Speaker 1: A lot of them, fundamental principals of widow, little cells
Speaker 1: and individual lots. This is the show. Oh right, everybody,
Speaker 1: welcome to you on book show on this Wednesday, June
Speaker 1: twenty fifth. I hope everybody's having a fantastic week. Uh
Speaker 1: and yeah in in in the middle of the week.
Speaker 1: I've got ocon next week, looking forward to that. Hopefully
Speaker 1: I'll see many many of you there. I know some
Speaker 1: of you are practicing day and night at poker to
Speaker 1: try to beat me, and I look forward to uh
Speaker 1: to you trying. All right, it is, it is. It
Speaker 1: is amazing how when there's war owjew political crisis out
Speaker 1: there in the world, the Iran Book Show becomes such
Speaker 1: a hub for people. I mean, my viewership goes through
Speaker 1: the roof when Ukraine war starts October seventh, Ian Israel
Speaker 1: through the roof and then comes comes come down afterwards.
Speaker 1: But I appreciate that, you know, people come to hear
Speaker 1: a voice of reason and rationality, I think, during these
Speaker 1: times of great uncertainty, and they come and here it live,
Speaker 1: They hear it in podcast form, they hear they watched
Speaker 1: the video afterwards, and I appreciate all of that. So
Speaker 1: thank you, Thank you, Thank you for all of you
Speaker 1: who come and get your Jew politics from the Iran
Speaker 1: book show. All right, today we are going to talk
Speaker 1: about socialism. We're going to talk about we'll talk about really,
Speaker 1: you know, assessment of the Israeli Iran War as it
Speaker 1: is now in a cease fire, although Trump does say
Speaker 1: today that it might start up again, So who knows
Speaker 1: after yesterday where he said it was for a long, long,
Speaker 1: long forever. Maybe this cease fine, So, you know, Trump
Speaker 1: changing his mind, what a thought?
Speaker 2: How bizarre is that?
Speaker 1: And we're talking about Trump, we'll talk about Trump being
Speaker 1: in NATO. Really interesting, really interesting, uh in uh in
Speaker 1: Nato that he's uh in NATO, and uh yeah, we'll
Speaker 1: see what else. We'll see what else comes up. But
Speaker 1: let's start with the election yesterday in New York City.
Speaker 1: It was the primary. Wasn't an actual election, just a primary. Uh.
Speaker 1: The actual election is in November. So we've got a
Speaker 1: long time. It's just June. Now, we've got a long
Speaker 1: time until the election actually happens. So don't get too depressed.
Speaker 1: Don't get too depressed. Uh, you know, we will see.
Speaker 1: I mean, obviously the front runner right now is the
Speaker 1: socialist candidate who represents the Democratic Party that almost always
Speaker 1: wins in New York, but not always. Remember Giuliani, Remember
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Grant as an independent or Republican.
Speaker 2: He won.
Speaker 1: So don't get too you know, too depressed. Mamdannie is
Speaker 1: not guaranteed to be the Man of New York a
Speaker 1: though he's highly likely to be.
Speaker 2: But he's going to run.
Speaker 1: He's going to face for other candidates, which is a
Speaker 1: problem probably, you know, because because the opposition to him
Speaker 1: will be split.
Speaker 2: But maybe maybe they won't all be on the ballot.
Speaker 1: We'll see, maybe some of them will drop off just
Speaker 1: to defeat him, just to try to defeat him.
Speaker 2: He did not get over fifty percent of.
Speaker 1: The vote he got he got forty two percent. I
Speaker 1: think she didn't get over fifty percent of the vote.
Speaker 1: And he is likely to face both. Uh, you're right now.
Speaker 1: As of now, Eric Adams, the current Mayor of New York,
Speaker 1: will probably run again as an independent. This time there
Speaker 1: will be a Republican candidate and some other candidates, and
Speaker 1: then there'll be and then there's a good chance Como
Speaker 1: will run as an independent as well. Now, hopefully people
Speaker 1: can convince Como not to run, so that Adams gets
Speaker 1: all the votes.
Speaker 2: So if Como runs, convinced.
Speaker 1: Adams not to run, and that the opposition and maybe
Speaker 1: convinced the Republican not to run, so that all the
Speaker 1: opposition is in one guy, uh, you know, in contrast
Speaker 1: to Mum Donnie. But we will see. That's kind of
Speaker 1: strategic thinking that our politics is really very good at,
Speaker 1: particularly on the right. So we'll see if that actually happens.
Speaker 1: But it's not a done deal, is my point. And
Speaker 1: Mum Dannie now has five months to four and a
Speaker 1: half months to say really dumb things and to convince
Speaker 1: people actually not to vote for him, convince people actually not.
Speaker 2: To vote for him or or to vote for something else. So, uh,
Speaker 2: we will see.
Speaker 1: But I think the bigger, the bigger question, I mean,
Speaker 1: there are two questions, uh that that are important here
Speaker 1: that I think we need to address. One is, you know,
Speaker 1: what is what is the Democratic Party going to do?
Speaker 1: If if this is what it's a Democratic base wants, Uh,
Speaker 1: how how is it gonna How is it gonna be
Speaker 1: able to be an effective opposition party to to MAGA
Speaker 1: and to Donald Trump if they are embracing the fall left,
Speaker 1: that is the fall left. We know, on a national
Speaker 1: basis and on a state probably wide level basis is
Speaker 1: a disaster. It cannot win, it will not win, right So,
Speaker 1: but this is what the grassroots, just like in the
Speaker 1: Republican Party, the grass roots one Mega the grass roots
Speaker 1: and the left one socialism. And we're going to hopefully
Speaker 1: not but we might be stuck with constant elections where
Speaker 1: we have to choose between a crazy nutty right wing
Speaker 1: in a crazy nutty left wing. So, you know, the
Speaker 1: Democratic Party is going to have to figure this out.
Speaker 1: I think a lot of Democrats are pretty depressed right now.
Speaker 1: I mean Larry Summers, the former president of Harvard, a
Speaker 1: very much essentrist democrat, uh an economist.
Speaker 2: You know, has said you know, he said, He wrote.
Speaker 1: Today, I'm profoundly alarmed by the at the future of
Speaker 1: the DNC and the country by yesterday's New York City
Speaker 1: anointment of a candidate who failed to disavow a globalized
Speaker 1: need to fought US slogan and advocated Trotsky economic policies.
Speaker 1: I fear its evidence that our party is following the
Speaker 1: same problematic aspects of the British Labor Party. It didn't
Speaker 1: work there and it won't work here. And then he
Speaker 1: goes on at Harvard, he was a big critic of
Speaker 1: the Harvard administration for tolerating the po Haamas demonstrations. He says,
Speaker 1: to Harvard and other universities, moral weakness after October seventh,
Speaker 1: in condoning hateful anti Israeli and even anti Semitic rhetoric
Speaker 1: and activity, opened the Overton window in ways that contributed
Speaker 1: to yesterday's outcome. Yes, they normalized, globalized the Intafada, normalized
Speaker 1: anti Semitism, normalized hatred of Israel. He goes on, I
Speaker 1: hope candidate Mamdani, who showed great ability to learn and
Speaker 1: adapt during his campaign, will continue to evolve in ways
Speaker 1: that provide much needed reassurance to people committed to a
Speaker 1: free from prejudice market economy as an American ideal. An
Speaker 1: important task for Mamdani now is to provide reassurance that
Speaker 1: his moral energy and formidable political skills can be productively
Speaker 1: directed for the City of New York at this difficult moment.
Speaker 1: So yeah, I mean Somemers is panicking, and I think
Speaker 1: the Democratic Party overall is panicking. Where does the Democratic
Speaker 1: Where does the Democratic Party go? And where does America go?
Speaker 1: If this is what the youth of America is demanding.
Speaker 1: We uh so, it's uh uh, it is interesting that
Speaker 1: Larbie Summer's points to Amdani's moral energy. I like that,
Speaker 1: and I think that's absolutely right. The the and this
Speaker 1: is the next topic I want to talk about, is
Speaker 1: is why socialism? Why people are so attracted to socialism?
Speaker 1: What is it about this that is so attractive? Why
Speaker 1: did he win? I want to talk about that, but uh,
Speaker 1: you know, before that, let me just see so I
Speaker 1: wanted to that is that that's not interesting, that's uninteresting. Huh.
Speaker 1: I thought I saved a bunch of these things, and
Speaker 1: they've all disappeared on me. That's fine. You know, the
Speaker 1: Mega wright was very quick to assign blame here, very quick.
Speaker 2: You know.
Speaker 1: They immediately put out tweets that were the equivalent of well,
Speaker 1: I thought I had the tweet saved, but I guess
Speaker 1: I didn't save it. Basically, the tweet said, well, what
Speaker 1: do you expect New York City, which used to be
Speaker 1: an American city, is now majority fallen Born.
Speaker 2: And the fact that it's a majority faun Born.
Speaker 1: Yeah, they would have liked a socialist. This is all
Speaker 1: a consequence about lacks immigration policies. This is all a
Speaker 1: consequence of immigration, too many foreigners, and foreigners are driving
Speaker 1: in this country towards socialism. Now, of course, what's fascinating
Speaker 1: about that statement is that New York City for most
Speaker 1: of the last one hundred and seventy years or so
Speaker 1: has been majority Fougner born. Now, there was a period
Speaker 1: between nineteen thirty and nineteen seventy something where it was
Speaker 1: majority American born, and those are some of the worst
Speaker 1: years of New York City. Particularly if you go in
Speaker 1: the sixties and seventies, it's when New York City was
Speaker 1: being destroyed, and that's all by American born people. But
Speaker 1: New York City was always a city of immigrants. It
Speaker 1: was always This is where Ellis Island was, This is
Speaker 1: where people landed. You can identify New York City neighborhoods
Speaker 1: and burrows based on which immigrant group settled where. But
Speaker 1: this is the Nee York react of the rights, the racist,
Speaker 1: xenophobic Maga Wright. It's the immigrants fault. They must have
Speaker 1: done it. Now, of course, this goes completely against the
Speaker 1: actual data. The data shows that the people who voted
Speaker 1: from Mamdani overwhelmingly white and educated, no an Asian and educated.
Speaker 1: Maybe some of those Asians are immigrants, I don't know,
Speaker 1: or maybe the second or third generation Asians, but the
Speaker 1: key is educated, not far onborn and whites and overwhelmed.
Speaker 1: A majority of whites voted from ma'm donnie, and a
Speaker 1: majority of Asians vote from Dunni minority of Hispanics. So
Speaker 1: those immigrants didn't vote from Ma'm done. They voted for Como,
Speaker 1: and majority of blacks voted for Como.
Speaker 2: Those I guess America borne they're considered.
Speaker 1: So I mean, they're just lying, they're just making stuff up,
Speaker 1: and it's disgusting. This is the other. This is the
Speaker 1: source of anti Semitism. This is the sort of hatred
Speaker 1: you you, there's a phenomenon that's bad. Blame it on
Speaker 1: the other. Let's go after the other. Those immigrants, they
Speaker 1: did it. Economy is doing badly because they're immigrants or
Speaker 1: because of the Chinese who stole our jobs. As long
Speaker 1: as it's the other, right, we get into wars and
Speaker 1: we lose wars because of well, the Jews. They control
Speaker 1: Donald Trump and control the Republican Party, and and and
Speaker 1: they have them, they have them by the balls, and
Speaker 1: that's why we're getting into wars, and of course Wall
Speaker 1: Street financial crisis, Jews, bankers, Jews, bankers, Jews, same thing.
Speaker 2: It's all their fault, it's the other.
Speaker 1: And again I've said this since twenty sixteen, when Trump
Speaker 1: was first elected, or when you ran this campaign. You
Speaker 1: can't say it's the Jew's fault, so you blame. But
Speaker 1: you still you still need another, you still need an other,
Speaker 1: so that other becomes immigrants, Chinese foreigners generally fill in
Speaker 1: the blank. It's disgusting, it's despicable. This is maga. This
Speaker 1: is why I think MAGA is a horrible, disgusting movement,
Speaker 1: and it kind of it matches up well with the crazy,
Speaker 1: other horrible disgusting movement on the left. But they are great.
Speaker 1: You know, they go great together. They're both horrific, racist,
Speaker 1: disgusting movements. Now the more interesting question, I think, and
Speaker 1: this is the question over the years we've discussed many times,
Speaker 1: but it's an important question, and given mom Donnie's explicit ideology,
Speaker 1: I think we should consider it. What is the appeal
Speaker 1: of socialism? Why are young people so attracted to socialism?
Speaker 1: And you know, I want to read you Peter Teal's
Speaker 1: answer to this, because this is interesting because Peter til
Speaker 1: answered this in twenty twenty. Suppose that this is an
Speaker 1: email that he was writing in the Mark Zuckerberg and
Speaker 1: some other people Sheryl Sandberg or Facebook, and Mark and
Speaker 1: Dresen were on this email at least, and for some
Speaker 1: reason it's public.
Speaker 2: I don't know why.
Speaker 1: But and Nick Klegg and Antonio lucioid on who those
Speaker 1: guys are. But Mark Zuckerbug you know, Mark and Dreesen,
Speaker 1: you know. And the question is why are millennials so left?
Speaker 1: Why are they so socialist?
Speaker 2: What is going on?
Speaker 1: I wanted to give you Peter Thiel's answer, and then
Speaker 1: I'll give you my answer. And he says that many
Speaker 1: themes that could be developed more here. Let me make
Speaker 1: a few quick points for now. Nick I certainly would
Speaker 1: not suggest that our policy should be to embrace millennial
Speaker 1: attitudes unreflectively. I would be the last person to advocate
Speaker 1: for socialism. But when seventy percent of millennials say they're
Speaker 1: pro socialist, we need to do better than simply dismiss
Speaker 1: them by saying that they're stupid, entitled, brainwashed. We should
Speaker 1: try and understand why, and from the perspective of a
Speaker 1: broken generational compact. This seems to be a pretty straightforward
Speaker 1: answer to me, Laane, namely that when one has too
Speaker 1: much student debt or if housing is too unaffordable, then
Speaker 1: one will have negative capital for a long time, and
Speaker 1: I'll find it very hard to start accumulating capital in
Speaker 1: the form of real estate. And if one has no
Speaker 1: stake in the capitalist system, then one may turn against it.
Speaker 1: So you know, this is a This is a purely
Speaker 1: materialistic explanation, an explanation focused entirely on the economic status
Speaker 1: of young people, which, by the way to life stent.
Speaker 1: As I've said many times on the show, it's just untrue.
Speaker 1: If you look at the data, the data pretty much
Speaker 1: supports the fact that on many many respects, including net wealth.
Speaker 1: You know, this generation is as rich, actually richer for
Speaker 1: their age than any generation before them. But they are convinced,
Speaker 1: and the media and everybody else has indeed convinced them
Speaker 1: that they are not, that they are struggling, that they
Speaker 1: are poor. But why turns to socialism, Why not identify
Speaker 1: their old culpits.
Speaker 2: It's not really hard.
Speaker 1: I mean, even among the left, there is a whole
Speaker 1: abundance literature that chose that the real cost of housing
Speaker 1: is a consequence of lack of supply. So what is
Speaker 1: going on here? And while I agree with Peter Tier,
Speaker 1: we shouldn't dismiss this as they have been brainwashed. We
Speaker 1: should really consider what they've been studying in school. I mean,
Speaker 1: and I mean school here, not just what this generation
Speaker 1: have studied for school at the universities and in you
Speaker 1: know right now, But what are they studying at school
Speaker 1: since they were little kids, since they were going to
Speaker 1: pre kate? What has been the message schools convey to
Speaker 1: young people today about the world, about and about social
Speaker 1: political issues, even if they don't address them directly. And suddenly,
Speaker 1: as we saw, Larry Summers recognizes that what Memdani has
Speaker 1: is moral energy. What have they learned in their schools
Speaker 1: about morality? Well, what are they taught when they're little,
Speaker 1: in pre k first through third grade? Well, they're taught
Speaker 1: constantly that man is a destructive force destroying nature. Nature's beautiful,
Speaker 1: nature's innocent, nature's amazing, and we human beings are killing
Speaker 1: the penguins. The capitalism which is all around them, they
Speaker 1: are told, is really really really horriable and destructive and exploitative.
Speaker 1: And those little fury cute animals that young kids love.
Speaker 1: They were all gonna die because of basically doesn't it's
Speaker 1: not put in these words necessarily because of capitalism. They're
Speaker 1: taught that industrialization is dirty and wrong and bad, with
Speaker 1: no context, with no idea of how life was before
Speaker 1: the industrial evolution. I mean, what do we teach about
Speaker 1: the industrial evolution in school?
Speaker 2: This is probably more high school.
Speaker 1: All the negative child labor, pollution, poverty, capitalism created poverty,
Speaker 1: did you not know? So? Really, from pre create, from
Speaker 1: pre kate until high school and well into college unless
Speaker 1: they go to particular good colleges, which is rare, they're
Speaker 1: taught the evils of capitalism almost systematically, constantly, without any stoppage.
Speaker 1: There just isn't, you know, in every context in which
Speaker 1: history you cannot or some kind of sociology or whatever
Speaker 1: they want to call it. They are taught the eels
Speaker 1: of capitalism, you know, and environmentalism is religion to them.
Speaker 1: They know nothing else but and what causes environmental problems capitalism.
Speaker 1: They are also, of course taught that capitalism is going
Speaker 1: to destroy or we're gonna die global climate change or
Speaker 1: pollution or whatever you want to define it, We're gonna
Speaker 1: die and if you know, if we don't die, the penguins,
Speaker 1: those cute penguins, they're definitely gonna die. I had to
Speaker 1: go to one of my kids' schools and tell them,
Speaker 1: you cannot teach this anymore. This is unfair, non objective, untrue,
Speaker 1: and you know, and they actually actually stopped being as
Speaker 1: explicit as they had been before, because, I mean, us,
Speaker 1: think about it. They were teaching the kids about climate
Speaker 1: change and penguins dying, and I was like, you don't.
Speaker 1: None of that is scientific, none of that is true.
Speaker 1: Your brain. You're indocrinating them with an ideology and that's
Speaker 1: not your job. And to their credit, they accepted at
Speaker 1: least part of that. I knew as parents should be
Speaker 1: active and you should complain to the school even even
Speaker 1: if they'll think you're nuts.
Speaker 2: It doesn't matter.
Speaker 1: You need to be active. So they've been. They've been
Speaker 1: not brainwashed, but they have been indocrinated with an ideology
Speaker 1: that capitalism is bad. And of course behind all that
Speaker 1: is a morality, a morality of altruism, a morality of sacrifice,
Speaker 1: morality of other people matter, you don't, your life doesn't matter,
Speaker 1: a morality of caring and sharing, which they get from
Speaker 1: their parents, and they get from their teachers, and they
Speaker 1: get from their preachers, and they get from everybody. If
Speaker 1: you really want to be good, you have to just
Speaker 1: care about other people. That's what morality means, and you
Speaker 1: need to be willing to sacrifice for them. So m'mdannie
Speaker 1: is just Mmdannie is just the candidate of altruism. He's
Speaker 1: just the candidate of caring and sharing. He wants lower
Speaker 1: prices and he wants he wants the homeless to have
Speaker 1: a roof on top of their head. So he's going
Speaker 1: to put them all in the subway system. You know,
Speaker 1: you're just using the subway to get to your greedy
Speaker 1: job to try to make money for yourself. Think about
Speaker 1: think about all those homeless people. So it's going to
Speaker 1: stink the subway, So you'll have to suffer a little
Speaker 1: bit of smell in order to get to work. Big deal,
Speaker 1: grosspe sacrifice a little bit for your moral ideal, for
Speaker 1: your explicit moral ideas. Socialism is the political manifestation of
Speaker 1: man hatred and altruism. Man hatred, we're destroying the planet,
Speaker 1: We're greedy, we're selfish, were bad.
Speaker 2: Altruism got to take care of the poor.
Speaker 1: Gotta take care of those are there, and anything self
Speaker 1: interested is bad. And of course, people like some people
Speaker 1: identifying this is all the consequence of envy. But where
Speaker 1: does that envy come from? America?
Speaker 2: You never used to be never used to be.
Speaker 1: A land of envy. It used to be a land
Speaker 1: of ambition. Yeah, he's rich. I want to be rich
Speaker 1: like him. But we've embraced envy because that's what altruism demands.
Speaker 1: How do you get rich by being self interested? What
Speaker 1: do we know about self interest? It's morally corrupt. So
Speaker 1: how do you get rich by being morally corrupt? So yeah,
Speaker 1: I hate those guys. They're morally corrupt and I want
Speaker 1: to text the hell out of them. So envy is
Speaker 1: not the source. Envy is the consequence of altruism, the
Speaker 1: consequence of a decrepit, corrupt, evil, evil moral system. And
Speaker 1: it's that ideology, that morality, that ethics, that makes.
Speaker 2: Socialism palatable.
Speaker 1: It is that morality, that ethics, which by the way,
Speaker 1: is basically Christian, which makes socialism popular. I mean the first,
Speaker 1: it's all over a culture, it's everywhere, and you know, maga,
Speaker 1: if you look at discussions over the Big Beautiful Bill,
Speaker 1: it's amazing. Maga wants to redistribute wealth, and you know
Speaker 1: it focused on supposedly helping the poor and all this stuff.
Speaker 1: It's the exact same altruism on the right and on
Speaker 1: the left lead to exact same solution. Take from some,
Speaker 1: give to others, redistribute wealth, sacrifice, demand sacrifice for the
Speaker 1: sake of some higher purpose. So you know, socialism just
Speaker 1: doesn't come out of nowhere. Larry Summers can be surprised
Speaker 1: by it. But people don't vote economics, they don't vote pocketbook,
Speaker 1: they don't vote taxes. They won't taxes.
Speaker 2: People vote morality.
Speaker 1: It was somebody like Mamdani who's articulate and smart and
Speaker 1: passionate and hard working and cool, goes out there and
Speaker 1: advocates and hooks into the moral issue. Then it shouldn't
Speaker 1: surprise anybody that he's going to win. He's he believes
Speaker 1: everything that everybody else believes. He's just more principled. You
Speaker 1: want to be an autist, okay, well, let's put the
Speaker 1: homeless in the subway system, house them there. You want
Speaker 1: to be an outist, well, then obviously the Israel is
Speaker 1: bad because they're strong and and and the Palati need
Speaker 1: is a good so let's globalized need to fight and
Speaker 1: go live to all those people who are strong. You
Speaker 1: want to be an altruist, well, certainly we need to
Speaker 1: defund the police because the police don't act altruistically. They're
Speaker 1: trying to protect property rights. Property rights a greedy, selfaced
Speaker 1: thing that they're not consistent with altruism. And you can
Speaker 1: go on and on and on and on. Right, this
Speaker 1: is the consequence of altruism. This is the consequence of altruism.
Speaker 2: You know of a deep, deep, uh.
Speaker 1: Moral code that has been with us for two thousand
Speaker 1: years since acousufficient cruxifixion was elevated to moral status, to
Speaker 1: the epitome of morality. Uh, this is them all code
Speaker 1: do We have lived with it for two thousand years,
Speaker 1: and we try to battle against it and fight against it.
Speaker 1: And the Enlightenment did an amazing job at starting at
Speaker 1: creating a crack in it at you know, pursuit of happiness.
Speaker 1: But only I man gave us the ultimate answer in
Speaker 1: the pursuit of rational self interest, in the pursuit of
Speaker 1: real happiness, in the pursuit of our own well being,
Speaker 1: in an egoistic model code. Short of that, there's no
Speaker 1: way to combat socialism. It keeps coming back and people saying.
Speaker 1: I've seen people tweet, oh, let's this is good because
Speaker 1: now people will see what socialism does and they'll never
Speaker 1: vote for socialist again. That's the funniest argument I've ever heard.
Speaker 1: Socialism we tried over and over and over again, arguably
Speaker 1: for at least two thousand years, and every time it's tried,
Speaker 1: it fails. Every time it's tried, it's a disaster. And
Speaker 1: that has not stopped people from thinking it is a
Speaker 1: moral ideal. It does not stopped people from thinking this
Speaker 1: is amazing and we want it and voting again for it.
Speaker 1: And when whatever Mamdanie does fails, they'll say, well, it
Speaker 1: wasn't real socialism or the powers to be. Wall Street
Speaker 1: fought against it and didn't let him implement the real
Speaker 1: things he wanted to do. He tried to get those
Speaker 1: grocery stores opened, and they wouldn't let him. They stopped him.
Speaker 1: That blames somebody, but never altruism, never the morality, never
Speaker 1: socialism itself. Because socialism is a moral ideal. It's a
Speaker 1: political system manifesting a moral ideal. And unless you're willing
Speaker 1: to give up on the moral ideal, you will not
Speaker 1: give up on socialism. That's why it keeps coming back,
Speaker 1: it never goes away, because it's that that moral ideal
Speaker 1: that needs to be crushed, decimated, destroyed. What we need
Speaker 1: is one altruism. If I believe, you could have a
Speaker 1: war on concepts, and that's what we need, a one altruism.
Speaker 1: All right, So yes, I now, again, let's not be
Speaker 1: overly pessimistic. We don't know that the mayor of New
Speaker 1: York will be mum Dani. It might not be. It
Speaker 1: might be somebody running against him in the actual elections
Speaker 1: which you are in November, but probably is very high
Speaker 1: right now, Probably is very high.
Speaker 2: All right, Um, let's switch gears.
Speaker 1: I thought it would be a good opportunity today to
Speaker 1: maybe do a quick assessment of the war, the twelve
Speaker 1: Day Wars as Trump would likes to call it, you know,
Speaker 1: and a few things. So we'll do that. I first
Speaker 1: want to comment on on kind of the back and forth,
Speaker 1: the consonant stories that you're hearing, contradicting stories all the
Speaker 1: time over did they or didn't they? In other words,
Speaker 1: did Israel and the US destroy Yuan's nuclear capabilities or
Speaker 1: didn't they? And and there are various assessments from from
Speaker 1: various sources, and it really is hard to make sense
Speaker 1: of it all. And I think part of this, part
Speaker 1: of this is the complexity of it. It's difficult to
Speaker 1: do intelligence assessments. You don't know what you don't know.
Speaker 1: You have to realize your limitations of knowledge. You know,
Speaker 1: you can you can assess things from area of photographs
Speaker 1: and listening to conversations and from all kinds, but unless
Speaker 1: you have kind of boots on the ground, it's very
Speaker 1: hard to tell. And a lot of people are trying
Speaker 1: to speculate without full information. It's also true that you
Speaker 1: know that our intelligence agencies are often wrong. I would
Speaker 1: say American intelligence agencies are notoriously wrong. They were wrong
Speaker 1: about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. They were wrong about
Speaker 1: the Soviet Union's immense economy during the nineteen seventies that
Speaker 1: was just going to overtake the United States any day now.
Speaker 1: They were and they were wrong, according to Tulsi Gubbert,
Speaker 1: who said, well, we think they're wrong because we don't know.
Speaker 1: But she, you know, when she said that Iran was
Speaker 1: years away from developing a nuclear nuclear weapon, So I
Speaker 1: mean the American intelligence services certainly. First of all, there
Speaker 1: are many of them. So you have an analyst that Pentagon,
Speaker 1: you have an analysis, CIA, and you have analysis. It's
Speaker 1: just that the NSA and you have analysis, I think
Speaker 1: the twelve different intelligence department, twelve different intelligence agencies in
Speaker 1: the Earth. So who's saying what? And they probably all
Speaker 1: disagree and they probably fight it out. I mean, think
Speaker 1: about the lab League and how much disagreement there was
Speaker 1: among intelligence agencies around that, and of course that was
Speaker 1: also silenced. So the fact that they disagree is not surprising.
Speaker 1: It's a complex question. It's hard to tell. Without boots
Speaker 1: on the ground, you don't know. And then Trump goes
Speaker 1: out and says, well, Israel had boots on the ground
Speaker 1: in four Door. They went in after the bombing and
Speaker 1: they verified that it was completely destroyed. Israel's going like,
Speaker 1: what is.
Speaker 2: He talking about?
Speaker 1: Now?
Speaker 2: That could be very well that they're hiding. We now know,
Speaker 2: by the way, because the Israeli commander in chief.
Speaker 1: Of the military said so today that Israel and I
Speaker 1: told you this on day one of the war.
Speaker 2: This is another one of Iran was right.
Speaker 1: Basically today acknowledges the fact that Israel had special forces
Speaker 1: teams inside Iran, so not just Mosad, but actual soldiers
Speaker 1: inside Iran, probably not wearing uniforms. But Israeli soldiers inside
Speaker 1: Iran doesn't surprise me at all, you know. So this
Speaker 1: is why I thought Israel could take Fodor by itself,
Speaker 1: because I thought that some of those troops on the
Speaker 1: ground and they could probably bring in more, could take
Speaker 1: that facility. It was very risky, but they could have
Speaker 1: done it. But it's all had special forces there. You know,
Speaker 1: maybe some of those it's just forces went afterwards into
Speaker 1: four Door and discovered that everything was destroyed. Maybe we
Speaker 1: just we an outside, don't know. My guess is that
Speaker 1: people inside Israeli intelligence have a very very good idea
Speaker 1: of whether of Iran's.
Speaker 2: Nuclear capabilities right now.
Speaker 1: They have spies, their boots on the ground, the area
Speaker 1: of photographs, they have listeners, people who listen in. They've
Speaker 1: got a very good sense. They don't seem worried. And
Speaker 1: I'd say Nataniawa's basically staked this political career on that
Speaker 1: he is responsible for the fact that Iran doesn't have
Speaker 1: a nuclear program anymore.
Speaker 2: Now.
Speaker 1: It's also in the past also had either bad intelligence
Speaker 1: or light about it. There was a time when they
Speaker 1: bombed a tunnel in Gaz This is you know, before COVID,
Speaker 1: and then they claimed that I don't know, several hundred
Speaker 1: or several dozens from US operatives were killed and they wounds,
Speaker 1: and I mean there have been lots of situations that.
Speaker 1: Then again, I don't know how much of that is intelligence,
Speaker 1: how much of that is just plain political line or
Speaker 1: covering your ass You know, obviously they had a massive
Speaker 1: intelligence failure on October seventh, But you look at what happened.
Speaker 2: In Iran in this war, and you go, WHOA. Whatever
Speaker 2: Israeli intelligence.
Speaker 1: Has in Iran, they were phenomenal, so only to only
Speaker 1: to extend them the benefit of the doubt that they
Speaker 1: know what they're talking about. And it seems that they're
Speaker 1: fairly confident that the Iranian nuclear program has been destroyed
Speaker 1: or at least pushed back. I think I think somebody
Speaker 1: maybe maybe it was again the the head of the
Speaker 1: military in Israel said today that it's years they've put
Speaker 1: it backwards.
Speaker 2: Years.
Speaker 1: He didn't say destroyed completely, years backwards. This is an assessment.
Speaker 1: There's an assessment today out from the Institute for Science
Speaker 1: and International Security. I have no idea if the Institute
Speaker 1: for Science and International Security. You know what they're talking about.
Speaker 1: But they are saying that the US and Israeli strikes
Speaker 1: and you Wan have effectively destroyed the one's enrichment program.
Speaker 1: The institute said it would take a long time for
Speaker 1: you want to restore its enrichment capabilities to pre strike levels.
Speaker 2: They make this assessment based on the destruction.
Speaker 1: Of the nan Toads nuclear facility and the four Door
Speaker 1: and Estefont All nuclear facilities, and of course the killing
Speaker 1: of fifteen or so nuclear scientists. The six entry points
Speaker 1: for the US bunker bust of bombs, you can map
Speaker 1: those out over the facility.
Speaker 2: Those under the ground.
Speaker 1: Were actually right above the two weak points in the
Speaker 1: in the structure that was underneath, and they really believe
Speaker 1: that the structure that the bombs actually denidated within the facility.
Speaker 1: That's the case. The centrifuges are gone. Also, centerfuge is
Speaker 1: a very delicate machinery. It doesn't take much to destroy them.
Speaker 1: You don't have to literally implode them. You just have
Speaker 1: to shake them up enough, and they're pretty nonoperable. So
Speaker 1: their assessment is the bomb blast would have been channeled
Speaker 1: by the centrifuge cascade halls sidewalls, which would have destroyed
Speaker 1: all of the installed centerfuges in the in the in
Speaker 1: the place. I think this is the same assessment that
Speaker 1: Israel is coming to, and the same assessment as some
Speaker 1: people within the Trump administration are coming to. Uh.
Speaker 2: Let's see now that I E.
Speaker 1: I A E A you know, still is not sure
Speaker 1: where the uh where the uranium there was refined to
Speaker 1: sixty percent is.
Speaker 2: Nobody is admitting to knowing where it is.
Speaker 1: But if you looking at Tanyao when he's asked that question,
Speaker 1: he seems to be hinting that he knows where it is.
Speaker 1: He has a crazy scenario. Imagine if Israel stole it.
Speaker 1: Imagine if they stole it. Imagine if they you know,
Speaker 1: if if the Iranian, if the Uranians were thinking they
Speaker 1: were loading up to trucks, thinking that they were going
Speaker 1: to hide it somewhere in Iran, and it was actually
Speaker 1: really special forces that hijacked those trucks and took them somewhere.
Speaker 1: Who knows we could find those trucks in Azerbaijan, Azerba Jean,
Speaker 1: which is a nigh of Yuan's and a ally of
Speaker 1: the of Israel. Who knows if the trucks are not there,
Speaker 1: and I don't know. I'm just one hundred percent speculating here.
Speaker 1: You know, I can, I can, I can fantasize, but
Speaker 1: that would.
Speaker 2: Be really, really, really cool.
Speaker 1: But give it out. How cool Israel's operated in this
Speaker 1: in this war? You know, nothing would surprise me at
Speaker 1: this point. On the other hand, again, the Pentagon, this
Speaker 1: defense intelligence agency, leaked that they think that the air
Speaker 1: strikes had only limited impact on the nuclear program.
Speaker 2: Go figure. So, uh it is it is hard to tell.
Speaker 1: Let's see what else did we want to say before
Speaker 1: I got to kind of a broader assessment.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, I don't know what Trump is thinking.
Speaker 1: I mean, as we said yesterday, Trump is no longer
Speaker 1: talking about regime change.
Speaker 2: Quite the opposite, no regime change.
Speaker 1: We don't want chaos, as if chaos is something bad,
Speaker 1: necessarily in an evil country.
Speaker 2: And also it's not clear sanctions.
Speaker 1: Is there a deal? Trump today suggested, we don't need
Speaker 1: a deal. They don't have nuclear weapons. They're never going
Speaker 1: to have a weny clear weapons. So what do we
Speaker 1: need a deal for. I'm worried about taking away all
Speaker 1: the sanctions and starting to trade with you ran under
Speaker 1: the assumption that, oh, there's no problem, they don't have
Speaker 1: a nuclear program anymore, disregarding the fact that they are,
Speaker 1: you know, funding terrorism and attacking US interests and continuing
Speaker 1: with all that. So who knows?
Speaker 2: Who knows?
Speaker 1: I certainly do not know what Trump is actually going
Speaker 1: to do. I suppose the uh, the Trumpet do gestation
Speaker 1: is in talks with you on and they will be
Speaker 1: talking in the next couple of weeks to try to
Speaker 1: arrange some kind of deal.
Speaker 2: But then Trump said, what deal?
Speaker 1: Anyway?
Speaker 2: All right, so let's let's shift now for a little
Speaker 2: bit just to talk about.
Speaker 1: Overall assessment of what was what was done here, what
Speaker 1: was achieved or wasn't achieved, What were the successes, and
Speaker 1: what were the you know, what were the some of
Speaker 1: the failures of this war really from a let's say,
Speaker 1: from an Israeli perspective, UH and Israeli I'm assuming, consistent
Speaker 1: with an American perspective, with an Israeli American perspective. Look,
Speaker 1: in many respects, this was a I mean, this was
Speaker 1: a stunning success. Is what basically achieved most of its
Speaker 1: explicit targets. It appears that it is actually destroyed the UH, the.
Speaker 2: New k capabilities.
Speaker 1: They have dramatically reduced the ability of the Ranians to produce, build,
Speaker 1: and deploy new ballistic missiles. They've destroyed the Inventoria ballistic missiles,
Speaker 1: but they've also destroyed the factories where these missiles, the
Speaker 1: fuel for the missiles, the engines for the missiles were
Speaker 1: actually being built.
Speaker 2: This is a massive project.
Speaker 1: To build the kind of missile system that Iran had built.
Speaker 1: It's very expensive, it requires a lot of resources, and
Speaker 1: Israel has you know, destroyed much of that. And they
Speaker 1: took out basically the entire senior leadership of the Islamic
Speaker 1: Revolutionary God Corp. I mean they're all gone, you know,
Speaker 1: whether it's twenty thirty, forty fifty of the bigadier general
Speaker 1: and above. I mean, it's a stunning number. They've weakened
Speaker 1: the regime dramatically. They've taken out hundreds of Revolutionary Guard soldiers.
Speaker 1: They've taken out, you know, symbols of the regime, police stations, headquarters,
Speaker 1: the Defense Department, the Intelligence department, all gone. It's all
Speaker 1: hit overall, fifty different cities in Iran. Fifty different cities
Speaker 1: in Iran, all the way from the northeast to the
Speaker 1: southeast on the Persian Gulf and dominated and hit pretty
Speaker 1: much everything in the west Tehran and to the west,
Speaker 1: to the north of Tehran, to the south of Tehran,
Speaker 1: and to the west. They flew two thousand miles round
Speaker 1: trip to do this, and they lost exactly zero manned
Speaker 1: airplane zero. I can't try the number of stees they
Speaker 1: flew it again. I had that earlier, can't find it anyway.
Speaker 1: They flew all these sotees zero losses, which is just stunning.
Speaker 1: Nobody would have predicted that. Nobody could have expected that
Speaker 1: not a single airplane was shut down. They did it
Speaker 1: in a way there was masterful, brilliant, extraordinary that reflected
Speaker 1: deep strategic and tactical planning, uh capabilities of its pilots,
Speaker 1: of the tech the airplanes, and all the tech on
Speaker 1: that airplane. Some are most American, some Israeli original tech.
Speaker 1: They had refueling airplanes in the air above countries that
Speaker 1: are enemies of Israel IRAK and see not a single
Speaker 1: one of the refueling planes. These are big bulky planes
Speaker 1: were shut down. There was not a single is really
Speaker 1: military casualty or for them at a US military casualty
Speaker 1: In twelve days, not a single Israeli soldier was killed.
Speaker 1: I mean, I don't know if any war in all
Speaker 1: of human history that by that those metrics was as
Speaker 1: one sighted as this is. They had the capacity to
Speaker 1: do whatever they wanted up in the skies of Tehran.
Speaker 1: And in that sense, this is an unbelievable victory. And
Speaker 1: think of what kind of a victory, because this says
Speaker 1: philosophical meaning if I say so, if you could say so,
Speaker 1: real philosophical meaning. Because what does this victory represent. It
Speaker 1: represents the victory of the mind over mysticism, the mind
Speaker 1: the barbarians, the mind over religion. What made possible is
Speaker 1: your success thinking, strategy, tech intelligence, integrating all that knowledge,
Speaker 1: and then airplanes that represent some of the most advanced
Speaker 1: technology i e.
Speaker 2: Mind i e. Thinking that have ever been produced in
Speaker 2: the world.
Speaker 1: This is a massive example of the competens competency of
Speaker 1: the rational mind of a free society. And what did
Speaker 1: they face. They faced an enemy dominated by unfreedom, by
Speaker 1: mysticism and religion, an enemy that all they could do
Speaker 1: is build big bombs and love them blindly into Israeli cities.
Speaker 1: Think about the precision of threading a missile through a
Speaker 1: window in a particular bedroom to take out a particular general.
Speaker 1: Think of the precision by which Israel took out particular
Speaker 1: buildings in a densely populated city, The precision by which
Speaker 1: they went after factory after factory. Have to factory, have
Speaker 1: to factory and destroy them. Missile launch you have to
Speaker 1: miss our launcher, have to miss our launcher and destroy them.
Speaker 1: The precision, the accuracy, the intelligence, they're just perfect close
Speaker 1: to the execution. I mean, it's sad to to that war,
Speaker 1: that this is manifesting war. Well, it's not said, this
Speaker 1: manifest it's it's it's it's It feels queasy a little
Speaker 1: bit to get so excited about something that is generated
Speaker 1: from war. But it is exciting. It's exciting to see
Speaker 1: the human mind be so efficacious, human ability. It truly
Speaker 1: is magnificent. What Israel did is magnificent. It's beautiful. It's
Speaker 1: a massive success. And again it's it's an illustration of
Speaker 1: the mind versus barbarism, the mind versus the mystical, the
Speaker 1: mind versus the witch doctor. I mean, how many with
Speaker 1: that stupid long beard and you know his Islamist dress.
Speaker 1: You know there is the witch doctor. He is a
Speaker 1: witch doctor, Supreme leader supreme Leader who communes with Allah.
Speaker 1: What you have here is a conflict between engineers and
Speaker 1: witch doctors. Guess who wins that one. Guess who wins
Speaker 1: that one. Now, what is the consequence of this? And
Speaker 1: let's put a sight here. What was done to the
Speaker 1: nuclear program or not? Whether it's you know, put back
Speaker 1: decades or years or months or whatever. The reality is
Speaker 1: that the Islamic Revolutionary God has been thoroughly and systematically humiliated.
Speaker 1: I'm already seeing stories on Twitter and elsewhere typical.
Speaker 2: Right, this was a huge mistake.
Speaker 1: The old God in the Islamic Revolutionary God were moderates,
Speaker 1: and they were getting ready to recognize Israel maybe and
Speaker 1: moderate and compromise with America. And now you've got a
Speaker 1: new leadership of young Zealitz and this is BS on steroids.
Speaker 1: The reality is that whoever takes over the Islamic Revolutionary
Speaker 1: God and there will be a new revolution, knows knows
Speaker 1: they cannot evade this, that they were thoroughly humiliated, that
Speaker 1: they cannot match up to Israel, they cannot match up
Speaker 1: to the United States, that they have nothing. The only
Speaker 1: negative aspect of that is now they're desperate to get
Speaker 1: a bomb that I think is true, and that is
Speaker 1: a risk that Israel will be watching out for I hope.
Speaker 1: But the reality is that not only where they humiliated, destroyed,
Speaker 1: the leadership gone, you know, the nuclear scientists gone, the
Speaker 1: knowledge to large extent, God with them.
Speaker 2: Remember I told you that.
Speaker 1: Israel took out the archives of everything they've done in
Speaker 1: the nuclear programs, and the knowledge, the loge extent is gone.
Speaker 1: They also know again they have to know, because it's
Speaker 1: right staring them in the face, that much of the
Speaker 1: Iranian population is not with them, indeed is against, does
Speaker 1: not support what they're doing. The people who support them
Speaker 1: getting old and the young generation wants something different, and
Speaker 1: they know that there ought to be.
Speaker 2: They are the whim of.
Speaker 1: The United States. You could take them out whatever they
Speaker 1: choose to. That is showed. They can take them out
Speaker 1: in their beds, They can take them out in their headquarters.
Speaker 1: They can take them out there also no by the way,
Speaker 1: that they're thoroughly infiltrated with Israeli spies, that Israel has
Speaker 1: eyes and ears everywhere. They have no secrets they cannot hide.
Speaker 1: I mean the leadership, and my guess is how many
Speaker 1: at this point is out I mean he's nominally this
Speaker 1: being the leader, but that you know, the guy's old week,
Speaker 1: he's already week before this. You know, nobody trusts him. Now,
Speaker 1: he was humiliated, he was completely discredited. Whoever's running you
Speaker 1: on right now, and there's probably a lot of fighting
Speaker 1: going on inside Iran for that leadership. The leadership is torn, struggling.
Speaker 1: Without a doubt, I'll still think about it. Iwan is
Speaker 1: a poor country. Ian is a poor country. In two thousand,
Speaker 1: Iwon's GDP was almost three times larger than Israel's. I mean,
Speaker 1: then nine times bigger population wise, and twenty five years
Speaker 1: ago they were significantly had a bigger GDP than Israel.
Speaker 1: Israel still had a much higher GDP per capita, much
Speaker 1: higher per capita, but just to share size of the economy,
Speaker 1: Iran was bigger. They have a lot more people, as
Speaker 1: I said, nine times more people than Israel. In twenty
Speaker 1: twenty five, Israel has a significantly higher GDP than I won,
Speaker 1: even though it's one tenth the size in terms of population,
Speaker 1: one hundredth the size in terms of geography, and oil
Speaker 1: and gas do not contribute a significant portion to Israel's GDP.
Speaker 1: They could chewe a massive proportion to Iran's GDP. Iran
Speaker 1: on a GDP per capita is a poor, poor, poor country.
Speaker 1: Israel lun of GDP per capita is an advanced, wealthy nation.
Speaker 1: Now this makes a huge difference. Is Oh, by the way,
Speaker 1: if you look at GDP per capita, I don't know
Speaker 1: if this is adjusted PPP for cost of living in everything.
Speaker 1: It's just about where Sweden is two years ago in
Speaker 1: twenty twenty three. Just about why Sweden is just about
Speaker 1: where Germany is a little better than Germany, a little London, Sweden.
Speaker 1: It's a solidly European country. So where's Iran going to
Speaker 1: get the funds to build a nuclear program, rebuild it
Speaker 1: to build more ballistic missiles. You have to believe its
Speaker 1: population is restive, it's poor. It's just being crushed militarily
Speaker 1: by a tiny, little speck of a country. The other
Speaker 1: aspect is nobody came to Iran's defense. In spite of
Speaker 1: what Maga told you, world War three did not break
Speaker 1: out because nobody came to Iran's defense. Nobody.
Speaker 2: They were alone.
Speaker 1: I mean, Russia's there and China's there, but Russia's has
Speaker 1: no money and China is not going to spend day
Speaker 1: money on Iran, and China did not come to defend Iran,
Speaker 1: and Russia certainly did not come to defend Ion. So
Speaker 1: they have a horrific economy, really a horrific aregon. People
Speaker 1: are poor, people are struggling. Their military is just being
Speaker 1: set back by you know, about twenty years. It's about
Speaker 1: twenty years to build up that Arsenal of Mighty, you know,
Speaker 1: ground to ground missiles, ballistic missiles, as well as whatever
Speaker 1: nuclear program they had built up so far. That is,
Speaker 1: that is who they are. So where are they going
Speaker 1: to get where they're going to be rebuild, where they're
Speaker 1: going to become this threat everybody's afraid. Oh, they're going
Speaker 1: to rebuild the nuclear I mean they might and they
Speaker 1: might try to buy a nuke, but remember they can
Speaker 1: sell oil that people are hungry, and there was a
Speaker 1: good chance here. There's a good chance that at some
Speaker 1: point here their own people are going to rebel against them.
Speaker 2: Oh, here's the number.
Speaker 1: It's the twenty nine Iranian officers with the rank of
Speaker 1: brigadier general.
Speaker 2: And higher were killed.
Speaker 1: And you know, we know fifteen of their chief nuclear
Speaker 1: scientists were killed. We don't know exactly how badly the
Speaker 1: nuclei facilities were damaged, but it's going to take them
Speaker 1: a long time to get back up to speed. And
Speaker 1: whatever they do, they now live under the threat of
Speaker 1: Israel being able to take them out at any point
Speaker 1: in time, any point in time. So yeah, I mean,
Speaker 1: And then the next question is the next question is
Speaker 1: what will the Iranian people do? And I do not know,
Speaker 1: I do not know. And will they demand a regime change?
Speaker 2: How to tell?
Speaker 1: But I do know that Iran right now is the
Speaker 1: weakest it's been since nineteen seventy nine. Iran right now
Speaker 1: is less of a threat than is being in a
Speaker 1: very long time. While the revolutionary God will try to rebuild,
Speaker 1: it's going to be very difficult for them. And again
Speaker 1: they realize now that Israe could take them out at
Speaker 1: any time.
Speaker 2: Israel, by the way, I think.
Speaker 1: Announced today somebody, somebody in Israel today said, by the way,
Speaker 1: if if you're thinking of becoming a nuclear scientist in Yuan,
Speaker 1: don't do it.
Speaker 2: If you accept the job, we'll take you off.
Speaker 1: So uh, they've already been threatened, already been threatened, So
Speaker 1: we will see how many of them are brave enough. Yeah,
Speaker 1: senior Israeli source any scientist who joins Iran's nuclear program
Speaker 1: will be eliminated. All right, there you go. All right,
Speaker 1: let's see what else do we want to say? As
Speaker 1: I said, you know, how many is finished, he's out,
Speaker 1: you know. And and and here's the other side of this.
Speaker 1: I mean, Iran launched you know, five hundred and fifty
Speaker 1: ballistic missiles and one thousand drones against Israel. Now, a
Speaker 1: number of those missiles, maybe thirty of them, actually landed,
Speaker 1: no drone, one drone out of one thousand landed a hit.
Speaker 1: Israel has proved that they have an amazing a defense system,
Speaker 1: not one hundred percent, not perfect, but pretty amazing tech.
Speaker 1: They will helped by American air defense systems from ships
Speaker 1: in the area and from.
Speaker 2: THAD to THAD batteries or at least two THAD batteries
Speaker 2: in Israel.
Speaker 1: Again, American Israeli technology proved that you can defend against
Speaker 1: ballistic missiles. Now, luckily, none of those missiles were carrying
Speaker 1: a nuclear warhead. And that's where infection is important. And
Speaker 1: it's important to get the missiles to hit the missiles
Speaker 1: much earlier, maybe when they launch rather than when they're
Speaker 1: about to land.
Speaker 2: But this is pretty amazing.
Speaker 1: And what is all what what what the US and
Speaker 1: is all need to do now is continue to perfect
Speaker 1: these systems and create a true impenetrable barrier to h
Speaker 1: to attack. And again, the Russians have nothing like this
Speaker 1: as far as we know, the Chinese have nothing like this. Uh,
Speaker 1: this is a huge military advantage that the West now has.
Speaker 2: Trump.
Speaker 1: By the way, today at NATO said that he was
Speaker 1: going to try to get more Patriot miss batteries into
Speaker 1: Ukraine to protect against the Russian missiles. It's it's, you know,
Speaker 1: a real tragedy that they haven't been supplied up until
Speaker 1: now and have left Kiev another cities around Ukraine completely
Speaker 1: you know, completely exposed to Russian attack. Now, Israel has
Speaker 1: the advantage, if you will, for being very small. You know,
Speaker 1: you can.
Speaker 2: Easily defend it.
Speaker 1: You can relatively easily defend it because it's it's it
Speaker 1: has a small geographic footprint. But yeah, it's still unbelievably,
Speaker 1: unbelievably impressive. You know.
Speaker 2: Let's add to this that Ramass.
Speaker 1: Ramass is one way another finished at least for the
Speaker 1: next couple of decades. It's gone.
Speaker 2: Ris Bala is finished.
Speaker 1: Uh. You know, the the Lebanese now, I think have
Speaker 1: a lot more courage to confront the fact is that
Speaker 1: Lebanese president said, you will not intervene, and indeed they didn't. Uh,
Speaker 1: while Israel did bomb some Risbella targets while they were
Speaker 1: at it, they had their planes in the air ready,
Speaker 1: why not they they they they did that. So the
Speaker 1: proxies are gone. Israel is probably once they finish up
Speaker 1: in Gaza, Israel will probably be the safest it's been
Speaker 1: in many decades. Again, as I predicted before, I think
Speaker 1: this is going to ultimately encourage more Arab countries to
Speaker 1: sign peace deals with Israel. I'm only saddened by the
Speaker 1: fact that Trump forced Israel to stop. I think another
Speaker 1: two weeks would have would have improved the probability of
Speaker 1: regime change in Iran significantly. I think another two weeks
Speaker 1: would have decimated the Iranian Republican or revolutionary god even
Speaker 1: more dramatically. I just think another week or two of
Speaker 1: bombing would have would have been good, and I think
Speaker 1: would have I think the problem is that Saudis and
Speaker 1: other Arab countries are looking around saying they stopped too early. Again,
Speaker 1: they won't finish the job that they cannot be relied upon.
Speaker 1: I worry about that. So I worry about the impression
Speaker 1: that leaves with others. But I think as well as
Speaker 1: now basically secured itself for a number of decades, you know,
Speaker 1: it's enemies. Whatever enemies are left have other things to
Speaker 1: worry about. Again, the Palestinians still a problem. But the
Speaker 1: Palestinians have to look at what happened to you Wan
Speaker 1: and say that's it. We really don't have any allies
Speaker 1: except at American university campuses, and they don't send us
Speaker 1: enough money, and they can't send us arms.
Speaker 2: So those students are not that helpful.
Speaker 1: I mean, you could argue now as well as basically
Speaker 1: taken out its enemies on the battlefield, and the battlefield
Speaker 1: has now move to European and American cities and universities,
Speaker 1: that now is the battlefield. But in terms of the
Speaker 1: actual battlefield, the planes and bombs and.
Speaker 2: Killing and all of that.
Speaker 1: Terrorizing, I think it's over for Israel for a while.
Speaker 1: I think Israel is about us going to be about
Speaker 1: as peaceful as it could be. Again, I worry about
Speaker 1: if Iran doesn't have regime change, what happens in twenty years.
Speaker 1: I worry about hamas if it's not thoroughly dismantled, what
Speaker 1: happens in twenty years. But hey, twenty years a piece
Speaker 1: is not a bad deal. And Iwan is going to
Speaker 1: have a very very hard time rebuilding, as I said,
Speaker 1: for economic reasons and others. Oh, here it is is
Speaker 1: really air force carried out twelve hundred sorties with over
Speaker 1: six hundred mid air refuels and without losing a single
Speaker 1: fighter jet or any other jet for that matter.
Speaker 2: All Right, so there we have it.
Speaker 1: Hopefully pressure on Ian will continue economic pressure so as
Speaker 1: it can't get rich make the money to be able
Speaker 1: to support any kind of rebuilding. Pressure which basically says,
Speaker 1: both from America and Israel, if you start developing another
Speaker 1: nuclear program, we will take it out at the beginning.
Speaker 1: We won't wait, we'll take it out right off the bat.
Speaker 1: Any new facility you build will be destroyed before you
Speaker 1: have a chance to really completely finish it, and every
Speaker 1: nuclear scientist you hire will be killed. If Israel can
Speaker 1: do that, if they can they can make that a
Speaker 1: credible threat, then yeah, it's bought itself many decades apiece.
Speaker 1: You on, as I said, since ninety eleven, and as
Speaker 1: Lena Peak office said since the eighties, this is the hub,
Speaker 1: this is the center, this is the head of the snake.
Speaker 1: And you've just you've just basically crushed the head of
Speaker 1: the snake. And it's it's that's snake is now weakened.
Speaker 1: It could have been weakened more with another week or two.
Speaker 1: So I'm still upset that Trump declared the ceasefire, but
Speaker 1: still to you still have to recognize the good part
Speaker 1: of what's happened here and how successful this all was.
Speaker 1: All right, let's see, Oh, let's do two cool quick
Speaker 1: other topics. So NATO. Trump was at NATO. He spent
Speaker 1: the day there. You think he's left now. I mean,
Speaker 1: I think this is a headline from Politico, and I
Speaker 1: think it really captures the last day, last day, pretty
Speaker 1: amazing day from NATO's perspective. This is the headline how
Speaker 1: Trump learned to stop warrying and love NATO. European officials
Speaker 1: deployed flattery and avoiding specifics to get good vibes and
Speaker 1: win over the press. I mean, Trump was gushing, gushing
Speaker 1: of a NATO over all these Europeans. I I don't know.
Speaker 1: I think jd Vance's is going to flip out completely.
Speaker 1: But it's it's it's really amazing. You know, at some
Speaker 1: point you got asked this question. You so Marco Rubio
Speaker 1: really laughed in the background. Suppose he General uh Mark
Speaker 1: Rute from the NATO Secretary had called him daddy in
Speaker 1: someone in reference to the conflict between Iran and Israel.
Speaker 1: Uh and and and and so Trump was asked about
Speaker 1: this comment, and he said, oh, he likes me. I
Speaker 1: think he likes me. If he doesn't, I'll let you know.
Speaker 1: I'll come back and I'll hit him hard. He did
Speaker 1: a very he did it very affectionately. Daddy, You're my daddy.
Speaker 1: But more importantly, this is uh, this is one of
Speaker 1: the in his press conference.
Speaker 2: This is one of the things Trump said. I'm quoting from.
Speaker 1: Him, and this is fascinating. Just just think of this mentality.
Speaker 1: I watched the heads of these countries get up and
Speaker 1: the love and the passion that they showed for their
Speaker 1: countries was unbelievable. I've never seen quite anything like it.
Speaker 1: They want to protect their countries and they need the
Speaker 1: United States, and without the United States, it's not going
Speaker 1: to be the same. It was really moving to see it.
Speaker 1: It was great, and I left here differently. I left
Speaker 1: here saying that these people really love their countries. It's
Speaker 1: not a ripoff. WHOA, that's huge, and we're here to
Speaker 1: help them protect their countries. I mean, this is truly amazing.
Speaker 1: Trump is basically confirmed that he will stand by Article
Speaker 1: five of NATO. He is now an enthusiastic supporter of NATO,
Speaker 1: he says. And what swayed him the fact that all
Speaker 1: these leaders really love their countries. Nationalism swayed him. And
Speaker 1: the fact that they flattered him. They they they they
Speaker 1: figured it out. They probably thanked him profusely over and
Speaker 1: over and over and over and over again. They told
Speaker 1: him how much they need him. They flattered him, and
Speaker 1: they flattered America. And now he loves it. Now he
Speaker 1: loves you know, just a few a couple of months ago, JD.
Speaker 1: Vans was selling the Europeans how they're awful, they are,
Speaker 1: how horrible they are, and here's Trump just gushing over them.
Speaker 2: Wow.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's it's pretty amazing. The only uh, you know,
Speaker 1: he's he was very impressed by their willingness to raise
Speaker 1: the amount of spending that they're going to do for
Speaker 1: to five percent of GDP for defense related activities that
Speaker 1: he did slam the Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez, and
Speaker 1: that he's not willing to increase to increase, you know,
Speaker 1: military spending significantly, like every other European nation has committed
Speaker 1: to doing. This is what he said. It's terrible that
Speaker 1: Spain has done what Spain has done. He says, we're
Speaker 1: negotiating a trade deal and that will make them pay
Speaker 1: twice as much. I'm serious about that. So he's going
Speaker 1: to penalize them through tariffs sol though, of course, because
Speaker 1: Spain is part of the EU, maybe Trump doesn't realize that.
Speaker 1: I don't think he can segregate out Spanish goods for tariffs.
Speaker 1: Maybe he can, maybe he can, but he's negotiating with EU,
Speaker 1: not with Spain. So anyway, you know, we've opened a
Speaker 1: new era where Trump, at least today maybe for the
Speaker 1: next few days, is basically basically embracing Europe. Europeans were
Speaker 1: very worried about this NATO summit. They were very worried that,
Speaker 1: you know, Trump will try to wad it down us
Speaker 1: A security guarantees and commitments towards Europe.
Speaker 2: And he didn't.
Speaker 1: He actually did the opposite. He he he was more
Speaker 1: you know supportive than I think anybody expected. And again
Speaker 1: you learned from this is this idea that you got
Speaker 1: to flat to Trump. You got to play him. You
Speaker 1: got to play him. That is, if you want to
Speaker 1: achieve anything, if you want to succeed with him, if
Speaker 1: you want to get his help, then you got to
Speaker 1: play play the game by.
Speaker 2: His rules, by his rules.
Speaker 1: All right. Finally, tariffs, Remember July sixth, we're coming up
Speaker 1: two weeks is the deadline for reciprocal tariffs, where traffs
Speaker 1: could go up to sixty seventy percent on many countries.
Speaker 1: I suppose we were going to have one hundred, you know,
Speaker 1: one hundred deals by now and ninety deals, I guess,
Speaker 1: And that has happened. So it's hard to tell what
Speaker 1: exactly happens in two weeks. Some people are suggesting Trump
Speaker 1: might extend this for another ninety days. The Apollo Apollo,
Speaker 1: a private equity group they chief economists, is suggesting that
Speaker 1: maybe what Trump should do is extend the tariffs. So
Speaker 1: extend to ten percent tariffs across the board by twelve
Speaker 1: months to allow negotiations.
Speaker 2: This will give stability. Ten percent is something people can handle.
Speaker 1: It's basically a ten percent increasing taxes on some goods
Speaker 1: for us, it's not literally ten percent of our consumption.
Speaker 1: It's a lot less because we can see a lot
Speaker 1: of none inputs. Most of our consumption is non inputs.
Speaker 1: So it's a small tax increase in Americans. And he
Speaker 1: gets to have a win because he's raised tariffs and
Speaker 1: he gets to go negotiate and figure out what else
Speaker 1: he wants to do. And it doesn't hurt the economy
Speaker 1: because it's only ten percent and it's a relatively small tax,
Speaker 1: and it it kind of works, I guess, So that
Speaker 1: is a possibility. It's a possibility that that's what Trump
Speaker 1: will do, is he will extend the ten percent tariffs,
Speaker 1: not do reciprocal tariffs, walk away from the crazy high tariffs,
Speaker 1: and we will have the thirty percent taffs on China,
Speaker 1: ten percent taffs on the rest of the world and economy.
Speaker 1: You know, doesn't help the economy. It hurts the economy,
Speaker 1: but doesn't hood it that much. It's not a disaster.
Speaker 1: It's not going to plunge us into recession. If he
Speaker 1: does that, the Fed probably he's lower interest rates and
Speaker 1: it's over. I mean, the Fed is now saying they're
Speaker 1: not lowering interest rates because of the uncertainty about tariffs
Speaker 1: that Trump is created. So you know, Trump could get
Speaker 1: rid of the uncertainty by and without giving up on
Speaker 1: his idea of a cyprocal tariffs by extending this for you.
Speaker 1: That is one proposal. But it'll be interesting to see
Speaker 1: what he actually does in two weeks. Probably something crazy,
Speaker 1: but we will wait and we will see. All right,
Speaker 1: let me, I have not put up the video for
Speaker 1: a new sponsor yet, but I will put it up
Speaker 1: tonight and I'll comment on it tomorrow. So a new
Speaker 1: video will go up tonight about our sponsor, and then
Speaker 1: we will talk about it. We will talk about it tomorrow,
Speaker 1: but we do have Alex Epstein is our sponsor. He
Speaker 1: is the author of a sub stack, a blog of
Speaker 1: usually focused on talking points but also just general information,
Speaker 1: but are talking points and how to how to convince
Speaker 1: people about UH. Here's his agenda, and the agenda primarily
Speaker 1: is focused on issues around UH environmentalism and around energy
Speaker 1: and around fossil fuels and importance of fossil fuels and
Speaker 1: about a grid energy grid. It's Alseepstein dot subsect dot com.
Speaker 1: You won't find better information not you know, and thinking
Speaker 1: and better points to communicate. If if you want to
Speaker 1: argue with people, debate people, communicate with people, he provides
Speaker 1: he will provide you with some of the best talking
Speaker 1: points that they are.
Speaker 2: To make your argument more persuasive.
Speaker 1: In addition, we have the Ironmin Institute and Instrute has
Speaker 1: uh Ocon next week and ocon is in in Boston
Speaker 1: this year. If you can't come live and I don't
Speaker 1: think you can register for live for being there in person,
Speaker 1: you can registered to watch everything live online and to
Speaker 1: do that you can go to imran dot o iran
Speaker 1: slash start here and there you will find a way
Speaker 1: to sign up for the for virtual o'con and you
Speaker 1: can get a ten percent discount by putting in twenty
Speaker 1: five YBS ten twenty five ybs ten. So those are sponsors. Now.
Speaker 1: If you would like to support the show, you can
Speaker 1: do it in a variety of different ways. One the
Speaker 1: easiest way to do it is just to like the
Speaker 1: show liking because that helps algorithm and gets more explosion.
Speaker 2: We give more subscribers.
Speaker 1: You should also, by the way, subscribe to the show.
Speaker 1: If you're not a subscriber yet, please press the subscribe
Speaker 1: button and get regular announcements about when my shows goes live.
Speaker 1: When you know, some on the showsto we may go
Speaker 1: live that might be of interest when new stuff happens.
Speaker 1: Some of my lectures, my talks are put online and
Speaker 1: you can you can find out about those by by subscribing,
Speaker 1: and and then you'll be on the on the on
Speaker 1: the on.
Speaker 2: The list I guess of announcements.
Speaker 1: Uh. And then.
Speaker 2: If you want to support the show on a.
Speaker 1: Regular basis beyond subscribing and and liking, you can go
Speaker 1: to patreon dot com, Patreon dot com, put you Ron
Speaker 1: Brooks Show and become a monthly supporter. And I love
Speaker 1: monthly supporters because it's steady regular supports and and that
Speaker 1: is predictable. You know, this is a this is a show.
Speaker 1: I get some money from some of the sponsors, but
Speaker 1: basically this is a show that exists because of support
Speaker 1: from people like you, from listeners, from people who watch.
Speaker 2: You know, every one of these videos.
Speaker 1: Is watched by anyway from three to five thousand people,
Speaker 1: and then the podcast is listened to by several thousand
Speaker 1: people as well. Those are the people who make this
Speaker 1: show possible, right and and because many of them, many
Speaker 1: of them then make a contribution to the show. If
Speaker 1: you haven't made a contribution to the show, then you
Speaker 1: should because that's a trade, right. You get a value
Speaker 1: from me by listening to the show. We turn that
Speaker 1: value by providing some financial support, and that is you
Speaker 1: can do a Patreon or of course, you can do
Speaker 1: it right here if you're watching live, if you're on Twitter,
Speaker 1: come on over to YouTube so you can do us
Speaker 1: and you can do a sticker, or you can do
Speaker 1: a super chat. You can ask a question about anything,
Speaker 1: literally anything, or you can just make a statement. You
Speaker 1: can insult me, you can do whatever you want. I
Speaker 1: will read it because these dollars attached to it. So
Speaker 1: please come over. Those of you on YouTube, please participate
Speaker 1: and help this show continue to grow. Thank you guys.
Speaker 1: All right, let's jump in with superchat. We're two hundred
Speaker 1: dollars short of our second hour goal, and we are
Speaker 1: in the second hour. We've got forty minutes to make
Speaker 1: up the two hundred dollars, so please consider doing something
Speaker 1: even two dollars. Everything helps, everything helps for us to
Speaker 1: get there. Those of you can do fifty one hundred dollars.
Speaker 1: That just makes it much quicker to get to the goal.
Speaker 1: Thank you guys, and we oh, let me thank the
Speaker 1: stickers and then I promise we'll go straight to questions. Eric,
Speaker 1: thank you, Steve, thank you, Mary Lean, thank you, William
Speaker 1: and Roland thank you, and Phlofkins something like that. Thank you,
Speaker 1: and Margaret and Jonathan Rufel, thank you guys. Really appreciate
Speaker 1: the support. Yeah, r if I wish to talk, I'm
Speaker 1: going to be in Lisbon soon right beginning of September.
Speaker 1: Catherine just came in with some euros in support of
Speaker 1: ther own bookshow. So thank you Katherine for the sticker.
Speaker 1: All right, let's start with rational IP sixty euro. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Rational IP makes a massive difference and a big dent
Speaker 1: our in the goal.
Speaker 2: Resal P says.
Speaker 1: In Belgium, doctors plan to go on strike following the
Speaker 1: health Minister's plan to implement a maximum cap on health
Speaker 1: supplements and fees. Reminds me of a novel. I like, yeah,
Speaker 1: it's very reminiscent of Attle Shrugg. But yeah, look, socialized
Speaker 1: medicine is very susceptible to strikes that basically cripple the
Speaker 1: entire healthcare system because all the doctors have one employer.
Speaker 1: I mean, it depends on the specifics of the socialized
Speaker 1: medicine plan, but it sounds like Belgium is one of these,
Speaker 1: right where in sense the employer, the entity that decides
Speaker 1: how much the doctors will get paid is the government.
Speaker 1: So if they want to go on strike, they go
Speaker 1: on strike against the government, and so they you know, so.
Speaker 2: They just can you imagine all doctors going on strike.
Speaker 1: They don't.
Speaker 2: I remember this is a long long time ago. Then
Speaker 2: in Israel, my father was a doctor, and the doctors went.
Speaker 1: On strike, and they literally because if there's an emergency,
Speaker 1: hipocritical demands that they treat the person. So they basically
Speaker 1: this is before cell phones existed. They got them busses
Speaker 1: and they were taken to undisclosed locations so that nobody
Speaker 1: could call them to say there's an emergency, you have
Speaker 1: to treat this patient. So they literally disappeared for a
Speaker 1: few days and people died because they didn't get medical treatment.
Speaker 1: For doctors, and in many countries the nurses strikes, where
Speaker 1: the same thing happens, they just disappear, they go away.
Speaker 1: I mean, this is what socialized medicine looks like. This
Speaker 1: is the real part of the many evils of socialized medicine.
Speaker 1: A bureaucrat gets to decide how much money you made.
Speaker 1: You don't get to offer your productive skill in the
Speaker 1: marketplace and let it be priced. Have you overcred makes
Speaker 1: that decision for you? Uh? All right? Andy lived in
Speaker 1: New York City since I moved to two thousand. Pretty
Speaker 1: depressed about the election, even though I long since planned
Speaker 1: a moved to Texas. Seeing the trend, seeing a trend here,
Speaker 1: give me a silver lining and tell me New York
Speaker 1: City will come out okay? And then well, First, it's
Speaker 1: not obvious that he will be he will be the mayor.
Speaker 1: We'll have to wait till November to find out. Second,
Speaker 1: it's not clear how he governs. I mean, once he
Speaker 1: gets into the place, he will discover an entire bureaucracy
Speaker 1: dedicated to making a lot of his plans just not
Speaker 1: very easily do. Pressure groups will pull in a variety
Speaker 1: of different directions. The infrastructure City Hall is not built
Speaker 1: for radical change. He will have to fight it. I mean,
Speaker 1: the Blasio's mayor, and New York survived him. Now, this
Speaker 1: guy's worse than the Blasio. But I would guess that
Speaker 1: New York will survive this guy as well. But it's
Speaker 1: definitely bad, Seffanie moving the wrong direction. And the most
Speaker 1: depressing part of this is just how many people voted
Speaker 1: for him. How many people were looking to overlook how
Speaker 1: evil this guy really is and vote for him. How
Speaker 1: much damage he can do, We will see, we will see.
Speaker 1: Now you know him and.
Speaker 2: What was his name?
Speaker 1: The district attorney in New York who's a horrible leftist
Speaker 1: you know, don't care about crime type guy brag it's
Speaker 1: brag right. If he and Bragsilf together, crime in New
Speaker 1: York will go up significantly. That will be a real,
Speaker 1: really tragic occurrence. Adams was not bad on crime, not
Speaker 1: bad generally, just corrupt, but not bad. But so it's
Speaker 1: going to be interesting to see if he and Bragsurf together,
Speaker 1: maybe New York is a sick of brag and they'll
Speaker 1: flip it. They'll put somebody tough on crime in that position,
Speaker 1: and they'll put this guy in the marror and crime.
Speaker 2: Won't change that badly. We can hope, We can hope.
Speaker 1: Michael, anti Semitism must be studied as a serious mental illness.
Speaker 1: A hatred of so irrational, so obsessive, and so resistant
Speaker 1: to facts and history should no longer be treated as
Speaker 1: mere prejudice and should be diagnosed. I really disagree, Michael.
Speaker 1: You know, I think it's a massive mistake to associate bad,
Speaker 1: evil ideas with psychological problems. It gives people an out here.
Speaker 1: Take a drug and you won't become an anti semi. No,
Speaker 1: anti Semitism is an evil ideology. It's a set of
Speaker 1: beliefs that people hold. It's not because they're mentally ill,
Speaker 1: it's because of the ideas that they have. It's because
Speaker 1: then incapable of thinking. The antidote to this is not
Speaker 1: getting a better psychology. The antidote of this is learning
Speaker 1: logic and you know, and becoming reasonable and rejecting evasion.
Speaker 1: No psychological treatment will help you with that anti semitism.
Speaker 1: You know, it started with the presentation of fact. Those
Speaker 1: facts have to do with the fact that the Jews,
Speaker 1: who are exposed to Jesus and yet did not follow him.
Speaker 1: That is about as evil as it gets. They don't
Speaker 1: have the excuse of ignorance, and that the Jews egged
Speaker 1: the Romans on to crucify him, so they're the ones
Speaker 1: who killed Jesus. Those are the facts. That's how it started.
Speaker 1: I mean, those are not real facts, but those are
Speaker 1: the facts that's presented by the New Testament and by
Speaker 1: the fathers of the Church, and since then it's just downhill.
Speaker 1: It's superstition, mysticism, irrationality reverts to conspiracy theories, and conspiracy
Speaker 1: theories look.
Speaker 2: For other to blame, Jews a convenient other to go after.
Speaker 1: It has to be diagnosed not as a mental illness,
Speaker 1: but as a symptom of Mysticism is a symptom of
Speaker 1: the irrational, and irrationality has to be combat You don't
Speaker 1: do that through psychiatry or psychology.
Speaker 2: You do that through philosophy.
Speaker 1: Leam a most businessman today, not even close dyeing Ran
Speaker 1: heroes like Trump. They don't have a lot of substance.
Speaker 1: They have a specific talent in a given field outside
Speaker 1: of their industry. Superficial narcissism is the default. Well, no,
Speaker 1: I don't think that's true. I mean I think there's
Speaker 1: a spectrum. There are businessmen who are very close dyeing
Speaker 1: RAN's heroes, and then they are businesses close to Trump,
Speaker 1: and there's everything in between.
Speaker 2: The people who are really.
Speaker 1: Good and have some elements of narcissism that people who
Speaker 1: are very little narcissism and are very good that people
Speaker 1: who got lucky, they are all kinds of And it's
Speaker 1: I think it's very dangerous and unhealthy, unhelpful to try
Speaker 1: to paint all businessmen as the same. So, you know,
Speaker 1: Trump is one manifest Uh you know, Steve Jobs was another. Uh,
Speaker 1: you know, but what is it? Lone musk? Is he?
Speaker 1: What is he? And what is Peter TiO? Philosophically corrupt
Speaker 1: but pretty good investor, pretty good businessman? So uh, And
Speaker 1: then and then they're the people who are CEOs today
Speaker 1: of of of Google and and uh and Microsoft and
Speaker 1: you know the other big five and and you know
Speaker 1: is Tim is Tim Cook at Apple? Is he?
Speaker 2: Uh?
Speaker 1: Is he a narcissist? There's nothing to suggest that. But
Speaker 1: he is he a nine made hero? Nothing really is
Speaker 1: just that he's a he's a brilliant businessman. He's really
Speaker 1: really good at what he does, and he works hard,
Speaker 1: and he's a huge wealth and value creator. Give him
Speaker 1: credit for that. And so there's a wide variety of people,
Speaker 1: white variety of people. And and don't try to don't
Speaker 1: try to And and again I always focus when it
Speaker 1: comes to business on the business and.
Speaker 2: How good are they being a creating value.
Speaker 1: And look, I mean, it's nothing in all of human
Speaker 1: history comparable to what American businessmen have done over the
Speaker 1: last one hundred and fifty years. Even today's businessmen are
Speaker 1: still creating enormous amounts of wealth, enormous amounts of wealth.
Speaker 1: And so don't don't don't put that down, don't look
Speaker 1: down on that.
Speaker 2: It's it's unhealthy.
Speaker 1: All right, let's see, don't forget if you're not a
Speaker 1: subscriber to click that subscribe button. And if you're on Twitter,
Speaker 1: come over there YouTube and press the subscribe button so
Speaker 1: we can get the subscription number up. We're shooting for
Speaker 1: forty thousand asap by end of summer. Forty thousand, all right,
Speaker 1: not you average, I'll gogorithm. Will Trump get impeached or
Speaker 1: be asked to step down because he's losing his mental faculties.
Speaker 1: It looks like he is losing it, the unhinged tandrum,
Speaker 1: the hate and rage oozing out of him. And know
Speaker 1: where you guys live that you think that anybody would
Speaker 1: dare impeach Trump, Republicans would impeach Trump.
Speaker 2: It ain't happening.
Speaker 1: I mean he might be if if the Democrats take
Speaker 1: the House, they might try to impeach him, but then
Speaker 1: the Senate won't go along with it. You need, you need,
Speaker 1: you need a super majority in the Senate. There's just
Speaker 1: no way in hell that Trump is going to be
Speaker 1: impeached or asked to step down unless something, unless he
Speaker 1: has a stroke or something dramatic happens. The fact that
Speaker 1: he's unhinged is something I think that Maga loves, his
Speaker 1: supporters love, and certainly nobody in Congress has the balls,
Speaker 1: the courage to call him unhinge that go after him.
Speaker 1: It's just not gonna happen. Liam. Is there any evidence
Speaker 1: pro West and coalitions are forming anyon to overthrow the
Speaker 1: regime or do they not believe their toil is weak
Speaker 1: enough to top of them within? I think they struggle.
Speaker 1: I think the challenge is not where these weak or
Speaker 1: not the challenges that they're armed people in the streets
Speaker 1: who are willing to shoot demonstrators and are willing to imprison, torture,
Speaker 1: kill anybody suspected with trying to organize against the Shaw
Speaker 1: against the regime.
Speaker 2: So the challenge is.
Speaker 1: How do you organize a mass a movement to overthrow
Speaker 1: the regime with no weapons and the regime still having
Speaker 1: the support of militants, heavily armed militants, so it can't
Speaker 1: happen quickly. And it's very hard to communicate. They don't
Speaker 1: have easy internet access, they're afraid to communicate within each other.
Speaker 1: So I'm sure there's some pro Western coalitions forming, but
Speaker 1: can they do anything? Can they rally the masses to
Speaker 1: actually depose this. You need masses, You need hundreds of
Speaker 1: thousands of people to go out into the streets.
Speaker 2: And if they're going to get shot, are there enough
Speaker 2: people willing to do that? I just don't know. I
Speaker 2: don't know enough.
Speaker 1: About the inside of yourn Right now the answer is no.
Speaker 1: But will that develop in the days, weeks, months to come,
Speaker 1: as how weak they are becomes real, how weak the
Speaker 1: regimis becomes more real. Dave, I'm pretty certain Mamdani won't
Speaker 1: win the general election, and at least this shows Jews
Speaker 1: don't control everything, since they can't keep an open anti
Speaker 1: Semitic out of the most Jewish city in America. Yeah, maybe,
Speaker 1: I'm not sure what that helps exactly. It's not like
Speaker 1: people actually pay attention to facts. People who think Jews
Speaker 1: control everything. I hope You're right about Mumdania not winning rock.
Speaker 1: Does today's political system incentivize voting blocks to fight over
Speaker 1: other people's earnings just to avoid being ones.
Speaker 2: Who get looted instead?
Speaker 1: Yes?
Speaker 2: Absolutely.
Speaker 1: I talked about this many times that what a mixed
Speaker 1: economy does is create pressure groups to squeeze favors from
Speaker 1: the government at other people's expenses, and then pressure groups
Speaker 1: to try to prevent them being squeezed to squeeze somebody
Speaker 1: else instead that everybody's you know, it's there's a there's
Speaker 1: a pie to be divided. The state views your wealth
Speaker 1: as its pie, and there's a pie to be divided.
Speaker 1: And what happens is you get many multiple pressure groups
Speaker 1: forming blocks, as you call them, to try to preserve
Speaker 1: their piece of the pie, grab somebody else's peed of
Speaker 1: the pie at the same time, and the hundreds of
Speaker 1: these blocks. And that's exactly how politics works today. It's
Speaker 1: just look at the big beautiful bill and look how
Speaker 1: the negotiations are going, and you can see the different
Speaker 1: pressure groups fighting over the crumbs, I mean crumbs that
Speaker 1: we produced, we created, we built, crumbs that belong to us.
Speaker 1: Esoteric dichotomy, how you on does new York City, America
Speaker 1: need to touch the hot stover socialism and get burnt
Speaker 1: as a learning experience of what would not work thoughts, No,
Speaker 1: I mean I don't think people learn from experience. I
Speaker 1: say this over and over again. No, no, no, Why
Speaker 1: can't we touch the hot stove of Venezuela or the
Speaker 1: Soviet Union or everything else? No, people do not learn
Speaker 1: from experience. Or what about Senfer Francisco that was run
Speaker 1: by a bunch of leftists? Look what happened there? It's
Speaker 1: at Francisco. They seem to have learned the lesson, but
Speaker 1: not in New York. How far does it have to be? No,
Speaker 1: people don't learn from experience. They're motivated by moral ideals.
Speaker 1: And unless we can change them all ideals, this is
Speaker 1: what happens. Socialism will only grow, only get stronger, even
Speaker 1: in America, of all places, even in America.
Speaker 2: All right, guys, remember value for value.
Speaker 1: We are still about one hundred and fifty dollars short
Speaker 1: of our second hour goal. So please consider instead of
Speaker 1: supporting the one book show with a sticker or a
Speaker 1: question or super check question, particularly if you can afford
Speaker 1: and think it worthy to do something over twenty dollars
Speaker 1: that will help us get there much much faster. James
Speaker 1: unimaginable to think the next mayor of the Center of
Speaker 1: Finance and Skyscrapers is an unapologetic socialist and defender of
Speaker 1: ramas rest in peace. New York Universities did a phenomenal job.
Speaker 1: Yeah they did.
Speaker 2: That's where the battle is.
Speaker 1: It's in the universities. And it's not in touching the stove.
Speaker 1: It's changing what is being taught. It's changing them all
Speaker 1: framework from which people see the world. Harpacambo. Trump is
Speaker 1: not the president. Stephen Millie is, and he is the
Speaker 1: most hateful anti American functionary in the history of this country.
Speaker 1: Well again, I don't think he's the president, but he
Speaker 1: certainly has a lot of influence, and I agree with
Speaker 1: you about how hateful he actually is. And I don't
Speaker 1: know if he's the worst in all of American history.
Speaker 1: The more I read about American history, the more you
Speaker 1: discover pretty bad, hateful people in its history. But he
Speaker 1: is certainly in modern times, one of the world worst,
Speaker 1: one of the worst.
Speaker 2: Just horrible, horrible human being. Start cakyng.
Speaker 1: Last time Trump was president, all the big liberal cities
Speaker 1: selected far left mans. Is this their way of spinning
Speaker 1: of spinning Trump, Trump brings out the worst in the
Speaker 1: left and the right. Yeah, I mean I think that's
Speaker 1: part of it. But again, these are kind of the tactical,
Speaker 1: momentary things, but the strategic overwhelming. You have to think
Speaker 1: of the reason why this is happening, and that is philosophical.
Speaker 1: That is Harvard and Columbia and all the universities teaching
Speaker 1: these kids how horrible capitalism is, how horrible the West is,
Speaker 1: how hobble the Enlightenment was, and by default, how wonderful
Speaker 1: socialism is. Spighting spighting Trump, not spinning Trump, spiting Trump.
Speaker 1: I see, Yeah, I mean there's something to that, but
Speaker 1: again I think it's much more fundamental, and theyre for
Speaker 1: are much harder to deal with.
Speaker 2: Trump goes away.
Speaker 1: It's not like socialism in New York City goes away.
Speaker 1: Clark Young will hard left may as have the balls
Speaker 1: to stand up to Ice and stop these Gestapo roundups
Speaker 1: and deportations, you know, to.
Speaker 2: The extent that they can.
Speaker 1: They might try, but it hasn't worked out that well.
Speaker 1: In LA I haven't seen anybody stand up, so no,
Speaker 1: so you know, I haven't.
Speaker 2: Seen it done.
Speaker 1: Isis is really obnoxious and really committed and really horrific.
Speaker 1: And I haven't seen them slow down anyway really, except
Speaker 1: maybe with certain businesses who complain to Trump directly. Only
Speaker 1: Trump can slope ice down. We'll talk about ice more
Speaker 1: in the future show. I mean, it continues to be really,
Speaker 1: really horrific. What is happening with them?
Speaker 2: As a tic dichotomy?
Speaker 1: Kids are taught sharing is caring, which praises redistribution rather
Speaker 1: than rational exchange being productive far more far is far
Speaker 1: more caring and valuable.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Absolutely, I've been complaining about the sharing uh with kids forever.
Speaker 1: It's inculcating a form of socialism when they're very young,
Speaker 1: and in a kind of a friendly, so supposedly benevolent way,
Speaker 1: and it's it's very unhealthy.
Speaker 2: Michael.
Speaker 1: How could a psychiatrist even treat Trump? He is the
Speaker 1: ultimate secondhanded? Does therapy not work when someone has no soul? Yeah?
Speaker 1: Most it's a lot of time therapy doesn't work. I mean,
Speaker 1: how many people does therapy actually work on? Therapy requires honesty,
Speaker 1: It requires introspection, It requires wanting to improve, It requires
Speaker 1: believing one needs to improve, and it requires a real,
Speaker 1: you know, an inquisitive mind. And otherwise it's a waste
Speaker 1: of money, and for most people it is a waste
Speaker 1: of money because.
Speaker 2: They're not doing that.
Speaker 1: Someone has a soul, or at least their willingness to
Speaker 1: reshape his soul, a real.
Speaker 2: Commitment to doing that.
Speaker 1: That's hot. JGGGB is a late, ultimate, untimely comment, but
Speaker 1: interested to note that Thomas Jeffson, who wrote the Declaration
Speaker 1: of Independence, circumvented Congress and sent the navy out to
Speaker 1: fight the Barbary pirates at Tripoli and ultimately defeated them.
Speaker 1: I didn't know he still invented Congress. I left to
Speaker 1: look that up. I thought he got congressional approval for that.
Speaker 1: But that was good that it was done. Hopefully it
Speaker 1: was done constitutionally, John, Why do you call people on
Speaker 1: the right racist, stupid, liars, et cetera all the time?
Speaker 1: If you ont a leftist, you sound like one. Can
Speaker 1: you improve your vocabulary?
Speaker 2: No? Not really.
Speaker 1: I mean I have a very vocabulary. That is a fact.
Speaker 1: If you listen to the show long enough you'll discover that.
Speaker 1: I noticed, John, you don't get upset when I call
Speaker 1: the left crazy, suicidal, horrible, you know, evil bad. I
Speaker 1: have a limited vocabulary, and I attack the left as well.
Speaker 1: And isn't it interesting that I attack the left. I
Speaker 1: attacked the socialist big part of the show, and I
Speaker 1: attack the rights. And yet people like John who obviously
Speaker 1: can't actually grasp somebody being against both groups. Then it
Speaker 1: says I sound like a leftist. But a leftist doesn't
Speaker 1: attack socialism. A leftist doesn't attack the crazy, insane, woke.
Speaker 1: But the reason I call the right and I don't
Speaker 1: call all the right, I call the crazy right the
Speaker 1: far right, just like I call the crazy left the
Speaker 1: far left. I call the crazy right, the new right,
Speaker 1: the out right racist stupid liars, is because they are racist,
Speaker 1: stupid liars. Tucker Couson is a racist, stupid liar. Kennis
Speaker 1: Owen is a racist, stupid liar. Matt Walsh, who blamed
Speaker 1: the victory of socialism in New York City on immigrants,
Speaker 1: is a racist, stupid liar. I mean, that's just what
Speaker 1: they are now. Maybe they're not technically liars because they've
Speaker 1: convinced themselves of the lie. They're just delusional or evasive,
Speaker 1: but that's what they are now. I'm one of the
Speaker 1: things that I think appeals to people in my talks
Speaker 1: and on the.
Speaker 2: Show is that I'm plain spoken.
Speaker 1: I do not use complicated words to show off my extensive.
Speaker 2: Vocabulary, which I don't have, and to you know, soft pedal.
Speaker 1: My actually believes my actually my actual beliefs. If somebody
Speaker 1: is a racist stupid life, I call them a racist,
Speaker 1: stupid liar. I don't call them. I can't even think
Speaker 1: of a more sophisticated way to do it. Where it
Speaker 1: is where it is. Uh uh, you know more, you
Speaker 1: know where you can. You can hedge yourself. I don't hedge.
Speaker 1: I call the good the good, and evil evil, and
Speaker 1: I call the left evil, and I call the right evil.
Speaker 1: And you can't handle it, John, You've been listening to
Speaker 1: the show for months years, I don't know, and you
Speaker 1: can't handle it. God forbid you attack the right cherished right.
Speaker 1: But I call things the way they are. I call
Speaker 1: the spade a spade. It's I think one of the
Speaker 1: reasons people listen to my show if they wanted, if
Speaker 1: they wanted to listen to a vocabulary, they would listen
Speaker 1: to reruns of William F. Buckley's shows, where that pompous
Speaker 1: ass would would use the most sophisticated goods, forcing people
Speaker 1: to run to the dictionary to know what the hell
Speaker 1: he was talking about. I'm the opposite of that. And yeah, anyway, Paul,
Speaker 1: let's not forget they destroyed the Ring of Fire Seventh
Speaker 1: Front War, the Israeli and Israel will never let that
Speaker 1: be re established. Let's hope you're right. But yes, they've
Speaker 1: destroyed them all, you know, and Syria's fallen, and we
Speaker 1: can hope that ultimately Syria becomes a more moderate country
Speaker 1: ruled by more moderate forces, and that ultimately, imagine if
Speaker 1: Israel has peace with Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabian, Egypt,
Speaker 1: I mean amazing, And again this is true, true, unequivocal
Speaker 1: peace through strength. None of these countries, None of the
Speaker 1: peoples in these countries like Israel, none of them like
Speaker 1: Jews in particular, but they respect strength. They don't mess
Speaker 1: with Israel after what Israel just did any one, and.
Speaker 2: That could lead to peace.
Speaker 1: Jason just wrote, here's here's ten dollars for the great
Speaker 1: answer to schmucky question. Yeah, John does a lot of
Speaker 1: schmucky questions. There are a couple of people here who ask,
Speaker 1: I mean, at least they put their dollars with the
Speaker 1: you know, they at least contribute right then, our free
Speaker 1: writers in that sense, and but a few people whose
Speaker 1: questions always changeous hostility, and John Davis is definitely one
Speaker 1: of those people. If World War two this, Michael, If
Speaker 1: World War two ended in a ceasefire, who thinks we
Speaker 1: would be better off? Well? Yeah, I mean it would
Speaker 1: have been a disaster. It was unconditional victor. It needed
Speaker 1: to be unconcriched victory. Luckily for US, Iran never gained
Speaker 1: the kind of military strength that the Nazis did, never
Speaker 1: posed the threat that Germany did. Uh, And and therefore
Speaker 1: I think we can we can live with this, even
Speaker 1: though it's far from ideal. Unconditional surrender is what needed
Speaker 1: to happen. Yeah, Will Brennan, I understand the morality of
Speaker 1: capitalism and individual rights, but am very uneducated in economics
Speaker 1: in general. Where do you recommend I start? Which of
Speaker 1: your books should I read? Love the Show? I would
Speaker 1: start if you're unfamiliar with economics, that we start with
Speaker 1: Economics in one lesson Economics in one lesson by Henry Hazlitt.
Speaker 1: I would also you could also get some Thomas Soule's
Speaker 1: Basic Economics. I disagree with stuff in there, but it's
Speaker 1: it's a good foundation. It's a good start. Ultimately, the
Speaker 1: best books and economics of on Mesa's uh Mesus' books
Speaker 1: Human action uh uh and uh he's got a book
Speaker 1: on socialism, and he's got a book on money and
Speaker 1: on the origins of money. But I would start with
Speaker 1: with economics in one lesson maybe Thomas soul There's a
Speaker 1: few other there's a few others out there that are
Speaker 1: that are that are pretty that are pretty good in
Speaker 1: terms of in terms of getting you started, uh in
Speaker 1: in economics. In terms of my books, there aren't that many,
Speaker 1: so you might as well read them all. Free market Revolution, uh,
Speaker 1: equal is unfair and uh the morality of finance.
Speaker 2: But certainly.
Speaker 1: You know, uh, free market revolution is the most economic
Speaker 1: of all of them. But there's a lot of economic
Speaker 1: history in in equal is Unfair as well.
Speaker 2: Hey, good luck on the path.
Speaker 1: I mean there's a lot of If you look under
Speaker 1: Austrian economics there there's a a bunch of good econ
Speaker 1: books there. You know, just don't don't pay attention to
Speaker 1: when they deviate from economics. It's true muses as well,
Speaker 1: when they go off on praxology or if they go
Speaker 1: off on the moral relativism or anarchy or any of these.
Speaker 1: Just stick to the actual economics of it. Jennifer, thank you,
Speaker 1: she says, here's for telling the plain truth. I appreciate that.
Speaker 1: I appreciate that.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Now it is true that maybe if I had a
Speaker 1: white of vocabulary and I whitewashed things, and I was
Speaker 1: a little bit more compromising and a little bit more
Speaker 1: subtle and a bit more I don't know, nice, then
Speaker 1: maybe I'd have a bigger following, you know, maybe it
Speaker 1: could be Ben Shapiro and I'd have millions of people
Speaker 1: and to be super rich. Maybe that's possible. But hey,
Speaker 1: if you believe that, if you're here because it's just
Speaker 1: you love the plane speaking, you love the the plane
Speaker 1: truth without any of that you know, wishy washy nonsense.
Speaker 1: And uh, if you support my limited vocabulary, then yeah,
Speaker 1: make a make a do a do a sticker like
Speaker 1: ninety nine cents, do a sticker just for the fun
Speaker 1: of it.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Jennifer.
Speaker 1: Jennifer, just the twenty dollars, you guys can do ninety
Speaker 1: nine cents or a couple of bucks or something. Uh,
Speaker 1: in the thing, if you if you, if you want,
Speaker 1: I want to convey that you if you do not
Speaker 1: want me to become the Ben a Ben Shapiro, you know,
Speaker 1: jump in with a with a sticker any amount that
Speaker 1: you want, but but just that would be that would
Speaker 1: be a good indication of support for a plane spoken
Speaker 1: immigrant to this beautiful, amazing country. All right, Blaze guitar lessons.
Speaker 1: Thought of Mike Lee's public land sale sell off. I
Speaker 1: talked about that like the day before yesterday and yesterday
Speaker 1: I talked about it twice. There is islam A Lee
Speaker 1: is all in on plane spoken limited vocabulary.
Speaker 2: Thank you, slam Ali.
Speaker 1: I spoke about that. I mean, I'm the only problem
Speaker 1: I have with Mike Lee's proposal is it's too moderate.
Speaker 1: He proposes selling up point five too point seven percent
Speaker 1: of federal government owned land. I would like it to
Speaker 1: be a lot closer to one hundred percent. So I
Speaker 1: would like to be a lot bigger. But look at
Speaker 1: the look at the what do we call the people
Speaker 1: on the right here? It is racist stupid lives. I mean,
Speaker 1: notice how the right, many of whom are racist stupid lives,
Speaker 1: How they jumped on his proposal. This is the right
Speaker 1: who are supposed to be pro property rights, pro markets,
Speaker 1: pro kind of getting rid of government control.
Speaker 2: They just jumped all over.
Speaker 1: Him and you know, basically forced him to withdraw his proposal,
Speaker 1: and he's going to make a much much more limited,
Speaker 1: narrow proposal. In addition, the Senate rules whatever decided parliamentarian
Speaker 1: said that it couldn't be part of the reconciliation bill,
Speaker 1: so it's basically off the table. But just imagine if Republicans,
Speaker 1: if people on the right actually believed in markets, were
Speaker 1: just kind of a little bit of a semblance of capitalism.
Speaker 1: This should have been one of the most important and
Speaker 1: it is. The idea of selling federal land is one
Speaker 1: of the best ideas possible. And you know, imagine if
Speaker 1: you sold the big chunks of federal land and use
Speaker 1: that money to pay off the debt to reduce the deficit.
Speaker 1: I mean, you could raise a lot of money for
Speaker 1: selling off the land, so particularly part of the land.
Speaker 1: So it's crazy. See the people he got attacked, and
Speaker 1: he got attacked from the right, the left. You expect
Speaker 1: the environmentalists when nuts, you expect that, But from the
Speaker 1: right he got attacked. Right all right again, Jeremy Morton,
Speaker 1: thank you for supporting my plain speaking esoteric ecotomy. Thank you,
Speaker 1: Mary Ellen, Thank you, Eddie p thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Guys.
Speaker 1: Just do a little sticker, just just just to show
Speaker 1: show you know. Uh, maybe not a lot of you
Speaker 1: want me to be plain spoken. I don't know. Maybe
Speaker 1: maybe a lot of you agree with with John.
Speaker 2: Probably not.
Speaker 1: All right, Richard, do not become Ben Shapiro. There's plenty
Speaker 1: a veiled religious sources. And you'll strain your voice. Does
Speaker 1: he yell more than I do?
Speaker 2: Does he? I?
Speaker 1: I do pretty raise my voice? So all right, I
Speaker 1: will don't worry. I will never become Ben Shapiro. You know,
Speaker 1: the day you see me with with Yamica is a
Speaker 1: day where you know, yeah, it ain't happening, So don't worry.
Speaker 1: Uh and uh, yeah it ain't happening.
Speaker 2: I am what I am.
Speaker 1: I'm not changing, uh, Ollie. Why are men often pull
Speaker 1: at small talk compared to women?
Speaker 2: Oh God?
Speaker 1: Any woman want to chime in here? I think because
Speaker 1: you know men you know generally okay, So small talk
Speaker 1: generally is is an expression of I don't know, most
Speaker 1: of connection. It's a willingness to communicate and and create
Speaker 1: some more poor with another person in order to create
Speaker 1: an emotional connection or to build on an emotional connection.
Speaker 1: I think men because of educational system, I just I.
Speaker 2: Just very bad at that.
Speaker 1: We we viewed as a sign of weakness, especially emotions,
Speaker 1: you know, being more vulnerable talking about things that are
Speaker 1: not important.
Speaker 2: Uh, you know, we we managed just not taught educated.
Speaker 1: And I don't know if there's anything biological, but uh
Speaker 1: to be that way, right. So they they they're much
Speaker 1: more repressed emotionally, and that means that they don't you know.
Speaker 1: Small talk is I think more open and more revealing
Speaker 1: than the important stuff. I don't think it's redundant that
Speaker 1: there things the way you get to know somebody, and
Speaker 1: it's uh, it's it's just a way to to start
Speaker 1: a conversation and to and to to get insight into
Speaker 1: not into their philosophy, but maybe into this sense of life.
Speaker 2: Uh and.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so I think that's you know, I think it
Speaker 1: has to do with emotional oppression for men. I'm not
Speaker 1: against small talk in a sense of just as a
Speaker 1: means to get into a conversation with people you don't
Speaker 1: know that well, Paul, what does peakup think about what
Speaker 1: happened to you on if you don't know, can you
Speaker 1: find out and tell us. No, I don't know, and
Speaker 1: I and I I am not. I haven't talked to
Speaker 1: Peacuf in a long time and probably not going to
Speaker 1: be speaking to him any time soon. I can guess
Speaker 1: that he was, you know, happy with what Israel did,
Speaker 1: happy with what Trump did when he bummed the NUCLEIP thing,
Speaker 1: and super upset and disappoint it when a ceasefire was called.
Speaker 1: I mean, that is the peak off. I know, right,
Speaker 1: that would be his position. But I'm not speaking for
Speaker 1: him because I don't know that that was his position.
Speaker 2: But and of course yeah, I mean the fact that
Speaker 2: it was stopped must be very.
Speaker 1: Disappointed to him. Disappointing to him. He would have wanted
Speaker 1: regime change unequivocally. Um Mary Aline, every tree is sacred.
Speaker 1: That is so mystical and idiotic. Now, don't say mystical
Speaker 1: in idiotic when you're criticizing.
Speaker 2: Is it the left?
Speaker 1: I guess it's a left with the tree a sacred
Speaker 1: because that's that's a very limited vocabulary. You have to
Speaker 1: find more sophisticated ways to criticize people, you know, not
Speaker 1: everybody idiotic.
Speaker 2: We overuse that word and mystical.
Speaker 1: I mean, god, how many times did I say mystical
Speaker 1: today in criticizing you on It's just not fair for
Speaker 1: me to constantly use the word mystical in describing the Iranians.
Speaker 1: I need to find a more sophisticated word to something
Speaker 1: from an expanded vocabulary set to actually describe the Ranian regime.
Speaker 2: Druids. Jason suggests, thank you, Mary Ellen.
Speaker 1: Absolutely all right, guys, I think I think that is it.
Speaker 1: That was the last question. We hit out two our
Speaker 1: mark just as we got the last question. So thank you.
Speaker 1: Let's see tomorrow is Thursday. Yeah, tomorrow, we're gonna have
Speaker 1: the show. At the same time, I used theocratic, I've
Speaker 1: said theocratic, mystical, theocratics. Yeah, yeah, Theocratic is within my wheelhouse,
Speaker 1: It's within my vocabulary. But nobody cares about what woods
Speaker 1: I use to go after Islam. And they don't care
Speaker 1: about what woods I used to go after the left.
Speaker 1: They only care about what we words I used to
Speaker 1: go after the right. That is what you're not supposed
Speaker 1: to criticize. That is no, you're not supposed to insult,
Speaker 1: even though they deserve it. I mean, the problem with
Speaker 1: the left is one of the problems with the left
Speaker 1: is are many, many, many, many, many many problems with
Speaker 1: the lift, but one of the problems with the left
Speaker 1: is too many of them are not willing to call
Speaker 1: some people on the right racist, idiot liars. I mean,
Speaker 1: if they were, I think we'd have we'd have a
Speaker 1: little bit more sanity. The problem is that the right
Speaker 1: gets these people on the right get away with way
Speaker 1: too much of what they say and what they do
Speaker 1: without being called out for how evil it really is.
Speaker 1: That's my job in life, call them out on it.
Speaker 1: All right, guys, tomorrow three pm East Coast time, we
Speaker 1: will continue. I'm sure there'll be more news by then.
Speaker 1: I don't know what we'll learned from now until then,
Speaker 1: but I'm sure be something for us to talk about.
Speaker 1: Maybe I'll look for some more positive news. Lots of
Speaker 1: stuff about me Lay is very positive, although I don't
Speaker 1: have a lot of words to describe me Lay other
Speaker 1: than the few positive words that I have, So I'll
Speaker 1: look up some other synonyms for positive expressions towards me Lay.
Speaker 2: Paul is going to send.
Speaker 1: Me at the Savice Just send me a link, right,
Speaker 1: all right? Yeah?
Speaker 2: I mean the left is the left are racist.
Speaker 1: First of all, the left needs to call themselves racist,
Speaker 1: so they're definitely, the problem is they're not calling enough
Speaker 1: people racist, because they need to be able to call
Speaker 1: themselves racist, particularly the people to they left, the wacky
Speaker 1: left there clearly racist, and then they need to be
Speaker 1: able they need to call out some of these people
Speaker 1: on the right is racist when they are. Maybe they
Speaker 1: call them out racist, but they don't use the idiot
Speaker 1: liar part enough. I'm not sure. I don't know. Don't
Speaker 1: hold me to that statement. Maybe it's in maybe it's inaccurate.
Speaker 1: Maybe maybe the left does enough on the race card,
Speaker 1: at least I'm not sure it does enough on the
Speaker 1: idiotic card, but maybe they do. Maybe they do all right,
Speaker 1: and confirms that the left is doing it, so not
Speaker 1: to worry. So okay, I'm less worried now. All right, guys,
Speaker 1: I will see you see soon tomorrow three pm East
Speaker 1: Coast time. I have a great rest of your Wednesday
Speaker 1: and a great rest of your week. Bye, everybody.