Zelensky in DC; Mail-in; ICE Hiring; Wealth Tax; BBC; Gaza; Bolivia; Robot | Yaron Brook Show - Yaron Brook Show

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:03):
Radical fundamental principles of freedom, rational self interest, and individual runs.
This is the ran Brook Show. Oh right, everybody, welcome
to your own book show. On this Monday, August eighteenth,

(00:27):
and the day Lensky came to Washington, mister Smith goes
to Washington, Zelensky goes to Washington. Anyway, Yes, we'll be
talk about Zelensky's meeting with Trump at least what we
know about it very little. But we'll talk about what
happened over the weekend, where we are today, and what
might be going on in the background. Well, speculate what
hell uh and as information comes available, if it becomes

(00:51):
available as we're doing the show, we will discuss it
in more detail. Will cover a bunch of other topics
as well. Remind that you can shape the show by
detoning the topics I talk about by asking questions in
the super chat. It's really easy. Just press on that

(01:12):
little dollar sign at the bottom THENT type in a question,
put in a dollar amount, and off you go. So
ask about anything, anything you want anything I read them
all allowed and uh, you want to make a comment
anything you want on the show. You can use the
super chat to begin and it's a way of course
supporting the show. All right, let's jump in with the news,

(01:35):
as I think everybody in the world knows Zelensky is
in the White House now they have just Zelenskin and
Trump have just concluded a meeting, an hour long meeting,
one on one as far as I can tell. And
they just did a photo shoot, a family photo with
Zelensky and Trump and all the Europeans who came to Zelenski. God.

(01:59):
You know, yes, today I said a bunch of people
coming to with Zelenski, but I didn't realize how many,
like like like every major European UH Prime minister had
to show up, you know. Jojo Maloney came. I think
she came. I think her job is keep jd vance
under control. I think I think jd vance is the

(02:19):
thing for Maloney and and I think she can keep
jd vance under control. Uh.

Speaker 2 (02:25):
The President of Finland came.

Speaker 1 (02:27):
UH.

Speaker 2 (02:27):
The of course, UH Starmer came from the UK.

Speaker 1 (02:31):
So yeah, they they the German Jim and PM mcgloan, UH,
the head of NATO and UH and of course the
head of the European Union UH UH Governing Committee or
whatever it's called.

Speaker 2 (02:47):
They're all there. They're all there.

Speaker 1 (02:48):
In the White House right now, supposed right now they're
having the multilateral meeting. All of them are in a
room together talking about, uh, the situation. I guess I'm
a little I'm a little in the dark because I
don't quite understand what it is they're talking about. I
don't understand what's up for negotiating in what is possible here.

(03:14):
It seems to me that Putin has made himself very
clear that he demands for any kind of peace deal.

Speaker 2 (03:21):
He demands at the very least the four.

Speaker 1 (03:24):
Provinces in Ukraine, the entire Donbas, Dunesk, and Luhanski, and
the two southern provinces at least big chunks of them,
all the territory that Russia has occupied at the very least,
and you know, and he's got a bunch of other
demands about the governance in in you know, Russian, Russian

(03:46):
becomes the official language of Ukraine, and a bunch of
other things that relates to his ambitions. It seems clear
to me that he hasn't given up an inch, he
hasn't moderated in any kind of way. And it also
seems clear to me that none of these things Ukraine

(04:09):
can agree to so I guess I'm not sure what
there is the debate. I mean, the only thing Putin
allowed for which is different from the past is that
he he agreed the United States and or Europe will

(04:30):
give security guarantees to Ukraine because he knows they can't
live up to them. But that to me seems like
the only thing that's new. So what is all this
chatter about? What are they talking about? Those of you
all on Live right now? Could you guys just let

(04:50):
me know if the pictures coming across. I'm getting mixed
signals from my own setup, so let me know if
you'll get if you're getting this. You know. Trump has
said that he and the European leaders are going to
discuss potential security agreements, security guarantees for Ukraine, as well

(05:14):
as possible exchanges of territory, but as far as I
can tell, Putin didn't actually offer any substantive exchanges of territory.
Trump said in the pre meeting that Alaska summit reinforces
my belief that while difficult pieces within reach. I'm not
sure why he came to that conclusion, and I believe

(05:36):
that in every single step President Putin agreed that Russia
would accept security guarantees for Ukraine. And this is one
of the key points that we need to consider, and
we're going to be considering that at the table also
like who will do what? Essentially, but security guarantees only
after there's a deal, a deal about what.

Speaker 2 (05:57):
A deal about what.

Speaker 1 (06:02):
Uh? Trump did say, and this is this is a
move in his direction, a positive move in his direction. Ultimately,
there's a decision that can only be made by President
Zelensky and by the people of Ukraine working also together
in agreement with President Putin.

Speaker 2 (06:23):
So you know who knows?

Speaker 1 (06:25):
Uh.

Speaker 2 (06:26):
You know, they're.

Speaker 1 (06:27):
Saying that Trump and Zelenski covered a lot of material
of territory during the meeting, But what did Trump actually say?
This is Lensky, I mean, one possibility is he basically
said to Zelenski. I mean, this is quite possible that
he said to Zelenski, Look, you're going to give up territory.
You're going to give up the dumbas. If you don't,

(06:47):
the US will draw completely. We won't give you weapons,
We won't let the Europeans give you weapons because they're
American weapons and they need American permission. We won't give
you intelligence, will shut down starlink and you one hundred
percent on your own. So I demand did you give
up don Bass? That is quite possible. I don't know

(07:10):
what he said. Who knows. I do know that there's
just given, you know, Putin's position, and I'm not sure
what they're talking about. I just it seems strange to
me that there's really any conversations. Zelenski called his meeting

(07:33):
with Trump a very good conversation, and your president chimed
in said very good. Like you said, he really was
the best one. Or sorry, maybe best one will be
in the future, but it was really good. Uh, The
Ukrainian president said, I'm just reading from U an update

(07:53):
in the media. Spoke about centative points, including security guarantees,
calling it very positive that the US is giving such
strong signals and security guarantees. He also noticed the importance
of a prison at prison exchange and the return of
abductive children to their families. All of us want to
finish this wark, stop Russia, stop the swart.

Speaker 2 (08:17):
Yeah, I mean, I.

Speaker 1 (08:22):
Really think this is all one big theater. It's a
theatrical show being presented for our benefit, maybe for the
benefit of the Nobel Prize for Peace Committee. Maybe for
the benefit of history. You know, I don't know, it's
just I think this is just a show. I think

(08:42):
this is just performance art, performance arts, street art. They're
just putting on makeup, and I mean, look is a
Lynsky even put on a suit.

Speaker 2 (08:53):
It was a military suit. As he presented it.

Speaker 1 (08:57):
He came in a Jack Adam black shirt, no tie,
but black shirt, black jacket, black pants. Everybody said it
was a big improvement over his usual dress. But yeah,
see he came in combat suit, in a combat suit
rather than a combat whatever. He immediately first words out

(09:21):
of Zelensky's mouth he praised Trump, congratulated Prime Trump. I
think gave a letter to be given to Millennia, thanking,
thanking Trump's wife for the letter she gave to Putin.
He was just effusive about praising Trump, never contradicted Trump,
never disagreed with Trump in the press conference, and he

(09:45):
has been he has been supposedly over the last few days.

Speaker 2 (09:49):
He has been coached by Keith Starmer.

Speaker 1 (09:53):
Of the UK, who gets along with Trump fabulously, and
by British diplomats, really walking through scenarios, trying stuff out, really,
you know, like acting classes. They're giving him classes how
to deal with Trump.

Speaker 2 (10:06):
It's theatre.

Speaker 1 (10:09):
It's not real. It's theatre. H So yeah, in terms
of what can be discussed, what we will be discussed,
you can't giving up territory. I mean, I get it.

(10:30):
They might have to give up Crimea. And maybe they're
already ready to give up Crimea, and they're willing to
give up Crimea.

Speaker 2 (10:37):
But you know, really are they Are they going to
give up all of them?

Speaker 1 (10:41):
Bus? Are they going to give up the southern southern regions?
I'm very very skeptical. And is is you know, is
Putin going to compromise? Is there any reason to believe
that Putin is going to compromise? NATO chief says Trump

(11:05):
broke deadlock on Ukraine war. As the leaders took turns
addressing the assembled media, rote the NATO Secretary General thank
mister Trump for breaking the deadlock with Putin by starting
a dialogue earlier this year, praising the US president.

Speaker 2 (11:21):
If it's worked, end the war.

Speaker 1 (11:22):
If we play this well, we could end this, and
we have to end it, Rote said the NATO chief
added that he was excited by the progress, while urging
the leaders to get this thing to an end as
soon as possible. I mean again, I will say, this
is theatre. They are, you know, pretending that there's something

(11:46):
to talk about that may even convene a Putin Zelensky
Trump trilateral meeting, although I think the Europeans will want
to be there, otherwise it'll be two against one on
but what can be actually achieved, it doesn't matter, because

(12:07):
again it's it's theatre. It's theater in this case, I
think from the part of the Europeans, primarily to appease
and to uh, you know, to appease Trump and to
make you feel good and to make you feel like
they're taking him seriously and they appreciate his efforts and
they really like him, and they will recommending for a
Nobel prize. And it's all about Trump's ego. This this

(12:28):
is a big theatrical show to appease Trump, Trump's ego.
I mean, if somebody has a better theory, I'm interested
in what it is. According to pretty much all sources,
this is what Putin demanded in Alaska. Uh he asked

(12:49):
Trump that the United States recognized crimea donnask Luhansk gashon
ends upproise Zazazia as part of Russia. Those are all
the provinces that he's occupied. He wants to grant Russian
language official status and to guarantee security for Russian Orthodox churches.
Trump of course dropped the demand for an immediate cease fire,

(13:12):
which he has been hopping on for months now, but
that's gone somehow. Putin said something that completely convinced Trump
that ceased fire as a waste of time, and we
don't need a cease fire, even though that has been
his entire focus for months, And he wants a rapid

(13:32):
piece treaty.

Speaker 2 (13:35):
And he's going to put pressure on you know.

Speaker 1 (13:37):
He supposedly he agreed to put pressure on Zolenski to
see the rest of Dunbas region to Russia, even though
thereas not occupied by Russian troops. If if Ukraine gives
those territories up in Dunbas, Ukraine's finished. I mean that
that is area, the fortifications a lot in Dunbas that

(14:00):
have held the Russian forces. The Russian forces just have
no chance of taking the rest of john Bass. It
will take them years and years and years and years
to be able to do that.

Speaker 2 (14:13):
We'll be over the weekend.

Speaker 1 (14:14):
Came out and said, oh no, no, we don't want to
cease fire anymore. We recognize that a ceasefire is no good.
We want a full peace deal, and we believe it's
completely doable. We've we always never, we never wanted to
cease fire.

Speaker 2 (14:26):
Who the hell wants to cease fire?

Speaker 1 (14:27):
That's silly.

Speaker 2 (14:28):
All these other.

Speaker 1 (14:29):
Peace negotiations that Trumps negotiated, none of them acquired a
cease fire. An hour before this meeting, the Trumpet administration
negotiated cease fire with Hamas, and Israel is still negotiating.
So it's just they're so full of it. Yeah, that

(14:51):
one doesn't belong there one second. Let's see what do
we have here? Yeah, so we're going to see what,
if anything these European leaders, what we learn, We'll see
if if a statement has made at the end in
terms of anything new. Again, I don't get it. I

(15:13):
don't understand what is being negotiated, and I don't think
I don't think there's anything to be done. The only
person who needs to be, in a sense forced to
compromise is it's putin. It's putin, so and clearly Trump

(15:36):
did not achieve that and is not interested in doing it.
Trump Trump over the weekend, When was this over the weekend,
tweeted Presidence and let's give you Quinn can end the
war with Russia almost immediately if he wants to, or
he can continue to fight. Remember how it started. I

(15:59):
think Russia invaded, no getting back Obama given Crimea twelve
years ago without a shot being fired, and no going
into NATO by Ukraine. Some thing's never changed. So Trump
is basically saying he has to give up Crimea and
he's not going to go into NATO, which means the
security guarantees. I think I'm meaningless and Zelenski needs to

(16:24):
stand the war how but this is of course, it's disgusting.
If Trump did do this, he hasn't mad Zelenski. Yet
he's making this public degrade Zelenski. Make it all about Zelenski.
It's as a Zelensky started this war and not Putin.
And yet it seems like the tariffs on you know,

(16:50):
Russia off the table, other restrictions on Russia off the table.
Never criticized Putin, never put out anything negative against Putin,
All positive, constant positivity at a Putin, constant negativity about
Zelensky again theater again according to you know, after the summit,

(17:20):
you know, Putin kept saying root causes, the root causes.
We need to deal with the root causes. With the
root causes, according to Putin, is the fact that Russia
is not an empire like it was then. It lost
that status at the end of the world, at the
Cold War. And you know, for Putin, the root cause

(17:45):
is the diminishment of Russia. And he wants he needs
a victory, he needs territory, he needs strength, he needs
to project strength, he needs to position himself as a
superpower when he's not. So I mean, yeah, so, I

(18:19):
mean again, Putin's giving nothing, nothing, Yeah, I mean a
number of stories about how has been coached. The British
diplomats are training Zelensky before meeting with Trump.

Speaker 2 (18:36):
He hears the quote.

Speaker 1 (18:38):
About the training advice protect Trump's ego, praise him publicly
as much as possible, and do not provoke.

Speaker 2 (18:47):
This also includes.

Speaker 1 (18:48):
Praising Trump's efforts to establish peace in Ukraine and recognizing
that Europe must take greater responsibility for its own defense. Theatre. Alright,
let's see all that's that. Let's see if there's any
updates from the actual meeting. Again, remember if they really

(19:12):
were serious about security guarantees, The easiest way to provide
Ukraine with security guarantees is just to make it a
member of NATO. That gives it instant, you know, security guaranties.
Any security guarantees that do not include membership of NATO
are there because they're weaker, because Putin might agree to

(19:34):
them because he knows they're less meaningful. He knows the
United States and Europe can walk away from them, and
will walk away from them rather than engage in war
with Russia. NATO is a different story because NATO commits
all European countries, all members of NATO, and if they
don't come to the defense of Ukraine, what happens on

(19:54):
the Baltics, so Poland or another country is attacked.

Speaker 2 (19:57):
So it's much more committal.

Speaker 1 (20:00):
If Trump really is serious about security guarantees, why is
he making them outside of NATO Because he's not serious.
He's not serious, I mean he has the theater continues.
Mccon says, everyone around this table is in favor of piece.

(20:23):
When we speak about security guarantees, we speak about the
whole security of the European continent. This is why we're
all united here with Ukraine on this matter. And McConn
said to mister Trump, you can count on us as
we can count on you again sucking up to him,
because that is how you deal with him. German Mertz

(20:45):
actually disagreed with Trump. I don't know, might be kicked
out of the meeting. Mertz says, you know, I can't
imagine that the next meeting would.

Speaker 2 (20:54):
Take place without a ceasefire.

Speaker 1 (20:56):
He says, so let's work on that, and let's try
to put pressure on Russia, because the credibility of these
efforts we are undertaking today are dependent on at least
a cease fire from the beginning of the series of negotiations.
From that's from the next step on. So I would
like to emphasize this aspect. I would like to see
a cease fire from the next meeting, which should be

(21:18):
a Triladoer meeting wherever it takes place. And Trump didn't
really support that that or walk that back. But but yeah,
they're all making their little statements uh and uh praising

(21:40):
Trump and making it feel good and feeding the ego,
because that's what it's all about with Trump. It's all
about the ego, the the shallow, narcissistic ego that he
has a right. I mean, these are all statements I
think from before the meeting, and uh and we also, I.

Speaker 2 (22:00):
Mean, the reality is this. This is the bottom line.

Speaker 1 (22:03):
In my view. Putin has said he wants the Donbas
and he wants all four of the provinces that he
has control over, O has partial control over Zelensky. I
don't think can accept that idea. I don't think Ukraine
will ever accept that idea. I think the whole thing's
a non starter. The only way to get a piece

(22:24):
deal in Ukraine is for the United States to implement massive,
massive sanctions on Russia. The only way to make Putin
accept giving back at least significant of most of the
land that he's taken from Ukrainians is by making him bleed.

(22:49):
By making it bleed in Ukraine. I think the Ukrainians
are doing that. They just need more weapons, and by
making his economy bleed. I don't understand why not accept
Ukraine and too, NATO if you're giving them security guarantees anyway,
If the security guarantees are real, why not just make
them an Memburbano now supposed to not. This is a

(23:10):
way of getting around NATO. Yes, I know, and that's
the whole point. The security guarantees are not real, so
that they can walk away from them, and they can
tell Putin wink wink, they're not joining NATO. There, they're
not real security guarantees. Don't worry, and Putin will accept
it as that, and then a few years down the road,

(23:30):
with the right president in the office, he takes the
rest of Ukraine. So no, I mean, anything short of
membership NATO is fakery. It's pretend it's unreal. Security guarantees
a meaningless unless they mean joining NATO. And everybody knows that.

(23:55):
Zelenski knows that, and Putin knows that, and that's why
Zielenski is not very happy about it. He'll probably take
it because it's better than nothing. Putin is happy about
it because he knows the one thing he doesn't want
is Ukraine and NATO. Why doesn't Putin want Ukraine in NATO,
because then it has real security guarantees. If Ukraine's not

(24:16):
a member of NATO, it doesn't happen. It's only difference, right,
the only real difference. All right, Remember you're in the
meeting between a Putin and Trump. Putin made a big
deal out of mail in ballots. They're not good mail

(24:37):
in ballots are very bad. It's corrupting influence. Do you
know that in twenty twenty Putin signed the law in
Russia to allow mail in ballots in Russia. Not that
the elections matter in Russia. You know they don't. Nobody
actually counts the votes. Bet male in ballots exist in Russia.

(24:58):
Do you know that at least thirty other countries mail
in ballots. But again, theater, it's all about stoking Trump's
narcissistic ego so or lack of an ego, as the
case may be. So that's what Putin says, because he
knows that's what Trumps want to hear. Anyway, Trump went

(25:18):
on one of his rants this weekend as a consequence
about mail in ballots. Here we go, I am going
to lead a movement to get rid of mail in ballots.
And also, while we're at it, highly inaccurate, very expensive,
and seriously controversial voting machines which costs ten times more

(25:38):
than accurate and sophisticated watermark paper, which is fast and
leaves no doubt at the end of the evening as
who won and who lost the election. Complete nonsense voting machines.
I mean, everybody in the world uses voting machines. Voting
machines are the twenty twentieth century technology. I mean, indeed,

(26:00):
we should be voting online, and you know it should
be twenty first century. We should be voting on line
in a secure network. But voting machines. You want to
get rid of technology. You want to go back to
doing it by hand, which is slower and a lot
less accurate. When there's literally zero evidence of any problems

(26:21):
with the voting machines. They're not inaccurate, incredibly accurate, more
accurate than hands. Very expensive. No, they're less expensive than
doing it by hand. Cci controversial. No, you're the only
one who objects the voting machines. He goes on, we

(26:44):
are now the only country in the world that uses
mean voting. Not true, the thirty other countries at least
that use it. All others gave it up because of
the massive voter fought encountered all caps. We will begin
the effort, which will be strongly opposed by the Democrats
because they sheet at levels never seen before, by signing
an executive order all caps to help bring honesty all

(27:06):
caps to the twenty twenty six midterm elections. See He's
going to do this by twenty twenty six. Florida, by
the way, is a huge mail in mail in ballot states.
It's a Republican state. So this is not just going
to be opposed by Democrats. It's going to be opposed
by some Republicans and voting machines. Which how many states

(27:29):
actually get up to have people come by hand and
get rid of voting machines. That's going to be a
huge issue for a lot of Republicans.

Speaker 2 (27:37):
None of this is going to.

Speaker 1 (27:38):
Happen, but we'll see. We'll see. He's going to sign
an executive voter. He goes on, Remember the states a
melion agents of the federal government in counting and tabulating
the votes. That's going to be an interesting decision the
courts will have to finalize. They must do what the
federal government is representative, is represented by the President of
the United States tells them for the good of the country,

(28:01):
for the good and country all caps to do with
a horrible all caps radical left policies like open borders,
men playing in women's sports, transgender and woke for everyone,
and so much more. It's very relevant to male in
voting and to voting machines. The transgender sports stuff and
wok for everything stuff. This guy's certifiable Democrats are virtually

(28:28):
unelectable without using this completely disproven maile in scam. Republicans
win in Florida with Maile in scam now all caps
all the way to the end. Elections can never be
honest with maile in ballid votings, and everyone in particular
the Democrats, knows this.

Speaker 2 (28:48):
How did Trump win in twenty twenty four?

Speaker 1 (28:51):
Uh? I and the Republican Party will fight like hell
to being honesty and integrity back to our elections. The
mail in ballot hoax using voting machines that are complete
and total disaster must end now. Remember, without fair and
honest elections and strong and powerful borders.

Speaker 2 (29:09):
You don't have even a semblance of a country. Thank
you for your attention to this matter.

Speaker 1 (29:13):
Donald J. Trump, President of the United States of America.
How did he become president with mainly voting and voting machines?
Because it's impossible to have fair elections with them. I mean,
you should be barred from president if you write tight
rates with all bold. There's something very wrong about that. Anyway.

(29:41):
I don't know what's going to happen with this. I
have no idea he's going to sign the executive vote.

Speaker 2 (29:44):
I think to go to courts. It'll be challenged.

Speaker 1 (29:46):
It's not Clay who has authority over counting votes at
the state level. Each state does it differently, which suggests
that this is a state issue, not a federal issue,
and guesses the Supreme quote will make it a state issue,
not a federal issue, and that this will go nowhere.

(30:06):
But this is what excites Donald Trump right now. This
is what I'll suck all the air away from. He's
trying to do anything you can to suck away from
some of the more controversial stuff that he is doing
and is involved in. All right, let's check in with
the latest update of the theater in Washington, DC. Italian

(30:33):
Prime Minister Jojia Miloney said any agreement should focus on quote,
how to be sure that it won't happen again. Referring
to Russia's invasion. President of Finland said, the security guarantee
is a big part of this. Finland joined NATO in
twenty twenty three and response to Russia's invasion in Ukraine.

Speaker 2 (30:50):
Yes, and the easiest way.

Speaker 1 (30:52):
To make this European wide security guarantee is to allow
Ukraine to join NATO. That would end it.

Speaker 2 (31:02):
You know, Finland.

Speaker 1 (31:04):
He goes on to say, some of the international media
might wonder why the president of Finland is here. I
think the reason is probably that we might come from
a small country, but we have a long vout with
Russia over eight hundred miles. If I took you know,
if I look at the silver lining of where we
stand right now, we found a solution in nineteen forty

(31:26):
four beating Russia, and I'm sure we'll be able to
find a solution in twenty twenty five to end Russia's
warf aggression and find and get a lasting and just peace.
I like that he called Russia's war of aggression the
war of aggression in front of in front of Trump,
because Trump doesn't call this Russia's war of aggression. I mean,

(31:50):
he refuses to do so. If anything, he seems to
constantly be blaming Zelenski for the war. We'll go back
to that in a minute. Let's close that. What is
the next topic?

Speaker 2 (32:07):
Ice?

Speaker 1 (32:08):
So ICE as a huge budget. They have a lot
of money, one hundred and fifty billion dollars. I think
now after the big beautiful bill, and you know what
they what they're trying to do now is hire thousands
of new ICE agents, and to do that, they are
making salaries very competitive with other law enforcement salaries. But

(32:32):
on top of that, on top of that, just see
you know how your taxpayer money is being spent, just
so you know it's your taxpayer money is being spent
well to provide new ICE recruits with signing bonuses, signing
bonuses like in the NBA fifty thousand dollars signing bonuses.
And in addition, in addition, new accruits can get sixty

(32:53):
thousand dollars of their student debt wiped out forgiven. Remember debt,
student debt forgiveness under Biden. What Trump is is making
in reality. If you're willing to join ICE, put on
a mask, get an a semi autumatic weapon, and go
and harass working people working in America.

Speaker 2 (33:14):
Throw them to the.

Speaker 1 (33:15):
Ground, handcuff them, bash their face against the pavement, and
drag them into an unmarked van while refusing to identify
yourself to the people around you asking questions. I can't
think right now of a more despicable entity in the
United States than ICE. What they are doing is horrific.

(33:40):
It is truly astounding that this is. You know that
Americans are not much more up in arms about this.
I think ICE is going to meet their quota in
terms of hiring people. They've lowered the standards in terms
of who they want. They've changed the age limit. It
used to be, you know, only a certain spectrum of

(34:03):
age group. Now that they've expanded that significantly, they'll take
pretty much anybody.

Speaker 2 (34:08):
They've got a.

Speaker 1 (34:09):
Huge budget to sweeten the deal and to get people,
to get people into the organization. They're building up an
internal military organization within the United States of people who
have no qualms about you know, accidentally put in quotes
arresting Americans, legal residents, throwing people in back of again

(34:34):
unmarked vans, using masks, going into the workplace fully armed,
as if their life is at risk. In other words,
these are the storm troopers of this administration and some
future administration.

Speaker 2 (34:49):
This is a little internal military.

Speaker 1 (34:52):
Force that is that beck and call of the President
of the executive branch to inflict harm on Americans and
people living in America, people working in America. Now, if
they were going after gang members, after criminals, okay, but
that's clearly not who they're going after or they're just

(35:12):
not that many. As I've told you for a long time,
it's just not they're not that many criminals and gang members,
illegal immigrants in the United States. They've rounded up everybody
they can. Now they're just going after hard working people,
people who are hired by Americans to work for Americans,

(35:36):
to produce help produce wealth in America. And for that,
for that, because they don't have the right paperwork, because
they didn't get the right stamp, because they didn't get
their approval of the right bureaucrat, We and the Land
of the Free and the Home of the brave, rounding
them up, beating them up, throwing them into detention, and

(35:59):
then ship being them off to who knows where, and
in some cases it really is to who knows where,
the end of of you know, some god forsaken place
in the planet. Mm hmm.

Speaker 2 (36:10):
So yeah, very lucrative.

Speaker 1 (36:12):
You guys, you guys should consider it if you're looking
for career change. Uh. You know, they're they're paying really,
really well.

Speaker 2 (36:19):
And some of the jobs don't evolve running up people.

Speaker 1 (36:22):
Some of them might be investigative by nature, might some
of them might be judiciary. Taking these people in front
of court that you could get all kinds of jobs.
Some of them are very kind of physical and you know, demanding,
and you can get into the action of beating people up,
not just they're sending them to self Sudan. You know
that some deported people are going to South Sudan, a

(36:46):
hell hole in the middle of nowhere, in the middle
of a civil war.

Speaker 2 (36:49):
Uh and and who knows Ybooty and and other.

Speaker 1 (36:53):
Places around uh in Africa and other places. Uh Now,
I think most of most of places where they're going
to really bad places. The supposedly have criminal records, but
they made enough mistakes so far, mistakes in quotation marks
that one has to wonder if they care. They just

(37:14):
they just want to round people up. So far, the
ICE is deported one hundred and forty four thousand people
this year by the end of June. That's just a
little bit more than what the Biden administration wounded up
last year. They did one hundred and thirty seven thousand,
so seven thousand people more. All this for seven thousand
people more, And again we're spending one hundred and fifty

(37:38):
billion dollars on this quite astounding, quite astounding. All right,
check back on trum Zelenski. Nothing nothing new, all right.

(38:01):
So there's a proposal going around in the left, on
the left coming out of Europe but embraced by many
leftists in the United States, a proposal that basically says, look,
we're struggling financially in place like the UK in ahs

(38:22):
has constantly showed up. Money in the warfare States is
struggling and everything else. And the proposal on the tabe
over now and it was it was made in a
in an editorial in uh in the Guardian last week,
but it's been picked up a lot of leftists as yeah,
this is this is the model. It's basically timposed one

(38:43):
hundred percent wolf tax, one hundred percent inheritance tax, and
he used that money to beef up the warfare state.
And of course this Abby Abby Wilkinson makes a I mean,
I mean, she makes the best case as possible for this,
which is primarily, you know, a mall case, a mall case.

(39:08):
You can't claim that by inhabiting the money, you earn
this money, you made this money, you created this money.
You know your parents you have. She argues no actual
claim to that money, and it's a great time to
redistribute it. So here's some of what she writes. I
think this is it's a good it's you know, she

(39:29):
makes the argument, and we need to have answers to
the argument one hundred percent one hundred percent, and think
about I'm curious what you think the negative incentives of
that are. She is what you write. It's sometimes claimed
that the prospect of leaving an inheritance motivates people to
work harder, So no kind of Most economists who defend

(39:51):
low inheritance taxes use some kind of utilitarian argument about
incentives and it makes people work harder. And she says,
but I'm skept that self interest isn't enough. Where's the
evidence that people without children are less productive on average?
And those who are motivated by desire to help their
family will presumably still want to do so while they're alive. Honestly,

(40:14):
if people did decide to retire early and enjoy their
later years instead of slaving away for as long as possible,
would that be such a bad thing. I love the
way the leftists always want to lecture us on how
we should live our lives. And given the youth unemployment
is such an issue, it may well be socially beneficial

(40:35):
to free up those jobs. Zero some view of the world,
there are only so many jobs. If only those old
people retire, it new people could come in. It doesn't
work like that. Jobs create jobs, and you know, the
more people work, the more people will work. But they
don't understand that the world is not a zero sung

(40:57):
like in fans. They try to reduce unemployment by reducing
the amount of hours people were allowed to work, and
somehow that didn't work. She goes on. Some may argue
that leaving inhabitance is a moral right. It's not about
whether the recipients deserve or need it know where they're

(41:17):
having The ability to do so results in productive productivity gains.
The point is that the deceased earned that money, and
it should be up to them where it goes. Yeah. Absolutely,
it's a moral right for exactly that reason, she continues.
This is what he gets a little murky. Hm. We

(41:37):
tend to honor the wishes of the dead, at least
to some extent. Those of us who are religious may
believe their souls live on and they can witness what's happening.
Even committed atheists to recognize the value of respect in
this context, even if their primary concern is their emotional
impact on those left behind. If someone wanted a certain

(41:58):
sort of funeral, for example, it seems right to try
and fulfill that. But what if the desires of the
dead directly damage the world being of the living? You
see altruism utilitarianism. Is there any situation in which the
previous instructions are someone no longer actually present in the

(42:19):
mortal realm should be prioritized over the needs I'll repeat
that should be over the needs, interests, and opinions of
those who are still alive in kicking. So if it
is deemed by those who are alive that the needs
of the public, the recipients of welfare are strong, that

(42:43):
we should be able to override the wishes desires of
the dead, I mean, I think that's perfect.

Speaker 2 (43:00):
Right, you know, let me read that sentence again.

Speaker 1 (43:05):
Is there any situation in which the previous instructions of
someone no longer actually present in the mortal realm should
be prioritized over the needs, interests, and opinions of those
who are still alive and kicking?

Speaker 2 (43:16):
I mean, that's they go.

Speaker 1 (43:18):
There's them all claim if you don't respect property rights,
the right of the person when he was alive then
if you don't respect those rights as absolutes, if everything
is utilitarian in the sense of what's good for society,

(43:43):
and so we now we'll get to the change incentives.
What happens if you tax What would happen you guys,
think about it? What would you do if you knew
your inheritance would be tacked at one hundred percent? In
the UK, official statistics suggests that seventy seven it's passed
on in inheritance each year. That's money that no living

(44:06):
being has a moral claim too. Yes they do. The
people who the person who died left the money too,
they have a maral claim too. According to standard justifications
of wealth, inequality and private property, where that money, where

(44:28):
the money be.

Speaker 2 (44:28):
Distributed by the state.

Speaker 1 (44:29):
It would cover the cost of adult social care several
times over. It could plug gaps in the NHS, education
and police funding. It could provide the kind of comprehensive
welfare state that meant nobody had to worry about their
family after they passed away, because there would be always
be a safety net. Priority is the safety net, and

(44:54):
she writes, culture norms teach us that inheritance of private
property is the default and any appropiation of this.

Speaker 2 (45:00):
Wealth must be justified. It should be the other way around.

Speaker 1 (45:05):
There's some value in the respecting the wishes of the dead, yes,
but why is that more important than social housing, healthcare,
or any number of other possible uses of the money?
Because individual rights, because freedom, liberty, because contracts, Because it's

(45:25):
their money. It's natural to want to protect and care
for your family. But what about people who don't stand
to inherit to penny? Is there any reason they need
should matter less? No doubtruism, the egalitarianism we have to
fund out states somehow, what makes inheritance tax more objectionable

(45:47):
than income tax? Or that charging essential consumer goods a
hundred state tax, perhaps with a small allowance for objects
of sentimental value. Perhaps maybe she's not even sure about that.
Isn't a policy we can expect to see in a
party manifesto anytime soon. It's well outside the con spectrum

(46:09):
a mainstream political opinion. Questioning the status quo is always
going to be somewhat uncomfortable. Uncomfortable process, though, and all
kinds of MAJORUS social changes seem impossible, and then suddenly
they want so. This is.

Speaker 2 (46:26):
The kind of expanding the Overton window.

Speaker 1 (46:30):
On the left.

Speaker 2 (46:30):
This is the left pushing, pushing.

Speaker 1 (46:34):
One hundred percent of well tax and it's all justified, plainly, simply,
without any embarrassment, through egalitarian, altruistic, utilitarian justification. You don't matter,
Your wishes don't matter. You made the money, but you

(46:58):
don't at the end of the day, don't own it.
All Your property is as soon as you die is
the states. Now, what what do you think people would do?
I mean, here's just a what would people do if

(47:21):
you had one hundred percent of well tax? I mean,
give me some ideas of what you would do if
you had one hundred percent well tex.

Speaker 2 (47:30):
I know what I would do. I would.

Speaker 1 (47:36):
Give my family members massive gifts. Now I don't know
if the UK has gift taxes, USS some I would
give them gifts. I would give them money away to charity.
Before I died, I would spend it o wout, buy
yach and then just before I died, I would sink it.

(47:59):
If I a nice home and I couldn't sell it
and spend the money and other stuff or gift the money,
I'd burn the home down. I mean, really, really, I'm
gonna just allow the stage just to have it all
I woke all my light, all this hard work I've accumulated,

(48:21):
all this wealth for the stages, Just take it and
do whatever the hell they want with it. No, it's mine,
it's mine, none of the stations. If I want to
burn it all or burn it all, and then of
course they will say, well, you can't do that, you
can't do that. Yeah, you know, I'd give it to people.

(48:44):
I'd buy stuff, I'd do stuff with it. I would
die penniless so that the state couldtacks nothing. I'd die
property less. I would move all the property into my
children's name before I died, and then the state would
have to come in and say, oh, you can't do that,

(49:04):
but I'm still alive, and then what's the name of
the woman who wrote this? Amy? Abby? Abby would have
to say, well, but you know you're just doing this
stuff avoid the taxes, and it's still you know, we
need this money, We really need this money, so we're
just gonna confiscate it before you die. I mean, once

(49:25):
you have no respect for property rights, once you have
no respect for people's values, once you have no respect
for people's ownership, then you have no respect. Doesn't matter
if they're alive, or dead and abby, and the people
she represents have no respect. Yeah, I mean it's it's

(49:47):
discussing and despicable. This is the kind of egalitarianism you
constantly have to fight, constantly have to fight because the
left one let it go. It's the animating ideology of
the left. All right, Uh, let's see. Uh just after

(50:18):
comments on this, because it's such a fallacy, Buzz says,
but in theory it will still be better. You will
use the money in boost economy. All right, you guys
really need a lesson in the broken window fallacy, Buzz,
You really need a lesson in the broken window fallacy.
Spending your money does not boost the economy. That is
a Kingsian nonsensical, anti economic idea. Why is it anybody's

(50:50):
business if there's generational wealth, why is it anybody's business
what I do with my wealth? But if I spend
it or save it, what does better the economy?

Speaker 2 (51:01):
If I invested.

Speaker 1 (51:03):
Or if I spend it, what is better for the economy.
We really need to do a show on the broken
window fallacy. Spending does not drive the economy. Spending does
not boost economic growth, investment does saving does? What old

(51:27):
people do they have the money saved invested. That money
saved and invested is boosting economic growth more than if
they consumed with it. It's one of the great fallacies
in economics, which has been refuted over and over and
over and over again, both theoretically and empirically. Economy is

(51:51):
not about consumption. It's about production, and production benefits from
savings because that turns into investment. Oh, we've got the
anti semites here. Yay ignore them.

Speaker 2 (52:17):
God, So yes, inheritance is wonderful.

Speaker 1 (52:24):
I have no problem with intergenerational wealth, and it does
not inheritance. It does not intergenerational well, it does not
reduce economic growth, does not hurt the economy in any way.
Quite the contrary, it boosts economic growth because billionaires and
rich families save their money and that saving becomes investment,
and then investment becomes you know, new businesses, and those

(52:46):
new businesses hire people, and those people who are hired
get salaries, and those people who have salaries spend their
money on housing and consume all this other stuff, and
it's all one big, beautiful, virtuous circle. Without the investment,
there's no new business. Without a new business, there's no
new jobs consumption If all there was was consumption. Consumption

(53:12):
is destruction. Consumption you consume it, it's gone. But when
you build a business, it keeps producing. That's what investment does.
Investments creates an endless flow of consumption. Consumption is the
flip side of production. But you have to have lots
of production to get consumption, and you cannot consume until

(53:36):
you produce. All right, we'll do a show on broken
window fallacy, bust the outspoken window fallacy, as repeated by
Hazlit in economics and one lesson the must read for
all of you, even those of you with little children
who don't have any time read economics in one lesson,

(53:59):
or don't have a pinions of our economics. But if
you're going to have opinions of out economics, first read
economics in one lesson, because if you don't, your opinions
about economics are probably going to be ignorant. All right,
BBC watch. BBC lies all the time, but primarily about Israel.

(54:21):
It hates Israel. So the BBC published an article and
this is the tweet they tweeted about this article. Gozen
women flowing to Italy dies of malnutrition.

Speaker 2 (54:39):
Godzen women flowing.

Speaker 1 (54:41):
To Italy dies of malnutrition. And this is this is
to prove that there's malnutrition in in in Gaza. Israel
is starving the Godsen people. And uh, look this woman,
she had to be flown to Italy. She still died
of malnutrition because she was such bad shape. Here's the clarification.

(55:02):
On the eighteenth of August, that was what was that published?
I think yeah, I think yesterday or the day before
clarification today. This article's headline originally said that Mara Abu
Zuhari died of malnutrition, with the introduction stating that she
suffered a cardiator, caressed and died on Friday. The headline

(55:23):
has been amended to remove the reference to malnutrition being
the cause of death in what the hospital described as
a very complex clinical picture.

Speaker 2 (55:35):
I mean this is the third of a vision.

Speaker 1 (55:37):
Of a story, because the woman actually died of leukemia.
She died in leukemia in an Italian hospital. The reality
is that Israel allowed this woman, helped this woman evacuate
from Gaza to Italy to get treated for the leukemia.

(55:59):
From what she died, this said zero to do with malnutrition.
I mean, this is just a blood libel against Israel.
It's a blood libel against Jews, anti Semites on the
on the chat would appreciate We'll appreciate this.

Speaker 2 (56:20):
And of course this was set out.

Speaker 1 (56:22):
This article is sent out around the world and everybody
reads it, and how many of them read their attractions?

Speaker 2 (56:27):
Very few.

Speaker 1 (56:35):
And this is something that you know repeats itself. Now, No,
this woman has flown to Italy to get treated for
her leukemia. Why wasn't she flown to Cairo or to Tunisia,
Algeria or Saudi Arabia. They have good hospitals, I'm sure.
Why is it Italy? Why will no single Arab country

(56:59):
actually treat sick Gosens. When Garzins gets cancer, they're more
likely to be treated in Israeli hospitals then they ought
to be treated in Abbob hospitals.

Speaker 2 (57:14):
Because Abs will have nothing to do with Gosins.

Speaker 1 (57:22):
So BBC keeps keeps up with this blood libel against
the Jews, with making the Jews responsible for death and
destruction that they're clearly not responsible for. And they do
this by line by making stuff up, and they reporters

(57:46):
constantly do this. They don't fact check, and by the
time it's fact checked, it's too late because the whole
world already thinks the story is true. Add to that

(58:10):
that this is not just the BBC, there's the New
York Times and pretty much the entire mainstream media as
we know. The New York Times put ins front page
that picture of a malnutrition child who ultimately, it was discovered,
was sick from another disease. He wasn't starving. But indeed,

(58:35):
a reporter, Olivia Engold from Free Press has gone and
checked like all the pictures of starving kids in Gaza,
twelve different ones, the kids who became the symbols of
famine in Gaza, starvation in Gaza, the evil of Israel

(58:58):
and the Jews. And she discovered that every single one
of them, every single one of them, Once you research
and you figure out what's going on, these kids had
cistrict fibrosis, rickets or other serious ailments that had nothing
to do with starvation. They looked sick because they were sick,

(59:21):
not because they weren't getting food, but because they had
an underlying disease that was causing their sickness. And yet
this became a blood libel about Jews starving children in Gaza.
The mainsteam media uses these images purposefully to create a

(59:46):
certain image of what is going on and what is
afflicting the average Garsen. They're not saying, oh yeah, the
few sick kids, and they're not getting they're saying, this
is what's happening to kids in Garza. They're lying, they're deceiving,
the distorting. So encount you to go find the articles

(01:00:07):
in the free press about these twelve kids and how
she uncovered what is actually going on there. Let me
just see, all right, talk about Gaza. There's a story

(01:00:36):
today this afternoon actually was afternoon here in this evening here.

Speaker 2 (01:00:40):
In Portugal.

Speaker 1 (01:00:43):
That RAMASA is not informed the Egyptian Katari mediators that
it has agreed to the latest Gaza hostagees fire proposal
that was proposed by the Americans. NATAIA is not going
to consider rama is proposed that Ramas this deal that
Ramas has supposedly agreed to, and it appears that this

(01:01:17):
cease fire will involve the release of ten out of
the twenty living Israeli hostages in return for a sixty
day cease fire and the release of one hundred and
fifty I saw in another so two hundred terrorists who
are serving life sentences. It would mean sixty days, he

(01:01:38):
that will not be resumed afterwards, which is a demand
Israel has had from the beginning. According according to some,
this alligance ninety eight percent with a proposal that Trump made,
and that now and that Israel, as previously agreed to
in Ahramas, has agreed to.

Speaker 2 (01:01:55):
So we will see.

Speaker 1 (01:01:56):
It could be that in the next few days we
will actually see a cease fire in Gaza.

Speaker 2 (01:02:03):
I'm not sure to what end.

Speaker 1 (01:02:04):
I'm not sure again to I mean, it's good the
ten hostages will be released, but there's just delays. I
think ultimately the inevitable, which is that Ramas needs to
be crushed and eliminated, and the sooner that happens the better.

(01:02:25):
All right, let's see Bolivia. Interesting news out of Olivia.
I've told you that there's a huge backlash against the
left in South America. Part of that is Milay, part
of that is a madlay effect. Part of that is
the utter unbelievable failure of the left in South America

(01:02:47):
to bring any South American country out of poverty.

Speaker 2 (01:02:50):
Indeed, quite the opposite, the fact.

Speaker 1 (01:02:52):
That countries in South America when they get a leftist leader,
tend to either stagnate or to plunge into deeper poverty.
Bolivia has been ruled for twenty years now by very
left wing regime. Morales was the president for many years,
then he was banned from running for president. One of

(01:03:13):
his allies became president. And now in the first round
of the election for Bolivia, the two candidates who seem
to have won the most votes are both anti left wing.
Both of them represent centrists. One of them is a conservative,
the others more of a pragmatic centrist. But both of them,

(01:03:38):
both of them, you know, completely reject Evo Morales. Both
of them completely reject the left, completely reject the ideology
of the leftist regimes. Now there's still statists, there's still
statusts to one extent or another.

Speaker 2 (01:04:05):
They are.

Speaker 1 (01:04:10):
Wops.

Speaker 2 (01:04:10):
Sorry, but they are clearly an improvement over the.

Speaker 1 (01:04:18):
You know, the kind of the horrific leftist regimes Bolivia
suffered under now for a very long time. So again,
I think you'll see the same thing in Chile. You'll
see the same thing in Colombia. Ecuador already has voted
for somebody on the right. Now, right doesn't mean but
and certainly none of these candidates are Malays. None of

(01:04:40):
these candidates are po capitalism. They're just not as bad
as you know, the left that they are now replacing.
So good for Latin America. I'm glad to see this.
To the extend Malay has been a factor in this.
Good for me Lay. Finally, this is like, this is

(01:05:01):
a weird one on the positive stories, I guess, but
it's a funny, weird one that I don't know how
seriously to take it in a sense that is this real.
It's you know, in a valid publication. It's being reported

(01:05:22):
as serious and real, so we'll take it as such.
But I also think it's overly optimistic. Anyway, here's the story.
A Chinese tech phone, and that would be a Chinese
tech film you'll know, is racing to deliver what could
be the world's first gestation robot. The idea from Kayua Technology,

(01:05:47):
based in Guangxu, involves a humanoid designed with an artificial
womb embedded in its abdomen, intended to carry a fetus
through ten months months of gestation and deliver a baby.

Speaker 2 (01:06:05):
Slated for the w in.

Speaker 1 (01:06:06):
Twenty twenty six that I find unbelievable and expected to
sell for under a hundred thousand yuan around thirteen thousand,
nine hundred dollars. The robot aims to offer a pregnancy
alternative for those who wish to avoid the burden of
human gestation, or those who just can't. Then that's not
of course, this triget intense public discord from ethical unease

(01:06:30):
to hopeful possibilities for the inferto. So the ideas you
have a humanoid surrogate that looks pregnant because it's humanoid.
It looks like it's human. It has a bump, it
has a belly. This was presented at the twenty twenty
five World Robot Conference at Beijing by Zang Kuifang, the

(01:06:55):
founder of Kawai Technology and and affiliated with none Young
Technological University. According to Seine Fair, it is not merely
an incubator, but a life size humanoid equipped with an
artificial womb in its abdomen, capable of replicating the entire
process from conception to delivery. So I guess you put

(01:07:17):
the egg and the sperm in there, and you right
from the beginning, it all happens inside this robot. The
coinnovation lies in the artificial womb technology, where a fetus
develops develops in an artificial amnionic fluid and receives nutrients
through a hose, mimicking natural gestation. Doctor Zink claim that

(01:07:42):
technology is already mature in laboratory settings and now needs
integration into humanoid form to enable real human robot interaction
during pregnancy. I mean, if that were real, it would
be really really cool, and it would be pretty amazing
and amazing technology. And I'll say something else, there's something

(01:08:04):
going on in China in spite of the authoritarianism she
that is not happening in the United States. China seems
the Chinese, Chinese entrepreneurs and just China seem to have
unbounded ambition. They're willing to take on these amazing projects.

(01:08:28):
Like I think I told you the other day that
they were going to build the world's largest what do
you call it, damn that will produce you know, enough
of electricity I don't know, light up.

Speaker 2 (01:08:41):
Millions, tens of millions of homes.

Speaker 1 (01:08:43):
And this is going to be the biggest drop, the
biggest damn, the most producing, the most electricity producing venture ever.
And they will just do it. And they have technology
companies now, I mean, they're the electric vehicles I think
already ahead of pretty much everybody, including Tesla, certainly in

(01:09:06):
terms of variety and cost, but even in terms of
the tech, they lead the world in so many you know,
cutting edge technologies, and they're willing to be massively ambitious
like this.

Speaker 2 (01:09:20):
They even in biotech, they.

Speaker 1 (01:09:22):
Are much more willing to experiment with gene editing in
the womb. Gene editing are fetuses again, their iv of screening.
I describe what's happening in Silicon Valley, that's happened happening
in China as well.

Speaker 2 (01:09:39):
We talked about that the other day. I think I'm fighting.

Speaker 1 (01:09:43):
I mean, there's so much going on here. Imagine imagine
this artificial womb. Imagine this robot with an artificial womb
in America. I mean, who's going to freak out? Well, everybody,
but maybe more than anybody else, the religious right would
freak out about this. And we're playing God again. This

(01:10:06):
is counter to nature, goes against a biology. I mean,
they don't like IVF. They feak out about IVF. This
is IVF on steroids. This means we don't even need
human intervention, not even sex.

Speaker 2 (01:10:23):
I mean the religious right would freak out.

Speaker 1 (01:10:25):
This is where China has an enormous advantage they're not Christians. Hey,
let's go for it. Let's improve human childbirth, let's improve
human genetic genes, let's push forward. And in some of
these areas, there's less regulation in China. But it's a

(01:10:46):
combination of not being Christian and potentially less regulation.

Speaker 2 (01:10:57):
So yeah, I mean, it's going to be interesting.

Speaker 1 (01:11:02):
To see what actually comes of these technologies and whether
they follow through and what happens in China. I read
a story over the weekend. Another story over the weekend.
I've talked about this in past shows, about the chances
that she is on the way out, and really the
consensus seems to be that we will know in October.

(01:11:24):
In October there's a big meeting of the Communist Party,
and we will know whether she is on the way
out or not. But another story about him being on
the way out, and they're preparing kind of the leadership change,
and they're preparing the which direction it's going to go.
But she has failed. The Chinese economy is doing very badly.

(01:11:44):
It's got real problems. The Chinese military, inspite of spending
huge quantities of money, is still not where the Chinese
want it to be. It's still not viewed as competitive
with the United States. US thinks it is that the
Chinese don't seem to say so. There's still purges ongoing
constantly of military officials. I think twenty two senior military

(01:12:08):
officials are being purged over the last year. So they've
got real problems, and the biggest one is the economy,
and she's mishandling of it.

Speaker 2 (01:12:18):
And I don't think and I think people haven't.

Speaker 1 (01:12:20):
Quite forgiven she for his mishandling of COVID, and there's
a real push to replace him.

Speaker 2 (01:12:27):
And then the question is who do they replace him with?

Speaker 1 (01:12:28):
And do they replacement with somebody who's going to move
China back towards reform, back towards a path of greater freedom.
And then all these innovations, with more freedom, less regulations,
less goverment intervention, a sane economic policy, China then becomes
a juggernaut and hopefully all of that ultimately leads to

(01:12:53):
more freedom for the Chinese people. So I'm all ful
robots having babies. That sounds terrific. You know, if you've
ever had a baby, if you're a woman and you've
had a baby, you know how difficult it is. I mean,

(01:13:14):
it's it's I think, emotionally, an amazing experience for many women.
It certainly was for my wife. It's amazing to have
a child growing in your inside of you and that
first kick and all of that. But it's also really
hard and really difficult and painful, and then the childbirth

(01:13:37):
itself is not easy. Not easy is the understatement of
the year. The whole thing is difficult, and for a
lot of parents, and I think a lot of women,
maybe it's a difference between having a child and not
having a child. And for some couples that have infertile
this could be a massive solution. So there's so many

(01:13:58):
positives here, and yeah, we should embrace this. I love technology.
I love these kind of ideas. All right, Still no
real update from the White House that I can see,

(01:14:20):
Nothing exciting going on. I think they're still meeting as
far as I can tell. A funny story I have
to read to you, not related to anything we've talked

(01:14:40):
about today, but an ongoing topic we have.

Speaker 2 (01:14:43):
This is from a tweet by Scott.

Speaker 1 (01:14:44):
Linskin On Friday, the Trumpet administration quietly expanded it's steel
in aluminum tariffs to cover hundreds of items that aren't
aluminum or steel products by any reasonable understanding of those words,
including dairy products. Here's the I guess order with no exception,

(01:15:05):
with no exception for goods in transit or any meaningful
advanced notice. The Trumpet Administration will at leased on Friday
a list of four hundred and seven new tariff provisions.
There will be subject to fifty percent Section two thirty
two aluminum steel tarrafs starting at midnight August eighteen, twenty
twenty five. The list of HS codes at issue includes

(01:15:25):
a wider array of products there were previously not considered
steel aluminium derivatives downstream products. Many of these new HTS
provisions would not normally be considered aluminium steel derivative products,
at least not by any reasonable understanding of those words.
For example, as can be seen from the chart below,
which list affected HS codes at the four digit heading level,

(01:15:49):
the list of goods now subject to the aluminium steel
tarffs include items as diversus dairy products, food preparations, petroleum oils,
and certain chemicals, while the fifty percent tarif will only
apply to the aluminium steel aspects of these goods, which
will presumably be just certain aluminium steel packaging or contain.

Speaker 2 (01:16:08):
The type materials.

Speaker 1 (01:16:09):
It shows just how broad this administration intends to throw
its tariff net. My gas is the different companies went
to the Trump administration and said, look this product that
you know we produced a competitive product. This product has
an aluminium steel in can you put a pariff on
that so that our product becomes more competitive in the market.

(01:16:31):
And somebody gave them a list of four hundred and
seven of these. But I bet you this is all
the concept a context of conyism, enhance coneyism. All right,

(01:17:08):
let's see. All right, that is the news for August eighteenth.
The new's still developing, but we'll call it a date
for the news right now.

Speaker 2 (01:17:19):
Thank you all for joining me.

Speaker 1 (01:17:21):
We will now move to answering your super chat questions.
And you know we're a little behind or where we
need to be in terms of super Chat, so please
consider supporting.

Speaker 2 (01:17:34):
The show with a sticker with a question.

Speaker 1 (01:17:36):
We have a lot of like two and five dollars questions.
What we need now is some twenty dollars fifty dollars
questions or maybe just stickers. Stickers at any any price,
but it would be it would be great. Let's see yes,

(01:18:15):
I should remind you that we have sponsors and so
had a shot Wealth Management held the shot with two
t's hending the shot with two t's Wealth All one
word dot com slash ybs where you will find a
variety of different products, but permanently one that I'm excited
about that really can save you a lot of money
and capital gains can can defer the capital gains for you.

(01:18:39):
If you've got a lot of stock that's appreciated, or
you've got a company that you're about to sell, or
you've just sold and you've got a huge capital gains bill.
The sooner you contact them, the sooner you start working
on a plan to offset these capital gains and to
defer their payment, the better off you're going to be.
So check them out. Check out the interview I did

(01:19:01):
with Robert Handashot on my YouTube channel and you can
find the video under my playlists on the sponsors video
Sponsors video. Yes, Alex Epstein, who is the leading thinker
on energy in the United States in the world really
today and is heavily involved in the legislation that's been

(01:19:24):
written related to energy. So somebody who's in the trenches
working on legislation, working within the Trump administration to try.

Speaker 2 (01:19:31):
To make their energy policy as rational as possible.

Speaker 1 (01:19:35):
You will learn a lot from reading him, learn a
lot about the situation in the world today, about what's
going on with energy legislation, and about just the theory
and the science and the just the knowledge about climate
change and environmentalism and how they all relate to energy.

(01:19:55):
So sign up to Alex Epstein dot substack dot com.
Sign up, educate yourself, learn a lot, and he does
talking points that will make you a much much better
I know it's made me a much better communicator on
these particular topics as you engage with family members and
friends and others. The Ironman Institute is now offering basically

(01:20:17):
what used to be aar U courses and now Ironran
Live Ironran Institute Live. These are life courses that anybody
can take. You will be there treated as a student.
You can be graded or not graded. You can do
your homework or not do your homework. You can take
these classes live or you can watch them by video later.
They do cost money, but there's no admission. There's no registration.

(01:20:41):
These are the courses that are being taught at aar
You for the last few years, but they will be live.
If you want to participate, if you want to engage
with homework, if you want to do all that, you
can just sign up. You know. I will be teaching
with Don Watkins the Capitalism course late next year. You'll
be able to sign up for that. It'll be open

(01:21:01):
to anybody who wants to sign up, not just to
what used to be AU students. So go for it,
you know, and you can get it. You can get
a discount right now. You can get a ten percent
discount because you're a YBS listener when you sign up.
If you put in twenty five YBS ten, twenty five
YBS ten, you will get that ten percent discount. Sign

(01:21:23):
up for Iran Institute Live. You can find more information
about which courses are offered, when they're offered, how to
sign up, all of that great info on iinran dot
org slash ybs. So sorry, that's not true. Iran dot
org slash start here, I ran dot org slash start

(01:21:44):
here and you will find it. But remember the discount
code twenty five YBS ten. Definitely sign up for these
are great courses life and you get to asked questions,
You get a participate like a student would. But we've
taken away all. You don't have to commit to so
many years and so many classes and so many You
can do it at your own pace, whenever you want.

(01:22:07):
There's no long term commitment, engaged and involved anymore, all right,
So let's see we are a little behind, so you know
value for value. The show is funded through contributions that you,
guys make.

Speaker 2 (01:22:23):
Can't funders, can't have.

Speaker 1 (01:22:25):
Thern Book Show without you, And the way you fund
the show is through super chats and stickers. If you're
watching live on YouTube, if you're not watching live on YouTube,
if you're watching live on another platform, come on over
to YouTube so you can support the show. But even
more importantly than that, it is supported by monthly contributors.
Contributors contribute on a monthly basis through Patreon and through PayPal,

(01:22:47):
So you can go to Patreon, our PayPal, put in
your on book show and sign up for a Monty contribution.
PayPal Patreon in particular is very easy to use, very
easy to change their amount over time, cancel accounts, re
start accounts, much more flexibility. So please consider doing all that.
I'm becoming a supporter in the meantime, let me thank

(01:23:08):
those of you who are doing stickers, who am not
asking questions but doing stickers. Thank you, Jonathan, Thank you,
Mary Ellen, Thank you Jonathan again. Jonathan has done a
number of these stickers. Tessa, thank you, really appreciate that.
Let's see Ryan, thank you. And yeah, we need one
of my whales, one of my big spenders to come

(01:23:31):
in and move the needle here. Thank you, Land really
appreciate it. Um, I think I think we've covered everybody.
No esoteric economy, John Bail, Stephen Harper, Mary Eleeen, Jonathan
Honey again, all right, thank you. I think that covers everybody.
Really really appreciated the support. Thank you guys. All right,

(01:23:53):
let's start with fifty dollars question from James Taylor. Thank you.
Fifty is very generous. We need we need, like you know,
five more like that. That would be perfect, and then
we'd make our sick and our goal. That's where we
need to be to keep to keep on out monthly goal,

(01:24:14):
monthly goal, we have to make out daily goal. That's
the way it works. James in a nihilistic and in
a nihilist envy is the ruling emotion he feels threatened
by those who choose differently.

Speaker 2 (01:24:28):
He feels threatened by achievement.

Speaker 1 (01:24:30):
His sole goal is to bring others down, so he
can't see any progress and happiness that may prove his
choice is wrong. I think that's right. I think that's right.
Envy is what dominates, envy meaning the hatred of the
good for being the good. In other words, the haven
of achievement for being an achievement, the haven of success

(01:24:51):
for being success. And since he can't match that success,
he can't match that good, he can't match what to do.
He is relegated to tearing it out and the emotion
that drives him as hate, the motion that drives him
as hate.

Speaker 2 (01:25:13):
And hate and fear.

Speaker 1 (01:25:17):
Because I think you're right, he feels threatened by achievement,
threatened by the good, threatened by success.

Speaker 2 (01:25:23):
Analyst, it's fear.

Speaker 1 (01:25:25):
So nihilists fearful haters, and that's why it's not a
socioia any political particular political stamp. You can be a
nihilist of the left own nihilist of the right, and
we see them both these days, and we can see
the drive being motivated by fear and hate.

Speaker 2 (01:25:42):
Fear and hate, those are the real drivers.

Speaker 1 (01:25:47):
Thank you, James, Jonathan, thank you for another sticker. Jonathan
keeps coming in with stickers. I think to encourage you
guys to join in. Not your average algorithm. That's the
left not recognize that people need purpose and self sufficiency
to be happy, that the welfare state destroys all that,

(01:26:10):
or do they view the concept of happiness as laughable
and Softomaric No, I mean, I don't know, but they
tell you that the happiest people live in Finland and Scandinavia,
which have very robust welfare systems. They believe that happiness
comes from lack of risk, the security of a welfare state.

(01:26:34):
That happiness comes from satisfaction, a contentment, not from achievements,
not from pursuit of values, not from self sufficiency. They
don't see the connection between self sufficiency and happiness. Any happiness,
you know, for good out trust, happiness is not really
that big of a goal, right.

Speaker 2 (01:26:56):
Happiness is selfish.

Speaker 1 (01:27:01):
It's self interested, and you know, they might not be
opposed to it, but it shouldn't be something you strive towards,
because then you know, that'll make you selfish, that will
consume you into selfishness. But I think they associate happiness
to the logic ease that will self contentment with being
satisfied with your place in the world. I think they

(01:27:24):
view ambition as the count of happiness. You know, that
idea of you climb the mountain and then you seek
the next mountain to climb, and then you seek the
next mountain to climb. They view that as anti happiness,
whereas I think we view it as the essence of
happiness is to keep looking for the next mountain to climb.

(01:27:44):
So yeah, I think their whole conception of happiness and
how people achieve it is pervert and distorted. They don't
necessarily view happiness as so flood. They just view what
it takes to be happy as something completely different than
what we do. And you can see that in the
happiness that and how they try to measure happiness. What
they're measuring this contentment, satisfaction with your status, lack of ambition,

(01:28:08):
that's what the measuring. Jeffrey, thank you, thank you, thank you.
Really appreciate the sticker. And Jonathan again, thank you Jonathan
for the sticker. Really appreciate it. All right, Paul, do
you think modern day Russia is more evil than the
old USSL, No, I don't. I think it's more dangerous

(01:28:31):
than the USSL in this sense. The USSAW was clearly
hated by the West. And here I'm talking about America
really because that's not true of Europe. Because it was communists,
it was viewed as the enemy. It was anti American,
it was the opposite of America. America was capitalists, and

(01:28:52):
US is always the opposite. It was the enemy.

Speaker 2 (01:28:55):
It was bad.

Speaker 1 (01:28:57):
The problem with Russia is I mean, Russia's killed fewer people,
It's in many ways it's less evil. But the problem
with it is that because it's not communist, and because
it portrays itself as a bastion of Christianity and a

(01:29:17):
savior of Western civilization, so many people on the West
are fooled by that and therefore attracted to Russia. Don't
view it as an enemy, but view it as a friend,
view it as an ally, view Europe as the enemy
because Europe's leftist, and view Russia as the friend because
Russia is right and Russia's conservative and traditionalist and Christian.

(01:29:43):
So and I talked about this and the talk I
gave two years ago about why the US should support Russia,
about what's.

Speaker 2 (01:29:50):
Really going on.

Speaker 1 (01:29:53):
The real evil in Russia today from a n American
perspective is that a America, the American rights supports Russia,
or many elements in the American rights supports Russia, that
Americans are confused about it and view it as an ally.

(01:30:13):
Notice that in Europe you don't have that. In Europe
are very clear that Russia is the threat and the
other bad guys because they're not seduced by religion and
by the kind of nationalism that is growing in the US.
The religious nationalism is growing in the US, the Christian nationalism,
the the the the the kind of nationalistic forva that

(01:30:36):
exists today within the right right. So I think in
that sense, it's more dangerous than the USSL was. US
SR was clearly evil, it was clearly the enemy America
understood that Americans don't understand that visa Russia quite the country.

(01:30:57):
Many Americans view it positively, like if everybody did what
Jonathan is doing, we'd be rolling in achieving our goals today.
Another ninety nine cents from Jonathan. He keeps doing these,
but we should have more of that. We should like
have we should have all of you doing ninety nine cents.

(01:31:21):
We should have a ninety nine cents day sticker. Ninety
nine cents, just keep on coming and we would make
our goals. Paul, thank you for the sticker. I think,
I think I thank Jeffy you already thank you, Paul,
Thank you Jonathan again, Char's bott How funny would it
be if Trump was disqualified from Nobel Peace prize's duty

(01:31:41):
is alienating tariff policies? It would be It would be funny,
but it would never happen because people don't don't have
the right attitude. I mean, they wouldn't view tariffs as alienating. Well,
they viewed traffs as aliening. But I don't think it
would offset. I think if I think that's a good
chance that he gets an over piece prize, I think

(01:32:02):
there's enough build And look, they're trying to suck up
to him. If the Europeans want to super suck up
to him to Trump, then the way to do that
is to give him a noble Piece prize. That's the
ultimate suck up. And I don't see why the Europeans wouldn't

(01:32:22):
go for it. It doesn't mean anything, ultimately means a
lot to him, all right. Jonathan has done a ninety
ninety nine sense, and now oil w has done ninety
nine cents, and Mary Ellen has done a buck ninety nine,
and Flashing has done a buck ninety nine, So we
could do a buck ninety nine ninety nine cents day.
Just everybody do a buck ninety nine ninety nine cents

(01:32:45):
and we just keep that going and will Yeah, this
will be great. It's a way for you to support
the show at a very low cost to you, far
less than a cappuccino. Liam does Trump even care about
the Nobel Piece Prize at this point? Oh, he's only
doing this so would leaders fly out to see him
and kiss his ass? I think he cares. Yeah, I

(01:33:07):
do think he cares about the Noble Piece Prize absolutely.
I think he wants He likes the symbolism.

Speaker 2 (01:33:13):
I think he.

Speaker 1 (01:33:15):
Likes the likes the attention. He'll get to go to
no Way and give a speech and he'll be able
to say he had a Noble Piece price he I
think he resents the fact that Obama got it for nothing.
Remember Obama didn't do anything and he got it. He
just got it for existing, which was pathetic, another example

(01:33:38):
of the Noble Prize being super stupid. So yeah, it
boosts his narcissistic ego. So yes, I think he really
wants it. Zion twenty dollars, Thank you for the stick.
I really appreciate that. That's great. Thank you. A few
more like that. We get to go like that. Ian says,

(01:34:03):
I need my dollar ninety nine. You to tariffs. Take
it up with the president. Yep, I know, I know
how you feel. I need the dollar A nine unite
because the tariffs too. Like my need is greater than
you'll need, or your need is greater than my need?
Whose need is greater? How do we measure need? How
do we measure how big the need is? We'll have

(01:34:25):
to ask Abby, Abby from the one hundred percent wealth tax.
Abby Clark any plans to go back on Destiny Show.
If you started doing regular appearances with him, it would
exponentially grow your channel. Yeah, I mean I think so,
although I keep getting people coming to me and saying,
don't do Destiny. He's a pitiophile. He's an admitted pitiophile.

(01:34:47):
He's creepy, he's weird, he's horrible. You're sanctioning him. I
haven't studied it, I haven't looked into it, but a
lot of people.

Speaker 2 (01:34:56):
Are warning me off doing anything with destiny.

Speaker 1 (01:35:00):
But yeah, when I get back to the States, I'll
see what I can do. Mary, Mary, thank you for
the two dollars stickers. So yes, we're doing it. More
of you should participate. Cook, are there any books about
the history of anti Semitism that you would recommend?

Speaker 2 (01:35:16):
Thank you for all these shows.

Speaker 1 (01:35:17):
You have been doing. So I've got this book that
I really ultimately enjoyed about anti Semitism.

Speaker 2 (01:35:24):
I thought I learned a lot.

Speaker 1 (01:35:27):
It's a difficult book to read, and partially it's a
difficult book to read. It's written by It's called Constantine's Cross.
It's super interesting. It basically lays to blame anti Semitism
squarely within Christianity.

Speaker 2 (01:35:42):
And Catholicism in particular.

Speaker 1 (01:35:44):
In this book, and the author is a former priest,
a Catholic, but I kind of have left wing Catholic
who finds yourself, you know, very alienated by the Catholic
Church and the papacy and all of that. And the

(01:36:05):
book is fascinating and the history is fascinating, and it's
really interesting. But there's a certain element of a confessional
in it. That is a lot of the story is
interwomed with his personal story, which at least at the
beginning of the book is hard to stomach. He repeats himself,
it's not that interesting. Once he gets into the history,
it's really good. And actually, by the end I found

(01:36:29):
the intersection of his own personal biography really interesting. He's
gotta he's got it. He's got to think for his mother.
I mean, it's it's he's got a fordy in complex.
The guy's the guy's confused. It's caused Constantine's Cross, not
Constantine's sword. Constantine's Cross. I'm pretty sure, because that's part
of the and it's it's really I mean, it really

(01:36:58):
is interesting.

Speaker 2 (01:36:58):
In terms of.

Speaker 1 (01:37:01):
In terms of the history that I didn't know. I
learned so much history from that from that book. Let
me just maybe it's Constantin's sword. Oh sorry, yeah, it
is Constantin's sword. Sorry, it's Constant's sword. Yes, so you

(01:37:25):
can find it on Amazon. It's Constanin's Sword. The Church
and the Jews by James Caroll, And I think it's
incredibly valuable. Again, I learned a lot. You just have
to slug a little bit through the early part of
it to really get to the interesting parts, all right. See,

(01:38:04):
and there are others. I haven't. My intention is over
the next few months to read a bunch of books
on anti Semitism. So ask me this question again in
a few months, and I'll have I think a better answer,
because I'll have read more charsbot any news on that
alternative Sweetner story that based on protein you mentioned before.

Speaker 2 (01:38:25):
No, I haven't seen anything.

Speaker 1 (01:38:27):
I'll look.

Speaker 2 (01:38:29):
I'll look some more.

Speaker 3 (01:38:33):
But um, let's see what am I doing here?

Speaker 1 (01:38:46):
We want to cluse blaze guitar lessons. Why is there
such a violent country compared to its peers such as
your Australia, et cetera. Really just compared to anyway in
the world. You know, the United States has a very
high crime, particularly murder. Murder rates in the United States
high as compared to for any developed countries. I think

(01:39:10):
it's the highest of all developed countries. Certainly is compared
to Asia, but but even but also very much as
compared to Europe. In spite of all the Muslims in
Europe and all the problems Europe is having, it's still
true the violent crime is higher in the United States,
you know. And and uh, I don't know exactly what
the answer to that is. Uh, it it has to

(01:39:33):
do with I think certain historical grievances, It has to
do suddain historical frustrations and uh primarily, uh, you know,
the the the treatment of blacks in America has resulted
in real problems within the black community. And a lot
of the crime in the United States is is.

Speaker 2 (01:39:55):
Driven by is driven.

Speaker 1 (01:39:57):
It comes out of the black community, primarily black black crime.
And you know, you can ask why there's so much
violence there, and I think the main reason is a
sense of grievedness, the stupidity of the welfare state, the

(01:40:18):
failure of the warm poverty, the failure of in a
school educational system.

Speaker 2 (01:40:25):
In the fact that.

Speaker 1 (01:40:28):
Intellectuals and the black political and intellectual leadership has failed
their people as much as it has, they have inculcated
into that community really really bad ideas that it ultimately
led to a culture of violence. There's also something about

(01:40:52):
the kind of macho American gun toating who is going
to defend himself and do his own thing, and that
I think, and and that that leads to more violence.
I think there's something about the fact that Americans are ambitious.
I think if you're not ambitious, if you're like a
culture that is just satisfied, there's just accepting, just doesn't care.

(01:41:23):
Then you're as likely towards violence. But a culture that
respects ambition wants ambition, but then doesn't know how to
define it, doesn't know how to focus it. And if
you combine ambition with envy, like ambition for wealth, a
desire for wealth, the desire for some kind of success,
if you combine that with envy, you get violence. Whereas

(01:41:47):
in Europe and in Asia, there's a sudden acceptance of
one position in life, there's a there isn't a desire
to change. But again it's a complex. You have to
really think that through and and how they interact, and
you have to redefine I mean, ambition is not the

(01:42:08):
right word because ambitions are positive.

Speaker 2 (01:42:10):
You have to find the word that.

Speaker 1 (01:42:15):
It's not the desire exactly for success.

Speaker 2 (01:42:16):
It's a desire for stuff.

Speaker 1 (01:42:18):
It's a desire for improvement without the tools for knowing
how to improve. And a lot of this is our
educational system, which is rotten to the core and much
worse than in Europe, much worse than in Asia.

Speaker 2 (01:42:34):
So that's some of the reasons, but there's.

Speaker 1 (01:42:36):
A lot more that it has to be thought through
about that, Michael. If you think there's going to be
a massive debt crisis, why wait until seventy to start
taking soial security? Should people under forty not factor in
social security at all? Look, I think social security will
be saved. I think it's fairly easy to save social security,

(01:42:56):
and I think it will be saved. So I don't
know that you you want to factor soial security at all.
All you have to do is so security is start
raising the retirement age. I think at some point that
won't be controversial. And all you have to do is
change the inflation indexing of Social Security from what it's

(01:43:18):
index now to a more realistic index.

Speaker 2 (01:43:22):
So there are a few little things.

Speaker 1 (01:43:24):
You could also raise the payoll tax a little bit.
Now I'm not saying any of this should be done.
I'm against it, right, you can even mean test it.
But I actually think that so security will be saved
because I think the political cost of defaulting a social
security you're not paying people out is too great. I
think it's easier to raise taxes, or it's easier to

(01:43:48):
change the retirement age than it is to default on it.
So I expect that most of you will get SO
security sadly, why am I waiting till seventy I asked
myself the same question. Sometimes maybe I shouldn't wait, but

(01:44:10):
I have to do the kind of financial calculation of
the impact that has. If I get so security in
the full of mount promise, then waiting till seventy two
makes a lot of sense.

Speaker 2 (01:44:20):
So I have to be convinced.

Speaker 1 (01:44:21):
I have to put a high probability on me not
getting it to justify pulling it out earlier. It's something
to think about, Michael. Is the Auto a nicer place
to live in Puerto Rico than San Juan? I mean generally, yes,
that the places in Duato, the Duato Beach places, the
places that Americans live are band new homes, beautiful homes,

(01:44:44):
very close to the water, beautiful beaches.

Speaker 2 (01:44:47):
If you live as many of these homes.

Speaker 1 (01:44:49):
Are part of the rich Carlton club, you get pool access,
you get all kinds of goodies and restaurant access. So yeah,
they're huge advantages of living there. So it's nicer. But
there's also a lot less a few facilities, a few
things to do, a few restaurants, you have to drive
into sand wandful a lot of things. So I don't

(01:45:11):
like it, but it's certainly nither, cleaner, easier, all right,
that DUDEO bunny. Do you think Trump had people whacked
when he was a sleazy mob affiliated real estate developing
New York. No, I have no reason to believe he did,
so I'm not gonna speculate, and there's no reason to

(01:45:31):
think he did. There's no evidence, there's no I haven't
heard any speculation about it. Nothing. Michael is free will method,
not content, method not content. I don't think it's either one.
It's it's uh, free will is action. It's an action.

(01:45:53):
It's an action that you cause. Uh, frank, what's the
claim Ukraine provoked Russia to invade It started talking about
joining the EU and maybe joining NATO. That's the claim,
the talk of joining NATO. But it's a bogus club.

(01:46:15):
It always has been a bogus club. Blaze guitar lessons. Uh,
thoughts on rumors are me lay spying on opponents? I
don't know anything about it. I don't know what's spying
on opponents means I haven't heard the rumors. I haven't.

Speaker 2 (01:46:31):
I don't know the details.

Speaker 1 (01:46:33):
And look, they are going to try to smear him
as much as they can before the coming elections.

Speaker 2 (01:46:38):
So it doesn't surprise me at all.

Speaker 1 (01:46:42):
John. Since taxation is in Marvel, why isn't it in
Marvel to tax Americans to support one side in the
Ukrainian Russia War. I mean a number of things. The
taxation is happening, it's just a fact. And taxes are
being raised, and they're spent right now on all more
immoral things. This will put it this way. They spent

(01:47:06):
on lots of immoral things. There's a million things I
would like to stop spending money on before I stopped
spending money on supporting Ukraine. And the reason to support
one side in the Ukraine Russia War is that one
side is good and one side is evil. The reason
to support one side again in the Ukrainian Russia War

(01:47:26):
is a one side constitutor threat to the United States,
and one side constitutes the potential ally to the United States.
The reason to support Ukraine in this war is to
defang Russia. Russia is a threat to America. Russia is
an enemy to America. Russia is a threat to the
West and a threat to you know, America as part

(01:47:46):
of the West. And you know I'm not supporting raising taxes.
I'm supporting taking the tax money that's been given taken
today and instead of spending it on really, really really
emmol things like more money for ice, spend it on Ukraine,

(01:48:07):
instead of subsidizing business, instead of creating a massive bureaucracy
around you know, tariffs, instead of creating bureaucracies around all
kinds of things that this government wants to manage our
economy around, instead of redistributing wealth to businesses through subsidies.

(01:48:31):
Take that money and you know, I give it to
the Ukrainians. Better spending on the Ukrainians, and ideally you
get rid of all those things. And then you have
to decide is this part of the defense budget? Is
it part of defending the United States? To defend Ukraine?
And ideally, if taxes are voluntary, then American people decide

(01:48:53):
whether they want to support Ukraine or not by how
much money they provide the American government for its defense budget.

Speaker 2 (01:49:00):
But we're not there.

Speaker 1 (01:49:01):
We live in the system that we live in today,
and therefore decisions have to be made about how to
allocate the tax money that exists today. And I'm saying,
of all the things that tax money is paying for,
right now Ukraine war is a pretty good deal as
compared to everything else.

Speaker 2 (01:49:16):
It's the least destructive.

Speaker 1 (01:49:19):
It doesn't destroy American business, it doesn't destroy you know,
the incentive to work. It doesn't destroy the self esteem
of Americans. Okay, I've got a hotstop in ten minutes,
so let's rush through these.

Speaker 2 (01:49:35):
Do you believe any taxation is mall?

Speaker 1 (01:49:37):
I e. Surely there should be some taxation publicing courts, prisoners,
et cetera. No course of taxation is mall. No forced
taxation is mall. So you need to find ways to
raise taxes for the government for to raise money for
the government that does not involve cosion of force. And
whether that is voluntary or whether that is fees for
certain services the government provides is to be determined. But

(01:49:59):
it cannot be cased and it cannot be the force
cannot be forced. That would be a violation of a
key principle that force is outlawed from society, including from
by the government. You could only use force and self defense,
Jonathan Honig says. Doctor p said miss Rand would never
accept a Nobel prize. Yet it's all Trump wants such

(01:50:21):
a secondhander. Absolutely absolutely. Now, somebody mentioned that I had
mentioned that somebody that somebody that it would be good
if an objective is received a noble prize. I'm talking
to hear about a noble prize in physics or in
medicine as a recognition of one's great achievement in that field,
and then from the podium recognizing that your achievement is

(01:50:44):
made possible because of uh, you know, because of your objectives.

Speaker 2 (01:50:51):
Of somology, and that would be earth shattering.

Speaker 1 (01:50:55):
But yeah, a noble price for priests, A noble price
for literature, though, should never be accepted. I think the
science one's a little different. W c z N. I'd
imagine growing up with ten percent GDP growth per year
does wonder does wonderful things for the mind and sense
of life. Yeah, just imagine that how rich you would get,

(01:51:16):
how rich you would be drin thoughts and President Newsome
good bad and ugly, very little good. You know, it
would be mostly ugly and bad. I mean Newsome as
president is probably in middle of the road the nwsom
of governor. I think he would shape shift to suit it.

(01:51:41):
I think he'd be a nothing, but I don't think
he'd be a damaging as damage to authoritarian as Trump is,
but he'd be a nothing and he'd be definitely statist,
definitely bad for America. Frank, what else future biographies about
Trump look like? Well, I think they'll describe the kind

(01:52:02):
of narcissistic, destructive behavior he's engaged in.

Speaker 2 (01:52:09):
As a Turk academy.

Speaker 1 (01:52:10):
Hey you around. Have you ever tried any VR experiences? Yeah?
I few.

Speaker 2 (01:52:14):
They're really cool, I mean really cool.

Speaker 1 (01:52:16):
And and and they're pretty exciting. And yeah, I'm looking
forward to the Iron Ran VR experiences, the you know,
the in Ran Museum VR experiences. Cook. I tried Constantine's Sword.
I'll try again. Yeah, it's hard, it's hard to read.

(01:52:37):
It took me a while to get into. Once you
get into it, at some point makes sense. Frank Patrick
Bendavid says, raise your time in age of seventy five. Yeah,
I don't think you get away with that, but you
could raise it one year, every few years, every couple
of years. You could raise it one year to seventy. Ultimately,

(01:52:57):
you can do a lot of different things if you
wanted to save so security. I don't particularly want to
say security security, but if that was your mission, it's doable.
It's not impossible. All right, guys, thank you really appreciate
all the super chatters and the stickers. Thank you Jonathan
for inspiring the one ninety nine and ninety nine cents

(01:53:17):
sticker campaign. Thank you to all the questionnaires and to
the stickers. I think I caught all the sticker people
and thanked them personally. Maybe I missed John Bales, but
so thank you John, Linda. I can't forgot Linda, but anyway,

(01:53:38):
thank you, guys.

Speaker 2 (01:53:39):
Don't forget to support the show.

Speaker 1 (01:53:41):
Go to Patreon patreon dot com and put in your
on book show and just become a monthly supporter two
dollars all the way up to thousand dollars a month.
You can do any amount in between. Different pokes come
for different levels, but please support the show. Make it
possible for this show to continue to exist and to
thrive and to do his any shows as we do.

(01:54:01):
And I will see you guys all tomorrow where we'll
get to talk about the news. Have a great rest
of your Monday and a great week. Bye everybody,

All Episodes

Zelensky in DC; Mail-in; ICE Hiring; Wealth Tax; BBC; Gaza; Bolivia; Robot | Yaron Brook Show

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

The Herd with Colin Cowherd

.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;}Zelensky in DC; Mail-in; ICE Hiring; Wealth Tax; BBC; Gaza; Bolivia; Robot | Yaron Brook Show