Speaker 1: If you want to get the show early and ad free,
head on over to the Peak Kinyonas show dot com.
There you can choose from where you wish to support me.
Now listen very carefully. I've had some people ask me
about this, even though I think on the last ad
I stated it pretty clearly. If you want an RSS feed,
you're going to have to subscribe your substance or through Patreon.
You can also subscribe on my website which is right there,
gum Road and what's the other one, subscribe Star and
if you do that, you will get access to the
audio file. So head on over to the pekan Yonashow
dot com. You'll see all the ways that you can
support me there. And I just want to thank everyone.
It's because of you that I can put out the
amount of material that I do. I can do what
I'm doing with doctor Johnson on two hundred Years Together
and everything else, the things that Thomas and I are
doing together on condinal philosophy, it's all because of you.
And yeah, I mean, I'll never be able to thank
you enough.
Speaker 2: So thank you.
Speaker 1: The pekan Yonashow dot com. Everything's there. I want to
welcome everyone back to the Peking Yona show Dexter Whites
with me.
Speaker 2: How are you doing, Dexter?
Speaker 3: Hey, Pete, how's it going? Thanks for having me on.
Appreciate it, yep, first time.
Speaker 1: Please tell everybody a little bit about yourself what you're
willing to share.
Speaker 3: Sure, I'm I'm a co conspirator with Tom Luongo and
got some guns. Pretty much the editor over there of
our monthly newsletter. Tom and I've been doing that for
about eight years now. You may know Tom from other
things that he does out there on the internet, but
that's pretty much my focus is there. And I'm frequent
podcast co host over there as well, So that's my
online kind of deal.
Speaker 1: So we got the I guess this is as close
to the three day rule as we're going to get.
That you let something happen and then you wait three days.
This is probably what we're at. Forty eight hours, maybe
a little less than forty eight hours.
Speaker 3: Oh did something happen?
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Speaker 1: Apparently it's so funny because when something like this happens,
you immediately lee it's the biggest thing that's happened in
you know, the history of mankind. And then as you
get the further away from it, you start to realize, well,
you know, there's a lot more to this, and there's
there's a distinct possibility it's absolutely a nothing burger, and
it could be like Syria, you know, Sarka April twenty seventeen,
where you're bombing an empty, empty air base, which upsets
the people who want this to be the biggest thing ever.
And if you say, well, you know, it's probably not,
it's like, well, you're coping because because you do's. But
I mean, we don't even know what I'm talking about yet.
Obviously I'm talking about I think, did John Jones John
Jones retired from MMA.
Speaker 3: Yeah, we're talking about obviously the bombing of the FODO
and other nuclear complexes by the United States. But I
think the key for I don't know, and we don't
know much, and yet we live in a media culture
that demands an immediate opinion despite an absence of facts.
And I feel that the most notable thing that blew
up this weekend was that model. Because a lot of people,
you know, a lot of talking heads and reflexive commentators
out there are I mean, it feels like they push
them to their breaking point, some of which because they
had a totally unrealistic view of Trump in my view,
about him having like some sort of core principles. And
I'm not saying, you know, he's unprincipled. I'm saying Trump
doesn't operate as a person who gets up every day
and says, how can I manifest my principles? If you
think that's what Donald Trump does, you've misread the man.
And you know, I'm not saying that to be like
judgmental or pejorative. I'm saying, literally, that's who this guy is.
We've known him for a long time as the guy
on the Apprentice, Like, let that be your guide, you know.
But so many people have I think, tied up into
the Trump and Maga worldview, an unsustainable illusion that just
got exploded, and now their brains are melting, you know,
whether it's Candice Owens or Tucker Carlson or you know,
Dave Smith or whoever. I mean, they just they can't
deal with what they've you know, this is a cognitive
dissonance that's just too great for them. I'm not sure
why that is, honestly, But.
Speaker 1: Is it not ideology? Is it not having an ideology?
Speaker 3: Yeah?
Speaker 1: A rigid, a rigid ideology. I mean, you know, you're
I think you're you're you're a Christian. I'm a Christian,
I'm a Catholic. I think you're Orthodox. We have an ideology.
It's personal, but yeah, you know.
Speaker 3: I think in the case of sort of like I
think we have to separate this, Like there's a difference
between like neo cons and Bill Crystal and you know,
people who are reacting to something being done that they
kind of like by someone they really don't like and
that I think I'd like to take later. But like
the the people in media who are struggling for an
appropriate reaction. I don't know. I don't know that it's
ideology driven. I think it's it's driven by the fact
that the entirety of their media presence in terms of
the careers they've taped out for themselves, like Cassandra or sorry,
Candice Owens. You know, she was part of a bigger
thing and then I think, you know, it was pretty public,
but parts of it aren't clear to anybody. But I'm
pretty sure she had a blow up with Ben Shapiro
and seems like she got fired. Tucker definitely got fired.
You know, these people have left institutions that were more
or less I mean, you could you could argue that
both Fox and Shapiro's you know, version of you know
what they do over there is are both kind of
neo con centered enterprises, right, Fox more than Shapiro's. But
you know, these are people who now Tucker and Candice
have built their own thing, and they're kind of stuck
on their business plan. I don't think they can they
can pivot quickly enough when when Trump just starts doing
real stuff, because they've they've sort of they've they've bet
a lot on this kind of false archetype. I I
you note that I don't. I'm not willing to believe
both of them are standing on their you know, piece
before all principles because I just don't believe it. Maybe
that's too mean of me, but like, I just don't
think that it's I don't buy Tucker as a pacifist.
Speaker 1: Well, I think Tucker, I don't know whether he's playing
pacifist or whether he's just playing non interventionist. You know,
some of us are You don't have base adopted the ideology,
not the ideology, but the thought that you know, you
you'll reward your friends and you punish your enemies. So yeah,
I think Tucker is Tucker may try to be doing
maybe doing his what he thinks is best to try
to prevent a friend, which I think he and Donald
Trump are friends, or at least you know, good acquaintances,
from doing something that you know will tarnish what he believes.
You know what Trump said, his legacy is going to
be no new wars, no new this, you know, and
this isn't a war yet, but could it be, you know,
I don't know, I'm reading.
Speaker 3: Well, these kinds of actions are certainly could be correlated
with escalations that turn into things we called war for sure.
I mean, let's kind of instead of going at this
from like the analytical analytical dissection route, like, let's just
talk a little bit about this sort of the things
we all kind of agree on and that some people
are having a really hard time parsing right now. I
think we all agree that the Iraq War.
Speaker 2: Was a disaster.
Speaker 3: There happens to be a lot of reasons, and I'm
talking about like obviously the second one, why you know,
what was done under schwartzkop was different than what came later,
And there's a ton of detail but in the end
we're all left with way too many American lives were
lost for nothing. I think a lot of times there's
conflation between the two times we went into Iraq, and
I don't really think the conflation is justified. For the
first Gulf War, where we pretty much had an objective,
we achieved it, we got out, and you know, I
would argue that we would have been much better taking
Saddam out then because weirdly, the Iranians wouldn't have become
the oppositional force they became in the second incursion because
at the time they were still really really fresh in
their minds, like fight the Iran Iraq War. And I
think we were like, hey, we're going to wax Saddam.
They'd be like, you know, we can deal with that,
we can dig it. I think that would have been
the Iranian response and you know, ninety two or whatever.
But you know, Saddam gave us a you know, a
reason to do that. You know, he invaded Kuwait like
there were facts on the ground. So I think the
libertarian and maga right infusion of libertarian anti war values,
you know, it all comes from a place that is
pretty decent, which is that war and then what we
did in Afghanistan despite our righteous you know, cause, in
my view, like after nine to eleven, I think there
was a righteous and moral, just war reason going to
Afghanistan and kill some folks were you know, it's not nuance,
it's war. They hit us, we hit them. Now it
turned into something equally pointless. So opposing pointless wars is
not something I disagree with, but I'm also not willing
to turn it into a worldview that ignores the fact
that there's no reason for the level of enrichment at all.
And I'm not I know a lot about nuclear issues
and nuclear medicine, and like, I really understand these things,
and I'm telling you we're at a point where they
might not have a warhead, but there's absolutely no reason
for this level of enrichment, both to this purity and
in this volume. It is not to give everyone in
fucking Iran a renal scan. Okay, that's not what this
is for. These centers were not for that. And I'm
not willing to say, oh, well, because I have this principle,
you know, no wars, that this we should ignore. You know,
what's literally a serious moment in history now that also,
you know, there's a there's a further complication, and that
we didn't make this decision. This decision was made for
us by a third party nation. And if you believe that,
you know, I happen to think there's probably a pretty
decent argument to be made that this has been correlated,
I'm sorry, has been coordinated for a long time between
all the elements in Israel and the United States.
Speaker 1: Now, and there's a Brookings there's a Brookings book from
twenty nineteen that lays us all out.
Speaker 3: Oh, there's no question there's a longer idea of regime
change in Iran that precedes even that. I just mean
post October seventh. I think Israel in the United States,
even during the Biden administration, we're we're at least checking
in enough to I don't think there have been any surprises.
That's the way I would put it, which is different
than saying that we co planned it right. And again,
I'm not some guy with a secular security clearance who's
breaking it. I'm just some guy who reads stuff. You know,
you salt to taste. But that's my take on it.
And the other thing I got kind of raked over
the Coals for in a recent Twitter Space is a
little that you were on in the beginning, and I
think you got knocked off too. Then I got knocked off,
and it's you know, because Twitter space is great tech,
but you know a lot of people just really couldn't
handle the idea that, you know, just the take I
had that it was purely motivated by revenge by Israel.
And I'm more or less okay with that, Like after
October seventh, if I was Israel, I I'm just going
to kill all these people. We killed Hamas, we killed
his balla, now we're going to kill Iran. And I
think that's like an ignored analysis. I mean, Halsey pushed
back on that, and so did a lot of people online.
But I still think it's pretty explanatory.
Speaker 1: Well, it can be two things too, It could be
three things. It could be that they've been planning to
do this for a long time and then they got
their excuse and they believed that because they were the
victim once again, that the world would go along with
whatever they do. Unfortunately, instead of you know, blaming it
on Iran and saying, well, Iran's the one who is
financing Hamas and directing Hamas. Let's take that, Let's quickly
take Hamas out, flood the tunnels with concrete, do whatever
you need to.
Speaker 2: Do, go in there. Boom, boom boom.
Speaker 1: They decided to basically turn a section of the world unlivable.
They just happened to be next door to them, which
seems insane to normal people. And then you know they wait,
you know, two years almost, you know, almost two years,
and they're like okay, yeah, you know, a year and
a half and they're like, okay, now, you know, let's
go take care of the people who were destroying all
this while basically every nation in the world except for
like five thinks they're absolute monsters.
Speaker 3: What's your take on last year's missile exchange?
Speaker 2: That was it was.
Speaker 3: Predicated by the Israelis hitting the building next to the
embassy right in Syria or in Lebanon.
Speaker 2: Was it in Lebanon? I think it was Lebanon.
Speaker 3: Yeah, so, so I guess it was arguable. But this
is one of those nuances where I'm not it's like
they hit the embassy. Maybe they hit the building next
to the embassy, but that is what provoked the missile
exchange between around and Israel. Last year where I think
they both tested and theatrically so tested each other's you
know stuff. What is your take on how much of
that might have been kind of coordinated and like, because
that part that whole thing. To me, still, I'm not
sure what I believe happened there. I'm just curious what
you think.
Speaker 1: Okay, So, I mean I think of I think of
the reaction to the Solemani assassination. They launched miss Iran
launches missiles at a US base, and Trump comes right
out and says they had to save face in many ways,
what I see now that you know, you're past the
fog and the anger of why the hell are you
doing this? Why are we involved in this? Why why
do we care about this? You know, this aircraft carrier
in the Middle East that you know hates us and
it is just basically parasitic towards us. This looks like
the same kind of thing.
Speaker 2: You know.
Speaker 1: I'm listening to different people who were talking about how
these sites had already been hit numerous times, they would
have had chance to move everything, any kind of research
they had, they could have moved it elsewhere. That we
basically did the same thing. We went in there. Iran
probably knew that there were people in the Iranian government
who knew this was going to happen, and then they
bombed a couple things and they said, yay, victory, just
like Syria twenty seventeen.
Speaker 3: I mean, I can understand that perspective. The one thing
I will say I don't believe is there's there's no
moving forth centrifuges in like three days. That didn't. That
just not a thing. And I think it's notable that
a Ran did not before the strikes on Saturday night, specifically,
did not anywhere that I saw say oh, well, we've
already moved everything out, Because if you were trying to
protect your facility, but you had already taken the steps
to protect your facility, you might leak that, you know,
to confound your enemy. Because Forda is a pretty decent
chunk of change. Man, that's a nice facility, and if
you had moved it out, I think the move is
you you literally video it, or you invite an inspection
and say look it's empty, screw you, We beat you
it somewhere else, just to taunt. Because when they came
out after the strike, we oh, we already moved old uranium.
I was like, eh, did you It just seemed like
a big cope to me. You know, it's there's four
thousand centrifuges at Ford.
Speaker 2: Oh and.
Speaker 3: I think also they're still there, and whether they're damaged
or not, is that's the damage that's that's something I
don't know. But right, well, you we fucked up the
door at least.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Well you also have to take into consideration like doctor
Ted Postal, who has been doing videos and writing research
papers on these bombs, who you know, clearly went out
on shows talking about how these bombs aren't going to
do a thing. So, I mean, they can do some damage,
they can do some surface damage, but they already Iran
already has access to the plans and how to structure
and how to build so that you can actually even
deflect the force of bombs like this. So even if
they didn't move four thousand centrifuges, I mean, there's no
I from what I understand, I can't remember who said.
Speaker 2: It. Might have been Ritter talking about.
Speaker 1: How there's eight entrances in foordoh, and like maybe we
got two of them, maybe we got three of them,
but did we get all of them? Where they're entrances
we don't know about. You know, It's it just seems
like it was like this is just theater. It's it's
Trump again dropping bombs and not a lot.
Speaker 2: You know.
Speaker 1: Obviously some damage is going to be done and there'll
probably be some loss of life somewhat, but it just
seems like that whole thing again of mission you know,
not mission accomplished. But hey, you know, we this is
the greatest action we've ever done, the greatest thing ever
done by the Yeah, it's.
Speaker 3: Just he's only capable of talking how he talks.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, and you know, and he's talking about it
like yeah, he's.
Speaker 2: He talks about it like.
Speaker 1: Some of the like the greatest you know, military triumphs
in the history you know, of the United States and
of America. And it's there's no evidence, you know. I
mean I've already heard from somebody that I know who
knows people on the inside, and they're saying they're detecting
any kind of signature for radiation at all, and we're
seeing anything.
Speaker 3: So I mean, well, there's a lot of there's a
lot of scenarios though where that wouldn't necessarily be notable
because the non enriched. There's got to be a lot
of yellow cake in storage there to feed the react
to feed the centrifuges, and that kind of signature is
not going to that shit. You can't. I mean, this
is very deep. If it had collapsed a tunnel, these
are all very heavy, non gasified. Well, we introduced a
lot of heat so it would gasify the uranium hexafluoride,
which is what the feedstock is for the centrifuge. But
if it didn't find a way out, it didn't find
a way out. I don't think the absence of aerial
radiation detection because there are no fission products, right, It's
just you hit a storage place that contains pretty much
only uranium. So if you didn't perfectly gasify it and
liberate it, I can see why it wouldn't get out.
Like a lot of these sniffers are trying to find
other elements, They're definitely trying to find Like our sniffers
are optimized to detecting sub you know, subterranean tests where
weird isotopes get out and they are characteristic isotopes of
a fission reaction, and like, oh we found some xenon
one thirty three like we're in concentrations. It shouldn't have
been like that's what those sniffers are for, but an
explosive attack. Again, I agree with you that Trump is
always gonna be superlative in his speech, and I don't
know that the destruction to the level he describes, though,
is is required for the mission to be a success.
There's a lot of things going on here, so I
want to act weirdly for me. I sent this thing
to Tom the other day for and I think it
was what he vamped on his morning report. I guess yesterday,
but it's it's Scott Ritter and Scott Ridder said, and
it's someone I never quote for a lot of reasons,
not a fan, but he said. This is why I
said repeatedly that Iran was making a huge mistake posturing
as a nuclear threshold state. There's a lot in that state,
and I think posturing as a nuclear threshold state one
of the things when they were trying to, you know,
drive that wedge between Tulsea Gabbard and Trump, people did
not read the text. The text was very clear. There's
a big difference between enriched uranium at nuclear weapons grade
and a warhead or a weapon. Right, you can have
three day breakout to weapons grade uranium and you will
not have cast that into two hemispheres and made it
with a trigger the subassembly that fits in one of
your missiles. Right, that's a lot of work that hasn't happened,
but there is no reason for enrichment. So you have
to ask yourself, do we really have to wait until
they do the trigger work. And they've done the trigger work,
they're not using. That's what the heavy water was reactor
was for. There's deuterium tritium use of as trigger materials
in a fission only bomb. Most of the time when
people hear heavy water, they think that's fusion. It can
be used for fusion, but it can also, more importantly
be used for the creation of durable neutron sources for
triggering a fission bomb. They were caught with too much
deuterium like ten years ago, so the idea that they've
figured out how to make a trigger is not crazy.
So do we really have to wait till they cast
the warheads before we act or do we just say, look,
you guys have sixty percent tons of of yellow cake
and enough weight to spin sixty into ninety and three
days we're just going to act. I think that's a
legitimate thing that everybody's ignoring. They're acting like there was
some disparity between saying, oh, well, there's no evidence they
had a warhead. It's like, dude, there's no other reason
for this. And now let's talk about this from the
lens of Ritter's comment. If they're willing to do all
of this just to quote appeer like a breakout state
in order to drive negotiations, first of all, that's a
really dumb bluff. Ridder's right there. But the better question
is who the fuck told them to do that, because
I just I feel like it begs the invitation that
there's another party like advising them, because it's a really
odd decision. You know. There's also a much more pragmatic
and simple Okham's razor type conclusion is they were making
a ba you know, and I don't like our foreign
policy guided by others, and I don't have to like
it in order to recognize that, you know, sometimes there's
a time for action that isn't perfect. And I feel
that so many people right now can't separate their distrust
of Israel from an honest analysis of this scenario like
they won't. They cannot in any way except there might
have been an actual ticking bomb, so to speak. And
I agree we've been lied to before. But one thing
I'll say about the Second Iraq War is they knew
they were lying, right. There was no question about why
they were lying. So it's not like anybody got duped.
And that doesn't necessarily make it preclude that they're just
lying again. But I think people need to get over
this idea that there's there's some sort of confusion where
the Israelis are tricking us with lies. I'm like, I don't,
I don't think that's in the game.
Speaker 1: But well, there was a question you asked earlier that said,
you know, why would they be enriching uranium this much?
You know, why would they be going weapons grade? Well,
I mean this may seem simplistic and I may seem
like a moron, but you know, if I was in
Iran and I was in charge, I wouldn't want to
be bayoneted in the street and sodomized to death, right right,
you know. And it really seems that whenever, whenever there
was a threat against them, and it's oh, it seems
like if you want them to enrich uranium, accuse them
of enriching uranium. I mean, I don't know what you
what your opinion is of the JCPOA, but it seemed
like the JCPOA actually kept them in line some sorts.
And really the only time they ramp stuff up is
when people cancel the JCPOA or people talk about regime
change in Iran. And I mean, I don't particularly like
the Mullahs. I wish I didn't know Iran existed. There's
no reason I should know Israel or Iran existed. I'm
an American. There's no reason these things should be. They
should be places where I'm like, like exotic places where
I'd be like, oh, maybe I'd like to travel there
one day and see what that what that culture is
all about. Persia seems to be like an ancient culture.
But no, no, that's that's not it. Maybe that's it's
as simple as that. Maybe it's as simple as I
don't want to be bayoneted in the ass in the
street until I die by people that you know I've been.
You know, maybe I haven't been the best leader, but
I haven't been you know, I haven't been the worst leader.
Speaker 3: The problem with I mean, I I think there's a
lot of good reasoning there as far as we're trying
to guess the motivations for actions that we have an
incomplete sense of. I agree that Israel is willing to
fabricate things in order to advance the agenda they want,
which the agenda they want in the Middle East is
that no one can challenge them, I think is a
fair way.
Speaker 2: To say it.
Speaker 3: Some of this is neurotic projection and some of it
is based in pretty smart reality. Like it's both in
my view and I don't know. I think there's been
a lot of times, both before and after the JCPOA
that Iran could have avoided. I mean, here's the question, like,
what was the motivation for Iran, both pre and post
JCPOA to put as many missiles into Syria into Lebanon.
You know, it's not like their hands are clean. If
their hands were clean, and I think your argument would
be pretty much her.
Speaker 2: Hands.
Speaker 3: I don't right, I'm talking about the moving of ASSD
For what purpose is the moving of this level of
missiles into you know, whether Haballa turned out to not
be very effective, they were definitely armed, And there comes
a point where you have to think back to the
revolution when the first thing Iran did was move into
that neck of the woods. They created things that didn't
exist before, like his balla and they they came after
you know, they stepped into the middle of a civil
war in Lebanon that they helped create. They you know,
definitely murdered two hundred and forty one American Marines. They
murdered thousands of US servicemen in Iraq with force penetrators.
So you know, there comes a point where you got
to just say, look, I agree, everybody's hands are dirty,
But then the near term I think matters more for
what just happened than than than the whole you know,
we don't have to give the Turks Vienna back. You know,
there comes a point where everybody's just like, look, everyone
keeps making choices, and they made choices very recently to
do things that led to where we are. I do
I am confused, honestly about how much of the j
cpo A I believe, given who was involved in it
and who got it signed and when the there was
a date when the I A E A excuse me
came back with a level and enrichment test that was
very discordant. I think the j cpo A was still
in force, and everyone's like, oh no, no, no, that's it
was a mistake. It wasn't really that hot, and I
feel like they ran was just not you know, they
had they had places that the j cpo A didn't
apply to, So I'm not sure I believe they were.
They were spun down, so to speak.
Speaker 1: Well, I mean, I guess what I'm not getting is
the fact that you're questioning Iran's motives for doing certain things,
as if every motive they're doing is evil, but evil
to who evil? To whom is it? I mean, what Israel?
Speaker 3: Well, I'll put it.
Speaker 1: I mean, I literally the only reason I don't want
to see Israel blown off the map, Like, the only
reason I don't want to see Israel removed from existence
is because then those people have to go somewhere, and
they're probably going to come here.
Speaker 3: Well, I think that avoiding nuclear war is probably a
global good for all reasons, because.
Speaker 1: Well, there's only one there's only one country we've mentioned
that didn't sign a non proliferation treaty.
Speaker 3: What I was just going to say, actually is that
there's one part of the Ridder comment that, and I
don't know if you've listened to Tom over the last
couple of days, but Tom's kind of staking out some
territory that I'm not sure I agree with. But it
was kind of on that that spaces the other night.
Speaker 2: But but.
Speaker 3: The question is to what end, like, so let's talk.
There's there's certain things I'm not It's not questionable whether
Iran's uranium enrichment was for any purpose other than weapons.
That's what it was for. So then the question becomes
is is somebody tell them, Hey, if you enrich up
to this point where you have breakout and it's undeniable,
then we're going to use that to force Israel, Like,
then we're going to let you know, we're going to
work a deal where you give up yours and Israel
gives up theirs. That's a pipe dream in my view.
But I'm not saying somebody didn't tell Iran that because
other than that, if Iran wasn't on the midst of
creating ten nuclear warheads, let's let's go all the way
to warheads. Let's assume they figured out the trigger and
the miniatures. Miniaturization problems not very intense. The trigger problem
is pretty pretty intense, Like that's a lot of work,
but Iran has a lot of talent. So the idea
that when they moved all the stuff out of Iraq
ar a k facility and they had a research reactor
there or whatever.
Speaker 2: Or is it is?
Speaker 3: It is I thing to Ton's was the the one
on the coast? Which one is on the coast? But
it doesn't matter, Like I think we should assume they
probably have a workable trigger solution if they were just
going to one day say hey, we have we have nukes,
we really have them, and we're going to do an
underground test. Boom, Now we did it. Now let's not
fuck around and let's let's all talk. Okay. But I
don't see the I, as an American, do not view
that as incredibly destabilizing. I don't see that as a
threat only to Israel. I see that as a major
problem given Iran's history with US, that we would want
to act independently to stop. I really do. Now you
might not. You might think it's uh, it's like Pakistan
or North Korea. I think Iran is a little bit
in a different category because not only have they been
willing to engage us with proxies. They they've done it
as it's it's pretty much the entirety of the of
the ideology of their state.
Speaker 2: I also, yeah, I mean that's my tales.
Speaker 3: Again.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I'm but I'm also one of those people who
is like, sure, if I think that a country is
a threat, I don't care if I like them or not.
You know, we should take care of them, you know,
we should engage them. I have a problem doing that
with a government that I don't trust, that is owned
by by interests that that I don't believe aligned with mine.
But let's say let's say you know, my my friends
were running the government. I would have no problem if
I thought Iran was a right. But I also think
that I also have to consider the history of why.
You know, people are like, oh, you know, they the
whole meme of well, what are the country, uh chance
death to America, And I'm like, I've had dogs that
like barked at me for fifteen years and never bit me,
you know, And then you know, and that's I know,
that's quaint on my part. But also it's like, Okay,
why why would they scream that? Is it because we
wear blue jeans, or do we over or do these
people have a long do these people live historically? And think, Oh,
in nineteen fifty three, you know, the CIA overthrew overthrow
our duly elected leader. Oh and even before that generations
and gave them to the royal and gave them.
Speaker 3: Yeah, but the third generation of Polavis inserted by the
West is what the current plan is. So yes, I mean,
and what I mean by that is you understand that
like the grandfather, the father and the son are all
the sha pu Lavi right nineteen twenty, nineteen fifty five
and potentially twenty twenty five, and that's what the alternate
to the Malas are. Now move it up the geos
strategy ladder a bit. And you know, don't forget before
why did Iran have F Fourteen's why they were the
only country that had cutting edge Those were our best
fighters in the seventies.
Speaker 1: And Israelis were passing Israelis were passing weapons to Iran
as in the nineteen eighties, probably into the nineteen seventies.
Speaker 3: There was a big part of where Iran contra happened
was through you know, at the time, Israel was much
more concerned about Saddam than Iran, and so was Iran.
Don't forget this is the thing people always leave out
of that analysis is that Iran was scared shitless of Saddam,
which was not without merit. And you know, I'm not
saying it's all strange bedfellows stuff, but you know, loyalties
change for sure, and concerns. And I also will say
that that mission that people are saying was all just
a stunt, as if we called Iran and said, hey,
we're going to blow up these empty buildings. I think
it was a little it was more of a display
of I mean, that wasn't a six plane mission, right,
They said one hundred and twenty five planes were involved,
So what that really means is there were probably ten
F twenty two's and like another twelve F thirty five's
in tow plowing the road. Because B twos aren't very fast,
and all of the planes that the F thirty five,
the F twenty two, and the B two, i'll have
the ability to avoid, you know, they have similar stealth capabilities,
but the B two has no speed, so we definitely
put a fighter escort in there. We pulled off that
combined arms operation with B twos allegedly flying out of
the US, but we had more B twos in Diego, Garcia,
and then we also had decoy B twos in the
air flying in America. So there was a lot of
shit going on for misdirection purposes. And I assume the
F twenty twos took off from Saudi because they had
been there, and then F thirty five's are kind of everywhere.
We just have a lot of those in the in
the region. So this is also a display of Again
I'm coming down on the side that the Iranians did
not know what was happening. Yeah, you're free to disagree,
but I think that this is a demonstration to Russia
and China of certain capabilities that you know, the S
four hundred and all its alleged superpowers can't stop. And
ultimately an Iran being neutralized short or long term, brought
into the Western sphere of influence is a mega move
in doing the only thing the United States needs to
be doing right now, and that's checking China's rise. If
we can control the energy supplies to China and honestly
also to India by bringing I Ran under our direct control,
that's a huge strategic win and ultimately maybe driving more
of this decision making than anything else. This may be
Israel wants X and blah blah blah, but America really
wants Z. And we're doing it for another reason because
you know, if you were wanting to This also very
provocative to Putin. But at the same time, maybe Trump
has offered him something because Putin's pretty nervous about China.
You know, China is his ally blah blah blah. But
on the long timeline, he's not happy about it. And
I'm not saying Russia is coming back to the West.
I don't see that happening, given the reality and given
the fact that Trump has no successor that I can
see that has a great chance of winning. We got
a lot of work to do on vance before you
convinced me he can win an election. But that's a
big part of this puzzle, I think is you know,
it's not just about Israel's interests. Israel's interests are very
kind of one dimensional and first layer, like they they
can't handle people in their neighborhood who they don't can't dominate.
That's a personality disorder and it's a national policy manifestation
of that personality disorder. But I think the US is
thinking about a bigger board.
Speaker 1: Well that I agree. I do think some of this
has to do with China, not all of it. Like
some people who don't want to talk about Israel or
put any blame on Israel. Oh, this is all about
China and the Belton Road and whatever. But yeah, I'm just.
Speaker 3: Not even a Belton Road. Just energy. I mean, so
much of China's energy comes from not just Iran. But listen,
the straight of hoorn Moves is going to be closed
for like an hour, and then Iran will have a navy.
That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about on
a much more medium to long timeline. If we control Iran,
not even all the way, but enough that we put
in some government that wants to have talks with everybody,
we're going to start offering them stuff to slow down.
If all we did was slow down the shipment of
energy to China by thirty percent because we drop so
much money on them, because don't forget, every country we
take over is another place we can we can store
dollars and we can rain dollars on, which you know,
helps control global inflation and you know, keep dollar flows.
You know, it's it's all about that at some level,
and maybe not as the prime reason, but also the
side benefit of anytime in other Domino toppels it's like, oh,
yet another cubby hole for dollars. And if we do that,
you know, China has a really hard time sourcing enough
energy to continue what they need to do. Whether it's
I mean, because don't forget, there's whole things they don't make.
You know, it was very interesting when the whole rare
earth versus not ethylene. But there's a precursor for most plastics.
It's that only the US makes, and so we both blinked.
But it was interesting. China would have been more affected
because one of the reasons Trump is selling off all
the western bl lands is there's a whole bunch of
rare earths out there, and we're going to be rare
earth independent by the time Trump Lee's office.
Speaker 1: Well, I mean, I don't I'm not for that. If
you want, if they want that, they can, they can
do a government project. I don't want that in private hands.
I'm I'm way past the libertarian way, past the libertarian
privatize everything.
Speaker 3: When I'm just saying, listen, it's a stretch goal. It's
it's it's a negotiation trick. I think. I think what
they're going to do is they're going to say they're
going to do all that, and then they're going to
walk it back. But meanwhile, hull Swaths a BLM not
national park. Let's let's you know, most b al Amland
is crap and it's poorly managed and it isn't some
nature paradise, and uh, I think you know, it's all
just typical flood the zone ship where they'll they get
what they want by you know, Trump read one book
his entire life. He got it at the Chester Karris
Negotiating seminar, and he learned the concept of the ZOPA.
And Trump's whole shtick and everything he's ever done, whether
it's real estate development or reality TV, is just design.
Is define an absolutely unreasonable ZOPA zone of potential agreement.
He does that by throwing his first spear, his first
price point, into a land of total madness. And the
person on the other side of the tables, like he
just told us he wants a million dollars for this
can of coke, Like is he insane? And meanwhile, you know,
he just looks at him And that's how he does
every negotiation. He doesn't start a negotiation with an irrational
zone he create. He defines an irrational literally lunatic zone
to destabilize the people who are negotiating with him and
try to provoke what's called the midpoint fallacy, which is
where people negotiate poorly when they succumbed to the idea
of a midpoint being valid. So if we offer a
negotiation starting at one hundred units and you counter with twenty,
there's this natural you know, vacillation towards sixty is the midpoint, right,
and so you think sixty seems like a fair deal.
We could spend three weeks arguing about bullshit and then
eventually you're like, I offer you sixty, and you take it,
but you know the reasonable value is thirty. You were
right putting it at twenty, but when I put it
at one hundred, it fucked up all your calculations. That's
Trump in everything. If you want to understand this guy
and all the crazy shitty does, it's literally just that
it's just negotiating. Seminars that were big in the seventies
in New York City that were in every sky magazine
when you flew on an airplane.
Speaker 2: Well, I think that's a good Uh.
Speaker 1: I had already mentioned the you know, the lands, and
it's like, I'm, you know, I don't want to sound
like a libertarian, because yeah, I think both of us
were libertarians at one point. I try to think back
to why I was one, and I'm I really I
struggle with it. It's like what It's almost like, what
the hell were you thinking? That this isn't existing in reality?
You're you're always you're You're always like a backbier, You're
always screaming from the stands and going, you know, saying
neither side is neither side knows how to play the game.
Only I know how to play the game. But you
get out on the ice and you just, uh, you know,
you fall flat on your face.
Speaker 2: So I mean not a hard segue, but you know.
Speaker 3: No, I mean you ask a question, one of one
question that you can answer for yourself. You know what
point in your life was that when that appealed to you.
But I think the other thing is just the honest
thing about libertarianism is that it confuses a lot of
people by by criticizing things that are that deserve to
be criticized, like Kynesianism or shitty foreign policy or whatever,
and then it lies and says, well, the only valid
criticism of Kynesianism is libertarianism. And people who don't know anything,
who've never studied history or read a book, you know,
might think that's true. They might think, oh, yes, the
entire world is Kyannesian, all these it's all a giant
Kanesian conspiracy, and the only opposition of that are these
great pure people over here, you know. So is Austrian
economics libertarian or do people in America who were libertarians
decide that this one of many anti Ricardo, anti Marx,
anti Kynesian later perspectives on economics is clearly libertarian. Was
Do you think Hayek would have been a libertarian had
the LP been in existence? I don't not even close.
And the other thing, in my view is that what
the LP and the movement that led to it in
the United States is just so obviously a post trotsky
neutralization program. I think these are the Trotskyites, you know,
the neo cons went after the Republican Party, and then
some of them went on a special mission to waste
the time and the talent of a whole generation of
young men. And it was mostly young men. And I
think libertarians libertarianism in the US was always meant to
just be a place to absorb and distract and trap
and amber all like the best minds of each generation
by confounding them with bullshit. And you know, people do
not like it when I say this, but this is
my honest take. I was attracted to it in college.
I went to some libertarian meetings and then I decided
I would prefer to drink beer and meat girls. Because
when you go to a libertarian meeting in college, you
get a pretty quick knowledge of like, oh, there's a
personality type here, and that personality type is looking for
a way to be empowered because it lacks any personal power.
And I think if you're ever at a point in
your life where you're just you know, it's just a cult.
It's just the same as any cult. It feeds on
a sense of rutlessness and directionlessness, and it then gives
a ridiculous pretend philosophy. The thing that made me not
a libertarian was just growing up. But the thing that
made me an anti libertarian or a post libertarian, meaning
someone who's willing to attack the essence of libertarianism as
harmful is just I went down the rabbit hole. I
read their canon, I looked at I put it this way.
I had arguments with enough libertarians who, unlike Tom Luongo,
have not read their books.
Speaker 2: Tom's.
Speaker 3: You know, the fact that Tom still is mostly a
libertarian after reading their stuff and being treated by them
the way he's been treated is just a miracle or
a testament to being you know, obstinate. But most libertarians
have not read their own supposed canon, and when you
argue with them, they're always.
Speaker 2: Like, well, you have to read this book.
Speaker 3: I'm like, do I do I really have to read
some four hundred page book? You couldn't possibly summarize what
it is you believe and put it in a fucking argument.
You can't do that. What kind of acolyte of anything
can at least argue the fucking premises. But libertarian after
libertarian is always like, well, you haven't read Rothbard. And
my answer to you is, none of you fucking people
have read Rothbard. None of you know what any of
it means, because it's all just negation. It's all like
I'm perfect. I'm in the I don't kick puppies club. Wow,
what a great club that is, you know, like, oh,
you don't kick puppies, You're such a good person. The
world is full of people who kick puppies. And then
here you are. You don't You're so cool. And that's like,
that's the level of personal fulfillment these people want. And
their intellectual weakness is the same thing, because they're always
they always they tell you, oh, well, I beat you
in the argument. I'm like, we didn't have an argument.
You don't have any premises. Oh I debated you. You
didn't debate me. You read a fucking Wikipedia article.
Speaker 2: Like it's like, do.
Speaker 3: You really think you're arguing? And and it all comes
down to the fact that they don't. They don't know
what practice is in Marxism and they don't know what
praxeology is in Austrianism. Right, They just they just they
just don't. And I'm not saying none of them do.
I'm sure the bow tie wearers in Auburn, Alabama do.
But give me a break, Like, these people are useless.
They've never accomplished anything in American politics. You know, maybe
they bought some buildings in Alabama, but whatever, congrats.
Speaker 1: Well, I think the thing that really started to turn
me off to it was, well, there's a couple of things. One,
it turns out not all of them, but a ship
ton of them are atheists who are looking to looking
for a moralistic framework.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I would agree with that.
Speaker 1: And somehow there it's private property and the non aggression
principle is their framework.
Speaker 2: Also, the.
Speaker 1: It always seems like anything that they push that they
can say, oh, look we were the first people to
champion gay marriage or legalize drug use, and it's like, okay,
how's that worked out? How what is Colorado like now?
Who wants to go to Denver? Who wants to spend
any time in Denver? Who you know, who wants to
who wants to argue that the United States has become
a really moral place and it's so much, so much
more peaceful and so much more cohesive because of gay marriage.
Because I mean basically, any anything, any win that they
want to they want to point out, is something that
you could look to and go what is that? How
does that help the populace?
Speaker 3: It's an artificial version of I mean, this is exactly
like what the left hard left has done with the
Civil Rights Act. Right, it's the creation of a fake
tyranny and saying, oh, look, we freed the people from
the tyranny, to let my people go right, and then
the next thing and the next thing. But none of
these are actually maligned groups who have suffered injustice. All
they are is more pillars of consistency and stability in society.
And this is where the Trotsky trick really is revealed,
because they're just another lane, another channel in the Marxist
destruction of the non mark West. It's not about left
versus right. It's about destroying family. It's about destroying the
concept of nation, and it's about deracinating all the members
of said nation so that they have no local connections.
Because that's when you know when some asshole moves into
your town, suddenly gets on the city commission and like
brings in developers from another state, and you're like, wait,
I've lived here with twenty five years. That's the rub Man.
That's how they're ruining this country. And the Libertarians are
just pawns in this whole shit show. And the other
thing is I think it's worth noting I don't know
how much I want to dive into it. But one
of the main things that drove me out of libertarianism
very early was when I perceived that left libertarianism and
right libertarianism we're both in this bucket together, and somehow
these morons couldn't look at each other and be like, yeah,
we're not like each other. Oh we all have the
same brand name. And I was like, what is wrong
with you? Like, I think there's probably a minority, but
a decent minority of libertarians who are not atheist, and
I don't think politics needs to have a religious underpinning,
just as an aside, but inside libertarianism the conflict between
the conclusions drawn by mostly left libertarian atheists and what
the rest of the party who you know, And there
was all this LP civil warship, which I don't care about,
but there's a very dramatic problem when a bunch of
people who are just like we're libertarians can't look at
what they're talking about and say, dude, we have an
intractable division here. This isn't a party, this isn't even
a group of people who are the same type of people,
And that to mean just more and more made me
think this is just a cult and a scam, and
it's meant to waste everybody's time because it's really there
just serving another tranch of the destroy you know, America,
destroy the West, and I just say it, destroy the
on Marxist West. Plenty of the West is on their team.
But that's the way I look at everything they do,
and that includes the absence of achievement. You know, you
can you can accomplish a lot by accomplishing nothing because
you just brought everyone who could have accomplished something else
down with you.
Speaker 1: Well, yeah, that's that's another thing that libertarianism seems to be.
It seems to be a sponge.
Speaker 2: For high IQ, for high IQ.
Speaker 1: Young men, to pull them away from anything that would
have anything to do with real politique or exactly or
you know, especially at the local level.
Speaker 3: You know.
Speaker 2: And I think that.
Speaker 1: The thing that got me out was in twenty twenty one,
probably like August or September, there was this they were
looking to pass this thing. There were companies, there are
private companies quote unquote private companies in Florida, like supermarkets
that were like, Okay, you're not gonna be able to
come in here.
Speaker 2: And shop unless you have a vaccine.
Speaker 1: Passport, and I remember DeSantis going, yeah, that's not going
to happen. You're not going to I'm going to step in.
And libertarians were defending this. They were defending like the
the corporations, the supermarkets.
Speaker 2: You know.
Speaker 1: One of the funniest things you'll see over the last few,
like over the last five years, is a lot of
libertarians have gotten away from defending corporations. I mean there
are still some I mean complete lunatic retard spurgeye autists
who want to talk about argumentation, ethics and things that
don't exist, that will still defend corporations and whatever they
want to do because it's private company, bro, and they
can do whatever they want. But I mean that was
like my final straw was I'm watching these people defend
these companies and be like, no, you can't buy food.
They're like, no, no, it's up to a company whether
whether a human being can buy food. Oh and that politician,
that politician has no should have no say in this right.
Speaker 3: And the libertarian will always tell you, well, I already
won that argument when I said nap five times. It's like, well, yeah,
but you didn't they believe that by reciting magic words
that they've won an argument, and they don't believe in
public policy. They don't believe that there's a complexity one
when you don't believe in the state a priori, and
then you believe in corporate power a priori and then
you say, oh, well, nobody can argue that the state
can control corporations from violating public policy because I said, nap,
that's not debate, that is not a syllogism, like that's
just recursion of we're right because we're right, which is
actually what's at the core of the libertarian you know ethos.
They don't you know, this is this is the problem
with this whole men act praxeology thing that they've that
I would argue that, you know, this is more right libertarianism.
They've they've brought this into their worldview where they just
don't understand that you can't base the rightness of your
worldview on the declaration that you're correct. You have to
prove it, and they just have this rigidity and you know,
I think it's important just psychologically to talk about the
spurgy autistic certain types that are drawn to this. I
think half the people who come into you know, libertarianism
do not have a personality disorder or you know, some
sort of other psychic issues. But once you get into
this group, you start deferring to people who do. And
to me, libertarianism is in many ways, you know, impossible
to describe without an analysis of personality disorders because it's
primarily male. It's there's a lot of you know, not
necessarily diagnosed aspergers, but very asp adjacent levels of rigidity
within the community who calls themselves libertarians. And this is
one of the reasons why that group of people acting
together cannot get out of their own way, because they
spend all their time just debating minutia. And don't think
that that's an impossible aggregation of individuals. To think about
bringing together for that purpose and bring as many people
towards that core as possible. That's what a good Trotskyite
designer would do. I mean, people underestimate how much deviousness
there is in this world. And it's hard enough to
debate in groups. It's hard enough to you know, mass
communication is a difficult task just because of the nature
of communication between individuals versus what it is in a crowd.
And all of these cults, you know, the Antifa, all
these things are managed. People who aren't declaring their their
management so.
Speaker 1: Well, you know, and you over a lot of the
people that I the people that I started reading after
I left libertarianism, like James Burnham, Carl Schmidt, people who
are more Oh, believe me, there is a whole group
of people who are just like that over on this side.
Speaker 2: But guess what, they.
Speaker 1: All share the same personality type as the spurgy libertarian.
They just trade and a lot of them are former libertarians.
And all they did was trade one subject to spurg
out over over another right, and you know, it's like
and then what's funny is when they get over here,
that's when you see guess what they do?
Speaker 2: They purity spiral right.
Speaker 1: And it's like, okay, well what about you know, like
real politique and you know, maybe maybe get a couple
of our friends elect did on a lower level. No, no, no,
we have to take over the national government. If we
don't take over the national government, they're just going to
wake o us. You know, you hear this. And but
the thing to come back to libertarianism is one thing
that I've noticed though, is that a lot of the
people that I'm still friends with who call themselves libertarian
libertarians over the past few years. You know, five or
six years ago, ten years ago, they may have been
talking about like the ins and outs of this and
that and every little you know, every dorky book that
Walter Block wrote or you know, Rothbard wrote and everything,
and I think a lot of them have just gotten
to the point where it's, oh, this is about private property.
And because that's where it's like, Okay, we can't deal
with the We want to leave the left libertarians behind
because they're nuts and they're the ones talking about what
we used to talk about and going crazy with it.
There's a bunch of spergs on the right libertarian side.
So we're just going to talk about private property, to
which I ask, okay, prove to me. Proved to me
private property is is the right way? Prove to me that,
like you, what is your whole basis for private property?
Where is this coming from? Is it coming from nature?
Is it coming from God? Who's who's this coming from?
Because if you're not willing to have the debate of it,
you know, if you're not willing to have like to
let metaphysics come into this and talk about Okay, you
say private property is all that matters, that if we
had private property, we'd have a more orderly world. Okay,
prove that to me, right.
Speaker 3: They've also never come up with like and I know
they've it's been addressed by the more serious one I've
I've said a lot of things about libertarianism that is
highly pejorative. I recognize that, and it's I'm not saying
I don't believe what I said, But at the same time,
I do recognized there been people who are intellectually honest
trying to solve these problems. I don't think they've been influential,
and again, nobody reads the cannon, so what does it matter.
But the real problem is, like the tragedy of the comments,
they've never really addressed it in a way that is arguable.
I've never heard a libertarian address, you know, eminent domain
with anything other than just a shit fit. I don't
like eminent domain. But at the same time, I recognize
that railroads work better when straight, and so do roads,
and so does water piping, and so do a lot
of things. Where the idea that one day everyone will
just negotiate that because it's the best idea, It's like, no,
you're always going to have one asshole who's trying to
like extract a confiscatory amount of value because he owns
the piece in the middle and just being able to
give him market rate before he started changing his price. No, No,
these lots are worth three hundred thousand. You have two
of them. You get six hundred grand from the government,
and we're taking it and we're putting transmission lines over
so everyone can have electricity. Sorry. You know, libertarians will
let just kid hop and come up to the violence
the ap and I'm like, okay, and yet walk outside
your fucking house, dude, tell me about you on that
ten feet in the back where the where the power
poles are. Oh you don't interesting. That's how good your
arguments are. No one cares.
Speaker 1: Well, what they're going to do is they're going to
write a book about how you can Well, if somebody
doesn't want the road on their property, they'll build a
tunnel under their property. Yeah, instead of just instead of
just going hey, buddy, fuck you, we're gonna take it
from you because you're a dick, right right, And I'm sorry,
there are.
Speaker 2: People in this Yeah.
Speaker 1: I asked about private property earlier. I like private property.
It lets me know and my neighbor know what we
you know, what we need to take care of and
what you know. I believe it bring some sense of order,
but it doesn't always.
Speaker 3: They don't own the concept of private property. This is
the key thing is like libertarians will take something that
people agree with or even partially, like some people have
thought about Kenesianism and said, oh, I don't like the
implications of this money printing. It bothers me, and then
libertarians will be like, say, you're a libertarian, and you're like,
but there's other people who don't like it, who weirdly
aren't libertarian. So it's almost like anyone can dislike a
thing for their own reasons and they don't have to
join your club, and they get very weird when you
point this out to them. So it's you know, this
is the problem with people who are the rigidity is
a real issue. You know, they have a hard time
with plurality and a hard time with multiple you know,
explanations for a phenomenon, and they're very single single cause thinkers.
Speaker 1: You know, yeah, or god forbid, one of years crosses
over with theirs.
Speaker 2: You know.
Speaker 1: I'm very into local politics and I'm very into you
know that people who people who know each other and
are neighbors would be better to you know, form some
sort of local government over each other and exclude other
people from serving or whatever you can.
Speaker 3: You can share tools without being a Marxist. I can
lend my neighbor my rake without like singing the internationale.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 1: But yeah, as soon as you say that, it's like, oh,
well no, that's just libertarian. It's like libertarians didn't invent
the concept of localism. Use dirty scumbag. Yeah, it's like,
that is how this that that is how monocultures naturally
occur naturally. I mean if you look at like the
founding of this well, not even the founding, I'm talking
about one hundred years before this country, before a government
was a national government was instituted, or there was a constitution,
our declaration of independence. You didn't even need local police
because if a horse went missing, you're going to put
together a posse of people to find out who stole
the horse, because then your horse could be going missing next. Yeah,
that's what we're talking about here. Libertarians didn't create that.
Get over your fucking selves.
Speaker 3: Have you ever been to Spain?
Speaker 1: No, And I'm fucking going. Man, there's like someone who
talks about the Spanish Civil War as much.
Speaker 3: As No, I'm not even I'm going to totally different,
different tech. So the Sagata Familia is a church in
Barcelona by designed by Gaudi, and it is if no
structure on earth is a better reputation of libertarianism, I
don't know what it is, maybe the Pyramids, but when
you look at this thing, which is still not complete, right,
they've been working on this for one hundred years now.
Cathedrals always took hundreds of years, by the way, you
know another thing the West has forgotten. But you know,
described to me how something like the Cigaretta Familia would
exist in a world run by libertarians. It literally never would,
it's and yet here it is. And I say that
because so much of what's missing from libertarianism is an
honest to god aspirational future. I think, yes, they take
possession of a lot of critiques of things that are bad,
like you just pointed out, but they never really paint
anything but a future where you know, they have all
the bullets, and then society collapses and then you have
to go beg them for something like That's the libertarian
view of paradise also known as the apocalypse to everyone else.
Right libertarians always have a fantasy about being the like
apex prepper. That's their view of the future, that's their
aspirational future. It's not you know, it's not anything else.
It's not like, Oh, we're going to build this great
society that in No, no, because they can't do that.
They never can.
Speaker 1: Well, it's not profitable. It won't be profitable too, you know.
It's like, who's going to build when your whole I've
had people say all we need to do is fix
the whole dollar system. If we didn't have fractional reserve banking,
there wouldn't be as much degeneracy in the world, there
wouldn't be as much brutalism in the world. I'm like, yeah,
because like the richest people on the planet, they have
no problems with degeneracy.
Speaker 2: Yeah, what the fuck are you talking about?
Speaker 3: So I have a question are we all off base on?
So when I criticize purity spiraling, I do it a lot.
I have a whole habit of doing it. I hear
you criticizing it. I know lots of people criticize it,
But are we missing a major thing to explore, and
that the nature of purity spiraling itself is in many
ways anti aspirational, meaning it's just policing. It's it's like
a very like like shitty kindergarten teacher way of thinking,
like a fit in your chair or maybe second grade teacher.
More to the point, I always talk about purity spiraling
and I'm just kind of criticizing myself and I'm literally
curious what you think about this. I always kind of
use it as a way to just say, oh, well,
these people aren't you know, they just haven't thought this
through and they're they're they're they're just willing to It's
a perfect be the enemy of the good kind of thing.
Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good,
like get something done for God's sake. And purity spiraling
is a way that, you know, people who are just
too fussy, possibly too spurgy, but also possibly malign actors
mind you all possible that these can all be true
together versus you know, we don't talk about it enough
for what it is, which is the absence of anything
that we honestly want to work towards, like purity spiraling
more than anything else. It's it is in no way
a criticism reserved for libertarians. It is probably the most
whatever that act is. And I'm saying kind of like
the phrase views might be too reductionists, but that act
is our media. That act is are two political parties.
For God's sakes, they're just paying reference, you know, paying
lip service rather to you know, some so called principle
that's not deeply held, and like, have we missed something here,
like just by calling it that, because I feel like
it really is the core of this problem.
Speaker 1: Well, I guess from my experience and only in my experience,
the purity spiraling that that I've seen and experienced is
by people who have not achieved or have not even
set out a path or have any power whatsoever. And
basically what purity is spiraling I think allows you to
do is it allows you to feel like you're having
some kind of wins, like you're like you're accomplishing something,
when you really haven't accomplished anything. You know, purity purity
spiraling is basically what you're looking to do, is you're
looking to get say you're looking to get rid of
bad actors, or you're trying to hone something. Well, you
can end up doing that for the rest of your
life instead of just achieving what you need to achieve
and then looking around and saying, Okay, we need to
get we need to get rid of this.
Speaker 2: You need to get rid of.
Speaker 3: That, including the sloppy middle state of like the thing
that is an ideal that is necessary to build the
next not ideal thing that moves the whole, you know,
enterprise forward. And that's the thing is if you never start,
you never start. But to me, like the purity spiraling thing,
it goes back to the puppy kicking, Like I feel
like it's just like pointing to the T shirt, like
I'm in the I Don't Kick Puppies club.
Speaker 1: It's like, great, you well, it's well, it's it's and
I think you said it and you may not have
realized you were saying it. But it's also the assumption
that you're ever going to get anything one hundred percent pure.
Nothing's ever going to be perfect. You're going to be
dealing with you know, politics is I forget who said
that politics is perpetual. You are always playing politics. There
is never going to You're never going to get to
a point where you're not going to have to police.
You're not going to have to you know, govern in
some way.
Speaker 3: Because process not a project.
Speaker 1: Yeah yeah, And the only thing you can hope for
is that you can hope. You can hope that you're
doing it within a system where what you're doing is
you're policing instead of trying to build. That's what the
progressives do. That's what liberalism is. Liberalism is building is
selling and build bilding, selling a vision and building towards
a vision that can never be achieved. So you're constantly
having to you know, well, I just we got to
kill the coull ox because we're not going to get
you know, we got to get rid of instead of
being like, well maybe we're not. Maybe what we're trying
to do can't scale. Maybe a government, maybe governing three
hundred and fifty million people is beyond scale. And it's
a lot easier if you have ten thousand, or you
have twenty thousand, or even one hundred thousand. You know,
maybe there can be a confederation of hundred of states
of one hundred thousand people that can come together. And
you know, oh, you mean like we tried and they
gave up on very quickly. You know, in the founding
of this country. And I don't know if you want
to argue over that, but the.
Speaker 3: Base there wouldn't be I wouldn't argue there. There's no argument.
The only defect I see in the original uh you
know US Constitution, not the articles. But and it was
not foreseen because it wasn't foreseen. But like I think, California,
you know, even Florida, like these states are too big,
and after we screwed up the whole role of the Senate,
not just by electing them. You don't have to ruin
the role of the Senate by popular election, but it
comes a long way. Ideally that the senators would know
and the US Senate would know that they represent the
interests of the state they come from. And I think
states should be approximately, you know, give or take, geographically
reasonably the same size and population wise reasonably the same size,
because that would preserve a very mechanical kind of senator
count that was tied to land, which was tied to
people who you know, it's much more of that Yeoman
farmer kind of origin story that America really has. But
when you have a state like California who has an
excessive amount of representatives no. Granted, thankfully they only have
two senators, but it screws the system up even more.
We screwed it up obviously by allowing senators to be elected,
and we created this distortion and like, oh, it's just
some more people that represent me. That's not what senators
are supposed to do. And we don't even write laws.
And you know, you look at what's happening with the
big beautiful bill bullshit. You know, they're not sitting there
trying to rectify state's interests with the interests of the
people's House. That's not what they do. They just do. Oh,
we have a different set of you know, we have
a different electoral count here, so we're going to pull
our bullshit in all same bullshit, just different ways. The
whole process is just corrupted. Now. My solution for that is,
why don't we just go back to the way it was,
or you know, reinstitute. And I am not claiming I
have a way of doing this, because obviously, if you
if you cut California, New York, Florida, and Texas into
smaller pieces, we just get some gerrymandering fight where the
left will steal it all and then we're going to
be living in a country with no rights. I get that,
but speaking idealistically, I think the greatest system is the
one we have. Honestly, We've the world's tried a lot
of other things, and I think we need to kind
of balance some states rights back into the whole system
and maybe make the states more similarly sized. That would
be a big solution to me. But it's a better
solution than revolution. It's a better solution than learning California
withdraw and take the land and give it to China.
If California wants to secede, I say, okay, great, well,
just you know you can. You can leave, but the
land still ours. So you always want to flood Canada.
That's fine, fine with me, but you're not taking the
land with you.
Speaker 1: So no, yeah, I've I used to be one of
those people when I was a libertarian.
Speaker 2: Oh, like California seceede.
Speaker 1: It's like, no, no, you're not, you're not doing that.
Speaker 2: We're we'll let you go, We'll let the people go.
Speaker 3: Well, it's one of these things that sounds like a
principled statement, but it's in concert with foreign malign actors. Right,
So if you haven't noticed this pattern yet, like Okay,
but that's reality. That's the reality of the Democratic Party
being highly corrupted by Chinese communist influence. The Republican Party
is highly corrupted by global corporatist influence, which includes parts
of China that are probably not in great communion with
Beijing in CCP terms, but they're not the enemies of
Beijing either, So you know, we get a lot of
crossover in what the corruption ultimately means. But both parties
are certainly not serving the interests of the people. I
do distrust the Democrats more, but that could just be
a bias, or that could just be the reality is
that it's more dangerous when a party is corrupted in
a unitary fashion to a single foreign malign actor, because
that they can then coordinate for real damage, whereas if
the Republicans are just taking envelopes from everybody, then it's
less risky. Doesn't make it less.
Speaker 2: Correct, Yeah, yeah, I've said that.
Speaker 1: The really the only good thing about this this administration
is the fact that there are different elite factions vying
for power, right, so at least you at least there's
a chance that a you know, the non a.
Speaker 2: Pack wing will will win one.
Speaker 1: I don't know if I've seen that yet. But the
you know, I don't know how much crossover there is
with these with these factions. I mean, I'm pretty much
at the point now where it's like I state level
politics and local politics have to basically have to make
a comeback. And that's really the only the only way
you're going to deal with this trying to change the machine,
the managerial system that Washington, d C.
Speaker 2: Has become.
Speaker 1: You know, people talk about the oh, this strong centralized government.
I'm like kind of, but also it's like, what's the
head of the snake?
Speaker 2: Yeah? Like who?
Speaker 1: Like, like if you if you wanted to destroy DC,
what head of the stink do you do you chop off?
And you know, and some of the people who listen
to this will be like, well you just you you.
Speaker 2: Get rid of all ISRAELI.
Speaker 1: Well, no, we're still under the system. The system still
runs the same way. Now you're just going to have
another interest group that's going to that's going to be
able to run the manager run those managerial levers.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 3: So I'm looking at your background. I'm a fan of
certain exilology. Is that flag something is that the I
don't think you're a Neo Byzantine in the your choice
of yellow and red. But is that sort of like
are you are you kind of at this and cap
meets the state moment like what is uh, what's your
background image? What's the takeaway from that?
Speaker 1: All right, that's the Alabama flag with the Spanish colors.
Speaker 3: Interesting.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I just.
Speaker 1: Basically came to the conclusion a couple of years ago
that there there is really the only flag that possibly
represents me in this country is a flag you're not
allowed to fly anymore.
Speaker 2: So I decided to make my own, got it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and it does kind of it does resemble the
that flag you're not allowed to fly anymore.
Speaker 3: Yeah, but yeah, I don't know. You should get out more.
I mean, you live in Alabama, then you should certainly
see that flag on a regular basis.
Speaker 2: Oh.
Speaker 1: Actually, you will see that flag more in Oregon then
you will see it in Alabama because and because so
many people down here have bought into the whole. Yeah,
we don't want to offend people. Wow, even though I
live in the middle I mean I live in the
middle of nowhere. I can see one drive you know,
I've seen maybe one or two in my town.
Speaker 2: Possibly.
Speaker 3: What about the high concept stars and bars flyers as
opposed to the battle flag flyers.
Speaker 1: The high people who people.
Speaker 3: Some people fly the stars and bars, which is the
state flag of the Confederacy, which is not the cross.
Speaker 2: I never I never see that one.
Speaker 3: I eat the old Georgia flag that was the whole thing.
Is the Georgia flag they or excuse me, the replace.
So the Georgia flag used to have the battle flag
in it, which pissed everybody off, just like the Mississippi flag.
But then Georgia's flag that they fly now is essentially
really similar, even more similar to the stars and bars,
which was the official state flag of the Confederacy then
the previous one was, and that's the one everyone picked
in their fits of uneducated moral preening.
Speaker 1: So oh, I never really even never even thought about that.
And I lived I lived in Georgia forever.
Speaker 3: The interplay, I think, of all these things, it's it's,
you know, there comes a point where it really is
about individuals versus the state, and I think, you know,
we could do a whole nother podcast on the implications
of atheism versus faith in that fight. There's people who
will not submit to any authority and I think that's
a type of individualism that doesn't appeal to me. But
there's also states that won't submit to any authority people
be either below or above. That doesn't appeal to me either.
And you know, I think this moment of where we
are in the I'd say since twenty you know, twenty twelve,
twenty thirteen, at some point, like as blogs yielded to
podcasts yielded to whatever, like, we have a very strong
amount of some other form of media. Like we're at
this transition point between the old mass communication era era
like like and I mean Gerbels, burnets, soap operas, like
whatever you want to call it. And there's all different
ways we could parse it. But the top down propaganda
era has yielded, unfortunately to the multipolar propaganda mixed with
good content era. And there's right now, literally after this
bombing of Fordo, I'm watching the decompensation of all these
little fiefdoms of you know, Tucker, Candace, blah, blah blah.
I really think we're at a weird moment right now.
It could be one of the biggest, most important moments
in independent media history, is that this could where it
all it feels like an event horizon has been crossed
where all these little and it may again come back
to purity spiraling, like each one of these little zones
where you can't you think you're a rebel, but you
can't say X, you can't say why. I feel like
the whole thing is just it's too brittle. And Trump
taking the action he took. You know, we don't know why,
but we know that. I will tell you. I do
not predict that that Maga as a movement just broke.
I think a lot of og maga Twitter, a lot
of it was bots man like a lot of these
people think they're more important than they are. And I
think Trump has a real connection with a lot of users.
And I think something's about to happen in the media space.
You know, AI is a major unknown in all this,
right like, because there's there's things AI can especially at
moments if we cross some sort of event horizon, it's
AI presents huge danger to all of us. But I
feel like something, something just happened, and I don't know
that we can talk about it today, but in a
couple of months, I think we're going to look back.
You know, it's going to be interesting to see how
you know, Dave Smith or Tucker or some of these
people who have laid out these incredible anti Trump positions.
We'll see how that has, how that ages, because I
think some of it's gonna you know, like you said before,
there's another alternative than this turning into World War three
and people pounding you know, their apple box about it
being world War three and there being no other possibility.
The sort of reduction is thinking. I mean, we all
hope they're wrong, because no one wants world War three, right,
you know. I hope that's true. But I think a
lot of a lot of this apoplexy, you know, is
going to have a cost to a lot of people.
And I'm it's really interested to see what happens. I
don't I'm not making a particular prediction. I'm just saying
that we just passed through something, and I'm not I'm
not expecting us to look back and not remember it. Well.
Speaker 1: I don't know, people have, people do have really good memories.
Because obviously, because I said Trump was preferable to Kamala,
that means that I endorse everything that's happening now. I
don't know that he ever took money from Mariam Adelson. Yeah,
I mean obviously, you know, I don't. According to some people,
I was just being I was being duped, and anyone
I told to that Trump was preferable to Kamala, I
was duping them, and I'm I'm the enemy. Yeah, I've
heard this from the spurgy scumbags.
Speaker 3: You don't have to listen to those people because those
people believe in a world of single causes, like they're
just solving a level on their video game, Like there's
only one demon. You saw, you stab them in the
left side, you move on to the next level. It's
just not a good metaphor for life, work or understanding
the world that you live in. But they talk a lot,
you know, like come to our come to our slack server.
I can introduce you a few just like that.
Speaker 1: Well, I'll put it this way. I'm not a My
personality is not conducive to one hundred thousand downloads an episode.
Speaker 2: I'm okay with that.
Speaker 1: If I put it this way, with a lot of
the stuff I talk about, if I was at one
hundred thousand downloads an episode, the world would probably be
looking very different right now. But I understand that I'm
I just don't see. The thing is is that I
think that a lot of these people who have these big,
gigantic audiences are not going to suffer at all because
it's a cult of personality. People like them, people like
you know, people like Tucker, people like Dave Smith, people
like Candice Owens, and whatever mistakes they're making now with
whatever hyperbole they're unleashing now, even if it turns out
to be, even if it turns out that you know,
they're completely wrong and you know this, hey, this just
was you know, like the bombing, like the bombing of
the uh the air the air base in Iraq after
the Solemany when it when it ran bombed, and basically
Trump said, I knew it was going to happen. It
was them saving face. It's fine. If that's what this was,
then they'll just be like, well, you know, they'll find
something else that their audience that is expecting everything to
go wrong, that is just waiting for is buying the
message that nothing can go right. And I don't know
that Tucker sells that message as much, but you know,
he definitely had has been lately. I don't I think
that people just keep still, We'll keep listening to them
because that's the message that they want to hear. I've
noticed that, I've noticed that on all sides of the
political spectrum is people latch onto somebody because the message
is something, the message that's coming out. Even if it
turns out that it was crying wolf, well, that's perfectly
fine because I like this person.
Speaker 3: Well the most. I think the most recurrent problem that
Tom and I have had in sort of the evolution
of gold Goats and Guns has been, you know, we've
stuck to a very simple framework, which is, you know,
we examine things over and over again, and we examine
our premises, and there's always these kind of periodic shakeouts
of people. They think it's about, frankly, about some current
event and our perspective on that current event. But I
notice over and over that it's the same personality types
to get shook out. And we have a very strong
community because the people who remain are actually interested in analysis,
not conclusions. Because you live in a world where if
you want the same analysis from two different spigots, you
can get all you need and you still don't feel informed.
So really having sort of an exegetical analytical approach to
each one of these things. It guarantees you'll piss people
off repeatedly, and you know, like currently Tom is down
a rabbit hole on whether or Iron is working with
Davos that I think a lot of people think, you know,
he's nuts. I don't even know how far down the
development cycle I am to even comment on it, because
I don't see it that way either. But people understand
that what Tom does over and over is is, you know,
dismiss the guardrails of premises you can't undo and just
and not. It's not you know, sometimes it's it's schizo posting, right,
which is kind of the opposite of purity spiraling in
a weird way. But it's repeatedly doing that and iterating
on that to the point where we also criticize the
dumb conclusions we make. And what's left is something people
want to, you know, at least witness. And I take
as much pride in people telling us, you know, dude,
I literally do the opposite of what you say, but
you're so different that you're the reason I trade the
way I trade because I don't follow your advice, and
not that we get financial advice. But you know, a
lot of people understand that we're just honestly analyzing what
we analyze and that that product is consistent, you know,
and sometimes we deliver tomorrow zeitgeist today when we hit
it out of the park, and it's those moments which
are the reason we do it, and sometimes we get
shit wrong, you know. Fine, But the world where everybody
is in a personality cult, where that in that relationship
is a much different type of relationship. You I think
anyone who has hitched their ride to Trump and then
who reverses on Trump is going to lose most of
their audience. But I think you're right that like Tucker,
certainly Dave Smith's audience, you know, isn't there because Dave
was recently nice about Trump in the last three months.
So I think he's probably pretty safe there. And I'm
not sure I can make a generalization about Candice Owen's
audience that at all. It's like, I'm not sure who
her audience is. But I think what Tucker is probably
in the most is on the most risky ground for
what I've mentioned before.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think the mistake that I made is and
I know that like Tom has people in the background
who tell him stuff, you know, like like insiders. And
I was gotten to the point where I have insiders
who feed me in from all the time too. But
I've gotten to the point now where I wait for
like two or three people to tell me something so
that if I repeat it and say, well, this might
be in play. This might be in play, this might
be in play.
Speaker 2: They are competing things, you know.
Speaker 1: I think where I've gotten in trouble in the past
is one person will tell me something and I'll be like, well,
this could be in play, and when I say could,
no one hears could, right, They hear this is in play,
and this is what's going to happen. And this is
where you need to bet all.
Speaker 3: You know.
Speaker 1: This is where And it's not like I'm telling people
to invest money people. People have this idea and I've
experienced this over the past couple of days that if
they are following somebody who's made predictions that are right on,
like Iran's going to be bombed, Trump's gonna Trump's not
going to be the peace president, he will do some bombing,
or Trump's gonna do this, Trump's gonna do that. If
they follow somebody who's right about that, somehow that's enriching
to them like they know something because they listen to
this person who basically says, you know, they'll listen to
people who will just say nothing is ever going to change.
Everything's just gonna get worse and worse. And that's a
great bet, Yeah, because eighty percent of the time you're
going to be right, and the other twenty percent you
could just you can deflect and you can make it
mean something else. Well, you know, this is actually what's happening,
and you know this can't be proven, but this can
definitely be proven.
Speaker 2: So it's just.
Speaker 1: Basically people are people want like it is. It's why
conspiracy theories are so popular. People want to feel like
they know what's going to happen or what's happening because
it makes them feel special because other people don't.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean, I think that's the settled audience that around.
You know, Like what you're describing is somebody's gotten some
stuff right, and these people, by vicarious you know, participation,
feel that it makes them, you know, be part of
the right team. I think though, as you grow, you
get this opposite weird effect, which is and I think
you mentioned that this has happened to you a lot
in the last. You know, let's say week when you
predict something and it comes true and it's not necessarily
a positive event, there's a whole weird type of listener
follower who then blames you for endorsing the course of
action which you merely predicted. And it's like, dude, I
didn't I don't think this is good. I think this
is bad. But I looked at the fucking game board
and I told you this was going to happen. And
then I have to get flak about you telling me, oh,
I can't believe you wanted this. It's like I didn't
want this. I just told you was coming, you fucking moron.
Speaker 1: It's well, I'm actually in the opposite direction because I'm
more apt to say I don't think this is going
to happen.
Speaker 2: No, no, I'm not speaking generally. Yeah yeah, okay, yeah.
Speaker 1: But then when it does happen, well, then I I
was leading people astray, you know.
Speaker 2: And it's like they're.
Speaker 3: Both describing like participatory conspiracy, right, like you were running
in that sense you're running malops and and like like
I'm running disinfo. You know. It's like, okay, But the
point is is there's a type of person who can't
distinguish between a prediction and an endorsement. And those are
some of the Some of them are very intelligent on
one vector, but they're very hard to deal with on others.
And I think that, you know, what you're saying about
audiences too, is like as you're growing that other version
where people are sort of vicariously, you know, living out
their their worldview through you, that that's like, that's always on.
You know, you get more and more of those people
as you go, and that's honestly, you know, until it
feeds your ego to the point where you collapse. That
that's you know, kind of the point, right, Like you
want people to at least agree with you most of
the time, but the danger comes where they don't disagree
with you ever. Thankfully I'm not there yet. You got
plenty of disagreement, so.
Speaker 1: Yeah, oh no, And I get disagreement too, and that's fine.
I have people tell me all the time. I listen
to you because I think you're honest, but you're you know,
sometimes you're just honestly wrong.
Speaker 2: Well, yeah, I mean that's what's going to happen.
Speaker 3: The other thing is when you get big enough, there
are people trying to lie to you because they think
you might not catch it and you'll magnify the point
of view, Like there came a point where I don't know,
like Tom and I've done this for a while, and
he went down some rabbit hole with like italy and
blah blah blah, and I was like, where are you
getting this information? You know? And I kind of like
I need you to get this from more than one person,
because there comes a point when something's obtuse to your
personal lived experience. You get down to like what they
call like, you know, the imprinting factor. It's like, you know,
the baby giraffe who thought that Jeep was her mother.
The first thing you here has excess validity, right, it's
a there's a there's a there's a word in psychology
for this anchoring bias. And so when people when you're
when you're popular to a certain level and then someone's like, hey,
have you heard about what's happening in Bhutan? And you're like,
I don't know anything about Bhutan, and they're like, let
me tell you now, all of a sudden, you have
a big risk of being just played by one very
small faction in Bhutan to like, you know, take a
side in something you have no fucking idea about, and
so you know, that's a whole other risk factor is
as you grow, you have to just keep applying the
same heuristics to like bullshit or not, you know, because
there's someone out there who's like, oh, this guy might
doesn't know shit about this, and maybe I can sleep
sneak this in.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Well, I mean that's one of the reasons why I
don't like to I try not to talk about I think,
like I know, Tom likes to talk about London likes
to talk about Davos likes to talk about It's like,
I mean, I know about those things. But really, honestly,
I look at the United States and I see enough. Yeah,
the founders talked about the enemy foreign and domestic. I'm
a little more concerned about the enemy domestic. Who I mean,
whoever may be pulling their strings. Okay, that's fine, but
if I you know, if you can point out that
their strings are being pulled, you know, I mean Ted
Cruz last week probably. I mean, I know a lot
of people who would have been Ted Cruz forever who
have contacted me and said, oh, yeah, it's des Droid.
Speaker 3: In my eyes because of the Tucker interview.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean he basically said, I really just don't Yeah,
I went into the Senate for one reason, and it
wasn't to protect American interests, right, And then he went
and then he weird is kept going.
Speaker 3: He probably what's what The thing that makes it even
worse is he probably said that on the fly, Like
he's such an oily lizard that like he probably made
that up on the fly because he's just that, like
those are his political instincts. He's so bad at certain things.
And I like, I'm not sure I believe that he
entered politics to serve Israel's interests, but I know that
he didn't enter them to serve Americas and that's all
that really matters.
Speaker 1: So yeah, yeah, I mean, you get caught. People can
get caught out there and they're like, oh, I feel
like this group that gives me millions of dollars is
being attacked. I need to defend them, and I'm going
to go over the top and defending them. And then
he just went full he went full Mediterranean and you know,
high time preference, and just started losing his mind.
Speaker 2: That's just the way it looked. Hey, what are you
talking about? Hey?
Speaker 1: What Hey, I don't what I'm talking about here exactly,
but all right anyway, yeah, yeah, let's uh, let's let's
get out of here, promote gold Goats and Guns and
we'll lend this.
Speaker 3: Yeah yeah, no, thanks for having me on. I I
really appreciate it's fun. It's fun having chats about stuff
like this, and like I said, well we'll revisit some
of these assumptions. If you want to find my work,
my name is Dexter writer right for gold Goats and Guns.
We have a monthly newsletter me and Tom Wongo. You
can go to Goldgoatsanguns dot com. But chances are you're
just going to go to Tom Wogo dot e because
it's easier to spell, and one just forwards to the other. Anyway,
So if you're interested, podcasts, newsletter, et cetera is all
available there. And again, Pete, thanks for having me on.
I really appreciate it.
Speaker 2: Appreciate it exor thank you. Sure