Speaker 1: A lot of it, fundamental principles of freedom, national self interest,
Speaker 1: and individual rights.
Speaker 2: This is the Yuran Brook Show.
Speaker 1: All right, everybody, welcome to you run Brook Show on
Speaker 1: this Sunday, November two. I hope everybody's having a great weekend,
Speaker 1: A great I had a great week. I know. I
Speaker 1: haven't seen you in a while. I have been traveling
Speaker 1: around Europe. I am now in Vienna, Vienna, Austria. Yesterday
Speaker 1: I did a great event. I just mentioned this.
Speaker 2: Yesterday. I good a really good event.
Speaker 1: In Oslo, probably about two hundred and fifty young people,
Speaker 1: fifteen to twenty five year olds, all.
Speaker 2: Members of the youth organization of.
Speaker 1: A classical liberal political party in no Way, so yeah,
Speaker 1: it was great. I talked about morality of capitalism. There
Speaker 1: is video. They did record it, so I'm hoping that
Speaker 1: at some point we'll be able to put it up
Speaker 1: online and you'll be able to see it. But although
Speaker 1: it's my standard, it's the standard raality of capitalism talk.
Speaker 2: Not libertarians.
Speaker 1: They're called the Progressive Party, but a progressive in no
Speaker 1: way is not far left. It's supposedly classical liberal. So yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean it was really good. It was a quick
Speaker 1: trip in and out of Oslo very very quickly. It
Speaker 1: was cold, rainy, and as you can tell, probably from
Speaker 1: my voice, I think I'm coming down with something.
Speaker 2: So I've been coming down with something.
Speaker 1: I've been One of the reasons I haven't done shows,
Speaker 1: it's it's just difficult, all right. Anyway, I am in Vienna.
Speaker 1: Those of you who are in central Europe, maybe Buddislav
Speaker 1: or Vienna or any of the area around here, you
Speaker 1: should come tomorrow to my event at the High Institute,
Speaker 1: the Austrian Economics Center here in Vienna.
Speaker 2: I'm doing an event.
Speaker 1: What am I doing an event tomorrow at five o'clock?
Speaker 1: I think on left and right, why in a sense,
Speaker 1: everybody's turning their backs to capitalism. Why they're both all
Speaker 1: of them turning their back to free market.
Speaker 2: So it should be an event. Hopefully you guys can
Speaker 2: make it.
Speaker 1: Some of you can make it if you're in that
Speaker 1: part of the world. All right, let's see. I know
Speaker 1: there's an iron Rand meet up here in Vienna, so
Speaker 1: I think some of them are coming. I don't know
Speaker 1: if they're listening live, but I think some of them
Speaker 1: are coming, and hopefully others will come as well.
Speaker 2: All right, I want to talk about.
Speaker 1: I want to talk about what's been going on on
Speaker 1: the right in the last few days. It's been pretty
Speaker 1: dramatic and I think very revealing, really the complete bankruptcy
Speaker 1: of many of the institutions and many of the people
Speaker 1: on the American right of conservatism. More broadly, I also
Speaker 1: say that, how do I put this nicely, I'll also
Speaker 1: say I told you so. I hate being right. Sometimes
Speaker 1: when I'm right about negative things or write about something
Speaker 1: that is that is a negative outcome. But I've been
Speaker 1: telling you since God since twenty fifteen, since I started
Speaker 1: the show, really certainly since Donald Trump started running for
Speaker 1: president and the old right kind of came out of
Speaker 1: their out of their gravels or out of their tunnels
Speaker 1: or out of there, whatever you want to call it,
Speaker 1: and started poking around. I've told you that they would
Speaker 1: win in a sense that they would grow in power
Speaker 1: because they facial principal opposition. The Conservatives have nothing to
Speaker 1: stand by other than their religion and tradition. And well,
Speaker 1: I mean, the tradition of many people in the history
Speaker 1: of the United States has been racism, antisemitism. So what tradition,
Speaker 1: what tradition are they going to follow? And religion. God,
Speaker 1: I mean, Christianity invented anti Semitism. Anti Semitism is primarily
Speaker 1: a product of Christianity.
Speaker 2: So when the alt right came out.
Speaker 1: In twenty fifteen, twenty sixteen, and it was really all
Speaker 1: over the place on Twitter and everything, everybody says, oh,
Speaker 1: it's just a small number of people. It's not that big,
Speaker 1: it's not that important, it's not that crucial. It doesn't
Speaker 1: represent the mainstream, it doesn't represent conservatism, it doesn't represent
Speaker 1: conservative line. And it came out as anti semitic, they
Speaker 1: came out as as racist, they came out as white nationalists.
Speaker 1: And by the way, let's be very clear, white nationalism
Speaker 1: is racism. I got some really amazing comments on the video,
Speaker 1: on my video on Nick Foyintis, I mean really some
Speaker 1: pretty stunning comments in terms of what people wrote. And yeah,
Speaker 1: you know, it's hard, it's hard to it's hard for
Speaker 1: me to conceive how.
Speaker 2: Bad people's thinking is on these issues.
Speaker 1: But the amount of really really bad, I mean just
Speaker 1: the comments. I mean, I did it in Nick Foorentis,
Speaker 1: and you know, my assumption is that if you listen
Speaker 1: to ten minutes of Nick Foentis, you get him you
Speaker 1: figure it out, and you can see that he's a
Speaker 1: racist and he's an anti semi and now it's true.
Speaker 1: He was in his very good behavior with Tucker, so
Speaker 1: he only said things like that he admired Stalin, Stalin
Speaker 1: Stalin on the show, he says he admires Hitler and
Speaker 1: he loves Hitler and he loves Nazis and Attakacross and
Speaker 1: he says Stalin, So he's picked the two probably the
Speaker 1: most evil political leaders in human history, who killed more
Speaker 1: people than anybody in human history. Just it just slaughtered them.
Speaker 1: Well mounts the tongue, it's probably up there with them.
Speaker 1: And those are the people who admires. So you know,
Speaker 1: when I thought, I thought, you know that saying the
Speaker 1: Nick Foy intest was a anti semi racist, that would
Speaker 1: kind of be obvious. But it's stunning to me kind
Speaker 1: of the pushback in the comments, right, calling everyone in
Speaker 1: anto semit isn't going to do what you think it is. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I know, because it depends to who people who anto Semites.
Speaker 1: I guess they don't get excited about that. But I'm
Speaker 1: looking for one particular comment I thought was really something
Speaker 1: else in terms of uh, you know, saying Nick Fantist
Speaker 1: is not a racist. You know, white nationalism is not
Speaker 1: is not racist?
Speaker 3: Right?
Speaker 1: Uh?
Speaker 2: And why is Nick for Interest is not a racist?
Speaker 1: All he says is he doesn't he doesn't want his
Speaker 1: uh he doesn't want his uh grandchildren to be of
Speaker 1: mixed race. Uh And and you know.
Speaker 2: Some black people agreed with him.
Speaker 1: This is to justify Nick for Interest And I'm like, yeah,
Speaker 1: that's that's exactly what racism is. And the fact that
Speaker 1: blacks are racist too doesn't justify you know, white racist.
Speaker 2: Uh. But it's uh, you know he has Here's.
Speaker 1: One Joan isn't even trying to hide that he's a
Speaker 1: leftist extremist anymore leftist extremists.
Speaker 2: You know.
Speaker 1: It's you know, if I criticize Nick for Interest and
Speaker 1: Tucker Carlson, I'm a leftist cree extremist. I mean, it
Speaker 1: really is stunning the number of comments I got under
Speaker 1: the Nick foro Interest video that I put out, and uh, the.
Speaker 2: Just the horrible and disgusting it really is.
Speaker 1: Uh. Anyway, anyway, I'm not gonna find it now.
Speaker 2: That's fine.
Speaker 1: We don't need it. So uh. As you know Nick
Speaker 1: Foytess because I talked about it on a previous show,
Speaker 1: Nick Foyantes was not a Corculson and they had a
Speaker 1: very respectful and lengthy two hours a discussion. And uh,
Speaker 1: you know, I've criticized that cor Coulson for years now,
Speaker 1: in particularly over the last couple of years. I think
Speaker 1: he's a complete hack. I think he's a he's he's
Speaker 1: become a raving anti Semite. He's pro putin, he believes
Speaker 1: in in. Uh, I don't know demon that that that
Speaker 1: inflict a physical damage on him. The guy's a complete
Speaker 1: mystical anti American hack.
Speaker 2: That's what he has become.
Speaker 1: So he interviews for intance, so just you know, and
Speaker 1: he's already interviewed people who think Hitler wasn't that bad
Speaker 1: and who think Churchill was wisteron Hitler was really the
Speaker 1: bad guy. And you know, he's interviewed a variety of
Speaker 1: different people who've expressed just abhorrent points of view, which
Speaker 1: he has just rolled with just just he's just nodded
Speaker 1: and and he's just asking questions and he's just rolled
Speaker 1: with it. He's also interviewed people like Ted Kruz don't
Speaker 1: particularly like, but is really good on these issues and
Speaker 1: really pushed back on them for the defense of Israel,
Speaker 1: for example, and things like that. And it's it's really
Speaker 1: stunning to see te Kerkoffson when he's combattive. I he
Speaker 1: when he when he really challenges people in an interview
Speaker 1: and does a good job as an interview about challenging them,
Speaker 1: sometimes stupidly, like when he asked take whose how many
Speaker 1: people lived in Iran to show that he was ignorant
Speaker 1: of Yuan shouldn't really talk about Ivon. And then he
Speaker 1: does interviews with people who just say the most awful,
Speaker 1: disgusting things and and somebody wrote in the chat and
Speaker 1: I think it's true that he's a nine to eleven
Speaker 1: truth and now he's a nine to eleven conspiracy theory
Speaker 1: guy as well.
Speaker 2: Now him and Dave Harmon.
Speaker 1: And when he talks to somebody who, hey, I don't
Speaker 1: think somewhat favorably about the Nazis, or somebody like Frantis
Speaker 1: who's a rabbit anti semi racist and white nationalist and
Speaker 1: h and just gives him softball question after softball question
Speaker 1: after softball question, you have to come to the conclusion
Speaker 1: that he's somewhat sympathetic views it as really really important
Speaker 1: to let these people express their point of view and
Speaker 1: get it out there on his platform, which is one
Speaker 1: of the biggest platforms in the world right.
Speaker 2: Anyway, you know, I criticized that.
Speaker 1: A lot of people online criticized it, some old line
Speaker 1: conservatives criticized it. And then Kevin Roberts, Kevin Roberts, who
Speaker 1: is the CEO of the CEO of the Heritage Foundation
Speaker 1: now of the Heritage Foundation, came out with the video
Speaker 1: basically defending Tucker.
Speaker 2: You know.
Speaker 1: He introduces the video by saying, there's being circulation that
Speaker 1: there's been speculation that Heritage is distancing itself from Tucker
Speaker 1: corson over the past twenty four hours.
Speaker 2: This is post interview.
Speaker 1: I want to put that to rest right now. Here
Speaker 1: are my thoughts. And he has this two and a
Speaker 1: half minus a video.
Speaker 2: And it's it really is horrific.
Speaker 1: Basically says that Heritage will stand by Tucker Colson no
Speaker 1: matter what.
Speaker 2: The taker. Carson is a.
Speaker 1: Friend of the Heritage Foundation, and whatever he does, Heritage
Speaker 1: Foundation will stand with him. Ultimately, there is a bigger
Speaker 1: enemy out there, and that is.
Speaker 2: I wonder if you know, do you know what the
Speaker 2: bigger enemy out there is? The left?
Speaker 1: And that that is what it's important and given that
Speaker 1: Tucker is against the left, they will stand with him.
Speaker 1: And he goes into a whole thing about how the
Speaker 1: Heritage Foundation hates is very against anti Semitism and and
Speaker 1: fights against anti Semitism, and on and on and on,
Speaker 1: and he even says that he views and Nick for
Speaker 1: Intance's views as apporent but he thinks they need to
Speaker 1: be a they need to be platformed, they need to
Speaker 1: be spoken of. And he talks about this, you know this,
Speaker 1: Uh what do you say? He calls it this h
Speaker 1: venomous coalition. Uh, that is that is going out, you
Speaker 1: know that that is attacking for interestin Tucker calson, I mean,
Speaker 1: who are these people exactly? Maybe Jews. It's just a
Speaker 1: horrific statement. And he starts out the whole thing by saying, look,
Speaker 1: we support Israel and so on, but we should be
Speaker 1: we should be willing to to attack and critique Israel
Speaker 1: without being anti Semitic. He declares that Christians can critique
Speaker 1: the state of Israel without being anti Semitic. Yeah, nobody
Speaker 1: says you can't. I mean, Tucker Cousin in this case
Speaker 1: was not under fire for criticizing Israel. He was under
Speaker 1: fire for platforming an anti semi a Holocaust denier, a
Speaker 1: somebody who supports and thinks Hitler is cool and believes
Speaker 1: in white Christian nationalism White Christian nationalism. The question isn't
Speaker 1: whether one can criticize Israel or not, although Kevin Robinson
Speaker 1: could be the out of it. The question is is
Speaker 1: it okay to platform and therefore give access to your
Speaker 1: audience of a known let's call him what he is,
Speaker 1: a Nazi. It wasn't a debate about Israel. And indeed,
Speaker 1: Nick Into his criticism of Jews goes far beyond this
Speaker 1: support or perceiving this support of Israel. He hates Jews.
Speaker 2: And he is John.
Speaker 1: Aren't you tired of asking the same question over and
Speaker 1: over and over again. I mean, I appreciate the super chat.
Speaker 1: Five dollars is five dollars, and I'll answer it, But
Speaker 1: this is like, I mean, clearly, this is the third
Speaker 1: or fourth time you've asked this question. Is it your
Speaker 1: attempt to get me to say the same thing over
Speaker 1: and over again and thus discredit me in front of
Speaker 1: some audience that you imagine exists out there that if
Speaker 1: they just hear my opinion on this issue, they will
Speaker 1: walk away from me. Is that what you're trying to do?
Speaker 1: It pretty pathetic if you ask me so. Anyway, the
Speaker 1: issue is not Israel. It's not Israel for Nick Fointis,
Speaker 1: it's not Israel for Tacko Coulson. Yet Kevin Roberts wants
Speaker 1: to make it all about Israel. Roberts defends in this
Speaker 1: video Callson against quote the slander of bad actors who
Speaker 1: serve someone else's agenda. Oops, we have a problem. Why
Speaker 1: is that? Why is it doing that? Give me a second? No,
Speaker 1: is that working? I don't know why? Why is that
Speaker 1: not working? That's work either?
Speaker 2: Interesting?
Speaker 1: Ah, all right, they fixed it, all right, I think
Speaker 1: this will work. We last video there for a minute.
Speaker 1: I apologize. I think that works all right. Yes, that's working.
Speaker 1: Who are these bad actors? And what is someone else's agenda?
Speaker 1: I mean that is code word for Jews serving Israel's agenda?
Speaker 1: I mean otherwise, name the actors and who's someone else's agenda?
Speaker 2: Again?
Speaker 1: The issue here is should somebody who the Heritage Foundation supports,
Speaker 1: supposedly even supports financially. Supposedly The Heritage Foundation buys advertising
Speaker 1: on the techer Calson Show. Now advertising on my show sponsorship.
Speaker 1: My show is pretty cheap on Techo costs in a
Speaker 1: cost seventy five thousand dollars per ad, I guess. And
Speaker 1: they've done a lot of ads, so they're spending a
Speaker 1: lot of money, a lot of donor money on advertising.
Speaker 1: That's supporting Tucker Calson and Teker Colson is platforming this,
Speaker 1: you know, horrific monstrosity called Nick Frantis. Is this a
Speaker 1: good use of heritage money? The fact that he is
Speaker 1: supporting Techer Cosson. No matter what, facing a cancel culture,
Speaker 1: the whole cancel culture is. It's a package deal. It's
Speaker 1: a meaningless concept in terms of actionable right. Some people
Speaker 1: should be canceled, some people should not. The complaints about
Speaker 1: cancer culture when it came to the left were not
Speaker 1: about the principle of that it's okay to not platform
Speaker 1: certain people, it's okay not to platform certain people. We
Speaker 1: shouldn't platform people who are evil, but that people were
Speaker 1: being canceled for innocent things that they said. People were
Speaker 1: being canceled for saying the truth, or at least things
Speaker 1: that were within the mainstream weren't crazy. Being a white nationalist,
Speaker 1: being an anti Semite is really really really really really.
Speaker 2: Good reason to cancel somebody. Anti Semites.
Speaker 1: And white nationalists and racists more broadly should be canceled.
Speaker 1: They should be de platformed, They should not be given
Speaker 1: a platform despout they hatred their lives. So now I
Speaker 1: want to give you a context for this, So let
Speaker 1: me Yeah, I mean, of course, this is his explanation.
Speaker 1: American people expect us to be focused on our political
Speaker 1: adversary on the left, not attacking our friends on the right.
Speaker 1: Wait a minute, So Tucker Calson is a friend on
Speaker 1: the right, Tucker Calson who has.
Speaker 2: Spent months.
Speaker 1: Attacking Israel and Jews, not the left, but Israel and Jews.
Speaker 1: He's your friend on the right, Tucker Calson, the platforms
Speaker 1: is Nick Fourentis and Ian Carroll and all kinds of
Speaker 1: other uh, you know, horrible despicable anti Americans.
Speaker 2: He's your friend.
Speaker 4: Uh.
Speaker 2: Tucker Colson, by the way, who.
Speaker 1: Joined the interview with Nick fisc went in a whole
Speaker 1: monologue about the worst people in the world are the
Speaker 1: zion Christians and attack people like Mike Cocabe and Ted Cruz,
Speaker 1: who are part of the right, I think, and generally
Speaker 1: evangelical Christians who support Israel, who.
Speaker 2: Tend to be in the coalition on the right.
Speaker 1: I think he doesn't spend anywhere yeah, as much time
Speaker 1: attacking the left, and yet he is your friend on
Speaker 1: the right, in the coalition to attack the left. Now,
Speaker 1: I want to give you some context. Right, The Heritage Foundation,
Speaker 1: you know, has been historically the bastion of conservatism. The
Speaker 1: Heritage Foundation is one of the first think tanks that
Speaker 1: was founded, and it has been the policy shop for
Speaker 1: conservative presidents for.
Speaker 2: Decades and decades.
Speaker 1: I think the founder of the Heritage Foundation, the people
Speaker 1: who founded it, would be I mean, one of them
Speaker 1: at least just passed away over the last couple of years.
Speaker 1: I got to meet him and spend a lot of
Speaker 1: time with him a few years ago. I think would
Speaker 1: be horrified by Kevin Roberts and what he said. I
Speaker 1: think would be horrified by Tucker Carlson, would be horrified,
Speaker 1: certainly horrified Bennik Foyantis. Now they were not from my perspective,
Speaker 1: good guys. The Heritage Foundation was very much established on
Speaker 1: a foundation of Christianity, on the foundation of religion as
Speaker 1: the basis for America. Heritage Foundation was always compromised when
Speaker 1: it came to free market, but it employed a lot
Speaker 1: of people who were pretty good, pretty good on farm POLSI,
Speaker 1: pretty good on economics. There was some free marketers at
Speaker 1: the Heritage Foundation. He trundition I think lost its way.
Speaker 1: Really from the beginning, it stood for nothing because it
Speaker 1: stood on the.
Speaker 2: Foundation of mysticism.
Speaker 1: If you stand on the foundation of mysticism, you're not
Speaker 1: going anywhere, and you can defend yourself. Ultimately, you can
Speaker 1: defend yourself against the Nippoynticis of the world. Christianity is
Speaker 1: not a foundation to defend America, to defend reason, to
Speaker 1: defend individual rights. So ultimately it's not that hard to
Speaker 1: be captured by the Tucker cousins of the world. In
Speaker 1: spite of that, I think the founders would be horrified
Speaker 1: by Kevin Roberts and what he said. The Heritage Foundation
Speaker 1: took a real turn when it basically became an institution
Speaker 1: that became part of America, first, became part of Trump's
Speaker 1: supported Trump unequivocally. It became it was always anti immigration,
Speaker 1: but became even more so became anti capitalism.
Speaker 2: The free marketers who worked at Heritage.
Speaker 1: Left, and this bastion of conservatism basically became the bastion
Speaker 1: of trump Ism, bastion of MAGA, and as deteriorated sense.
Speaker 1: And of course I think part of that is well
Speaker 1: now it's now it's so committed to MAGA that it's
Speaker 1: willing to tolerate and willing to platform and willing to
Speaker 1: support people who platform the worst vile, racist, anti semites
Speaker 1: that they are out there. How much Trundation is huge.
Speaker 1: Its budget is I think one hundred million dollars a
Speaker 1: year used to be. I mean, we're talking about an
Speaker 1: institution that raises It's a nonprofit organization that raises tens
Speaker 1: of millions of dollars every year. I wonder what fundraising
Speaker 1: is like right now. Because there's been a big backlash
Speaker 1: against this, as you can imagine from those, you know,
Speaker 1: Christian evangelicals who are supporters of Israel, Ted Cruz, Mitch
Speaker 1: McConnell in the Senate have come out strongly to denounce
Speaker 1: Kevin Roberts. Some employees at Heritage have said they find
Speaker 1: Kevin Roberts's statement horrific. Former employees of Heritage have come
Speaker 1: out and denounced Kevin roberts statement. I mean, even in
Speaker 1: itsimate communication.
Speaker 2: Kevin Roberts is that have leaked.
Speaker 1: Kevin Roberts is trying to defend his position and refuses
Speaker 1: to acknowledge the issue, which is the continued partnership of
Speaker 1: Heritage with Tucker calls a Stucco, calls was anti American
Speaker 1: propaganda from Putin, from Qatara, from Iran, makes fun of
Speaker 1: Christians who are from Israel's right to exist slanders Israel
Speaker 1: and platforms Nazis and supporters of Nazism, and Heritage Foundation
Speaker 1: continues the partnership with him and Kevin Roberts just ignores it,
Speaker 1: ignores all of that, pretends it doesn't exist. One wonders,
Speaker 1: what does Tuck I have on Kevin or you know
Speaker 1: how many people on the Board of Heritage, the new
Speaker 1: board of Heritage are now, you know, part of that world,
Speaker 1: that world of you know, anti Semitism, that world of
Speaker 1: anti Americanism. Supposely there's a staff rebellion. I don't know
Speaker 1: if there is at the Heritage Foundation. People are resigning,
Speaker 1: people are threatening to resign. The rumors there's a board
Speaker 1: meeting yesterday that by a small margin allowed Roberts to
Speaker 1: maintain his job, keep his job. But it's not clear
Speaker 1: on the other hand, you know staff at the Heritage
Speaker 1: Fundation or senior people the Heritage Foundation come out and
Speaker 1: said nonsense, there was no board yesterday. There was no
Speaker 1: board yesterday. Although a lot of people are calling for
Speaker 1: his dismissal, his aid chief of staff, who actually wrote
Speaker 1: the text that he read on the video, his comments
Speaker 1: and Tucker Carlson and for intance, he is being demoted
Speaker 1: and he's been replaced the chief of staff. So Kevin
Speaker 1: is blaming him, I guess for the comments that he made.
Speaker 1: The video was still up. He hasn't taken it down.
Speaker 1: But there seems to be a rebellion insight Heritage. There
Speaker 1: seems to be objections to this. This is really shaking
Speaker 1: up the conservative movement to the extent that there is
Speaker 1: a conservative movement. Yeah, the chief of staff was reassigned, reassigned,
Speaker 1: and Kevin Roberts came out with an email announcing announcing this.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: I mean, the reality is that Heritage is subsidizing Tucker Calson.
Speaker 1: And it's not just it's not just this latest of
Speaker 1: interviewing frantis, what about the Carol interview? What about his
Speaker 1: support for putin Heritage used to have a pro American
Speaker 1: foreign policy. I guess not anymore. Its relationship with Taker
Speaker 1: Culson is more important, or maybe Heritage is onto something.
Speaker 1: Heritage realizes that the right its support is I've moved
Speaker 1: on from the kind of old line conservatism which supported America,
Speaker 1: the funding Fathers, the Constitution, somewhat free markets and things
Speaker 1: like that. Even those they're willing to give up. Now
Speaker 1: it's much more in line with supporting Putin or you know,
Speaker 1: a star Coacosa said the other day, Shariello is not
Speaker 1: that bad supporting Katar over supporting Israel. That's a there's
Speaker 1: a there's a.
Speaker 2: Uh, you know, Kata Kata versus Israel. Who should you support?
Speaker 1: That's a tough one. Huh. So it's going to be
Speaker 1: really interesting to see how this shakes up. You know,
Speaker 1: the Heritage Foundation is part of some kind of consodium
Speaker 1: around anti Semitism. Well, some of the other members of
Speaker 1: that consodium are leaving saying they will not participate together
Speaker 1: that with Heritage around antisemitism when Heritage supports you know,
Speaker 1: raving anti Semite in Taco Cassa.
Speaker 2: So this is this is going to be interesting.
Speaker 1: Right, the right, without any doubt now is becoming antisemitic
Speaker 1: and racist. It's Charlottesville one. So we go back to
Speaker 1: when when was Charlottesville twenty eighteen, twenty seventeen, twenty eighteen. Well,
Speaker 1: Charlotte are the people at Charlotteville one the Altright is winning.
Speaker 1: They are basically the most energized, most consistent, most principled
Speaker 1: force on the right. They couch their anti Semitism as
Speaker 1: being anti Israel. But here's an example. Let me see
Speaker 1: if I can find this.
Speaker 2: This is a question that jd Vance was asked.
Speaker 1: Jd Vance was doing a turning point, a kind of
Speaker 1: a Q and A at the University Mississippi. Right, this
Speaker 1: is the kind of Q and as that Charlie Coke did. Anyway,
Speaker 1: jd Vance was stepped in to play Charlie Coke for this,
Speaker 1: and so he was there of field questions for students
Speaker 1: for nearly an hour.
Speaker 2: It's just great good for him.
Speaker 1: Every vice president should do this, and you can see,
Speaker 1: you can see their true character when they do this.
Speaker 1: And a student stepped up and said the following, I'm
Speaker 1: a Christian man, and I'm just confused why there's this
Speaker 1: notion that we might owe Israel something, or that they
Speaker 1: are are greatest ally or that we have to support
Speaker 1: this multi hundred billion dollar found aid package to Israel
Speaker 1: multi hundred billion dollar following pages or we'll get to
Speaker 1: that in a minute. I'm just confused why this idea
Speaker 1: has come around concerning the fact that not only does
Speaker 1: they religion not agree with ours, but also openly supports
Speaker 1: the prosecution of ours. So Jews openly support the prosecution
Speaker 1: of Christians. So you can see here how the anti
Speaker 1: Semitism Jews support the openly support the prosecution of Christians,
Speaker 1: which is complete bs is buried under the lead, Well,
Speaker 1: why are we supporting Israel?
Speaker 2: Why should we support Israel? What's the point of supporting Israel?
Speaker 1: Which is how they constantly hide their ane to Semitism.
Speaker 1: I mean, this is a question fundamentally attacking Jews and
Speaker 1: Judaism or whatever right and using Israel as an excuse
Speaker 1: for that. And what does JD. Van's response? He says,
Speaker 1: you know, America First doesn't mean abandoning alliances but leverage
Speaker 1: them for US gains. So just because what America first
Speaker 1: doesn't mean we shouldn't have allies, you know, he points
Speaker 1: out that the United States, it is not a patsy
Speaker 1: of Israels and the Trump has used this leverage over
Speaker 1: Israel to achieve a Gauza sease fire. He uh, you know,
Speaker 1: he thought that it was okay for Christians and Jews
Speaker 1: to collaborate, and.
Speaker 2: He never said anything about the fact that Jews.
Speaker 1: Do not promote the prosecute, persecution and prosecution of Christians.
Speaker 1: He never addressed underlying anti Semitism. He let it just stay,
Speaker 1: and he is not. He's not confronting it, and he
Speaker 1: knows he can't confront it because if he does confront it,
Speaker 1: he loses. He loses the Nick Foy Intis crowd, which
Speaker 1: is now hundreds of thousands, if not millions strong, and
Speaker 1: he needs them if he wants to run for president.
Speaker 4: He needs them, all right, fuck?
Speaker 1: I mean otherwise named the actors and who's someone else?
Speaker 1: Agen Again, the issue here is should somebody who the
Speaker 1: Heritage Foundations supports advertising that's supporting Tucker Carson?
Speaker 3: Alright, one second, we're looking to see where the stream is.
Speaker 3: If there is a stream, God, when is it offline?
Speaker 2: All right?
Speaker 1: Sorry, those of you on podcasts, give me just a
Speaker 1: little bit to see if I can re engage the
Speaker 1: stream on YouTube. One second, let's see h h h H.
Speaker 2: All right, everybody. Uh, I am back.
Speaker 1: I Uh god, I probably spoke for ten minutes without
Speaker 1: even realizing that it was frozen and uh we had dropped.
Speaker 2: Uh and no, no.
Speaker 1: I've got an eck cancel that. I apologize for that.
Speaker 1: The the I don't know, hotel WiFi. We didn't pray
Speaker 1: enough for the hotel WiFi gods to help us here.
Speaker 2: So I'm not sure where it ended.
Speaker 1: But let me, let me, let me make a wider point.
Speaker 1: I mean, the reality is the reality is that. And
Speaker 1: I and by the way, I have captured all your
Speaker 1: super chats, so we will we can and will cover
Speaker 1: all the super chats. I uh, let me just make
Speaker 1: sure that I.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 1: So we will capture all the sup We have captured
Speaker 1: all the super chats, so we think should be fine.
Speaker 1: All right, So I apologize for the job. But you know,
Speaker 1: it's the hotel. Whatever the hotel did, this is what
Speaker 1: it is. It ended when the Heritage Fundation sponsored Tucker.
Speaker 1: The Heritage FUNDI sponsor to Tuca, as I said, for
Speaker 1: for in spite of the fact that Tucker platforms for interest,
Speaker 1: but more than that, inspite of the fact that Tucker
Speaker 1: is supportive of Putin you know, it gives us Katari
Speaker 1: talking points, is anti American in so many ways, has
Speaker 1: abandoned any respect for for for freedom, free markets, anything
Speaker 1: like that.
Speaker 2: Colton has become a joke, a crazy, nutty joke.
Speaker 1: He's expressed anti Semitic, explicit anti semitic views himself. In
Speaker 1: addition to and in addition to what to platform unique pointers,
Speaker 1: Tucker Cosson has become an embarrassment, and yet Heritage Foundation
Speaker 1: sponsors his show through advertising it. Of course, has now
Speaker 1: declared explicitly that he is one of them, that he
Speaker 1: is their friend, that he will always be part of
Speaker 1: the coalition as they fight the left.
Speaker 2: But here's the thing that's you know.
Speaker 1: Really really important and important to note. The right does
Speaker 1: not have the tools to stand up just like the
Speaker 1: left does not have the tools to stand up to
Speaker 1: their extreme manifestations, if you will. They do not have
Speaker 1: the tools to stand up to the racist and anti Semites.
Speaker 2: They do not have the tools to.
Speaker 1: Stand up to the white nationalists or the white or
Speaker 1: the national the Christian Conservatives. Indeed, one of the great,
Speaker 1: one of the great, one of the sad things that's
Speaker 1: going to come out of the national conservative movement is
Speaker 1: that the National Conservative movement was the large extent founded
Speaker 1: by an Israeli, a Jew, a conservative Jew, a Yamica
Speaker 1: wearing conservative Jew.
Speaker 2: But then Razoni who have debated.
Speaker 1: And that the National Conservative movement is going to be
Speaker 1: a breeding ground for ultimately Christian Conservatives and ultimately anti
Speaker 1: semit conservatives. That is, a national conservative movement founded by
Speaker 1: an Israeli Jew is going to be a place where
Speaker 1: they where Ultimately the worst enemies of Israel and the
Speaker 1: worst enemies of Jews are going to be prevalent now
Speaker 1: of the right, not the left obviously, but still, I mean,
Speaker 1: if the world takes seriously the national conservative agenda, you
Speaker 1: will get these nationalists and nationalist governments that ultimately will
Speaker 1: turn against the Jews because the Jews don't belong in
Speaker 1: those nations.
Speaker 2: According to them.
Speaker 1: They have no tool to stand up against them. Once
Speaker 1: they've accepted Once your own Marazzoni has accepted collectivism, has
Speaker 1: accepted tribalism, well he doesn't get to choose which collective wins,
Speaker 1: which tribe wins, and what the attitude of that tribe
Speaker 1: is towards his own tribe, Jewish tribe. Tribalism. Once tribalism accepted.
Speaker 1: You've accepted irrationality. Once tribalism has been accepted, you've accepted
Speaker 1: the negation of freedom. And the conservatives Heritage Foundation, certainly
Speaker 1: because of because of the Heritage Foundation, you know, has
Speaker 1: joined the tribe around Mega and around Trump. It has
Speaker 1: nothing original, nothing interesting, nothing of value to really say.
Speaker 2: So what is the defense of regular.
Speaker 1: Conservatives, of of of of the current conservative movement against
Speaker 1: Nick Foyants? And just to be clear, you know, I've
Speaker 1: now watched a bunch of Nick Cooins videos. I find
Speaker 1: it really weird that any of you find him entertaining
Speaker 1: or worthwhile or willing to watch any of his stuff.
Speaker 1: He is a slimy monster. He you know, he could,
Speaker 1: he could. He has the kind of view that made
Speaker 1: Hitler Hitler. He's a Nazi, and yet people tolerate him,
Speaker 1: people pursue him. Now, It's true some people are pushing
Speaker 1: back against Nick foy inters and te Carcasson, but they
Speaker 1: have no leg to stand up. What is the argument
Speaker 1: against Oh, they'll call him an anti semi, but they
Speaker 1: can't defend individualism. They can't talk about what this country
Speaker 1: is really about, what this country actually stands for. I
Speaker 1: mean here we have somebody here, you know, nine people,
Speaker 1: million people of Israel are the most important thing to
Speaker 1: America and Americanism in Yuron's mind. When have I ever
Speaker 1: said anything that resembles that I've done whole shows on
Speaker 1: what America is and Americanism without mentioning Israel once. Israel's
Speaker 1: not important when it comes to discussing the future of America.
Speaker 1: What's important is America. It's founding principles they're founding for others.
Speaker 1: What's important is the Declaration of Independence. They give amen
Speaker 1: a created equal endowed with inalienable rights. The only reason
Speaker 1: I talk a lot about Israel is because it's in
Speaker 1: the news. I mean, Trump talks about Israel all the time.
Speaker 1: Is that because Israel matters to him more than anything else. Right,
Speaker 1: I don't need this guy's lying, all right? So there
Speaker 1: is no there's no basis for them to defend against
Speaker 1: m These white nationalists, these fascists, they have no basis
Speaker 1: to do it because they don't understand the foundation on
Speaker 1: which this country is built. They cannot talk about individual rights,
Speaker 1: they cannot talk about individualism. They certainly do not talk
Speaker 1: about capitalism. I mean, there was an interesting exchange the
Speaker 1: other Day by J D. E Van's Jad Evans was
Speaker 1: filling in for Charlie Cook at a Turning Point USA.
Speaker 1: He gets asked the turning Point USA event, he gets
Speaker 1: asked the question, here's the question. I'm a Christian man.
Speaker 1: Notice how this is always the case. This is the
Speaker 1: case with war Beef who is.
Speaker 2: Making comments on the chat.
Speaker 1: They argue that it's all about Israel, but really what
Speaker 1: drives it as hatred of Jews, anti Amotism. So here's
Speaker 1: what this young person says. I'm a Christian, Matt, and
Speaker 1: I'm just confused why there's the notion that we might
Speaker 1: owe Israel something, or that there are greatest ally or
Speaker 1: that we have to support this multi hundred billion dollar
Speaker 1: foreign a package to Israel. We'll talk about that in
Speaker 1: a minute. I'm just confused why this idea has come around,
Speaker 1: considering the fact that not only does their religion not
Speaker 1: agree with ours, but also openly supports the prosecution of ours,
Speaker 1: openly supports the prosecution of Christians. Where is that? Where
Speaker 1: is this openly supporting that? Is there any evidence of that?
Speaker 1: I mean, clearly antisemitic, clearly driven by hatred of the
Speaker 1: Jews and a claim about their religion. Does Stucker Callson
Speaker 1: confront sorry, jd Vance confront that. No, he goes into
Speaker 1: a whole spiel about we're not beholding to Israel and
Speaker 1: America first, doesn't mean we don't have alliances and Israel.
Speaker 2: Sometimes he's an ally and sometimes not, and that.
Speaker 1: Trump really twisted Nintoniello's arm in order to get this
Speaker 1: peace deal.
Speaker 2: So Israel does what we tell it to do, and.
Speaker 1: You know, and then he argued that there are theological
Speaker 1: difference between Christian and Jews, but they don't preclude collaboration
Speaker 1: here and there on matters of common concern. Nothing about
Speaker 1: Jews persecuting Christians, which is just a fantasy. And you know,
Speaker 1: he doesn't want to piss off people. I mean, he
Speaker 1: doesn't want to piss off Nick Foynter's supporters. That's what's
Speaker 1: driving him, the need to keep them part of the
Speaker 1: coalition so that he can get the nomination next time
Speaker 1: and they support him. I mean jd Vance can't talk
Speaker 1: against them. I mean, he can't even defend his wife. Indeed,
Speaker 1: I think in the same Q and A or maybe
Speaker 1: it was in another place, I'm not sure. He says
Speaker 1: that he's hoping that his wife who's Hindu. I think
Speaker 1: she's Hindu, converts to Christianity because Nick Foentis on a
Speaker 1: regular basis on the show, goes after JD. Vance and
Speaker 1: says that Jadvans is married to a brown woman and
Speaker 1: that's not acceptable and he can never be allowed to
Speaker 1: be president of the United States because his wife is
Speaker 1: not white and she's not a Christian.
Speaker 2: So JD.
Speaker 1: Vance against wants their peace. Who does he want at peace?
Speaker 1: He wants to peace. The worst element that Nick Foentis
Speaker 1: and his gropers by telling them, oh, no, no, no,
Speaker 1: she's going to become a Christian. Don't worry, she's going
Speaker 1: to convert. I mean, basically, Maga relies now on Goiper's
Speaker 1: and more and more the Conservative Party, more and more
Speaker 1: the Republican Party is going to rely on Nick Foyantes
Speaker 1: and is going to be accommodating of Nick Foyenttis's views.
Speaker 1: Remember the German Conservatives really pushed back against Hitler for
Speaker 1: a while, and they accepted Hitler. They thought he was
Speaker 1: a joke, they thought he was repulsive, they thought he
Speaker 1: was awful.
Speaker 2: They really opposed him.
Speaker 1: But it was a marriage of comedy convenience, and they
Speaker 1: supported him. Out of convenience. You remember why, because they
Speaker 1: had a common enemy. Oh what was the common enemy
Speaker 1: with conservatives? And then and and Hitler was the common
Speaker 1: hem Oh.
Speaker 2: Yes, the left. And of course once they let him in,
Speaker 2: he had the energy behind him.
Speaker 1: He had young people behind him, he had millions of
Speaker 1: followers behind him, he had people who'd marunch in the
Speaker 1: streets for him, and soon enough he controlled it. So
Speaker 1: I mean, I think the real fear here is basically
Speaker 1: the complete takeover of the Republican Party by the Nick
Speaker 1: for Inticis of the world. That the Conservatives and the
Speaker 1: Republican Party are going to become a party of Christian Conservatives,
Speaker 1: white Christian Conservatives, racists and anti Semites and wrapped around
Speaker 1: religion and wrapped around a flag. Of course, Nick Fointis
Speaker 1: makes his case constantly about it's all about America. First,
Speaker 1: he attacks Jews for having dual alliances, because he claims
Speaker 1: that Jews all have dual citizenship. Very few Jews have
Speaker 1: actual dual citizenship, and lots of people have dual citizenships.
Speaker 2: Brits have dual citizenship.
Speaker 1: Europeans have many more dual citizenship than Jews do than Israelis,
Speaker 1: and yet it's only the Israelis, the Jews dual citizenship
Speaker 1: that there's a problem. So I don't know. I don't
Speaker 1: know what comes of this country. I don't know what
Speaker 1: comes of the Republican Party. We have now the Democratic
Speaker 1: Party uh running an anti Semitic uh is Islamist socialist
Speaker 1: mayor for New York. And we have the Republican Party
Speaker 1: probably running a a uh you know, anti Semitic Christian
Speaker 1: Christian nationalist for for for.
Speaker 2: Presidents next time in JD. Evans.
Speaker 1: And we have the Heritage Foundation, the bastion of old
Speaker 1: line conservatism, basically or not basically just endorsing Tucker Carlson,
Speaker 1: who then platforms and and in his silence and his
Speaker 1: lack of opposition, endorses the worst kind of Nazi supporter
Speaker 1: in Nick Foents. By the way, this one's kind of funny,
Speaker 1: but Nick Foyents has recently, uh you know, come out
Speaker 1: in favor of Gavin Newsom. In he said, if there
Speaker 1: was just to give you a sense of this, if
Speaker 1: there was an election between Gavin Newsom and JD. Vance,
Speaker 1: he and the Gropers who would support Gavin Newsom because
Speaker 1: Gavin Newsom is white, his wife is white, his kids
Speaker 1: are white, and JD. Van says, a brown wife and
Speaker 1: brown kids, and that's not acceptable. That can't be in
Speaker 1: the White House. So they're willing to support a leftist
Speaker 1: just in name of their name, of their.
Speaker 2: Racism.
Speaker 1: I think Richard Hanani is right. He says the total
Speaker 1: grop pification of the GOP is nearing its completion. You
Speaker 1: saw the emails, the text messages of the young Republicans
Speaker 1: spouting Nick foyentis like views when talking among themselves.
Speaker 2: Why is this happening?
Speaker 1: I mean again, because I think old line Republican ideas
Speaker 1: kind of went bankrupt with Bush.
Speaker 2: They went nowhere.
Speaker 1: They were unprinciple, they were completely pragmatic. Trump opened up
Speaker 1: this opportunity for the goypers, for racists by declaring so
Speaker 1: called America first and then kind of winking and you know,
Speaker 1: and the good people on both sides, kind of attitude
Speaker 1: towards the worst elements among his supporters and being embraced
Speaker 1: by MAGA, which turned into a conspiracy theory, crazy nutty.
Speaker 1: You know. I won't call it an ideology because it's
Speaker 1: not really an ideology. Trump is legitimized they alt right.
Speaker 1: He's legitimized the race is right. He's legitimized all of them.
Speaker 1: If somebody like Trump with his character can be supported
Speaker 1: by conservatives, think about that. I mean, conservatives supporting a philandering,
Speaker 1: you know, just a horrible, lying human being, somebody who's
Speaker 1: you know, by conservatives stand has been divorced or three times,
Speaker 1: had many affairs, talked about grabbing women by there and
Speaker 1: all of that, and conservatives are just yeah, okay, Christian
Speaker 1: Conservatives are just like, yeah, fine, we're electing this guy.
Speaker 2: They've opened up the door to anybody.
Speaker 1: They've opened up the door, you know, Trump by the
Speaker 1: Conservatives now willing to tolerate anything as long as they
Speaker 1: beat the left. They supported Trump because he could beat
Speaker 1: the left. And Nick foytis nick foyintis is anti left,
Speaker 1: at least they think he is. I'm not sure about this.
Speaker 1: Gevin knew some stuff. But Trump has opened up the door.
Speaker 1: The supporters of Trump had opened up the door. His
Speaker 1: wink win, everything is okay, don't worry about the racism.
Speaker 2: Has opened up the door.
Speaker 1: Charlottesville opened up the door to the worst elements on
Speaker 1: the right dominating the Republican Party.
Speaker 2: And that's what you're seeing.
Speaker 1: You're seeing the slow domination of the Republican Party.
Speaker 2: They control it.
Speaker 1: Their hatred of immigrants is now manifest on the streets
Speaker 1: with ice.
Speaker 2: The hatred of Jews.
Speaker 1: Is manifest every week on Tucker Carlson Show. Remember Charlotteville
Speaker 1: was the as they marched.
Speaker 2: It was Jews.
Speaker 1: Jews will not replace us, Jews will not replace us.
Speaker 1: And yes, Trump did say something out of half, you know,
Speaker 1: something about the neo Nazis, the horrible.
Speaker 2: New Nazis out there. But he also said the good
Speaker 2: people on both sides, which if if.
Speaker 1: You're not if you're still confused about I did a
Speaker 1: whole show on it, so find my show on Charlotteville
Speaker 1: and watch it where I analyze line by line the
Speaker 1: entire speech by Trump, including his condemnation and including his
Speaker 1: the nice people. You know, this is this is what
Speaker 1: has led open up the door to these types. And
Speaker 1: again there's no defense, there's nothing conservatives can say to
Speaker 1: defend themselves against this. On the right, they've always been
Speaker 1: a little racist. Now they're full on racists on the right.
Speaker 1: They've never really completely trusted the Jews. Now the full
Speaker 1: on anti semitic on the right. They've never embraced capitalism.
Speaker 1: Now they're full on statists.
Speaker 2: On the right.
Speaker 1: They've always endorsed a little bit of Christianity in politics.
Speaker 2: Now they're full on Christian Christian nationalists.
Speaker 1: As I Ran said, when you compromise with evil, only
Speaker 1: evil gains, only evil wins. And creating a coalition in
Speaker 1: bringing racist anti Semites into the tent, only they can win,
Speaker 1: only they can win.
Speaker 2: And they're winning.
Speaker 1: They are winning, There's no question about that. There's the
Speaker 1: voices I see standing up against you know, against this, uh,
Speaker 1: you know old Lincoln's servatives that a losing losing the
Speaker 1: big battle. You know, Taker Colson has many many more
Speaker 1: followers than they Inde Nick Foindess probably has more followers
Speaker 1: than I don't know, Michael Levin or David Hassani or
Speaker 1: some of these others. David Assani writes Vance's answers yesterday
Speaker 1: were despicable. I'm not sure why Jews appraising him. He
Speaker 1: let a questionnaire, questionnaires vile smear against American Jews go
Speaker 1: completely unchallenged, only assuring him that Trump didn't let Israel
Speaker 1: pull pull the US into a world war, as if
Speaker 1: that's what it wanted. Imagine some dopey kid going off
Speaker 1: on how the Pope secretly pays off all US politicians
Speaker 1: to create open border policies and illegal invasions, and then
Speaker 1: the Vice President tells him not to worry. The President
Speaker 1: has dashed the Pope's plan. Vanceys Tucker's boy, and everyone
Speaker 1: understands it, which is why so many of these people
Speaker 1: won't criticize Tucker. Yep, it's it's pretty bleak. I want
Speaker 1: to say one thing about this kid's accusation. And you
Speaker 1: see them for intus, and you see it in Tucker
Speaker 1: Colson that the US gives is so much money. So
Speaker 1: let's look at the facts, right, Let's look at the
Speaker 1: actual facts. The US provides as were worth about three
Speaker 1: point eight billion dollars in military aid each year, zero
Speaker 1: economic aid. It used to be thirty years ago that
Speaker 1: the US gave Israel economic aid. It gives it no
Speaker 1: economic aid. Three point eight billion in military aid. Around
Speaker 1: three point three of that billion three point eight is
Speaker 1: in grants that have to the only way they can
Speaker 1: use them is to purchase US US weapons, So all
Speaker 1: that money comes right back to American manufacturers of weapons systems.
Speaker 1: And another five hundred million is in corporation on missile
Speaker 1: defense programs. You know the various shields that Israel has,
Speaker 1: which of course the United States benefits enormously from as
Speaker 1: it is trying to develop its own missile defense program.
Speaker 1: It's sharing all the information that Israel has on its
Speaker 1: experiences with missile defense systems. Now, this is a significant amount.
Speaker 1: Three pointy billion dollars is nothing to sneeze at. It's
Speaker 1: just under five percent of total US aid budget military
Speaker 1: plus economic, and itso point zero six percent of the
Speaker 1: total federal budget. It's not hundreds of billions of dollars,
Speaker 1: which is what the kid claimed and JD. Vans never corrected.
Speaker 2: The US.
Speaker 1: Just to give your context, the US gives the United
Speaker 1: Nations fourteen to sixteen billion dollars a year. The United Nations,
Speaker 1: which is horrifically anti American, gets fourteen to sixteen billion.
Speaker 1: Israel gets zo point eight. Now, again, the three point
Speaker 1: three billion is all spent on purchasing American equipment. American equipment.
Speaker 1: Then Israel uses like F thirty fives. Israel not only
Speaker 1: users F thirty fives, but it actually makes changes to
Speaker 1: their thirty fives. It adjusts the F thirty five to
Speaker 1: its own needs, and then it uses their thirty fives.
Speaker 2: It puts them into combat.
Speaker 1: According to I think it's Lockheed Martin that builds the
Speaker 1: f thirty fives or north of north of I can't
Speaker 1: remember which one. According to them, the benefit that they
Speaker 1: get from the fact that Israel uses this plain on
Speaker 1: a regular basis, it is worth tens of billions of
Speaker 1: dollars of research and development that they do not have
Speaker 1: to do because Israel is actually doing it in practice
Speaker 1: and giving them the data the information.
Speaker 2: On top of.
Speaker 1: That, Israel provides the United States with massive intelligence intelligence
Speaker 1: about terrorist organizations, about Islamist activities, about other countries in
Speaker 1: the Middle East that the United.
Speaker 2: States isn't interesting.
Speaker 1: Various Year's officials have estimated that America, in order to
Speaker 1: replicate what Israel provides them in terms of intelligence, would
Speaker 1: have to spend between fifteen to twenty billion dollars a year.
Speaker 1: So the United States gets back much, much, much, much
Speaker 1: more than it gives Israel. It's not even close. And
Speaker 1: yet they keep popping on this. This is the thing
Speaker 1: that bothers them, which a clear indication that something else
Speaker 1: is driving this. It's not Israel that really bugs them. Now,
Speaker 1: let me be very clear, I don't think the United
Speaker 1: States should give Israel anything. I think Israel would continue
Speaker 1: to shame intelligence. And I think Israel could afford this
Speaker 1: three point eight billion. Maybe it's you know, the five
Speaker 1: hundred million that is co development of the missile defense system.
Speaker 1: That makes sense, but the three point three billion, the
Speaker 1: United States should stop giving Israel. Israel doesn't need it.
Speaker 1: It's a rich country and it should get richer. It
Speaker 1: needs to get richer. Its own self defense requires it
Speaker 1: to get richer. But it all should stop giving. I mean,
Speaker 1: you should stop giving Israel aid. Maybe, you know, hopefully
Speaker 1: Israel continues to give the intelligence, but more importantly, it
Speaker 1: will stop being a leverage that the United States can
Speaker 1: use in Israel. It'll stop being leveraged that anti Semites
Speaker 1: can use against Israel. You know, I think give Israel
Speaker 1: a freer hand to determine its own affairs. And I
Speaker 1: don't believe that America should be handing out money to countries.
Speaker 1: There's absolutely no reason I think the United State should
Speaker 1: stop supporting Egypt and Jordan and all the other countries
Speaker 1: in the Middle East that it sends dollars to more
Speaker 1: than it sends to Israel, and it gets very little
Speaker 1: in return for that money, but it's a drop in
Speaker 1: a bucket, and America gets a big return on that investment.
Speaker 1: I think it would get a lot of that anyway,
Speaker 1: because Israel will continue to buy F thirty five, continue
Speaker 1: to give the manufacture the information they need, I think,
Speaker 1: will continue to provide the United States with the intelligence support.
Speaker 1: But let's just get rid of this issue. But basically
Speaker 1: the United States stopping to support financially these rate lyings,
Speaker 1: there's just it's not necessary. How is it going to
Speaker 1: get into giving you some quotes from Nick Foyentis, but really,
Speaker 1: you know it's unnecessary and frantis it talks about Jews
Speaker 1: being demons that are destroying this country. He advocates killing
Speaker 1: them all, at least the Jews that are demons. Maybe
Speaker 1: the Jews that are not demons don't need to be killed.
Speaker 1: It's not clear. He he thinks Hitler is awesome, that
Speaker 1: Hitler was right, that the Holocaust never happened. I'm not
Speaker 1: sure what Hitler is right about if the Holocaust never happened.
Speaker 1: Because Nick Foyentis agrees that a Holocaust.
Speaker 2: Should happen, he wants to kill them.
Speaker 1: Now. I mean, this is scum, This is scum. If
Speaker 1: they have the was come, this is scum. He says. Quote,
Speaker 1: when we take power, the Jews will be needed to
Speaker 1: be given the death penalty. I'm formal considered about that
Speaker 1: than non white people. So say he hates Jews more
Speaker 1: than he hates black people. In other words, anyway, the
Speaker 1: idea that you would give this person a stage, that
Speaker 1: you would introduce him to his audience, that you would
Speaker 1: not challenge everything that he says. The idea that Tucker
Speaker 1: Carlson is embraced by people like like the Avitage Foundation.
Speaker 2: Is this despicable.
Speaker 1: One last thing I want to say again in the
Speaker 1: way that Trump supports all this and is supportive of
Speaker 1: the whole kind of racist, white nationalist agenda. Whether he
Speaker 1: himself is a racist or not, I do not know,
Speaker 1: but you know, we know the Miller is even though
Speaker 1: Miller is Jewish, I guess, but he's supportive of all this.
Speaker 1: The United States declared at the end of last week
Speaker 1: that it was restricting them out of asylum seekers to
Speaker 1: the United States the seven five hundred.
Speaker 2: Now I'm supportive of that.
Speaker 1: I don't think the basis for coming to the United
Speaker 1: States should be seeking asylum, and I think the basis
Speaker 1: should be can you get a job?
Speaker 2: But here's the thing.
Speaker 1: The one group that the Trump administration explicitly has said
Speaker 1: a welcome as asylum seekers. The one group that they're
Speaker 1: encouraging to come to the United States as asylum seekers.
Speaker 1: One group white South Africans of Afrikaners descent. So we
Speaker 1: don't want brown people being persecuted by the Venezuelan government,
Speaker 1: we don't want brown people being persecuted by the communist
Speaker 1: regime in Cuba. We don't want white people escaping gangs
Speaker 1: in Guatemala or other places in Latin America. And we
Speaker 1: don't want black people escaping violence in most of the
Speaker 1: countries of Africa. We want white people in Africa who
Speaker 1: supposedly are being being persecuted in South Africa. Whether they
Speaker 1: are they're not, it's not the point. It's we only
Speaker 1: want white people. That is the one group the asylum
Speaker 1: that we're happy to grant asylum to. And so most
Speaker 1: of seventy five hundred that have now been approved for asylum,
Speaker 1: most of them are going to be South Africans Africanas.
Speaker 1: Now it's not clear, it's not clear they're going to
Speaker 1: be that many. That many Africanis want to leave South Africa.
Speaker 1: But that's the one group that he's opened up. If
Speaker 1: that's not just again appeasing the white nationalists, appeasing the racists,
Speaker 1: appeasing the worst limits within the Republican Party. I don't
Speaker 1: know what is by the way, just to give you
Speaker 1: a sense, last year, the number of asylum seekers the
Speaker 1: war proved or the ceiling was one hundred and twenty
Speaker 1: five thousands. They've gone one hundred twenty five thousand to
Speaker 1: seventy five hundred. That's a pretty big drop, which is
Speaker 1: fine by me if they open up immigration from other sources,
Speaker 1: which they won't. But it's the racist aspect of it,
Speaker 1: and it's clearly racist. There's no other justification for singling
Speaker 1: out white South Africans. Well, you know, somebody system surprises,
Speaker 1: not Katari's what Kataries are not running away from anything
Speaker 1: right there. The regime is super nice and super friendly
Speaker 1: and that's what they want. So I support limiting refugees
Speaker 1: and but else to support expanding work related visas, which
Speaker 1: the Trump administration will not do.
Speaker 2: And I all support limiting the refugees.
Speaker 1: The white dudes, I know there's open talk of racial
Speaker 1: hatred among certain people in the South African government believe me.
Speaker 2: I know.
Speaker 1: I mean, I have quite a few family members in
Speaker 1: South Africa and they have the same skin color as
Speaker 1: I do. So I know exactly what's going on in
Speaker 1: South Africa, and I care about what's going on in
Speaker 1: South Africa, and I worry about what's going on.
Speaker 2: In South Africa.
Speaker 1: And by the way, the South Africans get a lot
Speaker 1: of money from Kato, and that is why they're so
Speaker 1: wanta Israel and why they're the ones who brought prosecution
Speaker 1: and the ICC against Israel for for it's the Katari
Speaker 1: money is influence beyond the fact that they're leftists and
Speaker 1: haters of Israel. Above and beyond that. Oh, old Greg says,
Speaker 1: I'm not very are you well informed? Please tell me
Speaker 1: what I'm not well informed? What I'm not well informed about?
Speaker 2: All right?
Speaker 1: Old Greg says we should not be a nation that
Speaker 1: hosts ideological enemies. I agree, Nick Foyanti should be deported immediately.
Speaker 1: So Shia Taka Carlson, he's our ideological enemy, so let's
Speaker 1: get rid of him. I mean, I'm kidding, but you know,
Speaker 1: because I don't think and I don't think that's what
Speaker 1: Greg meant he's thus accusing me of misquoting. Uhis I paraphrased?
Speaker 1: But I've watched the Nick foy iNTS videos and no,
Speaker 1: it's very accurate. Nick Frantis is anti American. He is thoroughly, systematically,
Speaker 1: through and through anti American. He is as anti American
Speaker 1: as mum Danis. They are twin brothers in a sense
Speaker 1: in their anti Americanism. He is as anti American as
Speaker 1: the worst leftist. And he is the kind of person
Speaker 1: that the funding fathers and really the people who built
Speaker 1: this country would find abhorrent and despicable.
Speaker 2: And he is.
Speaker 1: He is again, he's anti American. He's not America first,
Speaker 1: He's America last. And as most of the people who
Speaker 1: declare themselves America first, they don't understand what America is.
Speaker 1: They have no conception of Americanism. They have no conception
Speaker 1: of what America stands for. America is the land of individualism.
Speaker 1: Nick Foytis is a through and through collectivist tribalists. And
Speaker 1: if you don't see that, then you don't have. You
Speaker 1: can't think you've you've you've become uh part of the tribe.
Speaker 1: And they folk can't think, God, you guys are such
Speaker 1: some of you just.
Speaker 2: Ah, it's hard to believe, you know, this is the thing.
Speaker 2: Maybe maybe I get.
Speaker 1: A a biased kind of in terms of people who
Speaker 1: who follow me, but maybe it's because of the title
Speaker 1: had four intercendent. But the people in my chat are
Speaker 1: so horrific and an expend some of them the extent
Speaker 1: that they are representative of what's going on in America.
Speaker 2: It is really horrifying.
Speaker 1: Now, again, it's probably not representative of what's going on
Speaker 1: a lot of in most of America, but.
Speaker 2: Uh, it is. It is truly truly horrific.
Speaker 1: Thomas Jefferson is rolling in his grave thinking about, you know,
Speaker 1: if he has any access to what is going on
Speaker 1: right now. So, yes, frentis as anti American Tucker Colson's
Speaker 1: anti American. They have no conception of what America means,
Speaker 1: what America is. And the idea, the idea that the
Speaker 1: Founders would have supported a anti Semite. You should you
Speaker 1: should read, you know, George Washington's letter to the Jewish
Speaker 1: community of Charleston.
Speaker 2: I think it was.
Speaker 1: You should you should look at what Thomas Jefferson had
Speaker 1: to say about separation of state from religion.
Speaker 2: You should you should.
Speaker 1: Read what they had to say about individual individual rights.
Speaker 1: This country was proposely not founded as a Christian country.
Speaker 1: This is a country founded on secular values. This is
Speaker 1: a country founded by deists, and it's some cases atheists
Speaker 1: man of principle, not scumbags like Nick Foy. Inter's all right,
Speaker 1: let's uh, all right, let's turn to your questions. We
Speaker 1: have quite a few, Thank you guys. You guys are
Speaker 1: being very generous today, and there are a lot of questions,
Speaker 1: so we will cover them all as long as the
Speaker 1: Wi Fi gods Wi Fi gods play along. All right,
Speaker 1: Let's start with I thought I saw one hundred dollars question. Yeah,
Speaker 1: there's one hundred dollars question. Got a bunch of fifty
Speaker 1: dollar questions, Thank you guys. All right, let's start with dum,
Speaker 1: where is it Michael? Who has one hundred dollars question?
Speaker 1: All right, America is not founded on Christian values, has
Speaker 1: founded in Enlightenment values.
Speaker 2: Has founded on values that.
Speaker 1: Relegated Christianity, relegated religion to your personal realm and keep
Speaker 1: it out of the public square and keep it out
Speaker 1: of government again. Read Thomas Jefferson. Read you know, read
Speaker 1: the Statute on Religious Liberty and in the Virginia Constitution.
Speaker 1: You guys who claim to be America first, should learn
Speaker 1: a little bit about America and not from Christian national
Speaker 1: sources that pervert and distort the founders and make them
Speaker 1: into what they would like them to be. But read
Speaker 1: the originals, Read the Federalist papers. Read Thomas Jefferson, you know,
Speaker 1: look at what he read and what he studied. Look
Speaker 1: at even John Adams. Look at who they respected, look
Speaker 1: at what they believed in, look at what they.
Speaker 2: Stood for, and they.
Speaker 1: All right, Michael, thank you for one hundred dollars. Forty
Speaker 1: percent of Trump's time is spent scheming for government manipulation
Speaker 1: control to help his family business. Forty percent is spent
Speaker 1: fixing problems he created. The remaining twenty percent is mostly
Speaker 1: spent running around trying to garne a praise and attention
Speaker 1: from others to fill his empty ego.
Speaker 2: I don't think he.
Speaker 1: Has to actually spend forty percent of his time to
Speaker 1: manipulate things for his family business. I think that only
Speaker 1: takes a small amount of his time. It's generated over
Speaker 1: three billion dollars of profits for his family. So he
Speaker 1: is by far the most corrupt president in American in
Speaker 1: American history, and so you know he is. I don't
Speaker 1: think he has to spend forty percent of the time.
Speaker 1: It's true that he spends a huge amount of time
Speaker 1: fixing problems. He's creating and creating more problems by fixing them,
Speaker 1: so he's not really fixing them.
Speaker 2: He's just creating a whole sequence of.
Speaker 1: Problems on top of problems, on top of problems. You know,
Speaker 1: we just got a trade deal with China. As I
Speaker 1: told you beforehand that it wasn't a deal. It's not
Speaker 1: a deal. It's just an outline of a deal, and
Speaker 1: it's a truth. It's a cease fire for a year.
Speaker 1: It doesn't give the United States anything that it didn't
Speaker 1: already have. The United States benefits zero from this deal.
Speaker 1: The United States was much better off visa vias relationship
Speaker 1: with China before Trump started this whole trade war. The
Speaker 1: United States is clearly losing the trade war. Every time
Speaker 1: Trump meets with she, he gives in, he gives she
Speaker 1: more stuff. So, yes, he spends a lot of it,
Speaker 1: and all of it, including that is there to gone
Speaker 1: a attention and praise. You know, he spends much of
Speaker 1: his time claiming to have established the only piece in
Speaker 1: the Middle East in three thousand years and then preventing
Speaker 1: as well from actually destroying its enemies and.
Speaker 2: Holding them back. It really is, it really is.
Speaker 1: I mean, he really is pathetic. He really is pathetic.
Speaker 1: But yes, Michael, thank you for the support. Really really
Speaker 1: really appreciate it. On top of everything else that you do.
Speaker 2: I see that.
Speaker 1: Let's see, we have a robust debate going on in
Speaker 1: my chat about jay Daiya is a complete rationalist, detach
Speaker 1: from reality. You know, the idea that he won the
Speaker 1: debate is absurd when he completely distorts and perverts the
Speaker 1: concepts that he uses and refuses refuses to accept any
Speaker 1: epistemology but his distorted epistemology. So a debate with him
Speaker 1: is impossible because he wants to set all the terms.
Speaker 1: But anyway, you know, I'm getting ignored the chat Iron Maycut.
Speaker 1: It was fund seeing you in Krakou. Yes, met some
Speaker 1: awesome people at the bar Ps Gaza de la Nada. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I was still working on that. Yeah, it was good
Speaker 1: to see you on Maycut. Thank you for being there,
Speaker 1: Thank you for all your support. We had a great
Speaker 1: event in Krakou about thirty five students at the University there,
Speaker 1: it was awesome morality of capitalism. In between, I spoke
Speaker 1: at the Feet Cities conference in Prague, had about one
Speaker 1: hundred people in the audience, maybe more, maybe one fifty,
Speaker 1: and I talked about did I what did I talk
Speaker 1: about there? White freedom? White freedom? Why you should care
Speaker 1: about freedom? And what's the purpose of freedom? Freedom is
Speaker 1: not an end in itself. Freedom is a means to
Speaker 1: an end and what is that end? Talked about self
Speaker 1: interest and talked about happiness and it was good. It
Speaker 1: pissed off a bunch of people. Dave, good to see you, Dave,
Speaker 1: thank you for the support. Dave says, I love I've
Speaker 1: loved for Cormo. Today. In my area there are many
Speaker 1: Mamdani campaigners. I chatted with some and they're non nihilistic
Speaker 1: like Antifa or ideological Marxist.
Speaker 2: They're idealists. Most of high income earners.
Speaker 1: Yes, that's what I suspect, with advanced degrees, that's what
Speaker 1: I suspected, the delusional about how to achieve human flourishing.
Speaker 1: But they're the type of crowd more likely to be
Speaker 1: a sponsors to objectivism then the fascist boots and the right.
Speaker 2: I agree.
Speaker 1: I think that's right. They're typically software engineers or professionals.
Speaker 1: They make a lot of money. A lot of them
Speaker 1: live in Brooklyn, I know where you talk to them,
Speaker 1: but Mamdani has a lot of support in the wealthy
Speaker 1: areas of Bookland where these professionals live.
Speaker 2: And they are they're delusional.
Speaker 1: They be miseducated, dramatically miseducated since they were in kindergarten.
Speaker 1: They don't understand capitalism, it's benefits. They have this, you know,
Speaker 1: naive but also evasive view because they purposefully don't look
Speaker 1: at it too carefully of socialism. And they don't like
Speaker 1: Israel because they buy all the images of bombing babies,
Speaker 1: and they have this vague notion that Israel has done
Speaker 1: something hoppable to the Palestinians and Israel as strong after all,
Speaker 1: something must be wrong, you know, they must have not
Speaker 1: something bad to be strong. They bought, They bought into
Speaker 1: some extent or another. They bought into the intersectionality argument.
Speaker 1: They're altruists because that's all they've known, all they've known
Speaker 1: throughout their life is altruism. So yeah, I agree with you.
Speaker 1: They're not nihilists per se. The consequence of what they're
Speaker 1: doing is nihilism and they are evasive. They do evade
Speaker 1: in order to be able to vote for money. They
Speaker 1: have to evade a huge amount not to have a jolgorithm.
Speaker 1: Many on the left, however, wrong philosophically, still operate within
Speaker 1: the framework of the Constitution. They act through laws and
Speaker 1: institutions rather than by personal decree, which makes them substantially
Speaker 1: less dangerous than the New Right. Yeah, I agree completely.
Speaker 1: It's one of my arguments about voting for Trump, particularly
Speaker 1: the second time, when it was clear that he was
Speaker 1: going to be guided by the New Right, that he
Speaker 1: was going to surround himself by the new Right, and
Speaker 1: that he was dedicated to himself to breaking the system,
Speaker 1: a system that he hates and despises. He has no
Speaker 1: respect for the Constitution and he wants.
Speaker 2: To break it.
Speaker 1: And yes, at least the left will do a lot
Speaker 1: of damage. But the left does damage within parameters that
Speaker 1: are easily reversible because they do it within the parameters
Speaker 1: of the law and the Constitution. They're not quite ready
Speaker 1: to declare the Constitution irrelevant as Trump is. That makes them,
Speaker 1: i think, less dangerous, even if in a short run
Speaker 1: very very damaging.
Speaker 2: Not your average algorithm. If we fail to distinguish routine.
Speaker 1: People who follow the rule of law and people who
Speaker 1: seek to rule by whim, you've already surrendered the ground
Speaker 1: of principle. I agree.
Speaker 2: I don't believe you can defend Trump.
Speaker 1: And still label yourself an objectivist at this point, you know,
Speaker 1: it depends how you defend it. Trump again, I have
Speaker 1: some I have some tolerance. I have some understanding of
Speaker 1: people in business who voted for Trump and might defend
Speaker 1: certain things about Trump, and I have some understanding of that,
Speaker 1: particularly before the election. I think since the election, Trump
Speaker 1: is manifest the worst, you know, the worst possibilities is
Speaker 1: as bad as the worst of what I expected. But look,
Speaker 1: I don't I mean, the whole idea of calling yourself
Speaker 1: an objectivist, and who calls himself an objectist that doesn't
Speaker 1: conversect is not of interest to me. What really matters
Speaker 1: to me is the truth. What matters to me is
Speaker 1: are you a truth seeker? The question is, are people, really,
Speaker 1: even the people who supported Trump, able to look at
Speaker 1: him with any objectivity? Are they willing to see the
Speaker 1: evil that's there even as they see the elements of
Speaker 1: good that they think is there. I don't think there's
Speaker 1: any good in Trump, but the elements of good? Can
Speaker 1: they really you know, criticize them? So, for example, people
Speaker 1: won't criticize Trump that I think is horrific and despicable.
Speaker 1: But you know, I'm not ready to say everybody who
Speaker 1: is elected, who voted for him, or everybody who supports
Speaker 1: him in some way cannot be an objectivist. But again,
Speaker 1: what is an objectivist? Co objectivist? I don't think you
Speaker 1: know who you vote for. I don't think it's that
Speaker 1: valuable to categorize people that way. But are you a
Speaker 1: truth seeker? And therefore are you willing to not evade
Speaker 1: and look clearly and objectively and rationally and what Trump
Speaker 1: actually stands for and what Trump actually does?
Speaker 2: Andrew?
Speaker 1: Many anti Semites suffer from a motivation by hate? Is
Speaker 1: that motivation by fear at the core? Do you blame
Speaker 1: modern philosophy for the creation of the hatred? Still, despite
Speaker 1: modern philosophical influences, don't they have a choice to be evil?
Speaker 2: Yes?
Speaker 1: I mean everybody out there is influenced by modern philosophy,
Speaker 1: and some either rejected philosophy or they let it bounce
Speaker 1: off of them, or it affects them its submoginal issues,
Speaker 1: But they don't become haters, They don't let it consume them.
Speaker 1: Do I blame modern philosophy, yes, I mean, you know,
Speaker 1: it's if you want to understand the impact philosophy has
Speaker 1: on people's lives in our politics, redominant powers down as powers.
Speaker 1: Where doctor Peacock really explains the rise of Hitler from
Speaker 1: the perspective of the ideas that were prevalent in Many
Speaker 1: at the time and in the decades leading to his rise.
Speaker 1: And if you look at America today and that's the
Speaker 1: dominant powerlel the parallel is America. You see the same
Speaker 1: ideas prevalent in our culture. So it is contient philosophy
Speaker 1: and it's you know, post modern implementation, and it's combination
Speaker 1: with religion that is leading to this modern form of
Speaker 1: anti semitism because that all leads towards collectivism, that all
Speaker 1: leads towards tribalism. And look, anti semitism is every collectivistic
Speaker 1: culture out there is going to be anti Semitic, because
Speaker 1: collectivism is all about my group versus all the other groups.
Speaker 1: And however you define my group in any kind of nation,
Speaker 1: the Jews are going to be the other. The Jews
Speaker 1: are the other. In Germany, the Jews of the other
Speaker 1: in America, and they're particularly an offensive other because they
Speaker 1: are religiously different, they're somewhat culturally different. And now there's
Speaker 1: this country called Israel that supposedly they're aligned with. They're
Speaker 1: affiliated with that, you know, can you can blame them
Speaker 1: for everything.
Speaker 2: That it does.
Speaker 1: So it is collectivism and tribalism that are on the rise,
Speaker 1: and the consequence of that is antisemitism. Anti Semitism is
Speaker 1: not the primary it is the consequences. By the way,
Speaker 1: the more Christian you become, the more anti Semitic you'll become.
Speaker 1: The reality is the Christianity is the origin of antisemitism.
Speaker 1: It is the beginning of antisemitism. It starts with Paul,
Speaker 1: and it starts with the church fathers. It starts with
Speaker 1: the debates of the church fathers. Y you know about
Speaker 1: the horrible Jews that do not accept Christ and what
Speaker 1: should be done with them? And some other church fathers
Speaker 1: some of the first original great theologians of Christianity basically
Speaker 1: said Jews need to be killed because they won't accept Christ.
Speaker 1: I mean it was Augustine, who was the moderate, who
Speaker 1: said they shouldn't be killed, they should be kept alive.
Speaker 1: To suffer so that everybody can constantly see what happens
Speaker 1: to those who do not accept Christ. You know, the
Speaker 1: Crusades were first and foremost about killing Jews, and then
Speaker 1: we'll go to Jerusalem and kill them Muslims. But Christianity
Speaker 1: is the source of anti Semitism, and it's the breeding
Speaker 1: ground of anti Semtism. And therefore what you get is
Speaker 1: as the country becomes more tribal, more collectivistic, and therefore
Speaker 1: and more Christian, it'll become more anti Semitic.
Speaker 2: That's on the right and on the left.
Speaker 1: The anti Semitism comes from collectivism and altruism. So you know,
Speaker 1: it's intersectionality. It's the fact that Jews are successful. It's
Speaker 1: the fact that the same thing happened in Germany. The
Speaker 1: Jews are successful, but they're the other, and they're scheming
Speaker 1: against us, and they're bad, and therefore they must be eliminated.
Speaker 1: And I think the same attitude exists today. Of course,
Speaker 1: the Jews killed Christian killed Jesus. And notice that they
Speaker 1: don't blame the Romans for killing Jesus. They don't blame
Speaker 1: the Roman Empire for killing and that's purposefully done. You know,
Speaker 1: Originally the Romans were blamed for killing Jesus. They were
Speaker 1: the primary cause of Jesus's death. But then when the
Speaker 1: Roman Empire became christian that is, when Constantine brought Christianity
Speaker 1: into the Roman Empire, made Christianity a part of Roman identity,
Speaker 1: then it didn't make sense for them to continue blaming
Speaker 1: themselves for killing Jesus, so they shifted. You know, Pontus Pius,
Speaker 1: the Roman was just a tool of the Jews. He
Speaker 1: was just being manipulated by the Jews. And you know,
Speaker 1: the Jewish clergy, the Jewish leadership, the Jewish establishment, and
Speaker 1: they're the ones who actually killed Jesus. And of course
Speaker 1: he was betrayed by jew but then most of all
Speaker 1: of his followers were Jews. Right, he was a Jew,
Speaker 1: but he was a Jew who led a new sac
Speaker 1: who led a cult.
Speaker 2: And so that.
Speaker 1: Again, Christianity is very much the source of anti Semitism.
Speaker 1: Jews might have been hated before that, but certainly all
Speaker 1: forms of anti Semitism post Jesus are influenced by Christian
Speaker 1: anti Semitism. So it's a combination of modern philosophy, kant
Speaker 1: and post content philosophy.
Speaker 2: And Christianity and on the left.
Speaker 1: It's mostly secular post continent philosophy and Marxism. Marx was
Speaker 1: an antisemity. I mean, Marx sounds like Nick Filantis. When
Speaker 1: Nick Franis complains about capitalist Jews and Jewish greed, it
Speaker 1: sounds exactly like Max. Call Max. It's as if he's
Speaker 1: reading for Carl Marx's essay on the Jewish Question. Troy,
Speaker 1: thank you. Troy just came in with five hundred Australian dollars.
Speaker 1: Really really really appreciate that. Thank you, thank you, Thank you, Troy.
Speaker 1: That is amazing. Yeah, all right, Harper Campbell, It's sad
Speaker 1: to see the author of Dominus Parallels being exploited in
Speaker 1: his old age and poor health by Trump psychopaths like
Speaker 1: Dave Hammond.
Speaker 2: Oh, I like that.
Speaker 1: You call Dave Hammond a psychopaths. I think that's fitting
Speaker 1: as a justification for their boot licking support of an authoritarian.
Speaker 2: Yeah. I think it's it's really really.
Speaker 1: Sad to see Dave Hammond associating with Lennar Peacoff. You
Speaker 1: should have been Leonard should have nothing to do with Dave,
Speaker 1: And I think a younger Leonard would have nothing.
Speaker 2: To do with Dave Hammond. It's really sad By.
Speaker 1: You said last show that we should teach the found
Speaker 1: Head to our kids. Doesn't that mean you have to
Speaker 1: marry an objectivist? What if your spouse wants to teach
Speaker 1: your kids some collectivist book or religious book, then let
Speaker 1: them that is, you know, then present the kids with
Speaker 1: both sets of ideas and let the kids make a choice.
Speaker 1: But to ignore the ideas that you hold, or to
Speaker 1: ignore the ideas that your wife holds or your husband holds,
Speaker 1: I think is wrong. So present them with both views,
Speaker 1: present them with both ideas, and let the kids make
Speaker 1: a decision instead of creating a vacuum.
Speaker 2: So no, you don't have to marry an objectives to that.
Speaker 1: If your spouse wants to once the present day views,
Speaker 1: let them And again, all right, Chasbad has a correction,
Speaker 1: and we're not burying the correction, right, Chasbad says important correction.
Speaker 1: On the last show, I quoted Lieutenant Frank Drebben the
Speaker 1: Naked Gun as receiving an award for killing one hundred
Speaker 1: drug dealers. It was actually one thousand drug dealers. Oh,
Speaker 1: so Trump has a way to go before he gets
Speaker 1: the thousand drug dealers on those boats, because he's only
Speaker 1: killing him one or two at a time, or two
Speaker 1: or three at a time. So it's going to be
Speaker 1: a while. A lot of boats are going to have
Speaker 1: to be blown out out of the water for that
Speaker 1: to happen. Yeah, we'll talk more about that on another show.
Speaker 1: All right, Thank you, chezmun Now javj ago with him.
Speaker 1: Trump doesn't even pretend to operate within a constitutional frame.
Speaker 1: He treats the law as a tool of loyalty and vengeance,
Speaker 1: not as a principle that binds every individual equally.
Speaker 2: Yes, I think that's true.
Speaker 1: But more than that, he treats the law as as
Speaker 1: an obstacle to achieving his goals. He treats the law
Speaker 1: as an obstacle to be overcome given the goals that
Speaker 1: he has. He doesn't treat the laws as principles to
Speaker 1: guide social action, principles to guide the limitation on government.
Speaker 1: On the contrary, he finds the Constitution and the laws.
Speaker 2: Too limiting of him.
Speaker 1: Will see in the arguments in front of the court
Speaker 1: around tariffs how that plays out. Trump doesn't want to
Speaker 1: be limited by all these laws and the Constitution and
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court. He finds that offensive, Michael. As much
Speaker 1: as Trump advises one fascist control over the economy. Does
Speaker 1: Trump p betferre a strong stock market he can take
Speaker 1: credit for, because you can't have both. The one thing
Speaker 1: preventing our economic enslavement is Trump's narcissism.
Speaker 2: I think he wants he wants both.
Speaker 1: And look, he's got all these tariffs and the stock
Speaker 1: market's doing fantastic. Now, whether we'll continue to do fantastic,
Speaker 1: How long the stock market could stay as high as
Speaker 1: it is, I don't know, But yes, Trump wants us
Speaker 1: a good stock market, wants a good bond market. He
Speaker 1: wants lower interest rates, and he wants control over the economy.
Speaker 1: And he can't have everything at the same time. And
Speaker 1: there's polls and tugs and it's but a lot of
Speaker 1: it's out of his control. He doesn't actually control the
Speaker 1: stock market.
Speaker 2: So if.
Speaker 1: There's a significant correction in the marketplace, in the stock market,
Speaker 1: what's Trump.
Speaker 2: Going to do?
Speaker 1: I mean, I don't think he'll have much control over it.
Speaker 1: I don't think there's much he can do one way
Speaker 1: or the other, even if he wants a successful stock market.
Speaker 1: Very few presidents to do. Somebody says all criticism of
Speaker 1: Israel is any Semitic. There's no legitimate cored Israel. That's
Speaker 1: not true. I criticize Israel all the time. There's absolutely
Speaker 1: legitimate criticism of Israel. There's a lot of things Israel
Speaker 1: does badly wrongly, Paul, How do sanctions against a country
Speaker 1: actually work? How can executive branch issue sanctions? Can other
Speaker 1: countries sanction US sales? Yes, sanctions work by for example,
Speaker 1: we freeze the bank accounts of Russian oligarchs, so they
Speaker 1: can't withdraw the money from their bank accounts. The bank
Speaker 1: cannot release the money to them, cannot release the money
Speaker 1: to anybody.
Speaker 2: It's just fozen in place.
Speaker 1: And you know other countries can do that to Americans
Speaker 1: who have money in their banks. You know, America took
Speaker 1: the yachts of saying and I Russian oligogs, so the
Speaker 1: things like that. Now, it's part of understanding is and
Speaker 1: I'm not expert on this, but understanding is that there
Speaker 1: are laws that give the executive branch the authority to
Speaker 1: extend sanctions in other countries. For example, they're not allowed
Speaker 1: to buy wheats from you're not allowed to buy some
Speaker 1: product from country acts. For example, you can't you can't
Speaker 1: buy Cuban cigars. I think that's stupid. But you can't
Speaker 1: buy Cuban cigars, right, that's illegal. That's a form of sanction.
Speaker 1: So it's just a banning of a particular product from
Speaker 1: a particular plays, and I think the executive their laws
Speaker 1: that have given the executive the power to do that
Speaker 1: as part of their responsibility for pharm policy. The oceanist
Speaker 1: collectivism is easy. It's easier to blame an other for
Speaker 1: your personal shortcomings. Absolutely, a lot of these people, whether
Speaker 1: left or right, are insecure and will blame the immigrant
Speaker 1: or the billionaire for their faults. Yes, so yeah, I
Speaker 1: mean that's absolutely the case. But I don't think that's
Speaker 1: the source of collectivism. I don't think that's where collectivism
Speaker 1: actually comes from. Collectivism collectivism doesn't come from blaming the other.
Speaker 1: Collectivism comes from, you know, a lack of self esteem,
Speaker 1: a lack of confidence in one's own judgment, and again
Speaker 1: the philosophy, the ideology that one's own judgment doesn't count,
Speaker 1: that one's own life doesn't count.
Speaker 2: It comes from altruism.
Speaker 1: It tells you that you should sacrifice for others, and
Speaker 1: if others are more important than you, that's collectivism, right.
Speaker 1: Collectivism is that others are above you. The group, whatever group,
Speaker 1: some group is more important than you as an individual.
Speaker 1: That the source of that is lack of self esteem.
Speaker 1: The source of that is a distrust of your own
Speaker 1: capacity to think and reason. And the source of that
Speaker 1: is a morality that tells you, and that you buy
Speaker 1: into that says that your happiness, your success, your flourishing
Speaker 1: is not important. What's important is other people, and you
Speaker 1: should you are just a sacrificial lamb for their sake.
Speaker 1: Well which other people, Well, you have to choose a
Speaker 1: group to sacrifice too, and that becomes your collective, that
Speaker 1: becomes your standard, that becomes your guide. It's driven by
Speaker 1: altruism and anti reason. That's what drives collectivism. And then
Speaker 1: once you form a collective and you're still unhappy and
Speaker 1: you're still miserable, and you're still all of that, then
Speaker 1: you turn against the successful other and you blame them
Speaker 1: for your failings, just as you describe. But that's kind
Speaker 1: of a consequence, is not the motivation? Andrews says, what
Speaker 1: is the significance of wanting to belong to the majority
Speaker 1: group as a motive among Christian collectivists? If JD stayed
Speaker 1: an atheist, he could not have become a prominent statement
Speaker 1: and adorned by an adorned by so many as he
Speaker 1: is now.
Speaker 2: I don't know. I mean, I think I.
Speaker 1: Think this is truly an intellectual transition for Jdvance. I
Speaker 1: don't think this was motivated by his desire for power.
Speaker 1: I think when he became a Christian, he was not
Speaker 1: yet contemplating politics. And we know the influence that made
Speaker 1: him Christian, and that influence was somebody he respected. It was.
Speaker 2: Peter Teel.
Speaker 1: Peter Teel who is a Catholic but a kind of
Speaker 1: a quirky Catholic, and introduced him to this theologian that
Speaker 1: Todd at Stanford, and I forget his name, but that
Speaker 1: influenced Peter Teel, and he influenced Jade Vance and then JD.
Speaker 1: Evans ultimately converted to Catholicism. But I don't think that trend,
Speaker 1: that whole process, and that transition were motivated by a power.
Speaker 1: I think it was motivated by maybe a need to
Speaker 1: belong to a group. But again, it wasn't a need
Speaker 1: to belong to a group because he wanted power. It
Speaker 1: was a need to belong to a group because psychologically
Speaker 1: he wanted to belong to a group. It also is
Speaker 1: true that unless you have self esteem and unless you
Speaker 1: have a strong sense of values that you know, for
Speaker 1: some people, atheism is empty. Atheism is empty. Atheism is
Speaker 1: just a negation of God. It's not pro anything. And
Speaker 1: I think Jadvans was looking for something and part of
Speaker 1: it is social and part of it is intellectual. But
Speaker 1: I don't think the primary was political. I don't think
Speaker 1: the primary is political. Yeah, all right, Roland support from
Speaker 1: my fellow leftist extremists. That's me, a leftist extremist rogers.
Speaker 1: Thank you, it says, thank you. I think you are
Speaker 1: just thank you for the support.
Speaker 2: John.
Speaker 1: Okay, this is the question he asks every few weeks.
Speaker 1: Long term, what's the greatest threat to Europe? Christianity or Islam? Christianity.
Speaker 1: Islam is the short term threat. Islam is what will
Speaker 1: allow Christianity to rise UH and UH and become UH
Speaker 1: and become a real threat. It is the response to the
Speaker 1: Islam that the Christian nationalists in Europe will have, that
Speaker 1: is the that is the worst threat to Europe. Uh.
Speaker 1: This is why UH, it's important for for secular Europeans
Speaker 1: to deal with most Now, if secular Christians deal with
Speaker 1: if secular secular Europeans deal with a Muslim problem now,
Speaker 1: then they will take away the impetus for the rise
Speaker 1: of Christian nationalism in Europe. So radios as I says,
Speaker 1: long term threat to Europe is nihilism. Yes, but nihilism
Speaker 1: can come from the right or from the left right,
Speaker 1: it can come from Christianity, or from you know, leftist.
Speaker 2: Crazies, all for that matter, from Muslims.
Speaker 1: But I think that, as I often said, Europeans will
Speaker 1: some point wake up to the Islamic threat if the
Speaker 1: Islamists get violent, and will wipe them out, and then
Speaker 1: the process turn Europe fascist.
Speaker 2: And that I think the long term threat.
Speaker 1: Michael, has the right always been racist, They just a
Speaker 1: point in political dominance where they can stop hiding it.
Speaker 2: I don't know if they've always been racist.
Speaker 1: I don't think so, but certainly the Civil rights period
Speaker 1: was a turning point. You know, a lot of the
Speaker 1: states that were racist, a lot of the South were Democrats.
Speaker 2: A lot of the people who were.
Speaker 1: Racists in the nineteen sixties were Democrats, and they were upset.
Speaker 2: Those Democrats were upset.
Speaker 1: By the Democratic Party supporting the civil rights movement. They
Speaker 1: were upset by liberal Democrats coming down to the South
Speaker 1: and supporting black in a sense of emancipation and equal
Speaker 1: rights for blacks. And that was Nixon's Southern strategy. It
Speaker 1: was to capture them, to convert them to those racists,
Speaker 1: to convert them to a Republican party. And they became
Speaker 1: a part of the Republican Party. And it looked like
Speaker 1: for a long time, I'd say, from the mid seventies
Speaker 1: until the mid twenty teens, that the racism had been suppressed,
Speaker 1: that generally whites had become a lot less racist, that
Speaker 1: racism was in decline, and it was fading from America.
Speaker 1: And I think that it was just buried, but it
Speaker 1: was always there, and it has come out of its
Speaker 1: hiding place and has been legitimized. And again I think
Speaker 1: that Trump did a lot to legitimize it and to
Speaker 1: make it acceptable to come out onto the surface. Jennifer says,
Speaker 1: what is Zion isn't supposed to mean doesn't mean a
Speaker 1: safe place like Israel for Jews to live, or doesn't
Speaker 1: mean a collectivistic Jewish state. It seems to be used
Speaker 1: in different ways. I think it means different things to
Speaker 1: different people. For some people, it means a collectivistic Jewish state,
Speaker 1: and there's definitely a lot of collectivism in Israel. I
Speaker 1: I criticize Israel all the time. I left Israel because
Speaker 1: of how collectivistic a state it was. But I think
Speaker 1: the b the the more positive UH interpretation of Zionism,
Speaker 1: and I think Zionism as intended by its founder, Theodore Hertzel,
Speaker 1: was a state for the Jews, not a Jewish state.
Speaker 1: A state for the Jews is a refuge for Jews,
Speaker 1: a place the Jews can go to, a liberal country
Speaker 1: that did not discriminate against other others. And Israel does
Speaker 1: not discriminate against Arabs, Christians, against Jews, a a against Muslims.
Speaker 1: It does not discriminate against them. So it gives them
Speaker 1: equal it gives them equal rights. So it's not in
Speaker 1: that sense in ethno state. The only sense in which
Speaker 1: the the the collectivism UH or the the the Jewishness,
Speaker 1: if you will, comes in is an immigration policy. That is,
Speaker 1: Jews can immigrate to Israel freely. It's open boaders for Jews.
Speaker 1: Others can't. They can still immigrate, but it's very hard
Speaker 1: and the numbers are small, so it's close to non
Speaker 1: Jews for the most but not not exactly. I mean
Speaker 1: you could see in the in the hostages that Hamas
Speaker 1: took on October seventh, some of them were Nepalese, some
Speaker 1: of them are tie These are people who come to
Speaker 1: work in Israel. You know, my parents have two helpers
Speaker 1: who live with them. One is from Subri Lanka and
Speaker 1: one is from India. Neither one of them is Jewish,
Speaker 1: and they're going to live in Israel for a long time.
Speaker 1: They make money and they send it back home. So
Speaker 1: you know, Zionism is not Again Theodo Hutze would have
Speaker 1: viewed it as a refuge for Jews, a state in
Speaker 1: which Jews are safe, but not a Jewish state in
Speaker 1: a sense of Jewish law. And I think to all
Speaker 1: you say Israel is that there are people in Israel
Speaker 1: who would like to make it a Jewish state, who
Speaker 1: would like to eliminate any separation of state from religion
Speaker 1: and discriminate against Muslims and Christians. But I think it's
Speaker 1: still true that the majority in Israel are pro some
Speaker 1: form of separation, not complete, but a significant form of
Speaker 1: separation of state from religion and equal rights to all religions.
Speaker 1: And in that sense, again, I view Israel as a
Speaker 1: state for Jews, not as a Jewish state, and I
Speaker 1: think the difference between those two is important. I just
Speaker 1: criticize Israel. Does that make me an anti Semite? I
Speaker 1: don't know, all right, thotionist. How long until the right
Speaker 1: abandons Trump? An open secret that Tucker hates him and
Speaker 1: for intus is very critical of him. Well, I don't
Speaker 1: think that'll abandon Trump because they view Trump as a
Speaker 1: vehicle to get their way, so they will stick by
Speaker 1: Trump as long as Trump is there. He is a
Speaker 1: way to get them. Jdvans, Tucker Coulson and Jdvans are
Speaker 1: good friends. And while the points is not supportive of JD. Evans,
Speaker 1: maybe he'll be brought around by Tucker Caulson. Whoever becomes
Speaker 1: the nominee of the Republican Party, Nick fo Inis and
Speaker 1: Tucker Carlson will have a lot of say in who
Speaker 1: that person is. They view Trump as a vehicle and
Speaker 1: he served He's been a very good vehicle for them,
Speaker 1: so they will continue to support him as long as
Speaker 1: he's that vehicle that gets them what they want. Liam
Speaker 1: are Republicans better locally than nationally. Republican governors tend to
Speaker 1: run their states better than democratic governors, but when they
Speaker 1: run the federal government, they fascism emerges.
Speaker 2: Well, I mean, you're generalizing.
Speaker 1: I think the reality is that the governors, most of them,
Speaker 1: not all of them, but most of them are more
Speaker 1: mainstream conservatives and less Maga. Now there are some mega
Speaker 1: governors out there, and there's some real problems in those states.
Speaker 1: You know, there's there's there's real evil in Texas and
Speaker 1: in many of the Southern states when it comes to
Speaker 1: things like abortion, for example, real evil. You know, they
Speaker 1: do some good things and then they do some really, really,
Speaker 1: really bad things. So what does it mean that they
Speaker 1: run their states better? In what sense?
Speaker 2: Economically? A lot of these Southern states.
Speaker 1: Are super poor, super poor with really horrible educational attainment.
Speaker 1: So right, so I'm not convinced that Republican governors are better.
Speaker 1: I mean, in some states they are, but they tend
Speaker 1: to be like Jolkin's in Virginia. He's a pretty moderate Republican, right,
Speaker 1: and he's not He's not Maga. The former governor of
Speaker 1: Georgia not Maga. I mean, I think DeSantis is in
Speaker 1: Florida is this mixture. He's got some good things and
Speaker 1: he's got some really bad things in Texas. There's some
Speaker 1: really bad things and some good things. So it's it's
Speaker 1: it's a mixed bag. Governors. Republican governors are mixed bags.
Speaker 1: And it's not clear that past Republican presidents were fascist
Speaker 1: or even that most Republican senators as such. But most
Speaker 1: Republican senators have decided that they're going to support Trump
Speaker 1: no matter what that that is. That is cowardly of them,
Speaker 1: but that is the reality. Harpercampbell, will you be exposing
Speaker 1: Harriman before the New Year's Eve show? I don't know
Speaker 1: how much money will you give me? I don't know.
Speaker 1: I don't think so. But there's no I mean, no rush.
Speaker 1: I like numbers. People like Mark Levin on the right
Speaker 1: are pushing back against for intest, Yeah, but they have
Speaker 1: no Ultimately, they have no following, they have no base.
Speaker 1: Isn't the lesson that you can have more influence on
Speaker 1: the right by being part of it? I don't understand
Speaker 1: that at all. I mean, who has more influence on
Speaker 1: the right by being part of it? I mean, and
Speaker 1: who wants to be part of it? Why would you
Speaker 1: want to be part of a right that includes Nick
Speaker 1: Foy intis? And does that Why would I mean, if
Speaker 1: you if you have actional ideas, wouldn't your wouldn't your
Speaker 1: audience see right through you that you're training those ideas
Speaker 1: by being in a coalition with Tucker Casson and Nick Fourentes.
Speaker 2: How could you have integrity?
Speaker 1: By being in that coalition, you lose all credibility, James,
Speaker 1: the GP is maybe ten to fifteen years away from
Speaker 1: being an explicit Nazi party anti semitism and racism and
Speaker 1: being successfully mainstream.
Speaker 2: Listen to JD.
Speaker 1: Vans at the Turning Point USA and the other day
Speaker 1: talking about fundamental differences of Christianity and Judaism, the error
Speaker 1: of Judo Christianity values over well.
Speaker 2: And I think that's good.
Speaker 1: Because it was always it was always unreal Judo christian
Speaker 1: values as if they were good or as if they
Speaker 1: were the.
Speaker 2: Same, then they're not.
Speaker 1: But I agree with you now, I don't think the
Speaker 1: GP is going to become Nazi. I don't think it
Speaker 1: will be explicitly Nazi. But I do think the era
Speaker 1: of Christian nationalism, which is what Leonard predicted in Dim.
Speaker 2: Is upon us.
Speaker 1: And it's a matter of yeah, ten fifteen years before
Speaker 1: we have full on with him helping a party is
Speaker 1: a full on Christian nationalist party.
Speaker 2: It's right there.
Speaker 1: Henry Allen, in his dim book Peacock predicted Christian Sotulitanism
Speaker 1: taking over.
Speaker 2: Have you spoken to him about this what's going on today?
Speaker 1: Does he know about Project twenty twenty five and fu Intas?
Speaker 1: I have not spoken to him about it. I haven't
Speaker 1: spoken to him seriously about politics. I think since twenty twenty. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I think around twenty twenty was the last time we
Speaker 1: had a serious political philosophical discussion. So no, as I said,
Speaker 1: we haven't talked about it. Does he know about Project
Speaker 1: twenty twenty five or Funtas? Look Leonard gets I think
Speaker 1: at least last time I talked to him, you know
Speaker 1: about this? He got most of his news from Macklevin
Speaker 1: and the New York Post. It's the extent that they
Speaker 1: covered it. He would know about it. And Macklevin is
Speaker 1: pushing against Nick Foyenttis, but I think Mark Levin is
Speaker 1: probably minimizing the significance of Nick Foyenttis and his influence
Speaker 1: among uh on the right. And I don't know how
Speaker 1: much talk it was a Project twenty twenty five, so
Speaker 1: I don't know how much Leonard knows about either one
Speaker 1: of those things and to what extent it sinks in
Speaker 1: or it's the full implication and manifestation of those things
Speaker 1: sinks in or has been explained to him by anybody. Again,
Speaker 1: the only people, the only person I can think of
Speaker 1: who might have done it is Mark Levin. But Mark
Speaker 1: Levin is very mixed on these things. He's not mixed
Speaker 1: on nickfoy Inis. But his criticism is going to be shallow,
Speaker 1: and he is not going to emphasize how influential Nickfoorentis is.
Speaker 1: He's going to downplay that thochanist. Yeah, Azrael controls the US.
Speaker 1: That's why in the eighties US Marine stopped Israelis from
Speaker 1: going to Parts and be roots. Just don't look up
Speaker 1: how the locals thank the Marines.
Speaker 2: That all is a little confusing, you know.
Speaker 1: Yes, it was Ronald Reagan who stopped Israel from going
Speaker 1: into West Bay Route and finishing off yes Ralpha in
Speaker 1: his in his fighters and the Marines were deployed, and
Speaker 1: of course the Marines were killed to undred forty four
Speaker 1: Marines were killed in their barracks by what became Risbala,
Speaker 1: by the Iranians and Chris Bala, But yeah, Israel does
Speaker 1: not control the US Visuel control the US.
Speaker 2: Israel would have. Israel would not have been stopped in.
Speaker 1: Nineteen seventy three from finishing the job versus the Egyptians.
Speaker 1: Israel would not have been stopped in Beirut in nineteen
Speaker 1: eighty three. Israel would not have been stopped to kill
Speaker 1: Yes or Alpha In during the second d the fat
Speaker 1: in the early two thous thousands, and Isaul would not
Speaker 1: have agreed to the cease fire which prevented it. You know,
Speaker 1: is this close to going in and occupying Gaza and
Speaker 1: slowly dismantling Hamas. The whole war that it's prosecuted against
Speaker 1: Hamas was to lodge extent done based on American rules.
Speaker 1: Clark says, I don't think Nick Frite, this is a
Speaker 1: real person. This creature has mastered trolling to find art.
Speaker 1: He must be secretly amazed by how far he's come. Probably,
Speaker 1: but he's come far, and he is real. And you know,
Speaker 1: in either case, the phenomenon is real, his following is real,
Speaker 1: and it's scary. Michael is Israeli is so intense and
Speaker 1: rude because of trauma from the Holocaust and constantly fighting wars,
Speaker 1: or because they're more intellectual and have absorbed content. Collective
Speaker 1: is philosophy. Deeply, I don't think either one of those
Speaker 1: is true. I mean, I think they're they're more intense
Speaker 1: and you know, I don't know that they're rude. Part
Speaker 1: of that is an intensity because they live in a
Speaker 1: region that's constantly a war. They don't have time for nonsense.
Speaker 1: They just wanted to get on with things. They don't
Speaker 1: like standing in the queue. They don't like standing in line.
Speaker 1: That's part of it. Yeah, I mean there's suddenly an
Speaker 1: element of the collectivism. There's certainly an element of you know,
Speaker 1: a zero some mentality that comes from years under socialism.
Speaker 2: That is part of that.
Speaker 1: But a lot of it has to do with But
Speaker 1: it's also you know, people in the Mediterranean are like
Speaker 1: this heat generates a certain i don't know, a certain
Speaker 1: type of energy when you live in a hot place.
Speaker 1: It's also because it's a kind of a melting pot
Speaker 1: of so many different cultures.
Speaker 2: I mean, people think of.
Speaker 1: Oh, it's a a mono culture place because they're all Jews,
Speaker 1: But these Jews have come from all corners of the world,
Speaker 1: and they being with them much of the culture of
Speaker 1: the places they left. So it is really a multicultural place,
Speaker 1: and it's a it's a melting pot of places, and
Speaker 1: you get this class of cultures within Israel. It's very
Speaker 1: much alive even today. Uh. And that's what people don't understand.
Speaker 1: People say, oh, it's it's it's uh. They don't believe
Speaker 1: in multiculture. Not in the countrary. It's it's unbelievably multicultural.
Speaker 1: There are Skenazi Jews from all parts of Europe. There's
Speaker 1: Fogging Jews from Northern Africa, the Jews from Iraq and
Speaker 1: Yemen and and and Ethiopia. You know, black Jews with skin.
Speaker 1: That's it's it's completely black. There are Jews from Central
Speaker 1: Asia from who's Bikistan and Afghanistan and areas like that.
Speaker 1: The Jews from India. They're even Jews that were born
Speaker 1: in China. They might not be Chinese, but they were
Speaker 1: raised in.
Speaker 2: China and they bring a lot of that, you know.
Speaker 1: And the Jewish cultures in each pace were different, The
Speaker 1: ceremonies were different, the passages, you know, the holidays were
Speaker 1: celebrated differently, they didn't. So it's a very much a
Speaker 1: place of mingling and again a melting part of different cultures,
Speaker 1: and that's part of the intensity.
Speaker 2: I think, Andrew.
Speaker 1: The low character of these Conservatives stands out, the rankdous
Speaker 1: honesty and lack of integrity, the pettiness and meanness. What
Speaker 1: is to gain if they lose their soul on that
Speaker 1: they ignore Christ? Yeah, I mean these are not smart people,
Speaker 1: the manipulative people, just like Trump. These are people that
Speaker 1: have embraced Trump, who's got the characteristics the character of
Speaker 1: a mafia boss as president of the United States, just
Speaker 1: that it brings them to such a low state that
Speaker 1: everything else just seems Yeah, it doesn't seem that difficult, right, So.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so the.
Speaker 1: You know they are the Conservatives have become I mean,
Speaker 1: they support a man who is inhaeritly dishonest and has
Speaker 1: no integrity, So why would they have any Trump has
Speaker 1: brought down the Republican Party to his level, and that's
Speaker 1: what you're getting, Michael. What do you think of Ron DeSantis?
Speaker 1: I don't think what he's done to cater to MAGA,
Speaker 1: but Florida is thriving and he is a very smart,
Speaker 1: competent leader. Paving the way in property tax abolition. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean the property tax abolition is not as good
Speaker 1: as I originally thought it was.
Speaker 2: It's not for second homes.
Speaker 1: It's up to certain level, so it's not as good
Speaker 1: as I thought it was, but it's good. It's cutting
Speaker 1: taxes catas to MAGA in all kinds of ways. There
Speaker 1: was something that Florida just did was just horrific. You know,
Speaker 1: they banned artificial meat, all kinds of stupid things. So
Speaker 1: he's a real mixed bag, a real mixed bag who
Speaker 1: I think has not lost some of the better ideas
Speaker 1: the conservatives used to have, but it's trying to mingle
Speaker 1: it and integrate it with MAGA and what is left
Speaker 1: as a mishmash.
Speaker 2: Liam.
Speaker 1: How does Malay compare to Pinochet in terms of economic reforms.
Speaker 2: I think they're very similar.
Speaker 1: Pinochet went further partially because he was a dictator and
Speaker 1: he could. But Pinochet didn't believe in any of their reforms.
Speaker 1: Pinochet wasn't the driver of their reforms, the drivers of
Speaker 1: the reforms of the Chicago Boys. Pinochet gave them the
Speaker 1: economic rains out of desperation, not out of a not
Speaker 1: out of agreement, out of any kind of sense of
Speaker 1: free markets. Milay gets all the credit for what he's done.
Speaker 1: Pinochet does not a pinochet again. Gave it out of
Speaker 1: his sense of desperation. The economic reforms are deep in Chile,
Speaker 1: but also they did them over a longer period of time,
Speaker 1: so Milay is just starting. We'll see what happens over
Speaker 1: the next to the ten years before we compare them. Right,
Speaker 1: Jacob submitted the green card application from my wife last week.
Speaker 1: I hope JD and his supporters feel five times the
Speaker 1: anxiety what we had to go through. Yeah, I mean,
Speaker 1: that's just horrible that it's so difficult, just horrible. Hopefully
Speaker 1: it goes smoothly and congratulations Liam. Mathematical concepts part of
Speaker 1: objectives to reality, objective reality like a perfect circle. Concepts
Speaker 1: like infinity are important in mathematics, but don't seem to
Speaker 1: correspond to reality. That's right. So, I mean mathematical concepts
Speaker 1: are concepts, are abstractions. They you know, those abstractions can
Speaker 1: can be understood in terms of things in reality, like
Speaker 1: like circles, and you can imagine what a perfect circle
Speaker 1: is versus circles. And but so mathematical concepts are abstractions
Speaker 1: of things in reality, yes, but are they all of
Speaker 1: them objective reality?
Speaker 2: No?
Speaker 1: I mean some are on, some are not right. So
Speaker 1: infinity doesn't think there's no such thing as infinity. I mean,
Speaker 1: this is a great question for Harry Binswunger, who's done
Speaker 1: a lot of work in the philosophy of mathematics. You know,
Speaker 1: some mathematical concepts are but relationships. Some mathematical concepts, you know,
Speaker 1: correspond to mathematics. I mean, ultimately it's all reducible to reality,
Speaker 1: but it requires multiple steps because some mathematical concepts of
Speaker 1: high level abstractions, but all of them are reducible to
Speaker 1: phenomena in reality.
Speaker 2: Michael.
Speaker 1: While both left and right hate the Constitution, they use
Speaker 1: it when opposing party is in power to limit their
Speaker 1: power freedom by act and convenience rather than principle.
Speaker 2: Yes, absolutely so.
Speaker 1: They're both use the Constitution to the extent that it
Speaker 1: supports their agenda, and they'll be mad at the Constitution
Speaker 1: to the extent that it restricts their ability to.
Speaker 2: Do the things that they would want to do. Crypto fanatic.
Speaker 1: If economy and state are separate, should incorporation laws exist, Yes,
Speaker 1: just like marriage laws should exist. And there's a bunch
Speaker 1: of others. It's just a shorthand for contracts. Incorporation could
Speaker 1: exist without without incorporation laws, but incorporation laws and.
Speaker 2: Unefficient mechanism. And given that.
Speaker 1: These particular types of contracts are going to be adjudicated
Speaker 1: in courts, in state courts, a standardized format for them,
Speaker 1: it is a huge advantage. So having incorporation laws makes
Speaker 1: a lot of stense. It also makes sense that they're
Speaker 1: at the eight level, and there's some competition between states
Speaker 1: in terms of what incorporation laws each state has, and
Speaker 1: corporations can move from one to the other and then
Speaker 1: and then the courts interpret them. So yeah, absolutely, you know,
Speaker 1: there's nothing statist or interventionist about incorporation laws. They're just
Speaker 1: setting a particular type of contract that people can either
Speaker 1: use or not use. They can try to form different
Speaker 1: types of corporations with different types of contracts, and you
Speaker 1: can know incorporation laws. That would be fine. Michael, since
Speaker 1: America is there's's only ally, doesn't continue I have to
Speaker 1: bow down to Trump.
Speaker 2: Well, if he.
Speaker 1: Thinks that Asrael's that that is true, that it's an
Speaker 1: only ally, I'm not sure that's true. But if he
Speaker 1: thinks that's true, and if he thinks that, Trump will
Speaker 1: will several relationships with his roll, or penalize him significantly
Speaker 1: if he, you know, doesn't agree with him.
Speaker 2: I don't think that will happen.
Speaker 1: I don't think Trump will just say if you don't
Speaker 1: do what I tell me, tell you, we're going to
Speaker 1: walk away. Now, that might happen one day, but I
Speaker 1: don't think America is in that position right now. So
Speaker 1: I think Natagniel has a lot of leeway to say
Speaker 1: no to Trump if he wants to, because Trump on
Speaker 1: the stands, or at least people some of the people
Speaker 1: around Trump at the stand that America needs his roll.
Speaker 1: Michael says, can he try and get on Logan Paul's podcast.
Speaker 1: He's had Peter schiff On and interviews all the famous
Speaker 1: people who've moved to Puerto Rico. I mean, I guess
Speaker 1: I'm not famous because he has in contact with me.
Speaker 1: But I will try, so I will flag that and
Speaker 1: I will try. Though sheanist. I know it was a
Speaker 1: while ago, but tucka covering the Russian Grocery Store of
Speaker 1: my of Michael Moore's coverage of Cuba excellent comparison. Absolutely,
Speaker 1: I didn't think of it when I talked about Tucker's
Speaker 1: covering the grocery store. But you're absolutely right. The parallel
Speaker 1: is striking, all right, Crypto fanatic. Do you think any
Speaker 1: forms of infrastructure like Rhodes Bridge's airport's ports, rail, electric
Speaker 1: good pipeline d DA DA DA DA should be government
Speaker 1: owned at all or all be private? All be private?
Speaker 1: I think they should all everything should be private. I
Speaker 1: mean a few military bases and a few buildings that
Speaker 1: the government needs in order to run things.
Speaker 2: That's it.
Speaker 1: Everything else should be private. And even though it should
Speaker 1: probably be private and least of the government Tom having
Speaker 1: more than one passport is not a bad thing. Patriotism
Speaker 1: does not mean you should only have the ability to
Speaker 1: live in one country thoughts.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, I think that's absolutely right.
Speaker 1: You can be a patriot and also realize that a
Speaker 1: your country can can go bad pretty quickly and you'll
Speaker 1: want to go somewhere else. You can be a patriot
Speaker 1: and still want the convenience of having a separate passport
Speaker 1: that allows you to travel easily.
Speaker 2: Through other countries and around the world.
Speaker 1: An American passport, for example, today, is not a particularly
Speaker 1: good passport. A lot of countries around the world require
Speaker 1: Americans to get visas, having you know, some of European
Speaker 1: Union passports are much much allow for much easier movement
Speaker 1: around the world without visas, And a lot of the
Speaker 1: reason countries put visas on Americans is because America puts
Speaker 1: visas on them, so they reciprocate. So yes, I think
Speaker 1: getting a second or third or fourth passport is all
Speaker 1: good and should be encouraged, even if you're a patriot Enrick.
Speaker 1: Rather than left and right coalescing on environmentalism, they look
Speaker 1: to be coming together on anti semitism. Shall we soon
Speaker 1: find from both parties anti Semitic leaders and president? You know,
Speaker 1: I still think that anti Semitism as a phenomena is
Speaker 1: that the fringes and the margins. It's millions of people,
Speaker 1: but it's not it's not the mainstream, and we'll see
Speaker 1: if it gets mainstreams. Whereas I do think I envymelism
Speaker 1: is mainstreamed. And we saw that when.
Speaker 2: Maga freaked out over the idea that.
Speaker 1: One of the senators had to privatize federal land in
Speaker 1: the West and use it for development, particularly for housing,
Speaker 1: and MAGA freaked out, as did the environmentalists, and they
Speaker 1: showed that they're very environmentalist. And I think in environmentism
Speaker 1: is still much more of a mainstream topic. We'll see
Speaker 1: how all of this evolves. We'll see how all of
Speaker 1: this evolves, and how big the anti Semitism becomes, and
Speaker 1: how widespread it becomes, how mainstream it becomes. It's definitely
Speaker 1: being mainstreamed into the Republican conservative movement in Tamaga. But
Speaker 1: whether it grows beyond that, we'll see. Peter, Christian nations
Speaker 1: in history, Fankish and Holy Roman Empire, Calvin's Geneva, Cromwell's England,
Speaker 1: precisely what the founding fathers repudiated. Yes, they were rejected
Speaker 1: all of those. All of those they rejected the and
Speaker 1: they rejected and were really upset by the religious wars,
Speaker 1: the thirty year ward one hundred year War, Protestants and
Speaker 1: Catholics killing one another. You know, they suddenly rejected Calvin's
Speaker 1: Geneva and the persecution of of people who had different
Speaker 1: notions of Christianity. Absolutely, Peter Greek agree with you completely, Andrew.
Speaker 1: Love is stronger than hate if created by oneself by
Speaker 1: rational means. Is they even such a thing as altruistic love,
Speaker 1: love through self sacrifice? No, I don't think there's such
Speaker 1: a thing as altruistical love. I think to the extent
Speaker 1: that people love, to that extent, they are being self
Speaker 1: interested and people are compartmentalized and mixed, But to the
Speaker 1: extent that they love, they're being self interested. All Right,
Speaker 1: We've got a few remaining and then I need to
Speaker 1: get to bed, and pokey, Why is the moral always
Speaker 1: the practical? What is the link between the two? And
Speaker 1: are their cases? You can think of? Whether this does
Speaker 1: not hold?
Speaker 2: No, I mean I think it holds.
Speaker 1: It holds in irrational society, and over the long run,
Speaker 1: it doesn't hold in an irrational society. Necessarily, sometimes the
Speaker 1: moral can can can can lead to death and destruction,
Speaker 1: and in an irrational world dominated about irrationality. I mean,
Speaker 1: it's it's I'd have to give a long answer, and
Speaker 1: I don't have the voice, but I'm losing my voice,
Speaker 1: and I don't have the time for it, and I'm
Speaker 1: and it's late, but I'll say this. I mean, where
Speaker 1: does morality come from? How do we learn moral truths?
Speaker 2: We learn moral.
Speaker 1: Truths by by two processes. Fundamentally, one is identifying the
Speaker 1: nature i e. The practical nature of man?
Speaker 2: What is man? How does man function in the world?
Speaker 1: And that's how we get he's a rational being and
Speaker 1: reason being, you know, a cardinal value, and you know
Speaker 1: what makes it possible for man to live successfully in
Speaker 1: the world, which is an empirical, inductive you know, evaluation.
Speaker 1: So when it looks at the world and see rationality,
Speaker 1: reason is man's means of survival. It just you know,
Speaker 1: you see that that's an inductive truth and reason both
Speaker 1: logically requires, for example, honesty because reason requires fact fact facts,
Speaker 1: but also when one observes in reality, honesty works and
Speaker 1: dishonesty doesn't.
Speaker 2: So the whole way in which the objective's morality is
Speaker 2: derived is by looking at what works.
Speaker 1: And here what we mean by what works is what
Speaker 1: leads to human survival. So them all in a sense
Speaker 1: is derived from the practical. It's derived from, you know,
Speaker 1: looking at the world, observing reality and figuring out what
Speaker 1: right and wrong is. What right is is that which
Speaker 1: leads the human flourishing. What's wrong is that which destroys it.
Speaker 1: So you know, it's built.
Speaker 2: In the mall is the practical.
Speaker 1: The practical is the mall is built into objectivism.
Speaker 2: So the irrational.
Speaker 1: We can observe is impractical, and part of the reason
Speaker 1: it's evil is. I mean, it's evil because it's impractical,
Speaker 1: because it leads to bad outcomes for you as an individual.
Speaker 1: So it's it's circular in essence impoquy. Should a defending
Speaker 1: nation ever take any precautions to avoid civilian casualties in
Speaker 1: a case where the cost is minimal?
Speaker 2: Why or why not?
Speaker 1: Well, I mean there's no reason to gratuitously kill people.
Speaker 1: Human life has value, so there's no reason to gratuously
Speaker 1: do it. So if there's no purpose in killing people,
Speaker 1: then you shouldn't kill them, and to that extent, your
Speaker 1: void civilian casualties when the civilian casualties are not necessary
Speaker 1: for victory. But in any situation where civilian casualties are
Speaker 1: necessary for victory, unnecessary to a victory, and at a
Speaker 1: minimal cost to yourself and a minimum cost of your
Speaker 1: own people's lives.
Speaker 2: Then you should not take precautions.
Speaker 1: So the standard is the extent to which it's going
Speaker 1: to demand a sacrifice of your people or not it's
Speaker 1: going to demand a sacrifice of you or not it's
Speaker 1: going to prevent you from achieving your goal on it,
Speaker 1: that's the stand about what you measure. Tyler says, how
Speaker 1: you on I really enjoyed Peacock's History of Philosophy lectures. Yeah,
Speaker 1: they're great. I noticed the con section was missing from
Speaker 1: the book version. Any idea why it was left out?
Speaker 2: Just curious? Was kant left out?
Speaker 1: I think because Leonard asked that the book version only
Speaker 1: include part one, the pre Kantient I think he I
Speaker 1: don't know, you'd have to. I think if I recall,
Speaker 1: and granted, I might recall wrong, but I think if
Speaker 1: I recall, he said that he was a lot more
Speaker 1: confident in the course of the truth of the pre content,
Speaker 1: and that he was in his confident that everything he
Speaker 1: said was accurate regarding the more modern philosophers.
Speaker 2: I think the whole thing is fantastic. But that is
Speaker 2: if I recall, that is what he said.
Speaker 1: So that's why he only wanted it in writing the
Speaker 1: pre Kantian segments part one. But luckily you can still
Speaker 1: get in an audio and Pokey, what's your take on IP?
Speaker 1: Intellectual property and free state? If it's a natural right,
Speaker 1: why does it expire? Wouldn't permanent IP paralyzed innovation since
Speaker 1: all progress builds and prior ideas. Yes, that's why it expires,
Speaker 1: So it should expire. But they should be a period.
Speaker 1: It's a former property and the property owner should have
Speaker 1: the ability to profit from his property for a period.
Speaker 1: Iinman has a very good essay on this and capitalism
Speaker 1: and annoying ideal. I encourage you to read it. She
Speaker 1: goes into great lengths in defending her position about why
Speaker 1: copyright IP generally is valid and why you know, the
Speaker 1: length of time shouldn't be forever, you know, and why
Speaker 1: having a specific length of time is not arbitrary. It's about.
Speaker 2: It's about the the lifetime of the of the producer.
Speaker 1: It's also about the ability to profit from that property
Speaker 1: before it becomes uh goes into the public domain and
Speaker 1: goes to aid in the process of ideas building on ideas.
Speaker 1: But read the essay much better explanation there. And what
Speaker 1: do you think of the criticism of the objective's morality
Speaker 1: that it's focused on independent judgment and consistency demand too
Speaker 1: much of people. I mean, I don't feel like it's
Speaker 1: too much. I mean I don't know. I know a
Speaker 1: lot of people who embrace it and do it and
Speaker 1: are fine with it, So I'm not sure. I've never
Speaker 1: seen that criticism. It requires work, it requires being independent,
Speaker 1: It requires having self esteem, it requires not caving to
Speaker 1: the mob.
Speaker 2: That all requires effort, but it's doable for every human being.
Speaker 1: I know people of all kinds of intellectual abilities that
Speaker 1: have embraced that idea. And even before objectivism, there were
Speaker 1: people who embraced independent judgment and stood up to the mob.
Speaker 1: So I don't understand why that is something that's beyond
Speaker 1: people's reach. Necessarily, it is beyond people's reach because they
Speaker 1: choose not to embrace it. Evan, what do you think
Speaker 1: about altruism and a group of infantry in battle? A
Speaker 1: unit is much more effective if everyone has each other's
Speaker 1: back to the point where they were willing to sacrifice
Speaker 1: and risk for each other.
Speaker 2: So I think that I think that altruism is destructive
Speaker 2: for a unit like that.
Speaker 1: I think a unit in battle functions much much better
Speaker 1: if they all understand why it's.
Speaker 2: In their self interest to function as a unit. It's
Speaker 2: just like a team.
Speaker 1: Like a teamwork in a business doesn't require you to
Speaker 1: accept the collective mind collective consciousness because there is none.
Speaker 1: It requires you to be an independent thinker and contribute
Speaker 1: to the team and work with others to improve and
Speaker 1: enhance ideas. The same thing is to in battle. You
Speaker 1: want independent thinkers who understand why they're they, who understand
Speaker 1: why the unit has to function together, and who have
Speaker 1: a real authentic camaraderie friendship with the other people around them.
Speaker 2: Now, I don't think that a good unit.
Speaker 1: In battle requires people to sacrifice to one another. So,
Speaker 1: for example, you're storming a position and the guy on
Speaker 1: your right gets hit. What do you do do You
Speaker 1: continue storming the position and you go take care of
Speaker 1: the guy who's been hit. Well, victory demands that you
Speaker 1: continue storming the position, and afterwards you go take care
Speaker 1: of your buddy who got hit. But if your focus
Speaker 1: is completely on your body, then you stop the advance
Speaker 1: and you take care of the wounded, and you forget
Speaker 1: about winning the war. So it's not at all clear
Speaker 1: to me that sacrifice in that sense is required. Risk
Speaker 1: taking is required. But you signed up for the military.
Speaker 1: This is why military should be voluntary. You sign up
Speaker 1: for the military. You signed up to take risk, not
Speaker 1: to sacrifice, but to take risk for the values that
Speaker 1: you believe in and for the people in your team.
Speaker 2: I don't consider that sacrifice. And again, you have to
Speaker 2: think about what do you want.
Speaker 1: This team to do what is required to win a battle,
Speaker 1: to win a war, to win to win a to
Speaker 1: win a skirmish. And and what's required is everybody thinking,
Speaker 1: everybody being an independent thinker, but within the context of
Speaker 1: a team, within the context of a group that is
Speaker 1: trying to achieve a goal together. And and and that
Speaker 1: means sometimes you have to just follow orders. That means
Speaker 1: that you're going to take risks. That means that you
Speaker 1: have to watch what your other soldiers are doing. And
Speaker 1: and and yes, cover for them, cover them, because that's
Speaker 1: part of the mission. And that's part of how you
Speaker 1: attain the goal. But it's not it's not a sacrifice.
Speaker 1: You're you're you're aiming towards a goal that's very, very
Speaker 1: very important to you. This is why you volunteered to
Speaker 1: serve in this military. Again, why I believe in one
Speaker 1: of the reasons I believe in voluntary military servant non
Speaker 1: a conscription. Chris, what did Einran think of Norman Rockwell,
Speaker 1: what do you think of Rockwall? Why was normal rockwall
Speaker 1: art so disliked? Is his artwork idealistic or overly sentimental?
Speaker 1: So I think she thought of I mean, I don't
Speaker 1: know exactly what she thought of Rockwell, I vaguely recalled it.
Speaker 2: There's something there.
Speaker 1: I mean, look, rockwall is an illustrator. He's a he's
Speaker 1: not a painter. He's a borderline artist because his stuff
Speaker 1: is postery. It's it's illustrations. It's very in your face
Speaker 1: and in that sense, yeah, it's it's sentimental. But there's
Speaker 1: a lot of good art that's sentimental. Rockwall Is is
Speaker 1: a good illustrator, but he's not a great artist. I
Speaker 1: don't know why it was disliked. It wasn't disliked. It
Speaker 1: was actually liked a lot. It made the covers of
Speaker 1: magazines that was all over the place. And remember it
Speaker 1: was covers of magazines. Most of his paintings will covers
Speaker 1: of magazines, which again that's illustration.
Speaker 2: That's not art. It's not fine art.
Speaker 1: Uh, there's no The themes are very obvious, there's no sophistication,
Speaker 1: there's you know, it's it's it's it's in your face
Speaker 1: in a way that art should not be.
Speaker 2: So I I think normal.
Speaker 1: I enjoyed normal Walkwell. I think a lot of his
Speaker 1: stuff is fun. Uh, it's funny, it's fun. Some of
Speaker 1: his idealistic and and and good like I love. The
Speaker 1: one where the guy is standing up. The free speech
Speaker 1: one is very good. Rockwell generally was kind of a
Speaker 1: New Deal democrat, so he was he was, you know,
Speaker 1: he illustrated much of Roosevelt's New Deal ideals. He's a naturalist.
Speaker 1: He portrays, for the most body, portrays man as he is.
Speaker 1: He portrays scenes out of daily life. Again, part of
Speaker 1: what makes him not that interesting but kind of fun
Speaker 1: and enjoyable. I wouldn't hang a normal walker painting on
Speaker 1: my wall, but I don't mind, you know. I enjoy
Speaker 1: seeing his stuff and thumbing through a book of his
Speaker 1: work and smiling and enjoying it. But it's a superficial enjoyment. Schasberg.
Speaker 1: To love is the value at the shrugged a certain
Speaker 1: person's speech, not to be mentioned because we don't want
Speaker 1: to give anything away. Yes, to love is to value.
Speaker 1: Love is there is an expression of one's highest value.
Speaker 1: It's it's a manifestation one's highest value. All right, last question,
Speaker 1: as I'm losing my voice. I understand Rand's idea of
Speaker 1: self interest, but why can't a gang be self interested
Speaker 1: within their world? Their interest is making money and exploiting. Well,
Speaker 1: because a gang cannot be happy a gang cannot flourish
Speaker 1: qua gang. It can only you know, so a group
Speaker 1: can only flourish the extent it's individuals flourish at the
Speaker 1: base of a gang. At the base of a gang
Speaker 1: of a group as individuals, and if they if they
Speaker 1: succeed by exploiting and stealing and cheating and robbing, they succeed.
Speaker 2: Materially.
Speaker 1: But all of that behavior is destructive spiritually. It destroys
Speaker 1: their soul, It destroys their integrity, it destroys the ability
Speaker 1: to be moral as individuals. And again, happiness and flourishing
Speaker 1: can only be achieved as individuals. So a gang is
Speaker 1: not a thing. A gang is just a bunch of
Speaker 1: individuals committing crimes together. And because they're committing crimes, because
Speaker 1: they're violating rational principles as individuals, they cannot flourish and
Speaker 1: they cannot be happy, and they suffer the consequences. Live
Speaker 1: by the sword, Die by the sword. All right, Thank
Speaker 1: you guys, Sorry for the technical problem in the middle.
Speaker 1: I'm glad we recovered. I'm glad you all stuck with it.
Speaker 1: Thank you for joining me. Thanks Troy for the five
Speaker 1: Australian really really appreciate that. Thanks to all other Michael
Speaker 1: and all the other supporters. We had a lot of
Speaker 1: fifty dollars contributors. Thank you the super chattters, thank you
Speaker 1: the stickers.
Speaker 2: I will see you. I'm not sure when we'll.
Speaker 1: Play it day by day, but at the latest on Saturday.
Speaker 1: But I'm going to be traveling all this week in Europe.
Speaker 1: Hopefully i'll see some of you tomorrow in Vienna. Bye everybody,