Radicalization, Assassination & The Real Threat to Freedom | Yaron Brook Show - Yaron Brook Show

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:03):
The radical fundamental principles of freedom, rational self interest, and
individual rights. This is the Uran Brook Show. All right, everybody,
welcome to lan Brook Show on this land team. All right,

(00:31):
Uh we uh continue. They continue to be lots of
stories about, you know, Charlie Cook and his killer potential motives.
Although very little new information actual information has come out.
It does seem as as I've been saying all along,

(00:54):
they're probably the the most The simplest explanation is probably
the choice. That explanation that is, this is somebody who's
on the left who despises, uh, you know, despised Cooke,
despised what he was saying, had some connection to trans
the trans world, and shot him more I think I

(01:17):
still think unless improve in otherwise more for attention than
anything else. But we will see, we'll get more information.
And meantime, there's a lot of talk about political violence
in the United States. There's a lot of talk about
violence increasing, a lot of connecting. You see a lot
of connecting of the of the Ukrainian goals, brutal murder,

(01:42):
murder in North Carolina, and the shooting of Charlie, of
Charlie Cooke, and a general sense and I think a
general sense that exists out there among many people that
this country is descending into some violent hellhole and the
police of violence is out of control, or the nihilistic

(02:02):
left is just it, you know, is committing acts of
political violence on a regular basis. That's the impression one gets,
particularly if one listens reads right wing right wing medium.
So I wanted to talk a little bit about it.
You know, what is uh, what is what I think

(02:23):
is actually going on? How bad is it? And uh?
And what what should we really be afraid of? And
who should be really be afraid of? You know? Uh,
go back to the to the brutal killing of of
that Ukrainian girl, which is just horrific, uh and and pointless.

(02:48):
But we you know, so what do you make of that? Is?
Is that now? You know? Is this what's going on
in America? Is this some sign of of a new
thing that's happening in America? And I think the reality
is no, The reality is we paid attention to that
story because of the video, because of his brutality, because

(03:10):
we saw it, we could see it with our own eyes.
There were over sixty murders committed every day in the
United States over sixty It's not like sixty two sixty
two points something. Murders committed every day in the United States.
I don't know how many of them are like that,

(03:31):
do you. I mean, maybe every day there's a murder
like that, some crazy homeless person slaughtering some innocent person
somewhere in this huge country of two hundred and fifty
million people. Is this unique? Is this different? The main

(03:52):
difference is those are our videotapes, and this is this
was so the fact that we got to see, the
fact that we got to see the horror.

Speaker 2 (04:02):
Doesn't change the real nature of it, which is horrific,
but it does seem to change the response everybody has
to it, and the extrapolation from one case to there's
some kind of natural national disaster, there's some kind of
epidemic of you know, horrific violence.

Speaker 1 (04:26):
Going through this country, and people really have the sense.
I know you guys, some of you guys have it.
And you guys fight with me constantly about about crime
numbers constantly because you're convinced by the sense, the sense
that you have, and by the reporting by the media,

(04:47):
by the partisans who have an incentive to do this,
that the United States is murder is spiking and going
through the roof in the United States, and it's horrific,
And that's just not true. The numbers just don't match it.

(05:07):
And again I've said that you can fake violent crime numbers.
You can. You can you can fake break ins and
book Lewis, it's you can fake. Even the numbers on
rape very difficult to fake. Motivates, very very difficult to fake,
motivates and motivates a declining almost everywhere, almost everywhere, and

(05:30):
from a historical perspective, from the perspective of the US
and history, the declining to some of the lowest rates
they've ever been at.

Speaker 3 (05:46):
So uh.

Speaker 1 (05:50):
Yeah, I mean, the impression ones gets from videos, from commentary,
from reading the news, from listening to them is the
murderers through the roof. It's brutal out there New York.
You can't walk in the street at night in New York.
Just not true. As somebody who's walked to night in

(06:13):
the streets of New York recently, it's just not true.
And again, you know, I'm I like numbers, and the
numbers just don't back up this idea that there's some
kind of crazy crime wave, particularly murder wave going on
in the United States, and I know that goes against
what you feel, that goes against what you're being told,

(06:44):
that goes against what you know the tribes out there
want you to believe. But it's the reality. We live
in a pretty safe, old pretty safe there. And this
brings me to political violence. Political violence is, you know,

(07:06):
you can categorize it in a variety of different ways,
and different people who try to measure it categorize it differently.
But no matter how you categorize it, political violence is
relatively low. It's rare, and it's way below the heights
of the nineteen sixties. And you know, the only if

(07:31):
you look at the number of people killed in political
violence over the last thirty years, it's high only because
of September eleventh. If you take out September eleventh, if
you count that as political violence, then there's very little,
very few people have been killed from political violence over
the last thirty years. And that's not increasing, it's not
getting much much worse. Again, in spite of what commentators, presidents,

(08:01):
and the rest of the world they're telling you. Just
like there's no cottage in the streets of America, there's
no massive increase in political violence in America. Now, there's
no question in America is a more violent place than
almost anywhere else, well than anywhere else in the industrialized world.

(08:22):
Right Ian's putting up stats up there and he says
that we're more motivates in the US. Are two x
Canada's and you know, six x's Germany's, and you know,
I don't know, twenty x Japan or something like that
in South Korea, which are incredibly there's no murder. There's
almost never murder in Japan and South Korea, so are

(08:46):
ady to hide, but they've always been high we are,
like it or not, we are. America has been a
violent society, maybe going all the way back to the frontier.
We have been a violent society and we still are.
But we're not getting worse. And it's surprising we're not

(09:08):
getting worse. For example, if you look at left wing
you know, left wing political violence, it's bad. It's a
lot smaller, but almost any measure that you measure it
than right wing political violence. But it's almost any measure.
Over the last thirty years, you know, there's been more

(09:29):
violence from the right than from the left. Now, if
you add the left up with the Islamists. There's a connection,
but if you add the two up, it gets a
little closer. But it's not increasing. And that surprises because
the reality is that you'd expect to increase. And you

(09:53):
you know, given what kids are being taught in school today,
given what professor are drilling into their heads, you would
think there would be a lot more violence, a lot
more rioting, a lot more killing, a lot more I

(10:15):
don't know, just violent action, given that the professors have
given them a thumbs up, given them a sanction, said
it's okay. Not only okay, it's requiet, it's necessary. Now
the professors that will go out there. So it's surprising
how little violence there is, relatively speaking, given how bad

(10:41):
our educational system is. I mean, all these numbers of
deaths and killings and everything, include things like school shootings
and everything else. Again, homicides are down and relatively low
in American history, surprising given how awful our education is,

(11:04):
particular what they teach at our universities. If speech is violence,
you'd expect they'll be a lot more violence against speakers. Now,
what all of these studies don't take into accounts, and
this is their big weakness. Is they look at motives
and and and and because motives are easy to measure,

(11:25):
easy to account the it's objective whether somebody is dead
or not. And in that realm, yeah, the numbers are
not that alarming, and they have not increased. But what
about other forms of violence? What about silencing speakers, not
letting you speak by banging drums in the background, and

(11:51):
by yelling at him by singing by whatever right whatever means?
What about you know, other forms of of you know, violence,
like like what antifa does. Antifa rarely kills somebody, but
it disrupts events, It beats people up. You know, who's

(12:13):
measuring that? Is that being measured? Can that be measured?
How does one measure it? What counts and what doesn't count?
It could very well be that by those measures, the
you know, violence, particularly on the left, is significantly higher.
It is significantly high. But again those things that are

(12:38):
hard to measure. Again by the measure of by the
measure of body count. The right is much more destructive
than the left. Just three events that each one of
them were based on a kind of you could all

(13:00):
of the right wing manifesto killed more people than almost
I think any other leftist kind of event, or for
that matter, Islamist event, except with the exception of nine
to eleven Tree of Life you're killing in a synagogue,
the Apasso Walmart attack, and the Buffalo supermarket shooting. Those three,

(13:23):
you know, are huge in terms of number and their lethality,
and they're all kind of fall right as defined today. Right,
So I would caution you not to get too riled

(13:47):
up about the current levels of violence. Now. It could
be that it's going to get much worse. It's possible
something would have to try give it. I'm not sure what,
but it could be that it gets it's gonna get
much worse. Again. The educational system and people. The thing

(14:07):
that scares me the most of everything that's happened. I mean,
Charlie's shooting was horrific and scary and just disturbing and
hubbable and and tragic and everything, right, but would really
disturbed me even more than that because that could you
could you could assign that to some crazy individual who

(14:28):
did this. But what was disturbing was the reaction. How
many young people said, yeah, it was okay. Now does
that mean we're heading towards more violence? I don't know.
I mean what I think is happening is while young
people influenced by their professors and and and you know,

(14:52):
you can include uh, the all the pro Palestinian UH
demonstrations and campuses, while they are all violences. You know,
violence is okay, speeches violence. We should silence these guys.

Speaker 3 (15:07):
Uh.

Speaker 1 (15:09):
You know, It's okay for us to occupy buildings, It's
okay for us to beat up Jewish kids, It's okay.
All of these things are okay, they say. The people
who are actually willing to actually act their numbers very small.
It's easy to pitch a tent and live in a
tent for a while. It's kind of cool, hang out

(15:30):
with your buddies and pretend to be you know, to
virtue signals to the world how much you're sacrificing for
the poor Palestinians. But how many of those people are
willing to actually fly to Gaza and fight on the
side of Hamas I think zero. How many of them

(15:51):
are willing to occupy a campus building not a particularly
risky thing. A few, a few dozen maybe. Out of
the hundreds that pitch tents, very few are willing to
actually engage in the violent activity. And how many of
them are willing to actually shoot kill the people whose

(16:15):
speech they consider violence. Very very very few. Luckily for
all of us, that is somehow civilization as a hold
on these people that's strong enough to overcome the beliefs
that they might only be accepting in a shallow way
from their professors. I mean it is fascinating to you know,

(16:39):
when you see people being questioned in the street about
I don't know, their support for the Palestine, for the Palestinians,
and they're asked which river and would see. They have
no clue. They don't know what Palestine is, they don't
know anything about their history, they don't understand anything. A
lot of this is just kind of the cool thing
to do. How many of them are willing to go
man the barricades for this car very few and good.

(17:04):
I mean, I'm really happy because if everybody who went
through a intersectionality, postcolonial, crazy left, anti civilizational class actually
was radicalized, radicalized to the point of action, then we

(17:29):
would be in really, really grieve danger as a civilization.
There would be riots in the streets, there would be
a revolution amongst us because so many people go through
those classes. Again, most of them men get jobs maybe
Mary ever family, and soon enough those ideas are forgotten.
They're too busy trying to figure out the latest tax

(17:53):
loophole so that they pay less taxes, and trying to
get their kids into the coolest, best daycare that only
people you know, only only they can afford. Luckily, for us,
the relictalization goes only so deep. And this is true

(18:14):
just broadly, much broader than this. Give you another example
which has always been striking to me. They are close
to two billion Muslims in the world. By some estimates,
there's somewhere between five hundred to eight hundred million, five
hundred to eight hundred million Muslims who express support for

(18:39):
the Islamist jihadist cause, five hundred to eight hundred million
who express support for ISIS and al Qa'ida and Hamas
and Chrismalah and generally the jihadi cause. Of those five
hundred million to eight hundred million, how many of them

(19:01):
are willing to stop a bomb, walk into supermarket and
blow themselves up, walk into a coffee shop and blow
themselves up, and go and get those seventy three virgins.
How many of them are willing to do that? How
of them are excited to do it. How many of
them are interested in getting involved in organizing such things
or managing such stuff. Luckily, very very very very few.

(19:25):
We know this, how because they're not that many suicide bombers.
I mean, they're periods in which they're more their peers
in which they're less, but generally they're not that many.
Not nothing is compared to the five hundred and eight
hundred million people who claim that here to these ideas
and support the seers that BOMBA when he goes, But

(19:45):
they're not willing to do it themselves. So our society,
even some of the weaker parts of our society, basically,
basically I think, helped make violence unacceptable, and people are

(20:10):
not quite willing to go out there and kill and
be killed for the cause that it's easy for them
to claim as their own, to claim that they're willing
to fight for. Well, when the fight actually happens, almost
nobody is there to actually get involved in the fight. Oh,

(20:30):
I miscounted the virgins. I apologize, it's seventy two. I promoted.
I made it even more attractive. I mean, God, if
there were seventy three virgins, you'd have a lot more
suicide bombas, it's that these Muslims are cheap and they
only do seventy two. So anyway, you know, I was

(20:56):
watching Nick Fuantes today and what is it about Nick
foyt this that gets people? I mean, he's got millions
of followers and people excited about him, about him, and yeah,
they're all racists and anti Semites. But how did he
get those people? Because a lot of people want when
they first watched him, what is his message that is

(21:18):
so attractive? And what's the message that of most successful
people in this business, in the business I'm in, And
I was thinking, God, I'm doing this all wrong. See,
if I want a lot of followers, if we want
to really increase subscribers, then I should have given you
a whole rant today on how we're at the precipices

(21:42):
of the end of Western civilization. We're at each other's throats.
People are killing each other left and right. I mean,
there's connage in the streets. Uh and uh and look
and and the left and right and everybody, and it's
it's there's a civil war about to break any data

(22:03):
and life generally sucks you guys, You guys should feel
bad about the world because you can't get jobs. If
you're a guy, you're not getting any women because of
feminism or whatever. If you're a woman, you can't find
a decent guy because they're all feminized. I can keep going.
I can do this stick. I can't do it with conviction,

(22:25):
but I can do it. Things are just horrible. That sells. Catastrophizing,
end of the world, millennium cults. Things are horrible, things
are bad, things are falling apart. That sells. And of

(22:51):
course I know why it's happening. I'm the only one
who knows why it's happening because I'm the only one
out there. I'm not the only one who knows what's happening.
Want who hans the courage and honesty to tell you
who really is doing this all to you. They're all
lying to you, they're all making stuff up. But I

(23:14):
am authentic. I'm gonna tell you exactly who's behind this
plot to destroy the world. And we know, we all
know who it is. I don't even have to say
it because just by implying it, we all know who
it is. See, I can do it, and you know
my viewership would go through the roof, go through the roof, Cinda,

(23:43):
are you trying to lighten the mood? She's asking if
waffles are pancakes, which is better? That's these amazing pancakes.
Where did I have these amazing pancakes? I can't remember now? Anyway,

(24:05):
I think Jennifer's right in asking if blueberries are involved.
So here's the point. This is not a show where
you're gonna get catastrophism. I look at the data. I'm
not gonna get panicky. I want to know what's actually
going on. Is there a left wing network of terrorists

(24:25):
trying to kill leading conservative spokesman? I mean maybe, but
I don't see any evidence of it, and so the
murder of Charlie Cook does not seem related to that.
There might be a bunch of kids, kids in the twenties, maybe,
but nihilistic kids fooling around on the Internet and talking

(24:48):
about that. But is there literally is a Heida of
the left? The isis of the left just just scheming
and building and creating platforms from which they will then
descend on the world and kill their political opponents. I

(25:08):
don't think so. I don't see any evidence that there
is such. There is a massive number of just evil,
evil academics destroying kids' minds, teaching them complete and utter
nonsense and encouraging whatever sense of nihilism they already have.

(25:36):
But it doesn't really seem to stick it. You know.
The eve gend Zy is going into the workplace. As
I told you before, they're making more money than previous generations.
Everybody complains about them in the workplace, but they must
be doing okay because they're making good money. A number

(25:59):
of them become entrepren knows and done very very very well.
And there restuff becoming coporate, you know, getting corporate jobs
and becoming part of the machine and working for the man.
These are terms on the sixties, I think, and and
doing their thing. I am interested. I see people saying

(26:24):
that Destiny said some controversial things. I'm curious what he said.
I don't know if you can write it on YouTube,
but I'm curious what Destiny said. And in terms of
I assume in terms of Charlie Cook thing. So I think,
by the way, I think it's much more like there's
there's a there are organizations on the right, you know,

(26:48):
scheming the overthrow of the US government or planning or
doing things like that. Then there on the left. Again,
the left seems to me fragmented, disorganized, incompetent, stupid, well
not stupid, but it's just incompetent, incompetent, and very much
in their own hands and very much not away in interaction. Well,

(27:11):
January sixth was coordinated, this plant, it was incompetent. I mean.
The good thing is generally these people in the left
and right are completely incompetent. And if you're going to
fear anybody, and this is this is I think important.
If you're going to fear anybody, then what you shouldn't

(27:40):
fear is it is not radicals in the left and
radicals in the right. What you really should fear. Of
course this is a consequence of radicals on the left
and radicals in the right. But you really should fear
is our government. I think our government is the source
of real authoritarianism down the road. It's already a source

(28:05):
of fear. If you've got brown skin, if you look
Latin in cin cities in America, a government is a
source of fear. We'll see that based on what Pambondi
said yesterday, A so so fia for anyone like me
criticizing the right, A government is what is going to

(28:29):
trample on our rights, already does, already has, and seems
to be committed left and right united in one way
or another, to continue to trample on our rights. So
I think if we're going to fear something, we should
watch the left on the right because they're going to
do a lot of damage, and they they drive what

(28:52):
happens in politics. But in terms of actual threat to
your life, to your liberty, it's well government, it's the
federal government that is likely the biggest threat to you.

Speaker 3 (29:14):
All right, Oh that's not good. Huh, all right, I
did that again.

Speaker 4 (29:25):
I keep doing this, all right, I missed some I
need a cup and let me just see Michael and Michael,
maybe it's only one, all right, all right, let me

(29:50):
just do this.

Speaker 1 (29:58):
Uh all right. So let's so that's political violence. I mean,
we'll talk more about this and more data I'm sure
will come out, and you know, we'll see where all
this all this plays out ultimately. But you know, again,
no reason to panic yet. Panic about the universities, panicing

(30:19):
about the kids education that they're getting, panic about the
future of the country, because I think, at the end
of the day, what do cowards who want to inflict
violence do At the end of the day, they vote
in authoritarians who will inflict the violence for them. They
don't have the guts to pull the trigger. But they

(30:39):
can hire people to pull the trigger for them. Call
it government. They can hire. They can ask the government
to go after their enemies for them. They don't have
to do it themselves. And that's what ultimately happens, is
we make people mindless, we increase, we increase stars that

(31:01):
our government become more and more violent towards us, that
our government violates our right more and more, the more
tribal we become. That's the real threat is who we
vote into power much more then, I don't know, some
conspiracy to shoot right wing commentators on campuses. All right,

(31:26):
talk about our federal government. The Federals have met today
to decide on you know, they do this once a
month or so. A bunch of people sit around the
table and centrally plan and determine the most important price
in the US economy and the world economy. The price
of money, the price of time, the price of money

(31:48):
over time, that is the interest rate. It is stunning
and shocking, and I keep reminding you every time the
Fed meets. That is stunning and shocking that we completely
end stand the price controls of many, many, many goods. Yeah,
they just don't make sense. It doesn't work, always fail.
We still haven't got that quite un rent control. It

(32:09):
turns out given mcdonny in New York is gonna win.
But we seem to figure out that we don't want
the federal government determining the price of bread, or the
price of iPhones, other prices. The price of money that
is okay for the government to determine. So the FED
met today and unsurprising to meet or the markets. The

(32:33):
FED lowered interest rates by courtere a percent. Now, the
basically what that Fed does is it lowers something called
the benchmark overnight lending rate. This is the rate that
banks lend to the banks led to each other. But
banks don't lend to each other anymore because everything goes

(32:55):
everything goes through the reserves and the FED. There were
all interest rates that the Federal Reserve could tools is
the interest that it pays on the money banks hold
and reserve at the FED, and that is declined by
a coded point. And the idea is if you reduce
interest rates, more people borrow money. Banks which are getting

(33:18):
a lower return on the money that they have on reserve,
will have a greater incentive to lend it out. Lending
would go up. As lending goes up, business activity goes up,
jobs are created, All is good in the world. So
interestates have supposedly gone down now. Of course, the risk

(33:41):
with that is is you're also increasing the volatility the
velocity of money. You're introducing in a sense, more money
into the economy. There's money tached away in reserves and
now it's starting to be active in the economy because
they're being lent out by banks. And when banks lend
up money lended out, they're creating money that is much

(34:02):
more has how much higher velocity than money that has
no velocity just sitting at the FED. And by doing
that you could increase inflation, price inflation. That's the argument
I told you about this yesterday. I said there would
be three positions, one not to lower, the second lower

(34:26):
quarter percent, and the third to lower fifty basis points.
And I said that the majority would be to the
lower quarta. I was right about that, I was wrong
about everything else. There weren't three positions. That were only two.
Nobody on the Fed voted to keep interest rates steady. Indeed,
eleven of the twelve members of the FED, so it
wasn't even close. Eleven of the twelve members of the

(34:49):
Fed voted to reduce interestates by a quarter percent. The
one person who dissented. The one person who dissented was,
of course Stephen Miran, who was approved to sit on
the board at the FED yesterday by the Senate so

(35:09):
that he could dissent today at the meeting, that was
the only purpose. He was there to represent the Trump
administration's position about interest rates. He advocated for a full
half percentage point decrease in interest rates, and he actually
articulated what he believed the feted scher do in the

(35:32):
months to come. And he basically believes the Fed should
decrease interest rates by by one and a half percent
before the end of twenty twenty five, which is a
position consistent with Donald Trumps down. Trump says three percent
by the end of twenty twenty five. But you know
that no economists could actually say that without without i

(35:54):
don't know, without breaking out into absurd laughter. So I
think Miran has moderated to one and a half per cent,
you know, six or eight cuts between now and the
end of twenty of this year. SE's two cuts a
month ain't happening, Miron, but that is what he would

(36:16):
like to see. The rest of the federers aboard disagrees.
As I've told you before, I don't really did Lisa
Cook vote? Yes, she did. She voted. She was She
was prevented from being fired by an appellate court yesterday,
so she could participate in the meeting until this goes
through the courts and determines whether Donald Trump can't fire

(36:37):
her or not. So she voted to lower byte quarter percent,
as everybody else did. And this is the one. I
don't know what the right rate is. I don't know
if there is a right rate. The FED shouldn't be
there's so many interest rates. I mean, you could argue

(36:57):
if the fit exists, then has to determine monetary policy.
It's not clear that interest rates is the way to regulate,
if you will monetary policy. There are other ways to
do it that have to do with the amount of
money being supplied into the economy. But that's tricky and
it's much more, much harder for people to grasp. There's

(37:20):
not one number you can look at. It we're targeting this.
You know, if you follow some kind of rule, it's
very difficult for the rest of the world to follow it,
you know. And again it's not clear rules, right. The
market is the only way to get these things right.
The only objectivity that can be brought to interest rates
is through a market process, and of course a market process.

(37:43):
And the supply money, by the way, is a market process.
And that can only happen in the world without a
central bank and private bank, private free banks. And that's
a world I do not expect to see in my lifetime.
Maybe in your lifetime. Maybe we can hope right that
in your lifetime you'll be able to see that. Anyway,
you'll see a lot of talk about this. Donald Trump
will not be happy. He wouldn't have much be a cut.

(38:08):
But I guess I think Trump is probably gonna wait
it out until May to get rid of next year,
to get rid of Powell. Uh. And he's not going
to get enough people onto the Federal Open Market Committee.
Even if you can get rid of Lisa Cook, that
will still only give two people. The other people who
are generally favorable towards Trump on the Federal Open Market

(38:30):
Committee voted with Powell this time, so Trump might not
view them positively anyway. That is, that is where the
FED is as of today. Let me just remind you

(38:53):
to support the show. It's a show made possible through
support from people like you. I couldn't do this without you.
And the best way to support the show right now,
right now, this moment, and to enhance the Life Show,
to make the Life Show even better, is for you
to ask questions, make comments in the super chat. Because
I read all of those, I comment on them, I

(39:14):
answer them, I respond to everything. And it's a way
for you to shape the show, and it makes them
more interesting and more fun. So please participate. Come in
and ask a question, put a few bucks on it,
and that way we raise the money to make the
show possible, and we also interact more and you know,
again you get to determine the topics we cover in

(39:34):
the show. All right, Let's see that's a different story,
by the way, a big you know, a lot of
stories all over the place about this political violences that
are on the increases and not and again all the
numbers I'm seeing the economists that a big story on
it yesterday or a few days ago. All right, So

(39:57):
you know how Donald Trump is used I E e
p A. This is declared an economic emergency and is
part of that economic emergency using the i e e
p A, which is a law, an economic emergency law
that gives the president the authority to declare an economic
emergency and do certain things. And Trump has declared that

(40:20):
is part of those things. He is going to impose tariffs,
and the whole retaliatory tariffs, the whole April thing, most
of the tabs, not all of them, most of the
tats that are being imposed now through this i e
e p A. And Trump has claims this authority. It's
the Supreme Court will decide whether he really has it.
There will be hearing arguments about that in November, and

(40:43):
we'll make a decision early next year. So at some
point we'll decide at least what the court thinks about
whether he has this authority or not. But anyway, the
reality is that according to this law. According to this law,
Congress must view the emergency every six months. So here's

(41:04):
the language of the law. Not later than six months
after a national emergency is declared, and not later than
the end of each six month period thereafter that such
an emergency continues, each House of Congress shall meet to
consider a vote on a joint resolution to determine whether

(41:26):
that emergency shall be terminated. So it gives Congress the responsibility,
not just the option, but the responsibility to every six
months check in and say, uh, you know, no emergency now,
we're going to vote it down or vote it up
or whatever. Trump declared this emergency but six months ago

(41:54):
and the House is avoiding this. It's basically growing the law.
Speak of Johnson has gained the House rules to constantly
block any attempt to consider this. Their proposals on the
table in the House, including by Massey, the Republican, to

(42:18):
vote down the emergency and thus eliminate the tariffs, and
yet he can't get a vote because Johnson won't allow it,
and they keep burying it. And supposedly, you know now
in one of the rules that was just passed, they

(42:38):
have managed to defer any consideration of this emergency status
until March of twenty twenty six, which is an explicit
defiance of the law. There's nothing you can do about

(43:00):
if Congress decides that it won't abide by the laws
that it writes. I don't think there's anything they can
do about it. This is the breakdown of the rule
of law. It's the breakdown of our system and government.
Congress is supposed to write the laws and make sure
they're followed, and follow them itself. It should penalize the
executive when he doesn't follow the law. It should impeach

(43:24):
judges when they don't follow the law. It should overturn
a present over rule a president when he's not following
the law. But here Congress itself refuses to follow the law.
So they all review this until March of twenty twenty six.
And if the tariffs are still standing in March of

(43:46):
twenty twenty six, if they haven't been overturned by the courts,
I have a feeling that Speaker Johnson will find a
way to push them out into the future. One of
the great tragedies of America over the last probably twenty
years is that Congress, but sub me over the last
ten years, Congress has completely defaulted on its responsibilities. It

(44:11):
is handing more and more and more power to the executive.
It is refusing to have any oversight over that executive,
Democrat or Republican. And when they do, like they went
after impeaching Trump. They impeach him on trivialities, on stupidities,

(44:32):
instead of something substantive like this, or like TikTok, or
like a million other ways in which Trump is literally
violating the law, going against the Constitution. But they don't
have the balls or the courage to do that. So anyway,

(44:52):
Congress is basicy doing everything they can to avoid bringing
to a vote some kind of resolution that eliminates the
state of emergent economic state of emergency and thus eliminate
the tariffs, because partially because Johnson know it'll gain the majority,
they'll just be enough Republicans voting for it with the

(45:13):
Democrats that it could actually pass, and he of course
doesn't want that. I'm not sure what's going on in
the Senate because it says both houses of Congress, so
I'm not sure what happens in the Senate. Maybe it
first has to go in the House. The Senate can't
take it up until it starts. I mean, if we're
gonna save our system of government, I think the first

(45:36):
step that has to happen is Congress in the House
and in the Senate. I'm gonna have to grow some balls.
I'm gonna have to take the responsibility. Seriously, I'm gonna
have to re establish and re engage with their constitutional role.

(45:58):
If they're going to default in the count stitutional role,
it's going to be very difficult to save this goverment,
very difficult system of government. I mean, courtes can make decisions,
courts can change things, colts go hold things back. But
at the end of the day, it's Congress that passors laws.
Congress that has to hold the present accountable at the

(46:21):
end of the day. And if Congress doesn't do that,
the courts can only do so much. By the way.
You know, we're getting more and more studies about tariffs
and about who bears the cost of tariffs. And you know,
this is a study that came out looking at Chinese
goods and it looks like Chinese exporters maybe have absorbed

(46:43):
less than three percent of the twenty seven percent increase
in tariffs this year, maybe three percent. Everything else you
are paying one way or the other, whether there's an
invest in business or where there's a consumer, you are paying.
So yes, all right, cocaine, cocaine. So cocaine is becoming

(47:27):
popular again. It's cool to snort cocaine in America, demand
for cocaine has gone through the roof. Consumption is going
And what's interesting this time is it's not just in America.
It's going even faster in Europe. Cocaine, cocaine use all
over the world is up dramatically. Americans, after going through

(47:50):
a period of getting hooked on opioids and fentanol and
all kinds of stuff like that, back to cocaine, back
to their first love. Consumption in Western the United States
has increased one hundred and fifty four percent since twenty nineteen,
up nineteen percent during that same period in the eastern

(48:13):
part of the country. So it's by belly in the
West that people are taking it using cocaine. And now
you know, I usually wouldn't even mention this. I mean,
who cares, Right, cocaine is up. It's in the context
of the idea of the war on drugs. We've got
this intense worn drugs going on and it's being intensified.

(48:34):
And we saw ships in the Caribbean Sea. We're seen
F thirty five's in Puerto Rico. We're seeing the bombings
of boats off the shore of Venezuela that the administration
is claiming are drug smugglers. But they have no proof
of that, and they have presented no evidence. And it's
dubious whether they have the legal authority to kill drug

(48:55):
smugglers or people they claim to be drug smugglers in
international waters. It's just bizarre that they could do that. Hey,
that boat's drugs, slugly boat. Boom, let's blow them up.
I mean they've done into three ships steamboats so far,
killed I don't know, fifteen people by what authority. As

(49:15):
Congress passed a law that allows the president to approve
the killing of accused suspected COTEL members. The whole thing.
And again, this is where Congress is completely failing. Why
is in Congress saying something about this? Why aren't their
hearings about this? Why aren't they acting to rain the

(49:39):
president in on this or at least get more information
about their hell's going on? Nothing? Complete silence from Congress.
But what's interesting about it is we've been involved in
I mean, we've been involved in a war against drugs.
Against drugs. You can't have a war against a then

(50:01):
unanimate OBVIEC. But what they call the Wan drugs since
the early nineteen seventies seventies, so fifty plus. Yes, And
what have we achieved nothing? Death and destruction, corruption, lots

(50:23):
of dead people, and really really, really really powerful cartels
all over the world who run the drug trade. That's
what we've achieved. Is drug use come down? No less
people dining from over those No a drug safer? No.

(50:46):
I mean, what's going on? And you know, well, Trump,
because he's tough, because he's a man's man, he's a
macho guy. Is Trump gonna be successful way others have not?
What does it take to win the one? Drugs blowing
up ships in the Caribbean. It's interesting because fentanyl, almost

(51:11):
all the fentannel coming into the United States smuggled in
from Canada, oh no, sorry, from Mexico. Canada was accused
of that, and therefore talents were placed on for Mexico
almost all of them. And almost all of the cocaine
that comes from place like Colombia goes into the United

(51:33):
States from the Pacific side. I'm not sure who exactly
is getting bombed in the Caribbean. I'm sure some drug
smuggling is happening there, but it's not the main route.
I mean, the goal of what Trump is doing is
to go after Venezuela. But here's the thing. So, you

(51:54):
know the drug the US has been going after catails
in Mexico significantly, and they've they've you know, cut deals
with Mexico to go after some of these cartels. And
you know, the US US got the the Mexicans to

(52:15):
really go after the what do you call it, the
what's the name of that cotel? This it starts within
the s this Sinola, the Cinaloa Hotel. Right, so they
got they got they got the Mexicans go after that.
You know, there's been a woo within this Cinealora. They've

(52:37):
really chipped away at their influence. They've caught, you know, Guzman,
the big shot in the Cineala cotel. That's all the
way back to twenty sixteen. They've really weakened the biggest
cartel out there, the Santala catel. So what has happened.

(52:59):
What has happened, Well, what's happened is somebody stepped in
and replacement. So now you've got this other cartel, right,
there's a big story about it in the Wall Street Journal,
you know, called the osse Guera Hotel's Aguera cartel. The

(53:20):
leader of it is a fifty nine year old Nemicio
Mincho or see or Seguerra, and he's basically bigger and
stronger than the cineloa. He has guarding him, hired guns
who carry with them anti tank weapons. They're fully military

(53:45):
brought in. You were training me in military. He's brought
in real military, ex military to come and protect him.
He has land mines surrounding his compound and his speciality's cocaine.

(54:06):
And you know he grew up, this guy who runs
the cartel, grew up poor selling avocados, and now he's
one of the richest people maybe in the world as
a drug lord. So what have we done. Yeah, we
killed some bad guys and incentivized other bad guys to

(54:27):
fill in the gap. We've destroyed some cartels and emboldened
other cartels to grow even bigger. This is not you're
not gonna win this. There is demand, this demand for

(54:50):
these drugs.

Speaker 5 (54:51):
People are willing to pay a lot of money for
these drugs, and they're going to beat people. Bad people
who come in and use violence to fill in, to
fill the supply, to make sure the demand is met
and to make money in the process.

Speaker 1 (55:09):
And they might be called Sinaloa something else so jealistico
hotel or this hotel or that hotel. One dies, another
one who just rise up to replace it? The one.
Drugs is a dead end, whether you fight it in
the waters, the Caribbean, or wherever you fight it. I mean,
even if you invade Mexico tomorrow and take Mexico over,

(55:33):
drugs will continue to flow to the United States of America.
There is no scenario. I mean, think about provision. Did
stop alcohol? Did alcohol consumption decline? I mean the types
of alcohol changed, but no, same thing with drugs. You
can't stop it. The only solution of drugs is to

(55:54):
legalize it at least get the violence out of the way.
And if people want to take who am I to
say they shouldn't. So the war on drugs is all

(56:16):
it does is it gets a lot of innocent people killed,
a lot of innocent people killed. It completely disrupts, completely disrupts.

Speaker 3 (56:28):
Uh.

Speaker 1 (56:28):
You know, the countries and where the drugs are grown
and shipped through in order to get to market. And
it's and it's it's a massive distraction. It's a massive
consumption of dollars to contain Uh, it's a massive waste
of our resources. Drug shouldn't be legalized. Not because I

(56:51):
love drugs, but because I think a I think is
out of my business if you want to take them,
but be because people are dying and there's no way
to win this. I mean, how many years now have we,
as the United States tried to stop the growing of
cocaine in Colombia. Forever as I stopped, and now Colombian drugs,

(57:19):
for a variety of reasons, they're going to Ecuador. In Ecuador,
this is creating a huge gang problem in Ecuador. Cartels
have entered Ecuador because now it's a transportation hub between
Colombia and Mexico. Then the drugs get put on boats.

(57:40):
This is why most of the drugs come from the Pacific.
They get put on boats that are then shipped via
the Galopolis Islands, of all places, to Mexico. Galapolis is
where you refuel and then you know, you head towards Mexico.
Mexico has deployed special force to try to stop the

(58:02):
drugs from coming in. They can't. They're overwhelmed. There's just
not enough of them. And then you you take them
along within Mexico. The you know, the one cartel controls
the coasts it takes possession of the of the drugs
and then passes on to other cartels that are responsible
for delivering it to the United States. And they're delivering

(58:25):
into the United States through tunnels underneath Trump's wall and uh,
through any other routes that you can get in, and
nobody's disrupted that. I mean, it's a disruptive, but it
hasn't stopped, and it's not going to stop. And again,

(58:48):
you could switch out, you can arrest these guys. It's
like killing the leaders of a terrorist organization. You get
new leaders. Killing a leader of a cartel, destroying the
old hotel and getting new cartail. Too many opportunities, too
many opportunities. Anyway, the cartels are only becoming more sophisticated

(59:12):
using MURE technology, become more sophisticated weapons systems. And the
delusion that people on this can be stopped is truly
bet Hey, that doesn't stop anybody. Absurdity, so much absurdity

(59:36):
in this world, and yet it doesn't stop anybody. All right,
what do we have? We still have a couple of topics, right,
Oh we have okay, we have genocide pages and ideas.
All right, let's tell we genocide said the UN came
out of the reports that says is those committing genocide,
is those commeding genisis? I mean the report is amateurish, stupid, ridiculous,

(01:00:02):
filled with contradictions. For example, the report accusas Ntenniao are
making no distinction between combatants and civilians. At the same statement,
they recognized that he told Palestinians he got to leave
because the operation is going to happen. In other words,

(01:00:25):
he urged noncombatants to leave the area. And they say, well,
but that that is no distinction when you combatants are
noncombatants because he knows that Palestinians guards have no where
to go. Well, but they do have to go places
to go. They have these humanitarian zones that be set

(01:00:48):
up where they can go and they can live, and
Israel generally doesn't bother them today, So you know, just
lie after lie or for example, you know, here's a

(01:01:08):
you know, here's a sentence from the report. Based on
the above, the commission finds that the Israeli security forces
were aware that their military operations since seven October twenty
twenty three would cause the deaths of Palestinians in Gaza. Yeah,
it's a war. Some people will die. Furthermore, considering the
duration of the military operation or reports of high numbers

(01:01:30):
of deaths high by what standard it is reasonable to
find that the Israeli authorities knew of a high number
of casualties in Gaza since seven October twenty twenty three. Okay,
if you define high as those numbers, doesn't seem high
to me at all. Nevertheless, Israeli athoritis need not intervene
to change the means and method of warfare employee. On

(01:01:54):
the contrary, the military operation persisted over time and caused
even more Palestinian death Yeah, it's called war. The Commission
therefore finds that these early authorities intended to kill as
many Palestinians as possible through their military operations in Gaza
since seventh of Vacovia twenty twenty three. Wait, that is

(01:02:16):
a inference that you cannot make. There's no logic there.
The logic check broke down is on you. Their military
operations would kill Palestinians. They didn't change their military opations
to stop killing Palestinians because you can't do that. Therefore,
they intended to kill as many Palestinians as possible. No

(01:02:39):
is could have killed many, many, many, many, many more
Palestins if they wanted to. I mean, they could have
indiscriminately bombed the entire place into oblivion, indiscriminately, and you
would have a million people dead by now, But they didn't.

(01:03:00):
It's unbelievable. It's just a leap to a conclusion that
they had predecided, and they're trying to fluff it up
and make some things that look like logical arguments beforehand,
but the logic doesn't flow. So the Commission therefore finds
that the Israeli authorities intended to kill as many Palestinians

(01:03:20):
as possible through its military operations in Goslins seven October
twenty twenty three, and knew that the means and method
of Wolfe employed would cause mass death of Palestinians, including children,
mass deaths. What is math death? Is the ten thousand,
one hundred thousand, a million? How do you define it?

(01:03:40):
I guess any deaths if they're Palestinians, and if the
Jews doing it counters math deaths to the to the
United Nations. Of course, is all knew that civilians would
die in its operation in Gauza, including children, So did Ramas.
Ramas knew that when they did October seventh, they knew

(01:04:02):
israell retaliate and Palestinians would die every time Ramas attacks
Israeli troops. They know that in counterattacking some Palestinians will die.
Nature of war. Suddenly in an urban setting, Ramas is
not responsible. No, Israel's responsible, and the UI knows. The
people who wrote this know that the only way to

(01:04:25):
avoid civilian casualties is not to go to war. And
that's what they really want. They want Israel to dissm.
It wants Israel to surrender and for the slaughter of
Israelis to continue. I mean, why should it stop on
October seventh, It should have gone on. They would want

(01:04:46):
it to God forbid the Israeli army killed any Palestinians.
So they're redefining genocide to include any war in which
a country knows there will be civilians civilian deaths, which
means every war now is genocide. There are no wars

(01:05:08):
in which only military forces engage. I mean, Russia is
committing genocide in Ukraine, and there's every every war. Everyone
on the planet is a genocide. M It's truly insane. Yeah,

(01:05:39):
so yeah, I mean and they site reports that are
being countered, they cite, you know, they cite this US
Green beret who says that as well purposely launched you know,

(01:06:01):
tank crowns and motor rounds into crowds of Ana Palestinians.
Even that doesn't constitute genocide, by the way, if that
were true, but it's not true, and it's been contradicted
by many, many others who were there. Indeed, the report
was written by somebody who, in twenty twenty two was

(01:06:23):
condemned by the UN Secretary General as a blatant anti Semite,
a guy named Milun Kothari. Even the head of UNRAH
saying a lot called him an anti Semite. And somebody

(01:06:44):
here writes that's like, that's that's that's like being called
a fascist by Benina Massolini. Because the head of UNRO
would know an anti Semite if they saw him, they
sew one. It really is unbelievable, Really is unbelievable, the
extent to which hatred of Israel, and by extension, hatred

(01:07:06):
of Jews is so common in the world out there
all right. Finally, a couple of good news stories, particularly
this one. This is you know, today marks the one
year since the page your operations. One of the greatest
intelligence military operations in the history of mankind. Is all

(01:07:31):
sold Chrisbella pages that had explosive devices in them, and
they activated those explosive devices. A year ago today, thousands
of pages exploded simultaneously in Lebanon, causing mass injuries, many

(01:07:52):
deaths among a group of Risbala operatives. People who were
had pages for the Chrisbella. So these are many of
the senior leaders of Isbella, many of the operational leaders
of the Arisbella, thousands of them, and many of them died.

(01:08:13):
Some of them lost an eye, some of them lost
other parts of their bodies. The next day, of course,
as Chrisbellah moved to using walkie talkies, it turned out
those walkie talkies were detonated because they'd been bought, I
guess from the same source, and a few hundred more

(01:08:34):
were injured as a consequence. This is the kind of
targeted precision warfare that Israel has engaged in incredibly effectively.
This is the opposite of genocide. Now, by the way,
did civilians die in this? Yeah? So you know, if
you were the daughter of a terrorist and you picked
up one of the pages and it blew up if

(01:08:58):
you were wife of up. Yeah, people who are quote
innocent got hurt. But that's the nature of war. And
if you don't want them to get hurt, don't start wars.
Don't start wars. Finally, where is this? Uh? There it is? Yes,

(01:09:26):
Finally is this fascinating story today in the You know
it's it's in Wired, but it's also cided in ScienceDirect
dot com orch in health dot com. Uh, there's this
story about the the uh I guess Uh the founder

(01:09:46):
and CEO of a company called Orchard, a biotech company,
and uh, basically, he was at the Wired Health summit
last week and he was saying that in the near fuse,
he thinks that more and more parents are going to
choose to use IVF as the means of having children

(01:10:12):
rather than the natural means. And the reason for that
is that right now, a company like Orchid can do
a whole genome screening of embryos for IVF, So you
could analyze the DNA of different embryos and you can
select the one that has the least likelihood to have cancer,

(01:10:34):
to have Alzheimers. I mean, we know exactly which genes
dramatically increase the probability of alzheimer is you can select
your child not to have those parents can significantly lower
the risk of their kids having genetic conditions. And uh,

(01:11:00):
you know, there's a there's a huge potential here, and
it looks like having child children in the future is
going to be very difficult, very different than it has
been in the past. For example, an estimated four percent
of people worldwide have a disease that's caused by a
single genetic mutation one g. Four percent. You could screen

(01:11:24):
those embOS out. Now, think about that. That means those
embas will never become human. Ooh, some of you screaming.
If you're screaming, there's a little bit of religion, so
stuck in there. Some of those embOS will never become human.
They might be destroyed, they might be flushed down the toilet.

(01:11:47):
So artificial asseimination IDF screen, choose the baby you want,
uh and uh you screen five. You implant one that
has the least possibility of having genetic diseases. And if
you do this, we can really make a dance in

(01:12:13):
just the existence of genetic diseases in the population, because
you start screening them out. That is great news in
my view. Now, if that least the decline is sex,
that would be bad. But if that just leads to

(01:12:33):
a you know, a decline in disease, then it's phenomenal, phenomenal,
you know. Sometimes they right now they plant more than
one IVF, so they planning more than one mbo. But
it's not clear that that's going to be two in

(01:12:55):
the future. As they get better at this, as they
d stand it more, as more and more healthy couples
are going to get IVF rather than couples that are
having difficulty, it might be the case that it's just
one it's just one embryo. I think we'll get to
that point and that's when the screening makes the most sense.

(01:13:17):
All Right, you can check out Orchid Biotech to get
out more information about this, and there's an article about
it in a wide magazine which is interesting. All right,
let's that is the news for Wednesday, September seventeenth. So
this is where I remind you of a few things.

(01:13:39):
One is, this show is funded by support from you
can't exist without you, guys, and we have goals every
show about two hudred and fifty dollars an hour is
about how much we need a raise in order to
make this worthwhile, and we generally make that and sometimes

(01:14:01):
we exceed it, so on average we make it. Today
we're not so we're short. We're short sixty two dollars
used to make the first hours to fifty, so please
take that into account if you want to support the show.
Now is the time to support the show and and
and help us achieve the goal. And of course our
second hour goal is five hundred dollars and we're way

(01:14:22):
way off of that, so I encourage you to consider
using the super chat or stickers to get us closer
to the goal. That was the one thing I wanted
to say, was the other thing, Yeah, got sponsors. Gotta
gotta gotta gotta talk about the sponsors. Hand a shot Wealth,
hand a shot with two teas, hand a shot Wealth

(01:14:42):
dot com slash ybs you'll find information about how to
really save quite a bit of money on capital gains taxes,
how to set yourself up so that when you sell
the business or when you sell your stock, you won't
have to pay that much and you'll be able to
defer them further into the future. But further into the

(01:15:03):
future you get to gain from the appreciation of the
money you would have paid taxes. I talk about this
with Robert Handershot in great depth. I think anybody interested
in finance and taxes and finance should watch this. It's
on uh my channel on a playlist for sponsors and

(01:15:23):
you can find it's me and Robin Handershot talking about
deferring capital gains taxes. So please do that. Iron Institute
as a sponsor. The Iron Institute is uh it would
encourage you to sign up. I would encourage you to
sign up for their Iron Ran Live Ironman Institute Live.
This is a program of courses that you can take live.

(01:15:44):
You can take you know, with the professor Dan asked
questions live with other students, or you can take it
by video later. You can do your homework assignments or not.
You can that'll even offer you a coach, a career coach,
study coach. So I really I think an amazing program,

(01:16:06):
really intensive, but you can do it at your pays
and you'll really, really, really increase your knowledge significantly of
the philosophy of objectives. So go to Iman dot oak
slash start here, Imrand oak Slash start here. Click on
the link for Iran in Stute Live and check out

(01:16:29):
the horses that they've got off for the in October.
You get a discount as being a YBS listener twenty
five YBS ten twenty five YBS ten. Put that in
a discount coach. You get a ten percent discount. Go
sign up or check it out see if you think
it's it's it's something you would want to do. And
then finally, Alex Epstein. Alex Epstein is the leading authority

(01:16:50):
on all things energy. He is now very involved in
kind of setting helping set energy policy in a Trumpet administration,
regulatory policy view to be climate change in a Trump administration.
He's doing amazing work and you guys should support him.
And you know, ansint a matter of supporting and financially,
I don't think that's what's needed. You guy should support

(01:17:11):
him by subscribing and by using the material you get
from him to educate the world out there about these issues.
He puts out talking points that really really really help,
really really really help get you up to speed about
what's going on and how to communicate what's going on
in the world out there. All right, So those are sponsors.

(01:17:43):
You can become a regular supporter of The Ironbook Show
monthly supporter by going to Patreon Patreon dot com becoming
a monthly supporter anything from two dollars to one thousand
dollars a month. One thousand dollars would be great, two
dollars would be great. Police consider doing that. It's the
best way put the show. We can also do it
on PayPal, but you don't. But Patreon is just a

(01:18:04):
little bit easier, and you get the proke. If you
do Patreon at over ten dollars a month, you get
a free feed for the podcast with no commercials. No commercials.
A lot of you have been asking me for that.
We are now providing that for anybody gives more than

(01:18:24):
ten dollars a month on Patreon. Not a huge amount,
all right, guys, we made quite a bit of progress
in the last few minutes on the suit chat goal. Wes,
thank you for the fifty dollars sticker, and let's see
if we got some other stickers. We've got quite a
few questions. Normative Randoid thank you, and John thank you,

(01:18:45):
and Jonathan Honing thank you again. You know, Alan, thank you,
Fred Harper, thank you, Nick, thank you, Mike thank you. Yeah,
you guys are great. Thank you guys, really really really
appreciate the support and keep it coming. We still have
a two hundred and forty dollars to go to make
it to our second hour goal. And we are in

(01:19:07):
the second hour, well into the second holurum, well well
well into the second holt, So please consider supporting the show.
Stickers all well, come, by the way, stickers are great. No,
with no question. All right, let's start with Michael. Michael
starts us off, as he often does, with a fifty

(01:19:28):
dollars question. Why does super wealthy people move to Puerto Rico?
If you have that level of money, isn't it worth
it to eat the taxes so you can live comfortably
in America? I understand living in Puerto Rico if you're
trying to build wealth, but once you already have it,
because nobody likes to pay taxes, it's it's a reduction

(01:19:48):
in your wealth, it's a reduction in your income. It's
a reduction in what you can do with your money.
And if you're a billionaire, your money is still valuable
to you. Now, I'd say I don't know that that
many billionaires have moved to Puerto Rico. I don't know
of any A number of you know, people worth hundreds
of millions of dollars have moved to Puerto Rico. Tens

(01:20:10):
of millions of dollars have certainly moved to Puerto Rico.
I don't know if any billionaire, although I'm sure there's some.
But whatever your amount of wealth is means you have
certain ambitions. You want to go to Mars, you want
to build something, you want to create something. You want
to give it away and give more of it rather
than the government taking it away. You're pissed off at
Washington and the way they use it. And you can live,

(01:20:35):
you know, you can live in this neighborhood that's run
by the rich Carlton in Dorado, Puerto Rico, at a
very high standup a living. You can buy a thirty
million dollar home there, thirty forty million dollar home right
on the beach, gorgeous architecture, modern, much nicer than anything
you'll see in most communities in the United States. Modern,

(01:20:55):
big homes with glass windows overlooking the ocean walking to
the beach. I mean, why not? And you don't get
paid taxes and you only have to be in Puerto
Rico one hundred and eighty three days a year. You
can spend the rest in Monte Carlo, or in Europe,
or in some in America, a lot in America. You

(01:21:16):
could travel the world. But if you're in Puerto Rico
one hundred and eighty three days, and actually, technically, if
you're not in the United States the rest of the time,
you can actually actually only be in Puerto Rico one
hundred and fifty three days, and you can be anywhere
else in the world as well. Why not why not

(01:21:36):
make it your primary residence and then buy a home
in London, and buy a home in Singapore, and buy
a home in the French of Vieira, and in New
York City and shuttle between those places. But make that
beautiful home on the beach where you can see the
water and you've got good internet and you can communicate

(01:21:56):
with the world. Why not make that your primary residence
and not have to pay federal taxes and pay an
effective rate kosher if you do everything right and legal,
and if you have the right kind of business, a
four percent instead of over fifty in some states. So

(01:22:17):
it's a big difference. It's a big difference. That's why
they do it. I don't think. I mean, it's true
that if you have a lot of money, then yeah,
if you pay taxes, you still have a lot of
money and you can still live well in the US
that way, But you're still giving away. I mean, you're

(01:22:38):
having half your income taken, millions of dollars in some people,
tens of millions of dollars in some cases. Jennifer Destiny
said on Pierre Morgan's show that he will not condemn
Cooke's murder until Trump tells people to calm down. I
think that's stupid, really stupid. I mean, it doesn't make

(01:23:02):
any sense the to an unrelated he should condemn Cook's
murder murder and demand the Trump act like a human being.
So that is an unfortunate position. Destiny is taken, a
bad position. Destiny is taken. Paul, Why do you think

(01:23:32):
no one comes to the military, the military defense of
the Palestinians when virtually the entire world opposes Israel. Well, because,
I mean, they're not willing to die for the Palestinians.
They oppose Israel, they sanctions in Israel, they'll take an

(01:23:55):
economic hit for the Palestinians, but they're not willing to
die for the Palestinians, and really then I'm willing to
commit that much money to the Palestinians. They also know
Israel has nukes. Israel has ballistic missiles that can travel
a long way is or can reach I'm pretty sure
every country in Europe and can reach Moscow with its missiles.

(01:24:19):
You can see the kind of reach it has with
airplanes the time at least is theirs in that sense.
I also believe, in spite of all you know journals,
all these military journals that come out with it ranking
of their world's best armies and so on, I think
pound for pound, Israel has the best army in the world,

(01:24:40):
and not pound for pound, it probably has the third
best army in the world. Maybe, you know, I wouldn't
want to be any military in the world going up
against the Israelis. I don't think any air force in
the world matches up to the Israeli air force. Maybe
a Marria pilots, but I don't think they are They

(01:25:01):
don't have an experience. So it's really, you know, air
force is probably the best in the world. Now, America
could overwhelm it with quantity, so could the Chinese and
maybe the Russians. If they stone the border, but it's
not clear because Israel has so much more weapons an

(01:25:24):
air dominance over Russia that it's not clear that even
if they put a million troops along the borders with Israel,
you know, Russia would win given the air dominance that
Israel would have. So who's going to take them up
on it? Who wants to some of the casualties, for whom?
For the Palestinians, who none of them really like a

(01:25:46):
demaya of respect. They do it out of a sense
of altruism, not of a sense of caring, not a
sense of liking, not out of a sense of valuing,
out of a sense of we need to sacrifice of
these but not too much, I'll trust in the modern era,
how many militaritions are there, How many people in the

(01:26:07):
world that they really do give their kidneys to a stranger,
Not that many? Not they both their kidneys one kidney.
Rob c says, I just learned about the Fabians and
they were all informing the original UK Labor Party. Do

(01:26:28):
you think that explains a lot about the state of
the UK right now? Yes and no. Right, So, the
Fabians were a product of the intellectual environment in the
UK and in Europe broadly of the intellectual bankruptcy of

(01:26:48):
the West, Socialism was very strong and has deep roots
in England. This is why, you know, Carl Marx found it,
you know, established his home there and did much of
his writing in the British Museum, in the British Library.
So the United Kingdom is dominated by the same intellectual forces.

(01:27:11):
And it's those intellectual forces that would have shaped the
Labor Party and ultimately the Conservative Party. And you know,
and one of the so the mess that the UK's
in today is a consequence of those intellectual forces over
the last one hundred plus years. And if you had

(01:27:32):
a pinpoint who's faulted is, you'd have to say that
the real issue, the real issue is that there was
never an alternative. The real issue in the UK and

(01:27:53):
in the US and everywhere really is what's the alternative
to the left? A pathetic conservative movement that wants to
conserve what what does it want to conserve tradition? Why So,
the really the state of the UK right now, in

(01:28:14):
the state of the world in many respects, is that
there was no real capitalist political party. There's no political
party that stands up for individual rights. There's no political
party that stands up for free markets. There's no political
party that stands up for liberty and freedom. You have
wishy washy conservatives who kind of believed in free markets

(01:28:39):
and kind of believed in individual rights and kind but
kind of means they didn't and they couldn't compete for
violating rights with the socialists, so they had to lose
in the end. You know, look at bars Johnson. He
had this overwhelming majority and couldn't do it anything. Couldn't
do anything because he's a statist. He's not is not

(01:29:01):
a freedom lover. So you can't get a freedom of
loving government from a non freedom loving intellectual and political party.
So the real cause of the current situation is that
the Labor Party is never really faced opposition, maybe with
the short with the exception of Margaret Thatcher for a

(01:29:25):
very short period of time, Andrew. One of the things
Ali is doing is promoting and growing a corpus of
works that a genius can use to propel their own work.
A few principal geniuses could launch objectivism and change the

(01:29:46):
world faster than we think. I hope, So I hope,
so that you know, the geniuses are born all the time,
in a sense of the war talent, the war machinery.
You need a culture that noishes them, and we don't
have such a culture. So I don't know what happens

(01:30:10):
to those geniuses, but let's hope some of them discover
Irand and help us move it into a dominant position
in the culture. All right, let's see how we're doing
shipping away at it, but very slowly, and it's going
to be difficult. We've got half an hour, twenty nine minutes,
We've got I don't know, fifteen questions or so, and

(01:30:33):
we've got two hundred dollar. We've got to raise two
hundred dollars. So any if you out there can do
fifty dollars one hundred dollars, that would help a lot,
help a lot, help us get to where we need
to be in terms of the goal for the show.
Super Chat or stick up, any of those would be great. Kim,

(01:30:55):
Why do some people brainwash themselves with religion? Religion never
appeal to me. I don't know why. You know, it's
it's it's it's it's what everybody around them does, it's
what they're raised with. It's there's a sense in which
it's easy if you don't want to take responsibility for
your own life and use your own mind. Religion never

(01:31:19):
appealed to me either. I was an atheist at aged
six and never looked back. Never looked back for a second.
Listen to waffles of pancakes? Which is better? I think
probably pancakes, but you know, I don't like some pancakes

(01:31:39):
have to be like interesting pancakes I don't know, made
of not just plain white flowers, something something of interest.
I had some really good pancakes made from I don't know,
sweet potato or something something like that. They were really
good in in Lisbon. But yeah, I prefer I prefer pancakes,
but I don't eat any of them because i've been

(01:32:04):
low COB for the last twenty five years or twenty
not twenty five. I've been low COB probably twenty two
or three years, and so I don't eat pancakes or waffles.
I have to admit that though in Italy I'm eating
pasta and I'm eating a lot of bread. I'll have
to go on a massive diet when I get home.

(01:32:26):
Cut all that out of my thing. I'm white about
blood sugar, and all my blood numbers are going to
be freaking out from my trip to Europe, particularly Italy, Italy, Italy.
It's very it's very difficult to eat in Italy healthy
in Italy, I find, I mean Florence. Every second, every

(01:32:48):
restaurant's steakhoups be stick up bestick a la Florentine. We've
eaten amazing steaks, maybe the best steaks of our lives
here in but too many, too many steaks, much meat,
and then pizza and then pasta and then and then
cheese to flaze and uh, I mean, I can't even

(01:33:09):
I don't even want to know what my cholesterol and
all those other numbers are right now. And the bread
is really good, really good bread. I mean not all bread.
I mean two restaurants today and the bread was like
really bad, But then another restaurant bread is really good.
So I mean, yeah, when the bread here is good,

(01:33:30):
it's really good. So I'm trying to so once we
get back to Puerto Rico, I'll go on my usual diet,
which is no dessert, no bread, no pasta, very little
cheese meats, but but but not overdoing it on not

(01:33:51):
overdoing it on red meat. All right, h the cinder says,
let's get to this goal and she put fifty euro
into that, so she's serious. So come on, guys, somebody
should be able to match less Cinder's passion in deep pockets.
And we're only one hundred and forty three dollars away,

(01:34:14):
maybe one hundred and forty forty one dollars away from
our goal now. So Michael, the only reason the video
went viral with the Ukrainian goal was due to racism.
While violent crime is overwailed down, this country has become
more explositly racist. Well, I mean, that's part of it,
but the other part of what was how how scary

(01:34:37):
it was, how just brutal it was. And in a
culture where we used to seeing that in movies and
video games, to see something that really happened, people are
fascinating by that, and they watch stuff like that, you know,
the whole I guess networks of people who watch snuff

(01:34:59):
videos now videos are created for them. But videos online
are people dying from wars from these cameras on, you know,
and crime scenes and things like that. There are a
lot of sick people out there. But then there's just
a lot of curiosity out there about violence. People like
to watch violence, and I do think the country's more

(01:35:24):
racist now than it was twenty years ago. And I
think the reason for that is that the left became
racist really in numbers about fifteen years ago. The left
has become more and more and more racist over the
last fifteen years, at least until BLM. Maybe that's down

(01:35:46):
a little bit now. And the right responded, as I
said during BLM, you want to play the race card,
the right will play right back at you. So racism
on the right has increased dramatically. I think over the
last twenty years, racism on the right was going away
or declining significantly, and it has come back in space

(01:36:07):
now It's always been there. There's always been racism in
this country. But I think it is true that the
country is more racist now than in a long time,
in a long term. And it's both sides. And that's
not Bodhism, it's just both sides. Gulagh, it's a weird name.
How do you stop the election of authoritarians in a democracy?

(01:36:28):
How do you ensure the preservation of individual rights if
some loom could be voted in? Well, I mean you
do that with a strong constitution. And I think we
can learn from the last two hundred and fifty years
of a Constitution of republic in the United States on
how to make the constitution even stronger than it is.

(01:36:50):
We haven't had an authoritarian to a large extent because
of our constitution. So you reject democracy, you embrace constitutionalism
and republicanism, but ultimately the only way to eliminate authoritarianism
is to reserve a freak society, is to restrict politics

(01:37:16):
to such a narrow band of human life that they
are very little power over us. And it's not attractive
to the power lusters because there's very little power to get.
Because the Constitution explicitly negates so much of what today's

(01:37:39):
politicians do. It needs to negate. So if you had
a separation of state from economics, and state from science,
and state for education, and state from ideas, then you know,
Congress would meet once a year for three months. Maybe

(01:37:59):
there would be super weak. Everything would go through Congress.
They'd be a Supreme Court that was very activist in
a sense of knocking stuff down if they even sniffed
something non again going against the Constitution, and it wouldn't
become an attractive place to be, and those of principles
would then be imposed on state governments, and state governments

(01:38:21):
would not be allowed to violate the constitution either. That's
part of the lesson of the constitutions, So the states
wouldn't be violating your rights. And that's the only way.
If you have a pure democracy, you can't stop it.
A pure democracy will always descend into a mixed economy.
We'll always, therefore descend into a gang wolfare between pressure

(01:38:42):
groups and who can grab more stuff because the stuff
is just available, because democracy allows you to take from
some and give to others, and it turns into a
partisan gang wolfare existence, which can only then be rectified
and settled and calm down within a thebitarian So yes,

(01:39:06):
democracy will lead always to thebitarianism. Real democracy, you have
to limit democracy. You have to limit the power of
government as much as possible. Vikrum Baja. A few days
ago you said that buying gold was a world is
going to crash hedge, but that you didn't think we

(01:39:29):
were quite there yet. I hold a good chunk of
gold ETFs. The momentum in gold is being great in
my portfolio. I think more upside is left. Yet your thoughts, well,
first you have to realize that ETFs are not a
hedge against the world ending, because when the world ends,
when things go really, really, really bad, it'll be very

(01:39:52):
hard to in a sense, get the value out of
that paper that you hold, Whereas if you old gold,
actual gold bars and actual gold coins, then those will
become real currency. They'll have real value when the crash comes,

(01:40:15):
if the crash is really really end of the worldish
type crash. I get that it's been a great investment,
good for you, good for anybody who's made money off
of good for people who invested in a bitcoin and
made a lot of money off food. I don't know
what the foundation of it is, other than kind of

(01:40:36):
end of the world scenarios, you know, hyperinflation or World
War III or things like that. So I don't know
how to value I don't know how to value gold
any more than you know. I can value it a
little bit better than I can value bitcoin, but not much.

(01:40:56):
So I don't know if it has more upside. I
have no idea. Now. Is uncertainly going to continue? Yes?
Does the price of gold benefit from uncertainty? Yes, so
in that sense they might be upside in the sense
that I think as long as Trump is a president,
and maybe well, beyond that, we will be living on
the cusp of some cataclysmic events of great uncertainty. And

(01:41:24):
that's good for gold. But if Trump calms down because
he's getting old, or because he's in his latter part
of his second term, or if you know, somebody else
comes to be president and thinks, then gold could be
worth a lot less than it is right now, a
lot less as people sell gold and move their funds

(01:41:45):
into productive assets. Ultimately, productive assets is where you want
to be ultimately in the long run, productive assets or
what produce wealth. Gold doesn't produce wealth. And in fact,
that gold has gone up so much so quickly, it
doesn't make any sense wealth is not being destroyed elsewhere
by that amount. So I'd worry, you know, given the

(01:42:11):
run up, maybe it's time to sell. I certainly wouldn't
re up all right, all in, Uh, tell us more
about the great work arts you've seen in Florence. I'm
gonna do a show on it, and hopefully I've had
photographs to show you. But yeah, I mean, every day

(01:42:34):
every day we go to a different museum, every day
we go to a different place and see great artworks.
It's it's been truly amazing. Today we were at the
Palazzo Vecchio but Lotso Vichio, which is an amazing palace.
It's where the the the flaunting government was run from
and ultimately when when it became a dutchery, when the

(01:42:56):
Casino de Medici became the Duke, that it became his
home in a sense. It's also adjacent to the Fizi,
and there's a secret passageway where the Medicis could go
to the Fizi where they had all the art. But
the palace itself has a lot of art. It has

(01:43:19):
one Michelangelo original almost complete, not complete. I'd say seventy
five percent complete, maybe less, maybe sixty five percent complete.
Sculpture there was supposed to be a part of the
of Julius, Pope Julius's tomb. It also had a bunch
of paintings by Frescos and wood paintings on wood on

(01:43:41):
the ceiling. So I got a stiff nick by Vasari.
Vesari is well known as being the historians, a historian
of art of Venice, he wrote the first biographies of
the great artists of Michelangelo, of the great artists of
the Renaissance. Anyway, he was also a painter and a sculptor,
and he painted much of it, and a lot of
it was quite beautiful, quite amazing. And you know, this

(01:44:05):
trip I discovered I really really like Philipo Leapy. Philipo
Leapy a Renaissance artist, very influenced by uh but Chelli.
But yeah, but Philippe Leppy almost all did all religious
religious paintings. But but they're really beautiful, really beautiful. I've

(01:44:29):
gained gained added appreciation, always had it, but even a
great appreciation for Renaissance art. Uh and and U and
its beauty and its diversity and uh and what you
can do. You know, yesterday we saw Donnatello's David, Donna
Tello's David. Here's an interesting fact for you. Donna Tello's

(01:44:50):
David is the first sculpture in the West, in Western
civilization to be uh you know in the Roald that
is you could you could view it for three undre
and sixty degrees and uh, fully naked. So it's a

(01:45:10):
you know, it's since it's not the first right since
Roman Empire. So for about a thousand years, the Christians
didn't allow for nudity. And he were talking about malen
nudity didn't allow penis to appear in a sculpture or painting.
And suddenly, once don Otello put a penis on David

(01:45:31):
and portrayed him naked for the first time since the Romans,
a sculpture of a naked man. Uh naked men. Sculptures
of naked men exploded in France, and it was stunning,
how many, how many sculptures at the ballots of Vacuo,

(01:45:51):
of naked men wrestling, naked men doing all kinds of things.
And you know, one of the sculptures was pretty I'll
show it. I show you a photo of it. You know,
one guy has the other guy by the balls literally
he's holding and his you know, penis is floating about.
It's just it's amazing that they had no qualms about this.

(01:46:13):
This is Christian Florence in the fifteenth century, fifteenth century,
and you can actually tell a sculpture or painting when
it's from the middle of the sixteenth century because the
penises disappear. It's not gay, they're fighting. What are you

(01:46:34):
talking about? And even if it is gay. Yeah, So
in the sixteenth century, mid sixteenth century, penises disappear because
as part of the counter Reformation, the answer to the
Gothic answer to Luther, they cover up the unity, they

(01:46:57):
go back to being Ristian Puritans. So there's one hundred
period about one hundred years where nudity is allowed and then.

Speaker 3 (01:47:10):
It then.

Speaker 1 (01:47:14):
It goes away again. It really is fascinating. By the way,
Luther hated. One of the things he hated about the
Catholics is they allowed the Renaissance. So the Protestants were
super Puritan. And that's why. You know, art flourished in
the South and didn't really flourish until much later, and
when it did, it was very restrained. It's only broke through.

(01:47:38):
It only art only painting. Its cauled to only break
through from the restraints placed on it by the Reformation
in the nineteenth century, you know, secular era where religion
is sateline. Anyway, that's a little bit art history art
theory from Uran. I'll talk more about that. I'll do
a Mamerzoni show about Florence with pictures. Marius. Are you

(01:48:02):
aware of the CCP amassing a lot of gold and
daily increasingly yuon instead of dollars? Yes, But the reality
is they're not going to go on a gold standard
eight because that will take control. That would reduce the
control the central government house over money, and that's the
last thing they want. And b there's only so many

(01:48:23):
countries in the world that are willing to trade with
China with yuon because the reality is that nobody trusts them,
nobody trusts the Chinese Dominippiliad currency. So the dollar is
not safe because the dollar is good. The dollar is
safe is because everybody else is crazier than the Americans,

(01:48:44):
at least for now now. The dollars declining in values
declined a lot this year because of Trump, almost ten percent,
and it is likely to continue to decline. I just
don't see collapsing, which is that is a world switching
to reserve councy of the Yuon. I just don't see that.
But again, not because the dollars good, certainly not under Trump,
but because people distrust China even more than they distrust

(01:49:09):
the United States. Andrew constant political declarations of emergency would
be checked in irrational society. But a society of emotionalists
constantly fall for constantly fall for them. Irrationalists are home
with the feeling of panic. Yes, I mean they love

(01:49:29):
the declaration emergency. It confirms their sense of life. It
confirms their sense of panic. It confirms the badness of
the world, and they they run from it. So, yes,
the irrationality, panic, emergency, catastrophizing, all of that goes together.

(01:49:52):
The more we teach our kids not to think, the
more they become emotionalists, the more they fear, the more
tribe ills they become, the more scared they become, the
more tribalists they become, the more scared they become. It's
not the opposite of a virtual circle, a circle of vice.

(01:50:15):
Vedim one hundred dollars. Thank you for them, really really
appreciate that. Thank you. So now we're only seven dollars
away from our goal. Can you help clarify a confusion
about Mallory the sculptor in the Fountain? Was his error
in thinking that one can fight ideas with force? Was
that what Rand was trying to illustrate, Well, yes, I

(01:50:38):
mean that you know, the idea that forces how you
change the world when the world is being driven by
bad ideas and there's no way for you to do that.
She's also challenging his malevolent universe premise, the premise that
he cannot be successful in this world, that this world

(01:51:01):
is not made for him that he had that his
own result is violence because because the world is you know,
can never he can never be successful in this world.
I mean, there's a real similarity between Mallory and Dominique.

(01:51:22):
But yeah, she was definitely trying to illustrate that you
cannot fight ideas with force. But she was also trying
to illustrate the dead end, the falsehood of a malevolent universe,
premise of of of of of of that it leads

(01:51:43):
to force and therefore leads to a dead end, and
that what you need is is the self esteem, the
courage and the commitment to fight them, but not fight
them physically, fight them ideologically, and fight them with your work,
not give up on your work, do the opposite. Thanks

(01:52:06):
for they really appreciate the support, Linda. Thanks for the support.
There was a sticker, all right, Andrew. It takes self
esteem to admire the admirable Trump. Worship is not an
example of that. But admiring objectively great qualities in people
is the rational psychological response and ought to be a

(01:52:30):
pleasant experience. Thoughts. Yes, absolutely, I mean too many in
our too many in our culture lacks self esteem. Few
people who deserve to be admired with fear, or they
view them as a threat. I can never be as
great as that. Therefore I must present that whereas somebody

(01:52:54):
with self esteem goes, I can be as great as
I can be. If somebody else is greater, or somebody
else has done more, achieve greater things, made more money,
solve more problems, good for them, that's fantastic. I admire
that in them, and to the extent that that can
help me get better. I'm going to be better. I'm

(01:53:15):
going to be the best version of me. But you see,
a person who self esteem doesn't envy and it doesn't
resent those who achieve more. Quite the contrary, They identify
the positive qualities, They celebrate them because they know it's
the same qualities in them that allows them to achieve,

(01:53:36):
and second, to the extent that they can emulate those qualities.
But that those qualities in somebody else's success is never
a threat to them. It's the opposite. It benefits them
in one way or the other. It's a win win
worle in that sense, it's a benevolent world. Somebody else's achievements,
if they're real or benefit to you, not a threat

(01:53:56):
to you. They don't take from you. The world does
not zero sum. There's a dichotomy. MAGA is so delusional.
Is there even a path back for a generation? Plus
the magas I know think violence is only on the left,
gloss over any right violence. Yeah, I mean for them,

(01:54:19):
I don't think there is a future. I think the
kind of dead ends they might get if Trump is
a big failure and false flat on his face, they
might get disillusioned with politics and exit politics for a while.
It's hard to tell, but remember my MAGA is still
a minority in this country. It's probably twenty percent, probably

(01:54:39):
less committed mega, probably less than that. Some of them
will switch if the culture switches, and some of them
will just disappear. But yeah, there's no way back for them,
and if they come to dominate, there's no way back
for the culture. Andrew, Why is right more animated than

(01:55:04):
left by the one drugs? Well, because the right is
always more interested in what you do with yourself, So
the left is what is much more interested in what
you do in groups across society. The right is more
interestate in what you do with yourself. So the right
cares about your sex life, and the right cares about

(01:55:27):
whether you take drugs, and the right cares about whether
you have kids. The right once they impose its morality,
so I don't even put it this way. The Right
thinks the material world is meaningless. The only thing that
matters is the spiritual world, and the only thing that
matters is the spiritual life that leads to afterlife, because

(01:55:50):
this life is useless. The material world doesn't matter. So
you can be free in the material world. We don't care.
You want freedom, You want to be capitalist in the
material world, go fit. Who cares? But when it comes
to what's important, the spiritual stuff, uh uh, you can't
do that. You can't enjoy life. You know. Part of

(01:56:10):
what they hate about drugs is that people do makes
people feel good. And you know, they want to be
able to run people's lives spiritually. They want to run
people's lives. The left is materialist from Mars. They don't
care about the spiritual world. You want to believe, you
want to do this, you wanna, you wanna, you wanna

(01:56:31):
all the personal stuff. Who cares? They care about the
physical world, They care about the economy. They care about
the material stuff, and that's too important to leave the
individuals and the markets that has to be controlled. They
want to control that. So each party wants to control
what they view is important. The right views your life

(01:56:52):
is an individual is important, and therefore they want to
control it. Liscinda, let's reach a super chat goal if
you want, we did. Thank you, listener, you really helped
get us there. Listener did a fifty euro let's get

(01:57:13):
to this goal. And yeah, so listen definitely helped us
get there. As the economy, Destiny did condemn the murder
on his own stream. Well, that's good, he was. He
just won't do it when debating Maga, who won't condemn?
January sixth, Pelosi attack, et cetera. Tired of conceding. Fine,

(01:57:35):
that's a more reasonable position, Vince. Regarding tariffs, even though
Trump doesn't specifically advocate for it, are towns or sanctions
effective tools for combating intellectual property theft by companies like
Timo and Ali Express, No, they're not. The effective way

(01:57:56):
of handling intellectual property theft is if they stolen intellectual property.
If Timo stole intellectual property, then the products that are
built based on that intellectual property should be banned from
sale in the United States, not taxed. Why should the
American people pay because the Chinese pay a tax because

(01:58:19):
the Chinese stole intellectual property from somebody. But if it's
a if it's a property theft, and a court of
a law should declare that these products were a consequence
of a theft of intellectual property, and therefore that court
of law should ban the sale of those products in

(01:58:40):
the United States. That's how you deal with intellectual property theft.
You don't deal with it at the level of government.
You deal with it as theft, and you have a remedy.
And tariffs are never, ever, ever, ever an excuse for anything.

(01:59:00):
They're not a found policy tool. They're not any tool.
If you want, if you want, if you don't want
to trade with China, have an embargo band trade with China.
But tariffs are tax on Americans. Why would you taxt
Americans if you want to penalize China. That's true, China
suffers as well, But why penalize Americans? That makes China suffer?
End it all, right, Blaze guitar lessons. How do you

(01:59:25):
see in the US and twenty three years? I don't know.
I mean, I can see three scenarios, I guess, But
this is a cop out right three scenarios. Once America
is in authoritarian state, there's basically somebody in Washington who
runs the country. We still have elections, but them phenomenal.
Maybe maybe they're rigged. Maybe we effectively have a one

(01:59:49):
party system. We look more like Russia looks today, or
Russia looked even ten years ago, where you know, oligocks
and a president who has a lot of power a week,
a weak legislature and in a Supreme court just hanging on.

(02:00:10):
But basically it's athbitarianism, even though it's still the guise
of some kind of constitutional government. The second option is
we just we just somehow peter along here, and you
know the pendulum theory. We get a little bit better
and then a little bit worse, and generally it's worse,
and we have stagnation and we're not growing, but nothing

(02:00:32):
dramatic happens. Right, We're not a thebitarian yet we still
have a lot of the appearances of a free country.
And then the third is we're at the beginning of
our real intellectual revolution where capitalism is on the right.

(02:00:54):
Liscinder says, my girlfriend is going to study abroad in
Florence soon. Any recommendations of places for her to visit there.
Oh yeah, I mean send me an email and I'll
send you a list. I mean it's it's way too
long for me than to do it here. But yeah,
I mean all the museums, all the classic places, all
the churches or the big churches. If your girlfriend likes

(02:01:18):
loves the arts. I mean this is heaven here. So churches, museums. Yeah,
I mean, send me an email and send you a list.
All right, final question. I guess it's a full part
of Raymond. In China, they have a love hate relationship

(02:01:43):
with Western goods. They idealize Apple and Nike as a
sign of their sophistication and hate it as imperialism and
want to domesticate it. The previous Kim sent people to
Beijing for McDonald's. The Saudi, these Russians, Emirates share this love.
What is going on here? How powerful would it be

(02:02:07):
for boycott, for a boycott to producers to force them
to buy Chinese knockoffs and deny them the mall sanctioned?
Den I who the mall sanction? How powerful would it
be to boycott the producers to force them to buy
Chinese knockoffs? I don't know who we're talking about. Don't
let them pretend they are civilized with iPhones and have

(02:02:30):
them know they are the bad guys. Are they all
bad guys? I mean? Is the hardwarkie engineer in Beijing
who's saving money up and starting a family and wants
to have an iPhone because it's cool and it's the
best tool available out there. Is he a bad guy?

(02:02:56):
Should he be denied the ability to have an iPhone
because his government sucks? I don't know. I'm not sure
that's true. If China is a little military threats to
the United States, if we think we're going to go
to war with China, then yeah, we can embargo them.

(02:03:17):
But even then, you know that embargo would probably tip
everything towards a war. Is that the best thing we
can do right now? And if it's not, then why
not let private companies and private individuals decide who to
buy farm and when to buy, who to sell to
and when to sell. If Apple wants to sell it
to China, let them sell to China with all the

(02:03:39):
risks associated with that. They might steal your intellectual property.
They might do this, They might do that. Apple know this,
and we in the American government are not going to
go to war to protect you. Okay, let them sell it.
But the hardworking Chinese person is not the bad guy
the government is. And you're not penalizing the government. If
you embargo a country, you're preventing the people from enjoying

(02:04:00):
the fruits of their labor. So it's not clear to
me that that is the right strategy, and that would
be ideal. I think again, the only people who should
be emboggoed, who you should not trade with, are your
explicit enemy, people you expect to go to war with,

(02:04:23):
and I think they're only I think there's three right now.
I think there's Iran, North Korea, and Russia. I don't
think China yet qualifies. It's close, and it could qualify
pretty quickly. And Apple better be ready for the day
when American decides that you should not be able to

(02:04:46):
trade with China. But I don't think we're there, and
I yeah, Apple makes way too much money in China.
Blaze guitar lessons. Do you think Milaba will win reelection?
It's a tough call. I don't know. It really depends
what happens in the next two years. I mean, he
will win the election is in two years. How will

(02:05:08):
they do in parliamentary election next week? I wish I
had somebody from Argentina I could talk to. I don't know.
I think he'll do okay but not great. I think
he'll do okay but not great, and that'll set him back,
but it won't completely destroy him. And then the question
is what can he do in the next two years

(02:05:30):
and how will that affect his chances are getting re elected?
All right, guys, that is the show for Wednesday, September seventeenth.
As I expect, we will have a show tomorrow. It'll
probably be at four pm tomorrow, maybe three thirty, three

(02:05:52):
thirty or four tomorrow. Then we'll have a show on Friday.
That one will be earlier, probably three, and no show Saturday,
probably a show Sunday. I'll try I'll try to do
a show Sunday, and we're going to try to do
a show Monday, and then no shows for the rest
of the week. Going to see an opera on Sunday,

(02:06:14):
The pro Fishers, Beze's pro Fishers. It's quite beautiful. I've
never seen it on stage, and it's not one of
those operas I've heard many times, but the little I've
heard it's been really good. And yeah, and we've got
one more museum we have to get to, probably to tomorrow.

(02:06:35):
We're going to the Museum of the Duomo, that is
the main cathedral in It's got another Michael Angelo, so
that'll cover us. We'll have seen all the mikeel Angelos
in Florence. And then I do want to go on
Friday one last time to go see David. I have
to say goodbye to David, so on Friday I expect

(02:06:57):
to go and see David less Well. One final question
from Andrew talk about self esteem and lack of envy.
Francisco was in level Dagny but recognized that Gold was superior. Well,
I don't know if superior is the right word. It's
not the right word. Rand would never use that word.
He recognized that that you know that Dagne won, the

(02:07:25):
Gold won, and that gold was in some sense more worthy,
and you know that the Dagnes's response to Gold was
more intense, more significant than her response to him. But
I would never call superior. That's not the right word.
So yeah, I mean Rand Rand recognizes in pretty much

(02:07:50):
every one of her novels that you can love more
than one person, you can fall in love with more
than one person, that you can love people in different
ways in a sense. She also noticed she she's the
anti Puritan when he comes to sex. Her female characters
have sex with multiple partners in her novels, in all

(02:08:11):
the novels with the Living fountain Head and Atlas shrug.
But yeah, it's you know, love is the person responds
and clearly DIAGNI responded more to Gold than to him,
and he understood that. And since he loved Gold, he

(02:08:33):
understood what she saw in him. And I think if
the reverse that happened, Gold would have understood it too.
Even though Francisco is not quote superior, So the whole
superior thing goes out the window because of that. Wait,
thanks guys, they're not superior. They each amazing great even

(02:08:58):
if Gold Gold just has something, you know, he's a
face that never recognized pain or fear or something like that.
I can't regard the exact quote right when she first
sees him in the valley that Francisco doesn't have, even
though Francisco has had this amazing life. Thank you, guys,

(02:09:20):
Thank you to the super chatters. Thanks everybody else. I
will see you all tomorrow, have a great rest of
your week. Bye everybody,

All Episodes

Radicalization, Assassination & The Real Threat to Freedom | Yaron Brook Show

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist

Crime Junkie

Stuff You Should Know

.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;}Radicalization, Assassination & The Real Threat to Freedom | Yaron Brook Show