Loading...
Loading...

Tyler Reddick here from 2311 Racing.
Victory Lane?
Yeah, it's even better with Chamba by my side.
Race to chumpacaceno.com.
Let's Chamba.
No purchase necessary, VTW Group.
Boy, we're prohibited by law.
CTNCs, 21 Plus, sponsored by Chamba Casino.
No radical.
Fundamental principles of leader, rational self-interest,
and individual laws.
This is the year-on-rush show.
This is the year-on-rush show.
Oh, hi, everybody.
Welcome to your own book show.
On this Saturday, January 3rd, I was expecting
to do a completely different topic.
Movie views are still in.
I promised those.
They will happen.
But I woke up this morning in this news
on Venezuela.
And many of you went, I don't know,
on Twitter and online.
It said, you're on.
You have to comment.
You have to comment.
Because today was a non-use day.
It was supposed to be something else.
Anyway, when the news happens, I have to comment.
And it seems like you guys are particularly interested
in my views on war.
I mean, a lot can happen, markets, stuff
happens all the time.
But if there's a war going on,
everybody tunes in to the one book show, which is great.
Thank you.
And hopefully you benefit from and enjoy the commentary today.
All right, so as I'm sure you all know,
Nicolas Maduro has been arrested to a military operation
in Venezuela.
We get into the details in a minute.
And is comically on the way to New York,
where he will, either in New York,
he's going to be indicted in New York,
but he will face federal charges of a detailed
in a just released grand jury indictment
for criminal activity related to drugs and a drug cartel.
He will face a trial by jury, either in New York
or in Miami, in, I guess, the months to come,
but he will be indicted.
He will be arrested formally on US soil.
In New York, later today, he is currently probably
in an aircraft carrier somewhere, and then will be transported
by airplane to New York.
All this transpired last night, starting just before midnight,
US planes from bases around the Caribbean and from US bases.
And so bases, I mean aircraft carriers around the Caribbean.
But also, I have no information, but my expectation
is that some of the F-35s came and some of the other planes
might have come from the Air Force Base here in Puerto Rico.
But 150 planes supposedly participated in this.
F-35s, F-22s, F-18s, F-18s are Navy,
so they would have come from the aircraft carrier.
F-35s could be either from the Air Force Base here
or from an aircraft carrier.
US had planes in the air of a variety of different,
planes, command control planes, refueling planes.
And of course, planes to gather intelligence and information.
Overall, as I said, 150 planes.
And it seems like priority number one
was priority number one of all these planes in the air
was basically to take out the air defense system
that the Venezuelans had.
Now, the Venezuelans had what military experts,
and you know, if you followed me,
you know what I think, military experts.
But this is from the financial times this morning.
I think this morning, yes, this morning,
financial times this morning say experts had warned.
Experts, military experts had warned
that Venezuela's layered air defense network
could complicate US operations.
But it apparently presented little or no resistance
to the United States strike that captured
President Nicolas Maduro.
In other words, US took out the Venezuelans air defense system
in the first hour, this air defense system.
The multi-layered air defense system
was comprised primarily of Russian air defense batteries
with the S-300 as the long distance one
and a variety of different others for short and medium
to distance as Israel has shown over and over and over and over.
And over again, over the last 40 years or so, Russian weapons
suck.
As Israeli Air Force has shown over and over and over again,
Russian air defense systems cannot deal with a modern electronically
advanced and stealthy Air Force.
Israel did that in Syria.
It did it in, of course, in Iran is the classic case,
where Iranian skies were Israeli.
Well, the American Air Force has just shown the same thing
in Venezuela.
Russian air defense systems suck.
I mean, even Turkey is trying to return the S-400 batteries
that they purchased from the Russians a few years ago.
They're returning them partially because it's a condition
for receiving F-35s in the US.
And partially because Russian air defense systems suck.
So don't rely on it if you're building a country
and you want to defend against Western weapons systems
primarily US built airplane don't by Russian air defense system.
Anyway, so those airplanes basically, as far as we know,
again, fog of war and all of that.
And I have no zero zilch knowledge that goes beyond what
I'm reading and I listen to Trump's press conference
a little while ago.
So beyond what has been said publicly, I know nothing.
So I'm just basically reaffirming what I have heard.
And again, from what I've heard, they took out
the defense system and that allowed helicopters.
Helicopters manned by special forces teams,
including Delta forces and what do you call it?
SEAL team.
I think SEAL team six, they mentioned that it was the same.
Among the special forces group with the same team
that took out bin Laden, it's different soldiers.
I mean, it's a different generation.
But SEAL team six, in addition to Delta forces,
in helicopters, off of carriers, off the coast of Venezuela,
could safely basically come into Caracas.
US had very precise, very accurate information
about the location of Maduro.
They knew where he was in this compound where he was.
And supposedly, again, I don't know, but supposedly,
there was a source high inside the Maduro regime
that was providing the CIA with information.
But if you take into account the NSA and satellites
and drones and just the sheer quantity
of US intelligence resources that are being built up,
I'm sure in Venezuela over decades, they knew.
They knew Maduro's whereabouts.
They always know where Maduro's whereabouts are.
I also had, you know, so anyway, a special force teams
a helicopter into the compound.
They faced some resistance from the ground.
One of the helicopters was hit.
But they're not crash and continue flying
and actually return home.
The troops were landed inside the compound.
They knew exactly where Maduro was.
Suppose he was trying to enter kind of a secure safe room
when he was surrounded by US troops, gave himself up.
And he and his wife were taking into US custody,
boarded onto the helicopters and flown out of Caracas.
And as I said, onto some kind of a craft carrier,
helicopter carrier, in the Caribbean Sea.
And from there, he will be moved to the US, to New York.
This is an operation.
Highly complex, difficult to pull off.
A few militaries in the world called pull this off.
Let's remember, you should remember,
that the Russians tried to pull off a similar operations
in February of 2022, was it?
When they tried to assassinate Zelensky,
they had special forces land at their ports,
very close right outside Kiev, with the idea of entering
Kiev and eliminating Zelensky, and they failed.
They failed.
They were stopped there by Ukrainian forces,
even though it was a surprise attack.
And Russians had overwhelming force and all of that.
They made the attempt to do what the United States
just did in Caracas.
They tried to do in Ukraine.
And arguably, Ukraine is no better armed,
was not better armed when Russia invaded than Venezuela's.
Ukraine, too, had mostly Russian weapons systems.
And it had some Americans, primarily some Western,
primarily anti-tank weapons.
But...
Tyler Reddick here from 2311 Racing.
Victory Lane?
Yeah, it's even better with Chamba by my side.
Race to ChambaCasino.com.
Let's Chamba.
No purchase necessary, VTW Group,
voidware prohibited by law, CTSC's, 21-plus,
sponsored by Chamba Casino.
Ukraine managed to resist this.
Here, there was no possibility
that the Venezuelans could resist this.
The only other military that has done stuff like this,
and I think could easily pull this off,
is the Israeli military.
Arguably, some militaries in Europe
could probably pull this off,
but that's a, and maybe China,
although China is a completely unproven entity.
We have no clue what China can't account to do.
They haven't fought any war since a war with Vietnam
in the early 1980s, or was it the late 70s?
Anyway, early 1980s under Nick Champagne.
They haven't fought a modern war.
We have no idea what the capabilities are
other than what the capabilities are on paper,
and that doesn't count.
So really, there are only a few militaries in the world
who could pull this off.
European militaries, maybe,
Israeli military for sure, in the US.
Russia, no, we know, because they tried it in Ukraine,
and that's it, maybe China.
Again, China's the only one that's a maybe,
and maybe Europe.
But the United States and Israel
are the two that certainly could do this.
Of course, Israel couldn't do it
because they don't want to have aircraft carriers.
They couldn't do it in this distance,
but they proved to Iran that they can travel vast distances.
All right, so amazing operation by the United States.
They pulled it off, and the thing that I am most relieved of
and most happy about is that there's the Knoca casualties.
That is, we might have some injured special forces,
team members, sadly, and injury.
We don't know how severe the injuries are,
but it does sound like it's serious.
But it sounds like nobody was killed,
and that's good, because priority in war
should always be placed on, second to be to winning,
should be placed on preserving your own soldiers' lives.
So I'm happy that nobody died for the sake of deposing
the dictator of Venezuela.
So again, a well-executed mission, a complicated mission.
The US military performed brilliantly,
and succeeded in what in its mission.
You could compare this to what happened in Panama
in the early 90s under George Bush's senior,
but there it was literally an invading and occupying force
that moved into Panama.
Panama also didn't have the air defense systems
that Venezuela has had.
But if you remember, New Yega, who is the president of Panama,
who's also indicted for drug charges,
and the invasion was justified as trying to arrest
New Yega, just like trying to arrest Maduro,
for drug charges he was escaped into the Vatican's embassy.
And the US troops didn't enter the embassy.
It's Vatican's territory.
But what they did, and people, you know,
I forgot this, I read about it this morning.
What they did was, and I remember once I read it,
I remembered it, they blasted music
into the Vatican embassy for 24 hours straight,
for 11 days, they blasted heavy metal,
heavy metal into the embassy.
And I guess the priests representing the Vatican,
at some point said, okay, New Yega,
there's only so much HCDC we can stand out you go,
you know, out you go, and he surrendered to his forces.
So it was an example where heavy metal and heavy rock,
one, you know, won a military diplomatic victory.
But does it very similar, or the administration
is certainly trying to position it very similar?
George Bush, the invasion of Panama,
did not ask for authorization from Congress,
which is going to be important for how the Trump administration
will position this.
This, they've already positioned this.
This was a police action, not a military action.
Bush presented the same way in Panama.
It was a police action, not a military action.
Reagan invaded Grenada.
I can't even remember why he invaded Grenada.
But anyway, invaded Grenada.
He did not ask for congressional approval.
So, you know, the fact that there was no congressional approval
here will be justified in terms of precedence
that are related, that are related.
You know, there was no urgency here.
With regard to Maduro,
Sully could have received congressional approval
in a general sense, deposing Maduro
or regime change in Venezuela without giving specifics.
But Trump is not going to do that.
That's not what Trump does.
And indeed, he is quite the opposite.
Could have been done months ago
with the buildup of the Caribbean Sea,
they could have gotten congressional approval.
But again, it does not seem like modern presidents
have taken Congress seriously
when it comes to the deployment of US military force
overseas, this goes back to Vietnam.
And maybe even before that, but certainly since Vietnam.
All right, so for a military perspective,
this was an achievement.
Let's see.
Now, the question, of course, so legally,
I don't think they're going to face much problems
because again, this is this precedent for this.
Why did they do this?
Why did they do this?
So what is the stated arguments for this
and we'll get into what I think
the strategic consequence of this is all?
Rubio, if you ask Rubio why they did this,
he says, well, there was a dictator.
He was oppressing his people,
bring democracy to Latin America.
If you ask Hegseth why this was done, Hegsetheth,
it's about drugs.
They were smuggling drugs into the United States.
America first, we need a stop drug flow
into the United States and we can discuss
whether that makes any sense.
But we did it for the drugs.
And indeed, the legal justification for what was done
is the indictment that has been brought against
him, a federal indictment, a federal grand jury
is indicted him and his wife and his son over drugs.
So that's the official reason.
And Trump gives the Trumpian reason
and Trump is very clear about why he thinks this was done
and why he wanted to do this.
Oil, it's about oil.
It's all about oil.
And again, we're talking a little bit about legitimacy
or illegitimacy of that as a motivation.
So we're getting different stories and different people.
One thing that administration also in terms of legitimacy
is emphasizing and talking a lot about
is the fact that Maduro was the illegitimate
was an illegitimate president of Venezuela.
That is that he had actually lost the election in 2024.
And therefore he was not the legitimate president.
So this was not about regime change in that sense.
This was about arresting a fake president,
somebody who was an illegitimate position.
This does not violate international whatever law
and so on.
This is kind of the argument that they're making.
You know, the Trump administration is clearly saying
and I'm quoting Maduro is not the president of Venezuela.
Maduro is the head of the cartel,
De Los Soles, a narcoterror organization
which has taken possession of a country.
He is under indictment for pushing drugs into the United States.
That is the official reason for what happened last night.
All right.
Now before we get into, well, one other thing,
one thing I want to say, a big question now is,
and this is really determined, I think the meaning
of all of this, the big question is going to be,
what happens now?
What happens now?
It does this mean that Maduro regime is over.
You know, as last we heard, his vice president,
his hand-picked vice president,
has been sworn in as president of Venezuela,
not the opposition, not the so-called legitimate,
the people who won the election,
but Maduro is vice president.
Trump in his press conference mentioned a number of times
that now the United States runs Venezuela.
They control Venezuela, they run Venezuela.
This is a US territory, the way he was talking about it.
He was asked several times in the press conference
to clarify that statement, and he really couldn't.
He just repeated the same thing.
We control Venezuela.
We will now allow American oil companies into Venezuela.
We will control the revenue flow
that comes from the oil, Venezuela will get some of that oil,
the drunk, the oil companies will get some of that revenue,
and even will compensate Venezuelan migrants
in the United States with some of that money.
And some of them might even stay in the United States.
Magger can't be happy about that statement
by Trump about some of the Venezuelan staying in the US.
They want to kick 100 million people out of the US,
including the Venezuelans.
So, you know, he's basically saying,
we will control Venezuela, we will determine its fate.
He said that Marco Rubio had already talked
to the new president of Venezuela,
the vice president was sworn in,
and she's willing to cooperate with America
and do whatever we want, you know, who knows what that means
and who knows if that's even true.
When asked about Makado, the woman who just won
the Nobel Peace Prize instead of Trump,
Trump wanted it, she won it,
whether she would be the next president of Venezuela.
She had just praised this, she'd praised Trump.
She said this was amazing that, you know,
Maduro had been opposed, she looked forward to,
you know, Venezuela be free and all of this.
And Trump, I mean, this classic Trump.
Trump basically said, no,
I don't think she's going to be the president of Venezuela.
You know, she's not very popular in Venezuela.
She's not really, people don't really like her.
Which, to me, to me reads, and I know you're going to say,
it's just Trump due age with syndrome,
but that's okay.
To me, that reads as, she won the Nobel Peace Prize
instead of me.
I'm not going to give her Venezuela.
There's no way she's getting Venezuela.
She got my peace prize.
I get to get Venezuela instead.
So, you know, again, how to say,
how to say exactly who is going to govern Venezuela,
the opposition in Venezuela,
a suppose he's in the streets and intense to take control.
But look, taking out Maduro does not take out
the entire hierarchy of the Maduro and Chavez regimes,
which are basically based on the military,
the military, the police, the armed people in Venezuela,
are regime affiliate.
If it had been so easy to overturn this regime,
then the opposition would have done it long time ago.
It turned out it's not that easy.
Now, will the United States require now,
Venezuela to hold real elections
and see where it will legit elections?
Will they require a tomorrow or in a few years?
What exactly happens?
I don't think anybody knows,
other than somebody asked Trump,
who is going to run Venezuela?
And he says that people standing behind me,
which is basically Marco Rubio and Pete Hegseth
are going to run Venezuela.
How does that work?
Does that mean ground forces enter Venezuela
in order to secure the ability of Marco Rubio
to go in and run Venezuela?
Did they run it from afar with the existing government?
Did they run it from afar with a new opposition government?
All of that is up in there.
How do you actually manifest the ability
to take over the oil fields of Venezuela?
Hard to tell.
But there's no question.
Look, what just happened is a clear signal
to the Venezuelan is that Trump is serious
and that they better straight now
and that they better behave themselves.
So I am sure that the vice president,
even though she's from the duress party,
is not going to behave herself
and get me a lot friendlier to Trump
and a lot more open to doing what Trump tells them to do.
So that, I think that is clear,
but is this the beginning of liberty and freedom
and the end of dictatorship in Venezuela?
Not clear.
I mean, it could be that the United States
manages Venezuela, controls Venezuela
through the existing dictatorial regime
who is now open to working with the United States.
Don't know.
And it's hard to tell what's happening
in Venezuela right now.
I see a lot of people, pictures of people celebrating
Maduro's arrest, but hard to tell if those pictures
are coming from Venezuela
or they're coming from other countries
where Venezuelans have immigrated to.
So for example, I saw some pictures of people
celebrating to an out of it was Madrid.
I'm sure in Miami, you've got a lot of celebrations.
It's gonna be interesting to see the extent
to which this actually prompts the opposition
and the people of Venezuela to go out into streets
and demand the replacement of the regime in totality,
not just of Maduro, but the regime in totality.
Okay, pause there for a second.
And what we're gonna do is what I wanna do
is cover a little bit of,
let me see if I can find this, I had it here open.
Yeah, of the history, we'll do this quickly.
Of the history of Venezuela, I wanna give you some context
about what's going, you know,
what happened in Venezuela over the years
and how we got to where we are today.
And then from there, I wanna go to kind of,
what's the teaching importance does this have?
Because I think it does have.
I think anytime in America,
such itself in the world, there are real consequences.
Even when administration is confused,
like this administration is confused,
about what the strategy is,
I think the real strategic outcomes of this,
whether explicit or implicit.
So they're gonna be, you know,
significant implications for this.
And most of them, I have to admit, a positive.
But let's quickly review the history of Venezuela.
I'm in Venezuela.
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, BTW Group,
Boyd, we're prohibited by law, CCNC, 21 plus,
sponsored by Chamba Casino.
It was granted independence in 1810.
And it declared, sorry,
it declared independence in 1811 after years
of brutal war in spite of that declaration,
led by C1 Boulevard,
independence was secured in 1821.
And the Venezuela briefly joined a Bolivar Federation,
called Grand Columbia,
which is a whole of kind of Northern Latin America,
South America, but it left it in 1830
to become a separate republic.
Constant instability, like a lot of South American countries,
chronic political instability,
regional strong man, civil wars,
it's a big federal war in 1859, 1863.
And institutions and country institutions were crushed.
The country generally suffered from extreme poverty.
This was a poor country, a bad governance,
and badly run as many Latin American countries
indeed were.
Some of this changed in the early 20th century.
Basically, in the early 20th century,
oil was discovered in Venezuela,
and ultimately of the coast of Venezuela,
what ultimately turned out to be the largest oil reserves
in the world.
This oil was the revenue from this oil started funding
big infrastructure projects, urbanization,
and really an economy that was single-sourced,
like so many countries that have discovered oil,
it became the primary revenue source for the government.
Early part of the century was dictatorship.
There was a civilian democratic government in 1958
that ruled until 1998.
And relatively stable democratic government for 40 years,
a stand of living were rising.
This is a period in which Venezuela was on a GDP per capita basis,
the richest country in Latin America.
So oil resulted in a lot of wealth.
However, it was a very corrupt system.
That is, this is not capitalism.
This was a system of the equivalent of oligarchs,
a system of cognizm, a corrupt system
that relied on one industry to provide oil.
Now, I say one industry, other industries existed.
For example, Venezuela had a robust agricultural industry
that not only fed itself, but allowed it to export food.
We'll get to that, the decline of that in a minute.
But there was a significant resentment within Venezuela
among, primarily among the poor,
to the fact that people getting super rich off of oil,
but primarily because of corruption,
most of the technology, the ability to extract the oil
and to exploit the oil, that knowledge,
that capital came in from the United States
from American oil companies,
we'll get to the American oil companies in a minute.
And, you know, but Venezuelans officials
and variety of oligarchs, again,
we're getting super rich from this oil.
Let's see, in 1989, Hugo Chavez launched
the Bolivarian revolution.
I think Simon Bolivar would be horrified by Chavez.
Chavez was a socialist, a committed socialist,
a explicit socialist.
His program basically involved a state ownership
of the means of production, redistribution,
massive redistribution of wealth,
and a huge anti-US, anti-US rhetoric and sentiment.
Hugo Chavez aligned himself with Cuba
and other anti-American regimes in the area,
and of course with Russia and in the long run
on the Maduro with China.
During Hugo Chavez's term, we'll get to oil in a minute,
but one of the things that happened is agriculture,
for example, was nationalized, was socialized,
was owned by the government,
or really by the military, indeed,
the military was granted basically most of the industry,
most of the businesses in Venezuela
were handed over to military officials,
which made the military officials,
the generals, the colonels, the majors,
it made them relatively rich.
It made them wanna make sure the regime sustained itself
because they were directly benefiting from it.
As we'll see in the 2000s, Chavez also nationalized
the oil industry, and as a consequence,
what you saw is a dramatic decline in oil production.
By the time Chavez had died in 2013,
people were hungry in Venezuela.
Venezuela could not produce enough food to feed itself.
It had a massive refugee problem,
that is refugees were leaving Venezuela,
and settling in refugee camps in Colombia.
There was mass poverty, again, huge corruption,
primarily the beneficiaries of being people
within the military, and within the Chavez regime,
as socialism always does,
Chavez' socialism produced death, destruction,
poverty, starvation, and massive corruption.
Massive corruption.
In 2013, Nicolas Maduro replaced,
when Chavez died, he was his vice president,
so he took over.
He provided, he presided over continued economic collapse,
ultimately hyperinflation, mass emigration,
out of Venezuela, and increasing authoritarianism.
Indeed, in the last election in Venezuela,
Maduro clearly lost pretty much everybody
who looked at it, knew that he had lost,
and yet he maintained power and ruled,
even though he was recognized really by anybody.
Okay, quickly oil nationalization.
Between 2006 and 2007.
There was, now there'd be some nationalization before this,
I don't wanna make it out,
since from the beginning of Chavez's rise to power,
small-scale nationalization and taking over contracts
of US oil companies had been pursued.
But in 2006, 2007, this happened in large scale.
Venezuela ordered all foreign oil companies,
operating in the O'Nealco heavy oil belt,
and we'll get the heavy oil in its importance in a minute.
They ordered them all to accept a minority stake
of 40% or more by government entities,
or leave the country.
Companies refused the offer of a minority stake
of 40% or more, and the state oil company, PDVSA,
seized the assets.
The two major US companies affected
were Exxon Mobile and Connico Phillips.
Both of them, the assets were seized,
and they exited Venezuela.
Chevron stayed, it actually accepted,
Venezuela's state ownership and Chevron actually stayed,
and it's still functioning in Venezuela
under some significant accommodation of the state of Venezuela.
Between 2007 and 2019,
the Venezuelan government claimed that they had paid
fair compensation for the assets that they confiscated.
But an international arbitration
ruled the Venezuela owed Exxon Mobile $1.6 billion,
and that they owed Connico
about $8 billion.
Venezuela failed to pay for both of those.
And as a consequence,
the assets of the Venezuelan government were seized abroad.
Caribbean refineries owned by Venezuela,
oil shipments were seized in order to claw back
this funds from Venezuela.
And again, during the same period of time,
2009 to 2012,
other assets owned by all companies were seized.
Oil service companies, refineries,
storage facilities, power and infrastructure assets tied to energy.
All of these affected American and European firms,
and they basically were seized by government.
And of course, the consequence of that,
are not only that these companies lost revenue
and lost their property rights.
But beyond that,
Tyler Reddick here from 2311 Racing.
Victory Lane?
Yeah, it's even better with Chamba by my side.
Race to chambacasino.com, let's Chamba.
No purchase necessary, VTW Group,
voidware prohibited by law, CTSC's, 21 plus,
sponsored by Chamba Casino.
Their efficiency, their productivity,
their ability to produce oil,
refine oil, produce power and electricity,
all declined substantially, dramatically as a consequence.
So, Venezuela did steal American oil,
and to Trump's credit,
he uses that as justification
for going after the Venezuelan regime.
Now, imagine if Eisenhower or Kennedy or Johnson
or had used that as oil,
in this case, who was president George Bush, Jr.,
if they had used the seizure of American oil assets
as an excuse to replace the Venezuelan regime,
the Iranian regime,
the Saudi regime, and so on,
to replace them when those countries confiscated oil assets
of US companies back then.
They did not, and that's partially what emboldened
the Venezuelans and other countries to do so.
Indeed, it was Eisenhower that forced the French
and the British back when they tried to reclaim the Suez Canal,
which Nasser had nationalized and confiscated
from the British and French private company
that had built the canal and owned the canal
and ran the canal,
and it was taken over by the Egyptians.
All right, what else do we need to know in terms of history?
Yeah, so I mean, just comment on drugs, I think it's worth,
yeah, well, let's shift basically to discussing
the strategic importance of what happened
and what will start with the context of drugs.
Before that, I wanna say something,
a lot of people watching 315 people watching live,
that's a lot for this show.
So thank you all for being here, I appreciate it,
and I hope to see you back here.
Those of you who are not subscribers,
please consider subscribing to the Iran Book Show.
They're probably quite a few are not subscribers,
but you will get alerts when I go live about the next war
and many other things that I comment on as I have
on many, many issues and given people a background
and context and about all these things.
So please subscribe, subscribe to the show.
Also, if you like any aspect of this,
please press a like, the like button, the 315,
329 people now, it should be 329 likes.
And the reason the like doesn't cost you anything
and the reality is that liking the show
really helps with the algorithm, the YouTube algorithm,
really likes engagement and liking the show counts
as engagement, so please like the show and hope
we've got 100 likes, we should have 300 likes,
so please consider liking the show.
It's, again, cheap, easy and you can do it on your phone,
you can do it wherever you're watching this.
It is easy to do.
What else I want you to do?
If you can, if you want to,
please participate in the chat, comment, chat, say something.
Again, YouTube really likes lots of participation,
they like engagement.
You get rated on engagement by YouTube.
And finally, if you're listening and you gain value
from what I'm saying or from my approach to this
or from the information you're getting,
some of the history you're learning about this
or as we'll get into the strategy, the analysis of that,
please consider supporting the show.
You can ask a question using the super chat
as some of you are doing and that is fantastic
and that is great.
You can also just do a sticker,
which means a dollar amount towards the show
that does not involve, does not involve asking a question.
It's just a sticker support, it's a dollar support,
value for value, trade with me, you're getting this free.
Well, should you be getting it free,
you should be paying for the stuff, the value you get.
And one way to pay for it is to like the show,
to subscribe to the show and consider making
a financial contribution towards the show
and you can do that by becoming a member,
you can do and press the membership button
or you can do that by doing a super chat or a sticker.
You can do stickers or super chats
and any amount, two dollars all the way to 500,
500 is the max.
I see lots of questions for two dollars and five dollars,
it's some $10 up, be great to get some 2050,
it would be nice.
We have targets on the Iran book show for fundraising
for these shows, the targets are $250 an hour.
So we have now 18 minutes to make our first $250,
we would need another $180 over the next 18 minutes,
that's $10 a minute, I think that's doable.
Thank you, Natu Observatory and John and Mary Aline
for the stickers, please consider jumping in with the sticker.
We could easily make that target
if all of you came in to trade with me.
All right, another one other aspect of super chats
that I encourage is if you ask questions
about the topic we're doing,
then you can actually shape the show, right?
You can get me to talk about what you want.
You can ask questions relevant, you can interact with me,
I read all my super chats.
I answer all super chat questions, even insulting ones,
even ones that don't agree with me.
So please consider doing that, so thank you.
All right, let's talk about some of the strategic
implications of this.
Hey, it's Cole Swendell.
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 laying down the track.
A better break makes for a better take.
Need a break?
Let's jump up.
No purchase necessary.
BTW Group Void were prohibited by law.
21 plus TNC Supply sponsored by Chamba Casino.
Let's talk about drugs, which is the nominal excuse
for all of this.
I mean, this all have no impact on drugs.
Zero-Zilch Nada.
Drugs coming into the United States,
a very few of them come from Venezuela.
Venezuela is a massive, has a massive industry
of exporting drugs from Colombia.
But it's not to the United States.
Almost all the drugs that the Venezuelanist export
go to Europe.
They go first to Africa.
And they use, indeed, they use Islamist militants.
Islamists in Venezuela, but then in North Africa.
The smuggled drugs across the Atlantic,
two Africa and in from Africa to Europe.
The consumption of cocaine has gone way up in Europe
over the last few years.
And all of that cocaine comes from Latin America.
And it is the Maduro regime that has been
funneling those drugs to Europe.
But the reality is, the reality is,
this is not gonna, you don't take up the top of the pyramid
and somehow this stops.
He will be replaced.
This is too much money to be involved.
It's not even clear how important Maduro,
Cuama-Duro was to the drug trade.
Even if the United States clamps down
on drug trading in Venezuela.
Again, there's too much money to ignore here.
They will find other routes.
There is no way to win the war on drugs.
The one drugs is a bogus idea, bogus mission,
a bogus war, a bogus attempt.
And indeed, all these indictments around drugs,
and no Trump's not serious about drugs.
He doesn't care about drugs.
The fact is that he pardoned the Honduras
for the Honduran president who was indicted
for drugs into the United States.
And from Honduras, they do indeed come to the United States.
They travel through Central America
all the way north to the United States.
But he pardoned him.
He doesn't care about drugs.
Drugs have no relevance to Trump.
He doesn't care what he owed about them.
So the fact that the majority is indicted about this
is irrelevant.
It doesn't matter strategically.
It makes no difference.
Drugs will continue to flow no matter
what the United States does.
The demand for drugs is so large.
It's so intense.
The profit from drug trade is so enormous
that no way is anything in the United States.
Remember the one drugs when we bombed fields in Colombia?
Did that stop the amount of cocaine coming into the country?
And the reality is that most of the overdose deaths
in the United States, the overwhelming number
of overdose deaths in the United States,
are the consequence of fentanyl.
Fentanyl is not a drug coming from Colombia or Venezuela.
It is a drug that is produced with chemicals from China
in Mexico and smuggled across the U.S. border.
The only way to stop fentanyl and you can't,
you never will, they'll always find ways in.
But if you wanted to, if you wanted to pretend
that that's what you were doing,
you would go after Mexican cartels, not after Venezuela.
So this has nothing to do with drugs.
It doesn't matter to the drug trade.
You know, most cocaine is still growing in Colombia
in spite of what the one drug has been going on
since the early 1970s when Nixon declared it.
It has made zero dents in the flow of drugs.
All the other one drugs does is it makes drugs more expensive
and therefore more of a profit opportunity
and therefore more violence and more murder
and more drugs flowing into the United States.
So you want to solve the drugs,
you want to do away with overdose deaths.
The only way to do that is to legalize drugs.
Not just decriminalize them, but legalize them.
Legalize them completely, 100%.
And then drugs will be safe.
The profit margin will drop to basically zero
because they're just a commodity.
Nobody will have an incentive to kill anybody over drugs anymore.
Violence will decline dramatically in Latin America
and in the United States.
And you know, overall, that is a solution of drugs.
So this idea that drugs and drugs coming into the United States
are some kind of strategic importance
is absurd and ridiculous.
Again, we've been fighting a war in drugs for 55 years
with no success, zero zilch.
And this will have no impact on it.
It doesn't matter.
It's completely bogus.
So that is gives Trump legal cover for what he's done.
But has no strategic value for the United States
in and of itself, really no strategic value
for the United States.
Now, Trump has said, and the one thing
that this is intended to do vis-a-vis drugs
and might have an effect, is he has said,
a president of Columbia, you're next, right?
He needs to, he said, he needs to watch his back.
It might be possible as a consequence of that.
It might be possible as a consequence of that.
That, you know, some of these political leaders
will be a little bit more cautious.
But it's not going to change the dynamics.
It's not going to change the fundamental flow of drugs.
Drugs have been flowing out of Columbia for decades.
And it doesn't matter who the president is there.
It doesn't matter what they do.
You could have a war against drugs in Columbia.
Columbia is too big of a country, too many jungles,
too ungovernable in what they grow
to be able to stop the production of cocaine.
So it's irrelevant.
And of course, maybe this is a warning sign
to the Mexican cartels that, you know, the US
can fly into any one of them, they're, you know,
strongholds and take the leadership.
I mean, that's true.
And maybe the cartels will now live in great fear.
Well, that's stopped them from smuggling drugs
into the United States.
Does that stop them from smuggling drugs
into the United States?
Yeah, absolutely not.
By the way, you know, in terms of legalizing drugs,
you know, fentanyl is used in medicine
in the United States every day.
You know, you go into get a procedure like,
I don't know, in a doscape, a colonoscopy or something
like that.
What do they give you to knock you out?
Fentanyl.
But it's high quality fentanyl that is reviewed
as a medical thing.
If drugs are legalized, you wouldn't have fentanyl
laced cocaine.
You wouldn't have fentanyl laced heroin.
Fentanyl might be sold as a drug,
but it would be solved in high quality.
There would be just like in any market,
there would be, you know, there would be a market regulation
of the quality of the product customers would not buy
from producer who produced and sold bad products.
I mean, imagine markets applying to drugs
and you get much higher safety, better quality use,
a truth in advertising and retailers
who are selling the drugs stand behind the product.
You just don't get the kind of stuff
where somebody's smoking a joint and it lands up being laced
or taking a zanic and it lands up being laced with fentanyl.
That would not happen if it was legalized.
All right, back to strategy.
So drugs, I think, is a bogus issue.
The solution again is legalization,
complete legalization.
It's not the illusion, you know,
there are plenty of products out there
that are not killing you, that could be killing you.
And if you made them illegal, it would kill you.
The quality of the alcohol you drink is far superior.
In a free market, then it was in prohibition, far superior.
And the quality of the drugs that you would take
would be far superior under legalization than otherwise.
But anyway, this is not a show today
about legalizing drugs.
Maybe we can do that another time.
My point is no effect on drugs
because Mexican cartels weren't,
while they might live in fear now more than they did before,
the profit margin is too large to stop this.
They're just going to continue.
And if one cartel stops, another cartel would pick it up.
No way is this going away.
Drug always continue, always continue.
Somebody says on the chat,
the highest estimated weekly income for cocaine cartel
was 420 million per week.
There's no way they're stopping that, right?
That is going to continue.
Nothing Trump has done has stopped it.
Okay, so the second argument was about bringing freedom
to Venezuela and bringing freedom to Latin America
and standing up for freedom.
I don't for one second believe that that is a motivation.
I don't believe Trump cares about freedom.
Anybody's freedom.
I don't think that's a motivation.
And it's yet to be seen.
What actually happens in terms of freedom.
This was the whole argument of America first.
We shouldn't be bringing freedom to the peoples of the world.
We shouldn't be imposing freedom on countries.
We shouldn't be engaging in operation,
freedom to country X.
This is the basis on which the whole agenda of mega
is based.
They don't want to bring freedom to the world
and I'm interested in bringing freedom to the world.
Now again, I think Marco Rubio's instincts
are in this direction.
His emotions lead him there.
He is a pro-freedom kind of guy.
He comes from a more neoconservative background
and he's inclined out where the Trump
doesn't care about freedom in Venezuela.
And we yet to see what the political outcome in Venezuela
is actually going to be.
Is there going to be more freedom in Venezuela?
Is that what Trump is seeking?
Is there regime change?
And if there is regime change to what?
Still unclear.
And it's not clear that taking out of Venezuela
is going to bring freedom to other places.
Now, you would say that the rulers in Cuba
are going to be worried now.
On the other hand, Cuba has no oil
and Cuba has no drugs.
It's not a source of drug thing.
So it's not clear what the US would use as an excuse
to go after the Cuban regime.
Maybe they will, anyway, one can hope.
But I'm doubtful that it will happen.
This is, though, strategically,
clearly an expression of US asserting power in the region.
This is the United States embracing something
like the Monroe doctrine.
We are going to pursue our interests in Latin America.
This is our region.
Stay out.
We'll get to China in a minute.
Stay out.
We are going to do what we want in this region.
We don't really care about what anybody thinks.
This is ours.
And this is the first time in Monroe doctrine
has really been asserting in many, many years post-Vietnam
really, the US has not been very assertive
except in the Middle East.
We did get Grenada and we did get Panama.
But those are small.
You know, Venezuela might turn out to be small as well.
We'll see.
Maybe it'll be more substantial in some military presence.
But this is definitely an assertion of American power
in the region, in particular.
Well, so, foos, men of the J.U.
sold here from the WWE.
When it's just me between matches, it's day one itch.
That means it's chumba time.
With hundreds of casino-style games
and new titles arriving weekly, there's always something
fresh to try at chumba casino.
The daily booze may get even more fun.
And have me, about to get them all during my downtime.
Ready for a fun way to chill out
and enjoy a few minutes for yourself?
Let's chum.
No purchase necessary.
VGW Group voidware prohibited by law, CTs and Cs.
21 plus sponsored by chumba casino.
This is also a statement about oil.
Oil is crucial to the United States strategically.
It is something that the United States,
for a variety of reasons, oil is going to play a huge
strategic role throughout the world.
The kind of oil that Venezuela produces is a heavy oil.
I don't ask me what that actually means.
I don't know.
All I know is it's a particular type of oil
that's called heavy oil, that the United States
doesn't produce itself.
The United States produces light oil, not heavy oil.
And yet, many of our refineries in the South
were built to handle heavy oil.
There are basically three sources of heavy oil
that I know are large sources of heavy oil in the world.
Venezuela, Canada and Russia.
Heavy oil from Canada, the idea was that we would build a pipeline.
You remember the XL pipeline?
KL, what was it called?
Keystone pipeline.
There was going to come in from Canada,
down to the South where the refineries are,
to expand sport, heavy oil to the refineries.
Alas, that was never built because of the Obama administration,
because the Biden administration,
because of a variety of environmentalist groups stopping it.
And Trump has not really resurrected that
and not been able to get that completed.
He didn't manage to get it completed in his first term.
And he hasn't been able to complete it now.
The other source of heavy oil is, of course,
Russia.
We're trying not to buy off in Russia.
They're the bad guys.
And then Venezuela, where we basically
place an embargo on heavy oil for Venezuela
in response to Shavis and Maduers' actions in embargo,
I was never supportive of.
Is video lagging?
I guess there's some lag in the video and audio.
I'm not sure why.
My internet connection seems to be fine.
Let me just check to see if it's on my end.
It might be on YouTube.
I don't think it's the number of people watching.
Somebody speculated it's that.
Let me just check my internet connection.
One second.
The internet connection seems fine.
So I'm not sure what it is.
What is going on?
What's happening?
What can I do here?
I was going to say refresh your browser,
but that might not be good.
So audio is good.
Videos are a bit delayed.
Some people are not having problems
and videos.
Some people are having problems with video.
It sounds like it's complicated.
Yeah, I mean, upload speed is very slow.
That is weird.
I'm wondering what's going on.
Download speed is fine.
Upload speed is low.
God, is anything else using and consuming upload?
Let me just check one more.
Let me see if I can get this fixed.
If not, we'll just run with it.
And as long as you have the audio, I guess you're fine.
Or some of you are fine anyway.
It's the US Army.
Yeah, the electronically freezing me out.
Yeah, upload speed.
Upload speed is definitely slow.
Much slower than it usually is.
Oh, OK.
One second.
Let me do this.
Let's see if that, that, my expectation
is that I'll fix it.
Try it now.
Try refreshing your browser.
And I think we're going to be fixed.
Right.
Right, stalling intermittently.
Audio is fine.
But yeah, it's fixed.
OK, I fixed it.
So upload speed is now back to normal.
And we should be fine.
It might take a few minutes.
You might have to refresh your browser.
So it's buffering, but that'll get fixed in a minute.
So once the buffering is done, the picture should be smooth
and smooth sailing.
OK, we're back.
All right, where was I?
Where was I?
All right, so heavy oil.
So the only real source for heavy oil that the United States
can get is Venezuela.
And it's a big deal, a big portion
of our production capacity in terms of refineries
is related to heavy oil.
And so if we did this, we did it probably because of oil.
But here's the thing.
This has your political implications
because of the oil, but also because it makes a statement.
China has been, as has real ambitions
in the Latin America, in the South American area.
It wants resources, whether those are different minerals.
It wants oil.
And the China buys a lot of oil from Venezuela,
often sanctioned oil.
And China, after Trump came out with his new,
you know, latest, what do you call it, a security strategy,
which I critiqued on the show a few weeks ago.
He basically announced in kind of a new Monroe doctrine.
China basically came out with his own statement two days ago,
no, December 31st, a four days ago,
came out with his own statement.
And basically said that China is not
going to give an inch to the United States and Latin America.
China is going to maintain its influence in Latin America.
It's going to fight for it.
It's going to keep it, not fight for it militarily,
but it's going to keep, try to keep its influence
in Latin America.
Well, I think what you were trying to,
the message China got today was, forget it,
that you're not going to be able to dominate Latin America.
We've got Latin America, Latin America is now ours.
So stay out of here.
If America really does get control over
Venezuelan oil fields, then America
indirectly has control of basically
all the oil reserves in the world, no audio, no audio.
Yet most of you are saying you've got audio fine.
So what I suggest, if you don't have audio,
is refresh, refresh, refresh, of course you can't hear me,
because you can't hear.
Refers your screen.
If the United States gains the oil,
I think this is the most important point of all of this.
If the United States gains control of the oil in Venezuela,
Venezuela has the largest oil reserves in the world.
Greater than Saudi Arabia.
Then the United States, directly and indirectly,
will have leverage over the entire supply of oil
in the world with two exceptions.
Exceptions of Russia and Iran.
In other words, China, China which depends on oil
to run its economy and natural gas, to run its economy,
will have nobody to buy oil from.
I mean, they can buy from Russia and they can buy from Iran,
but there's only so much they can buy from those countries.
Iran might be experiencing regime change soon
and might be under great American influence soon.
And then China only has Russia.
Imagine what happens if China invades Taiwan
and the United States alliance puts an oil embargo on China.
No oil from Venezuela, no oil from the United States,
which is a producer, no oil for Guiana,
which is right next to Venezuela and has huge oil reserves,
no oil from the Middle East,
because the United States has a lot of leverage in Saudi Arabia,
Kuwait and the other Middle East countries.
China is in trouble.
China is in deep, deep trouble.
So, you know, if this is really about oil and if the United States
does control the oil coming out, this is massive, massive.
And it now makes Iran even more important
because Iran stays the one last source of oil
for China with the exception of Russia, which is limited.
And if Iran falls, China is isolated
in terms of its access to world energy markets.
It can still buy, but if it ever goes to war,
if it's ever sanctioned, it could be really squeezed.
I think that if the United States gains control
over the Venezuelan oil,
the probability of China invading Taiwan goes down.
If the Iranian regime falls,
I think the probability of China invading Taiwan goes to zero.
China cannot afford it.
I mean, will they get the fuel for their ships
for any kind of prolonged war?
Now, you know, oil prices might go down.
They might not.
You know, even if Venezuela, it will take a few years.
Venezuela oil is in a sea mostly.
It's hard to reach.
It's expensive to exploit.
It's not easy.
Master capital investment will have to go into there.
We're talking about a few years before you actually see the fruits
in terms of oil flowing out there in quantity,
lowering the price of oil.
But, you know, Saudi Arabia could clamp down
in the amount of oil it produces
in order to drive prices up again.
So it's, it's,
oil prices are a function of a supply and demand
and supply is not fixed.
Supply can change.
One country can increase and another country can decrease.
It's hard to tell where oil prices are going to go in the future.
Though it's likely they're going to go down
in the, in the, in the near term,
or at least when Venezuela oil comes into production.
But it's not, for certain,
because other countries could, could reduce them
out of oil they produce.
Guiana, that country next to Venezuela,
which has a lot of oil,
its oil is not being produced.
So it now is, is pumping more oil into the world markets.
It's one of the reasons oil prices have come down.
Now, that's the other aspect of this.
Oil prices going down is bad for which country?
Well, it's bad for OPEC,
but you know, the United States supposedly
is allied with OPEC.
Who is it really bad for?
It's really bad for Russia.
Indeed, I've seen online,
many Russians panicking,
pro-Putin Russians panicking.
Russia's war is basically being funded by oil sales.
If global oil prices code down dramatically,
which they could over the next few years,
if the United States takes control of the Venezuelan oversuits,
then Russia is going to be squeezed.
So in terms of strategy,
I think all the benefits around oil,
all the benefits around oil,
reverberate to our relationship with China and with Russia.
We don't need oil,
the United States has plenty of oil itself,
but being able to control indirectly, even indirectly,
the majority of the oil being produced in the world
gives the United States massive leverage over China
and driving the price of oil down gives
the United States massive leverage over Russia.
And this helps.
This is, again, the largest oil reserves in the world,
the United States taking it back
and basically returning it into the hands of American oil companies.
That is a positive move.
And if that is the motivation,
if that's what's going to happen out of this,
if that's the ultimate outcome,
if this is really about oil, then I'm all for it.
See, I don't believe the United States should go out
and be the policeman of the world.
I don't think the United States should be out there
engaging in our war and drugs.
I don't believe the United States should be out there,
even bringing freedom to the world.
It's, you know, people need a fight for their own freedom.
But I do believe we should help people fight for freedom
to the extent that we can.
And I do believe that when, you know, governments steal
nationalized assets of US companies
on scale as Venezuela did,
the United States government should step in to protect them.
And since we didn't protect them back in the mid-2000s,
not a bad idea to do it now.
Now, Trump has mentioned this as a reason
for what he's done.
And to that, I give him credit.
He's the first president.
He's the first president ever that I know of.
That has actually made a big deal out
and a big deal in a sense of the United States
being willing to go out there and actually protect
property rights in the sense.
I don't think he thinks of it property rights,
but it doesn't matter.
He's the first president I know of
has actually made being willing to state that
and make that statement.
And for that, you know, I give him credit,
even though I know it comes from a very shallow, superficial,
you know, a narcissistic place.
And not from a real respect for property rights
or a real respect for the protection of American.
Real national interests,
so any kind of meaningful national interests.
Finally, yeah, we talked about Cuba that is now world.
I want to say, so I want to cover one other topic.
I want to cover a little bit the response
to this from various parts of what you call the,
the political landscape,
which I find really fascinating and really interesting.
So we'll cover the response.
I want to remind you guys, remind you guys,
that this show, this show is, doesn't fund itself.
It is funded through support from you.
I couldn't do this without you.
I produced the show for free, but I expect the trade
and one way in which we can trade
is you can like the show, just press it like,
you can subscribe to the show.
And you can financially support the show
by doing a super chat or a sticker.
And there are enough people on there
that we should be able to reach our goal
very, very easily and very, very quickly.
But we are short of our, even our first hour goal,
never mind our second hour goal.
And we are definitely well into our second hour.
So please consider supporting the show.
You can ask questions about this topic.
I will be doing the movie reviews as well.
I might do the movie reviews after I answer the questions
that are relevant to this topic.
So we finish this topic
and then we'll do questions on the topic
and then we'll do movie reviews
and then I'll do general questions.
Plenty of time to ask questions, plenty of time
to trade with me, value for value, plenty of time
for you to challenge me or to ask challenging questions
and to push me on certain issues on the super chat.
Please do so.
Again, engagement helps with the algorithm
and financial engagement help with financing
the run book show.
All right, here's Marie Le Pen.
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, BGW Group.
Boy, we're prohibited by law.
CCNC, 21 plus sponsored by Jamba Casino.
Marie Le Pen.
Marie Le Pen is, of course, the leader of the far right,
a political movement in political party in France.
This is what she writes.
There were a thousand reasons to condemn the regime
of Nicolas Madua, communist oligarchic authoritarian.
It had imposed on its people for far too many years,
a suffocating yoke that plunged millions of Venezuelans
into misery when it did not force them into exile.
But there is one fundamental reason to oppose
the regime change that the United States
has brought about in Venezuela.
Guess what that is?
The sovereignty of states is never negotiable.
Regardless of their size, their power, or their continent,
it is involable and sacred.
To announce this principle today for Venezuela
for any state would be an accept,
our own enslavement tomorrow.
It would thus be a moral peril at a time
when the 24th century is already the stage of major
geopolitical appeal that casts over humanity
the constant threat of war and chaos.
All that remained for us is to hope in the face of this situation
that a voice be given as soon as possible
to the Venezuelan people.
It is for them to reclaim the power
to define sovereignty and freely,
the future they wish to forge this nation.
Now, here's the thing about this.
This is powerful statement.
Sovereignty, the sovereignty of states is never negotiable.
This is the nationalist perspective.
This is the nationalist conservative perspective.
This is the perspective that no state has a right
to intervene in another state, that all sovereignty is sacred
and finite.
And that one has no right,
even in face of a dictator to unseat that dictator.
Now, this is the exact opposite of the position
that Ayn Rand held.
Ayn Rand held that sovereignty comes
from the protection of rights,
from the protection of individual rights.
That is that a regime that is dictatorial is not sovereign.
A regime that's authoritarian is not sovereign.
Now, it's not, that does not mean
that other countries should depose the leader.
But it does mean that it's 100% more
from the perspective of the country that's being deposed.
That they leader be deposed.
That is, the United States owes nothing to Venezuela
and knows nothing to this sovereignty
because they're not sovereign
because they're ruled by dictator.
If the only purpose of government is
the protection of rights,
then states that do not protect rights
are not sovereign states.
In that sense,
Iraq was not sovereign.
Iran is not sovereign.
Venezuela is not sovereign.
Russia today is not sovereign.
And assassinating the leaders replacing the regime
is completely moral.
It's completely okay.
It's only a question of your own interest in doing so.
Sovereignty comes from the people.
It does not come from the leader.
It does not come from drawing lines on a map.
It does not come from force.
Sovereignty comes from the people, the individual,
the only thing that's sovereign is the individual.
So individuals can elect a government
and give it sovereignty.
Otherwise, all governments are illegitimate
unless they are protecting the rights of individuals.
That's what gives them sovereignty.
Not some artificial, I'm the dictator
because I have a big gun.
I have a big gun.
So while Iran was not for democracy,
absolute democracy,
the sovereignty has to be gained through protection of rights
and authoritarians, dictators are never sovereign
because they violate rights.
Now, you can imagine a authoritarian state
that did protect rights, Singapore is an exception.
It mostly protect rights.
You would argue that that is a sovereign state
because it protects the rights of individuals in the state.
But almost no authoritarians protect individuals.
At any level.
So Venezuela is not sovereign.
The US is still sovereign, yes.
It's still, for the most part, protect rights.
But you can imagine the United States becoming non-sovereign
when it stops protecting those rights.
If it becomes an authoritarian.
Tyler Reddick here from 2311 Racing.
Victory Lane?
Yeah, it's even better with Jamba by my side.
Race to chumpacacino.com, let's Jamba.
No purchase necessary, VTW Group,
voidware prohibited by law, CTSC's, 21 plus sponsored
by chumpacacino.
I know controversial view, but a true view, a right view.
I'm man's view.
Okay, that opposite of the nationalist view,
which is sovereignty because of history,
because of tradition, because of, I don't know,
why it's what makes it, what makes it sovereign.
Who?
I don't know who you mean.
All right, let's see.
What else did I want?
That was Marie Le Pen.
Here's, here's Seneca.
Now, this is not about this.
This is about the other bombing in Venezuela a few days ago,
but it's, I assume it applies the same way.
Seneca rights.
I agree with Steve Bannon.
There you go, you get the left agreeing with the right.
I agree with Steve Bannon.
The Trump is acting like Hillary Clinton
at her neo-con peak, bombing all over the planet,
Nigeria, Somalia, Venezuela,
and going back into Iran for regime change,
it's completely neo-conestablished from behavior.
Now, notice, why do we have to fight all of Israel's wars?
One thing that's common about the responses,
particularly from the far right,
and the far left is the blaming Israel for it.
All right, I don't see, is there a,
I don't see him on my, oh, I can't block him.
If somebody, do we have somebody who can,
I can't block him because I can't see him.
He's not in my feed.
This thing, Scotty, too hardy,
can somebody block him?
Miroslav, are you there?
Or maybe action, action, action, if Christian, if you're there?
Can you block this Scotty, too hardy?
For some reason, I can't do it.
It's at Scotty, too hardy.
He's been commenting nonstop.
Now, I don't know why I can't see him in my feed,
but I see him, I see him.
Miroslav, I see him, yes, I'll block him.
Okay.
All right, you guys got him.
Good, thank you.
Thank you, appreciate it.
I, for some reason, I could see him.
This is a Miroslav.
I could see him in the Super Chat Tracker.
I couldn't see him in my YouTube feed, which is weird.
Usually I see all the comments in both, weird.
Anyway, Israel's wars, all right.
Let's take Tucker Carlson.
This is again from before, which I assume it applies to today.
Maduro, whatever is many faults,
and I wouldn't hire him as an economist.
He has the most socially conservative country,
probably in the hemisphere.
Venezuela's band pornography, band abortion, band game average,
band sex change, and band usury.
This is Tucker.
Tucker would ban usury among many things.
So, you know, there you go.
It's, they like Maduro.
Tucker likes Maduro kind of.
Like Maduro.
Let's see, Nick Fuentes originally was against military action
in Venezuela just three months ago.
He warned that an invasion could activate domestic terror cells
and plunge America into an insurgency.
Where these hysterical nut cases,
and really pretty stupid people get the stuff from,
I don't know, but as of this morning, he has changed his tune.
And this morning he said, I've literally never said
no more foreign conflicts.
I support US Empire.
I support the Maduro doctrine.
I support hemisphere defense.
I always have, says Nick Fuentes.
Anyway.
Now he's saying, and then a little later, he said,
a little later in the morning today, he said,
initially seemed like a solid operation to cleanly bloodlusty
and quickly remove Maduro from power last night.
But this new policy of running Venezuela with US soldiers
sounds like a massive over commitment.
I have zero confidence in nation building, big mistake.
Representative Marjory Taylor Greene.
Very unhappy.
I've served on Homeland Security Committee
for the past three years.
I'm 100% for strong, safe, secure borders,
and strong Nalco terrorists and cartels,
and stopping Nalco terrorists and cartels from trafficking.
Deadly drugs.
Mr. Love, we've got, he's come back under different names.
So please block him or action Jackson,
you guys take care of whoever,
they keep coming back in different names.
Anyway, so she's all for stopping the cartels.
And then she said, fentanyl is responsible for over 70%
of US drug over those deaths.
And fentanyl comes from Mexico and cartels
made with chemical precursors from China
and trafficked across US, Mexican border.
Mexican cartels are primarily an overwhelmingly responsible
for killing Americans with deadly drugs.
If US military action and regime change in Venezuela
was really about saving American lives and deadly drugs,
then why hasn't the Trump administration
taken action against Mexican cartels?
And if persecuting Nalco terrorists is a high priority,
then why did President Trump pardon the former Honduran president,
who was convicted and sentenced for 45 years
for trafficking hundreds of tons of cocaine into America?
Ironically, cocaine is the same drug
that Venezuela primarily trafficked into the United States.
The next obvious observation is that by removing a Maduro,
this is a clear move for control over Venezuela
and all the supplies that will ensure stability
for the next obvious regime change war in Iran.
So, you know, Marjorie Taylor Greene,
representing a certain wing of MAGA,
is very wrong, very anti this.
She goes, Americans discussed with our own governments,
never ending military aggression and support of foreign wars
is justified because we are forced to pay for it
in both parties, we're probably going to Democrats,
always keep the Washington military machine
funded and going.
This is why many MAGA thought they voted to end.
Boy, where were we wrong?
As the baby boomers slip away, both in votes and power,
the electoral future will be decided for candidates
that focus on American economic populism
and promising prosperity for Americans only.
Let's see who else?
This guy, Ian Malcolm,
and some anti-Semitic guy on Twitter.
A few months ago, he wrote, this is actually a year ago,
a year and a half ago in July of 2024, he wrote,
some Maduro, a Jew, maintains power in Venezuela
while Jews in Israel escalate conflict with Lebanon
having already set up a conflict with Iran
while the UK's new prime minister, another Jew,
launches the Kierstahmer era of politics.
Why are Jews all over the global political,
whatever, what the hell?
And then he writes, today he writes,
so the MAGA peace president to promise no new wars
is just blowing up anyone, Jews ask him to.
Is that it?
Is this not treason?
So Jews asked him to blow up Maduro.
Then anti-Semitic guy stopped.
By the way, I thought I had it.
There's Candace Owen saying basically the same thing.
Candace saying, is this, yeah.
Venezuela has been liberated like Syria, Afghanistan,
and Iraq were liberated in quotation marks.
The CIA has staged another hostile takeover of a country
on the behest of the global, globalist psychopaths.
Guess who those are?
That's it.
That's what is happening, always, everywhere.
And here is the key.
Zionists cheer every regime change.
There's never been a single regime change
that Zionists have not applauded because it means
they get to steal land, oil, and other resources.
Hope this helps.
So again, even this is Zionists and Jews.
They're responsible for everything.
And finally, the Katari government is upset.
The Katari government does not like this.
The state of Katari expresses its deep concern
over the current developments in the Bolivarian Republic
of Venezuela, calling in this context
for restraint, de-escalation, and adoption of dialogue
as the appropriate measure to address all outstanding issues.
So we know that Katari is upset.
Maybe Trump will back.
We know, therefore, what's his name.
Tucker's position will be as the official representative
of Katari in the United States.
We know that he will be upset as well.
All right, there you have it.
Might take on this.
It makes overall great performance of our military.
If indeed the opposition gets to control
and you get actual elections in Venezuela,
this will turn out to be ultimately a good thing.
We could also, if the United States threw that through an actual
an actual, what do you call it?
Actual proper government in legitimate government in Venezuela
actually gets to control the oil.
This will be a huge geopolitical victory
for the United States in a sense of both restraining China
and maybe putting Russia into real problem.
OK, now we have this guy.
This guy I can stop.
Let's see.
Remove either I got him or Christian got him.
Somebody got him.
No, mirrors love got him.
Thank you, most love.
Most love got him.
Oh, I was trying.
Yes, there are plenty of tools out there
trying to disrupt the show.
OK, that is what I have to say about this invasion.
I'm happy to take questions about this topic right now.
If you want to ask a question, don't do it in the chat.
Don't do it in your own head.
Actually put it together on a super chat and send it over.
We are way behind on our goals for today.
So please consider making supporting the show.
So I can do these shows as events happen.
They have to be profitable.
They have to make sense.
The Iran shows that I did.
And Israel shows that I did.
We got massive super chat support.
So I'm not sure why Venezuela should be any less profitable
for the Iran book show than an Israel or Iran show.
So if you want me to continue these, show me some love.
All right, I'll get to Andrew's question later.
How to have fun anytime.
Anywhere.
Step 1, go to chumbacaceno.com.
Chumbacaceno.com.
Got it.
Collector, welcome bonus.
Come to Papa.
Welcome bonus.
Step 3, play hundreds of casino-style games for free.
That's a lot of games all for free.
Step 4, unleash your excitement.
Woo-hoo!
Chumbacaceno has been delivering thrills for over a decade.
So claim your free welcome bonus now and live the Chumbacaceno.com.
No purchase necessary.
VGW could avoid for prohibited by law 21-plus terms and conditions apply.
All right, Dan, what are the risks of the only effective uses of US military in decades
being associated to someone like Trump?
I mean, it's horrible.
And this is maybe what makes this overwhelmingly negative.
Even when Trump does something good, only bad can come of it because he is such a horrible
human being and such a, in a global sense, such a horrible president, president.
So when Trump does something good and that good gets associated with Trump and Trump's
views and Trump's attitude and Trump's action, that is, right?
That is, does not bode well for the future because people will start associating that kind
of action with all his irrationality and it elevates Trump one, which is bad.
But it elevates a relationship between his, you know, his just grossness, his immaturity,
his bum bass, his irrationality with somehow a competent military.
I mean, I would say that the military is competent in spite of Trump, Trump has luckily
nothing to do with the military.
They are competent in spite of him, not because of him.
So yes, they bombed you on.
And that was good.
That was one of the good things he did.
This might turn out to be good.
There's some things that he did, but to the extent, like moving the embassy to Jerusalem
is first term, to the extent that those actions get associated with Trump attitude, with
and deep trouble.
So even when he does something good, well, semi good, it's not good for the country, long
term.
Now I know the accusations of TDS will implode.
NM says maybe sometimes Trump has a strategy.
I don't think he has a really a strategy.
Now the people around him who have a strategy, whether it's good or not, is a question.
I don't think Trump himself has strategy.
Some of the people again, I think Rubio has a strategy and Rubio has been advocating for
doing this for a while.
He's been anti-Venituela and regime changing Venezuela for a while.
They might be people in the feminist department that understand how this affects China and
how this affects Russia.
I don't get any sense from the news conference and from other times that Trump has talked
about this stuff, that he is, you know, that he is in any way strategic about these
issues.
All right, Neil, seems like the UAE and Saudis are also in conflict in the year.
Oh, I'm going to answer that afterwards.
I'm just going to answer this stuff.
There's a bunch on real, real spoke says, well, Mamdani, give me a duo, he was welcome
in New York City.
No, I don't expect though.
So although I'm sure Mamdani will condemn the operation and what the U.S. did, just as
Bernie Sanders was in OEC, John says, Trump, 2028, God help us.
If that happens, it causes blasting the music to get your opponent to change.
See so far on another episode where Tony wanted to get out of a deal.
Good story about blasting the Vatican Embassy, yeah, it is a good story and they did that.
Action Jackson says, what should be done to or about Venezuela now?
What should be done to Maduro and his wife?
Well, Maduro and his wife will face a court of law based on the drug laws that we have
in the United States and I'm fine with that.
That's the law.
They should face the consequence of the law, you know, they might be pardoned ultimately
by Trump, who knows, but for now they will face a jury, a judge in a jury.
It doesn't what should be done with Venezuela, it should be handed, you know, what the United
States should insist is that this, that should be handed over to the opposition party that
won the election and then the opposition party should basically organize an election as soon
as feasible within months, I guess.
And you know, return Venezuela to a kind of a democratic state as part of that, the
United States should insist on the privatization of Venezuelan oil, Venezuel oil assets.
And you know that everybody should be able to bid for American companies, European companies,
and it's willing companies, anybody should be able to bid for, I think the Americans would
win or the Europeans would win, but it should be an open bidding unless, unless you can
tie some of it to compensate the two companies, Conoco, and it was the other one, it wasn't
shell.
Anyway, anyway, compensate the mobile, compensate them for the asset, for the opposite theft
that happened a couple of decades ago.
So some process needs to be with the oil assets not held by the government at all anymore.
So that has to happen as part of the process.
And hopefully that's what will happen, we'll see, that's what should happen.
Cook says being looking for your reaction to this, thanks for a swift show.
Of course now you guys need to come through in terms of trading with me for the swift
show.
You guys cooked it, but everybody else needs to as well.
All right, Catherine says, do you think Canada, Greenland, a Panama could be the next
goals of the US administration to do you think they are busy with Venezuela, Iran and
US itself?
No, I wouldn't be surprised, I don't know what they do, they might go, I don't think
I'll do anything about Canada, that's far fetched.
The Greenland is certainly possible, and I certainly think that if China maintains ownership
of the ports in Panama, the Panama is possible.
And I also think the Cuba is possible, Marco Rubio in the press conference this morning indicated
that Cuba would be next.
I wouldn't be surprised if some kind of operation happened in Cuba to try to overthrow the regime.
Again, I don't think Trump is super motivated because there's no oil, there's nothing for
him to immediately benefit from it.
But who knows, I mean, Rubio will be pushing and maybe Rubio's watching credibility with
a Venezuelan thing and he'll be able to get a Cuba thing.
Greenland is of course the trickiest one because it means going to war with an ally, not
a very long war because I mean it's not like Denmark would actually fight America, but
it would shake up global politics in a way that I'm not sure the Trump administration
wants to engage in.
I mean, that would be the opposite of Venezuela.
That would be a massive strategic era.
That would be a massive, massive, handing a gift, a gift to Russia and China.
And you can ask me about why, but if the United States tried to take or took Greenland,
it's possible.
All right, let's see.
Andrew says, is no-caterrism an anti-concept?
Terrorism does not denote victims who choose to risk their lives.
Yeah, I mean, no-caterrism is, I mean, look, terror, anybody can terrorize.
So terrorizing is possible.
Terrorism has come to mean a political goal, a political goal.
So you're terrorizing people with a political goal.
And Noko cartels are not about a political goal, they're about a monetary goal, they're
about a financial goal, they're about the ability to sell drugs and continue to sell those
drugs.
Yeah, no, I think it's an anti-concept, you know, terrorism is a political issue, narcotics
are not a political issue, they're a crime issue because they've been legal.
Somebody says that the European Union would fight on the side of Denmark, it's not going
to happen, guys.
I mean, Europe is not going to go to war with the United States, it ain't happening.
I mean, basically what will happen is a Denmark and the EU will be super upset with the United
States, they'll do, they'll yell, they'll shout, they'll make accusations, they'll, I
don't know, boycott something, they'll condemn Trump, they'll have a UN resolution and
all of that, but that'll be it.
I mean, the US will basically end next Greenland, it could end next Greenland and nothing
would happen.
What is the constitutional legality of removing Maduro?
I mean, I don't know, from what I understand is there's a warrant for his arrest, it's
a police action backed up by the military, you know, to facilitate it in order to serve
a warrant.
Now, I don't know how US law treats the issue of serving warrants outside the United
States.
I don't know.
I don't know how you would think about this from a constitutional basis.
You know, to the extent this is war, Congress has to approve it.
All I'm saying is, it's got the same constitutionality as Nuyega and as Grenada and as a bunch of
things the United States has already done, there's nothing new here to litigate and nothing
was made of those.
I don't expect anything to be made of this.
WCZN, I think Bannon and Aldmiss Reed Americans, they don't hate wars, they hate losing wars.
I think that's right.
I think you're right.
Of course, they don't want to enter into wars because they're convinced they're going
to lose them.
But you're right.
Once they win them, Americans will come around to support them.
And Jackson said, I like Venezuelan shows because I really like history segments.
Thank you.
Let's see.
Reel Spock says, Christians wanted peace in early century AD.
They thought civilization survives if people expect one another.
It's absolutely nonsense.
It's absolutely nonsense.
What's his name?
God, the first Christian emperor, the first Christian empire was a man of war and he used
Christianity to motivate his troops and the cross.
You know, when the cross became popular in Christianity, when the cross really was brought
out and started to be a symbol of Christianity, it was under Constantine.
Constantine, Constantine, not Solomon, Constantine used the cross to motivate his troops
to go fight and slaughter and kill.
And his whole so-called conversion of Christianity, if it ever happened, happened because he claimed
to have seen a cross in the sky.
God was on his side in being victorious over the other army.
There was nothing about wanting peace in Christianity.
You need Augustine rights and rights about justifying war in the name of Christianity and
the name of converting people to Christianity.
This is okay if you're doing it for good cause.
So Christians did not want peace, maybe pre-constantine Christians, but they were meaning less
and got overruled very quickly by Constantine, by Augustine, by the fathers of Christianity
that came after them.
They're the ones who shaped Christianity.
Christianity is not knowing near a religion of peace, it is a religion of war, it always
has been a religion of war.
The victims of Solomon, asked the victims of Constantine, asked the victims of all, you
know, the various, Constantine legalized Christianity, not in 200 or 300's.
Yes, he legalized Christianity and became emperor and fought in the name of Christianity in Augustine.
Justified is just a theory, justified, fighting in the name of Christianity to kill people.
And the Crusades were not exactly peaceful, anyway, in the world.
Anyway, that's a whole other topic.
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.
Daniel says, notably Absent was vanced from the press conference.
Do you think he's trying to placate the libertarian tweets?
No, I think, I think it just, it wasn't appropriate.
We'll see what he says in his statements in the days to come.
We'll see how all this evolves in the days to come, but I wouldn't read too much into
his not being there.
Yeah, before World War II, US tried to restrict a Japan access to oil and steel.
Japan launched an attack while they still had supplies, anywhere China does the same.
I mean, there is.
I think China is going to look at Japan as an example of the problems in doing that
and the reality of that the world might respond not by defending Taiwan, but by placing
an oil embargo on them after the fact.
And do they really want to have an oil embargo on themselves?
Probably not.
That's probably problematic for China.
And I think they can look ahead enough to be able to not want that.
All right.
Let's see, James, as a vet, how do you see military disability for vets who receive long-term
damage from the military?
Is it justified to see payments for life when your injuries never improve?
Why on New York Times and use outlets targeting vets?
So I don't know.
I haven't seen the New York Times and other outlets targeting vets.
I've missed that.
I don't doubt that they are.
I just don't know what the context is for that.
I'd have to read that.
But look, yeah, absolutely.
I think that if you get injured in the military, the military then should compensate you for
the rest of your life for the injury that you take.
Now I don't believe that there should be a veterans department, veterans affairs department
in a government.
What I think it should be a monetary compensation.
The government should guarantee you to buy you an insurance policy that you can then
in private markets that covers your pre-existing conditions, so an expensive insurance policy,
that covers your existing conditions.
And you should be treated in hospitals by normal doctors under such an insurance policy.
But that should be something the government provides you with in compensation for the fact
that you got hurt.
It should be part of the contract that you sign when you sign up for the military.
When you sign up for the military.
But Japan partially came close to the winning world war two because it managed to capture
militarily oil in some oil, I can't remember where Malaysia or wherever it was, there was
some oil wells there and they could access them.
But that also caused them to be overextended, which arguably caused them to collapse.
I mean, the Nazis, if you study history, one of the reasons the Nazis invade Russia and
what are they attempting to go to, they want and invade North Africa is that they want
oil.
They want the oil in Saudi Arabia, they want the oil in Azerbaijan, they are driving through
to get to the oil, oil is a strategic asset.
And you could argue that that's one of the fundamental mistakes that both the Nazis and
the Japanese made is the supply chain, supply lines got too extended, they couldn't reach
oil supplies and that's what killed them and one would expect a country like China to
figure that out.
That's my response.
We all spoke, they were killed by lions and they re-naught for a very short period of time.
The persecution of Christians by the Roman Empire lasted a very short period of time.
It is overblown and overrepresented in Hollywood movies, but the reality of history is that Christians
were persecuted under Roman Empire under one empire emperor and again, it became an official
religion and the Constantine and an official religion, one of the religions.
And then it became the official religion under Justinian, I think.
So early Christians promoted peace, the very early Christians, because they were weak.
That's the only reason.
As soon as Christianity gained political power, they advocated for violence.
As soon as they gained political power, they advocated for violence.
Christianity as a successful religion, which is what it ultimately was, a successful religion.
Christianity as a successful religion was a very violent religion, as violent as Islam.
So yeah, we've got a few more questions, but those questions I have to wait until after
my movie reviews, I've got movie reviews to do and we're going to cover those and then
we'll take the questions.
If you have more time to ascend in a sticker or do a super chat, I will answer questions.
After these movie reviews, so please consider doing that.
Again, I remind you, these shows cost money.
My time is money.
You are trading with me, value for value, if you get value from the show, if you got value
from this show, please consider doing a quick sticker or something or a super chat.
You get to ask a question, you get to determine what I'll talk about, you get to shape the
show in some way.
All right.
Two movie reviews today, unrelated completely to Venezuela.
The first one is Ford Versus Ferrari.
Ford Versus Ferrari, this movie is streaming online, I'm trying to remember where I think
it's on Netflix, but I'm not committed to that, I watched it recently, I've watched it
twice now.
This is a movie with Matt Neiman, Christian Bale, those are the main two actors in the movie.
It's directed by James Mangold, who will get to that in a minute.
I really like this movie, I think it's really well done.
It's a movie based on the true story of the development of the Ford Shelby GT.
This was the Ford GT40, which was developed in order to beat Ferrari at Le Mans, Le Mans
and to try to, this is during the 1960s, to try to change Ford's image from a state comfortable,
boring, middle class auto company to a more sporty image and to generate sales for cars
like the Mustang.
And so it's basically the movie focuses not on Ferrari, it focuses completely on Ford,
and on Ford's attempt to build the Supercar, to build a car that can compete with Ferrari.
It covers the period between 1962 and 1966, and the goal is to beat them at Le Mans.
Le Mans is a race track in France.
It's a race that is race over 24 hours with a, I guess, a four-man team that takes turns
driving the car with pit stops and driving the car, a very, very difficult race to engage
in, but it's, you know, very prestigious to win.
And Ferrari was dominated, Le Mans, it was just dominating winning every time, winning
all of it.
And the Le eye coca, the marketing director at Ford, who later went on to be the CEO, the
famous CEO of Chrysler, the guy who kind of saved Chrysler from bankruptcy, really Reagan
saved Chrysler from bankruptcy and by inventing the minivan, so I coca who brought us the minivan,
also brought us a sporty Ford, his whole marketing ploy was, we need a, we need to make
Ford more youthful, we need to make Ford more exciting.
And John Ford, the second, who was CEO of Ford Motors bought into the vision, and they hired
a car designer, automobile designer and racer by the name of Carlos Chalby to design the car.
And I won't tell you how it ends, you can be in suspense.
But Chalby designs the car, Chalby's, you know, quite famous.
And Chalby designs the car, he brings in a British race car driver, Ken Miles, to drive
the car, even though Ken Miles is hated by almost everybody.
And throughout the movie, Chalby and Miles, primarily Chalby, really, are fighting the
Ford bureaucracy.
This is very much a movie about entrepreneurial spirit.
This is very much a movie about the advantage of small, flexible, quick decision making,
decision making on the fly versus kind of the bureaucratic, the bureaucracy of a large
corporation.
This is a theme in American business.
This is true in American business, you know, when IBM decided to build a PC, they realized
they couldn't do it under their existing structure.
They created a small entrepreneurial independent group that reported directly to the president
of IBM in order to develop the PC.
The same thing here happens, in order to develop the GT40, they had a create, this unit,
we were put it directly to the president of Ford.
So it really depicts that effectively and efficiently, I think, it's really interesting, the
political dynamics within Ford.
It's really interesting to see the entrepreneur spirit really concretized in a movie, made
real in a movie.
And as I said, the movie is very well made.
I mean, the driving scenes, if you can watch this on a big screen television with good
sound, this super dramatic and you really feel it, you really feel it.
So it's a really exciting movie that is worth watching.
You can still get, well, I don't know if they still make the Ford GT, for a while Ford GT
was $150,000 a car a few years ago was still being made faster than Ferrari.
There was also a Shelby was taking Mustangs and changing them and they were selling them
under the Shelby brand, souped up Mustangs and that existed until about 10, 15 years ago.
I don't know the full history.
Anyway, the movie itself, really good, highly recommended, it's again, well directed, well
acted, particularly Christian Bale, does a great job as Ken Miles, who's quite a character
in the movie, Med Damon and I liked the car, the car scenes, I liked generally the movie
as a whole.
What else does James Mangold directed, he directed 310 to Yuma, which was a good movie, not
as good as the original, but again, you had that sense of suspense.
He's very good at creating drama and suspense, he's good at that.
He did the Bob Dylan biography, which I haven't seen yet, that's on my list to go watch.
He also directed one of the Indiana Jones movies and one of the Wolverine movies, but yeah,
highly recommend Ford vs. Ferrari.
He also did Logan, which I don't know anything about, not the kind of movie I watch, but
Ford vs. Ferrari, thumbs up, thumbs up from the Iran book show, I really enjoyed it and good
both acting, directing and a great story.
Still you should know, because it's kind of, I think I think it really is an old to American
entrepreneur, your entrepreneurial spirit in many, many ways.
All right, second movie, and that was, who wanted me to review that, I think that was
a good shot, but John, what do we do with you, the movie Better Man?
Better Man is a movie, it's a weird movie, it's a movie about, 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 chumbacaceno.com.
It's like having a mini social casino in your pocket.
Chumbacaceno has over a hundred 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 chumbacaceno.com, sponsored by Chumbacaceno.
A pop singer, a boy band, pop singer, who is incredibly successful, hugely successful.
But unbelievably miserable, drugs, alcohol, sleeping around, can maintain relationships,
really horrible, I'm not going to give away the ending, but that's fine.
To the point of almost committing suicide and then finding redemption and cleaning up
his life and happy ending.
So the movie is very much, in many respects, a standard movie about pop stars.
In this case, it's a true story, it's based on a true story of Robbie Williams, who was
a British pop star.
I've never heard of him, never heard of his music, never heard of him.
But he was a big deal in I guess the 90s, in the 90s, there's a big deal as a pop star
during that era, who is considered one of the greatest entertainment of all time.
Robbie Williams basically narrates the movie, so it's a movie about his life and he's
narrating it.
The gimmick of the movie, the thing that makes the movie different, I mean, it's well-made,
even with the gimmick, but the gimmick that differentiates this from all the other movies
about rock stars that succeed enormously and then, you know, but never happy because
of drugs and alcohol and sex and whatever, is that the character of Robbie Williams is
actually portrayed by a CGI monkey.
A CGI monkey from the beginning.
Robbie Williams' character is a monkey.
He's a monkey as a child because it deals with his childhood and as a monkey throughout
the movie, which is drawing and weird.
Now it's mostly a metaphor for his, for who he is, what kind of a human being he is.
He's not human, he's a, he's, he's, we'll talk about what, what, what philosophy drives
him and what's bad about it, but it's a, it's actually a metaphor for that.
I don't know that it really works, it's more gimmick than anything else in my view.
You know, he's a chimpanzee, he's a monkey, which is, which is his character, his soul,
his soul is the soul of a monkey, but it doesn't really work because when he redeems himself,
when he becomes human, he doesn't turn into a human in the movie.
Which you would think if you want to play the metaphor the way through, you would, at the end of the movie,
a human being should have, you know, he should have evolved into a human being, which he doesn't.
It didn't really, once you get used to it, it doesn't really bother you.
But I still think of it as a gimmick rather than anything else.
Generally though, the movie is very well made.
The CGI, by the way, monkey, you can't really tell.
I mean, you can in a few places in a movie, you can tell CGI, but mostly you can't really tell it's CGI.
So it's very well technically done.
It's well-directed.
The story is a good story.
So the basic issue is, and this is the problem I have with the, it's a problem I have with the movie.
We'll get to it in a minute, but basically the issue is that Robbie Williams,
from when he's a young child, is a complete second-hander.
All he wants to do is please others.
Fundamentally he wants to please his father.
So it's got a kind of a 40-in thing.
He wants to please his father.
His whole life is about pleasing his father, but then his whole life as an artist is about pleasing the public.
It's about pleasing his audience.
Even when he gets real, and he gets, you know, he starts writing his own lyrics,
and the lyrics, lyrics actually not bad, he only does that when he's pushed to do it by his producer.
He just wants to sing stupid stuff that'll please the public.
He doesn't want to reveal his soul, which is monkey-like.
And in that sense, he's a monkey, right?
He's just playing to their audience.
And because he's second-handed, and this the movie does very well in showing,
because he's second-handed, his soul is empty, he is miserable, he is unhappy, he's depressed,
and he uses drugs and alcohol and sex as an escape,
which is exactly the fate of soulless second-handed people.
Second-handedness, second-handedness leads to that emptiness.
And to that, nothing to live for, no reason to live, no values.
Because what's the reason to live, values?
But you have no values.
Everything is about other people.
Everything is about their values, everything about what they want, what they desire, you are nothing.
And I think that happens to every second-handed person.
They become soulless, miserable, and happy, depressed.
So it's a good theme, it's well-made, it's entertaining.
The one downside I'd say is it's unconvincing in his change at the end.
Like it's unlikely it identifies his nature, second-handed, and commits to personal values.
Now there's something about him committing to different values, he seems to become a different type of entertainer.
He seems to be singing songs that he really cares about rather than trying to please, maybe.
But the transformation, where does it come from, is not well presented in the movie.
It's as if he reached such a low depth, then he comes to some realization that changes him.
I don't know.
So the transformation into a first-handed person, person with values and which the movie ends on,
that transformation is unconvincing.
It's a clear way it comes from.
And clearly it happened because this is a true story about the life of Robbie Williams.
But I'm curious if Robbie Williams can introspect, can identify what actually caused it,
and how the change was achieved.
That would have been really, really interesting.
But anyway, another movie I give a thumbs up in spite of the gimmick,
because I think it was what made entertaining.
And the second-handedness, second-handed means everything is about the other.
Everybody, you're living through the experience of others.
You're only trying to please them.
It's their reaction to you.
It's narcissism.
Second-handed is a fundamental niche of a narcissistic being.
And again, alcohol and drugs and sex is an escape to try to regain some feeling,
to try to get a sense of self, try to get a sense of self.
But of course, it's not a good way to get a sense of self.
It's an impossible way to get a sense of self.
And therefore, it goes nowhere, it is not successful.
Directive of this is a guy named Michael Gracie.
So he did a good job, I think.
He's made other movies all around music.
So he did Rocket Man, which I think is his most famous movie.
He did a movie about pink.
He did the greatest showman.
Rocket Man was Elton John.
I enjoyed that movie.
I liked his movie about Elton John.
This one, Elton John, of course, I know.
I like Elton John.
This one was about somebody I didn't know.
And again, it had this gimmick, which I don't think it needed at the end of the day.
I really don't think it needed.
All right, those are the two movie reviews.
Hello, it is Ryan.
And I was on a flight the other day playing one of my favorite social spin slot games on chumbacacino.com.
I looked over the person sitting next to me.
I didn't know what they were doing.
They were also playing chumbacacino.
Everybody's loving having fun with it.
Chumbacacino's home to hundreds of casino-style games that you can play for free anytime, anywhere.
So sign up now at chumbacacino.com to claim your free welcome bonus.
That's chumbacacino.com and live the chumbacolites.
Sponsored by Chumbacacino, no purchase necessary VGW group void for prohibited by law on 21-plus terms and conditions apply.
Next week, I'll be reviewing right the tag of Ayvola, which is a nonfiction book.
And philosophy book, if you could say so, if you could argue that.
And week after that, we'll finish up the folks in the road.
All right, we've got a few remaining superchat questions.
We'll go through these and we'll call it a day.
Again, I hope you liked the show today.
And if you did, please jump in and support the show and express the fact that you liked it with financial support.
All right, we'll start with Andrew.
Mark Levin thinks the essence of political ideological enemy in America is Marxism, Islamism.
What do you think of that?
What would you name as the political concept that represents the current main threat in America?
Yeah, I certainly would include Islamism.
While Islamism is a threat, it's not the political ideological enemy.
It's an external enemy.
Islamism is coming from the outside.
It's impact internally inside the United States.
It's minimal.
It really is minimal.
There are very few Muslims here and there are very few Islamists that they don't represent a significant threat.
You know, I would say that the ideological threat is too prompt.
It's leftism, which is primarily today postmodernism.
So a postmodern left, which is all the world can intersectionality and all that,
which is not particularly Marxist in its nature.
So I think it's postmodern leftism and right wing religious nationalism or religion and nationalism,
the combination of the two, but even the two separate.
So it's on the left and there's not just one enemy.
That's one thing I disagree with Mark Levin on.
This is why he can be in a coalition on the right because there's one big enemy.
I think the enemy is postmodern leftism and nationalism and religiosity on the right.
Those, I think, are the two enemies.
Eliminosa, be radical in principle and absolute in will.
Accept no borrowed reality of life.
Give yourself without calculation.
Become what the bourgeois call an extremist.
Let live so their world cannot continue, never ban and struggle.
That all sounds like Evola.
Is that Evola?
I disagree with every single sentence in there.
Every single sentence.
Be radical in principle and absolute in will.
What does will mean?
I agree with radical in principle, but you should be radical, period.
I don't like the whole terminology of the will, which comes from Nietzsche, maybe more
ancient than that, but it's a very destructive terminology.
Accept no borrowed reality of life.
There is no borrowed reality of life.
There's just reality.
And then there's life within reality.
See, Evola is primacy of consciousness.
So reality of life is something created.
It's not something in existence.
Give yourself without calculation.
No, you absolutely should calculate.
This is pure emotionalism.
This is pure giving into the, again, the primacy of consciousness.
You want to calculate.
One thing you won't find in Evola is discussion of reason and rationality.
Not in a positive way anyway, but he almost doesn't discuss it at all.
If he does discuss it, it's negative.
Become what the bourgeoisie calls an extremist.
Well, yeah, but a particular kind of extremist, an extremist of reality, extremist of reason,
of life, of rationality, lives so the world cannot continue.
Yeah, if you properly understand what that means, and again, I don't think Evola does, never
abandoned struggle.
Why?
There's no, there's no value in the end of struggle.
That's only a value in a world that requires struggle.
Dara, how are you on?
It's Dara we met at.
How the light gets in.
I was with my friend who was also a big fan.
I really like a live, I really get to a live show.
Thank for everyone who makes the show possible financially.
Thank you, Dara.
I really appreciate that.
Andrew, you're on a roll.
What is up with you?
I think Andrew won the lottery or something.
I mean, he's God, the number of superchets he's doing with the amounts.
I am, thank you.
Wow.
I got a raise, he won the lottery.
I don't know.
Anyway, I'm thankful.
Thoughts on Christian implication.
One should love and pity the poor who are in misery.
Pity is a rare intense empathy in camaraderie with a loved one's serious loss.
I'm not sure that's what it really means.
Since the poor always exists, one should live in misery for the sake of their existence.
Yeah, I think that's absolutely right.
The mix of the inherit the earth, the poor are the standard of everything.
You should, as a Christian, as a good Christian.
You should love the poor.
You should sacrifice for the poor.
You should live in misery for the poor.
That's what pity means, you know, rare intense empathy.
You should have empathy, constant empathy for the poor.
You should feel like a camaraderie with the poor.
And of course, you should sacrifice for the poor.
That is a pathetic life.
That is a horrible life.
That is a life of complete self-sacrifice and inability to live a good life.
And that's what Christianity explicitly demands.
Very few Christians live up to that because it's so painful.
It's so go against human nature.
It's so go against human inclination and nature and so on.
So very few Christians live up to it, but that's what Christianity demands.
That's the evil of Christianity.
That's what we must rebel against.
We must rebel against Christianity.
I'll give this to you, Vola.
Vola is anti-Christian.
He's definitely rebelling against Christianity, just like Nietzsche does.
But his alternative to Christianity is in many regards worse than Christianity,
if you can imagine that, but yes, we should not pity the poor.
I mean, you should feel sorry for the undeserving poor.
But not to the point of dominating your life in any kind of way.
It should be a temporary emotion, not a state of being,
which is what Christianity demands.
All right, let me thanks some of the sticker people,
because we got a bunch of stickers, Jeffrey, thank you.
Jeffrey Miller, thank you, thank you.
Let's see who else.
I saw Wes here.
I'm pretty sure Wes was here.
Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop, pop.
All right.
There is RMK, thank you.
Really appreciate the support.
Pete Faris, thank you, Paul.
There's Wes.
G. Jeffrey, thank you.
Wes, thank you for the $50.
And then it shows me in a long show.
In a long show, let me go to the top.
See if I can capture the people at the top who gave stickers.
Yeah, Andrew, thank you.
And I think it's a different Andrew.
And X, say something.
Mary-Elene, thank you.
And John, thank you.
And Mary-Elene again.
And Barry, thank you.
And whoops, there he goes again.
Anyway, I think I've caught almost everybody.
So I really appreciate it.
Anybody who gave a sticker, thank you, thank you, thank you.
Really appreciate it.
We really made up the gap.
We're going to go through these last few questions
pretty quickly.
And then I'm off to dinner.
I like numbers.
You accept Islamism once EU domination.
But you think it's unrelated to Maldani calling
to globalizing to Fata that it's just a hipster talk.
Yes, I do.
I really do.
I don't think Maldani has a real vested interest
in Islam or Islamism, in particular.
I think it's like all those kids yelling
globalizing to Fata on campuses.
Very few of them understand what they're yelling
and hold what they're yelling.
It's more of a statement about hatred of Israel
and wanting to see Israel.
And I think Maldani is hostile to the West
and would like to see the West replaced
by with a socialist utopia.
But I don't think his socialist utopia is Islamist.
I just don't think he's a Trojan horse of Islam.
I think he's fundamentally secular.
I mean, I might be wrong.
I think the same about the mayor of London.
I don't think the mayor of London is particularly Islamist.
He's a Muslim who is a socialist.
He's terrible because he's a horrible leftist.
You don't have to double up any sympathetic to Muslims.
But he's not any Islamist.
His goal is not sharia law.
His goal is the egalitarian horrors of socialism.
Neo, seems like the UE and Saudi are also
in conflict in Yemen.
Anything you know about that.
Yeah, I mean, they're both the each supporting different groups
of that oppose the Houthis that in conflict
with one another, exactly why they can't unite
and defeat the Houthis is beyond me,
why they're attacking each other, is beyond me.
You'd think the Saudis in the UE would be united.
So I don't know the details of it.
I'd have to research it more.
But I did notice that that suddenly they're in dispute
and Saudi Arabia actually bombed a UE ally in Yemen.
Doesn't make any real sense.
But that part of the world doesn't make sense.
It's very tribal and horrific.
All right, equal to reality.
What is the best way to filter out all the nonsense
that the world throws at us so you can force
on your own values?
I mean, the best way is just to focus on your own values.
It's to center yourself, not on the news, not on the world,
not on Trump, not on the world,
it's going on anywhere in the world,
but focus, spend real time and energy on your own values,
identifying them, striving to achieve them,
embracing them, enjoying them.
That's what your whole life should be centered about.
And then for the news, listening to you on book show
and getting it out of your system
and then going on and pursuing your values.
But it's really organizing all your effort,
all your concentration, all your time.
What are my values? What I love?
What I want to do? What I want to create?
That's what you should be focused on.
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.
VTW Group, boy, we're prohibited by law.
CCNC, 21 plus sponsored by JambaCasino.
What is the best Puerto Rican food item?
Toes of Puerto Rican food, item.
Probably sweet plantains, but I don't know.
I mean, my favorite Puerto Rican dish is a eggplant
and lamb dish at a restaurant here in Toes of Puerto Rican food.
That is my favorite food.
It's incredibly flavorful.
And it's got eggplant and lamb.
Mincelain.
Bradley, what's stopping Elon, Bezos, et cetera,
from embracing Rand?
They've already shrugged and resonate
with it.
Are they just closet objectives?
No, I mean, they're obviously reject objectivism.
Elon is too much of a subjectivist
and an emotionalist to embrace kind of their irrationality
and reason-based morality of Rand.
He's rational and goes by reason in his business side
and in his personal side and in his political side
and in his just his cultural side.
He's a complete subjectivist and emotionalist.
Bezos, I don't know well enough,
but many of them still embrace elements of altruism.
Many of them just don't get what's important about philosophy
and they're not interested in philosophy,
co-philosophy.
They've succeeded in life without one.
Why do they need one?
I think each one has their own reasons,
but I don't think any of them are closet objectivists.
Not a single one of them.
Daniel, you gave Trump credit for mentioning oil,
maybe, but I interpreted his statement more
as an imperialistic and collectivistic champion,
not an act of justice to all companies.
He keeps mentioning to all companies.
He keeps mentioning, compensating them.
He keeps bringing that up.
Somebody has whispered down in his ear
and he keeps bringing it up.
So I get what you're coming from,
but he does say it explicitly.
I'm not putting words in his mouth.
He actually says it.
So somebody's whispered that to him.
I don't know who it is.
It's like the only people who have ever talked about it
are objectivists.
Maybe it's Alex.
Maybe it's somebody who's heard Alex talk about it.
I don't know, but the only people they ever talk about
nationalization is a bad thing and stealing
and military action is justified
in the face of nationalization.
Objectivists, I don't know anybody else.
We've talked that way.
So maybe, maybe an objectivist got to him
or got to somebody in his universe
and whispered in his ear.
I don't know.
Steve, how important is freedom of speech?
Under what circumstances may the government prohibit lying,
read L.A. police protective league versus L.A.
or U.S. versus Alvarez?
I haven't read any of those,
but free speech is massively important.
It's one of the most important rights that we have.
And the government can only prohibit lying
when that lying is used to gain a value.
That is to gain a material object
and that it's called fraud.
And they clear definitions about what fraud is.
So you can prohibit lying in order to get money.
You can prohibit lying if the purpose of lying
is to overturn an election.
That is fraud.
What Trump did in 2020 is fraud.
Fod is the use of a lie in order to gain a material value
or change in behavior that has material consequences.
And then you can sue for fraud.
So the government prohibits fraud.
It costs prohibits threats and incitement.
And defining incitement is not easy.
You need to really think that through.
But yeah, so I haven't read those,
but other than that, you can lie,
but you have to suffer the consequences of lies.
And again, if the lies are lies that actually you get something
for it, that is not allowed.
That's fraud.
You cannot commit fraud.
Again, you have to ask a lawyer
in terms of the technical definition of fraud.
Steve, do you like fenced-up sandwiches?
Not particularly.
Do you like better Felipe or Cole's both in Los Angeles?
Never eaten at either one of those.
Which one invented the sandwich?
I have no idea.
Thank you, Steve.
Cobb, why do you think brutalist is not objectivist?
Well, I haven't seen the movie yet.
When I see it, I'll give you a definitive answer.
Because the objectivist architecture is not brutalist.
And for my understanding, not firsthand second hand,
the hero of the brutalist does not represent objectivist values,
objectivist aesthetics, or objectivist values.
So, but I'll tell you once I watch the movie,
which I will watch.
What's your view of the Hudson River School?
Was there any great American art movement in history?
I guess the Hudson Movement School is the closest
it comes to a great American visual art.
I mean, jazz is a great art.
American art, but other than that,
I'm trying to think.
Movies, cinema is a great American art.
But in terms of the visuals of painting sculpture,
there's some good artists, but nothing on a world level.
I mean, Sergeant is probably the best painter
who is American, but he did most of his work in Europe
and studying in Europe.
There were other American good American painters,
but it just wasn't a great American movement.
You know, the Hudson River School is good.
It's primarily what he call it, landscapes.
Some of those landscapes are truly magnificent.
Some of the most beautiful landscapes I've ever seen
come from the painters in the Hudson River School.
So, I like their work.
I think they're dramatic and beautiful.
And worthy, but do they match up
to the great European schools of art?
Maybe that's in Valley School.
Maybe a few artists here and there,
but there wasn't.
There weren't great visual art movements
in the United States, sadly.
Will you watch the Odyssey?
Definitely.
I'll definitely watch the Odyssey.
That's the new movie by Christopher Nolan.
Have you ever played Rummy Cube?
What do you think of it?
Do you think people can learn anything from playing cards?
I played Rummy Cube a long, long time ago,
in my youth, I can't remember much about it.
The only card game I really loved
and really, I thought was really, really good,
was Bridge.
Bridge is a phenomenal game.
And you can learn strategy, thinking skills,
memory from playing Bridge.
Bridge is a, and communication skills.
It really teaches you communication skills.
It's a, it's a, it's a, it's a, it's a,
it's really a thrilling game.
It's the best, one of the best games ever, a bridge.
And it's a hard game.
You really, really requires thought.
Hey, we, somebody did a,
NEMMUNGE, that was a sticker from
Bosnia-Helcutz-Sugovina.
He has Android again.
Okay, let's finish these.
Surnerick, could Trump be pivoted
from militarization of cities
to protecting military power towards election victories?
No, I don't, I don't, well, militarization,
projecting military power is not necessarily good
towards election victories.
No, I don't think so.
I think that the city is too important to him,
too much of his ego is tied up
in what happens in America.
Andrew, I would think the objectivist attitude
towards monks would be decidedly negative.
You would think in every aspect, the socialist,
the really communist, and, and, and, and,
they believe in God and devoting your life
to something that doesn't exist,
hollowable existence.
If you went control, this is John,
if you went control of the US military,
who would you take out first?
Iran, no question about.
Iran, long time ago, and that would have been my,
my number one priority, taking that out.
That was you, Mao, it should have been done
30 years ago, better late than never.
And other than that, I wouldn't do much.
I mean, maybe something like what we just did in Maduro,
not much.
If you could do it without shedding blood,
take out the Cuban regime,
I would work to do those things,
but it would not want to risk the lives of soldiers for it.
So, do it without risking soldiers' lives,
I would take out the Cuban regime.
But other than that, you have to really monitor North Korea,
and worry about North Korea,
and make sure you can defend yourself against
any kind of launch from them.
All right, last two questions, Andrew, $50.
My contributions will slow down in the new year
as I have to refocus on Korea more.
Still, I'm happy to be generous to the show
over the last two weeks.
You've had the second most effect on helping change
my psychopistomology after hand.
Thank you, Andrew.
I really, really appreciate that.
Sorry, you'll have to slow down,
but I completely understand.
And hopefully we'll find others to take your place
and to ramp up in your place.
Oh, and I really appreciate it last two weeks.
Yeah, I mean, it's been a lot of money.
I haven't added it up, but I guess you have.
What is your view on the digital ID nonsense
and age verification sweeping across the world?
Seems like government and cohorts
to being about global censorship.
I mean, yes, I think government's one control.
We know that, and they're looking for ways to control you.
Now, granted, there is some issue of long pornography
and what you do about it with children,
and that should be,
that should be primarily the parent's responsibility
in terms of what kind of blockers they put on their computers
at home and on the phones and all of that.
But yes, there's no question that governments around the world
are going to use technology that is evolving
to try to control us and to try to influence us
and to try to gain more power over our lives.
That is what governments do.
All right, this is the last one.
Please, why did I mention to any of you
with Tom Snyder that she wouldn't like her philosophy
to attract as many people as religions do?
I don't remember saying that,
but my guess is that she didn't want that kind of attraction.
It's not so much about the numbers,
it's about the kind of attraction,
the attraction of accepting things on faith,
which I think is the only way you would gain that kind of following
in a short period of time
is that people just embrace you out of faith.
She wanted a thinking,
she wanted adherence to a philosophy
who were real actual thinkers
and she didn't think that the masses were actually that.
So I think she didn't want mindless followers.
That's a good way to put it.
All right, thank you guys, really appreciate it.
I'm gonna go to dinner.
I hope you enjoyed the show.
Don't forget you can support the show on Patreon.com.
You want book show, become a monthly supporter.
That is huge.
That is the one way that you can contribute to the show the most.
And I will see you all on Monday, Monday, yes.
Next Sunday, not this Sunday, next Sunday,
we will have a members only show.
So become a member between now and Sunday
and join us for that show.
Talk to you on Monday.
Bye, everybody.
Bye.

Yaron Brook Show

Yaron Brook Show

Yaron Brook Show