Competition is foundational to liberty and prosperity

From communist roots to champion of liberty, Jorge Besada joins Jerm to explore how culture, economics, and evolution intertwine. They tackle competition, free speech, debt and the perils of hyper-individualism, challenging conventional narratives while envisioning a freer future.More Jerm Warfare: https://www.ukcolumn.org/series/jerm-warfare

Episode Transcript

(00:38):
It's great to be here, Jeremy. Thanks a lot.
I mean, you really do have one of the best podcast and I mean
the courage to have Ian Papa no more Thinkenstein to do a great
job of dealing with Zionist calamity.
And Kevin McDonald is another great guest.
You know his culture of critiquebooks and I really enjoyed him
as well. And then you have Michael Eden

(00:59):
dealing with germ theory myths. So I really appreciate your and
Mike and Germar Rudolph and David Cole the courage to really
deal with everything. So I'm really thrilled to be
someone in their company. Thanks.
I just want to quickly go go to your name.
You were telling me now, just before we started recording,
what it means. Kiss the girl, did you say?
So kiss means beso in in Spanish.

(01:22):
So besada means a woman that hasbeen kissed in the past.
So my name is Jorge, woman that has been kissed in the past.
So, you know, if I get married someday, my wife is going to
have a very good name, you know,and he never brought me any
problems growing up, surprisingly.
OK, so I was born in Cuba and it, it's kind of unique.
And I realised that later on growing up.
I mean, I was born deep into, like, communist ideology.

(01:45):
I was raised, you know, to be like the Soviet man.
I mean, I was largely raised by my grandmother.
She would pick me up from school.
And she's someone who had like, APHD in biology.
So she raised me like the whole Soviet thing.
You're supposed to be good in chess and, you know, not really
be religious. So I was born very, very deep
into that. And, you know, in Cuba, like I
remember having ice trucks. These are things that people in

(02:07):
my generation don't have, but weused to, you know, a lot of
times, you know, keep our food cold because a truck would
deliver a big block of ice and then you would break it up and
put it in your fridge. So that relates to like the
communism and the poverty that that we sort of had.
But that did play a big factor on me.
Like 1, I left Cuba when I was 7.
I came to Miami, which is like Cuba 2 point O when I was 11
years old. I then while going to school,

(02:29):
getting a degree in computer science, I took some courses on
anthropology, you know, just 'cause I think he just pushed me
from my grandmother, that the secularism.
And that's where I stumble firstupon Herbert Spencer, who was a
very, who was a great evolutionary thinker.
And Herbert Spencer is the guy that coined the phrase survival
of the fittest. A lot of people don't know that.
And he was a contemporary of Charles Darwin.

(02:49):
Charles Darwin referred to Herbert Spencer as 20 times my
superior. And he also said that everyone
with eyes to see and ears to hear ought to bow their knee to
you. And I for one, do so Herbert
Spencer really got me in an evolutionary like perspective.
And then once I once I graduatedfrom college, I met a friend.
His name was Ted, you know, hi, Ted.
I have to, you know, say hello to him.

(03:10):
And I got very lucky because a lot of us, you know, we grow up
a lot of times we're not interested in anything.
I never had an interested in reading in reading much.
But Ted transformed my life. He we had a conversation very
early after we started working and he said, hey, George, you
really should read these two books.
You should read Richard Dawkins,The Selfish Gene and a book
called by Steven Levy called Artificial Life where computers
meet biology. So Richard Doc in Selfish Gene,

(03:32):
I'm sure a lot of people heard about it.
If you go to Amazon.com right now, it's always like two or
three on many Amazon.com bestsellers.
And it's a book that tries to show in an evolutionary manner,
looking at genetics and so on, why human beings can be so
selfish but at the same time be so altruistic, but looked at
from a very evolutionary perspective.
But then the second book, you know, it's a book that shows how

(03:53):
artificial life, you know, how in computers you can simulate
evolution and you can end up creating, you know, self
replicating molecules and you can eventually create kind of
like living things. So my friend right there really
pushed me in a much more evolutionary direction where you
quickly, it got me thinking, it's like, wait a minute,
evolution is something that creates not just a biological
order, but also the entire social order and the entire

(04:14):
economy and everything. And then just a few months
later, same friend, he tells me,hey, George, you should read
this book. It's called The Road to Serfdom
by a very famous economist who won the Nobel Prize in 1974.
And his name is Friedrich Hayek.So I read that book and the
first time I read any book like in political economy or
anything, I mean, I only understood like, you know, 10%

(04:34):
of it, but it's not the book I would recommend people to get
like into economics. But it did get me eventually
down the path to meet the so called Austrian school
economist, you know, that are really these men really are like
the backbone of freedom. All the the free market
movements that we've seen, I'm sure I'm assuming even in South
Africa, you've heard of like RonPaul, you familiar with Ron Paul

(04:56):
And actually I'll be at his 90thbirth, 90th birthday, which is
coming up tomorrow. And so Ron Paul, when Ron Paul
was a medical student at Duke University, he stumbled upon
Hayek's the road to serve them. And that is what made him like
like a free marketeer. Margaret Thatcher as well.
She was an 18 year old student at Oxford when she read The Road
to Serve and that got her into understanding freedom.

(05:17):
Javier Miley, who is now a, you know, a free market guy in
Argentina, he too stumbled upon one of the works of the
Austrians. And, and it's great because he
admitted that he had already been an economist, but he said
that for 25 years everything I've been teaching was wrong
until I stumbled upon the Austrians.
And the last person I'll mention, Ayn Rand, a lot of
people are familiar with her works.
You know, she was a very pro capitalism person.

(05:38):
And she too, she herself said that, quote, the greatest thing
that ever happened to me regarding political economies
was running into Ludwig von Mises.
So that really is the foundationfor a lot of her work.
And so I eventually stumble up on these people and, and their
and their ethos and really the ethos of what I try to do.
I like Macy's, he said. Quote, all reasonable men are

(06:00):
called upon to familiarise themselves with the teachings of
economics. This is in our age, the primary
civic duty. And you know, when you
understand that it's economic ignorance that then leads to all
the statism and all this coercion and this lack of
prosperity, you know, like Meses, I'm like, wait a minute,
we have to educate people. And so that's really like how I

(06:22):
got, you know, to where I am. And and one more thing I'll say
about like the Austrians is thatthey were, they were also
something a lot of people don't realise.
They were deep like evolutionaryminded thinkers.
They, they look at the root causes of like how things sort
of like evolved, how our identities, how how our cultures
like Co evolved with the entire economy.
So. The the, the whole evolutionary

(06:44):
aspect goes beyond biology. I mean, you have the evolution
of culture and the evolution of societies.
I think I got into Mises maybe about 11 years ago.
I've had a love hate relationship since then with the
sort of free market ideas because I've often found that
that individuals who promote their work tend to focus only on

(07:09):
on economics and tend to forget about the importance of of
things that are downstream from culture.
In other words, economics is downstream from culture.
I mean, it's very complex and they really feed off of each
other. So sometimes you can get a a
bureaucrat or someone who comes up with good economic policy,
and then that good economic policy can shape the culture.

(07:31):
And you know, because, for example, economic competition
also shapes our morals. It is hardworking, tolerant,
courteous people who show up on time and treat everyone else
with respect, who thanks to economic competition, motivate
everyone else to be likewise right.
So if you have the right economic policies, you
inadvertently end up creating a culture of hard work, of

(07:53):
tolerance, of treating everyone with respect and and so on.
But you know, they really do grow from each other.
And you know, so I'll tell you like 1-1 more quote that relates
to this whole like evolutionary thing.
So, so Friedrich Hayek, he mentioned, he mentioned the
following. He said we understand now that
all enduring structures above the level of the simplest atoms
up to the brain and society are the results of and can be

(08:15):
explained only in terms of processes of selective
evolution. So to the Austrians and Hayek is
like an evolutionary process shapes not just the biological
order, but also like the social order culture.
And this really relates to, to, to even how we look at, at the
world, like do gentile conflicts.
If we want to understand the chaos that's going on in
Palestine, you know, we can't just say that, OK, these are the

(08:38):
good guys or the bad guys. You know, in the animal Kingdom,
when I think sometimes, like when a lion takes over a pride,
you know, and they have, sometimes they'll kill the Cubs,
the, the females can mate again or something like that, right?
We we don't say that the lion isevil.
Now we understand that there's an evolutionary reason why all
these bad things happen. And to the Austrians, I think
since they looked at things in avery evolutionary way, they also

(08:59):
were very detached. They said, look, a lot of things
are just the result of the complex evolution of history and
the mistakes that people made. And we really want to understand
these mistakes in order to like,you know, to make sense of
things instead of just calling people like good and evil.
Modern society becomes so artificial that it it moves so
far away from natural order. Yeah, no, that, that is a great

(09:20):
point. And and this has a lot to do
also with economics. So like Friedrich Hayek, he was
well aware that human beings evolved in this little tribal
cultures where there was no money, where we intuitively
share things, where there was a lot of violence, right.
So we have carried those things.Those instincts are actually
what motivate us in many ways tofall for for central planning,
since we evolved in a world where there was no money, where

(09:42):
there was no economic competition, where there was no
interest rates, where there was there was no finance and
banking. In today's modern world, all of
those things are very foreign toour instincts.
So the first thing that intuitively comes to us is if
there is rich, if there's peoplewho have more than the solution
is just to take from the wealthyand redistribute.
So there's a great book by DavidRubin is called Darwinian

(10:04):
Politics, where he tries to lookalso at how we have evolved in
these little tribes and how those instincts make us less
adapted to living in a modern world where we really need to
respect private property and thefreedom of people so that we
have a like a prosperous society.
But it is also true how we are again, our our instincts are not

(10:25):
ideally suited to living in modernity.
And we have to be aware of thosethings, how that makes us
inadvertently far from communism, but to also know who
we are, right. The kind of foods we ate.
I know you had Nina Teals. I forgot her name.
How in many ways, you know, we evolved to eat like more meat
and, and, and just like a natural diet.
And now we're living in this world with all this processed

(10:45):
food. It is just one of those many
areas where modernity has inadvertently shipped our
environment, where we are totally detached from the
evolutionary order where we wereideally made to like, you know,
to thrive. And that's one of the things
that we have to figure out. We have to be aware of those
things and to see, well, how canwe eat natural, you know, and
how has modernity taken us away from this and how we can maybe,

(11:08):
you know, find that type of balance.
So again, the Austrians are really people who who help look
at, you know, the how all this whole mess is kind of like a,
you know, evolve. When you talk about Austrian
economics, the layperson will assume you're talking about
Austria. Right, right.
It's not quite that. So the Austrian economics really
comes from the fact that the main founder, this man called

(11:29):
Karl Manger, he was from from that from that area.
And Karl Manger, again, very important, he was a deep like
evolutionary thinker. And he, one of his main
contributions was to say, OK, we're going to study the, the
social, we're going to study society as an Organism using
the, using the tools of biology.So instead of having this world

(11:50):
of mathematics and all these formulas or believing you can
predict all these things, he said, no, no, no, The way to
understand society is to try to see how things sort of have
evolved and treat it as a socialOrganism.
And one of these, what I like tocall the like the flux capacitor
discovery of like the social sciences is his, his, how he
showed how money, OK money, it is vital for everything in money

(12:15):
in modern society. Money is really what enables
like the division of, of labour and information that creates
like the social order. So this is a very important
simple example. Like if you look at a tribal
society, if you look at the, thecontent of people's minds, they
all have the same information. Everybody knows how to just hunt
some simple things, how to cook some simple meals.
The information is repeated across every brain.

(12:35):
But once you have trade, you have this every brain, the you
have the division of information.
Every brain can learn how to do just one thing.
I can make coconut pastries. And then when I trade my coconut
pastries for the guy who makes like, you know, chairs, I don't
have to know anything about the chairs.
I can trade my coconut pastries for the guy who makes Beaver

(12:56):
pelts or, or brains or makes boats, and I don't have to know
anything about the boats. So trade creates a division of
information that then allows youto have a society where you can
have doctors, computer programmers and all those
things. So you can now have unlimited
amounts of information. But in order for you to have
trade, like you need to overcomewhat's called double coincidence
of 1's problem. Like if I have my coconut

(13:18):
pastries and I want to trade them for the guy who has the the
Beaver pelt, what are the chances that he wants my coconut
pastries? Very small chance.
So once you have money, then anybody can trade and then the
benefits of the division of information can spread through
our whole society and then you can start just having progress
and build living standards and so on.
So without money, if we didn't have money tomorrow, in a matter

(13:42):
of months, society would just collapse.
You know, there would be no coordination, no production.
And we go back to like, you know, living like living like
primitive savages. So, but the key inside of
Carmenger, he showed that money,which is something that is vital
for economic competition, competition, profit or loss
calculation, everything that creates the modern social order
was not the result of our reason.

(14:03):
We never had some great genius say, oh, we're going to invent
money so we can overcome the division of, you know, the
coins, double coins, There's a once problem, you know, so we
can have profit and loss calculation, economic
competition. We never had that.
You know, it's just like the cells in your body over millions
of years, they created the respiratory, the circulatory,
the digestive systems that allowsingle cells to cooperate into

(14:24):
multicellular systems. But obviously the cells did not
design that right. The exact same thing happened
with a social order, human beings, without realising it,
they invented money and then they invented profit loss
calculation and all the things that make the social Organism
work without realising it. So that is a key insight that
Karl Manger came up with that help further members of the

(14:46):
Austrian school really understand why we fall for all
this errors. You know, that's what socialism
was in in the late 1800s. Society was getting so complex,
you know, businessmen were creating so much wealth and
people thought to themselves, wait a minute, this is unfair.
Why have 20 businessmen get rich?
Why not just have a couple of experts tell everybody else what
to do? We can share the wealth.

(15:08):
And that is what it led to. Socialist mythology spread.
And then you'll bring about, youknow, communism and so on.
So anyway, I went on a big tangent there.
Do you think that hyper individualism has also led to
part of what we're seeing in theWest now with the collapse,
where people are no longer interested in their communities,

(15:29):
families, because they're only interested in this in in
themselves with their cell phoneand their Airpods?
I, I don't think so. I mean, one of the things I
don't like about like libertarians sometimes and some
of these hyper individualism, sometimes you run into some
libertarians on hardcore free market people that they'll tell
you, Oh, I have a right to have a nuclear weapon in my house.
You know, who are you to tell methat I that I can't do this, I

(15:51):
have a right to do this and this.
And, and it is true. Some of these people are just
like little automatons, you know, they're not thinking about
society at large and how they affects the rest of society.
So, so I see, I agree with you in that sense that there are a
lot of hyper individualist that really just end up putting
people off and so on. But I, I do think like the
reason why we have a lot of these problems are people are so

(16:12):
segregated as well. A lot of it just has to do with,
with government intervention, you know, the governments, I
mean, when in the United States,you're blowing $1.5 trillion
every year to finance this massive military.
I mean, that's as much wealth asthe entire country of Spain
produces. And, and, and you're, you're
printing up all this money, all this debt, you know, ultimately

(16:32):
just to, you know, to, to sustain Zionism actually, you
know, and I, I do think that if we had a better economy, I do
think people would, would not beas isolated, you know, but it is
very hard to predict. We really can't predict what's
going to happen once we get likesex robots and all of these
things. So I, I do, that's, that's the
thing. Like no one can really predict

(16:53):
where freedom and how civilization is going to evolve.
I, I hope it evolves in a way where, where we get in touch
with our human nature. We know we're slightly smarter
apes. We need other human beings
around us. We need touch, we need
friendships and all these things.
But again, it's actually hard topredict.
But to wrap up, I mean, I think what's really causing all these
problems is is the economic ignorance that that leads to all
the statism that makes it hard for people to, you know, to have

(17:15):
kids. I mean, how how many women these
days can really afford, you know, to have children?
How many families can do it? It's getting harder and harder
and harder. And then that has all kinds of
other like, repercussions. So yeah, there's a lot of
annoying pro freedom people. But at the same time, you know,
I think the problem is more likethe economic issues that tend to
all the statism. It's also about trying to
preserve a history and preserve a culture.

(17:36):
Here in South Africa you've got the the bulls who became the
Afrikaners. If if they were all hyper
individuals there would be no Afrikaner culture.
Well, you mentioned the wars andyou guys in South Africa.
I mean, I wish you had finished off Churchill when you had the
opportunity. OK, He escaped, right, Right.
And then he wrote all these things about how great he was.

(17:58):
But. But yeah, I mean, you know, this
really touches, you know, a lot of these conflicts.
If, if, if everyone had a betterunderstanding of freedom and
free markets and we just respecttheir private property.
And we have companies always competing against each other,
innovating, you know, 'cause that's what free market
competition does. It turns the entire planet into

(18:18):
a supercomputer where every private sector company is
innovating and copying the innovations of others,
constantly spreading the best ideas to society, bringing
prosperity. Like I said earlier, it also
civilises us. And a lot of these chaos, we, we
just have to find a way to educate people so that we no
longer have this identity versusidentity type of things, which

(18:39):
obviously you have in South Africa.
And I mean, and obviously the, the Israeli Palestinian chaos,
just like, you know, grows from that.
And I do very quickly. I wanted to throw another quote
from Mises because since this man had this very evolutionary
way of looking at things, they were also very sympathetic
towards trying to understand ourproblems.
So Mises said neither as judges allot in praise and blame, nor

(19:00):
as Avengers seeking out the guilty, should we face the past.
We seek truth, not guilt. We want to know how things came
about, to understand them, not to issue condemnations.
And one more, history should teach us to recognise causes and
to understand driving forces. And when we understand
everything, we will forgive everything.
So again, that's part of the ethos of these men is it's about

(19:21):
understanding because again, youknow, it's all about blaming
each other, you know, who are the good guys, who are the bad
guys? And that's just driving us, you
know, to more conflicts. A lot of people fool themselves
into thinking that just because modernity and modern capitalism
arose from Europe, where we got the industrial revolution and so
on, this leads to a lot of misguided, like racialist type

(19:41):
of thinking. And you can't really blame for
white people for feeling like, oh, you know, modernity came up
in Europe and then therefore it must be somehow tied to our
genes. That's a very popular fallacy.
And it's the root of a lot of this, you know, white ethno
nationalist, you know, kind of nonsense.
But again, as Meses himself evenmentioned, Meses said, like, if
you look at modern civilization,it arose from other
civilizations. I mean, where would we be if it

(20:02):
if it wasn't, you know, for, forthe Egyptians, I mean, the, the
Arabic numerals, you know, wherethose things come from, you
know, so right. And, and a lot of civilizations
that were in the Middle East andin other places where we didn't
have, you know, the pasty white people and, and we are seeing
right now. What, what you're hinting at,
you know, the Chinese are the ones that are, they're not
getting stuck up with all these like weird things that we're

(20:24):
doing. Sure, they had the, the
communist experiment, they survived it.
But now, I mean, I've been to China and again, you just have
people working and it makes sense why they are, you know,
overtaking us. You mentioned Hayek's book, The
Road to Serfdom. It's was, it's one of the first
books that I read from, from that sort of category of of

(20:45):
ideas. But you've spoken a lot about
Mises. I think the only book I've read
of his is Human Action, but it is a great book.
Wow. Wow.
I mean, yeah, that is a great book.
And actually, you know, in HumanAction, I mean, there's so much
wisdom in there. And one of the sections in Human
Action, I wrote a little articleabout it at the Mises Institute,

(21:06):
is called The Fight Against Error.
So there's a section in there where Mises talks about how we
really need to fight errors. Mises says that we cannot get
too deep into the moral sphere and make people who have
different views from us into, like, evil.
And Mises rightly notice how youget a lot of that between, like,
the religious Catholic people and the Marxists.
You know, they were attacking each other.
I mean, obviously the Marxists saw religious people as

(21:27):
irrational people that you needed to get rid of to have
your socialist Nirvana. And religious people made the
mistake of referring to the communist as satanic, as evil.
So when you have that attitude, as Mises said, you know, no
social cooperation, you know, can be found there.
And the same thing applies to the Israeli Palestinian
conflict. A lot of people want to say that
the Israelis are just, you know,a bunch of evil, you know,

(21:48):
conquerors, especially from the very left wing, The very left
wing lost to equate Israel with racist capitalism, right?
You know, without really lookingat the complex history of anti
Semitism and so on. And then the Jews, the Israelis
unfortunately do the same thing.You know, they just say all
these guys are a bunch of like extremists, you know, you know,
terrorists and so on. But getting back to the road to
serve them, right, So that book is really one of two ways in

(22:13):
which the Austrians saved like civilization a little earlier
before the road to serve them. So Ludwig von Mises, when the
Bolsheviks took over, Ludwig vonMises by himself, and I really
want to read this little quote here from Mises by himself.
He managed to talk to the Austrian politicians and he

(22:33):
persuaded them, just one man against joining the Bolsheviks
and becoming like a part of the Soviet Union.
I mean, that's incredible. So I got a little quote from
Mises. This is what he what he said
about his life in 1919. He said there were few who
recognised the state of affairs.Clearly people were so convinced
of the inevitability of Bolshevism that their main
concern was securing a federal place for themselves in the new

(22:53):
order. The Catholic Church and its
followers, the Christian Social Party, were prepared to befriend
the Bolsheviks with the same eagerness with which the bishops
and archbishops would embrace National Socialism 20 years
later. And Mises said the most
important task I undertook was the 4th starting of a Bolshevest
takeover. The fact that events did not
lead to such a regime change in Vienna was my success and mine

(23:16):
alone. Few supported me in my efforts.
I alone convinced Bauer, you know, the leading politicians to
abandon the idea of seeking union with Moscow.
So Mises again, incredible that one man was able to do that.
And then this ties into Hayek because Mises, for a while he he
kind of hired Hayek, you know, to be a part of like a think
tank in Austria. And then just a few years later,

(23:38):
Mrs would write in 1922, he would write a book, Socialism,
which was just like, you know, incredible.
And then Hayek read that book and that really transformed him.
It helped him. And then Hayek got a job at the
at the London School of Economics, where quickly Hayek
became like one of the most respected people there.
And then during the end of the Second World War, that's when
Hayek realised that the British,they think that because they

(24:00):
have a democracy that they're going to be shielded from the
hardcore tyranny that Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union
got. But Hayek got the idea to write
the Road to serve them, to warn them.
They, they kept asking for all this government stuff, more
power to a central competition, immune course of bureaucracy
that they were on the way, you know, to the road to serve them.
And that's when he wrote that book and another nice little

(24:21):
tidbit in there. When Hyatt wrote that book, he
was expected to come to the United States and just go on a
little speaking toward to some small campuses, you know, or
whatever. But thanks to Henry Haslett was
another. Henry Haslett wrote Economics in
One Lesson, which is that the most widely read economics book.
So Henry Haslett was working at the New York Times at the time
and he read Hayek's book and he loved it.

(24:41):
And he managed to put a great review of the book on the front
page of the reader's section of The New York Times.
So that created a sensation of like, interest in the book.
So when how he came to the United States, his first talk
was given him like a basketball stadium to like 3000 people.
And then later on, I, I just want to throw in another great
like champion of like freedom. There was a gentleman, his name

(25:02):
is Max Eastman, and he was the most, one of the most famous
socialists in the United States.This is a man that had gone to
Moscow in the 1920s who was a good friend of Trotsky.
He translated Trotsky's works into English, but Max Eastman
stumbled upon Meses and Hayek and he made a 180 and he became
a free marketeer. So he took Hayek's book, The
Road to serve them, and he created a condensed version,

(25:23):
which is only 40 pages, and thatmanaged to be sold to over a
million homes in the United States.
And that ended up educating so many people like, you know, Ron
Paul, I think I might have mentioned earlier, he was a
medical student at Duke University when he stumbled upon
and also Margaret Thatcher Milton.
Friedman. Milton Friedman, he, he was a
big fan of Hayek and he even mentioned that that Hayek, you

(25:46):
know, played a big role. I don't know how much Milton
Friedman's education came from meses.
I think, you know, since they were around the same time, I
think his major ideologues were other people.
He was another, but he was another person who was greatly
influenced by the by the Austrians.
So I got between Mises and Hayek, between Mises saving us
from joining the Bolsheviks, andHayek with his role to serve
them it. They really did like safe
civilization almost twice. Have you noticed how many people

(26:08):
are suddenly pulled back into the system because of somebody
like Donald Trump? Because now suddenly the state
is the good guy again, but it's the same state that was
oppressing. People.
Yeah. And I mean, this is something a
lot of us, you know, have noticed.
I mean, in many ways it has helped a little bit, right?

(26:30):
Because the COVID mania tyranny,I mean, it got so many of us to
wake up and say, OK, something needs, needs to happen.
I mean, this is very personal because if I was, I was working,
I had a comfortable job at Microsoft.
You know, when the COVID mania tyranny came.
And by the time COVID mania tyranny came, I, I've already
been in the world of freedom. I, I, I, I understand the

(26:51):
Bolshevik revolution, how, how the masses through economic
ignorance can just self mutilate.
And that really motivated me to,to, to get off my butt and get
more involved. Maybe the reason why you stumble
up on me now, because there's a,there's thousands of
libertarians and people like myself.
Well, we read books, we're writing a little book or
something. But it took the covet mania to
say, OK, wait a minute. You know, I got to get out
there. I got to meet other people, you

(27:12):
know, I got to get involved and do something.
And, and this also helped fuel like the Javier Miley revolution
as well. It was the covet tyranny.
When you look at Javiers malaise, what he did in
Argentina, the COVID mania, Tyrion and the lockdowns, it
really motivated him and many like minded people to try to do
something. And I like to call it the
Korominism, you know? So yeah.
And yeah, that's why just like you said, we're noticing that we

(27:35):
need to understand, you know, the history of the 20th century.
And it's really the good thing is that thanks to these men, to
these Austrians that explain allof these things and the Milton
Friedman are all of these peoplethat now our generation has to
really like nip it in the butt. I mean, we really have to like,
finish this. If if, if freedom is something
that matters to you then then relying less on the government

(27:59):
should be a no brainer. Yeah, but you know, it's very
important, you know, to realise that, for example, you, I mean,
you already read human action. I mean, you're someone who is
deep in in the freedom world. But we have to realise that the
masses are clueless, right? The people are clueless.
If, if, if there is no people out there.

(28:19):
There's another quote. I mean, I don't remember it, but
but Mises said that liberalism is rationalistic.
It believes that with reason we can, we can educate the immense
masses. I mean, I'm butchering the
quote, you know. And Mises also says that it
could be that liberals are wrong, that maybe we can't
convince the masses. But if, but if we do not even
try, if we don't have the, if wedon't have the attitude where we

(28:40):
think that we can educate the masses, then there's no whole
life for mankind. If, if those of us who know
better don't educate people, then we're, we're obviously
going to have more socialism, more, more statism and we see it
all around us. So I mean, that too is part of
the Misesian ethos. So we have to realise that those
of us who are for individual rights, for, for self reliance
on a lot of this stuff, a lot oftimes we don't realise that we

(29:00):
got lucky and we stumble upon the right ideas and we have to
go out there and educate these people.
Even though I, I understand 90% of the time they're calling you
names, they're calling you a right wing extremist and that
kind of stuff. And but again, you know, we have
to be, we have to spread the econo gospel.
That's what I like to call it. You are aware, though, that a
number of my listeners are goingto dismiss a lot of what you're

(29:24):
saying because you mentioned Miley, for example, and he's a
Zionist. That's that's a great point.
And but that just goes to show how very bright people can still
make monumental errors, right? And again, you know, I have to
throw a great high quote, which really applies not only because

(29:44):
I like to see Zionism as a massive intellectual error that
fooled a lot of bright people, just like communism, right?
I can't say my grandmother was ahardcore communist, was either
stupid or evil. And to me, we have to look at
the Zionist the same way, peoplewho understandably fool
themselves into a monumental calamity.

(30:05):
So this is what Hayek said. Hayek said most people are still
unwilling to face the most alarming lesson of modern
history, that the greatest crimes of our time have been
committed by governments that had the enthusiastic support of
millions of people who were guided by moral impulses.
It is simply not true that Hitler or Mussolini, Lenin or
Stalin appealed only to the worst instincts of their people.

(30:27):
They also appeal to some of the feelings which also dominate
contemporary democracies. Boom.
And the Zionists are out there thinking that they have the
moral high ground that that no matter what happens, if they
have to expel the Palestinians, this is all, you know, we're
doing the moral thing. They're the irrational
terrorists. So it's a, it's a great quote
showing how, you know, we can fool ourselves into these things

(30:48):
and. One of the problems with
individualism is that it opens more people up to the idea of
globalism and therefore infiltration of the mind by sort
of these these big agendas that are going on around us.
And, and, and therefore it's important to have a collective

(31:09):
group of people who can buffer against or you can resist.
You know that in other words, a sovereign state.
I'm. Very sympathetic to, to that
sort of thinking, you know, in away because I think the push for
globalism, I mean, globalism is also just global free trade.
It's also the respect of individual rights, you know, for

(31:29):
people all over the world. So we don't, you know, there are
two forces kind of like pushing,you have people who feel like,
wait a minute, I should be free to, to maybe travel to South
Africa or, or, or live there or marry someone from there.
So on the one hand, the globalism, the good globalism is
just more integration, more freedom for people to respect
individual rights and so on. But at the same time, again, the

(31:51):
world is very complex. We're also realising that if you
just have something like, you know, like open borders, right?
You know, then suddenly an entire culture or language that
took thousands of years to develop can suddenly be wiped
out by an invading. We're seeing that happening
across Europe of. Course that is happening in
Europe and so on. So I, I am very sympathetic

(32:12):
towards the people who feel like, wait a minute, just
because I want to have some kindof like borders and I want to be
able to prevent our language andour culture or even if it's our,
our, our DNA, you know, I don't think those people should be
vilified, you know, as being like, you know, the precursors
to like the Nazis and so on. I mean, as long as we
understand, you know, some some basic things, but I, I can see

(32:34):
how that then relates, you know,because then we get some real
hardcore Nazis, you know, some people say, oh, I don't want any
immigrants, you know, this kind of stuff.
So, yeah, so it's very tricky. You know, I think we should just
do our best to understand all ofthese complexities and then have
some like reasonable policy thatis not based on just pure
racism, you know, or coercing people to have their culture
destroyed, you know, because I, you know, so, yeah, it's very

(32:56):
complex. So the best we can do is just
understand and. Or or.
For example, if a group of individuals want to create their
own town, then they should be free to do so.
Yeah, of course, right, right. And that gets to anarcho
capitalism, you know, and Mary Rob, I mean, you know, because
if competition is how we discover the best way to build
products, why not have competition in legal systems,

(33:20):
right. So yeah, of course people should
have the freedom to do all thosethings.
I'm totally fine with with some hyper race to say, well, only
white people are going to be allowed in here.
I don't think it's ever going tohappen because people naturally,
based on the connections that they make out of work, you know,
and so on. So a lot of people fear this
hyper, you know, racism, but it's not really going to happen
if you just have freedom. Human beings will discover that

(33:41):
we're all just homo sapiens and it'll evolve a culture, you
know, all that. So yeah, I, I'm totally fine.
Yeah. And who knows what's going to
happen too. I mean, we are getting all of
these changes, whether it's sex,robots, all kinds of, I mean,
I'm against, you know, a lot of these things.
I understand how, you know, it took 4 billion years to create
something as as well made as a human being.
And a lot of these experts thinkthat with the little pills,

(34:02):
right? I mean, you and I know that all
these pills just destroy the biochemical order.
You know, that took 4 billion years to create.
So just like in the social order, this this stupid central
planners think that they can better coordinate society and
they actually destroy something that evolved, you know, through
freedom and exchange. They're doing the same thing
with medicine. You know, they're destroying the
biochemical order. Anyway, I got in a weird tangent
there, but. It's a book by Human Hop called

(34:25):
Democracy the God that Failed. And I keep going back to that
because he he speaks about monarchy being preferable to
democracy. And one of his arguments is that
a monarch owns his land, so therefore it's private property.
Sure. I mean, it's a great book,
right? The Marcus of the God, I felt I

(34:45):
read it as well. And yeah, he he, I remember
being shocked, you know, by thatthing where we're like a monarch
really has to control his country, his private property,
and treat it well instead of theDemocratic politicians that just
plunder the whole thing. And I can totally see how if we
have more freedom, you know, I can see Elon Musk by his own
city and then he can become his own little monarch there.

(35:06):
And but those are things that you and I tolerate because we
understand, you know, how freedom works.
So I can totally see that happening.
And, you know, I look forward tothat.
I look forward to a Motown themed city, you know, where
it's about, you know, the great singers in Motown or having a
city where the people dress it up in their mediaeval ways.
And because the the truth is that as long as the masses

(35:27):
remain ignorant, what good does it do us to have our own little
island where maybe we have a little bit of freedom, but the
masses destroy the worldwide division of labour in a nuclear
war, you know, the Zionist calamity sparks another World
War, you know. So economic education is really.
What do you think is our naturalway of doing things?

(35:48):
Let's just say that you and I are dumped into an island in the
middle of nowhere. If you and I end up in an
island, you and I understand like freedom, we have already
inherited a culture that respects other people.
So there's all this software that took thousands of years to
get into our minds. So I'm sure we would do, you
know, great, right? But the truth is like
instinctively we're, we're dangerous animals, you know, I

(36:12):
mean, human beings. We can use our wisdom to make
like our nukes. I mean, assuming the nukes
exist, you know, and you know, the, the Spanish Inquisitors had
a lot of wisdom, but they used that wisdom to create torture
devices, you know, to do all kinds of things.
So you know it intuitively. We have to realise that
modernity just arose in the last10,000 years, 10,000 years ago

(36:33):
we were out there having sex with animals.
You know, we were, there's a reason why the Bible tells you,
tells women, you know, do not lay with a beast because 10,000
years ago, before we civilised ourselves to respect private
property, you know, we were wildanimalistic people.
So that that's very important. We have to realise that we are
this dangerous, you know, tribalanimals.
So I think you and I would be great as long as we educate

(36:55):
people and and so on and we keepthe culture going, but we could
descend into like tribal, you know, chaos.
You've read. You've read Lord of the Flies.
I was thinking about, I have notread that, but I remember in
high school they were giving that to everyone and it's about
some young kids that end up doing that kind of stuff.
I was about to bring it up. I haven't read it.
Basically what you're arguing orit is everybody must be left

(37:21):
alone and the government should butt out of everybody's lives.
What I'm arguing is what miss isarguing is for people to
understand freedom, you know, because if everybody right now
understood free market economicsand then the government just
cuts down in size, then we will have our private cities.
You know, instead of having yourcourt building be this massive
structure with this God like priest with with a with a robe,

(37:43):
we would have efficient legal systems.
So we would just have skyrocketing, you know,
prosperity. So I mean, that's again.
And if I say anything that makessense, remember it's because I
got lucky and I stumbled upon the Austrians, you know, so I
think we just have like, you know, sky rocketing prosperity.
I. Think it was molten Friedman who

(38:03):
said that if the government tookcontrol of the Sahara Desert,
they'll be a shortage of sand inthe next five years.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Great quote.
You see in in the private sectorevery living thing, every
orderly thing is in a never ending cycle of production and
consumption. You know an animal in the wild

(38:24):
like a lion, right? He has to produce, he has to
hunt a zebra. So he produces something then he
consumes it, right? And he has a profit, something
that that he can then consume while he keeps like living.
Every order in the private sector is always doing profit
and loss calculation. Every business has sells revenue
that is a sign of how much you have produced.
Then you have costs, which is a sign of how much you have

(38:46):
consumed. And then you have profit, which
is really a sign of by how much more you have grown the economic
pie. Right.
But the government is a massive social structure that doesn't do
profit or loss calculation. It just taxes, taxes, taxes and
and the bureaucracy also doesn'thave to compete.
I mean, I, again, I think I mentioned it earlier.
I mean, competition is what turns the entire social order

(39:08):
into a supercomputer where everyprivate sector business is
motivated to innovate, but competition forces it to copy
the innovations of competitors. So I don't know who came up with
power door locks on power windows.
He might have been a Honda engineer in Tokyo, but then
competition motivated BMW in Germany, Chevy, Ford in the US
to copy the power door locks idea.

(39:28):
So again, that's only in the private sector.
That is why as as freedom increased in Europe, thanks to
our evolving morals, we got, youknow, capitalism and the
government is just a course of competition, mean monopoly that
doesn't have that it destroys civilization.
But this is, you know, the inside of the Austrian since
since this prosperity arose without people planning it,
we're fooled. We're like cells in a body that

(39:51):
suddenly said instead of doing what we've been doing for 4
billion years, let's use a reason and start trying to
tinkle with everything and we just destroy the, you know, the
social order. Criticisms you might get as
well. Look at an organisation like
Microsoft or Google or Facebook.These are supposedly private
companies, but they are so powerful, more powerful than
many governments, that they can actually control the outcomes of

(40:15):
social order. I mean, I mean that that's a
great point. And but again, like these things
would not be happen like if, if,if more people found like you
and we understood, you know, howthe big corporations can start
influence the government, you know, to do all kinds of
nefarious things, you know, and if the government, the
government right now controls everything, you know, about 40%
of our wealth is sent to this massive bureaucracy.

(40:36):
If we had more people who understood these things, then we
wouldn't have these problems. So I mean, I, I understand,
especially now look at someone like Alex Karp and, and
Palantir, right? We're we're getting the
evolution of, you know, the, theNKVD, but pro Zionism, you know,
it, it will soon, we will soon. Just like in the COVID mania, we
have the, the perverse incentives that let Pfizer stock
to get really high and the CEO of Pfizer telling us that if

(40:59):
you're not getting a vaccine, you know, you're like a
criminal. I mean, we're really seeing the
same thing. But with, with the ruling
mythology of our day, with the Zionism, you know, there's a lot
of money to be made now in branding people anti Semites,
you know, controlling the anti Semites.
And, and yeah, I mean, and, and Microsoft actually, while I was
working at Microsoft, I already saw the marriage between

(41:19):
Microsoft is getting all these big government contracts, right?
They're getting all these big government contracts.
So now more and more of their revenue comes from a juicy
government contract instead of competing out there.
So they can start going along with all the silly regulations
and start perversing their own incentives.
So yeah, I mean, but but the keyis for us to understand all
these things and to I mean, it'snot like I'm for it.

(41:39):
I'm I am totally for some regulations, but we just have to
have a a well educated public. Ultimately, what you're seeing
is not really true competition. You mentioned now you mentioned
Palantir, Google, Facebook, theyare all in bed with various
governments. That's how they got up there.
Yeah, exactly. Especially Palantir and we know
big Pharma, I mean big pharma, where would Moderna be if it

(42:03):
wasn't for all the money they got for the COVID mania?
And, and in, in the US, this bigpharmaceutical companies, they
all exist because of all the freebies that Medicare, you
know, since the elderly get freehealthcare and all the freebies
just go to the, to the corporations that are pushing
all of the myths. That's what we need for the
masses to understand real competition that leads to the

(42:24):
real better ideas instead of having, you know, the government
create all this myths, you know.I, I, I think that's the lesson
that's coming through you is theimportance of competition.
But it's also important to remind people that, again, the
competition in the economy is not a competition of like, I'm
going to get killed, you know, or something like that.
All it is, is just a mechanism for creating and spreading the

(42:45):
best ideas to society, that that's all it does.
It just, again, one entrepreneurcomes up with something, the
competitors have to copy it. That leads to society producing
wealth at a faster rate, so you have more wealth.
And then competition between labourers forces them to pay us
more for for our wages. So again, competition.

(43:06):
People just really need to make the connection.
And Friedrich Hayek, he wrote 2 classic papers.
One is called The Use of Knowledge in Society in which I
highly recommend. And he wrote another one for
example, called competition as aDiscovery procedure.
He's telling you everything right there.
You know, that competition is just the mechanism that spreads
knowledge and technology and prosperity to the society and

(43:27):
how government being a competition immune course of
bureaucracy that doesn't have tolearn, it just destroys things.
So if we can get more people to want, that's one of the things I
really like about Hayek. He had this this focus on
information, which I think makesit easy to understand.
You know how knowledge moves, you know, through society.
Do you think, therefore, that a government should not have a

(43:49):
monopoly of violence? Yeah, now we're getting into
like this whole capitalist stuff.
And yeah, I think we we should. If the government does have a
monopoly on violence, that meansthat somebody else will a little
private city or something like that.
And now we will have competitionin legal systems.
So, yeah, I mean private cities,you know, again, those are

(44:11):
anarcho capitalism. And so I just want to throw Mary
Rothbard's name in there, who was one of the great Austrians
who wrote a lot about that. And David Friedman to the son of
Milton Friedman, he wrote a classic book called The
Machinery of Freedom that I highly recommend that also looks
at anarcho capitalism. But many people have different
ways of coming to to anarcho capitalism or even the economy
in general. There's the moral path that says

(44:32):
that it is that people have a like a God given right to
private property, and that's oneway to treat the legal system.
And then there's the utilitarianpath that says, well, maybe I
don't take my morality from someGod, but I just think that this
works better, right? So Milton, David Friedman's
Machinery of Freedom is a utilitarian look at anarchical
capitalism. Well, Mary Rothbard is more

(44:53):
like, like a moral thing, Like we have a right, you know, to be
able to create like our own state or something like that.
Let me give you an example. Here in South Africa, our
private security force outnumbers our police force by
4:00 to 1:00, which means that people believe or trust in the
in private, in private police way more than they trust in the

(45:16):
state police. Yeah, that that's a great
example. And I think in the US is
similar. I'm sure there's a lot more
private police. And I'm also reminded in places
like Disney World in Florida, you know, they have their own
private police there. And Disney World is like, it's
like a mini city, right? So those are great examples to
to tell people, I mean, look at a small country like Granada,

(45:39):
right? If a small country like Granada,
which has like a population of 140,000 people or whatever, if
we allowed Microsoft or Elon Musk, you know, to buy a similar
sized chunk of land, couldn't Elon with all his geniuses and
all his great computer programmer buddies, couldn't
they manage a better way to to like run security?
Of course. I mean, we just got to let
people try it. So yeah, those are great
examples to get people to open up their minds.

(46:01):
You are aware, though, that manyin my audience hate Elon Musk
because he's a technocrat. Yeah, the truth is like, it's
very hard for us to know behind the scenes what exactly is in
Elon's mind. Elon Musk know way more than
than he lets you know. You know, look, and I am

(46:21):
reminded when when, when Javier Miley was deep into his election
and he was about to win. Elon Musk has a huge bromance
with Javier Miley regarding economics.
He brought him over, he took himto the Tesla factory and so on.
And while the whole election with Miley was going on, Elon
Musk shared 2 memes. He shared a meme with a picture

(46:41):
of Hayek, the road to serve them.
And he said that Hayek was his favourite economist.
And then he shared another meme because you know, Hayek has
that's the same name as Salma Hayek the, the, the hot actress.
So he had, he shared a meme withSalma Hayek with a wonderful
Hayek quote. And the quote said that the most
important thing we could do, youknow, to ensure prosperity is to

(47:02):
educate people about economics, you know, which is again, is
everything I'm about what the Austrians were about.
So the fact that Elon Musk, the world's most wealthy man, finds
Hayek to be a favourite economist.
He's good friends with Miley. And that's where he got the
whole idea to do the Doge thing,you know, to, to go in there and
try to cut spending. But there is a big difference
between between Elon Musk and Doge.

(47:25):
Elon Musk, but by doge, he triedto cut the head of the snake.
He tried to cut the spending andall the bureaucracy, but that
head grows out of the economic ignorance of the masses and the
clueless politicians. But Miele with way less of a
budget, way less of of a name recognition, he's launching a
real intellectual revolution in Argentina because Miele is out

(47:49):
there striking the the economic ignorance of the masses.
You know, Miele is educating theyouth he had a wonderful
interview with. I mean, obviously he's awful.
Ben Shapiro where Milei was saying how he won the election
in Argentina and Milei laid it out.
He said we, we, we used to have like rock concerts, but we used
to give out economics books. So Milei is doing what nieces

(48:12):
told us to do, to go out there and educate people.
So those are important differences to realise, you
know, you, you can't create an intellectual wave that that can
hopefully, you know, turn thingsaround.
I know that many in my audience despise a number of the
individuals that you've spoken about.
I don't hold the same views because I think that each of

(48:33):
them has something of value to offer and each of them also has
something to discard. And I think we can learn from
all of these and create our own perspective, our own world view.
Yeah, again. And again, to me, everything,
Ty, I, I've read so much of these Austrians, you know, I can

(48:54):
find some quote or something, but I mean, we have to be
sympathetic towards people who make mistakes.
I mean, I, I actually think thatMalay's Zionism, it actually
works to our advantage. I mean, I see Zionism as a
massive intellectual error, right?
But the fact that Malay is already a very hardcore pro
freedom person that is waiting, you know, to tolerate we, we
definitely need Malay to tolerate freedom of speech,

(49:14):
especially when it comes to likeZionism and related stuff.
And also the fact that Miley is loved by the Israeli
politicians. I don't know if you noticed, but
last month, and it was a little over a month ago, it was
actually during the same weekendthat they that the Israelis
attacked Iran. Miley was in Israel and he gave
a speech in the Knesset. And that speech, Benjamin

(49:37):
Netanyahu spent 20 minutes talking about how great Miley
was. Another famous Israeli
politician started also spoke for like 10 minutes talking
about how great Miley was. So in many ways you have all of
this Israeli politicians treating Malay like he's the new
Moses right now. I understand a lot of that comes
because Malays is just way over the head over Zionism.
He thinks that the Zionists, youknow, are, are the beacon of

(49:58):
Western civilization. But a lot of these Israeli
politicians, they're very pro free market.
As a matter of fact, in Israel, they have like, like, like a
libertarian party within, withinthe Likud and they're hardcore
pro freedom people. So again, I, I just see Zionism
as a mistake. And the fact that Mila is a
Zionist, it just means that he'swrong.
But maybe he can become a Zionist Gorbachev, right?

(50:20):
We have to realise that the Soviet Union, a lot of people
say, oh, the Soviet Union was just a bunch of evil bad guys.
But if there were just a bunch of evil bad guys, assuming that
the Zionists are a bunch of evilbad guys, we would have never
had a Gorbachev or or a Yeltsin.And I have to have faith that if
we try and and the chaos continuously shows it, we will
get a Zionist Gorbachev. So again, we have to be

(50:42):
sympathetic just because people make this.
I was once a commie, right? Ludwig von Mises himself was
once a socialist, So what's Friedrich Hayek?
So just because these people make mistakes, we can't really
like hate them. We have to go out there and
understand how they have fooled themselves into making these
errors, which is again, it's a very misessing type of thing,
so. To add to what you're saying,
the reason why China is about tobecome the world's most powerful

(51:03):
economy is because it has it hasopened up, it's it's trading,
it's way more free than what it was 50 years ago, the same as
Qatar and the UAEI mean, these are highly capitalist societies.
Yeah, You know, they learned andreally the only thing that's
really holding us back, it's it's we have to, it's such a

(51:26):
shame, right, that the United States, you know, we're the home
of Mary Rothbard, the adopted home of Meses.
We're the guys that really have the capitalism and it, it is sad
that now the Chinese are in manyways, you know, maybe they have
already reached a point where where they're even more
capitalist than we are. I mean, I, I wouldn't be
surprised, you know, I mean, we really have to somehow overcome
Zionism. I mean, it's another like big

(51:46):
kind of warrants, but it really is like we can't have prosperity
if we're blowing $1.5 trillion every year on military spending.
It's crushing us. Just as we come in for the final
lap, if if somebody goes to yoursub stack, I think one of the
first articles they'll see is why we should all be Holocaust

(52:06):
deniers. Quickly explain that to me.
Whoa, OK, I'm going to get killed now.
Well, I mean #1 let me say something about like, you know,
the freedom of speech, right? I mean, for me to to realise
that there are human beings thatare put in prison for the
content of their minds. You know, for example, like

(52:29):
regarding the Holocaust, OK, a lot of people are not aware like
right now we have the 40 be headed babies myth with Hamas,
right? That was a total myth, right?
There was some, some of the guyswho were tasked with getting the
bodies, you know, some guy exaggerated.
And they have their little charities where, you know, they
need to make money by showing how, you know how all these
things are are happening. So that ended up being a massive
myth. And soon afterwards, the Israeli

(52:50):
Knesset, they were already talking about passing a law to
ban what they called October 7thdenial, right.
So right now we just saw in realtime how out of the complexities
of history of war, you know, warmyths and propaganda are things
that happen all the time. During the First World War, we
had the the Germans chopping offthe hands of Belgium babies,

(53:12):
crucifying Canadian soldiers. Those are all myths that arise,
you know, during wars. So during the Second World War,
I mean, a lot of people don't know, for example, like during
the number, the Nuremberg trials, right?
The Nuremberg trials, the Sovietdelegation in the Nuremberg
trials, OK, was led by Audrey Vishinsky.
He was Stalin's judge who implemented the Shoal trials.

(53:35):
So the same judge that implemented the the Shoal trials
in Stalin's Russia from 1936 to 1938, where they signed the
orders that killed like 700,000 people, executed all of Lenin's
friends. The same guy was the top judge
of the Soviet delegation during the number of trials, anybody in
the number of trials. They blamed the Germans for the
Captain Forest massacre where they killed like like 20,000

(53:58):
Poles. That was done by the Russians,
right? And the Russians put evidence
saying that he was the Germans, right?
And Churchill knew at the time in the Nuremberg trials, in the
official documents, you can findfabricated things where they
killed, you know, they killed people by electrocution,
chamber, brain bashing, pedal driven machine, having people

(54:20):
climb trees and then cutting thetree, all kinds of absurdities
that today we know they were like fabricated, right?
So knowing all things, how can we put in gaol someone that
looks at all that stuff and thendoubts the official narrative?
OK, Never mind whether the official narrative happened
exactly as they say they did or not, how can we be putting
people in gaol, you know, for questioning something, for

(54:42):
engaging in the competition of ideas, right?
Something else that's very related to this.
For example, look at the numbersprior to the collapse of the
Soviet Union, right? The official estimate of the
people that got killed in Auschwitz was like 4 million.
And, you know, a lot of people have seen the picture of the
plaque that shows the 4 million people dying.
So anyone doing their moral duty, because we all should have
a moral duty to understand and speak the truth as we really see

(55:05):
it and engage in the competitionof ideas.
Especially for me, I've been in the free market world for like
20 years. So we have a moral duty to speak
the truth. So someone in 1985 saying that
there's no way the Soviets couldhave killed 4 million people in
Auschwitz. It had to be a way smaller
number. You know, that person would have
been deemed a criminal and killed, right?

(55:26):
And they would have been right after the collapse of the Soviet
Union when the official authorities revised the number
to like 1,000,000. So that is just, again, it's
wrong. And also, when you look at like
the world of revisionism and thepeople who feel like, for
example, Germar Rudolph, who youjust had, you know, on your show
in one of his books that I highly recommend, he wrote a
book called Nazi Gas Chambers, The Roots of the Story, where

(55:48):
Germar explains how the mainstream Holocaust narrative,
which he considers to be a complex myth or an exaggeration,
how it how it evolved. You have people spreading
rumours. You have the the little gas
chambers that were made to disinfect clothing.
So you had all the ingredients to create what eventually became
a myth. He talks about the Nuremberg
trials and all those things. But one of the very important
things that grammar does, he specifically goes out of his way

(56:11):
to let people know that the mainstream narrative was not
some grand deliberate lie created by Jews, right?
Just because Jews then understandably picked up on the
story and and they made it like part of their religion, it
doesn't mean that the whole Holocaust narrative was plotted,
you know, by the Jews. So and so the point I want to

(56:31):
make is that so again, any anybody doubting, like I read
Germar's, a lot of Germar's books and I have read, you know,
the great Dave Cole that you also had his great documentary
in Auschwitz. And I've looked into all of
these things. Now, let us assume that that
Germar made mistakes or that David Cole made mistakes because

(56:52):
of the complexity of history andeverything that happened there.
If they made mistakes, and now Iread their works and I am
persuaded by them, why should I too, be a criminal, right?
And what, what if it's what? Let's take a step further.
What if the people who questioned the mainstream
Holocaust narrative are actuallya bunch of Jew haters and they
want to make some money by selling books?

(57:12):
OK. Which is an understandable fear
because the truth is that there are some Jew haters out there,
right? So, but even if we assume that,
even if we assume that they're just lying, you know, so they
can sell some books. And then I read their books and
I'm once again persuaded, you know, should I be made a
criminal? Or what if they read something
by somebody who made mistakes orfabricated stuff and then they

(57:34):
are fooled into getting a different opinion that they can
put you in gaol. It's absurd.
It's absurd to, to someone like myself who has such a, an
understanding of freedom and so on.
So the way I see it, not only doI believe that the mainstream
Holocaust narrative is an exaggeration that grew out of
Stalinist, I mean, Stalin had a reason to, to, to punish the

(57:55):
Germans, to go along with the rumours, right?
You can't blame them. You know, Poland, the Polish
communists, they got invaded by the Nazis.
So it makes perfect sense that they might exaggerate the story.
But to me, so I, I definitely believe they're Girmar's side of
things, that the Holocaust was not some grand invented thing,
you know, by the Jews, you know,which a lot of Holocaust deniers

(58:17):
think. And I also don't think it was
the result of some malice, you know, Germans, you know, so, but
so I, I do believe what Germar is saying.
But even if I didn't, this just denied the thing anyway.
And so we have freedom and real competition.
How could we possibly know what happened?
Yeah. So in other words, In other
words, even if you don't believethe entire story, So what?

(58:42):
Exactly. Deny it anyway.
Deny it anyway until we do not have freedom and real
competition of ideas, then just deny it anyway.
Because if 10,000 of us show up at the Bundestag, you know, and
that reminds, I recently had a talk with grammar.
There's a gentleman, his name isFriedrich Tobin.
And he's one of these people whospent like 10 months in gaol.
And this man is, is a real hero that hardly anyone knows about.

(59:03):
Friedrich Tobin went to Germany and he denied it on purpose so
he could go to gaol and, and, and make himself a martyr and
make a point that this is just bullshit.
OK, so there's, it's incredible when 1 looks at the history of
Holocaust revisionism. Those are the real heroes, you
know, I mean not. Just that.
Not just that, but similarly, ifyou wanted to say, well, the
Bolshevik revolution didn't happen, OK, cool, So what?

(59:26):
Exactly. And, and there was a lot of,
there's a lot of hardcore communist who, who have a
different take on the Bolshevik revolution.
This or what Lenin wanted to do was great.
It was the saboteurs and the, and the evil greedy capitalists
that are distorting our view of history.
I don't want to put those peoplein gaol, right?
So that is part. So that is really the theme of,
of my thing. You know, it's like, no, but,
but it's important. I, I, I question the Holocaust

(59:47):
for real, you know, but even if I didn't, you know, we should
have enough people that say, wait a minute, this is wrong.
You know, let's go out there anddeny it anyway, right?
Because you can. Only what really matters is not
the truth itself. It's the fact that you have the
freedom and the emerging competition of ideas that will
then get you closer to the truth.
I don't care exactly whether germ theory happens the way it
is or the virus or whatever, butI have a good enough

(01:00:09):
understanding of economics to really fight for what matters is
the freedom and the emerging competition of ideas.
So all of these this this so called scholars at Vagischem,
those guys are as much scholars as were the economists in the
Soviet Union. Right.
Of course the Soviet Union had its think tanks of economists
and all that, but their entire ideological structure evolved

(01:00:32):
thanks to coercion and a mistake.
So again, any Holocaust scholar,anybody wanting to to make the
case for the mainstream narrative or wanting to bad
mouth the revisionist, first let's have real freedom of
speech. And then who knows, maybe it
really happened exactly as they say, right?
But fine, then I will read, you know something better and I'll

(01:00:53):
take it more seriously and maybeI'll change my mind.
But until then, I deny the Holocaust.
This entire conversation Jorge is is reject the Frankfurt
School of Economics. And the Frankfurt on the
Marxist, anyone who's not an Austrian and anybody who I mean
to me, I mean Chicago. School.
I think Bolton Friedman was partof the Chicago School.

(01:01:15):
That's a big subject. You know, He, it unfortunately,
human beings are human beings. And there's always a little bit
of competition and negligence, you know, of, of other
intellectuals. The world of economics has that
as well. Like Friedrich Hayek also taught
at the Chicago School at the same university, but they didn't
give him a job inside the economics department.

(01:01:36):
They gave him a job in like the school of philosophy or
something. And a lot of people feel like
maybe that's because there was just a little bit of like the
egos, you know, or whatever. And there are major differences
between the Chicago school and Milton Friedman and the
Austrians. And as a matter of fact, Ludwig
von Mises, who who never took shit from anyone, Ludwig von
Mises said that Milton Friedman is just a statistician, you

(01:02:01):
know, because the Austrians, theAustrians look at mathematics as
just like all these mathematicalmodels.
It's like a biologist. A biologist doesn't look at at a
human body with mathematical formulas.
You look at it in an evolved way.
You want to see the evolution ofthings.
So the Austrians look at the social order as an evolved
thing. So we hardly pay any attention
to math. But the Chicago guys and the
Kings, they're more into the mathematical so.

(01:02:21):
And it was a massive suck. I don't want to get in trouble.
I'm already in trouble as it is.But no, but Milton Friedman, I
love Milton Friedman, you know, wonderful guy, great educator.
He has such a soft spoken demeanour.
He he did so much to educate so many.
But well, if. Friedman was he.
He was my gateway to Hayek and and Mises, actually.
Yeah, to me, early on I read Capitalism and Freedom or

(01:02:43):
something like that, you know, from him.
He too was one of my great earlyinfluences.
And look, he did a great job with his son too, so.
OK, Jorge, how can I follow you?Yeah, so I have a website,
besada.com, where one can download for free or even listen
to some of the books I've written in the past.
Also, please follow me on Twitter.

(01:03:04):
My handle is Hayekian. Very easy to remember.
And if you just like also at at the Ludwig von Mises Institute,
I've published about 12 articlesthat, you know, I highly
recommend some of the articles get republished at
lourockwell.com. I've had a few things published
at ons.com. And so, yeah, beside that
comment, please follow me at at Hayekian.

(01:03:25):
Jorge Basada, thank you for joining me in the trenches.
Yeah. Thank you.