Google, Epstein & Genocide: Lies, Power, and Drones | Yaron Brook Show - Yaron Brook Show

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:11):
And this is show.

Speaker 2 (00:21):
Al right, everybody, welcome to one hook show on this
uh Wednesday, September three.

Speaker 1 (00:26):
I am in Florence, Italy. There's a DEFEATI Gallery today.

Speaker 2 (00:33):
Phenomenal, phenomenal museum, both because it has some of the
best collection, maybe the best collection of of Renaissance arts
in the world, maybe at the Vatican Museum. And it
has an amazing collection of Romance culture. Anyway, I'll have
to do a show on uh Art influence and Florence

(00:57):
in general.

Speaker 1 (00:58):
Maybe we'll do this as a member's only show over
the weekend. But yeah, it's been fun and.

Speaker 2 (01:06):
Enjoyable and a lot of interesting, uh A lot of beautiful,
beautiful arts that seat today Rafel and Leonardo and Michelangelo and.

Speaker 1 (01:18):
Caravaggio. Three paintings by Calvaggio. So good day, good day,
All right, news, let's jump in to the news. Everybody
is hailing this decision by a.

Speaker 2 (01:37):
Judge in the Google anti trust case. The hailing this
is a victory for Google. They remember this is a
judge who ruled that Google was indeed guilty of violating
the anti trust laws and that it's nine dominance of
the search engine market constituted in a sense monopoly power,

(02:00):
and as a consequence of that, today the judge ruled. Now,
the good news is the government didn't get what it wanted,
So to the extent that you want to count that
as good news, that's good news.

Speaker 1 (02:15):
Goverment didn't get what it wanted.

Speaker 2 (02:16):
The government wanted Google to spin off Meta, you know,
sorry Metas, not Google.

Speaker 1 (02:22):
To spin off Chrome, and to spin off.

Speaker 2 (02:27):
You know, potentially even spin off Android, which would be
huge if that had been the ruling. The government luckily
did not get what it wanted. It got a much
more reduced ruling. So basically the most significant limit that
he placed on Google buzz it from striking deals with
browser companies. This is one of the Wall Street journaltical

(02:49):
about the ruling. Striking deals with browser companies and device makers,
they require them to exclusively use its search engine, Chrome browser,
or a Eye products. The ruling further bars Google from
tying the licensing of its app, tying the licensing of

(03:10):
its app, of its app store, sorry, of its app
store on Android devices to the use of those products. So,
in other words, it's trying to rain in this idea
of exclusivity of contracts that limit what other companies can do.
If they use a Google product, can they use other products?

Speaker 1 (03:31):
And so on? The Wilding also forces Google. This is
would be funny if it wasn't so.

Speaker 2 (03:39):
Said, forces Google to share some search data, you know,
in the name of I mean expliciitly, in the name
of giving competitives a shot at building the scale they
need to offer better search results.

Speaker 1 (03:55):
So Google is first to help its competitors. The judge
said that data sharing was.

Speaker 2 (04:03):
Necessarily to dialute, dilute the advantage Google gets from pain
to be the default search engine. He didn't require the
company to share advertising data.

Speaker 1 (04:15):
Well that's good.

Speaker 2 (04:18):
Now, this is after five years in court, a five
year battle where the Justice departments soon Google in the
waning hours. So this is a Trump administration lawsuit. This
was initiated during the first Trump administration and continued, of
course by the Biden administration. The judge had already ruled

(04:42):
that Google engaged in so called illegal practices to preserve
its search engine monopoly. And then, of course he and
then yelled another stage of the trial to decide what
the remedy should be. Now, yes, of all the possible remedies,
this is pretty light.

Speaker 1 (05:04):
And that's good.

Speaker 2 (05:05):
And the stock market responded positively on Google shares and
Apple shares because this maintains the relations between Google and Apple,
it doesn't break that up.

Speaker 1 (05:17):
So the market views this is positive news for Google.

Speaker 2 (05:22):
But that I think distracts us from the massive injustice
that's going on here. Google is done nothing to violate
anybody's rights. Google has done nothing that should be illegal
other than I mean, the primary thing Google is done

(05:42):
that is pissed off everybody is being incredibly successful. Is
provided the best product, and it has been adopted by
the most people.

Speaker 1 (05:52):
By an overwhelming majority of people.

Speaker 2 (05:57):
Google is being penalized here as an to trust always does,
is to be penalized for its success.

Speaker 1 (06:06):
And while.

Speaker 2 (06:08):
You know, where all the court is doing is saying
certain contracts you can't write. That's you know, this is
the great fallacy of anti trust law, one of the
great fallacies of anterest just law. It's as if the
court knows what contracts should shouldn't be. It's as if
the court understands the second, third, fourth level effects of

(06:30):
changing contractual relations.

Speaker 1 (06:32):
Because the reality is that.

Speaker 2 (06:36):
Anti trust has had a horrible history of rejecting certain
types of contractual agreements that have led to significantly less
optimal economic outcomes, and of course the constitute violation of
individual rights.

Speaker 1 (06:53):
Why what business is.

Speaker 2 (06:56):
It of the government, What business is it of the
government of the courts? What kind of contract I write
with you? As long as that abides by the basic
principles of contracts, which all of these do. Why is
the court getting involved in the terms in exclusivity or

(07:17):
non exclusivity? And no rights have been violated here, nobody's
wors off.

Speaker 1 (07:26):
This is a this is a.

Speaker 2 (07:29):
Contract between informed individuals, might legal you know, Google's leader
legal team and Apple's legal team. Court knows better than native.
The court believes that it needs to intervene here to
protect whom exactly, who suffers?

Speaker 1 (07:46):
Who's the victim?

Speaker 2 (07:49):
Yes, Google has ninety percent market share, but we all
pay exactly zero to use it. And yeah, it's hard
for competitors, it really is. That's what it means to
be a successful company. That's what happens when you are
a successful company. It's hard for people to compete with you.
That's a definition of success. It was easy to compe

(08:12):
with you, you wouldn't be successful.

Speaker 1 (08:17):
So yeah, hard for companies.

Speaker 2 (08:18):
Although again, AI is going to change the whole search.

Speaker 1 (08:27):
Paradigmic.

Speaker 2 (08:29):
It's going to change the way we use the Internet.
It's going to change the way we search for things,
how we access data. And the judge acknowledge that, and
yet what happens in the future is you relevant. So,
in spite of the fact that I understand that people
are celebrating because this is.

Speaker 1 (08:52):
The least bad.

Speaker 2 (08:53):
Outcome, I don't want to emphasize the fact that it's
still bad. I mean, the whole anti trust legal framework
is corrupt and it needs to be called corrupt. It
needs to be wiped out, white clean, start over. You know,
American invented this. The Shuman Act invented anti trust. This

(09:15):
is an American invention, and a very damaging economic one
at that. So let businesses sign whatever contracts they want,
Let them run their businesses any way they want, as
long as they're not committing fraud, lying, cheating, stealing.

Speaker 1 (09:34):
It's none of.

Speaker 2 (09:35):
The government's business anti trust laws from the Sherman Act
to the Clinking Act to all the iterations. Since imo
unjust should be wiped from the books, should start over
with a call it free market, free, a government intervention,
government control, free of anti trust laws.

Speaker 1 (09:57):
Trying to tell.

Speaker 2 (09:58):
Companies they are true successful, don't be too successful. It
really is a travesty, the whole, the whole, uh, the
whole legal what do you what would you call a tradition,
the legal mechanisms of Antichrist. Unfortunately, uh, the United States

(10:22):
exported it's actutust lawge to other countries and indeed, today,
for example, the EU attu justice laws are worse than
the American ancest laws.

Speaker 1 (10:30):
We invented it and then exported it to the rest
of the world. It is sad.

Speaker 2 (10:40):
This administration is the gift, well is it a gift.
It's the lie that keeps on lying, the gift that
keeps on giving, the lie that keeps on lying. I mean,
it's the the The economic ignorance of the people running
this administration is second to none. I mean literally second
to none. I mean, I've heard really really dumb things

(11:01):
being said by Treasury secretaries under Obama and under Biden, and.

Speaker 1 (11:10):
Really really really bad knesy and nonsense and stuff.

Speaker 2 (11:15):
But I have to say the Treasury Bessett, who I
thought was one of the good guys at the beginning
of this administration, is really making an effort, really making
an effort to give himself, put himself in the position
of being the Treasury secretary who's saying the dumbest things ever.

(11:38):
I mean, really, I know some of you think I'm
too harsh on the Trumpet Drigis station. I just have
to call it the way I see it. And this
is I mean, this is Treasury Secretary's official Twitter account.
This is what he says, tariffs, I've been living historic
results for the American people.

Speaker 1 (12:00):
Yeah, my comment, Yes, in terms.

Speaker 2 (12:02):
Of raising prices and raising the cost of living, and
reducing manufacturing and eliminating manufacturing jobs, and yeah, making it
generally very difficult for businesses to do business in America.
But other than that, historic results. These are historic results.
Even the mainstream media is starting to admit it.

Speaker 1 (12:26):
I'm curious. It would be.

Speaker 2 (12:27):
Great if he had attached to this tweet the links
to the articles where the mainstream media is indeed admitting
the amazing, historical, fantastic, unbelievable, unbelieving good results of these types.

Speaker 1 (12:44):
All I see, all I.

Speaker 2 (12:46):
See, particularly in the mainstream media, if you count, we'll
see journal mainstream media that MAC media specializes kind of
in economications.

Speaker 1 (12:55):
All I see is.

Speaker 2 (12:58):
Articles about the hollors and the downside of the tariff policy.

Speaker 1 (13:04):
It continues. I've said total tariff revenue could reach three
hundred billion this year.

Speaker 2 (13:09):
Wait a minute, wait, didn't Trump said eight trillion? I mean,
this is this is like less than ten percent of that.
This is like less than five percent of that. I mean,
Who's right?

Speaker 1 (13:24):
Is it? Trump? Is it bestn't? Is either one of them? Right?
What's going on?

Speaker 2 (13:34):
It doesn't matter with this administration because because reality doesn't matter.
I mean, and uh, facts don't matter, and you know,
it just it just has no it has no significance
one way or the other.

Speaker 1 (13:53):
All right.

Speaker 2 (13:55):
So then he says, and this is the this is
this is what places this tweet elevates it to the
status of legendary in terms of stupidity, ignorance, or just
investment case. I think it's just plain out lying in

(14:16):
order to make something that's bad appear good. I noticed
that I've said total tariff revenue could reach there undred billionaire,
but it could be much higher, you know, just change
that and says I've said our tax increase will generate
three hundred billion dollars of revenue. That wouldn't read quite
as nice to the American people. As oh, total tariff revenue,

(14:40):
somebody else pays.

Speaker 1 (14:41):
That, but you all know who pays it.

Speaker 2 (14:44):
We do it, so the American people pay it. And therefore,
so we've just instituted and you granted limited sales tax
on the American people, and it's generated three hundred billion
dollars a year. We haven't cut income tax, we haven't
cut other taxes, but it generated and we'll excited. We're
all thrilled by that. But this is the line that

(15:04):
really wins wins him. You know, every three hundred billion
adds one percent to GDP. With tariffs alone, growth could
hit five percent. Right, slow down, slow down, guys, you
got to think this through. He says, every three hundred
billion dollars of new tax revenue add one percent to GDP.

Speaker 1 (15:33):
Wow.

Speaker 2 (15:35):
I mean, so he's telling us that the Democrats and
Canes have been right all along. If you only increase GDP,
if you want to create you candom growth, what you
need to do is increase taxes. I mean, this is
a stunning statement. Every three hundred billion adds one percent

(15:57):
of GDP. That's tariff So long, growth could hit five
percent because of tariffs, taxes, taxes.

Speaker 1 (16:10):
Increase GDP and could cause GDP to go up five percent. Wow.

Speaker 2 (16:21):
I mean Republicans now are saying the taxes increase economic
growth and in a sense for Friday Canesy and stimulus.
It used to be, didn't Republicans. I mean, maybe I'm
hung but didn't Republicans used to say. Didn't Republicans used

(16:43):
to say that taxes were tard economic growth. And by
the way, they're not spending three hundred billion dollars more.
This spending what they're spending. This just means not borrowing us.
We'll spend exactly the same, but I borrow this, all right?

(17:18):
So yeah, I mean, this has to be one of
the dumbest economic statements ever by a Treasury secretary. And
I'm including some really bad Treasury secretaries in there, including
some really bad Democrats. But we're at the point where
Republicans are worse than Democrats when it comes to these things.
It's it takes some skill to come up with these lies.

Speaker 1 (17:42):
And again be said, is too smart not to know
that he is lying? In my opinion, for what it's worth.

Speaker 2 (17:58):
All right, Uh, let's see what do we want to
talk about? Yes, yeah, today today's news is going fast
so we'll see, we'll see how long the show is.
We're definitely definitely gonna get into that second hour. So
don't forget to ask super check questions. I could set

(18:20):
up one of those.

Speaker 1 (18:22):
Uh like and never fails to amuse me and make
me laugh. That's that's good, Thank you, ed.

Speaker 2 (18:35):
Don't forget I could set up one of those goals
to get get the super check going to get there,
to get the blood going, to get to get people
to to to make contributions that maybe you're waiting for
goal and and and only then.

Speaker 1 (18:48):
Will you or you make contribution.

Speaker 2 (18:50):
Okay, we're gonna go easy on you today. Instead of thirty,
we're gonna make it twenty uh any any any color,
any any amount, and we're.

Speaker 1 (18:59):
Gonna give you. We're gonna give you forty five minutes
instead of an hour.

Speaker 2 (19:05):
And that'll be our goal for today. So twenty super
chats over the next forty five minutes between now and
just after five o'clock my time. And you know, let's see,
well no five o'clock East Coast time, and we'll see,

(19:27):
we'll see how good you are achieving these YouTube mandated goals.

Speaker 1 (19:35):
All right, let's see.

Speaker 2 (19:40):
Sometimes you just need to stir things up a little
bit and get the juices going, and and we go
for it. All right, some new developments with the goad
to Epstein Epstein.

Speaker 1 (19:52):
I think this is Epstein a case.

Speaker 2 (19:57):
The House of Representatives has released a bunch.

Speaker 1 (20:02):
Of new material. Well no, not new matial.

Speaker 2 (20:05):
They've released a bunch of material regarding Jeffy Epstey. Now
it turns out almost all the material they released has
already been released, so there's nothing really new there. But
they promised to release more. And indeed, Massy, who's creating
no end of the problems for you know, for Trump,

(20:25):
Trump's not happy with.

Speaker 1 (20:27):
Him, was that.

Speaker 2 (20:32):
Somehow I lost there is somehow closed it. Massy is
define the White House and has filed what's called the
Discharge petition to force a House vote on releasing all
the Epstein investigative files. Now, this is gaining bipartisan support

(20:55):
from figures like you know, from from Democratic congressman and
somewhere Republicans like Nancy.

Speaker 1 (21:01):
Mace Law and Bobbitt, Budorie Taylor Green, the all the.

Speaker 2 (21:06):
You know, all the crazies in with Massey on this
one in terms of Megah getting it, getting it done
and so Massie's really pushing to get everything.

Speaker 1 (21:20):
Now.

Speaker 2 (21:21):
It's interesting the extent to which Trump is really really
really resisting this.

Speaker 1 (21:27):
I mean, today he.

Speaker 2 (21:29):
Was asked about again the Epstein thing, and you know,
so the reporters says, there are the survivors of Jeffy
Epstein's speaking at the press conference at Capitol Hill. They're
calling for these case files to be released. And Trump says,
this is a democratic hoax that never ends.

Speaker 1 (21:51):
It's a hoax. It's a democratic coax.

Speaker 2 (21:53):
Jeffrey Epstein didn't exist, we didn't do any of the
things that he was accused of doing. And it's just
a democratical So don't pay any attention to it. Don't
pay any attention to them. Of course, if anything, it's
a Republican hoax, because the Republicans are ones who are
constantly harping about this, constantly talking about.

Speaker 1 (22:12):
This, and I'll Trump for reasons we could speculate about,
but we're not going to.

Speaker 2 (22:23):
It, basically is coming it up, calling it a hoax,
devoting attention, not releasing the files, underminding and undercutting the
whole thing in any way that you can't. God, there's
a mosquito, there's a mosquito like buzzing around my office.

(22:43):
He's just waiting.

Speaker 1 (22:45):
He's probably already bitten me three times with a damn.

Speaker 2 (22:49):
Anyway, he's here, I'll try to If you see me
jump up and grab at something, I'm killing the mosquito.
In the meantime, today on Capitol Hill there was indeed
a press confidence with a number of Epstein survivors victims, and.

Speaker 1 (23:10):
They are saying that they are going to release their
own list.

Speaker 2 (23:16):
To quote one of them, we know who abused us,
we saw who came and went.

Speaker 1 (23:21):
This list would be survivor led for survivors.

Speaker 2 (23:29):
So the victims are going to take hands matters into
their own hands and.

Speaker 1 (23:36):
Make a list of names.

Speaker 2 (23:37):
Now they have to be careful because they could easily
be sued, but if they're confidence in certain people, it's
going to be interesting.

Speaker 1 (23:46):
We will compile the names.

Speaker 2 (23:48):
We all know we're regularly in Epstein's wolves.

Speaker 1 (23:52):
And again, whether we learn anything new about from.

Speaker 2 (23:55):
This, I don't know, but it is interesting to see
kind of the back and forth that's going on here
in terms of In terms of this now, one thing
doesn't clear is nobody seems to be implicating Trump, but

(24:21):
he seems to be unbelievably.

Speaker 1 (24:22):
Defensive about the whole thing. So, if it's not.

Speaker 2 (24:25):
Trump, who's going to be implicated? Is it significant donors
to Trump? Is it people in the Trump universe? I mean,
NBC just asked an entire panel of Epstein victims if
they ever if they ever saw hood Donald Trump doing
anything in appropriate in relation to Epstein, and they all
said no. So, you know, why is he Why is

(24:55):
he covering it up? Senator Massy at the press conference says,
I think it's shameful that this has been called a hoax.

Speaker 1 (25:10):
Hopefully today we can clear that up. This is not
a hoax. This is real. They are real survivors, They
are real.

Speaker 2 (25:17):
Victims to this criminal enterprise, and the perpetrators are being
protected because they're rich, powerful political donors in Washington, DC.
Now you know how extensive this thing is in terms
of is there somebody conspiracy here?

Speaker 1 (25:35):
Was there a network? Was there really a network? You know?

Speaker 2 (25:41):
I have to say, I don't know, we don't know,
nobody knows. Was this Epstein was a creep? I needed
horrible people things to people, and he did rape and
es sexually assault women.

Speaker 1 (25:54):
But to what extent that other people participate? Other than.

Speaker 2 (26:02):
Do what extend other men participated to what extent? Did
they sexually abused? Did they sleep with underage goals?

Speaker 1 (26:11):
We just don't know.

Speaker 2 (26:13):
There literally is no evidence. There's nothing to suggest that
this is anything more than Epstein's a creep and a
criminal creep.

Speaker 1 (26:22):
At that we will find out. We will find out.

Speaker 2 (26:30):
Over the next maybe we will find out if there's
more to this or not, or maybe we'll never find out.
Maybe Trump will manage to keep it shut down, you know,
for a long time. All right, I mean, we know

(27:01):
some stuff, but we don't None of this is being
brought a court. None of this is really We've heard
both sides of the story. We've heard a lot of accusations.
Some of them panned out, it seems some of them
did not. We just don't know, and you know exactly

(27:30):
how this supposed network worked. I mean, we don't have
the facts. So we can wait and see, and we
can jump conclusions. It's more fun to jump to conclusions.
Why wait and see? But hopefully we'll get more information.
Hopefully all this pressure will work. Hopefully we'll learn a

(27:50):
lot more and we'll be able to be able to
talk about it, you know, in a more educated way,
all right. As I reported on yesterday, the United States
carried out a strike against a drug carrying boat from Venezuela.
At least that's the story, that's the claim the Pentagon

(28:11):
is making. This is just days after the Pentagon deployed
warships to the Southern Caribbean to stop the flow of cocaine.

Speaker 1 (28:18):
We've talked about this, the ships being there.

Speaker 2 (28:25):
Trump has posted on social media that they positively identified
Knarco terrorists from the Cartel trend Ugua operating a small
boat carrying drugs in the US. The strikers out in
the death of eleven terrorists. By his definition, I don't
know how cartel members are terrorists, and he continued. Trump wrote,

(28:50):
please let the service notice to anybody ever thinking about
bringing drugs into the United States of America. Big way,
thank you for your attention on this matter. Fifty five
exclamation points to that. Marco Rubia said that the US
had conducted a lethal strike against the drug vessel the
Department from Venezuela end quote was being operated by designated

(29:12):
narco terrorist organization. The One Drugs continues the One Drugs
that was launched in the early nineteen seventies by the
Nixon administration and has gone through various phases of more
intensification and less centification over the decades. Is going to
go through a more intensified period. The US military is

(29:36):
getting involved again. Remember the US military was involved. It
was bombing, it was firebombing areas in Colombia that were
being cultivated for growth of cocaine. I'm not sure why
we're not bombing Columbia right now, over Venezuela for that matter,
where the cocaine is being bought. There's nothing new here
other than we're using the navy and we're bombing boats.

(30:00):
In the past, a boat like this identified as carrying
cocaine would have been stopped by the coast Guards, boarded,
or they would have been a shooting, a shootout, and
it would have been destroyed.

Speaker 1 (30:14):
Anyway.

Speaker 2 (30:15):
This is more drama, missiles, maybe drones. Who knows military
is doing it. It's not the coast Guard. Those whimps
in the coast Guard. I'm saying whimps. I'm joking, but
this is kind of the attitude of the Trumpetminstation. We
need the big boats, the big ships sending aircraft.

Speaker 1 (30:32):
Carry over there. But it's just the continuation of the dog bord.

Speaker 2 (30:38):
This is not gonna stop the flow of cocaine coming
into the United States. They can't beg in into the Cabbean.
They're beginning through the Pacific. They can't begin into the Pacific.
They're bringing through the Mexican border. They can't be in
through the Mexican border. They'll build tunnels and they begin
under the Mexican border. They're taking to Canada and begin
through Canada. They'll fighting, they will find ways to get
it in. Nothing the United States done in the entire

(31:02):
history of the War on Drugs, which is now fifty
plus years fifty plus hears, nothing the United States has
done has slowed the flow of cocaine or heroin or
any other drugs fencing on into the United States.

Speaker 1 (31:18):
And nothing. This is my prediction, not a difficult one
to make.

Speaker 2 (31:23):
Nothing that Trumpet administration is going to do is gonna
dramatically change the flow of drugs into the United States.
You can blow up boats, you can blow ships, she
can threaten people. There's too much profit, too many desperate people,
and too much profit to be ignored. You want to
stop the flow of drugs into the United States, Legalize

(31:45):
the drugs.

Speaker 1 (31:46):
That'll do it, legalize drugs.

Speaker 2 (31:48):
Profit margin goes away, violence goes away, the gangs go away.
Venezuela is getting ready for an armed attack by the
United States. We've talked about this as well. If Venezuela,

(32:08):
I'm a duo said today, if Venezuela were to be attacked,
it would immediately pass to a period of armed struggle
in defense of national territory. He said the US build
up in the Caribbean was the biggest threat a continent,
the entire continent is faced in the last one hundred years.
So attentions in the Southern Caribbean are growing. And Trump's

(32:38):
putting on a show. It's what he's good at. He's
putting on shows, and he's putting on a show, and
he's blowing up boats, and he could blow up other stuff.

Speaker 1 (32:45):
He blow up other stuff.

Speaker 2 (32:47):
He's the marcho tough guy who's going to stop the
drugs single handedly.

Speaker 1 (32:52):
But ain't happening.

Speaker 2 (32:55):
And it's a waste of money and effort and time
to try to stop these drugs from coming in. So
anyway more Trump theater. Yeah, so you've probably heard over

(33:21):
the last few days that a leading international organization of
Genocide Scholars experts.

Speaker 1 (33:31):
In scholars, Here's here's a typical a typical headline.

Speaker 2 (33:37):
The world's leading association of genocide scholars has passed a
resolution stating that the legal criteria has been met to
establish that Israel is committing.

Speaker 1 (33:46):
Genocide in Gaza. I mean, that sounds pretty definitive. Or
The New York Times.

Speaker 2 (33:53):
On Monday, the International Association of Genocide Scholars, a leading
group of academic experts on the topic, declared the Israel
policies and actions in Gaza have met legal definition of genocide.
The BBC Israel committing genocide in Gaza. World's leading experts say,
that's a typical BBC headline.

Speaker 1 (34:14):
You got to give them credit for the consistency.

Speaker 2 (34:17):
PBS leading genocide scholar organization says Israel is committing genocide
in Gaza. Watching approach is those committing genocide in Gaza,
Leading Scholars Association says, and you could go on.

Speaker 1 (34:30):
Well.

Speaker 2 (34:31):
Last one CNN International Scholars of Genocides, International Association of
Genocide Scholars is all as actions meet the legal definition.
It turns out that this association of scholars of genocide
experts is a farce.

Speaker 3 (34:55):
These are random activists, you know, the actual you know
association is an association anybody can join, even you who.

Speaker 2 (35:09):
Are not an expert on genocide can join for one
hundred and twenty five dollars. You need no actual scholarship
to join, you need no publications.

Speaker 1 (35:20):
One hundred and twenty five dollars and you're in.

Speaker 2 (35:24):
And you know, if you don't want to pay one
hundred and twenty five, they might take a lower offer.
This is the world's leading association of genocide scholars. Now,
by the way, since they've been outed as just a
website that takes money and run by activists who who

(35:51):
you know, then put out press releases claiming to be
an international association of scholar of genocide scholars. Since they've
been owded, they've activated the website and they threw to account,
so they disappeared leading association of genocide Scholars.

Speaker 1 (36:11):
They're not even defending themselves, they've just disappeared.

Speaker 2 (36:17):
So no scholars in the leading worlds leading association as
genocide scholars. This is the kind of journalism you get BBC, CNN,
none of these you know in Western post newngsimes, none
of them.

Speaker 1 (36:36):
Try to, you know, find out to what extent to
what extent.

Speaker 2 (36:46):
This was actually real, they just accepted They just accepted it.
Now again, this is one example among many of the
kind of journalism that we're exposed to. So, yes, if
you've seen the genocide claim by leading scholars, I mean
they are a lot of scholars who think is that it's

(37:07):
committing genocide.

Speaker 1 (37:08):
They're just playing raw.

Speaker 2 (37:10):
The fact that your scholar doesn't give you any access
necessarily any specific.

Speaker 1 (37:15):
Access to truth. But it is pretty stunning.

Speaker 2 (37:21):
For the press to just annalanced leading, you know, and
not to check their sources.

Speaker 1 (37:37):
Yeah, and the only reason Fox.

Speaker 2 (37:39):
Didn't run it is because they don't like the conclusion, right.
I mean, the media today is split. They'll run the
news if they like it. I mean, that's what they
all agree. They run news they like. But it's not
like the right wing media that didn't run the story
is any clearing their sources, at verifying the stories, a

(38:04):
challenging the lies. Just to look at the latest interview
were best and on on Foxtion Neers where they accept
every one of his lies as a factual evidence. Those
of you who want to dig deeper into this, not
into the media, but into this issue of genocide. There

(38:24):
is a a you know, a major how many pages
is this? This is like forty five pages or something
fifty something pages report that has been published by the
Big and Sadda Center for Strategic Studies out of Balilan
University in Israel and the Census just published the study extensive.

(38:49):
It's extensive. You can get the pdf of it. Eight
chapters basically debunking the genocide allegations. A re examination of
these to come Outson the Wolf from October seventh, twenty
twenty three to June first, twenty twenty five. This was
published yesterday. I'll just read you from the intro. The

(39:13):
following study offers a thorough historical exploration and a quantitative
statistical analysis of the allegation that the State of Visual
committed genocide against Gauzian population following the October seventh, twenty
twenty three massacre. Specifically, we address the claims that Israel
intentionally starved with the Godsian population, that the idea forces
the liberty massacret citizens and it is really air force

(39:36):
carried out indiscriminate bombings, failing to distinguish between combatants and civilians,
and conduct the disproportionate strikes. The goal of this study
is to carefully assess both primary and secondary sources in
order to draw in dependent conclusions. But the factual aspects
of the conflict this process and those are viewing testimonies
by misources and the methodology of data collection utilized by

(39:59):
organizations and research as promoting the genocide allegation, as well
as conducting statistical analysis and distinguishing between narratives promoted by
various parties and verified facts. The purpose of our investigations
to identified the factual events that occurred, not to engage
in legal or ethical discourse. While discussing those legal and

(40:20):
ethical implications is important, we firmly believe such discussions cannot
be grounded in a solid foundation of facts to be
meaningful as well as relevant.

Speaker 1 (40:36):
And yeah, I mean, the conclusion.

Speaker 2 (40:38):
Is there's no genocide and it is always conducted a
war that has been careful not to kill civilians like
no other country probably ever has. But I encourage you
to check it out yourself. Eight chapters. You can view
the pdf. The pdf as.

Speaker 1 (41:04):
Fifty no, no, I'm long it has this is you know,
three hundred and eleven pages. Three hundred and eleven pages.

Speaker 2 (41:12):
So this is a real academic, scholarly investigation.

Speaker 1 (41:19):
If you're interested in accessing this, you can check.

Speaker 2 (41:22):
Out B B E. S A Center dot org. B
E s Acenter dot org and you can find you
can find it. You can find it there. Published yesterday.
All right, let's see, oh yeah, yesterday, yesterday, China put

(41:48):
on a show. God did date put on a show.
They had a military parade. Now, let me tell you,
authoritarian nations know how to do military parades.

Speaker 1 (42:00):
I mean it completely put to shame.

Speaker 2 (42:03):
The Trump you know, a laughable parade of a few
months ago. I mean, this was beautifully synchronized marching, saluting.

Speaker 1 (42:16):
I mean, the lines were perfectly straight.

Speaker 2 (42:21):
I mean, you watch videos of this, and while they
must have trained for hours and hours and hours, and
I mean I'm glad that the US military trains for
combat rather than trains for parades, and I hope it
continues to train for combat, not for parades. He's really
the military can never do a parade like this, never
do a parade like this, And if it could, then

(42:43):
I wonder about whether it was combat ready. So China
had this massive parade. She invited a Putin and King
jan Un or whatever his name is the brutal dictator
of North Korea.

Speaker 1 (43:00):
Uh.

Speaker 4 (43:00):
To see the parade, it was massive, you know, thousands
of troops launching, hundreds, maybe thousands of weapons, systems, equipment,
new A lot of the newer, newest equipment that.

Speaker 2 (43:14):
The Chinese government has been developing was out on display,
and you know, and quite impressive.

Speaker 1 (43:24):
Uh.

Speaker 2 (43:24):
They brought out drones, the latest kind of coolest drones,
the airplanes, you know, and a lot of the weapons. Indeed,
most of the weapons and platforms for weapons. Uh, you know,
a lot of them on you. Most of them went
on you, but a few of them were you every land.

(43:45):
See an a platform is that the Chinese are displaying
right now is more modern than what the United States
and Europe have in the inventory.

Speaker 1 (44:01):
Now new it doesn't mean better, but.

Speaker 2 (44:08):
You know, Chinese producing new weapons, designing new weapons, bringing
to the forefront new weapons.

Speaker 1 (44:16):
Now.

Speaker 2 (44:16):
The big difference, of course, is big difference of course
is that Western military equipment is being tested.

Speaker 1 (44:22):
Daily in the Middle East in Israel by Israel, which
you can't put a number on the value of that testing, right.

Speaker 2 (44:31):
I mean that in and of itself is probably worth
more than all the foreign aid the United States provides Israel,
but put that aside. Western equipment is being tested in Ukraine,
and was tested in the past in Iraq, and is
being tested constantly in conflicts.

Speaker 1 (44:49):
Around the world.

Speaker 2 (44:49):
So we know Western equipment works or in some cases doesn't,
and we can fix it. These are shiny new toys
that the Chinese are bringing out. They just toys, destructive toys.
The question is where they work. Uh.

Speaker 1 (45:07):
The new weapons and platforms, uh show continue.

Speaker 2 (45:12):
Advance in military R and D and and and real investment.

Speaker 1 (45:17):
Uh.

Speaker 2 (45:18):
You saw unmanned submarines, unmanned Uh. You know aircraft both
you know, rotary and fixed wing aircraft.

Speaker 1 (45:29):
Uh.

Speaker 2 (45:30):
You saw a whole array of new types of missiles.

Speaker 1 (45:37):
Uh and uh, and then you've got yue vs.

Speaker 2 (45:40):
Indeed, Uh, there was a YUEV on the back of
every infantry fighting vehicle. And what you have now is
a you know, years ago, the Chinese military basically was
a copy of the Russian Their weapons systems were all copies.

Speaker 1 (45:58):
Of Russian weapons systems.

Speaker 2 (46:00):
The planes or copies of megs, the tanks or copies
of the TI series tanks. Say, you know, the one
thing that's astounding about this parade and about.

Speaker 1 (46:12):
The state of Chinese weapons.

Speaker 2 (46:16):
These all made in China, These all designed in China,
These are all being innovated in China. They have unbelievable
indigenous capabilities. Indeed, Russian weapons systems a crap. Crap is
a compliment. And I've talked about this since the beginning
of the Ukraine War, actually for a long time before then,

(46:36):
but certainly since the beginning of the Ukraine War, that
Russian weapons systems are crap.

Speaker 1 (46:40):
I'm not so sure about Chinese weapons systems. We don't know.
You've never seen them in combat. We don't know.

Speaker 2 (46:46):
But they are cutting edge technology, the state of the art.
They've invested a lot, and there's a lot of RND
going into it.

Speaker 1 (46:56):
Now.

Speaker 2 (46:56):
Of course, this is just a parade. You can parade anything.
The real question is what is their capabilities? Can they fight?
Are they going to be effective? You know, are the
soldiers well trained, highly motivated. They can parade, they can
launch in syncronty unlike American troops in Israeli troops, but

(47:22):
can they fight? Where the weapons systems work, they look
amazing on paper. It's very different. And America does have
the advantage of constantly I mean, I've read stories where
the company that makes the F thirty five, says that

(47:43):
the experience, the knowledge, the feedback they get from Israel's
use of the F thirty five is worth hundreds of
billions of dollars in their ability to then make the
air plane, constantly make the air plane better, refine it, at.

Speaker 1 (47:59):
Tools to it.

Speaker 2 (48:01):
So it's gonna be interesting to see if these weapons
systems the Chinese have as good as advertised. I mean,
I hope we never see that. But now look the
this parade was there too. Wow Er er er a
lot of the participants, which were mainly China's n Asian neighbors,

(48:28):
to tell them that the focus is you know, this
is the power.

Speaker 1 (48:32):
This is who they're gonna have to deal with. It's
not the United States, it's.

Speaker 2 (48:38):
China, and that they should because China has this amazing force.

Speaker 1 (48:44):
Now, I don't think this changes anything.

Speaker 2 (48:47):
I think that the country is the one end coaching
up to China will and I think the countries that don't,
well now look at this and say, Okay, we need
to spend more money on the fence and we need
to get more advanced weapons systems. I don't think this
changes anything. One of the questions you have to ask though.
By the way, I like, there's a guy on Twitter,

(49:11):
a commentator, Mike Ryan, who's a strategist, a retired Army
major general, who's been pretty good on Ukraine and Russia
and China. So I encourage you to, if you're interested
in this kind of stuff, to follow him.

Speaker 1 (49:27):
What's puta thinking?

Speaker 2 (49:29):
Like?

Speaker 1 (49:31):
One thing? This makes very clear China. I mean Russia
is a third rate military power.

Speaker 2 (49:40):
Third rate I mean the United States and NATO first rate,
China first or second.

Speaker 1 (49:47):
We don't know Russia not in the picture at all.

Speaker 2 (49:51):
I mean Russia does have it does not have anywhere
near the technological capabilities, the modern production capabilities, the modern.

Speaker 1 (50:03):
Tech, the modern R and D that China has.

Speaker 2 (50:06):
It doesn't have the drones, it doesn't have the airplanes,
it doesn't have the the you know, the the unmanned
submarines and unmanned everything else. It doesn't have the sophisticated missiles.

Speaker 1 (50:21):
It has brute force, but that's about it. So Russians
have nukes, Yeah, they have nukes.

Speaker 2 (50:35):
They have nukes. If they work, nobody really knows if
they work. They're old again, no tech. We know the
Chinese nukes all new China's building up a massive nuclearsenal.

Speaker 1 (50:47):
Remember too, the China and Russia.

Speaker 2 (50:50):
Fort was was There is disputed territory between China and Russia.
Russia's told many of the troops that it had on
it eastern border.

Speaker 1 (51:01):
It's pulled them to Ukraine. I imagine if China.

Speaker 2 (51:06):
Decided one day Eastern Russia should really be ours. Let
Russia have the West, We'll take the east. Other than
with nukes, which might it might not work.

Speaker 1 (51:24):
Russia has no capacity to.

Speaker 2 (51:25):
Stop them, It has no military capabilities.

Speaker 1 (51:29):
They commands to Chinese.

Speaker 2 (51:35):
Anyway, This is where we are, and it is interesting.

Speaker 1 (51:40):
She made a speech about this is.

Speaker 2 (51:43):
All to commemorate the victory over the Japanese in World
War Two.

Speaker 1 (51:47):
He made a speech.

Speaker 2 (51:47):
About the reinvigorated Chinese nation, the Chinese nations being unstoppable,
a very non communist speech, much more nationalistic speech, which
I think is what they are national as fascist types.
He didn't mention the United States with pissed trump off.
Trump was commenting today about how he should have mixed.

(52:09):
She is a friend of his, but she really should
have mentioned the United States.

Speaker 1 (52:13):
We helped him a lot to win World War Two.
We helped him.

Speaker 2 (52:17):
We won the war for them. So but she didn't
mention Trump. I mean, the whole thing is kind of
a snub to Trump. Trump cannot put on a parade,
I can, says she. Trump wasn't invited. He wasn't there.
This is Victory Day, eighty years since victory, and the

(52:37):
Americans are now represented. So yeah, China perceives herself to
be on the rise, to be replacing the United States soon.
Just something funny that happened on the sideline of this

(52:57):
they're walking putin she and Kim. I hate it, calling
Kim like he doesn't deserve a first name, like the
Bruto dictator of North Korea. The Trump's best friend anyway,
three of Trump's best friends, right, these are the three
people trump most admirers in the world. And they didn't
invite him to the party. They had a party and

(53:18):
he wasn't invited. He must be feeling really bad. Anyway,
Before I get to this kind of funny story, seven
out of twenty were short. Thirteen super chats to make
our goal. Thirteen super chats to make our goal of
twenty super chats in forty five minutes.

Speaker 1 (53:37):
Wow, that's pretty lame.

Speaker 2 (53:39):
That we haven't met that goal, because that shouldn't be
that hard. Twenty and forty five minutes. That's every two minutes.
We usually crush that easily. So let me appeal to
you to support the show. Support the show by asking
a question. Asking a question also contribute to the show
because then we then answer the question, so that continbutes content.

(54:02):
And you can also do a sticker. Those counts. It
does count the stickers as well. And that's just a
way for us the trade value for value. You know,
you listen to show, you pay for listening, which is
the value you provide. So let's say we get some
new people new people first time, as second time. There's

(54:22):
the third time is to do some stickers and super chats.
Help us meet our challenge twenty super chats in forty
five minutes. That you know, YouTube is going to be
very disappointed if I can't meet this one. I mean,
we did really well yesterday, you know, and but I'm greedy,
so I want us to do well today as well.

Speaker 1 (54:45):
Why just do well one day? We should we should
do well every day. There we go.

Speaker 2 (54:50):
We got a few, we're good, but the counter doesn't
count them all.

Speaker 1 (54:55):
It's really weird. It's not catching up.

Speaker 2 (55:03):
You notice that, guys, Sometimes it counts them and sometimes
it doesn't.

Speaker 1 (55:11):
Yeah, I don't know.

Speaker 2 (55:12):
I'm gonna be complaining to YouTube. Definitely complaining to YouTube.

Speaker 1 (55:16):
All right, We do.

Speaker 2 (55:17):
Have a monetary goal much more important than the number
of chats is a monetary goal. We do have a
monetary goal of two hundred and fifty dollars in the
first hour for every hour. So let's try to make
the two hundred and fifty with one eight three. So
we need seventy dollars to make it up.

Speaker 1 (55:33):
Again, value for value, Let's let's be treated here.

Speaker 2 (55:35):
And make it worthwhile for me to be spending this
time doing the show for you and you expressing the
value of what I provide. So, in a hot mic
conversation between Si and Putin, which again and a Buddha
dictator of North Korea walking by them. Putin, and this

(55:59):
has been captured by Chinese state media and broadcast live,
Putin is talking about human organ transplants and the possibility
of living to be one hundred and fifty.

Speaker 1 (56:14):
Years or even forever.

Speaker 2 (56:18):
Right, the Putin's translator is heard saying in Chinese biotechnology
is continuously developing. The translator added after an inaudible passage,
Ry puts in Tishi. Human organs can be continually transplanted.
The longer you live, the younger you become, and you

(56:38):
can even achieve immortality. Now now we know what drives
these guys. They want to be immortal. Now you know,
they want to be in dictators for life, and they
expect life to be forever. It's actually unbelievably disgusting that

(57:01):
these people, that these monsters, all three of them are monsters,
All three of them are way down there in one
of the low rungs of hell at least should be,
and all of them out here, you know, pushing.

Speaker 1 (57:18):
This idea of life extension. They don't deserve it.

Speaker 2 (57:23):
There's a sense in which technologies shouldn't be available to
a theberitarian thugs when they talk about transplants. So the
thing that goes in my mind is are they going
to ask the recipient, the donor, if they want to donate,
or they're just going to take it so that they
can stay young. When they say things like, you know,

(57:47):
human organ transplants, the possibility of living one hundred and
fifty and continuously transplanted ogan is continuously transplanted.

Speaker 1 (57:55):
Where these organs coming from.

Speaker 2 (57:57):
Political prisoners, just any prisoners, just people randomly taken from
their streets.

Speaker 1 (58:04):
They can do that, they can get away with it.
It's scary. Chinese people should be scared anyway.

Speaker 2 (58:15):
But this is Prudy's But you can see Putin's fantasy.
This is Putin, you know, talking about this and emphasizing this.
This is what he really wants is to live forever,
to live forever and inflict his horror on all of
us forever. All right, Finally we talked about weapons systems.

Speaker 1 (58:38):
You know.

Speaker 2 (58:38):
One of the amazing one of the really amazing stories,
I think books that will be written about this in
the future, really amazing stories, is the story of the
Ukrainian military, well, the Ukrainian industrial response to the war
with Russia. The ability of the Ukrainians to pivot to

(59:02):
designing and building and producing and making some of.

Speaker 1 (59:06):
The worst world's most advanced drones.

Speaker 2 (59:09):
And by advance here what I mean not necessarily the
greatest and best tech.

Speaker 1 (59:12):
What I mean by advanced is advance for the battlefield.

Speaker 2 (59:21):
I mean in twenty twenty two, Ukraine produced zero military drones.
Zero In twenty twenty four, it produced two million, two
million in.

Speaker 1 (59:37):
Twenty twenty five. The goal is more than four million.

Speaker 2 (59:42):
Now, these are not just cookie cut up all the
same looking drawn These are drones that are constantly being
changed adjusted. Wose technology is constantly being modified to keep
up with battlefield demands and to keep up with the
respon sponsor that the Russians have to them the response

(01:00:06):
The secret here, which I think is very very indicative.

Speaker 1 (01:00:11):
The secret here is that the.

Speaker 2 (01:00:12):
Money to buy the drones is not allocated from the
top down. It does not go from the Defense department
to the military industrial complex. The money goes to the
units on the battlefield. They get to decide what drones
to buy. They provide the feedback to the engineers, what

(01:00:35):
the drones, what drones are needed, and there is a
constant full of information. There's a constant trial and error
going on, ingenuinism, ingenuity on the flying.

Speaker 1 (01:00:50):
In battle conditions. I don't think this has ever happened.

Speaker 2 (01:00:53):
In the history a battle and at the speed anyway,
and in the history of weapons. So you know, whatever
money the government allocates, it outgates to the units. The
cash the units, the soldiers then decide what to buy,

(01:01:16):
provide the feedback to the engineers and they get the drones.

Speaker 1 (01:01:21):
That's on the end of it.

Speaker 2 (01:01:23):
They probably feedback to the engineer on how the drone
has done. Maybe a software patch, maybe a different hardware
feature is added, and maybe a new generation of drones
is being produced. We're talking about over four million drones
from a country that three years ago produced zero, zilch, nada,

(01:01:44):
no drones. So we don't have a Soviet era style
bureaucracy running per chromas.

Speaker 1 (01:01:57):
For the.

Speaker 2 (01:02:07):
For the Ukrainian military, what we have is a silicon
valley like trial and error, you know, build it, make it,
test it, try it again, startups. We don't have a
few big I mean, it's the other thing. It's not

(01:02:27):
like Ukraine has two big drug manufacturers that make all
their drones.

Speaker 1 (01:02:32):
No, there are dozens are small.

Speaker 2 (01:02:36):
Drug companies building prototypes, testing them and then going into production.
Local mares, city mayors. Can you know, can we direct
funding to buy drones? School teachers and nuns raise money

(01:02:58):
for soldiers to buy equipment that is not available by
government percorrement. And again, drone requirements come from the soldiers,
from the people on the field, the people who use them,
exactly opposite of sadly how percurement works in the United States.

(01:03:21):
I mean, this is an ideal model for the design
and deployment of weapon systems in the twenty first century.
If we don't necessarily have to learn the weapon systems,
because each combat conditions are going to be different, but
we certainly can learn a huge amount from the method

(01:03:49):
the system by which they procurre these weapon systems.

Speaker 1 (01:03:53):
That's why we should be learning this again.

Speaker 2 (01:03:57):
Startup Silicon Valley at this supply chain with constant, instant feedback,
and if the United States can learn from that, it's
got a shot at matching just the sheer size and
the ability of the Chinese to produce in massive quantities.

(01:04:19):
Otherwise we're in trouble, as this parade illustrated. All right, guys,
we have That was the news for Wednesday, September third.
Let's see, the forty five minutes are up and we

(01:04:42):
only got fourteen super checks.

Speaker 1 (01:04:46):
Not good. I'm gonna have to up your game, guys.

Speaker 2 (01:04:50):
No, Linda, I don't think it counts because it came
in after the after the but of course two the
money counts, which is much more important. All right, I
am here to remind you to support the show in
a variety of voice to do it. One way is
obviously through chat, a super chat and stickers. Another way

(01:05:12):
is by going to Patreon patreon dot com and just
search your on book show and you've become a monthly
supporter of the show, which is incredibly helpful and to
be valuable to me, to the show to its continuity.

Speaker 1 (01:05:26):
So that is great. Please consider doing that.

Speaker 2 (01:05:31):
You can also go to PayPal and do the same
thing on PayPal, So please consider becoming a monthly supporter
of the Iran.

Speaker 1 (01:05:38):
Book Show, particularly those of you out there.

Speaker 2 (01:05:43):
Who listen to this as a podcast who are not
here live who can contribute live. Please for those of
you who are out there on a podcast, please consider
becoming monthly supporters and trading with me, becoming traders with
the Iran Book Show.

Speaker 1 (01:06:00):
I'll also remind you that we have a three sponsors.
The Ironman Institute is a sponsor of the show.

Speaker 2 (01:06:05):
It is encouraging everybody to sign up for Iran Institute Live.
These are life courses in philosophy on Iran's philosophy and objectivism,
including a course on the philosophy of objectivism.

Speaker 1 (01:06:18):
It starts in October. You should be signing up now.

Speaker 2 (01:06:21):
You can find a link to sign up at imran
dot org slash start here. You can get a your
on book so Listener discount. The code for that discount
is twenty five YBS ten twenty five YBS ten.

Speaker 1 (01:06:39):
And you can take these courses anytime you want.

Speaker 2 (01:06:45):
You don't have to you don't have to apply, You
just have to register. You can do one work assignments
or not. You can get feedback directly or not. You
can be in the live class and ask questions or not,
up to you. You can do it at your own pace,
in your own individualized way. So please consider going. Just
check it out and signing up. I think you'll really

(01:07:08):
enjoy it. I think you'll learn a lot and your
knowledge and ability to apply and implement objectivism will increase significantly.
Alex Epstein is the world's leading authority thinker communicator on

(01:07:28):
issues related to energy, electricity, issues related to energy, more
broadly in climate change, environmentalism, and what's going on with
the Trump administration's efforts around these issues.

Speaker 1 (01:07:42):
If you care about energy, and I think.

Speaker 2 (01:07:44):
We all should care about energy, it's the it's what
fuels us, right, then you should follow Alex. You should
learn from Alex and you should become a better communicator
by reading Alex's talking.

Speaker 1 (01:07:57):
Points where he gives you, you know, the real.

Speaker 2 (01:08:00):
Arguments that you should be making to your friends and
colleagues and family members who have really bad ideas with
regard to fossol.

Speaker 1 (01:08:06):
Fuels and energy and stuff like that.

Speaker 2 (01:08:09):
Alex Epstein Alex epsigin subset dot com. And then finally
Hendershot Wealth hander shot with two t's at the end,
Wealth one word handershot wealth dot com slash y bs
for products that can help you save money on taxes,
particularly if you have significant large capital gains and you

(01:08:31):
owe as a consequence of will owe when you sell
it a lot of capital gains taxes. You should check
out the products that hendershot Wealth has to offer hendershot
Towealth dot com, slash ybs. Or check out the video
interview I did with Robert hand a shot on my
YouTube channel if you check out, if you go to

(01:08:52):
a playlist, check out the playlists for sponsors and it's
right there. All right, let's go with the super chat.

Speaker 1 (01:09:02):
You know.

Speaker 2 (01:09:03):
We'll start with Michael Generous Michael, who has one hundred
dollars super chat question. It's fantastic, Michael, thank you, and
please the rest of you guys should consider being like Michael.
Do you think it's immature for objectives to be frustrated
or impulsive but not being able to change the culture yet,

(01:09:25):
or should we be morally ambitious and demand expect of
our fellow citizens to be model enough to recognize the
truth in this philosophy. I mean, I think there's suddenly
an immaturity about not thinking through what is necessary in
order to change the culture. You need a theory if
you're going to have an opinion about it, you need

(01:09:46):
a theory to lash out at people.

Speaker 1 (01:09:49):
Why don't you get.

Speaker 2 (01:09:50):
It when you know it's obvious Most of them don't
and won't, and it will take a long time for
them to get it, because it takes a long time
to change ideas, and in particular, it takes a long
time to change fundamental ideas ideas about epistemology and ethics.

(01:10:12):
These are very difficult to shift. It's very difficult to
change your culture, and objectivism is very young in terms
of its efforts to do so. So I think being

(01:10:33):
impatient with regards to this is unhelpful.

Speaker 1 (01:10:37):
I think you should be morally ambitious.

Speaker 2 (01:10:40):
But there's no point in demanding something that you cannot
that the other person cannot give you. You can't demand that
they salute objectivism when they don't understand it, and you
can't expect something they are ready for.

Speaker 1 (01:10:56):
So what you need to do is.

Speaker 2 (01:10:58):
Keep going after and keep helping promote these ideas to
the people who are most likely to embrace them and
to give them why. You know, but this is why
you should be supporting nine Man Institute. You shoul supporting
the Iron Book so because I think these are the
best avenues today to expose people to Ironman's ideas and

(01:11:20):
to encourage them and to get them to read her books.
And we're not going to win the battle unless we
can do much more of that. And you know, so
that is what is currently needed. Being upset and being
angry and being frustrated because not more people understand the

(01:11:43):
philosophy doesn't give you anything. Asking why what could we
be doing better? How could we better be how could
we be better communicators of these ideas? But look, Ironman
was the best communicative of these ideas. Al Sad the
sold millions and millions and millions of copies she didn't

(01:12:04):
convince that many people, but maybe she convinced the most
important people, so it can just be better communication. There
is obviously something in the culture that makes it very
difficult for us to have.

Speaker 1 (01:12:24):
Dramatic fast change.

Speaker 2 (01:12:27):
So be morally ambitious, be culturally ambitious, Be ambitious in
the goals you set for yourself in terms of communicating
and supporting those who communicate the ideas of objectivism. But
getting angry and impulsive about it doesn't help, all right, Wes,

(01:12:49):
thank you fifty dollars sticker. Really really appreciate that. That
reminds me I should think the stick of people. Thank you, Margaret,
Thank you, Raphael, you did a bunch of them. Esthetic dichotomy,
thank you, thank you, Paul, thank you, Audi, Yeah, thank you, Volta,
thank you.

Speaker 1 (01:13:09):
There's a feel again a couple of times. Thank you.

Speaker 2 (01:13:15):
Jonathan must be there. Maybe not maybe today. It took
the day off today, but let's see. I think we
caught everybody. Yep, I think I got everybody. So thank
you guys. Thanks to all the people who do stickers
and all the people do super chats, and I appreciate
the support. Ben I spoke to a colleague about a

(01:13:38):
British water company scandal. Today I realized that I knew
very little about how privatized water would have been supplied.
Would franchising be valid like the system they have in France.

Speaker 1 (01:13:50):
God, I do not know what the system is in France,
so I don't know how that works.

Speaker 2 (01:13:57):
But I mean, I don't know enough about the history
of private water and how private water can be delivered
and could be delivered. I'd have to really do the
research into that and do some thinking.

Speaker 1 (01:14:11):
But at the end of the.

Speaker 2 (01:14:11):
Day, think about the fact that the resource itself should
be private. The equofer the place in which the water
is held, just like the oil is private.

Speaker 1 (01:14:21):
The water should be private.

Speaker 2 (01:14:24):
So private companies should be able to access mine, drive
for the water, and then be able to supply that
water to other companies I think that specialize in the
last mile, that specialize in the living water to the
last mile, and how those companies compete with one another,

(01:14:46):
how they deliver the product to the final to the residents.
I mean, that's going to be interesting. You know. You
could imagine a variety of different water tanks operated by
different companies getting their water different other companies, and you
can imagine every new development, having a very simple like

(01:15:08):
dugged in trench which different companies can place their hardware
in and.

Speaker 1 (01:15:18):
It can be easily added.

Speaker 2 (01:15:20):
And you can imagine the technologies that would develop to
easily add new hardware, new pipes, and new competitors can
enter the market and you can do amazing things.

Speaker 1 (01:15:30):
It would be a lot harder.

Speaker 2 (01:15:31):
With existing homes in businesses, which is the vast majority
of them, but I'm sure you could come up with
unbelievable I'm sure the market would come up with unbelievably
creative ways to deliver water to homes and be competitive.
So a lot of times when it comes to markets,

(01:15:55):
you have to say, you know, I don't know how
that will work. Nobody knows how that will work. Indeed,
that's the beauty of markets. They are discovery processes. Markets
are discovery processes. Markets discover events create new ways of

(01:16:15):
doing things that didn't exist before. All right, thanks thanks Bannon,
good question, listend up. Let's reach those goals. Thank you
Listender for helping us reach those goals. Really really appreciated.

(01:16:38):
Dave fifty dollars, Thank you, Dave. Oh, I call MYSELBROV.
Thank you for the sticker. Really appreciate it. What's your
assessment of how others promote the idea that every individual
has the exact same cognitive capacity and therefore all beliefs
are equal based on that premise cognitive egalitarianism. What's the
assessment of how others from mode the idea that every

(01:17:01):
individual has the exact same cognitive capacity and therefore all
beliefs are equally based.

Speaker 1 (01:17:05):
On that premise. God, I'm not sure I understand the question.
But you know, you don't have many people who actually.

Speaker 2 (01:17:14):
Say that we all have the same cognitive capacity, at
least I don't know of any. Maybe some people in
the Fall Left do the galitarians of the Fall Left
say well, we all have the same exactly the same capabilities,
the same intelligence, the same abilities. It's possible, but and

(01:17:36):
and we're corrupted. Yeah, I guess that's the case. I mean,
we're corrupted by society. So we all have the same
cognitive abilities when we're born, but then society corrupts us,
and blacks, you know, are repressed and therefore their cognitive
abilities never developed, and women are oppressed, so they they
supposedly this is what they argue. I mean, I think

(01:18:00):
there's something true to that in a sense that I
think you can't suppress people's cognitive abilities quite dramatically, and
culture does that quite effectively. But the idea that people
have the same capacity when they're born is just absurd
and ridiculous. I mean, it's just wrong, and I think

(01:18:23):
it comes from I mean, the reason it sustains itself,
this idea.

Speaker 1 (01:18:29):
Is because.

Speaker 2 (01:18:32):
You know, galitarianism is such a powerful idea.

Speaker 1 (01:18:36):
You know, people believe.

Speaker 5 (01:18:37):
Equality is to be all and all, and they also
believe that if they give up on equality, quality of outcome,
equality of all, equal equal inabilities, not just in our outcomes,
not just in our rights.

Speaker 1 (01:18:50):
If you give up on that.

Speaker 2 (01:18:51):
Idea, they believe, then you have to then you are
a fascist, because then you assume some people are better
better than others. And they can differentiate between better being
smarter than better being more moral and morality being more
important and smallest. They can't differentiate between character and intelligence,

(01:19:18):
and between the importance of character and imputants of intelligence
versus the importance of intelligence.

Speaker 1 (01:19:25):
So it's.

Speaker 2 (01:19:31):
They are so opposed hierarchy of any form that they're
willing to give up and sacrifice facts reality in order
to pretend that the world that they wishes existed, I
guess actually did exist, but it doesn't. We're all different.
All of us are different, and that's what they hate

(01:19:52):
to acknowledge. They've do you think both right and left
political parties are working together against American citizens since they
seem to be actively working to prevent the public from
accessing information surrounding the Epstein Epstein deficult? No, I mean

(01:20:15):
I don't think so, not regularly now, when an issue
like this it comes across, I think that they're probably
I don't know again, and we don't know a lot,
but they're probably powerful people who are named in these files,
who are going to be named by the victims, whether
they committed a crime or.

Speaker 1 (01:20:36):
Not, we don't know. Who would rather not have their
name in the newspapers.

Speaker 2 (01:20:42):
And some of them are Republicans and some of them
are Democrats, some of them Republican donors and some Democratic donors.
And they are putting pressure visa Vine this particular case
on politicians. Don't disclose, don't bring it out, bury this,
let's forget it, let's move on, forget about all this.

Speaker 1 (01:21:03):
So yeah, it's.

Speaker 2 (01:21:10):
It's uh, it's possible. In a particular things they work together.
But no, no, there's no big conspiracy theory other political
class to screw us. They're screwing us because they're bad ideas,
not because they want to screw us. It's because the
ideas inevitably lead them to.

Speaker 1 (01:21:32):
Doing bad things for us.

Speaker 2 (01:21:33):
And then there are part specific cases where you get
powerful people on both sides of the aisle who are
going to support a particular cause because it's in their
so called interests.

Speaker 1 (01:21:51):
Thank you, David.

Speaker 2 (01:21:53):
And maybe the lies are covered for a deeper plan.
Maybe the lies were implanted in them by d Demans.
Maybe the lies are part of God's.

Speaker 1 (01:22:04):
Plan for I don't know. I mean, you can say
any random thing you want to say. It's meaningless.

Speaker 2 (01:22:13):
They're lying, and they're lying in stupid ways, and they're lying.
I mean, it's clear why they're lying. They're clearing what
the deeper plan is. The deeper plan is, and this
is a deeper plan that most politicians have.

Speaker 1 (01:22:26):
But if you can implement the.

Speaker 2 (01:22:28):
Deeper plan is is to make the American people oblivious
to the truth.

Speaker 6 (01:22:34):
On all things, to to make them not care about reality,
and to just accept what the authorities tell them.

Speaker 2 (01:22:51):
It's it's right out of the authoritarian playbook. It's right
out of this is how to become a dictator. I
granduosely and so frequently and so bigly that people it
completely desensitizes people to lives, and then you can get

(01:23:12):
away with anything. Robert, this super check counts towards creator's goal.

Speaker 1 (01:23:22):
It does, Thank you, Robert. Tessa eighteen more super chests
to go.

Speaker 2 (01:23:28):
We didn't make it, though, although I think if it
had counted all the super chests that actually were made,
we would have got there. There's some flaw in the
software that's not counting everything. I will complain.

Speaker 1 (01:23:42):
Paul.

Speaker 2 (01:23:44):
Do you think the Kaman Gaza offensive will finally put
an end to Haramas rule? God, I don't know. I
think there's going to be a deal. I don't think
the offensive is going to go through. There's a lot
of pressure. Yeah, we will see. We will see what

(01:24:05):
exactly happens. But will Hamas be thoroughly, systematically and equivocally
destroyed by the end of all of this, I hope.

Speaker 1 (01:24:16):
So.

Speaker 2 (01:24:17):
I don't know. I don't have a lot of confidence.
I'm sixty forty against.

Speaker 1 (01:24:24):
For what it's worth.

Speaker 2 (01:24:26):
I just think Hamas will find a way to embed
itself in whatever remains in Gaza, and Israel will not
ultimately do.

Speaker 1 (01:24:35):
It's necessary to get rid of them.

Speaker 2 (01:24:38):
Benjamin says, have you heard of the Norwegian Oil Funds
Ethical Committee pulling funds out of companies involved in Israel?

Speaker 1 (01:24:47):
Any opinions?

Speaker 2 (01:24:48):
What do you think of the long term effects politically diplomatically, Well,
I think it's damn right evil of them to do it.
I think it's disgusting and evil. They'll invest in Saudi Arabia,
invest in the UAE, they'll invest in a lot of
countries that abuse individual rights constantly all the time, and

(01:25:10):
Israel is defending itself, and they'll penalize Israel. So no
way has just been horrible, just horrible, terrible on the
whole Israel thing. And it says something about them all
status of the Norwegian government and maybe the Norwegian people
if this is what they believe.

Speaker 1 (01:25:29):
So I think it's terrible. Well, in the long term
matter of facts, I mean.

Speaker 2 (01:25:34):
Very little ultimately diplomatically, I don't think Israel has that
much clout politically. I don't know Norwegian politics to know
if it has any. But it's going to create a
situation where the fund which shouldn't exist. The Norwegian Fund
shouldn't exist. It is a travesty. It should have never existed,

(01:26:00):
politicized by particular political elements, political groups, and that will
ownly increase, and that will make it less effective and
less productive, and it will make the returns of it
less good.

Speaker 1 (01:26:11):
And yeah, so it'll make it. It won't make it. It won't.

Speaker 2 (01:26:18):
It's gonna make the fund less successful. But the fund
is a legitimate to begin with. There should be no
such thing as sovereign wealth funds. All wealth is private,
not sovereign. Sovereign has should have zero wealth. Kim says,
you said don't save when you're young, But what if

(01:26:40):
I want the option to retire early and travel the
world for.

Speaker 1 (01:26:43):
A few days. He is, Look, I'm not saying don't
save when you're own. God.

Speaker 2 (01:26:47):
I mean, maybe I said that, but that's not what
I mean. I'm saying it's not a priority. You have
to set up your values. You have to figure out
what they are, and then you know if if you've
got a particular goal that you save, you for like
I want to buy a car in five years, a
nice car.

Speaker 1 (01:27:05):
Yeah, well say for that. What I mean is, don't
say for retirement. Now you're saying you want to travel
the world. Why not travel the world now when you're young?

Speaker 2 (01:27:13):
Why not every year take a couple of weeks off
and go travel.

Speaker 1 (01:27:19):
I mean, when you're young, you're probably gonna enjoy it more.

Speaker 2 (01:27:24):
It'll add more to your life because it'll give you
knowledge and experiences you won't have otherwise. And I don't
think if you work hard and later in life and
you save, you'll be able to travel later in life
as well.

Speaker 1 (01:27:44):
But it seems like these trade offs.

Speaker 2 (01:27:47):
Of I think you really need to think them through
and make sure you're making the right trade off. And
my point is, don't give up the present for the
future if you don't have to.

Speaker 1 (01:28:02):
And look, if you're let's say you're in a profession.

Speaker 2 (01:28:05):
Let's say you're a teacher, and you believe, justifiably or
not put that aside, you believe your income is never
gonna increase significantly. Right, You're gonna it's gonna increase. It's
gonna you're gonna make more money, but ah a lot.
And you're in your mid twenties and you think the
next forty years, I'm gonna make about what I'm making now.

(01:28:27):
Inflation adjusted, maybe more, but not a huge amount more.
Then I'd say save, save now.

Speaker 1 (01:28:35):
But if you.

Speaker 2 (01:28:35):
Believe in you will make a lot more money, a
lot more money in your forties and fifties than you're
making in your twenties, then there's no urgency to save.
So the whole question of saving when you're young is
context related.

Speaker 1 (01:28:52):
It's related to the context of.

Speaker 2 (01:28:54):
Your expectations about the future, your expectations about your future income. Again,
if you think your income is not getting improved dramatically,
then save. If you think it will improve dramatically, then
what's the hurry? What's the hurry? But again, it's very contextual.

(01:29:26):
Michael thoughts on the Italian people in Italian culture. I mean,
it's tough to draw conclusions about the Italian culture. Italian people.
You know, the Italians are obviously very warm, open, vivacious,

(01:29:46):
expressive people, and I like that, the hustlers, but they
also it seems like, but.

Speaker 1 (01:29:58):
This is a lot of it is shaped by the
political culture in Italy.

Speaker 2 (01:30:04):
Not particularly entrepreneurial at an advanced level. Maybe entrepreneurial in
terms of very small businesses, but not in terms.

Speaker 1 (01:30:11):
Of larger businesses.

Speaker 2 (01:30:13):
Heavily, heavily regulated, heavily, heavily controlled, being willing to put
up with all of that, Like when can you put
the air conditioning on? Like on the fifteenth of September,
all the air conditioning in Florence is turned off. It's
by law you cannot run air conditioning after the fifteenth
of September. But think about a culture and a people
willing to tolerate that, willing to accept that. There's a

(01:30:39):
big difference between the Italians of the North and Italians
of the south.

Speaker 1 (01:30:43):
But generally, look, at some point in their.

Speaker 2 (01:30:49):
History, this the predecessor of this culture produced some of
the greatest works of art and science and literature in
the history of mankind. And much of that was done
right here in Florence, in a I don't know radius.

Speaker 1 (01:31:08):
Of one hundred miles around.

Speaker 2 (01:31:09):
France had an amazing concentration of genius and there was
something in the culture that promoted that and enhanced that. Sadly,
you know, Italy has lost a lot of that. And look,
Italy saw the Ferrari and Maserati and Lamborghini. It's not

(01:31:33):
an accident that all your really really really fancy beautiful
fast cause Italian Italian fashion, you know, got I had
another example. Italy had great inventors early on. Malconi Fermi

(01:31:54):
was an Italian physicist. So the culture here, it promotes
some level of certain types of entrepreneurial activity, and it's
very focused on beauty. It's very focused on beauty, and
beauty is a good thing.

Speaker 1 (01:32:09):
So I love it. I love you know. The people
are well dressed. I'm not, but they are the cause.

Speaker 2 (01:32:17):
Again for Raris La borghineis the very few people can
drive them the maladies, but they are beautiful and there
is definitely an esthetic to the design of the cities
and the buildings and everything around it. But Italy, sadly,
is more about history than the future.

Speaker 1 (01:32:40):
History. You come to Italy to see history. You don't
come here for the future. And that's sad.

Speaker 2 (01:32:47):
Italy is also one of the fastest shrinking countries in
the world. It's politics the very the visit very extreme.
You've got uh, real leftists and real right wingers. The
center is probably smaller than in many other places around

(01:33:10):
the world. It's an interesting place. I don't have big
conclusions yet about it. Michael says a lot of similarities
between these Raelians and Italians, a little bit in terms
of just the we use our hands and it's really
used their hands. Italians use their hands. The energy, the vivaciousness,
the hutzpa, the no organized lines, elbowing using the elbows

(01:33:37):
a little bit. I think in No sens Is there's
similarities in the culture, but it is much more entrepreneurial,
much more future oriented than Italy's. As the Economy says,
stickers are not super chats. Blank, super chats are not stickers.

Speaker 1 (01:33:54):
Anyway.

Speaker 2 (01:33:55):
I'm excited for the future, but need more income, need
to work hard. Yep, we all do. Linda does discount,
it didn't. I don't think it did, okay. Last question
from is from Lee from the UK. He says, if
a weapon good on paper turns out to be bad
in practice, would this entail a reevaluation of initial paper. Yes,

(01:34:19):
I absolutely think it does. You know, what's the point
of the paper if it doesn't work in practice? Ideally,
but this is true an all business right. You can
have a car that is good on paper and you've
missed something in practice and it doesn't It doesn't take
into account certain human you know, the way people like

(01:34:40):
to drive their cars or like to interact with their cause.
And then you have to itterage, and you have to
you have to get to a point where this great
idea on paper becomes a great idea in reality, and
that means changes, and those changes need to be applied
to the paper as well. But I think most entrepreneurial
companies engage in that kind of process of an idea

(01:35:04):
test change, you know, adjust the idea test, adjust test,
you know.

Speaker 1 (01:35:09):
And the more you can do that in real time.

Speaker 2 (01:35:13):
In the world today, you need to do it more
and more in real time, the more competitive you become.

Speaker 1 (01:35:20):
All right, guys, it is late here.

Speaker 2 (01:35:23):
It's already twenty midnight, twenty to midnight. I will see
you tomorrow, I think at the same time four pm.
E's coast time, so late for me. And it will
also be a show to show more like today. And yeah,
I have a great rest of your day and I'll
see you tomorrow.

Speaker 1 (01:35:44):
Bye, everybody,

All Episodes

Google, Epstein & Genocide: Lies, Power, and Drones | Yaron Brook Show

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

The Herd with Colin Cowherd

.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;}Google, Epstein & Genocide: Lies, Power, and Drones | Yaron Brook Show