American Exceptionalism? The Meaning of America | Yaron Brook Show - Yaron Brook Show

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
The fundamental principles of freedom, rational self interest, and individual rights.
This is the ran Brook Show. Oh right, everybody, welcome
to Rue Book Show on this Saturday, October twenty fifth,

(00:26):
as you guys who are on YouTube can see, I
am not home. This at the beginning of empty second
show for my trip. I am now in London. Is
my hotel room in London. So I'll be traveling to
Israel tomorrow and hopefully the gods of Wi Fi permitting,

(00:50):
I'll be doing a couple of shows from Israel from there.
I mean, there's a couple of topics I want to
talk about today. We'll start the one I've listed, American exceptionalism,
the meaning of America. But I also want to talk
about a post I saw, you know, earlier today and

(01:13):
a lot of back and forth earlier today about objectives
disagreeing about Trump, and so I want to I want
to make a few comments on that. Can you know,
what can can one disagree about Trump? What does that
mean to disagree about Trump? And so we will talk

(01:34):
about that as well. And my guess is if I'd
put that in the title, they'd be there'd be even
more people here now than they were before. So maybe
you can, you can let people know that that's happening.
By the way, let me know if there any what
do you call it, streaming issues, audio issues, video issues.

(01:57):
As you know, it's almost impossible to tell all it's
almost impossibility for me to tell how the stream is
going without input from you guys. All right, let's so
let's talk about let's talk about America. And I talk
about this periodically, and I do these kind of shows

(02:18):
often because I think this is one of the most
important issues of our time. And certainly it's one of
the issues that the right, and particularly the JD Vance
version of the right, is emphasizing and making a bigger
and bigger deal out of this is also this is
true of the of Mega but it's also true generally,

(02:41):
you know, the Christian Conservatives, the National Conservatives, the Conservatives,
everybody is constantly debating this question. And I think this
will be a key question as the future is how
do we define America? What does America mean? Is American exceptional?
Because when you look at the when you look at
the rest of the world, when you look at pretty

(03:01):
much every other country in the world, most European countries,
probably all European countries, look at even Asian countries. Every
country is primarily defined the country. The nation is primarily
defined by a particular conglomeration of tribal groups. It's defined

(03:24):
by its history. It's defined by a shared heritage, by
a shared culture. But that culture is not a intellectual culture.
It's a culture of some kind of tribal identity that
goes far enough back. Maybe it's even a religious identity.
Certainly in the world of where your Muslim countries, Islam

(03:48):
plays a big role in defining what the country is.
I mean, historically, what is what is Britain. It's a
conglomeration of tribes who haven't come to this island and
who settled here and who ultimately established a particularly form
of government here and had particular kings and in particular

(04:11):
governing structures, and they established a certain a certain political
entity that became, that became what we know today is
as Great Britain. It. You know, some people attribute Great
Britain to the Magneticarta, but the Magneicuta doesn't play the
role of kind of defining what Britain is. Great Britain is.

(04:31):
It's it's Anglo Saxons and Vikings and uh, you know,
the people of Wales and the people of Scotland. It's
it's the interaction between them. It's it's the shade of
history that goes back a long time. It's the Kings,
it's the revolutions. To be you know, to be of
Great Britain is to be of that history and of

(04:52):
that culture, and of course that is being dramatically challenged,
dramatically challenged by any influx of immigration. Because if you define,
if you define a nation a nation state by particularly
conglomerations of political, ethnic, tribal really tribal groups, and by

(05:16):
a particular shared history, then they introduct what happens when
new groups are introduced, and when new groups are introduced,
it's going to be a challenge. But at the end
of the day, and new groups are going to be introduced,
but what are they What are they entering into? What
kind of deal are they entering into by becoming British?

(05:38):
Are they? You know? I think at the end of
the day, what they're becoming, what they're joining, is the
conglomeration of tribes, and they're joining their tribe to the
other tribes. And this creates a lot of stress and
a lot of a lot of conflict because you know,

(06:01):
it's clear that other tribes want this new tribe to join.
And immigration in most countries is a very, very, very
problematic issue because the whole identity of the state, the
whole identity of the country, of the nation, of what
it means to be an Englishman, a Frenchman, a German,

(06:21):
Swede is tied up in a certain look, in a
certain belonging to a very specific tribe. Or again, most
countries are conglomerations of tribes, several tribes coming together. In
that sense, Jo Hazoni's book Nationalism is absolutely right. Most
nations are conglomerations of tribes. Now America is an exception.

(06:51):
America is not counter to the Jdvansers of the world
and the national conservatives. America is not a country created
by a scot ddition British tribes in seventeen seventy six
and then introduced into it a variety of other tribes
from Europe. And that's what makes America America. America is

(07:12):
exceptional because America is founded on a basic fundamental moral idea.
Iinrand was very clear on this. What makes America America
is the fact that it was founded on the principle
of individual rights. So in that sense, America is the
only nation, really the only nation founded on an idea

(07:36):
and an idea that, by its very essence, bye very nature,
is anti tribal. Is a rejection of tribalism. It's a
rejection of the tribal mentality, it's a rejection of the
application of tribalism. It's the idea of individualism, of the
value sanctity of the individual, not as a member of

(07:59):
the tribe, not as a member of a nation, but
its an end in himself, and it's the pursuit of
his happiness. It's the pursuit of his happiness, which is
his moral purpose, his goal in life, and the role
of government is to protect the rights that make it
possible for him to pursue that happiness. That's America, and

(08:24):
that's unique. It's a set of ideas. Now, it's true
that it's not only ideas. It's true that it's not
some floating theoretical, abstract stuff that if you just you know, say, oh,
I'm a believer in these ideological principles, that makes you

(08:46):
somehow in American. No, it's the fact that this country
was founded on these ideas that then.

Speaker 2 (08:53):
Shaped a particular culture, a particular civilization, a particular American character,
you win, and in particular what.

Speaker 1 (09:05):
I called an American sense of life. It is this
idea of individual rights of freedom that attracted a certain
type of person to come to this country. And when
they came here, they had very unique experiences because they
came here to start a new life. The immigrants to

(09:26):
America in the eighteenth, nineteenth and early twentieth century came
to the United States of America not knowing much about it,
knowing that they would be free. I had some idea
what that meant, but what that really meant to them
was the ability to go out and start life anew

(09:46):
you know, as pioneers in the prairies, or or was
industrialists in the city, or was just as workers wherever
they could start new and that for the most part
placed there's an ideal they would be treated as individuals
in our members of their particular tribe that they happened
to be leaving in Europe by million Europe. So American

(10:14):
chense of life and American character were shaped by the
experiences of people under freedom, by the experiences people coming
to America. There was no welfare state, there was no
government safety in there, there was no social security or medicare,
and there were no even in the state highways. There

(10:38):
was a vast wilderness. People went into that wilderness and
built something, created something, made something of themselves and of
the world around them. They shaped the world in their image.
So it's that experience that Americans had. It's that don't
tread on me, don't you can't stop me. I'm going

(10:59):
to do what I want to do. That is what
made America now. That is made possible because of the
ideas articulated in the Declaration of Inventans and the Constitution.
It is made possible because America was governed by a
constitution and by a government that left people alone, that

(11:21):
left people to be free. That you know, allowed for
the for this kind of pioneering, rugged individualism to develop
and to blossom and to succeed and and to really
materialize in the souls of man as the American sense

(11:45):
of life, the optimism, the pro growth, the pro progress,
the pro technology, the pro human being, the pro individual
sense of life. I am capable, I am I can't
contry all my life and I can I can shape
the world around me. I belong on this earth. That
kind of sense of life is an American sense of life.

(12:09):
So it is true. It is true that it's more
than idea. It's the it's the kind of character, kind
of sense of life, kind of life that this idea,

(12:30):
the founding ideas made possible created, and that is American,
and those are Americans. America is not a particular ethnic
group that more and more on the right would like
us to believe it is. America is not just the

(12:53):
descendants of people who are willing to sacrifice for the
particular soil in which they lived. America is not a
blood and soil country. It might become one. I fear
it is becoming one, but it is not. America's also
not Europe, which is what the left holds a country

(13:18):
that believes in nothing, that stands for nothing, and that
is that is primarily focused on welfare, and it should
feel guilty about all its past sins. America is not
just another European welfare state. America is not a European
conglomeration of tribes. And then you have to figure out

(13:41):
kind of the relationship between those tribes. As the identity
politics of the day has us to America is now
what all life conceives of it. And it's not that
we can just encourage any other tribe to join us,
because America means nothing. So anybody can just come to
this country become automatically an American and that's it. And

(14:03):
at the same time, America is not about the color
of your skin, So you can have a different color
of skin and still become an American because it is
about It is about your ideas, and it's about your character.
It's about the kind of human being you are. It's
about the sense of life that you have. And the

(14:26):
sad thing is that if that is what America is,
America is fundamentally about the ideas of individual rights and liberty,
and the ideas of life, liberty, and property and the
pursuit of happiness. If America is shaped by its constitution
and a belief in limited government, and if America is

(14:47):
about the character of the entrepreneur, the pioneer, the risk taker,
the individualist out there going out there in the world
to pursue their happiness. If that's what America is, then
most Americans are not Americans. Most Americans have long ago

(15:10):
betrayed their own country. Most Americans are committed treason, if
you will, against their own country. They've abandoned or have
no knowledge of or or or don't have a clue
about the ideas that made this country. And they've long
ago given up on the kind of don't tread on me,
self reliance, personal responsibility, pursuit of happiness vision of America.

(15:38):
I mean, what is it, fifty two percent or or
something like fifty fifty percent of Americans get more money
from the government than they pay in taxes, So fifty
two fifty plus percent of Americans are net recipients or
government handouts. You know, welfare has completely corrupted what it

(16:00):
means to be America, who is an American and the
ability of Americans to be American, because it dilutes it.
It makes by by by the government giving you handouts.
It basically penalizes there's a sense in which it penalizes maturely,
those people who insist them being self reliant. You know

(16:22):
that when when the welfare state was established during FDR
is the period with if you always President, people were
embarrassed by it. People embarrassed by taking handouts. They were
embarrassed about getting so security. They were embarrassed by the
welfare state. Within a couple of generations, that embarrassment went away,

(16:45):
and people now fight over the crumbs. That's an American.
The shame in getting, the shame in getting, you know,
the welfare that is American. The you know, feeling a
loss when you lose yourself reliance, that is American. Becoming

(17:10):
dependent on government handouts. As American farmers are as more
and more American industries are becoming that's un American. Until
I extent America is becoming an un American country. And
maybe then you know, there is a new definition of America.
But I think the new definition of America is gonna

(17:31):
disintegrate us. It's gonna splinter us. It's al really is
into tribes because there is nothing to unify us. There's
nothing to unify us. I mean, like it or not,
and I know a lot of people out they don't
like it. America is a land of immigrants, and immigrants
who didn't come here as members of tribes, Immigrants who

(17:54):
came here as individuals pursuing the happiness. And many Americans,
you know, indeed, you know, being here many generations, those
Americans are more American because they been here many generations
than the new immigrants. What if the Americans who being

(18:15):
here many generations a warfare recipients are farmers who get
farm aid who can't survive without the government help. A
businessman that encourage government regulation, the cronies who suckle at
the tests of the state. Are they more Americans than
the immigrants. I mean, if America is just a standard,

(18:39):
ordinary state, as Tachia Coulson said years ago, America is
just beautiful scenery and a belief in God, then there's
nothing to hold this country together. There is no America then,
because of the way America evolved. America evolved through the

(19:00):
gration of individuals who resisted tribalism, who in many cases
we're escaping tribalism. America's a land with many, many, many
different people from different origins, different backgrounds, different histories. And
you know, at least until recently, recently, the last few decades,

(19:22):
all these people be unified by the principle of my
life is mine, I'll take care of it, leave me
alone and let me do my stuff. And as that erodes,
as that disappears, and as people define themselves based on
how many generations removed, are they from somebody who died

(19:45):
in the Civil War fighting or in the War of independence?
Fighting in this country will fall apart because nothing actually
unifies it. So this is a country of ideas. The
country have ideas and the kind of men who came
here because of those ideas, and the things that they

(20:06):
did as a consequence of those ideas, and the character
they developed doing those things. It is a land of
self reliant. It is a land of personal responsibility. It
is in the deeper sense of taking responsibility for your
own life, for living your life. It is a land
of the pursuit of happiness. It is a land of

(20:27):
individual rights. And as we drift away from those things,
we become just any other country and become a democracy
and we just vote whatever the majority wants. Then we
lose what makes American exceptional. We lose what makes America America.

(20:48):
We lose the defining characteristic of this particular nation. And
then it's not there's nothing else to unify us. There
really isn't. There's no bloodline, there are no big tribes.
Then there's there's there's religion, and there's a fake kind

(21:10):
of nationalism around the flag that now represents nothing. And
I think part of that is that people realize this,
and part of the hostility to immigrants is the realization
that if we if we allow I don't know, a
million Latin Americans into the country every year, if they

(21:31):
can come being in through the southern border, then and
and and Americas no longer a land of ideas and
no longer a land of a particular kind of character
and a particular kind of work ethic, and a particular
kind of approach to life and to work and to
the pursuit of happiness. Then they're a threat because they're

(21:53):
introducing this new tribe into the American mix, and you know,
it's this replacement theory, right, replacement theory. They're going to
place the other tribe, the tribe of whites, even though
that's kind of a tribe that seems to be in
conflict with itself constantly. The tribe of whites is going

(22:14):
to be, you know, shrink, and the tribe of bound
people is going to increase. And since we're defining our
country based on tribal identity, that's a threat, that's a
real threat. On another hand, if you define the country

(22:34):
based on character, pasive happiness, ideas individual rights, self again, responsibility,
self reliance, and anybody who's willing to live under those ideas,
and anybody who's willing to live that kind of life
and anybody who's willing to take on that kind of

(22:56):
responsibility is an American is welcome. And indeed, one of
the ways in which we screened for that right people
are wired about screening is reality. Many many people who
immigrated to the United States in the nineteenth century went
back to Europe because they couldn't hack it, they couldn't

(23:17):
make it, They didn't want what America offered. They didn't
really want the kind of freedom that existed here. They
didn't want to be detached from a tribe, they didn't
want the challenges that America represented for them. So there

(23:38):
was a self selecting process that happened among immigrants to America.
The ones who liked it, the ones who embraced it,
the ones who liked the ideas, embraced the ideas. They
thrived and they survived and they created this country. And
the ones that didn't went away, they went back home.
And I think that happens with every generation, every generation

(24:03):
of immigrants. So as we descend into tribalism, as we
lose respect for the Constitution, as we lose any kind
of sense of individual rights and what they mean, and
the world of government and what it means. As we

(24:26):
become a bigger and bigger welfare state, and more and
more of our citizens rely on the state for their
existence and for their sustenance. In America stops slowly being
a land of ideas, being a land of character, being
an exceptional place. It becomes like every other place, and

(24:50):
it adopts and it embraces the the the the challenges
and problems of every other place. And then you know,
we're seeing that and the embrace in a America. As
the welfare state is created, as the regulatory state is created,
as government grows, is coming intervenes more is the ideas
of government intervention intervene is the idea of individualism descends.

(25:14):
Starting in the early part of the twentieth century, what
we see is a greater and greater hostility towards immigrants, because, again,
in a tribal battle for what is America, I want
to preserve America of a Mi tribe, not bring in
new tribes that they don't look like me. So it's

(25:43):
true that America is not just an idea. It's also
a culture that came out of that idea. It's a
character that came out of the idea. It's a sense
of life that came out of idea. And the fundamental
idea and the things that integrates everything that is America
is individualism, the sanctity value of the individual, and the

(26:03):
individual's responsibility of his own life and his own happiness.
And as we lose that and have been losing that,
we lose America. We lose America. And the jdvancers, the jdvancers,
the National Conservatives, the Christian Conservatives, that I'm not even
talking about the MAGA because they just it's just dumb.

(26:24):
But you know, the people who have an ideology, they
have already given up in America. They've already accepted America
as just one of the many nations out there. And
what they want to do is they want to preserve
the tribal identity of this America and they want to

(26:45):
be able to control it and manipulate it according to
what they believe is good for the tribe. Like all collectivists,
as America descends into collectivism, the kind of nationalists of
the right and the socialists of the left gain more

(27:06):
and more power. Because everything becomes tribal, everything becomes collectivist.
The individual is the loser. So define America as the individual.
And what defines America's descent is in a sense, the
disappearance of the individual and the rise of the clan
and the tribe and the collective of whatever sort you want,

(27:31):
and what you dessent to is tribal wolfing. All right, So, yes,
America is individualism. I've said that before. We'll say it again.
That is America, at least in its founding principle. That
is America as an ideal. That is America for which
we fight. Maybe that's not America anymore in reality out there,

(27:51):
or maybe it is, but that is in descent, that
is disappearing. That is the America of the past, and
America the Jdave Answers of the world want to kill,
want to destroy, and the left never recognize its existence
and has been destroying it for years and years. But

(28:11):
the left has no real alternative to it other than chaos,
mayhem in destruction. All right. That is my my spiel
for today on Americanism. And I did say there would
be a second topic today, and I see there is

(28:32):
a question around it, So I'm gonna use the opportunity
just to shift to the question and use that question
to kind of broaden it to the brought in my
answer to or cover the question and broaden it to
the biggest topic that I wanted to talk about, and

(28:55):
that is, you know, in every gathering now of objectivists,
it seems that there is significant of people an objectivist here.
Let me just say, let's just call objectivists people in
my eye, Man's philosophy and who claim to agree with it,
who claim to live by it, who claim to you know,
understand it and to live by it. That is, let's

(29:18):
let's define an objectivist that way. Well, but any gathering objectivists,
you're going to find people who disagree and suddenly violently
disagree about Trump and and what he represents and whether
he's good, whether he's bad, whether he's the less of evils,
or you know, how to think about Trump has become

(29:43):
among some people a real litmus test for are you
an objectivist or you're not objectivist? Are you know? Are
you the good guys? Are you bad guys? And and
everybody's being judged by this, So let me let me
take this question by not your average algorithm and maybe
talk a a little bit about it, because they've been in
number of posts about this out there and not to

(30:05):
have a jog with the rights. Andrew Bernstein just posted
a long piece on how Trump is a hero the
greatest president of our lifetime, and Lena Peacock feels the
same way. You can't be an objectives intellectual and write
a post like that, so so let me just uh,

(30:26):
let me just say, I mean, does that make Lena
peako non objectives intellectual? I mean, is he at ninety two?
Is that what he is? But it's I don't I
don't think we should think about these things as he's
an objective because he holds this position, he's not an

(30:48):
objectivist and and and dissect every issue based on you know,
what makes him an objectist? What doesn't make him an objectist?
I mean the standard is not objectivist. I mean, I
mean objectivism as a philosophy is what Einman wrote in
opahs in some of lant peakup stuff, and that's it.

(31:10):
That's objectivism. There's nothing an objectivism about cow philosophy about
how to value or evaluate presidents. So I consider what,
you know, a long piece that shows that Trump is

(31:31):
a hero to be sloppy and wrong and bad. Objectives
are not objectives. It is just bad and untrue. Trump
is no hero. He is a villain. He has a
villain in every play. I can imagine every point. I mean,
I saw Andy's part of Andy's thing, and you know,

(31:53):
point number two is something like tariff revenue is up.
And I just wonder, since when any of us, any
of us that claim adherents to the objectivism, or to
the philosophy, or just believe in free markets, think that
growing government revenue by raising Texas is a good thing.

(32:14):
And you could go on and on and in terms
of all the different things that identified as making Trump
a good guy, and asking just truth is is this true?
Is does this make him a good guy? And the
question is the question of truth or false, right or wrong.

(32:37):
It's not a question of objectives an object If somebody
non objectives wrote a long piece on how Trump is
a hero, I'd say this is bullshit. And I think
I think I can say to Andrew Bernstein it's bullshit.
I don't care objectives not objectives. I don't care what
philosophy you claim to adhere to. It's an awful piece.

(32:57):
It's untrue, it does not reflect the reality. It is deceptive,
it's unintegrated. So, you know, I don't know why people
are so enthralled with Trump. And look, I know a

(33:18):
lot of people who voted for Trump, and and I
understand white people vote for Trump, and I understand why they,
you know, why they try to continue to defend Trump.
The reality is that the left is horrible. So, for example,

(33:41):
if you're a businessman and you've lived under Obama's regulations
and controls and hatred a businessmen and you didn't build that,
and and and just the awful attitude towards business, and
you lived under Biden's everything, Obama and more, you know,

(34:03):
and Trump comes around and and he's not attacking businessman. Yeah,
he's getting them to suck up to him, and he's
he's getting them to bribe him, and he's creating this
crony crony oligarchy. But he's not attacking businessman. Y y
you know, y, yeah, jd Vance attacks big farm and

(34:25):
big tech. But now you know, but it's just the
big guys and and they're leaving most businessmen alone, and
whether there's deregulation going on in the background or not.
There is some quite a bit because the people at
the head of the deregulatory agencies, deregulatory agencies are primarily
on a on a path of deregulations, just like in
the first Trump administration, but I think most so this time.

(34:52):
So if you're in the business, how h how can
you not in a sense prefer Trump to the others.
There's also another aspect of Trump that is appealing. Presidents
have always been I mean president since Reagan certainly, and

(35:13):
before we get meek and and and cowardly and and
you know, they lied, and they try to cover them
up their lies and everything, and and and you knew
everybody knew they were lying, and but they they there

(35:33):
were things that you knew that that you know, they
were all politically correct. And here comes Trump and he's
not politically correct. He just says stuff, And you know,
there's a certain appeal to the idea they're bad guys
trying to smuggle drugs into America and we're just gonna
blow them up. Yeah, I mean, it's it's like action.

(35:57):
We're doing stuff, manly stuff right now. Again, I don't
understand how you can claim to hold a particular you know,
the views of consistent with iron Rand and then say
it's okay to blow boats out into the water because

(36:18):
you suspect that they're drug dealers? Is drug dealing a
a a criminal offense worthy of the drug of the
death penalty? Do we believe that the death penalty should
only be handed out to people who are who be
tried and found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Why aren't

(36:41):
these questions being asked? So I get the Trump is
out there, you know, he he he, he fights back,
he fights the left, He he goes after the press.
He says stuff that's completely politically and co rack that
a lot of people wish other presidents it's said, uh

(37:05):
he he uh. He attacks people who deserves deserve attacking.
And and he's just any. He generally does not go
out there and lambast business. He uses me. I mean,
he does other really really bad things. But so I

(37:26):
get it. I get it, particularly if you're a businessman.
And uh and and uh you know most of you
you're spending your life in business. You're building, you're creating stuff,
you're making stuff. Yeah, you see the bad stuff like
the tariffs and the and the coneyism and other stuff.

(37:46):
But you know, you're busy building and making stuff, and
and and and here's Trump was at least not attacking
you and at least not regulating you like the others do,
and and and and seems to be interested. At least
Trump says that he wants economic growth. He's not one
of these democratic de growths who don't believe in economic growth.
Through just wants to penalize the rich. I mean, he

(38:08):
might penalize the rich, but he doesn't say it, and
he doesn't relish it constantly. So you support him. And
I get that completely and have no problem with that.
What I don't understand. What I don't understand is an

(38:32):
intellectual whose job it is, whose business it is to
evaluate what is going on out there in the world,
to see everything, not just on how it affects a
particular group, but to look at the totality, to look
at the fact that it has on the economy, on

(38:53):
national security, international relations and the spirit of Americans, and
on the law, on the future of America and the
future of America as a free country. I don't understand
how intellectual can look at all of that, to look
at the totality of it, and to investigate, to read,

(39:13):
to look at different facts, to to to read different
arguments that to see the different perspectives, and to do
all that and at the end of the day to
come out and say, yeah, Trump's Trump's a good guy.
He's not just a good guy, He's a hero. I mean,
you're not doing your job. You're not doing your job,

(39:34):
and it's it's a it's it's it's your bad intellectual.
You're doing a horrible job at what you're supposed to
be doing, at analyzing thing. To put aside objectives not objectives,
You're just a bad intellectual. You're not doing a good job.
And to not see the it's just a horrible character.

(39:57):
The Trump represents a hero. How can you put Trump?
I think Andrews says, how can you put Trump and Rock?
How would Rock in the same category heroes? It's just it.
I mean, there's nothing heroic about Trump unless you consider,

(40:18):
like I'm off your boss heroic because he'll do whatever,
and that's exactly what Trump is. He'll do whatever. He
doesn't care. So look, I don't care who's an objectives
and who's not I care about the truth. The truth
is that Trump is probably the worst president of our lifetime,

(40:41):
maybe the worst president of American history. That he is
a disaster, and that he you know, again, I'm not
comparing him to what alternative was. I'm just evaluating him.
Qua him. He is driving us towards authoritarianism at the
ever increasing speed. Uh. You know, Trump and the people

(41:02):
surrounding him anti Americans. They hate this country. If what
you mean by this country is the land of liberty
and individual rights. And I think an intellectual needs to
do the work, or an intellectual that does the work,

(41:24):
we'll discover that who's honest and is willing to look
at all, you know, at all the facts. I think
we'll discover that fairly. I think it's right there. It's
not that hard. So if you see certain people, I
don't know, Andrew Benstein, Dave Hammond, maybe the others, they're

(41:45):
just not serious. They're just not to be taken seriously.
They're not to be respected, they're not to be followed.
You know, this is this, They're not doing their job,
the betraying the responsibility of what it means to be
an intellectual. Now an asks even though you mean anti Trump,

(42:15):
you are still much more honest and objective about Peacoff's
view of Trump. Some don't want to believe it. I'm
not sure what you mean by that, but let me
just say something about Peacoff's views on Trump and why
I'm not putting Leonard in the same category as Andy
and Harriman. Leonard is ninety two years old in two thousand,

(42:41):
I think it was twenty thirteen, maybe I'm wrong, but
around twenty thirteen, after dim Leonard basically retired from if
you were Cultural and political analysis. If you remember at
the time, he had a podcast where he would take

(43:02):
questions from people and answer them. And he would get
lots of questions on philosophy, and he would get questions
on personal morality and on sex and relationships and all
kinds of things. I mean, I think there's a book
came out with many of his answers to those questions, right,
And he got a lot of questions on politics and

(43:22):
he would answer them all well. I think he answered
most of them well. In twenty thirteen, Lennet said, look,
I don't want to deal with the culture. I don't
want to deal with politics. I am going to ask
you on me to take over that portion of that
portion of the what do you call it, that portion

(43:51):
of the podcast, I'm going to have you on to it.
So from now on, Uran will answer all the cultural
and political issues questions, even though after a while he
realized he disagreed with me on some of them, for
example and immigration, and if you remember, we did kind
of a debate with Amy Peacoff moderating a debate over
immigration because it was an issue we disagreed about, but

(44:14):
he basically handed it over. And he said at the
time that he did not comment in politics required reading,
you know, investigating, figuring out what's true and what not,
you know, listening to both sides, you know, actually actually

(44:36):
doing the work that is necessary to do political analysis,
and he didn't want to do the work. And the
reality is, and he will be the first one to
tell you he doesn't do the work. He's retired. It
doesn't mean there's no opinions, but he's retired from being
an intellectual or comments in politics. Now he might once

(44:56):
in a while come back and comment on them for
whatever reason, when people egg him on to do it.
But you know, he has said that his main source
of news is the New York Post. It's only a
newspaper he reads, and he listens to my I think
I don't know if he still does. He used to
listen to Mike Livin. Well, I don't think you can

(45:20):
be a comprehensive you know, you can have a comprehensive
view of what is going on in the world from
those two news sources. They're just not good enough. It's
just not enough. You have to do more research than that.
And I think Lennard knew that. That's why he handed
it off. Now. I'm not saying because he handed off

(45:43):
in twenty thirteen to me that he's endorsed me. He
obviously doesn't. He disagrees with me. He's disagreed with me
about Trump. He disagreed in Trump's first term. He disagrees
now from what I can tell, And that is fine.
I don't expect Lena Peacock to endorse me, and you

(46:05):
know that's not the point. There is no there's no
air to Lena Peacock. Leonard, there's Leonard. And you know
you listen to me, You listen to me, you don't
like what you hear, or you disagree with me, go
listen to Andy Busty or Dave Hammond, but see Dave So.
Dave posted a post as well where he basically says,

(46:28):
Leonard Peacoff agrees with you about Trump, and therefore anybody
who disagrees with you about Trump is really disagreeing with
Landa Peacoff and uh and yeah, who knows more about
objectivism than Lena Peacoff in the world. So therefore, if
you disagree with Landon Peacoff about Trump, you don't know anything.
You know, you disagree with objectivism, you disagree with I mean,
it's a there's so many logical fallacies there, There's so

(46:51):
there's appeal to authority, and there's so much bs because
it's taken completely out of context. A Peacoff doing politics
at age ninety two, which is very different than Landed
Peacoff doing politics at age eighty even, never mind at
age seventy five or at fifty or at forty. Now

(47:15):
people are saying they thought he changed his mind. Yeah,
I mean he did. Leonard changed his mind, according to
James Valiant, and I don't know, I don't have any
first time information. The according to James value Lanet changed
his mind about about uh Trump when he saw the
way Trump treated Zelenski, but then Trump shifted and he

(47:36):
became nice to Zelensky. So so I assume Leonard shifted back.
Or maybe you know Leonard's very anti immigration, so maybe
you know Leonard's very excited about ice. You know, I
don't know, but we don't know, right, And does it
really matter? This is this obsession, this fashion over what

(48:02):
Leonard thinks about Trump? Does it really matter? I mean
a particularly given that Leonard is not in a position too,
and hasn't you know, articulated clearly what his position is
in the rationale, the full russionale for it. So so

(48:31):
I suggest, I suggest you stop listening to these people
and you try to come up with the best you know,
rational objective or listen to them, and and you decide
what position you hold, what position you hold? You you know,

(48:54):
and if you you know, watch the uh, you know,
watch what people are saying, Read what the different sides
are saying about Trump. Uh, look at the news, and
you decide it. It's up to you, n n Y.
You can't delegate the responsibility of make a decision about
your opinion about Trump. It is I it is interesting

(49:23):
that uh, you know, Leonard when I saw him for
the birthday. I. I mean, the first thing he said
to me was something about Trump trying to kind of
rib me and poke me about it. But I, y, y,
you know, it's obviously we were not gonna get into
a uh a d uh a a an argument or
a discussion about Trump there at his birthday party. Wouldn't

(49:44):
be appropriate, wouldn't be appropriate to me. And I don't
think he really wanted that, but he wanted to make
it clear to me that he disagreed with me. Fine,
I have no problem with that. So I don't know
why you guys all have problems with this. It is
what it is. Leonard likes Trump, but I don't think

(50:07):
Leonard is writing long essays about Trump being a hero. Now,
I I I, I don't think that the video he did
with Valiant was particularly good. Uh on this, But you know,
uh y, you again, you have to evaluate it. It's not
don't delegate that. Don't delegate thinking to somebody else. It's

(50:28):
your responsibility. You decide whether it makes sense to you
or not. And if you like Trump, try to figure
out why and and and make it explicit. Why do
I like Trump? What are the things that I like
about him. What about the bad stuff? How do I
how do I explain that? How do I square that
what is more important? The good stuff for the bad stuff?

(50:49):
How does that all fit together? Alright? So your answers

(51:10):
peak of us to put out an essay around the
same time. Yeah, I mean read it and and uh
you don't make up your mind about it. And look,
y I am. You won't find anybody who is more
admiring of an and owes more to to len and Peacock.
I mean, I I admire, I admire his work. I've
learned s I everything I know until large stand, I've

(51:32):
learned from him from mine Rand and Land and Peacock.
Those are the two main sources of my knowledge and
therefore of who I am and what I became. And
I couldn't have become what I became without Leonard. And
not only is he being a mentor, a teacher and
a friend, uh all these years and okay he's retired

(51:56):
and on a topic, I think I know more than
he does. We disagree. What are you gonna make of that? Alright?
I I you know and and I I I I
I I just think that the the sudden people that
are trying to the certain people that are trying to,

(52:20):
you know, gain credibility by association with Leonard, like Dave
Hammond did, and and like, uh, maybe others are doing.
You know, you gotta be suspicious about that. You gotta
be suspicious about that. And as I said, one day,
I'll tell you what I really think about Dave Hammond.
Maybe that day is clo is Is is slowly approaching.

(52:41):
But uh, Dave was at the birthday party, by the way,
so uh there were some questions about whether he speaks
to Leonard. Yeah, he did speak to Leonard. Alright, Uh,
let's see, alright, I will take I will take more questions.
Remember to support the show. To trade value for value,

(53:05):
you can do so by asking a question. You can
do so by putting in a sticker just a monetary contribution.
You can also do so by becoming a monthly supporter
on Patreon or on PayPal. All right, let me see
we've had some stickers. Wes, Thank you. Wes did fifty dollars.
Thank you, Barry Barry Hoover did fifty dollars. Really appreciate it,

(53:27):
thank you fifty dollars. Stickers. There was a great Catherine,
thank you so yeah, I mean where we are now
because of those stickers. There's a bunch of you out there.
Be great to hear from you. It'd be great for
you to write a send us a sticker, send us

(53:48):
some money in support of the show. This is show
one hundred percent funded from listeners like you. Alright, Um, alright,

(54:18):
let's see questions. I'm on the wrong page. There we go. Alright, James, Oh,
it's a two part of it. Let me find the
first part. Okay, uh, James uh. Part one. It seems
a lot of intellectuals and political movements are threatened by
pride and confidence of the individual human spirit that'll go

(54:42):
through extensive sadistic efforts to crush it, the torture of
the Middle Ages, Gulag's Holocaust, the ah An, and more
mild forms. Democratic socialists like Bumdani today, I I I've
never felt threatened by someone else's spirit. Why does it
drive them crazy? Well, because that, in the end is
what they're trying to control. Then what does it mean

(55:04):
to control human beings? It means to control their spirit.
And if you don't control this spirit, there always a
threat to you. And if you view the world as
zero sum or if you view the world as it's
either him or me, then I need to control what
ultimately is threatening to me, and the real threat our ideas,

(55:28):
the real threat is the human spirit. The real threat
is is them rising up against me and taking power
over me, which is what I'm trying to avoid, because
it's all zero some right. So uh, it's the if

(55:51):
you want to be an authoritarian, it's not enough just
to control action because you understand that the real enemy
idea real enemy is people's spirit of independence. And that's
what you want to crush. Think about nineteen eighty four, right,

(56:13):
I mean what they're trying to do, and you can
see the parallels in the world around us. They're trying
to change the language, They're trying to change everything, or
think of anthem. Right, they eviscerate the concept of eye
because the eye is a threat to them, to the
powers to be, to the people who are trying to control.

(56:33):
And what better way to destroy the human spirit than
to destroy is the individual, To destroy any semblance of
being able to think about the individual as an individual.
C Yes, the mind is what ultimately needs to be
subdued in order to be in order to achieve authoritarian

(56:56):
or totalitarian control. And they know that. Alright, Michael. There

(57:16):
is zero sense of life in the modern right. There
focus in vengeance and authority, no matter the cost. This
is a wildly destructive form of mysticism. Yeah, I agree,
I agree completely. Uh, it's it's it's a it's it's
incredibly destructive. It's in the name of mysticism. It is mysticism.

(57:38):
And their sense of life is a sense of life
and a of an authoritarian, of a collectivist. They do
not have an American sense of life. This is not
the sense of life, even of the Tea Party, which
had a vague reminence of the American sense of life
of I can do anything and just leave me free, Michael.

(58:03):
The funniest thing about DII to me is that every
single person in the Trump administration is completely unqualified for
their job and wholly incompetent. Yes, I mean, what what
The trumpet administration is a different type of DEI. It's
a dei not based on ethnicity and not based on

(58:25):
some call of equality. But it's a dei based on
ideology and based on loyalty and the standard to be
appointed in the Trump administration's loyalty to Trump now that
is not about merit. So it's not that that Trump
is the The opposite of DEI is not loyalty to Trump.

(58:47):
The opposite of DII is merit is appointing people based
on merit, the ability to do the job, and their
qualifications to do the job. And the job includes being
able to interact with the president and be constructive and
heal helpful to the president. But that is not what
the new write is about. It is not about merit.

(59:08):
It's about loyalty. It's about mindlessness, mindless loyalty to And
this is why no Kings is not a bad label
for demonstration. Hoppa Campbell, I don't think MAGA is sustainable.
Movements energized by hatred and paranoia always turn on each other.

(59:31):
Fascism never lasts more than a decade. I mean maybe,
I mean the Nazis lasted, you know, twelve years. Mussolini
lasted a lot more than twelve years. I can't remember
the date Mussolini came to power, but it was somewhere
in the early twenties, I think. So, I don't think

(59:53):
it's true that fascism never lasts. Look at what's same
Franco Franco lasted thirty years. I think the Portuguese dictatorship
lasted quite long. Peranism in South America has lasted long. Putinism,

(01:00:16):
however you want to call it in Russia? What is
it going on? Over twenty years? Now twenty five years?
So I don't know what the time limit is. It
doesn't last forever, but no evil ideology lasts forever. Communism
ultimately succumbed. But it is true that kind of MAGA
has no integrating ideology yet yet This is the whole point.

(01:00:40):
It's still not what I would call an M two
what not I would call what Landed called in dim
and M two mega is not an M two yet
because it doesn't have an integrated ideology. But the question,
but I think jd vanswer does And you know Ken

(01:01:00):
jade Vance's ideology last twenty years. I don't know, and
I don't want to find out. A lot of damage
was done in the twelve years of Hitler, in the
X number of years of Stalin, in whatever number of
years of well Stalin's as a communist of a fank
or whatever. A lot of damage is done when these

(01:01:23):
people get into power. So I don't want to try it.
But I don't know how long it will last. I
have no idea, and I don't know that we can
completely look at historical precedent. Now. I don't think it'll
last in America because I think there's a lot of
opposition to it in spite of the support, and I
think that it goes so against the founding principles of
this country that that'll be reborn in some way or another.

(01:01:47):
But that's not a great sign. That's not a great sign.
So I think you're overly optimistic because I think MAGO
will morph into something a lot more dangerous, and I
think I think that morphing will be led by people
aged Evans and even Marco Rubio, who regularly talks at

(01:02:09):
the National Conservative Conferences, and others who are really really
committed to a particular vision of America which is very
on American and anti American. Andrew, do you think individualism
in the sense of life of America is still a
real phenomena compared to the rest of the world. If so,

(01:02:31):
how does that individuals manifest in American culture. I do
think it's still there. I think that the primary manifestation
of it in American culture is too entrepreneurial entrepreneurship. It's
the entrepreneurs. And this is why I say, you know,
Silicon Valley, in spite of its politics, is very much

(01:02:54):
America in its real sense, because I think that individualism
manifests itself in in entrepreneurship, which you don't really have
in Europe, for example. Now you have a lot of
entrepreneurs in China, so they have it. That's why I
think there's something about the Chinese sense of life that
is that is good and and and that will hopefully

(01:03:17):
ultimately win out against the authoritarians. But the American sense
of life is still alive among entrepreneurs, among certain businessmen,
and that's where it manifests itself. It's it manifests itself
in in the fact that up until recently, very recently,
we embraced immigrants. We brought them in. They win noble prizes,

(01:03:38):
they start companies, they build gardening companies, they they they
work in our backyards. They they're everywhere, and we embrace it,
even as we yell that we don't like it. League immigrants,
we hire them and we employ them and they're all
over the place. So that I think is that, I

(01:04:00):
think is where you still see American culture. It's in
a lot of immigrants who come here because that's why
they came here. They came here because of American culture,
and they manifested it, because they came here to escape
their tribes at home. They came here to make something
of their own life as individuals. We don't need immigrants.

(01:04:26):
Who the f cares what you need? Since when is
anything determined by people's needs? That's a new one. He
doesn't need immigrants. I do need immigrants, So let's unwrestle
for whether we get immigrants or not. That's exactly that
un American view, that is that dominates right, that people's

(01:04:50):
needs matter, and that our needs, our collective needs. We
should vote on it. You know, that's how we decide.
America used to be a land of individual rights. And
people came to this country not because anybody needed them.
It's because they wanted to and people, the better people
in America wanted them to come. It wasn't based on need.

(01:05:16):
It was based on rights, individual rights, and that is
the foundational concept, not need. Need is the foundational concept
of the left. Anybody who talks in terms of needs
is a leftist. I'm generalizing that because the right has

(01:05:36):
needy people to But no, it's this is a question.
Immigration is not a question of needs, it's a question
of rights. And so you don't want more Mexicans than
Haydens I do. I have no problem with Mexicans, and
I have no problems with many Haitians. So you don't

(01:05:59):
have any problem with Mexican But you know, keep your
xenophobia to yourself and don't speak for me. Don't speak
for me. I'm not part of your collective and I
don't I'm not a believe in democracy. So even though
you might represent the majority, I don't care what you want.
Oh there goes Zielon says they don't have rights. Okay,

(01:06:23):
Well that means he's not worth talking to you. Right
when when he says about whole groups of people they
don't have rights, he's just a racist. He's just a
racist bigot. And that's what it boils down to, right
at the end of the day, we don't need immigrants.
Oh it's not unas you need. We don't want immigrants.
Oh they're not really human beings. Right, It's just boils

(01:06:45):
down to it buzzed down as soon as you prod
them as soon as you nudge them, they you see
immediately that they're racists. Because every human being has rights.
Fani Father says, all men are created equal, all men,
not all Americans. All men are created equal down by
the creator with these inalienable rights, inalienable rights, nobody can

(01:07:09):
take them away. Every man, not just Americans. Everyone has rights,
every human being upland to earth as rights. And that
it's a question of whether the government violates the rights
and protects the rights. And what you want is the
government to violate in mass the individual rights of Mexicans

(01:07:33):
and Haitians because you don't like them, you don't want them,
because I don't know what Americans for American merits. Yeah,
I agree, America should be for Americans. And by the way,
something you know, zyklontea wonder if that's an American name.
Doesn't sound like an American name. So the Founders were wrong. Okay,

(01:07:55):
I'm ignoring him now because he just said that people
don't have rights and the Founders were and that disqualified
him from talking about America. I mean, and you want
to defend America. You want to you want to say
the Founders are wrong and there's no individual rights and
you're talking about America for Americans. You don't know what
you're talking about. You're an ignorant, racist bigot. All right, Neil.

(01:08:19):
What would happen to the concept of identity if humanity
ends up moving to another planet? What we have a
new form to form new countries identities? Well, I don't
know what you mean by the concept of identity. Is
my identity a member of a group or is my
identity me who I am? So identity is something that's individual,

(01:08:50):
I you know, So do I have an affiliation? I'm
an American? But is that my identity? That's not my identity,
that's my political ass where I live. Now, as we
move into other planets, where we create countries, new countries

(01:09:11):
or new political entities, yes, I mean it makes sense
that you're governed locally, that you're not governed from way
far away, you know, on Earth. So you could expect
to see the creation of new political entities out there.
But that is that that is you know, you've got
to separate identity from the country. One of the one

(01:09:32):
of the reasons I'm so pro immigration and ultimately in
a free world they should be free immigration, including to
other planets, is because you should be able to choose
where you want to live, so you know, you can

(01:09:58):
you can belong to a group, and you can have
you know, but that doesn't Ah, there we go, all right,
now we can easily block this best thank you sing
this channel? All right? Yeah, I mean, what do you

(01:10:24):
say homosexuals, Jews and the N word? Yeah, I mean
I told you you could tell that the bigots and
racists very quickly, very easily, and then they revealed themselves
fully and they actually say the stuff that make it
clear that that's what they are. So you need to

(01:10:47):
think about what you mean by identities. We blocked Zyklon,
I blocked Zyclon. Now we we didn't block anybody. I
blocked him, Michael. There was a time when the right
would pay lips of Americanism and classical liberalism. This time,
that time is over. The new right is proudly fascist,
led by nutcases like Bannon. Yeah, I think much of

(01:11:11):
the right is proudly fascist. I think banisuttle is. And
there's still some people in the right who paid lipservice
to Americanism in classical liberalism. There's still some conservatives out
there who do that. They are struggling because they are
being outflanked, outnumbered, and beaten down by the fascist elements

(01:11:34):
within their own party. Clark Stephen Crowder is doing racist
videos against Black's. Anti Semites are waiting in line to
ask Glenn back questions. A turning point, USA, these fringe
neo Nazis talking points have migrated off the Internet into

(01:11:55):
physical space. I think we are moving to in a
Nazi direction. Whether we get all the way there is uncertain.
I mean, look, we're definitely moving in a racist and
I said we would as soon as identity politics on
the left became clear. I said, the right will beat
you at it, and they are good at racism, and

(01:12:17):
they're better than you, and they're going to beat you.
And that's exactly what's happened. I mean, really, you can
go back to videos I made or podcasts I did
in twenty sixteen to twenty eighteen, twenty nineteen, twenty twenty,
you know, during the peak of woke, and I said,
the right is going to come after you with the

(01:12:38):
same accepting your premises of racism. I said that about
the left. Are we becoming Nazis? I doubt it. I
still think the Nazis are small group, are we becoming
more nationalist, more racist. Yes, and it's never been in
my view, it's never been this bad in America. It's

(01:13:00):
never been this bad in America. You know the way
Kash Patel whose Maga was treated over the weekend, and
on and on and on. The racists now are emboldened
and coming out, always heading towards Nazism, and there are
enough of them. I still don't think so, Andrew. Get

(01:13:26):
into political arguments if you want, but don't be a
pitball about it, especially if you're barking into an unwilling ear,
except that someone has the rights to their own opinion,
even if wrong. Yeah, although as an intellectual my job
is to bark into your ear. You can always turn
me off, right, But my job is to articulate a case,

(01:13:50):
a particular position to the best of my ability, based
on what I based on the fact. And if you
if you don't want to listen to it, don't listen
to it. But yeah, this, there's no reason to get
in political arguments. There has to be a context, there
has to be reason to do it, and sometimes there isn't.
Sometimes there isn't. I don't seek them out because it's

(01:14:10):
rare that you will achieve anything by debating politics, kim.
Is the capacity for a reason ever truly lost or
only abandoned, you know, I think to some extent it is.
It can be lost. You know, if you have dementia,

(01:14:33):
you lose the capacity to integreat knowledge and reason. Part
of what reason is is integration. And I think you
just lose that muscle, that that physical capability of integrating
the knowledge that you have. So I think you can
lose it. I think if you have an accident and
a certain part of your brain gets damaged, you're losing yourcity.

(01:14:58):
Certain capacity is to reason is not necessarily and it's necessary,
but certainly possible. I like numbers. I'm an Andy Bernstein fan.
Is calling him to be unfollowly supposed to be moral
option Marali optional. He's brought a lot of value to
the movement. Yeah, I mean I I I used was

(01:15:19):
always an Andy Bunstein fan. We've always been friendly. I
like Andy. He's just completely wrong on this and and
and it's not a little wrong. It's a big wrong.
And he doesn't have in my view that he doesn't
have any excuses for this. I don't think that there

(01:15:44):
there's much dispute about the data about what's going on
in the world, and yet he whitewashes anything bad that
Trump does, and and turn some of those things into
good things, and and and some of you just ignorees
when it comes to Trump. He's completely blinded. So you
don't want to. I mean I didn't make I didn't

(01:16:06):
say unfollow him as a moral anything. I just said,
I mean he has a better formulation of what I meant, don't.
I mean, he's proven to be somebody you shouldn't be
getting your political commentary from. How about that? So that
doesn't mean you shouldn't follow him on other stuff, but
your politically commentary you shouldn't be getting from Andy. Yes, Anthony,

(01:16:35):
what do you think of the Venice to Amsterdam to
City of London theory that they are the bad guys?
I don't know what that means. I don't know what
that theory is, and I don't know what the theory means,
the Venice to Amsterdam to the City of London theory
that they are the bad guys. I'm not sure who

(01:16:56):
has that theory and what that theory actually advocates for.
Have no idea, obviously. I don't think Venice amstem and
London are bad guys. I think they're the good guys.
They're the people who created and built modern the modern
industrial world, the oceanists. But have you ever considered immigration bad? No? Immigration?

(01:17:25):
Co immigration? No? Why would I consider it bad? I
guess I don't understand this question either. I mean, I
don't want certain people to come. Loochs and moochas and terrorists,
and you know, criminals shouldn't come, they shouldn't immigrate. But
I don't consider immigration bad. I consider immigration of those

(01:17:49):
specific people bad. Also, check your email. Adam and Stitch
and Adam Show would like to have you on. You
guys can talk about anything from femaleket healthcare to tariffs.
I hope to see you there. Yeah, I saw that email.
I'm having my assistant contact them to schedule the day

(01:18:10):
and time exactly when I'll beyond thank you. If you
facilitated that, then thank you for facilitating it, docanist. Is
anyone really surprised that the right is going in this direction?
The left has had apologists for Lennon, Mao and Stalin,
No wonder the right wing racists freak out now. Well,

(01:18:34):
I mean, the right could have gone in a different direction.
They could have gone in a direction of individual rights
and a rejection of collectivism and a rejection of authoritarianism,
and they decided to join the left and embracing those things.
So it wasn't inevitable the right would go in this direction.
It was predictable. I suddenly predicted it. It seems like
you maybe predicted it, but it wasn't inevitable. Andrew, I

(01:18:57):
know you don't like explaining human behavior by idiocy, But
aren't some anti Semites and racist being blatantly idiotic? Yes,
but I don't think that explains it. That is, I
think that being idiot. I think if you're I think
being a racist and an anti Semitist makes you stupid

(01:19:18):
because it's so anti reality, it's so anti fact, it's
so based on nothing that that starts conditioning your your
way of thinking to be like that, to be based
on nothing, And you become more stupid, you become more
detachabent reality, you become more detached from facts. So, but

(01:19:46):
I don't say they're racist because they're stupid. I mean,
in many respects, they're stupid because they're racists. The Ocean says,
I was being sarcastic. About immigration being bad. Deep with

(01:20:09):
Diego says, Ocean John is a very old man, very
old man, he says, very old man. And they didn't
have sarcasm when he was a kid. And that's absolutely true.
There was no sarcasm was when I was a kid.
S Sarcasm is an is a new phenomenon. S So yes,
given that I'm very old. According to Deeper with Diego,

(01:20:34):
you've got to speak up loud and not be sarcastic.
Thank you, de Deep with Diego, I don't know what
I would do without you clarifying the my condition A.

(01:20:57):
Let's see, Mary Eileen, how would JD. Van Vans compared
to Trump as president were he to be elected? What
should we be most worried about? Would anything improve under Vance?
I mean Vance is not a whim worshiper, and Vance
is not stupid, So I don't think Trump is smart.

(01:21:24):
I don't know if he's stupid, but he's not smart,
and he's a wim worshiper. He's completely driven by whim
So one thing you would get from Vance's predictability. You
know where he standing, you know what he argues, and
you know where he's going. So that would happen, but
also think that makes it more dangerous. Trump doesn't believe
in anything, literally anything. I was talking to somebody who
knows Trump well and is in Trump's circle of businessmen

(01:21:48):
who and he said, Trump will say literally anything, anything,
and he likes him for that. You'll say anything. It's
just a matter of creating and his to do it.
But he will say anything. He has no and this
is part of what people like about him that Trump
doesn't care what people think about him, and they view
that as independence when it's not, because it's it's a

(01:22:13):
it's a it's very distorted. But he just doesn't so
he will say anything. Advance is not like that. Advance
is more dangerous because he has a plan, he knows
what he wants, he has a theory. Now he's a
converted Catholic, so he's committed I think to this ideology

(01:22:37):
of nationalism. Now where he would be less dangerous than
Trump is where he is. I think I think there

(01:23:03):
would be more resistance to a Vans. Trump is really
unique in that, and this is it's a tragedy that
he's that he's so that he is what he is.
At the same time, because Trump can get stuff done
because he doesn't care, and because he's good at flooding
the zone, doing so many things that nobody can stop
any one thing that he's doing right like Trump is

(01:23:25):
probably doing now right now ten illegal things all at once,
and you can't keep track of it, and maybe it's
thirty illegal things. And there's so many lawsuits in the courts,
and it's different stages of of you know, being appealed,
and then there's a bunch of other stuff that he
does that it's not who's gonna ensue him on. I

(01:23:47):
don't think JD Vance could do that, but JV Vans
would be more thoughtful about legislation about eroding our freedoms
in a more sustainable, substantial way. So I think he'd
be worse, but let get less done, but what he
gets done will be more permanent, if that makes sense,

(01:24:10):
all right? Evan? How does objectives justify abortion when it
makes human life a primary value? Doesn't abortion? Of OVERWHEMD
the value assigned to feed us was ironman evading no abortion.
The position abustion is completely consistent. The objectives in place

(01:24:33):
is primary value on the life, on the light on life,
on human life, on the only human life that exists
at the point of an abortion, which is the mother's life.
You know, it is her life that is the focal point.
It is her rights that are the focal point. Her
body that is the focal point, and you know, her

(01:24:55):
choice to do with her body as she wishes. But
that's because we care about life. The fetus might be
alive technically, so is a skin cell that drops from
my skin. But the fetus is not human life. It's

(01:25:18):
potential human life. It will become a human life if
it's not sake or if it's and if it's carried
to term, but if it's not, it's not human life.
And therefore, when you have a living, non human and
you have a woman's life, then objectivism focuses on the

(01:25:42):
entity that actually is human, that actually is alive, and
that's the woman, and it's her rights, her life that
we focus on. And then she has the right to abot.
So abortion is the fetus is a part of a
woman's body. She has control and a right over her body.

(01:26:05):
And therefore, and and a fetus is not a human being.
It is a potential human being. And I know that's
a hard distinction to make, but it is not a
human being. It is on the way to becoming a
human being, and it has no rights. It's not individuated,
it's not separate. To have individual rights, you have to
be an individual. The fetus is not an individual. It's

(01:26:28):
a it's it's it's parasitic on the mother, and it
is part of the mother. One is an actual, one
is a potential. The mother is actual. The fetus is
a potential, and therefore objectivism places it rights with the actual, which,
which you know is is is the only thing that

(01:26:51):
makes sense. So objectivism believes in you know, holds that
there should be no restrictions on abortion. No. I mean,
I don't think he has a closed People are have

(01:27:12):
been you know, pounded on the head with UH with
a particular view about abortion for a long time. They'll
keep hearing my position, They'll read in RAND, they'll listen
to Lenda Peacock, maybe they'll read some Lena Peacoff on abortion,
and there's a good chance that some of them will
change their minds. I think this is an issue where

(01:27:33):
people can and do and will change their minds. It
just doesn't make any sense that you sacrifice an adult
to a non individual. It's just it's just crazy to me. Yes,

(01:27:57):
I mean, Chairman Mao here says a woman will never
ever have rights. Yeah, he is not convincible because he's
he can't think because he's not. He's not he has
no value, so trying to convince him is a waste
of time. I agree with that. Chairman Rosse says, only
man have rights. I mean, okay, so it's okay to
abord a good, but not okay to aboord a boy.

(01:28:17):
I guess. I mean. So again, another another mindless creature
creeps into my chat. But but yeah, I mean we
see that, and there more and more of these. A

(01:28:40):
new bone is not independent of its mother. And it's
independent of its mother, right. A nurse can take care
of him. The newborne can be adopted by somebody else.
You can give it, you can give it formula. And
of course now it is a set, but entity, it

(01:29:01):
is not, you know. Umbilical cord means that the baby
gets all its nutrients, everything it needs to survive. The
fetus gets from its mother. If the mother doesn't eat,
the fetus dice. If the mother bleeds out, the fetus dies.
You know, the fetus is a part of the mother.

(01:29:22):
It's a it's an integrated part of the biology of
the mother. Once it's born, it's not that anymore anybody
can feed it, you know, inside the womb, only the
mother can. So it is a part of the woman's body.
It's dependent on the mother in a way that it's

(01:29:44):
not dependent on the mother after it's born. All you
need is ice to see that, right, I mean literally,
you read about the fact that everything, everything that the
fetus needs to develop to grow to everything comes through
the umbilical call from the mother. It's not a newbores,
not independent, but it's not a part of and completely

(01:30:08):
one hundred percent dependent on the mother. It's not a
part of it. So, yeah, the fetus needs to become
separate from the mother. Separated from the mother, that is
when it gains rights. That's when it becomes an individuated
individual human being. You know, it seems to be bizarre

(01:30:38):
that people say, so, just before he was born, it
wasn't a human being and now it is. Yeah. Not
just before it wasn't born. It didn't have rights, and
now it has rights. That's the distinction. Why is that
hard to figure out? It's in the mother doesn't have rights.
Out of the mother has rights because it's changed status.

(01:30:59):
It's completely different, it's not the same. The medical cord
has been cut. You know, it's such a it's such
a visually obvious, deep mark of demarcation. I'm trying to
think of an analogy. Yeah, I mean, one minute you're alive,

(01:31:25):
the next minute you're dead. There's no transition, there's no
but a little bit dead and somewhat dead. And when
you're alive, you're not a little dead, and you're not.
It's just in every live person is potentially dead. It's
a potential dead person. And you're not a potential you're
not a dead person. So there's a clear mark of democation.
You're born. When you're born, you get rights. Before that,

(01:31:48):
you don't have rights because when you're born, you become
an individuated human being. Before that, you're not an individuated
human being. The cord is not cut, but the cord
is not functioning. The cord stops functioning once the baby's
at once the baby is outside of the woman's womb,
you know, the umbilical chord. I mean, again, a little

(01:32:10):
bit of biology, just basic stuff, right, The placenta and
the cord all flesh out of the woman's womb. So
it's not like the baby is getting nutrients from the
chord after it's afterwards, And why wouldn't you get the cord,
you know. So it's not the cutting of the cord
that makes it an individuated human being. It's the being born.

(01:32:35):
It's you're inside another human another, you're inside a human being,
you're outside a human being. That's a big deal. It's
not a little change. That's a big change, all right, John,

(01:32:55):
You've mentioned that alun Mask has basically gone silent with
regards forming a political party. Did he disband it? Did
anyone at ARI wind up getting in contact with someone
else or someone there? I mean, we tried to get
in contact with Elon. We've tried by many different routes
to get to Elan. We haven't been able to But no,
as far as I know, very little was done. So

(01:33:15):
there's nothing to I don't know that it was anything
to disband because I don't think that anything was actually created.
But I haven't looked into it in great depth. I
just know that nothing's happening at that front. And if
you want to run a candidate in twenty twenty eight,
you've got to get started soon in registering in the
States and creating the infrastructure and finding candidates and doing

(01:33:36):
all the work. And it doesn't look like, at least
from what I can see, that Musk is engaged in it.
All right, John, thank you, normative Randroid Joan. At this point,
you should write a book on immigration after your current book.
I mean, I think Augustina, who works at the Institute,

(01:33:58):
will do that at some point. She will right a
book an immigration. That's her passion, and she's she's very
good at it. She knows a lot, so I'll delegate
that to her. But there should be a good book
on immigration. I agree, though she honest with the left's
embrace of identity politics. What makes you say that the
rights embrace was not inevitable, Well, it was likely and predictable.

(01:34:23):
It wasn't inevitable. They could have made the choice to
reject collectivism and embrace individualism and go towards the funding
principles of America rather than towards the left, rather than
towards Embasis and the left. And I agree with you
that it was very, very, very predictable because the right
always intellectually follows the left. So when the left becomes racist.

(01:34:46):
So there's the right. So it's inevitable, is very strong.
There was no other option. Nothing else could have happened.
There's always, because this free will, there's always the choice
of just chucking all that bad philosophy and adopting an
one deeper with Diego. I love your sense of humor.

(01:35:07):
Trump twenty thirty twenty thirty, No, it would be twenty
thirty two. God, you get your dates right, Diego? Come on, now,
was that sarcasm? I don't know? Was that humor? Neo?
When is your new book coming out? I don't know,

(01:35:28):
so next year, but exactly when? We don't know. I
don't have an agent, don't have a publish yet. I'm
trying to get an agent right now. The Oceanis says,
stop having tds five hundred exclamation marks. He does no wrong,
and I think he's being sarcastic. I think that's right,
although I might be too old, according to Diego, to

(01:35:51):
identify sarcasm, so maybe I should quit while I'm ahead,
all right, the Oceanis, what are your opinions on private prisons?
Seems like to me prisons would fall under the legitimate
government function. Yeah, I agree with you. So prisons are
legitimate goverment function, and I don't think legitimate government functions

(01:36:12):
mostly should be privatized. Privatization creates all kinds of perverse incentives,
and I don't think policing, although I do think private
security firms would exist under capitalism, but they'd be a
clear demarcation between the responsibility of a police and private
security firms. I think prisons should be government run. I
think they should the legitimate function of government. But it's

(01:36:36):
also I think only government can do it objectively without
creating perverse incentives. This is, you know, this is the
role of government. I mean, I'm open to argument on
this one. We'd have to draw it out and really
think through everything. But from everything I've from what I've

(01:36:57):
thought about it, which is not a huge amount, and
from everything scene, this is one of those things that
just we should be the government. And I don't think
prisons a security, prisoned justice. Prison is about justice, and
I think only the government can inflict justice. Criminal justice, right,

(01:37:17):
that is the job of government, and it's only the
job government. And I don't think any got outsourced that.
Just like I don't think you take criminal precedings, arbitration,
criminal proceedings go to a court run by the government.
Prisons a thing of the government. All right, cool, Thanks everybody.

(01:37:39):
I appreciate the support, Appreciate all the questions, lots of
questions today. This is good. I appreciate all the stickers.
I think I got all the stickers. Maybe I didn't.
Let me take a look quickly. And thank you for
all of you participating. As I said, I'm not sure
exactly when the next show will be. I will definitely
try to do one from Israel. Alex. I think Alex

(01:38:01):
came in with some twenty Swiss fangs as a sticker,
and so thank you Alex. All right, thank you guys.
I will see you all next week sometime somewhere from

(01:38:22):
some hotel room at some hour of the day. And
I know some of you don't like that, but so
be it, all right, thanks for the support. Don't forget
patreon dot com. Search you on book show and become
a monthly supporter. Really really really important, really really really
valuable value for value, be a trader by everybody

All Episodes

American Exceptionalism? The Meaning of America | Yaron Brook Show

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know

Crime Junkie

The Breakfast Club

.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;}American Exceptionalism? The Meaning of America | Yaron Brook Show