Speaker 1: If you want to get the show early and ad free,
head on over to the Peak Kinyonas show dot com.
There you can choose from where you wish to support me.
Now listen very carefully. I've had some people ask me
about this, even though I think on the last ad
I stated it pretty clearly. If you want an RSS feed,
you're going to have to subscribe Substack or through Patreon.
You can also subscribe on my website which is right there,
gum Road and what's the other one, subscribe Star and
if you do that, you will get access to the
audio file. So head on over to the pekan Yonashow
dot com. You'll see all the ways that you can
support me there. And I just want to thank everyone.
It's because of you that I can put out the
amount of material that I do. I can do what
I'm doing with doctor Johnson on two hundred Years Together
and everything else, the things that Thomas and I are
doing together on condinal philosophy, it's all because of you.
And yeah, I mean, I'll never be able to thank
you enough. So thank you. The pekan Yonashow dot com.
Everything's there. Want to welcome everyone back to the Peking
Yona show Ron's back. Ron, how you doing?
Speaker 2: It's going off, Pete.
Speaker 1: Oh, you know it's one of those days. Just another
day to like ninety degrees and ninety percent humidity outside,
so I'm sitting in the air conditioning.
Speaker 2: Yeah, we have entered the blast furnace section of the
year in Dallas, where you know, the weather is based
on a dare it is. It is hot, it is hot.
So all my uh all my uh uh you know, uh,
cultural recovery friends on the right who you know, want
me to be in a full three piece you know
and tie every day. I'm like, I live in Dallas.
I love all that. I love that aesthetic. I'm for you.
But uh, I'll do that when I you know, when
it's not one hundred and four, you know in the shade.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yesterday morning, I woke up. I purposely set my
alarm for real early so I can mow the lawn.
And yeah, normally when I get out that early and
I mow the lawn, there's a you know, there's a
hint of a breeze all gone, just humidity and just
I mean just mowing the lawn. By the time, I
mean I got a riding mower by the time I
was done with that, I'm like, I can't. I'm not
doing anything else. This is insane. What are you crazy?
Speaker 2: When it's just when it's just dead still and it's human.
We don't have that in Dallas. What's funny is Dallas
has on average as much or more wind than then Chicago.
Is just a function of it being so flat and
you know where it is in relation to you know,
the mountains and everything. In other words, it has no
relationship to any mountains. But uh, and it's it's it's
not as dry as like Arizona, but it's but it's
nowhere near Houston or the Florida Panhandle or where you live.
And so that is one thing we've got going for
us is if you go outside, at least there's usually
some kind of breeze going on, and it's you know,
not eighty ninety percent humidity. I that's a killer man.
We used to own a bunch of apartments family business.
We used to own a bunch of apartments in Houston.
And I remember when we made this big acquisition this
back in the Lehman was our lender. That tells you
how long ago we're talking about. And we made an
acquisition of fifteen garden style of properties. You know, these
are all four to eight hundred units each property, and
over a week and a half we had to go
walk each unit because otherwise you don't know what you're buying, right,
And oh I had to have lost ten pounds just Houston,
you know, I mean, you know what it's like, you know,
and you're climbing all those stairs and everything. It was
miserable but made us money.
Speaker 1: Was Yeah. I mean I was in Austin a couple
of years ago, right outside Austin and Spicewood, and we
were on the Colorado and it was like five it
was like one hundred and five, one hundred and ten degrees.
This is Memorial Day weekend. Yeah, yeah. Yeah. The thing
was it was so windy all the time that it
didn't feel I mean, it's one hundred and five degrees
come up, that's not even human and but I was
still able to deal with it. It's really weird because
you have this wind, it's just i mean going through
one ear and out the other. I mean, it's just brutal.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so fun day in the market today. We're recording
on Friday.
Speaker 1: Don't even don't even get me started.
Speaker 2: And I'm I'm trying not to be. I have I
have my trading screens turned off so it will be
too distracted. But my uh but I do have just
for fiduciary, my fiduciary responsibility. I have Fox Business up,
and uh oh it's a fun one. M it's a
fun one today. I mean, not too too bad. We're
down S and P's down one and three quarter percent.
It could be a lot worse, but uh not. You know,
we've had a good run. You know, we're up since
April second, we're up ten and a half percent, So
that's actually you know, one day. It does not an
investment make but still not fun on the day.
Speaker 1: Well, it's interesting because if you track it, you know,
I knew that I knew some tex stocks were going
to be done today because the NAS is the NAS
is down more so than bigger percentage.
Speaker 2: It's down two point four percent today right now.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah, And you know then I look at I
track Bitcoin and bitcoin's down as well one quarter percent. Yeah,
so so that's tracking too. You know, let's jump into that.
So this past week, Trump big deal, because it always
has to be a big deal with Trump. The biggest,
this tariff thing with Europe. Yeah, well here we'll get
into some economics. Okay about this, but let's start with this.
Does any of this matter if you are not deporting
twenty to thirty million people?
Speaker 2: You know, that's a really that's a really good question,
Pete the interplay. First of all, I would love to
think we would deport twenty to thirty million people. I'm
becoming more and more skeptical every day, even though I
think the biggest thing is let's take this, let's take
this in sections. I think the biggest thing right now
is turning off the spigot coming in right and and
there are provisions in the big beautiful you know, everybody's
talking about how Ice has now a bigger budget at
the Marine Corps, and that's all great. I think the
I think right now the biggest emphasis is on making
sure nothing comes in and then over time setting up
the administrative part. And like right, wrong or indifferent, there
is an administrative part to being able to deport because
right now there's just not the infrastructure to do so
in numbers, and so the funding is there to increase that,
but that doesn't happen overnight. So right now can you
seal the can you make the border functional? Let's not
even talk about ceiling. Can you make it functional? And
I think they've you know, the numbers aren't. I don't
know exactly exactly.
Speaker 1: It appears that it is. Everything i've seen is and
even if it isn't, and you're never going to get perfection,
it's right cut down on from what I understand, ninety
five percent of what was happening under Biden, right.
Speaker 2: And that's exactly what I'm seeing. So I think that's
really good. And then if you create this area, so
to speak of, look, getting in the country actually involves
a process, and the borders are functioning, and there is
a that there is a new attitude to where we
don't just because here's where. Here's where the immigration and
the question of tariffs. Let's just keep it in the
realm of concepts for a minute where those are related.
As you're just talking about borders, functional borders and with
people is over here with ice and deportations and all that,
and over here you're talking financial with tariffs. And you
have to have both because money if you don't have
some kind of functional border. And I don't know what
the magic number is as far as what the level
of tariff ought to be. I think we can talk
about that when we get in the minutia. But you
have to have both people borders and financial borders. Otherwise,
if you only have people borders, you commoditize your people
because of capital flows. And that gets real. That sounds
real complicated, but it's not. That gets into Dutch disease
and all these other things. I've written about that, and
we could talk. I don't want people's I don't want
people's eyes to roll back in their head and think, oh,
this is going to be some really technical talk. But
if you Nick Land has been great at this, and
I don't you know, I'm not lockstep with Nick Land,
but but he's been great on the fact that capital
free cap completely frictionalist free capital flows to where there's
no there are no borders. Financial borders to your country
really just hollows out your people. It commoditizes them because
the money's gonna go wherever it can have the highest
rentia return, and so so you got to have both.
So that's how they're related. What now, what's the actual interplow?
What you asked was, what's the actual interplay between trying
to get to a point where we can deport people
with with real gusto the people who need to be deported,
and we can have a good discussion about that. I
think there's, you know, on the right, it tends to be, hey,
they all must go back, And then how do you
define all I'm probably compared to most you know, Darryl
Cooper and I are very much the same, and people
call us both kind of bleeding hard on that neither
one of us really are. But but I have a
hard time being really hardcore to the person we basically
de facto said come on, make a better way of
life twenty years ago, and they've been here, we haven't
jacked with them, and now they have a whole life
and kids and all the stuff. Yes, I understand, I
have sympathy with everybody on the right who says, hey,
they got to go back to that just seems kind
of shitty to me. Pardon me, I don't know if
we can say if I can say, can I say
that on your podcast?
Speaker 1: Of course?
Speaker 2: But that's where the argument is. The argument isn't we're
just gonna wink and nod and everybody we're a citizen
of the world, and we're a you know, a propositional nation,
and citizenship is bs and it means nothing. We're all
in a agreement that that ruins everything, right, So we're
all on that page. The question is is when I
see my you know, when I go, when I go
and I'm driving to work in the morning and I
at the bus stop to pick up the elementary school
kids and all, and those Hispanic moms who are there
and the kids have their lunch, and they're dressed well,
and they're and they're really they're acting American. These people
who I'm talking about are acting American. Well, okay, let's
I have a hard time being real hardcore about those
folks because that life lived is what I want quote
unquote heritage Americans to be doing. And so anyway, now
I'm going to get hate mail because now they all
got to go back. But we again that's an argument.
But again I've skirted around this very good question about
tear and the and the at the margin relationship to
an outflow of cheap labor. Labor that's what you're talking about, right,
So I don't think tariffs in a macro economy are
inflationary I just don't, because inflation is always in everywhere
a monetary phenomenon. The big beautiful bill, it could be argued,
may be inflationary, but it isn't if you couple it
with the the you're taking away this labor supply. Okay,
And what I mean by that is is that seems counterintuitive.
But tariffs can't cause prices to go up because in
and of themselves, they decrease where supply and demand cross.
Does that make sense? In other words, if if this
microphone then I'm using to record this, if the prices
of the price of this microphone, if it goes up,
and the and the demand for this microphone, the demand
for podcasting microphones, and no, this isn't my cool RI
twenty that's at my home studio.
Speaker 1: This is.
Speaker 2: A razor whatever. That is hundred bucks, okay, But let's
say this goes to two hundred dollars. I'm just making
up a number because of tariffs. The same number of
these aren't going to be bought. They're just not supply
and demand are going to cross at a different level.
So you can't say tariffs increase the general price level.
And that's what inflation is well, because the general price
level is an increase of dollars in the it's it's
it's more dollars chasing the same goods. That's inflation. Not
the price of this goes up, that's not inflation. You
can have compartmentalized inflation. For instance, we can say there
is great inflation in healthcare for all kinds of reasons.
Or you can say there's inflation in the labor labor
costs in contract manufacturing, home building that may be going up,
but inflation. When we talk as an economist, when we
talk about inflation, you're talking about general price increases, and
that is always a monetary phenomenon because if you get money,
if the monetary base is the same, then all you're
doing is the prices in and amongst your goods and
services all zero out. Does that make sense? Hopefully no.
I talked for a long time. Hopefully I didn't lose everybody.
Speaker 1: Well, I understand that inflation is monetary, and you can't
make the teriffy. The tariff argument is, yeah, you're trying to.
Speaker 2: A libertarian guy. You understand that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and I see libertarians doing that, Oh, tariffs are inflationary,
and then you you correct them and like a lot
of them will be like, oh yeah, yeah, sorry, Yeah,
they just get caught up online. They get caught up
in an online you know there their echo chamber is
screaming something, and they're screaming something. But by the way,
you're not going to get the hate email. I'll get
the hate email on that, yeah, you know, and I understand.
And the crazy Pete Pete.
Speaker 2: You know, here's what I'm going to say this for
all you guys who who who listen to Pete and subscribe,
this guy is the most honest broker. He has never
ever want In the several times I've been on your
show four or five times now, and and I know
this from other people who I know are frequent guests
on your show, he has never once said to me, Hey,
I want you to shave this this way or that way,
or I don't want you to talk about this or that.
Complete intellectual honesty and freedom this guy. And let me
tell you not all shows are like that. So when
you subscribe, and I encourage you to do that, because
Pete is, he is bringing a diversity of use, usually
from the right, but a wide spread of us. He
isn't shading it from you're getting. You're not getting what
Pete wants me to say, You're getting exactly what I'm saying.
So so, this guy's got intellectual honesty and I know
stuff behind the scenes that that that even that you
would you'd be shocked at how what an honest broker
this guy is. So all that being said, don't send
him hate mail. If you don't like what I'm saying,
don't send me hate mail either. But let's have an
honest Just realize it's not Pete who's saying. Yeah, I've
kind of had these guests say this, can you take
the other side? Never in a million years would he
say that.
Speaker 1: All right, well, you know the thing about the whole
emigration thing and what Daryl said. I mean, I was
really disappointed even in a lot of my brothers, my
brother's in the old Glory Club, Yeah, with their with
their take, because Darrel is of the opinion that this
is not going to happen, that mass deportations are not
going to happen. It's not like he doesn't want them
to happen. It's that he's taking that opinion and he's like, okay,
so how do we live realistically? And that's One of
the reasons I left libertarianism is because they don't do that.
They preclude themselves from that. They're like, we're not going
to look at things realistically because that's immoral. And then
I see people on my side, people that I agree with,
and they're like, well, we can't look at things realistically
if we look at the you know, And it's like, well,
I mean, why did I leave libertarianism because you're just
doing the exact same thing as purity spiraling. No, he
doesn't believe that this is going to happen. So if
this isn't going to happen, you know, do you you
know the person you know when he said, you know,
the the white you know, shit lib Antifa? Fuck? Do
you you know? Would you rather live next door to them?
Or would you rather live next door to you know,
some some South American who you go to church with.
I mean, right, how is that? How is that is
only controversial to you and should upset you if you're
a sperg if you're a complete retard, okay, I mean
you're just we're dealing in reality here and you're dealing
in oh my, my, my ideology where I have to
be a perfect little soldier for whatever ideology I've bought into,
and I mean, I'm sorry, there's a practical way of
the world. Well you have to figure out a way to.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's and just think about it for a second.
If would look nostal, I'll put it this way, nostalgia
will kill you. It just will. It's whereas and people say, well, Ron,
aren't you a little bit of a reaction area And
I go, yeah, I am, but but but reaction looks
back to what's best from what came before, and then
realistically tries to put that in a current and future context.
We're never going back to the nineteen fifties. And if
you did, I don't want to blackpill people because I
think we're on a really good track. All all things,
you know, as they say in economics keterist parabos, all
things being held equal, and those of you playing Ron
Dotson bingo, there's your Latin. You can cross that off.
The I'll get to uh dicayosune and the Greek later
when I'll let you cross that one off too. But
the the just pure nostalgia and the desire to go
backwards is every bit as deadly as the progressive idea
that the arrow always goes up as part of this
dialectic process. They're the same thing, just one looking backward
and one looking forward. Nothing ensures the arrow goes up
other than wise people dealing in reality. Most of what
I talk about, well, I say, most of what I
talk about I talk about I got. I spoke to
the Dallas Young Republicans the other night, an unbelievable group
of people. You wouldn't believe these gen zers. I mean,
I was floored. We had this venue and it was
standing room only. They must have thought somebody else was
coming to speak, but it was standing room only. Standing
over at the end of it, people cheer, and and
I'm talking about geopolitics, and from a realist standpoint, I'm
not like beating you know, uh, some drum and it's
hardcore red meat. I'm being I'm I'm like trying to
do a junior John Meersheimer, you know, impersonation, basically talking
about Iran and Israel and what foreign policy, how does
it affect the average citizen. Should the average citizen be
considered in foreign policy? The answer is yes, because the
citizen is the one who should be considered by the
state in every decision. But but anyway, these these these
I normally get asked to talk about that kind of stuff.
But when I do get asked to talk about this,
I want to be a realist, just like I am
when I'm talking about foreign policy or I'm talking about diplomacy,
or when I'm talking about geopolitical risk. We want to
be in the land of the reel and the land
of the real is your forefathers, for better or worse. Uh,
In the founding of this country brought a First of all,
we weren't indigenous, but we settled this whole land. We
didn't conquer. I mean, we can go back and forth
about the American Indians and all that, and and that's fine,
that's great. I don't have a problem with settling a
radically pagan place and and and conquering that. I just
you know, I think Pete and I would probably be
on the same page as far as that we. Uh.
I have no problem with the conquistadors destroying Uh what
was going on in Central Mexico with the you know, pyramids.
Speaker 1: To human So here comes, oh, here comes the radical
right to destroy our to destroy all of our altars here.
Speaker 2: Yeah, fine, I'm good with that destroy them all. Uh,
just like we the English destroyed the uh, most of it.
I think it's pretty much all rooted out, the cannibalism
in New Guinea and the disgusting things that were going
on there. Yes, there is good and evil, and it
is okay for a settling, conquering people to root out
the evil. And human sacrifice is evil. If you don't
think it is, then you know, I don't know, we
can I don't know. But anyway, but that being said,
we brought in a non heritage American what a group
to help us, you know, industrialize, and then your forefathers
brought in a whole bunch of folks that you may
or may not like, in order to fill up this
entire continent, you know, this part of our continent. And
that's done. And so you've got to how we deal
with that now is first of all, you do exactly
what Trump's doing is you go and get this home
and hero. He's awesome, and he's like, we've got to
have real borders. And by the way, not just on
the southern border, on the northern border as well. The
southern border is the biggest problem.
Speaker 1: I'm starting to I mean, as far as I'm concerned,
Canada is now is India, so we need we.
Speaker 2: Well it's not just Chinese infiltration via Canada is a thing,
but you've got to you've got to start with securing
your border. And that sounds very political and GOP and
all this stuff. I don't mean that. It's just it's like,
if you wanted to build a nuclear weapon, you can't
start with a W eighty eight. You know, you can't
start with a two stage thermonuclear device. You've got to
start here simple and then progress to hear and then
progress to hear. And that's what we've got to do.
We have to have a immigration Manhattan project, and that's
what we're doing. We're building this first stage what you
call a shotgun or a gun device right now, where
you have a we can do this where you have
a subcritical mass here and a subcritical mass here. You
use some good old fashioned explosive TNT and you jam
them together real fast, and you have a critical event
really quickly. That's called a nuclear explosion. Doesn't get a
ton of yield, but it's you got to learn how
to do that before then you can go to an
implosion device, which is much harder. And then once you
learn how to do that, now you go and you
start learning how to goose the yield on that implosion device,
and then you go to a two stage device, and
so on and so forth. That's what we're doing with
the with with immigration, and so you start with the border,
and that is the that's it's not simple, but that's
that's much easier than loading up people and putting them
on buses, trucks whatever. The key on the deportation is
self deportation. And what bothered me in the Big Beautiful
Bill was we didn't go hardcore on remittance. Even ten
percent would have been I think, what do we settle on?
One percent? One and a half percent? I don't remember
what the final number is, but remittance payments. And you've
got to be careful because because what you don't want
to do is punish US citizens from being able to
uh to move money around. That's a separate that's a
separate issue. You might you still need financial borders, but
you don't want you want to you want to punish
those who are here illegally, and and and the remittance
payment thing where they're sending all the money back, you know,
you're just having this huge flow that incentivizes at cast
with with no costs, that incentivizes illegal immigration, and that
incentivizes the people who are here illegally to stay here.
The biggest part. If you want to decrease the illegal
population from I mean, what do you think it is
pete thirty forty million, maybe north of forty million. If
let's say you want to cut down in half, what.
Speaker 1: Do you think I've heard forty forty Yeah, let's go before.
Speaker 2: If you if let's let's say it's forty you can
get and realistically in the next three years, what do
you think you can actually truck out of here and process?
I think probably five million maybe.
Speaker 1: Yeah, realistically, I mean realistically without a Well, here's the
thing is, I don't think that you could do anything
on a mass scale top down. I think it would
have to be bottom up, which, right, that's what we're
talking about. Local, county, Local has to be involved, County
has to be involved, Stite has to be involved, and
it does. I don't know that that's what they're I
think they're trying to do a top down and anything
you try to do top down is going to fail
because you have to bring top down just doesn't work,
especially in a managerial system.
Speaker 2: Absolutely, So what we're talking about, if y'all want to
go read about the principle Pete and I are talking
about is subsidiarity or the I'm making a hash out
of pronouncing there's probably a much more eloquent way to
say this word. But it's the idea that the best
most government is done with tacitly where it's it's near
and next to where the impact is. So most government
is done best locally. The most whatever you can push
down to the local level is going to be done
first of all, that's where party matters less and all
these other things, and where you actually know the people
are doing it. I live, I don't live in Dallas.
Speaker 1: You also have a multi well, you also have to
deal with the fact that you have a multicultural society
where you have fighting, you have interested or fighting against
one another. And you know, it's like you could you
could talk about Okay, oh so one hundred years ago
if they wanted to get rid of if a European
country wanted to, you know, get rid of all of
their illegal immigration, well sure, well the people who are
doing this are all of basically a certain blood. They
may be ninth all ninth cousins or something like that,
and it's very easy to see who, you know, who
the outsider is. It doesn't exist. I mean, this is
this country so far beyond that that. Yeah, and and
you know, having the managerial system, having the n g
O S, having all of these these special interest groups.
I mean mean you this is something brand new. You
can't just look to the past and go, oh, if
we can just do that, that doesn't that's an anachronism.
The way they did it is anachronistic. It's it has
to be something new.
Speaker 2: So I was I heard from a third party that
one of the biggest, one of the biggest, one of
the most wealthy people in the know in in the
state of Texas in oil and gas, said just the
other day that if we if we, if we got
rid of illegal immigration and got rid of the illegal
immigrant labor supply, that oil would go to three or
three to four hundred dollars. And this is a guy
I really really like, and I hope he's not watching
because I don't want to offend him. He could squash
me like a buck, now, I mean he could. He's
not like that. But the point is is, let let
that's silly on its face. Oil is a fungible product.
The the and the labor cost in exploration and refining
is anyway, just if you go down here's the here's
the big participants in in where where These are big
participants in the labor uh part, Oil farming, particularly in
handpicked fruits and vegetables, home building, hospitality. So the idea
that so you've got you've got to get the people
who invest in all these areas on board with this.
And let me just tell you they're not. They're not
principled about these things. I know the oil executives are not.
They're going to push back. I know. The farming, big
farm especially the family owned farms, I think are moren
are more on board with with hiring their own kind
of so to speak. But that's anecdotal. I don't know
if that's if if that translates everywhere. Home building, the
home builders, the subs which heavily use uh and we're
talking about you know, south of the border folks mainly,
but some uh some packed you know, some Asian uh
south and Southwest Asian and hospitality. So what do we
do when these very well healed money to interests are
putting pressure on Congress, on on the president and so forth,
saying hey, you can stop the border, but don't deport
these people. That's that's what we're up against right now.
And uh, I I don't know what the solution to
that is. Because if you, if you got these folks,
if I could spend an hour with these folks on
a whiteboard, I'd show show them that it's it's not
as big a problem as you think it is. The
bigger problem. The thing that is an issue is, let's
say we could snap our fingers and tomorrow forty all
the illegal immigrants, the ones who the real problem, the
ones who've been here in the last gotten here in
the last ten years, okay, are all gone. You snap
your fingers. That is a sizable part of demand, and
huge parts of the economy have and I'm not excusing this,
by the way, huge parts of the economy have grown up,
not huge, but sizable parts of the economy have grown
up to meet this particular demand. And that's a problem.
I don't I don't know how you're going to politically
without just pure executive power. I don't know politically, how
you're going to cross that rubicon. That's that's what we're
really up against in a real term deal. So seiling
off the border, you're there getting some to self deport
because it's just more uncomfortable. You know, maybe the jobs
at at the margin are drying up with the real
low hanging fruit. You know, the guys who are getting hired,
you know, to do dishes in the Mexican food restaurant,
that kind of stuff. You know, Hey, cousin Jose, you
got to go, huh, we don't have work for you anymore.
Maybe that, But but the fat part of this bell curve,
of this thirty to forty million folks, that's hard. I'm
not saying it's not worth doing. I'm just saying you've
got to How are you going to cross that with
these moneyed interests? It is difficult. I know that from
my pastime in apartments that there were lots of folks
who catered to the illegal crime. You know, they might
have seven, eight nine people living in each one of
their units because the folks paid cash and they paid
on time. And how are you going to convince How
are you going to convince those folks? And that's hard.
It just is I you know, I'd love your opinion
Pete on how do you get how do you get
past this?
Speaker 1: Well, I mean I have a friend who was an
employment lawyer, in employment attorney in California, and he he
you know, he does a huge amount of culp on this. Now,
he defended businesses who were being attacked for hiring illegal workers,
so you know, he knows exactly how this works. And
he said, basically, what Obama did was Obama just like
got all these regulations put through that made that protected them.
And he said, the way to reverse it is to
you know, you put in regulations that hurt these companies
so much that they will not do it, and and
that it just takes will you know, if you if
you say, you know, hey, on the second on the
second infraction, we pull your LLC, we pull you yeah,
and on the third we pull your business license. Or
even I've said this just to trigger people, we nationalize
your business. Yeah, you know, the government takes over your business. Well,
I mean that this is people. You're absolutely right, let's
let's keep it again. One of the reasons I like
talking to you is because as you do have this
economic pass what what are the levers you can really
where I'm trying to drive this is what are the
levers you can push that? Because are you going to
do this purely through legislation? First of all, legislature doesn't.
They don't legislate anymore. They just Trump Trump should be passing.
All they should be doing right now is writing laws
to make it illegal to be on the left in
this country. And that's send them.
Speaker 2: They're not doing. They're not doing any of it. So
this is going to have to be an executive power
kind of thing. This is all going to have to
be Article two kind of stuff. And what you have
to do to get your oil executives, your you're farming
and by your your your your you know, your large
farming conglomerates, your home build home builders basically the subcontractors.
The home builders themselves stay out of this because they
they know they have liability if they're if they're not
care if they're not careful, and your hospitality. What you've
got to do is raise in it is raise the
cost of hiring illegals to to touching distance of hiring
non illegals. It doesn't even have to be the same, okay,
because there's this there's this risk that's involved. I so
how do you do that? And but that's the question
you've got to be asking. And that's what you've got
to be put helping, you know, post to Twitter, post
to X because they are paying. The administration does pay
attention to that. Writing your op eds and your local
sympathetic you know, deal, writing your substacks. That's what you've
got to be doing. So so you've got just the
cost that you're paying. Most of these folks are being
paid over the This isn't being done these large oil
I don't know about farming, I don't know enough about it,
but home build, you know, uh, but in hospitality and oil,
these people are being fay paid over the table via
through fake faked documents. Right in farming and home building
with the subs, I don't I don't know as much,
probably some of both. But you've just got to so
Ice what ICE has been doing in in showing up.
I know they've been doing it some here. I hear
anecdotes in other places, you know, where they'll show up
at where there's obvious, you know, at the in the
parking lot of home depot, the parking lot of lows
in the mornings when the subs are coming around just
trying to get workers. You know, the roofing, the roofer gangs,
the bricklaying gangs, so to speak. That's good, but that's
my grow that's driving up the cost because suddenly you
don't have a get a group. A sub is missing.
There two days to brick a house. Now, now that
home builder's pissed because he's carrying that lot at his cost.
That cost cannot be taken to the to the home buyer.
This is what you've got to do, is these practical
things to raise the cost. You can't depend upon the
national legislature to do this. They're not brave enough. They've
got too many of these big money to interest paying
their campaign funds, and there's I just don't think there's
anything you can do to fix that. So it's gonna
have to be done through the executive branch, through handling
things these things administratively, so ice and so on and
so forth, driving up the cost of doing this business.
I would love to think you could, you know, do
what you're taught about with the LLC. That's hard now
that gets into the hall. I did a show the
other day with black Horse and cryptose on uh tying
liability to liability and ownership back together. But that's another
you know, uh that needs to be done too, that
would help do this. But right now you've got shareholders
who bear no risks. So if I own a home
builder and my home that home builder is you know,
let's I don't want to say any home builder names
because I don't know what any of these people are doing.
But you can go, you know, go look up the
big home builder stocks I bear. If I just own
their stock, I don't bear any liability. If they're hiring
illegals in their stack, I don't bear any liability even
though I'm theoretically an owner via shares. We've got to somehow.
That's where the legislation needs to come in, is how
do we tie liability into ownership? And that would cut
this s out quickly. But I don't hear anybody talking
about that.
Speaker 1: Well yeah, well this is why I think we're not
going to reform the system.
Speaker 2: I don't think we are either.
Speaker 1: Yeah, there's no way it has to be. It has
to be torn out, root and branch, and I think
people are waiting for like, yeah, they're great men to
come along and do it, and I just don't. Look,
we've had great men in the past, but I mean
they weren't in They weren't one hundred years into a
managerial system. They weren't a hundred you know. It is
very easy to look to the past and go, Okay,
well I've seen before where you can tear everything out,
root and branch and fix it and you know, or
at least get it, get it to where yeah, people
are happy again, people are thriving again, especially the native population, right.
But I mean, I don't think people realize that that's
you know, and I think Thomas really has the best
take on this. It's like, this system's going to prove
the United States will probably exist in some way, shape
or form for another two hundred years. It's just going
to have to transform. And the answer to the transformation
is something people just do not want to hear because
they don't under they don't understand that the only way
you're going to do this is to decentralize, and it's
going to have to be done basically.
Speaker 2: You know.
Speaker 1: It's like, oh, you just want to get rid of
the United States, and you just want to you know,
you want China to come in here, or you know,
or this new thing about how if you talk about
how things need to be done locally and on the
state level, or or you know, classic federalism. Somehow that's
brown coded because it's like, okay, well, what do you well,
I'm supposed to shrink back from that? What the fuck
does that even mean?
Speaker 2: You know, it's give me a second, because I'm going
to go around on the other side of my desk.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna show you good, good good. I'll keep talking now.
I mean, I just don't. I don't get it. People think,
people honestly think that this is going to get fixed.
Speaker 2: This guy, this guy wrote about this, so.
Speaker 1: He just well, Ron just held up a copy of
Chronicles magazine with Sam Francis on the cover, and it
says Anarco tyranny the perpetual revolution.
Speaker 2: That's right. And so this is from April two thousand
and five, when Sam died. So Sam wrote in ninety
five eighty five, I'll have to look it up. I
think Arun's done a big talk on this. Aran McIntyre
maybe not. I could be wrong on that, but he
wrote this. There's this tension. I think Pete and I
would probably be on the same page this there's there
that the best government is done at the local level.
And what what lends itself to actually being very red coated.
What you know, everyone everyone's a fascist about what they
know best. They just are because you want to conserve
that which you love, and that's just human that's good
part of human nature. We want to conserve our family,
We want to conserve order, We want to conserve if
you're if you're a Christian, you want to conserve a
worship of of of of a moral and righteous God.
You want to conserve these things which are good. That
and you want to and you in your most hardcore
about that which you know the best. So so this
is but and that that's very a very localized thing.
So in theory, and Angelo Codevilla wrote about this in
the Claremont Institute for years and years, faithful Catholic, brilliant
guy Uh sadly died uh about four years ago. But
but that this radical federalism in theory is the best,
is the best answer to all of this. And then
if you know, some county in California wanted to be
the people's republic, you know, be a commune, fine, you know,
and that little set of people could do that. And
if somebody wanted to be a you know, there is
a county in in in New York State that is
basically a big Jewish kibbutz. You know, I think it's uh,
I think it's ultra orthodox. I don't know enough about it.
But they kind of run their own do but they
state to themselves they do their own thing. Look would
I But what Sam wrote about, and Sam's big magnum
opus was called Leviathan and His and his Enemies, and
it was a it was a combination of Hobbes, which
wrote Leviathan you uh you know you uh political science folks.
Speaker 1: Uh.
Speaker 2: Hobbs brilliant work, and a combination of that and A
and A fester if on u a A A A
retelling of the Managerial Revolution, great book by former communists.
Uh uh and so so but what But what Francis
said was, while federalism is the best governing rubric because
because localism is the most right coded just naturally, it
doesn't have enough combined energy to take away this Leviathan,
this state monster, this managerialist hydra that has overcome and
overtaken everything. So you have to have some form of
this nationalist zeal in order to break the neck of
that which enslaves us. And so so there's this tension.
And sometimes either be it because we're so nostalgic or
we're even as this right, this right leaning ultra progressivism,
and that exists too, this this very hardcore right revolutionist revolutionism,
that that that isn't that isn't real, that isn't based
on what we can actually do. They both missed the
target of how do we get from here to there?
And how do we And this is what you've also
got to do. You've also got to take the fat
part of the Bell curve along with you. You want
to destroy your enemies, and destroy them. By destroy, I
don't mean kill them, I mean take away their political power.
But you've got to take the what were the Bolsheviks
brilliant about about in Russia? This seventeen percent evil minority,
And it was evil, but they were able to bring
enough of the fat part of the Bell curve along
with them that the people didn't just all rise up
and destroy any seventeen percent should not be able to
take should not be able to bring about an entire
revolution of an entire people. That shouldn't happen, but they did.
They did, And so you've got to be realistic about
how do we and the principled right, the dissident right,
not just conservatives, but the real right in America? Is
what percentage? Pete? Five percent?
Speaker 3: It's growing though, it's growing, Hey, gen Z Man, those guys,
like I said when I spoke the other night, these
guys were awesome, and they weren't weirdos.
Speaker 2: These were well adjusted, awesome folks. But they just want
they want things to be better. Right, And so how
do you how do you how do you craft a
movement in your arguments in order to bring the rest
of the people along with you? Okay, so Pete and
I both are no lovers of dispensationalism. Is that fair?
It's kind of wacky, kind of kind of wacky.
Speaker 1: I would argue that it's gotten tens of millions of
people killed, but go.
Speaker 2: On, yeah, exactly, But how are you going to convince
that group, which is in some shape form or fashion,
an immense group, an immense number of people who are
should be write coded, how are you going to bring
them along? That is a great question. I personally think
it's not you. You're not going to convince them that.
You're not going to completely convince them about modern Israel
not being the same as old Covenant Israel, as much
as I would love that. But you maybe you can
convince them that Netan Yahoo is absolutely evil and been
terrible for the United States. That might be doable, and
in doing that you can change the argument and bring
them along. These are the kind of things you've got
to think about and be realistic about.
Speaker 1: And here's here that makes sense. Yeah, and here's something
that I've been trying to talk about recently. Is Okay,
you can make you can have the best arguments in
the world, But who's going to be the mouthpiece for that.
Who's a better mouthpiece to go after boomers and try
and change their mind about dispensationalism and Israel and change
anyone's mind, not only the Boomers. Is it me or
is it Tucker Carlson. I have a feeling it's Tucker Carlson.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: And the people who are attacking Tucker Carlson right now,
I mean literally go to Canada and seek made you
have no I mean he is doing more and you
can say, oh, I was talking about that ten years
ago these guys were talking about they got canceled for it,
Their banking was canceled for it. I know those people
are heroes and in the future they will be remembered
as heroes. But they can't do what he's doing right now.
Oh but he's a gatekeeper. He's only taking people this far. Well,
let me tell you something. There are a lot of
myths in our history, and people think that like the
myth that they they think that, like one myth is
going to take down another myth, you have to knock
down this myth which is not which is a myth
that has become part of your religion, it has become
part of the religion. No, there's a myth over here
that can be taken down first, and that doesn't I'm
trying to talk around things right now. Okay, but there.
Speaker 2: There I can I can fall, I can follow up
and be delicate.
Speaker 1: You know, there are myths that are not going to
there are not going to fall and may never fall.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 1: The problem the thing is is just because that myth
continues to exist doesn't mean that this myth can't be
taken down and it's not going to be you on
your alternative platform who can't even be on YouTube or
can't even mean right, you have to you have to
put everything on bit shoot or something like that. No,
it's going to be somebody who is actually like has
has has had his eyes opened, and he may not
go as far as you want him to, but even
though you're going that far, he's going to be able
to accomplish way more than you are not going that far.
Speaker 2: Well, okay, and yeah, Pete, it's it's just purity spirals
are not just a phenomena of the left. They absolutely
happen on the right as well. And they're just and
they're destructive. It's why Heywood was a profit on this.
He foresaw. He goes, look it's coming. We're going to
have all these fights on the right when we gain
a little bit of power, and just beware and there
and they are they're destructive. Look you go, you know,
if you go anonymous dissident right person who's watching this
and you're on Twitter and you're doing your fighting, the
good fight and all this, and you go and you're
you know, every summer you go, you get in the
car and you go to the family reunion and you know,
you're like, oh my gosh, none of my that, none
of these guys get it. But then suddenly your uncle,
uh you're you're you're eating fried okra across the table
from your uncle, and he says, hey, you know, I
listened to Martyr Maide. Have you ever heard of this guy?
And I thought he was pretty good? And your heart
leaps with joy because you're like, oh, yea, or or
he listened to, uh, maybe something you know, even more
innocuous than than Darryl's podcast, whatever it is. I listened
to Heywood talk about uh, you know, Camp of the Saints,
right or whatever it is. Wouldn't you be excited about that? Well,
just translate that across a nation and culture and have
a little grace with the folks who are picking up,
you know, the crumbs falling off the table. Be gracious
with people. Not everybody has to be, you know. And
you'll get the mail about this because I'm going to
quote somebody, you know, as Jarvin used to say, and
here we go, Oh, you can't trust Yarvin. He's just
another whatever.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 2: I like Curtis Curtis's Curtis Is Curtis, and I don't
agree with everything. And you know, blah blah blah. But
I can't say the guy's not bright, and he's had
some really amazing points. And the dissident right probably doesn't
exist in its current form without what he did. Okay,
just so leave that of that. But he always used
to say, hey, you know, be careful when you say
when you're trying to screen out screen the people who
are coming to understand these things on the right from
not being metal enough. You know, ah, that's not metal enough.
I got to be you know, not everybody's going to
be Thomas. They're just not everybody.
Speaker 3: Here.
Speaker 1: Here's what here's what people think. And this is something
libertarians think. Libertarians believe that if Dave Smith can just
get out there and deliver the message, everybody's going to
want to be a libertarian. Well that's proven to be false.
I like Dave. I've known Dave a very long time.
I want the best for Dave. Not everybody is going
it doesn't matter who you expose people to. You can
expose them to me, you can expose them to Devin Stack,
you can expose them to the TRS. Guys, not everybody
is going to radicalize.
Speaker 2: It's just people you don't and you don't. I'm sorry,
but you don't want a radical culture because what would
you do with want?
Speaker 1: What would you do with them?
Speaker 2: You want? What you want is here's okay, we're gonna
get in. Let's let's be very delicate here, okay, because
I don't want any of this snipped out or whatever.
But let's say you got let's just talk in algebra terms.
Let's say you you you you folks who are really
hardcore on the edge and metal. Let's say you got
rid of people X, just got rid of them. Well,
what are you going to do with people Y? And
what are you going to do with people Z? And
people alpha and people you know? Eventually, because I see this,
This happens in American Protestantism, okay, to where I'm I'm
PC a Presbyterian. Okay, I'm a I'm a deacon and
teach theology at my church and I write, and I'm
probably more qualified to talk about that than I am
the stuff. But I see it in our circles to
where we'll argue over the color of the carpet and
what kind of would the pulpits made out of? And suddenly,
if you're not agreeing on every little thing, then it's war.
You don't want a nation like that, because the purpose
of all these things, you may rightly believe, is so
that people can live in peace and pursue their way
of life in order. As Schmidt said, how is that
metal enough for you? As Schmidt said, so you can
in your own way fight off Antichrist. Okay, that's the
purpose of all this. And if you define what that
people are so narrowly, you'll be in perpetual war. And
just look online, that's what it looks like. But the purpose,
if you're Christian, the purp is to follow the Prince
of peace. And by the way, the Prince of peace
who said love your enemy, didn't say there weren't any enemies.
And that's personal enemies, not enemies, not public enemies. When
get into that at another time. But there are enemies, which.
Speaker 1: You got to start. Once you start getting into that,
everybody you know amicas and you start getting into Latin terms.
It's just the people who have bought into that. Christians
are supposed to be martyrs in every you know, they're
never supposed to pick up a sword. That they start
losing their minds and that's crazy. I just can't say
I can't saw the joel Berries of the world that can. Well,
Joel Berries fine with with Jews like massacring people, but
not Christians. He's okay with them massacred. I think he'd
be okay with Christians massacring people.
Speaker 2: For Jews, well, Joel's Joel's deal is a particular form
of theology that sees a play, sees a a a
use for Romans thirteen the bearing of the sword only
applicable for the earthly people of God, not the heavenly
people of God. And it's just a weird hermaeutic And
you know he gets there, it's just his. His his
worldview and his hermaeutic or are obviously flawed to anyone
who has their eyes wide open, but he doesn't. But
you know that should propel us to make sure our
eyes are wide open on all this stuff. I want
to touch on Israel real quick, because it's a let's
let's again, let's just be realistic about it. Why Why
does Why has America? Why has the US government? How
have we gotten to where we've gotten with Israel? There
are reasons for that. It's not you know, it's not.
It didn't happen in a vacuum, so on and so forth,
so we can be realistic about this and understand what's
going on. Okay, Israel, that peace of land sits within
tactical distance of way too many choke points for us
to ignore. Okay. So it sits within tactical distance of
the dart Knell's Bosporus, the Turkic Straits, Okay, hugely important.
If you want to be able to interdict the Black Sea,
you got to have access to that. Why do you
think Turkey is part of NATO? And we get back
to Turkey in a minute. It's there within tactical distance
of the Suez Canal. Okay, it's in within tactical distance
of the straight oh gosh at the south end of
the Red Sea. And the name of the Arabic name
for that is escapeing me right now, so I apologize.
It's within tactical distance of the Persian Gulf in the
Strait of Hor moves. So Israel or something like it,
where is going to be part and parcel of American
foreign policy? As long as we have a reserve currency,
and oil is the chief determinant of the of of
of that reserves. Current reserve currencies liquidity in transnational economic flows.
It just is, and you're going to have to be
okay with that. If we don't want a reserve currency anymore,
then you better go back either on the gold standard
or have a legislated constitutional amendment balanced budget, or you
will get hyperinflation here at home. Because only reason we
can have a reserve currency and huge deficits in debt
is because we can export that inflation. And we can
do that because we are a global hegemony who helps
regulate the flow of oil and natural gas worldwide, and
therefore we've got to have some presence with it to
to exert power within all those choke choke points. Okay,
so that's just real life. Do I like it? No?
But but that's real life. So how about so run, Well,
we the number one receiver receiver or one or number
two depending on the year of foreign aid is Egypt.
Why can't that's also close to all those points? Why
can't we use Egypt? Or hey, Turkey? And boy, Turkey's
very expansionary. So we got to be careful putting too
much pressure on a Ran because Iran was the natural uh,
the natural uh uh kind of kept a lid a
little bit on Turkey because Turkey's very soony, Iran's very Shia,
and it wasn't Israel. That Israel's just not big enough
to put real true pressure on Turkey. Iran was really
being that buffer, but that pissed off Israel. So anyway,
point being is why don't we allow Turkey to be that.
You know, they're a NATO member, They're only a NATO
member because of the Dardnells and Bosporus so that we
can get in and out of the Black Sea. That
we don't trust Turkey completely, Okay, we don't. And this
was all back to JFK who we needed to put
short range missiles and medium range missiles in Anatolia. So
and you're not redoing that. But we don't really trust
Turkey or Egypt. Okay, we don't really trust Israel. I
don't think. I mean, I've got it on good. I
can't say what I know, but know that Trump is
putting personal pressure on Israel. And that's all I'm gonna
say about that. Don't even ask so, but you're gonna
have to have so. So it's not geus geographic also
like it or not, Masad, We we know everything that's
going on in that area through what we don't have
through Sigant. In other words, are our optical and and
and the old The old system was called Lacrosse. I
don't know what the name of the new system is.
To intercept sell and radio traffic. What we don't get
through that we get by literal agents on the ground
through Masad, and we just do. We can't if we're
gonna have this whole structure. We we have shoehorned ourselves
into this cul de sacta where we can't live. At
least the perception is, we can't live without Masads Intel.
And Masad does not play nice in the sandbox with
our Intel agents. They just don't. All the stuff that
goes on in the movies and all that aside that
we all live m I six, SOD and CIA our rivals,
and they don't get along very well on the ground.
We may work together up here, but on the ground
it's often ugly. But we can't live without them. For
whatever reason, we've shoehorned ourselves into that reality. So so
you're gonna have to deal at some level with Israel.
The problem is, and this used to all work okay
until net Yahu came along and suddenly this turned into
Israel expansionism and that we're gonna be their lap dog,
that that fixes all their problems, and we're gonna go
destroy Libya, We're gonna go destroy Iran, We're gonna go
destroy Iraq and all this and that, and we're gonna
be put you know, all this kind of stuff. This
has been an This has been the direct impact of
net Nyahu. Okay, So the realist position is, how can
we fix that and then deal with the other stuff.
And yeah, I wish, I wish that they didn't exert
all the influence that they do on our government, but
they do. Okay, that is a long term issue. It
just that's a long term issue. But the short term
issue is is what I just mentioned, and you're gonna
have to deal with these realities that I just mentioned.
You can't make those go away tomorrow. You just can't.
If you did, if you snapped your fingers and they
went away, it was just being just like snapping your
fingers and suddenly forty million, you had forty million people
go away. That is that revolution would be extremely costly
to American citizens in the same way with this other stuff.
And I know no one wants to hear all this,
but you're going to have to figure out ways to
deal with these realities. All right, That's what I wanted
to say. And again you're gonna get I know, you'll
get hate mail about what I just said. I'm not
some pro Israel guy. I'm I don't have I mean,
I've been to Israel. It's beautiful. Get along the people
that took me around. I had a massage. I did
have a Masad agent and a former Massad agent or
my tour guides. They were great. It's got to see
all the old holy land where Jesus walked. It was amazing.
I got treated very well all of that. I don't
have any problem. I got great relationships with I got
an IDF guy who does contract work for me. He
goes back to Israel two months out of the year
and does work for me. Who's IDF. And we argue
about all this stuff, and I'm very honest with them.
I'm like, this kind of nonsense you're doing in Gaza,
this is crazy, and he goes, yeah, we might get
a little blowback for that. We have gone too far.
So I don't have any problem. I don't have personal
hatred in my heart for anybody. I really don't Pete
knows this, but you're gonna have to deal with these realities.
And I don't know how you get from here to there.
I really don't there. That was sorry.
Speaker 1: Well, I think that's the problem is. I think people
think that this is like very simple. People think that
you just need one person too, or we should you know,
here's what you here, Well we should just abandon all this. Well,
I mean that's just more libertarian bullshit. We should Okay,
how do we get there? How do we how do
you Okay, we're here tied up in with these insane people. Okay,
we want to get over here where we're not tied
up with those insane people. Okay, how do we bridge that?
How does that happen? It's the same thing about libertarians.
Libertarians be like, oh, you know, it's we we need
to get we need to get to a narco capitalism. Okay,
so tell me the path, tell me how to do that. Okay,
And how did we get here? To understand the incentives
that built this edifice that we're all living in. Okay,
because you don't, just you don't, just if you don't
know how to how it got here? And you don't
know how to rebuild something that provides for the peace
of your citizenry.
Speaker 2: Just taking a bulldozer to it. Okay, now, who's going
to build the fire? I kind of liked living in
that house, even though it had all these problems. It
might have been full of termites, but at least the
rain didn't fall on my head. So just again, how
do you get from here to there? But understanding how
we got to here, how do we get here? What
were the incentive structures that built? So what are the
incentive structures that built what we've got? I mean, just
be realistic. You have a diaspor let's say, so the
Jewish people had a rough go. They may have deserved
by the way your series. Everybody needs to go and
listen to the series that Pete's been doing on reading
sulsan Eatsan's two hundred Years Together. But it's so good.
And I think Sulsanesen has a committed Christian He's very realistic,
but he's also gracious. I mean he's not This isn't
a bloodthirsty screed, this is this is measured and hey,
look we've got different worldview and this is where it's
pretty ugly in places. But you know, I think it's
it's just been awesome. It's been very educational for me.
But how did you get to the pale of settlement?
You got there for very structure. There were structural incentives
on both sides that led to that, and and then
the latter the ending of the pale and all the stuff.
And then you had this liberal democracy in the United
States that said, yeah, come on over here, and not
only come over here, but we're going to give you
a seat at the at the political table of power immediately.
If you were in their shoes, you would have taken
advantage of that too, especially if you were, you know,
had the particular proclivities and talents that this group of
people had that they learned in the pale. So just
be realistic about what led to the situation that we're
dealing with. And then in the middle of all that,
here's a quote unquote homeland that springs up that says, hey,
we're created for the very purpose of dealing with, uh,
you know, all this stuff that you feel agreed that
that you were aggrieved by, So you would again, let's
say it's it's this, it would be similar to the
same mechanics of people feeling aggrieved by the Civil War
in the South, and suddenly we had this federalism that
led to much greater state freedom. You know, let's say
suddenly Mississippi had full uh right of you know, freedom
of the right of association. Again, that that comp that
part of of the of civil the CRA was was
abolished in certain states or certain places, you'd feel very
you'd have a very nostalgic view towards that, and that
would make you want to support that, even if you
didn't live in Mississippi. So just just realize their incentives
that have led to where we are. That didn't mean
you have to agree with them. Understanding something and being
able to explain something doesn't mean you agree with it
or support it. This is the way you win debates
and win hearts and minds. I learned this I was
a debater back in uh, you know, uh, middle school
and high school, and the best debaters were the guys
who could argue both sides of any part of any topic.
But if you understood that guy's position or where he was,
because where he was dependent on where you stay, depends
on where you sit and if you understood what he
believed better than he did, you were going to wipe
the floor with him. But even better, you were going
to be able to maybe even convince him that your
position was better. And I did that not because I'm
some kind of super smart guy. It's just you do
the work. So if you want to win these arguments,
understand how we got there, listen to Pete's series with
doctor what's his.
Speaker 1: Name, Matthew F. A. L. Johnson.
Speaker 2: Yeah, he's awesome. Go listen to that series and understand
how do we get here? Understand how did they get there?
In the pale, and then your arguments won't just be well,
that all sucks because that didn't win anything. You may
be right, you may be wrong, but it's not going
to win anything. You're just going to be mad and
nobody wants to listen to that. I mean, you and
your drinking buddies might, but have a bigger picture.
Speaker 1: I think Thomas makes a really good point about how
you have people who are like, Okay, well, if you
have this diaspora here and they're causing all these problems
and they've taken over, you have to get rid of them.
And Thomas is like, no, a structure was built that
they can take that basically they can manipulate mm hmm.
And the structure, basically that structure has to be torn down.
And there's where there's your beginning is how do you
tear understand this that structure the way it's built. It
can will not only be if you got rid of
this group over here, there's going to be another group
who's going to step in and manipulate it in the
same exact way. And if it's not you and your guys,
well then then you're back in the same boat. I mean,
it might not be as bad, but you know, come on, yeah,
And this is.
Speaker 2: The factionalism that the founders were really on guard against.
They said, if you do this, if you go down
this road, the real hardcore Jeffersonian road, which is what
we've done. You know, the guys that would have we
would have would have been on our side in the founding.
You know, Washington particularly, but I'd love to think Madison
but not really, but but really Washington in that crowd.
You know, Washington was a royal, not a direct but
but uh uh a royal, but was really worried about uh,
the factionalism that would come from from going down the
path we've gone.
Speaker 1: Now.
Speaker 2: It was the later guys who came along, I mean
Jefferson became President Madison, and they thought, and some would say,
it was just destiny because we had such a big
continent to fill up, that you were going to have
to go down this path. That that, and and this
is the This is what's interesting if you go read
guys like Harry Jaffa of Claremont. I love Claremont. I
know some of your watchers probably don't like Clermont. I
think it's uh. I don't agree with Jaffa, but you've
got to at least deal with Jaffa's arguments. And Jaffa
says that Lincoln absolutely did what was necessary in order
to fill up. Otherwise it would have been the the
Germans or the Spanish, or the English or the French
or somebody would have filled what would have filled up
the rest of the continent. And the only way to
do that is through natural right. You can disagree with that,
but you got to deal with the argument. But going
back to Thomas, no one's more metal than Thomas, right,
I mean, Thomas is the heart is kind of sets
the standard of hardcore. Yet, y'all, there is I've spent
personal time with Thomas. There's no more gracious, sweetheart of
a guy than than than than Thomas. And you listen
when he's when he's on with Pete or on with
you know, some of the other platforms, he's not he's
not screaming and burning stuff. And you know he's he's
got well reasoned arguments that and and where he understands
human nature and understands incentives that have led to X
y Z. So everybody just takes Tom the that what
what what Aristotle would call the accidents of Thomas. You know,
his his appearance and motif, but his but Thomas's essence
is well reasoned. Again, Thomas and I might differ on
I'm not I'm not particular a yacky guy, but but
but but but we can have a we can talk
about that and be but but you can't be more,
you can't be any more just gracious in the sense
of of the way Thomas presents his arguments, the way
Thomas talks through. Thomas can is one of those guys
who can make both sides of the argument. He knows
both sides, he has studied both sides he can dissect.
Be like that. Don't just think, oh, Thomas's metal, you know.
And I'm gonna really listen to the guy. He's He's incredible,
and how he can he can really gently take you through.
Listen to the way he talks about Watergate. I think
you just reposted the Watergate thing not too long ago. Yeah,
this series on Watergate. Listen to how he measuredly take
takes you through that entire process, this seemingly complex deal. Uh.
Whereas if I talked about it, I'd just be like, yeah,
John Dene deserves to burn forever and Auto have been
in you know anyway, I've said enough about that, and
I'm gonna have to go here. Pretty cool.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I know you, I know you have you have
stuff to do, all right, So well, and the way
we always ended up please, And you know what's funny
is I have notes here that we didn't even get to.
I'm sorry, it's fine, it's fine.
Speaker 2: No.
Speaker 1: I think what we I think what we said will
get me in enough trouble with enough people. And I
really don't care. I mean, at this point, it's like,
I mean, I'm I don't even read the comments anymore.
I mean, I will read the comments, but most of
the time, half the time I'm reading comments and rolling
my eyes. So because I mean, people just I don't know.
I don't know what they're expecting, what a realistic vision
of the way forward is for most people. And I'm
trying to lay it out and trying to share how
I think it's going to happen. And I think people
are people think that this can be solved overnight, and
it wasn't built overnight. So all right, tell people where
they can find your stuff and we'll get you out
of here.
Speaker 2: Okay, I've got a substack. It's easy to find Ronald
Dodson or ron Doddson and I don't even remember, uh,
but you find me on Twitter, Ronald Dodson, you can.
I've written for Uh. I just got published by The Blaze.
I wrote about Epstein the Blaze Media. Uh. That's a
big that's a big platform, and they were gracious enough
to publish me and have asked me back. I've written
for Claremont Institute's American Mind. I wrote a series on
what I think power projection and foreign policy should look
like going forward, and all right, often on more faith
based stuff, theology, and the inner political theology basically for
American reformer. Uh and uh, but come find me on
Twitter if you disagree.
Speaker 1: Just be nice.
Speaker 2: You know. I love people. You should too, even if
you disagree with them. Disagree with public enemies. And you
can disagree with individuals, but don't hate them. Uh, it's
not gonna it's it's bad for your it's bad for
your heart, it's bad for your soul. But disagree, you know, disagree,
vote here ferously. But uh, if you if you disagree
with me, come find me on Twitter. We can Uh,
we can talk amicably and then hug it out. How's that?
But that's where I am. I And I'm on shoot,
I'm on with Jay Burden, and I'm on with the
Iskar and c J A bunch. I'm here. I show
up here with Pete when he's gracious enough to invite me.
Uh and another any other podcasts near you?
Speaker 1: Thanks Ron, take care of your stuff.
Speaker 2: Right, Thanks thanks for having me, Pete, of course, thank you.
M m hm