Speaker 1: A lot of them fund the Metal Principles of Aledo
Speaker 1: sell of interesting and any individual lots.
Speaker 2: This is the show, all right, everybody, welcome here run
Speaker 2: Brook Show on this Friday, seven nineteenth. I hope everybody
Speaker 2: had a fantastic weekend.
Speaker 1: It's it's less than a week to Christmas and you're
Speaker 1: looking forward to that. I'm looking forward to the weekend.
Speaker 1: I hear it's snowing in Michigan or there's snow on
Speaker 1: the ground in Michigan and it's really pretty okay, but
Speaker 1: it's gold. Let's see. Yeah, let's just jump in this.
Speaker 1: The last few days there's been a big conference, a
Speaker 1: big event out in Phoenix, service own, the Turning Point
Speaker 1: USA America Fest America Fest. It's not even a conference,
Speaker 1: it's a festival. It's it's it's a big confidence the
Speaker 1: Turning Point USA does every year, and I guess this
Speaker 1: year is the first year, you know, after the murder
Speaker 1: of Charlie Cook, the founder of Turning Point USA, and
Speaker 1: you know, all the leading I don't know what would
Speaker 1: you call them, America first, right of center, right of
Speaker 1: center conservatives, people call themselves conservatives. All they're they're all speaking.
Speaker 1: It is it is a big gathering. I understand thirty
Speaker 1: thousand people assigned up for this, many of them, many
Speaker 1: of them students, I mean, my dream, my dream, and
Speaker 1: yet they did not invite me to speak. That's the news.
Speaker 1: The news is I was not invited speak in front
Speaker 1: of thirty thousand, thirty thousand of these of these students
Speaker 1: and young people, which is a shame, but not surprising
Speaker 1: at all. Anyway, It's turned out that turning point, you
Speaker 1: will say, has become this battleground, battleground for the future
Speaker 1: of I guess the conservative movement, a certain segment of
Speaker 1: the conservative movement. How to tell who you know, who
Speaker 1: they're fighting for? The hearts of minds, I think of
Speaker 1: the young people a turning point. Turning Point is a
Speaker 1: massive organization. I think it's got over a million members now.
Speaker 1: And who is going to shape this organization, Who's going
Speaker 1: to shape the direction, who's going to be the influential
Speaker 1: voices within the organization is really a bat between. I
Speaker 1: guess you would have to argue two sides, one represented
Speaker 1: by Ben Shapiro and the other represent by Tucker Coffs
Speaker 1: and candas Ow uh and uh and Uh, Steve Bannon
Speaker 1: and others. Uh and others uh uh and and they're
Speaker 1: or making Kelly making Kelly's probably in that camp as well.
Speaker 1: And they're going at it at each other's throats yesterday
Speaker 1: and today in Phoenix. I mean, if you're there, it
Speaker 1: must be a lot of fun. It's it's really quite
Speaker 1: quite exciting. Anyway, Shapiro started off yesterday morning. I think
Speaker 1: it was the first main speaker after Erica Uh, Charlie
Speaker 1: Cook's wife spoke, and he just went all out on
Speaker 1: on Candas and on went all out against against Tucker
Speaker 1: uh and uh, you know, just just explicitly named names.
Speaker 1: I mean, he has a segment that the people who
Speaker 1: refuse to condemn Candas's truly vicious attacks, and some of
Speaker 1: them speaking here today tonight, he's talking about uh, Tucker
Speaker 1: Coulson and Megan Kelly a guilty of cowardice. Shapiro said,
Speaker 1: if you host a Hitler, apologist, Nazi loving anti American
Speaker 1: piece of refuse like Nick Frentis, you are to own it.
Speaker 1: He's talking about Tecker Carlson and he names them. So
Speaker 1: it was a it was an all loud Also, Free
Speaker 1: Press published Ben Shapiro's comments uh in full at least
Speaker 1: a version it's likely edited for print, but in full
Speaker 1: and he you know, holds no ball, goes after them.
Speaker 1: It's not exactly what he's advocating for, but he's clearly
Speaker 1: advocating for the deep platforming of certain people within with
Speaker 1: in the movement. He goes. So, for example, if Candae
Speaker 1: Owens decided suspense every day since the murder of Charlie Cooke,
Speaker 1: casting aspirations at TPSU Turning Point USA and the people
Speaker 1: who work here, and to imply or outright claim complicity
Speaker 1: in the cover up of Charlie's murder, the few absolutely
Speaker 1: baseless trash implications implicating everyone from French intelligence to Macade
Speaker 1: to members of TPSU and Charlie's murder or cover up
Speaker 1: in murder, then we, as people with a microphone, have
Speaker 1: a moral obligation to call that out by name. Every
Speaker 1: TPSU should never, never, should have been put in the
Speaker 1: position to have to defend themselves against suspicies and evil attacks,
Speaker 1: particularly in the time of morning. And the people who
Speaker 1: refuse to condemn Candace truly vicious attacks. And some of
Speaker 1: them are speaking here tonight. You heard what you know,
Speaker 1: I already quoted that. Uh she he continues to take
Speaker 1: again Candice's own situation as an example. Friendship with public
Speaker 1: figures who do or say evil things is not an
Speaker 1: excuse for silence on the matter. Politics isn't the sisterhood
Speaker 1: of the Traveling Pants. Politics is about principle. And if
Speaker 1: you are willing to go sacrifice basic truth and simple
Speaker 1: principle in favor of emotional emotional solidarity, you have betrayed
Speaker 1: your fundamental duty to the American people. I wish he
Speaker 1: took his own advice. That's all I can say to
Speaker 1: to Ben Shapiro. You know, his pandurin to uh Trump
Speaker 1: and Mega has been a pathetic and not and and
Speaker 1: that was placing politics about principle. But anyway, anyway, he
Speaker 1: goes after all these people. Uh, he goes after tech
Speaker 1: A coss him by name, and he goes you know,
Speaker 1: he basically says, you've got to make a choice. You
Speaker 1: got to make a choice. Is what is this movement?
Speaker 1: You know? He says, for those of us who talk
Speaker 1: for a living, that is our job to discuss America's
Speaker 1: problems with truth and evidence, to provide possible solutions, and
Speaker 1: to encourage people to succeed. We who speak to people
Speaker 1: on a regular basis, who have a microphone and an
Speaker 1: audience of a duty to you, the duty to speak truth,
Speaker 1: the duty to speak from principle, not personal feeling. The
Speaker 1: duty to take responsibility for our actions, the duty to
Speaker 1: provide you evidence, to do more than conspiracize or just
Speaker 1: ask questions, ask questions. If we fail in those duties,
Speaker 1: we ought to listen. You ought not listen to us.
Speaker 1: But you you know, he says it all begins with truth.
Speaker 1: We owe you that question for truth. You owe yourself
Speaker 1: that question for truth. Truth, Victory only comes truth. So
Speaker 1: a lot of what Ben Shapiro has to say here
Speaker 1: I can't argue with. It's true. Uh and uh, and
Speaker 1: I give him kudos for standing up and speaking the
Speaker 1: truth and challenging the Tucker Cousins and the Canvas Owens
Speaker 1: and and the rest of them. He is, you know,
Speaker 1: relatively speaking, in this world, one of the better people.
Speaker 3: Uh.
Speaker 1: He's still really problematic. And there's still real problems, uh
Speaker 1: with with Ben Shapiro. And uh, you know, he's religious,
Speaker 1: and and he's he's too much of a fan of
Speaker 1: a fan of Trumps, and in many respects he sold
Speaker 1: out principle in order to be a fan of Trumps,
Speaker 1: but he is a fan of Trumps. But he suddenly
Speaker 1: is head and shoulders, head and shoulders and half a
Speaker 1: body above. Uh. All these other creeps who either worked
Speaker 1: for him at the Daily Wire or or speak for
Speaker 1: TPSU right after Ben Shapiro. Funnily enough, who came up
Speaker 1: to speak right after Ben Shapiro, none other than Tucker
Speaker 1: calls it and Tucker's Tucker's was, you know, a speech
Speaker 1: a lot less articulate and uh in in logical and
Speaker 1: rational than Ben Shapiro's. That guy's pompous calls has said
Speaker 1: saying he laughed at watching the watching Shapiro's speech backstage. Uh,
Speaker 1: he calls for deep to deep platform at a Charlie
Speaker 1: Cook event. That's hilarious. No, that's exactly appropriate. They have
Speaker 1: to be standards at every event. They have to be standards.
Speaker 1: Some people should be invited to speak and others not.
Speaker 1: I I was deep platformed by Charlie Cooke. Yeah, I
Speaker 1: was not invited back after my my one speech at
Speaker 1: a major Turning Point USA events and after a few
Speaker 1: other Turning Point events USA events, not invited to speak again.
Speaker 1: They deep platformed me. How dire they I should sue.
Speaker 1: Is there a way to anyway? You get my point? Uh.
Speaker 1: Colson went on to reil against you know, the so
Speaker 1: called cancel culture on the rights, and he promised everybody
Speaker 1: he was not an anti Semite at all, at all,
Speaker 1: at all, even though Israel and the Jews were behind
Speaker 1: it all. He's not an anti Semite at all that
Speaker 1: you know. And he he he he just he just
Speaker 1: went on and on. Uh. I guess there was one
Speaker 1: speaker between Shapiro and Colson, Sorry about that. There was
Speaker 1: one speak up between Shapiro consun I was wrong and
Speaker 1: I was actor Russell Brand who wanted to bring peace.
Speaker 1: He wasn't going to get in the middle of this.
Speaker 1: He kind of talked about his version of Christianity and
Speaker 1: is anti vax and hating the pharmaceutical industry and uh
Speaker 1: and and and stuff like that. So I'm so glad
Speaker 1: they didn't invite me to this conference. Uh. Anyway, Uh,
Speaker 1: this was this is going on. If you missed any
Speaker 1: of it, you can you can still catch it. One
Speaker 1: of the things Takokousan did say, which is important, you know,
Speaker 1: he called out bigotry. I mean, he's very, very very
Speaker 1: anti bigotry, and he really really really doesn't like it
Speaker 1: when you go after Muslims. I mean, he really got
Speaker 1: upset by the fact that people are going after Muslims. Uh.
Speaker 1: He said, the Muslims are mostly good. It's evil to
Speaker 1: be anti Islam, and it's just strong. It's just wrong
Speaker 1: to go after Muslims. And he's very anti Muslim bigotry.
Speaker 1: And the fact that there are people a TPSU attacking Islam.
Speaker 1: He just found that horrible. That's the bigotry. That's the
Speaker 1: one thing, the one group that actually, as a group
Speaker 1: you could argue deserves some criticism. Because very few Muslims
Speaker 1: come out and criticize Islamist, criticize the violent, criticize the
Speaker 1: anti American, then the Islami community deserves criticism. In another segment,
Speaker 1: in the name of loyalty and commitment to group and
Speaker 1: to I guess family and tribe and whatever, Tucker Kasta
Speaker 1: said that if his brother went on a drug induced
Speaker 1: murder spree, if his brother went on a drug induced
Speaker 1: murder speed, he'd defended He would defend him because he's
Speaker 1: a brother after all, and blood. Blood is thicker than murder,
Speaker 1: thinker than justice. So Techo was there to straighten out
Speaker 1: these conservatives and give them some real conservative values. It's
Speaker 1: all about family. Even if the family's evil, even the
Speaker 1: members of your family evil, you've got to defend them,
Speaker 1: to help with justice. Tell her truth, tell her responsibility.
Speaker 1: It's all about the tribe. Candice On in the meantime,
Speaker 1: who was not invited. She was deplatformed after spending all
Speaker 1: this time criticizing Erica Coke and implying that Erica Cooke
Speaker 1: knew the truth about the real killers of Charlie. She
Speaker 1: was not invited. She did not speak, but she did tweets,
Speaker 1: and she was very upset at Ben Shapiro and as
Speaker 1: usual as usual, you know, this is what she said. Right,
Speaker 1: every time Ben speaks, I feel more certain that Israel
Speaker 1: is evolved in the killing of Charlie Cook. He's just
Speaker 1: way too invested in Charlie's murder. He never liked Charlie,
Speaker 1: and he's now suddenly pretended that he has a duty
Speaker 1: to defend his legacy. Ben only cares about Israel's interests,
Speaker 1: So Israel's involved. And she's such a deep thinker. She
Speaker 1: sees through, you know, the many layers, the many layers
Speaker 1: of what is going on. So, I mean all these people.
Speaker 1: I mean the fact that I have to say Ben
Speaker 1: Shapiro is a good guy in comparison. That's kind of
Speaker 1: scary because Ben's wrong on so many things, and he's
Speaker 1: been wrong, and he's become so much worse with the
Speaker 1: Trump he is and he's religious, and he talks about duties,
Speaker 1: and I'm against duty generally, but you know, so the
Speaker 1: fact that Ben stands out as this amazing person relative
Speaker 1: to all the others says so much about these people
Speaker 1: now circling around TPSU. It's pretty pathetic, Pretty pathetic, sad, sad. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean Techolsa said during his talk killing tens of
Speaker 1: thousands of children, making excuses for it on behalf of
Speaker 1: a foreign government. Is you know, it's not that in there.
Speaker 1: It's anti ethical to that he's talk about the Bible.
Speaker 1: It doesn't make me a hater. It makes me an
Speaker 1: opponent of hate. And I'm not an antisemite. And I
Speaker 1: don't obsessed about Israel. Well maybe I do, but it's
Speaker 1: not because right to send it. It's because they kill children.
Speaker 1: Somebody asked if I'm against duty, really, duty is the
Speaker 1: is the is the enemy of morality? You can ask
Speaker 1: me that about that in a super chat. That would
Speaker 1: make a great super chat to ask about why I'm
Speaker 1: against duty anyway, sa Tucker spouting his regular lies, you know,
Speaker 1: praising Muslims, attacking Israel. That's part of the course. Erica Cook,
Speaker 1: who did open the confidence, did during her opening speech
Speaker 1: make it make one thing clear, and that is that
Speaker 1: she was on a mission. And her mission was to
Speaker 1: get Charlie Cook's friend JD. Vance elected in twenty twenty eight.
Speaker 1: So maybe she doesn't know that Trump is running again,
Speaker 1: but but she is all in on Vance. It's going
Speaker 1: to be really, really interesting because if they can mobilize
Speaker 1: turning points USA to back Vance, who's not very popular
Speaker 1: in the general among people generally. Vance is also very
Speaker 1: close friends with Tucker. Coulson Foyantess hates Vance and slams
Speaker 1: them all the time. So this struggle within the conservative movement,
Speaker 1: the turning point the young Conservative movement is going to
Speaker 1: continue and it's going to get ugly. It's going to
Speaker 1: continue to be ugly. It's going to get uglier, but
Speaker 1: it is it is going to sustain itself and the
Speaker 1: kind of the It's going to be interesting to see
Speaker 1: how JD. Vance positions himself if he gets too close
Speaker 1: to Tucker Causon, he'll beccause of anti Semitism, which emsy
Speaker 1: and all of that. If he gets if he if
Speaker 1: he you know, moves away from Tucker Corsa and he
Speaker 1: risks getting all the people who support Tucker to come
Speaker 1: out against him. It's it's going to be interesting. It's
Speaker 1: going to be interesting. It'll be an interesting Republican primary.
Speaker 1: I think JD. Vance it's his to lose, and he
Speaker 1: probably is a shoeing for the Republican nominee in twenty
Speaker 1: twenty eight. And you should all prepare for that and
Speaker 1: decide whether you can vote for JD. Evans over I
Speaker 1: don't know over probably the governor of California seems to
Speaker 1: be the leading candidate. Maybe AOC, maybe AOC. See here's
Speaker 1: one AOC versus JD Vans. That that that should trigger
Speaker 1: you'll that that should get you going in terms of
Speaker 1: who you're going to vote for. All right, talk about
Speaker 1: you know, contentious people on the right and the kind
Speaker 1: of people that that I don't know where they fall
Speaker 1: in the Tucker Costa and Ben Shapiro. But Matt Walsh
Speaker 1: works for Ben Shapiro. So, I don't see how I
Speaker 1: don't know how all of that works. But you're seeing
Speaker 1: more and more of the language of white supremacy, the
Speaker 1: language of white nationalism, the language of you know, tribalism,
Speaker 1: not just in terms of political tribalism, but racial tribalism.
Speaker 1: And one of the lines that you're seeing here is
Speaker 1: not just to equate Western civilization and the achievements of
Speaker 1: Western socilization are successive a Western civilization with Christianity, which
Speaker 1: is a huge push in our culture. There's a huge
Speaker 1: push to do that in our culture. But Matt is
Speaker 1: also pushing the idea the Western civilization and all its
Speaker 1: achievements are basically the achievements of white men, not even women. Women.
Speaker 1: Forget it. You achieve nothing, You have no responsibility, you
Speaker 1: have no no, you did not help bring about Western
Speaker 1: civilization at all. It's all white men. Now I'm curious
Speaker 1: how he defines white, but you know, we'll get to
Speaker 1: it anyway. I thought i'd showed you a video about this,
Speaker 1: maybe you'd be convinced as well. I mean about the
Speaker 1: great achievements of white men. Uh and uh. But note
Speaker 1: no extent, no, the extent to which they are collectivists
Speaker 1: and tribal and racists. I mean just talking about white men.
Speaker 1: The way he talks is a racist mentality. Racism is
Speaker 1: not just about condemning somebody for uh, for the color
Speaker 1: of their skin. It's also about praising somebody because of
Speaker 1: the color of the skin. It's taking credit for something
Speaker 1: because of somebody's color of skin. So let's watch this
Speaker 1: and then we'll talk about, Yeah, they Lee's skin color.
Speaker 1: I don't know what they's skin color was? Was he
Speaker 1: it was a man? I think it was a man.
Speaker 1: Did he identify as a man? Uh? Bet? Was he?
Speaker 1: Was he? Uh? Was he a? Uh? Was he white?
Speaker 1: Let's let's watch uh, let's watch Madwealsh and and look
Speaker 1: at that.
Speaker 3: Now, the context of this is this this uh article
Speaker 3: that came out describing anti white discrimination in the workforce,
Speaker 3: which is clearly horrific.
Speaker 1: And discuss and you know, it's the same kind of racism.
Speaker 1: The difference the issue is what is the response to racism?
Speaker 1: How should you respond to anti white or anti any racism. Well,
Speaker 1: you can take the kindy approach, which is we need
Speaker 1: to recognize our race and we need to fight in
Speaker 1: the name of our race, and there were racists, and
Speaker 1: everybody's a racist. And so you can take the identitarian
Speaker 1: politics of woke left, or he can be an individualist.
Speaker 1: And what about walshes as he's basically adopting the Kendy mentality,
Speaker 1: He's basically adopting racism to fight racism, which is what
Speaker 1: woke did forever. Woke fought racism by being racist, and
Speaker 1: that's exactly what matters doing. All Right, here we go.
Speaker 4: The biggest and most important downstream consequence of this open
Speaker 4: discrimination against white men is that everything in society gets
Speaker 4: worse as a result.
Speaker 1: Everything in society gets worse because we discriminate against white men.
Speaker 1: Now there's a sense in which that's true. There's a
Speaker 1: sense in which everything gets worse when you discriminate. But
Speaker 1: when you discriminate against white men, everything gets worse because
Speaker 1: only white men can run big American businesses like Microsoft
Speaker 1: or Google. Oh wait, they're run by Indians. About only
Speaker 1: white men could run a complex, innovative breakthrough company like Nvidia.
Speaker 1: Oh wait, it's it's run it's run by a by
Speaker 1: a a Asian. I think he's Chinese. Maybe only white
Speaker 1: men can can can run a company like Apple? Does
Speaker 1: gay white men count. I don't think gay white men
Speaker 1: count because you know, CEO of Apple is gay. I mean, really,
Speaker 1: this guy's a moron. I mean, Met Walsh is a
Speaker 1: moment everything gets worse. Everything.
Speaker 4: That is the second order of fact that the compact
Speaker 4: piece doesn't really get into. It's the third rail, the
Speaker 4: part you're not supposed to talk about. But the truth,
Speaker 4: which everybody intuitively knows, is that things were a lot
Speaker 4: better back when white men were not being discriminated against
Speaker 4: by every institution in the country, but instead we're running
Speaker 4: most of them.
Speaker 1: What was better, what exactly was better? American business is
Speaker 1: better then than they are today. No evidence of that,
Speaker 1: more entrepreneurs back then than they are today. No evidence
Speaker 1: of that was I don't know where in what realm.
Speaker 1: I mean, sure, a lot of things have gotten worse.
Speaker 1: Academia has gotten worse, intellectual spite. You know, maybe maybe
Speaker 1: the movies have gotten worse, But back then a lot
Speaker 1: of the movies were at least being produced by I'm
Speaker 1: just looking at a history of Hollywood, you know, the
Speaker 1: founding of Hollywood, and they were all Jewish men and
Speaker 1: at least one woman, Mary Pickford. It turns out maybe
Speaker 1: Pickford the actress had a really important role in shaping
Speaker 1: Hollywood in the early days, so women maybe so note
Speaker 1: here that how anti intellectual this is the reason things
Speaker 1: are bad today. And you know, you could argue things
Speaker 1: are bad today in a variety of different areas. It's
Speaker 1: not intellectual, it's not philosophical, it's not ideas. It's not
Speaker 1: ideas shaping the world that I'm make in the world
Speaker 1: worse the reason, I mean, just think about how racist.
Speaker 1: This is blatantly racist. The reason some things are worse
Speaker 1: off today now in his argument is everything is worse
Speaker 1: today is because they're not off white men in positions
Speaker 1: of leadership. But Biden was a white man, Bush was
Speaker 1: a white man. Nixon was a white man. Clinton was
Speaker 1: a white man. Jeffk you know, Johnson was a white man.
Speaker 1: They didn't do good things politically. I mean, there's only
Speaker 1: being one non white male president in American history. I mean,
Speaker 1: he was bad, but he was that much worse than
Speaker 1: the white men. God, I'm looking for fields areas in
Speaker 1: which white so superior. You know, basketball is much better. Right,
Speaker 1: Let's go back to Mattwalsh. I mean, it's just I mean,
Speaker 1: why Ben Shapiro And here's the thing, right, here's the thing.
Speaker 1: Why Ben Shapiro would keep this bastard on I mean,
Speaker 1: this igno reimus racist on his platform? Why he would
Speaker 1: keep him a Natucker calson, Why you would keep him
Speaker 1: but not Candae on it. This is why, as much
Speaker 1: as I can, you know, once in a while you
Speaker 1: I'm tempted to say a nice thing about being Shapiro,
Speaker 1: I can't be on board with Ben Shapiro because he
Speaker 1: has this guy working for him. This is straight out racism.
Speaker 4: And the fact of the matter is that a hugely
Speaker 4: disproportionate number of our greatest leaders in a vaders, pioneers, explorers, philosophers,
Speaker 4: and so on have been white men.
Speaker 1: Now that is true, a hugely disproportion and I like
Speaker 1: that's much better than all hugely disproportion have been. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean the reasons for that that we can discuss
Speaker 1: that have nothing to do with the whiteness of their skin,
Speaker 1: that have something to do with the geographic area with
Speaker 1: these ideas were successful, were adopted successfully, and you know
Speaker 1: there's an element, there's an element of accident in it,
Speaker 1: if you will, But does this make white men superior?
Speaker 1: Couldn't Indians, Chinese, even you don't me the Middle Easterners, Arabs, Persians,
Speaker 1: Central Asians. Could they achieve as much under the right circumstances.
Speaker 1: I mean, there's no doubt in my mind, But certainly
Speaker 1: Matt Wallis doesn't think so, not at all. It's whiteness,
Speaker 1: and there are lots of white people, like ninety nine
Speaker 1: point ninety nine percent of white people who haven't achieved
Speaker 1: much on the scale of shaping Western civilization, explores you know, uh, scientists, philosophers,
Speaker 1: and of course a lot of really horrific things like communism, Nazism, fascism.
Speaker 1: I don't know, decount Italians is white. I guess so
Speaker 1: in this context also white people. But let's not talk
Speaker 1: about that. Mm hm.
Speaker 4: I mean without white men, we wouldn't have airplanes or spaceships,
Speaker 4: or trains, or phones or light bulbs or computers or
Speaker 4: the Internet or batteries or I.
Speaker 1: Mean, I like to say, without the white Brothers, we
Speaker 1: wouldn't have planes, or maybe we would there were other
Speaker 1: people working on it at the same time, but you know,
Speaker 1: without Thomas Jefferson, we wouldn't have had it when we
Speaker 1: had it. But is what made any of those people special,
Speaker 1: is what made the culture in which they lived special
Speaker 1: is what made the culture of entrepreneurship special. The fact
Speaker 1: that they were white. Won't go to Silicon Valley today.
Speaker 1: Go to Silicon Valley today and you will see that
Speaker 1: the next white Brothers, and the next Thomas Edison and
Speaker 1: the next whatever not necessarily white. The Indians, the Jews
Speaker 1: again not cliffed use a white, and there the Chinese.
Speaker 1: They might even be from the Middle East, from Central Asia.
Speaker 1: And what is again, I need to ask this question
Speaker 1: because I don't know. Maybe one of you has an answer,
Speaker 1: But what does what does whiteness even mean? How do
Speaker 1: we measure it? Does he mean Northern Europeans real white? Yeah?
Speaker 1: Then I'm not that impressed, because I mean Southern Europeans
Speaker 1: have advanced civilization dramatically, particularly during the Renaissance. What is
Speaker 1: who is he talking about? Exactly? Who are these white people?
Speaker 1: And what degree of genetic purity is required for you
Speaker 1: to be a contributor to civilization? Like you know, if
Speaker 1: if if, if you're Spain and you have some Berber
Speaker 1: blood in you, blood Berber Jenes in you, because many
Speaker 1: Spaniards do, because the Berbers were there for a long time.
Speaker 1: How about Arab a lot of Arabs settled in Andalusia
Speaker 1: and southern Spain and conquered much of Spain and intermarried.
Speaker 1: There was much, huge amounts of in the marriage between
Speaker 1: the previous people who lived there, which happened to be
Speaker 1: Northern Europeans Germans who had conquered Spain before the Muslims did.
Speaker 1: How much? What percentage of your blood needs to be
Speaker 1: white to be considered white? It's disgusting, despicable, stupid, irrational, meaningless,
Speaker 1: and but it's you know, it's it's this fundamental tribalism,
Speaker 1: and it's a sceptual level mentality. I see the color
Speaker 1: of your skin that I can see, evaluate your character,
Speaker 1: understand history, pursue causality over history that is way too difficult.
Speaker 1: That's conceptual. That means elevating myself. I mean, Matt Welsh
Speaker 1: is really the epitome of a kind of a He
Speaker 1: exhibits kind of the missing link what we talked about Sunday,
Speaker 1: a mentality that hasn't reached full conceptual level. Or maybe
Speaker 1: he just treats his audience as if his audience is
Speaker 1: that way. It's hard to tell what he actually believes.
Speaker 4: X ray machines or jet engines, or rockets or a
Speaker 4: thousand other things that our society depends on to exist.
Speaker 1: I think he said the printing press, and just a
Speaker 1: starical note that the penning press movable type printing press
Speaker 1: was invented in China. China, as was paper. So the
Speaker 1: use of paper as we know it was an Asian invention.
Speaker 1: So it turns out that.
Speaker 4: The flourish we never would have had a railway system
Speaker 4: or the printing press.
Speaker 1: Yeah, there's a penny press. We wouldn't have this, really
Speaker 1: never had a printing press if not of white men.
Speaker 1: H That technology was not invented gun power. I mean,
Speaker 1: the Chinese invented a lot of stuff, a lot of stuff.
Speaker 1: There was a silk uh, weaving of silk and uh
Speaker 1: and of course uh printing press and gunpowder and and
Speaker 1: many other innovations Indians. Can you imagine Western engineering and
Speaker 1: science without the number zero, without the concept of the
Speaker 1: number of zero that was invented or discovered by Indians
Speaker 1: Indian civilization and transported to the West by the Arabs.
Speaker 1: The Arabs also made dramatic innovation in algebra, which is
Speaker 1: not European algebra was Indian and Indian Central Asian Persian
Speaker 1: Arab So where would we be without algebra? Just the
Speaker 1: ignorance of this guy, the stupidity of this guy. I mean,
Speaker 1: for a thousand years, white men pretty much didn't do
Speaker 1: anything from four hundred to fourteen hundred. While Persians and
Speaker 1: Central Asians and Arabs you know, and Chinese and Indians
Speaker 1: had flourishing civilizations, white men went nowhere. Maybe it would
Speaker 1: be interesting what happened to change that? What was the
Speaker 1: causal link that made it possible for suddenly white men
Speaker 1: to achieve things? What Maney had to do with a
Speaker 1: rediscovery of the ideas of a civilization in Greece which
Speaker 1: is white. Who you know? Do we know that? Do
Speaker 1: we know what the genes of the ancient Greece were?
Speaker 1: Who cares? What does it matter? Its ideas.
Speaker 4: Country which was founded by white men and led by
Speaker 4: white men, and expanded from coast to coast and settled
Speaker 4: and built up mostly by white men.
Speaker 1: Maybe that has to do something with the fact that
Speaker 1: the same white men also enslaved black men, enslaved them,
Speaker 1: treated them as subhuman. David says Greece Greek were definitely
Speaker 1: not white. I have no idea. Again, I don't know
Speaker 1: what any of this means. These are concepts that are
Speaker 1: bogus concepts. Race, as I told you, I don't think exists.
Speaker 1: There is no such thing as race.
Speaker 4: Now, these are all facts, fact, historical realities that cannot
Speaker 4: be denied.
Speaker 1: I just denied it, just true. I denied the fans.
Speaker 4: While Black women are encouraged to be proud of the
Speaker 4: historical achievements of black women, whatever those might be, and
Speaker 4: Asians to be proud of Asian achievements, and Native Americans
Speaker 4: of Native American achievements, and so on, white men are
Speaker 4: the one group on in the entire face of the
Speaker 4: planet who've been forbidden to even acknowledge what other white
Speaker 4: men have accomplished, much less to express any pride in it.
Speaker 1: What does it mean to express pride in achievements of
Speaker 1: other people whose only connection to you is having a
Speaker 1: superficial outwardly resemblance in the form of skin color. I
Speaker 1: mean that's true of Black pride and Asian pride and Natives.
Speaker 1: I can pride and all these stupid I mean troy ballistic,
Speaker 1: collectivistic views, Jewish pride, I mean, what do they mean?
Speaker 1: Can I be pride proud of Einstein? I'm proud that
Speaker 1: people from my genetic lineage, you know, responsible for the
Speaker 1: theory of relativity. Isn't that cool? No, it's not cool
Speaker 1: at all. Einstein's achievements have nothing to do with me.
Speaker 1: I am happy for Einstein's achievements. I celebrate them and
Speaker 1: the culture that, in a sense it made it possible
Speaker 1: for Einstein to achieve what he achieved. It still was
Speaker 1: up to him, but he needed a culture, a culture
Speaker 1: that in a sense embraced new ideas. Otherwise, like many
Speaker 1: geniuses before him, he would have never had an opportunity
Speaker 1: to express his genius. But that does nothing to do
Speaker 1: with the fact that he was Jewish or the fact
Speaker 1: that he was white, or was he white? I don't know.
Speaker 1: It's not an issue of pride for me. Pride as
Speaker 1: an individual virtue. You can't even really be proud of
Speaker 1: your children. You can't really even be proud of your
Speaker 1: children because you didn't create them, not in the sense
Speaker 1: of their soul, their achievements, their success. I mean, in
Speaker 1: my view, when a child does something really good, you
Speaker 1: shouldn't say I'm proud of you, because I think that's ridiculous.
Speaker 1: It's not about me, it's about them. I think what
Speaker 1: you should say to them is you should be proud
Speaker 1: of yourself. You did that. Good for you, that's amazing.
Speaker 1: I mean, you create the material manifestation of a child,
Speaker 1: but the child still has to create itself from a
Speaker 1: perspective intellectual and a soul, and whatever it is that
Speaker 1: they do, they have to do it, and they should
Speaker 1: be proud of their achievements. It's not for you to
Speaker 1: be proud of their achievements. You can only be proud
Speaker 1: of yourself. The values you teach your kids do not
Speaker 1: cause them anything. We are not automatons, we are not deterministic.
Speaker 1: Children are not treat them well, they will become good.
Speaker 1: It's very dangerous to go into parenthood believing that you
Speaker 1: will shape your kids. You can help, you can contribute,
Speaker 1: you can make it easier, you can make it harder.
Speaker 1: But objectivism's view of free will is that it's the
Speaker 1: individual's responsibility to make something of themselves, to make themselves
Speaker 1: into whatever it is. They're going to be the only
Speaker 1: responsibility for a child, unless you've really abused them. The
Speaker 1: responsibility for what a child is is on them. It's
Speaker 1: the only kind of modern pseudo psychology that you know, Oh,
Speaker 1: I did this because you know my mother this or
Speaker 1: my mother that, or you know my edifice complex or
Speaker 1: this complex or that complex, as if were some kind
Speaker 1: of deterministic automatons. To raise a child right is to
Speaker 1: give them and to leave them open to the opportunity
Speaker 1: to take it, to take advantage of opportunities, to make
Speaker 1: themselves the best that they can be. But I know,
Speaker 1: I know great people, really amazing people who had horrible childhoods,
Speaker 1: really tough, really difficult, with very limited opportunities. And I
Speaker 1: know people who raised by parents who gave the kids everything,
Speaker 1: you know, who really treated the kids well and gave
Speaker 1: them opportunities and treated them alllly and taught them the
Speaker 1: right values and everything, and they turned out completely rotten,
Speaker 1: completely rotten. You shape your soul. You're not a product
Speaker 1: of your environment. You're not a product of your genes.
Speaker 1: You're not a product of your skin color. You're not
Speaker 1: a product of your culture. All of those things, genes, culture,
Speaker 1: parents make a difference. But it's the choices you make.
Speaker 1: Didn't make you who you are. Choices you make make
Speaker 1: you who you are. And to a loge extent, much
Speaker 1: of the field of psychology has been wrong about these things. Wrong.
Speaker 1: I mean, most psychology doesn't recognize free will. How can
Speaker 1: you do how can you do psychology without recognizing free will?
Speaker 1: All right, there's influence. You can have influence, but that
Speaker 1: influence is not binding. Influence is not binding. All right,
Speaker 1: let's finish up this clip. God forbid.
Speaker 4: Instead, our society set out on a campaign to punish
Speaker 4: and exclude and alienate this very group. That is their
Speaker 4: reward for having carried the weight of Western civilization on
Speaker 4: their shoulders.
Speaker 1: You didn't realize that the real Atlases of the world
Speaker 1: are not the individual's a great ability, but they're white men.
Speaker 1: White men. I mean God, I mean iman, woman philosopher,
Speaker 1: Madame Cooree, I mean there plenty of women. And again,
Speaker 1: whiteness is meaningless. Oh right, I'm gonna I'm gonna skip this.
Speaker 1: You get the point. This is kind of the collectivism,
Speaker 1: the tribalism, the racism that is eating away at the right.
Speaker 1: It's destroying the right. It's exactly what I meant predicted.
Speaker 1: It is an anti conceptual mentality. You just gotta those
Speaker 1: of you who attended the Members only show on the
Speaker 1: missing link. And if you didn't and you're a member,
Speaker 1: you can check it out. You have access to all
Speaker 1: those all those shows, all the members only shows, so
Speaker 1: you can you can check it out. But those of
Speaker 1: you attended, you should be You should recognize in what
Speaker 1: he says the mentality of a perceptual level human being.
Speaker 1: He positions himself and presents itself to the world as
Speaker 1: an intellectual leader, a commentator, a cultural critic, but an
Speaker 1: intellectual and yet he has not graduated for a pre
Speaker 1: human state. He's not elevated himself to the conceptual level
Speaker 1: to see cause of relationship, to be able to, you know,
Speaker 1: trace ideas skin color. Skin color because he sees it.
Speaker 1: Because if you line up all the great achiever, most
Speaker 1: of them are white. There must be something special in
Speaker 1: the in the in the stuff that makes white white.
Speaker 1: I know I go after Matt Walsh a lot, but
Speaker 1: he deserves it, and he's got a huge following, and
Speaker 1: I think he says what a lot of people believe
Speaker 1: he has. Okay, let's go to Bondy. Just a reminder
Speaker 1: that we have targets for support of the show. The
Speaker 1: show's made possible because of you. We have targets to
Speaker 1: do und fifty dollars an hour. We're short of that,
Speaker 1: we're going to hit the first hour. We're definitely, we're
Speaker 1: definitely going to be well into the second hour. I
Speaker 1: can't go more than two hours today because I've got
Speaker 1: a hart stop. But let's at least make the first hour.
Speaker 1: Before we reach the first hour. We've got ten minutes
Speaker 1: to get about one hundred and twenty dollars. So six
Speaker 1: twenty dollars questions, six twenty dollars questions, not ten dollars questions,
Speaker 1: not five dollar questions, twenty dollars questions. All right. So,
Speaker 1: one of the you know, amazing heartening stories coming out
Speaker 1: of the horrific massacre, just just a horrific terrorist attack
Speaker 1: on Bunny Beach was this Ahmed al Ahmed, who is
Speaker 1: a Syrian immigrant to Australia who actually you know, jumped
Speaker 1: on one of the terrorists, managed to disarm him, saved
Speaker 1: the lives of many many people, saved the lives of
Speaker 1: many many people in the process, got injured because the
Speaker 1: other shooter shot at him and he was injured. He
Speaker 1: is doing fine, he's he's gone through surgery and doing fine. Anyway,
Speaker 1: he has this this hero, legitimate, real hero. You can
Speaker 1: see the videos of it. I mean, it takes a
Speaker 1: lot of guts to do what he did, and we'll
Speaker 1: talk about some other heroes who weren't quite as successful
Speaker 1: as he was. Sadly but Meant has now been labeled
Speaker 1: a traitor in the Arab world for stopping a terrorist attack.
Speaker 1: The Facebook page of a Palestinian useus right in Ramala.
Speaker 1: Ramala is in the West Bank, Uh. They posted Ahmed story.
Speaker 1: Almost all the hundreds of comments that followed were hostile.
Speaker 1: A day he saved Jews. Here's some quotes. Treason comes
Speaker 1: to you from the closest people. He sold himself and
Speaker 1: his life for the safety of the Jews. These are
Speaker 1: the Palestinians that Israel is supposed to have a peace
Speaker 1: with and is supposed to, you know, give them a
Speaker 1: state of their own right next to Tel Aviv. I
Speaker 1: wish it was I wish the bullet hit your heart.
Speaker 1: May Allah not heal you. This is uh you know,
Speaker 1: some some of the who representative representative of it anyway,
Speaker 1: Some people, some people in Australia did not feel that way.
Speaker 1: And there was a fundraising campaign to raise money for him,
Speaker 1: to support him, to reward him, if you will, for
Speaker 1: his bravery. The fundraising campaign who raised one point sixty
Speaker 1: five million dollars US dollars. That's well over two million
Speaker 1: Australian dollars. He was handed a check in hospital and
Speaker 1: he said something like, you know, do I really deserve this?
Speaker 1: And the guy who gave it to him said, yes,
Speaker 1: you do, and you know it's it's it's hot, warming
Speaker 1: and good for the people who donated, and yeah, he
Speaker 1: definitely deserves it. He's a father of two, he's you know,
Speaker 1: he works in Australia. As far as I know, he's
Speaker 1: not a welfare recipient, but on there and uh yeah.
Speaker 1: Bill Akerman, the American hedge funt guy who took a
Speaker 1: couson happens to hate I gave one hundred thousand Australian
Speaker 1: dollars as part of the fundraising campaign. I wonder how
Speaker 1: much Tucker Cosson gave to a Muslim who stopped Islamic terrorists.
Speaker 1: But they were killing Jews, so maybe Tucker was for
Speaker 1: the terrorists. Akman, not Akermen, Sorry, Akman, yes, Akman sorry, anyway,
Speaker 1: this is terrific. I guess there's people all around the
Speaker 1: world who gave the money. But but yes, good for him. Oops.
Speaker 1: I just closed something I didn't want to do it
Speaker 1: is so I didn't want to point out. If you
Speaker 1: haven't read this in the news, haven't seen any who
Speaker 1: else that right at the beginning of the attack, Early
Speaker 1: in the attack, there was a couple, Gummann and Sophia Goodman,
Speaker 1: both in their sixties. He was sixty he's sixty sixty nine,
Speaker 1: she was sixty one, who noticed the one attacker with
Speaker 1: a gun starting to fire. They both jumped on him
Speaker 1: and tried to take the gun away from him. The
Speaker 1: terrorists overwhelmed them and shot them both and killed them.
Speaker 1: So there were people, civilians mostly who actually took an
Speaker 1: initiative into their own hands and engaged with them at
Speaker 1: the risk of their own lives, and in this case
Speaker 1: they both lost their lives. In the case of Ahmand,
Speaker 1: at least he managed to survive, which is good. They
Speaker 1: you know, both Boss and Sofia Yuh lived right there.
Speaker 1: They lived in in in bun Dai ban Dai Beach
Speaker 1: in Sydney, Australia, and they were both killed while trying
Speaker 1: to stop the attacks. So incredibly heroic and incredibly brave. Again,
Speaker 1: there's some questions about the police performance. It was ultimately
Speaker 1: a detective who would run from the station, who was
Speaker 1: a really good shot, and managed with his handgun, with
Speaker 1: his pistol to shoot the one attacker, you know, to
Speaker 1: shoot him from a distance. Uh, and and and and
Speaker 1: and stop him. So the police did stop it, but
Speaker 1: it took it took them way too long, and and
Speaker 1: some of the police there were just very ineffectual. Even
Speaker 1: though they had handguns, they were not going to risk
Speaker 1: their lives. They were not going to take the risk,
Speaker 1: which I think is part of a policeman's job to
Speaker 1: stop this kind of shooting. Finally, it's worth noting that
Speaker 1: a couple of days after the Bandai attack, law enforcement
Speaker 1: identified seven men en route to Bondai. They'd received a
Speaker 1: tip about a possible violent act. The police rammed these
Speaker 1: vehicles and stopped them and arrested seven Middle Eastern men,
Speaker 1: as my understanding is, who supposedly were going to do
Speaker 1: a follow up attack in Bondai. So supposedly the men
Speaker 1: that's set out for Melbourne, We're heading to Bondai Beach,
Speaker 1: a nine hour drive. They were rested in a place
Speaker 1: called Liverpool, which is about forty minutes away from Bondai. Well,
Speaker 1: the reason is unclear. Why they were driving there. The
Speaker 1: suspicion is that they were that they were going to
Speaker 1: engage in terrorist attack. The police are investigating this as
Speaker 1: a terrorist investigation, so there's more way that came from. Sadly,
Speaker 1: all right, let's see the funder. Yes, we talked about
Speaker 1: this a little bit the last few days. I wanted
Speaker 1: to wrap it up. It turns out that the guy
Speaker 1: who murdered people at Brown University and murdered two students
Speaker 1: and injured another eight kind of almost randomly. And then
Speaker 1: it was the same guy who murdered the physics professor physics,
Speaker 1: the physics scientist in Bookline, Massachusetts. Same guy. We don't
Speaker 1: know exactly what the motive is, and but it is
Speaker 1: the same person. So these Raelings were wrong. There was
Speaker 1: no Iranian conspiracy here. It doesn't It certainly doesn't seem
Speaker 1: that way. This is a guy who took some It
Speaker 1: was actually knew the MIT professor had studied with the
Speaker 1: MIT professor back in Portugal when they were both younger.
Speaker 1: He had come to the United States on an F
Speaker 1: one visa and had studied for a year, I guess
Speaker 1: two semesters at Brown. He had been accepted to Brown,
Speaker 1: but then left the university and got a green card
Speaker 1: as part of one of the lotteries. He got a
Speaker 1: green card from a lottery and stayed in the US.
Speaker 1: It's not clear what he did, but he stayed in
Speaker 1: the US. This other guy, the guy was murdered, was
Speaker 1: also from Portugal, and he stayed in Portugal and got
Speaker 1: his PhD in physics and then worked there, and it
Speaker 1: was hired by MIT and came off of MIT. They're
Speaker 1: both about the same age in the in their late forties.
Speaker 1: How to tell what exactly is a particular grievance, but
Speaker 1: it sounds like he had a connection to Browne University,
Speaker 1: had a connection this guy to the professor of the scientist,
Speaker 1: and he killed them both. He killed in both places
Speaker 1: and then committed suicide, then committed suicide, killed himself. So
Speaker 1: they'll they'll they'll never find out directly from him, what happened,
Speaker 1: what exactly happened? What else did I want to say
Speaker 1: about this? So a lot of the theories about this
Speaker 1: is a leftist who wanted to kill the leader of
Speaker 1: the Republican students. That turned out to be bogus. The
Speaker 1: theory that this was Iranians turned out to be bogus.
Speaker 1: It turned out to be some crazy, frustrated, angry widow
Speaker 1: who did this. Uh, the break really came in police
Speaker 1: identifying him when somebody who had encountered him on the
Speaker 1: Brown campus before the shooting came forward and described him
Speaker 1: in great detail and described his car and described all that,
Speaker 1: and that's h and that's when it when it really
Speaker 1: broke and when they identified who it is. And then
Speaker 1: once they had the car, they identified the car and
Speaker 1: then him as being around the physicist in Booklin's place,
Speaker 1: and it was just a matter of tracking the car
Speaker 1: and finding way it went to and where it led.
Speaker 1: So that's just to wrap up that story, all right,
Speaker 1: Doge a quick coin on Doge. There's only there's really
Speaker 1: one thing that dogs did well well well is qualified,
Speaker 1: but did and satisfy a lot of people from the
Speaker 1: US government. So I mean you have to give them
Speaker 1: at least credit for that. These government went from over
Speaker 1: three million people, they probably fired about two hundred and
Speaker 1: fifty to three hundred thousand people from the US government.
Speaker 1: You know, it's a question of whether those people will
Speaker 1: be hired. It's a question of any of those people
Speaker 1: we're doing anything The government should be doing and they'refore required.
Speaker 1: So it's down by two hundred and seventy one thousand jobs.
Speaker 1: Two hundred and seventy one thousand jobs. Now it's still
Speaker 1: a very small number overall, out of three million. It's
Speaker 1: less than ten percent. But yeah, I mean, goverment who's
Speaker 1: bloated too many people. I did mention that the day
Speaker 1: that in spite of this goverment spending is up significantly
Speaker 1: during Trump's first eleven months. The deficit is it's also
Speaker 1: I mean, debt is also dramatically up. The deficit is stable.
Speaker 1: It's about where was Underbiden. Maybe a little a little
Speaker 1: smaller because there is some revenue coming in from increased taxes,
Speaker 1: increased taxes that have to do with tariffs. All right,
Speaker 1: ten percent is significant, not in the ballpark of kind
Speaker 1: of the cuts that Melay made, not in the ballpark
Speaker 1: of what really needs to be done. Of course, what
Speaker 1: matters is not how many people you employ. It's how
Speaker 1: much money you spend. And employing fewer people but spending
Speaker 1: more money doesn't help you, doesn't help the economy. And
Speaker 1: that's exactly what the Trump administration has done. They're employing
Speaker 1: fewer people, but they're spending more money. So Beckett square one. Yeah,
Speaker 1: tariffs are awful, really really bad, just like all taxes,
Speaker 1: but they're particularly bad tax. But it's a tax. Americans
Speaker 1: are paying higher taxes, and spy spies revenue is higher,
Speaker 1: all right. A quick trade story. This sart of Europe.
Speaker 1: So for years years, I mean, I'm not exaggerating. For
Speaker 1: twenty six years, the European Union has been negotiating with
Speaker 1: South American countries to establish a free trade agreement, a
Speaker 1: massive stree trade deal. There would lower tariffs and lower
Speaker 1: trade barriers between Europe and South America, a massive positive
Speaker 1: move for both Europe and South America. And it's taken
Speaker 1: them twenty six years to negotiate this. I could have
Speaker 1: done it in one day. I'll charge you zero tariffs,
Speaker 1: and you charge me zero tariffs. Done. Finished. Oh and
Speaker 1: no trade barriers, no other barriers. You can do. Sell
Speaker 1: whatever you want in my country. I'll sell whatever you
Speaker 1: want in your country. That's my kind of trade deal.
Speaker 1: But anyway, the Europeans and the South Americans took them
Speaker 1: twenty six years, and they were going to sign the
Speaker 1: deal this weekend. They were they'd finally gotten everything lined up.
Speaker 1: I mean this is a deal with Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay,
Speaker 1: Paraguay and Bolivia. And then on Wednesday, Maloney, who have
Speaker 1: said some nice things about but I take them back.
Speaker 1: Maloney had new reservations and the French suddenly woke up
Speaker 1: INTI yeah, we too, and what are the reservations? Their
Speaker 1: farmers upset because the one sector in Europe that is
Speaker 1: most protected by trade, the one sector in Europe that
Speaker 1: they that they put massive trade barriers and other barriers
Speaker 1: in order to protect them is agriculture. Farmers are the
Speaker 1: most cherished of all workers in Europe and they don't
Speaker 1: want competition from Latin America. They know they will lose.
Speaker 1: I mean, look, you want to solve the cost of
Speaker 1: food issue, if there is an issue in Europe, start
Speaker 1: inputting food from Africa. Africa could become the bread basket
Speaker 1: of Europe. Africa could produce food much cheaper than Europe.
Speaker 1: It has massive quantities of fertile land, It has people
Speaker 1: eager to join the workforce and to start gaining wages
Speaker 1: by selling stuff to Europe. And of course Europe is
Speaker 1: not going to do it because of its local farmers.
Speaker 1: So food is expensive in Europe white because it's all local.
Speaker 1: Local food is expensive food when it's in a first
Speaker 1: world country because in a first world country, the actual
Speaker 1: value of labor is not an agriculture. I mean, the
Speaker 1: United States has seen a massive shrinkage of the number
Speaker 1: of people working in agriculture. Now europeas too, but far
Speaker 1: less than the United States. And the interest group that
Speaker 1: is European agriculture is massive, and they so back to
Speaker 1: the negotiating. Back to negotiations. I mean, the reason for
Speaker 1: this is farmers and tractors blocked roads, They set off
Speaker 1: fireworks in Brussels. They were demonstrating and rioting. The police
Speaker 1: that are used tear gas and water cannons to to
Speaker 1: you know, to to break up the riot. Farmers bought
Speaker 1: potatoes and eggs to throw to throw a police. They
Speaker 1: burnt a wooden coffin bearing the wood culture just you know,
Speaker 1: we're fighting to defend our jobs, our jobs. We are
Speaker 1: we have a righteous job to our particular jobs. What
Speaker 1: about anyway, So, I mean, if this deal goes through,
Speaker 1: it's a huge deal. It benefit European Union dramatically, the
Speaker 1: people in the European Union, It'll benefit people in these
Speaker 1: Latin American countries and yet there they're stopping it because
Speaker 1: farmers might lose their jobs. Free trade has nothing to
Speaker 1: do with national interest. It has nothing to do with
Speaker 1: all this stuff. It has everything to do with special
Speaker 1: interest groups pushing and pulley for what they want. All right,
Speaker 1: I want to point out this, God, this is going
Speaker 1: longer than I thought it would. I want to point out, uh,
Speaker 1: this movement in America now that is really left and right,
Speaker 1: historically left and is now joined by the right. I
Speaker 1: called it the stagnation movement, the movement that wants us
Speaker 1: to stop stop, stop developing, stop growing, stop investing. And
Speaker 1: specifically where they're applying this ideology is to artificial intelligence.
Speaker 1: And of course we've talked about Steve Bannon being a
Speaker 1: huge opponent of artificial intelligence and wanting to put a
Speaker 1: molitorium on it. Well, Bernie Sanders is joining him. Not surprising,
Speaker 1: Bernie Sanders is now pushing for molitorium on the construction
Speaker 1: of all data centers. He says, I will be pushing
Speaker 1: for molitorium on the construction of data centers that are
Speaker 1: powering the unregulated spint to develop and deploy AI. The
Speaker 1: molitarium will give democracy a chance to catch up and
Speaker 1: is sure that the benefits of technology work for all
Speaker 1: of us, not just the one percent. He also said
Speaker 1: in the next two years, AI data centers will not
Speaker 1: only cause electricity builds the sore when you could solve
Speaker 1: that by building a lot of new poplines, then they
Speaker 1: won't cause them to sow. But I expect that to
Speaker 1: generate the same emissions as driving over three hundred billion miles.
Speaker 1: Oh so it's climate change again. They're going to stop development.
Speaker 1: Oh we've heard that again. We've heard that before. That's
Speaker 1: not new. So you know, you'd expect the someboding. It's
Speaker 1: not a surprise. This is part of the course. And
Speaker 1: of course the kind of fearful Republicans who are afraid
Speaker 1: of technology and want to support the working class, you'd
Speaker 1: expect it from them as well. It's the same mentality
Speaker 1: as the farmers in Europe. What I find really upsetting
Speaker 1: is this is all to be expected. Is that the
Speaker 1: only argument that seems to have any punch against these people,
Speaker 1: the only argument that seems to work against these people
Speaker 1: that conservatives or people in the center right are using,
Speaker 1: is this this is from the free pass. But I
Speaker 1: wonder who will still be doing AI work oh right, China.
Speaker 1: So the problem with Bernie and Bannon and all these
Speaker 1: guys is will lose to China. China will do AI
Speaker 1: and we won't again this collectivistic bs No, the reason
Speaker 1: this is bad is that we as individual Americans won't
Speaker 1: benefit from the amazing stuff that AI is going to
Speaker 1: make possible for us. It's also a massive violation of
Speaker 1: the individual rights, property rights of the investors of the CEOs,
Speaker 1: the workers, the companies that are heavily invested in AI.
Speaker 1: So this is we want to stop AI now for
Speaker 1: national security reasons. We don't want to stop AI for selfish,
Speaker 1: egoistic reasons that have to do with the well being
Speaker 1: of Americans. We want economic growth because it's good for America,
Speaker 1: not because we'll lose to China. Lose to China is
Speaker 1: a side issue that's not the main issue. The main
Speaker 1: issue is us. I'll give you another example. Well, yeah,
Speaker 1: another example of this. Just the stupidity behind so much
Speaker 1: of what the central planners do. So early last year,
Speaker 1: twenty four I robot that makes Roombus, which is like
Speaker 1: the vacuum cleaner, the robotic vacuum cleaner. It was on
Speaker 1: track to be purchased by Amazon. Amazon wanted to buy
Speaker 1: them and invest and maybe create other robots because Amazon
Speaker 1: sees that the future might be household robots and they
Speaker 1: want to invest. But the Biden led FTC Lena Kahan
Speaker 1: and European regulators basically said, no, Amazon's stupider ready, that
Speaker 1: would create too big of a company or whatever, right
Speaker 1: it would be any empty competitive and they killed the deal. Now,
Speaker 1: just so you know, the Trump Anti Trust Division functions
Speaker 1: under the same philosophy. You know, there's no big difference.
Speaker 1: But the point is, so the deal was abandoned right instead.
Speaker 1: I Robot has struggled, partially because of tariffs, partially because
Speaker 1: of competition from China, from Chinese row body companies that
Speaker 1: are advancing significantly, and of course, on Sunday last week,
Speaker 1: I wrote, abut the Clay bankruptcy and a Chinese company
Speaker 1: is now taking it over and you going to run
Speaker 1: it Now, that's great. I'm glad the Chinese are willing.
Speaker 1: A Chinese company is willing to take it over, and
Speaker 1: we'll still benefit from the fact that they'll probably innovate
Speaker 1: and they'll probably be these things. But the reason, and
Speaker 1: I'm sure some people upset, Oh my god, it's China's
Speaker 1: taking over. Isn't that horrible? No, what's horrible is that
Speaker 1: this company is not allowed to thrive, and we weren't
Speaker 1: allowed to benefit from it thriving by being bought by Amazon.
Speaker 1: We our own worst enemy, not China. China might be
Speaker 1: an enemy, not the worst. All right, I want to
Speaker 1: give I want to add on some good news. So
Speaker 1: we'll talk about the fact that just America is an
Speaker 1: innovation machine. This country, in spite of everything, in spite
Speaker 1: of the horrific politicians, in spite of the long line
Speaker 1: of statists that have existed in this country, in spite
Speaker 1: of the regulations and the tariffs and the taxes, and
Speaker 1: in spite of California, and in spite of all this stuff,
Speaker 1: this country is an innovation machine. I mean, look at
Speaker 1: this graph. This is a graph of the number of
Speaker 1: tech companies that report net annual profits are one billion
Speaker 1: dollars or more. There are sixty two such companies in
Speaker 1: the United States, only fifteen in China, only nine in Japan,
Speaker 1: nine in Taiwan eight. In the entire Eurozone, they're only
Speaker 1: eight one billion dollars a profit for tech company. France, three, Korea, three, Germany, two,
Speaker 1: United Kingdom, one United States sixty two, more than all
Speaker 1: of these combined combined. Now people ask why is the
Speaker 1: stock market so high? This is why we have the
Speaker 1: best businesses, the most profitable businesses, the most successful innovative
Speaker 1: businesses in the world. It's not even clothes. So yeah.
Speaker 1: Among the world's ten largest companies, eight are US technology companies.
Speaker 1: Among the ten most innovative companies, ten are based in
Speaker 1: the United States. I mean, the United States dominates when
Speaker 1: it comes to tech. And the reason for that is,
Speaker 1: you know, so basically three things, well two really relatively
Speaker 1: mild regulatory environment for technology. You can easily start a business,
Speaker 1: you can hire people relatively speaking, so freedom, economic freedom
Speaker 1: that still exists in the United States. In particular, one
Speaker 1: of the areas in which this is important is still,
Speaker 1: in spite of how difficult it is to hire and
Speaker 1: fire in the United States, we still have much more
Speaker 1: freedom when it comes to employment than for example, Europe,
Speaker 1: so people can move around. And on top of that, immigration,
Speaker 1: which Trump is trying to kill, that golden goose. But
Speaker 1: how many of these sixty two companies are run or
Speaker 1: were founded by immigrants? A big chunk immigration and economic
Speaker 1: freedom to the extent that we have it. That's what
Speaker 1: you can only imagine what that number would be if
Speaker 1: we're really at economic freedom in our dreams. All right, That,
Speaker 1: my friends, is the news Friday December nineteenth, so the
Speaker 1: last Friday before Christmas. Thank you all for joining me,
Speaker 1: and I will now take on some of your super chat.
Speaker 1: I will also remind all of you the super chat
Speaker 1: is a great way to support the show, a show
Speaker 1: made possible through support from you. It is also you
Speaker 1: can also do stickers to support the show and us
Speaker 1: not have to ask a question. You can also support
Speaker 1: the show with Patreon at Patreon that would be a
Speaker 1: monthly support not live here right now and Patreon just
Speaker 1: go to patreon dot com and type in you on
Speaker 1: book show. I also want to remind you that December
Speaker 1: thirty one is going to be our You and Show.
Speaker 1: It'll be four plus hours. It'll be a big fundraising event.
Speaker 1: I'll ask you to support the show going into twenty
Speaker 1: twenty six and to allow for the show's growth, to
Speaker 1: allow for us to continue doing the interviews and continue
Speaker 1: doing the daily new shows and everything else. There will
Speaker 1: be a very very very very very very ambitious fundraising goal.
Speaker 1: So I'm going to need all the help I can
Speaker 1: get to get there. The max you can support the
Speaker 1: show on a super chat is five hundred dollars, So
Speaker 1: if you want to do more than that, I know
Speaker 1: some of you have in the past done more than
Speaker 1: five hundred dollars, then please consider doing a one time
Speaker 1: PayPal contribution and just say in the contribution in the
Speaker 1: note there that it's for the New Year's Eve show,
Speaker 1: and that way I'll count it towards our goal. All right,
Speaker 1: I'll just remind you of that. Iran dot Oaks. Let's
Speaker 1: start here where you can sign up for heinrand Aarri
Speaker 1: live courses. I'll be teaching a course in public speaking.
Speaker 1: They're going to be courses on objectivism, deep dive into
Speaker 1: the philosophy. These amazing courses that will improve your understanding,
Speaker 1: your knowledge, and it's fun. You can take them live
Speaker 1: and participat in class. You can take them after the
Speaker 1: fact and just listen. You can do homework and get
Speaker 1: it graded. You cannot do homework andnot get agraded. Really
Speaker 1: up to you, and you get a discount ten percent
Speaker 1: discount for being a listener of this show. So ybs sorry.
Speaker 1: Twenty six YBS ten. Michael Williams the support of the show,
Speaker 1: and Michael has a project called Defenders of Capitalism dot com.
Speaker 1: Defenders of Capitalism dot com check it out. Check out
Speaker 1: the website I've worked on with Michael on the program
Speaker 1: for for for many years and is both offend and
Speaker 1: a colleague. Check out defendersocapitalism dot com. And finally, Alex
Speaker 1: Epstein Epstein uh the leading authority on all things power
Speaker 1: and why electricity places don't have to go up with
Speaker 1: the AI boom. Build more, build build build build more
Speaker 1: electricity production capacity. Uh. So follow Alex. Expand your knowledge,
Speaker 1: make your better, make your better. You know, he has
Speaker 1: these talking points to just give you the material from
Speaker 1: which to argue and debate people. So great to have
Speaker 1: that under your belt before family gets together on Christmas
Speaker 1: where politics is the main topic of discussion. All right,
Speaker 1: if you have questions, use the superchet to ask them.
Speaker 1: Five dollars, two dollars, one dollar. All right, let's get
Speaker 1: started with the super chat because they do have a
Speaker 1: hot stop and I want to get through all the questions. David,
Speaker 1: at the risk of psychologizing, Shapiro reminds me of an
Speaker 1: Orthodox American Jews that are ultra religious because it gives
Speaker 1: them cover for the identity crisis and the fact that
Speaker 1: they need a tribe to belong to. I don't know
Speaker 1: Ben well enough. There's certainly a tribal aspect of religion
Speaker 1: which is part of it. But look, he grew up
Speaker 1: in this world. There's a certain you know, he's he
Speaker 1: studied this. Yeah, I don't know what the psychology is,
Speaker 1: but he is very much committed to that world, and
Speaker 1: I think both socially family wise, he's also convinced himself
Speaker 1: that there's no possibility of values without religion. I mean,
Speaker 1: he comes at me with this silly what about the
Speaker 1: hot girl at the bar? He needs he believes he needs.
Speaker 1: I don't think he does. He believes he needs religious
Speaker 1: commandments in order to give him morality. So I don't know,
Speaker 1: but but there's certainly a tribal aspect to it. And
Speaker 1: but look, I don't know how many of the tribes
Speaker 1: support him politically. Certainly many Jews are not supportive of
Speaker 1: his views politically, although maybe maybe among conservative Orthodox Jews
Speaker 1: he's more popular. Yeah, I don't know what drives him. Ultimately, Alex,
Speaker 1: what is that to training be legal? In a capitalist society.
Speaker 1: Why or why not? No, it would not be illegal
Speaker 1: because basically it's a victim of crime. There's no victim
Speaker 1: when it comes to the side of trading. The fact
Speaker 1: that you have more information than somebody else is not
Speaker 1: a crime. That's reality, it's life. Now, there is an
Speaker 1: aspect you could imagine of inside of trading that would
Speaker 1: involve contractual or fiduciary violation of your responsibility. So if
Speaker 1: you were a CEO and your contract says you can,
Speaker 1: I think the contract would say this, you cannot trade
Speaker 1: on certain types of insider information, and you did it,
Speaker 1: then you would be in violation of your employment contract
Speaker 1: and you could be fired. You could imagine that if
Speaker 1: I had a contract with a printer printed on my
Speaker 1: financial statements that he couldn't use the knowledge he gained
Speaker 1: from reading those financial statements in the trade, and then
Speaker 1: he did again, he would be in violation of a contract.
Speaker 1: But there's nothing prohibiting if it's not contractually specified inside
Speaker 1: of trading. I'll give you one other context in which
Speaker 1: you know, you could imagine inside of trading regulations but
Speaker 1: private regulations existing. If I wanted a list on the
Speaker 1: New York Stock exchange and my shares we traded in
Speaker 1: the New York Stock Exchange. The New York Stock e
Speaker 1: Change could say, you know, we don't allow inside of trading. Here, here,
Speaker 1: here the specifics. Here's what we mean by inside of trading.
Speaker 1: That's the other thing. Inside of trading is one of
Speaker 1: the least defined, one of the most amorphous terms in
Speaker 1: law that exist. But let's assume they exchange said here
Speaker 1: are the things you cannot do, and we do this
Speaker 1: because we want to make sure that we get a
Speaker 1: lot of volume of trade that people feel comfortable trading
Speaker 1: on our exchange. Then that's again a contractual thing between
Speaker 1: the firm and therefore it's managers and employees and the exchange.
Speaker 1: So to the extent that there is fear to the
Speaker 1: extent that put it this way, to the extent that
Speaker 1: inside trading might do damage to the exchange because people
Speaker 1: won't trade or to the firm in some way, then
Speaker 1: that is easily dealt with through contracts. Through contracts. But
Speaker 1: the fact that I saw my stock and somebody buys
Speaker 1: his stock, and the guy who bought the stock has
Speaker 1: more information than I do, that is not the basis
Speaker 1: to prosecute him. Thomas would arguably returning to the gold
Speaker 1: standard cause significant problems. At this point, what would be involved.
Speaker 1: I know it isn't going to happen. No, I don't
Speaker 1: think it would cause problems. I mean it would involve
Speaker 1: massive deregulation. You couldn't just return to the gold standard
Speaker 1: and keep everything the same. That would be a disaster.
Speaker 1: The gold standard that I and those of us who
Speaker 1: believe in real free markets advocate for is not a
Speaker 1: central bank gold standard. It is a private banking gold standard,
Speaker 1: which means you'd have to completely deregulate the banking sector.
Speaker 1: You would have to make them private instead of basic
Speaker 1: arms of the government, and you would have to give
Speaker 1: them their ability to create their own currency, their own
Speaker 1: money if they chose to, the government would have to
Speaker 1: stop printing. It would have to shut down the Federal Reserve,
Speaker 1: and banks could then take in gold and print or
Speaker 1: issue not print, issue currency paper money in exchange for it.
Speaker 1: And you know another shows I've described in greater detail
Speaker 1: system like that will work. The best authors about this
Speaker 1: George Selgian and Lawrence White. But you know, the transition
Speaker 1: would be complicated. It would have to be a number
Speaker 1: of years. You'd have to be very transparentted the deregulation.
Speaker 1: You'd have to get rid of the FED. You'd have
Speaker 1: to set a date where gold becomes bore, the dollar
Speaker 1: becomes convertible into gold. You'd have to set a date
Speaker 1: for closing down the FED to reserve and reallocating all
Speaker 1: its reserves to the banking system. But it involves a complete,
Speaker 1: complete reshuffling of the banking industry, which would require massive deregulation.
Speaker 1: And it ain't happening, Andrew. If one suffers for mysticism,
Speaker 1: one should fight like hell to overturn it and establish
Speaker 1: the proper metaphysics. Reality is worth it, and it is
Speaker 1: and it is being for reality, not just against mysticism
Speaker 1: that is required to integrate it. Yeah, well, I mean
Speaker 1: it's being for reason. It's being for your life. You know,
Speaker 1: your life acchoires adherence to reason. Your life requires the
Speaker 1: use of reason. Mysticism is damaging for your life. So
Speaker 1: the motivation to overturn and to basically get rid of
Speaker 1: every last element of mysticism that might be in your
Speaker 1: thinking is that your life depends on it. Your happy
Speaker 1: life depends on it, your successful life depends on it,
Speaker 1: your flourishing life depends on Barry. Barry also did a sticker.
Speaker 1: Barry did like a big stick of fifty dollars sticker.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Barry, I really appreciate that. Thank you john
Speaker 1: for the sticker. Let me think the sticker is quickly,
Speaker 1: and thank you Johnny for the sticker. Who else do
Speaker 1: we have? Fred Hopper whoops, called my spa and Johnny again?
Speaker 1: All right, thank you guys, really appreciate it. Okay, Barry
Speaker 1: has a question. I was told that all humans have
Speaker 1: intrinsic value. Is this true? It tends to raise a
Speaker 1: red flag for me, but I'm not sure how to
Speaker 1: answer it. I mean, the answer is fundamentally that there
Speaker 1: is no such thing as intrinsic value. All value is
Speaker 1: a value to someone for a purpose. So whenever there's
Speaker 1: a value, it's to whom and for what. Chocolate doesn't
Speaker 1: have intrinsic value. It has value to me. It might
Speaker 1: have value to you and for what purpose, for the
Speaker 1: purpose of taste, taste good. Other human beings might have
Speaker 1: value to you. They do, indeed objectively, for what to
Speaker 1: trade with. But there's no such thing as an intrinsic value.
Speaker 1: That nothing has intrinsic value. All value must answer the
Speaker 1: question to who and for what all values of values?
Speaker 1: To me, this is the big issue about environmentalism. The environment.
Speaker 1: Nature is not intrinsically valuable. This is why it's okay
Speaker 1: for human beings to change it. So uh, you know,
Speaker 1: environmentalists view nature as having intrinsic value. That's why they
Speaker 1: get upset when we carve up a mountain to build
Speaker 1: a highway. But the mountain only has value to whom
Speaker 1: and for what to some people as nice scenery to hike,
Speaker 1: for other people as a place to put a highway
Speaker 1: in order to get to the other side of the mountain.
Speaker 1: And then it's just an issue property rights and who
Speaker 1: gets his values manifest. But it's only individuals have values.
Speaker 1: Things don't have value other than two individuals. Thank you,
Speaker 1: very good question. All right, Michael. How does reputation matter
Speaker 1: in a non secondhanded way. Well, it matters somewhat in
Speaker 1: that if you have a good reputation, then people are
Speaker 1: more likely to hire you, or to want to befriend you,
Speaker 1: or to initiate contact with you. So if I have
Speaker 1: a good reputation as a speaker, then I'll get more
Speaker 1: business than if I have a bad reputation as a speaker.
Speaker 1: So it's not a source of self esteem, but it is,
Speaker 1: you know, and it's not something you should strive to establish.
Speaker 1: Bet you should have a good reputation because you're a
Speaker 1: good person, because you do good things, and that reputation
Speaker 1: is a value to you because it can generate relationships
Speaker 1: in business. And that's not second added. Somebody who cares
Speaker 1: about reputation lies for its reputation, manipulates for his reputation.
Speaker 1: That's being second added, Michael. Has technology reached the point
Speaker 1: where it can't be effectively regulated into stagnation like other industries.
Speaker 1: That's why we're going to keep seeing exponential growth. Well,
Speaker 1: we're not seeing exponential growth. We don't have exponential growth
Speaker 1: and we're not seeing it. So I don't think it
Speaker 1: will continue because it doesn't exist. Well, keep seeing growth.
Speaker 1: That's an achievement in and of itself. You don't have
Speaker 1: to be exponential for it to be an achievement. But
Speaker 1: I don't think it's impossible. But it's to regulate tech,
Speaker 1: but it comes with a heavy political cost. So for
Speaker 1: now it's not going to happened and will continue to
Speaker 1: see growth, but that could change. So we have to
Speaker 1: be very, very diligent in fighting against the regulation of
Speaker 1: tech technology. Nick, thank you for the sticker. Oh Wes
Speaker 1: came in with fifty dollars question. In addition to his sticker,
Speaker 1: he says, I finished the collapse of the Western mind.
Speaker 1: Holy cow, The world would be a better place today
Speaker 1: if paganism won out. At least it wasn't hostile to
Speaker 1: rational thinking and science. Yeah, I mean, but rational thinking
Speaker 1: science is almost everything, right, That's where we get the
Speaker 1: modern world. So yes, I mean, you know the closing
Speaker 1: of the Western mind, which happened in the first four
Speaker 1: centuries from zero to four hundred, the five hundred, that
Speaker 1: is the victory of Christianity over paganism, and not paganism,
Speaker 1: but over Greek ideas of Astatilian Greek ideas, over the
Speaker 1: ideas of this worldliness and science. And just imagine what
Speaker 1: the world would be like if Greece had won and
Speaker 1: the Christians had lost. We could be one hundred, one
Speaker 1: hundred and fifty years or maybe a thousand years. We
Speaker 1: would know. A thousand years, we could be a thousand
Speaker 1: years ahead of where we are today. A thousand years
Speaker 1: of stagnation we could have avoided. So yeah, I'm glad.
Speaker 1: I'm glad you enjoyed the book. It's striking. Now you
Speaker 1: have to read the book, The Reopening of the Western Mind.
Speaker 1: The Reopening of the Western Mind, Michael, the same author.
Speaker 1: How can you argue that culture has less tribal was
Speaker 1: less trouble one hundred years ago, when blacks weren't considered
Speaker 1: human beings and women were considered property. Well, I don't
Speaker 1: think a hundred years ago that's true. Most Americans one
Speaker 1: hundred years ago did not consider blacks as subhuman, and
Speaker 1: I don't think they considered women as property. That was
Speaker 1: dramatically changing. But the reality was that when you went
Speaker 1: out into the wilderness to homestead in America in the
Speaker 1: nineteenth century, it was you. You weren't looking for tribe.
Speaker 1: You were looking to build a life. You might have
Speaker 1: been a bigot in some part of you, but that
Speaker 1: didn't really manifest itself when you went out into the
Speaker 1: wilderness in Kansas or Nebraska and put up a farm
Speaker 1: and started, you know, working. The same is true of
Speaker 1: people who went out there and started an industry or
Speaker 1: built a railroad. So there was an immense amount of individualism.
Speaker 1: So today the tribes are not quite as crude as
Speaker 1: racist and sexist, although those exist as well. Today the
Speaker 1: tribes are more political, but the tribalism is much worse.
Speaker 1: I mean, part of the feature of tribalism is a
Speaker 1: lack of individual thinking for themselves. And you got a
Speaker 1: lot more group think today than you did back in
Speaker 1: one hundred years ago. G Jeffries, thank you for the
Speaker 1: Thank you for the stick. I really appreciate it. Somebody,
Speaker 1: says John Lion says Johann I think you can get
Speaker 1: you can generate more super chat questions by splitting the
Speaker 1: super chat into two segments one news, one super chats,
Speaker 1: three more news, four more super chats. Maybe, I'm not
Speaker 1: sure why exactly. I'm not sure why because almost all
Speaker 1: the super chests are unrelated to the news, so I
Speaker 1: don't know why it up would increase the number, Michael,
Speaker 1: are young people getting the sense the traditional conservatism is
Speaker 1: a failure, the alt right Nazi ideology is a winning strategy. Well,
Speaker 1: they're getting a sense that traditional conservatism is a failure.
Speaker 1: Trump gave them that sense that he succeeded by rejecting
Speaker 1: traditional Christianity, but they don't really have anything to unite
Speaker 1: them as an alternative. Some gravitate towards Groypiism or whatever
Speaker 1: you want to call it, Nick Foyentes, some gravitate towards Tucker. Others,
Speaker 1: you know, are still holding on to kind of a
Speaker 1: more traditional view of Christianity. Of conservatism. There are all
Speaker 1: kinds of variations, and there's a battle going on right
Speaker 1: now within within that world, particularly among young people, and
Speaker 1: what will be the winning, the winning ideology of conservatism
Speaker 1: moving forward. Eric says after mentions speech, I think you
Speaker 1: owe him an apology definitely, not how it is we
Speaker 1: need more like Ben call out the evil in the
Speaker 1: Republican Party. Yes, but I don't think I owe him
Speaker 1: an apology at all. I criticized him for things that
Speaker 1: I think he deserves criticism. And I think Ben, he's
Speaker 1: drawn his line at anti Semites. That's not a hard
Speaker 1: line to draw. That's not a hard line to draw.
Speaker 1: And he should have drawn the line at anti freedom,
Speaker 1: and then he should be criticizing Miller, and he should
Speaker 1: be criticizing Trump, and he should be criticizing Bondi, and
Speaker 1: he should be criticizing Hospital. And when he is willing
Speaker 1: to draw a line where I think his ideas justify
Speaker 1: him drawing a line, I'm not putting woods in his mouth.
Speaker 1: Do I think that?
Speaker 4: Do?
Speaker 1: I think Ben Shapiro thinks it's a good idea to
Speaker 1: have ICE, fully armed ICE agents roaming the streets and
Speaker 1: harassing working immigrants. I think that says No, I don't
Speaker 1: think he believes in that. Will he criticize it? I
Speaker 1: don't think so. I mean, you guys can tell me
Speaker 1: if I'm wrong. But I absolutely think he's a coward.
Speaker 1: It's just he's not quite a big of a coward,
Speaker 1: like when it comes to anti Semitism. That really goes
Speaker 1: to the root of his identity as a conservative Jew
Speaker 1: and everything. So he's willing to stand up for that,
Speaker 1: but he should be willing to stand up for other things.
Speaker 1: And if he stood up, and this is my argument
Speaker 1: when I criticized him, if he stood up on principle
Speaker 1: for the things he really I think believes in, if
Speaker 1: he stood up for the Finding Fathers, for capitalism, for
Speaker 1: freedom as he understands I'm not as I understand If
Speaker 1: he understands them, we would have never gotten to the
Speaker 1: point where Tucker Costs and Nick foyint this was big
Speaker 1: as they are. He helped create them and I still
Speaker 1: stand by that if he didn't employ Matt Walsh. I'd
Speaker 1: like to see criticized Matt Walsh for his racism, but
Speaker 1: he's not going to do that because that would alienate
Speaker 1: too much of his the audience. He is a coward, Kim.
Speaker 1: If it's Alec versus JD in twenty twenty eight, is
Speaker 1: us finished? Well? I think freedom is clearly on the demise,
Speaker 1: and us, as the funny Father's envigionate is finished and
Speaker 1: will go through a period of much greater authoritarianism of
Speaker 1: left or of right. And then it's a question what
Speaker 1: comes after? Can we resurrect America once it's finished? In
Speaker 1: that sense, there's a sense in which it's already finished. Right,
Speaker 1: Just look at Ice. Just look at what's happening in
Speaker 1: this country and the kind of debates that are going on,
Speaker 1: in the kind of arguments. It's not a lot there.
Speaker 1: I mean, we have toteologist and we're starting for scratch
Speaker 1: or even hi. Thoughts on flipping houses, I'm in the
Speaker 1: market for buying and identified an apartment. The flippers demand
Speaker 1: a high premium in a slow market. Tips, I'm not
Speaker 1: sure what you mean flipping houses is you buy a
Speaker 1: place you renovate it and you sell it, or just
Speaker 1: buy it and sell it. If you're buying and selling,
Speaker 1: then you're risking the price going down in the meantime,
Speaker 1: and prices do go down sometimes, but renovating adding value
Speaker 1: and then selling sure, But again you're very very much
Speaker 1: dependent on the market, on the real estate market, and
Speaker 1: whether it keeps on going up. Now, some places that's safe,
Speaker 1: some places that's not so safe. So it's it's it's
Speaker 1: it's it's risky, like any investment. It's not a sure thing,
Speaker 1: all right, Andrew, it struck me as important when I
Speaker 1: heard rants say the metaphysics and epistemology cannot be separated.
Speaker 1: Can you expound on this point? Yes, I mean metaphysics
Speaker 1: is the nature of reality and consciousness is a part
Speaker 1: of reality. Epistemology is how we know. But that is
Speaker 1: to some extent, you could argue a metaphysical question, right,
Speaker 1: it's it's it's it's a question about the nature of man.
Speaker 1: It's the nature of his faculties, the nature of what exists.
Speaker 1: And then know what, no metaphysics, So how do you
Speaker 1: untangle that if you have a bad metaphysics. Let's say
Speaker 1: a is not a how can you advocate for a
Speaker 1: epistemology of reason? What does that even mean when there's
Speaker 1: nothing to identify out there? Or what's identifiable is shifting constantly.
Speaker 1: So the two are completely interrelated and interconnected. It's true
Speaker 1: you cannot separate them. How you know and what it is?
Speaker 1: You know what it is there is to know, a
Speaker 1: dependent on one, the other, another, one another. The kind
Speaker 1: of metaphysics you have will to some extent, determine what
Speaker 1: kind of epistemology you have, Jason and the meaning. After
Speaker 1: the strike ended, I made a three minute pitch to
Speaker 1: Moses Lake School District one sixty one, encouraging Iron ran
Speaker 1: free books and essay contests, and offered an additional two
Speaker 1: thousand dollars prize to the district winners. That's great, you know,
Speaker 1: I don't know if they're going to take you up
Speaker 1: on it, but that's great. You got Iran's name out there,
Speaker 1: you got the program's name out there, and maybe some
Speaker 1: teachers will jump on it. Good for you. That's how
Speaker 1: you fight for the future. Malcolm, Would you happen to
Speaker 1: know why? Surely who Shirley Temple is? If so, any
Speaker 1: general thoughts keep it up. I usually make the live shows.
Speaker 1: I usually can't make the live shows. Shirley Temple was
Speaker 1: a child actress, so then grew up and became an actress.
Speaker 1: She was a singer, dancer. She was super cute when
Speaker 1: she was a kid, and and uh, quite talented as
Speaker 1: an adult. So I think she was I can't remember.
Speaker 1: She was the daughter of somebody. Was she had daughter
Speaker 1: of somebody important, of a of a performer, I can't remember,
Speaker 1: but yeah, I mean somebody that was very, very enjoyable,
Speaker 1: a very benevolent personality in the movies at least. Uh
Speaker 1: and yeah, fun and and and a good good singer
Speaker 1: and dancer. She was funny too, and yeah, I mean
Speaker 1: have a generally positive view. Generally positive view. Jennifer said
Speaker 1: she was an ambassador Lada, but I forgot to what country.
Speaker 1: Nick says that he watched all her movies when he
Speaker 1: was a kid. Linda said she became a un ambassador anyway, Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean definitely fun movies, very and again good good voice,
Speaker 1: good dancing, funny muz. How on earth did I miss
Speaker 1: your chat with Jesse Lee Peterson until yesterday. I listened
Speaker 1: to it while driving and nearly crashed. I was laughing
Speaker 1: that hard. Yeah, that was years ago, years ago. God,
Speaker 1: I get harassed for that constantly because he called me
Speaker 1: a beta male and uh and all of that and
Speaker 1: he he The number one argument I get on immigration
Speaker 1: is but what about Israel? And it's a it's a
Speaker 1: it goes back to thee Man's missing link. It's a
Speaker 1: perceptual level argument that can't see differences between Israel and America. Uh,
Speaker 1: it's it's a it's a stupid argument. It's an unsophisticated argument.
Speaker 1: It's a mindless argument. But he he did it well
Speaker 1: and uh and people have repeated it since then, over
Speaker 1: and over and over and over and over and over again. Yeh,
Speaker 1: but he is a white now you know, white supremacist.
Speaker 1: He's black, but he's a white supremacist, which is pretty
Speaker 1: pretty ludicrous but true. Uh. Loan des Center. The day
Speaker 1: after you answered debate question, I saw a CD box
Speaker 1: of Zell's Symphony Cycle at a U shop. Got it
Speaker 1: and it's magnificent. Up there with the Guntha Wild and
Speaker 1: kliber Big recommended. Yes, I mean Zella's phenomenal. He was
Speaker 1: one of the best interpreters of Beethoven ever. The entire site,
Speaker 1: all of his Beethovens are good. I mean, the third
Speaker 1: is exceptional, but his fifth is seventh, is sixth, is ninth.
Speaker 1: They're all good. So sell in the Cleveland. I mean, yes,
Speaker 1: that in the nineteen fifties and early sixties he had
Speaker 1: some amazing orchestras and conductors in America. It's just amazing. Andrew,
Speaker 1: as an expert public speaker, what do you make of
Speaker 1: the constant tone of yelling in Trump's last speech? Many
Speaker 1: dictators yell this speech. Is it is intended to be threatening?
Speaker 1: Does it projective fear? I think it's pretty yeah. In
Speaker 1: this case, I think projected anger and fear, frustration. I'm
Speaker 1: doing so much good for you guys, and you don't
Speaker 1: appreciate me. You know, he knows what he's doing is
Speaker 1: not working, and American people know it, and he's trying
Speaker 1: to convince them that in spite of the evidence of
Speaker 1: their senses, it is. And it's frustrating to him. And
Speaker 1: he's yelling out of frustration and anger and fear. It's,
Speaker 1: you know, hoping to through the yelling, get their point across.
Speaker 1: He's I mean, I also think Trump is slowly cognitively
Speaker 1: losing it. And I think that that's part of it.
Speaker 1: I don't think he's I mean, some of the answers
Speaker 1: he gives the questions are so ludicrous, so crazy, some
Speaker 1: of his tweets are so ludicrous, so crazy, that you
Speaker 1: have to say, cognitively, there's something. There's a schools loose
Speaker 1: Andrews says. I feel the same blunt, though harsh certainty
Speaker 1: expressed in James Carvell's famous campaign line, it's the economy
Speaker 1: stupid applies to solving the world's problems. It's altruism stupid. Yeah,
Speaker 1: there's no question. And then, of course the question is
Speaker 1: why is it so difficult? Why is it so difficult
Speaker 1: to eradicate altruism? But yeah, if it is altruism stupid,
Speaker 1: over and over and over and over and over again,
Speaker 1: in every aspect of our lives, it's all right, guys,
Speaker 1: thank you, thank you all the super chatow is, thank
Speaker 1: you for all you being here. Don't forget to go
Speaker 1: to patreon dot com and become a monthly supporter, don't
Speaker 1: forget to join us on December thirty first, and yeah,
Speaker 1: I will see there will be a show tomorrow. Actually
Speaker 1: a change of plans, schedule shifted and I will be
Speaker 1: doing a show tomorrow, topic to be determined, to be determined.
Speaker 1: Let see you tomorrow, if not Monday, Bye, everybody,