Speaker 1: Good morning. I've come to some realizations lately, a lot
Speaker 1: having to do with watching everything that's happening, and especially
Speaker 1: watching these What we said from the beginning was that
Speaker 1: there are going to be elite factions that are going
Speaker 1: to be fighting for control of the Trump presidency. Anytime
Speaker 1: you have something that appears to be revolutionary, you're going
Speaker 1: to If that revolutionary spirit doesn't have a specific idea
Speaker 1: behind it, then there's going to be competing factions. And
Speaker 1: the competing factions I think I identified as the tech elites,
Speaker 1: the you know, civic nationalists kind of, and then of
Speaker 1: course the neocons, the israel firsts, the Jews, and if
Speaker 1: you look at what's been happening recently, you have to
Speaker 1: agree that the Jews and the Zionists, whatever you want
Speaker 1: to call them, both of those work and are accurate
Speaker 1: that they're winning. No Epstein list, which I don't I
Speaker 1: do care about. You know, the children that were hurt,
Speaker 1: but I want to know what was how they were
Speaker 1: being used, how who committed treason? You know, who needs
Speaker 1: to be get the Rosenberg treatment, JFK files. And then
Speaker 1: now this with the who thy's and the Gaza being rebombed,
Speaker 1: they're winning, and there was always that chance. And I
Speaker 1: can sit here in Mayakulpa all day and I do
Speaker 1: because there were some things that I thought were going
Speaker 1: to happen that aren't happening. I don't know that they're
Speaker 1: going to happen. It probably won't. I mean, no one
Speaker 1: is talking about the Department of Education. Everyone's concentrating on
Speaker 1: the deportations to El Salvador to the prison there, which
Speaker 1: I agree with one hundred percent. But then there's some
Speaker 1: guy who's here on a green card, and no matter
Speaker 1: what you think about that, the legality of the system
Speaker 1: is is that he's here, he's married to an American citizen,
Speaker 1: and they're going after him solely because he's against the
Speaker 1: Zionist agenda. So the question needs to be asked if
Speaker 1: they're going to go after him and he is legally here.
Speaker 1: And people on our side love to use the slippery
Speaker 1: slope argument, which we say is undefeated. When does that
Speaker 1: start getting applied to American citizens? If the slippery slope
Speaker 1: is undefeated, This isn't a bad question. I'm not asking
Speaker 1: a question that's out of line. So the Zionists and
Speaker 1: the Jews are winning, and going back to something that
Speaker 1: we talked about in the last Inquisition episode. I have
Speaker 1: to admit that we're still at the philosophy stage. Our
Speaker 1: people still don't know what we are and what we're
Speaker 1: supposed to be. This was never about Trump. It was
Speaker 1: about what Trump represented. But what he represents is not
Speaker 1: what we want. What I've come to believe is that
Speaker 1: one man cannot fix a multi racial, multi cultural society.
Speaker 1: That's an impossibility. When you go back in history and
Speaker 1: you look at the great men, are they what are
Speaker 1: the changes they are making? What is the revolution the
Speaker 1: revolutionary idea that they're addressing. They're addressing it for one people,
Speaker 1: not a hodgepodge or an amalgamation or a soup, or
Speaker 1: not even a soup, because a salad there's no integration.
Speaker 1: So what you have is you have several different special
Speaker 1: interest groups vying for power, vying for the attention of power,
Speaker 1: vying for all of the influence of power to back them,
Speaker 1: and that can't One man can't fix that. One man
Speaker 1: cannot fix what we have. And this is true on
Speaker 1: a metaphysical level. If you believe the great men of
Speaker 1: the past represented their people the spirit of their people,
Speaker 1: that would mean that their people had to have a
Speaker 1: coherent message. We're Frenchmen, We're Englishmen, Germans, we're Americans. Okay,
Speaker 1: but what does that even mean anymore? It meant something
Speaker 1: specific at one time, but it doesn't mean anything anymore
Speaker 1: because we were infiltrated. We're occupied, and once you understand
Speaker 1: that you're occupied, you understand that there's only a couple
Speaker 1: ways to deal with that. You either have to end
Speaker 1: the occupation and remove the occupiers, or you have to
Speaker 1: figure something else out. And I think at this point
Speaker 1: the only answer is is if you believe in the
Speaker 1: spiritual is you have to find your own people and
Speaker 1: you have to organize that way. And I think that's
Speaker 1: the only way the spirit of God can work through you,
Speaker 1: the spirit of the that you can fight the spirit
Speaker 1: of this age and create a new one for yourselves.
Speaker 1: Only through that spirit can you reverse the tower of Babbeyl.
Speaker 1: And the only way that you reverse the tower of
Speaker 1: Babbel is to be a part of an ethnosis and
Speaker 1: be a part of a high culture. Everything else will fail,
Speaker 1: has failed and is failing. That's all and is or
Speaker 1: it's all failed. And the reason it's failed is because
Speaker 1: we've been forced to embrace multiculturalism and multi ethnic, multi racialism.
Speaker 1: It just doesn't work. It may work in a small
Speaker 1: it may work in a small country like a Singapore,
Speaker 1: but what do they do there They basically if you
Speaker 1: step out of line a little bit, you get caned
Speaker 1: in public. We don't have that here. We don't have
Speaker 1: a leader who we don't have a leader who's going
Speaker 1: to look at the founding stock of this country and
Speaker 1: those people who you'll, like myself, who want the founding
Speaker 1: stock of this country, that the continuation of that stock
Speaker 1: to control this country and to dictate where it goes
Speaker 1: and pander to them and say, yes, this is these
Speaker 1: are my people. That's not going to happen. It's just
Speaker 1: not So what do you do. I mean, anyone who
Speaker 1: anyone who's like promoting that, oh we're just you know,
Speaker 1: we're going to kick you, the best of them will
Speaker 1: be on the last train out of here. They're selling
Speaker 1: you something. It's just it's not going to happen. It's
Speaker 1: too far gone. So the only answer is to find
Speaker 1: your own people and to organize. And if you do that,
Speaker 1: then that spirit, that spirit that has in the past
Speaker 1: caused men to come together and do great things and forge. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean what is the next great frontier? You know,
Speaker 1: you people think about the you know, the American West
Speaker 1: and pushing west and that spirit, the spirit that possessed
Speaker 1: men to do that. I mean, well where else? What
Speaker 1: is that now? I mean, the space is really the
Speaker 1: only possible thing anyone could think of if they're being realistic, Well,
Speaker 1: how do you do that? This is why I think
Speaker 1: we're still at the philosophy stage because we don't know
Speaker 1: who we We still don't know how this works, how
Speaker 1: great societies of the past have worked, and how they failed.
Speaker 1: You don't do this by making more laws. You don't
Speaker 1: do this by I don't know. It's probably going to
Speaker 1: be some thing a lot simpler than the high IQ
Speaker 1: people on our side think it is. Because people with
Speaker 1: high IQs and people who are intelligent, they want all
Speaker 1: of their answers to reflect that. They want you to
Speaker 1: know that the answer that they came up with was
Speaker 1: because they're so brilliant. Sometimes the answer is really simple.
Speaker 1: Find your own people, organize and let the spirit take
Speaker 1: Let that spirit take over, because every great civilization has
Speaker 1: had a spirit about it. That spirit's gone here, it's gone.
Speaker 1: And when people and the people right now who are going, no,
Speaker 1: it's not. What they will point to is a smaller group.
Speaker 1: They will say, oh, no, it lives here, and it
Speaker 1: lives here. Well, you're just making my point. For me.
Speaker 1: It's in a smaller group, separate from the bigger group,
Speaker 1: which means that national politics is the best you can
Speaker 1: hope for is for them to just leave you alone.
Speaker 1: The best you can hope for is people who are
Speaker 1: in there that are indifferent to you. Because what you're
Speaker 1: seeing right now, to go back to the beginning, is
Speaker 1: you're seeing different groups vying for power, and the people
Speaker 1: who for the last eighty years have had all the
Speaker 1: power and gathered all the wealth to themselves because they've
Speaker 1: controlled banking even in Europe for the last three hundred years.
Speaker 1: They're winning, but they're also losing. I fully, I fully
Speaker 1: believe that you can just see it by the way
Speaker 1: they're acting. But in the meantime, just sitting around and
Speaker 1: waiting and not building what comes next, that's just laziness.
Speaker 1: That's just waiting for someone else to do something for you.
Speaker 1: And maybe you're not the kind of person who can build,
Speaker 1: but you can align yourself with people who do, and
Speaker 1: you can help them in any way you can. I
Speaker 1: think people, including myself, have allowed ourselves to miss the
Speaker 1: big picture because we see that there is a shift
Speaker 1: that's happening, and the Trump election in twenty twenty four
Speaker 1: did signify a shift, but it's not giving us answers.
Speaker 1: It's causing more questions to be asked. And by answering
Speaker 1: those questions properly, then we can go into the future
Speaker 1: and then we know. Then, when you know that, you
Speaker 1: know what needs to be done. And the answer isn't
Speaker 1: national politics get your guy elected this and that is
Speaker 1: to create your own collective with a high culture and
Speaker 1: a spirit that will take you forward and will be indivisible,
Speaker 1: and then you keep the shit out of it. All right,
Speaker 1: take care and talk to you guys in a few days.
Speaker 1: Good morning everyone. Really, I hadn't planned on recording today,
Speaker 1: and I'm sorry. I haven't really been doing any substack
Speaker 1: drops lately, just been really busy with the podcast and
Speaker 1: other things. But something I tweeted about yesterday, I did
Speaker 1: it a little clandestinely, trying to get a community note.
Speaker 1: Phil Giraldi Formaci agent and no matter what you think
Speaker 1: of him, I know some people don't like when people
Speaker 1: are bombastic, And I mean, I grew up in New York.
Speaker 1: Bombastic is just how we had conversations. So he doesn't
Speaker 1: bother me when it comes to that. But he tweeted
Speaker 1: something that I've been thinking about a lot, and you know,
Speaker 1: of course it's on a subject that I talk about
Speaker 1: a lot. But I'll just read out his tweet and
Speaker 1: we'll go from there. He says, Israel's friends friends is
Speaker 1: in quotes are everywhere. It was recently revealed that the
Speaker 1: woman behind the clamp down on pro Palestine demonstrators at
Speaker 1: Columbia University of New York City is a former Israeli
Speaker 1: intelligence officer, and it has long been known that the
Speaker 1: censors and fact checkers on many US social media sites
Speaker 1: are actually former Israeli intelligence officers from the notorious Unit
Speaker 1: eighty two hundred, secret cyber warfare snooper outfit. It's not
Speaker 1: so secret, it's pretty much known. People know Unit ey
Speaker 1: two hundred. Now, which when I start this and I
Speaker 1: read that first very long sentence, the first thing somebody
Speaker 1: is going to scream at me is, oh, but that
Speaker 1: guy was here on a green card and he's Hamas
Speaker 1: and he's I don't care deport him. I don't give
Speaker 1: a fuck. You can try to. This is the typical
Speaker 1: kind of bullshit that these fuckers use against you. It's
Speaker 1: like you start talking about one thing, you start saying,
Speaker 1: there are Israel, there are foreign power intelligence officers of
Speaker 1: foreign powers working in our universities and working basically everywhere, implanted,
Speaker 1: everywhere in this country. And because it's America's greatest ally,
Speaker 1: they immediately go to, Oh, you're on the side of
Speaker 1: the terrorists. No, go fuck yourself and your mother. Okay,
Speaker 1: fuck you. I'm going to continue here in the current revelation.
Speaker 1: Doctor Karen Yarhi malo A Milo, Head of Columbia School
Speaker 1: of International and Public Affairs, is a former Israeli military
Speaker 1: intelligence officer and an ex official at Israel's Mission to
Speaker 1: the United Nations. So she's an ex official at Israel's
Speaker 1: Mission to the United Nations. She is married to the
Speaker 1: head of that mission currently. Yarhi Milo plays played a
Speaker 1: significant role in drumming up public concerned about a supposed
Speaker 1: wave of intolerable anti Semitism sweeping over the campus, thereby
Speaker 1: laying the groundwork for the extensive crackdown on civil liberties
Speaker 1: that has sought to suppress the protests. They would have
Speaker 1: you believe that, like everybody who was out there was
Speaker 1: someone here on a visa or here illegally, and they
Speaker 1: all used to like fight for Hamas. I've heard numbers
Speaker 1: as much as half of the people who have been
Speaker 1: protesting since October seventh on college campuses are Jewish. I mean, okay,
Speaker 1: so they're Hamas. Or some of them may just be like,
Speaker 1: can you stop fucking killing kids? So can you stop
Speaker 1: making Jews look bad? Or I don't know, maybe some
Speaker 1: of them have been completely co opted, have been co
Speaker 1: opted with the mind virus of oh, whites are colonizers
Speaker 1: and we're Jews and we're perceived as white, or maybe
Speaker 1: they even think they're white, and this is going to
Speaker 1: blow back on you know, this blows back on us.
Speaker 1: It makes us look bad, just the fact that they
Speaker 1: try to portray everyone who's out there as Hamas. And
Speaker 1: I've heard people that I actually respect, people in power
Speaker 1: that I respect, play this game, and it just really
Speaker 1: drives me further away from supporting anything anyone does other
Speaker 1: than people I know and that I've met and that
Speaker 1: I still work with, because I mean, this is fucking retarded.
Speaker 1: Let me remind you. This is all about the fact
Speaker 1: that Columbia's fool of International and Public Affairs, the head
Speaker 1: of it is for it. I mean, do you think Russia,
Speaker 1: Let's even if someone was uber qualified. University of Moscow
Speaker 1: one of their departments is headed up by former German intelligence.
Speaker 1: How about Syrian intelligence? I mean that's a former ally
Speaker 1: of theirs. Do you think I mean they gave they
Speaker 1: gave a sad in his family. I mean, do you
Speaker 1: think they're He's putting them in the government where they
Speaker 1: can make where they're making policy, where they're they have
Speaker 1: they basically have power over Russians lives. Yeah, I don't
Speaker 1: fucking think so nobody does this. You think c C
Speaker 1: you think the CCP has Russians working in, you know,
Speaker 1: implanted in their government. If they do, it's spot it
Speaker 1: would be it would they wouldn't have that, they wouldn't
Speaker 1: be welcoming that, it would be something that would be
Speaker 1: beyond their control for the time until they figured it out.
Speaker 1: How the fuck? I mean, if you accept this as
Speaker 1: far as I'm concerned, fuck you if you accept this.
Speaker 1: But if you accept this, what it means is you
Speaker 1: basically consider Israel in the United states to be the
Speaker 1: exact same thing, that there's no difference between us and
Speaker 1: what happens, if, what happens when, Because this has happened
Speaker 1: throughout the last since nineteen forty eight. Many times they're
Speaker 1: caught selling technology that we gave them to the Chinese
Speaker 1: for a profit. We give them them something, they turn
Speaker 1: around and they sell it to our quote unquote enemies.
Speaker 1: That happened. Or they bomb one of our ships. That happened,
Speaker 1: and they kept bombing even after they knew that it
Speaker 1: was an American ship, and they bombed the life rafts.
Speaker 1: That happened. When do you stop making excuses for these fuckers?
Speaker 1: Drawdy continues, This should surprise no one, as it is
Speaker 1: exactly how Israel and its American allies operate across the board.
Speaker 1: Used donations to institutions and individual power brokers to pry
Speaker 1: open the door and then staff the targeted entities with
Speaker 1: your own people who will do your bidding. And then
Speaker 1: there's posts under this where people are just showing how headlines.
Speaker 1: This one is from March twentieth, twenty twenty five. There's
Speaker 1: just a couple of days ago, Google playing with fire
Speaker 1: by acquiring Israel company founded by Unit eighty two hundred veterans.
Speaker 1: These these are the censors. These are people who can
Speaker 1: see what you're doing unless you have a totally de
Speaker 1: googled device. Don't think they can't let me see if
Speaker 1: there's any anyone else posting anything here. Yeah. March March seventh,
Speaker 1: two thousand and two, US arrest two hundred young Israelis
Speaker 1: and spying investigation. And they talked about how in nineteen
Speaker 1: eighty four, Jonathan Pollard, who was a US Naval intelligence officer,
Speaker 1: was sentenced to life in prison for spying for Israel. Oh,
Speaker 1: he was pardoned by Donald Trump. Donald Trump didn't pardon
Speaker 1: in the first term, Ross Old brick or pre pardoned
Speaker 1: the J six, you know, preemptively pardon the J six
Speaker 1: guys and ladies. He didn't part in July in as
Speaker 1: songe Or Edwards noted, No, he pardoned somebody who was
Speaker 1: spying for a foreign power against the United States as
Speaker 1: a US Naval intelligence officer. And then Jonathan Poward went
Speaker 1: home and gave interviews and he even has a podcast
Speaker 1: now where he says it is every Jew's responsibility in
Speaker 1: another country to spy for Israel. Okay, so what sure
Speaker 1: I mean oh, that's only one person. Yeah, it was
Speaker 1: somebody who spent decades in American prisons for spying and
Speaker 1: was a US Naval intelligence officer and then was welcomed
Speaker 1: home on the tarmac. I think he flew, if I
Speaker 1: remember correctly, he flew to when he was released here,
Speaker 1: he flew to Israel on Merriam Adelson's plane, or I
Speaker 1: think the older the patriarch Adelson was still alive at
Speaker 1: the time and was greeted on the tarmac by Benjamin
Speaker 1: Netan Yahoo who also in the past, and Scott Horton
Speaker 1: has covered this on his podcast with Experts with Receipts
Speaker 1: Help Benjamin Netna, who was one of the ones who
Speaker 1: stole nuclear secrets from the United States and took them
Speaker 1: back to Israel. But this is our greatest ally and
Speaker 1: I don't want to. Oh, I'm sorry, but I'll be
Speaker 1: called anti Semitic. You're called that anyway for questioning anything
Speaker 1: about this relationship. Get the fuck over it. I mean,
Speaker 1: if oh, I go by Baptist Church will or by
Speaker 1: my non denominational super church. You know we teach I
Speaker 1: don't give a fuck you actually think, oh, you're by
Speaker 1: by basically turning your fucking country over to Israelis. The
Speaker 1: argument can be made some really aren't even Jews, real Jews,
Speaker 1: that that's gonna make Jesus come back. No, you're fucking retarded.
Speaker 1: You're retarded. You know you are. You're not only politically illiterate,
Speaker 1: you're theologically illiterate. And yeah, and I'm calling your pastor,
Speaker 1: the person you respect the most, a person who's you've
Speaker 1: invited over your house. I'm calling them a fucking idiot
Speaker 1: and a traitor, even if they don't know it. Okay,
Speaker 1: this fucking bullshit has to stop. Our fucking country has
Speaker 1: there is a foreign power who has implanted intelligence officers
Speaker 1: all throughout. Praeger University is run by someone who worked
Speaker 1: from a odd They brag about it. That's con inc
Speaker 1: They fucking brag about it. It is. It's something when
Speaker 1: they when they run down somebody's credentials, they consider it
Speaker 1: to be a positive that that person used to be
Speaker 1: Israeli intelligence. I mean, I am not a I think
Speaker 1: most of you know that. I'm not a imagine if
Speaker 1: the roles were reverse kind of person. I'm not one
Speaker 1: of these people who you know is like, oh, you
Speaker 1: know if this was but I mean We catch CCP
Speaker 1: Chinese spies in this country all the time. I mean, senators,
Speaker 1: Congress people have had relationships with them, They've been caught
Speaker 1: in relationships with them, They've had them as their driver,
Speaker 1: and what happens. It can't be tolerated. But you have
Speaker 1: an IVY League university and the head of the Internet.
Speaker 1: I mean, think about this. She is the head of
Speaker 1: the School of International and Public Affairs. Are you fucking retarded?
Speaker 1: Do you not get that? Do you not get the
Speaker 1: implication of that? I at this point, I don't know
Speaker 1: if you are still pushing back on the Oh you're woke,
Speaker 1: right if you talk about the Jews. Oh you blame
Speaker 1: the Jews for all of your problems in life. Oh
Speaker 1: if you stub your toe on your bed, you blame
Speaker 1: the Jews. Go fuck yourself, I mean literally, fucking see
Speaker 1: Canadian healthcare. And I'm not joking. Fucking don't listen to
Speaker 1: my show anymore. If you're donating, please stop donating, okay,
Speaker 1: because I'm not gonna fucking this is This is the
Speaker 1: fucking hill to die on, because if we don't die
Speaker 1: on this fucking hill, the country, there is no country.
Speaker 1: It's dead. There hasn't been a country since World War Two.
Speaker 1: But if there's ever a chance that something is taken back,
Speaker 1: I mean, do you understand why most why people, whether
Speaker 1: they realize it or not on our side, move out
Speaker 1: of the cities and get as far away from cities
Speaker 1: as possible is to get away from these people, and
Speaker 1: then you still have them coming to infiltrating the smallest
Speaker 1: of fucking towns. It's amazing when you get people contact
Speaker 1: me all the time and they're like, I live in
Speaker 1: this small town in Montana. Look at this, what's happening.
Speaker 1: Look what they're putting in the libraries. And then you
Speaker 1: read the story about the new librarian and guess what
Speaker 1: this isn't Oh I stubbed my toe. I stubbed my toe.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna blame the Jews. This is so coordinated and
Speaker 1: it doesn't need to be widespread. That's the stupidest fucking
Speaker 1: That's another fucking straw man. It's like, oh, you're it's
Speaker 1: like widespread voter fraud, you know in twenty twenty. It's like, oh,
Speaker 1: you taught you think there was widespread. No, all it
Speaker 1: has to do is be It just has to be
Speaker 1: coordinated on by a very small group of people. This
Speaker 1: is what elite theory is all about. Right. If you're
Speaker 1: someone who ascribes to elite theory, all you need is
Speaker 1: a couple people, right. I mean at this point if
Speaker 1: when you think about it, I'm not saying I don't
Speaker 1: walk around all day thinking about this, Okay, I don't.
Speaker 1: I think about it when I talk about it. I
Speaker 1: think about it when I see it on Twitter. There's
Speaker 1: another reason why I try to spend you know, less
Speaker 1: time on Twitter. If you compare the amount I used
Speaker 1: to tweet a year ago to the amount I tweet now,
Speaker 1: it's fractional, mostly because it's fucking infuriating because all it's
Speaker 1: all you can see. And again it's not, oh well,
Speaker 1: our problems are, Oh it's the Jews. No, when you
Speaker 1: see something, when you see something and you're like that
Speaker 1: looks fucky, you're going to find a Jewish name there?
Speaker 1: You know who told you this? Dennis Prager has a
Speaker 1: video interview where he says, every time you know every
Speaker 1: ism out there, feminism, communism, socialism, all these isms except
Speaker 1: for Nazism, it's Jews overwhelmingly he uses the term overwhelmingly,
Speaker 1: and you have the world Jewish Congress, which is a
Speaker 1: powerful fucking organization that you know, Oh, I've never heard
Speaker 1: of it, and you know I hear of it every
Speaker 1: once in a while, So it must not be powerful
Speaker 1: if it's not being blasted into my ear every five
Speaker 1: minutes that brags about They have a video where they
Speaker 1: brag about every friggin leftist, progressive, disgusting movement they've been behind,
Speaker 1: and the first one they talk about is Harvey Milk,
Speaker 1: who's a fucking pedophile, who was a pedophile, and there's
Speaker 1: a friggin navel. I think there's an aircraft carrier named
Speaker 1: after him. This isn't oh I stubbed my toe. I
Speaker 1: blame the Jews. This is reading. This is Henry This
Speaker 1: is what Henry Ford noticed. This is what Charles Lindberg noticed.
Speaker 1: This is what like great men of the past noticed.
Speaker 1: And people are like, oh, well, you're not a great man,
Speaker 1: but you're admitting. But by saying that, you're admitting that
Speaker 1: they're great men. So if I'm reading them and I'm
Speaker 1: repeating what they say, I'm just repeating what great men say.
Speaker 1: So you're just attacking me because you've already admitted that
Speaker 1: they're great men. Do you understand how fucking deep this goes,
Speaker 1: This goes into argumentation, This goes into the words that
Speaker 1: come out of your mouth. And ever since Israel became
Speaker 1: a nation, they've basically they've they've infiltrated everything. Think about this,
Speaker 1: how many people when Israel before October seventh, if Jews
Speaker 1: all over the world living in pretty much every Western country,
Speaker 1: I mean every Western country, most of them playing some
Speaker 1: kind of political social NGO type influence on every country.
Speaker 1: What what other countries do that? What other countries have
Speaker 1: their own country yet have spokespeople and representatives living in
Speaker 1: other countries, exercising power in those countries, and refuse to
Speaker 1: go live in their own country. I mean, what's wrong
Speaker 1: with the country. Why don't they want to live there?
Speaker 1: Why do they just want to be in other people's countries?
Speaker 1: Have power in other people's countries, control as much as possible.
Speaker 1: When the country has become two right wing, start revolutionary
Speaker 1: movements or inspire revolutionary movements to destroy that quote unquote
Speaker 1: right wing, which is just common sense, historical common sense.
Speaker 1: Why why the fuck are you? Why are we putting
Speaker 1: up with this? Why are you putting up with this?
Speaker 1: Because you don't want to be called antisemitic. You don't
Speaker 1: want to see blaming your problems on everyone else. This
Speaker 1: isn't your problem, This is everyone's problem. This is the
Speaker 1: country's problem. And not only do they attack the country,
Speaker 1: but they attack the people, the people who not only
Speaker 1: are heritage Americans whose families have been here forever, but
Speaker 1: those of us who came after words and have adopted
Speaker 1: everything and will fight to fight to the death to
Speaker 1: preserve what heritage Americans have built. They're not gonna do that.
Speaker 1: If this country becomes too intolerable, they'll go somewhere else.
Speaker 1: That's what they've done historically, everywhere but Israel. And you're
Speaker 1: just making excuses for him. Un fuck unbelievable. Un fuck unbelievable. Oh,
Speaker 1: everybody who complains about my language, shut fuck off, fuck off,
Speaker 1: Really grow the fuck up. I really hope you think
Speaker 1: about this. If you're struggling with any of it, I
Speaker 1: do take care. Good morning, everyone. It's been about a week,
Speaker 1: maybe over a week since I did one of these substacks,
Speaker 1: and I had an idea for doing substacks to keep
Speaker 1: me on the regular here. And if this works out
Speaker 1: this morning, maybe we'll address some other chapters. You all
Speaker 1: know that I like reading and commenting on things. And
Speaker 1: this is a book that was written by Walter Block, libertarian.
Speaker 1: I believe the MESA institute just kicked him out because
Speaker 1: he's revealed himself to be a Zionist, which means he's
Speaker 1: not a real libertarian. On German Happa's officially pronounced him
Speaker 1: and not a real libertarian. And he wrote this book
Speaker 1: back in nineteen seventy six called Defending the Undefendables, and
Speaker 1: I thought I'd read a chapter and see where this goes.
Speaker 1: So yeah, I'll just read the first chapter. The first
Speaker 1: paragraph of the introduction says here, the people presented in
Speaker 1: this book are generally considered villainous and the functions they
Speaker 1: perform harmful. Sometimes society itself is damned because it spawns
Speaker 1: such reprehensible characters. However, the thrust of this book will
Speaker 1: concentrate on the following propositions. They are guilty of no
Speaker 1: doing of a violent nature, and virtually every case they
Speaker 1: actually benefit society. If we prohibit their activities, we do
Speaker 1: so at our own loss. He goes on to say,
Speaker 1: the impetus for this book is libertarianism. The basic premise
Speaker 1: of this philosophy is that it is illegitimate to engage
Speaker 1: in aggression against non aggressors. What is meant by aggression
Speaker 1: is not assertiveness, argumentativeness, competitiveness, adventuousness, quarrelsomeness, or antagonism. What
Speaker 1: is meant is aggression by aggression is the use of violence,
Speaker 1: such as which takes place in murder, rape, robbery, kidnapping.
Speaker 1: He goes on, we're not pacifist, do not forbid the
Speaker 1: use of violence. You're just not allowed to initiate violence
Speaker 1: against nonviolent people or their property. So in this book,
Speaker 1: doctor Walter Block takes on people that, Yep, we may
Speaker 1: find reprehensible, but my assertion would be, no matter what,
Speaker 1: if you are thinking about your policy as anything other
Speaker 1: than an economic zone, these people might not be beneficial
Speaker 1: and may be harmful. So the first part of this
Speaker 1: book deals with sex ual you know, blue laws, things
Speaker 1: like that. And the first person that he the first
Speaker 1: actor that he presents is the prostitute. So I'm going
Speaker 1: to read this and let's see what his argument for
Speaker 1: prostitut because remember he's actually said that they're not harmful,
Speaker 1: they're actually beneficial. So let's see where this goes. Subject
Speaker 1: to ceaseless harassment by blue laws, church groups, chambers of commerce,
Speaker 1: et cetera. Prostitutes nevertheless continue to trade with the public.
Speaker 1: The value of their service is proven by the fact
Speaker 1: that people continue to seek them out despite legal and
Speaker 1: civic opposition. A prostitute may be defined as one who
Speaker 1: engages in the voluntary trade of sexual services for a fee.
Speaker 1: The essential part of the definition, however, is voluntary trade.
Speaker 1: A magazine covered by Norman Rockwell some time ago illustrated
Speaker 1: the essence of prostitution, if not the specifics. They portrayed
Speaker 1: a milkman and a pie man standing near their trucks easily,
Speaker 1: each busily eating a pie and drinking milk, both obviously
Speaker 1: pleased with their voluntary trade. So immediately what I look at,
Speaker 1: what I see is he's framing this as prostitutes are
Speaker 1: out there voluntarily. Is that what we know from history? Now,
Speaker 1: the next section of this he's going to do, He's
Speaker 1: going to talk about the pimp, and I assume what
Speaker 1: he's going to do is he's going to argue that
Speaker 1: as long as it's a voluntary relationship. The point is,
Speaker 1: when in history have we has it been portrayed as such?
Speaker 1: Have you ever seen interviews with prostitutes who had pimps,
Speaker 1: how many were making excuses and was this really a
Speaker 1: voluntary Up until just a couple of decades ago, pornography
Speaker 1: was considered white slavery. Prostitution was considered called white slavery.
Speaker 1: So immediately the first two paragraphs, the prostitute is being
Speaker 1: made to made out to be out there of her
Speaker 1: own volition, not being forced, and yeah, she's providing a service.
Speaker 1: I'll go on. Those lacking sufficient imagination will see no
Speaker 1: connection between the prostitute entertaining her custom stomer and the
Speaker 1: aforementioned milk and pie episode. But in both cases two
Speaker 1: people have come together on a voluntary basis in an
Speaker 1: attempt to mutually gain satisfaction, and in neither case is
Speaker 1: force or fraud applied. Of course, the customer the prostitute
Speaker 1: may later decide that the services received were not worth
Speaker 1: the money he paid. The prostitute may feel that the
Speaker 1: money she was paid did not fully compensate her for
Speaker 1: the services she provided. Similar to satisfactions could also occur
Speaker 1: in the milk pie trade. The milk could have been
Speaker 1: sour or the pie under baked, but both regrets would
Speaker 1: be after the fact, and would not alter the description
Speaker 1: of these trades as voluntary. If all the participants were
Speaker 1: not willing, the trades would not have taken place. Well,
Speaker 1: do you see what's going on here? He's basically creating
Speaker 1: a scenario which in my study, in my reading and
Speaker 1: everything I've ever seen is the exception and not the
Speaker 1: rule when it comes to prostitution. And now, mind you,
Speaker 1: if the kind of quote unquote capitalism, which is basically
Speaker 1: one thing that libertarians will do is they will when
Speaker 1: things are really wrong with the economy, they'll say, this
Speaker 1: isn't real capitalism. Real capitalism is free trade. But when
Speaker 1: they need the argument to go in their direction, they'll
Speaker 1: point to things like the Orient or or like Korea,
Speaker 1: and they'll say, in the last thirty five years, one
Speaker 1: billion people have been pulled out of poverty because of capitalism. Well,
Speaker 1: which one is it? Is this not real capitalism because
Speaker 1: there's no regulations and no laws and nothing binding trade,
Speaker 1: Or is this what you call corporatism or crony capitalism
Speaker 1: that pull the billion people out of poverty? Which one
Speaker 1: is it? But that's the games that they have to play,
Speaker 1: is that you know, there's just no true Scotsman fallacies
Speaker 1: all throughout all of this where well, I mean, I
Speaker 1: don't know of no true scotsmen. I mean, that's that's
Speaker 1: a big part of libertarianism too. But basically they're presenting
Speaker 1: one thing. They're saying, oh, this is voluntary. But as
Speaker 1: soon as you know, when you point out that it's
Speaker 1: rare voluntary, then it's like, well, no, no, no, We're
Speaker 1: just going to concentrate on the We're going to concentrate
Speaker 1: on the perfect here, not the imperfect. This is all theory,
Speaker 1: This is all theory going on. There are those women's
Speaker 1: liberationists among them who lament the plight of the poor,
Speaker 1: downtrodden prostitute, and who think of her life as demeaning
Speaker 1: and exploitive and exploitive, exploitative. But the prostitute does not
Speaker 1: look upon the sale of sex as demeaning. After considering
Speaker 1: the good features, short hours, high renumeration, with the drawbacks,
Speaker 1: harassment by the police enforcement commissions, to her pimp uninspiring
Speaker 1: work conditions, the prostitute obviously prefers her work, Otherwise she
Speaker 1: would not continue it. What's the intention? I'll ask you
Speaker 1: this question, and this is for you to answer. Okay,
Speaker 1: I'm not going to even give my opinion on this,
Speaker 1: so I won't be accused of straw manning. What's the
Speaker 1: intention of writing this, what's the intention of putting this
Speaker 1: down on paper? I'll continue. There are, of course, many
Speaker 1: negative aspects experienced by prostitutes who belie the happy hooker image.
Speaker 1: There are prostitutes who are drug addicts, prostitutes are beaten
Speaker 1: by pimps, and prostitutes who are held in brothels against
Speaker 1: their will. But these sordid aspects have little to do
Speaker 1: with the intrinsic career of prostitution. So there is the
Speaker 1: idyllic vision of what prostitution should be, which and then
Speaker 1: there is the reality of it, which is drug addiction,
Speaker 1: getting beaten by pimps, being held against your will in
Speaker 1: a brothel, getting beaten by John's the fact that life
Speaker 1: is basically going to be shortened. Probably, But let's concentrate
Speaker 1: on the ideal. Look here, let's concentrate on the ideal
Speaker 1: that we're trying to You know, this is about this
Speaker 1: is about money, as what this is about. This is
Speaker 1: about economy and money. So don't look at the bad stuff.
Speaker 1: Let's look at what it would be if it was
Speaker 1: a perfect transaction. There are nurses and doctors who are
Speaker 1: kidnapped and forced to perform for fugitives from justice. There
Speaker 1: are carpenters who are drug addicts. There are bookkeepers who
Speaker 1: are beaten by muggers. We would hardly conclude that any
Speaker 1: of these professions or vocations or suspect the meaning or
Speaker 1: or exploitative. The life of the prostitute is as good
Speaker 1: or as bad as she wishes it to be. She
Speaker 1: answers it voluntarily quah prostitute, and it's free to leave
Speaker 1: at any time. So prostitute. Because there are nurses and
Speaker 1: doctors who have been kidnapped and forced to perform by, say,
Speaker 1: fugitives from justice, which he's basically taken out of a movie.
Speaker 1: There are carpenters who are drug addicts, yes, especially oxy
Speaker 1: wonder where that came from. There are bookkeepers who are
Speaker 1: beaten by muggers. But we wouldn't conclude that any of
Speaker 1: those professions or brocations or suspected meeting or exploitative. Does
Speaker 1: this argument carry for any of you. She is voluntarily
Speaker 1: doing this and free to leave it anytime. Her career
Speaker 1: as a prostitute is just as good or as bad
Speaker 1: as she wishes it to be the qualifications above of
Speaker 1: you know, be damned. Why then the harassment and prohibitions
Speaker 1: against prostitution. The momentum does not come from the customer.
Speaker 1: He is a willing participant. If the customer decides that
Speaker 1: patronage of a prostitute is not to his advantage, he
Speaker 1: can stop and will stop. Nor does he. Nor does
Speaker 1: the move toward prohibition of prostitution come from the prostitutes themselves.
Speaker 1: They have volunteered for their tasks and can almost always
Speaker 1: quit if they change their minds about the relative benefits.
Speaker 1: Let's just change that. Nor did the move towards prohibition
Speaker 1: of drugs come from the drug addict themselves. They have
Speaker 1: volunteered to be drug addicts and can almost always quit
Speaker 1: if they change their minds about the relative This is
Speaker 1: fantasy land, this is theory. This is it is not clear.
Speaker 1: This is someone who's seeking to destroy your culture. Once
Speaker 1: you look into say, oxycodon the whole, all the deaths
Speaker 1: that have been attributed to opioids, and when you look
Speaker 1: into it, you realize it wasn't an accident. It wasn't like,
Speaker 1: oh we didn't know this was addictive. Oh they knew
Speaker 1: they hit it for money and other reasons. To go
Speaker 1: back to my episode that I did with Trey Garrison,
Speaker 1: who wrote a book about this. Continuing, the impetus for
Speaker 1: the prohibition of prostitution is initiated by third parties not
Speaker 1: directly involved in the trades. Their reasons vary from group
Speaker 1: to group, from area to area, and from year to year.
Speaker 1: What they have in common is the fact that they
Speaker 1: are outside parties. They have neither stake nor stand in
Speaker 1: the matter, and should be ignored. To allow them to
Speaker 1: decide this matter is absurd as allowing an outsider to
Speaker 1: decide about the trade between the milkman and the pie man.
Speaker 1: Just let me ask you the question, do you think
Speaker 1: your town would benefit from prostitutes being on every corner?
Speaker 1: If there were milkmen and pie men set up on
Speaker 1: every corner, would a refrigerated truck so that they can
Speaker 1: sell you? Would that be Let's take oh, let's use that.
Speaker 1: I said the milkman and the pie man. They have
Speaker 1: a refrigerated truck, so everything is safe. You're not any
Speaker 1: Let's say the prostitute was. It was completely legal, they
Speaker 1: were protected by the law, and they were out there
Speaker 1: on the corner selling what they're selling. Do you think
Speaker 1: that benefits your town? Do you think that benefits your culture?
Speaker 1: Do you think explaining to your children who that is
Speaker 1: standing on the corner? Do you think that's a net
Speaker 1: positive for your polity, for your neighborhood, for your friends,
Speaker 1: the people who live around you. Why, then, are the
Speaker 1: two cases treated differently. Imagine a league called the Decent
Speaker 1: Eaters organized to espouse the doctrine that eating pie together
Speaker 1: with milk is evil. Never notice that they have to
Speaker 1: go and just like default of the absurd when they're
Speaker 1: trying to excuse, when they're trying to excuse degeneracy and
Speaker 1: culture destruction and cultural distortion, to use Yacki's term. Even
Speaker 1: if it could be demonstrated that the League against Pie
Speaker 1: and Milk and the League against prostitution had identical intellectual merit,
Speaker 1: namely none, the reaction of the two would still be different.
Speaker 1: The attempt to prohibit pie and milk would evoke only laughter,
Speaker 1: but there would be a more tolerant attitude toward the
Speaker 1: attempt to prohibit prostitution. There is something in operation which
Speaker 1: staunchly resists an intellectual penetration of the prostitution question. Why
Speaker 1: has prostitution not been legalized, though the arguments against legalization
Speaker 1: are without merit. They have never clearly they have never
Speaker 1: been clearly assailed by the intellectual community as specious. So basically,
Speaker 1: he's saying any argument against legalizing prostitution is without merit,
Speaker 1: and he's going to explain why. And he is basically
Speaker 1: calling himself the intellectual community here, and that's why he's
Speaker 1: going to That's why he's an authority to explain this,
Speaker 1: because he's intellectual part of an intellectual community. The difference
Speaker 1: between sexual trades such as the ones that take place
Speaker 1: in prostitution and other trades such as the pie milk trade,
Speaker 1: seems to be based on, or at least connected to
Speaker 1: the shame we feel or made to feel at the
Speaker 1: prospect of having to buy sex. One is hardly really
Speaker 1: a man or in any way to be confused with
Speaker 1: an attractive woman if one pays for sex, now, that's no.
Speaker 1: The shame of it is the shame we feel or
Speaker 1: made to feel at the prospect of having to buy Well,
Speaker 1: where does that shame come from? He would have you
Speaker 1: believe that it comes from society. Here, let's go on,
Speaker 1: hold on the following well known joke illustrates this point.
Speaker 1: A good looking man asks an attractive and virtuous woman
Speaker 1: if she will go to bed with him for one
Speaker 1: hundred thousand dollars. She is appalled by the offer. However,
Speaker 1: after some reflection, she concludes that, as evil as prostitution is,
Speaker 1: she could use the proceeds of the offer for charity
Speaker 1: and good works. And again you have to present the
Speaker 1: fantasy scenario. The man seems charming, not at all dangerous
Speaker 1: or repugnant. She shyly says yes. The man then asks
Speaker 1: how about for twenty dollars. The woman indignantly replies, how
Speaker 1: dare you? What kind of woman do you think I am?
Speaker 1: As she slaps his face. Well, we've already established what
Speaker 1: kind of woman you are. Now we're just trying to
Speaker 1: establish the price, he replies. The degree to which demand
Speaker 1: replies strikes a telling blow against a woman, as a
Speaker 1: small measure of the scorn heaped upon individuals involved in
Speaker 1: this kind of endeavor. Again, what is the point of
Speaker 1: writing this? What? He's trying to make it out that
Speaker 1: basically up here that everything has to do with shame? Okay, well,
Speaker 1: where does shame come from? Some will tell you, Oh,
Speaker 1: it only comes from religion, or it comes from culture,
Speaker 1: it comes from your history, it comes from tradition. Okay,
Speaker 1: And what's your point in writing this? To destroy all
Speaker 1: of those, to show how stupid they are, to show
Speaker 1: how all that matters is to transaction, the money, All
Speaker 1: that matters is the economics behind it, and everything else
Speaker 1: is just shame. There are two approaches which might combat
Speaker 1: the attitude that paying for sex is degrading. There is
Speaker 1: the frontal attack, which simply denies that it is wrong
Speaker 1: to pay for sex. This, however, would hardly convince those
Speaker 1: who think of prostitution as an evil. The other possibility
Speaker 1: was to show that we are always paying for sex,
Speaker 1: all of us, all the time, and therefore we should
Speaker 1: not cavil at the arrangements between a professional prostitute and
Speaker 1: a customer. Ah yes, yes, yes, when you were dating
Speaker 1: your wife, you should have just thought of her as
Speaker 1: a prostitute when you got married. When when you got
Speaker 1: married and you pledge to take care of her and
Speaker 1: to give your life for if it need be, and
Speaker 1: take care of in sickness and health till death to
Speaker 1: your part, that's just part of a transaction. It's all
Speaker 1: a transaction in what sense. Can it be said that
Speaker 1: we all engage in trade and payments when we engage
Speaker 1: in sexual activity. At the very least, we have to
Speaker 1: offer something to our perspective partners before they will consent
Speaker 1: to have sex with us. Yeah, we have to. We
Speaker 1: have to offer something like our loyalty, our love, our heart.
Speaker 1: That's nothing we have to think with dollar signs. Apparently
Speaker 1: we have to think of economics. With explicit prostitution, the
Speaker 1: offer is in terms of cash. In other cases, to
Speaker 1: trade is not so obvious. Many dating patterns clearly conform
Speaker 1: to the prostitutional model. The male is expected to pay
Speaker 1: for the movies, dinners, flowers, et cetera, and the female
Speaker 1: is expected to reciprocate with sexual services. So no mention
Speaker 1: of marriage here, right, Oh wait a minute, he goes on.
Speaker 1: The marriage is in which the husband provides the financial
Speaker 1: elements and the help and the wife the sexual and
Speaker 1: housekeeping functions. Also conforms clearly enough to the model. So
Speaker 1: the husband provides a financial and the wife has sex
Speaker 1: with them and keeps the house clean. I assume there's
Speaker 1: no mention here raising kids, childbearing or anything like that.
Speaker 1: So yeah, this is clearly you're paying for a hooker
Speaker 1: and a maid. That's how we're going to make the
Speaker 1: case for prostitution being legal in your town. In fact,
Speaker 1: all voluntary human relationships, for love relation from really, I'm
Speaker 1: not Asian. In fact, all voluntary human relationships, from love
Speaker 1: relationships to intellectual relationships, are trades. In the case of
Speaker 1: romantic love and marriage, the trade is in terms of affection, consideration, kindness,
Speaker 1: et cetera. Ah, how sweet of them. The trade may
Speaker 1: be a happy one, and the partners may find joy
Speaker 1: in the giving, but it is still a trade. It
Speaker 1: is clear that unless affection, kindness, et cetera, or something
Speaker 1: is given will not be reciprocated. In the same way,
Speaker 1: if two non mercenary poets did not get anything from
Speaker 1: each other, their relationship too would terminate. If there are trades,
Speaker 1: there are also payments. Where there are payments for relationships
Speaker 1: which include sexual congress, such as marriage, and in some
Speaker 1: dating patterns there is prostitution according to the definition of
Speaker 1: that term. So basically what he's doing is he's taking
Speaker 1: prostitution which exists over here, he's reducing it to the
Speaker 1: ideal nonviolent transaction, voluntary transaction, and so he's able to
Speaker 1: clean up prostitution to the point where he thinks that
Speaker 1: he can apply it to marriage and dating because in
Speaker 1: marriage and in marriage, in dating, the male, because of
Speaker 1: tradition and custom and custom rules the law is expected
Speaker 1: to pay. Only in modernity is the woman expected to
Speaker 1: have sex with him because of that. And really the
Speaker 1: dating patterns and all of these things, these are all
Speaker 1: modernity because it was only until not too long ago
Speaker 1: that we weren't in a world where range marriages or
Speaker 1: marriages where people you've known since child, I mean, my
Speaker 1: parents met in the seventh grade. Several social commentators have
Speaker 1: correctly likened marriage to prostitution. So this part of he
Speaker 1: said he's part of the intellectual community who's never explained
Speaker 1: it to you as such. So he's presenting himself as
Speaker 1: an expert, white coat kind of thing, and he's saying
Speaker 1: that several social commentators have correctly likened marriage to prostitution.
Speaker 1: But all relationships where trade takes place, those which include
Speaker 1: sex as well as those which do not, are a
Speaker 1: form of prostitution. So basically, any trade you make, like
Speaker 1: if you tell your wife, you promise your wife, you know,
Speaker 1: it's like if you promise you're on a Wednesday that Yeah,
Speaker 1: I'm going I know we need this, and I know
Speaker 1: you want this, and I'm going to buy it for you,
Speaker 1: and it just so happens that you guys have sex
Speaker 1: at night. That was a form of prostitution, according to
Speaker 1: the experts, according to the intellectual community, according to a
Speaker 1: hero of libertarianism up until he revealed himself to be
Speaker 1: a murderous, genocidal lunatic. And people praise this book a
Speaker 1: lot of them, most of them. Instead of condemning all
Speaker 1: such relationships because of their similarity to prostitution, Prostitution should
Speaker 1: be viewed as just one kind of interaction in which
Speaker 1: human beings participate. So if you don't want us to
Speaker 1: keep calling your marriage, you're dating, any kind of interaction
Speaker 1: you have when you go to the store, if you
Speaker 1: sell your car to your neighbor, if you don't want
Speaker 1: us to keep calling that prostitution, you're going to have
Speaker 1: to normalize prostitution. Objections should not be raised to any
Speaker 1: of them, not to marriage, not to friendship, not to prostitution.
Speaker 1: So the final paragraph in this chapter, in this little chapter,
Speaker 1: he says we shouldn't be complaining about marriage or friendship
Speaker 1: because there's some kind of interaction there. There's some kind
Speaker 1: of transaction there that is completely forced and referred to
Speaker 1: as a transaction just to fit into this framework. And
Speaker 1: he says, puts marriage, friendship, and prostitution it's all the
Speaker 1: same thing. And if we want prostitution to be normalized,
Speaker 1: we need to make it. We need to keep comparing
Speaker 1: it to marriage and friendship until people stop looking at
Speaker 1: prostitution as a negative or something they don't want in
Speaker 1: their towne or something they want to remain illegal. That's it.
Speaker 1: That's all I got for you. Let me know in
Speaker 1: the comments if this is something you want me to
Speaker 1: continue to do. And yeah, yeah, all right, take care,
Speaker 1: see you in a few days. Right, good morning, greetings
Speaker 1: and salutations. All right, let me jump right into this. So, yeah,
Speaker 1: this is from I want to read an article from
Speaker 1: zero hedge that gives us some information. This was published
Speaker 1: last Thursday, April tenth, and it says the title is
Speaker 1: and if you're watching this, I'm sorry. Zero hedge has
Speaker 1: pop ups like crazy, so I may be closing those
Speaker 1: down and everything, but you know this isn't them. There's
Speaker 1: tons of links in here to the showing the information
Speaker 1: and the studies and the polls that this is coming from.
Speaker 1: So the title here is most Americans now have a
Speaker 1: negative view of Israel under fifty. Under fifty GOP support
Speaker 1: craters so under fifty years old. While the Trump administration
Speaker 1: earnestly redistributes billions of dollars of American wealth to Israel,
Speaker 1: that country's immensely destructive war in Gaza appears to be
Speaker 1: taking a growing toll on its support among Americans. According
Speaker 1: to the latest Pew Research survey, a majority of Americans
Speaker 1: now have an unfavorable view of Israel, and a finding
Speaker 1: that will cause the greatest alarm in Israeli government offices
Speaker 1: and at US based pro Israel organizations. There is now
Speaker 1: a huge generational divide within the GOP ranks. I would
Speaker 1: the only thing I would say there comment on there
Speaker 1: is I don't think. I think a lot of it
Speaker 1: has to do with what they've done to Gaza since
Speaker 1: October seventh, but I think that there's there was a
Speaker 1: shift before that, as some of these numbers will show. Continuing,
Speaker 1: fifty three percent of Americans now have an unfavorable view
Speaker 1: of Israel, thanks to the share of Americans with dim
Speaker 1: views of Israel surging by eleven points in three years.
Speaker 1: The comparison point is Pew's survey in March twenty twenty two,
Speaker 1: seven months before the O that's not seven months compared
Speaker 1: to Pew survey, that would be a year in seven
Speaker 1: months before. The October seventh invasion of Southern of Southern
Speaker 1: Israel sparked a massive military response that killed more than
Speaker 1: fifty thousand Palestinians, about a third of them under eighteen
Speaker 1: years old, according to health officials in Gaza. So right there,
Speaker 1: someone can jump all over that and say, well, no, no,
Speaker 1: that's Gaza. That's people in Gaza. They're going to lie,
Speaker 1: and the Israeli government isn't. So who are we supposed
Speaker 1: to believe? Question? Most people in this country don't believe
Speaker 1: their own government when they say anything, but somehow magically
Speaker 1: believe Israel when it says stuff. So over the same span,
Speaker 1: the proportion of Americans with very unfavorable views of Israel
Speaker 1: has almost doubled from ten to nineteen percent. So in surveys,
Speaker 1: people when asked if you have a very unfavorable view
Speaker 1: of Israel is almost doubled from ten to nineteen percent.
Speaker 1: How many people do you think wouldn't give their opinion
Speaker 1: just because of the training that we've received. In the
Speaker 1: brainwashing we've received extending back several years, support for Israel
Speaker 1: has started to sharply polarize along major party lines, with
Speaker 1: Democrats affinity for Israel plummeting, while GEOPA support held relatively steady.
Speaker 1: In the Pew Survey's most striking statistic of all, disdain
Speaker 1: for the state of Israel among Republicans under age fifty
Speaker 1: has soared fifteen points in three years. So when they
Speaker 1: say fifteen points at three years, that's before October seventh,
Speaker 1: which could signal that support for Israel is poised for
Speaker 1: a bipartisan decline for years to come. Among Republicans and
Speaker 1: Republican leaners age fifty and older, unfavorable views of Israel
Speaker 1: crept up just four points since twenty twenty two, from
Speaker 1: nineteen percent to twenty three percent. Among the under fifty
Speaker 1: GOP set, it rose from thirty five percent to fifty percent.
Speaker 1: That is considerable. Democrats low view of Israel also surged
Speaker 1: higher over the three year interval. Sixty nine percent have
Speaker 1: an unfavorable view in twenty twenty five, up sixteen points
Speaker 1: from twenty twenty two. On that side of party divide
Speaker 1: age is much less of a factor. Sixty six percent
Speaker 1: of age fifty plus Dems have a negative view of
Speaker 1: Israel compared to seventy one percent for those eighteen to
Speaker 1: forty nine. That really tells me that and I'm going
Speaker 1: to use this term, and people hate when you use
Speaker 1: terms like this, It really tells me that boomers, they
Speaker 1: go to evangelical churches, are most susceptible to this is
Speaker 1: I don't know how many people who would call themselves
Speaker 1: registered Democrats who are boomers go to church go to
Speaker 1: an evangelical church. So that really seems to be the
Speaker 1: dividing line. I'm going to break it up too amongst
Speaker 1: denominations here in a little bit. Pew also found interesting
Speaker 1: distinctions among views held by Americans as divided by religious affiliations.
Speaker 1: One of the key pillars of a Israeli political influence
Speaker 1: inside the United States is white Evangelical Protestants, and seventy
Speaker 1: two of them accordingly view Israel Israel Israel favorably today. Sorry,
Speaker 1: still early non evangelical Protestants are negative on Israel bio
Speaker 1: small fifty to forty seven percent margin, While Catholics take
Speaker 1: a dim view of Israel by a more substantial fifty
Speaker 1: three to forty three percent spread. Seventy three percent of
Speaker 1: Jews are favorable, but a quite substantial twenty seven percent
Speaker 1: give a thumbs down to the self declared Jewish state. Interesting, huh,
Speaker 1: which really goes to show that, you know, when people say, oh, everybody,
Speaker 1: everybody is a terrorist? Who on college campuses, who is
Speaker 1: protesting protesting against Israel? And you know they're just all
Speaker 1: pro Hamas. And I've pointed out that, I mean, I've
Speaker 1: seen numbers at as high as forty to fifty percent
Speaker 1: of the protesters are Jewish, so apparently they've crossed over.
Speaker 1: And how many of those Jews are actually being deported
Speaker 1: or arrested or whatever, how many are being punished. Pew
Speaker 1: survey did probe the factors driving rising negative views of Israel,
Speaker 1: but it's safe to say the major shift springs from
Speaker 1: Israel's conduct of the war in Gaza. I would say
Speaker 1: that there are numerous reasons for this, Some of them
Speaker 1: are metaphysical and some of them are material beyond the
Speaker 1: war per se. The exposure of that war's horrors on
Speaker 1: social media platforms has also been divisive in our view
Speaker 1: with Americans. Having access to raw portrayals of the bloodshed
Speaker 1: and suffering, including reporting from alternative and foreign media outlets,
Speaker 1: to shine a light on the high civilian death toll,
Speaker 1: destruction of hospitals, mass deplacement from homes, hunger, and disease.
Speaker 1: It links here to a tweet by Philip proudfoot whatever
Speaker 1: has a video of an IDF soldier laughs and smashes
Speaker 1: up a shop in Jabalayah refugee camp. The store will
Speaker 1: have been someone's pride and joy and source of livelihood.
Speaker 1: Such brutal cruelty without a second thought, carried out with
Speaker 1: pride and a camera. Yeah, I mean, it's not just
Speaker 1: the fact that IDF soldiers are doing this, because this
Speaker 1: happens in war. They're so joyful about doing it, and
Speaker 1: they video themselves and they put the videos out themselves.
Speaker 1: It's they're bragging about this continuing. Ironically, many of the
Speaker 1: most damning social media glimpses into the Israeli Defense Forces
Speaker 1: conduct of the war have come from IDF soldiers themselves,
Speaker 1: who shared photos and videos of themselves gleefully destroying entire
Speaker 1: neighborhoods in Gaza, maliciously smashing shops, destroying personal property, and
Speaker 1: weirdly dressing up in women's underwear left behind in the
Speaker 1: homes of fleeing Palestinians. Well, I'm sorry, that doesn't shock
Speaker 1: me at all. I know what Tel Aviv is. That's
Speaker 1: not to say the mainstream media hasn't also played a
Speaker 1: role in israel surging unpopularity in the United States. One
Speaker 1: of the most unsettling repoints reports of the war was
Speaker 1: aired on CBS Sunday Morning, which featured the accounts of
Speaker 1: American doctors who volunteered in Gaza and were stunned by
Speaker 1: the number of children with head shots and other disturbing wounds. Yeah,
Speaker 1: what about the children who have like, well, you'll see
Speaker 1: where they've been shot in the knees. It's done purposely.
Speaker 1: You don't head shots and I mean children being shot
Speaker 1: in the head and shot in the knees sounds pretty purposeful.
Speaker 1: I mean, I could the head shots. I mean, if
Speaker 1: they're throwing a stone at you, you might have to
Speaker 1: shoot a kid in the head right right, the shot
Speaker 1: in the knee. Well, and then they link to the
Speaker 1: tweet showing the IDF soldiers wearing underwear of a Palestinian womanous.
Speaker 1: I mean, I think it would be Palaestinia. I don't know,
Speaker 1: and that was retweeting someone who said white people with
Speaker 1: a Palestinian kafia look so fucking stupid. That's the scarfs
Speaker 1: and everything. Sorry I pronounced that wrong. Probably as for
Speaker 1: younger excuse me, as for younger Republicans, whether or not
Speaker 1: they have empathy for Palestinian civilians. Many under fifty GOP voters,
Speaker 1: no doubt see America's open checkbook support for Israel as
Speaker 1: inconsistent with the America First philosophy that's opposed to underpin
Speaker 1: Trumpian republicanism. Zero edge classic is libertarian. They're going to
Speaker 1: go to the whole money thing, you know, and the
Speaker 1: money thing has a lot to do with it, you know.
Speaker 1: It's like, hey, if you're not gonna you know, And
Speaker 1: to me, it's just a cowardly way out right. It's like, well,
Speaker 1: if they're going to do this, don't do it with
Speaker 1: my money. Well, they're your enemy there, your enemy, there,
Speaker 1: your enemy. No Palestinian has tried to get me kicked
Speaker 1: off of Twitter. I don't know of any Palestinians who
Speaker 1: like work in the city of London or controlled banks
Speaker 1: in the City of London, or making Hollywood blockbusters and
Speaker 1: three books, three movies about the Holocaust a year or
Speaker 1: in the porn industry. And let me remind you when
Speaker 1: in I think it was two thousand and six when
Speaker 1: Israel took over Israel invaded Gaza. One of the first
Speaker 1: things they did was they broadcast porn on the all
Speaker 1: the TV channels in Gaza. Would why would they do
Speaker 1: Why would they do that? If you're not asking yourself
Speaker 1: these questions, you've bought something, You've bought a narrative. And
Speaker 1: I don't think you understand where we are or who
Speaker 1: we are at this point. In a move last month
Speaker 1: that surely aggravated them, fresh after amusingly humiliating Ukrainian President
Speaker 1: Vovala demr Zozynski and route to ending the money pit
Speaker 1: that is the proxy war against Russia, the Trump administration
Speaker 1: turned around and used emergency author authorities to ship off
Speaker 1: another four billion in military aid to Israel. Zion Don
Speaker 1: strike again. When are we going to get those immigrants
Speaker 1: out of this fucking country down? As today's under fifty
Speaker 1: crowd proceeds to dominate a Republican electorate, those moves could
Speaker 1: start to become a political liability for GOP officials who've
Speaker 1: been conditioned to expect Red Team praise for sending US wealth,
Speaker 1: weapons and soldiers to the Middle East to advance Israel's agenda.
Speaker 1: If rank and file Republicans increasingly embrace George Washington's advice
Speaker 1: to avoid passionate attachments that make the United States a
Speaker 1: slave to its fondness, a seismic shift in the seventy
Speaker 1: seven year US Israel relationship could be in the offing.
Speaker 1: Seventy seven years, three more to go. So what was
Speaker 1: all this mean? Here's what I will say, because I
Speaker 1: know that a lot of young people listen to this,
Speaker 1: and some people who it may be considering getting in
Speaker 1: politics listen to this. Don't go to their parties, get married,
Speaker 1: have kids. If you're planning on becoming a politician, if
Speaker 1: you're planning on infiltrating and trying to do something, don't
Speaker 1: be bribeable, don't be blackmailable, don't do stupid shit. Don't
Speaker 1: go up there and drink, keep your wits about you.
Speaker 1: Understand who your enemy is, have an attitude that you're
Speaker 1: at war now. The only reason I'm talking about this
Speaker 1: and mentioning people who are listening to who might become
Speaker 1: politicians is because there are some who will, but I
Speaker 1: don't think that's going to change anything. So my advice
Speaker 1: to you, even though you're not, there are going to
Speaker 1: be people who are not going to take this advice
Speaker 1: and not go to Washington and not become politicians. For
Speaker 1: those of you who know how stupid that is. If
Speaker 1: you want to become a politician, you do it locally,
Speaker 1: and you have an attitude of gatekeeping. You have an
Speaker 1: attitude of cancelation. You have an attitude of not in
Speaker 1: my backyard, you have an attitude of stay away from
Speaker 1: here with your influence, get the hell out. I mentioned
Speaker 1: this on my livestream before. There were two incidences that
Speaker 1: I've heard of in this in the small little town
Speaker 1: that I've adopted, where people had infiltrated from the outside,
Speaker 1: and one person, one person, not even a community leader,
Speaker 1: not somebody whose name you would you know, it's not
Speaker 1: somebody who'd be like, oh that's the pastor of the church.
Speaker 1: Oh this is the guy who owns this business over here.
Speaker 1: No one person pushed back. They haven't heard from those people. Again.
Speaker 1: They were trying to push wokeism. They were trying to
Speaker 1: say a church group couldn't couldn't pray in public in
Speaker 1: a small town in Alabama and one person with a voice.
Speaker 1: We haven't heard from those people again, and we're constantly
Speaker 1: on guard to make sure it doesn't happen again. We
Speaker 1: don't get infiltrated by it. If we see somebody that
Speaker 1: we think around here who were like guard, that person's illegal,
Speaker 1: we're calling ICE as soon as we find out where
Speaker 1: they are. We're calling Nice. If you're sitting around waiting
Speaker 1: for Trump to do this or Advance to do it,
Speaker 1: or anyone else to do it, besides you, you're you're
Speaker 1: a coward. You you don't want change. If you want change,
Speaker 1: you're gonna go out there and you're gonna do it
Speaker 1: on your own at least, and if it doesn't, even
Speaker 1: if it doesn't work, you're at least gonna try it yourself.
Speaker 1: You're gonna have a passion about it. You're not gonna
Speaker 1: be like, you're not gonna make the excuse, well, I
Speaker 1: pay my taxes and they should be working for they
Speaker 1: don't work for you, So zip that fucking don't talk
Speaker 1: about that shit again, and go do it yourself. All right,
Speaker 1: This is a war we're gonna win. We've been occupied
Speaker 1: for far too long, and the number are turning. The
Speaker 1: only thing they can turn this around is and all
Speaker 1: the laws. And let me just say this, they pass
Speaker 1: more laws, it's going to turn It's going to turn
Speaker 1: more people our way. We don't want that because people
Speaker 1: will get hurt. But if they do that, if they
Speaker 1: keep pushing, it's just going to turn more people our way.
Speaker 1: Understand who the enemy is and do everything you can
Speaker 1: to highlight that because we've been occupied for far too long,
Speaker 1: and until that occupation can end, you can do something
Speaker 1: about it locally. All right. I will try to be
Speaker 1: back in a couple of days. It's busy time of year,
Speaker 1: not only for podcasting but for stuff around the house,
Speaker 1: so I will try. But take care and yeah, try
Speaker 1: to be back in a few days. If not. Episodes
Speaker 1: coming out every day. See on the live stream on Sunday.
Speaker 1: Take care, Good morning. I really didn't have anything to
Speaker 1: talk about until yesterday. Something jumped out at me. And
Speaker 1: I mean, I know there are some people who are like,
Speaker 1: can you stop talking about libertarians? No? No, And if
Speaker 1: you're one of these people on if you're one of
Speaker 1: these people who comments in the comment section or on
Speaker 1: ex Twitter, you know you, really you shouldn't be talking
Speaker 1: about these people. They don't mean any You shouldn't be
Speaker 1: fuck you, I know more than you. Who do you
Speaker 1: think you are? When people are talking about stupid shit
Speaker 1: on Twitter, I don't go in there and go, hey,
Speaker 1: why are you talking about this? I mean, that's some
Speaker 1: really feminine energy. But the I want people to understand this, okay,
Speaker 1: because one thing that we talk about is basically taken
Speaker 1: back what's been taken from us. Whatever that looks like
Speaker 1: to you, I mean, at this point, it's order insanity,
Speaker 1: you know. I mean, hoping for forty million deportations is
Speaker 1: really hope. It's not going to happen. I don't think
Speaker 1: it's going to happen under this administration. Is not going
Speaker 1: to happen in the next what three years and nine
Speaker 1: months or ten eight months, however much that's going to be.
Speaker 1: So you really have to think about building things for yourself.
Speaker 1: And when you're thinking about building things for you and
Speaker 1: your people, then you're gonna have to do gatekeeping. And
Speaker 1: one thing that I know from libertarianism is a lot
Speaker 1: of them. First of all, there's no coherence whatsoever they
Speaker 1: believe and want. It's so individualistic that they believe in.
Speaker 1: They want just things the way they are. And this
Speaker 1: isn't only libertarians. I mean this as a matter of fact.
Speaker 1: If you understand that there are libertarians who want to
Speaker 1: tear everything down or tear certain things down, or that
Speaker 1: they just want to tear down, which we want to too,
Speaker 1: but we know that there's a certain fence that you
Speaker 1: don't cross, or there are certain fences you don't tear down.
Speaker 1: They want to tear things down, and really, when you
Speaker 1: think about it, they're no different than progressives because progressives
Speaker 1: are basically they just want to tear stuff down for
Speaker 1: chaos sake, so they can keep tear something down. Oh look,
Speaker 1: something got broken, needs to be fixed this way that way.
Speaker 1: That's how they that's how they stay in power. That's
Speaker 1: how the regime has been in This regime has been
Speaker 1: in power for one hundred years. But really libertarians are
Speaker 1: no different in that they have no they don't believe
Speaker 1: in anything. They're not a party. Yea, how Thomas says
Speaker 1: there are no political parties. What oath did you sign?
Speaker 1: Where are you paying your dues? What can you get
Speaker 1: kicked out of the party for? It's not a real party.
Speaker 1: A party would be you come in, you say this
Speaker 1: is what we stand for. You pay dues, and if
Speaker 1: you go against whatever the oath is that you take,
Speaker 1: will you get kicked out. That's not what this is.
Speaker 1: And libertarians couldn't do that at all. They just they
Speaker 1: have this idea of oh, as long as there is
Speaker 1: not aggression against another person, so agre give you an example. Oh,
Speaker 1: as long as there's not an aggression against another person
Speaker 1: and their property. So tearing down a border wall, to
Speaker 1: them is not aggression. Turning down a border wall and
Speaker 1: millions of millions of Indians pouring over it into your
Speaker 1: country is not aggression because no individual has been hurt,
Speaker 1: because no individual owns that wall, and because there is
Speaker 1: public property, the Indians walking on that public property, it
Speaker 1: doesn't belong to anybody. So it's perfectly fine. This is
Speaker 1: what progressives believe. I mean, they don't believe that for
Speaker 1: the same exact reasons of private property and non aggression.
Speaker 1: But it's no different than what progressives believe. They're on
Speaker 1: the side of the progressives. But the biggest problem is
Speaker 1: that there are even libertarians out there who aren't anarchists.
Speaker 1: They just want smaller government. They want the government to
Speaker 1: get to a certain place. Well, they have people who
Speaker 1: call themselves the same thing that they call themselves who
Speaker 1: won't be happy with that. If one libertarian gets to
Speaker 1: the point where he's like, Okay, the taxes are low
Speaker 1: enough and the regulations have been stripped away enough that
Speaker 1: I'm happy with what I have here, there'd be someone
Speaker 1: standing right next to them who's like, no, we're going
Speaker 1: to destroy that. And when you start tearing things down,
Speaker 1: chaos ensues. You can lose everything you've just built towards.
Speaker 1: And you have to understand these are people who are
Speaker 1: the enemy. Because I believe that we're just headed for Balkanization.
Speaker 1: There is at this point, with all the evidence I'm
Speaker 1: being shown, with everything that I can see, we're headed
Speaker 1: for Balkanization. And that's the only way basically to that
Speaker 1: this regime, that this structure of government that they don't
Speaker 1: seem to want to destroy in a way that and
Speaker 1: to reform it into something that actually well, I don't
Speaker 1: think it can work, so scratch that. It's just too
Speaker 1: many people, it's too much. It just can't work. There's
Speaker 1: no high culture, there's no common culture. It just can't work.
Speaker 1: It can only work in smaller, smaller polities who confederate
Speaker 1: with each other the way this was actually supposed to
Speaker 1: have worked from the beginning. And people can make arguments about, oh,
Speaker 1: China will just step in and do shut up. That's
Speaker 1: that's a non argument. It's really a non argument. China
Speaker 1: has enough of their own fucking problems. Wherever they go,
Speaker 1: they they they run into into problems. I mean, look
Speaker 1: what happened in Africa when they what's happening with them
Speaker 1: in Africa. If they want their projects in Africa to work,
Speaker 1: they're gonna have to import Chinese there, and then yeah,
Speaker 1: that becomes its own problem, not ours. Back to the
Speaker 1: main topic is people who their whole idea is to
Speaker 1: tear everything down. You will hear, you know, and you
Speaker 1: will hear the most popular libertarians going okay, okay, a
Speaker 1: narco capitalist going okay okay. If you could get it
Speaker 1: down to as small as possible, and why can't you
Speaker 1: just get rid of government what's altogether? If you can
Speaker 1: get it down to minimum, you know, just basically administrative functions,
Speaker 1: why can't you get rid of that? What does that
Speaker 1: sound like to you? I don't even think that would work,
Speaker 1: And I mean, no, government's not going to work on
Speaker 1: a homogeneous society. Someone's always going to have to be
Speaker 1: able to decide the exception. Someone's always going to have
Speaker 1: to be able to decide. Points to somebody and go okay,
Speaker 1: you can legally kill people. Yeah, yeah, I just said that.
Speaker 1: That's exactly what it is. You can kill people who
Speaker 1: need to be killed. But they don't want that. They
Speaker 1: think that people are self governing. They think that they
Speaker 1: think that people are self governing and that people will
Speaker 1: cooperate voluntarily, while they're advocating for infinite pajets and every
Speaker 1: other kind of ethnicity that has no high culture, that
Speaker 1: has nothing that is doesn't understand the Western values that
Speaker 1: we've lost you'd want to get back. So they're advocating, oh,
Speaker 1: that everybody can come together voluntarily, while they're saying there
Speaker 1: shouldn't be any borders right now and everybody should understand that.
Speaker 1: I mean, some of the most popular, you know names
Speaker 1: in libertarianism and archo capitalism that you've heard have retreated
Speaker 1: from the open borders argument. And what does that do?
Speaker 1: That just basically puts them in the camp of consequentialists practicality,
Speaker 1: they're not libertarians anymore. They're not a narco capitalist anymore
Speaker 1: because now they're stepping away from their revolutionary roots. It's
Speaker 1: extremely revolutionary to say we shouldn't have borders in the country,
Speaker 1: should be overrun with whoever wants to come in. It's
Speaker 1: extremely revolutionary to say that, you know, churches shouldn't exist.
Speaker 1: It's very interesting when I was a libertarian the amount
Speaker 1: of libertarians that were atheists, and then when you really
Speaker 1: start looking at like the revolutionary spirit of libertarianism, how
Speaker 1: close it is, how many parallels there are with communism
Speaker 1: and classical marks. I'm not even saying that a lot
Speaker 1: of classical Marxism didn't make a lot of great points.
Speaker 1: It did. The problem is is in the conclusions it
Speaker 1: drew and in a lot of its assumptions. But I
Speaker 1: mean the Industrial Revolution capitalism as it is, as it
Speaker 1: has worked itself out to be. And I've made this
Speaker 1: point before about libertarians. Libertarians will argue all day that
Speaker 1: this is not capitalism at all, this is corporatism, this
Speaker 1: is cronyism, this is whatever. But then when they need to,
Speaker 1: they'll point to South Korea and the living standards of
Speaker 1: the poor in Asia being lifted in the last thirty
Speaker 1: to forty years, and they'll call it capitalism. Oh, they'll
Speaker 1: have some qualifiers, but they'll say, look what free markets do. Oh,
Speaker 1: but it's not a free market. Look what capitalists. It's
Speaker 1: not really capitalism. No, it's all capitalism. If that makes
Speaker 1: me sound like a Marxist socialist, but I don't care,
Speaker 1: don't really care. These are revolutionaries. Liberals are revolutionaries. People
Speaker 1: who say, oh, we don't need this wall, we don't
Speaker 1: need this, we don't need this failsafe, we need to
Speaker 1: remove them all. Those are revolutionaries. People who stand side
Speaker 1: by side with somebody and are like, well, I don't
Speaker 1: care that you you got what you wanted. I want
Speaker 1: what I want. And if that destroys what you got,
Speaker 1: how your happiness as to how things are running right now,
Speaker 1: I'm going to go further. It's libertarianism, it's republicans, it's
Speaker 1: it's obviously the progressives and the regime, the spirit of
Speaker 1: the regime that's been running for one hundred years. These
Speaker 1: are revolutionaries, and their path leads to chaos. If your path,
Speaker 1: if you're focus, if you're if your endpoint is an order,
Speaker 1: you're a revolutionary. You may not be as bad as
Speaker 1: this revolutionary over here, or not be as bad as
Speaker 1: this revolutionary over here. But if you think that chaos
Speaker 1: is going to bring about order, your revolutionary and you're
Speaker 1: on the left. Left and right isn't about economics. Left
Speaker 1: and right isn't about Republican and democrat. Left and right
Speaker 1: is about order versus chaos, and it has a ton
Speaker 1: of historical implications as well. But very simply for those
Speaker 1: who are just starting out, think of left and right
Speaker 1: as chaos versus order, and then we can dig deeper
Speaker 1: into exactly what right what the right is. Thomasin Thomas
Speaker 1: and On my show has done numerous episodes and numerous
Speaker 1: series about this, and we just started one on continental philosophy,
Speaker 1: which will lead all the way to this, but will
Speaker 1: outline this from the beginning. It's about chaos in order,
Speaker 1: and honestly, the kind of economics that most people advocate
Speaker 1: for is chaos. Not to mention. Now, we'll just bring
Speaker 1: this up real quickly as a little deviation, the concept
Speaker 1: of no bless abliege. There is no no bless abliege
Speaker 1: on the left. There is no the nobles require a
Speaker 1: duty because you're always going to have nobles. You're always
Speaker 1: going to have elites. There are always going to be
Speaker 1: people who are who can do more than others, who
Speaker 1: are going to be able to acquire more than others
Speaker 1: for whatever reason. I'd love to see Younger's concept of
Speaker 1: the anarch be more prevalent and be something that people
Speaker 1: would more strive for. But even in that system, there
Speaker 1: will always be people that are more better at doing
Speaker 1: things than others, and they will always require an obligation
Speaker 1: if they have accumulated much to those who haven't. That
Speaker 1: sounds like socialism to some people. If you call that socialism,
Speaker 1: you don't know what you're talking about, and you're historically ignorant.
Speaker 1: But that doesn't exist today. It rarely exists today. There's
Speaker 1: a reason that you know, for whatever you're opinion is
Speaker 1: a patreon. There's a reason why it's called patreon, patron patronage.
Speaker 1: It's one of the reasons why there's no real right
Speaker 1: wing in this country, because there aren't people of means
Speaker 1: who are willing to be patrons to people who are
Speaker 1: actual right wingers. Cat Turd on Twitter is not a
Speaker 1: right winger. He's a classical liberal who thinks that who
Speaker 1: thinks that, like the left or the real racists, the
Speaker 1: left or the left, or the Nazis. The Nazis were
Speaker 1: left wingers because people don't understand continental philosophy. They don't
Speaker 1: understand the history. They don't understand history, they don't understand
Speaker 1: historical terms, they don't understand historical impulses. They don't understand
Speaker 1: anything that's not right wing. We don't have the things,
Speaker 1: we don't have the mechanisms, we don't have the people
Speaker 1: who should be natural leaders. I remember Dark Enlightenment saying
Speaker 1: one day to me, he just said, he said, it's
Speaker 1: ridiculous that something like Antelope Hill and Imperium Press needs
Speaker 1: to be a startup from one person or one little
Speaker 1: group who doesn't really have any funding. That real right
Speaker 1: wing book, you know, book distributors should have been something
Speaker 1: that patrons, that real patronage would have started on. Its
Speaker 1: would have been a startup for that. People would have
Speaker 1: stepped up and said, what do you need to do this?
Speaker 1: How much do you need? We don't have that. That's
Speaker 1: why people think that Maga is going to save us.
Speaker 1: If anything, Magia can buy us time. There's no real
Speaker 1: right wing. The real right wing is forming offline and
Speaker 1: doing good things. And I'm really excited about it. But
Speaker 1: as far as politically, there's no real right wing. There's
Speaker 1: a left wing, there's a progressive wing there. Progressives have
Speaker 1: been running it for over one hundred years. That spirit
Speaker 1: has been running it for one hundred years. There's a
Speaker 1: reaction to it, which is called MAGA, which in my opinion,
Speaker 1: is not going to defeat it. And then there's us
Speaker 1: and people hear that. People are listening right now and
Speaker 1: they're thinking, well, then we're done, because they're so brainwashed
Speaker 1: into the progressive system, into this system that they think
Speaker 1: the only way change can happen is you have to
Speaker 1: take over Washington, DC and get you know, you get elected,
Speaker 1: and then real change happens, even though that flies in
Speaker 1: the face of evidence, of historical evidence. Now you're going
Speaker 1: to have to go do it yourself if you want to,
Speaker 1: I mean, if you want to keep living the way
Speaker 1: you're living, you're comfortable by all means. If you see
Speaker 1: what I and a lot of people see as coming
Speaker 1: down the pipe, you're going to want to abandon that
Speaker 1: kind of thinking and embrace collectivism. And yes, people are
Speaker 1: going to call you a socialist and call you a
Speaker 1: statist or whatever, but really does that matter. Does that
Speaker 1: matter when it comes to your safety, your wife's safety,
Speaker 1: your kid's safety, your family's safety. Does it matter what
Speaker 1: people call you. If your whole friend group is a
Speaker 1: group chat on Facebook or Twitter, that probably matters a
Speaker 1: lot lot to you. Believe me, I've been close to
Speaker 1: people whose whole life they're living online, and then when
Speaker 1: someone in their group gets mad at them and the
Speaker 1: rest of the group gets mad at them and shuns them,
Speaker 1: they have an existential crisis. Can you imagine your ancestors
Speaker 1: being able to see you do that? See you act
Speaker 1: like this? See you have no friends in real life,
Speaker 1: not be able to leave your house right now and
Speaker 1: go somewhere and hang out with a friend. Let's circle back.
Speaker 1: Most people that you run into revolutionaries and are coming
Speaker 1: from the left. They want to tear things down. They
Speaker 1: only want things the way they want it. If things,
Speaker 1: if you were able to build something that you were
Speaker 1: happy with, and they had a chance, they would tear
Speaker 1: it down, or they would tell people who tear it down,
Speaker 1: They would encourage people to tear it down. They would
Speaker 1: push the spirit into existence, push the spirit into the
Speaker 1: zeitgeist that would tear it down. These are not your friends,
Speaker 1: And I've been told by leaders, thought leaders, what do
Speaker 1: you care about people online? We're the thought leaders. We're
Speaker 1: the ones that everyone listens to. Really really, I think
Speaker 1: when you look at when you look at social media, no,
Speaker 1: that's people are attracted to the weirdos. People are calling
Speaker 1: out the weirdos. People are the ones that are making
Speaker 1: you look bad. Those are the ones that you need
Speaker 1: to shun. Those are the ones that you need to
Speaker 1: quote unquote kick out of your quote unquote movement. Well,
Speaker 1: like I said, there's no parties, there's no gatekeeping. Half
Speaker 1: of this stuff is online. More than half of this
Speaker 1: stuff is online. But unfortunately, fortunately there is a way
Speaker 1: for things, for ideas from to go from online into reality.
Speaker 1: And you see that it used to be it was
Speaker 1: just pretty much journalists and people with power who are
Speaker 1: able to do it. But no, now people who have
Speaker 1: little power are able to make ideas run wild. There's
Speaker 1: your people and there's everyone else. And when you examine
Speaker 1: the spirit behind everyone else, usually that spirit will be
Speaker 1: to destroy you and yours, or at least to create
Speaker 1: a reality where you and your can't live the way
Speaker 1: you want to. I've rambled enough. Try to be back
Speaker 1: in a few days, been really busy around the house
Speaker 1: and got ready to get into a whole new round
Speaker 1: of interviews. So if I'm not back for one of these,
Speaker 1: forgive me take care of everyone. Thank you, b