 fundamental principles of freedom, rational self-interest, and individual rights. This is The Iran Book Show. All right everybody, welcome to Iran Book Show on this Sunday afternoon. We got a coin back there. We get rid of that. Thank you for joining me this afternoon. I know it's morning for those of you on the west coast and it's probably evening if there's anybody here from Europe or from, I'm not even sure what time it is in Australia. But welcome, all of you. It's probably late in Australia, right? Fifteen hours ahead, something like that. Early in the morning. All right, welcome. Hopefully you guys enjoyed yesterday's show with Amesh. I certainly did. I always do. I think he's super clear, super rational, super efficacious in terms of what he does. And I think too many people give him a hard time, not understanding, A, the context of what he's doing, but also not appreciating that somebody actually has expertise in something versus the many, many, many thousands of amateur epidemiologists out there in the world that open up YouTube channels, including doctors and people with PhDs. But amateur epidemiologists, it is a true pleasure to actually talk to somebody who is an expert in a field. I love experts. Love experts. That's why I often cite some of the, what do you call it? Substax that I do. I love people who understand what they're talking about, that know the field inside out in whatever that field happens to be. So I enjoyed it. I'm looking forward to talking to a series of other experts later in the month on different topics. But yes, I mean, I hope you guys enjoy the interviews and don't forget that these interviews and the whole Iran book show is made possible through contributions that you guys make to the show. This is the, you are the source of income for the show. You make my time. You pay for my time. So to the extent that you value what we are producing here, what we're creating here, what we're building here, please become a supporter of the Iran book show and Iran book show dot com slash support, Patreon, subscribe star, locals. You can, I think on locals, you can even contribute to the show using crypto. I'll also be providing you in the weeks to come with a crypto address so you can send over Bitcoin or Ethereum or any kind of crypto that you'd like to support the show. But generally, you know, your support for the show is what makes it possible. If I lose that support, lose that income, we shut down, do something else. Also, this is an expression of the fact that you see value in it, value for value. We are supposed to be appreciative of the value of trade over here. Many of you are quite happy to be free writers. All right. That is legal, legit. You can be, you can free ride because we're offering all of this for free. But I think being a trader just is better for you. All right. Super Chat is open. Kathman is here to make sure we get to the $600 goal. We'll stay here until we get there. Well, maybe not, but we'll stay here for a long time to try to get there. If you feel free to ask questions about anything, although preference will be given to issues of foreign policy because that is the topic that we're going to be talking about today. So December is usually a time when you kind of do a review of the year and looking forward into the next year and evaluation and appreciation of evaluation of kind of the future. So today we're going to talk about highlights of 2021 in terms of foreign policy. But primarily I want to look forward into 2022 and into the future. What are some of the big challenges? What are some of the issues? What are the big gaps? What are the real problems that we are all the Biden administration and all of us are going to face vis-à-vis foreign policy? So that is going to be a central feature. That is going to be what we're going to talk about today. So foreign policy and to the extent that you guys have questions on foreign policy, Super Chat is available. I already see quite a few writing about Russia. That's great. We're going to start off talking about Russia because Russia is in the news. Russia and Ukraine are right now in the news. We're going to talk about the incompetence of U.S. foreign policy and Biden and Trump and Obama and Bush and all presidents going back at least to the Second World War. So we'll be talking a lot about all of that. Stephen asked us just to get us going. Do you make more off your finance endeavors or the show? Even semi-decent here. Well, it depends. Certainly in 2020 I made more money off of the show than I did over finance because I didn't make much money at all off of my financial endeavors. This year I'll make more money off the finance than off the show. Every year is going to be different. Ideally I'd make money off of the finance activities and that would be my expectation is that I make significantly more money off of the finance than the show. But none of that is guaranteed. And much of what I think, how I think about my finances and I don't know why they should interest any of you guys but since Stephen asks is I view the show as primarily funding my expenditures and my financial income primarily funding my saving so that I can get to a point where I can do all this stuff for free and not care about it which is my goal. A few money, if you remember, a few money is my goal and that is going to require saving and that's what my financial endeavors are. I try to live off of at least, I don't know, about 60, 70% of what I need to live off of coming from the show and then whatever excess I have for my financial endeavors goes into saving. All right, let's look, we've already got some super chat questions relating to the topic but let's start with just kind of a quick overview of the state of the world in which we live from a foreign policy perspective centered in the United States, right? So we're looking at the world from the perspective of the United States, from the perspective of the interests of the citizens of the United States, from the perspective of the protection of the individual rights of American citizens. That is the perspective that I take in foreign policy. I am an American. I think America overall is right now the only potential force of good in foreign policy in the world out there. It doesn't do a very good job at being a force for good so mostly it's a force for bad but everybody else is a force for even worse. So America is the prism from which we will look at the world. American foreign policy should be, and these are kind of the foundations, the basics, the context from which I look at the world. The American foreign policy should be focused entirely on the protection of individual rights of Americans, that is the protection of life, liberty and property of Americans and it should be engaging in the world to the extent that it needs that protection. In the analysis we're going to look at today we're going to assume the government that we have. So you can ask me about what my prescriptions to any one of these crises, any one of these problems would be, how I would handle any one of them, but the reality is that that is very hard to say because the fact is that if I were in charge, that is if my views were in charge, if I was in charge I couldn't get anything done because nobody would agree with me, but if my views were in charge, if there was a significant proportion of Americans who supported my views of foreign policy, then everything as a package would be different and it's not about addressing any particular conflict. It's about the positioning of America in the world, the positioning of American foreign policy in the world, the attitude that America takes towards foreign policy in the world. So you can ask about that, what I would do in an ideal situation about the challenges the United States as a package, but dealing with each one of these issues independently is meaningless. We're stuck with dealing with each one of these issues independently in the world in which we live right now because the United States does not have and has not had a cohesive integrated strategy, foreign policy strategy for decades. So it has to because the fundamental principle behind American foreign policy is that there are no principles of foreign policy guiding America and therefore every conflict, every issue, every country, every challenge is singular, it's independent, viewed as independent and you have to deal with them completely separately. So the American foreign policy today is completely 100% pragmatist, and guided by pragmatism. All right, let's see. So let's quickly do a scan of the world. We're going to look at what I believe are the four major challenges the United States faces from a foreign policy perspective in the world out there. We're going to talk a little bit about each one of them and then I see you guys have a lot of questions that relate to many of these and it's great to see so many $20 questions so thank you for doing that. It makes reaching our goals much easier and it makes me much more motivated but I also know that a lot of you can't afford to do $20 questions. I don't want to discourage you from asking questions but thank you for all of you trying to do $20. I know some of you only do $19.99 because of whatever reason the software will only allow that. So I'm going to look at four areas in which I think the U.S. has major challenges and is going to be dramatically challenged in terms of foreign policy but to a large extent because these are the areas that the United States has chosen today to be challenged within. And then we will take some of your questions and maybe focus more specifically on some of these based on the questions that you have. So I think the four just to give you a heads up the four that we're talking about and again I'm open to suggestions from you regarding otherwise the four are Russia, China, Iran and terrorism and to a large extent Iran and terrorism are linked to one another but Russia, China, Iran and terrorism are the four I think major challenges to U.S. foreign policy over the next few years and have been the major challenges for the United States over the last few years and we can talk about that. So let's start not because it's the most important challenge but it is the one that is in the news that is the one that's out there right now it is the one that you know people are discussing and of course it is the one that the Biden administration is engaged with the most right now and that is Russia. Again not because necessarily this is the most important I think in terms of U.S. interest it's probably the least important of all of these but certainly in terms of the world in terms of our allies and in terms of the attention it is getting it is Russia. As many of you have probably read and have seen Russia seems to be amassing large numbers of troops and I think a hundred battalions a hundred thousand troops tanks and a variety of different weapons system on the Ukrainian border and intelligence sources are predicting a move by Russia sometime early next year probably they claim in general I'll tell you in a minute why I don't think this makes any sense just me but it doesn't make any sense to me but are predicting a significant move by the Russians sometime in January of next year to basically a mass invasion of Ukraine at the very least to take possession take control of the eastern part of Ukraine but with the potential of occupying all of Ukraine I think for many reasons taking just the eastern part of Ukraine does not fulfill the strategic purposes that Russia actually has in mind here just one small thing that I don't know struck me when I heard these intelligence assessments and that bewilders me but I haven't read any it really addressed and I haven't read anything about it and maybe I'm wrong here maybe I'm missing something but who the hell would engage in starting a war a war that could be pretty quick and decisive if done right in January in Ukraine like I don't know what you guys know about the weather in January on the Ukrainian Russian border but it is a disaster it is cold it snows it's freezing constantly this is the part of the world that defeated that made the Nazi army really struggle this is the part of the world that brought Napoleon to his knees it's not clear to me that you start a war in Ukraine in January now again particularly if you want what I think the Russians I mean if I was invading Ukraine given the difference in forces between the Ukrainians and the Russians I would use a Blitzkrieg strategy I would amass the troops on the border and just drive quickly and fast as quickly and as fast as possible through Ukraine going to Kiev or whatever the ultimate goal is for the Russian I wouldn't get bogged down in a war of attrition I would actually Blitzkrieg the place if that was the goal you don't do Blitzkrieg you know in the middle of winter for that matter you don't do Blitzkrieg in the beginning of spring either because what happens in the beginning of spring in the beginning of spring in the beginning of spring everything is mud the snow is melting everything is mud you get bogged down I mean if you want a Blitzkrieg at the end of the spring you Blitzkrieg when the ground firms up you Blitzkrieg into the summer so that you're already done by the next winter anyway that's just me for whatever my military strategy is worth you can assess but I don't know so I'm a little suspicious that the Russian accumulation of forces on the Ukrainian border right now is more to get Biden to the negotiating table it's more to put fear into the Europeans it's more to send a message to the world than it is to actually engage in warfare it just doesn't strike me as you engage in warfare during this kind of period in time alright somebody's asking about my debate with Khazoni in Austin on Wednesday it is free to go in and you don't have to register the information is all available online if you follow them on Twitter I've been posting a lot of links to it but look under the Salem Center at the University of Texas in Austin Salem SA Aliem Center they have all the information there it's about 7pm and all the information is there but no there's no advanced registration required there's no fee please come we're very much hoping for a large audience I'm very much hoping that conservatives on campus, that students come if you know students at the University of Texas please encourage them to come if you have contacts with the left wing groups, anybody but my hope is a lot of students come and that my real fear is that students are the ones who don't come we get a lot of adults and community people but we don't get students but I'm hoping we get at least the conservative students to come that would be terrific so if you have any contacts within the University of Texas please use them to bring in a larger audience as large of an audience as possible the debate will be in English in spite of the fact people have asked in spite of the fact that both Yoram and I could do the debate in Hebrew but I fear he would have an advantage there alright let's see we were talking about Russia and Ukraine why is Russia worried about Ukraine because Russia wants a strategic buffer between it and NATO Russia would like I mean long term Russia would like to resurrect the Soviet Union Russia would love to have its sphere of influence include portions significant portions of Eastern Europe it has influence in places like Hungary it has influence in places like the like the Balkans certainly in Serbia all the way down to Montenegro and in other of its former satellites but NATO has now expanded through Poland it has now expanded quite a bit east Hungary even though Russia has a lot of influence on Hungary Hungary I think is a member of NATO if I'm not mistaken anyway there is a lot of encroachment by the west into what the Russians think and view as their sphere of influence and what they would like to assure and this is what they are negotiating right now with Biden and the Europeans is that Ukraine will not be invited into NATO what Russia wants is they do not want NATO on their border they already have NATO on some of their border in the Baltics and elsewhere they do not want NATO in Ukraine that is their primary fear they ultimately would like Ukraine if not to be part of Russia they would like Ukraine to be part of the kind of Russian umbrella part of Russian influence within Eastern Europe and they are they are set on this and it's not just Ukraine I mean Russia is threatening right now on the Baltics in particular fear right now of Lithuania falling under the influence of Russia again the Baltics are NATO countries which the Russians don't like because that puts again NATO on the Russian border it also means that if Russia gets pissed off at Estonia and decides to invade Estonia as it has threatened to do on a number of occasions that means declaring war on NATO and Russia doesn't want that to deal with Estonia, deal with Lithuania, deal with Latvia which are tiny little countries right there right there on the border they would like to deal with them without having to risk war all out war with the United States which is what the United States membership of NATO now secures so this part of the world Eastern Europe is going to be in play over the next few years over the next decade and of course the United States has no coherent strategy on how to address it nobody in the US really wants to go to war with Russia nobody can imagine doing that Russia is a nuclear power we don't know how Putin would respond to I don't know US troops being deployed in Ukraine to protect Ukraine or to actually be shooting at Russian troops I don't think Americans want that I don't know that Americans are really interested in engaging in war in Europe to defend what American interests exactly to defend what threat to American individual rights or property exactly to really defend the Germans and the Poles from Russian influence but what American life property liberty is at stake in Ukraine none in my view and I don't think most Americans would like to see that and I think the Russians know that so they're taking advantage of the fact that the United States is not highly motivated to engage in war with them and they're taking advantage of that in order to threaten Ukraine try to influence Ukraine to be more affiliated with them show the Ukrainians that the United States is a paper tiger and that Europeans won't come to their defense and therefore kind of push the Ukrainians into the bear hug of the Russians it's interesting because NATO here again is split you've got the Hungarians are very friendly with the Russians in spite of being members of NATO the Turks are very friendly with the Russians in spite of being members of NATO but on the other side the Turks are selling weapons to the Ukrainians the Turks were also engaged in a war with Russia in a sense in last year in a war with nobody in the United States cared about but between the Armenians and the Azerbaijanis the Turks supported the Azeris, the Azerbaijanis and the Russians supported the Armenians the Turks won that war funnily enough the Turkish drone technology the one that Ukraine today has Turkish drone technology quite advanced Turkish drone technology that the Russians are actually worried about so yeah I mean you know this is multifaceted in that sense the Poles the anti-Russia but as I said Eastern European countries are pro so part I think of the Russian strategy grand strategy Russians probably have more of a strategy than we do is to sow as many seeds of disarray within NATO to show the Ukrainians NATO won't come to their support and again ultimately to shift Ukraine whether through war or whether through just shoving and pushing and urging and to push Ukraine into the influence of Russia of course all of this is also under the guys the guys of the whole question of energy Ukraine needs to get its natural gas from Russia as does most of Western Europe Western Europe depends on natural gas coming from Russia of course this is not inevitable France for example doesn't need natural gas from Russia because France uses nuclear technology to produce electricity and of course many of these countries particularly the UK have a lot of natural gas that they could get through fracking but of course these countries have banned fracking and don't do fracking and therefore find themselves now completely dependent on natural oil and natural gas Russia of course to add to all of this complexity Russia is a relatively poor country that has basically one strength economically and that is energy natural gas and oil right now Putin is feeling strong relatively rich he personally of course is super rich but relatively rich and that is because prices of oil and natural gas are through the roof but in an environment in which natural gas and oil prices decline Russia's economy is completely dependent on that it's completely dependent on the movement of natural gas and oil it's other than that it is not a very diversified economy and it is not a very strong economy it is a very poor country relatively speaking a very poor country Putin has not been very successful in terms of achieving dramatic economic growth and dramatic increase of state of living for his citizens and yet he is beloved by most Russians because he is a strong man and they admire that so I think here's the combination Russia is weak but Europe and the United States are weaker not economically weaker not militarily weaker but they have no will the United States has no real interest in Ukraine Europeans who might have interest in Ukraine have zero will zero interest and maybe even zero capabilities of standing up to the Russians militarily so they're not going to get involved this is Russia's to lose Biden can do nothing he'll he can send weapons to Ukraine which I think is what he should be doing but he's not going to deploy US military forces there unless I don't know unless there's somebody really stupid in his administration which is quite possible and it gives him really bad advice long term it's likely unless the Russian economy collapses it's likely that Putin wins this battle and Ukraine becomes a satellite of Russia and Europe suffers a consequence I think all of this places Europe in a very precarious situation where they've got Russia breathing down their throat the US not willing to defend Europe and Europe not willing to spend the money to defend itself and you know it's hard for me to keep track Ali asked why should Europe why should the US just will do Europe first and I'll look at these why should the US defend European countries what did this bring to the table it only extend the failure of European socialist experiment US always takes the toll for no reason to protect these weak countries Germany just shut down all nuclear plants I agree Ali I don't think the US should protect Europe I've said for a very long time that the US should leave NATO unless NATO can restructure itself can change itself with the European state responsibility for the defense of Europe and NATO just becomes a coalition of free countries where we come together to it could be a UN like entity for free countries and maybe some defense alignments over shared enemies but the fact is that Europe is rich enough wealthy enough to defend itself I think that in the past the idea was we never wanted the Germans to arm themselves we never trusted the Germans to have a strong military I don't think you have any option Germany is the largest economy in Europe and as such is the economy we can best protect itself militarily the country best able to protect Europe from a threat like the Russians I think that the United States should leave NATO I think that the United States should close its bases in Germany or keep minimal staff in Germany maybe an airfield with staff there so they can project power from Germany to places where it has an interest to project that power but it should stop pretending it should stop positioning itself as if it is going to defend Europe we shouldn't be defending Europe again Europe is rich enough wealthy enough to be able to support its own defense there is no moral reason and there is no political reason why one American life should be lost in defense of Lithuania Estonia in defense of in defense of Germany one of the most horrific decisions that an American president has made in all of American history maybe the worst certainly one of the worst decisions maybe by my least favorite president of all time was the decision by Woodrow Wilson to join World War I there was zero reason for the United States to intervene in the slaughter of World War I Europeans were doing a fine job killing each other why the United States had to intervene there and get tens of thousands of Americans killed for absolutely no reason for defending no real interest of the United States of America indeed if the United States had not entered World War I who knows if we would have had a World War II who knows what would it look like and done differently and I think the history of the United States would have been different but Americans were enthusiastic about joining World War I I mean American kids went to that war to a large extent positive with a positive vibe why? I knew Anne was against the United States joining even fighting World War II obviously there was no choice once Pearl Harbor was attacked she strongly believed that the United States should do everything that it can to stay out of it again for similar reasons why not let the Soviets and the Nazis fight it out and slaughter each other she was against sending aid to the Soviet Union in order to defeat the Nazis so there's absolutely no reason for the United States to position itself in a way as to protect in a way as to protect the interests of no reason to do it other than of course the military would like it the military likes having bases all over the world other than there are plenty of special interests that would like to do it but there's no American interest to actually get involved in this let me just take this question right off the bat you have blue pill view of the US foreign policy the US foreign policy is solely dictated by special interests you are someone who believes the gas attack in Syria was proven to be a hoax Scott Horton are good Scott Horton is a hack as is the other guys these things were not hoaxes that is bizarre and ridiculous and the Iranian threat is real and no it is they that would like to sell you on the pill that has been common in the United States for a long long time where the United States is the villain in world policy where the United States is the bad guy where the United States is the one that causes all the problems in the world and no the Iranians are all nice guys that just want to bring happiness to their own people and it is America that's stopping them you keep on reading the pacifist ignorant libertarians and foreign policy have fun with that but no they are wrong these things have not been proven to be fake they know nothing about the Middle East I've seen nothing to suggest that any of these people really understand the dynamics of the Middle East the philosophy of the Middle East the power plays in the Middle East what is actually going on in the Middle East sorry you know you can disagree you can disagree with me about foreign policy that's fine but do it out of a position of knowledge and facts not a position of fantasy let me see what concerns financial security fuel supply for Europe finally awaken Europeans to pursue energy independence right now they are held hostage to Russians for gas supply who leverages but it doesn't look like that yelling straw man a thousand times says a lot about you more than anything else so good that's great no I don't think it's going to wake the Europeans I mean Europeans their view of energy independence is let's put solar panels in cloudy Germany and let's build windmills all over the place that is alright so the guy who asked that question he did put $20 into it so I answered it but the insults he is making online give you a sense of the quality of the views when he doesn't like somebody something that somebody is saying he calls them gay we have to know about somebody's views about a topic you can evaluate them based on their insults so no the Europeans are not going to learn anything and again they are 100% unprincipled short range unthinking they are investing in all the wrong technologies there is no push to bring in nuclear power there is no push to frack there is no push to build LNG ports and imports natural gas in the United States the real push should be for nuclear of course on the contrary the Germans have supported this pipeline from Russia to make themselves even more dependent on Russian natural gas they are not learning anything from the natural threat from the threat to Ukraine this is there is no reason to believe that Europe is going to wake up to all of this let's see low legend says Russia is by far the most dangerous a dying country with a bunch of nukes China benefits from stabilization Russia wants to inflict chaos we will talk about China in a minute I don't think Russia wants too much chaos because it is weak the theme of what I want to say is what is causing instability in the world what is causing all the problems of the world is fundamentally US weakness the understanding among our enemies that the United States is worse than a paper tiger paper is strong as compared to what the United States found we have no foreign policy we have no principles we are not willing to use force we are not willing to do it in a way that actually wins no matter who is president it doesn't matter if Biden is president or Trump is president or Obama or Bush or anybody who is president the United States is a weakling has been a weakling for decades and what countries are doing is they are pushing buttons to see how far they can go and how they can promote their own interests and see what the United States does in Europe of course it's not that we should be weak it's that we should not be there and not be in a position where our buttons can be pushed in Europe but if we are there if we are NATO if we do have troops in Europe that complicates the situation then you either stand up to the Russians or you tell the Europeans to stand up to the Russians and move out or move out things have now gotten worse in the last year I mean God foreign policy you know you know since 1914 when he took Crimea Trump didn't do anything to stymie Putin became more aggressive in place like Syria much more aggressive in place like Syria under Trump Trump did nothing to hold back China from taking over Hong Kong Trump did nothing to hold back Turkey from asserting itself in the Middle East elsewhere and basically turning its back on the United States Trump was a disaster when it came to foreign policy Biden is more of a disaster when it comes to foreign policy it just all accelerates Trump didn't get the Europeans to pay for the defense he didn't do it he claimed to do that he wanted to do that I supported that I supported getting out of NATO and therefore he could never really follow through on any of that on any of that so I don't think Russia is going to just keep pushing but Russia doesn't want war with the West or with the United States because Russia would lose Russia would lose big time Russia is not in a position of strength Russia is in a position of weakness everything it can out of the fact that the United States won't fight for what they claim they believe in they won't fight all right let's see I'm looking to see if there's other God based clay just has he's read all the conspiracy theories about the different movers and shakers in the world so he has do you think that Viktor Nuland the orchestrator of the failed coup in Ukraine in 14 where the Omnia Nazis and then an upcoming coup in Venezuela since the United States failed with a puppet leader one Jodo I don't think much of I don't think one way or another of Viktor Nuland you know if they were arming neo-nazis I can't be a supporter of them I don't think the neo-nazis are the solution to to socialists and Venezuela nothing will happen until the people actually want change actually want change Ali says I'm not sure why U.S. to focus on Russia while China is the only threat for the U.S. because it does the money and power have their effect U.S. is focused on Russia because Russia is the only one that is actually using military force and threatening relatively free countries like Ukraine so the only large nuclear power in the world right now engaged in military activities threatening the sovereignty of other countries is Russia so again I don't think the United States should get involved other than to serve Ukraine but that's why China and we got to China in a minute and you know it's got border skirmishes with India it's got some stuff going on in South China Sea but it's not amassing 100,000 troops on somebody's border alright let's talk about China so my view is I'm the Ukrainian stay out of it but more fundamentally if you want a principled foreign policy get out of NATO get most of our troops out of Europe let the Europeans fund their own defense you probably have to do this over a period give a five-year runway for the Europeans to ramp up a four-year runway one presidency of the Europeans to ramp up their own capacity for defending themselves and get out of there and stop the implicit defense of Europe from people like the Russians if the United States decided Russia is a threat to the individual rights and freedoms of Americans trying to defeat the Russians makes sense but I don't see that happening so let the Europeans deal with the Russians alright let's see China obviously China is the rising superpower right now China has probably got the second most powerful military in the world I think it's probably more powerful than the Russians although it is not exactly battle tested at least the Russian weapons systems have been battle tested around the world they're not very good is the ultimate manifestation of that but I think there's good reason to believe the Chinese are more technologically advanced in terms of their weapons systems that the Russians China of course is a much much bigger economy than Russia it can devote significantly more money to its military and in spite of all of that just to put this into perspective China still has a military that is significantly infuriable technologically in terms of the quality of its weapons systems its quality of things like its aircraft carriers quality of its navy quality of its air force and of course the quality of the battle testedness that's not a word but you know what I mean the experience then the United States the United States by far is this military force on the planet today militarily we don't want to get into a war with China because again you don't want to confront a country that has nuclear weapons but the United States I don't think would fear conventional war with China I think we are significantly stronger and I think our nuclear capabilities are significantly greater than the Chinese who ever want to have to test the Chinese are asserting themselves in various parts certainly on the Indian border where there's a section of the border that is in conflict where they have disagreements about it they're asserting themselves inside China sea after all it is the South China Sea so it is in their backyard to understand why I think the Chinese would be interested in you know asserting their power in that part of the world it's not clear that the United States can or should do anything about that are we really going to go to war with the Chinese about their naval activities in what's called the South China Sea which is in a sense their sea probably not in terms of our military military confrontation I don't think the Chinese want military confrontations I don't think they're interested in war right now they've got we'll talk about this in a minute they've got a lot of problems internally China is certainly not interested in going to war with the United States it can only lose from that it has nothing to gain from it China is trying to put itself in the world in other means trying to use diplomacy money in order to gain allies all across the world particularly in areas rich in natural resources all across Asia with the Belt and Road Initiative which is supposed to link China with Europe over land through Asia it is also building ports all over the world that if you really look at the Belt Initiative and what is it actually achieving it is super expensive for the Chinese super expensive it is draining resources from them it is actually turning many countries that are dealing with China against China the quality of the infrastructure being built is not very good these countries are going into debt to China and the Chinese squeezing them which these countries do not like you are seeing the popularity or the attitude towards China in terms of people around the world that is in decline because China has been strong-arming country after country after country and people don't like to be strong armed China is not gaining many friends around the world through the strategy that the Chinese are engaged in right now so the Chinese I think in an ever weaker position vis-a-vis their foreign policy they want to become a power, they want to become the go-to country that is challenging the United States and yet I think the position in the world currently is going to weaken not strengthen it's going to weaken again because this Belt and Road initiative is being done in a way that is alienating the world against them but on top of that it is the real problem is going to be that China just doesn't have the resources to devote to subsidizing the rest of the world purely at its own expense and here it brings me to the fact that I think that Russia that China generally has major problems inside China that are going to hamper its ability to project its power, its strength around the world and again why I think people overestimate the threats of China overestimate the economic power of China they overestimate what China is capable of doing a number of things with regard to China one is economic growth in China is slowing it's still much higher than it is in the United States at least according to the official numbers but it is significantly it is significantly slowing and the the that is a consequence of bad economic policies that are being brought to the forefront by Xi President Xi I would say over the last seven years he's been president and he looks like he's now basically there for life Xi Jinping is basically a failure he's a failure from the perspective of China he has governed over a dramatic slowdown in economic growth in China he has governed over several significant financial and real estate crises in China and I fear that from the perspective of China we haven't yet seen how bad it can get I think it could get a lot worse and his economic policies which include to a large extent they include the increased regulation of control of private companies, the increased reliance on state-owned enterprises the increased role of the state in the economy all of these policies are losers, are policies that are going to lose the policies that are going to diminish the economic success of China the economic policies that are penalizing the most successful parts of the Chinese economy his crackdown on industries are not going to be they're only going to bring negative consequences there are going to be no positive consequences in position of more industrial policy a more central planning, a more involvement of the Chinese Communist Party is only going to continue to slow down economic growth and to make the Chinese economy more susceptible to crises than anything else so I view China economically as entering into the next decade of real economic challenges now I think that's true of the US I think it's true of other reasons of Europe as well but China is not going to be this success story it's not going to be this country that is growing at note with no end and I don't think it can avoid internal strife, I don't think it's going to avoid the kind of you know citizenry that is upset by the fact that they're not rising into middle classhood as fast as they were promised that they're not as free as they expected to be I think you will see growing resentment within China over Chinese policies and we'll get to COVID in a second because I think that's part of part of the problem that Xi is going to is going to have to live with so China is entering a period of real economic uncertainty and real economic challenges second as I mentioned China has there's a lot of anger and fear at a lot of angst about China because of the Belt and Road initiative China is taking over ports but those ports are not profitable so they're going into debt in order to run those ports they have a massed huge amounts of debt to build up this infrastructure debt that the countries can't pay back so even though the Chinese then take over the infrastructure and own it the infrastructure is not profitable they can't pay back to themselves so in terms of net economic value these are all negative investments and that is only going to come bigger and bigger you can read on ultimately the failure that the Chinese have encountered in the port in Sri Lanka there were projects in Africa a whole host of projects in Malaysia where these are not turning out well for the Chinese for the Chinese and even their investment in Pakistan now they confront this issue up to what extent do they support the Taliban and do they build projects in Afghanistan but on the other hand if they do that they're supporting the Islamists the Taliban are Islamists who are allies potential allies to the Muslims within China China has a massive Muslim problem that's why they have these concentration camps in western China by emboldening Pakistan and by emboldening Afghanistan they're being pragmatists long term they're going to suffer the consequence of emboldening Muslims and ultimately they will feel the consequence on their western border so China has a tricky relationship internationally and particularly with the Muslim neighbors that they have to their west so you know this does not you know the reputation of the world has taken a massive hit because of COVID but also because of the way they practice diplomacy out there the arrogance and given I think the weakness that she actually has the economic weakness that he's going to experience over the next decade I think this is only going to hurt him even more diplomatically and then finally COVID COVID is a disaster for China it's a disaster partially because of the lockdowns it's a disaster because China went for a zero COVID policy we talked about this with Amish yesterday the idea was well eradicate COVID we'll get rid of it you can't do that you know you can shut down this city you can shut down that city there's still we don't hear about this in the west but there's still towns and cities being shut down periodically in China because of COVID this has hurt production this has hurt the economy this has hurt employment this has hurt wealth creation another reason why the Chinese economy has slowed well it's done better than the west fewer people in China are immune China vaccines have proven to be unbelievably inefficient ineffective they're actually scrambling right now to develop their own mRNA vaccine because they realize the mRNA vaccines are so far superior to what the Chinese developed themselves they try to export these vaccines to other countries lots of countries bought these vaccines they turned out to be horrible horrific terrible the problem with China is and COVID is how now do they reverse course and accept the fact that COVID is something we're going to have to live with given that so few people in China have had COVID given that they so few people in China have been vaccinated with an effective vaccine the country is in turmoil internally they are they are there are a lot of social unrest there's a lot of social unrest that goes unreported in the west over restrictions that have to do with COVID and over the complete failure of Xi Jinping's kind of COVID policies within China so China it's still going to get richer because economic growth will still be positive but it's going to face real challenges remember that GDP per capita in China even adjusted for purchasing power is average is a third of a developed country China is still for the people in China still a poor country it might be by some measures a large economy in the world but at the same time it's also a standard living perspective one of the poorest countries in the world so China is I think in real trouble I think it's real trouble they're stuck with Xi Jinping unless somebody within the Communist Party is willing to challenge him and overthrow him or unless you get significant internal strife demonstrations, social unrest significant social unrest in China it looks like Xi Jinping is going to be there for a while that's not good for China he's a failed leader in every dimension he is weak he's strong in terms of his control over China but he's failed China in every aspect in every aspect and COVID is just the last kind of the last way in which he's failed however COVID came to be whatever the source of COVID ultimately turns out to be the way China has dealt with it is the wrong way and the way China is dealing with it is the wrong way and they will not be growing their power globally I think that power has probably peaked and again the only reason China that it might not have peaked the only reason there is any chance that China could be still successful from a foreign policy perspective is the weakness of the United States that is the one theme that runs through all of this the United States is weak ok here's a I'm going to look for China related questions do you know what China and Russia's opinion of each other is? well I mean they view each other with great suspicion they are tentative allies because they view themselves as kind of representing the block in opposition to the United States each though thinks of itself as superior to the other the Russians look down on the Chinese and certainly the Chinese look down on the Russians the Chinese they are two nuclear powers but China is a growing economy Russia is a stagnant economy and so they have this tentative alliance but they don't trust each other and long term and historically and in the future they are not real allies even when they were communist I mean real communist under Mao Tse-tung and under I can't remember who it was Stalin originally the alliance between China and Russia was very weak one of the reasons Nixon went to China was because there was a real opening because there was a real cooling between China and Russia and Nixon believed that he could shift China to be pro the US and anti the Soviets which would be an advantage to the United States so there's never been a close relationship and a good relationship between China and Russia by the way if you want to ask questions if you want to make comments that I respond to please use the super chat feature you can do it at $2 or whatever that is the way to communicate with me we're going to skip unrelated questions my friend who is Ukrainian is Ukrainian Russian and she's teaching me Russian we are sending a Christmas box to our family in Ukraine with American goodies I got her to watch your show today do you have any words of comfort or advice I like Ukraine I've visited this several times I've spoken in Ukraine Ukraine has a lot of people who seem to like Iran and Shrug was the best selling book in Ukraine I think in 2015 they used to sell it in the supermarket it was so popular you know it is a country that is stuck primarily because of its own corruption of its own political class it is a country filled with natural resources filled with people who have real talent what they need and I think under the current president they're getting a little bit of so I think the current president of Ukraine is probably the best they've had so far but what they need is a real movement towards free markets what they need is a real movement towards privatization I once was asked in the Ukrainian parliament in front of members of parliament what my advice for Ukraine was privatize everything including your whole Ukrainian land and embrace capitalism fully they obviously didn't listen to me but the president right now is better I think Ukraine I think the Russians are going to be very hesitant to invade Ukraine I think the Ukrainians could fight an effective guerrilla warfare against the Russians the Russians could get bogged down for a very very very long time in Ukraine it's probably not something the Russians want and what Ukraine really needs is the stand firm and to bring to it any allies that it can buy weapons from anybody that it can and stand firm against the Russians and I think ultimately even if Russia invades I think that it it can become so expensive and so devastating for the Russians that they will ultimately be humiliated and would have to lose you know you're stuck in a horrible place in the world because you've got your bordering with the Russians I know what that's like I came from Israel so I know what it's like to be stuck in a horrible place in the world but you just got to stand up to the bullies and you've got to defend yourself let me see do you think it's beneficial for the US to dissolve all its treaties agreements and just say if you want to trade with us you can we don't need pieces of paper saying that's okay to do yes I mean for the most part I don't think you can do it all at once you have to phase it out and do it properly but yes particularly trade deals I think the United States should get out of all trade deals declare itself a free trade zone unilaterally lower tariffs to zero and let anybody who wants to trade with Americans trade with Americans the United States of America doesn't trade with anybody in terms of defense treaties it should you know it should bring the troops home it should dissolve all of those defense treaties it should bring troops home from South Korea and from Japan and from Germany one should would consider keeping a certain military bases minimally staffed for if you needed to project force you could so you want to keep a port in Asia in the Pacific you want to keep a maybe a port and a airfield in Europe and other than that bring the troops home we have troops in 170 countries I think we have tens of thousands I think 40,000 troops in where is it I had it here a minute ago I closed the window but we have as I like 40,000 troops in Germany we have 28,000 troops in I think Japan we have tens of thousands of troops in Korea most of those troops should be brought home we could cut the defense budget significantly or reallocate those costs to building more you know a bigger Navy if we thought that was necessary to protect the shipping lanes or to build more transportation aircraft if we needed to transport those aircrafts into Europe and other places so yes I believe we should dramatically trim our presence in the world and difference between that and what people like Rand Paul believe in is I don't believe that that means we should disengage that is we should still protect our interests but that means that when protecting our interest we should use overwhelming force quick and brutal and get out of the way I don't think we should apologize for our strength I don't think we should apologize for protecting ourselves I don't think we should apologize to the world but there's absolutely zero reason to have troops in the Middle East to have troops in Asia and to have troops in Europe get them home all right let's see all right let's just take this one Jason ask if a country like the Czech Republic would model itself like Switzerland a big if should it leave the EU and or NATO that's a big if right if it could then maybe it would make sense to leave the EU I'm not sure about NATO there is I think some validity to having a European based without the United States mutual defense agreement I think the difference between the Czech Republic and Switzerland is history and geography the Czech Republic is unlikely to be left alone if there was a European war Switzerland is likely to be left alone there's just a history now of it and the alps make it very difficult to invade I don't think that's true of the Czech Republic it is relatively easy to invade from a number of different directions so I think the Czech Republic is too central and doesn't have the geography to allow it to be neutral and therefore I think that it would probably be good for the Czech Republic to have a mutual defense agreement even if it was leaving the EU given that it was Switzerland but I don't see the Czech Republic becoming anything like Switzerland in terms of economic policy it's very very very unlikely alright let's see alright that was China let's quickly do Iran and terrorism and then just throw some questions and we're really going well over an hour so Iran I think continues to be a threat to the United States right of what some libertarians would tell you Iran is still developing nuclear weapons and still interested in having nuclear weapons it's still interested in being a nuclear power the problem and what differentiates Iran from other nuclear powers is that Iran is a theocracy it is a religious fanatic nutty place and you cannot you cannot trust a theocracy particularly a theocracy that believes in you know dying for Allah you cannot trust such a theocracy with nuclear weapons because they might be willing to engage in a suicidal action I think probably the nuclear power in the world today that is most likely ultimately to use nuclear weapons is Pakistan for exactly that reason for the reason that it could easily fall into the hands of Islamists or even existing people within the Pakistani power structure that will say dying you know taking out a billion Hindus is worth it even if it means Pakistan is wiped out because we will go to heaven as a consequence you cannot deal with that kind of irrationality that kind of death wish that kind of that kind of insanity and it's enough that we have that in Pakistan I wish there was a way to to diffuse that threat I hope I don't believe but I hope that the United States has plans to to somehow take over the Pakistani nuclear arsenal if the time comes to have to do that maybe the Indians have a plan to do that I don't know but it's certainly the case that if we can prevent Iran from every achieving nuclear weapons that should be a major goal of American foreign policy unfortunately nobody is really committed to that goal while the Trump administration withdrew from the Iranian nuclear deal which was the right thing to do it didn't take the next step which was to you know crush all of the facilities and all of the ability of the Iranians to engage in nuclear research and the development of nuclear weapons the Israelis are continuously trying to do that there was just yesterday or the day before yesterday a big explosion not far from one of the nuclear power plants in Iran I wouldn't be surprised if that was the Israelis destroying something who knows what exactly related to the nuclear program in Iran so the Israelis are doing what they can to prevent the Iranians from developing nukes with the help I think and one of the reasons why many of the Gulf states kind of deal with the Israelis was because they all view Iran as a threat so they probably are helping them with intelligence and helping them with other things but it would be good to wipe this straight out once and for all and either for the United States to give Israel a green light to take the Iranians out or for the Americans just to do it I think overall the green light to do it is maybe safer for the United States easier for the United States less political difficult for the United States but it doesn't look like the United States is willing to do that Trump didn't do it Obama certainly didn't do it Bush didn't do it Israel from doing anything and it certainly does not look like Biden is going to do it Iran is emboldened by again the weakness of the United States by the weakness of the United States as a consequence Iran is gone to the negotiating table with Biden basically telling them to shove it and they don't really care what the United States thinks they're basically going to the United States with demands that the United States cannot give into it too basically delaying any kind of agreement and in the meantime developing their own I'm sure working to develop their own nuclear capability so that the day will come because we already have nukes goodbye the if you add to that right if you add to that the fact that Iran has increased its global power not global power radically under Trump really since Bush through Trump 9-11 the invasion of Iraq and the invasion of Afghanistan have increased the power of our largest enemy, our most significant enemy in the Middle East which is Iran Iran today to a large extent controls Iraq Syria and Lebanon much of that, particularly Syria and Lebanon was achieved under Trump they also now control Yemen even though the Saudis are trying to push back against that they've not been very successful so they basically have Saudi Arabia and Egypt on three fronts they've got them surrounded they are becoming a significant they're also significant play in Afghanistan with the United States leaving they have real presence over there real presence over there in Afghanistan so Iran has been a winner on the other hand Iran is very weak they have weak weapons technologies the only reason the only reason they have the kind of power they have is because they're fighting against enemies that are a lot weaker than them and of course it's because the United States won't defend itself and won't project its power over Iran Iran is an overall a very weak country militarily and economically Iran like Russia is completely dependent on natural resources right now they're feeling strong and powerful because the price of oil is high but when energy prices decline they have a really hard time and they got hit really hard by COVID what surprises me, what continues to surprise me is that we haven't seen an internal revolution in Iran I don't understand it the only explanation I have for that is the fact that the United States is not investing enough in the opposition in Iran and is not encouraging it to revolt against the regime or that too much of the country is actually religious and supportive of this regime but the fact is that at least within Tehran I think the regime is in the minority and there is a significant number of people within Tehran that would like to see the regime disappear it's sad that there hasn't been an internal revolution in internal revolution in the what do you call it in Iran that would have solved all our problems quite easily if Iran became a secular country that would be pretty cool I think we often tend to overestimate the degree to which countries are indeed secular while the intelligentsia the relative intelligentsia within Tehran might be many of them have left Iran and in the countryside Iran is very very very religious and committed to this regime let's see some Tehran questions it doesn't matter whether or not Iran agrees to return the 2015 nuclear deal I mean let's hope they don't because I think that the nuclear deal is a deal that actually allows the Iranians to in the background do all kinds of things to develop their nukes it has very little verifiability in that treaty so if there was a treaty it would have to be if there was a deal it would have to be a revised deal which was a lot stricter on the Iranians and I don't think they'd agree to that generally I don't think that that agreement I think that agreement was a betrayal of U.S. interests and the agreement was horrible and it doesn't matter whether they agree or not to join it what matters is will they develop nuclear weapons and is the United States committed to preventing that is the United States willing to use force in order to prevent it that's all that matters the treaty is irrelevant it's just a place for the Iranians to flex their muscles that's all that matters terrorism I expect to start seeing a rise in terrorism around the world primarily targeted at U.S. interests I think that will come probably not in 2022 but in I'd say over the next 5 to 10 years that will come to a large extent because of the pathetic nature in which we fought in Afghanistan and the way in which we left Afghanistan while I believe we should bring troops home from all over the world we should we should make it clear to enemies the consequences of killing Americans are going to be so so we are we're in a position in which we're in a position in which the Islamists are being revitalized primarily by the Afghanistan victory of the Taliban they're being revitalized by Iran and Iran's victory over the last 10 years over American interests across the Middle East you can imagine Iran starting to scheme about a war with Israel where they attack Israel from Lebanon Syria from the West Bank from the Gaza Strip and with long-range missiles from Iran itself that would really challenge the Israelis to be able to defend themselves Iran is going to be emboldened that Iran being emboldened will only embolden terrorism against the United States so I see over the last 5-10 years an increase in that terrorism I don't see anybody talking about how to defeat that I don't see anybody talking about how to stop it remember the Saudis have been funding Islamists in Syria again with the agreement of the Trump administration Trump basically let the Saudis do whatever the hell they wanted allowed them a free reign that cannot be good it cannot be good for American interests the Saudis interest are not America's interest in many respects the Saudis are still the second largest funder of terrorism in the world whether they do it they don't do it directly they do it indirectly but they're still out there terrorism has been in decline because ISIS was defeated it looked like al-Qaeda was being defeated ISIS was too busy fighting a war against the United States and Afghanistan now that they've won they have got resources, energy prices up there's more money in the Middle East to fund terrorism it's going to be interesting but I wouldn't be surprised if we saw a spike in terrorism over the next 10 years emanating from the Middle East James asks what is the worst scenario of China, Russia owning more fresh water water is essential so what happens when your enemies control more than you James asked earlier why do few people talk about lack of water in the world China, Russia, US, Brazil and Canada control most of the world what is suitable for life what do you think China and Russia will do as they start a run out of H2O wars have been started for less I just don't see it happening I know there's a lot of talk about water I think it's one of these apocalyptic scenarios which I just don't see happening it is true that there are certain countries that have Canada has massive amounts of fresh water we in the United States don't get enough of it I wish somebody would build a canal of them but even better the solution for water is desalination and the solution to produce electricity for desalination is nuclear the combination of nuclear power and desalination is the solution for water globally and the west can certainly afford that Israel now does not depend on water for many of its rivers from rain it does not depend on water in the Jordan river as it used to does not depend on the Syrians not polluting or stopping the flow of water into the Sea of Galilee it is not completely water independent it became water independent through desalination it's little known but San Diego County is independent of drought it's water independent the state of California won't actually acknowledge what the county of San Diego has done but basically this county of San Diego has installed I think the largest desalination plant in the world and they supply a huge quantity of water and California should be filled with desalination plants of course part of the problem with that is producing energy because desalination is energy heavy you'd need to build some nuclear power plants or but you could also do it with natural gas that's what Israel is doing Israel has shifted most of its energy needs to natural gas they've discovered massive natural gas reserves off the coast of Israel in the Mediterranean Sea and they expect to be able to support the production of desalinated water so I don't think the struggle in the future is actually going to be over water China can China by the way has real energy crisis China is short of power China is massively investing in coal China is massively investing in nuclear as China brings updates and increases its ability to produce electricity I wouldn't be surprised if China invests in desalination in order to solve its water problems so I don't know if Russia has a water problem and again I think Europe is rich enough to be able to support itself by desalinating by desalinating yes Cook says in California environmentalists always stop new desalination plants that's true they got it built in in San Diego hopefully they can get it built also in San Diego is also one of the more conservative counties in California but my point is there are solutions whether people actually embrace the solutions hard to tell but there are solutions alright let's go over some of the questions here quickly we are we're short about 24 bucks to reach a $600 goal so hopefully we'll get a $25 question over the threshold I've got a bunch of questions here to answer so you've got a little bit of time to come up with a question Daniel asks what are your thoughts on China's latest hypersonic test everyone's freaking out about it I mean I think there's reason to freak out about it hypersonic missiles are missiles that are very difficult to knock out of the air so our missile defense system would be challenged to deal with it I'm hoping that the United States missile defense system that can deal with hypersonic missiles what you don't want is to give any country a significant edge from a nuclear perspective to the point where they might think they might fantasize that they could get a first strike that would wipe your capacity to retaliate out I don't think anybody believes that about the United States in submarines and so many of our new mobile so even with this I don't think China would be so deluded as to think that they could neutralize the United States but you don't want to give them an edge I think the United States should be heavily investing in missile defense systems you want to have that so that if North Korea is ever dumb enough to launch something against you you can knock it out of the sky you want to have it so if Iran ever develops nuclear missiles you can knock that out of the sky I think Israel is very advanced in developing anti-missile technologies both ballistic and non-ballistic because of the Iranian threat so you want to be able to develop that just in case rogue nations do it but then the challenge is can you develop one that can also hit a hypersonic missile I don't think there's any reason to panic I don't think this establishment has the motivation to panic and freak out over these things because they're going to get budget they're going to get a budget to you know if I can make everybody hysterical about that and maybe we need to develop our own it's not clear to me we need to develop our own as much as I think that we need to develop techniques to knock these things out of the sky realizing they're not going to be used on us for a long time so we have a little bit of time to figure this out so generally panic is not a good strategy hysteria is not a good strategy and you see that over and over again where the establishment panics and they have an interest in panic because panic opens up the pro-strings panic opens up the pro-strings alright let's see who was the last president you think had a decent foreign policy which president had the best foreign policy um who's the last president to have a decent foreign policy alright let's go back okay so Trump no Obama no Bush no Clinton no who was before Clinton Bush no Reagan God no particularly not anything other than the Soviet Union Carter certainly no Nixon no disaster Johnson horrible no Kennedy no although he stood up to the Russians in Cuba better than most would have done so you know you give a little bit to uh Kennedy and a little bit to Reagan Reagan was pathetic Reagan was pathetic he gave a good speech about foreign policy but Reagan in the end uh facilitated the growth of Islamic terrorism in the Middle East he supported it he supported the growth of Islamism in Afghanistan his CIA was arming bin Laden he let 244 Marines die in the barracks in Beirut with no consequences he basically facilitated and guaranteed of Americans of sorry of Yasir Arafat when Israel was about to kill him you know strangely enough not only enough well no you can't you can't say Truman because Truman while he was courageous enough and it gets a lot of credit for me for nuking Japan he then completely flubbed Korea the Korean war was a complete disaster and that's under Truman you have to give Franklin Delano Roosevelt some credit for World War II but he also supported the Soviets and he supported the Saudis as part of his efforts and I think ultimately did a poor job in the lead up to the United States entry into the war at least when he entered the war he understood that it was all out victory and nothing else who else you know who else do we have I don't know Wood Wilson was terrible you know the presidents in the 20s seemed like they at least left the world alone the League of Nations came apart after maybe at a college or a Harding once you get into the 19th century I don't know certainly not the presidents like what's his name like Teddy Roosevelt who supported war overseas I forget the name of the president who got us into the Spanish-American war maybe Cleveland I don't know what Cleveland was like Thomas Jefferson was good in that he went after the pirates and he destroyed the pirates and he got the pirates off our back I don't know enough about the war of 1812 to know if that was yes I don't know enough about American history going that far back certainly Washington was great but I don't know enough about going that far back we're on road doctrine is a good doctrine we'll stay out of the world's affairs unless you bring your problems to the American continent we take responsibility for the American continent we don't want to bring European wars to us we will prevent you from doing that we're on road that doctrine is a good doctrine if implemented correctly it doesn't mean getting involved in wars in all these little dinky countries it does mean protecting U.S. interests in close to where we live my guess is mid to early 19th century Americans were better than anybody in the 20th or 21st century and Reagan was not good on foreign policy the one aspect of foreign policy was good at was he gave a great speech which is important I didn't talk about Hong Kong Trump's betrayal of Hong Kong and America's betrayal of Hong Kong not because I think we should have gone to war there but because I think as Reagan taught us the bully pulpit the moral stand is incredibly valuable in foreign policy and that's the one thing Reagan was very good at Hoover was a terrible president in every dimension let's see what is the liquid gold of this century how do you position yourself to protect yourself with this information I'm not sure it is I'm just not convinced how do poor countries deal with a lack of water they trade with rich countries to make sure they get water it's not obvious to me that poor countries have a problem with water irrigation today sophisticated irrigation even for poor countries can use very little water I just don't see it I don't know where these poor countries with water are problems with water in Africa are far less today than they were 50 years ago I don't think in Latin America there are a lot of problems with water maybe in parts of Asia but I don't know which parts of Asia because most of Asia is in the tropics which has a lot of water so I'm just not sure where the problem with water really resides Daniel says China seems to practice a good approach investing in autocrats and spheres in the west in exchange for more sanctioned influence do you think this is a efficacious and sustainable strategy for them? No I don't because the carrots are not juicy enough and the carrots are not going to be sustainable because China just can't afford them and it's not clear what the stick is what is China actually willing to do Italy just signed up for the Belt and Road what does that actually mean what does Chinese influence on Italy actually going to entail I just don't think that China I mean one of the things that's so tragic is that the US can easily compete with China in all of these things all the US has to be is more capitalist more free more confident, more proud Japan is challenging China all over the far east in terms of infrastructure project the Japanese just build better and they don't they don't link infrastructure with control so a lot of people are trying to resist Chinese influence and I think long term it's not a sustainable strategy let's see I'll get to those in a minute unrelated unrelated unrelated unrelated can the US that's unrelated too let's do I'll do this one question then we'll do a bunch of unrelated questions can the US buy Greenland and make it better no I don't think I don't think the Danish are selling Greenland they have no incentive to sell Greenland and I don't know main thing to do in Greenland is to mine the hell out of it they have a lot of rare earth metals in Greenland and it would be great if we could mine it and get it out of there all right I'm just going to go by dollar amounts here we got $250 questions let's start with those do you think at the credit free market in general public when we say New York and California on the verge of collapsing because of high taxes and 15 minimum wage laws and then the collapse never comes close to happening yeah I do think it discredits free markets I think generally the panic the hysteria the California is this evil horrible place to live when people live in California actually if you're middle class and above it's pretty good I think generally the idea that the collapse is happening tomorrow that we're falling off a cliff that we're going to have high inflation tomorrow that you know America is finished economically I think all of that discredits us ultimately because our predictions are not coming true or at least it's going to take way too much time for predictions to come true for people to really pay attention and to care about them so you know ultimately New York and California suffer the consequences and ultimately they will do really really badly but ultimately can be a long time another $50 question from Daniel is it possible to create an objective city in Puerto Rico since there are a lot of objective types who want to change things wouldn't be easier to start a new city country from scratch if folks moved there maybe that competition would help no I don't think so they're not enough of us they're not enough objective to start their own city and a city is still ruled by the rules of the state and the nation so how much impact can you have by having a slightly better city no there are no shortcuts guys there's no simple solutions nobody's going to let you take over a country nobody's going to let you overtake over a city I mean you they're now autonomous cities in Honduras they're going to be libertarian like what kind of impact are they going to have on the world maybe it makes sense for some of you to move there because you'll be free of there but overall impact on the world I think minimal I just don't think there's shortcuts an easy way out and Puerto Rico is certainly not the place Puerto Rico ultimately has a government here the government is quite intrusive and then you have the federal government on top of that there's not much you're going to be able to do to really bring about liberty and freedom unless you take over the Puerto Rican government but you need real numbers for that and we don't have millions of people we just don't have it alright let's jump to $20 questions off topic objectives against social security yes if it is managed by private sector yes we're against the state obliging us to do anything that is not about protecting individual rights so I'm against forcing us to contribute to a system whether it's privately managed public managed I think privately managed is bad not as bad as the government doing it but it's still bad it still creates this massive pool of money that can be easily politicized Chile has a private sector plan but it's still bad so I would like to see a transition plan from where we are today that within a generation or two there's no social security maybe as a one phase in moving in that direction you privatize it but ultimately there should be no compulsion to contribute even to a private plan compulsion to contribute is statism capitalist nick asks how is Joam Khazani brand of Jewish Biblical rooted nationalism different from American nationalism which is more secular and more pragmatic what influences this brand of religious nationalism having the US so I listened to a little bit of the talks in at the national conservative conference that just happened in the beginning of November which is in the United States and really was about American nationalism it was focused on the United States and this is the problem the American nationals have Joam Khazani defines nationalism in a sense nations has been created as some agglomeration of tribes to form a bigger tribe which is the nation and they have similar culture and similar histories and they occupy a similar or maybe overlapping geographic territories and therefore it makes sense to create a nation that way and the nationalism is rooted in that of course in Israel the nationalism is not part of that cannot because just one tribe and it's in Israel is rooted in religion what do you root nationalism in America on? You can't root it in in tribalism because they're just they're too many tribes and there's no there's no unifying factor for the tribes so the only thing you're left with is trying to unify it or off the one thing that you have a majority in the United States and that is religion Christianity is significantly a majority religion in the United States and what so that nationalists the American nationalists are all religionists and they believe some of them are Catholic but they all believe that most of the intellectuals are all mostly Catholics they believe that the way to create to unify under nationalism is through religion and Hazoni talks a lot about teaching the Bible in public schools bringing back school prayer bringing back religious symbols into the public square elevating religion to a significant place as a unifier of Americans and yeah they're Jews in America and then Muslims in America they're atheists in America but they're such small minorities that they don't really matter they'll just have to fit in somehow and of course Sahaba Mahri's whole perspective who is another leader of the nationalist movement is that it really what the Republicans need to do is capture political control so that they can impose religious dogma on the rest of Americans and while Americans won't support the religious agenda early on by capturing the educational institutions and primarily by capturing the political institutions this religiosity will ultimately be imposed on the population and you know that is what unite us under the banner of nationalism will be religion so you can't get away with the fact from the fact that American nationalism is deeply grounded in religion there's just no other nationalism in America there's no blood and soil in America that is not related somehow to religiosity alright let's see what else do we have are you getting to meet Lex while you're in Austin yes so I will be meaning Lex, why in Austin more details to come after the fact Michael writes reason is the whole of the enlightenment and that's a quote from Adolf Hitler one thing Hitler was against one in all authoritarians against is reason what would be the exact process for one to claim new property for instance when we go to the moon or Mars also is it essential for government or similar entity to back the claim up with force yes I think you do have to back the claim up with force unless you're establishing a new political entity and then like let's say you're starting out fresh on the moon and then you better be able to back up your claim with force on the moon but the process should be if you use it is yours so the first person to go up and mine an asteroid that asteroid is theirs they can sell rights to other people to mine it but the asteroid is theirs first person up on the moon will be able to fence off an area and do whatever they want on that area and that area is theirs now how do you abide by that I think I think a free country could announce that it will recognize the property rights of anybody who goes up there and if they happen to be a citizen of that country they'll recognize sovereignty over that portion of the moon so there are ways to apply it but probably not in the world in which we live where property rights are not respected and there's no commitment to them and there's no commitment to kind of project property rights into space I wish there was that would be the solution for space the projection of property rights into space let's see when I think objectivist videos when I link objectivist videos in arguments online I make sure they're about 10 minutes so not too long to the newcomer do you think this is short enough yeah I mean I'm generally not a fan of short videos you know I have not experienced that people are turned off by long videos I mean look at Lex Friedman who does 4 hour interviews look at the number of you who were turned on to objectivism because of me some of you because of short videos but many of you because of long videos think of of what's his name Ben Shapiro's programs and Rubin and they all do long formats and people listen and people so I'm not sure that short videos is the solution and I think short can be very bad because it presents a cartoonish a cartoon of the view not the actual view it can actually discredit us to some extent Bradley asks is Mackie's era that he doesn't realize the market is what dictates change not business but he cares about the environment collapse because he cares about humanity's survival should he have more faith in technology no Mackie's era is far more fundamental than that I think all of that is somewhat true but I think his era is much more fundamental I think his era is that he rejects egoism he rejects self-interest as any kind of moral standard and he has internalized a morality of altruism he doesn't want to be out and out and altruist and he believes in profit and so on but he won't actually internalize egoism and rational self-interest and everything that implies and therefore he's always being pulled by the tug of altruism and this whole stakeholder being and conscious capitalism is all the tug of altruists of altruism it's all the tug of altruism it's an inability to actually say yes I make money I'm proud of it and it's okay it's good, morally good for a company to make money and to make money by the way yeah we have to treat our customers well and that's the plot he can't start off with that because he can't stand up and say those words because it would be too selfish alright we got three last questions Apollo what is your opinion of kitsch art does it have any place in human life I don't like it I don't think so I don't see what purpose it serves other than maybe as very short term momentary entertainment and maybe for human but no I don't think it has any real value what do you think and kitsch art what do you mean by kitsch we'd have to define what that is which I don't have time to think about it right now so generally no what do you think about autonomous cars is it in the future or do you forecast issues with regulations and how we value human life yeah I mean I think the challenge to autonomous cars is going to be regulations and it's going to be some complex decisions that relate to things like if there's about to be an accident should the car prioritizing prioritize the safety of the driver the safety of the pedestrian the safety of a pregnant woman in a car three cars down or whatever it's those kind of algorithms are very difficult to write and very difficult for regulators to give a thumbs up or thumbs down and I did a whole show of this about three or four years ago about the morality of autonomous cars and moral considerations regarding autonomous cars I think the technology is going to get there fairly quickly I think the main barrier is going to be but ultimately yeah we'll have autonomous cars I just don't know when how do objectivists get into media entertainment I'm not sure what you mean but the main way to do it is have talent and be entrepreneurial and take risks and go for it try to get into media and entertainment there's no one way for objectivists to do it you as an objectivist you have to have a business plan you have to have a career plan you have to have the skill and the talent and the patience and the ability and just go do it and if we have enough people doing it we will get there alright thanks everybody I really appreciate the love on Super Chat we reached a $600 goal thank you Catherine for helping get us there thank you all for all the questions great and we almost went 2 hours and thank you for all of you support the show on a monthly basis and uranbookshow.com slash support I'll remind people if they're interested in sponsoring the uran rules for life uran's rules shows then please let me know that you're interested in sponsoring them that'll be terrific I'd like to continue that series we'll talk about sponsorship with the book at some point in 2022 and what else, who else do I need to thank don't forget to like the show before you leave assuming you liked it there's still a bunch of people watching that haven't liked it yet and I will see you all maybe tomorrow at 8 p.m. no 7 p.m. east coast time if not tomorrow at 7 p.m. eastern time then on Saturday because the rest of the time I'll be out I'll be in Austin I'll be doing the debate with you we can forward to that talk to you all soon