Heritage, Tucker & Fuentes -- The Right Imploding | Yaron Brook Show - Yaron Brook Show

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:03):
A lot of it, fundamental principles of freedom, national self interest,
and individual rights.

Speaker 2 (00:15):
This is the Yuran Brook Show.

Speaker 1 (00:21):
All right, everybody, welcome to you run Brook Show on
this Sunday, November two. I hope everybody's having a great weekend,
A great I had a great week. I know. I
haven't seen you in a while. I have been traveling
around Europe. I am now in Vienna, Vienna, Austria. Yesterday

(00:44):
I did a great event. I just mentioned this.

Speaker 2 (00:47):
Yesterday. I good a really good event.

Speaker 1 (00:49):
In Oslo, probably about two hundred and fifty young people,
fifteen to twenty five year olds, all.

Speaker 2 (00:57):
Members of the youth organization of.

Speaker 1 (01:00):
A classical liberal political party in no Way, so yeah,
it was great. I talked about morality of capitalism. There
is video. They did record it, so I'm hoping that
at some point we'll be able to put it up
online and you'll be able to see it. But although
it's my standard, it's the standard raality of capitalism talk.

Speaker 2 (01:28):
Not libertarians.

Speaker 1 (01:30):
They're called the Progressive Party, but a progressive in no
way is not far left. It's supposedly classical liberal. So yeah,
I mean it was really good. It was a quick
trip in and out of Oslo very very quickly. It
was cold, rainy, and as you can tell, probably from

(01:51):
my voice, I think I'm coming down with something.

Speaker 2 (01:55):
So I've been coming down with something.

Speaker 1 (01:56):
I've been One of the reasons I haven't done shows,
it's it's just difficult, all right. Anyway, I am in Vienna.
Those of you who are in central Europe, maybe Buddislav
or Vienna or any of the area around here, you
should come tomorrow to my event at the High Institute,

(02:18):
the Austrian Economics Center here in Vienna.

Speaker 2 (02:23):
I'm doing an event.

Speaker 1 (02:25):
What am I doing an event tomorrow at five o'clock?
I think on left and right, why in a sense,
everybody's turning their backs to capitalism. Why they're both all
of them turning their back to free market.

Speaker 2 (02:37):
So it should be an event. Hopefully you guys can
make it.

Speaker 1 (02:41):
Some of you can make it if you're in that
part of the world. All right, let's see. I know
there's an iron Rand meet up here in Vienna, so
I think some of them are coming. I don't know
if they're listening live, but I think some of them
are coming, and hopefully others will come as well.

Speaker 2 (03:03):
All right, I want to talk about.

Speaker 1 (03:05):
I want to talk about what's been going on on
the right in the last few days. It's been pretty
dramatic and I think very revealing, really the complete bankruptcy
of many of the institutions and many of the people
on the American right of conservatism. More broadly, I also

(03:31):
say that, how do I put this nicely, I'll also
say I told you so. I hate being right. Sometimes
when I'm right about negative things or write about something
that is that is a negative outcome. But I've been

(03:54):
telling you since God since twenty fifteen, since I started
the show, really certainly since Donald Trump started running for
president and the old right kind of came out of
their out of their gravels or out of their tunnels
or out of there, whatever you want to call it,
and started poking around. I've told you that they would

(04:18):
win in a sense that they would grow in power
because they facial principal opposition. The Conservatives have nothing to
stand by other than their religion and tradition. And well,
I mean, the tradition of many people in the history
of the United States has been racism, antisemitism. So what tradition,

(04:46):
what tradition are they going to follow? And religion. God,
I mean, Christianity invented anti Semitism. Anti Semitism is primarily
a product of Christianity.

Speaker 2 (05:00):
So when the alt right came out.

Speaker 1 (05:04):
In twenty fifteen, twenty sixteen, and it was really all
over the place on Twitter and everything, everybody says, oh,
it's just a small number of people. It's not that big,
it's not that important, it's not that crucial. It doesn't
represent the mainstream, it doesn't represent conservatism, it doesn't represent
conservative line. And it came out as anti semitic, they
came out as as racist, they came out as white nationalists.

(05:28):
And by the way, let's be very clear, white nationalism
is racism. I got some really amazing comments on the video,
on my video on Nick Foyintis, I mean really some
pretty stunning comments in terms of what people wrote. And yeah,

(05:50):
you know, it's hard, it's hard to it's hard for
me to conceive how.

Speaker 2 (06:03):
Bad people's thinking is on these issues.

Speaker 1 (06:10):
But the amount of really really bad, I mean just
the comments. I mean, I did it in Nick Foorentis,
and you know, my assumption is that if you listen
to ten minutes of Nick Foentis, you get him you
figure it out, and you can see that he's a

(06:32):
racist and he's an anti semi and now it's true.
He was in his very good behavior with Tucker, so
he only said things like that he admired Stalin, Stalin
Stalin on the show, he says he admires Hitler and
he loves Hitler and he loves Nazis and Attakacross and
he says Stalin, So he's picked the two probably the

(06:53):
most evil political leaders in human history, who killed more
people than anybody in human history. Just it just slaughtered them.
Well mounts the tongue, it's probably up there with them.
And those are the people who admires. So you know,
when I thought, I thought, you know that saying the

(07:15):
Nick Foy intest was a anti semi racist, that would
kind of be obvious. But it's stunning to me kind
of the pushback in the comments, right, calling everyone in
anto semit isn't going to do what you think it is. Yeah,
I know, because it depends to who people who anto Semites.
I guess they don't get excited about that. But I'm

(07:40):
looking for one particular comment I thought was really something
else in terms of uh, you know, saying Nick Fantist
is not a racist. You know, white nationalism is not
is not racist?

Speaker 3 (07:59):
Right?

Speaker 1 (08:01):
Uh?

Speaker 2 (08:01):
And why is Nick for Interest is not a racist?

Speaker 1 (08:03):
All he says is he doesn't he doesn't want his
uh he doesn't want his uh grandchildren to be of
mixed race. Uh And and you know.

Speaker 2 (08:14):
Some black people agreed with him.

Speaker 1 (08:17):
This is to justify Nick for Interest And I'm like, yeah,
that's that's exactly what racism is. And the fact that
blacks are racist too doesn't justify you know, white racist.

Speaker 2 (08:28):
Uh. But it's uh, you know he has Here's.

Speaker 1 (08:31):
One Joan isn't even trying to hide that he's a
leftist extremist anymore leftist extremists.

Speaker 2 (08:40):
You know.

Speaker 1 (08:43):
It's you know, if I criticize Nick for Interest and
Tucker Carlson, I'm a leftist cree extremist. I mean, it
really is stunning the number of comments I got under
the Nick foro Interest video that I put out, and uh, the.

Speaker 2 (09:01):
Just the horrible and disgusting it really is.

Speaker 1 (09:09):
Uh. Anyway, anyway, I'm not gonna find it now.

Speaker 2 (09:15):
That's fine.

Speaker 1 (09:16):
We don't need it. So uh. As you know Nick
Foytess because I talked about it on a previous show,
Nick Foyantes was not a Corculson and they had a
very respectful and lengthy two hours a discussion. And uh,

(09:37):
you know, I've criticized that cor Coulson for years now,
in particularly over the last couple of years. I think
he's a complete hack. I think he's a he's he's
become a raving anti Semite. He's pro putin, he believes
in in. Uh, I don't know demon that that that

(10:01):
inflict a physical damage on him. The guy's a complete
mystical anti American hack.

Speaker 2 (10:10):
That's what he has become.

Speaker 1 (10:13):
So he interviews for intance, so just you know, and
he's already interviewed people who think Hitler wasn't that bad
and who think Churchill was wisteron Hitler was really the
bad guy. And you know, he's interviewed a variety of
different people who've expressed just abhorrent points of view, which

(10:34):
he has just rolled with just just he's just nodded
and and he's just asking questions and he's just rolled
with it. He's also interviewed people like Ted Kruz don't
particularly like, but is really good on these issues and
really pushed back on them for the defense of Israel,
for example, and things like that. And it's it's really
stunning to see te Kerkoffson when he's combattive. I he

(10:58):
when he when he really challenges people in an interview
and does a good job as an interview about challenging them,
sometimes stupidly, like when he asked take whose how many
people lived in Iran to show that he was ignorant
of Yuan shouldn't really talk about Ivon. And then he

(11:22):
does interviews with people who just say the most awful,
disgusting things and and somebody wrote in the chat and
I think it's true that he's a nine to eleven
truth and now he's a nine to eleven conspiracy theory
guy as well.

Speaker 2 (11:36):
Now him and Dave Harmon.

Speaker 1 (11:38):
And when he talks to somebody who, hey, I don't
think somewhat favorably about the Nazis, or somebody like Frantis
who's a rabbit anti semi racist and white nationalist and
h and just gives him softball question after softball question
after softball question, you have to come to the conclusion
that he's somewhat sympathetic views it as really really important

(12:02):
to let these people express their point of view and
get it out there on his platform, which is one
of the biggest platforms in the world right.

Speaker 2 (12:12):
Anyway, you know, I criticized that.

Speaker 1 (12:14):
A lot of people online criticized it, some old line
conservatives criticized it. And then Kevin Roberts, Kevin Roberts, who
is the CEO of the CEO of the Heritage Foundation
now of the Heritage Foundation, came out with the video

(12:35):
basically defending Tucker.

Speaker 2 (12:41):
You know.

Speaker 1 (12:41):
He introduces the video by saying, there's being circulation that
there's been speculation that Heritage is distancing itself from Tucker
corson over the past twenty four hours.

Speaker 2 (12:52):
This is post interview.

Speaker 1 (12:54):
I want to put that to rest right now. Here
are my thoughts. And he has this two and a
half minus a video.

Speaker 2 (13:01):
And it's it really is horrific.

Speaker 1 (13:09):
Basically says that Heritage will stand by Tucker Colson no
matter what.

Speaker 2 (13:15):
The taker. Carson is a.

Speaker 1 (13:18):
Friend of the Heritage Foundation, and whatever he does, Heritage
Foundation will stand with him. Ultimately, there is a bigger
enemy out there, and that is.

Speaker 2 (13:28):
I wonder if you know, do you know what the
bigger enemy out there is? The left?

Speaker 1 (13:34):
And that that is what it's important and given that
Tucker is against the left, they will stand with him.
And he goes into a whole thing about how the
Heritage Foundation hates is very against anti Semitism and and
fights against anti Semitism, and on and on and on,
and he even says that he views and Nick for

(13:56):
Intance's views as apporent but he thinks they need to
be a they need to be platformed, they need to
be spoken of. And he talks about this, you know this,
Uh what do you say? He calls it this h

(14:17):
venomous coalition. Uh, that is that is going out, you
know that that is attacking for interestin Tucker calson, I mean,
who are these people exactly? Maybe Jews. It's just a
horrific statement. And he starts out the whole thing by saying, look,

(14:42):
we support Israel and so on, but we should be
we should be willing to to attack and critique Israel
without being anti Semitic. He declares that Christians can critique
the state of Israel without being anti Semitic. Yeah, nobody
says you can't. I mean, Tucker Cousin in this case

(15:09):
was not under fire for criticizing Israel. He was under
fire for platforming an anti semi a Holocaust denier, a
somebody who supports and thinks Hitler is cool and believes
in white Christian nationalism White Christian nationalism. The question isn't

(15:36):
whether one can criticize Israel or not, although Kevin Robinson
could be the out of it. The question is is
it okay to platform and therefore give access to your
audience of a known let's call him what he is,
a Nazi. It wasn't a debate about Israel. And indeed,

(15:59):
Nick Into his criticism of Jews goes far beyond this
support or perceiving this support of Israel. He hates Jews.

Speaker 2 (16:14):
And he is John.

Speaker 1 (16:22):
Aren't you tired of asking the same question over and
over and over again. I mean, I appreciate the super chat.
Five dollars is five dollars, and I'll answer it, But
this is like, I mean, clearly, this is the third
or fourth time you've asked this question. Is it your
attempt to get me to say the same thing over
and over again and thus discredit me in front of

(16:43):
some audience that you imagine exists out there that if
they just hear my opinion on this issue, they will
walk away from me. Is that what you're trying to do?
It pretty pathetic if you ask me so. Anyway, the
issue is not Israel. It's not Israel for Nick Fointis,

(17:05):
it's not Israel for Tacko Coulson. Yet Kevin Roberts wants
to make it all about Israel. Roberts defends in this
video Callson against quote the slander of bad actors who
serve someone else's agenda. Oops, we have a problem. Why

(17:27):
is that? Why is it doing that? Give me a second? No,

(17:51):
is that working? I don't know why? Why is that
not working? That's work either?

Speaker 2 (18:06):
Interesting?

Speaker 1 (18:10):
Ah, all right, they fixed it, all right, I think
this will work. We last video there for a minute.
I apologize. I think that works all right. Yes, that's working.

(18:31):
Who are these bad actors? And what is someone else's agenda?
I mean that is code word for Jews serving Israel's agenda?
I mean otherwise, name the actors and who's someone else's agenda?

Speaker 2 (18:53):
Again?

Speaker 1 (18:54):
The issue here is should somebody who the Heritage Foundation supports,
supposedly even supports financially. Supposedly The Heritage Foundation buys advertising
on the techer Calson Show. Now advertising on my show sponsorship.
My show is pretty cheap on Techo costs in a
cost seventy five thousand dollars per ad, I guess. And

(19:14):
they've done a lot of ads, so they're spending a
lot of money, a lot of donor money on advertising.
That's supporting Tucker Calson and Teker Colson is platforming this,
you know, horrific monstrosity called Nick Frantis. Is this a

(19:37):
good use of heritage money? The fact that he is
supporting Techer Cosson. No matter what, facing a cancel culture,
the whole cancel culture is. It's a package deal. It's
a meaningless concept in terms of actionable right. Some people
should be canceled, some people should not. The complaints about

(19:59):
cancer culture when it came to the left were not
about the principle of that it's okay to not platform
certain people, it's okay not to platform certain people. We
shouldn't platform people who are evil, but that people were
being canceled for innocent things that they said. People were

(20:20):
being canceled for saying the truth, or at least things
that were within the mainstream weren't crazy. Being a white nationalist,
being an anti Semite is really really really really really.

Speaker 2 (20:35):
Good reason to cancel somebody. Anti Semites.

Speaker 1 (20:41):
And white nationalists and racists more broadly should be canceled.
They should be de platformed, They should not be given
a platform despout they hatred their lives. So now I

(21:08):
want to give you a context for this, So let
me Yeah, I mean, of course, this is his explanation.
American people expect us to be focused on our political
adversary on the left, not attacking our friends on the right.
Wait a minute, So Tucker Calson is a friend on
the right, Tucker Calson who has.

Speaker 2 (21:30):
Spent months.

Speaker 1 (21:32):
Attacking Israel and Jews, not the left, but Israel and Jews.
He's your friend on the right, Tucker Calson, the platforms
is Nick Fourentis and Ian Carroll and all kinds of
other uh, you know, horrible despicable anti Americans.

Speaker 2 (21:51):
He's your friend.

Speaker 4 (21:56):
Uh.

Speaker 2 (21:57):
Tucker Colson, by the way, who.

Speaker 1 (21:58):
Joined the interview with Nick fisc went in a whole
monologue about the worst people in the world are the
zion Christians and attack people like Mike Cocabe and Ted Cruz,
who are part of the right, I think, and generally
evangelical Christians who support Israel, who.

Speaker 2 (22:13):
Tend to be in the coalition on the right.

Speaker 1 (22:15):
I think he doesn't spend anywhere yeah, as much time
attacking the left, and yet he is your friend on
the right, in the coalition to attack the left. Now,
I want to give you some context. Right, The Heritage Foundation,

(22:39):
you know, has been historically the bastion of conservatism. The
Heritage Foundation is one of the first think tanks that
was founded, and it has been the policy shop for
conservative presidents for.

Speaker 2 (22:54):
Decades and decades.

Speaker 1 (22:58):
I think the founder of the Heritage Foundation, the people
who founded it, would be I mean, one of them
at least just passed away over the last couple of years.
I got to meet him and spend a lot of
time with him a few years ago. I think would
be horrified by Kevin Roberts and what he said. I
think would be horrified by Tucker Carlson, would be horrified,

(23:21):
certainly horrified Bennik Foyantis. Now they were not from my perspective,
good guys. The Heritage Foundation was very much established on
a foundation of Christianity, on the foundation of religion as
the basis for America. Heritage Foundation was always compromised when

(23:43):
it came to free market, but it employed a lot
of people who were pretty good, pretty good on farm POLSI,
pretty good on economics. There was some free marketers at
the Heritage Foundation. He trundition I think lost its way.
Really from the beginning, it stood for nothing because it

(24:03):
stood on the.

Speaker 2 (24:04):
Foundation of mysticism.

Speaker 1 (24:06):
If you stand on the foundation of mysticism, you're not
going anywhere, and you can defend yourself. Ultimately, you can
defend yourself against the Nippoynticis of the world. Christianity is
not a foundation to defend America, to defend reason, to

(24:26):
defend individual rights. So ultimately it's not that hard to
be captured by the Tucker cousins of the world. In
spite of that, I think the founders would be horrified
by Kevin Roberts and what he said. The Heritage Foundation
took a real turn when it basically became an institution

(24:48):
that became part of America, first, became part of Trump's
supported Trump unequivocally. It became it was always anti immigration,
but became even more so became anti capitalism.

Speaker 2 (25:10):
The free marketers who worked at Heritage.

Speaker 1 (25:12):
Left, and this bastion of conservatism basically became the bastion
of trump Ism, bastion of MAGA, and as deteriorated sense.
And of course I think part of that is well
now it's now it's so committed to MAGA that it's
willing to tolerate and willing to platform and willing to

(25:34):
support people who platform the worst vile, racist, anti semites
that they are out there. How much Trundation is huge.
Its budget is I think one hundred million dollars a
year used to be. I mean, we're talking about an
institution that raises It's a nonprofit organization that raises tens

(25:56):
of millions of dollars every year. I wonder what fundraising
is like right now. Because there's been a big backlash
against this, as you can imagine from those, you know,
Christian evangelicals who are supporters of Israel, Ted Cruz, Mitch

(26:16):
McConnell in the Senate have come out strongly to denounce
Kevin Roberts. Some employees at Heritage have said they find
Kevin Roberts's statement horrific. Former employees of Heritage have come
out and denounced Kevin roberts statement. I mean, even in

(26:44):
itsimate communication.

Speaker 2 (26:46):
Kevin Roberts is that have leaked.

Speaker 1 (26:49):
Kevin Roberts is trying to defend his position and refuses
to acknowledge the issue, which is the continued partnership of
Heritage with Tucker calls a Stucco, calls was anti American
propaganda from Putin, from Qatara, from Iran, makes fun of
Christians who are from Israel's right to exist slanders Israel

(27:12):
and platforms Nazis and supporters of Nazism, and Heritage Foundation
continues the partnership with him and Kevin Roberts just ignores it,
ignores all of that, pretends it doesn't exist. One wonders,
what does Tuck I have on Kevin or you know
how many people on the Board of Heritage, the new
board of Heritage are now, you know, part of that world,

(27:39):
that world of you know, anti Semitism, that world of
anti Americanism. Supposely there's a staff rebellion. I don't know
if there is at the Heritage Foundation. People are resigning,
people are threatening to resign. The rumors there's a board
meeting yesterday that by a small margin allowed Roberts to

(28:07):
maintain his job, keep his job. But it's not clear
on the other hand, you know staff at the Heritage
Fundation or senior people the Heritage Foundation come out and
said nonsense, there was no board yesterday. There was no
board yesterday. Although a lot of people are calling for
his dismissal, his aid chief of staff, who actually wrote

(28:33):
the text that he read on the video, his comments
and Tucker Carlson and for intance, he is being demoted
and he's been replaced the chief of staff. So Kevin
is blaming him, I guess for the comments that he made.
The video was still up. He hasn't taken it down.

(28:57):
But there seems to be a rebellion insight Heritage. There
seems to be objections to this. This is really shaking
up the conservative movement to the extent that there is
a conservative movement. Yeah, the chief of staff was reassigned, reassigned,

(29:18):
and Kevin Roberts came out with an email announcing announcing this.

Speaker 2 (29:26):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (29:27):
I mean, the reality is that Heritage is subsidizing Tucker Calson.
And it's not just it's not just this latest of
interviewing frantis, what about the Carol interview? What about his
support for putin Heritage used to have a pro American
foreign policy. I guess not anymore. Its relationship with Taker

(29:49):
Culson is more important, or maybe Heritage is onto something.
Heritage realizes that the right its support is I've moved
on from the kind of old line conservatism which supported America,
the funding Fathers, the Constitution, somewhat free markets and things

(30:12):
like that. Even those they're willing to give up. Now
it's much more in line with supporting Putin or you know,
a star Coacosa said the other day, Shariello is not
that bad supporting Katar over supporting Israel. That's a there's
a there's a.

Speaker 2 (30:32):
Uh, you know, Kata Kata versus Israel. Who should you support?

Speaker 1 (30:36):
That's a tough one. Huh. So it's going to be
really interesting to see how this shakes up. You know,
the Heritage Foundation is part of some kind of consodium
around anti Semitism. Well, some of the other members of
that consodium are leaving saying they will not participate together

(31:00):
that with Heritage around antisemitism when Heritage supports you know,
raving anti Semite in Taco Cassa.

Speaker 2 (31:13):
So this is this is going to be interesting.

Speaker 1 (31:17):
Right, the right, without any doubt now is becoming antisemitic
and racist. It's Charlottesville one. So we go back to
when when was Charlottesville twenty eighteen, twenty seventeen, twenty eighteen. Well,

(31:39):
Charlotte are the people at Charlotteville one the Altright is winning.
They are basically the most energized, most consistent, most principled
force on the right. They couch their anti Semitism as
being anti Israel. But here's an example. Let me see

(32:01):
if I can find this.

Speaker 2 (32:04):
This is a question that jd Vance was asked.

Speaker 1 (32:09):
Jd Vance was doing a turning point, a kind of
a Q and A at the University Mississippi. Right, this
is the kind of Q and as that Charlie Coke did. Anyway,
jd Vance was stepped in to play Charlie Coke for this,
and so he was there of field questions for students
for nearly an hour.

Speaker 2 (32:26):
It's just great good for him.

Speaker 1 (32:28):
Every vice president should do this, and you can see,
you can see their true character when they do this.
And a student stepped up and said the following, I'm
a Christian man, and I'm just confused why there's this
notion that we might owe Israel something, or that they
are are greatest ally or that we have to support
this multi hundred billion dollar found aid package to Israel

(32:50):
multi hundred billion dollar following pages or we'll get to
that in a minute. I'm just confused why this idea
has come around concerning the fact that not only does
they religion not agree with ours, but also openly supports
the prosecution of ours. So Jews openly support the prosecution
of Christians. So you can see here how the anti

(33:11):
Semitism Jews support the openly support the prosecution of Christians,
which is complete bs is buried under the lead, Well,
why are we supporting Israel?

Speaker 2 (33:23):
Why should we support Israel? What's the point of supporting Israel?

Speaker 1 (33:25):
Which is how they constantly hide their ane to Semitism.
I mean, this is a question fundamentally attacking Jews and
Judaism or whatever right and using Israel as an excuse
for that. And what does JD. Van's response? He says,

(33:46):
you know, America First doesn't mean abandoning alliances but leverage
them for US gains. So just because what America first
doesn't mean we shouldn't have allies, you know, he points
out that the United States, it is not a patsy
of Israels and the Trump has used this leverage over
Israel to achieve a Gauza sease fire. He uh, you know,

(34:09):
he thought that it was okay for Christians and Jews
to collaborate, and.

Speaker 2 (34:17):
He never said anything about the fact that Jews.

Speaker 1 (34:22):
Do not promote the prosecute, persecution and prosecution of Christians.
He never addressed underlying anti Semitism. He let it just stay,
and he is not. He's not confronting it, and he
knows he can't confront it because if he does confront it,

(34:47):
he loses. He loses the Nick Foy Intis crowd, which
is now hundreds of thousands, if not millions strong, and
he needs them if he wants to run for president.

Speaker 4 (34:59):
He needs them, all right, fuck?

Speaker 1 (35:39):
I mean otherwise named the actors and who's someone else?
Agen Again, the issue here is should somebody who the
Heritage Foundations supports advertising that's supporting Tucker Carson?

Speaker 3 (36:19):
Alright, one second, we're looking to see where the stream is.
If there is a stream, God, when is it offline?

Speaker 2 (37:44):
All right?

Speaker 1 (37:44):
Sorry, those of you on podcasts, give me just a
little bit to see if I can re engage the
stream on YouTube. One second, let's see h h h H.

Speaker 2 (40:43):
All right, everybody. Uh, I am back.

Speaker 1 (40:47):
I Uh god, I probably spoke for ten minutes without
even realizing that it was frozen and uh we had dropped.

Speaker 2 (40:57):
Uh and no, no.

Speaker 1 (40:59):
I've got an eck cancel that. I apologize for that.
The the I don't know, hotel WiFi. We didn't pray
enough for the hotel WiFi gods to help us here.

Speaker 2 (41:10):
So I'm not sure where it ended.

Speaker 1 (41:13):
But let me, let me, let me make a wider point.
I mean, the reality is the reality is that. And
I and by the way, I have captured all your
super chats, so we will we can and will cover
all the super chats. I uh, let me just make

(41:36):
sure that I.

Speaker 2 (41:46):
Right.

Speaker 1 (41:46):
So we will capture all the sup We have captured
all the super chats, so we think should be fine.
All right, So I apologize for the job. But you know,
it's the hotel. Whatever the hotel did, this is what
it is. It ended when the Heritage Fundation sponsored Tucker.
The Heritage FUNDI sponsor to Tuca, as I said, for

(42:09):
for in spite of the fact that Tucker platforms for interest,
but more than that, inspite of the fact that Tucker
is supportive of Putin you know, it gives us Katari
talking points, is anti American in so many ways, has
abandoned any respect for for for freedom, free markets, anything

(42:30):
like that.

Speaker 2 (42:31):
Colton has become a joke, a crazy, nutty joke.

Speaker 1 (42:37):
He's expressed anti Semitic, explicit anti semitic views himself. In
addition to and in addition to what to platform unique pointers,
Tucker Cosson has become an embarrassment, and yet Heritage Foundation
sponsors his show through advertising it. Of course, has now

(42:57):
declared explicitly that he is one of them, that he
is their friend, that he will always be part of
the coalition as they fight the left.

Speaker 2 (43:10):
But here's the thing that's you know.

Speaker 1 (43:12):
Really really important and important to note. The right does
not have the tools to stand up just like the
left does not have the tools to stand up to
their extreme manifestations, if you will. They do not have
the tools to stand up to the racist and anti Semites.

Speaker 2 (43:32):
They do not have the tools to.

Speaker 1 (43:35):
Stand up to the white nationalists or the white or
the national the Christian Conservatives. Indeed, one of the great,
one of the great, one of the sad things that's
going to come out of the national conservative movement is
that the National Conservative movement was the large extent founded
by an Israeli, a Jew, a conservative Jew, a Yamica

(43:58):
wearing conservative Jew.

Speaker 2 (43:59):
But then Razoni who have debated.

Speaker 1 (44:02):
And that the National Conservative movement is going to be
a breeding ground for ultimately Christian Conservatives and ultimately anti
semit conservatives. That is, a national conservative movement founded by
an Israeli Jew is going to be a place where
they where Ultimately the worst enemies of Israel and the

(44:31):
worst enemies of Jews are going to be prevalent now
of the right, not the left obviously, but still, I mean,
if the world takes seriously the national conservative agenda, you
will get these nationalists and nationalist governments that ultimately will

(44:53):
turn against the Jews because the Jews don't belong in
those nations.

Speaker 2 (44:58):
According to them.

Speaker 1 (45:02):
They have no tool to stand up against them. Once
they've accepted Once your own Marazzoni has accepted collectivism, has
accepted tribalism, well he doesn't get to choose which collective wins,
which tribe wins, and what the attitude of that tribe
is towards his own tribe, Jewish tribe. Tribalism. Once tribalism accepted.

(45:29):
You've accepted irrationality. Once tribalism has been accepted, you've accepted
the negation of freedom. And the conservatives Heritage Foundation, certainly
because of because of the Heritage Foundation, you know, has

(45:55):
joined the tribe around Mega and around Trump. It has
nothing original, nothing interesting, nothing of value to really say.

Speaker 2 (46:11):
So what is the defense of regular.

Speaker 1 (46:16):
Conservatives, of of of of the current conservative movement against
Nick Foyants? And just to be clear, you know, I've
now watched a bunch of Nick Cooins videos. I find
it really weird that any of you find him entertaining
or worthwhile or willing to watch any of his stuff.

(46:48):
He is a slimy monster. He you know, he could,
he could. He has the kind of view that made
Hitler Hitler. He's a Nazi, and yet people tolerate him,
people pursue him. Now, It's true some people are pushing

(47:12):
back against Nick foy inters and te Carcasson, but they
have no leg to stand up. What is the argument
against Oh, they'll call him an anti semi, but they
can't defend individualism. They can't talk about what this country
is really about, what this country actually stands for. I

(47:32):
mean here we have somebody here, you know, nine people,
million people of Israel are the most important thing to
America and Americanism in Yuron's mind. When have I ever
said anything that resembles that I've done whole shows on
what America is and Americanism without mentioning Israel once. Israel's

(47:52):
not important when it comes to discussing the future of America.
What's important is America. It's founding principles they're founding for others.
What's important is the Declaration of Independence. They give amen
a created equal endowed with inalienable rights. The only reason

(48:18):
I talk a lot about Israel is because it's in
the news. I mean, Trump talks about Israel all the time.
Is that because Israel matters to him more than anything else. Right,
I don't need this guy's lying, all right? So there

(48:52):
is no there's no basis for them to defend against
m These white nationalists, these fascists, they have no basis
to do it because they don't understand the foundation on
which this country is built. They cannot talk about individual rights,

(49:15):
they cannot talk about individualism. They certainly do not talk
about capitalism. I mean, there was an interesting exchange the
other Day by J D. E Van's Jad Evans was
filling in for Charlie Cook at a Turning Point USA.

(49:36):
He gets asked the turning Point USA event, he gets
asked the question, here's the question. I'm a Christian man.
Notice how this is always the case. This is the
case with war Beef who is.

Speaker 2 (49:51):
Making comments on the chat.

Speaker 1 (49:54):
They argue that it's all about Israel, but really what
drives it as hatred of Jews, anti Amotism. So here's
what this young person says. I'm a Christian, Matt, and
I'm just confused why there's the notion that we might
owe Israel something, or that there are greatest ally or
that we have to support this multi hundred billion dollar
foreign a package to Israel. We'll talk about that in

(50:15):
a minute. I'm just confused why this idea has come around,
considering the fact that not only does their religion not
agree with ours, but also openly supports the prosecution of ours,
openly supports the prosecution of Christians. Where is that? Where
is this openly supporting that? Is there any evidence of that?

(50:36):
I mean, clearly antisemitic, clearly driven by hatred of the
Jews and a claim about their religion. Does Stucker Callson
confront sorry, jd Vance confront that. No, he goes into
a whole spiel about we're not beholding to Israel and

(50:56):
America first, doesn't mean we don't have alliances and Israel.

Speaker 2 (51:00):
Sometimes he's an ally and sometimes not, and that.

Speaker 1 (51:02):
Trump really twisted Nintoniello's arm in order to get this
peace deal.

Speaker 2 (51:07):
So Israel does what we tell it to do, and.

Speaker 1 (51:11):
You know, and then he argued that there are theological
difference between Christian and Jews, but they don't preclude collaboration
here and there on matters of common concern. Nothing about
Jews persecuting Christians, which is just a fantasy. And you know,

(51:35):
he doesn't want to piss off people. I mean, he
doesn't want to piss off Nick Foynter's supporters. That's what's
driving him, the need to keep them part of the
coalition so that he can get the nomination next time

(51:58):
and they support him. I mean jd Vance can't talk
against them. I mean, he can't even defend his wife. Indeed,
I think in the same Q and A or maybe
it was in another place, I'm not sure. He says
that he's hoping that his wife who's Hindu. I think
she's Hindu, converts to Christianity because Nick Foentis on a

(52:27):
regular basis on the show, goes after JD. Vance and
says that Jadvans is married to a brown woman and
that's not acceptable and he can never be allowed to
be president of the United States because his wife is
not white and she's not a Christian.

Speaker 2 (52:45):
So JD.

Speaker 1 (52:45):
Vance against wants their peace. Who does he want at peace?
He wants to peace. The worst element that Nick Foentis
and his gropers by telling them, oh, no, no, no,
she's going to become a Christian. Don't worry, she's going
to convert. I mean, basically, Maga relies now on Goiper's

(53:10):
and more and more the Conservative Party, more and more
the Republican Party is going to rely on Nick Foyantes
and is going to be accommodating of Nick Foyenttis's views.
Remember the German Conservatives really pushed back against Hitler for

(53:35):
a while, and they accepted Hitler. They thought he was
a joke, they thought he was repulsive, they thought he
was awful.

Speaker 2 (53:43):
They really opposed him.

Speaker 1 (53:45):
But it was a marriage of comedy convenience, and they
supported him. Out of convenience. You remember why, because they
had a common enemy. Oh what was the common enemy
with conservatives? And then and and Hitler was the common
hem Oh.

Speaker 2 (54:01):
Yes, the left. And of course once they let him in,
he had the energy behind him.

Speaker 1 (54:10):
He had young people behind him, he had millions of
followers behind him, he had people who'd marunch in the
streets for him, and soon enough he controlled it. So

(54:41):
I mean, I think the real fear here is basically
the complete takeover of the Republican Party by the Nick
for Inticis of the world. That the Conservatives and the
Republican Party are going to become a party of Christian Conservatives,
white Christian Conservatives, racists and anti Semites and wrapped around

(55:09):
religion and wrapped around a flag. Of course, Nick Fointis
makes his case constantly about it's all about America. First,
he attacks Jews for having dual alliances, because he claims
that Jews all have dual citizenship. Very few Jews have
actual dual citizenship, and lots of people have dual citizenships.

Speaker 2 (55:33):
Brits have dual citizenship.

Speaker 1 (55:35):
Europeans have many more dual citizenship than Jews do than Israelis,
and yet it's only the Israelis, the Jews dual citizenship
that there's a problem. So I don't know. I don't
know what comes of this country. I don't know what

(55:57):
comes of the Republican Party. We have now the Democratic
Party uh running an anti Semitic uh is Islamist socialist
mayor for New York. And we have the Republican Party
probably running a a uh you know, anti Semitic Christian

(56:21):
Christian nationalist for for for.

Speaker 2 (56:23):
Presidents next time in JD. Evans.

Speaker 1 (56:27):
And we have the Heritage Foundation, the bastion of old
line conservatism, basically or not basically just endorsing Tucker Carlson,
who then platforms and and in his silence and his
lack of opposition, endorses the worst kind of Nazi supporter
in Nick Foents. By the way, this one's kind of funny,

(56:51):
but Nick Foyents has recently, uh you know, come out
in favor of Gavin Newsom. In he said, if there
was just to give you a sense of this, if
there was an election between Gavin Newsom and JD. Vance,
he and the Gropers who would support Gavin Newsom because

(57:13):
Gavin Newsom is white, his wife is white, his kids
are white, and JD. Van says, a brown wife and
brown kids, and that's not acceptable. That can't be in
the White House. So they're willing to support a leftist
just in name of their name, of their.

Speaker 2 (57:37):
Racism.

Speaker 1 (57:41):
I think Richard Hanani is right. He says the total
grop pification of the GOP is nearing its completion. You
saw the emails, the text messages of the young Republicans
spouting Nick foyentis like views when talking among themselves.

Speaker 2 (58:01):
Why is this happening?

Speaker 1 (58:03):
I mean again, because I think old line Republican ideas
kind of went bankrupt with Bush.

Speaker 2 (58:11):
They went nowhere.

Speaker 1 (58:12):
They were unprinciple, they were completely pragmatic. Trump opened up
this opportunity for the goypers, for racists by declaring so
called America first and then kind of winking and you know,

(58:33):
and the good people on both sides, kind of attitude
towards the worst elements among his supporters and being embraced
by MAGA, which turned into a conspiracy theory, crazy nutty.
You know. I won't call it an ideology because it's
not really an ideology. Trump is legitimized they alt right.

(58:58):
He's legitimized the race is right. He's legitimized all of them.
If somebody like Trump with his character can be supported
by conservatives, think about that. I mean, conservatives supporting a philandering,
you know, just a horrible, lying human being, somebody who's

(59:24):
you know, by conservatives stand has been divorced or three times,
had many affairs, talked about grabbing women by there and
all of that, and conservatives are just yeah, okay, Christian
Conservatives are just like, yeah, fine, we're electing this guy.

Speaker 2 (59:42):
They've opened up the door to anybody.

Speaker 1 (59:49):
They've opened up the door, you know, Trump by the
Conservatives now willing to tolerate anything as long as they
beat the left. They supported Trump because he could beat
the left. And Nick foytis nick foyintis is anti left,
at least they think he is. I'm not sure about this.

(01:00:10):
Gevin knew some stuff. But Trump has opened up the door.
The supporters of Trump had opened up the door. His
wink win, everything is okay, don't worry about the racism.

Speaker 2 (01:00:27):
Has opened up the door.

Speaker 1 (01:00:28):
Charlottesville opened up the door to the worst elements on
the right dominating the Republican Party.

Speaker 2 (01:00:33):
And that's what you're seeing.

Speaker 1 (01:00:34):
You're seeing the slow domination of the Republican Party.

Speaker 2 (01:00:43):
They control it.

Speaker 1 (01:00:47):
Their hatred of immigrants is now manifest on the streets
with ice.

Speaker 2 (01:00:55):
The hatred of Jews.

Speaker 1 (01:00:57):
Is manifest every week on Tucker Carlson Show. Remember Charlotteville
was the as they marched.

Speaker 2 (01:01:09):
It was Jews.

Speaker 1 (01:01:11):
Jews will not replace us, Jews will not replace us.
And yes, Trump did say something out of half, you know,
something about the neo Nazis, the horrible.

Speaker 2 (01:01:22):
New Nazis out there. But he also said the good
people on both sides, which if if.

Speaker 1 (01:01:29):
You're not if you're still confused about I did a
whole show on it, so find my show on Charlotteville
and watch it where I analyze line by line the
entire speech by Trump, including his condemnation and including his
the nice people. You know, this is this is what
has led open up the door to these types. And

(01:01:51):
again there's no defense, there's nothing conservatives can say to
defend themselves against this. On the right, they've always been
a little racist. Now they're full on racists on the right.
They've never really completely trusted the Jews. Now the full
on anti semitic on the right. They've never embraced capitalism.
Now they're full on statists.

Speaker 2 (01:02:14):
On the right.

Speaker 1 (01:02:14):
They've always endorsed a little bit of Christianity in politics.

Speaker 2 (01:02:19):
Now they're full on Christian Christian nationalists.

Speaker 1 (01:02:25):
As I Ran said, when you compromise with evil, only
evil gains, only evil wins. And creating a coalition in
bringing racist anti Semites into the tent, only they can win,
only they can win.

Speaker 2 (01:02:47):
And they're winning.

Speaker 1 (01:02:49):
They are winning, There's no question about that. There's the
voices I see standing up against you know, against this, uh,
you know old Lincoln's servatives that a losing losing the
big battle. You know, Taker Colson has many many more
followers than they Inde Nick Foindess probably has more followers
than I don't know, Michael Levin or David Hassani or

(01:03:13):
some of these others. David Assani writes Vance's answers yesterday
were despicable. I'm not sure why Jews appraising him. He
let a questionnaire, questionnaires vile smear against American Jews go
completely unchallenged, only assuring him that Trump didn't let Israel
pull pull the US into a world war, as if

(01:03:36):
that's what it wanted. Imagine some dopey kid going off
on how the Pope secretly pays off all US politicians
to create open border policies and illegal invasions, and then
the Vice President tells him not to worry. The President
has dashed the Pope's plan. Vanceys Tucker's boy, and everyone
understands it, which is why so many of these people

(01:03:57):
won't criticize Tucker. Yep, it's it's pretty bleak. I want
to say one thing about this kid's accusation. And you
see them for intus, and you see it in Tucker
Colson that the US gives is so much money. So
let's look at the facts, right, Let's look at the

(01:04:19):
actual facts. The US provides as were worth about three
point eight billion dollars in military aid each year, zero
economic aid. It used to be thirty years ago that
the US gave Israel economic aid. It gives it no
economic aid. Three point eight billion in military aid. Around
three point three of that billion three point eight is

(01:04:40):
in grants that have to the only way they can
use them is to purchase US US weapons, So all
that money comes right back to American manufacturers of weapons systems.
And another five hundred million is in corporation on missile
defense programs. You know the various shields that Israel has,

(01:05:05):
which of course the United States benefits enormously from as
it is trying to develop its own missile defense program.
It's sharing all the information that Israel has on its
experiences with missile defense systems. Now, this is a significant amount.
Three pointy billion dollars is nothing to sneeze at. It's

(01:05:29):
just under five percent of total US aid budget military
plus economic, and itso point zero six percent of the
total federal budget. It's not hundreds of billions of dollars,
which is what the kid claimed and JD. Vans never corrected.

Speaker 2 (01:05:46):
The US.

Speaker 1 (01:05:47):
Just to give your context, the US gives the United
Nations fourteen to sixteen billion dollars a year. The United Nations,
which is horrifically anti American, gets fourteen to sixteen billion.
Israel gets zo point eight. Now, again, the three point

(01:06:07):
three billion is all spent on purchasing American equipment. American equipment.
Then Israel uses like F thirty fives. Israel not only
users F thirty fives, but it actually makes changes to
their thirty fives. It adjusts the F thirty five to
its own needs, and then it uses their thirty fives.

Speaker 2 (01:06:26):
It puts them into combat.

Speaker 1 (01:06:30):
According to I think it's Lockheed Martin that builds the
f thirty fives or north of north of I can't
remember which one. According to them, the benefit that they
get from the fact that Israel uses this plain on
a regular basis, it is worth tens of billions of

(01:06:55):
dollars of research and development that they do not have
to do because Israel is actually doing it in practice
and giving them the data the information.

Speaker 2 (01:07:06):
On top of.

Speaker 1 (01:07:06):
That, Israel provides the United States with massive intelligence intelligence
about terrorist organizations, about Islamist activities, about other countries in
the Middle East that the United.

Speaker 2 (01:07:19):
States isn't interesting.

Speaker 1 (01:07:22):
Various Year's officials have estimated that America, in order to
replicate what Israel provides them in terms of intelligence, would
have to spend between fifteen to twenty billion dollars a year.
So the United States gets back much, much, much, much
more than it gives Israel. It's not even close. And

(01:07:47):
yet they keep popping on this. This is the thing
that bothers them, which a clear indication that something else
is driving this. It's not Israel that really bugs them. Now,
let me be very clear, I don't think the United
States should give Israel anything. I think Israel would continue

(01:08:08):
to shame intelligence. And I think Israel could afford this
three point eight billion. Maybe it's you know, the five
hundred million that is co development of the missile defense system.
That makes sense, but the three point three billion, the
United States should stop giving Israel. Israel doesn't need it.
It's a rich country and it should get richer. It

(01:08:29):
needs to get richer. Its own self defense requires it
to get richer. But it all should stop giving. I mean,
you should stop giving Israel aid. Maybe, you know, hopefully
Israel continues to give the intelligence, but more importantly, it
will stop being a leverage that the United States can

(01:08:52):
use in Israel. It'll stop being leveraged that anti Semites
can use against Israel. You know, I think give Israel
a freer hand to determine its own affairs. And I
don't believe that America should be handing out money to countries.
There's absolutely no reason I think the United State should

(01:09:13):
stop supporting Egypt and Jordan and all the other countries
in the Middle East that it sends dollars to more
than it sends to Israel, and it gets very little
in return for that money, but it's a drop in
a bucket, and America gets a big return on that investment.

(01:09:33):
I think it would get a lot of that anyway,
because Israel will continue to buy F thirty five, continue
to give the manufacture the information they need, I think,
will continue to provide the United States with the intelligence support.
But let's just get rid of this issue. But basically

(01:09:53):
the United States stopping to support financially these rate lyings,
there's just it's not necessary. How is it going to
get into giving you some quotes from Nick Foyentis, but really,
you know it's unnecessary and frantis it talks about Jews

(01:10:13):
being demons that are destroying this country. He advocates killing
them all, at least the Jews that are demons. Maybe
the Jews that are not demons don't need to be killed.
It's not clear. He he thinks Hitler is awesome, that
Hitler was right, that the Holocaust never happened. I'm not
sure what Hitler is right about if the Holocaust never happened.

(01:10:36):
Because Nick Foyentis agrees that a Holocaust.

Speaker 2 (01:10:38):
Should happen, he wants to kill them.

Speaker 1 (01:10:40):
Now. I mean, this is scum, This is scum. If
they have the was come, this is scum. He says. Quote,
when we take power, the Jews will be needed to
be given the death penalty. I'm formal considered about that
than non white people. So say he hates Jews more
than he hates black people. In other words, anyway, the

(01:11:09):
idea that you would give this person a stage, that
you would introduce him to his audience, that you would
not challenge everything that he says. The idea that Tucker
Carlson is embraced by people like like the Avitage Foundation.

Speaker 2 (01:11:29):
Is this despicable.

Speaker 1 (01:11:30):
One last thing I want to say again in the
way that Trump supports all this and is supportive of
the whole kind of racist, white nationalist agenda. Whether he
himself is a racist or not, I do not know,
but you know, we know the Miller is even though
Miller is Jewish, I guess, but he's supportive of all this.

(01:11:56):
The United States declared at the end of last week
that it was restricting them out of asylum seekers to
the United States the seven five hundred.

Speaker 2 (01:12:06):
Now I'm supportive of that.

Speaker 1 (01:12:07):
I don't think the basis for coming to the United
States should be seeking asylum, and I think the basis
should be can you get a job?

Speaker 2 (01:12:17):
But here's the thing.

Speaker 1 (01:12:20):
The one group that the Trump administration explicitly has said
a welcome as asylum seekers. The one group that they're
encouraging to come to the United States as asylum seekers.
One group white South Africans of Afrikaners descent. So we

(01:12:43):
don't want brown people being persecuted by the Venezuelan government,
we don't want brown people being persecuted by the communist
regime in Cuba. We don't want white people escaping gangs
in Guatemala or other places in Latin America. And we
don't want black people escaping violence in most of the
countries of Africa. We want white people in Africa who

(01:13:08):
supposedly are being being persecuted in South Africa. Whether they
are they're not, it's not the point. It's we only
want white people. That is the one group the asylum
that we're happy to grant asylum to. And so most

(01:13:30):
of seventy five hundred that have now been approved for asylum,
most of them are going to be South Africans Africanas.
Now it's not clear, it's not clear they're going to
be that many. That many Africanis want to leave South Africa.
But that's the one group that he's opened up. If

(01:13:51):
that's not just again appeasing the white nationalists, appeasing the racists,
appeasing the worst limits within the Republican Party. I don't
know what is by the way, just to give you
a sense, last year, the number of asylum seekers the
war proved or the ceiling was one hundred and twenty

(01:14:13):
five thousands. They've gone one hundred twenty five thousand to
seventy five hundred. That's a pretty big drop, which is
fine by me if they open up immigration from other sources,
which they won't. But it's the racist aspect of it,
and it's clearly racist. There's no other justification for singling
out white South Africans. Well, you know, somebody system surprises,

(01:14:38):
not Katari's what Kataries are not running away from anything
right there. The regime is super nice and super friendly
and that's what they want. So I support limiting refugees
and but else to support expanding work related visas, which
the Trump administration will not do.

Speaker 2 (01:15:00):
And I all support limiting the refugees.

Speaker 1 (01:15:02):
The white dudes, I know there's open talk of racial
hatred among certain people in the South African government believe me.

Speaker 2 (01:15:19):
I know.

Speaker 1 (01:15:19):
I mean, I have quite a few family members in
South Africa and they have the same skin color as
I do. So I know exactly what's going on in
South Africa, and I care about what's going on in
South Africa, and I worry about what's going on.

Speaker 2 (01:15:34):
In South Africa.

Speaker 1 (01:15:35):
And by the way, the South Africans get a lot
of money from Kato, and that is why they're so
wanta Israel and why they're the ones who brought prosecution
and the ICC against Israel for for it's the Katari
money is influence beyond the fact that they're leftists and
haters of Israel. Above and beyond that. Oh, old Greg says,

(01:15:59):
I'm not very are you well informed? Please tell me
what I'm not well informed? What I'm not well informed about?

Speaker 2 (01:16:09):
All right?

Speaker 1 (01:16:17):
Old Greg says we should not be a nation that
hosts ideological enemies. I agree, Nick Foyanti should be deported immediately.
So Shia Taka Carlson, he's our ideological enemy, so let's
get rid of him. I mean, I'm kidding, but you know,
because I don't think and I don't think that's what

(01:16:38):
Greg meant he's thus accusing me of misquoting. Uhis I paraphrased?
But I've watched the Nick foy iNTS videos and no,
it's very accurate. Nick Frantis is anti American. He is thoroughly, systematically,
through and through anti American. He is as anti American

(01:17:03):
as mum Danis. They are twin brothers in a sense
in their anti Americanism. He is as anti American as
the worst leftist. And he is the kind of person
that the funding fathers and really the people who built

(01:17:23):
this country would find abhorrent and despicable.

Speaker 2 (01:17:28):
And he is.

Speaker 1 (01:17:32):
He is again, he's anti American. He's not America first,
He's America last. And as most of the people who
declare themselves America first, they don't understand what America is.
They have no conception of Americanism. They have no conception
of what America stands for. America is the land of individualism.

(01:17:54):
Nick Foytis is a through and through collectivist tribalists. And
if you don't see that, then you don't have. You
can't think you've you've you've become uh part of the tribe.
And they folk can't think, God, you guys are such

(01:18:15):
some of you just.

Speaker 2 (01:18:17):
Ah, it's hard to believe, you know, this is the thing.
Maybe maybe I get.

Speaker 1 (01:18:23):
A a biased kind of in terms of people who
who follow me, but maybe it's because of the title
had four intercendent. But the people in my chat are
so horrific and an expend some of them the extent
that they are representative of what's going on in America.

Speaker 2 (01:18:42):
It is really horrifying.

Speaker 1 (01:18:43):
Now, again, it's probably not representative of what's going on
a lot of in most of America, but.

Speaker 2 (01:18:53):
Uh, it is. It is truly truly horrific.

Speaker 1 (01:18:58):
Thomas Jefferson is rolling in his grave thinking about, you know,
if he has any access to what is going on
right now. So, yes, frentis as anti American Tucker Colson's
anti American. They have no conception of what America means,
what America is. And the idea, the idea that the

(01:19:25):
Founders would have supported a anti Semite. You should you
should read, you know, George Washington's letter to the Jewish
community of Charleston.

Speaker 2 (01:19:34):
I think it was.

Speaker 1 (01:19:36):
You should you should look at what Thomas Jefferson had
to say about separation of state from religion.

Speaker 2 (01:19:41):
You should you should.

Speaker 1 (01:19:43):
Read what they had to say about individual individual rights.
This country was proposely not founded as a Christian country.
This is a country founded on secular values. This is
a country founded by deists, and it's some cases atheists
man of principle, not scumbags like Nick Foy. Inter's all right,

(01:20:11):
let's uh, all right, let's turn to your questions. We
have quite a few, Thank you guys. You guys are
being very generous today, and there are a lot of questions,

(01:20:33):
so we will cover them all as long as the
Wi Fi gods Wi Fi gods play along. All right,
Let's start with I thought I saw one hundred dollars question. Yeah,
there's one hundred dollars question. Got a bunch of fifty
dollar questions, Thank you guys. All right, let's start with dum,

(01:20:57):
where is it Michael? Who has one hundred dollars question?
All right, America is not founded on Christian values, has
founded in Enlightenment values.

Speaker 2 (01:21:11):
Has founded on values that.

Speaker 1 (01:21:14):
Relegated Christianity, relegated religion to your personal realm and keep
it out of the public square and keep it out
of government again. Read Thomas Jefferson. Read you know, read
the Statute on Religious Liberty and in the Virginia Constitution.
You guys who claim to be America first, should learn

(01:21:38):
a little bit about America and not from Christian national
sources that pervert and distort the founders and make them
into what they would like them to be. But read
the originals, Read the Federalist papers. Read Thomas Jefferson, you know,
look at what he read and what he studied. Look

(01:22:01):
at even John Adams. Look at who they respected, look
at what they believed in, look at what they.

Speaker 2 (01:22:06):
Stood for, and they.

Speaker 1 (01:22:15):
All right, Michael, thank you for one hundred dollars. Forty
percent of Trump's time is spent scheming for government manipulation
control to help his family business. Forty percent is spent
fixing problems he created. The remaining twenty percent is mostly
spent running around trying to garne a praise and attention
from others to fill his empty ego.

Speaker 2 (01:22:35):
I don't think he.

Speaker 1 (01:22:36):
Has to actually spend forty percent of his time to
manipulate things for his family business. I think that only
takes a small amount of his time. It's generated over
three billion dollars of profits for his family. So he
is by far the most corrupt president in American in
American history, and so you know he is. I don't

(01:23:01):
think he has to spend forty percent of the time.
It's true that he spends a huge amount of time
fixing problems. He's creating and creating more problems by fixing them,
so he's not really fixing them.

Speaker 2 (01:23:10):
He's just creating a whole sequence of.

Speaker 1 (01:23:12):
Problems on top of problems, on top of problems. You know,
we just got a trade deal with China. As I
told you beforehand that it wasn't a deal. It's not
a deal. It's just an outline of a deal, and
it's a truth. It's a cease fire for a year.
It doesn't give the United States anything that it didn't
already have. The United States benefits zero from this deal.

(01:23:36):
The United States was much better off visa vias relationship
with China before Trump started this whole trade war. The
United States is clearly losing the trade war. Every time
Trump meets with she, he gives in, he gives she
more stuff. So, yes, he spends a lot of it,
and all of it, including that is there to gone

(01:23:59):
a attention and praise. You know, he spends much of
his time claiming to have established the only piece in
the Middle East in three thousand years and then preventing
as well from actually destroying its enemies and.

Speaker 2 (01:24:18):
Holding them back. It really is, it really is.

Speaker 1 (01:24:24):
I mean, he really is pathetic. He really is pathetic.
But yes, Michael, thank you for the support. Really really
really appreciate it. On top of everything else that you do.

Speaker 2 (01:24:42):
I see that.

Speaker 1 (01:24:44):
Let's see, we have a robust debate going on in
my chat about jay Daiya is a complete rationalist, detach
from reality. You know, the idea that he won the

(01:25:04):
debate is absurd when he completely distorts and perverts the
concepts that he uses and refuses refuses to accept any
epistemology but his distorted epistemology. So a debate with him
is impossible because he wants to set all the terms.

(01:25:25):
But anyway, you know, I'm getting ignored the chat Iron Maycut.
It was fund seeing you in Krakou. Yes, met some
awesome people at the bar Ps Gaza de la Nada. Yeah,
I was still working on that. Yeah, it was good

(01:25:46):
to see you on Maycut. Thank you for being there,
Thank you for all your support. We had a great
event in Krakou about thirty five students at the University there,
it was awesome morality of capitalism. In between, I spoke
at the Feet Cities conference in Prague, had about one
hundred people in the audience, maybe more, maybe one fifty,

(01:26:08):
and I talked about did I what did I talk
about there? White freedom? White freedom? Why you should care
about freedom? And what's the purpose of freedom? Freedom is
not an end in itself. Freedom is a means to
an end and what is that end? Talked about self
interest and talked about happiness and it was good. It
pissed off a bunch of people. Dave, good to see you, Dave,

(01:26:31):
thank you for the support. Dave says, I love I've
loved for Cormo. Today. In my area there are many
Mamdani campaigners. I chatted with some and they're non nihilistic
like Antifa or ideological Marxist.

Speaker 2 (01:26:45):
They're idealists. Most of high income earners.

Speaker 1 (01:26:49):
Yes, that's what I suspect, with advanced degrees, that's what
I suspected, the delusional about how to achieve human flourishing.
But they're the type of crowd more likely to be
a sponsors to objectivism then the fascist boots and the right.

Speaker 2 (01:27:03):
I agree.

Speaker 1 (01:27:04):
I think that's right. They're typically software engineers or professionals.
They make a lot of money. A lot of them
live in Brooklyn, I know where you talk to them,
but Mamdani has a lot of support in the wealthy
areas of Bookland where these professionals live.

Speaker 2 (01:27:20):
And they are they're delusional.

Speaker 1 (01:27:24):
They be miseducated, dramatically miseducated since they were in kindergarten.
They don't understand capitalism, it's benefits. They have this, you know,
naive but also evasive view because they purposefully don't look
at it too carefully of socialism. And they don't like

(01:27:49):
Israel because they buy all the images of bombing babies,
and they have this vague notion that Israel has done
something hoppable to the Palestinians and Israel as strong after all,
something must be wrong, you know, they must have not
something bad to be strong. They bought, They bought into
some extent or another. They bought into the intersectionality argument.

(01:28:11):
They're altruists because that's all they've known, all they've known
throughout their life is altruism. So yeah, I agree with you.
They're not nihilists per se. The consequence of what they're
doing is nihilism and they are evasive. They do evade
in order to be able to vote for money. They
have to evade a huge amount not to have a jolgorithm.

(01:28:35):
Many on the left, however, wrong philosophically, still operate within
the framework of the Constitution. They act through laws and
institutions rather than by personal decree, which makes them substantially
less dangerous than the New Right. Yeah, I agree completely.
It's one of my arguments about voting for Trump, particularly
the second time, when it was clear that he was
going to be guided by the New Right, that he

(01:28:58):
was going to surround himself by the new Right, and
that he was dedicated to himself to breaking the system,
a system that he hates and despises. He has no
respect for the Constitution and he wants.

Speaker 2 (01:29:12):
To break it.

Speaker 1 (01:29:12):
And yes, at least the left will do a lot
of damage. But the left does damage within parameters that
are easily reversible because they do it within the parameters
of the law and the Constitution. They're not quite ready
to declare the Constitution irrelevant as Trump is. That makes them,
i think, less dangerous, even if in a short run

(01:29:37):
very very damaging.

Speaker 2 (01:29:40):
Not your average algorithm. If we fail to distinguish routine.

Speaker 1 (01:29:44):
People who follow the rule of law and people who
seek to rule by whim, you've already surrendered the ground
of principle. I agree.

Speaker 2 (01:29:51):
I don't believe you can defend Trump.

Speaker 1 (01:29:53):
And still label yourself an objectivist at this point, you know,
it depends how you defend it. Trump again, I have
some I have some tolerance. I have some understanding of
people in business who voted for Trump and might defend
certain things about Trump, and I have some understanding of that,

(01:30:17):
particularly before the election. I think since the election, Trump
is manifest the worst, you know, the worst possibilities is
as bad as the worst of what I expected. But look,
I don't I mean, the whole idea of calling yourself

(01:30:39):
an objectivist, and who calls himself an objectist that doesn't
conversect is not of interest to me. What really matters
to me is the truth. What matters to me is
are you a truth seeker? The question is, are people, really,
even the people who supported Trump, able to look at
him with any objectivity? Are they willing to see the
evil that's there even as they see the elements of

(01:31:01):
good that they think is there. I don't think there's
any good in Trump, but the elements of good? Can
they really you know, criticize them? So, for example, people
won't criticize Trump that I think is horrific and despicable.
But you know, I'm not ready to say everybody who

(01:31:25):
is elected, who voted for him, or everybody who supports
him in some way cannot be an objectivist. But again,
what is an objectivist? Co objectivist? I don't think you
know who you vote for. I don't think it's that
valuable to categorize people that way. But are you a

(01:31:46):
truth seeker? And therefore are you willing to not evade
and look clearly and objectively and rationally and what Trump
actually stands for and what Trump actually does?

Speaker 2 (01:32:00):
Andrew?

Speaker 1 (01:32:01):
Many anti Semites suffer from a motivation by hate? Is
that motivation by fear at the core? Do you blame
modern philosophy for the creation of the hatred? Still, despite
modern philosophical influences, don't they have a choice to be evil?

Speaker 2 (01:32:19):
Yes?

Speaker 1 (01:32:19):
I mean everybody out there is influenced by modern philosophy,
and some either rejected philosophy or they let it bounce
off of them, or it affects them its submoginal issues,
But they don't become haters, They don't let it consume them.
Do I blame modern philosophy, yes, I mean, you know,

(01:32:41):
it's if you want to understand the impact philosophy has
on people's lives in our politics, redominant powers down as powers.
Where doctor Peacock really explains the rise of Hitler from
the perspective of the ideas that were prevalent in Many
at the time and in the decades leading to his rise.

(01:33:05):
And if you look at America today and that's the
dominant powerlel the parallel is America. You see the same
ideas prevalent in our culture. So it is contient philosophy
and it's you know, post modern implementation, and it's combination
with religion that is leading to this modern form of

(01:33:29):
anti semitism because that all leads towards collectivism, that all
leads towards tribalism. And look, anti semitism is every collectivistic
culture out there is going to be anti Semitic, because
collectivism is all about my group versus all the other groups.
And however you define my group in any kind of nation,

(01:33:57):
the Jews are going to be the other. The Jews
are the other. In Germany, the Jews of the other
in America, and they're particularly an offensive other because they
are religiously different, they're somewhat culturally different. And now there's
this country called Israel that supposedly they're aligned with. They're
affiliated with that, you know, can you can blame them

(01:34:24):
for everything.

Speaker 2 (01:34:25):
That it does.

Speaker 1 (01:34:31):
So it is collectivism and tribalism that are on the rise,
and the consequence of that is antisemitism. Anti Semitism is
not the primary it is the consequences. By the way,
the more Christian you become, the more anti Semitic you'll become.
The reality is the Christianity is the origin of antisemitism.

(01:34:54):
It is the beginning of antisemitism. It starts with Paul,
and it starts with the church fathers. It starts with
the debates of the church fathers. Y you know about
the horrible Jews that do not accept Christ and what
should be done with them? And some other church fathers
some of the first original great theologians of Christianity basically

(01:35:21):
said Jews need to be killed because they won't accept Christ.
I mean it was Augustine, who was the moderate, who
said they shouldn't be killed, they should be kept alive.
To suffer so that everybody can constantly see what happens
to those who do not accept Christ. You know, the
Crusades were first and foremost about killing Jews, and then

(01:35:46):
we'll go to Jerusalem and kill them Muslims. But Christianity
is the source of anti Semitism, and it's the breeding
ground of anti Semtism. And therefore what you get is
as the country becomes more tribal, more collectivistic, and therefore

(01:36:08):
and more Christian, it'll become more anti Semitic.

Speaker 2 (01:36:12):
That's on the right and on the left.

Speaker 1 (01:36:13):
The anti Semitism comes from collectivism and altruism. So you know,
it's intersectionality. It's the fact that Jews are successful. It's

(01:36:34):
the fact that the same thing happened in Germany. The
Jews are successful, but they're the other, and they're scheming
against us, and they're bad, and therefore they must be eliminated.
And I think the same attitude exists today. Of course,
the Jews killed Christian killed Jesus. And notice that they

(01:36:55):
don't blame the Romans for killing Jesus. They don't blame
the Roman Empire for killing and that's purposefully done. You know,
Originally the Romans were blamed for killing Jesus. They were
the primary cause of Jesus's death. But then when the
Roman Empire became christian that is, when Constantine brought Christianity

(01:37:21):
into the Roman Empire, made Christianity a part of Roman identity,
then it didn't make sense for them to continue blaming
themselves for killing Jesus, so they shifted. You know, Pontus Pius,
the Roman was just a tool of the Jews. He

(01:37:46):
was just being manipulated by the Jews. And you know,
the Jewish clergy, the Jewish leadership, the Jewish establishment, and
they're the ones who actually killed Jesus. And of course
he was betrayed by jew but then most of all
of his followers were Jews. Right, he was a Jew,
but he was a Jew who led a new sac

(01:38:07):
who led a cult.

Speaker 2 (01:38:11):
And so that.

Speaker 1 (01:38:15):
Again, Christianity is very much the source of anti Semitism.
Jews might have been hated before that, but certainly all
forms of anti Semitism post Jesus are influenced by Christian
anti Semitism. So it's a combination of modern philosophy, kant

(01:38:37):
and post content philosophy.

Speaker 2 (01:38:40):
And Christianity and on the left.

Speaker 1 (01:38:43):
It's mostly secular post continent philosophy and Marxism. Marx was
an antisemity. I mean, Marx sounds like Nick Filantis. When
Nick Franis complains about capitalist Jews and Jewish greed, it
sounds exactly like Max. Call Max. It's as if he's
reading for Carl Marx's essay on the Jewish Question. Troy,

(01:39:15):
thank you. Troy just came in with five hundred Australian dollars.
Really really really appreciate that. Thank you, thank you, Thank you, Troy.
That is amazing. Yeah, all right, Harper Campbell, It's sad
to see the author of Dominus Parallels being exploited in

(01:39:38):
his old age and poor health by Trump psychopaths like
Dave Hammond.

Speaker 2 (01:39:43):
Oh, I like that.

Speaker 1 (01:39:44):
You call Dave Hammond a psychopaths. I think that's fitting
as a justification for their boot licking support of an authoritarian.

Speaker 2 (01:39:56):
Yeah. I think it's it's really really.

Speaker 1 (01:39:58):
Sad to see Dave Hammond associating with Lennar Peacoff. You
should have been Leonard should have nothing to do with Dave,
And I think a younger Leonard would have nothing.

Speaker 2 (01:40:10):
To do with Dave Hammond. It's really sad By.

Speaker 1 (01:40:16):
You said last show that we should teach the found
Head to our kids. Doesn't that mean you have to
marry an objectivist? What if your spouse wants to teach
your kids some collectivist book or religious book, then let
them that is, you know, then present the kids with
both sets of ideas and let the kids make a choice.

(01:40:37):
But to ignore the ideas that you hold, or to
ignore the ideas that your wife holds or your husband holds,
I think is wrong. So present them with both views,
present them with both ideas, and let the kids make
a decision instead of creating a vacuum.

Speaker 2 (01:40:55):
So no, you don't have to marry an objectives to that.

Speaker 1 (01:40:58):
If your spouse wants to once the present day views,
let them And again, all right, Chasbad has a correction,
and we're not burying the correction, right, Chasbad says important correction.
On the last show, I quoted Lieutenant Frank Drebben the
Naked Gun as receiving an award for killing one hundred

(01:41:21):
drug dealers. It was actually one thousand drug dealers. Oh,
so Trump has a way to go before he gets
the thousand drug dealers on those boats, because he's only
killing him one or two at a time, or two
or three at a time. So it's going to be
a while. A lot of boats are going to have
to be blown out out of the water for that
to happen. Yeah, we'll talk more about that on another show.

(01:41:42):
All right, Thank you, chezmun Now javj ago with him.
Trump doesn't even pretend to operate within a constitutional frame.
He treats the law as a tool of loyalty and vengeance,
not as a principle that binds every individual equally.

Speaker 2 (01:41:55):
Yes, I think that's true.

Speaker 1 (01:41:57):
But more than that, he treats the law as as
an obstacle to achieving his goals. He treats the law
as an obstacle to be overcome given the goals that
he has. He doesn't treat the laws as principles to
guide social action, principles to guide the limitation on government.

(01:42:23):
On the contrary, he finds the Constitution and the laws.

Speaker 2 (01:42:27):
Too limiting of him.

Speaker 1 (01:42:28):
Will see in the arguments in front of the court
around tariffs how that plays out. Trump doesn't want to
be limited by all these laws and the Constitution and
the Supreme Court. He finds that offensive, Michael. As much
as Trump advises one fascist control over the economy. Does

(01:42:49):
Trump p betferre a strong stock market he can take
credit for, because you can't have both. The one thing
preventing our economic enslavement is Trump's narcissism.

Speaker 2 (01:42:59):
I think he wants he wants both.

Speaker 1 (01:43:01):
And look, he's got all these tariffs and the stock
market's doing fantastic. Now, whether we'll continue to do fantastic,
How long the stock market could stay as high as
it is, I don't know, But yes, Trump wants us
a good stock market, wants a good bond market. He
wants lower interest rates, and he wants control over the economy.

(01:43:21):
And he can't have everything at the same time. And
there's polls and tugs and it's but a lot of
it's out of his control. He doesn't actually control the
stock market.

Speaker 2 (01:43:30):
So if.

Speaker 1 (01:43:32):
There's a significant correction in the marketplace, in the stock market,
what's Trump.

Speaker 2 (01:43:39):
Going to do?

Speaker 1 (01:43:39):
I mean, I don't think he'll have much control over it.
I don't think there's much he can do one way
or the other, even if he wants a successful stock market.
Very few presidents to do. Somebody says all criticism of
Israel is any Semitic. There's no legitimate cored Israel. That's

(01:44:01):
not true. I criticize Israel all the time. There's absolutely
legitimate criticism of Israel. There's a lot of things Israel
does badly wrongly, Paul, How do sanctions against a country
actually work? How can executive branch issue sanctions? Can other

(01:44:24):
countries sanction US sales? Yes, sanctions work by for example,
we freeze the bank accounts of Russian oligarchs, so they
can't withdraw the money from their bank accounts. The bank
cannot release the money to them, cannot release the money
to anybody.

Speaker 2 (01:44:43):
It's just fozen in place.

Speaker 1 (01:44:45):
And you know other countries can do that to Americans
who have money in their banks. You know, America took
the yachts of saying and I Russian oligogs, so the
things like that. Now, it's part of understanding is and

(01:45:08):
I'm not expert on this, but understanding is that there
are laws that give the executive branch the authority to
extend sanctions in other countries. For example, they're not allowed
to buy wheats from you're not allowed to buy some
product from country acts. For example, you can't you can't

(01:45:29):
buy Cuban cigars. I think that's stupid. But you can't
buy Cuban cigars, right, that's illegal. That's a form of sanction.
So it's just a banning of a particular product from
a particular plays, and I think the executive their laws
that have given the executive the power to do that
as part of their responsibility for pharm policy. The oceanist

(01:45:53):
collectivism is easy. It's easier to blame an other for
your personal shortcomings. Absolutely, a lot of these people, whether
left or right, are insecure and will blame the immigrant
or the billionaire for their faults. Yes, so yeah, I

(01:46:17):
mean that's absolutely the case. But I don't think that's
the source of collectivism. I don't think that's where collectivism
actually comes from. Collectivism collectivism doesn't come from blaming the other.
Collectivism comes from, you know, a lack of self esteem,

(01:46:39):
a lack of confidence in one's own judgment, and again
the philosophy, the ideology that one's own judgment doesn't count,
that one's own life doesn't count.

Speaker 2 (01:46:49):
It comes from altruism.

Speaker 1 (01:46:50):
It tells you that you should sacrifice for others, and
if others are more important than you, that's collectivism, right.
Collectivism is that others are above you. The group, whatever group,
some group is more important than you as an individual.
That the source of that is lack of self esteem.
The source of that is a distrust of your own

(01:47:11):
capacity to think and reason. And the source of that
is a morality that tells you, and that you buy
into that says that your happiness, your success, your flourishing
is not important. What's important is other people, and you
should you are just a sacrificial lamb for their sake.
Well which other people, Well, you have to choose a

(01:47:32):
group to sacrifice too, and that becomes your collective, that
becomes your standard, that becomes your guide. It's driven by
altruism and anti reason. That's what drives collectivism. And then
once you form a collective and you're still unhappy and
you're still miserable, and you're still all of that, then
you turn against the successful other and you blame them

(01:47:54):
for your failings, just as you describe. But that's kind
of a consequence, is not the motivation? Andrews says, what
is the significance of wanting to belong to the majority
group as a motive among Christian collectivists? If JD stayed
an atheist, he could not have become a prominent statement

(01:48:17):
and adorned by an adorned by so many as he
is now.

Speaker 2 (01:48:23):
I don't know. I mean, I think I.

Speaker 1 (01:48:26):
Think this is truly an intellectual transition for Jdvance. I
don't think this was motivated by his desire for power.
I think when he became a Christian, he was not
yet contemplating politics. And we know the influence that made
him Christian, and that influence was somebody he respected. It was.

Speaker 2 (01:48:46):
Peter Teel.

Speaker 1 (01:48:47):
Peter Teel who is a Catholic but a kind of
a quirky Catholic, and introduced him to this theologian that
Todd at Stanford, and I forget his name, but that
influenced Peter Teel, and he influenced Jade Vance and then JD.
Evans ultimately converted to Catholicism. But I don't think that trend,
that whole process, and that transition were motivated by a power.

(01:49:09):
I think it was motivated by maybe a need to
belong to a group. But again, it wasn't a need
to belong to a group because he wanted power. It
was a need to belong to a group because psychologically
he wanted to belong to a group. It also is
true that unless you have self esteem and unless you
have a strong sense of values that you know, for

(01:49:33):
some people, atheism is empty. Atheism is empty. Atheism is
just a negation of God. It's not pro anything. And
I think Jadvans was looking for something and part of
it is social and part of it is intellectual. But
I don't think the primary was political. I don't think

(01:49:53):
the primary is political. Yeah, all right, Roland support from

(01:50:15):
my fellow leftist extremists. That's me, a leftist extremist rogers.
Thank you, it says, thank you. I think you are
just thank you for the support.

Speaker 2 (01:50:23):
John.

Speaker 1 (01:50:23):
Okay, this is the question he asks every few weeks.
Long term, what's the greatest threat to Europe? Christianity or Islam? Christianity.
Islam is the short term threat. Islam is what will
allow Christianity to rise UH and UH and become UH
and become a real threat. It is the response to the

(01:50:44):
Islam that the Christian nationalists in Europe will have, that
is the that is the worst threat to Europe. Uh.
This is why UH, it's important for for secular Europeans
to deal with most Now, if secular Christians deal with
if secular secular Europeans deal with a Muslim problem now,

(01:51:09):
then they will take away the impetus for the rise
of Christian nationalism in Europe. So radios as I says,
long term threat to Europe is nihilism. Yes, but nihilism
can come from the right or from the left right,

(01:51:30):
it can come from Christianity, or from you know, leftist.

Speaker 2 (01:51:37):
Crazies, all for that matter, from Muslims.

Speaker 1 (01:51:44):
But I think that, as I often said, Europeans will
some point wake up to the Islamic threat if the
Islamists get violent, and will wipe them out, and then
the process turn Europe fascist.

Speaker 2 (01:51:59):
And that I think the long term threat.

Speaker 1 (01:52:02):
Michael, has the right always been racist, They just a
point in political dominance where they can stop hiding it.

Speaker 2 (01:52:09):
I don't know if they've always been racist.

Speaker 1 (01:52:10):
I don't think so, but certainly the Civil rights period
was a turning point. You know, a lot of the
states that were racist, a lot of the South were Democrats.

Speaker 2 (01:52:23):
A lot of the people who were.

Speaker 1 (01:52:25):
Racists in the nineteen sixties were Democrats, and they were upset.

Speaker 2 (01:52:32):
Those Democrats were upset.

Speaker 1 (01:52:34):
By the Democratic Party supporting the civil rights movement. They
were upset by liberal Democrats coming down to the South
and supporting black in a sense of emancipation and equal
rights for blacks. And that was Nixon's Southern strategy. It

(01:52:55):
was to capture them, to convert them to those racists,
to convert them to a Republican party. And they became
a part of the Republican Party. And it looked like
for a long time, I'd say, from the mid seventies
until the mid twenty teens, that the racism had been suppressed,

(01:53:17):
that generally whites had become a lot less racist, that
racism was in decline, and it was fading from America.
And I think that it was just buried, but it
was always there, and it has come out of its
hiding place and has been legitimized. And again I think
that Trump did a lot to legitimize it and to
make it acceptable to come out onto the surface. Jennifer says,

(01:53:49):
what is Zion isn't supposed to mean doesn't mean a
safe place like Israel for Jews to live, or doesn't
mean a collectivistic Jewish state. It seems to be used
in different ways. I think it means different things to
different people. For some people, it means a collectivistic Jewish state,
and there's definitely a lot of collectivism in Israel. I
I criticize Israel all the time. I left Israel because

(01:54:12):
of how collectivistic a state it was. But I think
the b the the more positive UH interpretation of Zionism,
and I think Zionism as intended by its founder, Theodore Hertzel,
was a state for the Jews, not a Jewish state.
A state for the Jews is a refuge for Jews,
a place the Jews can go to, a liberal country

(01:54:35):
that did not discriminate against other others. And Israel does
not discriminate against Arabs, Christians, against Jews, a a against Muslims.
It does not discriminate against them. So it gives them
equal it gives them equal rights. So it's not in
that sense in ethno state. The only sense in which
the the the collectivism UH or the the the Jewishness,

(01:54:57):
if you will, comes in is an immigration policy. That is,
Jews can immigrate to Israel freely. It's open boaders for Jews.
Others can't. They can still immigrate, but it's very hard
and the numbers are small, so it's close to non
Jews for the most but not not exactly. I mean
you could see in the in the hostages that Hamas

(01:55:19):
took on October seventh, some of them were Nepalese, some
of them are tie These are people who come to
work in Israel. You know, my parents have two helpers
who live with them. One is from Subri Lanka and
one is from India. Neither one of them is Jewish,
and they're going to live in Israel for a long time.
They make money and they send it back home. So

(01:55:44):
you know, Zionism is not Again Theodo Hutze would have
viewed it as a refuge for Jews, a state in
which Jews are safe, but not a Jewish state in
a sense of Jewish law. And I think to all
you say Israel is that there are people in Israel

(01:56:04):
who would like to make it a Jewish state, who
would like to eliminate any separation of state from religion
and discriminate against Muslims and Christians. But I think it's
still true that the majority in Israel are pro some
form of separation, not complete, but a significant form of
separation of state from religion and equal rights to all religions.

(01:56:26):
And in that sense, again, I view Israel as a
state for Jews, not as a Jewish state, and I
think the difference between those two is important. I just

(01:56:49):
criticize Israel. Does that make me an anti Semite? I
don't know, all right, thotionist. How long until the right
abandons Trump? An open secret that Tucker hates him and
for intus is very critical of him. Well, I don't
think that'll abandon Trump because they view Trump as a
vehicle to get their way, so they will stick by

(01:57:09):
Trump as long as Trump is there. He is a
way to get them. Jdvans, Tucker Coulson and Jdvans are
good friends. And while the points is not supportive of JD. Evans,
maybe he'll be brought around by Tucker Caulson. Whoever becomes
the nominee of the Republican Party, Nick fo Inis and
Tucker Carlson will have a lot of say in who

(01:57:32):
that person is. They view Trump as a vehicle and
he served He's been a very good vehicle for them,
so they will continue to support him as long as
he's that vehicle that gets them what they want. Liam
are Republicans better locally than nationally. Republican governors tend to
run their states better than democratic governors, but when they
run the federal government, they fascism emerges.

Speaker 2 (01:57:54):
Well, I mean, you're generalizing.

Speaker 1 (01:57:56):
I think the reality is that the governors, most of them,
not all of them, but most of them are more
mainstream conservatives and less Maga. Now there are some mega
governors out there, and there's some real problems in those states.
You know, there's there's there's real evil in Texas and
in many of the Southern states when it comes to

(01:58:17):
things like abortion, for example, real evil. You know, they
do some good things and then they do some really, really,
really bad things. So what does it mean that they
run their states better? In what sense?

Speaker 2 (01:58:32):
Economically? A lot of these Southern states.

Speaker 1 (01:58:35):
Are super poor, super poor with really horrible educational attainment.
So right, so I'm not convinced that Republican governors are better.

(01:58:57):
I mean, in some states they are, but they tend
to be like Jolkin's in Virginia. He's a pretty moderate Republican, right,
and he's not He's not Maga. The former governor of
Georgia not Maga. I mean, I think DeSantis is in
Florida is this mixture. He's got some good things and

(01:59:18):
he's got some really bad things in Texas. There's some
really bad things and some good things. So it's it's
it's a mixed bag. Governors. Republican governors are mixed bags.
And it's not clear that past Republican presidents were fascist

(01:59:40):
or even that most Republican senators as such. But most
Republican senators have decided that they're going to support Trump
no matter what that that is. That is cowardly of them,
but that is the reality. Harpercampbell, will you be exposing

(02:00:02):
Harriman before the New Year's Eve show? I don't know
how much money will you give me? I don't know.
I don't think so. But there's no I mean, no rush.
I like numbers. People like Mark Levin on the right
are pushing back against for intest, Yeah, but they have
no Ultimately, they have no following, they have no base.

(02:00:26):
Isn't the lesson that you can have more influence on
the right by being part of it? I don't understand
that at all. I mean, who has more influence on
the right by being part of it? I mean, and
who wants to be part of it? Why would you
want to be part of a right that includes Nick
Foy intis? And does that Why would I mean, if

(02:00:50):
you if you have actional ideas, wouldn't your wouldn't your
audience see right through you that you're training those ideas
by being in a coalition with Tucker Casson and Nick Fourentes.

Speaker 2 (02:01:04):
How could you have integrity?

Speaker 1 (02:01:05):
By being in that coalition, you lose all credibility, James,
the GP is maybe ten to fifteen years away from
being an explicit Nazi party anti semitism and racism and
being successfully mainstream.

Speaker 2 (02:01:20):
Listen to JD.

Speaker 1 (02:01:21):
Vans at the Turning Point USA and the other day
talking about fundamental differences of Christianity and Judaism, the error
of Judo Christianity values over well.

Speaker 2 (02:01:30):
And I think that's good.

Speaker 1 (02:01:31):
Because it was always it was always unreal Judo christian
values as if they were good or as if they
were the.

Speaker 2 (02:01:39):
Same, then they're not.

Speaker 1 (02:01:41):
But I agree with you now, I don't think the
GP is going to become Nazi. I don't think it
will be explicitly Nazi. But I do think the era
of Christian nationalism, which is what Leonard predicted in Dim.

Speaker 2 (02:01:54):
Is upon us.

Speaker 1 (02:01:55):
And it's a matter of yeah, ten fifteen years before
we have full on with him helping a party is
a full on Christian nationalist party.

Speaker 2 (02:02:03):
It's right there.

Speaker 1 (02:02:06):
Henry Allen, in his dim book Peacock predicted Christian Sotulitanism
taking over.

Speaker 2 (02:02:11):
Have you spoken to him about this what's going on today?

Speaker 1 (02:02:15):
Does he know about Project twenty twenty five and fu Intas?
I have not spoken to him about it. I haven't
spoken to him seriously about politics. I think since twenty twenty. Yeah,
I think around twenty twenty was the last time we
had a serious political philosophical discussion. So no, as I said,

(02:02:40):
we haven't talked about it. Does he know about Project
twenty twenty five or Funtas? Look Leonard gets I think
at least last time I talked to him, you know
about this? He got most of his news from Macklevin
and the New York Post. It's the extent that they
covered it. He would know about it. And Macklevin is
pushing against Nick Foyenttis, but I think Mark Levin is

(02:03:03):
probably minimizing the significance of Nick Foyenttis and his influence
among uh on the right. And I don't know how
much talk it was a Project twenty twenty five, so
I don't know how much Leonard knows about either one
of those things and to what extent it sinks in
or it's the full implication and manifestation of those things

(02:03:24):
sinks in or has been explained to him by anybody. Again,
the only people, the only person I can think of
who might have done it is Mark Levin. But Mark
Levin is very mixed on these things. He's not mixed
on nickfoy Inis. But his criticism is going to be shallow,
and he is not going to emphasize how influential Nickfoorentis is.

(02:03:45):
He's going to downplay that thochanist. Yeah, Azrael controls the US.
That's why in the eighties US Marine stopped Israelis from
going to Parts and be roots. Just don't look up
how the locals thank the Marines.

Speaker 2 (02:04:05):
That all is a little confusing, you know.

Speaker 1 (02:04:11):
Yes, it was Ronald Reagan who stopped Israel from going
into West Bay Route and finishing off yes Ralpha in
his in his fighters and the Marines were deployed, and
of course the Marines were killed to undred forty four
Marines were killed in their barracks by what became Risbala,
by the Iranians and Chris Bala, But yeah, Israel does

(02:04:38):
not control the US Visuel control the US.

Speaker 2 (02:04:42):
Israel would have. Israel would not have been stopped in.

Speaker 1 (02:04:46):
Nineteen seventy three from finishing the job versus the Egyptians.
Israel would not have been stopped in Beirut in nineteen
eighty three. Israel would not have been stopped to kill
Yes or Alpha In during the second d the fat
in the early two thous thousands, and Isaul would not
have agreed to the cease fire which prevented it. You know,
is this close to going in and occupying Gaza and

(02:05:09):
slowly dismantling Hamas. The whole war that it's prosecuted against
Hamas was to lodge extent done based on American rules.
Clark says, I don't think Nick Frite, this is a
real person. This creature has mastered trolling to find art.
He must be secretly amazed by how far he's come. Probably,

(02:05:32):
but he's come far, and he is real. And you know,
in either case, the phenomenon is real, his following is real,
and it's scary. Michael is Israeli is so intense and
rude because of trauma from the Holocaust and constantly fighting wars,

(02:05:55):
or because they're more intellectual and have absorbed content. Collective
is philosophy. Deeply, I don't think either one of those
is true. I mean, I think they're they're more intense
and you know, I don't know that they're rude. Part
of that is an intensity because they live in a

(02:06:17):
region that's constantly a war. They don't have time for nonsense.
They just wanted to get on with things. They don't
like standing in the queue. They don't like standing in line.
That's part of it. Yeah, I mean there's suddenly an
element of the collectivism. There's certainly an element of you know,

(02:06:38):
a zero some mentality that comes from years under socialism.

Speaker 2 (02:06:42):
That is part of that.

Speaker 1 (02:06:43):
But a lot of it has to do with But
it's also you know, people in the Mediterranean are like
this heat generates a certain i don't know, a certain
type of energy when you live in a hot place.
It's also because it's a kind of a melting pot

(02:07:04):
of so many different cultures.

Speaker 2 (02:07:05):
I mean, people think of.

Speaker 1 (02:07:07):
Oh, it's a a mono culture place because they're all Jews,
But these Jews have come from all corners of the world,
and they being with them much of the culture of
the places they left. So it is really a multicultural place,
and it's a it's a melting pot of places, and

(02:07:27):
you get this class of cultures within Israel. It's very
much alive even today. Uh. And that's what people don't understand.
People say, oh, it's it's it's uh. They don't believe
in multiculture. Not in the countrary. It's it's unbelievably multicultural.
There are Skenazi Jews from all parts of Europe. There's
Fogging Jews from Northern Africa, the Jews from Iraq and

(02:07:50):
Yemen and and and Ethiopia. You know, black Jews with skin.
That's it's it's completely black. There are Jews from Central
Asia from who's Bikistan and Afghanistan and areas like that.
The Jews from India. They're even Jews that were born

(02:08:11):
in China. They might not be Chinese, but they were
raised in.

Speaker 2 (02:08:15):
China and they bring a lot of that, you know.

Speaker 1 (02:08:19):
And the Jewish cultures in each pace were different, The
ceremonies were different, the passages, you know, the holidays were
celebrated differently, they didn't. So it's a very much a
place of mingling and again a melting part of different cultures,
and that's part of the intensity.

Speaker 2 (02:08:39):
I think, Andrew.

Speaker 1 (02:08:43):
The low character of these Conservatives stands out, the rankdous
honesty and lack of integrity, the pettiness and meanness. What
is to gain if they lose their soul on that
they ignore Christ? Yeah, I mean these are not smart people,
the manipulative people, just like Trump. These are people that
have embraced Trump, who's got the characteristics the character of

(02:09:08):
a mafia boss as president of the United States, just
that it brings them to such a low state that
everything else just seems Yeah, it doesn't seem that difficult, right, So.

Speaker 2 (02:09:26):
Yeah, so the.

Speaker 1 (02:09:38):
You know they are the Conservatives have become I mean,
they support a man who is inhaeritly dishonest and has
no integrity, So why would they have any Trump has
brought down the Republican Party to his level, and that's
what you're getting, Michael. What do you think of Ron DeSantis?

(02:10:09):
I don't think what he's done to cater to MAGA,
but Florida is thriving and he is a very smart,
competent leader. Paving the way in property tax abolition. Yeah,
I mean the property tax abolition is not as good
as I originally thought it was.

Speaker 2 (02:10:23):
It's not for second homes.

Speaker 1 (02:10:25):
It's up to certain level, so it's not as good
as I thought it was, but it's good. It's cutting
taxes catas to MAGA in all kinds of ways. There
was something that Florida just did was just horrific. You know,
they banned artificial meat, all kinds of stupid things. So
he's a real mixed bag, a real mixed bag who

(02:10:46):
I think has not lost some of the better ideas
the conservatives used to have, but it's trying to mingle
it and integrate it with MAGA and what is left
as a mishmash.

Speaker 2 (02:11:01):
Liam.

Speaker 1 (02:11:01):
How does Malay compare to Pinochet in terms of economic reforms.

Speaker 2 (02:11:06):
I think they're very similar.

Speaker 1 (02:11:08):
Pinochet went further partially because he was a dictator and
he could. But Pinochet didn't believe in any of their reforms.
Pinochet wasn't the driver of their reforms, the drivers of
the reforms of the Chicago Boys. Pinochet gave them the
economic rains out of desperation, not out of a not
out of agreement, out of any kind of sense of

(02:11:31):
free markets. Milay gets all the credit for what he's done.
Pinochet does not a pinochet again. Gave it out of
his sense of desperation. The economic reforms are deep in Chile,
but also they did them over a longer period of time,
so Milay is just starting. We'll see what happens over
the next to the ten years before we compare them. Right,

(02:11:58):
Jacob submitted the green card application from my wife last week.
I hope JD and his supporters feel five times the
anxiety what we had to go through. Yeah, I mean,
that's just horrible that it's so difficult, just horrible. Hopefully
it goes smoothly and congratulations Liam. Mathematical concepts part of

(02:12:20):
objectives to reality, objective reality like a perfect circle. Concepts
like infinity are important in mathematics, but don't seem to
correspond to reality. That's right. So, I mean mathematical concepts
are concepts, are abstractions. They you know, those abstractions can

(02:12:46):
can be understood in terms of things in reality, like
like circles, and you can imagine what a perfect circle
is versus circles. And but so mathematical concepts are abstractions
of things in reality, yes, but are they all of

(02:13:09):
them objective reality?

Speaker 2 (02:13:11):
No?

Speaker 1 (02:13:12):
I mean some are on, some are not right. So
infinity doesn't think there's no such thing as infinity. I mean,
this is a great question for Harry Binswunger, who's done
a lot of work in the philosophy of mathematics. You know,
some mathematical concepts are but relationships. Some mathematical concepts, you know,

(02:13:34):
correspond to mathematics. I mean, ultimately it's all reducible to reality,
but it requires multiple steps because some mathematical concepts of
high level abstractions, but all of them are reducible to
phenomena in reality.

Speaker 2 (02:13:51):
Michael.

Speaker 1 (02:13:52):
While both left and right hate the Constitution, they use
it when opposing party is in power to limit their
power freedom by act and convenience rather than principle.

Speaker 2 (02:14:02):
Yes, absolutely so.

Speaker 1 (02:14:04):
They're both use the Constitution to the extent that it
supports their agenda, and they'll be mad at the Constitution
to the extent that it restricts their ability to.

Speaker 2 (02:14:14):
Do the things that they would want to do. Crypto fanatic.

Speaker 1 (02:14:20):
If economy and state are separate, should incorporation laws exist, Yes,
just like marriage laws should exist. And there's a bunch
of others. It's just a shorthand for contracts. Incorporation could
exist without without incorporation laws, but incorporation laws and.

Speaker 2 (02:14:39):
Unefficient mechanism. And given that.

Speaker 1 (02:14:44):
These particular types of contracts are going to be adjudicated
in courts, in state courts, a standardized format for them,
it is a huge advantage. So having incorporation laws makes
a lot of stense. It also makes sense that they're
at the eight level, and there's some competition between states
in terms of what incorporation laws each state has, and

(02:15:06):
corporations can move from one to the other and then
and then the courts interpret them. So yeah, absolutely, you know,
there's nothing statist or interventionist about incorporation laws. They're just
setting a particular type of contract that people can either
use or not use. They can try to form different

(02:15:28):
types of corporations with different types of contracts, and you
can know incorporation laws. That would be fine. Michael, since
America is there's's only ally, doesn't continue I have to
bow down to Trump.

Speaker 2 (02:15:42):
Well, if he.

Speaker 1 (02:15:43):
Thinks that Asrael's that that is true, that it's an
only ally, I'm not sure that's true. But if he
thinks that's true, and if he thinks that, Trump will
will several relationships with his roll, or penalize him significantly
if he, you know, doesn't agree with him.

Speaker 2 (02:16:06):
I don't think that will happen.

Speaker 1 (02:16:07):
I don't think Trump will just say if you don't
do what I tell me, tell you, we're going to
walk away. Now, that might happen one day, but I
don't think America is in that position right now. So
I think Natagniel has a lot of leeway to say
no to Trump if he wants to, because Trump on
the stands, or at least people some of the people
around Trump at the stand that America needs his roll.

(02:16:35):
Michael says, can he try and get on Logan Paul's podcast.
He's had Peter schiff On and interviews all the famous
people who've moved to Puerto Rico. I mean, I guess
I'm not famous because he has in contact with me.
But I will try, so I will flag that and
I will try. Though sheanist. I know it was a

(02:16:56):
while ago, but tucka covering the Russian Grocery Store of
my of Michael Moore's coverage of Cuba excellent comparison. Absolutely,
I didn't think of it when I talked about Tucker's
covering the grocery store. But you're absolutely right. The parallel
is striking, all right, Crypto fanatic. Do you think any

(02:17:19):
forms of infrastructure like Rhodes Bridge's airport's ports, rail, electric
good pipeline d DA DA DA DA should be government
owned at all or all be private? All be private?
I think they should all everything should be private. I
mean a few military bases and a few buildings that
the government needs in order to run things.

Speaker 2 (02:17:37):
That's it.

Speaker 1 (02:17:37):
Everything else should be private. And even though it should
probably be private and least of the government Tom having
more than one passport is not a bad thing. Patriotism
does not mean you should only have the ability to
live in one country thoughts.

Speaker 2 (02:17:53):
Yeah, I mean, I think that's absolutely right.

Speaker 1 (02:17:55):
You can be a patriot and also realize that a
your country can can go bad pretty quickly and you'll
want to go somewhere else. You can be a patriot
and still want the convenience of having a separate passport
that allows you to travel easily.

Speaker 2 (02:18:10):
Through other countries and around the world.

Speaker 1 (02:18:12):
An American passport, for example, today, is not a particularly
good passport. A lot of countries around the world require
Americans to get visas, having you know, some of European
Union passports are much much allow for much easier movement
around the world without visas, And a lot of the

(02:18:33):
reason countries put visas on Americans is because America puts
visas on them, so they reciprocate. So yes, I think
getting a second or third or fourth passport is all
good and should be encouraged, even if you're a patriot Enrick.
Rather than left and right coalescing on environmentalism, they look

(02:18:54):
to be coming together on anti semitism. Shall we soon
find from both parties anti Semitic leaders and president? You know,
I still think that anti Semitism as a phenomena is
that the fringes and the margins. It's millions of people,
but it's not it's not the mainstream, and we'll see

(02:19:14):
if it gets mainstreams. Whereas I do think I envymelism
is mainstreamed. And we saw that when.

Speaker 2 (02:19:21):
Maga freaked out over the idea that.

Speaker 1 (02:19:26):
One of the senators had to privatize federal land in
the West and use it for development, particularly for housing,
and MAGA freaked out, as did the environmentalists, and they
showed that they're very environmentalist. And I think in environmentism
is still much more of a mainstream topic. We'll see
how all of this evolves. We'll see how all of

(02:19:49):
this evolves, and how big the anti Semitism becomes, and
how widespread it becomes, how mainstream it becomes. It's definitely
being mainstreamed into the Republican conservative movement in Tamaga. But
whether it grows beyond that, we'll see. Peter, Christian nations
in history, Fankish and Holy Roman Empire, Calvin's Geneva, Cromwell's England,

(02:20:14):
precisely what the founding fathers repudiated. Yes, they were rejected
all of those. All of those they rejected the and
they rejected and were really upset by the religious wars,
the thirty year ward one hundred year War, Protestants and
Catholics killing one another. You know, they suddenly rejected Calvin's

(02:20:38):
Geneva and the persecution of of people who had different
notions of Christianity. Absolutely, Peter Greek agree with you completely, Andrew.
Love is stronger than hate if created by oneself by
rational means. Is they even such a thing as altruistic love,

(02:21:00):
love through self sacrifice? No, I don't think there's such
a thing as altruistical love. I think to the extent
that people love, to that extent, they are being self
interested and people are compartmentalized and mixed, But to the
extent that they love, they're being self interested. All Right,
We've got a few remaining and then I need to

(02:21:20):
get to bed, and pokey, Why is the moral always
the practical? What is the link between the two? And
are their cases? You can think of? Whether this does
not hold?

Speaker 2 (02:21:35):
No, I mean I think it holds.

Speaker 1 (02:21:40):
It holds in irrational society, and over the long run,
it doesn't hold in an irrational society. Necessarily, sometimes the
moral can can can can lead to death and destruction,
and in an irrational world dominated about irrationality. I mean,

(02:22:00):
it's it's I'd have to give a long answer, and
I don't have the voice, but I'm losing my voice,
and I don't have the time for it, and I'm
and it's late, but I'll say this. I mean, where
does morality come from? How do we learn moral truths?

Speaker 2 (02:22:20):
We learn moral.

Speaker 1 (02:22:20):
Truths by by two processes. Fundamentally, one is identifying the
nature i e. The practical nature of man?

Speaker 2 (02:22:31):
What is man? How does man function in the world?

Speaker 1 (02:22:36):
And that's how we get he's a rational being and
reason being, you know, a cardinal value, and you know
what makes it possible for man to live successfully in
the world, which is an empirical, inductive you know, evaluation.

(02:22:57):
So when it looks at the world and see rationality,
reason is man's means of survival. It just you know,
you see that that's an inductive truth and reason both
logically requires, for example, honesty because reason requires fact fact facts,

(02:23:18):
but also when one observes in reality, honesty works and
dishonesty doesn't.

Speaker 2 (02:23:25):
So the whole way in which the objective's morality is
derived is by looking at what works.

Speaker 1 (02:23:38):
And here what we mean by what works is what
leads to human survival. So them all in a sense
is derived from the practical. It's derived from, you know,
looking at the world, observing reality and figuring out what

(02:24:11):
right and wrong is. What right is is that which
leads the human flourishing. What's wrong is that which destroys it.
So you know, it's built.

Speaker 2 (02:24:26):
In the mall is the practical.

Speaker 1 (02:24:27):
The practical is the mall is built into objectivism.

Speaker 2 (02:24:37):
So the irrational.

Speaker 1 (02:24:40):
We can observe is impractical, and part of the reason
it's evil is. I mean, it's evil because it's impractical,
because it leads to bad outcomes for you as an individual.
So it's it's circular in essence impoquy. Should a defending

(02:25:07):
nation ever take any precautions to avoid civilian casualties in
a case where the cost is minimal?

Speaker 2 (02:25:13):
Why or why not?

Speaker 1 (02:25:16):
Well, I mean there's no reason to gratuitously kill people.
Human life has value, so there's no reason to gratuously
do it. So if there's no purpose in killing people,
then you shouldn't kill them, and to that extent, your
void civilian casualties when the civilian casualties are not necessary
for victory. But in any situation where civilian casualties are

(02:25:40):
necessary for victory, unnecessary to a victory, and at a
minimal cost to yourself and a minimum cost of your
own people's lives.

Speaker 2 (02:25:49):
Then you should not take precautions.

Speaker 1 (02:25:54):
So the standard is the extent to which it's going
to demand a sacrifice of your people or not it's
going to demand a sacrifice of you or not it's
going to prevent you from achieving your goal on it,
that's the stand about what you measure. Tyler says, how
you on I really enjoyed Peacock's History of Philosophy lectures. Yeah,

(02:26:14):
they're great. I noticed the con section was missing from
the book version. Any idea why it was left out?

Speaker 2 (02:26:21):
Just curious? Was kant left out?

Speaker 1 (02:26:25):
I think because Leonard asked that the book version only
include part one, the pre Kantient I think he I
don't know, you'd have to. I think if I recall,
and granted, I might recall wrong, but I think if
I recall, he said that he was a lot more
confident in the course of the truth of the pre content,

(02:26:48):
and that he was in his confident that everything he
said was accurate regarding the more modern philosophers.

Speaker 2 (02:26:58):
I think the whole thing is fantastic. But that is
if I recall, that is what he said.

Speaker 1 (02:27:03):
So that's why he only wanted it in writing the
pre Kantian segments part one. But luckily you can still
get in an audio and Pokey, what's your take on IP?
Intellectual property and free state? If it's a natural right,

(02:27:26):
why does it expire? Wouldn't permanent IP paralyzed innovation since
all progress builds and prior ideas. Yes, that's why it expires,
So it should expire. But they should be a period.
It's a former property and the property owner should have
the ability to profit from his property for a period.

(02:27:49):
Iinman has a very good essay on this and capitalism
and annoying ideal. I encourage you to read it. She
goes into great lengths in defending her position about why
copyright IP generally is valid and why you know, the
length of time shouldn't be forever, you know, and why

(02:28:11):
having a specific length of time is not arbitrary. It's about.

Speaker 2 (02:28:18):
It's about the the lifetime of the of the producer.

Speaker 1 (02:28:25):
It's also about the ability to profit from that property
before it becomes uh goes into the public domain and
goes to aid in the process of ideas building on ideas.
But read the essay much better explanation there. And what

(02:28:46):
do you think of the criticism of the objective's morality
that it's focused on independent judgment and consistency demand too
much of people. I mean, I don't feel like it's
too much. I mean I don't know. I know a
lot of people who embrace it and do it and
are fine with it, So I'm not sure. I've never

(02:29:06):
seen that criticism. It requires work, it requires being independent,
It requires having self esteem, it requires not caving to
the mob.

Speaker 2 (02:29:18):
That all requires effort, but it's doable for every human being.

Speaker 1 (02:29:23):
I know people of all kinds of intellectual abilities that
have embraced that idea. And even before objectivism, there were
people who embraced independent judgment and stood up to the mob.
So I don't understand why that is something that's beyond
people's reach. Necessarily, it is beyond people's reach because they

(02:29:46):
choose not to embrace it. Evan, what do you think
about altruism and a group of infantry in battle? A
unit is much more effective if everyone has each other's
back to the point where they were willing to sacrifice
and risk for each other.

Speaker 2 (02:30:03):
So I think that I think that altruism is destructive
for a unit like that.

Speaker 1 (02:30:14):
I think a unit in battle functions much much better
if they all understand why it's.

Speaker 2 (02:30:20):
In their self interest to function as a unit. It's
just like a team.

Speaker 1 (02:30:26):
Like a teamwork in a business doesn't require you to
accept the collective mind collective consciousness because there is none.
It requires you to be an independent thinker and contribute
to the team and work with others to improve and
enhance ideas. The same thing is to in battle. You

(02:30:47):
want independent thinkers who understand why they're they, who understand
why the unit has to function together, and who have
a real authentic camaraderie friendship with the other people around them.

Speaker 2 (02:31:01):
Now, I don't think that a good unit.

Speaker 1 (02:31:04):
In battle requires people to sacrifice to one another. So,
for example, you're storming a position and the guy on
your right gets hit. What do you do do You
continue storming the position and you go take care of
the guy who's been hit. Well, victory demands that you
continue storming the position, and afterwards you go take care
of your buddy who got hit. But if your focus

(02:31:25):
is completely on your body, then you stop the advance
and you take care of the wounded, and you forget
about winning the war. So it's not at all clear
to me that sacrifice in that sense is required. Risk
taking is required. But you signed up for the military.
This is why military should be voluntary. You sign up
for the military. You signed up to take risk, not

(02:31:46):
to sacrifice, but to take risk for the values that
you believe in and for the people in your team.

Speaker 2 (02:31:53):
I don't consider that sacrifice. And again, you have to
think about what do you want.

Speaker 1 (02:31:58):
This team to do what is required to win a battle,
to win a war, to win to win a to
win a skirmish. And and what's required is everybody thinking,
everybody being an independent thinker, but within the context of
a team, within the context of a group that is
trying to achieve a goal together. And and and that

(02:32:24):
means sometimes you have to just follow orders. That means
that you're going to take risks. That means that you
have to watch what your other soldiers are doing. And
and and yes, cover for them, cover them, because that's
part of the mission. And that's part of how you
attain the goal. But it's not it's not a sacrifice.
You're you're you're aiming towards a goal that's very, very

(02:32:45):
very important to you. This is why you volunteered to
serve in this military. Again, why I believe in one
of the reasons I believe in voluntary military servant non
a conscription. Chris, what did Einran think of Norman Rockwell,
what do you think of Rockwall? Why was normal rockwall
art so disliked? Is his artwork idealistic or overly sentimental?

(02:33:07):
So I think she thought of I mean, I don't
know exactly what she thought of Rockwell, I vaguely recalled it.

Speaker 2 (02:33:13):
There's something there.

Speaker 1 (02:33:14):
I mean, look, rockwall is an illustrator. He's a he's
not a painter. He's a borderline artist because his stuff
is postery. It's it's illustrations. It's very in your face
and in that sense, yeah, it's it's sentimental. But there's

(02:33:34):
a lot of good art that's sentimental. Rockwall Is is
a good illustrator, but he's not a great artist. I
don't know why it was disliked. It wasn't disliked. It
was actually liked a lot. It made the covers of
magazines that was all over the place. And remember it
was covers of magazines. Most of his paintings will covers

(02:33:55):
of magazines, which again that's illustration.

Speaker 2 (02:33:58):
That's not art. It's not fine art.

Speaker 1 (02:34:02):
Uh, there's no The themes are very obvious, there's no sophistication,
there's you know, it's it's it's it's in your face
in a way that art should not be.

Speaker 2 (02:34:17):
So I I think normal.

Speaker 1 (02:34:18):
I enjoyed normal Walkwell. I think a lot of his
stuff is fun. Uh, it's funny, it's fun. Some of
his idealistic and and and good like I love. The
one where the guy is standing up. The free speech
one is very good. Rockwell generally was kind of a
New Deal democrat, so he was he was, you know,

(02:34:40):
he illustrated much of Roosevelt's New Deal ideals. He's a naturalist.
He portrays, for the most body, portrays man as he is.
He portrays scenes out of daily life. Again, part of
what makes him not that interesting but kind of fun
and enjoyable. I wouldn't hang a normal walker painting on

(02:35:00):
my wall, but I don't mind, you know. I enjoy
seeing his stuff and thumbing through a book of his
work and smiling and enjoying it. But it's a superficial enjoyment. Schasberg.
To love is the value at the shrugged a certain
person's speech, not to be mentioned because we don't want

(02:35:21):
to give anything away. Yes, to love is to value.
Love is there is an expression of one's highest value.
It's it's a manifestation one's highest value. All right, last question,
as I'm losing my voice. I understand Rand's idea of
self interest, but why can't a gang be self interested
within their world? Their interest is making money and exploiting. Well,

(02:35:46):
because a gang cannot be happy a gang cannot flourish
qua gang. It can only you know, so a group
can only flourish the extent it's individuals flourish at the
base of a gang. At the base of a gang
of a group as individuals, and if they if they

(02:36:08):
succeed by exploiting and stealing and cheating and robbing, they succeed.

Speaker 2 (02:36:15):
Materially.

Speaker 1 (02:36:17):
But all of that behavior is destructive spiritually. It destroys
their soul, It destroys their integrity, it destroys the ability
to be moral as individuals. And again, happiness and flourishing
can only be achieved as individuals. So a gang is

(02:36:38):
not a thing. A gang is just a bunch of
individuals committing crimes together. And because they're committing crimes, because
they're violating rational principles as individuals, they cannot flourish and
they cannot be happy, and they suffer the consequences. Live
by the sword, Die by the sword. All right, Thank

(02:37:01):
you guys, Sorry for the technical problem in the middle.
I'm glad we recovered. I'm glad you all stuck with it.
Thank you for joining me. Thanks Troy for the five
Australian really really appreciate that. Thanks to all other Michael
and all the other supporters. We had a lot of

(02:37:21):
fifty dollars contributors. Thank you the super chattters, thank you
the stickers.

Speaker 2 (02:37:26):
I will see you. I'm not sure when we'll.

Speaker 1 (02:37:30):
Play it day by day, but at the latest on Saturday.
But I'm going to be traveling all this week in Europe.
Hopefully i'll see some of you tomorrow in Vienna. Bye everybody,

All Episodes

Heritage, Tucker & Fuentes -- The Right Imploding | Yaron Brook Show

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know

Crime Junkie

The Breakfast Club

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

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}Heritage, Tucker & Fuentes -- The Right Imploding | Yaron Brook Show