives are depressing, and the answers he
• 29:29
  Speaker 1: gives are disappointing, at least for someone who says my
• 29:34
  Speaker 1: worldview and the worldview of many of our audience as well.
• 29:38
  Speaker 3: I think it's I think, to a logic E stent
• 29:41
  Speaker 3: what makes them more interesting? And and and I think
• 29:44
  Speaker 3: it's terrible, so you know, so that I think there's
• 29:47
  Speaker 3: I mean, he asks the right questions in some way.
• 29:50
  Speaker 3: But but I think what makes him more interesting is
• 29:54
  Speaker 3: the fact that he's in Silicon Valley. That is, his
• 29:57
  Speaker 3: audiences are of uh, tech guys, and it's almost all
• 30:04
  Speaker 3: guys and and and they're gonna the shop. They're smart
• 30:09
  Speaker 3: that that they He actually is in that environment surrounded
• 30:13
  Speaker 3: by by really smart people. I think the rest of
• 30:15
  Speaker 3: the right is and he's had an influence over there.
• 30:19
  Speaker 3: Uh and and he has to be interesting because you know,
• 30:23
  Speaker 3: the the tech guys, that's that's what's gonna make uh
• 30:26
  Speaker 3: it attractive. But I mean shocked at how how positively
• 30:31
  Speaker 3: he's viewed on the right. I did a debate last
• 30:34
  Speaker 3: year in this Hamilton Society in San Francisco on Christianity,
• 30:39
  Speaker 3: and a number of his fans were there. And then
• 30:42
  Speaker 3: he just was at the same event did a debate
• 30:45
  Speaker 3: recently where where he debated some opponents there and and
• 30:49
  Speaker 3: six hundred people showed up, so.
• 30:53
  Speaker 2: It was massive.
• 30:53
  Speaker 3: So anyway, he is, he is in that environment where
• 30:58
  Speaker 3: I think you have to be interesting in cutting edge.
• 31:01
  Speaker 3: And I think his evolution from talking a lot about
• 31:05
  Speaker 3: monarchy to talking more about corporate CEOs is part of
• 31:10
  Speaker 3: the reason for that. So let's talk about So we've
• 31:13
  Speaker 3: talked about the citadel. So he thinks power lays in
• 31:17
  Speaker 3: in a cathedral the cathedral. Power lies in in the
• 31:22
  Speaker 3: universities and the media, and and.
• 31:25
  Speaker 2: You know, to a large extent that's true.
• 31:28
  Speaker 3: It's not very deep because it lies in ideas which
• 31:31
  Speaker 3: shape both the media and and UH and the UH
• 31:35
  Speaker 3: the universities. But to the extent that that's where you
• 31:40
  Speaker 3: know power is manifest, That is, they're the ones that
• 31:43
  Speaker 3: you know that is true. So what do you do
• 31:45
  Speaker 3: about that? How do you how do you wrench power
• 31:48
  Speaker 3: away from those institutions? How do you rationalize our political
• 31:54
  Speaker 3: institutions so they're no longer susceptible to the power of
• 31:58
  Speaker 3: the universities. Because he's not advocate in for changing universities.
• 32:01
  Speaker 3: It's not like us advocating for changing ideas. He's advocating
• 32:06
  Speaker 3: for power play.
• 32:07
  Speaker 1: What's what's advocating literally to make Harvard a parking lot?
• 32:12
  Speaker 2: Yep.
• 32:13
  Speaker 4: And how do you get a democracy?
• 32:16
  Speaker 3: So how do you get to the point where you make, however,
• 32:18
  Speaker 3: a parking lot. Who is going to do that?
• 32:20
  Speaker 1: So first of all, let's have something clear. You cannot
• 32:24
  Speaker 1: reform the system, he says. And first of all he
• 32:26
  Speaker 1: would say, this is not democracy, this is oligarchy, because
• 32:30
  Speaker 1: he says, in a democracy, so if you have the monarch,
• 32:33
  Speaker 1: and how do I change the zim? You cunt the
• 32:36
  Speaker 1: head of the monarch, you change their zim. The problem
• 32:39
  Speaker 1: with democracy, says that there are many different sources of power,
• 32:43
  Speaker 1: and this is so by design. The modern liberal societies,
• 32:47
  Speaker 1: he says, they have all these various tribes that constantly
• 32:52
  Speaker 1: see thing in terms of who has more power over
• 32:55
  Speaker 1: whom one bureaucracy versus the other. Now it's eight and DEI.
• 33:01
  Speaker 1: Tomorrow it can be someone else. But this has something
• 33:04
  Speaker 1: good for the oligards. It is almost like an anarchy,
• 33:07
  Speaker 1: a war of all against all. And this means in
• 33:11
  Speaker 1: this anarchy you have many mini faulds, mini fIF doms,
• 33:16
  Speaker 1: and all the apparent six of the of the regime
• 33:20
  Speaker 1: have little enclaves of power in all these different bureougraphies.
• 33:25
  Speaker 1: So it is very, very difficult to find where is
• 33:28
  Speaker 1: the heart of this regime where you can strike and
• 33:31
  Speaker 1: destroy these bureaucracies. So the only solution then is that
• 33:38
  Speaker 1: you need to give the executive power the green light
• 33:43
  Speaker 1: to actually govern. So in his best days, ya, I'm
• 33:50
  Speaker 1: not asking to do everything beyond the rule of law.
• 33:53
  Speaker 4: Lincoln did it, Johnson did it.
• 34:00
  Speaker 1: Before FDR did it. His model is FDR an executive
• 34:05
  Speaker 1: who says, how we governed as if the powers I
• 34:08
  Speaker 1: have are real, because they are real if I say
• 34:10
  Speaker 1: they are real. So the executive power, he claims, if
• 34:15
  Speaker 1: it wants it can turn tomorrow Harvard into a parking lot.
• 34:19
  Speaker 1: It can go to the Harvard people say thank you
• 34:21
  Speaker 1: very much, take your painters, go home, and I declare
• 34:25
  Speaker 1: that this is going to be now a parking lot.
• 34:29
  Speaker 1: So to give the benefit of the doubts, wouldn't you
• 34:32
  Speaker 1: agree here on that Harvard is impossible to reform. It's
• 34:36
  Speaker 1: going to be this nest of collectivism and now through
• 34:40
  Speaker 1: from now to the foreseeable future.
• 34:43
  Speaker 3: Well, I don't think perform is possible in the foreseeable future.
• 34:46
  Speaker 3: So I don't think perform is possible anyway in.
• 34:48
  Speaker 2: The foreseeble future.
• 34:49
  Speaker 3: So yes, you know, harar it is impossible to perform
• 34:53
  Speaker 3: in the foreseeable future. But I don't think you can
• 34:57
  Speaker 3: actually change the world for the better without reforming Harvard.
• 35:02
  Speaker 3: So ultimately Harvard will be reformed, you know, one way
• 35:06
  Speaker 3: or the other. It might take one hundred years. And
• 35:09
  Speaker 3: that's why our project is a long term project. But
• 35:12
  Speaker 3: if we get if you give up on Harvard and
• 35:13
  Speaker 3: what Harvard represents, not Harvard as an institution, then you're
• 35:17
  Speaker 3: giving up on reform, you're giving up on change. And
• 35:20
  Speaker 3: the only alternative to perform is a reaction. Every alternative
• 35:24
  Speaker 3: it's it's it's a dictatorship that turns it into And
• 35:28
  Speaker 3: it's really interesting that he talks a lot about executive power.
• 35:33
  Speaker 3: And look at the Trump administration. I mean, the Trumpe
• 35:36
  Speaker 3: administration is almost inspired by him, right, the whole idea
• 35:40
  Speaker 3: of if Trump wants something, you should be able to
• 35:43
  Speaker 3: get it done. You know, the whole idea, who cares
• 35:45
  Speaker 3: about Congress or who cares about the courts?
• 35:47
  Speaker 2: The courts are just.
• 35:48
  Speaker 3: An obstacle in the way that is. I don't think
• 35:51
  Speaker 3: it's unique to Yavin. I think that everybody in the
• 35:53
  Speaker 3: New Left believes this. But we're seeing Trump get as
• 35:58
  Speaker 3: close to any modern president has gotten to doing exactly that.
• 36:03
  Speaker 2: And Trump and.
• 36:05
  Speaker 3: This is I think the reason why the new Wait.
• 36:08
  Speaker 3: At least some people in you eight like Trump. He's
• 36:11
  Speaker 3: the closest person to also say he doesn't care. A
• 36:16
  Speaker 3: lot of other presidents would have done what Trump does
• 36:18
  Speaker 3: but couched it.
• 36:19
  Speaker 2: In constitutional terms. Trump just doesn't care.
• 36:22
  Speaker 3: And I think that's his big appeal to a lot
• 36:25
  Speaker 3: of people, is you know he might. You know, he'll
• 36:28
  Speaker 3: go after Harvard and you'll say, oh, but that's not
• 36:32
  Speaker 3: the rule of law, and he'll say.
• 36:33
  Speaker 2: Yeah, I don't care. I just want to go after Harvard.
• 36:36
  Speaker 1: And this is his biggest critique of the first Trump administration. So,
• 36:42
  Speaker 1: to the surprise of many of his readers, in twenty twenty,
• 36:45
  Speaker 1: katz Jarvin said, look, guys, I support Biden in this
• 36:48
  Speaker 1: election in strategic terms. Why because Trump, as he put it,
• 36:54
  Speaker 1: he was strolling around the rubicon yep, but he didn't
• 36:58
  Speaker 1: even put his feet in the rubicon. So he says,
• 37:01
  Speaker 1: what happened is the first drama administer so talked the
• 37:06
  Speaker 1: big words about supposedly important things. Nothing ever happened. The
• 37:12
  Speaker 1: GOP controlled all three branches of the constitutional government, It
• 37:16
  Speaker 1: had the most populist president in modern history, and they
• 37:20
  Speaker 1: did absolutely nothing of any historical significance. And his point
• 37:28
  Speaker 1: is that the second Drama administration is different. Why because
• 37:32
  Speaker 1: it is not playing by the rules. The president says,
• 37:36
  Speaker 1: I will do whatever I want. I will completely bypass
• 37:40
  Speaker 1: this is the most important thing. Bypass all the bureaucracies,
• 37:44
  Speaker 1: bypass the Foreign Office, the diplomatic bureaucracy.
• 37:49
  Speaker 4: Even by past people like you know Ruby.
• 37:52
  Speaker 1: It doesn't matter what they tell you. What matters is
• 37:54
  Speaker 1: what you and your people think. Because you are the executive,
• 37:58
  Speaker 1: you have the power to do it, So do it.
• 38:02
  Speaker 1: And my question to Jarwin would be this, you want
• 38:06
  Speaker 1: an executive to run a country like a corporation.
• 38:10
  Speaker 4: How do you feel that now Trump runs the country?
• 38:13
  Speaker 1: Not in the way jobs would run Apple, but in
• 38:16
  Speaker 1: the way a half like a drunk guy would run
• 38:20
  Speaker 1: about that guy, family, about that guy, Like why is
• 38:23
  Speaker 1: this better?
• 38:24
  Speaker 4: Yes, he's giving some.
• 38:25
  Speaker 1: Defeats, he's owning the lips here and there, or though
• 38:28
  Speaker 1: Yarmen would say, we need one hundred times more than that.
• 38:31
  Speaker 4: But how is this?
• 38:34
  Speaker 1: How is this your ideal of an executive who operates
• 38:39
  Speaker 1: like a CEO? Does it look like Stramp operates in
• 38:42
  Speaker 1: the United States? The way he operates a CEO would
• 38:44
  Speaker 1: operate in a series corporation.
• 38:47
  Speaker 2: Not a good CEO.
• 38:48
  Speaker 3: And and this is the point I think Trump is
• 38:51
  Speaker 3: and I think you own in private would probably agree.
• 38:54
  Speaker 3: He would probably say, yeah, Trump's probably not smart enough
• 38:57
  Speaker 3: to be the kind of CEO I would want, right,
• 39:00
  Speaker 3: the kind of CEO. And this is why we need
• 39:02
  Speaker 3: a surround him with the tech bros, because those are
• 39:04
  Speaker 3: the guys who are the smart guys in the room.
• 39:06
  Speaker 3: You know, imagine Mark and Dresen running America, you know.
• 39:10
  Speaker 3: I think I think Kurtis Shovin would see a big
• 39:13
  Speaker 3: difference between the two.
• 39:15
  Speaker 1: But like texting, they are in texting relationship. By the way,
• 39:18
  Speaker 1: with Mark and Risen, they're in very good.
• 39:20
  Speaker 2: Relationships Mark and Drewson.
• 39:23
  Speaker 3: It's been a while, and so I think that I
• 39:27
  Speaker 3: think that he probably thinks Trump has the right mentality
• 39:30
  Speaker 3: in the sense that I'll do anything. It's it's in
• 39:33
  Speaker 3: my whim. But he's just not smart and he isn't right.
• 39:36
  Speaker 3: He's just and he's just not competent, and he's not competent.
• 39:40
  Speaker 3: So the second term Trump term has been much more
• 39:44
  Speaker 3: along the lines Curtis Jovin likes, but it's also not
• 39:47
  Speaker 3: going to achieve much because he's not quite ready to
• 39:51
  Speaker 3: ignore the Supreme Court, and he's he's not quite able
• 39:55
  Speaker 3: to get around Congress completely. And when he had dogs
• 39:59
  Speaker 3: come in, I mean, those was the perfect Yaven thing,
• 40:03
  Speaker 3: you know, fire all the bureaucrats, get rid of them,
• 40:05
  Speaker 3: to turn the bureaucracy into our parking lot. And he
• 40:08
  Speaker 3: didn't do anything. So he must be super disappointed in
• 40:15
  Speaker 3: Trump's second term. But it's laying the seeds, you know,
• 40:20
  Speaker 3: it's indicating the direction in which a future. And this
• 40:25
  Speaker 3: is why I think he'd support jd Vance right, It's
• 40:28
  Speaker 3: indicating what's possible in the future if he had someone.
• 40:31
  Speaker 3: You know, Jdvance is not an idiot. He acts like
• 40:34
  Speaker 3: an idiot, but he's not an idiot. He's smart, and
• 40:37
  Speaker 3: he would do a much better job at destroying this
• 40:40
  Speaker 3: country systematically then Trump is able to so. But Trump
• 40:46
  Speaker 3: is kind of setting the context for a jd. Vance
• 40:51
  Speaker 3: or for somebody or Tucker Carlson who knows, or a
• 40:54
  Speaker 3: Mark and reason. I mean, who knows who's going to
• 40:56
  Speaker 3: run in the future.
• 40:57
  Speaker 4: It's fascinating.
• 41:00
  Speaker 1: This morning, I was listening a podcast by Cards here
• 41:03
  Speaker 1: he said exactly what you said. That the only good
• 41:06
  Speaker 1: thing that I can recognize good in terms of it's
• 41:09
  Speaker 1: going to have a historical significance.
• 41:12
  Speaker 4: This is slightly pushing.
• 41:14
  Speaker 1: Forward the clock of history slightly, make it move a
• 41:19
  Speaker 1: bit more.
• 41:20
  Speaker 4: So maybe one day the real revolution.
• 41:22
  Speaker 1: Okay, sorry, no, no revolution, a reality revolution, the real
• 41:26
  Speaker 1: counter revolution will actually will actually take place.
• 41:29
  Speaker 4: Which these are my words, not him.
• 41:32
  Speaker 1: Will move the clock back to probably before either before
• 41:36
  Speaker 1: seventy seventy six. But his you know, most of the
• 41:41
  Speaker 1: historical references his make are above my level of knowledge,
• 41:46
  Speaker 1: so I can't commentother but somewhere there, I know his
• 41:49
  Speaker 1: favorite monarchs are some of the Tudors and some of
• 41:52
  Speaker 1: the Stewards, So that's where we need to go.
• 41:55
  Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean he's against the Glowist Revolution, so you'd
• 41:58
  Speaker 3: have to go you'd have to go before sixteen something, right,
• 42:01
  Speaker 3: so you have to go into the sixteenth century to
• 42:04
  Speaker 3: really get them. And you know, and he probably loves
• 42:07
  Speaker 3: Henry the eighth. They probably have a similar view of women,
• 42:12
  Speaker 3: you know, chop off their heads when you don't like them.
• 42:15
  Speaker 1: So I don't think to be fair with that, I
• 42:18
  Speaker 1: don't think he's The interesting thing is he introduced the
• 42:23
  Speaker 1: term red pill in the culture, but in a completely different,
• 42:28
  Speaker 1: different way. Actually, you know his personal relationships with women.
• 42:31
  Speaker 1: It's it's way less, it's it has it. So when
• 42:37
  Speaker 1: people here Curtis Garving red pill, it has nothing to
• 42:40
  Speaker 1: do with the red pill of the monosphere. So so
• 42:43
  Speaker 1: what is it after you?
• 42:43
  Speaker 3: Since he introduced the term, what was it supposed to
• 42:47
  Speaker 3: mean at the time?
• 42:47
  Speaker 1: Oh? Okay. So that's interesting because it brings us to
• 42:51
  Speaker 1: the book that no one had almost no one had
• 42:55
  Speaker 1: ever read, but he made it. He made it very famous,
• 42:58
  Speaker 1: which is the book The Kavelians. He made it so
• 43:02
  Speaker 1: famous that it had to be republished, reprinted. So this
• 43:08
  Speaker 1: is a book written by an American theorist some like
• 43:13
  Speaker 1: seven years ago, and it talks about the Macavelians are
• 43:17
  Speaker 1: politicians who understand what truly the game is, and truly
• 43:23
  Speaker 1: the game is to fool the masses. So the messages,
• 43:27
  Speaker 1: there's always a formal message in politics and a real message.
• 43:32
  Speaker 1: The formal message is idealistic and the real messages what
• 43:38
  Speaker 1: the bureaucrat truly was thing. For example, as the formal
• 43:41
  Speaker 1: message when DII talks about historical justice, empowering and listening
• 43:46
  Speaker 1: to black voices, the real messages give money to the
• 43:51
  Speaker 1: di commissards. So the red pill is seeing through the
• 43:56
  Speaker 1: formal message, the language that the hours to be.
• 44:00
  Speaker 4: Used, and reaching out the real methods.
• 44:03
  Speaker 1: And this is also the methods from the matrix, the
• 44:06
  Speaker 1: red pill and the blue pink. So before the monosphere
• 44:09
  Speaker 1: made the red pill, I think Cartis Jarvin introduced it
• 44:13
  Speaker 1: in a parallel, let's say, in a parallel trajectory in
• 44:17
  Speaker 1: a completely different context.
• 44:19
  Speaker 3: So here's here's Curtis Jovin red pilling the Declaration of Independence,
• 44:24
  Speaker 3: if you will, right exactly, yeah, no, this is this
• 44:28
  Speaker 3: is a tweet. This is a tweet from today s
• 44:31
  Speaker 3: E Loon Mask tweets I read the declar I read
• 44:36
  Speaker 3: the Declaration of Dependence out loud today with heartfelt conviction.
• 44:41
  Speaker 3: It's it is a work of not just a genius,
• 44:44
  Speaker 3: but also purity of the soul that resonates this very day. Right,
• 44:48
  Speaker 3: so we are heartfelt tweet from the lund Mask about
• 44:51
  Speaker 3: the imputance of the Declaration of Independance.
• 44:53
  Speaker 2: This is Curtisyovin commenting on a loan mask.
• 44:56
  Speaker 3: He says, it's the eighteenth century version of put h
• 45:00
  Speaker 3: R slop wall toward banalities. The period didn't feel like
• 45:07
  Speaker 3: it had any people in it who were real human
• 45:10
  Speaker 3: beings until I started reading the Loyalists check it out,
• 45:15
  Speaker 3: actual sense of humor, not to mention specific. So he is,
• 45:19
  Speaker 3: you know Thomas Jefferson banell Uh, you know Adams, all
• 45:24
  Speaker 3: these guys, the banal h R slop human relations slop.
• 45:28
  Speaker 3: That's what he thinks of the Declaration of Independence.
• 45:31
  Speaker 1: Well we can, we can go through a whole tanzial
• 45:34
  Speaker 1: name in terms of why if you say their medical evolution.
• 45:37
  Speaker 3: But well, I mean he rejects the very I mean
• 45:41
  Speaker 3: think about the first the second sentence, the declaration of.
• 45:43
  Speaker 2: Defenders allmen are created equal. Well, that's out.
• 45:47
  Speaker 3: I mean, that's that's too egalitarian for him in any
• 45:50
  Speaker 3: even when you when you understand uh, equality as referring
• 45:54
  Speaker 3: to rights, and then they're they're endowed with an alienable
• 45:59
  Speaker 3: right to life, liberty, impasity, happiness, rights that I'm sure
• 46:02
  Speaker 3: you haven't think that's nonsense and stills the honor of
• 46:05
  Speaker 3: such thing as rights.
• 46:07
  Speaker 2: And that's it. So the declaration is a swap.
• 46:09
  Speaker 3: It's hr slap to make people feel good about themselves,
• 46:13
  Speaker 3: and it's it's leftist di I propaganda.
• 46:21
  Speaker 1: So why though, does this matter still today? So Jarvin
• 46:25
  Speaker 1: would say, you have to be read built about the
• 46:28
  Speaker 1: American Revolution, and it still matters today to be a loyalist,
• 46:33
  Speaker 1: not only in terms of historical justice, but also because
• 46:38
  Speaker 1: it will give you a better insight in the world
• 46:40
  Speaker 1: of the twenty first century.
• 46:42
  Speaker 4: He claims that today we.
• 46:44
  Speaker 1: Live in a theocracy, not in the way people think
• 46:48
  Speaker 1: like mulas, but he would say the American Revolution was
• 46:52
  Speaker 1: very much and then the Civil War was very much
• 46:55
  Speaker 1: related to these Puritan zelos, and he claims today we
• 47:00
  Speaker 1: are still so. Any idealist who is not a reactionary
• 47:06
  Speaker 1: is a Puritan zealot in his mind. And today, from
• 47:08
  Speaker 1: climate change to black lives matters, we are seeing the
• 47:11
  Speaker 1: same thing in action, Puritan zelots who are attaching themselves
• 47:16
  Speaker 1: to the state, and they are imposing their capital ty truth.
• 47:21
  Speaker 4: And he says this is even more the case with science.
• 47:25
  Speaker 1: So failing for falling for the means of the revolution
• 47:28
  Speaker 1: means you fall for the myths of that the current
• 47:32
  Speaker 1: regime gives you today. So you are giving more power
• 47:35
  Speaker 1: to the high priests of this theocracy, which is everyone
• 47:38
  Speaker 1: from di bureaucrats to fauci or to whoever.
• 47:42
  Speaker 3: And for him to fall left today is a manifestation
• 47:46
  Speaker 3: of the Declaration of Independence. It's a manifestation. It's a
• 47:50
  Speaker 3: direct link between.
• 47:51
  Speaker 1: The two because again Jefferson was a leftist in his mind.
• 47:59
  Speaker 3: Well, an age ye equality is a leftist, and the
• 48:01
  Speaker 3: idea of individual waits is a leftist idea in his mind.
• 48:06
  Speaker 1: Exactly, it is because it's about change, it's about progress,
• 48:11
  Speaker 1: it's about and by the way, why should we give
• 48:15
  Speaker 1: to the leftists this compliment? It's actually the opposite. I
• 48:21
  Speaker 1: want mug left trains. I won't live until the age
• 48:25
  Speaker 1: of three hundred and fifty. By the way, Karts Jarving
• 48:27
  Speaker 1: is also bullies, mug left trains. How is the left
• 48:31
  Speaker 1: or when was the left in favor of change? Last
• 48:35
  Speaker 1: time it happened was more than a century ago. If
• 48:38
  Speaker 1: you think about if we go back to nineteen twenty six,
• 48:41
  Speaker 1: the bolls Offs have already given up this project. So
• 48:45
  Speaker 1: why do you give the left this out of jail
• 48:49
  Speaker 1: card where you present them as the advocates of progress?
• 48:54
  Speaker 2: Is you oving religious?
• 48:57
  Speaker 3: No?
• 48:58
  Speaker 1: Interestingly, in in the last years, I think he's more
• 49:03
  Speaker 1: sympathetic to Christian nationalists. But on a personal level, no,
• 49:11
  Speaker 1: he's not. Again, we're talking about about the guy who's
• 49:15
  Speaker 1: intellect is very, very high to take this crap seriously
• 49:20
  Speaker 1: of a religious fundamentalist. But on a political level it's yeah.
• 49:26
  Speaker 3: But does he see religion as the opiate of the
• 49:28
  Speaker 3: masters in the sense that you need it, right, you
• 49:31
  Speaker 3: need religion to keep.
• 49:33
  Speaker 2: The masters in check?
• 49:34
  Speaker 1: Depends who?
• 49:35
  Speaker 3: Because why is he a reactionary if if if you know,
• 49:38
  Speaker 3: reactionary means going backwards, backwards to what to religion.
• 49:42
  Speaker 2: To faith.
• 49:44
  Speaker 1: Huh okay, But remember what we said earlier on the
• 49:48
  Speaker 1: vast majority of people, they are not to be trusted
• 49:51
  Speaker 1: with thinking. So whatever you throw them, they will take it,
• 49:55
  Speaker 1: maybe as a pacifying as maybe as a pacifying mechanism.
• 49:59
  Speaker 1: So an opium that you want to give to the
• 50:02
  Speaker 1: patient if you have a patient who is you know,
• 50:05
  Speaker 1: they cannot think. They're in a semi wide situation, so
• 50:09
  Speaker 1: give them opium.
• 50:10
  Speaker 4: So they're gonna be trying to el So maybe that's
• 50:12
  Speaker 4: how he've viewsed the many I.
• 50:15
  Speaker 3: Mean a lot of conservatives over time have held religion
• 50:18
  Speaker 3: in that I mean the neo Khans famously a bunch
• 50:21
  Speaker 3: of atheists who believe that religion is a good thing
• 50:26
  Speaker 3: and that people need it even though it's not true, right,
• 50:30
  Speaker 3: Because you need it from morality. So even though there's
• 50:32
  Speaker 3: no God, you still need the masters to believe there's
• 50:34
  Speaker 3: a God, because that keeps them from raping and pellaging
• 50:38
  Speaker 3: and slaughtering each other.
• 50:40
  Speaker 1: I would give this even a slightly more sympathetic past
• 50:45
  Speaker 1: than Jarvin, because at least the neo God would say
• 50:48
  Speaker 1: we're fighting for the West. Yes, in a mistaken way,
• 50:51
  Speaker 1: they would say we are for you know, the West, Enlightenment.
• 50:55
  Speaker 4: Jarvin would see these themes without a.
• 50:57
  Speaker 1: Synesis, what is the West? What is the like? Come on,
• 51:00
  Speaker 1: give me a break.
• 51:00
  Speaker 3: Yeah, he's anti Enlightenment, whereas the conservative, the neocons, you know,
• 51:06
  Speaker 3: pro the Enlightenment at least in a superficial in a
• 51:10
  Speaker 3: superficial way. And they're very big on the Founding Fathers
• 51:12
  Speaker 3: and very big on on the Declaration. Even though they
• 51:15
  Speaker 3: don't understand the Declaration, they're big on it. So yeah,
• 51:20
  Speaker 3: no Neocon's head and shoulders above Curtis Yavin, I mean
• 51:23
  Speaker 3: yovin Is. I mean, he's smart than everything, but he's
• 51:26
  Speaker 3: the gutter. He really is the gutter. He is he
• 51:30
  Speaker 3: is prepping us for dictatorship, and exclusively he's not pretending otherwise.
• 51:35
  Speaker 3: You know, he might call it a coupit ceo or monarch,
• 51:38
  Speaker 3: but what is that in a political sense, because he can't.
• 51:42
  Speaker 3: One of the things, one of the confusions he has confusions.
• 51:45
  Speaker 3: One of the evasions he is this idea of political
• 51:48
  Speaker 3: and economic power. This is why he can think of
• 51:51
  Speaker 3: a political of a dictator as a CEO. Right, But
• 51:55
  Speaker 3: there's a fundamental difference between the two. I mean, even
• 51:59
  Speaker 3: Chadgy when they ask it about Kurdishyovin says he's confused
• 52:04
  Speaker 3: about this issue, you know, and he thinks the incentives
• 52:09
  Speaker 3: that work on a corporation in a competitive marketplace, so
• 52:14
  Speaker 3: the same incentives that work on a dictator. He said,
• 52:18
  Speaker 3: you know, this is chetchipt here's repute for you. The
• 52:21
  Speaker 3: problem is that sovereignty is not like running Apple or McDonald's.
• 52:25
  Speaker 3: A corporation cannot legally imprison its customers, seal its borders,
• 52:29
  Speaker 3: sense all criticism, command police and military forces, define the
• 52:32
  Speaker 3: legal status of its residents.
• 52:34
  Speaker 2: A sovereign can.
• 52:35
  Speaker 3: Once one institution has final control over law, courts, police, money, borders,
• 52:40
  Speaker 3: and weapons, customer service becomes an extremely thin protection.
• 52:46
  Speaker 2: I mean you got to give it to chat GPT.
• 52:48
  Speaker 1: Whit is this BT or ya on ai Chatgypt.
• 52:53
  Speaker 3: Now it's chat Gypt with memory of everything I've asked
• 52:57
  Speaker 3: and in everything I've ever said to it. So it's
• 53:00
  Speaker 3: it's shatchy Pte with a lot of you on and
• 53:02
  Speaker 3: I invent in it. But that is pretty damn good.
• 53:06
  Speaker 1: It is. It is.
• 53:06
  Speaker 4: I'm gonna remember again.
• 53:10
  Speaker 1: You never you're never sure where this guy is trolling
• 53:12
  Speaker 1: or where he's serious. But I think in that one
• 53:14
  Speaker 1: he's seriously. He thinks that it's perfectly fine to go
• 53:17
  Speaker 1: to a sorrows or something like that and basically just
• 53:20
  Speaker 1: trip him of all his property. It's there's something very
• 53:25
  Speaker 1: Carl Smith stuff there, the friends enemy distinction. Everything goes
• 53:31
  Speaker 1: against your enemies, anything and everything and everything goes. Politics
• 53:37
  Speaker 1: is about power. Lenin put it, and I think he
• 53:40
  Speaker 1: made He quotes Lenin in his book and qualified the reservations.
• 53:44
  Speaker 4: Lenin's famous question was who whom? This means who controls whom?
• 53:50
  Speaker 1: Who is? Who is? Who is oppressing woman? This is
• 53:55
  Speaker 1: how he used politics. Who whom?
• 53:57
  Speaker 2: Yep?
• 53:58
  Speaker 3: No, And in essence it is it's all politics. It's
• 54:02
  Speaker 3: all power. It's you know the sense in which its materialism.
• 54:07
  Speaker 3: You know, I don't know if there is anything else,
• 54:10
  Speaker 3: particularly if he's not religious.
• 54:12
  Speaker 2: It really does have a feel like that.
• 54:15
  Speaker 3: And so let's talk about he views. He believes that
• 54:21
  Speaker 3: the ultimate political outcome, his ideal would be a bunch
• 54:28
  Speaker 3: of if America broke up into a bunch of small
• 54:31
  Speaker 3: states rights city states, each run by a CEO and
• 54:36
  Speaker 3: competing with one another. And the way you compete is
• 54:39
  Speaker 3: by citizens moving, you know, leaving one and going to
• 54:43
  Speaker 3: the other.
• 54:45
  Speaker 4: No, he hasn't spoken about state rights.
• 54:48
  Speaker 1: Now. It's interesting that his reading of the Civil War
• 54:52
  Speaker 1: is that whatever your moral evaluation of the situation, that
• 54:57
  Speaker 1: the Union had zero legal rights to attack the states,
• 55:02
  Speaker 1: so to attack the.
• 55:03
  Speaker 3: I mean, i'd expect him to have that position here.
• 55:05
  Speaker 1: Yeah, And it's interesting how he's, oh, yeah, moral a side,
• 55:09
  Speaker 1: which is the.
• 55:10
  Speaker 4: I would say to the opposite.
• 55:11
  Speaker 1: That's the main reason I couldn't care less what the
• 55:14
  Speaker 1: constitution says.
• 55:15
  Speaker 3: And by the way, this is this is the position
• 55:18
  Speaker 3: of the Mesa's Institute. This is the position of libertarians,
• 55:22
  Speaker 3: so of the rough body and type libertarians. So I'm
• 55:25
  Speaker 3: not surprised he can't. I think he comes from that.
• 55:27
  Speaker 3: He comes from an oco capitalist, even whether he was
• 55:31
  Speaker 3: explicitly or not, he comes from that milieu. And he
• 55:35
  Speaker 3: brings a lot of that with him.
• 55:37
  Speaker 1: Yeah, I think it was Dillon ren So from Missus Lincoln. Yes, hero,
• 55:43
  Speaker 1: he read that, So he's not buying. He's more cynical
• 55:46
  Speaker 1: than that. He's not buying even into that. I think
• 55:49
  Speaker 1: he wants to prove that the units should never have
• 55:51
  Speaker 1: attacked the Southern He finds whatever, whatever will, will stick.
• 55:56
  Speaker 1: But no, he's not in favor of the states being
• 56:00
  Speaker 1: in competition. He would be okay with one CEO for
• 56:04
  Speaker 1: the whole of the United States, because why not. It's
• 56:07
  Speaker 1: if you can have that power in all the land?
• 56:10
  Speaker 1: Why why not? But again, you won't find Usually how
• 56:15
  Speaker 1: a podcast with Card's Garden goes someone asks him a question,
• 56:19
  Speaker 1: He goes on a tangent, which is very interesting because
• 56:22
  Speaker 1: you know, that's why people like listening to him. I
• 56:25
  Speaker 1: like listening to him because he has a way with
• 56:27
  Speaker 1: you know, history and all that stuff. Then after twenty
• 56:29
  Speaker 1: minutes people remember the actual question. The whole podcast is
• 56:33
  Speaker 1: two questions, whereas the and always people away, Okay, please
• 56:37
  Speaker 1: tell us what is this? How would a monarch CEO runner?
• 56:42
  Speaker 1: How would that look like? By the time they get
• 56:44
  Speaker 1: to that question, where two hours and fifty minutes in
• 56:47
  Speaker 1: he starts answering, he goes to a different tangent, and
• 56:51
  Speaker 1: at the end of the day he has not answered
• 56:53
  Speaker 1: the question. So I don't know to tell you exactly
• 56:55
  Speaker 1: what his what his vision, what his vision is.
• 57:00
  Speaker 3: So but clearly what he wants is a is a
• 57:05
  Speaker 3: theoritarian CEO slash monarch running everything, doing whatever he wants.
• 57:11
  Speaker 2: What does he view as the.
• 57:14
  Speaker 3: As the way in which we control that? Like, he
• 57:17
  Speaker 3: must realize this goes at a whack and he becomes authoritarian,
• 57:20
  Speaker 3: and he doesn't he doesn't want, you know, he doesn't
• 57:24
  Speaker 3: want crazy authoritarianism.
• 57:26
  Speaker 1: Yeah, he doesn't want. So he would say, look, how
• 57:28
  Speaker 1: does the company make sure that the CEO doesn't start,
• 57:32
  Speaker 1: I don't know, throwing chairs and breaking the infrastructure. Well,
• 57:37
  Speaker 1: everyone in the board of directors has some common interest
• 57:42
  Speaker 1: in the company not going down here these days. This
• 57:45
  Speaker 1: is not the case with the state, because the state
• 57:47
  Speaker 1: has all these different fractions. But once you move away
• 57:51
  Speaker 1: from that, then you have the idea that, yeah, there
• 57:55
  Speaker 1: is some common interest here because you don't have these
• 57:58
  Speaker 1: little favoes fighting with each other. But also every four
• 58:01
  Speaker 1: years again you hope this monarch will be benevolent. So
• 58:06
  Speaker 1: if in four years we tell him thank you for
• 58:08
  Speaker 1: your service, off you go, then he will go. Now,
• 58:11
  Speaker 1: of course this didn't happen in Russia. This will happen Belarus,
• 58:15
  Speaker 1: in Germany. Yeah, for each one of these he would
• 58:20
  Speaker 1: have an excuse. For example, he would say Hitler and
• 58:23
  Speaker 1: Stalin are actually children of Western democracy. He probably means
• 58:28
  Speaker 1: of the Enlightenment.
• 58:30
  Speaker 4: Therefore it doesn't it doesn't count.
• 58:32
  Speaker 1: Mussolini. He would probably say he's more of the left
• 58:35
  Speaker 1: rather than a true artist. So yeah, every he will
• 58:39
  Speaker 1: move the ball the goalpost, or he will have he
• 58:42
  Speaker 1: will have an answer. But this question remains without an answer. Action,
• 58:46
  Speaker 1: how can we get rid of a benevolent FDR who
• 58:52
  Speaker 1: decides that, you know what, I like the Napoleon example
• 58:55
  Speaker 1: more than the FDR example. There's no answer to that.
• 59:00
  Speaker 1: Before we go to the questions, Salu also mentioned something
• 59:04
  Speaker 1: about his foreign policy takes sure horribly in Ukraine.
• 59:10
  Speaker 4: He repeats and again at counters and how.
• 59:13
  Speaker 3: Someone crazing, because you'd think that Putin would be somebody
• 59:18
  Speaker 3: to admire. I mean, Putin is the dictator who does
• 59:24
  Speaker 3: what he wants, and and and and he has.
• 59:26
  Speaker 2: Board of directors.
• 59:27
  Speaker 3: I think it's all the dogs once in a while
• 59:29
  Speaker 3: one of them falls out of window.
• 59:30
  Speaker 2: And then up when they're not you know, in line.
• 59:33
  Speaker 3: And he is reactionary, I mean putting his his reactionary
• 59:37
  Speaker 3: on on religion, and he hates he hates LBG t
• 59:41
  Speaker 3: Q plus, which is the number one enemy of the
• 59:44
  Speaker 3: universe according to the New Right.
• 59:46
  Speaker 2: So I mean put why would I mean?
• 59:48
  Speaker 3: It seems to me like he Curtis would be very
• 59:51
  Speaker 3: pro putin.
• 59:53
  Speaker 4: Well, he's he's repeating all the bullshit Rossia propaganda about
• 59:58
  Speaker 4: the war in Ukraine.
• 59:59
  Speaker 1: One the usual examples he gives on the mistakes bureaucras
• 1:00:03
  Speaker 1: he does is how they decided that it was a
• 1:00:07
  Speaker 1: good idea to move NATO eastwards, as if this was
• 1:00:10
  Speaker 1: the reason why Rossi attacked Ukraine.
• 1:00:11
  Speaker 4: So I think this is very cheap.
• 1:00:14
  Speaker 1: Sorry, if there's Bagra knows the guy upstairs decided it's
• 1:00:18
  Speaker 1: time to see how far he can push his He
• 1:00:21
  Speaker 1: can push his furniture.
• 1:00:23
  Speaker 4: But he's better, much better. On Israel Gaza conflict.
• 1:00:29
  Speaker 1: Actually, if you go back to twenty twenty three, he
• 1:00:31
  Speaker 1: wrote an article about what should be the solution in Gaza.
• 1:00:35
  Speaker 1: I don't remember all the details, and I didn't have
• 1:00:38
  Speaker 1: the time to review it again, but it was one
• 1:00:41
  Speaker 1: of the best articles definitely in the New Right on
• 1:00:45
  Speaker 1: that conflict. So he's good on Israel, not good on Ukraine,
• 1:00:51
  Speaker 1: which is very weird to me. By what standard he
• 1:00:54
  Speaker 1: decided that one conflict is worth supporting and the other
• 1:00:57
  Speaker 1: is not.
• 1:00:58
  Speaker 3: Well, I think, I don't think it's I mean to me,
• 1:01:02
  Speaker 3: it's if he really cares about power, then he's the
• 1:01:08
  Speaker 3: opposite of the left right.
• 1:01:10
  Speaker 2: The left views power.
• 1:01:11
  Speaker 3: Why does the left like Ukraine because Russia is strong
• 1:01:15
  Speaker 3: and Ukraine's weak, and Ukraine is moving to the left
• 1:01:20
  Speaker 3: and Russia's right wings, so they hate Russia.
• 1:01:26
  Speaker 2: From the perspective, and Israel is strong, and.
• 1:01:31
  Speaker 3: Uh, you know, reactionary in many respects is a religious element.
• 1:01:35
  Speaker 3: There is a reactionary element, So it doesn't surprise me
• 1:01:38
  Speaker 3: that he would support the strong Over the week.
• 1:01:43
  Speaker 1: And again he manages to find a way to bring
• 1:01:47
  Speaker 1: in the mix the cathedral. So he says the reason
• 1:01:50
  Speaker 1: the Palestinians are suffering is because the cathedral in the
• 1:01:54
  Speaker 1: West does not allow them ever to be fully defeated,
• 1:01:58
  Speaker 1: which is true, by the way, and this has a
• 1:02:01
  Speaker 1: horrible repercussion. So he somehow managed to also in that
• 1:02:07
  Speaker 1: conflict include include the role of the quote to do gooders,
• 1:02:12
  Speaker 1: do gooders in the West. So so here's a very
• 1:02:15
  Speaker 1: leftist idea he actually has. I just realized this. For
• 1:02:19
  Speaker 1: everything wrong in the world, you have to find the
• 1:02:23
  Speaker 1: Deep State of Washington behind it. Everything that happens anywhere
• 1:02:27
  Speaker 1: the United States are behind it. And kissing Gear. Don't
• 1:02:31
  Speaker 1: don't get him started on kissing gear.
• 1:02:34
  Speaker 2: Yep, he's.
• 1:02:37
  Speaker 3: Yeah, don't get me started and kissing So that that
• 1:02:39
  Speaker 3: that that.
• 1:02:40
  Speaker 1: We that we agree, but we can't do an episode
• 1:02:43
  Speaker 1: on kissing Gear. When Neil Ferguson releases the second volume
• 1:02:47
  Speaker 1: of the biography.
• 1:02:49
  Speaker 2: Okay, okay, so you you were the first one.
• 1:02:54
  Speaker 4: I'm waiting for the second. I want to read them.
• 1:02:56
  Speaker 1: I started, but then I said, no, no, no, this has
• 1:02:58
  Speaker 1: to be one thing you can't okay, I want to.
• 1:03:01
  Speaker 3: Be okay, good good. All right, Well, let's see if
• 1:03:07
  Speaker 3: we have any questions on Curtis Yovin. We've got questions
• 1:03:10
  Speaker 3: from all over the place, from you know, football. Let
• 1:03:15
  Speaker 3: me remind you, guys that these shows cost double because
• 1:03:21
  Speaker 3: there are two of us, so.
• 1:03:24
  Speaker 2: We share the super chat. So if five.
• 1:03:27
  Speaker 3: Hundred dollars is kind of the minimum for two hours
• 1:03:30
  Speaker 3: of me, then it's one thousand dollars for two hours
• 1:03:34
  Speaker 3: of me and Nikos, So please take that into account
• 1:03:38
  Speaker 3: in thinking about your support for these particular shows. We've
• 1:03:43
  Speaker 3: got quite a few questions, but a lot of them
• 1:03:44
  Speaker 3: are like the two five dollars, ten dollars level. Well,
• 1:03:48
  Speaker 3: we need some some some fifty hundred dollars questions, twenty
• 1:03:52
  Speaker 3: dollars questions, stuff like that. Well, stickers, you can also
• 1:03:55
  Speaker 3: do stickers. Stickers are great if you don't have a question,
• 1:03:58
  Speaker 3: just you want to show your support, you want us
• 1:04:00
  Speaker 3: to continue these Uh, you know, we've got plans for
• 1:04:04
  Speaker 3: doing for taking on both many of the I mean
• 1:04:08
  Speaker 3: really many of the intellectual movements, both on the left
• 1:04:10
  Speaker 3: and the right. Uh, we're gonna I don't know about
• 1:04:14
  Speaker 3: equal treatment, probably not equal treatment, but we're gonna because
• 1:04:16
  Speaker 3: the left is so much more intellectual. There's much more
• 1:04:19
  Speaker 3: to talk about on the left in many respect anymore.
• 1:04:21
  Speaker 1: Actually, have you thought about it in the last ten years.
• 1:04:25
  Speaker 1: How many new thinkers of the left can you think?
• 1:04:27
  Speaker 1: I can't think of many.
• 1:04:29
  Speaker 3: Yeah, but the right, the thinkers of the way tend
• 1:04:32
  Speaker 3: to be so shallow. I mean, we'll do the post
• 1:04:35
  Speaker 3: post liberal post liberals.
• 1:04:38
  Speaker 2: Yeah, what else is there?
• 1:04:39
  Speaker 3: I mean, I mean, Tucker cost is not a thinker.
• 1:04:42
  Speaker 3: You know, demons scratching you in the night is not
• 1:04:47
  Speaker 3: an intellectual position, it's it's uh yeah, I mean.
• 1:04:52
  Speaker 2: Anyway, we're gonna cover them all.
• 1:04:54
  Speaker 3: Well, we'll, we'll, we're going to cover all of them
• 1:04:56
  Speaker 3: and those yet to be an new ones that are coming.
• 1:05:01
  Speaker 3: We're going to talk about history. Uh, We're going to
• 1:05:04
  Speaker 3: talk about We're probably going to do a show on
• 1:05:08
  Speaker 3: the Spanish Revolution, which I think is an interesting Spanish
• 1:05:11
  Speaker 3: civil war. Sorry, Spanish Civil War, which I think is
• 1:05:13
  Speaker 3: an interesting civil war.
• 1:05:15
  Speaker 1: I used to talk Spanish Revolution in my Communis days.
• 1:05:18
  Speaker 1: That's how every proper con should call it.
• 1:05:20
  Speaker 2: So the counter revolutionaries won that one.
• 1:05:23
  Speaker 3: So but yes, the Spanish Civil War, and Franco Franco
• 1:05:26
  Speaker 3: is now, by the way, hero of the New right.
• 1:05:30
  Speaker 2: Many on the New Right, who don't want.
• 1:05:31
  Speaker 3: To say they're like Hitler Mussolini, because you know, that's
• 1:05:34
  Speaker 3: you know, that's that's incorrect. Even among them, they become
• 1:05:39
  Speaker 3: big fans of Franco, who led this amazing resurgent of Spain,
• 1:05:45
  Speaker 3: became this wealthy, successful, you know, superpower under Franco so
• 1:05:50
  Speaker 3: they I'm kidding. So they they really love Franco as
• 1:05:54
  Speaker 3: the as the model politicians.
• 1:05:57
  Speaker 1: So sobiek Ako Zobik, who was a guest in the
• 1:06:03
  Speaker 1: inaugural flight of the new jet that Trump has, so
• 1:06:06
  Speaker 1: he's not the nobody. For many months on Tweeter, every
• 1:06:10
  Speaker 1: Friday he would post f F. Franko Friday with some
• 1:06:14
  Speaker 1: song or picture of Alsimo. So it's it's important to
• 1:06:18
  Speaker 1: talk about.
• 1:06:18
  Speaker 2: Yes, well we'll do it.
• 1:06:19
  Speaker 3: And I think I don't know much about the Spanish
• 1:06:22
  Speaker 3: Civil War, and I don't think people know a lot
• 1:06:26
  Speaker 3: about it. It's it's kind of a you know, and
• 1:06:28
  Speaker 3: a lot of Americans participated.
• 1:06:31
  Speaker 1: And many intellectuals. I don't think there's been in history
• 1:06:34
  Speaker 1: any war where so many intellectuals were so much investive
• 1:06:38
  Speaker 1: from both sides, not just from the side of the film.
• 1:06:41
  Speaker 3: And it's interesting because every time I look at it,
• 1:06:43
  Speaker 3: I go, I hate them both. So it's it's and
• 1:06:48
  Speaker 3: yet people got very excited about being supportive of one
• 1:06:51
  Speaker 3: side or the other, whereas it seems to me like
• 1:06:54
  Speaker 3: it was the classical example of this is what happens
• 1:06:56
  Speaker 3: when you let the crazy left and the crazy right
• 1:07:00
  Speaker 3: go after each other and anyway, we'll talk about it
• 1:07:03
  Speaker 3: on the Future show. Probably two weeks did we say
• 1:07:06
  Speaker 3: two weeks.
• 1:07:07
  Speaker 1: The Yeah, the coup of Franco there, it's two weeks
• 1:07:11
  Speaker 1: from now. I think it's the universtay. It's somewhere twenty
• 1:07:14
  Speaker 1: something of July. So if it's not the exact date
• 1:07:17
  Speaker 1: it will be out.
• 1:07:18
  Speaker 2: We'll probably do around there.
• 1:07:19
  Speaker 3: We have to the big issue then in two weeks,
• 1:07:22
  Speaker 3: of course, is the World Cup finals, so we're gonna
• 1:07:25
  Speaker 3: have to work around that. We might start the show
• 1:07:27
  Speaker 3: even earlier so we can so we can get the
• 1:07:30
  Speaker 3: show done before the final starts. But you know, a
• 1:07:34
  Speaker 3: lot of a lot of content is going to be delivered,
• 1:07:36
  Speaker 3: so please consider supporting. Let me thanks on the stick
• 1:07:39
  Speaker 3: of people here Chile, third super Chat ever, Thank you Chile,
• 1:07:44
  Speaker 3: Thank you, Bonnie. Let's see what else do who else
• 1:07:48
  Speaker 3: do we have here?
• 1:07:50
  Speaker 5: We have Paul, Thank you, Paul, and Mike, thank you,
• 1:07:57
  Speaker 5: and Gail and Cook and friend Hapa, thank you.
• 1:08:03
  Speaker 2: Guys. We need some of those, some of my whales.
• 1:08:06
  Speaker 2: We need some of my.
• 1:08:07
  Speaker 3: Whales to come in here and and move that thermometer
• 1:08:11
  Speaker 3: of money raised up because it's it's definitely lagging, lagging
• 1:08:17
  Speaker 3: previous shows. All right, let's turn to your questions. Remember
• 1:08:21
  Speaker 3: you can ask about anything, but we'll take Curtis Yovin
• 1:08:24
  Speaker 3: questions first. And as it is, the only fifty dollars
• 1:08:27
  Speaker 3: question is a Kurtis Yovin question.
• 1:08:29
  Speaker 1: So this is good.
• 1:08:31
  Speaker 2: Josh asks.
• 1:08:32
  Speaker 3: Does the kurt This Yovn's story provide a useful lesson
• 1:08:36
  Speaker 3: for us who wish to grow the influence of objectivism?
• 1:08:40
  Speaker 3: Does his example illustrate a place for the essential factor
• 1:08:43
  Speaker 3: passion and charisma in spending an idea?
• 1:08:47
  Speaker 1: It's so interesting because if you put characters Jarvin in
• 1:08:51
  Speaker 1: Ai and ask Ai analyze the chartism of this guy,
• 1:08:56
  Speaker 1: the result would be sorry, this guy looks geeky. The
• 1:09:00
  Speaker 1: way he speaks, he breaks every single rule of public speaking.
• 1:09:04
  Speaker 1: I mean, it's become a caricature like he has a way,
• 1:09:08
  Speaker 1: which is it's impossible to limit it, and yet people listen.
• 1:09:12
  Speaker 1: So the only lesson to be learned from this is
• 1:09:15
  Speaker 1: that it's worth asking sometimes the difficult questions because high
• 1:09:21
  Speaker 1: intelligence people will pay attention. That's the only lesson I
• 1:09:25
  Speaker 1: can get from Cartis Jarwin of the Unqualified Reservations. Now
• 1:09:30
  Speaker 1: we go back twenty years from the Cartis jargue of today.
• 1:09:35
  Speaker 1: I haven't got a lesson to draw.
• 1:09:39
  Speaker 3: I don't. I mean these things are very interesting. I
• 1:09:44
  Speaker 3: mean Curtsyavan was he was there at the right time,
• 1:09:48
  Speaker 3: in the right place. In a sense, he was in
• 1:09:50
  Speaker 3: Silicon Valley, and he was talking about what was going on,
• 1:09:57
  Speaker 3: you know, the inside he has. I think what makes
• 1:10:00
  Speaker 3: interesting is the understood that something, something was really happening
• 1:10:07
  Speaker 3: in America that I think most of us didn't see.
• 1:10:13
  Speaker 3: We saw the tea party and in a sense was
• 1:10:15
  Speaker 3: seduced by the tea party to some extent, and we
• 1:10:18
  Speaker 3: didn't see the underlying anger and fear and frustration and
• 1:10:25
  Speaker 3: that was ready and willing to overthrow everything. And then
• 1:10:30
  Speaker 3: I think even during the Biden administration, I think at
• 1:10:34
  Speaker 3: the end we underestimated just how pissed off everybody was,
• 1:10:38
  Speaker 3: including Silicon Valley ultimately with woke of DI and HG
• 1:10:42
  Speaker 3: and all this stuff. I mean, we hate it, but
• 1:10:45
  Speaker 3: I think there's a certain sense in which, yeah, we
• 1:10:48
  Speaker 3: intellectually know it's evil, we know it's bad, and we
• 1:10:51
  Speaker 3: go on.
• 1:10:52
  Speaker 2: But there are people who have the real hand on
• 1:10:55
  Speaker 2: the pulse.
• 1:10:56
  Speaker 3: And then what they do and this is what we
• 1:10:58
  Speaker 3: can't do, and this is why I think it's hard
• 1:11:02
  Speaker 3: for us to be successful. They play to the trend.
• 1:11:06
  Speaker 3: Now I'm not saying he's faking it. I'm just saying
• 1:11:09
  Speaker 3: it happens that his ideas are consistent with the trend.
• 1:11:14
  Speaker 3: The trend is the left is the epitome of evil
• 1:11:17
  Speaker 3: and needs to be fought by any means necessary. Let's
• 1:11:21
  Speaker 3: bring out, you know, the guns, that whatever, and declare
• 1:11:25
  Speaker 3: the American experiment over. And we are still trying to
• 1:11:29
  Speaker 3: protect and defend the American experiment, trying to work if
• 1:11:34
  Speaker 3: you will, within the system and America. In the mid
• 1:11:37
  Speaker 3: two thousands and solely today, there were certain elements within
• 1:11:40
  Speaker 3: America who were ready to throw it all out and
• 1:11:45
  Speaker 3: start over and declare a revolution.
• 1:11:48
  Speaker 2: And you know, there's a sension.
• 1:11:50
  Speaker 3: Which I think if there was an objectives out there
• 1:11:52
  Speaker 3: in the mid two thousands saying all right, this is it,
• 1:11:57
  Speaker 3: it's time for revolution, it's time to to go and strike,
• 1:12:02
  Speaker 3: it's time to start all over again, maybe they would
• 1:12:05
  Speaker 3: have been more successful, Maybe that would have resonated with
• 1:12:08
  Speaker 3: the kind of but I don't think long term, because
• 1:12:11
  Speaker 3: long term, I still think the long term battle has
• 1:12:15
  Speaker 3: to be one on the philosophical front, on the intellectual front.
• 1:12:18
  Speaker 3: And what Kurtishovid is doing is he's taking the trend
• 1:12:23
  Speaker 3: and reinforcing it and amplifying it. Now that's because he
• 1:12:28
  Speaker 3: supports it. But I don't know what we can learn
• 1:12:31
  Speaker 3: from that. I don't know how we would do it.
• 1:12:33
  Speaker 3: What would we do if I knew now what I
• 1:12:35
  Speaker 3: knew what I if I knew then what I know
• 1:12:37
  Speaker 3: now about the Tea Party and about Trump's coming and
• 1:12:42
  Speaker 3: the whole latitude in the country, what would I do different?
• 1:12:45
  Speaker 3: I'm sure there's stuff I would do different, But would
• 1:12:47
  Speaker 3: it be that would have changed things that much?
• 1:12:49
  Speaker 2: I don't think so.
• 1:12:50
  Speaker 1: And to answer that question, we can not do it
• 1:12:52
  Speaker 1: on the spot because this would require deep thinking. By
• 1:12:55
  Speaker 1: the way, this reminds me not to put you on
• 1:12:57
  Speaker 1: the spot. But around twenty twenty one, I was asking
• 1:13:00
  Speaker 1: you whether you should try to come up with something
• 1:13:05
  Speaker 1: like a theory for lack of a better world of revolution.
• 1:13:08
  Speaker 1: So when would political action that would look like revolution
• 1:13:13
  Speaker 1: be okay? And in you know, among let's say.
• 1:13:19
  Speaker 4: I don't want to say the objective.
• 1:13:20
  Speaker 1: Let's say an objectivist inspired theory of a revolution. How
• 1:13:24
  Speaker 1: do you know that what you see is a legitimate revolution?
• 1:13:28
  Speaker 1: And what would it look like and how would it
• 1:13:30
  Speaker 1: be different from like a sid so, like I don't know,
• 1:13:33
  Speaker 1: like you know, imagine a more serious January six for example.
• 1:13:41
  Speaker 3: I mean, I think, I mean, a legit revolution would
• 1:13:46
  Speaker 3: have to be focused on.
• 1:13:49
  Speaker 2: Individual rates.
• 1:13:50
  Speaker 3: It would have to be focused on but individuates in
• 1:13:54
  Speaker 3: a sense of life sense. So, and this is why
• 1:13:57
  Speaker 3: I think the the Tea Party fake this out right,
• 1:14:01
  Speaker 3: because there was something there, right, there was something about
• 1:14:04
  Speaker 3: don't step on me, leave me alone, get the guvernment
• 1:14:08
  Speaker 3: out of my life. But it wasn't legit because it
• 1:14:11
  Speaker 3: had no foundation. And it was also not legit, And
• 1:14:15
  Speaker 3: this is important. I think for revolutions. It was a
• 1:14:18
  Speaker 3: revolution of old people. And revolutions are never of old people.
• 1:14:23
  Speaker 3: Revolutions are for and of the young. Right, think about
• 1:14:27
  Speaker 3: the founders and how old they were. They were all
• 1:14:29
  Speaker 3: in their twenties and thirties or early thirties. Right, there
• 1:14:31
  Speaker 3: were young people in the French Revolution, all young people.
• 1:14:36
  Speaker 1: They're also underd evolution, the Bossivics who were all very young.
• 1:14:40
  Speaker 3: Yeah, So revolutions are of and for the young. And
• 1:14:45
  Speaker 3: so imagine a Tea Party of young people. I mean,
• 1:14:48
  Speaker 3: to some extent, you're seeing that a little bit with
• 1:14:50
  Speaker 3: me lay right. Milay's appeal is with the young, and
• 1:14:54
  Speaker 3: the people who are taking his ideas seriously are the young.
• 1:14:57
  Speaker 2: The people are going on and reading the.
• 1:14:58
  Speaker 3: Books are the young, and there is a sense of
• 1:15:02
  Speaker 3: a positive revolution they now. Where it will go is
• 1:15:04
  Speaker 3: hard to tell because it's maybe too early for what
• 1:15:08
  Speaker 3: Mila is trying to do, and he's not consistent enough
• 1:15:10
  Speaker 3: and he doesn't have the right model tone.
• 1:15:11
  Speaker 2: But you know, but so I think it would have
• 1:15:15
  Speaker 2: to be young people.
• 1:15:16
  Speaker 3: It would have to be these ideas of don't tread
• 1:15:20
  Speaker 3: on me, leave me alone, get the government out of
• 1:15:23
  Speaker 3: my life. You know what would make a great revolution
• 1:15:25
  Speaker 3: right now as young people saying I don't want to
• 1:15:32
  Speaker 3: I don't want to fund my grandparents, screw them right no,
• 1:15:37
  Speaker 3: because what you're getting right now in America is the
• 1:15:40
  Speaker 3: largest redistribution of wealth in human history, and it's from
• 1:15:43
  Speaker 3: young people to old people. Imagine if young people woke
• 1:15:47
  Speaker 3: up to that and said enough, this is ridiculous, you
• 1:15:52
  Speaker 3: old people. You've had plenty of time to save money,
• 1:15:55
  Speaker 3: and you're taking our money that you know, we're just
• 1:15:58
  Speaker 3: starting out in life, us to death.
• 1:16:00
  Speaker 2: You're destroying our economy.
• 1:16:02
  Speaker 3: So that you can go on vacations and cruise around
• 1:16:05
  Speaker 3: the Caribbean, you know, because that's what they're doing, right, So, uh,
• 1:16:08
  Speaker 3: that would be that would be I would be inspired
• 1:16:12
  Speaker 3: if young people said we're fed up with feeding, with
• 1:16:16
  Speaker 3: the redistribution from us to the old people. We want
• 1:16:19
  Speaker 3: a life and you're taking that life away from us.
• 1:16:22
  Speaker 2: That would be kind.
• 1:16:23
  Speaker 3: Of some of the material from which you would cave.
• 1:16:27
  Speaker 3: But you know, so it would be a self interested
• 1:16:31
  Speaker 3: pro liberty, not very intellectual, but at least at the.
• 1:16:35
  Speaker 2: Level of I've had it, you know, I've had it with.
• 1:16:39
  Speaker 3: With so much govern intervention and so much governt involvement
• 1:16:41
  Speaker 3: and so much goverment redistribution.
• 1:16:43
  Speaker 2: But you see, where would that come from?
• 1:16:45
  Speaker 3: I mean young people today, I mean it would they
• 1:16:48
  Speaker 3: would you know imagine I mean even Nikos when I
• 1:16:50
  Speaker 3: said I don't want to feed my grandmother anymore, Like
• 1:16:53
  Speaker 3: we're shocked by that, because you know, altruism does not
• 1:16:58
  Speaker 3: allow anybody to say that. It's just mixed. That impossible.
• 1:17:02
  Speaker 3: So how would you get to a point where, so
• 1:17:04
  Speaker 3: to me, when young people are ready to say that, okay,
• 1:17:07
  Speaker 3: we're ready, but they're not going to be because this
• 1:17:12
  Speaker 3: altruism is too deeply in green and therefore what they
• 1:17:15
  Speaker 3: look for is common good you know, the common good
• 1:17:21
  Speaker 3: solutions which you know, and and to be to be
• 1:17:27
  Speaker 3: contrary and revolutionary. It's going to be authoritarian.
• 1:17:33
  Speaker 1: And you talk about Mark Andrison. Check out, guys, a
• 1:17:37
  Speaker 1: video that Mark and Risen posted for fourth of July.
• 1:17:41
  Speaker 1: It's a pure vibes video. It has think about the
• 1:17:44
  Speaker 1: bap esthetics. You know, it has young people, you know, dancing,
• 1:17:49
  Speaker 1: jumping from cliffs, nice bodies. One of the songs playing
• 1:17:54
  Speaker 1: is La moreto Zurs, which is the Ouselander raw song.
• 1:17:58
  Speaker 1: So the only and I'm mentioned and reason because there
• 1:18:04
  Speaker 1: was a time he used to retweet me when I
• 1:18:06
  Speaker 1: would post and run stuff.
• 1:18:08
  Speaker 4: I thought he was objective, striendly.
• 1:18:10
  Speaker 1: The only movement these days that creates an energy that
• 1:18:15
  Speaker 1: looks like a revolutionary movement energy, unfortunately.
• 1:18:18
  Speaker 4: Is the far right.
• 1:18:20
  Speaker 2: Yep.
• 1:18:20
  Speaker 1: It is the only it is the only movement that
• 1:18:23
  Speaker 1: can give rise to such however you want to call
• 1:18:26
  Speaker 1: it revolutionary counter revolutionary movement. And it is the movement
• 1:18:31
  Speaker 1: that I predict will will get most of the young
• 1:18:34
  Speaker 1: people because young people are attracted to that energy.
• 1:18:39
  Speaker 3: Yeah, and you know I'm watching the video right now,
• 1:18:41
  Speaker 3: it's got fire planes taking off, it's got soldiers coming
• 1:18:44
  Speaker 3: back from World War Two, it's got helicopters and aircraft carriers,
• 1:18:48
  Speaker 3: you know, and F thirty five. It's masculine, right, it's
• 1:18:52
  Speaker 3: very masculine and and striking, and it's got a long
• 1:18:59
  Speaker 3: mask walk. It's uh so and and space.
• 1:19:03
  Speaker 1: That sounds like probably he posted the second video or
• 1:19:06
  Speaker 1: second live second video by.
• 1:19:11
  Speaker 3: Yeah yeah, so yeah, and if you look, it's all
• 1:19:14
  Speaker 3: about you know, he's got a bunch of stuff about
• 1:19:17
  Speaker 3: Mars and and just looking at his thread right now
• 1:19:20
  Speaker 3: from today for yesterday. Uh, it's it's all about space
• 1:19:23
  Speaker 3: and and innovation and but but yeah, I mean so
• 1:19:28
  Speaker 3: I haven't seen the one with the good looking guys.
• 1:19:31
  Speaker 2: But uh, but he is.
• 1:19:35
  Speaker 3: Yes, I think that the right, the far right, has
• 1:19:41
  Speaker 3: a positive agenda American greatness wrap around the flag, and
• 1:19:47
  Speaker 3: Reson is not going to make a big deal about religion.
• 1:19:49
  Speaker 3: But he will ally himself with the religionists with the
• 1:19:52
  Speaker 3: in order to achieve what he wants to achieve.
• 1:19:54
  Speaker 2: He's not anti religion, he's just not pro.
• 1:19:56
  Speaker 3: But so it's it's it's the flag and the cross
• 1:20:00
  Speaker 3: united around a pro American masculine vision of the future.
• 1:20:06
  Speaker 3: And I think that's why it appeals to young men
• 1:20:08
  Speaker 3: more than young women. And uh and and I think
• 1:20:11
  Speaker 3: it's it's got aesthetics. It's got the same aesthetics you know,
• 1:20:15
  Speaker 3: the Communists and the Nazis had. It's you know, a
• 1:20:19
  Speaker 3: materialistic you know, uh, strength, physique focused.
• 1:20:26
  Speaker 1: But more life are filming. It's not about sacrifice.
• 1:20:30
  Speaker 2: Because it's American.
• 1:20:31
  Speaker 3: Yes, that's right, because it's much it's much more American
• 1:20:33
  Speaker 3: in that sense. Let you know, we're going to sacrifice
• 1:20:36
  Speaker 3: everybody else in the world to us. And so it's
• 1:20:40
  Speaker 3: I mean, in you're right, that's that's who they are.
• 1:20:44
  Speaker 3: It's it's got a pseudo heroic sense to it. It
• 1:20:47
  Speaker 3: harkens back to the cowboy. But but it's not it's
• 1:20:51
  Speaker 3: not individualistic. In spite of all that, it's it's not
• 1:20:54
  Speaker 3: truly individualistic. It's still collectivistic. It's heritage Americans. It's it's
• 1:21:00
  Speaker 3: it's the right kind of Americans. It's anti immigration, it's
• 1:21:03
  Speaker 3: you know, so it's it's it's a it's a dangerous way.
• 1:21:07
  Speaker 3: It's a courtasy ovan way. But let's see what else
• 1:21:10
  Speaker 3: do we have here, Curtis you of in ny case says,
• 1:21:14
  Speaker 3: how does Jovins tech right connect to JD events as
• 1:21:17
  Speaker 3: Christian right? I don't get it. Shouldn't the proponents of
• 1:21:22
  Speaker 3: tech AI and spaceships be opposed to return to Augustinian medievalism?
• 1:21:29
  Speaker 1: Yes, if the main thing would be how do we
• 1:21:32
  Speaker 1: get more spaceships and stuff? But the main thing, unfortunately,
• 1:21:36
  Speaker 1: I think for Jarwin and all those people, is how
• 1:21:39
  Speaker 1: do we stop the main threat today? And the main
• 1:21:41
  Speaker 1: threat is liberalism, not leftism, classical liberal You haven't controlled
• 1:21:46
  Speaker 1: your life. For these people is a problem. Your freedom
• 1:21:50
  Speaker 1: is a problem to be mitigated. That's why they find
• 1:21:53
  Speaker 1: good company with the day advances of this world.
• 1:21:57
  Speaker 2: Yeah, and look, I told you a as Hammelet society.
• 1:22:00
  Speaker 3: I've talked about it a few times because it was
• 1:22:03
  Speaker 3: truly shocking to me. But look, this is an organization
• 1:22:06
  Speaker 3: where everybody's a startup founder, everybody's a tech guy, and
• 1:22:11
  Speaker 3: yet they're all Catholics or most of the Catholics.
• 1:22:15
  Speaker 2: But to all Christians, religion is a big deal.
• 1:22:18
  Speaker 3: I mean, I did the session about Christianities is destroying
• 1:22:21
  Speaker 3: the civilization and it was ninety percent against me.
• 1:22:25
  Speaker 1: Right.
• 1:22:25
  Speaker 3: The audience was all tech people, all Silicon value people.
• 1:22:28
  Speaker 2: They were all against me.
• 1:22:29
  Speaker 3: You have to you know, to come to the debates,
• 1:22:31
  Speaker 3: to come to the debates in Silicon Valley, you.
• 1:22:34
  Speaker 2: Have to wear a suit and a tie.
• 1:22:36
  Speaker 3: This is like anti everything I believe in and you know,
• 1:22:41
  Speaker 3: anything the Silicon Value represented. I mean, this is this
• 1:22:44
  Speaker 3: is the land of Steve Jobs, you know, going to
• 1:22:46
  Speaker 3: VC meetings barefoot and in torn jeans and without having
• 1:22:51
  Speaker 3: taken a shower in three weeks. And now you know
• 1:22:54
  Speaker 3: founders are wearing suits and ties, you know, as a requirement.
• 1:22:58
  Speaker 3: You won't be let into the fability without a student side.
• 1:23:02
  Speaker 3: This is you know, conservatism in religion. And and again
• 1:23:07
  Speaker 3: there were fans there, of course, you of, and there
• 1:23:09
  Speaker 3: were fans there of a number of people were said
• 1:23:14
  Speaker 3: they were race you know, explicitly said they were racists,
• 1:23:20
  Speaker 3: you know, talking about this is a white country, and
• 1:23:22
  Speaker 3: and and jeans, and you know, I had this one
• 1:23:25
  Speaker 3: guy who's from a Mexican heritage. I guess this is
• 1:23:27
  Speaker 3: like Nick Foentis who said, you know, no, you know,
• 1:23:31
  Speaker 3: Western civilization is not then Europe, It's white civilization.
• 1:23:35
  Speaker 2: And I said, I'd love to want it.
• 1:23:36
  Speaker 3: I said to him, I I'd love to want a
• 1:23:38
  Speaker 3: twenty three and meters on on you uh, you know
• 1:23:41
  Speaker 3: you think Spanish is white?
• 1:23:43
  Speaker 2: I mean, do you do you have any concept of
• 1:23:45
  Speaker 2: who the Spanish.
• 1:23:45
  Speaker 3: War and how how much how much Moorish and Islamic
• 1:23:49
  Speaker 3: blood you have in you?
• 1:23:50
  Speaker 2: If if there is such a thing, Give me a
• 1:23:53
  Speaker 2: frigging break.
• 1:23:54
  Speaker 1: But I was picturing Jonathan all this time, revolting to
• 1:23:58
  Speaker 1: the idea that that's something. React Sunari to the suits.
• 1:24:00
  Speaker 1: I think we should bring bad suits. Having said that,
• 1:24:04
  Speaker 1: someone asked about you kind of go along with a
• 1:24:08
  Speaker 1: leather jacket. So maybe less on there.
• 1:24:12
  Speaker 3: If we're gonna, if Nichos and I are gonna have
• 1:24:14
  Speaker 3: a schism, it's it's gonna be over dress code.
• 1:24:19
  Speaker 2: It's gonna be over a suit and tie.
• 1:24:23
  Speaker 3: And and their importance in life. Let's see.
• 1:24:29
  Speaker 1: By the way, remember we don't have to do it today,
• 1:24:31
  Speaker 1: but we have a song to review at some point.
• 1:24:34
  Speaker 3: Oh that's right, So not today because I haven't I
• 1:24:38
  Speaker 3: haven't listen. Let's know, I know you reminded me, and
• 1:24:43
  Speaker 3: Shabad is out there somewhere waiting for his review.
• 1:24:46
  Speaker 2: So but I have to have to listen to the song.
• 1:24:50
  Speaker 3: This last two weeks have been a little hellish. Let's see,
• 1:24:57
  Speaker 3: and the next two weeks is gonna be eli So
• 1:24:59
  Speaker 3: you know, different way. Here's another Curtis Yovin Andrews says,
• 1:25:04
  Speaker 3: is there a connection between the Ovin's view of human
• 1:25:06
  Speaker 3: hierarchies and social power dynamics and Jordan Peterson's lobster's metaphor
• 1:25:12
  Speaker 3: for social hierarchies. Ah.
• 1:25:16
  Speaker 1: I don't think there is any active dialogue between the two.
• 1:25:21
  Speaker 1: But I can't think of any disagreement Cartis Jarvin would
• 1:25:27
  Speaker 1: had with the lobster's theory, which yeah, it's not even
• 1:25:32
  Speaker 1: the he wouldn't considered it controversial or even worthy of
• 1:25:35
  Speaker 1: much discussions.
• 1:25:37
  Speaker 3: I think, yeah, I think it comes from the same place.
• 1:25:42
  Speaker 3: It's a it's a it's a rejection of egalitarianism. I
• 1:25:49
  Speaker 3: think I think Peterson's is probably a little more nuanced
• 1:25:52
  Speaker 3: than Curtis y Ovins, because Curtis wants to go hierarchies
• 1:25:55
  Speaker 3: all the way, and I think Peterson, at least sometimes
• 1:26:00
  Speaker 3: uh actually respects the Declaration and respects the idea of
• 1:26:04
  Speaker 3: political equality, whereas Curtis doesn't. So, but it's it's a
• 1:26:09
  Speaker 3: reject a rejection, Look, there is I can't think of
• 1:26:13
  Speaker 3: an ideology that's more evil than egalitarianism and egalitarianism is
• 1:26:18
  Speaker 3: and we should do a show on on egalitarianism or
• 1:26:21
  Speaker 3: pol pot maybe.
• 1:26:22
  Speaker 2: I mean, it's the.
• 1:26:23
  Speaker 3: It's the lowest of the low it's it's it's an
• 1:26:26
  Speaker 3: in negation of man as man, negation of the facts
• 1:26:29
  Speaker 3: of reality, and a rejection of the individual completely. So
• 1:26:33
  Speaker 3: the backlash against the galitarianism justified. And then the question
• 1:26:37
  Speaker 3: is do you understand what it actually means? And what
• 1:26:41
  Speaker 3: is the counter te galitarianism? Because hierarchy's what does higharchys mean?
• 1:26:45
  Speaker 3: Doesnt mean some people are better than others? Yeah, of course,
• 1:26:49
  Speaker 3: I mean ein Rand, you know, Athle Shrug is full
• 1:26:52
  Speaker 3: of that, right. Some people carry the world on their
• 1:26:54
  Speaker 3: shoulders and other people do not. Some people's are makers
• 1:26:57
  Speaker 3: and some people are takers, and and people the same intelligence,
• 1:27:01
  Speaker 3: of course not people are different intelligence. So in every
• 1:27:03
  Speaker 3: dimension we are different, and they're better and worse, morally,
• 1:27:07
  Speaker 3: better and worse and in other ways.
• 1:27:10
  Speaker 2: The question is.
• 1:27:11
  Speaker 3: What conclusion do you come to from that? You know,
• 1:27:14
  Speaker 3: what do you derive from that? From the fact that
• 1:27:17
  Speaker 3: you know egalitarianism is wrong, and you know.
• 1:27:24
  Speaker 2: How does that apply to your politics?
• 1:27:25
  Speaker 3: And I think Peterson comes at it from a too
• 1:27:30
  Speaker 3: much of a biological perspective and evolutionary perspective, saying we're
• 1:27:35
  Speaker 3: just like lobsters. We've got a gene that says we
• 1:27:37
  Speaker 3: step on one another. And there's a lot of zeros
• 1:27:40
  Speaker 3: some thinking in Peterson because of that, Because of that attitude,
• 1:27:45
  Speaker 3: Curtish You often comes at it from a well, if
• 1:27:49
  Speaker 3: some people are smarter than others, then the smart people
• 1:27:51
  Speaker 3: should rule over the stupid people. And you know that
• 1:27:55
  Speaker 3: we should have the we should have the most ambitious,
• 1:27:57
  Speaker 3: smartest person at the top, and he should rule over
• 1:28:00
  Speaker 3: all of us. He comes at a much more from
• 1:28:03
  Speaker 3: Plato's with public perspective than hand play.
• 1:28:07
  Speaker 1: He mentions play to very often, and I can't remember
• 1:28:11
  Speaker 1: a single time that I recall him quoting evolutionary psychology,
• 1:28:17
  Speaker 1: which I appreciate because evolutionary psychologist has become this trump
• 1:28:21
  Speaker 1: card that you throw on the table and you can
• 1:28:23
  Speaker 1: anything anything, anything goes.
• 1:28:26
  Speaker 3: So they are both responding two egalituminism becoming this huge thing,
• 1:28:32
  Speaker 3: particularly on the left, and and rejection of that. But
• 1:28:37
  Speaker 3: I think that Peter, I think they're responding differently and
• 1:28:41
  Speaker 3: and and the Petersen's is less offensive politically because it
• 1:28:46
  Speaker 3: doesn't lead to this conclusion of of we need a dictatorship.
• 1:28:52
  Speaker 3: Let's see, that's what I'm doney, that's Trump I'm looking for.
• 1:28:56
  Speaker 3: Curtisy owns you.
• 1:29:00
  Speaker 2: Hey, a lot of questions for you in the UK.
• 1:29:05
  Speaker 3: Does you even not know the Confederacy shut first?
• 1:29:10
  Speaker 4: Ah?
• 1:29:11
  Speaker 1: Excellent, excellent, excellent question. Not only he knows that the
• 1:29:17
  Speaker 1: Confederacy starts first, he claims there's a pattern. Notice the
• 1:29:21
  Speaker 1: American Civil War, the First World War, and the Second
• 1:29:24
  Speaker 1: World War. The reactionary powers in all these three wars
• 1:29:28
  Speaker 1: shoot first, and Japan also shoots first. But why it
• 1:29:33
  Speaker 1: is because the liberal leftist strongest powers managed to put
• 1:29:40
  Speaker 1: them in the corner where they had to shoot first. Yep.
• 1:29:43
  Speaker 1: And the example he gives is, let's say you go
• 1:29:46
  Speaker 1: to a dog and you start, you know, poking his head.
• 1:29:51
  Speaker 1: Don't gets annoyed. At some point you you know, you
• 1:29:53
  Speaker 1: stop his At some point the door will start barking.
• 1:29:56
  Speaker 1: That's still not enough, You're still poking. Then the dog
• 1:29:59
  Speaker 1: is going to bite, and when it goes to baking,
• 1:30:01
  Speaker 1: you should the dog. You kill the dog he attacked me.
• 1:30:04
  Speaker 1: This is how he've viewsed the beginning both of the
• 1:30:07
  Speaker 1: Civil War, end of the First World War, and the
• 1:30:09
  Speaker 1: Second World War and the Atlantic Campaign in the Second
• 1:30:13
  Speaker 1: World War. Yep, more on that. Actually, let's give also
• 1:30:18
  Speaker 1: if someone wants to get an overall view of Cardius Garving,
• 1:30:22
  Speaker 1: read The Unqualified The Reservation, which is a collection of
• 1:30:26
  Speaker 1: his earlier blogs but combined as in a book for
• 1:30:32
  Speaker 1: with continuity. So if you have to read one thing,
• 1:30:35
  Speaker 1: that's that's where you should go. And he mentioned there
• 1:30:39
  Speaker 1: this exact thing.
• 1:30:41
  Speaker 2: Cobb says, what is the Oven's view of Christianity?
• 1:30:45
  Speaker 1: I'm not sure.
• 1:30:46
  Speaker 4: It's not something he talks a lot about.
• 1:30:49
  Speaker 1: He believes that as a political ally today it is usual.
• 1:30:55
  Speaker 1: Here's an example he gives. Here's how what the revolution
• 1:30:59
  Speaker 1: would look like. Imagine if in every university we would
• 1:31:02
  Speaker 1: not have a d I office, but we would have
• 1:31:05
  Speaker 1: a MAGA office. So if two people apply there, the
• 1:31:10
  Speaker 1: question would be which of the two would be more
• 1:31:15
  Speaker 1: more more a fertile ground to make America grade, more
• 1:31:20
  Speaker 1: possible to make America grade. And if it was a
• 1:31:22
  Speaker 1: Christian and a non Christian, the answer would be the Christian.
• 1:31:26
  Speaker 4: So again, is he trolling there? But I don't think
• 1:31:29
  Speaker 4: he's trolling.
• 1:31:29
  Speaker 1: I think he've used Christianity as a political ally.
• 1:31:35
  Speaker 3: Yeah, remind me I told somebody some meeting and a
• 1:31:39
  Speaker 3: bunch of people there, who's a picture a Liberterian donor,
• 1:31:44
  Speaker 3: And I said something about the new book im writing
• 1:31:46
  Speaker 3: is the West versus Christianity. And his response was, you're
• 1:31:50
  Speaker 3: not trying to make friends how you want. So you
• 1:31:53
  Speaker 3: know he've views the questions as fellow travelers.
• 1:31:57
  Speaker 2: I think the general tendency is towards the same thing.
• 1:32:02
  Speaker 2: I don't. I view them as the enemy.
• 1:32:03
  Speaker 4: So can you tell us something more?
• 1:32:06
  Speaker 1: Is there any update when the book is out if
• 1:32:08
  Speaker 1: there's a publisher.
• 1:32:09
  Speaker 2: No, more publishers have turned it down.
• 1:32:12
  Speaker 3: So we've got a long list of publishers who turned
• 1:32:15
  Speaker 3: it down. So still waiting. All right, loan the center.
• 1:32:20
  Speaker 3: What's your take on the rationalist community. It seems that
• 1:32:24
  Speaker 3: connects people like you of and on the right and
• 1:32:26
  Speaker 3: the effective altruism on the left flowing through these rationalists.
• 1:32:31
  Speaker 2: Maybe a future show.
• 1:32:34
  Speaker 1: Thank you for your contribution, my friend. I have no idea,
• 1:32:37
  Speaker 1: so I don't want to be as you that I
• 1:32:39
  Speaker 1: have a take. I don't know. I don't know these groups.
• 1:32:43
  Speaker 4: I know they exist, I don't know anything about it.
• 1:32:45
  Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean they're both all in Silicon Valley. So
• 1:32:48
  Speaker 3: I'm sure there's a connection, but we'd have to dig
• 1:32:50
  Speaker 3: deeper and to discover it. Thanks for the idea of
• 1:32:54
  Speaker 3: a future show. Maybe we will do that on the
• 1:32:57
  Speaker 3: Effective Altruism. That would be a good show to do.
• 1:33:02
  Speaker 3: Let's see I recall.
• 1:33:07
  Speaker 1: Either Ben, someone from me and I has done a
• 1:33:10
  Speaker 1: good podcast, but it's been some years old. I think
• 1:33:14
  Speaker 1: it's it sounds like Ben. Yeah, so go to new ideas.
• 1:33:17
  Speaker 1: If you put Iron Rand this door, Ben Bay at
• 1:33:20
  Speaker 1: Effective Altruism, you're gonna find stuff.
• 1:33:24
  Speaker 3: Let's take general questions, Okay, start with the twenty dollars.
• 1:33:28
  Speaker 2: Is anti is anti Semitism?
• 1:33:32
  Speaker 3: Like global warming. If it's too hot, it's global warming.
• 1:33:35
  Speaker 3: If it's too cold, it's global warming. If something I
• 1:33:39
  Speaker 3: don't like is happening, it's the Jews. If the opposite
• 1:33:42
  Speaker 3: event is unfolding, it's the Jews.
• 1:33:46
  Speaker 1: I've seen on Tweter recently people who actually believe that
• 1:33:51
  Speaker 1: Israel is helping Messy to win the World Cup.
• 1:33:56
  Speaker 3: Because me laypro Israel.
• 1:34:01
  Speaker 1: But I mean, if anyone from the elders of Zion.
• 1:34:04
  Speaker 4: Listening, if you do this, keep doing that, keep doing that.
• 1:34:09
  Speaker 2: I'll talk to my contact Nicouse.
• 1:34:12
  Speaker 1: What everything for Messy to win that, but that happened
• 1:34:15
  Speaker 1: with all conspiracy theories. Yep. And you mentioned and our
• 1:34:19
  Speaker 1: friend mentioned and the Semitism. Notice that sometimes with antisemitism
• 1:34:23
  Speaker 1: it's exactly this. So you would say they would say
• 1:34:26
  Speaker 1: the Jews are boring and they're always kind of you know,
• 1:34:30
  Speaker 1: the hate life. At the same time they're promiscues and
• 1:34:34
  Speaker 1: or they would say they're not loyal to anything, or
• 1:34:37
  Speaker 1: they're too loyal to their group so you can't figure.
• 1:34:40
  Speaker 4: Or they're too dirty, or they are too rids.
• 1:34:44
  Speaker 1: So with conspiracy theories like that, you can never you
• 1:34:47
  Speaker 1: can never grasp something to start analyzing it.
• 1:34:51
  Speaker 4: By definition, they have to be like that.
• 1:34:53
  Speaker 3: Yeah, and the reality is that the Jews are causing
• 1:34:58
  Speaker 3: climate change, So the warmth and the cold, that's all
• 1:35:02
  Speaker 3: the Jews as well.
• 1:35:03
  Speaker 1: So, oh, by the way, just to mention, this is
• 1:35:07
  Speaker 1: not saying that climate change is a conspiracy. I don't
• 1:35:10
  Speaker 1: think it is a conspiracy, despite all the political agenda
• 1:35:14
  Speaker 1: and all that stuff. My example was from the seventies.
• 1:35:16
  Speaker 3: No, but there's definitely a case where no matter what
• 1:35:19
  Speaker 3: the data shows, it's climate change.
• 1:35:22
  Speaker 1: And the Arvin perhaps his best chapter in his book
• 1:35:26
  Speaker 1: is where he talks about the relationship between the cathedral,
• 1:35:31
  Speaker 1: public policy and global warming. So it's one chapter from
• 1:35:35
  Speaker 1: Unqualified Reservations that I'd recommend.
• 1:35:38
  Speaker 3: All right, let's thanks and I for the sticker, and
• 1:35:43
  Speaker 3: thank you? And who else do we have? We have
• 1:35:46
  Speaker 3: one more and the key KD matter something like that.
• 1:35:52
  Speaker 3: Thank you guys? All right, liam Is the still enough
• 1:35:57
  Speaker 3: freedom to push the boundaries and grow in the US
• 1:36:01
  Speaker 3: whereas Europe doesn't have as many gaps and loopholes? Is
• 1:36:05
  Speaker 3: there regulatory apparatus? Is in the regulatory apparatus to allow
• 1:36:11
  Speaker 3: for alone mascot of piezos to exist?
• 1:36:14
  Speaker 1: Okay, there are two questions here. Is there enough freedom
• 1:36:17
  Speaker 1: for us to make a change? Obviously there is, guys.
• 1:36:20
  Speaker 1: Think about our intellectual ancestors. Imagine going to the abolition.
• 1:36:25
  Speaker 1: Isn't telling them, well, we have it very difficult because
• 1:36:28
  Speaker 1: I don't know they will control the universities. They would
• 1:36:30
  Speaker 1: laugh at you. We have we have the internet, we
• 1:36:33
  Speaker 1: have freedom of speech.
• 1:36:34
  Speaker 3: Well, think about going up against Christianity.
• 1:36:38
  Speaker 1: There was a good chance that you could actually be
• 1:36:41
  Speaker 1: put to the torture chamber. And we think we have it.
• 1:36:44
  Speaker 1: We have it difficult. When it comes to whether Europe
• 1:36:48
  Speaker 1: could produce a nylon mask. Actually I did the video recently,
• 1:36:51
  Speaker 1: which is doing quite well. The answer is no. And
• 1:36:54
  Speaker 1: this has to do with how much so the average American,
• 1:36:59
  Speaker 1: even in California. Yeah, even in California, you cannot imagine
• 1:37:03
  Speaker 1: the bureaucracy in Europe. And this is why you don't
• 1:37:06
  Speaker 1: see a European mass. But this is something that I
• 1:37:09
  Speaker 1: don't know is more. So I leave this to you.
• 1:37:11
  Speaker 3: Yeah, I think it's more than the buocracy. Buiocracy is
• 1:37:13
  Speaker 3: certainly a big, big part of it, and biocracy is
• 1:37:16
  Speaker 3: a reflection of this. But it's a cultural problem. Europe
• 1:37:20
  Speaker 3: doesn't have a culture of entrepreneurship, and it doesn't have
• 1:37:22
  Speaker 3: a culture of failure.
• 1:37:24
  Speaker 2: Alone.
• 1:37:25
  Speaker 3: Must can celibate when one of his rockets explodes, because
• 1:37:28
  Speaker 3: we learn a lot in Europe.
• 1:37:30
  Speaker 2: If a rocket.
• 1:37:30
  Speaker 3: Exposes, they're like, oh my god, this is the end
• 1:37:33
  Speaker 3: of the world. You know, we spend one hundred million
• 1:37:35
  Speaker 3: dollars on this. Shut it down, immediately shut it down.
• 1:37:38
  Speaker 3: And you're a failure. If you fail in Europe, your failure.
• 1:37:42
  Speaker 3: So you're never going to get funny again in the
• 1:37:44
  Speaker 3: US if you failed, and you're going to send the
• 1:37:47
  Speaker 3: VCS and you can articulate what you learned from it. No,
• 1:37:50
  Speaker 3: I mean that's a it's a plus. You've tried already,
• 1:37:53
  Speaker 3: you have some experience. The whole culture is different. America
• 1:37:57
  Speaker 3: has a culture of entrepreneurship and invation and respect for failure,
• 1:38:02
  Speaker 3: same as Israel.
• 1:38:03
  Speaker 2: Israel has a culture of that.
• 1:38:05
  Speaker 3: Sweden is probably the country that has the closest culture
• 1:38:09
  Speaker 3: of entrepreneurship in Europe. But it yeah, Europe doesn't have
• 1:38:14
  Speaker 3: any Larnmsk, partially because their lann Mosks wouldn't immigrate to
• 1:38:18
  Speaker 3: Europe if they could, because of the regulatory state, and
• 1:38:21
  Speaker 3: partially because the culture is so oppressive and an anti
• 1:38:26
  Speaker 3: I mean think about France, I mean god, I mean
• 1:38:29
  Speaker 3: the best minds in French education, the best job you
• 1:38:33
  Speaker 3: could imagine. The thing that they all strive to go
• 1:38:35
  Speaker 3: to is to become a bureaucrat. I mean to work
• 1:38:38
  Speaker 3: in the French civil service. Is I mean here, you
• 1:38:43
  Speaker 3: know a lot of kids would like to go and
• 1:38:45
  Speaker 3: start companies in civil committity, even ones who probably can't.
• 1:38:48
  Speaker 3: In France, they don't even think about it. It's it's
• 1:38:51
  Speaker 3: how do I get a good civil service job?
• 1:38:54
  Speaker 1: And remember some years ago the European bureaucracy went after
• 1:39:00
  Speaker 1: Ireland because Ireland was giving a good tax incentives to Apple.
• 1:39:08
  Speaker 3: Even says I'm savvy Brazil here, but no longer. The
• 1:39:15
  Speaker 3: vikings are coming for you and we want it with you,
• 1:39:18
  Speaker 3: and we wanted badly Holland and no way, let's.
• 1:39:26
  Speaker 1: Let's finish go So not only I'm with you, my friend,
• 1:39:31
  Speaker 1: There's only one team in history that I have not supported,
• 1:39:35
  Speaker 1: I think in a single game, and that was Brazil.
• 1:39:39
  Speaker 1: Because my growing up football, my formative memory was the
• 1:39:45
  Speaker 1: World Cup of ninety four. I am so still heartbroken
• 1:39:49
  Speaker 1: by Roberto Badio not winning that World Cup because of
• 1:39:52
  Speaker 1: Brazil that I will never I supported even Turkey in
• 1:39:57
  Speaker 1: one game in World Cup two thousand and two against
• 1:40:00
  Speaker 1: so anyone by Brazil when they when they got the
• 1:40:03
  Speaker 1: seven goals by German in twenty fourteen, I had like
• 1:40:07
  Speaker 1: a manic nerhus laughter. I mean, I can't understand. I
• 1:40:10
  Speaker 1: have Brazilian friends. I can't understand the pain. Sorry, okay,
• 1:40:13
  Speaker 1: this is not gonna.
• 1:40:14
  Speaker 3: Make so so so so so we're can have a
• 1:40:16
  Speaker 3: schism over clothing and over Brazil. This is this is
• 1:40:20
  Speaker 3: the other so so. I'm a huge brazil fan. I
• 1:40:22
  Speaker 3: grew up the first World Cup. I saw was probably
• 1:40:25
  Speaker 3: in nineteen seventy and black and white TV with Plea.
• 1:40:28
  Speaker 3: I grew up a huge fan of Pelas and I
• 1:40:33
  Speaker 3: just I love and I love Brazil. I like weow
• 1:40:37
  Speaker 3: is my favorite city. If you can, if you can
• 1:40:39
  Speaker 3: abstract away the crime. Rio is a great city. And
• 1:40:44
  Speaker 3: I love the Brazilian spirit. I love the way they
• 1:40:46
  Speaker 3: play the game, and uh, you know the showman, you know,
• 1:40:52
  Speaker 3: and you can see that in in junior right now. Anyway,
• 1:40:56
  Speaker 3: I'm a huge Brazilian fan, and so I'm so I'm
• 1:41:00
  Speaker 3: going I'm gonna go up against all of you guys.
• 1:41:03
  Speaker 1: No, I understand, first of all, Brazil ninety seventy is
• 1:41:06
  Speaker 1: the team the yardstick that we compare all other teams.
• 1:41:09
  Speaker 1: They had pele Zino, Tostao Orvelino, this four at front. Yeah,
• 1:41:14
  Speaker 1: it's having said that. Since then, Brazil won twice in
• 1:41:18
  Speaker 1: ninety four and two thousand and two. Both times they
• 1:41:22
  Speaker 1: did not win by prepelaying impressive football. So it's a
• 1:41:25
  Speaker 1: myth that Brazil was always Yogo Bonito. We played nice football.
• 1:41:30
  Speaker 1: They played nice football many times and they lost two times.
• 1:41:34
  Speaker 4: They won the World Cup. They played war in football.
• 1:41:37
  Speaker 1: In two thousand and two, they were playing with three
• 1:41:39
  Speaker 1: central defenders for God's sake, if you remember. So it's
• 1:41:42
  Speaker 1: a myth that Brazil was always the fun team.
• 1:41:45
  Speaker 3: No, Brazil has been a fun team but lost sadly.
• 1:41:51
  Speaker 3: Let's see Andrew. Andrew's coming with a fifty dollars question.
• 1:41:57
  Speaker 3: So no, he says, no matter. An intellectual ex objective
• 1:42:00
  Speaker 3: is uphold individualism with vigor. Most outright deny it politically
• 1:42:05
  Speaker 3: and metaphysically. The versions of individual mission or life's purpose
• 1:42:10
  Speaker 3: are based on social power dynamics, which cannot bring fulfillment
• 1:42:16
  Speaker 3: the question.
• 1:42:17
  Speaker 1: This is true on intellectuals, but notice how cultural figures.
• 1:42:22
  Speaker 1: For example, David Goggins, he's not gonna say anything about individualism.
• 1:42:27
  Speaker 1: He has a lot of audis message, but it's implied individualists.
• 1:42:32
  Speaker 1: You see someone doing brilliant things and you get inspired
• 1:42:36
  Speaker 1: by the power of the individual achievement. So I don't
• 1:42:41
  Speaker 1: think the cultural is such a waste land towards individuals.
• 1:42:44
  Speaker 1: On the intellectual level, yes, we haven't managed to break
• 1:42:47
  Speaker 1: the code and to see how we make the lip
• 1:42:50
  Speaker 1: to make it an idea which is appealing, But a
• 1:42:54
  Speaker 1: dormant individualism is out there. I mean, just go to
• 1:42:58
  Speaker 1: a library and see the self development. It's like half
• 1:43:01
  Speaker 1: the books of these days.
• 1:43:03
  Speaker 3: Or the one businessman in the last fifty years is
• 1:43:07
  Speaker 3: viewed positively as Steve Jobs. And there's definitely a strong
• 1:43:11
  Speaker 3: sense of individualism in jobs, in the way he presented himself,
• 1:43:16
  Speaker 3: in the way he presented the products. The products were
• 1:43:19
  Speaker 3: for human consumption, for human betterment, you know, like them
• 1:43:23
  Speaker 3: or not like them. He was the epitome of kind
• 1:43:25
  Speaker 3: of an individualist in business.
• 1:43:29
  Speaker 4: And also in sports we admire sports.
• 1:43:33
  Speaker 1: Is this micro cost where we admire individual achievement as
• 1:43:36
  Speaker 1: it should.
• 1:43:37
  Speaker 3: Be, right, Molten Splendor, thank you for the fifty dollars.
• 1:43:41
  Speaker 3: Third attempt to send a super chat sorry, I mean
• 1:43:45
  Speaker 3: absent busy summer. Does Yovin's current popularity signal a culture,
• 1:43:50
  Speaker 3: a culture that wants to be led rather than wanting independence?
• 1:43:56
  Speaker 3: Do we counteract how do we counteract tendency?
• 1:44:01
  Speaker 4: If I knew how we conteract it, we would do it.
• 1:44:05
  Speaker 1: I would I would have done it. It signifies, it
• 1:44:09
  Speaker 1: signifies I think it's what the Aaron said earlier. How
• 1:44:11
  Speaker 1: many people are so disgusted with the current regime that
• 1:44:16
  Speaker 1: any intellectual who provides a roadmap how to go from
• 1:44:20
  Speaker 1: point A to point B.
• 1:44:22
  Speaker 4: They actually listen. And again, Harvin Is.
• 1:44:26
  Speaker 1: Is clever, he's well read, and he has a way,
• 1:44:29
  Speaker 1: so I'm not surprised how his how his influential and
• 1:44:34
  Speaker 1: he managed to attach himself to a winning band wagon.
• 1:44:38
  Speaker 1: And again he didn't do it to go after I
• 1:44:41
  Speaker 1: don't know, prestige or something. I think it was organic
• 1:44:44
  Speaker 1: and it was good timing, as you said earlier.
• 1:44:48
  Speaker 3: But here's the thing about these intellectuals, and this is
• 1:44:53
  Speaker 3: what again I think makes objectivism hard. And I'm not
• 1:44:57
  Speaker 3: just trying to justify a lack of success, but I
• 1:44:59
  Speaker 3: will think this. They don't demand much of you. Right
• 1:45:05
  Speaker 3: to be a you Oven follower, What do you need
• 1:45:07
  Speaker 3: to do?
• 1:45:08
  Speaker 1: Enjoy?
• 1:45:09
  Speaker 3: Yeah, enjoy it and be angry and be mad and
• 1:45:14
  Speaker 3: and uh and uh you know, uh, join the revolution
• 1:45:17
  Speaker 3: when the time comes.
• 1:45:18
  Speaker 2: But it's not.
• 1:45:19
  Speaker 3: It's not gonna come. So you don't have anything to
• 1:45:20
  Speaker 3: worry about. He's not demanding you change your life in
• 1:45:23
  Speaker 3: any way. He's not he's not really challenging anything fundamental. Yeah,
• 1:45:26
  Speaker 3: you're gonna advocate fun, popular ideas, but he's not actually
• 1:45:30
  Speaker 3: demanding of you. And you know, think of Jordan Peterson,
• 1:45:34
  Speaker 3: hugely successful and presents himself as challenging you. But the
• 1:45:39
  Speaker 3: challenge is a minor you know, you know, make your bed,
• 1:45:44
  Speaker 3: stand up straight. I mean it's only to a generation
• 1:45:47
  Speaker 3: whose mother never told them that.
• 1:45:49
  Speaker 2: Does this sound radical?
• 1:45:50
  Speaker 3: Like my mother from when I was this big, said
• 1:45:53
  Speaker 3: make your bed and stand up straight. That's why I
• 1:45:55
  Speaker 3: don't make my bed, never have in my entire life,
• 1:45:58
  Speaker 3: and and I still don't stand up straight. Right, But
• 1:46:01
  Speaker 3: those are things that we were told by authority figures.
• 1:46:04
  Speaker 3: In my generation, I think authority figures are gone. So
• 1:46:07
  Speaker 3: Jordan Peters are coming out and saying take responsibility for
• 1:46:10
  Speaker 3: your life, you know, but in a shallow without the
• 1:46:14
  Speaker 3: real kind of objectivism says take responsibility for your life.
• 1:46:19
  Speaker 3: I mean, it says, here's the tools, use reason think.
• 1:46:24
  Speaker 3: And that's not appealing because that's hard, that actually demands
• 1:46:28
  Speaker 3: something of you, that demands that you. Now, I think
• 1:46:31
  Speaker 3: the upside is much bigger as a consequence, right, like Gogan,
• 1:46:34
  Speaker 3: if it's hard, there's probably something on the other side.
• 1:46:38
  Speaker 3: But just like very few people follow Gogan's strategy of really,
• 1:46:43
  Speaker 3: you know, half killing yourself in order to get over
• 1:46:46
  Speaker 3: the hill, very few people adopt objectivism. But your Vin
• 1:46:51
  Speaker 3: Peterson more intellectual, but again somewhat superficial. All of these
• 1:46:57
  Speaker 3: people don't ask you to actually challenge religion, challenge altruism,
• 1:47:03
  Speaker 3: challenge collectivism, challenge statism, and take responsibility in the deepest,
• 1:47:08
  Speaker 3: deepest sense for your own life. And that requires a
• 1:47:14
  Speaker 3: lot of balls to want to do that, and they
• 1:47:17
  Speaker 3: don't demand that of their followers.
• 1:47:19
  Speaker 1: Having said that, the success of Goggins and the success
• 1:47:22
  Speaker 1: of Stoicism shows that are ceiling.
• 1:47:28
  Speaker 3: Is we can't do better. Let's just no question we
• 1:47:32
  Speaker 3: can do better. But you know, I we disagree about Goggins.
• 1:47:35
  Speaker 3: I don't view quite as positively as you do.
• 1:47:37
  Speaker 1: But no, that's not about it. It's about that people
• 1:47:40
  Speaker 1: are hungry, thirsty for meaning.
• 1:47:43
  Speaker 3: Yeah, but he's not an idea successful in a sense,
• 1:47:46
  Speaker 3: and because he demands so much, he's not successful in
• 1:47:49
  Speaker 3: the sense.
• 1:47:49
  Speaker 2: Of people doing it.
• 1:47:51
  Speaker 3: People consume his material, they listen to him, they get
• 1:47:53
  Speaker 3: inspired by it, they don't actually go do it. How
• 1:47:55
  Speaker 3: many people, actually, you know, do challenge themselves in the
• 1:48:01
  Speaker 3: way Gogans challenges himself. Very few they yeah, I know,
• 1:48:05
  Speaker 3: but but they like to listen and think that they do.
• 1:48:09
  Speaker 3: But you know, they they cheat all the time, and
• 1:48:12
  Speaker 3: very few do and but yeah, and stoicism again, what's
• 1:48:17
  Speaker 3: it asking you to do?
• 1:48:19
  Speaker 2: You know, to to.
• 1:48:20
  Speaker 3: To it's it's not really asking you to challenge everything
• 1:48:24
  Speaker 3: you believe.
• 1:48:25
  Speaker 1: So well, cold sours are not easy, I mean even
• 1:48:30
  Speaker 1: this simple thing think about No, I know it's.
• 1:48:32
  Speaker 3: Not easy, but it's it's in the physical domain. Sure,
• 1:48:37
  Speaker 3: you can ask people to do incredible things in the
• 1:48:39
  Speaker 3: physical domain. Well, you see that in the in the army, right,
• 1:48:42
  Speaker 3: you take kids in the army and they will do
• 1:48:44
  Speaker 3: amazing things.
• 1:48:45
  Speaker 2: In the physical domain.
• 1:48:46
  Speaker 3: It's in the spiritual and intellectual domains where it's very
• 1:48:49
  Speaker 3: hard to to demand people do something hard in physical domain.
• 1:48:57
  Speaker 3: Look at the look at the look at the you know,
• 1:48:59
  Speaker 3: the raniance, send the little boys out to walk on
• 1:49:02
  Speaker 3: land mines, and you know, in a physical domain you
• 1:49:04
  Speaker 3: can do amazing things. But it's it's the spirit I mean,
• 1:49:09
  Speaker 3: I mean amazing things in a sense.
• 1:49:10
  Speaker 1: Of oh wow, people doing crazy. If we do at
• 1:49:14
  Speaker 1: some point in an episode on the Iran Iraq war,
• 1:49:17
  Speaker 1: oh yeah, the craziness. This is perhaps the craziest war
• 1:49:21
  Speaker 1: in the history of humanity. So we could do at
• 1:49:23
  Speaker 1: some point something about it.
• 1:49:24
  Speaker 3: Yep, absolutely, Shooty says cheers to the show. Thank you
• 1:49:29
  Speaker 3: for the support. Shouty uh and did we get did
• 1:49:32
  Speaker 3: we get other stickers? Did I think natural observer? I
• 1:49:35
  Speaker 3: don't think I did so, natural observer, Thank you author.
• 1:49:39
  Speaker 3: The Enlightenment fizzled out in Germany first because Kant presided,
• 1:49:45
  Speaker 3: presided more consistently, but it appears it was only a
• 1:49:48
  Speaker 3: maunter of time before the Enlightenment was dissolved in other
• 1:49:51
  Speaker 3: Western countries as well. We're seeing it now. I mean
• 1:49:55
  Speaker 3: the Enlightenment fizzled out in more than just dominy. I
• 1:49:57
  Speaker 3: mean contact, massive influence over the entire Western world. And
• 1:50:02
  Speaker 3: it wasn't necessarily directly through cont It was through Hegel
• 1:50:05
  Speaker 3: and then you know who who spurned the whole nationalistic
• 1:50:09
  Speaker 3: nationalism all over Europe, and then kind of a secular
• 1:50:14
  Speaker 3: spiritualism or mysticism. And then Mars of course, who's a
• 1:50:18
  Speaker 3: descendant of Kant and his influence on globally. So it's
• 1:50:23
  Speaker 3: not like Conting impacted Germany and nobody else. Content impacted
• 1:50:26
  Speaker 3: everywhere and impacted America, impacted America. So the Enlightenment has
• 1:50:33
  Speaker 3: been phizling out for two hundred and fifty years. The
• 1:50:36
  Speaker 3: peak of the Enlightenment, the greatest achievement of the Enlightenment
• 1:50:40
  Speaker 3: and its peak influence was seventeen seventy six. And you
• 1:50:44
  Speaker 3: know it's being slowly in decay now. It's taken longer
• 1:50:48
  Speaker 3: to decay in Western Europe west of Germany and in the.
• 1:50:53
  Speaker 2: United States particularly.
• 1:50:56
  Speaker 3: I'd say it's taken longer to decay in the Anglo
• 1:50:58
  Speaker 3: Saxon world for a variety of reasons. But it was
• 1:51:03
  Speaker 3: indicating there's no question about that. Ryan FIFA subsidizes small
• 1:51:10
  Speaker 3: and poor countries to compete at a high level. Is
• 1:51:14
  Speaker 3: welfare and FIFA a positive or negative force in the sport?
• 1:51:19
  Speaker 3: Is FIFA just as corrupt as the UN love you
• 1:51:22
  Speaker 3: guys keep it going.
• 1:51:24
  Speaker 4: FIFA is more corrupt than most people would think.
• 1:51:26
  Speaker 1: There was even a Netflix documentary. Yeah, part of the
• 1:51:31
  Speaker 1: reason why they have all these teams it is these
• 1:51:33
  Speaker 1: egalitarian premise that we're going to have more small countries.
• 1:51:37
  Speaker 1: Having said that, mostly they do it for the money,
• 1:51:40
  Speaker 1: So it is it is corruption plus on the surface level.
• 1:51:46
  Speaker 3: Some sing but just isn't a way to do marketing?
• 1:51:49
  Speaker 3: Isn't it a way to expand the scope of interest
• 1:51:52
  Speaker 3: in football and to watch more games and to be
• 1:51:55
  Speaker 3: more engaged.
• 1:51:56
  Speaker 1: And in basketball For example, the NBA has the Salary Cup,
• 1:52:00
  Speaker 1: which means no team can become a super team.
• 1:52:02
  Speaker 4: If this is a greed voluntarity, it makes sense.
• 1:52:04
  Speaker 1: It's not socialism. It is the reason why in the
• 1:52:07
  Speaker 1: last how many years we have let's say, seven different
• 1:52:11
  Speaker 1: NBA champions. It makes the game more interesting, more marketable.
• 1:52:16
  Speaker 1: So if there is a context within which I understand
• 1:52:20
  Speaker 1: it now in terms of if a corruption, just think
• 1:52:23
  Speaker 1: World Cup in Russia and then World Cup in Katars
• 1:52:26
  Speaker 1: for the love of God, and the next one Saudi Arabia.
• 1:52:29
  Speaker 1: Really yeah, it's already in four years.
• 1:52:34
  Speaker 2: Really yeah, unbelievab corruption.
• 1:52:39
  Speaker 3: That's just money being handed out.
• 1:52:42
  Speaker 1: Probably again it's gonna be on winter, like in Qatar,
• 1:52:45
  Speaker 1: which is a great memory because messy one.
• 1:52:48
  Speaker 4: But otherwise the World Cup in the winter.
• 1:52:50
  Speaker 1: It went against every instinct and every memory that we
• 1:52:54
  Speaker 1: have of World and the World Cup.
• 1:52:56
  Speaker 3: Anyway, all right, not you have a jugg with Okay,
• 1:53:00
  Speaker 3: these are the ten and five and two questions, Ma'm dannie,
• 1:53:04
  Speaker 3: alienating the wealthy is suicidal? How imboldened to be destructive
• 1:53:11
  Speaker 3: is he? How I emboldened to be destructive?
• 1:53:15
  Speaker 1: Is he?
• 1:53:15
  Speaker 3: Given the success of democratic socialists throughout the country. Yeah,
• 1:53:21
  Speaker 3: I mean socialists are always destructive. I mean, there's no
• 1:53:24
  Speaker 3: other way around it. The whole ideology is the ideology
• 1:53:28
  Speaker 3: of destruction. The whole ideology is an ideology of alienating
• 1:53:32
  Speaker 3: the wealthy. You know what else are they supposed to
• 1:53:35
  Speaker 3: do it? There's no way to be a socialist and
• 1:53:37
  Speaker 3: not alienate the wealthy. So it's inherent in what they do.
• 1:53:40
  Speaker 3: Right now, they're emboldened by the fact that they're winning
• 1:53:43
  Speaker 3: in democratic primaries. We'll see what happens in the midterms,
• 1:53:49
  Speaker 3: and we'll see what happens longer term. But yeah, I
• 1:53:51
  Speaker 3: mean socialists right now, I'm bold in those are emboldened
• 1:53:54
  Speaker 3: by the way, by the fact that the Republicans are
• 1:53:56
  Speaker 3: socialists too.
• 1:53:57
  Speaker 2: I mean, the only.
• 1:53:58
  Speaker 3: Disagreement between only Sanders and Trump is what percentage of
• 1:54:03
  Speaker 3: AI company should the government own? Right saying says fift
• 1:54:10
  Speaker 3: AI is open. AI just offer ten percent to Trump
• 1:54:13
  Speaker 3: is negotiating. So you know, the owning them is a production.
• 1:54:18
  Speaker 3: They agree, it's just a question of how how much?
• 1:54:20
  Speaker 2: How much?
• 1:54:22
  Speaker 1: Also, notice that from the famous five main policies that
• 1:54:26
  Speaker 1: m'm dammy was elected, he's not gonna go through them
• 1:54:29
  Speaker 1: because he's gonna alienate there is in wards, and he's
• 1:54:33
  Speaker 1: gonna have some anti rich policies, but at the end
• 1:54:36
  Speaker 1: of the day, as a power lasted, he'll he'll keep
• 1:54:40
  Speaker 1: it at a level where it's not gonna be an
• 1:54:43
  Speaker 1: exoduce that will completely destroy New York.
• 1:54:47
  Speaker 3: Yeah, and sadly, the rich won't stand up for themselves.
• 1:54:49
  Speaker 3: With with a few exceptions, they won't. They don't stand
• 1:54:51
  Speaker 3: up for themselves, so alienating them doesn't prevent them from
• 1:54:55
  Speaker 3: making money and paying taxes and even maybe even voting
• 1:54:59
  Speaker 3: for him next time. Because remember who voted for MOMDANEI.
• 1:55:03
  Speaker 2: It was the upper middle.
• 1:55:03
  Speaker 3: Class, it was young professionals, it was it was people
• 1:55:07
  Speaker 3: making two hundred and fifty thousand dollars and above. You know,
• 1:55:11
  Speaker 3: they're not maybe they're not super rich, but these are
• 1:55:14
  Speaker 3: wealthy people. These are not the working class. Working less
• 1:55:16
  Speaker 3: hate socialism, which is which is interesting, all right, not
• 1:55:21
  Speaker 3: you have a jocko with him. If Donald Trump takes
• 1:55:23
  Speaker 3: a ten percent steak in open AI, will that mean
• 1:55:26
  Speaker 3: the industry will be regulated less? Because he doesn't want
• 1:55:31
  Speaker 3: any industry he has a steak to be slowed down
• 1:55:34
  Speaker 3: by regulatory barriers.
• 1:55:36
  Speaker 1: That's like saying, if we nationalize coal in the UK again,
• 1:55:40
  Speaker 1: is col gonna be less regulated?
• 1:55:45
  Speaker 4: I mean, do you know this more? So I leave
• 1:55:48
  Speaker 4: this to you.
• 1:55:48
  Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean what does regulation mean? It means doing
• 1:55:51
  Speaker 3: what the gumma tells you to do. And if you
• 1:55:53
  Speaker 3: own ten percent, then the industry will do what the
• 1:55:55
  Speaker 3: GUMA tells it to do. And so it's it's and
• 1:55:58
  Speaker 3: if your own eighty percent, I'll even do more about
• 1:56:01
  Speaker 3: the government tells him to do. So it's meaningless to
• 1:56:05
  Speaker 3: talk about it this way. I mean, this is like
• 1:56:07
  Speaker 3: trying to justify evil, which is the government taking ten
• 1:56:11
  Speaker 3: percent in open eye because it's Trump and you can't
• 1:56:15
  Speaker 3: tolerate the idea that Trump would do something anti capitalist
• 1:56:18
  Speaker 3: and bad.
• 1:56:19
  Speaker 2: But no, this is nothing to do with regulation.
• 1:56:21
  Speaker 3: That Trump could just veto any regulatory bill that comes on.
• 1:56:25
  Speaker 2: His desk if that's what he wanted.
• 1:56:26
  Speaker 3: He could just not pass any regulation against AI if
• 1:56:29
  Speaker 3: that's what he wanted. No, he truly believes that the
• 1:56:33
  Speaker 3: government should should benefit from the success of AI.
• 1:56:36
  Speaker 2: The government.
• 1:56:37
  Speaker 3: You know, it's this is this is this is who
• 1:56:43
  Speaker 3: Trump really is. It's not about regulation at all.
• 1:56:46
  Speaker 1: Speaking about Trump, I don't know how to send supertas
• 1:56:49
  Speaker 1: keep ten dollars from my salary this week when you
• 1:56:53
  Speaker 1: talk about Trump and the NATO, Sami, can you talk
• 1:56:56
  Speaker 1: about if he sells F thirty five to Turkey?
• 1:57:00
  Speaker 4: Can you men?
• 1:57:00
  Speaker 1: Can you comment on that please? Because that's that's driving
• 1:57:03
  Speaker 1: me up. Sure, and it's gonna you cannot these shows.
• 1:57:06
  Speaker 1: You cannot trust this guy. Like if this guy tells
• 1:57:09
  Speaker 1: you to date someday you have to go and take
• 1:57:11
  Speaker 1: your calendar.
• 1:57:12
  Speaker 4: You cannot believe this. You cannot trust him with anything.
• 1:57:15
  Speaker 3: No, and look, the other one, well I'll talk about
• 1:57:18
  Speaker 3: it on the show this week. But the other one
• 1:57:20
  Speaker 3: he's been, he's done what other one is asked for,
• 1:57:24
  Speaker 3: you know, since his first term. Uh, this is part
• 1:57:27
  Speaker 3: of the big falling out he had with with Bolton, right.
• 1:57:31
  Speaker 2: Help a Campbell.
• 1:57:32
  Speaker 3: If our politicians don't understand capitalism at all, why does
• 1:57:36
  Speaker 3: it still exist?
• 1:57:38
  Speaker 2: It doesn't. We have a mixed economy.
• 1:57:40
  Speaker 3: We don't have capitalism, so our politicians don't understand it and
• 1:57:45
  Speaker 3: therefore it doesn't exist. What we have as a mixed economy,
• 1:57:48
  Speaker 3: and the politicians, what they play around with is not
• 1:57:51
  Speaker 3: offending whatever's left of the private economy so that they
• 1:57:55
  Speaker 3: can you know, keep have some economic growth and have
• 1:57:59
  Speaker 3: some tech, anue growth and stuff like that.
• 1:58:01
  Speaker 2: But it's not capitalism.
• 1:58:03
  Speaker 3: That they are defending or promoting or saving or anything
• 1:58:07
  Speaker 3: like that, because there is no.
• 1:58:09
  Speaker 1: And unless the politician is a true believer of the
• 1:58:12
  Speaker 1: level of a pole pot, they want to keep alive
• 1:58:16
  Speaker 1: the cow that feeds them or whatever the phrase is. So,
• 1:58:19
  Speaker 1: even when the radical Left was in power in Greece
• 1:58:22
  Speaker 1: some ten years ago, they did not completely destroy all
• 1:58:26
  Speaker 1: businesses because they need them in order to keep milking them.
• 1:58:33
  Speaker 3: James, will a small rational minority always prevail over an
• 1:58:36
  Speaker 3: irrational majority? No, No, I mean all of histories and
• 1:58:41
  Speaker 3: examples of irrational majority is killing all the more rational minorities.
• 1:58:46
  Speaker 3: I mean, think think about Nazism, think about the Soviet Union,
• 1:58:51
  Speaker 3: think about all these things.
• 1:58:52
  Speaker 2: So no, it's a.
• 1:58:53
  Speaker 3: Particular type of minority in a particularly context, you know,
• 1:58:58
  Speaker 3: or positive changes made by minorities, But that doesn't always
• 1:59:01
  Speaker 3: mean that minority, even rational, will always win it. Circumstance
• 1:59:07
  Speaker 3: of history could go the other way completely.
• 1:59:09
  Speaker 1: And usually when you have bad guys on the one
• 1:59:12
  Speaker 1: and bad guys on the other, the rational minority is
• 1:59:15
  Speaker 1: either going to disappear or they have to make an
• 1:59:17
  Speaker 1: uncomfortable chice case in for example, that's exactly what happened
• 1:59:23
  Speaker 1: in Spain. If you were a centrist, you're like, Okay,
• 1:59:26
  Speaker 1: I'm between the Stalinists who want to kill me and
• 1:59:29
  Speaker 1: the fascists who want to oppress me but not kill me. Well,
• 1:59:33
  Speaker 1: I want my head, so I'd better go with the fascist.
• 1:59:37
  Speaker 3: So yeah, Neo says a player from kape Verde was
• 1:59:42
  Speaker 3: chosen from LinkedIn. Okay, they still played well. I was
• 1:59:47
  Speaker 3: actually impressed by, you know, the actual play. They played well.
• 1:59:52
  Speaker 4: They played well.
• 1:59:53
  Speaker 1: They didn't play like Paraguay yesterday, played like thugs.
• 1:59:57
  Speaker 4: And they actually tried to play football.
• 2:00:01
  Speaker 1: Yeah, and what a nice story. Their goalkeeper forty years old,
• 2:00:06
  Speaker 1: he has his claim to fade at the forty and
• 2:00:09
  Speaker 1: you know Massy gave him congratulations. Very nice story.
• 2:00:12
  Speaker 2: Yep.
• 2:00:14
  Speaker 3: What factors this is, chio, friend? What factors would most
• 2:00:20
  Speaker 3: effectively integrate Europe? I think making English and a co
• 2:00:24
  Speaker 3: official language in all member states would help.
• 2:00:30
  Speaker 1: Why would you integrate Europe the first you want to
• 2:00:35
  Speaker 1: decide what to integrate it around. So at the moment
• 2:00:38
  Speaker 1: there's nothing around to which integrate Europe except the European bureaucracy.
• 2:00:42
  Speaker 4: So let's have free movement.
• 2:00:44
  Speaker 1: Let's have all of that, but any further discussion around integration,
• 2:00:48
  Speaker 1: if there is not something to integrate around, I find
• 2:00:51
  Speaker 1: it meaningless. And also it's gonna be so politically unpopular
• 2:00:57
  Speaker 1: it's not gonna fly at all.
• 2:00:58
  Speaker 3: Yeah, it's not happening time, Nikos. Is UK in a
• 2:01:03
  Speaker 3: worse cultural place today than in the nineteen seventies. Also,
• 2:01:07
  Speaker 3: could you make a video on how Tony Blair changed
• 2:01:10
  Speaker 3: Button into what it is today?
• 2:01:12
  Speaker 1: I'll make soon a deep dive with my Patreon on
• 2:01:17
  Speaker 1: Margaret Thatcher with the Blair. I'll have to do a
• 2:01:19
  Speaker 1: lot of work, so give me a horizon of five
• 2:01:22
  Speaker 1: six months, because I haven't of that deep. The UK
• 2:01:27
  Speaker 1: in the seventies was around in the same mess that
• 2:01:32
  Speaker 1: it is today, just in a different way. Back then
• 2:01:34
  Speaker 1: it was more like the entitlement of the organized working
• 2:01:37
  Speaker 1: class of the unions. But the average person, the average
• 2:01:42
  Speaker 1: person in the street was more immune than the cultural
• 2:01:46
  Speaker 1: craziness of today. So a lot of the cultural craziness
• 2:01:49
  Speaker 1: of today in the UK.
• 2:01:50
  Speaker 4: Would not fly in the nineteen seventies.
• 2:01:53
  Speaker 1: So in that way, the UK is worse today than
• 2:01:57
  Speaker 1: in the nineteen seventies. That's the one thing. The other
• 2:01:59
  Speaker 1: thing is that when there was the short, live and
• 2:02:03
  Speaker 1: very timid the cultural revolution of Thatcher, there were people
• 2:02:07
  Speaker 1: who was ready to embark on it and to accept it. So,
• 2:02:10
  Speaker 1: for example, it's unimaginable today that The Sun, the most
• 2:02:15
  Speaker 1: popular newspaper, would jump on a Thatcher right platform, but
• 2:02:21
  Speaker 1: it did in the late seventies. So there was something
• 2:02:24
  Speaker 1: there that was healthier than today. So in that way,
• 2:02:27
  Speaker 1: today it's worse. But you also know about UK. What
• 2:02:30
  Speaker 1: do you think, Yeah, I agree with that. I don't
• 2:02:32
  Speaker 1: know how Tony Blay changed Britain. I don't think Tony
• 2:02:36
  Speaker 1: Blay had that big of a role. I think he
• 2:02:40
  Speaker 1: was in the end he'll be nothing.
• 2:02:44
  Speaker 3: But he just carried the momentum post Thatcher momentum more
• 2:02:49
  Speaker 3: than anything else. And because they never added anything to Thatcher,
• 2:02:53
  Speaker 3: it was just a question of when that momentum would
• 2:02:55
  Speaker 3: end and we get what we get today. And what
• 2:02:57
  Speaker 3: we get today Britain of today is product of the Conservatives.
• 2:03:01
  Speaker 3: It's the complete failure of the Conservatives. You can't blame
• 2:03:05
  Speaker 3: the Burton of today on the left arrow. You know,
• 2:03:08
  Speaker 3: all the bad policies that are in place in Britain
• 2:03:11
  Speaker 3: today went trenched by the Conservatives.
• 2:03:16
  Speaker 4: Or at least they did not touch them. So think
• 2:03:19
  Speaker 4: about the hate speech laws.
• 2:03:20
  Speaker 1: I'm not gonna tell you, talk to you about the
• 2:03:22
  Speaker 1: welfare the Nani state, which for me is the worst,
• 2:03:26
  Speaker 1: the worst thing that blurred left behind.
• 2:03:28
  Speaker 4: Think about the hate speech laws.
• 2:03:30
  Speaker 1: Conservatives had all these years to change them, they didn't
• 2:03:33
  Speaker 1: even touch them. Think about Michael gov supposedly our guy
• 2:03:38
  Speaker 1: Institute of Economic Affairs keynote speaker a million times, remember
• 2:03:43
  Speaker 1: him clapping Greta Thunberg. He was a Conservative. The Conservatives
• 2:03:46
  Speaker 1: were in power for fourteen years and they made things
• 2:03:52
  Speaker 1: much much worse. From all the topics that like big
• 2:03:56
  Speaker 1: wokeness was during the Conservative years. Immigration from Islamic countries
• 2:04:02
  Speaker 1: that you have no idea who is there? Who is
• 2:04:05
  Speaker 1: an extremist? Mostly picked through the Conservatives. Check the number.
• 2:04:09
  Speaker 1: So yeah, I'm not Blair was very, very bad, But
• 2:04:13
  Speaker 1: at least it was also a time of cultural dynamism
• 2:04:17
  Speaker 1: with the Tories. It was just controlled decay which was
• 2:04:22
  Speaker 1: actually accelerated decay, not even controlled to decay.
• 2:04:27
  Speaker 2: Time.
• 2:04:28
  Speaker 3: Nikos, what do you think of Mehdi Hassan.
• 2:04:32
  Speaker 4: I haven't studied him very closely.
• 2:04:35
  Speaker 1: I get he's a bad guy, but I can't give
• 2:04:39
  Speaker 1: you a good answer, because I haven't followed him closely. Sorry,
• 2:04:43
  Speaker 1: he looks he looks more like the respectable face of
• 2:04:48
  Speaker 1: these ideas, So in that way he might be more
• 2:04:51
  Speaker 1: dangerous than someone who's absolutely crazy. But I'm not sure, sorry, Michael.
• 2:04:57
  Speaker 3: A police in the UK basically useless unless you post
• 2:05:01
  Speaker 3: none left wing things on social media.
• 2:05:05
  Speaker 1: So the thing you have to understand about the police,
• 2:05:07
  Speaker 1: because I used to work at the university that was
• 2:05:09
  Speaker 1: training police officers, the average police officer gets the same
• 2:05:13
  Speaker 1: training that the sociology student gets with all the poison,
• 2:05:17
  Speaker 1: the Marxist and the walk poison, the postmodernist poison. So yeah,
• 2:05:22
  Speaker 1: the police in the UK is culturally very different from
• 2:05:27
  Speaker 1: the police in the United States.
• 2:05:30
  Speaker 4: But again, they're doing something.
• 2:05:32
  Speaker 1: They have a very difficult job, so I have sympathy
• 2:05:35
  Speaker 1: for them because they have their hands tied. But at
• 2:05:38
  Speaker 1: the same time, I'm not optimistic at all their intellectual
• 2:05:41
  Speaker 1: children of the same system that has given us the
• 2:05:45
  Speaker 1: Summer of twenty twenty and all that stuff.
• 2:05:49
  Speaker 3: Time says Charlie Coke backed higher taxes on walk firms.
• 2:05:54
  Speaker 2: I don't think that's true. I don't know if that's true,
• 2:05:56
  Speaker 2: but I don't think that's rue.
• 2:05:57
  Speaker 3: What Charlie Kirk, Charlie Coke back higher taxes on WALK companies.
• 2:06:05
  Speaker 4: Yeah, there are many such examples.
• 2:06:07
  Speaker 1: So RUFO has adjusted, for example, using the Civil Rights
• 2:06:13
  Speaker 1: Act to attack WALK universities. And here I'm with Curtis Garden,
• 2:06:19
  Speaker 1: who did the Christian of that. You cannot play with
• 2:06:22
  Speaker 1: the tools of your enemies. No, if you have, if
• 2:06:26
  Speaker 1: you have the gods, go against the Civil Rights Act.
• 2:06:29
  Speaker 1: Not the part where it it you know it bans
• 2:06:34
  Speaker 1: the state discriminating, but when it forces basically takes away
• 2:06:38
  Speaker 1: private property rights. Similarly, if you have the gods, go
• 2:06:43
  Speaker 1: against the taxation and go against the idea of taxation
• 2:06:47
  Speaker 1: and the morality of taxation, playing favors political favors. Okay,
• 2:06:51
  Speaker 1: then in two years Gaven Newsom comes, He's going to
• 2:06:54
  Speaker 1: put higher taxes on MAGA companies and on chick filling.
• 2:06:58
  Speaker 1: Does this make sense?
• 2:07:00
  Speaker 3: It strikes me as anti constitutional. I'm not sure how exactly,
• 2:07:03
  Speaker 3: but I'm sure it is. Why it says, were they
• 2:07:06
  Speaker 3: questions you missed from July third? Probably? I mean I
• 2:07:11
  Speaker 3: had a complete meltdown of my super chat app, but
• 2:07:17
  Speaker 3: I think it was from YouTube. YouTube had a complete
• 2:07:19
  Speaker 3: meltdown and those questions just disappeared. So I answered all
• 2:07:23
  Speaker 3: the ones I could retrieve. I don't know how to
• 2:07:27
  Speaker 3: retrieve the ones I didn't. So if you had a question,
• 2:07:31
  Speaker 3: ask it again with two dollars or something, you know,
• 2:07:34
  Speaker 3: so it doesn't cost you too much to ask it.
• 2:07:37
  Speaker 3: All right, Alexis says competitive sports can only have one winner.
• 2:07:41
  Speaker 3: No one remembers who came second. Can that lead to
• 2:07:44
  Speaker 3: fest a zero sum game mentality in the culture.
• 2:07:48
  Speaker 4: No one remembers who came better at the second.
• 2:07:50
  Speaker 1: My biggest football idol from nuti eternity is Roberto Badzio
• 2:07:55
  Speaker 1: from ninety ninety four, so I completely disagree with that.
• 2:07:58
  Speaker 1: My favorite basketball play four years was Charles Balkrak. He
• 2:08:01
  Speaker 1: never won a ring. So this idea that the first
• 2:08:04
  Speaker 1: is first and the second is nothing, they think this
• 2:08:07
  Speaker 1: is like an American face. No, actually, the person who
• 2:08:09
  Speaker 1: came up with it is a British manager, and I
• 2:08:13
  Speaker 1: don't believe in it. No, it's not the case that
• 2:08:15
  Speaker 1: the second is nothing. In sports, quite often we remember
• 2:08:18
  Speaker 1: them more than the first. We all should remember Johann Krouf.
• 2:08:22
  Speaker 1: If I ask you, who was the left wing air
• 2:08:26
  Speaker 1: in the field, not in politics of German in twenty fourteen.
• 2:08:30
  Speaker 1: Most of you won't remember it, but you should all
• 2:08:32
  Speaker 1: remember Krouf, although he never won a World Cup or
• 2:08:35
  Speaker 1: a major tournament with the Netherlands.
• 2:08:40
  Speaker 2: You got it.
• 2:08:40
  Speaker 3: An expert alexis time, what do you think of James
• 2:08:47
  Speaker 3: Fishbank who James Fishbek is running four in a primaries
• 2:08:54
  Speaker 3: in a Republican site for governor of Florida. Why do
• 2:08:58
  Speaker 3: you have to ask? I mean, James Fishbak is a racist, antisemitic,
• 2:09:05
  Speaker 3: a nutcase. And the fact that he has anybody supporting him,
• 2:09:09
  Speaker 3: the fact that young Republicans in Florida are excited about
• 2:09:15
  Speaker 3: him and supporting him is a testament to how insane
• 2:09:20
  Speaker 3: right when culture is right? Now? So h he is?
• 2:09:24
  Speaker 4: While you're answering, I need to plug my la.
• 2:09:27
  Speaker 3: He is a really really, really bad guy. So and
• 2:09:31
  Speaker 3: and you know that shouldn't surprise you that I think that,
• 2:09:34
  Speaker 3: just look at what he says. He is. He is
• 2:09:38
  Speaker 3: anti everything I believe in, from capitalism to you know, uh,
• 2:09:45
  Speaker 3: equality before the law and uh. And he's a real
• 2:09:48
  Speaker 3: anti semiton. He hates hates uh, very bad on from
• 2:09:53
  Speaker 3: policy and and very bad on capitalism. All right, Keith asks,
• 2:09:58
  Speaker 3: please explain Nick Land and the Lows. Do you know
• 2:10:03
  Speaker 3: anything about these people?
• 2:10:04
  Speaker 1: I know about the Lez, but who's the other one,
• 2:10:07
  Speaker 1: Nick Land? Are we talking about the Less? The philosopher?
• 2:10:13
  Speaker 2: I have no idea. I don't know who these people are.
• 2:10:15
  Speaker 2: I've never heard of them.
• 2:10:16
  Speaker 1: Yeah, so the Less is the most one of the
• 2:10:19
  Speaker 1: most famous postmodernist philosophers. He wrote with Felix Gatari, another postmodernist,
• 2:10:24
  Speaker 1: one of the most famous postmodern books. It is absolutely unreadable.
• 2:10:29
  Speaker 1: I had to read it for my PhD. I was
• 2:10:31
  Speaker 1: teaching that stuff. If we do, if we do a
• 2:10:35
  Speaker 1: soul on postmodernists, you're gonna hear more on the Less.
• 2:10:38
  Speaker 1: Now he might be talking about the different the less,
• 2:10:40
  Speaker 1: like a rapper or a streamer or something or and
• 2:10:44
  Speaker 1: I'm completely missing the context here, but yeah, where to
• 2:10:48
  Speaker 1: begin with the Less? There's nothing there that I can
• 2:10:51
  Speaker 1: grasp and start talking about it. So it's it's difficult
• 2:10:55
  Speaker 1: to say something.
• 2:10:56
  Speaker 3: And Nick Land supposely a British philosopher, formerly with the
• 2:11:00
  Speaker 3: University of Warwick and a cybernetic cultural research unit.
• 2:11:08
  Speaker 4: Unfortunately, my friend I know major early book.
• 2:11:11
  Speaker 2: Was the first for annihilation.
• 2:11:13
  Speaker 3: There's a book for us, first for annihilation.
• 2:11:16
  Speaker 4: Okay, that rings a bell.
• 2:11:19
  Speaker 2: Nichols will look into it because you know.
• 2:11:21
  Speaker 1: Also, if you're part of my patron community, I did
• 2:11:25
  Speaker 1: a deep dive with my patrons. Even if you join
• 2:11:30
  Speaker 1: in the retrospect, you can get the recording, or you
• 2:11:32
  Speaker 1: can ask a question in the next AMA. Anyone who
• 2:11:35
  Speaker 1: asks me any AMA question, obviously I go and research
• 2:11:38
  Speaker 1: it so I can have a deeper look at it.
• 2:11:42
  Speaker 1: But now that you mentioned that book, it rings a bell.
• 2:11:44
  Speaker 1: I think someone brought him up in that deep dive.
• 2:11:47
  Speaker 1: I'm not sure.
• 2:11:48
  Speaker 3: And it says who are the fellow travelers of objectivism?
• 2:11:51
  Speaker 3: And their influence in time? With the influence with and
• 2:11:57
  Speaker 3: can they influence the time?
• 2:11:58
  Speaker 2: Core less? Who are the fellow travelers of objectivism?
• 2:12:02
  Speaker 1: Some august fellow travelers are the good, some good classical liberals.
• 2:12:07
  Speaker 1: Some fellow travelers are people who have a high view
• 2:12:10
  Speaker 1: of human potential, what we would call transhumanis for me,
• 2:12:15
  Speaker 1: would be obvious fellow travelers. Beyond that, maybe some people
• 2:12:22
  Speaker 1: who are very disappointed with the madness out there. Think
• 2:12:25
  Speaker 1: of an average viewer of some Harris for whom egoism
• 2:12:29
  Speaker 1: would be too hard appeal to swallow, but he would
• 2:12:32
  Speaker 1: appreciate the you know, the role of the mind and
• 2:12:35
  Speaker 1: all that stuff.
• 2:12:36
  Speaker 4: So from the top of my head, that would be
• 2:12:38
  Speaker 4: the answer.
• 2:12:39
  Speaker 3: Yeah, I think i'd add to that the defense of
• 2:12:41
  Speaker 3: the Enlightenment. Stephen Pinker somebody you like to add, not
• 2:12:45
  Speaker 3: completely a fellow traveler, and in just don't call less completely,
• 2:12:48
  Speaker 3: but certainly moving in in a positive direction versus moving
• 2:12:51
  Speaker 3: in a negative direction. Yeah, some economists crash lebos call them.
• 2:13:00
  Speaker 3: I would say classical labels are the closest, but too
• 2:13:04
  Speaker 3: many of them are crazy libertarians.
• 2:13:06
  Speaker 2: But the better ones, the better.
• 2:13:09
  Speaker 3: Classical labels.
• 2:13:11
  Speaker 2: All right, Dan from the UK?
• 2:13:13
  Speaker 3: Has there been a think on part with iron Man
• 2:13:15
  Speaker 3: since she died or even before?
• 2:13:17
  Speaker 2: Love these shows? Thanks, come on England. I don't think.
• 2:13:22
  Speaker 1: England indeed, But that's a difficult question. Definitely not after.
• 2:13:28
  Speaker 1: I can't think of anyone but.
• 2:13:29
  Speaker 2: Nobody after and even before.
• 2:13:31
  Speaker 3: I mean in terms of the total positive presentation of
• 2:13:36
  Speaker 3: a philosophy Aristotle. But you know, you really can't think
• 2:13:40
  Speaker 3: of anybody else.
• 2:13:42
  Speaker 1: And people the more you know, some sometimes to understand
• 2:13:48
  Speaker 1: to appreciate good jazz. So the problem when you listen
• 2:13:51
  Speaker 1: to jazz is you start listening to Louis Armstrong Gold
• 2:13:54
  Speaker 1: the bird, all that stuff, and you don't have a
• 2:13:57
  Speaker 1: point of reference. If you go to a you need
• 2:14:00
  Speaker 1: to a school band. You understand how good, really good
• 2:14:03
  Speaker 1: judge is. Where I'm getting with all this, I used
• 2:14:06
  Speaker 1: to think, I used to have a very highest theme
• 2:14:08
  Speaker 1: of needs. Just by reading Zara Tustra. If you read
• 2:14:12
  Speaker 1: the metaphysics and the epistemology of Niedz, particularly his epistemology
• 2:14:16
  Speaker 1: and his non existent ethics, you realize what a true
• 2:14:20
  Speaker 1: deep thinker and a system builder iron Rand is. So
• 2:14:24
  Speaker 1: the more I dive into other philosophers, the more I
• 2:14:27
  Speaker 1: appreciate iron Rant because my disappointment in these other philosophers
• 2:14:32
  Speaker 1: and how high the bar is with Iron Rant. So
• 2:14:35
  Speaker 1: I'm not an expert on the field, but to be honest,
• 2:14:38
  Speaker 1: I cannot think of a single philosopher that to me
• 2:14:41
  Speaker 1: comes anywhere close a single thinker.
• 2:14:45
  Speaker 3: Neo says, the White House called FIFA to ask FIFA
• 2:14:49
  Speaker 3: president to review Flowy and Bullagun's red card band has
• 2:14:55
  Speaker 3: been lifted.
• 2:14:56
  Speaker 2: Oh Trump is everywhere.
• 2:15:00
  Speaker 4: Okay, that's excellent news.
• 2:15:02
  Speaker 1: First of all, Balogan should be the name if in
• 2:15:05
  Speaker 1: Atheless Ruggs there was a striker who is striker because
• 2:15:09
  Speaker 1: he's in the strike but also striker in football. His
• 2:15:13
  Speaker 1: name should be Balogan. Isn't this a very Rangdian name,
• 2:15:16
  Speaker 1: like Judge Naran Gassin Ballogan, like the ball and gun.
• 2:15:20
  Speaker 1: What a name for a striker sounds like.
• 2:15:23
  Speaker 3: It sounds like balagun, which is a Hebrew word which
• 2:15:28
  Speaker 3: is immense messiness, you know, complete chaos.
• 2:15:33
  Speaker 1: Yeah, it's a name that you could imagine him like
• 2:15:35
  Speaker 1: in a comedy. He does at you know, he scores
• 2:15:38
  Speaker 1: crazy goals. It's it's good that so. I think when
• 2:15:42
  Speaker 1: a red card, the problem with a red card is
• 2:15:45
  Speaker 1: you miss the next game. So when a red card
• 2:15:47
  Speaker 1: is a mistaken red card, there should be some process
• 2:15:51
  Speaker 1: of appeal. Now should this appeal be Trump picking up
• 2:15:54
  Speaker 1: the phone? Probably not, But the result is a good result.
• 2:15:57
  Speaker 1: Now that Balogan is playing, I think the game starts
• 2:16:01
  Speaker 1: from fifty to fifty with Belgium fifty fifty.
• 2:16:04
  Speaker 3: SHOOTI says, just sending more support.
• 2:16:07
  Speaker 2: Your way, thank you.
• 2:16:07
  Speaker 3: Shoulding appreciate that time, says nichols Us. Massi immigration started
• 2:16:12
  Speaker 3: by Blair. Yeah, but you also assume that the UK's
• 2:16:16
  Speaker 3: problems are MASSI immigration. I mean, MASSI immigration might be
• 2:16:19
  Speaker 3: a problem, but that is not the essence of the
• 2:16:21
  Speaker 3: UK's problem.
• 2:16:23
  Speaker 1: There would be no massive immigration if you didn't have
• 2:16:27
  Speaker 1: the welfare state, which the Conservatives did not touch, and
• 2:16:30
  Speaker 1: if the police and the intelligence services were doing their job,
• 2:16:33
  Speaker 1: which again looks like they don't do it.
• 2:16:36
  Speaker 4: So yes, I mentioned.
• 2:16:37
  Speaker 1: Massive immigration the way it affects England today for reasons
• 2:16:42
  Speaker 1: that are not immigration related, but are islam Is related.
• 2:16:46
  Speaker 4: But again, what did look at the numbers?
• 2:16:49
  Speaker 1: When did most of these people come in during Blair
• 2:16:52
  Speaker 1: or during Conservatives?
• 2:16:53
  Speaker 3: And when did these grooming gangs? When were they active?
• 2:16:58
  Speaker 3: They were active during long period the time in which
• 2:17:00
  Speaker 3: the Conservatives were in power and they did nothing about it.
• 2:17:04
  Speaker 1: When was it? When was it unsafe for Jews to
• 2:17:08
  Speaker 1: go out? It started? It started with Conservatives, the big
• 2:17:15
  Speaker 1: protests after October seven there was still a Conservative.
• 2:17:18
  Speaker 3: Administration time says North Korea founder was raised a Christian.
• 2:17:24
  Speaker 3: I don't know much about him, but that doesn't strike
• 2:17:26
  Speaker 3: me as.
• 2:17:28
  Speaker 1: I don't really it's so difficult to find a decent
• 2:17:31
  Speaker 1: history of North Korea. I mean, there's the book by
• 2:17:35
  Speaker 1: Michael Malis, but it's not clear what there is fiction
• 2:17:39
  Speaker 1: and what is It's a very difficult, very difficult topic
• 2:17:43
  Speaker 1: to start also with Cambody. It's difficult to find good
• 2:17:47
  Speaker 1: histories of Paul Potts.
• 2:17:53
  Speaker 3: A final question from Nikos your take on Real Madrid
• 2:17:57
  Speaker 3: next season and the Morio Mourinho.
• 2:18:01
  Speaker 1: There is Mourinho. There is not enough popcorn in the
• 2:18:05
  Speaker 1: universe on what is about to happen, So here's the context. People,
• 2:18:11
  Speaker 1: Mourinho is the biggest ego, the biggest so many in
• 2:18:15
  Speaker 1: the history of football. Mourinho's like the Kardascans. You should
• 2:18:19
  Speaker 1: have a camera following him twenty four to seven. He
• 2:18:22
  Speaker 1: was a brilliant coach, but all the last his jobs
• 2:18:26
  Speaker 1: he gets fired. Now Real Madrid has some of the
• 2:18:30
  Speaker 1: most difficult characters to discipline. They have with issues they haven't.
• 2:18:35
  Speaker 1: They had two players who are literally fist fighting. The
• 2:18:39
  Speaker 1: one has still a scar val Verde. So the owner
• 2:18:43
  Speaker 1: of Real Madrid decided in order to discipline these milli,
• 2:18:50
  Speaker 1: these gen z spoiled brats, is to bring someone whose
• 2:18:55
  Speaker 1: ego is even higher than the rigo. So I think
• 2:18:58
  Speaker 1: what should happen is there should be a Netflix Amazon
• 2:19:02
  Speaker 1: Prime camera following Real Madrid twenty four to seven. It's
• 2:19:06
  Speaker 1: going to be the show for the ages. I don't
• 2:19:09
  Speaker 1: expect to see good football, because we haven't seen good
• 2:19:11
  Speaker 1: football from Urino for more than a decade. But it's
• 2:19:16
  Speaker 1: going again. The popcorn in the world is not enough.
• 2:19:19
  Speaker 1: So I'm very, very excited to hate. It's not even
• 2:19:23
  Speaker 1: going to be a hate watch. It's going to be
• 2:19:25
  Speaker 1: a joy watch. It's going to be so entertaining that
• 2:19:28
  Speaker 1: whether you love or you hate Real Madrid, it's going
• 2:19:31
  Speaker 1: to be it's going to be a gift to humanity.
• 2:19:35
  Speaker 3: All right, guys, that is today's show. By the time
• 2:19:40
  Speaker 3: we meet next time, we will know who's in the
• 2:19:48
  Speaker 3: semi finals, so we will know who the four teams
• 2:19:53
  Speaker 3: and the semi finals are, so we'll have an opportunity
• 2:19:56
  Speaker 3: to talk about football more next show. And then course
• 2:20:00
  Speaker 3: the final show will either be before the finals or
• 2:20:03
  Speaker 3: just after the finals. Either way, it'll be plenty of
• 2:20:07
  Speaker 3: reason to have a conversation. All right, guys, have a
• 2:20:12
  Speaker 3: great week. Nikos will be back on Sunday. I will
• 2:20:16
  Speaker 3: be back tomorrow, and yeah, enjoy one of the games today.
• 2:20:24
  Speaker 2: Bye everybody.
• 2:20:25
  Speaker 4: By