Hey, guys, Saga and Crystal here.
Independent media just played a truly massive role in this election, and we are so excited about what that means for the future of the show.
This is the only place where you can find honest perspectives from the left and the right that simply does not exist anywhere else.
So if that is something that's important to you, please go to Breakingpoints dot com. Become a member today and you'll access to our full shows, unedited, ad free, and all put together for you every morning in your inbox.
We need your help to build the future of independent news media and we hope to see you at Breakingpoints dot com.
Good morning, everybody, Happy Monday.
We have an amazing show for everybody today, extra amazing Ryan bro Show, People Live for the Pound and now Broch.
I was just realizing we're going to get to talk about Napoleon and World War Two? Wow, what could be more bro show than that?
That is very very bro show.
That's right, Little Roman Empire? Can we talk about Coverty?
I am not a Roman Empire guy, Sorry, everybody, I guess we could talk about Napoleon. Can we talk about the Napoleon movie and how awful it was? Maybe unk on Ridley Scott. That's when we'll make it a real bro show. All Right, what are we covering today? This is the most difficult part of Crystal's job, and I always find it so trying. All Right, all right, good, I've got my rundown there in front of me. We're going to start off with JD. Vans's speech at the
Munich Security Conference. Some major international fallout as a result of that, Europeans running scared. You've got Zelensky and others making declarations, some movements on the Ukraine peace talks. We're going to talk about Donald Trump and a Napoleonic style tweet about he who saves the country cannot break a law. We're going to talk about Israel, Gaza and the and I ran some guarantees from BBE saying that he has been given the green light to attack Iran and then
Trump will back him up. Some other however, indications about phase two of the ceasefire hostage deal. It's a complete mess. Ryan's going to break a lot of that down for us. We're going to talk about the Democrats. Jensaki absolutely stunned at John Stewart's declaration that the Democratic Party is not in fact democratic and Luisi man Luigi Angoni, he's resurfaced, He's got his first new public statement along with the
website appears to answer a lot of fan questions. So even though he hasn't been in the news for a while, the Luigi fan club is alive and well. And then, Ryan, you've got a segment called woke or based? Are you gonna give us a preview of what it is? I've been ordered not to take a look at any of these elements.
I have no idea what's going.
To we want Tager going in fresh to our to our game show at the end hereo and or base we're based.
So I guess just for the people who aren't terminally online, I think they probably know what woke is at this point. Based is often what it's a moniker that people in right wing circles will use to say, this is based.
Action.
Yeah, exactly, and it's like hard.
For example, we're going to show people a video of a German diplomat crying. That's I would call based, you know, in terms of being able to being able to elicit that type of reaction from one of the most pathetic societies in the world.
Oh, Oops, I forgot that. Germany is one of our most few.
Sorry Germany, anything before we get to that, Ryan, you want to plug it?
No, I think you nailed that. All right, thank you. It's a tough part of the job, man, you got No.
It is usually to sit here and drink my coffee. I'm off camera, so it's nice.
When I do. When I do it, I go halfway through it and then I forgot it.
It's hard.
It's hard, all right, Okay, okay, let's get to Europe. As we said, jd Vance at the Munich Security Conference, returning He originally went to the Munich Security Conference. I recall I think he was back in twenty twenty two, where is one of the only people to speak against.
US assistants for Ukraine.
This time around, however, returning as vice President arguably one of the most important speeches given at the Munich Security Conference since two thousand and seven, when Vladimir Putin spoke there. Let's take a listen to the speech and we'll break it down.
In Washington, there is a new sheriff in town, and under Donald Trump's leadership, we may disagree with your views, but we will fight to defend your right to offer it in the public square, agree or disagree. We gather at this conference, of course, to discuss security, and normally we mean threats to our external security. I see many
great military leaders gathered here today. But while the Trump administration is very concerned with European security and believes that we can come to a reasonable settlement between Russia and Ukraine, and we also believe that it's important in the coming years for Europe to step up in a big way to provide for its own defense, the threat that I worry the most about visa e Europe is not Russia,
it's not China, it's not any other external actor. And what I worry about is the threat from within, the retreat of Europe from some of its most fundamental values, values shared with the United States of America. Now I have struck that a former European commissioner went on television recently and sounded delighted that the Romanian government had just annulled an entire election. He warned that if things don't go to plan, the very same thing.
Could happen in Germany too.
Now, these cavalier statements are shocking to American ears. For years, we've been told that everything we fund and support is in the name of our shared democratic values. Everything from our Ukraine policy to digital censorship is billed as.
A defense of democracy. But when we see.
European courts canceling elections and senior officials threatening to cancel others, we.
Ought to ask whether we're.
Holding ourselves to an appropriately high standard. And I say ourselves, because I fundamentally believe that we are on the same team. We must do more than talk about democratic values, we must live them.
So Ryan that has elicited a full fret fledged freakout in Germany and at the Munich Security Conference, our friend of the show. I can never pronounce his name properly. I really apologize, are not bertrand actually put out a very thoughtful obviously are not as very I don't know if you would call him from the left. I'm not really even sure which way you would say that he is. He's somebody who I guess is very critical of the US and European bipartisan establishment.
So we put it that way. Well, he actually put it really well.
He said, it's really hard not to make a parallel between JD Van's speech right now at the Muni Security conference and Putin's two thousand and seven speech at the very same podium. Both were watershed moments that fundamentally transformed the existing consensus. Putin, at the time delivered the speech that marked the beginning of the end of the unipolar moment. JD's speech will be probably remembered as the speech that marked the beginning of the end of the post World
War two Western alliance. And so he goes on. It's quite lengthy. I highly recommend people go and read it. But basically, in this speech it was both a declaration of quote unquote universal Western values and a criticism of the European architecture for both taking advantage and free riding off of the US and nuclear umbrella, actively use in quote unquote anti democratic censorship policies and others to suppress nationalist movements and.
Of course literally overthrow a government.
Your Romania reporting, by the way, has probably got to be one of the most influential things drop site has ever done. I mean, considering how much it's been picked up by Elon by now being cited here by name by the Vice President of the United States, it's genuinely remarkable because it does show us that there is both kind of a horseshoe element to a lot of this, but really, at a very very high level, this is not about Ukraine.
It's much much bigger than that.
It gets to the point of that there is a fissure between the United States and between Europe, both economically but culturally. There's criticism here kind of the European EU led establishment there what they view as their most important single conflict, Ukraine is frankly, you know, more of a
footnote to the United States. And then really what I think that they are grappling with is at the very same time that this Munich Security Conference speech and other and Secretary of State Mark or Rubio today is in Saudi Arabia in a broke for brokered peace talks with the Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, and that demonstrates what I think is a true return to great power conflict
and to multipolarity. We are no longer you know, working within the fakery of the United Nations or the European Union or some OSSEE guidelines. It is the two great powers involved in the conflict sitting down across the table
and saying what are we doing here? Because at its heart that's what it's always been about, all the trustings of the European Union, the Munich Security Conference, and more so, I'm curious, you know, from your perspective, what you make of all of this before we get to some German reaction.
It was interesting to me that Jadvance didn't kind of point out the Biden administration's role, because it's one thing, you know, he wouldn't have to necessarily say, okay, and the US is guilty on all of these things, but have just blamed it on Biden if you wanted to.
They didn't do that. He suggested that these European censorship and big tech policies kind of came out of nowhere, and that the Romanian election that was overturned was driven by this former EU Commissioner or other like elements within Europe. And certainly there were those elements that were fine to see that that election annulled. The first major power to call into question the validity of the Romanian election was
the United States. Yes, and the United States basically greenlit the annulling of the election by coming out and saying that. And as we reported in our story, it was USAID funded entities that were involved in the concoction of this conspiracy scheme, conspiracy claim that said Russia actually came in and like used a fake TikTok.
This is Operation's point where he's like, this, ob the skates much of the United States.
So why would he do that? Like that's an inch, like a good.
Question up, Probably you know, I don't. I honestly don't know, because I think you're totally right.
That's one of the things that I actually most agreed with with ar No's threat is listen. I mean, I'm very critical of European migration policy and all that, but he is correct where he's like, hey, look, you guys are the people who destroyed Afghanistan.
You're the ones for the most parting.
I mean, I guess what I would say is, it's not like there weren't a whole bunch of NATO troops there as well, and they weren't some of the biggest drivers of the permanent occupation of Afghanistan was built on much of these like European institutional liberal values, as in like oh, we need to stay there so girls can go to school, or you know, beyond any sort of
national interest. That's largely what I think European policy has become it's about genuflecting, it's about you know, really it's you know, even the censorship, the censorship regime on Romania, the Ukraine, literal worship, like so much of it comes down to defending like capital l liberal values across the continent. It's part of the reason why they hate their own national movements so much, when in my opinion, they're more
responsible for their rise than anyone. You know, Merkel's ideology leads to Brexit, it leads to the rise of the AfD in Germany, leads to the National Front winning unbelievable margins in the French election, is actually you know, the
destruction of the French establishment. So when you think about all of that, the roots of it come down to migration, but I think a lot of the roots of it also come down to, you know, the subservience to this, to this non national identity, which is the European Union, and so much of the current European population and especially the European diplomatic and elite class, view themselves as Europeans first and not French and or German first, which is
just not really compatible with you know, like putting your own citizens for which is why their own citizens are really revolting against a lot of these things.
It is. And yeah, the other point I agreed with Arnaut there though, is that one of the shared European values that exists over the last hundreds of thousands of years is war. Yeah, that's true. Like they'd love to do war.
They are warlike people.
They are a warlike people. And so for the Trump administration to be pushing a combination of we need more nationalism in Europe and the European nations need to individually spend more money on their military budgets, it's like, have we completely forgotten what happened, you know in the nineteen thirties and nineteen forties and the nineteen tens and the eighteen seventies and the eighteen thirties.
And right to that is that the United States should be the ones that's the guarante of all of their security while they free ride off of that with their free healthcare.
Or maybe maybe US mass boarders, maybe we China and rush it together like just keep well, we're going to get baby babysit them, yea. At the same time, you've got China like sending its diplomats over to Europe being like, you know what, we already told you that the US is as a nasty landlord. I think it was Singapore Prime Minister said, you know, the US has gone from like being this this kind of hedgemon to now this like low rent landlord coming around hitting us up for the rent.
Well, yeah, they've also been delinquent on that rent for quite a long time. This is part of the difficulty, which is for all of our money and all of that, when the push comes to shob what do they do. They're the ones who are in major importers of Chinese cars, of Huawei, all their infrastructure. They openly buck any US attempts to try and tell them to try and implement the same sort of export control. So in a lot of ways, you know, they are the people who have
created their own disaster. They've decided to both They've basically tried to ensnare our country through worship of the Transatlantic Alliance. And I'm not kidding it as is an actual worship.
The one last thing the US over there.
Yeah, that Biden's dementia addled brain was able to cling to was what.
I expanded NATO.
They it literally like you, when he's on his deathbed, he'll be saying Aucus and NATO like that's what he views is legacy, as he'll literally, you'll probably forget his own grandchildren's name before he forgets NATO and the fact that he brought Finland into the alliance. So that just demonstrates what we're dealing with in terms of America's elite, part of the reason why a lot of this stuff
is getting amplified. So we got that, we have the German Chancellor Olaf Schultz, who immediately criticized JD.
Vance.
You had the I think it was the vice Chancellor who took the podium immediately after Vance where he was like, I was going to give his prepared speech, but I have to just sit here and say how outrageous it is there. So I mean, at a basic level, number one, they're not used to being talked to this way. But two is like Arna said, they are dealing with the They are dealing with a shakeup in the way that
things usually go. Usually, the way that this Ukraine peace talk stuff would go is like, oh, well, we would gather the G six, notf the G seven, right, we would gather the G six as sans Russia, I would all create prepared statements and there would be the European Union would sign on and NATO, etc. And then as
a quote united front, we would go and we would negotiate. Now, it would never work because the Europeans, the UK and others are fanatically obsessed with defending Ukraine, and instead Trump is like, no, I'm the guaranteer of the NATO, I'm garantur of NATO security. I'm guaranteed of the EU's security. I'm going to go and hash this out with Putin and you guys are going to swallow it and deal with it. And I mean to be honest, I think that is basically true in terms of how it will
all shake out. Now, I'm not saying that they will go quietly. And Zelenski himself has now made some declarations in a new interview with Meet the Press, let's take a listen to that.
The President Trump said this week he did not say yes when he was asked if he sees Ukraine as an equal member in the peace process.
He did say later that Ukraine would have a seat at the table.
Have you been given any assurances that Ukraine will have an equal seat?
At the negotiator table.
So I will never accept any decisions between the United States and Russia about Ukraine. Never an our people, never an our adults and children and everybody it can be. So this is the war in Ukraine against us, and it is our human losses. We're thankful for all the support, unity between USA in USA around Ukraine, support by patisan unity, by patisan support.
We're thankful for all of this.
But there is no any leader in the world who can really make a deal with putting without us about us. The risk that Rusua will occupy Europe is one hundred percent.
If the United States pulls out of NATO, Russia will occupy your Yes.
Not all, not all the Europe.
They will begin from those countries, as I said, are big our friends, but small countries who have been in the US assign the Soviet Union.
They will begin and we'll see what.
Will be the answer. But Youurope will not answer because they don't have They will begin to defend itself, each country defend itself at this moment. So Russia will get all the successes with all the territors they will want. I don't know, they will want percent of Europe.
Fifty.
I don't know.
Nobody knows.
So there we go from Zelenski in terms of his declaration. I mean, I don't know about this last part. If the US pulls out of NATO. I don't see anybody saying the US is going to pull out of NATO. Really, what he's upset about, Ryan is that Trump said no, you're not going to be in NATO, which is the most obvious declaration. But what's really crazy is you're watching the European Union trying to figure all this out and the Europeans, So let's put the next one, please up on the screen.
This is what I alluded to.
Quote left out of the Ukraine talks, Europe races to organize a response.
Just yesterday, the.
Prime Minister of the UK Keir Starmer, said that the UK would provide peace keep troops inside of Ukraine if the United States were to not do so now. Already, the Secretary of Defense Pete Hegsath has said number one, no US peacekeeping role will ever happen on the ground now, two that NATO membership for Ukraine is basically off the table, and three that their return to twenty fourteen borders is unrealistic.
I don't know.
I literally don't know how anyone could argue against those three proposals. People are saying, oh, it's a concession that to say, reality, I don't think that's a concession. I mean a concession would be, honestly, a concession would be putting our own forces on the ground for a place that has absolutely zero national interests to the United States.
But overall, you're.
Watching this all get shaken up. So I'm curious to where your reaction here.
Yeah, we threw all the weapons that we had stored outside the DC suburbs and ship them over to Ukraine and through them at Russia. Ukraine threw hundreds and hundreds of thousands of lives at the line there possibly possibly even more. And these are where the lines are. So if somebody didn't want that to be the case, what
is the option for them, Like we don't. It's not it's not as if we have more weapons that we could really throw at them, like the Ukraine was allowed to strike you know, Russia inside Russia with some of those long range missiles. But even if we gave them every long range missile we had and let them shoot them as far as they want into Russia. Russia has an industrial base and a population that is many times larger than Ukraine's. That just and that's simply the case.
Like there was some hope that Russia's economy would completely collapse as a result of sanctions and the war economy. The economy is struggling in Russia for sure, but it did not collapse. And so the reality it is that Ukraine is not playing with much of a deck at this much of a deck at this point. And Ukraine also knew that if Trump won this election, they were screwed. Oh absolutely that.
They even kind of said that.
They said that, They said that out loud. They knew it, We knew it, everybody knew it. Now it's happened, and now they're screwed. And then you have to ask what was all of this for? Right? Why did what? What did so many people sacrifice their life?
Well, you know what it was for, because unfortunately the UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson and another kind of set it all out loud. It's about killing as many Russians as possible. I guess we just forgot it's.
Just psychotic because yeah, it's about weakening Russia. But it's like Russia's not necessarily weaker, No, and be stronger.
I'm honestly, I mean, I predict much difficult for them to get where they are. I'm stunned by how quickly they were able to bounce back. And by bounce back, I mean, yeah, they ate like a twenty percent haircut or something on their initial GDP. But after that, they've just turned their country into a war economy. They've anction proved to all their financial institutions ten times more than ever before. The Chinese have stepped in to supply all
their consumer electronics. North Korea's got plenty of AMMO. They're willing to send. They're willing to send their own troops to fight and die for Russia. This is the best thing that's ever happened.
Do we believe that yet?
Well, yeah, that's a good point. You know, you're right. I probably shouldn't fall victim to something I don't.
You know, I'm pretty active on Telegram in terms of these channels viewing videos. I've not yet seen any videos of actual North Koreans dying who are on the front line.
If you see any, I guess send it to them.
They keep shawannas Russians that look Korean. It's like, yeah, bro, half.
Of that's true.
There are a lot of Russian citizens who you know, who have quite literally Asiatic like from the Step or from Kyrgyzstan or whatever, you know, any of these places that are still inside of the current Russian federation.
So a great point on that one, Ryan.
So the Ukraine last ditch appears to be selling what mineral rights, and this is something that Lindsey Graham has been pushing for many years. He certainly has found a way to Trump's heart talking about how many awesome rare earth minerals they have and why that's the reason that we should support Ukraine.
Let's take a listen.
I think the main thing for me is that Ukraine has value, literally has value. So you can talk about democracy and people love talking about democracy here, which is it's great to talk about democracy. But where were you in twenty fourteen when they actually needed you. So Trump now sees Ukraine.
Differently because of the rarest stuff.
Oh my god, I said, playing god, these people are sitting on literally a gold mine. What did he say?
What do you mean?
I showed him a map? Yeah, look, you know, everybody says poot wants to reconstruct the Soviet Union and the Russian Empire.
A map of the rare earth on the golf court.
Not only okay, but later.
Later, Yeah, I've seen this. Look this stuff is. That's one of the reasons the guys wanting to go into Ukraine is take their stuff. I mean, there's treads of dollars of very valuable rare earth minerals that he's trying to take by force. And I told President Trump that's not a good way to do business.
So you made Donald Trump by Ukraine hawk. I showed him that map.
Well, I don't know if he's a Ukraine hawk, but I made him understand that if you let Putin get away with this grabbing stuff at not his, but force other people starting do us.
So that's the I guess that's all they have now in terms of what it looks like. There's some reporting here. Let's put this up there on the screen from Josh Rogan. He's very tapped in to the foreign policy elite, he says. Multiple lawmakers here in Munich told me that the US Congressional delegation presented Zelenski with a piece of paper they wanted him to sign, which would grant the US rights to fifty percent of Ukraine's future mineral reserves. Zelenski quote
politely declined to sign it. He continued, after a lot more reporting, I have more detail. This plan was presented to Zelenski by the US ambassador in advance of the Secretary Kiev, a Secretary Besson's trip to Kiev. Zelenski told those lawmakers about it today in today's meetings. Zelenski was telling them about the paper, which many of them didn't even know about, not the other way around. He said he couldn't sign it because it didn't contain any security
guarantees for Ukraine. So that's that's the current status.
Yeah, yeah, so Josh had it a little bit backwards the first time around, but still a nice little scoop. But basically, yeah, what happened. So Secretary of the Treasury comes to Ukraine and ahead of his trip, the US ambassador presents Zelensky with this deal, like we will take fifty percent of your rare earth and there's not even a quote on it. There's not even a promise that and as a result you will get these security guarantees. It's just like, by the way, we're going to take
fifty percent of what you have. Zelenski declines to sign that, and then and then kind of tattles to the law awmakers who come a couple of days later. One question I'm starting to have, though, is how rare these rare earths are?
Yes, everywhere in the world. That is such a good They're everywhere. I hear about it all. Yeah, you're right.
The Congo Afghanistan people said, Afghanistan's a trillion dollars.
I think Mexico does have a large lithium deposit.
They do Chile. But isn't that rare? Yeah, a good point.
I guess it's not. I hadn't thought about that. So we should get into Trump's here and be like, they're not that rare.
They're They're actually in Wyoming, you can, they're sitting right here. We could go tap it right now. They're even in Canada. You know, we don't even have to annex Canada. We could just buy it from them. We don't need to sign it. Would send a bunch of people to die for all of this. So I will say I think that remains the base obstacle to any sort of future Ukraine peace deal. Is this, you know, convincing Donald Trump that in fifty years from now will be able to have access to all.
Of these mineral rights or whatever.
Apparently this is an active thing that Zelenski and them are pushing, but at a big level.
Again, just to prepare everyone.
The Munich speech is paired with the Saudi Arabia Pea stocks which.
Are ongoing right now in Riod. We will stay tuned for what that looks like.
But it is the first real bilateral talks between the United States and Russia in years since the outbreak of the Ukraine conflict.
Trump literally said he spoke to Putin.
They mutually agreed to visit each other's countries, and we'll continue to keep everybody updated speaking of that, this is definitely something very close to Ryan and I's heart. Was an off the cuff re mark by Donald Trump where neither of us really believe it's true, but we would like for this to be true.
Let's take a listen.
We have the greatest military equipment in the world. We're building it. At some point when things settle down, I'm going to meet with China and I'm going to meet with Russia in particular those two, and I'm going to say, there's no reason for us to be spending almost a trillion dollars on military. There's no reason for you to be spending four hundred billion dollars. China is going to be at four undred billion, We're at a trillion, We're
going to be close to a trillion. And I'm going to say, we can settle this on we can spend this on other things. We don't have to spend this on military because and I'm going to be meeting with China. You know, we were trying to de escalate nuclear and I was in a position where Russia had agreed and had agreed we were going to start, and then we had a rigged elect and so that never took place. But this one was too big to rig. We won by so much that it was too big to rig that.
President Putin really liked the idea of cutting way back on nuclear and I think the rest of the world we would have gotten them to follow, and China would have come along too. China also liked it. Tremendous amounts of money of being spent on nuclear and the destructive capability is something that we don't even want to talk about today because you don't want to hear, it's too depressing. So we want to see if we can denuclearize, and I think that's very possible.
So Ryan.
Is the most radical proposal since what since Richard Nixon or prior to that.
I'm trying to think maybe the Kennedy administration.
The start treaties, the nuclear treaties. This is definitely in that vein. Now, obviously there's not a single is there maybe one law maker in Washington, maybe two or three who might have go along with this, but Bernie all five hundred and thirty two other members definitely going to be against this.
So again, Bernie, Bernie, as long as you don't go after whatever they're making in Vermont, that's right.
As long as you're not touching whatever is made in Vermont, he says, Well, you know, we don't have to spend this on other things. We can lower our defense spending all around, and then we won't have to spend it on the military.
It's a nice idea. It's certainly a nice idea.
You have to go back to JFK's American University peace speech, Oh, the one that got him killed, the one that probably got him killed, right, And also people should go back and check out the conspiracy analysis around that that where he may have been influenced by LSD towards the end of his life.
Is that true.
I didn't know that from Mary Pinchot Meyer, who he was having an affair with, who was cord Meyer's ex wife. Cord Meyer one of the kind of top original goons in the CIA. She was also very close friends with Timothy Leary. And she definitely dosed David Bradley and a bunch of other like illuminaries in the nineteen sixties and fascinating. And so there's some right now, no question she smoked weed with with JFK. It's the older. There is some
question did they trip. It's possible. Yeah, she was then murdered on the towpath. So have fun down.
I'm unfamiliar with all of this.
This is a good one. Yeah, that's a good one.
I need to talk to ol of her about it. We got to give him a call.
So Trump's so Trump is creeping into dangerous territory.
You're right, but he's obviously correct.
If you can sit down with China and Russia and be like, look, we're dropping a trillion, you're dropping four hundred billion, Russia, you're dropping insane percentage of your GDP on military spending and nuclear spending. You can't afford that we're getting bankrupted China. Don't you want to do more Belton road stuff instead of you know, nuclear weapons, And if they can come to an actual agreement on that, that's Nobelt Peace Prize worthy.
That's again why I'm so supportive of ditching all of these fake institutions, which I think either propagate conflict or do everything to trust up, you know, great power competition in the language of international values. We were talking a lot about this last time with Krystal, about is you know, the idea of propping up and sending a million or so Ukrainians to their death or to being maimed for democracy, And it's like, this is obviously obviously not about democracy.
It's about real politique a bad reading in my opinion, about trying to get all these Russians killed. But it especially falls apart with real politique policy in Israel.
So you're like, oh, well, actually we're.
Okay with it over here, but we're definitely not okay with it over here. It's just it's ridiculous, right, and it falls apart on its own face any neutral observer out there. Her point was, well, maybe it was a good thing to at least still trust it up with democracy. But this gets to my point that there is no true balance of power in the language of human rights democracy institutions. Great powers are the people who run the world. It has just been through these institutions that have been
their vehicle. At its heart, the future of the world will be, you know, basically decided by the nuclear powers, and especially by the United States and China, to a s lesser extent, Russia here with respect to Europeans. So just sit down with them and be like, okay, what are we doing here? This is something that we did
so much in the past. I mean, one of the things I respect so much about our leaders like Eisenhower and Truman and FDR, is I mean, outside of FDR's case, Truman and Eisenhower deeply optical of Khrushchev or of Stalin, they still met with them all the time because they even you know, mutually distrusted each other at those alliance tables, but they had obviously a common enemy under Nazi Germany. But even beyond that, trying to figure out what can we do about you know, making sure that there is
not such another devastating war. And I think, if anything, the removal of consequence like of war what you were talking about earlier with Europe, has turned all of this into like an intellectual exercise that Bill Eyes what how important it is to actually have true balance of power, to have honesty in international relations, where hypocrisy, in my opinion, just breeds too many gaps for people like Russia and others to view what is US national policy with respect
to Ukraine. When we don't speak in the language of national interest, we both cannot understand one another. But it leads to so much ambiguity, hypocrisy and others that it leads to things like Iraq, Libya, you know, the North Koreans being unable to trust us for giving up their if we had never if we had never taken down the Libyan regime and destroyed Gadafi. I think there's a not as big chance, but there's somewhat of a chance that the North Koreans would listen.
But sure, that's what.
They always say.
I'm not listening to you. Yeah, I will never trust you. Look at Gadafi. I don't blame them. If I were them, there's no way I would.
Give it on bout it right, he gave it nuclear weapons and then said the only place where I'd slightly disagree with you there is that I would draw some daylight between the approaches of FDR and Truman. Whereas FDR, I think, if he had lived, was willing to and the whole if he had lived, you can kind of fill in your own utopia. But there's a lot of evidence.
I think that FDR had decided that in a post World War two era, it was time to share the world with communism and was with the Soviet Union like, yeah, definitely, it was not going to be It wasn't going to be a cold war. That was a contest, that was a zero sum contest of uh, you know, we must
defeat them or they will defeat us. That he believed that there was enough of a world order that could be that and that the pressure of communism because it was going to blunt the ills of capitalism and create enough of a social welfare state that it would be more stable in a Kinesian kind of way, Whereas Truman and the kind of the national security apparatus that was
behind him really saw it as a zero sum. So in some ways we're now getting We now have another opportunity to make that bargain with another version of communism. But now it's instead of FDR, it's Trump, and instead of Stalin, it's she, and let's share the world.
Yeah, well she is a lot smarter than Stalin, so let's rather talk to him.
But let's share it instead of fighting over it. It doesn't have to be a zero sum competition.
Right, Well, I'm not.
So sure about that, but at the very least zero sum competition can actually still have a more stable outcome than whatever the hell is currently happening with Ukraine.
It's not in NATO. We're treated like NATO.
We're send a lot of troops there, and it's a vital of interest in NATO, except NATO countries are supposed to be vital interest. It doesn't make any sense. All of it falls apart in itself. You got to defend Ukraine so that we can defend anight. It's like, well, the whole purpose is defend NATO. And then before that, NATO knocked off Mohamar Gaddafi, So what Libya was a vital interest to NATO That still remains one of the most insane things that ever happened. Let us, however, not
say that they're is. Let us, however, say that their resistance right now to reducing military spending is titanic in.
Terms of what you're up against. In Washington.
We have an example here from Dan Crenshaw. Crenshaw, some people have called him. I don't know why they would here on face the nation.
Let's take a listen.
When it comes to the military and military spending. The US spends about three point four percent of its GDP on defense. Are you on board with boosting it to five percent, which is what President Trump is saying Western countries need to do. Are Republicans going to do that?
It's it's quite the target. Look, we've got a lot of work to do right now on We've got a budget's pass from the last year's budget. Government funding expires on March fourteenth, so we got to deal with that.
We've got to deal with the debt ceiling.
We've got a finance uh disaster aid for California wildfires. We've got a reconciliation bill coming up. Look at you look at the world at the moment, and where America stands and the investments we need to make it's pretty obvious we need to increase the defense spending, and then the exact amount, of course, will get worked out in Congress.
So there you go, and yes, and Pentagon spending is the only thing that the media will ever talk about in its proper terms, which to me, the proper way of talking about spending is a percentage of GDP obviously, because that's how you can understand something. You know, what do you spend in rent as a percentage of what you make? That's what matters, That's right, And so three point four percent, and all of a sudden, now it sounds, oh, that's kind of timy. We could do a little bit
more than that. They never will talk about, like assist you know, the actual foreign aid to like Africa as a percentage of GDP. That isn't the like regime change.
Well you're going to hear it from me at least, right, Well, that's part of why I get annoyed. Everyone's like this is an American revolution, like guys point seven of the federal budget.
Okay, like it actually.
That includes whatever this hit I was gonna say.
So if you take out the woke bullshit, it's like maybe point two five percent of the federal budget. If you want a real American revolution, you got to go for the Pentagon, or you got to go for the entitlement programs.
I don't think we should go for the entitlement program. So what do we have it? Let's talk right If anybody ever wants to talk about.
That, I might.
My door is open, my phone line is ready. However, conveniently, there's just way too much. I mean, as you and I know right now, of all the talk for firing federal workers, et cetera, there has not been even a modest dent in what the economy of Washington really is. If those should all those other people actually go after the Pentagon, that's when you're going to see a real fall in housing values and a destruction of the Northern
Virginia economy. Until that time, we're not talking about the close substantial amount of people.
The closest we got was we reported last week that Elon Musk had a four hundred million dollar contract.
Yes, oh yeah, we had You're on the show.
And then they nixed that contract.
So did they nix it? I thought they only changed the name.
First they changed the name, and then a day or two later they said, actually, this whole thing's on hold, really which and frankly from a green let's talk about clean energy real quick. From a green perspective, this was stupid anyway, because if you are driving around in an armored diplomatic vehicle, then by definition you're in a difficult country. It's developing country.
Yes, So where you're going to charge your car, you're.
Going to charge it at the embassy, which is fired by a coal powered plant, like all any country. If you're in Norway, you don't need an armored tesla. You can get around in an uber but and there you can maybe find some renewable energy. But in Congo, where you do need armored vehicles to get around, those are coal plants that are firing your electric vehicle. So you've got the carbon footprint of making the thing. Then you've got the carbon and of getting the rare earth it's.
Certainly sound like me on an electric vehicle.
Then you got the carbon footprint of shipping it over to Congo, and then you're plugging it into a coal fired.
That's actually stupid because you take the cobol out of the Congo, you ship it to China or the United States, you re find it, you put it in the country, and you ship it back to the.
And then you plug it into a coal fired.
Plug it into a coal fired power plan.
So they've they've paused that contract. Okay, good, you're welcome. That's four hundred million dollars for you.
Right, But now, what are they going to buy? Lan? They should just buy a land cruiser. That's what we all know.
Look, you know what's that what's that truck that all the terrorists hues highlights think a sec Let's be honest, you know, we haven't got a lot of proof in a lot of these videos.
I want to buy what. I want to see the diplomats riding in the back of the white Toyota.
In the back of a Toyota highlucks, it's indestructible. When I lived in the Middle East, all the Arabs are rolling around in Toyota land cruisers.
You got to learn from them. You gotta learn from them.
All right, let's go to Donald Trump and his Napoleonic Declaration in addition to some updates around dough. So Donald Trump shocked America, I guess maybe not so shocking. Let's put this up there on the screen he who saves his country does not vy elate any law. So Ryan who and what came up with this saying? What is the what is the echo historical echo here?
Yeah, so this is this is an apocryphal Napoleon quote that comes from the good, the good Napoleon movie Waterloo, which was like that nineteen sent I've never seen it.
Maybe watch it.
It's on YouTube. Yeah, that's cool. Yeah, and they like they famously they have like one hundred and fifty thousand like extras like actually do the battle. So so I don't know it was one hundred and fifty thousand, but tens of thousands of people dressed as Prussians and French soldiers. It was. It was the most sophisticated and like gigantic battle scene like ever filmed by Hollywood. And so you know, you don't know, not not the cgi like whip up
that made a suffer through. But yes, so, whether Napoleon said this or not, this was this how this is how Napoleon felt like.
He's been attributed to him.
He definitely did say I am the revolution.
Right am the state, and then you say that that was the king.
Yeah, but what Napoleon said is his his version of that exact same thing was I am the revolution, because he was saying, like people are saying, like, hey, I thought the revolution was for all of these you know, fraternity equality, like we didn't we just talked about all this stuff. And He's like, well, no, I am the revolution. So whatever I do is therefore in advancement of the of the of the revolutionary values, of the French revolutionary values.
And Trump's saying this is really only a kind of stating, a textualizing of what has always been his subtext that there isn't really ideology behind trump Ism. It's whatever Trump says. Now he's taking it to the place that it's not even illegal if I if I do it, which ended Nixon when.
The president it's not illegal.
That was considered to be the worst thing that a president had ever said.
Did he say that.
I don't think he said that in office, though I think he s David Frost.
But it was like he was trying to make his comeback, and when he said that, like, yeah, banished this stand.
It's not illegal.
Let's put the next screenshot up there from Elon. He had lots of American flags there. I guess Elon is a console, a deputy of one of Napoleon's generals.
Here he's a talerrand yeah, yeah, that's right, although I mean does it fit well, Yes, that's true.
But you know he was.
Also tallerand was he was like, how would you say he's an opportunist? He was an opportunist. He was constantly playing people off of each other. He was a vassal to the king and then to the revolutionaries and then eventually to Napoleon. He features very prominently in the popular book I'm Forgetting forty eight Laws of Power. There are a ton of Talleran.
Quotes and then yeah, and then Tallyrand sells the Napoleon out, So that's careful.
I'm not nearly as well read on my French revelation.
It's just the black hole, to be honest, because there's so much rights a revolution, and then you know, the revolution goes through all these phases, and there's Napolion and then Napolean Lee's and the king comes back, and then Napoleon the third comes in. I'm like, I can't get my add around all this shit. It's just too much. I think there is there's that Revolutions podcast. Why what's that guy named Mike Duncan. It's so long, but all my friends who have listened to it highly recommend it.
I eventually, one day I will get my head around the entire French Revolution.
But let's, you know, kind of put this together with Trump and with Elon, kind of affusing of the two forces. They did a joint interview on Fox News. Let's take a listen, tried it.
Then they stopped. That was they have many different things of hatred. Actually, Elon called me, he said, you know they're trying to drive us apart. I said absolutely. Now they said we have breaking as Donald Trump has seated control of the presidency to Elon Musk. President Musk will be attending a cabinet meeting, and I say, it's just so obvious. They're so bad at it. I used to think they were good at it. They're actually bad at it.
Because if they were good at it, I'd definitely be president, because I think nobody in history has ever gotten more bad publicity than me. I could do the greatest things. I get ninety eight percent bad publicity. I could do outside of you, a few of your very good friends. It's like the craziest thing. But you know what I have learned eland that people are smart. They get it.
Yeah, they do it.
They get it.
They really see what's happening.
All right.
So joint interview there Bible White House with Donald Trump. Pretty obviously moved by Trump to quell some of the elon as president, although I'm not so sure because I've never seen Trump do that for literally anybody else, maybe his vice president. I mean, that's it. A joint interview. I am coming around to the crystal point of view that there's something weird going on here.
It's odd.
I've never seen Trump like this act so not even subservient but accepting of obviously an equal power center. I guess all we can take away from it is I think he just agrees with Evon.
I mean, is that what it is?
I really have no idea what it is because and look, I mean I've said this before. I do think that there is like a popularist aspect to dose. People hate the government. You know, they hate the government n til they need the government. But in the interim, people hate the government and they don't have any particular I don't think that outside of a lot of liberals who are reading the news constantly and like blued to their phones.
I'm just not so sure that the so called popular revolution against all this stuff will materialize.
Maybe in the future if you can pin.
A natural disaster or something on them, but I'm not seeing it at least.
Yet outside of the democratic faithful.
All I took away from that interview is Trump is totally dedicated to him, which again I think is crazy. No, I really don't understand this dynamic, how it really came to be and so close, especially because if you're a Trump aid or others, if you're Trump yourself, you want to be in control of your narrative. You want to be control of your own story. Like even Advance works
for Trump. He's not a separate power center in and of himself in the way that Elon is, and so Elon's main character energy I always assumed would rub up against Trump, and maybe it will eventually in the future, but even to this extent, I never would have predicted that he would have tolerated anything.
Yeah, Elon's out there doing his own thing and creating his own reality and then forcing Trump to respond to it. And it's it's it's quite incredible because I find myself in this very unusual and almost uncomfortable situation of kind of pulling for Trump.
Yeah, the same way Trump, like stand up.
For yourself then come on and sort of pulling for the maga folks to be like get some dignity and some self respect to your guys, Like you fought for eight years to get back into power, and you let this guy come in in September and stroke a check and he's he gets to just be along for the ride, Like don't you have any dignity here?
No, that's actually the actual answer.
And I mean, look, maybe there's some lessons in this as that being rich and famous is actually all that really matters in terms of the currency for Trump. Trump in a certain sense either agrees with all of this or he's fine. Maybe let's say a galaxy brain case, which is Trump is here more popular than ever, high
approval rating, people are describing him as energetic. All he really cares about is tariffs and maybe Russia Ukraine, right ish in terms of like getting on the phone being president at a bit at a high level and just let elon deal with all the unpopular stuff which all the donors and all these other people go crazy for.
So I have all my donors are happy.
The media is obsessed with a foreign target who's literally absorbing all the bad press, and I'm just sitting pretty up here at the top, like he's like a whipping boy. I guess for what the real agenda is, But like you said, that's not really what the coot real agenda was supposed to be. So I do honestly find the entire thing bizarre. I just think that at a certain level, Trump is fascinated by Elon.
Maybe he buys the hype.
Maybe he just in that spaces he's like, you're an interesting cost.
Yeah, he's he's an interesting character. Yeah, yeah, he talks. I mean, there's no Trump is. Whatever you can say about Trump.
He's definitely a weird guy in his own right, but he's a very social person. He was a socialite for many years. He's met a lot of people. He has to know Elon is a total weirdough and yet you know, for some reason, it doesn't seem to run rub him the wrong way, where anybody else who treated Trump like this would just never get away with it. At a policy level, there have been some flags here around some of the latest Doge cuts. Let's go ahead and put
this one up on the screen. This was kind of a hilarious plot point.
So there was what was it?
There were some cuts blind across the board. One of them was apparently at a nuclear weapons facility near Amarillo, Texas, where some thirty percent of cuts took place, and the nuclear weapons role of those workers and the FEDS who oversee it is some of the most sensitive missions apparently in the US. So after discovering that many of these workers who are in something called a probationary period, legally, Feds hire people on a probationary period before they convert
to full time. While you're probationary, you can still be fired, and when you're not, it's just much more legally difficult to fire you. That probationary period can last up to three years. So people understand it's not like they've been
disciplinary place, it's just that they're more newer entrants. So anyway, the Trump administration just fired across the board all probationary employees, but apparently they have reversed it for these twenty eight employees who are in charge of the nuclear weapons facility. Also for people who don't know the nuclear weapons are overseen by the Energy Department, which I've always found very
interesting that I forget exactly when it happened. But we decided to take away that authority, specifically from the Pentagon and turn it into a civilian practice to make sure that civilian control command and control over the nuclear chain of command always remained ironclad.
Yes, and the real heads when they're adding up military spending.
Yeah, they add that.
You're right, they add that in because when you're like, oh, how do we get to a trillion? When Department of Defense is this, it's like, well, because a lot of these other departments have spending that is fundamentally military. Yeah, you can also be probationary if you get a promotion, so you could be ten years in then you get a promotion and a raise. It's only like a three month stretch, but there are definitely significant numbers of people who got a promotion in like December and then found
themselves like vulnerable to just getting whacked. And I think the politics of this can work out for Republicans if it's all spectacle like if they're taking if they're doing launching a spectacular assault on federal workers, and you've got Democrats defending these federal workers, the public.
That's where we're at right now.
Yeah, the public probably sides with the attack on the federal workers. But if it goes beyond spectacle and as actual substance, which it seems like it is, like firing ten percent of federal workers, that's a substantial cut, you risk genuinely harming things that voters want to be taken care of, like nuclear safety is an excellent example of it.
Some of the stuff, for instance, getting rid of the people whose job it is to make sure that the last few birds of an instant endangered species like survive, like you're going to you know, you're going to drive these number of like animals into extinction. Does public care about that? I would say they probably don't. Now the next one, if we put this one up on the screen,
huge cuts at the FAA. So I think we've had nine airplane crashes since in the last month or so, including military, including the and including the deadliest since like two thousand and nine, And to respond onto that by cutting hundreds of FAA employees, some of whom say that they were directly involved with safety, to me is not just like offensive as to me as an American citizen who wants to fly and not you know, crash into a military helicopter or like just have the plane blow up.
It's it's also politically moronic because now if and when there is another plane crash, you can quite honestly and genuinely point to Hey, the way that Trump responded to nine plane crashes at the beginning of his term was
to fire hundreds of FAA ploys. And now there are more crashes, and there's also reporting that FAA is allowing SpaceX technicians to come on in and you know they're gonna they're going to show the FAA how to how to do things, and so you're taking full political control and responsibility for something that could be a huge political liability.
So that's where the spectacle. The spectacle can work for Republicans, but if they're if it drifts into substance and they actually destroy the government, which it seems like they're trying to do, that could actually backfire.
I totally agree, and I've always warned that about the dough stuff where look usaid sorry, like I just don't think anybody will care outside of the people who actually work in that or people in Africa. But FAA, I mean, I always point to that, And I also tried to really highlight how quickly public.
Opinion can change.
And I don't think people really understand how quickly you can go from like an eighty percent approval rating to thirty or thirty five.
It can happen on a dime, and in the span of nine months.
I mean Joe Biden when he took office, he was like seventy four or seventy five percent. Now maybe it was fake, I don't know you could say that. But by October he's underwater as a result of Afghanistan inflation so much, you know, so many different expiro programs. Nate Silver actually had a good tweet on this. He goes keep in mind Obama went from sixty nine percent approval rating to Democrats losing a Senate seat in Massachusetts in the span of.
Less than a year. I always try to highlight that.
Remember the bush Ford five period, he literally went from winning the popular vote and you know, reaffirming all these conservative things about the country to getting absolutely blown out eighteen months later in.
Public approval by going after Social Security.
Exactly, and Iraq obviously, those two things, you know, you put them two together. So I'm just always pointing out with Doge and all of this and as triumphal and all this can sound really good. Political movements and actors think strategically and in the long term. And these Doge cuts through the FAA is a perfect example of why why would you ever allow this to Why would you even give the Democrats the option of if there's another plane crash, you know they're gonna crucify you. That's what
they did with FEMA under Some Republicans said about FEMA. No, I'm talking about with the response to the North Carolina floods. Remember all of a FEMA dollars going to illegal immigrants.
That was a real thing. People in North Carolina were really bissed about that. This is the same thing. You don't want that on your head no matter what.
So can there be reform? Can there be changed? The counter to what I'm saying is like, you people are just talking heads. You guys are idiots. You don't even know what you're talking about. Never bet against elon right. These SpaceX guys, one of them is worth fifteen Maybe, I don't know.
That's where it wilsewhere we'll find out. I guess it's a great national experiment.
I'm curious for your take on the NIH cuts too, because I'm very pro actually, but I feel like this is a place where you and the people who are supportive of this our internet brained and are like, Okay, you're probably right. They're connecting NIH to like funding the lab in Wuhan, which they did, and they should be criticized for and they should actually, I think, ban all
gain and function research, just like Obama did. And then they connect NIH to COVID hysteria and lockdowns, and then from there they say, well, NIH sucks, let's let's nuke NIH. And you throw in this idea that universities are, you know, are hogs at the trough with the with the overhead that NIH is paying for, and then you convince yourself that, Okay, this is actually a good target for us. This is
a politically ripe target. When I think going after cancer research, going after medical research just period is a is a huge mistake, just on a kind of human level, because government spending on medical research is the thing that drives the advances, and then the corporations, the big farmer comes in. They swoop up the innovations, they patent them, they make
all the money off of it. That system should be changed and they should not be able to make the amount of money that they're making off it, and it should be cheaper for us. But we do want this process happening where scientific advances happen because they save lives.
Of course, I just think it's a little bit more reductive. So I mean, they're university thing. For example, Again, I grew up in University of Town. My parents work in academia. I think universities are genuinely hogs at the trough. Okay, let's look at it this way. Let's look at actual spending by public universities, all of which books are public, and look at the rise of what administrative costs. Administrative cost accounts for the vast majority of tuition increase. A
lot of this is DEI you know. And but it's not just that it's just general administrating bloat. So what the NIH thing did is what it took it from sixty nine to a cap of fifteen percent. Now I talked about this with Crystal. They're like, oh, well, some of it is all this non administrative cost. But like the base assumption within the NIH freeze in terms of what is it the administrative cost freeze comes down to you guys are not good stewards of the pack tax money.
I think that's probably basically true.
Anything, by the way, which attacks the center of gravity of university power, I'm also fine with. So I'm being very honest about where I would like to see a complete change in all university financing, which heavily relies on the government, as you said, also begs all of their alumni for money. Plus the taxpayer and student loan is
like the architecture on top of all of that. But on the public research and medical financing thing, I'm not saying it's all bad, and obviously I think it's a case by case basis, but it's one of those where
zoom out. And this is where I really just agree with, like with a lot of the RFK critique, It's okay, we've been throwing all this money at all of this for literally decades, and actually the rates of disease are increasing, and actually fundamentally we have this wrong, which is all of the money goes into creating a quote drug when ninety percent of this could probably be solved by changing lifestyle factors. That's a much bigger zoom out thing. Nothing
about the NIH will solve that today. But it's about fullhilosophy and allocation of resource fundamentally, like political economy, is the allocation of public resources to what you think is important.
And so it's about thinking it. For me, at least, if I were to create like a grand design of what I could, it would be moving dollars away from whatever, creating some drug or you know, molecule or whatever that fixed supposedly not even fixed as cancer, because that's not really how it works, as opposed to looking at the lifestyle factors, food, substy whatever that leads to this explosion in cancer over the last fifty years or so.
No, i'd love to see them address the lifestyle front. I'm skeptical that they're actually going to do that. I don't think you have to destroy the you know, you don't have to take the NH money away from universities in order to do that. And I think our university system it gets a lot of you know, legitimate criticism, but what it But it is also in many ways our crown, like it is the thing that separates us
from other countries. And you know, you never know exactly how this stuff is going to work out, you know, because my wife's going through this now. I was actually studying how it is that the diagnosis that she has would have been basically a death sentence in the year of two thousand and today is extremely treatable and will be a hopefully just a bump in the road and
go through treatment. And it was, you know, in nineteen eighty seven, the UCLA hosted a conference where a gen and tech scientists spoke and said, we've you know, I identified this hurt too protein. I'll get the language of it wrong, he said, But he said, but we don't know what on earth to do with it. And this this guy Slayman, who was at the UCLA on Collegist at the time, happened to be at the conference and he heard it. He's like, I bet that there's a
potential like cancer link there. So he gets he reaches out to the guy, gets some samples to some against the samples he got, and he discovers that, you know, all of the in all the biops he's had the hurt too, the higher the positivity, the more aggressive the cancer was, and that was the one that was killing so many women. So that he tells the genin tech person that the gen tech person goes back to his lab.
It says, who can develop an antibody for this hurt too, because if we can actually hit this hurt too target it, we could actually stop this this this cancer from being so deadly. And then genin Tech's like, yep, we're not We're not investing in cancer research anymore because it's not it's not commercially viable right now. Too many cancer drugs failed FDA and if we fail another one, forget it. So he goes around and he and this guy slam it like fights for NIH funding and other ways to
make sure that this research actually gets done. And it has revolutionized the approach to breast cancer. And now women who twenty years ago were dying from these diagnoses in their forties, thirty four fifties up, now we're now we're surviving like almost. I think that's that's huge rights And without the NIH indirect money and without the university system and like what was that conference where they met that was overhead?
Yeah, yes, right, well that's part My point is that there's definitely quote unquote justifiable expenses. I think you would probably agree with me though that by and large the way that the current system is deeply corrupt. Yes, if it's not just about NIH, it's like how many of these are funded by that?
The number of the number of administrators that they've got now is absurd.
Yes, and it hasn't stopped them talking for money right to every every alumni.
But do something about.
Like just go directly at the administration, like rather than like saying that ni H just only is going to choke it off.
I think that's a totally fair point. And by the way, it will be very politically uh.
And they're going to start taxing endowments. So maybe you're in DOWB. Maybe the tax on your endowments, I.
Will I'll eat a sock here. If you actually talks tax endowment, I would love to see it.
There's nothing I would love to see more than how about we make that trade. We'll take the endowments, we'll tax it at one hundred percent, we'll take all of that, will forgive student loans once, and then we'll get rid of the system.
And then fine, we can have as much NIH funding as we want.
We'll even take a token amount from these from Harvard's endowment tax, and we'll give it to as long an ihe.
Fund, as long as we make college free or affordable again, I don't know free down today free but back to the nineteen sixties where you can actually like afford it.
Yeah, I'm absolutely, I'm totally on board.
That's part of what I'm saying, though, is that so much of the increase in intuition costs. If you ever look go around, I highly encourage us use I use Claude, you can use chrat, GPT or any of that and peg university tuition inflation to the CPI and see how it's up there with like college textbooks and a few others from.
One of the single biggest increases in costs.
It's ludicrous, and these administrators and others are getting filthy rich off of it. Hence my general skepticism where I'm like, yeah, I don't like trust a lot of what's going on here.
But excellent point right with boot it back putt