AMA & Hangout with Contributors (Nov 2025) | Yaron Brook Show - Yaron Brook Show

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
Okay, a lot of it of us.

Speaker 2 (00:11):
And an individual loss.

Speaker 3 (00:15):
This is the.

Speaker 1 (00:21):
Oh right, everybody, Welcome to your one book show. It's Saturday,
November twenty ninth. It's it's like god, the end of
the month. It's the end of the year. We're almost done.
Let me switch the view on this. We'll go to
speak of you. But yeah, the year is uh, it

(00:45):
just goes past fast, and the older you get, the
fast it goes.

Speaker 4 (00:48):
That's just I think.

Speaker 1 (00:49):
That's Einstein's theory of relative de or something like that.
I'm kidding, it's not. I mean, it's just it's just
a h it feels that way, all right. So let's
see we've got I don't know why. Yeah, you guys
are not if you're not on video, you're not appearing
on my screen. But I think I can manage that.

(01:12):
And let's see. We will have a show tomorrow. I'll
publish it later today. Not to exactly what the topic
is going to be, lots of my mind, so it
could be a lot of different things. We'll see, we'll
see which one I choose. We will be doing. We
will be doing more shows on capitalism and kind of

(01:35):
the West versus religion, which is the theme of my
new book with Don and about finding meanings. So those
will be theme thematic shows that are going to be
on the weekends. Moving forward, all right, let's let's jump
in with a panel a panel here today and take

(01:57):
questions from them. Super chat is open so those of
you who are on YouTube can also participate and they
ask me anything to the super chat as always, and yep,
more people are joining. And let's start with U with Jennifer.

Speaker 5 (02:16):
Okay, would you.

Speaker 6 (02:17):
Say that there's an abalidity to the argument that AI
generated art does not have the same value psychologically even
if it's well done, because it's not coming from a
full individual consciousness. It's like and you could even have
like a three or four people contribute to a song,

(02:39):
but there's still individual living, you know, consciousness, and it's
like a bunch of different pieces much together and spit out.
Is there any validity to that that it would be
less meaningful because of that?

Speaker 1 (02:52):
I don't know. I mean, the reality is that it's
based on you know, whatever the AI is doing is
based on it's learning from human beings. I mean learning
in quotation walks. It's not real learning. It's delivering something
that I think from most people wouldn't even be able
to identify as AI.

Speaker 4 (03:12):
They couldn't differentiate it.

Speaker 1 (03:14):
So, you know, Canada elicit an emotional response from them?
Canada elicit a sense of life response from them? Yes,
I don't.

Speaker 4 (03:24):
See how not.

Speaker 1 (03:27):
Is it going to be as deep? Is it going
to be as meaningful?

Speaker 4 (03:31):
Probably not.

Speaker 1 (03:31):
And you're not going to get any works of genius,
any anything new, anything real revelatory. But you know, could
could AI produce a a another romantic comedy, you know,
basically taking all romantic comedies of the past and mushing

(03:52):
them together somehow and coming up with a storyline and
pretend actors and you know, digital actors and all of that,
and people will be enjoy it. Sure, I don't see
why not. And if not now then then in in
you know, in one hundred years, Yeah, I mean for
certain And yeah, and it's going to become even more

(04:15):
difficult for experts to figure it out what is what?
And it's it's a real you know, it's it's a
real question of how art evolves given the existence of AI.
It's it's going to be tricky, and it's and it's
you know, human beings. I think art will evolve in
new ways. I mean, the challenge is, we don't have

(04:36):
a great artist. So if there were real geniuses and
odd right now and applying it correctly, I think that
they would do stuff with AI that is that it
will enhance what they you know, would enhance their art
in some way. But exactly what that looks like I
don't know, because I'm not a genius artist. Sadly, thanks

(04:58):
Jennifer right them there.

Speaker 7 (05:09):
Yes, my question has to do with education and the
philosophy of education, and I think the philosophy of education
has to have priority in what we say and how

(05:33):
we educate people because the distinction between private and government
schools is still in the very far future. Very few
Americans can afford full time private schools, and what ethnic

(05:59):
minority these in America do is have very intensive after
school or Saturday programs for their kids so their kids
don't grow up disminded. Now, on the other hand, our
current president was educated in one of the most expensive

(06:24):
private schools in the country, and he is the prime
example of a disminded person.

Speaker 1 (06:33):
I don't think you can blame Donald Trump on his school.
I mean that is way too generous to the school.
That's way too generous to Donald Trump. I mean, people
are not direct causal, you know, products of this day schooling.
Donald Trump is Donald Trump because of the choices Donald
Trump made and his school didn't help. But his school

(06:56):
is not to blame. I'm sure that lots of people
who went to that private school who are good people,
who have done good things in their careers and have
done amazing stuff. Let's not let Donald Trump off the
hook by blaming his school for the condition of his consciousness.

Speaker 7 (07:14):
Well, not one hundred percent.

Speaker 4 (07:17):
Not even fifty, even fifty. I know people who went to.

Speaker 1 (07:24):
Some of the worst schools possible and they did great
in life. You know the idea that we're deterministic by
our education. People can overcome bad education.

Speaker 7 (07:35):
I spink people have overcome back bad education.

Speaker 3 (07:42):
But it is not easy.

Speaker 7 (07:45):
It requires a lot of mental focus. And if you
are trained not to exert your mind, that has an influence.

Speaker 1 (07:56):
It has an influence. But at the end of the day,
you have to exert your mind. You have to, you
have to focus your mind, so you get to make
that choice. It's it's not it's not preconditioned by the
motivation or the education that you get. It's tougher, it's
more difficult, but it's not. But I agree with you. Look,
philosophy education is crucial. Luckily there are a lot of

(08:16):
people working on it. You know, Lended has a course.
But Matt Bateman and and Ray Niles every good. And
you know, they are schools, the objective schools out there
that are you know, offering offering alternative education. Uh. And

(08:38):
by doing that, by the very nature of doing that,
they are developing ideas around education and in a sense
implicitly or explicitly a philosophy of education. So I think absolutely.

Speaker 4 (08:55):
In in.

Speaker 3 (08:58):
You know, the.

Speaker 1 (08:58):
Philosophy of education is cruse, and luckily there's a lot
of work being done on it, so it's good.

Speaker 7 (09:04):
Yeah, but I don't think it is the right kind
of work. I think that Higher Ground Education, if you know,
the recent history, badly overestimated the size of their market.

Speaker 1 (09:21):
I don't think that is that was the problem at
Higher God Education. I don't want to get into what
happened at Higher God Education. That's not the point. The
point is, whatever the size of the market is, they
are working both as individuals and as kind of a
in some senses, as a group different people, different people

(09:42):
are working on the ideas of the philosophy of education.
I don't think the business side of it, and the
and the business failure reflect necessarily on the issues of
philosophy of education, of the methodology or the philosophy of
the education. Business errors were made that resulted in failure.

(10:02):
I wouldn't I wouldn't attribute more than that to higher ground.

Speaker 7 (10:07):
But what I'm trying to get that is that people
from minority communities, especially Jews, East Asians, South Asians, have
their own after school.

Speaker 1 (10:29):
Yeah, but they still but the reality is, Adam, that
they still can't think. That is the reality is that
Asian Americans are not like the super rational in a
sense that they think, yes, they could do math really
really well, and they study with programs that teach them
the math, particularly the math that gets them to solve

(10:50):
problems into into into uh, you know, do do tests well.
But you know, Jews are some of the worst thinkers
in the world out there, I mean, some of the
worst leftists and rightists. So jewse it doesn't guarantee anything.
The fact that they're getting extra education is not does

(11:10):
not solve the problem of the failure of a educational system.
The failure of educational system needs to be thought from
the ground up. Uh. And you can you can put
a band aid on it with after school programs, but
all it is is a band aid at the end
of the day. To really to really get kids to

(11:33):
think and to learn how to think, and to give
them content you need you need to rethink education, which
I think a lot of people.

Speaker 7 (11:41):
This is what people are doing, are they Well, I
know that objectivists are doing that, but we are at
a critical point where they disminded are becoming the majority
of the American population of Americans ulture.

Speaker 1 (12:05):
There's literally nothing we can do about that at this point, right,
I mean, it's it's there's three hundred and fifty million
of them and there's only a handful of us. And
that's the reality that we have to live with.

Speaker 7 (12:17):
But with modern online media, couldn't we do it faster?

Speaker 1 (12:26):
I doubt it? That is I doubt it. The attraction
of online media is for the mindless, I mean the
mind the mindless content is it grabs attention. Our content
is very, very very difficult to grab people's attention in quantity.
I'm not saying we shouldn't do online education. We should

(12:49):
and there's a lot going on in online education, but
I don't think that's going to be the difference maker
anytime soon.

Speaker 4 (12:56):
Right, let's move on, Adam, I get it.

Speaker 7 (12:58):
One's where didn't I rant set up an example of
how to get people's attention, to get the ideas across.

Speaker 1 (13:11):
Sure, she wrote genius novels. If you know of a
genius novelist who could do that again, that would be fantastic.
But well she wrote she did it through art, That's
how she did it.

Speaker 4 (13:22):
And she did it.

Speaker 1 (13:23):
Through the sheer force of a personality. And we don't
have iron Rand and we don't have artists who can
convey that kind of message in that kind of way,
you know. And that was seven years ago, where where
there was very different distractions on people, you know, facing people.
It's a very different world now. But I really, you know,

(13:44):
there are other people in the that I had, you know,
that should get a chance. Right, let's see the order
here is all messed up? Ian, Hey, you're on.

Speaker 8 (13:58):
Let's go back to the you had in San Francisco,
the one at the at the church.

Speaker 1 (14:05):
It was fun, yep, it was.

Speaker 9 (14:06):
It was pretty interesting to see.

Speaker 8 (14:08):
I didn't see the whole thing I left a little
early and my car actually broke down on the Bay Bridge,
which kind of an odd, an odd ending to the evening.
But so watching it, you know, your first I thought,
your first, your first part of the presentation, your first speech,
whatever you want to call it. Yep, you know, it
was pretty good, pretty well organized. I thought it kind

(14:29):
of laid out the case. And then it was interesting
to see when you came back after the speeches in
the middle, you seemed pretty fired up, like you just
jumped in and tore right through. So I wanted to
get your your take on that and kind of how
you were feeling sitting there listening to some of those speeches.

Speaker 1 (14:51):
Yeah, I mean it. Yeah, It's much easier for me
to get fired up once I hear the other side,
because they were so lame, right, lame in every dimension.
Not only was it, of course the defending religion, so
that's flame to begin with, but they were historically they
had no clue what they were talking about, you know,

(15:12):
so the history was wrong. They were giving credit to
religion where credit did not belong. They you know, they
and I can't remember, I can't remember the sequence of
the evening. Sadly, I can't remember these things, and I
do too many of them. But you know, at some
point there was there was the white nationalists kind of angle,

(15:33):
which god, as I think you know from my show,
pisses me off to no end. And and there was
just so much wrong with what they were doing. And
you know, adding to all that, I think, to a
logic extent, we're sitting in the middle of you know,
San Francisco, which is you know, let's call it Silicon

(15:54):
Valley like this, these are smart kids, These are not
dumb people. They you know, most of them were founders
of working at startups. Some of the younger people were
students from Stanford to Berkeley who I'd met earlier, and like,
this is the level. I mean, it's so disappointing in
the sense of what you'd expect of people in San

(16:17):
Francisco in the tech world. And I don't think you
would have had that crowd twenty years ago, you know,
I mean I lived I lived in San Francisco.

Speaker 4 (16:31):
I mean I lived in a ba area in the nineties.

Speaker 1 (16:34):
Yeah, I mean, there's no way you'd have that crowd
in that crowd in the nineties, right, I mean, religion
was out certainly among techies, certainly among that group of people,
and to see it come back with such you know,
passion and so unsurprising, so confused, being so confused and

(16:56):
everything else about it. Yeah, so that but I thought,
I mean, I thought that first of all, it was fun,
because you know, it's always fun when you when you
have a little bit.

Speaker 4 (17:07):
Of back and forth, and.

Speaker 1 (17:11):
You know, I think I created a little bit of
cognitive distance. I don't know if you saw it. At
the end that I got a standing ovation, which was weird, right,
because all these people disagreed with me, right, I still
everybody still, you know, was against the proposition, but they
were enthused, and at least I got some of them thinking,
I think, I hope.

Speaker 3 (17:32):
Yeah, no, I didn't stay to the end. So I'm sad.

Speaker 8 (17:34):
I'm sad I missed out.

Speaker 1 (17:35):
It was it was getting late. So there was a
standing ovation, and then there's a lot of discussion afterwards
with a lot of the young people. Sadly, some of
that just made me angrier because some of the people
who came up were like Curtis Yov and fans and
uh and and white National, White super And when I
said to one of them, I think I mentioned this

(17:56):
another show, like I got angry, like about the white nationalism.
He was like looked at me, puzzled, like why you're
getting angry. It's like you have no sense, and how
despicable the ideas you're advocating for really are.

Speaker 8 (18:12):
Yeah, they're so accepting of people like Jarvan and that
that is just crazy that he is friends with Mark
Andreesen and jd.

Speaker 4 (18:20):
Vance liked and Peter Teel and it's just unacceptable. Well,
and he was brought in I remember this happening.

Speaker 1 (18:27):
It was in twenty fifteen, and he was brought into
the klam On Institute claim On Institute, who historically is
an institute conservative institute based on Strauss and Straussian ideas,
but also I forget the guy the.

Speaker 4 (18:45):
Thinker who founded and stuff.

Speaker 1 (18:46):
But anyway, it was basically one of these conservative think
tanks that really really emphasized the Declaration of Dependence and
the Constitution. They loved Lincoln and they were like, you
know intellectual, oh, you know, old style conservatives. Now we
know there's a real corruption there, but they have because

(19:07):
and then they these real intellectuals digging deep into the
founders invite Kurtshavn in and make him part of the thing,
and that's when he became he was mainstreamed. It was
Anton something Anton who wrote that famous piece flight ninety
three about how electing Trump was like rushing the cockpit

(19:28):
of flight ninety three. Right, you probably were going to die,
but what alternative was you were going to die anyway
because of the because the left was going to kill
us all. So that that was Mark Anton, I think
Michael Anton. Michael Anton, Yeah, and he wrote that so
and he was friendly with Kotishyoffin and that all brought

(19:49):
you ofvin In anyway.

Speaker 4 (19:50):
Yep, So it was interesting.

Speaker 1 (19:52):
I'll probably do one of those again, so they'll probably
invite me back, so you know, I'll think of another
topic that can w with them up and well me
up and see where that goes, Right, Thanks, Ian, uh,
let's see online.

Speaker 3 (20:09):
Yeah, hey, yeah, Ieron. So I just came back from
a month in Vietnam and actually another week in Loois
and then one thing that was really interesting I found
was like, go oll, the ho g min must be
spinning in his fancy mausoleum because they seem to be
very capitalist in many respects. Now, you know, I'm really

(20:29):
not whitewashing the nature of the regimes and all that
kind of stuff. But my question was more and it's
an interesting you know, one of these days, I love
to talk you more about that in terms of how
what I actually saw there. But what I was wondering
was did the US really miss a big opportunity after
World War Two to kind of really push the European

(20:55):
countries to divest their colonies, like don't let's go back
to Vietnam and take it back over again and kind
of you know, again saying it's somewhat naively, but you know,
basically a chance to befriend all of those ex colonies
and maybe that way, you know, bring them away from
communism and all that kind of stuff. Now, I know,

(21:16):
Communism had a lot of appeal in those days, was
in the West and had a lot of appeal. Yeah,
I mean, and it obviously ties back with the whole
way that we allied with his own unions Russia that
we never should have.

Speaker 1 (21:29):
It's certainly as possible that I don't know that the
colonies would have been that different. That is, as you say,
communism was very popular. Remember the intellectuals in the colonies
African intellectuals, Asian intellectuals well trained by westerners France, primarily

(21:49):
in France, and so primarily by kind of egalitarian philosophers
of various sorts and communists of various sorts, and you
know that they so I don't know if their fate
would have been different. I mean, look at Cambodia, and

(22:09):
Cambodia turned to communism relatively late, and all the camera
roos were trained in France, and they went back and
they took over and they turned it into this hellhole
and independent kind of on of the whole colonialism project.
So I fear that the turn of these colonies towards

(22:31):
communism was probably inevitable given the intellectual state of the
world at the end of World War Two, which is
tragic and sad for lots of reasons. And I mean
nine Man said that World War Two completely discredited collectivism,
but it didn't really, It didn't discredit communism. It discredited

(22:52):
nationalism fascism for a while, and that hasn't lasted, but
it didn't discredit communism, and communism held on somehow. I mean,
even the fall of the Berlin Wall hasn't discredited socialism.
So uh yeah, I don't. I don't think it would
have been any different. I mean, look at Africa today,
it's still not out of the cluttures of kind of

(23:13):
that that intellectual tradition. They still haven't been able to
shake it off. And of course America was in no
position to do it. I mean, coming out of World
War Two, you know, the intellectuals were quite left. The
people within administration, Truman administration were quite left. Eisenhower took over,

(23:37):
kind of representing nothing ness, you know, zero, no intellectual background,
no intellectual anything. So the United States was not I mean,
sure if the United States after World War too had
advocated for capitalism, yeah, and and maybe that would have
all changed, but it.

Speaker 4 (23:55):
Couldn't and it didn't have the people to do it.

Speaker 3 (23:58):
But it just seems it just seemed like, you know,
and again I'm using Vietnam as the example, because it
was just there that you know that if the US
there in particular had just said to France, like, no,
you don't come back. Yeah, And I mean I don't
think France was in any position argue really.

Speaker 1 (24:15):
I mean, I mean, it would have been good in
the sense that it would have saved a civil war
and or at least saved American lives. We probably would
have never got involved if France had left. And that's
of war happened earlier, I mean, because it happened in
the sixties. Now, the US was on this whole thing
about protecting the world from communism, so it intervened, But

(24:36):
it could have been that we could have saved some
American lives and the whole cultural you know, Malay, there
was Vietnam right well.

Speaker 3 (24:46):
You know, I know you want to move on, but
just very quickly. One observation I had throughout the country
was though, that very little, if any hard feelings against
the Americans.

Speaker 1 (24:57):
I think that That's what I've heard. And what interesting is,
although although that.

Speaker 3 (25:01):
Might be changing now with the idiot there.

Speaker 1 (25:04):
Yeah, that's true, That's that's true. The whole world not
not unique to Vietnam. Yeah, I mean I felt that way.
I mean, you know, you say, it felt like this
is capitalism not and that's how I felt about China.
You know, when I would visited China, it's it's it's
the same phenomena Vietnam is done. Basically, it's mimic China
in many respects. It's a single party system. But you

(25:28):
know day to day most vietname is just like in
the past. Most Chinese don't feel the foot of the
state on them. They kind of left alone. They can
start businesses, they make money. That's there's no there's no
there's no mass we I mean, we would distribute more
wealth in America than the Chinese do, or than the

(25:49):
Vietnamese do. Funnily enough, right, and.

Speaker 3 (25:52):
You and they and they would be a potentially really
good ally against China. I mean there are a hundred
million people they don't like China. Yeah, yeah, you know,
they would have been It could be a good alley.

Speaker 4 (26:02):
But Trump wants to be the life of China. He
doesn't want Trump wants.

Speaker 3 (26:06):
To be He's driving everybody into China's arms, right, absolutely,
absolutely anyway, Yeah, thanks.

Speaker 4 (26:16):
Let's see, Uh did this?

Speaker 1 (26:21):
Uh? Andrew? Andrew?

Speaker 10 (26:25):
You know, so, you know how some of the better
conservative intellectuals, like Ben Shapiro, they say that the origin
of America's foundation is a mix of Greek culture and
of Judeo Christian principles, and.

Speaker 9 (26:48):
At least they give a nod to Greece.

Speaker 10 (26:50):
But do you think how do you judge that claim
epistem Epistemologically, like do you think that that is baseless
or do you like just wishful thinking, or do you
think that there's genuine confusion there.

Speaker 1 (27:05):
I think there's genuine confusion. And you know, look it
makes complete sense. It requires epistemological and tangling to figure
out what's essential and was not. But you know, if
you look at the Renaissance, there's a Renaissance. Certainly we
discovery of Greek ideas, but all the paintings and everything

(27:25):
is you know, religiously themed. Religious used to pay a
big role. They're building churches and cathedrals and stuff like
that is the manifestation.

Speaker 4 (27:38):
Of the architecture that's being developed at the time.

Speaker 1 (27:44):
You know, almost all the thinkers, even into the Enlightenment, right,
including thinkers in the Enlightenment, including all the scientists, all
claiming to be religious. Right, so Newton is super is
claims to be super religious. John Locke is religious. With
exception of you know a few of the French Enlightenment figures.

(28:05):
I mean, even Voltaire claims he's religious. He does, he doesn't.
He's not conventionally religious, he's more of a deist type,
but he's religious. The Founding Fathers, of course, all religious to.

Speaker 4 (28:16):
One extent or another.

Speaker 1 (28:18):
So I don't think it's I don't think it's completely
nuts to say that Western civilization is a mixture of
Christianity and and Uh and and Athens uha or Jerusalem
and Athens, as Ben Shapiro does. And I think most

(28:39):
people believe that. That is, most historians, even secular ones,
even even you know, leftist type of historians.

Speaker 4 (28:46):
That everybody really believes that.

Speaker 1 (28:48):
So it's going to take work for Don and I
to separate those two and to argue that, no, the
essential civilizing force, right, the civilizing force is Greece. The

(29:08):
uncivilizing force, the anti civilizational force is religion, and the
West is a mixture of the two. Right, the West
is a mixture. But to the extent that the West
is a civilization, it is the civilizing force that gets
all the credit and the uncivilizing force that gets the
blame for whenever the West is uncivilized, behaves uncivilized, like

(29:33):
on the communism, on the fascism, or in the common
world we live in today. So that is the work
in a sense that needs to be done, and it's
not an easy job. Yeah, So no, I think you
can be completely unrepresented innocent and hold the West as

(29:55):
a combination of both.

Speaker 9 (29:56):
Okay, I just like would think here everything you're saying.

Speaker 10 (30:01):
I mean, I just think they do start out with
a you know, obviously like they're devoted to Judeo Christianity, and.

Speaker 1 (30:12):
Yeah, but you can find, as I said, you can
find secular commentators with the same way and still would say,
oh no, Look, at the end of the day, it's
a combination of both.

Speaker 9 (30:21):
Even though I disagree with one, right, yep, yep.

Speaker 1 (30:24):
So I don't think it's a I mean, look at
look at somebody like what's his name? God, the genetics
the biologist Dawkins. Dawkins says he's a cultural Christian, so
he he clearly believes that Christianity has played a big
role in Western civilization. Yeah, and they all do. And

(30:46):
there's a sense in which it has the question is
this a positive as a negative? Yep? Okay, thanks, uh,
thanks Andrew.

Speaker 4 (30:57):
Let's see Holden.

Speaker 3 (31:01):
Hey, you're on.

Speaker 11 (31:03):
I've never told you this, So I just want to
say thank you for introducing me to objectivism, because, like
before you, I didn't know about it. So I read
Outlass Drugged and The fountain Head and all that and
Dan Norton also, but you were the first person because
I read your book The Free Market Revolution and that
with Don Hawkins, and like in the book, like you
gave a moral defense that I never heard of before.

(31:25):
So I just wanted to let you know that. Thank you,
and I so yeah anyway, but so thanks.

Speaker 9 (31:33):
But what what does a typical day look like for you?

Speaker 2 (31:39):
And how has it changed over time?

Speaker 1 (31:43):
God, I mean, uh, it's changed a lot. It hasn't
changed much in the last few years, but it's changed
a lot over the long term. But a typical date
for me and now is like I get up, it
takes me, I don't know, about an hour to recover
from sleep. I find sleep exhausting, so I never wake

(32:05):
up refreshed. All of you morning people, I don't get it.
My wife's a morning person, so she's like, let's do stuff,
and I'm like, I need it. I need my coffee.
I need an hour just to recover, you know, from sleep.
And then I'll go work out for like an hour
almost every day when I'm home, and then I'll start

(32:27):
basically preparing for the show. I'll start looking through news
and Twitter and different websites and stuff like that. Creating
you know, sheets of links and stories and things like that.
Sometimes during the middle of the day, I'll have some

(32:48):
meetings ARI related meetings or other related meetings that I have,
So I have meetings in the day. Then I'll do
I'll do the show, I'll go out with my wife
to have dinner, We'll come home, watch TV, go to sleep.
That's that's a typical day, A typical day for me today.

(33:08):
But of course, typically when I'm not traveling, and then
when I try, you know, everything's everything's kind of goes crazy.
When I travel, you know, every day is different. You
know when I ran when I was the c OVA R,
I I went to the office every day, so that
that was a big difference. When I had kids, first
thing I did in the morning was I typically woke
them up and dressed them and made made them breakfast

(33:31):
and took them to school and then drove to the office.
So you know, I typically did all that. There were
periods when I was doing a lot of interviews. I
radio interviews, TV interviews, got to the studio, do a
TV interview. I used to do more than you know,
several interviews a day, sometimes on radio. Uh So, yeah,

(33:52):
it's it's changed a lot.

Speaker 4 (33:55):
Today.

Speaker 1 (33:55):
My life is much a routine because you know, I
don't do as much as I I mean, I don't
do as many different things as you do when you're
the CEO and the intellectual, you know, and you know
all of that stuff. So that is a that is
a routine day for me. Sounds fun, all right, Yeah,

(34:18):
it's it's it's it's cool, you know. And I never
used to work out, certainly, not as much as I
do now. I mean I work out like so much
more than I used to work out when I was younger.

Speaker 11 (34:29):
Really, Yeah, yeah, I'm a bit, uh, I don't know,
like adverse to physical exertions.

Speaker 1 (34:35):
Yeah, you got to change that. You get to get
over that, because the younger you do it, the easier
it'll be when you're older. And uh, there's no question,
there's no question that the one thing that is gonna
that is important for longevity, and not just longevity, but
but a healthy old age, like being being in good shape,
you know, not suffering as much when you're old, is exercise.

(34:58):
There's nothing more cou it with low you know, low
rates of heart attacks, low rates of cancer, low rates
of dementia. Then exercise so and and one way to
overcome one way over to coome the hatred of exertion,
which I sympathize with, is get a personal trainer if
you can afford one, and uh and then and and

(35:20):
then you feel you know, I'm a I call myself
a secondhanded masochist. So when it comes to inflicting pain
on myself, I'm I'm a peed of keating. I you know,
I need somebody there to watch me and to uh
uh and to say you can do what you want,
keep going, keep don't give up.

Speaker 11 (35:39):
You know, I need that so that that you're probably
you're not a bunch of people probably the same way.

Speaker 2 (35:46):
Yeah, just having that person there.

Speaker 1 (35:48):
Yea, it helps a lot. And then they also make
sure you do the exercise rights and that you know
you're not injuring yourself.

Speaker 2 (35:55):
But thanks.

Speaker 1 (35:58):
Yeah.

Speaker 4 (35:58):
Today I did a four by four Norwegian, which is.

Speaker 1 (36:04):
It's a four by four Norwegian is is you go
four minutes at basically eighty five to ninety five percent
of your of your max hot rate but real max,
not not the formula real maxt rate eighty five to ninety.
Then you have four minutes rest, and then you do

(36:25):
it again and Uh. In my case, I did five times.
And if that won't kill you, then I'll make you
a lot stronger and increase your legivity significantly. Okay, I'm
pretty I'm pretty pleased with myself at my age to
be able to do it for you seem pretty energized
for your age.

Speaker 9 (36:45):
Rarely do I see people your age getting up on
yelling for an hour and a half. I can't even
do that.

Speaker 1 (36:53):
It's all about motivation, it's all about loving it. Oh, thanks, thanks, Old,
and I appreciate it. Uh Ryan Ryan Ryan wi is
Ryane Rhyane? Would you unmuted? But I can't hear you.

(37:14):
I can see you. You're waving no microphone. Okay, it's
not working. Okay, it's not asking anything, all right, Steve.

Speaker 12 (37:27):
Yeah, you're right about working out and working out with
a trainer for the last year and a half, and
I'm I'm in the best physical shape I've been in
since my twenties. And just like the efficaciousness you feel,
and like dealing with the world, like if I had
to run across an airport now from one end or
the other, like no problem, we can totally make that happen.

Speaker 4 (37:46):
Yeah, bring it on. Frankfoot, my most hated a point
in the world.

Speaker 2 (37:51):
Yeah, some months ago I asked you a question.

Speaker 12 (37:54):
I don't know what the question was, it doesn't really matter,
and your kind of response was, look, that's just Australism
in the world. And at the time I found this
to be like a wholly unsatisfactory response, at least for me.
I was like, I don't know what to do with that,
and just like you have, I think come around recently,
we need to talk about Tucker Carlson more, which I'm
very sad about.

Speaker 2 (38:15):
I realized we did not talk enough about altruism.

Speaker 12 (38:19):
I used to kind of be of the mindset like, look,
we have this, like we have a reason problem, like
people aren't engaging the reason, aren't engaging with reality, and
if we like solve that problem, then we.

Speaker 2 (38:30):
Can like have the nice things.

Speaker 12 (38:33):
And I've come around to Okay, this altruism is like
a real problem once you see it, like you can't
unsee it because it's like literally everywhere. And so I guess,
are these the same problem? Are they different problems? Are
they related problems? Like I don't know, like does one
come first before the other?

Speaker 2 (38:55):
Do you have to solve them both? Together.

Speaker 12 (38:57):
I'm guessing this is something you devoted a non her
of the little amount of time to thinking about in
your various roles, and I guess, like, how do you
think about that? And then how do you think about
aris strategy like relating to these.

Speaker 1 (39:15):
Yeah, I mean how they how it comes about is
very context dependent.

Speaker 4 (39:23):
But I think the.

Speaker 1 (39:25):
Dominant way, the dominant thing is altruism. Because you can
go back to periods in history, particularly European history. The
Enlightenment is a good good example when people really took
reasons seriously, they were really trying. They didn't have it
fully art, they didn't have Ayrman's you know, if you

(39:46):
have concepts, but they wanted to use It was about
using your mind and evidence and facts and don't b
as me and all this stuff, and I don't believe
in God and everything. And the one thing they couldn't
shake is altruism, right, So you know, altruism they get

(40:06):
you when you're very young. You need to have a
concept of an alternative because if one of the things
that the altruists do very effect effectively is tell you
there is no alternative.

Speaker 4 (40:18):
This is morality, and the only alternative is to.

Speaker 1 (40:21):
Be a you know, line, cheating, stealing, you know, a
whole that. That's that. Those are the two alternatives, and
ethics presents to you altruism or it comes in a
whole set of variations. Nobody actually argues for one hundred

(40:41):
percent altruism, so I mean with accepted and maybe Augustine comped,
but almost nobody. And nobody argues for one hundred percent.
You have to take care of yourself, you have to fruit,
you know, and even a little bit, you know, pursue
happiness a little bit. Just don't don't overdo it, right,
So they are very good at marketing it. They get

(41:02):
you when you're young. They present you with no alternatives.
And so even if you have reason, you you're bouncing
around inside a limited set of options and you don't
you don't know where to go unless you're a genius
like Ironman. So Iman presents an alternative. So now if

(41:23):
we come to the modern setting, so now we have
the ability to challenge altruism. Now we still can't get
to that many people. You know, it's it's hard to
get to all these people. Now that we have the
ability to challenge altruism, we are dependent on people's ability
to reason, and the decline in education makes it so

(41:45):
much harder because you know, I think reason today is
not as let's say, prevalent, particularly among the intellectuals, funnily enough,
as it was let's say in the Enlightenment. Right, So
now you've got to you've got a problem. You can
present thinking people with. Oh, there's an option to altruism,

(42:06):
but first of all, it's still hard, right, I mean,
because I can There's a bunch of people who I
respect in terms of their reasoning capabilities, kind of on
the let's say, sent a left, but it's altruism gets
them all the time. They can't escape that, and it
doesn't seem like they're willing to consider alternatives. But now
we have an alternative, so now we also need them

(42:29):
to be able to think. My view is you can't.

Speaker 4 (42:33):
You can't have a strategy around one without the other.

Speaker 1 (42:36):
The strategy has to be we have to do both.
We have to first of all, find the people who
can reason, because a lot of times, by the time
you're an adult, it's too late. I mean, I'm not
going to be able to teach you how to reason.
I'm not going to be able to teach you. So
you have to find the people who are still thinking
and teach them about egoism, and then you can go

(43:03):
back and teach them some epistemology to beef up their
knowledge their commitment to reason. But I don't think you
could start with epistemology primarily because people are just not
motivated around epistemology. People are motivated about living and morality
is about living. So you have to offer them the
alternative to altruism as the first step.

Speaker 2 (43:31):
It's like necessary but not sufficient.

Speaker 1 (43:33):
Yeah, unless they're thinking it's a waste of time, right,
I mean, at some point down the road one day
when we have a thousand intellectuals, people will become people
will adopt egoism because they're secondhanded, because they're being told to.
But that only happens when you dominate the intellectual sphere.

(43:55):
As long as you don't, the people who are going
to adopt egoism are going to have to be people
who are thinkers.

Speaker 12 (44:02):
Is that how you got to the strategy of we
need to like pursue the intellectual.

Speaker 2 (44:10):
Rebuild the train enough intellectuals.

Speaker 1 (44:13):
Yes, it's two things. One is we've got to find
so you've got to find a lot of people. We
don't know how to pre select the people who are
going this idea is are going to appeal to.

Speaker 4 (44:25):
So at the top of the funnel, you.

Speaker 1 (44:27):
Just have to go wide, right, So you have to
go you have to go with.

Speaker 4 (44:31):
The books and let people read the books.

Speaker 1 (44:33):
You have to go with politics, you have to go
with things that just generally are going to resonate with
young people and maybe you can get them tend to
read Man and then and then you need as many
intellectuals as you can because you've you've just got to
expose more and more and more people. And who does
that exposure? Ultimately it's the intellectuals. And who's going to
challenge altruism. Who's going to get people interested in challenging altruism.

(44:56):
It's going to be the intellectuals. And you know, even
Holden said, I think he said he read Ironran, but
it took you know, reading another book that applies iron
Man to a particular issue that really got him and
captured him.

Speaker 11 (45:12):
Right.

Speaker 4 (45:12):
So it's going to take a lot of those books, right,
a lot of.

Speaker 1 (45:15):
Free market revolution like books and in other books to
get people, even once they read iron Ran, to see
the relevance in their own life Some of us will
get it right off the bat when we read it
for the first time, and some don't.

Speaker 4 (45:29):
And you just have to have everything everything available.

Speaker 2 (45:33):
In that vein.

Speaker 12 (45:34):
I have found Don Watkin's book. I've given that to
people who would be curious adjacent. Yep, yeah, I think
that's right.

Speaker 1 (45:44):
And we need Don's book about egoism, Effective Egoism.

Speaker 4 (45:48):
I think it's called Yeah. I mean, we need a
lot more books like that.

Speaker 1 (45:52):
Because different approaches isn't going to appeal to different people
in different ways.

Speaker 4 (45:57):
And that's why you need intellectuals.

Speaker 1 (45:58):
You need intellectuals to write those books, do podcasts and
give lectures and do all the things that are going
to intrigue people and cause people to rethink what they believe.
Thanks Steve Agent. I got my mic working here on
what's that?

Speaker 4 (46:16):
Oh your MIC's working?

Speaker 1 (46:17):
Go ahead?

Speaker 4 (46:17):
I got my mic working, Okay, go ahead, right, Thanks.

Speaker 13 (46:21):
So my question is about scandals in this day and age.
I was a teenager in the nineties and I knew
about Monica Lewinski and I knew about oj and it
seems like today maybe I've changed, but it seems like
you know, something like deporting a US citizen to a
jail in Central Americmerica just doesn't even hit the radar anymore.

(46:45):
What do you think is the cause of that over time?
And I don't think it started in twenty sixteen. I
think it's been happening much longer than that.

Speaker 1 (46:54):
No, I mean, I agree completely.

Speaker 4 (46:56):
I think it's it's.

Speaker 1 (46:58):
It's a slow erosion in any respect for in respect
for human life, for individual rights, for the rule of law.
I mean, I think it's been going on for a
long time. You go back to FDR and some of
the stuff he did. But really, I think in the

(47:19):
modern times, and I've talked about this, if he talks
about this, it really starts with nine to eleven, the
amount of lying that our politicians did, the fact that
they send young kids into battle with their arms tied
behind their backs, you know, with the rules of engagement
that basically killed them on missions that had no purpose.

(47:40):
Or there was this movie that I recommended years ago,
this group of American based on a true stories, this
group of American soldiers who were holding this Afghan village,
you know, and they were getting slotted, and you know,
why were they holding this village?

Speaker 4 (47:56):
Nobody could explain it.

Speaker 1 (47:57):
Nobody could say, why nobody would give them the resource
to actually beat back the enemy. So no respect for
the individual rights and the lives of these kids. You
know TSA. I mean like TSA is worse than Monica Lewinsky.
I haven't seen this in a while, but you know,

(48:17):
in the old days, used to see little girls going
through the thing and being padded down by somebody like you,
what are you doing? What is this sinsanity? Taking off
your shoes, taking out the liquids from your bag. I mean,
just concrete boundedness, violation of our privacy, violation of our rights,

(48:38):
and everybody just going with it, rolling with it, not
questioning it, accepting it. Nobody challenged it, right, I mean
I used to say, imagine George Washington going through the TSA.
I mean, he would like have a fit. He would
like you would like kick their butts. I mean, there's
no way. So you know, if we had self esteem,

(48:59):
we wouldn't tolerate them. So we lost our self esteem
over many years, and and politicians have slowly, as a consequence,
eroded rights and and you know so many so much
of what George Bush did and then what Obama did,
and then financial crisis and what they did during the
financial crisis. They bailed out one company, then they they
they let another company go bankrupt, and nobody asked why

(49:21):
this and why that? Why you know, who's who and
and who's who's benefiting and who's you know, what's going
on here?

Speaker 4 (49:29):
Why why are they treating people?

Speaker 1 (49:32):
And Goverman did all kinds of things that were not
legit during the financial crisis in terms of the law. Right,
the Fed did things that it was never had been
approved by Congress to do, and did it and nobody
asked the questions.

Speaker 4 (49:47):
Nobody could.

Speaker 1 (49:48):
So I think we've just been just seen a constant erosion,
certainly since nine eleven. During nine to eleven, during financial
questions and then COVID got you know, we were locked up,
we were told to stay home, couldn't even go to
the park, you couldn't swim at the beach. I mean,
the insanity of that. And then we all, you know,

(50:08):
mostly the culture went Okay, we'll do that, we can
do that.

Speaker 13 (50:11):
But yet we have these huge of buyers, which are
I would say, George Floyd and Gaza.

Speaker 1 (50:18):
Right. Yeah, So there's certain issues that people get super
riled up about. So on the right, it's I don't know,
vaccines of all things. So and on the left, it's
anything where there's some minority that is perceived to be

(50:38):
suffering some injustice, and so the intersectionality trumps everything. So Gaza,
it's Palestinians. They're weak, they're poor, and they're suffering. Israelis
are strong and rich and they inflicting the suffering. So
therefore we get upset. It's George Floyd, you know, representing,
you know, standing for Black Americans being discriminated, as being

(51:02):
suffocated by the police and by civilization, and we get
excited about that. So when it really appeals to the
to the altruism and the kind of the of the
left or on the right, I don't know what it is.
What you know, whether it plays into some conspiracy theories
that they have. You know, we'd have to think about

(51:24):
what's common to all the conspiracy theories. But they get
all excited about it, but none of it has to
do with real individuals, right, real concern for human life
and real concern for individual rights.

Speaker 4 (51:36):
That is gone.

Speaker 1 (51:37):
That is gone. So government, can you know, right now
blow up boats in the middle of the Caribbean. I
don't know who's on those boats. Nobody knows who's on
those boats. I mean, we have to trust, you know,
we have to trust our people in the field for that.
And nobody questions that they haven't got authority. Congress never
gave no authority to do it any and nobody cares.

Speaker 13 (52:02):
But it doesn't make them. It's Hispanics, No one cares.

Speaker 1 (52:08):
If what.

Speaker 13 (52:10):
If it's hispanics.

Speaker 1 (52:11):
Partially, If it's his Hispanics, nobody cares. Partially. It's Trump
just overwhelms me. You were so many things that you
should care about. And I think the left is just
spiraling because they can't keep track of everything Trump does.
They would like to care, they would like to make
a big sting, but where do they start. What do
you even start? Right, there's a million things going on.

(52:33):
Where do you even start? And they have no they
think they have no political party power, and then who
are they to speak up because they're they're massive violating
of right leaders of rights in their own right. So
it's it's almost impossible to to get excited about everything
he does because he does so much. And it's a strategy.
I think it's a strategy. It's what they call it

(52:53):
called flood the zone. You flood the zone. They don't
know who to focus on, they don't know what to
complain about, and and you can get away with anything,
and they're getting away with everything.

Speaker 13 (53:04):
Okay, thanks, sure.

Speaker 1 (53:06):
I don't know if Adri is there in the in
the video ad there? Do you want to ask a question?
There he is? Now I see him. You have to

(53:35):
unmute yourself.

Speaker 2 (53:41):
Yeah, you're I'm just listening in.

Speaker 4 (53:43):
Okay, cool, okay, thanks, thanks for being here.

Speaker 1 (53:49):
Thanks, all right, let's do a couple of super chats
from Michael by the way. Uh yeah, we don't have
a lot of super chats, So if you'd like to
ask questions and you're listening live online, feel free to
jump in. You can also do stickers to support the show.

(54:09):
Steve has done a sticker, Roland has done a sticker,
John Cep Milkin and Catherine of All done stickers. So
thank you guys. Okay, So Michael says, can evil people
ever experience joy or happiness? Or are they continuously in
a state of suffering? I don't think they can experience happiness.

(54:31):
If we're even by happiness a state of non contradictory joy,
that that is, it's not just a momentary joy, but
it is, you know, a state of being. It's it's continuous,
it's over time. And note how Ian calls it non contradictory.
So you don't have any end of emotions going on
at the same time, anxiety or other things.

Speaker 4 (54:51):
You're just things are just good. I don't think.

Speaker 1 (54:55):
Evil person conspiraence that joy in and of itself. Maybe,
I mean, I think they can if it's momentary, and
it might be it might be associated with guilt. It
might I mean, they might be guilt with it at
the same time they might be other stuff. That's why
ransom is non contradict your joys. They might be contradict

(55:17):
your joy in the sense that you feel joy, but
you're also feeling kind of at the same time guilt
or fear or something else. So I think joy is possible,
happiness is not. Are they continuously in a state of suffering.
They're incontinuously in a state of anxiety. There's definitely something

(55:39):
in the background all the time that is.

Speaker 4 (55:44):
I don't you know.

Speaker 1 (55:45):
Suffering is a is a broad concept, but is is
you know, some kind of existential angst, some kind of
something is not right, some kind of feeling of things
that are not right. I think anxiety fear are kind
of the motions that.

Speaker 4 (56:01):
Most reflect that state of being.

Speaker 1 (56:05):
Thank you, Michael jjgbs uh Worth three, iterating says hospitals
as opposed to physicians did not exist in pre Christian
Western civilization. Christianity brought balance to the dominance that prevailed.
It clearly had some positive influence. That is taken for granted.

(56:31):
Hospital isisted. I mean the first hospitals you'll find are
in the Muslim world, and and medicine was was strongly
developed in the Muslim world and during its Golden Age.
So you know, I don't know, I don't know that
Christian Christians certainly didn't invent in hospitals. Look, the reality

(56:52):
is that Christianity was the dominant philosophy during during a
thousand years, over a thousand years, has been the dominant
religion and philosophy in the West. So a lot of
stuff happened during those thousand years. Universities were founded, cathedrals
were built, hospitals were built, and every one of those

(57:14):
you can attribute to Christianity. But I don't attribute the
idea of hospitals, the idea of health, the idea of
applying science to trying to solve the issue of disease.
To Christianity, that is a secular activity. It could be
the Christians engaged in it, but Christianity didn't bring hospitals

(57:36):
into the West. You know, it might be being Christians
who built the hospitals, but yeah, everybody was a Christian.
The activity of building hospitals is fundamentally secular, you know,
Christians to the extent that Christianity advocates for otherworldly This
world sucks and you shouldn't really care about this world

(57:58):
that much.

Speaker 4 (57:59):
It's the other world that you should care about.

Speaker 1 (58:01):
That mentality, that set of ideas, that point of view
does not bring hospitals into existence or brings hospitals into existence.
Is that this worldly perspective that you know, this life
is important and you should be healthy and there are
ways to becoming healthy through science and through study and

(58:22):
through observation. Those are all essentially Greek, those are all
essentially secular. So you have to separate the activity. Is
a activity motivated and driven by a secular motivation or
is it driven by a you know, by religion, and
religion isn't opposed to it. Religion goes goes opposite. All right,

(58:50):
let's see, thank you jjjigbis and we've got low says,
what does your favorite.

Speaker 4 (58:57):
Dinner food look like? My favorite dinner would be.

Speaker 1 (59:03):
A twenty course prefixed dinner at one of the best
restaurants in the world, like it in the name now
excused me, but it's in Barcelona and I forget the
name of it, you know, or you know, at at
Bar Charlie in uh in New York with Jeffrey making

(59:27):
me omakase omakase sushi and uh it's just food just
keeps coming. I mean, small bites, but a lot of it.
That is my my favorite dinner is to be in
a in a you know, super interesting unique flavors and

(59:49):
textures and presentation and uh in you know, it's a
three hour meal and it's a blast, and it's it's
just a performance art as well as great food.

Speaker 11 (01:00:02):
You know.

Speaker 1 (01:00:03):
I have very low expectations, so that that would be
my favorite dinner.

Speaker 4 (01:00:10):
All right, let's see.

Speaker 1 (01:00:12):
All right, a few announcements remind us. Okay, so I
am going to be at the RAMS Day Weekend Confidence,
which is going to be held in Fort Myers, Florida
between January thirtieth and February second. January thirtieth to February second.
It's over Iran's birthday right now. The cost of the

(01:00:34):
conference is four hundred and thirty seven dollars. It goes
up to five hundred and nine dollars December thirtieth. You
should register now. You should register before the end of December.
It's going to be It's gonna be a lot of fun.
You know how. You will be there. You'll be talking
about how to study irand Ellen Kenna will be there
talking about bringing out the heroic and yourself Shoshow on

(01:00:56):
a Milgram the sense of the great sense of being,
Gene Maroney reliance, and you on your power to think.
Peter Schwartz on how to write clearly, and Don Watkins
what I wish I knew about defending capitalism when I started.
I will be talking about the free trade debate throughout
American history. In addition, Harry, Peter and myself are going

(01:01:20):
to do a panel which should be a lot of fun.
We'll be answering questions about how various problems will be
dealt with in a laza fair society. So how does
Elizabeth society actually work? Who builds the roads?

Speaker 4 (01:01:33):
For example, you.

Speaker 1 (01:01:34):
Know, how does that actually work? And you know, I
think it's going to be a lot of fun. It's
going to be you know, the three of us. I
think we'll make it entertaining, so hopefully so in other words,
it's going to be a lot of The conference is
going to be great. There's also like a trivia contest
on Atlas Shrug that Harry always runs.

Speaker 4 (01:01:55):
So encourage you all to sign up.

Speaker 1 (01:01:58):
Fort Maya's in one end of January early February is
like it's like the best weather you can imagine. It's
relatively dry for Florida. It's it's warm but not hot.
It's certainly not cold, so weather's perfect. The company is
going to be great, gonna be a lot of objectivists there,
and yeah, sign up, sign up. You can sign up

(01:02:22):
at rans day Con. All one would rans with an
ass day con at sorry rans day Con dot THEBVH
dot com. Rans day Con dot THEBVH dot com.

Speaker 4 (01:02:46):
And you can.

Speaker 1 (01:02:47):
Go to that website and sign up there and find
out more about it there. And yeah, I'm looking forward
to seeing a bunch of you there. If you live
in Florida. It's an no brain, it's it's it's a
driving distance.

Speaker 4 (01:03:00):
It definitely come. It'll be it'll be a terrific weekend.

Speaker 1 (01:03:05):
Iron Ran themed conferences us spreading, Yes, they are, they
are spreading. All right, Let's see what else did I
want to tell you?

Speaker 3 (01:03:14):
Oh?

Speaker 1 (01:03:14):
On Monday, Harry Bin swaying Out will be my guest,
so we'll be I'll be interviewing Harry. That'll be at
seven pm East Coast time. The following Monday, I'll be
interviewing Gene Moroney. Oh, Harry is going to be all
about individual rights. Everything you want to know about individual
rights and we're afraid to ask. That will be Harry's theme,

(01:03:35):
So we'll be talking about individual rights on Monday. Following
Monday will be Gene Maroney. The Monday after that will
be Vincent. Family name I can't pronounce. I'll figure it
out in the future anyway. Economist non objective is the
economist fe market economist. And the last Monday in December

(01:03:57):
will be Nikos, another family name. But Nicos is like Pelea.
I mean, Nicos is like he doesn't need a second name, right,
It's just Nicos. That's That's like, it's like, you know,
some people don't need family names, so well, and we'll
be talking about nicos, about the socialism of the right.
So uh, that is the program. And then we're booking

(01:04:21):
people now for January and into February, so.

Speaker 4 (01:04:25):
I expect a bunch of people to be talking to
a bunch.

Speaker 1 (01:04:28):
Of people over the next few months. All right, let's
go back to a panel, and then those of you
who are on super Chat, those of you watching live,
you can still ask questions. You can support the show
with a stick up and keep it coming. All right,
let's start with Jennifer.

Speaker 14 (01:04:49):
I just wanted to say first that I find having
a dog helps me with exercise.

Speaker 5 (01:04:53):
I know it's not for everybody.

Speaker 2 (01:04:54):
It's a lot of work, but at a dog, okay.

Speaker 14 (01:04:58):
Because I mean she's got to go walk, you know, so,
and she walks really fast and she pulls me along
and keeps me.

Speaker 5 (01:05:04):
Going and it helps.

Speaker 4 (01:05:06):
Does Does she do push ups?

Speaker 1 (01:05:09):
No?

Speaker 5 (01:05:09):
I do that suffer.

Speaker 14 (01:05:10):
I do do like looked weights and stuff suffer, which
I don't like.

Speaker 5 (01:05:13):
To do, but I do like it helps get you
out outside.

Speaker 14 (01:05:17):
And my question is how come some people like if
I tell people that reality is real and it is
what it is, and they get like mad like they
don't like it that it's like that, and I find
it comforting that it's like that, that you know that,
I mean if two and two switch to five tomorrow,
all the bridges would fall down, you know, you know
that it's not going to do that.

Speaker 1 (01:05:38):
Yeah, But then we can't we can't have miracles. And
what am I paying for? What's the point of all
these pres that I spend my time on? And you know,
all those miracles happening day and night, how do you
explain those? Yeah, I mean, I mean it upsets them
because they're comfortable with the idea of privacy of consciousness.

(01:05:59):
They and they want to believe in privacy of consciousness
and it doesn't work right, which is which is a
big reason why they're miserable in their life, is because
they keep thinking their consciousness will so you know, will
affect reality somehow, when all their troubles will go away,
and it doesn't. The prayers don't go answered, and it

(01:06:20):
pisses them off and they're so they're bitter, and that's
why they're responding that way. They're bitter because they want
their privacy of consciousness to work.

Speaker 4 (01:06:27):
But they know you're right, and you think.

Speaker 14 (01:06:30):
They've figured out this doesn't work. Like when I was
a little kid, I actually had this little book like
witchcraft or something when I was like eight, and I
actually thought, yeah, I'm going to do these spells and stuff.

Speaker 5 (01:06:39):
And I've figured out it didn't work. So I'm like, no,
it's not the way reality works. I mean, you should
figure it out.

Speaker 1 (01:06:45):
Should make a list of all the things you know
that people should have figured out when they were when
they were young, you know, you a long list. It's
absolutely right.

Speaker 4 (01:06:53):
I mean, yes, they should have figured I mean it's
they haven't.

Speaker 1 (01:06:57):
That's reality.

Speaker 4 (01:06:58):
They haven't and it and it's bewildering.

Speaker 1 (01:07:02):
And you know, part of the question is why does
some of us figured it out and others don't? You know,
I don't know. Are you guys watching this Apple TV show?
I can't remember the name of it. It's it's about
this virus that affects all of humanity and turns them
into the the borg. It turns them into like one being.

(01:07:24):
Everybody becomes one, the collective of the wei. Right, stayed
out of anthem, right, everybody's we but but there it's biological.
They literally one entity and for some reason, this virus
that like twelve people on the planet who who didn't work.

Speaker 3 (01:07:41):
On Oh so this still I pluribus or something like that.

Speaker 1 (01:07:46):
Bus Yeah, yeah, and it is it good? I don't know.
I mean I'm enjoy I mean, I kind of enjoy it.
The first episode is a little weird and I don't know,
like the last episode that I watched, which which I
think is episode four. Now it's starting to get good
in my view because it follows one woman and unfortunately

(01:08:10):
they chose the one woman who didn't get the viruses
like this cynical yet a little.

Speaker 4 (01:08:15):
Bit of you know, uh, you know, a little what
do you call it?

Speaker 1 (01:08:22):
Obnoxious? And but she is now trying to figure it
out because one thing that blog the Bogue is told
her is that they are trying to figure out why
she wasn't infected and how to infect and how to
make her part of the book. So she's now in
this time race and how to shield herself, continue to

(01:08:44):
shield herself from she doesn't want to become one of
the bog and uh, and so she's trying to figure
that out. And then at the same time, you know,
she's also trying to figure out is there a way
to undo it? But you see one of the things
that the boat claims. All these they claim they're all happy,

(01:09:06):
so they only do good things.

Speaker 4 (01:09:09):
They can't kill anything.

Speaker 1 (01:09:10):
This smiling all the time there friendly, everything gets done
because they all share the one consciousness. So it's so
I still don't know if I if I like it
or not. We'll see how it plays out. It's in
that sense. It's part of the suspense is is it
gonna be good on it? But uh, it's it's it's interesting.

(01:09:33):
Apple TV does have a few good shows all right. Anyway,
that reminded me of you know, I don't know what
it wy have reminded me of, but something reminded me
of it. Uh, let's see you sure, thank you, Jennifer Adam.

Speaker 7 (01:09:53):
Yes, I have a question about intellectual property. I have
been a very very long time fan of Daijiang Gum,
which was the first seriously individualistic Korean TV series, and

(01:10:17):
the protagonist's virtue is that she always has absolute confidence
in the efficacy of her own mind, and that brings
her into travel with Confucianism, and as you know, the
doctrine of the Chinese government is a Hegelian fusion between

(01:10:45):
Marxism and Confucianism, and so the Chinese censors insisted that
all the anti Confucian elements be cut out, which reduced
they didn't going from eighteen DVDs to ten. And they

(01:11:12):
also insisted that in worldwide distribution the title be changed
to Jewel in the Palace, and they essentially threatened the
distributor of not letting them do anything in the Chinese

(01:11:36):
market if it was not censored worldwide. Now I have
an archive of the original eighteen DVDs, how much can
I distribute it without violating the proper key rights of

(01:12:01):
the distributional company?

Speaker 1 (01:12:03):
You know, given that they were forced to do it
coast to do it by the Chinese government, I wouldn't
worry about it too much. You know, another hand, they
could have they could have not gone to China and
distributed worldwide. So it was a choice that they made.

(01:12:24):
I you know, I wouldn't worry about it too much.

Speaker 7 (01:12:28):
Are there any existential consequences because I've heard that the
Chinese secret police operate in the US.

Speaker 1 (01:12:40):
Probably not. I mean, they've got bigger fish to fly,
so I wouldn't worry about it, thank you, yep, I
wouldn't worry about it all.

Speaker 4 (01:12:48):
Right, I'm line.

Speaker 3 (01:12:51):
Yeah, So just following up on my previous question a
little bit. One of the one of the things that
I noticed in Vietnam is that there's a lot of
high problems there and given that it's a religion, but
it seems to be a less offensive religion than many
of the others, Like, for example, we had one guide

(01:13:13):
and again, you know how widespread this thought is, I
don't know, but he said that, you know, when you
go to a temple, you pray for things, but one
thing you don't pray for is money because you're expected
to work for money. Yep, which I thought, Hey, that's
an accurate a sentiment. We could learn here a little bit.
But I mean in general, I mean, what's how much

(01:13:33):
do you know about the religion and what do you
within the context that it's religion.

Speaker 1 (01:13:38):
And I don't know a huge amount. I mean, the
biggest problem with Buddhism from what I can tell, is
this relative passivity. So you know which, But what's interesting
is if you look at cultures that have influenced by Buddhism,
like China and Vietnam, they're not passive cultures. They're very
active cultures. They're very engaged cultures is if you go.

(01:14:01):
But but it might be a different version of Buddhism
because if you go to South Asia you get more
passivity there. So Southern Asia is more passive in terms
of the application of Buddhism. You know, it has been historically,
you know, India when in and out of different appears
and it's hard to tell because India had all kinds

(01:14:21):
of influences and I don't know that much about Indian history.
I should I should know more. So I think one
is some element of passivity. There's also an element of
which shares with other religions, that this world is not
that important. What's important is some other dimensions, some something
you achieve by by distancing yourself from the material world,

(01:14:45):
which I think. But again, the variations of this, so
there's a there versions of this which I.

Speaker 4 (01:14:51):
Think are healthier.

Speaker 1 (01:14:53):
As they moved, as they moved east towards China, they
got I think Buddhism got healthier. And then you know,
and then there's uh so, But generally there's no there's
no I don't know, there's no guilt, there's no explicit

(01:15:14):
altruism in a way that Christian I mean Christianity is
the worst of all the religions. There's no explicit altruism
the way Christianity has it. There's no crucifixion, you know.
And there's a lot of meditation. And meditation is probably
not a bad thing to do once in a while,
as long as you don't expect the meditation to reveal

(01:15:35):
truth uh, and and just use it as a way
to relax the mind. It's so it I so, I
think it's less damaging than uh Christianity, Islam and Judaism
and it and it takes over less of your life,
that is, it doesn't have as far as I know that,

(01:15:58):
like Judaism has what is it, five and fivefty five commandments?
You have to follow five and fifty five things, you
have to do something like that. According to my monodies,
Christianity has lots of things less it's easy. It's what
one of the things that made it popular. Slam has
a bunch of things. Five pray five times a day
and you have to face Mecca and you have to

(01:16:18):
do this and you have to do that. I don't
think Buddhism has quite as many You have to do
this incest and which I guess replaced sacrifice and you
have to uh, you know, pray, which is more of
a give thanks to for stuff. But uh yeah, I
mean it's it seems less damaging.

Speaker 3 (01:16:38):
Yeah, i mean some of the stuff we saw was like,
you know, this kind of behavior will result of this
karma and things like that. I mean, and half of
them were hilarious and half of it were okay.

Speaker 1 (01:16:48):
Yeah, I mean it's not that. Yeah, it's more just
pure kind of mysticism, kind of old like pagan mysticism style.
I think the reason the East did not develop as
fast as the West has to do with Aristotle. That is,
cultures that engaged with Aristotle did well, at least during

(01:17:10):
the period in which they engaged with him.

Speaker 4 (01:17:12):
Cultures that didn't didn't. And so it's Greece.

Speaker 1 (01:17:15):
So what's interesting is India, of course, was exposed to
Aristotle suddenly because of Alexander, Alexander the Great and his
conquest that reached almost India, and that had an impact
down into India, and also the whole of Central Asia
was influenced. They also a lot of the a lot

(01:17:37):
of the a.

Speaker 4 (01:17:40):
Lot of the Greeks.

Speaker 1 (01:17:42):
Traveled into Central Asia, so he got a lot of
Greek culture into Central Asia. The Christians of certain sects
that were not that proved sects escaped the dominance of
Christianity into Central Asia. So there was a lot of
really good in Central Asia. And it's why it had
the Golden Age. Really, the Islamic Golden Age is primarily

(01:18:06):
a Central Asian Golden Age. And there is this mergio
of Buddhism, Christianity, Judaism, it was Zoroastrianism or whatever it's called, right,
the Persian religion all happening there. So it was it
was in religion. No one religion was taken as the dominant,

(01:18:26):
and I think that helped as well. So there was
a certain openness to different religions, right, Okay, thanks, sure, Uh.

Speaker 4 (01:18:37):
Let's see holden.

Speaker 11 (01:18:42):
Hey, I mean sorry, I mean I might sound like
I'm asking a lot of personal questions, I guess, but
that's fine.

Speaker 4 (01:18:50):
If you crossed the line, I'll say I'm not answering it.

Speaker 2 (01:18:54):
Sure, Sure.

Speaker 11 (01:18:56):
So I was just gonna ask, like, in school, what
what what what were you like?

Speaker 2 (01:19:01):
Like?

Speaker 3 (01:19:01):
What?

Speaker 2 (01:19:01):
What type of person were you like?

Speaker 1 (01:19:03):
And how because.

Speaker 2 (01:19:04):
I heard that you were Dan.

Speaker 11 (01:19:07):
Dan told me that you read out was drugged when
you were sixteen yep, and you were like throwing it
on the shelf or something like that.

Speaker 4 (01:19:16):
And who told you this?

Speaker 1 (01:19:18):
What's that? Who told you this?

Speaker 2 (01:19:21):
Dan Norton?

Speaker 1 (01:19:22):
Oh? Dan?

Speaker 11 (01:19:24):
And And I just wanted to ask, like how did
that change for you?

Speaker 5 (01:19:28):
Like did you did you?

Speaker 11 (01:19:30):
Like I'm sure you know you're obviously the same person,
but like, you know, did I'm just curious on like,
you know how people like what type of person you
kind of were, and you know, like how that kind
of like changed like during your you know, when you
were in school and stuff maybe like were you like
militant with your professors or anything after?

Speaker 1 (01:19:52):
Like, No, I never became militant with profess with my teachers,
There's no point. I think there was a full ostry
class in twelfth grade and I raised some issues and
objectivism there because it was relevant. But I didn't like
interject my stuff into stuff that I didn't think was
relevant to literature history stuff like that. I didn't think

(01:20:14):
there was any points I got into arguments with some friends,
but I was I don't think I was that militant
or I was obnoxious, but I don't. Yeah, I don't
remember as the truth. I mean, most of my friends
were obviously not objectivists because and I had friends close friends.

(01:20:38):
I had close friends, they were not objectivists. Ultimately we
drifted away, but that was years later. In high school,
I had a group of fans. I did a lot
of hiking in high school, a lot of camping. We
were out in nature a lot. That didn't really change
after I had out the shrugged and I had the
same group of friends. There were good people that I

(01:20:58):
went hiking with. You know, I was a mediocre student
because I didn't really like school. I kind of got
the grades I needed to get to to to do
what I wanted to do. But I didn't exert myself
too much. I was just going into the army. I

(01:21:18):
think that also shaped kind of my some my attitude.
I was, you know, there was a non zero chance
I was going to die when I was nineteen, so
why what you know.

Speaker 4 (01:21:29):
Shrinks your horizon.

Speaker 1 (01:21:32):
So I don't know. I mean, I had friends. I
wasn't like a loner, although I spent a lot of
time alone. So I don't know I was. I wasn't.
I wasn't very good with girls. I had a girlfriend,
but I wasn't very good with girls. I was Uh,
but I had friends. I was part of a scout
in Israel, they have Scouts like boy Scouts, but it's

(01:21:55):
mixed boys and girls. And I was a Scout head
chief whatever, you know. I ran programs for them. I
took them out on hikes. I've got some cool hiking stories.

Speaker 3 (01:22:07):
You're wrong.

Speaker 10 (01:22:07):
Were you individualistic prior to I know, like politically you
were collectivistic, but like, do you feel like personality wise
you were individualistic?

Speaker 8 (01:22:16):
Yeah?

Speaker 1 (01:22:16):
I think I always had my mind. I always I
never went along with the group for the sake of
going with the group. I you know, I think I
even I had some charisma even when I was pretty young.

Speaker 4 (01:22:31):
And uh, yeah, I.

Speaker 1 (01:22:33):
Think I was somewhat individualistic, even though I I.

Speaker 4 (01:22:38):
Didn't know what kind of morality that would entail.

Speaker 1 (01:22:41):
So I embraced altruism because I couldn't think of anything alternative.
I couldn't think of anything else. There was like no
other option. I didn't I didn't like altruism. I obviously
was bothered by altruism, but I couldn't think of anything alternative. Uh,
I don't know. I mean, it's hard for me to
describe myself actually, because I can't remember him much. But

(01:23:03):
I was both alone in a sense that I spent
a lot of time alone. Oh, I read huge amounts,
Like I read all the time. I ever since I
was a little kid. I used to open up the
encyclopedia and just random page and just read stuff. I
just love knowledge. And then I read a lot of
kind of novels, adventure stories. Loved adventure stories in Hebrew

(01:23:25):
and English. I I you know, I went through all Ludlam.
Do you guys know Ludlam A lot of like Spy,
the Boone Identity, all those books Robert Ludlam. I read
Alistair McClean. I loved Alan mcstink who McLean. I think
I've read everything he ever wrote. So, you know, I

(01:23:48):
just read huge quantities of books. My mom used to
My mom used to complain that I read too much.

Speaker 4 (01:23:55):
Go out and play with the other kids.

Speaker 1 (01:23:56):
Why are you reading so much? But I also had
friends also played and I was and I like sports,
so different periods of my life. I played soccer, paid
uh soccer, I swam competitively.

Speaker 4 (01:24:10):
You know, I did all kinds of stuff like that.

Speaker 1 (01:24:13):
I was pretty normal. But you know, at some point
when I got these ideas, I would argue with people,
and I was trying to figure out what it all meant.
So I I think I spent a lot of time
just figuring out what I needed to know in order
to live this philosophy and was eager to get on
with life, to become an adult so I could actually

(01:24:36):
live it, right, I mean, when you when you're when
you're a kid, you can't actually even when you're a teenager,
you you you're not your own person, so get out
of the house. It become your own person. And the
challenge for me was I had three years in the army,
where again you're not really your own person.

Speaker 4 (01:24:51):
So m hmm, that was tough.

Speaker 2 (01:24:56):
You're excited to have your own autonomy.

Speaker 1 (01:24:59):
Yeah, I was excited to go university. You know that
excitement faded over time, But my first semester I got
the best grades I ever got. I was super excited,
and every semester I got less motivated and less exciting.
I get bored easily, and so yeah, and had friends

(01:25:20):
at the university. I drifted away from my high school
friends over time, partially because of the philosophy, and then
once I discovered other objectivists, which was only when I
was nineteen I read sixteen and maybe nineteen twenty I
discovered other objectives. Only then, did you know, did that
become kind of a more of a center of my life?

(01:25:40):
Because now I had friends, we had study groups, we
did things together, we hung out together. We spent spent
a lot of time with my objectivest friends in my twenties,
in my early twenties, a lot of time. We almost
every weekend we did something together, right, I mean almost
every week there was something going on, movies, concerts. Uh.

Speaker 4 (01:26:03):
And I stopped hiking.

Speaker 1 (01:26:04):
Objectivism you know, ultimately led me to stop stop hiking.
So too busy, there's too much to do.

Speaker 11 (01:26:12):
Fair, Yeah, I one of the one guy I want
to commiss at the thesis I talked to. He's like
some of them have like different reactions. Like one of
them read Alice Shrugdan apparently when he was an undergrad
and he got up in front of the class and
started like reading called speech out loud, and you know it's.

Speaker 4 (01:26:28):
Like, yeah, that's not gonna go. Well it's not gonna
go yeah.

Speaker 3 (01:26:32):
Yeah, I think he knows.

Speaker 1 (01:26:33):
That it's not a healthy relationship with the material. Yeah,
that's not what you're supposed to do.

Speaker 2 (01:26:39):
Yeah, So anyway, it's just interesting to see.

Speaker 4 (01:26:41):
But yeah, thanks, thanks all right, Andrew, I think.

Speaker 10 (01:26:50):
You're an excellent example of masculinity for men, and I
think I hope that other men get you know, I've
certainly learned from you in that regard, and I hope
other men do as well. It's a big conversation in
the culture, you know, and.

Speaker 9 (01:27:08):
Of course it's political.

Speaker 10 (01:27:10):
Why do you think that there's this concept of men
that's like either be powered or a woofs or a
brute And why do you think it's kind of like
breaking down along those lines?

Speaker 1 (01:27:30):
I mean, okay, I think that Why why does it
break along those lines? I mean, I think it's.

Speaker 4 (01:27:39):
It's political.

Speaker 1 (01:27:41):
Because the attributes of masculinity, the attributes that associated with masculinity, oh,
action oriented, and they are assertive, and you know, altruism
and and and you know altruism and the left broadly

(01:28:06):
a very anti assertiveness. They're anti the individual asserting themselves.
And historically, because historically we've dependent, at least to some
extent on muscle, you know, masculinity has been associated with
strength and and and bravely in battle and uh and
and so on. And it's also been associated with kind

(01:28:32):
of women being you know, second class citizens, that is,
women not being taken seriously, and and uh, the world
is being male centered and that masculinity drives men to
treat women badly. I guess is you know, that's the
whole patriarchy. And the left is taking up that cause,

(01:28:54):
and feminism taken at that cause. And instead of rethinking
the concept, instead of thinking about how do we define
it or how to how to reconceptualize it given the
modern world and given given uh, the different changing roles
of women and men and the culture different the changing

(01:29:15):
and the culture and changing the kind of jobs, and
people are stuck in old definitions and they can't break
out of them. They're stuck in old way of looking
at things. And and I think the feminist movement viewed
providing women with full opportunities as going hand in hand
with restricting the opportunities that men had. That is, went

(01:29:38):
hand in hand with push pulling men down in order
to raise women up and involve pulling men down. There's
a zero some mentality there as well. And and uh
that that I think is part of it as well, but.

Speaker 4 (01:29:51):
It's it's tied up with the whole.

Speaker 1 (01:29:57):
Conception of the The reason women were put down historically
was because a man and their masculinity. Their masculinity is
not needed anymore, because we don't need physical power anymore.
It's now the brains. And in order for women to rise,
we have to put men down. And that is a

(01:30:18):
cause that the that the left is taken up and
the response on the right is again not to rethink masculinity,
not to rethink in a modern era what it entails,
but to defend the old masculinity and and for some
of them to even become anti women. So so it's
it's because they can't think and they can't reconceptualize.

Speaker 9 (01:30:42):
Yeah, it's.

Speaker 10 (01:30:46):
It's interesting to watch, you know, people on both sides
struggle with the concept and like you really get the
sense that there's there's a failure to identify individually yep.
And it's just so collectivistic, you know, the conversation like

(01:31:08):
you in relation to other people, as you know, what
what is masculinity? It's you know, and I just think
the socialist politics that we're in makes you know, there
is a connection between individualism and masculinity, I think, and
like capitalism and masculinity, I don't know, if that's a
stretch too far in your.

Speaker 1 (01:31:28):
Vie, I think that's right. But I mean there's a
connection between that femininity as well. And but people again
associate femininity with sharing and caring, and therefore femininities associal socialism,
and therefore it's okay, we want to make men more
feminine so that they can share in camere and therefore
become part of the collective, part of the socialist collective.
So there's there's there's As long as you hold those

(01:31:51):
perceptions what masculinity femininity are, then and you see them
as in conflict, you know you're going to have you
going to be challenged. Yeah, thank you, thanks Andrew.

Speaker 12 (01:32:04):
Right, Steve, So, one of my observations is we deal
with in foreign policy, we deal with a number of
threats that aren't quite wars, but are somewhere not quite
peace either, Like they're somewhere on the spectrum.

Speaker 2 (01:32:25):
So you could look at something.

Speaker 12 (01:32:26):
Like the very like right now with Russia lying their
drones or planes into other countries airspaces, you have very
entangled relationships like when I guess Ukraine blew up the
nord Stream, is it like an attackle on Russia or
is it a tackle on Germany? And then you you know, China,

(01:32:49):
certainly in the South China Sea has like pushed the
boundaries of what other countries are willing to do. Okay,
how don't you think about, like where's the line?

Speaker 3 (01:33:07):
Right?

Speaker 12 (01:33:07):
Like if China breaks in and steals our stuff, is
it like in our computer systems?

Speaker 2 (01:33:11):
Is that like is that aligned?

Speaker 12 (01:33:14):
Does the line have to be physical when you have
like entangled entangled interests like nord Stream, Like where does
that line sit?

Speaker 2 (01:33:23):
Like some of this stuff is like not obvious. It's
like how you should treat it.

Speaker 1 (01:33:26):
I mean, it's complicated, there's no question, but it's it
and it's but it's complicated. More so, it's made complicated
by you know, the mixed economy in a sense, by
the fact that we've refused to identified good guys bad guys.
We refuse to label stuff good and bad. We we

(01:33:47):
we uh timid in protecting our own interests because that
would be selfish and that's not done. We bought into
fump bossy theories.

Speaker 4 (01:33:58):
That are completely bogus.

Speaker 1 (01:34:00):
There's just and of course, the more you give into stuff,
for example, the more it happens. Right, So you know,
Russia flies drones and then nothing happens to flies their
planes and nothing happens. And it starts sabotazing trains in
Poland and nothing happens. So you know, who knows what next?
Maybe war because you've you've basically said you have no

(01:34:21):
self respect. So the world is a mess. And it's
a mess because it refuses to provide model clarity and
it refuses to stand up for what you rate. So
if the United States the first time the Chinese broke
into our computer systems and hacked our systems had basically said,
this is a complete violation of our sovereignty, completely unacceptable.

(01:34:47):
It is the equivalent of an act of war. We
are going to break into your computer systems and it
really cause you real harm right now. It's happening, by
the way, right now. And if you do this again,
we were viewed as an active one. We'll have to
consider what our next steps. Don't do it. I think

(01:35:12):
everything would be different if we had after nine to eleven,
declared who the enemy really was and dune well was necessary,
I don't know, and replace the regime in Iran and
brought our troops home immediately afterwards, and not try to
bring democracy to the Middle East. I think Russia would
have second thoughts about Ukraine, and China would have second

(01:35:35):
thoughts about Taiwan. So I think that, but they look
at us and they see, Yeah, sometimes they react, sometimes
they don't. There's no principle here. We can get away
with a lot. Let's just get away with it. Then yeah,
it's gonna it's it's just gonna become worse because because

(01:35:57):
America doesn't, there's no principle and there's no there's no
clear indication. I mean right now, for example, right now,
I don't know, we're kind of threatening Venezuela. We just
shut down airspace above it's Venezuela, I think for some airlines,
but not others. But Trump had a phone call was Maduro,
where I guess they negotiated Medua's surrender. Maybe not, who knows.

(01:36:19):
Maybe Madua offered oil reserves or steak for the Trump family,
and you know, who knows what's going on? Right and
then and then we've got an in craft carrier there
or we're going to Wha. We're not going to Whoa.
I mean, Madua and Trump are talking about meeting one another.
You know what would that look like, what does that mean?
So complete ambiguity about the mall stance we have in

(01:36:43):
oppositioning vis a VI this horrific regime and what we're
willing to tolerate and what we're not willing to tolerate
and drugs or what is really the issue. Yeah, it's
a complete mess, but it doesn't have to be. What
you have to do is draw lines in the same
and and and insists on if they crossed, do something

(01:37:04):
about it, and I think it goes away. Now. Nuclear
weapons make it more complicated, but the reality is nobody
wants to use nuclear weapons, So just just make sure
that you respond before you know it gets that bad.

Speaker 12 (01:37:19):
What's a realistic like step in that direction, because it
seems like it seems like over my entire lifetime, I
don't really remember Ronald Reagan, I'm not old enough too,
but it seems like that was the last time that
anyone had any sort of a smidgeon of clarity about
u good guys and bad guys might be. And you

(01:37:40):
can argue that even then they didn't. Then we had
it with respect to like some people and not others.

Speaker 1 (01:37:45):
Yeah, I mean two hundred and forty four means were
killed didn't be Ruts and Reagan did nothing right in
Reagan you know, so he had it with God Sovic
Union to some extent, but nothing else right.

Speaker 12 (01:37:56):
So but like since then, it's like no one has
any moral clarity about absolutely.

Speaker 1 (01:38:01):
But that's just since World War Two? Why did we
go to Vietnam? Does anybody know? Anybody understand? There's nothing,
It's kind of there was this vague notion that Soviet
Union is bad, Communism is bad, but that's it. There
was no strategy, There's no there was no actual, real,
coherent strategy about how to defend American interest in what
that entailed and where would should and how one should

(01:38:21):
use American power in order to achieve that. What's realistic? God,
I don't think anything's realistic, right, I mean, I don't
see anybody. I mean, Nikki Hayley's better than Trump. She
would have at least drawn align with Russia and and
and maybe drawn aligne with China. I'm not sure, but
she certainly would be No, Russia is the bad guys,

(01:38:45):
you know, on Ukraine to the Hilts and and and
let's you know, go from there. At least she would
have done that. She would have been pretty good. She
would have been good with Israel. I mean, she was
good on phone policy. She was about the best, but
bit consistent across the bo Probably not, but as good
as he gets, it's probably Nikki Heley.

Speaker 12 (01:39:06):
Last thing, I'll say, it's interesting you mentioned World War two,
Like the more I've studied it, like the more the
more you see these same things like cropping up even
there because we were like we were actually in a
shooting war with Germany, like well before war was declared,
if you asked the guys who were out protecting convoys, right,
but no, like FDR didn't think that people would go along.

Speaker 1 (01:39:29):
With Yeah, I mean American people did not want to
get to the rule exactly. So he didn't enter the war,
and he he didn't want to make the mistake there was,
in a sense viewed as a mistake. During World War
One were similar thing where German submarines was sinking American
ships and that was a cause for war, and then
we went to the stupid war and got a lot

(01:39:49):
of Americans killed for nothing. He didn't want to make
an American people just weren't having any of it, so
he could he felt like he couldn't declare war, even
though he wanted to in Germany a consequence. But yet
more than that, we were cutting deals. You know, we
cut the old Stalin and then we gave him Eastern
Europe kind of as a gift. We didn't have to,
there was no reason to do it, but we gave
him mister Europe as a gift and slaved tens of

(01:40:11):
millions of people for forty years. So yeah, I mean
the compromises were there as well. It's just it, but
you have to give FDR credit. Once we were in
a war, it was unconditional surrender, victory and unconditional surrender
with the standards, and we were willing to do whatever

(01:40:33):
was necessary and the enemy was evil and we were
going to crush them. And we haven't had that since, so,
you know, some respect they deserve some respect for for
for that, for the unconditional surrender and being willing to
do anything like dropping the atomic bombs. I mean, that's huge.

(01:40:55):
The mall courage that that takes right is huge, and
they should get.

Speaker 4 (01:41:00):
Credit for that.

Speaker 3 (01:41:02):
Yeah, but that was Truman, wasn't it.

Speaker 1 (01:41:04):
Yeah, that's already Truman, the bombs of Truman. But if
YO would have done the same thing. Yeah, oh yeah,
no question. I mean and and and before that that,
you know, they.

Speaker 4 (01:41:14):
Fire bombed Tokyo, they fire bombed.

Speaker 1 (01:41:16):
Every city in Japan. They killed hundreds of thousands of civilians. Yeah,
it was part of war and they didn't flinch.

Speaker 3 (01:41:27):
I still I still think is posing up with Stolin
was evil?

Speaker 4 (01:41:32):
Yes, no question, no question.

Speaker 1 (01:41:33):
But but you know, as compared to today's politicians, Yeah, yeah,
you know, I just we cozy up to all the
dictators today, all of them putent Tashi to to NBS
to to every single dictator in the world will cozy with.

Speaker 12 (01:41:53):
I mean, if you just look at how len Ley's
was negotiated, like we make the British that come over
here and prove that they literally have no like we've
taken all of their gold and all of their stuff. Yeah,
and we're like no, no, you're going to get loans.
And Russia were just like hey, yeah, I kind of
like have whatever you want, Like what do you need?

Speaker 4 (01:42:11):
Just us the same problems, same problems back then.

Speaker 1 (01:42:16):
Philosophically, it hasn't, you know, the fundamentals are the same.
It's just it was just it was just better then
because it was earlier and for whatever reason, the war
was clear in their minds than it is today.

Speaker 4 (01:42:30):
I don't know why, because like.

Speaker 1 (01:42:31):
Nineteen eleven, it was worse than anything the Germans if
it did to America. But it's amorphus because it's not
a particular country and it's terrorism. Oh yeah, yeah, but.

Speaker 3 (01:42:43):
You're on You wouldn't You wouldn't say that. It's more
that I mean, there was more of a sense of
the value of the West and its values, definitely, however
badly it was understood.

Speaker 1 (01:42:53):
Definitely, it was much.

Speaker 3 (01:42:54):
More of that they were better than the values, much more.

Speaker 1 (01:42:57):
Of us an American sense of life, and we can
do anything, and we can beat anybody, and we are
the good guys. There was a sense that we are
the good guys. And that doesn't exist. I can't say
that anymore, absolutely, all right, rich, it says, looking forward
to the upcoming major topics, polease confirm the topic about
the West?

Speaker 13 (01:43:16):
Is it?

Speaker 4 (01:43:16):
What is the West?

Speaker 1 (01:43:19):
I don't know. I don't know what the topic is yet.
It's something to do with the West and something to
do with being anti Christianity, and so there'll be a
bunch of topics around that. Maybe it is what is
the West? I'm still figuring out what it is that
I'm going to be talking about. So yeah, to be determined,

(01:43:41):
all right, Michael. Politicians make a lot of public statements
against AI and automation, but they let it happen. Do
they know we need innovation to survive or the tech
sector effectively lobbies them to be left alone? Well, I mean,
it's Bothy. It's not that they know we need tech
to survive. It's that they know we need tech to
grow the economy. They also fear that if we don't

(01:44:02):
develop AI, China will, and they viewed it in competitive terms.

Speaker 4 (01:44:08):
We can't let China develop it if we don't have it.

Speaker 1 (01:44:11):
So but also with Trump, certainly the tech lobby has
been very good, very effective at lobby for it.

Speaker 4 (01:44:22):
So it's a combination of all of the above.

Speaker 1 (01:44:24):
But they don't have a sense of survival in a
sense that you grow or you lose.

Speaker 4 (01:44:31):
They know that if the economy doesn't do well, they'll
be voted out.

Speaker 1 (01:44:34):
That's the level at which they think about these things.
Michael says, when are you interviewing Jason Ryans in December?
I'm not. He has not yet responded to the query
about the interview. When he does we will schedule a time.
So can't force people. I mean, I know he wants
to do it, but he has to actually write an email.

Speaker 11 (01:44:56):
Hi.

Speaker 1 (01:44:56):
On, how is it that there's so many Russian composers.
Didn't Russia always have a horrible sense of life? I
really don't know. I mean, I don't know that they
had great composers and great novelists. That's the two things.
Those the two areas of art that Russia excelled in.

(01:45:16):
They had a lot of good will. They had good
romantic composers, which is surprising given their bad sense of
life and the horrors of Russia. So I don't really
have an explanation other than a certain class within Russia,
very relatively small, was very much exposed to the West
and Western values and Western ideas and and uh and

(01:45:40):
was influenced by them.

Speaker 4 (01:45:41):
And from them came the.

Speaker 1 (01:45:43):
Novelists, and came the great, the great composers. It's also true.
Uh and and you know, I don't know enough about
Russian history if they value this. It's also true the
Catherine the Great, Catherine the Great, it was Impress of
Impress of Russia in the late when was she Impress

(01:46:05):
of Russia in the late eighteenth century, so during the Enlightenment,
was a huge fan of the Enlightenment, and she was
indeed a sponsor of many Enlightenment figures. She would send
checks to a lot of the French Enlightenment figures, and
she was the main sponsor of Di Dreux. And did
you actually met with her in Russia, taught her about

(01:46:29):
political philosophy and try to convince her to convert Russia
into a republican She resisted, but so she brought Enlightenment
ideas into Russia to some extent. Her grandson Peter the Great,
was that her grandson. I think Peter the Great was
the grandson. No, not grandson's grandfather. Well she anyway, two

(01:46:50):
kings before, two emperors before I think was Peter the Great.
He had already started ringing Western ideas into Russia. So
the late eighteenth century, oh, the eighteenth century as a whole,
a lot of Western ideas came into Russia, and a
lot of Enlightenment ideas came into Russia because of Catherine
the Great. Enlightenment figures a lot of their works were

(01:47:16):
translated into Russia. So there was a real intellectual influence
of the Enlightenment on Russian society, which I think is
the origins of the music and the and the and
the novelists. They had a real positive influence on elements

(01:47:40):
within Russian society. And at the same time Russians were
very many Russians were very religious, so there was this
back and forth. But yeah, again for some Russians, it
wasn't a shipthle. They lived aristocratic, wealthy lives and exposed

(01:48:00):
to the best that you wepe had to offer, and
they very much knew that, so they they you know,
these ideas were brought into Russia by Catherine the Great.
That's the one thing I know that she did good,
but I don't know that much about Russian history.

Speaker 5 (01:48:18):
Yeah, Atherine promoted the smallpox vaccine.

Speaker 4 (01:48:21):
Who did Catherine?

Speaker 1 (01:48:24):
Yeah, I mean she was good other than she insisted
in being an.

Speaker 4 (01:48:27):
Authoritarian, but she was definitely pro Enlightenment. I think she
sponsored Voltaire.

Speaker 1 (01:48:32):
She suddenly did Row. She was the sponsor of the Encyclopedia.
So at some point the Encyclopedia, which did Row and
Delan Barrett and others were struggling with fighting financing. She
helped finance it. So she was very generous with Enlightenment figures.

(01:48:53):
And brought that Enlightenment into Russia, even though she knew
ultimately that the Enlightenment would undermine her own I mean
the authoritarianism.

Speaker 4 (01:49:02):
Sadly, her air.

Speaker 1 (01:49:06):
Was antain light band and Russia went through this back
and forth for a while in the nineteenth century. Let's see, Neo,
where did Ann cole to get her thirty million illegal
immigrant number from? And how do we know what you're wrong?
I don't remember, but I investigated that at the time,
and I knew where she got it from, but I

(01:49:28):
can't remember now. It was an extrapolation that made no sense.
So I actually have a show where I analyzed it
and told you where where I think the number comes from,
where the right number comes from.

Speaker 4 (01:49:42):
I just don't remember. I can't remember anything I've ever done.

Speaker 1 (01:49:44):
But the thirty million dollars I know I looked into
it didn't make any sense. It was a complete made
up number. I mean it was it was just an
eological extrapolation from an existing number. And I debunked that one.
But I just don't remember the details. And we know
the numbers from a variety of different surveys and.

Speaker 4 (01:50:10):
That are done out there, and.

Speaker 1 (01:50:14):
We have an estimate of how many people across the
border and how many people are caught and how many
people are not caught, and there's a pretty good consensus
around what the number is and our culture's numbers. Just
was I don't know what her number is today. Her
numbers today is probably fifty million, because says fifty yeah,
and I'm I'm sure answers fifty So you know, I

(01:50:35):
don't know. But the thirty million at the time when
she said it, this is before the big surge under Biden,
was completely bas Daniel, What is your list of can't
misses or top sites destinations in New York City? Wow?
I mean, I mean just walking around the city is fun.

(01:50:56):
I guess the Metropolitan Museum of Art is definitely. Go
to see the Goggenheim, just to see the building and
peek inside. A lot of the odd exhibits inside are
pretty awful, but it's it's one of uh, Frank lad
rights great architectural achievements. What else in New York City? Uh?

Speaker 4 (01:51:21):
In terms of site Take the ferry around Manhattan.

Speaker 1 (01:51:25):
Uh, there's a there's a boat tour you can take.
Just take it around Manhattan. It's beautiful both.

Speaker 4 (01:51:33):
During the day and at night.

Speaker 3 (01:51:36):
Uh, the public Library is nice.

Speaker 1 (01:51:40):
The Public Library is beautiful. Times Square is impressive, although
once you've be into Shanghai, Times Square looks looks small
time in comparison.

Speaker 3 (01:51:51):
Walk to Brooklyn Bridge.

Speaker 4 (01:51:53):
Yeah, I've never done that.

Speaker 1 (01:51:54):
That would be fun, though, you.

Speaker 3 (01:51:55):
Got you gotta try it. Maybe not in the winter.
I'm sure I do it now.

Speaker 1 (01:52:00):
Uh, Broadway, start on.

Speaker 3 (01:52:02):
The Brooklyn You start on the Brooklyn side and come into.

Speaker 4 (01:52:04):
Medd Okay, okay, wow, Yeah that sounds actually really cool.

Speaker 1 (01:52:08):
I have to do sometime. Yeah.

Speaker 12 (01:52:10):
Another thing to walk is the high Line, which I
guess is like the there's an old elevated.

Speaker 2 (01:52:16):
Track which now runs.

Speaker 12 (01:52:17):
Up out of Manhattan, which is super cool to walk,
or it's out of Low Manhattan, which is super cool.

Speaker 1 (01:52:22):
Yeah, it's really pretty. The high Line is really pretty.
I did that a few years ago. Hudson Yards.

Speaker 3 (01:52:29):
The cable car to Roosevelt Island is nice.

Speaker 4 (01:52:34):
That's right, that cable called the Questions.

Speaker 1 (01:52:36):
Yeah, that's the beautiful views there. And then I would
go and see the nine to eleven Memorial and go
up the the forget what the building's called, to the
top of the building. I mean the views, they're amazing.
Of course there's there's the Statue of Liberty. Go out
and see the Statue of Liberty, go up the Empire

(01:52:58):
State Building, you know. And New York has great restaurants,
great jazz clubs, great opera, great concerts, both at Lincoln
Center and at what do you call it, god Conegie Hall?
Conegie Hall is amazing. So yeah, all of that and more.

Speaker 12 (01:53:20):
Also some of the architecture from like the early twentieth century,
so like Rockefeller Center, and.

Speaker 2 (01:53:29):
Yeah, like it's really.

Speaker 12 (01:53:30):
Interesting to see how much more attention was paid into
like the aesthetic detail of like how do we decorate
something one hundred years ago?

Speaker 1 (01:53:38):
Yep? Yeah, the odd Deco, all the odd Deco buildings
that you know, Rockefeller Centers an example of even you know,
the engravings, the beautiful buildings. The Krysler Building, I mean,
you can't go in it, so I don't think. I
think it's closed, but you can see it from the outside.
And then just the skyscraper is pretty amazing.

Speaker 3 (01:54:01):
I don't know if you can go.

Speaker 1 (01:54:03):
It's it's under innovation, it's it's it's kind of the
building's bankrupt and there's some conflict about the who owns
the building. The land is owned by one party of
the building. There's some issue there and which hasn't been resolved.
But maybe you can go into the lobby. I'm not sure.
I just know the building itself is under vision. And
Christmas time, by the way, Manhattan is just beautiful. The decorations,

(01:54:26):
the big the big department stores, uh, you know, really
go out all out to decorate their windows.

Speaker 4 (01:54:34):
There's lights everywhere.

Speaker 1 (01:54:35):
There's a Christmas Tree and Rockefeller Center. So Christmas, if
you can tolerate the cold, Christmas is the most beautiful
time to visit, uh, to visit Manhattan.

Speaker 12 (01:54:46):
Also, just a reminder for everyone that there can be
such things as a private park. Bryant Park is private
and super nice.

Speaker 1 (01:54:54):
Yeah and uh and even uh even what do you
call it? Central Park is owned by a nonprofit. It's
not state owned, so and it was founded by private individuals.
It was created by private individuals, the wealthy New Yorkers
who wanted a beautiful park. And Central Park is beautiful.
I mean, it's definitely worth a stroll or a buggy

(01:55:19):
ride or something through Central Park, all right. J. J.
Griggory's what brings hospitals as an institution into existence is
a cultural concern for the second week, which is simply
not there in enough masks before Muslims came after Christians. Yeah,
but I don't think there were Christian hospitals, you know

(01:55:42):
where they know hospitals in pagan society. I just don't.
I mean, i'd have to research that, but I don't
think that's right. And I don't know when the first
Christian hospital was built. When was the first Christian hospital built?

Speaker 12 (01:55:56):
If we put in google first hospital, I think the
entire framing is wrong. So you think about like the
Roman army, it invests tremendously, like in the health of
its soldiers, like Rome, like invented, like so many things
about surgery and things like that. Were that as good

(01:56:16):
as we have today? No, but they weren't like making
real progress.

Speaker 1 (01:56:21):
Yeah, I mean it. So there was first hospital was
built in ancient Greece and the city of Costs located
on the island of Costs in the ag and c.
The hospital was built in the first century BCE by
the physician Hippocratus right hypocritic oath you get from Hippocratus
was considered the father of modern medicine. So it doesn't

(01:56:42):
surprise me that there were hospitals in ancient Greece, and yeah,
there were hospitals that you know, in early Christianity. You know,
some some claim that hospitals were born in early Christianity,
but I just I don't think that's true. I think
the Greeks had hospitals.

Speaker 4 (01:56:59):
They certainly they had.

Speaker 1 (01:57:01):
Doctors who needed to treat patients, and they created stuff
now maybe didn't look like a modern hospital, or maybe
there's a and as you say, Romans must have had
some facilities to treat their soldiers. So I'm not sure
why there's an attribution of the first hospitals to Christianity.

Speaker 4 (01:57:21):
Right, have to research it.

Speaker 1 (01:57:22):
I don't know. All right, Richard, continue my support for
the new topics. I'm looking forward to your talks on
the search for meaning. Thank you, Richard, appreciated. All right,
let's do maybe a quick round, so make sure your
questions are short, and I will try to make short answers,

(01:57:44):
and we'll go.

Speaker 4 (01:57:45):
One round with our panel and we'll call it a day,
all right, Jennifer.

Speaker 5 (01:57:50):
And I'm done for today, thank you.

Speaker 1 (01:57:52):
Okay, Thanks Jennifer Adam.

Speaker 7 (01:57:57):
Are you familiar with the novels of Jonathan Kellerman, No.

Speaker 1 (01:58:04):
Kellerman. How do you spell that.

Speaker 13 (01:58:07):
K E L L E R M A n AM.

Speaker 1 (01:58:13):
Okay, No, they're good.

Speaker 3 (01:58:17):
His are good.

Speaker 7 (01:58:18):
His son Jesse started out awful.

Speaker 3 (01:58:22):
That has improved over time.

Speaker 1 (01:58:24):
Okay, but.

Speaker 7 (01:58:28):
Again, I have a PhD in psychology, so maybe that's
why I'm enjoying it because he's also a psychologist.

Speaker 4 (01:58:36):
Interesting.

Speaker 7 (01:58:37):
I don't know how people who are not familiar with
psychology would like or dislike his novels.

Speaker 1 (01:58:47):
Okay, good, thanks Adam, thanks for the recommendation. Let's see Amlin.

Speaker 15 (01:58:58):
Yeah, A quick question them, is nine to eleven service
a legitimate function of government? Given that really it's only
police that should be the legitimate function within the nine eleven.

Speaker 1 (01:59:13):
I don't know that. Yeah, I mean, but I I
don't know that you wouldn't have some centralized place that
that that uh distributed the calls to the appropriate place.
So whether that would be run privately or by the government,
you could imagine it being run by a private entity

(01:59:36):
and then allocating it to the relevant thing. The other
thing is that police is often when the police are needed,
you often also need an ambulance, so you often also
need a a fire you know, the fire services. So yeah,
I don't know, but but I think I think it
might be optional, given that it could go in either

(01:59:58):
in either direction. But but in and of itself, no,
it's it doesn't doesn't have to be government.

Speaker 3 (02:00:03):
The means to contact the police should be provided.

Speaker 1 (02:00:06):
It's all private, yes, yeah, the phone. Why is it's
a question of do you go directly to the police
or do you go to a centralized and maybe the
police out you know, maybe the police contract with this entity,
the nine one one entity that then distributes the calls
to the relevant Okay, please thanks, sure, Andrew.

Speaker 10 (02:00:32):
I'd love to see you do more interacting with Ram's essays,
Like on the show, do you feel that I know
you've expressed the point, like you feel like you need
to do prep for that, but like I mean, you
already do prep for the show, I'm sure, but like
maybe extra prep is that what holds you back from

(02:00:53):
from doing that?

Speaker 1 (02:00:55):
And then you know, I'm not sure what the level
of interest is that is by I'm sure a level
of interest by some of you is high, but I
don't know how high. I always plan to do it
and never actually do it, like a bunch of things.
But uh so, it's a good point I'll think about it.

Speaker 9 (02:01:13):
I always thought your show on egalitarian and inflation when
you went through that essay was awesome.

Speaker 1 (02:01:19):
I mean, one of the problem is you have to
get the audience to read it. It's a good members
only type pop These are good members only type topics.

Speaker 4 (02:01:27):
Maybe I'll do that SOT all right, cool, Thank you, sure, Steve.

Speaker 2 (02:01:31):
Last question, I'll just tell you, I think the best
show that you have done one that learned the most from.

Speaker 12 (02:01:41):
Anyhow, So, when you had that lawyer on who was
breaking down that's the guy's name. He was talking a
lot about like the strong the government's like legal strategy
and relation to immigration.

Speaker 2 (02:01:54):
I thought that was like a really I learned a lot.

Speaker 1 (02:01:56):
Levy salesman.

Speaker 2 (02:01:58):
Maybe I learned a tremendous amount from that interview. I
love it when you have people on that like, teach
me good something good.

Speaker 4 (02:02:09):
We'll try to find them, all right.

Speaker 1 (02:02:11):
Daniel has a question, what's your take on Chinese buying
farmland next to military basis which he excites. It strikes
me as plausible the Chinese government is preparing for war
or baps of.

Speaker 4 (02:02:20):
Pal Hubbor like down the road.

Speaker 1 (02:02:22):
I mean, I'm sure they're preparing for war, But I
doubt that the I doubt that they're preparing for anything
concrete that they expect anything to happen concretely. I mean,
I don't think the Chinese government should be allowed to
buy anything in the United States, and I think I

(02:02:43):
lean towards not allowing governments, any government to buy anything
in the US. That is, that's true of the Cartail
government and any goverment. Government answers you should not be
buying US assets. In terms of Chinese citizens buying stuff,
you know, it depends have we defined China as an

(02:03:06):
enemy or not defined China as an enemy. I think
this goes back to kind of discussion earlier about do
we have a strategy or don't we have a strategy?
What's the strategy? How do we deal with the Chinese
more broadly? Only then I think can you make the call.
But there's no question China is doing what it can

(02:03:28):
to get a foothold into the United States. Whether it's
doing it by buying farmland, or whether that's just innocent
investment by some Chinese trying to diversify themselves and trying
to get exposure to the United States economy. You know,
I don't know you'd have to have intelligence about it,
you'd have to actually research it. But certainly, if it's
a Chinese govern entity, you shouldn't allow them to buy

(02:03:50):
anything in the US.

Speaker 9 (02:03:52):
But then you.

Speaker 1 (02:03:52):
Shouldn't allow them the United States government to buy anything
in the United States either, not the Chinese government, but
even the United States government should not own anything. All right, guys,
thank you, As I said that WR show tomorrow, I'll
see tomorrow in the rest of next week. Thank you
to the panel for your support of your one book

(02:04:13):
show and for asking the questions. Thank you to the
super chatters, and I will see you all tomorrow.

Speaker 3 (02:04:20):
Thanks Hie, everybody, Bye ro bye.

All Episodes

AMA & Hangout with Contributors (Nov 2025) | Yaron Brook Show

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know

Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang

Crime Junkie

.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 & Hangout with Contributors (Nov 2025) | Yaron Brook Show