America First or Dictator’s Plaything? Trump, Putin & the Fight for a Rational Foreign Policy

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:08):
Fundamental principles of freedom, raational self interest and individual rights.
This is the Uran Brook Show. Oh right, everybody, welcome
to your one book show. And this what is it?
It's Sunday, Sunday, August seventeenth, and I am still as

(00:32):
you can tell, in Lisbon, Portugal, and I will say
this is the price of doing a show on Sunday.
I just discovered something when I came in this evening
into my office here in Lisbon, and that is that
I'm pretty sure they turn the air conditioning off on
the weekends. So I don't know about you guys, but Europeans.

(00:57):
There must be some Europeans listening to me. AC is good. It.
Conditioning is a life sustaining value. It should be always on.
You know. I'm willing to pay a little bit more rent,
just keep the frigging AC on. It is so hot

(01:21):
in here. It's been ninety outside all day and I
don't know what the temperature is in here, but I
am sweating. So if I start getting undressed during the show,
you will know why. And uh yeah, frustrating, hot, hot,
hot hot. Anyway, all right, thank you guys for joining

(01:44):
me on the Sunday and I appreciate it, and we will.
We're going to be talking about I was debating what
we're going to talk about today, and the reality is
that the Trump Putin thing is too good to not
talk about out. But I wanted to put it in
a wider framework, in a wider context, which is, I

(02:04):
think the principles that should guide a rational farm policy,
and in particular in America first farm policy. Of the
other principles I think would apply to any country up
to a point. We can talk about the difference between
America and other countries in America and a and a
small country. But yeah, I mean what happened yesterday with

(02:25):
Trump and Putin, which is too good not to talk
about today. And tomorrow there'll be plenty to talk about
because tomorrow we've got Zelenski in on it. So tomorrow
Zelensky is coming to Washington, d C. And here's the thing.
It went so badly on Friday. It was such an
utter defeat and humiliation for the Americans that Zelenski and

(02:52):
and and in the Europeans are convinced the Trump is
gonna go ballistic on Zelenski that what came out of
Friday is clearly a Putin victory, and and and and
Trump sighting with Putin, and they are really, really, really worried.

(03:14):
I mean, they're worried about the meeting between Putin and Trump,
but now they're really worried about this meeting between Zelenski
and Trump, and and the fact that Trump will try
to bully Zelensky in a sense what Putin did to Trump,
Trump will now do try to do to Zelenski. Uh.

(03:34):
And they're petrified. And as a consequence of that, uh,
they're sending a whole.

Speaker 2 (03:41):
Entourage to Washington, d C.

Speaker 1 (03:44):
Not only is Zelenski coming to the White House, but
we have a list of people who are going to
join him, starting with European Commissioner President Osila von de
ld Light Leon Leon, Vanda Leon, something like that. She

(04:04):
will be joining President Zelensky. In addition, Secretary General of NATO,
you know, the guy who called Trump Daddy or something
like that, Mark Root r Root something like that. You
you uh uh, you know, the Dutch out they can
can correct my pronunciation, will also be joining Zelensky. But

(04:30):
that's not all. The President of the Republic of France,
Imanol McCaughan is getting on a plane and flying tomorrow
to Washington, d C. To be in the meeting with Zelensky.
I think he hopes so, though it's not clear he's
going to be invited. And that's not all. German Chancellor

(04:54):
Frederick Wurtz is going to join as well. I mean, yeah,
I don't know who else. I mean, all we need
now is Greta. Greta should come, Your PM should send
their best. This is how afraid they are of Trump

(05:15):
bullying Zelebski is that they are selling sending all their
big hitters to Washington, d C. To help him and
support him and help him confront confront Trump. It's not
clear how many of them are going to be allowed
into the meeting, although I find it hard to believe

(05:36):
that if Mertz and Macon and Lutt and lay In
are all going to be there, they're not going to
be in a meeting, or they're not going to be
in the White House. I think somewhere else I read
that maybe even the President of Finland will come because
he has a good rapport supposedly with with Trump, so
he might come. It's this is this is all out

(05:58):
a full court press, as they say in basketball on
on Trump. Maybe maybe, maybe with this amount of support
for Zelenski, Trump will actually grow some balls. I don't
know it, probably not. Maybe during the meeting he'll give
in to them and then return to his ball less

(06:21):
regular existence. But wow, uh well, maybe Starmer will also join.
I don't know if Storm was going to make the trip.
I don't know what. How you know how good his
relationship is? Uh and uh yeah, uh.

Speaker 2 (06:42):
This is quite something.

Speaker 1 (06:44):
And and basically what this tells you is how badly
the meeting on Friday went. And and as I said
at the time, I predicted this, I said, you know,
you know, Trump didn't have an agenda going into the meeting.
He didn't know what he want to achieve. He is
not a strategic thinker. He cannot play three D, never

(07:06):
mind four or five D anything. He went into the
meeting assuming that his charm and his I don't know,
gravitas will influence Putin to give Trump something. And the
one thing Trump wanted, and Trump seemingly went into the meeting,

(07:26):
which is grew one thing was the ceasefire that Putin
put off the table completely. So that now if you
listen to Marco Rubio over the weekend and you listen
to Trump himself for the weekend. Now they're anti ceasefire.
They don't want to cease fire.

Speaker 2 (07:42):
They want to peace steal all the way.

Speaker 1 (07:44):
No ceasefire in the meantime, which is what Putin has
always said. And basically Trump completely capitulated on what seemingly
is the one thing that he went into the meeting
wanting to achieve. Putin basically didn't bend on anything. He
wants all four provinces. The land swap is not the

(08:07):
two southern provinces that link up to Crimea, that that
that Russia has conquered from Ukraine. It's not those two provinces.
Russia has tiny little bits of land near Sumai and
near Kakiv that they're willing to give up if they
get the rest of Dunbas and the rest of Luhansk.
They've got basically all of Luhans, so the rest of Dumns.

(08:30):
So Ukraine is going to give up their strategic positions.
And in Uh don't ask to get slightly pieces of
land that they're not even worth fighting for in Sumei
and Uh and Kakiv. I mean, I don't have a
map here with me. But it's absurd, puts In Winter

(08:54):
at the whole thing, both in the press conference and
his meeting with Trump, about the source of the Ukrainian conflict,
the real problem between Ukraine and Russia, and the real problem,
the source of the problem is that Ukraine's not Russian,
that Ukraine should be part of Russia. Again, Trump is

(09:19):
not Putin has not given up anything he wants Ukraine,
and he might take these four provinces for now, but
he will demand a change in regime in Ukraine. He's
going to demand that it'd be weakened militarily. He might
agree to some to some kind of soft what do

(09:39):
you call it, security guarantee, But Ukrain already has a
security guarantee from the United States over the nineteen ninety
six giving up nuclear weapons, and Putin knows this, and
he knows the security guarantee without joining NATO is actually worthless. America,
particularly under Trump, is not going to send troops to
Ukraine to fight Russia. Ever, It's just not happening. So

(10:04):
Putin has nothing to lose. They're saying, yeah, okay, you
can do some kind of security guarantee, but they can
join NATO, because he knows NATO troops will actually be
sent in inevery respect and talk about principles. One of
the principles of feign policy is you don't you don't

(10:26):
negotiate with evil. You do not negotiate with evil unless
it's for this surrender, unless it's for fundamental change towards
becoming good. But you don't negotiate with evil. And when
you do, you lose. And when you give evil, I

(10:50):
don't know credit. When you give evil a pedestal, when
you give evil, you know, the honor and respect and friendship,
then you are going to be eaten alive, which is
what Trump gave him.

Speaker 2 (11:10):
So red carpet.

Speaker 1 (11:12):
You saw the photos of uish troops on the ground,
on their knees rolling out the red carpet in front
of Putin. Uh, you give him red carpet.

Speaker 2 (11:22):
You you you greet him.

Speaker 1 (11:24):
Warmly with with I mean, think about how Trump greets
people generally. I mean, he shook his hand, he smiled,
He patted him on the on the kind of on
the shoulder. Uh. Putin patted it in back. Then again
counted the protocol. Putin got into the limo with Trump,
not a separate limo with Trump, and then again counter

(11:48):
to protocol when the press confidence which wasn't a press conference,
It was just a statement of the press happened. Putin
spoke first. Usually the host speaks first and then Putin follows.
But no, Putin got the finary position, and he gave
the whole rant about, you know, correcting all the injustices

(12:11):
towards Russia. Trump didn't correct anything, He didn't oppose anything.
It doesn't disagree with anything. He just gave puts In
the stage. And then did they take any journalist questions? Well,
of course not. Putin doesn't want to take questions from
journalists in the West. Putin doesn't want to have to ask.
He doesn't want the questions to ask, never might have

(12:32):
to answer them. The luncheon was canceled. You know, Putin
got a photo op by laying some reefs at some
dead Russian's graves, crusted himself. I mean, he did the
whole thing. He got to present himself as a good Christian.
Just what a photo op for him. I mean, this

(12:54):
boosts his credibility dramatically in Russia and around the world.
It reast aablishes his position as a world leader, and
it makes America and Trump look tiny, not small tiny.
And what was the point. Why did Trump need this? Oh,

(13:17):
he wants to bring peace. He just cares about peace.
He wants the killing to stop. He doesn't like killing,
He's against killing. How can you accuse Trump of anything.
He just wants to bring peace to the world. You
don't bring peace to the world by capitulating to thugs.

(13:40):
You don't bring peace to the world by negotiating with monsters.
Fdr should have never met with Stalin. You don't. And
for that matter, Nixon should have never gone to China.
I mean, maybe open up to China. Nixon should have
never gone and shook the hands of mounts It. There's

(14:04):
nothing to be gained. I said this on Friday. There's
nothing to be gained and a lot to lose, a
lot to lose by bolstering evil, by making them stronger,
by making them more confident, and by showing your own weakness,
by showing your own weakness. And notice the things that
that Putin said, the things that he said. He didn't

(14:25):
say a lot of things, but the things that he said,
the things that he emphasized, and the things that Trump
said that Putin said, these are the things that matter.
They're talking about peace, and they're talking about negotiating about Ukraine.
And this is what Putin said, I would have never
started this war if Trump were president. Allow me to

(14:49):
laugh aloud. I mean Putin understands Trump to the te
He knows how to push his buttons. He he knows
how to get on his good site. He knows that
he's just bought himself a place in Mega Haven't and
Trump is going to be his best friend. Now, I

(15:10):
would have never started this war if Trump for president.
Why what would have been different? He's not going to
tell you. And then the second thing he said is,
you know, mail in ballots, mail in ballots. Everybody knows
the crooked and yeah, they're really bad and they're right

(15:34):
for fraud, and yeah, mail in ballots. That's why Trump
lost in twenty twenty. Since said that, talk about another button.
He's pushing another MAGA. He's going to become a mega
hero with this raid. All he has to do now
is talk about Jeffrey Epstein and talk about Pizzagate and
Peter Ophelia, and the guy is going to be enshrined

(15:55):
in the Mega Hall of Fame. Is maybe the next
president of the United States Trump, Let's go straight to Putin.
So Putin plays Trump like a fiddle. He knows exactly
which buttons, he knows how to get to his ego,
he knows how to please him, he knows how to
make as if he's his best friend. And what's Trump

(16:20):
gonna do? I mean, I wish we had a recording.
I wish we had a recording of what happened in
that meeting. But I can just see how, you know,
Trump would say stuff and Putin would just ignore it
and just go on in one of his you know,
historical lessons about the root causes of the war in

(16:43):
Ukraine and how Ukrainians are really Russians. By the way,
some of his demands are the Russian become an official
language in Ukraine. He's demanding that right as a part
of this peace deal. You know that the Russian Orthodox
Church has free reign in Ukraine. I mean, this is
the things that he cares about. He believes Ukraine is

(17:03):
part of Russia and as a piece of work, An,
are you really Scott? I wonder if Anne m is
actually Scott, because she's starting to sound exactly like Scott.
I mean, it really is amazing. She says, if these

(17:23):
are your leaders, are going to DC. They must think
a dealer's close. No, they're afraid of dealers close. They're afraid.
Trump is given away the whole shebang, and he's going
to force Zelensky into complete surrender, which is what Putin
demanded and what Trump basically accepted. Unbelievable, unbelievable that Anne

(17:55):
could think what she thinks. It's unbelievable to me how
Trump has gotten inside like a He's like a parasite
who gets into some people's brain and starts eating away
at it slowly and just turns them into these Trump
zombies where they just cannot conceive, they cannot hold, and

(18:16):
a position that suggests that Trump is wrong in any
kind of way, in any kind of way. It's just
it's it's it's like it really is like a like
a parasite that's eating away at your brain. I can
I get on certain issues, but this the reason the

(18:36):
Europeans are coming to d C is so obvious. The
failure of Trump to get anything from Putin was so
obvious that to spend this positively, god, I mean, it's
like the attempt to spend tariffs positively and a bunch
of other really really stupid things that Trump does. That's positive,

(19:00):
all right, anyway, I mean, remember how Trump greeted Zelensky
when they met. Remember how trumpets greets any European leader
or any other leader. And look at how he greeted Putin,

(19:21):
and how many how many leaders get met by Trump
at the at the train, sorry, at the train, at
the plane, red carpet, warmth, smiles, shakes touches. That just
doesn't happen.

Speaker 2 (19:40):
It's the seven happened.

Speaker 1 (19:41):
I mean, I mean, Trump has been always He's just
a Putin. I don't know what you call him. He's,
you know, he is to Putin what Anne is to Trump.
He's just a fan. He's a fanboy of Trump's, of Putin's,

(20:01):
and he treats him like that. It's it's astounding. And
I don't see how any everybody doesn't see it. I
really don't. I guess some of you don't see it,
but I don't quite understand how that is possible. All right,
So let's put this particular issue aside. God it's hot

(20:26):
in here, all right. It's with this particular issue aside,
and let's step back because, as I said, a principle,
and I think this is a principle I'm rand articulated
not it's on my principle of dealing with leaders of
other countries is you do not negotiate, You do not
compromise with evil. You do not deal with evil.

Speaker 2 (20:50):
She articulates this.

Speaker 1 (20:51):
And you know, in the anatomy of a compromise, the
only side to benefit from a compromise on principles is
the bad side, and there's nothing the good has to
gain from evil. And Putin is evil. Hopefully we can
agree with that, although and might not agree with me.

Speaker 2 (21:10):
Putin is evil.

Speaker 1 (21:13):
So that is I think a principle a phone policy.
Now we'll put this into context because that's a little floating.
So let's let's let's think about for a minute, because
phone policy is complicated, and how do we deal with Russia?
How do we deal with Russia in the context of
the invasion of Ukraine? How do we deal with Israel

(21:33):
and Hamas and and Gaza and Iran? And what about
Saudi Arabia? And what do we do with China? And
China is hard? And how do we.

Speaker 2 (21:42):
Deal with Taiwan? And what other responsibilities do we have?

Speaker 1 (21:48):
What what do we do with NATO?

Speaker 2 (21:50):
And what do we do with Australia.

Speaker 1 (21:52):
Do we have an alliance with Australia, Should we have
an alliance with Australia?

Speaker 2 (21:55):
How do we think about these things?

Speaker 1 (21:57):
What is the framework the determined how to think about
phone policy issues? And I will recommend Peter Schwartz has
a an excellent uh. I think it's a small book
on uh, you know, self interest in farm policy, which
I highly recommend, and I think it's available. I think

(22:19):
you can get it an Amazon. If not, you can
certainly get it through Diamond Institute. But it's it's a
small book on kind of the principles of of of
self interest has applied to phone policy. So here's I've
articulated a few that came to mind. If attempted a
little bit.

Speaker 2 (22:37):
Of a kind of a hier article.

Speaker 1 (22:39):
To call a hierarchy to it, presenting in a hierarchy,
and then we can talk about applications, and of course
that would be a great way for you to participate
with regard to super chats by just asking different applications
of this, how to apply to Taiwan, how to apply
to South Korea, how to play to whatever, to Gaza,

(23:00):
whatever you want to whatever you want to talk about,
and how do you apply it? This might applied America.
How does this play into small countries? Small countries might
not have an option but to negotiate with evil sometimes?
Is that true? You know? Why is that? You know?
And how do you how do you deal with that?
How do you deal with that? So let's talk about

(23:22):
what a farm policy looks like. And I'll start with
defending the idea of America first as the standard in
foreign policy, not America first, as Trump advocates for it,
as Trump promotes it, or is really as anybody in
the Trump administration really conceives of it, But America first,

(23:43):
as America first. That is a self interested foreign policy,
a thron policy. It takes the interests of America and
applies them. So the first principle is the role of
farm policy is the protection of American interest risks and
only American interests. Its selfishness is applied to the state.

Speaker 2 (24:11):
But what are American interests?

Speaker 1 (24:12):
And this is key. America's interests cannot be separate, and
they are not separate. The state has no interests separate
from the individual rights of Americans. If you think about
the American government, it's one role, one purpose. According to irand,

(24:37):
and there's some extent, although with not a full understanding
of what that meant. The understanding of the Fani fathers.
The role of government is.

Speaker 2 (24:46):
The protection of individual rights.

Speaker 1 (24:48):
At least that is clearly what is conveyed in the
Declaration of Independence. A little less so maybe in the Constitution.
So when I say American interests, that means the interests
of American individuals, the rights of American individuals.

Speaker 2 (25:08):
The protection of those rights.

Speaker 1 (25:10):
Goverment doesn't intervene in commercial transactions. It doesn't intervene in
a competition, It shouldn't intervene in trade. We'll talk about that.
All government does is protect rights. That's the fundamental. Everything

(25:31):
else is a derivative. So how do rights apply in
an international setting? Where they apply in the context that
you have countries that might violate Americans citizens' rights. They
can violate those rights by killing them, hijacking airplane, blowing

(25:54):
it up, and that could happen anywhere in the world.
They can violate them rights by invading the United States
and violating the property rights of Americans and they right
to life. They could violate those rights by stealing their property,

(26:15):
by confiscating, nationalizing their property, again, that could happen anywhere
in the world. So the responsibility of the American government
is basically a protection of the life and property of Americans. Now,
for example, does that mean that the American governments, you know,

(26:35):
needs to protect the right of Americans for free speech.
So they go to a country like England and they
say something anti Muslim and England you know, arrests them.
And the answer is, you know, probably not. Now, the

(26:56):
American embassy in England should do it or everything it can,
particularly in a case like this, to free the individual,
and and and should be there to support the individual,
particularly with regard to a you know, an issue, an
issue like free speech, and it I think should like

(27:17):
complaint with the Great Britain and and and uh, you know,
argue that this is a violation of rights, but this
is not something you go to woe for. And indeed,
you know, even among free countries, there has to be
an understanding among Americans that as they travel, they are

(27:41):
beholden to the law of the countries in which they travel.
So as long as it's within kind of the rule
of law in those countries, if an American has to
be taxes in those countries or even if through some
regulatory shenanigans, the country confiscates their property but it's within

(28:04):
the rule of law, then the US government, I think,
can protest, but would do very little about it. It
should make it understood to a citizens and as they
travel around the world they are beholden to the laws
of the countries in these different countries. Now, if an
authoritarian regime basically wholesale confiscates the property of all Americans

(28:32):
living there, or of American companies who've invested resources there,
now that rises us to a different level. This is
outside the rule of law. It's an authoritarian regime. And indeed,
if this is an event of significance, like the nationalization
of oil happened in the nineteen fifties and nineteen sixties,

(28:56):
certainly the United States could take action, and what that
particular action would depend on the particularly circumstances to protect
the rights of these companies and these individuals. This is
not in the framework of you're traveling, you're investing around
the world in free countries, respect their rule of law

(29:17):
and you know, and you know, work within it. They're
basically free. Yeah, they're not as free as we are,
but they're basically free This goes above and beyond that.
This is a massive violation of rights. Now, you could argue, well,
if you go into a place like Saudi Arabia of
one hundred years ago, seventy five years ago, there are

(29:41):
no rights to be protected. But then they particularly on
a strategic asset like oil, there was some expectation that
the US government backs this, is supportive of this, and
maybe that needs to be explicit, made explicit in a transaction.
I think in the world in which we live today,
you know, I don't think companies would be investing like

(30:04):
they did back then without an explicit guarantee from the
US government. But the main thing is to protect the
lives of Americans from enemies, from people who would kill them,
people who would invade America, or people would commit terrorist
attacks against Americans, people who would blow up embassies, blow

(30:26):
up planes, shoot up gatherings of Americans, and kill Americans
at any opportunities possible. And so overall, the purpose is
of the US foreign policy is to protect the lives.

Speaker 2 (30:47):
Of Americans.

Speaker 1 (30:51):
And to protect America from invasion. And I'd say one
aspect of protecting property rights is and this is uniquely
unique to the perspective that the United States has, as
if you will, a superpower, to protect the right of
Americans to trade, to protect the sea lanes, to protect

(31:14):
against piracy. It is interesting that the first War, the
United States is an independent country, fought the first military
action it took with thousands of miles away from the
United States. It involved the pirates of.

Speaker 2 (31:36):
The Mediterranean.

Speaker 1 (31:38):
Islamic pirates off the coast of what is today Libya
and Algeria who are reading ships, confiscating their property and
slaving the people in the ships, and Sunday ships were
heading to America. Sund these ships were American ships, but
this was interrupting trade with America and Thomas Jefferson was.

Speaker 2 (32:01):
Having none of it.

Speaker 1 (32:02):
And note that America is a young republic, it wasn't
a superpower, it didn't have an all powerful military, and
yet Thomas Jefferson sent units of marines halfway around the
world into the Mediterrane in an era of sailing boats,

(32:22):
landed those marines on the coast I think of Libya
rounded up the pirates.

Speaker 2 (32:28):
And came to an agreement with them by defeating.

Speaker 1 (32:33):
Them that they would not touch ships bound from America,
so trade securing the shipping lanes and make it possible
for individuals to trade freely around the world. And a
purpose of farm Polsy, not necessarily of war, but of
farm Parlsey is the secure free trade. This is the travesty,

(32:59):
well respect of the travesty that is the tariffs and
everything that Trump is doing one of them, you know,
I Ran defined, maybe the mean purpose of foreign policy
is the securing free trade. She complimented the British Empire

(33:21):
for its gunboat diplomacy that involved making sure that the
ports of the world were open to British shipping, making
sure that the ports of the world were open to
trade with England. So the United States should be going

(33:45):
to every government in the world and encouraging them, encouraging
them to reduce tariffs and trade barriers to zero. And
the best way to do that is by doing it
by example, is bylowing our own tariffs to zero. But
instead we get other countries to lower their tarisks to zero,
and then we increase our tariffs on our people, on

(34:05):
out tax out people at fifteen, which is nuts, irrational,
anti American. So protecting American's right to trade, American's ability
to you know, travel at least and within free the

(34:29):
free world, protecting their lives as they travel in the world,
and and at scale at least the protection of property rights.
So you know, that is the purpose now. In order
to do that. In order to do that, one of
the most the most important principle from ethics that we

(34:52):
can apply to foreign policy is the principle of justice.

Speaker 2 (34:59):
The principle of justice.

Speaker 1 (35:03):
The principle of justice says you must judge, judge your
fellow man, Judge the good and evil, the positive and
the negative. Embrace the positive, befriend the good or support
the good. Trade with the good, and resist. Disengage from evil,

(35:33):
stay away from evil. So the first thing that has
to be done for a proper rational farm policy, I think,
is to define who's good and who's not, and what
are the standards, what's the criterion.

Speaker 2 (35:48):
Take a list of every country in the.

Speaker 1 (35:50):
World who's good and who's not. Rank them on a
basis of one to ten. I don't know. You know,
if free country is basically good, free countries that are
particularly friendly to America, that have zero tariffs with America
very good, very very good. You know, semi free countries

(36:11):
mostly free countries that are friendly to America. Yeah, they're good,
not great, very very good, but good. Athebitarian regimes, they're bad.
If they're friendly to America, they're only modernly bad. But
if they were hostile to America, they're very bad. And

(36:35):
if they're hostile with America and exhibiting all the signs
that suggest that they would act on that hostility, they
are the enemy. So one of the first thing a
president should do when coming to office is make up
a list and define who's who. And I think I'm

(36:57):
generally against government secrets. There are very few things that
should be secret. The governments are servants, they work for us.
We should know about what they do and what they're thinking,
why they're doing what they're doing. So like, yeah, you
don't want the identity of spies disclosed, you don't want
to give away intelligence, you know, assets, But short of that,

(37:19):
there should be no state secrets. So the United State
should make a list and publicize it. I don't know.
Great Britain is an eight, and uh, you know Russia's
are two or one or zero? I don't know. Iran
is a is a one one meaning evil in an
enemy in North Korea are to evil and an enemy

(37:41):
Russia's are to China's are four. I don't know whatever,
right Israel's a seven eight. So you know, put out
a scale, put out a list. You know, different administrations
can do it differently. They can have Jennifer suggests green

(38:02):
yellow red countries. We could have green yellow eight countries.
I've suggested three different categories for diplomatic relations and that
I think applies friends, free countries basically. So category one
is not friends. Category one is free countries, Category two
is unfree countries, and category three is unfree countries who
are enemies smallest categories three. They're not that many enemies

(38:26):
of the United States anyway. There's a big category two,
and in my view, category one gets full diplomatic relations
defense of you know, complete free trade, mutual recognition, maybe
even in some cases we'll get to this defense treatise.

(38:46):
Category two has no no no diplomatic recognition because you
don't recognize the sovereignty of an unfree state, but no
trade barriers, no restrictions on trade aid, you know, generally
open relationships, but no diplomatic relationship, no recognition, no moral sanction.

(39:10):
And category three is the enemy. You don't trade, you
boycut them completely, no trade, no diplomatic relationships, no contact, no.

Speaker 2 (39:19):
Contact except to accept the surrender or to.

Speaker 1 (39:23):
Negotiate about things you have to I don't know. You
don't want to get into a nuclear war. If you
can avoid it through negotiations, certainly that is worthwhile doing so. Yes,
So those would be the three categories. But within those
categories you could have more red, less red, more green,

(39:44):
less green, and so on. So the first thing is
that ply justice. Who are the good guys? Who are
the bad guys? And they are good guys, and they
are bad guys, and you know, ask me about what
the criteria would be. But it's not that hard. It's
not that hard. Okay. Once you do that, you've got

(40:05):
to identify those countries or regimes that are currently posing
a real threat to the lives of US citizens and
to America in terms of potential invasion, bombing, terrorism, whatever.
And again this list should be public. You know, off

(40:27):
the bat, the easy ones are what do you call it?
Iran killed many Americans, swears to kill more Americans, committed
to killing more Americans, developing nuclear weapons with the hope
of one day killing more Americans.

Speaker 2 (40:43):
Dedicated to killing Americans.

Speaker 1 (40:46):
Not very powerful, not very strong, but it wants to
kill Americans, responsible funded terrorist attacks against Americans. That would
do so again if it had the possibility, if it
had the ability. North Korea has nuclear weapons, has ballistic
missiles they can reach the United States, has to threatened
the United States to threaten to use those weapons in

(41:06):
the United States. Is an authoritarian totalitarian state, one of
the worst in the world, maybe the worst in the world.
Totalitarian state, which is, you know, by definition, not friends
to us, but here it's hostile. It's explicitly hostile. That's
two countries that are easy. Is Russia on this list?

(41:26):
Is Russia clearly posing a threat to US citizens? Maybe
I mean this one, you'd have to really dig deep. Clearly,
Russia is an authoritarian run by an authoritarian thug. So
it's not a free countries. It's certainly not green. But
is it yellow? Is it red? Well, it's expressed willingness

(41:52):
in action to invade other countries that are basically free.
It's invaded Ukraine, it's invaded jew Jim So it is
on the international scene. It has positioned itself as being
willing to use force to achieve its aims.

Speaker 2 (42:10):
That is a huge red flag.

Speaker 1 (42:11):
It doesn't turn them red automatically, but it's a huge
red flag because if they're willing to do that Ukraine
and willing to do that to Georgia, you know, why
wouldn't they be willing to do that to the United States?
You know? And would they in the conflict the United
States might have entered, would they take the other side?
Are they an active enemy of the United States? Are

(42:34):
they seeking to hoot the United States in any way?
And you know, Russia would have to be somewhere between
red and yellow because of the invasion Ukraine. I would
tilt to more towards the red than of the yellow.
But they're not like Ran They haven't actively gone out
and killed Americans. They actively they haven't funded, as far

(42:59):
as I know, and maybe I don't know, actively funded
terrorism against the United States. So Russia somewhere probably between
yellow and red. But once you're in the red, once
you're a country that is viewed as a threat to
the lives of Americans, a number of things that have

(43:22):
to happen. One, if possible, the thread must be immediately eliminated,
immediately eliminated. So whatever capacity they have to threat in
American lives needs to be taken away from them.

Speaker 2 (43:39):
Now when it comes.

Speaker 1 (43:41):
To Iran, that is completely possible. If we deem the
nuclear facilities a threat, they should be destroyed, all of
them systematically. If we believe that they are funding terrorism
that is targeted Americans, then the regime must be toppled,

(44:03):
or their economic ability to pose the threats against the
United States needs to be eliminated. I e. Their oil
industry needs to be blown up. That is, whatever the
threat happens to be in however seriously and however substantial
you think that threat is to that extent, that threat

(44:25):
needs to be eliminated if possible.

Speaker 2 (44:26):
And I add if possible.

Speaker 1 (44:29):
It's a little bit more complicated with North Korea because
they have nukes. So in North Korea, the solution might
be develop a technology that makes it impossible for them
to launch those nukes against you. There's a variety of
things you could do. Knock them out of the sky
before they reach above the atmosphere, knock the facilities themselves out.

(44:55):
But you know, if you're afraid that they might be
able to launch a nuke against it might not be
worth military action to eliminate the threat right now. And
in that case, What you need to do is disengage,
and this is true of the wrong situation. Disengage. No trade.
You cannot have trade with the country that wants to

(45:15):
kill your citizens. So not sanctions. I don't believe in sanctions.
I don't believe in tariffs. I believe in embargo. You
don't trade, zero trade, and maybe you even you know,
isolate them by stopping shipping in and out of North Korea.

(45:36):
Every boat that leaves in North Korean porte gets expropriated
by an American navy, and you isolate them, and you
disengage them with them, and you prepare whatever technology you
need to in order to make sure they can never
launch against you. I like the idea of kind of

(45:56):
an iron dome in the United States, a steal dome
country or what Trump called it. But I think that
is a good investment. I think the United States should
invest in making sure no ballistic missile can enter the
United States. Remember the ballistic inside missiles trying to come
to the United States will have nuclear warheads. You can't

(46:17):
let one percent of them in. You can't let any
of them in. So you need to develop a fail
safe method. A golden dome. I think you called it right,
And that might involve lasers in space, it might involve
lasers on the ground, it might involve the kind of
things Israel did. The advantage the United States has is

(46:39):
that its enemies are very far away, but they also
have better technology that Ran had. So the United States
needs to really work on a technological dome that protects
itself a gold a golden dome that protected from ballistic missiles.
But you disengage and you isolate. And here's the thing.

(47:03):
Between a country like the United States and North Korea.
There should be no trade, no embassy, no relations, no negotiating,
no negotiating, no meetings, no gasks, no tit for tat, nothing.

(47:25):
They don't exist. And if they try something, then you
take him up. Now, let's say you identify Russia as
an enemy. Well, it's an enemy. You cannot eliminate the thread.
You certainly cannot eliminate the thread before you have a
golden dome. Because they have nukes. It's not worth engaging

(47:51):
with them. But here is worth. It's worth isolating them.
It's worth inball going in them. It's worth having no
diplomatic relations with them. It's worth not meeting with them,
it's worth not treating them as if they're a legitimate country.
No trade, no embassy, no negotiations, no meeting their leaders,

(48:14):
no invitation to any public forums.

Speaker 2 (48:17):
Nothing.

Speaker 1 (48:18):
Treat them like the pariah that they are. And indeed
that should be done. Even though there's somewhere between yellow
and red, this is exactly how they should be treated.
And in the case of Russia, since they clearly constitute
a threat to NATO, they clearly are red visa Vinato

(48:42):
and we are members of NATO, and that means they're
a threat to us as long as we're members of NATO. No,
we can talk about whether we should have shouldn't be,
but right now we are. Yeah. No sports, no sports teams,
no playing with them, No, no Russian flag going up.
No the fig Minnister of Russia showing up in US

(49:03):
soil with a USSR shirt on. I mean, how disrespectful
is that? How frigging disrespectful of that? If the United
States had a shred, a shred of self esteem, if
the Trump administration had a shred of self esteem, they
would have asked the Feign Minister of Russia to get

(49:25):
on a plane and go home immediately. He should have
never been invited. But and then you know, you can
ask the question, how do you support Ukraine? How much

(49:46):
do you support Ukraine? How do you support Ukraine? Again,
I think if we had a fall power perform policy,
Russia would have never invaded to that extent, I agree
with Trump, not that I think he provides the pop
perform policy, but I think Russia invaded because of American weakness.
If we weren't weak, they wouldn't invaded. If they believe
NATO was strong and united and would stand up to them,

(50:06):
they wouldn't have invaded. All right, then you've got this
yellow group, well maybe yellow, reddish yellow, maybe becoming red. Right,
these are countries and regimes that might pose a threat

(50:30):
to US citizens in the future. They all right now,
but when they were authoritarian, and authoritarian regimes can always
potentially pose a threat.

Speaker 2 (50:38):
B There might be nuclear.

Speaker 1 (50:41):
And they might be under the influence of an ideology
that is fundamentally anti US or anti Western, and they
four could easily pose a threat in the future and
therefore could become enemies. I mean, here I would think
of Iran, sorry, Ion, we've already come.

Speaker 2 (51:00):
I think of China. Here I would think of Pakistan.

Speaker 1 (51:10):
You'd have to go through the different Arab countries, and
some of them clearly would qualify here. They might not
be an enemy right now, but they could easily switch now.
None of them are really significant because they don't have nukes,
they don't have a big military. It would be hard
for them to really pose a threat to look at
you want. And you know, Katara, for example, would be

(51:32):
qualified here. Right It's funded terrorism against America. It was
the main fund of ices, and it's the main fund
of Hamas.

Speaker 2 (51:42):
So these are countries that you have almost no contact.

Speaker 1 (51:48):
You can trade with them, Americans can trade with them.

Speaker 2 (51:51):
But at their own risk.

Speaker 1 (51:52):
They get none of the protection from the US government,
the no negotiations except potentially the elimination of that potential
risk that happens in the future. And if our allies
are threatened by them, then we assist our allies to
deal with them. But these are countries that don't yet

(52:18):
pose a direct fact to the United States. Therefore do
not necessitate a direct military confrontation. They do not necessitate
yet an embargo. But you want to tell your residents,
your citizens, Hey, you're training with somebody who could become
an enemy. You should think about and by the way,

(52:38):
you're trading on your own. We're not going to protect
your intellect. You're poppy right to your other We're not
going to protect it because they're authoritarian regime. There's no
rule of law over there. You're doing this at your
own risk. There should have always been the idea of Chinese. Yeah,
you want to go to China, you want to invest
in China, find but remember can't protect you. Now if

(52:59):
a country else towards well, now it's become a threat.
Then now you have to have no trade and embargo.
And see if businesses know that, if businesses know that
this country's kind of yellow but tilting towards red, and
we might define it as red in the future, they

(53:20):
might not invest as much in countries like that, they
might hesitate. And in the countries like that who want
American investment, who want American tech, might try to become
less red and more yellow and move towards the green. See,
you provide an incentive by making it public and explaining
exactly what happens that if you phase, you give them

(53:43):
an incentive if they want trade with America, and most
countries do, even though Theiritarian ones you provide them an
incentive to move in the right direction, to get better,
to become better, to have a relationship, will you know,
will be a much more open to trade, will negotiate,

(54:03):
we'll we'll have contact, we'll have an embassy, you know.

Speaker 2 (54:08):
But you have to move in that other direction.

Speaker 1 (54:16):
And again, assisting allies here is really really important because
one of the things that will distract a potential enemy
from becoming one is if they have other challenges countries
that you know, are challenging them and therefore distracting them.
So I think it's important for US to support Ukraine

(54:37):
so that Russia does not have time, energy resources to
focus on us.

Speaker 2 (54:41):
I think it's important for US to arm.

Speaker 1 (54:43):
Taiwan and South Korea and Japan so that China has
to think twice about going after US, because it has
to deal with them them right in their backyard. You
have to be strategic, you have to really think about strategically.
And then as importantly, one has to identify the dark

(55:05):
greens our allies, and here our allies, particularly the dark
green allies, the real allies, the committed allies, the long
run allies are going to be free countries. See here
in today's world, Europe, much of Europe at least, you know,

(55:26):
countries like South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, you know in Australia,
potentially India, New Zealand. I'm thinking of Asia. Those are
solid allies, Those are long term allies. Those are people
that those are countries that we should really consider consider

(55:48):
having defense treaties with in the midd least, of course,
Israel would be the only country.

Speaker 2 (55:55):
And with those countries we should consider defense.

Speaker 1 (55:58):
Treaties both visa v known enemies like China and Asia
and Russia and Europe, and unknown enemies or potential future
enemies like various terrorist organizations. And then we might also

(56:19):
have temporary allies. Allies that we know are not dark green,
they're not real allies. They're not fully committed, they're not
free necessarily as free. We don't know long term whether
they're going to be an offside. These are temporary alliances.

Speaker 2 (56:36):
That we might form in order to deal with a
particular threat.

Speaker 1 (56:42):
So you might think of, I don't know, some Arab
countries in some contexts as allies in facing the Ranian threat,
although it's not clear to me we need allies to
face youron Ivan is a week. So think about this
about in Asia, think about maybe Indonesia and Malaysia and

(57:02):
maybe even Vietnam as temporary allies. Vietnam is not a
free country. We would not have open, you know, complete
friendly alliance with them. You see, I don't think I
don't think we should have an alliance with Saudi Arabia.
I think they're not the enemy. We have arm's length
relationship with Saudi Arabia. But I think we treat Saudi

(57:24):
Arabia as a you know, it is what they deserve,
which is they're the bad guys. Now they're not the
bad guys so that they're a threat. They're not not
the bad guys in terms they pose a threat to
anybody allies, they mostly don't. But there are bad guys
in terms of the fact that they are a threat

(57:46):
to their own people. They enough free, they have no
respect for individual rights, and they cannot be trusted.

Speaker 2 (57:53):
They cannot be trusted.

Speaker 1 (57:55):
So they might be a temporary ally in a particular confrontation.
Certainly not a long term Malley. Certainly not a country
that the first country our president goes to visit when
he goes into national Certainly not we dance with them,
We hug them, we befriend them, no arms length arms length.

(58:19):
They're a thuggish regime and we have to make our
moral stance about them, no.

Speaker 2 (58:26):
Judge judge.

Speaker 1 (58:29):
In Saudi Arabia, atheists go to jail, adulters get stolen
to death. It's not the kind of regime, and it's
run by a king. We don't believe in kings, so
I don't think we need to do anything about it.
I just don't think we need to be the best
friends either, And we certainly don't need to give them

(58:51):
security guarantees and if we need, you know, I don't
know what exactly we need from them right, particularly today,
when we don't need their energy. I don't think quit

(59:11):
would be a friend again, a temporary, short term momentary
ally in a conflict, but not a friend again.

Speaker 2 (59:20):
They're thuggish, they're authoritarian there. It's close to being Islamist.

Speaker 1 (59:29):
Now if we want, we can encourage them to be
less Islamist, and as they become lesser Slammist.

Speaker 2 (59:34):
We can be more friendly.

Speaker 1 (59:36):
But I think we need to take a moral stand
in the world. If you don't respect individual rights within
your country, you are bad, not as bad, and not
a threat to US, so we're not in a you're
in a hostile to US, so we're not in an
enemy position, but you are bad and we will identify

(59:57):
you as such.

Speaker 2 (01:00:00):
Embargo trade, free trade, that's good.

Speaker 1 (01:00:06):
So you can imagine mutual offense treaties with allies in Pacific,
grim in Europe, to contain China, to contain Russia. I
don't think you need one in the Middle East because
I think Iran could be eliminated within days, as Israel
showed us. And I don't know what other region of
the world you need an alliance. The United States because

(01:00:32):
of how weak almost all those enemies are, can deal
with any one of them by itself. Now, maybe North Korea.
It's good at South Korean out side, and that would
be part of the anti Chinese alliance, but it would
also be part of an anti North Korean alliance. But
that's about it. And then finally, I mean, I did
want to say something about Pakistan. Pakistan is just a

(01:00:53):
bewildering country because Pakistan has nukes. It is Islamist in
many respects. It's not an Islamist country. It doesn't impose
Sharia law, but it has strong Islamist elements. And there
are people who'd like to impost Sharia law. In totality,
you have really Islamists very close to power, and many

(01:01:17):
of them are in the military, which controls the nuclear weapons.
It's hostile fundamentally, philosophically to the West.

Speaker 2 (01:01:26):
Now, not everybody in Pakistan.

Speaker 1 (01:01:27):
Pakistan has this strong influence of the British Empire from
colonial times, but that influence does not dominate, certainly not
in the military, and doesn't seem to be in its politics.
And yet the United States is unbelievably friendly towards Pakistan.
We send them weapons, We constantly grovel before them since

(01:01:51):
nine eleven, Before nine to eleven, every administration. I mean,
I think again, a principled a principal position in this
part of the world should be. India is a relatively
free country. India's moving towards more freedom. India's a ally.
Pakistan is an enemy. Maybe not an enemy, but Pakistan

(01:02:13):
is a potential one day enemy. It has nukes. We
need to be able to neutralize those nukes. We need
to be in a position to be able to eliminate
any kind of ballistic missile with a range that can
reach to the United States. I don't think I don't
think Pakistan has ICBMs yet, but I think they're developing them.
So we need to make sure.

Speaker 2 (01:02:33):
They don't.

Speaker 1 (01:02:38):
And we need to take a clearm all the stands
between India and Pakistan based on the kind of governments
they have, based.

Speaker 2 (01:02:49):
On the spectaff of individuals.

Speaker 1 (01:02:50):
Now, Pakistan is not a completely the authoritarian place. It's
just a mess, but it's not an ally. What's funny
about Trump right now is that he is alienating India
and befriending Pakistan, and that makes zero sense to me,
zero sense. And he's pushing India in the direction of Russia.

(01:03:15):
And ultimately Pakistan is going to be aligned with China.
So there's zero reason to alienate India, even if it
is close to Russia. We need to make it in
India's interests not to be closed to Russia. And I

(01:03:35):
think if we weren't so friendly with Pakistan, I think.

Speaker 2 (01:03:39):
That would happen. But Trump in particular is friendly with Pakistan.

Speaker 1 (01:03:44):
I think Pakistan has nominated Trump for a Nobel Peace Prize,
which is if you want aid, and India did not
support it. Pakistan supported it for Trump's help and getting
a ceasefire between India and Pakistan and India did not
support it.

Speaker 2 (01:04:03):
And that's all it is.

Speaker 1 (01:04:04):
Right.

Speaker 2 (01:04:04):
We didn't talk about this when we talked about putin Trump.

Speaker 1 (01:04:06):
But all Trump cares about is the stupid Nobel Price.
He doesn't care about peace. And he knows that Kissinger
got the Nobel Price for peace deal there was violated
within months and what from here is getting the price
and the resulted in South Vietnam being run over by
North Vietnam defeated by North Vietnam very easily, and he

(01:04:30):
still got the Nobel Price for peace even though he
didn't establish peace. Well. Trump knows this, so he knows
that the Nobel Price is about short term success, not
about long term. So he just needs he just needs
to get something so that the Committee could vote him
a Noble peace price. Anyway, those would be the principles

(01:04:52):
I would apply at FUM policy.

Speaker 2 (01:04:54):
That would be the way I would apply them.

Speaker 1 (01:04:56):
I am happy to discuss.

Speaker 2 (01:05:01):
Different applications of this.

Speaker 1 (01:05:03):
If you guys have any questions in the super chat
that you would like to ask, please feel free to
do so.

Speaker 2 (01:05:12):
Super chat is open, has been opened for a while.

Speaker 1 (01:05:14):
We're doing pretty well in the super chat, so please
feel free to ask any questions about how would apply
it to the situation or that situation. But those would
be the principles. I would say that you should guide
a phone policy. It should guide.

Speaker 2 (01:05:27):
Us when it comes to phone policy.

Speaker 1 (01:05:32):
Hopefully that is a value and illuminating. All right, let's
take some questions. Reminda to do a sticker or to
ask a super chat.

Speaker 2 (01:05:44):
Let's see if there any stickers? Yeah, Catherine, thank you.

Speaker 1 (01:05:46):
Catherine did a sticker. And let's see, let's see we
got even Harper did a sticker.

Speaker 2 (01:06:03):
Yep, all right, two stickers. You guys can do more
than stickers than that buck.

Speaker 1 (01:06:07):
Ninety ninety nine, anything like that. All right, let's start
with Hauppa Campbell.

Speaker 2 (01:06:12):
Is a two part question, Happer says.

Speaker 1 (01:06:15):
Just to clarify, I wasn't implying you of the liberty
movement was in nept If America does end up collapse,
it this is from yesterday.

Speaker 2 (01:06:25):
The fact that our population.

Speaker 1 (01:06:29):
Could ignore the failures of fascism, which crumbled only eighty
years ago, and the answers ran showed us in Atlas
suggest two things. Intellectuals are evil that people can't think
their way out of a paper bag. Look, I think
that's right. And look, it might be the women competent.
I don't know. If I thought we were, I would
stop and I would shift strategy. But it does suggest

(01:06:55):
that there was. The culture is not ready. I think
for us that their ability to think and their ability,
particularly when it comes to morality and ethics, to evaluate
morality and ethics is so screwed up that they can't
They just can't accept Rand's ideas.

Speaker 2 (01:07:20):
But I don't know what answer is.

Speaker 1 (01:07:22):
You know, suddenly the blame needs to reput it their
intellectual's feet, that not enough of them embraced irand and look,
maybe there's a better strategy than what we're doing. If
there is, find it happy to embrace it. All right,
let's see, I think there was another fifty dollars, Yes,

(01:07:42):
a couple of fifty dollars. Still, James, this is this
is a new debate with Craig and Alex O'Connor. Their
first debate was about a adjectivity in ethics. This debate
is over free will. Alex is an intellectual heavyweight with
a huge audience. We need an objectivest of equal caliber

(01:08:03):
engaging him. Yeah, I agree. I mean Craig has an
in with him for some reason. I don't know exactly why. Maybe,
and I wouldn't be surprised Craig pays him a lot
of money, right, Craig has deep pockets we do not,
you know, for these kind of things. So it might
very well be the case that Craig just pays Alex

(01:08:25):
O'Connor a lot of money for these debates, and that's
why O'Connor's doing them. I will talk to people as
the in students, see if we can try to engage
Alex and see if you would debate somebody from the Institute,
But I don't think we'd be willing to pay him
anywhere near what.

Speaker 2 (01:08:46):
Craig is trying to pay him.

Speaker 1 (01:08:47):
You know. The other thing is I think this is true.
Craig has a limited audience and he's trying to grow it,
and he's willing to pay a lot of money to
do something like debate Alex in order to grow that audience.
We have a significant bigger audience the Institute and I

(01:09:07):
think me personally, and we're not quite willing to put
out that kind of money for to grow the audience.
But it's worth finding out how much it would cost,
because it's certainly worth something, and I do think we
need to put out best foot forward in that sense,
and we need a philosopher, one of our you know,

(01:09:28):
the highest powered philosophers. We have to engage in a
debate with Alex. All Right, Wes, thank you, Wes. Fifty
dollars instead of a sticker. Wes is doing a super
chat and I think he's around so usually he just

(01:09:48):
comes in and out, but I think today he's on
the show. He's here. That's great, good to have you.
What do you think the policy should be for American
companies to sell arms to other countries?

Speaker 2 (01:09:59):
Should companies need a approval from the.

Speaker 1 (01:10:00):
Government or should the transaction just go through the government,
just go through the government completely?

Speaker 2 (01:10:06):
A great question, And did I now mention it.

Speaker 1 (01:10:08):
It was on my list of principles. Let me pull
that up. The last point on my list of principles
was exactly this issue, because it's important to be embraced.
So here's the thing. I believe American companies, American military
arms companies should only be allowed to sell to countries

(01:10:35):
that are in the green, that are not potential enemies.
It cannot become potential enemies. I think we sell weapons
today the lots of countries that I don't think we
should and that you know, and I think that could

(01:10:58):
come back and hurt us. Now, it could be that
we sell them with a kill switch. It could be that,
you know, like the Egyptian military has huge quantities of
American arms. They have empty tanks, they have F sixteen's.
I don't know that they have thirty five's, but they
certainly have F sixteens and they could use those weapons

(01:11:19):
against Israel or against other American interests in the Middle
East at any given point in time. Never have the
kill switch, Okay, then I tolerate that and we can
kill it. Or we have something that says you cannot
use these arms unless we approve of it, then okay,
then you can sell it to other countries as well.
But look, you suddainly can't sell it to people in

(01:11:41):
the Red. You shouldn't be able to sell it to
most people in the Yellow. Maybe there are a few
exceptions in the Yellow of temporary allies. We talked about
temporary alps. And then you need a kill switch, whether.

Speaker 2 (01:11:52):
It's a literal kill switch or some form of real
kill switch.

Speaker 1 (01:11:58):
The only countries you should be able to sell it
without any government permission or the green countries. And I
think it should be sold directly from the companies, not
through the US government. So the US government should be
giving a thumbs up with thumbs down, but it should
be Green is thumbs up, Yellow is mostly thumbs down

(01:12:20):
but sometimes maybe thumbs up. You'd have to define it clearly.
Red is always thumbed down. And then even with the green,
there might be weapons systems that involve such sophistication and
the military advantage for the United States that you say
can't sell those, can't sell those, or at least until

(01:12:41):
they're five years old, at ten years old, just so
the United States can can maintain this advantage, and just
so you know, other countries don't have access to our
most advanced technology something like that. So you would have
to really think it through and based on these categories
and how you would sell them, have the companies sell them,
but the United States government would have to be involved

(01:13:04):
in determining that.

Speaker 2 (01:13:14):
All right, I am gonna I'm gonna.

Speaker 1 (01:13:16):
Take one more question from West because it's it's on
topic him. What does justice look like for Putin as
an individual? What's it fear country's strifele when it comes
to specific warmongering dictators, well, I think I think one
has to come to conclusion. As an individual, Putin is evil.

(01:13:37):
He's an evil human being, you know, based on his
actions and based on his ideas. He has murdered people
left and right. He has commanded his country to invade
peaceful countries Georgia, Ukraine. He is murdered people in the West.

(01:13:59):
They're poisoning of a number of different you know, Russian
exiles in Western countries. He is killed journalists within Russia.
This guy is a murderous thug and is evil. And
I think what other countries should say is we will
have nothing to do with you. We won't buy your stuff,

(01:14:20):
we won't trade with you, but certainly if you're Europe,
we won't trade with you at all, won't sell you stuff,
won't buy stuff on you. You know, I'm invited here,
and ideally somebody puts a bullet through your head. I'm
all full, by the way, I am all full assassinating

(01:14:41):
world leaders when it makes when it's when it is
a means to protect the individual rights of Americans, and
certainly the Europeans have every reason to assassinate Putin so
sudden leaders like that should be taken out. Now. I

(01:15:04):
don't know if that changes things in Russia, but I
think if you take out the leader and you make
it explicive we took him out because of this, because
he threatened us, then I think next leaders will hesitant
to threaten you, and they'll actually respect you for having
the balls to take out their leader. So I'm all
for assassinating world leaders if they pose a direct threat.

(01:15:29):
And that is suddenly true with regard to Putin. I mean,
he's a mass murderer. The idea of shaking his hands,
smiling at him, patting him on the shoulder is disgusting.
It's just beneath any American president. Beneath no Americans should
do that, never mind the president who represents being you.

(01:15:51):
How this is why I can't vote for president. At
least I know I didn't vote for this disgusting human being.
All Right, I'm here cut. You didn't read my super
chat about Trump being renamed Monica Putina and about the
two of them, along with all the Thebertarians being insecure

(01:16:12):
about the size of their manhoods.

Speaker 2 (01:16:15):
I don't remember seeing.

Speaker 1 (01:16:16):
A pizza a pizza like that, a super chat like that,
so I must have missed it yesterday. Ps Gaza must
be destroyed, yes, and I guess I don't have a
comment on Monica Putina. All right? That dudo bunny?

Speaker 2 (01:16:36):
A two part question. Part one?

Speaker 1 (01:16:38):
Who are these high IQ people you know who live
mediocre lives? All the bright people I grew up with
working techle finance and are very successful? Do they values?
Do there values and choices matter beyond their IQ? Yes? Absolutely,
But you can deal with the levels of abstraction that

(01:16:58):
arise in these Koreas is without being born with a
certain level of horsepower to begin with. I don't know
how much horsepower.

Speaker 2 (01:17:06):
You need for this career is I just don't know.

Speaker 1 (01:17:09):
I don't know if you know, I don't know if
any of us knows. What does it mean to have
I don't know what's an average IQ one and ten,
one hundred and fifteen, that's one hundred and ten IQ.
What does it mean to have one hundred and ten
IQ but have their right values, the right ambition, the
right choices. Really work hard, really dedicate yourself, really invest

(01:17:31):
the time and effort to figure stuff out. Are you
going to be a better or worse programmer? With somebody
with one hundred and forty IQ who doesn't have those values.
I don't think that's obvious. I don't think that's obvious
at all. I know I know people in school who never,

(01:17:54):
never study for exams, got straight a's, straight a's, It
just went in absorbed, got it straight.

Speaker 2 (01:18:01):
Is I assume they had high IQ's.

Speaker 1 (01:18:03):
I don't know. I've never take an IQ test. As
I said, I've never been interested in anybody's i Q.
I don't really care, right, I care about their intelligence,
but I don't think IQ measures that. I care about
the intelligence, their ambitions, their values. I care about the package,
but I don't know my wife's i Q.

Speaker 2 (01:18:21):
I don't know my kids IQ. I don't know my IQ.

Speaker 1 (01:18:24):
I know my wife IQ is high, but I don't
know how much it is. So, uh, what constitute success
and what's acquired for success? Yeah? Some basic Yeah, if
you've got if you got down syndrome, you're not going
to be super successful programming, granted.

Speaker 2 (01:18:44):
If you got an IQ of.

Speaker 1 (01:18:45):
Eighty, you're not going to be super successful at tech granted,
but you could be super successful at something else. There
are lots of successful businessmen who don't have a high
IQ's so yeah, the particular tech field, science field that
needs the sudden hostpower. But what is that horsepower and

(01:19:05):
how much about average does it have to be to
be successful. I don't know, and neither of you. I
don't think anybody knows. And particularly given that we will
live in a world where people don't choose the right
values and don't make the right choices and don't have
the right kind of ambition, we certainly don't know what
people are capable of.

Speaker 2 (01:19:26):
What you're capable of with the IQ that you have.

Speaker 1 (01:19:29):
I mean, I remember always hearing these stories about we
only use a small percentage of our brain power. I mean,
if that's true, I don't know what that means exactly. Again,
but that's true if you've got a low IQ, but
use more of it. For somebody who has a high
i Q and uses less of it, how does that

(01:19:50):
play out? So way too complicated. But yeah, I know
a lot of people who had IQ and did nothing
special with their lives. I mean, okay, so they're good
at programming, and they've been programming as all their lives.
They never made a big in Silicon Valley. They never
did anything substantial. They program never changed the world, they

(01:20:14):
never made a lot of money. They made good money
for programmer, but never a lot of money. Lots of them.
I mean, most high Q people are just average lives.
I mean, just the fact that you work in tech
and finance, does it mean you're successful. I know a

(01:20:35):
lot of people will in tech were not successful. It
could be a cogging machine. One more program I know
people who might have low AQ but have done phenomenally
well in tech for example. Maybe they're not the best
programmers in the world because they're not they don't have
their horsepower, as you call it, but they're better managers
than anybody with a horsepower. I mean, are there.

Speaker 2 (01:20:59):
People who have more host power.

Speaker 1 (01:21:03):
Then senior managers and tech companies? Yeah, because senior managers
and tech companies don't need to know the host power
to program. I mean take AI for example, Meta just
hired a bunch of AI engineers.

Speaker 2 (01:21:21):
Now I'm gonna make.

Speaker 1 (01:21:22):
A lot of money.

Speaker 2 (01:21:24):
Did they have higher IQ? Probably than.

Speaker 1 (01:21:28):
Zuckerberg?

Speaker 2 (01:21:29):
Yeah, probably was still richer than them.

Speaker 1 (01:21:35):
So what is success? How successful? What is host power?
How do you apply it? These are complicated things, and
if you focus too much on on IQ, I think
I think you lose the plot, all right, Andrew the

(01:21:57):
non objectives freedom advocates haven't this covered the utility of morality?

Speaker 2 (01:22:02):
No less argue on a proper morality.

Speaker 1 (01:22:05):
Dogmatism has drained morality's power. The topic of morality has
been robbed of the power of science, cause and effect. Thoughts.

Speaker 2 (01:22:14):
I get yeah, I don't think that's quite right.

Speaker 1 (01:22:17):
It's not that dogmatism has drained the morality's power. That's
not it signis of dogmatism. It's an issue of a
false morality. A false morality has dominated the field. A
false morality is all that people are exposed to. A

(01:22:38):
false morality is what people. People are flooded with when
they're young. It's all they know, it's all they hear,
it's all they can think of. And therefore they have
no idea of the power morality because all they always

(01:23:00):
a false morality. And maybe they read Iran and they've
been marginally exposed to Iran's ideas, but they're so out there,
they're so different than their morality that they're being taught
that they don't consider them. They can't even conceive of them,
they can't integrate them. So what's distorted and perverted and

(01:23:23):
robbed them is the fact that since the little kids,
they have been inundated with a false moral code, and
they've assumed that that is morality, that is all of morally,

(01:23:46):
and they can't conceive something different, and that makes it
very hard when you come up with something different for
them to even figure out how to even deal with it.
And and when they read iman, they marginalize it.

Speaker 2 (01:24:13):
Do you think morality has.

Speaker 1 (01:24:14):
Thought of as a science? I think by Scholastics might
have in some sense, but a science derived rationalistically from
first principles found in the Bible, not a science derive
from facts of reality. Nobody thinks about it that way
except Dingman. But did the Scholastics think of it in

(01:24:38):
terms of rationality? Again, a rationality, this rationalistic divoice and reality.
So yeah, all altruistic morality, all morality other than nine rants,
is divorce from reality. And that's divorce from science in
that sense, and thus the vorse from cause and effect
properly understood.

Speaker 2 (01:25:00):
But it's the falsehood that is at the core.

Speaker 1 (01:25:03):
Once they're willing to accept, oh, maybe everything I've learned
about morality, maybe everything human beings believe about morality. For
the last two thousand plus years is false. Once they're
willing to accept that, then you can offer an alternative.
Then you can suggest science, then you can suggest reason.

(01:25:25):
But if they've just said, look like almost all the thinkers,
this is this is morality, This is this is I mean,
you guys are just playing with words, but this is morality.
Morality is what the Christians say, it is It's always
been us, it always will be thus, and our job
is just to figure out how to justify it rationally.

(01:25:52):
All right, thanks Andrew, not you have a j algorithm?
Is it better to go through life lonely than to
deal with people? We need socialization for an upbeat mood,
but most social circles today are quite toxic, riddled with
irrationality and envy. I think you have to so there's

(01:26:14):
no excuse to be lonely. So I don't want to
give anybody an excuse to be lonely. There are good
people in the world, and if it means you have
to spend more time and more effort, then spend more
time and more effort. You know, if you come to Okon,
there are plenty of good people at Ocann And if
you don't find them in the first time, come a

(01:26:35):
second time, time, a third time, time, come a fourth time,
until you figure out who the good people for you are,
who your friends, who you can be friends and even
outside of objectivism, they are good work buddies. They're people
who you can hang out of work with and you
can go have a beer after work with. And then

(01:26:56):
nice people and friendly people, and you might have barbecued
with them, and they're never going to be in agreement
on ideas and you're not gonna you might not want
to talk politics with them, bet you can hang out.

Speaker 2 (01:27:05):
With them and enjoy them. They are women who might
assume you're a male.

Speaker 1 (01:27:11):
I don't know you are, but I assume you are.

Speaker 2 (01:27:14):
They are women who might not share all your values,
but sure enough.

Speaker 1 (01:27:17):
That there would befriending and hanging out with and maybe
even having sex with and having a relationship with. So
I find this giving up on social relationships sad and unnecessary.

Speaker 2 (01:27:33):
I also think that it's a lot of.

Speaker 1 (01:27:34):
People use objectivism as an excuse to do it, and
that I am very much opposed to so I you know,
I would I would suggest that you find ways in
which not to be lonely, to socialize, find healthy groups

(01:27:58):
of people.

Speaker 2 (01:27:58):
They are out there they are.

Speaker 1 (01:28:01):
I know because I hang out with people, and I
know other people who hang out with people, and there
are plenty of them, and you just have to expend
their energy and the resources to find them. Neo Khan
Bolton warned that Putin will play Trump like a fiddle.
He doesn't seek peace, only delay, buying time to regroup,

(01:28:24):
mislead and prolong the conflict. Yeah, I agree with Bolton completely.
Bolton is one of the few good thinkers in from policy.
I mean relatively good. He's wrong in some things, but
relatively good. Let me just make a call for more questions,
particularly twenty dollars questions four specifically, and we can reach

(01:28:47):
our goal. So our goal is five hundred dollars to
fifty an hour. In our second hour, we're at four sixteen,
so we need eighty four dollars, a few stickers and
a few twenty dollars questions and we are there. So
police consider doing that. Consist supporting the show before you leave.
I know people are coming in and out. Please consider
liking the show. Pressing that like button doesn't cost you anything,

(01:29:07):
helps out. It helps really helps with the algorithm. Michael
does the lack of Christian altruism in China play a
factor as to why they don't have a welfare state. No,
I don't. I mean, maybe I'd have to think about that.

(01:29:32):
I really think it has more to do with the
fact that they're a poor country and they're focused because
the rulers of the country are focused on economic growth.
They're focused on you know, China and nationalistic goals. They
want to grow, they want to a successful economy, and
they realize that a welfare state would hinder that. Although

(01:29:54):
the West is telling them, a lot of Western economists
are telling China, you want to grow faster, establish a
welfare state so that people will save less and consume more,
and consumption will drive.

Speaker 2 (01:30:06):
You economy faster.

Speaker 1 (01:30:09):
I'm not kidding. That is the advice they're getting from
Western economists. Whereas some of us know that what the
China's success is to the logic exten do because to
its savings, and that saving is what drive long term
investment and therefore economic growth. But a lot of Western
economists believe that it's consumption, and therefore they want to

(01:30:30):
see the Chinese save less.

Speaker 2 (01:30:34):
Consume more, and to do that they need to be more.

Speaker 1 (01:30:39):
They need to be reassured about their retirement, so they
need more of a welfare state. That's how crazy it is.
But I don't know if it's Christianity. It might be Christianity,
it might be part of that. I think China, if
it became rich, would institute a wealfare state ultimately, because
I think it has a foam of voltuism as well,

(01:31:01):
not as strong as Christianity, so maybe, you know, maybe
it's not as strong. We have lots of It's true,
we have lots of Christian Western countries that are not
rich that have welfare states, but they're also not ambitious.
China's ambitious. I think the lack of Christianity generally is
good for China. Whatever good is happening in China, the

(01:31:24):
fact that they're not Christian is helping. All Right, We're
down to fifty nine dollars, so only three twenty dollars
questions left because Stringer Bell did a twenty dollars sticker,
so thank you Stringer Bell. Really appreciate that. That really
helps out. And Woland did a sticker as well. Thank

(01:31:45):
you guys, and Enrich I see, and Katherine I thanked already,
so thank you guys. More stickers guys, particularly if they're
twenty more stickers. Simon, what do you mean, Mordelly justified
the annex Gaza? I mean, yes, it would be completely
morally justified. The question is would it make sense? That is,

(01:32:11):
from the perspective of Israel, doesn't make sense if you
annex Gaza. What do you do with the residents of Gaza?
Do you make them Israeli citizens? Do you now you
have to govern Gaza, you have to police Gaza. Do
you really want to do that? Are you willing to
put the resources into that? So the annexation is the

(01:32:32):
easy part. It's what do you do with the population
is the hard part, And that annexations does not solve
It does not solve the problem. But morality, absolutely, there's
no question about it. In terms of rights. Again, morality
also takes into account. Is it in yourself interest to
annex Gaza? And do you have a plan Michael? If

(01:32:56):
we were really headed to another dark ageas wouldn't we
be getting poorer every decade? In reality, every generation is
significantly richer than the former. I mean, that is certainly
one way to think about it. But it was Rome
getting poorer every decade? Not clear?

Speaker 2 (01:33:14):
I don't think so.

Speaker 1 (01:33:15):
I think it to some extent fell off a cliff,
and maybe maybe we would fall off a faster cliff.
I mean GDP. In other words, wealth income in the
United States dropped twenty five percent during the Great Depression,
all at once, very quickly.

Speaker 2 (01:33:36):
We became twenty five percent poorer. I think about that.

Speaker 1 (01:33:40):
Twenty five percent poorer. That's a lot. That's a lot,
all like that. Could a Dark Ages be a series
of great depressions? Well, we don't get out of it,
we keep tumbling again. There's no evidence. Is just we're

(01:34:00):
heading from an economic perspective to a great depression. There
is evidence that we're going to have some kind of
financial crash. You can't take on the kind of debt
that we are taking on without some kind of day
of reckoning. So yeah, what is uh? You know, I

(01:34:25):
don't know what uh. I don't know. That has to
happened slow. It could have happened fast. I'm not saying
it's happening, but it could. James the way Mumdonnie and
Bernie Sanders. A waded down Marxism is mega wadded down Nazism.
I think it's more water down fascism. I think Nazism

(01:34:45):
is a is too. I don't know, And I don't
think Donnie and Bernie are whated down communists, right, I
think the whated down socialists.

Speaker 2 (01:34:58):
I don't know if the whated down.

Speaker 1 (01:34:59):
Communists mago ware down fascists. I think that is the
right way to look at it. They're all statists. I
think think answers are Nazism and communism is not helpful
right now because it's not where we're hitting. There are
other forms of fascism, and there are other forms of socialism. Michael,

(01:35:23):
how come the Germans are so stiff and no humor culture? Well,
Britain has a fantastic comedians and a culture of sarcasm.
They're both Protestant Christians and riddled with altruism, you know,
I don't know. It has to do with how seriously
kind of the seriousness of their underlying culture. And I

(01:35:44):
don't know. There's something about Germans that makes them different.
You know. How come Germany developed the Nazis and Britain
never did. Germany had real authoritarian periods in the nineteenth
century on the Bismarck in the twentieth century, Hitler and
uk never did. It.

Speaker 2 (01:36:04):
Just got free and free and fear.

Speaker 1 (01:36:06):
It had some bouts with my with some form of socialism,
but it never became authoritarian. Germany has an authoritarian streak
in it, Britain does not. Why is that? It's probably
to do with the philosophy and ideas that they've adopted culturally.
You know, Germany has been a free country very little

(01:36:27):
for very little of its history. It doesn't have intellectuals
that advocated for freedom really, and it doesn't have a
tradition of freedom Britain does. Maybe that has to maybe
that translates somehow into sense of humor, but I don't
know beyond that, Andrew, is there connection between collectivism and loneliness?

(01:36:49):
Not marginalizing social life, but skeptical of collectivist claim that
man is a social animal and the relationships are main
factor to happiness. I mean, I do think there is
a relationship, a connection between the two. I think that's
probably probably in multi dimensional. I think collectivism tells us

(01:37:10):
to find our values in other people. And people go
out and they try to look for values in other
people and they can't find them, and they can't connect
because they want to find their values with other people.

Speaker 2 (01:37:20):
And then but they don't really connect.

Speaker 1 (01:37:23):
With other people. They don't find it there, and then
they become lonely and disappointed by that fact. Whereas if
you're an individualist, then you define your values, you know
what your value of values are, and then when you
go and to meet other people, you're not looking them
to shape you.

Speaker 2 (01:37:42):
You're looking for them to reflect back to you your
own values. You're looking to find commonality, You're looking to find.

Speaker 1 (01:37:50):
Interest, shared interests. So the whole approach to socialization is
different to being in society to having friends is different
between a collectivist and an individualist. And vidualist is not
looking for them to rescue for rescuing, looking to the

(01:38:13):
outside world for real companionship, for the visibility of shared values,
and the collectivist is looking for for the collective to
give them something, to give them meaning, to give them
purpose in life. So yes, collectivism distorts the incentives, distorts

(01:38:37):
the reasoning for seeking friendship, and creates this point. Yes,
you may have answered this, but what should a smaller,
weaker country with an orientation towards freedom do if it's
surrounded by potential enemies. What's a good policy? Yeah, it's

(01:38:57):
a great question. I didn't cover that, but it's a
great question. I think what it needs to do is
is a few things. One, it needs to build up
its self defense capability and maximize it. And ultimately the
best way to maximize it is having nukes. So I
think small countries should have free small countries should all

(01:39:21):
have nukes. It's the only thing that ultimately will protect them.
Israel has nukes exactly for that reason. It's surrounded by
how stock countries and it needs the ultimate weapon. It
needs to be able to defend itself no matter what. Second,

(01:39:43):
because you don't want to land up with the nukes,
you want to form alliances. You want to have friends,
friends who can help you with weapons, to help diplomatically,
help in whatever day way to keep the bad guys
away from you. You know, it's great to befriend the

(01:40:05):
United States of American and maybe if you have a
shared enemy, to unite with them in some kind of
defense alliance, or ally yourself with Europe like Ukraine is
doing trying to do anything. You want to have friends.
So those I think are the two things. That is
build up a self defense capability, and with the ultimate

(01:40:28):
self defense weapon being a nuclear bomb and nuclear capability,
it's not just one bomb. And second, have friends, have
good guys as friends. So I think that would be

(01:40:51):
that would be it. And but the same thing, Judge, judge,
these countries, identify them clearly. Who's who, who you can trust,
who you can't, who's your friend, who's your enemy, who
your allies? Whose long term, who's short term? All that
should be out in the open, clearly defined, clearly articulated,
and then act accordingly. Israel is a good model. Taiwan

(01:41:17):
should follow Israel's path.

Speaker 2 (01:41:20):
And the United States should help it.

Speaker 1 (01:41:23):
South Korea should follow Israel's path and the United States
should help it. Ultimately, Japan should be a nuclear country
as long as it's facing China. All right, Jacob, thank

(01:41:43):
you for the sticker, Jacob says, stickers for the restaurant recommendations.

Speaker 2 (01:41:47):
Yeah, I hope they go to some of them and
enjoy them.

Speaker 1 (01:41:49):
Let me know what they think. But happy to do it. Jeffrey,
thank you for the sticker. Really really appreciate it. I
got some restaurant recommendations for you, Jeffrey, for Lisbon, if
you're ever in Lisbon. We've been. We're not done with
Lisbon restaurants yet. We've got two more significant ones to

(01:42:14):
go this coming week and then I'll have have it
worked all worked out.

Speaker 2 (01:42:19):
It's not quite about Slona.

Speaker 1 (01:42:20):
But the food here is good. It's better than it
was the first time. The previous times I've come to Lisbon.
This time we've discovered more good restaurants. We've been positively
surprised at the quality of food, including it some you know,
just kind of the run of the mail restaurants you
just walk in without recommendations. The food is good. Food

(01:42:42):
is good, all right, Mike. Mike says, I'm relief for
the party. You're never late. You can always rewind. Andrew,
in what ways do you think George Washington's principle of
no found engage entanglements, which Ran once touted, is valid.
I think it's valid in the sense that in the

(01:43:02):
in in that era, and I think later it was
somewhat true the United States had no self interested reason
in getting involved in European wars. Europe was not a
threat to the United States.

Speaker 2 (01:43:21):
It was too far away.

Speaker 1 (01:43:22):
And it's still true to this day to a loge extent. Now,
nukes make a difference, membership NATO makes a difference, but generally,
I mean, I'm manders against US intervention World War One.
They posed no threat to the United States really, although
the Germans did, you know, take out American ships and

(01:43:46):
did provoke the United States, but they couldn't they couldn't
invade the US.

Speaker 2 (01:43:54):
I think World War Two, in post World War.

Speaker 1 (01:43:57):
Two illustrated that, you know, if you have long waged
ballistic missiles, you can hurt a country anywhere. So everybody's
a threat who has an ICBM. Japan attacked Pearl Harbor
that was pretty far away, and they potentially could have
could have been a threat to California.

Speaker 2 (01:44:18):
So I think that the important part is you.

Speaker 1 (01:44:22):
Don't want to get involved in farm wars where you
have no interest, but you have to clearly define what
your interests are and get involved where it's necessary. And
it's not often that it's necessary, in my view, but
you should get involved. You don't have to get involved
in India Pakistan, even though you can easily say India
the good guys, Pakistan the bad guys.

Speaker 2 (01:44:43):
But if Pakistan wins.

Speaker 1 (01:44:46):
And it's involved in by it and somehow has money
and funds Islamic terrorism, then.

Speaker 2 (01:44:52):
They become a problem as well. So you have to
you have to be alert to win.

Speaker 1 (01:44:59):
Is a America at risk when Americans individual Americans at risk?
And I think certainly in the eighteen nineteenth century it
was much easier to not get involved in foreign entanglements.
Becase it's much harder later on as foreign entanglements could
easily come to you.

Speaker 2 (01:45:20):
Raymond, what is the principle of privacy.

Speaker 1 (01:45:22):
Based on to what extent tracking legit a shopkeeper can
notice your purchase and recommend online stores. I mean privacy
is based on you know, your autonomy, the fact that

(01:45:44):
you own the things that you produce, and you own
information you produce, You own the information you possess. So
and you know nobody has a right to your address,
your phone number, nobody has a right to your purchases.

Speaker 2 (01:46:03):
Now, once you bring your information into the public.

Speaker 1 (01:46:07):
Domain, then all that changes. So if you are buying
something at a store, and particularly today, the assumption is
the store will now recognize what you bought and it
knows that about you, that you bought the stuff. You're

(01:46:28):
not buying anonymously. If you want to buy an honestly
use cash, so you recognize that once you use your
information in public. Now you could imagine an internet based
on information being owned by individuals, and the antnet could
have evolved in this way where it wouldn't be that

(01:46:49):
you gave up the right to your privacy when you
logged onto the internet what you do today, but it
would be the other way around that you opted. You
would have to the assumption will privacy, and you would
have to give permission for different companies to use your
information for different things, to track you for example. So
you could flip it. But it doesn't really matter because

(01:47:13):
once you establish the standard and everybody accepts that standard,
then they've accepted the standard. It's an implicity contract. So
you have no expectation of privacy online because that's not
how online is set up. And you know that going
in it's it.

Speaker 2 (01:47:30):
You're not being defrauded.

Speaker 1 (01:47:32):
If you walk in the street, a private street, let's see,
but the cameras all over the place, you have no
expectation of privacy in that sense that somebody's watching you
and they might use that information, they might save the tapes.
If you don't want it, don't go on that street

(01:47:55):
that has the cameras. Now it's different than when the
state does it. And here's way privacy is important. Your information,
your data, everything about you should be private visa v.
The state. The state has no right to it when
you're giving it up online, when you're giving it up

(01:48:15):
in a private store, you're not giving the state permission
for it. You're only giving the store permission for it.
You're only given online companies permission for it. Now, this
Spen Court advocates for something called the third party doctrine.
There's something Amy Peacock talks a lot about. The third
party doctrine is a doctrine that says that once you

(01:48:36):
give up your privacy at a store or online, you've
given up visa V. Not just the store and online,
you've given it up visa VI the government, and the
government has a right to it. And that is wrong.
And I think Amy makes good arguments about that, and
you know has written about that. So Amy's the expert

(01:48:57):
on that one. Raymond goes on, what about a dumb
camera that does head count but not faces? Well, I
think if it does faces, it's fine as long as
you know it's there, or you're going into somebody's private
property and the.

Speaker 2 (01:49:09):
Assumption is that it's today.

Speaker 1 (01:49:12):
What about building a profile of your location spending at Chechter,
but not your face and name. I mean, I think
all of that is permissible as long as it's private
and as long as you haven't opted out of that.
And assumption today is that's what they're doing. But it
could be the opposite. We could have built online presence

(01:49:35):
and stores where you'd have to opt into it, but
we didn't. We built it the other way around. String
about how you ron What are your thoughts on living
in Portugal as a digital nomad. I mean, I think
it's I think it's great, you know, if you can
live as a digital nomad, and you can. Portugal has

(01:49:57):
a good tax regime as far as I understand, it's
got good internet. It's cost of living is low relative
to the United States and relative to many other places
in Europe. Food here is quite a bit cheaper. We
noticed that, like buying the pods for the espresso, about
half the price than in the US, or at least

(01:50:20):
in Puerto Rico. Now Puerto Rico, I have to pay
a high price because you have to ship it in,
but you know, generally half price. A lot of food
here is much cheaper. Restaurants are a little cheaper, not
a huge amount, but a little cheaper. Yeah, So it's
cheaper cost of living here, So yeah, portug does a
very nice place. The weather's great, the people are friendly,

(01:50:42):
it seems like a vibrant city. There's a lot going on.
So yeah, I think I think it's one of the
places they consider right now. This and Greece seemed to
be the two places that people are going to the most.
Greece has problems. Greece is much more leftist culturally than
Portugal's more Kami, I mean Greece as a very well

(01:51:03):
established prominent left so very anti is well, very antismatic
because of that, because the commune is are that way. Michael,
is it likely as Russia collapses, it launches its nuclear payload,
as Hitler would have if he had them. No, I

(01:51:24):
don't think so, because I don't think Putin and the
rest of them are really suicidal. I don't think they
do that, and you know, the generals that have to
also be involved in it. I think there are a
bunch of people there who are not suicidal enough to
actually do it, and there's no ideology of seventy two
virgins on the other side, Jacob, would Japanese occupation have

(01:51:48):
looked like the Israeli Gaza if they didn't unconditional surrender
and MacArthur writing the constitution.

Speaker 2 (01:51:57):
You know, I don't know.

Speaker 1 (01:51:57):
It depends on how how the Japanese would have fought
and to what extent they were willing to use their
civilian population as shields, and would they have taken hostages
and would they engage in terrorist activities potentially if if?
I mean as it is, Japan was more destroyed without

(01:52:20):
the occupation than Gaza is today. Garza has more building
standing than Tokyo. Did I think so? Yeah, I'm not
sure it's very contextual as the world would have exactly happened.
Benjamin from Oslo. Have you considered the moral aspects of

(01:52:41):
forced and Western ideas in the Middle East East? Is
it fair to expect Arab countries to adapt short term? Well,
I mean, this is the thing. If they don't adapt,
that's fine, but then they have to suffer the consequences. Right.
If they don't adapt, then you just don't deal with them.

(01:53:02):
If they're hostile, you have to deal with their hostility.
If they don't adapt but stay peaceful, then you just
ignore them. But the reality is that if they're hostile,
they have to be beaten down until they're not hostile.
That's just it's just there's no alternative. Otherwise you're engaged
in self sacrifice. So you have to be willing to

(01:53:26):
do whatever's necessary to make to pacify them. And then
if they want to become part of civilization, if they
want to become part of what is the term something
of nations, right, then they have to become civilized. And

(01:53:46):
to become civilized, they have to adopt Western values. It's
not about forcing them. It's about explaining to them the
consequences of they do. And if they don't simple, If
they don't, they stay poor, and if they agent force,
they get crushed. If they do, they'll get rich and
then be embraced as part of the world community, the

(01:54:07):
civilized world community. And I think every country in the
world should face that alternative, not just in the Middle East,
just true of Africa, through of Asia. It's not that
you're forcing ideas, that you're explaining the consequences. And look,
if you're not hostile, we leave you alone. We're just uninterested.

(01:54:28):
We're not gonna force these ideas on you as long
as you're peaceful. But if you're not gonna be peaceful,
if you're can attack us. We're gonna crush you, and
we're gonna demand your pacification one way or the other.
And one way, one easy way that also gets you

(01:54:48):
rich is to adopt Western values. Clinton grinned German here. Hello,
I totally agree Germany suck. Most young people like me
feel the same. Unfortunately, our best intellectuals are not that shop. Yeah,

(01:55:09):
I mean what's interesting about Germany, of course, is your
best intellectuals. This goes to a comment that we've been
discussing from the beginning of the show. From earlier in
the show that a lot of German intellectuals have very
very high IQ and if they suck and they're not

(01:55:30):
that shop, I think that's right.

Speaker 2 (01:55:32):
They have high IQ, but they're not that shop.

Speaker 1 (01:55:34):
In other words, they're anti liberty and individualism, which is
the important thing, anti the individual. Okay, Benjamin has a correction.
He said, I should have used the word realistic. Cannot
fare well. I mean, look, I don't know why you

(01:55:54):
have so little I don't know, belief, so little trust
in Middle Easterners. At the end of World War One,
what did you think the possibility was that Japan would
become Western? And yet it did?

Speaker 2 (01:56:15):
At the end of the Korean War, what were the.

Speaker 1 (01:56:18):
Chances that South Korea would become western and one of
the richest countries in the world At the time it
was by it was one of the very poorest in
the world, poorer than North Korea.

Speaker 2 (01:56:31):
And yet look how well it's done.

Speaker 1 (01:56:35):
I mean, you could go on and on. Why are
Asians better than Middle Easterners? Now, maybe Middle Easterners have
to deal with Islam? Well, okay, well they need to
deal with Islam. It's one of the things preventing them
from westernizing. So tell them, explain to them in bold
letters that they have to deal with it. But as
human beings, as individuals, didn't no better, no worse. I think,

(01:57:01):
just like for children, they to some extent adapt to
our expectations. Expect them to be barbarians. They'll be barbarians.
So how realistic is it? I think it's quite realistic
if we're willing to really insist on it and explain

(01:57:21):
the consequences. You know, they're individuals. They took some steps
towards westernization in the early part of the twentieth century,
wasn't very successful to a large extent because of the
West West Ford. But there's nothing in their blood and
their genes. Their culture needs to change, like Japan's culture changed,

(01:57:43):
like South Korea's culture changed, and they still need to
change more. And European culture needs to change even more.
German culture needs to change because it needs to become
more individualistic for it not to suck, as Clinton says,
So we have to demand cultural change. It could take

(01:58:04):
a long time. I'm not saying it happens quickly. It
could take a generation or two. You know, in the Bible,
in the Old Testament that people of Israel spent forty
years in the desert in the Sinai Desert before they
reach the Holy Land. Forty years. Sinai desert is very small.

(01:58:25):
It's very difficult to be lost for forty years in
the sina Desert. I mean, you'd have to be really
talented to lose your way in the desert for forty
years in that small of a desert. Why forty years?
Why were they kept out of their homeland or they're
returning to their homeland for forty years? And this is

(01:58:45):
one of the most rational things in the Bible. God
basically said, you people have the mentality of slaves. You
raise the slaves, you live the slaves. You were educated
as slaves. You're not fit to be a free people,

(01:59:07):
he told us the Jews, and he said, the generation
of slaves needs to die out before you enter the
land of Israel, before you enter the Holy Land, before
you establish your own political entity. Okay, so maybe it
takes two generations forty years, that's what the Bible says.

(01:59:31):
And that's on you know, the Jewish people. They won't
fit to establish your own political entity. Well maybe the
Postenians need forty years as well. All right, Dean, your
opinion on Israeli protests today to end the war? Are
they useful idiots? Or that any way? BB will not

(01:59:55):
go the whole way in Gaza, So why bother trying.
I don't know if they're useful idiots. I mean they
are in a sense they're idiots, and sadly, you know,
members of my family are in them. I'm sure in
a protest today. It's they don't understand. I mean two things, Look,

(02:00:15):
idiots is long term. There are two issues here. The
war should have ended two years ago, well, okay, a
year and a half ago. The war should have ended
at least, you know most it should have taken it's
three months after October seventh, so yeah, protesting the frustration

(02:00:39):
of an endless war. I can understand that, but that's
not their solution. Their solution is not Okay, get it
over with, let's do it. The solution is no, we
should surrender. So it's the featism. I wouldn't call them
useful idiots because I don't think they're quite that, because

(02:01:01):
again it's a combination. It's the fetism.

Speaker 2 (02:01:04):
They're accepting that they can't win.

Speaker 1 (02:01:07):
They're accepting that this government of right wing fanatics could
win in Gaza. Who else could win? And that's just
sad and pathetic, and it will function as useful idiots
because they're bolden Hamas, There's no question about that. Adam
Marxism ignored the role of ideas. Even under Soviets, Poland

(02:01:30):
sent economic graduates to study with Marxist but to study
UH Austrian, Austrian influenced Robert Halbroner. They returned. They formed
ko R to give solidarity core ideas KR model for us.

Speaker 2 (02:01:53):
I don't know what KR is, Yes, I think that's right.

Speaker 1 (02:01:58):
I think Marxist, the real Marxists, the committed Marxists, don't
don't understand of older ideas. I mean, it's it's a
deterministic philosophy. It's a philosophy that says ideas don't matter.
There's a certain algorithm in history and it plays out
and it doesn't matter what you do and what you

(02:02:19):
say and what you think. And I think that explains
why ideas were circulating in Eastern Europe. They were pretty
far away from communism and why you know, they tried
to shut them down but didn't make that big of
an effort, and they allowed certain ideas to come in
like you know this this chore. So yes, it's it's

(02:02:43):
a it's a you know, it's The philosophy of Marxism
is one where history is already determined, we already know
its path. Nothing you do really matters, which is bizarre
for an activist movement has a vanguard and tries to educate.

Speaker 2 (02:03:02):
But that's a vola determinism. It doesn't make any sense.

Speaker 1 (02:03:06):
All right, guys, thank you, thank you all the super chatters,
thank you for being here. It is unbelievably hot in
this room. I need to get out of here. I'm
sweating like a pig about to be slotted outside. It's
gonna be a lot cooler and a lot nicer. It
is ten o'clock PM. It's gonna be perfect weather outside.

(02:03:28):
It's seventy degrees. It'll actually be cool, cold, cool. It'll
be amazing. All right, have a great rest of your Sunday,
and I will see you tomorrow. Will be on tomorrow.

Speaker 2 (02:03:39):
Oh, Michael came in quickly. He says, well, Germans today
shouldn't feel guilty for the Holocaust.

Speaker 1 (02:03:43):
Do they have a mal responsibility to make sure it
never happens again?

Speaker 2 (02:03:47):
Or is that sentiment still too collectivistic?

Speaker 1 (02:03:49):
I mean no, they have a mall responsibility to understand
what happened to no history and to make sure it
doesn't repeat. Yes, you know they're.

Speaker 2 (02:04:02):
People just like them, educated in a very.

Speaker 1 (02:04:05):
Similar educational system, bought into whatever Hitler was selling. They
need to know how to not fall for the same trap.
I'm not gonna let it happen again, all right, guys,
I will see you tomorrow tomorrow night to my afternoon,
your time maybe about the same time as today, three

(02:04:27):
o'clock East Coast time. I'm hoping that's the time. See then,
have a great rest of your Sunday and have a
good Monday. Bye. Everybody,

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know

My Favorite Murder with Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark

The Joe Rogan Experience

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

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}America First or Dictator’s Plaything? Trump, Putin & the Fight for a Rational Foreign Policy

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

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

My Favorite Murder with Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark

The Joe Rogan Experience

All Episodes

America First or Dictator’s Plaything? Trump, Putin & the Fight for a Rational Foreign Policy

Stuff You Should Know