Free Speech vs Hate Speech; TikTok Corruption; Fed Failures; Gaza & Russia | Yaron Brook Show - Yaron Brook Show

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
M hm. Though radical fundamental principles of freedom, rational self interest,

(00:33):
and individual rights.

Speaker 2 (00:38):
This is the Uran Brook Show.

Speaker 1 (00:45):
Everybody, everybody, the book show. Uh, Tuesday the week. Tell
I'm still traveling. Uh, we'll have this one another, what
twelve days or so? Ten days or so something like that.

Speaker 3 (01:07):
Anyway, let's jump right into the news. I'll remind you
to some questions. Uh, super chat is open, super chat
is available. I do have a bunch of questions from
who no sound? Who has no sound?

Speaker 1 (01:26):
Uh?

Speaker 4 (01:27):
One two three? Do you guys have sound? M? One
two three?

Speaker 1 (01:36):
Audio is pretty soft? Sound is low? All right, let's
check this out. Sound is oh okay? Is that better?
One two three? All right?

Speaker 5 (01:54):
What's going on?

Speaker 4 (02:04):
One two three? One two three? One two three? Sound better?

Speaker 5 (02:09):
Uh?

Speaker 1 (02:12):
That alright? Yes? Good? Hi? Sound is low. Try screaming
into the mic a bit better. Let's raise the mic closer.
Is that better? One two three? All right?

Speaker 5 (02:27):
Uh?

Speaker 1 (02:28):
I think I think with the mic closer in and
I raise some of the stuff here. All right, it's
good now, all right. Anyway, I want to remind you
to ask questions and use the super chart to do it.
I'll add that we also have a bunch of questions

(02:55):
from yesterday that I will get to answering today, but
we need a fun today, so don't forget to support
the show today. Stephen Harper, Catherine, thank you for your
stickers in support. All right, let's jump jump in to
the news. Let's start. I mean, the thing hitting the
internet right now is Pam Bondy, Trump's attorney general. I

(03:18):
guess the United States government's attorney general, Pambody about free speech.
That is shocking to a lot of people. I mean,
this woman, I told you when she was nominated, when
she was approved, This woman is not qualified to be
Attorney General of the United States. She is a partisan hack.
She is a blind follower of Trump and nothing more

(03:40):
than that. She knows nothing about the law, about her job.
She is ignorant and not very smart. So here's what
Pam Bondi said in an interview on some Katie and
Something quote this free speech and then this hate speech.

(04:02):
And there is no place, especially now, especially after what
happened to Charlie in our society for hate speech. Right,
she continues, we will absolutely target you, go after you
if you are targeting anyone with hate speech. Now, will
somebody tell me the difference between this and the woke left.

(04:25):
Will somebody tell me anything different between this and what
the left argues all the time about hate speech, or
somebody tell me what's the difference between this and what's
going on in Europe which conservatives supposedly argue against. Hate
speech is not protected by the First Amendment, since when

(04:47):
it's exactly hate speech that the First Amendment is there
to protect. You don't need to protect niceties, You don't
need to protect people when everybody agrees, I don't mean
to protect people when people are polite. When you need

(05:07):
to protect people is when they see things that offend,
when they say things that are hateful to some What
does even hate speech mean? Does anybody you know how
to define hate speech? No? And I'd being critical and
many conservatives will be critical of the left position and
hate speech for years and years and years. And I've
done whole talks in the fact that hate speech is

(05:30):
an invalid concept, and of course hate speech speech is violence,
all tied together, all connected. So now the Trump administration
is adopting the woke left position on hate speech. They're
adopting the position of the Europeans on hate speech. Wow.
Now to their credit to their credit. Many people on

(05:54):
the right flipped out over this. Flipped out over this.
Richard Hannanya wrote, everyone who didn't like the term woke
right needs to watch this. They're not even changing the
words around. It's copy and paste. Except it's worse because
it's the Attorney General talking like this instead of a

(06:16):
woman studies professor. He's absolutely right. This is the attorney general.
She actually has guns in her hand. She actually can
destroy your life. She can actually, whether the courts have
hold it or not, she can destroy your life. In
the meantime, she is the government, she is force, she

(06:39):
is the police. So for the Attorney General to have
this view is a thousand times worse than some woman
studies professor, some kid on campus. So yeah, left right Now,

(07:03):
It's not just David Richard Hananio is very critical of
anybody in the right anyway.

Speaker 6 (07:08):
But Chris Rufo, Chris Rufo who keeps claiming we need
to use the tools of government to you know, we
do our institutions and get rid of the left and do.

Speaker 1 (07:18):
All this stuff, which sounds a lot like what Pambundi's suggesting. Maybe,
but even Chris Rufo, this is too far for him.
This is extremely concerning. He writes, the distinction is not
between free speech and hate speech, but between free speech
and organizing illicit activity, engaging in political violence, depriving others

(07:41):
of the civil rights, and committing tax on nonprofit fraud. Yeah,
I mean that's how he would like to go after
the cases where but yeah, he's not happy with her.
And it gets worse because Matt Walsh, Matt Walsh should
basically almost declared a civil war the other day. Matt

(08:05):
Walsh quote, there should be social consequences for people who
openly celebrate the murder of an innocent man, social consequences.
But there obviously shouldn't be any legal repercussions for hate speech,
which is not even a valid or coheman concept. There
is no law against saying hurtful things, and there shouldn't be. God,

(08:29):
this is the first time, maybe ever, that I actually
agree with Matt Walsh. He's absolutely one hundred percent right
on this, probably for wrong reasons, but that's a different question.
So yeah, the conservatives, even on the right right, are
getting it. Dave Reuben even right dyve unbelievably bad take

(08:53):
by Bondie worthy of immediate resignation of an Attorney General.
I agree completely. Hate speech does not exist. You can
say mean things about people. We have very specific limitations,
such as direct calls for violence, but amorphous hate speech
does not exist. Charlie would never want this, so yep,

(09:26):
people are really upset at Pambondi, and I wouldn't be surprised.
Then she goes on TV on Fox News Friendly, so
she's not gonna get harrassed there. But she goes on
Fox News and she says, if you want to go
and print posters with Charlie's picture for a vigil, you

(09:49):
have to let them do it. That is, the business
has to let the employees print cup posters of Charlie's pictures.
You have to let them do it. We can prosecute
you for that. If you don't. We have right now
our civil rights unit looking at that. So the government
is now going to force businesses to let its employees

(10:14):
use business facilities to organize prints, whatever political stuff that's new.
They're going to going to force them and if they
don't agree, they're gonna go after them for civil rights violation.
I mean, this woman is I don't think she's nuts.
I think she's just stupid. She's incompetent. She certainly should

(10:36):
not be Attorney general. And on this again, Matt Walsh
agrees with me. It's shocking today. Matt Walsh agrees with
me twice. This is what he says about this particular statement.
Get rid of her today. This is insane. Conservatives are
fought for decades for the right to refuse service to anyone.

(10:59):
We won that fight. Now Pam Bondi wants to roll
it all back for no reason. The employee who didn't
print the flyer was already fired by his employer. This
stuff is being handled successfully through free speech and free markets.
This is totally gratuitous and pointless. We need the Attorney

(11:22):
General focused on bringing down the left, doing terror cells,
not prosecuting Office Depot for god's sake. Yeah, they're upset
because because she's got nuts. She's gone nuts. I mean,

(11:46):
she's basically threatening to prosecute businesses who refuse to print flyers,
and that the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division is
looking into cases like that, particularly a case at Office Ego.

(12:06):
So yeah, she's there because she will do whatever Trump
tells her to do. She will aggressively go after Epstein, Epstein, Epstein, Epstein,
I think in this case, she'll you know, Gersa to
go after Jeffrey Epstein, and she will back off when

(12:27):
Trump tells her to back off. She will do whatever
Trump tells her. Now, remember, attorney general is supposed to be,
at least to some extent, an independent entity. It's supposed
to be the Department of Justice for the United States,
not for the president. Yet she views herself as an
attorney for Trump. And look, she's ignorant, and you could

(12:52):
tell she's not that smart by her attempt to kind
of justify herself. So she posts on Twitter of an
attorney general, Pamela Bandi an attempt to justify it, right,
and you know here here, you know, I'm not gonna

(13:12):
read you the whole thing, but she conflates a free
speech and then she says, okay, but it's it's it's uh,
you violate free speech when you call for somebod these
violent for violence, threats, assassinations. And then but then she
conflates that again with you know, here's what she's right.

(13:34):
She says, free speech protects ideas, debate, even descent, even descent,
but that does not and will never protect violence. Yeah,
that's true, But then she says, it is clear that
violent rhetoric is designed to silence others from voicing conservative ideals. Really,

(13:55):
violent rhetoric, violent rhetoric is completely completely protected by the
First Amendment. Free speech includes violent rhetoric. It does not
include threats, It does not include incitement to violence. But

(14:16):
talking violent terms is not a violent It is not
a reason to go after people. I mean, god, you
would have to. You have to rest almost every podcast
out there. And this idea that violent rhetoric is designed
to silence conservative ideals, as if conservatives never used violent rhetoric.

(14:38):
Have you ever listened to Matt Walsh or Knowles or
any of these guys. They don't threaten, they don't incite,
But did they ever use violent rhetoric? Absolutely, as do
I It's so even when she's trying to fix it,

(15:07):
she can't get it right. She you know, she goes
after she I mean, she doesn't understand the distinction. She
doesn't know the distinctions. And she's a partisan hack. She's

(15:30):
been hired to go after Trump's enemies. She will use
whatever means she has again, even if she arrests somebody
that ultimately will be exonerated by the courts. Because the
son a violation of the First Amendment, their lives are
likely to be ruined. She can do horrible, horrible things

(15:51):
to many, many people. And if you add her up
with kash Patel, I mean, at the federal level, law
enforcement in this country is an unmitigated disaster of incompetence
and complete and utter bias, complete another bias, complete dedication

(16:16):
to Trump rather than to the truth or to justice.
Oh God forbid to the law. Uh so, yep, you
cannot dox a contrivtive family and think you will be
brushed off as free speech. I don't know. Doxing is

(16:38):
doxing not free speech? Is doxing violence? I mean, doxing
might be really really inappropriate in any model and wrong,
but it is doxing actually violence? Are they really? Is
doxing punishable crime? She said she can't call for someone's murder. True,

(17:01):
you cannot swat a member of Congress. I don't know
what swat means. Do you guys know what swap means?
You cannot dos a conservative family? You can't. Yeah, I

(17:24):
mean doxing is not illegal, not in the United States
of America. So yeah, I mean she should resign tomorrow.
If we had a decent president, if we had a
president kid one aota about the rule of law, free speech,
he doesn't not even a bit. She would be fired tomorrow.

(17:52):
But this is a president. When he was asked about Bondi,
he was asked about Bondy by a reporter from ABC,
and he said, he was asked about hate speech. And
he said, well, you guys at ABC, you guys commit
hate speech against me. And that's why I'm suing you.

(18:13):
You know, just like I've sued all these other companies
that you know have gone after me hate speech, I'm
suing you all. Yeah, going after you. We're going after you.
I mean, this is a president who is going after speech.

(18:33):
Right now, he is suing the New York Times today,
he said the New York Times for fifteen billion dollars
for defamation and libel. Now, he called it one of
the worst and most degenerate newspapers in the history of
our country, becoming a virtual mouthpiece of the radical left

(18:56):
Democratic Party, accusing them of lying about your favorite president,
my family business, the American First Movement MAGA in our
nation as a whole. Now, I imagine if you can
sue any newspaper for lying about the nation as a whole.

(19:20):
It's a public figure. The standard for defamation is very high,
very high for a public figure. But he doesn't care.
The point is all it is is intimidation, right, He'll basically,
this is a way to say to the New York Times,
I'm going to keep after you. I'm gonna disrupt your business.

(19:44):
I'm gonna go after you do everything I can. And
the purpose of all that is to stop you from
doing your job. The purpose of that is to silence
your criticism of me and all the other you know, media,
CBS and others have settled with him. They've just written

(20:06):
him a check. And you know that as part of
that settlement. Okay, they're gonna downturn the criticism because they
don't want to be sued again. I have to settle again.
This president is the most anti free speak president of
my lifetime. I don't know enough about the history of

(20:27):
presidents before that, but this is this is just you know, horrific.
You know, he could sue me for calling him a
moron or for you know, saying his administration is corrupt
for fifteen billion dollars. You could sue me, and then

(20:47):
what I'd have to take all my money and defend
it against a lawsuit. I couldn't do the show. He
would silence me, affect him. So this is a silencing tactic.
This is a way to use his power as president,
his power as president to silence his opposition. It's about

(21:13):
as un American as a gad. It's worse than anything
Biden did visa VI free speech. I mean this, the
losses against the law, the law firms. It's unconscionable that
a president would be allowed to do this. I mean,
any one of these should be impeachable offenses. This is

(21:33):
all of this is much more significant than the impeachment
over the Ukraine phone call in now Wars twenty eighteen,
twenty nineteen. I mean, these things he should be impeachable.
We'll get to the corruption in a minute, another impeachable offense.
But it really is really is amazing to me that

(21:58):
he gets away with it. Nobody, kids, nobody. I mean, yeah,
the Conservatives all get all riled up when Pam Bondi
is something really really stupid, But are they going to
be upset by all these lossuits by Donald Trump sitting
president SANCHI just a lossit or a private citizen, it's
a sitting president. Here's a question for you in terms

(22:24):
of free speech. And I'm not sure I know the
answer exactly to this, but you know, in terms of
how we exactly define free speech right, or how do

(22:44):
we exactly define excitement to violence? So this is this
is Hassan, This is a socialist guy, massive following, massive
following on the left, and this isn't a podcast. I'm
gonna just you what he says. He says, Yeah, kill
kill those motherfuckers and murder those motherfuckersy kill those you know, uh,

(23:10):
murder the murder them in the street, Let the streets
soak in the fucking red capitalist blood. Yeah, kill kill them? Now?
Is that protected speech? Right? Is that protected speech? If
he's just talking about capitalists in general? Is that incitement?

(23:36):
Probably it is protected speech. I'd be curious to see
how a Supreme court would rule about this. It probably
is kind of violent rhetoric. It is probably permissible unless
he's talking about a specific group, unless it's actionable, unless
he's talking about specific people. I don't know those people
back black clog, you know, go after them. So is

(24:13):
could he be prosecuted for that? And there are other
clips of him basically broadly speaking, advocating for violence, not
specifically not go kill him, not let's meet at three
o'clock and burn that down, but generally violent rhetoric associated

(24:37):
with destroying the capitalist world. I think, I think as
long as it's broad vague like that, as long as
it's not specific, it's protected speech. It's protected speech. But
by the way, put aside this feature second. Put aside,

(25:01):
if the speech issue was second, that is Hassan, that is,
you know, probably one of the most influential voices now
on the fall left. By the way, he was a
very condemnatory of the assassination of the assassin nation of Cook,
so which I found bizarre given given this, given you know,

(25:24):
let let let the streets be soaked in blood. Of course,
it's easy to say stuff like that when it's theoretical.
It's different when the streets get soaked with blood and
suddenly you realize whoa that could be? Me? So uh yes, uh,

(25:53):
this is who who the radicalizes. I mean, this guy
radicalizes many young people, many gen zs. This is who
is good friends with Mamdani, who's almost certainly going to
win New York. This is a major voice on the left,

(26:14):
major voice on the left, by the way, on what
is it? November thirteenth, November thirteenth, I'll be in Colorado Springs,
and I'll be debating one of the writers, one of
the editors I think at the Jacobian magazine. So a socialist,

(26:36):
a committed real socialist, will be doing a capitalism versus
socialism debate. This is the guy I debated, I think
in twenty eighteen or twenty nineteen on four different campuses.
Well this time we'll be debating on one campus. So
this will be a talk at the University of Colorado,
Colorado Springs. I hope if you're in the area, if

(26:57):
you're in Colorado, certainly IFI in Colorado, but even in
other places in Colorado, you'll come over. I'll need all
the support I get I can get. Even though it's
Colorado Springs, which is generally a conservative, religious, conservative place.
I'm not sure that I'm out of support me because
very religious. But it's a university, so you've got to
believe they will mostly be leftists there, so it would

(27:20):
be it would be great to get one of those,
one of those, get some friendly voices in the audience.
I will debate anybody you know, to the right of
Noam Chomsky pretty much, and anybody to the left of

(27:42):
Nick Foentis pretty much, or Tucker Carson pretty much. I'll
debate them to the extent right or left even apply
in those cases, but I'll debate them. So yeah, I mean,
I was approached here by the organizing by an organization
that's organizing this debate, the Steamboat Institute, as I said it,
with Color Water Spring November thirteenth, and it should be

(28:07):
it should be interesting. I've also I've also been contacted
by a leading conservative publication in the UK to do
some debates for them in London, probably early next year,
so I'm looking forward to that. So I like this.

(28:29):
I like the fact that there are quite a few
people out there left and right that are you know,
eager to have me come in debate represent capitalism, represent freedom,
represent that site. Also, you know, of course, I did
a lot of debates at the I did a number

(28:49):
of debates at the festival Let the Light Shine In
or something like that festival in Wales the summer with
hundreds of people participate, and those those were good. And
then there I debated, you know, mainstream academic leftists. All right,

(29:10):
back to the TikTok deal. I mean, this has to
be one of the most ridiculous stupid things in history. Again,
this is uh, this is a.

Speaker 2 (29:24):
This is one of those where.

Speaker 1 (29:26):
Trump is completely ignoring the law. We talked about that yesterday.
I won't even go there, this impeachable offense, just ignoring
the law that says that TikTok needs to be shut down.
But as we said, as I said yesterday, Trump and
the Chinese have come to some kind of deal around TikTok.
The TikTok will be somehow spun off. American investors will

(29:51):
come in and participate. Ar we call is going to
play some significant role here including UH it will continue
to house everything that is uh, you know, all the
all the it or serve as the cloud facility for
all the videos and everything else that happens on TikTok.

(30:14):
But that the fear always was that TikTok was using
a Chinese algorithm, and that even though the information was
stored on articles servers, the Chinese had a back door
and could basically access whatever information they wanted. The fear
was also that the Chinese were using the algorithm using

(30:36):
the algorithm to actually manipulate what Americans were seeing and creating,
creating descent in America, you know, creating uh, you know,
throwing oil on the fire of the left right split

(30:57):
in America, but also providing significant Chinese propaganda on TikTok
and using algorithm in order to spread it. And these
are the complaints, and this is why Congress decided to
shut it down, signed by the President, approved a Supreme Court,
ignored by Donald Trump. But then so now there's a deal,

(31:20):
and it turns out, it turns out in this deal
that TikTok is going to still use the Chinese algorithm.
It's going to lease it from Bitdance, the Chinese company,
and it's still going to use the same algorithm, still

(31:41):
be managed by Bitdance, although it was some supervision from
the parent American company that is going to be leasing
it from them. It's going to be something in between.
It's a licensing deal. At least that's what the Chinese
is saying that they get. This is going to be
a licensing deal, you know, uh, partially because Beijing wants

(32:04):
to be seen as exporting technology to the United States, right,
that's a big prestige thing. But it's uh, it's just
it's a complete seller. It's a complete seller best bestn't

(32:24):
the Treasury secretary, that's a Treasury ciccution, you said, I mean,
this is unbelievable that he said this. He said that
the spun off app would be controlled by American investors.
But notice this, but preserve some quote Chinese characteristics. So

(32:49):
Americans are going to provide the funding and China is
going to manage the thing. China is gonna run the thing.
China is gonna provide the algorithm. China is gonna brainwash kids,
China is gonna run things. I mean, we becoming China.
Or what is China winning? I mean economically it's a

(33:10):
basket case. But strategically on every single front that I
can see today, China is winning or America is losing
is a better quote. I mean Trump billed himself as
tough on China. Trump is like the weakest president imaginable

(33:33):
on China. And you will see when we get the
deal at the end of the day, when this deal
comes around, this will be an unbelievable deal that's good
for China anyway. It's it's gonna be interesting to see

(33:56):
what happens, and how what the details of this deal are.
But for for bestt to even say preserve some Chinese
characteristics without flinching and without embarrassing himself. I mean, we
just got a lot of either unbelievably incompetent, not very smart,

(34:18):
or just corrupt people in this administration saying whatever they
need to say in order to be in order to
be in order for Trump to to like them. Anyway,
We'll see, uh, you know. And of course the laws
says that if TikTok is going to continue, it has

(34:41):
to be fully divested from TikTok. But is this fully
divested from TikTok from I mean from the Chinese, Sorry,
from the Chinese. But is TikTok fully divested from the Chinese?
If it's leasing the algorithm, which is the heart of
the whole thing, how does that work? Is a licensing
deal with bit dance fully separate, fully divested? I mean,

(35:12):
I don't know. This is some crazy stuff, crazy stuff.
The good news is for Alico, which keeps us a
cloud deal, might be one of the investors in the
new deal. I'm still curious to see if the United
States government isn't invested in the new deal. But it
does seem like I think, as with this military shift

(35:37):
away from China and towards Latin America. Donald Trump wants
a good relationship with Chi. He likes Chi, you know,
he likes dictators, and he wants a good relationship with China.
And I think the shift is real. I think he
really strategically. We saw this in the document that the
Defense Department has drafted, which is as the United States

(36:01):
shift away from Europe and away from Asia and shift
totally to our own hemisphere. This is part of that.
This is part of completely surrendering, surrendering really the world
outside of maybe Latin America to China and Russia and
Europe if they want to take a piece, all right,

(36:32):
And why is the government negotiating this? So I know,
I'm going to say an ugly wood right now. But
according to the New York Times, big story in the
New York Times today, big story in the New York Times.

(36:55):
If this is true, and I'm gonna say if this
is true, because yeah, New York Times be biased and
so on, but it certainly lines up, is true, It
certainly factual, seems true. I haven't seen anybody really contradict
any of the factual evidence, and it certainly seems plausible
the cause of relationship that The New York Times is

(37:17):
asserting here. See here's the story. Sheikh Tarnun, who is
in charge of the you know Emiwodi Royal Sovereign Wealth Fund, Right,

(37:37):
he's the guy in charge of Yui United Arab Emirates
uh Solign Fund, which is big. It's it's oil money,
and it's it's sizable make a lot of big investments. Anyway,
at some point earlier this year, the sheikh decided to

(37:58):
invest two billion billion dollars billion in Binet's, a crypto
exchange using coins from a krypto company owned and operated
by two families, the Witcoff family. Yes, the Witcuff who's

(38:21):
going around in the Middle East doing negotiating and going
to Russia doing negotiating. The Whitcoff family, and I mean,
I'm sure you'll be shocked to hear the Trump family.
So here's a chic right in the midst of all
the stuff going on in the Middle East where Witcof
is shuttling back and forth and talking to regularly, is

(38:45):
investing in a company in a way that massively benefits
another company owned by Whitcoff's family and Trump's family two
billion dollars. So that's one side of this transaction. Why

(39:06):
would he do that? What can Trump give him? Well,
here's what he gives him. We know this because we
talked about this. I talked about this when it happened.
Right just about a month later, the Sheikh secures access
to valuable artificial intelligence chips in agreement with the White House,

(39:31):
an agreement which of course involved Steve Whitcoff, David Sacks,
and Trump. Sacks is Trump's AI and crypto zare but
basically a Trump administration exchange. You fund this thing we're doing,

(39:57):
and we'll give you valuable AH chips. Though we have
respected the Chinese from getting and you can buy as
many as you want. And this is the UE, granted
a moderate but it's still the Middle East, and there's
still we all chance that the stuff could land up

(40:21):
in China. Now it turns out that while all this
was going on, there was an official at the National
Security Council, a guy named fIF fIF f E I
t h A, a son of the neocon Fith. Although

(40:41):
I don't know that he's a neocon he's worked. This
is a second time in the Trump White House, so he's
probably not a neocon anyway. At the National Security Counter
so a Fith and a couple of others raised a
long bells around us. You know, he had returned.

Speaker 7 (41:02):
Feith had returned to the second term a Senior director
for Technology on the National Security Council, and he pushed
what he and his colleagues called the America First AI
Chips Plan, which would restrict FARN access to the most
advanced chips for.

Speaker 1 (41:18):
At least a year. But Sheikh Tannhun wanted them now.
So in early April, just after Sheikh Tannun visited Washington,
d C. Trump fired six Security Council officials, including Faith.

(41:43):
And of course, this dismissal came after roughly a thirty
minute meeting between mister Trump and guess who, our favorite provocateur,
Luma Luma. Luma said who opposition mister fifth had to
do in part with his father's place leitical views when
he was serving in the administration of President George W. Bush.

(42:04):
She said it did not pertain to chips negotiations. Yeah, right,
She certainly wanted to be believed. Now, this is pretty
amazing Just more from the article. In May, mister Whitcoffe's son,

(42:24):
Zach announced the first of the deals at a conference
in Dubai. One of Sheik ted Nun's investment films would
deposit two billion into World Liberty Financial, That is, Whitcoff's
and Trump's investment film, a cryptocurncy startup founded by Whitcoff
and Trump's. Two weeks later, the White House agreed to
allow the UEE access the hundreds of thousands of the
world's most advanced and scarce computer chips, a crucial tool

(42:49):
in the high stakes raised to dominate artificial intelligence. Many
of the chips would go to G forty two, a
sprawling technology film controlled by Chief Sheikh Tarnun, despite national
security concerns that the chip would be shared with China. Yeah,

(43:13):
I mean you can. You can excuse this, you can
rationalize it. You can say, oh no, this is just
conspiracy theories this but this is these things happen. We
know that the event actually happened. We know of the firings,
we know of the sequence, we know exactly what happened.
We can see, you know, follow the money is often

(43:35):
the advice you get if you want to find out
what's going on, follow the money. Trump family, the Sheikh again,
probably the most corrupt US administration in our nation's history,
at least, you know, I don't know the nation's history.

(43:56):
Soon me in my lifetime. You think you think Hunt
that was bad? Oh my god, Hunter Biden was an amateur.
And this is already two of the first Trump administration.
Remember that his son in law got a two billion
dollar investment into his private equity fund, the first private

(44:17):
equity fund he'd ever raised, from the Saudis, right after
Trump left office. So yeah, no, no, you know, no
relations It had nothing to do with the fact that
Trump had been president and was very friendly to the Saudis.
There's no relationship between those things. This is just really unbelievably,

(44:41):
unbelievably corrupt, unbelievable corruption. When Trump was asked, so this
is a report, asks him, as he's heading towards the helicopter,
should a president in office be engaged in so much
business activity? Trump says, I'm not. My kids are running
the business. Where are you from? Your porter says Australian

(45:02):
Broadcast Corporation. Trump says, listen to this, you're hurting Australia
very much right now, and they want to get along
with me. Your leader is coming to see me soon.
I'm going to tell him about you. You said a
bad tone, You can get a nicer tone. Quiet. He's

(45:26):
not gonna backtracked from the corruption. He's gonna embrace it,
and he's gonna go after anybody who even has a
tone of criticism. This is your president, this is whom
many of you voted for. You cannot criticize him, even
if you're the media whose job it is, to a
large extent is to criticize politicians. So what they're there

(45:48):
for a criticism immediately elicits a threat. Oh, your Prime
Minister is coming. I'm gonna tell you how bad you are.
And you know I might condition corporation with Australia on
you getting fired or your network getting demoted or whatever,

(46:09):
your license being taken away from you. Remember this is
Trump who's threatened a number of times and seems like
they might actually do it. In terms of taking the
broadcast license away from ABC and NBC. CBS is now
owned by somebody right wing, and Barry Weiss is going
to be run the editorial staff of CBS News, So

(46:29):
he's pretty safe at CBS and he cut that deal
where they paid him a lot of money. But NBC
and ABC are not playing ball with him, so he
very well might, very well might try to take away
their license to broadcast. All right, let's see a couple

(46:53):
of things on the FED. So the feder will meet
tomorrow for two days to discuss the interest rate policy.
Monetary policy will broadly, they're likely to lower interest rates.
There'll be a vote. The vote will be split, it
won't be unanimous. I think there'll be three different parties
to the vote. There'll be those who want to keep

(47:13):
interest rates flat because CPI price inflation is still three percent,
which is higher than the FEDS target of two percent,
and they believe by keeping interest rates high, you know
CPI will come down. There were those who will want
to reduce the interest rates by half a percent. And

(47:34):
then now because supposedly, you know, employment is suffering, job
market is really bad, the economy might go into a session,
and they think by lower interest rates they will save
the economy and help Trump, and this is what Trump
wants more importantly, So there'll be some votes for decreasing

(47:54):
interest rate. For fifty basis points and then there'll be
Pal's view, which is to decrease interest rates by twenty
five basis points. I think power will win the day
at the end of at the end, but it will
be a split vote. Anyway, Trump was trying to get
Lisa Cook fired. She was. He fired her in an

(48:15):
effort to have her not be at this meeting. Lisa
Cooke will who by the way, I don't think he's
qualified to be at the Federal Reserve, but she is.
You know, she is there, and I don't think Trump
has the authority to fire her, but she's there. Anyway.
Lisa Cook will probably vote with Powell, so not the
way Trump wants. So he wanted her off, and so

(48:39):
he went to the Pelate Court to try to get
her to guide, to get them to accept his firing
of her so that there would be one less vote
in favor of only a twenty five basis points reduction
in interustrates. Anyway, the Appellate Court ruled against him in

(49:04):
an emergency ruling Monday. They ruled that President Trump cannot
remove Lisa Cook from the Federals Board of Governors before
this week's pivotal meeting. Two weeks ago, Trump announced that
he would be removing Cook of allegation as a mortgage
fraud after an investigation was launched by the Justice Department

(49:24):
following a refraval from the director of the Federal Housing
Finance Agency. Although it turns out now that the facts
on which the Federal Housing Finance Agency based it's before
were flawed. Now, so there's information now that's come out

(49:44):
that's in Lisa Cook's favor, even though no matter what,
this was not a big deal. This is just an excuse.
It wasn't a real justification anyway, She will not be voting.
On the other hand, good news for Trump his nominee

(50:06):
to replace a retiring Federal Reserve Board member, Stephen Miran,
who is his Economic council. He was confirmed by the
Senate today to serve on the Federals of Board, so
he will be there at the meeting to vote Trump's

(50:26):
white so Trump will have a representative on the board Miran.
This is very unusual for Miria to get this position
because he is still working at the White House. So
this is the anti fed independence, if ever there has
been one. He is both at the Economic advisor to
Trump and on the Federals of Board. At the same time,

(50:51):
so it'll be interesting. We won't know the vote, I
think on Wednesday on Thursday, but we will know the decision.
My guest is twenty five basis point reduction. Be surprised
if it's anything else. But it's of course it's possible
that they vote for fifty and appeased Trump, which is
always a possibility, all right. Luigi Mangione, Luigi Mangi. Remember

(51:19):
Luigi Mangani, who assassinated the CEO of United Healthcare was
today faced a judge today who reviewed the accusations against
him and actually threw out the two most serious accusations,
both of them claimed that he uh that he was doing.

(51:42):
He did what he did in order to terrorize employees
of the company and to terrorize the general public. So
he was being accused of first degree murder, which in
the State of New York only applies to very extreme cases.
State of New York, first degree moder murder can only
apply if the victim is a judge, a police officer,

(52:06):
a first desponder, or the killing involved a murder for
higher on intent to commit terrorism. And the judge ruled
that he none of those qualified, and therefore he will
be he will be persecuted under the second degree murder

(52:32):
charges instead of first degree motor charges. I always thought
first degree was pre meditated and second was a quiet passion.
But I guess that's not the way it is in
New York. So even though it's premeditated, clearly he is
going to face two moder charges, or he will be
one moder charge, but it will be a second degree
motor charge plus a bunch of weapons possession charges. It

(53:00):
turns out, you know, it turns out, so, the judge says,
the defendants of parent objectivist stated in his writings was
not to threaten, intimidate, or cause, but rather to draw
attention to what he perceived as the greed of the
insurance industry. Sounds a little sympathetic to the murderer, this is,
the judge. Sounds sympathetic. Philt Magnus writes. Apparently, political assassinations

(53:28):
in New York City are not threatening, intimidating, of course,
of course, of anymore as long as they perpetrator pens
a crazy anti capitalist manifesto about greed. There you go,

(53:51):
there you go. All right, let's see, all right, you know,
a quick update with regret of what's going on with

(54:14):
Russia and NATO. We talked about this a few days ago,
but the verbiage on of Russia is just escalating. So
something is going on here. They're not doing well in
the battlefield. They're gaining inches at a massive cost of
human lives. I mean, think about think about how many
lives have been lost to the Russians. They've taken well

(54:36):
over a million casualties. That is a death and you know,
real injuries, really bad injuries, over a million. I mean,
think about a Vietnam was a catastrophe for the United
States and sixty five thousand Americans died there. Hundreds of
thousands of Russians have died in Ukraine for Russia itself,

(54:59):
I think the numbers eighteen thousand Russians died in Afghanistan
and they left in defeat. Hundreds of thousands have died
in Ukraine and they're still fighting. I mean, the extent
of which this is a this war is a defeat
for the Russians is unbelievable in that the numbers in

(55:22):
terms of death of World War two like numbers, and
yet they're fighting Ukraine, which is a nothing militarily, was
nothing military and you can tell that Russia is super frustrated.
They're super frustrated. It's like this war was supposed to
last a week, three weeks max. And it's you know,

(55:46):
going to be three years soon. No, it's more than
three years. Sorry, it's going to be four years in February.
And they've achieved very little, very little, and they're achieving
right now very little. Again. You'll hear of an advance here,
in advance there, but they're inches inches and now they're

(56:09):
trying to poke NATO out of frustration. They need a diversion,
they need to get the Russian people excited about something.
What you're seeing is escalating rhetoric, not only the drones
flying into Poland, escalating rhetoric about the fact that this
is a war with NATO or that a war with

(56:32):
NATO is coming. They said that if Poland or NATO
established an old fly zone over Ukraine, and if NATO
uses its aircraft to shoot down drones over Ukraine, that
means a war between NATO and Russia. Vedev also said

(56:56):
that he will go after any member of the European
Union that provides Ukraine loans backed by seized Russian assets,
and he will do so in all possible international and
national courts, threatening quote that in some cases Russia will
byposs bypass quote proceedings, which means use violence. So he

(57:19):
is suggesting violence and real war with NATO. And I
think this is all empty threats because they'd be eviscerated
by NATO, but it is. It is getting scary. I mean.
The other thing is that Ukraine is having incredible success
a targeting oil infrastructure all over Russia. I just read

(57:44):
that they actually just hit a military base, a Russian
military base on the Pacific Ocean, all the way in
eastern Ukraine, Russia, all the way the Cific Ocean. Their
reach is incredible. They've done some amazing smart attacks and

(58:08):
they are taking out as much of the oil infrastructure
that the Russians have as possible. At the same time,
Trump is doing nothing, all his threats against Putin a zero.
Putin has been emboldened since he met with Trump in Alaska.
He viewed that meeting as America's weakness. You know, Trump

(58:36):
is making demands of the Europeans he knows they won't meet,
so that he can use that as an excuse not
to do anything to Russia. Because at the end of
the day. He likes Putin. Putin's his friend. He doesn't
want a hood Putsin. He doesn't want sanctions in Russia.
He had my ass Putin, and maybe Putin has something

(58:57):
on him. We don't know. I mean, Putin's really only
real success right now, only real success is his complete
manipulation of Trump, his complete manipulations having Trump in his
his in his hand, in his pocket, or whatever you

(59:17):
want to call it. That's the only thing going well
for Putin right now. On the battlefield, it's going terrible.
All right. Finally, let's talk about the Gaza Strip. Before
we get to Gaza Strip. One other story about Israel.
It's interesting, I mean, sourceas are saying. Now, remember when

(59:42):
the attack on Katao happened, the White House said, we
didn't know about this. We only heard about it when
the misselves win. They we couldn't stop it. Even if
we opposed it, we couldn't stop it. Well, according to
his really sources, now the White House new and an
hour before the strike happened. Trump never argued against it,

(01:00:05):
never said don't do it. There were discussions between him
and Antonielle before the strike even happened, and including through
military channels. And political channels. So this idea that Trump
didn't know is bs Now it's a line that the

(01:00:29):
White House carries in order to appease the Qataris, in
order for the Katarist to think the Katarist to believe
that he wasn't involved so he can continue to be
their friend, and the ally, maybe they'll invest in his
cryptocurrency as well. Trump continues to say, no, he didn't

(01:00:49):
like it. He didn't like the attack. He was against
the attack, but he couldn't stop it because it was
too late. So just to fill you in, because we
talked about that last week about what Trump knew, who
didn't know, you know, But according to Israeli's quote, Trump
knew about the strike before the missiles were launched. First,
there was a discussion on the political level between the

(01:01:11):
Tenniel and Trump, but afterwards the military channels, Trump didn't
say no. Now, you know, again, it's not official. The
Tenda is not going to call Trump Palaia, but some
people within the Israeli administration are calling him alive. I
think as of this morning, Israel time is well launched

(01:01:33):
its major operation that it had indicated that it was
going to do into Gaza, City in the northern Gaza strip. No.
Gaza City is more populous area in Gaza. It is
at the heart of ware Tamas has been and is
it is. It is where there are still remaining whole

(01:01:55):
neighborhoods and buildings standing, where there were several hundred thousand
and residents still living there. Over the last few weeks,
Israel has told the residents to evacuate, huh, which is
not something an army committing genocide would do. Evacuate. We
don't want to kill you now, does it sound like

(01:02:15):
genocide to me? Anyway? Put that aside. So they asked
him about three hundred thousand gouzends have ready to evacuate
Gudza City and as of this morning, Israel has We've
seen Israeli tanks entering into Gaza City and the operation
to basically take over the city, to clear it from

(01:02:38):
every Hamas element, to destroy its terrorist infrastructure, including all
the tunnels that are in Gaza City, including under the hospitals.
That is the goal. The goal will ultimately for Israel
to occupy this territory until there's a different solution. There
are real risks here. Guzzus. The city is likely to

(01:03:01):
be heavily booby trapped by Hamas. So one of the
ways in which Israel will deal with the booby traps
is basically, if you destroy a building, then you don't
have to deal with the booby traps. And that's probably
the best way to do it. Flatten as many buildings
as you can, because if you enter a building to
try to clear it, you're susceptible to those booby traps.

(01:03:23):
And a number of Israel as well. It's taken quite
a few casualties when they have tried to go in
and click buildings. It's much safer to just knock the
building down, and this is why vacuation they fail, Evacuation
is so necessary. So it's gonna be it's gonna be
interesting to see this operation how it moves ahead. It

(01:03:43):
really does seem like with the Operation Qatar and the
entry now into Gaza City, it really does seem like,
you know, two years after the fact, that this government
is now serious about actually defeating Kamas and defeating the
Palestinians and Gaza and taking control over the place again.

(01:04:08):
This is what should have done been done in October
of twenty twenty three. This should have been done immediately
after October seventh. I don't know why it had to
wait for two years. I mean, I know why hesitancy, cowardice,
and hostages hostages. I guess the hostage numbers now are

(01:04:31):
small enough. The N'tannielle is willing to risk their death
in order to destroy Kamas. That is the only calculation
I think that ultimately makes sense. It is better two
years late than ever, There's no question. So I'm happy
they're doing it now. I wish they had taken out
the Katari Hamas two years ago, just like they did

(01:04:57):
they took out the leader of Haramas. If you remember,
they took out the exiled leader of Ramas in Iran
in his bedroom in a Revolutionary God for Islamic Revolutionary
God facility, which was one of the one of the
most stunning intelligence operations ever but all forgotten because of
the beepers and because of the Iran War and everything else.

(01:05:19):
But that was astounding that they could do that. The
Iranians should have known better at that point than to
attack Israel, because they should have known that the Israeli
intelligence is infiltrated into every aspect of their lives. So yeah,
we will be tracking I will be tracking this Gaza
City operation and let you know how it goes and
how it evolves. There was a major story in one

(01:05:42):
of these Raeli newspapers which I think was interesting, giving
credit for a lot of the Mossad intelligence, but not
just intelligence, actual action on the ground in Iran in
Tehran to female agents, two female agents who you don't

(01:06:08):
do the whole array of both the intelligence gathering and
also again sabotage and military action in Iran, you know,
including closing up and seducing I guess leaders within Iran.
It was the first time the role of females in

(01:06:28):
the Mossad has been really highlighted in this way, and
it is interesting enough. It's a plot line. It's the
plot line of a TV series that I think is
on Apple TV called Tehran, which is follows a female
Mossad agent in Iran working to assassinate I think the

(01:06:50):
defense the head of the Defense department or something like that.
So yeah, Tehran is worth watching. Of course, in Tehran
things don't go as well as they did in real life,
which is interesting. The TV show was more skeptical about
Mosad's ability to pull it off than reality. In reality,

(01:07:12):
Mosada is even better than what they're portrayed on TV,
which I don't think that's true of any other spy agency,
or call it. Call it that way. You know, Mosata
is unbelievable, really unbelievable. All right, let's see that I

(01:07:32):
think is the news for Tuesday, September sixteenth. All right,
So we will move to super chat and I will
encourage you to continue to ask questions. We have a
lot from yesterday and a few from today. We still
haven't met our first hour goal and we're into the
second hour, so please consider supporting the show with a

(01:07:56):
sticker or with a question. We'll answer all the questions. Today.
We were not really limited in terms of time, so
I will have the time to.

Speaker 2 (01:08:08):
Go over it all and we'll go over.

Speaker 1 (01:08:21):
All of it, and so you can ask more and
support the show more because we need to make our
second hour goal. All right, let's see. I also want
to tell you about our sponsors. We have three sponsors.
The Iman Institute is encouraging people to sign up for
the Ironmand live classes. These are courses they're going to

(01:08:43):
be offered online live, but you can take them recorded.
You don't have to show up live for class, but
you can if you want. You can take the classes
at your own pace. You can do homework if you
want or not. If you don't want, you can in
a sense ardit the classes determine the level of engagement

(01:09:03):
that you want. It's up to you.

Speaker 2 (01:09:06):
Uh.

Speaker 1 (01:09:07):
These classes are going to be starting in October. They're
gonna there are three of them. In the Philosophy of Objectivism,
which is just a straight course on the philosophy, the
philosophy through the Fiction, which goes through the fiction and
how the fiction illustrates the philosophy and a course on work,

(01:09:28):
which I think Don Watkins is teaching. The other two
heavy involvement of on cargate. These are excellent courses for
anybody interested in deepening their understanding of the philosophy and
anybody kind of with questions about work in Korea. I
think the course is really really valuable, the course on work.
So I encourage you to sign up, and you could

(01:09:51):
do so on inrand dot org slash start here, Iran
dotag slash start here and click on the Iron Rand.
It's live and you can get a ten percent discount
on the rate. I'm not sure what the right is,
but you can get a ten percent discount, and all
you need is a discount code twenty five YBS ten.

(01:10:14):
Twenty five YBS ten, that's a discount code to get
a ten percent discount. Hand a Shot Wealth Management Office
product product that can significantly save you money on capital gains.
It will actually allow you to defer massive amounts of

(01:10:34):
capital gains well into the future and thus save you
a huge amount of money. If you do the math,
you can see how much can be saved just by
the deferbo. You can get a lot of insight into
this product and see if it's something that suits you.
But also I think you should watch this anyway because
I think it's super interesting and a lot of you

(01:10:54):
will find it interesting. Is my interview with Robert Handershot
on on my YouTube channel. If you go to the
playlist for sponsors, the playlist for sponsors, uh and yeah
you can. You can listen to that and see you

(01:11:17):
can go then to hand a Shot Wealth, hand a
Shot Wealth h hand a Shot with two Tea's hand
a Shot Wealth dot com slash ybs and uh sign
up to have a discussion with somebody from the company
to see if this is a product that's suitable for you.
No hearts out just does it work for you? It

(01:11:38):
doesn't it work for you? Nwick, thank you, Thank you
for the support. Really appreciated. Enerwick did a stick out?
YouTube can do a sticker, It's easy. And finally, Alex Epstein.
Alex Epstein is the world expert, world expert on all
things to do with climate change, energy, fossil fuels, the author,

(01:11:59):
the author a fossil future, and and uh, you know,
a real influencer when it comes to energy policy in
the United States today, a big influencer within the Republican
Party and even within the Trump administration. So I encourage
you to follow him and read his stuff. If you
want to know what's going on in this world of energy,

(01:12:21):
he's the guy. If you want to become a better
communicator about energy, he's your guy. Alex Epstein dot substick
dot com, alex Epstein dot substack dot com. Follow Alex.
He's phenomenal. And finally, if you want to support the
IRN Books show on a regular sustained basis, because this show,

(01:12:42):
this show is made possible by you, couldn't exist without you.
You are all the fuel that makes this show possible.
Without the financial support you provide. There is no yourn
book show, there is no you'reon Brook show, So please

(01:13:05):
support it to sustain its existence. And your best way
to do that is to make it come up is
to make a monthly subscription. You can do that on Patreon,
on PayPal Patreon, I think is easier Patreon dot com
and then patreon dot com. Oh, PayPal dot com, and

(01:13:26):
then put your one book show and yeah, become a
monthly supporter of the show. And that that that is
the best, the best now in the meantime, right now, today,
right here, we need thirty six more dollars to make
our first hour goal and two hundred and eighty six
dollars to make our second hour goal. So think about it.

(01:13:49):
Can you help get a sto where we need to be?
Can you provide a trade here? Value for value? All right,
let's see Alexis. Alexis says, can these morons realistically bite
past the First Amendment? Probably not in the sense that

(01:14:14):
it'll be thrown on in courts, But can you I
said this before, can you really harass people? Can you
really disrupt people's lives? Can you scare threaten people like
Trump is doing with the media, threatening it all the time. Yes,
can you withdraw the broadcasting licenses for NBC and CB

(01:14:37):
and ABC? Probably, could you get away with it? Probably,
FCC has that power, so they can get away with
a lot. But if they literally arrest somebody for hate speech,

(01:14:58):
that'll be thrown out by this courts won't stand. But
they can do a lot in the gray areas and
where government has just power to just inflict real damage
on private parties who they are unhappy with. The problem
with the mixed economy and mixed economy just gives government

(01:15:19):
this power over private enterprise that is really in many
respects unlimited. Christas, the government can destroy you by dragging
you for years in courts where you may have to
pay a fortune and lawyers, but they have unlimited resources
from taxes. Absolutely true. Even if you are exonerated, you

(01:15:39):
are truly lost. Yes, I mean people are like that.
People are being bankrupted by having to defend themselves in court,
you know, let's say irs court, even if they win
in the end. So it's very difficult the government. Can
you know, Giuliani invented the idea that you could throw
rico claims against financial malfeasance, and Rico they confiscate your property.

(01:16:08):
They confiscate, they freeze your assets before the trial, before
you even proven guilty, and thus they destroy your business
before you even go to court. I mean, the government
is brutal. Force is brutal. Force is the initiation of

(01:16:30):
force is evil, and the government wields force. There are
very few limitations sadly about force. Dave Dean, thank you
for the sticker. Twenty dollars. Really really appreciate that. Mary Ellen,
thank you for the sticker. Let's see who else did stickers?
Enric I said, I think William, thank you, and let's

(01:16:51):
see Nick, thank you, and Thumb even Harper Catherine, thank
you guys for stickers. You too can help the show,
which just like three bucks, like mamby Elean did a sticker,
and it all adds up. It all adds up only

(01:17:13):
only thirteen bucks away from our first hour goal, which
would be great. Not you have a y'all go with them?
Why do people want mindless ness and outrage? They want
to be animals? Being a human being is too hard.
Being a human being requires thinking, It requires effort, it
requires responsibility, it requires Yeah, it's hard, and there's a

(01:17:41):
sense in which I don't think they think in these terms.
But there's a sudden comfort, laziness in being mindless, in
being an animal. You just follow the tribe, do you know?
It's easy and people people have always been and still

(01:18:02):
are attracted to that, attracted to not living really as
a human being. It's sad, it's what a waste and
they usually inflict a lot of harm on the rest
of us. It's the anti conceptual mentality I'm man talked about.
It's the missing link, the people who don't rise to

(01:18:26):
the conceptual ability, and they're the ones making it hard
for the rest of us. Now as being a human
being too hard, it's not too hard, but for some
people it's hard enough, or they've never learned. They've never
taught themselves. They've never been taught of the upside, of

(01:18:48):
the benefit, of the wonders, of the happiness, of the achievement,
of the success of actually engaging, thinking for yourself and
engaging and living. That's a massive failure of educational system,
among others. Test up, do you think people can actually

(01:19:09):
suffer from TDS? Is not an anti concept? Yeah, it's
certainly an anti concept. Doesn't exist, There's no such a thing.
Are there people who are emotionalistic when it comes to Trump. Yes,
and you want to call that Trump do agents and refine.
But when you include in that people who rationally critique him,

(01:19:30):
who have consistently over the years critiqued him and been right,
then the concept loses all meaning. So the people out
there all the time who respond to everything emotionally. If
there's TDS, there's also biten derangement syndrome. And Kamala has

(01:19:55):
doragement syndrome. And I don't know anything derangement syndroome, anything
any stance that somebody else takes that's you know, derive
from emotionals. I mean, you don't like you call it
a derangement syndrome. Not very useful or helpful. But uh yes,

(01:20:21):
I think it's an involid concept and it's a way
to stop a debate in discussion. Right, Oh, you've just
got drump derangent sydom. What are you even supposed to say? No,
I don't define your terms. I mean anybody who uses
that accusation is not worth engaging with. Oh it's Tuck
a derangement syndrome. Interesting, all right, Roland, another week in Florence.

(01:20:57):
That's another week of me being jealous in enjoy your
time there. You should be jealous. Absolutely, thank you. That
is my goal for another week. We'll see Michael ass.
Have you been to Iceland? Thought, could we theoretically get
through objectivism, get enough objectivists to invade in the next

(01:21:20):
twenty years due to their unsuspecting nature? No? No, have
you ever been to Iceland? I have? I have been
to Iceland. I've been to Iceland once. I give a
talk and I give a couple of talks there at

(01:21:42):
the University in Iceland. It is it is too cold
for an objectivist invasion. We value life too much. It's
too cold, it's too barren fall for a tourists. It's
a gorgeous place. It's really beautiful. I mean, if you

(01:22:04):
like rugged waterfalls, mountains, fjords. I mean, has everything, hot springs,
but it's cold. I was in October and it was cold,
colder than Michigan, and it's barren. I mean. The reason
there are only two hundred and fifty thousand people in Iceland,

(01:22:25):
it's because in the entire world of eight billion people,
there are only two hundred and fifty thousand people who
can tolerate that cold and isolation and darkness and ruggedness.
That's it. Two hundred and fifty thousand. Yeah, it's very
windy and the wind makes it like much much much

(01:22:48):
colder cold, too cold for objectivism. Where there's an important value,
warmth is an important value. Put it out. We're not
escu we're objectivists. There's a T shirt for you. Alexi says,
how's the Thatcher show prep going? Or did you forget again?

(01:23:09):
I did not forget. The problem is add its scheduled
on the weekend of the eighteenth, and now I have
something else scheduled on the weekend of the eighteenth, so
I probably won't do a show that weekend, so I
have to figure out when I'm going to do it.
But no, it's on my calendar for that weekend. I'm
moving on my calendar to somewhere else, so it won't
be exactly on her birthday, but I will. I will

(01:23:31):
try to do it around that time. But I do
remember it's calendar. It's written down. That always helps my
memory when things are written down. As for prep, yeah,
I'm behind on prep, but that's part of the course.
I'm always behind on prep. Liam. Are we already in

(01:23:52):
a quasi fascist dictatorship. No, we're not in a dictatorship.
It's just not a dictatorship yet. If next year's elections
twenty twenty six elections are called off, or if the
twenty twenty eight elections are called off, then when the dictatorship.
But we're not. We're in a quasi fascist economic system
right where the government is heavily involved in the economy.

(01:24:15):
But yeah, we're not in dictatorship. Let's not exaggerate the
state we're in. Why is Lex Fiedman ghosting you? I
don't know that he is, but he might be because
you know, I might him make him uncomfortable because of
the strong, uncompromising stances that I take, where he tends

(01:24:36):
to want to find middle ground. I think the Israeli
Palestinian thing. He came to my talk at the University
of Texas on Israel. They might have turned him off.
He might have thought I was too aggressive. I don't know,
although if he's followed me, he probably knew that already.
But I don't know that he's ghosting me. I mean,

(01:24:57):
he might just be busy. He might just not answer
emails because he only answered emails to a few people
and he's just super busy, and he's busier than he's
ever been. I don't know. I'm not assuming the worst.
There's no reason to Crypto fanatic Nick Foyantis said the
Jews are greater threats to the US and Iran o Islam,

(01:25:19):
and Trump should army Iran with nuclear weapons because it's
the only way to stand against Jewish global dominance.

Speaker 2 (01:25:25):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (01:25:25):
I mean, that's Nick Prentis. It's meaningless, it's stupid, it's ignorant,
but it's Neck Frentis. This is how he gets his
groper army or whatever you want to call it, all
wiled up and excited. The anti Semitism is essential to
his appeal. James, how come evil is so good at

(01:25:49):
finding flaws in the good. Shouldn't these people be completely incompetent. Well,
I mean they're incompetent in dealing with nature and dealing
with reality, and yet they know people, they know particularly
flawed people, because they are themselves flawed. They understand flawed people.
I mean Elsee too is a good example. His understanding

(01:26:11):
is people. He doesn't understand nature, doesn't understand reality, couldn't
build anything, but he can exploit people's weaknesses because that
he understands he's his weaknesses are their weaknesses, and he
understands that the oriented towards people, not towards reality or nature. Michael,

(01:26:33):
to reach the level of depravity of celebrating October seventh
of Charlie Cook's murder requires training, some type of conditioning
from evil college professors. Yes, there's no question. It has
to come from real passion. It has to come from
a real disintegration of any kind of value system. All

(01:26:56):
you care about, all you can see, all you can
believe in, is this intersectionality oppressor, oppressed. It comes from
a diet that they are fed in the university of
oppressive actions. Murders, genocides, killing, wars, all that present the

(01:27:20):
West as evil and bad and horrible, and the oppressed
nations as victims and good and beautiful and noble, you know,
so like noble savages. And the professors just keep on
homping that an example, f the example, f the example
after example, and it also it violence becomes just that's

(01:27:41):
the way people deal with one another. Right, that's the world.
There's no other way to deal with one another other
than violence. It's a zero some world in that sense. Again,
the right and the left are very similar. It's a
zero some world. The only way to advance is through violence.
There for those who have advanced must be those who
committed the most violence. And they're for the other bad guys,

(01:28:03):
and it's okay to be violent against them. The Dudo bunny,
they don't kill you because you're a Nazi. They call
you a Nazi, so they can kill you. Yeah, I
think that's right. But I don't think they even know

(01:28:25):
what the word means, what the concept means. I think
they thought it around because they know it's really really
bad and they want to label anybody they don't like
it's really really bad. And then if you keep doing
that and you associate the Nazis with pure evil, then
you kind of weaken resistance to violence. And look, most

(01:28:49):
of the people will call you a Nazi. Most of
the people who call you a Nazi are not going
to kill you too cowardly or they don't really want violent.
They just do it to fit in. But all it
takes is one, Like we saw what Charlie Cook's murderer.
All it takes is one and then they jump and
supported that person and hopefully they lose their jobs. Christian,

(01:29:17):
how is Mexico being able to raise its minimum wage
without a significant negative impact on employment. Mexico's minimum wage
policy is being used as a model for success by advocates.
You know, I don't know how they do it. I
don't know. I don't know much about the minimum wage

(01:29:39):
in Mexico. But my guess is that they're doing two things.
One is they're raising the minimum wage slowly at about
the pace in which productivity is increasing, so that the
effects a minimum Right, So this is the rate of
which wages would grow anyway. Right, minimum wages zero, I say,

(01:30:04):
But that doesn't mean anybody owns zero other than interns.
So wages are going to creep up, even the wages
of the least productive. They're going to creep up with productivity.
If you can set the minimum wage at a level
that does not disrupt unemployment very low and then keep
raising it with productivity, it won't create unemployment or create

(01:30:28):
very little. And that brings me to the second point,
which is how do you know it hasn't had a
negative impact on employment? That is, you don't have an
alternative world in which minimum wage doesn't exist and where
maybe more Mexicans employed, maybe more young Mexicans employed. Now Again,

(01:30:49):
I don't have in front of me, and I don't
have the knowledge of what unemployment rate right now is
in Mexico, what it is among young people, what it
is in the poorest areas, and what the minimum wages
relative and how it's changed relative to productivity. You'd have
to get all of that data in order to be
able to analyze it. But I do know one thing,

(01:31:11):
and that is the laws of economics don't change once
you cross the border to Mexico. So they're doing something
that is not disrupting supplying demand. All right, clog when
you pass God, when you pass would you want the

(01:31:33):
tombstone next time? Random Lina Peacock. Then in a few
hundred years, when the three of you are super famous,
people can give homage to you all at the same time. No,
I mean that would be unbelievably potentious of me. I
don't consider myself at the level of Randon Lina Peacock,
you know, and I don't consider myself that special. I

(01:31:55):
mean special, but not that special. No, I think it
would be unbelievable. I mean, Iran was a genius. Lena
Peacoff was was was her genius student who who did
for her work, you know, preserved their work and made
sure that it it, you know, it, it got the
respect that deserved and the treatment it deserved. And then

(01:32:19):
made sure that by writing Opah that it was self perpetuating,
and by founding the institute, and and by doing and
by promoting the books, and by doing a lot of
different things making sure that her books would would go
on perpetunity. None of my achievements, none of what I've done,

(01:32:40):
rises to that level. I mean, and I don't know
that anybody's ever going to. I don't know that I'll
ever be a famous person in that sense. Iran and
Lena Peacoff will be, and uh maybe I'll be remembered
as one of their first CEOs of DINMNI student a
public commentator maybe into the future. But I don't know.

(01:33:04):
I don't know. I do think, you know, I when
I die, you know, I think the simplest thing is
to is to cremate and and you know, spread the
ashes somewhere. I have no real interest in a grief

(01:33:27):
site and a tombstone and anything like that. I you know,
what happens after my die. I died, I don't really care.
And I I don't. The only value of it is,
I'd say, is what my children and what my wife
if I died before her want. That's the only consideration
I would ever if they want to, they want a
place to go to right to commemorate my life or

(01:33:50):
something like that and find. But other than that, I
have no interest in it. And if you guys demand it,
we want to celebrate you on whatever. I just don't
think in terms of legacy in that sense, Michael, to
mistake feeling for thought will only exacerbate emotional difficulties and

(01:34:11):
cause more potential for violence. Yes, I mean, if you
think that decisions should be made through emotions, you will
fail in life. That will only create more frustration, more resentment,
more envy, and more mistakes, violence being one of those,

(01:34:31):
and the envy, resentment, hostility will generate ultimately violence. Yep, Wes,
thank you, thank you for the fifty dollars. Really really
appreciate that that brought us a little a little closer
to our second hour goal. Well into that second hour,
you know, we'll see if some of you can help

(01:34:53):
us get to that goal. All right, I mean, use this, yeah,
one hundred and sixty eight dollars to the second hour goal,
Clark says, do you think Donald Trump actually cared one
iota when Charlie Cook passed? I don't think he would
care if his wife or kids died. He will use

(01:35:13):
any loss's marketing material. You know, I don't know. I
don't want psychologize him to that extent. I think as anarcissist,
he probably doesn't care that much about others. But I
you know, I don't want to speculate about how much
he cared about anybody's wife, kids or this. He definitely

(01:35:34):
used it for good marketing, which is very good at Raymond.
I think this is like a full part question. My
friend is in a game development club and many of
the people don't do basic due diligence or lazy or irrational,
so he will pand it to them by appreciating their
minor efforts before criticizing, because they don't accept direct criticism. Therefore,

(01:35:59):
he conclude that sometimes appeasing bending to people's irrational emotion
works or is the right move. In principle, it has
to be destructive. Right move in then uses in principle
it has to be destructive. Print of all, it has

(01:36:21):
to be destructive because of its appeasement of irrationality. But
at first glance it appears to be effective. However, I'm
having trouble fleshing it out thoughts. So, yes, a lot
of things on first glance seem like they work. Pragmatism

(01:36:42):
often works, and a lot of it depends on what
you define as work. Like this little appeasement of the
irrational means he can get some stuff done, but he'll
never get anything great done. You'll never get anything substained done.
These people will never help him achieve anything of significance. Yeah,

(01:37:07):
they'll make it, make little things possible, little stuff, but
he will never live up to his potential. Imagine if
he surrounded himself with capable rational people, and I'm assuming
he's smart and ambitious, think about what he could achieve then,

(01:37:29):
and think about what he's achieving now. So the appeasement
of irrationality is going to lead to a suboptimal life,
to a life of underachievement. And it means you're constantly
dealing with these people, which erodes your own rationality, toroads

(01:37:49):
your own confidence, it eroads your own sense of life,
it erodes the fun of living. So in so many dimensions,
this is destructive. It's destructive because you're not living up
to your potential. It's destructive because you have to deal
with irrational people, and it's exhuding. You have to think
about all the energy spending on that instead of building,

(01:38:11):
instead of creating, instead of making stuff. And then finally,
some of them might backstabbing him the future, steal one
of his ideas. You don't do something nasty, because that's
the nature of irrationality. So I get it that he

(01:38:34):
might be a you know that he might have to
do this right now. But if this is the strategy,
if they're really irrational, if they really this is the
modus of barandi, this is the way they're going to work,
and this is the future, then he is destroying his
own future by dealing with it now. It could be

(01:38:57):
that he's just using it as a tactic to to
get them to open up. But if they're truly you asked,
that's really what they are, then you just shouldn't deal
with them, because ultimately you're wasting energy and you're not achieving,
and you're you know, you've only got one life. I
keep saying, right, gott to make the most of it. Michael,

(01:39:21):
how hard is it to have drones of security monitoring
roofs during events. These assassins are way too easy of
a time pulling these things off. Yeah, I mean, I
don't understand it. I certainly the Secret Service in the
Trump case, man was that a blunder. I mean, some
people lost their jobs over it. But it really is irresponsible,

(01:39:43):
and yeah, it should be. They should be drones in
the air, particularly for the president or or a leading
candidate for the presidency. There should be drones. Now, somebody
said that Charlie wasn't even wearing a bulletpoof vest and
so the whole ricochet story is not true. Again, I
don't know, I have no firstand information, but yeah, I

(01:40:06):
mean it's not clear why there not more competent of
these things and using drug technology for example, not to
every jongo with him. Is the lack of gun control
laws why Charlie Cook is dead? No, I don't think so.
I mean, look the rifle that was used as a

(01:40:27):
hunting rifle. I don't think any gun control laws are
such that would exclude hunting rifles. His parents used to
take him hunting. Hunting was a family thing that they did.
I think almost all gun control laws allow for hunting rifles.
There are lots of countries you allowed to have hunting rifles. No.

(01:40:48):
I mean, look, Charlie Cook is dead because of the
kind of culture we have that accepts violence and the
attitude some people par million the left have towards speech
is violence. And therefore what was done to Charlie was
the act of justice. Supposedly it's ideas, and it's his psychology,

(01:41:12):
the murder of psychology, the fact that he was a
sick kid, not sick in terms of mental illness, sick
in terms of completely corrupt mind, corrupted by bad ideas.
Whether he did it for attention, notoriety, or for the

(01:41:32):
cause for whatever, it's sick. And then do we have
a culture where that works, where that gets you what
you want? Not you have a you algorithm. We're forcing
all homeless mentally ill people into psychiatric facilities and passing
stricter gun control measures have prevented the deaths of both
Ukrainian Gola and the bus and Charlie Cook. I don't

(01:41:55):
think it would have prevented Charlie Cook's death. It would
have probably prevented the Goal's death. And I don't think
you could force all homeless mentally ill people into psychurity facilities.
You can't do that. They have to be you have
to show that they constitute a threat, which includes a
lot of mentally ill people. So a lot of mentally

(01:42:16):
papers should be in institutions. And I think the guy
who killed the Ukrainian goal easily could have been determined
to be a threat and should have been institutionalized if
the law permitted that. The law right now does not
permit that. And that's true Blue states and red states.
So this is not a Republican democratic issue. Republicans want

(01:42:36):
to make it such, but it's not. John Trump pardoned
January six rioters who wanted to murder politicians and cops.
Is it fair to accuse Republicans of pretending to care
about speech in the wake of Charlie's passing when in
reality there is bad, if not worse than the left. Yeah,

(01:42:57):
I agree with you completely. Is the best example. He's
freed murderers, he seed people who beat up policemen. One
person who is shown on the video to yell kill
the police, kill the police has now got a position
in the Trump administration. So absolutely it's fair to accuse

(01:43:22):
Republicans are pretending This is the difference. They think their
speech is just because the left is such a despicable enemy.
The left is so low the communists, after all, that
it's okay to talk violence against them, but not okay
to talk violence against good family people, religious people who

(01:43:48):
you know, represent this country or whatever. You know, that mythology,
that's ultimately their argument. If you're tech conservatives, we're going
to go after you. If you attack leftists, that's okay
because they deserve it. That means they don't care about
free speech, not as an absolute thank you, John, all right, Michael,

(01:44:17):
the point of the left labeling speech as violence was
always to justify violence against speech. I mean maybe, but
they also have these massive rationalizations, theoretical philosophical rationalizations on
why speech is violence, because what they want is not

(01:44:37):
necessarily to shoot people. What they want is to silence people,
to intimidate people, and they want to guilt people into
self censoring. And they have whole philosophical theories about white
that is right, And it's interesting to people who come

(01:44:59):
up with the series are not the people who then
commit the violence. That the people just stand in the
background applauding it and encouraging it and teaching it and
kind of brainwashing the kids to do it, not literally brainwashing.
But Michael, if your actions don't produce a victim, it's
not a crime. Yeah. I think that's right. It shouldn't

(01:45:23):
be a crime, shouldn't be a crime. It is a
crime today. Lots of victimless crimes exist today, but crimes
criminal action requires a victim. Equal to reality, it is
worth debating Marxist communist street peaches or is it a
complete waste of time, especially if I don't have a crowd. Yeah,

(01:45:45):
if you don't have a crowd, it's a complete waste
of time, one hundred percent. The only reason to do
it is to draw a crowd and to have the
crowd listen to your arguments. Here's a tip for people
who attend debates within an objective speaker. You get up
there in the Q and A, and so many of

(01:46:08):
you ask the lefty or the conservative, whoever, the non objectivest.
You ask them questions. Got your questions as if they're
going to go oh shit, if yeah, if I knew that,
I wouldn't be a socialist. Instead of asking the objectivist

(01:46:32):
the questions, asking him questions so that he can spend
more time articulating the positive objectivist position. The Q and
A is a great opportunity for you to help the
objectivist on stage get into because in the debate you

(01:46:52):
don't have a lot of time to speak. So what
you want to do in the Q and A is
maximize your guy's speaking time. By asking him questions, they
give him an opportunity to articulate more of their objective's
position instead of got you questions the other side, which
most of them are pretty good at deflecting. I'm not

(01:47:14):
sure you've done much. The real point is to get
the positive out there, and to get the positive out there,
give the good guy on stage the opportunity to articulate it.
Just a thing on debating Hopper Campbell two part question
Part one. The assassination of Charlie Cooko is a grotesque

(01:47:36):
violation of the way a free society conducts itself. No
matter how bad his ideas were, we benefit from their
public articulation Part two for the simple reason the bad
ideas only reinforce good ideas as long as anyone is
willing to think, and if no one is, then no
amount of butchery will save us. Yeah, I agree, completely, absolutely,

(01:48:01):
It's a gootesque violation. Bad ideas should be outed, they
should be argued against. And if you can't convince the
people the bad ideas are bad ideas, then we're lost anyway.
Jonathan says, free market means free from government, free from coursion,

(01:48:23):
free from force, and so me free from the arbituary
whim of a president or the arbitrary rim of a
secretary of filling the blank. Yes, free if only people
understood that, understood what it meant. Liam Cook. Cook was

(01:48:47):
the cause of his own death in the sense that
the mysticism he preached demands of violence respond in persuade
to the persuasion he practiced. I would never say that
he caused his own death. Even by that argument. The
fact that he was a mystic is not a causal

(01:49:08):
link to somebody else's own mysticism led him to do it.
I wouldn't phrase it that way. James Tyler says, use
logic to establish context and thereby achieve objectivity. Yes, you
should always establish context, and you should always lose logic.

(01:49:31):
That is what it means to be objective. James. It's
not red versus blue anymore. It's humanity versus insanity. Yeah, yeah,
if only people understood that it's individualism, is collectivism, reasons
and versus reason versus irrationality. On every dimension, it's it's

(01:49:52):
it's egoism versus altruism. But you know this ghost to epistemology,
reason versus irrationality, and and really the primary existence versus
the primacy consciousness really at the end of it. So
it's all there. It's certainly not read versus Blue Michael says.

(01:50:13):
Candice Own has discovered, has uncovered through careful research, that
the Jews are actually behind Charlie Cook's death. I know, chucky,
I know, but yeah, yeah, no, the research is thorough.
It's definitive, there's no question about it. Indeed, you know,

(01:50:35):
through meticulous research, Canvas has found that every problem in
the world, every single one, is actually because of the Jews.
And she understands the cause of relationship between those. Part
of the course, She's not the only one. It's all
over the internet. The Jews did it, James. After the

(01:50:59):
assessment asians, super check gets very restrictive of words we
can use. Is this a bad business strategy? YouTube is
treating its users like children? Yes it is, but you know,
there were a lot of there was, there's being over
the years a lot of clamoring for social media to
you to to to treat they users as children, and

(01:51:23):
a political class demands that, and our intellectuals demand that.
You know, personal responsibility, responsibility over your own mind is
the one thing people fear and don't want the most. Michael,
Anti Semitism is contantly reaching levels not seen since Adolf
started writing a book about a struggle he was having. Yes,

(01:51:44):
it's it's really really bad right now. It's really really bad.
It's on the left, huge on the left, it's big
on the right, and it's and it's it's not a
good sign for the culture as a whole. Eneric, Thank you,
I appreciate the support. Loan the Center. How to keep

(01:52:05):
the pronunciation straight? Alex Epstein rhymes with iron, Jeffrey Epstein
rhymes with obscene. Yeah, I mean if I could remember that,
then I'd get it right every time. Tessa says, I'm
jealous too. You don't have to be jealous. Just come
to floor and spend a little time here. James G.

(01:52:26):
How do white nationalists use events like Charlotte to their advantage?
Is there a way, especially in the South, to treat
people's individuals, not race. Well, how do they use events
like Charlotte. They use it by showing the camaraderie and

(01:52:46):
the energy and the passion that they all had, by
showing a US president to kind of winked at them
and gave them permission. I know that's very controversial, but
he did. It's by you know, making a whole issue
of the monuments, which is why they were in Charlotte, right,

(01:53:10):
So taking down of a statue of robbery elite and
again they're republicly established, have now completely agrees with them
about the monuments, and indeed, son of the monuments are
being re established on the command of the Secretary of Defense.
So I think that's how they take advantage of it.
I think they couldn't have without the Trump and Trump

(01:53:32):
accolades and Trump people around Trump basically viewing them as
part of their tent and viewing them not positively. Not yeah,
these around people, but yeah, I mean it's like what
he said right now, there's no hatred, there's no violent
speech on the right. It's only the left. There's no

(01:53:57):
right wing political violence. Uary doesn't exist. The killing of
the Minnesota senat this doesn't exist. The killings over and
over and over again over the years. Mass killings motivated
by right wing ideology don't exist. Only the left is violent.
The right is not. Why if you really dig deep,

(01:54:19):
because the right is just the right's causes, the right cause,
and that message generally is a message the the white
nationalists really latch onto and really embrace. Think of the
fact that our secretard defense today is a Christian nationalist.
It's not quite a white nationalist, but close. James says,

(01:54:46):
since you are foody, have you ever eaten highland cow
beef at yak or yak meat? I have been hearing
both the delicious embdits for your hearts. No, I haven't,
But look any any a wild raised meat animal is

(01:55:09):
going to be healthier for your heart. They'll have less fat,
they'll be leaner, and they'll probably have more Omega three's
or better balance between omega six and omega threes. And
as a consequence, this is why you know range free
chickens or uh, you know, grass fed beef is considered

(01:55:30):
better than beef that's raised with feed. That is, that
often changes the balance of nutrients in the meat and
in the fat that you consume. But no I've never
had them. I'm curious, although you know, I like fat.
Fat gives the meat flavor, and a lot of this

(01:55:51):
lean meat is not that interesting, like caribou or deer
or stuff like that. Often it doesn't taste that good
because it's just too lean. It doesn't have any flavor.
The fat is what gives it flavor. James says, you
spent time outside the USA, So does it make you
think of living somewhere else part of the year or

(01:56:13):
moving all together? Any country contenders? I mean, right now,
I live part of the year outside the United States.
I live. You know, Last year I spent six weeks,
eight weeks out of the US straight, six of them
in Barcelona, two in Israel. This year I'm spending eight

(01:56:33):
weeks out of the US. I think we did basically
three weeks in Portugal and five weeks in Italy. So
my plan is every year, as long as I can
physically and monetarily, as long as I can to spend
like eight weeks maybe a little bit more, maybe a

(01:56:54):
little bit less in somewhere in Europe every year. And
now I don't have any contenders for moving full time.
There's no way, there's no place that appeals to me
full time. I am an American. I want to fight
for America. I want to be in America. There are
many reasons why I love America. If I had to leave,

(01:57:15):
I don't know where I would go. I couldn't stomach
living in a place like Spain, even though I don't
mind spending a few weeks there. The way too leftist,
the way too you know, leftist in a variety of
different ways. Generally, Europe is too far to the left
for me to like living here and tolerated day to day.
There are other things that are really good about it,

(01:57:37):
culture and music and things like that, Argentina and the
Malay If he's successful and if he wins, I can't
really see myself spending long periods of time in Asia
New Zealand. New Zealand has its appeal. I don't know

(01:57:58):
if I could go spend a you know, maybe maybe
move there. But I think I'm gonna live and die
in the US. I think this is where I'm going
to be again. Things could change pretty quickly. If things
in Washington, DC change pretty quickly, or if you know
your speech is gone, then I can't do my job

(01:58:18):
in the US, so we'll see, but for now I'm
going to spend most of the year every year in
the US. All right, guys, thank you, Thanks all the
super Shadows. Really really appreciate it. Thank you to everybody listening.
Don't forget to like the show before you leave. Click
that like button doesn't cost you anything. They all click

(01:58:41):
it for you. And don't forget to share if you
want to share, don't forget to. Yeah, keep engagement going now.
I expect to have shows tomorrow day, Friday. No show

(01:59:01):
on Saturday. I don't know about Sunday, and I don't
know about Monday. We'll see and then Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Fightay.
Next week no shows. There's a possibility that I will
not be able to do shows the rest of this week.
Family emergency possibilities. So if I'm not I'm not on air.

(01:59:23):
I'll try to do a show as soon as I can.
But if there's no show tomorrow, then something is going on.
You know, nothing bad for me, nothing, you know nothing
about me, but a family emergency is going on and
I can't I can't do a show. So but hopefully
that doesn't happen and I'll be on tomorrow. But there's

(01:59:45):
a chance. So I'm just giving you a heads up.
But let's assume that I will see you all tomorrow.
I think it's at tomorrow's late. Tomorrow is going to
be late. Tom's more like four pm East Coast time.
Four pm, Kristin, see you tomorrow, Bye everybody. M hm

All Episodes

Free Speech vs Hate Speech; TikTok Corruption; Fed Failures; Gaza & Russia | Yaron Brook Show

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist

Crime Junkie

Stuff You Should Know

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

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}Free Speech vs Hate Speech; TikTok Corruption; Fed Failures; Gaza & Russia | Yaron Brook Show