All Episodes

October 15, 2025 92 mins
Young Republicans; Redistricting; Trade war; Shutdown; Milei; Russia; Nuclear | Yaron Brook Show 
October 15, 2025

“Trump’s Peace Mirage, Redistricting Witch-Hunt & the Objectivist Battle" 

Trump claims he “brought peace” to the Middle East — but is it real, or PR?

In this explosive episode, Yaron Brook tears apart redistricting schemes, trade wars, shutdowns, and Milei’s rise — while also answering audience Q’s on altruism, environmentalism, hope, and America’s possible collapse.

🔥 Tune in, think deeply, and challenge the conventional narrative.
Watch live & subscribe: https://youtube.com/live/O-ajxBNVVBI

Key Time Stamps:
01:10 – What’s on deck: Upcoming shows  
02:10 – Are the Young Republicans losing the plot?  
22:18 – Did Trump *actually* broker peace in the Middle East—or is it smoke and mirrors?  
26:30 – Redistricting: tool of justice or theft?  
39:05 – Trade wars: smart leverage or disaster in disguise?  
46:55 – Government shutdowns: tactical or suicidal?  
52:30 – Who is Milei—and why is he the new lightning rod?  
58:35 – Russia’s expansion: illusion or inevitable?  
1:01:30 – Nuclear brinkmanship: where do we go from here?  

Live Q&A Highlights: 
1:09:56 – Environmentalism: superstitious religion or rational doctrine?  
1:12:57 – Does altruism make us morally blind?  
1:14:38 – How to pitch selfishness to a skeptic in one tight sentence  
1:16:43 – Are Americans getting richer *much faster* than Europeans?  
1:20:48 – If America falls to dictatorship, did the Objectivist project fail—or was it just too late?  
... (and more)  See pinned comment for full questions

👉 Join the fight for reason, freedom, and individualism—because the world won’t defend itself.
👉 If you want clear, uncompromising analysis on politics, culture, and the battle of ideas—without tribal spin—this is your show. [watch](https://youtube.com/live/O-ajxBNVVBI).
💡 Expect sharp insights, unapologetic truths, and challenges to Left and Right alike.
📌 Support the show and join the next AMA: [Patreon](Patreon.com/yaronbrookshow)  
❤️ Like, subscribe & share to spread reason and freedom!

The Yaron Brook Show is Sponsored by: 
  • The Ayn Rand Institute  (https://www.aynrand.org/starthere)
  • Energy Talking Points, featuring AlexAI, by Alex Epstein  (https://alexepstein.substack.com/)
  • Express VPN (https://www.expressvpn.com/yaron)
  • Hendershott Wealth Management  (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4lfC...) https://hendershottwealth.com/ybs/
Join this channel to get access to perks: / @yaronbrook  

Like what you hear? Like, share, and subscribe to stay updated on new videos and help promote the Yaron Brook Show: https://bit.ly/3ztPxTx

Support the Show and become a sponsor: / yaronbrookshow   or https://yaronbrookshow.com/ or  / yaronbrookshow  

Or make a one-time donation: https://bit.ly/2RZOyJJ

Continue the discussion by following Yaron on Twitter (https://bit.ly/3iMGl6z) and Facebook (https://bit.ly/3vvWDDC )

Want to learn more about Ayn Rand and Objectivism? Visit the Ayn Rand Institute: https://bit.ly/35qoEC3

#racism #votingrights  #TradeWar #WesternCivilization #russiaukrainewar #governmentshutdown  #Trump #Economics #MoralClarity #AynRand #gazawar2025 #hostagedeal  #israelhamasdeal #Individualism #RationalSelfInterest #FreeMarket #MoralClarity #RationalEgoism #Objectivism #Politics #Redistricting #Milei #Altruism #Hope #America #Peace #MiddleEast #Russia #Nuclear #Shutdown #YoungRepublicans #FreeMarkets #Philosophy #Capitalism #YaronBrookShow #YaronBrook

Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/yaron-brook-show--3276901/support.
Mark as Played
Transcript

Episode Transcript

Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:03):
A lot of them, fuss of widow last and an
individual lots. This is the show, all right, everybody, welcome
to here one book show on this Wednesday, October fifteenth.

(00:26):
I hope everybody is having a good week, a good
week so far. There's Jonathan in with the first sticker.
Thank you Jonathan. And yeah, we've got a bunch of
stories to cover today. I will remind you there will
be no show tomorrow. I am traveling, and then Friday

(00:49):
and Saturday I'll be doing shows from the road. Gods
of the Wi Fi you know, if the gods of
the Wi Fi allow it, and then let's see we'll
be doing. Will be no show on Sunday because I'm
traveling back, and then Monday Tuesday. So I just remember,
no show tomorrow, shows on Friday, Saturday from my hotel room.

(01:14):
All right, let's see. No no conferences. Not traveling for conference.
Friend Helpers says he will pray for the Wi Fi gods.
That is always a good thing. I mean, the Wi
Fi god is all powerful, and praying to the Wi
Fi gods or the Internet gods more broadly, is a

(01:35):
is a good good thing? Good thing? Can I mean
it's like Pascal's wager, What do you gotta lose? Right,
all right, let's jump in. So Politico has a story
today that's kind of, uh, you know, really reverberating through
through Twitter quite a bit. So, you know, I spend

(01:58):
probably way too much time on x Twitter, and this
is kind of the leading story, it seems on Twitter
is the story in political Political basically got a twelve
of chats from a telegram channel, a telegram channel of

(02:22):
Young Republicans. Young Republicans is a nationwide organization of Republicans.
I've spoken at some Young Republican chapters years and years
and years ago. I spoke at the New York City
Young Republicans. I've spoken at Young Republican groups at a
variety at a bunch of different universities over the years.

(02:42):
So this is like is a Young Democrats on campus
Young Republicans, but it's also beyond. It's not just at universities.
It is a generally a national organization Young Republican National Federation.
It's fifteen thousand member and you have to be between
the ages of eighteen and forty to be part of this. Anyway,

(03:07):
they got they got their hands on a private chat
that Spans. I don't know, a huge amount of a
huge amount of data. And this is primarily kind of
people in leadership positions within the Young Republican Association, the
Young Republican you know, so this is leaders from New York, Kansas, Arizona, Vermont,

(03:33):
and other places. It's twenty nine hundred, two thousand, nine
hundred pages of chats shared among about a dozen Millennium
and gen Z Republicans. And this is in the period
between January and mid August. And you know, it has

(03:55):
a lot a lot of it has to do with
internal politics within the Young Republicans. They attempt to kind
of they were very this is a group that is
very mega and and uh their attempt to kind of
take over the Young Republicans from a very pro Donald
Trump platform. Uh. And uh some of them are actually
working for the Trump administration. Some of them are working

(04:16):
for the various chapters of the Young Republican Association. Anyway,
these chats, uh, these chats are filled with racist, antisemitic, uh,
anti gay uh you know, just you know, uh a

(04:40):
kind of a positive positive commentary on rape. Uh, just horrible, horrible,
horrible stuff that is uh, that is a spewed by
these guys uh in uh in conversation. And you know,
you know, the there's something called they love the watermelon

(05:02):
people talking about blacks obviously, Uh, there's a great I
love Hitler, although you know the full context of that statement,
it is said kind of an irony. Uh. You know,
there's a they're going they're giving nationalists too much credit
and expecting the Jews to be honest. You know, everyone

(05:25):
that votes No. One a particular thing is going to
be gas chambered, you know. Uh uh and uh and
and on and on and on it goes. You know,
he also hates Jews with a bunch of likes on
that one. Uh So, yeah, pretty pretty pretty disgusting racist,

(05:51):
anti Semitic, sexist, pro violence stuff that's in there now. Granted,
I mean there's they're just chatting, right. This reminds me
of of of the the comment I guesst Trump made
about grabbing women by the you know what, and and

(06:12):
everybody was like, yeah, well, it's just locker room chatter.
That's our guys talk in the locker room. And like,
I never talked like that in the locker room. You know,
I don't know if something's wrong with me. You know,
my distusterone is high, I promise, And yet I never
talked like that in the locker room. And and this
is like the same thing. It's like, oh, they're just young.

(06:33):
This is how they talk really racist, anti Semitic gobbage
like this is just this is just how we talk.
This is what you throw out there when you're discussing,
when you're discussing stuff, and you're doing this in writing.
So this isn't a chat, just terrific. And you know,

(06:54):
we'll talk a little bit about where I think partially
where I think this comes from, and how this is.
This has been kind of legitimized, but uh, it really is.
It really is disgusting. And again, these are these are
not junior people, these are senior people. Uh, these are

(07:17):
colored foma. I don't think there are any colored FORMA
congressional staffers. And it's really sad to me because I
used to give talks to congressional staffers. There were years
in the early teens where I would go to Washington,
DC on a regular basis, and I think we do.
We did a series for a few years of talks
in front of Congression Republican Congressional staffers and and it

(07:39):
was great and I really enjoyed that. And you know,
some of these people are former congressional staffers. Something has
changed in the Republican Party. Something dramatic has changed in
the Republican Party and people who are activists around the
Republican Party. There's been a legitimization of racism. There's been
a legitimization of anti Semitism that's being brought into the

(08:03):
party and is now just part of it. I mean,
here's one guy who I guess it was part of
this chat and is trying to defend it all. And
he says, anyone in this article, that is all the
people in the chat is a patriot and everyone attacking
them is a dirty, treacherous, impotent, cowardly bundle of sticks. Right,

(08:26):
So people actually, you know, defending defending this, You know,
these are good guys. And I really think this is
where the Republican Party is heading. I think that you know,
the racist kind of anti Semitic stuff, but I think
this has all been if you will, this was all

(08:48):
legitimized during the Trump first term with the alt right.
You remember the old right, but altwright was always viewsed
as fringe and then he had Charlottesville, and Charlotteville was
basically explicit racist and explicit anti Sermites going out there

(09:09):
and basically Trump and I'm not gonna argue this, you know,
because I've done whole videos explaining how true this is,
but basically Trump giving them a thumbs up, like not
that Trump's an anti semino racist, He's not, but Trump
is quite happy to have a big tent that includes
racist and anti Semites. And and you know, he gave

(09:32):
them a thumbs up, and he winked at them, and
he said yeah, yeah, yeah, good people on both sides.
And and I've analyzed that and everything. So it wasn't
just a it wasn't just a it wasn't you know,
it was exactly what it sounds like. It was exactly Yeah,
you guys are okay, don't worry about it to the

(09:55):
racist And indeed, those people, the people who marched there,
are not mon more mainstream. The OATS right is much
more part of the Republican Party. It's much more mainstream
on the right. The groupers are much more part of
a coalition on the right. And you can see that
in the attempts of people this morning like Matt Walsh

(10:19):
and JD. Vans to excuse the young Republicans. I mean,
basically JD. Vans has said he's not going to condemn
them because Democrats do things that are a lot worse. Now,
it's true. The current candidate, the attorney general kind of
candidate for attorney general of Virginia is a guy who

(10:40):
in a in again, in a in a in a
chat made comments about wanting to kill the children of
the opposition of Republicans. He, you know, just horrible stuff.
I mean, this guy should resign, He should certainly apologize,
and voters should definitely vote this guy out. I mean, nasty,

(11:01):
horrible stuff. And you know, nobody is nobody has denied
this that he said all this stuff, So he actually
said it. So JD. Vans is saying, you know, he's
quoting the guy from Virginia saying this is far wards
than anything said in a college group chat. And the

(11:23):
guy who said it could become the age of Virginia.
I refuse to join the pole clutching when powerful people
call for political violence. These are not this is not
a college chat. These are relatively senior young, but senior
people young meaning under forty. I don't know how many

(11:43):
of you who are under forty could consider yourself just
the same as college kids. Uh. These are young Republicans
who have really senior position, really senior positions within the
Republican Party, certainly within the kind of young Republicans and JD. Vans.

(12:06):
The Vice President of the United States will not condemn him,
just like at the end of the day, Donald Trump
did not condemn the marches in Charlottesville. This is Republican leadership. Basically, yeah, okay,
you know, we need these guys. Matt Walsh basically came

(12:30):
out and said, I'm not gonna condemn them. He wrote,
the right doesn't stick together. That's our biggest problem. By far,
Conservatives are quick to denounce each other, jump on dog piles,
disavow attack their allies. I said a few weeks ago
that we all need to band together in the wake
of Charlie's death, and the anside got back from a

(12:53):
lot of people, and the Right was basically no, well, okay,
then guys, we'll just lose. Instead, the keep up the
United Front and defend day guys no matter what, while
we keep throwing each other to the wolves and every opportunity.
Great plan Samtt Walves is basically saying, yeah, I mean racists,

(13:16):
anti Semis, bring them on. What you know? What the
hell you know? The Candice Owens, the Tucker Colson, the
what's his name? The the the grape of guy who's
a real anti Semite. Yeah, what you know, one big
happy tenth because we need to defeat the left whatever,

(13:37):
to defeat the left. The only thing that matters in
life is to defeat the left. And the fact that
these attitudes, and maybe Matt Wells just shares these attitudes,
the fact that these attitudes Nick for Intis is the
guy who was thinking of Nick Fointis, the fact that
these attitudes are only growing. Nick foro Interis was a

(13:57):
nobody a few years ago, and now he's got millions
of followers. Candace has become a crazy nutcase, a complete
and out of anti Semitic conspiracy theory wacko has millions
of followers. Tucker Carlson has become a complete nutty antisemitic
freak show, you know, with demons scratching him in the night,

(14:21):
with millions of followers, I mean people whose ideas, these
ideas would have been fringe eight years ago, ten years ago,
suddenly fifteen years ago now a mainstream are becoming more
and more mainstream, and Matt Walsh wants to embrace them
even further in the name of victory. And I'm sure

(14:42):
maybe you know some people who at least used to
be on my chat would want ask to participate in
these big tents and embrace them all in the name
of defeating the left, because that's all that matters, you know.
The Reagan Caucus tweeted in response to the Young Republicans

(15:05):
JD Vansam Matt Walsh once again showed that they are
tribalists within no enemies to my right mentality, and Matt
Walsh replies, yes, we want to win. I know that
concept is confusing to you. So bring in the Nazis,
bring in the races, bring in the klu klux Klan.
What the hell we want to win? That's all the matters.

(15:27):
And the fact that they grow in numbers because we
have sanctioned them, we have promoted them, we have given
them the thumbs up. We who are supposedly credible and
the legit part of the Republican Party are sanctioning these
either the fact that they will grow, Yeah, that doesn't matter.
The only thing that matters, literally, the only thing that

(15:49):
matters is that we win, that we beat the left.
That's it. I mean, there's now a fad among Republicans,
among certain people on the right to quote call Schmid,
the Nazi called Schmidt, and that's been excused by a

(16:09):
bunch of people, I think, including Matt Welsh. I mean,
these ideas, these fascist, horrific, racist ideas, are gaining more
and more and more attraction on the right. And yes,
I know they're also gaining traction on the fall left
and have been part of the fall left agenda for

(16:29):
a long time. But this is my point. We have
two enemies, not one, two, two enemies left and right.
You know, MATD. Welsh continues in a different tweet when
it comes to fighting the left and defeating the people
who want to kill me and my family and piss

(16:50):
on my grave, that's the left. I assume I will
unite with anyone on the right, even those I don't
like and who don't like me. If you think this
is un principle, the morally compromised, then you simply don't
understand how to fight and actually win a battle. A
fractured conservative movement will fail. Only a united front will

(17:11):
succeed and succeed in what to bring about? What to achieve? What?
What is the goal? What is once the left is defeated?
What happens? Then? I believe that a united right. Remember,
by the way, that the rally in Charlottesville, not accidentally,

(17:32):
the rally in Charlottesville was called Unite the Right, Unite
the Right, that's what they call themselves right, And now
that was saying that unite the right with the people
marching and Charlottesville, let's join them. And once you win,
what do you get? Who's left? He continues. If you

(18:00):
reject this invitation, that's fine, it's your right. I won't
be the first time I've reached out my hand and
got a hearty fuck you in response. It doesn't hurt
my feelings, but it does hurt the cause. What's the cause?
One has to ask, what is the cause? Defeat the left? Yep, yep.

(18:28):
Let's let's establish an evil politics, an evil alternative to
the evil and and somehow this is an improvement, that's
somehow this makes things makes things better right now. To
their credit, the Young Republicans organization seems to have come

(18:48):
out it's both the directors have come out and and
written the following. We are palled by the vile and
inexcusable language revealed in the police article published today. Such
behavior is disgraceful, unbecoming of any Republican and stands in
direct opposition to the values our movement represents. Those involved

(19:13):
must immediately resign from all positions within this state and
local young Republican organizations. We must hold ourselves to the
highest standards of integrity, respect, and professionalism. Now, yay, this
is good. Good for them, Good for them. Some Republicans,

(19:43):
adults Matt Walsh, JD. Vans are not. And the only
reason I bring up Charlottesville is because this is the consequence.
This is the consequence of Trump's wink wink, You're all okay,
you're all part of the big tent anyway, big story.

(20:12):
You know. Somebody else noting that people in those chats
joked about how rape ist epic called slavey megabased. Yeah,
it would be It would be kind of cool if JD.
Van's Vice President of the United States, these United States
actually condemned that. That would be cool, said something negative

(20:32):
about it. Anyway. Let's see, here's somebody else writing a
bunch of young people are probably feeling very exposed and
guilty and worried about their futures because the edgy group
chat got leaked. Edgy note, do not give in. Do

(20:56):
not voluntarily resign or even apologize. You did nothing wrong. Frankly,
the jokes that I've seen aren't even as bad as
the stuff the left says in completely sincerity. Of course,
what about is them? Your only response to people asking
about it should be cry about it. I'm not apologizing
for using racy language in private. You know, while I

(21:18):
hear the gregious hate constantly from the mainstream media, Democrats,
and even universities, no young Republicans said they want to
kill the children of Democrats. We didn't celebrate the murder
of a prominent liberal your outrageous fake and we don't
won't be distracted from our mission to save the country
from the real bad guys, save the country from the
real bad guys, and hand it over to bad guys

(21:41):
to bad guys. I'm just going to answer this question
because it's relevant and it's just going to be in
my mind if I don't just answer it and get
it out of the way, because it's so vile and
just so is you know, so despicable, right, Harrison says, Wow,

(22:02):
Trump has finally brought peace to the Middle East, and
instead of mentioning that here you are is still renewed,
mediating or whatever on whether or not he said that
Neo Nazis are very fine people. Worse than CNN. Yeah,
I'm much more objective than CNN. I hate Trump much
more than CNN. I objectively understand why Trump is much

(22:25):
worse than CNN. And about bringing peace to the Middle East,
you might want to tell that to the dozens of
Palestinians who were shot in the head over the last
two or three days. Uh, and uh, you might want
to tell that to uh uh, you know, to the
to these Reeleas who uh you know, still haven't gotten

(22:46):
the bodies of their of their loved ones back. Being
peace to the Middle East is going to require a
little bit more than what has happened so far. And
I'd be talking NonStop about the bringing peace to the
Middle East without defeating Kamas and without you know, uh
crushing them. I've been talking about that NonStop since it happened.

(23:11):
That has been the top of my news. So you
coming here and here, you know, uh, you know, pretending
that you understand anything or know anything. You basically have
no clue what I've said, and and you just want
to you want to what you know, denounce me as
being anti Trump. Yeah, I'm very anti Trump. Trump is

(23:35):
horrific as a as a president, as a political leader,
as a human being. And you know, he did something
half decent in the Middle East, not bring peace to
the Middle East, but he got the hostages released. I'm
all for that. That's great. I mean, if you really
want a piece in the Middle East, he did unleash
these Raelis now to actually disarmed Hamas and destroy that

(24:02):
would bring peace to the Middle East. And he wouldn't
have stopped Israel from bombing Iran. He would have let
them continue so that the Ranian regime could have fallen.
A lot of things. He could have done even better
than he did to bring piece to the Middle East,
but you know, you will spend everything. My guess is
that bring piece to the release is just one among

(24:23):
a million things that you think that Trump has done
phenomenally well. And you're excited about everything he does and
everything he said, because my guess is, I don't know,
I don't know Harrison. But my guess is, just by
the tone of his thing, that he suffers from Trump
mindlessness syndrome and is just part of a tribe. Yep.

(24:47):
Trump Trump rallied the epic countries to put pressure on
Hamas and should get credit for that. That he got
Hamas to agree to release the hostages is a big plus.
Now the real challenge is going to be to get
them to this arm and if, by the way, if
in order to get Arab countries to put pressure on
Romas to release the hostages Trump has promised for example

(25:11):
Turkey F thirty five's. Yeah, I don't know how good
that trade off it will be in the very long
In the very long run, Paul reminds me that the
actual one is Trump's zombie syndrome. I agree, that's better.
So I have a feeling Harrison might suffer from Trump's
zombie syndrome. Not the first person and certainly not the last.

(25:34):
A large number of Americans, a significant number of Americans,
maybe a majority of Republicans now suffer from Trump' zombie syndrome.
So this is a a virus that has infected a
very large number of human beings around the country, and
the world. Really, it's a global phenomena. All right, yeah,

(25:59):
young Republicans, what do you do? What can you do?
Swim court Todayhood a significant case regarding the Civil Rights
Act of nineteen sixty four, and in particular the voting
the Voting Rights Act that is part of the Civil

(26:22):
Rights You know, this is an act again, part of
the Civil Rights nineteen sixty five Voting Rights Act, which
is part of the big civil rights legislation of the time,
So not part of the Civil Rights Act itself, but
part of the civil rights legislation at the time. And

(26:43):
it's also it was also an act that was reinforced
by Ronald Reagan in nineteen eighty two, signing in law
a follow up act that kind of reinforced the voting
rights Voting Right section. What is this? You know? What

(27:06):
is this? This is a again the Voting Right Act
of sixty five is amended by the law Reagan signed
in nineteen eighty two. This is what it basically does.
It prohibits any state election law that quote results in
a denial or abridgment of the right of any US
citizen to vote on account of race or color unquote.

(27:29):
Now that sounds pretty straightforward. And pretty good and not problematic.
That sounds that sounds basically fine, right. The problem is
the way it's being interpreted, because in a quote case
in nineteen eighty six, the quote held that this language
requires states to redraw the legislative maps under certain circumstances,

(27:55):
and redraw them so that minorities do not get supposedly
disenfranchised by having maps drawn in a way that the
minority will always be in the minority in a state,
even though they might be a majority in a particular area,
the minority in the state, the districts will be drawn

(28:17):
in such a way that they will never get representation,
that they will never be represented in a sense. So
the court, i guess at the time, stated are two
factors to decimine when this redistricting kind of to allow for,

(28:40):
if you will, minority representation was allowed. So one was
whether a state is residentially segregated by race, so people
are living in clusters based on race, And whether the
state's voters are racially polarized. That is, you know, Blacksvel's
Democratic and white Road Republicans example, So you know, so

(29:03):
voters of one race tend to vote for one party,
and voters of another race tend to vote for another party,
saying if those two standards, the clustering, and then the
different races votes for different for different political parties, then
you need to draw the maps in a way that
allows the clusters of the minority to have representation to

(29:29):
to be able to vote in their political candidate. Uh.
This has resulted in the fact that many Southern states
that a majority white but have significant minority minority populations,
significant black population point really have re drawn their maps
in order to give, if you will, blacks certain districts

(29:51):
that are safely theirs and and and For example, in
the case in front of the Supreme Court right now,
Louisiane Republican legislature initially drew up a map that included
one out of six districts that was black majority. Right,

(30:11):
but blacks constitute thirty percent of the population of Louisianas
if you sweare based on the percentages, then they should
have more than one out of six, they should have
more like two out of six. Right. So a law
court applying the nineteen eighty six Supreme Court ruling struck

(30:32):
down the map and said this, and the state responded
by drawing new maps which created two black districts, and
of course this is now in front of the Supreme
Court whether this new map with two black districts is
okay right now. The problem with all of this is

(30:56):
that the Constitution basically prohibits correct I think interpretation of
the Constitution that basically prohibits discriminating based on race, so
discriminating based on racial characteristics, and now in order to
address past discrimination or in order to address existing discrimination,

(31:23):
we are discriminating in terms of race. And while Caughts
in the past accepted this logic based on the Civil
Rights Act and kind of legislation and caught rulings from
the nineteen sixty on that basically viewed it from inaction

(31:43):
that basically viewed in order to address past discrimination, we
have to do reverse discrimination or to fix things. Well,
this group of conservatives in this court, I think has
had it with that logic, has had it with that thinking. Basically,

(32:04):
I think these conservatives are saying, look, there has to
be a limit to that. That was in the nineteen sixties,
the Region Crow laws. Maybe it made some sense then
to do this, but at some point there, you know,
the reverse discrimination should be over. At some point you've
addressed past concerns and you need to be able to

(32:25):
move forward, and they are. It seems slowly dismantling the
whole reverse discrimination agenda out there, and I think justifiably
and in a positive way. So, you know, the different

(32:52):
it really does look like the different justices had different
reasons why. But it really does look like they are
going to rule that Section two of the Voting Act,
which has been interpreted as requiring this gerrymandering in order
to provide minorities with their own districts, is they're going

(33:15):
to rule it unconstitutional. Now, of course, what Republicans will
do here is that they will redraw district maps. They
will gerrymanda district maps all over the South basically to
give whites a majority, not because they're whites, but because

(33:38):
they're Republican. And since all these states are controlled by
the Republican legislature, they can get away with that. And
that is not deemed racist, even if some of it
is motivated by racism, it's not deemed racist because it's
focused on you know, partisan pols, which the Court allows.

(34:02):
The Court allows jurymandering of districts for partisan reasons. It
doesn't allow gerrymandering of districts for racial reasons, and the
idea here is that these districts today are done because
of race, not because of politics, and therefore they were legitimate. Now,

(34:26):
you know, I don't know what the solution is. I
find the whole drawing of these districts and creating this
gerrymandering opportunities and these weird shaped districts and stuff. I
find that the whole thing bizarre. And the ability for
legislature where they have a one political party as a majority,

(34:46):
to be able to shape these districts any way they
want to get the results that they want in advance
seems to me bizarre somehow. I don't know what the
solution is. Some kind of independent commission, which is what
I think California had for a while, and some other
states had for a while, independent commissions that draw up

(35:07):
the districts while trying to be bipartisan and not not
being overtly trying to have one political party win everything,
or whatever, you know, something like that, doing it based
on population or seems to be the right thing, the
right approach, but that's not how the American law is written.

(35:28):
You can Jerry Amanda and it's been rule constitutional, and
it's happening all the time, and both Democrats and Republicans
do it. I guess we're stuck with this. I do
think that the Voting Rights Act should be over this
use of it, this interpretation of it, should be overturned
by the streame courts. I think this will be good.

(35:50):
I don't know that the outcome will be good. The
outcome will be you know, districts rigged based on I
still think based on race, based on kind of race
and favor of whites. But I don't think you can
avoid that. I think that's just a political reality. I
wish that you know, our adherence the particular political parties

(36:18):
was not divided racially in the South or anywhere else,
and maybe one day we'll live in a world in
which it's not. This is a step towards that world,
because I think that the kind of reverse discrimination that
is part of a civil Rights Act and part of
the Voting Act, and part of the way these are
being interpreted and affirmative action and for only increased racism,

(36:40):
not decreased it. I then predicted it in the nineteen
sixties when these bills were being passed, So I hope
the Streme Court reverses this. I fear that this is
a huge win for Republicans when I don't really want
Republicans to have a big win, a big win not
based on ideology, but a big win based on race,
which is sad and offensive. But that's that's what it

(37:05):
looks like. So you know, we'll see. But it does
look like this will fall. It looks like it'll be
a sixty three majority opinion, you know, getting rid of
the nineteen eighty six interpretation of the Voting Rights Act
that created jurymandering based on race, So good riddance for that. Again,

(37:29):
Republicans are likely to gain anywhere from half a dozen
to fifteen seats in the House of Representatives as a
consequence of this. This is going to reduce the probability
that they lose in twenty twenty six. I very much
want Republicans to lose in twenty twenty six. So you

(37:49):
know that is unfortunate. But you have to go by
the law, right, you have to go by what's right
in terms of the Constitution, not by your particular policy
goal preferences, political preferences, but the whole thing, the whole
germandering thing. Is corrupt. There has to be a way

(38:09):
to fix it. I'm not sure how you do it,
but there has to be some way. Somebody has to
figure out how to fix it and get rid of
it again. I think an independent commission that is based
on trying to divvy up the state based on population
density or something like that is the right way to go.
But I don't know, and I don't know that it's

(38:32):
worked in any of the states where it's been tried.
All right, in spite of efforts by the Trump administration
to over the weekend to try to say, oh, the
trade war with China is not that bad and things
are going to be okay, the trade road only seems
to be escalating. It does not seem to be getting better. Today.

(38:54):
Secretary Bessett called the Chinese Trade Negotiata, the lead the
senior Chinese trade negotiating called them unhinged, and and you
know they are. They are in the midst of throwing
accusations one or the other and at escalating this. Now, look,

(39:16):
I have no sight in this. They're both nuts, right.
I mean, as I've said many times, responding to somebody
imposing tariffs on you, by imposing tariffs on them. It's
like somebody shooting themselves in the knee and you shooting
yourself in the knee as well, or shooting yourself in
the hip. It just doesn't make any sense. It's stupid.

(39:38):
The Chinese getting into a trade war with the United
States is dumb policy, and it is not going to
help the Chinese. But I also know that it's the
United States who started this, and maybe you could argue
there is a the goal is ultimately to delink from China,

(39:58):
and that's a good thing because China is the potential
enemy of the United States. I still say that if
the goal is to delink, there are much much better
ways to do that, much more rational ways to do it,
and ways that do not descend into the stupidity of
a trade war. Neither party can win because trade wars

(40:18):
by definition a lose lose. But the United States is
going to lose a lot, has the potential at least
to lose a lot. Now, for example, I mean, China
has put on all these restrictions on rare earth material
and in the short run this is going to inflict
significant pain on the United States and on much of
the West, and on everybody who is importing rare earth

(40:40):
materials from China, which is basically everybody uses raal oarth
material But the reality is that these restrictions are going
to create massive incentives for Western countries to go out
and mine for rarel oath materials themselves. They are vast
quantities of rare earth material in Ukraine, in Scandinavia, probably

(41:03):
all over Europe, suddenly in the in the United States,
in the Mountain region in the United States, in places
like Greenland, probably in Alaska, and off the shore I
think in the Ocean, off the shore of Japan, massive
deposit of rare earth materials, and probably lots of other

(41:24):
places Africa, other parts of Asia. And now you've just
created a massive incentive for people like GP Morgan, for example,
as I told you yesterday, to allocate significant amount of
capital to going out there and finding this because the
profit margin has just gone up. Right, It's like making
drugs illegal and suddenly the profit margin goes up, so

(41:45):
a lot of people go into the drug trade. I'm
talking about illegal drugs. And now you've made rare earth
materials super expensive, profit margins go up. A lot of
capital is gonna float to find alternatives to China. So
long term, this is really really stupid policy for China.
It's kind of one of these things that you can
only It's like one of these guns you can only

(42:06):
shoot once. After that the other party gets a bigger
gun and you're in trouble. So I mean, maybe the
Chinese are doing the West of favor by in a
sense forcing US, forcing Western companies, forcing Western governments, forcing
Western investment houses to go out there and find alternatives
to what the Chinese have. Maybe this will work out

(42:27):
in that sense, but this is so non strategic on
behalf of the Trump administration, which they should have done
it reverse. First, find the resources to start mining them
and start refining them, and then if you want to
get into trade, we'll get into trade. Will I said
that yesterday, So I just don't to emphasize how much
of a lose lose this really is. And now, at

(42:51):
least according to breaking news, and again I don't know
if this is completely accurate, but rumors are that Trumpetminstration
is now considering setting price floors on a range of
industries they can't go below a certain price in order
to combat price manipulation dumping by Chinese companies. More government

(43:17):
intervention in our economy, more attempts to control our economy,
more efforts to raise prices than all of us. I
guess tariffs are not enough. I mean, I remember when
everybody called kamalahas a communist and a socialist, and since
then we've got nothing but socialist policies coming out of

(43:38):
the Trump administration. Here's another one. So this trade war,
you know, with the US investing in Intel, and the
US government investing in real earth material companies, and use
government wanting to take positions and companies now and Trump
creating a what is a trump X a pharmacuty, a

(44:04):
pharmacy that you can buy drugs direct from the government,
just socialism, one on one in in kind of a
just such a stupid way. So best and and the
rest of the Trumpet deminstration is now trying to rally
out allies in order to deal with the with this
new threat from China, with this trade war from China.

(44:26):
You know, Trump and administration realizes they can't win this
war alone. They need allies. Hmm. But haven't we just
spent the last six months alienating those allies, putting tariffs
on them, telling them how terrible they were not wanting

(44:47):
to buy their goods. Uh and and and you know,
and and and penalizing the India, for example, throwing it
in the arms of the Chinese, and the Russians just
going after them constant. So yeah, so here is the

(45:16):
best Now is going to say, We're going to speak
to European allies, to India and the Asian democracies. We're
going to have a folsome group response this because burecrats
in China cannot manage the supply chain or the manufacturing
process for the rest of the world. That is true,
But I wish you hadn't again planning strategy. If you

(45:38):
really if China is really the issue and why you've
got tariffs and the rest of the world, why are
you alienating the rest of the world. Why are you
alienating Europe, Why are you alienating India? Why are you
alienating Canada and Mexico? What is the point of that?
If you want to address problems with China, no answer

(45:59):
for them, Sillingly, no answers from Harrison, because Trump is
a genius and everything he does is five D chess.
Stop it, you're on. You just don't understand, You just
can't think strategically enough. This is so deep it's hard
to get our heads around it. So the trade will

(46:22):
continues and will continue to continue. It's not going anywhere.
On top of this, we have the gunment shut down.
The Trump innoverstation is using a gum shutdown to do
a number of things. One is to fire thousands of
federal employees. Now, let me be clear, I am all
four laying off federal employees and firving them. Now, whether

(46:44):
this is legal or not, is again, is this job
of Congress not? Can can then executive do this? I
don't know. We'll see the courts will chime in. But
firving government employees, just like dog did IM four, I'm
not sure they have a strategy around who they're firing
other than as Trump said, I think we're going to

(47:05):
fire government employees that work for democratic kind of the
pet projects of Democrats. So you know, we'll see who
ultimately gets fired. And I know people have been fired
from you know what he calls democratic sponsored programs, but

(47:31):
that's included Health and Human Services, which is run by
none of them. RFK. We've seen people from the Treasury
being fired. I r S. I'm all for the irs.
Shrinking and becoming a less efficient I'm a huge advocate
for that, although you know they're going to have problems
with deficits. They've of course fired people in the part

(47:54):
of education, which shouldn't exist. They've fired people for the
Officer Fair Housing an equal opportunity. I'm all for shutting
that office down. Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
shut it down, as well as, as I said, the
IRS Some Sense of Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration

(48:15):
another one that should be shut down. But all of
this should be shut down. The Big Beautiful Bill should
have had all this being shut down. It's sad that
Republicans can get the stuff done through legislation. They have
to do it. They have to wait for the government
to shut down and then use that opportunity to do it.
The other thing is that they're cutting spending by not

(48:39):
providing funding to programs that Congress has approved that are
in Democratic districts. So so far, in terms of programs
that have shut down, they have cut twenty seven point
twenty four billion dollars from Democratic districts eighty seven of them,

(49:00):
and they've cut less than one billion from Republican districts.
So they're basically using the government shut down and the
cutting spending and the laying people off for political retribution
for going after stuff that they couldn't get done through legislation.

(49:21):
And while again I'm all for cutting government and shredding
these departments and getting rid of all this bring that
chain so over, I don't like it being done like this.
This should have been done through legislation. This should have
been what Trump fought Congress over. The Big Beautiful Bill

(49:44):
should have been a bill that trunk government's spending significantly
because it shut down these programs and shut down these
departments and whatever the pouts they want. If they shut
it down through legislation, I'll be one hundred percent supportive
of it, and then you can fire all the people
who belong to those departments. But what they want is

(50:05):
to elevate the executive, to give him unlimited power to
nooter Congress, to make Congress completely impotent and ineffective. That
I really really worry about. That I think is very, very,
very dangerous, and we will pay for that in the

(50:27):
future and in the present, but in the future, as
a government becomes more and more thoritarian, because it becomes
more and more centralized, over the character the personage of
the president being left or right or whatever. And right now,
you know he's cutting stuff, But what if he wants

(50:47):
to grow certain stuff and he doesn't have to ask Congress.
He just reality, Oh, we got some extra tariff money,
let's spend it on stuff I want to help with Congress.
I mean the genius of our political system, the division
of powers, separation of powers, the weakness of every branch
alone that is being diminished. And that is very, very

(51:14):
very dangerous, and there's much more important than any particular
spending on any particular program. But that's what Republicans want.
They want power, and they want a strong executive and
they think if they get that, they can win every
election from now until forever. And maybe they can. But
that too is scary, because it's not that they're always

(51:36):
going to cut good stuff. They might cut, I mean
cut bad stuff. They might very well start increasing funding
for bad stuff that supports their particular economic, moral, you know,
or philosophical agenda. Scary days, scary days of freedom in America.

(51:58):
All right, a couple of a few other stories. So
me Lay sadly, you know, certain aspects of me Lay's
programs of not being going well, and you know, they

(52:21):
haven't been going well because because I think he didn't
go far enough, and I think that his loss in
the election was there a month or two ago, basically

(52:42):
made people worry about his ability to follow through on
some of the things that he's promised. I think the
most one of the most important things in his agenda
is dollarization, basically eliminating the the paso and eliminating speculation

(53:03):
around the paso, the concern about the peso, moving the
entire economy to dollar to dollars, getting rid of a
central bank, I think would have it might have been painful,
and maybe maybe he couldn't do it because the IMF,
which gave him a big grant, gave him a huge
amount of money, wouldn't allow it. That is quite possible,

(53:26):
but it would have allowed taking off the whole monitored
question off the table. Because what's happened since the since
he didn't win the election, is that the paso is plummeted,
that people are selling paesos, they're still manipulating it. That
is causing the economy to struggle. The economy is actually

(53:48):
shrinking right now in Argentina. After a period of real growth,
and he's really struggling, and his public supporters has gone
down from fifty to forty percent. And of course we're
up in two weeks eleven days actually in twenty six
for the big election. This is the election accounts for

(54:09):
parliament in Argentina. He only has fifteen percent of parliament
on his site right now. He needs much more of
that to be able to do anything meaningful moving forward.
And if he fails in these elections, then it's hard
to see how his agenda moves forward. Anyway. The consequence
what's happened over the last few weeks is that Trump

(54:31):
has stepped in with a bailout plan for the Paesel. Basically,
the US Treasury is now going to buy pesos in
order to keep its value up. They supposed they are
willing to dedicate up to forty billion dollars forty billion

(54:51):
dollars of your tax payer money to bail out the
Malay administration by propping up the value of the PAESEL. Now,
I don't think the United States should ever do this.
I don't think this is appropriate for government to do.
I don't think you should do it domestically. I certainly
don't think we should do it for other countries. And

(55:24):
so again I don't think I don't think it should
have been done. The government should do it. But now
Trump has come out and said, not only are we
gonna do this, but if me Lay loses the election,
and he didn't define what lose means, but if me

(55:47):
Lay loses the election on October, we won't support the PAESEL.
So initially, when this was announced, the stock market in
Argentina went up quite a bit because they thought, oh,
this is great, this is going to help. I can't
to me, this is going to bail out the government innocence.
Now whoa what happens if me Lay doesn't win based

(56:08):
on some definition of winning the Trump has in his
mind they won't bail us out. So there's a massive
amount of volatility involved here. Again, it's just Trump trying
to try to put his finger on the weight in
terms of the election. Hey guys, if Melle wins, you
get I'll give you a bunch of money, you know,

(56:30):
So trying to trying to sway the election in a
particular in a particular direction. So yeah, Malay's in trouble.
Milay's in trouble because it's very very difficult to to

(56:51):
control a hypherinflated currency because much of its value is
dependent on people's sentiment and that moves around all the time.
All right, two other quick stories and then I'll go
to your questions. Not a lot of questions today, So
I have a hard stop in an hour, but we

(57:13):
might have an even shorter program today because we're not
not even making the first hour goals. Come on, people,
we should at least make the first hour goal. That
should be like base. We should never miss the two
hundred and fifty first hour goal. Yeah, I mean, malays.
The Congress won't allow him to implement all of the goals,

(57:33):
all of his agenda. I get that. And maybe he's
done all that he can. And now it's up to
the election. It's up to Argentinian people, and we will
see how the Argentinian people vote. I'm not blaming me, Lay.
I wish he could have dollarized. Maybe there was no
way to dollarize. Maybe it was just impossible. That is

(57:54):
absolutely possible, But know we we will see. We will
see what he does and and and what kind of
impact this has. All right, Russia, it really does seem
like the administration is really shifting on Russia. We talked
about this yesterday, about providing them with weapons and uh,

(58:18):
you know, uh cruise missiles. As Zelenski is coming to
Washington on Friday. We'll see what happens then. Uh. Well,
heck Saith, who's who's been very anti Ukraine. Uh and
and and together with Jadie vance and and quite leaning
towards Russia in the past, has shifted completely now. And

(58:41):
basically this is a quote from him today saying it's
time to end the war and come to the peace table.
Or this is a threat to Russia. The United States
War Department stands ready to do our part in ways
that only the United States can do. Now it's clear
exactly what he means, of course, but it seems like

(59:02):
a real threat. And and I think this is partially
about delivering weapons, but it's it's it's probably more than that,
you know, It's it's backing up our allies. Uh, it's
maybe a bigger commitment to NATO. Uh. Trump the other
day said that if we're a NATO country, I came

(59:23):
to which NATO country that was evaded, he would he
would support the United States intervening, reversing things that he
said a few months ago. I mean, that's the thing
about Trump. Who knows what he'd actually do, Who knows
what his precision is tomorrow? Who knows? You know, nobody knows,
including our enemies. And maybe that's an asset. Maybe I

(59:44):
doubt it, but maybe that's a that's a positive thing.
How to tell, given you know, given the whiplash we
get as as he changes his mind constantly, But this
is a again another change of mind mind which is positive.
Maybe Trump's learning on the road and you know, in

(01:00:04):
action and actually becoming better. At least his positions are
becoming better. I you know, whatever led him to be
more pro Ukraine, gophert I'm happy to have him be
pro Ukraine rather than be pro Russia. I think it
was the fact that Putin humiliated him after the meeting
in Alaska. Even though you know, all you pro Trump

(01:00:28):
people justified the Alaska meeting and we all gung ho
and we're convinced that Trump was going to get Putin.
I think Putin clearly humiliated Trump, and I think even
Trump was not immune from seeing that. And because it's
all about Trump, it's all about again, this is a
narcissistic behavior. Putin humiliating him has caused him to shift

(01:00:53):
away from away from Russia and towards towards Ukraine. Good.
Whatever it takes, whatever it takes. Finally, it's kind of
a cool story, a positive story, and kind of shows
the potential if we want it into the nuclear power.
This is I'm reading from the new story. The US

(01:01:15):
Army on Tuesday unveiled the Genius Genus Program, a more
than six year effort by the Army and the Pentagons
Defense Innovation Unit's Great Unit, the Pentagon's Defense Innovation Unit,
with the goal of developing and constructing hundreds of state
of the arts small nuclear reactors to power military bases

(01:01:38):
across the United States. This is you know, based on
all the journal story. The reactors, dubbed microreactors by the Army,
will generate less than twenty gigawatts of electricity, enough to
power a small town or military base, and will be
small enough to be transported by either ship or aircraft

(01:01:59):
to remote military locations overseas, such as islands in the
Pacific Secutive. The Army Daniel P. Drisco stated that they
hope to have the first reactors operational at bases across
the country by September twenty twenty eight. Now, this is huge.
You know, the military has always been at the forefront

(01:02:22):
of power of nuclear power reactors. You know, we've got
submarines than the nuclear powered, We've got aircraft carriers that
are in nuclear powered. But we can't we can't build
a nuclear power plant on land somehow. So this is
this is really really good. I don't think they need
to be well guarded. I don't think these are kind
of the nuclear reactors that explode or pose a real threat.

(01:02:48):
It depends on the particular technology that they use. But
this is fantastic. That's small. The damage you could do
if you did blow one up would be small. The
portable and this is exactly what we need the United States.
I mean, imagine all these data centers that they have
AI using one of these designed nuclear reactor plants. Now

(01:03:13):
I assume that they've been designed and manufactured by private industry.
There are a bunch of nuclear companies developing small nuclear reactors.
There's a bunch of them out there, and the evaluations
have gone up quite a bit because the anticipation is
they will be used for these data centers. But the

(01:03:34):
fact is the Energy Department has not approved a one
of these reactors for civilian used in a very long time.
But if you get a proof of concept on military basis,
maybe maybe maybe we can then start using nuclear reactors
for civilian purposes as well. So I think this is
really good use and this is the one positive that

(01:03:57):
government can play technology. I mean, the reality is that,
for example, the semiconductor, the first uses for the semiconductor
were military in missiles and other type of you know,
ballistic themselves and other types of ofogy military technologies. So

(01:04:19):
it was the defense department buying large quantities of semiconductors
that basically created the semiconductor industry. Drove the prices and
the quality of semiconductors down to the point where they
could be used for civilian applications. And that is the
kind of government intervention I have no problem with. You're
buying a product you actually need for a purpose that

(01:04:41):
there's a legitimate purpose of government defense, and by doing so,
you're helping create new industries and new technologies and new
things that happen and then can be used. But you're
not trying to control those industries. You're just buying fund them.
And here, if we get the defense Department buying large
quantities of these small nuclear reaction the prices of the
reactors will come down, the technology will improve, and at

(01:05:06):
some point they will become incredibly economic for data centers
and other uses for these nuclear reactors. And this is
this is the kind of synergy that can exist and
should exist between the Defense Department and the private sector.
And this does not involve actually owning any private companies

(01:05:29):
to I guess the disappointment of the Trump administration. All right, that,
my friends, is the news for Wednesday, October sixteenth, and
we will continue this on Friday. No news tomorrow, and

(01:05:52):
I expect, I expect world leaders and everybody else in
the world to just tone it down for the next
couple of days, so so we don't have breaking news
tomorrow that I missed your pointing on. All right, let's
see a reminder that we are thirty five dollars short
of our first hour goal. It would be great if

(01:06:13):
we achieve that would be great if we achieve the
second our goal. So you should, you should, you know,
jump in jump in with support. You can do that
with stickers where you don't have to ask a questions.
You can ask a question or make a comment, suggestion,
anything you want and I read it, and you could
do it in any you know. Two dollars or five

(01:06:35):
hundred dollars. Five hundred is the max. Either way, you
help us reach our goals and you help fund the
show or show funded through contributions from you, the listener
and the watcher. You can not just put this on
a monthly basis, kind of a regular basis by going
to a Patreon or to subscribe Star haven't done subscribed
to in a long time, but Patreon is better, or

(01:06:58):
PayPal putting in your on book show and then becoming
a monthly supporter, and that is that is fantastic. At
the ten dollars or more a month level, you get
the podcast version of this show with no commercials on
youtubell not on YouTube, on the Apple podcast or whatever
podcasting app you have, with no commercials. So ten dollars
or more, that's all all right. And then finally we

(01:07:21):
have a three sponsors hand a shot Wealth dot Com,
slash ybs hand a Shot with two teas Hander Shot
Wealth Office products that can save you a lot of
money on capital gains taxes by deferring that tax and
in some cases eliminating it. Check them out. You can
check out my interview with Robert Handershot on the Sponsors Playlist,

(01:07:47):
and yeah, it's an interesting interview. You should check it out.
And if you find it worthwhile, then check out the
website hand a Shot Wealth one world dot com slash
ybs Iman Institute. It was to remind you all that
the deadline for that contest is coming up. It's October thirty. First.

(01:08:08):
To find out more information about the essay contest, about
how to qualify, what essay to write, and where to
send it, and all of that, check out iinrand dot
org slash start here. Iinrand dot org slash start here.
And finally, Alex Epstein is the world leading commentator on
all things energy, for example, nuclear energy. He writes a

(01:08:29):
lot about nuclear energy, the the what is holding back energy?
Nuclear energy production in the United States? What needs to Happen?
Writes a lot about the Earth materials. Check Alex out.
You'll learn a lot at alex Epstein dot substack dot com,
alex Epstein dot substack dot com, alex Epstein dotting dot com.

(01:08:52):
God sometimes I slip. All right, let's see some stickers.
Thank you, Olan, Thank you Jonathan Jonathan like did four
of these. Thank you, Thomas. Let's see some other stickers.
Nick and Paul and Mike and Ryan and Paul again

(01:09:15):
and Jonathan and Jonathan and Jonathan and Jonathan. Thank you guys,
really appreciate the support. You too can support the show
just by just with the sticker right the bottom screen there,
just click on the dollar sign and you can help
make this show possible. All right, let's jump in with

(01:09:35):
super chats. David fifty dollars. Thank you, David. I've heard
you say that environmentalism is D two, But isn't it
more kin to really's belief? So won't environmentalism be M
two at the end of the day. No, there's no dogma,
there's no scripture, there's no integrating a principle. You know,

(01:10:00):
what's good for nature doesn't really lead you anyway. It
basically is self destructive. It's also, of course, what's good
for nature means we shouldn't exist, So it's nihilistic towards
man by definition, because man is anti nature, Man is
destructive of nature. Man should be destroyed for the sake

(01:10:22):
of nature, And that is D two. That is kind
of the disintegration the nihilism that d two leads. It's
just like egalitarianism. You can say galitarianism is a type
of religion, the religion of equality, and you could phase
it into all kinds of religion terms. But there's no there,
there's no there's no agenda, there's no ideology. It's just

(01:10:47):
destruction all the way through. It's just you know, knocking
people down and destroying achievement and destroying the good. It's
it's nihilism all the way through. And I think environmentalism,
when taken seriously, when taken as an ideology, when taken
almost as a religion, it is that the thing that

(01:11:10):
makes religion palatable and the reason religion can be successful
and is appealing to people is because it presents itself
as proman It presents itself as leading to your salvation,
presents itself as has solutions to things. It doesn't try

(01:11:33):
to just destroy everything from beginning to end, even though
ultimately the consequences of that, but it sells itself and
it promotes itself as carrying and as working for your benefit.

(01:11:56):
Thanks David Noah, Hey Ron, it's mister zip Zitter. Please
tell your audience I have a new original song posted
called Reject. Search for reject by mister Okay, So the
mister is trip t r I p z t e R.

(01:12:18):
So one word t r I p z t e R.
He has a new song called Reject. You can check
it out just search mister trips t r I p
z t e R. Thank you, No, All, Andrew. Does

(01:12:39):
altruism render a person effectively dumb in the area of
morality as in blind and deaf the facts? Well, I
mean certainly they don't see it that way because they
to them, being altruistic is morality. So they view everything

(01:13:00):
they're looking at as morality and sacrifice and all of
that is morality. So you know, it makes it you know,
once they accept altruism as morality, it makes it very
very difficult to get them to think outside of that paradigm,
outside of that context. And if when you come and

(01:13:22):
say selfishness is a virtue, they immediately try to put
it into the framework of altruism and it doesn't compute
and they immediately reject and they don't even listen. They
can't even hear you, or they think, Okay, so if
I act self interestedly in this case, I can make

(01:13:44):
more money, so that I can be I can sacrifice
more later, I can give away more later, or things
like that. This is the effective altruists do this, right,
So if I work really really hard and make a
lot of money today, which is deemed selfish, I can.
So they they try whatever you tell them in terms
of self interest, they'll try to massage, they'll try to

(01:14:07):
evade into altruism into their framework because it's the only
framework they can think of when it comes to morality,
and just says, how would you describe to an everyday
smart non objectivist as to why selfishness is good in
a highly condensed form, Well, I mean I would say

(01:14:31):
that your life is all you have. You have one life,
and to live it successfully takes real effort and real guidance,
and you need morality for that. A morality that's focused
on living your life, on living your life well to

(01:14:52):
you know, to be able to achieve your happiness, and
the that means focusing and emphasizing the things that are
going to lead you to be happy. And that's that's
what it means to be selfish. What it means to
be selfish is the place your interests i e. Your

(01:15:16):
survival and you're thriving and you're flourishing, and your happiness
as your as your defining purpose and and and evaluate
everything else based on that standard. That is the standard life.
Your life, your individual life, is not a standard for
evaluating every value out there. What is the value to

(01:15:38):
you and what is not? So you should be selfish
because all you have is your is your life and
living you know, living is is the only is the

(01:15:59):
only context in which morality is even comes it to being.
I mean, your starting point is life and that should
be how you stop your model thinking. And it's your life,
so by definition it's selfish, Michael. Are Europeans getting poorer

(01:16:26):
while Americans are getting richer? Well? Are Europeans just getting
richer at a snail pace compared to us? Well, I
don't know if it's a snail place, but they're getting
Europeans are getting richer slower than Americans are getting richer.
And again it depends which Europeans polls are getting richer
faster than Americans. But most Europeans, Germans, French, Spaniards, Italians,

(01:16:48):
uk Bits are getting richer, but at a slower pace
than wheel. Their economies are still growing, and the GDP
per capital is still growing, but at a smaller rate
than it is in the United States. And it's not
going fast to the United States. It's just going fast.

(01:17:10):
Mud hoo, voush something like that. You can call me
m okay em. I've a media a long lots of os,
timeless fan. The impact you've had on my life and
thinking is invaluable. Thank you for everything. Wow, thank you, EM.
I really really appreciate that. I apologize that I butchered

(01:17:31):
your name, so I really appreciate that. And uh yeah,
thank you, thank you. I'm glad to be having an
impact on people's lives. That doodo bunny. You can't blame
your followers for not making superchat goals when you take
weeks off at a time or change your show star

(01:17:53):
times erradically. Revenue growth requires consistency and you're proud. No,
it doesn't, you know it doesn't. This is this is
the show. I'm asking you to support it because you listen,
you can support it. If you don't want to, don't
And but I think that you know, integrity suggests that

(01:18:14):
if you don't, if you don't support it, you kind
of shouldn't listen. That is there's a trade going on
so you know these are the terms. I'm not pretending otherwise.
I'm not telling you. I'm not telling you that. I'm
not telling you that it's not I'm not telling you

(01:18:40):
that I'm going to produce a show that's always going
to be in the same time and I'm never going
to take time off to go travel. I'm telling you
that the show is going to have different starting times,
and it's going to be on and off. But I'd
appreciate it if you supported the shows that do happen
when they happen, and if you don't want to, you
don't have to, of course, But again there's a question

(01:19:04):
of if you're listening as erradically as it might be,
you know now it is true. What you're saying is that,
you know, if I had a better marketing strategy, if
I had a consistent time every day and I never
and I and I and I and I never traveled
and I only did the show, then revenue would grow faster. Fine,

(01:19:26):
I know that I know what I'm giving up. Of course,
the revenue I generate by traveling exceeds the revenue I
would get if I stay put. So but this is
the show. Support it to the level that you think
it's worth it, don't support it beyond the value that

(01:19:46):
it represented in your life. If it is so damaging
the erratic nature of the Star times that you think
that's such a disvalue to you that you don't want
to support the show, don't. But I know you do
support the show. You super check questions and the You
know I've I've added two hundred and fifty dollars an
hour goal on the show for a long long time,

(01:20:10):
knowing the radical nature of it. Maybe if I did
it consistently, I would raise the goal for an hour
show to three hundred or five hundred. I don't know,
but right now that's the goal. We make it most times,
not always. It would be great if we made it
all the time, but that's that's up to you, not
up to me. That dude A Bundy says, if America

(01:20:32):
collapses into the dictatorship, would you say the Objectives project
has been a failure or uh, it was simply started
too late to stop a downfall. I mean, I don't
know if too late or too early, but you know
it didn't stop the downfall. It was it a failure? Yes,
in a sense that it didn't stop the downfall could

(01:20:54):
could the objective project could have been done better or differently.
I haven't heard anybody propose it alternative that sounded better
to me. But yeah, I mean, dictatorship would be a
failure of all of those of us who believe that
it shouldn't happen, or a fighting to stop it. But
it's quite possible that nothing we could do will stop it.

(01:21:17):
And I don't think objectives will be a failure long term,
because I think long term it will win. That long
term could be fifty years, it could be one hundred years,
it could be twenty years, I don't know, probably not twenty,
probably more like fifty one hundred ultimately to win. But
in the short run it might fail to win. So

(01:21:38):
unless you have a suggestion and how to make it better,
on how to win, I'm not sure what the point
is on dwelling and all that, Michael. Every post of
a released Palestinian has the caption like he spent twenty
years torn from his family, and then a quick Google
search reveals he blew up a school bus. Yes, I

(01:21:59):
mean these are murderers. These are murderers. You should have
zero sympathy for them. Uh, and the people out there.
I just show a video of what's his name, Mishenasien,
the guy who was very pro Russia and and everybody
loved him because he predicted supposed to predicted the Russian invasion,

(01:22:21):
whose name I can't pronounce anyway, I just saw him,
you know, land blasting Trump and Nintennaios war criminals and
and the prisoner, the exchange of hostages. This is the
language they use. These are murderers that have been released.
And again they should have should have implemented death penalty.
They should all be dead. Mushsheimer Musheimer, Yeah, something like that.

(01:22:47):
A real scumbag, a real horrible person and a and
it's such a I said this before I knew he
was so poor Palestinian. I said this when he was
talking about Russia and Ukraine. Just a just not a
not a good thinker and not a good intellectual. Michael,
I amazed how childlike many of these young adults act

(01:23:10):
like highly ignorant for being an educator an educational setting.
I'm not sure exactly who you're talking about, maybe young Republicans,
I'm not sure, but yeah, I like numbers. Says have
you birthday? Lennon Peacock yes, today is is formerly Lena
Peakoff's birthday. He is today ninety two years old. Leni

(01:23:33):
Peakoff is one of the great minds in history. He
is you know, my debt to him is beyond anything
I can describe. He is to lodge and shape my life.
What I know, I know, you know I ran. But
then second is Lena Peakoff and he has been for

(01:23:57):
many many years a friend, some of these years a
very close friend. So yeah, Leonard is lended, is great.
Um and um he's ninety two, ninety two years old,
So just take that into account. Consider that as part
of your context for everything you know he says he does.

(01:24:21):
He's ninety two years old. It's it's takes a toll.
Life takes a I mean, age takes a toll on you.
But yes, happy birthday, Leonard. And how can we get
legislation cuts if Democrats win the midterms? Well, you cut,
you do the cuts before the Democrats win the midterms.

(01:24:44):
I mean, one of the reasons I want Democrats to
win the midterms is because Republicans have failed to make
legislative cuts. They had the opportunity to make legislative cuts,
and the Big Beautiful Bill, which was a bill that
didn't need any Democratic vot votes. It could pass with
just fifty one votes and in the Senates and Republicans

(01:25:05):
had those votes, it could pass in the House. The House,
they had a majority, and they refused to cut spending.
Trump is doing it to executive order, which is not
the right way to do it, not a good way
to do it, in an ultimately destructive way because it
gives the executive too much power. And Republicans have the

(01:25:27):
majority in the House, have the majority in the Senate,
have the presidency right now, and the one thing of
all the things they want to do, the one thing
they're not doing not doing is cutting spending. So white
vote for them. If they're not going to cut spending,
might as well vote for Democrats. Frend Harper. The most

(01:26:02):
annoying part of this situation to me is seeing people saying,
oh so much for anarco capitalist policy. It has to
be bailed out because it has failed. When it comes
to me, La, yeah, I mean, it's sad that they
view anything as an aco capitalist policy. It wasn't an
alco capitalist So if they blame it on an alco capitalism,

(01:26:23):
that's good. I'm happy if they blame it on capitalism
or on free markets, then I'd be sad. But yeah,
it is sad because they will blame it to some
extent on that. And yeah, so it Yeah, it's terrible
because it will be blamed on the good stuff that melated,

(01:26:45):
There's no question about that. And yeah, an alco capitalism
would be worse for Argentina than socialism. I mean, an
alco capitalism is the equivalent of of communism because it
basically legitimizes force and it becomes anarchy, which is shooting

(01:27:06):
in the streets, which ultimately he's authoritarianism. So it's about
as bad as you can you can do. But the
fact that Milai is being bailed out is not good
for anything. And I don't think I don't know that
he needs it. Maybe he needs it because he couldn't
get at all his policies through Congress. But yeah, we'll
see what happens in the election. I'm still hoping he

(01:27:28):
wins in the election and can do the things that
are necessary to make Argentina prosperous. Justin says, keep up
the amazing work, thank you, thank you, Justin really appreciate that.
Raphael says, how you Ron I was wondering, what's your
view on hope. It's often used in a spiritual or
faith based way, but can this emotion exist within reason.

(01:27:51):
I'll tell you Leonard Peacoff, since we talked about Leonard
is very negative on hope. I mean, at least he
was very negative with me on hope. So he whenever
you say something I hope so and so, he would
say this is years ago hope. Hope is an irrational emotion.
I mean, it's it's based on faith, and it's a

(01:28:11):
very negative. So I don't know if you can really
I mean, I guess you can create a a a
a way to use it that is consistent with that
is consistent with with uh reason. That is to say,

(01:28:31):
since we don't know what's gonna happen in the future,
I am hopeful that that it You know that, uh,
I'm hopeful that you know good things will come. But
since you don't have control over it, hope is usually
when you don't have controls, it's it's placing a wish
above reality in a sense. So Leaned at least has
been very negative about it and and and always viewed

(01:28:53):
as it bad. I think you can probably think of
some way to use it positively, but you have to
be careful. Harrison says. When Antifa attacked you in the
UK in twenty seventeen eighteen, what happened to the flag
you captured from them? What do you think of Antifa today?

(01:29:16):
What's his name? Who I was with? Who was the
guy up on stage with me? God, I forget his name.
He's become like a really mainstream conservative type, right wing
conservative type. Pretty bad, Sargon of al Kaid. Yeah, so
Sargon took the flag. So I let him take the flag.

(01:29:37):
You know, he is much better at using a call, Benjamin.
He's much better at using stuff like that for marketing
purposes than I am. So he took the flag, he
assumed he still has it somewhere. As far as I know,
what I think of Antiva today, same as I've always
thought about it. They are thugs, They're violent thugs, they

(01:29:59):
left nuts. I think they're really really evil and bad
as anybody who initiates force is. They're anti free speech,
they are nihilists, and that they hate Western civilization. They
hate the concept of freedom of speech. Uh and and
they hate they basically hate every value that I Holdea.

(01:30:19):
They hate so yeah, I think they're terrible, hobable, and
to the extent that they use violence, it's it's a
matter for the police. They should be arrested, and they
should be tried and and they should be prosecuted. And
one of the great failures of most Western governments has
been that in cases on campuses where where violence has

(01:30:41):
been used to try or to successfully or as an
attempt to silence people, they have not been prosecuted for this,
for the violence that they've committed. So that's a failure,
a real failure of the West. Are they a terrorist organization?
And I think it's very difficult. You have to really

(01:31:03):
have a clear definition of what a terrorist organization is.
I mean a Trump administration is just to find them
as a terrorist organization. It's very dangerous that you throw
around the term of terrorists. They're a violent gang and
they should be treated as a violent gang. Terrorism should
be you know, probably should be left two more dangerous

(01:31:31):
organizations than Antifa. But yeah, they should be stopped. All right, guys,
thank you, I appreciate it, and thanks to all the
super chatters, and I will see you again on Friday.

(01:31:52):
Sorry a doodo bunny that I'm traveling again. I'll tell
you on Friday or on Saturday why I'm traveling. Ye,
but I will. I will talk to you soon bieverybody
have a great rest of your week. M hm.
Advertise With Us

Popular Podcasts

CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist

CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist

It’s 1996 in rural North Carolina, and an oddball crew makes history when they pull off America’s third largest cash heist. But it’s all downhill from there. Join host Johnny Knoxville as he unspools a wild and woolly tale about a group of regular ‘ol folks who risked it all for a chance at a better life. CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist answers the question: what would you do with 17.3 million dollars? The answer includes diamond rings, mansions, velvet Elvis paintings, plus a run for the border, murder-for-hire-plots, and FBI busts.

Crime Junkie

Crime Junkie

Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.

Stuff You Should Know

Stuff You Should Know

If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.

Music, radio and podcasts, all free. Listen online or download the iHeart App.

Connect

© 2025 iHeartMedia, Inc.