Ballroom; Cartels; Russia Sanctions; Gov Shutdown; Elections; Gaza; San Francisco | Yaron Brook Show - Yaron Brook Show

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

(00:25):
I hope everybody's having a fantastic week. I am in
New York City at a hotel. I am praying. I
think you should all join me in a quick prayer
to the gods of the Internet, the gods of Wi Fi,
to sustain our connection. And yeah, we'll see, We'll see

(00:51):
what happens. Hopefully everything good. If you can give me
those are ina chat, give me thumbs up on picture
on audio. Just let me know what it's how it's going,
so I have some sense of what is going on.
I'd appreciate that. Let's see. Just do that, all right,

(01:14):
it's good. Everybody says it's good. That's good, it's good, great,
thank you? What does like that? All right? So I
want to start today by apologizing for making an error.
I do that periodically, and you guys are very good
at correcting me. Usually those of you correct me are

(01:37):
pretty obnoxious about it and use this this opportunity to
rub their hands and see you're on always get stuff wrong.
He's always wrong. He doesn't understand, he doesn't get it
to depend on mainstream media or whatever the bullshit is. So, yes,
I did get something wrong, and that was related to
the ballroom, the ballroom that is being built in the
East wing of the White House that I wrongly said.

(02:03):
I've wrongly said that the taxpayer pays for it, and
it's coming out of it and spending And I said,
in a time of a gun but shutdown, how come
they're spending money on this because this is a Trump priority.
We'll get to the shutdown in a minute in a
little while. But but but so let's focus on the ballroom.
It turns out that I was wrong that the ballroom
indeed is not being funded by Congress. It is not

(02:28):
being funded by by taxpayer money. Now there's a real
question about whether the president can just decide unilaterally to
destroy half, you know, a big piece of the White
House to rebuild something else without congressional approval. But he's
doing it. Nobody seems to be too complaining, So I guess,

(02:50):
I guess it's right. And so it is. It is
funded by private contributions. Now, I will say I still
think a lot of people who are not getting paid
right now because of the government shutdown. Resent the fact
that government is spending money, even if it is so

(03:12):
called private contributions on the ballroom. So I think my
analysis was correct in that sense. But it is absolutely
true this ballroom is going to be funded by corporate
and individual funds, you know, two hundred and thirty million
dollars I think, or something north of that. Now there's

(03:34):
a sense, there's a sense in which this is worse,
much worse, because this is just more of the corruption,
the cronyism. I mean, the list of the people giving
money for the ballroom is a list of companies who

(03:58):
have contracts with the government. Do you think those contracts
are affected by the fact that they're giving money to
the ballroom? You think they there's any trade here, you know,
you give money to the ballroom, we'll give you juicy contracts.
I mean, there's no doubt that there is. You just

(04:18):
look at the list and you can see anyway from
from Plantea to Lockheed Martin. Of course, all the all
the tech companies that are that are constantly handing over
money to Trump and the Trump administration in order to
get them off their back. Microsoft Mata alphabet Amazon. This

(04:40):
is just more of the just horrific kind of coneyism
that we're seeing. And then, of course, on the individual side,
you've got you've got Blackstone CEO, and you've got held
held ham from from the oil billionaire. You've got people
who have stuff in front of the government. And this

(05:01):
is one way to get on Trump's good side, and
he will make decisions that are beneficial to you. And
given given given a Trump's oversized role in every aspect
of the government these days, and and given the fact
that Trump is playing at central planner in chief, it's

(05:23):
incredibly valuable to be on Trump's good side. And and
this is this is that this is exactly that this is.
This is basically uh putting money into trump loved project
in order to in order to get favors with Trump.

(05:44):
So it's worse than if it was the government's money,
great taxpayer money, because it's just we are establishing this
country kind of a class of olligogs. We're slowly shifting
to the Hungarian or more propriately Russian model, where businessmen
are successful because the government chooses them to be successful,

(06:08):
and you know they they fail because the government decides
that they should fail, and if they really want them
to fail, they fall off out of windows or they
even go to jail. We're shifting to a business model,
at least under Trump. I don't know if this is
sustainable with any other president, but at least under Trump,
where Trump gets to the side who who the winners are,

(06:30):
who the winners are even in tech it it really
is stunning. And of course again people will accuse me,
you know, of uh being overly negative. But here's the reality.
There has never been an administration in all of American

(06:53):
history that comes even close to the level of corruption
of this administration. I mean, you would have to have
five to ten year on book shows in order to
cover all the corruption and all the bad stuff that
this administration is doing, because it doesn't do one or

(07:16):
two little things. It does five six, seven, eight, it's
all day. I mean, you have to listen to the
president every day he has a press conference, and every
day the amount of bs coming out and the amount
of corruption being revealed is just stunning. So even if
you had five to ten yourn book shows covering everything,

(07:39):
you would still have to talk a lot about the
corruption on trumpet administration just to cover what he's actually
doing on a day to day basis. Richard Hanania is
a good little piece. I mean some it's a little overwrought,
but a good little piece on this today. And you know,
he says, everybody thinks that the media is reporting too

(08:03):
much about Trump and talking too much about Trump's corruption
and dishonesty. But no, the media is not even covering
this anywhere near the proportion at which Trump is different
than any other president. Here's the thing. Do you remember
how much talk there was and maybe many of you
thought there wasn't enough talk about Hunter Biden. Hunter Biden.

(08:26):
You know, there's talk about him getting eleven million dollars
from Ukraine and then something from China, maybe maybe combined
ten to twenty million dollars of payments. There's no direct
evidence or that there's some circumstantial evidence of involvement by
Joe Biden in all of that, and the right in

(08:46):
America went berzook freaked out over like eleven million dollars
and this is the most corrupted administration and this is
a mafia family, and and on and on and on
about it and just how awful and horrific Hunter was,

(09:07):
and everybody just freaked out and put aside that the media, Yeah,
you know, there was a there was a cover up
there and and all that stuff, and but it it's
it was small, I mean, by some estimates, By some estimates,
the profit to the Trump family just in the second term.
I'm not counting where Jared Kushner got from the Saudi's

(09:30):
between administrations, right after he left, after he left the
first administration, and before A twenty twenty four, Between twenty
twenty and twenty twenty four, Jared Kushner, of course got
two billion dollars investment by the Saudi or family would
have never happened if it was just Jared Kushner. It
was Jared Kushner because of what he had, because of

(09:50):
the connections he had established, given that he was the
son in law of Trump, and given his power within
the administration. I'm not even counting that, right and and
and that is dramatically more than anything Hunter Biden never got.
But since Trump came into office, since Trump Pride gave

(10:12):
me to office, the Trump family is profited to something
like the tune of three point four billion dollars, billion dollars.
And Trump has been directly involved. He's not hiding the
fact that he's directly involved. He claims his kids are
managing this, but there's no tr there's no separation. He

(10:35):
owns these shares. I mean, the stuff they're doing, and
the stuff they done with Crypto, the stuff they've done
with uh I, I you know, with the the deals
in the Middle East, with with the Katari government, with
the Saudi government, with Yuee, the the the I mean,
it's just unbelievable, the amount of corruption and this is

(10:55):
just this is just directly to Trump's family. I'm not
talking about all the money that is going to Trump
causes by the law firms, the money going to Trump
himself from the news organizations he's suing. You know, I'm

(11:16):
gonna talk about how he's using his power to settle
quote settle with everybody because they don't want to be
on the bad side of the president. I mean, he's
even trying to get to a hundred and eighty million
dollars from the Justice Department. We talked about that yesterday,
and it's just it's just stunning. And then of course

(11:37):
you've got people like David Sachs, who works for you know,
a venture capital fund that invests in crypto, hasn't left
that job, still has all those investment and yet he
is the White House crypto. Zaw no conflict of interest there.
And you've got Steve Widcuff's son who's involved in the

(12:01):
Trump family crypto business and was in Kuta to get
a major investment in the crypto stuff from the Kataries
as all this stuff is being negotiated, Whitcoff is the
guy negotiating and his son is flying around with him
to negotiate his own deals. Now that isn't corrupt, It's

(12:28):
just not on the same ballpark. I mean, Hunter Biden
and the Biden family are amateurs. And this is the
big difference between past administration in this one. Past the
administration is a hide. This administration doesn't kid, just doesn't care.

(12:49):
So yeah, this is why there's so much about Trump
because Trump does so much. He's doing so many things
like nobody else has ever done before. He's just every
day something new, something some decent, mostly bad. And you

(13:10):
want the news for me, that is the news. He
is the news, and the coverage he gets on MSNBC,
on CNN. Uh. The people who criticize him is now
near enough and no near deep enough and nowhere near
sustained enough to cover everything bad that he does. And

(13:30):
of course Fox and those guys just just just uh,
you know, just to prove of everything he does and
and cheer him on. So you're not really getting news
from anybody, and you're certainly not getting uh, any kind
of sense of any attempt of objectivity. I think I

(13:51):
attempt to do that, alright. Alright, so, uh so let's
talk about some of the actions, some of the stuff

(14:12):
that's going on today. Well, in a press conference just
a little while ago, UH, Trump and and UH secret
date of war hegxeth UH basically declared war. Uh. They've
declared war on the cartels and not the cortels in Mexico.
For some reason, even though if fentanyl is the thing
that is killing Americans, it's not cocaine, it's not really heroin.

(14:36):
What's killing Americans is fentanyl. I think that something like
a hundred percent of all fentinyl comes from Mexico. I
but I th they they don't want the asshole of
going to war with Mexico and in Mexico as a
border with the United States, and uh and the reality
is that uh I I they're trying to have a

(14:57):
decent relationship with the president of Mexico, so they're not
going to go to war with Mexico. So they've chosen
weaker targets. So they're going to go to war with Venezuela.
With the Cortels in Venezuela who don't really involved, are
not really involved in fentonyl trade, mostly involved in a
cocaine trade, and they are now being authorized basically to

(15:24):
bomb to not just bomb boats that we are told
no verification, but we are told drug sluntly in boats.
By the way, these boats, I read this somewhere, in
order to get from Venezuela to the United States, given
the size of these boats, they would have to refuel

(15:45):
twenty times. You could arrest them at any one of
those refueling stations. You could snk them at any one
of those refueling stations without bombing the hell out of
them and killing people, assuming even carrying drugs. And my
guess is they're not carrying drugs. In the United States.

(16:05):
You don't use little boats like that to carry drugs
the United sides. I didn't notice the last couple of
days that they're bombing boats in the Pacific. Maybe maybe
you know Pacific coast. Maybe they've been listening to you
on brook Show, where I've been saying that almost all
the drugs coming into the United States come in on
the Pacific side. It doesn't come in on the Atlantic side,

(16:26):
on the Caribbean side. Maybe that's it. I don't know.
But they did a couple of bombs. They've bombed a
couple of boats on the Pacific side, but again not
a fentannel that would require them to figure out how
to stop smuggling across the southern border. And even though

(16:47):
they've stopped immigration from the southern border, they have not
stopped the floor of fentanyl now through the southern border,
not on boats into California, Texas and so on. They
just haven't stopped it. It's nowhere near right anyway. I
now Trump is declaring an armed conflict with drug trafficking groups.

(17:09):
He's designated them as international terrorist groups. They've already done that,
and then today they announced that they will start bombing
ground facilities in places like Venezuela potentially Colombia. So we're
going to this is a one drugs which is basically
announced by Richard Nixon in the nineteen seventies has been

(17:32):
a complete out of failure. Has only made drugs and
drug deaths and the destruction of drug and the drug
trades and the cartels much much was we're doubling up
on it, We're doing more, when, of course, you know,
the solution to the problem of drugs, the way to
get rid of fent andol is to make cocaine and

(17:53):
heroin legal. If cocaine and heroin were legal, nobody would
buy fentanel because cocaine heroine would be so cheap. Why
would you bother with fentinel. Fentonel requires a chemical. All
these chemicals they require some combination. Cocaine and heroin are
easy to grow, they grow plenty in tropical climates, and

(18:16):
they'd be really, really cheap, and you could save a
lot of money from new wars. So for some reason,
Trump has decided that the one war he does want
to engage in. And I think the first person I
heard raise this issue about going to war with the
cartels was Vivic Ramaswami, who's probably going to become the

(18:38):
governor of Ohio unless there's a big anti Indian vote.
We'll see, but probably going to become the governor of Ohio. Yeah,
it's you know, we're going to war against the cartels.
I couldn't believe it when Vivic said it. I thought
it was nuts. I thought it was crazy. But notice
that they're not going to war with cartels in Mexico.
They actually do the damage. No, no, no, we wouldn't

(19:01):
want to do that. It's the same thing as they
did before right after nine to eleven. You don't go
to Iran, which is actually funding terrorists and inspiring terrorists
all over the world. You got to Iraq, you go
to the you know, they much poorer cousin. You do
irrelevant stuff. You don't go to the source even you know,

(19:25):
assuming if you wanted a strategy to destroy the inportation
of Fenton all In. But this is ridiculous. I mean
the President of Columbia at some point said the truth
out loud, and he basically said, what is your problem
people with cocaine? Or just make it legal and you

(19:45):
know it's not that bad, it's not that bad for you,
and it's not that bad. Just make it legal and
you solve the problem. Why are you're subsessed with this stuff?
That is true. It's probably the only thing I agree
with the present Columbia on. So yeah, it it it.
It looks like, uh, I the United States is gonna

(20:08):
get more aggressive, not less aggressive. Uh. It looks like, uh,
we're gonna be bombing in South America soon. Hopefully they
don't decide to to bomb in retaliation and bomb I
don't know, uh, uh Puerto Rico in retaliation. Yeah. Heroin
is very addictive and it does bad things. Don't take it,

(20:29):
don't take caroin, do not inject hero and if you do,
it's your problem, not mine. And if it was legal,
then my guess is a bunch of companies would figure
out ways to get you uh off the addiction and
maybe rewire your brain back, or maybe the rewiring of
your brain. It would be a good thing, because I mean,

(20:52):
you took the heroin, your brain might not be functioning
that well to begin with. Maybe it needs rewiring. Maybe
the heroine will do you good. I don't know. Heroin's
a lot more addictive than nicotine, So I mean, the
whole idea of nicotine being addictive is way exaggerated. I
know so many people who've gone are gone off nicotine

(21:14):
cold turkey without any problem. I don't know anybody who's
ever gone heroin addiction? Cold Turkey? You can't, I mean
without help, without real help. So no, heroin is really
addictive and really bad. But okay, don't take it. But
there are a lot of things you shouldn't do, even
if they're legal. Wellhab says tropical Stone. Melissa is going

(21:40):
to be how it can. Yeah, but it's not gonna
affect Puerto Rico's though, I don't care that much, all right,
Sachka tells, here's one you know, whereas as Trump flip
flops through different issues, chinges his minds constant simplete revises

(22:02):
his position based on new information. How about that? You know,
yesterday the Trump administration announced new sanctions on Russia's two
largest oil companies, was Neft and Luke Oil. And it
turns out that these new sanctions have teeth. It's shocking

(22:26):
that this was not done previously. It's chocking the Biden
administration didn't do this. It's shocking Trump didn't do this earlier.
But these have real teeth. Uh, you know this is
gonna this is making it very difficult for India to
input Russian oil. Uh. And it looks like they're going
to cut importation of Russian oil significantly. That will also

(22:49):
help them visa vi the tariffs that they are paying
the United States. But they were negotiating around the tariffs
and they didn't offer to stop buying oil because of
the tariffs. The sangs thing of Roseveldt and Luke oil,
because of the fact that if you violate the sanction
the all kinds of consequences downstream. They are basically backing

(23:15):
off of buying Russian oil. So it sounds like the
Indians are doing it. But also even more importantly maybe
is the fact that it is really hitting the Chinese heart.
That is, China today announced that woos Yeah, China today

(23:41):
announced that it is gonna stop buying oil at least
in these two companies. Now it's likely that China that
Russia will find a way around us. I mean the
sanctions on the two largest oil companies, but at the
end of the day, putin controls all of it, right,
so you could imagine the oil being funnel after some
of the small ower companies that maybe have not being

(24:02):
sanctioned and and still be able to sell to China.
But as of now, both China and India are significantly shrinking.
They purchase of Russian oil. Russia is basically funding its
war to a large extent with money coming in, you know,

(24:27):
from from oil. So Russia to a large extent, I
means their war effort is going to be significantly I
think crippled is going to be significantly crippled by if
they lose these markets, particularly if they lose the Chinese

(24:48):
and the Indian markets. So that is good, you know,
starving the Russian market is good. And you can see
these are really having an effect by the fact that
or plight is jumped, or places went significantly up, so
people expect a lot less oil coming out of Russia.

(25:08):
Therefore there'll be a lot less oil in the world market.
And as a consequence of that, or prices went up.
So it has that suggest to me that this is
you know, we'll see if they sustain, if they stay up.
As I as I said a few minutes ago, I
believe that Russia will find a way around us. I

(25:30):
don't think this is long lasting, but at least for
now it's having a real impact and it will be
will be significant. OR prices spiked to above sixty four,
which is you know, means that people expect to reduce

(25:54):
to supply. It also means that whatever oil Russia does
sell not from these two companies, they sell it higher price.
So we'll see what impact Neat this all has, but
I think at least in the short run, it's going
to have a significant impact on the Russians, and then
the question is can they sustain it. Also, supposedly from
the administration, there was a Wall Street Journal article yesterday

(26:19):
saying that the US lifted restrictions on Ukraine's use of
European long range missiles. So the US has to approve
because technology, the US technology is in the missiles they
use a long rage. Even though they're withholding the Tomahawks,
they're letting for the first time. Supposedly they're letting. For example,

(26:41):
the Ukrainians used the Stone Shadow, which is a British missile,
firing it deep into Russia. So yesterday there was the
story that the Trump administration has approved this and that
this is part of the pressure the Trump is putting
on Putin to agree to this cease fire deal or

(27:03):
to agree to better terms, I guess for the Ukrainians.
Interestingly enough, Trump doesn't want to be associated with that
at all, and you know he doesn't always deny stuff
that's written about him, But he did go yesterday on
truth social and say, the Wall Street Journal on the

(27:25):
us a's approval of Ukraine being allowed to use long
range missiles deep into Russia, it's fake news. The US
has nothing to do with those missiles wherever they may
come from, or what Ukraine does with them, which is nonsense.
That's just not true. But you know, he's probably got
a phone call from Putin or one of Putin's cronies saying,

(27:48):
what are you doing? Why are you proving this stuff?
You know, it's very hostile. Don't behaving like this, Donald really,
and he backed off. So while I think the approval
is really there, will see if the Ukrainians keep using them.
Trump is distancing of self from having anything to do

(28:08):
with it, which is just interesting in and of itself.
All right, let's go back to the goverment shut down.
The government is now the second longest government shut down
in history. It's now longer than the government shutdown in
ninety five ninety six that actually produced the compromise between

(28:30):
Bill Clinton and Nude Gingrich, that actually put in place
mechanisms to control government spending and actually led the US
government for the first time ever, well not ever, for
the first time in modern times, to have a surplus
in nineteen ninety nine. So in nineteen fifteen, ninety five,
and ninety six, there was real effort to come to

(28:50):
some kind of deal, and that deal involved cutting government
spending and you know, again nude gingrich control. Congress, they
passed a budget that cut spending dramatically. Bill Clinton said
he was gonna veto it. The government shut down for
twenty one days, but they ultimately negotiated a deal that

(29:13):
allowed the government to open and where and where what
do you call it? I'm reading David Susson's comments, which
I shouldn't do it in the middle of a sentence.
So they took the series they and actually cut gun spending.

(29:34):
But at least there's a percentage GP if not, if
not not real government spending. This time, the government shut down,
there's no indication it's gonna reopen. Nobody really seems to care.
Dem cuts on Republicans seem fine with the government shutdown.
Trump has manipulated the whole thing in a way where

(29:59):
he's he's basically he's basically paying the people who wants
to pay and not paying the people who doesn't want
to pay. Now, this is probably illegal, but again, this
is like the corruption. Trump does so many things that
are illegal. There's so many, for example, lawsuits right now
against it that you can't keep track anymore. And a
lot of legal scholars are like, who has the energy

(30:23):
to follow this anymore? But it's probably illegal what he's doing.
But you know, for example, the Department of War of
War has repurposed about eight billion dollars in funds that
were supposed to be used for something else and not
being used to pay the one point three million members
of the armed forces. Huh, that's not what a government

(30:45):
shutdown looks like. You don't get to payout. Yeah, I mean,
it's just shenanigans. For example, some agents of ICE, FBI,
Homeland Security seem to be receiving their paychecks. Others not,
but some Yes. The president has pledged to use tariff
revenue as if it's not just regular revenue tax revenue

(31:10):
to fund food aid programs for low income mothers and
their children. How can he do that when the government
shut down and no budget's being approved, no, no spending
has been approved. He also said he's gonna resume paying
the three billion dollars in farm aid because the farmers
need it, need no standard, certainly no Congress Congresses. I mean,

(31:39):
for that matter, we might have a permanent government shutdown.
That'll basically mean Congress is not functioning. Is Congress functioning anyway?
At the same time, things that are not being funded
are things that he thinks of the Democrats. So they
cancel twenty eight billion dollars for projects located in Republican areas.

(32:02):
They're firing federal employees who they think who are working
in government, in government programs that Democrats like. But even there,
the Democrats don't seem phased. They don't seem to care.
I mean, generally the country is going on. Everything's fine.
I mean, this always happens in a government shutdown, panic

(32:23):
in hysteria. The world's gonna come to an end, the
economy will collapse, the stock market will go to zero.
GENP is gonna be heard dramatically, and then there's a
government shut down and nothing really happens. Nobody's that upset.
The markets don't collapse. GENP is fine. Arguably, it's actually

(32:45):
good that the government shuts down. Uh. And you know,
but usually politicians are panicked who's gonna get blamed this time.
They've managed to organize a government shutdown without any pain.

(33:07):
Now finale, you know, there's certain things that have certain deadlines,
and if you don't stop paying into them, particularly the
welfare programs, I mean, that's when the pain happens. You know,
if soial Security checks are going out and Medicaid is
being paid, so those are the big and interest on
the debt is being paid. Those are the big parts
of the government. Right If interest on the debt doesn't

(33:29):
get paid, the government is a default. It goes bankrupt,
you know. SOID Security, nobody's gonna stop paying Social Security, Medicaid,
nobody's gonna stop paying Medicaid. So the real pain points
they've eliminated. Now they're paying the military somehow through some Shenanigan.
The big one is another welfare program called food stamps,

(33:50):
and funding for food stamps is going to run out
supposedly in several states because federal government gives them an
the states and states distributed. A number of states are
going to run out of that money by November first.
What then, So November first might be the point where

(34:13):
they have to make a decision where there's a pain
point because people who get food stamps will be upset.
I mean, is any anybody, I mean, a lot of
people get food stamps, right, It's tens of millions of people,
and a lot of them are in red states, and
a lot of them voted for Trump. So bit, as

(34:34):
far as I can tell, money is being spent. I mean,
I'm at the airport all the time. TSA is working fine,
air traffic control is working fine. I haven't heard of
any real problems in the air traffic control. Things seem
to me kind of chunking along. So I don't know
what the pain point is. Keep the gum shot. How

(34:56):
many people use food stamps? Tens of millions of Americans
food stamps about fifty percent of Americans. I think it's
fifty one to fifty two percent of Americans a net
recipients of welfare payments from the government. That is, they
get more payments from the government than they pay in taxes,
and food stamps is a big part of it. And
again it's tens of millions of people. So yeah, we'll

(35:22):
see what happens. We'll keep track, but it's not a
real government shutdown when you can reallocate funds and make
the payments anyway, and the government really hasn't shut down,
and most of the stuff that the government does is
still working. There be ice still out there. As far
as I can tell, ice is still out there now.
Supposedly a lot of these people, according to chatchupt forty

(35:44):
two million people get food stamps. That is a lot
of people, forty two million people. Lincoln says it's like
twelve percent of the country. Maybe chat GIPT is a percentage,
but yeah, it's a lot, surprisingly, but twelve point three
percent of the population. Welfare is massive in the United States,

(36:09):
And of course the biggest welfare plan is so security.
They've taken that off the table because the one thing
you have to keep doing is paying welfare. The real
thing is if government employees get really pissed off because
they're not getting paid, like TSA, air traffic control is others.
I mean, they've even managed to keep the national parks open,
not to piss off the people visiting national parks. So

(36:31):
what's the point of having a budget if the president
can just decide unilaterally what he spends it on, when
he spends it on, how he spends it on, and
there's no shut down there's no anything. Yeah, we live
in a very strange country right now, where the constitution,

(36:55):
the rule of law, the rules, any kind of rules
governing just be put to the side and are being
ignored and they don't exist, and it's just gone. It
just doesn't exist. And you know, we can probably survive
it through the Trump years, probably maybe, but how long?

(37:21):
Y you know, how is this gonna translate into the future,
how's it gonna be, how's it gonna work in the future,
And what happens, uh if every administration adopts this, and
if as we move into the future, you don't get
worse and worse and worse, and and then the consitution
becomes completely irrelevant and and that com political system completely

(37:43):
changes or collapses. Which is it looks like is where
we're heading, where we're hitting. The only thing that can
save us really are the courts. And so far the
courts have indicated a willingness to cave. Now we will
see if you know how far they will to go.
And you know, a big one here, a big one

(38:06):
here is is what Trump is doing with the with
the whole election mechanism. You know, he now has appointed
a person in the federal government. This is a new agency,
if you will, called the Election Protection Programs. This is

(38:27):
part of this is part of Homeland Security, and it's
it's an apartment that is concerned with election integrity. He
is placed at the head of this program. Have the Honey,
who is a leader and an avid spokesman for and
somebody who's been very active around election denials of the

(38:51):
twenty twenty election, claims of election fraud left and right,
the idea that you know, the the electronic voting is
super you know, super fraudulent. I mean she is. She's

(39:13):
a partisan hack who is committed to conspiracy theories around elections,
and she's a position now to I don't know, dictate
election technology and the elections as they happen in the
future and generally at the state level as well. We've

(39:36):
put the Republicans are put in charge of many of
these elections, election deniers throughout the country. Republicans bought into
these ideas. Are we ever going to have an actual
real election again? Again? I mean Trump is a student

(39:58):
of what Auburn and what Putin have done. I mean
Putin has an election every four years. To have an election,
Auban has elections now Auburn might lose the next election
because he's so unpopular right now. He might lose in
spite of how much he rigs it. But Putin will
never lose. And one really wonders to what extent the

(40:21):
Trump administration is putting people in place that are going
to are going to create standards and processes that they
can rig, that they can rig. I mean, Wookie in

(40:44):
the White House is you know Could Olson, who worked
for Michael Lindell, you know pillow Man, and was a
big promoter of stolen election theories, all kinds of stolen
election theories. And yeah, I mean the director of public

(41:06):
Affairs at the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency Cybersecurity Infrastructure
Security Agency is a woman by the name of Marcy
McCarthy who spread debunk claims about voting machines at Georgia
when she was the chair chairwoman of the the Caleb
County Republican Party. Now she's the director of public Affairs

(41:30):
at the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency. And the lots
of these people. This is what I told you all
the time about Trump's second term. Trump's second term is
about putting his people in there, people who will do
whatever he wants. People who are committed to manga and

(41:51):
committed to the insanity of Mega. And these are people
who have in the past in twenty twenty and would
in the few which completely undermining the integrity of the
election system. And it could be that these appointments that
he's making will have, you know, greater consequences to what
happens to the to our election, in our political system

(42:14):
than maybe any other appointments he makes. You know. He
also said two days ago and one of these past
conferences where he's sitting around and talking to the press,
he says, in our quoting Trump here, we can never
let what happened in twenty twenty elections happen again. We
just can't let that happen. I know, Cash, this is

(42:36):
head of the FBI is working on it. That's kind
of ominous and scary. Everyone is working on it. And
suddenly Tulsi, Tulsi's head of all intelligence agencies, she's working
on it. We can't let that happen again to our country.
What happened in twenty twenty nothing he didn't get to

(42:59):
steal this election. What happened in twenty twenty is that
Donald Trump was prevented from stealing an election, and now
he says the head of the FBI and the head
of our intelligence agencies are working on making sure that
he can steal elections in the future. I mean, he

(43:22):
said it, and that's the only way I mean. I
know he doesn't interpret it that way because he I
don't know that he believes himself. I don't know what
he believes. But you know, the election wasn't stolen. People
think that Trump cannot be elected again because he's limited,

(43:42):
But Steve Bannon is out there every way saying Donald
Trump will run for a third term and will win
a third term. And I don't know what the strategy is.
I don't know how they get around the constitutional thing.
And I think at the end of the day, it's
unlikely that he runs. But okay, so Donald Trump uses

(44:04):
all these tools that he has in place in order
to make sure that JD. Vance wins, or in order
to make sure that Don Junior wins, or whoever he
decides is his heir and should win. These people are
low to him. He'll just tell them what to do.
You know, they're telling you exactly what they want to do.

(44:26):
They're not hiding it. This is not hidden in code.
I mean, that's the thing about Trump. He's corrupt right upfront.
He just takes a suitcase of cash. There's no ifs,
but maybe you know. The corruption is happening right in
front of our eyes. You cannot fail to see it.
And he doesn't care. And when asked about he says,

(44:46):
oh yeah, who cares. And in terms of rigging the
next election, he says, we're not gonna let twenty twenty
happen again. We're not gonna let it happened again. That
if I feel like I want an election, or if
I feel like my people want an election, they won't
be able to win it. They should win it if
I feel like they want it. This is not pretend,

(45:09):
this is real. All right. Let me see I did
see Troy. Thank you, thank you, thank you, Troy. Troy
came in a five hundred Australian dollars. Really appreciate that.
Thanks to the support. And we've got John with the sticker.
I'll just go through the stickers quickly. Stephen and another
Stephen Hopper and Stephen Kreisman and yeah, those are stickers

(45:34):
for today. Thank you guys. Really appreciate the support. All right, well,
we have left, we have Gaza and San Francisco. So
let's quickly talk about Gaza. The reality right now is
that I think everybody there's a lot of doubt about
being able to disarm Hamas. There's a lot of doubt

(45:55):
about who will be in the military force to go
in there, and and and the peacekeeping force to go
in there supposedly after Ramas disalms or maybe to disarms Ramas.
Israel is basically put its foot down that the Turkey
cannots and troops Katao cannots, and I don't think it
has any troops, so Turkey cannot send troops. Uh and

(46:17):
and so the latest proposal is Azerbaijan and Indonesia, which
I think Israel will accept. Azerbaijan is a Muslim country
friendly to Israel. Indonesia is not yet friendly to as well,
but they there are noises about establishing relationships. And Indonesia
is not hostile to Indo Israel like like turky Is.

(46:38):
So they would accept Indonesian and and Azari troops. But
I don't think Indonesian and az Vaijan went to send
troops into a war zone to fight Ramas, which is
what will be necessary, you know, to disarm them, And
there really does seem to be now a kind of
an implicit plan that I think is being pushed by
Jared Kushna to basically focus on, you know, creating two gazas,

(47:07):
having a Gaza strip that is controlled by Israel and
a Gaza strip that is controlled by Hamas, and to
invest a lot of money and rebuild the part of
Gaza that is controlled by Israel what's called the yellow
line now and build that up and not pull any resources,
not put any money, and not put any kind of

(47:30):
construction material and things like that into the area controlled Bahamas.
Give them food, humanitarian aid, I guess that is a requirement,
but other than that, not do anything and over time
potentially allow Gazan civilian populations screened by Israel to move

(47:51):
from the Hamas controlled areas to Israeli controlled areas and
basically ultimately make I'm not so unpopular because people will
see across the border Guzans are living really, really well
and they're struggling. Hamaso on popular that they will dissolve
and they will go away where their plan like that
can work is doubtful, quite doubtful. But that looks like

(48:17):
what they're doing because I don't think, as I said
from the beginning, that I don't think that the plan
that they put together is doable. I don't think it's
doable because Ramas does not want to disarmle Ramas does
not want to give up control. And the only force

(48:38):
that can actually get them to do that and has
the capacity and the will to do that is Israel.
And nobody wants Israel to go into Gaza and finish
the job. Why, I do not know. It has to
do more with pr than anything political. But I think
everybody in the region would thank Israel if they actually
did that. They won't admit that, but they would thank

(48:59):
them at the end. So, you know, the struggle is
going to be how to keep Ramas out of the
Israeli side. So the idea is to create a vetting
program that is Israeli authorities would lead that would vet
the Palestinians who wanted to move from the Ramas side

(49:20):
to the Israeli side. You know, we will see, we
will see. But this is this is the plan that
is evolving right now. The plan that it really does
seem like Jared Krishna is pushing. All right, yesterday I

(49:44):
read you something all the day before, which is something
by a meet Sega from Israel where he explained how
you know the reality is that Israel lost a lot
of soldiers in order to protect the hostages. Right, And
he has another piece today that I think is is
really good. So I'll just read this to you, and

(50:06):
I think this is the kind of mall calculus that
them all decision making them all principles that Isa's going
to have to come to terms with because this is
not the last time they're going to fight awards, not
the last time they're going to be hostages. He writes,
the claim that Israeli government ordered the IDEF to sacrifice
the hostages and operations Gideon's charts, that's the last operation.

(50:32):
Is the opposite is actually reality? The opposite is true.
In fact, in the area where the IDEF operated in
recent months in southern Gaza, they were enclosed zones that
the idea of reframed from entering or bombing due to
an assessment that hostages were being held there in these compounds.
Armas operatives understood that they were largely immune, they not

(50:57):
only took part in guarding the hostages, but also attempted
to harm idea of soldiers surrounding the area relying on
that safe zone. From one of these areas, terrorists repeatedly
came out, attacked soldiers, and returned unharmed to the location
there was off limits for Isterix, and among those attacks

(51:18):
were some of the deadliest. In total, around twelve soldiers
were killed by terrorists who emerged from that protected compound
where a single hostage was being held. Is all basically
sacrificed twelve soldiers. And I use sacrificed because it's the
appropriate tomb sacrificed, which is a negative in objectives, and

(51:43):
negative tomb sacrificed twelve soldiers in order to protect one hostage.
That cannot be right, that cannot be model, that cannot
be just. And again I'll return to what I said
October eighth, Israel should have said, we are going to

(52:08):
destroy Hamas, and we are going to do it under
the assumption the hostages are dead. If we can rescue
some of them, we will, but we will not let
Hamas use the hostages to shield itself and to kill
our troops from behind their bodies. That wasn't done. A

(52:30):
couple of hundred or a few hundred Israeli soldiers died,
probably large number of those because of this policy, and
it's a travesty and Israel needs to completely rethink it,
completely rethink it. Howard deals with hostages in the future
has to go back to the days of Antebe, the
days before the two thousands, before before N'atanielle, when the

(52:56):
policy was we do not negotiate with terrorists period. Actually
the policy before Oslo, that's what they need to go
to Oslo was the nineteen ninety four deal that brought
our fight into the West Bank and agree to Pelcinia
and autonomy. They need to go back to the days
before Oslo. Away. It was clear explicit Israeli policies, we

(53:20):
do not negotiate with terrorists principles. Good old days of
principles didn't last very long. All right. Let me just
see what else we heard here, all right. So Trump

(53:44):
supposedly had made the decision and actually troops were on
the way to send troops into San Francisco and to
clean the place up, reduce crime and cleaned it up.
And he had a phone call with the mayor of
San Francisco, and he has now decided to delay, to
bring the troops back, not send them into San Francisco.
And the question is why you know what's going on?

(54:09):
What did the mayor of San Francisco, Daniel Lowry say,
They commenced him because because Lowie is saying the same
stuff a lot of other mans are saying crime is
down anyway, we're doing a real good job, and Lourie
did ask. I think what Lowie did, first of foremost
is he was nice to Trump and complimentary. He told Trump,

(54:30):
you know, we're gonna really try. We're gonna let us
try first, and then if we can't succeed, then you
can come in and we're going to try to. You know,
we can try to, you know, and we can try
make the effort. And Trump quote in the in his

(54:52):
feed the federal governor was preparing to serve San Francisco,
California on Saturday. But friends of mine will get to
the other fends in a minute who live in the
area called last night to ask me not to go
forward with the surge and that the mayor, Daniel Laurie
was making substantial progress. I spoke to Mayor Laurie last
night and he asked very nicely that's the key, very

(55:14):
nicely that I give him a chance to see if
he can turn it around. Laurie is a new mayor,
a centrist Democrat or relatively centrist, the centrist that you
can get in California. So you know, Trump says, therefore,
we will not search San Francisco on Saturday. Now you

(55:34):
might be rewilded. How come a mayor can convince him?
And I don't think it was really the mayor who
convinced him. I think it was these friends and new
other friends. Who does he know in San Francisco. Well,
he knows a lot of the tech guys. My guess
is that. And I know because I read one of
the new stories covered this and said that he had
spoken with the CEO of Salesforce. Salesforce as a huge

(55:58):
presence in San Francisco. It's in downtown. The CEO of Salesforce,
who was until recently a real bleeding heart liberal, real
bleeding heart leftists, not liberal. We are leftist, huge on
social responsibility, corporate social responsibility, and woke on everything bad.

(56:19):
And he's he's now become much more friendly to Trump.
I wonder why, you know, One wonders what did he promise?
Maybe he promised to five million dollar check for the ballroom,
maybe he promised to five million dollar check for something else.
Who knows, but the tech bros, the tech guys, basically,

(56:42):
you know, convinced him. It's the billionaires who live there.
It's the billionaires who involved in San Francisco politics and
who have swayed in the White House. They're the ones
who have swayed in the White House. So again, we
don't know exactly what transpired, but it's doubtful that the

(57:02):
Democratic mayor of San Francisco is the one who contritche Trump,
although Trump does admit that the mayor was very nice
to him, and of course, as I said, that matters
a lot to Trump, matters a lot to Trump, not
just to be nice, but to really suck up, really
suck up. All right, that is at least an abbreviated

(57:24):
version of the news on this what is it? Thursday
till twenty third? Uh, thank you all off for joining
h We will shift now to answering your questions. Let
me think there will be no show tomorrow Friday, and
there will be no show on Saturday, well maybe a
show on Saturday, potentially a show on Saturday no show

(57:48):
on Sunday and then Monday, Monday, no show Tuesday Wednesday
will play by next week? Is not gonna be good
for shows? Well, well I'll do as many as I can.
But I'll be on on a israel time zone Monday,
Tuesday Wednesday, and then I'll be on European time zone
after that and giving lectures in the evening when it's

(58:12):
reasonable to do a show. So I could do a
show very late at night, but after early morning flights.
So it's gonna be a challenge, but I I will
do my best to try to do uh a show,
uh some shows next week, but it's gonna be uh difficult,
and I will try to do uh Saturday from London. Uh.
We also know there's a good internet connection cause we've
done many shows from there before. Alright, we have a

(58:35):
bunch of super Chat questions. Again, I wanna thank Troy
for getting us our target and helping us succeed the target.
So thank you, uh, thank you to Troy in Australia.
Really really appreciate it. One of these days we'll actually
meet when I'm in Australia. That would be that would
be cool. I just won't say, let me just see

(58:55):
what's going on. I don't know if you heard about this.
This is this is news, but not news that is
particularly if it interest to you guys. I guess uh
you know, uh I Puerto Rico I I I I
I I A A a major pipe line that it

(59:16):
brings water into the city, into the populated areas from
a big reservoir was a bust and they had to
shut it down. And basically there's no water. Uh so,
uh there's uh you know, there's uh no water in
in po in much of Puerto Rico, many many households
do not have any water running water. It's now being
almost a week. We have a a cistern in our building,

(59:41):
so we have this big water tank that we were
using and up until yesterday that was fine, but that
you know, started getting depleted and and so u as
of yesterday, yes yesterday, we are rationing water in our
condo building in Puerto Rico. And as my wife said it,

(01:00:04):
you know, it's a good time to travel because it
means less laundry, fewer showers, you know, so sh you know,
and she can control it much easier with me not
being there. But but yeah, unbelievable, right, unbelievable that. I mean,
Puerto Rico is such a mess when it comes to infrastructure,
A and I it's such a sad mess because it's
all unnecessary. It's all the consequence of bad governance and corruption.

(01:00:27):
It's not a lack of money, it's not a lack
of smart people who know what to do. It's it's
just the political there's no political will to fix these things,
and and there's so much corruption that you can't get
it done properly. All right, Uh, let's jump into your

(01:00:47):
questions and then and then we'll call it a night,
all right, David says, David, thank you fifty one hundred dollars.
Really really appreciate that. Thank you, David. David said, listen
to how Let's book Economics and One Lesson. Yeah, absolutely invaluable. Yes,
required reading. Guys. If you're out there and you want

(01:01:07):
to understand how the world works and you want to
understand basic economics, the first book you should read is
Economics and One Lesson by Henry Hanslett. Absolutely valuable. Thanks
for the recommendation. How applicable are the many fallacies to
modern day economics? All of them are applicable, every single
one of them is applicable. I did a series, God,

(01:01:32):
this is I don't know, twelve thirteen, fourteen years ago
for Pajama TV. Do you remember Pajama TV. Those are PGATV.
We did a series where every we did these short videos.
Every video was Okay, here's what here's this chapter in Haslet,

(01:01:53):
here's what he covers, and here's how it applies to today.
Here's some examples from today, and every one of applies
and applies in spades because the principle is the same.
Everything wrong that's being done, that Trump is doing, that
Biden did, that is a fallacy out of that book.

(01:02:16):
So the main difference is that when Hazard wrote it,
unions were more powerful. I'm trying to think of as
any But other than that, I mean, everything is applicable.
And the broken window fallacy, which is at the heart
of economics and one lesson. The broken window fallacy is

(01:02:36):
every way we look, every way we look, and it's
built into the way they calculate GDP, It's built into
the way they think about economics. So thank you, David,
really appreciate the supports and I'm really glad you enjoyed
the book. I hope everybody reads it. I see, Justin says,

(01:02:57):
very much appreciate all you do. You know that's not
the one that was looking for anyway, very much appreciated.
Oh you do any news on and another conference in Australia, No, don't.
I don't have any news about it. And I supposedly
something's happening in twenty twenty six, but I haven't heard anything,

(01:03:17):
any kind of final decision or any any planning or
anything like that. I'll have to ask at the Institute. Jonnaton,
who organized the previous Australian conference, is not resigned from
the institute when to work for a startup, And I'm
not sure who's in charge of it now. Okay. Just
An also says, by the way, loving economics one lesson,

(01:03:40):
did Hazlett have any interaction with Rand? Yes he did.
Hazlett did interact with Rand. Rand was a huge fan
of Hazlitz of economics and one lesson, and he in
those days in the forties, I think it was he
had a regular column. He was in the New York Times.
Imagine Hazlet writing regularly. He was the economics guy at

(01:04:02):
the New York Times. So he had about as free
market as a person as you could find who can
write well and in an understandable way. The chief writer
of on Economics of the New York Times, so In Rand,
and he knew each other. Indeed, there are these famous
dinners that I wish had been recorded. Imagine if these

(01:04:23):
things would be recorded of Miss von Mises, Ludwig von
Miss Henry Hazlitt and Ein Rand sitting around the table
having dinner and conversation. Can you imagine, you know, people say,
who would you like to have dinner with those three? Yeah,

(01:04:44):
people who are dead? Who would you want to bring
back to life to have dinner with? I'd want to
be at that conversation, and I would I would stay
completely quiet, just listen to them. You know, at least
Mesas and Ein two of the great geniuses of the
twentieth century. Has it amazing? Right? So yeah, really really
good guy, Lincoln says, has lived to be ninety eight,

(01:05:08):
probably the longest living Austrian economics guy. I don't know.
I mean, what's his name? Oh god, oh god, his
name escapes me. Now. The Orthodoxy Jewish guy who taught
at NYU, who's an Austrian economist, is well into his

(01:05:31):
nineties and might be ninety eight, might be more than that.
I don't know. But he's well into his nineties. I
think he's still a lot alive. His name will come
to me. I hope that would be horrible if I
can't remember his name all right, Hoppa Campbell. Maybe somebody,
maybe somebody in the chat will remind me of the name,

(01:05:52):
because it's embarrassing. Do these people, this is Hali, Do
these people want to want no wealth, creation, no innovation,
no material progress of any kind, or just less of it.
They will allow it, bet don't want to see an
explosion of it. I don't think they think in those terms.
They want control, they want power. They also think that

(01:06:14):
innovators would innovate no matter what. It's the same as
in China. Why it's China, regulate everything. Don't they want innovation? Yeah,
they want innovation. They think it will happen anyway. They
don't understand the relationship between force and central planning and innovation.
They don't understand the necessity of freedom for innovation. So no,

(01:06:36):
Israel Kutzner, thank you, William Israel Kurtzner. Is I think
in his I saw him when he was ninety one,
on eighty two, so I think he's in his late
nineties now, so he might live longer than Hazlet. It's
not that they say no, we don't want I mean
I think the environmentalist left doesn't want innovation. And even there,

(01:07:00):
when you read the environmentalists, you read some of their
books which I have unfortunately, that will write things like,
you know, if we do away with this, real problems
will arise, but technology will solve them. And where will
this technology comes from? Who will develop this technology? Blank?

(01:07:21):
It just happens. They don't understand because they're so focused
on labor and exploitation and labor theory and the materialists.
They don't understand all of the mind. They don't understand
all the force in suppressing innovation. They don't understand how
market incentivizes innovation. They don't understand anything. They think innovation
just happens and will continue to happen even if we

(01:07:44):
have communism or socialism, and the fact that it didn't
happen in Soviet Union, Oh, that's an aberration. And you're
underestimating that they innovated a little bit. So they think
that you know, Americans innovate. They will continue to innovate.
It has nothing to do with the levels of freedom. Andrew,

(01:08:05):
have you observed this. If you're rationally confident, no matter
how many times you admit you were wrong, there will
be some people envious of your independence that are driven
to prove you wrong about everything. Yeah, and when you
are wrong, who jump on you and leap on you?
And you know, Look, I cover a lot of news
every day. I spend quite a bit of time trying

(01:08:29):
to figure out what's true and what's not, what's right
or what's wrong. And I have a lot of experience
doing that. But giving them out, given them they do
a show every day, given them amount of news I cover,
I'm gonna get stuff wrong. And when somebody points that out,
I'm happy to admit it. But anybody, you know, but
if somebody is envious or hateful, then they will leap

(01:08:50):
on any one of those things that are wrong and
use them through induction to prove, Oh, where you run's useless.
He doesn't know anything. He got this wrong. He's getting
everything wrong. His whole view of Trump, his whole view
of of economics, this whole view of isn't. Whatever the
topic is, it's wrong. Look, he got wrong this wrong.

(01:09:11):
I mean if this happened like every day to multiple stories,
then yeah, I mean, okay, then you should stop listening
to me. But if it happens once every three weeks,
given the amount of shows I do, given them amount
of topics I cover in every show, I don't think
I'm doing badly, Shasbut this is a quote from The Wire.

(01:09:35):
I love The Wire, one of the greatest shows ever.
Officer one, the drug wal isn't really a war Officer two.
And why not Officer one? I guess because wars end. Yeah,
I mean there was one hundred year war in Europe
that kind of ended but dragged down for a hundred years.

(01:09:58):
So I mean, go is not one hundred year old.
But look, you can't have a warn inanimate objects. You
can't have a drug war. You have a one cartels Okay,
I don't know how you win that war was a
one by occupying territory and crushing the enemy. We can

(01:10:20):
occupy all of South America because that's what it's gonna take.
I mean we could, we could destroy the Carteli infrastructure
of Venezuela. I'll just moved to Columbia and we destroyed there.
They'll moved to Ecuador and we destroyed there. They'll move
back to Venezuela and of course the most of the

(01:10:40):
infrastructures in Mexico. So all right, Andrew says. Rand wrote
that it was the age of envy. I doubt the
situation has gotten much better since it's worse. But Rand
would disapprove heavily of giving up pursuing values because others envy.
Her attitude be to help with them. Yeah. Absolutely, Your

(01:11:01):
life is your life. Your life is not determined by
other people's envy or fear or hatred or anything like that.
You live, you pursue values, if you know. If you
want a jolt of that energy, go to my Rules
for Living Uran's Rulesful Life, which has where I talk

(01:11:22):
a lot about this, right, I talk about pursuit of
values and living your life and living fully and engaging
in it. The hole with politics to help with what's
going on in the world with this idiots and the
envious and the fearmongerers and the and the haters. Now
you're limited, I mean, let's be real here. The fact
that they dominate the world limits your options in terms

(01:11:48):
of happiness and values and success. But it doesn't eliminate them.
So resent them for limiting your possibilities, resent them for
wasting your time, resent them for taking your money. But
even with that resentment, don't stop pursuing values. Andrew, how

(01:12:09):
would you rate the effectiveness of the Democrats resistance of Trump?
They seem to have taken the fact of becoming more brutish, cursing,
doing strange social media videos and claiming the way in
the third ride. Yeah, I mean, I I think they
p they're very weak and and look, they're very weak
because what do they stand for. What is their argument

(01:12:31):
against Trump? What is it that makes them different than Trump?
What is it that they want to Trump to stop doing?
What is their principle by which they stand? And of
course if you see such principles, you'll find the postmodern
woke garbage that they have. And then it's it's all nonsense,

(01:12:55):
and it's all really really bad and evil, and and
they can't really promote that. They know that they're not elected,
so they're stuck cursing him. I mean, I think many
of them just admire his ability to get what he's
to do, what he's doing, and to get stuff done.
They wish they could. I mean, the reality is that that. Look,

(01:13:19):
here's something you need to remember, as we're soapersual mistic
about this country, but you need to remember this. Trump
barely beat Kamala House, barely beat Kamala Harris. I mean,
can you imagine a weaker candidate than Kamala and of

(01:13:40):
course Biden see now Biden and he barely beat them barely.
I mean, any decent Democrat more Centrius moarticulate would have
beaten Trump solidly. So I think you can imagine in

(01:14:00):
the future, you know, the right, while is well, the
right is growing in strength and I think is becoming
more radical and more crazy. JD events really win. He's
not that likable. Who can win the Republicans? You know?
You know now now it's not good because the Democrats

(01:14:22):
are pretty lousy and it looks like the lead candidate
right now for the Democrats is the governorment of California,
who's terrible. But but yeah, I mean they are they
are pathetic. They don't have anything they can do. What
is uh, what is the governor of California trying to do?
He's trying to mimic Trump, He's trying to be like Trump.

(01:14:43):
He's trying to troll. He's not as good as Trump is,
but he's trying. But no, I don't think the Democrats
are effective. I think what's effective. What would place to
their benefit is how bad Trump is and the fact
that the American people could see that, or at least
some of American people can see that. So if they

(01:15:06):
stay quiet, I mean, I mean what they should do
is they should be they should stop worrying about beating
Trump is their own game and critique him. Well, they
can't because they don't have principles, So what are they
going to critique him on? I mean, they should critique
him without cussing and without trolling, without all that, and

(01:15:27):
just assume that the American people will realizing how bad
Trump is, I mean bad. Trump's approval ratings are bysmal,
really really bad. Thomas, thank you for the stick. I
really appreciate the support. Thank you. Andrews says, I felt
depressed and I just willed myself to do something constructive

(01:15:50):
and it worked to alleviate the depression. Absolutely. Do you
think such a common sense premise would be considered toxic
and judgmental under modern psychology? Ooh, I don't know. I
think I think cognitive psychology, which is quite dominant in
terms of its clinical application today. I think I would
approve of that, and I think that, but that really

(01:16:14):
is a question for Gina. I don't think that modern
psychology is as bad as it used to be. I
think cognitive psychology has made it better, and there's much
more of a recognition of cognition of thinking and then evaluing,
not as much as it should be, but some right,

(01:16:37):
so yeah, so I think that I don't know that
modern psychology would prove poo that completely. All right. Lea
Mamdani is g had with a smile. He only received
four hundred and fifty thousand votes in the primary. There

(01:16:57):
are over four million registered voters in New York's eat.
My prediction, Como wins. I hope you're right as much
as I think Como is awful. I hope you're right,
but I doubt it. I think I think Mom Donnie wins.
I think he's got the energy and the passion, and
I think people will vote for that. But we will say,
the polls all show in winning quite easily. Now there

(01:17:19):
was the last debate was last night, and suppose you
Mom Doney did not do very well. But I don't.
It's hard to tell. I hope you're right, really do not?
You have a jogorithm. The state has succeeded spectacularly in
making us more and more into children than serves. Yes,
the warf of state does that, The regulatory state does that.

(01:17:42):
The you know, don't use this lawnmower to try to
trim the hedges. Stickers do that. The I don't know,
you know, all the ridiculous you know, don't don't stick
your finger into the into the electricity plug. I don't know,
all the warning labels and all this. That's yeah, that
it infantilizes us. It assumes we're all stupid and idiots,

(01:18:06):
and at some point we become stupid and idiot because
that's the attitude pbe. How does objectives and build a
logical progression from the initial actions existence exist in as
a to derive its moral code? How how logically? To
refute the saying you can't get an art from it is, well,

(01:18:30):
this is not the time or the place to fully
articulate that. But I would just say read the first
few chapters of OPAH. I mean, that's exactly what OPAH does.
Objectives and builds logical progression from existence exists through the epistemology,
through reasons Man's basic means of survival to a moral

(01:18:53):
code that basically bases reason that the scent of human life.
You know, I'm not going to do that on foot
right here again, I suggest you read you read Opah.
You know, how do you get an oft from it? Is?
It's not that hard? You know what is man? Man

(01:19:14):
is is a living being? A living being must you know,
the fundamental choice that a living being faces is the
fund is the fundamental optionist existence and non existence, to
live or not to live? You know, once once a

(01:19:36):
living being, and this is all is is right. Once
a living being chooses to live, and that's the beginning,
it's the beginning of morality. Once you choose to live,
then the question is then the question becomes, okay, how
do I do that? What are the tools? What values

(01:19:57):
and virtues should I pursue so that I can? It's
not automatic, it's not pre programmed. We don't have we
don't have it in our consciousness just ready to pluck.
We have to figure it out. So we figure out
the arts that facilitate there is which is life that

(01:20:19):
make possible? There is which is life. And of course
the number one ought is think because because empirically, observationally
and rationally, it's obvious that human existence, human life depends
on each one of our ability to think for ourselves.

(01:20:42):
So that's the very brief short one. But the answer
to that is in the Virtue of selfishness, and the
first essay in the Virtue of selfishness the objectives to ethics,
and if you want the whole development from metaphysics on
that is in that is in opah. And remember these
are deductions. These are going to be inductions. You start

(01:21:03):
with reality, you start with the facts, and then you
induce the truths that allow you to progress from existence
exists to the whole objective's morality. But it is a
sequence of inductions bridge together by deductions. But yeah, but

(01:21:26):
that would be a whole three hour you know, thing
that we'd have to do, and even then we wouldn't
cover it. It's basically open. I encourage you to eat.
Read the objectivism of the philosophy of line Man by
LANDA Peacock Kim. How are we supposed to go from
this current government and society to a right respecting government?

(01:21:46):
Seems too are slowly becoming a lost cause. Yeah, I mean,
I don't think it's going to happen right So I
think if it happens, it happens in the distant future,
and there's a lot that's going to happen between now
and then. Who know, our society might collapse, we might
go through a period of authoritarianism before there's a revival
of the founding principles. So I don't think the way

(01:22:13):
things are going right now is going to lead us
to a right respecting government. I think things will have
to completely break before people re re engage with the
idea of a rights respecting government. Things will get a
lot worse, in other words, before they get better. In
my view, Raymond did Stalin force confessions to deal with

(01:22:37):
his conscience. Why did the Soviets invent so many tortures
when a couple would do it seems deeper than sadism,
you know, I don't know in terms of the torture.
I don't know that a couple will do. I don't
know how torture works. It's an interesting psychological question. And

(01:22:58):
it's not just it's not just the Communists, but the
Nazis had all kinds of tortures the Japanese did. In
the Middle Ages, the Dark Ages, the Christians tortured people
in all kinds of ways, and they didn't just do one.
I think multiple tortures is a way to completely break
the spirit. You think your leg hoods, wait until your

(01:23:20):
arm hourtz and your back hurts and your testicle hoots
and everything else, and then you slowly break apart. So
you need multiple sources of torture. And you know the
Chinese drip. And I don't know, you know, I'm not
an expert on this field, so I don't know why,
you know. So what did they want confessions for? Because
psychologically they wanted the pretense. This is both psychologically for

(01:23:43):
themselves and also for the people. The people that they
were afraid of and stalin lived in constant fear that
people would rise up against them, So they needed to
the constant reinforcement that they were doing good. The people
that were putting were really bad guys, and they need

(01:24:04):
to reinforce it for themselves, but they also need to
reinforce it for everybody around them, even though again those
people were fooling themselves because they were constantly lived in
fear that they would be next that there would be
a revolution that would take them out. Live by force,
die by force. I mean Stalin was very afraid of

(01:24:31):
the head of the of the KGB, was very afraid
of the people around him. Daniel says, can a democratic
society exist without capitalism? You asked this question yesterday and
I answered it yesterday or the day before, and I
answered it in length. Can a democratic societies exist with

(01:24:55):
that capitalism? Well, all of them do. There is no
capitalism in the world, so I don't know what you
mean by capitalism. You mean a little bit of freedom,
a little bit of property rights that we have today.
There is no capitalism in the world. There's democracy in France.
It is the capitalism. No, So the answer is yes,
now for how long? I don't know for how long

(01:25:17):
can the exist? But yeah, in the medium term decades, Yes,
democracy can exist without capitalism. If when I say it
without capitalism, what I mean by that is real capitalism?
Well does it fair capitalism everything owned by the private sector,

(01:25:37):
and real free markets. But we don't. So no country
has that. America has existed for one hundred years without capitalism.
And if you mean by a little bit of capitalism
by some capitalism by respect for some property rights, by
some freedom. Yeah. I think democras see needs to allow

(01:26:02):
for some freedom in order to exist. I give the example.
You know, Sweden become became quite socialist and was didn't
lose this democracy as it nationalized industries and became quite socialist.
Now it didn't last because then they became poor, and
democracy basically demanded that they privatize and they go back
to a more market economy. So, you know, the democratic

(01:26:29):
process partially self correct when things go too far, but
not always, not always, sometimes self correcnce. Anyway, I gave
a longer answer day before, yesterday or yesterday whenever you
asked the question before, Raymond, China's industrial policy reminds me
of Japan, Yet people never blame it for the last decade,

(01:26:51):
dumping low interest loans, national champions. Yeah, no question that Japan,
Japan's industrial policy was the cause of the last decade.
A lot of people do blame it. A lot of
people do see that and understand that, and I agree
with you. China is very similar. China's in some ways

(01:27:12):
more interventionist, in some ways less intervenures. The intervention is
less comprehensive than it was in Japan. Japan had a
system by which, you know, really through the banking system,
they controlled almost everything, at least in terms of big businesses. China,
at least during periods at least had allowed for more
freedom than Japanese did, even industrially. So yeah, I mean,

(01:27:35):
and what you're seeing now in China is significant slow
down and significant debt problems and significant and they keep
papering over it and delaying the reckoning. But at some
point they're going to have a reckoning. At some point
they're gonna have to pay the pipeline, just like Japan did. Jacob,
I dare say, for a random person not interested in

(01:27:56):
philosophy economics, not interested in philosophy, you cannomously one lesson
is more important to read than RAND or any objectives
to author. No, I definitely don't think that's right. I
definitely don't think that's right, because at the end of
the day, what RAND gives you is something a way
to live your life, guidance to live life, which is

(01:28:18):
much more important than economics and will ultimately impact your
view of economics. But at the first level, just what
values to pursue, how to pursue them, how to live,
which is much more important than any economic text can
ever achieve. So no, I would say Atla Shrug Fountain
had virtue of selfishness. Even if you're not interested in philosophy,

(01:28:38):
philosophy is interested in you, so get interested. Andrew Objectives
is not against democracy when it comes to voting, would
you say, properly America is a democratic republic. I mean
that there is a role for a majority rule in
the objective's politics. Yes, yeah, you could all of the

(01:29:00):
democratic republic. I just think of republic captures that already
you don't have to. A republic has that as a feature.
And I would add that it's a constitutional republic. So
America is a constitutional republic, and voting is a feature
of a constitutional republic, but not always majoritarian voting. So,

(01:29:22):
for example, you could have limits on voting, and an
objective society might have limits on voting. You might have
to have I don't know, you might have to have
certain knowledge, you might have to have certain amount of property.
There might be all kinds of restrictions for voting. So
in that sense, I don't want to call myself a

(01:29:45):
pro democracy, which assumes that everybody can vote. I don't
believe in universal suffrage necessarily right in a proper republic,
and it might be appropriate that, like they did, the
senators were elected by state government rather than by the people. So,

(01:30:05):
but who gets to vote? Who gets to vote is
all a question, So I would call it a constitutional republic,
not a democracy. Jonathan will Trump allow free and fair
elections in twenty six to twenty eight? I mean, that's
a big question, And I don't know. I mean, I

(01:30:25):
think he will claim he's allowing. He won't, he won't
reject elections, and he won't He will just appoint whoever
the replacement is. But will he manipulate the system to
try to get his people elected? Yes, you'relready sing it
with the jerymandering which is happening, which is not conventional.

(01:30:48):
Usually gerrymandering happens only once a year, you know, once
every ten years. Now it's happening for the specific reason
that he's afraid of losing the twenty twenty sixth election.
He'll use every trick in the book that he can
without declaring no elections to get the people he wants elected.
Will they be free and fair? I'm skeptical. I'm skeptical. Okay,

(01:31:15):
final question, Lincoln. I just considered the left and the right.
I just considered the left and the right represent two
warring dystopias, the masculine totalitarianism of nineteen eighty four for
the right and the feminine nanny state of brave New
World for the left. Yeah, that's pretty good. I think
that's right. Although remember that Stalin was of the left,

(01:31:38):
and Stalin was not exactly feminine, so you know, I
think the analogy only goes so far. But yes, I
think that's right. Oh, think about the supporters of ramas
who are part of the left. Would you call them feminine? No,

(01:31:58):
they're masculine, the same kind of barbaric sense that people
mean masculine these days. Okay, we go one more question.
Do you feel like people this is Andrew. Do you
feel like people are in too sulky or nasty a
mood for living in modern America? Well, generally, I think

(01:32:19):
being in a sulky or nasty mood is unhelpful to you,
or to anybody around you, or to the state of
the n h state of any of us, So stop it.
But but yeah, I I I I I think it's
I I I understand why people are depressed, and why
people are fearful and why they're worried about the state
of the world. I'm worried about the state of the world,

(01:32:40):
but try not to affect I, I Y Y. Let
it affect your life, because there's too much to live
for than to let them win. And and this affects
you directly. It defects how you live when you are
sulky and whatever Sulky and Nat speak. All right, guys,

(01:33:02):
I will see you all hopefully on Saturday. Stay tuned
for what time and everything else. But uh yeah, I
have a great rest of the weekend, a great weekend,
and I'll see you soon. Bye, everybody.

All Episodes

Ballroom; Cartels; Russia Sanctions; Gov Shutdown; Elections; Gaza; San Francisco | Yaron Brook Show

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist

.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;}Ballroom; Cartels; Russia Sanctions; Gov Shutdown; Elections; Gaza; San Francisco | Yaron Brook Show