Free Speech Attacked: NYT Lawsuit, Weak Democrats, Taiwan vs China, Estonia Resists |Yaron Brook

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:04):
Fund ament of principles. I'll love readA last a little
self interest and individual wants. This is the book show.

Speaker 2 (00:20):
Oh right, everybody, welcome to your one book show on
this Friday, September nineteenth, Guy Chemis Olmo Silver, I hope.

Speaker 1 (00:29):
You had a great week and you're looking forward to
a fantastic weekend.

Speaker 2 (00:35):
All right, let's I guess, let's let's get into it.
Let's see on second, Yeah, get to the news, and
of course we'll take your questions right after that. So

(00:56):
the headlines are still focused very much on on the
Jimmy Kimmel firing, if you will, and justifiably so. This
is a huge issue. It's not the issue of Jimmy Kimmel,
who cares. It's not the issue of human getting fired.

Speaker 1 (01:13):
Who cares?

Speaker 2 (01:15):
The issue that should be focused on is the fact
that the Trump at administration, un a bastly, completely upfront,
without any hesitation, is using government power to dictate speech,
to dictate.

Speaker 1 (01:30):
What is allowed on American television.

Speaker 2 (01:35):
In a way that I don't think any administration has
ever done. Now, others I'm sure have influenced, others, I'm
sure have.

Speaker 1 (01:44):
Tried, and certainly we know that.

Speaker 2 (01:47):
Biden tried to influence what was said on Twitter and
on other social media. But this is the difference. They
always did it in the hiding. They knew they were
violating their law. They knew what they were doing was wrong.
You they were violating their First Amendment. They knew if
it actually faced public and court scrutiny, they would lose.

Speaker 1 (02:08):
Donald Trump just doesn't care.

Speaker 2 (02:11):
He's quite happy to have his FCC chairman Bennan Carr
threaten media companies and basically curse them into doing the
Trump denover stations bidding publicly and what can happen. Who's
gonna sue? It's not going to go to courts. And

(02:34):
in terms of the public reaction, we'll get to the
Democrats and amentute. But Maggie is cheering. They love it,
and they think this is great. Finally, finally, conservatives are
standing up for themselves and using their power, their guns.
They're using their guns or government to force their agenda
down the throat of American businesses.

Speaker 1 (02:58):
Tell it, this first Amendment? Who needs that? Who needs that?
What we need right now is to defeat the left.
I mean, you'll find it on my chat.

Speaker 2 (03:06):
You'll find it among people who claim to be capitalists
who claim to be pro freedom and pro liberty, and
yet they hate the left so much. They's to hell
with capitalism, kill with liberty, kill with freedom.

Speaker 1 (03:19):
As long as we.

Speaker 2 (03:20):
Nail the Democrats, It's okay if we suspend the Constitution
for a little while.

Speaker 1 (03:30):
Why not. The left will suffer so of the rest
of us, But they don't care.

Speaker 2 (03:37):
As long as we're going after the left. That's the
main thing. Now, I have to give it. I have
to give credit. What credit is you? Ted Cruz is
against all this, which is surprising because CRUs has been
like towing the Trump line forever, and he had over

(03:59):
the last few week weeks have noticed him popping up
with some critical comments. You know, one thing to Ted
Cruz's credit, He's gone after Tucker. He's really gone after
Tucker Carson's anti semitism really hard. And that's good because
I was worried Cruis ed cuz as he appeared over

(04:19):
the last six seven ages drifting in the Magi direction,
I thought he was going to go Tucker direction.

Speaker 1 (04:26):
He's standing up to Tucker. It's a good thing for that.

Speaker 2 (04:30):
Anyway, Cuz, basically, you know, this is what he said
in his poscast yes podcast yesterday. Quote he says, we
can do this easier, we can do this the hard way.

Speaker 1 (04:42):
This is what cars said. Uh, this is what the
head of the FCC said.

Speaker 2 (04:50):
Right, and I gotta say, says Ted Cruz, that's right
out of Good Fellas I eat. That's a mobster line.
That's right out of our mafiosa coming into a bar
going nice ball. You have here, It's a shame if
something happened to it.

Speaker 1 (05:10):
Now, that's perfect, that's perfect.

Speaker 2 (05:16):
Kuz noted that he's no fan of Kimmel's and said
he is thrilled that he was fired over his comments
by Cook.

Speaker 1 (05:23):
But then he said, quote, but.

Speaker 2 (05:25):
Let me tell you, if the government gets into the
business of saying we don't of saying we don't say
what you and the media have said, we're going to
ban you from the airwaves if you don't say what
we like, that will end up bad for conservatives. How
about for Americans? How about for human beings? Okay, but

(05:45):
it's also bad for conservatives. So yeah, good with Ted Cruz.
I mean, I mean, very critical Ted Cruz since a
long time. I'm glad to see him wake up maybe
to his uh closer to his real identity. He used

(06:06):
to be a good guy, at least on some issues,
never a good guy.

Speaker 1 (06:10):
In all issues.

Speaker 2 (06:12):
But then he became a bad guy on most issues,
and now he's slowly becoming a good guy in some
of them.

Speaker 1 (06:17):
It's very confusing to me.

Speaker 2 (06:19):
At the same time, many other Republicans are like, hmm,
I used to be for free speech, but you know,
not the way of power. Maybe this free speech stuff
is a little overblown. Maybe it's too much. Here's Senator
Republican Senator Cynthia Loomis. She told she says, you know, an.

Speaker 1 (06:42):
FCC license, it's not a right, it really is a privilege.
I want to throw up.

Speaker 2 (06:48):
And then she says, under normal times, in normal circumstances,
I tend to think the First Amendment should always be
sort of the ultimate right and that there should be
almost no texting balances on it. I don't feel that
way anymore. Yeah, first, the man eh not sexy anymore,

(07:11):
it's not now I'm not that excited about anymore. I
think I'll switch. I think I'm in power over speech.
That that's the policy I'll adopt. That that's good for
the country, that's good, that's good.

Speaker 1 (07:23):
In the meantime, Donald Trump on a plus one.

Speaker 2 (07:28):
Is not agreeing with ten cruise at all at all.
It's like, no, right, he says, they give me only
bad publicity press. I mean they're getting they're not getting relations.

(07:50):
I think I would think maybe the license should be
taken away. And he said the decision about whether they
take the license away should be left of bending the
chief of CC. So yeah, when he was asked about
what about what you know now Kimo's gone, what about

(08:11):
Stephen Colbert at CBS and said, look, that's something that
should be talked about for licensing too.

Speaker 1 (08:18):
We should look at that as well. Yeah, maybe we
should take CBS's license as well.

Speaker 2 (08:22):
Await, don't worry Trump, your ally Ellison is taking over CBS,
so that that's clean air.

Speaker 1 (08:33):
He says.

Speaker 2 (08:34):
When you have a network and you have evening shows
and all they do is hit Trump, that's all they do.
If you go back, I guess they haven't had a
conservative on in years or something.

Speaker 1 (08:44):
Somebody said, none of that's true.

Speaker 2 (08:47):
But when you go back, take a look, all they
do is hit Trump.

Speaker 3 (08:51):
They're licensed, they're not allowed to do that. They're an
arm of the Democratic Party. Uh, you know, and we're
going to take it. Rid Trump said, I think Rende
Carr is outstanding. He's a patriot, he loves our country.

(09:12):
He is a tough guy. So we'll have to see
in terms of who loses their license and who doesn't.
So yeah, Trump is no fan of thirst Amendment either.

Speaker 2 (09:29):
And here's the thing again, he's not hiding this.

Speaker 1 (09:35):
This is not done in some dark room, smoke filled
dark room, in the back of some bought This is done.
Why didn't the open.

Speaker 2 (09:43):
Publicly stated on podcasts, on interviews, in press conferences.

Speaker 1 (09:50):
Nobody's trying to hide what they're doing.

Speaker 2 (09:53):
Christopher Folk constantly said, were to use whatever force the
government has in order to clean out these you know, legally,
he says, And yeah, they can take the license away.

Speaker 1 (10:04):
That's legal. I don't think the Screme Court will like it.

Speaker 2 (10:08):
But by the temp it reaches the Supreme Court, who
knows what I've happened.

Speaker 1 (10:14):
So it's brazen, it's explicit. It out in the open.

Speaker 2 (10:18):
They're telling you what they're gonna do. They're signaling in
advance because they're hoping. What they're really hoping is that
all these guys will get fired now. And they said
it what you know, they threatened a few times. Nobody
can pin it on them, Nobody can say it was explicit.
The courts can't overrule it. Really, who has standing anyway

(10:41):
to fother the lawsuit? So you know, the brazen explicit,
and then they're happy to take credit for it. And
that suggests that they're unafraid. They're not afraid of you,
the voter. They think you support us, not afraid of
the courts. They are suddenly not afraid of Congress. I mean, look, Trump,

(11:06):
according to Poles, granted, what are the polls now, according
to Poles, is as unpopular as any president has ever
been in history. He's the most unpopular president ever, more
unpopular than he was the first time, which was then
in historic Kali Loo more popular than Biden was. What's
he gotta lose? People don't like him anyway. We'll get

(11:30):
to it. Why he might win anyway, Why Republicans might
win anyway, even though they're so disliked.

Speaker 1 (11:39):
But yeah, it's there are no consequences they and this.

Speaker 2 (11:46):
Is to a large extent Congress, but not just Congress.
This is us, the people. Hey, so yeah, I mean, look, politically,

(12:07):
free speech is essential. It is a cornerstone when the
government starts censoring, when the government starts threatening you for
your speech. When the government starts censoring you, penalizing you,
I don't know, I'm doing green cards, potentially taking away

(12:28):
your citizenship because of speech.

Speaker 1 (12:32):
We are in real trouble. I mean, in real deep trouble.

Speaker 2 (12:36):
I rand you know thought that. You know, the main
way you knew you were kind of a nonathoritarian country.
The main sign that it was now time for a
revolution was when free speech goes away.

Speaker 1 (12:51):
It is. It is that essential.

Speaker 2 (12:58):
And this administration clearly there's no qualms about violating it,
about taking our right away.

Speaker 1 (13:09):
Uh.

Speaker 2 (13:10):
And we need to yell from the hooftops about it.

Speaker 1 (13:14):
We really need to make a big deal out of it.
I don't know what else to tell you.

Speaker 2 (13:20):
I mean, staying silent about this is dooming whatever movement,
whatever hope we have for a better future. It dos
it because it will kill all ability to speak. So, yeah,

(13:42):
somebody's accusing me of moving further left because I'm accusing
the Trump administration of.

Speaker 1 (13:51):
Using the federal government to silence people. That's left. Now,
really that's left.

Speaker 2 (14:03):
You're losing a plot, people, You really are losing the
plot that's called anyway, we'll leave what that's called aside,
all right, So this is a funny story. It's again

(14:28):
it's related to the free speech issue because one of
the ways, one of the ways in which the Trumpet
administration is trying to chip away at speech and trying
to destroy any kind of independent, independent journalism, biased, unbiased.

(14:51):
You know, there's no there's no issue of there's nothing
that says that journalism has to be by unbiased. But
one of the ways they want to chiboy at this
is not only taking the licenses away from broadcasters, but
the other way to do it is for Donald Trump
to just sue company after company after company after company

(15:11):
and use that that threat of lawsuit to intimidate the
media into treating him more quote fairly. I think the
media generally is way too soft on Trump.

Speaker 1 (15:25):
I think the media should be much more.

Speaker 2 (15:27):
Critical of Trump in a rational way from a perspective
of liberty and perspective freedom, perspective of capitalism. I think
the media has given him a free ride. I think
it's why he's back. But yes, so Trump sues all

(15:48):
these media companies, and we talked about this the other day.
That he had sued The New York Times for defamation
and all these other things and so on. And today
a judge through the case, or at least through this,
uh this out saying they'd have to resubmit their lawsuit
again in twenty eight days to do it. And so

(16:11):
let me read you. Let me read you what he wrote,
because it's it's it's really funny. I mean, I like
this judge, this judge, this judge a good guy. Anyway,
here's what you wrote. As every member of the bar
of every federal court knows or is presumed to know,
rule that requires that a complaint include quote a short

(16:34):
and plain statement of the claim showing that.

Speaker 1 (16:37):
The pleader is entitled to relief. Rule AEI. This is
the rule helpfully adds that each.

Speaker 2 (16:46):
Element of a pleading shall be simple, concise, and direct.

Speaker 1 (16:52):
Some pleading isn't necessarily longer than others.

Speaker 2 (16:55):
The defense likely depends on the number of parties and claims,
the compleat of the governing facts, and the duration of
scope of the pertinent events. But both the shorter pleading
and a lawndon pleading and a longer pleading must comprise quote, simple,
concise and direct allegations that offer a short and plain

(17:16):
statement of the claim. Rule eight governs every pleading in
a federal quote, regardless of the amount in controversy, the
identity of the parties, the skill or reputation of the council,
the urgency or importance real imagine of the dispute, or
any public interested issue in the dispute. In this action,

(17:38):
a prominent American citizens citizen, perhaps the most prominent American citizen,
alleges deformation by a prominent American newspaper publisher, perhaps the
most prominent American newspaper publisher, and by several other corporate
and natural persons, alleging only two counts of deformation. The

(18:02):
complaint consumes eighty five pages. Count Count one appears on
page eighty. Count two appears on page eighty three. Pages
one through seventy nine, plus part of page eighty present

(18:22):
allegations common to both counts, and to the defendant and
to all defenders. Each count alleges a claim against each
defendant and apparent. They each claim seeks seeks the same
remedy against each defendant. This is this is great. I
love the way these judges, right, You've got to they

(18:44):
just have a way of concise speaking. This is the
thing I love about the court system. Even under the
most generous and lenient application of rule eights, the complaint
is decidedly improper and impermissible. The pleader initially alleges an

(19:06):
actoral victory by President Trump in hisporic fashion by trouncing
the opponent, and alludes to persistent election interference on the
legacy media, led most.

Speaker 1 (19:19):
Notoriously by The New York Times. The pleader alludes to
quote the halicon.

Speaker 2 (19:26):
The helicon days of the newspaper, but complains that the
newspaper has become full throttled mouthpiece of the Democratic Party,
which alleged allegedly results in the derangement deranged endorsement of
President Trump's principal opponent in the most recent presidential election.

(19:47):
The reader of the complaint but labored through allegations such
as quote a new journalistic low for the hopeless compromise
and tarnished gray lady. Unquote, the reader must endure an
allegation of quote the despair, the desperate need to defame
with a partisan spear rather than report with the authentic

(20:09):
looking glass, and an allegation that quote the false narrative
about the Apprentice was just a timper of the defendants
melting iceberg of falsehoods unquote. Similarly, in one of the
many often repetitive and laudatory towards President Trump but superfluous allegations,

(20:31):
the plead of states the Apprentice represented the cultural magnitude
of President trump singular brilliance which captured the zeitgeist of
our time. I hope you're finding this as entertaining as
I am, because I am finding this amazingly entertaining. I mean,
this is Trump being called out for his you know, ridiculousness,

(20:55):
is you know, is.

Speaker 1 (20:58):
Just anyway is ridiculousness.

Speaker 2 (21:02):
The complaint continues with allegations and defenders of President Trump's
further and the acquisition acquisition of the Trump's wealth, with
a protracted list of many properties owned, developed, or managed
by the Trump organization, and a list of President Trump's
many books, with a long account of the history of
the Apprentice, with an extensive list of President Trump's media appearances,

(21:25):
with a detailed account of other legal actions both buying
against President Trump, including an account of the Russian collusion hoax,
and incidents of alleged lawfare against President Trump. And with
much more persistently alleged in abundance floyd and in innervating detail,

(21:48):
innovating detail.

Speaker 1 (21:49):
There's a wood for it. Even assuming that each allegation
in the complaint is.

Speaker 2 (21:56):
True, of course, that is for a jury to decide,
and not pertinence.

Speaker 1 (21:59):
Here.

Speaker 2 (22:00):
This or this suggests nothing about the truth of the
allegation or the validity of the claim. But it just
is only the man of the presentation of the allegations
in the complaint. Even assuming at the trial the plaint
of offers evidence supporting every allegation in the complaint and
that evidence is accepted by the jury as fact, and
even assuming that after finally melting the defendants alleged iceberg

(22:23):
of falsehoods, the plaintive prevails for each reason the legend
the complaint, even assuming all that a complaint remains an
improper and impermissible place for their tedious Listen to this
for the tedious and for the tedious and burdensome aggregation

(22:46):
a prospective evidence for the rehearsal of tedious tendacious argument,
or for the protracted recitation and explanation of legal authority
purityative supporting the plaintiff's claim the claims stay full of relief.

Speaker 1 (23:05):
As every lawyer knows, knows, always presumed to know.

Speaker 2 (23:08):
A complaint is not a public form for vituperation and invective,
not a projected platform to rage against an adversary.

Speaker 1 (23:19):
Adversary.

Speaker 2 (23:20):
A complaint is not on a megaphone for public relations,
or podium for passionate oration at a political rally, or
the functionally equivalent of hyde park speaker's corner. A. Oh,
come on, David, that was English, beautiful English. Now some

(23:42):
words I can't pronounce. But that's me, that's not him.
This is really good. In other words, this bs eighty
five pages of just boisterous, you know, or praising of
Trump and accusations against the New York Times.

Speaker 1 (23:58):
It's not a complaint. Here's what a complaint is, she says.

Speaker 2 (24:03):
A complained is the mechanism the fairly, precisely, directly, soberly
and economically inform the defendants in a professionally constrained manner,
consistent with the dignity of the adversarial process.

Speaker 1 (24:17):
Of the nature and content of the claim.

Speaker 2 (24:20):
A complaint is a short plaint, direct statement of allegations
a fact sufficient to create.

Speaker 1 (24:28):
A plausible claim.

Speaker 2 (24:29):
For relief and sufficient to permit the formulation of an
informed response. Although lawyers receive the motor crum of expressive
latitude completing the claim of a client, the complaint in
this action extends far beyond the outer bound of that latitude.

(24:50):
I mean, this is a great judge because what this
is judges basically saying, you can call him hot totyan,
but that just reveals your your bias and again your
kind of trump mindlessness syndrome. What does judges arguing for
is objectivity. What's this judges arguing for is the facts

(25:15):
and owning the facts. You want to complain, fine, give
me the facts, present the case to the point succinctly objectively.
Don't spend eighty eight pages praising the defendant, be asking
about his TV show and so on. This is an

(25:37):
intellectual This is a judge. This is objectivity. This is
our court system. This is why I still say our
court system is the last bastion of liberty and freedom.
Stop this subjectivism, stop this spewing of emotion, lay it out,
lay out the facts four pages, eight pages.

Speaker 1 (25:59):
You don't need eight eight eighty eight pages.

Speaker 2 (26:03):
So that is that is the last hope we have
in this country's judges like that. But but yeah, so
he struck it down. It has to be written in

(26:23):
twenty eight days. Good for this judge. Somebody said on
the chat that he is a Trump appointee. I didn't
have time before the show to check that, to check
who pointed it. I don't care who appointed it. The
reality is I like it because he's direct. And that's
the other thing about judges generally, they tend to be direct.
They don't they don't mince woods.

Speaker 1 (26:43):
They I mean some judges, not all of them.

Speaker 2 (26:48):
But and it puts, it puts any you know, it's
the only place where people seem not afraid of Trump.

Speaker 1 (26:55):
Like everywhere else, people are terrified of him.

Speaker 2 (26:58):
Businessmen are terrified of congressmen are terrified from other politicians, terrified,
other leaders of other countries terrified. The only people who
seem to be willing to stand up to Trump and
call it.

Speaker 1 (27:09):
I would even say Democrats are terrified of Trump.

Speaker 2 (27:12):
The only people actually willing to call it, to tactically
state you know you're am or this is nonsense, or
this is completely distorted and perverted are judges.

Speaker 1 (27:25):
And they've done it on several of his cases.

Speaker 2 (27:28):
And but some some not to any names, of course,
will justify, will attack anybody who attacks Trump, and defend
Trump no matter what he does, even if you shoots
somebody in the middle ofary of the avenue, even if
he uses the power of the state to get rid of.

Speaker 1 (27:48):
A comedian in late night television.

Speaker 2 (27:53):
Democrats are way too weak in in attacking Trump's So
let's talk about that. Trump is probably the least popular
president we've had. According to the polls, people don't like him.
Is policies are not popular. Tais are not popular. Even

(28:15):
the immigration roundup not popular. Immigration right now is more
popular than ever. And the reality is that you don't
hear that many voices criticizing, not on the issues, not
on a steady, regular, kind of fundamental basis. Yeah, they

(28:36):
take pot shots here and there, Suddenly a late night
television the comedians take shots at him.

Speaker 1 (28:41):
Probably they're the best.

Speaker 2 (28:44):
The newspapers, Yeah, the headlines are tilted in the direction,
but they're not systematic about it, and they, you know,
they're not articulating the cause and effect of the disastrous
policies he's put into place.

Speaker 1 (29:00):
And the Democratic Party itself is mute. You just don't hear.

Speaker 2 (29:05):
Them right now, they're debating whether they shut down the
government of a government funding or not, and there wabby
They're terrified of the consequences.

Speaker 1 (29:14):
They're terrified they get blamed for it.

Speaker 2 (29:16):
They're trying to position themselves to the midterm and they
don't know how they should win in a landslide midterms.
The opposite midterm elections, the opposition party usually does very
very well, and given how unpopular Trump is, they shouldn't.
They should crush Republicans in the midterms. And yet they
don't seem to have any confidence at all. There just

(29:42):
seems to be a particularly among i'd say the centrist Democrats.

Speaker 1 (29:48):
They seems to be very little.

Speaker 2 (29:49):
Energy, very little passion, and nobody has kind of made
a mark, made himself known, or put himself out there
as the guy who's going to go after Trump. Maybe
maybe what's his name, govern f California. Maybe Gavin Newsom
is the closest you get to it. But the media

(30:14):
is dominated by Trump. Trump is in the headlines all
the time. It's Trump messaging that gets across, and the
Democrat line is buried. And there's a reason for this,
the fundamental reason that they can't really stand up and
go after him. Is that they know, they know that

(30:38):
they stand for nothing. They know that they often know alternative.
They know that to the left there are people.

Speaker 1 (30:52):
Who are hated, despised by the American public and who
are going to lose them election after election. The Democratic
Party is stuck.

Speaker 2 (31:10):
Because the Progressives have destroyed whatever high ground they thought
they had with the woke phenomena. Everybody's against woke and
you know, Biden destroyed or whatever. Claim they have to
do economics better. With the inflation of the.

Speaker 1 (31:29):
Early two thousands, which ultimately is what led to Trump
being elected.

Speaker 2 (31:34):
It's very hard for them to attack Trump on economics,
even though that's what they should be doing.

Speaker 1 (31:38):
They should be going after him.

Speaker 2 (31:40):
The pathetic job numbers, the rising rate of price inflation,
basically destruction of manufacturing jobs in the United States. You
will see in the months to come. The bankruptcy is
a small and medium sized business who used to import.

(32:03):
The general economic distress. They should be hopping on that.
And yet what do they have offer in instead? And
who are they talking to? Who is the Democratic voter,
I mean, the progressive is all going to vote for
them anyway, But who are they trying to convince to

(32:25):
vote for them. I mean, the reality is that in
every issue right now, Trump loses.

Speaker 1 (32:36):
Like the latest post.

Speaker 2 (32:37):
Show, majority disapprove of tariff policy. A majority disapproves of
Russia and Ukraine the way it's being handled right now.
A majority disapproves of Trump's handling of the economy.

Speaker 1 (32:49):
A majority, we.

Speaker 2 (32:50):
Have fifty eight percent disapprove of the situation in Israel,
in Gadza.

Speaker 1 (32:54):
I'm not sure what that means. It's probably a bad thing.

Speaker 2 (32:56):
Fifty five percent disapprove of the ways handling immigration.

Speaker 1 (33:00):
Twenty four percent.

Speaker 2 (33:03):
Think that disapprove of the way Trump is handling crime
in this country crime. So on every major issue, a majority,
not just a majority, disapproves of what Trump is doing.
And yet on every single issue when people are asked,

(33:23):
they trust Republicans more than Democrats to deal with it.
So an immigration, where they disapprove of Trump, you know,
they still give forty two percent of Republicans and only
twenty nine percent to Democrats. On the economy thirty nine
percent Trump, thirty two percent to Democrats. On crying forty
four percent of Trump, twenty two percent to Democrats. The

(33:46):
gap is they don't trust either one to deal with
the issue. Democrats have a problem because if they stand
for anything, they stand for MoManI, they stand for the left,
the real left, the socialist left, woke left, and that

(34:06):
is a loser and they know it. But if they
don't stand for that, what do they stand for, I
don't know, central planning, industrial policy.

Speaker 1 (34:19):
Oh well, well, that's what Trump stands for.

Speaker 2 (34:22):
They stand for not touching cell security, medicare. Oh wait,
that's what Trump stands for. They just want to spending
like there's no tomorrow. Oh wait a minute, that's what
Trump stands for. There is no way for Democrats to
differentiate themselves.

Speaker 1 (34:40):
What is it that makes them better?

Speaker 2 (34:44):
And when they go to their core, when they go
to their morality, where they go to their philosophy, when
they go to their governing ideology, it's war ward and
that'll destroy them. I Party, the Democratic Party have become,
at least if you exclude the crazy on the left,

(35:06):
they've become very similar on many of the issues that
are important to Americans. There's not that much difference between them.

Speaker 1 (35:16):
So the Democrats are lost.

Speaker 2 (35:18):
And the consequence of this loss is that we get
stuck with Trump and these kind of maga Republicans. For
a very long time. We'll see what happens in the midterms.
But Republicans Democrats are really lost. They have no identity.
They have nothing to rally the troops with. They have
nothing to convince independence to vote for them versus Trump.

Speaker 1 (35:41):
They're just another.

Speaker 2 (35:42):
Version of Trump without the bombast and without the I
don't know, you know, they you know, even this feat
speech stuff.

Speaker 1 (35:50):
They should be hammering on this.

Speaker 2 (35:54):
But then they have a problem because didn't Biden try
to force you know, social media companies to basically tow
the party aligne. How can they really advocate for free
speech when they don't really believe in it, never have
and certainly the woke left, the woke left certainly doesn't

(36:16):
believe in it. So they really have nothing to offer.
They have nothing to offer, and you know, they they could,
they could do a lot. They could do pretty badly

(36:38):
in the mentum elections as a consequence, not because the
country loves Trump or loves what Trump is doing, because
they dislike the far left more than they dislike Trump,
which I've always said is the case.

Speaker 1 (36:52):
And they don't even know.

Speaker 2 (36:57):
What these centrist moderate Democrats are because they have no
identity they stand for nothing. They mean nothing, they represent nothing,
they have no values. Yep, all right, let's turn to

(37:26):
some foreign policy stories.

Speaker 1 (37:31):
Yeah, so this is a.

Speaker 2 (37:37):
This is a story came out today in the Washington Post.
It turns that the Trumpet administration actually declined to.

Speaker 1 (37:45):
Approve a package of weapons to Taiwan.

Speaker 2 (37:51):
There's a four hundred million in Taiwanese military aid, a
bunch of pretty advanced weapons systems.

Speaker 1 (38:00):
With more than four hundred million more letho, more sophisticated,
if you.

Speaker 2 (38:05):
Will, than past rounds of aid in including both munitions
and autonomous drones. And they were supposed to prove it
the summer. It was getting ready to be shipped, and
the Trauma deminstation mixed it. Now they claim it's not
the final wood. They're still evaluating, they're still looking into it.

(38:28):
But that is a that's pretty stunning. It's pretty stunning,
in particularly given that the Traumado station had claimed that
they were going to be tough on China and they
were going to really pivot and focus American defense spending
and American orientation defense.

Speaker 1 (38:46):
Wise to China.

Speaker 2 (38:50):
And that would mean you want to beef up your
support of Taiwan, and you want to beef up the
military capabilities of Taiwan, your number one ally and of
course probably the source of any potential confrontation with China.
She has instructed the People's Liberation Army, the Chinese army,

(39:10):
to be capable of seizing Taiwan by twenty twenty seven.

Speaker 1 (39:14):
That's according to US military intelligence.

Speaker 2 (39:19):
And now that's not a date of invasion or deadline
for invasion, but it gives you a sense.

Speaker 1 (39:27):
What Taiwan is trying to do is is.

Speaker 2 (39:31):
Very quickly fortify against that, build up its defensive capabilities
at least be able to solw the Chinese down until
it gets help from the United States, maybe from Japan,
made from South Korea.

Speaker 1 (39:44):
And you know, by the Ministration it proved a number
of packages.

Speaker 2 (39:50):
Totally about three billion dollars of military spending, and I
think Taiwan pays for much of this. Congress has granted
the administration one billion in an annual authority to send
security aid to Taiwan.

Speaker 1 (40:05):
And yet.

Speaker 2 (40:08):
Again Trump nicks the four hundred million dollar deal. And
it's pretty clear why Trump is negotiating with She. It's
actually what he wants from She exactly. I think what
he wants is a parade when he comes to visit
in Beijing. I think what he wants is she's friendship.

(40:33):
I think that's what he wants. He wants respect, he
wants sheet of respect him. I don't think Trump wants
to confront China. I don't think Trump has any intention
of defending Taiwan. I don't think Trump has any intention
of building up a military capability to be able to
deal with China because I don't think he wants or

(40:55):
intends to ever confront China. This is why we're seeing
a real pivot militarily towards Latin America Venezuela, of all places,
instead of China. So he doesn't want to prove a
weapons deal to Taiwan, which might make she unhappy with him.

Speaker 1 (41:14):
He won't take his phone call, he won't invite him
to Beijing. If he comes to Beijing, there won't be
a parade.

Speaker 2 (41:21):
And it's the parade that's what he really wants. He
couldn't get one in Washington, not a good one third
eight parade for three parade, and so it's going to
be it's gonna be interesting the relationship between the United
States and Taiwan under this kind of environment. The United

(41:44):
States is clearly walking away from NATO. Will it walk
away from Taiwan? Will it walk away from Asia?

Speaker 1 (41:50):
It looks like it. It actually looks like it.

Speaker 2 (41:53):
I'm surprised because I thought that the kind of people
they got into the Defense Department they were China hawks.

Speaker 1 (42:00):
Really looks like.

Speaker 2 (42:01):
It's not about hawksh not hawk cash. It's about the
tension Trump gets. It's all about Trump. There's no ideas,
there's no principles, there's no strategy. There's Trump's relation with

(42:23):
talk about Trump's relation with She had a phone call
today with him, and Trump says it was very productive.
They talked about tariffs, They talked about TikTok. TikTok is
very important, god so important. They talked about a bunch
of different issues. Nothing was concluded. There's no TikTok deal yet.

(42:47):
In spite of all the chatter, no deal is actually
being put together. But Trump wrote that I just completed
a very productive call with President Shi of China. He
remade progress and many very issues, including trade, fentalon the
need to bring the war between Russia and Ukraine to.

Speaker 1 (43:05):
An end, and the approval of the deal. They made.

Speaker 2 (43:08):
No I mean, there's nothing concrete on any one of
those issues. He says, the call was a very good one.
We will be speaking again by phone. Appreciate the TikTok approval,
and both look forward to meeting at Apex.

Speaker 1 (43:21):
So they're going to meet in Apex later this year.

Speaker 2 (43:26):
This is this big Asian conference. It's going to be
held in South Korea. So I'll be meeting in South Korea,
and then next year Trump over to China. That's what's
been agreed to. Maybe getting parade, I don't know, and
then sometime next year she would come to the United States. See,

(43:47):
this is the thing that is what's important to Trump.
It's the invitation, it's the speaking, it's the respect. There's
no oh thing that Trump is trying to achieve other
than he wants people to respect him, other than.

Speaker 1 (44:06):
His own narcissistic goes. There's no program, there's no thing that.

Speaker 2 (44:14):
Is important to it. You know what, she promised to
cut fundanial shipments to Mexico. She not promised that. And
every phone call he's ever had with Donald Trump, what
was achieved? What are the concrete steps, what's actually happening?
It seems very little, close to nothing. Now we'll see

(44:37):
there'll be a deal on TikTok. It seems pretty clear
that that will happen. Whether that deal would be good
or not, it's hard to tell. Chie for example, said
with TikTok quote that the Chinese government respects the will
of companies and it's pleased to see companies conduct business
negotiations on the basis of market rules and reach solutions

(45:00):
that comply with Chinese laws and regulations and balance interests.

Speaker 1 (45:06):
And also market rules.

Speaker 2 (45:11):
He continued, We owe the United States side will provide
an open, fear and non discriminatory business environment for Chinese
companies investing in the United States. So we will see
what the TikTok deal actually looks like when it's done.
But you know, of all the things in the world

(45:33):
right now that should be fun and center of your
attention in terms of what's going on in the world,
I am not sure TikTok is at the top of
that list, or should be anyway at the top of
that list. But yet there it is, like rare earth
materials that should be at the top of the list.
So it's going to be interesting how all these things
get settled. Remember that New Year's tarists and Chinese goods

(45:59):
are thirty percent. China's got a ten percent tariff on
the US goods, much higher, much much, much, much much
higher than it was before Trump took office. So not
good for anybody, Not good for China, not good for
the United States, not good for anybody.

Speaker 1 (46:17):
Tariffs or lose, lose, lose, lose, all right. Finally, Putin
continues to show his utter disrespect of NATO and Trump.

Speaker 2 (46:34):
And a basically a complete ignoring whatever was agreed upon,
if anything was agreed upon in Alaska with Trump. You know,
last month today, uh, three Russian MENK thirty one jets
flew into Estonia air space, violated NATO airspace, flew in

(46:59):
They crossed a lot five montical miles inside Estonia towards Tallinn,
the capital of Estonia, and spent about twelve minutes in
NATO airspace. A number of NATO fighters were sent to
observe and watch and you know, deal with if necessary,

(47:20):
F thirty fives and Swedish aircraft. Forget the name of
the Swedish aircraft we'll put up in the air in
response to the meek thirty ones. Now the mid thirty
ones luckily to do anything, because if they had they
were discovered that F thirty fives are.

Speaker 1 (47:39):
Better plane, much better, not even in the same lead.

Speaker 2 (47:43):
It turns out the several Italian F thirty fives assigned
to NATO's Baltic Air Policing mission, we'll put up into
the air, into the air to challenge them, and a
euro Fighter typhoons also up there just in case they

(48:04):
came from northern Germany. And then there was another Chinese
plane that was flying without a flight plant or transpond
a signal.

Speaker 1 (48:18):
Near NATO airspace over the Baltic Sea.

Speaker 2 (48:20):
So generally, Russia's prodding, it's pushing, it's pushing buttons. It
wants to see response, response times, response energy, the extent
to which people complain notice Russia prodding NATO, sending drones
over poland flying over Estonia.

Speaker 1 (48:42):
None of that, None of that is anything that upsets Trump.

Speaker 2 (48:47):
Who has made Trump's agenda. None of that is something
that people are talking about. Nobody seems to be worry
at all.

Speaker 1 (48:54):
Now. They were worried that if the United States would
help Ukraine or even help Israel too much, there will
be a World War three. They're worried about going after
you run, maybe a World War.

Speaker 2 (49:04):
Three but they're not worried at all about Putin actually
doing stuff that could cause World War three, like getting
himself involved in a war with NATO. Nobody seems to
care about. It's like backpaid stories. Certainly when he comes
to the administration and when he comes to kind of

(49:26):
right wing they don't want to talk about this because
it also shows the extent to which Putin completely and
utterly disrespects Trump. I think what you're seeing right now
is proof there's Trump to be president.

Speaker 1 (49:47):
In February twenty twenty two two, this still would have
been at war in Ukraine. Nothing would have been different.
Puts is not.

Speaker 2 (49:55):
Afraid of Trump. He doesn't respect Trump. By the way,
this the Swedish plane, it's called the Grippin Grippin.

Speaker 1 (50:05):
UH and it was also in the air today.

Speaker 2 (50:11):
Since the Ukraine War started, they have never been as
many incidents like this, and as significant incidents. That is,
plane spending real time over NATO territory, drones heading towards
NATO facilities within a NATO country in Poland, a Russian
drone you know, acting suspiciously in Romania. I mean, it's

(50:36):
never been such a concentration. Yet again, nobody cares. And again,
you know, people who support trauma are going to be
little this this is not important.

Speaker 1 (50:45):
Who cares, It doesn't matter because it doesn't.

Speaker 2 (50:48):
Fit the rhetoric, right, it doesn't fit the story. The
story is supposed to be Trump will take care of Putin.
Trump knows how Hannah Putin. Trump will not let Putin
get out of hand. So obviously he Putin has not
gotten over their hands. So you have evidence of the.

Speaker 1 (51:02):
Census cannot be white, cannot be right.

Speaker 2 (51:05):
Your knowledge of what is going on cannot be white
because Trump wouldn't allow it. If this, it's this is
obviously fake news. This is obviously you know, exaggerated.

Speaker 1 (51:16):
Yuron doesn't know what he's talking about, because no.

Speaker 2 (51:21):
We were promised, we were told we know that Trump
knows how to handle put Putin. Putin, all right, let's see.

Speaker 4 (51:39):
Yeah, And the.

Speaker 2 (51:39):
Eupeans are saying in Europe, it's all the headlines. Well,
of course you're close to the war, you know it.
But Americans don't care about Europe. I don't know if
that's news to Europeans, but they don't. They don't care
about Europe. Trump doesn't care about Europe. Trump cares about
what the New York Times is writing about him. It's
all he cares about what NBC and and and you

(52:00):
see saying about him. He watches late night television to
find out what they're making jokes about him. That's all
he cares about. He doesn't care about Putin, he doesn't
care about Europe. He doesn't care about protecting America. All right,

(52:20):
So yeah, I mean I think it's a big story.
I think he should be a big story in America.
I mean, if we don't intend to come to the defense,
or are European allies in NATO, that's a big story.
If we do intend to come to the defense, it's
a big story either way, it's a big story. Estonia
executed Article four, which is again Article four is were

(52:43):
former committee consultations around what the Russians are doing. But
remember Article five is the commitment of all NATO members
to come to defense of a NATO member if they're attacked.

Speaker 1 (52:56):
And the drone thing in Poland is attackers. We've gotten and.

Speaker 2 (53:03):
Putsin is going to keep doing this because the responses getting,
particularly in the US is yeah, not interesting, we don't care.
It's exactly what sponsor wants. All right, let's move to
our super chests. That is the news for Friday, September nineteenth.
Now I'll answer your questions. You can ask questions about anything.

(53:25):
Thank you doll Lean for the sticker. You can also
use stickers to trade with me to show your support
for the show. Thank you, Silvanas, Thank you Jeffrey Miller,
Thank you Ed Hopper, Thank you Jeffrey Miller again.

Speaker 1 (53:38):
Thank you guys. Really appreciate all the stickers in support.
We're doing well.

Speaker 2 (53:43):
We're just hitting the hour right now and we've more
than made raised the money necessary for the first hour.
We've got one hundred and sixty three dollars to raise
to fund the second hour.

Speaker 1 (53:56):
Which we're entering into in a few minutes. I'll also
mention sponsors.

Speaker 2 (54:01):
Diamond Institute is promoting Inman Institute Live, where you can
study Iman's ideas with some of the world's leading experts
on her ideas from the Ironman Institute. You can study them,
you can take classes live, or you can take classes.
You can take them at your own leisure, your own time,
whenever you want to take them.

Speaker 1 (54:24):
The classes are, you know, in depth.

Speaker 2 (54:30):
You've got one class on the philosophy of objectivism kind
of Outpah.

Speaker 1 (54:34):
You've got another class on objectivesm.

Speaker 2 (54:36):
Through the fiction, showing how the fiction illustrates the philosophy.
And you've got a third class on work with Don Watkins.
And again you can take them when you want. You
can do homework or not, and you don't have to apply.
You can just register and take them. In the past,
you had to apply for these and not everybody got accepted.
Now everybody can take them, so please.

Speaker 1 (55:03):
Sign up.

Speaker 2 (55:04):
You can sign up at iinman dot oag slash dot here,
Iman dot oag slash dot here, and you've got.

Speaker 1 (55:11):
A discount code.

Speaker 2 (55:12):
Is you're on bookshow Listener, you have a discount code
and that discount code is twenty five ybs ten.

Speaker 1 (55:21):
Twenty five ybs ten.

Speaker 2 (55:26):
Alex website is the leading commentator on all things climate
change and fast our fuels and energy.

Speaker 1 (55:36):
Is the leading, the leading thing in the world in
these issues, and I encourage you to follow him and
learn from him and gain.

Speaker 2 (55:43):
End depth understanding of these issues because they're so relevant,
they're so important to everything that we do today. He'll
also give you a glimpse into the politics of it,
which he deals with really well. There's us at Alex
AI trained on Alex's material that you can ask questions of.

Speaker 1 (55:59):
So check it out.

Speaker 2 (56:00):
Alex Epstein dot substack dot com, Alex Epstein dot substack
dot com.

Speaker 1 (56:06):
And finally, Hendershot Wealth.

Speaker 5 (56:08):
Hand a Shot with two tis Wealth dot com slash
ybs and you can go to my YouTube channel and
go to the playlist for sponsors, and there's an interview
there that I do with Robert Handershot and.

Speaker 2 (56:23):
We talk about capital gains and capital gainst taxes, and
he talks about a product that they're offering now that
can really defer your capital gains taxes in such a
way as to save you huge amounts of money.

Speaker 1 (56:37):
Don't we all love saving huge amounts of money on taxes?

Speaker 2 (56:42):
So yeah, liberate some of your dollars from Washington and
keep them or Sacramento if you're in California, and keep
them for yourself.

Speaker 1 (56:51):
That's what this program does. It does it legally and
smartly and with some of the most.

Speaker 2 (56:58):
Substantial financial institutions in the United States. So check it
out hand a Shot Wealth dot com slash ybs to
get more information. All right, I'll just mention Patreon dot
com is a way to support the show on a
monthly basis.

Speaker 1 (57:16):
Please consider doing so.

Speaker 2 (57:18):
It really is helps a lot and it makes the
income for the show predictable and that is great. No
bit of randorid. Thank you for the sticker, Thank you,
thank you. All right, let's go to the questions.

Speaker 1 (57:35):
Michael fifty dollars. Thank you, Michael.

Speaker 2 (57:38):
It's a large percentage of the population blinded by hates
and don't care about reality. Channeling hatred is all they
want to seem manifested, unlikely. It's a small number of
people like nik for Interests, Candice Owens and Techo Costs
and have millions of subscribers. So god, I mean, there's

(58:00):
a large percentage of the population that in some parts
of their life.

Speaker 1 (58:08):
Are devoted to hatred and they don't care about reality.

Speaker 2 (58:11):
But look, the reality is that a significant percentage of
population must be working pretty hard, innovative, producing, creating, building,
because the economy keeps chugging along.

Speaker 1 (58:23):
Somebody must be using their mind and being productive.

Speaker 2 (58:31):
So a big chunk of the population is using their
mind and productive. Now are they people who are blinded
by hate?

Speaker 1 (58:40):
Yeah? I don't know how big of a percentage.

Speaker 2 (58:42):
There are a lot of the people online, but other
people online are big percentage of people overall.

Speaker 1 (58:48):
I don't know, I mean active online in political chat.

Speaker 2 (58:54):
It's true, the influent, This Candas owned techno costs and
millions of subscribers.

Speaker 1 (58:58):
How many of those subscribers agree with them? How many
of them are there for the entertainment? How many of
their just to see what's going on?

Speaker 2 (59:09):
But yeah, you know, we'reking with three hundred and fifteen
million people, several millions a wacko, I mean wacko ideologically,
several million on the left and several million on the right.

Speaker 1 (59:24):
You know, But I don't think that's the country. The
country is not winning for inentances.

Speaker 2 (59:31):
Anti Semitism is on the rise, but it's not the
kind of a it's not a significant number of Americans
hold niqu for interess's view of Jews or candae Owan's
view of Jews in Israel, and Charlie Koch was killed
by the Mossad, didn't you know that? It's kind of
obvious if you really think about it, that's Candie owned.

(59:53):
I just don't think that a big chunk of the
population is that way. Yeah, it's sadly millions. It's tragic
that it's million. And yeah, there are a lot of
people blinded by hate and fear. Don't forget fear. Fear
is a big part of this.

Speaker 1 (01:00:15):
Roland.

Speaker 2 (01:00:16):
Thank you for the sticker, and uh Marius, thank you
for the sticker. All Right, we got a bunch of
twenty dollars questions.

Speaker 1 (01:00:23):
Let's go through them.

Speaker 2 (01:00:26):
Sounds about mobster, nice army base. You've got here, colonel.
It would be a shame if something happened to it.
Monty Python's flying circus yep, I mean some armies. They
could get away with that, Anomalists. The Daily Wire has

(01:00:48):
the film rights Adler shrug.

Speaker 1 (01:00:50):
They have stated that they.

Speaker 2 (01:00:51):
Will make a true Terran's works series. Will they or
can they do this successfully?

Speaker 1 (01:00:58):
Will it be better than the.

Speaker 2 (01:01:00):
Three part movie from the twenty Tents? Okay, so let
me clarify. As far as I know, the Daily Wire
does not have their film rights after the Shark. As
far as I know, the Daily Wire at.

Speaker 1 (01:01:12):
Some point bought the option to buy the film rights
to have the Shock. Then they want the film rights.

Speaker 2 (01:01:19):
They were the rights to make it into a TV show,
which are different than the rights to.

Speaker 1 (01:01:23):
Make a film. Last I heard about this project is
a year and a half ago. I think.

Speaker 2 (01:01:35):
I suspect it's not going anywhere. I suspect it's not happening.
I do not know if they renewed the option, but
as far as I know, they do not hold the rights.
Hold the rights.

Speaker 1 (01:01:52):
Now, could they make a good Could they make a
good you know, a TV series of Atlas Shrug? I
doubt it. Yeah, I mean I don't think.

Speaker 2 (01:02:10):
I don't think even with the best intentions, there were
a lot of people out there, they could make a
good series of Atlas shrug. And you should stop talking
about stuff you don't know anything about. So no, I
don't think they could make a good one, and I

(01:02:31):
don't think they can be successful.

Speaker 1 (01:02:32):
Will it be better than the three part movie for
twenty ten?

Speaker 2 (01:02:35):
I mean I think I think if we got a
bunch of kids to put together a project to do it,
then then they would make a better movie than the
one in twenty tens. Right, So I don't think that's
a that's the benchmark we should have. Is better than
the twenty tens movies, which were absolutely horrific. Counter to

(01:02:59):
what end is saying on the chat, Peter Tiel is
not doing anything with anything iron Ran property related, right,
So they're not. Peter Teel is not doing a movie
of Atlas Shrugged and or The Fountainhead or anything else

(01:03:23):
he has been They have been talks about doing stuff
over the years. We talked about him doing something with
The fountain Head. They will talk about him doing something
with Atlas Shrugged. But yeah, yeah, there is nothing in

(01:03:44):
the wooks that as far as I know from Peter
from Teal on Atlas Shrug, I don't think that's where
he's interest live right now. Michael, what makes you think
that Ironman had more influenced when she was alive than
she has today? More people have read her novels and
know her name today than the eighties when Reagan Thatcher

(01:04:04):
Revolution happened. I mean that's true, but certainly I think
that the people who held their ideas who were in
politics were better than the people who knew about her
ideas and politics. Today, I think there's just been an
erosion the quality of people. But yeah, there's a lot
more people today, a lot more people. So she's had

(01:04:26):
more of an influence on the culture, probably less of
an influence in politics.

Speaker 1 (01:04:30):
That's how it put it. And again I was very optimistic.

Speaker 2 (01:04:34):
I don't know, fourteen years ago, thirteen years ago, because
there were a lot of people in politics who were
big Iran fans, Ted Kuz being one of them, right,
And they really seemed like they were going places and
doing things, and then Trump imploded it all. So no,
she's still there. She's definitely got an influence there. There's

(01:04:56):
no question about that. It's just where's again to show
up is the question, David. Can the president huse the
the Botoment of Justice to bring civil lawsuits against people
he doesn't like or would that a bottom of injustice
have to spend his own money for all the deformation

(01:05:16):
suits he plans to file. He's spending his own money
under deffermation suits. I think it's his own lawyers. The
Department of Justice doesn't suit his name. That the Bartoment
of Justice suits in the government's name, so that Bardum
of Justice can go after people who are critical of
the president. But I don't think they acquired the bond

(01:05:37):
of Justice could sue for defamation if they can find
other legal I'm sure causes to go after people, But no,
he has to pay for this. But he's making so
much money off of being president that paying for a
few defformation lawsuits is going.

Speaker 1 (01:05:56):
To be penny changed.

Speaker 2 (01:06:00):
David is a diminishing judiciary enough to hold the damn
against the flood of attacks against the law.

Speaker 1 (01:06:07):
I don't know, I hope. So it's all we have.
Congress won't do it. Congress clearly won't do it.

Speaker 4 (01:06:20):
And so all we have is, you know, what we
have is is the judiciary, all right, h.

Speaker 2 (01:06:58):
Right, here's the article about irand and and uh and
uh Planteo or Iland and and uh and uh Peter
Teo and looking for anything that suggests what they plan
to do.

Speaker 1 (01:07:16):
But again, the chances of anything happening are close to zero.

Speaker 2 (01:07:21):
And and by the way, to associate Ironland with the
ideas coming out of Palenteer God, I mean Palentia CEO is.

Speaker 1 (01:07:34):
You know quite is about us? I mean about as
close to fascism as you can get. Here's here's what
it says, right.

Speaker 2 (01:07:46):
And and and this is pure speculation, It's untrue, and
they don't have the rights to do it. The company
plans also hopes, hopes to create a three part aditation
of Alasho.

Speaker 1 (01:07:58):
It hopes to do so.

Speaker 2 (01:08:03):
It ain't happening, guys, It is not happening. I know
lots of people who hope to do adaptation of Attla show.
For a long time, Angelina Julie was gonna do an
adaptation of Attler show.

Speaker 1 (01:08:17):
She had script written, she had scripts. But Peter Tiel
is not going to make an adaptation of Attla show.
It ain't happening anyway. Let's see David.

Speaker 2 (01:08:36):
Speech were speech is still alive on act substack, YouTube,
et cetera. Let's Trump focus is anti First Amendment, attack
on dying platforms like broadcast TV.

Speaker 1 (01:08:47):
Yeah, but they won't. You know, it won't end there.
You know it won't end there and particularly be successful.
And that's why you need to stop him. You need
to stop it before he.

Speaker 2 (01:09:06):
Is successful and gains the momentum to then go after,
you know, the rest of the platforms in which we
have free speech, because once he's successful on one platform,
he's definitely going to go after the others.

Speaker 1 (01:09:24):
And you could see somebody was threatening yesterday. I think
we covered this.

Speaker 2 (01:09:28):
There were threats on Section two thirty towards incidet companies
if they didn't behave themselves. So it's just they're just
going to use all leverage that they have in order
to try to get people.

Speaker 1 (01:09:40):
To behave the way they want them to behave.

Speaker 2 (01:09:43):
David, your thoughts on Victor Davis Hansen. He has become
such a hack it makes me sick to listen to him.
He used to be an honest into a cultur. Yeah,
I mean, I agree. I love Victor Davis Hansen. I
literally have done a public event with Victor Davis Hanson.
It was me Victor Davis Hansen and then you know
Pipes on stage at UC Bookley at Brookeley a long

(01:10:06):
time ago. And so I have great admiration of Victor
Davis Hansen as a military historian. I do not have
much respect for him as a cultural commentator.

Speaker 1 (01:10:17):
I think his work on immigration is awful. I think his.

Speaker 2 (01:10:23):
His willingness to defend Trump, who's being terrible. I think
he's smarter than this, and his willingness to vilify in
the kind of worst maga kind of way the left
has been has been terrible. And he strikes me more
and more like a hack these days rather than like

(01:10:44):
a seriously stabian that he used to be. Now, once
in a while he does some good work, and for example,
when he criticized the that Ian Carroll that so called
historian that was on Tucker Carlson who criticized Churchill. He
did a good job ripping the guy to shreds. So
once in a while the starian resurfaces and he and
he's good. And Rick Davis Hansen the starian is somebody

(01:11:06):
have a huge amount of respectful But yeah, I mean,
he could have been so much strong on I Rock,
so much stronger enough Ghanistan. He kind of always said
the right things, but he muted it. Like in his books,
he's very clear about what he believes victory looks like
and how to win wars. And yet he's not willing
to actually actually go out there.

Speaker 1 (01:11:28):
And criticize, right, So we will we will see, all right, can.

Speaker 2 (01:11:56):
I I'm gonna comment on Ian and AND's I mean
it strikes me as nutty and that you really don't
know what you're talking about, right. You saw an article
where they expressed interest. They don't say they have the right,
they don't say they have the option on making the film.
A three part movie is not the same as a
TV series. The rights for a three part movie owned

(01:12:17):
by somebody different than the rights to the TV series
that are owned by somebody different. The option that the
Daily Wire has that is, I guess expires this November
and we'll see if they renew. It is not the
same as the right to make a three part movie,
which is held by somebody else. And again, there's nothing

(01:12:40):
in that article that says that they have the rights.
It just says that they have an interest in making it.
Have they bought the rights, they bought the option? Who
have they bought it from? Yeah, I mean there were
discussions a few year years ago with Peter Teal about

(01:13:01):
making out the shrug. I'll tell you that the Institute
was involved. There were some real discussions with him and
with the owner of the rights, and there was also
discussions with Daily Wire. I had discussions with the scriptwriter
who Ben Shavio Center talked to me about the making

(01:13:24):
of the movie. So there have been a lot of
discussions about this right. We'll see, there's been a lot
of discussions about this. But to just talk out of
nowhere and speculate, I mean, this is typical knowledge knowledge. Now,

(01:13:45):
Palatium might make it, they might not. I don't know
if they'll make it. You don't know if they'll make it,
And again, it partially depends on who owns the rights
and whether they're willing to sell and a lot of companytions.
If it was easy, it would have been done a
long time ago. Who's going to write the script?

Speaker 1 (01:14:09):
David? Thank you, David, A lot of questions. Is great.

Speaker 2 (01:14:13):
If one takes an extreme isolationist view, then Europe, Asia,
Africa could all be sacrificed as long as western hemisphere
is completely controlled by the US. Maybe that is Trump's
real agenda. Well, I mean, I think he doesn't really
have an agenda. I think that's important to know. He's
not a strategic thinker. He doesn't have a big agenda. Again,
he wants the big dictators of the world to like him.

Speaker 1 (01:14:34):
That's she and Putin. And yes, I do think he's
willing to sacrifice Europe. He's going to sacrifice Southeast Asia
so that the western hemisphere is controlled by the US.
But does he have a strategy for all of that?
And does he know what all of that means?

Speaker 2 (01:14:50):
No?

Speaker 1 (01:14:50):
And did he understand the consequences of all that?

Speaker 2 (01:14:53):
No?

Speaker 1 (01:14:55):
And to the people around him, are they really thought
this through? No? But yes, I think that's where we
seem to be going.

Speaker 2 (01:15:05):
So the strategic document strategic got posted in quotes that
is going to come out of the Defense Department, maybe
later this year, maybe early next year. That strategic document
is that strategic document seems to be implying, yes, that

(01:15:28):
America is pivoting it its attention, pivoting its attention to
Latin America.

Speaker 1 (01:15:36):
We will see when the document comes out, how thoughtfully
it is written, how much sense it makes it actually makes.

Speaker 2 (01:15:43):
Matthew, if we imagine Trump could be an absolute dictator
of the US with no opposition or obstacle, what policies
would he pursue if free to do so, I.

Speaker 1 (01:15:52):
Mean suddenly, I think a big one would be for him.
He would shut down free speech.

Speaker 2 (01:15:59):
I think he would at least he would eliminate criticism
of him and the government.

Speaker 1 (01:16:07):
From major, major sources.

Speaker 2 (01:16:10):
You know. Would he would he take into a completely
sense of the internet. I don't know, but he would
certainly sensor newspapers, magazines and TV.

Speaker 1 (01:16:21):
TV really cares about TV, so I think that would
definitely be one. And then what else would he do?
You know, It's hard to tell.

Speaker 2 (01:16:32):
I don't think he has an agenda, right, It's not
like Trump believes in something. Once achieve something, you know,
there's no Greater America he wants to pursue. He would
do all the stuff that he he wants to do it,
you know, tariffs, and he would he would take over companies,

(01:16:52):
companies he likes. But it wouldn't be ideologically driven. It
would be Donald Trump's whim driven. And that's why the
first thing he would do shut down people who make
fun of him, because he doesn't like that. So it
would be personal. Again, the thing driving him is narcissism.
He's not even a He's not a Putin. Putin has

(01:17:13):
a deep understanding of history, has an ideology, has an agenda,
has beliefs. Trump has none of those. Andrew, your force,
your will is within your control. You must know your
individual self control to feel to feel out of control,

(01:17:33):
which is why collectivists who don't know they have self
control one control over others. Thoughts why the collective is
one control of others. I mean, I don't know it's
because they feel out of control. I don't know if

(01:17:55):
that's true.

Speaker 1 (01:17:56):
I don't know. It's a psychological question. I don't really
they have an answer to. I mean, I think at
the end they are taught that what matters in life
is the other that's.

Speaker 2 (01:18:05):
What altruism teaches them. And if the other is what matters,
then they should pursue that. And they don't want to
sacrifice the other people that you know, they figured that out.

Speaker 1 (01:18:17):
They figured that out. That doesn't make any sense.

Speaker 2 (01:18:19):
So the only other way they can imagine to deal
with others is that control them, that is to have
them sacrificed to you. So I go back to that
thinking it's altruism. But I'm sure there's a psychological element
that I just don't know what it is. Maybe it's
out of control. Maybe they feel out of control and
they think they gain control over themselves by controlling others.

Speaker 1 (01:18:40):
Maybe it's that. I don't know. I have to think
about it.

Speaker 2 (01:18:46):
David, have to admire Putin's strategy of taking the West
to the edge and then pulling back, then going for
the next time until it wears us out. Yeah, I mean,
he knows what he's doing. He's a strategic thinker. As
compared to Trump. He has a plan and that's why
he plays Trump. He has a long term vision, he
knows what he wants, and he plays Trump because Trump

(01:19:06):
has no clue, he doesn't know anything. I got a question,
Viy email from Daniel, a supporter of the show on Patreon.

Speaker 1 (01:19:20):
So let me read this. It relates to something I
said a few days ago.

Speaker 2 (01:19:25):
He says, on the recent show Free Speech Hate Speech
from September sixteen, twenty twenty five, you shed comments from
San Pika calling for violence against capitalism, including killing them
in the streets. He said that you believe his comments
would be protected by the First Amendment. How are these
comments different than Muslims calling for jihad or advocating for
killing Jews, apostates, or other non Muslim groups. Is the

(01:19:45):
group a capitalist less specific than Jews? Doesn't matter whether
the individual calling for violence is within the jurisdiction of
the United States. If the individual is outside the used jewishdiction,
what role does the government play in each case? It's
not clear to me that calling for violence against a
group should be protected speech, regardless of the specificity of
the comment. Is it not true that the call to

(01:20:08):
jihad is a generalized statement advocating violence against anyone who
does not submit to a slump? If so, why is
it different when someone like Hassan makes a generalized call
for violence against capitalists.

Speaker 1 (01:20:21):
Could that not also result in lone wolf.

Speaker 2 (01:20:23):
Type attacks, such like calls the Jihadis inspire individuals to
drive cause into crowds. I think it is one thing
to advance to advocate shunning somebody or a group because
one believes its ideas are to be abhorn and a
completely different thing to advocate violence against that person who group,
even if the comments are as general as be violence

(01:20:45):
towards group acts. I agree that the former should be
protected speech, but I don't think that the latter should
be protected speech. I think they express an opinion that
someone deserves to die is protect I think that especially
an opinion that someone deserves to die is protected speech.
Or stating that people should go punch, kill, or violate
or be violent towards group acts sounds like a call
to action. To me, I'm not convinced that protected speech

(01:21:07):
or should it be protected speech. I mean to hear
your thoughts on the matter. Thanks for taking my question. Yeah,
I mean it's a good it's a good question. And
and when I said that, I said it hesitantly because
I think I think it's a there's a it's a
it's a borderline.

Speaker 1 (01:21:23):
It could go either way. And and let me let
me specify one of the things that I think the
law will quiet is that it not just be.

Speaker 2 (01:21:34):
A threat or an incitement, not just involve go do acts,
but it have credibility.

Speaker 6 (01:21:44):
That is that they be specific people that that this
is being addressed to who have the capability and the
inclination to actually follow through with it.

Speaker 1 (01:21:59):
That it's not being done hyper bowl. You know, it's
just yeah, I should kill all those capitalists and slaughter them.

Speaker 2 (01:22:07):
But it's not really targeted to anybody, and it's not
really trying to motivate anybody specific. And I think as
long as it's generalized, then I think the court's content
a predicted speech. It's why even in the United States
you have Islamic preachers.

Speaker 1 (01:22:32):
Calling for kind of jihad, but.

Speaker 2 (01:22:34):
Generalized, not any specific action visa ejihand.

Speaker 1 (01:22:42):
Not and not telling.

Speaker 2 (01:22:45):
This particular group there is likely to be suicide bombers,
but just generally this would be a good.

Speaker 1 (01:22:52):
Thing in the world.

Speaker 2 (01:22:53):
If this happened, if people were killed, it's probably we
protect the speech, and that's why they're allowed to keep
doing it.

Speaker 1 (01:23:02):
And they do it all the time here and in
Europe you hear it all the time.

Speaker 2 (01:23:09):
But here's the difference with Islam In my view, Islam
has the means to execute, They have the network by
which to execute. They have executed in the past. A

(01:23:38):
a mom says go kill acts, we know he has
troops ready to do it. Again, not everywhere. This is
why I think in an in an American mosque, he's
probably not going to be prosecuted because because he doesn't
really have troops.

Speaker 1 (01:23:57):
But anywhere else we know that they are.

Speaker 2 (01:24:01):
You know, a whole organization is dedicated to doing exactly
what he's saying.

Speaker 1 (01:24:06):
So he has a direct goalie is people he is
inspiring directly. So it's not it's a.

Speaker 2 (01:24:16):
Credible threat, it's actionable. Now if a Sunpike up, it
turns out has some kind of network out there, people
who are basically waiting for his instructions on what to do,

(01:24:37):
and who listened regularly to hear what he does, and
they go out and execute.

Speaker 1 (01:24:43):
And the direction are n and they're ready to do it.

Speaker 2 (01:24:47):
And he comes out and says, go kill the capitalist,
and yeah, he is liable for anything that they actually do.

Speaker 1 (01:24:54):
That speech is not protected.

Speaker 2 (01:24:56):
But if he's just a commentator, even if he has
millions of follow he's just a commentator, and he says
this is what I think should happen. Then, I mean,
he's a horrible, despicable sub human being, right. But it's
not clear that it's actionable. It's not clear that it's
a call to action because it's not clear there's anybody

(01:25:18):
to act on it. And indeed, nobody acted on it
as far as we know. So it's not the fact
that it's a group. It's a fact that there's nobody
to do the acting.

Speaker 1 (01:25:34):
There's no specific it's not actionable in that way. Now,
again I might be wrong on this. I'm happy to
be wrong in this.

Speaker 2 (01:25:47):
We'd have to look at US law exactly how it
and I think this is part of US law, exactly
what US law says in terms of what is an incitement,
what does it mean to incite violence?

Speaker 1 (01:25:59):
And think about it objectively. Now, I would make one
other difference with Islam, and I think this is an
important one.

Speaker 2 (01:26:08):
Whether we know it or not, we are at war
with these Muslims. The one is calling for jihad, not
not isy a.

Speaker 1 (01:26:21):
A. It's not just terrorism. We're at war with them.
They want to destroy us, they want to destroy a civilization.

Speaker 2 (01:26:28):
They want to destroy us, And it doesn't matter if
they hear of the any way in the world, they
want to destroy us. And therefore, since we're at war
with them, it is unacceptable to have their agents in
the United States advocating for the ideas that we're at
war with or the ideology that animates those people.

Speaker 1 (01:26:53):
Where at war with? So at war with the Muslim
bother wood, Well what what again?

Speaker 2 (01:26:59):
We don't have the play war, but we are war
with Kamas and slumming jihad and Al Kaida Nisis and.

Speaker 1 (01:27:05):
The million other variations of it. And if there's any.

Speaker 2 (01:27:08):
Mom here who is spouting those ideologies, just like it
would be if there was a Nazi here spouting Nazis
and what would war with the Nazis, that speech would
clearly be banned. You can't that's treason. You can't advocate
for the enemy here. So it's clear to me that.

Speaker 1 (01:27:25):
You would.

Speaker 2 (01:27:26):
You would go to jail. We should go to jail
today because we're war. No, we should declare war and
all of that. And and if your overseas, it doesn't matter,
you're you're you're now supporting a group that we're at
war with.

Speaker 1 (01:27:46):
I don't I mean.

Speaker 2 (01:27:47):
Again, as vile, as hobable, as what how, some piker said.
I don't take what he said as actually a called
for action, as clear excitement for violence, and the fact
that nobody acted on it is a good sign, but

(01:28:10):
as an indication that they're not sitting there waiting for
instructions like they are among the Muslims.

Speaker 1 (01:28:16):
But there's again a lot of contexts with the Muslims
is would war with them and they fall.

Speaker 2 (01:28:21):
All this speech is any speech that is pro the
ideology the represents of people would war with should be banned.

Speaker 1 (01:28:32):
Hopefully then answers the question.

Speaker 2 (01:28:34):
Hopefully it's right, Jeffrey said, finally, hood back from offended Noma.

Speaker 1 (01:28:47):
He no longer works there and left on bad terms.
So we're on our own. That's too bad. That is
too bad, and my time in Europe is running out,
so I'm not sure I could make it anyway at
this point. Thanks Jeffrey Michael. If if business started.

Speaker 2 (01:29:09):
Bribing Trump, will he regulate them less, Yes, no question,
in a perverse way, leading to.

Speaker 1 (01:29:16):
More economic growth.

Speaker 2 (01:29:19):
Well maybe, but he would regulate them less, but he
would also regulate in favor of those people bribing him,
which would reduce competition, reduce innovation, and maybe the economy doesn't.

Speaker 1 (01:29:29):
Grow that fast, so it's not click cut how that goes.

Speaker 2 (01:29:33):
The bribing doesn't just reduce regulation in everybody. It reduces
regulation on some and increases regulation maybe on others. So
it depends how it all works out. Neil, you on
force one of your kids to run for president and
control everything from the back end? Why would I do
that to my kids? And why would they listen to me?

(01:29:55):
And says when can I force my kids to do anything?
You know, what if you run for president and having
me run things from the back end, you know, neo?

Speaker 1 (01:30:05):
You do it?

Speaker 2 (01:30:07):
Now it looks like Neo's in Canadis And maybe you can't,
you know, but maybe Michael current for president. Michael is
Charlie Cook's assassination going to save the up in the midterms.

Speaker 1 (01:30:19):
We're the country blamed Democrats for this. I don't think.
I don't think so so to find the future. I
think what saves the up in.

Speaker 2 (01:30:27):
The midterms if that happens, is just the compete pathetic
nature of the Democratic Party, the inability to have a
message and to oppose what Trump is doing. Cook says,
it turns out the road to hell is paved with
conservatives with what ABOUTI isms about the left?

Speaker 1 (01:30:48):
Uh yeah, yeah, and I told you so. Thanks Cook.

Speaker 2 (01:30:56):
W c ZN how you're on please ignore Anne thinks
all right. But and just to ask the question, and
is the center right doing better against Trump? I think
the criticism coming out of I don't know what you
call the center right. I think the criticism of Trump
coming out of the better free market organizations is is

(01:31:22):
quite good. Like the people criticizing him on on tariffs,
the the you know, the the Scott Linsic the and
the other economists that I have on that have had
on my show, I think that I think the critique
is very good. It's consistent, it's hard hitting, it's pervasive.

(01:31:42):
I think they do a good job. I think they're
the best. The criticism of human immigration coming out of
let's say, CATO is really good, and and and a
few other organizations.

Speaker 1 (01:31:57):
I don't know what the central right is anymore. I mean,
I mean, to.

Speaker 2 (01:32:01):
An extent silence associate with the Dispatch. Then yeah, if
the Dispatch is center right, then yes, it is much
better against Trump.

Speaker 1 (01:32:11):
It's doing much better. Now.

Speaker 2 (01:32:12):
It depends what you mean by doing much better, doing
much better? For what that is is doing much better
in terms of providing getting the Republican Party to embrace
an alternative. No Republican Party is Trump's party. It's not
going anywhere without Trump and his accolades, and we're stuck
with whatever Trump is or whatever follows Trump.

Speaker 1 (01:32:35):
Fannopa.

Speaker 2 (01:32:36):
Have you read any books on new plasticity brain health?
It's my current fascination, so I'm looking for accommodations. I
recommend the brain the changes, the changes itself. Thanks for
the recommendation. And no, I haven't read anything about it,
and I know nothing about it other than there is
blain brain. Can't talk plasticity, much more so than thought

(01:32:59):
in the past. Assary dichotomy.

Speaker 1 (01:33:02):
Isn't most productivity coming from a minority of the population
and majority only subsists on transfers not useless, but not
net contributors.

Speaker 2 (01:33:13):
No, I don't think that's true. I think a vast
majority of Americas are net contributors. I think the net
contributors of a little as compared to a few people.
The net contributors are a lot. So I don't think
it's an issue of net contributors versus net withdraws. I
think it's more of an issue of some people contribute
a huge amount tech, for example, and some people contribute

(01:33:35):
very little but still contribute pretty much everything else.

Speaker 1 (01:33:39):
But there's still contribution. And even that's not fair, right,
I mean, there are lots of industries that contribute a lot,
but there are a few geniuses that contribute most of that.
But that doesn't mean.

Speaker 2 (01:33:51):
Everybody else who works for them, for example, doesn't contribute
as well.

Speaker 1 (01:33:54):
They all do.

Speaker 2 (01:33:55):
It's it's it's it's a net win win. It's just
that the winning doesn't get done to the same extent.
The amount of productivity added is not the same for
each Michael, we're Americans. Were Americans as mindless and readily
accepting of aathilitarianism during the FDR on the New Deal

(01:34:17):
as they are today and the Trump How could it
be worse than FDR?

Speaker 1 (01:34:22):
I don't know it. Certainly it was bad on the FDR,
and it's bad now.

Speaker 2 (01:34:30):
Remember FDR was a true emergency, not that that's an excuse,
but you could you could see why Americans were willing
to allow him to do radical things because they thought
that the world was gonna end. They really thought that
it was an emergency, and to the loge extent, it
was an emergency caused by the government. Trump just declares emergencies.

(01:34:50):
He doesn't actually there is no emergency. That's one big difference.
I think FDR truly believed that the things he was doing,
we're going to make the country do better, come out
of a depression. I don't think Trump cares one way

(01:35:12):
or the other. And there's no depression. There's nothing to
come out of today, So it's more gratuitous today. But yeah,
I think people are more mindless today than back then.
Just a level of debate, de a discussion, the level
of everything, and there was more freedom back then.

Speaker 1 (01:35:31):
The news today in spite of FDR and everything.

Speaker 2 (01:35:35):
Matthew, if Obama could have been absolute dictator, what policies
would he have pursued. Is this a valid way of
evaluating politicians, even given that they are constrained in real life? No,
I mean, it's an interesting question thought experiment because it
goes to the heart of their ideological essence.

Speaker 1 (01:35:55):
But look, our politicians are not very ideological. It's not
like Obama was a raving socialist.

Speaker 2 (01:36:04):
Now, if Obama was in a complete dictator, could he
have been convinced to do like reparations?

Speaker 1 (01:36:14):
Would do? We have a lot more affirmative action and
DEI like policies.

Speaker 2 (01:36:20):
Would he have been a lot tougher on the oil
and gas industry, gun control things like that, Yeah, but
none of them are like a socialist agenda or the
flip side of that being a fascist agenda, like with

(01:36:46):
clear cut, clear goals.

Speaker 1 (01:36:48):
Neither of them have that.

Speaker 2 (01:36:50):
And gun control, maybe he would have done gun control,
but he would have been afraid of the resistance right.
Gun control is the one thing Americans seem to really
get upset about, So you might have been You might
have been worried about the resistance of people with guns
to gun control.

Speaker 1 (01:37:05):
So not clear that would have been a primary.

Speaker 2 (01:37:07):
You would have done some gund of control, but not
confiscating the guns kind of thing. Even Democrats don't, I mean,
voting democrats don't believe in that, at least except for
the ones who live in New York City. All right, guys,
thank you to all the super cheddows really really really appreciated.

(01:37:27):
Thank you to everybody for being here. There will be
no sho tomorrow. I'm going to chin Ka Terra, chin
Katerra on the Italian coast. I will be back probably
Sunday and probably Monday, and then I'll be off for
the rest of that week as I go to Madrid

(01:37:49):
and then home, and then we'll start up again a
week from Saturday at home at least for a little while.
But I'll be traveling most of October, most of the November,
most of October, most of most of November. Trains in
Italy ian, I mean, I'm sure there strikes and everything,

(01:38:10):
but trains in Italy amazing. They run mostly on time.
They are fast, really fast trains, much faster than American
fast trains. They go everywhere. They're really good. I've used
the trains this time in the past, and much better
than English trains, much better than And they're private. Then

(01:38:33):
number of companies I mean private nominally right, the heavily regulated,
but they're private and they compete. The number of companies
and trains are really nice to clean, the fast. Yeah,
I'm impressed, all right. Asatak Economy says, I see, I thought,
given ten to twenty thousand per week for public school

(01:38:54):
and how slated progressive taxes, welfare, Medicare, medicaid, you get
lots of.

Speaker 1 (01:38:59):
Net consumer I don't understand that.

Speaker 2 (01:39:04):
I see thought, given ten to twenty k per year
for public schools, and how slightly progressive taxes welfare and
medicare medicare you get, Yeah, I don't know. Isn't most
productivity coming from minority of the population. No, I mean
even people who who you know in that sense, in

(01:39:27):
sense of playing taxes. Half of Americans don't pay taxes.
That's true, but that doesn't mean they don't add to productivity.
They're still working, They're still out there with a job
and working and creating stuff. Just because they don't pay
taxes doesn't mean they're not working. So I think that's

(01:39:48):
the answer. Thanks sensatific economy. All right, guys, I will
see you Sunday. I hope buy everybody

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist

Crime Junkie

Stuff You Should Know

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

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}Free Speech Attacked: NYT Lawsuit, Weak Democrats, Taiwan vs China, Estonia Resists |Yaron Brook

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist

Crime Junkie

Stuff You Should Know

All Episodes

Free Speech Attacked: NYT Lawsuit, Weak Democrats, Taiwan vs China, Estonia Resists |Yaron Brook

CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist