 You know, May 40 here, or if I have a Sydney Harbour Bridge, so the only reason people don't say what they mean, generally speaking, in politics is because the price is made too high to say what you mean. So you get a lot of euphemisms. But the only reason you get euphemisms like states' rights and abortion is because people can't stand out for what they really believe in. And then people have to go the euphemism route. So Southerners, the 1940s, 50s, 60s United States, they stood up for what they really believed. But then, by about 1964-65, that became increasingly untenable. And so the segregationist movement realised it could no longer win on a platform of explicit segregation. So it changed a lot of things, to euphemisms like states' rights and to things like abortion. And abortion became a proxy for racial attitudes, attitudes towards sexuality, family. And so when George Wallace ran for office, he talked about segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever. That was a key part to his understanding of freedom, also a key part to what many of his voters also believed was freedom. Then by fear from the US Supreme Court and enforced by the federal government, that option was struck down. It no longer had the option of standing for what you really believe in. So when you make what people want illegal, they're going to have to start to lie. They're going to have to try to seek the protections accorded to religion. So when you listen to Richard Spencer's streams, he still has many of the same nationalist impulses that drove him 6, 5, 4, 3 years ago. But now he realises they can't be achieved explicitly, so he's turned to the realm of religion, he's turned to the realm of Apollonianism. And you see with, like, Nick Fuentes, he can't put what he wants first and foremost, he has to know clothed in Christ as king. So in Nick's life and in the rhetoric he uses and in the knowledge he displays, it's very little religious impulse. But the idea that Christ is king is a much more socially acceptable expression of his political views. So George Wallace says, I've been taught the freedom meant freedom from any threat or fear of government. And he said the black citizens of Alabama, they were free too. They were free to live and to learn and to work and to teach within that separate racial station. But that is another form of freedom. So people on the liberal left have this idea that we can just endlessly expand, you know, liberty. And that the expansion of civil rights doesn't come at the cost to anyone else. The only cost is that people are forced to overcome their ingrained folk ways, traditions, bigotry, prejudice and ignorance. So the left things that we can just endlessly expand education and freedom help people overcome their ignorance and will live an increasingly better world. So there's this tremendous new book, Freedoms Dominion. So it's by Jefferson Crowey, a historian at Vanderbilt University. And it talks about the role of freedom in George Washington Wallace's birthplace of Barbara County in Alabama's southeast corner. So freedom often meant free to brutalize. So when the white settlers moved in, they fought battles with the Indians. So sometimes diversity means people get together and live in peace. And it's a mutual benefit to people like in Sydney. People seem to be getting along really well. But other times diversity and proximity meant bloody conflict. And so when the pilgrims moved into the United States, the Indians didn't like that. And so there were pitch battles and in the end one side had to win and one side had to lose. And it was only decided when you had a very clear winner. And I think that's the way it will be in the Middle East as well. Only when there's a very clear winner and one side is dominant will there be peace. So when there's conflict, a clash of vital interests with diversity and proximity, then until one side clearly wins conflict will continue. So the left talks about civil rights as though it's just endlessly expanding freedom. And there's no downside to anyone but the reduction of their ignorance. That's just not how the world works. Loss of freedom of association is a substantial loss of freedom. So George Wallace straight onto the political stage, invading against ungodly government and the persecution of white. So every group has reasons to feel oppressed. Even white people, even white southerners. So George Wallace knew that his freedom brand of politics had considerable popular appeal. That many white Americans felt under strain looking for someone to speak for them. And George Wallace stepped up. He became the face of the backlash against the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act. Against all the court rulings and federal government programs that aim to restore more and more liberty and rights to black American life. But this extension of liberty and civil rights to black American life experiences a loss of rights by many white southerners. And so his common enemies were the elites, the press and the federal government. The being a southerner is no longer geographic, he declared in 1964. It's a philosophy and an attitude. And that's still true today. So we still hear echoes of George Wallace in theories about the deep state, in the behavior and rhetoric of Donald Trump and Ron DeSantis. Ron DeSantis wants to ban certain liberties such as the liberty of teachers to talk about the sexual orientation of children. So one man's liberty frequently comes at the price of another man's comfort and liberty. So how did the Republican Party become known for its fixation on the free market on states' rights, on rolling back federal government overreach? In large part because they couldn't explicitly run on overturning what became settled law. So in the same New York Times today, there's a good article on why are we celebrating, what the heck guys, why are we celebrating all these Nazis? Like Verne von Braun? How dare we do that? Oh, Mike Leach, the great football coach, died. And Mike Leach loved to carry on conversations. But when he'd talk on the phone with some stranger for an hour, that often came at the price to other people. Such as his assistants who were waiting to have a meeting with Mike Leach and he'd keep them on hold so he could talk on the phone to a stranger for an hour. So many things in life are not just good and evil. It's good for one group, bad for another group. So here's a New York Times uphead. Why do Stanford, Harvard and NASA still honor a Nazi past? Well, they're not honoring the Nazis so much. They're honoring not what the Nazis did, but what these ex-Nazi scientists did for America. So there are no permanent friends and enemies, right? They're just conflicting interests. So from NASA to Stanford, the United States Army, American institutions continue to acknowledge, sometimes even celebrate, high-profile format Nazis. So they shouldn't even acknowledge them. They should just be written out of history and celebrate. So we shouldn't celebrate the good that they've done for America. You can take some disturbing incident from everyone's life and use that to define them. There are no permanent friends or enemies in life. The Nazis were our enemies until the Nazis surrendered. Then they frequently became our allies in the battle against communism. So it was Nazis who helped get the United States to the moon. How did the United States go from fighting the evil of Nazism to lauding ex-Nazis? The United States pursued its interests. When its interests were at odds with Nazism because Hitler had declared war on the United States, they fought Germany, but they weren't fighting the eagles of Nazism. They were engaged in a geopolitical struggle. The United States has no interest in allowing other regionals, hegemons. The United States had no interest in allowing Germany to dominate Europe or Japan to dominate Northeast Asia. So with the defeat of Germany, Joseph Stalin, Soviet Union became America's biggest enemy and so the Nazis and the Germans who were our biggest enemy became our friends. We needed technology to compete with the Soviet Union. We needed West Germany to stand up as a bulwark against communism. So these ex-Nazis offered important expertise and so they were brought into America like former SS officer Werner von Braun. He was meeting with US presidents, received a lot of honors because he played a very important role for the US. So the US wasn't primarily at war with various ideologies. That was just the rhetoric that the US used. The US used this very internationalist, humanist, liberal, democratic rhetoric to disguise frequently a brutal pursuit of their own self-interest. So this author is confusing American rhetoric with American realities. So the author condemns Werner von Braun for working for Hitler on his deadly V2 ballistic missiles. Werner von Braun was working for his country in a war. And that there were slave labor used to produce their missiles wasn't at the top of his concerns. I think that's understandable. How would you have behaved if you were in his situation? So Washington launched Operation Paperclip recruiting all these former Nazi scientists to work in America and they were a tremendous benefit to America. If someone's got necessary skills, needed skills, important skills, you're strongly incentivized to overlook those things you don't like about them. You don't get to be so pristine.