August 8, 2025 • 38 mins
What happens when a political outsider challenges the entire system? In this provocative episode, I introduce my revolutionary concept of "anti-politism" – a vision for American governance without career politicians, without money in politics, and without partisan divisions at the federal level.
As I prepare for my 2026 congressional run in Arizona's 4th District, I'm staking out bold territory that defies conventional political categories. The Democratic Party has abandoned classical liberalism for progressive extremes, while Trumpism offers right-wing rhetoric with left-leaning economic policies. Both paths lead to fiscal disaster as our national debt approaches $200 trillion when including unfunded liabilities.
My campaign strategy might surprise you: I'm targeting disillusioned Democrats who feel politically homeless – reasonable people appalled by progressive extremes but unwilling to embrace Trumpism. By positioning libertarian principles as the rational middle ground, I aim to create a coalition of Americans who believe in fiscal responsibility, personal freedom, and the restoration of the nuclear family as society's foundation.
This episode dives deep into why the welfare state has failed everywhere it's been tried, how eliminating the Federal Reserve would naturally limit endless wars, and why returning most federal functions to the states represents our only sustainable path forward. I also share my philosophical framework combining stoicism and objectivism – embracing courage, justice, moderation and wisdom while recognizing objective reality.
Ready to join a movement that could fundamentally transform American politics? Listen to discover how we can create a government that serves from duty rather than ambition – before economic reality forces our hand. The time for a Radical Reset has come.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
Hey there, dudes and dudettes, it's me, herbie K,
your host at A Radical Reset,the home of anti-politism,
anti-politism being the rebirthof the republic, where we serve
in Congress from duty, not fromambition or career.
There is no money in politicszero and there are no parties at
(00:21):
the federal level no Democrats,no Republicans.
But let's talk about that.
That's a utopian vision thatwill come true at some point
after the shit hits the fan.
But the shit hasn't hit the fanyet, thank God, and I hope I'm
wrong about it.
Listen, if it's unnecessary tomake a change because I'm wrong
about everything, I get it, butI don't see how we escape nearly
(00:43):
$200 trillion in debt when youinclude the unfunded Social
Security and Medicare Medicaidliabilities into our national
debt.
But okay, that's not wherewe're going today.
We're going to go into politics.
Today, we're going to talk alittle raw politics.
As some of you may know and Iknow that I'm pretty much
talking to myself I have fans,but a handful.
(01:04):
So at this point in time, whatI'm really doing is laying down
a predicate, and some of you aregoing to be listening to this
as I record this, but the vastmajority of you are going to be
listening to this down the roadwhen my congressional campaign
is underway in 2026.
It'll start ramping up in thefall of this year of 2025.
As soon as the students comeback to ASU, which will be in
about a month, which is where Iget a lot of my volunteers from
(01:26):
young libertarians who areenthusiastic and ready to
volunteer.
Because, let's be honest, in alibertarian campaign we don't
raise a lot of money.
Let's be honest.
But you know, in this day andage, money should not really be
a part of it.
With social media and theplethora of podcasts and
(01:50):
everything else that's around,you really shouldn't need a lot
of money to run a politicalcampaign.
I'd love to know what theyspend all those tens of millions
of dollars on, but anyway, well, it's not like I don't know,
but it's Anyway.
So I'm going to position myself, I'm running.
There's no point in doingsomething unless you're doing it
to win.
So while, on one hand, Iacknowledge that the odds of me
winning as a libertarian arevery, very slim, it's not
(02:12):
impossible, because strangerthings happen, god knows but
it's also not in the realm ofconventional thinking.
I completely understand that.
I know it's an incrediblyuphill battle because I'll be
fighting a Democratic incumbentand I'll be fighting a
Republican challenger who willbe fairly well-funded, and then
there'll be little old me.
So, historically, the best aLibertarian candidate has ever
(02:36):
done in a federal election.
There have been Libertariansthat have won in the local level
.
In fact, here locally, I knowone guy his name is Nathan who
serves on a school board, forexample.
That's not unusual.
Libertarians get involved atthe local level because the
local level really is where mostthings belong and that's a very
libertarian position to take,and I honor those libertarians I
really, really, truly do.
(02:57):
But in the bigger picture, we'vegot to do something about
what's going on federally,otherwise the states are doomed.
So anyway, in this upcomingelection, I'm going to position
myself to win by trying to takethe Democratic votes away from
the incumbent, as well asdisaffected Republicans,
independents and, of course, myown libertarians.
Now, my own libertarians arethe smallest, smallest, smallest
(03:19):
, teeniest group of that.
To give you some idea, I onlyhave to collect well, it's less
than I won't go on the exactnumbers 800 and change 865, I
think, but anyway, less than athousand signatures and I'm on
the ballot, which is not a bigtrick in a political campaign if
you know how to do it, andthat's incredibly small compared
to what Democrats andRepublicans have to do.
So it's all based on apercentage of how many
(03:42):
registered voters there are ofyour party in your district, and
I'm in the 4th CongressionalDistrict of Arizona is where
I'll be running.
So, anyway, I'm going directlyafter Democrats.
I have to believe and this iscompletely unscientific.
This is just my read of talkingto people that I've known my
whole life who are committedDemocrats, and a lot of them are
(04:03):
clinging on to the titleDemocrats solely for the reason
that they're appalled by Trumpand Trumpism, but at the very
same time, they are just asappalled and it grows every day
because the Democrats'popularity is down to the single
digits nationally, and so Imean there's no refuting that.
That's just the objectivereality of what is and the
(04:25):
reasons that's happening isthere are a lot of sane
Democrats who, while at one handthey are appalled by Trumpism,
they are at the very same time,as appalled by things like not
being able to state flatly atthe Democratic leadership's
level that there are only twogenders and that men don't
belong in women's sports, justto use those examples, and
(04:48):
that's an issue.
That was the jump the sharkissue.
That's where the DemocraticParty lost it Progressivism and
once you've lost yourcredibility, once an institution
like the Democratic Party hasflushed away its credibility and
that's what they did when theywent out to the lunatic fringe
and we started going withmultiple genders and expanding
LGBTQIA plus minus division signthere's so many different ways
(05:11):
to go and started basicallyparsing objective reality.
They lost their grip on classicliberals, people who were
Democrats because they wereliberal, because they felt a
certain sense of obligation totheir community and so on and so
forth, but at the very same,more than they felt the
Republicans did, they weretraditionally not anymore.
(05:31):
It was the party of the workingman, it was the party of the
union worker.
Today it's not.
It's the party of thegovernment worker, the
government union worker, whichis different than a private
union worker.
We'll get into a little bit ofthat later, if not in the
campaign as well.
You know I speakextemporaneously, so when I say
I'll get back to it later, maybeI will and maybe I won't, but
(05:52):
anyway I'll try.
So what's happened now is theDemocratic Party, the mainstream
Democratic Party, the onethat's titled the Democratic
Party, is really the progressiveparty.
They're no longer the liberalparty and liberals have nowhere
to go.
That's my assumption on this.
Traditional liberals havenowhere to go if they're sane.
(06:14):
But at the same time, politicsis so pervasive into our culture
and to our country, and it's soimportant in everything that we
do, that there is a lack ofcourage in speaking out against
it from within the DemocraticParty.
So the leadership, they'renever exactly profiles
(06:34):
encouraged, to steal the titleof John F Kennedy's book, god
Rest His Soul.
Most of them are not profilesencouraged Courage.
For those of you who would needa little review, I am a stoic.
I am a I'd like to say, apracticing stoic, and what that
simply means is there are fourpillars to stoicism.
I'm going to be simplisticCourage, justice, moderation and
(06:55):
wisdom.
The first one is always courage.
Courage is speaking truthregardless of convenience,
because truth is truth and truthis based on objective reality,
which is why I'm also anobjectivist, and stoicism and
objectivism blend seamlessly.
Objectivism believes in thereis such a thing as objective
(07:19):
reality, there's such a thing ascritical thought, and only
critical thought must be used.
Laissez-faire capitalism is theonly economic system that can
possibly work to enrich thelives of the most people, and
the rights of the individual areparamount.
Now, when you take that andcombine it with Stoicism, you
(07:41):
have a powerful philosophy, andI live by it because I am no
longer non-secular.
I've become pretty secular.
As science has answered more andmore questions about the cosmos
and the way things are, itbecomes less and less likely to
me that God exists.
But at the same time, I'm notan atheist.
(08:01):
I often say this because I'mnot an asshole.
I hope I'm wrong.
I hope I wake up on the otherside and my family's there
waiting for me or whoever it'sgoing to be or whatever it's
going to be.
But I really, really, reallydoubt it.
And because of that, andbecause I personally cannot
feign faith where it doesn'texist, it used to be that
(08:23):
religious faith was believing inGod and Jesus, whatever your
religion might be, and it helpedexplain everything around you,
down to disease.
Now we know that disease iscaused by bacteria and viruses
and genetic mutations and so onand so forth.
We understand why the sun risesand sets.
We understand that the earth isa tiny, tiny, tiny speck of a
tiny, tiny, tiny galaxy in anenormous universe and there may
(08:47):
be more than one universe and weunderstand our place in the
universe is not central.
So you know, to have religiousfaith today is to believe in
something that cannot be true.
Now, when I say that, I onlysay it cannot be true, based on
my human understanding of whatis real and maybe there's a
whole dimension of reality outthere that I don't see, and if
that's the case, I'm willing toconcede it, god knows.
(09:08):
Again, I'm not an atheist, I'man agnostic.
I see not one shred of evidencethat God exists.
Now, at the very same time, Ilive to be proven wrong.
Enough about that subject.
Moving along to the politics,this is why I'm a Stoic and this
is why I'm an objectivist,because I don't think you can
replace something with nothing.
(09:28):
And I think, as religion hasdecayed within our society, so
has decency, and we've beensliding at warp speed into
decadence.
What else could you call what'shappened to progressivism on
the Democratic Party?
But decadence, the total, notonly the acceptance that people
(09:49):
do things that are freaky, butthat we have to celebrate them
and make them part of themainstream culture, to the
denigration and disgust ofeverybody else.
And if anyone dares speakagainst it because it is
degenerate, then they're shouteddown and crushed.
That's what's gone out in theDemocratic Party.
That's why it's doomed.
I'm going to run as alibertarian, but I'm going to
target Democratic voters becauseI think there's an opportunity
(10:10):
here to create a new DemocraticParty that combines with
libertarians and independentsand goes and here's the part
that's going to be revolutionary.
I think we can go to the rightof Trump, not the left.
Look, democrats, I'm speakingspecifically to you, democrats,
republicans and independents,listen along.
(10:33):
But I'm speaking to Democratshere because I don't think I'm
going to say anything that youRepublicans and independents
disagree with.
But, democrats, the welfarestate has failed.
The welfare state has failedhere.
The welfare state has failedeverywhere it's been tried.
The welfare state has failedhere.
The welfare state has failedeverywhere it's been tried.
There is no successful exampleof social engineering working
anywhere that has been tried atany place at any time in history
.
There is no federal program orgovernmental program of any kind
(10:57):
anywhere, not just in theUnited States but around the
world, that have successfullylifted a mass of people out of
poverty or done anything otherthan have the most fringe of
results.
It simply doesn't work.
The war on povertyinstitutionalized poverty,
poverty instead of beingsomething that people would fall
(11:17):
into and get out of because ithurt and the whole family would
pull together to get out of ithas become a lifestyle and from
that poverty lifestyle, fundedby the welfare state, which is a
failure we have created thecrime in the cities.
It's at the very root of thebreakdown of the nuclear family
and from that comes all theother problems our society faces
(11:37):
, including overspending,because to be raised without
boundaries is to spend moneywithout boundaries.
It all goes together, myfriends.
So I think there's anopportunity here to stake out
new ground and I don't reallylike the left-right thing but to
stake out a democratic,libertarian ground.
Just that libertarianism isoften described as rightist, but
really what libertarianism isis what everyone really is when
(12:01):
you take all the fluff andtitles off of it, which is to be
socially liberal and fiscallyconservative, to believe that
people deserve the right to dowhatever they want in the
privacy of their own homes, tolove whomever they want.
However, that's as far as itgoes.
There is a limit.
For example, okay, and again,let's think this through, my
(12:23):
Democratic friends, listen to meit's great that gay people can
marry, but they shouldn't beallowed to adopt children.
There is just a lot of evidencethat unless a child is raised
in a two-parent family of bothgenders, the child is
handicapped period.
Even gay couples who arecredible admit this is becoming
(12:45):
true.
There are some well-known gaycouples who wrestle with this
and know that there are problems.
You know, I was listening to,for example, the conservative
commentator, dave Rubin, who isgay and married and has adopted
children and is running intoissues in his own, and I don't
want to speak for him and I'veonly listened to it in glancing
blows.
But I expect that's probablytrue of Scott Besant and his
(13:06):
husband and the children thatthey're raising.
No matter how much money'sinvolved or how great this
infrastructure might be, it'svery, very, very difficult for a
child to be raised as healthyas could be, as the
possibilities exist for thechild to be without both genders
present, because both gendersadd something that cannot be
(13:27):
replaced by the other, no matterhow much one is taught how to
be like the other.
In other words, you can teach aman how to be nurturing, but
he's never going to be asnurturing as a woman and you can
be the toughest woman on earth,but a tough man you're not in
the same league period, end ofstory.
This is why in MMA fighting.
They don't put women in withmen, thank God, one of the few
(13:48):
rational sports left in America.
You know you don't do that.
The man would just beat theliving snot out of her.
And it's not just that he'sphysically more powerful, but
his nature and his essence ismore powerful.
That's just a fact.
That's the biology of the beast.
This is how it is in everymammalian species that I can
think of.
Maybe there's an exception, Ithink bonobos.
I think bonobos are afemale-dominated society, but
(14:10):
there's not too many others.
Otherwise.
You know, like, as I'm talkingto you, I'm sitting here looking
at my black cat, morty.
Morty is far more aggressivethan my female dog, pepper, and
a lot of that has to do simplywith their genders.
Yes, they're different speciesand I understand that.
You don't have to get into it,and I understand I'm stretching
the metaphor.
But you know, come on, guys,hang in there, hang in there, be
with me, stay with me.
(14:31):
What I'm saying is Trump hasgone left.
If we take a look, I've becomeincreasingly disillusioned with
Trump and I'm becoming moreincreasingly disillusioned with
him every day.
But I don't hate him.
I'm not in a deranged state,and that's where I think we need
to be to successfully opposehim.
I think Trump has the makingsof a great man, but a great man
(14:53):
does not mean a flawless man,and even a great man must have
principled opposition, becausehe's also if we're going to talk
about him in real terms areasonable person who changes
his mind, okay, when faced withreality.
And that way he has certainstoic characteristics.
He's also courageous, obviously.
How many of us would get shotin the air and rise to yell
(15:15):
fight, fight, fight.
Let's not even get into thatdiscussion.
Okay, let's acknowledge the manhas greatness within him, but
he rules like an autocrat andcentral control, wherever it's
used, fails.
Just like I said, there is noexample of a welfare program of
any kind, of any flavor,anywhere, working Okay in terms
(15:39):
of what it was set out to domitigate and lift people out of
poverty when universally, allthey do is institutionalize
poverty and trap people withinit.
Okay, so let's just trysomething new.
Let's call it a third rail,let's call it a libertarian rail
.
And while Trump has gone leftand is saying things like he'll
never touch Social Security,let's be novel and say Social
(16:01):
Security is nothing more thanold-age welfare.
Let's tell the truth.
Let's tell the truth that thetrust fund is an accounting
fiction.
Let's tell the truth that it'sonly just full of IOUs from the
government.
It's just part of thegovernment debt.
Those are the so-called assetsof the trust fund, and it's
going to run out of those very,very soon, in the early 2030s,
and we're going to have to dealwith it.
(16:22):
And the sooner we deal with it,the less draconian dealing with
it has to be we as libertarians.
If we wanted to be puristlibertarians, we could say there
should be no Social Security.
But Social Security is a factthat people count on.
But let's call it what it is,and you'll find this in my book,
by the way A Radical Reset.
Radical reset is available toyou on Amazon in hardcover,
paperback or Kindle download.
(16:44):
A radical reset by me, herbie K.
There's the little commercialmessage.
I spelled this out.
But let's rename SocialSecurity to what it is, which is
old age welfare.
Let's talk about means testingit.
Let's talk about retirementages.
Let's talk about protectingthose that are already in it.
Let's talk about maintainingits long-term fiscal stability.
Let's talk about some new ideasLike, for example, chamath
(17:05):
Palihipataya, who's abillionaire and a venture
capitalist, and a verysuccessful one, suggested that
we take 500 billion of the 5trillion.
If a million people takeadvantage of Trump's gold card,
let's bounce off Trump, let'sspringboard.
Trump's going to be sellingthese gold cards, or he wants to
anyway.
This is one of his ideas.
Let's support it.
It's a good idea.
So if you pay a million dollarsand you don't have a criminal
(17:29):
background and you're not amember of a terrorist
organization or whatever and I'msure there are other
qualifications you can buy,basically, a green card into the
United States, instant greencard, you're in and you're on a
track where it might even becitizenship.
Either way, it doesn't reallymatter, but it's going to raise.
There'll be at least a millionpeople worldwide who want to
(17:49):
come live in the United States,who are wealthy and understand
that business-wise andcapitalism-wise, there's no
other place to be.
So these million people comehere.
We haven't completely screwedit up yet.
We're on our way to, but we'renot there yet.
So these million people come,we raise $5 trillion, the
majority of which can be used toreduce the deficit.
But if we take 500 billion ofthat, okay, and we place it into
(18:10):
the social security fictiontrust fund and create a real you
know Trump has talked about asovereign wealth fund, but we
could really create that withinsocial security alone as an
index of the Standard Poor's 500stock index.
So there's no politics involvedand, based on the past
performance of that index overthe last 150 years, it's
reasonable to assume that SocialSecurity could be saved without
(18:33):
doing anything else to it atall, just by partial
privatization of the trust fund.
That is a good idea.
Now, I don't know if it's trueand I'm not sure if Chamath has
thought of it all the waythrough and I've never met
Chamath Palihipataya, although Icertainly would love to and
talk it through but it's an ideathat's intriguing and is worth
discussing.
But we're not going to discussit, we're not going to put it on
(18:56):
the table, we're not going todiscuss Social Security.
We're not going to discussMedicare.
Okay, and we're going to talk.
We should run on a platform ofsending everything to the states
except national defense andforeign policy, chasing down
interstate criminals and issuingsound money.
(19:17):
We'll get to that last.
And it's solved.
It came into being this willmake you laugh, for those of you
who don't know this to endrecessions.
Ha ha ha.
It created the Great Depression, and the list goes on from
(19:37):
there.
It's been a disaster from thestart.
Shut it down.
Now what?
By shutting it down, it alsomeans that money will not be
printed ad infinitum and thatwill have the lovely and
wonderful effect of restrictingthese endless wars that we get
ourselves involved into.
You know, there's a reason why,if you look back in history and
you look at the history of war,most wars don't last very long.
(19:59):
Okay, not even you know WorldWar I and World War II.
They didn't last very long inthe sense that they started,
they were fought, they were overbecause you can't afford it.
Okay, countries, historicallygoing back in time, before they
came up with the idea ofprinting up bullshit money and
people were dumb enough toaccept it and they had to trade
with gold and silver and copperand real money, so to speak.
(20:22):
Longer discussion, alsodiscussed in a radical reset by
me, herbie K, on Amazon.
I discussed money and where itfits in society and so on and so
forth, in a way that I thinkyou'll understand.
But anyway, before that washappening, they could only fight
a war long enough as long asthey could raise taxes, and even
the royalty couldn't raisetaxes too much because the
(20:43):
peasants would revolt and throwthem out.
That's how kings lost theirheads, so to speak, literally so
knowing that it was a lot ofself-control.
There are a lot of warshistorically, but none of them
go on and on and on, like warstoday do, where we're constantly
, like this war in Ukraine, justsending weapons and sending
weapons, and sending weapons.
And the Middle East, weaponsand weapons, and weapons and
(21:03):
weapons, and to no end.
Because when you can printmoney, you can spend money like
it's going out of style becauseyou don't care.
Well, we get rid of the FederalReserve and the endless wars
come to an end.
From necessity, governmentreduces in size by necessity, we
start living on the money thatwe're earning, as opposed to the
money that doesn't exist, thatwe're creating out of thin air.
(21:24):
And I'm going to reach out, andthe Democratic Party could take
a lesson here.
Democrats with the brain, breakaway.
Leave the progressives alone.
Let them call themselveswhatever they want.
They can call themselvesdemocrats if they want to be the
new democratic party, be thejeffersonian party, true to the,
to the ideals of thomasjefferson and and which is the
(21:46):
founder of the democratic party.
For those of you who don't know, I know that most of you do.
I don't mean anyway, youunderstand what I'm saying.
So.
So the bottom line is returningto the roots of of what what
the democratic party stood forand getting away from the
trumpism of central leadershipby a strong man.
And you know, that's theproblem with these professional
(22:09):
politicians they all like to getin charge and even the
well-meaning think that they cando things well by using the
arms of government to do it.
And you can call that communismor you can call that fascism.
And it is fascism, guys.
By the way, government forcingprivate industry to act on its
behalf in the governmentinterest is fascism.
That's what fascism is.
(22:29):
Okay, it's very little, verylittle separated from communism.
It just leaves the facade ofbusiness intact, as opposed to
outright capturing the means ofproduction.
But both fail and they willalways fail because central
control there's.
No.
The average person in the inthe course of a day I read this
somewhere and the average personmakes 11 decisions a day.
(22:50):
Well, when you take 11decisions a day times 8 billion
people in the course of a day Iread this somewhere and the
average person makes 11decisions a day.
Well, when you take 11decisions a day times 8 billion
people in the world.
You're talking about trillionsof decisions, billions of
decisions a day, trillions ofdecisions a week, quadrillions
and Googleplex decisions everyyear.
There is no central.
And all of those decisions,like the butterfly, effect.
(23:12):
Those of you who understandwhat that means.
It means if the wings of abutterfly flap in one place and
it attracts a bird, the birdeats the butterfly and by eating
the butterfly, the birdattracts a hawk and the hawk
attacks the bird.
But he gorges himself on thebird, he chokes on it, then he
leaves his chicks alone and thechicks are captured by a zoo.
And himself on the bird, hechokes on it, then he leaves his
chicks alone and the chips arecaptured by a zoo.
(23:32):
And I don't know where I'mgoing with this whole thing
because I'm doing an extempore.
But one thing leads to another,is the point I make.
That was really ridiculous.
You know digression, but anyway, one thing does lead to another
.
So you cannot make thesecentral decisions.
Further, if you want tounderstand what central planning
(23:53):
looks like in its extremeversus what laissez-faire
capitalism does, go to the beerdepartment of your grocery store
and look at how many brands ofbeers, and every single one of
them was started by a couple ofpeople over a dining room table
saying one day, I think we'llstart a beer company, but if the
government was in charge ofbeer, there would be one beer,
because, well, we make beer.
Why does the public need it?
And bureaucrats aren't.
Don't become bureaucrats out ofcreativity or entrepreneurial
(24:14):
enterprise, guys.
Okay, so I mean, the wholething's ludicrous.
So, democrats, leave theprogressives to wallow in their
socialist misery as they'rerunning towards democratic
socialism.
Let them become democraticsocialists, you Democrats with a
brain, you that understand thatlaissez-faire capitalism has
lifted billions of people out ofpoverty and the only reason
(24:34):
there are still people living inpoverty around the world is to
the extent that laissez-fairecapitalism is blocked and to the
extent that our country haseconomic problems is to the
extent that laissez-fairecapitalism is blocked and become
a party of free marketeconomics coupled with.
Whatever you do in the privacyof your own home is yours to do,
but not necessarily everythingyou do in public, which is why I
(24:57):
talked about the gay issue.
And as far as you know, listen,you want to make love to
someone of your own sex.
It's your business, but youcan't involve the innocent, okay
, because it is a sexualdeviance.
I know that's not going to be apopular thing to say and this
is going to come back to hauntme, but it is what it is.
Okay, it's not a sin.
(25:18):
In my mind, remember, I'msecular okay, I don't see it as
a sin at all, but it's not anenvironment in which to raise
children.
It can only confuse them.
Okay.
If they're raising a littlebaby boy with two gay men and he
has heterosexual feelings, howare the gay men going to handle
that?
And vice versa, what if it's agirl?
(25:39):
What if she's straight?
What if she's gay?
What if she's this?
What if she's that?
There's no basis for this.
There are plenty of people toadopt babies.
Now, if an exception made for,maybe, teenage orphans or so on
and so forth, where no one elsewill adopt them and it's better
than an institution, I'm open tothat discussion.
We can all have that discussion.
(25:59):
I'm open.
Who am I?
I'm not the dictator, butthat's the discussion worth
having.
Okay, but adopting babies outof the question, because there
are plenty of people to adoptbabies, of every race and both
genders, so there's no shortage.
In fact, what we need to do ismake it much easier for good
people to adopt children and,while we're at it, reestablish
and become the party of thenuclear family.
(26:21):
And by destroying the welfarestate, we will, by necessity,
reestablish the nuclear family'simportance as the primary
support vehicle of everyone.
People will rebuild theirfamilies, families will be
recreated and children will belooked upon as they have always
been, as not only expenses butalso who takes care of their
(26:43):
parents when they get old.
You know, that's what's missingin our culture we're all
worried about.
You know, what do we do withall the old people?
That's what their children arefor, not the state.
You know, you want to see how acountry handles old people that
doesn't have a welfare systemthat works like ours and is so
stupid.
Go to Mexico and you'll seethat families.
There's a restaurant inHermosillo, sonora.
(27:07):
So Hermosillo is the capital ofSonora and it's not a tourist
town, which is why you neverhear about it.
And if you ever visitHermosillo, it's going to look a
lot.
It reminds me a lot of Tucson,where I used to live, only not
quite as neat on the edges.
In other words, all thebuildings are there, all the
traffic's there, all thefamilies are there, but it's
like a little worn on the edges,but otherwise it looks like any
(27:29):
other middle-class, dominatedcity in the world in a, at least
, mostly capitalist country,although Mexico falls in between
.
But that's not.
I'm not going to get into theMexican discussion of economics.
What I'm going to get into isMexican families, because
they're intact.
So there's a restaurant inHermosillo, but I would go down
(27:50):
there to do business, and I didbusiness in Mexico for many
years.
You have to get a lot done atthe state capitol, so I would go
stay in Hermosillo.
I'd stay in a hotel called theFiesta Americana and I would
stay there.
And there was a restaurant Iloved to go to called
Mariachisimo, and Mariachisimowas, as the name connotos, a
mariachi restaurant.
Now, don't get in your head,it's not three Mexican guys
(28:13):
coming up to your table andsaying, would you like to get a
song?
And then singing what's the one?
They always get Guantanamera,or, oh God.
There's so many of those cannedRight off the top of my head.
For some reason I'm having amental block, I think, because I
don't like them so much.
But you know the cannedmariachi songs that everybody
(28:33):
asks for.
But in Mexico mariachi is avery different thing.
So at mariachisimo there's amariachi orchestra, essentially
Okay, maybe a dozen and a halfor so members, maybe two dozen
members, um, between dozenmembers, between musicians and
singers, and they put on a showevery single night.
And what's interesting and thereason I bring up this
(28:55):
restaurant is is that wholefamilies show up, unlike in
America where you see just thehusband and wife show up, or
husband and wife just the kids,but the grandparents are never
with them.
In Mexico everybody's together,parents, every table is big in
Mariachisimo to accommodate thebig families and there's big,
long tables so that you can getthe parents and the kids and the
(29:15):
grandparents and the uncles andthe aunts and the nieces and
nephews and everyone comes.
And what's really cool is thateverybody knows the words to
every song.
So like, for example, you couldhold a gun to my head right now
and tell me to name a currenthit.
If there is such a thing stillas the top 20 or top 40, I can't
name a one, I'd tell you topull the trigger, not one, I
(29:36):
couldn't even tell you.
I'm not sure I could tell youthe name of any current
performing musicians um, thatirish girl got in the trouble
the other day comes to mind, butbilly eilish.
There's one, but you know.
But again, if you held a gun tomy head and said name a Billie
Eilish song, I can't.
I don't know any Billie Eilishsongs, I'm not interested.
My playlist is made up of asmattering of everything from
(29:58):
1950 to now, because Spotifysuggests music within my genre.
There's so much independentmusic that there's a lot of
retro stuff out there and that'swhat I listen to.
But the point where was I goingwith this entire discussion?
The point is that the wholefamily knows every word to every
mariachi song, because thefamily is the social safety net
in Mexico.
That's what I was reallygetting to.
Who's going to take care of thegrandparents?
(30:18):
The kids are, of course theyare.
Traditionally it's the eldestdaughter, but depending on how
many kids there are, they allpitch in and they take and no
one thinks anything of it.
Mom and dad live at home with,I mean, grandpa, and grandpa
live with mom and dad and thekids and the uncles and the
aunts and everyone livestogether and everybody takes
care of everybody else and it'sa beautiful thing and it's
(30:40):
something that we used to havehere and we need to reestablish
it because it's gone andeverything that's wrong with our
country has sprung from that.
So I don't want to go on and onforever.
Today there's an opportunityhere Democrats, dump the
progressives, Get rid of them.
Progressivism is poisonism.
(31:00):
That's what it is.
It's no good.
It leads to nothing.
It has no successes.
There is no track record ofprogressive success ball in the
world.
Get rid of it, leave thenutcases to it.
And you want to know how toappeal to men?
Democrats?
This is a very important point.
You got to stop behaving likepansies, okay, and progressivism
(31:23):
is also pansyism, okay.
To be a progressive man is topay lip service to stuff.
That cannot be true, becauseyou're either pussy whipped or a
coward, neither of which isconsistent with what the broad
of America wants to hear.
They don't want to see pussywhipped, coward men.
Tim Walz was a poster child ofcowardice, pussyism, careerism
(31:46):
and an absolute zero.
But messaging isn't going to doit, guys, to be a man, you must
live as a man.
Okay, you can't decide today.
You know what.
I'm going to talk more like areal man today, because if you
aren't, you aren't, and no realman is progressive anymore.
They're gone.
There are no real men in theprogressive movement.
(32:07):
There might be some left in theDemocratic Party, but you guys
need to come to us libertariansand join me and people like me
and force a new party to beformed.
The time has come.
It's happened before.
You know, there were Whigs andnow there were Republicans.
Well, there are Democrats andthey're now becoming social
Democrats.
Leave them to social democracyand become capital Democrats.
(32:30):
Call yourselves whatever youwant, but come over here with us
libertarians.
Let's form a new democratic,libertarian party.
We can call it whatever we want, but there is a bottled up.
The majority of people do notsupport Donald Trump, and never
have, but they don't know whereto go and they're not going to
support a bunch of lunaticleftist nonsense.
So we can, out here, say youknow what we support.
(32:51):
We support paying our bills.
No-transcript.
(33:20):
Sometimes it has to get worsebefore it gets better.
I don't want to end on a downernote.
Hey, listen, we could stillstave this off.
Ideal case scenario I run forcongressional CD4 in Phoenix,
arizona, and I do very well.
Whether I win or not isn'timportant.
If I can cause the Democrat tolose, that will bring national
attention to the movement andthen we can build a movement and
(33:42):
go from there, and that is whyI'm running.
Yes, I would like to win thiselection.
No, I'm not stupid enough tobelieve that I will, but I do
think I can do better than 4%.
In fact, I think I can dobetter than 10%.
And if we do better than 10%,not only will we be the
historically best performinglibertarian ever our campaign,
we will also completely shakethe Democrats to their bones
(34:03):
because we will have knocked offa Democratic incumbent with a
message of be a man, be anAmerican, be decent, form a
family, make your spouse happy,male or female, raise your
children together when you getmarried.
It's not all about you.
And that your responsibilityfirst and foremost is to your
family before all else.
(34:24):
Okay, and don't be cowed intodoing stupid things out of peer
pressure.
Anyway, we can go on and on andon.
We don't have to pay lipservices to stupidity anymore.
There's a market out therewaiting to be tapped, my friends
, and we're going to try to tapit out here in the 4th
Congressional District ofPhoenix, and I podcast to you
and want you to join us, because, while I say we're not going to
(34:44):
raise a lot of money, any moneywould be nice.
So obviously we're going to goby the way, because I'm a
convicted felon, I'm formingI've already formed a separate
committee of non-felons tohandle all the money.
I'm not going to touch anymoney at all.
I'm not going to be involved inthe money.
I'm not going to touch themoney.
I'm not going to use the money.
It'll be used strictly for thecampaign and have nothing to do
(35:04):
with me whatsoever, which isimportant.
That's important and we don'tneed that much.
But we need to raise something.
Your help would be appreciated.
Don't forget to go pick up acopy.
This is a way to help us Pickup a copy of A Radical Reset on
Amazon the Manifesto ofAntipolitism by little old me,
herbie K.
Thank you for joining me today.
Thank you for listening to mydiatribe.
(35:25):
Thank you for supporting me.
If you're listening to this andhave decided to join the
movement, please do Reach out tome with questions.
What else that's it?
God bless you, god bless yourfamily.
God bless America.
Hey there, dudes and dudettes, it's me, herbie K,
your host at A Radical Reset,the home of anti-politism,
anti-politism being the rebirthof the republic, where we serve
in Congress from duty, not fromambition or career.
There is no money in politicszero and there are no parties at
(00:21):
the federal level no Democrats,no Republicans.
But let's talk about that.
That's a utopian vision thatwill come true at some point
after the shit hits the fan.
But the shit hasn't hit the fanyet, thank God, and I hope I'm
wrong about it.
Listen, if it's unnecessary tomake a change because I'm wrong
about everything, I get it, butI don't see how we escape nearly
(00:43):
$200 trillion in debt when youinclude the unfunded Social
Security and Medicare Medicaidliabilities into our national
debt.
But okay, that's not wherewe're going today.
We're going to go into politics.
Today, we're going to talk alittle raw politics.
As some of you may know and Iknow that I'm pretty much
talking to myself I have fans,but a handful.
(01:04):
So at this point in time, whatI'm really doing is laying down
a predicate, and some of you aregoing to be listening to this
as I record this, but the vastmajority of you are going to be
listening to this down the roadwhen my congressional campaign
is underway in 2026.
It'll start ramping up in thefall of this year of 2025.
As soon as the students comeback to ASU, which will be in
about a month, which is where Iget a lot of my volunteers from
(01:26):
young libertarians who areenthusiastic and ready to
volunteer.
Because, let's be honest, in alibertarian campaign we don't
raise a lot of money.
Let's be honest.
But you know, in this day andage, money should not really be
a part of it.
With social media and theplethora of podcasts and
(01:50):
everything else that's around,you really shouldn't need a lot
of money to run a politicalcampaign.
I'd love to know what theyspend all those tens of millions
of dollars on, but anyway, well, it's not like I don't know,
but it's Anyway.
So I'm going to position myself, I'm running.
There's no point in doingsomething unless you're doing it
to win.
So while, on one hand, Iacknowledge that the odds of me
winning as a libertarian arevery, very slim, it's not
(02:12):
impossible, because strangerthings happen, god knows but
it's also not in the realm ofconventional thinking.
I completely understand that.
I know it's an incrediblyuphill battle because I'll be
fighting a Democratic incumbentand I'll be fighting a
Republican challenger who willbe fairly well-funded, and then
there'll be little old me.
So, historically, the best aLibertarian candidate has ever
(02:36):
done in a federal election.
There have been Libertariansthat have won in the local level
.
In fact, here locally, I knowone guy his name is Nathan who
serves on a school board, forexample.
That's not unusual.
Libertarians get involved atthe local level because the
local level really is where mostthings belong and that's a very
libertarian position to take,and I honor those libertarians I
really, really, truly do.
(02:57):
But in the bigger picture, we'vegot to do something about
what's going on federally,otherwise the states are doomed.
So anyway, in this upcomingelection, I'm going to position
myself to win by trying to takethe Democratic votes away from
the incumbent, as well asdisaffected Republicans,
independents and, of course, myown libertarians.
Now, my own libertarians arethe smallest, smallest, smallest
(03:19):
, teeniest group of that.
To give you some idea, I onlyhave to collect well, it's less
than I won't go on the exactnumbers 800 and change 865, I
think, but anyway, less than athousand signatures and I'm on
the ballot, which is not a bigtrick in a political campaign if
you know how to do it, andthat's incredibly small compared
to what Democrats andRepublicans have to do.
So it's all based on apercentage of how many
(03:42):
registered voters there are ofyour party in your district, and
I'm in the 4th CongressionalDistrict of Arizona is where
I'll be running.
So, anyway, I'm going directlyafter Democrats.
I have to believe and this iscompletely unscientific.
This is just my read of talkingto people that I've known my
whole life who are committedDemocrats, and a lot of them are
(04:03):
clinging on to the titleDemocrats solely for the reason
that they're appalled by Trumpand Trumpism, but at the very
same time, they are just asappalled and it grows every day
because the Democrats'popularity is down to the single
digits nationally, and so Imean there's no refuting that.
That's just the objectivereality of what is and the
(04:25):
reasons that's happening isthere are a lot of sane
Democrats who, while at one handthey are appalled by Trumpism,
they are at the very same time,as appalled by things like not
being able to state flatly atthe Democratic leadership's
level that there are only twogenders and that men don't
belong in women's sports, justto use those examples, and
(04:48):
that's an issue.
That was the jump the sharkissue.
That's where the DemocraticParty lost it Progressivism and
once you've lost yourcredibility, once an institution
like the Democratic Party hasflushed away its credibility and
that's what they did when theywent out to the lunatic fringe
and we started going withmultiple genders and expanding
LGBTQIA plus minus division signthere's so many different ways
(05:11):
to go and started basicallyparsing objective reality.
They lost their grip on classicliberals, people who were
Democrats because they wereliberal, because they felt a
certain sense of obligation totheir community and so on and so
forth, but at the very same,more than they felt the
Republicans did, they weretraditionally not anymore.
(05:31):
It was the party of the workingman, it was the party of the
union worker.
Today it's not.
It's the party of thegovernment worker, the
government union worker, whichis different than a private
union worker.
We'll get into a little bit ofthat later, if not in the
campaign as well.
You know I speakextemporaneously, so when I say
I'll get back to it later, maybeI will and maybe I won't, but
(05:52):
anyway I'll try.
So what's happened now is theDemocratic Party, the mainstream
Democratic Party, the onethat's titled the Democratic
Party, is really the progressiveparty.
They're no longer the liberalparty and liberals have nowhere
to go.
That's my assumption on this.
Traditional liberals havenowhere to go if they're sane.
(06:14):
But at the same time, politicsis so pervasive into our culture
and to our country, and it's soimportant in everything that we
do, that there is a lack ofcourage in speaking out against
it from within the DemocraticParty.
So the leadership, they'renever exactly profiles
(06:34):
encouraged, to steal the titleof John F Kennedy's book, god
Rest His Soul.
Most of them are not profilesencouraged Courage.
For those of you who would needa little review, I am a stoic.
I am a I'd like to say, apracticing stoic, and what that
simply means is there are fourpillars to stoicism.
I'm going to be simplisticCourage, justice, moderation and
(06:55):
wisdom.
The first one is always courage.
Courage is speaking truthregardless of convenience,
because truth is truth and truthis based on objective reality,
which is why I'm also anobjectivist, and stoicism and
objectivism blend seamlessly.
Objectivism believes in thereis such a thing as objective
(07:19):
reality, there's such a thing ascritical thought, and only
critical thought must be used.
Laissez-faire capitalism is theonly economic system that can
possibly work to enrich thelives of the most people, and
the rights of the individual areparamount.
Now, when you take that andcombine it with Stoicism, you
(07:41):
have a powerful philosophy, andI live by it because I am no
longer non-secular.
I've become pretty secular.
As science has answered more andmore questions about the cosmos
and the way things are, itbecomes less and less likely to
me that God exists.
But at the same time, I'm notan atheist.
(08:01):
I often say this because I'mnot an asshole.
I hope I'm wrong.
I hope I wake up on the otherside and my family's there
waiting for me or whoever it'sgoing to be or whatever it's
going to be.
But I really, really, reallydoubt it.
And because of that, andbecause I personally cannot
feign faith where it doesn'texist, it used to be that
(08:23):
religious faith was believing inGod and Jesus, whatever your
religion might be, and it helpedexplain everything around you,
down to disease.
Now we know that disease iscaused by bacteria and viruses
and genetic mutations and so onand so forth.
We understand why the sun risesand sets.
We understand that the earth isa tiny, tiny, tiny speck of a
tiny, tiny, tiny galaxy in anenormous universe and there may
(08:47):
be more than one universe and weunderstand our place in the
universe is not central.
So you know, to have religiousfaith today is to believe in
something that cannot be true.
Now, when I say that, I onlysay it cannot be true, based on
my human understanding of whatis real and maybe there's a
whole dimension of reality outthere that I don't see, and if
that's the case, I'm willing toconcede it, god knows.
(09:08):
Again, I'm not an atheist, I'man agnostic.
I see not one shred of evidencethat God exists.
Now, at the very same time, Ilive to be proven wrong.
Enough about that subject.
Moving along to the politics,this is why I'm a Stoic and this
is why I'm an objectivist,because I don't think you can
replace something with nothing.
(09:28):
And I think, as religion hasdecayed within our society, so
has decency, and we've beensliding at warp speed into
decadence.
What else could you call what'shappened to progressivism on
the Democratic Party?
But decadence, the total, notonly the acceptance that people
(09:49):
do things that are freaky, butthat we have to celebrate them
and make them part of themainstream culture, to the
denigration and disgust ofeverybody else.
And if anyone dares speakagainst it because it is
degenerate, then they're shouteddown and crushed.
That's what's gone out in theDemocratic Party.
That's why it's doomed.
I'm going to run as alibertarian, but I'm going to
target Democratic voters becauseI think there's an opportunity
(10:10):
here to create a new DemocraticParty that combines with
libertarians and independentsand goes and here's the part
that's going to be revolutionary.
I think we can go to the rightof Trump, not the left.
Look, democrats, I'm speakingspecifically to you, democrats,
republicans and independents,listen along.
(10:33):
But I'm speaking to Democratshere because I don't think I'm
going to say anything that youRepublicans and independents
disagree with.
But, democrats, the welfarestate has failed.
The welfare state has failedhere.
The welfare state has failedeverywhere it's been tried.
The welfare state has failedhere.
The welfare state has failedeverywhere it's been tried.
There is no successful exampleof social engineering working
anywhere that has been tried atany place at any time in history
.
There is no federal program orgovernmental program of any kind
(10:57):
anywhere, not just in theUnited States but around the
world, that have successfullylifted a mass of people out of
poverty or done anything otherthan have the most fringe of
results.
It simply doesn't work.
The war on povertyinstitutionalized poverty,
poverty instead of beingsomething that people would fall
(11:17):
into and get out of because ithurt and the whole family would
pull together to get out of ithas become a lifestyle and from
that poverty lifestyle, fundedby the welfare state, which is a
failure we have created thecrime in the cities.
It's at the very root of thebreakdown of the nuclear family
and from that comes all theother problems our society faces
(11:37):
, including overspending,because to be raised without
boundaries is to spend moneywithout boundaries.
It all goes together, myfriends.
So I think there's anopportunity here to stake out
new ground and I don't reallylike the left-right thing but to
stake out a democratic,libertarian ground.
Just that libertarianism isoften described as rightist, but
really what libertarianism isis what everyone really is when
(12:01):
you take all the fluff andtitles off of it, which is to be
socially liberal and fiscallyconservative, to believe that
people deserve the right to dowhatever they want in the
privacy of their own homes, tolove whomever they want.
However, that's as far as itgoes.
There is a limit.
For example, okay, and again,let's think this through, my
(12:23):
Democratic friends, listen to meit's great that gay people can
marry, but they shouldn't beallowed to adopt children.
There is just a lot of evidencethat unless a child is raised
in a two-parent family of bothgenders, the child is
handicapped period.
Even gay couples who arecredible admit this is becoming
(12:45):
true.
There are some well-known gaycouples who wrestle with this
and know that there are problems.
You know, I was listening to,for example, the conservative
commentator, dave Rubin, who isgay and married and has adopted
children and is running intoissues in his own, and I don't
want to speak for him and I'veonly listened to it in glancing
blows.
But I expect that's probablytrue of Scott Besant and his
(13:06):
husband and the children thatthey're raising.
No matter how much money'sinvolved or how great this
infrastructure might be, it'svery, very, very difficult for a
child to be raised as healthyas could be, as the
possibilities exist for thechild to be without both genders
present, because both gendersadd something that cannot be
(13:27):
replaced by the other, no matterhow much one is taught how to
be like the other.
In other words, you can teach aman how to be nurturing, but
he's never going to be asnurturing as a woman and you can
be the toughest woman on earth,but a tough man you're not in
the same league period, end ofstory.
This is why in MMA fighting.
They don't put women in withmen, thank God, one of the few
(13:48):
rational sports left in America.
You know you don't do that.
The man would just beat theliving snot out of her.
And it's not just that he'sphysically more powerful, but
his nature and his essence ismore powerful.
That's just a fact.
That's the biology of the beast.
This is how it is in everymammalian species that I can
think of.
Maybe there's an exception, Ithink bonobos.
I think bonobos are afemale-dominated society, but
(14:10):
there's not too many others.
Otherwise.
You know, like, as I'm talkingto you, I'm sitting here looking
at my black cat, morty.
Morty is far more aggressivethan my female dog, pepper, and
a lot of that has to do simplywith their genders.
Yes, they're different speciesand I understand that.
You don't have to get into it,and I understand I'm stretching
the metaphor.
But you know, come on, guys,hang in there, hang in there, be
with me, stay with me.
(14:31):
What I'm saying is Trump hasgone left.
If we take a look, I've becomeincreasingly disillusioned with
Trump and I'm becoming moreincreasingly disillusioned with
him every day.
But I don't hate him.
I'm not in a deranged state,and that's where I think we need
to be to successfully opposehim.
I think Trump has the makingsof a great man, but a great man
(14:53):
does not mean a flawless man,and even a great man must have
principled opposition, becausehe's also if we're going to talk
about him in real terms areasonable person who changes
his mind, okay, when faced withreality.
And that way he has certainstoic characteristics.
He's also courageous, obviously.
How many of us would get shotin the air and rise to yell
(15:15):
fight, fight, fight.
Let's not even get into thatdiscussion.
Okay, let's acknowledge the manhas greatness within him, but
he rules like an autocrat andcentral control, wherever it's
used, fails.
Just like I said, there is noexample of a welfare program of
any kind, of any flavor,anywhere, working Okay in terms
(15:39):
of what it was set out to domitigate and lift people out of
poverty when universally, allthey do is institutionalize
poverty and trap people withinit.
Okay, so let's just trysomething new.
Let's call it a third rail,let's call it a libertarian rail
.
And while Trump has gone leftand is saying things like he'll
never touch Social Security,let's be novel and say Social
(16:01):
Security is nothing more thanold-age welfare.
Let's tell the truth.
Let's tell the truth that thetrust fund is an accounting
fiction.
Let's tell the truth that it'sonly just full of IOUs from the
government.
It's just part of thegovernment debt.
Those are the so-called assetsof the trust fund, and it's
going to run out of those very,very soon, in the early 2030s,
and we're going to have to dealwith it.
(16:22):
And the sooner we deal with it,the less draconian dealing with
it has to be we as libertarians.
If we wanted to be puristlibertarians, we could say there
should be no Social Security.
But Social Security is a factthat people count on.
But let's call it what it is,and you'll find this in my book,
by the way A Radical Reset.
Radical reset is available toyou on Amazon in hardcover,
paperback or Kindle download.
(16:44):
A radical reset by me, herbie K.
There's the little commercialmessage.
I spelled this out.
But let's rename SocialSecurity to what it is, which is
old age welfare.
Let's talk about means testingit.
Let's talk about retirementages.
Let's talk about protectingthose that are already in it.
Let's talk about maintainingits long-term fiscal stability.
Let's talk about some new ideasLike, for example, chamath
(17:05):
Palihipataya, who's abillionaire and a venture
capitalist, and a verysuccessful one, suggested that
we take 500 billion of the 5trillion.
If a million people takeadvantage of Trump's gold card,
let's bounce off Trump, let'sspringboard.
Trump's going to be sellingthese gold cards, or he wants to
anyway.
This is one of his ideas.
Let's support it.
It's a good idea.
So if you pay a million dollarsand you don't have a criminal
(17:29):
background and you're not amember of a terrorist
organization or whatever and I'msure there are other
qualifications you can buy,basically, a green card into the
United States, instant greencard, you're in and you're on a
track where it might even becitizenship.
Either way, it doesn't reallymatter, but it's going to raise.
There'll be at least a millionpeople worldwide who want to
(17:49):
come live in the United States,who are wealthy and understand
that business-wise andcapitalism-wise, there's no
other place to be.
So these million people comehere.
We haven't completely screwedit up yet.
We're on our way to, but we'renot there yet.
So these million people come,we raise $5 trillion, the
majority of which can be used toreduce the deficit.
But if we take 500 billion ofthat, okay, and we place it into
(18:10):
the social security fictiontrust fund and create a real you
know Trump has talked about asovereign wealth fund, but we
could really create that withinsocial security alone as an
index of the Standard Poor's 500stock index.
So there's no politics involvedand, based on the past
performance of that index overthe last 150 years, it's
reasonable to assume that SocialSecurity could be saved without
(18:33):
doing anything else to it atall, just by partial
privatization of the trust fund.
That is a good idea.
Now, I don't know if it's trueand I'm not sure if Chamath has
thought of it all the waythrough and I've never met
Chamath Palihipataya, although Icertainly would love to and
talk it through but it's an ideathat's intriguing and is worth
discussing.
But we're not going to discussit, we're not going to put it on
(18:56):
the table, we're not going todiscuss Social Security.
We're not going to discussMedicare.
Okay, and we're going to talk.
We should run on a platform ofsending everything to the states
except national defense andforeign policy, chasing down
interstate criminals and issuingsound money.
(19:17):
We'll get to that last.
And it's solved.
It came into being this willmake you laugh, for those of you
who don't know this to endrecessions.
Ha ha ha.
It created the Great Depression, and the list goes on from
(19:37):
there.
It's been a disaster from thestart.
Shut it down.
Now what?
By shutting it down, it alsomeans that money will not be
printed ad infinitum and thatwill have the lovely and
wonderful effect of restrictingthese endless wars that we get
ourselves involved into.
You know, there's a reason why,if you look back in history and
you look at the history of war,most wars don't last very long.
(19:59):
Okay, not even you know WorldWar I and World War II.
They didn't last very long inthe sense that they started,
they were fought, they were overbecause you can't afford it.
Okay, countries, historicallygoing back in time, before they
came up with the idea ofprinting up bullshit money and
people were dumb enough toaccept it and they had to trade
with gold and silver and copperand real money, so to speak.
(20:22):
Longer discussion, alsodiscussed in a radical reset by
me, herbie K, on Amazon.
I discussed money and where itfits in society and so on and so
forth, in a way that I thinkyou'll understand.
But anyway, before that washappening, they could only fight
a war long enough as long asthey could raise taxes, and even
the royalty couldn't raisetaxes too much because the
(20:43):
peasants would revolt and throwthem out.
That's how kings lost theirheads, so to speak, literally so
knowing that it was a lot ofself-control.
There are a lot of warshistorically, but none of them
go on and on and on, like warstoday do, where we're constantly
, like this war in Ukraine, justsending weapons and sending
weapons, and sending weapons.
And the Middle East, weaponsand weapons, and weapons and
(21:03):
weapons, and to no end.
Because when you can printmoney, you can spend money like
it's going out of style becauseyou don't care.
Well, we get rid of the FederalReserve and the endless wars
come to an end.
From necessity, governmentreduces in size by necessity, we
start living on the money thatwe're earning, as opposed to the
money that doesn't exist, thatwe're creating out of thin air.
(21:24):
And I'm going to reach out, andthe Democratic Party could take
a lesson here.
Democrats with the brain, breakaway.
Leave the progressives alone.
Let them call themselveswhatever they want.
They can call themselvesdemocrats if they want to be the
new democratic party, be thejeffersonian party, true to the,
to the ideals of thomasjefferson and and which is the
(21:46):
founder of the democratic party.
For those of you who don't know, I know that most of you do.
I don't mean anyway, youunderstand what I'm saying.
So.
So the bottom line is returningto the roots of of what what
the democratic party stood forand getting away from the
trumpism of central leadershipby a strong man.
And you know, that's theproblem with these professional
(22:09):
politicians they all like to getin charge and even the
well-meaning think that they cando things well by using the
arms of government to do it.
And you can call that communismor you can call that fascism.
And it is fascism, guys.
By the way, government forcingprivate industry to act on its
behalf in the governmentinterest is fascism.
That's what fascism is.
(22:29):
Okay, it's very little, verylittle separated from communism.
It just leaves the facade ofbusiness intact, as opposed to
outright capturing the means ofproduction.
But both fail and they willalways fail because central
control there's.
No.
The average person in the inthe course of a day I read this
somewhere and the average personmakes 11 decisions a day.
(22:50):
Well, when you take 11decisions a day times 8 billion
people in the course of a day Iread this somewhere and the
average person makes 11decisions a day.
Well, when you take 11decisions a day times 8 billion
people in the world.
You're talking about trillionsof decisions, billions of
decisions a day, trillions ofdecisions a week, quadrillions
and Googleplex decisions everyyear.
There is no central.
And all of those decisions,like the butterfly, effect.
(23:12):
Those of you who understandwhat that means.
It means if the wings of abutterfly flap in one place and
it attracts a bird, the birdeats the butterfly and by eating
the butterfly, the birdattracts a hawk and the hawk
attacks the bird.
But he gorges himself on thebird, he chokes on it, then he
leaves his chicks alone and thechicks are captured by a zoo.
And himself on the bird, hechokes on it, then he leaves his
chicks alone and the chips arecaptured by a zoo.
(23:32):
And I don't know where I'mgoing with this whole thing
because I'm doing an extempore.
But one thing leads to another,is the point I make.
That was really ridiculous.
You know digression, but anyway, one thing does lead to another
.
So you cannot make thesecentral decisions.
Further, if you want tounderstand what central planning
(23:53):
looks like in its extremeversus what laissez-faire
capitalism does, go to the beerdepartment of your grocery store
and look at how many brands ofbeers, and every single one of
them was started by a couple ofpeople over a dining room table
saying one day, I think we'llstart a beer company, but if the
government was in charge ofbeer, there would be one beer,
because, well, we make beer.
Why does the public need it?
And bureaucrats aren't.
Don't become bureaucrats out ofcreativity or entrepreneurial
(24:14):
enterprise, guys.
Okay, so I mean, the wholething's ludicrous.
So, democrats, leave theprogressives to wallow in their
socialist misery as they'rerunning towards democratic
socialism.
Let them become democraticsocialists, you Democrats with a
brain, you that understand thatlaissez-faire capitalism has
lifted billions of people out ofpoverty and the only reason
(24:34):
there are still people living inpoverty around the world is to
the extent that laissez-fairecapitalism is blocked and to the
extent that our country haseconomic problems is to the
extent that laissez-fairecapitalism is blocked and become
a party of free marketeconomics coupled with.
Whatever you do in the privacyof your own home is yours to do,
but not necessarily everythingyou do in public, which is why I
(24:57):
talked about the gay issue.
And as far as you know, listen,you want to make love to
someone of your own sex.
It's your business, but youcan't involve the innocent, okay
, because it is a sexualdeviance.
I know that's not going to be apopular thing to say and this
is going to come back to hauntme, but it is what it is.
Okay, it's not a sin.
(25:18):
In my mind, remember, I'msecular okay, I don't see it as
a sin at all, but it's not anenvironment in which to raise
children.
It can only confuse them.
Okay.
If they're raising a littlebaby boy with two gay men and he
has heterosexual feelings, howare the gay men going to handle
that?
And vice versa, what if it's agirl?
(25:39):
What if she's straight?
What if she's gay?
What if she's this?
What if she's that?
There's no basis for this.
There are plenty of people toadopt babies.
Now, if an exception made for,maybe, teenage orphans or so on
and so forth, where no one elsewill adopt them and it's better
than an institution, I'm open tothat discussion.
We can all have that discussion.
(25:59):
I'm open.
Who am I?
I'm not the dictator, butthat's the discussion worth
having.
Okay, but adopting babies outof the question, because there
are plenty of people to adoptbabies, of every race and both
genders, so there's no shortage.
In fact, what we need to do ismake it much easier for good
people to adopt children and,while we're at it, reestablish
and become the party of thenuclear family.
(26:21):
And by destroying the welfarestate, we will, by necessity,
reestablish the nuclear family'simportance as the primary
support vehicle of everyone.
People will rebuild theirfamilies, families will be
recreated and children will belooked upon as they have always
been, as not only expenses butalso who takes care of their
(26:43):
parents when they get old.
You know, that's what's missingin our culture we're all
worried about.
You know, what do we do withall the old people?
That's what their children arefor, not the state.
You know, you want to see how acountry handles old people that
doesn't have a welfare systemthat works like ours and is so
stupid.
Go to Mexico and you'll seethat families.
There's a restaurant inHermosillo, sonora.
(27:07):
So Hermosillo is the capital ofSonora and it's not a tourist
town, which is why you neverhear about it.
And if you ever visitHermosillo, it's going to look a
lot.
It reminds me a lot of Tucson,where I used to live, only not
quite as neat on the edges.
In other words, all thebuildings are there, all the
traffic's there, all thefamilies are there, but it's
like a little worn on the edges,but otherwise it looks like any
(27:29):
other middle-class, dominatedcity in the world in a, at least
, mostly capitalist country,although Mexico falls in between
.
But that's not.
I'm not going to get into theMexican discussion of economics.
What I'm going to get into isMexican families, because
they're intact.
So there's a restaurant inHermosillo, but I would go down
(27:50):
there to do business, and I didbusiness in Mexico for many
years.
You have to get a lot done atthe state capitol, so I would go
stay in Hermosillo.
I'd stay in a hotel called theFiesta Americana and I would
stay there.
And there was a restaurant Iloved to go to called
Mariachisimo, and Mariachisimowas, as the name connotos, a
mariachi restaurant.
Now, don't get in your head,it's not three Mexican guys
(28:13):
coming up to your table andsaying, would you like to get a
song?
And then singing what's the one?
They always get Guantanamera,or, oh God.
There's so many of those cannedRight off the top of my head.
For some reason I'm having amental block, I think, because I
don't like them so much.
But you know the cannedmariachi songs that everybody
(28:33):
asks for.
But in Mexico mariachi is avery different thing.
So at mariachisimo there's amariachi orchestra, essentially
Okay, maybe a dozen and a halfor so members, maybe two dozen
members, um, between dozenmembers, between musicians and
singers, and they put on a showevery single night.
And what's interesting and thereason I bring up this
(28:55):
restaurant is is that wholefamilies show up, unlike in
America where you see just thehusband and wife show up, or
husband and wife just the kids,but the grandparents are never
with them.
In Mexico everybody's together,parents, every table is big in
Mariachisimo to accommodate thebig families and there's big,
long tables so that you can getthe parents and the kids and the
(29:15):
grandparents and the uncles andthe aunts and the nieces and
nephews and everyone comes.
And what's really cool is thateverybody knows the words to
every song.
So like, for example, you couldhold a gun to my head right now
and tell me to name a currenthit.
If there is such a thing stillas the top 20 or top 40, I can't
name a one, I'd tell you topull the trigger, not one, I
(29:36):
couldn't even tell you.
I'm not sure I could tell youthe name of any current
performing musicians um, thatirish girl got in the trouble
the other day comes to mind, butbilly eilish.
There's one, but you know.
But again, if you held a gun tomy head and said name a Billie
Eilish song, I can't.
I don't know any Billie Eilishsongs, I'm not interested.
My playlist is made up of asmattering of everything from
(29:58):
1950 to now, because Spotifysuggests music within my genre.
There's so much independentmusic that there's a lot of
retro stuff out there and that'swhat I listen to.
But the point where was I goingwith this entire discussion?
The point is that the wholefamily knows every word to every
mariachi song, because thefamily is the social safety net
in Mexico.
That's what I was reallygetting to.
Who's going to take care of thegrandparents?
(30:18):
The kids are, of course theyare.
Traditionally it's the eldestdaughter, but depending on how
many kids there are, they allpitch in and they take and no
one thinks anything of it.
Mom and dad live at home with,I mean, grandpa, and grandpa
live with mom and dad and thekids and the uncles and the
aunts and everyone livestogether and everybody takes
care of everybody else and it'sa beautiful thing and it's
(30:40):
something that we used to havehere and we need to reestablish
it because it's gone andeverything that's wrong with our
country has sprung from that.
So I don't want to go on and onforever.
Today there's an opportunityhere Democrats, dump the
progressives, Get rid of them.
Progressivism is poisonism.
(31:00):
That's what it is.
It's no good.
It leads to nothing.
It has no successes.
There is no track record ofprogressive success ball in the
world.
Get rid of it, leave thenutcases to it.
And you want to know how toappeal to men?
Democrats?
This is a very important point.
You got to stop behaving likepansies, okay, and progressivism
(31:23):
is also pansyism, okay.
To be a progressive man is topay lip service to stuff.
That cannot be true, becauseyou're either pussy whipped or a
coward, neither of which isconsistent with what the broad
of America wants to hear.
They don't want to see pussywhipped, coward men.
Tim Walz was a poster child ofcowardice, pussyism, careerism
(31:46):
and an absolute zero.
But messaging isn't going to doit, guys, to be a man, you must
live as a man.
Okay, you can't decide today.
You know what.
I'm going to talk more like areal man today, because if you
aren't, you aren't, and no realman is progressive anymore.
They're gone.
There are no real men in theprogressive movement.
(32:07):
There might be some left in theDemocratic Party, but you guys
need to come to us libertariansand join me and people like me
and force a new party to beformed.
The time has come.
It's happened before.
You know, there were Whigs andnow there were Republicans.
Well, there are Democrats andthey're now becoming social
Democrats.
Leave them to social democracyand become capital Democrats.
(32:30):
Call yourselves whatever youwant, but come over here with us
libertarians.
Let's form a new democratic,libertarian party.
We can call it whatever we want, but there is a bottled up.
The majority of people do notsupport Donald Trump, and never
have, but they don't know whereto go and they're not going to
support a bunch of lunaticleftist nonsense.
So we can, out here, say youknow what we support.
(32:51):
We support paying our bills.
No-transcript.
(33:20):
Sometimes it has to get worsebefore it gets better.
I don't want to end on a downernote.
Hey, listen, we could stillstave this off.
Ideal case scenario I run forcongressional CD4 in Phoenix,
arizona, and I do very well.
Whether I win or not isn'timportant.
If I can cause the Democrat tolose, that will bring national
attention to the movement andthen we can build a movement and
(33:42):
go from there, and that is whyI'm running.
Yes, I would like to win thiselection.
No, I'm not stupid enough tobelieve that I will, but I do
think I can do better than 4%.
In fact, I think I can dobetter than 10%.
And if we do better than 10%,not only will we be the
historically best performinglibertarian ever our campaign,
we will also completely shakethe Democrats to their bones
(34:03):
because we will have knocked offa Democratic incumbent with a
message of be a man, be anAmerican, be decent, form a
family, make your spouse happy,male or female, raise your
children together when you getmarried.
It's not all about you.
And that your responsibilityfirst and foremost is to your
family before all else.
(34:24):
Okay, and don't be cowed intodoing stupid things out of peer
pressure.
Anyway, we can go on and on andon.
We don't have to pay lipservices to stupidity anymore.
There's a market out therewaiting to be tapped, my friends
, and we're going to try to tapit out here in the 4th
Congressional District ofPhoenix, and I podcast to you
and want you to join us, because, while I say we're not going to
(34:44):
raise a lot of money, any moneywould be nice.
So obviously we're going to goby the way, because I'm a
convicted felon, I'm formingI've already formed a separate
committee of non-felons tohandle all the money.
I'm not going to touch anymoney at all.
I'm not going to be involved inthe money.
I'm not going to touch themoney.
I'm not going to use the money.
It'll be used strictly for thecampaign and have nothing to do
(35:04):
with me whatsoever, which isimportant.
That's important and we don'tneed that much.
But we need to raise something.
Your help would be appreciated.
Don't forget to go pick up acopy.
This is a way to help us Pickup a copy of A Radical Reset on
Amazon the Manifesto ofAntipolitism by little old me,
herbie K.
Thank you for joining me today.
Thank you for listening to mydiatribe.
(35:25):
Thank you for supporting me.
If you're listening to this andhave decided to join the
movement, please do Reach out tome with questions.
What else that's it?
God bless you, god bless yourfamily.
God bless America.
Popular Podcasts
Fudd Around And Find Out
UConn basketball star Azzi Fudd brings her championship swag to iHeart Women’s Sports with Fudd Around and Find Out, a weekly podcast that takes fans along for the ride as Azzi spends her final year of college trying to reclaim the National Championship and prepare to be a first round WNBA draft pick. Ever wonder what it’s like to be a world-class athlete in the public spotlight while still managing schoolwork, friendships and family time? It’s time to Fudd Around and Find Out!
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy, Jess Hilarious, And Charlamagne Tha God!