 the National Conservative 10 principles. Now, we're going to talk about these. I want you to note before we even get started, the things that are not there, right? The things that are not there. And the first thing you'll notice, and we'll look at all 10, and you can read them along with me and we can look for them, is the fact that the individual is not mentioned, maybe once. Liberty is not mentioned, maybe once. Capitalism is not mentioned, certainly not mentioned. Rights, rights, the concept of rights, the concept of individual rights. And I've been railing over this issue because of Rosa Vista's weight and the idea that nobody on the right cares about rights, the Supreme Court doesn't seem to care about rights, nobody really cares about rights, they don't have an understanding of rights, they don't think about rights. Rights, individual rights, don't make an appearance. Don't make an appearance on the National Conservative platform, so just consider that. This might be, I think right now, the biggest, most influential of all the Conservative movements out there, among the intellectuals, they're the ones, I think, that are going to set that gender for the future of the Conservative movement, future of the Conservative movement. Individualism, no. Capitalism, no. Individual rights, the founding concept of America, no. None of those. This is where Trump has bought us. They're not a single, you know, significant, they mention constitution, not particularly the US constitution, as we'll see, because this is a globalist, no, not globalist, an international movement. I was kidding, they're against globalism, the anti-concept of globalism, which means nothing. All right, so let's look at this. The first one is national independence, national independence, and this one's interesting. We wish to see a world of independent nations. Cool, so do I. Each nation capable of self-government should chart its own course in accordance with its own particular constitutional, linguistic, and religious inheritance. Each has a right to maintain its own borders, and conduct policies that will benefit its own people. We endorse a policy of rearmament by independent self-governing nations and of defensive alliances whose purpose is to deter imperialist aggressions. What is missing from this statement? What is missing from this statement? What's missing from this statement is freedom. Each nation capable of self-government should chart its own course. What if that course is authoritarian? What if its constitution allows authoritarianism? And of course, what dictates the course of a nation? Constitution, okay, linguistic, no, linguistic, right? What's really important is language, really? Wouldn't it be cooler if every country in the world spoke English? Language, that's what's crucial. That's what defines a nation and religious inheritance. So this is all about the past, all about tradition, all about where you came from, all about your ethnic group, all about your tribe. Where is freedom? I mean, I get having a political principle, one of those being national independence, you want independent nation states, but wouldn't you say I want to see independent nation states that preserve freedom, protect the rights of their citizens? Or even if you don't want to use the concept rights, at least some semblance of non-authoritarianism? No, they don't care. You can be a democracy, you can be a constitutional republic, you can be a authoritarian state, you can be Putin, you can be Xi, you can be any one of these people, any one of these people, as long as, as long as you're governing in accordance with a constitution, it doesn't say, it doesn't say whether it's a good constitution, bad constitution, what the purpose of the constitution is, it doesn't say any of that. As long as you speak the language of your forebearers, and as long as you respect religion, you're called Putin qualifies here completely. So does Xi, by the way. So does Xi. So national independence, not individual sovereignty, God forbid, not individualism, not freedom, not rights, national independence. Second, rejection of imperialism and globalism, I know. Like, I don't like imperialism, and you know, if you mean by globalism, one world government, I don't like that either. But why is this negative number two? Number two, now, what's fascinating about here is the moral equivalency that we're gonna see. So he says, we support a system of free cooperation and competition among nation-states. Working together through trade treaties, defense alliances and other common projects that respect the independence of their members. Again, nothing about an alliance of free countries or authoritarian, nothing, right? I mean, how about we reject authoritarianism? Before we reject imperialism, globalism. Nope, we're not gonna do that, right? But we oppose transferring the authority of elected governments to transnational or supernatural bodies. I oppose that too. A trend that pretends to high moral legitimacy even as it weakens representative government sows public alienation and distrust and strengthens the influence of autocratic regimes. Why are you against autocratic regimes? I haven't seen a principle here that's anti-autocratic regimes. Accordingly, they say, we reject imperialism in its various contemporary forms. We condemn the imperialism of China, Russia. This is why it's in here. It's to distance themselves a little bit from Russia. But note the moral equivalency now and other authoritarian powers. And then he says, but we also oppose the liberal imperialism of the last generation which sought to gain power, influence and wealth by dominating other nations and trying to remake them in its own image. What they don't want is classical liberal ideas spread around the world. That to them is imperialism. Classical liberal ideas, western ideas, the ideas of the Enlightenment. That to them is imperialism. Going to the rest of the world and saying, look, the best system of government is the American system of government. The best system of government is freedom, individualism, a system based on those ideas, the respects, the rights of its citizens. That is the liberal order which they oppose. That is liberal imperialism. And of course, they lumping together. So that is the equivalent of, right? That is the equivalent of, Russia invaded Ukraine and Chinese, I don't know, taking over Tibet and maybe wanting to take over Taiwan and so on. Unbelievable. And note again, what they're really all about, and this came out in my debate with you on Khazoni, what they're really all about is a rejection of individualism. What they're really all about is a rejection of individual liberty. This is a collectivist, exclusively collectivist movement that is not about preserving the rights of the individual, but is all about preserving traditions. It's all about nationalism. It's all about tribalism. All right, National Government, maybe here they'll tell us a little bit about the purpose of government. What's the purpose of government, right? What a government's instituted among men to do. Maybe we'll find out from this. Abuyin says he has $1,000 ready. Well, what's going on? Where is it, Abuyin? 10,000, he says he's got $10,000 ready. All right, ooh, we've got a lot of super chat questions. This is great, thank you guys. Lots of questions, it's good. So be a long show today. All right, third is National Government. The Independent Nations State is instituted to establish a more perfect union among the diverse communities, parties and regions of a given nation, to provide for their common defense and justice among them and to secure the general welfare and the blessings of liberty for this time and for future generations. Okay, liberty, one appearance. There it is, liberty. Liberty for whom? Notice, no individuals mentioned here to preserve a perfect union among diverse communities, parties and regions for the common defense and justice among all. General welfare and blessing of liberty for whom? For this and for future generations. I mean, this is horrible. We believe in a strong but limited state limited by what principle? Limited by what principle? Subject, the constitutional restraints and the division of power, constitutional restraints and division of power aimed at what? We recommend a dramatic reduction in the scope and administrative state and the policymaking judiciary and the displaced legislature representing the full range of the nation's interest and values. This is the point with the Supreme Court as well. So this Supreme Court is going to be very good at challenging the administrative state. We saw it in the EPA ruling, the last ruling before the break where they said the EPA cannot regulate CO2 because Congress hasn't given them authority to do so and we won't allow regulatory agencies to do things that the law has not permitted them to do. Will we allow the law to permit them to regulate these things? Yes, we're great with the law. If it goes through the legislative process, we're good with it. We're not good, which is good, right? It's better than the alternative, right? I don't like these agencies doing whatever the hell they want and that's a good thing to step in the right direction. It's gonna limit these regulatory agencies' power over our lives. But note here that they're not trying to reduce the scope for the sake of liberty, but it's for the sake of giving the power back to the legislature and if the legislature wants to reduce our liberty, that's fine, they don't have a problem with that. We recommend the Federalist Principle which prescribes a delegation of power to the respective states or the Federalists, of course, or subdivisions of the nation so as to allow greater variation, experimentation, and freedom. However, in those states, this is really interesting, really interesting, in those states of subdivisions in which the law and justice have been manifestly corrupted, or, this isn't or, in which lawlessness, immorality, immorality and disillusioned reign, national government must intervene energetically to restore order. Immorality, not just lawlessness, I get all lawlessness, right? But so if there's a state in which, I don't know, gays are allowed to marry, or in there's a state in which somebody is allowed to do something that the national government views as being immoral, not illegal, immoral, they should go in, well, we know what code, we know exactly what code. The code of the religion prevailing in the state, in the country, we'll get to Christian country in a minute. We know exactly what code. It's the code of Christianity. So the federal government, they believe in federalism, unless immorality is allowed in the state, not violation of rights, not violation of the constitution, not 14 amendment stuff. You're doing something that we deem as immoral, we're gonna intervene in the state, shut you down. The federal government must intervene energetically to restore order, energetically, right? Four, why is this only number four? I thought this would be number one. God and public religion. No nation can long endure without humility and gratitude before God and fear of his judgment that are found in authentic religious tradition. How did this country survive? I don't think this country is founded on humility and gratitude. Maybe I'm misinterpreting the founding fathers, but that's not the sentiments I got from the founding fathers. For millennia, the Bible has been our surest guide, nourishing a fitting orientation towards God, to the political traditions of the nation, to public morals, to the defense of the weak, altruism and to the recognition of things rightly regarded as sacred. This is very cringe. Friend Harper says, only shit is right. This is your new conservative movement. This is what Trump has brought to us. This, if you've read dim, these are the intellectuals Leonard Peacock warned us against. The Bible should be read as the first among the sources of a shared Western civilization in schools and universities, schools. And as the rightful inheritance of believers and non-believers alike, where a Christian majority exists, pay attention, pay attention, where a Christian majority exists, public life should be rooted in Christianity and it's moral vision. That's America, if you hadn't noticed. And it's moral vision. I'm gonna read this again, because this is striking. Where a Christian majority exists, public life should be rooted in Christianity and it's moral vision, which should be honored by the state and other institutions, both public and private, honored by the state. So no separation of church and state at all, complete integration of religion with the state. At the same time they write, Jews and other religious minorities are to be protected in the observance of their own traditions. In the free government of their communal institutions, governance of their communal institutions, and it all matters pertaining to the rearing and education of their children. What about atheists? Adult individuals should be protected, adult individuals should be protected from religious ideological coercion. Children, it's okay. In their private lives and in their homes. But children should not be protected from religious coercion, because it's a Christian state. I'll read you afterwards who signed this thing. I mean, this is scary stuff, guys. This is why I hate Trump so much, because this is what he made possible. This is what he brought out and elevated these intellectuals, these are the ones that inherited, now maybe it would have happened anyway, maybe. Five, Ashton says, this is fascism. Well, let's see, let's read number five. The rule of law, that sounds good. We believe in the rule of law, so do I. By this we mean that citizens and foreigners are alike and both the government and the people must accept and abide by the laws of the nation. Laws based on what? I mean, you know, Nazi Germany had laws. In America, this means accepting and living in accordance with the Constitution of 1787. Notice and the amendments to it duly enacted statutory law and the great common law inheritance. All agree that the repand improvement of national legal traditions and institutions is as time's necessary, but necessary change must take place through the law. This is how we preserve our national traditions, tradition again, and our nation itself, rioting, looting and other unacceptable public disorders should be swiftly put to an end. Now, most of this I agree with, but note, what's the principle of law? I don't believe in the rule of law when the rules are horrific. I don't believe in the rule of law when the laws clearly violate individual rights. I mean, it was the rule of law that allowed for slavery. Slavery was the law. Is that okay? Should we just don't do anything? You have to go by the law and then, you know, so that underground that got the freed slaves, that's illegal. You're violating the law. If you want to change the law, go through the regular process. None of this, none of this, you know, smuggling slaves out of the South. Sex, all right, we're finally getting to one. Maybe you guys are like, maybe, we'll see. Free enterprise, right? Not free markets, not capitalism, free enterprise. Okay, we'll take it, free enterprise, better than nothing. We believe that an economy based on private property and free enterprise is best suited to promoting the prosperity of the nation and accords with traditions of individual liberty. They believe in individual liberty because of the tradition of individual liberty that are central to the Anglo-American political tradition. What about if you're not part of the Anglo-American? Well, then you don't have to have free enterprise. We reject the socialist principle which supposes that economic activity of the nation can be conducted in accordance with the rational plan dictated by the state. All right, you guys, you know, okay, these conservatives might, they might not be too bad. But the free market cannot be absolute. Uh-oh. Economic policy must serve the general welfare of the nation. Nationalism, tribalism, collectivism, altruism. Today, globalized markets allow hostile foreign powers to spoil America and other countries of their manufacturing capabilities. Weaken them economically and dividing them internally. At the same time, transnational corporations showing little loyalty to any nation demand public life, damage public life by censoring political speech, flooding the country with dangerous and addictive substances and pornography and promoting obsessive destructive personal habits. Oh my God, the enemy destructive personal habits, you guys, maybe listening to your own book show is one of those destructive personal habits that those corporations are inflicting upon you. The prudent national economic policy, note this, should promote free enterprise, but it must also mitigate threats to the national interest, aggressively pursue economic independence from hostile powers, nurture industries crucial to national defense and restore and upgrade manufacturing capabilities critical to the public welfare. Who gets to decide all that? Well, a central planner, of course. Crony capitalism, the selective promotion of corporate profit-making by organs of the state power should be energetically exposed and opposed. How are you gonna do that if you're, the government is gonna nurture industries crucial for national defense, get them a strong upgrade manufacturing capabilities? Isn't that the essence of cronyism? Isn't the only way that can happen is through cronyism? So tariffs, great trade restrictions, great, on showing great, choosing winners and losers, as long as it's in manufacturing, we won't do it in services like programming and stuff like that. All the programming jobs can go overseas. Go programming, please go, you can go to China. We want manufacturing. We wanna be good at what human beings did 100 years ago. That's what we're gonna be good at. We're gonna be good at the stuff we were good at in the past, because that's our tradition. We have traditionally a manufacturing country, so traditionally we should still be a manufacturing company, country. Let's forget about all that high tech. Let's forget about all that software and programming and that's all services. That's no good. We don't want that. I mean, this obsession that people have, this weird kind of obsession over manufacturing, is again, tradition bound. It's a little barbaric and primitive and just weird. I find it really, really weird. It's trying to suck up to the, I guess the working class, right? It's a suck up to voters or certain some voters. But it's sure to alienate anybody who doesn't happen to be in manufacturing. Wow, it's already, chief, we've been going a long time. Okay, public research. Public research. This is just in the same breath as free enterprise. Now what public research, I did a show on the public research just a little while ago at the government funding of science. Public research, at a time when China is rapidly overtaking American, Western nations and fields, crucial for security and defense. A Cold War type program modeled on DARPA, the Moonshot and SDI is needed to focus large scale public resources on scientific and technological research with military application on restoring and upgrading national manufacturing, manufacturing again capacity and an education in the physical sciences and engineering. I don't know why physical science and engineering today don't necessarily lead to manufacturing. Biotech is not manufacturing. On the other hand, we recognize that most universities, they hate the universities, right? Because the universities are leftists. They don't want them to get the money. But note this, this is super important. On the other hand, we recognize that most universities at this point, partisan and globalist in orientation are vehemently opposed to nationalist and conservative ideas. Such institutions do not deserve taxpayer support. Unless they would rededicate themselves to the national interest. Education policy should serve manifest national needs. In other words, you're not gonna get research grants. You're not gonna get money from the government. You're not gonna get defense department government money. Unless the ideas taught at university are acceptable to the regime, acceptable to the government. Educate policy should manifest national needs. In other words, we will not support universities that are not part of our agenda. That are not teaching our ideas. Now that's the end of free speech. It is the end of liberty. It is the complete control by government. Not only of research, not only of industry, not only of manufacturing, but of ideas. So we've already got no separation between state and church. Now we have no separation between state and ideas. Only good ideas are gonna be promoted by the state. Only good ideas will be subsidized. Bad ideas will not be subsidized by the state. And set up, setized here means big bucks public research. Department of Education has to serve their ideological interests, their ideological demands. Eight, family and children. We believe that the traditional family is the source of society's virtues and deserves greatest support from public policy. Again, free enterprise, but we're gonna subsidize families. The traditional family built around a lifelong bond between a man and a woman and a lifelong bond between parents and children is the foundation of all other achievements of our civilization. That is so ahistorical. That is so BS. The traditional family is the foundation of all achievements of our civilization. Michelangelo, as far as I know, never married. Do not belong to a traditional family was probably gay, we don't know. And yet there's one of the great achievers of our civilization. Leonardo da Vinci, almost certainly gay, had no children, had no family. Leonardo da Vinci, Isaac Newton. Did Isaac Newton have children? I can't remember if he got married. Is the thing that made it possible for Isaac Newton is his children, his family? I could go on and on and on. Really? I mean, man, of course, never had kids. And you know, she might have had an affair. Really? So again, the traditional family is the foundation of all achievements of our civilization. Not most, not some, all. Albert Einstein, I don't think he was part of, part of, you know, he had divorced at least twice, once, maybe twice. Did Beethoven have kids? I'm sure Thomas knows that. Beethoven, I don't think Beethoven had any kids. The Mozart, obviously their achievements don't count as achievements of our civilization because obviously they didn't have kids. They didn't have a lifelong bond between a man and a woman, right? So obviously their achievements are to not, or to not. I mean, we could go on and on. Chopin, did Chopin have kids? Dude, who go? I don't even know family of who go. See, that's the thing. When I think about great geniuses and great achievement of Western civilization, I don't think about their family. Isn't that a shock, a surprise? Weird, huh? None of them were family men. None of them were family men. Weird. George Washington had no kids. What's wrong with George Washington? I mean, obviously he's not part of our civilization. I go on. That this integration of the family included a marked decline in marriage and childbirth gravely threatens all being unsustainability of democratic nations. Among the causes are an unconstrained individualism. Oh my God. Individualism is the cause for all these civilizational problems. Unconstrained individualism guards children as a burden while encouraging even more radical forms of sexual license and experimentation. Oh my God. As an alternative to the responsibilities of family and congregational life, economic and cultural conditions that foster stable family and congregational life and child raising are priorities of the highest order. All right? None of those geniuses contributed to our civilization. Achievements of our civilization had regular family lives. And I have to say, somebody who's probably had some sexual license and experimentation, but also had, has a wife. I don't know how they, how do they, these people are a little obsessed with, I think, sexual license and experimentation. Just a little. All right? Immigration. Immigration. Do you think we agree on immigration? Maybe we agree on immigration. Immigration has made an immense contribution to strengthen prosperity of Western nations. Yes. They threw me a bone. But today's pension for uncontrolled and unassimilated immigration has become a source of weakness and instability, not strength and dynamism, threatening internal dissension, and ultimately dissolution of the political economy and community. We note that Western nations have benefited from both liberal and restrictive immigration policies at various times. So the tradition is mixed. The tradition is mixed. We call for much more restrictive policies until these countries summon the wit to establish more balance, productive and assimilationist policies. Restrictive policies may sometimes include a moratorium on immigration, just in case you were worried. They want to ban all immigration. There's no question about that. They're giving you throwing a bone, but they don't believe it. They don't stand by it at all. Finally, race. We believe that all men are created in the image of God, and that public policy should reflect that fact. Huh? So we should... How do you reflect the fact that all people are created in the image of a make-believe? I don't know how you do that. What kind of public policy is reflected in the make-believe? In the fact that we all like the make-believe? No person's worth or loyalties can be judged by the shape of their features, the color of their skin, or the results of a lab test. Huh? All right? The history of racialist ideology and oppression and its ongoing consequences require us to emphasize this truth. We condemn the use of states and private institutions to discriminate and divide us against one another on the basis of race. The cultural sympathies encouraged by a decent nationalism. This is interesting. The cultural sympathies encouraged by a decent nationalism offer a sound basis for conciliation and unity among diverse communities. Cultural sympathies. The nationalism we espouse respect and indeed combines the unique needs of particular minority communities and the common good of the nation as a whole. I mean, really? I doubt it. All right. I want to give you a sense of who signed this. And maybe these are people you know or don't know, but I can tell you a little bit about them. Michael Anton. Michael Anton is famous for Flight 93, which was an essay he wrote in 2016 advocating for everybody to vote for Trump with the idea that the left was so dominant, the world was coming to an end. The only chance civilization had was a very, very small chance that is of rushing the cockpit. An equivalent of rushing the cockpit in the election was voting for Donald Trump. It was an incredibly important essay, very influential. Michael Anton has gone on to be a very influential intellectual on the right. He is a professor at Talesdale College, but way beyond that of great influence. Larry Owen, I think, is the president of Talesdale College. Ambi Athe, I don't know who Amber is. We've got another Talesdale College person. We've got a few people from the Daily Wire, although interestingly enough, really interestingly, Ben Shapiro did not sign this. Ben Shapiro is not one of the signators to this. Do what you will for that. Okay, we've got a bunch of other people, some from the National Review, some Ken Cunichelli from the Election for Inspiracy Initiative, Victor Davis Hansen, who should know better, used to know better, used to be a good guy. I was a big fan of Victor Davis Hansen, still am of his books on military history, but he signed to this. Christopher Mooth, who was much better, used to be a relative free marketer, an anti-nationalist, much better than this. He ran the Institute for Economic Affairs for many years as part of this. Now he's at the Hudson Institute, but he used to be at the Institute of Economic Affairs. Jim DeMint, again, ran, I think, Heritage. I think it was better than this, used to be better than this, no longer. Particularly, DeMuth was better than this. Let's see who else. More Hudson Institute signees that I don't really know. Let's see, Project 20. Foundation from Israel. John Hazzoni, of course, signed this. More national review people from the Federalist. The Federalist is very in line with this. Let's see, Charlie Cook, who was heavily influenced by Iron Man when he was young, and now that he's a little bit less young, he is a real national conservative from Turning Point, USA. Michael Knowles from Daily Wire, a bunch of Daily Wire people here. Let's see anybody else that I would know. From Unhood, from the Klamat Institute. You've got people from the Klamat, you've got people from the Danube Institute. You've got people from New Direction in Poland. I know the people in New Direction, European Center for Law and Justice in France. More Klamat Institute people, more First Things Town Hall. Chris Ruffo from Manhattan Institute. Awful, awful. Disappointing Chris. Let's see, A War College, Daniel Strand, Peter Thiel. Peter Thiel. Let's see anybody else with, yeah, more Klamat Institute. Alright, Edmund Brook Foundation. Alright, what can I say? This is in my view, know who's not signed. Put Ben Shapiro aside, much better than this and is not signed. But know who's not signed. Patrick Deneen has not signed this. Soha Barmari is not signed it. Why did they not sign it? They didn't sign it because this doesn't go far enough. They didn't sign it because this doesn't commit the agenda to enough religion. They didn't sign it because this doesn't commit a complete rethinking of the Constitution. They didn't sign it because this isn't, this isn't, theocratic enough. Yeah, Peter Thiel has become a real national conservative. By the way, Peter Thiel is backing two Senate candidates who have signed up for this agenda. Their signature is not here. But they basically signed up to this agenda and they're backed 100% by Peter Thiel. One is JD Vance in Ohio, who's a national conservative. And the other one is Blake Masters in Arizona. Those two Republicans, in my view, need to lose in November. But those two Republicans are backed almost 100% by Peter Thiel. They are both endorsed by Trump and they are completely part of this agenda. Blake Masters is horrific in his agenda. His agenda is this national conservatism. Which is awful. So Peter Thiel is exactly here. And note that these guys are not the most consistent, not the most radical, not the most extreme. Pink has nothing to do with this. Pink is not here. I don't know why people are talking about Pinko over there. The real extreme people are the Catholic integrationists who want a theocracy. And they didn't even sign this because this is too moderate for them. Spooky stuff, guys. Spooky stuff. Thank you. Thank you.