National Security Strategy; Pipe Bombs; Eurovision--Why Care About Israel? : Yaron Brook Show

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
A lot of them of rattle cells. And as this
is the show. All right, everybody, welcome here on books
show on this Uh, I don't know, Friday, December fifth.

Speaker 2 (00:27):
I hope everybody's having a great week and uh yeah,
looking forward to the weekend. Hure in Puerto Rico, it's Friday,
is almost over three thirty pm.

Speaker 1 (00:39):
And being an hour ahead of.

Speaker 2 (00:41):
The East coast is kind of weird, but it is
what it is. And all right, let's let's jump in.
I'll remind you you can ask questions. That way we
can shape part of the show. If you have complaints, comments, disagreements,
you can use the super chat to express yourself.

Speaker 1 (00:59):
Uh so uh.

Speaker 2 (01:01):
And support the show at the same time, make make
this possible, make yourself a trader so that it's a
trade win.

Speaker 1 (01:07):
Win so uh.

Speaker 2 (01:10):
The Trump administration today this morning released its National Security
Strategy document. Uh, no big fanfare, no big press confidence.
Trump didn't make a big deal out of this. Really interesting,
you know that that it kind of snuck in like.

Speaker 1 (01:30):
That without without a lot of fanfare.

Speaker 2 (01:33):
But this is kind of the guiding the guiding principles
for American farm policy moving forward. And as we'll see
it's more than just American phone policy. It even touches
on domestic policy. It is a strategic document. It's supposed
to be big picture, uh strategy. This is something every

(01:56):
administration typically puts out. You know, famous George Bush had one.
It was called Forward Strategy for Freedom, which I did
a whole talk.

Speaker 1 (02:08):
I did a whole.

Speaker 2 (02:08):
Talk on criticizing and actually an essay with Elon Jono
which made it into Elon Juno's book, Winning the Unwinnable War,
where I was critical of George Bush's a Forward Strategy
for Freedom. This document, this strategic plan, is relatively short.
It's thirty three pages, and it's thin, undetails, and there's

(02:35):
quite a few glaring things that are absent from it,
which we will discuss. So we're gonna spend most of
our time going over this document. Actually for your benefit,
have it up.

Speaker 1 (02:45):
On screen so you can you can actually look at it.
You know, it starts, it starts way over here. National
Security Strategy of the United States twenty twenty five. It
has a forward by Donald Trump which is not worth
really reading. Introduction and introduction, What is American strategy? Defined strategy?

(03:05):
Which is all all good stuff and then you know, we'll.

Speaker 2 (03:10):
Jump into what should the strategy be, what are the goals,
what should America want?

Speaker 1 (03:16):
Is the way to present it?

Speaker 2 (03:17):
And let me just say this is a heavily, heavily
heavily mixed document. It's got some passages that are great.
It's actually got one line that I think they stole
from me at some point. I'll point that out when we.

Speaker 1 (03:31):
Get to it.

Speaker 2 (03:33):
It's got some some basically good stuff in it, and
it's got a lot of bad stuff in it, and
most of it is just blah. Mostly it's just not
neither here nor there, and it's got a lot missing.
It's got a lot missing, and I think i'll just

(03:54):
say this, the thing missing most from it is any
sense and I know which actually just Ush's document did have,
and this one does not have any sense of good
and evil, any sense of good countries, bad countries, just

(04:16):
unjust anything like that. It has none of that. It
is really here American interests, and this is what we're
going to pursue. And all countries have interests, and all
countries will pursue their interests.

Speaker 1 (04:31):
And that's okay.

Speaker 2 (04:32):
And that's the tone of it. The tone of it
is values free at least universal value free and in
that sense, it is very much reasoned like a document,
and let's be clear, not written by Donald Trump. This
is not a trumpest document, although it has element of
it to appease him.

Speaker 1 (04:53):
This is a document really written by elements within the
Department of Defense, Deparliament of War that I influenced clearly
by the national conservative movement.

Speaker 2 (05:05):
So this is a document that will please the national conservatives.
It's got strong national conservative elements in it. It's supportive of,
kind of in a nuanced way, the national conservative agenda
and then generally a nationalist agenda, but a national conservative
agenda in particular.

Speaker 1 (05:26):
So we will go over this. So you know, we'll
start with what do we want? What does America want?

Speaker 2 (05:34):
Well, first and foremost, it says, we want to continue
to survival and safety of the United States as an independent,
sovereign republic whose government secures that God given natural rights
of its citizens and privatize their well being an interest. Okay,
that is good, right, except for the God given part
and God given natural rights. Every time they talk about rights,

(05:55):
which is two or three times, it's always God given
natural rights. It's always God given natural rights. Again, consistent
with kind of national conservatives considered consistent with Christian conservatives.

Speaker 1 (06:06):
The emphasis is on.

Speaker 2 (06:07):
God given I guess to differentiate from the government given
rights that the left.

Speaker 1 (06:16):
Would argue for. So here they have to make the
case that's our rights a god given as compared to whatever.
So that's good.

Speaker 2 (06:25):
Yeah, we want to protect the independence, we want to
protect their soeignty, and we want to certainly want to
protect rights. Rights should be the integrating part of this.
It's just one of the many things. So they don't
quite understand rights. But that's okay, that's not the worst
thing here. We want to protect this country, it's people,
it's territory, it's economy, and it's way of life from
military attack and hostile for un influenced. Yes, we're they espionage,

(06:50):
predatory trade practices. Huh, So we want to protect the country,
it's people, it's territory's economy from predatory trade practices. Interesting,
this is a found policy agenda, drug and human trafficking,
destructive propaganda. Who gets to decide which propaganda is destructive
in which propaganda is not destructive? And influence operations? Cultural subversion.

(07:16):
We don't want cultural subversion, so we're gonna use a
fund policy to stop preedatory trade practices, whatever the hell
those are. I mean, the easiest thing to stop predatory
trade practices is just not to do them.

Speaker 1 (07:31):
If it's predatory, just don't trade. It's easy.

Speaker 2 (07:36):
I don't engage in predatory trade practices because I won't
trade with people trying to take advantage of me.

Speaker 1 (07:45):
Just leave it to Americans. They're pretty good at that. Drugs.

Speaker 2 (07:49):
You know, we talked about it in other context about
why drugs is not an appropriate goal of their American government.
And propaganda, influence and cultural subversion is very dangerous territory
for the government to get involved in identifying it and
defining what it is. The best thing is to light
ideas rip. We want full control of our voters over

(08:14):
our immigation system and over transportation networks through which people.

Speaker 1 (08:18):
Come into the country.

Speaker 2 (08:21):
Not surprising you'll see in this document, immigration plays a
huge role. Immigration is the source of our problems, and
immigration is a key feature of what our found policy
should be. We want resilient national infrastructure. Yeah, I'm all
for resilient national infrastructure, although the best way to make
it resilient is to sell it to the private sector

(08:44):
and courage competition.

Speaker 1 (08:46):
We want to trude, train, equipp and field the world's
most powerful, lethal, and technologically advanced military.

Speaker 2 (08:54):
And now listen to this and tell me if this
isn't stolen from something I said written in the.

Speaker 1 (09:01):
Past to protect our interests. The two wars, and here's
where it gets.

Speaker 2 (09:08):
If necessary, win them quickly and decisively with the lowest
positive possible casualty star forces.

Speaker 1 (09:18):
I mean, that's like a direct quote for me, quickly
and decisively with the lowest possible casualty star forces.

Speaker 2 (09:27):
You know I couldn't agree more. I agree with that
statement one hundred percent.

Speaker 1 (09:32):
Uh. You know that's perfect.

Speaker 2 (09:35):
And if only I believed that they would live up
to it, I would embrace it completely. And of course
I don't believe that they will go with the war
when it's appropriate and not go to war where it's
not appropriated. I don't believe anything they can do. But
was that's exactly how they should be for it, And
I said so first.

Speaker 1 (09:53):
So who knows who had some hand in writing this
that might have I've read something that I've written or
listen to me in the past. I've been doing this
for a long time.

Speaker 2 (10:05):
A lot of people have heard my stuff, particularly in
fun policy. We want the world's most robust, credible, and
modern nuclear discernans. Yeah, and including Golden Dome for American homeland. Yes,
no question. We want the world's strongest, most dynamic, most innovative,

(10:25):
most advanced economy.

Speaker 1 (10:26):
How do you get that?

Speaker 2 (10:28):
I mean, this is a big question, right, how do
we get the most dynamic, most innovative, most robust economy,
advanced economy? What what does that come Where does that
come from? How does that happen? I mean, I'll tell
you right now. The document does not say we know
people listening to this show know what I think at least,
and that is capitalist and freedom, free markets. Get the

(10:51):
government the hell out of markets. Stop trying to central
the plan, stop trying to to to manage the economy,
Stop trying to tell us who to trade with and
who not, Stop trying to tell us what we should
and shouldn't make, Stop trying to manipulate the economy. That's
how you get the world's strongest and most dynamic, most
the innovative, and most advanced economy. Indeed, we innovate, and

(11:13):
we're advanced, and we're dynamic in direct proportion to the
lack of regulation and control, but that they're not going
to say. They're not going to say because that would
upset too many people within the administration. We want the
world's most robust industrial base. Really, I'm not sure that's true.

(11:35):
We want the most robust economy and most dynamic, most innovative.
Whether that leads the industrial base, that might retard American
growth because it will misallocate capital. We want the most robust,
productive and innovative energy sector. Yeah, probably, it probably happens anyway.
All you need to do is get out of the way.
It goes back to what I said before. We want

(11:58):
the world's most scientifically and technology advanced and innovative country.

Speaker 1 (12:04):
Yeah. Again, freedom achieves that. And maybe.

Speaker 2 (12:11):
You know, not stopping all the funding to the things
to science would be helpful here at least until you
create a kind of a private alternative to it.

Speaker 1 (12:23):
I don't know.

Speaker 2 (12:23):
It doesn't seem like the Trumpet denverstation is taking that
one very seriously. We want to maintain the United States
unrivaled seft power, through which we exercise positive influence soft powers.

Speaker 1 (12:34):
When you don't have to go to war, you don't
have to use weapons.

Speaker 2 (12:38):
People listen to you because they respect you. They like
you because they know you represent important values, and it
really it's worth it. How do you achieve soft power
but getting respect from other countries? Do you think Trump
has done that over the last nine months ten months?

(13:01):
Tariffs undermine soft power. His wishwashingess, his corruption, his groveling
before dictators does not encourage soft power. It actually weakens
soft power.

Speaker 1 (13:21):
You know, it writes it. Doing so, we will.

Speaker 2 (13:23):
Unapologetic, unapologic about the country's past and present, while respectful
of other countries, deferring religions, cultures, and governing systems. Why
should you be respectful of other countries religions, cultures, and
governing systems. This sounds like a leftist subjectivist document. Like

(13:44):
this sounds like you want to be friends with the
Qataris and you don't want to criticize their religion, culture,
and governing It sounds like this means you want to
be friendly with Putin and not challenge his governing system.
This sounds like you want to be friends with she
and but doing all that, are you really going to
enhance soft power? So here they want to differentiate themselves

(14:08):
on new coons who supposedly I wish you know, actually
took the position that you know, we have the right
political system and we should encourage other people to adopt
it as well.

Speaker 1 (14:18):
And we shouldn't. We should take into account differing religion, culture,
and governing systems.

Speaker 2 (14:26):
Finally, we want the restoration and reinvigoration of Americans spiritual
and cultural health, so do I without which long term
security is impossible. We want people who are proud, happy,
and optimistic that they will leave their country to the
next generation better than they founded.

Speaker 1 (14:49):
You know, I want that too, although the stuff about
the next generation is less important to me, but I
want that too. This is great. How do we do that?
How do we do that?

Speaker 2 (15:01):
Capitalism, freedom, respect to the constitution, respect for individualism, respect
for individual rights, or a new respect for what made
this country great, not through their tribalism and their mindlessness
and emotionalism.

Speaker 1 (15:20):
Freedom.

Speaker 2 (15:24):
What do we want in and from the world. Oh,
now we're getting the frump Possey in and from the world.

Speaker 1 (15:29):
This is great. We want to ensure that the Western
hemisphere remains reasonably stable. So here's a strategic shift that
is happening from previous documents like this, And you know,
there's a real shift from George Bush's document from twenty seventeen,

(15:52):
The last time we got a Bush, last time we
got a Trump strategy. There's a real shift.

Speaker 2 (16:01):
In the twenty seventeen document, Western Hemisphere gets a brief
mention one page, general corporation something. Now, Western Hemisphere is
the heart of it. We're establishing a new Monroe doctrine.
We want to other the Western Hemisphere and remain reasonably stable.
We're governed enough to prevent a discourage mass migration, because

(16:24):
that's the.

Speaker 1 (16:24):
Real threat to America.

Speaker 2 (16:25):
If only you can get rid of those brown looking migrants,
everything would be so much better, so much better. We
want a hemispheres governments cooperate with US against narco terrorists, cartels,
and other transnational criminal organizations. Yeah, that's the problem in America.

Speaker 1 (16:43):
It's the other I told you that it's immigrants and
narco terrorists.

Speaker 2 (16:49):
We want a hemisphere that remains free of hostile foreign
incursions or ownership of key assets, and that supports critical
supply chains. We want to ensure a continue access to
key strategic locations. In other words, a Monroe doctrine. Now
we can talk about whether a Monroe doctrine is appropriate
in the twenty first century, whether the American Navy basically

(17:12):
has global reach, whether the Western Hemisphere is any different
than any other hemisphere. It is true that the one
thing that the Western Hemisphere has that other countries do
not have is direct access to the American homeland. That is,
direct access to immigrants they can just walk in, and
direct access to drug cutaels they can smuggle the drugs in.

Speaker 1 (17:36):
So yes, the Western Hemisphere, you know, given their priorities,
which are immigration and drugs more than anything else, should
be a big deal.

Speaker 2 (17:48):
But given that borders are with Mexico and Canada, in
terms of national security, let me emphasize security.

Speaker 1 (18:03):
The Western hemisphere is pretty secure. Yeah.

Speaker 2 (18:06):
I mean we have peaceful voters both in the South
and in the north and no risk of invasion. And
whatever problems we have with immigration and with drugs, those
problems one hundred percent self inflicted. If we had a
rational immigration system, there would be no mass migration of

(18:27):
people flowing in illegally.

Speaker 1 (18:29):
If we had a.

Speaker 2 (18:30):
Rational policy of guarding drugs, there would be no narco terrorists.

Speaker 1 (18:35):
We have created the problems that this.

Speaker 2 (18:40):
Administration thinks of the number one problems that we face
and need to be addressed.

Speaker 1 (18:44):
We created them. The document goes on, we want to
hold and reverse ongoing damage that foreign actors inflict on
American economy while keeping the Indo Pacific free and open.
Foreign actors inflict damage on the American economy. How how
do they do that? Oh?

Speaker 2 (19:02):
I know, I know how they do that? By trading
with us? How frigging dare they? They trade with us
and by doing so they inflict damage on us. I'm
worse off for trading with somebody. This is zero was
some thinking of the worst kind, perceptual level, mentality of

(19:22):
the worst kind. We want to support our allies in
preserving the freedom and security of Europe. Europe as a
real role here will see the strategy around Europe is
really important. So notice support our allies and preserving the
freedom of security of Europe.

Speaker 1 (19:39):
That sounds fantastic, yes, While restoring restoring America is going
to restore Europe's civilizational self confidence and Western identity. Now,
I am all four.

Speaker 2 (19:58):
Restoring Europe's civilizational self confidence in Western identity, and I'm
all for doing that because I think it's really really crucial.
But what is Trump?

Speaker 1 (20:12):
People?

Speaker 2 (20:12):
Because Trump doesn't think what is Trump's people think you
have civilizational self confidence in Western identity means what do
they think that means. I'll tell you what they think
that means. They think that means Christianity. They won't write
it here, but that's what they.

Speaker 1 (20:30):
Think it means. Not reason and individualism.

Speaker 2 (20:35):
They think it means Christianity with closed borders, right wing Christianity,
not not left wing Christianity like in Europe. They want
to bring civilizational self commedies in Western identity.

Speaker 1 (20:50):
What was the thing that Matt Walsh wrote.

Speaker 2 (20:52):
Yesterday about how things are worse off in every dimension
in the world right now?

Speaker 1 (20:57):
That's what they want to bring back.

Speaker 2 (21:03):
And we want to ensure that US technology and US standards,
particularly in AI, biotech and quantum computing, drive the world forward.
We won't ensure that juice technology and your standards, particularly
AI biotech and quantum computing, driver doors forward. Yeah, me too,
me too, yep. Freedom, capitalism all right?

Speaker 1 (21:29):
What America is available means to get what we want.

Speaker 2 (21:32):
What we have that makes it possible, and this is fascinating.
What are advantages? We have a nimble political system, nimble,
that's what they call it.

Speaker 1 (21:41):
Nimble.

Speaker 2 (21:43):
We have the world's largest and most innovative economy, leading
financial system, advanced and most innovative, powerful and capable military,
broad network of alliances enview, not so much with Trump
enviable geography, unmatched soft power, courage, will power on patriots
of the American people. Anybody notice anything here missing from

(22:05):
the things that make it make it?

Speaker 1 (22:08):
Was it again?

Speaker 2 (22:09):
What makes us special? What makes it possible for us
to have this position? What makes all this possible? You
notice anything that's missing? What's missing is what America is.

Speaker 1 (22:22):
Freedom.

Speaker 2 (22:24):
What's missing is individual rights. What's missing is capital c capitalism.
What's missing is freedom.

Speaker 1 (22:36):
Freedom.

Speaker 2 (22:37):
But remember, people in Trump universe don't understand why America
is rich. They have no conception of what America is.
Jennifers's the idea of America. Absolutely. What they're missing is
the idea of America, which is what makes all this possible.
But they don't know what that is. They have no idea. Indeed,
when underminded and undercutted said to them, these are just

(23:00):
creeds that are oh, we're rich, cool.

Speaker 1 (23:02):
How did we get rich? We're Americans. That's how we
got rich. We're just Americans. We have the right genes.
Something I don't know.

Speaker 2 (23:13):
So the whole idea of what America is. It's it's nature.
It goes back to this year about Europe. They want
to civilization of confidence in Western identity.

Speaker 1 (23:22):
What the hell is that? Do they know? Enlightenment? Again,
to them, it's Christianity. We're rich because we're Christian. Other
people Christian not rich.

Speaker 2 (23:31):
Well, they don't, they don't, they don't the right Christianity.

Speaker 1 (23:37):
In addition, through President Trump's robust domestic agenda, the United
States is reinstalling a culture of competence. How is it
doing that?

Speaker 2 (23:47):
By rooting out DII? That's how we get back to competence.
Not rooting our DII is good? But is that enough?
At leasting on enormous energy production?

Speaker 1 (23:59):
Good?

Speaker 2 (24:00):
Reindustrializing our economy hmm interesting given that manufacturing has declined
every month since Trump took office, literally every month, and
it's not getting better.

Speaker 1 (24:13):
It's getting worse.

Speaker 2 (24:15):
Less industrial jobs, less industrial capacity, less stuff being made
every month since Trump became presidents. He's not reindustrializing, he's deindustrializing, unindustrializing.

Speaker 1 (24:27):
Whatever the hell the world is.

Speaker 2 (24:30):
Returning economic freedom The only time freedom appears anyway to
our citizens, really, the economic freedom to.

Speaker 1 (24:39):
Trade with whoever we want.

Speaker 2 (24:41):
We have lowered taxes, true, but we've also increased taxes
called tariffs. We've deregulated, but not in any big significant way.
And then finally investing in emergence technologies and basic science.
I thought Trump was cutting back on investment in basic
science quite dramatically.

Speaker 1 (24:59):
Actually they lie. What's new? Okay, what's the strategy? This?
I love the sentence. This is great.

Speaker 2 (25:08):
Right, We're going to be pragmatic without being pragmatists. We're
going to being realistic without being realists. We're going to
be principled without being idealistic. We're going to be muscular
without being hawkish, and restrained without being dubbish. It is
not grounded in traditional political ideology because we are America first. Now,

(25:32):
if you understand what the hell that means, good for you,
because I have no clue, and I guarantee you the
people who wrote it have no clue either. They have
no idea what they just wrote.

Speaker 1 (25:45):
So what are we going to do? So far?

Speaker 2 (25:48):
President Trump has proven an American fall policy. Defense and
intelligence policies whoops, Right, there must be driven by the
falling basic principles focused definition of national interest. That is
absolutely true. But I don't see that happening. The national
interest is some schmogusborg of.

Speaker 1 (26:07):
Anti immigration, anti trade, anti drugs, strong military combination and
don't touch a Western hemisphere. Peace through strength. I support
peace through strength. I wish they took seriously Peter's position
to non intervention. This is interesting. Well Peter sposed not

(26:28):
ten TV unless we want to right. Uh? This is
this is this is this is really interesting.

Speaker 2 (26:37):
This one sentence of this document, which I think on
the minds a lot of what they write in the
rest of the documentary. It says, in the Declaration Independence,
America's founders laid down a clear preference for non interventionism
in the affears of other nations and made it clear
that the basis.

Speaker 1 (26:58):
Here, and this is the sentence, just as.

Speaker 2 (27:00):
All human beings possess God given equal natural rights. What
all human beings possess God given equal natural rights?

Speaker 1 (27:11):
Let me read that again, All human beings possess God
given equal natural rights? You mean immigrants? Do you mean
even illegal immigrants possess God given equal natural rights equal
to everybody else, including to citizens. Wow.

Speaker 2 (27:35):
I guess if you're a drug dealer, you don't possess.
But it says all human. It doesn't say unless you're
doing something Trump doesn't like. It's not in parentheses. All
human beings. That means, including non Americans, they all possess
God given equal natural rights. And then it says all
nations are entitled by the laws of nature, God, and

(27:59):
Nature's God to ac separate an equal station with suspect
another one another.

Speaker 1 (28:05):
Really is that what the founders really meant?

Speaker 2 (28:11):
And how is that consistent with all human beings possessing
God given equal natural rights. When some nations violate those rights,
are they then equal?

Speaker 1 (28:21):
And should they have equal station?

Speaker 2 (28:24):
Should Nazi Germany had equalstation with America because because the
laws of nature and Nature's God require it.

Speaker 1 (28:34):
I mean, this is bizarre, bizarre.

Speaker 2 (28:38):
The first statement is true, all human beings do possess
natural rights, equal natural rights. That is the cornerstone of
them of America. It's the cornerstone of what makes America America.
And this administration violates that principle in almost everything that
it does. But this idea that all countries should be

(29:04):
treated equally is absurd, And here continues for country whose
interests are as numerous and diverse as ours. Rigid adherence
to non interventionism is not possible, so we might intervene sometimes.
We're just not going to tell you when, and we're
not going to lay out a cliff strategy of when
we're gett intervene and when we're not. Like Venezuela, we

(29:28):
don't like them there, and they supply drugs primarily to Europe,
by the way, not to the US.

Speaker 1 (29:36):
Most of the drugs from Venezuela go to Europe, but.

Speaker 2 (29:39):
Doesn't matter, and therefore we maintain the right to intervene.
And then the Western hemisphere because on flexible realism, we
seek good relations and peaceful commercial relations with the nations
of the world without imposing them democratic or other social
changes that differ widely from the traditions and histories. In

(30:01):
other words, we accept all nations, no matter how much
they violate their own people's God given equal natural rates.
Everybody's the same, All these countries are the same. And
by the way, I don't understand this. We want good
relations and peaceful commercial relations. How to tell us fit

(30:22):
into that, I don't know, Even as we push like
minded friends to uphold our share values. So notice, we
are not going to tell Russia or China or Vietnam
or Venezuela or any country.

Speaker 1 (30:38):
How they should run their business. We're not going to
tell them what's right and what's wrong. We're not going
to tell them that they should become more freedom over
in it.

Speaker 2 (30:45):
We're not going to tell them any of that, except
except for Western countries. There we're going to lecture them.
We're going to help them bring back civilization, words Christianity.
The primacy of nations. This is straight out of national conservatism.

(31:06):
It is natural and just that all nations put their
interests first in God their sovereignty. But not all nations
have sovereignty, at least not according to Rand. If they're
violating the natural rights of their citizens, they don't have sovereignty.
Sovereignty is from the people, and if the people opposed

(31:26):
to the regime, they have no sovereignty. If the people
are being oppressed by the regime, the regime has no sovereignty.
Sovereignty I mean, this is the primacy of nations. Whereas
we we some of us online, we believe in the
primacy of the individual.

Speaker 1 (31:48):
We believe in the primacy of individual rights, you know,
those God given whatever they stated, but they're they right.
We stand for the sovereign rights of nations.

Speaker 2 (31:59):
Nations do not have rights, They do not have sovereign
rights against the sovereignty sapping incursions of the most intrusive
transnational organizations.

Speaker 1 (32:09):
What if those transnational.

Speaker 2 (32:10):
Organizations are seeking liberty and freedom sovereignty in respect, the
United States will unapologetically project our own sovereignty. Attempt so
I found powers of entities to sense our disclosure or
could tell our citizens free speech rights, lobbying and influence
operations and seek to steer our policies or involve us
in foreign conflicts, and cynically manipulation of our immigration system,

(32:35):
always immigration to build up voting blocks loyal to foreign
interests within our country.

Speaker 1 (32:40):
The conspiracy theories, balance of power.

Speaker 2 (32:45):
The United States cannot allow any nation to become so
pre dominant that it could threaten our interests.

Speaker 1 (32:51):
But other than that, we're going to allow.

Speaker 2 (32:53):
China to dominate Asia and Russia to dominate whatever it
can dominate.

Speaker 1 (33:00):
Pro American worker, what happened to the equal rights? There's
something about equal rights?

Speaker 2 (33:07):
But now American workers are going to get proferential treatment.
American positively, we be pro worker? Do I count as
a worker? Do you guys count as workers?

Speaker 1 (33:19):
What about the rights of capitalists, business owners, entrepreneurs, innovators, students, children,
I don't know, non workers. This is stupid and contradict fairness.

Speaker 2 (33:45):
From military alliances to trade relations and beyond, the United
States will insist them being treated fairly.

Speaker 1 (33:51):
By other countries. That's right.

Speaker 2 (33:52):
We should be treated fairlies by the countries. We just
don't trade with other countries. We trade with individuals in
those countries.

Speaker 1 (33:58):
And we only trade with them.

Speaker 2 (34:00):
The only reason Americans trade with foreigners is when it
benefits Americans. If Americans thought that the foreigners were being unfair,
they wouldn't trade with them.

Speaker 1 (34:09):
If my grocery store, local grocery shur. If I think
they're unfair, I walk away. Competence and merit.

Speaker 2 (34:17):
American prosperity and security depend on the development and promotion
of competence.

Speaker 1 (34:21):
I'm awful competence competence is.

Speaker 2 (34:23):
Could they continue the success of radical ideologies that seek
to replace competence and merit with favorite group status would
render American America unrecognizable and unable to defend itself.

Speaker 1 (34:38):
So this is anti DII. Here we go.

Speaker 2 (34:42):
We can however, right this is However, this is unbelievable statement. Right,
we want merit we want competence. However, now you get
the reveal of what they really, really, really really care about. However,
or at the same time, we cannot allow meritocracy to

(35:03):
be used as a justification to open America's labor markets
to the world in the name of finding global talent
that undercuts American workers. Now that is ludicrous on so
many different levels, but on the basic level, it doesn't

(35:25):
undercut American workers.

Speaker 1 (35:27):
It elevates American workers.

Speaker 2 (35:30):
If we can bring in global talents in all realms,
then that creates more opportunities, more businesses.

Speaker 1 (35:37):
It increases productivity.

Speaker 2 (35:39):
We get more innovators, we got more brains, we get
more engineers, we get more people starting gardening companies, we
get more products, products get cheaper, better, wages go up
because productivity goes up. And we get a much better
culture because we're getting the best form all the cultures

(36:02):
who are coming here and reinvigorating American culture. So in
every regard, this is just an unbelievable statement, and it.

Speaker 1 (36:16):
Shows how this is what they care about. And it
tells you that the in priorities. This is the next
section priorities, the number one priority, the first priority they
list is an end of mass immigration.

Speaker 2 (36:34):
Who a country admits into its borders, in what numbers
and from where will inevitably define the future of that country. Yeah,
if you don't admit the right people, if you don't
admit enough people, if you don't admit the right people,
if you don't allow for freedom, your country is screwed.
Thought history, sovereign nations prohibited uncontrolled migration. Da da, This

(36:55):
is what they really care about in countries, thought history,
mass migration are strained domestic domestic resources, really increased violence
and other crimes, No evidence of that. Weaken social creation,
no evidence of that, distorted labor markets and under my
national security. Isn't an amazing amazing that the largest immigration
in human history, the largest immigration in human industry as

(37:18):
a percentage of the population.

Speaker 1 (37:21):
The largest immigration.

Speaker 2 (37:22):
In human history was immigration to the United States during
the nineteenth century, which was by every definition mass migration,
and that basically built defined what America is. What would
America be without the mass migration of the nineteenth century.

(37:45):
It didn't strain domestic g resources, it enhanced them and
expanded them. It didn't increase violence in other crime, well
maybe for a short time when the Italians came in
with the mafia, it decreased it over time. It didn't
weaken social creation. It actually made America America. It didn't
distort labor markets. It allowed labor markets to expand dramatically,

(38:10):
increased productivity and increased wages. And it certainly didn't under
my national security. It made the American country big and
strong enough to be able to take over, to take
on anybody in the world. From the founding until nineteen fourteen,
actually into nineteen twenty four America basically had an open
immigration system.

Speaker 1 (38:32):
Open immigration anybody could come. Read your history, and that, not.

Speaker 2 (38:38):
Accidentally, is the era in which America went from a
third grade colony to the strongest economy and strongest military
in the world. It is during the era of open
immigration that America became the strongest, that America became.

Speaker 1 (38:57):
The most powerful economic power.

Speaker 2 (39:00):
It is during this period where America became America.

Speaker 1 (39:09):
So don't give me this throughout history. Throughout history, God, the.

Speaker 2 (39:15):
American history contradicts everything they stand for and.

Speaker 1 (39:20):
Everything many of you stand for. Without immigration, America would
be in a small, insignificant, struggling country. It would have had,
I mean, almost all the great entrepreneurs who built this
country were immigrants. Rockefeller, Carnegie, Melon, JP Morgan, all immigrants.

(39:50):
So the idea that this country would become what it
became without immigration is historically ignorant, economic, stupid, and motivated
by a xenophobic, racist ideology that wants to recast the past.

Speaker 2 (40:14):
In order to justify eliminating freedom in this country today.
Second priority, after the first, protection of core rights and liberties.

Speaker 1 (40:31):
Shouldn't that be first? You'd think that would be first,
You'd think, and.

Speaker 2 (40:36):
Then listen to this. Regarding countries that share or say
they share these principles, principles of rights and everything, these
are the countries we're going to be mad at. The
United States will advocate strongly that they be upheld in
letter and spirit. We will oppose elite driven anti democratic
restrictions on core liberties in Europe, the Anglosphere, and the

(41:00):
rest of the democratic world, especially among our allies.

Speaker 1 (41:03):
I mean, we don't care what the Russians is to Russia.

Speaker 2 (41:05):
We don't care what what what Putin does, we don't
care what she does, we don't care what any brutal
dictator does.

Speaker 1 (41:10):
Anyway, as long as Europe stays.

Speaker 2 (41:14):
Consistent with these principles as understood by the crazy people
who work for Trump. We believe in burden sharing and
burden shifting. We want other countries to pay their fish
shire fine.

Speaker 1 (41:25):
I have no problem with that, although again it has
a bunch of bs about trade in here. Realignment through peace. Uh,
you know, we want to seek peace. We want to
seek peace.

Speaker 2 (41:39):
Yeah, even if we have to compromise and sell out
to our enemies, even if we have to sell Israel
out to Qatar, even if Takata, even if we have
to sell out Ukraine to Russia.

Speaker 1 (41:53):
The main thing is peace. Economic security.

Speaker 2 (41:57):
This is the This is the complete ignorance about economics, trade,
balance trade, which is meaningless. I've talked about it many, many,
many times why balance trade is not something to strife
for and not very meaningful. Securing access to critical supply
chains and materials. You can do that by deregulating environmentalism

(42:17):
here in the United States. Reindustrialization not exactly what the
United States is actually doing.

Speaker 1 (42:24):
You don't do it by strategic use of tariffs.

Speaker 2 (42:27):
Tariffs do the exact opposite. You don't do it, you know,
you don't do it by central planning.

Speaker 1 (42:35):
You do it through capitalism.

Speaker 2 (42:37):
You do it through freedom reviving on defense industrial base. Yeah,
I mean this is all good.

Speaker 1 (42:44):
Again.

Speaker 2 (42:45):
To do that, you need more freedom, more capitalism, and
you need to encourage entrepreneurship, and you need to encourage
the Defense Department to respect entrepreneurs Energy dominance again, solution
to energy dominance is unsupport freedom, preserving and growing America's
financial sector dominance.

Speaker 1 (43:06):
Answer to that is freedom.

Speaker 2 (43:08):
This is the only place where they say something like
preserving and growing out dominance entails leveraging our dynamic femalket system.
Now it means establishing a femalekeet system because our fem
markets we don't have free markets in finance.

Speaker 1 (43:23):
We need more free markets. That's what we need, all right.
I mean, this is a section.

Speaker 2 (43:31):
We're running out of time, but this is a section
where he talks about reasserting the Monroe doctrine and you know,
emphasizing emphasizing Europe. We want to enlist their help in
for migration and for cartels and for near showing manufacturing.

(43:55):
United States must consider our military presence in the Western hemisphere.
This is all those all those ships in the Caribbean Sea.

Speaker 1 (44:04):
Blowing boats out of the water.

Speaker 2 (44:06):
That's you know, American toughness on display around the world,
blowing people out of the water, killing them, killing them
with no trial, no declaration of war, nothing, just the
president's whim. We must look to expand our network in
the region, identify street each points and resources. We must

(44:28):
prevent others within the hemisphere other powers.

Speaker 1 (44:31):
Being president of the Hemisphere, the.

Speaker 2 (44:34):
United States should make clear that American goods, services, and
technologies are far better better buying a long run because
they are higher quality and do not come with the
same kind of strings as other countries' assistance. Yeah, you
make that clear by basically having free trade and letting countries,
letting companies and individuals in those countries decide who they.

Speaker 1 (44:53):
Want to trade with.

Speaker 2 (44:57):
Anyway, at that Asia, China got rich and powerful and
used its wealth and power to its considerable advantage.

Speaker 1 (45:08):
So China, China is problematic.

Speaker 2 (45:13):
But you know, the Indo Pacific is already the source
of almost half the world's GDP, but it's not a
focus right. This is second to Latin America, So which
means the Indo Pacific is already and will continue to
be among the next centuries key economic and geopolitical backgrounds,
and we need to be able to successfully compete here.

(45:35):
I agree completely, It's just I'm not sure these are
the strategies to do it.

Speaker 1 (45:39):
Since the Chinese economy reopened in the world in nineteen
seventy nine, commercial relationships between now two countries have been
and remained fundamentally unbalanced. That's right.

Speaker 2 (45:48):
We get huge benefits from China and they get just some.

Speaker 1 (45:55):
I mean, this is such crap.

Speaker 2 (45:57):
The reality is America benefit and has benefited enormously from
trade with China. Now, maybe one can argue we should
stop trading with them because they're hostile, okay, But the
idea that they benefited and we have not, or that
they've benefited a lot and we benefited a little, is.

Speaker 1 (46:18):
Just economic ignorant and wrong. It's wrong anyway, tariff stuff.

Speaker 2 (46:29):
Going forward, we will rebalance America's economic relations with China,
prioritizing re siprecocity and fairness to a stall American economic independence.
Trade with China should be balanced and focused on nonsensitive factors.
Good luck with that and balances balance and trade is
not a good thing, particularly not with any particular country,

(46:51):
and it cannot be achieved.

Speaker 1 (46:53):
Since Trump's tariffs have come into play, we are not
more balanced we are indeed less balanced. Trade deficit is larger,
not smaller, a robust and I'm going focus on deterents
to prevent war in the Indo Pacific.

Speaker 2 (47:10):
That's a good thing, and there's not enough about that
rather than this, the United States rights to protecting, defending
economy and our people from harm from other countries. There
is no there is no harm that other countries inflict
on our economy. There is no you know, they if

(47:30):
they subsidize industries in their own country and we can
buy the cheap stuff that benefits us, it doesn't harm us.
There are no unfair trading practices. You know, they're not
job destroying in the industrialization quite the country.

Speaker 1 (47:44):
I've talked a lot about this. I'm skipping I'm skipping
all of that. You know. This is about.

Speaker 2 (47:51):
Treaties and bringing India in and yeah, mostly good stuff.
And the US government critical relations with American private sector. Yeah,
the best thing the US government can do with the
private sector is leave it alone. America first, diplomacy needs

(48:11):
to rebalance global trade relations. No, it shouldn't. It doesn't
know how to. This is central planning, park salons. It's
exactly the opposite of what it made America successful and rich.
So stay away, don't try to guide, don't try to
shape economic issues. This is fascinating. There's a whole section
here in the Middle East. What has never mentioned Islamism?

Speaker 1 (48:35):
Terrorism not a.

Speaker 2 (48:36):
Wood, not a wood, Nothing about supporting terrorism, nothing about terrorism,
nothing about the risk of terrorism.

Speaker 1 (48:43):
Nothing.

Speaker 2 (48:45):
Indeed, a huge, you know, huge pat on the back
to golf Persian Gulf countries. They demonstrate the power appeal
of American technology. We needed, we need needed reassurance from
the Qataris and the Saudis and UEE that our.

Speaker 1 (49:03):
Technology is good.

Speaker 2 (49:06):
We should film coalitions that use a comparative advantage in
finance and technology to build export markets with corporating countries.

Speaker 1 (49:14):
Just trade with them. What do you need to form
coalitions for? What a waste?

Speaker 2 (49:19):
And again, do these countries fund Islamism? Are we giving
them weapons and technology that then they will use against us?

Speaker 1 (49:34):
Here here's the one statement.

Speaker 2 (49:36):
They say, the greatest advantage remains our free our system
of government and dynamic free market economy.

Speaker 1 (49:42):
All true.

Speaker 2 (49:42):
Yet we cannot assume that our system's advantages will prevailed
by default, and national security strategy is therefore essential. National
security strategy is essential not a national economic strategy, not
a national economic policy other than to keep our system free.

Speaker 1 (49:59):
That's all you need. So nothing about Islamic terrorism, not
a word, doesn't exist anymore. It's not a threat to
the United States. The only threat is immigration and predatory trade. Trade.
Trade and immigration are threats.

Speaker 2 (50:15):
Terrorism is not almost no mention of Russia, a little
bit of China, but not really as a threat. Something
about global shipping is important, and we need to detour
conflict in Taiwan.

Speaker 1 (50:31):
Which is good. Let's see.

Speaker 2 (50:39):
Yeah, we want Japan and South Korea to spend more
money on defense.

Speaker 1 (50:43):
I agree with that.

Speaker 2 (50:45):
Promoting European greatness whole section and now from policy strategy
is to.

Speaker 1 (50:52):
Promote European greatness.

Speaker 2 (50:57):
So we want to help them prevent their economic decline,
and we want to prevent them from undermining political liberty
and sovereignty. We definitely want to stop the mass migration
into Europe. We America, this is American farm policy. We
want to, you know, stop creating strife, and we want

(51:20):
to stop them from censuring free speech, which is rich
coming from Trump, one of the most censorious presidents in
American history. We're going to prevent them from suppressing political opposition.
Again rich coming from Trump who tried to overthrow an election,

(51:41):
creating birth rates. I hate to tell you, but the
creating in America as well, and loss of national identity
and self confidence.

Speaker 1 (51:48):
It's true. You know that you know nothing about Islamia,
nothing about the Islamist threat. It's mass migration, as if
all mass migration is the same, nothing about Muslims, nothing
about Sharia, because there's nothing in the old document portraying
Islam as a problem.

Speaker 2 (52:10):
Because the Kataris might greet it, and they might not
like it, and they might want they gift back, or
they might not invest in Trump towers quite as much,
or they might they might not just be happy with Trump.

Speaker 1 (52:22):
You wouldn't want to upset the Kataris.

Speaker 2 (52:28):
We want Europe to remain Europe, to regain a civilization
and self conference and to banits failed.

Speaker 1 (52:32):
Focused and regulator sufifocation. That's good. I want them to
regain all that and to stop regulating to death. But
I don't think that's what you mean here.

Speaker 2 (52:44):
It is a core interest in the United States negotiate
an expeditious cessation of hostilities in Ukraine. In other words,
it's in a core interest in the United States for
Ukraine to surrender to Russia.

Speaker 1 (52:55):
We want to re establish strategic stability with Russia. Why
their trump a deeministration fight.

Speaker 2 (53:05):
It suffers odds with European officials who hold unrealistic expectations
of the war, pushed in unstable minority governments, many of
which trample and basic principles of democracy to suppress opposition.
They're talking about Europe really, as compared to Russia.

Speaker 1 (53:21):
A large European majority wants peace, not true. A large
European majority wants Russia to leave Ukraine. A large European
majority wants Europe to stand in America, to stand behind
Ukraine in its opposition to Russia.

Speaker 2 (53:40):
Yet that desire is not translated into policy. Yeah, putsin
what's up with that? In large measures, because these governments
subverse subversion of democratic processes. This is so hostile to
Europe and so friendly to everybody else, it's unbelievable. Yet

(54:02):
Europe remains strategically and culturally vital to the United States.

Speaker 1 (54:06):
Not only can we not afford to write Europe off.

Speaker 2 (54:09):
Doing so would be self defeating for what the strategy
aims to achieve. American diplomacy should continue to stand up
for genuine democracy.

Speaker 1 (54:17):
Freedom of expression.

Speaker 2 (54:18):
Oh God, I wish we had freedom of expression in
America under Trump. An unapologetic celebration of America, of European nations,
individual character and history. Again the collectivism, Ah, nothing about
individual God given rights. Here, promote and revive the spirit
and growing influence of patriotic European parties. Indeed, gives cause

(54:40):
of great optimism here they talk about the right wing
political parties in Europe. That's what they're excited about. That's
what gives them optimism about Europe. This is about what
they're going to do to Europe and enabling them to
do this and to do that, encouraging them to do
this and that. Again Middle East Middle East partners are

(55:03):
demonstrating the commitment to combating radicalism, a trend line. American
policy should continued to encourage. Which kind of radicalism Islamic
something others? And by the way, is that true? Is
Kataru Kato a big friend in ally? Are they spending
less money on radicalism? Are they spending less money in
the Muslim brotherhood? Are they promoting terrorism less?

Speaker 1 (55:26):
If so, I don't know that that's true.

Speaker 2 (55:29):
Dropping America's misguided experiment with hectoring, hectoring these nations, especially
the Gulf monarchies, into abandoning their traditions and historic form
of government.

Speaker 1 (55:42):
I don't know, I'm speechless, and how awful.

Speaker 2 (55:44):
Yeah, okay, let them let them oppress their people, let
them subvert their god given, god given natural rights, equal
natural rights, you know, let them promote Islamism, let them
certa rorists.

Speaker 1 (56:01):
What the hell?

Speaker 2 (56:03):
Accepting the region, its leaders, and its nations as they
are while working together on areas of common interest. That
is their new Middle East strategy. Now, if you think
this is Israel friendly, then you're nuts. Israel makes no
mention here except, you know, right at the beginning, something
about American Arab Israeli and took his support something like

(56:25):
that to stabilize and is Tho's actions in Iran. But
this is basically all about appeasing the Muslim world, all
about appeasing the monarchies, all about appeasing.

Speaker 1 (56:40):
The people who.

Speaker 2 (56:41):
Funded terrorism against America. And in the long run, the
days in which Middle East dominated American fault policy is
both long term planning and day to day execution execution
are thankfully over. So all right, Well, that is the
strategic plan. It's a lot of a lot of really

(57:13):
really mixed ideas. A few sentences here in there, they're good,
a lot of garbage. What you'd expect out of a
national conservative kind of led administration, what you'd expect from
an administration to use everything from a collectivistic framework, what
you'd expect from people who view the biggest threats to

(57:36):
America being immigration and drug imputation and trade imbalance.

Speaker 1 (57:47):
One day, one day.

Speaker 2 (57:48):
I'm looking forward to the day where I will read
a document like this and agree with one of it.
By the way, in twenty seventeen, immigration was treated as
a security issue voted protection. In this documentary, it's being
treated as an existential threat. Generally, a big difference between

(58:16):
the twenty seventeen document and this one.

Speaker 1 (58:20):
Laura Luma is really upset.

Speaker 2 (58:23):
According she got the document, she read the whole thing,
She did keyword search, and she says, according to the
keywords search I conducted, there was zero mention of the
woods he had.

Speaker 1 (58:31):
There was zero mention of the wood Islamic.

Speaker 2 (58:33):
There is zero mention of the wood islam There's only
one mention of Islamic terry activity. Not here in the
homeland of the United States sol but in Africa there
is zero mention of the CCP, the Communist Chinese Communist Party.
There was zero mention of the Wood Communist or communism.
How is this possible, Well, it's possible because Trump is

(58:58):
the end and there's an anti ideology, completely anti ideology,
and he's not going to identify communism as a problem
because that would identify in antiology and is against identifying
ideologies as bad. More than anything, this is a document
that basically said America is going to expend a lot

(59:20):
of energy on trying to reshape Europe and trying to
make Europe like American conservatives would like America to be,
or like Europe to be.

Speaker 1 (59:29):
This is a continuation of the JD.

Speaker 2 (59:31):
Van's speech at the Munich was a security conference from
earlier this year where he berated the Europeans about issues
like free speech.

Speaker 1 (59:41):
Now, I'm all for.

Speaker 2 (59:44):
Berating Europeans and moving them towards greater freedom, but that's
not what they're doing. They're moving them to grow to
greater nationalism, towards more Christianity, towards more of this reactionary
ideology that the modern conservatives adhere to.

Speaker 1 (01:00:06):
All Right, let's quickly on the pipe bomb. I don't
have a lot to say about this, but they arrested
the guy who put out the pipe bombs the day
before January sixth, pipe bombs that are ultimately disarmed. And
for years, the writer has.

Speaker 2 (01:00:21):
Been full on conspiracy theory about this, you know, conspiracies
that it was an inside job, that the pipe bombs
were done by the Metro Police or by the FBI,
that it's part of the big inside job that is
January sixth. I mean, full of conspiracy theories around the
pipe bombs that you know, and around January sixth, that's

(01:00:45):
all inside jobs. So Hannity had deputy fi Deputy Director
Dan Bungino on, and Dan Bungeno, of course when he
was a talk show host from talk show hosts, a
deputy FBI director, that's quite that's quite a promotion. Anyway,

(01:01:06):
he was one of the biggest promoters of these conspiracy
theories that it was all basically inside.

Speaker 1 (01:01:12):
Job, the pipe bumps. Well, now, when asked about this,
this is what Bengino responded, This is your deputy FBI director.
I was paid in the past, Sean for my opinions.

Speaker 2 (01:01:28):
That's clear. One day I will be back in that space.
But that's not what I'm paid for now. I'm paid
to be your deputy director and we base investigations on facts.

Speaker 1 (01:01:45):
That is just a perfect statement.

Speaker 2 (01:01:46):
In other words, when I was a pundit and had
my own TV show or podcast or whatever, I didn't
have to base what I said on facts.

Speaker 1 (01:01:56):
I just spouted opinions that were facts that had nothing
to do with facts, a truth or anything like that,
just whatever came to my mind. What the hell?

Speaker 2 (01:02:07):
Now then I have to be a FBI. I have
to base everything on facts. Now I have to be serious.
Now I seek the truth.

Speaker 1 (01:02:19):
I don't know. I mean, that just made me laugh.

Speaker 2 (01:02:21):
I think that's one of the most hysterical things I've
seen in a while. But yeah, all right, all right,
let's get back to serious stuff. Let's talk about the Eurovision.
And I was also going to talk about Israel, but

(01:02:42):
really out of time, so I'll do a separate segment
another time about why America is to support as well.
I want to do a self contained video on that.
There seems to be a lot of interest in this
and I will talk about that. But anyway, the Eurovision
is a singing competition in Europe and countries compete.

Speaker 1 (01:03:02):
Each country sends a singer to represent their country and
they sing, and then there used to be just a
panel of judges, a judge from each country, and they
would vote on who the winner was.

Speaker 2 (01:03:14):
And now they have simultaneous judging where people in each country, not.

Speaker 1 (01:03:21):
Just judges, people in each country can also vote on
which song wins.

Speaker 2 (01:03:26):
And this is a competition and it's big in Europe.
I mean, European countries take this seriously and they all
watch and it's a big deal. Israel has participated in
the Eurovision at least since the early seventies. I remember
as a kid watching the Eurovision. I remember when Abba Abba,
Well maybe in the mid seventies Israel joined, but I

(01:03:47):
remember when Aba one, you know, the group Abba from
Sweden won the Eurovision.

Speaker 1 (01:03:53):
And as well as one.

Speaker 2 (01:03:54):
The competition a couple of times, maybe more, but at
least a couple of times. Well, this year the Eurovision
is being hosted in I believe, Austria, and there has
been an upproll about whether Israel should be allowed to
participate because Israel, of course is a para state. It is,

(01:04:21):
you know, it is a genocidal state that has just
committed war crimes in Gaza and if we should not
be allowed to participate.

Speaker 1 (01:04:29):
In this competition.

Speaker 2 (01:04:35):
And the consequence, So there's a big crisis, you know. Basically,
basically Austria said, oh, no, Israel's participating. We're a host
and Israel's definitely invited and they will participate. However, four

(01:04:57):
countries have decided they will guess they are going to
skip the Eurovision this year, and this is a big
deal in these countries because Israel is there. They will
not be one of these countries. Is surprising to me
that others maybe not Ireland, that's not surprising. Very anti Israel,
very very anti Israel in Ireland, Spain, this government is

(01:05:18):
very anti Israel. I don't think the Spanish people are,
but this goverment is Slovenia, don't know exactly.

Speaker 1 (01:05:25):
And the Netherlands.

Speaker 2 (01:05:26):
I thought the Netherlands had a relatively right wing government,
but this is maybe decided by not the government itself.

Speaker 1 (01:05:33):
Those countries.

Speaker 2 (01:05:36):
Are not going to be in the Eurovision because of
because of Israel, right, I mean, this is a disgrace,
It is absurd. The idea that Israel committed genocide is
science fiction and bad science. Fiction at that it is

(01:05:56):
a negation of facts and reality. Idea that Israel is
somehow the bad guys in the conflict in Gaza is
again bizarre and factually completely incorrect.

Speaker 1 (01:06:10):
The bad guys in Gaza.

Speaker 2 (01:06:11):
Are Ramas and all those Palestinians, sadly a large number
of them, maybe even a majority of them, who support Ramas.
They are the bad guys. They're the ones who made
this war inevitable. They're the ones who started to one
October seventh. They're the ones that use children as human shields.

Speaker 1 (01:06:32):
They're the ones who dug tunnels and use hospitals as headquarters.
They're the ones who refused to.

Speaker 2 (01:06:42):
Surrender even though it was clear that they lost and
the only thing that they were doing was getting civilians killed.

Speaker 1 (01:06:49):
They're the ones who refused to release hostages until a
bunch of people had to die. They're the ones who
slaughtered hostages, little children, babies. The Hamas and their supporters,

(01:07:10):
a big chunk of the Palestinian people are monsters, and
Israel somehow is to blame here. Israel.

Speaker 2 (01:07:23):
Somebody says, the Knackba made this way inevitable. Yeah, and
the Knakba is the Palestinian's fault. Absolutely. They shouldn't have
started a war with Israel. They should have accepted the
Palestinian state. They should have tried to kill Jews wherever
they could. They shouldn't have, you know, run away thinking

(01:07:46):
they were going to win the war and come back.

Speaker 1 (01:07:50):
Yeah, when you lose the war, you lose the war.
Their consequences.

Speaker 2 (01:07:55):
The Knackba was a consequence of Palestinian actions, and if
you don't know that.

Speaker 1 (01:08:02):
History, then you shouldn't spout opinions about it. So the
bad guys share the Palestinians, not these Raeliers share these
other good guys.

Speaker 2 (01:08:13):
Israel is a free country, as free as any European country.
Israel treats it's citizens equally, including the two million Arabs
who live in Israel equal rights. Israel is a country
that should be a model for Europe and the rest

(01:08:36):
of the world of governance.

Speaker 1 (01:08:39):
Oh, I mean.

Speaker 2 (01:08:41):
Not perfect, fall and perfect, far far from perfect, but
as compared to these other countries, pretty good. But the
lies about Israel, I mean, what these countries are doing
is basically embracing another blood libel among the many blood

(01:09:03):
libels of the last two thousand years. The Jews kill Jesus,
they drink babies blood, you know, they kill Christians, they
poison Christian wells to infect them with the plague. They
kill Palestinian babies just for fun. Same blood libel. It's

(01:09:26):
the same hatred of Jews. It's the same anti Semitism,
motivated maybe by different different fears and different aspects, but
it's the same thing. It's disgusting, it's despicable. These European
countries and the people that represent them should be ashamed
of themselves, all right. What's funny, by the way, is

(01:09:53):
while these countries are accusing Israel of all this stuff,
and while the European countries are not going are not
allowing Israel to come and compete with the in the Eurovision,
and even some countries like Germany stopped selling weapons to
Israel guesses buying Israeli weapons systems.

Speaker 1 (01:10:10):
Europeans.

Speaker 2 (01:10:11):
There was just like a fair in Israel weapons affair,
and European countries sent delegations, including countries that hate Israel
like Norway, in Germany and the UK, and half of
NATO members came there to inspect Israeli systems. The Germans
have just announced that they are the first country in

(01:10:32):
the world to deploy outside of Israel, to deploy the
AR three anti aircraft missiles in Germany. It's a three
billion dollar export deal. So it's his four billion dollar
export deal. So yeah, Israel is out is selling its

(01:10:54):
anti missile technology to Europeans who hate on it. It's something, Yes,
Europe needs to be reformed, not by Trump though.

Speaker 1 (01:11:05):
All right, let's.

Speaker 2 (01:11:08):
See that is the news for this December fifth, Friday,
December fifth, all right, don't have a huge amount of time,
so let's see what we're gonna do. We've got how
many questions do we have? We've got We've got a few,
not a huge amount, We've got a few.

Speaker 1 (01:11:25):
We're doing okay on the money, one.

Speaker 2 (01:11:27):
Hundred and forty two dollars short for that second hour,
which we are now definitely into, so that'd be great. Wes,
thank you for the fifty dollars sticker. That is a
huge help to getting us to our goal. Thank you, Wes.
And let's see do we have any other stickers? Yes, Michael,
Mike Dial and Stephen Harper, thank you for your stickers.

Speaker 1 (01:11:48):
Really really appreciate it.

Speaker 2 (01:11:51):
And all right, what else, Yes, we have of some sponsors,
The Ironman Institute. Ironman Institute is wants to remind you
that a life courses are back. You can get the

(01:12:12):
rigor of Ironman Institute's top notch educational programs at a
commitment level that.

Speaker 1 (01:12:17):
Works for you.

Speaker 2 (01:12:19):
Courses open to everybody, no application needed, There is no
long term commitment.

Speaker 1 (01:12:25):
Take the courses that interest you. They work with your schedule.

Speaker 2 (01:12:28):
Take them whenever you want. You can be their live
in class, or you can watch your codings. Homework is optional.
You couldn't control how much you want to invest in
these courses. Courses run eight to ten weeks, include access
to a personal success coach.

Speaker 1 (01:12:44):
Help you set goals, stay motivated.

Speaker 2 (01:12:46):
And make the most of what you're learning. We've got
three courses starting January. In January, Objectives and Objectivism through
Ironman's fiction, Reactionary authoritarianism from Mussolini to the New Right.
I think that's being taught by Nicos an introduction to

(01:13:07):
objectivist ethics. Wherever you are in your intellectual journey, there
is something here to take your understanding and your life
to the next level. As listeners to this show, you
get a ten percent discount with the code twenty six
YBS ten. You can find that all the information you
need about this at einrand dot og slash dot here,

(01:13:31):
So check about become take one of these courses. Alex
Epstein alex Epstein is a sponsor of the show and
is the leading thinker on all things fossil fuels, energy, electricity,
power generally and is a great thinker and us all
should subscribe to alex Epstein dot substec dot com. Alex

(01:13:54):
Epstein does substect dot com. His talking points are amazing.
They will make you so much better communicator about these
issues that are often contentious, and particularly the holidays, when
you get family and everybody and you know, the bunch
of climate change people and stuff like that.

Speaker 1 (01:14:09):
It's you know, you'll have the talking point. You'll be
able to combat them to the extent that you want.

Speaker 2 (01:14:16):
Michael Williams from Defenders of Capitalism dot com a friend
and a colleague of mine. I've i worked for Defenders
of Capitalism regular basis. Go check out his website. He's
a sponsor of the show. Definders of Capitalism a sponsor
of the show. Check out the website Defenders of Capitalism
dot com. All right, Lincoln, thank you for the sticker.

(01:14:38):
Remind you of our Patreon. I only need four people
now this month to join you guys. Keep at every
day I get one that's great by the end of
the month.

Speaker 1 (01:14:47):
Four forty would be good too, But we'll start with four.

Speaker 2 (01:14:50):
All right, let's start with fifty dollars. Questions Andrew, The
Judo Christian premise of focusing on the meek over the
wrong is a highly irrational premise. Rand once says something
to the fact of, I'd like to hear less about
the incompetent, disabled, and poor, and more about the strong.

Speaker 1 (01:15:10):
Successful, and able.

Speaker 2 (01:15:12):
Yeah, I don't know that I would call it a
Judo Christian premise, And Judaism doesn't have much about focusing
on the meek.

Speaker 1 (01:15:19):
It really is a Christian thing.

Speaker 2 (01:15:21):
Judaism is much more disworldly and less altruistic, less explicitly
altruistic than Christianity is.

Speaker 1 (01:15:28):
But yes, why is the focus on that.

Speaker 2 (01:15:31):
The people who move civilization forward, the people who make
our lives better, the people who push us.

Speaker 1 (01:15:38):
To greater wealth and greater spiritual.

Speaker 2 (01:15:43):
You know, progress, are the achievers, the competents, the strong,
the able, strong, intellectual.

Speaker 1 (01:15:50):
They're the ones who move us forward. So why are
we so obsessed with the meek. Why is every time
the question is, but what about the poor? And why?
If I say why do you care? People get offended?
Why do you care? I mean people should answer that question.
People should think about it. What is it about the
poor makes you care? It's disabilities that are elevated? What

(01:16:16):
about superior abilities? Extraordinary abilities? Shouldn't they be what we
really focus on?

Speaker 2 (01:16:27):
Yeah, I mean that's a difference between alturistic culture and
an egoistic culture. An egoistic culture, I would focus on
what's important to me. What's important to me is the
people who benefit my life the most, the able, the successful,
the wealth creators, the knowledge creators. Rational IP says excited

(01:16:47):
about Netflix acquiring Warner Brothers, including its film or television
studios HBO, Max and HBO. Let's wait and see if
the regulators like this mega deal as well as a
film and IP enthusiast, I'm very happy. The portfolio is massive.

Speaker 1 (01:17:03):
Yeah, I mean it is really interesting. I thought, wasn't
this in play where.

Speaker 2 (01:17:11):
What's his name Ellison's company was going to buy this
and one and and I guess Netflix has stepped in
and made a big, a higher offer. I think this
is the same thing Ellison is very connected within.

Speaker 1 (01:17:25):
The Trumpet administration.

Speaker 2 (01:17:26):
So let's hope somebody doesn't kill this for political reasons.
But yeah, I mean I think I'm out for it.
I mean a lot of these mergers fail usually. Usually
generally mergers are big companies are now usually don't succeed.

Speaker 1 (01:17:43):
Usually the over ambitious and.

Speaker 2 (01:17:47):
The Sydney seas are not really there, and the corporate
cultures clash and and both companies deteriorates. I'm not a
huge fan of mergers, not because of anti trust reasons,
but because it's very hard to make emerges succeed. But
maybe this one will work. Maybe this one I should,
you know, should be excited about. Maybe it'll enhance the

(01:18:08):
good stuff on Netflix. Netflix has some good stuff, but
it could it could use more good contact. I mean,
if everything HBO has would be on Netflix, that would
be a huge advantage for Netflix, a huge up. Now,
what the business model is exactly how they want to
make that happen? Can they make new good original content

(01:18:29):
owned by Netflix?

Speaker 1 (01:18:31):
I don't know. We will have to see, Michael.

Speaker 2 (01:18:35):
What Trump is doing with these drug boats is extra
judicial extra judicial chillings i e.

Speaker 1 (01:18:45):
Murder killings, i E. Murder.

Speaker 2 (01:18:47):
He ordered the US military kill the survivors in the water.
This is the kind of war crime that we rightly
tried German officers for. Yeah, I mean, I think it's
just terrific. But it's not even I mean, I think
the whole thing is a war crime. The second bombing,
why is that worse than the first bombing?

Speaker 1 (01:19:06):
Right? The first bombing.

Speaker 2 (01:19:09):
I mean, if they really wanted to stop the vote,
they could have sent a US Coast Guard ship to
stop the boat, search it if there was drugs, arrest
the people and.

Speaker 1 (01:19:20):
Put them on trial.

Speaker 2 (01:19:23):
The idea that the only way to stop these votes
and the only way to deal with this is to
kill them without trial, without evidence, without anything, is just insane.
It's truly it's truly murdered, and Congress has not authorized us.

(01:19:44):
It's unconstitutional, it's illegal, it's horrific, and again nobody cares.

Speaker 1 (01:19:53):
Ron.

Speaker 2 (01:19:54):
I've always wondered why so called conservatives that are about
freedom on money, etc. Are so anti freedom on personal rights,
being so often against gay rights, right or abortion.

Speaker 1 (01:20:07):
It's only consistent and irrational.

Speaker 2 (01:20:09):
Yeah, I mean, I ran commented in this years and
years ago, and she basically said, look, the left Marxists
on materialists. So materialists care about the physical world, and
they don't care about the spiritual world. They don't care
about the personal world, they don't care about social issues.
So they want to control and regulate the material world

(01:20:32):
because that's what they care about, and they leave it
up to people to do whatever the hell they want
in their personal and in their social lives because they
don't care about that. Conservatives, she said, they think they're religious,
so they fundamentally think the material world is unimportant, insignificant,
who cares, so they leave that to be free. But

(01:20:55):
the spiritual world, the personal world, that is the most
important thing that day fore must be controlled. So each
side controls that which they think is most important.

Speaker 1 (01:21:07):
Now the way the left and the right, though have evolved,
is now now.

Speaker 2 (01:21:20):
Both sides view both the material and the spiritual world
is important. Both sides left and right want to regulate both.
And that's where we are now. So the right has
given up also on the economic freedom Stephen, today, I
was able to do my first supersticker and chat in
a month on this site on any side. The previous

(01:21:42):
month I was only able to do them intermittently. That's weird.
So I've missed a lot of income from Stephen. That's
weird that YouTube would do that. I have no idea
what's going on. Charlsbad says, thank you for the show.
I wish to express to you my most enthusiastic congratch
contra fibulatarities. Whatever that means. I have no idea. I'll

(01:22:07):
take it as congrat whatever. Thank you, chus really appreciated.

Speaker 1 (01:22:10):
Andrew.

Speaker 2 (01:22:11):
What do you think about the five hour meeting between Whitcoff,
Krishna and Putin in his age? They trapsed around Moscow
again doey eyed, and then at the end the Russians said,
there was no agreement in Ukraine.

Speaker 1 (01:22:24):
Please analyze.

Speaker 2 (01:22:25):
Yeah, I did analyze that the day of the day
after that was happening, and yeah, and I talked about
the fact Putin gave them a long speech, a long
history lesson about you know, battles in the past, all
with an effort to delegitimize the very idea of a
Ukrainian state. You know, basically, all Putin is doing is

(01:22:51):
playing with Trump. He's playing with him, He's basically making
fun of him. He dangles this idea, Oh maybe there's
time compromising He doesn't, and puts In has no interesting compromise.
Here's no interest in ending the war unless it's full
surrender of Ukraine. And he knows that the more he

(01:23:15):
plays Trump, the less Trump will support Ukraine, the less
Trump will supply weapons to Ukraine, and the stronger Russia
is on the battlefield because Ukraine doesn't have the best
weapons systems that it could have to actually defeat the Russians.
So it's it's completely it completely makes sense. And again

(01:23:35):
it's it was a long meeting because because Putin kept lecturing.

Speaker 1 (01:23:39):
Them on Russian history and about.

Speaker 2 (01:23:41):
How, by the way, the same things supposed he happened
in Alaska that Putin brought up big thick folder with
all of his historical claims and all of his historical
stories to share with Trump, and Trump lost patience with it.

Speaker 1 (01:23:53):
Trump doesn't have a fight, doesn't can't be, you know.

Speaker 2 (01:23:57):
Patient for five hours, and he lost patience with Putin
trying to give him a history lesson. It's what Putin
did to Tucker Carlson in that famous interview, Catherine, do
you think the current US administration will ever fully stop
Europeans from buying US weapons for Ukraine?

Speaker 1 (01:24:17):
I don't know.

Speaker 2 (01:24:18):
It's possible that they would, but I don't know, not yet,
but it is possible at some point Trump could just
get fit up and walk away and not sell weapons.
They is all hopefully will step in and start selling weapons.

Speaker 1 (01:24:34):
That would be cool, Thomas, Now is the golden age
of air travel. Yes, it is.

Speaker 2 (01:24:41):
In spite of all the complaints about terrible service. Airlines
offer product low cost flights, no fills that Americans have
chosen with their spending habits over and over. Absolutely, absolutely,
I mean, air travel is the best that it's ever been.

Speaker 1 (01:24:58):
You can fly anyway.

Speaker 2 (01:25:00):
You can fly cheaply, or if you don't want those
cramp seats.

Speaker 1 (01:25:04):
If you don't want those.

Speaker 2 (01:25:05):
Cheap you can buy business class and it's quite comfortable,
and you can fly anywhere in business class, and you
fly across the pond to Europe, you know, with life
flat seats, you can fly to Asia, you can fly
anywhere in the world.

Speaker 1 (01:25:20):
It's just it's the golden age of flight.

Speaker 2 (01:25:22):
Absolutely, in spite of Matt Walsh's I don't know what
to call it, stupidity is too generous seventeen seventy six,
Yesterday said race is not a social construct you're anti science.
You can have a DNA test to get your race.
Different races have different average IQs and so on.

Speaker 1 (01:25:44):
Bullshit. You can do a DNA test that will give.

Speaker 2 (01:25:47):
You your ancestry. It will not give you your quote race.
I don't know what that is. No DNA test will
tell you you're white. There's no whiteness in a test.
I'll tell you what your pig is based on their DNA,
but it won't tell you belong.

Speaker 1 (01:26:02):
To white race. Who cares what different races do.

Speaker 2 (01:26:10):
What matters is your IQ And the fact is that
there lots and lots and lots of white people with very,
very very low IQ, and most of those are what
you call race realists. So no, what matters is individual
like Q, individual ability, individual traits, individual free will, individual ambition,

(01:26:33):
individual success. Race matters nothing. There is no science to race,
and indeed most of us are MutS. Ginghis Khan. Ginghis Khan,
who is Mongolian like, has his genes in like what, I.

Speaker 1 (01:26:54):
Don't know, ten percent of the world's population. He rapes
so many women. When he took Hans, the Hans again,
another Asian.

Speaker 2 (01:27:05):
Nomad tribe, conquered vast parts of Europe and raped many
women there and haunted Genes from Asia all over Europe.
Gens from Africa are all over Spain. Arab Jans from
North Africa all over Europe, not because of recent migration,

(01:27:29):
because of the past.

Speaker 1 (01:27:31):
And Northern Africans are actually German, have lots of German Jens.

Speaker 2 (01:27:39):
Because there was Barbaric tribes conquered North Africa in something
like for something ad and settled there and stayed there.
And nomadic tribes have moved and changed, and immigration is constant, constant,

(01:28:01):
And there's no such thing as genetic purity. And how
many hundred thousands, how many thousands of years do you
want to go back? There are a few isolated tribes
here and there in the world that have some genetic purity.
The rest of you, almost all of you are mutts.

(01:28:23):
So no race is a completely social construct. It is
created in order to make some races some individuals based
on insignificant characteristic side They call their skin.

Speaker 1 (01:28:37):
Subservient to others. And by the way, it's only low.

Speaker 2 (01:28:41):
IQ people who evaluate other people zy Q based on
their race. I've never asked anybody what their IQ is.
I don't care about anybody's IQ. The ignorance and just
you know, it's unbelievable. Then in the twenty first century,
we have gone backwards, backwards, away from science, away from reason,

(01:29:07):
away from rationality. In our analysis, I've done many DNA tests.
I do a DNA test every single year, including twenty
three and meters which I've done. DNA tests are wonderful.
They tell you what diseases you're susceptible to. They tell

(01:29:27):
you what you're inclined you know, certain sensitivities to drugs
and certain sensitivities to particular medical treatments.

Speaker 1 (01:29:40):
Absolutely, Jewish is a social construct. It's a social construct
created by some Jews and by many anti Semites. Am
I Jewish? No, I'm not. Why because I've chosen to
be me, I'm not Jewish.

Speaker 2 (01:29:59):
I'm only Jewish when creeps anti Semitic bastards like you
express anti Semitic of ideas. But I would consider myself Jewish.

Speaker 1 (01:30:13):
I'm Iron Brook. Yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:30:18):
Your ancestry came back ninety nine percent Kanazi Jews. Yeah,
you have a long line of people who call themselves
Jews going back generations.

Speaker 1 (01:30:26):
Is that a race? It's meaningless? And those are Kanazi Jews.
Where did they come from Middle East, are not Europeans me.
I'm an American, I was born in Israel. I'm an atheist.
I'm not Jewish, I'm not.

Speaker 2 (01:30:47):
Of any ethnic group. I don't believe in ethnicity. I
don't believe in race. Am I white? Can I be
white and Jewish and an atheist? You know, and reject
my judaism? You know, how does that all that work?
You guys are medievalists. You know this is this is,

(01:31:09):
this mentality of collectivism and tribalism and racism is so
primitive and barbaric.

Speaker 1 (01:31:16):
It makes me angry because.

Speaker 2 (01:31:20):
It should have disappeared from the face of the earth
decades ago. And you people are bringing up one of
the most horrific primitive ideologies of all of human existence.

Speaker 1 (01:31:37):
Jacob.

Speaker 2 (01:31:38):
If a vaccine could say forty thousand lives, would it
not be made mandatory? If weymos could, if weimos could
say forty thousand lives, would human driving not be outlawed restricted? No,
because the vaccine wouldn't be made mandatory. Vaccine should not
be made mandatory. No vaccine should be mandatory. Now you
can a school could say you can't come to the

(01:32:01):
school unless you're vaccinated, but that's private property. A park
can say you can play in this park if it's
a private punk unless you're vaccinated. There are a lot
of places where you can do that. But the government
has no role in telling people. They in forcing people
to be vaccinated, and they have no role in telling

(01:32:22):
people they have to drive in Weymos. Andrew, this isn't
an essential value of YBS to me. But if I
ever feel like getting pissed off, I listen to a
YBS show. There's nothing wrong with getting pissed off sometimes.

Speaker 1 (01:32:40):
Yeah, but I'm glad it's not the essential value. Thank you,
Andrew Jacob.

Speaker 2 (01:32:48):
How much of this is Trump's actual opinions versus jade
Van's part of the party. If the right gets smoked
at the midterms, any chances for change, No, I don't
think you'll see a change.

Speaker 1 (01:32:59):
I think it's a mixture of the JD events. I
think is mainly JD events.

Speaker 2 (01:33:03):
It's mainly the national Christian Conservatives waded down a little bit,
so less Christianity, more nationalism, and with a lot of
kind of I don't know if they agree with Trump
on trade really, but so a lot of Trump stuff
Trump red meat, like immigration and trade.

Speaker 1 (01:33:24):
Now JD.

Speaker 2 (01:33:24):
Events might agree with all that, I'm just not sure
he does. Andrew strikes me as a good and properly
selfish modern generalization when people, including many entrepreneurs, say how
they allocate their time is the essential value to them. Yeah,

(01:33:45):
I mean how you allocate your time, what you choose
to do with your time, what values you choose to pursue.
That's a big part of what it means to allocate
your time is an essential characteristic, essential part of being
self interested, being an egoist. All right, we are fifty

(01:34:16):
five dollars short of our targets.

Speaker 1 (01:34:18):
If anybody wants to help out, stickers welcome Ron.

Speaker 2 (01:34:23):
Do you know of any objectivist organization in France where
I live?

Speaker 1 (01:34:27):
I do love it here, though of.

Speaker 2 (01:34:29):
Course not a fan of the economic policies. I've been
able to find everything in anything in my searches.

Speaker 1 (01:34:36):
No, there really isn't.

Speaker 2 (01:34:38):
I mean, there's some libertarians, and there's the guy who
translated I ran into French, who I've met a couple
of times. But no, there really has never been significant
interest in France for objectivism. Sadly, Lincoln, thank you, Lincoln, Lincoln.

(01:34:58):
I hope You're not overstretching yourself. You're doing a lot
of super chests lately and stickers, and I know you're
getting you know you got a go friend, and you're
a student. Don't overstretch yourself. As much as I want
your money, don't overstretch Andrew is the connection of rationality
to goodness primarily a discovery of Rands or Aristotle? Do

(01:35:19):
you consider the one of the key integrations made in
intellectual history. Yes, it's one of the key integrations. It's
really iran. Aristotle views rationality is important, and he identifies
it as the identifying feature of man, which is crucially important.

(01:35:40):
But then integrating that with morality, integrating that with values
and virtues, that I think is an ironmand accomplishment. So
I don't think there's anyone in Aristotle where he sees
being rational is a virtual though he doesn't believe study
and learning is a huge virtue, the primary virtue, but

(01:36:06):
not rationality in terms of using reason to live your
life in every aspect of it, as being the primary virtue,
the integrating virtue. I think that's Einman's great achievement. And yes,
it's one of the great integrations made in intellectual history,

(01:36:28):
and it builds an Aristotle, so it's a two person achievement. Lincoln,
just send my application to a Rise Intellectual Incubator program,
looking forward to improving my.

Speaker 1 (01:36:38):
Skills and objectivism. Excellent. That's really good. I look forward
to seeing you there. Fend Harper shout out to a friend.

Speaker 2 (01:36:47):
Of mine who just got married to someone they met
at okon twenty twenty four. Another reason to come to
okon two great objectivists pursuing their happiness. Excellent and one
of the best ways to pursue happiness marriage. Lincoln talked,
I guess this is a two part question. Talk to
the school's PP and E department about having you speak

(01:37:08):
on campus anytime after five works, and we should schedule
it for before after a Peterson Academy course taping, as
the university is about a two hour drive from Phoenix
and not quite big enough for a separate trip.

Speaker 1 (01:37:25):
Yeah, that sounds great. I don't know if Peterson is
going to have me back this coming. Yeah, I haven't
heard from them. As soon as I hear from them
and schedule anything with them, I will let you know
and we'll schedule that. Really appreciate you doing that and
I'm happy that they're willing to host me like numbers.

Speaker 2 (01:37:46):
Is the more benevolent nature as society is more benevolence
natural as society gets richer, No, I don't think so.
I mean you're seeing the opposite today in America, we're
getting richer.

Speaker 1 (01:38:00):
And we're less benevolent.

Speaker 2 (01:38:01):
We're getting more pessimistic and more angry and more unfriendly.

Speaker 1 (01:38:05):
Towards other people.

Speaker 2 (01:38:07):
I think as a society gets freer, more free, it
begets more benevolent. Benevolence is a feature of freedom, not
of wealth in and of itself. Andrew, are the ethics
Are the ethics underlying Marxism Christian Yes? Essentially the ethics

(01:38:27):
of Marxism is sacrifice. It's the idea of sacrificing the
individual to the collective, to the group. That is an idea,
this idea of sacrifice that is inherent in Christianity, where
the whole idea is you sacrifice the individual to God,
or to the group, or to the poor. But it's

(01:38:49):
essentially about sacrificing.

Speaker 1 (01:38:50):
The individual, and that is the essential part of the morality.
You also get you get your moral virtues, you get
your commandments.

Speaker 2 (01:39:00):
An authority, the authority is the dictators of the politarian,
or the authority is God or spokesman on earth. But
it's an authority, so many many similarities between and that'll
be a part of the book we write, is to
show how Marxism was a secularization of Christianity, even the
sense in which you'll get your awards in and afterlife

(01:39:20):
in Christianity. In Marxism you'll get your rewards in some
fictitious utopia that comes sometime in the future that you
might not might not live to see, probably not, But
it's in another dimension in sense, and otherworldly in that sense.
Jacob Thoughts on call sheet and polymarket monetizing almost everything,

(01:39:43):
thoughts on the culture that spends billions on betting markets
like slot machines.

Speaker 1 (01:39:48):
Look.

Speaker 2 (01:39:48):
I think overall it's it provides a valuable information.

Speaker 1 (01:39:55):
People like to bet on stuff.

Speaker 2 (01:39:58):
I don't think there's an anything necessarily bad about that.
It's a way to express your opinion. And here when
it's it's not random, right, so the outcomes in our
random knowledge actually pays off. If you know more about politics,
then you can predict elections, you'll do better.

Speaker 1 (01:40:16):
Than somebody who doesn't know anything. So rewards knowledge I'm
all for betting markets or any kind of markets that
reward knowledge, so I'm not against this. I think it's
a positive move.

Speaker 2 (01:40:31):
And Mel taking this opportunity to support the show and
say that as a Spaniard living in Ireland, I find
the Eurovision thing pathetic but sadly not surprising.

Speaker 1 (01:40:41):
Yeah, pretty sad. Thank you and Mel, I appreciate it.
What is going on here?

Speaker 2 (01:40:55):
Anyway? I have to get you a little hot water.
This is Andrew in a little hot worded. Do you
think anyone who thinks IQ is an important element of
life understands objectivism?

Speaker 1 (01:41:16):
I mean it depends what people mean by IQ.

Speaker 2 (01:41:18):
I mean, if you mean by IQ inherited intelligence, that
is a certain level of intelligence that is inherited. There's
no question that we do inherent different levels of firepower,
right potential, and that you know that matters. I don't
think it's an important element, but it's there. How you

(01:41:42):
use it, what you do with it, how you initiated,
how you deploy this potential, that's what matters. That's the
important element.

Speaker 1 (01:41:52):
So to say it's an important element of life, I
think you don't understand objectivism why it could be an
element of life?

Speaker 2 (01:42:00):
But to give it importance. That is taking the potential
and giving it way too.

Speaker 1 (01:42:07):
Much importance than it should.

Speaker 2 (01:42:15):
Lincoln, there is a company called Nucleus Bioscience focused on
advancing IVF treatment to identify genetic diseases before having kids,
which is great. Yeah, I mean it's already being done,
and I think it's fantastic.

Speaker 1 (01:42:31):
I think it really is fantastic. Lincoln says, last big
super Chat for a.

Speaker 2 (01:42:36):
While, cutting back in the coming months. Got to save
up for that engagement ring. Don't tell my girlfriend. I
promise I'm not going to say anything. Hopefully she doesn't
listen to the show. Andrew fifteen dollars short of our goal, guys,
fifteen one five. Somebody trade be nice to end on

(01:42:57):
a bang. Right, Andrew says, what do you think of
this formulation? Aristotle central principles of epistemology led to the
first time to the premise of the primacy of reality
over consciousness.

Speaker 1 (01:43:15):
I don't know, it might be the other way round. Right,
Andrew did do his Andrew did do his part today,
So I'm you know, hmm.

Speaker 2 (01:43:30):
Lincoln is all tapped out and the racists are not
going to put anything in. They just want to harass
me on just want to continue with their pseudo science harassment.
All right, we got five dollars from Jacob, so we've
chipped a waste and I was only ten dollars.

Speaker 1 (01:43:48):
What do I think?

Speaker 2 (01:43:49):
I'm not sure that formulation is right right, So it's
not clear what comes first. In a sense, the metaphysics
might come first. It might be that the principle of
reality of consciousness is what leads Aristotle to an epistemology,
to pistemology, to a reason based a pistemology. They probably

(01:44:15):
go together and certainly reinforce each other hierodically. Metaphysics come first.
Doesn't mean it's the way it's lunched, but it's it's
it's higher key comes first. All right, guys, there it
is Thomas. Youbottom just did ten dollars. And he says,
but what about the poor?

Speaker 1 (01:44:37):
Why do you care? Thomas? Why do you care? Yes?
What about the poor?

Speaker 2 (01:44:45):
The poor do well if they're egoistic. Linn Corda says, goal.
By the way, Adultry three by Quinn is now available
on Amy.

Speaker 1 (01:44:59):
I think I down loaded it on my kindle.

Speaker 2 (01:45:04):
I think I downloaded on a kindle because that's how
I probably read it right. I'll probably read all three
on the kindle, even though I've got hot copies of
the first two, so you don't actually is it an
available on audio, because if it's available on audio, I'll
probably just listened to them all.

Speaker 1 (01:45:21):
Ron came in with ten dollars. Thank you guys. Okay,
now we've exceeded I'll target, so thank you everybody.

Speaker 2 (01:45:29):
All right, tomorrow there will be a show. I don't
know the topic. It will either be something on something
on the crisis of meaning or something on capitalism, to
be determined tomorrow. See all tomorrow.

Speaker 1 (01:45:49):
By everybody, have a great, great, great weekend. By

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know

My Favorite Murder with Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark

Dateline NBC

.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;}National Security Strategy; Pipe Bombs; Eurovision--Why Care About Israel? : Yaron Brook Show

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}Stuff You Should Know

My Favorite Murder with Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark

Dateline NBC

All Episodes

National Security Strategy; Pipe Bombs; Eurovision--Why Care About Israel? : Yaron Brook Show

Stuff You Should Know