AMA: AI, Culture, Art, Politics, Marriage & More (Sep '25) | Yaron Brook Show - Yaron Brook Show

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:05):
A lot of quoted the principles of last Little selfs
and any individual lots. This is the show, all right, everybody,
welcome to your own book show on this Saturday, September

(00:29):
twenty seven. I, as you can see, I am back home.
I got in uh late, well yeah late last night,
so I'm a little jet lagged. So we'll see how
well I do with answering questions in my current state.
Should be fine, but we will see. All Right, we've

(00:52):
got a panel here. We've got smaller than usual panel,
but maybe that's because people have forgot about AMAS. We
haven't done one in a while. It's been almost a
couple of months. And super Chat is open, so those
of you who are online on YouTube can ask questions

(01:15):
using the super Chat. Those of you are watching on
a different platform can jump over to YouTube and go online.
Those of your twenty five dollars or more supporters a
monthly basis through one of the platforms, you should have
received the link to be able to join the panel,
So feel free to jump in whenever you feel like

(01:39):
it and join us and join us and ask questions live. So, yeah,
it's going to be back. It's nice to have my studio.
It's nice to have all the equipment set up and working.
Although when I first came in, I turned on my

(02:00):
soundboard and everything and nothing, No, didn't even it was dead,
completely dead. So it took a while to get it
to come to life. You do c C CPR, and
ultimately it it it came to let's jump in with
a panel, Jennifer.

Speaker 2 (02:24):
You know in the in the old days, photographs and
video used to be evidence for crimes and things. I
guess they still use it to a certain extent, but
now with AI you can change things right, so it's
not really evidence in the way it used to be.
Would you say that there be something to think about

(02:44):
in the future, Well.

Speaker 1 (02:45):
It's definitely something people have to deal with. There is
there always there are ways in which we can I
think they can tell what's being tinkered with with AI
and what hasn't. So as a I gets better AI
that figures out what's AI and what's not gets better
as well. But it is going to become more complicated,

(03:07):
and it's going to become harder, and even most so
I think than in criminal prosecution, where there's a budget
to actually go and figure out what's real and what's
not and what has been tinked or what's not. You know,
we watch videos and photographs all day long on the Internet,
on Twitter and places like that. We see public figures

(03:29):
saying certain things, and I mean, right now you can
tell if it's AI or not. I mean with the
naked eye. So you know, you could have you could
have people saying whatever, whatever the I decides. Now there's
some legal liability there that they're exposing themselves to, so
that's going to limit it. But but yeah, it's it's

(03:51):
a challenge.

Speaker 2 (03:53):
Yeah, sixty years ago there was a Star Trek episode
where they actually had that happen where they said did
something and he knows that he didn't do it. The
video showed you did and it turned out someone tampered
with the video. That was sixty years ago. They were
taking and that it was pretty cool.

Speaker 1 (04:09):
Yeah, I mean, but they were thinking of it in
what he was that Stars Star date. Yeah, way, I
had way, way in hundreds of years and year, we
already with the capacity. I mean, AI is creating completing
new realities. I mean you could you could tell it
to make a movie and it makes up the actors
and it's not taking clips and other places. It's literally

(04:32):
making the video up. It's pixel by pixel. It's it's
pretty amazing what he can do. Yeah. Thanks, Jennifer Adam.
You're muted.

Speaker 3 (04:52):
Yes, now I'm not muted.

Speaker 1 (04:54):
No, you're not.

Speaker 3 (04:55):
Okay. I mentioned.

Speaker 4 (05:02):
Crash Lending in Love, the Korean TV serial that seems
to be a fan fiction TV cereal, the first one ever,
and when I mentioned it to you, you said that

(05:25):
they are not depicting North Korea realistically. However, the male
protagonist is the son of the chief political officer of
the North Korean Army, very high up in the North
Korean hierarchy, and North Korea is notorious for having Western

(05:52):
style living conditions for its tabnoment platura, which of course
would include him, So I don't think that part is unrealistic.
They don't have any means to show everyday life for

(06:13):
ordinary people in South Korea except in incidents like an
electric train suddenly stops because there's an electricity outage, or
a hospital has no blood for transfusions, So in those

(06:36):
respects it's fairly realistic. And the amazing thing is that
South Korea has enough people to have an audience for
an I ran fan fiction TV show.

Speaker 1 (06:56):
I don't know if it's an fan fiction TV show,
but South Korea does have a large audience that has
good taste. I mean a lot of a lot of
the content that coming out of there is really really good,
and I've seen it. I couldn't get into that show.
I found the main character not that interesting, and again

(07:17):
I only watched a few episodes, so and then when
she comes into the village in North Korea, they're way
too happy, And anyway, it wasn't some of the Korean shows.
I love the four of them. I think that I
really love, and then others I watch a few episodes
and I lose interest. But there's definitely a value orientation

(07:41):
to Korean TV shows that doesn't exist in the West.
There's a benevolence and a respect for integrity and respect
for values that I don't see. There's no cynicism that
in these shows.

Speaker 3 (07:58):
Now.

Speaker 1 (07:59):
Of course, they also have a flip side of that
is they have uh what do you call it, The
Something Games uh uh, which which was just awful philosophically
and in every respects and so LifeWise, and I respect
although I didn't watch season two, which I can't believe
would be better squid games.

Speaker 5 (08:20):
Uh.

Speaker 1 (08:20):
But the point is, yeah, I mean, I agree with you.
There's it's amazing that there are enough people in Korea
two that are interested, that are watching that I engaged with.

Speaker 3 (08:33):
Uh.

Speaker 1 (08:34):
It shows that have no cynicism and uh, that have
heroes and have positive messages and and it's just fun
to watch.

Speaker 3 (08:45):
Uh.

Speaker 1 (08:45):
So Uh, I'd beat just Care a few times and
I I don't know what it is and I and
I I have you know, it's not in the I
don't see it in the people I meet there, but
it's it's got to be somewhere. It's got to be somewhere.

Speaker 4 (09:00):
But watching the show, I started getting inrand references from
the very start of the story, when the woman protagonist
is in a clinic in Switzerland that helps people commit

(09:22):
suicide and she doesn't meet the criteria and she's wondering
in a daze out of it, and then she hears music,
and this music is both a reference to Haley's fifth
Concerto in Ata Shrug and the bicycle scene the boy

(09:47):
on the bicycle in the fountain Head. Because it changes
her life, the experience of art changes her life. Now
she's going going to live a positive life and become
an terpreneur and a very successful one.

Speaker 1 (10:09):
So maybe I'm skeptical. I mean, her books are in
South Korea. They're translating in Korean. Even my book is
in South Korean is translated, so her books in Korean.
So it could be. It could very well be. But
I think the transformational impact of arts is not unique
tyn Rand. You see that in other other places. But yeah,

(10:33):
I mean, I hope so it'd be great if we've
got a bunch of I think the powerl of Stables
Shock Day even more so in uh god, my favorite
TV show, which is the Korean show anyway, you guys

(10:54):
remember somebody remembers mister mister Sunshine. I think the reference
is even greater. But yeah, I mean, it seems like,
you know, how for me to tell whether I'm reading
it into it or if it's there. And it's very
hard to be objective about these things, thanks Adam. Uh
let's see m line.

Speaker 6 (11:16):
Hey, Ron, can you hear me?

Speaker 3 (11:17):
Okay?

Speaker 1 (11:17):
Yep, here you fine?

Speaker 6 (11:18):
Okay. So I don't want this question to sound like
a challenge, because it isn't meant that way, but it's
on a broad sense, it's like ROI on the money
that people donate for objectivist organizations and causes and things
like that. So let me let me just explain this
a little bit more so. For example, you know, the

(11:40):
support that I provide to this, to your channel, as
small as it is in comparison to many other people,
but the best I can do. Uh, you know, I
have two components of that. Like one of them is
for the news, because I really really like the fact
that you put up with all the crap, read the
news and analyze it and in a way that you

(12:03):
know I can I can trust, so I don't have
to spend the time to do that. But secondly would
be you know, to advanced objectivist ideas, So the same
reason I donate to the ARI and to any other organizations.
And I guess the first part absolutely no problem. I
see the ROI. But where is the ROI for the
second part, because nothing I'm seeing and maybe it's just

(12:25):
been such a horrible past few months, you know, that's
kind of bringing me to this. But nothing I've seen
would give me any hope that our ideas are getting
any traction anywhere.

Speaker 1 (12:38):
So what does it mean for ideas to gain traction?

Speaker 3 (12:42):
Right?

Speaker 1 (12:42):
So ideas gaining traction in politics? No, zero, zilch, noda
than not. But is that what it means that our
ideas are gaining traction? And how big of attraction counts?
So you know, every week or two I get an email,

(13:03):
a text or something from somebody who says, you know,
you change my life because of your I red iron Ran,
that changed my oh, because of something the institute did,
And that's even more frequent I red iron Ran and those.
So there are people on a regular basis whose life
is being changed because of what I'm doing and what

(13:24):
the institute is doing. Is that having an impact on
the culture? Not yet, not in visible ways, but it
must be having some impact. These people in their lives
are better, they're living better lives, they're happier, they're advocating
for these ideas or they lived by these ideas, so

(13:45):
you know that it's having an impact. But you're right,
the ROI is not visible and that's frustrating and it's difficult.
And when I used to be the CEO of the
Ironrad Institute, it was the biggest challenge of how do
you tell donors what's the return of investment? Where do
they see it? And it's odd. You know, how many

(14:06):
people have read the books, how many students are submitting essays,
how many new intellectuals do we have in our programs?
But none of that translates into on a day to
day basis. I'm not seeing more objective without day in
the streets, or I'm not seeing any politicians or whatever.
That's the reality. And I don't have I don't have
a better roy than just the whatever number of people's

(14:30):
minds are changed in any given on any given day,
in any given week, in any given month, and I
don't have that number because we don't have contact with
all those people.

Speaker 6 (14:40):
Yeah, no, fair enough, But I guess you know, if
I just looked since Charlie Kurk with us a ship,
like what's happened now? Like another two million Christian nationalists?
Three million, five million, some ridiculous number.

Speaker 1 (14:55):
Right, things are getting worse. I agree with you, sor right,
things are getting.

Speaker 6 (15:01):
Yeah, exactly, exactly right. So you know it's fine that
we're treading water, or we think we're treading water, but
are we right? Like the delusion is coming? Maybe I'm
stretching the analogy, but you know what I mean that
you know we might gain couple of minds every week,
but meanwhile, you know, millions are just going to some
other crazy idea, or we're going to Mundani or again

(15:21):
even getting outside of politics, you know, it just it
just seems like a losing battle. And I wonder at
some point maybe just say, you know what, this is
just a losing battle.

Speaker 1 (15:32):
As faust fat as you believe me, I'm even more.

Speaker 6 (15:38):
So.

Speaker 1 (15:38):
I mean, look again, what does it mean to say
it's a losing battle? That is I've always said change
will not come in my lifetime. I will not see
the world. Do we all imagine I won't And I
don't think you will, and I don't think anybody on
this call, well maybe some of the younger people and

(15:59):
maybe Jacobi. I hope that I see the beginnings, like
the little thing coming out of the ground, you know,
that will become a tree one day. I hope I
see the beginnings of that, and to some extent I
do just the quality of the number of intellectuals that

(16:19):
are coming up and who are going to I think
have an impact. So I hope to see that. But
even that, I don't know if I'll see, because it
could very well be that within the next ten years,
America will become an authoritarian state like Russia. We're not

(16:39):
authoritarian in a sense that there no elections, but the
elections are rigged. Not a totalitarian state, but certainly an
authoritarian state. Allah Auburn in Hungary or put In in Russia.
And you know, it'll look like we've lost, but of
course those states ultimately collapse, and then the question is
what were placed them? And even then we don't know

(17:01):
that we've you know, we've really lost. And and when
we have lost, so uh there, it's quite possible that
things will get a lot worse before they get better.
And it's even likely the things will get a lot
worse before they get better. Right now, that's just the reality.
And the changing the culture, changing the world is to

(17:25):
impact the lives of individuals. There'll be individuals who are impacted,
and to work for our kids and our grandkids, uh,
you know, for for for the very distant future. And
then yeah, I mean people online are saying, oh, but Argentina, Gentina,
But Argentina's looking like it's in trouble. I mean, as
much as I love you, bla, even there, the news

(17:46):
is negative right now. Uh, he just got a big
bailout out from from Trump, which is not a good
sign that the Trump has to bail him out. Maybe
that's why he's been sucking up to Trump all these
for the last year, so he could get this bail
out ultimately, and and October's twenty sixth election, it doesn't
look like it's gonna go his way. His popularity in

(18:08):
Argentina is the client significantly, and the real problems, the
real problems. So and I don't believe somebody says optimism
is a duty. I don't believe in duties, period exclamation pod.
And I certainly don't believe optimism is a duty. And
I don't agree with cal Papa.

Speaker 7 (18:26):
So so sorry, uh sorry, yeah, I'm not sure what
his name is, right, So yeah, I mean that's the reality,
and and uh, we've got to face we've got to
be honest about that reality and face that reality. Okay, thanks,
all right, thanks Emily Jacob.

Speaker 8 (18:48):
Well that's a strong note to follow up with.

Speaker 9 (18:51):
Uh. But so my question was, I was listening to
your show on San Piker and the violent calls, and
then I was also thinking of the integration with the
FCC and the arbitrary nature of those laws there. So
how how is the allst violence of Hassan not shouldn't

(19:18):
be something that Hey, you can lock someone in jail
for calling violence against say capitalists, and then say, well
you have to narrow it down to maybe one hundred people,
then you can say, hey, this person deserves to be
locked up in jail.

Speaker 1 (19:33):
No, I don't think it's an issue of narrowing down
that is. I think that if if he says, go
kill the capitalists, and there is a legitimate reason to
believe that there are people out there who are listening
to that and will act on it, then I think
he can be He can be criminally liable, he could

(19:54):
be that could be incitement. But if he's saying kind
of to to broad people, there's no nap corporate people
that are going to do anything, and indeed nobody has
done anything. You know, go kill the capitalist as a
kind of metaphor for something in part of a rant
that he's really angry or whatever, but it's not literally

(20:18):
you guys over there, you guys, go do it. Then
I don't think it is. Now Again, if you can
link it to some to somebody who is radicalized or
incited by him, then yeah, he should be criminally liable
for that, But as a general statement, the capitalist should
be killed. I don't think is a violation, is incitement,

(20:43):
And this is the difference. I think I answered this
question on one of the shows recently, the difference between
this and Islamism. When the Islamic preacher says, go commit
gye had kill the infidel, he is talking to a
specific number of people who are willing to do that,
who are eager to do that. Who are you know,
taking up bombs and rushing out to do it. It's

(21:06):
not theoretical, it's not part of a rant, it's part
of It's part of a systematized ideology of Vio. That
is that is committed to violence and there are people
waiting for the command to go fulfill it. Now, if
you could show that, if you could show the left

(21:26):
is that that is the people on the left who
view au son Pika in the same way that Islamist
view the locally mom, then I'd say, yeah, I should
go to jail.

Speaker 9 (21:35):
So would you say historically it would be something like
the nineteen sixties levels of violence if you had translocated
him back into that culture or brought that culture.

Speaker 8 (21:45):
Up here there has to be a link assassinations.

Speaker 1 (21:49):
There has to be a link between the violence and
what he's saying. So if a son Pika is the
spiritual leader of I don't know, socialists for violence, let's
call them right and socialist and he says, go kill
the capitalist, and a week later a socialist for violence
kills a capitalist, then it's click cut. Then there's no

(22:11):
question about his culpability and responsibility. Right. The further you
go from that, the more difficult it is to show culpability.

Speaker 9 (22:22):
Could you see an area for law enforcement too, Okay,
he's not liable, but then you can monitor those groups.
And if you see a call for violence like that
and then suddenly they buy ten guns and twenty.

Speaker 10 (22:36):
Knives, would that be yeah, absolute action, Absolutely, And you
could show you could show the cause of link between
the two, or at least the seeming causal link between
the two, and.

Speaker 1 (22:48):
You can show an ideological affinity, and you can show
that they acted on what he asked them to do,
then yeah, absolutely, go after him. So and anybody who
calls for violence, even on a theoretical level, should be
monitored by law enforcement, because that is, even if it's
protected speech that does not mean that they shouldn't be

(23:08):
monitored and observed for the chance that it goes from
some theoretical musings to something actionable, and when it does,
law enforcement needs the pounds. So it's not that I think.
I think Cassan Pika, I'm sure is monitored by the
FBI because of talk like that. If he's not, then

(23:32):
it's a then the FBI is derelict in their duty.
It's exactly those kinds of things that require monitoring. It
just doesn't yet rise the level as far as I
know now. They might be evidence to the country where
there are people, there's a network of people waiting for
the for the command, but as far as I know,
it hasn't yet risen to the level where he would

(23:52):
be indicted. But it's certainly at the level where he
should be under observation. Okay, like I would, I would
authorize a wire tap on Hassan Pika's phone based on
that segment of his interview.

Speaker 9 (24:09):
Right, Well, that makes sense on the specificity is needed there,
so helps quarify it.

Speaker 1 (24:16):
Yep, yeah, thanks for asking, all right, I see apple
Jack says, welcome home from cloudy cool La. It's sunny.
The sun is shining. Here in Puerto Rico, it's it's
eighty nine degrees tonight. You know it'll drop all the

(24:36):
way down to I don't know, a freezing seventy nine.
But I did hear thunder when I came into the office.
So there are thunderstorms out there in Puerto Rico. You know,
in California, when it rains, it like rains in like
a whole stretch, like one hundred miles everywhere it's raining,

(24:58):
like everywhere you drive, its raining. It comes in all together.
And you know when the range every way it rains.
In Puerto Rico, it could rain like a block from
here and never rain where we are. And then you
can see the little rain cloud coming and you'll drop
a little bit of rain on you and then move
on and you know another rain cloud will come from

(25:19):
somewhere else. So it's rain is different here. It's in
that sense. In the tropics it's very it's it's very different.
So it's it's cloudy over there, it's sunny. It's cloudy
not that far from us, but it's sunny where I am. Okay,
it's since they no super chats, let's go to Jennifer.

Speaker 2 (25:43):
How much of are When you look at a piece
of art, how much do you think is how much
you appreciate the technical aspect compared to how it hits
you emotionally? Do you think the emotional parts more important
in the end necessarily?

Speaker 1 (26:02):
I mean, I think it depends. It very much depends
on I mean, most people have no clue about the
technical parts of it. So for most people's just the
emotional hitting. Maybe they can identify some you know, oh,
look at the fabric, is what a gene it has
on there or things like that, So people can appreciate
certain aspects of the paintings technical side, but they don't

(26:25):
really know much more so, I think it's a large
extent depends on what you are bringing to the experience,
the knowledge that you're bringing into the experience. The more
you know, the more you gain appreciations from the technical,
from the historical, from the contact, from the story being depicted,

(26:46):
in addition to kind of just the sense of life
emotional response that you get. So the more they're integrated,
the more you know, the less you know. Then obviously
the sense of life dominates because that's all you have.
You don't have anything else. So I find like when
I go like when I was in Italy. Now it's

(27:07):
you know, it's I just find it so interesting to
look at the art. Okay, is this early fifteenth century?
Old late fifteenth century? Is it late fourteenth century? Is
this a transition between the Middle Ages to the Renaissance?
Is this high Renaissance? Just because the transitions are so
interesting and the change? Is this before they knew about perspective?
Is this after they knew about perspective? And so I

(27:31):
can even you know, I can even look at would
you do a lot when you're paintings the sculpture of
Jesus crucified over and over and over and over again.
But they're all super interesting to me, right, because they're
all different and they reflect they still reflect the art
a sense of life, because they're all most of them

(27:52):
are great art. They all reflect an art a sense
of life, and they also reflect the knowledge of the period,
reflect the approach to religion. And it's like wow, I mean,
so I can enjoy like crucifixes in a way that
I couldn't if I didn't have the knowledge of all

(28:15):
the history of it. And I can abstract a way
what's actually going on. You know, there's a there's a
church in Florence which has a I think it's a
wooden carving of a crucifixion that Michelangelo did when he
was young, and and they've identified it as Michelangelo, i'd know,

(28:37):
in the last twenty or thirty years or something, and
it's it's hung, it's hung in the church, and you know,
you can kind of tell Michelangelo. Inspired by Michelangelo, you
can did something different about that. Then, I don't know
a crucifixion one hundred years earlier or coosition by just
another artist in the the I have. I have photos

(29:02):
that like I have hundreds of photos of crucifixions on
my phone because I I at some point I want
to do a talk on all the differences between them
and what they represent in the sense that and it's
good to take the same topic over and over again
because then you can you can abstract away the topic
and just look at the differences, look at what they
do differently, and I find it fascinating and interesting. So

(29:23):
I respond definitely to odd because of that, because I
bring that context into it. There was a I think
I'm answered this on the show, but there was it's
a it's a it's a funny. It's a funny thing.
But it's like I've got now you know this, there's
there's a phenomena which I call the penis phenomena in
in art uh in the pre renaiss in the in

(29:44):
the Renaissance and post Renaissance period where pre Donatello's David,
they're no penises, right, they're all covered. Post Donatello's David,
the penises everywhere, like everywhere. It's it's ridiculous, every sculpture
everywhere there and they're and they're in your face. They're like,

(30:06):
there's no I mean, it's amazing once you start paying
attention to these things or you know, it's everywhere, and
then you get the counter Reformation, so you get you
get post Luther, you get the Catholic Church becoming more
Christian with the you know, the the Inquisition wraps up
and and they uh and they become more more religious

(30:30):
and suddenly all the penises are covered up again. So
it's it's fascinating just to look at art through this
lens of history and through this lens of of the
evolving Christian attitudes towards different things, And it was just
fun just to I guess, look at penises. I mean,
observe the way they dealt with penises in the in

(30:52):
the art of the different periods. You know that Donna
Tello's David I didn't realize is the first sculpture in
the round where you can actually walk around it see
it from all three hundred and sixty degrees in a
thousand years, right, So for a thousand years from Rome

(31:15):
until fourteen whatever, when Dona Tella makes this, there's no
sculptures in the round. They're all either either they're usually
just in now what do you call it, in niches
in sighte of buildings or carved in the side of
a building, but they're not. So it's the first one

(31:38):
in a thousand years that's in the round, and it's
the first one in a thousand years that's nude, so
that means something. And then so you look at David
now and you go, oh wow, you know this is
like it's not just a great work of art, it's
not just it's like symbolic of the you know, the

(32:03):
Christian era is over. Maybe it's coming back, but Christian
airs over. The Renaissance has just begun.

Speaker 8 (32:10):
Juron, do you think they would have models that they
based all the sculptures off of or was this all
from imaginations?

Speaker 6 (32:16):
Oh?

Speaker 1 (32:16):
No, they use models, at least in the Renaissance, they
use models. And then of course the other fast anything
is you know, there was no there was no Donna
Tella did not know the muscles, and I mean he
knew that only from looking at a model, right, But

(32:39):
Michelangelo and Leonardo da Vinci, even before Michelangelo both dissecting bodies,
even though it could have got them, I mean could
have got them in real, real, real trouble with the Church.
They're dissecting bodies at night in secret. They're paying people
to dig up graves or to bring them bodies and

(32:59):
get disc acted. So they already not only are using models,
but they now started having a real understanding of the
muscular muscles and bones and and joints and how they work,
and they're doing drawings of those. So uh, And again,
no bodies were dissected for over a thousand years. I

(33:20):
mean people say there was no Dark Ages, and there's
a there is. But even in the non dark Ages,
the Middle Ages, which weren't that dark, which a little
less dark put it that way, it's still there's almost
there's no synonymical observations. There's no art in around, there's
no nudity, and there's no in art, and there's no
there's no dissection, and there's no sciences. There's almost nothing happening.

(33:43):
And then you get the Renaissance. It's like boom and
it explodes. It just explodes, and it's so amazing. And
so when you know the history like you gain an
appreciation for what the art of the Renaissance whatever represents,
what it means, the cultural contacts, what a mental humanity,
what immence us. We wouldn't exist without the Renaissance, right

(34:06):
whilst freedoms, our life wouldn't be what it is without
without the Renaissance happening. And it's just a it's just
an explosion of culture, an explosion of pro man culture,
pro this world culture. That is so you look at

(34:26):
the paintings, even paintings of religious topics which dominate Italian Renaissance,
you see the humanity in it. You see Jesus and
the Madonna are now a mother and child, and then
not just he's a madonna, whereas before the Jesus and
the Madonna they're there symbols and now it's like a

(34:47):
woman and a child and the giggling or or they're playing,
or he's sticking his finger in her mouth or sticking,
you know, partickling or something. They bring humanity to it suddenly,
and it's individuals. It's human, it's u they're not just abstractions,
which they were in the Middle Ages.

Speaker 2 (35:05):
I was thinking about movies too, like you know, The
Wizard of Oz. Do you like that?

Speaker 1 (35:08):
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

Speaker 2 (35:10):
Even though the story it's some kind of political satire,
it's probably kind of goofy, but it's such a beautiful movie.
The singing and dancing as sets that.

Speaker 1 (35:18):
Yeah, it's got a positive sense of life. It's got
a great sense of life. Right, it's all about you know,
it's all about the joys of of of color and
uh and you know she goes from black and white
world to color world and yeah, so it's it's it's
very much a sense of life, a positive sense of life.

Speaker 3 (35:37):
Movie.

Speaker 1 (35:37):
So there's so many dimensions starts and movie movies, of course,
are the most complicate complex of other odd films because
they have so many dimensions. But yeah, you can enjoy
lots of different things within a movie. You enjoy the
acting abstract the way everything else you can you can.

Speaker 2 (35:53):
You know, the music is great in that one too, Yeah.

Speaker 1 (35:56):
Yeah, that one. I mean the acting is good, the
music's good, the singing, the dancing, I mean, the colors,
the way it's filmed. Yeah, it's just a fun It's
just a fun movie. Thanks Jennefer. All right, Adam.

Speaker 4 (36:12):
One thing that I haven't seen from objectivist sources is
the link between having the world's worst philosophy of education,
where teachers in that worst philosophy of education started getting

(36:36):
turned out from the Columbia University School of Education right
after the veterans started coming back from World War Two,
and then the first teachers and administrators got hired by

(36:57):
the most expensive private schools like the one that Donald
Trump went to. And now we see that a majority
of Americans, or at least a majority of American voters,

(37:17):
are miseducated in the world's worst anti philosophy of education,
and both the Walk Left and the Maga movement reflect
a masterminding. People do not think in concepts and principles

(37:38):
in this country anymore. The startups are dependent almost completely
Number one, and the very few Americans who went to
Montessori schools and childhood. But the majority the immigrants from

(38:01):
countries with the better education system. That's a massive impact.
And I think Heinrand called her essay and this the Comprachicos,
But very few Americans have read The Man Who Smiles
or are familiar with European folklore, so her title probably

(38:28):
went over everybody's head. But still at least the objectivist
institutions should draw attention to this.

Speaker 1 (38:38):
Yeah, I mean, I think Lenna doesn't why Johnny can't
read or why Johnny can think. I think it was
why Johnny can't think. And yeah, I mean we've talked
a lot over the years about progressive education, how evil
it is, and how bad it is. You know, I
travel around the world, and sadly, it's not clear that

(39:01):
people in other countries are that much better off a
little bit. I always thought the Brits were better, and
now I look at the Brits and they're terrible. And
you know, the rest of Europe is struggling, and the
United States is doing very well, maybe not for very long,
but has been doing you know. So we've talked about

(39:23):
this in the past. One is I think a lot
of kids go to Montssouri so a lot more kids
in a lot of kids. There's Montssori schools everywhere in America.
Some of them are not that good, but there are
a lot of Montissouri schools. I think you overemphasize the
world of immigrants. While I think it's huge.

Speaker 6 (39:39):
You don't.

Speaker 1 (39:40):
You're about to see what happens when you don't have immigrants.
So we will test this theory out very soon here
thanks to Donald Trump, given that not only are we
accepting fewer immigrants, but people are not going to come
here because we're so unwelcoming to them that they We're
going to see what happens in America with fewer immigrants.

(40:01):
But but yeah, I mean yeah, mindlessness is this is
why Johnny can't think. You can't think, You really really
really can't think. Americans can't think because of progressive education.
And sadly, it would be great if we could say
that people in X country could think, maybe they can

(40:21):
think a little bit better than Americans. But it's still
it still seems that the whole world is struggling around
is struggling and has been struggling. But yes, I agree,
it's we've got to put a lot more focus on
progressive education, and we're not going to change anything until
we change education. Until people start thinking. You can't have

(40:42):
going back to Amlin's question, you can't have a cultural
impact unless you have a culture that is open to thought.
And sadly, we have a culture that is pretty blocked
out the idea of thinking. Is too much effort, too
many people.

Speaker 6 (41:01):
Right.

Speaker 4 (41:02):
Well, I could mention one country where most sorry is
the standard preschool curriculum, but you'll tell me again, I'm
overdoing it.

Speaker 1 (41:13):
I think you're probably overdoing it. The country's Poland, And yeah,
I mean Poland's doing well. How well we'll see, but yes,
And also how good is the Montssori education is always
a good question. I mean, I know a lot of
Monissori schools that are now really Montssori. You've got to

(41:36):
get that right. But there are a lot of Montessori
schools Italy where Montsouria, of course, king from I don't
think has many, sadly, and I don't see many in
Europe generally. I think it's big in India or so India.
I think it's big in Poland, and it's big in

(41:56):
the United States, but I don't see it in much
of the rest of you up sadly Umlin.

Speaker 6 (42:04):
Yeah, So one of the reasons why some people voted
for Trump was they said that he would be better
for Israel. In fact, I think you had a guest
who specifically said that. I think his term was I'd
hold my nose and vote.

Speaker 1 (42:19):
For him because Adam also have said that.

Speaker 6 (42:21):
Yep, right right. I guess I'm actually wondering if there's
a counterfactual here that you know, would actually Israel had
been better off with a Kamala because she wouldn't have
a cut Jill to hold over them all the time
the way Trump seems to have. Again, Okay, well, what

(42:42):
is youel actually have been better off with Kamala because
she would have probably abandoned them. She would have said no, no, no,
you know, I'm not going to support you. But then
Israel would have now whether they actually would have done this,
but they would have had to kind of go it alone, yep.
And she wouldn't have had as much influence over the
country as Trump has. You know, like just the other

(43:02):
day when he said, like, okay, there has to be
peace and guys or whatever the heck he said at
two o'clock in the morning, right yeah, no, doubt changed
at three. But you know, he because he's always got
this thing he can say, listen, you know, if you
don't do what I say, I'm going to cut off
this or you know, implied or or or or open threats.
Would Israel perhaps have been better off to just perspect, Okay,

(43:24):
we don't have the US to support us, and we're
gonna go and deal with it. Or without that US support,
they'd be in deep, deep trouble. Bad as as as
qualified as the support is.

Speaker 1 (43:36):
Yeah, I mean, look, I think the problem with anything
good Trump does is it's that Trump is doing it. Yeah,
so I think I think his support of Israel is
not necessarily that helpful, and I think it's it also

(43:57):
is creating a full sense of security in Israel that
they can get away with stuff that maybe they cannot.
But it's hard to tell what would have happened if
Kamala was there. There's certainly is an argument of the
counterfactual that that yes, she, she would have tried to
stop them, but they would have gone it alone, and
there's a benefit to that. They wouldn't have been dependent

(44:20):
on the United States as they are now. But it's
hard to tell it's hard to tell how things would
have evolved. It's hard to tell exactly what's going to
come of this. Right, So, supposedly he's got a peace plan.
It's going to stop Israel from actually taking Gaza. You know,
they're in Gaza City now, they are days weeks away

(44:46):
from control over Gaza City completely. And he says he's
got a peace plan. Supposedly, what's his name, the former
Prime Minister of England, Tony Blair is going to be
the president of Gaza during the reconstruction and uh, they're
going to have a multinational force there to keep the peace.

(45:08):
And but who knows, you know, this is a Tony
blast supposedly Tony babe uh plan. Who knows what comes
of that? Who knows what would have happened with Iran?
If Kamala was in in there? Would she what? What? What?
What would she have done? If Israel started bombing?

Speaker 6 (45:27):
You on?

Speaker 1 (45:29):
Would the fact that she wouldn't have bombed the facility?
Would that have encouraged Israel to keep going? Which is
what I think they needed to do?

Speaker 6 (45:38):
That That's exactly the question I was going to ask you.
Would they have actually kept going and done the regime change,
because I don't think it was that far away.

Speaker 1 (45:44):
No, I don't think so either. I think I think
that were I think it was weeks away. If they
would have weakened the internal structures more gone after the
Supreme Leader, if they killed the Supreme Leader, they'd gone
after more of the which which Trump didn't want them
to do, he told them not to do. If they
on after the clerics, I think they could have achieved
regime change. I said so at the time with Kamala.

(46:07):
Would they have done that? Maybe?

Speaker 5 (46:08):
No.

Speaker 1 (46:09):
I think there's a legitimate, the legitimate argument. And look
Israel today, because Trump is their only friend or suppose friend,
is completely isolated. It's much much more isolated than it
was internationally than it was six nine months ago. And
it is really going to be a problem for them if,
I particularly if some of these countries put economic sanctions

(46:30):
on them, h and they're already putting military sanctions. It's
it's going to be a real challenge for as well
moving forward in terms of I mean Nataniozos is saying,
he is already saying Israel need to prepare itself to
be spota. Spota means self sufficient, right, which is horrible.

(46:51):
And by the way, more Americans attorney against Israel the
Israel has. There's more antagonism towards Israel today. I'm both
left and right than ever before. And that is not
helped by Trump's support. It's hurt by Trump's support.

Speaker 3 (47:05):
Right.

Speaker 6 (47:06):
But if it's just a related question, though, would you
see any Western nation actively taking military action against Israel
or it wouldn't get to that level.

Speaker 1 (47:20):
No, I don't think you will get to that. It's
going to be interesting with the Italians, and I think
somebody else sending.

Speaker 6 (47:25):
And the Spaniards too, right.

Speaker 1 (47:27):
Yeah, sending ships for this flotilla. I have a feeling
they'll be neutralized in ways that do not create confrontation. Okay,
we'll see. But but no, I don't think so. I mean,
the closest you could get. And this is of course
a real threat. And this is of course the damage
that Donald Trump is doing. Is Turkey and Trump Trump

(47:50):
is now talking about giving Turkey F thirty five's I know,
and algo other one is his best friend. Of course,
other one's an authoritarian. Trump loves the change, so Tooki's
probably the biggest threat to Israel in terms of NATO
members and maybe the biggest threat in the Middle East

(48:12):
if if it can act independent of the United States.

Speaker 6 (48:18):
Okay, thanks, I'm asking all the optimistic questions today.

Speaker 1 (48:21):
Yeah, yep, right, Jacob.

Speaker 9 (48:27):
I will say, though, that calf that Trump had about
herd Wan and rigged elections was pretty hilarious.

Speaker 8 (48:32):
I'm not sure if you saw that.

Speaker 1 (48:35):
No, I didn't see that.

Speaker 9 (48:37):
They had a prep conference and they were talking about
twenty twenty oh yeah, and it was rigged elections. And
then he's like, and this guy heard One knows a
lot about rigged elections.

Speaker 1 (48:47):
Yep. And somebody kind of admirably, but you know, admiringly,
not not as a criticism.

Speaker 3 (48:54):
Yea.

Speaker 9 (48:55):
The best was seeing his face. Heard One was just like,
I don't know what to do here, but my question
so good news follow the bad news. I just got
engaged this two weeks ago, so going to the courthouse
to finish it up on next Friday. Any advice or stuff.

(49:18):
We've been dating for roughly four years, so not much
has changed, but any advice for the first year or
two years of marriage. We already taught kids, probably going
three four years from after kids, so now it's just
finishing out career, probably doing one more year or maybe
a year and a half in Saint Louis, and then

(49:39):
relocate the more friendly city and place where I can
get more engineering experience rather than operations.

Speaker 8 (49:46):
Good because I've been in operations for about five and
a half years.

Speaker 1 (49:50):
No, I think that's right. I think the most important
thing is if you want to have kids, is to
talk about it and figure out when have some time
you are married without kids, so that you really have
a chance to explore that. Once kids arrive, you know,

(50:10):
they dominate everything. They they suck the life out of you.
I mean, they suck the time out of you. I
didn't mean that to be as a negative, but they
I mean it really is. It's overwhelming, it's all consuming,
and it's it's very difficult. So you want to when
you have kids, you want to be in a position where, yeah,
you've been together for such a long time and you've

(50:32):
you've gone through stuff that you know each other, you
know how you're going to deal with it, you know
how you're going to handle everything. You're not you're not
learning about each other while you're also dealing with kids.
I mean, look, the main thing is is uh is
to to embrace this idea of living a life together,

(50:56):
to figure out, you know, how you're going to do it,
what it's all going to mean, to really give it
to to fight through it, because you're gonna you're gonna
have challenges, You're you're gonna you're gonna have things you
disagree on, things, you get upset about things, and and
if you're worth it each other to fight through those things.

Speaker 3 (51:16):
Uh.

Speaker 1 (51:16):
Communication, communication, communication, that's not a cliche. Talk about stuff.
Don't let problems or issues or things that you have
between you faster. Uh, don't let anything you know hash
it out before you go to sleep at night. Don't
don't sleep on a on a pissed off with a
pissed off attitude. Uh. And uh, you don't have lots

(51:43):
of sex because again, once you have kids, that will diminish.
So you might as well take advantage of the fact
that before and and you know again, because you plan
on having kids, travel do things that you know for
the first ten years of having kids won't be able
to do. Just just be realistic about that. You know,

(52:03):
you can go and short vacations and stuff if you've
got people who will babysit, but generally you're going to
have very little time alone, so cherish the time that
you have alone. And I know everybody's like, yeah, he's
exaggerating having kids.

Speaker 6 (52:16):
It's no.

Speaker 1 (52:18):
All the people who have kids all going yeah, absolutely,
Jan's absolutely right. All the people who not yet had
kids are going, No, he's exaggerating it. No, it's life
changing in a good way, but also in a sense
of it's life changing. It's it's so things that you
want to do that about the two of you do

(52:41):
over the next three four years before you actually have kids,
embrace it, travel, see the world, you know, do fun
stuff together. Yeah.

Speaker 3 (52:54):
Yeah.

Speaker 9 (52:54):
My parents are very active with supporting, so I know
they would be there and small.

Speaker 1 (53:00):
Well if you move away though, they might not be right.

Speaker 8 (53:03):
Yeah, yeah, but they would come out and visit.

Speaker 1 (53:05):
Okay.

Speaker 9 (53:05):
I know they're award retirees, so here he that's why
they're doing that urification.

Speaker 8 (53:10):
That's a side question there.

Speaker 9 (53:11):
So she's Taiwanese Canadian, So then it would be for
me if I wanted to get status in either country,
what do you recommend? Probably Taiwan rather than just Canada
for global tax on Canada.

Speaker 1 (53:24):
Too, Canada doesn't have global tax. Oh okay, Canada doesn't
have global tax I mean Taiwan, if you one day
want to become a Chinese citizen, No, it's.

Speaker 8 (53:36):
An Eastern Taiwan and Western Taiwan.

Speaker 1 (53:41):
Eastern. Well, yeah, that would be good. I mean I
always said, you know, about China taking over Hong Kong,
that Hong Kong might take over China, And for a
while I thought that was happening, that Hong Kong was
taking over China. And then and then it kind of
flipped on me. You know, I don't know, get them both.
What the hell I'm for maximizing the number of passports.

(54:02):
I know these days that's un American and you have
split loyalties, and they might they might go after you
for having multiple passports this administration, particularly if you're Jewish.
You're not Jewish, I don't think Colin No, yeah, but
if you Judwistion you haven't is really passport, you're obviously suspect.

Speaker 9 (54:21):
And and when I do get a pan, some people
call me Arabic, Okay, Tunisian or Turkish.

Speaker 3 (54:28):
So there you go.

Speaker 9 (54:29):
I've been I've been keeping myself very pale to avoid
all the controversy that comes.

Speaker 1 (54:33):
Don't get sun tanned oh god, Yeah, I'm waiting for
my my meeting at ICE to talk about my h
my position.

Speaker 3 (54:44):
Thanks.

Speaker 1 (54:45):
Thanks Jacob, all right, holding, Hey, you're on.

Speaker 5 (54:52):
I was I guess like similar on the topic. I
was wondering, like I did see this video that was
h like, oh, you should get married at like before
twenty five, right, I think that's like silly, honestly, but
I don't maybe it's.

Speaker 6 (55:08):
Different for other people. I don't know.

Speaker 5 (55:09):
I don't have like a strong opinion. I guess I'm
just like curious, abo what you would think. I was
Ben Shapiro, I think, or some you know, conservative guy.

Speaker 1 (55:16):
But I'm shocked. I'm shocked that yeah. Yeah, but no,
it's just like I'm just like, according to Jordan peterc.
You don't become mature, you're not in a mature adult
until you have kids. And if you don't have never
had kids, you just never you're out on the maturity thing.
You you're never gonna You're never gonna make it immaturity.

Speaker 5 (55:35):
I just I just I listened to these conservatives. I'm like,
how can anyone believe this? Like it's just so stupid
to me.

Speaker 1 (55:41):
Well, but they're growing as as Almalin told us that
Charlie Cook thing, I think Turning Point has just added
to million Christians or something to their network or something
ridiculous like that. They're growing in leaps and bounds. There
is no age. You get married when you ready to
get married, right. I got married very young, so twenty

(56:04):
you know, younger than twenty five, and I lecked out
and it worked out great, right, And it turned out
really well for us because we in many respects, we
grew up together. So we kind of learned about life
and learned about the world and everything together. So you know,

(56:25):
we grew only stronger because we were so young and
had all these adventures and learned objectivism and and learn
about art and learn about you know, just a lot
of things. But just everything was together. And we didn't
have kids for seven years after we got married, so
I had that time. It was just the two of

(56:47):
us and and and so. But look, you got to
find the right person. And I know people who get
married in their thirties and forties and have amazing marriages
and people who get married in the early twenties and
have horrible marriages. And it's not an age thing. It's
an issue of finding the right person. Uh uh and

(57:10):
uh you know, uh working on the relationship and investing
in it and fighting for it and and uh and
then and then and then living it. So uh no,
I mean there's there's no rule, there's no criteria. I mean,
the only the only limitation on age is if you

(57:31):
want to have kids, the woman, you know, has to
be fairly young, just because just because, and there is
growing risk the older you get in terms of uh
child in terms of childbirth. But that's not twenty five.
That's maybe thirty five for a woman, but it's you know,
it's uh or forty really, but it's Yeah, I mean,

(57:55):
the hard part is finding the right person. If you
find them on you you're really young, great as I did, fantastic.
If you don't find them until you're thirty five or
forty five or fifty five or sixty five, whenever you
find them, you don't do it, don't. It's not a
it's not a timeline thing.

Speaker 5 (58:13):
Yeah, That's how I'm like, I honestly probably won't find
someone I like for a long time.

Speaker 8 (58:19):
But I'm fine with.

Speaker 5 (58:20):
That, you know, like I but yeah, like trying to
trying to trying to like say, before twenty five is
just like it's ridiculous.

Speaker 1 (58:29):
It's ridiculous. So just I mean, the important thing is
to keep looking and not to give up on it,
and to be engaged and like everything else in life,
if it's a value, and it should be a valued,
there's a value to have a relationship, then go and
really work on it, you know, pursue that value. Fair thanks, sure,
all right, let's do some super Chaz Ali says, just

(58:53):
saying thanks for the twenty dollars all I really appreciate it.
Rab But from Australia, Barry weissly argued, we need a
charismatic centrist to bring America back from the brink post
Charlie Cook. Surely such a person is impossible. I can't
imagine a passionate pragmatist ever gaining traction. I mean, I

(59:16):
don't know. Bill Clinton again, you know, was very popular
and gained traction. He was a passionate pragmatist. Who else
would be a pragmatist who his? I mean the ultimate
pragmatist in nine Rand's view was JFK. And JFK was

(59:37):
quite charismatic and people really liked him and followed him,
and he was he was definitely a pragmatist. He was
like the ultimate pragmatist, according to Rand. So I think
the point is that Barry's saying, and I think she's right,
is there is an appeal right now to somebody who's

(59:59):
just normal. It was not woke, who doesn't buy into
the whole woke agenda and all the craziness on the
left programas you know, insanity from the left, and is
not a Christian nationalist and just a thug on the right,

(01:00:21):
just uh, just straight up regular American politician. And you know,
in order to attract attention, because given he'd have to
have some charisma. Now what does that look like? I
don't know exactly, but again, an RFK, Bill Clinton a
I mean, all the presidents were like that, with the

(01:00:43):
exception of maybe what's his name, uh, Ronald Reagan, who
pretended to be an idealist, ultimately was quite a pragmatist.
They were all kind of pragmatists. Who wasn't a pragmatist
the whole line of the Nixon, I mean, he had
no charisma and he was a pragmatist. But I think

(01:01:03):
rfk's a model Clinton's a model Obama. There's another one Obama.
I think a lot of people think Obama has charisma
and is a pragmatist and it is passionate. I never
liked him. I never got it. I never got what
people saw. I thought he was full of empty platitudes.
You know, he gave an empty speech that said nothing

(01:01:28):
meant nothing. But that's what people, that's what it means
to be a centrist. To be a centrist means you
stand for nothing. And what we need is a I
guess what we need just to avoid the insanity out there.
What we need is a is a charismatic zero, a
charismatic somebody who stands for nothing. And yeah, for me

(01:01:50):
and you, that's not charisma, but for the country it
seems to be. And but I think it's too late
for that. Sadly, I think it's too late for that.
I I don't know how a person like that wins,
How how who who? Who supports him? And it's not
clear that you could create the electoral infrastructure. I mean,

(01:02:15):
Elon Musk floated the idea of doing it, of starting
a political party like that, and it's kind of he's
kind of disappeared, he's kind of shut up about it
because I think the enormity of the task has become
real to him and he's decided now he's just not
going to do it. So if Elon Musk can't do

(01:02:36):
it with his billions and billions, and who's going.

Speaker 3 (01:02:39):
To do it?

Speaker 1 (01:02:40):
I just, I just it strikes me as is just
too late to helping. A party is finished. Democratic Party
is probably finished. Yeah, I don't I don't see the
solution is a third party. But I just don't see
who is going to get it all set up and
who is going to make it happen and make it work.

(01:03:03):
If not an Elne Mosk, I'm not sure who can.
And the Elawn is too wacky, I think to pull
it off. He's too all over the place anyway, Good question,
Rob a passionate pragmatist. But yeah, they exist. They exist
because of what Adam told us. The unthinking public can't

(01:03:24):
see through their emptiness and through their platitudes and through
their empty slogans and think there's something real there. They
give the much more credit than they deserve. They don't
see the complete emptiness of those characters. Ishn't out weshipt
I'm not idea what that means anyway. National Geographic made

(01:03:47):
a magazine on shipwrecks. This is recently twenty twenty five,
a return to form. Didn't know pepper was worth its
weight in gold in the fourteen hundreds, Yeah, I mean
in the fourteen hundreds, in the early days of exploration,
in the early days of trade with a global trade,
fourteen and fifteen hundreds, when ships would go around the

(01:04:09):
Cape of Good Hope, around the Horn of Africa and
to trade with Asia. What they traded for was spices.
Spices were saffron and pepper and other spices. And there
were islands on the Indonesian as part today I think
is of Indonesia, the Philippines. They were called the spice

(01:04:30):
Islands where most of these spices were grown. And it
was like this is what they fought was over. They
fought war was over spices for food. I mean, this
is why, I mean, this is the reality, guys. European
food is flavorless, tasteless, it's yucky, disgusting, like old English food,

(01:04:50):
right until until they discover spices. And then only then
can you get French cooking and you can get actually
good European food. And most good European food is in
the West and South because those the places are traded
with Asia. Like, with all due respect to Adam, Polish cooking, eh,

(01:05:12):
not that much going for it, or German cooking or
Danish cooking except for the fancy restaurants today or I
don't know, Chech cooking eh.

Speaker 3 (01:05:23):
You know.

Speaker 1 (01:05:24):
But once you get to France, Spain, Portugal, Italy, they
had the spices. They they were connected to Asia into
Arabia where all these spices were being you know, grown,
and they could cook. Everybody else couldn't cook. You know,
there's there's no there's no good food there anyway, the

(01:05:45):
born Jesus was full of it. Twenty kilos twenty kilograms
and mint coins and ivory trade is awesome. Yeah, there's
a great book if you if you like that kind
of stuff, ess out question. I reckon commend this book
called called called called It's it's really good. It goes

(01:06:06):
into all the details of the spice trade and just
trade in all of human history. And I read it recently,
and I will give you the name of it in
a second. Something it's not that's not that all right? Oh? Yes.

(01:06:29):
A Splendid Exchange. A Splendid Exchange by William Bernstein a
splendid Exchange by William Bernstein. It is brilliant. It is
so much fun. And he goes through the whole history
of trade to modern times and he spends a lot
of time on that, on that spice trade and uh

(01:06:51):
and yes, spices. Well, the age in Europe they would
send silver to Asia and bring back bring back cloth,
silk and uh and uh and spices and ultimately tea. Right,
but it was all about and then you know coffee.
Coffee became a big culture thing and now was from Africa.

(01:07:14):
When it comes to food, Europe, yeah, Europe still needs
an enlightenment. But when it comes to everything else, Europe
is the place. But uh not flavor all right, Lucinda,
Lacinda says, you said I should email you about my
question with my girlfriend going to Florence, but I can't

(01:07:35):
find your email address. Also can't watch live right now.
But everyone sends stickers and super chats. Yeah, listen to Lacinda.
We're way behind on stickers and super chats. Uh. Let's see.
Uh you're on at your on bookshow dot com. It's easy,
Liscinda youran at your on bookshow dot com. I'm surprised
you couldn't just find that on the web. I thought

(01:07:55):
my email address is floating around everywhere. Michael, I have
a ton of questions for you once they get home
in thirty minutes. Don't end the show early. If I do,
I'll be on Tomorrow, and I'll be on Monday, and
I'll be on Tuesday and Wednesday and Thosday. You'll have
plenty of time to ask the questions, Michael. But I'm

(01:08:16):
not sure when you said that, so I'm not sure
when the thirty minute clock starts. All let's go back
to a panel, Jennifer.

Speaker 2 (01:08:27):
Do you think if someone gets divorced like multiple times,
it's maybe evidence. I don't think it's proof because they
maybe they had bedlock or something. But it could be
evidence that maybe they have some kind of issues that
they can't sustain relationships, or something wrong there or not necessarily.

Speaker 1 (01:08:46):
Well, it might be I think an's sustained vidato. It
might be that they have make bad judgments about people,
that they get too enthusiastic too quickly and too unenthusiastic
too quickly. That is that they don't judge people. Well, yeah,
I mean, I think it's hard to tell. It could
be bad luck. It could be just not having good

(01:09:09):
judgment when it comes to people. I think those are
the two options. Yeah, and it could Yeah, people grow apart,
so divorce make It doesn't surprise me at all that
people get divorced. It makes sense to me. I think
the idea of banning divorce as divorce was banned for

(01:09:30):
a long time under Christianity is sota ridiculous. People do
grow apart, people do discover once they live together that
they they're not as good of a match as they
thought they were. And life you only live once. So
if it's not working, it's not working. You got to
recognize that and walk away and try to make it
work somewhere else. But if you do that, I don't know,

(01:09:54):
many times, then they certainly might be an issue. Thank you,
Thanks Jennifer. All right, Adam um okay.

Speaker 4 (01:10:09):
At the risk of overdoing Poland again, I recently saw
a video of new military technologies that are being developed
with the experience of the Ukraine War, and two.

Speaker 3 (01:10:25):
Of them involved neural.

Speaker 4 (01:10:27):
Network processing units, which are now as standard part of
processing units for computers. And one of them is probably
outside your area of expertise, which is AI adaptive mess

(01:10:52):
networks which adapt themselves to whatever jamming the enemy is doing,
and a mesh network is much more resistant resilient than
a satellite based network like starlink. But the other is

(01:11:13):
really interesting, which is having an array of machine guns
and low caliber cannon as an anti aircraft defense, with
AIB used to predict the path of drones so that

(01:11:39):
you can shut them down at very low cost, because
a bullet or even cartridge for a low caliber machine
gun doesn't cost very much, and those armaments are already

(01:12:00):
available in large quantities. It's just the matter of aiming
and firing them.

Speaker 3 (01:12:07):
In intelligence. What's your take, Yeah, I mean, I.

Speaker 1 (01:12:10):
Think I think all of that makes sense. The war
in Ukraine in particular, much more than Israel's wars, the
one Ukrainie in particular is revealing kind of the future
of the potential future of warfare. The use of drones
is extensive. It really dominates the battlefield. You don't hear

(01:12:33):
about tanks, you don't hear about personnel carriers anymore. It's
just everything pretty much is carried out by drones and missiles.
And so I think the Ukrainians, the stuff the Ukrainians
have built is pretty unbelievable. The amount of I think
I talked about in the previous show. Just a number
of drones they're building and the capabilities of their drones

(01:12:57):
that they've learned on the battlefield is right there. I
think a lot of what the Ukrainians are doing, or
some of what the Ukrainians are doing, or joint ventures
with the Poles. The Poles are highly incentivized because you know,
they are right there facing facing the Russians, and they
have a long, long, long history of conflict with Russia.

(01:13:20):
So they highly incentivized to learn whatever they can from
the battlefield in Ukraine and improve on their technology. You know,
the future of war. I think Neil Ferguson has a
article out this last week about the future of war. Now,

(01:13:41):
you know, I don't think that Neil Ferguson knows what
the future war is, but his perspective is the future
war was all drones. It's drone swarms, it's drawn swarms
coming for you, and you're just overloaded with thousands of drones.
You can't do anything. It completely shuts you down. Of course,
the technology talked about and other technology is also going

(01:14:01):
to make it possible to knock down those drones. Uh,
and there's all kinds of also, you know, the electronic
in difference will become more and more complicated and more
almst sophisticated. But and I don't know if you saw
the Israeli just is just operationalized and is putting into

(01:14:23):
the field. They laser technology, which is very very cheap.
You just need an electricity source and you can you
can knock down for almost nothing drones and missiles and
everything else. So there is going to be a big
battle between the drones and the anti drone technology, and
and it's hard to tell who's going to win that battle.
I think that's why I don't think you can tell

(01:14:43):
what the future war is because you don't know who's
going to win that battle. And if it might be something,
what's next after drones? If they're lasers and these machine
guns and whatever neutralize the drones, then what comes after drones?
And you know it's going to be it's gonna be something.
Uh And uh, we're gonna just have to watch the

(01:15:06):
future of Wolfare and watch how it develops and evolves
to see what that actually is going to be.

Speaker 4 (01:15:11):
I think the key thing that I took out of
it is that all these systems adapt in real time
using artificial intelligence.

Speaker 1 (01:15:25):
Yep, you're going to see a lot more of that,
a lot more of that. And then the question is
going to be how much autonomy are you going to
give these systems? That is, you know, to what extent
can you put safeguards in there that they don't turn
around and attack you or they don't attack the wrong

(01:15:46):
targets so they don't do make judgments judgments in parent
in quotation marks because not real judgments. It's just a
machine judgments about targets that that inappropriate. And you're gonna
have to build those safeguards into the a I and
that is I think that is a challenge everybody's facing.
The technology is there to let these things go and

(01:16:08):
and uh and and make the call without human interference.
There's still a lot of reluctance to let them, to
let them completely loose out there. But yeah, I mean
the future of wolf is AI machines fighting each other.
That that's the future, whether it's drones, whether it's robots.
I mean, if you're seeing the robots coming out of

(01:16:28):
China that have that that have these incredible abilities of agility, uh,
you know, tanks that are unmanned, uh, you know it
planes that are on manned F thirty five with no pilot. Uh.
That is that that is ultimately the future of wolf It.
Thanks Adam home One.

Speaker 6 (01:16:51):
Yeah, so you're on. You've mentioned many times in your
show about the differences between Trump's current kind of cabinet
and his first term. And you you know, I think
you use a term like in the first In the
first case, you know, he had grown ups in the
room and now he's got loyalists.

Speaker 1 (01:17:10):
Yep.

Speaker 6 (01:17:11):
And I guess my question would be and again like
forget it that it's Trump, which I know it is
hard to do, but let's just set that aside. But
in principle, though, is it not legitimate that the president
will want to have a cabinet that will reflect his
ideas and vision and all those things? And given private sector,

(01:17:32):
I mean that's pretty common, right, Like, if you have
a new leadership put in, it's not uncommon that you're
going to start to make changes, and that definitely, you know,
people in key positions and stuff, you're going to replace them. Yeah,
why not the same thing?

Speaker 1 (01:17:45):
And both absolutely you should replace them and put in
people that basically aligned with you strategically. But what you
don't want is yes man. That is, if you're a
new CEO at a company and you're going to replace
the c suite executives, you don't want to put in in. Indeed,
often CEOs don't do that. They keep many of the

(01:18:07):
people because because they want continuity. But let's say if
you bring in a new chief financial officer, you don't
want a chief financial officer will just do whatever you
tell them. You want a chief financial officer that'll come
to you with if their issues, if he identifies challenge problems,
if he sees inconsistencies, if he thinks your strategy is

(01:18:29):
going to cause the company to be in trouble. You
want somebody who will mention. Now, will tell you the
same with your chief what is it, chief operating officer,
any of your c suite people. You want people who
will speak up, who will challenge, who will have an opinion,
who will have and won't just say, oh you think that,

(01:18:51):
then it's yes. It's it's like every team, assuming this
is a team, it's like every team. What you want
is independent thinkers. You want people who can think for you,
for themselves and who will contribute their own independent thought
and not just maw you know, repeat what you say,

(01:19:14):
like like you know the people around Trump, So you
want people who agree with you on a strategy and
are willing to challenge you on how to implement it.
But and well independent think.

Speaker 3 (01:19:32):
Yeah.

Speaker 6 (01:19:32):
So but if we if we look at his current cabinet,
I mean, whatever the heck strategy has, I mean, it
seems like people agree with it.

Speaker 1 (01:19:41):
No, I don't think. I don't think that's the case. No,
I don't think. I don't think best agrees. I think
it just goes along and the other people there. Look,
there's no strategy. I mean what they agree is what
they agree is Trump is always right. Now, that's not
a strategy. And that's not a good team to have

(01:20:04):
around you, people who think you're always right. It's it's
a bad that's a bad strategy. If you if you're
somebody who wants to get stuff done, the worst thing
you can do is create a team around you who
think that you can never do wrong. Everything you do
is right. Yeah, that's the people he has around Yeah,
it's not like I guess here's my here's here's my

(01:20:25):
strategy for fixing America. I'm gonna do this on from policy.
I'm gonna do this on spending, on taxes, da da
da da da da, And people say, yeah, I agree
with that. I'm going to join the cabinet.

Speaker 3 (01:20:35):
No.

Speaker 1 (01:20:36):
The strategy is, you know, I'm gonna do whatever. I'm
going to raise tabifs or not. I'm gonna give exclusions
here on not. We're gonna cut taxes over there, and
we're going to increase spending or not. It depends. We'll
wing it, and it depends on my mood at any
given point in time. Anybody says, oh, okay, that's fine.

Speaker 6 (01:20:55):
Yeah, Yeah, I guess. I guess that's the thing. When
you have somebody that just basically has no direct action
at all.

Speaker 1 (01:21:00):
It's the only direction he has is the pursuit of
his own whatever, you know. And Tavish, he loves Tavish.

Speaker 6 (01:21:09):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (01:21:10):
And I don't know how many people in that cabinet
actually think Taos is a good idea. I don't know.
It's hard to tell, because they've all basically prostituted themselves.
They've given up on their own minds, and they've they've
accepted whatever.

Speaker 6 (01:21:23):
Yeah, which which I don't know, like to me, it's
just It's it's something I can't even comprehend, Like, how
can you be so what is such of the perks
of the job that you're so willing to just give
up everything? Like to me, it's it just it boggles
my mind.

Speaker 1 (01:21:39):
Yeah, I know, I know.

Speaker 6 (01:21:41):
What kind of person are you? Thanks?

Speaker 3 (01:21:44):
Thanks?

Speaker 1 (01:21:44):
You sure? Holding m hey you're on.

Speaker 5 (01:21:52):
I wanted to ask you, like at this point, like
I guess like the Republican Party seems to be getting
more religious and and they really like like the kind
of like populist message.

Speaker 1 (01:22:07):
I guessed, would you.

Speaker 5 (01:22:09):
Say, like Ben Shapiro or Tucker Carlson is like more
like if they were to like be in the Republican
primary and they could Republicans can only go for Ben
Shapiro or Tucker Carlson, who do you think they would
pick to win?

Speaker 1 (01:22:24):
Wow, that's a hard one. I wanted to say, I
hope that they would pick Ben Shapiro, but I'm not
at all certain of that, particularly given the Ben as Jewish.
I'm not sure how well you could do in the
Republican Party these days.

Speaker 5 (01:22:42):
You know, there's like a lot of anti Semitism too,
like going around as you know better than I do,
probably like yeah, it's like scary to see like I
and Ben Shapiro like uh, you know, like even like
what seven years ago, he was like the face and
then he kind of just dropped off because like his
foreign policy became a popular and like all that stuff.

Speaker 1 (01:23:01):
Right, So he's from policy, the fact that he's Jewish,
the fact that he still defends capitalism periodically, he's still
good on some issues, none of that is important or
significant to them, and he still thinks to himself sometimes
so h and and that's and he's not he doesn't
buy into the conspiracy theories mostly, so you know that.

(01:23:27):
So he's more rational than the typical Republican pundit and
that makes him unpopular. That's the Republican party today.

Speaker 5 (01:23:34):
Yeah, I remember he criticized Trump's terrorists, Like I was
gonna write in the chat. Everybody knows Trump is a buffoon, right,
Like everyone's like, oh, Trump is a threat to democracy
all this, Like I just look at it, like this
is like funny, Like he's just a He's just a pompous,
ostentatious buffoon. Is like what That's all I really think
about him. But you know, but I mean Ben Shapiro
knows that, but he's just like you know, but he

(01:23:56):
has like the he will like, like you say, he
will like criticize Trump on like something stupid like terrorists,
But you know he's he probably like has convinced himself
that what he's done is like okay, you know, I
don't know, but it's just like such a sad thing
to see.

Speaker 1 (01:24:10):
It's sad. It's sad, and it's it's really hard to
tell where where the the where this goes from here?
How how you know? Does the public can party go
become worse? So does it? Is this the bottom and
it becomes better from here? It's it's hard to tell.

Speaker 5 (01:24:28):
It looks like it's getting worse with like the Charlie
Kirk memorial and how religious?

Speaker 1 (01:24:33):
Is that the peak worst? Or is it going to
get worse from here? I think it's gonna get worse, but.

Speaker 5 (01:24:39):
Yeah, yeah, it's like my favorite question to ask is
do you prefer ben Ship hero or Tucker calls and
tell her?

Speaker 1 (01:24:46):
And what is it? What do you mostly get an answer?

Speaker 5 (01:24:49):
I mostly it's it's like fifty fifty right now. Really
it's like, yeah, it's like fifty fifty people. Tucker calls, Uh, yeah,
i'd say like fifty percent. Yeah, probably, so like he
need to switch crowd.

Speaker 1 (01:25:04):
You go, you need to switch your social group.

Speaker 5 (01:25:07):
Oh I don't also associate with those people, Okay, get
them away from me as fast as possible, Like I
don't even want to be associated with you of like
that's crazy even even sympathized with anything, Like you know
the guy like I remember on your podcast, I figure,
I don't know this stuff, right, Like I look at
your podcast and Tunger Carlson says he thinks feudalism is
better than what we have today. It's like, there's no

(01:25:28):
way a grown man just said that I'm live with
and he's dad serious, and it's like, yeah, no, I
don't if you think that, I'm not gonna associate with you,
like no.

Speaker 1 (01:25:38):
Like but tucka now has become both both mindless and
evil and uh it's just I don't know anybody wors
to Tucker right now. It's uh just terrific. Yeah, and
uh you know, although he does have the he does
have the uh the the votes at all those aliens

(01:25:58):
who live among.

Speaker 6 (01:25:59):
Us, Yeah, he does.

Speaker 5 (01:26:02):
They they're out there. Like the thing is I would
go to like a turning point event just to like,
you know, like kind of serving around like or like
I do it with the yeah, with like kind of
just like I used to do this, and that's like
kind of what I got.

Speaker 1 (01:26:15):
But okay, yeah he gets a demon vote, right, thanks,
thanks Olden Shah's bad. This is from a Lord of
the Rings. Okay, okay, he's saying, is the Lot of
the Rings the ultimate power corrupt story? My favorite quote
from the movie The Ring will not save Gondo, it

(01:26:39):
has only the power to destroy. It's definitely it's definitely
a story about the corruption of power, this earthly power.
I mean, it's it's supposed to be kind of some
kind of religious metaphor, I guess, but but yeah, I
mean it's power corrupt. Absolute power corrupts absolutely even the

(01:27:03):
good guys are corrupted by the Ring. It's power can
only bring about evil and bad stuff. Is it the
ultimate power corrupt story? I don't know. I'd have to
think about if there are other stories that are equally powerful.
But it certainly is a powerful story of the corruption

(01:27:24):
of the power. Though of course, it never really tells
you why it's corrupting, right, It just tells you it's
corrupting and there's a sense in which it basically is
is coming from Tolkien's Christianity. Right, we're all fallen, we're
all flawed. Even the best among us, even the best
human being cannot resist the uh, you know, having power

(01:27:48):
and turning himself into evil because of the power. And
that's because we're fallen. So it's very much a Christian
fable in that sense that dictates it. Why can't you
have somebody good who recognizes the power, uses the power
for good and then destroys the ring? Why couldn't you
do that? Why couldn't you have that? Is power corrupting

(01:28:10):
in and of itself? Is power corrupting of all human
beings or just a fallen Christians or fallen beings? And
I think Tolkien's clearly will all fallen. There's no such
thing as pure goodness. But that's just Christianity. That's just Christianity,
all right, Michael, Michael showed up. He's got a series

(01:28:34):
of questions. Evil doesn't just exist, It seduces, It sucks
you in, It convinces you that hate is righteous. That
is what possession really is. When your soul, your energy
gets hijacked and you start moving in a current that
isn't your own. That sounds really ominous. Michael, Yes, that

(01:28:59):
is true. But Bet it requires your assent, It requires
your permission. It cannot possess you, It cannot move you,
It cannot carry you unless you choose that. So evil
can try to seduce you, but you have to choose

(01:29:20):
to be seduced. Evil can suck you in only if
you choose to be sucked in. You can always resist it.
You can always walk away, you can always turn away
from it. So there's nothing inevitable about evil. And evil
is not that powerful because evil can only benefit from
your flaws. Evil can only, you know, weasel itself in

(01:29:45):
because you choose to be less good, because you choose
not to think, because you choose to compromise. Evil has
no power in and of itself. Evil is impotent. So
the way you're presenting it, you're giving me evil a
lot of credit. But he was impotent. It relies on
the good to not be good, to not be as good.

(01:30:07):
It relies on holes in the good. Michael, is America
in an error of violent populism?

Speaker 3 (01:30:22):
No?

Speaker 1 (01:30:22):
I mean I don't think so. Again. I did the
show a few a few days ago, and I think
people were upset at me because I said, you know,
there's not that much violence out there. There's political violence,
more than they should, but it's not that much. There's
not like violent populism rampaging around the country. There's no

(01:30:44):
they're not burning down the cities. They're not they're not
killing politicians left and right. Yeah, there's more than they
should be, but nowhere near, for example, what there was
in the sixties, and no where near what what could
imagine it could become. So it's not yet the error
of violent populism. It's an error of popularism that and

(01:31:07):
some of it likes to think of itself as violent,
but it's not confident enough to engage in violence because
they're afraid that they'll lose. Like violence is a risk
because you might not be successful. Michael says. What makes
me somewhat hopeful is that one can do one that

(01:31:28):
no one can dupligate. Trump Vans and Holy have no
charisma and no cult following. Once Trump goes, I'm not
sure anyone as effective can take his place. So I
think that's right, except for the ability of someone potentially
that we don't know. Remember, Obama was completely unknown until

(01:31:50):
a few months before until he announced the president. You
never know somebody on this sidelines who has more of
a religious voice, who can unite using the language of religion.
You saw that in the in the Charlie Cooke.

Speaker 6 (01:32:05):
Uh.

Speaker 1 (01:32:06):
Uh, you know, come to Jesus. Uh what do you
call it? You know, I don't know what the ceremony
or whatever you want to call it, really, I mean
the language, the complete Uh, they're completely giving up and

(01:32:28):
hiding the Christianity except for Trump, who's like forgiveness. I
don't believe forgiveness. I hate I mean that's pretty funny
and and and and very un Christian of him. But uh,
imagine if if you could find somebody who who could
really get an audience like that, really fired up and
emotional and uh and ready to go and excited about

(01:32:52):
action in the name of Jesus, in the name of Christianity.
That's what scares me. So what scares me other people
we don't know well on the sidelines, And what scares
me is that there's a movement building, this Christian conservative movement.
There's movement building with millions, and what are they gonna
do between now and maybe not next selection. Maybe it's

(01:33:13):
not in twenty twenty eight, maybe it's twenty thirty two
or twenty thirty six. What are they gonna do between
now and then, How are they gonna grow? What kind
of impact are they going to have? It's that that
scares me. And you know, I think you're right in
a sense that there's it's still true that most Americans

(01:33:34):
don't like Trump. They voted for Trump because he was
running at Kamala. They vote for Trump because they didn't
think he was serious about tariffs. But the problem is
that nobody on the left worthwhile, and the people on
the right who might run a worse than Trump, like
like a JD. Events worstern Trump in a sense of

(01:33:55):
the ideological, like Michael says Part one, one might think
think the question is what's Trump wanting to extract from
the manufacture of Thailand on? But I think it's more
likely the sort of case where the mob boss just
shoots someone for no reason, completely out of the blue,

(01:34:15):
as a message to everyone else. I don't need a
reason to a mentality that deals in force. That's how power,
that's what power is. I think you're right. Look, I
think it's also just to show they're doing something and
to show that they're willing to take on anybody. It's

(01:34:35):
to show his base. Look, you wanted me to do stuff. Here,
I'm doing stuff, and I'm taking on a big company,
a company that makes tiland al and I'm taking on
a brand name. I'm telling you know, I'm fearless, and
it's RFK saying I promise you doal autism. Look, I'm
dealing with autism. Uh, And you know I've done it.

(01:34:56):
I've made I've made a mark. So it's it's one
of the things that mob bosses and and and generally thugs,
the men of action, not of you know that what's
important is to act. Whether action, whether it's true or not,
whether it's right or not is uh, whether is not

(01:35:25):
not relevant, whether there's truth there. What's important is the action.
What's important is that you're perceived as doing something. And yes,
at the same time, it also sends a message to
corporate America beware, beware. You know I can I'll take
any one of you out. You know, Tyland didn't do

(01:35:48):
anything to me, and I took them out. Imagine if
you do something to me, I can really take you up.
Michael says, doesn't Cook's wife strike you as a phony
social climate, White Christian America is so phony. No, she doesn't.
I think she's you know, I don't know, but I
think she's really religious. I think she's I think all

(01:36:08):
of that was real. I think her crying there was real.
I think her forgiveness was forced, she forced herself to
do it. I don't think she felt it. But because
she's Christian, I know it strikes me as she's a smart,
successful believer. She really believes in this stuff. No, maybe

(01:36:32):
she's president in eight years or whenever. Maybe she's the
one to run. Maybe she's the first woman president in
American history. Is because Charlie was going to be the first.
He was going to be president. So maybe she takes
this place right. She's a very successful woman, and she's
got the look and she's got the emotion. Who knows

(01:36:55):
she could pull it off. Michael, It makes difference whether
the ABC acted on the FCC threat. The threat itself
is a base and violation of rights, absolutely absolute. And
notice how they're backing out of it now because somebody
stood up to them. Disney actually stood up to them,
and they're all backing down like the FCCO. No, I

(01:37:17):
was kidding except Trump. Trump keeps saying no, no, you
should be off the air, and I'll make him go
off the air. But everybody else is like backing off
because they they they went too far. Michael releasing the
Epstein files causes autism, claims Trump. I didn't hear that

(01:37:39):
one though, wouldn't surprise me. It's pretty funny. All right,
let's go to a panel for the last round, and
then we've got a bunch of super chat questions from
Michael pretty much, and we'll call it a day. All right, Jennifer,
done for today, Thank you, Thanks Jennifer. Adam.

Speaker 3 (01:38:00):
How much do you think.

Speaker 4 (01:38:06):
California can recover from the left. We have seen the
referendum in San Francisco where they kicked out the woke
school board, and judging from the email and paper mail

(01:38:30):
that I get from local politicians, they're all trying to
distance themselves from woke and DEI. So can California get
good again?

Speaker 1 (01:38:45):
It's going to be hard. I mean it can. It
could do it very quickly if it had the right policies.
But it's going to be hard because while the distancing
themselves from you know, kind of the the woke left
and not distancing themselves necessarily from the regulatory central planning
left that they haven't given up on building a railroad
from noway to nowhere, high speed rail so you can

(01:39:08):
go really really fast from to shithole places in the
middle of California. They're not giving up on the massive
government spending. Indeed, they're increasing it. You know, the the
proposing if the if the federal governments cutting any kind
of I don't know, social spending, California says, oh, we'll

(01:39:29):
increase it to compensate.

Speaker 3 (01:39:31):
Uh.

Speaker 1 (01:39:32):
So they're not giving up on that, and and and
so the welfare state is still big, the regulatory state
is still big. I haven't seen significant deregulation coming out
of California. A lot of the regulations even have tech
have been pretty bad. So look, you know, you could
fix California in a in a year because it has

(01:39:54):
such good people in such great companies and such so
much industry. You know, you do you regulate on a
massive scale, you lower taxes, you privatize stuff. It could
happen very very quickly. I mean, the economy who just boom.
It has all the necessary components. But are they willing

(01:40:16):
to do that? I don't see that willingness. I just
don't see it. Yeah, woke is gone. They'll call it
something different. There's still much you know, there's still a
lot of cultural leftists, but the economic leftists, so that's
everybody pretty much. Nobody's how many free market people are
there in California, sadly, very few.

Speaker 4 (01:40:37):
California could use the Malay, but it's not embed enough
straits to get one.

Speaker 1 (01:40:43):
Yes, I think that's right. And again Malay sadly is
in trouble right now, so you'd have to do better
even than Malay. He should have dollarized his economy much faster.
Maybe he couldn't, maybe didn't have the legislative authority to
do it. But right on, So.

Speaker 6 (01:41:04):
Question around liability. For example, if you have a pool,
I think in most places, you know, you have to
have a fence around it and all this kind of stuff.
So even though it's on your own land, you you're
still required to have kind of this protection against some liability. Now,
in a proper society, presumably there would be no such laws.

(01:41:26):
But would you still have liability in those kind of circumstances,
Like technically nobody should be on your land because they're
trespassing Yeah, they're falling the pool and drown. Well, too bad.
But what if it is a kid? I think it's
normally they say, well, kids can wander. They don't know,
right that they shouldn't be there.

Speaker 1 (01:41:44):
Yeah, well the liability there is the parents who let
them wander. So yeah, so no, I don't think you'd
face liability. I mean, and and and if you could
imagine a case where you did, then you just company
would kind of require you to do something to reduce

(01:42:04):
their risk. It's one of the roles insurance. Insurance would
pay a much bigger role in our lives in a
free society. They would be the market regulator. They would
to logic then regulate stuff to standard to reduce their own.

Speaker 6 (01:42:22):
Risk, but the underlying liability would still have to be
there because of some legal requirements.

Speaker 1 (01:42:28):
Yeah, so you'd have to think about a situation where
you had that liability, but it's your property. It's hard
to imagine a situation where you face liability if you've
invited friends over and they fall in the pool. I
don't know, live adults, they can see a pool is there.
I mean, you'd have to imagine a pretty bizarre scenario

(01:42:48):
to figure to think about where you would have actual liability.

Speaker 4 (01:42:52):
Right, talking about bizarre scenarios. In California, there was a
case where a burglar stood the homeowner whom he was
burglarizing and won the lawsuit.

Speaker 3 (01:43:06):
Yep.

Speaker 1 (01:43:06):
Only Yep. That's the craziness of California that it is
hard to It's gonna be hard to get out of it.

Speaker 6 (01:43:14):
Trust me, as a Canadian. That's not only in California.

Speaker 1 (01:43:17):
Yeah that's true. Yeah, Yeah, Canada is.

Speaker 6 (01:43:20):
We've had plenty of cases like that.

Speaker 1 (01:43:23):
Yeah, Canada is the future of California.

Speaker 6 (01:43:28):
Canada, California. What the heck might as well join up
be the fifty Seconds Straight or something.

Speaker 1 (01:43:36):
Thanks someone right holding, Hey, you're on.

Speaker 5 (01:43:43):
You know something that I think more of. Like one
of the things I like to do is read biographies,
and like some of the people that I read about
are just like, I mean, obviously quite extraordinary people. And
like one of the things that like I was thinking
whenever I read one byiography, like one was on Warren Buffett,
and Warren Buffett read like all the books in the

(01:44:05):
public Omaha Library by the time he was eleven, you know, Like,
and I was like I was like thinking, I was like,
there could be a bunch of people that, you know,
like he he has, Like his siblings they didn't do that,
you know, Like so they grew up in the same household,
they didn't do that, And it's hard for me to
imagine like very many kids doing what he did.

Speaker 1 (01:44:26):
You know.

Speaker 5 (01:44:27):
Obviously he has like a you know, like an interest
in it, but there's something like to me that's like
there's something to me that feels a little determinist about that,
you know, like that.

Speaker 8 (01:44:39):
I mean, I know I could, on my.

Speaker 5 (01:44:40):
Own free, like people could on their own free will
do something like that, but it takes a certain person.
You know, I could like motivate you all in the
world to like be that interested in the subject, but
some people aren't.

Speaker 1 (01:44:51):
You know.

Speaker 5 (01:44:52):
I don't know how to explain what I thought whenever
I read that, But I was like, I I don't
think I think that there's just like I don't know,
Like Warren Buffett is a guy that, no matter how
hard a lot of people try and be like him,
will never be like that person, you know what I mean,

(01:45:13):
Like even people who like investing or like finance and
the stuff that he's interested in, they'll never be Warren
Buffett and that like that's how I feel. Whatever I
look at something like that, He's just he's just smarter
and like, you know, like he just has like natural
abilities that other people don't have.

Speaker 3 (01:45:31):
Well, I don't.

Speaker 1 (01:45:32):
I don't know if it's natural abilities. I mean, I
I worry about the idea of natural abilities as being deterministic.
He has made choices, he's made himself into a particular
type of character that, Yeah, you're not going to emulate
a people going to be Are they going to be
people who have better returns on investment in Warm Buffett?

Speaker 6 (01:45:52):
Yeah?

Speaker 1 (01:45:52):
I mean, now people who've done better than warm Buffet,
you know, but using different techniques and Wan Buffett is
unique in many respects. And there won't be another one
Buffet because he created a unique being. But there will
be other good investments investors. They might be even better
investors than want Buffet, but they'll be different, and they'll

(01:46:15):
they maybe use some of the principles that he used,
but it'll still be different because it'll be a different
mind with different values making kind of the choices and assessments.
It's not an exact science investing in that sense, because
it's about predicting the future. And as soon as you're
talking about predicting the future, it's not exact science. It's

(01:46:36):
a science, but it's not exact science.

Speaker 5 (01:46:39):
So yeah, yeah, no, I mean I think there'll be
other great investors. But of course, like Warren Buffett gets
much lower returns today because he deals with less money.
Like one of the things I read about in his
biography is he for over a decade he got about
fifty percent returns per year per annim. He was dealing
with like small amounts of money. That's just like insane.
Like if anybody comes up to you and says they
could do fifty percent, toself so we'll see you later,

(01:47:01):
Like but more'n Buffett, you guidless said, And he's like
I saw an interview he said, I guarantee you that
today I would make fifty per returns with a million dollars.
And I know he's like not lying, like he actually
has done it before.

Speaker 1 (01:47:16):
Well, and people people are doing it constantly. I mean
the Venti Capital community do it. Uh. You know, Renaissance
Investing did it for many years with a very diverse
fight portfolio, just pure investing, pure speculation, and they did
it so people can do it. It's just very unusual
and it's a very risk skill to be able to
do that.

Speaker 8 (01:47:33):
Yeah, anyway, genius, Yeah, yeah, for sure.

Speaker 5 (01:47:37):
I mean, besides the point, basically, it's like I think
there's only a few people on the planet that even if, like,
even if you have millions and millions of people who
want to do something like that and are willing to
do like whatever the work is required.

Speaker 6 (01:47:49):
I don't think they would do it.

Speaker 1 (01:47:50):
You know, I agree.

Speaker 5 (01:47:51):
I'm not saying that it requires like I don't think
you have to be like an Einstein IQ to do it,
but you do have to be very talented.

Speaker 1 (01:47:59):
You have to be very talent, and you have to
have made certain choices about who you are, what you are,
and how you function that that are unique and and
uh and extraordinary.

Speaker 5 (01:48:08):
Yes, yeah, I see, I definitely see. You know, I
definitely believe in for you. I think, you know, I
think Warren Buffet easily could have chosen to be a
criminal scumbag, but he didn't, right, and yep, and he
and he decided to like, you know, do what was
necessary to become the guy he did, and same with.

Speaker 6 (01:48:25):
Like all the successful people.

Speaker 5 (01:48:27):
So ye, So I guess like that's where like the
happy part is. But part of me just reads that
and thinks, man, this just takes one hell of a
human being that comes one in a million, one in
a billion.

Speaker 1 (01:48:38):
Agree, I agree? But yeah, yeah, and we'll all we
all rest on those on those shoulders right of an
Aristotle or Galileo or Newton or you know, those those
extraordinary olne Man, extraordinary human beings that come just once
in a whatever millennium or whatever, and uh and and
change the world, changed the world, and fledamental ways.

Speaker 8 (01:48:59):
Yeah, they at least they come.

Speaker 1 (01:49:01):
Yeah, well they come at periods where they're allowed to exist,
if you will. Who knows how many they'll come and disappear?

Speaker 8 (01:49:10):
We we almost lost him to ye, all right.

Speaker 1 (01:49:14):
Let's see, Neil, even Barack Obama sounds good right now
over Trump and no kidding, oil w Do you have
any thoughts on the UK's proposal to introduce ID cards. Yeah,
I mean, I'm against all ID cards. I'm against uh
digital ID It's it's a way for the government to
track you. It's it's unnecessary. We've got driver's licenses, we've

(01:49:38):
got passports, we've got I don't know, bank cards, you've
got a million digital ways in which you can be identified,
and you could get a token that identifies you. There's
so many ways to get your identity verified. The last
thing we need is a is a and uh nationalized
another national standardized d that everybody's required to walk around with.

(01:50:03):
It's we get we become more and more and more
like a police state. So I'm against that, Michael. If
if this is just a giant stockworker bubble and it
collapses into a major exception, will Trump while Trump is
still in office, will the imposed martial law on engage
in widespread deregulation? Oh? Who knows what he will do?
I have no idea. You know, he could do whiteshread deregulation. Now.

(01:50:30):
I don't actually know what Trump would do. If we
had a major financial crisis. He would panic. We saw
that with COVID. His response is to panic and to
say everything is fine, and to blame, to blame the
stock market for the stock market collapsing, to blame, to
blame people who knows, who knows. I think he'll basically

(01:50:52):
delegate the best and and let best and do whatever
he wants, which is what he did with Fauci.

Speaker 3 (01:50:57):
Right.

Speaker 1 (01:50:58):
He delegates and they want to what comes out with
some crazy statement about the state of the world. But
I don't think you're looking a massive deregulation as a
way to get out of it. There's no there's nothing
in his in his way of thinking about the world,
that would suggest that he would respond in that way.
Michael thoughts on my list feature to you and actually

(01:51:20):
haven't heard it yet, so I don't know. I'll listen
to it. Michael, could I do a documentary on Hitler's philosophers,
showing a lay audience how cont Hegel and the others
led to Nazism and how their influence still exists today
and guides people. Thinking, Sure, you could. You could turn
almost parallels into a documentary I think a very powerful one.

(01:51:43):
The problem is who's going to watch it? You know,
ninety nine point nine percent of documentaries are watched by
almost nobody unless you have an amazing marketing network, unless
you have a way to get the documentary into the
hands of the right people, into nobody watches it. You know,

(01:52:04):
the book is there, how many people read it? And
ye have people watch more stuff today, but people don't
watch serious documentaries. And you know, again, I've been involved
in making documentaries, and you make them and they're really good,
and then nothing happens. Nobody ever sees them. You wasted
all that money and all that effort and all that
stuff and nothing happens. You have huge hopes for it.

(01:52:30):
But yeah, I mean, making a documentary ominous Powers is
a great idea. Michael, a German historian, thinks there are
more Nazis in America than Germany today. Well, America is
much bigger. It's quite possible. It's quite possible. But I
don't know how you define a Nazi. Who's a Nazi? Yeah,

(01:52:52):
I'm skeptical about those kind of measures. Michael. Does the
left not realize why they lose? They just so in
their own pretend world that they have no idea how
to read actual human beings. No, but it's not about
winning and losing. I mean, this is the thing. It's
not like the left says, so, what ideology should we
believe in so we can win? They believe in what

(01:53:14):
they believe, and much of the left believes in woke
multicultural DEI. They believe in that stuff. They think that
stuff is real. They think that's justice, they think that's goodness.
They are righteous for believing it. It's not that they're
bad at strategy, is that they're bad at ideas. They
have rotten ideas, and the ideas are fundamentally need disintegrated,

(01:53:40):
integrating ideas, and that makes it very difficult to win. Michael.
If Israel were a first World Catholic country instead of
a first World Jewish country defending itself, would the world
have the same vitriolic reaction to it. No, I don't
think so. Would I don't think so, although it would

(01:54:01):
still have some negative reaction because those Catholics would still
be first world and they'd be beating up on third World.
So whenever the first war beats up on the third World,
there is a reaction. It just wouldn't be quite as bad,
but it would be James. Protectionism is pure altruism and action,

(01:54:23):
demanding the productive sacrifice, pay more for less, and make
do with less. Yes, protectionism is all about sacrificing for
some for the sake of others. It's a redistribution. It's
a massive redistribution, and it can only be justified through altruism.
Not you avi j algorithm saying how you feel will

(01:54:46):
never ruin a real connection. Yeah, as long as it's
a real connection, a healthy connection. As long as you're
real and you're healthy, then yes, not your a j algorithm.
Was the majority Republican Party always ignorant, hateful and racist
or was it a new development? I think it's worse.

(01:55:07):
I don't know if it's a majority. I don't think
it's a majority even today, but it's it's certainly worse today.
It goes in phases, it goes in phase. It used
to be that most of the racists were in the
Democratic Party. You know, Jim Crow was in Democratic states.
The South was Democratic in those days. It is a

(01:55:29):
world falling. I'm not sure what you mean by falling.
It's certainly it's certainly struggling. It's certainly struggling culturally, ideologically,
and economically. It's struggling. Harpercampbell, October seventh. Didn't happen because
Palestinians would deny a state. It happened because they were
given one. Absolutely, they were given the state of Gaza.

(01:55:52):
In two thousand and five. Nate Thoughts on Hindu a
job five year old being killed in Israel Gaza. I
see lots of pro Gaza argue. Her and the paramedics
were purposefully killed by the idea of I don't know.

(01:56:12):
I haven't looked into it, so I don't know. Look,
it's war. People die, I don't know. I don't know
what you expect. The children are going to die in war. Absolutely,
were they purposefully killed? Was like these Raeli military looking
to kill children and paramedics? I'm you know, it's very

(01:56:34):
very very doubtful that that is the case. And how
anybody would know that, how they would figure that out,
how they could tell what the Israeli soldier was thinking
when they shot. But look how well things happened in war.
Is it possible that some Israeli soldier freaked out and
shot them or some israelly whatever, I guess, But what

(01:56:57):
purpose would it? Say? Who would benefit from that? Nobody?
It would it? Would it hasten the end of the war.
It's certainly not a strategic, not a strategic thing for
them to do. But it's a war, bad stuff happens.
You want to end the war. Surrender, if if the
if the uh if Hamas surrender's hands over the hostages,

(01:57:22):
the wars ended and children stopped dying. So all these
stories could there be a case. Sure, So what are
you gonna do about it? Hop a Campbell. Do you
find it hard to cut people off when you've been
friends with them for many years but objectively discover they're

(01:57:44):
bad people, person and bad for your life? Do you
have a mal obligation to tell them why you're cutting
them off? Or go cold turkey? What if you run
into them? How do you handle the awkwardness?

Speaker 6 (01:58:00):
No?

Speaker 1 (01:58:01):
I have never had a problem of cutting people off.
Once they're a liability, then the liability and they need
to be cut off and it's done. Do you have
them all so I don't feel an obligation. Do you
have an obligation to tell them why? It depends. It
depends on why you're cutting them off. It depends on
the context, what kind of relationship you have. You might
the closer you were, the closer you are with them,

(01:58:24):
the more that obligation exists. On the other hand, it
might be that what's happened, they should know why you're
cutting them off. It's obvious they do something really bad
and they should know about it. They know it, so
you don't need to help them with their evasion. So
it really depends a lot on the context, and how

(01:58:46):
do you get over the over the awkwardest you just do.
You just move on, and sometimes you want to tell
people this is why, partially because maybe they can redeem themselves.
So yeah, I think it very very very much depends

(01:59:06):
on the context all of those answers to all of
those questions. But I have not had a problem in
my life doing that. All right, Liam's just coming with
fifty dollars question, Thank you. Liam. As a bad thing.

(01:59:26):
As bad as things are in Canada, there is hope
with Polivar and many of the conservatives, the US looks
worse to me, especially down the road. The Isaac Christian
nationalism is no not longer a fringe of society. They
can be dismissed. There is a complete abandonment of reason
and science. Looks like a regression back to medieval times. Yeah,
I mean the real I mean, Paulivon, so on.

Speaker 3 (01:59:49):
But they lost.

Speaker 1 (01:59:50):
It looked like they were going to win and they
lost big time. So I don't know, but it's quite
possible the Canada's future is more positive. But I also
would you know, it's easy to emphasize the negative. It's
easy to say, look at the Christian nationalists. Look they

(02:00:11):
I mean, but most people are not Christian nationalists. Most
Republicans are not Christian nationalists. I know a lot of
Republicans who are Jews in the still Republicans. The Republican
Party is not a Christian nationalist party. Yet they're growing
and it's scary. But I don't know if that's the
future of the country. It could it could be, it
could be something that really uh at the end of

(02:00:32):
the day, these kids that are discovering Christianity could grow
out of it very quickly and easily. It really is
hard to tell. I don't think we're heading towards medieval times,
although sometimes feels that way. It's really going to be
a question of can somebody rally the non Christian, non woke,

(02:00:52):
the non Christian nationalists, non woke people. Is there a
political force that can rally those people. Is there a
cultural force that can rally those people. I don't think
America is destined to become a Christian nationalist country, even
even now with with them on the rise. All right, guys,

(02:01:13):
thank you, Thank you to panel. Thank you Jennifer, Adam Umlin,
Holden and Jacob's here earlier. Thank you all the super chatters.
Really appreciate the support. I probably have a show tomorrow
and then we'll be we'll have a show every day
this week if all goes well, so we'll be back
on kind of a semi regular, regular schedule. Have a

(02:01:37):
great rest of your weekend, everybody, Bye bye bye.

Speaker 3 (02:01:42):
Have a good week.

All Episodes

AMA: AI, Culture, Art, Politics, Marriage & More (Sep '25) | Yaron Brook Show

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist

Crime Junkie

Stuff You Should Know

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}AMA: AI, Culture, Art, Politics, Marriage & More (Sep '25) | Yaron Brook Show