Speaker 1: I think most of you guys already know my perspective
Speaker 1: on the tariff issue. It's a very nuanced view. I'm
Speaker 1: somewhere in between. I do lament the fact that we've
Speaker 1: lost our industry, but I also understand that tariffs are taxes,
Speaker 1: and I am, as a libertarian, opposed to taxes. However,
Speaker 1: I also understand that the federal government needs revenue, and therefore,
Speaker 1: if the federal government's going to exist, I would probably
Speaker 1: prefer a tariff regime as opposed to an income tax regime.
Speaker 1: So I'm nuanced to the point that I've upset everybody.
Speaker 1: So what do I do in these type of situations. Well,
Speaker 1: I invite on two people that can can battle it
Speaker 1: out and help me decide. I got guys Swan, who's
Speaker 1: more of the Austrian bent, and then we've got Alex Savetsky,
Speaker 1: who is essentially a mercantilist, as best I can tell,
Speaker 1: I'm just kidding, Uh maybe you are, I don't know,
Speaker 1: but we're gonna We're gonna get to the bottom of it.
Speaker 1: So yeah, opening salvo, gentlemen, Thank you for joining me.
Speaker 2: Thanks.
Speaker 3: I was gonna say A good way to have said
Speaker 3: that is like You've pissed everyone off, so now you
Speaker 3: want to like divert all of the hate and vitriol
Speaker 3: to two other ideas to take it on.
Speaker 1: Don't be mad at me, be mad at them. Yeah, so,
Speaker 1: I mean, that's honestly my opinion. Though like I am,
Speaker 1: I am very much like I have all of the
Speaker 1: Austrian principles that still guide me. But then I also
Speaker 1: have very much a pragmatic sense of like, well, I'm
Speaker 1: not going to get sound money, you know, unless I
Speaker 1: just migrate to bitcoin, which I kind of have. But
Speaker 1: in terms of from like the economic fit, like the
Speaker 1: fiscal policy of our nation, we're not going to get there.
Speaker 1: So what do we do in the interim? And I
Speaker 1: think that it's been very interesting to see this debate.
Speaker 1: I think in some ways it's been very good to
Speaker 1: have it happen because it's forced a lot of people
Speaker 1: to think about how global trade works in a way
Speaker 1: that I don't think people have and maybe ever anyways,
Speaker 1: I'm just curious where your thoughts are. So either of
Speaker 1: you want to start, I'd be happy to let you.
Speaker 4: I'll just say mine probably is similar to yours. I
Speaker 4: haven't listened to you talk about this issue specifically yet,
Speaker 4: but I can guess by your your short little explanation
Speaker 4: that it's probably pretty aligned with mine. My problem structurally,
Speaker 4: what I think the real issue is is that you can't,
Speaker 4: like I think there's a very specific reason why they
Speaker 4: shift it all in nineteen ten nineteen twenty from tariffs
Speaker 4: to income, social security and all of these things as
Speaker 4: the main taxes, is that you cannot you cannot play
Speaker 4: the tariff fighting game when you have a global reserve
Speaker 4: currency and a central bank, like I think you have
Speaker 4: structurally undermined your manufacturing and you're trying to It's like
Speaker 4: it's like poisoning your liver and then taking a pharmaceutical
Speaker 4: like you've your problem is that you poisoned your liver.
Speaker 4: You're just trying to cover it up or get around
Speaker 4: it with the pharmaceutical. The central bank is, are we
Speaker 4: poisoned our liver and we have the global reserve currency,
Speaker 4: and then the pharmaceutical is the tariffs are going to
Speaker 4: fix it? And it's not like the problem is structural
Speaker 4: to how our money works. And maybe maybe it can
Speaker 4: like put up a barrier, but I think it just
Speaker 4: means higher costs for everybody in the US and there's
Speaker 4: still a premium on the dollar and foreign trade unless
Speaker 4: we just stopped being the world was of our currency,
Speaker 4: and there might be enough pressure to do that.
Speaker 5: I don't know. At all times.
Speaker 1: I think had Trump maintained his threatened tariff policy, there's
Speaker 1: a distinct possibility that you would have seen such massive
Speaker 1: inflationary pressure in the US as as our global trading
Speaker 1: partners start to I mean, this was Trump's explicit goal.
Speaker 1: He wanted to sell He wanted to equalize trade. He
Speaker 1: wanted to have the same amount of trade from Vietnam
Speaker 1: into America as America into Vietnam.
Speaker 2: And he wanted to have more and more of.
Speaker 1: Our US dollars, which I think it's sixty percent of
Speaker 1: our fiat is circulating around the rest of the world.
Speaker 1: And he wanted to bring that money home. Well, if
Speaker 1: you bring that money home, don very very inflationary, very inflationary.
Speaker 1: And I just I just don't know, like I don't know.
Speaker 1: This is why I wanted to have Alex on because
Speaker 1: I hope he can steal man how this would have
Speaker 1: worked out, Because his best I can tell, he was running.
Speaker 1: He was sprinting headlong into the trifin dilemma and he
Speaker 1: didn't seem to have an answer as to how to
Speaker 1: remedy that. So what are your thoughts?
Speaker 3: All right, gentlemen? So I I think we all know
Speaker 3: he had that money printing is an issue. I don't
Speaker 3: think that's news to any of us, and I think
Speaker 3: people listening to the show appreciate that as well. I
Speaker 3: don't think, you know, guy, what you mentioned about, like
Speaker 3: you know, we moved onto income text and this and
Speaker 3: that sort of as a result of pure money printing.
Speaker 3: I don't know if that's like exactly true. I think
Speaker 3: these things are always a little bit more complex. You know,
Speaker 3: there's you know, if a parasite can figure out a
Speaker 3: way to take your money, you know, whether the money
Speaker 3: printing or not. I think they're going to try and
Speaker 3: figure out how to do that. And you know, I'm
Speaker 3: fundamentally no fan of taxes and tariffs and all this
Speaker 3: sort of stuff, and I get the economic argument for me,
Speaker 3: Like I've been battling with this. I just I just
Speaker 3: put a link to a sub stect that I just
Speaker 3: literally published five minutes ago, which tries to take a
Speaker 3: more nuanced view about this whole thing and what I
Speaker 3: basically distilled it down to is this, Tariffs are kind
Speaker 3: of like an economic handicap because you know, you just
Speaker 3: increase the cost, and you know the person profiting from
Speaker 3: the tariff is the whoever is charging the tariff, which
Speaker 3: in this case is the federal government. To your point, Clinton,
Speaker 3: it's like, would you rather have an internal taxation regime
Speaker 3: or would you rather do a taxation regime where you
Speaker 3: tax imports and therefore give your own people an advantage.
Speaker 3: It's clear which one is better. So there's not I
Speaker 3: don't think there's even an argument there. I don't think
Speaker 3: I think it's fanciful to believe that the federal governments
Speaker 3: going to disappear tomorrow, so if we have to sort
Speaker 3: of choose the lesser of two evils, there's that sort
Speaker 3: of evident. But the argument that I tried to make
Speaker 3: in this essay was the economics come second here, that
Speaker 3: this is no longer a matter of economics and materialism.
Speaker 3: This is a matter of doing, like sacrificing economics for
Speaker 3: the purpose of preserving culture, people, and nation. And I
Speaker 3: had a bit of a sort of a beef with
Speaker 3: Canoot Swamholm on on Twitter the other day, and not
Speaker 3: a beef like we just sort of went back and forth,
Speaker 3: and he's asked him, I said, what's a Nation's what's
Speaker 3: a nation? And he said, oh, it's a made up
Speaker 3: construct by a bunch of parasites. I want to tax you.
Speaker 3: I was like, no, that's fucking stupid. You know, a nation,
Speaker 3: nation is it's people. The word nation derives from natio,
Speaker 3: which is the Latin for shared birth. If you if
Speaker 3: you don't understand that concept, like it's it's sort of
Speaker 3: very difficult to have a proper conversation about this. Which
Speaker 3: the nation and the leader that is selected by the nation,
Speaker 3: whether through monarchy or whether through democratic principles, republican, whatever
Speaker 3: the case is, his duty is to his people first
Speaker 3: and right now, I think you know, I mean, it's
Speaker 3: been very clear from the beginning. You know, Trump was
Speaker 3: all about make America great again, not make Wall Street
Speaker 3: rich and prosperous. Right Like, there's a there's a disconnect here,
Speaker 3: which I think is is very hard for some people
Speaker 3: to get their heads around. Like you can maintain the
Speaker 3: position that tariffs are not economically intelligent for anybody to do,
Speaker 3: probably less so than America, because you know, America's got
Speaker 3: some very interesting components to it. Like it's it's one
Speaker 3: of the largest land masses in the world. It's the
Speaker 3: largest by fucking far consumer market on the planet. Like,
Speaker 3: I've sold many products with many businesses, and irrespective of
Speaker 3: what I've sold, what businesses I've ever run, seventy percent
Speaker 3: of all my sales or more have always come from
Speaker 3: America and thirty percent from everybody else combined. So it's
Speaker 3: not even like we're not even talking the same galaxies.
Speaker 3: So America's got the land, it's got the population, it's
Speaker 3: got the consumer base, and it's got all the fucking money.
Speaker 3: Like once again, like that that's you know, everyone is
Speaker 3: everyone is a poor in comparison to America. So you know, seriously,
Speaker 3: everyone's a poor. That's like literally what they are, right,
Speaker 3: So you you sort of you take that into account, Like,
Speaker 3: you know, if Salvador tomorrow was to imply impose a
Speaker 3: bunch of tariffs on all of their trade partners, like
Speaker 3: they would literally handicap themselves because they don't have any
Speaker 3: of those they don't hold the same hand. So anyway,
Speaker 3: coming back to my point is that there is an
Speaker 3: economic argument to be made, but there is also let
Speaker 3: let's imagine, you know, you have this. Uh, you know
Speaker 3: a neighborhood, and you know, the neighborhood has like stopped
Speaker 3: producing anything internally because they just decided to buy everything
Speaker 3: externally and they've just become essentially consumers. Someone on the
Speaker 3: neighborhood decide, no, no, no, we should stop, we should invest.
Speaker 3: We have the money, we have the economic wherewithal to
Speaker 3: invest in ourselves for a little bit. So let's give
Speaker 3: ourselves an advantage and slap attacks on everybody else and
Speaker 3: let's rebuild our own productive base. And I think there's
Speaker 3: an argument to be made here, which is America needs
Speaker 3: to put its culture, it's ethnos, it's people, and it's
Speaker 3: its own self before everybody else. And I think this
Speaker 3: is an effective way to do it, even more so,
Speaker 3: even more effective than Bitcoin or anything else at the moment,
Speaker 3: because like bitcoin is just as much as it is
Speaker 3: a stronger reserve currency superior to the US all this
Speaker 3: sort of US dollar, all this sort of shit. Bitcoin
Speaker 3: is way too young to become the global reserve currency today.
Speaker 3: But bitcoin still needs a decade or two of maturity.
Speaker 3: It's not going to happen. This is a way of,
Speaker 3: I don't know, slowing down the globalist machine. You know,
Speaker 3: people will make arguments about, oh, look at the supply chain,
Speaker 3: blah blah blah. You know, you can't make a fucking
Speaker 3: toaster in America, this and that. Like, when I hear
Speaker 3: all of that, that actually tells me that that's a
Speaker 3: fucking problem.
Speaker 4: The fact that I was about to say, you're just
Speaker 4: recognizing that the one hundred percent on that agreement is that
Speaker 4: every time I hear somebody make that argument, I'd be like,
Speaker 4: do you not realize that that means that, regardless of
Speaker 4: your take on tariffs, something should be done, because that's
Speaker 4: a huge issue, you know, a hugely terrible, terrible thing
Speaker 4: that you've just explained. And the idea is that tariff's
Speaker 4: whether you believe that, believe it work or not, is
Speaker 4: to try to correct that. You're just you're just basically
Speaker 4: showing me how bad the problem is. Not making an
Speaker 4: argument for against terrorifts in my opinion.
Speaker 3: But so, you know, we've got this kind of like
Speaker 3: fake thin globalist economy at the moment, which has come
Speaker 3: about as a result of I think excessive free marketism
Speaker 3: at the cost of social national cohesion. Right, Like we've
Speaker 3: sort of it's almost it's funny, it's got a relationship
Speaker 3: to the communist sort of ideal is that you can
Speaker 3: just imply that everybody is an economic unit. And I've
Speaker 3: sort of come to like, I don't know, scratch my
Speaker 3: head with the Austrian economic stuff here a little bit
Speaker 3: is that not like, not all cultures are the same,
Speaker 3: not all people are the same, not all norms are
Speaker 3: the same, not like, there is such a difference here
Speaker 3: that if we just look at the praxeological spreadsheet version
Speaker 3: of people, which is funny enough for communists do we
Speaker 3: might think that just making all global trade free and
Speaker 3: all this sort of stuff is a good idea. But
Speaker 3: what you end up doing is you end up, i
Speaker 3: don't know, like turning the world into one big blob
Speaker 3: of gray gu and Starbucks, right like it just it
Speaker 3: turns everything into sameness. And I don't think that's I
Speaker 3: don't think that's a good thing.
Speaker 4: I think I would say, we would I would check
Speaker 4: that in the concept that it's like I actually agree
Speaker 4: with your entire reasoning there, but that it's a sense
Speaker 4: of free marketism that's being unless you just mean it
Speaker 4: kind of in like the mental like people think that
Speaker 4: that's what it is.
Speaker 5: When we're opening.
Speaker 4: Up trade networks and all of this stuff, and that
Speaker 4: everybody just becomes like the same gou Is. I would
Speaker 4: argue that is actually again going back to the structure
Speaker 4: of our money. It's it's it's an issue with the
Speaker 4: dollar economy and the outflows of wealth from a central
Speaker 4: location that like we're becoming all American guized from a
Speaker 4: global perspective. So I do agree, But I think that
Speaker 4: a a free market actually means more walls, more like
Speaker 4: cultures that actually stick to their culture, and and where
Speaker 4: you have communities that are strictly their communities. The scale
Speaker 4: of these things just separate and divide into a thousand
Speaker 4: rather than one hundred.
Speaker 5: You know, I think I think it.
Speaker 4: I think it means more explostic competition and more people
Speaker 4: literally saying, no, this is how we do things here,
Speaker 4: this is our culture, and and you know, we're literally
Speaker 4: gonna put up a fence around our neighborhood and and
Speaker 4: you know you're not allowed in. Like, if people have
Speaker 4: the choice to segregate, I think they will people like
Speaker 4: people who think and talk like them. That's not an
Speaker 4: evil thing, that's like this common sense. Even the people
Speaker 4: who say it's evil will do the exact same thing.
Speaker 4: They just pretend that they're better than that, and so
Speaker 4: they think that the assumption of their conversation means that
Speaker 4: they don't do it, when every single time it comes
Speaker 4: up in the context is because they are doing it
Speaker 4: worse than everybody else.
Speaker 1: Like let me, let me, let me prove this out,
Speaker 1: because you said you think that they'll do that.
Speaker 2: No, no, no, they do do it all the day. They
Speaker 2: do exactly Martha's Martha's Vineyard.
Speaker 1: If you these are some of the most you know,
Speaker 1: pro immigration voters in the in the country, maybe in
Speaker 1: the history of America. If you go to fucking Martha's Vineyard,
Speaker 1: don't expect to see a bunch of you know, Mexicans
Speaker 1: and Haitians and shit like that. Like, that's not what
Speaker 1: it is. So this is this is a lie. And
Speaker 1: I just want to fire back a little bit against
Speaker 1: what you were saying, Alex, is that like what you're
Speaker 1: describing as egalitarianism. And I think that you know, all
Speaker 1: of the libertarians that I run with are not a galantarian.
Speaker 1: They fight back against that instinct very heavily. I think
Speaker 1: what you're really describing is the left right divide within
Speaker 1: libertarianism that there are left libertarians that believe in full
Speaker 1: open borders and the states of fiction and it doesn't matter.
Speaker 1: And then there's the right libertarians that say, no, like
Speaker 1: property rights still matter, even though yes, the state is
Speaker 1: a fiction, but the state does own that land, and
Speaker 1: therefore you have to treat it with the same respect
Speaker 1: of the voters as if they are kind of a
Speaker 1: proxy for the ownership of that land, and therefore they
Speaker 1: do get to dictate who's able to cross that land,
Speaker 1: you know. So, like, I think that that's really the
Speaker 1: divide you're describing it, and it's it's frustrating because I
Speaker 1: am constantly on the defensive against these accusations of, you know,
Speaker 1: being open borders, despite the fact that I'm not, and
Speaker 1: I've you know, made very adamant claims to the contrary
Speaker 1: over the past couple of years. Because I also recognize
Speaker 1: that even if you do believe the states of fiction,
Speaker 1: this immigration crisis is a product of the state that
Speaker 1: you have been robbed to fund it through the NGO
Speaker 1: networks to the tune of billions of dollars a year,
Speaker 1: not to mention the fact that it's the United Nations,
Speaker 1: one of the biggest globalist enterprises in the history of
Speaker 1: the world. That's responsible for funding and literally orchestrating the
Speaker 1: invasion from the third world to the first world, not
Speaker 1: just in America but also in the UK and all
Speaker 1: throughout Europe, probably Australia too. It's like this, this is
Speaker 1: a globalist plot using your money, extracting against your will,
Speaker 1: and then flooding you with you know, foreign invaders. There
Speaker 1: is just no libertarian argument for that, none whatsoever. Sorry,
Speaker 1: that was just a crazy rant, but I just wanted
Speaker 1: to make all that point so.
Speaker 3: Very true, very true. I think. I mean the I
Speaker 3: think the flooding does also go beyond just you know,
Speaker 3: sort of third world people in labor and biomass. It's
Speaker 3: also like third world pitty fucking plastic products and you
Speaker 3: know consumerism, right, And I think this is this is
Speaker 3: a you know, we can talk about like the ears
Speaker 3: and the ord and all this kind of stuff. But
Speaker 3: to sort of tie it back to guys earlier thing,
Speaker 3: it's there were mistakes made over the last hundred years
Speaker 3: with not not only around like money printing and you know,
Speaker 3: just sort of opening up borders economically and you know,
Speaker 3: physically speaking and all this sort of stuff. But you know,
Speaker 3: it sort of brought us to the point where America's
Speaker 3: you know, kind of like hollowed out its industrial base
Speaker 3: and its productive base, like it's it's excel like it's
Speaker 3: almost like some blend of a like a degenerate or
Speaker 3: actually what I should say is like a consumerist fucking
Speaker 3: heroin junkie like who just can't get enough of buying
Speaker 3: shit that they don't need, mixed with a degenerate gambler
Speaker 3: who has to trade everything and like bet on everything. Right,
Speaker 3: So you know, then that's why like these days, like
Speaker 3: everything is financialized, so you kind of like when you financialize,
Speaker 3: and this is the obviously money printing has a big
Speaker 3: role to play here, is that you print money. Everyone
Speaker 3: uses the American dollars the reserve currency, you know, they
Speaker 3: you know, you get these deficits, you get all this
Speaker 3: sort of shit, and you know, America sort of becomes
Speaker 3: the beneficiary of that in the short term, but the
Speaker 3: long term it sort of hollows itself out. And lest
Speaker 3: that be sort of like reversed in some capacity, which
Speaker 3: at the moment, honestly I look at it, I think
Speaker 3: terifs are a fucking great way to do that. I
Speaker 3: don't see actually a more powerful tool right now to
Speaker 3: like just hit right at the heart of this excessive
Speaker 3: consumer's behavior. Because when I when I was speaking to Knute,
Speaker 3: like I challenged him and said, okay, so what's the
Speaker 3: worst case that happens here in this character is like, eah,
Speaker 3: everything gets more expensive. I'm like, okay, so what does
Speaker 3: that mean. It's like, well, you know, people are gonna
Speaker 3: pay more for the stuff that they buy from overseas.
Speaker 3: I'm like, okay, so people become less consumers. And see, hoah,
Speaker 3: that's a bad thing. Ninety percent of the shit that
Speaker 3: people are buying in America is fucking useless anyway. You
Speaker 3: know the the they have enough energy, they have enough
Speaker 3: food locally, maybe you know that they also.
Speaker 5: I was about to say, I want to head off.
Speaker 4: I can already hear somebody saying that you can't eat
Speaker 4: an iPad like you're just like you're just saying everybody
Speaker 4: should be poor. And I but I agree with your art.
Speaker 4: I agree with actually the logic that you're playing here,
Speaker 4: because we're not gonna have a problem with food.
Speaker 5: Foods that are gonna be we can grow.
Speaker 4: We have the bread basket of America, we have better
Speaker 4: farmland than anybody in the world. Basically, like food will
Speaker 4: not be the problem. It will be the cheap crap
Speaker 4: that's easy to ship from overseas and from China. Like
Speaker 4: it's just a bunch of it is literally just a
Speaker 4: bunch of like, Oh, we have too much money, and
Speaker 4: we're the world reserve currency, so we have so there
Speaker 4: are foreign premiums basically on the dollar, and so we
Speaker 4: can just buy all this cheap crap. Every time I
Speaker 4: need something to just pop up on Amazon, just just
Speaker 4: order it here the next day.
Speaker 1: Today's episode Liberally Lockdown is once again brought to you
Speaker 1: by crowd Health. Health insurance is confusing, it's expensive, it's frustrating,
Speaker 1: it's a nightmare. But there is a better way. Health
Speaker 1: insurance doesn't have to be like this, and that's why
Speaker 1: they came up with a better option. Welcome to crowd Health,
Speaker 1: the health insurance Alternative. For one hundred and seventy five
Speaker 1: dollars for an individual or five hundred and seventy five
Speaker 1: dollars for a family of four or more, you could
Speaker 1: access to a community of people who are willing to
Speaker 1: help out in the event of an emergency. You get
Speaker 1: access to telemedicine, visits, discount of prescriptions, and so much
Speaker 1: more without doctor's networks getting in the way. It's about time,
Speaker 1: and of course you'll join the crowd group of members
Speaker 1: just like you who want to help pay for each
Speaker 1: other's unexpected medical events. Let crowd health help with your
Speaker 1: health care needs. Get started to day for just ninety
Speaker 1: nine dollars per month for your first three months by
Speaker 1: using code lockdown at join crowdhealth dot com. Crowdhealth is
Speaker 1: not insurance. Learn more at join crowdhealth dot com. That's
Speaker 1: join crowdhealth dot com code lockdown. This is an interesting argument, though,
Speaker 1: and I'd like to actually basically take it from Alex
Speaker 1: and ask you it directly, guy, because basically what he's
Speaker 1: describing is forced austerity, and like libertarians broadly oppose force,
Speaker 1: so like we broadly opposed this this entire framework. But
Speaker 1: I do agree toy, yeah, but we do agree with
Speaker 1: all yeah exactly. So, so like, how do you have
Speaker 1: a better option? He said, I can't think of a
Speaker 1: better option, can you? And I think both of us
Speaker 1: would instantly argue, well, you probably have to go back
Speaker 1: to sound money and the like.
Speaker 2: We could listen to things.
Speaker 4: No going to the idea of like we've poisoned our
Speaker 4: liver and we're taking a pharmaceutical. Is that like, well,
Speaker 4: whatever problem we're living with, it's probably better to cover
Speaker 4: up the symptom. But the idea is fix the liver.
Speaker 4: But that means in the FED. And if we're not
Speaker 4: gonna end the FED, then maybe tariff's balance that out.
Speaker 4: You know, it is something that would they would hit
Speaker 4: Wall Street worse than it hits Main Street because it's
Speaker 4: it's not critical things that are being and and when
Speaker 4: you're looking at the reverse is the foreign premium on
Speaker 4: our money's specifically something that benefits Wall Street and Washington,
Speaker 4: DC and destroys the middle class and working classes in
Speaker 4: the manufacturing base. So like in the in the context
Speaker 4: of an artificial imbalance that has done harm, this would technically,
Speaker 4: I think from an economic game theory perspective, this would
Speaker 4: be an artificial harm that swung it back in the
Speaker 4: other way. So I don't think it's entirely a terrible idea,
Speaker 4: but I don't think it's still not a solution.
Speaker 5: You know, it's just the whole thing is just a mess.
Speaker 3: Let me let me pull on that thread a little
Speaker 3: bit further. So the the you poison your liver. I
Speaker 3: don't think right now, fixing the environment and taking the
Speaker 3: you know, natural approach of stop poisoning liver is going
Speaker 3: to save you because I think the patient is terminal
Speaker 3: and they need they need, seriously, they need something.
Speaker 5: There's a potential argument there, I'm not.
Speaker 3: I'm telling you it's like this is actually you need
Speaker 3: the pharmaceutical to save your life and kind of come
Speaker 3: out of the terminal spin and then start living healthy
Speaker 3: again in kind of the way that you know, let's
Speaker 3: say cancer has got your ass. And as much as
Speaker 3: we can sit here and bag out like chemotherapy is
Speaker 3: bad and all this sort of shit, chemotherapy actually does
Speaker 3: save people and give them enough of a chance to, like,
Speaker 3: so you kill the fucking cancer and then go and
Speaker 3: sort out your life and sort out the ship that
Speaker 3: brought the cancer on in the first place. And the
Speaker 3: necessity of that is as a result of America having
Speaker 3: played its cards wrong for the last fifty years and
Speaker 3: probably longer.
Speaker 5: Right.
Speaker 3: So I think it's at that point where the you know,
Speaker 3: because because the ultimate as we've said, the ultimate solution
Speaker 3: here is have a hard money and all this stuff.
Speaker 3: But unfortunately we don't have that choice. As much as
Speaker 3: we fucking want to Bitcoin is just not ready yet.
Speaker 3: And as much as we want to end the FED,
Speaker 3: that's a fucking much bigger problem you end the FED.
Speaker 3: Like people are talking about, oh my god, my life's
Speaker 3: coming to an end, twenty percent down on the stock market,
Speaker 3: and the FED tomorrow by the STOCKMUK get's going down.
Speaker 3: Motherfucker is gonna be jumping out of buildings and shit
Speaker 3: straight away. So like this is like seems to me
Speaker 3: the best.
Speaker 1: Let me, let me give an analogy for the audience,
Speaker 1: because I think this will help explain it. Libertarians have
Speaker 1: this tendency to just say like, yeah, shit's all fucked,
Speaker 1: Like we all agree shit's all fucked, right, but but
Speaker 1: the Libertarians have a tendency to go, well, the issue
Speaker 1: is is that you drank for the past eighty years,
Speaker 1: you know, and you shouldn't have done that. And then
Speaker 1: and then Alex is like, okay, but like now their
Speaker 1: liver is failing and they need a transfusion or they
Speaker 1: need this, or they need that, and the Libertarians are like,
Speaker 1: you shouldn't have fucking drank.
Speaker 5: Yeah, pretty well, you shouldn't have fucking drank.
Speaker 1: Yeah, And it's like it's like, yeah, you're right, but like, okay,
Speaker 1: and now what And I think that's that's the question
Speaker 1: of now what? And and the answer of like a transplant,
Speaker 1: which is what Guy and I are prescribing, isn't on offer.
Speaker 1: You don't have the transplant offer on hand, So now what?
Speaker 1: And you're basically saying, well, chemo transfusions, this that, and yeah,
Speaker 1: So I just wanted to give an analogy to like
Speaker 1: understand a lot of people have frustrations that's.
Speaker 4: A relationship, Like I don't see that as an unrepresentative
Speaker 4: of the situation.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think there's that. Let me let me finish
Speaker 3: what I was saying before in terms of like the
Speaker 3: worst case and worst CAAs and best case. The worst case,
Speaker 3: as I described earlier, is like oh shit, okay, fucking
Speaker 3: iPads cost ten thousand dollars now apparently, which fy for
Speaker 3: anyone who thinks that shit, they're fucking morons because Apple
Speaker 3: has a big margin, and guess where that margin is
Speaker 3: going to Wall Street. So like worst worst, worst, worst,
Speaker 3: worst case here is like Apple loses some margin and
Speaker 3: they will sell the phones at the same fucking rate, right,
Speaker 3: And the best case here, the best case scenario here
Speaker 3: that could happen is that you get some austerity. You
Speaker 3: you know, we we limit some of the mindless, stupid consumerism.
Speaker 3: In fact, Bitcoin is talk about this when when we
Speaker 3: talk about deflationary money, we say the bar will be
Speaker 3: raised higher as to what sort of products and services
Speaker 3: we've purchased.
Speaker 4: So this this went to a sound money standard, this
Speaker 4: would actually happen, like some kind of similar consequence would
Speaker 4: be exactly yeah, sorry, exactly.
Speaker 3: So so this is a way for us to get
Speaker 3: that before the sound money is ready, right, because it's
Speaker 3: not ready. It's still baking, it's still in the oven.
Speaker 3: So you get that. The best case scenario actually, and
Speaker 3: this is very very important for America in my opinion,
Speaker 3: is that you open the opportunity. Like if we are
Speaker 3: going to argue that humans react to incentives. By doing
Speaker 3: this and by let's say Trump also follows through with
Speaker 3: abolishing you know, internal regulations and internal taxation regimes and everything.
Speaker 3: If he does that, bro, he fucking opens up the
Speaker 3: innovative capacity city of his own people and gives them
Speaker 3: an advantage. And it's not the consumers. He gives the
Speaker 3: producers an advantage. Because then if you're a producer, and
Speaker 3: you're thinking about American You're like, oh, fucking just build here,
Speaker 3: Oh innovate here, I'll create he So the best case
Speaker 3: scenario is that you you divert, you create a problem. Yes,
Speaker 3: things go up in price, but you Again, the Austrian
Speaker 3: argument is that praxiologically speaking people will adapt to an incentive,
Speaker 3: and the incentive here changes. And this isn't like I
Speaker 3: said at the beginning, this isn't El Salvador with five
Speaker 3: million people where the average IQ is sixty, like you're
Speaker 3: talking about America with very high average IQ, the most
Speaker 3: innovative part of the fucking world. I don't care like
Speaker 3: the concept of a modern entrepreneur comes from America. I'm
Speaker 3: not even American, and I'm here kissing both of your asses,
Speaker 3: like Americans are the.
Speaker 5: Most as you should be.
Speaker 3: Seriously, you motherfuckers are Like all of this shit we're
Speaker 3: talking on microphone phones and internet and all this sort
Speaker 3: of shit came from America. If America can't fucking figure
Speaker 3: out how to build shit themselves, we've got a bigger problem.
Speaker 3: So and honestly, if we continue down this path for
Speaker 3: another five or ten years, I think all the people
Speaker 3: who know how to do anything. They're gonna fucking die anyway,
Speaker 3: or they're gonna be broken all this sort of shit,
Speaker 3: so then America will be up shit creek. So I
Speaker 3: feel like this is such a necessary like dirty medicine
Speaker 3: that we got to take, and particularly for America because
Speaker 3: it also like this is again, you know, I'm a
Speaker 3: bit of a Trump fanboy, I think, because I just
Speaker 3: love the fact that this guy just comes in and
Speaker 3: just like literally just shakes a bunch of shit and
Speaker 3: everyone fucking loses their mind.
Speaker 5: It is entertaining, It is entertaining.
Speaker 3: It is so good. It is the troll of the century.
Speaker 3: But he comes in shakes a bunch of shit up
Speaker 3: by by creating an advantage for America and sort of
Speaker 3: like moving America towards our nation first, he's actually going
Speaker 3: to force other nations to do the same for themselves,
Speaker 3: and it's gonna create more of a multipolar world. It's
Speaker 3: going to create these what we discussed earlier guy about
Speaker 3: like having you know, nations kind of respect their own
Speaker 3: enclaves a little bit further and be like, you know what,
Speaker 3: we're going to take care of ourns so we get
Speaker 3: more walls, we get more real diversity, people giving a
Speaker 3: shit about themselves first more than anything else. In spite
Speaker 3: of Trump. That's the whole fucking beauty of this thing.
Speaker 3: He is the reason they're like, oh, yeah, you know what,
Speaker 3: fuck you, We're also going to be more nationalists. It's like, yes,
Speaker 3: that's true.
Speaker 1: I got to point this out because just yesterday there
Speaker 1: was this viral video in Canada where the strawberries from
Speaker 1: US production were half the cost of the Canadian produced strawberries,
Speaker 1: and the Canadian produced strawberries were gone and the US
Speaker 1: produced strawberries which were cheaper. They were all still sitting
Speaker 1: there because the Canadians are so you know, enraged and
Speaker 1: now embracing nationalism that they are buying Canadian produced goods.
Speaker 1: And I just thought that was so that this is
Speaker 1: such a perfect example of what you're describing, is that
Speaker 1: these are like the ultimate globalist, open border psychopaths, and
Speaker 1: they're like, fuck that, we're all about Canadian production. We're
Speaker 1: national as hard as hell. It's so what you just
Speaker 1: said is so true.
Speaker 3: He's fucking fried all their brains. And that's why I
Speaker 3: love it, because it's like it's it's literally deforming them
Speaker 3: in real in real time and they don't know what
Speaker 3: the fuck to do with themselves. And the result of
Speaker 3: all of this, honestly, I think, takes us to a
Speaker 3: bitcoin standard much faster, because it's gonna start getting nation states,
Speaker 3: it's gonna start getting everybody thinking about themselves more. And
Speaker 3: while you're thinking about yourself, and while you're thinking about
Speaker 3: how do I get back at the US and the
Speaker 3: US dollar and everything like that, guess what alternative there exists?
Speaker 3: Oh wait a minute, this think called bitcoin. You know what?
Speaker 3: We should start stacking some of that shit because this asshole,
Speaker 3: fucking Trump is doing it so like it literally by
Speaker 3: getting the whole fucking global economy and then playing like
Speaker 3: he is a muster. Like people think he's a chess
Speaker 3: play He's not. He's a fucking poker player. The guy's
Speaker 3: are brilliant at like he's he sits down, he sees
Speaker 3: the hand that America has been dealt, which, as I
Speaker 3: described earlier, three hundred and fifty million people, lodgest land,
Speaker 3: mass innovation, it's got all the fucking money, it's the
Speaker 3: consumer base of the world. Like, it's got all of that,
Speaker 3: and he's actually playing it hot and he's got all
Speaker 3: He's got the fucking chips. So he's now like going
Speaker 3: all in every single time, and motherfucker is a folding left,
Speaker 3: right and center, Like that's the way the hand needs
Speaker 3: to be played.
Speaker 1: I just I got I gotta interject because my episode
Speaker 1: that aired just a few hours ago, at which people
Speaker 1: will watch that and then they'll watch this. The exact
Speaker 1: analogy I made is that is that in poker, you
Speaker 1: have to know who has the chips, who has the cards. Basically,
Speaker 1: Trump sitting down to the table with a trillion dollars
Speaker 1: of chips and everybody else is sitting down with a
Speaker 1: couple thousand, and he's just like all in every hand,
Speaker 1: all in every hand, and he can lose, He can
Speaker 1: afford to lose hands for fucking days because he's just
Speaker 1: got such an advantageous position.
Speaker 3: Totally, totally, and this is this is this is the
Speaker 3: tragedy of what's happened with America, particularly the last twenty years,
Speaker 3: as the sort of the democratic left and the and
Speaker 3: the retard neo cons sort of have been running the show,
Speaker 3: is that they've like they've played the hand so fucking poorly,
Speaker 3: they've played it like retards, that they've weakened every single
Speaker 3: element of the US, and now who's paying for it?
Speaker 3: It's main street because these idiots are like, oh, fuck,
Speaker 3: all right, let's just import third worlders, let's just fucking
Speaker 3: import cheap goods, and let's print a bunch of fucking money,
Speaker 3: and let's just burn this bitch while we still can.
Speaker 3: We got five years left. Let's do it from kind
Speaker 3: of like literally by two millimeters. And this is the
Speaker 3: like I end this essay on this, it's like trust
Speaker 3: the fucking plan. Like God, somehow, you know, blew the
Speaker 3: bullet like two millimeters and like put us in an
Speaker 3: ultimate dimension like we should have been, you know, cloud,
Speaker 3: we should have been claud Schwab eating bugs like all
Speaker 3: this sort of shit by now and somehow, like fucking
Speaker 3: action of a microsecond looking at some chicks tits on
Speaker 3: the other side, whatever it was doing, like missed the
Speaker 3: god damn fucking bullet and Hulia playing Poka on the
Speaker 3: world stage, and it's poetic nationalism.
Speaker 2: It's even more poetic.
Speaker 1: He was looking at it at a chart of immigration,
Speaker 1: of a legal immigration, so he got yeah, I mean
Speaker 1: that's that's literally true. That's what he was looking at
Speaker 1: was when he turned his head to look at that chart,
Speaker 1: and the bullet grazed is here as a consequence of that.
Speaker 1: So that's the only reason he's alive is because he's
Speaker 1: against immigration. So that tells you something. I guess if
Speaker 1: you believe in God, my goodness.
Speaker 5: Dude, I uh ah.
Speaker 4: I have such a hard time letting myself get any
Speaker 4: hope about this because it seems ridiculous. But one of
Speaker 4: the things you actually started out with that that line
Speaker 4: of thinking was that if you could balance, if you
Speaker 4: could swap it with a different if you could push
Speaker 4: from internal taxation to external tax taxation, basically make a trade,
Speaker 4: and then openly talking about the idea of getting the
Speaker 4: getting rid of the income tax. I will take one
Speaker 4: hundred percent tariffs everywhere if you get rid of the
Speaker 4: fucking income tax. The income tax is so horrifically poisonous.
Speaker 4: It is tariffs all day over.
Speaker 5: The income tax.
Speaker 4: My problem is that I think we have tariffs and
Speaker 4: the income tax at the end of this. So I
Speaker 4: have and I am not gonna let myself get my
Speaker 4: hopes up there now. I will say, there is a tiny,
Speaker 4: tiny little bit of optimistic guy like that really wants
Speaker 4: this to happen and thinks and goes and looks at
Speaker 4: the map and sees Gulf of America and thinks.
Speaker 5: Maybe it actually can happen.
Speaker 4: But I just it's really hard to go there. I'm
Speaker 4: older than I used to be.
Speaker 1: Let's just let's just I mean, instead of just dealing
Speaker 1: with our own jaded nature, which is justifiable I might have,
Speaker 1: let's just do it on math. How the fuck do
Speaker 1: you maintain the federal spending off of a tariff based
Speaker 1: UH income for the federal government? Like, I don't think
Speaker 1: you can do it. I mean, they're they're spending six
Speaker 1: to seven trillion annually. I do not think based off.
Speaker 5: Cut too much.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you have to, you'd have to cut.
Speaker 1: You'd have to cut federal spending and then and then simultaneously,
Speaker 1: just to kind of pour water on Svensky here, you know,
Speaker 1: Trump pushed the The only reason the Continuing Resolution got
Speaker 1: pushed through, which continued the spending levels of the Biden administration,
Speaker 1: was because Trump demanded it, and he also called for
Speaker 1: Thomas Massey to be primary because Massey was like, I'm
Speaker 1: not going to continue the spending of the Biden administration.
Speaker 2: This is bankrupting us.
Speaker 1: So there's there's really significant mixed messages. Now I will
Speaker 1: I will try and give Trump his due and say, look,
Speaker 1: maybe his plan is I need to have the same
Speaker 1: level of spending me because I'm I'm making dramatic swings
Speaker 1: here and I can't. I can't deal with uh, you know,
Speaker 1: layoff mass layoffs of federal employees, all of the economic
Speaker 1: damage that that creates, plus this tariff battle, which is
Speaker 1: going to create a downward pressure on the stock market,
Speaker 1: plus this, plus that, plus this, plus that. So I
Speaker 1: need this cushion for the next ten months. And I
Speaker 1: do intend to actually cut federal spending dramatically and migrate
Speaker 1: away from the income text to a tariff based income.
Speaker 1: Like but these are all such dramatic swings. It's just
Speaker 1: like you have to be so optimistic to think that
Speaker 1: all these things are going to happen, and it sounds
Speaker 1: as if you are.
Speaker 3: I think there's optimism, and there's also patients. I think
Speaker 3: it's very like we have been so out our relationship
Speaker 3: to time has been so warped over the last five years,
Speaker 3: like that we've been locked inside and now we're all
Speaker 3: on social media and everything, like, you know, I think
Speaker 3: we forget that Trump's been in power for like what
Speaker 3: less than three months. That's not a lot of time. Like,
Speaker 3: it's literally not a lot of time. And these sorts
Speaker 3: of changes, like to bring in tariffs to figure out like,
Speaker 3: first of all, you've got to play chicken with everyone.
Speaker 3: You've got to figure out who's your ally, who's not
Speaker 3: your ally. You've got to like go and shake up
Speaker 3: things first, right before you decide who you actually will
Speaker 3: apply tariffs to, like who is actually a bad actor,
Speaker 3: who is who is an adversary, and who is an ally?
Speaker 3: And I think this first stage is figuring that out.
Speaker 3: And you know, you figure out, Okay, fucking China my
Speaker 3: adversary or not, because I can guarantee you China as
Speaker 3: an adversary and they care more about China than they
Speaker 3: care about America, you know, hands down. So you kind
Speaker 3: of figure that shit out first. Then you know where
Speaker 3: you actually stand with the tariff thing. And then you
Speaker 3: can actually figure out, Okay, are we going to bring
Speaker 3: money in from tariffs or not? Then what do we do?
Speaker 3: Then you can move to the next stage, which is
Speaker 3: figuring out what to do with the internal taxation and
Speaker 3: then that maybe that is looks like abolishing the income tax,
Speaker 3: or maybe that looks like some sort of lowering of
Speaker 3: the income tax and making it ten percent across the board.
Speaker 3: I don't know what the you know, the machinations there are,
Speaker 3: but it's a fucking giant job, like and it sort
Speaker 3: of has to be taken in stages and honestly to
Speaker 3: turn around a shit storm the size of what the
Speaker 3: US has become, which has so many entrenched powers that
Speaker 3: don't want to see this happen, whether it's Wall Street,
Speaker 3: whether it's the central banks, whether it's the fucking deep
Speaker 3: state and all this sort of shit. To try and
Speaker 3: like navigate all of that and to do it in
Speaker 3: like six months, which is what every libertarian wants it
Speaker 3: to happen, it's fucking fantasy land. Like if he after
Speaker 3: four years able to sort this shit out and drop
Speaker 3: the income tax or you know, like like if that
Speaker 3: was the one thing he did in the four years
Speaker 3: alongside releasing Ross, this would be a massive win. But
Speaker 3: like I think, you know, he at least from what
Speaker 3: I've seen now, like the way he's approached this versus
Speaker 3: his first term is night and day like that, there's
Speaker 3: not even you know, the first term he sort of
Speaker 3: came in. I sort of envisioned as like a as
Speaker 3: an entrepreneur who's used to you run a business, you
Speaker 3: tell people what to do, and shit gets done. He
Speaker 3: comes into this sort of swamp, is like, I know
Speaker 3: what we're doing, tells people something, and then the opposite
Speaker 3: fucking happens and people backstating and all this sort of shit,
Speaker 3: and then he gets fucking thrown out out of things.
Speaker 3: So he's sort of come back this time with better team,
Speaker 3: better understanding of what to do, and taking like a
Speaker 3: blitzkrieg approach, which I think is absolutely necessary. And you know, sure,
Speaker 3: I am definitely more optimistic, but I'm also forcing myself
Speaker 3: to be a little bit more patient in these things,
Speaker 3: recognizing that this is going to take some time. Like
Speaker 3: the most important thing is he's actually opened up the
Speaker 3: discussion about abolishing the income tax that spread, Let that
Speaker 3: seed fucking spread. People are gonna at some point normalize
Speaker 3: that in the same way as we started normalizing the
Speaker 3: discussion about let's change the fucking immigration laws, let's change this,
Speaker 3: let's change that. We've started talking about all these things
Speaker 3: which were complete taboo, like two years ago, no fucking
Speaker 3: body other than three libertarians, you know, us, three idiots
Speaker 3: on this call, we're talking about abolishing the income tax,
Speaker 3: like fucking nobody now normal people are talking about, shit,
Speaker 3: we could maybe abolished income.
Speaker 1: Tax, like President Trump said it on Joe Rogan. I mean,
Speaker 1: it's the biggest platform that you can possibly say that message.
Speaker 1: Believe me, I am I this was I voted for Trump,
Speaker 1: so I was I was persuaded that there's there was
Speaker 1: at least a you know, a puncher's chance going with
Speaker 1: this guy, that that he could could he could create,
Speaker 1: you know, dramatic changes that are to our benefit. Here's
Speaker 1: the thing, like if he wants to buy additional patients
Speaker 1: from people like me, which you know he doesn't have
Speaker 1: to if he doesn't want to. But here's here's how
Speaker 1: you get me. Trump, give me the fucking Epstein client.
Speaker 2: List, give me that.
Speaker 1: Start start to actually demonstrate that you're prosecuting some of
Speaker 1: the most corrupt, evil people. How about you, how about
Speaker 1: you actually open up investigations in the FAUCI because you've
Speaker 1: said that the pardons were signed with auto pen and therefore,
Speaker 1: blah blah blah. Why is RFK talking about anti semitism
Speaker 1: when he ought to be talking about the bioweapon that
Speaker 1: you that was funded by you know your guy, uh, like,
Speaker 1: these are these are these are conflicts in the messaging
Speaker 1: that that give me pause as his legitimacy.
Speaker 3: They are they are. I have no response to that
Speaker 3: other than these things are hard and complicated, and I
Speaker 3: guess it's a it's a game of I can imagine
Speaker 3: the people that are behind these things also carry a little,
Speaker 3: you know, quite a lot of power and quite a
Speaker 3: lot of influence, and maybe you need to build up
Speaker 3: a certain amount of power or momentum or something before
Speaker 3: you can go and steamroll someone. So it's like a course, yeah, yeah,
Speaker 3: you don't know how much of that stuff.
Speaker 4: And yeah, my steelman is I completely agree. I am
Speaker 4: in Clint's camp for how I feel about all of
Speaker 4: that stuff. But my steelman one I'm arguing with myself
Speaker 4: about it is if they're actually if they actually want
Speaker 4: to take a case to court and they want to win,
Speaker 4: they want to smash it, especially when it comes to
Speaker 4: the country divers around all of this stuff.
Speaker 5: They want to absolutely.
Speaker 4: Win, like not like a sort of win a you
Speaker 4: are so lost, like embarrassing.
Speaker 5: I think that the and that would take time.
Speaker 2: Yeah, no, and I'm with you on that.
Speaker 1: I think that the key thing to to kind of
Speaker 1: reframe people's mentality is, like they say, like, if you
Speaker 1: come at the king, you best not miss. A lot
Speaker 1: of people think Trump's the king. I don't think Trump's
Speaker 1: the king, like not in this fight. And I think
Speaker 1: like there's a lot of other you know, equally or
Speaker 1: even more powerful people that you may not even know
Speaker 1: the name of, that actually do run shit in a
Speaker 1: way that's extraordinarily powerful. And he's up against a whole
Speaker 1: bunch of them. Assuming, assuming that our best impressions of
Speaker 1: Trump are legitimate, that he's actually fighting on our behalf, well,
Speaker 1: he's up against the most you know, deeply entrenched powers
Speaker 1: interests that have ever existed. I mean like really really
Speaker 1: big time stuff. And the truth is he's probably in
Speaker 1: bed with some of the deeply entrenched powerful interest too,
Speaker 1: because the only way you have a chance of winning
Speaker 1: this fight is you have to take you have to
Speaker 1: take some entrenched powerful interests and wage war with their
Speaker 1: assets and their their media influence operations and everything else,
Speaker 1: because you can't just go after these people, uh, you know,
Speaker 1: full full speed without allies. So to point to add
Speaker 1: to your claim here, Alex, is that like what what
Speaker 1: he did yesterday was he dropped the tear. He said,
Speaker 1: do not do not respond to my tariffs. No reciproc reciprocity.
Speaker 1: Who did he get reciprocity from? Well, China was the
Speaker 1: only one that actually increased above what we increased, like
Speaker 1: or or I think it was.
Speaker 2: I think it was above.
Speaker 1: And then he fired back at one hundred and four percent,
Speaker 1: which is fucking insane.
Speaker 2: But but the.
Speaker 1: Other the other nations that also responded were Canada, the EU,
Speaker 1: and I think Mexico. So those are the four nations.
Speaker 1: So your point about like I have to figure out
Speaker 1: who my allies are, Well, he just loyalty tested the
Speaker 1: whole world and he just found out Canada, Mexico, the EU,
Speaker 1: and China those are the those are the four big
Speaker 1: blocks that are actually against us. So now he can
Speaker 1: actually reorient his tactics.
Speaker 2: I just wanted to point that out.
Speaker 3: It's very true. I think these games, these games are
Speaker 3: very complex, and you know he's got a very I mean,
Speaker 3: the approach is both hilarious and it's very effective, which
Speaker 3: is come in raging Bull, shake everything up, play all
Speaker 3: fucking in like play play poker heart, which is what
Speaker 3: we were basically saying before and basically just like dislodge
Speaker 3: because I think this is also the swamp metaphor or
Speaker 3: you know, the the entrenched, the word entrenched. That metaphor
Speaker 3: here is very important, is that things are so entrenched
Speaker 3: the only way to un entrench them is to shake
Speaker 3: shit up by doing stuff that seems on surface extremely extreme,
Speaker 3: which this is like that there was a funny mean
Speaker 3: that's that's in the essay that I that I just published,
Speaker 3: which it's kind of like leftists trying to make fun
Speaker 3: of of the Trump supporters and the MAGA where it's like,
Speaker 3: you know, he says, I'm adding tariffs, and then the
Speaker 3: it's got like a maga MPC saying oh, this will
Speaker 3: create jobs, and it's like I'm pausing tariffs, and it's like, oh,
Speaker 3: it's out of the deal. I'm adding tariffs. Oh it's
Speaker 3: going to raise jobs. I'm pausing tariffs. It's the out
Speaker 3: of the deal. So it's like making fun of like
Speaker 3: the MAGA people. But to some degree that's true of
Speaker 3: everybody because as much as the nature of poker is
Speaker 3: that there's there's an element of luck and there's an
Speaker 3: element of chaos in it as well, So you know
Speaker 3: people come in that are good players, and we can
Speaker 3: sit here and pontificate all the all we want about
Speaker 3: what's happening, but we actually don't know how many of
Speaker 3: this is going to play out. But the fact that
Speaker 3: it is playing out, in my opinion, is a very
Speaker 3: good thing, because you need to shake up the like
Speaker 3: the situation has become stale, like it became bad game.
Speaker 4: I think it's better than where status quo is taking us.
Speaker 4: I don't make people realize how close to a cliff
Speaker 4: we were, and I don't I still think we're kind
Speaker 4: of headed in the direction of the cliff, but the
Speaker 4: course is doing this now, so the we're not We're
Speaker 4: not straight gas on.
Speaker 5: The pedal towards that direction.
Speaker 4: There is movement, which if we ever hope that a
Speaker 4: turn is going to be in our future, we need
Speaker 4: to not be barreling straight down in one direction. So
Speaker 4: I kind of agree that just causing chaos so that
Speaker 4: people have to work out, like actually think about how
Speaker 4: anything works and reconsider why we are making decisions. Causing
Speaker 4: chaos is a better alternative because it forces that it
Speaker 4: forces a perspective on what's going on.
Speaker 1: But I also think that the key thing here is
Speaker 1: that you can't. And I keep telling Hiss this because
Speaker 1: when the market was tanking, a lot of them were
Speaker 1: celebrating saying these, Look, we never were able to fucking
Speaker 1: afford a house. I had to work three jobs. I'm
Speaker 1: I'm struggling to stay alive. I don't have a fucking wife,
Speaker 1: I don't have kids, no picket fence, no future, no pension,
Speaker 1: no no this that So fuck you, you boomer, piece
Speaker 1: of shit, you ruin my life. I'm like, there's this,
Speaker 1: there's this vengeance element within the populist maga, particularly the
Speaker 1: zoomer and millennial class that I like, I'm very sympathetic to.
Speaker 1: Like I totally understand the anger. So let me be
Speaker 1: very clear about that. But also that energy is not
Speaker 1: productive like that is that is a that is a
Speaker 1: just like basically, cut off your nose despite your face,
Speaker 1: destroy everything because I have nothing type of mentality. That
Speaker 1: is a that is a kind of a communist revolution
Speaker 1: as opposed to a liberty oriented revolution. And I'm I'm
Speaker 1: very nervous about how that energy is funneled. And I
Speaker 1: think that Trump coming in as a chaos agent and
Speaker 1: just shaking shit up then not leading to you know,
Speaker 1: productive gains and and increased industrial capacity. But like, if
Speaker 1: he doesn't do that, well, then he's just a chaos
Speaker 1: agent alongside his his supporters who want to watch the
Speaker 1: world burn. Like I want to save this country, you know,
Speaker 1: So I just hope that I hope that he has
Speaker 1: a vision. I hope he has a plan, and I
Speaker 1: hope he can deliver on it, and I hope it's
Speaker 1: to the benefit of you know, this country, to his supporters, everybody.
Speaker 1: And it's just I just don't want to I don't
Speaker 1: want to green light chaos for the sake of chaos,
Speaker 1: is what I'm saying.
Speaker 3: Yeah, let me let me let me riff on that
Speaker 3: for a second, because I think that's you make a
Speaker 3: very good point there about the the both the the
Speaker 3: energy where some of that stuff comes from, and then
Speaker 3: the chaos. So it's very easy in a world where
Speaker 3: we're sort of desensitized with with social media and like
Speaker 3: wars happen on our phone these days, and you know,
Speaker 3: we're all sort of like, you know, really desensidized. The
Speaker 3: only time we're really affected is if our portfolios go
Speaker 3: down and everyone fucking freaks the hell out because you know,
Speaker 3: we lost ten grand or twenty grand or whatever. Right,
Speaker 3: So the reality of the fact is the world is
Speaker 3: at war, and I think this is very easy to forget.
Speaker 3: There are like I mean, we got a war on
Speaker 3: Twitter for Fox's sake, but you know, there's like there's
Speaker 3: there's wars happening at many, many different levels. And in
Speaker 3: my opinion, modern warfare is waged in a in a
Speaker 3: political and economic sort of frame. These days. It's not
Speaker 3: as kinetic as it used to be. And I think
Speaker 3: we should be glad about this.
Speaker 5: Because yes, it's it's.
Speaker 3: Network based, yes, or all that. But I guess where
Speaker 3: I'm going with this is one Trump is a chaoe agent. Yes,
Speaker 3: I think he's a very measured chose agent as we've described,
Speaker 3: like there's probably other men that could have been taken.
Speaker 3: But I think this the way he's approached the tariffs,
Speaker 3: the way he's like testing people, the way he's playing
Speaker 3: and everything, I think is actually very intelligent chaos creations.
Speaker 3: So there's definitely evidence to that. But for me, the
Speaker 3: most important war, that the thing that we are fighting
Speaker 3: for in the world today more than anything else for me,
Speaker 3: is the is the spirit of the West. And the
Speaker 3: spirit of the West has been under attack by globalists,
Speaker 3: by fucking adversaries of all kinds, like the trader merchant
Speaker 3: I shouldn't call it the merchant class, the trader parasite
Speaker 3: money change of class. Right, That class, whoever the fuck
Speaker 3: that is, has been looking to destroy the productive spirit
Speaker 3: and soul of the West in any way that it can,
Speaker 3: weaponizing everything from Chinese to fucking Indians, the central banks
Speaker 3: to everything. Right, and if that war can be fought
Speaker 3: without dropping fucking bombs and fought in a non ca
Speaker 3: manna through economic means, that is the win of fucking
Speaker 3: wins in the history of humanity. Like and this is
Speaker 3: where again, like I, I mean.
Speaker 4: That's what we talk about with where bitcoin is taking
Speaker 4: this right, is that it limits theet It actually puts
Speaker 4: costs in the right place, which means that everything comes
Speaker 4: back to in economic war as controlling where the costs go.
Speaker 4: And if you can actually separate the medium from the politics.
Speaker 4: And I think this is a lot of what we.
Speaker 5: Have going on.
Speaker 4: Why I mentioned networks is I think what we're seeing
Speaker 4: is there's an identity problem and there is a political problem.
Speaker 4: So you're seeing political networks fight each other with their
Speaker 4: monetary walls. But then you're also seeing this cultural separation
Speaker 4: because internet networks are fighting television networks like you're you're
Speaker 4: seeing literally a build up of narrative and worldview that
Speaker 4: is separate depending on where you like, which network is
Speaker 4: your dominant network. And so you have kind of like
Speaker 4: this this up up like top to bottom network battles
Speaker 4: because we have communication platforms and communication networks that never
Speaker 4: existed before, and we can build our own opinion and
Speaker 4: then yell up at the top. And then the political
Speaker 4: networks are fighting each other at the exact same time.
Speaker 4: And the one of the big monetary networks right now
Speaker 4: is kind of in in an unstable position.
Speaker 5: Is it about to shrink heavily? Is it about to grow?
Speaker 5: You know?
Speaker 4: So, I mean, like you said, there's war, is I
Speaker 4: think we have war at every level because everything is
Speaker 4: nothing is static anymore. Nothing is untouched now from the Internet,
Speaker 4: from the digital age, from the AI age, from the
Speaker 4: bitcoin age, like every layer right now is in What
Speaker 4: the hell is gonna happen in ten years? Because nothing
Speaker 4: is stable anymore.
Speaker 1: But the question is can can all of these kind
Speaker 1: of soft power wars and some of it's kinetic obviously
Speaker 1: Israel Palestine, Russia, Ukraine. Like, there's a lot of people dying,
Speaker 1: so I don't want to downplay some degree.
Speaker 4: There's gotta be kinetic, you know, from.
Speaker 1: But but but can we keep it can we keep
Speaker 1: it connectic to the point that it's not existential? And
Speaker 1: that's that's the question that I have, is like, this
Speaker 1: is why I probably actually not probably definitely the biggest
Speaker 1: reason I voted for Trump is because he was the
Speaker 1: only guy that was on offer that was like, I'm
Speaker 1: going to negotiate peace with Russia. And I was like, yeah,
Speaker 1: the nuclear war, yeah, exactly, unbelievable, an unpopular opinion. Well
Speaker 1: from a libertarian camp. They were furious with me because
Speaker 1: I was there like choosing the better of two evils,
Speaker 1: blah blah blah. I still get you evil. It's like, dude,
Speaker 1: if we all die, none of this fucking matters, Okay,
Speaker 1: So like I'm.
Speaker 3: Gonna the the enemy of progress Like that kind of
Speaker 3: retardation drives me crazy. Yeah, but I did.
Speaker 1: I did want to point out one other thing, because
Speaker 1: you're talking about the the you know, different wars at
Speaker 1: all these different levels, and how it's information war, it's
Speaker 1: internet war, it's communication war, it's network war, like the
Speaker 1: other thing that people need to be privy to. And
Speaker 1: this is kind of a tangent, so you don't feel
Speaker 1: like you need to, you know, add on to this
Speaker 1: particular and just take it wherever you want afterwards. But
Speaker 1: like there's big controversy yesterday because Tim Poole met with
Speaker 1: net Yahoo in private, kind of in private, and like
Speaker 1: there are attempts to infiltrate the independent media space, buy
Speaker 1: us out. Who knows, blackmail us. I don't know what
Speaker 1: the fuck's next, but like as our influence increases, it's
Speaker 1: it's only gonna get more aggressive, and as as the
Speaker 1: circumstances become more existential for the powers to be, like
Speaker 1: they're going to take the gloves off. And I think
Speaker 1: that the the civil litigation against Alex Jones. I think
Speaker 1: that the rape charges that seem like bs but maybe
Speaker 1: they're not. I don't know, with Russell brand Tate Brothers
Speaker 1: shit like that. Like there's there's gonna be increasingly hard
Speaker 1: power to the point that like you could see assassinations
Speaker 1: of independent you know, communicators that have some of these
Speaker 1: biggest audience is like like Rogan for instance, like he's
Speaker 1: really in danger and I don't know that people. People
Speaker 1: will probably laugh me off at saying this, but like
Speaker 1: the fact that he has on you know, the Dave
Speaker 1: Smith's of the world and all these other dissident people
Speaker 1: to talk to ten to fifteen million people is so damaging.
Speaker 1: It's so fucking damaging to the establishment that like there's
Speaker 1: just no way that they would not prefer this guy
Speaker 1: not to be around anymore. So sorry, that was just
Speaker 1: a random tangent, but I just I just want people
Speaker 1: to be aware, like if you are in this space
Speaker 1: with us, like they're going to be trying to undermine you.
Speaker 1: They're going to be trying to buy you out, to blackmail,
Speaker 1: to do all these things. So it's going to take
Speaker 1: like really principled, high character people to survive and thrive
Speaker 1: in this world. Sorry for the random tangent.
Speaker 3: That and with a bit of luck, if they've got
Speaker 3: tariffs to worry about, then takes the heat off hus
Speaker 3: there you go, it's like cover. But I mean, look,
Speaker 3: my yeah, I get that. I'm not gonna riff anymore
Speaker 3: on that because I think that the point is the
Speaker 3: point that you've made, and that is that is part
Speaker 3: of the kind of warfare that we have entered. And
Speaker 3: I mean, my whole book that I just wrote, and
Speaker 3: that guy I just read is you know, talks about this.
Speaker 3: Like it opens the opening quote is it's better to
Speaker 3: be a warrior in a garden than a gardener in
Speaker 3: a war. And that's like, my book has a lot
Speaker 3: about war in there. And it's not because I think
Speaker 3: that we need to go and start stabbing each other
Speaker 3: and all this sort of stuff. That's not like, I'm
Speaker 3: not a warmonger, And I think.
Speaker 4: He says that explicitly in the book exactly chapter four.
Speaker 3: The you know, people sort of sometimes get me wrong there.
Speaker 3: They're like, oh, you know, and you just want to
Speaker 3: see people get a war and all this sort of stuff.
Speaker 3: It's it's not the case. I think the people who
Speaker 3: are most appreciative of the virtues of war are the
Speaker 3: ones who are least woar going to war because they
Speaker 3: know that they've actually been exposed to the damage and
Speaker 3: to the to the bloodshed that it can create. And
Speaker 3: that's why most of the time when you see warmongers,
Speaker 3: they're the people who will not fucking bleed. They're the
Speaker 3: ones who actually find a way to profit from it.
Speaker 3: So they just want a bunch of fucking people to
Speaker 3: go and die for them and for me. Once again,
Speaker 3: I really credit what Trump is doing here is like
Speaker 3: in World War Two, you know, there was a kinetic
Speaker 3: war that was an attempt to fight for the soul
Speaker 3: of the West, right, And I'm not going to go
Speaker 3: into what happened there, but you know, something strange happened.
Speaker 3: Now you know the soul of the West is, you know,
Speaker 3: there is an attempt to bury it again, and it
Speaker 3: could well turn into a kinetic war or it could
Speaker 3: be an economic war. And I think this is the
Speaker 3: best way to wage modern warfare, honestly, Like, if the
Speaker 3: result of this war is that we have to pay
Speaker 3: five hundred dollars extra for a fucking iPhone or whatever
Speaker 3: the case is, beautiful, well like that that is an
Speaker 3: excellent outcome if the goal here is to preserve the ethnos,
Speaker 3: the culture of the West, the people of the West,
Speaker 3: and start to rebuild the local domestic economy. As I
Speaker 3: sort of mentioned before, like there's a in the essay,
Speaker 3: I've got this analogy about building a cathedral, right, and
Speaker 3: you know Europe is full of these beautiful cathedrals that
Speaker 3: made absolutely no fucking economic sense to build like if
Speaker 3: if an accountant or economists sat there and looked at
Speaker 3: it and be like, why the fuck would you build
Speaker 3: this thing? It wasn't economic. It was about expressing the
Speaker 3: beauty and the grandeur of what the West represented, the values,
Speaker 3: you know that, the spirit of its people. And I
Speaker 3: think there comes a point in a society when it
Speaker 3: needs to like pure, like measuring everything off the back
Speaker 3: of pure economics and making that you're one and only rationale.
Speaker 3: You will trade culture, nuance, like beauty. You will trade
Speaker 3: a bunch of that stuff because oftentimes doing what is
Speaker 3: economically expedient, like for profit or for bottom line or
Speaker 3: for margin. And this has taken this has been very
Speaker 3: hard for me to come to terms with being an
Speaker 3: Austrian economist and libertarian for so long. But sometimes you
Speaker 3: do that and you turn your neighborhood into fucking lego
Speaker 3: land instead of you know, the center of Milan where
Speaker 3: you've got this beautiful cathedral and stuff like that. Sometimes
Speaker 3: the economically expedient thing is not the right thing to do.
Speaker 3: It is the right thing to do to take your
Speaker 3: money and to invest it in creating something beautiful or
Speaker 3: creating you know, doing something for your people like it's
Speaker 3: a it's a reinvestment in yourself. And that's actually a
Speaker 3: lower time preference behavior because you're thinking, coming back to
Speaker 3: the cathedral, you're building the cathedral for the people of
Speaker 3: the future three hundred years from now. You're going to
Speaker 3: fucking die well before the cathedral is built. But you're
Speaker 3: doing it not for economic reasons, but for a higher
Speaker 3: spiritual you know reason, whatever, whatever you want to sort
Speaker 3: of frame that as. And I think for you know, libertarianism,
Speaker 3: Austrian economics, free markets, all these sort of principles don't
Speaker 3: just appear in a vacuum, you know. They came out
Speaker 3: of the West. They came out of the high period
Speaker 3: of Europe and America for a reason. And if we
Speaker 3: destroy Europe and America for the goal of GDP go
Speaker 3: up and free fucking markets tomorrow, the future generations won't
Speaker 3: have a fucking free market. If you make America India,
Speaker 3: for example, there is no fucking free market. Libertarianism or
Speaker 3: any of that sort of shit is not going to
Speaker 3: work there. So to me, this is very important. I
Speaker 3: think this is a price, it's an economic price to
Speaker 3: be paid. And then this is how I view this
Speaker 3: whole thing. At the moment, there's an economic price we made.
Speaker 3: There is going to be things that seem economically insane
Speaker 3: to be done, but that will strengthen the roots and
Speaker 3: the soul and the productive base of America, and it's
Speaker 3: people which will pay dividends five, six, ten generations from
Speaker 3: now when America is still America and hasn't become like
Speaker 3: Canada's become fucking India at the moment. So so that
Speaker 3: that to me is very important. So I kind of
Speaker 3: want to throw that up.
Speaker 1: I know, I think that's a very fair argument, and
Speaker 1: it's one that I've made, or it mirrors my own
Speaker 1: when it comes to immigration. You know, like a lot
Speaker 1: of libertarians still are right or die open borders, and
Speaker 1: I'm just like, look, guys, we are being conquered on
Speaker 1: two fronts. Ideologically, you have Academia, which is spitting out
Speaker 1: Marxists as fast as it possibly can, and then you
Speaker 1: have immigrants that come in, which, yes, some of them
Speaker 1: are very much still with the ethos of Americanism and
Speaker 1: freedom and free markets and everything else, but the majority
Speaker 1: are not. So how are you going to how are
Speaker 1: you going to expect to have America still if you
Speaker 1: have this this dual pronged attack that is converting Americans
Speaker 1: into Marxists and also bringing in uh you know, non
Speaker 1: American uh you know thinkers. And it's just like you're
Speaker 1: not going to win. You're not gonna win that fight.
Speaker 1: So you got to you got to pick and choose
Speaker 1: how you're gonna take this battle. And I'm curious what
Speaker 1: you think, guy.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I think the whole libertarian means completely open borders
Speaker 4: take is making the same logical mistake as the Because
Speaker 4: you have the freedom to speak, you're not allowed to
Speaker 4: say anything wrong, but you're not allowed to like be
Speaker 4: mad about somebody's opinion or say that they're stupid, you know,
Speaker 4: like you're supposed to just like like if I think
Speaker 4: weed should be legal, that means I have to like weed,
Speaker 4: you know, like or I have to like cocaine because
Speaker 4: I don't think you should be put in a cage
Speaker 4: about it. Like that, I think is the whole the
Speaker 4: logical excuse me, the logical disconnect when it comes to
Speaker 4: immigration for libertarians is that like the.
Speaker 5: Fact that we think that.
Speaker 4: Like there should be a degree of freedom of human
Speaker 4: movement doesn't mean that I don't own my property and
Speaker 4: I can't put a fence around it, and that we
Speaker 4: can't own this this area together, and we can side
Speaker 4: whether or not we want to put a fence around that,
Speaker 4: you know, like it's it's not they are not exactly
Speaker 4: the same thing, and cultures are a thing. And I
Speaker 4: don't actually have not had the interesting point that you
Speaker 4: bring up Swetsky is about like, as an Austrian or
Speaker 4: Austrian leaning, you kind of had an issue when it
Speaker 4: came to the separation of economics versus culture or doing
Speaker 4: things that are not economic, And I think that's actually
Speaker 4: a conflation of two things. That's the difference between economics
Speaker 4: the science and economizing the verb is that is that
Speaker 4: the science or the idea of understanding the organics of
Speaker 4: free markets is actually about setting up stable rule systems
Speaker 4: for property and for money so that the human values
Speaker 4: can be the focus. Because only if the rules are
Speaker 4: not being played with, Just like if you can play
Speaker 4: the ref and you can change the rules of football
Speaker 4: in the middle of football, you're not playing football anymore.
Speaker 4: You literally you're literally vying to see which ref can
Speaker 4: give free points to the other team because their shirts
Speaker 4: are blue and the sun is glaring, and so like
Speaker 4: they get a free touchdown like that becomes the game.
Speaker 4: So if you have a hard set of rules for
Speaker 4: the game, and you have a hard set of this
Speaker 4: is exactly what the referee has to adhere to, and
Speaker 4: that is strong. Now you're playing football, and the team
Speaker 4: that wins is the team that plays a beautiful game
Speaker 4: of football. That is what free markets do is that
Speaker 4: they open up the fact that we can now think
Speaker 4: about what we value as humans rather than fight over
Speaker 4: who gets to control the thing that prints more points.
Speaker 4: And then we become this society of like more point
Speaker 4: is better, and that's it. That's all it is. We're trading,
Speaker 4: we're speculating. Only fans pays more than a a mom.
Speaker 3: You know, like I mean this argument. Yeah, I mean
Speaker 3: this argument. I know I've been making the exact same people.
Speaker 4: I just want to drop a shout out because he
Speaker 4: brought up his book. I absolutely love this book and
Speaker 4: the whole stuff about war is way more nuanced than
Speaker 4: I had thought. And it has been I have not
Speaker 4: done nothing but think about it, like I've I've literally
Speaker 4: walked away from the book and then been thinking about
Speaker 4: it and then it come back to try to like
Speaker 4: record a little a little bit of the book. And
Speaker 4: I don't completely agree with it, but it's a it's
Speaker 4: a fascinating read. I'm I'm I'm really, I'm really loving
Speaker 4: if Fatsky you killed it with this one.
Speaker 3: I appreciate it, man, I appreciate it. I think I
Speaker 3: want to so I agree with what you said about
Speaker 3: the economizing and you know, economics and and I get that.
Speaker 3: Where I was sort of mentioning before, is you need
Speaker 3: a he needs some sort of crucible or structure or framework. Two.
Speaker 3: You know, you need something to allow for that game
Speaker 3: to be played right and to be played as best
Speaker 3: as possible. And I think my hypothesis here is that
Speaker 3: there's a reason why the culture of early America and
Speaker 3: you know, High Europe and all this sort of stuff
Speaker 3: fostered that versus why the culture of and again, you know,
Speaker 3: it sounds like I'm picking on Africa, China and all
Speaker 3: this sort of stuff here, but they have different cultures.
Speaker 3: They didn't foster that. It's very different. And the reality
Speaker 3: of the fact is that, you know, what sort of
Speaker 3: Clint said earlier is that you know, I mean, immigration
Speaker 3: is one issue here, and whether it's legal or illegal immigration,
Speaker 3: both of them are a challenge because you when you
Speaker 3: start to change the numbers of people and the voters
Speaker 3: and who has power and all this sort of stuff,
Speaker 3: and you start to mix all the interests, you get
Speaker 3: a situation where the framework or that crucible that enables
Speaker 3: you to have free market economics, particularly locally. I think
Speaker 3: free market economics has to happen within some sort of
Speaker 3: protected bound you you start to undermine that. So so
Speaker 3: I think that's that's one thing I want to I
Speaker 3: want to say that. Secondly, is as much as we
Speaker 3: want to believe that every single territory can just trade
Speaker 3: with each other and be friendly and all of that
Speaker 3: sort of stuff, I think it's it's naive because there
Speaker 3: are adversaries, like at the at the I mean, Americans
Speaker 3: fight against Americans, let alone Americans against whatever right. So
Speaker 3: so every that the adversaries at multiple levels, and trade
Speaker 3: is not just a tool for making money, but trade
Speaker 3: is a tool for you know, competing with that who
Speaker 3: is your adversary. And this is where I sort of
Speaker 3: have come to reconcile tariffs in some capacities. It's not
Speaker 3: as simple as taxation is death. Tarists are bad, you know,
Speaker 3: that's a very simplistic view, it's almost an NPC view
Speaker 3: because you might have someone who is an adversary and
Speaker 3: let's just use China in this example, is like kind
Speaker 3: of loves the fact that they can sell shit to America,
Speaker 3: sell useless shit and actually pull in money from America,
Speaker 3: strengthen their industrial base and plan for a thousand years,
Speaker 3: while America is sort of like being a junkie and
Speaker 3: you know, just like consuming shit they don't need, like
Speaker 3: they fucking love that. And if you can sort of
Speaker 3: wake up from that and realize that you're actually the buyer,
Speaker 3: so you actually provide the demand, and you actually can
Speaker 3: potentially buy from family instead of the you know, the
Speaker 3: stranger or the adversary down the road, you might even
Speaker 3: though it's economically you know, I guess incorrect in the
Speaker 3: beginning because it costs more and all this sort of stuff, like,
Speaker 3: you might do that because the reality to the fact
Speaker 3: that of the world is that there are adversaries, and
Speaker 3: at the geopolitical level, he is one preference.
Speaker 1: This is a time difference argument. Yes, you're essentially saying that, yeah,
Speaker 1: sure you can get the cheaper iPad today, but what
Speaker 1: about tomorrow? You know, what about ten years from now?
Speaker 1: What does your country look like like. It's a very
Speaker 1: interesting debate. And I just wanted to point out because
Speaker 1: I lit Gillespie on fire for this tweet, but he
Speaker 1: and this ties in perfectly to what you guys were
Speaker 1: talking about. Nick Lesbie posts this chart of I guess
Speaker 1: his stock. I don't even know. There's no fucking X
Speaker 1: and Y axis, so I don't know how much it's down.
Speaker 1: But he says, I'm sixty one and over the past
Speaker 1: two months, my four oh one K has lost twenty
Speaker 1: five percent of its value. I'm always happy to contribute
Speaker 1: to the greater but good, but can someone please explain
Speaker 1: to me how this helps anyone? And it's just like,
Speaker 1: first off, you're sixty one, Why are you still in
Speaker 1: growth stocks?
Speaker 2: Why are you.
Speaker 1: Taking a full maxical hit of twenty five percent loss
Speaker 1: as you're like on the cusp of retirement.
Speaker 2: That's fucking bizarre.
Speaker 1: Now, on top of that, you're a libertarian who has
Speaker 1: advocated and strongly railed against the terif regime, which, by
Speaker 1: the way, Trump campaigned on for the past fucking year
Speaker 1: and basically his entire life. That he was going to
Speaker 1: roll this out, you should have known that the market
Speaker 1: was going to get hit. Why didn't you edge, Why
Speaker 1: didn't you go to money markets? Why didn't you fucking
Speaker 1: change your risk exposure? You didn't do any of that.
Speaker 1: You have no fucking sense of personal responsibility in any
Speaker 1: of this. You're just a fucking like a total NPC.
Speaker 1: All of my life savings is just invest in this market,
Speaker 1: and all of your you know, lectures that you give
Speaker 1: to the world is that you understand this shit better
Speaker 1: than anybody, and this is why you're able to advise. Well,
Speaker 1: clearly you're not living that way. So I don't fucking
Speaker 1: take you seriously anymore. Sorry for like this crazy rant,
Speaker 1: but like I just I just really think that it's
Speaker 1: like reprehensible to just post that chart and just cry.
Speaker 3: It's like, yeah, man, when I see it, the fuff. Yeah,
Speaker 3: when I see this stuff, I want to go down
Speaker 3: another eighty percent, because like when I see people who's
Speaker 3: like entire economic or entire financial, I should say philosophy
Speaker 3: is that shit should just should just go up into
Speaker 3: the fucking riot, Like I just want to see it
Speaker 3: all fucking like see you later, just like burn it
Speaker 3: to the fucking ground, because.
Speaker 1: Every single libertarian knows that this market is a house
Speaker 1: of cards that it's billed off bullshit, so like when
Speaker 1: it drops, you can't act surprised or hurt or caught
Speaker 1: off guard, like.
Speaker 2: What are you doing? So I don't know.
Speaker 1: I just think it really was indicative of kind of
Speaker 1: the blue pilled libertarian mindset where like they they read
Speaker 1: the books, they lecture, well, they give you the one
Speaker 1: on one answers to everything, but they live like fucking idiots,
Speaker 1: like they're not actually applying our worldview to anything. Because
Speaker 1: if you are, that didn't happen to you.
Speaker 2: Sorry, that's it. That's all I got to say about it.
Speaker 5: Fuck you, Nickola.
Speaker 4: I think that's like a thousand percent fair point on that,
Speaker 4: And it seems like really like when it comes to
Speaker 4: the whole stock stuff, is that like if we ever
Speaker 4: took like if you if you move to a sound
Speaker 4: money standard, that's what's going to happen, like the financial
Speaker 4: and stock market exactly. Dude, he's so bloated, like it
Speaker 4: would fall by probably sixty percent in capitalist that is
Speaker 4: applicated like applied towards that system, like it's so bloated,
Speaker 4: like normal people wouldn't invest in it. But it would
Speaker 4: make no sense because it's not going to just go
Speaker 4: up seven percent every single year.
Speaker 5: But guess because the money.
Speaker 1: Printer Nick Nick and company would still advocate for ending
Speaker 1: the FED and they would expect that, I mean.
Speaker 5: The stock market would go up somehow.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, I I don't know. I don't know.
Speaker 1: But my point is like you just cannot base your
Speaker 1: analysis off of number go up, number go down like
Speaker 1: this is. This is much more complicated, and any libertarian
Speaker 1: worth anything understands that. And I think that that was
Speaker 1: my big frustration with it. It's just such a basic, bitch, whiny,
Speaker 1: total lack of personal responsibility, mentality, And it's like no
Speaker 1: one should listen to you after that, Like you shouldn't
Speaker 1: be taken seriously if that's your fucking world view and
Speaker 1: you knew this was coming and you just.
Speaker 2: Kept long all the way long, you lost twenty five percent.
Speaker 2: Jesus Christ. Sorry, I gotta stop ranting about this guy.
Speaker 2: I don't know why that bothers me so much, but
Speaker 2: it really does.
Speaker 4: I will tell you everything about like my faith or
Speaker 4: expectations with this. I will say, if there's a subset
Speaker 4: of things that if you wanted the US to basically
Speaker 4: take every chip on the table. You did the tariffs,
Speaker 4: you got rid of the income tax, you supported stable
Speaker 4: coins with no KYC, and you bought bitcoin, and you
Speaker 4: went hard into having a domestic tech sector, like really
Speaker 4: fleshing that out and manufacture and moving manufacturing on board.
Speaker 4: The US would have all of the every one of
Speaker 4: the chips, like if they actually do that, Like, I
Speaker 4: don't think getting rid of the income tax would be
Speaker 4: such like like a multi generation generational profound unlock.
Speaker 2: Oh and it would alter and it would alter.
Speaker 5: Building of innovating. It would be unheard.
Speaker 1: Of, and it would alter time reference sickness in such
Speaker 1: a dramatic way.
Speaker 5: Yeah.
Speaker 3: I think of all of them, the income tax are
Speaker 3: the most important, more important than bitcoin, honestly my opinion,
Speaker 3: because I just don't think we need to. I don't
Speaker 3: think it's reasonable to even think that the current regime.
Speaker 3: I think bitcoin becomes something long after Trump's dead. So
Speaker 3: you know, ideally, like the best thing for America would
Speaker 3: be that Trump becomes king and he doesn't like get
Speaker 3: removed until he dies, so he's in there for another
Speaker 3: fucking fifteen years, and that gives it enough time to
Speaker 3: just change things. And because these things take time and
Speaker 3: in that time, as you say that he keeps tariffs
Speaker 3: with the adversaries and no tariffs with his friends, you
Speaker 3: know that's perfectly sound reasonable behavior. You abolish all the
Speaker 3: income tax and all the local regulations because because it's
Speaker 3: not just income taxes that are internal, but there's a
Speaker 3: bunch of other shit that is in the way of
Speaker 3: people being able to innovate domestically. So you want to
Speaker 3: like remove and cut away as much as that shit as.
Speaker 1: Possible, shatter the regulatory state. My god, dude, he does that,
Speaker 1: and even if he doesn't get rid of the income text,
Speaker 1: but he drops it, say, say, people making less than
Speaker 1: half a million, if he could get rid of it
Speaker 1: for those people, like just to just to re reinstill
Speaker 1: a belief that like you can be middle class, you
Speaker 1: can actually have a family, you can get married, you
Speaker 1: can have kids, you can survive. Like that is that is,
Speaker 1: in my opinion, as big a threat to this country
Speaker 1: as our national debt. Like the fact that people are hopeless,
Speaker 1: the fact that young men are hopeless. If you don't
Speaker 1: fucking fix that, well, then just prepare for revolution because
Speaker 1: it's coming. And I think that's where we're at. And
Speaker 1: like you've got to take some dramatic swings. And this
Speaker 1: is why I've been willing to accept some unlibertarian maneuvers
Speaker 1: because I understand like we are on the precipice of
Speaker 1: really dire things totally.
Speaker 3: So that was, you know, My point is basically, I
Speaker 3: think there's a I think the Bitcoin win is a
Speaker 3: longer term win, and I think it's something that occurs
Speaker 3: when Bitcoin naturally reaches something like one to ten million.
Speaker 3: Somewhere in that range, you're probably closer to the ten
Speaker 3: million muck, which means, yeah, I don't think it could
Speaker 3: be done artificially.
Speaker 4: So even from an investment perspective, if you on shore
Speaker 4: that wealth, the wealth unlock it would have for the
Speaker 4: middle class would be huge.
Speaker 5: But I completely.
Speaker 4: Agree it's twenty years for the unlock of what bitcoin
Speaker 4: actually does and the fundamental thing that bitcoin solves. Because actually,
Speaker 4: in the talk I did at bit block Boom, I
Speaker 4: was trying to illustrate this is how far we are
Speaker 4: away from what bitcoin does. And the problem is not
Speaker 4: in the retail and e commerce world exactly. Your problem
Speaker 4: is just not there. I'm a cipherpunk through and through.
Speaker 4: I want peer to peer payments for everybody. All that
Speaker 4: good stuff, and that is one thousand percent the end goal.
Speaker 4: But the problem is the two point seven quadrillion dollars
Speaker 4: in exchange that is nothing but printed loan buying, printed
Speaker 4: loan buying, corporation buying land, buying property by like everything
Speaker 4: under the sun that happens in swift and you do
Speaker 4: not go from three point four trillion in settled value
Speaker 4: on bitcoin today to two thousand and seven hundred trillion
Speaker 4: in two years exactly. That's all we're talking about. So, yes,
Speaker 4: that is a twenty year timeline, that is a forty
Speaker 4: year timeline realistically twenty year at best, you know, yes.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, So that's why I think, like right now,
Speaker 3: the I guess, I guess it all comes back to
Speaker 3: why I'm you know, pro this approach. Like worst case
Speaker 3: this is you know a bunch of brinksmanship whatever, you know,
Speaker 3: and we end up like figuring out who allies are,
Speaker 3: who's not an ally blah blah blah, and all that
Speaker 3: sort of stuff.
Speaker 5: You know.
Speaker 3: Best case this, you know, opens the door towards moving sorry,
Speaker 3: removing irs income text or lowering it and then cleaning
Speaker 3: up the local domestic and all this sort of stuff.
Speaker 3: But overall, like directionally to me, this is like, I
Speaker 3: couldn't think of a more accurate direction. And this is why, like,
Speaker 3: if there's bitcoin is listening to this, you know, the
Speaker 3: tired argument or I mean it's tired argument to me, right,
Speaker 3: but it's the whole thing is like, oh, you're a
Speaker 3: communist because you're supporting tariffs and Trump is an asshole,
Speaker 3: and we should the solution is bitcoin. Bitcoin fixes this.
Speaker 3: Like to me, it's just so fucking immature because they're
Speaker 3: not living in the real world. They're still like when
Speaker 3: coupled with what you just said, you know, bitcoins decades
Speaker 3: away from being ready anyway, there's no like bitcoin fixes
Speaker 3: this tomorrow, even if we wanted it, Even if Trump
Speaker 3: turned around tomorrow and said we are going to make
Speaker 3: bitcoin the reserve currency of the fucking world tomorrow, not
Speaker 3: going to fucking happen. Still like, it's just going to
Speaker 3: take way too long. And you know, if that if
Speaker 3: that was to happen, it would also like just fy
Speaker 3: to all the people who want to see bitcoin help
Speaker 3: the rest of the world. It would crush the rest
Speaker 3: of the world because nobody on the planet will be
Speaker 3: able to fucking afford any bitcoin. Like talk about like inequality,
Speaker 3: like so so that that's a whole other thing. So
Speaker 3: you know, it leaves you with what are the moves
Speaker 3: that you have to make? And I think the current moves,
Speaker 3: the current layout, the current things that have been done,
Speaker 3: I think are great. And when you couple in the
Speaker 3: fact that we are at war, we're fighting for the
Speaker 3: soul of the West. Do we want a kinetic war
Speaker 3: or should we take another approach? This is another approach,
Speaker 3: and this actually strengthens the West. It ideally lowers the
Speaker 3: amount of money we're sending out and increases the amount
Speaker 3: of productivity at home. Like if it creates this sort
Speaker 3: of an incentive mechanism and starts to get people locally
Speaker 3: in the West and in particular the US starting to
Speaker 3: think about how to innovate locally and domestically and build
Speaker 3: and do all that sort of stuff. And as we
Speaker 3: said earlier, is if it creates a situation where other
Speaker 3: nation states also start to think, well, fuck you, we're
Speaker 3: going to think about ourselves like all of this sort
Speaker 3: of like mishmash of things, that's an interesting positive side effect.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I gotta clarify a point because otherwise I'll get
Speaker 1: I've got like phone calls and emails and dms from
Speaker 1: gene Epstein when I say this, and he lectures me
Speaker 1: and gets mad at me.
Speaker 2: But when I.
Speaker 1: Said that if you end the if you keep these
Speaker 1: tariffs really high and you have a bunch of US
Speaker 1: tollers flit home, I said, it would be inflationary. Clarify,
Speaker 1: price inflationary, not monetary inflation. The monetary inflation occurs with
Speaker 1: the actual creation of the currency units. I'm talking about
Speaker 1: price inflation. You bring home trillions of dollars that are
Speaker 1: circulating all over the world, and you now have them
Speaker 1: circulating within the US. Well, easy supply demand type of
Speaker 1: calculus there, you're going to have prices skyrockets. So that's
Speaker 1: what I'm talking about. And the trim home, Yeah, exactly.
Speaker 1: It's not you know, creation of money. It's just all
Speaker 1: of money that isn't in uh, isn't on the demand
Speaker 1: here that would be suddenly. So there there's real consequences
Speaker 1: from these actions, and people need to be aware of them.
Speaker 1: And I and I think, well, Trump probably isn't. I
Speaker 1: know some of his economic advisors like Scot Assent probably is.
Speaker 1: So these are really interesting, you know, additional variables that
Speaker 1: people have to consider with prescribing things because I don't
Speaker 1: think I don't think people think this through on a
Speaker 1: deep enough level. A lot of people are you know,
Speaker 1: very one oh one where they're just like I just
Speaker 1: I just want pain and punishment of my enemy.
Speaker 2: So like that's all there is to it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, there's just a ton of nuance. So this is
Speaker 1: why I wanted to have you guys on is because
Speaker 1: I think having a very you know, well rounded panel
Speaker 1: to to analyze all of the sides of this thing
Speaker 1: is is necessary because I mean, this we're talking about, really,
Speaker 1: what we're talking about is centrally planning an economy, like
Speaker 1: which is totally counter to libertarian ethos, but like we
Speaker 1: don't have the option of not having es centrally planned economy.
Speaker 1: So now we're just debating over how it's centrally planned.
Speaker 1: It's kind of how these things go. But it's it's
Speaker 1: really challenging, and there's gonna be you know, fits and starts.
Speaker 1: There's gonna be like, you're gonna have setbacks in this.
Speaker 1: So I I am I'm willing to be patient with Trump,
Speaker 1: but he could demonstrate a lot to me by you know,
Speaker 1: cutting ties with some nefarious actors, bringing prosecutions against some
Speaker 1: nefarious actors, not getting us into a war with Iran.
Speaker 1: Things of that nature, would would make me believe he's
Speaker 1: the real deal, actually negotiating an end to the war
Speaker 1: in Ukraine. Like, these are all things that that I
Speaker 1: need to see to be confident that he's actually head
Speaker 1: in that direction, because what he did in twenty twenty
Speaker 1: was h pretty fucking catastrophic and I just want to
Speaker 1: make sure that I'm not being sold out, and that's
Speaker 1: my concern.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I will say there's a lot of really interesting,
Speaker 4: like you know, the whole art of the deal thing,
Speaker 4: Like every time somebody brings it up, I just kind
Speaker 4: of laugh because it's like he does something you don't
Speaker 4: like or whatever, and it's just part of the deal.
Speaker 4: He does something you like, and he's a genius and
Speaker 4: he's like he's just gonna do it, you know, and
Speaker 4: so it like kind of cracks me up. But I
Speaker 4: see some of the things he does and I'm like,
Speaker 4: there's no way he just he just has this one
Speaker 4: playbook and it keeps working like he did it with
Speaker 4: this strategic bitcoin reserve. Is that he comes out and
Speaker 4: he tweets about Solana and Cardono and then suddenly all
Speaker 4: of the like the the who's who of crypto come
Speaker 4: out and be like, this is not a good idea.
Speaker 4: He should not be putting Like coin base Brian Armstrong
Speaker 4: comes outs like, we should not be this is gonna
Speaker 4: be very difficult and we're gonna have a bunch of equities.
Speaker 4: Bitcoin is different, you know, And now everybody's like arguing
Speaker 4: for a Bitcoin only and then he just kind of
Speaker 4: like okay, strategic Bitcoin reserve and then it's like signed,
Speaker 4: and everybody's like whow. And I just all I can
Speaker 4: think is that like everybody was arguing, how what a terrible.
Speaker 5: Idea this was, and now everyone is relieved.
Speaker 4: And it's because I think it's like Trump does I
Speaker 4: actually if I want to believe he's a genius, if
Speaker 4: I want to steal man, the fact that he is
Speaker 4: just playing this game and he's good at he's just
Speaker 4: good at poker. Like the thing like the Gulf of America,
Speaker 4: I think is such a perfect example of it doesn't
Speaker 4: really cost anything, but it just makes everybody at the
Speaker 4: table think you're crazy and that you might just do
Speaker 4: the next like, you know, it's like it's like putting
Speaker 4: a blind bet where you didn't even turn over your
Speaker 4: cards and you've just got to a heart and he's like, yeah,
Speaker 4: one hundred thousand.
Speaker 6: Why not?
Speaker 4: And so everybody actually thinks, like I thought the Greenland
Speaker 4: thing was a troll.
Speaker 2: Me too.
Speaker 3: Now I don't know.
Speaker 5: Yeah, now I'm not sure.
Speaker 1: I gotta I gotta point this out real quick, because
Speaker 1: I think that Trump's success in negotiations is so indicative
Speaker 1: of the feminizing of the world, because because he approaches
Speaker 1: trade negotiations and just deal making as any red blooded,
Speaker 1: testosterone infused man has throughout the past two hundred years.
Speaker 1: But but he's such it's like it's such a dying
Speaker 1: breed in this country. It's just like it's it's it's
Speaker 1: received as if you're you know, watching an angel Land
Speaker 1: or something like. It's just so like no one can
Speaker 1: fucking believe what they're seeing. It's like, this is just negotiation,
Speaker 1: one on one.
Speaker 2: You you have.
Speaker 1: The cards, you have the chips, you ask for everything
Speaker 1: that you want and more, and then you settle where
Speaker 1: you want. Like this is fucking simple shit, and people
Speaker 1: are like genius. I'm like, what like the way he
Speaker 1: mogs other leaders where he fucking handshakes them, brings them
Speaker 1: in tight. It's just like pure alpha negotiation ship. This
Speaker 1: is not genius level stuff. This is like I don't know,
Speaker 1: but I guess I guess it's rare enough that it is.
Speaker 3: Now, well, it's it's I think I'll say proof of
Speaker 3: the rule, right, yeah, yeah, the exception is proof of
Speaker 3: the rule. But I think it's also like it requires
Speaker 3: a level of charisma and character to kind of pull
Speaker 3: that off, you know, because the people are just like, yeah, exactly, But.
Speaker 1: That's what I'm saying with the feminization of men, that's like, yeah,
Speaker 1: just the fact that he's confident and he walks in
Speaker 1: there and he owns the room, and he fucking he
Speaker 1: browbeats somebody, and then he fucking hugs another, and he
Speaker 1: compliments another, and then he talks ship to another. It's
Speaker 1: like you're just being a dude.
Speaker 3: You know. This is I mean, this this is why,
Speaker 3: like I had this talk with someone a couple of
Speaker 3: weeks back. It's like the juck is more important than
Speaker 3: the nerd because that the juck is like just naturally
Speaker 3: like that that's the person who is the natural leader,
Speaker 3: and it's the natural pecking order. And Trump Trump has
Speaker 3: and always will be a jock, and he doesn't need
Speaker 3: to be a fucking eight D genius who's like got
Speaker 3: all this sort of stuff. It's just like, this is
Speaker 3: what we're doing, and everybody else is just yeah, that's well.
Speaker 1: And I think I think the reason that it's so
Speaker 1: important right now is because we just have too many nerds.
Speaker 1: I mean, we have a bunch of people that are
Speaker 1: like not even in the game, and then you have
Speaker 1: like the people that are in the game or tons
Speaker 1: of nerds and almost no jocks. And I like, all
Speaker 1: the people in the fucking eu vonderline, all these scumbags,
Speaker 1: like they're not even they're not even nerds.
Speaker 4: They're just like, yeah, just horribly In my opinion, in
Speaker 4: the picture that I paint in my head, it feels
Speaker 4: like horribly insecure people with power and they become defensive
Speaker 4: and vindictive and they think you have to listen to them,
Speaker 4: and then they do just horrible things because they're like,
Speaker 4: I'm powerful, I can get away with it. It's just
Speaker 4: a massive amount of insecurity because with a massive amount
Speaker 4: of power.
Speaker 1: It's it's it's wielding vengeance because you were stuffed in
Speaker 1: a locker, you know, whereas the jock didn't have that experience,
Speaker 1: Like Trump's been wealthy and famous and had all the
Speaker 1: hottest women, and it's just like so he doesn't need
Speaker 1: that level of gratification, he doesn't need to actually punish
Speaker 1: people viciously. Once he gets his way, he's just like,
Speaker 1: I got my way. We're good, Like now we can
Speaker 1: go back to regular relationships, whereas the EU leadership is like, no,
Speaker 1: we're gonna lock you in your fucking house for the
Speaker 1: rest of your life, and we're gonna, you know, put
Speaker 1: carbon tariffs or taxes, and you know they're gonna be They're.
Speaker 4: Just retrained into the proper way of thinking.
Speaker 1: Anyways, I gotta I gotta wrap here, So let's do
Speaker 1: closing comments from both of you guys, and then we'll
Speaker 1: head out.
Speaker 6: Thank you man, No got you go fus Okay, yeah,
Speaker 6: uh basically on on just kind of the big picture
Speaker 6: is I will I will say Svetsky, you actually have
Speaker 6: much more nuanced opinion.
Speaker 4: And I have been on the fence about it and
Speaker 4: I still on the fence about it. But it's it
Speaker 4: is really it's just really interesting, like politics is different now,
Speaker 4: like the scope of what is like going back to
Speaker 4: your point of like shaking it up. It's definitely shook,
Speaker 4: you know, and it at least gives me some sort
Speaker 4: of hope that things will just start to like maybe
Speaker 4: we don't specifically go down this course or or down
Speaker 4: this course. Maybe we just kind of separate a little
Speaker 4: bit and balkanize and start figuring out our own little shit,
Speaker 4: you know, like like stop with all the political in piece,
Speaker 4: like everybody becoming like the average of everything, and like, okay,
Speaker 4: actually you have your opinion and you go do your thing,
Speaker 4: and I'll have mine and I do mine, and maybe
Speaker 4: we actually come up with a solution in the mix
Speaker 4: of us actually trying to be active about our decisions
Speaker 4: and not just kind of like going with this blah
Speaker 4: of the status quo, which was a horrible, horrible trajectory
Speaker 4: to be on.
Speaker 5: So I'm I'm entertained. I'm entertained CAUs cautiously optimist.
Speaker 4: Yeah, maybe maybe a little there is there is definitely optimism.
Speaker 5: That's where with the entertainment.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, I'm just like cautiously optimistic. I'm I'm not
Speaker 1: a true believer. I don't have I don't have faith
Speaker 1: in Donald Trump, which gets people furious with me. But
Speaker 1: I'm just being honest. I don't have faith in sorry,
Speaker 1: but I have seen enough for him to give him
Speaker 1: a chance, and and I will continue to do so.
Speaker 1: But in the meantime, I'm going to hold his feet
Speaker 1: to the fire and continue to demand everything that he's
Speaker 1: promised and everything that is slow rolled, and just keep
Speaker 1: keep putting the pressure on because I think that, like,
Speaker 1: that's the one thing about this White House it's totally
Speaker 1: different from any other in my lifetime, is that these
Speaker 1: fucking people are absolutely paying attention to what trans online,
Speaker 1: and as insane as it is, I have enough reach that,
Speaker 1: like I know my shit circulates in that world. And like,
Speaker 1: if you're constantly beating the drum, where the fuck are
Speaker 1: the Epstein files? Like they they respond to that. Dan
Speaker 1: Bongino came out yesterday saying, Hey, just because you don't
Speaker 1: know what we're doing, doesn't mean that.
Speaker 2: We're not working.
Speaker 1: Like everybody, everybody chill out like they're feeling the pressure.
Speaker 1: And I think that's what I implore Trump supporters to do,
Speaker 1: is like, sure, trust the plan, have faith whatever, whatever,
Speaker 1: but please please let them know you expect delivery. And
Speaker 1: I think that'll help them. Sorry, Alex, go for it.
Speaker 3: Man. Nour's my my. My comments are I'm glad we
Speaker 3: did this, first of all. Second of all is I'm
Speaker 3: probably the most obviously optimistic here. I'm I'm a and
Speaker 3: as guy will know having read the book, I'm a
Speaker 3: I'm a student of the great Men theory of history,
Speaker 3: and I believe that history is shaped by unique individuals
Speaker 3: who have the capacity to be so to the status
Speaker 3: quote that they literally bend the ark of eternity towards them.
Speaker 3: And whether that's an Alexander or a Napoleon, or a
Speaker 3: Hitler or a Steve Jobs or you know, Trump or whatever, like,
Speaker 3: these people change, like history shifts because of them. And
Speaker 3: I think Trump genuinely belongs to that group. I think
Speaker 3: he's got the aura, he's got the charisma, he's got
Speaker 3: the fortitude, has got that about him, and I think
Speaker 3: that's very unique in the modern world, which every single
Speaker 3: quote unquote leader is just the fucking bitch and he
Speaker 3: just has that presence. And for me, that is very
Speaker 3: that is very uh. It gives me a lot of
Speaker 3: hope for the West. And you know me, I'm a
Speaker 3: total fucking you know, you know, European Western maximalist in
Speaker 3: the sense that I want to see our people prosper
Speaker 3: and we fucking built the world and we have no
Speaker 3: right to we have no need. Sorry to be a
Speaker 3: bunch of guilty bitches, you know wherever tries to make
Speaker 3: us feel like, you know, we're the ones that did
Speaker 3: everything wrong to the world, and we actually fucking built everything.
Speaker 3: So I think Trump is a force for good in
Speaker 3: that direction. I think the moves that are being made
Speaker 3: are in the right direction. And my final message I
Speaker 3: guess to people is to yes, what what Guy and
Speaker 3: Clint said, like hold to the fire, but also put
Speaker 3: your energy behind the movement and reinforce it, because what
Speaker 3: matters here is not to be like a fucking Lobertarian like, oh,
Speaker 3: I don't want to do anything, sit in on the
Speaker 3: sidelines and just criticize like that person doesn't fucking do anything,
Speaker 3: and they're just like just in the fucking way, Like
Speaker 3: get on and roll or get the fuck out of
Speaker 3: the way. And when you're on side, yes, keep people
Speaker 3: around you and everything like accountable. That is very important,
Speaker 3: but roll fucking with it because this movement needs momentum, like.
Speaker 1: I agreed, and let me just to the other thing.
Speaker 1: That I do that A lot of libertarians don't. Is
Speaker 1: I applaud I applaud Trump when he does things that
Speaker 1: we like, And I think that there's a tendency for
Speaker 1: people not to want to do that because then they
Speaker 1: get accused of.
Speaker 2: Being, oh, you're fucking mago Trump.
Speaker 1: Support, Like who gives a ship like is he delivering
Speaker 1: you what you want or not? When he is fucking
Speaker 1: say so man, like, that's okay. That adds energy, that ends.
Speaker 2: Us things that I've come.
Speaker 5: On, I was like, holy crap, this is kind of wild.
Speaker 1: So so like if he's been there and you know,
Speaker 1: and that could that could get very ugly. I don't know,
Speaker 1: but I I just want to say just a kind
Speaker 1: of closing comment. I I agree with you, like great
Speaker 1: men throughout history do change the the arc of humanity
Speaker 1: and how things play out. And Trump has the capacity
Speaker 1: to be that guy. I'm just saying he's not that
Speaker 1: guy yet, Like you could, like he's already accomplished things
Speaker 1: that are fucking unbelievable, There's no doubt about that. But
Speaker 1: if you want to actually change the trajectory of human history,
Speaker 1: he has that power right now. He has that opportunity.
Speaker 1: Don't fucking don't sleep on it. Don't take it for granted.
Speaker 1: Fucking take swings. You're in your I don't know, eighties
Speaker 1: or whatever. He is like, You've got a decade, maybe
Speaker 1: twenty years if you're lucky left, Take fucking swings. Act
Speaker 1: with courage, do what's right, salvage Western civilization. Donald Trump
Speaker 1: that you have that at your fingertips, But you cannot
Speaker 1: be sold out to donors. You have to act with courage,
Speaker 1: and you have to do so fearlessly. You've already fucking
Speaker 1: almost died. So I'm not saying you lack courage. You
Speaker 1: clearly have some. But this is gonna take even more
Speaker 1: than you've already given.
Speaker 2: Do you have that?
Speaker 1: And then one more point to his supporters. Even if
Speaker 1: you trust the plan, even if you think he's that
Speaker 1: great man and he's already accomplished enough to change the
Speaker 1: arc of human history, that doesn't mean that you can't
Speaker 1: also become that. That doesn't mean that you can't also
Speaker 1: be a change agent that changes the trajectory of humanity
Speaker 1: in your own right. So don't always just look to
Speaker 1: heroes and leaders to fucking save you. You What if
Speaker 1: he fails, I guess is what I'm saying, like, we
Speaker 1: all have to be in the position of changing things
Speaker 1: as best we can in our day to day even
Speaker 1: if that's just starting a family and having kids and
Speaker 1: raising them right. Like, whatever level you can change these things,
Speaker 1: do that too. Don't just wait for Trump to fix everything.
Speaker 2: That's it.
Speaker 1: Love you, guys, Thank you for tuning in now. I
Speaker 1: know what you're thinking. Why would I need another energy drink?
Speaker 1: Well I'll tell you why. Why do you need a
Speaker 1: bad graphic that demonstrates the product that you're trying to sell?
Speaker 1: Because it doesn't matter if you want to be cozy
Speaker 1: but energize. There's only one place to go, and that's
Speaker 1: my pillow dot Com. Yeah they have Rev seven. Look
Speaker 1: at pixelated Mike Linndell's face. You tell me you don't
Speaker 1: want to drink his juice. Get the fuck out of here.
Speaker 1: MyPillow dot Com promo code lockdown, Get you some cozy
Speaker 1: with it energy mypill dot com Lockdown.
Speaker 3: Welcome to Liberty, Lockdown Pastania, walk home de Liberty in't
Speaker 3: come but yeah it's on hold. Where did it come
Speaker 3: from and where did it