Speaker 1: A lot of the funds of last and any individual lots.
Speaker 1: This is the show. Oh right, everybody, welcome to your
Speaker 1: One Book Show on this Sunday, November ninth. I hope
Speaker 1: everybody is having a good weekend, and are you ready
Speaker 1: for another episode of you One Book Show? All right, Okay,
Speaker 1: We're gonna talk about anti Semitism today. That's the topic
Speaker 1: of the show. I figured we talked about a lot yesterday,
Speaker 1: and it's come up a number of different shows in
Speaker 1: the past few weeks. We might as well just wrap
Speaker 1: it all up with one show dedicated to this topic.
Speaker 1: I'll answer any questions about it, any issues, any anything
Speaker 1: else you have. We we can cover it all in
Speaker 1: one go. I'll cover some of the comments I got
Speaker 1: on Twitter for the various things I posted. We'll do
Speaker 1: the history, kind of try to define it. We'll talk
Speaker 1: about Zionism, anti Zionism. I mean, there's a lot to cover,
Speaker 1: a lot to cover in this one and but we'll
Speaker 1: try to kind of have this a definitive show from
Speaker 1: my perspective, at least with regard to with regard to Semitism,
Speaker 1: so that late I can refer people, Oh you want
Speaker 1: to hear my views on at Semmetism. Go watch that show.
Speaker 1: Although I fear, I fear that this is a topic
Speaker 1: that I'm gonna have to deal with over and over
Speaker 1: and over and over and again in the years, uh
Speaker 1: and and maybe decades to come. But it's certainly in
Speaker 1: the years to come. Decades. It's a long time anyway,
Speaker 1: the years to come. So this is a this is
Speaker 1: at least a one one, you know, an kind putting
Speaker 1: down with regards to this topic. But it is it
Speaker 1: is going to be sad that we're going to be
Speaker 1: talking about this for a long time. Uh. Let's see.
Speaker 1: Michaels already started us off with some super chats. He
Speaker 1: did promise that today I would achieve my goal easily
Speaker 1: because he has so many questions. So Michael's getting us started,
Speaker 1: and I expect him to fill up the screen with
Speaker 1: lots of questions. But you too can ask questions about anything.
Speaker 1: It would be great if we got a bunch of
Speaker 1: questions related to this. But as you know, I take
Speaker 1: questions on everything and anything. They get answered in the
Speaker 1: first based on how much money you put up. That
Speaker 1: is the above twenty dollars. Questions get ranked based on
Speaker 1: the amount of money and then answered, and all the
Speaker 1: under twenty dollars basically get answered in the order in
Speaker 1: which they are asked, So don't worry. I answer all
Speaker 1: the questions. I respond to everything. I read out all
Speaker 1: the comments. If you want to insult me, one way
Speaker 1: to get me to read out your insult is to
Speaker 1: put it into super Chat. Also, I wanted to just
Speaker 1: remind you show tomorrow, probably in the evening, and then
Speaker 1: Tuesday from California, and then no show Wednday, Thursday, and
Speaker 1: hopefully a show Friday from Colorado. Uh, and then no
Speaker 1: show Saturday Sunday a week from today, a show back
Speaker 1: from home. All right, you know, Uh, I just got
Speaker 1: to comment on Twitter that's just too funny to ignore.
Speaker 1: So let me just say. I said something about that,
Speaker 1: you know, a video of talking talking about the demons
Speaker 1: scratching him and stuff, and I said, this guy's nuts
Speaker 1: and crazy. And this is the response I got. Demons
Speaker 1: are and were accepted by just about every culture throughout history,
Speaker 1: and decent people tend to avoid the personal attacks, whereas
Speaker 1: warmongers and israel worshippers seem to thrive on them. All right,
Speaker 1: you know, demons are not accepted by any culture of reason.
Speaker 1: A culture of reason rejects demons and thinks that people
Speaker 1: who believe in demons are little nuts, and particularly if
Speaker 1: they live in the twenty first century, which is a
Speaker 1: century built on a foundation of an age of reason
Speaker 1: called the Enlightenment, where demons were not taken seriously, and
Speaker 1: the idea that in the twenty first century in America,
Speaker 1: in spite of all the secularization, in spite of all
Speaker 1: the reason, in spite of all the science, in spite
Speaker 1: of everything else, anybody who claims to be attacked by
Speaker 1: demons and didn't document, they didn't take pictures of the scratches,
Speaker 1: and admit to having four dogs in the bed with
Speaker 1: them at the time has to be called a kook.
Speaker 1: And that's exactly what they are. And anybody who defends
Speaker 1: demons and the existence of demons and the the presence
Speaker 1: of demons in our lives and the ability of demons
Speaker 1: to attack you during your sleep even though you got
Speaker 1: four dogs protecting you, is another kook. And personal attacks.
Speaker 1: This is not a personal attack. It's a personal evaluation.
Speaker 1: It is a moral I don't know, a state of
Speaker 1: mind evaluation of me, you know, in my view, Tucker Calson,
Speaker 1: for a variety of reasons, is a coke, is a nutcase.
Speaker 1: He's lost contact with reality, He's lost contact with any
Speaker 1: kind of truth. He is in the category of nutty.
Speaker 1: Above and beyond his immorality and his immorality and his
Speaker 1: advocacy for many evil ideas. The guy's just nuts. He's
Speaker 1: just crazy. And you want to take the craziness seriously,
Speaker 1: go for it, embrace it, you know, go all out.
Speaker 1: But I I do attack people personally when they are
Speaker 1: or not attack. I evaluate people personally, and if they
Speaker 1: behave like kooks, I call them kooks. If they advocate
Speaker 1: for evil more evil ideas, I call them evil, particularly
Speaker 1: if they're adults, and there's reason to believe that those
Speaker 1: they should know better than the evil ideas that they hold.
Speaker 1: I believe in moral evaluation and generally evaluating people, and
Speaker 1: I will make those evaluations public to the extent that
Speaker 1: they are public figures. If they're a private figure, there's
Speaker 1: a kook who's my neighbor, I'm not going to make
Speaker 1: it public. But they're out there telling stories about demons
Speaker 1: scratching themselves, then they're begging to be called a nut.
Speaker 1: And with all due respect, to all of you who
Speaker 1: love Tucker Causon and view him as a demigogue. Tucker
Speaker 1: Causon is nuts. All right, Let's talk about another nutty
Speaker 1: set of ideas, and that set of ideas is an
Speaker 1: anti semitism. Anti Semitism is, of course a pretty agent
Speaker 1: of ideas. It's uh uh, it is not new. We'll
Speaker 1: talk about the history of it. We'll go back to
Speaker 1: where it started. This, of course, will not be a comprehensive,
Speaker 1: thorough uh you know, thorough analysis of of antisemitism. That
Speaker 1: would take a massive book. And I do intend to
Speaker 1: do some work on this. I presented as a lecture
Speaker 1: and things like that, but for now, this is this
Speaker 1: is going to be my take on the phenomena. So
Speaker 1: first let's let's talk about what it is. Uh, what
Speaker 1: is anti Semitism? I mean, here's a definition. Antisemenis is hatred, uh, discrimination, prejudice,
Speaker 1: hostility of violence against Jews as Jews. It includes, it
Speaker 1: includes the belief in a whole variety of conspiracy theories
Speaker 1: that view Jews somehow, you know, having extraordinary power over
Speaker 1: people's lives and over over over the world in which
Speaker 1: we live. Now, part of the question is and and
Speaker 1: I think an important part is who Jews, what our Jews?
Speaker 1: What is your what is this refer to? What is
Speaker 1: jew refer to? And I think it refers to a
Speaker 1: few things, and it doesn't refer to these as a
Speaker 1: separate but all is one, Bob. If you have questions,
Speaker 1: the super chat is available, happy to answer all of
Speaker 1: your questions. Do you refers to the religion, It refers
Speaker 1: to a culture, It refers to a particular ethnic group,
Speaker 1: and it refers to a perception of the existence of
Speaker 1: a nation and a Jewish a nation. Jew refers to
Speaker 1: all of those in and members who belong to any
Speaker 1: one of those people who practice the religion, people who
Speaker 1: have a and it reforms to you know, genes, to
Speaker 1: a genetic heritage, whether you know people. People refer to
Speaker 1: other people as Jewish even when Jews don't refer to
Speaker 1: them as Jewish. For example, according to Judaism, you can
Speaker 1: only be a Jew unless you conferred. But it can
Speaker 1: only be a Jew if your mother was Jewish. If
Speaker 1: your father's Jewish and your mother's not Jewish, you're not Jewish.
Speaker 1: And yet again, I think people refer to the Jews
Speaker 1: if anybody related to them was Jewish at some point.
Speaker 1: And here's the important part about jew in the context
Speaker 1: of anti Semitism. I mean a lot of people refer
Speaker 1: to themselves as Jewish because they are religious, or because
Speaker 1: they view themselves as part of a nation that they
Speaker 1: define and is Jewish, which is pretty amorphous, or because
Speaker 1: they are collectivists and view themselves as somehow belonging to
Speaker 1: other people through some kind of genetic genic relationship. I
Speaker 1: don't consider myself a Jew in day to day life.
Speaker 1: You know, it has no relevance to me. I'm not religious.
Speaker 1: I'm not religious. I'm an atheist it culturally, you know.
Speaker 1: I'm sure the Jewish culture had an impact on me
Speaker 1: and my life, but you know, I've chosen a different culture.
Speaker 1: Most of my friends today are not Jewish. The culture
Speaker 1: in which I live is not a Jewish culture. Genetically,
Speaker 1: I'm certainly a Jew, but I don't know what that means.
Speaker 1: That means nothing. You're not. Who you are is not
Speaker 1: your genes. Who you are what you make of yourself.
Speaker 1: It's the choices you make in your life. So in
Speaker 1: that sense, I don't consider myself Jewish. I don't celebrate
Speaker 1: any of the Jewish holidays, so that's religion. Now culture
Speaker 1: is out. I just don't think of myself as belonging
Speaker 1: to to I don't believe in race. I don't believe
Speaker 1: in the concept of race, and even even the concept
Speaker 1: of you know, ethnicity is kind of an antichotist What
Speaker 1: does it actually mean, particularly if you detach it from
Speaker 1: particularly if you detach it from the issue of race.
Speaker 1: So you know, to me, I am not a Jew,
Speaker 1: except that the anti Semites, those who hate Jews, clearly
Speaker 1: define me as such. That as I know that when
Speaker 1: they start rolling up the Jews, however they want to
Speaker 1: define it, I will be one of the people being
Speaker 1: rounded up. When people express anti Semitic views, they are
Speaker 1: pointing their finger at me. My own views about at
Speaker 1: about Judaism or being Jewish are irrelevant to the very
Speaker 1: fact that the anti Semite has his own definition of
Speaker 1: who a Jew is. I mean, Hitler, what was it
Speaker 1: two generations? If you had anybody, any of your grandparents
Speaker 1: was Jewish, you are jew. It didn't matter whether you
Speaker 1: considered yourself one or not. And one of the things
Speaker 1: that led Hrzel, the founder of a designist movement, to
Speaker 1: found designist movement is the realization that the haters, the
Speaker 1: haters of the Jew, the anti Semites would never let
Speaker 1: Jews assimilate. He was a completely assimilated Jew, didn't consider
Speaker 1: himself a Jew until he faced the Dreyfus trial and
Speaker 1: realized that as assimilated as you get, the anti Semites
Speaker 1: will always, always, always view you as a Jew. Bob
Speaker 1: doesn't like Jews, but he also says, we don't like
Speaker 1: libertarians either. Well that's good because I'm not a libertarian.
Speaker 1: So there we go. I'm not Jewish and I'm not libertarians.
Speaker 1: You love me, now, Bob? Do you like me?
Speaker 2: Now?
Speaker 1: The haters have come. At least, you know, Bob represents them.
Speaker 1: I don't know how many else they are available, all right,
Speaker 1: So so, anti Semitism is a hatred, discrimination, prejudice, stility,
Speaker 1: violence against Jews. It is the the advocacy and the
Speaker 1: embrace of conspiracy theories related to to the Jews, and
Speaker 1: we'll talk about those. It is it is characterized by, uh,
Speaker 1: you know, by by stories of primarily of Jews doing
Speaker 1: horvable things that then justify the hatred, prejudiced and violence
Speaker 1: against them. Right, if if Jews are really you know, killers,
Speaker 1: if Jews really do I don't know, drink the blood
Speaker 1: of whatever, then violence against them is justified. Right. So, uh,
Speaker 1: Anti Semitism not only has this hatred and violence and prejudice,
Speaker 1: but it also builds up the stories. It builds up
Speaker 1: the theories, it builds up the justification for that violence.
Speaker 1: And I think you can only understand the stories about Israel,
Speaker 1: the lying about Israel, the the constant lies about Israel
Speaker 1: in the context of they need to constantly rationalize the hatred.
Speaker 1: They need to constantly justify the hatred, they prejudice. And
Speaker 1: ultimately what they want is that the violence against the
Speaker 1: Jew and and they will they will, they won't make
Speaker 1: up stories. Uh. You know, blood libels go back to
Speaker 1: the very early you know, Christianity and and really to
Speaker 1: the beginning of Christianity. We'll get to the original blood
Speaker 1: libel in a minute. But blood libel, the idea that
Speaker 1: Jews kill this, do that you know, they're responsible for
Speaker 1: blood that that kind of blood libel is always used
Speaker 1: as justification. Let's go slaughter the Jews, Let's go kill
Speaker 1: the Jews, let's discriminate against the Jews. Let's so you
Speaker 1: need a story. You know, they control the world, they
Speaker 1: make money off of exploiting Christians, they make money off
Speaker 1: of off of useless interest or whatever. You know, all
Speaker 1: of this is uh is the case Cook says, blood
Speaker 1: libel is starting in England. No, it didn't actually starts
Speaker 1: way before that. If if we understand what blood libel
Speaker 1: really is, we'll see that it starts really way before that.
Speaker 1: So you know, this is the this is the essence
Speaker 1: of of of of antisemitism. It's the the the the
Speaker 1: hatred that is then justified by conspiracy theories and and
Speaker 1: and look, the the original conspiracy theory and the original
Speaker 1: blood libel, the original conspiracy and the original blood libel,
Speaker 1: and the justification uh for much of the hatred of
Speaker 1: Jews and discrimination against them and the violence against them
Speaker 1: by Christians in the uh you know period of the
Speaker 1: early Church all the way through the Middle Ages and
Speaker 1: through the Crusades, is the conspiracy and the blood libel
Speaker 1: that the Jews, the Jews, not age you, not a
Speaker 1: group of Jews, but the Jews were responsible for the
Speaker 1: death of Christ. That is the idea that Jesus was
Speaker 1: killed by the Jew. That is that the theologically you
Speaker 1: blame Jesus's death on the Jew becomes really the first
Speaker 1: blood libel and becomes the first great conspiracy theory that
Speaker 1: justifies hatred. I mean, if if Jesus was the Messiah
Speaker 1: and Jesus was the superhero in Jordan Peterson's terms, and
Speaker 1: Jesus was God's son, whatever the hell that means, and
Speaker 1: God himself, whatever the hell that means, and the Jews
Speaker 1: killed him, well that's bad. And remember that he was crustified,
Speaker 1: so it wasn't just any death. It was a particularly brutal, horrible, painful,
Speaker 1: excruciating death. And the Jews are responsible. So this is
Speaker 1: really where it starts. Now. You could argue that there's
Speaker 1: certain passages in the New Testament that already are suggestive
Speaker 1: of kind of a very negative attitude towards Jews, and
Speaker 1: certainly it's the way it's been interpreated. It's certainly the way.
Speaker 1: It's certainly the way it's been interpreated. And whether I'm
Speaker 1: sure there are other interpretations that are not anti Semitic,
Speaker 1: but certainly certain elements than the Church have used these interpretations.
Speaker 1: For example, in John eight forty four, you are your
Speaker 1: father the devil, which has been interportal to me and
Speaker 1: Jews were collectively guilty for rejecting and killing Christ, and
Speaker 1: they are basically the devil, and they were created by
Speaker 1: the devil, and they are the devil. But really, and
Speaker 1: I you know, anti Semitism really takes off with certain
Speaker 1: figures in the early Church, and then we'll see it
Speaker 1: gets institutionalized in the Middle Ages and just thrives in there.
Speaker 1: So we're going to just go, I'm going to read
Speaker 1: you some passages just to give your sets of the
Speaker 1: extent of which Christians, early Christians at least some leading
Speaker 1: figures among early Christians. I do not want to say
Speaker 1: that all early Christians believe this, but certain figures among
Speaker 1: early Christianity were you know, you know, viewed, viewed, uh,
Speaker 1: viewed Jesus, sorry, viewed the Jews as really horrific, really evil,
Speaker 1: really bad, and that the source of that was the
Speaker 1: fact that they were responsible for the death. And and
Speaker 1: again let me note it's I've noted this in other contexts.
Speaker 1: But what they do is they they they shift right,
Speaker 1: because we know who was responsible for you know, jesus death,
Speaker 1: and that was the Roman, the Roman Empire, Roman authorities.
Speaker 1: But it very quickly, certainly from you know, the rise
Speaker 1: of Constantine on, it becomes very politically not very good,
Speaker 1: very politically bad to blame the Roman Empire because Rome
Speaker 1: now becomes Christian are the good guys. The Romans are
Speaker 1: the ones spending Christianity all over Europe. She can't blame
Speaker 1: Rome for for this attack on h on on on Jesus.
Speaker 1: You've got to find somebody else. Uh. And he's right
Speaker 1: there and and he's like, you know, the Jews identified
Speaker 1: very early on as the killers of Christ. So it's
Speaker 1: easy to do. It's easy to do. Mh. I mean,
Speaker 1: I just before we do this, before we uh talk
Speaker 1: about some of the early Christian commentators, let me let
Speaker 1: me one more point I want to make, and that
Speaker 1: is that people have said people have in a comment
Speaker 1: section keep saying to me, no, no, Christians didn't invent
Speaker 1: anti Semitism. Anti Semitism existed before that. Lots of people
Speaker 1: hated the Jews. For example, the the Egyptians enslaved the Jews.
Speaker 1: That's the beginning of anti Semitism. But that's silly, right,
Speaker 1: I mean, the Egyptians enslaved the Jews, They enslaved lots
Speaker 1: of different people. They did enslave the Jews because they
Speaker 1: would Jews. They enslaved the Jews because they were foreigners
Speaker 1: who came to Egypt and didn't have a home, and
Speaker 1: it was easy to enslave them. It was more politics
Speaker 1: geopolitics of the time, right. Jews were people without really
Speaker 1: a home at that point, and the Egyptians just used
Speaker 1: opportunity to enslave them, and people w enslaved all over
Speaker 1: the Middle East at that point in time. Slavey was
Speaker 1: just part of life. It was even Jews had slaves
Speaker 1: later on in the Old Testament, so you know, and
Speaker 1: people fought wars, and people hated each other, but it
Speaker 1: wasn't there wasn't a theme here. We hate Jews, quad Jews,
Speaker 1: you know, we hate those people because we'd like to
Speaker 1: pillage and take their stuff and we'd like to conquer
Speaker 1: their land. That is not the same as antisemitism. Not
Speaker 1: the same as antisemitism. So that is so I do
Speaker 1: consider the beginning of anti Semitism really, the beginning of
Speaker 1: anti Semitism really the first Christians to articulate the case
Speaker 1: for hatred of Jews, and then Christianity dominates the West
Speaker 1: and it becomes the fountain head of all anti Semitism,
Speaker 1: secular and religious, including much of Muslim anti Semitism, you know,
Speaker 1: probably to large extent, originates, particularly the modern form of it,
Speaker 1: originates with Christianity. So you know, justin the matter one
Speaker 1: hundred and fifty five, see in the Common Era, in
Speaker 1: a dialogue says, the tribulations were justly imposed on you, Jews,
Speaker 1: for you have slain the just one, Jesus, and there's
Speaker 1: prophets before him, and now you reject those who hope
Speaker 1: in him. See here's the basic Christian claim. Jews killed
Speaker 1: Jesus again collective guilt. Even if now all those disciples
Speaker 1: would Jews, he was a Jew, many of his disciples
Speaker 1: would Jews. I mean everybody or most people in that
Speaker 1: part of the world at the time would Jewish. But
Speaker 1: it's collective guilt. It's all Jews killed Jesus. Even Jews
Speaker 1: that come generations after Jesus was killed, killed Jesus or
Speaker 1: share the blame in the killing of Jesus. But here's
Speaker 1: the more subtle reason why they hated Jews at the
Speaker 1: time of Jesus and then repeatedly over the decades, centuries,
Speaker 1: really millennia, a couple of millennia, Jews have had opportunity
Speaker 1: to see the light Jesus was among them. Christians surround them.
Speaker 1: They could convert to Christianity at any point in time.
Speaker 1: They can become Christians, and the Christians will embrace them
Speaker 1: if they become Christians, at least up to a point,
Speaker 1: you know, as the Inquisition in Spain showed, not completely,
Speaker 1: but they claimed that they would embrace them. And yet
Speaker 1: the Jews resist or resistead. They didn't embrace Christianity. You
Speaker 1: reject those who hope in Him. They don't become Christian
Speaker 1: And that's what really makes them evil. That's what really
Speaker 1: justifies discrimination and hatred and sometimes violence against them. It's
Speaker 1: the not willing to recognize Jesus as the Messiah, the
Speaker 1: responsible for his death, collective guilt over millennia, and they
Speaker 1: won't convert to Christianity or they won't become Christians. John Chu,
Speaker 1: I can't pronounce his name, hy Suwstom three eighty six.
Speaker 1: I mean he was he was particularly vicious. This guy
Speaker 1: was really hated Jews. Again, one of the fathers of
Speaker 1: the Church, one of the early great thinkers of the church.
Speaker 1: He did eight homilies delivered in an Antioch, among the
Speaker 1: most explicitly antisemitic. There was a lot of antisemitism there.
Speaker 1: But among the most explicit antisemitic Semitic works is this one,
Speaker 1: I mean, the whole thing is is probably, if not
Speaker 1: the most one of the most anti semitic works produced
Speaker 1: by a Christian. The synagogue is worse than a brothel.
Speaker 1: It is the dan of scoundrels and the repair of
Speaker 1: wild beasts, a place of meeting for the assassins of Christ.
Speaker 1: There it is again assassins of Christ right through the generations.
Speaker 1: Every generation is responsible for. Again, I hate the synagogue
Speaker 1: precisely because it has the law and the prophets. It
Speaker 1: is the dwelling of demons. Remember demons. Hmm, Maybe it
Speaker 1: was Jews that scratched, that scratched the taker cows. Maybe
Speaker 1: maybe it was them. Sir John was particularly bad, particularly bad.
Speaker 1: You can read, I mean, you can find lots of
Speaker 1: other stuff. Let me see you once again, I had
Speaker 1: head here. I mean ce this is Saint Ambos. Saint
Speaker 1: Ambos is considered one of the great thing is of
Speaker 1: really Christianity. I mean, he was the Bishop of Milan.
Speaker 1: He was the bishop to the Emperor who was in Rome,
Speaker 1: but the Empire often was ruled out of Milan, so
Speaker 1: he was the most influential, one of the most influential
Speaker 1: you know, Christians, theologians, leaders of his time. And you
Speaker 1: know he wrote extensively. Is again considered one of the
Speaker 1: fathers of the Church. And and here here is this
Speaker 1: quote about Jews. Right, this is this is sorry he
Speaker 1: was born in three forty this is three seventy nine,
Speaker 1: so this is all the first century. Remember this is
Speaker 1: this is after Christianity has now become the religion of
Speaker 1: the Roman Empire. Bob, I don't have a bronxy accident
Speaker 1: than the bunks never lived anywhere near the bunks quote.
Speaker 1: I mean, he's such a Bobby, is such an idiot?
Speaker 1: Quote the most worthless of all men. That's Jews. They
Speaker 1: are lecherous, greedy, raptures. They are perfidious murderers of Christ.
Speaker 1: They worship the devil, their religion as a sickness. The
Speaker 1: Jews of the odious assassins of Christ and for killing God.
Speaker 1: There is no expiation possible, no indulgence or pardon. Christians
Speaker 1: may never cease vengeance, and that you must live in
Speaker 1: servitude forever. God always hated the Jews. It is essential
Speaker 1: that all Christians hate them. Whoa I mean, it doesn't
Speaker 1: get much more explicit than that. Now he goes on
Speaker 1: and on. I mean, some Christians burned down a synagogue,
Speaker 1: and the Emperor comes in, and he says, no, us
Speaker 1: rebuild it for them. You must compensate them, rebuild it.
Speaker 1: I mean that the Roman empires often, you know, wanted
Speaker 1: religious pluralism, and and and and and didn't want to discriminate.
Speaker 1: And and Ambos goes to the Pope, to the Uh
Speaker 1: Emperor says, absolutely not, should not build their temple. Remember
Speaker 1: this the next time you see one of these scoundrels
Speaker 1: somewhere spouting Jewish hatred. Ambo said, God always hated the Jews.
Speaker 1: It is essential, not optional. It is essential that all
Speaker 1: Christians hate them all all, all the all uh what's
Speaker 1: his name? Fuentis and Tucker Casson, all these guys and
Speaker 1: and Candicon. All they're doing is doing what Ambo said
Speaker 1: all Christians should do. Hillary uh again for a century.
Speaker 1: Jews are perverse people, accused by God, accursed by God forever.
Speaker 1: Greg Graving, I see again one of the great thinkers
Speaker 1: of the early Christian Church. The Jews are brood of vipers,
Speaker 1: haters of goodness. The Jews are brute of vipers. Haters
Speaker 1: of goodness. That's from n see it. And again another
Speaker 1: one from Saint Jerome. Saint Jerome, of course, the saint.
Speaker 1: If you call it a synagogue, if you call it
Speaker 1: a synagogue of brothel a then of vice, the devil's refuge,
Speaker 1: Satan's fortress, a place to deprive the soul, an abyss
Speaker 1: of every conceivable disaster, or whatever you will. You are
Speaker 1: still saying less than it deserves. And you can see
Speaker 1: how for Intance and Tucker Carlson kind of mild in
Speaker 1: their anti Semitism as compared to these early Christians. And
Speaker 1: you can see how, you know, the Christian world later on,
Speaker 1: much later on, can easily come up with the protocols
Speaker 1: of the Elders of Zion. You can see how they
Speaker 1: can claim the Jews control everything, and I mean, this
Speaker 1: is yeah, it's pretty bad. This is pretty bad. Now.
Speaker 1: So this is the early Church. I will say Augustine,
Speaker 1: Augustine maybe the most influential of all the early Church fathers,
Speaker 1: is the most influential of all the Church fathers. And
Speaker 1: one of the two, you know, probably I think is
Speaker 1: in Christianity Augustine and Thomas Aquinas. Augustine again late fourth
Speaker 1: century early fifth century is generally less violent towards the Jews.
Speaker 1: He's not an advocate of violence, but his attitude, nonetheless,
Speaker 1: is this. The Jews, by their own scriptures, a testimony
Speaker 1: to our truth. They bade the mark of Kine, living
Speaker 1: as wanderers, so that they, by their dispense, dispersion, they
Speaker 1: may be witnesses to us. In other words, the reason
Speaker 1: Jews exist, and the whole point of having Jews out there,
Speaker 1: is that they witness the success, They witness the grandeur,
Speaker 1: they witness the greatness of Christianity. They are witnesses their
Speaker 1: whole purpose of being. And of course, from the perspective
Speaker 1: of the Christian Jewish suffering Jewish dispersion, the minority status
Speaker 1: of Jews is a reminder to all Christians that their misery,
Speaker 1: their poverty is a reminder of all Christians of the
Speaker 1: proof of Christianity. You can see now, in some sense
Speaker 1: why when Jews become rich, strong, able, when Jews establish
Speaker 1: their own state, that this is an affront to Augustinian theology.
Speaker 1: No longer are the Jews witnesses to Christianity's success. The
Speaker 1: Jews are successful, but that's a perversion and distortion to
Speaker 1: the Augustinians, I mean for the Gastinians. And this is
Speaker 1: at least for millennium, but I think it still has
Speaker 1: influenced to this day. Jews were to be preserved in misery.
Speaker 1: This partially explains the creation of the Jewish ghettos as
Speaker 1: proof of Christianity's truth. And if that is true, If
Speaker 1: that statement is true, then when Jews are not in misery,
Speaker 1: when Jews rich, successful, prosperous, and maybe even having their
Speaker 1: own state, what does that say about Christianity truths.
Speaker 3: So some of the elements that build up towards modern
Speaker 3: anti Semitism.
Speaker 1: The fourth latter in Council. This is now twelve fifteen.
Speaker 1: It's quite a bit later. In some provinces different a
Speaker 1: difference in dress distinguishes the Jews or Saracens from Christians.
Speaker 1: We decree that such Jews and Severacens are both sexes
Speaker 1: in every Christian province, and at all times shall be
Speaker 1: distinguished from other people by the character of the address.
Speaker 1: So this is the beginning of kind of a gold
Speaker 1: star that the Nazis embraced. Afterwards, we want to be
Speaker 1: able to tell whose Jewish and who's not by what
Speaker 1: they wear. Now twelve fifteen, of course, reminds one also
Speaker 1: of the of the you know, the Crusades and uh
Speaker 1: and literally remember the Crusades were a great opportunity for Christians, uh,
Speaker 1: to to express the hatred of Jews toro, you know,
Speaker 1: incredible acts of violence. Uh and uh, I'm just looking
Speaker 1: for some of the material of heavenness. One second. Unfortunately
Speaker 1: I didn't organize this. Uh where was it? All right,
Speaker 1: doesn't matter, you know, because it's uh, I know this stuff.
Speaker 1: The First Crusade, Oh yeah, the Crusades again military campaigns
Speaker 1: that were launched by Western Christendom, originally to liberate holy
Speaker 1: lands for Muslims. They were also they also called the Crusades,
Speaker 1: the attacks in the Spanish Peninsula, the Barian Pilliansida on
Speaker 1: the on the Muslims. They also in Spain they also
Speaker 1: called crusades. The attempts by the Christians, success full teremps
Speaker 1: by the Christians to Christianize the Northern Europe, in particular Scandinavia.
Speaker 1: The conversion of the Pagans to Christianity by the Sword,
Speaker 1: I might ask and will also considered crusades. But anyway,
Speaker 1: in the Crusades, the First Crusade, the idea was. The
Speaker 1: idea was that we had to go, and the Christians
Speaker 1: had to go to fight the Infidel, and to fight
Speaker 1: the Infidel and to liberate the Holy Land. The whole
Speaker 1: point was fighting the Infidels, and the idea was to
Speaker 1: set out the Holy This is Pope. This is Pope
Speaker 1: up in the second announcing the First Crusade. Let those
Speaker 1: who have hither throw being robbers now become soldiers of Christ,
Speaker 1: set out for the Holy specter Jusalem, rescue that land
Speaker 1: from the wicked race. And rejected to yourself right now,
Speaker 1: this is aimed at Muslims. That is the wicked race
Speaker 1: that he intends. But you can see how well, there's
Speaker 1: another wicked race here in Europe amongst us. Why should
Speaker 1: we go all the way over there to the Middle East.
Speaker 1: It's far away, so it's a trek right in ten
Speaker 1: ninety five. It's a trick to get that to get there.
Speaker 1: So what about the wicked race that's among us? What
Speaker 1: about the wicked race that's right here, right here in
Speaker 1: front of us? And indeed they use this to basically,
Speaker 1: you know, aggress or slaughter the Jews on the way.
Speaker 1: On the way. Now it's worth mentioning that the Pope
Speaker 1: did not attend this, and the Pope spoke out against
Speaker 1: the killing of the Jews during the crusade. The Pope
Speaker 1: did not support it. The Pope rejected it and actually
Speaker 1: argued against it, but he was not on the ground.
Speaker 1: By the time he heard about it was too late
Speaker 1: and it didn't stop anybody. There were enough religious authorities
Speaker 1: that supported this that he was just ignored. Here's a
Speaker 1: German cleric describing what happened in Germany in the area
Speaker 1: of minz In in north northwest Germany. As this rabble
Speaker 1: of robbers and others, guided by preachers and holy Man,
Speaker 1: traversed through Germany on their way south to the Holy Land.
Speaker 1: The people, inflamed by a new spirit, said, why go
Speaker 1: to fight the enemies of Christ and distant lance? While
Speaker 1: the Jews whose father killed him dwell on us in peace.
Speaker 1: They slew them, spared neither age nor sex. Hundreds of
Speaker 1: Jews and whole communities were wiped out. They were given
Speaker 1: their option of converting to Christianity. Some chose suicide, but
Speaker 1: most were just slaughtered when they refused to convert to Christianity.
Speaker 1: And you know this is a well documented by people
Speaker 1: at the time. And you know, thousands agains of Jews
Speaker 1: were killed in Germany as part of the First Crusade.
Speaker 1: Of course, when the Christians actually got to Jerusalem, they
Speaker 1: didn't differentiate between Jews and Christians who were living there,
Speaker 1: Jews and Muslims who were living there, and indeed the Jews.
Speaker 1: Here's a quote from William of Tire who writes a
Speaker 1: history of the First Crusade. The Jews who had dwelt
Speaker 1: in Jerusalem were burned alive in this synagogue, which was
Speaker 1: set on fire by our men, crying out, Christ is
Speaker 1: our Lord.
Speaker 2: You know, this is the history of Christianity. This is whoops,
Speaker 2: what happened to my right?
Speaker 1: There we go. This is the Christianity. This is you
Speaker 1: know how progressed. Of course, you know it doesn't stop there,
Speaker 1: because you have constant blood libel against Jews. You have
Speaker 1: constant blaming the Jews for the problems that the Christian
Speaker 1: world is encountering. Uh. You know, for example, uh, you know,
Speaker 1: just to add uh, just to give you a just
Speaker 1: to give you a sense of this, right, that was
Speaker 1: the First Crusade. The Second Crusade, you get s Bnad
Speaker 1: of Clovo condemns the attack that says the Jews are
Speaker 1: not to be persecuted, killed, the exiled, They are for
Speaker 1: us as a living sign. And yet you are killed
Speaker 1: throughout thewai Inland. Again nobody's listening to him. The killings
Speaker 1: are regardless. In the Third Crusade eleven eighty nine to
Speaker 1: eleven eighty two, anti Jewish riots in England occur, during
Speaker 1: which of the first Coronation. They then occured York in
Speaker 1: eleven ninety where the entire where much of the Jewish
Speaker 1: community is destroyed. Now, part of that has to do
Speaker 1: with usury and Jewish users and you know who are
Speaker 1: bankers basically lending money at interest. And this is this
Speaker 1: is where they take the opportunity to burn all the
Speaker 1: books of the bankers so that they don't have to
Speaker 1: pay their debts back. And the Fourth Crusade, it continues
Speaker 1: basically on and on, and then you get the blood
Speaker 1: libels which are always associated with these with these programs
Speaker 1: of Jews, you get Norwich in eleven forty four, you
Speaker 1: get Trent in fourteen seventy five. And then during the
Speaker 1: Black death Right, the Black death that is wing out
Speaker 1: huge numbers of Europeans, huge numbers of Europeans. You get,
Speaker 1: you get that the Jews are responsible for the Black death.
Speaker 1: They are poisoning the wells uh and and the black
Speaker 1: death is the consequence of the well poisoning, and that
Speaker 1: is why Christians are dying. And of course the consequence
Speaker 1: of that or again mass killing of Jews throughout this period. Uh.
Speaker 1: Jews are then later on in in in European history,
Speaker 1: Jews are then isolated in in ghettos in the major cities.
Speaker 1: UH so that they so that they you know, they
Speaker 1: they could still live in the city, but they're all
Speaker 1: in one quarter, usually very very very uh very crammed
Speaker 1: into a corner where they're living standards horrific. And again
Speaker 1: they are they serve as witness, witness to what happens
Speaker 1: to a people who don't accept Christ and h and
Speaker 1: witness to the to the Christian success and and Christian
Speaker 1: power over them. So this is very much a part
Speaker 1: of Christianity really, you know, until the nineteen sixties and
Speaker 1: nineteen seventies, where the Catholic Church makes efforts to apologize
Speaker 1: for to some extent a complicity with the Holocaust and
Speaker 1: to for the history a long history of anti Semitism.
Speaker 1: They acknowledge it, and they somewhat apologize for it, although
Speaker 1: arguably they've never really they've never properly they've never properly
Speaker 1: taken full responsibility for it. But there's no question that UH,
Speaker 1: anti Semitism has its origins, has its roots deep into
Speaker 1: in Christianity. And and this is not uniquely Catholic. When
Speaker 1: when Luther rebels against the Catholic Church and and start
Speaker 1: basically the protest Protestant uh, prot Protestantism, I can't say
Speaker 1: that word right, He riles reels against against the Jews. Uh.
Speaker 1: He is one of the most anti Semitic thinkers UH
Speaker 1: that Christianity has produced. UH and UH he shapes much
Speaker 1: of the attitude towards Jews UH within the Protestist Protestant religion.
Speaker 1: And and remember Lutha is in Germany. German anti Semitism.
Speaker 1: It was not invented in the twentieth century. It has
Speaker 1: its roots going back to the early Church. But it
Speaker 1: certainly has its roots going back to Lutha and in
Speaker 1: the sixteenth in the sixteenth century. It's interesting, you know,
Speaker 1: he starts out kind of rejecting the idea that that
Speaker 1: you know, the Jews are to blame for Christ's death.
Speaker 1: He writes, we have to treat the Jews kindly and
Speaker 1: deal with them in a friendly way if we want
Speaker 1: them to become Christians. Right, so we want them to
Speaker 1: become Christians. And he reminds his reader is that Jesus
Speaker 1: was born a Jew. But over time he really changes
Speaker 1: and he writes a number of different essays you know
Speaker 1: that basically attack the Jews. They don't reform, they don't
Speaker 1: join the Provenceton movement because he blames the fact that
Speaker 1: Jews didn't become Christian. Well, it's because the Catholics will corrupt.
Speaker 1: So he's between fifteen thirty eight and fifteen forty three,
Speaker 1: you know, he starts producing more venomous works. So on
Speaker 1: the Jews and their Lies fifteen forty three, we'll get
Speaker 1: to that in a minute, of the Unknowable Name and
Speaker 1: the generation generations of Christ. On the last words of
Speaker 1: David against the Sabbatarians, that's the Jews the Sabbath. So
Speaker 1: he's writing extensively about the evil of the Jews because
Speaker 1: they're not converting to his new religion. On the Jews
Speaker 1: and their Lies fifteen forty three, which is sixty five
Speaker 1: thousand words, just has the whole litany of accusations against
Speaker 1: the Jews that Christianity has developed over the decades. Just
Speaker 1: to give you a few a few of the citations,
Speaker 1: this is Luther. The Jews are base, horring people, full
Speaker 1: of the devil's feces. Their synagogues are incurageable, whole and
Speaker 1: evil slut. He continues on another passage, they are nothing
Speaker 1: but thieves and robbers, who daily eat no morsel and
Speaker 1: wear no threat of clothing which they have not stolen
Speaker 1: from us. This is primarily in the context of usury.
Speaker 1: Usury is theft. According to Christianity, usury is a mortal sin.
Speaker 1: The Jew with the bag of gold around his neck
Speaker 1: is in the seventh running of Hell, with the gold
Speaker 1: dragging down into the fire. Jews are usurers, and the
Speaker 1: Christians hate them for that. He then writes their synagogues
Speaker 1: should be set on fire and their schools destroyed. So
Speaker 1: Luther is actually calling for violence against Jews in fifteen
Speaker 1: forty three, this is what he proposes for rulers in
Speaker 1: Protestant nations. This is what they should do. They should
Speaker 1: burn synagogues and schools that destroy Jewish homes. They should
Speaker 1: confiscate prayer books and talmuds. They should forbid rabbis to teach,
Speaker 1: they prohibit safe travel, they should force Jews into manual
Speaker 1: labor expulsion. And he framed these acts as Christian duties.
Speaker 1: They would actually save souls and protect society from Jewish blasphemy.
Speaker 1: And it's theological reasons for this. Jews refused to accept
Speaker 1: Christ as proof of divine rejection. Jews were instruments of Satan,
Speaker 1: keeping Christians from truth. And you know the idea of
Speaker 1: the apocalyptic. During the apocalypse, there would be a final
Speaker 1: conversion of the Jews to Christians or they all go
Speaker 1: to Him, which you know Christians still believe to this day. Now,
Speaker 1: luckily it's rare the Jewish rulers actually acted on his recommendations.
Speaker 1: I think too many of them needed the Jewish money
Speaker 1: landers It's a fund many of their wars. But again,
Speaker 1: this is lu. This is not some second rate unknown
Speaker 1: nobody out there preaching. This is this is the founder
Speaker 1: of the Protestant Protestant religion. Uh and uh and and
Speaker 1: this circulated thoroughly. And by the way, you know the Nazis.
Speaker 1: The Nazis mined the fifteen forty three essay for for
Speaker 1: for for juicy bits. You know, they they reprinted excerpts.
Speaker 1: One of them was was you know what Luther said
Speaker 1: about the Jews? Which was a pamphlet after christal Nach
Speaker 1: Luther and bish Martin Sass published a pamphlet celebrating that
Speaker 1: the synagogue burns on Luther's birthday, and Hitler himself mentioned
Speaker 1: Luther approvingly in speeches as a great reformer. I mean,
Speaker 1: Luther's authority, minutes sense, gave kind of the modern anti
Speaker 1: Semites a theological pedigree, a theological excuse for what they
Speaker 1: believed in. So, you know, in other words, at the
Speaker 1: end of the day, anti Semitism again has its roots
Speaker 1: deep into Christian theology. Christianity has basically allowed perpetrated anti
Speaker 1: Semitism through the last couple of millennia, particularly, i'd say
Speaker 1: up until the you know, the eighteenth century, it was
Speaker 1: primarily a feature of Christianity. So one wonders where does antisemitism,
Speaker 1: hatred of Jews come from. It comes from the father
Speaker 1: of the Church, the fathers of the Church. It comes
Speaker 1: from Augustine, It comes from Ambos of Milan, it comes
Speaker 1: from Luther, it comes from popes and bishops and theologians
Speaker 1: who wrote extensively about this, about the hatred of Jews
Speaker 1: and the legitimacy of violence against them for almost two
Speaker 1: thousand years. And the sin is the collective guilt of
Speaker 1: killing Christ. The sin is that they will not convert
Speaker 1: to Christianity. Is you know, when you have two mystical religions,
Speaker 1: and Judaism is mystical, just as mystical as Christianity. But
Speaker 1: do you have two mystical religions, how do you prove
Speaker 1: one is better than the other? Well, you can't, So
Speaker 1: you just have to declare one better than the other.
Speaker 1: And particularly if you're in a position of power, i e.
Speaker 1: Christian in this book. Point at this point, then the
Speaker 1: fact that you know the other party doesn't recognize that
Speaker 1: you are the truth and they are not is a
Speaker 1: sign of their depravity. That is the evil of mysticism
Speaker 1: and religiosity. And you know the subjectivism that it implies,
Speaker 1: because there is no truth there, there's just there's subjective emotions.
Speaker 1: Now if you add to that the economic argument again
Speaker 1: the Jews, which I've talked about and written about extensively elsewhere,
Speaker 1: so I'm not going to cover it here. We're already
Speaker 1: approaching an hour, and that is the fact that Jews
Speaker 1: were usurers, that they were successful, that they made money.
Speaker 1: You can see why people are hostile to was them
Speaker 1: because they're making money. They're doing something that the Christian
Speaker 1: considered a mortal sin. They're lending money. They're making money
Speaker 1: off the loans of the Christian. How dare they their
Speaker 1: inferior There were wicked people, and yet they're making money
Speaker 1: off of us. You can see how this just exacerbates everything.
Speaker 1: By the way, one of the reasons, just as an aside,
Speaker 1: one of the reasons there are so many Jews in
Speaker 1: Eastern Europe, or were so many Jews, I should say,
Speaker 1: were so many Jews in Eastern Europe before Hitler managed
Speaker 1: to kill most of them. One of the reasons for
Speaker 1: that is that Western Europe became so poisons poisonous, so
Speaker 1: anti Jewish, anti Semitic, that they just couldn't stay there.
Speaker 1: And indeed, there were kings in Poland and Lithuania and
Speaker 1: the Baltics who were, you know, who needed population, who
Speaker 1: needed people to come and populate the area, who were
Speaker 1: willing to tolerate the Jews, willing to be positive about
Speaker 1: the Jews, and As a consequence, the Jews moved there
Speaker 1: for their own safety. And for a long time Eastern
Speaker 1: Europe was relatively safe for Jews until eighteen Suddenly, the
Speaker 1: nineteenth century things flipped and Eastern Europe became again a
Speaker 1: land of pogroms. Now, let's move quickly into the nineteenth century,
Speaker 1: you know, and the world is becoming secularized, and yet
Speaker 1: anti Semitism is still alive and well. And now now
Speaker 1: it shifts. There is a there's a shift from primarily
Speaker 1: religious explanations of anti semitism and two dominantly economic and nationalistic.
Speaker 1: Now the economics, the economic anti semitism is primarily expressed,
Speaker 1: you know, beyond the acquisition of usury. It's primarily expressed
Speaker 1: by Carl Marx. Now again, uh, if you if you're
Speaker 1: interested in the relationship between anti capitalism, between Carl Marx
Speaker 1: and and antisemitism. I have a number of lectures on
Speaker 1: this online. You can find it. Just put you on
Speaker 1: book Anti Semitism, Anti Capitalism, and you will find the lectures.
Speaker 1: I'm not gonna belabel them here, but I'll just say
Speaker 1: that Marx has an essay, his first published essay, which
Speaker 1: is highly recommended that you read uh. It is an
Speaker 1: essay that basically it's called on the Jewish Question, that
Speaker 1: basically declares the Jews the problem with the Jews is
Speaker 1: they're self interested, the capitalists, and capitalism is evil. Self
Speaker 1: interest is evil, and there for Jews evil and that
Speaker 1: the problem with Christianity, the problem with Europe of the
Speaker 1: nineteenth century is that Europe is adopting Judaism in a
Speaker 1: sense that it's adopting capitalism, and that, you know, Judaism
Speaker 1: has to be in a sense eliminated and first farm
Speaker 1: Christianity and then from Jews themselves. It is a scathing
Speaker 1: antisemitic essay, which again you can find on Marx dot og.
Speaker 1: I think just put call marks on the Jewish question
Speaker 1: and you will find it. It's quite striking. The second
Speaker 1: thing that happens during the nineteenth century is you get
Speaker 1: a rise of nationalism. Nationalism is the phenomena, is a
Speaker 1: phenomena of the nineteenth century. You get, you know, nationalistic revolutions.
Speaker 1: People start defining themselves in terms of tribal but but
Speaker 1: in terms of a collection of tribes rather than tribal
Speaker 1: city or tribal very small locations, not a collection of
Speaker 1: tribes and now it's called the nation. So suddenly you
Speaker 1: create you get this creation of nations. You get the
Speaker 1: creation of Germany, you get the creation of Italy, you
Speaker 1: get the creation of uh uh. You know, the Czech
Speaker 1: today is the Czech Republic in Slovakia. And all these
Speaker 1: become nations. They were never nations before. They were part
Speaker 1: of empires, and you belong to a particular tribe within
Speaker 1: the empire. But now the idea was to deliberate the
Speaker 1: nation from the empire. And they were belled against Australian
Speaker 1: given empire. They were billed against or in Italy and
Speaker 1: in Germany it is it is a process of uniting
Speaker 1: city states or disparate provinces that each have autonomy or
Speaker 1: each have uh independent. And now what you see is
Speaker 1: a consolidation of power in the creator of nations. And
Speaker 1: then the question is the question is in all these
Speaker 1: new nations that are being created, is what is what
Speaker 1: is the place of the Jew here? And by the way,
Speaker 1: this is part of the Jewish question that car Marx
Speaker 1: is trying to answer, because what what's going on is
Speaker 1: during this period Jews have now some of them have
Speaker 1: assimilated into the common the the culture of the of
Speaker 1: the of the place and the time, right, so uh
Speaker 1: specific time and place uh. And they were gaining civil
Speaker 1: rights in place like Fans and even Germany, Austria and others.
Speaker 1: And it wasn't clear how they belonged because they weren't
Speaker 1: part of the tribes that made up even of these nations.
Speaker 1: And they were the original globalists, right. And they were
Speaker 1: even called it the time Cosmopolitans. Right, it's a it's
Speaker 1: a code word for jew. Marx was not a Jew.
Speaker 1: Max was a Christian. Max has raised a Christian uh.
Speaker 1: And his father had converted from Judaism to Christianity and
Speaker 1: raised Marx as a Christian. Marx grew up in an
Speaker 1: environment of Christians hating Jews and absorbed that environment. He
Speaker 1: had Jewish relatives, but he was a baptized Christian. So
Speaker 1: Max was not a Jew. But during this period of nationalism,
Speaker 1: where do you where do you put the Jew? How
Speaker 1: do you refer to the Jew? They don't. They can't
Speaker 1: assimilate into us, They can't become German or French or
Speaker 1: Austrian because they're not. Because what defines German, French, Austrian
Speaker 1: is genes is genes and the Jew has different genes.
Speaker 1: It comes from a different lineage. Notice collectivism. Once you
Speaker 1: have collectivism and tribalism. Well, the other, the other, the
Speaker 1: one who doesn't belong to your tribal or collective, Well,
Speaker 1: how do you categorize him? What do you do with it?
Speaker 1: How do you treat him? I mean romantic nationalism cutting
Speaker 1: out of Germany defined the nation as ethnic bloodline, and
Speaker 1: the Jews were outsiders. They were outsiders. And of course,
Speaker 1: just like what was done in Christianity, every problem that
Speaker 1: was created, every problem that happened, was blamed on the outsider,
Speaker 1: and the convenient outsider was the Jew among us, not
Speaker 1: only and now, of course, the Jews as a successful
Speaker 1: in the nineteenth century, or at least some Jews were.
Speaker 1: The assimilated Jews certainly were, and now it was easy
Speaker 1: to go after them. They were no longer the witnesses
Speaker 1: of Christianity. Now they were successful, which was horrific to
Speaker 1: the Christian They were not part of the nation. They
Speaker 1: were outsider and they fought. You know how, Right now,
Speaker 1: Tucker Kausen and others are accusing Jews of having more
Speaker 1: than one allegiance. They're not just they don't have the
Speaker 1: allegiance to America, they have joint citizenship, they have allegiance
Speaker 1: to some other cause, and ifore, we can't trust them. Right,
Speaker 1: this is not new. This is not new. Jews during
Speaker 1: the nineteenth century and early twentieth century were constantly accused
Speaker 1: of not having allegiance to the state in which they lived.
Speaker 1: I mean, this is the whole argument against Dreyfus. Dreyfus
Speaker 1: was a French senior officer in the French Army, accused
Speaker 1: of spying, clearly false accusations motivated by antisemitism. He was
Speaker 1: completely assimilated, motivated by anti Semitism. And the whole point
Speaker 1: that was being made is, well, he's a Jew, so
Speaker 1: can't really be a Frenchman, So how can we really
Speaker 1: trust him to be committed to the French interests Because
Speaker 1: he's a Jew, He's of a different nation. He's not
Speaker 1: part of our nation. He can pretend he can speak French,
Speaker 1: he can be part of our culture, he can go
Speaker 1: to our concerts, he can sing our songs, but he'll
Speaker 1: never be French because French is in the blood Dreyfus.
Speaker 1: This is Dreyfus. So this idea of dual loyalty is
Speaker 1: not new. It's just another one of those you know, accusations.
Speaker 1: They're being thrown to Jews for hundreds of years. The
Speaker 1: Tucker's just reerring, revoicing. None of the anti Semitism around today.
Speaker 1: The nick four intess type, the tech of Cosson type
Speaker 1: is new. They're just rehashing old myths. Now, People like
Speaker 1: Bob who's on the Chat believe something like, well, the
Speaker 1: Jews have been accused of all these evils for two
Speaker 1: thousand years. Yeah, they didn't really kill Christ because the
Speaker 1: Romans did it. And yeah, all the stories of them
Speaker 1: poisoning whales, Yeah, it turns out rats for the reason,
Speaker 1: actually caused a black death. Any Yeah, that idea of
Speaker 1: them drinking the blood of children, it turned out to
Speaker 1: be wrong. And it turned out that all of these
Speaker 1: you know, blood things, it turned out to be wrong. Yeah,
Speaker 1: but it can't all be wrong. I mean, God, I mean,
Speaker 1: people can be wrong for two thousand years about Jews.
Speaker 1: There must be something true behind it. There must be
Speaker 1: something that they've done. I mean, they were kicked out
Speaker 1: of England, and they were kicked out of Spain, and
Speaker 1: they were kicked out of all these places. So I
Speaker 1: mean it can't all be just false accusations, and yet
Speaker 1: it absolutely is. They were kicked out of Spain because
Speaker 1: they refused to convert to Christianity. They didn't do anything,
Speaker 1: they just refused to become Christian. And yet every single
Speaker 1: one of the accusations, every single one of the accusations
Speaker 1: made to them about them, it's turned out to be
Speaker 1: false and collectivistic garbage and try ballistic nonsense. Have they
Speaker 1: been bad Jews? Of course? Are they bad Christians? Of course?
Speaker 1: I mean, but collectivizing guilt disgusting, despicable evil. So what
Speaker 1: exactly I am at fault because some jud did something bad? Well,
Speaker 1: human beings do bad stuff, all people do bad stuff,
Speaker 1: But you collectivize the guilt. That is the worst kind
Speaker 1: of tribalism, the kind of irrationality, the worst kind of evil,
Speaker 1: Bob evil. Anti Semitism is, Yeah, did one of Jesus'
Speaker 1: disciples betray him? Did that disciple happen to be Jewish?
Speaker 1: Probably because I think most of them were Jews. And
Speaker 1: does that mean all Jews killed Christ? Of course not.
Speaker 1: I mean, that is so irrational, so illogical, But that's
Speaker 1: how a collectivistic, tribalistic mind works. So you know, we don't,
Speaker 1: we don't have time. But the made up stories about
Speaker 1: Jews just continued. You know. During during the early twentieth century,
Speaker 1: you get the what do you call it, Protocols of
Speaker 1: the Elder was Zion. This is a book that was
Speaker 1: published by anti Semites in Russia Neo Odessa, which is
Speaker 1: today in Ukraine, claiming to be a Jewish manifesto about
Speaker 1: the Jews desire to take over the world. Clearly afford,
Speaker 1: clearly written by Christians, not by Jews, and yet became
Speaker 1: the basis for programs all over Eastern Europe and Russia.
Speaker 1: Uh and uh and to this day is cited by
Speaker 1: people and to this day, maybe they don't refer to
Speaker 1: the Elders of Zion, but they refer to the Jews
Speaker 1: controlling the world, I mean, for interest does this all
Speaker 1: the time? The Jews controlling finance and therefore controlling the world.
Speaker 1: Of course, the fact that Jews was so successful in finance,
Speaker 1: the fact that they thrived onder capitalism, not all Jews,
Speaker 1: some Jews. But because those some Jews thrived on the capitalism,
Speaker 1: the socialists always hated them. The left hated them and
Speaker 1: again collectivized the guilt. The few who thrived under capitalism
Speaker 1: were Jews, and therefore all Jews were bad, and the
Speaker 1: Christians of the non Jews, who maybe didn't thrive any capitalism,
Speaker 1: hated them, resented them, rejected them for being successful. They
Speaker 1: were the other. For decades, Wall Street in America was
Speaker 1: quite anti Semitic. The traditional firms refused to accept Jews
Speaker 1: as partners in the investment banks. Jews how to create
Speaker 1: their own investment banks in or to compete, and ultimately
Speaker 1: they did a better job. So yes, you know, in
Speaker 1: in Ivy League, universities in the United States only part
Speaker 1: of the twentieth century had a quota for Jews, just
Speaker 1: like they in the latter part of the twenty cent
Speaker 1: she had a quota for Asians. And you know, again
Speaker 1: anti semitism. Country clubs wouldn't accept Jews in them, certain
Speaker 1: companies wouldn't accept Jews. Again, his senior positions in them.
Speaker 1: Anti Semitism has been with us forever, and sadly it
Speaker 1: appears is spiking again in the United States and in Europe,
Speaker 1: motivated both on left and right, and motivated to some
Speaker 1: extent at least by Muslims, by Islam. By Islam's adoption
Speaker 1: of many of Christianity's anti Semitic views. Although the Quran
Speaker 1: is filled with hatred of Judaism and Jews, it's just
Speaker 1: that that hatred has manifested itself in a much more
Speaker 1: violent way among Christians than among Muslims. All right, Just
Speaker 1: to summarize it, anti Semitism is a consequence of viewing
Speaker 1: the world through the prism of collectivism. It is it
Speaker 1: is the consequence of viewing the world through the idea
Speaker 1: that your primary identity is determined by your bloodline. This
Speaker 1: is blood and soil collectivism. It's who your ancestors will
Speaker 1: that determines you're worth the lack of it, and you
Speaker 1: are you benefit and you'll get blamed for what your
Speaker 1: ancestors did and what other members of your so called
Speaker 1: tribe do today. Now, granted, Jews the guilty of this
Speaker 1: collectivism as well. They take pride in the achievement of
Speaker 1: Jews that they have no relations to. And you know
Speaker 1: they they engage in the same kind of collectivism in
Speaker 1: self identifying, well, we Jews. It's someone understandable because whether
Speaker 1: they engage in the idea of self identifying as a
Speaker 1: members of a collective or not, the rest of the
Speaker 1: world will brand them as such anyway. So Jews, sadly,
Speaker 1: we live in a world full of collectivists anti Semitism.
Speaker 1: The hatred of Jews is motivated by collective guilt, the
Speaker 1: hatred of the other, envy of their success, and a
Speaker 1: deeply rooted, deeply rooted anti Semitism within the Christian Church,
Speaker 1: Catholic and Protestant. And it seems to rear it had
Speaker 1: whenever there is existential angst among the people, whenever there
Speaker 1: are things happening that people cannot understand, whenever there is
Speaker 1: challenges and problems, it's easy to blame the other. It's
Speaker 1: easy to blame the tribe over there, the people who
Speaker 1: are different, particularly if they're successful. And that's exactly what
Speaker 1: we're seeing today. Exactly what we're seeing today, we're seeing
Speaker 1: a rise in anti Semitism on the left and on
Speaker 1: the right. Now we will have to do another show
Speaker 1: because we've gone for so long already. We'll do another
Speaker 1: show on the relationship between anti Semitism and anti Zionism,
Speaker 1: anti Israel, the relationship between those those things, because that's
Speaker 1: important both to understand left wing anti semitism and today
Speaker 1: right wing anti semitism. They couture very much. In terms
Speaker 1: of anti Israel. It's the same anti semitism as in
Speaker 1: the past, it just couched differently, it's presented differently, and
Speaker 1: it's very similar left and right, and both are influenced
Speaker 1: by Christianity. In the end, you know, the left is
Speaker 1: much more influenced by marx and by altruism, by explicit
Speaker 1: altruism in the form of intersectionality. The right is much
Speaker 1: more influenced explicitly by Christianity and by the stories of
Speaker 1: the Both are influenced by the stories of the elders
Speaker 1: of Zion, the conspiracy theory the Jews control the world.
Speaker 1: So we will get to that. That's kind of at
Speaker 1: the heart of of Tucker's kind of anti Semitism. It's
Speaker 1: this uh anti anti Israel. And but let me leave
Speaker 1: you with this Israel as the ultimate symbol of you know,
Speaker 1: the awful jew It's all is successful, is all is strong,
Speaker 1: and Israel is now a nation, is now a nation,
Speaker 1: and of course a nation that is you know, identifies
Speaker 1: as Jewish and is strong and powerful and successful and rich.
Speaker 1: Is a repudiation of the whole idea of the Jews
Speaker 1: kept miserable in order to be a testament for Christianity
Speaker 1: and to prove Christianity's value and truth. Maybe Christianity not
Speaker 1: true if God is favoring the Jews right now, m
Speaker 1: particularly if christian is a feeling angst, if Christians is
Speaker 1: feeling insecure. Well, when Christians feel insecure, lash out at
Speaker 1: the strong Jews, lash out at the successful Jews. The
Speaker 1: only antidote to antisemitism, ultimately is individualism. It's to stop
Speaker 1: treating people as collectives. It stop treating people as members
Speaker 1: of tribes. It's to eradicate the idea of collective guilt.
Speaker 1: It's the idea of treating individuals based on the nature
Speaker 1: of their character. Now, look me telling you about Christianity
Speaker 1: and its history of antisemitism does not mean that every
Speaker 1: Christian is an antisent might, of course not. Indeed, many
Speaker 1: Christians are not antisemits. Many Christians saved Jews during the Holocaust,
Speaker 1: you know, But the Catholic Church didn't behave itself particularly well,
Speaker 1: you know, at least the pope didn't during the Holocaust. Again,
Speaker 1: I'm not a collectivist. I'm saying the ideology as articulated
Speaker 1: by the leaders of the church has been antisemitic and
Speaker 1: has contributed, contributed to anti Semitism. But I don't blame
Speaker 1: Germans today for what Germany did in the past. I
Speaker 1: don't blame Christians today what Christianity did in the past.
Speaker 1: I'm just saying, this is the influence. This is the influence.
Speaker 1: And you cannot understand taka. You cannot understand nik foantis.
Speaker 1: You cannot understand the anti semitism of globalizing to fada
Speaker 1: without understanding the history, without understanding its source, without understanding
Speaker 1: the last two thousand years of Christian ideology, the Christian
Speaker 1: ideology of jew hatred. It is not to condemn every Christian.
Speaker 1: All right, I am way behind. We did an hour
Speaker 1: and twenty minutes. I didn't think it would be that long,
Speaker 1: and we didn't cover everything I wanted to cover. So
Speaker 1: we will do the kind of Israel and anti Semitism
Speaker 1: and Zionism on another show. All right, let's switch to
Speaker 1: answering your super check questions. As Michael promised, we have
Speaker 1: had no problems so far and reaching reaching our goals.
Speaker 1: You guys have been incredibly generous, I think leading Michael
Speaker 1: has been leading the pack in terms of being generous.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Michael. Asking a lot of questions and putting
Speaker 1: real money behind those questions. So we will start with
Speaker 1: fifty dollars questions. We've got one to three four of those.
Speaker 1: Then we'll go to the twenty dollars questions, and then
Speaker 1: we'll do the rest. We are still one hundred dollars
Speaker 1: short of my third hour goal, so please consider continuing
Speaker 1: to support the show. You can do with stickers. We
Speaker 1: got a lot of questions, so stickers are great right now,
Speaker 1: because questions I have all right, let me thank thought Criminal,
Speaker 1: thank you for the sticker. Let me thank Stephen Harper,
Speaker 1: and a lot of questions less stickers, mostly questions. This
Speaker 1: is great, Catherine, thank you, and let's see who else
Speaker 1: do we have here to dum well, only eighty nine
Speaker 1: dollars short of our seven and fifty dollars goal. Steven,
Speaker 1: thank you. I think I'm I mean no, I saw
Speaker 1: honing earlier, Catherine again, and I know I saw Jonathan honing.
Speaker 1: Thank you Jonathan with two stickers, and thank you. Roland
Speaker 1: really appreciated guys. Thank you. All right, let's jump in
Speaker 1: with questions, and let's start with Michael, who's asked I
Speaker 1: think most of the questions, yeah, but let's start with
Speaker 1: Michael's fifty dollars question. He says, Megan, mam donnie one.
Speaker 1: Because voters are saying, if you don't fix out life economically,
Speaker 1: we're going to get radical politically. We need a significant
Speaker 1: shift towards capitalism, or we're going to get configurations of
Speaker 1: national socialism. Yes, I think that's absolutely right, m donnie one.
Speaker 1: Because people are unhappy with the state of the economy.
Speaker 1: They're unhappy with the cost of living inflation in other words,
Speaker 1: or price inflation. They're unhappy with the cost of housing.
Speaker 1: And what you see is what you don't see is
Speaker 1: anybody coming up with solutions that are consistent and is
Speaker 1: willing to argue passionately for them. There's very little you
Speaker 1: can do as mayor of New York to reduce the
Speaker 1: cost of living when it comes to groceries and things
Speaker 1: like that. So ma'm donni can pretend that he so
Speaker 1: Mamdani offers what Mamdaney does HEAs he offers fantasies. You
Speaker 1: can pretend that by starting a government run a grocery
Speaker 1: store you can lower the cost of groceries, but that
Speaker 1: is just a fantasy. Socialists generally proposed fantasies to solve
Speaker 1: economic problems. You can pretend that price controls rent control
Speaker 1: can lower rent, and that seems to a zero sum
Speaker 1: mentality person reasonable. Most people don't know economics. They don't
Speaker 1: know that rent control never works. And who is going
Speaker 1: to go out there and tell them. I mean Como,
Speaker 1: who's a democrat, who's a little less socialist than Mamdani,
Speaker 1: but not really that much. What you need is somebody
Speaker 1: to come out and say, yes, cost of living is
Speaker 1: way too high. What we need is to crush inflation,
Speaker 1: price inflation. And you do that by getting rid of
Speaker 1: the FED, by privatizing money. And what about housing, Well,
Speaker 1: you do that by privatizing housing, getting rid of zoning
Speaker 1: and getting rid of all these restrictions and taking years
Speaker 1: and years and years to get a permit to build,
Speaker 1: and height restrictions and parking restrictions and the millions of
Speaker 1: restrictions that inhibit construction. Make construction great again. Build, Build, Build.
Speaker 1: That's how you lower the price of housing. There's demand.
Speaker 1: People want to live in New yok In spite of
Speaker 1: how some of you think how awful it is to
Speaker 1: live there. People want to live in New yok. What
Speaker 1: they need is more housing. You need to have greater supply,
Speaker 1: that'll lower housing. It's economics. I want somebody needs to
Speaker 1: advocate that, not mildly moderately, but passionately, and that indeed
Speaker 1: price controls, rent controls will only make things worse, not better.
Speaker 1: But for that you need some understanding of economics. You
Speaker 1: need to have passion abound freedom and free markets, and
Speaker 1: you need to be able to willing to go on
Speaker 1: TV and advocate for that and advocate for it passionately, consistently.
Speaker 1: And we don't have a political figure willing to do that.
Speaker 1: I mean, Milai and Argentina is about it. But nobody
Speaker 1: in the United States that I know of, oh I've
Speaker 1: seen running for political office, has been willing to go
Speaker 1: all out on economic liberty, on economic freedom. But that's
Speaker 1: what's needed. We need capitalism because the alternative to capitalism
Speaker 1: is socialism or fascism. And what we're likely to get
Speaker 1: is alternating. You know, the socialists will win. It'll be
Speaker 1: a disaster, and the response to that will be a
Speaker 1: fascist response, and I'm not sure there'll be an election
Speaker 1: after that, but you get you get some fascism and
Speaker 1: then some socialism and maybe some moderate will come in
Speaker 1: the middle. And make things a little better for a
Speaker 1: little wobb but not too much, and then you'll get
Speaker 1: back to that. So you just keep going in the
Speaker 1: same path, same path. So you know, truly, truly, we
Speaker 1: need some passion and consistent advocates of liberty and freedom
Speaker 1: and free markets. And we're not getting them, not getting them.
Speaker 1: Certainly the right is not producing them, and the left
Speaker 1: you can't even pretend could produce them. So we're just
Speaker 1: not getting them. Andrew, of course there are some bad Jews,
Speaker 1: but in general Jews a highly productive and peaceful group.
Speaker 1: Antisemitism is based on a highly inaccurate judgment. I'm against
Speaker 1: collective judgment, but if one is going to do it,
Speaker 1: at least come close to the truth. Yeah. But again,
Speaker 1: it's a success that inspires the anti Semitism. If they
Speaker 1: weren't successful, particularly modern times, they'd be less anti semitism
Speaker 1: against them. Remember, Augustine relish is the fact that they're unsuccessful.
Speaker 1: Wants to keep them unsuccessful because they become a testament
Speaker 1: to Christianity success. Now they are successful, well, now we
Speaker 1: really need to hate them. We need to make them
Speaker 1: unsuccessful by knocking them down a few notches. So I
Speaker 1: don't think these people don't assess Jews as successful or
Speaker 1: even as productive. But that creates envy, and that creates
Speaker 1: resentment for a variety of different reasons, and they hate
Speaker 1: it in spite of that or because of that. So again,
Speaker 1: altruism demands that we hate the successful and the productive
Speaker 1: and the rich and the powerful powerful economically. So you know,
Speaker 1: we hate Jews, and now they even have their own country,
Speaker 1: we suddenly have to hate them. That's ridiculous. So so yes,
Speaker 1: I don't think it's an issue of assessment. I don't
Speaker 1: think it's an issue of assessment. I think it's an
Speaker 1: issue of what you do with that assessment and how
Speaker 1: you interpret that assessment. All right, Michael, also fifty dollars,
Speaker 1: Thank you, Michael. Ben Shapiro had to cut ties with
Speaker 1: Candice on Stephen Crowder and Tucker calls an over anti Semitism.
Speaker 1: I wouldn't be surprised if Pat Walsh is next. Doesn't
Speaker 1: he see the conservative movement he helped create is imploding
Speaker 1: in on him. I don't know what Ben Shapiro Seesar
Speaker 1: doesn't see. I mean again, he is a collectivist and
Speaker 1: an and he is a religionist, and you know, I
Speaker 1: don't know. I think he's I think he's afraid at
Speaker 1: this point. I think he's worried. I think it is
Speaker 1: collapsing around him. How much he can recognize it and
Speaker 1: how much he can clearly identify the causes of this
Speaker 1: and the problems with it, I don't know. Because he
Speaker 1: can't reject the Conservative movements religious roots. He can't accuse
Speaker 1: them of He can't go after Christianity as the root
Speaker 1: cause of anti Semitism because that will alienate all the
Speaker 1: other conservatives. He's not gonna suddenly become a supporter of
Speaker 1: capitalism and of reason, because that's not who he is,
Speaker 1: not fully, so I get it. You know, he supports
Speaker 1: the poor visual conservatives, and he is more rational than
Speaker 1: the rest. But he's in trouble and this is not
Speaker 1: where the conservative movement is moving. And I think he
Speaker 1: knows that, and I think he is afraid. I think
Speaker 1: he's worried and afraid. And I mentioned this yesterday on
Speaker 1: the show. He has to worry about Matt Walsh and Knowles.
Speaker 1: He has to worry about them. There's every reason to
Speaker 1: believe that they are that they will bolt from the
Speaker 1: Daily Wire unless he's got them tied up in some
Speaker 1: way that they can't legally. But you know, he's lost
Speaker 1: Candice Ow. He lost another woman. I can't to to
Speaker 1: the Blaze. I mean, he's losing people. The Daily Wire
Speaker 1: can't just be him, although I'm sure he could have
Speaker 1: a very successful what do you call it, a podcast
Speaker 1: all by himself, but the Daily Wire is a whole
Speaker 1: infrastructure that has you know, massive costs, and that those
Speaker 1: are not sustainable without a whole network. Yeah, he lost
Speaker 1: Brett Kooper, so you know, this incredible success there was
Speaker 1: the Daily Wire just a few years ago is in trouble.
Speaker 1: And I think I think Ben Shapiro knows that he
Speaker 1: knows that he doesn't belong. He doesn't belong, partially because
Speaker 1: he's Jewish, but also partially because he's better than these
Speaker 1: other people. He's better than them on economic issues. He's
Speaker 1: been mildly better than them on Trump, although he sold
Speaker 1: his soul to some extent on Trump, and he knows
Speaker 1: that as well. He knows he sold his soul. So
Speaker 1: I don't so Ben, I think is not feeling too
Speaker 1: good about himself generally right now. It's my I don't
Speaker 1: have any first and information. That's just my supposition. Charzbad says,
Speaker 1: I've heard that Superman is a Moses allegory. In the
Speaker 1: new movie, it is revealed that his parents sent him
Speaker 1: to Earth with a manifesto unbespoken to him, which urged
Speaker 1: him to become the king of the planet and acquire
Speaker 1: horrm of concubines. That is bizarre, that's really, really, really weird.
Speaker 1: I assume he rejects that. That's part of the storyline,
Speaker 1: that he rejects that that assignment, that manifesto. Why is
Speaker 1: he a Moses? I mean, who is he leading out
Speaker 1: of out of slavery? I mean, isn't he just there
Speaker 1: to save the world from evil? And so I don't
Speaker 1: I mean Moses is like that? You know. I was
Speaker 1: called to Moses by your Mazzoni. In our debate. He
Speaker 1: kept calling me Moses trying to lead the individualists out
Speaker 1: of a collectivistic world. I took it as a compliment,
Speaker 1: I guess, coming from him, but I'm not sure he
Speaker 1: meant it as a compliment. But I took it as
Speaker 1: a compliment. Although Moses is a positive character for him,
Speaker 1: so he viewed me as kind of leading, leading these
Speaker 1: individualists out. But he also viewed it as a as
Speaker 1: a as a inherently going to be unsuccessful. But yeah,
Speaker 1: I don't. I don't get the Moses is Superman analogy.
Speaker 1: Don't get it. I mean Moses is I mean Moses
Speaker 1: was born a Jew who was then raised within the
Speaker 1: Egyptian court, the king's court. But he was born a Jew,
Speaker 1: and you know, and and the pharaoh had decided to
Speaker 1: kill offers Jews, so he was he was put in
Speaker 1: a in a in a little what do you call
Speaker 1: a floating thing, and put in a nile, and discovered
Speaker 1: by the daughter of a pharaoh and raised within the courts.
Speaker 1: I'm not sure how even that is related to to Superman.
Speaker 1: I just oh, I guess that he's raised among human beings,
Speaker 1: but he's not from here. Yeah, not a good analogy anyway.
Speaker 1: Michael asks, does the mix the economy concentrate wealth in
Speaker 1: cities so Middle America ends up being screwed? Or all
Speaker 1: the people who gravitate towards cities smarter and have better values,
Speaker 1: so they create more wealth for themselves. No, I mean again,
Speaker 1: you are assuming a zero some world. I really don't
Speaker 1: understand the argument. Cities an immense value. Cities have the
Speaker 1: economic mass, they have the mass of talent, and they
Speaker 1: always thrive. They were a sign of civilization, but they
Speaker 1: don't come at the expense of Middle America. Middle America thrives.
Speaker 1: And what Middle America is good at doing. It might
Speaker 1: be in agriculture, it might be in industry, it might
Speaker 1: be just in what do you call those people who
Speaker 1: who live in the countryside and work in the city remotely.
Speaker 1: They might just be places that people want to live
Speaker 1: for lifestyle reasons, but yet they can benefit from modern
Speaker 1: technology and work anywhere. But there's no contradiction between the
Speaker 1: two in a purely capitalist market, there's no zero sum here.
Speaker 1: The thriving in the cities only makes Middle America more prosperous,
Speaker 1: not less prosperous. And indeed, Middle America becomes poorer if
Speaker 1: the cities fail. I mean, cities are signs of civilization.
Speaker 1: Cities collapse a sign of civilization collapse. So it's not
Speaker 1: a sign of the mixed economy that wealth is concentrated
Speaker 1: in cities. And it's not true that wealth is concentrated
Speaker 1: in the cities. Think of one Buffett living out in
Speaker 1: the middle of nowhere in or think of the Koch
Speaker 1: brothers who are from Nebraska, or Kansas. I can't really remember.
Speaker 1: They're all live in the middle of Norway, so it's
Speaker 1: not even that concentrated. It's the reality is that cities
Speaker 1: will always be under capitalism in everywhere is richer at
Speaker 1: least at least there's a concentration of wealth because they
Speaker 1: have the benefit of maximizing division of labor and specialization,
Speaker 1: and they have the benefits of economies of scale in labor.
Speaker 1: You can get more people working, but there's still rich
Speaker 1: people in the center of the country, and those people
Speaker 1: are better off. Even the poor people in the center
Speaker 1: of the country are better off of the city's success
Speaker 1: than otherwise. So nobody is being screwed. Nobody is being
Speaker 1: screwed now in a mixed economy that we have today,
Speaker 1: I don't know who's being screwed. Maybe the cities are
Speaker 1: being screwed, right, I mean, the the middle America is
Speaker 1: full of farmers being subsidized by taxes paid by city folk.
Speaker 1: Industries are being kept alive through cronyism in all kinds
Speaker 1: of states because of cronyism. Uh, military bases are kept
Speaker 1: alive and and not closed when they need to be
Speaker 1: closed because of various levels of cronyism in parts of
Speaker 1: Middle America. So it's not clear who's who's being screwed.
Speaker 1: If you think about the fact that Middle America is subsidized,
Speaker 1: then in a mixed economy, somebody is paying to get
Speaker 1: to give them the subsidy. And who pays most of the taxes.
Speaker 1: It's the cities, it's the coasts. Most of the taxes are
Speaker 1: paid by California and New York places like that. So
Speaker 1: in the mixed economy, everybody's being screwed. Everybody's being sacrificed
Speaker 1: to somebody. And you know, everybody being screwed, for example,
Speaker 1: by inflation. So the distortions and perversions everyway, and everybody's
Speaker 1: being screwed by them, everybody who lives in that country. Enrick,
Speaker 1: thank you for the sticker. And I saw one of
Speaker 1: the sticker. Linda, thank you for the sticker. Really appreciate that,
Speaker 1: all right, So thank you, Michael. Another Michael saying, Michael,
Speaker 1: but another question, Part one. Megan Kelly is such a disappointment.
Speaker 1: She's afraid of going against taking ganis on same with
Speaker 1: the head of the Heritage Foundation. I don't know, I'll
Speaker 1: just come into this. I don't understand why Megan Kelly
Speaker 1: is a disappointment because I don't understand what you expected
Speaker 1: of her. Making Kelly's always being a you know, a
Speaker 1: Fox she was a Fox show host. She always followed
Speaker 1: the party line. When she went out on herself. She
Speaker 1: she's a trumpist. She she mouths the the what was
Speaker 1: expected of her. I mean, it's not like Making Kelly
Speaker 1: was some great journalist that's gone rotten. She was never
Speaker 1: very good. She was always like this part two. This
Speaker 1: suggests that anti semites are no longer on the fringes
Speaker 1: of society. They have they have numbers, and mainstream conservatives
Speaker 1: outlets are taking notice. Yes, I think that's right. I
Speaker 1: think that's why it's such a problem. I'm saying, uh,
Speaker 1: and yeah, it's being mainstreamed and and uh. These are
Speaker 1: leaders of the conservative movement. These are not fringed characters. Unfortunately,
Speaker 1: Tucker calls and Making Kelly and and and this is
Speaker 1: coming to it because it's a powerful political force within conservatives.
Speaker 1: Soria charitch is massive there. It shows the fact that
Speaker 1: they intellectually bankrupt, they intellectually bankrupt, and that they have
Speaker 1: to appease a large base of people that have accepted
Speaker 1: these horrific ideas. Paul, can you give three examples in
Speaker 1: basic philosophical or political premises where the right and left agree, Well,
Speaker 1: it depends which right and which left, but you know
Speaker 1: they agree. They both agree that individual rights need to
Speaker 1: be violated in order to satisfy something that they categorize
Speaker 1: as the public good or or the common interest or
Speaker 1: what's good for America, or what's good for the politarian
Speaker 1: and what's good for somebody in right and left agree
Speaker 1: that rights are not inaliable. Rights can indeed be violated
Speaker 1: for the common good. They just define the common good
Speaker 1: differently in different circumstances, but the principle of rights can
Speaker 1: be violated. What else do they Well, they agree. You know,
Speaker 1: this is a manifestation of the fact that they fundamentally
Speaker 1: agree in collectivism. They both view collectivism as the standard.
Speaker 1: You know, the right might view the collective as the
Speaker 1: nation and the left might view the collective as the
Speaker 1: poor or the apolitarian of the workers, or something like that.
Speaker 1: But they both agree that the standard of value and
Speaker 1: the standard by which we should all behave as a
Speaker 1: collectivistic standard. It's the standard of the group, not the individual.
Speaker 1: And this relates of course the fact that they don't
Speaker 1: believe in protecting individual rights. Jennifer Sis My dad was
Speaker 1: a Jewish atheist. I grew up with the name Feldman
Speaker 1: and luckily never got any anti semitism, maybe because I
Speaker 1: grew up in a wealthy neighborhood in Michigan. Is anti
Speaker 1: Semitism worse in the South? Yes, I think it is
Speaker 1: worse in the South. It's also worse in places that
Speaker 1: don't have a lot of Jews or where they're not
Speaker 1: exposed to a lot of Jews. And you know, the
Speaker 1: more Christian a place, the more anti Semitism you're going
Speaker 1: to get generally. And that's why I think you get
Speaker 1: more of it, or got more of it in the South.
Speaker 1: I don't know about today. But it also depends on
Speaker 1: All it takes is a couple of kids to express
Speaker 1: anti Semitic views, and other people join the little gang.
Speaker 1: So sometimes it's just an issue of the particular people
Speaker 1: that happen to be in your class or in your
Speaker 1: social group, whether you feel the anti semitism or not. Clark,
Speaker 1: doesn't it ever shock you how deep human hatred and
Speaker 1: narationality can urtionality can go. There's so many layers and
Speaker 1: it builds up over time to create monsters seem like
Speaker 1: a completely waste of energy, complete waste of energy. Absolutely,
Speaker 1: I mean it really is horrific, and it's it's unbelievably
Speaker 1: sad and pathetic because think of that energy and that
Speaker 1: focus and that enthusiasm going towards productive activities, productive endeavors. Uh,
Speaker 1: think about what could be what could be made? The hate,
Speaker 1: the the the irrationality, Think about all those irrational people
Speaker 1: being rational, what kind of a beautiful, amazing world we
Speaker 1: would have? And yes, they build up to create monsters,
Speaker 1: monsters like real monsters like Hitler or you know, monsters
Speaker 1: on the communist side like Stalin and Mao, but even
Speaker 1: you know, junior monsters, smaller monsters that just entrenched our
Speaker 1: mixed economy and refuse to allow us to move towards
Speaker 1: greater eat them in greater prosperity. Monsters come in all sizes,
Speaker 1: in all types. So yes, or the Nick Frantis type monsters,
Speaker 1: the techer Costan type monsters. Waste our time, waste our energy,
Speaker 1: and waste so many people. I want to say mind,
Speaker 1: but do they have a mind? Waste waste the energy
Speaker 1: of so many people, so many people, Andrew, how do
Speaker 1: you explain that there's still immense man made pain and
Speaker 1: suffering because of a belief in gods at the same
Speaker 1: time when science and technology is an advanced state. Well,
Speaker 1: I think basically, what religion provides people and this is
Speaker 1: the hook and then it gets its fangs into its
Speaker 1: claws into us. It provides me both morality. So and
Speaker 1: this is this is and an epistemology. So it tells
Speaker 1: people where the truth comes from. Uh, and yeah, you
Speaker 1: know this is not truth about the natural world that
Speaker 1: comes from science, but the truth primarily about morality. The
Speaker 1: battle is really about morality. And uh, people don't know
Speaker 1: what to do without religion guiding their their morality. So uh,
Speaker 1: the consequence of that is that people embrace this primitive,
Speaker 1: primitive ideology because they view it as the only source
Speaker 1: of malco the only source of how to be good
Speaker 1: if you will, right, all right, all right? Uh, let's
Speaker 1: see it's yea. Andrew also says, what about Jewish people
Speaker 1: or any minority seeing themselves as victims? Jews have a
Speaker 1: claim of legitimate victimhood or at least a being maligned
Speaker 1: by nasty conspiracy theories. Still, isn't it bad? To label
Speaker 1: oneself a victim. It is unless you are a victim, right,
Speaker 1: I mean, so if somebody steals, if somebody burglarizes you,
Speaker 1: or somebody kidnaps you, and and and I don't know,
Speaker 1: puts you in a jail or puts you in the dungeon,
Speaker 1: you're a victim. And you've got to label yourself, not
Speaker 1: label yourself as a victim, as in, I'm always a victim,
Speaker 1: but right now I'm a victim. And part of the
Speaker 1: reason you if that happens is you need to know
Speaker 1: who to fight, how to fight, what to do to
Speaker 1: stop being a victim. But yeah, sometimes you're being victimized.
Speaker 1: So you have to acknowledge reality when it's really reality
Speaker 1: and deal with it. Now. You're right in a sense
Speaker 1: that you can't in turn, I've been victimized heref I'm
Speaker 1: always a victim. I am a victim. I should always
Speaker 1: be a victim. And yes, some Jews do that and
Speaker 1: some you know, some Jews do that and they live
Speaker 1: with that. But that's that's true of individuals, that's true
Speaker 1: of groups. You know, you've got to face reality. You're
Speaker 1: a victim. When you're a victim, you're not a victim
Speaker 1: when you're not a victim, and you have to deal
Speaker 1: with that, and you have to when you are victim,
Speaker 1: you have to get out of that situation as quickly
Speaker 1: as possible and and and figure out how to never
Speaker 1: become a victim again. Talk about victim. You know, I
Speaker 1: get this question. I've been getting this question for for
Speaker 1: forty years, right from anti Semites and haters generally. This
Speaker 1: is John Smith and the Chat teach us about the
Speaker 1: USS liberty. Now, volumes have been written about this. There's
Speaker 1: nothing new I'm going to say about this, but this
Speaker 1: is just this talk about victim right, This is this
Speaker 1: is the This is the non Jewish victimhood, the victimhood
Speaker 1: of anti Semites. Who this is another blood libel. It's
Speaker 1: the same blood libel as the poisoning of Welles. It's
Speaker 1: the same blood libel as the Jews killed, you know,
Speaker 1: killed Christ. It's the same blood libel as everything. Now,
Speaker 1: you know, this was a US Navy ship that was
Speaker 1: attacked by the Israeli Air Force in the lead up
Speaker 1: to the Sixth Day War, and it clearly was an
Speaker 1: accident and Israel's you know, it's been explained and analyzed
Speaker 1: and explained and expecially Theoris don't matter. The idea is
Speaker 1: that Israel did it on purpose. Now, let's even assume
Speaker 1: that that is true, that Israel did it on purpose. Okay,
Speaker 1: that was sixty you know, that was almost sixty years ago.
Speaker 1: What relevance does it have to anything today? The people
Speaker 1: who did it are all dead. The people who did
Speaker 1: it are all dead. You know, if you put that aside,
Speaker 1: Israel has been an amazing fen to the United States.
Speaker 1: It's in pro us in a way that no other
Speaker 1: country in the world has been. What exactly is the problem.
Speaker 1: Let's assume they made a mistake. Let's assume they did
Speaker 1: it on purpose. Okay, go, you know, why why are
Speaker 1: you continuously hopping on this on the USS liberty again?
Speaker 1: It was almost sixty years ago. It's irrelevant anything going
Speaker 1: on today, It's irrelevant. It turns out to the relationship
Speaker 1: between Israel and the United States. Certainly, everybody who investigated it,
Speaker 1: everybody in power in the United States who looked at it,
Speaker 1: decided that was irrelevant. But Israel didn't kill them. It
Speaker 1: was a mistake. It was an error. You don't commit errors.
Speaker 1: Do you feel the same way about the Vietnamese? Do
Speaker 1: you know how many Vietnamese killed am American American serviceman.
Speaker 1: Do you hate the Vietnamese is the same way you
Speaker 1: hate Israelis? No, you don't. The Germans killed tens hundreds
Speaker 1: of thousands of Americans World War one and two. Do
Speaker 1: you hate them as much? Uh? You know many Americans, many, many,
Speaker 1: many Americans have been killed, servicemen and others have been
Speaker 1: killed by Palestinian terrorists and everb terrorists over the years.
Speaker 1: You hate them? No, it's it's just pure victimhood, you know,
Speaker 1: and in a victim victim mentality, And it's just pure
Speaker 1: anti Semitism. And it doesn't matter how many times what
Speaker 1: happened to the liberty is explained to people, no matter
Speaker 1: how many people investigated and come up with the same conclusion,
Speaker 1: it doesn't matter. The conspiracy will always be there. It
Speaker 1: is the poisoning of Wells cause the Black Death. And
Speaker 1: it doesn't Facts don't matter, reality doesn't matter, truth doesn't matter.
Speaker 1: All the matters is the Jews did it? She? Just
Speaker 1: John Smith or whatever you call it. You're just an
Speaker 1: ugly anti semit that's all you are. And look in
Speaker 1: the mirror and that's what you should see. That's right.
Speaker 1: What you do. See? All right, how about Campbell, let's
Speaker 1: go on. I don't think love by nature is stronger
Speaker 1: than hate. Hate seems to have won out for most
Speaker 1: of human history and is unfortunately dominated today. Well, it
Speaker 1: depends what we need by stronger. Love is what builds things.
Speaker 1: Love is what creates things. Love is what makes life possible.
Speaker 1: Love of values, love of self, love of the people
Speaker 1: you love. You don't get skyscrapers, you don't get onobiles,
Speaker 1: you don't get technology, you don't get iPhones, you don't
Speaker 1: Without love, all hate can do is destroy. Now, what
Speaker 1: have we had? More creation or destruction? Clearly creation. Clearly,
Speaker 1: love is stronger than hate. Clearly love is more dominant
Speaker 1: than hate. Clearly the productive of winning in spite of everything. Now,
Speaker 1: they're not willing enough. Imagine a world in which love
Speaker 1: dominated and hate was gone. You know all of that,
Speaker 1: But no, I completely disagree with you. Hate is way
Speaker 1: too powerful, there's too much of it, and it's horrible
Speaker 1: because we could be so much more productive. But love
Speaker 1: ultimately is dominates and most people, most people are much
Speaker 1: more loving than they are hating. John, thank you for
Speaker 1: the five dollars, And that was your fifth super chat.
Speaker 1: So I appreciate that, Andrew, I'm going fast because otherwise
Speaker 1: this will take all night. It was interesting to me.
Speaker 1: It was interesting to me that rand wrote in her
Speaker 1: journal about Peterson that she makes collectivistic judgments, which is horrifying.
Speaker 1: But it's true. Collectivistic judgment is an extremely irrational way
Speaker 1: to judge an individual. But it's true. Collectivist collective judgment
Speaker 1: is an extremely irrational way to judge an individual. Yes, yes,
Speaker 1: she wordered about Isabel Patterson that she makes collective judgments,
Speaker 1: and Einran thought it was horrific, horrifying, And yeah, collective
Speaker 1: judgments are horrifying, and the particularly horrifying, particularly horrifying when
Speaker 1: they are kind of negative collective judgments, and they necessitated
Speaker 1: some negative action against whoever? Bobby what aari ever consider
Speaker 1: adding an addendum the description of the first lecture of
Speaker 1: objectivesm Through Induction to reflect that doctor Peacock no longer
Speaker 1: holds that causality is volitionally induced. What. Yeah, I don't know,
Speaker 1: I mean, I don't remember what he says in Objectives
Speaker 1: and through Induction in that first lecture, And yeah, I'm
Speaker 1: not sure, and I'm not sure what Leonard would think
Speaker 1: about that, but certainly I can ask, okay, ask See,
Speaker 1: I can't remember that first lecture. I organized it, I
Speaker 1: was there live, but I can't remember it. So I
Speaker 1: don't know what he actually says in that lecture. What
Speaker 1: does he how does he think if it's not causally induced,
Speaker 1: where does it come from? How do we know? How
Speaker 1: do we know it volitionally induced? Oh, it's induced but novolationally?
Speaker 1: I see, I think that's right. Okay, we'd have to
Speaker 1: find way. Do you know where he actually says that?
Speaker 1: And I can look into that, Andrew, it's normal for
Speaker 1: an objective is to get the principles on deeper level
Speaker 1: over time, as he learns the philosophy better and makes
Speaker 1: new observations. Twenty years in, and I still get shocked
Speaker 1: at new integrations of the evil of altruism. Yeah, I
Speaker 1: think that's right. It's still I mean, I don't know
Speaker 1: that I'm shocked, but I still make new integrations and
Speaker 1: still here, other people make new integrations. And some of
Speaker 1: them are new integrations that are really old, but some
Speaker 1: of them are you. And this is the beauty of
Speaker 1: this is a philosophy that gives you the tool to
Speaker 1: constantly grow, to constantly see to constantly integrate. It is
Speaker 1: the ultimate philosophy of integration. Hughes has any thoughts on
Speaker 1: the new show Pubius by Breaking Bad Creative Vince Gillium.
Speaker 1: It seems to have an explicitly individualistic versus collectivist esteem.
Speaker 1: Only watched the first episode, and it does it's a
Speaker 1: little creepy, and it seems a little weird. It's weird.
Speaker 1: Let me see more of it, and we'll see if
Speaker 1: that is indeed the theme and what comes of that theme,
Speaker 1: how how it develops. And it is sad though you'll
Speaker 1: notice one of the one of the other sub themes
Speaker 1: is that the collective is all happy, the blob, the group,
Speaker 1: the collective, it's all happy. It's all hopeful and happy
Speaker 1: and benevolent and nice and friendly. And though the individualist,
Speaker 1: who is not susceptible to this virus and is not
Speaker 1: is not being contaminated by it, is a cynic miserable.
Speaker 1: We'll see again how that developed and that I think
Speaker 1: that'll hold. I think the theme will be something like,
Speaker 1: it's better to be a individualism entails misery, but that's
Speaker 1: better than happiness under the blob, under the collective, which
Speaker 1: is better than nothing, but that's not a good thing.
Speaker 1: I mean, I'm still waiting for the happy individualist to
Speaker 1: be projected in a movie. Steve and how you on
Speaker 1: I start a very demanding job tomorrow in immigration law. WHOA.
Speaker 1: What advice do you have for people starting high stress
Speaker 1: jobs to boost productivity and actually impress their bosses. Well,
Speaker 1: don't start a job with the idea that you're going
Speaker 1: to impress your boss. Be the goal shouldn't be the purpose.
Speaker 1: You should answer a high stress job with the idea
Speaker 1: that you want to do as good of a job
Speaker 1: as you can do. You want to be the best
Speaker 1: Stephen Katz that you can be. You want to be
Speaker 1: the best in immigration law that you can that you're
Speaker 1: just gonna do a good job, and that you care
Speaker 1: about the job and you're gonna, you know, hopefully derive
Speaker 1: real satisfaction from doing that job. Well, it's it's uh,
Speaker 1: it's not uh, it's not a m It is not
Speaker 1: a about impressing your boss. It's about impressing yourself. It's about
Speaker 1: doing a good job for you. Focus on you. Focus
Speaker 1: on doing the job because you love doing a good job,
Speaker 1: because you have pride. Focus on your pride. Screw your boss.
Speaker 1: Focus your pride, and if you do that, and if
Speaker 1: you do good job, your boss will be impressed, hopefully
Speaker 1: if he's rational. But don't. If you start with the
Speaker 1: secondhand assumption that your purpose is to impress your boss,
Speaker 1: things will go haywhile because you'll start thinking about not
Speaker 1: about doing a good job, but about what your boss wants,
Speaker 1: and that will not lead to good things. All right,
Speaker 1: thank you for the twenty and fifty dollars questions. Let's
Speaker 1: move on to our ten and below questions and see
Speaker 1: how long it'll take to get through these. Michael, seeing
Speaker 1: seeing choose behind everything. Seeing Jews behind everything doesn't reveal
Speaker 1: the world. It reveals the rot in our mind. Yes,
Speaker 1: I mean the anti Semite who sees Jews behind everything,
Speaker 1: or the or the conspiracy theoriess generally, and the conspiracy
Speaker 1: theories who are not anti Semite. So though the amount
Speaker 1: of overlap is pretty amazing, basically gets wrought in their
Speaker 1: own mind. It's it's it's finding causality whether it is none,
Speaker 1: it's it's uh, it's integrating things that do not belong together.
Speaker 1: It's a failure of reason and rationality, and uh that
Speaker 1: even if it's not caused by rot develops rotten brain. Matt.
Speaker 1: I hope your book will have a chapter on anti Semitism.
Speaker 1: It will not. It will not. That maybe is a
Speaker 1: different book or certainly a different essay, uh, different talk.
Speaker 1: Maybe it will become a book one day, but it won't.
Speaker 1: It won't be in this in the book on Christianity,
Speaker 1: it will not cook. Speaking of demons, what's the quote
Speaker 1: people who can convince you of absurdities can convince you
Speaker 1: to commit atrocities. That's true, and that's scary. That's scary
Speaker 1: because if if Takakossan can convince you of the insanity
Speaker 1: of his demon's claim and things like that, then what
Speaker 1: is he going to demand of you? What is he
Speaker 1: going to convince you to do? Because at some point
Speaker 1: his agenda will turn to doing. It will not always stay.
Speaker 1: And I'm just asking questions. And that's scary given the
Speaker 1: size of his audience, Liam says, does Christianity make populations dumb,
Speaker 1: hateful and racist? Christianity taken seriously consistently at least as
Speaker 1: it was understood uh in in in the Middle Ages. Yes,
Speaker 1: I mean no science, no real progress, uh civilization of
Speaker 1: the kay uh hatefulness, the hate of the jew and
Speaker 1: and and hate hate of the other. Yeah, all part
Speaker 1: of that Christian world. Destruction of art, destruction of science,
Speaker 1: destruction of economic progress, destruction of money. That's all part
Speaker 1: of the Dark Ages. It's all part of a period
Speaker 1: in history where religion was taken seriously. It had to
Speaker 1: come out of that period only by discovering Aristotle, discovering
Speaker 1: Greek ideas, which starts happening in the eleventh century, twelfth century,
Speaker 1: really kicks off with Equitas in the thirteenth century, and
Speaker 1: really gets integrated into society with the Renaissance. Andrew no
Speaker 1: hates on autobiographies, but it is said, but it says
Speaker 1: something positive about Rand's psychology that when asked if she'd
Speaker 1: write her by autobiography, she said no, it would bore her.
Speaker 1: She was no narcissist. Absolutely absolutely. I think that's right. Harpercampbell.
Speaker 1: I get a sense Nick Foint just doesn't actually believe
Speaker 1: any of this. He's a master antagonizer and troll and
Speaker 1: found a way to make a lot of money by
Speaker 1: saying outrageous nonsense. No, I actually think he does believe it.
Speaker 1: I think he believes it. He tells the story of
Speaker 1: coming home from college and telling his parents how much
Speaker 1: he loves Hitler and at the Holocaust didn't really happen,
Speaker 1: and how they are shocked. I don't think he only
Speaker 1: did it to shock them. I think that was an
Speaker 1: added value. But I and particularly if you start repeating
Speaker 1: it and saying it often enough, I think it becomes
Speaker 1: part of you. But given that he was just in college, Yeah,
Speaker 1: I think he believes it, or at least to the
Speaker 1: extent that you can believe stuff like that. I think
Speaker 1: he believes. He believes it, and it's part of him.
Speaker 1: It's part of who he is now. He can't separate
Speaker 1: it out. He cannot separate He's not just an entertainer. Michael.
Speaker 1: If Donald Trump ran for president in the nineteen eighties,
Speaker 1: would you have gotten to know it? Why was the
Speaker 1: country responding to the optimism of Reagan despite how miserable
Speaker 1: and cynical the nineteen seventies were. Yeah, because I think
Speaker 1: the culture was a lot better in the nineteen eighties,
Speaker 1: a lot better. I think the American sense of life
Speaker 1: still existed, the can doism, and I think Americans were
Speaker 1: frustrated by the seventies and they wanted something better, and
Speaker 1: they were looking for something better. They had a much
Speaker 1: much better sense of life. I mean, you could argue
Speaker 1: that that sense of life had been nourished by iron
Speaker 1: Rand and that so many Americans had read her. But
Speaker 1: beyond that, it just hadn't been corrupted by time quite
Speaker 1: as much, and it still had remnants of that nineteenth
Speaker 1: century or founding Father's kind of sense of what it
Speaker 1: meant to be an American. So no, Donald Trump would
Speaker 1: have been a complete flop in the nineteen eighties. You
Speaker 1: would have never succeeded. Americans could see right through him.
Speaker 1: I think during that period they responded to optimism because
Speaker 1: that's who they were, That's what Americans were, and it's
Speaker 1: only I don't think Donald Trump could have succeeded in
Speaker 1: the nineties, and not even in the two thousands. Donald
Speaker 1: Trump is a post nine to eleven, post financial crisis phenomena.
Speaker 1: He's Americans giving up on being American, and that manifested
Speaker 1: itself in the response of nine to eleven and in
Speaker 1: response of financial crisis, and there was nothing left by
Speaker 1: the time Donald Trump showed up. Jonathan miss Rand did
Speaker 1: not generally speak of her Jewish heritage unlist faced with
Speaker 1: anti Semitism. Yes, as with Isabel Patterson. As far as
Speaker 1: we know, the only time she talked about it that
Speaker 1: she said was that she did not consideredself Jewish accept
Speaker 1: when faced with antisemitism, and I I have the same approach,
Speaker 1: I guess, not that I'm comparing myself to rand. I
Speaker 1: don't think of myself as Jewish, quite Jewish, except when
Speaker 1: I faced anti Semitism, and then suddenly you know, yeah,
Speaker 1: now I'm a Jew. What of it. It's like, I'm
Speaker 1: not a Zionist. I'm not a Zionist except when you
Speaker 1: get these anti Semitic, anti Zionists creeps, and then I'll
Speaker 1: defend Zionism. Right. God, I'm looking at my Twitter feed
Speaker 1: and people are so delusional, They're so nuts. I boasted
Speaker 1: the the all the all the quotes about from the
Speaker 1: Christian fathers about Jews, and this guy says, ever noticed
Speaker 1: how much the West has declined since we abandoned this view? Really?
Speaker 1: I mean, the West was like at the bottom of
Speaker 1: the pit of hell when that view was held. It
Speaker 1: was poor, it was pathetic. The Muslims were better and
Speaker 1: more advanced than the West when the West held those views. Explicitly,
Speaker 1: what is he talking about? The West rose when it
Speaker 1: abandoned those views when it embraced reason and science and secularism.
Speaker 1: People are ignorant, they're so that my book will address. Okay,
Speaker 1: we're seeing a pincer movement right now. This is from
Speaker 1: James against Jewish community from both left and right. It's
Speaker 1: a type of political formation to gain power. No, I
Speaker 1: don't think so. I don't think it's planned. I don't
Speaker 1: think it's that sophisticated. It's just, you know, anti Semitism
Speaker 1: rears it's ugly head whenever irrationality is strong, and irrationality
Speaker 1: is strong on both left and right right now, and
Speaker 1: that's why we're seeing the anti semitism. So no, it's
Speaker 1: not some power grab. It's just a manifestation of the
Speaker 1: evil are both left and right right now. And it's
Speaker 1: still not true that a majority of Americans hold this.
Speaker 1: Neither majority of Democrats, a majority of Republicans are not
Speaker 1: don't buy into this garbage, James says, have you read
Speaker 1: mind COMF? Was there anything unique about Hitler's orientation towards
Speaker 1: anti Semitism and how to gain power from the phenomena?
Speaker 1: I have not read mine COMF. I'm really not interested.
Speaker 1: I see no value in it. I mean, some people
Speaker 1: get value found, you know. And if you're studying the
Speaker 1: period and used to studying Hitler and you really want
Speaker 1: to understand Hitler, I guess you need to read it.
Speaker 1: I've never read it and not really interested in it.
Speaker 1: And I don't think he has a unique perspective. He combined.
Speaker 1: His perspective is nationalistic, blaming the Jews for basically the
Speaker 1: fa of World War One and the failure of the
Speaker 1: German people to rise up to its full potential. And
Speaker 1: you blame the other And that's historically consistent. There's nothing
Speaker 1: really that original there other than the particularly integration that
Speaker 1: he makes of the time and place. Not you have
Speaker 1: a jog with him. Tucker calls an acts as an
Speaker 1: ideological laundeuer of other people's evil. Yeah, sol, though we
Speaker 1: add some spice to it, all, right, Jacob. Did the
Speaker 1: Jews even have free will in killing Jesus? It was
Speaker 1: prophetized and Jesus didn't save himself at the Garden of Jests.
Speaker 1: I mean, that is a deeply theological question that I
Speaker 1: have no answer to, right, I don't know. I don't
Speaker 1: know what that I don't know. Once you accept God,
Speaker 1: the Jewish and Christian God. Once you accept his existence
Speaker 1: as this kind of being and petermination as part of
Speaker 1: the consequence of that, the whole thing is is The
Speaker 1: whole thing doesn't make any sense. None of it makes
Speaker 1: any sense. Not do you have a j'all go with him?
Speaker 1: And argument to be convincing requires someone entertaining it. Motivation
Speaker 1: is part of the persuasion pluzzle. Many people unmotivated to
Speaker 1: seek truth and level up. Well, many people are not
Speaker 1: don't have don't know the tool, the tool i e. Reason,
Speaker 1: They're not capable. Uh, they're not that they don't value reason,
Speaker 1: they don't elevate reason, they don't engage in reason. Uh.
Speaker 1: And and therefore they don't know how to seek truth
Speaker 1: even if they wanted to. Reason is the only tool
Speaker 1: for truth. John says this is in the chat, an
Speaker 1: old Russian propri that you will always tell you what
Speaker 1: happened to him, but he won't tell you why. I'm
Speaker 1: telling you why because of the irrationality, the collective, the
Speaker 1: nastiness of early Christianity, of nationalism, of collectivism and tribalism.
Speaker 1: I'm telling you exactly why. That's why these bad things
Speaker 1: happened to the Jews. It's not because of anything the
Speaker 1: Jews did. Now, John, who's an anti Semite, will never
Speaker 1: accept that Michael, just like Trump's no longer fail to
Speaker 1: be accused of violating the Constitution and acting like a dictator.
Speaker 1: That the new right is not a fraid of being
Speaker 1: called anti Semitican racist. That's right, because too many Americans
Speaker 1: like John already anti Semitican racist, and they're just capitalizing
Speaker 1: in on it. And I've told you that I think
Speaker 1: that Donald Trump in his first term opened the door
Speaker 1: to this and in a sense implicitly wink wink, embraced
Speaker 1: the old rights and allowed the old right to grow
Speaker 1: and become dominant. Clark, do you see a time in
Speaker 1: the next ten to twenty years when Islamics and Islamists
Speaker 1: and Jews are rounded up in some capacity by the
Speaker 1: authorities and exclusive from society. It was I mean, maybe
Speaker 1: not ten, maybe twenty years in Europe in certain parts
Speaker 1: of Europe. Yes, I do think that is a possibility
Speaker 1: that Muslims are we wounded up, and I think Jews
Speaker 1: will be thrown in for good measure. Why not. So
Speaker 1: I do think that's possible in Europe, and I think
Speaker 1: it's why you know, it's not the main reason Jews
Speaker 1: are leaving Europe. They're leaving you primarily because of Muslims,
Speaker 1: but ultimately they'll also lead because of what non Muslims
Speaker 1: are going to do. All right, Michael, how do emotions
Speaker 1: respond to higherarchy of values we've created? Well, I mean
Speaker 1: they reinforce the higher KA values. Once you have a
Speaker 1: high K of values, start feeling towards the higher values
Speaker 1: more passionately than you do towards the lower values. If
Speaker 1: you completely integrate it so it takes actual work. It
Speaker 1: doesn't happen instantaneously. The emotions follow the evaluation, and if
Speaker 1: it's integrated, ultimately your passions will correspond to the higherarchy
Speaker 1: of value. High K value is not created by your passions,
Speaker 1: but your passions will adjust to it. Right, Liam says,
Speaker 1: even though Southeast Asian cultures may be more collectivistic than
Speaker 1: we are when it comes to duty and family, they
Speaker 1: don't have the same contempt for worldly things or the
Speaker 1: work that Europe has because they unsaturated with Christianity, which
Speaker 1: is why they'll eventually overtake us and objectives and will
Speaker 1: rise there first. I mean that is quite possible. I
Speaker 1: do think Asia has this huge advantage of not having
Speaker 1: Jesus on a cross constantly looking down at them and
Speaker 1: inflicting guilt on the earthly success Catherine. Such a sad
Speaker 1: topic for Sunday, but very interesting. Well, but it's appropriate
Speaker 1: for Sunday. This is instead of going to church Part one,
Speaker 1: could you have at least one objectivist anti Trump rally,
Speaker 1: maybe at the next No King's protest. I'm not saying
Speaker 1: it will change the culture, but it helps grow confidence
Speaker 1: within our own movement. I don't understand why by getting
Speaker 1: ourselves offline in an organized physical space while simultaneously increasing
Speaker 1: network and networks of trust amongst objectives. Well, that's what
Speaker 1: ocon is for. But when you do that, you should
Speaker 1: strive to have a positive not a negative. We shouldn't
Speaker 1: come together in order to fruitlessly demonstrate against Trump. We
Speaker 1: should come together to study positive ideas, to share our
Speaker 1: positive values, to reflect on, you know, on Iran's great achievements.
Speaker 1: So I just don't get the protest thing. And what
Speaker 1: is appealing about it is the Trump phenomena and the
Speaker 1: mainstreaming of anti Semitism and notification that the impact of
Speaker 1: the Enlightenment is fading. It's being able to hold us afloat.
Speaker 1: But now we see a real drop off. You know. Yes,
Speaker 1: it's only dropping off. It's been dropping off for one
Speaker 1: hundred years. It's been in decline. We know that, and
Speaker 1: so this is to be expected. It is the impact
Speaker 1: of the Enlightenment that is fading. Reason and individualism fading
Speaker 1: and reason and individualism are the achievements of the Enlightenment.
Speaker 1: So yeah, Michael, the Jewish conservatives seem to be better
Speaker 1: than Christians. Ben Shapiro and Mike Lavin orders a magnitude
Speaker 1: better than Tucker calls in Matt Welsh. Yes, Judaism, modern Judaism,
Speaker 1: your modern secular Judaism, not the Judaism of the ultra Orthodox,
Speaker 1: is a much healthier religion because it's much more this
Speaker 1: worldly than Christianity. And therefore, and I think Mark Livin
Speaker 1: is pretty secular. I don't think he's an atheist, but
Speaker 1: he's pretty secular. So yeah, I think they are better.
Speaker 1: I think Jewish Jewish conservatives generally are better than the
Speaker 1: Christian counterparts because to the extent that they're religious, the
Speaker 1: modern version of that religion is a more this worldly
Speaker 1: religion than the Christian type. Hypacambo. When Nazi Germany arose,
Speaker 1: there was America to stop it. If America dissolves into Nazism,
Speaker 1: there's no one to stop it. That's right, that's right.
Speaker 1: Let's hope it doesn't happen. But again, the ominous powallel
Speaker 1: is very much predicted that it would happen. Andrew, is
Speaker 1: species pride valid? That is, when in awe of a
Speaker 1: great artworker, technological achievement, one can feel pride in being
Speaker 1: a member of the species that created that or is
Speaker 1: that collectivistic? No, not in the sense that you relate
Speaker 1: to what made it possible, and you see that in yourself.
Speaker 1: So you relate to your species because you see it,
Speaker 1: you see the capacity in yourself. So it's a pride
Speaker 1: in self. It's a pride in those attributes that you
Speaker 1: have as part of that species. But only if you
Speaker 1: choose to engage them. Liven, thank you for the sticker.
Speaker 1: Really appreciated. Who didn't more in the name of protecting
Speaker 1: individual rights from Americans? Charlie Coca Dick Cheney. God, I don't,
Speaker 1: I mean that's ridiculous. I mean, i'd say Jick Cheney.
Speaker 1: Cheney was a congressman who was quite good. It was
Speaker 1: quite good primarily on economic issues. He was not bad.
Speaker 1: I mean, yeah, I don't know. I mean they're both bad, right,
Speaker 1: I mean Charlie Coco's bad, particularly towards the end, more
Speaker 1: and more Christian, more and more interventionist, lesson less capitalist.
Speaker 1: Dick Cheney sent troops to Rock for no reason. So
Speaker 1: both mixed bags. I used no way to rank them.
Speaker 1: Paul is anti semitism and expression of altruism. I mean,
Speaker 1: I think on the left it is that is. I
Speaker 1: do think that the the the leftists intersectionality is a
Speaker 1: big driver of the anti semitism. And that's pure altruism.
Speaker 1: I've talked about it many times. I don't see it
Speaker 1: quite as much on the right. On the right it's
Speaker 1: more motivated by hatred. Uh and uh and and you know,
Speaker 1: Christian view of their own superiority. I like numbers. Are
Speaker 1: big city mayors a sign of where culture is? No,
Speaker 1: I mean big city mayors are being democrats for a
Speaker 1: long long time. I mean maybe yes, to the extent
Speaker 1: that that the culture has been very left, much more
Speaker 1: left than the economy other things. Yeah, in a sense
Speaker 1: it is and and uh, most big city mayors are
Speaker 1: democrats because the cultures dominantly democratic, productive people, educated people,
Speaker 1: predominantly vote Democratic sadly well, I mean, given the alternative
Speaker 1: Republicans Republicans, it's not that hard to understand. Yeah, it's
Speaker 1: certainly an indication of where things are. Anyway, Why didn't
Speaker 1: Jews from their own kingdom form their own kingdom elsewhere
Speaker 1: after dispersing by Romans in another favorable area, it was
Speaker 1: the religious adherents to the land of Jews or otherwise
Speaker 1: could have been better. There was a Jewish kingdom, There
Speaker 1: was a Jewish state in Central Asia, the Khazars, I
Speaker 1: think they were called. That lasted a while. I do
Speaker 1: not know the history of it. I don't know how
Speaker 1: it was formed and why it went away, but there
Speaker 1: was something there. But also, you know, they were always
Speaker 1: they were always a minority with this exception, and there
Speaker 1: was under the thumb of the majority that was around them,
Speaker 1: where the Muslims or Christians. So they never had the
Speaker 1: opportunity form their own state, and they were always dispersed
Speaker 1: because the powers to be made sure that they were dispersed. Matt.
Speaker 1: Some people I know who are mostly irrational flirt with
Speaker 1: Athles shrug claiming with as as claiming something's up Anti Semitism,
Speaker 1: Something's up when seeing many Jews in high positions, Why
Speaker 1: is this irrational? Because why can't it just be that
Speaker 1: those people are successful, and why can't it be that
Speaker 1: maybe they come from a culture that emphasize the success.
Speaker 1: Are we anti Asian because Asians are relatively successful? I mean,
Speaker 1: it's completely irrational. Just I mean, Indians in the United
Speaker 1: States are even more successful than Jews, Indians from India,
Speaker 1: and you can see now that people hate Indians. Look
Speaker 1: at the Indian hatred that maga is expressive. Why because
Speaker 1: they're successful, the more successful than mega failures. Indians are
Speaker 1: successful and they have brown skin, and that's unacceptable. So
Speaker 1: it's the same phenomenon as Jews. Why are they successful
Speaker 1: because they have a culture that emphasized success and they're envious.
Speaker 1: I'm proposing a two hundred year mortgage. What do you think, Well,
Speaker 1: I mean, nobody's going to buy a two undred year mortgage.
Speaker 1: I'll talk about Trump's suggesting a fifty year mortgage on
Speaker 1: the show tomorrow. So if you're interested in that, I'll
Speaker 1: talk about it tomorrow. Marius, to which extent do you
Speaker 1: agree with Theodore Hurtzel's idea of a Jewish state and
Speaker 1: which degree do you think it's a collectivistic idea. Again.
Speaker 1: I mean, I've talked about this in the past, and
Speaker 1: I'll talk about it again in the future. I'll do
Speaker 1: a quick version. I agree with the idea that there
Speaker 1: needs to be a state for Jews, that is, a
Speaker 1: state that is dedicated for the self defense of Jews.
Speaker 1: Jews can escape there, and since Jews will be a
Speaker 1: majority there, there will be no anti semitism in the state.
Speaker 1: Given the global nature of anti Semitism and how prevalent
Speaker 1: it is and how common it is across time, someplace
Speaker 1: to protect Jews, even Jews who don't consider themselves Jews,
Speaker 1: is worthwhile having. To that extent, I agree with Hurtzel's
Speaker 1: state for Jews, not even Jewish states state for Jews.
Speaker 1: To what degree do I don't it's a collectivistic idea. Well,
Speaker 1: it is collectivistic because it's for Jews, but of course
Speaker 1: that has been forced on Jews by everybody else again,
Speaker 1: whether they accept it or not. And to the extent
Speaker 1: that it becomes Jewish, the law is Jewish in any
Speaker 1: kind of way, which is not hurtilized the idea but
Speaker 1: did develop later that is wrong. So the laws of
Speaker 1: the State should not be Jewish. John Smith says, Greek Rome,
Speaker 1: Great Britain, United States has been European dominance from the beginning. Yeah,
Speaker 1: but you skipped from Rome to Great Britain. You skipped
Speaker 1: over what twelve hundred years, one thousand, two hundred years,
Speaker 1: where Central Asia, where the Middle East, where North Africa,
Speaker 1: where China and India were far more advanced than Europe,
Speaker 1: far more advanced than Europe. She can take the racist
Speaker 1: nonsense and find somebody else to believe in it. Let's see, Bobby. Yeah,
Speaker 1: he says it at the end of Actions Induction one,
Speaker 1: first lecture of Induction in Physics and Philosophy. Okay, I'll
Speaker 1: take a look at it, Bobby Williams, My bad. It
Speaker 1: is more completely formula related an hour into the second
Speaker 1: part of this of what of induction of the second
Speaker 1: part of his Physics and Philosophy Induction in Physics and Philosophy. Okay, Andrew,
Speaker 1: I think it really speaks to an objective sense of
Speaker 1: life that Rand wrote in her journal that Gold was
Speaker 1: a lover of reality. Shouldn't we all experience that metaphysical
Speaker 1: feeling on a basic level, Yes, lover of reality and
Speaker 1: lover of the human mind for being able to integrate
Speaker 1: reality and capable of achieving what we can achieve. But yes,
Speaker 1: a love of reality is a beautiful statement, and this
Speaker 1: is a sense in which I think love is far
Speaker 1: more powerful than hate. Cook Besides Constantine's Sword by James Caroll,
Speaker 1: are there any other books on the topic of anti
Speaker 1: Semitism you to a command? I don't have them here.
Speaker 1: I haven't. I've read bits and pieces. I haven't read
Speaker 1: anything I will right now. I'm working on this side
Speaker 1: of the project. At some point I work an anti
Speaker 1: Semitism project, which will involve reading books, and then I'll
Speaker 1: be able to recommend more to you. But I think
Speaker 1: there's a lot of stuff out there on anti Semitism
Speaker 1: that is probably worth reading. Nothing that comes to mind
Speaker 1: right now, Andrew. What makes me nuts about matt Levin
Speaker 1: is he spends half an hour outraged that Trump has
Speaker 1: the legal right to impose tariffs, while never mentioning that
Speaker 1: that power is supposed to be limited to emergencies. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean matt Levin is outrageous in the sense that
Speaker 1: he will justify things that Trump is doing the deep
Speaker 1: down he knows are evil and wrong, And there are
Speaker 1: only a few issues in which he's willing to criticize Trump,
Speaker 1: Ukraine being one of them, but very few others. Nate,
Speaker 1: why do activist hedge funds like to do stock buybacks
Speaker 1: during a hostile takeover a corporation? I don't understand any
Speaker 1: of that activist hedge funds. Who's stuck? Are they buying back?
Speaker 1: When you do a hostile takeover corporation, you're buying at stock,
Speaker 1: So I don't know what the who they're buying back.
Speaker 1: I don't understand stock buy back. The question doesn't make
Speaker 1: any sense to me, So maybe try to formulate it
Speaker 1: differently tomorrow on tomorrow show, on a future show. But
Speaker 1: there's something that doesn't add up in that, you know,
Speaker 1: ask me a more direct question where the different components
Speaker 1: are clearer. But how stock buyback is related to takeover?
Speaker 1: Those don't go together. All right, guys, thank you really
Speaker 1: really appreciate the support. I'm going to go off to
Speaker 1: dinner and I will see you tomorrow. I think it'll
Speaker 1: be in the evening. We'll do a show tomorrow, but
Speaker 1: I will see you tomorrow and we will we will
Speaker 1: talk more than about you know, there's a lot of
Speaker 1: stuff to talk about a lot of stuff to talk about.
Speaker 1: Among other things, I'll call, I'll talk to him about
Speaker 1: the fifty year mortgage proposal, and a lot of other things,
Speaker 1: a lot of other things. Talk to you soon, BUYE
Speaker 1: everybody