Mamdani, Tucker & Fuentes -- What is Going On? | Yaron Brook Show - Yaron Brook Show

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
A lot of them of Lado last cells and any
individual lots. This is the show, all right, everybody, welcome
to your one book show on this Saturday, November eighth.

(00:28):
I hope everybody's doing well. I hope you've got a
I hope you've got a having a good weekend of
starting off a good weekend.

Speaker 2 (00:37):
Uh all right, uh we uh.

Speaker 1 (00:40):
I am back for a little while now for very long.
I'm back for a few days here in Puerto Rico.
So we will have shows today, Tomorrow, Monday, and Monday
from Puerto Rico and the Tuesday I'm flying again. But
we should have shows on Tuesday and Friday from the road,
so that that should be the the schedule this week.

(01:01):
No shows on Wednesday and Thursday. For those of you
in San Francisco, I will be doing a debate. I'm
not sure exactly what the format is going to be.
They still haven't clarified it to me, but about Christianity
in Western civilization. That'll be on Wednesday evening and you

(01:25):
can check out. You can get information on that on
my website. You on bookshow dot com. Just school down
and you'll get events and then if you check and
then if you're in Colorado. Then on Thursday night, I
will be in Colorado Springs at the university, the University
of Colorado, Colorado.

Speaker 2 (01:42):
Springs, debating a.

Speaker 1 (01:45):
Socialist it kind of a real socialist, but a little unconventional.
He's got views, his views a little conventional, and so
there's views of socialism.

Speaker 2 (01:53):
But that should be that should be really good and exciting.

Speaker 1 (01:56):
Hopefully there'll be a packed audience that's at a university
of people interested in in this issue. Uh So it'd
be great if I had a few people who agreed
with me, because I have a feeling, uh that it'll
be packed, even though it's in Colorado Springs, a very conservative.

Speaker 2 (02:12):
Part of the country.

Speaker 1 (02:14):
I suspect at the university they're just as leftist as
any other university out there.

Speaker 2 (02:20):
So yeah, it'd be great if you guys showed.

Speaker 1 (02:22):
Up and and came and and and uh we're at
the event and uh supported uh supported uh.

Speaker 2 (02:33):
Capitalism supported my position in the debate. All right.

Speaker 1 (02:39):
Uh so we're gonna be talking about kind of really
the insanity of the last week and a half, just
the craziness out there in the world. I mean, I
say insanity, but on the other hand, it's it's it's
very uh, very uh predictable, a very predictable situation, by
the way, you know, it was heck called in Lisbon,

(03:01):
three people by three people who came up and started
yelling about the fact that I was a Zionist and
therefore should not be talking about capitalism. So they were
unelegantly escorted out of the room and and thrown out.
But if you watch the discussion the video from the

(03:22):
Lisbon event, you'll.

Speaker 2 (03:25):
Catch a little bit of the excitement around that. I do.

Speaker 1 (03:29):
I don't know what to expect in Colorado Springs. Again,
I wouldn't be surprised if some of the supporters of
socialism the left has showed up in anticipation of not
accusing me of being a capitalist, God forbid, but accusing
me of being a Zionist. That that is the ultimate

(03:51):
insult these days from the left. So I wouldn't be
surprised if there was some excitement around that. But security,
I'm pretty sure we'll be robust at the event in
Colorado Springs. All right, So.

Speaker 2 (04:09):
What has been going out?

Speaker 1 (04:09):
Well, we all know, I think everybody knows that Mumdani
an explicit socialist and explicit Hata of Israel, you know,
basically a river to the sea, globalize the jihad kind
of leftist and a socialist government should own the means
of a production. What did he say in a speech

(04:35):
just after the election. There's no there's no issue. There's
no issue small enough that that the government shouldn't have
any interest in it and shouldn't be able to make
things better. So a kind of an interventionist at a

(04:58):
level we've never seen, I think in this country, or
at least not in a high profile position. A real socialist,
a socialist of the state owning the means of production
type socialist. Again, I don't think we've seen anybody quite
like that at this level of government. And somebody who

(05:21):
is combines kind of the anti Semitism, anti Israel, anti
Western civilization, anti Enlightenment aspect of the left with a
kind of a Marxist owning the means of production combinations.
So he is the real thing. He is the real thing,

(05:41):
and we will see how much damage he can actually do.

Speaker 2 (05:46):
In New York. One of the things that I think went.

Speaker 1 (05:48):
Under reported was that the number of kind of far
left progressives elected the city council is also kind of
an historic level.

Speaker 2 (05:57):
So he has got a.

Speaker 1 (05:58):
City council this very faith vobo towards his agenda, and therefore,
at least at the city level, he will have a
lot of influence. He will be able to shape a
lot of policy, uh, and do a lot of harm.

Speaker 2 (06:15):
Exactly what harm? How to tell?

Speaker 1 (06:19):
So and he is you know, he just to give
you a sense, he was in Puerto Rico, I guess
the last few days for some conference they do once
a year with politicians from New York. And he went
to a local mosk here. And this is a mosque
in which the preacher kind of said that October seventh
was was a he said during while I was on

(06:42):
Mum Donny was in the was there, Uh, you know,
praise October seventh. This is the level of hostility, the
level of hatred of Israel and of I think more
broadly of Jews that Mum Danny represents from the left. Uh.
And ultimately, ultimately all of that represents, as we'll talk

(07:06):
about it a little bit, all of that represents a
real hatred of the Enlightenment of of the West, the
Western civilization, Western civilization represents and is.

Speaker 2 (07:19):
So so that was going on on the left this.

Speaker 1 (07:22):
Last week, and you know, the left is is definitely celebrating.
I'll just mention the fact that it was a clean
suite pretty much for Democrats across the board. Democrats won
the governorship in New Jersey, they won. They won the
governorship in Virginia, taking it from a Republican. They won

(07:48):
many of the kind of local elections they won local
you know, state houses, as state Senate, the state House
of Representatives they won me always. They also one the
redistricting battle in California, a clean sweep for Democrats across
the board. In addition, I mean, the one more positive

(08:08):
thing was in Minnesota, Minneapolis where the current mayor, who
is just a progressive.

Speaker 2 (08:13):
Not a far fall far far left.

Speaker 1 (08:16):
Progressive, but just a progressive, beat a Somali who was
challenging him, who was far far far left, but suppose
the only one because of a dispute within the Somali
community among the different clans. You know, I don't know,
but that was at least reasonable news. I guess when
a moderate progressive wins versus a progressive progressive wins, that's

(08:39):
good news. But Democrats won across the board, and one
has to to large extent. This is a pudiation I
think of Trump to large extent. This is the existential
angst that exist right now about many of Trump's policies.
In many of these locations, there was a massive swing

(09:00):
from people who voted for Trump to people who voted
Democratic this time, particularly among.

Speaker 2 (09:05):
Can you guess, can you guess who who voted to Trump?

Speaker 1 (09:09):
Now we're no longer one to vote for Trump. Well,
among Hispanics and among Asians. I think the swing among
Asians was something at forty two points. Swing among Hispanics
was forty something points, was sorry, twenty something points. So yeah,

(09:33):
I mean you kind of get a sense maybe the
Hispanic population, even those who voted for Trump in the
first you know, this year, maybe I'm not too happy
with the ice phenomena, maybe not too happy with having
their relatives and maybe even in some cases themselves being
detained and in some cases being being deported. And at

(09:58):
the same time, of course, on the economic front, prices
still increasing, inflation, price inflation still evident. Things not getting better,
just things not getting better. If anything, the employment situation
today versus when the election was held a year ago,
the employment situation is worse, but you know, the only

(10:20):
thing that's significantly better in terms of the economy right
now visa vie a year ago is the stock market.
I think there was something about consumer sentiment that came
out at the lowest point.

Speaker 2 (10:38):
Is only one point that is.

Speaker 1 (10:39):
Lower in the history of the survey, and that was
during the post COVID inflation. So yeah, people are unhappy.
People are not happy with the Trump administration. And I
think that that got reflected in the ballot box during
this election, and it does not bode well for the
mid terms.

Speaker 2 (10:58):
And look, all of this in spite of another.

Speaker 1 (11:00):
Fact that are all the posts show, and that is
that people don't like the Democratic Party. They really do
not like the Democratic Party. All Right, We're going to
put that aside because I really want to talk more
about Zon Mamdani and kind of the far left than
to talk about just the swing and the election.

Speaker 2 (11:18):
We'll get to that. We'll have plenty of time to
talk about that.

Speaker 1 (11:21):
In the days, weeks, months, years to come. At the
same time, so that was going on on the left,
the left. So the victory of our fall leftist I
think this emboldened the progressives, It emboldened the socialist and
inmbolden day and the capitalist and emboldened the anti Semites
on the far left, and we'll be seeing many more

(11:44):
candidates like Mamdania though I think m'm Donnie's unique, but
we'll be seeing a lot more of those candidates. And
I think that generally the movement, the political movement, the
cultural movement that he represent is going to be much
more emboldened, much more emboldened. At the same time as

(12:05):
all of this is going on the right, the far right,
the antisemitic, racist, anti enlightenment, anti anti Western civilization less
might I say anti American right has been dominating the

(12:26):
news and has been all the talk and all the
conflict on the right. I need. The reality is that
if I look at my news feed, if I look
at Twitter, if I ok at where else the Nick foyentees,
Tucker Callson, Heritage has dominated the discussion, the discussion out there,

(12:50):
and the Heritage Foundation in particular.

Speaker 2 (12:54):
We've talked about this in a.

Speaker 1 (12:55):
Previous show, but it's only gotten worse. I mean, it's hemorrhaging.
Donut employees are leaving. There is significant debate within the organization,
There is unhappiness with leadership, and every time they kind
of backtrack and kind of explain themselves. And the reason

(13:17):
for all this is the fact that basically the leadership
of Heritage has come out basically in overwhelming support and
kind of support. Forever.

Speaker 2 (13:33):
We are friends forever with Tacker Calson.

Speaker 1 (13:35):
No matter what he does, no matter who he platforms,
no matter who he supports, no matter how again antisemitic,
anti American, anti Western civilization he becomes, Heritage will stick
with him. And of course this is mean the last
two weeks peak, I mean, hopefully it's peak. Hopefully it

(13:56):
doesn't go from here, you know, peak Nick Foyentis Grouper's.

Speaker 2 (14:05):
Popularity.

Speaker 1 (14:07):
New York Times arn his story during the week that
according to the sources they have in the White House
and among gropers, I guess, and I don't know if
you want to just say this is The New York
Times being hysterical or not. It's hard to tell when
The New York Times has a smidgeon of truth and
when it's just completely crazy. But they are arguing that

(14:30):
about forty percent of staffers young staffers in the White
House in this administration are fans of Nick Foyentis. Nick
Fotis then went up on his show and said, oh no, no,
they are way underestimating.

Speaker 2 (14:44):
It's much more than that.

Speaker 1 (14:47):
And of course we saw this is all we saw
about two weeks before the Nick Fointest thing, before Nick
Fointis was interviewed by Tucker, we saw the leaked chats
by young Republicans. They were Nick Foynd thats like. So
the prevalence of racism, anti women, and anti Semitism, and

(15:13):
again I will add to that, anti Western civilization, anti
American the prevalence of that on the right is truly,
I mean, just unbelievably shocking, just shocking over the weekend. Well,
it wasn't over the weekend, because the weekid is now

(15:34):
I'm a little discombobulated in terms of time and where
I am and everything, just because all the flying and
the changing of time zones and what day it is
and so on. But yeah, but the over the last
couple of days, I guess Megan Kelly has been hosting

(15:57):
a interview show live on stage. I'm not exactly what
the what the hosting or what the host was, but
well attended. He usually attendant, and you know, she interviewed
Tucker Carlson and she asked at Carlson, why didn't you
ask You know a lot of people are saying, why
do you ask tough questions of Nick? Points and Tucker
call all defensive and basically said, it's my show. I'll

(16:19):
do whatever the hell I want. And if you want
to ask the fos tough questions, you have a show.
You're inviting fointas on and asking question. This is not
targeted to make it Kelly, who's very pro Tucker and
very friendly and very nice to Tucker as part of
the whole rights sucking up the Tucker agenda, but this
was targeted at whoever might have dared to ask such

(16:40):
a such a question. The next day, she interviewed Ben Shapiro,
and look, I have a lot of disagreements with Ben Shapiro,
starting with the fact that he is a religious Jew
and I am not, and and the fact that he
has been willing to what to give a basically to

(17:02):
uh give a thumbs up to much of what Donald
Trump does and I have not, And you know.

Speaker 2 (17:08):
Huge disagreements between us, I mean massive.

Speaker 1 (17:12):
And yet in all of this, in all of what's
happening right now, Ben Shapiro by far is the most
rational of of of all the commentators out there, he
has broken down Nick foyntus and and uh and criticized him,
I think rationally and properly. If you want to see
Nick Foyintis videos, if you're not convinced by me saying

(17:36):
he's an anti semi, I'm not showing new appoint videos here,
but if you want to see, just look up.

Speaker 2 (17:42):
Ben Shapiro's criticism of Nick Coointus.

Speaker 1 (17:44):
He's got uh, he's got a what he got a
montage of Nick Foytis uh, you know, going after Jews
and and so on, so you can get a sense of.

Speaker 2 (17:55):
Of what Nick point is like if you need that.
You know, not highly recommended.

Speaker 1 (17:59):
The guys a real scumback, really slimy and and and
not particularly aesthetic to watch as he does this. He's
he gives us pretty disgusting vibes to me, Savni Shaville's
really been a bright light here. And he was was
making Kelly. I mean, he was, he was He was principled.

(18:20):
He called evil evil. He went after Candae's own He
tried to making Kelly for not taking a position when
when being confronted with evil. He went after Tucker Carson,
although he was a little bit too friendly to Tucker,
still willing to forgive Tucker, still willing to work with
Tucker if Tucker did these things. God, at some point,
you just have to give up, Ben. Some of these

(18:42):
people are just playing evil and you just have to
walk away. You just have to give up on them.

Speaker 2 (18:48):
So Ben has done. Ben has done a good job.

Speaker 1 (18:52):
Ben is in a difficult situation because many of his
listeners are probably turning their backs on him. And indeed,
you know, I look at what's going on right now
with Ben Shapiro, the Nick foytus and then Mett Walsh
basically saying we need everybody in the tent. We need
a big old tent to beat the left. We need

(19:13):
to invite anybody who wants to be in our tent
to be an out tent to beat the left. Matt Welsh,
of course, is part of The Daily Wire, which is
the company that Ben Shapiro founded. I don't hear much
from Michael Knowles about these issues. He's kind of gone quiet.
But when suspects he might not be, he might not
be on Ben Shapiro's side, you have to wonder about

(19:47):
the future of the Daily Wire. I mean, how does
the Daily Wire really survive with Ben Shapiro basically calling
out some people on the right evil and having nothing
to do with them. He actually canceled or refused to
appear on Patrick bin David's show because Patrick bin David
had interviewed Nick Foynis. I say, good for Ben for

(20:10):
taking a principal stand again platforming evil, and Matt Walsh
is calling at the same time, why can't we all
get along? Shouldn't we all be in the same big umbrella.
Michael Knows probably agrees with Matt Walsh.

Speaker 2 (20:23):
I don't know if.

Speaker 1 (20:24):
He's actually made it, you know, I don't know how
they stay in the same platform. I mean a number
of people have already left the Daily Wire because of
the disagreements I think with Ben Shapiro around Israel, around
anti Semitism, and around people like Nick foyntis of course

(20:47):
CANDICEO and being the most prominent of them, but she's
not the only one. Matt Walsh and Michael Know is
gonna leave as well. Matt Walsh and Michael Lowe's leave.
Is the Daily Wire still the Daily Wire?

Speaker 2 (21:00):
Is it? Is it? Can it?

Speaker 1 (21:01):
Is it still sustainable? Is it still doable? Can he
make enough money. Can Ben Shapiro make enough money to
sustain it by himself? Are the other people in Daily
Wire really be able to fill in the gap if
they leave? I doubt it. I mean, as irrationalists, I think,
as Ben Shapiro, who is.

Speaker 2 (21:23):
He is?

Speaker 1 (21:25):
He is way too rational for the American rights today.

Speaker 2 (21:29):
He's way you know, too.

Speaker 1 (21:33):
Pro American, way too pro Wist and civilization for the
insane nutty right today.

Speaker 2 (21:44):
So can he survive?

Speaker 1 (21:46):
I mean, based on the comments that I got right
I posted good for Ben, to the idea that he
didn't appear with Patrick and defeat, Oh my god, all
the I mean, the number of anti semit who showed
up is just unbelievable, slamming me, slamming Ben, some of
those really ugly, ugly, horrific stuff. And you know, I'm

(22:10):
sure that's just a fraction of all the ones out there. Uh,
And so it really is how to see. I mean,
I don't know what Bend's numbers are. I mean, I'm
sure they're huge, and I'm sure he has a huge following.
And I want to believe that there's enough people in
the right who are still sane and rational and fairly
good that can that they've been can sustained. Uh, you know,

(22:34):
UH can sustain his following. But you know, I'm not
you know, we'll see, We'll see and and again. The
Daily Wise are big a whole organization. Uh. And is
that whole organization? Uh sustainable if if some of the
more Christian parts of the Channel or the the the

(22:59):
Platform leave, I don't know. I don't know. Of course,
Jordan Peterson is part of the Channel, but Jordan would leave.
I think Jordan would be on Ben Shapiro's side. But
Jordan is sick. He hasn't taped anything new in a
long time. I don't know if you know when he's

(23:19):
gonna get better. Uh, you know, I don't think he's
being much revenue right now for the Daily Why. I
don't know, right I have no inside information, but I
I I wonder how sustainable the whole thing is a
few other things worth noting particularly about about Tucker.

Speaker 2 (23:43):
You know Tucker.

Speaker 1 (23:45):
You know a lot of people are saying, Uh, Tucker's
not anti Semitic, He's he's just anti Israel and he's
just asking questions about the support the United States provides
to Israel.

Speaker 2 (24:01):
Well, I mean that is that is.

Speaker 1 (24:13):
That is just a cop out, because actually analyzing what
Teka says and what he does makes it very clear
his positions. For months now, all he talks about a
Jews an Israel as they are genocides, as they are
horrific acts of violence all over the world. And as
Mamdani gets elected mayor of New York, I mean, he's
Tech's supposed to be part of this coalition to fight

(24:35):
the left, and yet he talks very little about the left.
And indeed, in his latest newsletter, Techer Carlson spent the
newsletter defending Mamdani as actually.

Speaker 2 (24:50):
Not really anti Semitic.

Speaker 1 (24:55):
Mamdani not anti Semitic because just like him, he's just
a secking Israel and the real problem of the Jews.
So I don't think there's any question in.

Speaker 2 (25:06):
Terms of Tucker's anti Semitism. I don't think.

Speaker 1 (25:08):
I don't think that's up for really debate once you
actually look at the at the evidence, and it's stunning
the Heritage Foundation sticking with him as part of this
coalition to fight the left, when Tucker does very little
to fight the left. He'd rather, you know, a question
whether the Hitler is as bad as we really think

(25:29):
he was whether the Churchill might have been the worst
leader in really the evil guy during World War Two.
He'd much rather ask questions about Israel and the Jews
than actually engage in going after the left. So it's

(25:52):
curious what it is that heritage is defending. It's curious
to me what it is the right is rallying around.
What is really motivating them, what is driving them? And
I think from all of this, I mean from I
mean heritage is obviously being torn apart right now because
heritage has what you would consider old line Republicans.

Speaker 2 (26:16):
Who are.

Speaker 1 (26:23):
You know, God, what is going on?

Speaker 2 (26:27):
Right?

Speaker 1 (26:34):
God?

Speaker 2 (26:34):
What was I talking about?

Speaker 1 (26:35):
This is my mind is still is still consumed by
jet leg I guess.

Speaker 2 (26:43):
Handicapped by jet lag.

Speaker 1 (26:45):
But in a heritage there's some old line conservatives who
are still hanging on to kind of old you know,
generally pro maybe a little bit of markets, not too much,
but a little bit, you know, pro pro American Founding
Fathers they still meant and the Funding Fathers and maybe
Constitution of Declaration. They tend to be not antisemitic. They

(27:06):
tend to be pro American and pro Western civilization, even
if they put too much of an emphasis on religion.
These are kind of the mainstream, you know, Conservatives of
the past kind of missed them, and suddenly they've discovered
that their institution is being run by people who have

(27:26):
an endless respect for Techerkasson of twenty twenty five, not
tech Calson five years ago, not even tech Colson three
years ago, certainly not Techa Coulson of ten years ago,
but Thatch Cosson of today. They are being managed by
people whose allegiant is to Taker Cousson, the platform of

(27:49):
Nick Foenters, who's driven by both of them, are driven
by anti Semitic h I mean, so what's going on here?
So I want to step back a little bit. And
so heritage has been torn apart, and we'll talk about
that as ann mentions in the super Chat. Stephen Moore

(28:12):
resigned from Heritage. Although I'm a little pistop at Stephen
Moore because when he resigned from Heritage, he didn't say
he was resigning from Heritage because of this, which he
should have. You should have had the coverage to do.
He's been in Heritage for a long time. I said
he was pursuing other things. Da da da da da da,
it would be nice to take a mall stand Stephen.

Speaker 2 (28:33):
I know Stephen Moore, we know each other.

Speaker 1 (28:40):
Stephen. If I see him, I will I definitely intend
to say something to him. The timing made it clear,
But God, it makes such a difference when you actually
are willing to use your platform to say this is
why I'm leaving Heritage. It would have been so much

(29:01):
clearer and so much more powerful of a statement if
that had happened. Several people now have also left Heritage. Indeed, today,
was it today or yesterday? Probably yesterday? Yesterday. The Heritage
Foundation Chief Advancement Officer Andy Olivastro sent out an email
to the think tank partners saying the Heritage Foundation is

(29:22):
rooted in principles and policies, not personalities.

Speaker 2 (29:25):
I guess not, techer Coulson.

Speaker 1 (29:28):
We will not make the mistake of placing individuals Tucker Colson,
even friends Taker Coulson, above the critical mission of the
institution that all of us are entrusted to.

Speaker 2 (29:38):
Stewart, I think I told you that.

Speaker 1 (29:43):
The Heritage Foundation has this anti Semitism project that they're
doing with partners. Well, basically they've been kicked out of it,
or the partners have left. They do not want to
collaborate with Heritage Foundation on this project of anti semitism
as long as they continue to be apologist for Tucker.

(30:08):
So how did the right become so crazy and so fringe?
How did somebody like you know, really a juvenile clown
like nik for Antis have so much leverage? The Tucker

(30:30):
Cousin is willing to risk everything to have him on
his platform and to talk to him, and Heritage is
willing to risk implosion in order to basically have one
big happy tent with you know, an anti Semitic Tucker Cousin.
How come Tucker cous is this because he is? What

(30:52):
about the left? I mean most of the left, And
I know some of you won't like this, but most
of the left, I'm not moms. I don't think mcdonnie
could win on a national ticket. I suddenly hope not.
You know, most of most people on the left are
not anti Semitic, and they're not pro Hamas. Although the

(31:13):
number of people who are anti Israel has grown significantly,
I think very few people if they understood off that
even an inkling of what globalized need to fodder actually meant.
I don't think most people are pro globalized.

Speaker 2 (31:24):
Need to fudter?

Speaker 1 (31:28):
Why are these fringe characters coming to dominate out intellectual life?
How are these fingch characters coming to dominate politics? Where
did they come from? Is it true that these people
have always been racists and anti semites on the right

(31:49):
and always been anti Semites and anti Western civilization on
the left. I mean, to some extent, I think that's
more true of their fall left than it is of
the fall right. But maybe not. Maybe they've always been this.
But if they've always existed, if this has always been
a big chunk of the left and a big chunk
of the right, then why were they so quiet for

(32:13):
so many years? Because I would argue that from the
civil rights movement on really until.

Speaker 2 (32:20):
Twenty sixteen, and maybe with the left.

Speaker 1 (32:26):
Yeah, both the left and the right presented themselves as
significantly more moderate, significantly more centrist. Racism for a very
long time in America was considered no, you just don't
go there. And if somebody expressed racist ideas, they're out,
You deep platform them, you have nothing to do with them.
Racism was considered evil and wrong and bad and not

(32:49):
something you deal with. And racism now is just has
become mainscrewmed How did that? How did the wackos and
the craziest come to dominate our conversation?

Speaker 2 (33:05):
I mean antisemitism.

Speaker 1 (33:07):
I think since the nineteen sixties was just unacceptable, and
both left and right it existed that the fringe is sure,
but nobody would actually stand up and make a big
deal out of it.

Speaker 2 (33:22):
I mean, people have been calling each.

Speaker 1 (33:23):
Other racist forever, but real racism, where is it all
coming from now? It's true that to some extent it's
always been there. I think it's elevated now, but it's
always been there. America's always had an element of racism

(33:43):
and xenophobia. But how did it get legitimized? So? I
think there are a number of levels, a number of
levels of answers to this.

Speaker 2 (33:57):
Question that I think we have to dig into.

Speaker 1 (34:03):
And I want to answer that question, this question, why
is it that this is now dominating all the news?
Why isn't it just marginalized? Why isn't it the margins?
Why isn't it that the periphery wight belongs right? A
majority of Americans I think are now Mamdani and are

(34:23):
not Nick fointis not even taker Carlson and yet these
people are what dominate the news. I don't think Mamdani
could have been elected ten years ago. I don't think
Nick Foantis or Techer Carlson could hold the views that
they have and have a following the way they do
ten years ago. What has happened, I mean the bottom

(34:51):
line of this, and we'll get into the details of it,
but the bottom line is that the intellectuals who at
the end of the day are the guardians of society.
I mean, I van view them as the crucial the
crucial key, I mean the key to culture, to the

(35:15):
nature of a culture. The intellectuals, you know, at the
end of the day, got a culture against insane ideas
when they're good and elevate good ideas. At least that's

(35:35):
what good intellectuals do.

Speaker 2 (35:38):
They repress bad ideas.

Speaker 1 (35:41):
They serve as gatekeepers. I know it's not popular at gatekeepers,
and in the world of the Internet and no other
social media, we have no gatekeepers, and maybe that's a
big part of what's going on. We have no gatekeepers.
But the gatekeepers have failed. The gatekeepers have nothing to say,
and I think this is the key intellectual class for

(36:03):
the last fifty years.

Speaker 2 (36:07):
And it's getting and it's gotten worse and worse and
worse over time.

Speaker 1 (36:11):
Have had nothing to say. Americas are struggling. The economy
is not doing very well. People know that, right, I mean,
I think the economy is doing a lot better than
a lot of people, but it's still not doing very well.
And for a lot of people it's very frustrating. But

(36:33):
more than that, people feel like they lack meaning, they
lack purpose in their lives. They are clearly being led
to by the political class, and the intellectuals seem to
have in the past kind of supported those lives. And

(36:54):
maybe the most extreme case of that, I think in
recent history was nine to eleven. They were not told
the truth about nine to eleven. And I'm not talking
about some conspiracy, but they were not told the truth
about who really did it, like what had been Latin
actually represent, what is his ideas, who's behind him, who

(37:15):
supports him. They were not told the truth about Islam.
They were not told the truth about islam Ism. And
then they were not told the truth about the financial crisis.
They were not told the truth about what caused it.
They mean lied to repeatedly. The intellectuals have lied to

(37:36):
them the politicians have lied to them, and of course
COVID just blew that up completely because the lies became
super evident. They were right in our faces. And you know,

(37:57):
the state took on power and control in ways that
I don't think many Americans could have imagined was even
possible in this country.

Speaker 2 (38:09):
And people have. People have just given up.

Speaker 1 (38:12):
They've given up on the gatekeepers, they've given up on
the intellectuals, they've given up on what they do, and
they've gone directly to the source.

Speaker 2 (38:28):
Social media allows them to do that.

Speaker 1 (38:29):
You can go directly to anybody spouting an opinion, anybody
claiming to be reporting the news, anybody claiming to tell
you the truth. You go directly and evaluate it for yourself.
No need for intellectuals. Basically, the American public has voted
to fire the intellectual class, and they deserve it, but

(38:58):
there's nothing to replace it. There's nothing to replace it.
And the American public, given American educational system, given progressive education,
given the lack of thinking of reason, of rationality, giving

(39:21):
the embrace of emotion above all else, given what's taught
at universities, I'm sorry, but the American people are now
ready to be exposed directly to what is going on
in the world and to make judgments of it. They
just don't have the tools to do it. And the intellectuals
are not giving them the tools. They're giving them the opposite.

(39:44):
So if you go to university, talk about the more
educated classes. If you go to university, what are you at?
You get identitarian theory, you get racism. You get racism
couched as sophistic social thinking or philosophy, whether it's post
colonialism colonialism, or whether it's identitarianism, or whether it's intersectionality.

(40:11):
You get secularized, you know, altruism, Christian altruism, secularized and
put on theoids in the name of collectivism and tribalism.
And you go to university and you get educated, and
you come out of it, and then you go on

(40:33):
social media, you go read the news, and it's easy
to radicalize you. Whether to the left or to the right,
it doesn't matter because what they have taught you is
the basis for both.

Speaker 2 (40:44):
As we'll see.

Speaker 1 (40:45):
As I think is quite evident, there's not a lot
of different between Nick foyints and zor On Mamdani. They
hate the same thing. They hate America, the hit Western civilization.
They hate Jews, the hit Israe, and they hate capitalism. God,
if you see Nick Foyintis go off on capitalism, what
difference is there? I mean, zamam Nani is a little

(41:09):
bit more honest in that he pretends to have solutions.
Nick Pointus has and doesn't pretend to have solutions. He
just tells us about what is wrong with the world.
And you know, if we just you know, make America
great again, everything will be fine.

Speaker 2 (41:25):
How do you do that?

Speaker 1 (41:26):
He has no clue.

Speaker 2 (41:33):
So if you go to university, you get a.

Speaker 1 (41:38):
Pseudo sophisticated version of the Futis and the Mamdani's of
the world.

Speaker 2 (41:44):
And indeed, if.

Speaker 1 (41:45):
You look at who voted for Mamnani, I mean the
one overwhelming he wins, the one place where he wins
overwhelmingly is with college educated those who are college educated, young,
college educated men and women voted overwhelmingly Mamdani because.

Speaker 2 (42:06):
College prepares you for that.

Speaker 1 (42:09):
I mean, there's a sense in which socialism is a
more pseudo intellectual you know, it's it's Nick Foydus and
Mumdannia are the same. But Mamdani appeals to educated people
and Nick Foydus, you know, appeals to uneducated people.

Speaker 2 (42:29):
That's the difference.

Speaker 1 (42:30):
The left and the right are the same. Left and
the right are the same. The left just appeals. It
uses language, it has theory, you know, and it appeals
to the pseudo intellectuals of the left, the people who've
gone through the universities, gone through the humanities programs, the

(42:52):
nick Foids of the world. Appeals to the row emotion
of the uneducated. There's no pretense of a theory. America first,
that's it America first. Well, you know what does that mean?
How do you interpret that? How do you what is America?
Who decides none of that matters. Just yell at the microphone,

(43:16):
give Nazi salutes, you know, adore Hitler, because I mean
Hitler was, as Nick Fointer says, it was cool. And
and and while while just constantly about what emotionalists have
always wild against, which is the Jew? And and the
best representation of the Jew right now is Israel. So

(43:41):
it's two versions of the same basic ideology, one couched
and sophisticated academic terms, and one just raw emotion for
the uneducated. And and and the biggest differentiation now between
the left and right is the level of education. They
don't even disagree on that many issues, it's just the

(44:01):
way in which they disagree, the way in which they
justify the cause is different. So one of the so
what we have is is is people who go through
our educational system go through UH schooling and they learn

(44:22):
very little. They know very little. They're not taught to
use their minds. They're not taught to use their minds,
and that they're taught to feel. It's how to respond emotionally,

(44:51):
to stimulate, and that's it. So the intellectuals at the

(45:14):
universities are just fueling this with evil ideology. The intellectuals
online who try to make any kind of rational approach,
like the many economists online who criticize Trump or criticize
Bidens policies and so on, gain no very little traction
because they're not appealing to what people want, which is,

(45:38):
you know, emotion, pure emotion, and they're not doing it
in terms of the people now understand identity politics. And
of course social media allows us, all of us to
voice our opinions anytime anyway.

Speaker 2 (45:58):
And accumulate following.

Speaker 1 (46:04):
And you know, as lay as we can get a
large group of people following us, you know a million people,
well of a million people follow Nick foyt is, maybe
it's much larger. And now after they Tucker Costs and appearance,
millions follow Candice Owns, who's completely nuts. While anybody would
subscribe to a channel, anybody watch what she has to say,
even as pure entertainment is absurd and ridiculous. When anybody

(46:27):
watches tucka, I do not understand, given how insane he
has become, and yet they have millions of people following,
and that millions of people are following because they appeal
to exactly what those millions of people are looking for.
They appeal to anger, they appeal to hate, they appeal
to fear, and that is what driving the conversation today

(46:50):
in America. Anger, fear, hate, and social media makes it
possible for anybody to say anything anytime, to relate an audience.
Thus become a thing right that everybody has to engage with,
like nobody would even think about platforming Nique foyintis if

(47:10):
he didn't have a million followers, and thus we descend
to the lowest common denominator. I mean, Twitter is a
place where the lowest common denominator dominates, dominates, and intellectuals,

(47:32):
the better ones on the sidelines looking in and and
and they kind of if they don't know what to do,
they do not what to do. They do not want
to know what to do. Hm and they and they

(47:58):
have nothing to offer, I mean and a thing. They
have nothing to offer, I mean at the end, Ben
Shapiro is nothing to offer.

Speaker 2 (48:04):
What has he got?

Speaker 1 (48:05):
You know, uh rehash Judaism because it's at the core.
What is lacking is an is a moral code at
the call.

Speaker 2 (48:15):
What is lacking is purpose and meaning at the call.

Speaker 1 (48:21):
What is lacking is a real political philosophy, a moral
and political philosophy that can inspire and can write people
towards a better future in their personal lives and as
you know, as a society. But and they have nothing

(48:54):
over what So what is Joanah Goldberg who I like
posts a lot of interesting things? What is Ben Shapiro,
who I like post a lot of interesting things?

Speaker 2 (49:02):
What do they have to offer? Like my old Christianity.

Speaker 1 (49:07):
And my old Judaism, well, lots of al Judaism and
kind of a you know, softball defense of some aspects
of capitalism but not too much, and and some defense
of the funny fathers, but.

Speaker 2 (49:19):
Not too much, because after all, they were a little
too secular for us.

Speaker 1 (49:24):
What, Indie do they stand for? And when it comes
to meaning and purpose? What can they give God? Make
your bed stand up straight? Search for meaning? Out there?
The same cliches that are meaningless and and and people
have given up on. They get large followings, but they're

(49:46):
not going to change the world. Good. All right, I've
had it with Adam, who seems to be here just

(50:07):
to insult you guys. All right, my tolerance for assholes
on the chat has become very low. I don't know
if that's a good thing or a bad thing, but
it's become very low. Seeing selections that exist have nothing

(50:29):
to offer, nothing new, nothing exciting, nothing motivating, nothing radical,
the centrists, the moderates. So what is the solution, you
might ask. I mean, the solution is, as always, it's

(50:52):
a long run solution. It's a long term solution. It's
to be rare. We need to find a way to
make capitalism exciting, to make the advocacy of self interest cool.

(51:13):
I mean, we are the ultimate in terms of rebellion
that teenagers and young people want engage in.

Speaker 2 (51:20):
We're they're ultimately in rebellion. We reject two.

Speaker 1 (51:23):
Thousand year morality. We reject, you know, basically the economic
system of mankind has experimented with for thousands of years.
We want something new, different, exciting. Not they'll watch of
a mixed economy, neither here nor their bs that exists today,
and solely not the socialism or communism of the left,

(51:48):
which we know exactly what it leads to. We want
something completely new, something that we had a glimpse of
in the nineteenth century and maybe in a few places
in the twentieth century, that has never been made a
reality ever actually come to fruition. We want capitalism, We
want real freedom. Where they're radicals, not Nick Frantis. Nic

(52:11):
Finis is, like you know, Nick Fointis is the same
garbage that human beings have been spewing for thousands of years.
In that sense, he's anti American because he's he doesn't
embrace the revolution there was America. What does the document

(52:31):
say all men are created equal, endowed in aliable rights.
I mean that is not Tucker Coulson, that is not
Nick Fointis, That is not anybody today on the right.
We reject the tribalism and collectivism, all these characters. So

(52:58):
what is the solution. Where solution is to be more
radical than ever. The solution is to stand up for
ideas stronger and more vocal than ever. The solution is
to take advantage of the complete bankruptcy of the current intellectuals,
to condemn the rights and the left and the center

(53:21):
and offer something positive, a vision, a vision of life,
a vision of living for oneself, a vision of pursuing
real values, life affirming values, rational values. We need to

(53:41):
become and we need to become much more vocal about
reason as being our basic as our means to know
the world, to understand the world, and to choose our values.
So you know this is nothing new to most of you.
We need to.

Speaker 3 (54:01):
Be principled, loud, aggressive advocates in every forum we can
a reason of self interest and of capitalism.

Speaker 1 (54:17):
Not to be you know, pro Trump or pro you know,
pro the middle of the road, or pro anybody in
the current political world. We are radical, So we need

(54:38):
to reject the status quo, reject the convention, reject the left,
reject the right, and reject the center. We're individualists. None
of those people are. Maybe some people in the center
you think of theirselves as centrist are mildly individualists, but
we are real individuals. Were radical individualists, yeah, public says

(55:07):
aggressive radical sounds like have you metal? Yeah, if you
want to use heavy metal, use heavy metal. Any means
to get our word out there, any means to offer
the world an alternative to the garbage that's been offered
to them today. We're not anarchists, were guided by reason.

(55:30):
We're not anarchists. We believe in capitalism. But god do
we reject the Fuentises, the Tuckers, the Owens, the Mamdani's,
the socialists, the leftists, the rightists, the whole gamut of them.

(55:56):
We need objectivism and we need to get the value,
use the ideas, the principles of objectivism out there into
the world.

Speaker 2 (56:04):
That is the solution. There is no and there's no shortcut.

Speaker 1 (56:07):
There's no you know, moderate way of doing it. And
the problem with you know, the problem with it is
we have to do it in a way that projects reason, individualism,
anti tribalism. We need to be attacking our left and
our right and the back in the front.

Speaker 4 (56:28):
It's hard, it's hard, but.

Speaker 2 (56:43):
We need to keep doing it.

Speaker 1 (56:44):
And I, you know, I don't have any easy solutions
for you, guys, I don't have anything that you can
you know, go and do today, other than if you're
on social media, use social media, stay your views, make
your case. Even if you have to be anonymous of

(57:05):
social media, if you enjoy doing in social media, do it.
Talk to people. I mean again, the world is sinking.
This is not a time to be silent. This is
not a time to say I'm busy. It's a fight.

(57:26):
It's a real fight. Use whatever tools you have, you know,
subscribe to sponsor this show like Alex. People talk about
Alex Epstein's AI. Yeah, I mean we got to use
every tool that we have. So find your voices, make

(57:51):
yourself heard. I mean, think about how Vinick for Intance
group is all over the place, or the Mamdani Mumdanni
socialists left us all over the place. Well, we need
to make we're smaller and before we need to yell louder,
we need everybody to be involved and engaged.

Speaker 2 (58:12):
Which means support AARI.

Speaker 1 (58:14):
I'm an institute, Support the show, support Alex, support the
people who are doing the work to get it out. Then,
and you might notice that a lot of AOI intellectuals
now like like Augustina and like Nikos have their own substacks,
have their own YouTube channels, So support them. Make sure

(58:35):
you subscribe to Augustina, into Nicos and to all the
other Aari Ben and I think a bunch of them
have samanth On education, a bunch of them have substacks.
Now go subscribe to all those substacks, reinforce their messaging
on social media, subscribe to the YouTube channel, support them financially.

(58:58):
And if we're going to build a move and movement
that's going to change things. And now's the time because
never has the left and right being so disgustingly horrific,
Never have they been so tribal, Never have they been
so irrational, Never have they been so I think vulnerable
to reason irrationality. So go on those platforms, use those platforms,

(59:25):
support the good guys, and you know, let's change the
world together. It's becoming slimy and more disgusting the more
we let the Nick Foyenttises of the world and the
mcdonne's of the world dominated. I mean, it's not just mcdonni,
it's like your son Pika, this evil bastard who is

(59:46):
mcdannie's real good friend and who has a huge YouTube following.

Speaker 2 (59:50):
Pika, the guy who.

Speaker 1 (59:54):
Hates Jews and hates his RL and hates America, the
spices of America, and hates all this stuff. But you
know got into trouble when he zapped the color of
his dog.

Speaker 2 (01:00:03):
That Piker.

Speaker 1 (01:00:05):
Uh, I mean, these people are despicable. We need to
stand up against them. Hassan h A s s A N.
I think her son Jamie says, God, Hassan Piker is insufferable. Yeah,

(01:00:26):
he is, and yet he's got a massive following in
spite of being insufferable. You're not doing your jobs, guys,
getting the wood out there, trying to trying to overthrow
these bastards, trying to become more bigger and more influential
and more substantial than them, using reason instead of emotions.

Speaker 2 (01:00:48):
Got to get out there, got to do the work.

Speaker 1 (01:00:54):
Right. You got to fight. Wait, what option is there?
Islam is not the threat. Islam is growing slowly. The
threat is that is socialism and fascism.

Speaker 2 (01:01:07):
That's the threat.

Speaker 1 (01:01:10):
Islam for for Americans is an inconvenience. For Europeans, this
is existential, but for Americans it's just a It's an inconvenience.
All right, that is my spiel for today.

Speaker 2 (01:01:29):
That was an hour that was longer than I thought.

Speaker 1 (01:01:33):
All right, I will remind you that we have sponsors.
Alex Epstein that we talked about a little earlier is
one of them. And uh uh he is, of course
the world experts on things like climate change and energy
policy and environmentalist policy.

Speaker 2 (01:01:50):
Uh and and incredibly.

Speaker 1 (01:01:52):
Insightful provides you with If you subscribe to a substicking
regular talking points, you'll know the topic better.

Speaker 2 (01:01:58):
You'll be a much better communicator of those topics.

Speaker 1 (01:02:06):
And uh yes. Following Alex Epstein, do upstick dot com.

Speaker 2 (01:02:09):
Alex Epstein substick dot com.

Speaker 1 (01:02:11):
And as some people in my chat mentioned, he has
an ai Alex AI. You can ask Alex a I
any question you want, you get an alex answer.

Speaker 2 (01:02:20):
Videos.

Speaker 1 (01:02:21):
Alsa says, should we become unsufferable to gain?

Speaker 2 (01:02:24):
Following?

Speaker 1 (01:02:24):
No, No, being unsufferable does not pan out for the rational.
You've got to be You've got to be h what's
the right tom, you got to be persistent, and.

Speaker 2 (01:02:43):
You've got to be willing to be radical.

Speaker 1 (01:02:45):
You've got to be willing to be uh, you know, principled.
But don't be insufferable. Don't be insufferable. And I know
being in suffer gains attention and gains you more followers,
but it's it's too strong of an appeal to emotion

(01:03:09):
to help a movement based on reason actually grow and
actually be successful. Now of course, you know, yeah, live
the philosophy probably all right. Second sponsor is then Institute.
The Institute is encouraging all of you to sign up
for the inn RAN conference in Europe. In Europe.

Speaker 2 (01:03:33):
You can come there from the US.

Speaker 1 (01:03:34):
You can come from Europe. If you're a student, you
can get a scholarship, but adults can come as well.
I think we're going to have an exciting program there.
I will be there, Nikos will be there, tats Fani
will be there. On Call will be there, as will
Bend Bear, So all of us will be there.

Speaker 2 (01:03:52):
A lot of talks.

Speaker 1 (01:03:54):
We're still working, I think, finalizing the program, but I
think it's going to be a lot of fun and
h interesting. All right, And what else did we want
to do?

Speaker 2 (01:04:10):
Yeah, we'll stick to those for today. Let me remind
you all.

Speaker 1 (01:04:17):
Remind you all that this show is made possible from
contributions from you. You out there, whether watching live or not,
and you can support the show right here, right now,
if you're live, by coming over to YouTube and and
supporting the show on super chat or or sticker. We've

(01:04:38):
got goals for you know, we're doing pretty well with
the goals, but we still have a way to go
to get to our second hour goal. And we're in
the second hour, So come on over and support the show.
Ask a question, do a stick I saw Wes earlier
did one hundred dollars sticker that that should be a
model for you, right. One hundred dollars stickers get us

(01:04:59):
a long way, a long way into We also got
Stephen harpa day did a sticker, not one hundred dollars,
but but it all adds up. Jacob did a sticker.
Thank you, Jacob, Thank you, Steven, thank you. Mike did
a sticker, Mike dial uh. So we've got quite a
few stickers, and we have quite a few questions, but

(01:05:21):
coming over with more.

Speaker 2 (01:05:22):
Coming over those with more, uh, and you can also
support the show.

Speaker 1 (01:05:27):
Those of you are not live, but also those of
you are live can also support the show on a
monthly basis, which I particularly like because it's it's very
predictable and I know what's coming and you can support
the show on a monthly basis on patreon dot com.
Just put you on book show or on PayPal. Just

(01:05:48):
put you on book Show and you can become a
monthly supporter of the show. You can do that two dollars,
ten dollars, ten dollars. You actually get the podcast version
of the show, an RSS feed that is commercial free advertising.
But you can go all the way up to one
thousand dollars a month if you want to do it.
And indeed, if you want a regular sponsorship on the show,

(01:06:10):
then one thousand bucks a months will buy you a
sponsorship way almost every show I mentioned you as a sponsor,
I guess for lower amounts. If you're interested in sponsorship,
we could do we can do different levels of number
of times I announced it or something like that. But
Patreon is the way to get involved with all of that,

(01:06:33):
all right, So yeah, go to patreon. Go to patreon
right now, let's try to get the numbers of Patreon.
Remember what I said, support the good guys so that we.

Speaker 2 (01:06:39):
Can fight to fight for you.

Speaker 1 (01:06:41):
The objectives intellectuals are the last radical pro freedom, pro capitalism,
pro individual rights, pro egoism, pro reason. Intellectuals left out
there in the world. Support us, support us. All right,

(01:07:05):
let's see, all right, Uh, let's jump in. We've got
a bunch of questions. I thanked, I think all my
stick of people, and uh, let's with John. A few

(01:07:33):
shows ago you mentioned you were reading a book on
the Islamic Golden Age, but I don't remember if you
said the title, is it Lost Enlightenment.

Speaker 2 (01:07:42):
I read that one.

Speaker 1 (01:07:43):
It's great.

Speaker 2 (01:07:44):
Thanks. Let me, I'll tell you right now what the
title is. It's truly good. I'm really enjoying it.

Speaker 1 (01:07:49):
And it's a lot of content which I was not
familiar with. So this is about not just the the
Islamic Enlightenment, but the Islamic Enlightenment in Central Asia, which
I didn't realize. I thought they they enlighten the Islamic
Golden Age was basically in Baghdad and maybe in in

(01:08:10):
Andalusia in southern Spain. But this is all about the
fact and and the fact that it was in Central Asia.
And yes, it's called Lost Enlightenment. Uh and it's by
uh god, they've got they've got the the name of
the author obscured, but it's Lost Enlightenment. Central Asia's Golden
Age from the Arab conquest to the Tamalane to Tamilane.

(01:08:36):
So it's all the way from from you know, from
the from the pre Islamic era.

Speaker 2 (01:08:41):
All the way.

Speaker 1 (01:08:42):
It describes the history all the way through the past
among all invasions, and again I highly recommend that you
that you eat it and uh and get you know,
it's it's fascinating the extent of which Central Asia, Buchal
in Uzbekistan, Afghanistan, Afghanistan, the geography of where Afghanish studies

(01:09:03):
today that was a thriving place, dramatically, hugely, humongously more
advanced than Europe was at the time, which you know,
it's just shocking and it shows you like we talk
about the Dark Ages in Europe, but there's a sense
of which the Dark Ages of Islam are much much worse.

(01:09:27):
I mean, because the Golden Age of Islam, or at
least the Golden Age of Islam in Central Asia ended
around the turn of the first millennium, so we're talking
about maybe eleven hundred, so it's almost a thousand years
of dark ages that they've experienced, which is actually similar
to the Western Dark Ages, right four hundred to fourteen hundred.

(01:09:49):
I mean, unbelievable the power of ideas and how giving
up on Greek ideas just destroys the culture, destroys the world.
And there's a senition what you're seeing it right now.
I mean, what is mcdonnie and Nick foyints really represented,
Tecker Carson really represent They represent giving up in Greece,

(01:10:10):
giving up an Aristotle, giving up in the Enlightenment, giving
up in the Funding Fathers, and in that sense, moving
us ever closer to our own kind of dark ages.
That's what we're fighting, all right, Thanks John, Andrew Judge

(01:10:50):
Will said something like every twenty years American needs to
experiment with socialism to see it doesn't work. There may
be truth to that, but ultimately socialism will hold if
underlying ideas aren't challenged. Yeah, but where has this experiment
actually happened? I mean, we haven't had socialism, not out
and out socialism. And yes, once in a while we

(01:11:11):
get somebody like McGovern in seventy two, who was you know,
far out the leftist who who lost that election by
a landslide. I mean, Nixon did better than Trump. But
Trump's election is always the greatest and best in all
of human history. I see radio Zalza is doing a

(01:11:37):
fantastic job on showing Steve McCown that he is completely
wrong about the Israeli Palestinian conflict. So Radio Gopher it.
I mean, that's the kind of advocacy we need. He's
got the facts on his side, he's got morality in
his side. But he knows his history, which is good,

(01:11:57):
which is good. So I'm just I'm just observing the chat.
I'm not reading everything, and certainly not in detail, but yeah,
this is good. This is take him out. Take him
out with logic and facts, history, actual knowledge. Wow, Antonio,
thank you for the stickup. I really appreciate that. So look,

(01:12:22):
the challenge is that people don't learn. I mean people say, oh, yes,
New York will experience socialism now, and a leon that
socialism won't work. I mean, I'll be debating a guy
next week who will tell you constantly, no, that's not socialism.

Speaker 2 (01:12:35):
Didn't work.

Speaker 1 (01:12:36):
You know, it didn't work because it's not real socialism.
Real socialism is this, and they'll always find an excuse,
they'll always justify it, and the American people will always
buy into it. Partially, and here this is important to note,
right positively out of a real frustration. The mixed economy sucks.
I think that's a technical term. The mix economy sucks.

(01:12:58):
The mixed economy does not provide the kind of opportunities
this should be available to individuals. The mixed economy does
not provide the inspiration that capitalism would provide to people.
The mixed economy is, eh, mixed. Some people do very
very well in it, many people don't, and most people

(01:13:20):
don't make the most of it. Spiritually, they feel frustrated
by it because, you know, ideologically capitalism is evil and
nasty and selfish and self interested, and yet.

Speaker 2 (01:13:35):
They're expected to participate in it and benefit from it.

Speaker 1 (01:13:38):
And they do, but they don't feel right about it
because ultimately the system itself is not very good. And
so yeah, I mean, I think that this is as
long as we're not willing to challenge ultru as long

(01:14:00):
as we're out willing to challenge the idea of sacrifice,
it's non we're out willing to challenge the idea sacrificing
some to others as being moral. We're not willing to,
you know, challenge the idea that you know that uh,
govern should stay out of the economy completely. You know,

(01:14:24):
we can't win just to be a little bit more
for freedom within a mixed economy is not inspiring.

Speaker 2 (01:14:31):
And not going to get anyway, not going to get
us anywhere.

Speaker 1 (01:14:37):
So yeah, socialism keeps coming back because it's the only
political system consistent with the morality that most people hold,
and the morality there really goes unchallenged by the world
in which we live, by the society in which we live. Oh,
even I went on vacation to Singapore and Australia. Have
to say Singapore is incredible, giving me some gold gulch vibe. Yes,

(01:15:01):
maybe some drawbacks I'm not familiar with, but truly incredible
energy and fantastic buildings. Yes, I mean Singapore is a
is a beautiful place. It's relatively from an economic perspectives,
the most free place and planet Earth. It's you know,
if you value your free speech, it's not particularly free

(01:15:22):
and uh and you and you have to be careful.
They're careful about criticizing the government and criticizing those good
run things. They are parts of its economy that are
not free at all. For example, real estate. Almost all
housing in Singapore's government owned, so there are there are
aspects of it that are problematic and unfree. They are

(01:15:42):
really horrific laws. You know, death penalty for drug dealers.
You know, you might get cained for throwing gum in
the street, but you know the consequence of that is
not much drugs uh out in the streets and in
the streets are very clean, but the kind of disproportion
between the crime and the punishment is quite extreme. So yeah,

(01:16:07):
I mean, I'm Singapore is an amazing place. It should
definitely be on the list of places to consider to
go live in a world filled with mixed economies and
mixed political systems. You know, Singapore is a.

Speaker 2 (01:16:23):
Pretty good deal.

Speaker 1 (01:16:24):
It is a pretty good deal in comparison to what's
available in most other places. Thank you all even thanks
for the support. Appreciated.

Speaker 2 (01:16:32):
All right, Ali, Ali, Ali, who I owe a book
review to?

Speaker 1 (01:16:37):
I remember which one was? Which one was better evil?
You can't have a better evil? Which one was more evil?
Maybe Hitlo Stalin? Should the West have cided with Germany
against the USSL? Well, no, no, no, you don't side
with evil, And certainly the immediate threat to the United States,

(01:16:58):
the immediate threat to Western civilization, the media threat to
Great Britain, was not Stalin Stalin did not have ambitions
in terms of, you know, invading Western Europe, you know,
going to war against England, or going to war even
against the United States. Stalin and Russia was too poor

(01:17:22):
at the time, too weak at the time to think
about those kind of adventures. Hitler was the immediate threat,
So you had to start with Hitler. You know, Russia
did not invade Western Europe. Russia did not invade and
did not attack the United States directly. So while Stalin

(01:17:43):
and Hitler, I don't know, equally evil, Hitler I think,
in some respects more so, more systematic, more thoughtful, more
in his approach to extermination, and his and more megalomaniac
in a sense of wanting to rule the world and

(01:18:04):
believing he could. But there's no question the West had
to side, had to shouldn't have put it this way.
The West shouldn't have sided with anybody. This was on
man's view. It shouldn't have sided with Stalin. It should
have let Stalin and Hitler beat each other up forever,

(01:18:24):
for as long as it took. But the West should
have united, in my view, around Great Britain to defend
Great Britain and to beat back the Nazis from the West,
and suddenly after Bulhava, the United States should have entered
the war, and the only side the United States could
enter the war was the anti Nazis side. Now, I

(01:18:47):
don't think the US should supplied weapons to the Soviets.
I don't think they should have given them food. I
don't think they should have helped them in any way
other than by fighting Hitler.

Speaker 2 (01:18:59):
On the western front.

Speaker 1 (01:19:02):
That would have slowed the Soviets down, but the end
result would have been the same, and the fact that
they would have still been occupying the Nazis on the east.
It just would have resulted in probably the West Western
European forces taking Eastern Europe, you know, Czech Republic and
Hungary and Poland.

Speaker 2 (01:19:22):
And not letting them fall to the Soviets.

Speaker 1 (01:19:25):
But both Headline Stalin and unbelievably evil Stalin probably murdered
more people, or will put it that other way, was
responsible for the death of more people, But they were
both in the tens of millions of people, and of
course Stalin had a longer period of time in which
to do it.

Speaker 2 (01:19:44):
So there's no question the West should have cited.

Speaker 1 (01:19:49):
With Great Britain in fighting the Nazis, and then if necessary,
you fight Stalin and the communists. But the imminent threat,
the immediate threat, the people who were developing, you know,
the missile systems that that would you know, try to
destroy London and could potentially have been built to try

(01:20:10):
to reach America were the Nazis. And they were they
were the ones that needed to be taken care of.
And again you didn't have to ally yourself with the
Soviets to do it. So you never, in my view,
farm policy, my view, and pharm policy, you never align
yourself with evil. You don't have allies who are communists

(01:20:35):
of fascists. Your allies are your friends and they have
to be at least somewhat free. No, I mean, god,
some people are very confused online, right, Yeah, Greg is

(01:20:58):
a weirdo. I agree with that that that is a
weird statement from Greg Online. He says, Gandhi Hitler, Stalin
and Tenieo Callegria. I don't know who that is all
part of the same person. No, that's all the same
type of person. It's it's absolutely not true. That is bizarre, ridiculous.
It's yeah, bizarre ridiculous. I mean, I'm not a fan

(01:21:19):
of in the tennial. But to put an Antenna in
that league, or to put Gandhi in that league, is ridiculous.
I'm not a fan of Gandhi's either, but to put
them in that league, to put the you know, neither
one of them is evil in the same sense as
Hitler installin are evil. All right, Greg turns out to

(01:21:44):
be a.

Speaker 2 (01:21:46):
Nativists. Okay, not surprising, Okay, Ali.

Speaker 1 (01:21:49):
Many people who strongly identify with tribal or public causes,
whether political, cultural, or social, often do so to compensate
for lack of personal grouping or fulfillment individual level. I
think absolutely right. You know, I've always said that, look
what leads people towards tribalism, it's when they do not

(01:22:11):
have the confidence in their own reasoning capabilities to discover
truth for themselves, to live for themselves, to establish a flourishing,
successful life for themselves, and then in order to seek
protection because they're afraid to face reality on their.

Speaker 2 (01:22:26):
Own terms using their own mind.

Speaker 1 (01:22:28):
As independent thinkers, they gravitate towards a group. They gravitate
towards a leader to do their thinking for them. So
it is absolutely the case that you know, tribalism and
you know, and collectivism appealing to those who will not

(01:22:51):
cannot refuse to become independent thinkers. As we diminish reason,
elevate emotions, we diminish man's capacity to deal with the
world around him, we elevate collectivism. The more people gravitate
towards collectivism. Collectivism is the solution for people who can't

(01:23:14):
think for themselves. They want other people to do the
thinking for them. And the more we denounce reason, the
less we teach people how to use their mind, how
to reason, the more they will gravitate towards a leader
and towards a group. The group makes them feel safe,
makes them feel like somebody will tell them what to

(01:23:35):
do and how to live a late What is the
problem with fascist regime which enforces objectivism and reason? Well,
by definition, a faccist regime cannot enforce objectivism and reason.

(01:23:58):
Fascist regiem is a regime that uses four It is
humans users forced to regulate business to to to. It
is a business by permission rather than by independence, and
it regulates our individual behavior. So fascism is a system

(01:24:20):
that rejects reason. It rejects reason as a faculty of
the individual, rejects you know, individuals pursuing their own values.
Fascists will tell you what values to pursue, so it's
a contradiction. Fascism is a system in which the means
of production are controlled by the state, and the state

(01:24:44):
dictates the values that.

Speaker 2 (01:24:48):
Individuals should pursue.

Speaker 1 (01:24:50):
So, by definition, it is a rejection of individualism, a
rejection of freedom, a rejection of reason. And you can't
enforce reason. You can't enforce objectivism. Objectivism is a philosophy
that only individuals, that individuals need to live by. Right.

(01:25:12):
You can't even enforce capitalism. What you can do is
enforce laws that protect property rights. But capitalism is the
system that flows from enforcing the laws to protect property
rights consistently. All right, ugh, on not real socialism argument.

(01:25:50):
On the not real socialism argument, Jamie says Left always
says Sanders wouldn't be mause stylin And that may be true.
But can't you talk about the politics policies that cause
death in USSR, China and others, and how close to
Sander's proposals they are. I mean, yeah, I mean, uh,

(01:26:10):
Just to give you a sense, Sanders did support the
policies of Chavez in Venezuela, which led to death and
starvation and and and and led to.

Speaker 2 (01:26:19):
The complete destruction of the Venezuela and economy.

Speaker 1 (01:26:22):
And we're seeing we're seeing that in the world, in
the world in which we live today. So you know, suddenly, suddenly, uh,
Sanders are supported regimes and supported policies that have led
to the death of destruction that communism, socialism, uh you

(01:26:47):
know uses uh. By the way, if you want to comment,
if you want to challenge me, if you want to
disagree with me, if you want to ask me questions,
if you want me to comment on something, there's something
called the super chat feature, which most people are using.
But there's one or two or three or four or

(01:27:08):
five of you who just want to spout off you
on what about this, stop doing this, stop doing that?
What about that? On the chat? Well, if you want
my response, if you want me to actually respond rather
than just blow you off, then use the super chet
feature like everybody else.

Speaker 2 (01:27:28):
Like you had a time, you could do that, old Greg,
you could do that.

Speaker 1 (01:27:32):
Yeah. Now, what Sanders actually do Sanders does not believe
you know, it's hard to tell what Sanders would actually do.
You would raise taxes on the rich. He would like
to have a wealth tax. Does he want to nationalize industries?

(01:27:56):
Probably not. Probably couldn't get away with it. Maybe you
would like to do some but not others. What do
you want to collectivize farming in America? Probably not.

Speaker 2 (01:28:06):
I mean, the reality is that most of the death.

Speaker 1 (01:28:09):
That was caused in like Ukraine under Stalin, in Venezuela,
and certainly under Mao was the consequence of collectivization of farming.
When you collectivize farming, you bring about starvation because you
just don't produce enough food.

Speaker 2 (01:28:27):
Would Sanders want to do that? Probably not.

Speaker 1 (01:28:30):
He would do a bunch of half measures that were
leading us in that direction, price controls, maybe there were
destroy markets. He would I mean, to the extent that
he was allowed to do and wasn't controlled stopped by Congress.
We would have an incredibly destructive economy. We would have
ever growing, you know, poverty, We would have a brain drain,

(01:28:51):
people leaving the country. We would have capital flight and
entrepreneurship collapsing. So it would be an unmans gated disaster.
You wouldn't quite have the death and destruction of the
Soviet Union because he wouldn't go all out into nationalizing
and all the industries and nationalizing farming, and I don't

(01:29:12):
know that he would establish the gulags.

Speaker 2 (01:29:13):
For people he didn't like and didn't agree with.

Speaker 1 (01:29:18):
All right, we are still about one hundred and eleven
dollars short of our second hour goal. So I'm just
remaining you and encouraging you to ask a question or
do a sticker, but help us get to that goal.
I see Adam has jumped in with a twenty dollars question,
so that helps a lot.

Speaker 2 (01:29:38):
So that brings the.

Speaker 1 (01:29:42):
Goal more into less than one hundred dollars. Now, so
we're less than one hundred dollars away from that goal,
so only ninety one dollars. Another five dollars coming in
from Jacob.

Speaker 2 (01:29:51):
So less than that.

Speaker 1 (01:29:53):
So keep it coming and hopefully we can make the
five hundred dollars goal for the second hour. Adam says,
compare culture broadly Aristatilian Israel, mimonodes poland a quinas versus
pragmatic anglophile, kantient German versus also giving Empire no objective's place,

(01:30:16):
yet is broadly Aristatilian the best for now? Yeah, I mean,
I think you're way too positive on Israel, you know,
I don't know. Is Poland really guided by Thomas Aquinas.

(01:30:36):
I'm skeptical. Is the Anglos fe're purely pragmatic? Well it
is right now, yes, but it didn't get to here
with that.

Speaker 2 (01:30:47):
Yeah. And is Germany contient to what extent? Is it
actually pragmatic?

Speaker 1 (01:30:56):
Yeah? I don't know. I don't know if I would
even categorize culture is like that. I mean, look, Israel
is a very mixed place. I mean, if we're not
talking about Israel is competiti to the Palestinians, if we're
not talking about defending Israel, you know, compared to its neighbors,
and defending Israel from from policy perspective, Israel is a.

Speaker 2 (01:31:19):
Very mixed place. Collectivism is prevalent.

Speaker 1 (01:31:22):
My monodes, I mean, monor of these was very mixed,
remember my monodes.

Speaker 2 (01:31:28):
Yeah, he.

Speaker 1 (01:31:31):
Advocated for reason, rationality, but the consequence of that was
PRIMALI rationalistic kind of scholastic discussions about every passage in
the Talmud rather than liberty and freedom and individualism. And
the reality is with my monodes that he also gives
us what five hundred and fifty three commandments the Jews
are supposed to follow. So my monodies is responsible for

(01:31:54):
kind of the ultra Orthodox following a rigid set of commandments, right, So,
so as well as a it's clearly a very mixed case.
It's it's a Western country. It's a pro Western country
that represents many, you know, good ideas and and suddenly

(01:32:20):
in the area of science technology there is a strong
Ristatilian streak. But in terms of government, it's a you know,
mixed economy tilted towards statism. From a cultural perspective, it
is it is still heavily collectivistic uh and uh and
and religion, both in its Messianic form and its ultra

(01:32:43):
Orthodox form of Barbaric and primitive and particularly the ultra
Orthodox from particularly barbaric and primitive. Right. So, so, I
don't consider Israel Aristatilian anymore than I think America is Aristotilian.

(01:33:07):
It's it's a mixed bag, a pragmatism and some Aristotilianism
and a lot of Kantianism. I mean, Israeli academia is
dominated by kant It's dominated by German Romantics. It is
Neo Kantians who founded the major universities in Israel and
have had a profound impact on it. On the humanities.

(01:33:33):
You know, I think a lot of the work ideology
was very common in Israel, So Israel's not exactly a
paradigm of Aristotilian culture. I don't know enough about Poland.
I just was in you know, crackout. Poland's a you know,
it has benefited almostly from the fact that it was
liberalized in the nineteen nineties, that went through a period

(01:33:56):
of economic liberalization and moved it towards closer to a freemark.
It's still benefiting from now those liberalizations. There's not you know,
and there's some liberalization. This happened since then, but the
big push was in the nineteen nineties. But paul And
also has a pretty regimented in and oppressive legal system

(01:34:18):
that as far as I can tell, that kind of
the right wing installed. It has a you know, media
that's way too close to politics, to the political parties.
It's doing well, but it's not blowing it out of
the water. And yeah, I mean, I don't know that

(01:34:39):
I would associate with Aquinas. Yes, there, they tend to
be Catholic there, although everybody who everybody who spoke to
in Crackhouse said that the younger generation, both on the
left and on the right is significantly less Catholic than
previous generations were. No question. You know, I don't know

(01:35:00):
if you could say today that the UK is is pragmatic.
The UK is basically just selling out. It's uh it
is uh basically dominated by a guilt, guilt for the
British Empire and dominated by uh a by a what

(01:35:26):
do you call it?

Speaker 2 (01:35:28):
By the It's dominated by the left, one way or
the other.

Speaker 1 (01:35:30):
Because even even the the Nativists are basically leftists in
the UK, just as native as so in most places,
they tend to be uh leftists. And yeah, I mean,
uh so England is in one place. I think America
is much bigger, much more diverse. Uh. And again it's

(01:35:54):
intellectuals that dominated by post what do you call it, uh,
by postmodern philosophy. Uh so, a post contient kind of uh,
post Marxist kind of ideology. But yeah so. And uh Germany,

(01:36:26):
you know, Germany's rigid. It's still rigid, it's got it's
still got the continent mentality. It's still a rigid society,
again dominated primarily by the left. Everything is a response
to the left. Uh So, a rigid, a more rigid culture,
more contient culture. But they're all mixtures of everything, and

(01:36:46):
and suddenly they None of these cultures will be doing
well at all if they weren't elements of Aristotelianism in them,
and they would all be doing a lot better if
they weren't elements of Kantianism in there. I don't know.

Speaker 2 (01:37:00):
It's the best I can do on the fly.

Speaker 1 (01:37:04):
Jamie, a fan, recently said how upset he was with
the gentrification of small town he works in and how
it pushed out longtime residents. Can you talk a little
bit about gentrification and its pros cons and is it
a problem? I mean, it's a problem only if you
believe that stagnation is good, right, you know, any criticism

(01:37:30):
of gentrification is an elevation of stagnation. It basically believes
that things should be the way they've always been, that
things should be the way the past is dictated, the
change is bad, that progress is bad, and that people
should be rewarded or protected because they choose to stagnate.

(01:37:54):
I mean, gentrification is a process of progress. It's a
process of people coming in and then improving a place,
and so it's an overwhelmingly positive I can't think of
any negatives other than it shakes up and forces people
who are stagnant to change and to move. So so

(01:38:31):
it's you know, the everybody benefits at the end of
the day of gentification if you really think about it.
The people are moving out, are getting are getting much
higher if they own the place, are getting much higher
prices on their property than they would without the gentification. Right,

(01:38:51):
the property values go up significantly. Now, if you're renting
and the area's being gentrified, you have to move, but
you know, worse off of that other than you have
to move, but you never you have a right to
stay in a place that you're renting indefinitely. So no,
there's zero problem with gentrification unless you elevate stagnation to

(01:39:12):
a value, and stagnation is a vice, not a value.
The stand in place is to die, all right. Just
for those of you knew, I guess.

Speaker 2 (01:39:28):
Old Greg is.

Speaker 1 (01:39:29):
I don't know if he's old, and I don't know
if he's Greg, but he doesn't know. He just gave
ten dollars you right, say you're on I heard you
asked one hundred dollars stickers and begging donations by yourself
a coupa on me and you need the money more
than your viewers do. I guess so, so he's insulting
you is insulting me. But as I said, I read

(01:39:50):
everything that's put up there. If you want to meet,
to engage with you, you have to ask questions. You
have to ask questions in the super chat and they
will be answered in the order they're submitted, or if
you ask above twenty dollars question, they get priority. So
money speaks the momenty you put in a question, the
sooner I answer it. But just making a comment there

(01:40:12):
is not gonna is not gonna get me to engage
with you in the chat. You have to engage in
the super chat. You have to engage by asking actual questions.
And as you can see, you can ask more than
one question. You could respond to my answer, but you
have to put a dollar amount to them, just the
way we run things at the One book show. You
don't have to like it. I don't really care, but

(01:40:35):
that is the story. I appreciate you doing the ten dollars.
I don't appreciate the insults, but that's okay. You're allowed
to insult me if you pay. All right, Jonathan, you
are great with the hecla in Lisbon. I appreciate that.
I wish I was as good with the hecklers here
in the chat. I think I did better in Lisbon,

(01:40:55):
at least my audience in Lisbon. They basically, you know,
push the guy out of the room, and some of
the hecklers I pushed out of the room by by
blocking them. But I guess when you put Fuantas and
Tucker into the title, you know you have to expect
to get a few irrational trolls to come about, all right,

(01:41:21):
rational ip I registered. I registered for iinnrand Con Europe.
Flight and hotels are booked as well. Really looking forward
to it. Currently reading the Fountain it excellent. Yeah, and
I think the hotel is the Renaissance in Poto, which
is a nice business hotel. I think you'll like it
and very comfortable and the confidence should be a blast.

(01:41:43):
Looking forward to meeting you, rational ip Nick. Interestingly, Zoron
acknowledged housing needs to be needs to be deregulated. Maybe
listen to YBS no redistribution when there is nothing to redistribute. Yeah,
but he also wants he also wants rent control, so
he wants to deregulate new housing and he wants rent control,

(01:42:04):
so he wants that. He wants to mix mix, And
I think he's been influenced by not by me, he's
been influenced by Yes in my Backyard YIMBI, which is
a movement on the center left which is advocating for
eliminating restriction on building houses all over the country, some
more rational approach to the housing problem. Thomas, thanks for

(01:42:27):
saving me from intellectual spiritual hell of end cap and
introducing me to objectivism. I now have a job as
a banker with the end goal of teaching any advice
for a twenty one year old Oh, with the end
goal of teaching any advice for twenty one year old objectives.

Speaker 2 (01:42:44):
God, I mean you are on the right path.

Speaker 1 (01:42:47):
You've got a good job, you got a good paying job.
I mean, keep keep learning, keep studying, don't don't give
up on studying. Don't ever suggest potent to yourself that
you know it all. Both in the field in which
you're making a career banking, There's so much to learn,
there's always so much to grow, And in terms of objectivism,

(01:43:08):
there's so much more to learn.

Speaker 2 (01:43:10):
There's so much more to grow.

Speaker 1 (01:43:11):
So I'd say, keep learning, keep integrating, keep being engaged.
And I don't know what you want to teach and
where you want to teach, but yeah, figure out how
how ultimately you want to make that transition from banking
into into teaching. But it's it's doable. I know a
number of people who have done it, and it's it's

(01:43:32):
super exciting.

Speaker 2 (01:43:34):
Jamie. Thank you, Thomas.

Speaker 1 (01:43:36):
Also, Jeremy Bowing apparently had a lot of nice things
to say about Fuentes a few years back.

Speaker 2 (01:43:44):
How Daily Wire is still together?

Speaker 1 (01:43:46):
No clue. I hadn't heard heard that Jeremy was one
of the found it was the co founder with Ben
Shapiro of.

Speaker 2 (01:43:52):
The Daily Wire.

Speaker 1 (01:43:53):
I didn't know that he had nice things to say
about for intes go figure. I mean, yeah, I mean
even when they seem reasonable, it turns out that some
of these people are on nutcases. Jamie says Sam. This
is like third twenty Canadian dollar question from Jamie.

Speaker 2 (01:44:11):
So thank you Jamie.

Speaker 1 (01:44:12):
Today, same seed, as said on PbD show, tax rate
should be ninety plus percent plus like a fifty sixties
plus like in the fifties and sixties. Not the revenue,
but so employees would invest in labor expense instead of
paying it in tax This seems so backward to me.

Speaker 2 (01:44:33):
Can you debunk.

Speaker 1 (01:44:36):
So employers would invest in labor expense instead of paying taxes.
I don't understand it either. I don't know what I
don't know what he meant by that. But you know,
nobody actually paid ninety percent of taxes in the fifties
and sixties. I mean, the interesting thing is the effective
tax rate, the tax rate people actually pay, is actually

(01:44:57):
higher today than it was in the fifties and sixties.
Even even at the top bracket. There were so many exclusions,
so many deductions, so many ways around it, that almost
neverty nobody actually paid it. There were a ton and
ton and ton of loopholes by doing that. But I'm
not sure if he means that ninety percent tax right

(01:45:18):
should be an individual should be in corporations, you know,
if they spend it on other things.

Speaker 2 (01:45:25):
Like investment.

Speaker 1 (01:45:27):
Yeah, I mean, I'd have to figure out exactly what
he said and then debunk it, because otherwise it's too floating.
And so did you see Stephen Moore resigning from Heritage?

Speaker 2 (01:45:37):
Yes, that's good. I like Stephen Moore. I mean, I
liked Stephen Moore except for the.

Speaker 1 (01:45:42):
Period where he sold out and went to work for
the Trump administration and and talk to Trump talking points
even though he knew they were wrong. Stephen Moore knows
economics too well to actually participate in the Trump administration. Kenny,
what do you think this means for the future of
the American right? You know, I don't know to the
extent that this continues, and that they're not willing to

(01:46:06):
denounce the Foyintesses and the Tuckers to the extent that
they remain kind of obligated to them and and you know,
maintain them in their so called Then the right is
is is either dead or it will It will win,
but it will become a fascist right. And what we
will get in America is fascism from the right right.

Speaker 2 (01:46:35):
So yeah, it's, uh, the American right is.

Speaker 1 (01:46:44):
You know, to some extent, it's always been, but it's
particularly right now anti intellectual, anti philosophical, anti ideological. And
that's why, by the way, they latch onto religion because
it's all they have. Ideas are beyond them. All they
have left is religion, and that's what they latch onto,

(01:47:07):
all right, Kenny. I love your courses on Peterson Academy
with the money just for your content. Thank you. I
now have five courses. Five courses. I mean it is
worth signing up just for that, because I think it's
just a monetarily it's a good deal to sign up
for a year just to do my five courses. It's
even one of each one of those courses about nine

(01:47:28):
hours long. I've got one on capitalism, one on finance,
one on money, one on trade in one of the corporation, history.

Speaker 2 (01:47:35):
Of business in America.

Speaker 1 (01:47:37):
Those five courses unique content you won't get anywhere else.
Each one of them is nine hours, says nine times five,
forty five hours of content. I'm not sure how much
the Peterson Academy costs, but for forty five hours of content,
which you can't get anywhere else, I think it's a
pretty good deal. So yeah, check it out. Thank you, Kenny.

Speaker 2 (01:47:56):
I really appreciate you are giving me that feedback.

Speaker 1 (01:47:59):
Hope O. Please, oh, if you do consume my content
on Peterson Academy, please write positive comments.

Speaker 2 (01:48:06):
Please let them know that you liked it so that
they have me back again.

Speaker 1 (01:48:10):
I don't have anything scheduled yet in terms of going
back there, but I'm hopeful that next year i'll be
able to do another few courses, so that would be
that would be terrific. Andrew, a coworker, told me he
believes in his own happiness as model. I'm sure we

(01:48:30):
disagree on the means of happiness, but we're allied on
the purpose of life. Many at least value happiness, even
if they don't understand selfishness.

Speaker 2 (01:48:39):
Yes, I mean, I think that's a huge step forward.

Speaker 1 (01:48:41):
I always say, if we can agree that the purpose
is your own flourishing, your own happiness, now we can
debate what leads to that, what actually results in that,
what are the virtues and values that achieve that? And
I think that's a much more fruitful debate. Let's get
the beneficiaries out of the way. If we agree that
I should be the beneficial of my own actions, my

(01:49:01):
own happiness, that clears up a lot of a lot
of stuff, and the debate is much more fruitil from
that point on. Jacob Any thought on the A C
subsidy drama, a catalyst for more freedom or a nothing burger.

(01:49:26):
I'm leaning towards a nothing burger. It's it's nothing, boger.
Nothing is going to change, nothing will happen. The Trump
administrator has had many, many opportunities to get rid of
the ACA and replace it with something else. They could
have as part of the big beautiful bill. They could
have increased health saving accounts, which was the solution, and
they never did so now they're suddenly remembering that they

(01:49:48):
could do all that. I don't think it'll come to anything.
I think it'll be nothing. Uh. Christas the Iran police
consider forming political party milated it, so they may be
still a limb I've hoped to save as from us
from downfall. I mean, the big difference is I live
in the United States, is in Argentina. Argentina is a
country of I think twenty million, the United States doing

(01:50:10):
in fifty million. To gain attention in the United States,
it's very difficult to look at how much attention I'm gaining,
not that much for a form political party I'll get
for you know, how many votes will I get? Almost none?
How would I get out there? How would I get
any attention? And on the other hand, you know, Argentina

(01:50:31):
is much more centralized, much easier. But look me, there's
a unique character. I'm nom late. And Argentina was also
much more desperate than the United States is today. But
there has been a political party formed. What's his name,
God the actor. I can see his face, but his

(01:50:52):
name will not come to my consciousness. Isn't that amazing?
But somebody in the chat will let me know has
formed Pelgrino. Mark Agrino has phoned the Capitalist Party. It exists.
Look up Capitalist Party of America and you will find it.
I think they have a pretty good what do you
call it a program? Political program and the American Capitalist Party,

(01:51:16):
and you can you can subscribe to them and hopefully
one day they will run candidates. But basically, there's no
point in me duplicating the effort that they've already done.
If you're going to go into politics, you know, that's
one way. Another way is to go into one of
the existing parties and try to change it within. I'm
not against going into politics, not something I want to do,
but you know, if some of you want to go
into politics, go for it.

Speaker 2 (01:51:39):
Kenny, Thank you.

Speaker 1 (01:51:40):
Jron. I felt a bit depressed at the start of
the show, but you're inspiring me to speak out. Great.
Thank you, Kenny. I'm glad I am inspiring. Kiki Adilson
said she was more loyal to Israel than USA. I
didn't hear that. I'd be curious to see the exact
quote and if it wasn't taken out of context. But okay,
so she's more loyal to Israel than see that it says,
why do you? Why does anybody care? Why does anybody care?

(01:52:04):
So Addamson, with all her billions of dollars, she's a form,
she's an Israeli dual citizen with the United States, is
more loyal to Israel than in the United States. A.
There's not that much conflict between the US and the
United States. And b okay, so Adamson is does that
mean old Jews are? Does that mean everybody is?

Speaker 2 (01:52:24):
What does that mean exactly? Does that mean she's selling
out the US?

Speaker 1 (01:52:29):
What does it mean? It doesn't mean anything even if
she said it, and I'm not sure she said it
exactly that way, But I'd be curious if somebody has
the quote, send it to me.

Speaker 2 (01:52:39):
Jjgbez.

Speaker 1 (01:52:40):
I was able to talk three of my very anti
Israel friends to more of a center position, considering how
strong the opinion was before that.

Speaker 2 (01:52:48):
It was a great achievement. It is possible.

Speaker 1 (01:52:50):
Good for you, I think if you can't talk to
people on this issue, out of the position. I don't
know what you can talk to them out of. I mean,
this is not a hot issue. Let me make it
very clear, the Israeli Palestinian issue is not a hot issue.

Speaker 2 (01:53:03):
It's actually a very very easy issue.

Speaker 1 (01:53:06):
And once you know a little bit about the history,
and once you know a little bit about that about
what's actually going on versus what you up on about it,
if you can't come to the right conclusion, there's something
very wrong with you. I mean, they are complicated issues
in the world. This one is not complicated. Mera Ben says,
how much for doctor Mommy Patreon to sponsor YBS? I mean,

(01:53:30):
we can, you know, drop me an email and we
can talk about it. You're on at your on bookshow
dot com. It depends on how often you want mentioned
and stuff like that. But all the other sponsors are
basically doing one thousand dollars a month and for that
they get a mentioned I try, not every show, but
almost every show.

Speaker 2 (01:53:48):
But we could come to a different arrangement if that
is what you would like. Jjggbs.

Speaker 1 (01:53:55):
Are you going to be watching Ken Burns new documentary
they're making Revolution? Maybe it's doc we need right now.
I mean it probably isn't because I can't believe that
ken Burns is gonna, you know, has a real understanding.
I don't know who he's using, uh for the documentary
of understanding the Revolution, but yeah, I mean I will

(01:54:16):
look for it because I'm curious and I'm interested in
and I like his documentaries generally. I just don't know
philosophically how aligned he is. But yeah, uh, let's see,

(01:54:38):
all right, Hannu eight. The single tax by Henry George
would have prevented Mom, Donnie, are you aware of Henry
George the economist? Have you considered this single tax? I'm
away of Henry George. I think the single tax is
like a it's a land tax, if I remember right it,

(01:54:58):
I mean, I've I've read some of this stuff. I
don't agree. It doesn't make any sense to me from
an economics perspective. I don't think he's a particularly good economist.
But I can't argue the ideas right now because I'd
have to brush up on my Henry George. But when
I've looked into it, I was not impressed. I do
not believe in a in a land tax. You know,

(01:55:20):
if anything, we should have a single consumption tax and
nothing else. Maybe a VAT and nothing else is the
only tax out there. Uh, you know, if you have
a tax, I have to have a tax. That would
be the right tax from an economics perspective. And yeah,
so I don't know how it would have prevented Mamdani.

(01:55:44):
You know, taxes are consequences of ideas. Uh, they don't
shape ideas. So I think that's reversing cause and effect. Jacob,
you have a view of Aliens one to interminate a
one to still one of the best episodes ever. Oh cool, Yeah,
I mean those are good reviews. Those are movies I
watched and thought about a lot, and they're very, very

(01:56:06):
good movies, and they are movies with real philosophical content.
You can check out those reviews on one of my shows.
Just put Terminata You're on Brook and I guess you'll
find them. But yeah, those are some of my favorite
movies from the nineteen eighties. And I guess those all
in the eighties, I think, so old Greg I already

(01:56:28):
read his silly comment again. He's you can ask questions,
old Greg, but you but you buy the right to
ask questions. You'll probably talk about this before, but what
do you think US economic policy and China should be.
Is there valid argument for protectionism there? No, I don't

(01:56:49):
think there is. I don't I think there is a
valid argument for restricting exports to China of militarily sensitive
is like a very advanced chips, although we have to
realize that that will not stop them from developing their
own and will not stop them from smuggling them in
the verse ways in which they get smuggled in. But

(01:57:13):
in terms of China, I don't know, producing toys. I mean,
I don't see any valid argument for protectionism. There might
be a valid argument for using individual not buying stuff
from China. That argument might be valid, that is boycotting
China as an individual. But the job of the government,
the government should only intervene in trade if one the

(01:57:37):
item involved as a national security weapons things that go
into weapons, or be if you're at war, or you're
about to go to war, or you're convinced you're about
to go to war. And I don't think we're about
to go to war with China, but I'm willing to
be convinced we are, and then it's not protectionism. Then

(01:57:57):
you just embogo them. You don't with an enemy. And
if China is an enemy, a feign policy militarily enemy,
then we shouldn't trade with them period. But then, if
they're an enemy, why is Trump meeting with them? Why
is Trump going to Beijing next year early next year?
Why does he keep praising Hi? Obviously we don't perceive

(01:58:20):
them in an enemy, so there's no reason tap protection
is policies against them. I just don't get it.

Speaker 2 (01:58:29):
Thanks is so frustrating.

Speaker 1 (01:58:32):
Even Sam Harris thinks billionaires ruined by ironmand have an
altruistic duty to be generous to the common good, ignoring
money's role as a means to wait for opportunities like AI.
Individualism is so resented.

Speaker 2 (01:58:48):
Thank you, Frank.

Speaker 1 (01:58:48):
That's fifty dollars, And I agree with you completely. It
is unbelievably frustrating. Altruism is so deeply ingrained, even in
some of our best intellectuals. And I consider Sam Harris,
in spite of out disagreements, one of our best, uh
you know, best intellectuals, and uh it is you know.

Speaker 2 (01:59:11):
He basically.

Speaker 1 (01:59:13):
Resents and resents individualism, resents the idea of wealth creation
versus wealth redistribution, resents the idea that some people contribute
to that wealth creation significantly more than others, and they
WoT deserve to earn much more than others and because
they created, so uh yeah, you know, it's it's absolutely

(01:59:39):
absolutely frustrating and disappointing because again Sam is smart. Sam's smart,
and I think, you know, I think it's sad because
Sam has a very negative view of fine Man, which
I think if he really was willing to engage in
iron Man's ideas, he might not agree with it. But
he wouldn't he wouldn't be anyway, You're as negative as

(02:00:02):
he is today, Jamie. Sam was essentially saying corporations would
be incentivized to put more money in hiring employees. Okay,
this is the other Sam, more money in hiring employees
since the money would be going to tax anyway. Oh

(02:00:23):
so you want COPA taxes to be an eighty nine
to eighty percent as well. None of that makes any sense, right,
because anytime a business is investing, and money is always invested. Right.
So let's say the corporation has a lot of money
and it decides to buy backstock. So it buys backstock.
So the investors have a lot of money. Now what

(02:00:43):
do they do with that money? They invested, and what
does that investment ultimately do? It results in hiring employees.
So the way to get more employees hired is to
increase investments. So you should reduce taxes on investment, like
capital gains taxes to zero, and that's how you increase investment,

(02:01:04):
and that's how you increase employment. Yeah, but that's just
upside down logic. And if it's going to Texas anyway,
why would they rather have employees? I guess. I guess
they get some value from the employee, but they don't
get to sustain enough profit to make it to make
it worthwhile the effort to hire the employee at ninety

(02:01:27):
corporate taxes, you just don't have business. It just collapses.
You just have stagnation on a scale that I don't
think Sam or anybody else can imagine. This is a
different Sam, not Sam House Jacob. If everyone tells you
that Jemmy used to say nice things about for intance,
isn't if someone tells you, isn't it responsible thing to verify.

Speaker 2 (02:01:47):
Before just believing in face fail?

Speaker 1 (02:01:49):
Yeah? I agree, I didn't accept the face value. I
said I didn't know that, and I think I said,
if he said that, then that's terrible. But I didn't
know that he said and I don't know that he
said it. I agree that you shouldn't just accept at
the face value. I do have some respect for my

(02:02:10):
uh super chatters that they don't just make stuff up.
On the other hands, so but I do want to
see the the the quotes and make sure they're not
taking out of context. It's so easy to take stuff
out of context. Andrew, why wasn't Walk jealous of Keating's
material success and prestige? Well, because material success and prestige
didn't matter that much to Walk. And you know, I

(02:02:36):
think you recognized that this was this was the the
Peter Keating sold the soul for that, So why be
jealous of somebody who, to gain it had to sell
his soul? Right? So, yeah, I read this from Greg

(02:03:01):
because it's so you an say, there's all sorts of
things without verifying them, quotes people without saying actual quotes,
and makes accusations without merit. Oh, Greg just did exactly
what he accuses me of doing. Like, he gave no
examples of me saying things without verifying them. He gave
no examples of me quoting people without using actual quotes.

(02:03:22):
And he made no gave no examples of accusations I
made without merit. Indeed, my accusations are with merit. I
don't always quote people exactly because I don't have the
quotes with me, but I paraphrase the quotes.

Speaker 2 (02:03:35):
If they are not exactly.

Speaker 1 (02:03:37):
Right, then challenge me show me where they're wrong. I
don't see people doing that. Nobody's done that. I've never seen.
I mean, people always make this accusation against me, but
I've never seen somebody, anybody, actually give me an example,
an actual example. They say, I say, what's his name?
A Nick Frantis is an anti Sam Sami without giving quotes,

(02:04:00):
it's so obvious that he's an anti semi. All my
paraphrasings have been absolutely accurate. The fact that I won't
show you videos of Nick fluents just go check him out,
all of it, All of that, all the Nick foy
into stuff is one hundred percent correct.

Speaker 2 (02:04:21):
What I've told you.

Speaker 1 (02:04:23):
It's not even exaggerated, and I just don't want to
put you through the agony of having to watch the
garbage that is Fluentish. But everything I say about him
is absolutely true. Do I accuse talking for intos of
anti Semitism. Yes, and I've showed you on TACA many times,

(02:04:43):
the fact that he is anti Semitic, and I've showed
given examples, and I've showed videos of tucka. I've actually
showed videos he's absolutely anti Semitic. I'd have explained why
he's at a Semitic and how his antisemitic anti semitism
reflective stuff. You might disagree with my evaluation, but I
always provide evidence. In the fact that you are challenging

(02:05:05):
the idea that Tucker and Fluentees are anti Semitic just
shows how ignorant evader you are. You're just an ignorant evader.
So anybody, I mean, even Nick Foyantis is not going
to deny his anti semitism Taka will, but he's an

(02:05:29):
anti semi The very fact that he's devoted well anyway, I.

Speaker 2 (02:05:34):
Don't need defended now.

Speaker 3 (02:05:36):
Uh.

Speaker 1 (02:05:37):
But you know, to deny the anti semitism of Nick
foyentis put aside Tucker calls. To deny the anti semitism
Nick foyintis requires unbelievable, unbelievable evasion. It requires blind blindness
to what he actually says. It requires unthinking, unthinking medication

(02:06:01):
and admiration for the person and negation of his ideas.
It requires the mindlessness of a tribalist. And that's what
old Greg is, a mindless tribalist.

Speaker 2 (02:06:13):
And it's sad. It's sad that there are so many
people because again, it's not subtle.

Speaker 1 (02:06:18):
With Frantis, it's not hm, I need to interpret it,
but it's not that subtle Atuka. Tucker's a little bit
more subtle because he tries to hide it because he
knows that it's disrespect. You know, he still gets invited
to nice parties, and he wants to keep getting invited
to nice parties. And if he's if he actually, if
he actually came out as an anti semite and made
it more explicit, he might not be invited to those parties.

Speaker 2 (02:06:40):
So it Taka hides it a little bit. He gives it.

Speaker 1 (02:06:42):
There is some kind of prestige. But Nick doesn't hide it.
Frantis doesn't hide it. So to not identify it with
Nick Frantis means you've turned off your mind. You've just

(02:07:04):
flipped the switch. And I judge, I'm gonna give you
my opinion on everybody, and I'm going to back it
up with facts and with Nick. I mean, the main
fact is just watch any segment of his shows and
you will find it all right guys.

Speaker 2 (02:07:25):
I mean it's like with hitlanti Semitic. Hmm, I wonder.

Speaker 1 (02:07:31):
He has greg here you go. Maybe this will help
you confirm sources and educate yourself ahahaha. Also ask yourself
why anyone is going against Jews again? Why why against Jews?
Definitely never their fault. Well it's not their fault this time.
It wasn't their fault in most other times. There are
many reasons to go after Jews, you know, starting with

(02:07:51):
the with the with the claim that they killed Jesus,
and on with the fact that they deny Jesus, that
they didn't convert to Christianity. You can actually educate yourself
by studying the history of anti Semitism and what its
sources are. But the fact that they're successful, that they're
a minority, that there are an other, that they're strong,
that they're capable, that they're able, that they have sustained

(02:08:14):
their own state. I mean, there's a long, long, long
history of white people anti Semitic, which I've analyzed many times.
The intersectionality on the left and then the right primarily
driven by Christian anti Semitism. Nothing Israel does is the

(02:08:34):
cause of anti Semitism, even the bad stuff that Israel
doesn't it does do. Some bad stuff does not cause
anti Semitism. Anti Senitism proceeds anything.

Speaker 2 (02:08:44):
That Israel might do.

Speaker 1 (02:08:50):
Right, mus from ours, come to Australia and speak any
way you can, any way you can here. Need you
more than ever. Look, Mars, thank you.

Speaker 2 (02:09:03):
I appreciate that.

Speaker 1 (02:09:04):
And yeah, you do need me more than ever, and
so does the rest of the world. Everybody does. I'll
just say this, I go where I'm invited. Organize an
event for me. Tell me I can get you one
hundred people in Melbourne to come and listen to you
give a talk, and I will come. So I'm happy
to come to Australia, but I have no way to

(02:09:25):
organize these events. I need people on the ground, like
the team. And I'll just give a shout out to
the team and Portugal who organized the two events that
we live streamed to you, and they terrific the second
The first one had about sixty people, the second event
had about one hundred and fifty people. There were terrific
events with big time celebrities, local celebrities and they will

(02:09:47):
get events. And if you want me to come to Australia,
get a group together, organize some events. Let me know.
Let's schedule a time and I will come. I am
available to all of you out there. If you're willing
to organize or facilitate events for me, I will come
and I will speak. All right, guys, have a great

(02:10:10):
rest of your weekend. I will see you tomorrow. We'll
see what we talk about tomor. I'm not sure. Maybe
we'll make it, try to make it a positive show.
But thank you all the super chatows, thank you to
all of those who beat off some of the some
of the Flintis fans, and yeah bye everybody,

All Episodes

Mamdani, Tucker & Fuentes -- What is Going On? | Yaron Brook Show

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

On Purpose with Jay Shetty

Ruthie's Table 4

The Joe Rogan Experience

.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;}Mamdani, Tucker & Fuentes -- What is Going On? | Yaron Brook Show