When ‘Peace’ Becomes Cowardice: The West’s Moral Collapse Exposed | Yaron Brook Show - Yaron Brook Show

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
A lot of them, full of the little miss I'll
lead the little and an individual lots. This is the show,
all right, everybody, welcome to her one book show on
this Tuesday, October fourteenth, another edition of our news round up.

Speaker 2 (00:29):
I hope everybody's having a a great, a great.

Speaker 1 (00:33):
Week, all right.

Speaker 2 (00:36):
I guess we can. We can just jump into it.

Speaker 1 (00:40):
I mean, the chorus of congratulations, self, congratulations and enthusiasm
round the peace in our time is quite quite stunning.
I know that Trump has declared that he has established
peace in the Middle East for the first time in
three thousand years. There is quite a but is there

(01:03):
peace in the Middle East? Is the issue in Gaza
are solved? I mean, even Trump knows that's not true,
and it hasn't been yet finalized. He tweeted today somewhat
angrily about Haramas already having violating the agreement by now
releasing the bodies of Israeli dead that they are that

(01:27):
they're holding on to. According to the agreement they were
supposed to they were supposed to hand them out, hand
them over already. Indeed, everything is suggesting that Hamas has
no intention of living up to the agreement or to
the outline of an agreement. The agreement was never faced,
two was never hashed out that that Trump is advocating

(01:52):
for now.

Speaker 2 (01:55):
You know, this could all change.

Speaker 1 (01:58):
Qatar until Key in Egypt could get together and put
pressure again on Hamas and somehow changed their mind. But
at least as of right now, Hamas is openly stating
that they have no intention of disarming. They have no
intention of giving a power in Gaza, which are of

(02:19):
course two requirements for any kind of deal moving forward
and rebuilding and establishing an interim, interim governing body, and
all of that.

Speaker 2 (02:30):
Hamas has suppressed no interest in any of that.

Speaker 1 (02:33):
They said they would disarm when there was a Palestinian
military force in a new Palestinian state. They have no
intention of disarming before that, you know. The Ramas spokesman
declared that the group projects all of Israel's.

Speaker 2 (02:51):
Demands related to weapons.

Speaker 1 (02:53):
He says, quote, we will now be prisoner's to Israeli
terminology or demands. This will be a key focus in
the next phase of our struggle. And again there is
there's no interest in giving up rule over Gaza, and
died quite the opposite. Hamas spent the last two days
rounding up anybody who might be opposition in opposition to

(03:17):
them controlling Gaza, the various tribes, the various families clans
within Gaza that might object to the rule of Hamas.
Ramas is running them up and basically executing them. I mean,
there's there's vivid video online of people being you know,

(03:38):
on their knees, being shot in the back of the
head by Haramas.

Speaker 2 (03:44):
This is not video.

Speaker 1 (03:45):
They're trying to hide, this is not video. They're trying
to shield the world from. They don't care what the
world thinks. I mean, they know that the world is
not going to think any ill of them. The world
has shown that They have declared that they will continue
fighting and you know, basically until Israel ceases to exist

(04:09):
and there's a Palestinian state from the river to the sea.
You know, they, as I said, they have not returned
all the bodies. Also, this morning, there was a number
of Haramas armed approached Israeli lions. The Israelis told them

(04:32):
to back off, they shot into the air. They get
them of vindication to move away. They refuse. They kept
moving towards Israeli lions and Israel shot them. Hamas is
clearly trying to provoke Israel into continuing the war. Haramas
once the war to continue. It does not want peace,
It does not want it is fire. Maybe they appeased

(04:58):
their masters in Qatar and the a Turkey by releasing
the hostages.

Speaker 2 (05:03):
You know, it'll be interesting looking back in a.

Speaker 1 (05:06):
Few years to why exactly they did it and what
exactly happened that got them to do that. But they
have no interest in actually abiding by the the complete
deal that Trump has issued, submitted, tried to impose on them.

(05:27):
Now again, things could change. It could be that they're
just flexing muscles right now and their handlers and Katar
and elsewhere will climb down on them and get them
back in line. But as of now, there was no
peace deal in Gaza. Hamas has not accepted the terms.

(05:49):
I'm not sure when negotiations will stall up again, start
up again, and in between Hamas will do everything in
its power to well sort of complete suicide to provoke Israel.
And you have to ask the question partially why they
know They know very well that if Israel's decided to
come in back into Gaza again, that this time without

(06:12):
the hostages, it is quite likely that Israel will actually
destroy Hamas. That is, it'll kill many of them, It'll
destroy their tunnels, which are bound to be destroyed anyway,
one way or another, those tunnels when suspects are going
to be destroyed, and Israel has a potential to to
really really really really really this time cripple them or

(06:36):
destroy them completely. So why would Hamas want this? Well,
I think they see their primary victory since October seventh,
The primary victory since October seventh is the attitude of
the West. I think they see as their primary victory

(06:58):
since October seventh, thousands of people in New York and
London streets protesting in favor of Ramas. I think their
primary victory since October seventh with the announcement by you know,
the Prime Minister of the UK and of Spain and
Macan and Canada to recognize a palace in your state.

(07:21):
They're not winning on the ground, and they're not winning
even in the Middle East. They're losing allies in the
Middle East, but they are winning in the hearts and
minds of the West. And my views is their strategic
long term calculation is that that is more valuable than
anything else. Indeed, they are willing to die they're willing

(07:43):
to commit jihad.

Speaker 2 (07:44):
They're willing to sacrifice.

Speaker 1 (07:46):
Their own lives for the sake of more demonstrations in
New York, more calls for Israel as a genocidal nation,
more countries recognizing a Palestine Union state. They understand the

(08:06):
power of the West's sanction of their cause, and they're
willing to die for that. Shockingly, but they're willing to
die for a lot of things. Life is not that
precious for Ramas and Islamists like them. So what they
want is for the shots of genocide to return. What

(08:30):
they want is for Israel sub bombing Gaza again. What
they want is for more Gazan civilians, children, women to
die by Israeli hands. They don't care.

Speaker 2 (08:44):
Quite the contrary.

Speaker 1 (08:46):
What they want is to continue to create a wedge
between Israel and the West.

Speaker 2 (08:55):
And you know, they think they can be successful with this.

Speaker 1 (09:00):
Now again, their interests might diverge from the interests of
Kata or Saudi Arabia or Turkey or Egypt, who are
right now primarily focused on.

Speaker 2 (09:20):
You know, appeasing and.

Speaker 1 (09:22):
Being nice too and being friendly to Donald Trump and
a Trump administration. So we are going to see, but
it certainly is way too early to declare this an
amazing victory. It's really good to see the hostages released.

(09:45):
It's good to see the hostages released without Israel giving
up too much territory, particularly the Philadelphia corridor.

Speaker 2 (09:52):
And I don't think that was on the table in
the past.

Speaker 1 (09:54):
A lot of people saying, oh, they could have done
this deal nine months ago, they could have done this
deal last year. I don't think it was ever on
the table that Isel would stay in as much of
the Gods the strip as they are in right now,
and they get the hostages back. So anyway, I'm happy

(10:15):
for the deal because it is As in a better
position not.

Speaker 2 (10:19):
To destroy Caramas.

Speaker 1 (10:21):
I even will say I'm happy that Ramas doesn't want.

Speaker 2 (10:26):
A piece because I think they need to be destroyed.

Speaker 1 (10:30):
I think nothing short of the destruction will actually lead
to long term peace. So if Ramas gives his own
excuse to go in and destroy them, all the power
to them.

Speaker 2 (10:43):
And and I'm I'm all in support of that.

Speaker 1 (10:46):
So we will keep watching and keep following to try
to see exactly.

Speaker 2 (10:56):
Exactly what is going on.

Speaker 1 (10:58):
And yeah, I have no idea how this is exactly
going to play out, because I think This is going
to depend to a large extent on the incentives of
these other Arab countries and on Trump's willingness to give
it the attention that it requires, rather than the clear piece. Actually,

(11:19):
now the hard work of establishing that piece starts, and
whether he is willing to devote that time, that effort,
that focus to establishing that piece, we you know, to
trying to move towards that piece.

Speaker 2 (11:31):
We will see. Yep, we can hope, we can hope.

Speaker 1 (11:40):
Right in the meantime, in the United States, there was
a big bouja. Ha.

Speaker 2 (11:44):
We talked about this.

Speaker 1 (11:46):
I think we talked about this story a couple of
weeks ago. But there's a big bouja about new requirements,
new requirements for.

Speaker 2 (12:01):
Reporters at the Pentagon.

Speaker 1 (12:03):
So the Pentagon is as of today at five pm,
supposedly going to be requiring any reporter the once to
get a badge and wants to be able to be
in the building in the Pentagon and report from the
Pentagon have basically press coverage, press access. They're going to
require them to sign a twenty one page document. You know,

(12:28):
this document is going to restrict ability of journalists to
do their job. Journalists cannot ask anybody at the Pentagon
for any information, even on things that are unclassified, unless
that information has been approved, approved and give given a

(12:50):
thumbs up and actually been being what do you call it,
there has been in a sense of press release by
the Pentagon itself. It makes reporters dependent one hundred percent
on the Pentagon and nothing else. H uh.

Speaker 2 (13:22):
So, uh, you know, the press obviously, you know, the
press obviously.

Speaker 1 (13:31):
Is now saying they won't sign this. You know, let's see. Uh.
You know, the press is claiming that these restrictions are
intended to quote gag Pentagon employees and threatens retaliation against
reporters who seek out information that has not been pre
approved for release.

Speaker 3 (13:53):
You know.

Speaker 1 (13:54):
In their view, this pledge is part of an effort
by the Trump administration to limit information and being provided
to the public about what is going on in the
Pentagon and in the us n Forces. Basically, no news
organization except one has agreed to sign it. The one
news organization is the One American News, one American news outlet.

(14:16):
This is kind of a right wing rate of newsmax.
But in the meantime, the Atlantic Associated Press acces CNN, Guardian, Newsmax,
New York Times. Uh in, pr Reuters, Washington Posts, and
Washington Times have announced that they're refusing to sign this.
Fox supposedly has privately told their reporters that they do

(14:40):
not expect them to follow through with today's ultimatum. Uh
and they just should they should not sign the pledge.
Uh So even Fox, it seems, is refusing, is refusing
to have their reporters their reporters sign it. You know,

(15:01):
heck sext this claiming oh no, no, this is just
about waving badges and no, I mean, if you look
at the document, the document is clearly aimed at trying
to restrict information flows and trying to basically ban reporters
from doing their job. Again, the Pentagon is claiming this

(15:22):
is all part of their attempt to stop leaks.

Speaker 2 (15:27):
Anyway, we'll see.

Speaker 1 (15:29):
It does appear that's starting tomorrow, starting five pm tonight,
there will basically be no reporting out of the venegon.
That is, the news organizations will be barred from entering
the building and talking to staff.

Speaker 2 (15:45):
Now, the consequence of this are primarily going.

Speaker 1 (15:49):
To be that, you know, the news organizations will lie
on meetings outside of the Pentagon. Hush hush, meetings and
in different locations and uh, you know, and they will
know a lot less about what is actually going on
at the Pentagon. Reporters have said, uh, you know, this

(16:14):
has never been the case, not in the halls of
the Pentagon and not h you know, when they were
assigned to the military to report on in combat operations
with the military overseas. And you know, this is unprecedented,
It's not surprising. It is consistent with the attempt of uh,

(16:39):
this administration to kind of silence opposition and too uh
and to you know, restrict information flows. I think more broadly,
we will see how this plays out. So this is
a pout play between now the media and and uh
higseeth and we'll see how it plays out.

Speaker 2 (17:01):
Yep, let's see, all right.

Speaker 1 (17:11):
And yeah, I mean the idea is that they were
kicking them out today.

Speaker 2 (17:15):
They will literally not allow them in anymore.

Speaker 1 (17:18):
Of course, this is consistent with what they do in
other countries, the countries who are.

Speaker 2 (17:24):
Significant list free.

Speaker 1 (17:27):
And yeah, it's going to be interesting to see what
kind of impact this has on coverage of what's going
on in the military. I mean, coverage which I think
has been overly friendly to the military and overly friendly
to the defense the Department of Defense for the last
thirty years, I mean, or certainly twenty five years since

(17:48):
nine eleven, coverage that has not being critical.

Speaker 2 (17:52):
Enough of Afghanistan in Iraq.

Speaker 1 (17:54):
Not being critical enough of the behavior of the military,
not being critical enough of the rules of engagement, not
being critical enough of the fact that these missions that
the American military were sent on it was never intended
to win. So it's sad to see that the response

(18:17):
to the failure of our press to actually hold those
in power to account.

Speaker 2 (18:25):
Is now, you know, even the little that they did
is going to go away.

Speaker 1 (18:30):
I'm still you know, it's years now, but I'm still shocked,
you know, and it's still upset me. For if I
guess the fact that the Washington Post at some point
published this basically book ultimately critical of a book of
interviews with generals and Defense Department people, basically laying out

(18:53):
all the lies.

Speaker 2 (18:54):
That the American public were told.

Speaker 1 (18:57):
So the Washington Post did a brilliant job of just
showing but they said what actually happened, what they said then,
what they said later, and just the lying that went
on in terms of Ghanistan. And it was a series
of articles in the Washington Post and NK came out
as a book and nobody, nobody, nobody kid.

Speaker 2 (19:18):
It was just no response.

Speaker 1 (19:21):
I mean, thousands of American kids were killed and injured
in af Ghanistan and it turns out it was all
for nothing, not zero, zilch, nada. And this is not
a democratic or Republican thing. Both Republicans and Democrats participated
in this, and yet it got no coverage.

Speaker 2 (19:39):
Nobody literally kids, they.

Speaker 1 (19:43):
Shout, they go, they demonstrate the anti war, anti this,
and tell that. But when it comes to actual critique,
actual laying out the facts, nobody actually kids. Sad state
of the world, all right. In the last few days,
there's been a lot of people talking about the possibility

(20:04):
of an actual military engagement in a war between Russia
and NATO. We've seen over the last couple of months
lots of Russian provocations. If you go back further than
a few months, we've seen Russian sabotage in various European countries.

(20:25):
We saw over the last few weeks Russian using drones
to just harass and to stop, to shut down airports,
for example in Northern Europe, but to also infringed in
the air space of Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, in Estonia and
generally just harass, just intimidate. We saw Russian ships cut

(20:50):
communication lines in the Baltic Sea with almost no response
from anybody. And there just seems to be an accelerated
sense that Russia is inching towards greater and greater publication
and becoming more and more aggressive against the West. And
some are suggesting the possibility that and this is actually

(21:15):
NATO Secretary General Mark Route has suggested I think yesterday
that if China decides to move against Taiwan, which it
might sooner rather than later. Although Trump, of course, there's
the president of peace and China would never ever, ever,
ever ever think of doing such a thing when Trump

(21:35):
is president. But nonetheless, if China decides to move against Taiwan,
that China is likely to push Russia to act against
NATO as a massive distraction.

Speaker 2 (21:51):
And that makes sense to me.

Speaker 1 (21:54):
I think that's part of I mean, look, Russia is
beholding it to China is the senior partner between the two.
China has the capacity, you know, to shut down the
Russian economy. The Russian economy survives only because China makes.

Speaker 2 (22:15):
It possible for it to survive. So the question here
is if that happens, what would be the outcome?

Speaker 1 (22:29):
And look, I've I've told you what I think. I've
told you this for months, years really since the Ukraine
War started. The reality is the reality is that Russia
wouldn't survive a week. I mean former, I guess former,

(22:51):
what do you call it? General Ben Hodges? I think
also yesterday said you know, if Russia, if first you
got into dispute with NATO, Kaliningrad and Sevestopol, these are
two major ports Russia, you said it would be destroyed

(23:12):
in the very first hours of a NATO operation.

Speaker 2 (23:16):
I mean, Russia would be devastated.

Speaker 1 (23:21):
Poland today has a military that could alone take.

Speaker 2 (23:27):
On the Russians and destroy them. Russia has.

Speaker 1 (23:32):
Poland has almost double the size of its military, boosted
military spending to five percent of GDP, and today has
a most sophisticated, more modern, you know, far better equipped
with Western equipment than anything Russia has. One of the

(23:53):
things that we see in Ukraine is what happens when
no side has a super reality, but then a struggle
between NATO and Russia, a superiority would be established.

Speaker 2 (24:05):
Very very quickly.

Speaker 1 (24:08):
NATO would take out defense systems on the Russian side
quickly and thoroughly, at least, you know, if they've learned
anything from the Israelis, and with the use of F
thirty five stealth fighters, they ask four hundred batteries, there's
three hundred batteries. Maybe even there as five hundred batteries
would have no chance. And once NATO established a superiority,

(24:31):
it doesn't matter how many drones you have, it doesn't
matter how many people you have that are willing to
commit suicide, they will be you know, rushed to heaven
by NATO airpower. So NATO would dominate, I mean dominate

(24:54):
any conflict with Russia.

Speaker 2 (24:57):
And I think I think the Russia. The Chinese know this.

Speaker 1 (25:00):
So while such a distraction might be helpful to them,
is that a you know, is it a big enough
for distraction for them and would be distracting enough of
the Americans? Would a make it come to Taiwan's help.
It's not clear. Uh, there's a lot of unknowns and
a lot of unknowns from the Chinese perspective, What would

(25:21):
happen if they actually invaded Taiwan? What had happened to
the economy, What would happen to sanctions? What would happen
to their ability to trade? But but what would happen
to what would happen to their fleet? What would happen?
You know, the United States is deploying, as far as
I can tell, and I hope this is true, deploying
large numbers of stealth unmanned submarines into the into the

(25:48):
the that part of the Pacific Ocean, the Western Pacific,
off the coast of China. What could stealth unmanned submarines
or other types boats due to the Chinese navy.

Speaker 2 (26:02):
Look what a few unmanned boats in the.

Speaker 1 (26:06):
Black Sea, completely by help by the Ukrainians, completely devastated
the Russian navy. Russia has no presence in the Black Sea.
It has no presence now in the Mediterranean. Russia's navy
has been decimated. It's in port out of fear of
Ukrainian unmanned boats.

Speaker 2 (26:26):
Very unsophisticated on the man boats.

Speaker 1 (26:32):
Wonder Freeman keeps posting stuff on the chat and then
retracting it. What's going on? He wants you, guys ought
to see what he says, but then does not want
it to remain for posterity.

Speaker 2 (26:46):
It's it's really weird. I've never seen anything like it.

Speaker 1 (26:50):
I mean, I get retracting a few things, but every
single comment he's made, he's attracted.

Speaker 2 (26:56):
It's retractive. Charcter attract attracted.

Speaker 1 (26:59):
You can't explain yourself.

Speaker 2 (27:00):
One of food him.

Speaker 1 (27:01):
Maybe not anyway, Russia's poking.

Speaker 3 (27:09):
Umm.

Speaker 2 (27:11):
One of Femae says, what do you need repeated? I
don't need anything repeated. I don't read most of the comments.

Speaker 1 (27:17):
I just find it bizire and I you know, I
can't read the comments because they've disappeared.

Speaker 2 (27:35):
Yeah, let me just see. Is this something else?

Speaker 4 (27:37):
Yeah, Poland is am other things, approaches fifty billion dollars
worth of US weapons systems, it's got new divisions, it's
got new territory defense forces.

Speaker 1 (27:49):
It's got large scale exercises with its allies. It's got
right now a relatively thriving economy. See, he retracted even
the question of what I want to see that needs
to be repeated.

Speaker 2 (28:03):
It just makes no sense.

Speaker 1 (28:09):
Yeah, I don't know. He wants to make sure that
none of this is maintained forever that he can. He
has plausible deniability, deniability. Yeah, so anyway, NATO, I think
it's a good position to take on Russia. I think

(28:30):
it would be suicidal a putin to engage with Russia.
I think that many people in uh, you know, Russia,
who knows this. They're poking, they are harassing. But I
don't think they're going to do anything now. I didn't
think they would go into Ukraine because I thought that
would be suicidal for them. And indeed, if you look

(28:50):
at four years into the war, almost four years into
the war, it will be four years in February, Russia
is gaining no ground, inching forward. It's barely moving. Somebody
did a calculation, what was it wild ta him one
hundred years to occupy Ukraine at this rate.

Speaker 3 (29:09):
So so it's not doing well.

Speaker 1 (29:21):
It's not doing well. One of Fema says, I just
cleaned up all my comments from the last seven years.

Speaker 2 (29:26):
I don't want to repeat the process.

Speaker 1 (29:28):
I mean, there's an easy way to avoid that and
that just don't make comments. And if you're going to
clean up all the comments, imagine if I had to
clean up everything I've said over the last twenty years,
which is all basically public videotaped, audio, taped, in print,
in writing and stuff. God, that is a lot of
work and that Luckily, I have no intention of doing

(29:49):
that either stand by what I said in the past
or I don't and I said in the past I
was wrong.

Speaker 2 (29:54):
I could be wrong. I'm allowed to be wrong.

Speaker 1 (29:57):
In the meantime, Trump seems to be I don't know.

Speaker 2 (30:02):
He seems to.

Speaker 1 (30:03):
Be becoming more sane when it comes to phone POLSI,
he's more sane when it comes to Israel, and now
he's slowly becoming more sane with becoming Ukraine. It appears
Trumpet demonstration is.

Speaker 2 (30:16):
Going to.

Speaker 1 (30:19):
Approve these UH, these Kruis missaus, the Tomahawk cruise missiles
sale to UH, to the Ukrainians. And I don't know
what kind of conditions are place on the use, hopefully none,
but that is a game change. I mean, these Kruis
missiles can reach UH deep into Russia. They are precision weapons.

(30:42):
You can thread them through a window. They are very
difficult to shoot down because of the way they fly,
very difficult to detect. UH and UH. This is a
game change in terms of you know, Ukraine ability to
take out Russian assets deep within Russia. Now, Ukraine has

(31:06):
been doing a really, really good job over the last
few months and taking out oil refineries and oil assets
of the Russians. UH and Ukraine has developed their own
Tomahawk like Kruisms cells, but they can only produce small
numbers of their new Kruisms cells. I think they can.
They can launch three a day. They hope to bring

(31:28):
it up to six a day. The Tomahawks will give
them much larger capabilities. I'm assuming the United States will
send them Tomahawk missiles that close to expiration date that
the United States would have to destroy anyway, might as
well destroy them over Russian facilities. UH and and and
UH go out there and uh and do that. But

(31:51):
this this could be definitely a game change in terms
of the world. It's it doesn't change the reality on
the ground, on the in combat, on the line of defense,
but it shifts resources Russian resources. It basically makes oil scarce.
It makes it very difficult for Russia to sell oil.

(32:12):
It makes it very difficult to get for them to
get fuel, both for their armored vehicles and tanks and
everything else and for civilian purposes. It demoralizes the Russians
and it reduces the capacity to wage war over time.
As that gets eroded, you can imagine the Ukrainians starting

(32:33):
to make progress on the ground pushing the Russians out
of Ukrainian territory, which is ultimately their goal. As part
of selling Tomawk missiles to the Ukrainians, the White House
is also putting significant pressure on the Germans to deliver
tourist missiles to Ukraine. Tourist missiles also, I think these

(32:54):
Accuse missiles also with the significant range access into Russia
would be another game changer. Would just give the Ukrainians many,
many more tools to be able to devastate Russian facilities
behind the lines. Maybe go after some of the aircraft
the launch missiles at and launch the ballistic missiles at Ukraine.

Speaker 2 (33:19):
Uh, maybe go after more of the all facilities. Maybe
go after uh.

Speaker 1 (33:23):
You know, troops that are being a raid in the
back with anticipation of sending to the front.

Speaker 2 (33:30):
Might as well kill them before they even make it
to the fund.

Speaker 1 (33:33):
There are many many ways in which these uh, these
weapons can be used to basically give Ukraine an advantage
vis a VI visa v Russia.

Speaker 2 (33:46):
So good for Trump for changing his mind.

Speaker 1 (33:48):
Now ze Lenski's coming to the White House on Friday, UH,
who knows what will happen? Let's hope. I mean, I
think he's learned that, you know, basically gravel cup like
every second secon sentence, thank Donald Trump and emphasize his greatness.
And if you do that, and you do it regularly,

(34:09):
and you do constantly, then you will get everything you want.
I think he's learned that. I think he's being trained
by the Europeans. Europeans have learned that, I think, and
I think now that is the new way in which
to deal with with Trump and Zelenski's figured out. So
I expect the meeting to go smoothly on Friday, But

(34:30):
who knows. I mean, Jadvance is still pretty hostile to
Ukraine and he might try to sabotage whatever happens.

Speaker 2 (34:37):
Uh.

Speaker 1 (34:38):
So yeah, hopefully that'll prove the Tomawks, they get the
Germans to prove their missiles and uh and Ukraine will
be armed to be able to inflict maximum pain on Russia.
All Right, just a few more comments on Earth. We

(34:59):
talked about it Yester today and I think last week.
I mean, this is this is a big deal. The
trade war between China and the United States continues, in
spite of the attempt both of the of Trump and
the Chinese to kind of load the pressure. Today, the
Chinese announced kind of sanctions and a bunch of companies
owned by the South Koreans but doing business with the

(35:21):
United States. Supposedly there are shipbuilding companies that are that
are working with the with the US Navy on building ships,
so that you know, they they are sanctioning foreign companies
that are working with the Defense Department. This is again
one more escalation on a series of escalations. I mean,

(35:42):
I mean the biggest deal here is the rare earth material.
Rare earth material that have the potential to really shut
down military production in the United States, shut down the
defense industry both in the United States and Europe, shut
down innovation, shut down the technology industry. I mean basically,
you know, we are our economy is our tech industry

(36:05):
is completely dependent on these rare earth materials and some
of the magnets that ninety three percent of which are
made by the Chinese. It is pretty shocking that whoever
thought of this trade war didn't think of this in
advance and didn't plan for this. There's no reason in

(36:26):
the United States needs to be dependent on China for
any of this. Indeed, in the nineteen eighties, we were
the leading minor and refiner of rare earth materials in
the world. We gave that up. We gave that up
primarily for environmentalist reasons. We gave it up because we're
anti mining. We gave it up because we're anti refining,

(36:46):
because refining is a relatively duty business. It would take
some time, but it is not impossible. It actually is
quite easy to bring back the mining to the United States.
It would require appealings of the regulations and laws the
restrict ability.

Speaker 2 (37:03):
To mine in the US.

Speaker 1 (37:03):
It would be involve getting rid of on the regulation
and laws that restrict the production of these as well.
It seems like that as a direction of the Trump
administration would like to go, but it does seem like
in order to do that they're going to have to
really repeal some regulations and actually go to Congress and
get it done. In the meantime, the Earth government is

(37:26):
investing in rare earth material companies in the United States,
which is the wrong approach, which is only going to
distort the market, create winners and losers instead of letting
just lowering the barriers, eliminating government obstruction and letting the
market rip, which is the right way to approach things

(37:46):
like this. But you know, the United States could become
the world's largest manufacturer of rare earth and refiner of
rare earth.

Speaker 2 (37:54):
It might be more expensive to.

Speaker 1 (37:56):
Do in the US, but for national security reasons and
for other reasons, that.

Speaker 2 (38:00):
Might not be that big of an issue.

Speaker 1 (38:03):
And the quicker, the faster they do it. I mean,
if you care about national defense, if you care about
American national defense, then this should be like number one
issue on your agenda. This should be the thing that
you push Congress about. This is the thing to really,

(38:23):
you know, focus the Department of Energy and I'm sure
the Interior Department on allowing mining. We saw some of
that with this bill that was just passed that allowed
more mining in three states. Need a lot more of that,
a lot more of that. Now, some of that is happening.

(38:45):
And one of the ways we can see that it
is happening is that private investors are now focusing some
of their money on things like earth companies. Now, part
of that might be because they figure, well, if the
US government is investing in them, it's a no lose
proposition to invest in ourselves, because the government will always

(39:08):
bail out companies that they invest in. It's part of
this as a consequence of cronyism that for example, JP
Morgan just announced that they're going to be investing ten
billion dollars of their own money of JP Morgan funds
in the defense and rare earth companies. And here defense

(39:30):
we're meeting not old line defense, but cutting edge new
defense industry. They realize that the US is pivoting and
the US is going to be buying a lot of
kind of drones again, drones that are in robots that
have military applications, and also rare earth is going to

(39:50):
be required AI and so you know a lot of
these supply chains are going to come back to the
United States.

Speaker 2 (39:59):
And that's good thing.

Speaker 1 (40:01):
And all the US government really needs to do, really
needs to.

Speaker 2 (40:05):
Do, is drop the restrictions.

Speaker 1 (40:10):
The rest seems like China is helping by China restricting
the sale of all these goods and products. So JPM
Morgans when invest in real earth mining, missile manufacturing, and
maybe American made magnets, and that's the way it should be.
It should be private enterprise picking the winners and losers,

(40:34):
private enterprise putting its own skin in the game and
bringing its expertise to this kind of investment, and the
government should stay out of it.

Speaker 2 (40:42):
It should.

Speaker 1 (40:45):
Lower the barriers, lower the barriers to entry, a low
for investment, a low for mining, a love for production,
and then move out and then you know, buy the
goods that they need when they need them. Just as
an aside, not exactly relevant to were worked, but relevant

(41:05):
to tariffs and trade wars. This is a really interesting
confession by the CEO of Cleveland Cliffs, I think, the
second largest of the largest manufacturer of steel in the United.

Speaker 2 (41:20):
States, Cliff.

Speaker 1 (41:26):
In twenty twenty four, Cleveland Cliffs lost seven hundred million
dollars and in the first quarter of twenty twenty five
it announced that they were idling or closing down six
mills across several states.

Speaker 2 (41:43):
But they're very happy.

Speaker 1 (41:46):
With twenty five with Trump's original twenty five percent tasal
steel and super happy when Trump raised.

Speaker 2 (41:56):
That ap to fifty percent in June.

Speaker 1 (42:00):
The CEO of Cliffs, you know, said, the taff's are
already beginning to have a positive effect. Well, of course,
he's raised prices dramatically. He's raised prices on his customers, dramatically,
raise prices, and therefore it's having a positive impact on
his business. And then he says, and this is this

(42:21):
is a quote from him. I have been fighting for
this for almost thirty years. I am very happy with
fifty percent, and without giving any details, I have my
fingerprints on the fifty percent.

Speaker 2 (42:34):
In other words, I influenced that.

Speaker 1 (42:38):
So we now have American businessman proud of their own coneyism,
of their own you know, manipulating the government or the
president in this case, to put on a tariffs to
protect them, protect them, inflict huge damage on other parts
of the economy, on the customers in particularly the people
who used steal, but protect them. And and yeah, you know,

(43:05):
cliff Is, they're doing fine because they're raising prices significantly.

Speaker 2 (43:10):
Even if demand drops a little bit.

Speaker 1 (43:12):
They can raise prices so much because they don't have
to worry about it. Right, fifty percent hoists. That's a
lot of room to raise prices. All right, some good news.
We've got three good news stories. Three good news stories.
The first one is that the Supreme Court, Supreme Court

(43:33):
of the United States has refused to take up Alex
Jones's appeal on the one point four billion dollar judgment
against him.

Speaker 2 (43:45):
Now, this is fantastic.

Speaker 1 (43:47):
Alex Jones will actually have to pay up, pay up
to the families, you know that he had defamed the
families of the Sandy Hook massacre. Now, I don't know
if one point four billion dollars is the right amount.
I don't know if these amounts have not reached the

(44:08):
absurd level, absurd levels and so on. But I'm happy
to see Alex Jones completely bankrupted, and I think he
deserves it for his conspiracy theory, laiden lying and deception
of people, and in this case, the faming of parents

(44:30):
whose children twenty children and twenty and six educated died
were killed in what he called the government false flag,
which is just unbelievably disgusting and repulsive. Why anybody ever
watches Alex Jones is beyond me. I mean, please don't

(44:51):
tell me you listen and watch Alex Jones, because I
will be the post.

Speaker 2 (44:58):
It's disgusting.

Speaker 1 (45:00):
I mean, this ban should be banned, not banned by
the government, banned by social media, and certainly banned by you,
the listener. Anyway, he connected Jewey, you know, basically found
him guilty of defamation and he had to pay a

(45:22):
nine with damages of nine hundred and sixty five million
dollars plus four hundred and seventy three million in penalties
for the years of lies and harassment. It wasn't just lying,
he harassed these families. So while he argued free.

Speaker 2 (45:42):
Speech, you do not have.

Speaker 1 (45:46):
The right to defame other people. You do not have
a right to harass if it's real harassment.

Speaker 2 (45:53):
This is great.

Speaker 1 (45:54):
This didn't even take a hearing it in, you know,
didn't even blink. It had showed no sympathy. And basically, yeah,
he's now bankrupt. Now he's still broadcasting, and there's still
other lawsuits against him, but it does look like financially

(46:14):
Alex Jones has finished. It would be great if he
was kicked off the air. Maybe he can he can
co host a show with Tucker Carlson. But other than that,
I mean, the guy's finished completely. And that's good news.
That's good news.

Speaker 2 (46:30):
Good news story number one.

Speaker 1 (46:31):
We have four full good news stories.

Speaker 2 (46:33):
I mean, that's a lot.

Speaker 1 (46:36):
I promise more good news, right, I mean, this is
this is an interesting one. Right, So for years, I
and many other economists and others have been arguing that, look,
the reason tuition at universities goes up like this is
because basically the government is willing to write a loan
check for any amount, and the more the university raised tuition,

(47:02):
government is willing to write big loan checks. And students
are like, I just want to go to Harvard. I'll
figure out how to pay it later. And it's just
ramped up and ramped up and ramped up and ramped up.
And the government not like a bank. If you go
to a bank for a loan, they want to know
you can pay it back. They would ask you what

(47:24):
degree you're getting at, what university, what's your employment prospects
after after getting in the degree, And they would not
be willing to fund some of the outrageous levels of
tuition that are out there in the world because there's
just no way to pay those back, those kind of
loans back.

Speaker 2 (47:45):
Anyway. So we've got an experiment right now. It turns
out in the big.

Speaker 1 (47:48):
Beautiful Bill there was some good there's some good provisions.
In the big bad, big bad no big big beautiful
something something Bill, there was a provision basically said the
will for professional schools like law school, the government is

(48:08):
capping the amounts of bar lending it will do at
fifty thousand dollars a year with a total cap of
two hundred thousand. That if you can get fifty thousand
for four years, not more than that.

Speaker 2 (48:25):
So if you want to go to.

Speaker 1 (48:26):
Law school, whatever the tuition happens to be, you can
only get from the government fifty thousand a year. Now,
this is an interesting experiment, that is is this fifty
thousand cap going to have a mitigating impact on tuition
for example at law schools, at professional schools. Well, you know,

(48:48):
phase one of the experiment is in Santa Clara Law
School has just published its tuition raid for the twenty
six twenty seven school. Yeah, when this law goes into effect. Now,
let me just give you a sense of tuition over
the last ten eleven years at Santa Clara. Santa Clara
a university where I taught for many years at the

(49:09):
business school, this is the school of Law. In twenty
fifteen sixteen, tuition was forty three thousand, seven hundred. By
eighteen nineteen, it was fifty one thousand, six hundred and
seventy six hundred ninety six. By twenty one twenty two,
it was fifty four thousand, seven hundred and sixty eight

(49:29):
by twenty five, twenty six.

Speaker 2 (49:31):
This year right this school year.

Speaker 1 (49:34):
It's sixty three thousand, two hundred and eighty all bankled
by the government who's writing checks. Guess what it is
in twenty six twenty seven. In twenty six twenty seven,
tuition at Santa Clara is fifty thousand a year, which

(49:55):
is the cap that the government is placed on the
amount of lending exactly fifty. So, yeah, tuition has come down. Yeah,
you want to call it a win, it's a win.
I don't consider government manipulating these things a win. Governments

(50:16):
shouldn't be issuing loans periodment. If you really want to
do a way that a body of education, the best
way to do that is to get rid of all
government loans for education. You know, the government taking over
the loan business was something that Obama did to executive order.
It could be reversed to executive order, and the government

(50:39):
should stop guaranteeing all of this.

Speaker 2 (50:41):
That probably needs legislation, but just.

Speaker 1 (50:44):
Get out of the business of student loans and tuition
will plummet. Bring the financial markets in. Financial markets will
discipline universities. Governments can't. Governments won't.

Speaker 2 (51:00):
Answer.

Speaker 1 (51:00):
Markets can, and when they do just a little bit
by capping it fifty thousand. Great news.

Speaker 2 (51:05):
This is good.

Speaker 1 (51:06):
Once in a while, something happens in the big beautiful bill.
That actually is a small move in a positive director.

Speaker 2 (51:13):
It's just small.

Speaker 1 (51:14):
But the main benefit here is just to show the
truth of something we've been arguing for a long time.
He has a little experiment and we can show that
it works. All right, let me look, this is a
quick story about trans. I mean, one of the one

(51:34):
of the interesting phenomena about trans is the the fact
that there was a huge spike in trans identification among
young people.

Speaker 2 (51:51):
In the early twenty twenties. I'll show you. I'm going
to show you a graph. Yeah, there's a graph, right.

Speaker 1 (52:00):
And see that. In twenty sixteen, the number of young
students self identifying self identifying is neither.

Speaker 2 (52:06):
Male nor female was two percent.

Speaker 1 (52:08):
It actually went down by twenty nineteen to I don't
know a Nikelai Jill amount. It's hard to tell exactly
what that amount is. And then it started creeping up.
But starting with COVID, starting with twenty twenty, it spiked
and it got to the point where about nine percent
of all students refused to identify as male or female.

Speaker 2 (52:33):
By twenty twenty, three.

Speaker 1 (52:36):
What's amazing is immediately since then twenty twenty four, now
twenty twenty five, that number has plummeted, has gone down dramatically. Right.
These are, by the way, three different, three different surveys, Right,
they all show basically the same thing. The one from

(52:57):
andover is the one with the most data. But you
can see the fire data, you can see the brown data.
You can see they're all basically the same story. And
what the shows is that, to some extent, the phenomena

(53:18):
of trans in the early twenty twenties was a social phenomena.
It was people identifying as trans because it was the
cool thing to do.

Speaker 2 (53:29):
It was the socially beneficial thing to do.

Speaker 1 (53:34):
You know, being simply a male or female was somewhat
looked down on within leftist circles, within university circles. Non
Conforming sexual identity, you know, also is in decline if
you look here at this graph.

Speaker 2 (53:53):
Right.

Speaker 1 (53:55):
So these things are at least to some extent, driven
by fad, by fashion, by what's cool.

Speaker 2 (54:05):
Now, why the change in twenty twenty.

Speaker 1 (54:07):
Three, I mean, to LUs extent, kind of woke and
woke ideology more broadly peaked in twenty twenty three in
many respects. But if you actually ask people about their ideology,
you know they're not fewer leftists right now than they
were in twenty twenty three. The fall left is just
a break today as it was in twenty twenty three

(54:29):
among students. It's just the deep hot topic has shifted.
What happened in twenty twenty three, well, I think what
happened in twenty twenty three is Gaza. What happened in
twenty twenty three is they adopted a different agenda. It
wasn't cutting edge anymore, to be trans. What was cutting

(54:53):
edge now was to be prop Palacinian Paamas rather than
a peer and self identif as trans. You went out
and waved a Palestinian flag and yelled from the river
to the sea, even though you didn't know which river,
and we'd see, and it participated in sit ins over

(55:14):
Gaza and the Palestinians, and you hated on Jews and
Israelis in particular, and that became the sexy hot thing.

Speaker 2 (55:22):
I mean.

Speaker 1 (55:22):
The thing about the ideology on the left, the whole
postmodern ideology that they hold, is how malleable it is
to whatever group you think at any particular time, is
the one that is suffering is the one that the needs,
the needs your model support. It shifted from trans to Palestinia.

(55:47):
At least that's my interpretation. I have no no idea
if that is backed up by the data. Okay, let's
look that is so, that's good news. I mean, I
think the transition is always going to be around the atrans,
and they're around, but as becoming a big political, big

(56:09):
issue that everybody on campus, and I know a lot
of parents have had to deal with this their kids
suddenly identifying as trans and it being kind of a
thing that is all over schools and all over the
universities and just super popular.

Speaker 2 (56:26):
That is probably a fad.

Speaker 1 (56:28):
And one of the interesting things is going to be
what happens if there is some kind of deal in
Gaza and if Israel doesn't get dragged into a war there.
What does the left go for next? What is the
next faty thing? Now you would think you would think
that the thing would be illegal immigrants. For some reason,

(56:51):
I don't think that that's sexy enough for them, partially
because the left is not that pro image. All right,
I want to show you this video and you tell
me where it is right Where this video is from you'll.

Speaker 2 (57:13):
Notice vehicles here.

Speaker 1 (57:15):
I'll just point out, just in case it's too small
for you to see, that none of these vehicles have drivers.
These are all self driving trucks of various types, self
driving things. It's obviously in a port. You can see
the big queens in the background. So look at this.

Speaker 2 (57:39):
It's really cool. I mean, look at them maneuvering, look
at them stopping.

Speaker 1 (57:46):
These vehicles can achieve maximum speeds for thirteen miles an hour.
They can transport containers that are up to seventy tons,
and all of these Everyone that you're seeing in the
video is a self driving, self driving vehicle. Now where
is this? Now, everybody you know China? Somebody says the

(58:10):
Middle East. I'll go with China. Yeah, China. Actually this
is Los Angeles. This is in the port of Long Beach, California.
You can actually see on the side of some of
these trucks you can see English writing. This is happening
right now in California, of all places.

Speaker 2 (58:30):
Right in spite of.

Speaker 1 (58:31):
Whatever deal was struck with a longshore man about not
bringing in technology into the ports, technology is being brought
into the port. You're not going to stop technology from
being brought in. It could be on a much larger scale.
This is just one terminal which is fully automated. You
could automate a lot of the terminals, if not all

(58:54):
of the terminals. But I thought this was really, really cool,
particularly given that I showed you a bunch of videos
of China. I wanted to show you something exciting and
interesting and pretty cunning, edge and really cool.

Speaker 2 (59:07):
Happening in the United States. And again, of all places.

Speaker 1 (59:10):
Happening in the great state of California, and not a
state that many of you necessarily like. All Right, we
have very few questions, almost all of them, really, all
of them except for one from Michael, and we are
way way, way way behind on our targets for the day.

(59:34):
We've got a few stickers from Mary Ellen, Thank you,
Mary Ellen, and from Stephen Harper, Thank you, Steven. And
from Jacob but that's it. Three stickers. So I don't
know what's going on.

Speaker 2 (59:45):
But there is seems to be a strike among.

Speaker 1 (59:50):
The live attendance at the run book show in terms
of the financial support.

Speaker 2 (59:57):
Remember, this is a trade.

Speaker 1 (01:00:00):
You listen, you gain value, and there's value, and you
offer reciprocal value. So please consider asking a question twenty
dollar questions right now desperately needed. And you can also
ask any amount fifty one hundred dollars questions particularly good.

(01:00:20):
You can do a sticker fifty dollars. Stickers are also good,
twenty dollars stickers, one hundred dollars stickers. Any of those
would get us closer to our target quickly. Leven just
did three dollars. That's good too. We could do a
bunch of three dollars one. There's the doll lean doing
three dollars. Maybe we could just do a bunch of
three dollars ones. There's John for ten. Thank you all right.
Let me remind you of our sponsors. The ie N

(01:00:44):
Institute is a sponsor and nine minu in Student is
encouraging you to submit essays essays an apples shrug. The
winning prize is twenty five thousand dollars. Twenty five thousand dollars,
which is which is quite striking.

Speaker 2 (01:01:02):
It's a lot of money. Maybe I should write an essay.

Speaker 1 (01:01:04):
I don't think I qualify, but anyway, if you'd like
to write an essay, the deadline is really coming up fast.
It's October thirty first, and you can find out information
about how to write the essay, what the question is
you should write on how long?

Speaker 2 (01:01:21):
And all of that.

Speaker 1 (01:01:22):
You can find all that information out on the iran
on iran dot.

Speaker 2 (01:01:27):
Oak slash dot here.

Speaker 1 (01:01:28):
And yeah, if you qualify, please think about writing an essay.
Twenty five thousand dollars. That is quite an inducement, Quite
an inducement. Lincoln Gaffney is in college, so he qualifies,
and he should go to Ironman dot oak slash dot
here and think about writing an essay. What have you
got to lose a few hours of writing an essay?

(01:01:50):
And you might.

Speaker 2 (01:01:51):
The upside is twenty five thousand dollars. That's significant upside.

Speaker 1 (01:01:57):
Alex Epstein the number one you know, thinker and write
and proponent of freedom when it comes to mining and
when it comes to energy production.

Speaker 2 (01:02:07):
If you want to understand the.

Speaker 1 (01:02:08):
Rare earth material issue fully, Alex is the is the
resource to go to.

Speaker 2 (01:02:15):
He is the go to resource.

Speaker 1 (01:02:16):
On anything related to electricity, mining, en findamental regulations and
of course oil and gas, nuclear, all of that stuff.

Speaker 2 (01:02:25):
So check him out.

Speaker 1 (01:02:26):
You'll become a much better communicator. You'll do much better
in those arguments.

Speaker 2 (01:02:31):
You have come.

Speaker 1 (01:02:32):
Come Thanksgiving with family members around these issues. So check
out his substack alex Epstein dot substack dot com. And
then finally, hand a Shot Wealth, hand a Shot with
two Tasndershot Wealth dot com slash y b s. If
you have.

Speaker 2 (01:02:47):
You know, if you have.

Speaker 1 (01:02:50):
Coming up any kind of event where you are going
to take on significant capital gains and therefore have a
capital gains tax liability. May be at the end of
the year because you're selling some stock or maybe you're
selling your business.

Speaker 2 (01:03:03):
Check out what what they're offering.

Speaker 1 (01:03:05):
Check out the offering that they have in terms of
products that reduce your capital gains tax liability. Check them
out at hand a Shot two Teaswealth dot com, slash ybs.
You can also find the interview I did with Robert
Handershot on my on the playlist for sponsors and you
can find that video there. All right, guys, thank you again.

(01:03:29):
I'll remind you Stickers and questions welcome. We still got
a way to go in order to get to our targets.
We don't have that many questions, so we don't have
that much time to get to the targets. So if
you're going to do a stick or you do you
do a question twenty dollars, fifty dollars, hundred dollars would
get us to our targets a lot faster.

Speaker 2 (01:03:51):
All right, let's start Michael.

Speaker 1 (01:03:56):
Michael's asking a lot of the questions here. So you know,
whatever income we're getting today, it's largely from Michael. Well.
Twenty first century authoritarianism be more about cronyism than concentration camps. Yeah,
I think so probably, although you'll have a you won't

(01:04:18):
have quite concentration camps. So, but you still have the
goolag in a sense. You'll still have people disappearing. You're
still people dropping out of windows. I think, if you
want to see what of thebtarianism, I think that we're
heading towards, it looks much more like Putin's Russia than
it does Nazi Germany or.

Speaker 2 (01:04:38):
Stalin's Soviet Union.

Speaker 1 (01:04:42):
Less explicit ideal law, ideology, less no concentration camps, opposition
people disappearing, people who disagree with the governor, falling out
of windows. So a lot quiet, a lot more, you know,
still violent.

Speaker 2 (01:04:59):
But quite as violent.

Speaker 1 (01:05:03):
I don't know if Franco Pinochet, Yeah, Pinochet. Pinochet made
a lot of people disappear, So maybe more like Pinochet fruncle,
but they the Pinochet was a military coup.

Speaker 2 (01:05:16):
I don't expect that again.

Speaker 1 (01:05:17):
I think more like Putin, you get an elected official
who keeps getting elected, who starts cheating on elections, who
slowly cumulates power, and through cronyism, builds a collection of
oligochs who he surrounds himself with, who provide economic protection
and who he gives favors to, and when they step

(01:05:38):
out of line, he drops him out of a window.

Speaker 2 (01:05:41):
That's the world we're heading towards, I feel.

Speaker 1 (01:05:46):
Michael says, can you do another discussion with Destiny about
Mamdani Trump and objectivism. I've spoken to a few people
who discovered you an objectivesm for your interaction with him.

Speaker 2 (01:05:56):
I mean, what's his name.

Speaker 1 (01:06:00):
Destiny has made himself more difficult to talk to because
he has now, you know, after Charlie Cooke's murder, he
has said some pretty disgusting, hovable things, and it makes
me much more skeptical about going on a show and
engaging with him. So I don't know.

Speaker 2 (01:06:22):
I might give it some time and see what happens.

Speaker 1 (01:06:24):
But he's talked about the fact that conservatives should be
fearful when they got into the public and he said
some things. He said a bunch of different things that
are going to that I think are really disturbing and
taking up to the level of should I even.

Speaker 2 (01:06:41):
Be associated with this person?

Speaker 1 (01:06:43):
Now? I agree that going on a show like that
brings in a bunch of people, and we might want
to look for other places like that that can do
a similar thing.

Speaker 2 (01:06:56):
We'll see. I'm hoping that this debate with the Socialist.

Speaker 1 (01:07:00):
Will will also bring in some new people, will also
get some real views.

Speaker 2 (01:07:06):
I you know, I don't know.

Speaker 1 (01:07:11):
Toko says this, and he also sleeps with men? Why
is that a problem? You can sleep with whoever you
want to. I don't care if you sleep with men
or not. The question is are you Are you threatening
people with violence? Are you? You know, he's been accused
of sleeping with with with you know, very young girls,

(01:07:34):
you know, all kinds of stuff like that.

Speaker 2 (01:07:35):
I don't know.

Speaker 1 (01:07:36):
Of course, being a public figure, you get accused of
lots of different things, So the question is what sticks
and what makes sense and what doesn't. But his accusations
and his stance after Charlie Cook's death made him really problematic,
and then lots of people have come to me and said,
don't go anywhere near him because he's a pedophile, you know,
But that I just don't know that one. All right,

(01:07:59):
Let's see, I think I think Lemon and Darlene and John,
but I should thank Enrich and let's see lost some
logic and friend Hopper for this stickers, Thank you guys,
slowly slowly slow and Jason, thank you Jason, slowly, slowly, slowly,
very slowly chipping away. We have no whales today. The
only way we have is is Michael, who's decided to

(01:08:21):
spread his waleness over many many questions, which is all good.
So but yes, I mean in no whales study coming
in with big leaps that get us to the.

Speaker 2 (01:08:32):
Number we need to get to.

Speaker 1 (01:08:34):
Anyway, We'll we'll, we'll, we'll hold off on destiny for
a while and see how it all shakes up.

Speaker 2 (01:08:40):
Michael.

Speaker 1 (01:08:41):
Imagine Churchill letting Nazi stay in power in Germany and
being praised by making a deal with Hitler to release
some English prisoners. Yeah, I mean I think not only that,
I mean I'm god. I mean people are going after
me for not giving Trump enough credit and for not
seeing how great Trump is and what the giant trump.

Speaker 2 (01:09:01):
Is and all of this stuff.

Speaker 1 (01:09:02):
But you're absolutely right. I mean, what did he do here?
He made his or compromise with monsters. And I'm happy
that the hostage is being released, but compromise with monsters,
that's pretty disgusting. Yeah, I'll just say that's Soku just

(01:09:24):
because of this issue. He's mutual objectivism. I do not
have anything against people who sleep with who are gay.

Speaker 2 (01:09:32):
I don't think.

Speaker 1 (01:09:33):
Ultimately, you know, iron ran well, Ironman had you know,
did not like it. You know, Lenipeakov has said that
it is model not a model issue, and he landed
up Lenipeakov supported gay marriage, and uh so, you know,
the objectivist movement is.

Speaker 2 (01:09:51):
Not anti gay at all at all.

Speaker 1 (01:09:53):
Indeed, many gays objectivists and a part of this movement.
So no, I think Ironman was mistaken in her evaluation
of homosexuality. And yeah, and it's one of the issues
in which we disagree, and today it's very much normalized
within the objective's movement. So check out what Lennapeakoff said

(01:10:16):
about it. Cook, thank you for the sticker. I appreciate it,
all right, Alex A twenty dollars question. Finally, the first
one today I work with a convention in New Orleans.
It's focused on science and innovation. They are speakers who
focus on philosophy. It is fairly left and hostile to objectivism.

(01:10:41):
But would love to get you AARI or an AARI fellow.
To get you or an Aari fellow, assume you want
to get us on the program. Yeah, I mean that
would be great if they'll take us. So if you
can find some topic that might appeal to them, maybe
a thing that where we are defending the Enlightenment, where

(01:11:03):
we are we are anti Christian and defending the Enlightenment
and defending science and defending reason, maybe that would be
a good topic for them. It's it's the topic of
my book that's coming out with Don next year. And
there are a number of objectives who can talk about
this issue. But maybe that's what you can do. I'm
also gonna you know, uh we could also talk about

(01:11:24):
the philosophical Pea condition of Pea conditions uh on on
science and innovation. UH. So there are a lot of
topics we could do that this group might not find
as offensive as I don't know, a talk on capitalism,
although we'd want to slowly weave in capitalism.

Speaker 2 (01:11:45):
Uh, get them, get them on board.

Speaker 1 (01:11:47):
So uh anyway, Alex, Yeah, I mean if you if
you need anything for me, then just drop me an email. Right,
you're on at your on bookshow dot com. Your on
at yourn bookshow dot com.

Speaker 2 (01:12:00):
We could discuss it all right, Michael.

Speaker 1 (01:12:03):
How are the Nazis able to put the fashion in fascism?
Why do evil regimes have the nicest uniforms whereas free
societies have dumpy, oversized uniforms.

Speaker 2 (01:12:16):
And don't march well? Information well?

Speaker 1 (01:12:19):
Because authoritarianism requires, particularly fascism, you know, requires.

Speaker 2 (01:12:29):
It's not strong in fashion.

Speaker 1 (01:12:31):
Right.

Speaker 2 (01:12:32):
Uniform is not fashion. Uniform is monotone.

Speaker 1 (01:12:35):
Uniform is everybody looking the same, everybody wearing the same uniform,
everybody marching in lock step, which is all consistent with collectivism.
I mean, I think it's a tribute to the American
and Israeli military that they cannot march well and that
they don't look great information because Israeli and American militaries,

(01:12:57):
to some extent or another, are not collectivistic militaries.

Speaker 2 (01:13:00):
They're basically individualistic militaries.

Speaker 1 (01:13:03):
They emphasize individual you know, initiative and individual thought. This
is why special forces guys. It looks so sloppy, and
they have beards and they you know, they just look
like normal guys. They they don't wear any special uniform
with lots of ribbons. And the more elite the unit,

(01:13:23):
the more sloppy they are, because the more elite the unit.

Speaker 2 (01:13:26):
The more individualistic they are.

Speaker 1 (01:13:29):
So I do not I do not think that that
it's fashion that was brought into fascism. Fashion is individualistic.
Fashion does everybody wears something different?

Speaker 2 (01:13:45):
Fashion?

Speaker 1 (01:13:46):
Good fashion is where people are especially in themselves differently
through clothes, not all the same. So yeah, I mean
it's easy to get people to march and lockstep all
wear the same thing, keep everything cleaner. Need when they

(01:14:07):
are told that they as individuals mean nothing and they
are there only to represent the collective and the group,
and they must sacrifice the individuality for that group, and
they must disappear as individuals action Jackson, Which is more
important for progress? Art or science? Is one dependent on

(01:14:31):
the other? Or is this a false dichotomy? Yeah, I mean,
I definitely think it's a false dichotomy. You need both.
Art tends to come has historically tended to come first,
in a sense that the only example we have, which
is the Renaissance.

Speaker 2 (01:14:46):
You saw art.

Speaker 1 (01:14:49):
Become great, individualistic, positive sense of life based on science
and reason in a sense before science took off. It
took a couple of hundred years before science caught up
to the arts.

Speaker 2 (01:15:05):
You could even.

Speaker 1 (01:15:05):
Argue that in Greece, sculpture was first science for second,
or art was first science for second. But I don't
know if that's necessary forever. Maybe it's easier to get
the right philosophical ideas at the sense of life level,
which then is reflected in the art, and then to

(01:15:28):
get it at the level of okay, this is how
I do it in order to be it reflected in
science a lot more. But I don't know. I don't
know exactly what the mechanism is. But historically artists come first,
but it doesn't matter. They feed off of each other,
and art advanced partially through science. So for example, one

(01:15:50):
of the great achievements of the Renaissance was something, let's
say a perspective. Well, perspective had.

Speaker 2 (01:15:57):
Is a science.

Speaker 1 (01:15:58):
It's math, it's it's figuring out, it's geometry, it's figuring
out how perspective works. Or in sculpture and in painting.
I think anatomy. Well, I mean anatomy coughing up bodies
and figuring out how the muscles works. That's science. So
to some extent they have to go together. But there's
no one way to change the culture. You need it all,

(01:16:21):
and there's no way to guide this thing, because it's
not like the artists could be scientists and scientists could
be artists and just to flip them, just convince them
to be something else. Some people are going to be
more likely to be artists and some people are more
likely to be scientists, and you need them all.

Speaker 2 (01:16:36):
So I think it's a false dichotomy.

Speaker 1 (01:16:40):
Andy, thank you. Do you have any recommend read reading
regarding your West? Talk about population of a million plus,
it's interesting to see how cities rose, lasting one hundred
years then crashed and Compare you know anything like that? Yeah,
I mean there's a good book on the fall of Rome. Yeah,
but you're you're asking me for these book titles when

(01:17:03):
let me just give my kindo.

Speaker 2 (01:17:04):
What's it?

Speaker 1 (01:17:12):
I mean one of my I mean a really good
book that's broader than just your question, but a really
good book about rise and fall is the Closing of
the Western Mind. And then a second volume which is
the Reopening of the Western Mind. Those two book by
Charles Freeman. I think those two books are brilliant. I
really really, I really really recommend those. So the Closing

(01:17:35):
of the Western Mind and the and the Reopening of
the Western Mind. You'll learn a lot.

Speaker 2 (01:17:41):
About about these things there.

Speaker 1 (01:17:44):
And then there's this book about the Fall of Rome,
which I found really really good and you know, kind
of combating some of the politically correct stuff that's out
now that basically says, oh, Rome never fell, there was
no dark ages. I mean, this guy shows it shows
very clearly that there was a dockage. Uh let me

(01:18:06):
see where is it.

Speaker 2 (01:18:10):
Let me just search.

Speaker 1 (01:18:13):
Mm hmm in my library. God, yeah, I don't know
why it's not coming up. Hmmm yeah, I don't. I

(01:18:42):
don't remember the exactly something. The Fall of Rome.

Speaker 2 (01:18:46):
Let me just do one more thing to look for
this uh in here and then uh and then we'll
go on.

Speaker 1 (01:18:55):
Uh oh yeah. The Fall of Rome and the End
of Civilization by Brian Ward Perkins.

Speaker 2 (01:19:08):
Brian Ward Perkins. Those are two. So that and the
Closing and the Reopening of the Western Mind.

Speaker 1 (01:19:15):
That'll get you going. All right, Roland, thank you for
the sticker. I think I got everybody else, Okay, Michael.
Are they trying to restrict journalists because they think Trump
has dementia? No, this is restricting journalists in the Pentagon.

(01:19:36):
They want to restrict journalists because they don't like independent reporting.
They don't like people putting stuff that they don't want reported.
They want to be able to control. This is part
of their authoritarian tendencies. They want to be able to
control information as it flows out of the Defense Department,
for example. They don't want journalists to be poking around.

(01:20:02):
Have you heard of the Dutch government's takeover of management
control of next Period, Chinese owned chip maker company with
headquarters in Netherlands. I had heard of it. I think
this yesterday the day before yesterday. I haven't read about it,
so I don't know that much about it. But yes,
this is part of this battle going on between China

(01:20:24):
and the West around chips. There's a Chinese owned chip
manufacturer in the Netherlands and the government has just taken over,
violating the property rights of the Chinese owners. Now exactly
what was in the background, what motivated this and exactly
how who owned it? Was that the government of China

(01:20:48):
was at private Chinese investors. I don't know. I'll have
to read about it and get back to you, Mary Eleen.
How much control, if any, does Trump have over NATO?
Could he stop NATO from attacking Russia if you want
to to? I think he has a lot of control.
I think NATO. I'm not sure of this, but NATO
functions to alge extent by I think unanimous. But also

(01:21:11):
think that. Look, the United States has the largest number
of troops, the largest number of weapons. It's hard for
NATO countries to use American made weapons like if thirty
fives without American approval. Trump has a lot of control
and could, yes, could definitely stop NATO from acting in

(01:21:31):
defense of Europe if he wanted to. Yep, it doesn't
necessarily need it's full fledged support. It doesn't even need
necessarily to being to engage American soldiers. He could hold
that NATO even without the Americans could still defeat Russia
pretty quick, pretty easily. But he could probably veto it

(01:21:55):
if he wanted to. Yeah, why would the US want
to import oil from anywhere when they have so much? Well,
because oil, there's all kinds of oil. So, for example,
there is something called very heavy oil, which requires a

(01:22:17):
particular way of refining it in order to get what
you need out of it.

Speaker 2 (01:22:22):
And a lot of.

Speaker 1 (01:22:24):
The US refineries were built for heavy oil. This oil
is not produced in the United States. You can get
this sort from Canada, or you can get this sort
from Venezuela or from Russia, I think from Russia. So
refineries in Louisiana and in Texas very much depend on
the supply of this heavy kind of oil rather than

(01:22:47):
the relatively light oil that it comes from Texas and
from the United States. So now, if you were rebuilding
all the refineries in the United States from scratch, I
think you would just build them all to deal with
the kind of oil that is produced in the United States.
But given that the United States was importing oil for many,

(01:23:09):
many decades, the refineries were built for imported oil, not
for local oil. And it's those differences between the oil
the input and the local oil that explains why we
still need to input them the refiners who built for them.
Alex says, awesome, it would be next fall. Would love
for you and don to talk about the new book.

(01:23:31):
If it's out by then, Yeah, it would be out.
It should be out by then put it that way.
So yeah, let me know, you know, let us know
what we need to do in order to get on
the program.

Speaker 2 (01:23:45):
Esoteric dichotomy.

Speaker 1 (01:23:46):
Not a fan of creative compet competition, not a fan
of creative competitions. Unlike sports with defined rules, points and scores,
art writing seems awarded arbitrarily and subjective thoughts maybe, but
it doesn't have to be uh and and uh, the
goal is to make it objective. And there's no reason

(01:24:10):
it can't be objective. Certainly, writing writing skill, writing communication
skills are not subjective. They have objective criteria and uh,
and there's a saying, no reason why you can't have
creative competitions. Uh. Creativity, whether in the arts or whether
in essay writing or things like that. You can say

(01:24:34):
this is a good essay, this is a bad essay,
this is an excellent essay, this is mediocre. You can
absolutely make evaluations and rankings like that that are not subjective,
that are based on the actual facts. They have to
do with written communication and the and the and the
the art.

Speaker 2 (01:24:52):
Well in the science of com.

Speaker 1 (01:24:54):
Of writing, of writing, and when it comes to arts,
that's more complicated because you need a theory of aesthetics.

Speaker 2 (01:25:01):
For that, but you can develop one and people know.

Speaker 1 (01:25:05):
People know, yeah, this piece of music is good, that
piece of music is crap. People who know music know that.
Whether they can always articulately and explain why the fact
that they can't explain why it isn't necessarily make it subjective. Music,
for example, is very difficult to communicate about. All right, guys,

(01:25:31):
thank you to the super chatters. Really really appreciate the support.
I will see you guys tomorrow and yeah, see you
guys tomorrow. Have a great rest of your week, See
you soon. Bye, everybody,

All Episodes

When ‘Peace’ Becomes Cowardice: The West’s Moral Collapse Exposed | Yaron Brook Show

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist

Crime Junkie

Stuff You Should Know

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

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}When ‘Peace’ Becomes Cowardice: The West’s Moral Collapse Exposed | Yaron Brook Show