¶ Introduction
A lot of it, fundamental principles of freedom, national self interest, and individual rights.
This is the Yuran Brook Show.
All right, everybody, welcome to you run Brook Show on this Sunday, November two. I hope everybody's having a great weekend,
¶ Yaron's travels & upcoming events
A great I had a great week. I know. I haven't seen you in a while. I have been traveling around Europe. I am now in Vienna, Vienna, Austria. Yesterday I did a great event. I just mentioned this.
Yesterday. I good a really good event.
In Oslo, probably about two hundred and fifty young people, fifteen to twenty five year olds, all.
Members of the youth organization of.
A classical liberal political party in no Way, so yeah, it was great. I talked about morality of capitalism. There is video. They did record it, so I'm hoping that at some point we'll be able to put it up online and you'll be able to see it. But although it's my standard, it's the standard raality of capitalism talk.
Not libertarians.
They're called the Progressive Party, but a progressive in no way is not far left. It's supposedly classical liberal. So yeah, I mean it was really good. It was a quick trip in and out of Oslo very very quickly. It was cold, rainy, and as you can tell, probably from my voice, I think I'm coming down with something.
So I've been coming down with something.
I've been One of the reasons I haven't done shows, it's it's just difficult, all right. Anyway, I am in Vienna. Those of you who are in central Europe, maybe Buddislav or Vienna or any of the area around here, you should come tomorrow to my event at the High Institute, the Austrian Economics Center here in Vienna.
I'm doing an event.
What am I doing an event tomorrow at five o'clock? I think on left and right, why in a sense, everybody's turning their backs to capitalism. Why they're both all of them turning their back to free market.
So it should be an event. Hopefully you guys can make it.
Some of you can make it if you're in that part of the world. All right, let's see. I know there's an iron Rand meet up here in Vienna, so
¶ Conservatism, the Alt-Right & the moral collapse of the American Right
I think some of them are coming. I don't know if they're listening live, but I think some of them are coming, and hopefully others will come as well.
All right, I want to talk about.
I want to talk about what's been going on on the right in the last few days. It's been pretty dramatic and I think very revealing, really the complete bankruptcy of many of the institutions and many of the people on the American right of conservatism. More broadly, I also say that, how do I put this nicely, I'll also say I told you so. I hate being right. Sometimes when I'm right about negative things or write about something
that is that is a negative outcome. But I've been telling you since God since twenty fifteen, since I started the show, really certainly since Donald Trump started running for president and the old right kind of came out of their out of their gravels or out of their tunnels or out of there, whatever you want to call it, and started poking around. I've told you that they would win in a sense that they would grow in power because they facial principal opposition. The Conservatives have nothing to
stand by other than their religion and tradition. And well, I mean, the tradition of many people in the history of the United States has been racism, antisemitism. So what tradition, what tradition are they going to follow? And religion. God, I mean, Christianity invented anti Semitism. Anti Semitism is primarily a product of Christianity.
So when the alt right came out.
In twenty fifteen, twenty sixteen, and it was really all over the place on Twitter and everything, everybody says, oh, it's just a small number of people. It's not that big, it's not that important, it's not that crucial. It doesn't
¶ Tucker Carlson & Nick Fuentes controversy
represent the mainstream, it doesn't represent conservatism, it doesn't represent conservative line. And it came out as anti semitic, they came out as as racist, they came out as white nationalists. And by the way, let's be very clear, white nationalism is racism. I got some really amazing comments on the video, on my video on Nick Foyintis, I mean really some pretty stunning comments in terms of what people wrote. And yeah, you know, it's hard, it's hard to it's hard for me to conceive how.
Bad people's thinking is on these issues.
But the amount of really really bad, I mean just the comments. I mean, I did it in Nick Foorentis, and you know, my assumption is that if you listen to ten minutes of Nick Foentis, you get him you figure it out, and you can see that he's a racist and he's an anti semi and now it's true.
He was in his very good behavior with Tucker, so he only said things like that he admired Stalin, Stalin Stalin on the show, he says he admires Hitler and he loves Hitler and he loves Nazis and Attakacross and he says Stalin, So he's picked the two probably the most evil political leaders in human history, who killed more people than anybody in human history. Just it just slaughtered them. Well mounts the tongue, it's probably up there with them.
And those are the people who admires. So you know, when I thought, I thought, you know that saying the Nick Foy intest was a anti semi racist, that would kind of be obvious. But it's stunning to me kind of the pushback in the comments, right, calling everyone in anto semit isn't going to do what you think it is. Yeah, I know, because it depends to who people who anto Semites.
I guess they don't get excited about that. But I'm looking for one particular comment I thought was really something else in terms of uh, you know, saying Nick Fantist is not a racist. You know, white nationalism is not is not racist?
Right?
Uh?
And why is Nick for Interest is not a racist?
All he says is he doesn't he doesn't want his uh he doesn't want his uh grandchildren to be of mixed race. Uh And and you know.
Some black people agreed with him.
This is to justify Nick for Interest And I'm like, yeah, that's that's exactly what racism is. And the fact that blacks are racist too doesn't justify you know, white racist.
Uh. But it's uh, you know he has Here's.
One Joan isn't even trying to hide that he's a leftist extremist anymore leftist extremists.
You know.
It's you know, if I criticize Nick for Interest and Tucker Carlson, I'm a leftist cree extremist. I mean, it really is stunning the number of comments I got under the Nick foro Interest video that I put out, and uh, the.
Just the horrible and disgusting it really is.
Uh. Anyway, anyway, I'm not gonna find it now.
That's fine.
We don't need it. So uh. As you know Nick Foytess because I talked about it on a previous show, Nick Foyantes was not a Corculson and they had a very respectful and lengthy two hours a discussion. And uh, you know, I've criticized that cor Coulson for years now, in particularly over the last couple of years. I think he's a complete hack. I think he's a he's he's become a raving anti Semite. He's pro putin, he believes in in. Uh, I don't know demon that that that
inflict a physical damage on him. The guy's a complete mystical anti American hack.
That's what he has become.
So he interviews for intance, so just you know, and he's already interviewed people who think Hitler wasn't that bad and who think Churchill was wisteron Hitler was really the bad guy. And you know, he's interviewed a variety of different people who've expressed just abhorrent points of view, which he has just rolled with just just he's just nodded and and he's just asking questions and he's just rolled
with it. He's also interviewed people like Ted Kruz don't particularly like, but is really good on these issues and really pushed back on them for the defense of Israel, for example, and things like that. And it's it's really
stunning to see te Kerkoffson when he's combattive. I he when he when he really challenges people in an interview and does a good job as an interview about challenging them, sometimes stupidly, like when he asked take whose how many people lived in Iran to show that he was ignorant
of Yuan shouldn't really talk about Ivon. And then he does interviews with people who just say the most awful, disgusting things and and somebody wrote in the chat and I think it's true that he's a nine to eleven truth and now he's a nine to eleven conspiracy theory guy as well.
Now him and Dave Harmon.
And when he talks to somebody who, hey, I don't think somewhat favorably about the Nazis, or somebody like Frantis who's a rabbit anti semi racist and white nationalist and h and just gives him softball question after softball question after softball question, you have to come to the conclusion that he's somewhat sympathetic views it as really really important to let these people express their point of view and get it out there on his platform, which is one
of the biggest platforms in the world right.
Anyway, you know, I criticized that.
A lot of people online criticized it, some old line conservatives criticized it. And then Kevin Roberts, Kevin Roberts, who
¶ Heritage Foundation, cancel culture & the betrayal of principle
is the CEO of the CEO of the Heritage Foundation now of the Heritage Foundation, came out with the video basically defending Tucker.
You know.
He introduces the video by saying, there's being circulation that there's been speculation that Heritage is distancing itself from Tucker corson over the past twenty four hours.
This is post interview.
I want to put that to rest right now. Here are my thoughts. And he has this two and a half minus a video.
And it's it really is horrific.
Basically says that Heritage will stand by Tucker Colson no matter what.
The taker. Carson is a.
Friend of the Heritage Foundation, and whatever he does, Heritage Foundation will stand with him. Ultimately, there is a bigger enemy out there, and that is.
I wonder if you know, do you know what the bigger enemy out there is? The left?
And that that is what it's important and given that Tucker is against the left, they will stand with him. And he goes into a whole thing about how the Heritage Foundation hates is very against anti Semitism and and fights against anti Semitism, and on and on and on, and he even says that he views and Nick for Intance's views as apporent but he thinks they need to be a they need to be platformed, they need to be spoken of. And he talks about this, you know this,
Uh what do you say? He calls it this h venomous coalition. Uh, that is that is going out, you know that that is attacking for interestin Tucker calson, I mean, who are these people exactly? Maybe Jews. It's just a horrific statement. And he starts out the whole thing by saying, look, we support Israel and so on, but we should be we should be willing to to attack and critique Israel without being anti Semitic. He declares that Christians can critique
the state of Israel without being anti Semitic. Yeah, nobody says you can't. I mean, Tucker Cousin in this case was not under fire for criticizing Israel. He was under fire for platforming an anti semi a Holocaust denier, a somebody who supports and thinks Hitler is cool and believes in white Christian nationalism White Christian nationalism. The question isn't whether one can criticize Israel or not, although Kevin Robinson
could be the out of it. The question is is it okay to platform and therefore give access to your audience of a known let's call him what he is, a Nazi. It wasn't a debate about Israel. And indeed, Nick Into his criticism of Jews goes far beyond this support or perceiving this support of Israel. He hates Jews.
And he is John.
Aren't you tired of asking the same question over and over and over again. I mean, I appreciate the super chat. Five dollars is five dollars, and I'll answer it, But this is like, I mean, clearly, this is the third or fourth time you've asked this question. Is it your attempt to get me to say the same thing over and over again and thus discredit me in front of some audience that you imagine exists out there that if they just hear my opinion on this issue, they will
walk away from me. Is that what you're trying to do? It pretty pathetic if you ask me so. Anyway, the issue is not Israel. It's not Israel for Nick Fointis, it's not Israel for Tacko Coulson. Yet Kevin Roberts wants to make it all about Israel. Roberts defends in this video Callson against quote the slander of bad actors who serve someone else's agenda. Oops, we have a problem. Why is that? Why is it doing that? Give me a second? No, is that working? I don't know why? Why is that
not working? That's work either?
Interesting?
Ah, all right, they fixed it, all right, I think this will work. We last video there for a minute. I apologize. I think that works all right. Yes, that's working. Who are these bad actors? And what is someone else's agenda? I mean that is code word for Jews serving Israel's agenda? I mean otherwise, name the actors and who's someone else's agenda?
Again?
The issue here is should somebody who the Heritage Foundation supports, supposedly even supports financially. Supposedly The Heritage Foundation buys advertising on the techer Calson Show. Now advertising on my show sponsorship. My show is pretty cheap on Techo costs in a cost seventy five thousand dollars per ad, I guess. And they've done a lot of ads, so they're spending a lot of money, a lot of donor money on advertising. That's supporting Tucker Calson and Teker Colson is platforming this,
you know, horrific monstrosity called Nick Frantis. Is this a good use of heritage money? The fact that he is supporting Techer Cosson. No matter what, facing a cancel culture, the whole cancel culture is. It's a package deal. It's a meaningless concept in terms of actionable right. Some people should be canceled, some people should not. The complaints about cancer culture when it came to the left were not about the principle of that it's okay to not platform
certain people, it's okay not to platform certain people. We shouldn't platform people who are evil, but that people were being canceled for innocent things that they said. People were being canceled for saying the truth, or at least things that were within the mainstream weren't crazy. Being a white nationalist, being an anti Semite is really really really really really.
Good reason to cancel somebody. Anti Semites.
And white nationalists and racists more broadly should be canceled. They should be de platformed, They should not be given a platform despout they hatred their lives. So now I want to give you a context for this, So let me Yeah, I mean, of course, this is his explanation. American people expect us to be focused on our political adversary on the left, not attacking our friends on the right. Wait a minute, So Tucker Calson is a friend on the right, Tucker Calson who has.
Spent months.
Attacking Israel and Jews, not the left, but Israel and Jews. He's your friend on the right, Tucker Calson, the platforms is Nick Fourentis and Ian Carroll and all kinds of other uh, you know, horrible despicable anti Americans.
He's your friend.
Uh.
Tucker Colson, by the way, who.
Joined the interview with Nick fisc went in a whole monologue about the worst people in the world are the zion Christians and attack people like Mike Cocabe and Ted Cruz, who are part of the right, I think, and generally evangelical Christians who support Israel, who.
Tend to be in the coalition on the right.
I think he doesn't spend anywhere yeah, as much time attacking the left, and yet he is your friend on the right, in the coalition to attack the left. Now, I want to give you some context. Right, The Heritage Foundation, you know, has been historically the bastion of conservatism. The Heritage Foundation is one of the first think tanks that was founded, and it has been the policy shop for conservative presidents for.
Decades and decades.
I think the founder of the Heritage Foundation, the people who founded it, would be I mean, one of them at least just passed away over the last couple of years. I got to meet him and spend a lot of time with him a few years ago. I think would be horrified by Kevin Roberts and what he said. I think would be horrified by Tucker Carlson, would be horrified, certainly horrified Bennik Foyantis. Now they were not from my perspective,
good guys. The Heritage Foundation was very much established on a foundation of Christianity, on the foundation of religion as the basis for America. Heritage Foundation was always compromised when it came to free market, but it employed a lot of people who were pretty good, pretty good on farm POLSI, pretty good on economics. There was some free marketers at the Heritage Foundation. He trundition I think lost its way. Really from the beginning, it stood for nothing because it stood on the.
Foundation of mysticism.
If you stand on the foundation of mysticism, you're not going anywhere, and you can defend yourself. Ultimately, you can defend yourself against the Nippoynticis of the world. Christianity is not a foundation to defend America, to defend reason, to defend individual rights. So ultimately it's not that hard to be captured by the Tucker cousins of the world. In spite of that, I think the founders would be horrified
by Kevin Roberts and what he said. The Heritage Foundation took a real turn when it basically became an institution that became part of America, first, became part of Trump's supported Trump unequivocally. It became it was always anti immigration, but became even more so became anti capitalism.
The free marketers who worked at Heritage.
Left, and this bastion of conservatism basically became the bastion of trump Ism, bastion of MAGA, and as deteriorated sense. And of course I think part of that is well now it's now it's so committed to MAGA that it's willing to tolerate and willing to platform and willing to support people who platform the worst vile, racist, anti semites that they are out there. How much Trundation is huge. Its budget is I think one hundred million dollars a
year used to be. I mean, we're talking about an institution that raises It's a nonprofit organization that raises tens of millions of dollars every year. I wonder what fundraising is like right now. Because there's been a big backlash against this, as you can imagine from those, you know, Christian evangelicals who are supporters of Israel, Ted Cruz, Mitch McConnell in the Senate have come out strongly to denounce Kevin Roberts. Some employees at Heritage have said they find
Kevin Roberts's statement horrific. Former employees of Heritage have come out and denounced Kevin roberts statement. I mean, even in itsimate communication.
Kevin Roberts is that have leaked.
Kevin Roberts is trying to defend his position and refuses to acknowledge the issue, which is the continued partnership of Heritage with Tucker calls a Stucco, calls was anti American propaganda from Putin, from Qatara, from Iran, makes fun of Christians who are from Israel's right to exist slanders Israel and platforms Nazis and supporters of Nazism, and Heritage Foundation continues the partnership with him and Kevin Roberts just ignores it,
ignores all of that, pretends it doesn't exist. One wonders,
¶ Internal conflict & anti-Semitism at Heritage
what does Tuck I have on Kevin or you know how many people on the Board of Heritage, the new board of Heritage are now, you know, part of that world, that world of you know, anti Semitism, that world of anti Americanism. Supposely there's a staff rebellion. I don't know if there is at the Heritage Foundation. People are resigning, people are threatening to resign. The rumors there's a board meeting yesterday that by a small margin allowed Roberts to
maintain his job, keep his job. But it's not clear on the other hand, you know staff at the Heritage Fundation or senior people the Heritage Foundation come out and said nonsense, there was no board yesterday. There was no board yesterday. Although a lot of people are calling for his dismissal, his aid chief of staff, who actually wrote the text that he read on the video, his comments and Tucker Carlson and for intance, he is being demoted
and he's been replaced the chief of staff. So Kevin is blaming him, I guess for the comments that he made. The video was still up. He hasn't taken it down. But there seems to be a rebellion insight Heritage. There seems to be objections to this. This is really shaking up the conservative movement to the extent that there is a conservative movement. Yeah, the chief of staff was reassigned, reassigned, and Kevin Roberts came out with an email announcing announcing this.
Yeah.
I mean, the reality is that Heritage is subsidizing Tucker Calson. And it's not just it's not just this latest of interviewing frantis, what about the Carol interview? What about his support for putin Heritage used to have a pro American foreign policy. I guess not anymore. Its relationship with Taker Culson is more important, or maybe Heritage is onto something.
Heritage realizes that the right its support is I've moved on from the kind of old line conservatism which supported America, the funding Fathers, the Constitution, somewhat free markets and things like that. Even those they're willing to give up. Now it's much more in line with supporting Putin or you know, a star Coacosa said the other day, Shariello is not that bad supporting Katar over supporting Israel. That's a there's a there's a.
Uh, you know, Kata Kata versus Israel. Who should you support?
That's a tough one. Huh. So it's going to be really interesting to see how this shakes up. You know, the Heritage Foundation is part of some kind of consodium around anti Semitism. Well, some of the other members of that consodium are leaving saying they will not participate together that with Heritage around antisemitism when Heritage supports you know, raving anti Semite in Taco Cassa.
So this is this is going to be interesting.
Right, the right, without any doubt now is becoming antisemitic and racist. It's Charlottesville one. So we go back to when when was Charlottesville twenty eighteen, twenty seventeen, twenty eighteen. Well,
¶ JD Vance on Israel & the Christian Right's hypocrisy
Charlotte are the people at Charlotteville one the Altright is winning. They are basically the most energized, most consistent, most principled force on the right. They couch their anti Semitism as being anti Israel. But here's an example. Let me see if I can find this.
This is a question that jd Vance was asked.
Jd Vance was doing a turning point, a kind of a Q and A at the University Mississippi. Right, this is the kind of Q and as that Charlie Coke did. Anyway, jd Vance was stepped in to play Charlie Coke for this, and so he was there of field questions for students for nearly an hour.
It's just great good for him.
Every vice president should do this, and you can see, you can see their true character when they do this. And a student stepped up and said the following, I'm a Christian man, and I'm just confused why there's this notion that we might owe Israel something, or that they are are greatest ally or that we have to support this multi hundred billion dollar found aid package to Israel multi hundred billion dollar following pages or we'll get to
that in a minute. I'm just confused why this idea has come around concerning the fact that not only does they religion not agree with ours, but also openly supports the prosecution of ours. So Jews openly support the prosecution of Christians. So you can see here how the anti Semitism Jews support the openly support the prosecution of Christians, which is complete bs is buried under the lead, Well, why are we supporting Israel?
Why should we support Israel? What's the point of supporting Israel?
Which is how they constantly hide their ane to Semitism. I mean, this is a question fundamentally attacking Jews and Judaism or whatever right and using Israel as an excuse for that. And what does JD. Van's response? He says, you know, America First doesn't mean abandoning alliances but leverage
them for US gains. So just because what America first doesn't mean we shouldn't have allies, you know, he points out that the United States, it is not a patsy of Israels and the Trump has used this leverage over Israel to achieve a Gauza sease fire. He uh, you know, he thought that it was okay for Christians and Jews to collaborate, and.
He never said anything about the fact that Jews.
Do not promote the prosecute, persecution and prosecution of Christians. He never addressed underlying anti Semitism. He let it just stay, and he is not. He's not confronting it, and he knows he can't confront it because if he does confront it, he loses. He loses the Nick Foy Intis crowd, which is now hundreds of thousands, if not millions strong, and he needs them if he wants to run for president.
He needs them, all right, fuck?
I mean otherwise named the actors and who's someone else? Agen Again, the issue here is should somebody who the Heritage Foundations supports advertising that's supporting Tucker Carson?
Alright, one second, we're looking to see where the stream is. If there is a stream, God, when is it offline?
All right?
Sorry, those of you on podcasts, give me just a little bit to see if I can re engage the stream on YouTube. One second, let's see h h h H.
All right, everybody. Uh, I am back.
I Uh god, I probably spoke for ten minutes without even realizing that it was frozen and uh we had dropped.
Uh and no, no.
I've got an eck cancel that. I apologize for that. The the I don't know, hotel WiFi. We didn't pray enough for the hotel WiFi gods to help us here.
So I'm not sure where it ended.
But let me, let me, let me make a wider point. I mean, the reality is the reality is that. And I and by the way, I have captured all your super chats, so we will we can and will cover all the super chats. I uh, let me just make sure that I.
Right.
So we will capture all the sup We have captured all the super chats, so we think should be fine. All right, So I apologize for the job. But you know, it's the hotel. Whatever the hotel did, this is what it is. It ended when the Heritage Fundation sponsored Tucker.
The Heritage FUNDI sponsor to Tuca, as I said, for for in spite of the fact that Tucker platforms for interest, but more than that, inspite of the fact that Tucker is supportive of Putin you know, it gives us Katari talking points, is anti American in so many ways, has abandoned any respect for for for freedom, free markets, anything like that.
Colton has become a joke, a crazy, nutty joke.
¶ National Conservatism & the rise of hatred on the Right
He's expressed anti Semitic, explicit anti semitic views himself. In addition to and in addition to what to platform unique pointers, Tucker Cosson has become an embarrassment, and yet Heritage Foundation sponsors his show through advertising it. Of course, has now declared explicitly that he is one of them, that he is their friend, that he will always be part of the coalition as they fight the left.
But here's the thing that's you know.
Really really important and important to note. The right does not have the tools to stand up just like the left does not have the tools to stand up to their extreme manifestations, if you will. They do not have the tools to stand up to the racist and anti Semites.
They do not have the tools to.
Stand up to the white nationalists or the white or the national the Christian Conservatives. Indeed, one of the great, one of the great, one of the sad things that's going to come out of the national conservative movement is that the National Conservative movement was the large extent founded by an Israeli, a Jew, a conservative Jew, a Yamica wearing conservative Jew.
But then Razoni who have debated.
And that the National Conservative movement is going to be a breeding ground for ultimately Christian Conservatives and ultimately anti
semit conservatives. That is, a national conservative movement founded by an Israeli Jew is going to be a place where they where Ultimately the worst enemies of Israel and the worst enemies of Jews are going to be prevalent now of the right, not the left obviously, but still, I mean, if the world takes seriously the national conservative agenda, you will get these nationalists and nationalist governments that ultimately will turn against the Jews because the Jews don't belong in those nations.
According to them.
They have no tool to stand up against them. Once they've accepted Once your own Marazzoni has accepted collectivism, has accepted tribalism, well he doesn't get to choose which collective wins, which tribe wins, and what the attitude of that tribe is towards his own tribe, Jewish tribe. Tribalism. Once tribalism accepted. You've accepted irrationality. Once tribalism has been accepted, you've accepted
the negation of freedom. And the conservatives Heritage Foundation, certainly because of because of the Heritage Foundation, you know, has joined the tribe around Mega and around Trump. It has nothing original, nothing interesting, nothing of value to really say.
So what is the defense of regular.
Conservatives, of of of of the current conservative movement against Nick Foyants? And just to be clear, you know, I've now watched a bunch of Nick Cooins videos. I find it really weird that any of you find him entertaining or worthwhile or willing to watch any of his stuff. He is a slimy monster. He you know, he could, he could. He has the kind of view that made Hitler Hitler. He's a Nazi, and yet people tolerate him,
people pursue him. Now, It's true some people are pushing back against Nick foy inters and te Carcasson, but they have no leg to stand up. What is the argument against Oh, they'll call him an anti semi, but they can't defend individualism. They can't talk about what this country is really about, what this country actually stands for. I mean here we have somebody here, you know, nine people, million people of Israel are the most important thing to
America and Americanism in Yuron's mind. When have I ever said anything that resembles that I've done whole shows on what America is and Americanism without mentioning Israel once. Israel's not important when it comes to discussing the future of America. What's important is America. It's founding principles they're founding for others. What's important is the Declaration of Independence. They give amen
a created equal endowed with inalienable rights. The only reason I talk a lot about Israel is because it's in the news. I mean, Trump talks about Israel all the time. Is that because Israel matters to him more than anything else. Right, I don't need this guy's lying, all right? So there is no there's no basis for them to defend against m These white nationalists, these fascists, they have no basis to do it because they don't understand the foundation on
which this country is built. They cannot talk about individual rights, they cannot talk about individualism. They certainly do not talk about capitalism. I mean, there was an interesting exchange the other Day by J D. E Van's Jad Evans was
¶ The GOP's "Groyperfication"
filling in for Charlie Cook at a Turning Point USA. He gets asked the turning Point USA event, he gets asked the question, here's the question. I'm a Christian man. Notice how this is always the case. This is the case with war Beef who is.
Making comments on the chat.
They argue that it's all about Israel, but really what drives it as hatred of Jews, anti Amotism. So here's what this young person says. I'm a Christian, Matt, and I'm just confused why there's the notion that we might owe Israel something, or that there are greatest ally or that we have to support this multi hundred billion dollar foreign a package to Israel. We'll talk about that in
a minute. I'm just confused why this idea has come around, considering the fact that not only does their religion not agree with ours, but also openly supports the prosecution of ours, openly supports the prosecution of Christians. Where is that? Where is this openly supporting that? Is there any evidence of that? I mean, clearly antisemitic, clearly driven by hatred of the Jews and a claim about their religion. Does Stucker Callson
confront sorry, jd Vance confront that. No, he goes into a whole spiel about we're not beholding to Israel and America first, doesn't mean we don't have alliances and Israel.
Sometimes he's an ally and sometimes not, and that.
Trump really twisted Nintoniello's arm in order to get this peace deal.
So Israel does what we tell it to do, and.
You know, and then he argued that there are theological difference between Christian and Jews, but they don't preclude collaboration here and there on matters of common concern. Nothing about Jews persecuting Christians, which is just a fantasy. And you know, he doesn't want to piss off people. I mean, he doesn't want to piss off Nick Foynter's supporters. That's what's driving him, the need to keep them part of the coalition so that he can get the nomination next time
and they support him. I mean jd Vance can't talk against them. I mean, he can't even defend his wife. Indeed, I think in the same Q and A or maybe it was in another place, I'm not sure. He says that he's hoping that his wife who's Hindu. I think she's Hindu, converts to Christianity because Nick Foentis on a
regular basis on the show, goes after JD. Vance and says that Jadvans is married to a brown woman and that's not acceptable and he can never be allowed to be president of the United States because his wife is not white and she's not a Christian.
So JD.
Vance against wants their peace. Who does he want at peace? He wants to peace. The worst element that Nick Foentis and his gropers by telling them, oh, no, no, no, she's going to become a Christian. Don't worry, she's going to convert. I mean, basically, Maga relies now on Goiper's and more and more the Conservative Party, more and more the Republican Party is going to rely on Nick Foyantes and is going to be accommodating of Nick Foyenttis's views.
Remember the German Conservatives really pushed back against Hitler for a while, and they accepted Hitler. They thought he was a joke, they thought he was repulsive, they thought he was awful.
They really opposed him.
But it was a marriage of comedy convenience, and they supported him. Out of convenience. You remember why, because they had a common enemy. Oh what was the common enemy with conservatives? And then and and Hitler was the common hem Oh.
Yes, the left. And of course once they let him in, he had the energy behind him.
He had young people behind him, he had millions of followers behind him, he had people who'd marunch in the streets for him, and soon enough he controlled it. So I mean, I think the real fear here is basically the complete takeover of the Republican Party by the Nick for Inticis of the world. That the Conservatives and the Republican Party are going to become a party of Christian Conservatives, white Christian Conservatives, racists and anti Semites and wrapped around
religion and wrapped around a flag. Of course, Nick Fointis makes his case constantly about it's all about America. First, he attacks Jews for having dual alliances, because he claims that Jews all have dual citizenship. Very few Jews have actual dual citizenship, and lots of people have dual citizenships.
Brits have dual citizenship.
Europeans have many more dual citizenship than Jews do than Israelis, and yet it's only the Israelis, the Jews dual citizenship that there's a problem. So I don't know. I don't know what comes of this country. I don't know what comes of the Republican Party. We have now the Democratic Party uh running an anti Semitic uh is Islamist socialist mayor for New York. And we have the Republican Party probably running a a uh you know, anti Semitic Christian Christian nationalist for for for.
Presidents next time in JD. Evans.
And we have the Heritage Foundation, the bastion of old line conservatism, basically or not basically just endorsing Tucker Carlson, who then platforms and and in his silence and his lack of opposition, endorses the worst kind of Nazi supporter in Nick Foents. By the way, this one's kind of funny, but Nick Foyents has recently, uh you know, come out in favor of Gavin Newsom. In he said, if there was just to give you a sense of this, if
there was an election between Gavin Newsom and JD. Vance, he and the Gropers who would support Gavin Newsom because Gavin Newsom is white, his wife is white, his kids are white, and JD. Van says, a brown wife and brown kids, and that's not acceptable. That can't be in the White House. So they're willing to support a leftist just in name of their name, of their.
Racism.
I think Richard Hanani is right. He says the total grop pification of the GOP is nearing its completion. You saw the emails, the text messages of the young Republicans spouting Nick foyentis like views when talking among themselves.
Why is this happening?
I mean again, because I think old line Republican ideas kind of went bankrupt with Bush.
They went nowhere.
They were unprinciple, they were completely pragmatic. Trump opened up this opportunity for the goypers, for racists by declaring so called America first and then kind of winking and you know, and the good people on both sides, kind of attitude towards the worst elements among his supporters and being embraced by MAGA, which turned into a conspiracy theory, crazy nutty. You know. I won't call it an ideology because it's not really an ideology. Trump is legitimized they alt right.
He's legitimized the race is right. He's legitimized all of them. If somebody like Trump with his character can be supported
by conservatives, think about that. I mean, conservatives supporting a philandering, you know, just a horrible, lying human being, somebody who's you know, by conservatives stand has been divorced or three times, had many affairs, talked about grabbing women by there and all of that, and conservatives are just yeah, okay, Christian Conservatives are just like, yeah, fine, we're electing this guy.
They've opened up the door to anybody.
They've opened up the door, you know, Trump by the Conservatives now willing to tolerate anything as long as they beat the left. They supported Trump because he could beat the left. And Nick foytis nick foyintis is anti left, at least they think he is. I'm not sure about this. Gevin knew some stuff. But Trump has opened up the door. The supporters of Trump had opened up the door. His wink win, everything is okay, don't worry about the racism.
Has opened up the door.
Charlottesville opened up the door to the worst elements on the right dominating the Republican Party.
And that's what you're seeing.
You're seeing the slow domination of the Republican Party.
They control it.
Their hatred of immigrants is now manifest on the streets with ice.
The hatred of Jews.
Is manifest every week on Tucker Carlson Show. Remember Charlotteville was the as they marched.
It was Jews.
Jews will not replace us, Jews will not replace us. And yes, Trump did say something out of half, you know, something about the neo Nazis, the horrible.
New Nazis out there. But he also said the good people on both sides, which if if.
You're not if you're still confused about I did a whole show on it, so find my show on Charlotteville and watch it where I analyze line by line the entire speech by Trump, including his condemnation and including his the nice people. You know, this is this is what has led open up the door to these types. And again there's no defense, there's nothing conservatives can say to defend themselves against this. On the right, they've always been
a little racist. Now they're full on racists on the right. They've never really completely trusted the Jews. Now the full on anti semitic on the right. They've never embraced capitalism. Now they're full on statists.
On the right.
They've always endorsed a little bit of Christianity in politics.
Now they're full on Christian Christian nationalists.
As I Ran said, when you compromise with evil, only evil gains, only evil wins. And creating a coalition in bringing racist anti Semites into the tent, only they can win, only they can win.
And they're winning.
They are winning, There's no question about that. There's the voices I see standing up against you know, against this, uh, you know old Lincoln's servatives that a losing losing the big battle. You know, Taker Colson has many many more followers than they Inde Nick Foindess probably has more followers than I don't know, Michael Levin or David Hassani or some of these others. David Assani writes Vance's answers yesterday
were despicable. I'm not sure why Jews appraising him. He let a questionnaire, questionnaires vile smear against American Jews go completely unchallenged, only assuring him that Trump didn't let Israel pull pull the US into a world war, as if that's what it wanted. Imagine some dopey kid going off on how the Pope secretly pays off all US politicians to create open border policies and illegal invasions, and then the Vice President tells him not to worry. The President
has dashed the Pope's plan. Vanceys Tucker's boy, and everyone understands it, which is why so many of these people won't criticize Tucker. Yep, it's it's pretty bleak. I want
¶ Misconceptions about U.S. aid to Israel
to say one thing about this kid's accusation. And you see them for intus, and you see it in Tucker Colson that the US gives is so much money. So let's look at the facts, right, Let's look at the actual facts. The US provides as were worth about three point eight billion dollars in military aid each year, zero economic aid. It used to be thirty years ago that the US gave Israel economic aid. It gives it no
economic aid. Three point eight billion in military aid. Around three point three of that billion three point eight is in grants that have to the only way they can use them is to purchase US US weapons, So all that money comes right back to American manufacturers of weapons systems. And another five hundred million is in corporation on missile
defense programs. You know the various shields that Israel has, which of course the United States benefits enormously from as it is trying to develop its own missile defense program. It's sharing all the information that Israel has on its experiences with missile defense systems. Now, this is a significant amount. Three pointy billion dollars is nothing to sneeze at. It's just under five percent of total US aid budget military plus economic, and itso point zero six percent of the
total federal budget. It's not hundreds of billions of dollars, which is what the kid claimed and JD. Vans never corrected.
The US.
Just to give your context, the US gives the United Nations fourteen to sixteen billion dollars a year. The United Nations, which is horrifically anti American, gets fourteen to sixteen billion. Israel gets zo point eight. Now, again, the three point three billion is all spent on purchasing American equipment. American equipment. Then Israel uses like F thirty fives. Israel not only users F thirty fives, but it actually makes changes to
their thirty fives. It adjusts the F thirty five to its own needs, and then it uses their thirty fives.
It puts them into combat.
According to I think it's Lockheed Martin that builds the f thirty fives or north of north of I can't remember which one. According to them, the benefit that they get from the fact that Israel uses this plain on a regular basis, it is worth tens of billions of dollars of research and development that they do not have to do because Israel is actually doing it in practice and giving them the data the information.
On top of.
That, Israel provides the United States with massive intelligence intelligence about terrorist organizations, about Islamist activities, about other countries in the Middle East that the United.
States isn't interesting.
Various Year's officials have estimated that America, in order to replicate what Israel provides them in terms of intelligence, would have to spend between fifteen to twenty billion dollars a year. So the United States gets back much, much, much, much more than it gives Israel. It's not even close. And yet they keep popping on this. This is the thing that bothers them, which a clear indication that something else
is driving this. It's not Israel that really bugs them. Now, let me be very clear, I don't think the United States should give Israel anything. I think Israel would continue to shame intelligence. And I think Israel could afford this three point eight billion. Maybe it's you know, the five hundred million that is co development of the missile defense system. That makes sense, but the three point three billion, the United States should stop giving Israel. Israel doesn't need it.
It's a rich country and it should get richer. It needs to get richer. Its own self defense requires it to get richer. But it all should stop giving. I mean, you should stop giving Israel aid. Maybe, you know, hopefully Israel continues to give the intelligence, but more importantly, it will stop being a leverage that the United States can use in Israel. It'll stop being leveraged that anti Semites can use against Israel. You know, I think give Israel
a freer hand to determine its own affairs. And I don't believe that America should be handing out money to countries. There's absolutely no reason I think the United State should stop supporting Egypt and Jordan and all the other countries in the Middle East that it sends dollars to more than it sends to Israel, and it gets very little in return for that money, but it's a drop in a bucket, and America gets a big return on that investment.
I think it would get a lot of that anyway, because Israel will continue to buy F thirty five, continue to give the manufacture the information they need, I think, will continue to provide the United States with the intelligence support. But let's just get rid of this issue. But basically the United States stopping to support financially these rate lyings,
there's just it's not necessary. How is it going to get into giving you some quotes from Nick Foyentis, but really, you know it's unnecessary and frantis it talks about Jews being demons that are destroying this country. He advocates killing them all, at least the Jews that are demons. Maybe the Jews that are not demons don't need to be killed. It's not clear. He he thinks Hitler is awesome, that
Hitler was right, that the Holocaust never happened. I'm not sure what Hitler is right about if the Holocaust never happened. Because Nick Foyentis agrees that a Holocaust.
Should happen, he wants to kill them.
Now. I mean, this is scum, This is scum. If they have the was come, this is scum. He says. Quote, when we take power, the Jews will be needed to be given the death penalty. I'm formal considered about that than non white people. So say he hates Jews more than he hates black people. In other words, anyway, the idea that you would give this person a stage, that you would introduce him to his audience, that you would
not challenge everything that he says. The idea that Tucker Carlson is embraced by people like like the Avitage Foundation.
Is this despicable.
One last thing I want to say again in the way that Trump supports all this and is supportive of the whole kind of racist, white nationalist agenda. Whether he himself is a racist or not, I do not know, but you know, we know the Miller is even though Miller is Jewish, I guess, but he's supportive of all this. The United States declared at the end of last week that it was restricting them out of asylum seekers to the United States the seven five hundred.
Now I'm supportive of that.
I don't think the basis for coming to the United States should be seeking asylum, and I think the basis should be can you get a job?
But here's the thing.
The one group that the Trump administration explicitly has said a welcome as asylum seekers. The one group that they're encouraging to come to the United States as asylum seekers. One group white South Africans of Afrikaners descent. So we don't want brown people being persecuted by the Venezuelan government, we don't want brown people being persecuted by the communist regime in Cuba. We don't want white people escaping gangs
in Guatemala or other places in Latin America. And we don't want black people escaping violence in most of the countries of Africa. We want white people in Africa who supposedly are being being persecuted in South Africa. Whether they are they're not, it's not the point. It's we only want white people. That is the one group the asylum
that we're happy to grant asylum to. And so most of seventy five hundred that have now been approved for asylum, most of them are going to be South Africans Africanas. Now it's not clear, it's not clear they're going to be that many. That many Africanis want to leave South Africa. But that's the one group that he's opened up. If that's not just again appeasing the white nationalists, appeasing the racists,
appeasing the worst limits within the Republican Party. I don't know what is by the way, just to give you a sense, last year, the number of asylum seekers the war proved or the ceiling was one hundred and twenty five thousands. They've gone one hundred twenty five thousand to seventy five hundred. That's a pretty big drop, which is fine by me if they open up immigration from other sources, which they won't. But it's the racist aspect of it,
and it's clearly racist. There's no other justification for singling out white South Africans. Well, you know, somebody system surprises, not Katari's what Kataries are not running away from anything right there. The regime is super nice and super friendly and that's what they want. So I support limiting refugees and but else to support expanding work related visas, which the Trump administration will not do.
And I all support limiting the refugees.
The white dudes, I know there's open talk of racial hatred among certain people in the South African government believe me.
I know.
I mean, I have quite a few family members in South Africa and they have the same skin color as I do. So I know exactly what's going on in South Africa, and I care about what's going on in South Africa, and I worry about what's going on.
In South Africa.
And by the way, the South Africans get a lot of money from Kato, and that is why they're so wanta Israel and why they're the ones who brought prosecution and the ICC against Israel for for it's the Katari money is influence beyond the fact that they're leftists and haters of Israel. Above and beyond that. Oh, old Greg says, I'm not very are you well informed? Please tell me what I'm not well informed? What I'm not well informed about?
All right?
Old Greg says we should not be a nation that hosts ideological enemies. I agree, Nick Foyanti should be deported immediately. So Shia Taka Carlson, he's our ideological enemy, so let's get rid of him. I mean, I'm kidding, but you know, because I don't think and I don't think that's what Greg meant he's thus accusing me of misquoting. Uhis I paraphrased? But I've watched the Nick foy iNTS videos and no, it's very accurate. Nick Frantis is anti American. He is thoroughly, systematically,
through and through anti American. He is as anti American as mum Danis. They are twin brothers in a sense in their anti Americanism. He is as anti American as the worst leftist. And he is the kind of person that the funding fathers and really the people who built this country would find abhorrent and despicable.
And he is.
He is again, he's anti American. He's not America first, He's America last. And as most of the people who declare themselves America first, they don't understand what America is. They have no conception of Americanism. They have no conception of what America stands for. America is the land of individualism. Nick Foytis is a through and through collectivist tribalists. And if you don't see that, then you don't have. You can't think you've you've you've become uh part of the tribe.
And they folk can't think, God, you guys are such some of you just.
Ah, it's hard to believe, you know, this is the thing. Maybe maybe I get.
A a biased kind of in terms of people who who follow me, but maybe it's because of the title had four intercendent. But the people in my chat are so horrific and an expend some of them the extent that they are representative of what's going on in America.
It is really horrifying.
Now, again, it's probably not representative of what's going on a lot of in most of America, but.
Uh, it is. It is truly truly horrific.
Thomas Jefferson is rolling in his grave thinking about, you know, if he has any access to what is going on right now. So, yes, frentis as anti American Tucker Colson's anti American. They have no conception of what America means, what America is. And the idea, the idea that the Founders would have supported a anti Semite. You should you
¶ Founders & the principle of church-state separation
should read, you know, George Washington's letter to the Jewish community of Charleston.
I think it was.
You should you should look at what Thomas Jefferson had to say about separation of state from religion.
You should you should.
Read what they had to say about individual individual rights. This country was proposely not founded as a Christian country. This is a country founded on secular values. This is a country founded by deists, and it's some cases atheists man of principle, not scumbags like Nick Foy. Inter's all right, let's uh, all right, let's turn to your questions. We
have quite a few, Thank you guys. You guys are being very generous today, and there are a lot of questions, so we will cover them all as long as the Wi Fi gods Wi Fi gods play along. All right, Let's start with I thought I saw one hundred dollars question. Yeah, there's one hundred dollars question. Got a bunch of fifty dollar questions, Thank you guys. All right, let's start with dum, where is it Michael? Who has one hundred dollars question?
All right, America is not founded on Christian values, has founded in Enlightenment values.
Has founded on values that.
Relegated Christianity, relegated religion to your personal realm and keep it out of the public square and keep it out of government again. Read Thomas Jefferson. Read you know, read the Statute on Religious Liberty and in the Virginia Constitution. You guys who claim to be America first, should learn a little bit about America and not from Christian national sources that pervert and distort the founders and make them into what they would like them to be. But read
the originals, Read the Federalist papers. Read Thomas Jefferson, you know, look at what he read and what he studied. Look at even John Adams. Look at who they respected, look at what they believed in, look at what they.
Stood for, and they.
All right, Michael, thank you for one hundred dollars. Forty percent of Trump's time is spent scheming for government manipulation control to help his family business. Forty percent is spent fixing problems he created. The remaining twenty percent is mostly spent running around trying to garne a praise and attention from others to fill his empty ego.
I don't think he.
Has to actually spend forty percent of his time to manipulate things for his family business. I think that only takes a small amount of his time. It's generated over three billion dollars of profits for his family. So he is by far the most corrupt president in American in American history, and so you know he is. I don't think he has to spend forty percent of the time. It's true that he spends a huge amount of time
fixing problems. He's creating and creating more problems by fixing them, so he's not really fixing them.
He's just creating a whole sequence of.
Problems on top of problems, on top of problems. You know, we just got a trade deal with China. As I told you beforehand that it wasn't a deal. It's not a deal. It's just an outline of a deal, and it's a truth. It's a cease fire for a year. It doesn't give the United States anything that it didn't already have. The United States benefits zero from this deal. The United States was much better off visa vias relationship with China before Trump started this whole trade war. The
United States is clearly losing the trade war. Every time Trump meets with she, he gives in, he gives she more stuff. So, yes, he spends a lot of it, and all of it, including that is there to gone a attention and praise. You know, he spends much of his time claiming to have established the only piece in the Middle East in three thousand years and then preventing as well from actually destroying its enemies and.
Holding them back. It really is, it really is.
I mean, he really is pathetic. He really is pathetic. But yes, Michael, thank you for the support. Really really really appreciate it. On top of everything else that you do.
I see that.
Let's see, we have a robust debate going on in my chat about jay Daiya is a complete rationalist, detach from reality. You know, the idea that he won the debate is absurd when he completely distorts and perverts the concepts that he uses and refuses refuses to accept any epistemology but his distorted epistemology. So a debate with him is impossible because he wants to set all the terms. But anyway, you know, I'm getting ignored the chat Iron Maycut.
It was fund seeing you in Krakou. Yes, met some awesome people at the bar Ps Gaza de la Nada. Yeah, I was still working on that. Yeah, it was good to see you on Maycut. Thank you for being there, Thank you for all your support. We had a great event in Krakou about thirty five students at the University there,
it was awesome morality of capitalism. In between, I spoke at the Feet Cities conference in Prague, had about one hundred people in the audience, maybe more, maybe one fifty, and I talked about did I what did I talk about there? White freedom? White freedom? Why you should care about freedom? And what's the purpose of freedom? Freedom is not an end in itself. Freedom is a means to an end and what is that end? Talked about self interest and talked about happiness and it was good. It
pissed off a bunch of people. Dave, good to see you, Dave, thank you for the support. Dave says, I love I've loved for Cormo. Today. In my area there are many Mamdani campaigners. I chatted with some and they're non nihilistic like Antifa or ideological Marxist.
They're idealists. Most of high income earners.
Yes, that's what I suspect, with advanced degrees, that's what I suspected, the delusional about how to achieve human flourishing. But they're the type of crowd more likely to be a sponsors to objectivism then the fascist boots and the right.
I agree.
I think that's right. They're typically software engineers or professionals. They make a lot of money. A lot of them live in Brooklyn, I know where you talk to them, but Mamdani has a lot of support in the wealthy areas of Bookland where these professionals live.
And they are they're delusional.
They be miseducated, dramatically miseducated since they were in kindergarten. They don't understand capitalism, it's benefits. They have this, you know, naive but also evasive view because they purposefully don't look
at it too carefully of socialism. And they don't like Israel because they buy all the images of bombing babies, and they have this vague notion that Israel has done something hoppable to the Palestinians and Israel as strong after all, something must be wrong, you know, they must have not something bad to be strong. They bought, They bought into some extent or another. They bought into the intersectionality argument. They're altruists because that's all they've known, all they've known
throughout their life is altruism. So yeah, I agree with you. They're not nihilists per se. The consequence of what they're doing is nihilism and they are evasive. They do evade in order to be able to vote for money. They have to evade a huge amount not to have a jolgorithm. Many on the left, however, wrong philosophically, still operate within the framework of the Constitution. They act through laws and institutions rather than by personal decree, which makes them substantially
less dangerous than the New Right. Yeah, I agree completely. It's one of my arguments about voting for Trump, particularly the second time, when it was clear that he was going to be guided by the New Right, that he was going to surround himself by the new Right, and that he was dedicated to himself to breaking the system, a system that he hates and despises. He has no respect for the Constitution and he wants.
To break it.
And yes, at least the left will do a lot of damage. But the left does damage within parameters that are easily reversible because they do it within the parameters of the law and the Constitution. They're not quite ready to declare the Constitution irrelevant as Trump is. That makes them, i think, less dangerous, even if in a short run very very damaging.
Not your average algorithm. If we fail to distinguish routine.
¶ Rule of law vs. rule by whim
People who follow the rule of law and people who seek to rule by whim, you've already surrendered the ground of principle. I agree.
I don't believe you can defend Trump.
And still label yourself an objectivist at this point, you know, it depends how you defend it. Trump again, I have some I have some tolerance. I have some understanding of people in business who voted for Trump and might defend certain things about Trump, and I have some understanding of that, particularly before the election. I think since the election, Trump is manifest the worst, you know, the worst possibilities is
as bad as the worst of what I expected. But look, I don't I mean, the whole idea of calling yourself an objectivist, and who calls himself an objectist that doesn't conversect is not of interest to me. What really matters to me is the truth. What matters to me is are you a truth seeker? The question is, are people, really, even the people who supported Trump, able to look at him with any objectivity? Are they willing to see the evil that's there even as they see the elements of
good that they think is there. I don't think there's any good in Trump, but the elements of good? Can they really you know, criticize them? So, for example, people won't criticize Trump that I think is horrific and despicable. But you know, I'm not ready to say everybody who is elected, who voted for him, or everybody who supports him in some way cannot be an objectivist. But again, what is an objectivist? Co objectivist? I don't think you know who you vote for. I don't think it's that
valuable to categorize people that way. But are you a truth seeker? And therefore are you willing to not evade and look clearly and objectively and rationally and what Trump actually stands for and what Trump actually does?
Andrew?
Many anti Semites suffer from a motivation by hate? Is that motivation by fear at the core? Do you blame modern philosophy for the creation of the hatred? Still, despite modern philosophical influences, don't they have a choice to be evil?
Yes?
I mean everybody out there is influenced by modern philosophy, and some either rejected philosophy or they let it bounce off of them, or it affects them its submoginal issues, But they don't become haters, They don't let it consume them. Do I blame modern philosophy, yes, I mean, you know, it's if you want to understand the impact philosophy has on people's lives in our politics, redominant powers down as powers.
Where doctor Peacock really explains the rise of Hitler from the perspective of the ideas that were prevalent in Many at the time and in the decades leading to his rise. And if you look at America today and that's the dominant powerlel the parallel is America. You see the same
ideas prevalent in our culture. So it is contient philosophy and it's you know, post modern implementation, and it's combination with religion that is leading to this modern form of anti semitism because that all leads towards collectivism, that all leads towards tribalism. And look, anti semitism is every collectivistic culture out there is going to be anti Semitic, because collectivism is all about my group versus all the other groups. And however you define my group in any kind of nation,
the Jews are going to be the other. The Jews are the other. In Germany, the Jews of the other in America, and they're particularly an offensive other because they are religiously different, they're somewhat culturally different. And now there's this country called Israel that supposedly they're aligned with. They're affiliated with that, you know, can you can blame them for everything.
That it does.
So it is collectivism and tribalism that are on the rise, and the consequence of that is antisemitism. Anti Semitism is not the primary it is the consequences. By the way, the more Christian you become, the more anti Semitic you'll become. The reality is the Christianity is the origin of antisemitism. It is the beginning of antisemitism. It starts with Paul, and it starts with the church fathers. It starts with the debates of the church fathers. Y you know about
¶ Christianity's role in historic anti-Semitism
the horrible Jews that do not accept Christ and what should be done with them? And some other church fathers some of the first original great theologians of Christianity basically said Jews need to be killed because they won't accept Christ. I mean it was Augustine, who was the moderate, who said they shouldn't be killed, they should be kept alive. To suffer so that everybody can constantly see what happens
to those who do not accept Christ. You know, the Crusades were first and foremost about killing Jews, and then we'll go to Jerusalem and kill them Muslims. But Christianity is the source of anti Semitism, and it's the breeding ground of anti Semtism. And therefore what you get is as the country becomes more tribal, more collectivistic, and therefore and more Christian, it'll become more anti Semitic.
That's on the right and on the left.
The anti Semitism comes from collectivism and altruism. So you know, it's intersectionality. It's the fact that Jews are successful. It's the fact that the same thing happened in Germany. The Jews are successful, but they're the other, and they're scheming against us, and they're bad, and therefore they must be eliminated. And I think the same attitude exists today. Of course, the Jews killed Christian killed Jesus. And notice that they don't blame the Romans for killing Jesus. They don't blame
the Roman Empire for killing and that's purposefully done. You know, Originally the Romans were blamed for killing Jesus. They were the primary cause of Jesus's death. But then when the Roman Empire became christian that is, when Constantine brought Christianity into the Roman Empire, made Christianity a part of Roman identity, then it didn't make sense for them to continue blaming themselves for killing Jesus, so they shifted. You know, Pontus Pius, the Roman was just a tool of the Jews. He
was just being manipulated by the Jews. And you know, the Jewish clergy, the Jewish leadership, the Jewish establishment, and they're the ones who actually killed Jesus. And of course he was betrayed by jew but then most of all of his followers were Jews. Right, he was a Jew, but he was a Jew who led a new sac who led a cult.
And so that.
Again, Christianity is very much the source of anti Semitism. Jews might have been hated before that, but certainly all forms of anti Semitism post Jesus are influenced by Christian anti Semitism. So it's a combination of modern philosophy, kant and post content philosophy.
And Christianity and on the left.
It's mostly secular post continent philosophy and Marxism. Marx was an antisemity. I mean, Marx sounds like Nick Filantis. When Nick Franis complains about capitalist Jews and Jewish greed, it sounds exactly like Max. Call Max. It's as if he's reading for Carl Marx's essay on the Jewish Question. Troy, thank you. Troy just came in with five hundred Australian dollars. Really really really appreciate that. Thank you, thank you, Thank you, Troy.
That is amazing. Yeah, all right, Harper Campbell, It's sad to see the author of Dominus Parallels being exploited in his old age and poor health by Trump psychopaths like Dave Hammond.
Oh, I like that.
You call Dave Hammond a psychopaths. I think that's fitting as a justification for their boot licking support of an authoritarian.
Yeah. I think it's it's really really.
Sad to see Dave Hammond associating with Lennar Peacoff. You should have been Leonard should have nothing to do with Dave, And I think a younger Leonard would have nothing.
To do with Dave Hammond. It's really sad By.
You said last show that we should teach the found Head to our kids. Doesn't that mean you have to marry an objectivist? What if your spouse wants to teach your kids some collectivist book or religious book, then let them that is, you know, then present the kids with both sets of ideas and let the kids make a choice. But to ignore the ideas that you hold, or to ignore the ideas that your wife holds or your husband holds,
I think is wrong. So present them with both views, present them with both ideas, and let the kids make a decision instead of creating a vacuum.
So no, you don't have to marry an objectives to that.
If your spouse wants to once the present day views, let them And again, all right, Chasbad has a correction, and we're not burying the correction, right, Chasbad says important correction. On the last show, I quoted Lieutenant Frank Drebben the Naked Gun as receiving an award for killing one hundred
drug dealers. It was actually one thousand drug dealers. Oh, so Trump has a way to go before he gets the thousand drug dealers on those boats, because he's only killing him one or two at a time, or two or three at a time. So it's going to be a while. A lot of boats are going to have to be blown out out of the water for that to happen. Yeah, we'll talk more about that on another show. All right, Thank you, chezmun Now javj ago with him.
Trump doesn't even pretend to operate within a constitutional frame. He treats the law as a tool of loyalty and vengeance, not as a principle that binds every individual equally.
Yes, I think that's true.
But more than that, he treats the law as as an obstacle to achieving his goals. He treats the law as an obstacle to be overcome given the goals that he has. He doesn't treat the laws as principles to guide social action, principles to guide the limitation on government. On the contrary, he finds the Constitution and the laws.
Too limiting of him.
Will see in the arguments in front of the court around tariffs how that plays out. Trump doesn't want to be limited by all these laws and the Constitution and the Supreme Court. He finds that offensive, Michael. As much as Trump advises one fascist control over the economy. Does Trump p betferre a strong stock market he can take credit for, because you can't have both. The one thing preventing our economic enslavement is Trump's narcissism.
I think he wants he wants both.
And look, he's got all these tariffs and the stock market's doing fantastic. Now, whether we'll continue to do fantastic, How long the stock market could stay as high as it is, I don't know, But yes, Trump wants us a good stock market, wants a good bond market. He wants lower interest rates, and he wants control over the economy. And he can't have everything at the same time. And there's polls and tugs and it's but a lot of it's out of his control. He doesn't actually control the stock market.
So if.
There's a significant correction in the marketplace, in the stock market, what's Trump.
Going to do?
I mean, I don't think he'll have much control over it. I don't think there's much he can do one way or the other, even if he wants a successful stock market. Very few presidents to do. Somebody says all criticism of Israel is any Semitic. There's no legitimate cored Israel. That's not true. I criticize Israel all the time. There's absolutely legitimate criticism of Israel. There's a lot of things Israel does badly wrongly, Paul, How do sanctions against a country
actually work? How can executive branch issue sanctions? Can other countries sanction US sales? Yes, sanctions work by for example, we freeze the bank accounts of Russian oligarchs, so they can't withdraw the money from their bank accounts. The bank cannot release the money to them, cannot release the money to anybody.
It's just fozen in place.
And you know other countries can do that to Americans who have money in their banks. You know, America took the yachts of saying and I Russian oligogs, so the things like that. Now, it's part of understanding is and I'm not expert on this, but understanding is that there are laws that give the executive branch the authority to extend sanctions in other countries. For example, they're not allowed to buy wheats from you're not allowed to buy some
product from country acts. For example, you can't you can't buy Cuban cigars. I think that's stupid. But you can't buy Cuban cigars, right, that's illegal. That's a form of sanction. So it's just a banning of a particular product from a particular plays, and I think the executive their laws that have given the executive the power to do that as part of their responsibility for pharm policy. The oceanist collectivism is easy. It's easier to blame an other for
your personal shortcomings. Absolutely, a lot of these people, whether left or right, are insecure and will blame the immigrant or the billionaire for their faults. Yes, so yeah, I mean that's absolutely the case. But I don't think that's the source of collectivism. I don't think that's where collectivism actually comes from. Collectivism collectivism doesn't come from blaming the other.
Collectivism comes from, you know, a lack of self esteem, a lack of confidence in one's own judgment, and again the philosophy, the ideology that one's own judgment doesn't count, that one's own life doesn't count.
It comes from altruism.
It tells you that you should sacrifice for others, and if others are more important than you, that's collectivism, right. Collectivism is that others are above you. The group, whatever group, some group is more important than you as an individual. That the source of that is lack of self esteem. The source of that is a distrust of your own
capacity to think and reason. And the source of that is a morality that tells you, and that you buy into that says that your happiness, your success, your flourishing is not important. What's important is other people, and you should you are just a sacrificial lamb for their sake. Well which other people, Well, you have to choose a group to sacrifice too, and that becomes your collective, that becomes your standard, that becomes your guide. It's driven by
altruism and anti reason. That's what drives collectivism. And then once you form a collective and you're still unhappy and you're still miserable, and you're still all of that, then you turn against the successful other and you blame them for your failings, just as you describe. But that's kind of a consequence, is not the motivation? Andrews says, what is the significance of wanting to belong to the majority
group as a motive among Christian collectivists? If JD stayed an atheist, he could not have become a prominent statement and adorned by an adorned by so many as he is now.
I don't know. I mean, I think I.
Think this is truly an intellectual transition for Jdvance. I don't think this was motivated by his desire for power. I think when he became a Christian, he was not yet contemplating politics. And we know the influence that made him Christian, and that influence was somebody he respected. It was.
Peter Teel.
Peter Teel who is a Catholic but a kind of a quirky Catholic, and introduced him to this theologian that Todd at Stanford, and I forget his name, but that influenced Peter Teel, and he influenced Jade Vance and then JD. Evans ultimately converted to Catholicism. But I don't think that trend, that whole process, and that transition were motivated by a power. I think it was motivated by maybe a need to belong to a group. But again, it wasn't a need
to belong to a group because he wanted power. It was a need to belong to a group because psychologically he wanted to belong to a group. It also is true that unless you have self esteem and unless you have a strong sense of values that you know, for some people, atheism is empty. Atheism is empty. Atheism is just a negation of God. It's not pro anything. And I think Jadvans was looking for something and part of it is social and part of it is intellectual. But
I don't think the primary was political. I don't think the primary is political. Yeah, all right, Roland support from my fellow leftist extremists. That's me, a leftist extremist rogers. Thank you, it says, thank you. I think you are just thank you for the support.
John.
Okay, this is the question he asks every few weeks. Long term, what's the greatest threat to Europe? Christianity or Islam? Christianity. Islam is the short term threat. Islam is what will allow Christianity to rise UH and UH and become UH and become a real threat. It is the response to the Islam that the Christian nationalists in Europe will have, that
is the that is the worst threat to Europe. Uh. This is why UH, it's important for for secular Europeans to deal with most Now, if secular Christians deal with if secular secular Europeans deal with a Muslim problem now, then they will take away the impetus for the rise of Christian nationalism in Europe. So radios as I says, long term threat to Europe is nihilism. Yes, but nihilism can come from the right or from the left right, it can come from Christianity, or from you know, leftist.
Crazies, all for that matter, from Muslims.
But I think that, as I often said, Europeans will some point wake up to the Islamic threat if the Islamists get violent, and will wipe them out, and then the process turn Europe fascist.
And that I think the long term threat.
Michael, has the right always been racist, They just a point in political dominance where they can stop hiding it.
I don't know if they've always been racist.
I don't think so, but certainly the Civil rights period was a turning point. You know, a lot of the states that were racist, a lot of the South were Democrats.
A lot of the people who were.
Racists in the nineteen sixties were Democrats, and they were upset.
Those Democrats were upset.
By the Democratic Party supporting the civil rights movement. They were upset by liberal Democrats coming down to the South and supporting black in a sense of emancipation and equal rights for blacks. And that was Nixon's Southern strategy. It was to capture them, to convert them to those racists, to convert them to a Republican party. And they became
a part of the Republican Party. And it looked like for a long time, I'd say, from the mid seventies until the mid twenty teens, that the racism had been suppressed, that generally whites had become a lot less racist, that racism was in decline, and it was fading from America. And I think that it was just buried, but it was always there, and it has come out of its hiding place and has been legitimized. And again I think that Trump did a lot to legitimize it and to
make it acceptable to come out onto the surface. Jennifer says, what is Zion isn't supposed to mean doesn't mean a safe place like Israel for Jews to live, or doesn't mean a collectivistic Jewish state. It seems to be used in different ways. I think it means different things to different people. For some people, it means a collectivistic Jewish state, and there's definitely a lot of collectivism in Israel. I I criticize Israel all the time. I left Israel because
of how collectivistic a state it was. But I think the b the the more positive UH interpretation of Zionism, and I think Zionism as intended by its founder, Theodore Hertzel, was a state for the Jews, not a Jewish state. A state for the Jews is a refuge for Jews, a place the Jews can go to, a liberal country that did not discriminate against other others. And Israel does not discriminate against Arabs, Christians, against Jews, a a against Muslims.
It does not discriminate against them. So it gives them equal it gives them equal rights. So it's not in that sense in ethno state. The only sense in which the the the collectivism UH or the the the Jewishness, if you will, comes in is an immigration policy. That is, Jews can immigrate to Israel freely. It's open boaders for Jews. Others can't. They can still immigrate, but it's very hard and the numbers are small, so it's close to non
Jews for the most but not not exactly. I mean you could see in the in the hostages that Hamas took on October seventh, some of them were Nepalese, some of them are tie These are people who come to work in Israel. You know, my parents have two helpers who live with them. One is from Subri Lanka and one is from India. Neither one of them is Jewish, and they're going to live in Israel for a long time.
They make money and they send it back home. So you know, Zionism is not Again Theodo Hutze would have viewed it as a refuge for Jews, a state in which Jews are safe, but not a Jewish state in a sense of Jewish law. And I think to all you say Israel is that there are people in Israel who would like to make it a Jewish state, who would like to eliminate any separation of state from religion
and discriminate against Muslims and Christians. But I think it's still true that the majority in Israel are pro some form of separation, not complete, but a significant form of separation of state from religion and equal rights to all religions. And in that sense, again, I view Israel as a state for Jews, not as a Jewish state, and I think the difference between those two is important. I just criticize Israel. Does that make me an anti Semite? I
don't know, all right, thotionist. How long until the right abandons Trump? An open secret that Tucker hates him and for intus is very critical of him. Well, I don't
¶ The future of the GOP & the post-Trump Right
think that'll abandon Trump because they view Trump as a vehicle to get their way, so they will stick by Trump as long as Trump is there. He is a way to get them. Jdvans, Tucker Coulson and Jdvans are good friends. And while the points is not supportive of JD. Evans, maybe he'll be brought around by Tucker Caulson. Whoever becomes the nominee of the Republican Party, Nick fo Inis and Tucker Carlson will have a lot of say in who
that person is. They view Trump as a vehicle and he served He's been a very good vehicle for them, so they will continue to support him as long as he's that vehicle that gets them what they want. Liam are Republicans better locally than nationally. Republican governors tend to run their states better than democratic governors, but when they run the federal government, they fascism emerges.
Well, I mean, you're generalizing.
I think the reality is that the governors, most of them, not all of them, but most of them are more mainstream conservatives and less Maga. Now there are some mega governors out there, and there's some real problems in those states. You know, there's there's there's real evil in Texas and in many of the Southern states when it comes to things like abortion, for example, real evil. You know, they do some good things and then they do some really, really,
really bad things. So what does it mean that they run their states better? In what sense?
Economically? A lot of these Southern states.
Are super poor, super poor with really horrible educational attainment. So right, so I'm not convinced that Republican governors are better. I mean, in some states they are, but they tend to be like Jolkin's in Virginia. He's a pretty moderate Republican, right, and he's not He's not Maga. The former governor of Georgia not Maga. I mean, I think DeSantis is in Florida is this mixture. He's got some good things and he's got some really bad things in Texas. There's some
really bad things and some good things. So it's it's it's a mixed bag. Governors. Republican governors are mixed bags. And it's not clear that past Republican presidents were fascist or even that most Republican senators as such. But most Republican senators have decided that they're going to support Trump no matter what that that is. That is cowardly of them, but that is the reality. Harpercampbell, will you be exposing Harriman before the New Year's Eve show? I don't know
how much money will you give me? I don't know. I don't think so. But there's no I mean, no rush. I like numbers. People like Mark Levin on the right are pushing back against for intest, Yeah, but they have no Ultimately, they have no following, they have no base. Isn't the lesson that you can have more influence on the right by being part of it? I don't understand that at all. I mean, who has more influence on the right by being part of it? I mean, and
who wants to be part of it? Why would you want to be part of a right that includes Nick Foy intis? And does that Why would I mean, if you if you have actional ideas, wouldn't your wouldn't your audience see right through you that you're training those ideas by being in a coalition with Tucker Casson and Nick Fourentes.
How could you have integrity?
By being in that coalition, you lose all credibility, James, the GP is maybe ten to fifteen years away from being an explicit Nazi party anti semitism and racism and being successfully mainstream.
Listen to JD.
Vans at the Turning Point USA and the other day talking about fundamental differences of Christianity and Judaism, the error of Judo Christianity values over well.
And I think that's good.
Because it was always it was always unreal Judo christian values as if they were good or as if they were the.
Same, then they're not.
But I agree with you now, I don't think the GP is going to become Nazi. I don't think it will be explicitly Nazi. But I do think the era of Christian nationalism, which is what Leonard predicted in Dim.
Is upon us.
And it's a matter of yeah, ten fifteen years before we have full on with him helping a party is a full on Christian nationalist party.
It's right there.
Henry Allen, in his dim book Peacock predicted Christian Sotulitanism taking over.
Have you spoken to him about this what's going on today?
Does he know about Project twenty twenty five and fu Intas? I have not spoken to him about it. I haven't spoken to him seriously about politics. I think since twenty twenty. Yeah, I think around twenty twenty was the last time we had a serious political philosophical discussion. So no, as I said, we haven't talked about it. Does he know about Project twenty twenty five or Funtas? Look Leonard gets I think at least last time I talked to him, you know
about this? He got most of his news from Macklevin and the New York Post. It's the extent that they covered it. He would know about it. And Macklevin is pushing against Nick Foyenttis, but I think Mark Levin is probably minimizing the significance of Nick Foyenttis and his influence
among uh on the right. And I don't know how much talk it was a Project twenty twenty five, so I don't know how much Leonard knows about either one of those things and to what extent it sinks in or it's the full implication and manifestation of those things sinks in or has been explained to him by anybody. Again, the only people, the only person I can think of who might have done it is Mark Levin. But Mark Levin is very mixed on these things. He's not mixed
on nickfoy Inis. But his criticism is going to be shallow, and he is not going to emphasize how influential Nickfoorentis is. He's going to downplay that thochanist. Yeah, Azrael controls the US. That's why in the eighties US Marine stopped Israelis from going to Parts and be roots. Just don't look up how the locals thank the Marines.
That all is a little confusing, you know.
Yes, it was Ronald Reagan who stopped Israel from going into West Bay Route and finishing off yes Ralpha in his in his fighters and the Marines were deployed, and of course the Marines were killed to undred forty four Marines were killed in their barracks by what became Risbala, by the Iranians and Chris Bala, But yeah, Israel does not control the US Visuel control the US.
Israel would have. Israel would not have been stopped in.
Nineteen seventy three from finishing the job versus the Egyptians. Israel would not have been stopped in Beirut in nineteen eighty three. Israel would not have been stopped to kill Yes or Alpha In during the second d the fat in the early two thous thousands, and Isaul would not have agreed to the cease fire which prevented it. You know, is this close to going in and occupying Gaza and
slowly dismantling Hamas. The whole war that it's prosecuted against Hamas was to lodge extent done based on American rules. Clark says, I don't think Nick Frite, this is a real person. This creature has mastered trolling to find art. He must be secretly amazed by how far he's come. Probably, but he's come far, and he is real. And you know, in either case, the phenomenon is real, his following is real,
and it's scary. Michael is Israeli is so intense and rude because of trauma from the Holocaust and constantly fighting wars, or because they're more intellectual and have absorbed content. Collective is philosophy. Deeply, I don't think either one of those is true. I mean, I think they're they're more intense and you know, I don't know that they're rude. Part of that is an intensity because they live in a region that's constantly a war. They don't have time for nonsense.
They just wanted to get on with things. They don't like standing in the queue. They don't like standing in line. That's part of it. Yeah, I mean there's suddenly an element of the collectivism. There's certainly an element of you know, a zero some mentality that comes from years under socialism.
That is part of that.
But a lot of it has to do with But it's also you know, people in the Mediterranean are like this heat generates a certain i don't know, a certain type of energy when you live in a hot place. It's also because it's a kind of a melting pot of so many different cultures.
I mean, people think of.
Oh, it's a a mono culture place because they're all Jews, But these Jews have come from all corners of the world, and they being with them much of the culture of the places they left. So it is really a multicultural place, and it's a it's a melting pot of places, and you get this class of cultures within Israel. It's very much alive even today. Uh. And that's what people don't understand. People say, oh, it's it's it's uh. They don't believe
in multiculture. Not in the countrary. It's it's unbelievably multicultural. There are Skenazi Jews from all parts of Europe. There's Fogging Jews from Northern Africa, the Jews from Iraq and Yemen and and and Ethiopia. You know, black Jews with skin. That's it's it's completely black. There are Jews from Central Asia from who's Bikistan and Afghanistan and areas like that. The Jews from India. They're even Jews that were born in China. They might not be Chinese, but they were raised in.
China and they bring a lot of that, you know.
And the Jewish cultures in each pace were different, The ceremonies were different, the passages, you know, the holidays were celebrated differently, they didn't. So it's a very much a place of mingling and again a melting part of different cultures, and that's part of the intensity.
I think, Andrew.
The low character of these Conservatives stands out, the rankdous honesty and lack of integrity, the pettiness and meanness. What
¶ DeSantis, modern conservative leaders & where America goes next
is to gain if they lose their soul on that they ignore Christ? Yeah, I mean these are not smart people, the manipulative people, just like Trump. These are people that have embraced Trump, who's got the characteristics the character of a mafia boss as president of the United States, just that it brings them to such a low state that everything else just seems Yeah, it doesn't seem that difficult, right, So.
Yeah, so the.
You know they are the Conservatives have become I mean, they support a man who is inhaeritly dishonest and has no integrity, So why would they have any Trump has brought down the Republican Party to his level, and that's what you're getting, Michael. What do you think of Ron DeSantis? I don't think what he's done to cater to MAGA, but Florida is thriving and he is a very smart,
competent leader. Paving the way in property tax abolition. Yeah, I mean the property tax abolition is not as good as I originally thought it was.
It's not for second homes.
It's up to certain level, so it's not as good as I thought it was, but it's good. It's cutting taxes catas to MAGA in all kinds of ways. There was something that Florida just did was just horrific. You know, they banned artificial meat, all kinds of stupid things. So he's a real mixed bag, a real mixed bag who I think has not lost some of the better ideas the conservatives used to have, but it's trying to mingle it and integrate it with MAGA and what is left as a mishmash.
Liam.
How does Malay compare to Pinochet in terms of economic reforms.
I think they're very similar.
Pinochet went further partially because he was a dictator and he could. But Pinochet didn't believe in any of their reforms. Pinochet wasn't the driver of their reforms, the drivers of the reforms of the Chicago Boys. Pinochet gave them the economic rains out of desperation, not out of a not out of agreement, out of any kind of sense of free markets. Milay gets all the credit for what he's done. Pinochet does not a pinochet again. Gave it out of
his sense of desperation. The economic reforms are deep in Chile, but also they did them over a longer period of time, so Milay is just starting. We'll see what happens over the next to the ten years before we compare them. Right, Jacob submitted the green card application from my wife last week. I hope JD and his supporters feel five times the anxiety what we had to go through. Yeah, I mean, that's just horrible that it's so difficult, just horrible. Hopefully
it goes smoothly and congratulations Liam. Mathematical concepts part of objectives to reality, objective reality like a perfect circle. Concepts like infinity are important in mathematics, but don't seem to correspond to reality. That's right. So, I mean mathematical concepts are concepts, are abstractions. They you know, those abstractions can can be understood in terms of things in reality, like like circles, and you can imagine what a perfect circle
is versus circles. And but so mathematical concepts are abstractions of things in reality, yes, but are they all of them objective reality?
No?
I mean some are on, some are not right. So infinity doesn't think there's no such thing as infinity. I mean, this is a great question for Harry Binswunger, who's done a lot of work in the philosophy of mathematics. You know, some mathematical concepts are but relationships. Some mathematical concepts, you know,
correspond to mathematics. I mean, ultimately it's all reducible to reality, but it requires multiple steps because some mathematical concepts of high level abstractions, but all of them are reducible to phenomena in reality.
Michael.
While both left and right hate the Constitution, they use it when opposing party is in power to limit their power freedom by act and convenience rather than principle.
Yes, absolutely so.
They're both use the Constitution to the extent that it supports their agenda, and they'll be mad at the Constitution to the extent that it restricts their ability to.
Do the things that they would want to do. Crypto fanatic.
If economy and state are separate, should incorporation laws exist, Yes, just like marriage laws should exist. And there's a bunch of others. It's just a shorthand for contracts. Incorporation could exist without without incorporation laws, but incorporation laws and.
Unefficient mechanism. And given that.
These particular types of contracts are going to be adjudicated in courts, in state courts, a standardized format for them, it is a huge advantage. So having incorporation laws makes a lot of stense. It also makes sense that they're at the eight level, and there's some competition between states in terms of what incorporation laws each state has, and corporations can move from one to the other and then and then the courts interpret them. So yeah, absolutely, you know,
there's nothing statist or interventionist about incorporation laws. They're just setting a particular type of contract that people can either use or not use. They can try to form different types of corporations with different types of contracts, and you can know incorporation laws. That would be fine. Michael, since America is there's's only ally, doesn't continue I have to bow down to Trump.
Well, if he.
Thinks that Asrael's that that is true, that it's an only ally, I'm not sure that's true. But if he thinks that's true, and if he thinks that, Trump will will several relationships with his roll, or penalize him significantly if he, you know, doesn't agree with him.
I don't think that will happen.
I don't think Trump will just say if you don't do what I tell me, tell you, we're going to walk away. Now, that might happen one day, but I don't think America is in that position right now. So I think Natagniel has a lot of leeway to say no to Trump if he wants to, because Trump on the stands, or at least people some of the people around Trump at the stand that America needs his roll. Michael says, can he try and get on Logan Paul's podcast.
He's had Peter schiff On and interviews all the famous people who've moved to Puerto Rico. I mean, I guess I'm not famous because he has in contact with me. But I will try, so I will flag that and I will try. Though sheanist. I know it was a while ago, but tucka covering the Russian Grocery Store of my of Michael Moore's coverage of Cuba excellent comparison. Absolutely, I didn't think of it when I talked about Tucker's covering the grocery store. But you're absolutely right. The parallel
is striking, all right, Crypto fanatic. Do you think any forms of infrastructure like Rhodes Bridge's airport's ports, rail, electric good pipeline d DA DA DA DA should be government owned at all or all be private? All be private? I think they should all everything should be private. I mean a few military bases and a few buildings that the government needs in order to run things.
That's it.
Everything else should be private. And even though it should probably be private and least of the government Tom having more than one passport is not a bad thing. Patriotism does not mean you should only have the ability to live in one country thoughts.
Yeah, I mean, I think that's absolutely right.
You can be a patriot and also realize that a your country can can go bad pretty quickly and you'll want to go somewhere else. You can be a patriot and still want the convenience of having a separate passport that allows you to travel easily.
Through other countries and around the world.
An American passport, for example, today, is not a particularly good passport. A lot of countries around the world require Americans to get visas, having you know, some of European Union passports are much much allow for much easier movement around the world without visas, And a lot of the reason countries put visas on Americans is because America puts
visas on them, so they reciprocate. So yes, I think getting a second or third or fourth passport is all good and should be encouraged, even if you're a patriot Enrick. Rather than left and right coalescing on environmentalism, they look to be coming together on anti semitism. Shall we soon find from both parties anti Semitic leaders and president? You know, I still think that anti Semitism as a phenomena is
that the fringes and the margins. It's millions of people, but it's not it's not the mainstream, and we'll see if it gets mainstreams. Whereas I do think I envymelism is mainstreamed. And we saw that when.
Maga freaked out over the idea that.
One of the senators had to privatize federal land in the West and use it for development, particularly for housing, and MAGA freaked out, as did the environmentalists, and they showed that they're very environmentalist. And I think in environmentism is still much more of a mainstream topic. We'll see how all of this evolves. We'll see how all of this evolves, and how big the anti Semitism becomes, and how widespread it becomes, how mainstream it becomes. It's definitely
being mainstreamed into the Republican conservative movement in Tamaga. But whether it grows beyond that, we'll see. Peter, Christian nations in history, Fankish and Holy Roman Empire, Calvin's Geneva, Cromwell's England, precisely what the founding fathers repudiated. Yes, they were rejected all of those. All of those they rejected the and they rejected and were really upset by the religious wars, the thirty year ward one hundred year War, Protestants and
Catholics killing one another. You know, they suddenly rejected Calvin's Geneva and the persecution of of people who had different notions of Christianity. Absolutely, Peter Greek agree with you completely, Andrew. Love is stronger than hate if created by oneself by rational means. Is they even such a thing as altruistic love, love through self sacrifice? No, I don't think there's such
a thing as altruistical love. I think to the extent that people love, to that extent, they are being self interested and people are compartmentalized and mixed, But to the extent that they love, they're being self interested. All Right, We've got a few remaining and then I need to get to bed, and pokey, Why is the moral always the practical? What is the link between the two? And are their cases? You can think of? Whether this does not hold?
No, I mean I think it holds.
It holds in irrational society, and over the long run, it doesn't hold in an irrational society. Necessarily, sometimes the moral can can can can lead to death and destruction, and in an irrational world dominated about irrationality. I mean, it's it's I'd have to give a long answer, and I don't have the voice, but I'm losing my voice, and I don't have the time for it, and I'm and it's late, but I'll say this. I mean, where does morality come from? How do we learn moral truths?
We learn moral.
Truths by by two processes. Fundamentally, one is identifying the nature i e. The practical nature of man?
What is man? How does man function in the world?
And that's how we get he's a rational being and reason being, you know, a cardinal value, and you know what makes it possible for man to live successfully in the world, which is an empirical, inductive you know, evaluation. So when it looks at the world and see rationality,
reason is man's means of survival. It just you know, you see that that's an inductive truth and reason both logically requires, for example, honesty because reason requires fact fact facts, but also when one observes in reality, honesty works and dishonesty doesn't.
So the whole way in which the objective's morality is derived is by looking at what works.
And here what we mean by what works is what leads to human survival. So them all in a sense is derived from the practical. It's derived from, you know, looking at the world, observing reality and figuring out what right and wrong is. What right is is that which leads the human flourishing. What's wrong is that which destroys it. So you know, it's built.
In the mall is the practical.
The practical is the mall is built into objectivism.
So the irrational.
We can observe is impractical, and part of the reason it's evil is. I mean, it's evil because it's impractical, because it leads to bad outcomes for you as an individual. So it's it's circular in essence impoquy. Should a defending nation ever take any precautions to avoid civilian casualties in a case where the cost is minimal?
Why or why not?
Well, I mean there's no reason to gratuitously kill people. Human life has value, so there's no reason to gratuously do it. So if there's no purpose in killing people, then you shouldn't kill them, and to that extent, your void civilian casualties when the civilian casualties are not necessary for victory. But in any situation where civilian casualties are necessary for victory, unnecessary to a victory, and at a minimal cost to yourself and a minimum cost of your own people's lives.
Then you should not take precautions.
So the standard is the extent to which it's going to demand a sacrifice of your people or not it's going to demand a sacrifice of you or not it's going to prevent you from achieving your goal on it, that's the stand about what you measure. Tyler says, how you on I really enjoyed Peacock's History of Philosophy lectures. Yeah, they're great. I noticed the con section was missing from the book version. Any idea why it was left out?
Just curious? Was kant left out?
I think because Leonard asked that the book version only include part one, the pre Kantient I think he I don't know, you'd have to. I think if I recall, and granted, I might recall wrong, but I think if I recall, he said that he was a lot more confident in the course of the truth of the pre content, and that he was in his confident that everything he said was accurate regarding the more modern philosophers.
I think the whole thing is fantastic. But that is if I recall, that is what he said.
So that's why he only wanted it in writing the pre Kantian segments part one. But luckily you can still get in an audio and Pokey, what's your take on IP? Intellectual property and free state? If it's a natural right, why does it expire? Wouldn't permanent IP paralyzed innovation since all progress builds and prior ideas. Yes, that's why it expires, So it should expire. But they should be a period.
It's a former property and the property owner should have the ability to profit from his property for a period. Iinman has a very good essay on this and capitalism and annoying ideal. I encourage you to read it. She goes into great lengths in defending her position about why copyright IP generally is valid and why you know, the length of time shouldn't be forever, you know, and why having a specific length of time is not arbitrary. It's about.
It's about the the lifetime of the of the producer.
It's also about the ability to profit from that property before it becomes uh goes into the public domain and goes to aid in the process of ideas building on ideas. But read the essay much better explanation there. And what do you think of the criticism of the objective's morality that it's focused on independent judgment and consistency demand too much of people. I mean, I don't feel like it's too much. I mean I don't know. I know a lot of people who embrace it and do it and
are fine with it, So I'm not sure. I've never seen that criticism. It requires work, it requires being independent, It requires having self esteem, it requires not caving to the mob.
That all requires effort, but it's doable for every human being.
I know people of all kinds of intellectual abilities that have embraced that idea. And even before objectivism, there were people who embraced independent judgment and stood up to the mob. So I don't understand why that is something that's beyond people's reach. Necessarily, it is beyond people's reach because they choose not to embrace it. Evan, what do you think
about altruism and a group of infantry in battle? A unit is much more effective if everyone has each other's back to the point where they were willing to sacrifice and risk for each other.
So I think that I think that altruism is destructive for a unit like that.
I think a unit in battle functions much much better if they all understand why it's.
In their self interest to function as a unit. It's just like a team.
Like a teamwork in a business doesn't require you to accept the collective mind collective consciousness because there is none. It requires you to be an independent thinker and contribute to the team and work with others to improve and enhance ideas. The same thing is to in battle. You want independent thinkers who understand why they're they, who understand why the unit has to function together, and who have a real authentic camaraderie friendship with the other people around them.
Now, I don't think that a good unit.
In battle requires people to sacrifice to one another. So, for example, you're storming a position and the guy on your right gets hit. What do you do do You continue storming the position and you go take care of the guy who's been hit. Well, victory demands that you continue storming the position, and afterwards you go take care of your buddy who got hit. But if your focus is completely on your body, then you stop the advance and you take care of the wounded, and you forget
about winning the war. So it's not at all clear to me that sacrifice in that sense is required. Risk taking is required. But you signed up for the military. This is why military should be voluntary. You sign up for the military. You signed up to take risk, not to sacrifice, but to take risk for the values that you believe in and for the people in your team.
I don't consider that sacrifice. And again, you have to think about what do you want.
This team to do what is required to win a battle, to win a war, to win to win a to win a skirmish. And and what's required is everybody thinking, everybody being an independent thinker, but within the context of a team, within the context of a group that is trying to achieve a goal together. And and and that means sometimes you have to just follow orders. That means that you're going to take risks. That means that you
have to watch what your other soldiers are doing. And and and yes, cover for them, cover them, because that's part of the mission. And that's part of how you attain the goal. But it's not it's not a sacrifice. You're you're you're aiming towards a goal that's very, very very important to you. This is why you volunteered to serve in this military. Again, why I believe in one of the reasons I believe in voluntary military servant non a conscription. Chris, what did Einran think of Norman Rockwell,
what do you think of Rockwall? Why was normal rockwall art so disliked? Is his artwork idealistic or overly sentimental? So I think she thought of I mean, I don't know exactly what she thought of Rockwell, I vaguely recalled it.
There's something there.
I mean, look, rockwall is an illustrator. He's a he's not a painter. He's a borderline artist because his stuff is postery. It's it's illustrations. It's very in your face and in that sense, yeah, it's it's sentimental. But there's a lot of good art that's sentimental. Rockwall Is is a good illustrator, but he's not a great artist. I don't know why it was disliked. It wasn't disliked. It was actually liked a lot. It made the covers of magazines that was all over the place. And remember it
was covers of magazines. Most of his paintings will covers of magazines, which again that's illustration.
That's not art. It's not fine art.
Uh, there's no The themes are very obvious, there's no sophistication, there's you know, it's it's it's it's in your face in a way that art should not be.
So I I think normal.
I enjoyed normal Walkwell. I think a lot of his stuff is fun. Uh, it's funny, it's fun. Some of his idealistic and and and good like I love. The one where the guy is standing up. The free speech one is very good. Rockwell generally was kind of a New Deal democrat, so he was he was, you know, he illustrated much of Roosevelt's New Deal ideals. He's a naturalist. He portrays, for the most body, portrays man as he is.
He portrays scenes out of daily life. Again, part of what makes him not that interesting but kind of fun and enjoyable. I wouldn't hang a normal walker painting on my wall, but I don't mind, you know. I enjoy seeing his stuff and thumbing through a book of his work and smiling and enjoying it. But it's a superficial enjoyment. Schasberg. To love is the value at the shrugged a certain person's speech, not to be mentioned because we don't want to give anything away. Yes, to love is to value.
Love is there is an expression of one's highest value. It's it's a manifestation one's highest value. All right, last question, as I'm losing my voice. I understand Rand's idea of self interest, but why can't a gang be self interested within their world? Their interest is making money and exploiting. Well, because a gang cannot be happy a gang cannot flourish qua gang. It can only you know, so a group can only flourish the extent it's individuals flourish at the
base of a gang. At the base of a gang of a group as individuals, and if they if they succeed by exploiting and stealing and cheating and robbing, they succeed.
Materially.
But all of that behavior is destructive spiritually. It destroys their soul, It destroys their integrity, it destroys the ability to be moral as individuals. And again, happiness and flourishing can only be achieved as individuals. So a gang is not a thing. A gang is just a bunch of individuals committing crimes together. And because they're committing crimes, because they're violating rational principles as individuals, they cannot flourish and
they cannot be happy, and they suffer the consequences. Live by the sword, Die by the sword. All right, Thank you guys, Sorry for the technical problem in the middle. I'm glad we recovered. I'm glad you all stuck with it. Thank you for joining me. Thanks Troy for the five Australian really really appreciate that. Thanks to all other Michael and all the other supporters. We had a lot of fifty dollars contributors. Thank you the super chattters, thank you the stickers.
I will see you. I'm not sure when we'll.
Play it day by day, but at the latest on Saturday. But I'm going to be traveling all this week in Europe. Hopefully i'll see some of you tomorrow in Vienna. Bye everybody,