MAGA & Tucker: Feudalism in Disguise? Ageism, TikTok, Engineers, Military & Drugs | Yaron Brook Show - Yaron Brook Show

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:05):
Fundamental principles. I love readom, rational self interest, and individual rights.
This is the Ran book Show, right, everybody, welcome to
you on book Show on this Wednesday, August twentieth. Still

(00:28):
it's a bit tell by the colors of the background.
I hope very was having a fantastic week. So after
yesterday we did Hassan pink Pinka pinkas or whatever.

Speaker 2 (00:46):
Interview.

Speaker 1 (00:47):
We talked about the frustration of the youth and why
they're attracted to socialism. And you know, today I came
across this video of a recent the latest interview that
Zacha Carlson has done.

Speaker 2 (01:03):
It's with Woke.

Speaker 1 (01:06):
Woke right Blaze, well mega Blaze media personality. I guess
I've never heard of this guy, Aran McIntyre, Aaron McIntyre,
who is I don't know somebody, but obviously he's at
the Blaze.

Speaker 2 (01:23):
He's influential.

Speaker 1 (01:23):
He's a mega influencer out there, and influencer enough to
score a taka interview and uh and to get to
get many, many, many, many many views. So I listened
to parts of it and what's partially struck me. What
partially struck me while I listened to it, it's how
similar he sounds to Hassan Uh and how similar Mega

(01:48):
sounds to to the socialists. It's just what's interesting is
Maga seems to be, you know, eager not to bring
so socialism is to secular and anti family whatever. So
what do they want?

Speaker 2 (02:07):
Well, we're going to discover.

Speaker 1 (02:08):
But but as you'll see, what they really want is
what they what they're talking to, what they miss, what
they what they what they long for is.

Speaker 2 (02:19):
Feudalism.

Speaker 1 (02:21):
Can't make this up. You cannot make this ship up.
Twelve twenty, the year twelve twenty. This is real.

Speaker 2 (02:33):
This is not just one guy.

Speaker 1 (02:35):
This is real. Anyway, I thought i'd show you a
couple of clips here and so we'll take a look
at there. He is Aaron McIntire, Aaron, Aaron aaren, I
don't know au au r o n arn McIntire. So

(02:57):
watch a couple of clips, a couple of short clips.
Very hopefully you don't find it necessary to watch the
whole interview. You don't want to give Tucker any kind
of support like that, but you know it is.

Speaker 2 (03:13):
Tuck is a piece of work.

Speaker 1 (03:14):
And but but he's he's known us all a favor
because he's interviewing people that seem to matter to the
new rights. He's he seems to be eager to define
the new right for us and to bring it forward.
Both it's antisemitic aspects, it's clearly unequivocal anti Israel aspects. Uh,

(03:37):
and then the kind of stuff that you know, they
critique of modern American society and then what they're eager
to to strive towards. So so let's play this and
and we'll see. We'll see what you guys think.

Speaker 2 (03:52):
Let me know if there.

Speaker 1 (03:53):
Are audio issues. But it should work because the same
setup as yesterday.

Speaker 3 (03:58):
It's because people got angry with the with the zoron
mom Donnie in the yeah right, yeah, they Oh the
socialist is winning. How could a socialist win? It's like,
I don't know, guys, have you looked at the fact
that the average first time home buyer thing is now
thirty eight years old? Have you understood the fact.

Speaker 1 (04:17):
So completely mimicking the socialist talking points. Yeah, people are
trying to socialism because capitalism has betrayed us. People are
people are He has literally said that, But that's implication.
You know, do you know, do you know how old

(04:37):
first time average first time I think it's average first
time home buyer is thirty eight.

Speaker 2 (04:45):
Yeah, when did you.

Speaker 1 (04:46):
Guys, I'm curious, when did you guys buy your first home?
How old you were? But it is up. It's up
from in the nineteen eighties. It was in the high twenties,
and it's up now into the high thirties. And that's
that's high.

Speaker 2 (04:59):
Actually, don't think gets three years. I think it's thirty six.

Speaker 1 (05:01):
Maybe somebody can correct me, but I looked at the
stats earlier and I think it's thirty six. But it's up.
What else is up? I don't know what else is up? Well, marriage,
marriage used to be people used to get married in
their mid twenties. I think average age from male of

(05:25):
first marriage, not second or third, but first one is
now thirty two. Having kids, that's people having kids later,
later in their thirties. So there's a science. I always
the need for home is it only occurs later in life,

(05:45):
occurring later in left than it did.

Speaker 2 (05:49):
Forty years ago.

Speaker 1 (05:50):
It's also true that sizes of homes have risen, so
people who buy their first house seem to be more
ambitious in terms of the size of the.

Speaker 2 (05:59):
Home home that they buy.

Speaker 1 (06:02):
So home sizes, you know, average home size in the
United States is.

Speaker 2 (06:08):
I mean Europeans. You might want to cover your.

Speaker 1 (06:10):
Years because this will be unpleasant news for you. But
average home for the in the in the US is
over is over twenty I think it's twenty four hundred
twenty four hundred square feet, so around two hundred square
medias over two hundred scare metas. I mean that's a lot.
Australia is close. I think the only other country that's

(06:31):
closed maybe Canada somewhat around around two thousand square feet.
But in Europe, in England it's under a thousand square feet.
And in in Denmark is they buy some of the
larger homes day fifteen hundred square feet in Denmark. It's

(06:52):
a true that on a square feet basis square foot
basis dollars per square food relative to income. Right, So
if you're taking account income, how much of your income
you need to spend to buy an average home in
America versus how much income do you need to spend
to buy an average home to buy a square foot
one hundred square feet let's say, sorry, one hundred square

(07:14):
meters in Europe versus one hundred square metas in America,
housing is cheaper in America than it is in Europe.
So anyway, I think the whole heights in crisis is
an issue. It's a real problem. It's a real problem.
As we've said, it's the main problem is supply. But

(07:34):
I think this idea that people are waiting later to
buy a home. Yeah, home prices are homes expensive in
the US, more expensive than they when it passed, No
question about that.

Speaker 2 (07:43):
It's driven by supply.

Speaker 1 (07:45):
Let's really think about what's going on and why this
is happening. The solution can be socialism and more state control.
It has to be more markets and supply demand driven construction.
It has to be less government, less regulation, less zoning,
less controls. But it's also exaggerated. It's just a blown

(08:06):
out of every proportion because right now it is it
fits into a particular a particular story about the evils
of capitalism, the evils of America, and in that story
it plays to the interest of both left and right

(08:30):
right now, so they share this story. There's no there's
no disagreement between socialists and MAGA when it comes to
almost every aspect of the economy. I mean, here's one
right Mamdani. Mamdani once to once to control the means

(08:50):
of production in New York by the government owning a
grocery store. A grocery store. This is socialism in the
twenty for a century in New York City. The government
is gonna go in.

Speaker 2 (09:03):
A grocery store.

Speaker 1 (09:05):
Now, that's small time capitalism. Sorry, sorry, god, that's small
time socialism. That is small time socialism. A grocery store. Okay,
if they have a grocery store, he hasn't arguing for
nationalizing I don't know City Bank or Chase, all based
and headquartered in New York City. He's not arguing for

(09:28):
taking over I don't know, some big industry in New York.
Nego you want to say he wants to open a
government run grocery store, Okay, it'll be fun to watch.
But the Trumpet administration is much more ambitious, much more
serious about this socialism. They're not gonna go for the
small fi grocery store stuff. If they're gonna have the

(09:52):
government owns the means of production, then they're gonna go
for the important stuff, the big stuff. So if if
you despise Mumdani for wanting to open up in a
grocery store, and you think that socialism in spades, and
that's horrible and Mumdanni's a socialist monster. Then what do
you think about Trump's proposal to buy ten percent of

(10:14):
Intel for the government to own Intel? I mean, one
of the biggest names in American industry, you know, since
the nineteen seventies, and the US government is going to
own a piece of it. It already owns a piece
of a rare earth materials manufacture, and it owns a
golden share, oh my god, a golden share in US steel.

(10:41):
Who's the biggest socialist here? The people supporting Trump's attempt
to take over business and run it from the government
and actually literally take an ownership stake, although Mamdani's are
the world too, you know, childishly want to open up
a city run grocery store, and they think they're going
to change the world that way. I'll take, you know,

(11:07):
I'll take the ghosty store in New York. Keep your
hands off my Intel, keep your hands off of US Steale,
keep your hands off American businesses, keep at the federal level,
stay out of business. Mag guy sounding like the socialists,
but let's keep listening.

Speaker 3 (11:25):
Eight years old, have you understood the fact that no
one you know, can get a decent job without going
one hundred thousand dollars in debt for a degree that
objectively taught them nothing and they're actually just doing any
learning they actually do on the job. Anyway, if you've
built this set, I mean.

Speaker 1 (11:42):
Is that true, right that people go? I mean, it's
true that a lot of people are taking on degrees
that are really really stupid and taken on great debts,
great debt in order to do that. Whose fault is that? Now?
Part of it, it's the government's fault for issuing really
easily without thinking, without challenging student loans. But it's also

(12:04):
students his generation going in and studying stupid things. This
is not you know, societies, the system's full. There's people
doing stupid stuff and paying the consequences for that. But
even people who do that, even let's say there's some
smart people who went in and they got a stupid
degree in English. Or it's not stupid to get degree

(12:24):
in English, but the way English is taught in many
universities today, it doesn't add any value to your life.
But let's say you did that and now you're coming
out and you can't find a job. It used to
be the Wall Street hired English majors, and I think
they still do so I wouldn't take that overly seriously,
but certainly some people can't find a job, you know,

(12:44):
for for a really low cost, you can do a
boot camp, a programming boot camp and get a job
as a programmer. I mean all this this generation's z.
I mean more companies today and Silicon Value and just
generally in the world are looking to hire people even

(13:06):
without degrees. If you can show skill and talent, they'll
hire you even if you don't have a degree. All
I hear from this from gen Z right now, at
least according to the fall left and the fall right.
I'm sure this is not true of the vast majority
of gen Z, who are somewhere in the middle is
whining and complaining, whining and complaining and justifying. There's socialism

(13:29):
and statism and far rightism, fascism and as we'll see
in a minute, you know, return to feudalism, justifying it
because they can't find a job, and they can't buy
a house, and you know, and the men are constantly
complaining about how the women are no good anymore. I mean,

(13:52):
they can't find it. They can't find anybody to have
sex with, and they simply can't find anybody married. And
the women are no good, and the jobs are no good,
and life is no good and the housing is no good,
and God.

Speaker 4 (14:02):
Just.

Speaker 1 (14:05):
Shape up, go out, they do something with your life.
Stop moaning and complaining. I mean, no wonder this generation
was really really attracted to Jordan Peterson because he at
least told them what I think any adult shall tell
them is stand up straight, clean your room, and get
a job and get on with life. And in that

(14:27):
sense he was right. Some of the stuff he told
them also, I think was wrong, but at least in
that sense it was right. The whining is just NonStop.

Speaker 3 (14:43):
If you've built a society that shows people your system
doesn't work. Now, I think there is a much better
way than communism. But no, I agree, but you have
to show.

Speaker 1 (14:52):
It's a much better way than communism. Will see in
a minute what Tucker Colson suggests as the better way
than communism.

Speaker 3 (14:58):
You can't just sit there and say no, we're the system.

Speaker 1 (15:02):
Ride or die.

Speaker 3 (15:02):
We don't care if someone now. If you're homeless, we
don't care. If you can't have children, we don't care.
If you're going to live the rest of your life,
and your mom's based that that's your fault. There's nothing
around the system ever, well.

Speaker 1 (15:12):
System, the system's bad. System is not capitalist enough, the
system's not free enough, and yet the system works from
vast majority of the people in terms of their ability,
the ability to to live. You know, Silvanas is accusing
me of channeling Booma energy. I'm the tail end of

(15:32):
the Booma generation. Yes, uh, the kids are all right,
They're not as bad as you think. Life is not
as bad as you think. Grow up and and and
get a life. Every every generation, remember the sixties, all
the complaining the sixties generation did. The world was falling apart,
the system that parents had created was destroying the world.

Speaker 2 (15:52):
They would have no future.

Speaker 1 (15:54):
And then the seventies, the environmentalist or the young kippie
environmentalists the world is going to end because of I
don't know, overpopulation and ozon, the ozon hole. And every
generation does this. But what's unique right now is what's
unique right now is just the fact that the far

(16:17):
left is being joined by a far right. I don't
think in the sixties and seventies, or certainly in the
eighties and nineties, this rush to the fall left. I
don't think it was mimicked on the right by you know,
a rejection of society or a rejection of the system.

(16:37):
And remember what they're saying by the system is not
the current mixed economy, which I reject too. They're not
trying to reject the mixed economy in favor of more freedom.
They want to reject the mixed economy in favor of
more statism. They just want more statism to favors, not
that favors like the left, I don't know, the workers

(16:57):
and the communes and uh and and and uh government
own grocery stores. These guys want a system that favors
the family and religion and community. And if fat it's
the states a goverment run grocery store or govern run
intel or government run uh you know uh uh us steel,

(17:21):
then so be it. They're all for that. But the children,
it's about the children and religion and and and and
community and religion and and and community and jobs and
housing and community and religion. That's what it's all about.
I did not miss yourqualification, Savannas, but your initial statement

(17:43):
was more interesting than the qualification. Don't take me personally
you know, I mean, don't take it personally. That was
not supposed to be savannas I know is on my side. Uh,
it's not being hostile here. Uh. A second comic was
not that I disagree if they said that I'm channeling
boom managy. I just find the whole boom manergy thing funny.

Speaker 2 (18:07):
Right, let's let's keep rolling with this.

Speaker 1 (18:09):
No reason to look at any of this.

Speaker 3 (18:11):
And I think again, we're really seeing that shift, right,
We're seeing that mentality shift in the younger conservative core.
They truly understand like, if I don't fix this soon,
then I'm never having a future. I'm never having children.
Like my my bloodline will in my my my religion
will fade because it's no longer practiced.

Speaker 1 (18:31):
My community wills. I don't have time now. Watch watch
Tucker Costs and take this and and really jump on this.

Speaker 2 (18:38):
Watch this around here.

Speaker 5 (18:39):
The blood line will and my religion will fade, and
my community will collapse.

Speaker 1 (18:43):
Those bloodline religion, community, bloodline religion, community, family, religion, community,
it's all they care about.

Speaker 2 (18:52):
It's all that's really important to them.

Speaker 1 (18:54):
That's what it's all about.

Speaker 5 (18:55):
The things that you are programmed by nature, in fact,
in my view by.

Speaker 1 (18:59):
God, programmed by nature by God to care about bloodline, religion, community, to.

Speaker 3 (19:04):
Care about that's what matters absolutely, And and that the idea
that we almost never talk about any of this, that
any discussion on any of these ideas is completely deeply forbidden. Yeah,
then what are you trying to do to our society forbidden?

Speaker 1 (19:18):
All I hear about is natalists talking about us not
having enough children. All I hear about is oh, how
much we miss religion, and religion is so important that
we need to return to religious roots. Here about that
all the time from people on their right, from people
in the center, and community. I mean, who doesn't talk
about community, left and right? But you're not supposed to
talk about these things. These things are deep and forbidden,

(19:39):
literally forbidden. You could get kicked out of YouTube. I
don't know some way for talking about bloodline and religion
and community. I mean, where do these people live? They
on top of, on top of their obsession about the
world is so bad, they've also got to they also
feel like they're persecuted.

Speaker 2 (20:00):
You'd write to constantly being attacked.

Speaker 1 (20:01):
Then not a lot of talk. I have to talk quietly,
got I mean, here he is on a channel of
millions of people, one of those popular channels, popular podcasts
in the world today. But we're not allowed to talk
about these things, God forbid, can't talk about them. It

(20:22):
becomes pretty clear.

Speaker 5 (20:23):
Well, of course, of course they're trying trying to eliminate it, right,
and that would include like my whole family.

Speaker 1 (20:29):
So no, I how radical are young people getting.

Speaker 3 (20:33):
More radical by the day?

Speaker 1 (20:36):
All right, let me switch to another video from the
same interview. I think this is kind of just a
few minutes later, but this is what's this techo costs
and demand.

Speaker 5 (20:49):
At some point when the regime decides, actually we're against crime,
and we do have to have real borders.

Speaker 1 (20:57):
And sometimes I don't know when this happen about.

Speaker 5 (21:00):
Drugs and we don't want the society to like collapse completely.
That's when you'll know they have complete total during control.

Speaker 1 (21:09):
So conting to Teca, when they start caring about drugs
and borders and crime, they'll have complete toiletarian control.

Speaker 2 (21:17):
And until then they don't.

Speaker 1 (21:19):
So the only time that can happen is when they
have complete to tiltarian control, which I'm not sure he's against, or.

Speaker 3 (21:26):
They recognize that the utility of destroying the country is
coming to it.

Speaker 1 (21:31):
That That's what I'm saying. So the people in charge
today a focus on destroying the country.

Speaker 2 (21:40):
That's a focus.

Speaker 1 (21:40):
That's what they want. So they encourage drugs, they encourage crime,
they encourage it open border. I guess that even includes
the Trumpet administration, which is the power. Right now, that's
the kind of world that the comany regime is inspiring.
And we'll get we'll get to Tucker's solution in.

Speaker 5 (21:56):
Acause at that point they feel like, Okay, we own
this complete place, so why racket it's our house now?

Speaker 1 (22:02):
Yes, yes, So it's only when they own it completely
complete to tell us human control will they care about
these things.

Speaker 3 (22:08):
And this is how you you know, again, this is
the classic principle of actually how you get a king
right because they're generally generationally invested in the well being
of the land.

Speaker 1 (22:17):
They're ruling the people. So so this is this is
the new rights. Big thing you know coming out of
kotis Yovan the the ideal governance structure, and this is
the new right right. The ideal governance structure is actually
monarchy and generational inheritance of the of the of the

(22:38):
of the kingdom, because then you know, the king has
a multi generational incentive to facilitate good governance because the
kingdom is going to be in his family for a
long time, so he has to take care of his
He has to take care of the kingdom and kingdom
much better than republican democracies. The ideal governing position and

(22:59):
kidish of it. Has a whole theory about this and
how you would choose the king and how how how
you can get rid of kings when kings so bad.
But but listen to this, I mean, only stlitarianism do
the people who govern have the incentive to really care
about what's going on? And they do care. We know

(23:20):
from thousands of years of tough talitarian regimes that if
you only really want to poserve civilization, if you really
want to advance progress science, technology, economics, you need to
you know, atholeituarianism, toughtlitanism is the ideal, I'm being facetious,
is the ideal. What we need is the kingdom. So

(23:43):
in the well being of the land, they're ruling.

Speaker 3 (23:45):
The people, they're they're invested in power to control the
outcomes there. So if you actually care about that, if
you're actually going to benefit, why not invest your control
and actually producing a better completely gad.

Speaker 5 (23:55):
I mean, feudalism is so much better than what we
have now.

Speaker 1 (23:58):
Feudalism, it's so much better than what we have now.
Tecker Callson. That should be a bump bumper sticker for
feudalism is so much better than what we have now. Yeah,
I mean, we know feudalism they had running water, flushing toilets, electricity, iPhones. Uh,

(24:20):
their children didn't die childbirth, most of them survived. It's just,
you know, I don't know what these guys. I mean,
it's it's insane. It really is insane. If you were
surf under feudalism, yeah, I mean, it's better. It's better

(24:40):
to be a surf under feudalism then be alive today
and be exposed to I don't know, I don't know
LGBTQ stuff at school. Oh my god, do you know
how damaging the lbt GQ stuff is in comparison to
being a surf. I mean, this is much worse. I mean,

(25:02):
just think about life today. I mean, you might stumble
onto a porn website, if you're on the internet, you
might actually actively pursue it. I mean, compare that to
being a surf, being a self is like a million
times better. I mean, how does anybody take this guy

(25:22):
seriously anymore? Uh? You know, antibiotics, maybe they didn't have them,
and he would say, no, I want moneed technology, I
want modern wealth. I just want syftom. It would be
better if we lived under but you wouldn't have any
of those things if you had system. That's the whole point.

(25:44):
And the reality is Systom doesn't produce enough food for
the people who live on Earth today, so you would
have what less than a tenth of the population. I
think it's a fifth, it's I think it's a it's
a one twentieth. Other people alive today would be alive,
but we'd have you know, we wouldn't have the left

(26:04):
and housing places would be a lot lower. I mean,
one of those shacks that the surf lives in is
a lot cheaper than a twenty four hundred squat foot home.
I mean, I mean yeah, I mean, if only we
adjusted to the needs and wants and desires of a surf,
life would be easy. And of course, the aristocrats, the aristocrats,

(26:26):
I mean, remember the people who ran the serfdom, like
the owners of the of the property. They were fully
invested in the lives of the surfs. I mean, they
really cared about them, They really took care of them.
I mean, this is paternalistic government. I mean, this is
worse than the communists longing for Stalin.

Speaker 2 (26:46):
It's just.

Speaker 1 (26:50):
It's just bersultant what we.

Speaker 5 (26:51):
Have now, because at least in feudalism, the leader is
invested in the prosperity of the people who rules.

Speaker 1 (26:57):
How did that work out for the leaders other people
who ruled, and the people who ruled once they got
an opportunity, what did they do to the ruler if
they had an opportunity to overthrow him off with his head?
That's how much they thought he took care of them.
What were they requiet to do? They were constantly in
the ViRGE of starvation, you know, and every time there

(27:19):
was a war, the ruler would round them all up
and ship them off to battle. I mean, the population
if you were barely budged, and indeed two pots significant
parts of feudalism shrunk. Right if all your serfs die,
you starve.

Speaker 3 (27:40):
Yeah, there's a true incentive to care for those people.

Speaker 1 (27:42):
Then again, I mean, I think this guy is thinking
inside of said, Wow, Tucker, just Tucker just advocated for feudalism.
I don't know if I want to go that far,
but hey, I can't disagree with Taka because millions of
people are watching, and this is my chance to make,
you know, to be in fun of millions. So I
better pretend or say something that sounds agreeable, because I

(28:07):
can't believe anybody else other than Tucker would say something
like it.

Speaker 2 (28:10):
Of course, there was what's his name.

Speaker 1 (28:12):
Knowles who did argue for a culture of twelve twenty.

Speaker 3 (28:15):
There is also that also exists in a republic if
properly managed.

Speaker 2 (28:18):
But you see he's trying to backtrack that.

Speaker 1 (28:21):
You know, we also get that in a good republic,
in a good republic, if it's properly managed, he doesn't
want to go to the system, to the to the
you know, he doesn't want to go in a direction
that Tuck is taking him. I don't know about this
feudalism stuff. Maybe there's a chance to republicanism, but it's mismanaged.
So let's take feudalism. What the hell noted?

Speaker 3 (28:43):
We're well beyond the requirements that even our founders laid
out for a functional republican government.

Speaker 1 (28:54):
Guys. These are not minor figures, These are not trivial people.
These are not just whackos out there with no significance.
Attaka has audiences audience of millions and millions, and and
this is not a one off thing.

Speaker 2 (29:11):
This is something that he repeats on a regular basis.

Speaker 1 (29:15):
So and this guy mctiah has a big following on
on on Blaze, Blaze TV, Blaze media, I guess, and
is part of kind of the mega influences on the Blaze,
as as Glenn Beck has built up the Blaze to

(29:36):
be to be MAGA after he tried going against Trump
and it didn't work out too well for him. I
mean this is these are people who have influenced who
matter who, whose ideas resonate within a significant number of
American people. Who are you get a shape the future

(29:56):
of politics in America in the future, get a shape
of a party in the post Trump era. Uh. And
this is the kind of stuff that they are telling
their followers. And notice that it's grievance politics. That is,
you have to start with these grievances with how awful

(30:17):
all this is. You have to start with the frustration
of young people housing and jobs and again the numbers.
The numbers don't match the rhetoric. The math doesn't match,
the statistics don't match this rhetoric of you know, entitlement

(30:40):
and oppression.

Speaker 2 (30:41):
And I mean, I go.

Speaker 1 (30:45):
To restaurants all the time in the US, and maybe
I just you know, see a certain cross section of
American youth. But I see young people, well dressed, you know,
going to restaurants and dropping one hundred, two hundred even
more on a meal for one person. And you go

(31:07):
to three star mission restaurants where it's three four, five
hundred dollars a meal for one person, and an overwhelming
majority of the people they are young. Now they're probably
in tech and finance, and they've got they made money,
and I don't I mean, good for them, that's great,
But are they the same people who vote for Mom Donny?

(31:27):
Are the same people moaning? Are there same people complaining?
Same people who are either ultra you know, woke right
or woke left. I don't remember previous generations being quite
as whany as this one is, given that this one
is the richest of all the different generations, and I
know they're going to be people here on my chat

(31:48):
denying that this generation is rich. But again the numbers
are the numbers, you know, wages, income, by every measure, income, wages,
and wealth that has saved wealth is higher for this
generation than any other generation at this point in their life,

(32:10):
all right, Which brings us to maybe something that should
upset young people, and and I think I think doesn't
upset young people enough. You know, young people's anger right
now is focused towards this system, and it's focused on
merely towards those products of the system.

Speaker 2 (32:32):
That are that are relatively free.

Speaker 1 (32:36):
You know, if you're a socialist, they're oriented against capitalism,
and if you're far right, they're oriented against capitalism. So
young people are complaining about capitalism, but who they should.
But they do have one group of people they should
be complaining about, and that's the grandparents or their parents.

(32:59):
And reality is in this country and I'm talking about
the US now, but this is through in Europe as well.
Do we engage in massive redistribution of wealth from young
people to old people? I mean massive redistribution of wealth
from young people to old people. Young people are taxed
to pay for social programs for old people, and you know,

(33:29):
we're talking about social security and medicare and so Security,
medicare added together the largest expenditure of the US government
by far, and yet the money has to come from somewhere.
And the only place for that money to come is
because most of the people taking Medicare and Social Security already retired.

(33:51):
So the money coming to pay for those benefits are
all coming from young people. Your taxes, if you're not retired,
your taxes are paying for not yet, but in a
year they will be paying for my medicaid. And it's

(34:11):
a massive redistribution, and you will have to pay more
and more and more and more because as healthcare costs
go up, because the government is buying them, so they're
going up. And as soial security benefits go up, and
they go up faster than income goes up because of
the way they're can linked to inflation, you will have

(34:32):
to be taxed more and more and more and more.
And the more these these systems expand, the more we're
redistributing wealth from young people to old people. And think
about that, young people. By definition, when you're young, you're
relatively poor. And the reality is for most people, not everybody,

(34:58):
but for most people, when you're old, you're relatively rich.
So we're taxing relatively poor and young for the relatively
old and rich. We've built a society and this is
where I think complaining about the system makes complete sense.

(35:21):
We built a society that discriminates against young people, that
penalizes young people for being young, and that rewards people
for being old. With government law. Yes, and remember that
the only parts of the government that are hands off.
We can't reform them, we can't touch them, we can't
do anything about them are those parts of the government

(35:43):
that have to do with allocating redistributing resources to old people.
And partially because they vote and they're four, politicians are afraid
of them, and partially because there's some altruistic moral imperative
it seems you have to take care of the elderly.
But the reality is that most old people, particularly most

(36:07):
old people who are being responsible in their life, have
saved a lot of money for retirement. And indeed, the
amount of assets that households have households of people over
the age of seventy has is astounding. I mean, it's

(36:30):
well of fourteen, you know, it's over fifteen trillion dollars.
Generally old people, most of them they're responsible ones, have
saved money. It's the young who have been denied the
ability to save to some extent because their tax rates
are so high so that they can send checks to

(36:55):
people who've already saved for their retirement above and beyond
what they saved. And I mean, this is a massive
demand for sacrifice. We're sacrificing the young for the old.
I remember when I used to give talks at the
Tea Party and I used to tell them is used
to you know, tea party was overwhelmingly old people in

(37:17):
retirement and needs to tell them you should be If
you believe in limited government, then you you need to
rethink social Security and Medicaid because you guys, you guys
are demanding that your grandkids sacrifice for you. And they
would say, oh no, we paid into the system. I said,
oh no, the money you paid into the system is
all being spent. Everything that you are pulling out of

(37:41):
the system right now, everything you're pulling out of the
system right now needs to be funded by your kids
and grandkids. You're parasitic on them. The fact that you
paid in is irrelevant to how much you're pulling out,
and indeed, you're pulling out a lot more than you
paid in Medicare, taxes are super low, so for every

(38:02):
dollar you pay in to medicate, you.

Speaker 2 (38:03):
Will pull four on average.

Speaker 1 (38:07):
Who makes up the difference, even if they'd saved your
dollar from before? Young people. She wants to get upset
about the system, but nobody does. This is this is
one way you can't talk about it, certainly not in politics.
Then you should be upset about a massive redistribution. And

(38:34):
just to be clear, I mean, retirees today have much, much, much,
much more retirement saving than retirees have ever had in
the past. People retiring today, and we'll talk about real dollars.

Speaker 2 (38:50):
We're not.

Speaker 1 (38:50):
This is all inflation adjusted. I don't give you. I
don't use statistics in a way is to deceive you.
Retirees today have four times, four x four times more
dollars in retirement accounts than they did in nineteen eighty nine.

(39:14):
Four times. It's gone from four trillion to sixteen trillion.
And yet it doesn't matter. So what if we shrunk
Social Security and made it a warfare program. Now I
don't like warfare programs, but at least they wouldn't entail

(39:35):
the crazy, insane redistribution of wealth. At least it wouldn't
entail the crazy, insane, you know, bankrupting of this country
and sending it just a massive debt. What if you
made it so that only poor people get social security
in medicare, and that rich people left to buy insurance

(39:55):
and the rich people live off their savings, and you know,
including middle class in this. What if you you know,
this is one way to save so security, medicaid. It's
to mean testing. Now, of course nobody's going to go
for this. But notice you could cut taxes. You could

(40:19):
cut taxes on young people. The government would spend a
lot less, a lot less, and taxes would be cut.
And yeah, we would all complain, but we paid into
the system. Yeah, but that money was spent. You should
have complained about it being spent when you paid it in.

(40:40):
It's a pyramid scheme. And at some point a pyramid
scheme has to collapse, it has to go away, it
has to disappear. At some point, they're not enough young
people being to provide for all you old people, including me. Right,
that's just a reality. And yet this is stuff we

(41:01):
cannot talk about because somehow old people are sacred, and
this is altruism. Altruism is the force that says, oh, no,
you have to tcare of the old people, the weak
and the struggling. But they're not. Even if they were,
it wouldn't justify it, but they're not. So Yeah, if

(41:24):
you want a radical, it should be radical. All these
socialists and new right they're so conventional, like the reactionary.
They want to go backwards. They're so uninteresting, right, they
want feudalism like that's so twelve twenty, or they want

(41:45):
socialism that's so mid twentieth century. I mean, we should
be radical, we should be twenty second century, we should
be future looking. Let's be truly Radical's call for abolishing
social security, Medicaid. That would be radical, that's an agenda.

(42:07):
Why can't young people? I mean you'd think young people
want to be radical. Well, let's let's be except. I
mean all young people are today is reactioning. Basically, they
want to be the same as their hippie grandparents, not
even parents, or they want to be the same as
their I don't know, many generations ago owners aristocrats. I

(42:35):
think everybody on the new right thinks that if we
had feudalism, they would be the plant, they would be
the owners of the of the of the castle, when
you know most of the wouldn't be alive, and ninety
percent of them would be would be SEFs.

Speaker 2 (42:50):
Ninety of them would be SEFs.

Speaker 1 (42:56):
All right. Anyway, it's.

Speaker 2 (43:05):
Redistribution from young and poor to old and rich.

Speaker 1 (43:12):
Remember TikTok, TikTok, TikTok, I mean, it's big, it's still huge.
I thought they were supposed to shut it down. We'll
get to that in a minute. But the White House
Donald Trump has announced that they are launching an official
TikTok channel, TikTok accounts. They don't really have an active

(43:33):
Twitter account, but they launching and official TikTok accounts. I mean,
from now on, the Chinese government will have firsthand direct
insight into everything that the White House does through the
TikTok accounts. Isn't that why we're supposed to ban it,
because the Chinese could could discover things about you. Well,

(43:54):
now they'll discover things about Donald Trump. I mean, this
was announced yesterday that the White House is launching a
TikTok accounts, an official one, and it's stunning because it
just shows that we have no rule of law in
America today, just none, like Congress passed US law. The

(44:17):
law was signed into law by President Biden when he
was presidents and Trump is just ignoring it. I mean,
and when I went to the Supreme Court because it
was challenged, and I went to the Supreme Court, Supreme
Court ruled ninety to zero that the law shutting down

(44:39):
TikTok was constitutional. Now, put aside whether I think Congress
should shut down businesses or not not. The the point
is that the law in the United States right now
is that TikTok should be shut down. So court has
ruled this way, Congress has voted, the President is signed,

(44:59):
and when this president it's just ignoring it, keeps extending
this thing where no, no, no, we're not going to shut
it down. We're going to give them an opportunity to
buy sell it. And by the way, rumors are and
they have been for months and months, that this government
is thinking of buying TikTok. That would be smart. We'll
have we'll have an intel, we'll have we'll have US Steel,

(45:21):
and we'll have TikTok. But in the meantime, while it's
still being run by a Chinese company supposedly being operated
by the Chinese government, who has it's TENA calls into it.
In the meantime, the White House and the President is
going to ignore the law, the rule of law, and

(45:45):
you know, play around with TikTok. Why not. There is
no deal with TikTok. There has not been a deal
with TikTok. Nothing. They haven't been sold, they haven't been modified,
there haven't been nothing's happened. And look, that's not in
the law. The law did not say we shut down

(46:06):
TikTok unless the president can cut a deal. The law
says shut down TikTok. Trump is just ignoring the law.
This is not an if but maybe situation. It's just
it's just straight out.

Speaker 4 (46:20):
Now.

Speaker 1 (46:20):
I don't like the law. I'm against the law. I
think TikTok should be allowed to stay. But I believe
that presidents should follow the law. And any deal that
he cuts with TikTok would be illegal, literally illegal. He

(46:42):
has no authority to sign a deal with TikTok because
Congress basically has said that they should be shut down,
and of course agreed, so he couts shut it down
and and start something new. But no, Tiketok needs to

(47:04):
be shut down. It's strange how you'd think that this
would be obvious even to Anne. They did not the
time to divest this long past, long long past. Yeah,
the law had gave them so many days to divest,

(47:26):
but that passed a long time ago, long long time ago.
Check your facts. He is just ignoring the law. And
why this should surprise you. This is Trump after all.
But of course Trump could do no wrong in Anne's world,
So to hell with the rule of law. If Trump
says so, we're for it, we support it. Anything Trump

(47:49):
says we're in favor of anyway, you know, we'll keep
watching this, but it there's no other way to interpret
this is the extension is, you know, to sell the
thing is passed. Everything is passed, and Trump is just
flooding the law. Nothing short of that. All right, Since

(48:13):
we're talking about China, and you know China, China realizes
something and generally I think this is the strength of
the Chinese government, even though it's an evil authoritarian government,
they do understand some things that I think our regime

(48:34):
and our government do not understand, are basically completely ignorant of.
And that is, China understand that the future is going
to depend on engineers. It's going to depend on science.
It's going to depend on technology. That economic growth is

(48:55):
going to depend on that. The jobs of the future
are going to depend on that, and of course to
be success is going to depend on that. And you know, China,
which historically has been a fairly insular place that is
not like outsiders and foreigners. China trains more engineers than

(49:16):
any country in the world by far. There's the largest
number of engineers anyway. In spite of that, China is
eager to attract immigrants into China who are engineers. In
the China is adding a new visa type. It's called
the CA visa, which is available to eligible young science

(49:40):
and technology professionals I'm reading from a news article. Compared
with the ordinary With the existing twelve ordinary visa types,
the CAVE visas will offer more convenience to holders in
terms of number permitted entries, validity, validity period, and duration
of stay. After entering China, K visa holders can engage

(50:04):
in exchanges in fields such as education, culture, and science
and technology, as well as relevant entrepreneurial and business activities.
In other words, they can engage in business activities in
work applications. K visas do not require domestic employer or
entity to issue an invitation.

Speaker 2 (50:22):
They don't even have to be invited, and the application.

Speaker 1 (50:25):
Process will also be more streamlined. China's development, the press
release announcing this says, requires the participation of talent from
around the world, and China's development also provides opportunities for them.
Its ideas to facilitate the entry for foreign young psy

(50:46):
tech talent into China. This is at the same time
and may be a response to the fact that the
Trump administration is kicking out talent out of this country,
discouraging people from staying in America. We are making America

(51:12):
inhospitable to young tech science talent and telling them and
not welcome here. We are. You know, there's a huge
attack against all forms of visa, but h one b
more than anyone.

Speaker 6 (51:29):
And there's a real attempt to discourage FEIGN students and
to discourage FEIGN talent from coming to America.

Speaker 1 (51:41):
Now. And this is part of a big campaign against
people coming to this country. So you know, again China,
and this is it's fascinating about China because Chinese is
an authoritarian regime in so many respects. In other respects,

(52:03):
it's developing a fairly open society. Those two will clash ultimately, but.

Speaker 2 (52:08):
It is interesting that they're doing it so.

Speaker 1 (52:10):
For example, in December twenty twenty three, China announced visa
free entry for citizens of France, Germany, Italy and Netherlands, Spain,
and Malaysia. Almost all of Europe has been added since then.
Travelers from five Latin American countries and usmiki Stan became
eligible last month for visa free entry to China. And

(52:33):
you know this is expanding in total they will have
they already have seventy five countries they can people can
travel into China visa free. Now in the US, we
clearly have a shortage of science and engineering talent, and

(52:57):
yet instead of treating it to national talent as a resource,
every immigrant, every immigrant to this country right now feels
like the government is treating them as a threat. It
takes months to years just to get an interview in
order to get a visit to the United States from
so many countries, and then we're deporting it's national students,

(53:20):
making the feel I'm welcome. Cutting research funding and basically
global talents is not going to come to the US.
They're not going to come to the US and to
the extent that the US loses some kind of competition

(53:45):
with China economically, militarily, otherwise. I bet that this is
ultimately going to be the cause. Looking back one hundred
years from now backwards, it's the hostility for the first
time really in American history to this extent, although there
were some of this start in the nineteen twenties. The
hostility of America towards immigrants, the hostility of America towards talent,

(54:08):
hostility of Americans towards expertise, is ultimately going to the
source of our decline. And a lot of scientists, a
lot of engineers, and as a consequence, you're seeing a
lot of innovation in China. Now, China is not a

(54:30):
great place to go, but it says something that people
are more inclined to go to China right now than
they are to the US. It says something about this
administration's attitude and American cultural attitude towards immigrants, that we
are now less attractive than Europe to many scientists and China. China. God,

(54:58):
I mean, he used to be the talent from China,
stayed here, came here, stayed here, and fived in the
United States, not the other way. Well, but indeed what's
happening is a lot of Chinese are going back to
China because they feel so I'm welcome here. And just

(55:18):
one example, zoom Ing with the renowned as the mastermind
behind key industrial software used in planes such as the
Boeing seventy eighty seven airbus A three eighty has just
left his leadership role at US based global engineering.

Speaker 2 (55:33):
Giant Altaire to return to China.

Speaker 1 (55:37):
He is going to take an he is gonna you know,
he's going to take a position at Eastern at the
Eastern Institute of Technology in Ningbu, and he's joined as
a chair professor, first dean of the college, and he's
setting up a research team. Is also moving all his
social media accounts, and you know, he says, he feels like,

(56:03):
if you really want to advance science right now, if
you really want to do cutting edge technology, United States
is not the place to be. That is unbelievably sad.
Now again, one asked the question how much he appreciates

(56:23):
what really goes on in China and how much freedom
you really have. But this is the level of hostility
we've developed in the country. There were scaring people away,
and he's not the only one. There are dozens people

(56:44):
leaving for Europe, people leaving for biotech labs and tech labs,
and particularly in I think the fields of biology. I mean,
if you're if you're a developer of MR and A vaccines,
you've got no place in the United States anymore. Pack
your bags, leave, go do research somewhere else.

Speaker 2 (57:07):
Here You are not welcome, all right.

Speaker 1 (57:13):
Finally, the Trumpet administration has is deploying one of the
four thousand marines and soldiers in a number of vessels,
from a nuclear powered submarine attack submarine to presiding reconnaissance

(57:34):
airplanes to several destroyers and a guy that missile Cruza,
all being deployed to the waters around.

Speaker 2 (57:43):
Latin America and the Caribbean.

Speaker 1 (57:46):
Really, they're being deployed pretty close to Venezuela. Now, this
is all supposedly as part of a ramped up effort
to comeback and drug cartels and to drop drugs being
smuggled through the Caribbean into the United States. But we're

(58:08):
talking about two but io Jima Amphibious Ready Group twenty
second Marine Expeditionary Unit. These are not just patrol boats.
These are not just boats that can stop smuggling ships.
These are troops that are at least trained and ready
for deployment for amphibious landing. And one wonders since Trump

(58:44):
has declared a number of drug hotels, basically the Mexican
Ones six groups in Mexico as terrorist organizations, One wonders
whether the US military is giving up to go and
fight them and take them out now they won't do
it in Mexico. Mexico's in nehba to the United States.
We still have a decent relationship with them, and so on.

(59:06):
Bet On wonder is if they're doing going to do
this in Venezuela. After all, trend Aragoa is you know,
M thirteen, like I guess gang that is based in Venezuela,
although it's you know, there's a lot of ambiguity about
what it is actually is. The president of Venezuela, Maduro,

(59:32):
is being accused by the United States as being the
world's largest knockoke traffickers. Uh, they've just doubled the reward
in his head from twenty five million to fifty. One
wonders whether the deployment of troops to Venezuela, you know,

(59:54):
is in anticipation of some kind of ground operation in
Venezuela against the drug lords or against the Madua regime itself.
It's hard to tell now, you know, it'll be interesting
to see if the trumpettermestations getting willing to go that far,

(01:00:18):
or if this is just symbolic, this is just a
flexing of muscles, whether they're actually willing to put troops
on the ground and go after the Venezuela ands. Now Venezuela.

Speaker 2 (01:00:29):
Views of this as a threat.

Speaker 1 (01:00:33):
So they have now supposedly deployed four and a half
million militia members. I think that's exaggerated, but that's what
Maduro is saying, right to protect their coasts and of
course protect their drug operations, and.

Speaker 2 (01:00:51):
He believes this is some kind of attack or on Venezuela.

Speaker 1 (01:00:58):
So it's going to be interesting to see what happens
for a uh, for an administration that claims to be
anti war and no foreign intervention and none of that. Maybe,
you know, they they will use they will view this
as part of a Monroe Doctrine type of thing where
Latin America's Americas and and we get to do what

(01:01:18):
we wanted in Latin America. Maybe he views it that way,
but I mean, if Maduro has gotten rid of then
good riddance. But I don't see any reason or purpose
to risk the lives of American soldiers to get rid
of Madua. But do is not a threat to the
United States. Uh, you know, let him rot. Let the

(01:01:41):
Venezuelans take care of him. Madua is not does not
have nukes. He does not have a military capable of
attacking the US. And you know, if they if they're
if they're real terrorist organizations. There were rumors at one
point that Ribella was training in in uh in Venezuela.
I don't think as well as training anyway. Right now

(01:02:02):
they've got their hands full of Lebanon. But it could
be the Trump again is eager to distract from other
things tariff's prices going up, housing costs, and I don't
know this guy named Jeffrey Epstein and might be interested

(01:02:25):
in a direct military intervention in Latin America to show
his macho cred for America first and get rid of
that drug problem. A drug problem, by the way, is
only increasing. I mean the amount of drugs, the amount

(01:02:46):
of cocaine specifically being produced today, cocaine put aside fence
and all heroin everything else. It's about four times what
it was in two thousand and five, between three to
four times. The amount of money the cartels are generating
from drugs is dramatically higher than what it was at

(01:03:10):
the peak of the war drugs back then. South American
coca cultivation has gone from somewhere between what is this
hector is one hundred or two hundred thousand hectors to
somewhere around four hundred thousand hectors, So more than doubled,

(01:03:30):
more like tripled, well not tripled, but more than doubled.
So huge demand for cocaine, and indeed the cocaine business
is booming like it's never before. A lot of this
is due to Europe. The europe drug habit has grown
really fast in the last two decades. Europe now has

(01:03:54):
overtaken the US is the biggest market for cocaine. I
guess the US, we go straight to fense and all
skip the cocaine it's two mild of a high, goes
straight to the good stuff. Also, new users in the
Middle East and in Asia are picking up on the
cocaine habit. Latin America's cartels have diversified into other criminal activities.

(01:04:19):
They've got so much money. According to experts, two thousand
and four was the most lucrative year ever for organized
crime in Latin America, so the cartels are stronger than ever.
This is primarily driven by cocaine, but also there's a

(01:04:43):
lot of gold smuggling. They make a lot of money
off of smuggling gold. I don't know whether they get
the gold from the DoD they mine it illegally.

Speaker 2 (01:04:51):
I'm not sure. I'll have to research that.

Speaker 1 (01:04:53):
And then humans smuggling and human trafficking.

Speaker 2 (01:04:55):
Those are the three big ones.

Speaker 1 (01:04:57):
And this is primarily It used to be all focused
in Peru, Colombia, and Mexico, but now Argentina, Chile and
other countries, Costa Rica, Uruguay all feeling it. There's really
no country in Latin America that's not feeling the impact
of the cartels of organized crime.

Speaker 4 (01:05:19):
Of all of this.

Speaker 2 (01:05:22):
I mean, these.

Speaker 1 (01:05:23):
Cartels are unbelievably rich. A country like Costa Rica and Uruguay.
These are countries that used to be completely safe, had
no violence, and now suffering significantly.

Speaker 2 (01:05:36):
Violence as skyrocket in both places.

Speaker 1 (01:05:39):
Indeed, as al Salvado, violence shrunk because of what Bukele did.
It's like a trunk here, and it exploded in all
these other places because the gangs had to go somewhere.
Bukelly didn't stop the drug trade. All he did was
shut it down in Al Salvado.

Speaker 2 (01:05:59):
So today there's no American country that.

Speaker 1 (01:06:01):
Is escaping the kind of organized crime, the amount of
money they're spending, in the amount of violence that they're
willing to.

Speaker 2 (01:06:07):
Engage in it is.

Speaker 1 (01:06:10):
It's truly horrific. So the lesson learned from that, of course,
is let's double down on the worn drugs. Let's send
more troops, let's use the military, let's engage in vore
violence to stop the war drugs. When when we engaged

(01:06:30):
in that kind of violence in Colombia twenty something years ago,
in the nineties and the two thousands, when we really
get up to the war on drugs, didn't make a dent.
As I said, drugs are bigger now than they've ever been.
The only way to deal with the warm drugs is
to get rid of it, is to stop it. It's

(01:06:50):
to eliminated, it's to take the profits out by legalizing drugs.
But that is radical. That's the kind of radical policy
you think young people would be attracted to get rid
of social security, medican and legalized drugs. That's a radical position,

(01:07:15):
the radical position I have. And the young people don't
seem to be attracted to at all at all. They
want more of the state, they want more controls, they
want socialism and feudalism. Quite astounding. All Right, one last

(01:07:38):
story and then I'll go to the super chat.

Speaker 2 (01:07:41):
This one is from the Institute for Justice. Issue for Justice, a.

Speaker 1 (01:07:43):
Phenomenal organization that that sues the government on behalf of
people who believe their rights are being violated. They sue
on a variety of different in a very different areas,
very similar to Specific Legal Foundation, have slightly different areas
of expertise, but they basically sued the government of example,

(01:08:05):
Parcific Legal Foundation to sue the government over the tariffs. Well,
this is a new case. Answer for Justice just announced.
I'm just going to read you from their post about
this case. Iraq war veteran and US citizen George Raiders
was detained by Ice for three days, no charges, no lawyer,

(01:08:31):
no phone call, no judge. So much for habeas corpus
and the Fourth Amendment. But anyway, he missed his daughter's
third birthday, was put in isolation, and released without apology.
George has now filed claims with federal agencies for his
unconstitutional detention. Good for him and we are proud to

(01:08:54):
represent him.

Speaker 2 (01:08:55):
Good for the Institute for Justice.

Speaker 1 (01:08:57):
Building on our recent FTC victory at the US Supreme Court,
we're continuing the fight to hold the government accountable when
it violates people's rights. So yes, rather than have people
like Anne who will justify anybody anything that the Trump
administration does, even when it violates the individual rights of Americans,

(01:09:18):
it is great to have Americans at the Institute for
Justice fighting for those rights. I mean, if you want
to support I mean other than nine an institute. The
only two other institutions that I would actively support and embrace.

Speaker 2 (01:09:34):
Our Isstue for Justice and a Specific Legal.

Speaker 1 (01:09:36):
Foundation, because they're doing the groundwork to the incident. Is
the long term philosophical change that the culture needs. But
in the meantime, we need to survive, and Pacific Legal
Foundation and Instruye for Justice are keeping us alive.

Speaker 2 (01:09:55):
They're keeping the government check, not.

Speaker 1 (01:09:57):
As much as we'd like because there's only so much
they can do, but that's slowing down and in some
cases reversing the encroachment of statism and authoritarianism in this country.
And I can't think of an entity right now more
engage in violation of individual rights and Ice and figuring

(01:10:20):
out something that can slow down Ice, penalize Ice for
doing what it's doing. The indiscriminate violence that they're engaged in,
I think is amazing and incredible and important and good
for interestry for justice. Somebody asked about Alex's thing, is
not a nonprofit?

Speaker 2 (01:10:41):
Doesn't need your financial support?

Speaker 1 (01:10:46):
Ij does?

Speaker 2 (01:10:47):
I is a nonprofit, so is specifically your foundation?

Speaker 1 (01:10:51):
All right, that is the news for Wednesday, August twentieth.
Thank you for joining us today. Since Thomas reminded me
of Alex, I'll remind you that Alex is a sponsor
of the Iron Book Show.

Speaker 2 (01:11:06):
Alex Epstein.

Speaker 1 (01:11:09):
Alex Epstein is the pre eminent advocate for freedom in energy,
for free.

Speaker 2 (01:11:16):
Markets in energy, and is.

Speaker 1 (01:11:22):
Also the permanentity intellectual in the field in a sense
of God, what happened here? One second? One second? One second?
Let me just try to redo this a right, pre
eminent in the field of energy environmentalism, he writes about them,

(01:11:43):
he advocates for it. He's active politically, he's active in
trying to influence administration and moving them in the right direction.
Oh this is good, all right. Some of my super
chat I forgot to turn on the super chat thing,

(01:12:05):
So some of your questions I'm gonna have to copy
paste because they've disappeared on me. So just give me,
be patient with me a little bit. Maybe maybe not,
maybe this is all the questions we have. But I
will let me work on this for a second, and
I'll get you anyway. Alex Epstin alex epstin dot supsack

(01:12:29):
dot com is where you can read his stuff. I
think you will enjoy it. I think you will learn
a lot. You will become a better advocate for it.
You will become more educated about these issues that are
really in our world right now.

Speaker 2 (01:12:44):
The issues around energy are.

Speaker 1 (01:12:46):
Really life of death issues that the life of death
of capitalism, life and death of freedom, and just the
physical the material life of death of all of us
without fossil fuels. How do we how do we survive?

Speaker 2 (01:12:59):
God?

Speaker 1 (01:13:00):
This give me such a hard time. Sorry, guys, gotta
get this done, all right. Also sponsoring this show is
the Ironman Institute. The Irony Institute is reminding you that
now you can sign up pretty much. Anybody can sign up.
Anybody can sign up to take what used to be

(01:13:22):
AU courses. To take the courses that the Unren Institute
is teaching. You can sign up, no application needed, and
you can take these classes. You can take them as
you can do as much homework assignments as you want.
You can participate in life classes, or just listen to
them after the fact. There are multiple ways for you

(01:13:44):
to be engaged with these courses at your own time,
at your own pace, and at the level you would like.
If you want to do submit homework assignments and get
them graded, you could submit homok assignments and get them graded.
So please consider doing all of that. Yeah, you can
find out more about these courses. I think I mentioned

(01:14:05):
that I will be teaching some of them in the
next year. You can find out more information about the
courses and what courses are offered right now on the
platform at ironrand dot org slash start here inrand dot
org slash start here. All right, let's see, have I
got everything I need? No? No, we still got more

(01:14:29):
to go. All right. On's second, let's see trying to
make sure I get everybody's questions so I can answer
everybody's questions. Don't want to miss anybody. If I do
miss you, let me know. And if I don't answer
your question that you asked for some reason, let me
know and I will catch up with them. Okay, I

(01:14:50):
think I've got all those all right, So I don't
have a running tab on where we are in terms
of UH questions. I can probably do this fifty seventy eighty. Yeah,

(01:15:10):
so we're still way behind on where we need to
be in terms of our goals. Unless I missed I
missed some stickers or yeah, I missed these stickers. Yeah,
but we're still we're still behind. Maybe not way behind,
but we're still behind where we need to be. So
please consider supporting the show with a sticker with UH,

(01:15:31):
or with a question. A question. We've we've got some time, UH,
and we don't have many questions, so UH feel free
to jump in with questions you might have all right,
UH and UH hendershot wealth, hender shot with two teeth,
hender shot wealth all one would dot com slash ybs

(01:15:51):
their sponsors. They're products that can save you. I think
a lot of money, a lot of money on your taxes,
particularly your capital gains taxes. Check out the I did
with Robert hender Shot. It's available on my channel and
it's on the playlist for sponsors. I might be doing
another another interview with Roberts about another product that they

(01:16:16):
have in the weeks to come, but definitely check out
the interview we have and if you at all interested,
then go to their website hand a shot wealth dot com,
slash ybs hand a shot wealth dot com slash ybs
and get more information from them directly. Not a hot
sales pitch, just information. And I think you'll enjoy talking

(01:16:36):
to them. I think you'll learn something about taxes by
talking to them. Wes, thank you for the fifty dollars sticker.
Really really appreciate it. I'll try to catch up. Let's
quickly the stickers. Robert, thank you, Roland thank you. Let's
see because some of these will disappear if I don't
do them now. Steven thank you, and Darlene, thank you.

(01:16:57):
Really appreciate it. Those of you have not done a
sticker yet, you should. Silvanas thank you, Stephen Harper, thank you.

Speaker 2 (01:17:05):
I think there were more, but we'll go with that
all right.

Speaker 1 (01:17:11):
Uh, let's start with our first twenty dollars question, Michael.
A part of me thinks things will return to normal
once Trump is gone, But maybe the genie is out
of the bottle. He has unleashed an unstoppable combination of
Christianity and nationalistic racism. I mean maybe, But part of
the question you have to ask yourself was what is normal?

(01:17:33):
Normal was a mixed economy, Norma was statism. Norma was
a constant, steady, unending drift away from freedom. So it
turns to normal in that sense. And then what I mean,
I man was very explicit. I think she's completely right.

(01:17:57):
Then a mixed economy is unstable. It grabs either towards
much greater freedom or towards greater statism. And there is
no indication that if things go back to quote normal,
we will move towards greater freedom, and plenty of indications
that were likely to work to move towards greater statism.

(01:18:19):
So I'm not sure how reassuring going back to normal is.
And yes, I mean Trump is not is nuts and
an irresponsible and and crazy and and and uh just
a villain in many respects, just a villain. But you know,

(01:18:43):
he has also elevated a whole approach to politics it's
going to be very difficult to put this back the
genie back in the box. I mean, whether it's Democrats
or Republicans in the future. He has set new standards
of what a president can get away with, and you
think that other powers lusters won't come about to take
advantage of those. I just don't see, you know, normal,

(01:19:09):
A normal is not good. Normal is Bush and Obama
and Biden. That's not good. Maybe that's a slower drift
towards statism than the rush that Jadvansh will represent. But
I also don't think those kind of presidential candidates are
really possible anymore, because even if they get in, they

(01:19:32):
will take advantage of the new powers that Trump is taken.
Whoever gets in, we'll do that. So one way or another,
we're heading towards greater and greater statism. Whether it's in
the name of MAGA or the name of the.

Speaker 2 (01:19:46):
Left or the name of whoever.

Speaker 1 (01:19:48):
That's where we're heading, all right, Silvano says, does Tucker
really believe this stuff? He must be insane, right, or
he's just s running with its sense it's popular. I
think he must believe some of it. I think there's
an element that an element that suggests that he believes

(01:20:17):
in it. But I don't know if he believes in
every little thing. I don't know if he believes in,
you know, every aspect of what he's saying. But I
think the big picture, yeah, I think he believes it.
If not that he's putting on a great show of

(01:20:38):
constantly repeating it and repeating it and repeating it and
embellishing on it and cultivating it and all of that,
which is quite you know, quite. I mean, he's he's
good at it. I can't think he could be that cynical.

(01:21:02):
I might be wrong. I think he's just gone a
little nuts. I think he's I mean, demons attacked him.
Did he make that up? What was the advantage of
making that up to get to get in with Maga?
I mean, demons attacked him at night. It wasn't the
dog who was sleeping next him, It was demons who
scratched him. What do you do with that? I mean,

(01:21:24):
how do you how do you wreck the I mean
that's not sane, clearly not sane. All right, I'm checking
my super chats here. Let's just see it was the
first one. Oh, I think I think, I think I

(01:21:48):
missed a lot of Michael super chats.

Speaker 7 (01:21:50):
All right, all right, all right, no that's no no, no, no.

Speaker 1 (01:22:04):
Okay, here are you all right?

Speaker 7 (01:22:09):
I don't know why they're both dated that way.

Speaker 1 (01:22:15):
Let's see, all right, I do have all the super
check questions.

Speaker 2 (01:22:23):
Okay, good.

Speaker 1 (01:22:24):
Uh let's see Thomas hearing people like Pika yesterday. I'm
struck by how they barely formed definition of capitalism is
exactly whatever big business, a big banking does, hence terms
like state capitalism and cony capitalism. Yeah, I mean, I
mean absolutely. One of the great failures that those of

(01:22:46):
us who promote capitalism, you know, fail at, is getting
a definition of capitalism into the culture and getting people
actually using a proper definition of capitalism. They're not, and
and that really really hurts us. And therefore you can
get state capitalism, coding capitalism, and all kinds of other
so called capitalisms, conscious capitalism, enlightened capitalism. I mean, there

(01:23:07):
are millions of them now, and all of it is crap.
There is no something capitalism. It is capitalism, which is freedom,
individual rights, property rights, protection, separations, state from economics. That's
what capitalism is, and that doesn't exist. And you might
want to blame the system, and the system might be rotten,
and in many respects is rotten, but it's not the

(01:23:31):
capitalist elements in it that are rotten. It's not capitalism.
So maybe we need a discussion about what is rotten
in them, but we do. But to blame capitalism is
to misuse the term and to evade the reality in
which we're living. Right, let's see, Uh to the thumb.

(01:24:10):
So we've got Thomas, Yes, all right, some were twenty
dollars questions. Robert has two, Robert says Robert. Augustina so
goatta said's oak On twenty twenty five talk has just
been posted on an AOIS channel and it is a
must see.

Speaker 2 (01:24:29):
You should you guys should definitely see this.

Speaker 1 (01:24:30):
I saw it live Amy and I will be interviewing
Augustina on five Minutes with Robert and Amy this Sunday
night at six pm Eastern time. So check it out.
You know, Augustina is fantastic. The talk was really good.
It was, Yeah, it was. It was. It's very powerful

(01:24:52):
and emotional and u but also lots of info and data. Uh.
It's a really good talk, so you know, go check
it out, and very relevant to what's going on right
now and in the news, and you know, some of
the greatest injustices in American history are being committed right

(01:25:12):
now before our eyes, and Augustine is documenting a lot
of it, which is good. Robert also says, says twenty
eight to twenty sixteen, many of us thought it was
the most destructive anti American administration ever. That was Obama.
We'd never recover from Barack Obama. Well, here we are again.

(01:25:33):
To be sure, huge damage is being done, but we
will recover. But we didn't recover from Obama. I mean,
this is my point, Robert, we did not recover from Obama.
The recovery from Obama is Trump, and Trump is worse
than Obama. So we've gone The response, though Obama is badness,

(01:25:58):
is Trump badness? What's the response to Trump badness? Somebody
else's badness. So I don't think what you mean is
we recovered, because I don't think we ever recovered from
from Obama. We survived, We're still surviving suffers. That okay,
because as much as they Trump or Obama or anybody
try to impose themselves on us, there's still enough freedom

(01:26:20):
in the US economy for us to be successful and
to do, okay, And they haven't clammed down on our
freedom of speech yet enough to, you know, to really
make a dent in our lives, or to make a
substantial dent in our lives.

Speaker 4 (01:26:34):
But I don't.

Speaker 1 (01:26:35):
I don't consider us having ever recovered from Obama. Trump
is the pain we have to suffer as a consequence
of Obama? What is the pain we have to suffer
as a consequence of Trump? I mean, does this only accelerate?
Does it only get worse? All right? Don't forget to

(01:26:58):
use the stickers and the super Yeah to support your
own book show trade value for value.

Speaker 2 (01:27:03):
You're listening to the show.

Speaker 1 (01:27:05):
I assume that is because it is a value to you.
Jump in and show how much of a value it
is to you with the super chat or the sticker.
I appreciate it all. A dollar here, two bucks there, fifty,
one hundred, two hundred, I mean, I mean a three
hundred and fifty super Chat sticker would be perfect right now?

(01:27:30):
All right, Michael, You've got a quote from Jeff Bezos.
Complaining is not a strategy. You have to work with
the world as you find it, not as you would
have it be. Yes, But what are you working in
the world you find it to do to make it

(01:27:50):
as as you would have it be. So you've got
to take the world as it is and work hard
to make it as you would have it be. And
I think that's that's what any productive visionary person is doing.

(01:28:13):
Dave says Obama's phon Parlsey was calamitous as compared to
Biden's or Trump's. I mean, oh calamitous, or bushes Bush's.
I mean, they're all horrific. I mean, what makes Obama
unique is he's the first but not the last. It
turns out anti American president in that sense. This phone
policy was calamitous, but now we have Trump, which makes

(01:28:37):
Obama look like a child in comparison to damage he's doing.
Michael says, Hassan pi Cup actually made a video response
to your debate?

Speaker 2 (01:28:47):
Was Sam Seeter?

Speaker 1 (01:28:48):
Oh he did? I didn't see that. Yeah, I mean,
as human just makes fun of me. If I remember right,
the video responses. I didn't realized that was house on Piker,
But wow, I got house on Piker's attention. Maybe I
make a response video to my response video to his interview,

(01:29:13):
one wonders. Nikki says she did her best she's ever
done under Biden. Yeah, I don't think presidents have that
much impact on how good financially, business wise, or professionally
you do. Sometimes they do if it's a particular profession

(01:29:34):
that they happen to be regulating, or do you regulated.
I did tell her I professionally did terribly under Obama.
I'm sorry under Biden, Okay, and Obama actually good on Obama,
and good under the first Trump Trump, and terribly under well, no,
let me rephrase that good until I did good until
COVID and then Trump's first year and then Obama's presidency.

(01:29:59):
Profess I did badly. But that's because you know, COVID
was bad for the industry I was in, and because
Biden was particularly bad for this particular industry. But that
shifts with every president has the things he hates, all right, Michael, Michael.

(01:30:29):
Since Trump has had bad personal experiences with the I
R S and government regulations, he wants them undermined. It's
freedom by the accidental whim of a narcissist who feels wronged. Yeah. Probably,
I think that's a good explanation for his antagonism towards IRS. Suddenly,

(01:30:49):
most of the regulations that hampered Trump were state and
logo regulations that had to do with his real estate projects.
Blaze guitar lessons. Why is the US education system so
bad versus its peers because of progressive education? Because John Dewey.
John Dewey was an American philosopher was embraced very much

(01:31:10):
by America. He was a professor leading American universities and
broadly embraced in America as a leading thinker. And he
had a profound impact on American education and the impact
that he didn't have as much of it on non
American education.

Speaker 2 (01:31:26):
They didn't take him as seriously.

Speaker 1 (01:31:27):
Outside of America, and as a consequence, progressive education, which
emphasizes emotion and socialization over content and method, dominated American
education and made it as horrible as it is. All right,
William is going to feudalism. Community hubs starting up all

(01:31:53):
over the Something show. Don't you think it's maybe natural
selection ridding life of immoral predator prey calculation the idea
could be then, Yeah, I don't quite understand that question.
I don't know if I copy the pasted it wrong
or if it's just it's going to feudalism. Community hubs

(01:32:17):
starting up all over the show. Don't you think it's
maybe natural selection, reading life of the immoral likes, predator
prey calculation.

Speaker 2 (01:32:28):
The idea could be that their end and then.

Speaker 1 (01:32:30):
It goes off. I don't know. I mean, so I
take it you think that people who take feudalism seriously
will go out and do stuff that will actually lead
to their destruction, and that is a way of nature
taking care of the week of the week.

Speaker 2 (01:32:47):
And stupid.

Speaker 1 (01:32:48):
It doesn't work that way. Unfortunately, ideas don't work that way.
They take us with them, They become violent, and we
all suffer the consequences. So yeah, if everybody you admired
twelve twenty started their own country and impose twelve twenty
on their country and you know, and didn't force it
on any of us, then go for it. I encouraged

(01:33:08):
them to do that. But that's not how it's going
to function. They want to impose it on us right
here in America, on our lives, and they want to
use force and coosion in order to get their way.
So there's no way for that to actually play out,
all right, Mary, Earleen, what about canceling social Security for
middle class old people and then exempting them from income tax,

(01:33:31):
property tax, and in licensing fee. Yeah, that'd be good
anybody middle class above. I mean, you could actually just
do that trade, right, you know, you don't if you're
willing to give up seal security, you don't have to
be income tax, property tax, and licensing fee. The question is,
you know, if the government then loses revenue, then it

(01:33:53):
still has to raise taxes on the young, right, So
it's hard. I mean there's no look, there's no fair
way to do this, right, there's no way to do this.
It's completely just because the whole system has been corrupted
by force incosion, and force incursion have to continue in

(01:34:15):
order to sustain the system. So we don't, you know,
just completely collapse into into complete anarchy. So I don't
know that you can save them, you know, save older
people from all the taxes and everything else. And you

(01:34:45):
might have to have paid taxes in the past for
old people when you were young, and pay now in
order to fund the deficit that this generation of people
kept voting for. So there's a sense in which it's
just for old people to keep taxes to fund the
deficit that they created or that they facilitated by voting

(01:35:07):
in the people that they did. There's no good way
out of this. But one thing for sure is I
don't believe young people should continue to subsidize old people.
And the fact that that's how the systems you've been
running for the last almost one hundred years doesn't justify
continuing to run that way, right, Christos says, do you

(01:35:36):
think that JD. Vance is evil like Elsworth Tui? He
seems dishonest to me and knows how to manipulate Trump.
I think he knew what he was doing in the
first meeting with Zelenski. Yeah, I mean, I don't know
that he's Elsworth Tui. That is a unique form of evil,
and a unique form of evil that's very aware of
its own evil. I do think Vance is a bad guy.

(01:35:57):
I think he's your moorl I mean level of evil
does he rise to? I don't know exactly, but clearly
a very high level somebody who we should all avoid
as much as we can, and a real danger to
this country, into all of our liberty. But yes, you know,
just look at his intellectual path.

Speaker 2 (01:36:17):
You can see the evasions.

Speaker 1 (01:36:19):
I mean, the very fact that he went through an
Iman phase and that he's gone through a secular phase,
and then the fact that he embraced Catholicism. Why would
you do that? What would motivate somebody to embrace Catholicism
of all religions and to brace it fully, committedly, and
to brace it intellectually and to associate yourself with the

(01:36:41):
worst kind of intellectuals associated with it.

Speaker 2 (01:36:45):
There's something very wrong with Jed Evans.

Speaker 1 (01:36:47):
And maybe he's just a power lester whose figures this
is his path to power. I don't know, but it's something.
Whatever it is, it's very very wrong.

Speaker 4 (01:36:56):
And very very bad.

Speaker 1 (01:37:08):
Okay, let's see Silvanos. How much bigger do you do
the cartels need to get before they're effectively the government?
I mean, probably not that much bigger. If they wish
they execute, you know, basically exec execute or use their
money in order to take political control.

Speaker 2 (01:37:29):
I think they can.

Speaker 1 (01:37:30):
There are certainly regions in Mexico that are governed by
the cartels. The cartels are the local government. Are the
cartels big enough to basically take over Mexico City and
take over the Mexican government? No, not yet.

Speaker 2 (01:37:46):
I don't know how big they would have to be
in order to do that.

Speaker 1 (01:37:49):
They don't want direct conflict with the Mexican military, although
as they get bigger, as they get bolder, they might
not mind it as much. But uh, you know, I
don't know what the size would have to be. But again,
in certain parts of Latin America, the car tells all
the government certainly are the local government. Esoteric dichotomy working

(01:38:19):
on a sci fi story with cyborgs ai extreme longevity.
If people voluntarily live under a CEO celebrity in a
corporate town skyscraper, is that quasi feudalism? How to separate
the ideas? What what does it mean to live under? Like?

(01:38:39):
How much of their lives does this CEO control? They
can they leave the CEO and go work for another CEO.
So you'd have to think it through. What a feudalism?
What if you read up about feudalism, read up about
what the feudal law could do.

Speaker 2 (01:38:56):
I mean he was the rule of law, he was everything.

Speaker 1 (01:39:00):
He was the government, and the government was all powerful, totalitarian.
There was almost no oversight of what he could do.
Is that the case with the CEO, the serfs couldn't leave,
So you'd have to read up in fuelism and match

(01:39:20):
them up. I don't know the stories. I don't know
how powerful your CEO is and what the relationship is,
but it could very well be a type of quasi feudalism,
Mary Ellen, Why can't politicians understand they need to cut spending?
Are they being dishonest and evasive? Do they understand budgets? Oh,
they understand. They know they need to cut spending. They

(01:39:42):
know that there's a huge cost of not cutting spending.
But they are driven by politics, which means by reelection,
by the need for re election. They're driven by the
desires of their people who elect them, and they they're cowards,
and the cowardice leads them to be evasive and to

(01:40:04):
kick the can down the road. But there's not a
single politician and senate that you ask, maybe one or
two who would disagree. Do you think long term spending
needs to be cut? Almost all of them will say yes.
And the left will say, well cut, we'll cut the military,
and the right will say we'll cut I don't know welfare,

(01:40:25):
but they all know.

Speaker 2 (01:40:26):
It has to happen.

Speaker 1 (01:40:29):
I mean, there's some those who believe in modern monetary theory,
who believe that you can just print money and there's
no end to how much you can spend and the
printing money is not inflationary. But they are a minority
even among the left, who believe that. So, yeah, they

(01:40:53):
all know it, they all evade it, they all suppress
their evasion, they all pretend it doesn't exist. They're all cowards.

Speaker 2 (01:41:02):
But that's who we elected.

Speaker 1 (01:41:04):
And that's why I said, at some point you have to.
I mean, I always say, you know, people say the
greatest generation because they fought in World War Two, But
the greatest generation also gave us the welfare state, they
gave us the regulatory state, they gave us the wone poverty,
the wone drugs. The greatest generation also gave us you know,

(01:41:25):
I'm not sure. Maybe it's a silent generation. I can't
remember which generation gave us the New Deal. And the
reality is that everybody who's retiring right now sat through
the massive growth in government and did nothing. So they
can't complain about paying taxes and maybe not getting so

(01:41:46):
security in the future, and they certainly had no claim
on the wealth of the young today and nominalists. This
is the last question is if you want to ask
something quickly, being that there is no capitalist party in
my state, how would you vote least evil theory third party,

(01:42:10):
not vote. I mean, it depends least evil if there's
really a difference, if there really is a least evil
and you know it and you understand and you think
long term about what's the least evil, or don't vote.
I don't have any good third parties that are least evil,

(01:42:31):
and there's no capitalist party anyway, so I'm fine with
not voting. I think voting is overrated. So when the
situation is such the two candidates are equally evil or
at least so evil that it's hard to differentiate who's

(01:42:52):
the least of the two, then you don't vote. I've
not voted in several presidential elections, and now in Puerto
Rico I can vote.

Speaker 2 (01:43:01):
I'm not a loot to vote.

Speaker 1 (01:43:02):
I'm quite happy with that I've you know, and it's
one of the things I don't consider voting that importance.
Freedom is important, but voting is not that correlated with
freedom on a day to day basis on what you
do and how you live on a day to day basis.

Speaker 2 (01:43:19):
So we need to fight for freedom.

Speaker 1 (01:43:22):
We need to fight against the state, against the state
intervention and every aspect of our lives, and we need
to fight to be free, to be free economically, to
maintain our freedom of speech and to expand it, but
to expand out economic liberties. And that's a fight that
we need to keep fighting. And it's not just how

(01:43:43):
economic liberties. Right now, Right now they're running people in
the streets. I mean, as I said in this lawsuit
by the Issue for Justice, an American citizen, a veteran,
and three days with nothing, not accused of anything, not nothing,
put in jail for three days. That is.

Speaker 2 (01:44:10):
That is not freedom.

Speaker 1 (01:44:11):
You're not living in a free country when the government
can round people up any way they want and incarcerate
them just because really they look hispanic, they look like immigrants,
whatever the hell that means. All right, guys, thank you.

(01:44:33):
I appreciate all the super chattis today, all the stickers,
you guys are great. Tomorrow show we'll be back at
I think it's three pm East Coast time, so we're
back to more normal hour for the show. Sry Silvana's
he likes the early shows, So three pm East Coast
time on Friday will be four pm, so a little

(01:44:53):
later three pm and four pm the next couple of days,
I will and then we'll and then we're taking probably
do show on Saturday, and then we're taking a week off.
But I will see you tomorrow. So I have a
great rest of your Wednesday and a great rest of
your week, and I will see you tomorrow, and thank

(01:45:14):
you bye everybody,

All Episodes

MAGA & Tucker: Feudalism in Disguise? Ageism, TikTok, Engineers, Military & Drugs | Yaron Brook Show

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

The Herd with Colin Cowherd

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

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}MAGA & Tucker: Feudalism in Disguise? Ageism, TikTok, Engineers, Military & Drugs | Yaron Brook Show