Carlson/Huckabee Interview; Mexico Cartels; Iran; Ukraine; Tariffs; Peru | Yaron Brook Show

Bubble Wall is here from 2311 Racing.

You know it's slower than a pace car waiting at the car wash.

That's when I fire up Chamba Casino.

It turns those slow minutes into fast fun.

With new games every week, you'll never get bored.

Next time you're stuck in the slow lane, speed up with Chamba.

Play now at ChambaCasino.com.

Let's Chamba.

Sponsored by Chamba Casino, no purchase necessary.

BGW GroupFord, we're prohibited by law, 21 plus terms and conditions apply.

The radical, fundamental principles of leader, rational self-interest, and individual rights.

This is the Iran Book Show.

Oh right, everybody welcome to your own book show on this Monday February 23rd.

Thank you, thank you for joining.

We are going to be talking about the news and covering that.

Let's see, I want to remind everybody who might be listening from the UK that I'm doing

a seminar on February 28th, I'll mention again later in the show as well.

You can sign up for it.

It is going to be in Central London at the W Hotel in Central London.

Let's the square, the Topics Capitalism, everything you want to know about capitalism and take

a lot of questions, your questions, small group, so lots of opportunities for interaction

and questions.

We can also go out to dinner afterwards if you guys want.

So basically dedicated in the whole afternoon evening, you can sign up for that, go to

yourrunbookshow.com, scroll down to the event section, February 28th in London, click on

a click on that event and it will take you to the registration page and you can sign up

for that.

It's going to be small so they're not going to need that many tickets available but hopefully

we can fill up that room.

So if you're in the UK, particularly if you're in London, it would be great if you joined

us.

It's going to be on the 28th, that's a Saturday from 1 to 5pm, from 1 to 5pm on capitalism.

All right, let's jump in with this Carson Huckabee interview.

I don't know if you saw this but this is an interview circulating all over the place and

clips of it circulating and Carson is doing some dishonest editing to it and circulating

to make Huckabee look particularly bad but Huckabee looks pretty bad.

So it's not that hard to make Huckabee look bad.

This is a terrible interview.

A terrible interview because Tucker Carson comes into it with one agenda item and there's

to make Israel look really, really, really bad, to make it look like the United States

basically is controlled by Israel, manipulated by Israel, to make it clear that Israel has

no right to exist and to make it look like Israel is this place that's just an anti-Christian

haven for child molesters and that's this agenda and the whole interview has got your

questions for Huckabee and we'll go over some of the questions and answers that you're

throwing.

Again, I wouldn't be talking about this if Tucker wasn't as popular as he is, as popular

among Republicans as he is, as popular among young Republicans as he is, as popular

among people who watch my videos as he is based on the comments that I get on videos that

I put up with his.

So he's an important figure in American culture, sadly.

He has become, I don't know, one of the most obnoxious, lying, really evil people in

a media landscape, I can't think of anybody quite as bad as he is.

You know, Katissa Owen is worse in some regards, but Katissa is so ridiculous that anybody

who takes us seriously, you know, why would anybody take us seriously in other words?

She's just so fog on that she's irrelevant.

Tucker's not, Tucker's relevant, Tucker's involved, Tucker's a big shot, Tucker is more

so than somebody like Nick Fuentes, Tucker is still at the heart of the Republican Party

and represents a big chunk of the Republican Party.

So it was, it was something, it's a big deal, this interview, right?

Tucker has influence and his, him doing this interview and putting it out there and making

this case about Israel and Jews is affirming, energizing, and I think providing, providing,

providing, you know, energy, I guess, energizing, the anti-Semitic, anti-Israel right in the United

States and it's horrific.

And sadly, Huckabee is awful at defending Israel.

Huckabee is not good at defending Israel, why is Huckabee not good at defending Israel?

Because Huckabee is a religious nut, Huckabee is not a good guy, right?

Huckabee is, you know, is a, is, you know, a religious nut and evangelical Christian who

sees the world through a very, very religious prison and therefore can't provide a reasoned

defense of Israel, can't stand up to Tucker because, I mean, Huckabee's defense of Israel

is, it's just as irrational as Tucker's attack on Israel. And, you know, you know,

this is why Huckabee got into a huge trouble because Arab countries are flipping out.

Now, again, the editing that Tucker did was, I think, not exactly fair and took the question

out of context and it took out all of Huckabee's attempts to explain what he meant.

So what happened here? Huckabee's, you know, Huckabee and Tucker are talking about basically

the moral right of Israel to exist. What, what is Israel's right to exist? And Huckabee,

among other things, makes the point that Israel's, oh, a big deal out of the fact that Israel

right to exist is based on the fact that God promised, in Genesis, promised Abraham,

Israel, he promised a land for Abraham and therefore, this is the biblical land promised

the God to Jewish people and therefore, this is the Jews ancestral home and therefore Jews

have a right to establish a country in this land. It's biblical in other words. So Tucker says,

you know, I read that passage in Genesis and in that passage in Genesis, God actually promises

much more than that to Abraham. He basically says, I promise you all the land, everything

everywhere you walk is going to be yours and the future will be yours and he basically promises

him a land that goes from Mesopotamia, from Euphrates River, from Montenday, Northern

Iraq, all the way to the Nile, all the way to Egypt. It would include Jordan, it would

include Syria, it would include Lebanon, much of Lebanon, it would even include a portion

of Egypt. And God has promised him all of that and so Tucker says to Huckabee, so Israel has

a right to all of that. And you know, Huckabee kind of hums and hives and basically says, yeah,

let them take it all kind of thing in a flipping kind of way. And then he realizes he screwed

up and he goes back and says, look, they don't really, they don't want that. We're not talking

about that. We're talking about just this land, this piece of land where Israel is today,

but Tucker realizes that this is gold and he can make, he can make a killing off of this

and he just goes after it, right? He got, he pounds on it, right? So, so you're saying they can

take the whole thing and I can be saying, well, not really, I mean, but that's what God promised

them. And anyway, Tucker's taking that clip, the one clip way where Huckabee says, let them

take it all. And the Saudis are pissed off because that one, according to Tucker, I don't

think going to the Bible, that would include some of Saudi Arabia. And of course, Jordan is

not happy and Syria is not happy and Lebanon is not happy. Iraq is not happy. Egypt is not happy.

All the, all the, all the, all the enemies of Israel are not happy. And Huckabee looks

like a fool, which in a sense he is. Now, the sad thing about this defense of Israel's right

to exist is that many Israelis, I don't know if most, but maybe most, many Israelis, including

Netanyahu, hold that not so much about God, because I don't know if maybe Netanyahu believes

in God. But like Jews have always lived there. This is the ancient land of the Jews. Therefore,

the Jews have a right to return and establish a state there. He actually wrote me this when

I, I don't know if you know, but I, I sent him a copy of my, why isn't fall of a state of

Israel, or maybe I sent him a copy of my talk on the moral right of Israel to exist. And he

gave me back his book and inside the book, he wrote to Iran and he said, I agree with everything

you said, except the fact that Israel's right to grist is based on its historical, the fact

that Jews have always lived in. This is the land of the Jews from way back. And you know,

if that's the logic, then America should really belong to the American Indians and, and who

knows who should own France? And, you know, any, any country in the world out there, if

you want to go back 2000 years and who lived there 2000 years, should that be the standard

for the existence of states? It's a stupid way of defending yourself. And it's so open to

attack and so open to obvious contradictions. But since these people have no clue about

what actually does generate a right to exist at a state level, they revert to this.

I mean, they're basically only two things that they can do. They can revert to some biblical

God-promised or to force.

Tyler Reddick here from 2311 Racing, another checkered flag for the books. Time to celebrate

with Jamba. Jump in at JambaCasino.com. Let's Jamba.

No purchase necessary, BTW Group. Boy, we're prohibited by law. CCNC is 21 plus sponsored by

JambaCasino. Here's Matt Walsh, right? So this is my Matt Walsh commenting on the whole

exchange, but on the idea of a right to exist. And he says, the whole debate about which

countries have the right to exist is based on a false premise. There is no right to exist

for nations. What does that even mean? How can a country be entitled to exist? Every country

in earth came into existence through force and remains in existence through force. If you

can't defend your existence, you will not exist anymore. The history of civilization is full

of countries that exist and then cease to exist. Other rights of those countless non-existent

countries being perpetually violated by their non-existence, it makes no sense. If you can defend

your existence, then you can exist. If you can't, then eventually you won't exist. It's

really that simple. A right is an entitlement. No, it's not, but an entitlement by definition.

And there is no country that has an eternal entitlement to exist, whether it can defend and

support itself or not. The very concept is absurd, meaningless. He continues. This is the

point I made about the Native Americans, about the Native Americans countless times. They didn't

have any kind of metaphysical right to maintain ownership over this entire hemisphere. They obtain

ownership in the first place through an act of sheer force. Did they? Then the Native Americans

just occupy a vacant land where nobody was here. They didn't have to use force against anybody.

Anyway, that's just a factual error in Matt Wells, shockingly enough. They obtained ownership

in the first place through an act of sheer force. It would take force to keep it and they couldn't

keep it. That's the way it works. Has always worked and will only ever work. I took this thing

by force, but if you take it from me by force, you are violating my rights. That's the claim

being made and it's morally incoherent. Now, that is bizarre. And it is, of course, the claim

that might makes right. Why do I ever write down this land? Because I took it. And, of course,

why in his final statement, I took this thing by force, that applies to everything property.

Why wouldn't that apply to any property? I took this thing by force. If you take it from me by force,

you are violating my rights. Isn't that true? That rights are violated when I took it by force

and rights are violated when it's taken from me by force? Well, a thief from a thief. Maybe

that's not rights violating. But the whole point here is, all countries are the same. Might

makes right. Might is the justification. There is nothing else. And again, this is, this is,

you know, equally bizarre as how can we now mad whose religious recognize that they can't really defend

the existence of countries based on religion. So he goes to the alternative, which is force.

It's either faith or force or together, faith and force. But there's another alternative.

The moral right of countries to exist is determined by how they treat their people.

By whether the country, the political entity that exists there is in any way rights respecting

or is fundamentally rights violating. Iron Man talks about the fact that dictators don't

have sovereignty. Dictators have no right to exist. So the standard by which

why does Israel have a right to exist, for example, is not because Jews have always lived

this, so have other peoples. And before the Jews showed up there, there were people

in the Bible. It describes quite vividly how the Israelites killed all the people who were there

before and took over the land. So is that the might makes right biblical kind of analysis?

No, Israel's right to exist is because it created, it founded, it established a country

that is basically free.

So nobody says I don't think this saying might make right, might just make sustained existence.

That is somewhat true, but you say it's justified for the United States to take over

Mexico. Or it's not justified for the United States to take over Mexico.

Mexico cannot defend itself if the United States invaded Mexico, it could take it.

And according to Matt Walsh's analysis, that would be okay. That would say America has a right to take over

Mexico. That makes it wise not right to exist because America takes it over.

But some was a legit, some was an art legit, partially based on the idea that a particular regime,

a particular government, a particular place is legit or is not legit.

Saddam Hussein's Iraq was not legit, it was okay to take it over. It wasn't in America's interest.

So I would against that war, but it was okay to take it over from the perspective of there's no rights.

Iraq didn't have a right to exist. America is a moral country, is it right to exist?

Even if there's somebody more powerful, even if there's somebody more powerful, then it's okay to take America over

because it has no right to exist if it's somebody more powerful.

Brian says, I'll have to go read the war article. I just read it to you.

And you should know what Walsh, it's not that hard to see in this case, as in many cases, that I'm right about this.

So the right to exist, countries do have a right to exist or not a right to exist, depending on whether they are preserving,

protecting the rights of the wrong citizens or not. The right to exist comes from their own people.

Now, it's true, there's no political entity that is going to guarantee those rights or preserve those rights or protect those rights.

It's the responsibility of every nation to protect their right to exist.

And if you can't protect your right to exist, and if you have enemies, then you won't exist for very long.

The reality is most countries, 99% of the countries in the world, do not have the ability to protect themselves against the United States or against China or against Russia.

And yet we still divide the countries up into those, at least I divide them up into those that have a right to exist and those do not have a right to exist.

I mean, Matt was clearly says there's no right to exist for nations, period. That's the whole sentence. There is no right to exist for nations.

There is, he says, how can a country be entitled to exist? It's entitled to exist because it protects the rights of its own citizens.

Pretty straightforward. But you see, how can we can't defend it?

You can't defend Israel on the basis of its free country. You can't defend Israel on the basis of individual rights.

You can't defend Israel on the basis of this is a country that protects rights. Therefore it has sovereignty and therefore it has a right to exist.

And the Palestinians don't and Arab nations surrounding it don't. And therefore, you know, when he says, let Israel take them in a sense he's right not because of some biblical promise.

But because they have no sovereignty.

Kings are not sovereign. They don't have a right to exist. So there is such thing as a right to exist. There is such thing as no right to exist.

Matt Walsh believes in might makes right. Huckabee means believes in the word of God. I don't know how he justifies the existence of other countries that God did not designate.

Maybe he reverts to Matt Walsh's might makes right. But that's exactly what Walsh says.

If you can defend your existence, you will not. If you can't defend your existence, you won't exist anymore. First of all, that's just not true.

Luxembourg can't defend its existence and yet it does. Lichtenstein can't defend its existence. Yet it does.

It's forced on its face. And again, he is claiming that it's the act of violence that gives you the right to a land. The Native Americans gain their statue because of force, not clear on whom.

And Americans have a right to America because we're stronger than the Indians. It's exactly what he says.

It is Ryan C. Crest here. There was a recent social media trend which consisted of flying on a plane with no music, no movies, no entertainment. But a better trend would be going to Chamba Casino.com.

It's like having a mini social casino in your pocket. Chamba Casino has over 100 online casino style games, all absolutely free. It's the most fun you can have online and on a plane. So grab your free welcome bonus now at Chamba Casino.com.

Sponsor by Chamba Casino. No purchase necessary VGW group void for prohibited by law 21 plus terms and conditions apply.

We they couldn't defend it. They're foots house. And the fact that it's a right respecting government has nothing to do with it.

But that's the modern conservative movement. They have no claim other than religious claim. And they have to reverse the force as the standard is an alternative.

So how can there's a horrible job? He deserves kind of everybody being upset at him. All he has to say, but he can't because remember he can't because he is a.

He is a representative of the US government. He can't say, yes, Saudi Arabia indeed has no right to exist Jordan, Lebanon. They have no right to exist because they're not free countries.

I'm attributing might makes right to watch based on his article. That's what you do. You read what they say and you interpret it.

He doesn't literally say might makes right that's true. He wouldn't say that. He would claim he doesn't believe that.

But that's what critical reading means. You read an article and you say what does this imply in this case what my boss is saying implies directly.

And without much controversy might makes right unless you are a mad washer polygist and you'll justify anything.

Right. Let's see. So that was one exchange between Taka and my Kakabi. But there are lots of these exchanges throughout the interview that it's just not.

So for example, you know, Taka complains about how the Christians are treated in Israel, which is just one lie on top of the other lie.

How could he twice to combat it? But again, can't do a very good job because he doesn't really understand it doesn't know and he doesn't get what took a call from.

By the way, all you have to do is look at the interview and you can see the difference in body language. Taka is sitting up. He's a professional interviewer leaning a little forward.

You know, he's he's he's aggressor. How could be for the most part? The purism we lead for most part is relax back in the chair.

You do that. You're going to you're going to lose the debate. You know, how could be his way to not shalant about this.

So Taka spouts all this lies, all these lies, all these ways about Christians in Israel.

And how could be at some point says the more Christians in Israel than they are in Kato.

And now this is something that Taka really knows. He says, oh, no, there are many, many more Christians in Kato than they are in Israel and he's right.

There's like double, maybe a little bit more than double the Christians in Kato than they are in Israel.

And I can be doesn't know how to respond. He says something about oh, they're in a ghetto or something like that, which is all true.

But what he doesn't say is but not a single one of those Christians in Kato is a citizen of Kato.

Not a single one of them is a Katari.

All the Christians in Kato are people who have been brought to Kato in order to work in order to build the projects and they're all on visas and not a single one of them is a Katari.

So again, just lies and and and and Taka's took his whole methodologies.

He floods you with lies. So it's hard to keep track and it's harder. It's hard to cope with all of them.

Well, for example, he says at some point talking about the Epstein files, he says that the president of Israel is known to visited Epstein's island, Peta Island.

And I can be like, I've never heard that. I don't know. I mean, Taka's just making stuff up. He's just lying. He has had to retract the statement because the president of Israel actually issued an attack on Taka, you know, the Nile of this and Taka had to go back and say, oh, I was mistaken.

But he just throughout this interview, he just makes stuff up.

He finds a few cases where crazy religious Jews in Jerusalem have attacked verbally and maybe even spat on Christians. And yeah, there are some barbarians in Israel.

And how could he should acknowledge that? But that is not the policy of the Israeli government. And indeed, Christians in Israel, the Christian communities in Israel are thriving and growing.

I'm making stuff up. That's great.

If you say that the reason you say the only countries that legit are countries that are strong enough to defend themselves and to conquer other countries, which is what Matt Walsh is implying, you're saying might is right.

When you're saying the Indians didn't have a way to the place because they were weaker than the people who came to America, you are saying might is right.

Now, there are other reasons to justify why America belongs to Americans. But when you're saying forget it, there is no such thing.

And then these guys are saying, yeah, but he says it's not just saying it's a right. So might is right is a right as well.

That's bullshit linguistic analysis.

He is justifying the existence of states based on force. That translated into my language, not his, my language means might is right.

He didn't literally say it. He wouldn't say it as such. But he's justifying the existence of countries based on force.

That's what it is.

All right. I'm going to ignore Brian because he's just obnoxious and not very smart. All right.

So, you know, Tucker is on a crusade. He's on a crusade to basically make it look like Israel is behind, you know, all of the US actions that Israel manipulates the US government.

He blames the Iraq war on Israel, which is completely a historical. And indeed, if you go back and you can see many minutes and now telling the Americans not to invade Iraq.

He blames the current war on Iran on Israel.

You know, that what Trump is maybe going to do with Iran on Israel. He then goes into this whole thing about it.

Israeli's have a higher standard of living in Israel than Americans, which is again, just a lie. He's just making it up.

All right. Go look at any, any list of per capita GDP or any other. He says roads are nicer in Israel. I don't know. He flew over Israel.

So, he thinks he knows the state of the roads in Israel. Roads are not nicer in Israel as somebody who has been to Israel many times and has lived in the United States for many, many decades.

I can tell you roads are nicer in America.

Stand of living in America is much higher than in Israel by every measure. And then he goes, yeah, they have socialized medicine.

This is the standard for a higher standard of living, according to Tekka Carlson, having socialized medicine.

So, now, Tekka is basically a socialist.

Tekka is advocating that you measure a standard of living by whether you get where you have socialized medicine or not.

It's truly stunning the extent to which Tekka engages in lies, manipulation, taking stuff out of context.

And just Tekka is not sharp enough, not quick enough, not focused enough. I think he went into the idea, into the thinking he was going to, this was going to be a normal interview.

And it turns out, it turns out that, it turns out that Tekka wasn't doing a normal interview, this was a get your interview and how could be should have known.

Tom says, it's a statement of the obvious that rights have to be defended by force of necessity, but force does not make something a right.

That is not what Matt Walsh is saying. I'm sorry guys, I don't know what you're talking about.

So, I'm not sure, I'm not sure who exactly, what you're referring to Tom, maybe I'm taking what you're saying out of context, but you also say I can't see how anyone can take Carlson seriously.

Sadly, like 50% of young or more than 50%, 56 or 58% of young Republicans say they would vote for him if he was running for office, which is human's president.

So, he has taken very seriously among Republicans, particularly among young Republicans, I think 46% of Republicans overall say they would vote for him.

Your general observation, Tom is absolutely right.

Oh wait, Tyler Reddick here from 2311 Racing, another checkered flag for the books.

Time to celebrate with Jamba. Jump in at JambaCasino.com. Let's Jamba.

No purchase necessary, BTW Group. Boy, we're prohibited by law, CCNC, 21 plus sponsored by JambaCasino.

Let me just remind everybody that I will be in London this week, later this week, on Saturday I'll be doing a seminar.

It'll be from 1 to 4pm on the 28th, which is Saturday.

It's on capitalism, kind of everything you want to know about capitalism.

And we'd love for you guys to sign up and to come, you can get information about it.

You're on bookshow.com. You're on bookshow.com. If you scroll down to the events on the page, you will find an event on February 28th.

Click on tickets. That'll take you to the event right where it is being advertised, advertised.

And here is the link I put in the chat for those of you interested.

Tom says, sorry, I cannot see you this weekend. You're on family emergency.

That sounds bad. Immurgencies are not good. Family emergencies are not good.

I hope everybody will be okay. Thanks Tom. I appreciate your support.

All right, let's see. That was Taka. All right, so...

All right, that is gone. That is gone.

All right. On Sunday, the Mexican government killed the nation's most wanted cartel bus.

This is Nemesio Osuega Cervantes, known as El Mencho.

He's been the longtime leader of one of Mexico's most powerful cartels, the Jalisco New Generation cartel, which was a spin-off from another cartel.

And this cartel is as a reputation of the most violent cartel in Mexico,

which is saying a lot, given how violent the cartels are.

And he, in particular, being an unbelievably, you know, violent, unbelievable, violent figure.

The cartel is expanded rapidly over the past decade or so.

It produces and sell drugs, it extorts local businessmen, businesses, it terrorizes community, it controls local governments.

And the Mexican government has, for the most part, over the last decade or so.

For the most part, the Mexican government has left the cartels alone.

There is plenty of reason to believe that the current leftist politicians in Mexico City have basically cut a deal with the cartels,

and are leaving them alone and in exchange the cartels, I guess, don't attack the politicians of this particular political party.

Well, Trump has been putting a lot of pressure on Mexico to start fighting against the cartels, to rein them in, and to show real progress.

I think Trump has been threatening US military intervention into Mexico, if the Mexicans don't do it themselves,

indeed, Tucker even brings this up in the interview with Huckabee.

The fact that the United States seems to prioritize the interests of Israel above the interests of the United States,

and therefore is more likely to go to war with Iran than go to war with the cartels in Mexico.

Now, Mexico is not, as you know, Mexico is a big country, it has a large population.

The cartels in Mexico are unbelievably well armed. They now have drone technologies.

They have IEDs.

Many of the members of the cartels are former military in Mexico.

The cartels have also imported as military consultants and trainers, former military from other parts of Latin America, particularly Colombia.

You've got a number of Colombian military and special forces people working for the cartels.

The cartels have built up a significant substantial military presence.

They have heavy weapons, heavy machine guns, rocket propelled grenades, drones that can drop bombs. They have landmines.

For Mexico to really take on the cartels would be, in a sense, a major civil war, a major war within Mexico.

This is not El Salvador. This is not, I don't know Honduras or any of the little countries in Central America where you can round up in days or weeks.

You can round up all the cartel members. This would be war. This would be out and out war within Mexico.

And you can see it in terms of what's happening right now.

Mexican military launched this operation to try to capture El Mencho on Sunday.

A significant gunfight ensued. As part of that gunfight he was injured and ultimately died in a helicopter on the way to the hospital.

But once his killing kind of made the news, violence surged all over Mexico.

You saw Mexican gangs, burning government officers, burning banks and engaging in violence all over Mexico.

The Americans now trapped in Puerto Vallarta, the tourist location because gangs are going wild in that area.

This cartel was based in Western Mexico, which is the area where Puerto Vallarta is at.

It was in a relatively small town of 20,000 called Jalisco.

Or the state is called Jalisco. The town is called Tapalpa.

And the state in which this gang operates, which includes, for example Guadalajara, which is on the border with the United States.

The violence here is significant.

Sorry, Tapalpa is not on the border with the United States, my mistake.

But it seems like violence has happened at least 13 states, mostly in the state in which this particular cartel has its headquarters.

But it seems that violence spread across Mexico.

And the violence is likely to continue if the Mexican government continues to try to fight against the cartels as the Trump administration is eager to get them to do.

You know, we'll see. My guess is that the government president of Mexico, Sheninbo, will use this as a way to appease Trump.

See, we went after them. And then she'll turn to the cartels and said, you know, we did what we're supposed to do, but you're all okay.

Don't worry about it. You'll be fine.

So the US government in the meantime has warned its citizens to shelter in place until further notice in parts of five states.

And you know, we will see the reality is the cartels have no real interest for war.

The cartels can continue to rule over Mexico. It's unlikely the Mexican government really has the appetite to go after them fully and completely.

So they will cut a new deal and they'll completely continue to do this.

And look, cartels will always exist, no matter what you do.

If somehow Mexico manages to destroy all the cartels, which I don't think is possible in a country as big as Mexico,

then the cartels will reorganize somewhere else and find alternative ways to get the drugs into the United States.

The reality is, as long as there's demand for drugs, and as long as drugs are illegal, the drug trade will be so profitable as to justify arming and controlling and doing everything the cartels do.

The cartels are a direct product of American, to some extent you appear, but in this case primarily American, demand for drugs and the fact that we have made it illegal so that we've driven up the profit margins dramatically.

You want to get rid of the cartels? It's easy.

Legalized drugs, don't decriminalize them, legalize them, create legal competition to the cartels and the cartels will have to fold.

They won't be able to sustain their operations, they're too expensive, they can't stay profitable as the price will plummet once drugs are legalized.

But nobody is going to suggest that and nobody is actually upping now, but that is the one alternative.

The only alternative that actually makes sense during prohibition, prohibition is what's created the mafia and no matter what police did, the mafia was not eliminated indeed.

Once alcohol was made, legal the mafia is just pivoted towards the things that are not legal anymore like drugs.

Tyler Reddick here from 2311 Racing, another checkered flag for the books.

Time to celebrate with Chamba. Jump in at ChambaCasino.com. Let's Chamba.

No purchase necessary, BGW Group, void, we're prohibited by law, CCNC, 21 plus sponsored by ChambaCasino.

All right, Iran, a few things about Iran, one of the amazing things going on right now in Iran is students at universities all across Iran are still demonstrating.

You've got student protests in spite of the state trying to crack down on them. You've got universities in both of Iran's two largest cities as well as some of the smaller cities.

Again, it takes unbelievable courage knowing what the regime did just a few weeks ago in killing tens of thousands of people to still continue to demonstrate, continue to protest.

So that continues in Iran.

Negotiations are continuing, I guess the Americans and Iranians are meeting later this week.

Tehran keeps dangling in front of the Americans, a willingness to compromise on nuclear without giving out the right to find uranium.

But they're willing to find it only to lower grade uranium, not to weapons grade uranium, they're willing to have supervision by the UN, they're willing to do the Obama deal.

And they replace the Americans have to give up all sanctions, they're not willing to do away with their ballistic missile program, they're not willing to stop supporting ChambaCasbala and the Houthis, they're not willing to give up really anything.

What they're willing to do is cut the Obama deal. Trump for some bizarre strange reason continues to negotiate, continues to engage in talks with them, continues to think.

That something positive can come out of all of this.

Today, stunningly, I think it was today this morning, yesterday, Whitcough basically said that this is an attempt to justify bombing them.

Whitcough said, Iran is a weak away, a weak away from bomb grade material.

Remember, when the White House insisted a few months ago that Iran's nuclear facilities had been obliterated, and this is from the White House press release,

Iran's nuclear facilities had been obliterated and suggestions otherwise are fake news.

Now, the White House is telling us, or at least Whitcough, the stooge is telling us that Iran is a weak away from bomb grade material.

Maybe if Whitcough is saying that, that suggests that the Trump administration is serious about actually attacking the Iranians.

That was July 19th, Trump said, all three nuclear sites in Iran were completely destroyed and obliterated.

It would take years to bring them back into service. Whitcough yesterday, they're probably a weak away from having industrial grade bomb making material.

This administration is so pathetic. It's really unbelievable.

Of course, by saying this, it's just so weak, if you want to attack you on, attack you on.

The massive build-up is not scaring the Iranians because they don't actually believe the Trump will pull the trigger because he keeps suggesting he wants a deal.

And he comes emphasizing a deal and then he says, oh, maybe I'll just do a minor operation against them.

I mean, look at the regime. This regime is never going to surrender its ballistic missile program.

It'll never surrender its nuclear program.

It'll dare you to replace it. It will not surrender those programs. It is essential to their identity as a regime.

It might make right. They need the might in order to have a right to exist.

It's not a right, but that's how they perceive it.

The president should either do it or not do it, but all these games and these negotiations and deferring and waiting.

It's just ridiculous. In the meantime, Iran assigned an arms deal with Russia to acquire thousands of advanced, shoulder-fired missiles.

So this is to try to rebuild its defense systems that Israel wiped out.

Tyler Redic here from 2311 Racing.

The rush of racing? Nothing beats it, but Chumpa Casino comes close.

Chumpa's got fast spins, fun games, daily bonuses, and all the action you can handle.

Now that's a ride. Ready to hit the throttle? Get in the driver's seat and head to chumpacasino.com.

Let's chumpa. Sponsored by Chumpa Casino. No purchase necessary. VGW Group Voidware prohibited by law.

21 plus turns and conditions apply.

The Israeli Air Force wiped out. It figures, you know, shoulder-based air defense system is better because those are hard to target.

You can target launches. You can target sites. You can target radar facilities.

So these are shoulder-down. These can only hit low flying airplanes. They can't hit high flying airplanes. They can't find them.

And they can hit drones and they can hit certain missiles, ballistic missiles as they approach.

But this is an act of desperation. 500 men, portable, verbal launch units.

Given how well Russian weapons systems have worked all over the world, you know, Iran shouldn't really count on this.

They might not be as quite as mighty as they think it is.

But, you know, it's an act of desperation, but they are trying to get weapons systems from the Chinese, from the Russians, from anybody in the meantime.

I don't know what Trump is waiting for exactly. Maybe for the Ford aircraft carrier to reach whatever destination the US military wants it at, whether that is off the coast of Israel,

whether that is in the Arabian Sea. If it's in the Arabian Sea, we're still a week away.

If it's off the coast of Israel, they're probably there now or probably approaching that pretty quickly here.

I did read a story that says that the sailors on the USS Ford have been now deployed for eight months.

The usual deployment is six months. And they're pretty fed up with what is going on.

Many of them are saying that they're going to be retiring from the Navy after this. They have no interest.

They're being, you know, dragged around the world from one deployment to another without any, without any rest.

Moral does not seem to be high on the USS, on the USS Ford.

All right.

Okay, a few things on Ukraine.

You know, one of the things that it's just bewildering and just shows again the extent to which Trump is just a plaything of Putin or completely in Putin's side.

You know, one of the things that the Europeans have asked for, and the Trump administration originally agreed to, but has not followed through on,

is the Europeans wanted the capacity to build themselves, that they won't expense.

The Patriot missiles, not the system, just the missiles, so that they can refurbish the systems that they already have.

And, you know, a production of the Patriot missiles in the United States is not catching up with the demand for them, the demand both in Ukraine and in Israel and by U.S. forces all over the world.

It's just not keeping up.

So they asked to be able to produce the missiles.

The Trump administration originally agreed and now is refusing to give them a license to do the production.

This is a defensive weapon.

What, what reason could they have?

There is no reason for it.

It's just, you know, appeasing the Russians and playing into the Russians' hand.

In the meantime, as I think I told you last week, Ukraine is making small progress vis-a-vis the Russians.

They're actually occupying land that belonged to them.

I guess this is also the might as right.

I guess it's Russians because they took it.

And now Ukrainian takes it back, so therefore it's okay.

It's now Ukrainian land.

They have now occupied about or reconquered about 300 square kilometers, about 115 square miles of Ukrainian territory over the last 20 days.

So this is good news.

It basically says that the Ukrainians have the momentum here.

Russia is gaining nothing these days.

And the Ukrainians are gaining stuff.

This is the first time Ukraine is actually advanced and actually reoccupied land, taken back land since 2023.

So these are really good moves.

And, you know, I don't think it's enough.

It's far from going to cause the Russians to fold, but it's pretty cool.

Ukraine also, as Bill, we talked about this a few months ago, I think,

built this new missile that is the Flamingo, the FP5 Flamingo.

And they are using these missiles.

These are kind of missiles that the United States won't sell them because they don't want them used to attack infrastructure within Russia.

So the Ukrainians just built them themselves.

They can't build many of them sadly, but they are building them.

Over the weekend, one of these missiles we use to attack a plant, a manufacturing plant,

that produces engines for the Russian Iskandar missiles that are doing so much damage in Ukraine.

Iskandar missiles can also carry nuclear warheads.

So what Kinsk plants production, what Kinsk plants has been bombed and significant damage,

this will hold the ability of the facility to manufacture engines.

For cruise missiles and ballistic missiles on the Russian side, if the Ukrainians had significant quantities of missiles,

they could do a lot of damage to the Russians because the Russians do not have adequate defense systems to knock these missiles out of the air.

Russia is a big place and they just don't have the capacity and the capabilities to destroy these missiles.

In the meantime, on pretty much a nightly basis, the Russians are bombing Ukraine, bombing the electricity, you know, heating in Ukraine,

heating homes in Ukraine is almost impossible.

This winter electricity is gone. They are now starting to bomb water facilities and in other infrastructure.

So Russia kind of on a daily basis.

It can't really advance on the front line.

It's not making any real progress on the front line.

So it's trying to break the Ukrainian spirit. It's trying to break the Ukrainian will.

All right, let's talk a little bit about Trump's tariffs.

Post, this is called decision on Friday, as you probably know, as I mentioned on Friday and then again yesterday,

Trump has imposed new tariffs based on Section 122 that, you know, imposed as a so-charge on basically most U.S. imports.

And he's placed it on 15% effective, the 24th February is effective tomorrow for 150 days.

The law Section 122 only allows you to do it for 150 days.

The trade weighted average U.S. tariff rate is 13.2% under Section 122 or 13.2%.

Section S122 at 15%, compared to the 11.6% at 10%.

So this is a significant increase from 11.6 effective rate to 13.2 effective rate.

Remember, there is a bunch of other tariffs that have been placed based on other provisions,

primarily national security provisions, for example, on furniture, on steel and aluminum, on a bunch of other things.

So this is 15% weighted average across all these different goods that is in addition to the specific tariffs for national security.

There are other provisions that he might be able to use in the future.

You've got 232 tariffs, that's the national security ones.

He's used that for steel, aluminum, copper, lumber, automobiles, and furniture.

I don't know how furniture fits in there.

They're excluded from the 122 because they have their own 232 tariffs.

It gets complicated.

The stuff coming in from Canada and Mexico that falls under U.S. MCA, the trade agreement between those two countries, is exempt from the Section 122 tariffs.

Textiles and appellate articles are entering duty free under the Dominican Republic and Central American Free Trade Agreement are also exempt.

And there are some other exemptions.

This is why the weighted average is not 15%.

It's likely below that 13.2 because so much of American trade comes from Mexico and Canada, and that is all exempt from this.

This is creating obviously a lot of chaos, a statement from the executive branch already went out today to stop collecting IEPA tariffs.

And as of tomorrow, they'll start collecting the new Section 122.

The problem with Section 122 is that it's placed the same tariffs on all countries.

As a consequence of that, all these supposed trade deals that Trump has cut don't really seem to apply to anybody.

So if he's given a country less than 15%, no, now they're at 15%.

If he's given a country more than 15%, no, now they're at 15%.

After I give everything I've got to land a perfect vocal, I usually take five before jumping into the next track.

And I've learned exactly how to recharge in that time.

Some folks grab coffee, I hit a quick good look spin.

Next thing you know, the break is just as fun as land down the track.

A better break makes for a better take.

Need a break? Let's chumble.

No purchase necessary, BGW Group void were prohibited by law, 21 plus TNC supply, sponsored by Chumba Casino.

It's taken away from him their ability to negotiate country by country.

Because the way Section 122 is, it applies to everybody the same.

You know, Trump is forming at the mouth over this.

He keeps putting out statements on two social.

Here's what he put out.

The Supreme Court is one of the things, a number of these that came up.

The Supreme Court will be using lower case letters for a while based on a complete lack of respect.

The Supreme Court, no capital S, no capital C.

The Supreme Court of the United States accidentally and unwittingly gave me, as president of the United States,

far more power and strength than I had prior to their ridiculous dumb and very intentionally divisive ruling.

It's just not true. He has less power and strength than he did before.

Nothing has changed. He could have always used 122.

For one thing, I can use licenses to do absolutely terrible things to foreign countries,

especially those countries that have been ripping us off, curious who those are.

For many decades, but incomprehensively, according to the ruling, can't charge them a licensing fee.

What license fee?

But all license fee charge fees.

Why can't the United States do so?

They all charge us license fees.

So he's switching from tariffs to license fees to pretend it's not taxes.

You do a license to get a fee.

God, the guy's an idiot.

The opinion doesn't explain that, but I know the answer.

The court has also approved all other tariffs, of which there are many.

The court did not approve any tariffs.

And they can all be used in a much more powerful and obnoxious way with legal certainty than the tariffs

as initially used.

Our incompetence of the court did a great job for the wrong people.

And for that, they should be ashamed of themselves.

But not the great three.

That's Alito, Kavanaugh, and Thomas.

The next thing you know, they were ruled in favor of China and others

who are making an absolute fortune on both right citizenship

by saying the 14th Amendment was not written to take care of the babies of slaves,

which it was, as proven by the exact timing of its construction, filing and ratification,

which perfectly coincide with the end of the Civil War.

How much better can you do than that?

But this Supreme Court will find a way to come to the wrong conclusion.

One that again will make China and various other nations happy and rich.

Let us Supreme Court keep making decisions that are so bad and deleterious to the future of our nation.

I have a job to do.

So that is Trump lashing out its complete nonsense.

It makes absolutely no sense.

Licensing fees and other fees.

He then, the European Union has said, wait a minute.

We had an agreement of tariffs less than 10%.

We're not going to do outside of the agreement if you are now raising our tariffs to 15%.

So Trump put this out.

Any country that wants to play games with a ridiculous Supreme Court decision,

especially those that have ripped off the United States of America for years,

and even decades will be met with a much higher tariff and worse,

than that which they just recently agreed to.

By-a-be-way.

That is the President of the United States.

Anyway, what's happening is an increase in complications.

Countries don't know exactly what to do with the new tariffs.

All these trade deals that Trump claims they're made,

most of them are not being ratified by the other side.

So they all know trade deals really.

It's all in his head.

It's all fictitious.

It's all made up stuff that doesn't make any sense.

Yeah, I mean, Japanese don't know exactly what to do.

The U doesn't know exactly what to do.

All of these are, you know, very confusing times.

And this will not, it's not good for the global economy.

It's not good for the United States.

All right, finally, this piece of interesting news.

Todd had nowhere to make of this.

Peru has a new president.

This is like the, I don't know how many,

third president in just the last couple of years.

The Congress keeps impeaching presidents and appointing new ones.

This president will only be in place until July when Peru will have an election.

The interesting thing about this president is he is a, he's a Marxist.

He's a Marxist-Leninist, right?

From a Marxist-Leninist political party.

And he became president of Peru.

And yet this Marxist-Leninist,

Marxist-Leninist president has now appointed as his prime minister,

Hernández de Soto, one of the most pro-capitalist, pro-market call it,

economists in Latin America.

And Hernández de Soto is not, he's not a laissez-faire guy,

but he's close.

He's about as good as it gets in terms of,

now, de Soto is 84.

He will run the interim government until the election happens in July.

I think the current president, Peru, will not be able to run for those elections.

So there'll be a new president.

So this government by and under this sort of won't be around for a very long time.

I'm curious why this sort of agreed to this.

I think in the past, he's turned down office for being prime minister.

So it's very weird.

I think mainly this is supposed to indicate continuity,

because this guy is a Marxist-Leninist.

People are worried that he's going to turn Peru into,

move it towards Marxist-Leninism.

This is supposed to say, no, no, no.

I'm going to continue with kind of the right-wing policies of my predecessors.

I guess.

But the whole thing is very, you know, one has to, is very strange.

Soto is going to be sworn in tomorrow,

alongside the rest of his cabinet.

And then, I guess, he's has, what, six months to try to do something

with the Peruan economy.

It's hard to know what he will do if he will do anything.

He has to get Parliament's approval for anything he does.

So it's interesting, but it is, you know,

as I said, the Soto is 84.

It is interesting that he agreed.

It's interesting that he is prime minister.

It would be great if he stayed on his prime minister

under whatever the new president was going to be.

And maybe we'd get another kind of melee revolution in Peru.

But given his age, and given that we don't know

who's going to win the next election,

it's probably unlikely, but we will monitor and see.

A bit of good news, how to tell exactly how big it is.

By the way, if you're going to read the Soto,

an excellent, excellent book by the Soto

that I recommend is The Mystery of Capital,

The Mystery of Capital, which has some really good principles

on how to really bring prosperity to Latin America.

So check it out, The Mystery of Capital,

by Hernando Disoto, the Peruvian economist who is now

as of tomorrow will be the prime minister of Peru.

All right, guys, that is the news for today.

Monday, February 25th.

Let me remind everybody again that I will be in London

and we're doing a seminar on February 28th in London.

I put the link to the seminar in the chat earlier.

I put it again just below so you can find it.

It would be great to get another three, four people to sign up.

That would be, that would, I think, give us the optimal size

for an interactive seminar.

This is going to be very interactive.

Lots of time for back and forth.

Lots of time for your questions and to hang out.

So I hope you guys, I hope you guys join me, join me at it.

Let me just remind you of some of our sponsors.

I know in Institute is holding a conference in Porto.

Porto in Portugal.

In April 18th, the weekend of April 18th.

You can find that information about the conference on

Einran.org slash start here.

Einran.org slash start here.

And, uh,

I'll be there on Carl Garte.

We'll be there.

So it's funny to see of the Einran Institute will be there.

So join us.

It's going to be a great conference.

If you're under 34, you can apply for scholarship.

If you're over 34 or under don't get a scholarship,

you can get a discount.

26YBS 10.

26YBS 10 is the discount code.

Is the discount code.

26YBS 10.

The discount code.

Let's see.

So, uh, I encourage you to come to Porto.

If Ryan air has lots of chief flights to Porto.

So join us.

Join us.

Join us there.

All right, Alex.

Stein is the leading authority in the world on all things.

Energy electricity fossil fuels.

He is a sponsor of the show.

Check him out.

Alex Epstein dot.

Substack.com.

I just saw a substack today.

A post of his today with some amazing stats and information.

Uh, you were learned so much.

So much by following Alex.

So check him out.

Alex Epstein, uh,

Epstein dot.

Substack dot com.

Tyler Reddick here from 2311 racing.

Another checkered flag for the books.

Time to celebrate with chamba.

Jump in at chamba casino dot com.

Let's chamba.

No purchase necessary.

BTW group.

Boy, we're prohibited by law.

CCNC.

21 plus sponsored by chamba casino.

Uh, all right.

Let's, uh, let's, uh,

I want to remind you also the tonight.

I'll be interviewing Teras Smith.

7 p.m. Eastern time.

Uh, we'll have Teras Smith on the show.

We're talking about the value of others.

That is the value of other people.

Why other people are a value to an objectivist to a, uh,

to a selfish objectivist.

Um, I hope you join us.

Bring lots of questions.

Of course, Terakin is, is, uh,

an expert on, uh,

on philosophy of law.

She's also on certain aspects of philosophy of law.

She's also an expert on ethics.

On, uh, she's an objectivist philosophy.

So, uh, yeah.

Bring your questions.

Bring your philosophy for oriented questions,

particularly in ethics and in law.

Uh, to the show tonight.

7 p.m. East Coast time.

I don't miss it.

Teras really, really good.

Really, really interesting.

Really passionate.

Uh, she's, uh, she's, uh,

and really smart.

Really wonderful.

All right.

Uh, let's see.

What else?

Yes.

Uh, I encourage you to sign up as a monthly subscriber

to the One Book Show and a monthly supporter of the One Book Show.

On Patreon.com, Patreon.com.

Uh, just put your One Book Show on Patreon and, uh, subscribe.

For $10, you can get $10 a month.

You can get the one, and above.

You can get the, um,

podcast, the audio only of the show with no commercials, no advertising.

Uh, basically, uh, you get, you get a stream with that at $25 and above.

You can participate in, um,

in the AMAs on the panel.

Uh, you can interact directly on the panel.

And for $250 a month,

you can get one-on-one with me once every three months for $500 once a month,

a one-on-one with me.

So, check it out.

Uh, we'd love to have some, uh, additional monthly supporters,

either there or on PayPal.

Patreon is the easier, uh, of the platforms to engage with.

So, that is my preferred platform.

I think it's better for you as well.

So, uh, consider doing that.

All right.

Let me, uh, let me thank the stickers Ryan.

Thank you.

Jeffrey.

Thank you.

Really appreciate it.

Glenn, uh, Jimmy.

And, uh, let's see who else do we have.

Oh, that's it.

All right.

Thank you guys.

Really appreciate it.

Um, with a hundred people watching right now.

Come on over.

Uh, uh, ask a question that way you get, uh, actually get me to talk about the things

you want me to talk about.

Or just do a sticker.

And that way you can trade with me as, uh, support, value for value.

Uh, $2, $5, $100, $500.

You can't do more than $500, but you can do as low as $1.

Uh, $1 appreciated.

Everything is appreciated, no matter how, uh, how much you support the show.

The fact that you're willing to support it is appreciated.

All right.

Let's start with Christian who has a 50 euro question.

Thank you, Christian.

Really appreciate it.

You said some days ago I wrote that I prefer a voluntary professional army to conscription.

And Israeli said a dumb idea, unworthy to even debate in our tiny country.

We need conscription to survive.

Did you have similar experiences?

What would you say?

Well, I'd say that a country that cannot defend itself.

Uh, based on a all volunteer army is a country that doesn't deserve to exist.

It might have a right to exist, but it doesn't deserve to exist.

There's a difference between dessert and right.

Uh, so, uh, a lot of Israelis think that I don't believe it's true.

I know military commanders in Israel, uh, who support an all volunteer army, a professional army.

I think Israel takes too many people into the army right now and doesn't, and, and, and, and, you know,

creates artificial positions for them, uh, which it wouldn't need in a all professional army.

But, uh, you know, Israel needs to, uh, and it would need a large army.

And I think it would get a large army because I think they'd get a lot of volunteers.

You saw that after October 7th, people volunteered to go to Gaza.

People, you know, people jumped at the opportunity to, uh, to participate in this war because they understood the existential nature of the conflict.

And to the extent that they want to live in Israel, to the extent that they want to reach families in Israel, to the extent they want to life in Israel, they have to defend it.

And, uh, I, I think there's also a certain social, us to state, us to system that happens when people try to free right off of that.

That is not participate in the defense of the country.

So, yeah, conscription is a violation of rights, direct violation of rights, even in the case of a country like Israel.

Even in the case, and Israelis, you know, don't even think about it.

I get it. They don't even think about it because of the existential nature of the struggle, but it doesn't really, it doesn't really matter.

So, you know, the fact that they think that doesn't make it true.

Michael, this whole changing the world thing is a lot harder than I thought. You're welcome to the club.

You think once enough people who matter, read out a shrug, they would see the way forward.

This honesty and evasion must run deep in man's souls today. Yes.

And, you know, in altruism and, uh, in the religion and mysticism of diverse forces, all of those run very, very deep in man's soul.

And just reading a book is not enough to get people over it.

You know, it's not clear what is enough for some people. Nothing might be enough.

There's nothing you can do that could get them.

But you've definitely got to do more than just have them read the book.

Michael, is the phrase rational self-interest redundant?

It's like saying rational capitalism or rational virtues.

Um, yes, it is redundant. It's not like saying rational capitalism because capitalism does not necessitate.

There is no such thing. Capitalism is capitalism.

But there is such thing as rational self-interest in the sense that self-interest is rational.

Rationality is the primary virtue in first a self-interested human being.

Reason is the primary value for a self-interested human being.

So rational self-interest is redundant.

I use it and other people use it in order to differentiate in people who don't know,

it's mind between a view of self-interest and the common altruistic view of self-interest as something evil,

as something really oriented around focused on exploiting other people.

So it's just an attempt to differentiate from that view.

Michael, how far will Mamdani be able to go with nationalizing apartment buildings?

Will we see a migration from New York City?

I don't know how far he will go. My guess is not very far.

He's already scaling back many of his ambitious programs.

He just announced today something. I forget what it was that they're not going to be able to do,

because there's not enough money to do it.

So he's running up against his wish list versus reality.

And a lot of what he wants to do, he won't be able to do.

So they'll be mass migration from New York City.

No. New York City will survive Mamdani. That is my prediction.

It will survive Mamdani.

It will take a hit. It won't be as good as a place to live.

But people are not going to flee in mass.

They're going to stick it out and hopefully that will elect somebody better next time.

Jacob, thank you for the sticker. Mike, thank you for the sticker.

I really appreciate it guys. Thanks for the support.

Michael, do you think legalizing suicide will be crucial with the abolition of the welfare state?

If people really mess their lives up, they're going to need that humane out.

No, I don't think so. I don't think that suddenly you're going to have a lot of people who want to commit suicide,

because they can't make it at all. I don't think that is the case.

I think the numbers are small. There's going to be a charity based social net.

But ultimately, I don't think there's any connection between the two.

So I don't think that's going to happen.

You can still commit suicide, even though it's not legal.

You just jump off a building, jump off a bridge.

There are lots of ways to commit suicide that don't require state approval.

It's only assisted suicide that requires state approval.

You can shoot yourself. People commit suicide all the time by breaking the law.

Roman says, what are your preferred ways to monetize open-source software?

I really don't have a preferred way. I don't know. Whatever the market kind of disarmament makes sense.

I don't know. And people should experiment with it and find the optimal way.

This probably isn't one way, different software will probably be monetized in different ways.

Wes, thank you. $50 question really appreciated.

Wes says, I just experienced a blizzard in the perfect safety and warmth of my apartment.

Don't forget how great the modern world is, people. Yes, absolutely.

As bad as the news is, life is amazing. Life is amazing.

I mean, a brutal blizzard in the Northeast today.

One that they say, Northeast doesn't experience it in decades.

And yet, 99.9999% of the people are going to be fine.

Just fine.

So because the modern world is pretty damn amazing.

In spite of Tucker Carlson and Matt Walsh and the rest of the barbarians.

And Mombani, I should add. And the rest of the Mombanians.

All right, don't forget you can ask questions in the super chats.

We've got time.

I have some questions, but the the list of $20 questions is vacant right now.

And those get priorities. The $2,500 questions.

They always get priority.

Michael, when is the Jason Ryan's interview? I don't know.

Hasn't been set yet in the works.

Roman, what's the best way to stop RSF's genocide in Sudan?

Do you support military support for the Sudanese army to access the loans and weapons?

No. I mean, there's no good guys in Sudan.

There's no bad guys in Sudan who said the RSF are bad guys.

And as far as I know, the Sudanese army are committing this as much genocide as RSF.

It's a war between barbarians. There's none of America's interests.

It affects nothing in America.

The Sudanese are not a threat to America in any way.

You know, I don't think America should get involved.

One way or the other.

So no, America should not be the policeman of the world.

You don't have to have an opinion about every conflict in the world.

Some conflicts are important.

They have relevance to the Western world and some conflicts like the one is Sudan

has no relevance to the modern world, Western world.

It's just two groups of bad guys, two tribal groups, two groups of, you know, a pretty barbaric culture, killing each other.

It's sad, but it's nothing.

We shouldn't put our wealth or our people in danger for that.

And it's actually which side you would take.

Roman, is there a difference between liberal and religious Zionism?

Should the Jews be allowed to see it from Syria and join Israel?

Yeah, I mean, there's definitely a difference that liberal Zionism is not oriented towards biblical...

The biblical promise of the land of Israel by God.

It's really based on the idea of creating a state for self-defense.

It's based on the idea of creating a state for self-defense of the Jews, but creating a free state, a liberal democracy.

Religious Zionism, depending on their flavor, there are lots of flavors of religious Zionism.

It's much more oriented towards the Bible, towards what it says in the Bible about Israel,

the Jews, ancient roots in Israel.

It's much more as you'd expect, religious in its justification.

And it's not focused so much on defending rights or on, you know, liberal democracy is the form of government in Israel.

Should the Jews be allowed to succeed from Syria and join Israel?

Yes, I mean, they should, but, you know, who is going to...

I mean, I wish the United States would support that.

This is the kind of secession that I support because it's a secession, secession.

You're succeeding from authoritarianism to freedom.

The Jews in Israel are free and prosperous.

And if the Syrian Jews joined Israel, they too would be free and prosperous.

Israel would benefit. It would give them a buffer zone in the north.

And the Jews would benefit, so it's win-win.

But Syria is not going to agree.

And the United States won't agree.

And none of the other, our countries would agree.

So it basically is not going to happen.

Teleredic here from 2311 Racing.

Game night's fun until someone spends five minutes lining up one shot.

Chalk, breathe, re-chalk, still aiming.

While they figure it out, I fire up Champa Casino.

I can spin anywhere, anytime, and there's always a new social casino game every week.

Spins happen way faster than that shot.

Play now at chambacasino.com.

Let's chamba.

Sponsored by Chamba Casino.

No purchase necessary.

VGW Group, boardware prohibited by law.

21 plus terms and conditions apply.

Jamie from Canada, do you think Alberta will separate from Canada?

Or will they hash it out?

Rumors of ending carbon sales, income tax if they do?

A fit criteria of justified secession and pursuit of freedom?

I mean, it depends how serious you think they really are.

I don't know how serious they are, right?

I don't know how serious they are.

You know, it's easy to say we want to do all these things,

but do they have the political power to actually do them?

Is Alberta really dominated that much by people who hold those ideas?

Yes, if they truly want to establish a freer place than all the power to them,

I don't think it will happen.

Quebec didn't succeed, and I don't think Alberta is going to succeed.

I think it's just a lot of people making noise.

I mean, maybe, but I think as of now, I think it's just noise.

Also from Jamie of Canada, what in God's name is Netherlands doing?

36% unrealized capital gains tax coming to you as Canada next?

Yeah, I mean, look, the left has realized, leftists have realized

that there is this massive amount of wealth that has not been taxed.

And if they can only suck so many taxes out of income,

and they can only suck so many taxes out of the middle class,

which holds most of the money in any given society,

but there's a low-hanging fruit, and that low-hanging fruit is all the capital gains.

When the markets go up, we all have a lot of capital gains,

and a lot of that capital gains is unrealized because we haven't sold the stock.

And a huge quantity of the global wealth in the world is held as unrealized capital gains,

and the stock market and the bond market in various forms,

in alternative markets, hedge funds, private equity funds?

And the left, all over the world, is eyeing that as a source of new revenue.

I don't know how this passed in the Netherlands, and why they have a majority

that would allow this to pass in the Netherlands, but it has.

And there are about two actually tax unrealized capital gains,

which is one of the most evil taxes you can imagine.

I mean, capital gains taxes to begin with are a form of double taxation.

Capital gains, that money was already taxed.

It was taxed when you owned it before you invested it.

But unowned capital gains is unowned.

For example, you could have capital losses the next year, which would make it go away,

and you might not have the money to literally pay the unowned capital gains taxes,

which would force you to sell assets in order to pay the taxes.

I mean, if you're like in a startup in America,

you could have billions of dollars of capital gains, unrealized capital gains.

There's no way for you to sell that stock because it's some of its private.

How are you going to pay the tax bill?

Now, could we see it elsewhere?

Yes, I mean, it's already been proposed in the United States.

I think Kamala, when she was running, proposed it for a little while.

Others proposed it.

I don't think it would pass in the United States.

I don't think you could get 60 votes in the Senate to get that kind of tax passed in the US.

I don't think it's ever going to happen in the US.

But it's only being proposed by the left.

Again, it's a low-winged food.

It's rich people as far as they're concerned, right?

It's the way they think about it.

All right, guys.

We're like $185 short of our second hour goal.

So it would be great if some of you stepped up, particularly in the stickers or $20 or $50 questions.

That would be amazing.

We probably don't have more than maybe 15 minutes to go.

So you've got 15 minutes to come on over and support the show.

Jamie, again, can you elaborate on what the agreement between you and Craig Bitter was

in relation to objectivism?

The disagreement was.

I understand, if not, I understand, if not, just curious where the philosophical difference may have been.

I don't think there is a philosophical difference qua split between me and Craig Bitter.

I mean, I think that probably a bunch of philosophical things we disagree about.

But that has nothing to do with whatever conflict I had with Craig Bitter.

The conflict we had with Craig Bitter is more business and personal than it is philosophical.

So for whatever that's worth.

And, yeah.

I don't particularly think he does a good job defending the objectivist philosophy.

But, you know, but that's, that is not, that's nothing to do with why we had falling out called it.

We had a falling off of other reasons that were not for us, not philosophical.

Jamie, rate of making widgets, I understand.

But how is debt of labor stats able to determine show numerical graph of superficial wall CEO productivity?

How is department of labor stats able to determine show numerical graph of soup?

Well, I mean, it can't.

You know, the kind of, the kind of value added that a CEO provides is not easy to trace a particular chart or particular graph.

You could, you could say he's responsible for the profits.

So, certainly there's a, there's a causal relationship between CEO decision making and the profitability of a company.

It's stock price.

Those are the things that the CEO is responsible for and those are the things that ways productivity is added.

You have to be able to conceptually understand the role of a CEO, what he does, the impact of his decisions and how that affects productivity.

It's not a simple pulling out the accounting statement and seeing, oh, I see, that's how the CEO increased productivity.

He increased productivity in every decision and he makes or not, right? He might decrease productivity by bad decisions.

The point is, he makes the big, the decisions that makes the most impact on productivity one way or the other.

So, is Cuba's fuel crisis more Trump's fault?

Is what he's doing right wrong or communism?

And why vacation cancellations only now if it's the latter?

The fuel shortage is, you know, overall, communism's fault because Cuba's too poor to buy oil in the open market.

It has received subsidized oil from Venezuela and before that from Russia and the Soviet Union in the past.

It's never been able to buy oil on oil kind of global oil markets because it's never had the wealth because it's communist.

Now, it's true that currently right now Trump is the one who stopped the flow of oil from Venezuela.

Specific crisis is Trump's doing and it's fine.

I mean, I don't think it's necessarily wrong to stop the Cubans in this way.

You know, exactly where he takes this and what he does with it, I don't know.

Why vacation cancellations? Because the only source of one of the only sources of foreign currency for the Cuban regime is tourism.

So they have invested in tourism and there's tourists to come from, primarily from Europe to Cuba and spend their foreign currency in Cuba.

Now, I would never go because that money all flows to the communist government.

It's not the people of Cuba who benefit from the tourism.

It's the communist government that benefits and it's corrupt and it uses it to oppress the people of Cuba.

So you can have communism and still have tourism because the communist figured out the only area in which they can carve out where they will get foreign currency, which they need in order to buy stuff like oil.

But again, the only place that would give them oil at the kind of price they can afford was Venezuela and that's gone because Trump won't allow it, which he shouldn't.

There's no reason to allow Venezuela to subsidize Cuba, given the hostility of Venezuela and Cuba to the United States.

And given there were basically now in control of Venezuela. I mean, I take that as what Trump has done. He's taking control of Venezuela.

Certainly off of its oil exports and as such, he's not going to export the oil to Cuba.

All right, Jamie, will AI be able to predict sports scores? No, no, I don't think so.

Better, maybe than humans, but I don't think very well. Wow, Jamie's asking all the questions. Jamie again, FAA will require airlines to prove they use merit-based pilot hiring.

Why did free market fail to achieve this? Why did government need to step in?

Well, it's not clear that the government needs to step in. It's not clear that there are any unqualified pilots flying airlines in the United States.

The market doesn't automatically do the right thing. It can take a while to adjust. But if there's no consequences, like all the pilots, they hire a qualified pilots.

They don't crash planes. And so customers don't care. So how would they be disciplined? If the airlines are, let's say, preferences, minority pilots, if those pilots are, you know, good enough to fly the plane.

So, you know, and it's not clear how much airlines use the AI. I don't know. Do you know how much they use the AI?

Women pilots. Why would they not be women pilots? Women fly helicopters in the Air Force. They fly airplanes. There's no reason why women would be any less qualified to fly a plane than a man.

Or color skin should make a difference. So it's just not clear if there's people who aren't qualified who are flying airplanes.

There's no evidence to suggest that. If there was, then customers would go move away from the airlines that were having pilot caused crashes and two airlines that where they weren't such crashes. That's how the market would discipline it. But so far that hasn't happened.

Tyler Reddick here from 2311 Racing, another checkered flag for the books. Time to celebrate with Jamba. Jump in at JambaCasino.com. Let's Jamba.

No purchase necessary. BTW Group. Boy, we're prohibited by law. CCNC is 21 plus sponsored by Jamba Casino.

Jamie, I despise Iran's regime, but every way I look online says Iran's death run five to seven. Where's the 3040,000 number coming from?

Certainly, Iranian sources are bringing in the 30 to 40, the five to seven is what the mainstream media is particularly seven is repeating.

But sources that are more connected to the Iranian community are claiming it's 30 to 40,000. I don't know what the real number is. I think it's more likely to be 30 to 40,000.

But I don't know and I guess we won't know until the regime falls and you get somebody doing investigative reporting any run.

Jamie of Canada, what would be bigger boost to our economic growth? Dropping all tariffs or to zero or dropping all corporate taxes to zero?

Probably corporate taxes? Probably dropping the corporate taxes to zero? They would also have a big impact probably on prices and on wages, prices would go down wages would go up.

So I think that's the bigger one. Jonathan, what should happen to the property and money of someone who dies without a will or next of kin?

I think I was asked this question just about a week ago, two weeks ago. It should probably go to the state which would then auction it off and use those proceeds to sustain the state's operations.

Or if it's vast quantities of land, they would use some kind of method of homesteading to gain new owners for it.

But I think just auctioning it off would be fine. Another way in which the state could fund its operations. Stephen, do you think the children of the undocumented should be entitled to birthright citizenship?

Do you know the government's argument at the Supreme Court? Yes, I think they should absolutely. I think the 14th Amendment doesn't distinguish.

I think what the government is arguing is that the 14th Amendment was there for slaves or the children of slaves who were not citizens when they were born, but now becoming citizens when they were freed from slavery.

Yes, that's true, but there's no exemption there for legal resident. There's no exemption there for only slaves.

And I think it kind of makes sense if you're born here, your citizen. I don't see why that is offensive to anybody.

And I think the 14th Amendment is pretty clear about it. So I don't think it takes a convoluted set of reasoning to try to make the case that it's not.

I wouldn't be surprised if this one went seven to two, or the could also go six to three, to abolish abolish it could be six to three.

I think he just reads the 14th Amendment. It goes by what the text says that they're supposed to be textualists. So we will see.

According to objectives principles, all countries are violating individual rights. So on this argument, no country has a right to exist. No, that's not true.

I said for the most part, right? So most liberal democracies call them most western countries, most countries that have legit elections are for the most part protecting rights, authoritarian regimes are for the most part violating rights.

So I man had a test of whenever government becomes illegitimate has no right. And that is no free speech.

The jailing of political opposition in one party rule. Those three things would mean that a particular country had no right to exist by that standard.

If you have free speech, if free speech is protected, and if you don't jail political prisoners, and if you have more than one political party running for elections, then you're mostly free and you're protecting rights mostly, if not perfectly.

Tom, planning ahead for emergencies is part of rational self interest.

I have learned health issues about a parent high affordances. Yes, definitely. You've got a plan ahead. I think if you if you grew up in Israel, like I did, you you need learn to plan ahead for emergencies, because wars broke out, terrorist attacks happened, you had a plan for this and planning ahead for your parents planning ahead for your own health and your own life in older age, very, very important.

And real time needs to be spent on it. Michael thought I'm just going to be running for Congress. I mean, good for him. I'm all for it. I'm glad he's running as a Democrat. That is, I think, really good.

So he's not endorsing the common Republican party, which I think is unindosable. So good for him. I hope he's successful. I hope he moves a needle. I hope he gets kind of certain Democrats, certain people who are dead.

Certain people who are Democrats in rule of Virginia to appreciate free markets, which I think is part of his goal is to bring capitalism into the gender, the discussion among certain types of Democrats.

Natural nature observer. Thank you for the sticker. I appreciate that. All right. Last two questions, Kim. What would be appropriate response to the cartels beside legalizing drugs?

Well, I mean, they are violent in Mexico. They're killing people and they are, they're extorting the killing politicians. They need to be shut down. The Mexico government should engage in police action to minimize their impact as much as possible.

I don't think it's possible to completely eliminate them as long as there is as long as drugs illegal. But yeah, I mean, the fact that they are violent, the fact that they are doing more than just drugs means the state has.

It's, it's, it's number one obligation. The number one obligation of the Mexican government is to go after the cartels.

But don't, don't let's not pretend that that's going to solve the drug problem. Let's not pretend that they can achieve in Mexico what they seem to have achieved in El Salvador. It's not doable.

But okay, but they still should go after them. It's what governments are supposed to do. Get rid of violent criminals.

Michael says, will the stock market boom now that half the tariffs are gone? But half the tariffs are not gone. I mean, the reality is that the tariffs Trump has replaced all the tariffs with, in some cases, worst tariffs.

So they haven't gone at all. So the chaos, uncertainty, stupidity of tariffs continues. I mean, indeed, if you look at the stock market, it's way down today.

And it's way down today would be my guess because of the tariff, because of Trump's introduction of their 15% tariff.

So, yeah, it's, you know, bonds, actually, the 10 year bond is down. The dollar was actually going down. Yeah, going down, but not by a lot.

Bitcoin is under 65,000. That's big. That's big. So, yeah, now as that gets down a percent, bank stocks are down 5%, almost 5%, 4.64%.

So, yeah, it's, it's, it's not, it's not good. The tariff stuff is not good. And his commitment to tariffs is not good. And his willingness to do whatever it takes to impose tariffs is not good.

And the market is responding natively. But look, the market could flip. There's so many different things going to determining what the market will do. I don't think you can take just one thing. And that is it. That gives you the whole picture.

There's a lot of moving parts to the market. It's not just about tariffs. It's about a lot of different things that are going on.

The high relatively high PCE personal consumption expenditure index reported on Friday also suggest that the Fed is unlikely to reduce interest rates anytime soon.

So, that could also be a reason why the stock market's going down. Interest rates up markets down. Interest rates down markets up everything else held constant, which it never is.

All right, son, son, something. I heard you talk with libertarian Doug Casey in 2012. Wow. And how you all agree with lots of stuff except Anarchy. Did you guys ever meet and talk?

No. I mean, I've met him. We've met in person. Yes. But we've never talked. We don't agree on as much as you think we do.

And we certainly don't agree with foreign policy. The difference on Anarchy is not a trivial difference. It's a huge humongous difference that is rooted in fundamental philosophical disagreements.

So, Doug Casey and I disagree about a lot of stuff. And again, certainly foreign policy. But even in domestic policy, we probably disagree on a lot of different things. But again, anytime.

Anarchy is a big deal in terms of how bad it is. So, I don't consider it a trivial disagreement. I consider it a major disagreement. And Doug Casey's other ideas, I view is really, really bad. So, there's a whole, there's all slew of stuff I disagree with him on and he disagrees with me on.

But that was a long, long, long time ago.

All right, guys. Thank you for, thank you for all the super chaters. Really appreciate the support. I will see you guys tomorrow.

Tomorrow, I think the show is at 3 p.m. East Coast Times and hour later than usual. Yes, 3 p.m. East Coast time tomorrow.

And then we'll see about the show on Wednesday. Partially, it depends on whether Homeland Security is doing away with TS a pre or not, pre-check or not.

Because I have to went to the airport right after the show. All right, guys. They threatened to do away with it as part of the government shutdown. But now they've said they're reintroducing it. So, it's hard to tell what they're doing.

See you tomorrow. Bye, everybody.